My Personal Yovel Year

The Shem MiShmuel relates an interesting teaching on parashah Behar in which the redemptive symbolism of Shemittah (the Sabbatical year) and Yovel (the Jubilee year) are considered.  According to the Zohar the 7^th year rest (Shemittah) corresponds to the “lower world” kabbalistically.  It is a lower concept symbolized by the nation of Israel as a collective whole.  The 50^th year rest (Yovel) is a higher concept, corresponding to a higher “world”, one which relates to the individual within the nation of Israel.  

From this teaching of the Zohar, the Shem MiShmuel considers two stages of the ultimate redemption.  The first stage is the time of Messiah – or the Messianic Age.  This is a time when Messiah will be king over Israel and the unifying force of all mankind.  In this age a collective redemption will be realized. Israel will be united and expanded as the sons of the nations worship and serve HaShem along with them; “with one shoulder”.  This collective redemption relates to the Shemittah year. 

The second stage of the ultimate redemption is the Olama Haba (World to Come) which will follow the Messianic Age.  This is a higher level of redemption in which each individual will be judged and rewarded for what they have done.  Each person will experience a uniquely individual relationship with G-d in which service to Him will be based on the struggles they faced and achievements they acquired.  It is one’s own “special” redemption, an individual redemption that relates to the Yovel year.

This same pattern is witnessed in the holidays of Pesach and Shavuot.  Pesach is the remembrance of the redemption of the community.  On that night HaShem redeemed Israel as a collective whole.  However, community redemption is not sufficient, for each person also functions as an individual within the collective whole.  Although Israel as a people stood at the foot of Sinai to receive the Torah, each individual heard the words of HaShem for himself.  Likewise on the day of the giving of the Spirit on Shavuot, each individual displayed a tongue of fire resting upon his head. The collective whole received the Spirit, but each person praised G-d in an individualized tongue or language.  The 49 days of the Omer focus on this individuality, on preparing personally day by day for the giving of the Torah and the Spirit on Shavuot.  [1]

With this teaching in mind I contemplated my personal years of life, based on this mystical pattern.  The baby book my mother kept for me, and gave to me as a keepsake many years ago, came to mind.   This book, bound in a pink satin cover with a floral pattern, carries upon it the title; “Journey to Seven”. Being raised in a Catholic home, the age of seven had great significance.  It is the year that the church defines as “the age of reason”, the time when a child matures to the point of understanding right from wrong.  Traditionally, age seven is the time of one’s First Communion, the first sacrament in which the individual participates in the collective whole of the church community.  Thus my baby book begins with pictures of an infant girl asleep in a bassinet and ends with pictures of a school age girl dressed in a white communion dress and veil.  The journey to seven had been accomplished, the baby had grown and matured, to experience participation in the community of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  My personal Shemittah year occurred in 1968.

Yet, the “church” does not recognize such a milestone for one’s personal Yovel year, the time when seven times seven years have been completed and the 50^th year of life begins.  But in Judaism, the fathers in their wisdom, declare the 50^th year to be one of “counsel” (cf Pirkei Avot 5:25).   At this time a person has matured to the point of giving counsel to others, now fit and experienced enough to be sought out individually from among the collective whole.  It is a higher calling as well as an individualized one.  Each individual’s counsel is a unique gift to others based on the life struggles and achievements they have encountered, which mold and shape their perspective.  Just as with the 49 days of the Omer, in the 50^th year one can consider their individual life pursuits and accomplishments as compared to the lives of others, and the outcomes that have occurred.  It is a time that easily causes concern regarding the peace and prosperity that the wicked enjoy as compared to the struggles of those who seek after godliness.  Enough of life has been lived to realize this painful and striking reality.

But regarding this focus on individual judgment and rewards of the World to Come, as symbolized by the Yovel year, Rabbi Chaim Volozhin relates that “everything depends on the majority of deeds”.  Using an illustration from Kiddushin 60b this saying of the fathers is clarified.

 The wicked man is rooted in impurity but still has a few merits to his credit.  His merits are like branches reaching over to a pure place.  HaShem prunes the branches of merit by rewarding him in this world with peace and prosperity, ease and lack of concern.  In this way the wicked man will be judged in the Next World for what he truly is, a tree firmly rooted in impurity.

 The righteous man is like a tree rooted in a pure place that still has a few demerits or faults.  These faults are like branches reaching over to an impure place.  HaShem prunes the branches of his few sins by punishing him in this world and allowing him to experience struggles, heartache, and difficulty.  Therefore, in the Next World he can be judged for what he truly is, a tree firmly rooted in purity.   [2]

 With this in mind I welcome my personal Yovel year, initiated just about 6 weeks ago.  How wonderful to enter this season of life in which individual service, struggles and joys play both a real and symbolic role regarding the greater redemption of the World to Come.

