The Heart Inspired with Wisdom

Six months ago I began a new journey in my career as a registered nurse.  Although it was totally unanticipated, I landed a job as the nurse clinician to a prominent neurosurgeon, one who is nationally and internationally sought after.  Instead of providing hands-on care at the bedside in a critical care setting, I now work daily alongside a man who is profoundly brilliant and gifted, who performs cutting-edge neurosurgical procedures and is involved in significant research efforts regarding cancerous brain tumors of the most aggressive kind.  The transition has been challenging and exhilarating, as well as a bit overwhelming and daunting.  Going from the hospital floor to the “Ivory Tower” of the neurosurgical world I have often wondered how I actually managed to get this job.  It was with these thoughts in mind that I faced my first job review last week.

Sitting down with the practice manager I received hearty congratulations as she informed me that I had achieved the highest possible review of “excellent” in every category.  Although I was elated to hear this, I also found myself a bit stunned.  In my five years as an RN I have received favorable job reviews, yet there has always been room for improvement and some constructive criticism involved.  Amidst the happiness there was an underlying tension, an oddity of sorts, in facing the reality of achieving a “perfect” rating of excellence.

Remarkably, this same type of oddity and tension presents itself in parashah Vayak’hel, which describes the work of the women in the construction of the Mishkan;

 Every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands; and they brought the spun yarn of turquoise, purple and scarlet wool and the linen.  All the women whose hearts inspired them with wisdom spun the goat hair.  (Exodus 35:25-26 Stone Chumash)

The only job performed by women in the Mishkan’s construction was that of spinning both the wool and the goat hair used for the inner and outer curtains. All other work was performed by men.   In the opinion of Rav Eliezer (BT Yoma 66b); “there is no wisdom in women except with the distaff”.  In other words, spinning, in Rav Eliezer’s view represents the sole form of true female wisdom.  

Spinning involves the putting together of raw fibers in order to make thread. This symbolically upholds traditional thought regarding the character of men vs. women. Based on what might be called “barnyard logic”, or the most apparent anatomical differences, the role of men as givers and women as receivers is discerned.  Although both men and women are capable of giving and receiving in various situations, in general men present raw materials and abstract ideas while women in their G-d given wisdom and character receive such raw materials and abstractions and put them to use in a practical and orderly fashion.

Thus the parashah relates; “every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands”.  In a Biblical and spiritual sense the wisdom of women is encompassed in the craft of spinning. This theme is related each erev Shabbat as the husband of the home sings Eshet Chayil to his spouse, a proverb extolling the attributes of the virtuous woman,  in which working with her hands and spinning are praiseworthy qualities noted not once, but twice (cf. Proverbs 31: 13,19).  

Yet, in Exodus 35 this female wisdom of spinning takes on two forms.  The first group of women, those who spun the yarn of turquoise, purple, and scarlet wool, are called “wise-hearted”.  The second group that spun the goats’ hair are referred to as “women whose hearts inspired them with wisdom”.  The first group was wise, the second group inspired.  This might be compared with the difference between “acceptable” and “excellent” on a job review.  

The Sages have noted this difference in emphasis and ponder the reason that greater or “inspired” wisdom is ascribed to those who spun the goats’ hair.  Why is it that the women who participated in creating the plainer goat hair coverings used for the outside of the Tabernacle occupy a higher level of wisdom than those who created the threads for the intricately colorful curtains that covered the Holy Place and Holy of Holies itself?

The Talmud relates that the “inspired” women spun the hair while it was still upon the goats (cf. BT Shabbat 74b, 79a).  The hair was not shorn, but instead was washed, combed, carded, and spun into thread while still attached to the living animal (cf. BT Shabbat 99a).  This understanding is based on the literal words of Exodus 35: 26 which reads that the women “spun the goats” (tavu et-ha’izim) (טָווּ, אֶת-הָעִזִּים).

Many opinions stem from this Talmudic description of spinning the hair upon the live goats.  Practically, this would have been a difficult task, to keep the goat still and calm, while working with hair that was extremely fine and stiff. [1] By spinning upon the living animal, the hair would not become inadvertently dirty or soiled. [2] In the opinion of Rashi and others, the women were so eager to become involved in the work of the Mishkan that they refused to wait for the hair to be shorn but immediately began the task of spinning right upon the animal itself.  Another opinion understands that working with growing hair would allow all women to halachically participate in this work, even those who were impure due to menstruation or child bearing. [3]

One interesting opinion focuses upon the thoughts of the women in their spinning work for the Mishkan.  Since the Tabernacle was the holiest structure ever built by man, every aspect of it should be performed with utter devotion to G-d as much as humanly possible.  This would include not only extraordinary skill and attention to detail, but also working in a way that did not allow the evil inclination to interfere with the work.

Often, the evil inclination interrupts the holiest pursuits by invading a person’s thoughts.  A common example of this is found during prayer when unwanted and distracting thoughts interrupt devotion to the Almighty.  In order to do the work in utter devotion to G-d the women were inspired with additional wisdom.  By spinning the hair upon the goat’s back they would be so completely occupied with the details of this difficult work, that no distracting or extraneous thought would enter in. [4]

All these opinions offer various facets of what a heart of inspired wisdom might look like.  A woman who receives and “spins” the raw materials presented to her with skill and carefulness, with purity and eagerness, in total devotion to G-d.  Yet, can it not be said that the women who spun the colored wool also had similar talents and motivations?  It would seem that the key difference is that the inspired women interacted with that which was living.  They didn’t disconnect their work from a living source.  Of all the materials brought for the work of the Mishkan, as described in Vayak’hel, only the goats were living and animate. The wool was shorn and dyed, the skins were already processed.  The silver, copper, wood, precious stones, oil, and gold ornaments were inanimate materials.  

As Sforno explains, goats’ hair loses its luster once it is sheared, being disconnected from its natural source of lanolin.  Therefore by combing and spinning the living and growing hair of the animal the women produced a thread of superior luster for the Mishkan.  In Sforno’s view the most excellent donation to HaShem is one that comes directly from a higher source, the source of a living being vs. the source of an inanimate object.  By spinning directly from the goat the inspired women produced the finest of material for the Tabernacle that was processed while connected to a living animal.  [5]

……………………………..

At the end of my job review the practice manager related that although I had achieved the highest rating as a “new employee” entering a new job, next year I will be expected to show additional progress in order to maintain this excellent standing.  I was glad that she ended the review with these words for progress is life, stagnancy death.  Leaving the manager’s office I thought about the women and the goats, and what real, godly excellence entails.  How great is my desire to be a woman whose heart is inspired with wisdom, who not only “spins” with skill and intelligence, or who brings about practicality and order, but who also purposefully applies her abilities and G-d given character to “living situations” — staying connected with people and things at their source, and facing the inevitable difficulties and challenges of doing so along the way.  

_____________________________________________________________________

[1]  The thoughts of Midrash Ha-Gadol as presented in Itamar Dagan, Women who Excelled in that Skill available here

[2] The thoughts of Rabbi David Pardo as presented in ibid.

[3] The thoughts of Meshekh Hokhmah as presented in ibid.

[4]  Adapted from; Internet Parashah Sheet on Vayakhel—5760 available here

[5]  Sforno as presented in The Commentator’s Bible, The JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot, Exodus, edited, translated and annotated by Michael Carasik, 2005, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia PA, p. 317.

Being Less Respectable Than A Dog

As a child growing up my younger sister and I often pleaded with our parents regarding our desire to have a pet dog.  Although it took many years of such pleading, when I was 12 years of age and my sister 9 years old, my father felt we were ready to take on the responsibility of a puppy.  Because my father had grown up with Daschunds as a boy in an ethnic German household, in which such dogs were named “Baron” and “Fritz”, the puppy chosen for my sister and me was a black and tan standard Daschund named “Kaiser”. 

Kaiser was a most loving and playful pet, he had a happy and social demeanor toward everyone.  Yet, Kaiser also was a very disobedient dog, a hard-head in many respects.  Although he attended two six-week sessions of dog obedience training, he didn’t seem to learn a thing.  My father would marvel that while at the gymnasium with the other dogs Kaiser would heel, stay, come, sit, and even give a paw.  Returning home he immediately forgot everything he had learned.  It seemed that Kaiser was born with “canine dementia” or short term memory loss aimed specifically at obedient behavior of any kind.

On certain occasions Kaiser’s lovable, loyal, yet bone-headed personality would change in a drastic and scary way.  This occurred anytime he was given a “meat bone” leftover from roasts my mother had cooked for the family dinner. Although she preferred not to give Kaiser the meat bone, my father felt it was a deserving treat for him from time to time.  My father would take the leftover bone containing some roasted meat down into the basement of our home and place it in a distant corner there.  As this was being done my mother restrained Kaiser by the collar for the dog became frantic when he sensed the meat bone was to be given to him.

Once the bone was in place Kaiser dashed to the basement to eat its meat and chew on it for several hours.  During that time we were instructed to leave him alone for to even go within three feet of him while in possession of the bone elicited the most ferocious snarls and growls.  His eyes would glint with a warning look; with the meat bone in his possession he was no longer lovable, loyal or bone-headed.  Instead he was transformed from a domesticated pet into an instinctual pack animal protecting his prey. 

This childhood memory was brought to mind in considering Parashah Mishpatim this week, specifically the admonition of Moses regarding casting meat to the dogs;

People of holiness shall you be to Me; you shall not eat flesh of an animal that was torn in the field; to the dog shall you throw it.

(Exodus 22:30, Stone Chumash)

Interestingly, the commentators have much to say on this verse because the holiness of the people is directly connected to it.  In the most literal sense a holy people is not to eat flesh that is torn (t’refah).  This not only includes animals that are attacked and maimed in the wild, but also any animal that has a lesion or wound that will eventually kill it (cf. BT Chullin 3:1).  As Ibn Ezra points out the flesh of a torn animal contains a “poisonous substance” making it unfit for human consumption. [1] Although eating carcasses and torn animals is disgusting to humanity in general, Ramban relates that one may partake of such foods if human survival is at stake. [2] Yet, the holiness of the people is not occupied with potential infectious processes or rancidity contained in torn or wounded animals, but instead is a matter of the soul.

The Ramban explains that eating forbidden foods has spiritual consequences, leading to “thickness and coarseness” of the soul.  Such coarseness makes it difficult for G-d’s people to cleave to him because one’s soul becomes “disgusting by eating abominable things”. [3] When HaShem instructed Ezekiel to eat barley cakes (typically used as animal fodder) baked upon a fire fueled by human excrement, he expressed concern regarding pollution of his soul.  Since his youth, Ezekiel had not partaken of any animal that died of itself or that had had been torn in its flesh and therefore his soul had not been affected by disgusting foods (cf. Ezekiel 4:9 -14). 

Although Yeshua taught that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but instead what comes out of the mouth that causes defilement (Matthew 15:11), this teaching was given in response to a Pharisaical tradition that eating permissible foods with unwashed hands caused one to be defiled.  Since Torah forbids the eating of torn flesh, to do so is direct disobedience to G-d which inevitably affects the soul of the individual. 

The position of Exodus 22:30 among the mishpatim (ordinances) in the text is also understood to contain lessons in holiness.  At the conclusion of numerous interpersonal laws and prior to the law prohibiting false reports, HaShem relates the matter of holiness as illustrated by the dog.  When a dog begins to bark all dogs within earshot will also begin to bark as a natural reaction. Although the group of dogs is unaware of the original reason for the barking, they yet bark with the others anyway. 

