Parashat Korach - Calling Out Generational Privilege

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat Shelach 

Numbers 13:1-15:41

By Rabbi Adam Ruditsky

Calling Out Generational Privilege

     Last week I said perhaps the generation that has been seeking to right the wrongs that face our nation may have generational reluctance and therefore need to move over so that fresh voices can take the stage to address issues of social equality and injustice before us.  Well, let me be clear, there is another side, and that other side is a sense of perceived generational privilege.  As such I want to call upon Rabbi Rachel Cowan who writes about what she calls an “inner-Moses” and an “inner-Korach,” humility as opposed to arrogance, selflessness as opposed to selfishness.  But make no mistake, Korach wanted justice for what he viewed as one of their generations issues about equality, thus according to Rabbi Michael Shekel, Korach like Moses contained the middah of being zealous or z’rizut (זריזות).  If so, what happened?  What happened that one would don humility and selflessness and the other would don arrogance and selfishness?
     Let’s therefore begin with the word ויקח (va’ikach), “and he took,” which is found right at the beginning of this parsha.  As such we read in Numbers  16:1-3; “Now Korach, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took (ויקח) men, and they rose up before Moses, with certain others of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty men; they were princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: 'You take too much upon you, seeing that all of the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you lift yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”  A little background first.  Korach is the great-grandson of Levi, Levi being the father of Gershon, Kohath and Merari.  Thus Korach’s grandfather is Kohath and his father is Izhar (see. Exodus 6:18 and 21).  Back in Parashat Nasso we read that the Kohathites, the family of Korach, had an especially important job as part of the Levitical families regarding the Mishkan.  The Kohathites had the job to safeguard the holy objects in the Mishkan such as the Menorah, the Shulchan, the table for the show bread, the Aron, the ark that held the tablets and the Mizbe’ach, the alter.  Maimonides argued that although the Kohathites practically did the jobs of Cohanim, Priests, they had their own function and needed to recognize the sacredness of their duties, not comparing, or seeking the roles of others.  Within the people of Israel the Levitical families were privileged to maintain the scared Mishkan and in turn were not subject to various obligations of the greater community.  This was Korach’s place in Israel, he served as part of the Kohathite family as the caretakers to safeguard the holy objects in the Mishkan.  A particularly important and privileged call of duty.
     So why did Korach take men to overthrow Moses and Aaron and the apparatus of Israel’s polity  What was his beef since he already was privileged?  What then did Korach need to take?  The word ויקח (va’ikach), is generally read as reflexive, therefore translated, Korach, “betook himself” (JPS, Etz Chaim) or “separated himself” (Midrash Tanchuma, ArtScroll).  In fact, the Targum Onkelos (the Aramaic translation of Torah) uses the word ואתפלג (v’it’p’layg), which is a reflexive form of פלג (p’lag) that means to “divide.”  Korach “divided himself” from the community and took 250 other leaders and their families with him to act upon his grievance.  It was in Numbers 16:3 above that Korach gives reason to rebel against Moses and Aaron, hence, “why do you exalt yourselves (lit. ‘raise yourselves up’) over the congregation of the Lord.”  In so doing the Midrash Tanchuma teaches that Korach separated himself from the community after raising objections to the fact that he believed that he (and the people) did not have the same notability of Moses or the Priesthood of Aaron.  There is no indication that Moses and Aaron lorded themselves over others or were heavy-handed as they subjugated others under their authority.  The Midrash further teaches that Korach’s complaint stemmed from the fact that everyone at Mt Sinai heard from God on that day, so Korach is asking why are Moses and Aaron so special?  Rashi explains that this had to do with intermediaries, thus if all the people are holy because they all heard from God collectively then Moses and Aaron are not needed.  How did Moses and Aaron deal with this?  In this case they took a completely different posture, they were not combative, only falling on their face’s in order to seek the mercy of God as this misguided insurrection began, a rebellion by other leaders in Israel.
     In the end, I think that this was much more than Korach raising an objection over the role of Moses and Aaron, I think it was about perceived privilege.  If Korach wanted to fix what he thought was broken then why did he just not sit down with them and speak about the issues and seek possible resolutions?  Remember, Moses and Aaron were not selfish authoritarians (see Num. 11:29).  Answer: don’t know if they talked, and therefore who knows what might have happened if they did.  What we do know, however, was there was a rebellion to up-root Moses and Aaron, leaders mind you who did not kneel on the necks of others.  In fact, what we are really seeing here, is that for the sake of the people those leaders who joined the rebellion of Korach in the end are removed from power because of the misuse of their office.
     Along the way, Korach, this man of influence who was charged to care of the holy things stood up for the people precisely because he had the privilege to protest.  But instead, he made it about himself, thinking that his privilege gave him the right for a justified rebellion that ended with the loss of life because it had to be his way.  I am grateful that I live in a country that stands up to our leaders to demand change.  There are many out there who are zealous to spearhead the cry, God bless you for your work!  Yet when the “inner-Korach” of arrogance and selfishness gives in to destructive privileges, well that is another matter.  Rabbi Rachel Cowan would also say that we have “descendants” of Korach, people who are cynical politically and religiously, cynical of community leaders, democracy and Nationalism, in the end producing what she calls “modern day rebels,” rebels in my view who wrongly think that their privilege gives them the right to destroy, spew hate and steal for a misplaced cause.  Please join me in celebrating those who stand up in protest to fix a system that needs repair.  Yet, I also cannot condone words of hate and justified destruction.  Our apparatus needs to be fixed, but so do the perceived privileged voices of dissent that cause harm.