 ……………………………………

[1] Based on the teaching of Shem MiShmuel as presented in Rabbi Hershel Reichman, Parshat Behar:  Personal and Communal Commitment to Torah, audio recording available here.

[2] Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, Ruach Chaim, rendered into English by Chanoch Levi, Targum Press,Southfield,MI, 2002 pp. 152-153.

Doing No Evil ≠ Doing Good

“Doing no evil is not the same as doing good”

In the midst of listening to a recorded teaching on parashah Emor this past week, I found myself struck by this quote.  How often we equate doing no evil with doing good and consider the two as equivalent.  If I’m not doing evil then surely I must be doing good?  Remarkably such is not the case.

In rabbinic thought, “good” in its most basic sense means to function as intended.  Everything in creation was intended to play a contributory role in the world as we know it and was designated as “good” in the Genesis 1 account.  Therefore, doing good is active, it is contributory and creative.  It is living life and performing mitzvot in a way that benefits others by providing an environment in which learning, growth and improvement takes place. On the other hand, doing no evil is passive; it is walking the straight and narrow path.  Although doing no evil is more difficult, as it receives little or no recognition compared to doing good, in the eyes of the rabbis doing good is superior to doing no evil –it is the mark of a truly righteous person (tzaddik).  [1]

This distinction between doing no evil and doing good is seen in 1 Peter 3:10-11;

For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.  (ESV)

Here, Peter, quoting ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Psalm 34:12-14, distinguishes between turning away from evil versus doing good.  The former requires personal abstinence (keeping one’s tongue from evil and lips from deceit) while the latter involves personal involvement with others (seeking peace and pursuing it).  

With this concept in mind, one of the most controversial teachings from parashah Emor can be considered;

If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.  (Leviticus 24:19-20, ESV)

Although skeptics often used these verses to disprove or ridicule the inspiration of Scripture, the “eye for an eye” passage also finds controversy among believers of Yeshua who spoke of this mitzvah in his Sermon on the Mount;

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV)

This teaching is commonly understood in Christianity to promote pacifism.  Interpretations range from a strict refusal to engage in warfare, to personal non-resistance which patiently accepts every form of abuse and persecution from others.  I remember a former female Sunday School teacher and Christian missionary, explaining to a group of us women that “although it is difficult” we must all  “be doormats for Jesus”, based on this verse.   Modern scholars, however, who consider the Apostolic Writings in historical context, find difficulty in this common pacifist/non-resistance view due to its inconsistency with Yeshua as a practicing, Torah-observant Jew.  In the Torah such pacifistic and/or self-abnegating concepts are never taught, commanded, or considered virtuous.  How then could Yeshua demand such of his own disciples?

In order to reconcile this inconsistency scholars such as David Bivin and Brad Young offer an alternative understanding of Matthew 5:39, in which the word resist is translated as fret or compete.  This is acheived by translating v. 39 into its Hebrew equivalent.  The Hebrew word for “resist” is titchar whose shoresh (root word) is charah.  Charah is found in Psalm 37:1 and Proverbs 24:19 which admonish the faithful to not “fret” (charah) over evildoers.  Charah carries the meaning of “anger” or “frustration” which leads to jealousy or rivalry.  Therefore, Yeshua’s “turn the other cheek” teaching is understood as a warning not to compete with or fret over evildoers by desiring revenge, but instead to seek to overcome evil with good. [2]

D.T. Lancaster, commenting in Torah Club Volume 4, concurs with this alternative translation of Matthew 5:39, and from it understands that Yeshua is teaching his disciples to be “an entirely different breed of people”.  Such people; “don’t press charges”, “don’t demand their measure”, “don’t litigate” or “demand their rights”, but instead they; “remember that there is a judge in a higher court of law, a court which will one day settle all accounts”. [3]

Yet, putting this all together doesn’t seem to make much sense.  If Yeshua is warning his disciples not to fret or compete with evildoers by desiring revenge why does he command them to endure a situation in which their anger is likely to grow hot?  To receive two strikes on the cheek instead of one would only add to the temptation toward anger and revenge.  The Torah commandment of “eye for an eye” results in fair monetary compensation that fits the crime, and is also a means of evoking repentance and atonement for the evil-doer.  A “new breed of people” who forgo this Torah commandment, by not holding the evil-doer responsible for “their measure”, in reality rob their enemy of a means of repentance and atonement and subject him to harsher judgment before G-d on the day when all accounts are settled.  Is there any greater form of revenge than this?  