In similar fashion, the proper treatment of slaves, other’s property, and concern for the helpless will not render one holy if they become caught up in speaking gossip or evil of others.  Such speech is often evoked by one person in a crowd which leads to many others chiming in without much thought to their words, just like a group of dogs. The sages also note that the Hebrew phrase lakelev tashlichun oto (לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ) can be translated “throw him to the dogs” as well as “throw it to the dogs”.  This suggests that one who gives a false report is worthy to be thrown to the dogs. [4]

The specific detail of throwing torn flesh to the dogs is also related to the holiness of HaShem’s people.  In a mystical sense, the torn animal is understood to have suffered the harsh and insolent judgment of HaShem by dying a violent death.  Meat containing such harsh judgment should not be eaten by holy people for harshness and insolence is not suited to holy living.  Therefore, the meat is tossed to the dogs to whom it belongs “for the dogs are greedy” (cf. Isaiah 56:11). [5]

The preposition lamed pointed with a patach as used in conjunction with the Hebrew word for dog, kelev (לַכֶּלֶב) can indicate a specific dog to which the torn flesh is to be thrown rather than “dogs” in general.  Ibn Ezra understands this specific dog to be the sheepdog who risks his life to guard the herd and flock in the field.  Since the torn flesh is that which is found in the field, the dog that guards the animals in the fields is due such flesh as his rightful reward. [6] Therefore, people of holiness are careful to give every creature its due reward and recognize that HaShem does not withhold the reward of anything, human or otherwise. 

Rashi understands lakelev of Exodus 22:30 to be referring specifically to the dogs within Egypt on the night of the exodus when the plague of the firstborn struck the land. Exodus 11: 7 states that not one dog would move his tongue against either man or beast of Israel on that night.  Such silence of the dogs toward Israel would distinguish them from the Egyptians.  Because the dogs remained unnaturally quiet on the night of the exodus the torn flesh of the field would be their reward. [7]

From this, Rashi relates that regarding the issue of torn meat, the dog is more respectable than the Gentile.  Since meat which dies of itself may be sold to the foreigner (Deuteronomy 14:21) and such meat if touched by an Israelite causes ritual impurity, then it stands to reason that flesh torn by beasts, which does not cause ritual impurity (for it is to be handled and tossed to the dogs) may also be sold to the foreigner. [8] Therefore, the same t’refa meat that the dog receives as a free and deserved reward must be purchased by the Gentile.  Rashi’s insights are based on Mechilta which understands the dog to receive preference over the non-Jew in its right to torn meat.  

With these thoughts in mind, how is it that Yeshua himself would refer to a Gentile, Canaanite woman who sought him for healing of her daughter, as a “dog” in the Gospel accounts of both Matthew and Mark?

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

(Matthew 15:21-28 ESV)

Daniel Lancaster, writing in Torah Club Volume 4, cites the understanding of Lachs that the term “dogs” as used in relation to Gentiles was a common Jewish idiom of the day. [9]  Therefore, Yeshua’s use of such a term should not be viewed as insulting necessarily, but rather as employing common “street lingo”.  Lancaster instead focuses on the woman’s knowledge of Jewish terminology as she uses the Messianic title “Son of David” in referring to Yeshua.  This combined with her ability to rephrase and restructure the “dog” analogy impressed Yeshua, causing him to grant her request. [10]

Interestingly, in the Gospel account, the woman’s use of the title “Son of David” elicits no response from Yeshua at all.  Kneeling at his feet and likening herself to a dog under the master’s table leads to the fulfillment of her request.  This understanding alone would suggest that Yeshua was on an ego trip of some sort.  The woman’s recognition of him as “Son of David”, the Messianic King of Israel, was not enough. Her pleas for help from this king went completely ignored.  Not until she fell at his feet and likened herself to a dog was she worthy of help from him.  But Yeshua does not commend her for extreme humility or self-abasement; instead he describes her as one of “great faith”. 

As the woman kneels at his feet, Yeshua explains that the bread of the Children of Israel should not be thrown to the dogs — a comment using the same phraseology as Exodus 22:30.  Food is thrown to a dog that cannot be trusted to take it from one’s hand.  No matter how tamed or domesticated a dog is, be it sheepdog or house dog, when fresh meat from a torn animal is presented to it, the dog will act according to its most base instincts as a pack animal with its prey.  Therefore, such food is thrown not given, to an animal acting on sheer instinct alone. 

When the Canaanite woman comes to Yeshua seeking healing for her daughter, she is displaying the most natural base instinct of every mother, an instinct that is driven to protect and preserve the life of her child at any cost.  Yeshua’s miracles, though beneficial for physical health and healing, have a greater purpose, being meant as signs proving that he was sent by G-d Himself. 

Yeshua likens his miracles to bread, not meat.  Bread is the product of raw materials that are manipulated by man in order to create satisfying sustenance.  Bread in this way symbolizes holy living that takes the raw materials of mundane life and elevates them through obedience to HaShem to create experiences of spiritual sustenance.  A torn limb is ready to be eaten without any human intervention by the dog that comes upon it.  It is raw and pure physical sustenance void of any creativity or thought regarding spirituality and the things of G-d. 

The politically correct and honoring title “Son of David” as used by the desperate woman did not convince Yeshua that she was seeking anything more than physical healing for her daughter in the most instinctual sense.  The reply he gives to her as she kneels at his feet indicates this, for it is not fit to throw the children’s bread to the dogs.  Yeshua’s miracles are the Children of Israel’s bread because those of G-d’s nation would best recognize the higher, creative, spiritual significance of them.  Such bread is not worthy to be thrown to one who is acting on instinct alone.  One does not throw a delicate croissant to a dog who is craving a meat bone.

The woman’s response to Yeshua is quite telling.  She does not desire the bread to be thrown to her.  She is not a dog in the sense of the wild pack animal that will not approach its master when functioning upon base instinct alone.  She is right at his feet, like a lap dog sitting under the table. In this way she verbalizes that although a Gentile, she is in the master’s house, in his domain, among the Children of Israel, believing him to be the Son of David and Messiah to come.  Therefore she understands it is the master’s duty to care for her, for she has been domesticated by him.  She is watching and waiting to take the crumbs that fall to her from his most honored table.  This was the great faith that caused her to be deserving of a miracle, for such bread would not be wasted upon her, but would instead nourish and strengthen and elevate her spiritually.

With this in mind I must say that I am honored, as a Gentile, to be considered less respectable than a dog when it comes to t’refah (torn meat). The dog is given greater respect than me for the meat is tossed to it as a free reward.  The Gentile must pay for the same meat, providing profit to the Israelite who sells it to him.  But the same interaction also brings profit to the Gentile, who is not relegated to the role of a dog.

In paying for the meat the Gentile is involved in a human transaction, his intellect and will is engaged in his decision to purchase the meat.  Such meat will be inspected and considered and bartered over.  The dog has no choice in the matter but to act on instinct alone, helpless but to satisfy its hunger and cravings, unable to reject the disgusting meat thrown at it being completely overcome by its base self.

The Gentile who buys torn meat does so of his own free will and intellect.  He either will decide to make use of a beast killed in a severe fashion with no regard for holiness or compassion in the situation, or he will decline to purchase such an animal for many reasons ranging from the most practical to perhaps the most profound.  But the choice is up to the goy.  The meat is not thrown to him, it is offered to him for sale, a transaction from human to human, involving choice and intellect.

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

Nine years after receiving my patiently anticipated Daschund puppy, now 21 years of age, I enjoyed a nice Sunday dinner with my family.  Having a roast for the meal my father suggested that Kaiser be given the meat bone from it.  As my mother separated the bone from the leftovers, Kaiser — aging, thin, and graying around the snout — looked up with mild interest his tale wagging slightly.   As my father made the trip to the basement to place the bone, the dog waited patiently at the top of the stairs, not needing to be restrained.

When my father returned he encouraged the dog; “go get it boy!” he said.  Looking down the staircase with pensive eyes, Kaiser didn’t make a move.  Short legs that were arthritic limited his mobility.  Therefore, my father brought the bone up from the basement and placed it in Kaiser’s dish, in the corner of the kitchen.  Sauntering slowly to the dish he sniffed the bone and then walked away from it.  My father shook his head and with a sad look predicted that Kaiser would not live much longer.  Within two weeks he was dead.

This is one of my last memories of my childhood dog, for he died while I was vacationing out of state.  His inability to be overcome by a meat bone and to act according to the most basic instincts of his species was an ominous indicator that there was not much life left in him.

How curious and wonderful it is that just the opposite is true regarding the human species.  To live beyond and above base instincts, emotion, and desire, is for us, life itself.  To draw near to Israel’s Mashi’ach and to partake of the bread from his table, as one of the nations, is eternal life.  This is the honor that is found in being less respectable than a dog.

________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]  Ibn Ezra as cited in, Michael Carasik (translator), The Commentator’s Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2005, p. 195.

[2]  Ramban as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid.

[3]  Ibid.

[4]  Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, Chofetz Chaim, Chapter 6; The Prohibition Against Listening to Lashon Hara, available at:  http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/rchapter5.html?print=1

[5]  Soncino Zohar,  Shemot, Section II, p. 121.

[6]  Ibn Ezra as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid.

[7]  Rashi as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid.

[8]  Ibid.

[9]  D. T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume Four (B’sorat HaMashiach), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2002, p. 53.

[10] Ibid, p. 125.

Loving G-d Without Mediator or Veil

Let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those most sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or veil.     (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Divinity School Address)

 The above quote from Emerson is one I might have expected to find upon a greeting card, calendar, bookmark, coffee mug, or any number of inspirational items that inundate the American marketplace and especially the sector aimed at Christians in general.  But to my surprise this quotation was brought to my attention this past week by a most unusual and unexpected source, an observant Jew living in Jerusalem who has been submitting responses to my posts from time to time.  This individual used Emerson’s quote as a concluding point regarding the inherent imperfection in the tzaddik/disciple relationship as a means of drawing close or “cleaving to” HaShem.  Quoting from a Christian source perhaps was a subtle way to show that even those who claim Yeshua as the perfectly righteous intermediary between G-d and man yet realize that a non-mediated love of G-d is superior above all else. 

Ironically this ideal, to love G-d without mediator or veil, is one that presents itself in Parashah Yitro at the giving of Torah to the Children of Israel upon Sinai.  Amidst the incredible scenario of miraculous drama lies a subtle and easily missed desire of the heart that was found among the nation on that most famous of days.  This desire is hinted at beginning in Exodus 19:13b

 . .upon an extended blast of the shofar they may ascend the mountain  (Stone Chumash)

According to Exodus 19 and 20 Israel never ascended the mountain.  Instead, the base of Mt. Sinai was cordoned off and the people were instructed to not touch it or attempt to break through the base of it to see HaShem for “whoever touches the mountain will surely die”.  Yet, in-between these two prohibitions HaShem indicated that when a long blast of the shofar was sounded the nation may ascend the mountain.  As the sound of the shofar grew continually stronger and the Presence of HaShem descended upon Sinai the people were not invited or encouraged to ascend, but instead seriously warned not to break through the pre-set boundaries (cf. 19:19-22).  How are we to understand this?

