Shelach

This year, I am fascinated by the connection between this week/'s parsha and Behaalothecha, last week's parsha. It brings into focus a fundamental problem in the Torah: Gd's promises; figuring out  the extent to which we must use  human effort, and when  we must trust in a Gd that severely limits communication with humans. 

This week, scouts are sent to the Promised Land. This is the land promised to Abraham. It is currently occupied.  Military conquest is imagined as the route to settling the newly self-liberated nation on that land and the army must prepare.

The first words of chapter, shelach lecha, are in the imperative mood Gd seems to be commanding this human activity. Rashi transfers the blame to Moses by pointing out that the lecha [for yourself] addendum made the sending of spies optional.  Moses [in Deuteronomy] blames the insistence of the Israelites.  It did not turn out well; plenty of blame to go around. 

The scouting mission does not bring back a report of the terrain: the details of mountain passes and rivers, information needed for the practical planning of military strategy. Instead the spies confirm the fruitfulness of the land. The spies also offer their opinion about the prospects for military victory; most of them say that the Israelite position is hopeless. The Israelites cannot overpower these giants in a land that eats its inhabitants.  The Israelites are ready to hear that they cannot win in a war against the nations. The Israelites  cry about their desperate situation and express a desire to return to Egypt, to their slave lives.

Gd reacts by vengefully granting the people's request.  They will not be allowed to enter the land yet. Their children, the next generation, will enter the land. Perhaps the Israelites' expression of hopelessness necessitated their exclusion from the land. An easily broken people could not rise to the task of building a new nation in a new land.  The generation that had left Egypt had learned how to survive as slaves.  They had learned that being downtrodden was compatible with life; dignity was a luxury. The generation of the wilderness lived on miracles. They grew up with a different kind of self assurance: they knew that they would get the miracles that they needed. 

Moses had shown a similar misunderstanding. When confronted with  the Israelites' demand for meat, he did not believe it possible ot fulfill the demand. His frustration, his hopelessness, drove Moses to ask Gd for death, rather than face his defeat. Moses, like the Israelites who had heeded the warnings of the scouts, underestimated Gd's power. These are both stories of people looking at the feasibility  tasks  from the perspective of human limits. In the case of the spies, in our parsha, the failure to recognize superhuman capabilities, is punished by life-long exile. 

These stories echo Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The humans do not understand the literal nature of the Divine command not to eat  of the Tree of Daath. The King James committee translated the Hebrew daath as "knowledge." I think that the cognitive function best described by the Hebrew daath is "opinion" This is the cognitive function that a machine cannot have (although AI chat fakes it).  Daath is a hypothesis that is assumed to be true, it is a belief. The Ultra -Orthodox chareidim have a concept of das[th] Torah: a rabbi will give extraordinary advice on medical issues and other science (which he has no training in) based upon the purity of thought that devolves from the study of Talmud and other sacred texts. [Don't underestimate the value of Das Torah. The rabbi often has very expert connections and asks difficult questions].  Should the Israelites have sought Das Torah when the spies returned?

These stories are very confusing if they are applied to everyday life. Steve Jobs demanded the impossible when he produced the iphone... and he got it. Believing something can be done is a prerequisite to most  great achievements, even though the vast majority of attempts fail.

The application to the  modern state of Israel is difficult. The history (or myth) is based upon a phrase attributed to Theodore Herzl: im tirtzu, ain zeh agaddah, If you will it, this is not a legend. The convergence of the collapse of [an overt] colonial system, persistence of a legend and the belief it could be actualized, the international disenfranchisement of the Jews, the power of the wealth accumulated by some Jews, conspired to create the state [along with many other factors]. Some Jews believe that the modern state is the fulfillment of a prophecy, and act of Gd ( a position that I agree with, to an extent).  Some would use the biblical stories and injunctions to justify the killing of Gentiles in the land (a position that I find shameful and object to). 

The stories are a wild card. They can justify anything. They make a lot of trouble. They make a great deal of good possible. 

Gd seems to want us to make an effort and believe the result is a Divine intervention. We are always on the edge. 

 Behaalothecha: loneliness, despair and faith

I think that Behalothescha has the most complex narrative in the Torah. The capstone is the portrayal of  Moshe's deep depression. In his way, Moshe threatens suicide

וְאִם־כָּ֣כָה ׀ אַתְּ־עֹ֣שֶׂה לִּ֗י הׇרְגֵ֤נִי נָא֙ הָרֹ֔ג אִם־מָצָ֥אתִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ וְאַל־אֶרְאֶ֖ה בְּרָעָתִֽי׃ {פ}
If You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You, and let me see no more of my wretchedness!”

