Facing our Body Image

As a result of circumcision Abraham’s body would become perfect.  With the foreskin remaining he was not perfect physically.  Once the foreskin was circumcised his body would be perfect, it would be unblemished.

 As I was driving to the grocery store a couple of days ago I listened to the above words of a recorded shiur on my iTrip player, words regarding Genesis 17 and what it means that Abraham was to be perfect (v.1). These comments immediately brought a smile to my face and I couldn’t help but think; “no wonder the commandment of circumcision wasn’t given to women for we would never be convinced that our bodies are perfect or unblemished even if HaShem said so.  Yet, on the other hand, we women would also be highly insulted by the suggestion that our bodies were not considered perfect already.”  Perhaps HaShem did not give the commandment of circumcision to women due to our innate “body image” which would make it impossible for us to accept our bodies as perfected while at the same time finding insult in the idea that our natural bodies are less than perfect to begin with. In this way, circumcision and women would have been a no-win situation.

In taking on Torah observance through a Messianic perspective, I quickly became aware that the issue of circumcision was a heavily debated and hot topic.  Personally, I preferred to let the guys “duke this one out”, for after all, conversations focused on the male anatomy didn’t seem very suitable or pertinent for me as a woman.  But over the past months, with the recent attention upon Divine Invitation versus One Law theology, I have found myself contemplating and considering circumcision as presented in the Apostolic Scriptures. For ultimately this topic greatly affects the “body image” of Gentile believers as a whole. 

It seems that there are two ways to look at it, similar to a woman’s perspective of body image.  The first is to understand that through Yeshua, apart from circumcision, Gentile believers are perfected; they are part of the House of Israel with all the rights, privileges and obligations of the physical children of Abraham.  This is the view of One Law, even as Tim Hegg writes in Fellow Heirs; “The Gentiles were to be received as though they were circumcised even before they underwent the physical cutting of the flesh . .” [1] Despite the fact that the One Law camp accepts believing Gentiles as perfectly equal to Israel (although ethnically distinct) this very understanding undermines the concept of One Law itself. For if Gentile believers are exempt from circumcision, through Yeshua, the place they occupy within Israel is really “One Law minus one”.  The question is then raised if such inequality regarding the mitzvot is valid.  How can Gentile believers be considered perfectly equal to Israel if they are not equally obligated to the whole Torah as Israel is?

On the other hand is the Divine Invitation camp. Like the woman who is insulted by the notion that her physical body is considered less than perfect based on the standards or definitions of society or the media, Divine Invitation understands that Gentiles do not have equal rights, privileges and obligations with the physical children of Israel for this was never G-d’s intent.  Just as “big is beautiful” and “black is beautiful” so Gentiles are beautiful because they are blessed through Yeshua in the family of G-d in a way distinct from their Jewish brethren.  Gentiles are invited to participate in Torah instead of obligated to Torah for Gentiles are not Jews. To define Gentile believers as having the exact role and responsibility as legal Israel is to blurr the line of distinction and ultimately is an insult to the grace of HaShem.  The question raised in this line of thinking is how are we to understand the Gentile’s citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel as described by Paul in Ephesians 2?  What exactly does it mean that Gentiles are “Abraham’s seed” and “fellow heirs” with Israel as presented in Galatians 3 & 4? 

According to Daniel Lancaster in the introduction to the second edition of Grafted In, the term “commonwealth” would have been understood by Paul as defining an “imperial power”.  Because Israel at the time was not an imperial power, the citizenship of Gentiles within the commonwealth of Israel is understood as something yet future.  For Israel will not attain the status of imperial power until the Messianic era. [2] Therefore, in the meantime, the Gentile believer assumes “an ambiguous and tenuous status among the people of G-d . .” [3]

The differences between the camps are no surprise from a womanly perspective, for the exact same outcome is true regarding body image.  If a woman allows her body image to be dictated by the common definitions of society or the media she ends up facing inevitable inequality for no two women are exactly alike physically.  If a woman refuses to allow her body image to be defined by common denominators she ends up in a state of ambiguity in which beauty is subjective and self-defined.  The same is true regarding the perspectives of One Law versus Divine Invitation.  One leads to inequality by maintaining a common definition, the other leads to ambiguity through rejection of a common definition.

Not surprisingly, the outlook regarding circumcision is different between the two perspectives. For the One Law advocate the tension of “One Law minus one” cannot be maintained and therefore it is understood that circumcision was expected of Gentile believers as a commandment of HaShem.  Once the Gentile believer matured in the faith and would not be tempted to view circumcision from the rabbinic legal viewpoint of conversion in order to secure salvation, the Gentile was then obligated to be circumcised as a true “seed of Abraham”.  Despite the fact that circumcision is never commanded of Gentile believers in the Apostolic Scriptures, the case of Paul’s circumcision of Timothy is used to defend this perspective.

For the Divine Invitation advocate the Apostolic Scriptures speaks for itself. Since circumcision is never commanded of Gentiles and continually prohibited by Paul the Gentile is not obligated to this command.  Yet, Paul admonishes Gentiles to “celebrate the Festival” (of Passover) in 1 Corinthians 5:8, likening Yeshua to the korban Pesach. Such observance is unlawful apart from circumcision based on Exodus 12:48 and carries with it the severe penalty of karet or being cut-off from the believing community and losing one’s share in the World to Come.   

Is there any way to reconcile our body image as Gentile believers within the family of G-d?  Or must Gentiles, like women, live in a world of fickleness that makes the topic of circumcision a no-win situation?  

In Galatians 3, Paul explains that the Gentile’s position as “Abraham’s seed” and “fellow heirs” with Israel is based on G-d’s promises to Abraham in Genesis 17;

“As for Me, this is My covenant with you:  You shall be the father of a multitude of nations; your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. . . I will ratify My covenant between Me and you and between your offspring (seed/zerah) after you;” (Genesis 17:4-5, 7 parenthesis mine)

HaShem promised Abraham that he would be the father of a multitude of nations. Although it is true that Abraham in his own right fathered many nations (as Ishmael became the father of 12 princes and the six sons of Keturah became six nations) this cannot be understood as fulfillment of the promise, for the covenant would be established through Isaac (v.19) and his descendents after him.  The sages of the Talmud (Shabbat 105a) understand the promise of fathering many nations to be fulfilled by Abraham’s influence upon the nations spiritually down through the ages, with each letter of his name understood as an acronym for different aspects of his affect upon the nations of the world.  In this view the promise is therefore fulfilled not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical or spiritual one.

Rambam explains that Abraham became the father of many nations via proselytes to Judaism who throughout history have come from many nations.  The difficulty with this view is that once one converts to Judaism they are no longer considered a goy but a legal and full child of Israel in every sense, a legal son of Abraham and not one of the nations.  Therefore in the most literal sense, proselytes do not fulfill the promise of Abraham’s multiplication as the father of many nations for the conversion of the nations causes Abraham to remain the father of but one nation, Israel.

The term “father of a multitude of nations” (av hamon goyim) is an awkward term for it indicates that although Abraham is the father, his offspring from the nations still maintain their national identity. By literal definition this is impossible for a man cannot practically be considered a father to an individual who is not his natural offspring or legally adopted by him. Yet, this is exactly how Paul understands the term based on Galatians 3.

With this in mind an interesting paradox presents itself. For if G-d literally promised Abraham that those of the nations would be reckoned as his offspring (and thereby included in Israel), why is it that Exodus 12:48 commands that those of the nations must be circumcised in order to  partake of the korban Pesach and by extension be included in Israel?  Exodus 12 indicates that those of the nations cannot be included in Israel apart from circumcision. Circumcision reckons one as a Jew.  Yet, G-d promised Abraham that those of the nations would be reckoned as his offspring (included in Israel).  How can both be true?

Perhaps the answer to this paradox can be found in the first verse of Genesis 17, for it is here that G-d is referred to as El-Shaddai in Torah for the first time.  Although there are various understandings of El-Shaddai, according to Ramban, Shaddai is related to the word shoded (both having the shoresh shin-dalet-dalet), which means “manipulate”. Therefore El Shaddai alludes to G-d as one who manipulates the entire world. [4] Manipulation related to shoded is not in the miraculous sense (such as splitting the sea) which involves a suspension of nature itself.  Instead shoded means a manipulation of the natural world through subduing of it, or a manipulating of the world within nature and not apart from it.  [5]

When HaShem tells Abraham that he will have a child with Sarah, this requires a manipulation of Abraham’s natural situation. It is natural for a couple to have children, but it is not natural for Abraham to have a child with Sarah (his barren, post-menopausal wife). In the same way, the two additional aspects of the covenant given in Genesis 17 — Abraham’s multiplication and the giving of the Land — require HaShem’s manipulation of the natural in order for the promises to be achieved.  It is natural for a people to conquer a Land, but it is unnatural for a small nation of desert nomads to conquer a nation of giants. It is natural for a man to be a father, but it is unnatural for a man to be a father to individuals who are not of his physical or legal lineage.  Therefore, HaShem speaks to Abraham regarding the promises of the covenant of circumcision using the name El Shaddai for the promises can only be realized through His manipulation (shoded) of the natural.

In Galatians 3, Paul explains that the promises of Genesis 17 were made to Abraham and to his singular seed which is Christ.  These same promises were confirmed or ratified in Christ.  Paul also explains that since the promise came before the Law, the Law cannot annul the promise (v.17). Although Exodus 12 states that a Gentile can only be reckoned as a native born via circumcision, G-d’s promise to Abraham was that he would be built into a father of many nations.

Before the coming of Messiah the promise of Abraham’s multiplication could not be realized for only by the natural means of physical lineage or legal conversion was Abraham’s (and by extension Israel’s) family increased. Just as HaShem manipulated Abraham’s natural situation to produce the son of promise (Isaac), so the “seed” of promise (Yeshua) was the means by which the natural situation of the nations would be manipulated in order to produce sons of the nations for Abraham.  Paul sums this up in Galatians 3:7 . . “they which are of faith. . are the children of Abraham”.  This is unnatural for no one becomes an offspring by faith and no one becomes a father by faith. But G-d’s promise of multiplication to Abraham required the manipulation of the natural.

Yet, all this exegesis only brings us to a truth wholeheartedly agreed upon by both One Law and Divine Invitation, that Gentiles are children of Abraham, his seed and heirs through faith in Yeshua.  The question that still remains is in what “sense” are we Abraham’s seed and how exactly are Gentiles included in the House of Israel after having come to faith?

In Galatians 4:28 Paul says; “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”  Paul then goes on to explain that just as he that was born after the flesh (Ishmael) persecuted him of the spirit (Isaac) “even so it is now”.  Here, Paul likens the children of promise through faith in Yeshua to Isaac, Abraham’s son of promise, and uses this position of promise to explain the present persecution of believers by those born after the flesh (legal/ethnic Israel).  Certainly Isaac’s position as son of promise was not an ambiguous spiritual or metaphorical position to be realized at some future time, but was a reality in history which brought with it real persecution.  Why would we think differently regarding the Gentile’s position in Israel as a child of promise, especially since real and serious persecution was being faced, which would have been unlikely if Gentiles were merely understood as fulfilling an ethereal role as sons of Abraham in an ambiguous spiritual sense?

But this doesn’t solve the problem of apparent inequality in mitzvot observance and obligation regarding circumcision for the Gentile believer.  How can such inequality exist if the Gentiles are included in the House of Israel in the same respect as the Jews?  In an exceedingly interesting article on Lech Lecha author Yitzchak Etshalom points out that of all the transgressions which bring the consequence of karet, only two –neglecting circumcision and partaking of Pesach uncircumcised –are sins of commission.  In considering why these two particular sins of commission result in karet, Etshalom understands circumcision and Pesach to be the most fundamental requirements for membership in Am Yisrael.  Without these requirements one cannot be a member of Israel and is therefore “cut off” not by punishment but by natural result.  [6]

Two elements that must be shared among people for a nation or community to exist are; a.) a common history and b.) a common destiny.  Pesach represents the common history of Israel, a history of miraculous redemption at the hand of HaShem.  Circumcision represents the common destiny of Israel, a destiny of perfection in which the physical barrier to obedience and righteousness (symbolized by the male foreskin) is taken away (a barrier understood as the evil inclination).  Through Yeshua, Gentile believers share in these common elements as children of Abraham in the most profound and “real” sense.  We have a history of miraculous redemption and a destiny of perfection, the physical proof of which is not found in a circumcised body, but in the physical reality of Yeshua’s death and resurrection. 

. . . . . . .

It would seem that a proper body image within the household of faith is reconciled through a perspective of promise rather than a perspective tending toward egalitarianism (One Law) or elitism (Divine Invitation).  Just as Israel is considered the children of Abraham through the promised son Isaac, so the goyim (of the nations) are considered the children of Abraham through the promised son Yeshua.  In the words of Paul;

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.  (Romans 9:8 ESV)

 If only a woman’s body image issues could be so nicely reconciled : )

______________________________________________________

[1]  Tim Hegg, Fellow Heirs (Jews and Gentiles together in the Family of God), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton CO, 2003 p. 82.

[2] D. Thomas Lancaster, Grafted In (Israel, Gentiles and the Mystery of the Gospel), First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, 2009, p. 5.

[3]  Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster, One Law and the Messianic Gentile, Messiah Journal Issue 101, Summer 2009, First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, p. 55.

[4]  Ramban as cited in, Mrs. Chana Prero, Parashat Lech Lecha, available at: http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/1085/single/

[5]  Ibid.

[6] Yitzchak Etshalom, Parashat Lekh L’kha (B’rit Milah and Karet Punishment or Natural Result?), available at: 

http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/br/dt.58.1.03.html

 

A Serious Distribution Error

After taking a two week vacation between Yom Kippur and Shemini Atzeret I returned to work at the hospital to find that one of the patients I was assigned to had an active case of swine flu.  In the interceding two weeks time, not only have I taken care of a swine flu patient, I also have been made aware of more than a dozen cases of swine flu among acquaintances, friends, and extended family of people I know.  In the face of this growing reality, I have been anticipating the arrival of the H1N1 vaccine at my workplace.

The hospital system I work for is one of the largest in Northeast Ohio, with over 150 locations.  Yet, as of last week, the swine flu vaccine was not available at the facility I work at.  Although 15,000 doses were ordered through the Ohio Department of Health and were expected to arrive early in the week, only 200 doses were delivered to the main campus of the hospital system.  Another hospital system in the area (the largest in the entire state) received none of their ordered swine flu vaccinations.  Later in the week I was told by my manager that I should seek out the vaccination through my county health department.

By the end of the week a most startling news story hit the media. Although the major hospital systems in Northeast Ohio (and more than half of the hospitals throughout the state) were without swine flu vaccinations, 800 doses of the vaccine had been received by a regional drug store chain.  Nurses and doctors involved in direct patient care with people at elevated risk for flu complications could not get a swine flu shot at work, but they could go to the Walgreens around the corner to receive one. 

Needless to say the tension and outrage regarding this was immediate being that the H1N1 vaccine is in limited supply and only a certain number of doses are allocated to each county. Frustrated hospital leaders inundated the governor of the state with phone calls regarding this mishap and were told that “poor planning” by the state Department of Health and “errors in distribution” were to blame.  On Friday, coordinators from Ohio’s seven hospital regions were in the state capital trying to work out problems with the state Health Department.  Not surprisingly, the hospital representatives were unable to ascertain who exactly was in charge of H1N1 vaccine allotment.

In the midst of all the confusion and tension regarding the swine flu vaccination this past week, I found myself considering what perhaps could be called the most serious distribution error every known to mankind.   Approximately 340 years after G-d destroyed the earth with a flood, sparing Noah and his family and commanding them to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the land” the story of the Tower of Babel is presented in Genesis 11.   

Despite G-d’s command that mankind was to spread out and disperse themselves in various areas of the earth, the generation of dispersion, known as Dor HaFlaga, had a different outlook regarding such distribution. 

The whole earth was of one language and of common purpose.  And it came to pass when they migrated from the east they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.  They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them in fire.” And the brick served them as stone, and the bitumen served them as mortar.  And they said, “come let us build us a city, and the tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth.”  (Genesis 11:1-4, Stone Chumash).

Typically, the story of Babel is understood as an attempt by united mankind to build an impressively tall tower that would reach into the heavens in order to display their self-sufficiency, strength, and technological ingenuity as a direct rebellion against HaShem.  Numerous conjectures are offered as to mankind’s motives in this situation, ranging from a desire to be like G-d and a focus upon worshipping themselves, to a preoccupation with their own creativity.  But at the heart of this story is to be found a serious flaw, a management error of laughable and unbelievable proportions. For if the Dor HaFlaga desired to build an impressively tall tower, and seriously believed that they could get near to or even reach the heavens, why would they construct such a monument of human superiority and rebellion . . . in a valley? 

The account begins with the whole of mankind being of “one language” and “one purpose”.  In the literal Hebrew the phrase udevarim achadim (וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים) (often translated “and of one speech”) has many subtle shades of meaning.  Devar can refer to words, concepts or philosophies and/or material things or objects.  Achadim can mean “unified” or “few”. [1] Therefore, udevarim achadim can mean that the Dor HaFlaga had few material things, that they were unified in words, or that they were united regarding concepts or philosophies.  Because v. 1 already states that the people were of “one language” (safah echat/ שָׂפָה אֶחָת) it would be redundant to understand udevarim achadim as meaning “and of one speech”. 

Therefore, Torah presents a united mankind that is either void of material possessions or unified in concepts or philosophies (or both).  Because achadim carries with it the idea of “few” it could also be understood that instead of being unified regarding many concepts or philosophies, mankind at the time of Babel was unified regarding “few” or basic concepts that they all held in common.

