June 28, 2009

Talking to the Moon

3000308679_5d8a4726bc May it be the will before You, HaShem my G-d and the G-d of my forefathers to fill the flaw of the moon, that it not be diminished in any way. And may the light of the moon be like the light of the sun and like the light of the seven days of Creation as it was before its diminishment, as it is said:  The two luminaries that are great.   And may there be fulfilled in us the verse that is written:  They shall seek HaShem their G-d and David their king. Amen.  (Schottenstein Edition Siddur for Weekdays)

 As I finished making Kiddush Levanah, for the very first time, on a most lovely summer’s night, I took a few minutes to stand quietly on my front porch and admire the sight of the waxing crescent moon.  As my attention was turned toward the western sky, my head covered with a prayer veil, and my Siddur clutched against my chest, my daughter came out to the porch.  “What are you doing?” she asked with a quizzical look.  When I explained that I had just prayed a prayer for the sanctification of the moon she replied “Oh, so you’re talking to the moon now?”  Taking off my head covering and putting my siddur aside, I sat down with her to talk.  

 As we swayed back and forth upon comfortable southern-style rocking chairs, I briefly explained Rosh Chodesh and the ensuing Talmudic tradition of sanctifying the moon (Kiddush Levanah).  I shared with her the beauty of the waxing and waning moon and its unassuming yet consistent monthly testimony of renewal and rebirth and how such things allude to the Messianic Age and the resurrection from the dead in which all things will be renewed.  I also related the fact that we as women are most privy to such monthly phenomenon through the monthly menstrual cycle.  With a smile on her face she patted my hand and said “Mom, sometimes I wonder if you aren’t going a little bit crazy”.  

 Ironically, similar thoughts had entered my mind as I finished the final section of parashah Eikev this past week. In Deuteronomy 10 after relating how he had carved out and received a second set of tablets, and interceded on Israel’s behalf for HaShem’s mercy (due to the sin of the Golden Calf), Moses then admonishes the people in light of G-d’s reconciliation toward them;

 Now, O Israel, what does HaShem, your G-d, ask of you?  Only to fear HaShem, your G-d, to go in all His ways and to love Him, and to serve HaShem, your G-d, with all your heart and will all your soul. (Deuteronomy 10:12, Stone Chumash)

 At face value this verse seems quite beautiful and inspiring. What a worthy goal Moses put forth for the Children of Israel.  Yet, in this verse the Sages contemplate a problem, one which seems more than “a little bit crazy”.  In Talmud, Berachot 33b, the Sages deduce (based on Deuteronomy 10:12) that “everything is in the hand of heaven but the fear of heaven”.  “Fear” as used in 10:12 is the Hebrew word yir’ah (יִרְאָה), which can mean both “fear” and/or “awe” based on context.  Yir’ah also describes various levels of fear that are often found in classic Mussar (Jewish ethical/character development) teachings.  [1]

The lowest or most inferior level is called “yirat ha’onesh”; this is fear of G-d’s punishment for sin.  The next level is “yirat chet” which simply means “fear of sin” and is understood to be a higher level in which one is actually repulsed by sin (not simply afraid of the punishment for it). The highest level of yir’ah is “yirat shamayim” or “fear of Heaven”, this is fear directly related to HaShem (referred to metaphorically as “Heaven”), and is best understood as “awe”.  [2]

 This highest level of fear is that spoken of in Deuteronomy 10:12 where yir’ah is directly related to יי (the Sacred Name/Tetragrammaton).  Yet, in the plainest reading Moses is understood to be saying that Israel should “only” fear HaShem or “merely” fear Him, in a way that suggests this highest level of awe for the Almighty is easy or natural.   How are we to understand this? Something that seems a “little bit crazy”, to say the least.

Several explanations are given in Rabbinic literature including that yirat shamayim was a “small thing” for Moses (the opinion of R. Hanina in Talmud) or that it was “easy” for the generation of Israel in the Wilderness as they daily experienced G-d’s supernatural presence (Kli Yakar).  As for individuals today, such awe and fear of G-d is a difficult state to achieve.  

Yet, in the book of Ecclesiastes, after considering the details and futility of life, the wise king Solomon concludes;

The sum of the matter, when all has been considered:  Fear G-d and keep His commandments, for that is man’s whole duty. (12:13 Stone Tanach). 

“Man’s whole duty” is also understood to speak of the “whole of man” (kol ha’adam). Many commentators (including Rashi, Rambam, and IbnEzra) insist from Ecclesiastes that yirat shamayim is nothing less than the very essence and purpose of a human being.  The idea that “everything is in the hand of heaven except the fear of heaven” expresses this understanding.  Because human beings have free will we are free to adopt pious or impious attitudes, to choose to be righteous or to be wicked.  

Of all things that a person acquires during his life, G-d, so to speak, stores only one thing in His “treasury” – a person’s fear (awe) of Him.  G-d isn’t impressed with wealth or career achievements or material accomplishments because none of those things are directly and independently man’s doing, for G-d alone gives each individual the ability and opportunities to succeed.  There is only one area in which man has the completely free choice to accomplish and therefore be recognized by HaShem; in the matter of whether or not to fear Him.  [3]

If yirat shamayim is truly man’s only independent and completely will-driven opportunity for accomplishment before G-d, why then is it understood as being very difficult to achieve?  In the classic work God in Search of Man, Abraham Joshua Heschel spends an entire chapter considering the topic of “Awe”.  Heschel summarizes the concept of awe as being “the sense of wonder and humility inspired by . . . the presence of mystery” [4] and also as; “an act of insight into a meaning greater than ourselves” [5] In Heschel’s view “awe precedes faith” and is the very “root of faith” making “awe” the most fitting definition of “religion” [6].  

When facing mystery, man alone has the ability to contemplate and research in order to discover answers or meaning.  The term “mystery” itself presupposes intellect and rationalization in order to recognize it as such.  It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter (Proverbs 25:2, KJV).

In searching out answers and meaning there must yet remain the inspiration of recognizing something greater behind it all. When this greater meaning is not considered and awe is forfeited in human life, according to Heschel, the universe becomes nothing more than a “marketplace”. [7] Life becomes a commodity and the mysteries and wonders of the universe become little more than interesting “window dressing”.  A general sense of wonderment or pleasure is experienced without any consideration of an infinitely grander scheme.

In a simplified sense “shopping” is easier than “thinking” and admiring is preferred over contemplating.  Perhaps this is why yirat shemayim is both easy and difficult, why Moses described it as “merely” something to be done.  For mankind has the ability and completely unhindered opportunity to choose regarding awe inspiring experiences of life, but yet the evil inclination will always draw us toward following the easiest path.

During the Shabbat prior to Rosh Chodesh (Head of the Month) the day and time of the upcoming new month is announced.  This announcement is called molad or “birth”.  Before announcing the molad a blessing of the new month (Birkat HaChodesh) is recited.  In this blessing both yirat shamayim  and yirat chet are referred to, as one prays that HaShem would grant us a life in which there is “fear of Heaven” and “fear of sin”.  Yet, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Birkat HaChodesh is the fact that yirat shamayim is referred to twice; once in the middle of the prayer and once toward its conclusion. In this way this prayer emphasizes the fear of Heaven more directly perhaps than any other prayer of the Siddur.  Why is it that an awesome fear of Heaven is most closely related to the moon?

The topic of the moon is one that is filled with mystery in the mind of the Sages.  In Talmud, Chullin 60b, a quandary is considered regarding the account of the moon’s creation in Genesis 1:16;

 And G-d made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen 1:16 KJV)

Although the verse begins by stating that two equally great lights were created, it then progresses to explain that one of the lights was greater than the other.  The great one (sun) ruled by day and the lesser one (moon) ruled by night.  This presents a mystery, for how and why was one of the great lights (the moon) diminished? 

Through a series of midrashic stories regarding how the moon complained to HaShem about the inability for “two kings to share one crown” and was thereby commanded by G-d to decrease itself, the Sages explain that in this present created order two equally great lights cannot exist together.  The monthly presentation of a sin offering “unto HaShem” on Rosh Chodesh (as given in Numbers 28:15) is understood to be speaking of a sin offering that is brought on behalf of G-d to atone for His commanding the moon to diminish.   

Although this is a shocking conclusion, it is based on a Kabbalistic principle that “the final outcome was the original thought”. [8] That the original principles found in the creation account will be the final outcome of existence for the created universe. Because HaShem’s first thought was to cause the sun and moon to be “co-sovereigns” this original vision is destined to be the end of their shared journey. [9]   In this way the monthly sin offering “for HaShem” atones for the diminishment of the moon.

In a passage listing the promised blessings of the Messianic Age Isaiah prophecies; the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun (Isaiah 30:26 KJV). The time is coming when the moon and sun will be co-sovereigns again.  How this will play out and what it will look like specifically is a mystery.  Yet, every month as the moon transitions from complete darkness to complete brightness the message of this mystery ushers forth again and again.  At the first sliver of light the new month (Rosh Chodesh) is heralded and Kiddush Levanah (sanctification of the Moon) takes place when the moon is still waxing (growing bigger).  How fitting to pray, as one witnesses the moon progressing in brightness, that HaShem will cause its light to equal that of the sun.  

Perhaps the Birkat HaChodesh emphasizes twice the fear of Heaven (yirat shamayim) because the cycle of the moon presents us with two opportunities to stand in awe of a natural phenomenon that represents an infinitely grander scheme.  As the absent moon begins to perceptibly shine once more (at the new month) the hope of renewal is realized.  As the brightening moon is considered the reality of progressive and full renewal is witnessed.  Both phenomenon inspire awe and give opportunity to contemplate a meaning greater than ourselves.  

. . . . . .

As I took in the humorously sarcastic words of my young adult daughter in light of my explanations and insights regarding Rosh Chodesh and Kiddush Levanah, I found myself filled with patience and understanding.  For when she was 18 years old and a freshman in college I began to keep Shabbat and study the “Hebraic roots” of the faith.  During her upbringing in Evangelical churches and Christian schools, her mother had been a staunchly conservative Calvinist who taught a well-known local ladies Bible study.  To watch my transformation into Torah observance has been little less than witnessing her mother become a Jewess.  This transformation hasn’t been comfortable or easy and is often misunderstood.  After five years reality is starting to sink in.  This isn’t merely just a “fad” or “curiosity” for me.  It is a lifestyle and a life-long pursuit.

So, what more could a young woman say to this, but jokingly wonder about her mother’s sanity?  In response I asked my daughter to look at the moon.  As we both gazed toward the west the sight was lovely, the moon being lightly enshrouded by wispy cirrus clouds that acted as a delicate transparent veil around it.  “Isn’t it beautiful”?  I questioned. When she answered “yes” I asked her “why”, “why do you think it is beautiful”?  “I don’t know” she said “it just is”. 

I then asked her to think about why the moon is considered inspirational and beautiful to people all over the world, all throughout the centuries. Why is it that the moon is considered romantic, that poems and songs have been written about it, that people feel drawn to admire it?  “Because G-d created it, I suppose” was her answer.  But G-d also created dirt and worms and many other things that people don’t admire or find inspirational, so what is so special about the moon?  “I don’t know” she said, throwing up her hands.  “Think about what I just told you, for there’s method to my madness” I answered with a wink.

Inevitably our conversation turned toward the happenings of daily life as we spent some time rocking and talking on the front porch on this warm June night. The moon which had been the center of attention was now relegated to the role of window dressing, at least for the time being, in the mind of my daughter.  But who knows, perhaps happening upon her mother “talking to the moon” will cause her to consider a mystery in a way she never has before.

  

[1]  Alan Morinis, Everyday Holiness, Trumpeter, Boston & London, 2007 p. 233

[2] Ibid.

[3]  Rabbi Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says (Devarim), Bnay Yakov, New York, 2005, pp. 138-139.

[4] Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1976, p. 77.

[5] Ibid, p. 74.

[6] Ibid, p. 77.

[7] Ibid, p. 78.

[8] Sarah Schneider, Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine and Feminine, A Still Small Voice, Jerusalem, 2007, p. 42.

[9] Ibid.

June 21, 2009

When a Break-Up is a Blessing

44799This past Shabbat as I sat at my desk and looked up from the Chumash I was reading, my eyes were drawn to the small calendar sitting on the window sill in front of me. Written on the date of June 20th were the words “Lisa’s Wedding”.  My heart grew heavy as I was reminded of the fact that on this gloomy and rainy day I would not be attending a wedding as anticipated. 

“Lisa” is the youngest daughter of a very devout Christian couple who are good friends of mine.  This couple insisted that all three of their daughters attend the same conservative Christian college.  Their two older daughters both found very suitable and wonderful husbands through this college experience. A year ago when they announced the engagement of their youngest, Lisa, to a fine young man she had met at the college, the Christian experience of higher education seemed to be a fool proof way of providing yet another suitable spouse.

In early May my daughter and I attended Lisa’s bridal shower and just before leaving for the Shavuot Conference I submitted my reply regarding attending her wedding ceremony.  Upon returning home from the conference my daughter and I talked about what was “new” during the five days I had been away. With a somber tone she informed me that Lisa’s fiancée’ had called off the wedding. As she explained details regarding the fiancée’s decision tears began to stream down her face. 

This news seemed surreal and shocking.  Although I have known of people who have not gone through with a marriage, such a thing has never occurred to someone I have been close to, and certainly not to someone who was involved in what seemed to be a solid and G-d honoring Christian relationship.  Ultimately as the weeks have gone by and the sad news of the break-up discussed among friends and loved ones the same conclusion was reached by all; that it was a “blessing” for such a thing to occur before the wedding rather than after the vows were taken. 

Of course this most logical conclusion doesn’t make things any easier for Lisa or for those who know and care about her.  How fitting I thought, as I looked at the rain streaming down outside, that this day in which expected vows would not be made and heartfelt promises unfulfilled, should be a day in which the clouds would “weep” at the untold heartache of a young woman forlorn. 

In studying Deuteronomy 9 this past week, I found myself considering what is perhaps the most famous “break-up” to be found in Scripture.  For it is here that Moses reiterates the sin of the golden calf and his reaction to it upon descending Sinai.

So I turned and descended from the mountain as the mountain was burning in fire, and the two Tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.  Then I saw and behold! you had sinned to HaShem, your G-d; you made yourselves a molten calf; you strayed quickly from the way that HaShem commanded you.  I grasped the two Tablets and threw them from my two hands, and I smashed them before your eyes. (Deuteronomy 9:15-17, Stone Chumash)

In general, Moses actions are understood as justified.  Burning with righteous anger in witnessing the horrendous sin of the people before him, Moses threw the tablets to the base of the mountain, destroying them.  Yet, the Sages marvel at what Moses did, for the two tablets that he carried were those inscribed by the finger of HaShem Himself.  Various Midrashim describe these tablets (luchot) as much more than merely etched stone.  But rather as spiritual and heavenly creations that resembled sapphire, contained mysteriously suspended letters, and whose words could be read from both front and back sides.  Would Moses anger  justify destroying something so wondrous?  What right did Moses have for shattering something so holy?

According to the Midrash, the sin of the golden calf is likened to a bride playing the harlot while under the chuppah. [1] The giving of the Torah at Sinai is seen as the betrothal of HaShem to His people.  While the bride (Israel) is at the base of the mountain covered by the fire of HaShem’s presence (symbolic of the wedding canopy) she participates in gross unfaithfulness through worship of the golden calf. 

Moses in descending the mountain was bringing with him the tangible betrothal contract produced by HaShem Himself.  Although Moses had previously written down the commandments and judgments of HaShem and read this book of the Covenant to the people during the ratification of it in Exodus 24, at that point the agreement was merely a verbal one (we will do and we will hear).  The bride (Israel) had verbally agreed to become betrothed to the groom (HaShem). 

In Jewish tradition the betrothal must be sealed with something tangible.  Although a ring is the tangible component of betrothal today, in ancient times such agreements were often sealed with the exchange of money or with a written contract.  The luchot contained the written agreement between HaShem and the people.  Were Moses to present the tablets to the people, everything written upon them would automatically be legally binding.  The betrothal agreement would be sealed and the people would have place themselves in the position of an adulteress, for unfaithfulness within the betrothal arrangement is considered adultery.