How can the star of the Torah be portrayed as sinking to this depth? How can the model of proper thinking express such a deeply sinful thought? The idea that a situation could be so dire that it merits self-annihilation challenges the doctrine of a unitary Gd that guides the world in all its aspects. Puny human understanding cannot fathom Gd's infinitely wise plan and should accept whatever comes as a manifestation of Divine will. 

Moshe's request for death with  dignity ("let my wretchedness not be seen") over life, is a very moving statement. In Washington State, a person with a disease deemed "terminal" by a physician can opt for physician assisted suicide, a process commonly called "death with dignity" I have met a number of people who have opted for this. Physical pain is not usually the reason a person asks for death. It is the loss of dignity, the reversion to infant, the need to depend on others, that makes continued life the inferior alternative. Moses prefers death to the indignity of failure. 

Moshe's depression comes with the first of the 30 journeys that the Israelites made in the wilderness after Mount Sinai. Now they were leaving the area of the Midianites and Moses invited Hobab, his father in law, to join them.  Hobab is a word derived from love. Rashi quotes Sifri 

"חוֹבָב" עַל שֶׁחִבֵּב אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְכוּ' (ספרי):

 Hobab (חֹבָב) because he loved (חֹבֵב) the Torah,

Based upon Moshe's begging him to come and join and the Israelites, I suspect that the love aspect of Hobab's name also reflects personal feelings between Hobab (aka Jethro) and Moshe. When Hobab went back to his people, when he parted form Moshe, Moshe lost a dear friend. Perhaps this contributed to the depth of depression. The burning bush was in Midian, where Moshe lived with his father-in-law. It was Jethro who suggested the hierarchical administrative/legal system that that distributed justice over the people as a whole. It is in the parsha that bears Jethro's name that the Torah is given at Sinai. Leaving Midian and his in-law family was a great blow to Moshe.  

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אַל־נָ֖א תַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֹתָ֑נוּ כִּ֣י ׀ עַל־כֵּ֣ן יָדַ֗עְתָּ חֲנֹתֵ֙נוּ֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְהָיִ֥יתָ לָּ֖נוּ לְעֵינָֽיִם׃ 

He said, “Please do not leave us, inasmuch as you know where we should camp in the wilderness and can be our guide. *guide Lit. “eyes.”

It is possible that a meaning of  Moshe's plea that Hobab remain, based upon his suitability as a guide, does not mean that his sherpa talents. These were not needed. The people followed the cloud . Rather, he was an  organizational (and perhaps spiritual) light. 

The proximate cause of Moshe's despair is the repeated complaints of the nation that he is leading to the promised Land.  An undefined complaint angers Gd, causes a fire that is extinguished by the prayer of Moshe.  Then comes the cry for meat. This comes with nostalgia, the distortion of recall that idealizes the past and disparages the present and future.

זָכַ֙רְנוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם חִנָּ֑ם אֵ֣ת הַקִּשֻּׁאִ֗ים וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִ֥יר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִ֖ים וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִֽים׃

We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.

Why does Moshe feel compelled to grant this request?  Moshe takes it as a challenge. That leads to hopelessness (a common component of suicidal thoughts).

מֵאַ֤יִן לִי֙ בָּשָׂ֔ר לָתֵ֖ת לְכׇל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּֽי־יִבְכּ֤וּ עָלַי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר תְּנָה־לָּ֥נוּ בָשָׂ֖ר וְנֹאכֵֽלָה׃

Where am I to get meat to give to all this people, when they whine before me and say, ‘Give us meat to eat!’

Moshe expresses doubt in Gd's omnipotence. The fulfillment   comes  through a manipulation of nature: blowing (migrating) quail off course; delivering the bird carcasses at the feet of the demanding people. I suspect that quelling Moshe's doubts about Gd's powers [and telling us that story] was at least as important as satisfying the nation's demands.

Within this story, the 70 elders who will lead along with Moses are selected. Are they a balm for the loneliness of losing Hobab?  Wisdom needs discussion. 