This united philosophy resulted in their “migrating from the east” (mikedem/ מִקֶּדֶם).  Kedem in Hebrew can mean “east” as in direction or it can mean “origins”.  Therefore the people could be understood to be traveling away to the east or traveling away from their origins. [2] Chazal point out that the root of kedem (qof-dalet-mem) is the same root found in the word kadum  meaning “ancient” indicating that the Dor HaFlaga were traveling away from the Ancient One (HaShem).  The same idea is found in the understanding of traveling away from their origins, for the original commandment given to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1) was related to mankind multiplying and dispersing throughout the earth and not uniting as a single entity.  In this way, the united Dor HaFlaga traveled away or walked away from this original command of HaShem.

In describing the migration of mankind as being “from the east” the point of origin is given but a destination is not.  The people weren’t traveling to any specific place but from a point of origin in the east.  The destination was not Shinar, but as they traveled they found the valley of Shinar to be the most suitable place to stop and dwell. [3] Archaeologically, Shinar is understood to have been located in what is modern-day Iraq in the southern plains where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers intersect — a lush valley well-watered by two rivers and approximately 600 feet above sea level. 

Because valleys are void of natural building materials, such as rock and stone, necessary to build a city or a tower, the people use the clay found in the river beds to fashion bricks.  In this way the people had “few material things” (udevarim achadim) and resorted to human ingenuity and technology to meet their needs.  The reason for building a city and a tower reaching toward heaven was to “make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth”. 

At this point the entire story takes on an almost ridiculous and nonsensical feel.  The people want to build a tower whose “head” is literally “in the heavens” and they choose to do so in a valley 600 feet above sea level.  They are convinced that if they do this and “make a name for ourselves”, becoming recognized or noticed, that somehow this will keep them from being dispersed across the whole earth. They construct a ziggurat tower in the style of ancient Mesopotamia.  A structure made of simple clay bricks being no taller than seven stories.  Did they really believe they could fight G-d in heaven from this vantage point?  What overpowering recognition would this tower truly afford them? What could they possibly have been thinking here?

In the gemara of Talmud Sotah 11a, the sages point out that G-d’s promise to never again destroy the world by a flood, applied only to mankind as a whole.  In Genesis 9:11, G-d promised that “all flesh” (kol basar/ כָּל-בָּשָׂר) would never again be cut-off or destroyed.  Based on this all inclusive terminology the Dor HaFlaga reasoned that the possibility existed for a segment of humanity to be destroyed by a flood due to sin; for HaShem promised not to destroy “all flesh” but He did not promise not to destroy “some flesh”.  Therefore, to avoid this possibility they decided to remain united and not disperse as G-d commanded.  As a united humanity they used G-d’s promise as insurance against the judgment of a flood as punishment for sin.  The Dor HaFlaga could live their lives in whatever manner they saw fit and not worry about being destroyed as long as they stayed together.  This was the philosophical outlook they had in common, a philosophy that used the word of G-d as an enabler for sin.   

So entrenched were they in this philosophy that together they sought out the most perfect setting in which to live it out.  Leaving behind the original commandment to Noah to repopulate and fill the earth, they traveled together from the east until they found a place that was most suitable to accomplish their goals.  As a valley just barely above sea level and encompassed on three sides by major rivers, Shinar was a natural flood plain.

By establishing the central base for all humanity in an area that was prone to flooding the Dor HaFlaga in essence used G-d’s oath to tie His hands regarding judgment or destruction upon them via natural consequences due to sin.  The place most likely to flood would be the place of greatest safety from G-d’s destructive judgment allowing mankind to live however they pleased without fear or accountability.  

According to Bereishit Rabbah 38:1 the Tower of Babel had an idol on top of it with a sword in its hand appearing to wage war against HaShem himself.  Interestingly, the imagery of this midrash (although not presented literally in Torah) is reminiscent of the two cherubim HaShem placed at the entrance to Eden to block Adam and Eve from entering there and eating of the Tree of Life after the fall. The two cherubim had swords in their hands that flashed and turned in every direction.  Although HaShem had originally permitted Adam and Eve to eat of this tree, after the fall it was prohibited to them. The flaming swords reminded Adam and Eve that this was G-d’s word and will regarding their post-fall circumstances. In the same way, Paul, in Ephesians 6:17 likens the word of G-d to a “sword”.  

The imagery of the idol with sword in hand at the top of the tower illustrates that the Dor Haflaga pointed G-d’s word right back in His face and challenged His authority with His own word as their weapon. Although He had destroyed all of mankind with a flood before, He could not do so now, after the flood, as His word promised that such destruction upon all flesh would never be repeated again.  By building a tower and city, the people made a name for themselves, establishing the valley of Shinar as the official capital of all humanity united together.  This central base would insure that no matter how vast in number mankind became and how far they spread out upon the earth, all humanity would have a central connection to Shinar and would therefore never truly be dispersed.

When HaShem descended to look at the city and tower in the valley below, He described the structures as those built by the “sons of man”.  The Hebrew phraseology is unusual here being b’nai HaAdam (בְּנֵי הָאָדָם) literally; “the sons of the man”.  Genesis Rabbah 38:9 understands this to be referring to united mankind following in the footsteps of “the man”, Adam, through an attitude of ungratefulness.

When Adam was confronted by HaShem regarding his sin he blamed it on Eve, for if HaShem had not given Eve to him the sin would not have occurred.  Although this statement is true it smacks with ingratitude for Eve was given to Adam out of G-d’s goodness to him.  In the same way the Dor HaFlaga used G-d’s goodness to them, the promise never to destroy all flesh by a flood again, as an excuse for sin.  The logic of united humanity was correct and true regarding G-d’s promise not to destroy or judge them as a whole, for Genesis 11:7 states that all that the people proposed to do would not be withheld from them.  There was literally nothing they could do that would bring G-d’s destruction or natural consequences upon them as long as they were united as one.  They could live as they liked without accountability or obligation to HaShem.  

Mankind was not meant to live in such unity and therefore G-d forcefully dispersed them upon the face of the earth.  The world was to be populated by numerous people groups each with its own language, culture, philosophy and opinions.  The sages have long recognized that truth is not to be found in a united, unified and homogeneous environment, for inevitably truth in all its depth and beauty emerges from the interaction of opposing viewpoints and opinions.  The fathers of the Talmud understood that the Torah has 70 faces, or numerous facets, all of which are true although different.  The Tanya presents the midrash that at Sinai 600,000 people received the Torah with each individual representing a different approach or outlook regarding what they saw and heard there.  In this way the Torah has the potential of being explained in 600,000 different ways. [4]

Mankind united and unified in philosophy and concepts regarding G-d’s word ultimately has a one dimensional, severely limited and handicapped view of truth.  The Dor HaFlaga did not recognize G-d’s goodness in the promise He made to Noah, but instead saw only a logical means of escaping judgment upon them. They did not consider that discipline was beneficial for growth in godliness and evidence of G-d’s fatherly care and love for them.  Their united philosophy removed the possibility for individuals to personally trust in HaShem.

With this in mind I couldn’t help but think of Yeshua’s prayer in John 17.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:20-23 ESV)

 I have heard many a sermon in which the words of this prayer are lamented and understood to be unanswered because of the numerous splits and divisions among the denominations and factions of believers.  If only we could all see “eye to eye” and be united as one in belief and doctrine, for only then will this prayer be answered and the glory of G-d in Yeshua be perfectly evident.  

 Could it be that the situation which caused the Dor HaFlaga to be confused and dispersed by HaShem Himself is the same situation that Yeshua desires regarding his own? A homogeneous, united assembly of believers void of differences in outlook, philosophy and opinion?

 Yeshua is not praying here for relative unity among believers, but for relational unity that mirrors the unity that the Son has with the Father.  The Father is in Yeshua and Yeshua (the Son) is in the Father.  Every father is “in” his son for it is the father who determines the sex of the child and the genetic make-up through his seed.  The son’s physical attributes and characteristics resemble his Father whose seed is in him.  A son, on the other hand, is “in” the father not via the genetics of procreation but via association.  The son does not determine his father’s physical attributes or characteristics.  It is not from the son that the father’s resemblance to the son is achieved.  The son is in the father through birth into a certain family with a certain name, history and heritage. Although the father and son are related to each other in different ways, the father by means of genetics and the son by means of association, they yet are considered to be one.

 The same holds true for believers in Yeshua, for within the family of faith are those  genetically related to him, who are ethnically Jews with the genetic seed of Abraham flowing through their veins.  But, there are also those who are part of G-d’s family by means of association, Gentiles who have no Jewish genetics but who belong to the same family via association with Yeshua’s name.  The two are to be viewed as perfectly one because Yeshua is within them all.  For the spirit of holiness, resides in each of them equally.  This is the glory of Yeshua through the Father. 

 Despite this relational unity, there have been and will be differences of opinion, debates and various philosophical viewpoints within the family of faith.  Such things need not be seen as negative, bad or threatening but rather as healthy and productive means by which sparkling facets of G-d’s word and truth are revealed, understood and considered by believers as a whole.

. . . . . . . .

It would seem that working under the united banner of “Department of Health” provided protection and anonymity to those personally responsible for serious distribution problems regarding the swine flu vaccine within the state of Ohio.  At this point, no one really knows who determined the amounts and priorities of the H1N1 vaccine dispersed throughout the state in the past week.  Although health officials have promised that all shipments of the vaccine will go to hospitals and local health departments over the next two weeks they also pointed out that a lack of vaccine to hospitals was due to orders of single-dose syringes which are the form least available at this time.  Hospitals and other organizations (such as Walgreens) that did received vaccines last week were those that had ordered multi-dose vials or nasal spray forms which are more readily available.  

What seemed to be a blatantly one-sided mishap on the part of the state Health Department, also involved ordering preferences and limited production of certain forms of the vaccine as details in the distribution problem.  Inevitably there are always “two sides of the coin” as they say, for the greatest distribution error is to view any situation in life from a single perspective or vantage point alone.  

 

[1] Rabbi David Lapin, Dor HaFlaga (1986), audio recording available at: http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=6070

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Introduction to Tanya, as cited in, Tali Loewenthal, Unity in Diversity, available at:  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/926429/jewish/Unity-in-Diversity.htm

Burden of Proof

A couple of weeks ago I had opportunity to attend the Bat Mitzvah of a friend’s daughter.  The event was held on Shabbat/Shemini Atzeret at a local Reform Synagogue. Part of the Shabbat worship/Bat Mitzvah ceremony included the calling forth of pre-selected individuals to open and close the doors of the Aron (ark) where the Torah scrolls are housed.  I was one of the individuals selected by the family to have the honor of opening the doors of the Aron prior to the Torah service.  As I stood on the platform in front of the Aron and gently opened the left-sided door (as another woman opened the right-sided door) before me stood the most ornate and impressive Torah scrolls I had ever seen. 

 Two larger scrolls housed inside the Aron were ornately dressed in bejeweled mantels with the Etz-Chayim adorned in large silver plated filigree crowns.  A third Sefer Torah was smaller in size and a bit plainer in appearance but still lovely to look at.  The rabbi selected the smaller/plainer scroll for the Bat Mitzvah girl to carry throughout the sanctuary and to read from.   

 Later, during the reception that followed, I commented to the girl’s father regarding the impressive appearance of the community Torah scrolls.  The father explained that it was best for his daughter to carry the smaller/plainer scroll due to her petite size and frame. Being ethnically Asian (adopted by the family) the Bat Mitzvah girl was less than 5 feet tall and certainly weighed under 100 lbs.  In this way she would not be overburdened in carrying the Torah for as her father commented; “the larger Sefer Torah might be nicer to look at but the smaller Sefer Torah is lighter to carry”.

 I later thought about the truth of this statement regarding my own situation.  I have, for the last three years, worshipped with a small Torah community that follows a triennial cycle of weekly Torah readings.  We study the Torah in lighter portions that are “easier to carry” and not overburdening, so to speak.  This past Simchat Torah we completed our three year triennial rotation and rolled the scroll back to Genesis 1.  For the next three years we will again follow a system of triennial readings, although it will be different from our previous schedule.

 Previously we worked our way through the Torah from Genesis-Deuteronomy chapter by chapter in sections that took three years to complete.  This time we have decided to adopt a triennial schedule, used in Conservative synagogues in the US, in which 1/3 of each weekly parashah (based on the yearly cycle) is read and studied.  Because we are adopting this system in the third year of its rotation, each week we will consider the concluding 1/3 of the weekly parashah. 

 This past week the Torah portion from parashah B’reisheet was Genesis 5:1-6:8.  In reading through the verses I immediately became disheartened.  This portion of scripture begins with the genealogy of mankind through the godly line of Adam to Noah and ends with a few short verses about mankind’s depravity and HaShem’s plan to destroy all people and creatures with the exception of Noah.  Not only was this portion “light” and “manageable” it seemed almost “too skimpy” compared to the vast richness and depth of Genesis 1-4 that precedes it. 

 Yet, in the midst of this portion the concepts of rest from burden and easing of toil regarding Torah were once again presented to me. 

 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.                    (Genesis 5:28-29 KJV)

 Noah’s name contains the same Hebrew root (nun-chet  נח) as the word nuach (נוּח) which means “rest”.  Numerous conjectures are given regarding the concept of rest ascribed to Noah.  According to Zohar (Bereshit, Section 1) when G-d cursed the earth after Adam sinned, Adam questioned how long the earth would be subject to the curse.  G-d told Adam that the curse would remain until a descendent of his would be born circumcised.  Lamech’s son was born circumcised and therefore he named his son “rest” (Noah) with the understanding that through him the curse upon the earth would be eased and mankind would find rest.  As an adult, Noah invented farming tools which aided man greatly regarding the work and toil of tilling the ground.

 Along the same lines Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer presents the tradition that the curse on the earth brought upon Adam would be in effect only during his lifetime.  Noah, being the first descendent of the godly line to be born after Adam’s death was named “rest” with the anticipation that the curse of the ground would begin to abate at the time of his birth.  Another midrash explains that until the time of Noah the earth would produce only thorns and thistles when wheat was planted, after Adam had died and Noah was born, the curse began to lighten as the ground would produce wheat along with weeds of thorns and thistles.  [1]

 Yet, the sages take note of the fact that Noah’s name does not correspond to its interpretation as given in Genesis 5:29.  Although Noah’s name means “rest” (nuach) the name is interpreted as bringing “comfort” (y’nachamenu) to mankind regarding the curse of the ground.  Although rest (nuach) and comfort (nacham) sound similar in Hebrew the actual meanings of the two words are different as are the root words they are based upon.  Noah is based upon the root nun-chet (נח) while nacham (comfort) is based upon the root nun-chet-mem (נחם).

 Genesis Rabbah 25:2 explains that “the name does not correspond to the interpretation and the interpretation does not correspond to the name” regarding Genesis 5:29.  In order to read the text without discrepancy it should state “he called his name Noach” (rest) for “this one shall give us rest (yanichenu) ,or, “he called his name “nacham” (comfort) for he shall give us comfort (y’nachamenu).  But in the literal Hebrew Lamech names his son “rest” (Noah) because he will give mankind “comfort” (y’nachamenu).  In order to reconcile this discrepancy some English translations, including the Stone Chumash, translate y’nachamenu as “rest” instead of the more literal “comfort”.  In this way Genesis 5:29 then reads; “And he called his name Noah, saying, “this one will bring rest . . .” This translation reflects Rashi’s rendered of the verse based on the understanding that rest and comfort are very closely related concepts.  Another midrash, found in the Sefer HaYasar attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by explaining that “in general” Lamech’s son was referred to as “Noah” but the birth name given to him was actually Menachem (the comforter).  [2]

 Interestingly, nacham (nun-chet-mem) is found two additional times in the ending section of this parashah (chapter 6) both related to G-d’s decision to bring the flood upon the earth.  In Genesis 6:6; “And HaShem reconsidered (vayinachem) having made man on earth and he had heartfelt sadness”.  And in Genesis 6:7; “for I have reconsidered (nicham’ti) having made them.” In relation to HaShem in this scenario nacham is understood as reconsideration rather than comfort.

 According to Rashi, at this point in human history G-d turned from dealing with mankind from a perspective of Divine Mercy and instead began to deal with mankind from a perspective of Divine Justice.  In this way, nacham (comfort) in a broad/general sense encompasses the idea of re-evaluating a situation.  G-d re-evaluated the situation of man upon the earth and reconsidered what to do with mankind as a whole.  Nacham in its most primary understanding speaks of a new orientation, of viewing things differently than before.  [3]

 Some of the commentators understand that when Noah brought rest (through the invention of farming tools and/or the abating of the curse upon the ground with the death of Adam) it provided mankind with freedom and leisure that had not been previously known.  This leisure lead to the activities described in Genesis 6; in which the “sons of the rulers saw that the daughters of man were good and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose”.  “Sons of the rulers” is the Hebrew B’ney-HaElohim which literally means “sons of G-d”.  Because judges in Torah are referred to as elohim this phrase could be understood as speaking of the sons of rulers and princes who forcefully subjected women of the general populace to be taken as wives.  Yet, many commentators understand B’ney-HaElohim to be referring to the godly descendents of Seth while the “daughters of man” (implying a less spiritual position) refer to the descendents of Cain.  [4]

 With more free-time and leisure on their hands, the men of the godly line began to notice the beauty and desirability of women in the general populace and to socially interact with them in a way in which marriages resulted.  The men of godly descent could take whomever they desired as a wife from among the ungodly line of Cain for such women were not spiritually selective regarding the mates they would have.  Ultimately the spiritual depravity of mankind resulted to the point that “every product of the thoughts of his heart was but evil always”.  

 In this way Noah (rest) brought “comfort” (y’nachamenu) in the sense that mankind’s perspective of his earthly situation was re-evaluated and reconsidered.  Instead of viewing life as horrible and never-ending fruitless toil, with Noah came rest regarding the curse of the ground that provided comfort and leisure leading to a reorientation of life in general and marriage in particular.  This reorientation toward wickedness caused G-d to respond by reconsidering and re-evaluating His interactions with mankind.

