Parashat Te'tza'veh, Exodus 27:20-30:10

This week’s portion – Te’tza’veh (literally, “you shall order") – is a direct continuation of last week’s portion, that is an extremely detailed description of the instructions on how to build the Tabernacle (or Mishkan) and how to worship God therein. Accordingly, my own notes this week would also continue – and elaborate upon – those of last week’s. In light of several comments I received – directly, not to the Blog (feel free to write to the Blog!) – I think such elaboration is warranted.

God’s Place in This World

Recall that last week I mentioned how precise the text was in clarifying: “And they [the People of Israel] would make me a sanctuary and I will dwell among them” [and not, as one may think “and I would dwell in there.”] (Ex. 25:8) God does not reside in one place, be it a traveling sanctuary or a permanent shrine; rather, God is everywhere, all the time. It is we, the limited humans, who need a constant reminder that God is still among us. It is we who require an actualization of the transcendence of God. It is we who need to see, in our own eyes, what our minds at time refuse to acknowledge.

This week’s portion further elaborates on this important point: “And there [by the Tent of Meeting] I will conference with the People of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my honor; and I have sanctified the Tent of Meeting . . . And I have dwelled among the People of Israel and I shall be their God; And they shall know that I am the Lord their God who brought them from the Land of Egypt to dwell among them, I am the Lord your God.” (Ex. 29:41-46).

This is a remarkable passage. First, it seems that not only readers of this blog, but also much earlier readers – and perhaps the divine author of the text itself – felt the need for further explanation of this extremely crucial point. Second, what we have here is a direct connection between the First Commandment – “I am the Lord your God who brought you from the Land of Egypt” – and notion of residing in places other than the so-called “holy" (or "sanctified”) places. Indeed, in the deepest religious sense, these “holy” places are merely symbols; the truly religious person doesn’t need them – he has God with him everywhere, at all times.

While this point may sound somewhat trivial (or even unimportant) to American ears, rest assured that many a war could have been prevented, and thousands of lives could have been spared, if only some middle-eastern leaders (yes, Israeli leaders in particular) could fully realize this point. It is not the place that is holly; it is God; He does not reside in that place, He is everywhere. The question, therefore, whether Israel should hold on to this place or that grave (which, presumably, are “holy” for some reason) becomes irrelevant once all leaders would truly internalize this point.

Yeshayahu Leibovitz, who, more than anyone else, advocated this point ad nauseam once “dared” calling Israel’s most holly place – the Western Wall (called in Israel: The Ko’tel) – a “Disco Kotel.” He explained that there’s nothing “holly” about it, and that "pile of stone" was definitely not worth the life of one soldier, let alone hundreds of civilians. But, as often is the case, his words were taken out of context, and all people can now remember is that he called this place a “Disco.” But all Leibovitz was trying to do is to make the same argument that God Himself (or the author of the last two portions) was making thousands of years ago.

For those who are seeking a more current angle – which are most of my readers, I'm afraid – let me suggest a quote from one of my favorite movies, A Few Good Men (1992). At the end of that film, after the two Marines were acquitted of the more serious charges – murder and a conspiracy to commit murder – but convicted of the lesser charge – conduct unbecoming a Marine Core soldier – one of them wonders what would they do now that they have no unit, no core, and no honor. Lieutenant Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise, turns to him and explains: “You don't need a patch on your arm to have honor.”

The same is true for having God in your life. The relationship between you and God should not be dictated by wearing a “patch on the arm,” a “Yamukah" on your head, or even frequenting the nearest synagogue as often as you can. These are merely symbols to your relationship, not “the thing in itself” (to borrow for a short moment from the greatest philosophers of all times). Those relationship, however, are determined by the degree to which you allow God to reside in your heart. If you are content with that degree, you shouldn't let anyone ever try to persuade you otherwise; but if you are not content, all the hours you will ever spend in shul, wearing Talit, Tefilin, and Yamukah, would be of no help at all. It is just between you and God.