Therefore, the Midrash says that Moses broke the tablets out of love and concern for the people.  In doing so he literally “tore up” the contract so it would not be binding upon them.  Moses knew that Israel would be punished for her sin.  Yet, instead of being judged as an unfaithful wife (adulteress) which demanded the death penalty, by not presenting the tablets to the people Moses hoped that HaShem would judge them more mercifully (as a “single woman”, rather than one bound to marriage via betrothal).  [2]

Interestingly, this Midrash finds support in what Moses describes in Deuteronomy 9:21.

 Your sin that you committed – the calf – I took and burned it in the fire, and I pounded it, grinding it well, until it was fine as dust, and I threw its dust into the brook that descended from the mountain. (Stone Chumash)

Although it is not mentioned here, the original episode of the golden  calf (Exodus 32:20) describes Moses insisting that the people drink the water containing the dust of the destroyed idol.  This process of drinking dust laden or “bitter” water is the same procedure used in determining if a woman suspected of adultery by her husband (called a “Sotah”), was guilty of sin or was innocent (Numbers 5).  If the woman was guilty, the drinking of the water would cause her to die; if she was innocent she would live. 

The Hebrew word for “dust” in this verse (aphar) (עֲפָרוֹ) is the same word used to describe the “dust” on the Tabernacle floor, placed in water and used for the Sotah procedure in Numbers 5:17.  Therefore in like manner as the Sotah, forcing the people to drink the water laced with the dust of the golden calf was a way of determining if the nation as a whole would be judged as an adulteress and deserving of death.  Because the Scripture only relates that the bitter water was ingested by the people, without any deadly results because of it (upon the nation as a whole), it would seem that Moses’ breaking of the luchot spared the nation from being judged in the manner of an adulterous (betrothed) wife. [3]  In this way the break-up was a blessing, for it was better that Israel not enter into a state of official betrothal with HaShem at this time (through the receiving of the tablets), than suffer the serious consequence (of death) for unfaithfulness after the tangible details were finalized.

Yet, another question is pondered by the Sages regarding Moses’ throwing and breaking of the luchot in Deuteronomy 9, for in v. 17, Moses describes that he “grasped” the two tablets prior to throwing them down.  If the tablets were already in Moses hands (v.15) then why does the Torah need tell us that Moses grasped them?

The Babylonian Talmud (Pesachim 87b) states; “when the two tablets were broken the letters flew up” (or vanished away).  From this it is understood that letters on the tablets soared upward back to their source in heaven.  The Jerusalem Talmud gives additional details regarding this (Taanit 4:5) by stating that when Moses descended the mountain and saw the spectacle of the golden calf, the letters then floated back to heaven causing the tablets to grow heavy in Moses hands.  Logically, one would think if the letters were removed that the tablets would grow lighter, not heavier.

The Ohr HaChaim (Devarim 9:17) conjectures that the heavenly quality of the first tablets caused them to literally float above Moses’ hands and that he didn’t actually physically hold on to them as he descended the mountain.  For in v. 15 which states; “the two Tablets of the covenant were in my two hands”; the literal Hebrew “al sh’tey yadai” (עַל שְׁתֵּי יָדָי) can be translated either “in my two hands” or “upon/above my two hands” as the prefix “al” (ayin-lamed) can mean both.  The Ohr HaChaim therefore understands that by using “al” in describing the placement of the tablets in relation to Moses’ hands that the tablets were “on” or “upon” his hands rather than literally “in” them. Upon seeing the sin of the golden calf the holiness of the tablets weakened, the letters floated back to heaven, the tablets became heavy, and Moses then needed to grab them with his hands to support them. 

In the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 49d) the first tablets of the Law are described by Hananiah, nephew of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah as; “(having) between each and every statement, distinctions and fine points, ‘studded like beryl’, like the Great Sea”. From this the Midrash understands that the first tablets contained not only what is known as the “Written Torah” but also the words of the Midrash and Talmud (Oral Torah). In this way the original tablets contained the basic instructions of the Torah as well as all the details (distinctions and fine points) necessary for its practical application in any possible situation. [4]

The letters that flew off of the tablets because of the sin of the golden calf were the distinctions and fine points of practical application, while the letters of general instruction remained.  The Gemara of Eruvin 54a (BT) states that if the luchot had not been broken, the Torah that was learned would never have been forgotten.  The general instructions as well as the details of application would have been easily understood and carried out perfectly. Because of the sin of the golden calf, the practical applications and finer details of Torah would not be written out and plainly understood, but instead “returned to heaven” and would be orally transmitted from one generation to the next.

When the “Oral Torah” (distinctions and fine points of application) was removed  and ascended back to heaven the tablets became “heavy” in Moses hand. The tablets were “light” when they contained and included every possible practical aspect for living out the mitzvot.  The “light” Torah was the “whole tablets” that could be easily learned, perfectly applied and never forgotten.  When the practical details and finer points were taken away and not part of the information that is plainly understood (in literal words) then the Torah became heavy.  Like the broken pieces of the luchot at the base of the mountain every little detail and practicality would have to be toiled with and wrestled over in order understand how they were to be applied or “fit together” in daily life.  Legal systems would have to be set up and Sages employed in order to determine just how each mitzvot was to be carried out in differing and variable circumstances.  This is the reality of the “heaviness” of Torah.

In contrast, Yeshua spoke of his “yoke” as being “easy” and his “burden” as “light”.  Those who would take on his yoke and learn from him would find “rest” for their souls (Matthew 11:29-30), as opposed to the “heavy” burdens placed upon the shoulders of the people by the Pharisees who “sit in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:4).  These verses are generally understood as proof that those who believe in and follow Yeshua are no longer under the heavy burden of the Law (Old Testament), and especially not the legalistic and burdensome halachah of the Pharisees (aka Rabbinic Judaism).  Because Yeshua fulfilled the Law his disciples have a much lighter and easier “yoke” to bear.  He is gentle and understanding of their failings and inabilities and therefore has taken the impossibly heavy yoke of Torah upon himself for them.

Yet, in the most practical and greatest sense, Yeshua’s disciples and the world in general will learn from him in the Messianic age.  At that time the Law will go out from Zion and the Word of the L-RD from Jerusalem and all nations will learn the ways of HaShem and will “walk in His paths” (Isaiah 2:3).  Instead of understanding Yeshua as doing away with Torah for his disciples, and therefore making things easier or lighter for them, could it be that he was speaking of the time when his reign over and teaching of the whole world will result in the practical aspects of Torah being understood clearly and carried out perfectly?  A time in which Torah will not be forgotten and a man will not have to teach his neighbor to “know the L-RD” for they will know Him?

The easy and light yoke that Yeshua is speaking of has to do with the Messianic age. The entire chapter of Matthew 11 has this future time in mind. Beginning with John the Baptist’s question regarding Yeshua as “the one who is to come” (i.e. the Messiah) to Yeshua’s “woes” upon Chorazin and Bethsaida regarding the future judgment they will face. It is in this context that Yeshua expounds upon his yoke being easy and his burden being light.   A time in which Torah will be perfectly taught and expounded upon and will not be forgotten.  A time in which the soul will find “rest” regarding the finer details and practical applications of the mitzvot, instead of struggling through the current legal processes which result in various viewpoints, volumes of opinions and endless and heavy points of detail. 

This present reality is that the Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat” and are to be listened to.  The application of the written Torah is a process of heaviness and struggle to determine proper application based on the authority of men.  In the Messianic age, the reign of Yeshua will make living out Torah light and clear.  In this sense, the broken tablets will be made “heavenly” once again and blessing will no longer be found in that which is broken, but rather in that which is whole.

. . . . . . . . .

As the day came to an end on the longest Shabbat of the year, the time of the summer solstice, with sunset being 9:04 pm — the rain stopped, the clouds broke and a beautiful golden  sunset was in view. As I watched the sun setting from my kitchen window I noticed a stack of papers on the adjacent counter.  Among the various receipts and mailings was Lisa’s wedding invitation.   

I picked up the invitation and looked at it. I thought how lovely it was, printed on rich cream vellum with a torn edge of gilded gold and a delicate bow at the top. It was my intention to frame this invitation in the way I have done for other wedding invitations received in the past.  Using pressed flowers from my perennial garden and applying them decoratively around the invitation, such a framed gift has always been appreciated as a memorable keepsake by newlyweds throughout the years.

Yet, this invitation would not be framed and would not become a keepsake.  This invitation would be discarded without special consideration. As I placed it in the trash curiously I didn’t feel sad, but instead a sense of trust and hope welled up in me.  For just as the gloomy day on which a wedding did not take place, ended with a brilliant sunset.  So, I was certain that a beautiful young woman who is heartbroken today will yet see brighter days ahead.  

As the day turned to night and I looked forward to Havdalah I couldn’t help but thank HaShem for break-ups which are blessings and means of protection, no matter how painful and unexpected, for those who are His.

 

[1] Rabbi Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says (Devarim),  2005 Bnay Yakov Publications, New York, pp. 131-132.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p. 133

[4] A.J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah (As Refracted Through the Generations), 2007, Continuum, New York/London, pp. 542-543.

June 14, 2009

The Bread of Affliction

breadThis past Erev Shabbat the Torah community I attend was pleasantly surprised to have an unexpected visitor.  A lady who recently moved to our area from North Carolina joined us for Ma’ariv prayer, Oneg and Torah study.  Having a general interest to learn Hebrew and understand the Scriptures from “a Hebraic perspective” she found our website and decided to worship with us on Friday evening.  She explained that this was the first “Messianic” (synagogue style) service she had ever attended. As prayer ended and we gathered in an adjacent room for Oneg the covered loaves of Challah sat in the middle of the table.  After the HaMotzi was said and as the bread was being passed around to be partaken of, another lady eagerly introduced our new visitor to “Paula’s Challah”. 

One of the things I delight in doing for Oneg with my community is baking the Challah bread.  I was raised in a family in which my maternal grandmother was a baker and homemaker par excellence.  From her I took an interest in many domestic things and learned both the art and love of baking for others.

Therefore when I first began to keep Shabbat and read about the special evening meal involved with it, I was very interested to find out that one of the centerpiece foods involved two loaves of specially baked bread.  Finding a basic recipe on-line I have adapted it over the years to produce a deliciously moist semi-sweet egg bread with golden raisins.  I have also mastered the six-strand braiding technique, and have entered this most appealing bread into competitions at my county fair, winning ribbons each year I have entered.

Everyone who tastes my Challah comments on how good it is.  For this reason it is admittedly a “pride and joy” to me. I make it with the finest organically certified and kosher ingredients and bake it early Friday afternoons so it is the freshest possible for Oneg on Erev Shabbat.  The people of my community have lovingly dubbed it “Paula’s Challah”, “Award Winning Challah” and refer to me at times as “Our Challah Queen”. 

Another woman in my community provides me with the organic ingredients for my Challah as she and her husband run a local organic foods co-op. A couple of weeks ago I ordered some organic white flour from her, a 25 lb. bag as usual.  The following week the lady stopped at my home to deliver the flour and realized that she had ordered wheat flour instead of white.  She asked if I might purchase the wheat flour anyway and use it to make the erev Shabbat Challah. In my mind I immediately disagreed.  I explained I though it best to continue to make the bread from white flour as everyone enjoys it so much that way.  Having no other use for a 25 lb. bag of wheat flour I declined to purchase it from her.  She seemed somewhat disheartened by my refusal but apologized for the mistake and promised to order white flour for me instead. 

A few hours later I though about what I had done.  The 25 lb bag of flour, although purchased in bulk, still involved a bit of an expense being “certified organic” and “kosher”.  The food co-op that the lady and her husband run is a way of making extra money in a financially challenged household.  No wonder she tried to talk me into buying the wheat flour, for more than likely she will now have to absorb the cost for her inadvertent mistake. 

I grew annoyed with myself for not realizing this right away; for allowing my perfectionist tendencies to overshadow the reality of the situation.  My preoccupation with making Challah a “delicious delight” had led to disregarding the affliction and burden it might cause a well-meaning lady from my community.

With this faux pas fresh on my mind I found myself considering the topic of bread in Deuteronomy chapter 8, the bread of affliction to be exact.  But to my surprise and curiosity the bread described in this way was not the unleavened bread eaten on the night of the Exodus from Egypt, traditionally referred to as the bread of affliction in the Haggadah for Pesach.  Instead, in very pointed and clear words Moses relates that the miraculous manna, the “bread from heaven” was bread provided by HaShem as a means to cause affliction upon the Children of Israel in order to test them and teach them in the setting of the Wilderness.  

He afflicted you and let you hunger then He fed you manna that you did not know, nor did your forefathers know, in order to make you know that not by bread alone does man live, rather by everything that emanates from the mouth of G-d does man live. (Deuteronomy 8:3 Stone Chumash)

From the plain reading of this verse it would seem that G-d allowed Israel to hunger and want before providing them with the manna.  In this way they would appreciate the miracle of G-d’s provision of this heavenly food (this is the common explanation regarding this verse, as given by Ibn Ezra, Ramban and others). The affliction was the hunger that G-d assuaged in the giving of the manna. 

Yet, in Deuteronomy 8:16 manna is mentioned again and it is here that Moses specifically says that HaShem fed the people manna in the Wilderness; “in order to afflict you”.  In this way the manna is seen as a cause of affliction upon the Children of Israel.  Yet how is it that this heavenly bread caused affliction?  The manna was provided directly from heaven every day.  According to Talmud (Yoma 74b) and Midrash it not only sustained the people physically but also strengthened them spiritually.  Although the taste is described in Scripture as something like “wafers of honey” or “dough with oil”, Exodus Rabbah 23:3 explains that the manna contained many flavors and could take on the taste of any type of food the person eating it might desire or imagine.  Because it was perfect food it involved no bodily waste and in the understanding of some of the Chazal; amidst the daily manna was also found precious gems and pearls. 

With these miraculous qualities in mind the Sages ponder what the “affliction” of the manna could possibly be.  A common conjecture is that the affliction involved the fact that manna could only be collected on a daily basis. The manna could not be hoarded or saved, for any leftovers became rancid and putrefied the following day.  Because of this it was impossible for manna to become a possession; it was something that Israel had to rely upon G-d to provide for them every day.  This lack of security and inability to have a reserve provision of food and the psychological uncertainties this would involve, is the popular and often read conjecture regarding the affliction of the manna. 

Yet, in Proverbs 30:8-9 the wise person prays for neither poverty nor wealth but only his “daily bread”.  Yeshua as well, drawing from this proverb, taught his disciples to pray “give us this day our daily bread” confirming the fact that this is a worthy petition of G-d.  In Matthew 6:25-34 Yeshua also teaches that one must not be anxious about tomorrow or about food and clothing etc.  Therefore, the Scriptures seems to indicate that looking to HaShem and relying upon Him for daily provision is to be considered a blessing not an affliction, something we are to be praying and striving for, and not something we should try to avoid or fret about as Children of G-d. 

It is also difficult to imagine that the generation of the Wilderness, a people understood by the Rabbi’s to have been on a very high spiritual plane and great tzaddik’s in their own right, would have fretted and been under tension every day for 40 years regarding G-d’s provision of daily manna. Perhaps during the first couple of weeks or even months some tension and anxiety regarding the consistency of the manna would have been felt, but after this the manna would have become a natural and expected part of everyday life. 

The Hebrew word translated “affliction” in both Deuteronomy 8:3 and 16 is the word ‘anotekha which is first used in Genesis 15:13 to describe the oppression of slavery the descendents of Abraham would experience in Egypt.  Affliction in this sense involves being “looked down upon” or oppressed through circumstances that make it impossible for G-d’s people to fulfill their potential (due to slavery).  In verse 3 of Deuteronomy 8 we see that the affliction of the manna was given for the expressed purpose of understanding that the greatest fulfillment of life is not found in “bread” but in every “emanation” or “utterance” that comes from the mouth of G-d. 

Typically this well-known verse (also used by Yeshua in the Matthew and Luke accounts of his temptation in the Wilderness) is understood to be speaking about the priority of Scripture.  That the “Word” which emanates from G-d’s mouth is supreme and that one should live by every “Word” of the Bible.  However, the Hebrew word translated “emanates” or “utterance” is motza which in the most basic sense means “that which is brought forth”. The same root (mem/tzade/aleph) is used in the word motzi  incorporated into the familiar prayer in which we bless HaShem for “bringing forth” (HaMotzi) bread from the earth. Therefore, in a more literal, basic and deeper sense Moses is not speaking about G-d’s Word as encompassed in the written words of Torah alone, but rather he is speaking about everything which is brought forth from G-d’s mouth in general.  

Pirkei Avot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1(a) relates that; “With ten divine utterances was the world created”.  Genesis chapter one gives evidence to this fact as the creation of the world is described as HaShem speaking it forth into existence.  In Kabbalistic thinking the divine utterance of HaShem not only encompasses G-d’s desire to create and specifically design each physical thing but also includes the essential purpose of each created thing. Although HaShem initially spoke everything into existence, the divine utterance or essential purpose remains “nestled” in each created thing, continually supplying it with being and life.  Yet, this divine essence or purpose is hidden or clothed in the trappings of the outward and physical form of each thing.

Of the entire physical realm man alone has the ability to recognize the divine utterance in creation.  Only humans find inspiration, awe and beauty in the grandeur of the created order and the intricate and various details found there.  Why is it that people gather on a beach to watch the sunset, while the fish and birds carry on without notice?  Why is it that the heart is stirred when observing the Milky Way on a clear summer’s night? It is because people alone have the ability to recognize and “sense” the creative majesty of G-d in the physical world through both the senses and the intellect (no matter their spiritual or religious orientation). 

But not only do humans have the ability to recognize the divine utterance, but in a Kabbalistic sense they also have the ability to release or redeem the divine utterance or higher spiritual purpose nestled within everything in creation.  For man alone can elevate what is physical by imbuing it with spiritual qualities and using it in service to HaShem.  For example; a person can eat a gourmet meal of the finest foods.  He can enjoy and appreciate the color, presentation, smell and taste of the meal and find in it a great satisfaction and delight as he recognizes the creative majesty of HaShem (through his senses and intellect) in the beauty of the physical food.  Yet, by saying a blessing before partaking of such a meal and proclaiming that all of it comes from HaShem, the person releases the deeper spiritual essence or purpose within the food and elevates the purely physical to a spiritual level.

Although the manna was a great and compassionate miracle provided by HaShem on a daily basis, the manna itself was an affliction to Israel because it was not of the created order.  Because manna was bread from heaven it was unlike the food of the physical creation. Although the Midrash says that manna could taste like any food a person desired, it yet remained the same in appearance day after day, looking something like coriander seed or hoarfrost upon the ground.  Its texture and color never changed and Scripture never speaks of it as having any particular scent or aroma. The manna also limited the people of Israel to tastes that they had experienced in the past.  It was impossible, during the 40 years of eating manna, to experience any new food tastes or combinations at all for the manna would only taste like foods that the person could imagine.

The Chazal of Yoma 74b compare the qualities of manna to the affliction of a blind man in eating his food, for the blind person “eats on” without being satisfied.  Even when his stomach is filled the blind man is not satiated in the sense that he cannot experience the beautiful details of physical food and find inspiration and enjoyment by realizing the creative majesty found in the food itself.  Because manna was not of the created order, it was impossible for Israel to recognize a creative majesty in the details of the heavenly bread, and to experience an inspirational pleasure or joy while eating such ethereal food.

Because the manna transcended this world it was not bound by the aspects of space and time like the rest of creation.  In coming directly from G-d in Heaven the manna was spiritually perfect and its spiritual essence was not hidden or hindered by its physical appearance.  Manna had no need to be redeemed or elevated spiritually making it impossible for Israel to use it in service to HaShem.  This as well was an affliction which made it impossible for G-d’s children in the Wilderness to fulfill the unique human quality of elevating the mundane act of eating and making it sacred.

The two aspects of affliction found in the manna are well documented in Torah. In Numbers 11:6 the people complain that their souls are “dry” because “there is nothing besides this manna before our eyes”.  The manna with its consistent physical appearance and lack of variety day in and day out made it impossible for Israel to enjoy eating on a sensual level. Eating, instead of being enjoyable and interesting, was routine, lacking variety, making this most basic aspect of life seem very dry indeed.  

In Numbers 21:5 the Israelites complain to Moses that their souls “loathe” this “light bread” (or “worthless food”).  The Hebrew word for “loathe” (qatzah) is from the root (qof, tzadde, hey) meaning “weary”.  Although manna was far from worthless and indeed valuable for providing physical sustenance and spiritual sharpness for the people, (even perhaps providing material wealth in the forms of gems and pearls), yet it was wearisome to them.  In other words it was boring . . .boring to do nothing more than receive from G-d day by day and never have the ability to give back or serve him through eating. 

Therefore the manna was an affliction to Israel which left them “hungry” or made them “hunger”.  Although it provided physical sustenance and a feeling of fullness, it did not satiate the people in the way that regular created food did.  Lacking physical variety and interest in which man might realize inspiration and awe, and having no hidden spiritual essence or purpose that depended on man to release and fulfill, the manna left Israel hungry both sensually and spiritually, as eating became an occupation that was dry and loathsome, boring and lacking pleasure. 

Man doesn’t live by purely physical or spiritual sustenance alone but by every utterance of HaShem.  Recognizing and experiencing the evidence of G-d in the created order and redeeming the spiritual essence of creation by using it to serve HaShem, are the two things that bring fullness to life.  This is the purpose or highest calling of mankind encompassed in two occupations that are unique to man himself.  Because these purposes could not be fulfilled in eating manna, the heavenly bread became the bread of affliction.

Yeshua also used the lesson of the bread of affliction in Deuteronomy 8:3 to counter the temptation of Satan in the wilderness.  According to the context of both Matthew 4 and Luke 4, Yeshua was led into the desert by the Spirit and fasted for 40 days.  During this 40 day time of fasting he was continually tested by Satan.  Yet, interestingly, the gospels do not tell us of any of the temptations during that fasting time.  The first temptation that is spoken of occurred when the fasting time had ended.  The 40 days were past and Yeshua was free to eat again.  At this time the Devil suggested that he turn one of the stones lying upon the sand in the wilderness into a loaf of bread in order to satiate his hunger.

This seems like a very logical thing to suggest being that there was no real food to be found in the desert wilderness.  The stones were plentiful and what would it matter if one of literally thousands were turned into a loaf of bread to eat?  Yet, Yeshua refuses to do what Satan suggests, citing Deuteronomy 8:3. 

What does this all mean?  What are we to learn from this?  Is this temptation given so we can recognize the Yeshua is super-human?  That he was able to fast longer than anyone in Scripture, longer even than Moses or Elijah (who both fasted 40 days, the longest recorded time of fasting in the Bible)? Are Matthew and Luke trying to show us that Yeshua’s “food” was the “word and will” of G-d and therefore that physical eating was unimportant or even unnecessary for him?

Interestingly the first temptation of Yeshua related in the Apostolic Scriptures is very similar to the first temptation of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis 3.  Both involve food and suggestions from Satan regarding what can and should constitute food.

According to the writings of the Midrash Tanchuma Bubar and the Zohar, G-d created Adam and Eve with the task of Tikun Olam (repairing the world) in mind.  Therefore, the world was not created in its fully perfected state but was to be directed to its final stages of actualization through the first human beings.  The Midrash teaches that the command to “tend and keep the garden” (Genesis 2:15) was a heavenly call for mitzvah practice which is the most powerful agent of personal and global transformation. G-d’s intent in the Garden of Eden was that the world “merit” or attain perfection through the efforts and actions of human beings. Therefore the first Adam had the potential to bring the created world to a higher level of existence (Olam Haba).  [1]

During the temptation Eve recognized the evidence of G-d’s creative majesty and power in the fruit, that it was “pleasing to the eyes” and “profitable to make one wise”.  But in succumbing to Satan’s temptation she assigned a purpose to the fruit which was never intended, the purpose of being “good for food”.  The fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not meant to be eaten; it was not “good for food”.  Although it was physical fruit as any other fruit with a beautiful appearance and delicious taste, and with the ability to be ingested and to provide physical sustenance, this was not its purpose or spiritual essence.  This was not the reason G-d spoke this fruit into existence. 

 The purpose of the fruit was not to be eaten, and not to be enjoyed as food by man.  The spiritual essence of this fruit could not be released or redeemed by man partaking of it but only in exactly the opposite manner . . .by man not partaking of it. 

 Rabbi Isaac Luria explains that the divine essence of every created thing is wrapped or “hidden” within its physical substance.  In this way a material “husk” (klipah) encases and conceals the divine spark of spiritual essence in everything.  The being and purpose of everything is hidden behind its physical shell.  Yet the being and higher purpose of created things is not exclusively fulfilled through man’s partaking of them.  This is the deeper significance of the Torah principles of assur (forbidden) and mutar (permitted). [2]

The word assur (forbidden) literally means “bound” alluding to the fact that the divine purpose or essence of certain things in creation are meant to remain bound.  The divine purpose of things forbidden in Torah is redeemed or released through man not being actively involved in them.  Mutar (permitted) literally means “unbound”, which alludes to the divine purpose or essence of permitted things as being released and redeemed when man does involve himself with them in the manner which Torah prescribes.  [3]

When Eve ate of the fruit she involved herself in something forbidden.  Instead of releasing and redeeming the essential purpose of the fruit in order to elevate it to a higher spiritual plane in service to HaShem she used it in a way it was not intended.  For the fruit was meant to serve G-d and fulfill its deeper created spiritual purpose by remaining bound, not partaken of by man.  At the moment Eve and Adam partook of what was forbidden and participated in what was meant to be bound they failed to realize the ultimate purpose of their own creation, to “tend and keep the Garden” in a way that would bring the whole world into a higher level of existence (Olam Haba).  In this way the first Adam failed in his intended purpose and initiated the current state of the world we now know (Olam Hazeh), a world of death in which intended and spiritual purposes are ruined instead of realized, and are oppressed instead of redeemed.

In like manner, Yeshua, as the second or final Adam (cf. Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22,45), would undergo a similar temptation to the first Adam.  This temptation is the first given in the Gospels because it is so crucial and primary.  For if Yeshua failed this test, then like Adam and Eve, he would have failed regarding his intended purpose to repair and spiritually elevate the world and bring it into a higher state of existence (Olam Haba). 

In both instances Satan suggests that something not created for food be used and partaken of as food. In Eve’s case what was forbidden, yet completely edible, had to be recreated in her thinking as something “good for food”.  In Yeshua’s case a totally inedible rock would have to be physically recreated and changed into something which it was not created to be (bread) in order to satisfy his physical hunger.  In both cases, by following Satan’s advice the divine essence or deeper created purpose of both the fruit and/or the rock would have been ruined instead of released.

By turning a rock into a loaf of bread, Yeshua would have nullified its essence instead of redeeming or elevating it.  By recreating the rock and making it into bread one of the utterances of HaShem, created by His spoken word, would have been destroyed and unable to be elevated spiritually or used to serve Him.  On the surface this reasoning seems ridiculous for how does a rock serve HaShem?  How can one of the lowliest and most common of inanimate objects be redeemed and elevated to a higher spiritual plane?  Can it seriously be suggested that if Yeshua took one lowly rock and miraculously made it into bread to eat that in doing so he would have forfeited and ruined his role of redeemer and savior of the entire world?

The Alter Rebbe (Rav Shneur Zelman of Liadi) explains that the “lowlier” the creation, the loftier the divine energy it contains”.  In his understanding our present (fallen) world is like a collapsed wall, in which the highest stones fall the farthest down. In the created order those things that are furthest from us physically and that are the most complicated and spectacular (such as sun setting into the ocean or the Milky Way in the night sky) evoke most clearly a divine energy or cause. Universally, mankind recognizes the awesomeness of such things and the inspiration and sense of beauty that they invoke.  The rougher the created order, the earthier and plainer and closer to the base elements things become, the less inspired man is by them.  The less likely such rough and plain items evoke awe in mankind as a whole because the divine essence and purpose is hidden behind a more ordinary “package” so to speak. 

Yet, in Torah the rocks certainly do have a unique and most awesome function when it comes to serving HaShem for in giving instruction regarding building the altar of sacrifice in Exodus 20:24-25 Moses says;

 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. (KJV)

The one item that was most visible and practical in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the Temples of Israel –the altar of sacrifice — was to be constructed of the most earthy and lowly of materials, either of dirt or of stones which were unhewn and in their totally natural state. The altar of the portable Tabernacle in the Wilderness was made of wooden forms overlaid with bronze and filled with dirt.  But the altar of both Solomon’s and Herod’s Temples in Jerusalem were constructed of unhewn stones.  Amidst the grandeur and beauty of marble, silver, gold, copper, cedar from Lebanon and rich fabrics which adorned both Temples stood the place which functioned as the means for the Children of Israel to bring their Korban and draw close to G-d –rising up from the ground upon a foundation made of plain field stones.

Even the most ordinary of stones takes on a greater beauty when hewn or split.  For the interior of the stone contains patterns and minerals of various sorts that are not dulled by the elements of weather and wear and that present something of a sparkling appearance or simple beauty.  Yet, the rocks were to be strictly unhewn for in the opinion of Rashi; iron tools were not to be used on the rocks for constructing the altar for iron is the raw material of the sword which shortens life while the purpose of the altar is as a place for repentance, atonement and the lengthening of life. [4]

Therefore, any stone upon the ground in the wilderness of Israel had the potential to be elevated to a greater spiritual purpose as signified by the construction of the altar of sacrifice.  The true Messiah and victorious second Adam, Yeshua, would not consider recreating even one of the most ordinary and plentiful rocks in the wilderness in order to satisfy his physical hunger. For through him even the seeming lowliest of all the created order will be elevated, redeemed and brought into a repaired and perfect existence in times yet future, in the Messianic age and the Olam Haba.     

. . . . . . .

At the end of our Erev Shabbat meeting on Friday, I walked out of the shul with the lady who runs the food co-op.  Being parked next to me in the parking lot I noticed a large bag of flour sitting in the back seat of her car.  “Is that the white flour I ordered from you”? I questioned.  Looking embarrassed she explained that the bag of wheat flour I didn’t order had been sitting in her back seat for “almost a week now”. 

“Oh!” I said with surprise.  “I’m glad you still have that flour because I’ve been thinking about your suggestion for whole wheat Challah and I think it would be a nice change for our Oneg.”  Delighted, she quickly retrieved the bag from her car and handed it to me.  Promising to pay her when I see her again on Tuesday (for a congregational meeting) I drove home with 25 pounds of organic/kosher wheat flour sitting in the passenger seat next to me.  I thought about how I might adapt my Challah recipe to include whole wheat flour.  I wondered what it might look and taste like compared to the “award winning” raisin variety. Could I possibly lose my title of “Challah Queen” by making the bread in a new and unfamiliar way? : )

Making an unexpected whole wheat Challah for next Erev Shabbat will be a new taste experience, one I’m sure will cause each of us to be attentive to the texture, color, smell and taste of a new food instead of merely “chowing down” on the Challah we are so familiar with.  As we say the HaMotzi over the bread and sing the Birkat HaMazon in concluding the Oneg, a simple and initially overlooked act of kindness will be used to honor HaShem.  What could have been the “bread of affliction” now turned into the bread of loving one’s neighbor. For man does not live by bread alone but by every utterance from the mouth of HaShem.

 

[1] Sarah Schneider, Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine and Feminine, A Still Small Voice, Jerusalem, p. 151.

[2] Beit Tefillah, Shemini, available at:  http://beittefillah.org/downloads/shemini.pdf

[3] Ibid.

[4] Rashi as cited in; Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash (Parashas Yisro) pp. 414-415.

June 7, 2009

Being Mindful of the Shema

sample2Last Sunday at 9:00 pm I was sitting in an airplane looking upon a most beautiful sight from the window seat I occupied.  As the plane traveled from the north, toward the direction of the airport to the south, the blue waters of Lake Erie were visible and the shoreline of Northeastern Ohio stretched out in the distance under cloudless sapphire skies above.  Making its final descent the skyline of downtown Cleveland came into view, glowing with the luminescence of the setting sun to the west.  I couldn’t imagine a more beautiful way to end a most memorable trip.

For the previous five days I had the opportunity to attend the First Fruits of Zion annual Shavuot Conference in Hudson, Wisconsin.  Although meeting new people and sitting under excellent teaching sessions was certainly an honor and joy, the highlight of the trip for me was experiencing the worship at Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship.  My first taste of this occurred on the initial night of the conference, Wednesday evening, with Ma’ariv prayer.   As the congregational Siddurs were passed out and I turned to the appropriate section, the familiar liturgy of the evening prayer service lay before me.  Having attended two Messianic congregations and in using the Orthodox Siddur for personal prayer, I thought myself to be fairly familiar with the details of Ma’ariv.    

But as the praying started I quickly realized that I would have to be more “mindful” than I anticipated.  The prayers, although familiar and spoken mainly in English, were sung to trope (cantillation melodies) that I was totally unfamiliar with.  As I tried to listen to and mimic the melodies being sung while praying the words at a very fast pace, I found myself falling woefully behind the leading of the chazzan.  As we came to the Shema I placed my right hand over my eyes and listened intently.  Of all the prayers this was one I wanted to be most mindful of.  A sigh of relief was felt in my heart as the trope being sung was the familiar melody I was accustomed to.  I sang out the Shema quickly, accurately and in perfect harmony with others in the sanctuary.  It was the only prayer of the evening in which I didn’t stumble or fall behind. : )

After such an interesting and beautiful experience of worshipping with  Messianics from all over the United States and Canada, I was delighted to find myself studying the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) as part of my Torah reading this past week.  Although there are literally “volumes” written on every conceivable aspect of these verses, after going through my initial studying there was one question on my mind that I realized would not be answered or even conjectured by the rabbinic commentators I normally look to for insight and inspiration.

In the synoptic Gospel accounts which speak of the Shema a most unusual addition appears.  Not only is it said that one should love the L-RD with all their heart, soul and strength, but also with one’s mind

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. (Matthew 22:37-38 KJV, emphasis mine)

 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.  (Mark 12:29-30 KJV, emphasis mine)

 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? How readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-38 KJV, emphasis mine)

 How is this to be understood based on the literal account of Deuteronomy 6:5 in which Moses admonishes Israel to love HaShem with all their “heart”, “soul” and “resources”? 

One’s “heart” (Hebrew “lev” לֵב) apart from having anatomical connotations in Torah, is also understood to express the inner life of feeling and thought. Regarding the inner workings of man, the “heart” encompasses the seat of the emotions and the intellect.  [1]

In Deuteronomy 6:5 the literal Hebrew for loving G-d with “all your heart” is “b’khol-l’vavkha” (בְּכָל-לְבָֽבְךָ). Although the subject of this mandate is an individual person (second personal singular) the word for heart is spelled in the plural, using two “vav’s” (levav) instead of just one (lev). 

In the Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Berachot 54a,  Chazal explain that to love G-d with all one’s heart “levavkha” (plural)  speaks of loving Him with two impulses (represented by the two “vavs”); the evil impulse as well as the good impulse.  The good impulse or “Yetzer Tov” is the human capacity for spirituality; for G-d consciousness which the animals do not possess.  It is the impulse to be “godly” and to desire what is spiritual.  The evil impulse or “Yetzer Ra” involves desires of the “flesh” or purely physical and base drives found in all the animal kingdom (such as the drive for food, shelter and procreation). 

The Yetzer Ra in itself is not sin or sinful.  It is part of who we are, and without such drives mankind would cease to exist.  These physical desires and drives are called “evil” in the sense that they are beneath man’s capacity; for such desires alone do not fully satisfy man’s creative purpose.  To live one’s life with desires, aspirations and goals shaped merely by what is physical and self gratifying is to live on a plane consistent to animals.  Man alone has the capacity to sanctify the mundane and to elevate the most basic drives by imbuing them with spiritual qualities.

Therefore, to love HaShem with all one’s heart(s) is not only doing and obeying what I know to be good and right and according to G-d’s will, but also being mindful to sanctify that which is purely mundane and physical.  For example: I can go to McDonald’s drive-through, pick up a quarter-pounder with cheese value meal and eat it as I travel down the road.   By doing this I satisfy the basic desire for food and fill my stomach.  I give in to the base impulse to satiate my hunger and nothing else.  In this way I am literally eating on the level of an animal.  Eating food that I prefer in a manner merely meant to fill me up.

However, if I take the time to sit down to a nicely prepared home-cooked kosher meal and say a bracha recognizing HaShem as providing the food.  If I eat slowly and savor each forkful and take time to appreciate the taste, texture and variety of what I am eating.  The entire experience of eating takes on a spiritual quality.  It is sanctified above the mundane.  By eating in this manner I remember and recognize G-d which turn the most basic desires of my heart toward Him. 

According to Rashi, to love HaShem with one’s “soul” (Hebrew: nephesh  נַפְשְׁךָ), in the most general sense, is to love Him with one’s life.  It is the willingness to sacrifice my literal life or even my life expectations and dreams in order to obey and serve G-d completely.  Yet, in the view of the Ramban, one’s soul in Deuteronomy 6:5 is speaking of the intellect which is very much connected to the heart.  In this way to love HaShem with one’s soul requires recognizing the impulses and desires of the heart and thinking about or contemplating them before making decisions and acting upon them. 

Lastly, to love HaShem with one’s “resources” is a bit tricky to understand, for in the literal Hebrew the word employed is “me’odekha”. This is me’od (מאד) in its noun form, which is difficult to translate as it is used in only one other place in scripture (2 Kings 23:25).  In the majority of cases in Torah me’od is used as an adverb and a few occasions as an adjective with the general meaning of “very, much, or greatly”.  Therefore me’odekha (the abstract noun extrapolated from me’od) means something like “muchness” or “plentitude”. [2] This is understood by the Rabbis as referring to the “plentitude” of material abundance, including wealth and possessions. Therefore, to love HaShem with one’s resources is to obey and follow Him over and above all wealth and personal possessions.

In the reiteration of the Shema in the synoptic Gospels, the three basics of “heart”, “soul” and “resources” (strength) are given.  In all three accounts “heart” is the Greek “kardia” (καρδία) which is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew “lev” or “levav”.  “Soul” is the Greek “psuchē” (ψυχή) which translates “nephesh” in the LXX.  In the Mark 12 and Luke 10 accounts “strength” is the Greek “ischus” (ἰσχύς) which is used in LXX to translate Hebrew “me’od” (resources). 

Yet in all three accounts, an additional quality is given, the quality of “mind” based on the Greek word “dianoia” (διάνοια).  This word is used to translate several Hebrew words in the LXX including;

  1. Lev/Levav (heart/hearts)
  2. Binah (understanding; found just once in Daniel 2:21)
  3. Gilullim (idols)
  4. Machashavah (imagination, purpose or thought)
  5. Kerev (inner part or midst)

Because the Greek word “kardia” is used in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 6:5 for the Hebrew “levavkha” (hearts) it can be assumed that dianoia (mind) is not meant to express this quality in the Gospel accounts.  “Binah” being a word found only one time in Torah and “gilullim” expressing the idea of idols, also are ill-suited definitions of dianoia in regard to the Shema.  That leaves “machashavah” and “kerev” as two possible understandings of “mind” as related to the Shema in the Gospel accounts.

The Strong’s Concordance gives the general understanding of dianoia as being “imagination, mind or understanding” which is in keeping with the Hebrew word “machashavah”. Yet, both “heart” (kardia/lev) and “soul” (psuche/nephesh) already include the ideas of imagination and understanding; the seat of the emotions and the seat of the intellect.  To understand loving HaShem with all one’s “mind” as being with all one’s understanding or imagination seems a redundant and unnecessary addition to the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:5. 

In considering the Gospel accounts, a consistent theme is recognized.  For in all three accounts the Shema is presented in relation to discussions regarding the World to Come. In Matthew 22 and its parallel passage of Mark 12, Yeshua relates the commandment of the Shema immediately after denouncing the Sadducees lack of understanding and belief in the resurrection from the dead.  With the topic of the resurrection in mind, the Pharisees approach Yeshua regarding the greatest commandment of the Law.  In this context Yeshua speaks of loving HaShem with all one’s heart, soul, mind and strength.

In the Luke 10 account the same context is employed as a Torah scholar questions Yeshua regarding inheriting eternal life.  Again, the future World to Come is in mind. When the scholar asks Yeshua how to gain eternal life Yeshua asks him what he understands from the Law. 

Amazingly, the Torah scholar speaks of the Shema, in relation to inheriting eternal life, in the exact manner Yeshua did in speaking of the Shema in the context of the resurrection from the dead; as loving G-d not only with one’s heart, soul and strength, but also with one’s “mind” (dianoia).  Therefore, it would seem that both Yeshua and the Torah scholar understand the Shema to be the quintessential commandment related to the World to Come; the time of the resurrection from the dead and the inheritance of eternal life.

Daniel Lancaster, in presenting a two session lecture at the recent Shavuot Conference on The Temple Sect and The Heavenly Temple pointed out that the topic of the book of Hebrews is the World to Come (cf. 2:5). The better promises and New Covenant spoken of there are something future, something that Yeshua has initiated but that has not yet been realized.  The New Covenant is for the Messianic age and the World to Come (Olam Haba).  The Old Covenant encompassing the mitzvot of Torah and earthly Temple worship/sacrifices is for the Olam Hazeh (this present world). In this way Christ has already entered the World to Come (now in the heavenly sanctuary in the presence of G-d, at His right hand etc.) and believers will enter that same world and mode of existence (World to Come) at the resurrection from the dead.  [3]

In speaking of the New Covenant, Hebrews 8:8-10 quotes directly from Jeremiah (31:32 Hebrew Bible, 31:33 English Bible) relating the fact that at the time of the New Covenant (World to Come) HaShem will place His laws into one’s mind (dianoia) and write them on one’s heart (kardia).  Here again is seen the aspect of one’s mind in relation to the World to Come.

Looking at the actual Hebrew of Jeremiah 31:32 (H)/33(E) is very telling;

אֶת-תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם, וְעַל-לִבָּם אֶכְתְּבֶנָּה

I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it . . . (Jeremiah 31:32, Stone Chumash, emphasis mine)

The Hebrew for “inward parts” is the word “be’kirebam” (emphasized above) whose shoresh is the Hebrew kerev (qof, resh, bet/vet) (emphasized in red). The Septuagint translation of Jeremiah 31:32/33 (LXX 38:33) employs the Greek word “dianoian” to translate “be’kirebam” (inward parts) (emphasized in blue below). 

(LXX Jeremiah 38:33) ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας φησὶν κύριος διδοὺς δώσω νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν

From this one can draw the conclusion that when “dianoia” (mind) is employed in relation to the New Covenant — the resurrection from the dead and state of eternal life in the World to Come — the meaning is that of “inward parts” (Hebrew kerev).  According to Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, kerev has two senses of meaning; one which speaks of the entrails or “inner organs” of sacrifices on the altar, the other speaking of the inward faculty of “thought and emotion” within man.   The shoresh (root) ”krv”(qof, resh, vet) in the most literal sense means “close” and describes a intimate approaching or coming near, as in a man “approaching a woman” (for sexual intimacy). 

The Talmud (Pesachim 49b) describes the relationship formed between Israel and HaShem at Sinai and the inheritance of the Torah as a betrothal.  The betrothal is the legally binding agreement between a couple of the intention to marry. The betrothal period is a time of outward and practical preparations for marriage.  Not until the couple is married is an intimate oneness experienced, a total giving of lives to each other with nothing hidden or kept back.  In this way the betrothal is the superficial preparation period while the marriage is the intimate union of the two. In a metaphysical sense; in betrothal the “outer layers” of a couple’s soul is engaged, in marriage their core selves touch and bond. [4]  In Jewish eschatology, regarding G-d’s relationship with His people; the betrothal period is understood as the Olam Hazeh (present world) while the marriage is the Olam Haba. [5]

In this present world the Torah was given to Israel in order to prepare her for the World to Come.  Through Torah G-d’s people interact and have relationship with Him through superficial physical obedience to His given commands.  G-d and Israel relate in this present world through the mitzvot of Torah.  Every command is a choice incumbent upon one to obey or disobey.  The choices a person makes regarding G-d’s commands will determine the desires, goals and aspirations of his heart.  In choosing to obey G-d and to incorporate Torah principles into even the most physical, mundane and basic drives and duties of life, one will learn to love HaShem in both his desires (heart) and thinking (soul), with both his good inclination and evil inclination.  Although the soul is engaged in the keeping of Torah in this present world of Olam Hazeh, it is merely the “outer layers” that are involved.

In the World to Come HaShem will place Torah upon the very “inward parts” of his people.  Instead of a superficial relationship with Him through Torah, there will then be a most intimate relationship with HaShem. The Commentators write that every commandment will be instinctual knowledge that we will know and understand in the very essence of our being.  Because each person will know the Torah automatically and completely as part of their essential being, there will be no need for one to teach his neighbor to “know the L-RD”.  This is loving G-d with one’s “mind” (dianoia) in the sense of one’s innermost essence of both thought and feeling. A love which will be realized in the New Covenant, World to Come at the resurrection of the dead. 

Because the Gospels speak of the Shema to include loving G-d with all one’s “mind” (innermost essence) should Messianics then change the way they pray the Shema?  Should we include in its recital the idea of loving HaShem with all our “minds”?  In reading the Gospel accounts carefully it should be noted that the Shema spoken of in relation to the resurrection of the dead and the World to Come is stated as a commandment and not as a prayer.  In this way Deuteronomy 6:5 is understood to be the most all-inclusive command regarding loving HaShem in this world and the next.  A love that involves not only inner desires, intellect, life, and possessions but that also encompasses the very essence of the individual.

Yet, in praying the Shema the Rabbi’s understand that one “takes the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven” upon oneself.  A commitment to live according to Kingdom (World to Come) principles is what praying the Shema is about.  In this present life we are incapable of truly loving G-d with our minds; from “inward parts” which instinctually and completely understand and automatically do Torah, for Torah has not yet been placed by HaShem within our very essence, as this is something yet future.  Such an essential knowledge of Torah will destroy and do away with the evil inclination, an inclination we know and battle with every day in this present life.

Therefore in praying the Shema we pray from the standpoint and reality of this present life, the Olam Hazeh.  We take the yoke of the Kingdom upon us as much as we possibly can now, by loving HaShem with all our hearts, souls and resources.  While yet recognizing that this command holds within it the promise of a future in which our essence will be intimately involved with and instinctually serving the L-RD.

 . . . . . . . .

Although worshipping with the Sabbath Fellowship of Beth Immanuel started off with much stumbling and faltering, by the time Ma’ariv on Shabbat came around I found myself fairly acclimated to the worship style of the congregation.  After four days of communal worship, the trope was becoming familiar and the fast pace of praying anticipated.  

 Yet, being home now for more than a week and once again immersed in the everyday mundane existence of life and realities of attending a struggling and small Torah community, the beauties of the idyllic world of Hudson, Wisconsin have already started to fade.  Surely if I were to attend a Ma’ariv service at BI, even tonight, I would forget most of the trope I learned just a short while ago. 

But one melody has remained in my mind due to studying the Shema this past week.  A nice melody sung to Deuteronomy 6:7 “when we lie down and when we arise . . .we will discuss your statutes”.  From this verse is derived the halachah to pray the Shema twice a day, at night and in the morning.  Day is understood to represent the good and pleasant situations of life when things are working as intended.  Night represents the difficulties and challenges of life when chaos seems to reign. [6]

In prioritizing night before day the Scripture alludes to the fact that the Shema (taking on the yoke of Heaven) involves praising HaShem in all circumstances.  Whether things are good or bad, pleasant or terrible, one must never forsake his attachment to HaShem.  [7]

This also falls in line with loving G-d with one’s heart(s) because the evil inclination would cause one to desire to praise HaShem only when things are going well and selfish and physical desires and drives are satisfied.  By prioritizing “lying down” before “arising”, the Torah is showing that loving G-d involves channeling the Yetzer Ra and sanctifying it. 

This is truly what being mindful of the Shema is all about. A mindfulness set to a simple melody learned at a Messianic shul 800 miles away from my home.  What a beautiful gift indeed!

 

[1] Jewish Virtual Library entry; Heart, available at:  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08621.html

[2] Yehonatan Chipman, Hitzei Yehonatan Blogspot (Vaethanan, Rashi, July 2007), available at: http://hitzeiyehonatan.blogspot.com/2007/07/vaethanan-rashi.html

[3] Daniel Lancaster, Lectures on The Temple Sect and The Heavenly Temple (unpublished), FFOZ Shavuot Conference, Hudson, Wisconsin, May 31, 2009.

[4]  Sarah Schneider, Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine & Feminine, A Still Small Voice, Jerusalem, 2007, p. 229

[5] Ibid.

[6] Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, Vedibarta Bam (Va’etchanan), available at:  http://www.sichosinenglish.com/books/vedibarta-bam/045.htm

[7] Ibid.

May 24, 2009

A Little Flexibility

2947844344_4a6b395256This past Thursday evening, as I came home from work and sorted through the daily mail, the first thing that caught my eye was a postcard from the State of Ohio, notifying me that my driver’s license had expired on my past birthday.  Little did I realize that I had been driving with an expired license for more than six weeks as I was reminded that the penalty for doing so is a year’s suspension of driving privileges.

Although I have been a licensed driver since age 16, this was the first time I had forgotten about the expiration year.  Fortunately, my state is gracious enough to give a six month window of time to people like me.  So, on Friday morning I headed off to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to have my license renewed. 

The process was one I have been through many times; writing a check made out to the State Treasurer, answering questions regarding previous felonies, imprisonments, and driving under the influence of alcohol or other “controlled substances”, and completing a vision test.  Each step went smoothly and with military precision.  Yet, in the final step of confirming my personal information(name, address, eye and hair color, organ donor status) I was asked the question; “has your height and weight remained the same”.  As a quick “yes” issued from my mouth, I found myself checked in my spirit. 

No doubt I still stand a full 5’9” in height, a truth quickly evidenced by the fact that I was taller than the two men in line behind me and the three women working behind the counter, despite the fact that I was wearing flats. Yet, the weight listed on my driver’s license is questionable.  It is the weight I listed back in 1985.  More than likely I’m a few pounds over that at this point.  But I never weigh myself and do not even own a scale.  I really don’t know my true weight at the moment, and am confident that I’m not more than 10-15 lbs. over what I weighed at age 24.  Certainly the State of Ohio would understand and be gracious about this, allowing me a little flexibility regarding such a minor detail. : )

In considering the opening chapters of parashah Va’etchanan this past week (Deuteronomy 3:23-4:49) I came upon a familiar verse that seemed to give absolutely no flexibility regarding the keeping of Torah;

“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of HaShem, your G-d, that I command you”. (Deuteronomy 4:2 Stone Chumash

Rabbinic commentators realize the apparent difficulty this verse brings in light of the numerous laws and halachah enacted via the Sages through the centuries.  What right do the Sages have to enact such laws, since Moses warned against bal tosif (adding to Torah) and bal tigra (subtracting from Torah)?   Numerous opinions and explanations have been offered among Judaism’s finest and well know rabbis. 

In the most basic sense Kli Yakar (Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz) understands this verse as a single imperative with lo tigra (you shall not subtract) being the explanation and logical outcome of lo tosif (you shall not add).  In adding to the Torah one naturally subtracts from it by undermining its authority and compromising its status of perfection.  [1] What is perfect cannot undergo adjustment for any deviation from perfection automatically renders the perfect imperfect.  The Sefer HaChinuch verbalizes the same truth by stating;

 “The Master Who commands us regarding Torah, may He be blessed, is absolutely perfect, and all His deeds and all His commands are perfect and good.  Adding to them is detraction; all the more so diminishing”. [2]

 The Midrash Rabbah illustrates this concept through the story of a person who borrowed the fine china and silverware of his neighbor when he entertained guests.  The next day, in returning what he had borrowed, he gave back double the amount.  For each dish borrowed he returned two, for every two spoons, he returned four.  His neighbor was amazed and questioned why the man was giving back more than was lent to him.  The man smiled and said; “when I brought your dishes and silverware into my home they became pregnant and gave birth”.

 At another time the man came to the neighbor and explained that he had the honor of entertaining the most prominent family in town.  For this special occasion he asked to borrow his neighbor’s beautiful silver candelabra.  The neighbor wholeheartedly agreed and looked forward to doubling his investment by getting back two candelabras the next day.

 Several days went by and the candelabra was not returned.  Going to the man’s home the neighbor asked when he could expect the candelabra to be given back.  The man sighed and said “I feel awful about this, but your candelabra had a heart-attack and died a couple of days ago”.  The angry neighbor called the man a thief.  “Do you think I’m such a fool, return my property at once!”

The man questioned his irate neighbor; “if you could believe that a dish or spoon had given birth, surely you must believe that your candelabra has died?” [3]

 In the same way when one believes that they can add to Torah in order to improve it and/or find personal benefit they will also can easily rationalize that not doing mitzvot is a possibility as well.

 How then can halachah be justified if additions diminish and adjustments compromise the Torah?  The answer to this dilemma is presented as Moses continues in chapter 4 of Deuteronomy.  After reminding the people of the real consequences of not following Torah, as witnessed by the death of 24,000 men who were seduced by Moabite women to worship the Baal of Peor, Moses goes on to admonish them to “safeguard” and “perform” the decrees and ordinances given to them by HaShem (v.6). 

Throughout Torah “safeguarding” is especially linked to the “decrees” of HaShem which in Hebrew are called HaChukim.  The Chukim are those commandments that are considered “super-rational”, that go beyond the basic logic and common sense of mankind, and that require obedience because “G-d says so” out of devotion to Him as Sovereign and King.  Because such commands (for example; the designations of clean and unclean animals, the prohibition of mixing wool with linen, and the laws regarding the ashes of the Red Heifer) are beyond human ability to rationalize or understand completely extra precautions must be taken in order not to transgress them.   Yet, in general, “safeguarding” is considered a necessary aspect of “performing” all of G-d’s commands.  Performing Torah  protection and caution due to human weakness and temptation. 

The commentators recognize this truth in the role of the Sages and their authority to institute laws. Such laws are meant as a means of building a “fence around Torah” in order to help the community avoid violating G-d’s commands.  The Rambam explains that in developing halachah the authorities must make it abundantly clear that they are not adding to Torah, but instead that they are endeavoring to safeguard it. Clear distinctions must be made between what Torah commands and what the Sages institute as safeguards. [4]

Such distinction is witnessed in both the ministry of Yeshua and of Paul.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua quotes several verses of Torah prefaced with the words “you have heard it said”.  In teaching his disciples regarding his personal safeguards for them in such areas as adultery and murder Yeshua specifically specifies “but I say to you”.  Paul as well in 1 Corinthians 7 distinguishes between marital commands given by HaShem by saying “not I, but the L-RD”, as opposed to safeguards he has instituted regarding marital relationships as “I, not the L-RD”. 

When personal safeguards are confused for Torah the ramifications can be serious. Adding to a mitzvah always detracts, whether from the status of the Torah itself or from another person’s understanding and focus.  Perhaps the greatest example of this is seen in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.  Although HaShem had instructed Adam that they were not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam instructed Eve that they should not even touch its fruit.  In doing this Adam neglected to distinguish between the mitzvah and the personal safeguard.  In Eve’s understanding both not eating and not touching were mitzvot given from HaShem. 

The Midrash says that the Serpent used Eve’s distorted understanding to provoke her to sin.  In realizing that Eve understood the safeguard of not touching the fruit as being a commandment from G-d, the Serpent gave her a hearty push causing her to lose her balance and brush up against the tree and its fruit. When she did not die or suffer harm, although she touched the fruit, her mind began to rationalize that eating of the fruit would be beneficial as well.

Therefore, although Moses allowed some flexibility regarding safeguards meant to keep one from transgressing Torah commands, a clear distinction must always be made between what is a Torah command and what is a fence around the command.But what about lo tigra; the prohibition of subtracting from Torah?  Is it ever allowable to do less than the Torah commands? Is there any flexibility in this? 

Toward the end of the chapter 4 after admonishing the Israelites to keep and safeguard Torah, to remember the supernatural giving of it at Sinai, and to be cautious about idolatry which will lead to exile from the Land, Moses set aside three cities of refuge on the eastern bank of the Jordan river (v. 41). 

The Sages wonder why Moses would do such a thing, for designating such cities at this time was merely a formality.  The cities of refuge could not be operational until the entire Promised Land was conquered and settled, some fourteen years down the road.  So, why bother designating cities at a time when the purpose for them could not be fulfilled?  Why didn’t Moses leave this project for Joshua to carry out at a later date?

The Midrash explains that there are two tzaddikim (righteous people) in Torah who exemplify the saying “one who cherishes the mitzvot constantly seeks more”.  One was David who refused to sit idly by after being told by HaShem that he would not build the first Temple in Jerusalem.  David instead did everything he could; from acquiring the necessary building materials, to purchasing the land for the Temple site, to regrouping the priests and Levites in anticipation of the service there, despite the fact that he would not see the Temple completed in his lifetime. [5]

In the same way, Moses did what he could in regard to the cities of refuge, although he would not see the fulfillment of this mitzvah.  Moses endeavored to do all that was possible to the best of his ability despite the limitations of his impending death and prohibition to enter the Promised Land.  In this way he did less than what Torah required and did not receive the credit of accomplishing the mitzvah in full.

Yet, from both the example of David and of Moses the Sages derive that it is better to do less than the Torah requires in the face of limitations and challenges, then to not attempt to do any part of a mitzvah at all.   

. . . . . . . .

Upon returning home from the BMV, I took my new driver’s license out of my wallet to take another look at it.  The picture –which typically is as flattering as an FBI mug shot — didn’t turn out too bad.  For some reason the camera angle was not up close in my face this time and the more distant shot helped ease the signs of aging found there.  Noticing the new expiration date of 2013, I quickly made note of this on my kitchen calendar, not wanting a repeat warning from the State of Ohio in four years time.  I also decided that when my license is renewed again, I will be as precise as possible regarding my current weight. Until then I am happy to have a little flexibility.

But when it comes to a Torah lifestyle I also need to be happy with a little flexibility. To be careful of imposing Torah fences and precautions, which I find necessary and helpful for my own personal weaknesses; upon others as if it was the “law” for everyone.  But more than that, like Moses, I find myself somewhat driven to seek out greater understanding and further obedience to HaShem despite personal challenges that limit some things for me at this time.  Yet, unlike Moses, I have the freedom to take on new situations that would alleviate certain limitations I currently face.  

The upcoming week presents an opportunity to consider G-d’s will regarding changes that might be ahead for me.  It is an exciting time and an uncertain time.  A venture which might be little more than a formality that will never come to fruition or one that might lead to fulfilling certain mitzvot to the fullest extent that I never would have thought was possible.

 

[1] Kli Yakar as cited in, Rav David Silverberg, Parashat Vaetchanan, available at:  http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-devarim/45-8vaetchanan.htm

[2] Sefer HaChinuch (paragraph 454) as cited in, Rabbi Avraham Fischer, Parshat Miketz (December 2005), available at:  http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5766/miketz66.htm

 [3]Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 12:3

 [4] Rambam, Laws of Rebels (2:9) as cited in, Rabbi Avraham Fischer, Parshat Miketz, op. cit.

[5] Rabbi Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says(Devarim), pp. 70-71

May 11, 2009

The Honor of Your Presence

This past week as I sifted through the regular daily mail of colorful fliers, credit card applications and various sale catalogs a plain white envelope hand addressed to me caught my eye.  Written in sharply slanted and impeccably neat cursive I immediately recognized it as the handwriting of my mother.  Inside the envelope were two sheets of paper upon which were written the names and addresses of various people.  I had been expecting this list from my mother, a guest list for a very special occasion.

In August my parents will celebrate 50 years of marriage.  My sister and I began nine months ago to plan a reception in their honor for this special day.  Although my parents are aware that we are planning a party for their anniversary, they do not know where the party will be or what it will entail.  In this way my sister and I hope to maintain a sense of surprise for their special day.  A couple of weeks ago I informed my mother that it was time for her to consider a guest list for the party, with a limit of 100 people to be invited. 

image009Of all the details that my sister and I have considered together, deciding how many people to plan for was perhaps the biggest quandary.  My parents have always been socially active and have numerous friends and acquaintances.  We could easily plan for 150 people (between family and friends) at such an event. Yet, we quickly realized that 75-100 people would be the number we could afford to accommodate at the elegantly simple country club setting we had chosen for the occasion.

Therefore, when the simple handwritten list came in the mail I found myself dumbfounded that it contained the names of merely 50 guests.  I assumed that my mother was too polite to invite the maximum 100, likely out of concern for the cost involved for me and my sister.  But, one detail my mother is unaware of, is that the minimum number of guaranteed guests at the country club reception center is 75. 

In a quick phone call I expressed my surprise about the size of the guest list and encouraged my mother to invited 30-50 additional guests.  Her reaction to this request was more surprising that the guest list itself, as she explained to me that her and my father wanted the anniversary party to be an “intimate affair” involving only the very closest of friends and family members. They did not want to bother other friends and acquaintances with an invitation which might seem to be nothing more than “seeking out gifts”.    

What I thought would be a simple call and welcomed request to invite more guests, suddenly turned into a complicated conversation as my mother expressed her feelings and concerns. In order to ease such worries, I suggested that the invitations could be worded in a way communicating that gifts are not necessary, and that “the honor of your presence is the greatest gift of all”. 

In completing parashah Devarim I found myself considering an interesting invitation reiterated by Moses to the tribes of Reuben and Gad in Deuteronomy 3:18;

HaShem your G-d, gave you this Land for a possession, armed shall you cross over before your brethren, the Children of Israel, all the men of accomplishment. (Stone Chumash)

 In Deuteronomy 2 & 3 after reminding the people that they are forbidden to fight against and/or acquire the land of the descendants of Esau (Edom/Seir) and of Lot (Moab and Ammon), Moses reiterates the awesome victories of Israel over Sihon the powerful King of the Amorites and Og the giant king of Bashan.  In defeating the Amorites and the Bashanites, Israel acquired valuable and extensive land east of the Jordan River, land that was very desirable to the tribes of Gad and Reuben.  Numbers 32 gives the account of the two tribes request to Moses to inherit this land east of the Jordan due to the abundant herds of cattle that they possessed. 

Generally the rabbi’s look upon the two tribes request for an inheritance outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael with disdain and disappointment.  Questions surround the actual number of cattle that were owned by the two tribes with some commentators conjecturing that the matter of “abundance” was a result of a tendency to focus too greatly on their material possessions. Moses at first rebukes them for such a request suspecting that they are motivated by a desire to avoid fighting for an inheritance within the Land itself.

To refute this, Gad and Reuben replied that they would serve as vanguards of the Children of Israel, positioning themselves on the frontlines of the Jewish army in battle.  Their only request was that they might quickly build pens for their flocks and livestock and cities for their small children east of the Jordan prior to entering Eretz Yisrael to fight with the rest of the nation (Numbers 32:16-17).  The rabbi’s astutely notice the order of priority in this response; which places the building of pens for flocks and livestock ahead of cities for their children.  Again, revealing a preoccupation with material concerns. 

This preoccupation is perhaps most starkly realized by the fact that the two tribes never bothered to see the Land or consider it in anyway before making a decision as to where they would settle.  The first territory acquired that looked desirable to them was the land they requested to inherit, despite the fact that HaShem had promised them a land “flowing with milk and honey” within the borders of Israel itself.

Yet, Moses accepts their request on condition that they fight with their fellow brothers until the conquest of the Land is completed.  In order to keep Gad and Reuben connected with the rest of Israel, and that they not fall into an isolated existence,  Moses instructs part of the tribe of Manasseh to also settle on the east side of the Jordan with them (although Manasseh did not request this). 

The tribe of Manasseh is understood to be a spiritually strong people with a great love for the Land. Both Joseph (the progenitor of Manasseh) and Zelophehad’s daughters (of Manasseh) displayed a profound love for Eretz Yisrael.  Joseph instructed that his bones be buried there, and the daughters reasoned with Moses for their rightful inheritance of the Land in lieu of a male heir.  Manasseh’s willingness to follow Moses instruction and settle part of its tribe with Gad and Reuben to the east of the Jordan would provide the two tribes with a strong spiritual influence and encourage them not to lose their love for the Land.

Yet, in reviewing and summarizing this account in Deuteronomy chapter 3 Moses includes a detail not mentioned in Numbers 32; the command that Reuben and Gad armed for battle shall “cross over before your brethren”.   Rabbi Moshe Alshich in his commentary on chumash, Torat Moshe, poses the question as to why the presence of Reuben and Gad were necessary as part of the fighting force of Israel.  Since G-d had promised Israel the possession of the Land why was it necessary for two tribes who had chosen an inheritance outside Eretz Yisrael to go along to battle with the rest?

From a practical standpoint, Gad and Reuben were tribes known for their strength and military prowess. Jacob, in his deathbed blessing upon his twelve sons, relates the unique qualities of each tribe.  Reuben is called “preeminent in power” (Genesis 49:3) while Gad is described as the tribe that “overcomes” troops that attempt to overcome him (Genesis 49:19).  The Midrash says that when Joseph presented his brothers before Pharaoh, he did not present Gad with the rest.  Due to Gad’s great physical size and strength Joseph feared that Pharaoh would draft him for the Egyptian army. 

Moses realized that G-d’s promises and blessings require a response and action on the part of the people.  Although the Land had been promised to them, this did not pardon Israel from the responsibility to fight for it and to do so with every available resource they had to the best of their ability.  Reuben and Gad were a crucial resource in facing battles ahead. 

Yet, being viewed as a valuable resource brings with it the idea of obligation and the sense of duty.  Reuben and Gad’s presence with their brothers in crossing the Jordan and fighting for the Land could easily be understood by them and the nation as nothing more than a necessary obligation.  The “honor of their presence” requested only due to their physical strength and fighting abilities. 

Therefore, Moses provided them with the unique opportunity, not only to fight “alongside” their brethren out of a sense of duty and obligation, but to “cross over before pic 1them”.  As Reuben and Gad crossed the Jordan dressed in full military gear and armed for battle the rest of the nation would be encouraged regarding the victories of possessing the Land which lay ahead.  If the two tribes which already had an inheritance to the east of the Jordan displayed an eagerness to go into the Land and fight for it, the faith of the entire nation would be bolstered regarding the certainty of victory and G-d’s deliverance of the Land into their hands. [1] Instead of crossing over with the others due to obligation and duty and occupying the front lines because of their natural military abilities alone, the true honor of Reuben and Gad’s presence was the opportunity to bolster the morale of the entire nation.  An opportunity Moses recognized and graciously instructed them to participate in. 

. . . . . . . .

Although it is not unusual for invitations to an event such as an anniversary party to include the request that gifts are not required, this suggestion did not sit well with my mother. In her experience with “no gift required” events people always bring gifts anyway which results in others feeling “cheap and uncomfortable”.  Because of this she again expressed the desire to have a small celebration.

As I felt a sense of disappointment welling up inside of me, my mind raced for a solution.  I could contact the country club and withdraw the reservation, risk the possibility of losing a deposit, and hopefully find a smaller and simpler venue with less than three months time remaining.  Or I could appease my parent’s preference for an “intimate celebration” and pay for a minimum of 75 plates despite the likelihood of 40-45 people being in attendance. 

Instead of getting into financial details or explaining that I was facing a 75 person minimum, I decided to  question my mother’s viewpoint.  Was it right to assume that an invitation to such an event is always viewed as an obligation upon people, with the focus being the cost and effort of providing a gift for the celebration?  Would it not be better to give people the benefit of the doubt?  To assume that friends and acquaintances would see such an invitation as an opportunity to celebrate a lifetime event, and that not receiving an invitation might be a disappointment to them?

Slowly my mother considered my reasoning and inevitably she agreed with me. Instead of viewing an invitation to the upcoming 50th anniversary party as an obligation and duty she realized that in the most general sense it was an opportunity to celebrate and share in the joy of a momentous occasion.  That the “honor of your presence” as “the greatest gift of all” is not just a polite phrase meant to relieve an obligation, but rather a phrase expressing the real meaning and purpose of such a celebration.

Although my sister and I are delighted to plan a party for my parent’s 50th, in our family such celebrations are considered a duty. It is an unwritten rule and longstanding tradition that 25th and 50th anniversaries are expected to be celebrated with a nice party thrown by parents and/or children alike.  With the final details of the 50th anniversary reception quickly coming to a close, my mother has already spoken to me about 2011, the year my sister will be married 25 years.  Inevitably another round of party planning is in my future : )

Yet, with the first parashah of Deuteronomy behind me I have found myself reflecting on the opportunities that lie in the midst of life’s duties and obligations . . . opportunities to rise above mere rote fulfillment of expectations in order to consider fuller dimensions and broader perspectives which both inspire and motivate.

 

[1] Torat Moshe as cited in; Rabbi Lazer Gurkow, Devarim: Food for Thought for Your Dinner Table (Shabbat; Truth in G-d) available at; http://www.innerstream.ca/blog/ParshaInsights/Dvarim/Dvarim/_archives/2008/8/3/3822727.html

May 3, 2009

An Uncomfortable Blessing

foggy_starsWorking in a healthcare environment, the recent swine flu outbreak has been a popular topic of conversation.  For the most part, the doctors and fellow nurses I work with generally agree that the media has over-emphasized the seriousness of the situation.  However, this overemphasis and “hype” is understood to be a good thing as the sense of concern that it creates among the general population will inevitably lead to education and compliance regarding necessary hygiene to alleviate the spread of this flu.

In the midst of this general understanding there are a couple of co-workers who tend to display an impatient attitude toward the general public regarding this issue.  One particular nurse was quite vocal about her opinions last Wednesday during work, openly calling people “stupid” for getting “so wrapped up” in all of this.  In her opinion “flu is flu” and although the swine flu is a more virulent strain it is in essence nothing more than another “type” of flu . . so why all the fuss?

In the afternoon of that same Wednesday a memo was posted at the nurses’ station.  All employees of the hospital involved in direct patient care were to be fitted with specialized masks in anticipation of a possible epidemic of swine flu.  A couple hours later I found myself in a conference room waiting in line to be fitted for my “respirator” mask.  

The process was more complicated than I anticipated.  Instead of merely trying on masks to determine which one fit best, a specialized hood was placed over my head and a non-toxic aerosol was sprayed into the hood.  Once I could taste the bitterness of the aerosol the first part of the fitting was concluded.  Next, I tried on various size respirators until one that seemed to have a good fit was chosen.  With the respirator mask on my face the hood was reapplied and the spray test was repeated.  If the bitter taste of the aerosol could be detected with the mask on, then the fit was insufficient.  If the aerosol taste could not be detected the seal and fit of the mask was adequate.

After completing the test I met up with my vocal co-worker who also had just finished her fitting as well.  As we looked around the room at others in the process of being fitted, with oversized bright yellow hoods upon their heads, the scene in front of us looked like something from a hazmat documentary.  My coworker turned to me with a worried look on her face; “Paula, I don’t like this” she said “this is serious and it’s scary”.  

Trying to remain positive I pointed out how fortunate we were to work for a healthcare system that would expend the effort and cost of fitting us with respirators although the current outbreak of flu was far from being an epidemic.  Our employer obviously did not take the safety of its employees lightly in this regard, which in essence, should be considered a blessing.  Although my co-worker agreed with what I said, as we walked back to the unit she added; “it might be a blessing, but it’s a blessing I’m not comfortable with”.  

In considering the first chapter of Deuteronomy this past week, I again found myself faced with an unusual blessing. Moses begins the first of three discourses to the Children of Israel who are poised to enter the Land by recalling various journeys over the past forty years in which they were tempted to sin against HaShem.  He then reminds the people of the burden of being their leader, and that he could not “carry them alone” (v. 9).  Following this statement Moses goes on to say;

HaShem, your G-d, has multiplied you and behold! You are like the stars of heaven in abundance.  May HaShem, the G-d of your forefathers, add to you a thousand times yourselves, and bless you as He has spoken of you. (Deuteronomy 1:10-11 Stone Chumash).

After this blessing Moses describes the people as contentious, burdensome and quarrelsome and therefore in need of distinguished and wise men to be appointed as leaders over them (vv. 12-13).  Because the book of Deuteronomy is understood by the sages to be Mishneh Torah (repetition or review of the Torah), in the most general sense Moses blessing here can be understood as a simple reminder and encouragement to Israel that G-d’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17, that his seed would be abundant as the stars of heaven, would come to pass despite their downfalls and weaknesses.

Yet, the Midrash points out a discrepancy here.  For G-d’s promise to Abraham was to multiply his seed like the stars, the sand and the dust of the earth in a way that was limitless and infinite, a way that involved no mathematical calculations or quantitative considerations.  Therefore, Moses in pronouncing his blessing seems to be placing a limit on Israel of one thousand-fold, or one thousand times the current population.  

The census taken in the book of Numbers calculated the number of men of fighting age to be 600,000.  Adding in the women, children and men/boys of unsuitable age for the army, estimates range from 2 million to 6 million as the total population of Israel in the wilderness. Taking a conservative estimate of 3 million people times 1,000 would calculate to 3 billion, roughly half the population of the entire earth at the present time.  Although this number is enormous, it yet is a number of quantitative value.  In this way the Midrash relates that the Israelites objected to Moses blessing as something that detracted from G-d’s promises given to them through Abraham, an uncomfortable blessing that was not well received. [1]

The logical question here is; what did the Jews gain through Moses blessing if they already possessed a greater blessing and promise from HaShem? Why was it necessary for Moses to speak this blessing if G-d had already given an infinite blessing to Abraham? 

A consideration of the actual Hebrew words for “a thousand times” (elef pe’amim) in v. 11 is very revealing for pe’amim is used in the plural instead of the singular form (pa’am) here.  If Moses had said elef (a thousand) pa’am (times) then the mathematics involved would have been strictly one thousand times the current population.  In saying elef pe’amim Moses instead alludes to the doubling of the current population one thousand times. [2]

For example; 3,000,000 x 2 = 6,000,000 would be the first doubling of the population.  6,000,000 x 2 = 12,000,000 would be the second doubling.  Continue this for 998 additional “doublings” and the population quickly reaches an astronomical figure that is too large to count and cannot be described in mathematical or merely quantitative terms.  In this way, Moses choice of words in blessing the people does not diminish the infinite nature of the original blessing given to Abraham.  

Yet, another interesting aspect of Moses blessing is that he does not refer to the people as the sand of the seashore (cf. Genesis 22:17, 26:4) or the dust of the earth (cf. Genesis 13:16, 28:14), but focuses on them specifically as “the stars of heaven in abundance”.  The sand of the seashore and the dust of the earth have similar qualities in that each individual grain or particle work together and are identified together as a beach or a plot of land.  Grains of sand and particles of dirt have a tendency to “stick together” and are not naturally considered on an individual basis.  In the same way, describing Abraham’s seed as the sand of the seashore and the dust of the earth, symbolizes the inevitable and crucial unity of the Children of Israel as they work together in cooperation.  [3]

In a kabbalistic sense, dust symbolizes potential for dust can either transform the sun, rain or wind into food or it can lie fallow.  Dust can receive and integrate many elements and give forth something completely new or it can be nothing more than dirt on the ground and completely unproductive.  In creating Adam from the dust of the earth, HaShem gave man the potential to receive and use the various elements of creation in order to achieve and produce.  The Torah also speaks of man’s death as “returning to dust” for in death man enters a state in which he is completely unable to receive or give back and therefore occupies the role of dust which lies fallow.  [4] Therefore, the Children of Israel when working in harmony and unity occupy a role of unlimited potential, just as the dust of the earth or sand of the seashore. 

Unlike dust and sand, the stars do not work in unity.  They are individual orbs separated by great distances.  A grain of sand or a particle of dust lack individuality and essentially look identical to other grains and particles, whereas each star is placed in a differing position in the sky with variable colors and intensity of light.  Some stars are bright and large, some are dim and small.   In this way the stars symbolize the individuality of each Jew and allude to variability in spiritual understanding and “brightness” among the Children of Abraham.  Such individuality inevitably results in fragmentation and friction within the greater community itself. [5]  

 This motif regarding the stars is seen throughout Scripture.  In Genesis 37:9-10 Joseph has a dream in which his father is likened to the sun, his mother likened to the moon and his eleven brothers are seen as “eleven stars” bowing down to him.  The sun and moon are celestial bodies that are consistent in appearance, and which symbolize the natural relationship between a husband who gives (radiates) to his wife and the wife who receives from her husband in order to give back (reflect).  The stars however represent the variable and individual nature and characteristics of each of the eleven brothers which is highlighted by Jacob in his deathbed blessing of Genesis 49.  In 1 Corinthians 15:41 Paul also speaks of the heavenly bodies of the stars as “differing in glory”.  

Therefore, in focusing upon the Israelites as the stars in abundance, Moses highlights their individuality.  This variability in character and knowledge ultimately was the reason Moses could not “carry” or “lead them” by himself and needed the assistance of wise and understanding leaders to help deal with the “contentiousness”, “burdens” and “quarrels” that such subjectivity naturally produces.  Yet, despite the challenges of leading roughly three million people who are like the stars of the heavens in their individuality and various levels of maturity and growth, Moses yet prays that they will increase.  That the “stars” would multiply to an infinite number!  Instead of wishing that there were less of such subjective and contentious individuals Moses prays that there would be more just like them . . .that they would be multiplied “a thousand times yourselves”.

What possible advantage could there be in having an infinite number of individualistic and quarrelsome people within the nation of Israel?  Why didn’t Moses pray for their multiplication as “sand” or “dust”, for a multiplication of unity and cooperation which would lead to limitless productivity on a united front? How uncomfortable and odd it seems that Moses would speak such a “blessing”.  

Without individuality and the potential for contentiousness and strife, Moses would not have been burdened; he could have lead Israel by himself without the need for leaders among the tribes and roughly 393,000 men would never have aspired to distinction or wisdom, never having the opportunity to lead and direct G-d’s people.  For if the population is estimated at 3 million and Moses instructed that there must be a leader over “thousands, “hundreds”, “fifties” and “tens” (v. 15), then mathematically this would necessitate 3,000 leaders of thousands, 30,000 leaders of hundreds, 60,000 leaders of fifties and 300,000 leaders of tens, for a total of 393,000 leaders.

 By praying for HaShem to infinitely multiple the Israelites in their individuality as “stars of the heavens” Moses in essence is praying for the uncomfortable blessing of increased challenges and strife.  The discomfort of subjectivity and friction, which is the perfect environment in which leaders are raised up and men of excellence aspire to wisdom and distinction.

. . . . . . .

The front page of the morning newspaper over the past couple of days has been noticeably void of the images that occupied it for the last several weeks.  Gone are the pictures of people in various life situations wearing familiar blue surgical masks over their mouths and noses. The swine flu outbreak has made its way from the bold screaming headlines of the front page to an unassuming article on page 3 of this morning’s paper. 

The overwhelming majority of new cases have been mild and haven’t required hospitalization.  Only one death, of a Mexican toddler, has occurred on U.S. soil. Although 143 infections have been confirmed in 23 states, this pails in comparison to the annual death toll of 36,000 Americans due to the seasonal flu.  In reading these statistics I thought of my vocal co-worker and her annoyance regarding all the fuss surrounding the swine flu outbreak.  I thought about the scenario I witnessed in being fitted for a respirator mask and assumed that my PPD (personal protection device) would likely never be needed in caring for patients.  Yet, I am still thankful for the uncomfortable blessing of precautionary measures taken by my employer to insure my safety.  

In a conversation with someone recently it was commented that; “the two great disadvantages of Evangelicalism are the norms of spontaneity and the culture of individualism”.  I found these words to be well spoken and told the person so. This comment was made in relation to the widely variable and somewhat chaotic forms of worship and practice among many Messianics today which are often lacking in uniformity, clarity and reverence, a natural outgrowth of the mindset of Evangelicalism within the movement itself.  

Yet in considering Moses uncomfortable blessing to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 1, perhaps it is not best to consider such individualism and spontaneity as a disadvantage or harm but rather as a challenge and opportunity. For this current environment of fragmentation, friction and confusion demands and cries out for wisdom and distinction and is the perfect “breeding ground” from which leaders of excellence and insight can arise.

Abraham’s seed was not merely blessed with infinite multiplication as dust and sand, but also as stars.  Uniformity, cohesiveness and ritual alone certainly results in unity and productivity which by itself is bland and impersonal, like the dust under one’s feet or the sand between one’s toes.  Individualism and subjectivity in itself is as awe inspiring as the Milky Way on a moonless night, yet as variable and uncertain as attempting to count or calculate every one of the stars in the heavens.  G-d’s ultimate blessing is seen in the multiplication of both unity and individualism, community objectivity and personal subjectivity, side by side, in a delicate tension of balance with each other.  

 

 

[1] Rabbi Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says (Devarim), p. 13

[2]  Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, Vedibarta Bam Volume 5 (Devarim), available at: http://www.sichosinenglish.com/books/vedibarta-bam/044.htm

[3] Ibid.

[4] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplin, Inner Space, p. 148.

[5] Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, op.cit.

April 26, 2009

A Daughter of Zelophehad

“If this is the case, then I’ll gladly call myself a sister of Sarah”!

These spontaneous words issued from my mouth during a lecture on Genesis 20 which I presented to an interdenominational women’s Bible study I was teaching in 1997.  The opportunity to teach women from a variety of denominational settings, for a seven year period of time (1996-2003), was certainly one of the most memorable periods in my spiritual journey thus far.  Although I worked hard every week during the class year (from September-May) to study and prepare a lecture that would be inspiring and practical, perhaps of all the thousands of words the women heard from me, the above statement made the most lasting impression.

In Genesis 20, Abraham and Sarah make a second journey to Egypt and Sarah is abducted by king Abimelech and brought into his harem.  The incredible thing being that Sarah at this point is 90 years old.  Obviously her physical beauty had not waned and she was attractive enough to be desired by a very powerful monarch.  As I expounded on this scenario, I couldn’t help but let a bit of humor slip regarding the “youthful” 90 year old Sarah, and my desire to be just like her in this physical sense. 

Unaccustomed to such spontaneity (for this study group was quite scholarly and serious) the women burst out in laughter and applause.  Afterward, numerous members approached me with smiles on their faces and agreed that they desired to be “a sister of Sarah” too.  These words were not quickly forgotten and for years afterward I would have women refer to me as “a sister of Sarah”, always with a wink and a smile and as a way to compliment and encourage me regarding my physical appearance as I reached and passed my 40th year during the time of teaching that study.

the_daughters_of_zelophehad1Yet in considering the concluding chapter of the book of Numbers this past week my attention was drawn to a very unique group of sisters, the daughters of Zelophehad.  As the Children of Israel are preparing to enter the Promised Land, with the borders of the Land outlined and instructions regarding the Cities of Refuge given, a group of men from the tribe of Manasseh approach Moses regarding Zelophehad’s daughters.  The men are concerned because the daughters will inherit their father’s portion of land (being that their father is deceased and had no sons as heirs, Numbers 27) but are yet unmarried.  If any of the daughters were to marry a man from a tribe outside of Manasseh (their family tribe) then the portion of land that daughter acquired would become the property of the tribe of her husband.  In this way, the tribe of Manasseh is threatened with the possibility of permanent loss of inheritance in Eretz Yisrael which could never be regained.

With this potential dilemma in mind, HaShem commands the daughters of Zelophehad by saying;

 . . . “Let them be wives to whomever is good in their eyes, but only to the family of their father’s tribe shall they become wives.” (Numbers 36:6 Stone Chumash)

The sages recognize a discrepancy in this verse, for how can the daughters have the freedom to marry “whomever is good in their eyes” while yet being restricted to marry men from their father’s tribe of Manasseh.  What if there were no worthy men within the familial tribe?  Are the sisters then to remain unmarried?

For an “average” Israelite woman this question would be redundant for certainly among the available men of Manasseh a worthy match could be found.  But the daughters of Zelophehad, as described in Midrash and Aggadah, were not your “average” women. 

These sisters are considered by the commentators to be among the most righteous and wise women in the entire Torah for HaShem saw fit to use them as a vehicle through which a mitzvah was established.  This most rare and unusual occurrence (of G-d’s revelation and mitzvah being given via someone other than Moses) is seen only one other time, in the establishment of Pesach Sheni (Numbers 9:6-14). 

Bava Batra 119 b states;

The daughters of Zelophehad were wise women, they were exegetes and they were virtuous.” 

The sages understand their wisdom as the ability to speak “at the opportune time“.  According to R. Samuel and R. Isaac, Moses was expounding on Levirate marriage when the daughters approached him in Numbers 27.  It was at this time, when the importance of a male heir was being considered, that the daughters brought their claim to Moses; that they were “as good as sons” and deserving of their father’s inheritance of the Promised Land.  If this were not the case, they reasoned, then Moses should allow their mother to be subject to the law of the Levirate marriage, in order to produce a male heir for their father.   

Traditionally it is understood that the daughters were adult women approaching their middle years.  Therefore their widowed mother would have been very elderly, if alive at all. A Levirate marriage to one of her husband’s brothers would have been in vain as Zelophehad’s widow would have been too elderly to conceive a male heir.  Therefore the daughters understand that they, as the only children of Zelophehad, should be his rightful heirs.  By bringing up their claim to Moses while his mind was focused on the topic of male heirs, these wise women spoke at the most opportune time.

The fact that they were exegetes is based on the wording of Numbers 27:5 in which “Moses brought their claim before HaShem“.  The Ein Yaakov points out that the women brought their “judgment” (mishpatan literally “their law”) before G-d, which was much more than merely a personal request or a question.  The daughters followed a line of reasoning based on Torah laws and principles to come to a proper decision.  In this way their petition included a legal argument and its ruling. [1]

In the Torah scroll the word mishpatan of Numbers 27:6 is spelled with an oversized nun.  Although there are various opinions regarding this, the numerical value of nun is 50 which alludes to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, traditionally understood to have occurred on Shavuot, 50 days after the Exodus.  The rabbis understand that after leaving Egypt the Children of Israel progressed and “ascended” spiritually for the next 50 days until they merited the ability to hear the words of G-d from HaShem Himself.  At this point, the nation was at its pinnacle spiritually. 

In the same way, when describing the daughters’ claim regarding their right to inherit their father’s portion of Land, the Torah uses an oversized nun to emphasize the spiritual pinnacle they occupied at this time.  For the judgment they came to was the very “word of G-d” itself although it had not been revealed to Moses or proclaimed through him.  As Rashi explains the enlarged nun alludes to the fact that these women merited the privilege of “writing a section of the Torah”, [2] due to their ability for exegesis, and “seeing what the eyes of Moses did not see”. [3]

The virtue of these women is understood by the fact that “they were married to such men only that were worthy of them” (Bava Batra 119b).  R. Eliezar b. Jacob elaborates that none of them, even the youngest, was married before the age of forty.  This is understood from Numbers 36:6 which encompasses two admonitions.  First, the daughters were to marry men whom they thought were the best or most worthy to be their husbands (whomever is good in their eyes). 

Secondly, they were advised to marry from within their familial tribe.  From this the sages understand that the sisters were not required to marry men from the tribe of Manasseh but rather that Scripture is suggesting this as good advice to them (Bava Batra 120a).  The most important thing was for the sisters to marry men of equal or superior spiritual caliber to themselves. Otherwise, they would end up in frustrated and unfulfilling marriages where their gifts and abilities would not be realized to the fullest extent.

In the simplest sense the male role  is one of giver while the female is receiver. “Barnyard logic” (i.e. simple anatomical differences between the two) speaks of this. Of course a man can receive and a woman can give, within various roles in a relationship. But in general the basic make-up of a man is most fulfilled in giving (his abilities, talents, personality, goals, visions etc.) to a woman who can take what he has to offer and can use those “raw materials” to the fullest, in a way that creates meaningful outcomes. This is best accomplished when a man is able to give to a woman in a way that challenges her to grow and excel (to be able to receive even more) and the woman is able to receive from a man and create outcomes that challenge him to provide and give back to a greater extent (grow and excel). 

For women like the daughters of Zelophehad, who were wise and virtuous exegetes, women who not only discerned the correct content of a situation but also spoke forth their judgment at the right time, finding men who would be suitable “givers” to their “receiver” role in marriage would not be an easy task.  This task would be even more limited in considering men from their familial tribe alone.  Yet, based on the Talmudic understanding the sisters followed the advice of Scripture and waited to marry husbands who were suited to them, from their own tribe, which necessarily meant that none of them were married before the age of forty. 

. . . . . . . . .

Although the thought of being alluring and beautiful at age ninety is certainly an appealing idea that any woman would desire to experience, I realize now that my “off the cuff” comment made in a lecture years ago, did a disservice to the spiritual greatness of the matriarch Sarah.  For although this woman did maintain a physical beauty of miraculous longevity, being a true “sister of Sarah” would involve much more than mere physical attraction in the eyes of a man.

In teaching through the Pentateuch in the ladies Bible study of 1997, the daughters of Zelophehad barely received mention in lectures that I gave which included Numbers chapters 27 and 36.  How easy it is to overlook their righteousness and wisdom.  To see these daughters as helpless individuals who beg for Moses attention and mercy and later are commanded to marry men of their own tribe. 

Women who fight for inheritance and land issues typically are not viewed as glamorous, and marrying within the family line is certainly not exciting.  Being careful and diligent in discerning matters of Scripture and having the discipline to wait until the right moment to speak forth a judgment are not qualities that typically cause men to “show up” on one’s doorstep : ) Putting one’s social life on hold in order to follow the “suggestions of Scripture” does not evoke the attention or admiration of others. Yet, truth be told, after studying the sisters’ story from the lens of the Midrash and Aggadah this past week, I would consider it a tremendous honor to be called “a daughter of Zelophehad”. 

Perhaps it requires a feminine perspective over the age of forty (and drawing ever closer to age 50) to recognize the profound spiritual beauty and attractiveness of these women . . . an attractiveness that far outlives and outweighs the advantages and attention of physical beauty alone. 

 chazak20chazak20vnitchazek

 

[1] Ein Yaakov as cited in; Sarah Schneider, The Daughters of Zelophehad Speaks, available at:  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2222/jewish/A-Daughter-of-Zelophehad-Speaks.htm

[2] Rashi as cited in; Menachem Persoff, Special Features for Parashat Pinchas, available at: http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5762/pinchas62/specialfeatures.htm

[3] Rashi, Numbers 27:7

April 10, 2009

Rethinking the Afikomen

. . . The rabbis teach that after the destruction of the Temple, the Afikomen has taken the place of the Lambs that were sacrificed in the Temple and that it is the most important part of the Seder. Its taste should be what you remember from the meal. This Afikomen symbolizes the ultimate Passover sacrifice, our Messiah Yeshua, who gave His body for the atonement of our sins. Let us bless Adonai and eat the Afikomen. . .

pic1With these words, I and 13 other individuals partook of the Afikomen matzah as the bread representing the body of Yeshua, at the Seder I attended with my Torah Community this past Wednesday night (Nisan 15).  This was the fifth Messianic Seder I have participated in and the first one I did not host in my home for exclusively family and friends.  The first two Seders I hosted were not held on the evening of Nisan 15 but rather on the Saturday afternoon prior to Easter Sunday.  I used the Seder as a “demonstration” to introduce family and friends to the beauty and profound meaning of celebrating Passover “the way Jesus would have”.  These Seders were a huge hit and my extended family would ask months in advance about the date of the Seder for the following year. 

The third year I hosted two Seders.  Being convicted that the Seder was not meant to be a demonstration but was a specific date given by HaShem and meant to be observed, I hosted a small Seder on the night of Nisan 15 in which a neighbor couple (who once were involved in a Messianic Synagogue I attended) were the only guests. The following Saturday afternoon I held the “demonstration” Seder for my extended family due to popular demand and not wanting to disappoint them.

Year four I was a little bolder.  Nisan 15 was a Saturday night that year, so the “friends and family Seder” could actually be held on the correct date. But along with this I insisted that instead of starting during mid-afternoon, as we had in previous years, we would start the Seder at nightfall according to the Biblical instructions.  A couple of family members bowed-out because of the inconvenience of the late hour (and the fact that they would have trouble getting up for church the next day). There were also some who questioned why I didn’t hold the Seder on the Saturday before Easter (which had occurred three weeks earlier) and expressed discomfort with it being held after Easter was long over.  

This year I haven’t heard a word from extended family and friends that have attended Seder meals in my home in previous years.  There are many reasons for this, but most specifically they realize that I am going to observe Pesach according to the Biblical/Jewish date and time.  It would appear that the novelty of it isn’t worth attending a very Jewish meal in the middle of the week, which seems so disconnected from Easter Sunday itself. 

Yet, despite the way my Pesach observance has “evolved” over the years, in every Seder I have hosted or attended, the Afikomen has always been used as the bread of communion, in remembrance of Yeshua’s body.  Of course the handling of the Afikomen; its being the larger broken half of the middle of three matzot, wrapped in a linen napkin and hidden away, only to be retrieved and reappear at the Seder table at a later time, immediately evokes imagery of the death (breaking), burial (hiding) and resurrection (reappearing) of Yeshua.

Trinitarians will also see the three persons of the Godhead as represented in the three matzot used during the Yachatz portion of the Seder which are placed in a special three compartment bag (Matzah Tasch) with the middle matsah being broken.  How easy it is to imagine the Trinity as represented in the three matzot with the 2nd person, the son, being broken and suffering. 

Along with what seems to be very pointed Messianic symbolism, the Greek word for Afikomen, aphikomenos, used in the aorist tense, literally means “He has come”.  In some Messianic Haggadahs it is pointed out that the rabbis offer no explanation as to why the Afikomen part of the Seder is performed the way it is.  Among the wisest men of Israel this is a hidden mystery that is clear to those who believe in Yeshua and recognize in the Afikomen the identity of “he” who “has come”.  But is the Afikomen really the most fitting matzah to be used in remembrance of Yeshua’s body and death on the cross in a Seder setting?

Apart from the ongoing debates and opinions as to whether the Last Supper was a Seder meal or if it was a meal held before the evening of Nisan 15, the Synoptic accounts agree that Yeshua blessed the bread prior to distributing it during the meal. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 also highlights this fact.  In the original meal of the Last Supper the bread of communion had HaMotzi pronounced over it before being partaken of.  In the Seder, the Afikomen is most unusual because a blessing is not pronounced prior to eating it.  Although some Messianic Seders include HaMotzi before the eating of the Afikomen this is an addition not in keeping with the traditional Haggadah.  Also, the Afikomen is not part of the meal; it is considered the “dessert” which is partaken of after the meal portion (Shulchan Orech) is completed. 

Although the Greek aphikomenos means “He has come”, this is not the understanding of the word Afikomen as used in Talmudic accounts.  The Afikomen is discussed in both the Babylonian (Pesachim 119b) and Jerusalem (Pesachim 10:4-11) Talmud.  The Mishnah of Pesachim 119b states; “You may not conclude after the Paschal meal (by saying) ‘now to the Afikomen’”.  Immediately the Chazal begin to discuss “what does Afikomen mean?”

The first opinion, given by Rav, is that “they must not remove from one company to another.” In other words, once the Paschal meal is completed one must not go on to other Pesach (chavurah) groups to celebrate or participate in the korban Pesach with them. According to the opinion of Samuel (and others) the Afikomen describes snacks and desserts that should not be eaten after partaking of the korban Pesach.  In the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 10:6) R. Inaini and R. Sisai understand Afikomen as entertainment with musical instruments which one should not become involved with after the Seder is concluded.  

The Talmudic opinions address well established norms in the time of the Mishnah surrounding the concept of the Greek symposia.  At the end of a symposium it was traditional for the participants to proceed to neighboring homes where there would be delicacies to eat, merry-making and music. This practice was called epikomion, or “after-dinner activities/entertainment”.  Therefore, although the exact etymology of Afikomen is not explained in the Talmud and the meaning of the word includes many Midrashic and folk etymologies, the most widely held view is that the Mishnah is making a point of forbidding “after dinner activities” common to a Greek/pagan culture in relation to the Seder.  [1]

Because the high point and focus of the Seder is the partaking of the meat of the Paschal lamb, later Rishonim (Rashi, Rashbam and others) designated the last piece of matzah, coming from the hidden and broken piece, to be the Afikomen, or the “after meal” food/dessert. [2] But apart from these points which could be seen as needlessly “picky” or unrelated to the reality of Yeshua’s death, lies the fact that the Afikomen in the Seder is used to represent the korban Pesach, which was not a sin offering or a burnt offering but was a peace offering which in itself had no atoning qualities at all.

The peace offering (Shelamim) in Torah (Leviticus 3) was brought for two reasons;

  1. As a thanksgiving offering in recognition of a miraculous event. This offering is referred to by the rabbis as Shalmei Todah.  Before offering a Shalmei Todah the individual would lean his hands on the head of the animal to express his thanks to G-d. Since the peace offering did not atone for sin no confession of sin was made. The sacrifice was accompanied by leavened bread, and was required to be completely consumed by the morning after it was brought with no leftovers remaining.  In order to consume the sacrificial portion by the following morning others would be invited to join in the eating of the Shalmei Todah.  The purpose of this offering (to thank and praise G-d for a miraculous event) was best accomplished when the meal was shared and the story of G-d’s faithfulness related to many. 
  2.  As a vow or freewill offering brought by an individual who swore to bring an offering to HaShem that was unrelated to any particular event.  This offering is referred to by the rabbis as Shalmei Neder u’ Nedavah, and differed from the Shalmei Todah as two days were allowed for the total consumption of it, instead of just one.

