Parshat Bereshit - October 7, 2013

Member Mini Drash 

By: Even Gordon-Ramek 

In Lech Lecha we learn the chronicles of our Patriarch and forefather Abraham, who was chosen by Ha Shem to lead the Jewish people

Ha Shem said” Go away from your land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation. I will bless you and make you great. You shall become a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you, I will curse. All of the families of the earth will be blessed through you.

Why did Ha Shem choose Abraham? What did He see in this man to be so chosen, and for such a formidable task?

Ha Shem had choices. There were other fine and learned men before Abraham. They believed in the Supernal Being and were qualified in many ways. There was Noah There was Manoch. These men also walked with God. But the problem was that when they died, Their belief died with them. They were unable to transmit their belief in the Supreme Being that would last throughout generations.

Ha Shem saw in Abraham amazing strength and courage, , Abraham had characteristics of kindness and generousity. Ha Shem began to test Abraham. Abraham passed all of the ten tests put before him. He welcomed the three strangers, sent to him by Ha Shem. He agreed to the covenant of circumcision, and of course, Akeda Itschak, the binding of Isaac.

He challenged his own father, at a young age, and went against the common evil practices of idolatry, It is very difficult to go against and disobey the norms of society.

Abraham even had the courage to challenge Ha Shem about Sodom, in the name of justice and mercy. In Genesis 18:25 He said”You dare not. Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?

Today,people sacrifice all ethics for the sake of making money. When people drop and discard all of their values, because of a society that demands it, this is contemporary idolatry.

 However, for all of his fine characteristics, the most important and successful accomplishment that Abraham displayed, was in his devotion to propagating the faith. He not only had the ambition to pass the faith on the next generation, through Isaac and to his grandson Jacob,, but he had the strength and the ability . Related to Abraham, in Genesis(18:19) “For I have known him, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to do righteousness (tsedakah) and justice.

This is a trait of the seed of our father Abraham. The giving of charity is greater than all the offerings. The doing of righteousness and justice is preferable to Ha Shem than the sacrificial offering.


As Jews today, we have the same obligation as did Abraham. The Torah repeats in many places the commandment to teach our children. The only way we can propagate the faith is through our children. In past generations, Jews were harassed and persecuted to give up their faith State sponsored anti-semitism was legend.

Today there still exists anti-semitism, but we have a worse enemy. The challenge of modern day Jews is the danger coming from ignorance, assimilation ,apathy and indifference.

As Abraham was tested, so we are being tested. Are we teaching our children.?

Today, only 5% of Jewish families send their children to Jewish Day schools. Admitedly, in past days, there were no Jewish Day schools in the Bay area. But with the availability of the schools now, why do so few Jews participate.?

Also, in the area of philanthropy, the statistic was that 50% of giving was to Jewish causes, in the 1950’s. Today, there is only 20% of giving to Jewish causes.

With only 5% of Jewish children being exposed to Jewish learning.

Parshat Nitzavim- Vayeilech - August 31. 2013

NITZAVIM – HAAZINU 5773 

“YASHER KOACH” 

Barry Waldman 

(based on the writings and shiurim of Rav Matis Weinberg: www.thelivingtree.org) 

Teshuva stands as a central theme of parsha Nitzavim. To attain some insight into the nature of teshuva, it is worthwhile reflecting on the first person who did teshuva. Surprisingly, the midrash identifies that person as Reuven:

‘Reuven returned to the pit’ – God said to him: ‘Never has a person sinned before Me and done teshuva; you are the first to introduce teshuva. By your life, one of your descendants will introduce his prophecy with teshuva.’ Who was this? This was Hoshea: ‘Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d.’ (Bereishis Rabbah 84:13) 

I say “surprisingly” because the midrash tells us that there were others who did teshuva well before Reuven:

Adam asked Kayin, "What has become of the judgment which Hashem cast upon you?" Kayin answered, "I did teshuva and I was pardoned."

Upon hearing this, Adam exclaimed, "So great is the power of teshuva, yet I did not know?!" And he, too, did teshuva. (Bereishis Rabbah 22:13)

This discrepancy is a hint that there are hierarchies within teshuva, and that Reuven was the “first” in the sense of achieving a level that others did not.