 The extent of this reorientation is also seen in the genealogy of Noah.  Of the generations listed in Genesis 5, Noah begat children at a much older age, hundreds of years beyond those of the previous generations (not until he was 500 years old).  Various midrashim explain why this is so.  One tradition is that Noah refused to marry believing that his offspring would perish in the flood.  HaShem however ordered him to take a wife and produce children that the world could be repopulated after the flood. Another tradition has it that HaShem caused Noah to be impotent until age 500 (100 years prior to the flood).  In this way, Noah’s sons would be “young adults” when the flood arrived, mature enough to withstand the rigors of living upon the ark and yet young enough to avoid being tainted by the evil society in which they lived.  Whatever the case, Noah’s advanced age in fathering children hints at the fact that he had re-evaluated his own existence and had reoriented his thinking regarding marriage and fatherhood in a way that was much different than the generations prior to him. 

 Interestingly, the sages (Sanhedrin 98b) understand one of the names of Messiah to be Menachem (the comforter) based on Lamentations 1:16.  This presents something of a connection between Messiah and Noah.  Although Noah’s name is not literally “comforter” the “rest” his name represents is closely connected to the concept of comfort for all mankind which is related to a change in perspective. 

 In Matthew 11:28-30 Yeshua speaks of rest that he will give to those who are labored and heavy laden.  Ironically, this passage which focuses on rest for one’s soul and a yoke that is easy and light is one that has caused much burden and toil among scholars and commentators regarding its intended meaning.  Generally, the labor and heavy burden that Yeshua refers to is understood as the rulings of the rabbis, scribes, and Pharisees, also known as the Oral Law.  The term “yoke” as used in the Talmud often describes the whole Torah (written and Oral Law altogether).  With this in mind, Yeshua’s lighter yoke is understood to be his teaching and perspective on the written Torah which is light and easy as compared to rabbinic standards which include burdensome halachah and numerous fences. 

 David Bivin (New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus) disagrees with the popular understanding of Yeshua’s yoke as the written Torah unencumbered by oral tradition.  For Yeshua taught his disciples that the Pharisees sit in Moses seat (have authority to determine halachah) and that their rulings should be heeded (cf. Matthew 23:2-3).  Drawing heavily on the use of “yoke” in the apocryphal text of Ben Sira (chapters 6 and 51), Bivin understands Yeshua’s “yoke” to be an invitation for prospective disciples to join his “traveling school” and to take on advanced and serious Torah study (yoke) which is burdensome and difficult.  Although such intense study presents a very real burden, Yeshua assures that his “yoke is easy” for studying Torah with him will be “so exhilarating that you won’t even notice the yoke’s weight”. [5]

 Bivin considers Matthew 11:28-30 to be a “context-less saying” based on its sole occurrence in Matthew’s gospel and variation in the setting of preceding passages (including woes to the cities of Galilee and Yeshua’s thanksgiving to the Father) as compared to Luke’s gospel. [6] However, based on the arrangement of Matthew’s account, Bivin’s conjecture regarding Yeshua’s yoke as being an invitation to intense study makes some sense. 

 Matthew 11 begins with the account of John the Baptist sending two of his disciples to Yeshua to question if he is The Coming One (expected Messiah).  Yeshua’s reply includes quotations from Isaiah 35 and 61, as well as the admonition that “blessed in he who is not offended because of me”.  The Greek word translated “offended”, in 11:6,  is skandalizo (σκανδαλίζω) which figuratively can mean to “stumble” or “trip-up”.  Yeshua is warning his audience that understanding his role as Messiah is something that is not easy to grasp and could cause one to stumble.  Naturally then he might invite the disciples of John and others to join his traveling school and take on the burden of learning of him, a burden that would prove to be light, easy and exhilarating in the end. 

 But one detail that Bivin’s conjectures do not answer is why Yeshua’s audience is burdened and heavy laden to begin with.  What is it that is causing this burden?  Why exactly are they heavy laden?  Perhaps it could be suggested, based on the early content of Matthew 11, that the burden and heaviness is due to a lack of clarity regarding Yeshua’s role and purpose, which was the basis of John the Baptist’s question to him regarding “the Coming One”.  Yet, Yeshua’s words are recorded in the immediate framework and theme of woes that he pronounces on the impenitent cities of Galilee which had witnessed his mighty works firsthand.  The judgment upon these cities (Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum) will be so severe on the Day of Judgment that the judgment upon Sodom will seem light in comparison.  

 The cities in which Yeshua had been most active would see the most severe judgment.  Undoubtedly many listening as such woes were pronounced had been following Yeshua from town to town, learning from him, and seeking out his miracles.  Yet, as the gospels attest, many were undecided about him.  Much like the inhabitants of the cities of Galilee the crowds following Yeshua had witnessed his mighty works firsthand.  Would such severe judgment come upon them also?  Such doubts and questions about HaShem’s severe and unrelenting judgment would certainly make one feel burdened and heavy laden. 

 Perhaps it is to such burdened individuals that Yeshua is speaking in Matthew 11:28-30, to those who were struck by the woes pronounced upon the Galilean cities and who felt heavy personal responsibility and doubt regarding G-d’s judgment upon them.  Perhaps it is to these that Yeshua encourages “come to me” (or “follow at my side”, even more closely than before), in order to find rest.  The Greek word in v. 28 translated “rest” is anapauo (ἀναπαύω) which is used in the LXX to translate both nuach (rest) and nacham (comfort).  In v. 29 Yeshua again speaks of “rest”; for those who take his yoke upon them will “find rest for your souls”.  The Greek word for “rest” in this verse is anapausis (ἀνάπαυσις) which is used in the LXX to translate nuach (rest).

 Like Noah, Yeshua offers rest (nuach) to mankind that is closely associated with and related to comfort (nacham).  Noah brought mankind “rest” (nuach) from the physical and burdensome rigors of the cursed ground that resulted in nacham (comfort and leisure) that led to a re-evaluation of life and a new orientation regarding the physical union of man and woman in marriage.  In the same way, Yeshua offers “rest” (anapausis/nuach) on a spiritual level, rest for the soul regarding G-d’s severe judgment leading to destruction.  As Menachem (the comforter) predicted in Lamentations 11:16, Yeshua gives comfort (anapauo/nacham) to those who closely follow him, and learn of him, through a re-evaluation of life and a new orientation regarding the spiritual reality of judgment ahead and the World to Come.

  . . . . . . . .

Being instructed to remain on the platform, standing to the left-side of the Aron, I watched as the Bat Mitzvah girl joyfully brought the Sefer Torah around to the congregation in attendance that day. As she made her way back to the platform she eventually brought the Torah to me.  In a helpful and humorous manner the rabbi whispered that I should go ahead and touch the Torah Scroll adding, “don’t worry; you won’t be struck by lightning”. 

 Little did he realize that each erev Shabbat I touch a Sefer Torah, one that is much smaller and much plainer than the one the Bat Mitzvah girl carried that day.  The community I attend, with a tight and limited budget, owns what is considered a “practice” Torah scroll designed for a pre-bar/bat mitzvah boy or girl.  It stands roughly 2 feet in height and is adorned with a simple royal blue embroidered mantel.   There are no decorative crowns upon its plain wood etz-chayim and its simple metal breastplate is not encrusted with jewels.  It is plain and simple, non-burdensome and light.  But upon its non-kosher paper are contained words that are full and rich with meaning even in sections that on the surface seem to be “manageable” or even “mundane”.  

Actually, I might have hoped that lighting would have manifested as I touched the Sefer Torah at the Reform synagogue where my friend’s daughter’s Bat Mitzvah took place on Shemini Atzeret.  For such a sign may have provided a burden of proof . . .that the unsuspected goy on the platform is part of the covenant too : )

 

[1] Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer as cited in Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, New York, p. 27.

[2] Jewish Encyclopedia entry, Noah, available at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=318&letter=N&search=noah

[3] The Westwood Kehilla, Reflections Vaeschanan 5767: Comfort at Last, available at: http://sites.kehilla.org/homepage/parsha-reflections-1/reflections-vaeschanan-5767-comfort-at-last

 [4] Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, New York, p. 27.

 [5] David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, En-Gedi Resource Center, Holland, Michigan, p. 25.

 [6] David Bivin, Jesus’ Yoke and Burden, available at: http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1872

Torah as a Song of Unity and Tension

“The Torah is G-d’s libretto, and we, the Jewish people, are His choir, the performers of His choral symphony. And though, when Jews speak they often argue, when they sing, they sing in harmony, as the Israelites did at the Red Sea, because music is the language of the soul, and at the level of the soul Jews enter the unity of the Divine which transcends the oppositions of lower worlds. The Torah is G-d’s song, and we collectively are its singers.” 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks [1]

In considering the above words of Rabbi Sacks regarding the Song of Moses found in parashah Ha’azinu (Deuteronomy 32) I couldn’t help but think about my own experiences as a choir member over the years.  Starting in elementary school, I had opportunity to be involved in many choirs and found myself invited to participate in various choral competitions in which I even won a few solo roles.  Ironically, I have a very rudimentary knowledge of music and can read it only in the roughest manner, but yet I have been told I have a good musical ear and can pick up a melody quite easily by rote.  As a young girl I sang soprano, but as I matured and my voice changed I was assigned the role of second or mezzo soprano within the choir.  This required me to learn to sing in tension, in a role in-between that of alto and soprano.

At first this was quite awkward.  Because I was familiar with singing soprano I would often sing too sharp (or too high) and slip into a soprano key when I should be singing the second part.  The girl who sat beside me in the choir at that time was very adept in music and played several instruments.  When she heard me slipping off key and beginning to sing in too high or sharp of a range she would motion with her hand for me to sing “lower” or to “bring it down”. With her help, after a while, I adjusted to this in-between role in the choir, a role that provided the subtle underlying tension needed to produce harmonious chords in various choral arrangements.

R’ Yechiel Michal Epstein observes that one of the reasons the Torah is called “a song” is because “a song becomes more beautiful when scored for many voices interwoven in complex harmonies”. [2] Inevitably, complex harmonies require underlying musical tension in order to exist. The harmony part is not attractive to the ear.  If sung alone it would sound dull and uninspiring if not completely unnerving, but when placed among the other parts of the choir it provides a richness and tone that could not otherwise be achieved.

In like fashion the Song of Moses is considered to be a sketch of Jewish history; past, present and future.  But within this song and its historical setting is to be found a subtle tension.  After speaking the words of the Song to the people, Moses is commanded by HaShem to ascend Mt. Nebo where he will view the Land and be “gathered to his people” in death.  Verse 48 explains that HaShem spoke these words to Moses “on that very day”, “b’etzem hayom hazeh” (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה).  In this innocuous phrase used throughout Torah, Rashi understands an underlying tension to be evident. 

B’etzem hayom hazeh is used in conjunction with two pivotal events in Torah history, the account of Noah entering the ark prior to the flood (Genesis 7:13) and the exodus of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 12:41,51).  According to the midrash in both circumstances large groups of people stood united and strong to oppose G-d’s will.  The people of Noah’s generation, as they witnessed him constructing and preparing the ark, decided that if they saw Noah attempt to enter the ark they would stop him and destroy the boat immediately.  In the same way, the Egyptians agreed that if they noticed the Israelites trying to leave the country they would take up weapons of war and kill them.  In both instances HaShem declares, b’etzem hayom hazeh, “on that very day”, or in the middle of the day, in plain sight, His will would occur and nobody could stop it. In this way Rashi understands the phrase b’etzem hayom hazeh as used in Deuteronomy 32:48 to be alluding to an event that the nation as a whole would try to prevent, the ascent of Moses to Nebo and his death upon the mount.  Therefore, in the middle of the day, in the sight of all Israel, Moses carried out G-d’s will and ascended the mountain.

From a literal viewpoint this seems like a nice traditional tale meant to highlight the nation’s great love and respect for Moses although the Biblical record presents a people passively silent in facing G-d’s command that Moses should die that very day.  However, there are hints within the parashah itself that allude to resistance against G-d’s will on a national level that may have been the underlying mood although not the stated reality. 

One such hint is found in v. 44 in which Moses’ successor is called “Hoshea” (הוֹשֵׁעַ) instead of the more familiar “Joshua”.  Hoshea is Joshua’s given name as listed in Numbers 13 although throughout Torah he is referred to as Joshua.  According to Talmud Sotah 34b, Moses prayed for Joshua prior to going out with the others to survey the Land; “May G-d save thee from the plan of the spies”.  After which Moses added a “yod” to Hoshea’s name (transforming Hoshea to Yehoshua/Joshua) to remind him of this prayer of protection (for Yehoshua means “G-d save” or “G-d will save”). 

Another view regarding Joshua’s name change draws on Talmud Sanhedrin 17a in which R. Simeon explained the prophecy of Eldad and Medad, (which Joshua vehemently opposed in Numbers 11:26-27), as predicting that Moses would die prior to Israel entering the Promised Land and that Joshua would lead the nation into Canaan. With this prophecy fresh on his mind Joshua would face an incredible temptation in journeying with the spies to survey the Land.  Because of his love for Moses it was very possible that Joshua would agree with the spies bad report in order to delay or prevent the nation from going into the Land for such an event might  result in Moses’ death. Therefore Moses prayed that Joshua would be saved from this temptation and added the “yod” to his name to remind him that G-d could indeed “save” him from such a mistake.

There are only three occurrences in Torah in which Joshua’s birth name “Hoshea” is used, two being in the genealogical listing of Numbers 13 and the third in Deuteronomy 32:44.  Numerous conjectures are given as to why “Hoshea” is used in parashah Ha’azinu.  Yet, if Joshua’s name was originally changed to protect him from the temptation to resist G-d’s will out of concern that it would lead to Moses’ death, it could be understood that in using his given name, Hoshea, such protection was no longer necessary.  As Joshua proclaimed the words of the Song along with Moses on the day that Moses would ascend Mount Nebo to die, he did so as Hoshea, the man who did not need to be saved from the temptation to hinder Israel’s entry into the Land in order to prevent Moses’ death.  Hoshea accepted G-d’s will that was about to transpire even though the nation may well have been planning to prevent such a fate.

Another hint of underlying tension in the parashah is found at the beginning of the Song in v. 4

The Rock! – perfect is His work, for all His paths are justice; a G-d of faith without iniquity, righteous and fair is He.  (Deuteronomy 32:4 Stone Chumash)

This is the first instance in Scripture in which G-d is described by the metaphor of “Rock” (tzur).  Of the 14 occurrences of tzur in Torah, eight are found in the Song of Moses here.  In Deuteronomy 31 Moses announced that he would not cross the Jordan with the people.  As the nation faced this reality and began to listen to Moses’ Song, the circumstances of Meribah-kadesh –where G-d had determined that Moses would not lead Israel into the Land due to disobedience regarding striking the rock instead of speaking to it– would have been on their minds.  As G-d’s judgment upon Moses was literally unfolding before their eyes, the natural response of the people would have been one of sadness, regret and questioning the fairness of what was about to occur. Therefore, Moses referred to HaShem as “The Rock”; publicly alluding to G-d’s justice regarding the verdict that Moses would not enter the Promised Land. Moses did not want anyone to think that G-d was dealing with him unfairly.  He perhaps did this in response to the underlying tension of the people in facing his departure.

Yet, in the literal Hebrew describing the events of Meribah-kadesh (Numbers 20) the word used to describe the rock that Moses was commanded to speak to is sela and not tzur. According to the midrash a miraculous rock followed Israel throughout their 40 year wilderness experience and provided water for the tribes wherever they encamped.  This rock initially brought forth water as Moses struck it via G-d’s command in Exodus 17, in which the rock is described by the Hebrew word tzur.  Forty years later, after the death of Moses’ sister Miriam, the rock stopped producing water.  Moses is then commanded to speak to the rock to bring forth water from it for the people.  The rock in this account of Numbers 20 is described by the Hebrew word sela.

Both tzur and sela are synonyms for “rock” in Hebrew, but with subtle shades of difference.  Tzur describes a particularly hard rock that doesn’t crumble or wash away. [3]. Sela describes a crag, flinty rock, or a high outcropping of rock often used in Torah to describe a fortress of protection within which a person or soldier could find haven. [4] Tzur describes a permanent fixture or individual rock/boulder that is unyielding and strong. Sela describes a panorama of rock that an individual contemplates strategically in order to find protection within.

In a kabbalistic sense, tzur is related to the spiritual characteristic of malchut or “kingship”.  For in kingship is found unbending and unyielding judgment that cannot be questioned or reversed.  In Exodus 17 G-d commanded Moses to strike the rock (tzur) in order to bring forth water for the people.  This was G-d’s unyielding judgment, in response to Israel’s testing of Him. [5]

Sela in kabbalistic terms is related to the higher spiritual quality of binah or “understanding”.  After 40 years of being taught by HaShem in the desert the nation was on a higher or more mature spiritual level.  When the rock stopped producing water Moses was commanded to interact with it as a sela, or a rock meant to be contemplated in order to find protection.  He was thereby to use speech, involving human understanding and spiritual wisdom, to draw forth water instead of using physical force to do so. [6] When Moses struck the rock he treated it as tzur, as something hard and unyielding, instead of something meant to be contemplated and considered.  Therefore, Moses faced G-d’s unyielding judgment.  A situation that was meant to encompass sela, involving understanding in which protection could be found, was transformed into tzur, an inflexible judgment barring Moses from entering the Promised Land.  This reality is reflected in Moses’ choice of the word tzur, in the Song of Deuteronomy 32 in which G-d’s inflexible judgment as “The Rock” (alluding to Moses inability to enter the Promised Land) is proclaimed as right and just.

