Parashat B'midbar - A Unification Conundrum

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat B'midbar 

Numbers 1:1-4:20

By Adam Ruditsky

A Unification Conundrum  

     One day, the waters created upon the earth and in the heavens presented themselves before God, claiming they were the best of everything created.  God was taken back by their assertion, and attempted to set the waters straight, but the waters continued to hail their supremacy.  In response, God called upon the grains that would become the sands to confront the waters, although the waters just bullied the grains.  An angel of God encouraged the grains to stand up to the waters, summoning the winds to fiercely swirl about in order to gather the grains together, in the end forming the shorelines.  As the grains bounded together in support of each other, they pushed the waters back, and back, and back, until one day the waters showed the grains of sand respect.

     Parashat B’midbar, the first parsha of Numbers, is about Moses taking a census of all the tribes of Israel, who after spending two years and one month at Sinai, were ready to move on.  Each tribe had its own flag and each tribe differed in number but all were considered equal, just like the sands and the seas.  But it does appear that a rank of inequality existed as well.  First, while all the tribes were counted, the Levites were not.  Second, while the Levites were tasked with the responsibility of taking care of all aspects of the Mishkan, they were not permitted to have the honor of the Priesthood. Third, although there were 22,000 Levites amongst three families, only the family of Korach were called-out from all the other Levitical families. And finally, the redemption of the first born is only for male babies and not female, in fact, all the people counted in the census were male and not female.  How can we understand this conundrum that challenges the equality of all people?

     While we cannot change what was it also is not the entire story. Rashi explains that all the first born were called into God’s service but lost that right to do so with the sin of the Golden Calf.  In this case, the Levites did not participate in the sin of the Golden Calf and therefore were chosen to bear this holy duty to care for the Mishkan. But later in Numbers 18:15 we are told this idea of redemption applies to both of man (אדם) and of animal (בהמה), perhaps recalling the words of Exodus 13:13 that says it was only the first born son.  But it should be pointed out that while in Exodus its says, בבניך (b’va’neh’cha) “of your sons,” in Numbers 18:15 it says באדם (ba’adam) “of man.”  Back in Genesis 1:26 we read that God created man (אדם) in the Divine image, both זכר ונקבה (za’char oon’n’kayvah), “male and female God created them.”  Another way we can understand this is with the idea of circumcision.  In Genesis 17:9-10 we read that Abraham is told to physically circumcise his son Isaac (ברית מילה, b’rit milah) whereas in Deuteronomy 10:15-16 we read that מכל העמים (micol ha’amim),”all the people” were told to ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם (o’maltem et arlat l’vavchem), “circumcise the foreskins of your heart,” or circumcision of heart.  This blockage or barrier, per Rashi, upon the heart was unisex, it was reserved for all mankind (אדם) and just not for the male (זכר).  So even though in Numbers we read that the Levites were redeemed from within the people to take on the role of the unworthy firstborn of their day, the words of Rabbi Elie Munk reminds us that “nevertheless, the intrinsic holiness of the firstborn, which extends even to the firstborn animal of a Jew, persists.”  Sure the Levites were all male, and yes they took on a special role, but Judaism maintains continuity with the text while allowing a voice of discontinuity. Therefore, while the text tells us that first-born is indeed the first born, boy or girl, each Jew, male or female, is a member of a people who were called by God בני בכרי ישראל (b’nai v’chori Yisreal), “My firstborn Israel” (cf. Exodus 4:22). The very story of the Jewish people is that they were redeemed from slavery to play their part in the tikkun of the world just like the Levites were redeemed for the service of the Mishkan.  That story is ours as well, redeemed for a purpose.