The midrash makes it clear that Kayin and Adam had an agenda – to be pardoned. In his Hilchot Teshuva, Rambam describes how even on one’s deathbed, such a teshuva can be effective in avoiding Divine punishment. But a teshuva that functions mainly to shield oneself from retribution is a very low level teshuva. It may prevent one from being “sent to hell,” but it is surely not a teshuva that allows one to experience Life with all of its power and creative potential. Let’s examine how Reuven’s teshuva was a step towards the latter.

In order to do so, we’ll work backwards. In Reuven’s merit, his descendant Hoshea became a prophet of teshuva. Next week is Shabbat Shuva and the haftorah is taken from the last chapter of his book, beginning with the words, “Return, O Israel, to Hashem your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity.” It ends with the words, “for the paths of Hashem are straight (yesharim), and the righteous shall walk in them, and the rebellious shall stumble on them.” (Hoshea 14:10)

What exactly is meant here by “the rebellious shall stumble” on the paths of Hashem, as opposed to the righteous who “walk in them?” The simple sense of the pasuk is that for the righteous, the straight path is easy and natural. Not so for the rebellious, for whom the derech Hashem is strewn with obstacles.

By taking a closer look at the precise nature of Reuven’s sin, we may be able to arrive at an alternative explanation for this pasuk. So what exactly did Reuven do wrong?

Upon the death of Rachel, Yakov brought his bed into her maidservant, Bilhah’s, tent. Reuven reacted by moving the bed into Leah’s tent (Shabbos 55b). Such unseemly violation of another’s marital relationship is considered by the Torah to be equivalent to adultery. Hence,

 “Reuven went and lay with Bilhah…” (Bereishis 35:22)

Rashi explains Reuven’s motivation:

Since he (Reuven) disarranged his (Yakov’s) bed, Scripture considers it as if he had lain with her. Now why did he disarrange and profane his bed? [It was] because when Rachel died, Yakov took his bed, which had been regularly placed in Rachel’s tent and not in the other tents, and moved it in to Bilhah’s tent. Reuven came and protested his mother’s humiliation. He said, “If my mother’s sister was a rival to my mother, should my mother’s sister’s handmaid [now also] be a rival to my mother?” For this reason, he disarranged it.

When Adam ate from the Tree, and Kayin killed his brother, they knew they were doing something wrong. But not for one minute did Reuven believe he was committing a sin by disarranging his father’s bed. Wasn’t he protecting his mother, defending her honor, righting an injustice?! Moreover, was he not also doing God’s work in living up to his name? Hashem saw that Leah was unloved, so He opened her womb; but Rachel remained barren. Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name, Reuven, as she had declared, “Because Hashem has seen my humiliation, for now my husband will love me.” (Bereishis 29:31-2)

In Reuven’s mind, not only was he not committing a sin – he was doing a great mitzvah!

And herein lies perhaps the real meaning of the pasuk from Hoshea,

“for the paths of the Lord are straight (yesharim), and the righteous shall walk in them, and the rebellious shall stumble on them.”

Stumbling vis-à-vis the derech Hashem does not mean being on the derech Hashem and tripping; it means being convinced you’re on the derech Hashem when you’re really not!

Rashi explains why Reuven was not present when Yosef was lifted out of the pit and sold into slavery:

“And Reuven returned (vayashav) to the pit” - But when he (Yosef) was sold, he (Reuven) was not there, for his day to go and serve his father had arrived (Gen. Rabbah 84:15). Another explanation: He was busy with his sackcloth and his fasting for disarranging his father’s bed (Peskikta d’Rav Kahana ch. 25).

Reuven’s teshuva was a long process of shattering tightly held convictions, reassessing assumptions, and viewing events from alternative perspectives. It culminated in his attempt to rescue Yosef, the son of his mother’s rival, from the pit. Reuven was eventually able to put aside his righteous indignation over his mother, and enter a different contextual space – his relationship with Yakov, in which he came to understand and care for that which his father loved. Paradigm shifts of this nature are the stuff of teshuvah.