Before the mountain was cordoned off and HaShem descended to give the Torah to Israel the intentions of the people were considered.  Would they agree to this covenant and to the role of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation for HaShem?  The people responded; “everything that HaShem has spoken we will do!” and Moses related their enthusiastic reply to HaShem (19:5-8).  After the people’s willingness was confirmed HaShem explained the manner in which He would give the Torah to them.  He would speak directly to Moses and the people would hear the sound of His voice.  Moses would then speak the commands of G-d to the people himself.  In this way, Moses would act as their intermediary.  After this procedure was explained the text goes on to say; “Moses related the words of the people to HaShem” (v.9)

What words of the people are being referred to here?  Moses had already told HaShem that the people were willing to do everything He would speak to them.  It would be redundant for Moses to reiterate that same response to HaShem a second time.  Therefore, it would seem that after the people were given the procedure for receiving the Torah they responded in some way which Moses related back to HaShem.  Torah does not reveal what the people said but only that Moses related their words to G-d.

Rashi understands that when the people were told Moses would be their intermediary they expressed a desire to hear from HaShem Himself, and to actually see Him, without a mediator or “veil” of any kind.  This high level of sanctity would require three days preparation including mikvah (washing of clothes) and abstention from marital relations.  Boundaries were set around the mountain during those days for it too must be sanctified for such a holy occasion.  The people were instructed that at the extended blast of the shofar they would be permitted to ascend Sinai in order to interact directly with HaShem.

When that fateful day arrived, the shofar sounded loudly and Moses assembled the people at the base of Sinai.  As G-d’s awesome Presence descended amidst incredible fire and smoke the sound of the shofar grew louder and louder.  Moses alone ascended the mountain and G-d spoke to him directly as the people below overheard the conversation.  Moses then descended to warn Israel not to attempt to break through the boundaries.  Although the people desired direct revelation without an intermediary, they were not to ascend the mountain in an attempt to see G-d.

Rashi understands the reason for the people’s failed aspirations to be found in Exodus 20:15-16.

The entire people saw the thunder and the flames, the sound of the shofar and the smoking mountain; the people saw and trembled and stood from afar.  They said to Moses, “You speak to us and we shall hear; let G-d not speak to us lest we die.”  (Stone Chumash)

Rashi, Chizkuni and Ramban all agree that Exodus 20:15-16 is not given in chronological order but describes the people’s reaction while receiving the Ten Commandments, not after receiving them.  Both Rashi and Chizkuni understand that this reaction occurred after the first two commandments were spoken to the people directly by HaShem. 

Since the numerical (Gematria) value of the Hebrew word Torah equals 611, chazal deduce (BT Makkot 24a) that Moses taught 611 of the 613 mitzvot of Torah to Israel and that the first two commandments were given directly by G-d to them.  This understanding helps explain an oddity within the Ten Commandments not recognized in the English translation.  In the Hebrew there is a change in person from the first two commandments as compared to the remaining eight commandments.  The first two are written in the first person while the last eight are written in the third person.

Being in the first person, the first two commandments were given directly to the people by HaShem without any intermediary involved.  The extreme supernatural intensity of this experience was more than the nation could bear and they feared for their lives. Instead of being eager to ascend Sinai they literally stepped back from their original position at the base of the mountain (20:15).   Therefore they asked Moses to intercede for them in exactly the manner HaShem had proposed at first.  After the remaining eight commandments were given, in the less direct third person, Moses descended the mountain and warned the people not to break through the boundaries.  They were not invited to ascend or to see HaShem because they were unable to bear it. 

This understanding of Matan Torah is also related in Deuteronomy 5:4-5;

Face to face did HaShem speak with you on the mountain, from amid the fire.  I was standing between HaShem and you at that time, to relate the word of HaShem to you – for you were afraid of the fire and you did not ascend the mountain .  . .  (Stone Chumash)

“Face to face” was the heart desire of the people according to Rashi’s view which found fulfillment in the direct speaking of the first two commandments to the nation.  After this Moses related the word of HaShem to them and they ultimately did not ascend the mountain.

Because the people did not ascend the role of the shofar in Exodus 19:13 is questioned by the commentators.  What was its purpose and when was it sounded? Rashbam understands that when the long blast of the shofar upon the mountain ended and the lightning and thunder ceased, the people then could ascend safely.  This is based on the Hebrew word bimshoch (בִּמְשֹׁךְ), translated “long blast” which literally means “pull” as in “the pull of the horn” and understood by Rashbam to describe the end of a long blast.  [1]

Ibn Ezra understands the blast of the shofar upon Sinai to be different than the sounding of the shofar as described in 19:13.  “One long blast” was the quality that would indicate the people may ascend the mountain.  However, at Matan Torah the shofar sound grew “louder and louder”.  This is understood to be a miraculous phenomenon for normally a horn begins loud and grows weaker as it is blown, while the sounding of the shofar in v. 13 describes the natural occurrence of a long blast.

According to Chizkuni, Saadia Gaon distinguishes the shofar of 19:16 & 19 from the shofar of 19:13. This is based on the literal Hebrew in which the trumpet of v. 13 is called a yovel (יֹּבֵל) while the trumpet that sounded upon the mountain is referred to as shofar (שֹׁפָר).  Although both yovel and shofar describe a ram’s horn instrument the different terminology used in Torah alludes to two separate events. [2]  Citing Samuel B. Hophni’s opinion, Ibn Ezra points out the traditional understanding that G-d’s Presence remained on Sinai continuously until it filled the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34).  Therefore, the long blast of the shofar was likely sounded by Moses at the inauguration of the Mishkan, a time when the people could freely ascend the mountain. [3]  Saadia Gaon and Abarbanel understand the long blast of the yovel to have occurred on the Day of Atonement when Moses descended Sinai with the second set of tablets, indicating an “all clear” signal for the people to ascend the mountain. [4]

Despite the conjectures, the Torah itself does not tell of a time when Moses blew a long blast on the ram’s horn indicating that the people may ascend the mountain either on Yom Kippur or at the dedication of the Mishkan. Although the shofar sounding ceased after the commandments were given, the people were not free to ascend the mountain, as indicated by Exodus 24, in which the 70 elders were invited to ascend and the remainder of the people were forbidden to come up.   

Interestingly, the long blast of the yovel is found again in Torah, in Joshua 6:5.  It was the “long blast with the ram’s horn” (בִּמְשֹׁךְ בְּקֶרֶן הַיּוֹבֵל) that would signal the army to shout, causing the walls of Jericho to fall, after which the people would ascend into the city.  Prior to the battle, Joshua encountered a “man with a drawn sword in his hand” described as “the captain of HaShem’s legion” (5:14).  This angelic messenger instructed Joshua to; “remove your shoe from upon your foot, for the place upon which you stand is holy”, the same instruction given to Moses when encountering the Shekinah in the burning bush.

This parallelism in language alludes to the battle of Jericho as a type of exodus.  Instead of coming to a mountain that could not be ascended, despite the heartfelt desires of the people, the nation would come to a city that could be ascended and that was totally consecrated unto HaShem (as no booty was to be taken from Jericho, for the gold, silver, brass, and iron were to go to the treasury of HaShem, 16:18-19).

Although Rashi’s viewpoint regarding the people’s desire to experience HaShem apart from a mediator at Matan Torah is disputed by some of the commentators, considering this view in light of Hebrews 12:18-29 is quite amazing.  The author of Hebrews describes the event of Sinai as Israel coming unto a mountain “that might be touched” or “that may be touched” (v.18), although the most literal rendering of Exodus 19 indicates that Sinai could not be touched except under pain of death.  Perhaps this wording describes the inner heart of the nation that they might touch the mountain, ascend it, and see HaShem for themselves.  This desire could not be realized for such an encounter with the Almighty would result in death, an unbearable consequence that caused the mountain to be non-ascendable.

But such a mountain is not the experience that Yeshua has brought to his disciples.  Instead, like his namesake (Joshua), Yeshua leads his own to a city that may be ascended, the heavenly Jerusalem, a future reality (Olam Haba) in which G-d will dwell with men, and man can love HaShem “without mediator or veil”.  Although this is indeed the most superior of all relationships, it is one that Matan Torah clearly illustrates, is not possible in this present human existence (Olam Hazeh).  Human mediators can aid individuals in drawing closer to the mountain of G-d’s Presence, but they cannot enable an ascent to Him (experience of direct interaction), even the great teacher Moses could not bring this about for Israel.  Yet, on the other hand, zealous individuals who desire to break through the boundaries on their own and love HaShem without the aid of mediation are helpless but to die trying.  

In this way Yeshua is uniquely both a mediator and an enabler, drawing his own close to HaShem through the giving of the Holy Spirit, while yet enabling them to ascend to Him in an intimate relationship through the re-creation of the body at the resurrection from the dead. To suggest that men “dare love G-d without mediator or veil” presently, may have caused Emerson’s Divinity School audience to sigh and inevitably provided sentiments that are ever so pretty upon cards and mugs and bookmarks, but such words have no basis in the reality of this world.  That’s why they are called “inspirational”, because they inspire the listener or the reader toward greater things.

. . . . . . . . . .

In illustrating his point that a mediated relationship with G-d is inferior to a direct relationship with Him, Mr. Ne’eman used an example of a tour guide in Jerusalem.  How can one know if the guide is giving correct information about the city, for it is possible that he might be in error.  Therefore it is better to explore on one’s own or at least not to develop an “unhealthy reliance and self-dependence” on the guide exclusively, for he is not indispensable.  

Regarding touring Jerusalem, in an eschatological sense, I agree completely!  For the heavenly Jerusalem, the World to Come, is a place void of reliance and self-dependence upon mediators, a place in which one may explore a direct relationship with HaShem as known in Gan Eden and even beyond that experience, in ways that “no eye has seen, nor ear heard”.  But one cannot ascend the city if the walls still remain.  For this a mediator is necessary to gain entry into a place totally consecrated unto HaShem.

If a person is not bound to a true Tzaddik, all his devotions are nothing but twisting and turning and pretending to be something he isn’t, as if an ape were pretending to be a man. Service of God is nothing without the true Tzaddik. (Rabbi Nachman’s Wisdom #111)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[1]  Rashbam, as cited in, Michael Carasik (editor), The Commentators’ Bible (Exodus), The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2005, p. 151.

[2] Chizkuni, as cited in, ibid., p. 150.

[3] Ibn Ezra, as cited in, ibid., p. 151.

[4]  Abarbanel, as cited in, ibid., p. 150.

Bringing Time into Focus

I have always admired grandfather clocks.  The stateliness of their appearance and elegance of their chiming add a touch of serene ambiance to the home.  Recently, I had opportunity to purchase a grandfather clock from a friend whose late parent’s estate was being liquidated.  The clock was delivered on January 15, a Friday.  Being wound and set to the correct time, the last detail necessary was to adjust the moon dial to the appropriate lunar phase.  Ironically, sunset of the 15^th not only ushered in the Shabbat, but also was the beginning of the Hebrew month of Shevat being Rosh Chodesh (literally “head of the month”) of the 11^th month on that very night. 

The hand painted moon dial has two pictures of a smiling orange-faced moon separated by two scenes of a sailing ship upon the open sea.  The new moon is followed by a scene of a ship sailing in daylight under blue skies indicating its increased brightness or waxing.  The full moon is followed by a scene of a ship sailing by night under starry skies indicating its increasing darkness or waning.  With the moon dial set exactly on the day of the new moon, I have watched its subtle movement over the past week as the friendly moon-face  descends clockwise and the scene of the daytime ship upon the sea grows ever fuller. 