     Rabbi Jonathan Sacks calls Numbers “Act 4” of the Mosaic presentation of Torah.  Thus, Act 1 is the establishment of the world, Acts 2 is the story of our patriarchs and matriarchs, Act 3 is the story of the Jewish people from slavery to freedom and Act 4 is about the travels of the Jewish people in freedom with the Divine in their midst. In the end, R’Sacks writes “the Torah reflects the Israelite understanding of God as the unity beneath the diversity,” recalling for us the relationship between the sands and seas.  The Torah is not a systematic history book, but a book to “teach us about the human condition under God.”  R’Sacks additionally reminds us; it was not until Numbers 10:33 that Israel actually left Sinai, so “what was slowing down the story?”  For R’Sacks is was about “how can freedom coexist with order,” meaning that all the laws and commandments organized a post-slavery society to function in equality with a sense of order before the journey could truly begin.  I suspect just as we are challenged with the rule of our leaders nationally and locally with all that confronts us at the moment, they had their own like problems with theirs; after all, people are people.
     
     In any case, order meant diversity of purpose, not a subjugation of classes, thus the Levites had their role in the midst of the people and the people were counted in a census whereas the Levites were not.  During this time we have heard it said, “we are all in this together,” and likewise together we stand upon our higher values as people, so although we are ranked by difference human worth should not be defined by it.  We are not the same, socially, politically, Jewishly, economically, ethnically or by employment, but for Torah, and for the Jewish story regarding Torah, that should never matter in lieu of human dignity and honor toward others.  Keep in mind that the Torah is our ideal, the goal of our higher human love and values, played out in the journey of life before us.  The fact is the sea got the message, and showed respect to the sand.

Shabbat Shalom!                  

Parashat Behar-Bechukotai - A New Normal to be Proud of?

 רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat Behar-Bechukotai 

Leviticus 25:1-27:34

By Adam Ruditsky

A New Normal to be Proud of?  

     Social equality and trust, do these go together?  It might not seem that way at first glance, but they are actually dependent on one another.  This week’s double parsha, Parashat Behar-Bechukotai touches on both, but it also touches on the results of choices made.  What is also challenging with this parsha, as with others in Leviticus let alone the entire Torah, is interacting with words and myths from a different culture that is not like our own.  What is exactly the same, however, is how social equality and trust impacts us, particularly in this very moment.