This is perhaps most significant when it comes to our relationship with Torah itself. Asked to identify Moshe Rabbeinu’s greatest accomplishment, many would say “ascending Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments.” Ironically, Hashem views Moshe’s highest achievement as descending the mountain and smashing them. In fact, only when Moshe shattered the tablets, does God give him a “Yasher Koach!” As Rashi comments on the last pasuk of the Chumash:

“…and for all the strong hand and for all the great awesomeness that Moshe performed before the eyes of all Israel.”

“Before the eyes of all Israel” – That his heart inspired him to break the Tablets before their eyes, as it says, “And I smashed them before your eyes.” The mind of the Holy One, Blessed be He, was in accord with the mind of Moshe about this, as it says, “Asher shibartah (which you shattered) which implies, “Yishar kochacha” (May your strength be well directed) sheshibarta – “for having shattered the Tablets.”

Why was God so pleased with the shattering of His Torah? Very simply – after the incident with the Golden Calf, it was no longer His Torah. A Torah that is based on self-projections and artificial realities, that is manipulated for personal agendas and internecine competition – is a Torah that is severed from Other and exists only in the windmills of one’s mind. The only hope is for its complete destruction and the rebuilding of a new Torah that exists within the context of real relationship.

But when things in the moment seem so clear and so right – as it did for Reuven when he disarranged his father’s bed, and as it did for bnei Yisrael when they danced around the Golden Calf – how do you know if you’re following the path of truth, or merely deceiving yourself? What is the external referent? It can’t be the Torah itself, because you can’t use something you’ve potentially corrupted as the gauge to determine if you’ve remained uncorrupted!

Rav Matis Weinberg suggests that we look to two archetypes: Avraham – the seeker of truth, and Bilaam – the master of deception.

Whoever has the following three characteristics is a disciple of Avraham Avinu; but [whoever has] three opposite characteristics is a disciple of Bilaam haRasha:

Someone with an eye for good, unpretentious, with limited needs is a disciple of Avraham Avinu. Someone with an eye for evil, arrogant, with extensive needs is a disciple of Bilaam haRasha. (Avot 5:19)

Their differences become our reality check:

“A path may seem yashar to a man, but in the end, it is a path of death.” (Mishlei 14:12). How to know? No matter the Torah or the scholarship, tzizit length or alma mater, piety or liberalism, the initial criterion is more primal and seminal… Whose disciple? How much joy in others…how driven by ego…how demanding the needs…how blinding the desires…how desperate the projections…how indulgent of inner ugliness....Such a
reality check is made possible through the demands of living with a backdrop of significance, the urgency of discovering the view and response that matches not imagination but facts: a reality check that ultimately checks openness to reality…(Rav Matis Weinberg: FrameWorks – Balak)

When teshuva is driven by even the most kosher of agendas, by the need to attain forgiveness, it remains caught within the ongoing Bilaam-like “windmills of your mind.” Only the search for reality, driven by the sheer belief in and love of Life that characterized the life of Avraham – a quest that may even lead you to convict yourself – can lead to the teshuva of a Reuven.This Yom Kippur, as we beat our chest with every al chet, reflecting on what we know we’ve done wrong – we ought to honestly evaluate what our deepest drives are. And then we can try to do as Reuven did: to think about what we’re convinced we’ve done right, and re-evaluate that. That’s a teshuva “first” worthy of Hashem’s “Yasher Koach”!

Parshat Ki Teitzei - August 17, 2013

I Think I’ll Create Man: 

A Cautionary Tale 

Elul 5773 

By Irwin Kaplan 

“I think I’ll create Man,” He said, “and I’ll distinguish him from the other beasts by adding the ability to think, not just to react; to see beyond his limitations and to have a measure of control over his own destiny.” There
were other planets, other experiments, but this combination of attributes was unique to the planet Earth.

It seemed like a good idea, but recognizing that this was a prototype, He created a comfortable environment and established some simple tests to validate the experiment, so that modifications could be made before going into full-scale production. It didn’t take long to discover that the ability to think didn’t necessarily bring with it enlightened self-interest. The first test was temptation and failure resulted in punishment, banishing Adam and Eve from their idyllic setting. That would seem to be enough incentive for a thinking being to become aware of the consequences of his actions and to act in accordance with his self-interest.