Interestingly, Brad Young relates, that Yeshua in Matthew 5:39 is referring to a back-handed slap with the right hand, as described in BT Baba Kama 8:6.  This kind of slap was considered a serious public insult resulting in a heavy fine. [4] However, the public shaming or humiliating of others in the teaching of the Sages takes on a much more serious tone than Young alludes to.  Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 58b and 59a  contain grave statements regarding public insult including;

“Whoever shames his neighbor in public is as if he shed his blood”

 

“one who publicly humiliates another forfeits his place in the Word to Come”

 

“it is better that a person throw himself into a fiery furnace rather than shame his neighbor”. 

Genesis Rabbah 24:7 explains that public shaming of a person is to publicly shame HaShem because such humiliation mocks G-d in Whose image the person was created.  So serious is this offense that even ardent study of Torah and performance of many good deeds does not provide forgiveness for it (cf. The Ethics of the Fathers 3:15).  Ma’asei Torah teaches that it is better for a person not to be born at all than to experience seven things; one of which is “publicly shaming his fellow man”. [5]  

With these historic teachings in mind it is incredible to consider Yeshua’s words in Matthew 5:38-39.  By being struck in the face a person was subjected to public humiliation which placed his enemy under the severest condemnation, one likened to bloodshed according to the Sages.  Yet, the disciple of Yeshua is instructed not only to endure one strike to the cheek, but to turn his face and invite a second serious infraction by his enemy!  In the most literal context Yeshua is indeed teaching his disciples not to resist the evil leveled against them, but instead to encourage or welcome it.

Because public humiliation was considered such a serious offense the evil doer would be taken aback when his victim offered the other cheek.  In this way the disciple of Yeshua contributed to his enemy’s welfare, through a creative means of making him stop and think about what he was doing.  Any man might lose his temper, succumb to temptation and humiliate his fellow publicly with a slap to the face, but to do so twice in one occurrence would be to cross the line of common decency and humanity.  By offering the other cheek the disciple of Yeshua challenged his enemy regarding crossing the line of seriously unreasonable sin and prompted him toward repentance. If he would not strike him the second time, why would he strike him initially? Surely the victim had every right and responsibility per Torah, to bring the offense of public humiliation before the religious leaders and expect just compensation, which would require a heavy fine to the enemy.  Yet, if the enemy were to strike the other cheek and repeat an infraction of such gravity a second time, not only would the responsibility and compensation be overwhelming, but the guilt of committing such a severe offense twice, would be unbearable. 

Yeshua’s teachings of Matthew 5 are summed up in the final verse of the chapter; “therefore you shall be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect”.  Yeshua desired righteous disciples, tzaddikim, who by definition “do good”.  Pacifism, non-resistance, and/or self-control of anger and abstaining from revenge, are all passive activities of “doing no evil”.  Such activities benefit and strengthen the individual personally and spiritually, but contribute little if anything creative to the growth or learning of others.  In Matthew 5:44 Yeshua says; “do good to those who hate you”.  Be disciples who contribute creatively to others and to our world through observance of the mitzvot.

Rabbi Chaim Volozhin relates the following story from Shabbat 152b which helps illustrate the difference between doing good and doing no evil;

 A king distributed royal raiments to his servants.  The intelligent ones folded the cloaks and stored them in a safe place.  The foolish ones wore the clothing while going about their work.  After a while, the king ordered that the cloaks be returned.  The intelligent ones returned clean and pressed clothing, while the foolish ones returned soiled clothing.  The king placed the clean clothing in a safe place and washed the dirty clothing.  

 The significance of the tale is that the intelligent servants did not merely return clean, unworn clothing to the King; they also improved the garments by pressing them.  In the same way we have a dual responsibility for our royal raiment, our soul.  We must avoid staining it with sin (by doing no evil), and we must also improve it by performing positive mitzvot (doing good). [6]

 ……………………………………..

[1] Based on thoughts presented in; Rabbi David Lapin, Sfirat HaOmer; Progression in Creativity (1989), audio recording available here.

[2] David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, En Gedi Resource Center, Holland, MI, 2005 pp. 104-107.  Brad H. Young, Meet the Rabbis, Hendrickson Publishers,Peabody,MA, 2007, pp. 208-209.

[3] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume 4, B’sorat HaMashiach, First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2002, pp. 46-47.