Inside this story within a story (within a story) there is the story of the Eldad and Medad (the Blues Brothers? [no, his name was Elwood]). Seventy elders assembled to help lead the people. Two stayed home. All 72 were granted prophecy, so  Eldad and Medad were sharing their prophecy outside the group. Joshua, Moshe's understudy perceived this as a threat. Did Joshua think that this was a threat to Moshe's authority and might  contribute to his depression? Was Joshua  concerned about the precedent, worried about competitors when  he led the people after Moses? Moses saw independent prophecy as a blessing. The Blues Brothers  prevail.

Miriam and Aaron's challenge  to Moses follows. They criticize his marital choices.  Is this a demonstration of the danger of unrestricted prophecy? Aaron and Miriam legitimize their complaints  saying that they, too, have a line of communication with Gd. Moshe's superiority  is  proven by his successful short prayer that heals 

 Miriam from the tzoraath inflicted upon her as punishment. Aaron begs Moshe to  pray for their sister; an assertion that Aaron  recognizes Moshe's superior relationship with Gd.

Next week's parsha opens with a continuation to the challenges to authority with the scouts reporting on the promised land. A pattern has been established.

Every person is the leader of the life granted them. Disappointment is a rebellion against the self.  No one lives up to all expectations. Faith is the ultimate source of hope and the escape from despair.

Behaalothecha: loneliness, despair and faith

Behaalothecha: loneliness, despair and faith

I think that Behaalothecha has the most complex narrative in the Torah. The capstone is the portrayal of Moshe’s deep depression. In his way, Moshe threatens suicide

(טו) וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וְאַל-אֶרְאֶה, בְּרָעָתִי.“If You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You, and let me see no more of my wretchedness!”

How can the star of the Torah be portrayed as sinking to this depth? How can the model of proper thinking express such a deeply sinful thought? The idea that a situation could be so dire that it merits self-annihilation challenges the doctrine of a unitary Gd that guides the world in all its aspects. Puny human understanding cannot fathom Gd’s infinitely wise plan and should accept whatever comes as a manifestation of Divine will.

Moshe's request for death with dignity ("let my wretchedness not be seen") over life, is a very moving statement. In Washington State, a person with a disease deemed "terminal" by a physician can opt for physician assisted suicide, a process commonly called "death with dignity" I have met a number of people who have opted for this. Physical pain is not usually the reason a person asks for death. It is the loss of dignity, the reversion to infant, the need to depend on others, that makes continued life the inferior alternative. Moses prefers death to the indignity of failure. 

Moshe's depression comes with the first of the 30 journeys that the Israelites made in the wilderness after Mount Sinai. Now they were leaving the area of the Midianites and Moses invited Hobab, his father in law, to join them. Hobab is a word derived from love. Rashi quotes Sifri :

חוֹבָב" עַל שָׁחַבַּב אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וכו' (ספרי)" בגב because he loved the Torah, Q Search 

Hobab )ב( because he loved )חב( the Torah

Based upon Moshe's begging him to come and join and the Israelites, I suspect that the love aspect of Hobab's name also reflects personal feelings between Hobab (aka Jethro) and Moshe. When Hobab went back to his people, when he parted form Moshe, Moshe lost a dear friend. Perhaps this contributed to the depth of depression. The burning bush was in Midian, where Moshe lived with his father-in-law. It was Jethro who suggested the hierarchical administrative/legal system that that distributed justice over the people as a whole. It is in the parsha that bears Jethro's name that the Torah is given at Sinai. Leaving Midian and his in-law family was a great blow to Moshe.

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי וּ עַל־כֵן יָדַעְתָּ חָנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָנוּ לְעֵינֶיִם:

He said, "Please do not leave us, inasmuch as you know where we should camp in the wilderness and can be our guide. *guide Lit. "eyes."

It is possible that a meaning of Moshe's plea that Hobab remain, based upon his suitability as a guide, does not mean that his sherpa talents. These were not needed. The people followed the cloud. Rather, he was an organizational (and perhaps spiritual) light.

The proximate cause of Moshe's despair is the repeated complaints of the nation that he is leading to the promised Land. An undefined complaint angers Gd, causes a fire that is extinguished by the prayer of Moshe. Then comes the cry for meat. This comes with nostalgia, the distortion of recall that idealizes the past and disparages the present and future.