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron

Parashat Trumah, Exodus 25:1 - 27:19

This week’s portion – Trumah (literally, a donation) – deals with God’s decree to Moshe to build the Tabernacle – Mishkan (literally, the place of dwelling) – a portable shrine to accompany the People in their desert travels

God’s instructions on how precisely to build the Mishkan are amazingly detailed, even tedious at times. (See, for example, the ten verses dedicated to the building of the Menorah alone – Ex. 25:31-40; these verses are also proof that the American-Jewish use of the term “Menorah” to describe the eight-day lighting device for Chanukah is simply misguided.) Yeshayahu Leibovitz, who loves to inquire deeply into such issues (as in “why are the instructions so detailed?”) notes that the creation of the entire universe – including all the planetary heavens, the oceans, mountains, living and growing things, and humans, of course – has received less than 40 verses in Genesis, while the building of the Mishkan alone has received more than 400 verses (ten times that). Leibovitz sees that as ultimate proof to his view that the Torah is not a book that is meant to provide us information about the world; rather it is a book about Avo’dat E’lo’him – the service of God, and that alone. That is why things of that nature – how precisely to serve God – receive so much attention in the text.

I would like to make, as usual, two quick notes on issues the Portion raises.

The Basis of Modern Fund-Raising

(This section is lovingly dedicated to my wife, who taught me everything I know about fund-raising).

Surely God – who just parted the Red Sea, drowned the largest army in the region, provided food and water in the desert, and performed a host of other miracles – could have easily built the Mishkan by himself. God needs no human assistance. In addition, even if God prefers, for some reason, human participation, He could have simply ordered Betz’al’el Ben-Uri to perform the task. (compare Ex. 31:2).

But God prefers another model altogether. He would like the building of the Mishkan to become a community effort. In His mind, “it takes a village” to build the House of Worship. And how may the community participate? Through voluntary donations. The donations are voluntary in two ways: First, there is no duty to participate at all; and second, there is neither minimum nor maximum contribution suggested. Each may donate “as their heart orders them.” The idea here is that everyone will contribute to the extent they can – some more, some less – and will feel partners in a community that acted together towards a common project. And this is how the text describes God’s instructions to Moshe in the dramatic opening of this week’s portion: “And God spoke to Moshe and told him: Speak to the People of Israel and they shall provide me donations, from each person whose heart so moves him you shall take my donations; and this is the donation you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper.” (Ex. 25:1-3). [To those keen-eyed readers who wonder where would the Israelites find gold in the middle of the desert, please refer to the eve of the Exodus, where God – who plans everything in advance – instructed the then-slaves to “borrow” from their neighbors “objects of silver and objects of gold.”(Ex. 11:2)].

And these instructions, believe it or not, form the basis for the entire industry and science of modern fund-raising. From the suggested donation at the Met Museum to the frequent “please support us” mail that you receive daily to the million-dollar contributions that the Bill Gates of the world bestow upon their favorite projects – the theoretical basis is always identical: (i) The actual act of donation is voluntary; (ii) If you do choose to donate, the amount is a matter of which “your heart should instruct you” (to be sure, fund-raisers all over the world would try to make sure that “your heart” instructs you the maximum figure, but the principle remains); (iv) The fund-raising person would notify you exactly what kind of donation they want, although today that is, in the vast majority of cases, a gift of money (as opposed to time, talent, or other resources); (iv) The donation is a part of a community effort to built together something that is bigger than any one donor can establish, and therefore beneficial to all – or at least a large part – of the community (if not to the world at large).

And while fund-raising may be used for the noblest of causes, religious or otherwise, they can also be abused for a variety of causes – for example, to perform the worst of religious sins – the construction of the Golden-Calf (Ex. 32:3 “And the People of Israel took off their gold rings and brought to Aharon.”) So one has to be selective in choosing their fund-raising projects.

So much for fund-raising.

Why Do We Need the Mishkan At All?

Beyond the method in which God preferred to establish the Mishkan, a far deeper question lies: Why do we need the Mishkan at all? Why do we need a House of Worship, when God is all around us, every single day, leading the way with a smoke pillar during the day and fire pillar at night? And how exactly is this Mishkan differ from the Israelites’ “worst sin,” the Golden-Calf?