[4]  Brad H. Young, ibid, pp. 209-210.

[5]  Various teachings of the Sages as presented in; Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, A Code of Jewish Ethics, Volume I, You Shall Be Holy,Bell Tower,New York, 2006, pp. 276-279.

[6] Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, Ruach Chaim, (rendered into English by Chanoch Levi), Targum Press,Southfield,MI, 2002 p. 128.

A Blustery Yom HaAliyah

Earlier this morning I stood upon the back deck of my home.  As strong and cool winds whipped around me and an occasional raindrop fell, I struggled to keep my prayer veil from blowing away while at the same time holding an open bible in my hands. Despite the natural opposition of the blustery morning, I was intent to focus my attention upon the sky above and the threatening clouds that gathered there.  Today is Yom HaAliyah Yeshua, Ascension Day, as reckoned per the traditional Pharisaic counting of the Omer, day 40.  Due to the absence of any formal recognition or community celebration of this event in Messianic settings I have participated in, my personal tradition, for the past couple of years, has been to conclude my morning prayer time on this day by going outside and reading the accounts of Yeshua’s ascension in the Gospels and Acts with opportunity to contemplate the sky above, just as the disciples did on that fateful day.  But this year, contemplating the heavens took on new significance, beyond that of a nice symbolic gesture, due to the study of parashiot Behar/Bechukotai during the past week.

The focus of Bechukotai during this time of year, as Shavuot approaches, is upon the Tochachah or “admonitions” found in Leviticus 26.  As the celebration of the giving of Torah is in view it is considered quite fitting to consider the awesome and frightening consequences of disobedience toward G-d’s commands as related in vv. 15-39.   Yet, also contained in Leviticus 26 are incredible blessings promised for obedience to Torah.  The commentators recognize these blessings, filled with details of supernatural prosperity, peace, and the presence of HaShem walking among his people (v.12), as speaking of the Messianic Era in which earthly existence like that of the Garden of Eden will again be realized.

In concluding the admonitions, Moses relates that if the people confess and repent of their iniquity HaShem shall then remember His covenant with “Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham” (Leviticus 26:42).  This is the only time in the entire Scripture, (both Tanakh and Apostolic Writings), that the Patriarchs are listed in reverse order. Numerous opinions are given as to why the order is reversed here. Yet, a most interesting discussion is found regarding this in the Midrash Rabbah (Leviticus 36:1).  Here the first reversal of order to be found in Torah, regarding the creation itself, is considered in relation to the reverse order of the Patriarchs in Leviticus 26.  Although Genesis 1:1 states “in the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth”, and this order is the norm throughout Scripture, in Genesis 2:4 the creation is described in reverse, as “the day on which the L-RD created earth and heaven”.  

From these verses a dispute between the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel ensued.  Shammai argued that the heavens were created first and then the earth, just as a king first builds his throne and then his footstool (cf. Isaiah 66:1).  Hillel understood the earth to be created before the heavens like a king who builds the lower floors of his palace prior to the upper floors.  This is alluded to in Psalm 102:25; “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands”, and also in Genesis 1:2 which speaks of the earth being “unformed and void” and thereby already existing.  

From this dispute the Sages concluded that “in respect of creation the heavens were first, but in respect to completion the earth was first”.  Considering the reverse order of Leviticus 26:42, Abraham, as the progenitor of the Jewish people can be likened to the heavens, being first regarding creation, for through his seed the  people came into existence.  Jacob, can be likened to the earth, being first regarding completion, for through him a complete nation was realized in which all twelve sons were a part of the covenant, as well as the two sons of Joseph born to him by an Egyptian woman. Normally, throughout Scripture Abraham is listed first and Jacob last, just as the heavens are listed in order of creation prior to the earth.  But in the instance of Leviticus 26 Jacob is listed first because confession and repentance of the nation will result in the blessings promised at the beginning of the chapter, blessings involving repair and completeness of the earth in the Messianic Era and a return to the Edenic state.

With this in mind, to consider Abraham and Jacob as referenced individually in the Gospel accounts is very interesting.  Abraham is mentioned in regard to Jewish individuals for they are “sons of Abraham” being of his “seed”.  Abraham also symbolizes the state of death for the righteous, described as “Abraham’s bosom” in the parable of Luke 16:19-31.  In this way, Abraham is presented in the Gospels in a creative sense, being the progenitor of the Jew and the symbol of death for the faithful — which is not a completion or an end in itself but is instead part of the creative process associated with the resurrection from the dead, which the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is meant to illustrate.  