The centrality of the moon for fixing calendar dates and times is considered by the sages to be the first commandment given by Moses to the budding nation of Israel just prior to the Exodus from Egypt as presented in parshah Bo.

HaShem said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month shall be for you the beginning of the months, it shall be for you the first of the months of the year.” (Exodus 12:1-2 Stone Chumash)

Commentators marvel that in the midst of the highly dramatic scenario in which Moses announced the death of the firstborn to Pharaoh followed by detailed instructions to the Israelites regarding the Pesach offering, is found two sentences explaining the reckoning of the months to begin in Nisan according to the appearance of the new moon.  Why would such a scenario be interrupted with instructions regarding the new month, and why would this be the first commandment given to the people via Moses, their redeemer?

Rashi explains that by numbering the months beginning with Nisan, the month of the Exodus, the people would always be reminded of their redemption, the very act upon which their national existence was initiated.  Ramban explains further that although the beginning of the year occurs in Tishrei in the fall, Nisan marks the beginning of the months “for you”, the Israelite nation, and not for “the year”.  In this way Israel reckons both a civil/agricultural year beginning in Tishrei and a “spiritual year” beginning in Nisan.  Rosh HaShanah (Rosh Chodesh Tishrei) marks the birth or creation of mankind while Rosh Chodesh Nisan marks the birth of the Jewish nation.

In Torah, the months are referred to only by number.  The names of the months are of Persian origin being retained by the Israelites after the Babylonian exile.  According to Ramban, the Persian names were retained as fulfillment of Jeremiah 16:14-15 which speaks of a time when G-d’s bringing of the people out of the northland (instead of out of Egypt) would be emphasized.  The northland is understood to commemorate the exodus from Babylon.  The Persian names of the months remind Israel of this second redemption, while the numbering of the months recalls the Exodus from Egypt. 

Although commemoration of the awesome event of the Exodus is a worthy reason for Rosh Chodesh as the first of the commandments given to the nation, Sforno takes a more practical view.  On the verge of freedom from slavery the people of Israel would now have control over their time.  As slaves their days were defined and determined by their masters, but as a nation rescued from slavery by HaShem they would have the ability to decide how each month would be determined and how each day would be filled. 

Rabbi Hirsch understands haChodesh hazeh in Exodus 12:2 to be speaking of “this renewal of the month” rather than “this month” specifically.  His translation is based on the word chodesh which in the most basic sense means “the beginning of the month” rather than “the month” as chodesh comes from the same root as chadash meaning “to be new”.  With this in mind the commandment of reckoning the months by the lunar cycle presents a central lesson in how a Jew should live.  Just as the moon renews itself each month by waxing and waning, the nation of Israel should always be renewing itself by closely obeying the commandments of HaShem. [1] Therefore the fundamental message of the moon pertains to the performance of every command. On the verge of redemption and freedom from Egypt HaShem highlights, through the commandment of Rosh Chodesh, a difference between the Israelites service to Pharaoh and their service to Him.  His people are to serve Him with zeal and renewed inspiration on a daily basis, not just out of rote obedience or obligatory habit as would a slave to a master.  [2]

The Sfat Emet understands that the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh is also important in distinguishing the Jew from the non-Jew.  The non-Jew who orders his life by the sun, endures only as long as the “sun of fortune” shines brightly on him.  Once the sun sets and darkness comes, once good fortune turns into persecution and pain, the non-Jew gives up, turns from G-d, and “fades from the pages of history”.  The Jew, on the other hand, continues to shine brightly in the darkness, even amidst times of persecution and pain, even despite his waxing and waning spiritually. [3]

But perhaps the most basic and profound difference between a solar reckoning and a lunar reckoning of time has to do with monotony.  In the solar reckoning of days, every day “looks” the same.  The sun’s appearance is the same as it rises and makes its way through the sky back to the horizon day by day.  It is predictable and never changing.  The lunar calendar is not this way, every night the moon appears slightly different, it is never the same on any two nights in a row.  There is no security in monotony with the moon.  There is nothing about its days that might be called “routine”, “habit” or “normal expectations”.  The moon is always doing one of two things on any given night; it is renewing or regressing, getting brighter or getting darker. When reckoning time by the moon one is forced to realize that every day is different.  Every day one is renewing or regressing, improving or declining, and there is no middle ground regarding this, no status quo in which to find security.  [4]

Although the Biblical/Jewish calendar is often referred to as a lunar system in reality it is a lunisolar calendar.  The months are reckoned via the moon but the festivals must occur in their designated seasons as governed by the sun.  For this reason an additional month is added to the calendar seven times every nineteen years.  Otherwise, Pesach would occur earlier and earlier each year until inevitably it would be celebrated in the winter instead of the spring.  Also, the set times of prayer each day are based on the sun, as is the weekly Shabbat.  So, for the nation of Israel the sun and the moon have an influence upon the rhythmn of life for HaShem’s people.

This reality is seen in one’s daily life as well.  No one is at liberty to decide how every minute of their day will be spent.  Everyone has obligations and activities that have been decided for them.  People have to go to work or school; they have to carry out mundane chores and expected responsibilities.  This is the “solar” reckoning of each day involving the things that do not change and are the activities of daily life.  But within this inflexibility is found a choice.  One is free to decide the way in which they will accomplish the routine tasks of the day, either by “renewing” or “regressing”.  By becoming better, moving forward in righteousness and holiness, in love of men and G-d or by remaining static or allowing oneself to be pulled away from righteousness by any number of factors. [5]

Although the solar reckoning of time is an inevitable fact, the lunar reckoning is to be the focus of time for G-d’s people.  To contemplate the sun causes blindness.  To contemplate the moon causes introspection and contemplation.  G-d commanded His nation to contemplate the moon. Yeshua also taught this concept;

Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.  (Matthew 6:31-34 ESV)

. . . . . . . .

After purchasing the grandfather clock, and before it was delivered, I did a bit of reading about grandfather clocks in general.  Although this style of clock originated in the late 1600’s, the moon dial feature was not added to the design until the 19^th century.  The dial was meant to aid in determining the light of the moon for various activities.  A sportsman might hunt at night when the moon was full and the forest well illuminated.  A farmer might harvest additional crops at night by the light of the moon.  Travel could be accomplished safely at night when the moon was full.  In this way the dial was used as a means to determine when the moon was full and bright, to take notice of it only when it could be of most benefit to people in gaining more things.   The moon was noticed only when it behaved like the sun, allowing activities of the day to continue through the night.

No wonder the moon dial on my grandfather clock contains two large illustrations of sailing ships on the sea with a simple-faced moon appearing briefly in between.  For the subtleties of nightly change, the process of waxing and waning is not considered important in the reckoning of time to mankind in general.  As the moon progresses through its nightly witness, the clock company provides a nice seascape to please the eye of the beholder and add to the aesthetics of the clock in general.  The moon is only taken notice of by appearing  when it is of no benefit (new) and might cause one trouble or harm, or when it is of complete benefit (full) aiding one to accumulate and accomplish more.  The quality and uniqueness of each day’s experience, and the various and ever changing opportunities presented amid usual daily activities, is left behind, painted over, so to speak, in favor of a quantity of things that might be lost or gained instead.

____________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Michael Gros, Wordly Wise, available at:  http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/bo/028.htm

[2]  Mitchell Scher, Moonstruck, available at: http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/bo/025.htm

[3] Sfat Emet, as cited in Michael Gros, ibid.

[4] Adapted from Rabbi David Lapin, Bo: Kedushat Rosh Chodesh: Transfer Not Declaration (1986), available at:  http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=5642

[5] Ibid.

When Things Don’t Appear As They Seem

One of the nurses I work with recently celebrated her 25^th wedding anniversary.  To commemorate this special milestone her husband had a new wedding ring set created for her.  The diamonds from the original ring were used as accent stones that surrounded a most impressive round solitaire of more than a carat in size.  As a group of us gathered around to admire the new wedding set on her finger, one woman asked, in reference to the large stone, if it was “a Leo”.  Breaking into a big smile our co-worker confirmed; “Yes it’s a Leo”.  Suddenly the ring caused a hub-bub of excitement in the group as the women oohed and aahed over the “Leo”. 

Turns out that “a Leo” is a diamond that is cut in a way that causes superior brilliance and brightness, and that comes at a much higher price compared to diamonds cut in a conventional manner.  Until that morning I had never heard of a “Leo” and had no idea that such a diamond existed.  When admiring my co-worker’s ring I certainly noticed the beauty of the large diamond, but would not have realized the subtleties of additional brilliance and sparkle of a “Leo” unless I had been made aware of it by others.

In considering parashah Va’era I also was made aware of a subtlety that I had never noticed before. This subtlety would have gone easily unnoticed if not for a question of Abarbanel I came across regarding Exodus 7:8-9.  Abarbanel asks, why the phenomenon of Moses’ staff turning into a serpent is called a “wonder” (mofet/מוֹפֵת) when performed before Pharaoh and his courtiers when previously it was referred to as a “sign” (ot/אֹת) before the elders and people of Israel.

 “When Pharaoh speaks to you saying ‘Provide a wonder for yourselves, you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh – it will become a snake!’” (Exodus 7:9 Stone Chumash)

Although “wonder” (mofet) and “sign” (ot) can be used almost interchangeably — for wonders can function as signs and signs can be related to wonders – based on first usages in scripture a “sign” is understood as revelatory, giving evidence of G-d’s will, while a “wonder” is a phenomenon that manipulates or supersedes the natural order, which causes awe and speaks of G-d as creator.

An additional difference between Moses staff as a sign for Israel and a wonder for Pharaoh/Egypt is seen in the literal Hebrew regarding the type of snake that the staff turned into.  In English this is impossible to discern, for the general word “snake” is used to describe both circumstances.  However, in Hebrew, the staff turned into a nachash (נָחָשׁ) before Moses and the elders/people of Israel, and into a tanin (תַנִּין) before Pharaoh and his sorcerers. 

On the most basic level both nachash and tanin describe a “snake” and some commentators understand the two words to be describing the same thing. From a scriptural viewpoint, tanin refers to various sea or water-dwelling creatures throughout the Tanakh while nachash describes snakes that dwell upon the land.  Because Moses was upon Sinai when receiving the sign from HaShem he saw the staff transform into a nachash in keeping with the geographical location.  With Sinai being the destination of the Israelites upon being redeemed from Egypt the nachash, a land snake, was the sign given to them also.  Before Pharaoh and his court in Egypt — a flood plain dominated by the Nile River — the staff transformed into a tanin, a river snake most common to the region.

Yet, additional facets of subtlety that go beyond the mere geographic location in which the phenomenon occurred can also be discerned regarding the snakes.  The nachash appears for the first time in Genesis 3 as the serpent who tempted Eve to sin.  Therefore, the nachash is first found in a setting which focuses upon G-d’s revelation and symbolizes twisted or “serpentine” thinking in relation to G-d’s given commands.  The tanin appears for the first time in the first chapter of Genesis which focuses upon heaven and earth being brought into existence and is used to describe the initial creation of reptiles in general.  [1]

In his first interaction with Moses, Pharaoh states that he “does not know HaShem” (Exodus 5:2).  Naturally Pharaoh would seek proof through a wonder from Moses that his G-d truly exists.  Therefore, the staff turned into a tanin, in an environment in which G-d’s existence as creator was to be proclaimed.  The wonder (mofet) was not that the staff turning into a tanin, for Pharaoh’s sorcerers also produced taninim from their staffs.  Instead, the wonder was that Aaron’s staff swallowed up the staffs of the sorcerers. 