זָכַרְנוּ אֶת־הַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר־נאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם חִנָּם אֶת הַקָּשָׁאִים וְאֵת הָאֲבַטְחִים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִים וְאֶת־הַשׁוּמִים:

We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.

Why does Moshe feel compelled to grant this request? Moshe takes it as a challenge. That leads to hopelessness (a common component of suicidal thoughts).

מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר לָתֵת לְכָל־הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי־יִבְכּוּ עָלֵי לֵאמֹר תְּנָה־לָנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכַלָה:

Where am I to get meat to give to all this people, when they whine before me and say, 'Give us meat to eat!'

Moshe expresses doubt in Gd's omnipotence. The fulfillment comes through a manipulation of nature: blowing (migrating) quail off course; delivering the bird carcasses at the feet of the demanding people. I suspect that quelling Moshe's doubts about Gd's powers [and telling us that story] was at least as important as satisfying the nation's demands.

Within this story, the 70 elders who will lead along with Moses are selected. Are they a balm for the loneliness of losing Hobab? Wisdom needs discussion.

Inside this story within a story (within a story) there is the story of the Eldad and Medad (the Blues Brothers? [no, his name was Elwood]). Seventy elders assembled to help lead the people. Two stayed home. All 72 were granted prophecy, so Eldad and Medad were sharing their prophecy outside the group. Joshua, Moshe's understudy perceived this as a threat. Did Joshua think that this was a threat to Moshe's authority and might contribute to his depression? Was Joshua concerned about the precedent, worried about competitors when he led the people after Moses? Moses saw independent prophecy as a blessing. The Blues Brothers prevail.

Miriam and Aaron's challenge to Moses follows. They criticize his marital choices. Is this a demonstration of the danger of unrestricted prophecy? Aaron and Miriam legitimize their complaints saying that they, too, have a line of communication with Gd. Moshe's superiority is proven by his successful short prayer that heals Miriam from the tzoraath inflicted upon her as punishment. Aaron begs Moshe to pray for their sister; an assertion that Aaron recognizes Moshe's superior relationship with Gd.

Next week's parsha opens with a continuation to the challenges to authority with the scouts reporting on the promised land. A pattern has been established.

Every person is the leader of the life granted them. Disappointment is a rebellion against the self. No one lives up to all expectations. Faith is the ultimate source of hope and the escape from despair.

 Nasoh: The Haftarah

The Haftarah is usually related to the themes of the parsha. It is a section from the prophets, the canon that is outside the 5 books of Moses, that ( in our current Shabbat synagogue service) is read immediately after the portion of the week. 

This week, the Haftarah ( from the book of Judges) describes the annunciation of the birth of Shimshon ( Samson). The most immediate(apparent) reference to our parsha is that the parents of Shimshon are told that the baby would be a Nazerite from birth. This is a unique Nazerism. Becoming a Nazir is generally the voluntary decision of an adult for a limited time period, not imposed  at birth and life long. Another significant difference involves corpse contamination. Contact with the dead did not affect Shimshon's Nazerite status. For the ordinary Nazerite, contamination by the dead was the worst violation. If a Nazerite had pledged to remain in the Nazir state for many months, and he drank wine, he would be subject to lashes for the violation of his vow and the duration of his Nazirism would be unaffected.  If he cut his hair, he would need to have a 30 period of hair growth, no matter how long his vow had stipulated. But if he was contaminated by a corpse ( or equivalent) the Nazerite would need to perform a sacrificial ritual and start again, from the beginning, and complete the duration originally stipulated. 

The theme of the husband who suspects his wife of infidelity which is described in the parsha, is also in this Haftarah. The circumstances of the meeting between [Ha]Tzeleponi (the Talmud's name for Manoach's wife, the mother of Samson) and the angel [who tells her not to drink wine because she will bear a special, Nazerite child] could raise suspicion. When she informs her husband, she uses a phrase: Ba aylai, which could imply intimacy. With her current husband she had been childless.  This new entity, whom she identifies as a man ( although the [omniscient] author previously identified it as a maloch, an angel), comes to me and behold! she is pregnant. Her husband Manoach [a name that implies serenity] does rush to conclusions, he does  not make accusations, he does not invoke the Sotah ritual. The haftarah is modeling better behavior. A meeting between a spouse and a man need not lead to suspicion that requires a demeaning ritual for relief. 