So with that out of the way, He decided to go into full-scale production by creating a system for production that appealed to the many aspects of self interest. First, He built the mechanism right into His creation, so that it wasn’t necessary to build manufacturing plants to generate copies, thereby making the production process one of reproduction. Second, He made the process simple and egalitarian, so one did not need an advanced degree to participate. Third, He made it fun, serving the animal need for immediate gratification. Then, He made it as a response to Man’s awareness of his own mortality (an awareness that came with the ability to think), so that there was continuity that created the illusion of immortality. This was necessary, because thinking, a process designed to have no limits, needed to have a way of dealing with open-ended issues that could not conclusively be resolved with facts. So beyond the factual, there needed to be a way of harnessing the runaway potential of thinking. Lastly, progeny was an integral part of survival, both as a contributor to the maintenance of life and as the caretaker of old age.

But the juxtaposition of the concept of mortality, which was retained as a component of this particular experiment, with the ability to see beyond one’s limitations resulted in a nagging insecurity, and insecurity precipitated individual and collective actions that defied reason. Since punishment had proved to be ineffective as a universal deterrent, He introduced Faith as the antidote to insecurity, to convey a sense of comfort to tame the mind. As demonstrated with Abraham and many who followed, Faith could work, but, in the world of the thinking Man that He had created, Faith would also not be uniformly effective. As constructed, the experiment was pretty straightforward, but it was becoming apparent that thinking can be its own enemy, because it was influenced by feelings and feelings didn’t necessarily respond to reason. And full scale reproduction brought with it the full range of the bell curve of human behavior.  So, taking advantage of both the animal instinct and the ability to think, He decided to integrate reason with consequences and in a dramatic display, issued the Ten Commandments, which would not appear to have been necessary in a world of thinking people who had the capacity to look after their own self-interest.

Looking back, it is amazing to see how access to the same information can result in so many different conclusions. Insecurity became the dominant force among individuals and their collective societies, rising to the level of world events. Individual fears of hunger, of deprivation, of destruction, of inferiority, of anonymity, of subjugation, of these and others all bound together by the fear of death were reflected in the collective culture and reason became the slave of emotion, not its master. Faith, the very force that was to bring people together and confer inner peace, did succeed in bringing people together, but for both peace and for destruction, pitting civilizations against one another, aided by reason to manipulate and control, as well as to create weaponry to reinforce civilizations’ barriers. The consolidation of wealth and power, which created the illusion of mastery over one’s ultimate destiny, became dominant motivations, again with reason as its slave, to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and to ignore the accelerated depletion of the very resources needed for survival in a vain effort to overcome insecurity.

At one end of the bell curve, there were a relatively few individuals who represented some of the best minds in medicine, religion, technology, philosophy, the arts and sciences, who worked patiently and diligently to make contributions toward a better world, in the hope that these contributions would produce more durable results than could be achieved through destruction.

The forces that dominated the course of history, however, were generated by the determination of a relatively few individuals at the other end of the bell curve, who also drew on some of the best minds in medicine, religion, technology, philosophy, the arts and sciences, employing power, force and reason to support their futile pursuit of immortality.

But preying on fear had always proved more effective than appealing to reason and insecurity doesn’t have the patience for long term solutions, so the violent and powerful minority continued to be the dominant force in dictating the course of world events, taking actions intended to protect the future that only sacrificed the future for the present. None seemed to be deterred by the predictable and inevitable pattern of power rising to the top, only to be replaced. Technology, not wisdom, was the legacy of each generation.

After the experience of thousands of years of small triumphs and large defeats, He concluded that the experiment had failed, so, early into the Twenty-First Century, He mobilized the forces of insecurity, employing the weapons of mass destruction that reason had created, and destroyed the Planet Earth, leaving it uninhabited and uninhabitable, as He had done with other planets where the experiments had failed.