Unlike the Egyptians, the Israelites did not need a wonder in order to convince them that HaShem existed, rather they needed a sign that G-d was about to reveal Himself to them.  In Exodus 4:5 the staff turning into a nachash was to be a sign for the Children of Israel that G-d appeared to Moses and that Moses message regarding the upcoming redemption was a revelation from HaShem.  In seeing the staff turn into a nachash the Israelites would be warned, by means of a living symbol, regarding twisted thinking that might cause them to disbelieve G-d’s message or His messenger, Moses.  [2] The fact that Moses could pick up the nachash by the tail and not be injured showed that the twisted thinking of the snake had no control or influence over him.

The difference regarding the Egyptians (Gentiles) need for a wonder and the Israelites need for a sign is presented by Paul regarding the person and work of Yeshua in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:22-23 KJV)

In similar fashion to the staff turning into a snake, the crucifixion of Yeshua and his subsequent resurrection from the dead is evidence that G-d alone has power and control over both life and death.  Yeshua himself explained that his death and burial as symbolized by Jonah in the belly of the fish (Matthew 12:39-40, Luke 11:29-30), along with the raising again of the “temple” of his body (John 2:19-22) was the only sign necessary to prove him the Mashiach of HaShem. 

Of course to the Greeks (and by extension Gentiles in general) the resurrection from the dead, as a wonder that defies logic and supersedes the natural order, is often discounted as reasonable proof of Yeshua’s claims.  Although Greek mythology contains stories of individual humans being raised from the dead and obtaining immortality, a general resurrection from the dead was considered impossible.  In Acts 17 the Greek philosophers of the Areopagus were interested to consider Paul’s “babbling” regarding the man Yeshua and his resurrection from the dead (v. 18).  Once Paul explained that Yeshua’s resurrection brought assurance of a general resurrection from the dead, many of the Greeks refused to listen further and considered him a fool (vv. 31-32). 

Yet, how is it that “Christ crucified”, the sign of G-d’s revelation given to the Jews became a stumbling block to them?  Although the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, the term “Jews” as used by Paul seems to encompass a broader/general meaning.  Typically it is understood that Yeshua became a stumbling block because the Jews were expecting a victorious king Messiah who would overthrow Rome and bring Israel into prominence as a world power.  This understanding has been proven suspect through modern scholars such as Neusner based on textual research indicating that there were broad and varied expectations regarding Messiah within first century Judaism.  A Messiah who would suffer and die certainly would not have been an offense, for it is an idea associated with Mashiach ben Yosef as given in the Talmud (Bavli Sukkah 52a) and presented by R. Dosa, a rabbi of the Tannaim period  (70-200 CE).

The book of Acts testifies to the fact that the sign of “Christ crucified” was not at first offensive, but instead widely accepted by the Jews.  A significant portion of Peter’s Shavuot speech in Acts 2 focuses on the one “you crucified and killed at the hands of lawless men” (v.23), and whom G-d “raised up” (vv. 24, 32).  This message pricked the heart of 3,000 Jews who were baptized that day.  In Acts 3, after healing a lame man in the Temple, Peter addresses the “men of Israel” assembled there as those “who killed the author of life whom G-d raised from the dead” (v. 15).  Despite the interference and objection of the Priests and Sadducees to Peter’s witness of Yeshua’s resurrection, 5,000 Jews believed that day. 

What happened between the early days of Acts and the time of 1 Corinthians, some 25 to 30 years later, that caused the sign of “Christ crucified” to become a stumbling block to the Jews at large?  How is it that the greatest sign of G-d’s revelation regarding His redeemer and Messiah so quickly became offensive? 

Remarkably, a similar occurrence is witnessed in parashah Va’era.  The Israelites who initially and reverently accepted Moses’ signs from HaShem as proof that G-d had “visited His people and seen their affliction” (Exodus 4:21) called down G-d’s judgment upon Moses and refused to heed him just a few chapters later (Exodus 5:21, 6:9).  This change of heart was brought on by a change in life circumstances for the Jews which resulted from Moses initial meeting with Pharaoh.  In proclaiming the name of HaShem and His will to release Israel from Egypt, Pharaoh responded by commanding the Israelites make bricks without straw.  This drastic change in circumstance and the severe fatigue it brought upon the people caused them to lose faith in Moses as G-d’s redeemer.

In interacting with Pharaoh, HaShem revealed to Moses a purpose for His redemption of Israel that was not initially given upon Sinai.  Not only would G-d bring Israel out of Egypt by a “strong arm” to worship Him at the mountain, but He also would be proclaimed in Egypt as the one true G-d of all creation.

As the plagues unfolded this initially hidden purpose was made clear, as with each triad of plagues a different goal regarding G-d’s revelation to Egypt is expressed. The goal of the first triad was that Pharaoh would know that “I am HaShem” (Exodus 7:17). The second triad would show “that I am HaShem in the midst of the land” (Exodus 8:18), and third triad would prove “that there in none like Me in all the world” (Exodus 9:14). 

Because G-d’s hidden or unannounced purpose in redeeming Israel was also to reveal Himself to Egypt, the people experienced a drastic change in situation that they didn’t anticipate.  This change caused G-d’s signs and His messenger to become an offense to them.  

The sign of “Christ crucified” also brought with it a hidden or unannounced purpose, a mystery that had not been revealed in the Torah or prophets or in any other way.

 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.  (Ephesians 3:6 ESV)

Through Yeshua, Gentile believers are “Abraham’s seed and heirs” (Galatians 3:29), “fellow-citizens” of the “commonwealth of Israel” and members of the “household of G-d” (Ephesians 2:12,19).  In this way the death and resurrection of Messiah brought with it a change in Israel’s situation for the Gentiles would now be considered heirs along with Israel as members of one body, and obtained status in Israel without legal conversion (circumcision). 

This mystery is a central focus of debate within the Messianic movement. Is Gentile citizenship in Israel to be understood as a present reality or something future? The Divine Invitation perspective understands this as something yet future, based on the term “commonwealth” used by Paul in Ephesians 2:12.  Since Israel at the time was not a commonwealth but was under the sovereignty of Rome, Paul must be speaking of a future situation which will come to fruition in the Messianic age when Israel is an imperial power over the Gentiles under the rule of King Messiah.  [3] 

As they awaited the fulfillment of this future reality the Gentiles assumed a role of G-d fearer within the synagogue with the four essentials of Acts 15 being required of them in order to partake of table fellowship along with Jewish believers.  Otherwise, the Gentile believer is not obligated to Torah, which is the covenant given to Israel alone, but is invited to participate to an extent that will not blur the distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Yet, if this is true then “Christ crucified” as a stumbling block to the Jews becomes a great mystery in itself, for there seems to be little if any reason left as to why the sign of Messiah would have become an offense to them.  Gentiles coming into the synagogues as G-d fearers with “high hopes” of a future role and status within Israel would surely not have caused offense.  Since Messiah’s suffering, death, and resurrection are details contained within the accepted pale of first century Judaism what aspect of “Christ crucified” would have caused the Jews to stumble? Certainly at the time of Paul’s writing the persecution, anti-Semitism, and lawlessness of the Christian church as a separate entity was not a factor to be considered. 

In Acts 21:21 the believing Jews in Jerusalem understood that Paul was teaching the Jewish believers in the Diaspora to abandon circumcision, Torah practice, and related customs. This misunderstanding seems to be based on the Acts 15 essentials that were incumbent upon the Gentile believers being understood as the “new norm” for believing Jews.  How could this be if Gentiles were participating as G-d fearers within the synagogue?  According to Josephus the G-d fearers were Gentiles who believed in the G-d of Israel but participated in synagogue life in broad and varying degrees without compulsion and apart from conversion.  Based on a historical understanding the practice of a G-d fearer within the synagogue would have no legal influence or bearing on Jews at all. 

It would seem that the only way such a misunderstanding regarding Paul’s teachings would have occurred is if Gentiles were understood to be effectively included in Israel immediately through faith in Yeshua. If the “Israel of G-d” that Paul preached included both Jewish and Gentile believers as constituents of Israel presently, then one can understand the accusation found in Acts 21.   In Jewish understanding all Israel is held to the same legal standard (Torah).  If Paul was teaching the Gentiles to forgo circumcision (conversion) and obligating them to keep merely four Biblical essentials as legitimate citizens of Israel, it could be logically deduced that this was now the standard of observance Paul was advocating for all Israel under Messiah Yeshua. 

This understanding might also explain the hyper-reaction of the Jews in Acts 21 who assumed that Paul had taken Greeks within the confines of the Temple. By merely being seen in the company of a Greek “in the city” this accusation was made against Paul (vv. 27-28). Again, this reaction is nothing short of illogical paranoia if the believing Gentiles assumed the well established role of G-d fearer in the synagogue, for if that were the case such an assumption would never have been made.  But, if the Jews of Jerusalem understood Paul to be teaching that Gentile believers were presently members of Israel through Yeshua, then they could logically conclude that he would attempt to bring an uncircumcised Greek within the Temple.

Also, if Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles brought them into the synagogues as G-d fearers why would the crowd explode and consider Paul worthy of death at the moment he explained that Yeshua had sent him to the Gentiles (22:23)?  Certainly Paul would not have been worthy of the death penalty for preaching salvation through Yeshua and assuring Gentiles of future involvement in Israel during the Messianic age while they assumed a role as G-d fearer in the interim.  But if Paul was preaching that Gentiles who believed in Yeshua acquired a present standing within Israel, apart from conversion, such teachings would certainly be considered blasphemous and worthy of death. 

Based on Acts 21 & 22 it would seem that the Jews well understood a drastic change in their situation to be taking place through the preaching of Paul and “Christ crucified” in relation to Gentile status within the nation.  This mystery unfolded over time as Gentiles came to believe in Yeshua and functioned as a sect within Judaism. For Gentile believers to be considered members of Israel apart from conversion would certainly have presented a change in life circumstance as shocking as making bricks without straw. The very fiber of Jewish life would seem to be threatened by an unanticipated aspect of the Redeemer’s coming which became a stumbling block that many would not recover from. 

. . . . . .

Later in the day I had opportunity to talk with my co-worker about her 25^th Anniversary wedding ring set.  She explained to me additional details about “the Leo” including how the cut of the diamond causes more light to be reflected through the top of the stone and less to escape through the sides.  The light emitted appears bright white producing a superior sparkle.  

 Having worked in a jewelry store during summer break from college back in the 80’s I knew a little about diamonds, but of course this was before the advent of  “the Leo”.  Ironically, during my jewelry store days the Cubic Zirconia was the new product on the market that vied to replace traditional diamonds due to its low cost and superior quality.  It was impossible to discern a CZ from an authentic diamond without magnification, for only by seeing the bits of carbon and natural imperfections inherent in every real diamond and absent from the CZ could an authentic diamond be identified.  But sales of the CZ did not go as well as first anticipated.  Many people thought the diamond looked “too perfect” and found the sparkle of it to be “too bright” as compared with the natural color variations found in a real diamond.  I remember the manager of the store describing the CZ as “lacking fire” based on the bright whiteness of its sparkle.