There is also a very indirect reference to the Priestly blessing: the capstone of the section of the parsha that contains the Sotah and the Nazir. The blessing begins with Yivorechechah, usually translated as May the Lrd bless you. The word Baruch, blessing, comes with a fundamental meaning of bowing down. One meaning [that I hold dear] is the bending of a tree branch into the surrounding soil, replanting the tree. The generation of offspring is a fundamental blessing.  Perhaps that is why the sentence ends with v'yishmerecha: "watch over you." Soon, parents have no control over the behavior of their offspring and Divine help is welcomed. Samson was a fairly wild character. Without the restrictions of his nazerism, he might have been worse. Imagine a drunk Samson!

Lack of confidence is a thread in the Haftarah. Manoach needs to hear the instructions [already accurately transmitted by his spouse] directly from the "man of Gd"  The being then proves his liminal nature by jumping into the flames at the feast prepared for him. The insecurity that runs through the haftarah points out the insecurity implicit in the parsha

 The accusations of the jealous husband demonstrate his lack of [self]confidence.  The priestly blessing reassured the Israelites that Gd takes note of them. The parsha ends with the description of the 12 identical gifts bestowed on the Tabernacle by the chiefs of the 12 tribes. The uniformity of the gifts, and the completeness of the repetitions is a way to handle insecurity. The nazir uses a ritual to reinforce a longing for purity of spirit that cannot be achieved without help. 

I find it interesting that my spellcheck does not recognize nazerism.  It wants to correct it to Nazism. The Nazir and the Nazi actually have some aspects in common. Both demand a deep immersion into an illogical ritual for the purpose of self validation. Both reflect a deep insecurity

 Confidence is always based on fiction. It can come in handy.

 Bamidbar: The Book of Assignment

This week we start the fourth book of the Torah. In the Jewish world this book is usually called Bamidbar.  That label comes from the first distinctive word in the book: 

וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר יְ

 אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֛ה בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר סִינַ֖י בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד בְּאֶחָד֩ לַחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִ֜י בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשֵּׁנִ֗ית לְצֵאתָ֛ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם לֵאמֹֽר׃

AND the Lord spoke to Moshe in the wilderness of Sinay, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Miżrayim,

In English, the book is called "Numbers."  The talmud also calls this book (something like) Numbers . In Yoma 70a it is referred to as:  חוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים.  The Septuagint translators in the second century BCE called it Arithmoi (numbers in Greek) 

There is a very important difference between Numbers and Piqudim. Mathematically, numbers are scalar, they are designations without directions. Piquidim are vectors.  The numbered individual is also given an assignment - to a tribe, to a task, to a place. Numbers are data, piquidim are information. 

The first use of the word PKD (Genesis 21:1)  is when Gd ( at long last) remembers the childless Sarah and she (miraculously) has a child: Isaac.   In this case, Onkelos translates  the word,   פָּקַ֥ד PQD  as   דְּכִיר , remembered.  I was taught that Gd does not forget, so how can Gd remember? This could be a translation issue. If we take PQD to mean "assignment," Gd gave Sarah an assignment. Then,  the problem (almost) goes away. Her pregnancy at that time was Sarah's place in the grand plan,  (which is hidden from humans). 

In Bamidbar (our parsha), PQD assigns each Israelite to a tribe and it assigns each tribe to a positions surrounding the sanctuary. The (scalar) numbers are used to assure  adequate  coverage in all four directions and places the largest group if the forward position.  The numbers reveal that the most privileged tribes ( the Levites and the sons of Joseph) had the smallest numbers. 

The PQD is a mechanism to rescue the people in the wilderness. It organizes them, everyone knows where s/he belongs. A rabble of liberated slaves, people whose days consisted of carrying out tasks ordered by the master, would be spiritually lost in the wilderness. The establishment of an order of co-dependence was required for their survival.  Everyone needs to belong; a place where that person counts. 

Is this the beginning of industrial society, with interchangeable people; jobs that need to filled? I can feel the tension between the anonymous  and the rooting of self in the group. The stories that unfold  in this book are the flower of this tension. 

There is a hidden PQD in the morning ( Shachrith) service for the Sabbath and holidays.  It is in a short, acrostic  poem : 

בְּפִי יְשָׁרִים תִּתְהַלָּל. 

 וּבְדִבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים תִּתְבָּרַךְ. 

 וּבִלְשׁון חֲסִידִים תִּתְרומָם. 