Obviously, this post in not the right venue to discuss this extremely deep question. I will provide, however, initial clues for the answer. First, God understands (or, to take an agnostic stand, the writers of the text understood) the need to balance between the “pure” belief in God – that which is correctly based on the First Commandment (“I am the Lord Your God”), and on that decree alone – and the all-too-human need for actualization of everything transcendental, including God Himself (hence the so-called “white-bearded Grandpa” image of God, heavily promoted by some Christian sects). This exact balance also explains many things in our world today – for example, Lance Armstrong’s ingenious “yellow rubber bracelet” invention, which brought cancer-research millions of dollars, is a perfect example of balancing between the need to think about cancer-survivors and the risk that cancer presents to all of us, and the actualization of that thought through the carrying of a small yellow rubber bracelet reading “live strong.” (It also, to be sure, includes an aspect of fund-raising, to create a perfect match to our Portion). There are many other examples.

Second, God is keenly aware – and advices us to do the same – of the difference between a House of Worship and the place where He actually dwells. As he instructs Moshe: “And they will make me a shrine, and I will dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8) That is, the fact that a shrine – even if it called “a place of dwelling” – exists, does not suggest that God is actually there, or just there; God is everywhere, but most importantly – in the peoples’ hearts. That is where God resides, and if He is missing from there, then none of the Houses of Worship, as beautiful as they may be, would ever be of help.

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron

Parashat Mishpa'tim, Exodus 21:1 - 24:11

This week’s portion – Mishpatim, or The Laws – is a direct continuance to last week’s portion. As you may recall, last week the Children of Israel have received their Constitution – the famous Ten Commandments, painting in very broad brush-strokes all the things they should do – such as recognizing our One God, keeping the Shabbat, and respecting our parents – and some they should not – such as not to steal, not to murder, or not to covet.

As I have explained last week, this providing of one law to the entire people of Israel was quite a novel idea, and also (possibly) a consequence of Moshe’s heeding his father-in-law's advice and departure from his role as a sole arbiter of the people’s grievances. Now that other people were in charge of the day-to-day legal system, they – and the people they judged – deserved to know (to quote the American Supreme Court some 200 years ago) “what the law is.” And the law IS the Ten Commandments, but it is also many more “small commandments,” dealing not only with the most egregious of violations and heinous of crimes, but with many every-day occurrences that require answer. This is the issue of this week's portion – the many laws that will shape the behavior – both criminal and civil – of the community for generations to come.

There are many “legal” things to say about these laws, including their beautiful consistency, hierarchy, internal logic, and practicability. But I am afraid this will be of little interest to the non-lawyer readers of this blog. Besides that, however, what do strikes me, more than anything else, when I read this set of laws each year anew is how smart were the people who wrote them back then, and how relevant they still are today (or, put differently, how little has change). To take but a few of my favorite examples: “And bribe you shall not take, as bribe will blind the eyes of wise men, and contrive the words of the righteous ones.” (Exodus 23:8); “And you shall not wrong a foreigner (or non-citizen) and you shall not oppress them, as you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (22:20); and there are many more, including, most importantly, the first official recognition of a woman's right to be supplied with food, cloths, and conjugal rights. (Ex. 21:20)

Today I want to demonstrate how two laws, well-established in their day and well understood, have undergone a transformative change over the years – and today are used for something completely different than that originally intended.

An Eye for An Eye

This week’s portion introduces, for the first time, the notion of “an eye for an eye.” What is amazing to me is how this sensitive, carefully-calculated formula of compensatory damages turned over the years into the rallying cry of over-zealous state prosecutors, who demand “justice” (euphemism for death penalty) for the criminals on trial. Let me explain. First, let us see the context in which the term appears. The “eye for an eye” term – sometimes referred to today as the “Talion” – appears in the context of a series of laws pertaining to brawls. Before the talion we have two people fighting with each other, a person hitting their slaves – male of female, and (right after) a person injuring their slaves – taking out their eye or teeth. It is clear, therefore, that we are deep in the realm of tort law – that is, civil law – and not criminal law. The question is: what is the proper compensation for a damage occurring during a fight. And the case at bar is fascinating [in parens, my comments], Exodus 21:

“[22] When [two] men fight [both free men], and one of them [accidently?] hits a pregnant woman, and her child are [forced] out, and no other tragedy occurs, the penalty [for the hitting person] would be in the amount that the Husband of that woman determine on reckoning; [23] But if a tragedy occurs, then you [the hitting person] shall give life for life, [24] eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, arm for an arm, foot for a foot, burn for a burn, wound for a wound, and bruise for a bruise.”