In considering this, the disciple of Yeshua is reminded of the fact that the Master is also compared to a “rock” in the Apostolic writings (Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8).  Interestingly, in all three instances, Yeshua being likened to a “rock” is presented in relation to Gentile status within Israel.  In Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, both Paul and Peter draw on Isaiah 8:14 to describe Yeshua as a “rock of offense” over which Israel in general has stumbled.  This stumbling is in response to Gentile believers, who have attained righteousness and are described as a chosen people in like covenant terms (such as “royal priesthood”, “holy nation”, “peculiar people”) with Israel, by means of the Messiah. 

The meaning of “rock of offense” is considered in Talmud Sanhedrin 38a in which the story is told of Rabbi Hiyya and his two sons who are invited to dine at the home of their fathers’ rabbi.  When the two sons remain silent during the meal the rabbi orders that they be given strong wine to drink.  As the wine takes effect the sons expound on Isaiah 8:14 explaining that “David (i.e. Messiah) cannot appear until the two ruling houses in Israel shall have come to an end”.  For it is written; “And he shall be for a Sanctuary, for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both houses of Israel”.

The rabbi exclaims that by bringing forth such an exegesis the sons have “thrown thorns in my eyes”, for he is a patriarch in Tiberias (or nasi according to Soncino Babylonian Talmud) and therefore involved in a ruling “house” of Israel which had authority in Palestine (the other ruling “house” being the Exilarchate which had authority over the Diaspora communities). [7] Incredibly, R. Hiyya does not scold his sons for such words that cause great pain and anguish to his rabbi.  Instead the sons’ words are understood to be a deeper (sod) understanding of Isaiah 8:14. 

In this way Messiah as “the rock of offense” is understood through midrashic exegesis as one who will necessarily do away with the ruling houses of Israel in order to set up a more perfect legal structure in the Messianic age. The offense is found in the understanding that Israel’s familiar legal structure must come to an end before Messiah will arrive.

Ironically, although every devout Jew prays three times a day for the coming of Mashi’ach and the restored and perfect era that he will bring upon the earth, R. Hiyya’s rebbe does not welcome the deeper understanding regarding Messiah presented by the sons.  How curious that a nasi, one intimately familiar with the burden and fearful responsibility of establishing halachah (as related in Pirkei Avot and other writings within Talmud), did not react with joy and relief and gladly set aside his governing role as patriarch in order to hasten the coming of Mash’iach?

Although the rebbe doesn’t refute the sons’ exegesis he is incapable of accepting it. Not only does such a teaching cause him anguish but it blinds him as well, for one who has “thorns in his eyes” not only feels pain, but cannot see. In this way the rabbi fulfills the very words presented by the sons’ at his dinner table, as he stumbles over the rock of offense, the Mashi’ach, who will not come until the ruling houses of Israel come to an end.

Incredibly, the “rock” of offense, in Isaiah 8:14 is a tzur, a rock that is strong, unmoving, and inflexible and cannot be changed.  In like manner to the tzur of Moses’ Song, an underlying tension is apparent within the Apostolic Scriptures regarding the “rock of offense” encompassed in the Gentile believer’s position within Israel through Messiah. The tension begins not-so-subtly with Yeshua’s words in the gospels that he has not come to bring peace but rather division within the very family structure of the nation itself (Matthew 10:34-37), and that his disciples will be severely persecuted within and  thrown out of the synagogues (Matthew 23:34, John 16:12).  From this the tension reaches a crescendo in the book of Acts, and retains an important focus in the Epistles that follow.

In discussions and articles I have read over the past week surrounding Divine Invitation theology much has been made of respecting and maintaining rabbinic/midrashic exegesis regarding the role of a Gentile believer within the nation of Israel, as such exegesis is understood to have been respected and heeded by the Apostles as well.  In this way the Gentile believer assumes the role of a G-d fearer within the nation of Israel according to acceptable halachah of the first century, having no legal standing or specific obligation to Torah except to maintain four essentials necessary for fellowship within the synagogue.  The Gentile, through faith in Messiah, has assurance of a place in the World to Come apart from conversion to Judaism and is invited to participate in Torah according to personal preference, desire and ability within the acceptable legal confines of G-d fearers within the synagogue.  His citizenship within Israel is a spiritual or inward reality in this present life which will find fulfillment and realization in the Messianic Era ahead.

If this is true then how can it be that Yeshua is a “rock of offense” and stumbling stone to the Jew?  Why would Gentile believers occupying legal and acceptable positions in the synagogues as G-d fearers, have sparked continual tension and difficulties within Israel as given in chapter after chapter of the Apostolic Writings?  A tension that is not subtly suggested or carefully exegeted but blaringly and continually blatant.

How ironic that within the pages of Talmud is contained a midrashic exegesis presenting the understanding that, in some way,  Israel’s ruling houses or “legal” system will necessarily come to an end before the fullness of the Messianic Age is realized, before Mashi’ach comes.  So difficult and deep is this understanding that inevitably it leads to anguish and blindness, stumbling and offense, among even the wisest of those in Israel. Could such a tzur be at the very heart of the Apostolic writings, an inflexible judgment that would prompt a large and vast number of people to unite in an attempt to oppose G-d’s will?  The understanding that in Messiah rabbinical rulings regarding the legal position of a Gentile believer has come to an end, as such a Gentile presently occupies a rightful and “real” (albeit distinct) position in Israel instead?

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Continuing to consider the Divine Invitation theology is much like taking on a mezzo soprano role in the choir.  As I question things for myself I feel a sense of hesitancy and awkwardness in some ways, an inward nagging to “bring it down” (or let it go) and “quit being so sharp” (or pointed in my questioning).  But through the study of Moses Song I find myself wondering if sincere efforts to reconcile underlying and even blatant tensions found in the Apostolic writings will lead Messianics toward a relationship with Torah that lacks definition, depth and richness. For Torah is a Song that is created to be sung by “many voices interwoven together” including voices in purposeful tension with each other to achieve the most beautiful and complex harmonies possible.

 

[1] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation (Nitzavim/Vayelech 5769), available at: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1537

[2] R’ Yechiel Michal Epstein, as cited in Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, ibid.

[3] Professor Dov Landau, Parashat Ha’azinu 5766 (Between a Rock and a Soft Place), available at: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/haazinu/lan.html

[4] Ibid.

[5] Rav Michael Laitman PHD, The Zohar, Annotations to the Ashlag Commentary, Laitman Kabbalah Publishers, Brooklyn NY, 2009, p. 253

[6] Ibid.

[7] Jewish Encyclopedia entry “exilarch” available at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=548&letter=E

Role Confusion and Commandment 612

Over the past few weeks the topic of role confusion and role appropriateness has inundated my thinking, due to the recent Divine Invitation theological shift announced by First Fruits of Zion.  I, like many others, have been challenged to consider what role among G-d’s people as a Gentile believer I am really suited for.  I have suddenly been faced with the idea that being obligated to HaShem’s commandments is not an appropriate role for me according to the Apostolic Scriptures, as one who is not a biological or “legal” daughter of Israel. 

During these ten Days of Awe I have wondered if I should repent regarding this in some way.  Should I repent for attempting to be something that I am not, or for not carrying out my role in the correct manner or with the correct mindset?  The confusion can sometimes seem overwhelming as I contemplate where exactly I stand in relation to Israel and her Torah.  Yet, as I considered parashah Vayelech this past week, I came upon a most interesting case of role confusion that plagued even the wisest sages of Israel. 

In Deuteronomy 31, Moses gives the final two commandments of Torah to the children of Israel on the last day of his life on earth.  Commandment #612 is found in v. 10-12;

Moses commanded them, saying, “At the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, during the Succos festival, when all Israel comes to appear before HaShem, your G-d, in the place that He will choose, you shall read this Torah before all Israel, in their ears.  Gather together the people – the men, the women, the small children, and your stranger who is in your cities – so that they will hear and so that they will learn, and they shall fear HaShem, your G-d, and be careful to perform all the words of the Torah. . .” (Deuteronomy 31:10-12 Stone Chumash). 

Commandment #612 is known as Hakhel which in Hebrew means “assemble”.  The Talmud (Mishnah, Sotah 41a) explains that Hakhel was to be held after sunset on the first day of Sukkot, which is the beginning of the first Chol HaMoed (or intermediary day) of the festival (or what practically constitutes day “two” of the seven days). Hakhel took place on this particular day of Sukkot on the year immediately following a Shemitah (or Sabbatical) year of rest. Therefore, Hakhel is described as taking place in the “eighth year”.  

After sunset, as day two of Sukkot arrived on the “eighth year”, a special high platform was set up in the court of women.  According to Tosefta, the people were assembled by the sounding of trumpets performed by the priests.  The king of Israel would ascend the platform and sit down, after which he would read from various portions of the book of Deuteronomy that highlighted allegiance to G-d, the covenant, and the blessings and curses.

According to Rambam (Hilchot Chagigah) the purpose of Hakhel was to inspire the people to awe and fear HaShem and also to recreate the covenant at Sinai.  In this way, Israel would re-live Har Sinai every seven years through symbolic actions that recreated the event for them physically.  Just as HaShem’s presence resided upon the mountain, so the most majestic person in the land, the king, represented G-d in all his glory and awe, high and lifted upon a platform.  The people heard the words of Torah proclaimed, by the one most worthy of their fear and awe, even as their forefathers had heard the words of HaShem. The sounding of the trumpets assembled the nation to the event, just as the trumpets of G-d grew louder and louder upon Sinai when the Torah was given.  

When the children of Israel accepted the covenant at Sinai they ratified it by means of burnt and peace offerings.  For this reason, Hakhel took place during Sukkot which was one of the three pilgrimage festivals requiring every male of Israel to present themselves at the Temple with burnt and peace offerings in hand.  During the Shemitah (seventh) year the land was to lie fallow and planting or reaping of crops was forbidden.  Israel was sustained only by that which grew naturally from the ground, literally via the “hand of HaShem” with no human intervention.  After experiencing such a year, the people were in the same position as Israel at Sinai who had received their sustenance by G-d’s miraculous hand alone.

Yet, in the midst of all the beauty, awe and symbolic recreation of the covenant at Sinai, a most troubling detail is found in the person of the stranger (ger) who was also involved in Hakhel.  According to rabbinic theology, within Israel there were two types of “strangers”.  The first was the Ger Tzedek or Gentile who had converted to Judaism.  The other was the Ger Toshav or Gentile who had rejected idolatry and accepted upon himself the seven Noahide laws but had not converted to Judaism.  Was the “ger” of Hakhel the Ger Tzedek or the Ger Toshav? 

A Ger Tzedek, being a convert, bears the same level of mitzvah obligation as any other Jew.  Therefore it would be superfluous for the Torah to speak of a Gentile proselyte as the stranger attending Hakhel.  Yet, a Ger Toshav has no obligation to fulfill any of the commandments apart from the seven Noahide laws.  If the Ger Toshav is commanded to attend Hakhel, in reality he is required to obey eight commandments instead of just seven.

Ibn Ezra understands “ger” in Deuteronomy 31:12 to be a toshav who participates in Hakhel in order to be inspired to convert. [1]  In this line of thinking Hakhel is understood not as a commandment incumbent upon a stranger but instead as a commandment incumbent upon Israel who invites the stranger to attend the event. Yet, other commentators disagree with this understanding for Torah does not encourage proselytizing among the Gentiles. 

In a different take on Ibn Ezra, Rav Shabtai Dov Rosenthal suggests that the “ger” is referring to a toshav who has shown an active interest in conversion.  The Hebrew word translated “gates” or “city” in v. 12, sh’areykha, (שְׁעָרֶיךָ) is occasionally used in Talmud to refer to a Beit Din.  Therefore, this verse may be understood to refer to a “ger” or stranger “in the courts” who had taken initial steps regarding conversion. [2]

Maharil Diskin (Parashat Vayelekh) suggests that the “ger” is actually a tzedek (full-fledged convert).  This understanding is based on the fact that Hakhel takes place during Sukkot and is associated with aliyah l’regel or the “going up on foot” to Jerusalem for a required pilgrimage journey.  However, the Gemara (Pesachim 8b) explains that the pilgrimage to the three festivals only applies to those who own land in Israel.  Gentile converts to Judaism would be excluded from the obligation of aliyah l’regel for they did not receive property in Eretz Yisrael through the direct chain of inheritance initially distributed under Joshua.  Therefore, the convert is commanded regarding attendance to Hakhel despite his exemption from going up “on foot” to the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot. [3]

Yet, another discrepancy is found among the chazal regarding Hakhel; for in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 7:7) it is stated that the assembling of the people to hear the Torah was to take place on “the day after the end of Sukkot” or on the eighth day known as Shemini Atzeret. But amidst this disagreement among the rabbis is to be found a remarkable parallel with the Transfiguration of Yeshua (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:1-10, Luke 9:28-36).

Generally within Christian theology the time and place of the Transfiguration is considered unknown or not given in the Gospels.  Traditionally the Feast of the Transfiguration is memorialized in the month of August on various dates depending on denomination.  All Christians would agree that the miraculous transformation of Yeshua upon a high mountain as witnessed by Peter, James and John was a foreshadowing of his majesty in the Kingdom to come.  Messianic believers will go a bit further to discern Peter’s comments regarding building “three shelters” (or sukkahs) for Yeshua, Moses, and Elijah as relating to the temporary dwellings of Sukkot which is a festival steeped in symbolism regarding the Messianic age and Kingdom to come.

But in considering the rabbinic details of Hakhel an uncanny resemblance to the Transfiguration seems to surface.  Like the king high upon the platform in all his glory and majesty, Yeshua is high upon a mountain with face and clothing transformed and shining with the glory of HaShem.  Just as the king reads from Torah in order to inspire awe and fear of G-d within the people, so Yeshua is conversing with Moses and Elijah (who represent the Law and Prophets) in a manner that Peter understands as being directed specifically toward him, and that inspires incredible awe and fear in all the disciples present.  Just as the Hakhel is understood to recreate the covenant at Sinai, so the Transfiguration contains many images of Sinai including the cloud of HaShem overshadowing the mountain and the voice of HaShem being heard by the disciples.  But perhaps the most profound detail regarding the Transfiguration is that G-d commands Peter, James and John to listen to His son.

According to Deuteronomy 31:12 the main point of the Hakhel is that the people will hear the words of Torah.  Interestingly, the word “shema” (listen) appears fifty-two times in the Hakhel Torah readings, which includes the first two paragraphs of the shema prayer. [4]  The command to listen to G-d’s beloved son Yeshua was also expressed via a Bat Kol (voice from heaven) at Yeshua’s baptism.  So why would HaShem repeat it again on the Mount of Transfiguration?  

At Yeshua’s baptism the command of G-d was to listen to His son as the spirit-filled prophet in the present world.  At the Transfiguration, G-d reiterates this command to listen to His son as the glorious and majestic king in the era to come.  One admonition is for the present world the other is for the World to Come.  Perhaps this is the subtle reason behind the discrepancy among the sages too, regarding the timing of Hakhel.  The earthly Hakhel takes place on the second day of Sukkot, a day which best represents the physical realities present at the covenant of Har Sinai.  The eighth day suggests a Hakhel in a “time beyond time” symbolizing the World to Come.  With this in mind could it be that Yeshua’s Hakhel (Transfiguration) took place on the eighth day of Shemini Atzeret symbolizing a future kingship that would inspire awe and fear of G-d in a way that goes beyond this present earthly existence?

By placing the Transfiguration on Shemini Atzeret many details seem to fall into order and sensibility. First of all the discrepancy of days between the accounts in Matthew and Luke can be reconciled.  Matthew’s account speaks of six days elapsing between Yeshua’s statement that “some shall not taste death till they see the son of Man coming in his Kingdom” and the actual event of the Transfiguration.  Luke’s gospel relates that “about eight days” elapsed.  Why would the gospels bother with number of days and elapsed time if the Transfiguration occurred at some unspecific point in the month of August?

Interestingly, in the Luke account, the Greek word translated “eight” (oktō) (ὀκτώ), can also mean “eighth”.  Therefore, Luke could be relating that “after these sayings, on the eighth day” which is the way the verse is rendered in the Young’s Literal Translation.  The King James Version, also presents an awkward and strained translation of Luke 9:28 which states; “it came to pass about an eight days” which is poor English, or perhaps reflects a difficulty with translating a Greek word which can mean “eight” or “eighth”.  Therefore, the Luke account may be relating that the Transfiguration took place on the eighth day (after Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret).

 If this is the case, then based on Matthew’s account of “six days” elapsed time  Yeshua’s teachings to the disciples regarding “taking up their cross” and the promise that some would witness him in his Kingdom glory before their death, would have occurred on the second day of Sukkot, the day that the Babylonian Talmud relates as Hakhel in the eighth year.  Based on historic accounts (including Talmud, Sotah 41a), King Agrippa performed Hakhel in 42 CE.  If 42 CE was the beginning of the “eighth year” then the previous Hakhel would have taken place in 35 CE.  Although the exact dates of Yeshua’s birth, ministry and/or crucifixion are unknown, scholars in general place his crucifixion during the governorship of Pontius Pilate between the dates of  26-36 CE.  Therefore it is possible that Yeshua’s final celebration of Sukkot (also related in John 7) could have taken place on the “eighth year” in which Hakhel would have been performed.

 This might also explain Yeshua’s strange and puzzling reaction to his brothers who encourage him to attend the “festival of booths” in order to “show himself to the world” (John 7:3-4).  Yeshua answers by saying that his time “had not yet come” prior to attending the festival in secret and remaining hidden and elusive until the mid-point of the feast at which time he enters the Temple to teach.

 If the Feast of Tabernacles was a Hakhel year, Yeshua’s arrival to the Temple precinct publicly and openly may have distracted from the king’s rightful role to inspire the people to awe and fear of HaShem through the reading of Torah. The truth of this is seen in John 7 which relates that Yeshua was seriously sought after and the topic of popular conversation among the throngs during the early days of the feast in which he remained secretive and allusive.  In this way, Yeshua’s time had “not yet come” to assume the role of a king teaching the nation from an exalted position that related G-d’s glory. That time would occur in the Messianic age of the future. To show up at the feast openly at first may have led to role confusion.