 וּבְקֶרֶב קְדושִׁים תִּתְקַדָּשׁ:

 

On an ordinary Shabbat, the name of Isaac ( Yithchok) emerges. During the high Holidays ( Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur)  the last word of each verse is rearranged and Isaac's wife, Rivka emerges. (Rivkah is the dominant character in the story. She is the parent that chooses Jacob over Esau)

 בְּפִי יְשָׁרִים תִּתְרומָם.

וּבְדִבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים תִּתְבָּרַךְ.
וּבִלְשׁון חֲסִידִים תִּתְקַדָּשׁ: .

וּבְקֶרֶב קְדושִׁים תִּתְהַלָּל

The first significant letters of the first words are: P.D.L.Q which rearrange to LiPQD. to assign, to count.  Having an assignment is satisfying. Having an assignment is demeaning. Can a person fulfill the assignment? In this poem, that is what we do not confront... but it is there.

Behar-Bechukothai: The Whisper

Behar-Bechukothai: The Whisper

 

This week, some stagecraft is employed as the Torah is read in synagogue.  The chant is reduced to a whisper and suddenly, the listener’s attention is focused as the volume is reduced  . It is the tochachah, the admonition, the sequence of punishments for the rejection of Gd and the covenant. The hush tones punctuate the ugliness of the message and convey a hope that these tragedies will never come to pass.

My generation, the post Holocaust, grew up in the shadow of the tochahah.  Jews, and selected others, suffered punishments that exceeded those described in the parsha. My parents whispered their stories of those times and that caught my full attention. This is a secret of  the Jews. How does one relate to the Gd that threatens punishment … and delivers.

The concept of discipline and instruction through penalty is antithetical to modern pedagogy.  Corporal punishment justifies the use of violence. Violence begets violence begets violence. Our worldview wants to break that cycle of brutality. The litany of the tochachah, read literally, conflicts with a modern worldview.

It is worse than that.  In the tochachah, Failure to recognize misfortune as punishment, and failure to reform, is chastised with additional, more severe adversity and disaster. Until the penitent sees his error and repents, things just get worse; it gets harder to see the errors when you are  hungry, dirty, and enslaved.   How can the victim feel about the Disciplinarian after her family is wiped out; after living like a hunted, burrowing animal for years. A hush comes over the whole Jewish enterprise.

 

The survivors of the holocaust and their offspring are confused. Which parts of this conglomeration of text, tradition, superstition, values, assimilation, accomplishments, etc.  are at fault?  What needs to be abandoned to prevent further tragedy? What should be kept? What was worth the agony? The ever worsening chastisements (culminating in death by torture scream for a re-assessment, but they do not help me sort it out. The terrible consequences show that their generation's approach did not work. 

                                                                                

We did not raise our children like our parents raised us.  My parents did not hit me, but, rarely, they raised the threat. We did not even threaten to hit our children. Our children react to misbehavior in  their children, our grandchildren, with explanation. It makes sense to me; I hope it works out better.

The tochachah is surrounded by rules relating to economic value. The first parsha, Behar, ends with the obligation to redeem the Hebrew slave.  The Torah thereby recognizes the descent to slavery may be precipitated by circumstances.  Freedom is a commodity that may be sold… temporarily. Liberty is very valuable, but its price is finite.  The tochacha is followed by the shekel-value of people as a function of age and gender. There is a weight of silver that equals my value to the authorities.  This surround of monetary value provides a context for the tochacha. The admonition is a humiliation, an insistence on humility. Recognizing the possibility of victimhood demonstrates that we are not indispensable; we are fungible for the most part.  Our achievements will not protect us.

 

I can love the Disciplinarian but the emotions are complex. I cannot fully understand my true value; but I know that it is finite. My perception of the world is a fantasy and all my corrections are off the mark.

Emor: defectives

Emor: defectives

Emor begins with disqualification from the sacrificial rite. Aaron, Moshe’s brother, and his descendants were chosen to be Cohanim, the clan that could perform the Temple service. Cohanim are forbidden contact with the dead (presumably to mourn them.) For ordinary Cohanim, close relatives, that are universally mourned, are exempted from the restriction. The kohen gadol, the High Priest ,has no exceptions. No matter how close the relative, the Cohen Gadol must remain  pure and avoid exposure to the  corpse tumah. The elevated status of the Cohen limits his life in significant ways:  the price of privilege.