Jacob, is referred to individually in Luke 1:32-33.  Here the angel informs Mary that the child miraculously conceived within her shall be given a throne and will reign over the “house of Jacob” forever.  This is a clear reference to the Messianic Era, a time of complete blessing upon the earth as described in the early verses of Leviticus 26.  Jacob also is referred to in the account of the Samaritan woman of John chapter 4 in relation to the well which the woman understood to be that of her father (Jacob).  Many Samaritans came to faith in Yeshua as Messiah and Savior of the world in this scenario in which Jacob is featured singularly.  In this way, Jacob in the Gospels is presented in a manner of completion, for over his house, (representing the complete nation of the covenant, both Jew and Gentile), shall Yeshua reign.

In considering the Ascension of the Master, one’s focus is naturally drawn toward the heavens.  Yeshua, taken up in a cloud, now seated at the right hand of the Father, and serving as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary is intimately involved in a creative process.  For in being taken up into heaven, as the firstfruits of them that sleep (1 Corinthians 15:20) he goes to prepare a place for his own (John 14:2-3).  In the centuries that have intervened those who have placed faith in him are considered part of a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:16, Galatians 6:15) and those of the nations are reckoned as Abraham’s seed through him (Galatians 3:28-29).

Yet, the disciple of Yeshua is not to have his head in the clouds, for the Ascension is not meant to focus one’s attention exclusively on the things of heaven.  Two angels admonished the disciples that day as they gazed intently at the sky, to come “back to earth” as it were, by focusing on Yeshua’s return not on his departure (Acts 1:10-11).  Inevitably creative processes related to Yeshua’s heavenly ministry take place without the involvement of men for such things are beyond and above this world.   But the completion of the process, through Yeshua’s return to earth and the ushering in of the Messianic Era allows man to occupy an important role.  G-d is moved by the repentance of His people, and the Sages have long taught that repentance will hasten the coming of Mashi’ach.  Peter as well taught this concept (2 Peter 3:10-18), encouraging focus and intention upon repentance and godliness in life here on earth in order to speed that day.

 . . . . . . . .

Although it is truely meaningful to read the accounts of the Ascension in an outdoor environment, practically speaking it is impossible to focus on the sky continuously while doing so.  Because I have not committed the various passages to memory I must look downward to read them from the Scripture while glimpsing up into the heavens only occasionally.  The blustery weather this year provided even more of a challenge to this through additional distractions to deal with.  But instead of being discouraged, I am grateful for the blustery Yom HaAliyah, in which a few brief moments gazing at a threatening sky, and a few brief prayers of thanksgiving offered to recognize and contemplate this day of Ascension, are followed by the mundane activities of a typical Sunday.

No community celebrations for me, no hilltop picnics or corporate prayer with like-minded people to enjoy.  Instead of longing for such things on this Yom HaAliyah I must get my head out of the clouds and face the typical challenges of an ordinary day instead.  Yet, what better environment to walk in repentance and godliness, what better opportunity to somehow add to the “hastening of that day” in which Yeshua will “come in the same way you saw him go into heaven”. 

A Prayer for Yom HaAliyah Yeshua (adapted from Ephesians 1:17-23)

May you HaShem the G-d of our Messiah Yeshua, the Father of glory, give unto us the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

That our eyes will be enlightened with understanding; that we may know the hope of your calling and the riches of the glory of your inheritance, and the exceeding greatness of your power toward us who believe, according to the working of your mighty power.

 Which you wrought in Messiah, when you raised him from the dead, and set him at your own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. Amen.

Intimacy, Separateness, and the Holiness of G-d

In listening to a recorded shiur this week related to the opening verses of parashah Kedoshim “you shall be holy, for I, HaShem your G-d am holy” (Leviticus 19:2), I found myself once again considering the midrashic idea that wine may have been the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which Adam and Eve partook of in the Garden.  The motivation of Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit was presented in this teaching as her desire to eliminate the only barrier that existed between herself, her husband, and HaShem.  In the Garden, Adam and Eve enjoyed an exceedingly intimate relationship with HaShem in which the three of them were involved in a singular mission and focus.  Yet, although intimately involved with the humans He had created, HaShem was also separate from them.  This barrier of G-d’s separateness and superiority in relation to Adam and Eve was realized in the prohibition regarding the fruit of the Etz HaDa’at.  In order to overcome this barrier and enjoy complete and unhindered intimacy with the Creator, Eve partook of the fruit that promised to draw her even closer to Him by making her “like G-d” and convinced her husband to do the same.  

What resulted was the opposite of what Adam and Eve had anticipated.  By removing the one barrier between themselves and HaShem they did not attain further intimacy.  Instead they experienced a devastating separation and alienation from G-d through the introduction of mortality and death into the world.  Not only did Adam and Eve’s desire to draw closer to HaShem, through the removal of a barrier, produce alienation from G-d, it also produced a separation and alienation between the two of them as male and female.  No longer would there be perfect equality, harmony, and partnership between them but instead Eve’s desire would be “for her husband” but he would “rule over her” (Genesis 3:16).

This first sin in the Garden presents a foundational principle regarding G-d and His holiness; that although intimate with the world, He is yet separate from it. Therefore when Moses admonishes the Children of Israel to “be holy for HaShem is holy” he is not commanding them to attain the same degree of holiness as the Almighty, which is impossible, but instead to attain the same manner of holiness as G-d Himself.   This manner of holiness is found in the ability to achieve intimacy without sacrificing separateness – a simultaneous intimacy with the world that yet is separate from the world.

Wine, as understood midrashically to represent the first sin in the Garden is seen as a destructive influence throughout history, for under the effects of wine one’s guard comes down and normal barriers are disregarded.  Such devastating effects of the fruit of the vine are witnessed in the lives of both Noah and Lot.  Noah’s drunkenness led to the uncovering of his nakedness which his son Ham looked upon.  According to one opinion of Chazal (b. Sanhedrin 70a) Ham had homosexual relations with his father in that drunken state.  This might be understood as motivated by the desire of Ham to remove a barrier in the father and son relationship, the barrier of sexual intimacy.  In attempting to remove this barrier and draw closer to his father, Ham experienced separation and alienation instead.  Noah’s curse upon Ham’s descendents for his actions presented for the first time in human history the idea of racial inferiority through the concept of slavery. 

Lot’s daughter’s also, in causing their father to become drunk on wine, attempted to break down the barrier of intimacy in the father/daughter relationship.  This action resulted in alienation in the form of the mamzer (child produced from a forbidden relationship), one prohibited from marriage into the Jewish nation according to Torah. By attempting to draw closer to their father through breaking down a sexual barrier, Lot’s daughter’s instead brought the concept of social separateness into the world.

The effects of wine in the lives of Adam and Eve, Noah, and Lot present three areas of human relationships in which separateness must be upheld; a. in heterosexual intimacy between different families (Adam and Eve) b. in homosexual intimacy (Noah) and c. in heterosexual intimacy within the same family (Lot).  When separation is not upheld in these areas, but disregarded in order to obtain further intimacy with another human being, the opposite consequence of devastating alienation will ultimately occur.

Interestingly, Torah prefaces the admonition to be holy in the same manner that HaShem is holy, with a listing of various sexual relations prohibited to G-d’s people (Leviticus 18).  These prohibitions involve; a. heterosexual intimacy between different families (not having relations with one’s daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, or with one’s neighbor’s wife), b. homosexual intimacy and c. heterosexual intimacy within the same family (not having relations with one’s own mother, sister, or aunt).  Even within the marital relationship itself unrestricted intimacy is forbidden.  Instead, the barrier of not approaching a woman during her time of menstruation is given in order to maintain the appropriate manner of holiness in marriage through intimacy that does not sacrifice separateness.

By sacrificing separateness for the sake of further intimacy Adam and Eve experienced alienation from HaShem and alienation between male and female, Ham experienced racial alienation, and those like Lot’s offspring, birthed from prohibited sexual relationships, experienced social alienation.  All of which may be symbolized through the effects of partaking of the fruit of the vine.  Instead of becoming more holy they became less holy, for in relationships between man and G-d and between human beings, intimacy void of separateness results in alienation, for true holiness requires intimacy to be preserved through separateness. [1]

How fascinating is this teaching in light of 1 Peter 1:13-16:

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.                                                      (1 Peter 1:13-16 KJV)

In presenting the admonition of holiness from Leviticus 19:2 Peter does so with themes of sobriety and lust in view.  In order to “be holy for HaShem is holy” one must be sober-minded (in the sense of abstaining from wine–Greek nēphō) and refrain from former lusts (in the sense of longing for that which is forbidden–Greek epithumia). How beautifully this weaves in to the concept that wine/grapes was the forbidden fruit, a fruit that caused Eve to be less than sober-minded in longing for that which was forbidden to her – a more intimate relationship with HaShem in which separation from Him, through the barrier of knowledge, would be superseded.  Peter, therefore, seems to be warning believers in Yeshua to guard against these same things by focusing instead on the grace that will be brought to them in the future when Yeshua is revealed at his second coming – an event that will bring about the salvation of their souls (v. 9).  Through Yeshua the horrible alienation from G-d due to death and mortality will end and man will once again be restored to an intimacy and purpose with Him as in the Garden of Eden.  However this future relationship of intimacy will also involve an aspect of separateness between G-d and man; just as it did at first, for only through such a relationship can true holiness be realized.  Even in the final chapter of Revelation, which presents the full extent of prophecy afforded to us regarding the World to Come, an intimacy with G-d is presented (man seeing His face and having His name upon their foreheads) while yet a separateness is maintained (G-d pictured as upon a throne while man rules as His servants).

With these thoughts in mind, in reflecting on church history, it would seem, tragically, that through the course of many councils, doctrines, and debates the very things that Peter warned against, were succumbed to.  Perhaps this is due to the natural and innate desire of those who enjoy the favor of relationship with HaShem to draw ever closer to Him.  Yet, instead of falling into the error of Eve, who desired to become like G-d in order to attain complete intimacy with Him, the “church” attempted to achieve such intimacy by means of G-d becoming like man in the person of Yeshua.  Sober-mindedness gave way to the complex formulas of the Trinity and Hypostasis in order to fulfill the longing for that which was forbidden from the beginning – a fully intimate, barrier-free relationship with the Almighty Himself.  

It would seem that in significant ways, the Etz HaDa’at was partaken of all over again, especially in the later doctrine of Transubstantiation in which the wine of communion was believed to mystically transform into the actual blood of Yeshua.  In this way at every Mass the believer partook of HaShem through the most intimate of means by ingesting the very flesh and blood He occupied in the person of the Messiah, through the elements of the bread and the fruit of the vine.  The result of such doctrines of intimacy and mystery resulted in spiritual alienation and separateness never before known to mankind.  This separateness has played out in history through the awful paradox in which those who believed in the One True G-d and His Torah were considered completely alienated from those who believed in the same, One True G-d, and His Messiah, and vice versa.

______________________________________________________

[1]  Adapted from Rabbi David Lapin, Kedoshim; Alienation and Intimacy, a Perspective on Kedusha (1992), audio recording, available at:  http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=5833

Metzora: A Lesson in Repentance?

Upon returning from vacation for Pesach I had several co-workers comment on how “lucky” I was to have this week off.  Although normally the weather here in late March and early April is cold, damp, and uninspiring, my week of vacation brought with it unseasonably warm record temperatures for more than five days in a row.  The first week of April saw an average temperature of 81 degrees, weather that is more typical for July.  Although the temperature has moderated a bit since then, the early warm-up caused the blooming of flowers and trees to be roughly three weeks ahead of schedule.  This past week, instead of experiencing the gray, damp, and lifeless scenery so typical of April, everywhere I looked, trees and bushes were in bloom and flowering bulbs displayed their full glory.  

 The ashen trees and dormant plants suddenly bursting forth with greenness of life seemed a fitting setting for considering parshiot Tazria/Metzora this past week. Amidst the unsavory and graphic details of sores, scabs, mold and mildew, a prominent theme of repentance emerges in the thinking and teaching of the rabbinic commentators.  According to the Sages (b. Arachin 15b) tzaraat (translated “leprosy” in English bibles) is a punishment for sin, particularly the sin of evil speech or lashon hara, as evidenced in Numbers 12:1-10 in which Moses’ sister Miriam is struck with leprosy after speaking against his Ethiopian wife.  Other anti-social sins are also punished by tzaraat including murder, false oaths, sexual immorality, pride, robbery, and selfishness (cf. b. Arachin 16a). Because the metzora (one afflicted with tzaraat – “leper”) has been involved in sins that hurt the community and threaten its social fiber his punishment is banishment from society and a life of isolation.  In this way the punishment fits the sin involved. 

Although the reason for tzaraat is given by the Sages the purpose of this affliction is not specified until the writings of later rabbis.  According to Rambam (Hilchot Tumat Tzaarat 16:10) each particular form of tzaraat, whether afflicting houses, clothing, or the individual, became pure or cleansed by means of repentance.  In this way, tzaraat is understood as a divine physical phenomenon meant to warn the individual regarding sin in his life with the purpose of evoking repentance. Rabbi Hirsch explains that as soon as a change of mind and heart took place within the metzora G-d would heal him of the affliction [1].  The evidence of this inward repentance is witnessed when the healed person approached the priest outside the camp for inspection of his condition, as described in Leviticus 14:1-4.  According to Sforno by advancing toward the priest the metzora purified his mind and heart.  The sinner made the first move to demonstrate his inward conviction and only then was his repentance accepted.  