Perhaps out of deference toward the king and his honor and glory in performing Hakhel, Yeshua attended the early days of Sukkot in secret.  On the second day, the day on which the king would have performed Hakhel, with the glory of majesty and the awe of Torah fresh on their minds, Yeshua taught his disciples about his kingly role and assured them that some would see proof of this reality before they “tasted death”.  Six days later, on the eighth day of Shemini Atzeret, Yeshua took Peter, James and John to the mount and was transfigured before them.  It is here that they received a taste of his role as king in the Kingdom of G-d, as the one intimately acquainted with Torah (Law and Prophets) and who speaks with the undeniable glory of G-d upon him, inspiring awe and fear into his disciples. Yeshua told his disciples not to speak of this until his resurrection from the dead, but why?  Because his rightful role of king over the Kingdom of Heaven would not be confirmed and realized until then, until G-d raised him from the dead.

Understanding the Transfiguration to have taken place on Shemini Atzeret also vindicates what seems to be Peter’s confusion in both Mark and Luke regarding his suggestion that “booths” (sukkahs) be constructed for Yeshua, Moses and Elijah.  Typically this reply is understood to be a mindless or tongue-tied reaction to an overwhelmingly miraculous situation.  Having just awakened from sleep and with the festival of Sukkot concluded on the previous day, Peter’s overwhelmed reply, although incorrect, is understandable. On Shemini Atzeret the sukkah is still standing (due to the prohibition of work on a Sabbath day) but is not used because the festival is concluded.  Therefore both the Mark and Luke accounts explain Peter’s suggestion as “not knowing what to say” due to fear (Mark 9:6) and “not knowing what he said” in error (Luke 9:33).

It is also interesting to note that after the conclusion of Sukkot in John 7, Yeshua is said to have gone to the Mount of Olives (in 8:1).  The next day, Shemini Atzeret, early in the morning, Yeshua sat in the Temple and taught the people. Sometime during that day, perhaps as it was coming to a close, Yeshua took Peter, James and John and ascended a mountain, within a Sabbath’s day journey of Jerusalem for Shemini Atzeret is a Sabbath day.  Presumably the mount would have been Olivet which Acts 1:12 confirms is within a Sabbath’s day journey from the city, and which seems to be the mount Yeshua was residing upon during Sukkot.  Perhaps as the day began to wind to a close Yeshua prayed and the exhausted disciples fell asleep. They were then awakened to see the amazing witness of Yeshua in his Kingdom role transfigured before them as a Hakhel-like scene was played out before their very eyes.

Both Matthew and Mark speak of the mount of Transfiguration as a “high” mountain while Luke leaves this detail out of his account.  How could it be suggested that the Mount of Olives was the place of the Transfiguration for it certainly is not a “high” mountain? The Greek word translated “high” (hupsēlos) (ὑψηλός) can mean “lofty” in “place” or “character”.  Not only can it denote physical height but also a place or situation that is “highly” esteemed. The Mount of Olives was esteemed among the Jews of Yeshua’s day, for in Ezekiel (11:23) its holy character is alluded to as the Glory of the L-RD is said to have stood upon this mountain “east of the city”.  It is the mountain identified with the End of the Age in which the feet of the L-RD will stand to do battle (Zechariah 14:3-4).  Jews have been buried there since Bible times with the traditional hope that those buried on this holy mount will be raised first at the resurrection.

Yet another hint regarding the Mount of Olives as the possible Mount of Transfiguration is found within the Luke account, which alone reveals the subject of Moses’ and Elijah’s conversation with Yeshua on that day. The subject is described as Yeshua’s “departure” (ESV), “decease” (KJV), and “outgoing” (YLT) and is generally understood to be a discussion about his upcoming crucifixion which would occur in Jerusalem.  Yet, the Greek word used here is “exodos” (ἐξοδος) which literally means “exit”.  Therefore it’s feasible that Moses and Elijah were speaking with Yeshua about his “exit” from this world which would occur as he ascended from the very mountain upon which they stood, the Mount of Olives in the vicinity of Jerusalem.  

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Little did I realize that the study of Deuteronomy 31 would hold both comfort and inspiration for me in a time of questioning and role confusion in the midst of Days of Awe and repentance.  For even among the most brilliant minds in Judaism the presence of a stranger listening to Torah in order to inspire fear and awe of HaShem and obligation to all the commandments is a confusing issue with many possible perspectives.  

Like the stranger in the Hakhel crowd, I am a ger invited to hear and learn Torah, via a Jew, named Yeshua of Nazareth.  Like the stranger in the courts I have an active desire to be a legitimate part of G-d’s people, to be filled with awe of His majesty and sincere fear for His word.  But unlike the thousands of unnamed faces of gerim participating in Hakhel, I do not have the option to convert to Judaism.  As a matter of fact, I am prohibited from such a conversion as a Gentile believer according to the teachings of Paul.  My identity must be found only in Yeshua, but what then should I understand my identity and role to be?

 

[1] Ibn Ezra as cited in; Rav David Silverberg, Parashat Vayelekh/Rosh Hashana, available at:  http://vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-devarim/52-11vayelekh-rh.htm

 [2] Rav Shabtai Dov Rosenthal as cited in; ibid.

 [3] Maharil Diskin as cited in; ibid.

 [4] Rebbetzin Chana Bracha Seigelbaum, Parashat Vayelech/Mitzvah of Hakhel, available at: http://www.breslev.co.il/articles/torah_portion/chanas_blessing/learning_to_listen.aspx?id=13735&language=english

Something Missing

With only two more weeks remaining in the month of Elul I have taken some time to read about the topic of repentance based on various rabbinic sources.  This endeavor has proved to be a bit frustrating, for there are numerous opinions and methods regarding repentance presented by various authors and commentators.  Each method is meant to evoke real and sustainable change in order to draw one closer to HaShem in preparation for the season of Divine judgment and reckoning ahead.

One method (proposed by Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller) suggests making a life history in which important events of various eras (such as early childhood, later childhood, early adolescence etc.) are considered and one’s responses to these events analyzed in order to discern the basic middot (character traits) involved.  Another method taught by the Baal HaTanya (Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi) involves refining character traits by meditating upon certain deeds and determining if such deeds are sustained by “evil” or by “good”.  Rambam presents a “inch by inch” method in which bad deeds are recalled and the underlying character trait identified after which small and practical steps are taken to narrow the gap between present behavior and godly behavior.  For those who might benefit from a more hands-on approach, the classic method of Chesbon HaNephesh involves studying and learning about one’s negative character traits and keeping a nightly record of each day’s failures in specific areas.  By recording a simple hash mark for each daily failure in a weekly chart one will subconsciously be motivated to repent and improve their behavior.

Yet, despite all the various suggestions and methods for repentance that can be found to read and study, all of them have one thing in common, the simple yet challenging goal of identifying what is “missing” in one’s character.  Whether the missing component is motivational, practical, or educational, repentance in itself stands on the basic realization that something is “missing” involving the person himself. 

In considering parashah Ki Tavo this past week I found myself in a portion of scripture that is considered very suitable and worthwhile reading in light of Rosh Hashanah ahead.  For in Deuteronomy 27-28 Moses instructs the people regarding reaffirming the covenant with HaShem once they have entered into the Promised Land.  This reaffirmation involved setting up 12 large memorial stones upon which the Torah would be inscribed, constructing an altar where peace and elevation offerings would be presented, and assembling the twelve tribes on two neighboring mountains in order to hear the blessings and curses related to obedience and disobedience toward G-d’s commands recited.  Yet, within the midst of more than eighty verses of often exceedingly graphic descriptions is one pertinent detail that seems to be starkly missing.

In chapter 27 starting at verse 11, Moses speaks to the people about the third step of affirming the covenant, the assembling of the tribes upon Mt. Gerizim and Mount Ebal.  Six of the tribes (Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph and Benjamin) are to stand upon Mt. Gerizim “to bless the people”, while the remaining six tribes (Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan and Naphtali) are to stand upon Mt. Ebal “for the curse”.  After this the Levites are instructed to pronounce twelve specific curses to be affirmed by all the people through the response of “amen”.  The twelve curses are followed by chapter 28 in which Moses presents a litany of blessings and curses that will befall Israel based on their obedience and/or disobedience toward HaShem’s commandments while in the Land.

The commentators (Ibn Ezra, Rashbam) point out that eleven of the twelve cures listed in 27:15-26 (except the final one) represent sins that are done in secret and can be easily hidden from others. Upon entering the Land, Israel must affirm that they are under G-d’s yoke of authority and committed to obeying His commands not just publicly but in even the most private and personal aspects of life. 

But despite the most pointed and practical warnings that the twelve curses encompass, the fact that the passage is silent regarding blessings to be stated or understood is a glaring omission.  Why would Moses assign the six tribes upon Mt. Gerizim to be symbolic of blessing if in fact there are no blessings to be understood or uttered in the process at all? Without blessings of any kind the role of those on Mt. Gerizim “to bless the people” is for naught and the division and assembling of the tribes on two separate mountains seems to make little sense.  The entire procedure and passage has something missing and begs the question; “where are the blessings”?

The Talmud Bavli addresses this dilemma in Sotah 32a.  The Mishnah there explains that when Israel crossed the Jordan and six tribes ascended Mt. Gerizim and six ascended Mt. Ebal, the Levites stationed below (in the valley between the mountains) turned their faces toward Mt. Gerizim and began by pronouncing a blessing.  The first blessing was; “blessed be the man that maketh not a graven or molten image” after which all of Israel responded with “amen”.  The Levites then turned to face Mt. Ebal and continued with the curse; “cursed is the man that maketh the graven or molten image” and the people again responded “amen”. 

Therefore, despite the absence of any commanded or recorded blessings in Deuteronomy 27, chazal understand that every one of the 12 curses had a corresponding and opposite blessing to go with it.  This is based not only on Moses setting apart the tribes on Mt. Gerizim “to bless the people”, but also on the account of Joshua chapter 8 in which the tribes are separated upon the two mountains; “that they (the Levites) should bless the people of Israel” (v. 33).  Since both Moses (in Deuteronomy 27) and the account of Joshua chapter 8 present an aspect of blessing in the ceremony of the tribes upon the two mountains, the sages understand that each of the twelve curses of Deuteronomy 27 would be pronounced as a blessing as well. 

Ibn Ezra points out a difficulty in the Mishnaic account by considering that several of the twelve curses do not make suitable blessings. [1]  For instance, to say; “blessed in one who does not lie with an animal” (based on the seventh curse listed in Deuteronomy 27:21) or “blessed is one who does not take a bribe to kill a person of innocent blood” (based on the eleventh curse of 27:25) would be illogical in relation to the understanding of “blessed” (Hebrew; bracha) to mean bowed in submission to HaShem.  One who refrains from such lewd and perverse acts certainly is not “blessed” with a heart bowed in submission to HaShem but rather displays a healthy conscience that is repulsed by what is naturally abhorrent to all of mankind. 

Therefore, Ibn Ezra attempts to reconcile the missing blessings by suggesting that the affirmation ceremony was a two step process.  After the tribes separated and took their places on the respective mountains, the priests and Levites assembled in the valley between the mountains.  The Levites then pronounced the twelve curses as given in Deuteronomy 27 and all the tribes affirmed them by responding “amen”.  After this, the six tribes assembled on Mt. Gerizim pronounced six blessings found in the Admonition of Deuteronomy 28 (v. 3-6).  The six tribes upon Mt. Ebal then pronounced the corresponding six curses as given in Deuteronomy 28:16-18.  [2]

Although Ibn Ezra’s explanation is in keeping with the literal text of Deuteronomy 27, it does not take into account that Joshua chapter 8 speaks of the Levites blessing Israel (and not cursing them) and also relates that Joshua read ”the blessings and cursings” (presumably the words of the Admonition in Deuteronomy 28) to the people once the Levites had blessed them.  A possible alternative explanation could be that as Joshua read the words of the Admonition he faced the six tribes on Mt. Gerizim while reciting the six blessings given there, and in like fashion, faced the six tribes on Mt. Ebal while reciting the six curses found in Deuteronomy 28.

Another proposed solution to the missing blessings is based on three unusual verses in Torah in which the word for blessing, bracha is used in the sense of “to curse” instead of “to bless” (1 Kings 21:13, Job 1:5,11). [3] From this it is conjectured that when Moses speaks of the six tribes assembled “to bless the people” on Mt. Gerizim, and when the eighth chapter of Joshua tells of the Levites “blessing” Israel, the word bracha in those occurrences alludes to cursing instead of blessing. In this way, the six tribes standing upon Mt. Gerizim “to bless” the people actually means that they stand “to curse” the people. The six tribes on Mt. Ebal that stand “for the curse” are assigned to receive the curses from the group on Mt. Gerizim. Since the tribe of Levi is represented among the six tribes separated to Mt. Gerizim, they were commanded by G-d as the mouthpiece to speak the curses toward the six tribes on Mt. Ebal who would receive them.  

The obvious difficulty with this solution is that the three verses in Torah in which bracha is understood to mean “cursing” instead of “blessing” represent a rare exception rather than a rule.   In these three cases a logical understanding of the verse cannot be sustained when bracha is used in its regular sense of “blessing”.  For example, Job 1:5  tells of Job offering sacrifices on account of his children after the festival days had ended, in case his “sons had sinned and (barchu) G-d in their hearts”.  If barchu in this verse is understood as “blessing” then Job is offering sacrifices because his sons may have sinned by “blessing” HaShem, which makes no sense.  Therefore, in this case bracha is understood to mean “cursing” for to curse G-d would certainly be a sin. This same exception in translation is not necessary in Deuteronomy 27:12 or Joshua 8:33 in which bracha can be understood in its usual sense of “blessing” without causing the verses to be read in a completely illogical way.

The commentators are also astounded by another detail that describes “something missing” in Deuteronomy 28 in relation to the curses and suffering warned of by Moses. Throughout Torah the Children of Israel are told repeatedly that disobedience toward G-d’s commands will result in curses upon them.  But, in the Admonition of chapter 28 an additional reason is given for the suffering and curses.  As Moses explains, the curses are a “sign” and a “wonder” within the people; “because you did not serve HaShem, you G-d amid gladness and goodness of heart” (v. 46).

From this Rabbeinu Bachya understands that one is obligated to be joyful when fulfilling a commandment and that rote fulfillment of a mitzvah is incomplete. In this way, gladness (simcha) and goodness (tuv) of heart are seen as a separate mitzvah, which if neglected, will bring consequences even when a commandment is physically fulfilled.  [4] In essence, every mitzvah connects a person to HaShem by drawing one closer to Him and strengthening one’s relationship with the Almighty. This is something unfathomably important that should naturally evoke great joy and gladness in the heart of a person.

When a person performs a mitzvah without joy and abiding gladness they fail to realize the significance of the mitzvah and thereby degrade G-d’s instruction by treating it as a duty or something that needs no inward consideration or contemplation. In this way, each mitzvah involves not only a physical action of obedience but also an inward attitude of joy and goodness of heart. It involves both the actions of the body and thinking of the mind, which should contemplate and realize not only what the mitzvah involves but also what the mitzvah is.

Therefore, within the instructions and Admonition of Deuteronomy 27-28 is a strange tension to be found as the Children of Israel prepare to embark upon the Promised Land and enter a new mode of existence there.  It is a time that is punctuated by blessings and curses.  Yet, although blessings are assigned, they are never specifically stated or commanded, and curses are not just a matter of simple disobedience but also attributed to lack of joy and goodness of heart.  In this way something definitely seems to be missing.

In entering Canaan, the Children of Israel would embark upon a very real and physical fulfillment of G-d’s promise regarding the Land.  This promise would be realized (in part) in this present age, the Olam Hazeh.  In our present world, the physical and practical are the focus of human existence and life.  For this reason, as Israel was on the verge of entering the Promised Land and experiencing the very physical realities of battle, and inheritance, and performing the mitzvot, an emphasis on curses was necessary.

This emphasis would affirm that a focus on the physical and practical is not a balanced view for G-d’s people even in this present age.  For G-d is aware not only of what is done in secret but also of the attitude and thinking of the individual in performing His commands. The curses emphasized that Israel, as G-d’s people, are accountable before Him in all things, personal and private, outward and inward.  The blessings are therefore omitted, but not forgotten, alluded to, but not realized, as Israel is poised to enter a new existence in the Land of the Olam Hazeh.

But over a thousand years later, a member of the tribe of Judah, one of the tribes set apart “to bless”, sat upon an unnamed mountain and pronounced nine individual blessings upon the people.  Like the curses of Deuteronomy 27, the blessings of Matthew 5, known as the “Beatitudes” of the Sermon on the Mount, involved secretive things, matters of the heart, except for the final blessing which addresses public and opened ridicule and persecution at the hands of men.

As Yeshua spoke forth these blessings he did so at a time when the Children of Israel where again poised to enter a new Land, a time when they were on the verge of experiencing a new form of existence. The very Kingdom of G-d was at hand, the Messianic Age, which could only be ushered in and realized through the one sitting among them. With this Kingdom on the horizon the time for the “blessings” to be spoken “from the mountain” had arrived.

The Greek word translated “blessed” or “happy” in most English translations of Matthew 5 is makarios (μακάριος) which translates the Hebrew ashrei (אשרי) in the LXX.  Remarkably, the word Yeshua chooses regarding his blessings is not bracha (blessing) or simcha (joy) or tuv (goodness) but is the Greek translation of a corresponding Hebrew word which has no English equivalent. In the most general sense, based on uses in the Tanakh, ashrei can be understood to describe a state of present contentment which looks forward to benefit or reward that is yet future.  It is a word that has a present as well as future connotation. [5]

Joy (simcha) in its Hebrew meaning is not happiness, for happiness is an emotion that is dependent on external circumstances.  Joy is a condition that is internal and that is independent of situations around us.  According to Rabbi Noah Weinberg, joy is the feeling that results when one anticipates pleasure coming their way. [6]

Goodness (tuv) of heart in the broadest Hebraic sense means “soundness of thinking” for the heart is also used in relation to the mind and thoughts.  Therefore, to perform a mitzvah with joy (simcha) and goodness (tuv) of heart is to do so with anticipation of future rewards or benefit based on a thinking and emotions that are spiritually sound.