     Behar centers around two mitzvot, Shemitah and Yovel.  The Shemitah happens every seven years (cf. Lev. 25:4) and the Yovel happens every fifty (25:10).  These mitzvot differ because they are not for a day, a week, or even a month, but for the duration of an entire year, each with a particular charge.  The Shemitah is every seventh year when the land is not to be plowed, it is to rest and may only produce what grows naturally.  We read that the landowner is instructed, לא תקצור (lo tiktzor), “do not reap” the benefits of the land (cf. Lev. 25:5).  However, we also read, “The resting of the land shall be to you (לך, the landowner), your slave, your maid servant, hired worker, dwelling resident,” as well as every kind of animal (cf. Lev. 25:6-7).  Rashi tends to what seems like a contradiction by saying that God did not “forbid them from eating” from the land, but that the owner should not treat the crops as if they are his (or hers) alone, but rather, הכל יהיו שוים, “all are equal.”  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch interestingly interprets the word נזירך (n’zerehcha) with נזר (n’zer, prince or deprive oneself), meaning that one who is a ruler or overseer defers for the best of others.  The crops were for all, they did not belong to the owner alone during the Shemitah year.
     The Yovel, while it also addresses letting the land rest, furthermore, speaks to the return of ancestral property, not taking advantage or harassing others, setting slaves free and the like.  Regarding the Yovel we read that the purpose for this was so that all the people would live in the land “securely” (לבטח, la’vehtach; cf. Lev. 25:18).  The word, לבטח, comes from the word to בטח (bah’tach) which means “trust,”  suggesting that in order to dwell “securely” a person must have trust that they can do so.  While the purpose of the Yovel (and also the Shemitah) was for the benefit for all to live “securely” in the land, the rational according to Leviticus 25:23 is about the land itself belonging to God, כי לי הארץ (ki li Ha’aretz), “for the land is Mine.”  People were not to rule over others unfairly like task-masters, or a god (they had that with Pharaoh), more so than the owner of the land, property and even slaves, had the responsibility to make sure that those who were under their rule were treated rightly and cared for in equality.  Without social equality the people do not live securely because there was no trust.  Those in charge were being reminded that what was theirs was also a provision from God, and therefore all were equal.  This can be supported by the teachings of Rashi who says that the sin of not observing the Shemitah, or forgetting that הכל יהיו שוים, “all are equal,” corresponded to the 70 years of exile in Babylon before the return to their homeland.  Mistreatment and unbridled power in that society lead to unwanted circumstances.
     In Bechukotai we read that if the people adhered to these laws, “I (God) will turn to you, I will make you fruitful and increase you, and I will establish my covenant with you” (cf. Lev. 26:9).  The midrash, Sifra Vayikra, calls into question the words והפריתי אתכם והרביתי אתכם (I will make you fruitful and increase you) because of the double use of אתכם (et chem) or “you.”  The midrash teaches that this must therefore speak of two separate blessings; the first (I will make you fruitful, והפריתי אתכם) is about an increase in population, whereas the second (I will increase you, והרביתי אתכם) refers to a dignified attitude.  Rashi connects “and I will establish my covenant with you” with Jeremiah 31 that speaks of a “new covenant,” a covenant that I will add not only surpasses the higher calling of the Priests or standards of treatment by the landowners or masters of the day, but also how the entire community needed to have dignified attitudes toward one another since all Israel stood in perpetual equality.  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch suggests that the reason for this failure was because of a laxity in morals of the community based on overcrowding from the increase that impacted how people treated others.  The result: the community would not see the blessings promised.  I read that more so, regardless of the circumstances, as a result of what happens when social equality and trust break down; society falls apart.  This is not about being a commune where everything we have goes in a single pot and share, share, alike, both is possessions and responsibilities, but even with differing social ranks respect for others is foundational.
     This parsha also teaches us that what we have is temporary, it will end one day.  So while it is a blessing to have the gifts that we have received, and even earned, human equality ultimately fosters trust that gives birth to dignity, compassion, and hope, not to mention charity and helping others.  The Israelites never knew this because they were the underbelly of Egyptian rule, rewarded with the plight of hard labor and slavery.  If the people, according to R’Hirsch reacted poorly because of overcrowding in their day, what about what plagues us in ours?  How is this moment in history going to define us?  During this unusual situation we are living in I have seen tremendous compassion by others, but I have also seen anger and outright disrespect because of disagreement regarding the next steps.  I have also seen, like all of you, the bombardment of our elected officials, albeit the White House, Governors or Mayors, as if they are the ultimate ruler's, or deliverer's, of our salvation.  What about the wisdom of people to do the right thing and be smart?  Watching fighting on television over disagreements or seeing people disrespect the fear of others by not caring enough to put on a mask even if it does not mean the same to them.  What are we returning to when this ends?  Hopefully, the new normal that we encounter is one that we can be proud of, one where social equality and trust are renewed and celebrated, even if not on a national level, let it be within our own circles of relationships and friends.  If not, I fear like with the Israelites of old, the cascade of consequences will just continue in one way or another.  For me, I want this time to be an opportunity to improve my part in human newness.  Is this not what it meant in Leviticus 19:2, be holy for God is Holy, the result is seen in how we act, which is what Torah teaches. 

Shabbat Shalom.

Parashat Emor - Nothing will come of it

     רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat Emor 

Leviticus 21:1-24:23

By Adam Ruditsky

Nothing will Come of it!