 How ironic, it seemed to me, that some 20 years later we now have the technology to cut a real diamond in a way that makes it behave like a CZ.  Suddenly the qualities that use to be considered the downfall of the synthetic diamond are now the very qualities desired in an authentic diamond.  On closer inspection the “Leo” looked just like a CZ, except that it’s the “real thing”. 

Sometimes things don’t appear as they seem, in every aspect of life, from signs to wonders, from snakes to serpents, from Jew to Gentile . . . from diamonds to Torah.  

_________________________________________________________

[1] Based on Menachem Leibtag, Parashat Va’eyra, in Divrei Torah from Internet on Parashas Va’eirah (5756) available at:  http://www.parsha.net/pdf/Shmos/Vaeira56.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3]  D. Thomas Lancaster, Grafted In (Israel, Gentiles and the Mystery of the Gospel), First Fruits of Zion, Marshfield MO, 2009, pp. 4,5.

The Fruit within the Bramble

A little more than 10 years ago I moved out to “the country”.  Before this, I lived in a modest bungalow located in an “inner ring” suburb of a large urban/metropolitan area.  My little bungalow had a “postage stamp” backyard with mature oak trees making it too shady for a vegetable garden.  However, in the tiny side yard was a narrow bed filled with pachysandra which enjoyed full sun most of the day.  I converted that old pachysandra bed into a vegetable garden.  Using the “square foot gardening” method this little plot produced a nice variety of vegetables and fruits each season.  One of my favorite plants in that side-yard garden was a wild raspberry bush I had dug out from among a thicket of raspberries I found growing along a roadside while on a drive in the country.  This raspberry bush thrived and grew quite large upon a trellis at the front of the garden.  Every July for roughly 12 years I enjoyed the sweet red fruit it produced. 

 Curiously, in considering parashah Shemot this past week, I was reminded of that raspberry bush in my former garden.  Although countless volumes have been written regarding the Burning Bush of Exodus 3 and its meaning and importance in both Jewish and Christian literature, both traditions also offer conjectures regarding the plant species of this most famous bush.  Personally, in conceptualizing the bush I had always imaged a dry, brown, and lifeless thicket of branches and thorns blazing with fire from within.

But, surprisingly, according to chazal, the bush was a bramble (Hebrew: s’neh/ סְּנֶה) with berry fruit that was at first red and later turned black, referred to as innevei s’neh or “the berries of the bramble” (Yerushalmi, Ma’asroth 1:2, 3a). This understanding is also embraced in the traditions of St. Catherine’s monastery in Sinai which claims to have a raspberry bush of the species Rubus sanctus that can be traced back to the original Burning Bush.  According to the Midrash Rabbah (Exodus 2:5), the s’neh produced both thorns and roses and therefore is understood to have been a wild rose bush. Whatever the case, when Moses came upon the bush that burned but was not consumed on the traditional date of Nisan 15, one year prior to the exodus from Egypt, it would seem that he did not witness a dry and lifeless bundle of twisted thorns ablaze, but instead came upon a miraculous vision contained within a leafy green shrub filled with thorns and roses or ripening red berries. 

Conjectures abound regarding the symbolism of the s’neh that Moses witnessed upon Sinai.  One line of thinking understands the bush to symbolize Israel.  The thorny, bramble quality of the bush is understood by some modern commentators to represent Israel’s poor spiritual condition, for while in Egypt it is traditionally understood that the people sunk to the 49^th  level of impurity (the 50^th level being the worst possible).  Although Israel was in a time of spiritual downfall and despair, the fire within symbolized the spark of godliness or connection with HaShem that resides in the heart of every Jew.  This “flame” although contained within a nation in the midst of a spiritually “dry and thorny time” would quickly blaze upward and respond to HaShem’s redemption as presented through His servant Moses. [1]

The bush can also be understood to represent Israel in exile, with the thorny bramble symbolizing the harshness and pain that Israel endured at the hand of the Egyptians.  The Midrash Rabbah (Exodus 2:5) explains that just as one can easily place one’s hand into a thorn bush without incident, but finds it impossible to remove it without cutting and tearing the skin (for the thorns bend downward and only grasp the hand when taking it out), so the people of Israel went into exile easily, under the comfort and leadership of Joseph, and without much notice, but would come out of Egypt through a series of plagues that would tear Egypt apart and cause it great pain. Yet, in the midst of such exile, G-d was with Israel, as symbolized by the fire.  Therefore, the bush could not be consumed because G-d does not allow His people to be destroyed.

Sforno understands the s’neh to represent Egypt and the fire within it to symbolize G-d’s judgment through the plagues.  Just as the bush burned but was not consumed, so Egypt would be overwhelmingly affected by the plagues but would not be destroyed as a nation by them.  For ultimately, G-d’s goal in taking Israel out of Egypt was to create a nation for Himself, and not to annihilate the Egyptians as a people.   

Amidst Christian as well as Messianic commentaries the Burning Bush is often likened to Yeshua and seen as a foreshadowing of his suffering G-d’s “burning judgment” on the cross including the “crown of thorns” of humiliation that he bore.  One popular interpretation is to understand the Angel of the L-RD in the Tanakh to be the “pre-incarnate Christ”.  In this way Moses is understood to have encountered the coming Messiah within the Burning Bush, with “types and shadows” of all varieties growing from this conception.  However, this understanding is easily shown to be false based on accounts in Matthew’s gospel in which the Angel of the L-RD announces Mary’s miraculous conception to Joseph, and also directs the couple (after the birth of Yeshua) to flee to Egypt in order to escape the persecution of Herod (cf. 1:20, 2:13).  It would seem that the Angel of the L-RD was still around and active even after his supposed “incarnation” in the person of Christ : )

But amidst all the conjectures, symbolisms, and shadows of various kinds, Yeshua himself refers to the incident of the Burning Bush as a pertinent picture and biblical proof regarding the resurrection from the dead. 

 “And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”  (Mark 12:26-27, ESV)

 Typically, it is G-d’s words that are focused upon in Yeshua’s response here.  Because HaShem indicated to Moses that he was presently and actively the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob this description indicates that the patriarchs, although deceased, were considered as alive in the eyes of HaShem.  The only way this could be is if a resurrection from the dead was a reality to come. 

But easily overlooked is the beautiful picture of resurrection that the Burning Bush itself presents, especially when considering it as a green leafy thorn bush containing roses or red raspberries, blossoming in the springtime, in the month of Nisan.  G-d’s presence within the bush caused this bush to burn but not to be destroyed.  Although it was on fire, the bush was yet green, fruitful, and continued to exist and not die.  For G-d’s people the fire of His judgment is a reality, but in the midst of that judgment is found life which cannot be extinguished.  Perhaps the raspberries or roses in the midst of the fire exuded a fragrance of sweetness and beauty that pervaded the air.  This reminds one of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 in which the knowledge of Yeshua is likened to the fragrance “of life to life”. 

The s’neh is referenced five times in Exodus 3 and just one additional time in Torah, in Deuteronomy 33 where Moses, prior to his death, blesses Joseph with “the favor of Him who dwells in the bush (s’neh)” (v. 16).  This favor was to rest upon “the crown of Joseph”, who “was separated from his brothers”.  When considering Joseph’s blessings in Torah as understood in rabbinic eschatology to represent the role and responsibility of Mashiach ben Yosef (see last week’s post for more) this is quite remarkable.  For the favor of HaShem within the Burning Bush is that His fiery presence did not consume or destroy it but instead maintained continued and fruitful life.  Continued physical life in the midst of G-d’s real and intense presence is the message of the Burning Bush.  

The leadership role of Mashiach ben Yosef is understood to involve the perfection of the physical.  This is accomplished in its greatest sense for human beings through the resurrection from the dead.  Only in a resurrected/perfected physical state can one dwell with HaShem and not be destroyed.  Yeshua’s resurrection from the dead makes this a reality for those who believe in Him.  This is an aspect of Yeshua’s kingship regarding the Messianic age to come.  He is worthy to have such a crown upon his head because the favor of the one who dwells in the bush — the awesome living symbol of the resurrection from the dead and everlasting life — is realized through his role of Mashiach ben Yosef.  Being the “firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” Yeshua is indeed one who is separated from “his brothers”, serving as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary.  Just as Joseph, separated from his brothers knew the favor of G-d’s presence within exile and attained a role of prominence and leadership many years prior to his reuniting with them. 

. . . . . .

In the past 10 years, since I have moved away from my bungalow with the little side-yard garden, I’ve had a handful of opportunities to drive past “the old house”.  Each time I have driven by over the years the condition of the house and the landscape around it has progressively deteriorated.  The last time I drove by, perhaps a year or so ago, the house was in desperate need of painting, the front flower beds, once filled with petunias and meticulously manicured bushes, were overgrown, and the side-yard garden was unrecognizable.  Except . . . for a leaning and dilapidated trellis enveloped by a knotted bramble of raspberry bush that continued to thrive.  A living landmark of fruitfulness rising out of a midst of weeds and grass that threatened to overshadow it.

How similar this is to the topic of the Burning Bush so surrounded by a host of conjectures and various understandings regarding its symbolism, meaning and importance.  A symbol that in essence proclaims a simple yet immensely profound message rising out of the fray; that HaShem will not allow His people to be destroyed but is with them and will deliver them from earthly exile.  A message that looks forward to the final redemption and resurrection from the dead in which G-d’s intimate and intense presence will dwell in the very midst of perfected and abundantly fruitful humanity.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]  Based on Nesivos Shalom as cited by Mrs. Shira Smiles, Parashot Shemot (5769), Fabulous Flame, available at:  http://www.naaleh.com/viewclass/1487/single/

By Invitation Only

Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.  And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. (Exodus 40:34-35)

 

In finishing the book of Exodus this past week, I was confronted by the above verses, and the resulting questions that have come to the minds of bible students and scholars throughout the ages.  Why is it that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle when the glory of G-d filled it?  Didn’t Moses enter the cloud of G-d’s glory upon Sinai and reside there unharmed for 40 days and 40 nights (Exodus 24:18)?  Doesn’t the book of Numbers (chapter 7 verse 89) clearly tell us that Moses would go into the Tabernacle to speak with HaShem and hear Him speaking from above the two Cherubim of the Atonement cover?

 

This seeming discrepancy is contemplated by the rabbinic sages, with two general opinions given.  According to Rashi, the key to understanding Exodus 40:34-35 is found in the fact that the cloud “rested” on the Tabernacle.  When the cloud would fill the Mishkan, Moses would wait outside the Tent of Meeting until Hashem’s glory would withdraw.  Once the cloud lifted and the presence was not so intense, Moses then could enter the Holy place and hear HaShem’s voice emanating from between the Cherubim.

 

However, according to Ramban, the key to understanding Moses inability to enter the Tabernacle is found in the phrase “not able” which is the Hebrew velo’-yakhol.  Though yakhol generally means “to overcome” or “have ability”, it can also be used in the sense of “permission” as seen in several passages of Deuteronomy (7;22, 12:17, 16:5, 17:15, 22:3).  Therefore Ramban conjectures that at the end of the Exodus account Moses cannot enter the Tabernacle because he has not been given permission by HaShem to enter into the cloud. This same truth is found in Exodus 24:16-18 in which the cloud of G-d’s glory settled upon Mt. Sinai for six days.  However, it wasn’t until the seventh day that HaShem called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud, and only then, once invited, did Moses go up into the cloud to meet with G-d and receive the Torah from Him.