It is clear, therefore, that the text made an attempt to cover as many incidents bound to happen when two men are fighting. This is a fascinating issue, then as today – the protection of fragile groups of victims (like minors, elderly, and pregnant women) who suffer due to violence in the community – and the biblical text provides a well-measured response, determining, first, that this kind of injury should be compensated; that is – these people are protected; and, second, the protection is complete – for every damage they have suffered, for every bruise, injury, or lost limb – to them or to the babies – they should receive the exact same worth.

Now to take this carefully-calculated compensation formula and turn it into the theoretical basis for (criminally) executing many an innocent victim – just because it “sounds good” (“The bible teaches us: Eye for an Eye. You, the jury, must give this man a taste of his own medicine; send him to death!”) – that is simply beyond me.

Kashrut Laws

Not too many are aware, but the entire corpus of the Laws of Kashrut (or dietary laws) stands on a single verse appearing in this week’s portion. [To be sure, there are many other verses relating to what a Jewish person may or may not eat; this one, however, is the lynchpin]: “Though shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Exodus 23:19).

This seemingly innocuous prohibition, which was prescribed – according to some of the commentators – in a direct response to other regional nations’ “special treat” during feasts (that is, the actual cooking of a young kid in its mother’s milk), was apparently designed to separate us from all other nations. We, the Jewish people, would not do such a thing. But then again, how would we know whether or not we’re cooking a lamb in his mother’s milk? Better to separate all lamb meals, and all milk meals, for a few hours. Better yet, better to separate all lamb meals, and all milk-product meals, for several hours – who knows, perhaps the cheese we're eating contain some of the mother's milk. To be completely safe, let us separate all meat-based products (not only lamb) and all milk-based products (not only milk) for several hours. Once we have done that, let us assure that those two groups of products will be consumed in the same dishes – two sets of dishes is warranted. And the washing of those dishes should be done in two separate sinks. Voila. And here we are, more than 3,000 years afterwards, with a very specific set of laws regarding the strict separation of meat and milk. Every single product that comes to our mouth is labeled: Is it milk? Is it meat? Is it Neither? Every single meal is carefully planned so it would not violate the other.

And all of this comes from a single verse – "Though shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk." Amazing.

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron

Parashat Yitro, Exodus 18:1 - 21:23

This week’s portion is the portion of Matan Torah – the awesome event of Giving the Torah to Israel by God. This is perhaps the most important, most defining moment in the young life of this multitude of slaves who are about to become the Children of Israel. A moment so potent and so dramatic that its effect stays with us even today, more than 3,000 years later. Indeed, receiving the Jewish constitution straight from the hands of God is an event that could not be overemphasized in its importance.

This short post, obviously, is not the proper arena to discuss the multitude of issues surrounding the Commandments given to the Children of Israel. For example, “I am the Lord Your God” – the first of them is, for many (including Leibovitz), not only the most important of them all but in fact encapsulates the entire Torah in one sentence. For others (including one of Leibovitz’s preeminent students, Prof. Assa Kasher) “You shall have no lord other than me” is the most pertinent Commandment to Judaism. Still others question the number ten with regards to the Commandments. Finally, arguments abound as to the exact content and nature the Second Commandments.

As I said, this forum is not the proper place to discuss these issues. I do urge you, however, every single week but this week in particular, to examine the text of the portion itself, and see for yourselves why this classic text hasn’t lost its appeal thousands of years after it was first introduced.

In my short time today, I’d like to make two comments on issues the preceded the actual giving of the Torah: Yitro (or Jethro)’s Advice, and the preparation for the event.