While beracha (blessing) involves a bending and submission to HaShem which is very necessary in the physical world of the Olam Hazeh, ashrei incorporates concepts suitable for the Messianic Age and the World to Come (Olam Haba). In each of the Beatitudes a certain character trait, or heart attitude, is highlighted that is promised to result in future benefits in the coming Kingdom. In this way, those who follow Yeshua experience a present contentment which anticipates pleasure that is future, in a new and more perfect level of existence that only he can lead us into.

 . . . .

In considering the various methods and suggestions regarding repentance and reflection in this month of Elul, and the 40 days that lead to Yom Kippur, it is easy and perhaps natural, to focus on what’s missing.  To focus on the mitzvot I haven’t performed or that I have neglected or didn’t do well. To make-up for things that are lacking or have been overlooked and to take action to avoid such mistakes and sins again.

But hidden within the curiously missing blessings of Deuteronomy 27 is perhaps found another message for this month of Elul, a message based on looking inward instead of only backward.  For repentance in Messiah isn’t exclusively about considering what’s missing but also involves focusing on what I am already involved in. Are things that I am doing consistently, also being done well?

Although the upcoming fall festivals certainly bring a sense of anticipation and joy, is this true of the daily mitzvot (such as those encompassing eating habits, prayer, daily study and mundane activities)?  Do I experience joy in preparing for Shabbat each week and resting on it to the best of my ability?  Do I find a sense of contentment in connecting with G-d and drawing close to Him through His instructions in Torah?  How do I need to purposely contemplate what a mitzvah is rather than just focusing on the practical specifics involved?

What a wonderful opportunity this month of Elul brings, not only for honestly considering things that are missing in my walk with HaShem, but also the opportunity to contemplate the wonder involved in every mitzvah.  The wonder of knowing that a right heart attitude is precious to HaShem which provides real contentment in this life as I look forward to promises yet ahead.

 

[1] Ibn Ezra, as cited in; Menahem Ben-Yashar, The Covenant at Shechem (Parashat Ki Tavo 5759), available at:  http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/kitabo/ben.html

[2] Ibn Ezra, as cited in; Rav Amnon Bazak, Parashat Ki Tavo (The Blessing and the Curse and the List of “the Cursed”), available at:  http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.64/50kitavo.htm

[3] Rav Amnon Bazak, ibid.

[4] Rabbeinu Bachya, as cited in; Rabbi Mordechai Pollock, Parashat Ki Tavo (Happiness Is . . .), available at:  http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/kitavo/013.htm

[5] Aaron Eby, אשרי is The Man Who Can Read Hebrew, available at: http://ffoz.org/blogs/2007/01/_the_man_who_can_read_hebrew.html 

[6] Rabbi Noah Weinberg, Way #8 Constant Joy, available at: http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48966151&section=/sp/48w

Up On the Roof

Many years ago I had opportunity to travel with some friends to Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  An essential part of touring the city included a trip to the famous CN Tower, which at the time was the tallest freestanding structure in the world.  After enjoying dinner and spectacular views from the revolving 360 Restaurant atop the tower, the group of us made our way to the various observation decks to take in views from approximately 1100 feet above ground level.  Upon entering the outdoor observation deck area we were immediately met by cool and strong breezes as the sun had set and the twinkling metropolis of Toronto stretched out before us.  Almost immediately another sight caught our attention turning our minds away from the crisp breezes and glowing city below.

The outdoor observation area was composed of a concrete wall approximately four feet high.  Stretching on an outward angle away from this wall was a metal fencing that allowed for an outdoor experience within the greatest confines of safety.  On that particular night we came upon a young man and woman who had decided to use the safety fencing as a means of experiencing a more exciting view of the city below. Both of them had climbed upon the concrete wall and onto the fencing and lay stretched out prone (face down) upon it.  As they laughed and commented with each other about how “awesome” it was to lay suspended more than a thousand feet in the air upon the thin metal meshing I couldn’t help but nervously look around and hope for a security guard to show up soon to stop them from such antics.

Although this trip was taken more than twenty years ago, the foolishness of two young and undeniably inebriated individuals on the rooftop of the tallest land structure in the world came to mind as I continued to study parashah Ki Tetze this past week. Of all the parashot, Ki Tetze contains more mitzvot than any other.  With over seventy commandments listed in tight and sequential order it’s easy for one to read through this parashah as a list of bullet point items and to easily disregard details waiting to be discovered and contemplated. 

One mitzvah that could be easily overlooked is found in Deuteronomy 22:8;

If you build a new house, you shall make a fence for your roof, so that you will not place blood in your house if a fallen one falls from it. (Stone Chumash)

In the ancient world homes were built with flat roofs and the roof was often used as a front porch or deck might be used today.  People would entertain and eat meals upon the roof of their homes and find a cool haven there for sleeping outdoors during the hot summer months.  Therefore it was only sensible to enclose the roof with a fence (Hebrew; ma’akeh) as a safety measure.  From this the sages extrapolate that a Jew is required to institute safety measures regarding any potentially dangerous situations in his home or on his property (such as fencing in one’s yard if they have a swimming pool or installing a hand railing upon a steep staircase). 

According to the Talmud the ma’akeh was to be at least 10 handbreaths or approximately 40 inches in height.  Such a fence was not necessary unless the structure in question was more than 40 inches above the ground; otherwise the possibility of one dying because of a fall from a shorter structure was highly unlikely.  Therefore, this mitzvah is filled with common sense considerations that would be universal in nature for one need not be a child of G-d or have a special spiritual understanding to see such laws as necessary and prudent.

Yet, the commentators notice that the beginning words of this mitzvah; ki tivneh (if you build/tivneh), can also be read as ki tevunah.  Tevunah is a word meaning “deep understanding”. [1] Therefore, the mitzvah of ma’akeh can also be seen as a commandment encompassing a deeper level of understanding than merely the common sense requirement to place a fence around the roof of a home. The deeper aspect of this commandment is also recognized in the word ma’akeh itself.  The meaning of this word cannot be derived from scripture for its only occurrence is found in Deuteronomy 22:8.  Although the etymology of ma’akeh is uncertain it is generally understood to be speaking of a “fence” based on the plain context of the verse. 

Another unusual detail in relation to the law of ma’akeh is that the one who might fall from the roof of the home is referred to as “the fallen one”.  From this Rashi understands that an individual who experiences a mortal fall from the roof of a home deserved to die because they were a “fallen” person experiencing punishment for their sins. Because G-d does not allow bad things to happen through good people the righteous Jew encloses the roof of his home although some who happen upon it might deserve to fall from it and die due to their wickedness. [2]

With these details in mind some commentators suggest that the unique “fence” of ma’akeh is alluding to the Oral Torah which places protective fences (of halachic observance) around the commandments to protect one from “falling” into sin.  To “build” (tivneh) such a spiritual fence is the outgrowth of “deep understanding” (tevunah).  The mitzvah of ma’akeh requires that the highest point of the home be fenced in.  The roof, as the highest point, can be understood as an allusion to personal achievements in Torah knowledge and understanding.  When one reaches a high point of understanding and insight into scripture, he enters a potentially dangerous situation in which he can find himself predisposed to “fall” in his spiritual life by disregarding  specific details of practice meant as a fence to protect him from sin (due to pride, arrogance, and/or the “puffing up” that can come with extensive knowledge).  In this way, indeed, the “fallen one” (full of knowledge and arrogance), “falls” from the roof.

Interestingly, the topic of being “up on the roof” is one considered in both midrashic and kabbalistic writings as related to the person of Mashiach. In Psalm 102:8 David says; I have been diligent, yet I have become like a lonely bird upon a rooftop, which some kabbalists understand as an allusion to the Messiah.  In a related image the midrash (Yalkut Shimoni) says;

The Rabbis taught that in the hour in which the King Moshiach comes he stands on the roof of the Bais Hamikdash and he announces to Israel and says ‘humble ones, the time of your redemption has arrived, and if you don’t believe see my light that shines upon you, as it says “Arise, shine, because Your light has come”, (Yalkut Shimoni  Vol. II, Sec. 499)

For believers in Yeshua the imagery presented in the midrash Yalkut Shimoni above is strikingly similar to the account of his temptation in the wilderness as given in Matthew 4:5-7;

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the Temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”  (ESV)

Generally this verse is understood as the temptation to force HaShem to perform a miracle on Yeshua’s behalf that would be seen by a large number of Jews worshipping and congregating at the Temple.  But the practicle details involved are very interesting to consider.  The word translated “pinnacle” is the Greek pterugion (πτερύγιον) used only twice in the Apostolic Scriptures (here and in the parallel account of Luke 4:9-12).  Pterugion literally means “winglet” and is understood to be figuratively speaking of the “extreme corner” of the Temple.  Based on the most current models and scholarly research the second Temple roof is understood to have been a flat structure with an inverted “T” shape as the front part of the building extended outward toward the north and the south.  The entire roof was encompassed by a golden parapet (ornate fencing) surrounding its outer edge.

The devil placed Yeshua upon the parapet at one of its extreme (outward) corners (either to the north or to the south).  In order to stand upon a fence and maintain balance it is necessary to stand at its corner where one’s feet can shift and balance upon the narrow surface by occupying a wide stance.  Otherwise to attempt standing upon a straight section of fencing is very difficult and unsteady as one is forced to balance upon a line instead of upon an angle.  By placing Yeshua upon the extreme corner (pterugion )of the parapet of the Temple roof, the devil put him in a spot which maintained his balance and in which he was not forced or likely to fall.  This spot was thereby one in which he could choose to throw himself down and be witnessed by a significant number of spectators below if he did so.

In some ways the temptation in the wilderness can be conjectured to have taken place during the month we have just entered, the month of Elul.  D.T. Lancaster suggests that Yeshua’s forty days of temptation in the wilderness may correspond with the traditional rabbinic understanding of the forty days of repentance from 1 Elul to Yom Kippur.  Lancaster notices connections in the three temptations given in the Synoptic Gospels and the day of Yom Kippur itself.  Yom Kippur is a fast day and in similar fashion Yeshua’s (recorded) temptations took place at the end of his forty days and forty nights of fasting when he was hungry.  Rabbinic tradition also understands Yom Kippur as a day for dealing with Satan and his accusations which relates to Yeshua’s being tempted on this day and battling the evil one. [3]  Other correlations might be noticed in the importance and focus upon the Temple on Yom Kippur and also in Satan’s third temptation of taking Yeshua to an exceedingly high mountain and encouraging him to “fall down” in worship, similar to the goat for Azazel which was led out to a wild place and pushed off of a high precipice, falling to its death.

Yet another conjecture regarding Yeshua’s forty days of temptation in the wilderness as occurring in Elul, is based on the understanding that John the Baptist’s ministry may have begun during the time of the Three Weeks (between 17 Tammuz and 9 Av). This was a time of introspection and repentance regarding the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, which correlates with John’s admonition to “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”.

According to Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 2:4) the Mashiach was “born” on the Ninth of Av, for at the very moment the Temple was set afire the hope of redemption was born.  With this in mind one can see a connection with Talmudic themes of the Ninth of Av and the baptism of Yeshua as described in the Synoptic Gospels as a type of birth.  For it was at his baptism that G-d publicly pronounced the “sonship” of Yeshua.  The Codex Bezae (5^th C. manuscript) renders Luke 3:22 as “You are my son, this day I have begotten thee”.  [4] This hints at a possible connection between the Ninth of Av and Yeshua’s baptism as being on that very day. [5]

Other indications of John’s ministry as possibly beginning during the Three Weeks and Yeshua’s baptism as taking place on the Ninth of Av, have to do with passages of scripture that are quoted in the Synoptics surrounding these events as related to the yearly cycle of readings in the synagogue.  Although we historically do not know the order or cycle of liturgical readings in the synagogues during the time of Yeshua, there is an interesting correlation between the current yearly cycle of readings in relation to John’s ministry and Yeshua’s baptism and temptation in the wilderness. 

In the Synoptics as well as the Gospel of John, John the Baptist’s ministry is understood as a fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5, which encompasses part of the traditional yearly cycle haftarah reading for the Shabbat following the Ninth of Av (known as Shabbat Nachamu).  John’s language toward the Pharisees and Sadduccees in Matthew 3:10 that “even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees” is understood by some to be prophetic of the destruction of the Temple, and in the most general sense, is a metaphor of destruction which would fit well with the Three Weeks time of remembrance of the destruction of the first Temple [6]. 

If Yeshua was baptized on the Ninth of Av and was driven into the wilderness by the Spirit on that very day, the forty days and forty nights of fasting and temptation would have occupied 5-6 Sabbaths.  Based on the current traditional yearly cycle of reading it is remarkable that the three temptations in the Synoptics involve themes and concepts found in the Torah readings that would occur at this time of year (Av, Elul).  The first temptation of making stones into bread and that “man does not live by bread alone” is based on Deuteronomy 8:3 which is part of the Torah reading for parashah Eikev.  The second temptation regarding throwing himself from the Temple parapet and “not tempting the L-RD thy G-d” is based on Deuteronomy 6:16 found in parashah Va’etchanan.  The third temptation of bowing down to Satan and “worshiping the L-RD and serving Him only” is based on Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20 found in parashah Va’etchanan and Eikev. [7]

Another interesting thought based on the current yearly parashah cycle, involves Yeshua’s reading from the Torah scroll in the synagogue of Nazareth after his temptation in the wilderness as given in Luke 4.  According to the Luke account, Yeshua read Isaiah 61:1-2.  This reading is from the same chapter of Isaiah as the traditional haftarah of parashah Nitzavim (Isaiah 61:10-63:9), which is read on the Sabbath prior to Rosh HaShanah. It could be conjectured that Yeshua chose to read from verses preceding the assigned haftarah (Isaiah 61:1-2) that day.  Another possibility is that the haftarah for the Sabbath prior to Rosh Hashanah originally (in the days of Yeshua) included the beginning of Isaiah chapter 61 which may have later been removed or altered by the rabbis because of its association with Yeshua.  If Yeshua’s baptism took place on Tisha B’Av, forty days and forty nights of temptation in the wilderness would have concluded in time for him to read from Isaiah in Nazareth on the Shabbat prior to Rosh HaShanah at the very beginning of his public ministry.

With these conjectures in mind it is fascinating to contemplate that Yeshua’s temptation on the roof of the Temple may have taken place during this time of year.  Just as a bird does not need a fence to keep it safe upon a rooftop, for it is able to easily fly to heights well above the roof without concern for harm, so the Messiah is understood in Jewish eschatology and kabbalah as the one who will reveal and teach a deeper and greater understanding of Torah than is capable of being achieved by any human being currently.  Messiah is the “lone bird” on the roof (described in Psalm 102:8) who easily transcends the highest understanding of Torah able to be achieved in this world or age.  The same concept is seen in the midrashic description of King Messiah upon the roof of the Temple, as one who has reached the highest pinnacle of understanding related to G-d and His revealed presence upon the earth, and who “shines” this truth (light) upon the humble ones of Israel. 

As Yeshua was placed upon the ornate parapet of the extreme corner of the Temple by the devil on that fateful day, he stood there firm and unwavering, confident and balanced.  In this way he symbolized the one who not only would achieve a level of obedience and understanding of G-d and His Torah to the highest degree, but also one who stood firm and balanced regarding the “fence” of halachic determinations and deeper understandings of scripture.  Yeshua refused to throw himself from this position, to succumb to the temptation of overlooking or disregarding the details of daily practice and halachah meant to safeguard against sin, and thereby fall into arrogance and pride by testing the very hand of HaShem. 

Remarkably the image of King Mashiach upon the roof of the Temple is one that inspired midrashic tales despite its inherent difficulties.  For as the Rambam points out (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Melachim 11:4), the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash (Temple) is understood to be one of the final stages of the redemption (to occur after the revelation and coming of Mashiach).  Therefore, the only logical way in which the midrash could be understood is if King Mashiach had presented himself to announce the redemption “well before the Beit HaMikdash will have been rebuilt”.  [8]  Rambam could not reconcile how Mashiach could literally stand upon the roof of the completed Temple and announce redemption to the Jews at the same time. 

But many years ago Yeshua stood upon the roof of a house, the ornately fenced roof of the house of HaShem.  This brief event passed without notice as the crowds below were engrossed in the avodah, even perhaps attending to the intense details of the day of Yom Kippur.  While upon the roof he didn’t say a word or do anything to attract attention, but merely stood steady and firm.  The temptation to announce himself as King Messiah, come to bring redemption to his people, through a spectacular and undeniable miracle, was turned into a quiet and profound statement regarding his superior achievement, understanding and balance regarding Torah, “up on the roof”.  In the midrashic account King Mashiach doesn’t fall from the Temple roof or perform spectacular miracles from there.  He merely speaks from the roof a message, not of arrogance and pride, but one of humility.  For the light (pure and profound truth) that he embodies and will yet reveal and teach in the Messianic age ahead is given to and meant for the “humble ones”.

. . . . . . . .

As I think back upon the two foolish young people who surprised me so many years ago on the outdoor deck of the CN Tower, I realize now that not only were their actions horribly unsafe but in a greater sense what they did was absolutely stupid. By lying upon the mesh fencing with bodies prone, they severely limited their ability to enjoy and take in the grandeur of the scenery from the highest free-standing vantage point on the planet. With faces pressed against the metalwork they could only look downward in one direction, most likely getting an impressive look at a parking lot below or of the drab concrete base of the tower itself.  Those who respected and stayed within the confines of the fencing meant for their safety walked freely around the deck and took in the scenery from countless thousands of angles.  In respecting the fence there was freedom and inspiration, by abusing or rebelling against the fence there was limitedness and absurdity.  How true as well of the Torah itself as contained even in the most remote of mitzvot which could easily be overlooked as merely a warning regarding common sense safety considerations wedged among seventy other commandments vying for one’s attention. 