 

Though the details of the two sages differ, the truth presented is the same; entry into the glorious presence of G-d is by invitation only. Whether that invitation was through a verbal calling to come into the cloud or through the  physical sign of the cloud lifting, either way an invitation was needed before approaching the very presence of Hashem.

 

What an interesting thought to contemplate during the Pesach week, for as a believer in Yeshua I have always been taught and understood that the way to G-d is completely opened to me through his shed blood. Because the Passion narrative of the synoptic gospels relates the tearing of the Temple curtain from top to bottom at the moment Yeshua died on the cross, I now have a carte blanche invitation to enter the very presence of HaShem. .. or do I?  

 

In considering the details of the Mishkan in Exodus 26 two veils are mentioned. One covered the entrance to the Holy Place, where the Menorah, Table of Shewbread, and Incense Altar resided.  The other covered and separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies in which the Ark of the Covenant was kept.  In the English both curtains are referred to generally as “veils” yet in the Hebrew there is a distinction to be found. 

 

The first curtain mentioned is called the parochet which is from the root (pey-resh-khaf) which means “to break or separate”.  The parochet was designed to split one thing into parts, namely the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. According to Rashi, the parochet separates the “king and the people”.  The parochet was made of woven work (chashav) in which the figures of Cherubim were woven into the fabric from both sides.

 

According to the sages, the parochet symbolizes the fact that mankind is barred from being in the presence of the King.  The Cherubim of the curtain speak of an entrance which is guarded. When the priests gazed upon the parochet in performing their duties in the Holy Place they were reminded that man has no permission to enter the very presence of G-d except when he resembles the Cherubs.  The fact that the parochet was woven (chasav) also provides a deeper meaning, for the Hebrew word chasav in its most general sense means to “mentally consider, think, or regard”.  The message of the parochet as seen in the woven work of the Cherubim design, was meant to be carefully and deliberately considered as the priests drew near to the presence of G-d while performing their duties in the Mishkan.

 

The second curtain mentioned is called the masakh from the root (samech-khaf-khaf) which means “to conceal or shield”.  The job of the masakh was to shield or cover, and though both curtains are referred to generally as masakh, specifically this second curtain is called the petach (door) mesakh (covering) (that which covers the door or entrance to the Tabernacle) (See Exodus 40:5).   Unlike the parochet, the petach was not made of woven work but of embroidered needlework (rokem).  The sages of old recognized that embroidery (rokem) is used in scripture to symbolize man’s physical form as seen in Psalm 139:15

 

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (rokem) in the lowest parts of the earth.

 

Therefore it is understood by some commentators that the petach of the Tabernacle (the first curtain or door to the Holy Place) symbolizes the human body, or man’s physical flesh.  It is the flesh which shields or conceals the place of holiness and which bars man at all times from approaching G-d without first being cleansed of iniquity.  In this way, the petach is symbolic of the barrier to holiness which is only transgressed through the cleansing of sin.

 

Historic details of Herod’s temple indicate that there was a veil at the entrance to the Holy Place as well as one separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, so which curtain was torn when Yeshua died? Was it the outer one (petach), or the inner one (parochet)?

 

Generally, Hebrews 10:19-22 is considered every Christian’s invitation to enter into the very presence of HaShem;

 

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,  By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

 

In verse 19 the word translated “holiest” is the Greek hagion which in the book of Hebrews is used to describe both the Holy Place as well as the Holy of Holies (see Hebrews 9:25).  Therefore we cannot assume by this Greek word that the holiest place is being referred to here, though it is translated that way.

 

In verse 20 the Hebrew word “veil” is the Greek katapetasma which is used in the Septuagint to describe both the masakh and the parochet.  However, we are told specifically that the veil is Yeshua’s flesh, which would correspond to the rabbinic understanding of the petach or the outer door/curtain that led to the Holy Place, the one of embroidered work (rokem) which symbolized the physical form of man.

The fact that the entire book of Hebrews defines Yeshua as our High Priest seems to clarify that the veil which was torn was the petach and not the parochet, for only the High Priest had the privilege and permission to enter the parochet. Believers are likened to priests (1Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, 5:10) not to High Priests.  Yeshua alone is the High Priest.  If the veil that was torn was the parochet and we now are invited to boldly enter into the very presence of G-d, then this would nullify and make void Yeshua’s role as our High Priest, for we all would technically be High Priests.  Yeshua is the only man who is worthy to be invited into the very presence of G-d because he alone lives in a glorified resurrected, re-created body which enables him to see the very face of G-d always (just like the cherubs).   

Like the priests of the tabernacle, we as believers in Yeshua, through his blood, have the privilege to draw near to G-d, to have a holiness of life, in which we can serve G-d personally.  The Israelites in the wilderness and the Temple times could not do this.  They would offer their sacrifices for cleansing, but only the priests (as intermediaries) could enter the place of holiness and service.  Yeshua’s torn flesh G-d restores this position of holy service to His people who now can boldly enter beyond the petach and into the Holy Place to serve Him. This role of priests will be most physically and fully realized during the millennium, (the Messianic age), according to Revelation 20:6. 

But to enter through the parochet, according to the rabbis, requires being like the angels, which is the very example Yeshua used to describe the resurrected state (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25), a state in which we will always behold the face of the Father in heaven (Luke 9:18). In the Olam Haba (the new Jerusalem) there will be no temple and therefore no parochet, for G-d and the Lamb (Yeshua) will dwell in it.  It is at this time that G-d will dwell with men and He himself shall be with them – - the time when we will be “like the angels” (Luke 20:36) in resurrected form, and invited fully to enjoy the very presence of G-d Himself.

 

 

 

(RB)

Anyone who works in a healthcare setting knows that documentation is crucial.  Every word that I write down as I care for patients on a daily basis, whether it is written on their daily flow sheet, in the chart, or typed into a computer record. . .every word of it . . .once documented . . .is considered to be part of a legal document which can be used as testimony and evidence in any US court of law.  This is serious business for a nurse, especially when considering that one of our duties is to receive verbal orders from physicians via telephone. 

 

A crucial part of a taking a verbal order is to document that the order has been “read back”.  The abbreviation (RB) must be used in any written order as taken verbally from a physician.  By stating that the order was “read back” (RB) it is understood that the nurse repeated the order verbally to the physician prior to writing it down in the chart in order to assure that the order was correctly understood and documented. A verbal order written without the (RB) is considered invalid, and a nurse who would write such an order and then carry it out could legally be accused of practicing medicine and thereby lose her license, and potentially face a serious lawsuit.  The little abbreviation (RB) protects the nurse from such serious ramifications.

 

Perhaps it is this seriousness of understanding orders correctly, which has been drilled into my mind as an RN, that caused me to pause and contemplate the words of Exodus 38:22 in the parashah reading this past week;

 

Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, did everything that HASHEM commanded Moses. (Stone Edition Chumash)(emphasis mine)

 

As I read this verse I found myself with lingering questions as to whether Bezalel truly did do “everything” Hashem had commanded Moses.

 

In Exodus 25:9-40 G-d instructs Moses regarding the pattern of the Mishkan, and stresses twice the importance of fashioning everything according to the pattern that is shown to him.  This pattern involved the construction of the Ark of the Covenant and other furnishings after which the actual curtains that would make up the tent were described. Seems clear enough, Ark first, other furnishings, and then the tent.

 

But then in Exodus 31 something strange occurs.  After introducing Bezalel and Oholiab as the gifted men called by G-d to construct the Mishkan, v. 7-11 go on to give a pattern of construction that is reverse from what was given initially to Moses. The “ohel” (outer tent) is listed first, followed by the ark and other furnishings. Could it be that Bezalel neglected a “read back” here?  That somehow the crucial pattern of the Tabernacle was misunderstood or not clearly conceptualized by him?

 

The Sages contemplate and discuss this discrepancy in the Talmud as follows:

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Johanan: Bezalel was so called on account of his wisdom. At the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses; Go and tell Bezalel to make me a tabernacle, an ark and vessels, Moses went and reversed the order, saying, Make an ark and vessels and a tabernacle. Bezalel said to him: Moses, our Teacher, as a rule a man first builds a house and then brings vessels into it; but you say, Make me an ark and vessels and a tabernacle. Where shall I put the vessels that I am to make? Can it be that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to you, Make a tabernacle, an ark and vessels? Moses replied: Perhaps you were in the shadow of God and knew! (Berachot 55a)

 

Rashi conjectures that Moses at first conveyed the pattern of the Tabernacle to Bezalel as given in chapters 25-26, with the ark being constructed first etc.  Upon hearing this, Bezalel argued saying that the tent must be erected before its contents, for “who builds the furnishings before building the house”.  Moses affirmed Bezalel’s understanding as reflected in his name which means “the shadow” (betzel) of G-d (el).  Moses therefore exclaimed; “you must have been in G-d’s shadow when He spoke to me, indeed I did hear from G-d that the Tabernacle must come first in terms of actual construction”. 

From the Biblical and Talmudic accounts it would seem that the pattern of G-d and the commands of G-d regarding the Mishkan were two different entities.  When looking closely at the scriptural accounts it is clear that the pattern (tabinyth) is not commanded by G-d, and that the commands (tsavah) for construction are not the pattern. The pattern was “shown” (ra’ah) or perceived by Moses, while the construction details were “commanded” (tsavah), i.e., set into order.

The pattern of the Mishkan describes its purpose, that the Ark would be the central focal point from which everything else proceeded and found its function and meaning. Without the ark, the purpose of the Mishkan could not be accomplished, that G-d would dwell among and within His people (Exodus 25:8). The commands regarding the construction of the Mishkan, however, describe its practicality, and are given for man’s protection.  In the physical world man cannot approach G-d directly, but must do so through means of sacrificial atonement and its corresponding services as carried out through the protective layers of the tent.

It was the practical details of the Mishkan’s construction that Bezalel understood, which ultimately would result in G-d’s protection upon him and upon the people in whose midst Hashem desired to dwell.  This truth is illustrated in the very name of Bezalel himself, a name which means “in G-d’s shadow”.

The first usage of tzel (shadow) is found in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:8 in reference to the angelic messengers being under “the shadow” (tzel) of Lot’s roof. Shadow, in this initial usage, refers to the “protection” that the angels had by being in Lot’s home instead of outside among the men of the city who desired to abuse them.  By insisting that the visitors come into his house and not spend the night in the city proper, Lot protected them and thereby protected the message of G-d that they were to deliver to him.

The same idea is seen in Bezalel.  He was “in G-d’s shadow”, or under G-d’s protection regarding construction of the tabernacle. G-d protected the people of Israel by giving Bezalel clear and proper understanding of the practical details needed in constructing the Mishkan that the tent was to be constructed prior to the Ark and all the furnishings, in order for HaShem to safely dwell among them.

Hebrews 8:5 uses similar phraseology in describing the Tabernacle in the wilderness

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. (KJV)

The “example” relates to the pattern, (hupodeigma) which means “figure” or “copy”, while “shadow” (skia) is used in the LXX to translate “tzel” (shadow). 