Shabbat Shalom.            

Parashat Shelach - How many Generations has it Been?

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat Shelach 

Numbers 13:1-15:41

By Rabbi Adam Ruditsky

How Many Generations Has it Been?

     When he was young, Hayyim of Zanz tries to reform his country.  As he gets older, Hayyim sees the impossibility of reform on such a large scale and begins to focus on driving the evil from smaller and smaller areas, until he tries to effect changes only inside his family … and then, after age 50, only inside himself.  Not until age fifty, not until after a generation and then some, did Hayyim realize that self-improvement was the only change he could actually control.

     In Parashat Shelach we are reminded of that very thing, change takes time and systemic change may need to circumvent an entire generation.  We read after the debacle with the spies the following, “And the LORD said unto Moses: 'How long will this people despise Me? and how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have wrought among them?” (Num. 14:11).  How can Israel not believe?  Israel witnessed the 10 plagues in Egypt, the parting of the red sea, the fire at Mt Sinai, manna from heaven, not to mention the defeat of Pharaoh’s army with all its might and power, but now they are afraid of some fortified cities and people reported to be like giants?  It doesn’t make sense that a people of perseverance all of sudden became so fearful that their past oppression seemed better than their future freedom.  In the end I don’t think this was really a problem about belief or fear, I think it was about generational reluctance.
     It had been a little over two years after Israel left Egypt and departed Mt Sinai.  Just a few days into the journey Moses picks 12 leaders, one from each tribe, who were to scout on the land they would possess that was promised to Israel’s ancestors beforehand.  When the spies returned their response was in unison, “We came unto the land you sent us, and surely it flowed with milk and honey; and this (vine of grapes) is the fruit of it” (Number 13:27).  Yet that unity quickly disappeared when 10 of the 12 spies said, “However the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of giants there” (Num. 13:28).  Although Joshua and Caleb attempted to recall the past works of God, the people shifted their own fears to the remaining 10 and said, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt or would we had died in this wilderness! And why does the LORD bring us unto this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will be like prey; were it not better for us to return into Egypt?' And they said one to another: 'Let us make a leader, and let us return to Egypt”  (Num. 14:2-4).  In the narrative God was angry an wanted to wipe Israel out, but Moses successfully interceded on their behalf to stop God’s wrath.  In the end, while God relents from the anger, Israel’s punishment is that they would wander for another 38 years from what should have been a short journey; the first of many tragedies we remember on Tisha B’av (see. BT Sanhedrin 104b).         

     The 12 leaders that Moses picked were identified as “all who lead from them,” that is each tribe.  These were leaders, chosen leaders who were wise and could stand up to challenges, yet now 10 of the 12 lead the people in rebellion.  This might be a free people but here we see signs that beg the question, were they ready to embrace freedom?  Maimonides connects this problem with when they first left Egypt “God did not lead them by the way of the Philistine country though it was shorter [because of the fear] that they might encounter hardships too great for their present strength” (Guide for the Perplexed, III:32).  Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes “yet despite the detour, what God feared came to past.”  Two plus years later the people cannot handle it and want to go back.  We read in Numbers 14:18, words that are similar to what we find in Exodus 34:6, that Moses reminds this God who wanted to destroy the people that the true God is supposed to be ארך אפים ורב חסד, “slow to anger, abundant in kindness”  That God who wanted to destroy the people in anger and lack of patience represents the gods of Egypt who needed to be appeased out of fear and servitude.  The words we find in Torah reflect a people traumatized by their past and only Joshua and Caleb could see a better tomorrow in that moment.
     The scouts were sent to spy out the land but they could not move past the trauma of Egypt. They could not be a part of a new world where they would have to embrace changes and challenges that were anything but easy.  The words of Torah reflect a people stuck in a dialog with gods who ruled them in furry and not a God of love and patience.  In the narrative Moses reminds God to be “slow to anger, abundant in kindness,”  but I say this was more about what the people needed to hear.  It was the people who saw God as heavy handed, a God who wanted to destroy them because they were not able to be a free and liberated generation yet, but that doesn’t make sense.  The fact is that the people did it to themselves with the infighting and lack of love.  This was a rebellion that resulted in a generation having to wander in the wilderness for a trip that should have been weeks at best.  Israel made their choice in the wilderness to stay in the past and it cost them.  What would have happened if all 12 of those spies were emancipated into Israel’s future, how might have their world differed?  Why do I think this describes these people?  Easy, look around you, what do you see today?  This is a divided country where anger, hate, sadness, and apathy ripple through society right now.  Liberals and Conservatives from the top down attack others unabashedly in Washington and beyond while friends use platforms like Facebook and Twitter to do the same.  Since May 25^th, this country has seen protests and riots, policy changes and dismantling of entire police departments as well as acts of kindness, peaceful gatherings and people wanting to love each other.  But in many ways it was a step backwards as well. 
     Just like with Hayyim of Zanz a generation went by before he got it.  Today we see that it has been 52 years since MLK was killed, but does this generation get it?   The truth is that although good and solid change has been made a revelation regarding true social equality for a community that has not been fully emancipated has not yet been realized.  You know maybe the generation since MLK just cannot do it and a new generation has to take up the cause?    So yes, there has been advancements, but what do you say about the little black kid who feels he needs to hide from passing by police cars while shooting baskets in the front yard ?  Has it been enough for Jews who get killed just because they are Jewish?  Is it fair to people of Asian descent who get attacked verbally or physically for a virus they did not cause but get like everyone else?  What might things look like if we handled human equality differently?  How many more generations have to die before some people can be free?