Yitro’s Advice

Moshe’s father-in-law, Yitro, comes to visit him, accompanied by Moshe’s wife – which he hasn’t seen in a while – and his two kids. (This is one of the earliest documented examples of a leader who gave everything to his People, including sacrificing his own family life). As the morning comes, Moshe is hard at work: “And on the next day Moshe sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moshe from the morning until the evening.” (Exodus 18:13). Yitro is shocked: “Why are you sitting on your own while the entire people standing about you from morning until evening?” And Moshe answers: “Because the people come to me to seek God; should they have a dispute they come to me, and I will judge between a man and his fellow man, and I have notified them of the laws of God and his Torah.” (Ex. 18:14-16). Now at this point, many of the commentators ascribe Moshe’s exclusive behavior to the fact that he is an inexperienced leader, and perhaps could not think of delegating any of the divine authorities he was given. But I suspect something else may be at play here. Recall that Moshe was raised among royalty. Surely he hasn’t seen King Pharaoh sitting all day judging “small claims” between the people. He – in my mind – had a larger agenda than judging small claim: A unified law – the law of God, of course – that he would announce and that would apply equally to each member of this new community. This is why he did not want – or use – any other person.

But Yitro overcomes these grandiose aspirations by simple reasoning: “What you are doing is not right; you shall wear yourself out, and so too this people that is with you, as this is too heavy a burden for you – you cannot do it by yourself.” (Ex. 18:17) Hence Yitro’s advice, in essence to nominate judges of small claims (“for every ten”), judges of general disputes (“for every fifty”), judges of appeals (“for every hundred”), and quasi- Supreme Court judges (“for thousands”). Moshe would remain as the ultimate arbiter, in case a hard issue of law is not resolves below him. (Until today, many legal systems in Europe work according to this model precisely).

What’s fascinating to me is the link – which I have not found anywhere in the commentaries – between this advice and the Ten Commandments. Somehow, it is very clear to me that once Moshe had to let go of his “personal” approach to preaching the new law, he had to come up with a bold new concept – announcing the entire law to everyone at the same time, so they would all – including the Judges – know what the law precisely is. This is in my mind what prompted the entire idea of announcing the Ten Commandments (and the way they were announced – see below).

I cannot finish this comment without reciting the beautiful list of traits that was sought in a judge 3,000 years ago. With all the incredible advancement of legal research since that time, I could not think today of a more succinct, elegant, and ideal set of requests from a judge as stated by Yitro: “You shall seek of the entire nation exceptional people, who fear God, who are people of truth, and who despise greed.” (Ex. 18:21)

The Preparation for Giving of the Torah

The scenes preceding the Giving of the Torah are among the most visual, dramatic, and most detailed in the entire cannon. You could actually place yourself as a fly on the wall (or on a tent-post) in the Israeli camp, looking at those people who are now ordered to wash their clothes – for the first time in the three months since they left Egypt, to keep away from the big mountain, to abstain from sex, and generally to thoroughly prepare for the big moment for the duration of three days. And then the constituent moment itself: “On the third day, as morning dawned, there were loud voices, and lightning, and a dark cloud descended on the mountain, and the voice of the Shofar came very loud – and all the people in the camp were very fearful.” (Ex. 19:16; the description goes on and on – see there).

This preparation (and the exacting language in which it is described) is indeed special, and was probably meant to detract the people of Israel from their every-day hardships in the desert. But in my mind it was meant to serve another purpose, on which I pointed earlier: Now that Moshe would not be available to every person as a judge on a daily basis, he wanted to guarantee that his (or God’s) law would still rule throughout, and apply equally to each member of the group. But in order to achieve such a feat something special is required. Moshe could not have done that merely by an announcement. He needed much more than that; he needed drama, he needed suspense, he needed something that everyone would be eagerly waiting for (and afraid of at the same time). This is what he had in mind, and the impressive result is before us.

Did it work? We’ll have to wait four weeks before we read about the Golden Calf. So the short answer, unfortunately, is “no.” But was there is a silver lining there as well? Let me know what you think.

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron