Torah as a Song of Unity and Tension

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

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

[4] Ibid.

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

[6] Ibid.

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

Role Confusion and Commandment 612

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 [3] Maharil Diskin as cited in; ibid.

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

Something Missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 . . . .

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

[3] Rav Amnon Bazak, ibid.

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

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

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

Up On the Roof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . .

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Ibid.

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

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

The Realities of War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

[3] Rav Mordekhai Sabato, op. cit.

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

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

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

The Test of a False Prophet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

 

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

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

Discoveries on the Towpath Trail

Approximately an hour’s drive south and west of where I live is the only National Park in the state of Ohio.  Within this park is contained a 20 mile stretch of the former Ohio and Erie Canal system.  The original towpath upon which mules and horses pulled the canal boats more than 150 years ago is now a popular multi-use trail.  A couple of weeks ago I decided to do some cycling on this trail on a southern section of it that I had not traveled before.  Although each section of the trail provides a variety of sights to see, including historic stores and farms, covered bridges, waterfalls, and various views of the Cuyahoga River and its wetlands, one thing that is common along the entire trail are remains of numerous locks that were essential for the canal to function in bygone days.

The locks are numbered in ascending order as the canal progresses toward Lake Erie.  A historical marker gives interesting details related to each individual lock.  Yet, aesthetically the locks themselves are unimpressive.  Nothing more than disintegrating walls of old quarried stone rising out of deep ditches overgrown with weeds or partially filled with stagnant water.  Such landmarks would be easily overlooked if not for the historical markers that bear the details of their former importance.  Walls of stone rising up that no longer have a functional purpose other than to serve as monuments of a prior time far removed from the technology of today.  

In considering the beginning of parashah Shoftim this past week I found myself faced with the topic of matzevah, the pillar of stone and monument of deity that is forbidden to the Children of Israel in their worship of HaShem.  So repulsive and useless was such a pillar that Moses described it in Deuteronomy 16:22 as something that G-d “hates”.  Such negativity toward a monument of stone is easily understood in historical context, for the people who occupied the land of Canaan into which the present generation of Israel was about to enter, used such pillars in their worship of various pagan deities.  Throughout the book of Deuteronomy (7:25, 12:3) Moses admonished the people to destroy and crush the matzevot once in the Land in the exact manner in which HaShem had commanded the previous generation (Exodus 23:24, 34:13).  Therefore, v. 22 seems as little more than a pointed reminder of a past commandment regarding worship that served no functional purpose for G-d’s people – a mere signpost along the way to more interesting and important topics discussed in passages that follow.

Yet, the sages recognize in this easily overlooked verse a serious dilemma. For matzevah, the stone pillar of worship, is introduced in Torah by means of the patriarch Jacob. The first occurrence of matzevah occurs in Genesis 28:18 in which Jacob, on his way to Haran to find a wife from his mother’s family, spends the night in Bethel where he has a vision in a dream of a “ladder reaching toward heaven”.  Awakening from this heavenly vision Jacob takes the rock he was using as a pillow, sets it on end as a pillar (matzevah) and pours oil upon it as a symbol of worship to HaShem.  Instead of becoming angered with Jacob or forbidding him to do such a thing, HaShem, years later, in instructing Jacob to return to Canaan, identifies Himself as the “G-d of Bethel where you anointed the pillar (matzevah)”(Genesis 31:13). Once back in Canaan HaShem instructs Jacob to return to Bethel where he promises him the inheritance of the Land as given to Abraham.  After hearing from G-d in this way, Jacob again sets up a matzevah, pouring both a drink offering and oil offering upon it (Genesis 35:14). 

How is it that something which is described as hated by HaShem in Deuteronomy, seems to be an accepted and even beloved form of worship as used by Jacob in Genesis?  Rashi understands that initially the use of a matzevah was an acceptable means of worship, in the times of the patriarchs.  Yet, once this form of worship was embraced by paganism and instituted in idolatrous practices it became defiled and therefore hateful to HaShem. In this way the pagan assimilation of a legitimate worship practice used by the patriarchs made this practice unsuitable for the worship of G-d.  

From Rashi’s view it is conjectured that worship in the time of the patriarchs was different than in the time of the nation in the Wilderness.  Both R’ Hirsch and R’ Kook understand that the purpose of worship in the time of the patriarchs was to publicize the name of HaShem.  Since HaShem was not a “known” deity to the world at large, the worship of the patriarchs was meant to familiarize humanity to His Name and make His presence known.  This task was accomplished through means of objects that would represent HaShem symbolically, such as a matzevah.  Later on in history, after the Name of G-d became known in the world and He was recognized as a “legitimate deity” (especially through means of the plagues in Egypt and the Exodus) worship of Him was then to emphasize His abstract dimension, for G-d was much more than merely another deity in the pantheon of known gods. [1]

This new or adjusted emphasis in worship was taught to the Children of Israel by Moses on several occasions as they were prohibited from constructing an image to represent HaShem in anyway.  Although the use of images such as the matzevah was previously allowed, such worship of HaShem is intrinsically defective because there is no image known to mankind or in the created world which can fully or correctly represent Him.  The importance of an abstract conception of G-d outweighed the use of images or symbols to represent His Presence and incorporated a correct form of worship of HaShem.  Although the patriarch Jacob used a matzevah as a beloved symbol of HaShem’s Presence he nevertheless did not use it in any sense as an embodiment of G-d as is common in idolatrous practices.  The understanding of an image as an embodiment of divinity is at the very core of what is “hateful” to G-d.  [2]

In Talmud Yoma 54b a different understanding of the matzevah can be found. In the Gemara, Chazal consider how the land mass of the world was formed.  Although there are various opinions regarding the details of this, all the sages agree that “the world was started from Eretz Israel” specifically with its starting point in Zion (Jerusalem).  This unanimous opinion is based on Psalm 50:1-2 which speaks of G-d “speaking and calling” to the earth, and “out of Zion, perfect in beauty, G-d appeared”. From this it is understood that “from Zion the beauty of the world was perfected.” [3]

In the opinion of R’ Yitzchak Nappacha the process of the world’s formation starting in Zion occurred as HaShem cast a stone into the sea from which a land mass began to grow from the epicenter of Jerusalem.  This is based on Job 38:6 in which HaShem speaks of the creation process as the “foundations of the pillars of the world being sunk” and its cornerstone being “thrown into the sea”.  This cornerstone cast into the sea and from which Jerusalem and Israel and the rest of the land mass of the world proceeded is known in the Talmud as Shetiyah or “The Foundation of the World”.  Shetiyah is also described in the Mishnah as the stone within the Holy of Holies of the Temple upon which the Ark of the Covenant stood and in the second Temple (which lacked the Aron) upon which the incense was burned on Yom Kippur. [4]

According to the Zohar (B’reisheet, Section 1) the Shetiyah (foundation stone of the world) is the very stone which Jacob placed his head upon to sleep in Genesis 28:18, and which he set up as a matzevah of worship to HaShem.   Because of the uniqueness of this stone as being the central point of the universe and upon which would stand the Holy of Holies (the house of G-d, “Beth-El”), this stone alone could be legitimately set up as a pillar of worship to HaShem.  On no other occasion in Torah are any of the patriarchs or other faithful prior to them, described as setting up a single pillar of stone for worship.  This occurrence is unique to Jacob alone, making this a one-time situation with a stone that legitimately symbolized the presence of the abstract G-d.  The foundation stone represented the place G-d would choose to rest his revealed/perceptible presence, in the Holy of Holies of the Temple itself in Jerusalem.  For Israel to use any stone upon the ground as a memorial or pillar to HaShem would be hateful to G-d for only the “cornerstone” of the world, the Temple itself, as the very center of worship and G-d’s revealed presence, could adequately represent the reality of the abstract G-d.

Yet, another way to understand the prohibition of the matzevah in Deuteronomy 16:22 is to compare the matzevah (the stone pillar as a forbidden means of worship) to the mizbeach (the altar of the Temple as the acceptable means of worship).  Matzevah is derived from a root word which means “to stand” and is therefore a way of worship which is meant to “stand alone” and is immovable and unchanging.[5]  Mizbeach derives from a root wording meaning “sacrifice” (as the altar is the receptacle of sacrifice) which is also related to the primitive root “zov” meaning “flowing”.[6]

A matzevah is a monument that never moves; it stays the same and is stagnant in that it represents a truth of G-d or experience with Him that is meant to be remembered or memorialized.  The mizbeach is a place of movement and flow, a place of giving and taking in which a living relationship with HaShem is expressed through means of sacrifice. A matzevah was composed of a single stone, taken from the ground and placed upright.  The mizbeach could either be formed of earth or of many stones (mizbeach avanim) but was never to be composed of one single stone alone (Exodus 20:24-25).

In this way the matzevah alludes to worship that is based on solidly held beliefs or a monumental experience that stands firm at the very center of the individual’s “spiritual universe”, but yet is stagnant and immovable.  Such worship is hateful to HaShem for in spiritual matters to stand still is to regress, and to hold fast to personal beliefs alone without changing and growing is a loss rather than an achievement.  Composed of a single stone, the matzevah reflects individualism in worship and the idea of a single opinion and outlook. [7]

In contrast, the mizbeach reflects active worship that changes and grows through a give and take process.  The fact that the mizbeach is composed of many stones alludes to the idea of community and the perception of many different ways to view and understand the world in order to draw closer to HaShem through a cooperative effort with others of differing opinions and outlooks. [8]

How beautifully these ideas, found in the very Hebrew words of Torah, are presented in 1 Peter;

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (1Peter 2:4-6 ESV)

 Like the Shetiyah, Yeshua is the individual, unique foundation of the spiritual house – the foundation and center of all spiritual truth, a truth that is immovable and unchanging.  Believers are likened to the stones of the altar, living stones that give and take, live and move, and grow closer to G-d through interaction with others and sacrifices of self that are acceptable to G-d.  

. . . . . .

In reaching the southernmost point of the towpath trail within the national park, I turned my bike around to head back northward to my starting point some 14 miles away. The 28 mile round-trip ride was invigorating and refreshing.  Yet, as always there was an impatience on the return trip as well as the anticipation of a tasty packed lunch to be enjoyed at a restful picnic table overlooking a pretty waterfall near the trailhead where the journey began.  As I rode quickly back past one lock after the next, the same locks I had passed on the trip southward, I felt myself compelled to stop along the way and take in the sign post and historical details of at least one of these easily forgotten stone memorials.

Stopping at “lock no. 27” I came upon a very narrow set of quarry stone walls, partially filled with algae-ridden green water.  One interesting feature of this lock was a large iron hook that was originally part of the gate controlling the water level in the lock itself. Lock 27 is known as “Johnny Cake Lock” because flooding which occurred on the canal due to the malfunction of a lock upstream caused several boats to become grounded there.  The passengers and crew of the stranded boats quickly ran out of supplies and were forced to eat from the corn-meal cargo made into pancakes (known as “Johnny cakes”) for several days until help arrived.  

Although the appearance of this former lock was unimpressive and sadly stale, the story behind it was interesting and pertinent and I was glad I stopped to consider it.  Before continuing on I took a picture to remind me of the history found in such a landmark, one which could have been easily overlooked as an unimportant relic of the past.  

How ironic that a discovery on the Towpath Trail was so similar to discoveries made in considering a single verse of scripture that could have been easily overlooked as unimportant and impertinent regarding stone relics of worship from history past. Like the quiet and unassuming locks of the former Ohio and Erie canal, each containing a bit of history to be revealed behind unappealing exteriors hidden and faded by the natural forces that bear upon them, so the Torah as well contains hidden gems of pertinent application behind the façade of what can initially seem to be incidental facts and warnings.

 

[1]  Rav. S.R. Hirsch & Rav A.Y. Kook, as cited in; Rav Mordechai Sabato, Parashat Shoftim (The Prohibitions of Atzera and Matzera) available at:  http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.62/43shoftim.htm

 [2] Ibid

 [3] Abraham Yaakov Finkel, Ein Yaakov, Yoma 54b Shetiyah; The Foundation of the World, Jason Aronson (New Jersey) 1999, Windows CD version.

 [4] Ibid

 [5] Rav Binny Freedman, Portion of Shoftim, available at: http://www.isralight.org/assets/Text/RBF_shoftim05.html

 [6] Ibid

 [7] Ibid

 [8] Ibid

Talking to the Moon

 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.

When a Break-Up is a Blessing

This 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 20^th 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.

Being Mindful of the Shema

Last 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.