 The korban Pesach was a korban Todah with a slight difference being that no leavened bread was brought with it due to the stipulations of Pesach as found in Torah.  As a Shalmei Todah, the korban Pesach needed to be completely consumed the night of Passover, and involved a meal with a group of people through which G-d’s miracle of the Exodus from Egypt was retold and remembered.

Therefore, the Pesach lamb was not brought on account of sin and did not atone for sin.  The Afikomen in the Seder represents this lamb.  Yeshua in instituting the Lord’s Supper did not liken his body to the lamb of the Seder, but rather to bread.  Although Yeshua certainly is referred to as “the Lamb of G-d” in the Apostolic Scriptures, this “lamb” symbolism speaks of his atoning and redeeming function as taking away “the sin of the world”.  This function cannot be represented in the Afikomen which symbolizes the korban Pesach, a peace offering sacrifice with no atoning or redeeming features inherent to it at all.

The rabbis recognize two korban Pesach in the pages of Torah.  One is referred to as Pesach Mitzrayim and the other as Pesach Dorot.  Pesach Mitzrayim was the unique and one time sacrifice of the lamb in Egypt prior to the Exodus.  It was a lamb whose blood was applied to the door frames of the homes that the death of the firstborn would “Passover” the Children of Israel. This sacrifice was a one time, unique sacrifice, never to be repeated again.  Pesach Dorot was the yearly memorial of the Exodus from Egypt and therefore was a peace offering brought in recognition and praise of the miracle of redemption already accomplished.  The original Pesach Mitzrayim was brought with faith that redemption was imminent and would occur.  The memorial Pesach Dorot was brought with thanksgiving and remembrance for redemption which had already been realized.

Perhaps Yeshua did not liken his body to the korban Pesach (a memorial/peace offering) because the full reality of his sacrifice and the complete redemption it will bring is yet future.  Like the Pesach Mitzrayim, Yeshua’s sacrifice was a unique and one time event of which the complete redemptive reality is something we still anticipate in times ahead.  Therefore we cannot praise and thank G-d for redemption through Yeshua as something already completed and memorialized, as a Pesach Dorot, but instead look with anticipation to what we believe by faith is still ahead. 

 With these thoughts in mind it would seem that the Afikomen is not meant to be used as the bread of the Lord’s Supper in relation to a Messianic Seder. Reasons for this include:

  1. The Afikomen receives no blessing before distribution and is partaken of after the meal is concluded.  Yeshua blessed the bread of the Last Supper prior to distributing it during the meal.  Paul reiterates these instructions regarding the bread of Communion in 1 Corinthians 11.  
  2. The Greek aphikomenos (”he has come”) is not the understood etymology of the word Afikomen as used in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Instead, prohibiting the cultural practice of epikomion or “after dinner activities” in relation to the Seder seems to be in view.    
  3. The Afikomen matzah represents the meat of the Paschal lamb, a peace offering with no atoning qualities. The “Lamb of G-d” title of Yeshua in the Apostolic Scriptures symbolizes the atoning and redeeming function of his sacrificial death.  The korban Pesach, represented by the Afikomen matzah of the Seder cannot properly symbolize Yeshua as “the Lamb of G-d”.  
  4. Yeshua did not refer to the Pesach lamb to symbolize his body, but instead taught his disciples to partake of bread in remembrance of him. Like the original Passover lamb of Egypt (Pesach Mitzrayim) Yeshua’s death was a unique and one time sacrifice that promises a full and complete redemption in the future. The Afikomen represents the Pesach Dorot (peace offering) which memorializes a completed act of redemption (from Egypt).   

Perhaps the Motzi-Matzah (step 7-8 of the Seder) would provide a more fitting symbol by which to recognize and remember Yeshua’s body. For a blessing is said over this matzah prior to it being broken and distributed to others.  It is also part of the “lead in” to the meal of the Seder, being followed by the eating of the Maror (bitter herbs) and the Korech (matzah sandwich) before the Shulchan Orech (festive meal) is served. 

Yet, the Motzi-Matzah fulfills the mitzvah to eat unleavened bread at Pesach and symbolizes the bread of affliction and haste of the Exodus from Egypt itself.  Therefore, perhaps a better means of recognizing the Lord’s body during a Seder might be to pronounce HaMotzi over matzah during some point in the eating of the festive meal, break and distributed it, and take a moment to contemplate and recognize Yeshua’s sacrifice then.

. . . . . . .

In response to my previous post “As Often as You Do This” (April 3, 2009) a reader commented privately by saying that the details and concerns I related there were little more than “much ado about nothing”.  Perhaps my ponderings about the Afikomen might be viewed in the same way as well. For if inspirational meaning which honors Yeshua can be found in the details of the Afikomen then why try to “reinvent the wheel” of the standard Messianic Haggadah, so to speak. 

Yet, by applying details and symbolism of Yeshua into the Seder in a manner that disregards rabbinic understanding and Torah details; don’t Messianics come dangerously close to practicing a form of supersessionism?  Who is it then that is trying to reinvent the wheel?  I truly wonder who instituted the Afikomen as the bread of communion in the Messianic Seder.  Where did this practice originate?  This was one detail I was unable to find in my studying over the past couple of weeks.

With all this in mind I can’t help but wonder . . what the sixth annual Pesach Seder will be like for me on the night of March 29, 2010?   For I have a feeling my observance of this will continue to evolve even in ways I never would have imagined before.

 

[1] Balashon – Hebrew Language Detective; “Afikoman” (April 6, 2006). Available at: http://www.balashon.com/2006/04/afikoman.html

[2] Ibid.

April 3, 2009

As Often As You Do This

church2small_jpegIn my spiritual journey thus far I have worn many denominational “hats”.  Raised Catholic, I was “saved” in an Evangelical Friends meeting and years later became a member of a Southern Baptist Church before moving on to a non-denominational Bible Church. Since taking on Torah observance I have attended a UMJC synagogue and now attend a small unaffiliated Torah community in my area.  I have worshipped in settings that boasted over 1,000 in attendance on a Sunday morning, to one that met in a middle-school cafeteria, to my current Torah visitusentrancescommunity of roughly ten individuals meeting in a modest rented office space.  Indirectly I also have had ties to a Church of Christ which hosted an interdenominational ladies Bible study I taught, as well as an Assemblies of God Church which ran the Christian Elementary School my children attended.

smimgwhcsIn this multi-faceted journey I have experienced wide variations of observing the Lord’s Supper.  “As often as you do this” means different things to different denominations.  In the Catholic Church “communion” was a weekly event. In the Baptist, Bible Church and UMJC settings the Lord’s Supper was the first Sunday of the month. In the Evangelical Friends the Supper was observed quarterly (once every three months). The Catholic and UMJC used unleavened bread for remembrance, while in the Evangelic Friends, Baptist and Bible Church leavened white bread was used.  welcome_picIn the Catholic Church wine mixed with water was taken while in all other churches/synagogues grape juice was used.

In my involvement with the current Torah community (over the past three years) the Lord’s Supper is celebrated at the Passover Seder, once a year.  The Afikomen is the bread of communion while the third cup (of Redemption) is the wine of communion.  Needless to say the partaking of the elements just once a year makes the Seder an extremely important and inspirational event that I look forward to with much anticipation. 

Yet, over the past week I have found myself confronted by an idea which I had not considered before.  If the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the evening of the 14th of Nisan (rather than at the Pesach Seder on the 15th), should the Supper be memorialized in the Seder at all?  It was pointed out to me this past week, that partaking of the Lord’s Supper at the Seder presents a conflict as related to Paul’s admonitions in 1 Corinthians 11.  In teaching the Corinthian believers about the Supper, Paul makes clear that to eat or drink in an unworthy fashion (i.e. not recognizing the bread as symbolizing Yeshua’s body and the wine as symbolizing his blood) is to “be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 29) as well as eating and drinking “condemnation” upon oneself (v. 29).

In the literal instructions for the Pesach in Torah there is no hint of this at all.  An unbelieving Jew can partake of the Seder elements without recognizing Yeshua’s sacrifice in them and be absolutely blameless.  Hypothetically an unbelieving Jew could attend a Messianic Seder and reject the idea of Yeshua’s body and blood in the bread and wine and have no sin held against him.  The celebration of Pesach in itself does not encompass or demand faith in Yeshua, which the Lord’s Supper does require according to 1 Corinthians 11.  Therefore, the Lord’s Supper is not to be incorporated into a mo’ad that does not hold one accountable for recognition of such spiritual symbols.

This point was well taken, and seemed to have validity.  Suddenly I found myself wondering what to do about this, for the Seder I am anticipating with my Torah community this upcoming week will recognize the Lord’s Supper as part of the celebration.  Should I bow out of attending my community Seder?  Should I bring up such questions to the leaders of my community, less than a week before the Seder is planned to occur? Should I just celebrate alone at home without the Lord’s Supper being involved?  Or should I attend a Seder at a local synagogue as there are many of them to choose from in my area? 

The thought of further separation and isolation as I considered this question weighed heavily upon me.  Would this be a first in my spiritual journey, a year in which I do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper with fellow believers at all?  I could celebrate the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the 14th and thereby recognize what I understand to be the actual date of the event in the most literal sense, but again, this is something which would need to be done. . alone.  Though my heart railed against the idea of not celebrating the Seder with my community, my mind chanted the familiar mantra; “if in doubt . . .don’t”.  

Therefore, with a mild sense of desperation I have scoured and contemplated Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 11:17-29 over the past several days.  Many musings have come to my mind regarding what Paul might be actually communicating here.

Traditionally this passage is understood to be describing an “agape-feast” or fellowship meal setting in which the Corinthians are oblivious to good table manners.  Those who are able to bring food to the feast engorge themselves and do not share with those who have nothing to bring.  In this way some go hungry while others get drunk.  Paul rebukes the believers for such lack of decorum by admonishing them to eat at home instead of over indulging at the fellowship meal and shaming those who go hungry.  Aside from this horrible crudity, Paul has taught the Corinthian believers that the bread and the wine must be taken with discernment of the body and blood of Christ in such congregational settings, otherwise one eats and drinks damnation upon oneself.   

From this a Eucharistic pattern was formed and Paul’s words “as often as you do this” understood to mean “as often as you come together for a fellowship meal”, which has translated into the modern sense of as often as believers come together in general with various opinions regarding how often the elements of the Supper are to be observed.   

But considering the passage detail by detail presents some interesting things.  First, the entire context of Paul’s teaching is prefaced on the understanding that there are “divisions” and “factions” among the believers (v.18-19).  What does Paul have in mind here?  Are such divisions simply between the “have’s” and the “have not’s”, between those of means who can indulge in a meal vs. those of no means who can’t afford to bring food to a feast?  Or could it be something else?

Daniel Lancaster, writing in First Fruits of Zion’s Torah Club Volume 5, presents an excellent teaching regarding the ability of Gentiles to partake of the Seder meal, in light of Paul’s admonition to the early believers that they should not be circumcised.  Since Torah speaks of only circumcised males partaking of Pesach, wouldn’t uncircumcised Gentile believers be banned from participating at all?  After parsing out the terminology used in Exodus 12:43-49, Lancaster looks to the Talmud (Pesachim 96a) to conclude; “An uncircumcised non-Jew is allowed to keep the Seder and Feast of Unleavened Bread. Only regarding the actual lamb-sacrifice is he banned.” [1]  With this in mind certainly a faction or schism would naturally exist between Gentile and Jewish believers participating in a Seder meal (in Paul’s day), for the Gentile could not participate in the eating of the sacrificial lamb while the Jew could.  Could this be the division Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 11 which would lead to Gentile believers going hungry during a Seder meal while their Jewish brethren indulged in eating the sacrificial meat to the point of getting inebriated?

In v. 20 Paul speaks of the believers coming together “into one place” (KJV) or “at the same place” (YLT), the actual Greek phrase being “epi ho autos” (επι το αυτο).  Although many versions translate this phrase as simply “to come together”, both the KJV and Young’s Literal understand it to be speaking about a specific place.  Since Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was written to all believers in Corinth who occupied numerous places (Chapter 1 verse 2) certainly this must have included thousands of individuals involved in many synagogues throughout the region.  At what occasion would the majority of them, or the understood “whole” have met in “one place” or “at the same place”?  Could Paul be alluding to the “one place” as Jerusalem where the believers (as a sect of Judaism) would make the pilgrimage required by Torah to observe the Feast of Unleavened bread, which would include the Seder meal?  

In v.22 Paul seems to be comparing those who “have houses to eat in” as opposed to those “who have not”.  The Greek “oikia” (οικιας) is used exclusively in the LXX to translate bayit which by implication can speak of a “household” or family group. Jewish believers would certainly have family groups or households in which they could partake of the korban Pesach and indulge in the “meal” aspect of it, to their heart’s content.  Gentile believers, on the other hand, would have no such family groups and no permission to eat of the korban Pesach (being uncircumcised) at the Seder itself.  For a Jewish believer to participate in a Seder in which believing Gentiles are present and to disregard the fact that they are unable to eat of the sacrificial meat, while one feasts away on the meat and wine to the point of inebriation, would certainly be to despise and shame those who are fellow brethren in the Lord.

Paul’s admonition that the believers are coming together “not for the better” but rather “for the worse” (v.17) is due to the teachings regarding the Lord’s Supper that he has already given to them. That the Supper was instituted on the night Yeshua was betrayed, that the bread and wine symbolize his body and blood, that these elements should be partaken of in remembrance of him, and that in doing so the believers proclaim his death until he comes again (v.23-25).  

Although the popular understanding is that the Lord’s Supper may be celebrated or recognized any time believers come together and corporately recognize bread and wine/juice to symbolize Yeshua’s body and blood, Paul’s words here encompass but one timeframe; that of “the night he was betrayed”.  Of course this causes challenges because of the discrepancies and uncertainties among the Gospel accounts regarding when this night actually occurred (the 14th of Nisan or the 15th of Nisan or other opinions based on a three day and three night “sign of Jonah” approach).  But apart from the dilemma of discrepancies in general, all Gospel accounts would agree that the night Yeshua was betrayed is related to or connected with Passover.  Pesach is in focus no matter what the dating of this night of betrayal is understood to be.  

Because Yeshua is both “our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7) and “the Lamb of G-d” (John 1:29,36) it would seem that in Pesach itself is found the best representation and fullest proclamation of Yeshua’s death, as symbolized in the unleavened bread and cup of wine partaken of on that night.

In concluding Paul brings home his point by saying;

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:26-29 KJV)

Several things are striking here; first, that the bread and cup Paul speaks of are very specific “this bread” and “this cup”, the bread and cup “of the Lord” which seems to be relating to a very specific time and situation rather than any variable fellowship meal or congregational gathering that might be designated to incorporate the elements of the Lord’s body and blood.  This specific bread and cup must be discerned and understood consciously as representing the Lord’s body.  This is why Paul says “examine yourself” (i.e. make sure you are aware of what you are partaking of and what it represents).

Although Pesach as taught in Torah carries with it no condemnation for those who do not recognize the elements as symbolizing Yeshua’s body and blood and no guilt for those who do not have faith in him, it would seem that for believers this is not the case.  Since a believer understands the symbolism of the bread and wine as being the body and blood of the Master who died on the cross during Pesach, we are then accountable regarding this understanding as we partake of the Seder even if unbelieving Jews are not. For Scripture makes clear that we will be judged on what we know and what we had opportunity to learn.  

With these things in mind I plan to head out on Monday to purchase the brisket of beef I ordered from the kosher butcher in a neighboring town, as I have volunteered to provide the brisket for my community’s Seder this year.  Little do my fellow congregants realize how close they came to not having a brisket at the Seder, or the presence of the person who volunteered to prepare it.

Although my mind and heart are settled enough at the moment to participate in the Seder this year and the Lord’s Supper incorporated into it, I realize not everything is as black and white as I may have presented and that personal bias is bound to be involved.  Other points of contention also need to be addressed including the appropriateness of the Afikomen as the bread of the Lord’s Supper . . .but that will have to wait for a post yet future : )  

 

[1] D. Thomas Lancaster, Non Jews and Passover (An excerpt from First Fruits of Zion’s Torah Club Volume 5), as found at:  http://www.bethimmanuel.org/print/203