The parsha becomes more cringy when it talks about the physical defects that disqualify a Cohen from performing the service. He cannot be blind, or lame or have an eye disease, etc. Now, there appears to be a conflict between the Enlightenment and Torah. Western culture has taught me to celebrate the triumphs of the disabled. The Torah disqualifies them from the Temple service.

I immediately imagine the blind, lame Cohen who, through simulations and extensive practice, knows just where to place the bowl to collect the sacrificial blood; places that blood in exactly the correct positions on the altar; waves the appropriate parts of the sacrificed animal; places the proper pieces on the burning altar and walks off to the appreciative applause of the Temple attendees.

Maybe I imagine this all wrong. I want the Torah to make sense to my contemporary self and show sympathy for the victim of Nature’s caprice. I do not want the Torah to offend my modern sensibilities. I confront the challenge of bringing these vectors into alignment.

The death of Aaron’s eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu, has demonstrated the danger of flawed Temple service. Perhaps the “disqualification”  of the flawed priest is really an exemption from the draft. The service would be too dangerous for a priest with a broken arm or impaired vision. That approach to the issue is an easy out.

More likely, the involvement of a priest with a disability would shift the focus of the service to the struggles of the challenged individual. The service would change from spectacle to human drama.  The intention of the author would be lost in sentimentality.

Having a disabled person perform the rite would display the cruelty of a Nature ruled by the One Gd. The sacrificial rite inherently includes a plea for Divine mercy and generosity. The performance of that rite by someone who had been deprived of some element of that goodness would lead to questions. Actually, the mention of the disqualification of the disabled in the parsha leads to those questions, perhaps in a more appropriate context.

 

The disqualification of flawed animals from the sacrificial rite is easier to accept. The altar cannot become a dump for unfit animals. On a deeper level, the demand for high quality livestock echoes the sacrifices of Abel and Cain.  Abel brought:” the choicest of the firstlings of his flock” and  Gd paid heed to Abel’s offerings. Cain, who brought less than the best, did not merit Gd’s attention. The consequence of this envy is the story of the first murder.  The wisdom of providing high quality has unforeseen consequences.

The requirement that sacrificial animals be unblemished is central to the story of the destruction of the second temple ( Gittin 56a):

The emperor went and sent with him (bar Kamtza) a choice three-year-old calf. While bar Kamtza was coming with the calf to the Temple, he made a blemish on the calf’s upper lip. And some say he made the blemish on its eyelids, a place where according to us, i.e., halakha, it is a blemish, but according to them, gentile rules for their offerings, it is not a blemish.

The blemish notwithstanding, the Sages thought to sacrifice the animal as an offering due to the imperative to maintain peace with the government. Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas said to them: If the priests do that, people will say that blemished animals may be sacrificed as offerings on the altar. The Sages said: If we do not sacrifice it, then we must prevent bar Kamtza from reporting this to the emperor. The Sages thought to kill him so that he would not go and speak against them. Rabbi Zekharya said to them: If you kill him, people will say that one who makes a blemish on sacrificial animals is to be killed.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The excessive humility of Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land.

Was this story a prophetic vision of our parsha?

It is people who put the devil in the details.

Achrei MoΘ- Kedoshim

 Language is imprecise. Words are ambiguous, they can have several different meanings. This is a problem when trying to communicate in  science. [Before the emergence of Large Language Models, it looked like the intercession of computers, with the very defined language that they use, could go a long way toward solving that issue. With LLMs that opportunity may be lost.] In ordinary life, and in evolution, ambiguity is an important part of the power of language. The lack of precision allows ideas to flower. This duality is a constant companion to my writing . 

Kadosh, translated as "holy", the root of the title of the second chapter we read in synagogue this week, evades precise definition. That parsha instructs the community to be kadosh (holy). The chapter opens with: 

דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־כׇּל־עֲדַ֧ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֥ אֲלֵהֶ֖ם קְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י

Speak to the whole Israelite community and say to them:

You shall be holy, for I, the ETERNAL your Gd, am holy.

This kadosh (holy) is some kind of matching a property of Gd, the most unfathomable entity in the universe.  Fifty one commandments ( mitzvoth) are then declared in this parsha. The commandments go from a prohibition of cheating in business  to the ban on mixing wool and linen in clothing. It is a whirlwind of admonitions  and prohibitions.