Shabbat Shalom 

Parashat Beah'alotecha - Moses for President

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat Beah'alotecha 

Numbers 8:1-12:16

By Rabbi Adam Ruditsky

Moses for President 

     The angel that wrestled with Jacob returned to heaven disgruntled that he had lost.  The angel was angry with God for sending him to earth knowing that he would lose to begin with.  Therefore, the angel spars with God for what seemed like a task of futility.  After waiting for the angel to finish speaking God patiently and gently said, “I understand your dismay, but I needed to prepare Jacob to wrestle with me for Israel’s place in the world.”  Jacob, who would become Israel, the one “who contends with God,” set an example for those who would follow, and surely as we shall see that is the case with Moses here in Parashat Beah’alotecha.  The parsha begins by Moses saying to Aaron “when you kindle (בהעלותך, beah’alotecha) the lamps toward the face of the menorah …” (Num. 8:1).  The lights kindled for Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik is connected with “the political leaders, those who lead the people in the field of government,” people who were in “the public eye” day in and day out (see R’ Soloveitchik on Numbers 8:2).  The “government of Israel” we can say was led by its president, Moses, and vice president, Aaron.  As leaders it was crucial to be guided by the right light as they illuminated the way, but leading can be like wrestling because at times it can feel like a chore, but this was not chore, it was Israel’s future.  Moses understood the grandeur of the task before him.
     As such, prior to commencing on their journey from Mt Sinai Moses is presented with his first leadership task here in Numbers.  In this case some men were made impure by coming into contact with a dead body, calling into question their right to partake in the Pesach offering (Num. 9:6).  When Moses was asked about it he responded, “Stand here I will hear what God commands.” Since the Pesach offering was for each person Rashi refers to an early midrash that asks the question; can an impure person have the rituals associated with the sacrifices carried out by the Priests who were pure?  The question of the impure offering a sacrifice was addressed before hand (see BT Gitten 60a), but this was a different question, one in which Moses had no answer. Moses like a student seeking the instruction of a teacher sought God for direction, something that for Rashi meant that Moses “would speak with the divine presence,” something that I will add is both “face to face” but also reflects the wisdom he spoke with to others.  Moses did not know so he went to find out because he cared about other’s needs.  This indeed is a part of the reason why Moses in Numbers 12:3 was referred to as humble.
     Moses then finds himself in a much bigger jam this time.  Three days into the journey the people became angry at God and Moses intercedes on their behalf (Num. 11:2ff, Rashi).  The reason is about food initially, not that they did not have any, but wanted a different menu!  In Egypt there was plenty of food, although Rashi thinks they misremembered, and now they had to gather food that they did not want anymore.  They wanted meat and turned to Moses to make it happen.  The people wept before Moses, but tradition teaches that it was not a weeping cry but a complaint because of what they could not have as opposed to what they needed (see Sifrei Numbers 90 and Yoma 75a).  What is going on in Moses’ mind at this point?  Moses had already contended with Israel’s dismay the moment they left Egypt as well as their rebellion against God with the Golden Calf, Moses also being accused of seeking their harm (see Exodus 14:11).  What type of man takes such criticism and still cares about the rights of others?  Moses gave up a life of luxury and power in order to stand with an enslaved people who would take on a life of wandering.  Surely he deserved better, so he turned his frustration on God.  Moses says to God, “And if this is how you deal with me then kill me now, if I have found favor in your eyes, and let me not see my evil” (Num. 11:15).  Wait, “my evil,” what did Moses do?  Rashi teaches that Moses allowed himself to be weak in that moment and lashed at God although he did not want to accuse God of evil directly.  Franky, I just think Moses was angry, and God let him be that way.  Jacob back in Genesis had no problem telling God, if you do this I will do that, and Moses seems to be doing the same.  In the end, even though the people ate in gluttony and many died, Moses advocated for an unruly people by getting them meat.
     Lastly, we see Moses’ heart of compassion and love.  First he is betrayed by the people and now by his own family.  Miriam and Aaron attack Moses over his wife, the Cushite women, assumed to be the same as Zipporah (Num. 12:1).  They both spoke “harshly” about Moses and his wife,  although it is also understood that since Miriam’s name is listed first she initiated the conversation.  The Bible does not tell us why this is so, but according to tradition Miriam told Aaron that Zipporah told her that she felt sorry for the wives of Eldad and Medad, who for the sake of their prophesying, would separate from their wives just as Moses did from Zipporah (Num. 11:27-28, also see Rashi on Num. 12:1).  This seems to have turned into a family argument between Miriam, Aaron and Moses that spilled outside of the tent.  In the narrative God rebuked Miriam and Aaron, bringing further judgment on Miriam as the primary instigator by inflicting her with leprosy (although Rabbi Akiva taught that Aaron was punished as well; BT Shabbat 97a).  Moses must have been upset with his siblings, how dare they speak against his wife and he, yet when Miriam became a leper he turned to God and said, אל נה רפא נה לה (el nah r’fa nah lah), “Please God, please heal her.”
     Moses was a mensch, a stand up human being who put his community before him.  He listened, advocated, was honest before God, was not afraid to show his emotions but also was guided by compassion and love. When it says that Moses was humble in Numbers 12:3 Rashi says he was, שפל וסבלן (shafal v’savlan), “humble and long-suffering” for others.  All of this is in this parsha from Numbers and continues throughout the journey.  Moses certainly wrestled with his own person, having to deal with the ups and downs of Israel, but he always sought to be guided by the light of God’s good, day in and day out making sure constantly to kindle that light so that he would do better tomorrow than he did today.  The poet Maya Angelou wrote, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”  We can all learn from Moses our teacher.

Shabbat Shalom!

Parashat Nasso - The Solution is the Great Equalizer

רפואה מן התורה

Healing from the Torah

Parashat Nasso 

Numbers 5:1-7:89

By Rabbi Adam Ruditsky

The Solution is the Great Equalizer

     With Shavuot behind us, going forward however we must always stand upon the importance of Torah.  The Torah is many things, but one of them is the great equalizer, recalling that upon it the world endures in justice, truth, and peace (Perkei Avot 1:18).  Justice means the equality of all people, all people who are created B’tzem Elohim, in the image of God.  America was established as a “Christian” country, and the fact that the subjection of people still exists, even if not like before, must be revisited.  Jonathan Haidt, it his book “The Righteous Mind, why good people are divided by politics,” writes that while some believe in social equality others believe in group liberty, thus my need for liberty is greater than your need for equality.  Torah would disagree with that statement; all are equal even though they may have different stations in life – that is what Torah teaches and that is what we are seeing here in Parashat Nasso.
     This sense of equality is embedded in the book of Numbers, revealing how the attributes of equality and distinction must coexist among the people.  Again, we want to remember it is not until Numbers 10:33 that Israel actually left their encampment at Mt. Sinai to begin their journey through the wilderness.  Parashat B’midbar and the end of Parashat Nasso can also be read like a chiastic structure assisting us to see why a later departure was required.  In B’midbar, the families of the tribes of Israel were counted identically although their family numbers differed, whereas in Nasso the individual tribes were instructed collectively to bring identical sacrifices and offerings.  In the case of B’midbar and Nasso there was an individual voice and a collective voice that acted simultaneously.  Israel could not successfully commence with their travels until they aligned themselves that way.  We as a people will always do battle and struggle for reform as long as well forget that our liberty is tied into our equality.
     We do see this in Nasso, well kind of.  Here, the individual liberty of each tribe allowed them to act independently even though their offerings were collectively the same.  We also see this with the families of Gershon, Merari and Kohath, the three sons of Levi who were separated from the whole of the nation to care of the Mishkan.  The Gershonites cared for the panels of the tabernacle, the covers, the curtains of the courtyard, the screen for the entrance gate, the ropes and the utensils, safekeeping all they were responsible for.  The Merarites cared for the planks, bars, pillars, sockets, pegs and ropes of the tabernacle and its courtyard, safekeeping all they were responsible for.  The Kohathites cared for the Partition Screen, the cover for the Ark itself, the table of the showbread, the Menorah, and its holy utensils, also taking care of issues related to the Alter, safekeeping all they were responsible for.  For all their work Moses would give the Gershonites two wagons and four oxen to help them carry their load whereas for the Merarites Moses gave four wagons and eight oxen for their load, yet for Kohathites Moses gave nothing, telling them that they must bear their loadבכתך ישאו  (Bac’catayf yis’saoo), “carry on the shoulder.”   Rashi address this disparity of equal assistance by saying that the Kohathite load was “the burden of the holy items,” and therefore should be carried directly.  The Talmud reads that verse very differently since the Levites were singers, thus we read in a Gemara, “The term “yisa’u” (ישאו) is not stated here in its meaning of “they bore them,” but rather as an expression of song. And similarly, the verse states: “Take up the melody, and sound the timbral,” and another verse states: “They lift up [yisu] their voice, they sing for joy” (cf. BT Arachin 11a).  Maimonides rejected the view that given the small number of Cohanim that the Levites from the family of Kohath ostensibly did work of the Priesthood, instead arguing that work for the Levites was holy itself and should be treated as such. Bearing upon the shoulder, בכתך ישאו, meant that like the songs of praise in the Temple courtyard, the work of the Kohathites represented another level of sacredness.  That should not be read as if their work was better than the Gershonites or the Merarites, just like the work of a Doctor and Police Officer are not the same yet each has their own value and purpose.
     We can say the same for the Nazerite and all of Israel.  All of Israel was told in Leviticus 19:2, קדושים תהיו, “you all are to be Holy,” so what is so special about being a Nazerite?  We read further read in Nasso about a man or woman who takes on this vow,  a vow of abstinence from alcohol, certain fruits, cutting hair, avoiding contact with a dead person and general impurities, a rite that is held for 30 days.  The Nazerite was in the end instructed to bring a sacrifice upon completion.  The reason for the sacrifice has drawn differing opinions, from looking to a new day after the rite (Rambam), to absolving oneself for the hard restrictions they undertook (Sefer HaChinuch) to transgressing the mitzvot such as wine for kiddush (Meshech Chokhmah).  Yet it is worth noting that for the Rambam this rite is about obtaining a level of holiness that is consistent with Leviticus 19:2 that “you all are to be Holy.”  Rabbi Philip Berg in the Kabbalistic Bible makes the point that this is not a ritual of restriction from life but a connection to God, something the Mussar teachers call z’rizut, or the enthusiasm of inward growth.  Does this mean that those who were not Nazerite’s failed to reach their potential?  Great men and women such as Moses or Kind David, Deborah, or Esther, were not Nazerite’s!  Being a Nazerite for some seemed to fulfill a need to go “deeper” with their faith for a period of time, but it no way did that make them better than those who did not.  Yet the Nazerite also served a pursue to remind Israel that as they journeyed they were to aspire for a higher community standard reflecting that they had become a free people.
     In Torah this was to happen when their collective whole was balanced with their tribal, and personal (such as the Nazerite) individuality.  The success of the Jewish community in all of our ventures, from spiritual to social justice and beyond, can only be strengthened when we are unified, collectively or as individuals.  Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel taught “if mankind is not more than human, then mankind is less than human.”  Torah is asking us to be better than taking away another person’s equality, and if we do then are we less than human?  Being held accountable for one’s action must be a given, but taking away a person’s liberty because they are denied equality is not the solution of Torah; that is slavery in Egypt all over again.     

Shabbat Shalom!  

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!