 

[1] Gal Einai Institute, The Electrifying Fence, available at:  http://www.inner.org/parshah/deuteronomy/ki-teitzei/ki-teitzei-65.php

[2] Rashi as cited in Rabbi Nosson Scherman, Stone Edition Chumash/Parashas Ki Seitzei, p. 1051, Mesorah Publications Ltd., New York, 1994.

[3] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume 4 – B’sorat HaMashiach, pp. 29-30, First Fruits of Zion, 2002.

[4] Johannes Weiss, Das Älteste Evangelium,  Vandenhoeck 1903 as cited in Sander’s List Mark 1:11-Luke 3:22, available at:http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/Synoptic/objections/sanders/1-11.html

[5]  Tim Layne, Tisha B’av, For Malki, available at:  http://emergentobserver.blogspot.com/2009/07/one-of-darkest-days-of-year-occurs-in.html

[6] Ibid.

[7]  Adapted from Rabbi David Rosenberg, The Ninth of Av: “A Day of Infamy” & America’s 911, available at: http://www.shuvah.com/shuvah_articles_main.html

[8] Rambam as cited in, A Sanctuary in Microcosm, available at:  http://www.sichosinenglish.com/essays/60.htm

The Realities of War

In celebrating my parent’s 50^th wedding anniversary recently I had the delightful opportunity to “walk down memory lane” through a PowerPoint presentation that my sister had prepared for the occasion.  Among the many photographs chronicling my parent’s upbringing, courtship, marriage, and family life were a couple of photos of my father in full army uniform. I have always found men in uniform to be quite attractive and my father was no exception.  A slender and tall man, standing at attention, he cut a handsome figure as one who served our nation in the Korean War. 

Of all the memories of my parents, my father’s service to our country is one that is most easily forgotten, for he refuses to ever speak of the war or any of its details at all.  My sister and I know nothing of his experience in the service except for two things; that he read the entire Scripture from cover to cover during his time of conscription, and that he prayed during those years that if he ever became a father that he would not have sons for he wanted his offspring to be spared from the horrors of war. Several years after his tour of duty was completed he married my mother and became the father of two daughters.

In completing parashah Shoftim and beginning parashah Ki Tetze over the past couple of weeks I have found myself considering the realities of war from a Torah perspective.  Most notably, in the midst of the most grueling and base occupation that a human being can face, HaShem insists that His people conduct war with integrity and goodness.  Despite the inevitable killing and carnage, the Jewish soldier is led into war by a specially anointed Priest who pronounces G-d’s blessings upon the troops, he is conscious of refraining from senseless and wasteful destruction even to the point of cutting down fruit trees, and he presents an overture for peace before proceeding into battle with the enemy.  But perhaps the most interesting and unique reality of war is found in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 regarding the treatment of a beautiful female captive, known as Eshet Yefat To’ar.

When you will go out to war against your enemies, and HaShem, your G-d, will deliver them into your hand, and you will capture its captivity; and you will see among its captivity a woman who is beautiful of form, and you will desire her, you may take her to yourself for a wife.  You shall bring her to the midst of your house; she shall shave her head and let her nails grow.  She shall remove the garment of her captivity from upon herself and sit in your house and she shall weep for her father and her mother for a full month; thereafter you may come to her and lie with her, and she shall be a wife to you.  But it shall be that if you do not desire her, they you shall send her on her own, but you may not sell her for money; you shall not enslave her, because you have afflicted her. (Stone Chumash)

Although throughout history women captives of war are considered to be the rightful possessions of their captors and objects of sexual gratification, in G-d’s perspective, such passions aroused within a soldier of Israel must be realized and addressed in a way that evokes self-control and holiness.  In this way the Torah demands the highest standards of holiness from every soldier. Yet, in the midst of this most detailed procedure, generally understood as a way to aid the soldier in restraining himself through a “cooling down” period, the Chazal recognize a means of “providing for the yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination)” (Kiddushin 21b).  Therefore the details presented here not only practically aid a soldier in dealing with very real and strong passions of war, but are also meant as a guideline in handling the evil inclination itself, for every person.  

Although the Chazal agree that the laws of Yefat To’ar address, on the most basic level, the human evil inclination, the manner in which the beautiful captive was to be handled is disputed among the rabbis of the Talmud and also among the classic commentators. The Talmudic disagreement is seen through the thoughts of Rabbi Akiva and the opposing understanding of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Akiva understood the procedure of Yefat To’ar as a means of distancing an Israelite soldier from the possibility of becoming intimately involved with a daughter of the nations.  While engaged in war the soldier’s spiritual balance is upset as he is forced to act and respond according to his primal instinct of self preservation.  In this situation a soldier’s nephesh (fleshly drives) becomes heightened and prominent which includes the drive for procreation.  While in this state encountering a woman beautiful in form can cause the soldier to become inflamed with passion for her. In order to control this overwhelming desire the man must take the captive into his home and do everything he can to cause her to become undesirable to him. 

She is to shave her head and grow her nails long and unsightly (Yevamot 48a). The garment of captivity is understood by Rabbi Akiva (according to Sifre Deuteronomy) to be the most beautiful of garments that gentile women would wear in order to entice enemy soldiers to follow their idolatrous gods.  This beautiful garment and any other adornments were removed and a very plain garment was worn instead.  The woman was to live within the confines of the soldier’s home in this uncomely state for a full month, during which time she mourns and cries for her family continually.  The soldier is to recognize that although she says she is weeping for her father and mother, in reality “father” and “mother” are merely terms she uses to weep and mourn for the idolatrous gods she has regretfully left behind (Yevamot 48b).

Rashi agrees with Rabbi Akiva that the Yefat To’ar procedure is meant to make an otherwise enticing and appealing woman into an undesirable and disgraceful individual.  As the woman is in the man’s home crying and looking ugly every day for a month, the man will be about his normal daily business among the Jewish maidens who are pretty and joyful.  In this way the Jewish women will become even more appealing to him compared to the wretched woman within his home whom he once had such a passion for.

Yet, there is the possibility that even after the month of living in such a situation that the man may continue to desire the foreign woman for marriage.  In this case Rashi points out that an unhappy fate awaits him, based on the juxtaposition of the Yefat To’ar passage with the two passages that follow it in Torah regarding the firstborn of the hated wife and death penalty for the wayward and rebellious son.  From this Rashi understands that a man who marries an Eshet Yefat To’ar will inevitably come to hate his wife and the discord between them will result in offspring that are rebellious. Despite rebellion and waywardness, the firstborn son of the hated (foreign) wife is still given his rightful double portion of his father’s inheritance.

Proof of this inevitable outcome is understood by the sages to be exemplified in the life of David.  2 Samuel 3:3 relates David’s marriage to Maacah the daughter of a Gentile king.  According to the midrash, Maacah was an Eshet Yefet To’ar, a woman taken captive during a time of war.  David became attracted to her and brought her into his home according to the laws of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and eventually married her.  The result of this union was a son, Absalom, who grew to be exceedingly rebellious against his father; desiring to kill him and openly disgracing him by sleeping with David’s wives in front of all Israel in broad daylight (2 Samuel 12:12).  Therefore, according to both Rabbi Akiva, Rashi (and others) the captive of beautiful form should be handled in a manner that causes her to become undesirable, disgraceful and thereby rejected and sent away by the soldier whose passions on the battlefield hindered his clarity of thinking.

Ramban, in line with Rabbi Akiva, takes a different approach.  Instead of understanding the Yefet To’ar procedure as a means of distancing the Israelite soldier from a beautiful foreign captive, he sees the process as a means of causing the captive to conform to G-d’s ways and people, therefore making her suitable for marriage.  Like Rabbi Akiva, Ramban understands that the woman shaves her head and removes her beautiful and alluring garment of captivity. Based on the example of Job, shaving the head is understood as a symbol of mourning as is the removal of the beautiful garment which is replaced with a garment of mourning.  The woman weeps and mourns for 30 days as a way to become acclimated psychologically with her new religious and social status and to minimize outward coercion on the part of the man who desires her to be his wife. [1]

The position of Rabbi Eliezer is in disagreement with Rabbi Akiva, as he understands the Yefet To’ar procedure as a means of honoring and respecting the beautiful captive whom the Israelite soldier has come to desire.  Instead of the woman shaving her head and growing her nails long in order to be seen as undesirable or mournful, Rabbi Eliezar teaches that she is to trim her hair neatly and pare her nails in a manner befitting a dignified woman.  

Using the example of Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 19:24, R. Eliezar expounds that the Hebrew verb “asah” (ayin, sin, het) which means “to do” is to be understood as trimming in relation to both hair and nails.  For in the 2 Samuel account Mephibosheth had not “done” (asah) his toenails and had not “done” (asah) his mustache in the sense that he had not trimmed and kept them as a result of mourning for David who had been exiled from Jerusalem.  Therefore in the most literal sense to “do one’s nails” is to cut or pare them which is the way the verse is translated in the LXX, Vulgate, and Targum Jonathan among others. [2]

In the view of Rabbi Eliezer the process of Yefat To’ar is meant to cancel the captive status of the woman by removing the outward signs of it.  The woman is not keep in confinement but instead brought into the very midst of the soldier’s family life.  After months of captivity undoubtedly her hair is long and wild and her nails are overgrown and unsightly.  Both are cut and trimmed.  R. Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg (Haketav Vehakabala) understands the Hebrew word gilu’ach which literally means “to shave” can also be understood in relation to the head or hair as describing a haircut instead of a complete shaving of the head to baldness. This is seen in the account of Joseph in Genesis 41:14 in which he is freed from prison and has his hair cut (galach) before coming to pharaoh.  2 Samuel 14:26 also describes the yearly haircut of Absalom as “galach”.  [3]

The garment of captivity as understood in scripture is not something attractive and alluring but instead a garment that is not fit to wear in public, perhaps something similar to the striped clothing of prisoners or clothing that inevitably was dirty and worn due to being in a captive state.  Again, the story of Joseph is an example of this in which when released from prison in order to interpret Pharaoh’s dream he necessarily changes from the clothing of captivity into something more suitable to wear before royalty.  King Jehoiachin as well, upon being released from a 37 year imprisonment, changes his garments (2 Kings 25:27-30).  Therefore in the most literal, biblical sense removing a garment of captivity is an expression of a change in status from captivity to freedom, from dishonor to honor.    

In line with Rabbi Eliezar’s view, the Rambam (Guide to the Perplexed 3:41) states that the reason for laws of Yefat To’ar is to show mercy toward the captive woman by considering her plight and her feelings. [4] The woman’s self respect and honor is restored through necessary hygiene and care for her outward appearance. She is encouraged to mourn for her parents for a month’s time as a way of showing respect for her feelings as a human being rather than seeing her as an inanimate object meant merely for physical pleasure.  In this way the woman is elevated to the status of one worthy to marry an Israelite soldier and to be part of the people of HaShem.

Based on a completely different angle, the Ohr HaChaim supports Rabbi Eliezar’s view, by highlighting the fact that those who serve during a voluntary war (not a war commanded by HaShem but one deemed necessary by the nation) were all righteous individuals of the highest spiritual character.  This understanding is based on Deuteronomy 20 in which men categorized as unfit for battle were removed from the ranks by the anointed Priest and/or elders prior to deployment.  With the unfit removed from the army, its ranks were assuredly made up of those who were courageous, righteous and eager to perform a mitzvah for HaShem by defending their nation. 

With this in mind the Ohr HaChaim questions if such righteous and strong individuals could succumb to the base drives of the nephesh and desire a beautiful captive due to inflamed and uncontrolled passion alone. Instead, the Ohr HaChaim understands that the soldier on the battlefield desires the beautiful captive not because of a passion for her physicality but because he recognizes something positive and holy within her character.  In this way he sees the captive as worthy of being incorporated into the Jewish people and desires her to be his wife. [5] The Yefat To’ar procedure is then a means of showing the worthiness of this woman through a well kept physical appearance and and a month of closure for her to adjust to her newfound status.   

In the midst of all the discussion, disagreements and details is perhaps to be found three basic ways that one handles the yetzer ha-ra (the evil inclination) as alluded to in the various understandings of the treatment of the beautiful and enticing captive of war.  The first way is to view and consider the evil inclination and its appealing temptations in the most unattractive and coarse manner and to contemplate the very real and possible unhappy consequences that could result in embracing it. This way of handling the evil inclination, (which can be understood as “the flesh” in the Apostolic scriptures), is related in Romans 8:6,8 where Paul speaks of being fleshly minded as equivalent to death and as something that cannot possibly please G-d.  In this way the yetzer ha-ra is viewed as completely undesirable and something to be distanced from and “sent away”.  

A second way to handle the evil inclination is to insist that it conform to the ways of Torah and fall in line with G-d’s ways for His people despite the personal struggle and pain that this approach will inevitably cause.  This way involves one’s thinking for it is based on a psychological approach.  Such an approach is seen in 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 in which the life of faithfulness is compared to battle and we are admonished to take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ. The yetzer ha-ra and its evil temptations are not rejected and sent away but instead forced to change and conform and to be captive.

Both these ways fall in line with Rabbi Akiva’s view regarding the beautiful captive, ways that in essence require a destruction of the evil inclination by making it undesirable or be forcing it to conform and take on a new status.

Yet, a third way to handle the yetzer ha-ra, one based on the view of the Yefat To’ar as presented by Rabbi Eliezer, is one that is not destruction but constructive.  It is the view that the evil inclination within itself contains an aspect of good.  Although at first glance this might seem to be very strange and askew thinking, the rabbis recognize that the yetzer ha-ra, (defined as the pull of man’s instinctual and basic drives to control and direct him), in and of itself is necessary and good.  For without the basic drives of self-preservation, procreation and the like, man would never “build a city”, “get married” or “have children” which are all necessary and basic to humanity’s survival. Although following the lead of the yetzer ha-ra causes man to become captive to his most base desires and for his life to take on the appearance of that which is wild and uncontrolled. Like R. Eliezer’s view of the Yefat To’ar man can cut away what is wild and uncomely and find within the evil inclination an aspect that is good and characteristics that are worthy to be elevated and incorporated into one’s life.  

. . . .

My father’s prayers as a young man under the duress of battle were answered by the birth of two daughters and the absence of any sons.  Although my sister and I will never be forced or “drafted” into armed service for our country the reality of battle, perhaps in the most real and profound sense, cannot be avoided, due to the yetzer ha-ra that each of us possess as human women.  I myself have faced horrors in battling the evil inclination and bitter defeats in my life that are never spoken of and could never be imagined in the minds of my loving parents. Little do they realize that their oldest daughter is one who has been “forgiven much”.  

Interestingly, the Zohar comments on the Yefat To’ar passage by saying that the 30 day period in which the woman mourns for her parents “is the month of Elul”.  This is based on the terminology of Deuteronomy 21:13 in which a “full month” in the Hebrew is yerach yamim , instead of the more common term for month chodesh. Halachically when a marriage contract is dated the month of the contract is specified as a certain chodesh. When a divorce document is dated the month is specified in terms of a yerach.  From this it is understood that a month described as chodesh (related to the word chadash or “new”) connotes a new beginning while a month described as yerach denotes an ending or closure. [6]

By using the term yerach yamim in relation to the month of mourning of the beautiful captive the Torah is relating that this is a month of ending or closure, a month in which she must come to terms with her former life before entering into a new beginning with a new husband among a new people.  In like fashion the month of Elul is understood as a time of spiritual inventory, a time when G-d’s people prepare for the fall festivals and New Year (Rosh Hashanah) ahead by coming to terms with the year that has passed through reflection, contemplation and mourning for that which has been left behind or overlooked in “the battle” involved in pursuing a life of faithfulness.

 How fitting to consider this as Rosh Chodesh Elul arrives this upcoming week, and to welcome this month as a time of contemplation regarding handling the yetzer ha-ra and closure regarding failures of the past year in order to enter anew a time focused on repentance, forgiveness and dwelling with HaShem.

 

[1] Rav Mordekhai Sabato, Parashah Ki Tetze; The “Beautiful Captive”, available at: http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha/48kitetz.htm

[2] Dr. Michael Avioz, The Law of the Beautiful Woman According to the Plain Sense of Scripture, available at: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/kiteze/avio.html

[3] Rav Mordekhai Sabato, op. cit.

[4] Rav Mordekhai Sabato, The Female Captive; What is the Torah Teaching Us?, available at: http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.62/44ki-tetze.htm

[5]  Ohr HaChaim cited by Rabbi David Lapin, Ke-Tetze 1981 Eshet Yefet Toar Handling the Yetzer Haro, audio recording, available at:  http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=6050

[6] Rabbi Frand, On Parashas Ki Seitzei, available at:  http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5759/kiseitzei.html?print=1

The Test of a False Prophet

During the three weeks between 17^th Tammuz and Tisha b’Av this year I decided to consider the synoptic accounts of Yeshua’s prophecy surrounding the destruction of the second Temple and the end of the age.  Taking Matthew 24:6-25:13, Mark 13:1-37, and Luke 21:5-36 divided into 21 short readings.  Interestingly, of the eleven occurrences of the term “false prophet” in the Apostolic Writings three are found in the Matthew and Mark accounts of Yeshua’s warnings regarding things to come after the destruction of the second Temple.  Even more peculiar is the lack of detail in Yeshua’s words regarding what a false prophet is or what a false prophet does amidst what is popularly understood as an unswerving assurance that the elect cannot be deceived by them.  Yet, in considering closely Matthew 24:24 two words that are employed in some popular translations (including KJV and NIV ) “it were” or “that were” are italicized, indicating that these words are not found in the most ancient manuscripts.  Instead of understanding the verse to say that if it were possible that the elect could be deceived by false prophets or if that were a possibility, in a negative sense, the most literal rendering states “if possible, they (false prophets) shall deceive the elect”.  In other words, the possibility exists that false prophets shall deceive, even the elect.  This is also confirmed by Yeshua’s words at the beginning of the discourse in which he warns his disciples to “take heed that no man deceive you”.  