Parshat Va'etchanan

Parshat Va'etchanan - Shabbat Nachamu
Av 13, 5673 ~ July 20, 2013
by Sheldon Schaffer

Parashat Va’etchanan is a very rich Torah portion that presents a number of themes for a drash including:  Moses pleading with God one last time to be allowed to enter the Land; a prophesy about eventual exile of the Israelites from the Land; a repetition of the Ten Commandments (with some interesting differences) and the Shema. All of this is very rich material for drashing.  However, this week  is also one of the named Shabbatot -Shabbat Nachamu (the Sabbath of Comfort), and I want to deviate from the usual practice of these mini-Drashot to concentrate on a theme from Shabbat Nachamu that I find to be a fascinating aspect to Judaism.

To understand why a Sabbath of Comfort comes at this time, we just need to look back to last Tuesday - Tisha B’Av. We all recognize that Tisha B’Av is the saddest day of the Jewish calendar.  In the three Shabbatot leading up to Tisha B’Av, the Haftorot are taken from the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah and are Haftorot of affliction or rebuke that prophesy the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Israelites due to the failure of the people to follow the precepts of the Torah.  After these rebukes and mourning, we enter into seven Shabbatot where the Haftorot provide words of comfort from the prophets.  Shabbat Nachamu is named for the first words of the Haftorah that we read this Shabbos :  “Nachamu, nachamu  ami, omer Elohekhem", Be comforted, be comforted my people, says your God. Here, Isaiah speaks to the people to tell them that although they have been punished doubly for their sins, there will come a time when the exile will end, the future will once again be bright and the people will return to the Land.  The comfort is that God will make the return easy. God will make the road back straight, every valley shall be raised and every mountain and hill shall be made low.  The musically inclined among us will recognize that these words of Isaiah were used by George Fredrick Handle to begin his oratorio The Messiah. 

To me, the juxtaposition in our liturgy of the sadness of Tisha B’Av followed by words of comfort that we read this week brings to mind something that I see often in Jewish thought - the ability in Judaism to move rapidly from extreme sadness to comfort and even to happiness. 

Some other sadness-gladness juxtapositions include one that is closely connected in time to Tisha B’Av.  Just six days after Tisha B’Av, Tu B'Av (the 15th of Av) is considered one of the happiest days in the calendar. In tractate Tanit (30b) Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel states that the two happiest days of the year are Yom Kippur and Tu B'Av.  Many may not consider Yom Kippur to be one of the happiest days of the year. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel bases his statement on the happiness that comes from our teshuvah that results in God’s forgiveness of our transgressions against Him during the past year. Tu B'Av is counted as one of the happiest days because of a number of happy events that tradition says happened on this date. For example, Tu B’Av is counted as the date on which the Jewish people were forgiven for the sin of the spies.   Moreover, it is recounted in the Gemara in Taanit that it was a practice on Tu B’Av that maidens would don identical dress (so as not to embarrass girls who did not have fine garments) and go to dance in the fields where bachelors would pick out prospective brides.  In Israel today, this practice is mirrored in Tu B'Av being similar to Valentine's Day.

Finally, there is another stark juxtaposition between the sad and the happy in our calendar that occurs yearly - the immediate transition from the sadness of Yom HaZikaron to the joy of Yom HaAtz'maut.  A friend of mine was in Israel during these observances this year.  He was in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv the evening of Yom HaZikaron and noted the somberness and respect of the masses of people gathered there.  A large number of the people were 20-30 year-olds. This is a group that is usually tethered to their cell phones and iPods.  He was struck by the fact that not a single cell phone rang nor did any of the people have earphone speakers in their ears.  He returned to Rabin Square the next day to find multiple bands, people dancing in the street and many, many people calling or texting with their smart phones.  He was extremely struck by this dramatic switch from the somber to the joyous.

For me, these examples illustrate the resilience of the Jewish people. Our people have been subject to tragedies for well over two thousand years, yet we are basically a hopeful group who celebrate joy and happiness throughout the year. I think that this one of the geniuses of the Jewish people which has allowed us to survive and move forward.

Finally, on Shabbat Nachamu I would like to thank the Beth Jacob community for the comfort offered to me. I feel blessed to be a part of this remarkable congregation let by very special Rabbis and look forward to continuing to move forward with you with a spirit of hope and resilience.

Gut Shabbos

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.