Does a person, after accepting these varied and numerous rules, emerge kadosh (holy?). The writings of the classic commentators on this sentence shows an evolution of the idea and purpose of holiness. Rashi (11th century) associates kadosh with sexual relationships. Ramban (13th century) asserts that kadosh implies moderation in all things. Sforno (16th century) sees kadosh as life affirming. 

If the parsha presents a  path to kadosh, it appears to be through the observance of laws that are stated, often followed by the phrase: 

I the ETERNAL am your Gd.

That phrase implies that the rationality (or lack thereof) of the commandment is not the reason for obedience. These laws are followed because they are (1) part of an agreement and (2) given by a far greater power [of both mind and retribution] than a human can fathom. [This list may be partial]. The road to holiness, to kedusha, is arbitrary and may not respect rationality. 

The lack of definition leads to  pronounced differences in the observance of these rules. For many, holy is a feeling (the undefined is kept in the realm of the undefined). You know holy when you feel it; more commonly, you can feel when you have violated it. 

For others, since the nature of the holy is unknown, only the strictest observance can cover all the possibilities; no detail is too small. This road can lead to the unholy states of self-righteousness and/or superstition. Is a thread of linen in a woolen garment the equivalent of offering a child as a sacrifice to Molech?  Who knows?

There is a relationship between holiness and place. This week's first Torah portion , Achrei, begins by recalling the death of Aaron's eldest two sons. It then immediately says:

דַּבֵּר֮ אֶל־אַהֲרֹ֣ן אָחִ֒יךָ֒ וְאַל־יָבֹ֤א בְכׇל־עֵת֙ אֶל־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ מִבֵּ֖ית לַפָּרֹ֑כֶת אֶל־פְּנֵ֨י הַכַּפֹּ֜רֶת אֲשֶׁ֤ר עַל־הָאָרֹן֙ וְלֹ֣א יָמ֔וּת

Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die

The implication is that Aaron's sons' violation of this rule was (at least part of) the reason for their deaths. 

The text goes on to describe the Yom Kippur temple service, the one day in the year that a human was invited to enter the innermost sanctum, the home of the ark with its Cherubim, containing the tablets (both intact and broken).  The specialness of this place was enforced with extreme prejudice. Violators of this most private of properties w/could be killed. A place where trespass is so violently banned - that is a place that is (most) holy ( kadosh) 

The association between place and sanctity reappears with the restriction of the sacrificial rite to the the (designated) temple.

וַאֲלֵהֶ֣ם תֹּאמַ֔ר אִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּמִן־הַגֵּ֖ר אֲשֶׁר־יָג֣וּר בְּתוֹכָ֑ם אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲלֶ֥ה עֹלָ֖ה אוֹ־זָֽבַח׃ 

Say to them further: Regarding anyone of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who reside among them, who offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice  

וְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ לֹ֣א יְבִיאֶ֔נּוּ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת אֹת֖וֹ לַי

וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מֵעַמָּֽיו׃ 

and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer it to GD: that person shall be cut off from their people.

 Acharei ends by tying  sanctity to the right to live in the promised land. 

וְלֹֽא־תָקִ֤יא הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם בְּטַֽמַּאֲכֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑הּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר קָאָ֛ה אֶת־הַגּ֖וֹי אֲשֶׁ֥ר לִפְנֵיכֶֽם׃ 

So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you.  

כִּ֚י כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּוֹעֵבֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ הַנְּפָשׁ֥וֹת הָעֹשֹׂ֖ת מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽם׃ 

All who do any of those abhorrent things—such persons shall be cut off from among their people.

Kedoshim ends with the singularity of a people that is holy: 

וִהְיִ֤יתֶם לִי֙ קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אֲנִ֣י יְ

וָאַבְדִּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֛ם מִן־הָֽעַמִּ֖ים לִהְי֥וֹת לִֽי׃ 

You shall be holy to Me, for I GD am holy, and I have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine.

In many years, these two chapters, Acharei and Kedoshim, are read together. Connecting these title words becomes an aphorism: After death, [they (those that died) are considered] holy. There is some implication that perhaps, had they lived, they would not have  been thought quite so holy. To me, this usage, to a degree, refers to the holocaust. The sanctification of those murdered because of antisemitism, in the name of nationalism, has great political repercussions. I do not think that is wrong, but it may be becoming dangerous. 

When are you holy? How do you measure its value?