     Once there was a servant who owed money to his powerful and wealthy master, a man who owned all of the property in the town.  After some time passed the landowner called for the servant regarding the loan he so generously gave.  As the servant walked down what seemed like a long hallway, he finally reached his masters chambers in fear of what may happen.  Once in the room, there was no formal greeting of any type, and the landowner authoritatively told his servant to sit down.  Although a matter of moments, it seemed like several minutes until the landowner said, “When I gave you a loan I expected as part of our agreement that you would pay me back. The time to do so has passed and now you need to be held accountable for your transgression.”  Before another word could come out of the landowners mouth his servant dropped to the floor and said, “My lord, thank you for your loan that has put food on my families table, but please, I have been unable to make enough money to pay you back and take care of my home, give me more time and I will repay you everything that I owe.”  The landowner heard the plea of his servant and in compassion forgave him of all his debt before sending him away.  The servant however the next day approached a fellow servant and said, “pay me all the money that you owe me by the end of the day or you will pay for your transgression.”   The servant who owned the money pleaded with his fellow, “thank you for your loan that has put food on my families table, but please, I have been unable to make enough money to pay you back and take care of my home, give me more time and I will repay you everything that I owe.”  The servant who lent the money said, “your financial problems are not mine,” and had his fellow servant thrown in jail.
     It would seem that this servant misunderstood the words of  Leviticus 24:20 that says a “breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he that maimed a man, so shall it be rendered to him.”  Bachya Bar Yosef in Duties of the Heart teaches that anavah, humility, is an internal middah (soul-trait) that comes out externally in a variety of ways, one of the ways shows restraint in exacting revenge on another when you have the power (and even the right) to do so.  In Kedoshim we were instructed to embrace the process of becoming and doing holiness, which manifests in how we treat others, whereas in Emor we respond by a “breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth …”  How do we balance this tension?  The Sfrono teaches that while a like punishment might seem fitting, given the inability to measure precisely what that looks like, it is substituted with a monetary punishment, or as Ibn Ezra put it “if someone removed one-third, say, of another person’s eyelid, how could one possibly give the guilty party precisely that wound?”  This comes right out of the Talmud (Bava Kamma 84a) where the Rabbis taught that the punishment for this type of accountability should cover damages, suffering, medical costs, forced unemployment and shame.  Richard Elliott Friedman in his Torah commentary calls this one of the “most perplexing ethical laws” in the Torah and teaches that this is not to be seen as “God’s law” but is a law that “applies solely to human justice.”  That being so, Friedman would say that a “breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is an idiomatic statement that deals in equivalencies for justice and should not be taken as literal. Whatever the case, it’s a law of consequences, just like use a gun go to jail.
     Perhaps this may seem obvious, but who is going to literally take an eye as a form of payment for a mistake?  In our parlance we call it “getting our pound of flesh.”  Still, accountability to make that so has to be done correctly or it has the potential to perpetuate misunderstanding.  This is what Rose McGowen, a prominent voice of the #MeToo movement said during an interview.  Here, McGowen wanted to make the important point that #MeToo being called a “movement” makes it seem like there are “thousands of women in the streets with pitchforks running after men — and that’s really not the case.”  The need to make such a statement is unfortunate but it is to clarify the role of accountability as opposed to revenge since sadly there is always going to be people who hear things the wrong way and react accordingly.  So when Tarana Burke founded #MeToo in 2006 she did so as a support for survivors of sexual violence to help provide pathways for recovery that included justice.  In all things accountability of the perpetrator is a part of the healing and recovery process, and a law such as “breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is about the human right for justice.
     Yet caution also needs to be taken or it can potentially become a never-ending circle of like actions that has the power to cripple that very same justice.  Nobody benefits in the end.  You did this to me so I can do this to you.  You wrote something untrue about me on social media so I can do the same to you.  I heard that such and such did so and so to this person so it should be done back to them.  But here is the truth; justice is often an endurance of suffering because there is no immediate gratification, and in some cases it never comes, which can also be is a sign of our failed system; albeit at home, work, the halls of justice and yes, even with religion. There must be an ethic of accountability, but that can never be revenge.  When we are wronged we want justice, and sometimes wanting justice means there is an opportunity to do injustice by taking matters into our own hands, itself a big topic.  Before it said “You will not take revenge, or bear any grudge against your people, but you will love your neighbor as thyself “ (cf. Lev. 19:18).  That is to be balanced with a “breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” because there is never a time when accountability should not be the standard of justice, even when it is not administered properly or does not come quickly enough.  For Judaism, the answer of correction is never found in revenge, cause in the end nothing will come of it.  Sometimes the best justice is mercy for self, and even for others, but mercy does not mean that accountability disappears.

Shabbat Shalom!