The author of Hebrews understood that the priests served in a Tabernacle which incorporated the pattern or purpose of G-d (to dwell among His own), in a way that was protective and practical for His people (a shadow).  How sad it is that the word “shadow” here is often understood by Christians today to indicate that the Tabernacle in the wilderness and the Torah contained within it where somehow weak, partial, unclear, or temporary.

. . . . .

Because I work with many foreign-born doctors I often have to repeat the orders given via telephone in different wording or a different sequence than originally expressed to me.  This isn’t done out of disrespect, but out of practicality, because my command of the English language happens to be better than theirs. I understand the purpose of the order, and what the physician means to express, but need to read it back in wording that is practical and clear.   If I were to write down some of the orders I receive exactly as stated, in some cases they would make no sense or be very unclear to the secretary attempting to transcribe, or to the pharmacist trying to fill the order.  

The reason for the “read back” isn’t just to protect me personally from a lawsuit, but is a protective measure for everyone involved (nurse, doctor and patient).  In the same way, Bezalel certainly did “make all that the LORD had commanded Moses”, for the “read back” was given to him by Hashem through personal wisdom and knowledge, which enabled him to understand the pattern of the Tabernacle and yet construct it in a way that would protect and benefit everyone involved.

 

Why?

“There are four types of questions.  A good question is one asked by a person who has knowledge and desires clarification or addition to that knowledge.  An acceptable question is one that is asked by a person who is ignorant but who desires to know and learn.  An arrogant question is asked for the sole purpose of testing the teaching or attempting to trip him up.  An evil question is one asked insincerely, without a desire to understand or learn at all.”   

The above thoughts represent some of the first notes I scribbled down at the very first Shiur I attended in which I was taught by a “real” rabbi.  This rabbi had agreed to teach me and a few others, and being that I was definitely the person most unlearned in rabbinic things, I knew a lot of questions would issue out of my mouth.    It’s natural when starting any new learning experience to understand the guidelines regarding questions.  How would the rabbi view my innate curiosity?  What about asking questions?  His answer (to my question about questions) caused me to be keenly aware of how he would phrase his response to every question I asked.  Would he say “that’s a good question”, or would he say “that’s an acceptable question”?  These were the code words that would help me understand if my question was one asked out of ignorance, or one in which knowledge was being clarified and expanded upon.  

With this keenness regarding questions having been trained into me, I found myself perplexed by Moses question to G-d found in Exodus 32:11 

Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, “O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 

Now, Moses has just been informed by Hashem that the Children of Israel are at the foot of  Mt. Sinai worshipping and sacrificing to a molten calf.  Yet, Moses asks “why”, “why does your anger burn”.  Why ??? My mind reeled as I tried to classify Moses question into one of the four categories. Truth is, I couldn’t make it fit into any of them.  I wondered if Moses was out of his mind to ask such a question! Perhaps it was the side effects of being without food and water for 40 days and 40 nights as he received the Torah, which had put Moses into an irrational state of mind?   It would have been different if Moses simply said “please do not let your anger burn” etc.  But inevitably he asked “why”. 

 It turns out that just as there is always a “yes” and a “no” perspective in any rabbinic answer or commentary, so when it comes to “why” there are two ways to understand it in the literal Hebrew, two kinds of “why” expressed throughout the scripture.  The first is madua (mem, dalet, vav, ayin), which is the type of “why” we see Moses asking regarding the burning bush “why (madua) won’t the bush burn”? (Exodus 3:3).  Madua refers to a scientific “why”, a “why” rooted in the past, encompassing the facts or causes of an action or outcome. “How did this happen”?  “How is it occurring”?  That is madua.   

But then there’s a second type of “why” lamah (lamed, mem, hey).  Lamah is a contraction of “le” (lamed) and “ma” (mem, hey) or “to” and “what”.  Therefore, lamah is a teleological why, or the why which asks “to what end”, and which looks to the future.  What is the plan, where is this going, what is the goal?  This is the “why” of lamah.   

Lamah is the “why” that is asked by Moses in Exodus 32:11.  In other words, Moses is asking “to what end will your anger burn”, “if you wipe out your people what will that lead to”?  Moses answers his own question in the verses that follow.  If G-d wipes out the Children of Israel, it will lead to his enemies the Egyptians scoffing and mocking. It will also lead to G-d not fulfilling promises understood by the Patriarch’s regarding entry into the land . . .”that He would multiply their descendents as the stars”.  Reading this in the past I always thought that Moses point was weak because G-d could certainly multiply Moses descendents as the stars and by that keep His promise to Abraham.  

But considered closely, Moses words seem to be a combination of G-d’s oath to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 and the reiteration of it to Jacob in Genesis 26:4.  G-d promises Abraham that he will multiply his seed like the stars, but to Jacob he says that this multiplied offspring will be the ones to whom the land “all these countries” will be given.  G-d’s promise of multiplication applies to a large number of Abraham’s offspring entering the Promised land — not just one man and his extended family. 

Moses “why” didn’t fit into any of my preconceived categories because it was not a question involving intellectual knowledge.  Moses “why” was one that involved insight and careful consideration of where things would lead and what goals would be accomplished.  

. . . . .

It’s been almost exactly a year since I scribbled down those first nervous notes while sitting under the teaching of a rabbi.  The first rabbi I sat under believed in Yeshua, and his teaching held great promise, but unfortunately it was very short lived.  Now I find myself sitting under another rabbi’s teaching, a “real”, “real” rabbi.  An Orthodox one, who doesn’t believe in Yeshua, but who knows that myself and a few others who are being taught by him do.   

Instead of scratching notes on clear and categorized subjects as I had done under the first rabbi, I now find myself scribbling about the most ethereal and mystical of subjects regarding the indivisibility of G-d and how He sustains all of creation moment by moment as taught by the second rabbi.  This new rabbi expects me to come to class prepared with a question, a “why” that will reveal to him my intellectual understanding or lack of it.  I have found this to be a great challenge and exciting in some ways.   

However, this past week a most unusual thing occurred.  I was confronted by a person whom I respect about why I am doing what I am doing.  Using the recently celebrated holiday of Purim as a backdrop, this person compared my sitting under rabbinic instruction to a long and drawn out hangover.  Certainly only a believer who is inebriated out of their mind would do such a thing! 

Though said in jest, this comment forced me to confront the “why”.  Not the madua, but the lamah.  Why am I doing this, and where will it lead?  Where is this going, what is the goal?  I think I’m beginning to feel the heaviness and dullness of my hangover subsiding, as I give careful insight to what I am doing  rather than give in to my addiction of seeking intellectual “highs” by means of mystical instruction at the feet of an Orthodox rabbi.  

When the Postscript is Primary

PS . . .two capital letters that are used at the end of a letter, after the body has been completed, the closing and signature written, there’s still a way to add an additional bit of information . . by way of a PS.  The postscript of a letter is usually not the substance of it, or even information that is vital, but usually just a little bit more we desire to add on. 

 In beginning Parashah Ki Tisa (Exodus 30:11-38) this past week, a question came to mind about the arrangement of this particular portion.  Why is it that the Chazal would choose to begin this portion with the final or “tail end” details regarding the Mishkan, especially the brief accounts regarding the laver, the anointing oil, and the formulation of the incense?  Why were those details not included in Tetzevah, as sort of a PS to the portion that focuses on the construction, furnishings and function of the Mishkan itself?  It seemed strange that these “PS” details of the Mishkan occupy the beginning of a portion whose “body” is definitely the sin of the Golden Calf. 

 Among some of the rabbis it is pointed out that the laver, anointing oil, and incense were not the “substance” of Avodat Hashem (service to G-d) but instead fulfilled a secondary role as part of the environment, ambience, or preparation for service.  Take the laver for instance.  The sages readily admit that the washing of the hands and feet in the laver would not make the priests ritually clean, for they would not even enter the courtyard until they were first immersed in a mikvah.  The laver was a symbolic gesture in which the priests by placing right hand upon right foot, followed by left hand upon left foot, and washing both appendages together, would in physical terms show that all of man’s faculties must be directed toward the same goal when serving Hashem.  A “postscript” point at best, in comparison with the seriousness of the korban offerings. 

The anointing oil, described as sacred (kodesh) symbolizes the concepts of separation and devotion and would remind the priests that the activities of the Tabernacle were much more than just mundane work.  The word “incense” in Hebrew (ketores) means “connection” or “bond” and is understood as a means to connect with G-d on the soul level, for the Talmud points out that only the soul benefits or gets pleasure from fragrance (Berachot 57b).  

Washing one’s hands and feet in the sparkling brass laver to prepare to handle holiness, feeling the touch of the anointing oil transforming its recipient into a being on a higher level, the fragrance of the incense, intangible, yet lending an ambience that stirs the soul in the very midst of the  Mishkan itself .  . . what is the Torah trying to tell us by placing these details deemed preparatory and secondary at the beginning of Ki Tisa?

Perhaps these items are placed first in the Parashah to teach a lesson.  By nature we often relegate preparation for service to Hashem to the level of postscript, or something that is easily overlooked or done away with altogether for the sake of convenience.  Yet, everything we do in service for G-d should require preparation, and this preparation should be considered important and necessary . . .instead of merely optional or last. 

Through the laver, anointing oil, and incense we see essential concepts involved in preparing to serve G-d, these concepts are so important that to overlook them or trivialize them incurred the penalty of death or the punishment of karet (being cut off from the community). 

Through the sparkling waters of the laver is found the importance of sanctifying the physical, of careful physical preparation in handling what is holy.  The oil of anointing stimulates our minds to consider than any service to G-d (any mitzvah) is more than mundane, and is an activity that is elevated on a higher level.  The aroma of the incense speaks of the soul and the importance of connecting with G-d by getting my emotions and feelings involved in the service that I perform.

Mitzvot tzrichot kavanah is the term used by the rabbi’s to explain that in order to fulfill a mitzvah one must do so with intention.  Intention requires preparation not just “having good intentions” or “hopes”.  How often in our English colloquialisms we say we had “every good intention” as a way to gloss over a lack of commitment or an overlooking of details on our part.   The lessons of the laver, anointing oil, and incense show us what “intention” really involves.

If the priest neglected to wash in the laver he did so at the risk of death by the hand of heaven.  Could it be, that when I hastily attempt to perform a mitzvah with little thought or effort regarding its physical detail, that it too “dies in the water”?  When I roll out of bed at the very last possible second and hope to say a few words in prayer on my brief drive to work . . .without any physical effort or preparation in advance . . .merely just squeezing it in . . . is this really a mitzvah at all?

Anyone who attempted to manufacture or use the anointing oil or incense for mundane purposes faced the penalty of karet (being cut off from the community at large).  So, I wonder . . .even when I do make the proper physical efforts,  yet if my mind or emotions are not in it, is that mitzvah “karet”, cut off, fruitless? If I do get up early, and find a quiet place to pray in the morning . . . yet, if I do so without clearing my mind of distracting thoughts, or without concentrating on the fact that I am really addressing the King of the Universe . . . or if I go through the words of prayer and never find myself emotionally feeling what I am saying or asking for . . . are my efforts really beneficial to myself or anyone else?  Is it nothing more than a mitzvah without meaning?

The sad thing is that a mitzvah done with intention all depends on only a few seconds– the time we take to set the tone, to disengage from the rush, to focus on what we’re doing and appreciate its full significance.  The time it takes to physically prepare, to mentally reflect, and to emotionally engage . . . a mere PS in the hustle and bustle and “body” of life.  A PS that is truly primary.