In talking with a friend this past week I asked her what a “false prophet” is. Without hesitation she answered “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”.  A very biblical answer, but what does that mean?  How is one to determine when the wolf is in sheep’s clothing and a false prophet is in one’s midst?

In considering parashah Shoftim this past week, Moses, in Deuteronomy 18, speaks of a prophet like himself who will come from the Jewish people.  G-d will place His words in the mouth of this prophet and he will speak everything that G-d commands him.  This prophet is to be hearkened and those that do not hearken to him will be held personally accountable.  On the other hand, a prophet who speaks in G-d’s Name that which G-d did not command him to speak is to be condemned to die.

Moses then addresses the logical question which would be raised by the Children of Israel.  How is one to discern if someone is speaking something that G-d has not commanded him to speak, for anyone can claim that they are speaking forth the Word of the L-RD?  Moses responds by saying:

 If the prophet will speak in the Name of HaShem and that thing will not occur and not come about – that is the word that HaShem has not spoken; (Deuteronomy 18:22a Stone Chumash)

 Taken at face value this test of a prophet seems pretty simple.  If what the prophet predicts comes to pass he is a true prophet of G-d.  If what he predicts does not come to pass he is a false prophet, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” attempting to be something that he is not.  Yet, Maimonides in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (Foundations of Torah) points out an interesting discrepancy in understanding Deuteronomy 18:22.  If the test of a false prophet lies solely on his predictions coming to pass, then Jonah by definition would be categorized as a false prophet and worthy of death.  For Jonah proclaimed to the city of Nineveh that in 40 days they would be destroyed. Of course the biblical record states that the people repented, G-d relented and the city was spared.  Therefore Jonah’s prophecy did not come to pass.

 When the calamity that Jonah predicted did not come to pass he became very disheartened and literally wished to die.  The classic understanding is that Jonah was depressed because the city of Nineveh, which was exceedingly wicked, had been spared via means of repentance and G-d’s mercy upon them. Yet, another understanding could be that Jonah was depressed because the prophecy he proclaimed did not come to pass and in essence this would define him as a false prophet, worthy of death.  Perhaps Jonah anticipated that which he understood to be rightfully his due.  Perhaps he saw in the gourd that sprouted up and gave him shade and relief from the scorching sun, but yet died and withered the same day, a dreadful symbol of his own situation.  For like the gourd, Jonah had made relief from judgment possible for Nineveh, yet, because his prophecy upon them did not come to pass he too would wither and die and feel the scorching heat of G-d’s wrath upon him.  In this way, Jonah pitied himself and his role as prophet and neglected to pity the people of Nineveh. 

 Maimonides points out that the answer to this apparent dilemma of Jonah, of a genuine prophet speaking forth the Word of HaShem that does not come to pass, is found in the book of Jeremiah.  For as Jeremiah prophesied national disaster upon Israel a rival “prophet”, Hananiah, prophesied only good saying that Babylon would be defeated and that within two years the current crisis would be over.  In 28:9 Jeremiah explains that the prophet who prophesies peace will be known as a true prophet only when his prediction comes to pass.  

 From this Maimonides understands that negative prophecy cannot be used as a test of a false prophet.  Negative prophecy cannot be undeniably refuted because G-d is a G-d of mercy and forgiveness and there is always room for repentance and turning away of the harsh decree.  If a negative prophecy does not come to pass it is impossible to discern if the prophecy was false to begin with or if the situation predicted was averted due to repentant hearts and G-d’s forgiveness.  Because human beings have free will the future cannot be unfailingly predicted because people have the ability to change and to repent.

 Therefore, only when a prophet predicts a positive vision and a blessing from HaShem can prophecy rightly be tested and a false prophet distinguished amidst the people. As Maimonides explains:

But if, however, the prophet decreed good things and his prediction did not come true, then he is definitely a false prophet, for whenever God makes a good decree, even if it is conditional, He does not revoke it. From here we see that a prophet is tested only with respect to good matters. (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 10:4) [1]

The real test of prophecy is not bad news but good news.  When a prophet speaks forth a positive vision he is put to the test for G-d will not renege on a promise for good and blessing.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks elaborates further on Maimonides by saying that when it comes to negative prophecy and predictions of destruction and judgment, the prophet does not actually foretell, but instead warns.  The negative prophecy is a warning to encourage people to change their hearts and return to HaShem.  Therefore, if a negative prophecy is fulfilled the prophet is not justified and is not proven true because the purpose for his prophecy has not come to pass. In this way when Nineveh repented and was not destroyed, the purpose of Jonah’s negative prophecy was realized.  Positive prophecy, on the other hand, is a prediction, it is the speaking forth of something good that will happen regardless of man’s actions, but because of G-d’s promise.  If a prediction comes true it has succeeded, if a prophecy comes true it has failed. [2]

In considering Yeshua’s prophecies regarding the destruction of the Temple and end of days, it is easy to focus on the details that have taken place so perfectly.  The Temple was destroyed just as he said it would be. The personal devastation upon Jerusalem and its inhabitants occurred with historical precision. The persecution of the disciples led to martyrdom for all the Apostles except (traditionally) John.  False Messiahs have come and gone over the centuries, wars and rumors of wars have plagued every generation.  The horrible details and “tribulations” that have not yet occurred are generally considered inevitable and necessary in order for the return of the master to take place.  

Yet, the many negative prophecies that Yeshua related surrounding the Temple destruction and his future return are not meant only as items on a checklist or as a scorecard of accuracy.  For each negative prophecy represents the opportunity for repentance, return to HaShem, and relief from the harsh decree.  In essence, each negative prophecy which has come true has failed to achieve the purpose for which it was given.   

Yeshua will return some day, he will gather his elect from the four corners of the earth, and will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem to reign over the entire earth.  These positive prophesies will occur because they are based on G-d’s promise and not man’s actions.  But the atmosphere in which they shall occur can be one of doom and destruction or of repentance and mercy depending on the heart of man toward G-d.

. . . . . . . . .

What is a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  A sheep is a docile animal that is domesticated and follows the simple commands of its master.  It eats grass and is satisfied.  The wolf is wild and unable to be tamed.  It eats meat and destroys its prey.  The sheep symbolizes peace and good.  The wolf symbolizes destruction and doom.  A wolf in sheep’s clothing is an underlying message of destruction and doom that tries to present itself as something good and peaceful.  In the words of Jeremiah it is those who say “peace, peace” when there is no peace (just as Hananiah did). Yeshua considered such a dichotomous view a curse and pronounced woe upon Israel when “all men speak well of you” for this is the way of the false prophets of which their fathers approved (Luke 6:26).

The theme of Yeshua’s prophecies regarding the Temple destruction and the end of the age is to “watch” and “be aware”.  Does this mean that his followers are merely to realize the details that have already come to pass and be on the look-out for things yet to come?  As wars and earthquakes and other events are considered and contemplated as fulfillment of further prophetic tribulation are we then to rejoice in this as something good and necessary and be at peace with it?  Or should we instead recognize the opportunity for repentance in such things and avert the harsh decree?  

The test of the false prophet is found in what he predicts and understands to be good.  Who then is the wolf in sheep’s clothing?  Is it an outsider who tries to be something that he isn’t, a false believer who tries to sneak in and destroy the flock?  Or is he to be found right within our midst?  Within the possibility that Yeshua warned of, the possibility that even the elect could be deceived by understanding prophecy that is negative and meant to evoke repentance as something that is good and must be fulfilled?

 

[1] Maimonides, The Laws of the Basic Principles of Torah, Chapter 10, point 4, available at: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/MadaYHT.html

[2] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation – Shoftim 5765, available at: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=715

A Woman’s Prayer for Tisha b’Av

One of the books I have read over the past month is Seyder Tkhines (The Forgotten Book of Common Prayer for Jewish Women) by Devra Kay. The Seyder Tkhines is the first known standard book of prescribed vernacular prayers for women originally printed in Yiddish in the year 1648, and incorporated into numerous Ashkenazic synagogue Siddurim in the mid 1600’s-1720’s.  Although from earliest times Hannah’s prayer had been seen as the model for Jewish women regarding private and spontaneous prayer as opposed to the male-oriented communal service, the introduction of the Seyder Tkhines provided women a means of participating in standardized prayer that went beyond the usual petitions of spontaneous supplication.  

An interesting conjecture regarding the appearance of the earliest Seyder Tkhines in 1648 is related to the Messianic fervor of the mid-1600’s.  In 1648 (5408 in the Hebrew calendar) Jewish kabbalists predicted the first coming of Messiah based on the gematria value of the phrase “end of days” which in Hebrew numerically calculates to 5408. [1]  Christian writers including Isaac de la Peyrere (Du Rappel des Juifs) and Pierre de la Fons also predicted 1648 as the date the Christian Messiah would return. When the redemption did not take place in that year, both Jewish kabbalists and Christian millenarians set the next year of salvation as 1666. [2]

In this atmosphere of great Messianic expectation the Seyder Tkhines was published. The title page of the original edition explains the purpose of women reciting the tkhines as a means of gaining entry into the Holy Land through the coming of the Messiah. [3]  One of the fast day tkhines includes an extensive prayer composed for the ninth of Av.  Devra Kay points out a pertinent parallel between the ninth of Av tkhine and the book of Lamentations (traditionally read during the ninth of Av) in that both express grief as voiced by a female narrator, for in the book of Lamentations the voice of grieving Jerusalem is initially described in the feminine (“her”). [4]

Although the ninth of Av is a time of repentance and mourning regarding the destruction of the first and second Temples, the sages take notice that within this most sad day is contained a seed of hope.  Historically (according to Talmud Ta’anit 29a) the fire that destroyed the second Temple began toward evening on the ninth of Av and reached it fullest and most destructive force on the tenth of Av.  Yet, the halachah of the ninth of Av begins exceedingly mournful and then eases as the day progresses. Men do not wear tallit or tefillin for shacharit but don the tallit for minchah. One sits on low stools or on the floor until mid-day, at which time one can sit on regular chairs. Work is prohibited (including preparation of food) until mid-day after which the prohibition is lifted. Fasting ends at nightfall and scrupulous individuals who desire to commemorate the total destruction of the Temple on the tenth of Av abstain from eating meat or drinking wine, bathing and laundering until mid-day on the tenth.

In a manner that seems to contradict the logical liturgical order of the day, on the ninth of Av mourning lessens as the historical time the fire and destruction of the Temple is understood to have become heightened.  The most extreme grieving takes place during the morning hours becoming less extreme at night and during the following day (when the Temple was actually consumed in flames and burned to the ground).  Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller explains this seeming contradiction as incorporating the principle that at the time of greatest destruction and despair, the hope of redemption is born. [5]  It is at times when the impossible happens and the greatest disasters take place that one feels an uncanny closeness to G-d and redemption becomes “real” and longed for.  From this the rabbis developed the concept that “on Tisha b’Av Mashiach is born”.  In this way everything that brings about Mashiach’s coming has the possibility to be “born within us” at this time. [6]

Therefore, the mourning of Tisha b’Av lightens as the historical time of the destruction increases. Because the historic time encompasses the most extensive details of disaster this time also provides the greatest opportunity for the hope of redemption to be realized and the seeds of redemption to be planted.  With this in mind some women of the Chabad tradition will begin to scrub floors and clean house after mid-day on the ninth of Av in anticipation of the awaited redemption. [7] 

Similar concepts are seen in Yeshua’s teachings regarding the destruction of the Temple and his second coming (Matthew 24:6-25:13, Mark 13:1-37, Luke 21:5-8).  In Mark 13:32-37 watchfulness regarding the second coming is likened to a servant who is placed in charge of the home of his master who has taken a long journey to a far away county. The home must be kept in order for the servant does not know when the master will return. If the master’s return is likely of course the servant will make sure that the house is clean.  

The three synoptic accounts relate awesome and unbelievable physical changes in the sun, moon, stars, and heavens to occur prior to the Son of Man’s return.  In Luke 21:28 Yeshua says:

 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near. (NKJV)

 Is Yeshua merely saying that when such signs take place that one should look up toward the heavens in order to physically witness his coming?  When a person is in mourning his face is downtrodden and his head is bowed.  When one is in grief it is difficult to look another person in the face.  When one is hopeful their demeanor changes.  This is seen in the popular phrase “things are looking up” to describe a situation of renewed hope and anticipation.  At the time of greatest physical distress and perplexity ever known upon the earth, a time when “men’s hearts fail them from fear” (v. 26), Yeshua literally says “things are looking up”.  One’s focus and face should be uplifted as an expression of the hope and reality of redemption being born out of a time of greatest disaster.  

Yet, upon close reading Yeshua admonishes his disciples to “look up and lift up your heads” “when these things begin to happen”.  These things, which Yeshua has been speaking of, begin with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, in which “not one stone will be left upon another”.  

With this in mind, and with Tisha b’Av understood as a day of great sorrow in which the hope of redemption takes root in reality, I provide the tkhine for the ninth of Av below as translated into English by Devra Kay.  May this prayer inspire women to grieve in the uniquely feminine voice through a historic standardized prayer composed with a focus upon redemption and the coming of Messiah.

 

To be said on the Ninth of Av

 

Judge of all the world,

Your judgment is right and true,

And without injustice.

You are our true judge forever.

 

On this day our forefathers,

Those who You led out of Egypt

Through Your servant Moses and Aaron,

Committed many misdeeds.

 

Again they did not trust in the promise

That You made to our forefathers,

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

So they were not permitted to enter the Holy Land,

Where Your Divine Presence rested

At all times, and where Your Name

Was murmured by Your true servants.

 

And on that night they all cried,

And their eyes ran like spring water,

And they did not trust in Your assurances.

 

And when they discovered

Through Your servants Moses and Aaron

That the gift was also to be withheld from their children,

As it happened through Your truth,

They cried many tears on this day.

 

On this day of Your great splendor,

Both Temples were destroyed and wiped out.

The crown fell to earth,

And we can no longer bring sacrifices

To the offering stool

In honor of Your holiness,

And can no longer go three times a year

To see the beauty of Your Divine Presence.

 

With our faith and conviction

In the great happiness

With which the Holy Divine Presence

Rested among the cherubim

And spoke with Your children

On the High Holy Days

In the face of great bravery,

Against great wealth,

And against great hope

Everything was burnt in a fire from Heaven,

And they chose crooked ways, not good ones.

 

And women and children who were gentle and educated

Were taken into captivity,

And the maidens were shamed.

And the young men had to drag

Millstones around their shoulders and necks.

And the chains around their feet made them stumble.

 

And they craved bread in their hunger,

And had no water to quench their thirst.

There was great and bitter frustration

For all the people,

And for this city,

And all lands,

One city that was above all the others

Suffered great and bitter frustration.

 

And they called out for mercy

To overturn his hatred.

They called out to their Friend for help,

But no one answered them

Except with evil,

Mocking their Sabbaths and Festivals,

Extinguishing their candles,

And creating darkness.

 

Lord of all the world,

I stand before You

With a sad heart,

Wailing and weeping,

My eyes run like spring water,

And my heart sighs and cannot be free

Of the memory of the disruption

Of Your children Israel

In the broken city of Yehuda,

And Israel

And their Kingdom.

 

So they went into captivity,

And the Priests who worshipped in Your House,

And the Levites who sang and beat on all sides

Playing the holy songs,

Are now dispersed,

And all the holy vessels

Have come into unclean hands.

 

May Your Name be merciful.

My eyes are swollen with great weeping,

And my heart is weak with sighing before You,

And my strength deserts my body,

And the marrow forsakes my bones,

And my limbs are feeble with great lament

For your children Israel.

 

Who can heal them like you?

You are the One who heals all sickness under Israel,

And you are one Lord over all lords,

Who forgives transgressions

In Your great mercy and compassion.

 

Turn Your ears toward the cries of Your people Israel,

And open Your eyes and see the plight of Your holy city

Where Your voice called out to them,

And hear how Your children are mocked and shamed among the peoples,

Where their goodness is lost with all their hope.

 

Give your strength to them,

And let the strength of others come to nothing,

And may they be shamed,

And tremble in awe before the grim severity of Your holiness.

And help us, and gather us together

From all four corners of the world,

From among the peoples,

So we are happy again.

 

And free us from the pain You gave us,

And remember the covenant with our forefathers.

Let it not be lost to us among the peoples,

And rebuild the holy city again with Your continuity.

 

As the prophet said:

In honor of You

I wish to receive Your mercy and compassion.

For you forgive the misdeeds of Your people Israel

Out of love

When our eyes and our hearts are faithful to you,

And when we serve You

You are our consolation.

 

Therefore console us in our unhappiness

And protect us from further sadness,

And send us Your beloved

Who will beg only for the good of Your children Israel.

 

And on this day, may we celebrate,

And praise Your Name,

And tell of Your great wonder.

And may You save us now

As You saved us from Egypt,

So we may soon rejoice,

In our day.

 

Amen. [8]

 

[1]  Devra Kay, Seyder Tkhines (The Forgotten Book of Common Prayer for Jewish Women), The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 2004, p. 34.

[2] Ibid. p. 35

[3] Ibid. p. 45

[4] Ibid. p. 166

[5] Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller, Feeling the Churban, available at:  http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/705/single/

[6] Ibid.

[7] Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center, Order of the Day (A Step by Step Guide to Tisha b’Av Observance), available at:  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/144576/jewish/Order-of-the-Day.htm

[8] Devra Kay, op. cit. pp. 166-169.