For the Messianic believer such themes of repentance are generally considered quite beautiful seeing that repentance is linked to the kingdom of Heaven as John the Baptist admonished “repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand”.  In the Gospels the cleansing of lepers is evidence that the kingdom of Heaven was present and that Yeshua was the expected Messiah (cf. Matthew 11:4-5). In healing both a single leper (Matthew 8:2-4) and a group of ten lepers (Luke 17:12-14) Yeshua instructed the individuals to present themselves to the priest in accordance with the process of purification found in Leviticus 14. Although Yeshua had greater authority than the priest, in that he could heal and not merely diagnose tzaraat, he yet followed Torah commands regarding the metzora’s purification.

Although tzaraat as a means of repentance seems to present a lovely and worthy theme, that bursts forth as life among the grayness of affliction and isolation, for the Messianic believer to embrace this rabbinic understanding presents a serious conflict in light of the Gospel accounts.  If repentance of the heart resulted in divine healing of the affliction then to heal a leper by outside miraculous means would be to circumvent the purpose of HaShem for afflicting the metzora with tzaraat.  In other words, if healing only occurred once the person was truly repentant, then logically a person who was still afflicted had not yet reached a state of true repentance.  Therefore, in healing lepers and empowering his disciples to do the same, Yeshua and the kingdom of Heaven he represented, disregarded the need for true repentance of heart in order to show compassion toward the metzora by healing him.  In this way, to instruct a healed leper to present himself to the priest would have been a form of dishonesty, for the priest examining the person would assume that repentance of the heart had taken place, when in fact an outside miracle, rather than complete repentance, had produced the healing.  

It might be argued from a Trinitarian perspective, that Yeshua, being G-d, knew the heart of the metzora to be completely repentant and therefore rightfully healed them.  Yet, could the same be said of the disciples as well, who also were given authority to cleanse lepers?  Were the disciples able to look into the human heart and know that complete repentance had taken place?  Actually, in light of the popular rabbinic view, one would expect the general population of the first century to be appalled at the miraculous healing of lepers rather than delighted by it.  The metzora in being healed by others would have essentially been robbed of the opportunity to completely repent and experience healing by the Hand of Hashem who alone knows the heart.

Perhaps, Yeshua and his disciples, in healing the lepers, realized that such individuals did not have the ability to repent completely. Therefore mercy was shown by doing for them what they could not do for themselves. Unfortunately, this popular view of repentance defines the “kingdom of Heaven” as understood by most Christians today.  Being just “a sinner saved by grace” the Christian understands that he cannot repent thoroughly and therefore Yeshua had to die as a perfect sacrifice in order to heal him.  True repentance is therefore considered unattainable; a view that represents an antinomian perspective, for the real possibility of repentance and the ability of man to be elevated spiritually by it, is a fundamental truth of Torah and the very essence of the sacrificial system.  Yeshua’s sacrifice was not meant to bypass repentance because man is incapable of such, but rather his sacrifice has achieved what sin makes impossible, a state of eternal life.  Although man can repent and elevate himself spiritually in this life, and such repentance will surely affect his status and rewards in the World to Come, yet, he has no means to enter that coming world of eternity because of death.  Only through Yeshua can man be ushered into the coming world by means of resurrection from the dead.

Another possible argument, in support of the rabbinic view, would be to understand that HaShem used Yeshua and his disciples as the means of healing a leper whose heart was already clean.  In other words, those who were healed by Yeshua and/or his disciples were lepers whose hearts had reached a state of repentance and HaShem chose to bring about their healing through the hands of others.  In this way G-d removed Himself from direct interaction with the person, and instead provided cleansing through the mediation of human individuals.  How curious this is considering that the kingdom of Heaven by definition is “G-d dwelling with men” or being personally involved in the very midst of humanity in an intimate and profound way.  How is it then, that a sign in which HaShem delegated His power to others could possibly communicate the truth of a coming/intimate spiritual kingdom under the leadership of Messiah?  

With these thoughts in mind, it would seem that the rabbinic understanding of the metzora, as a lesson in repentance, in untenable in light of the Apostolic Writings. How then should one understand Yeshua’s healing of the lepers as proof of the kingdom of Heaven being present under his Messiahship?  What would be the purpose of the metzora’s affliction, healing, and purification in this regard?

The rabbis notice that the Tabernacle and arrangement of the tribes of Israel represent a conceptual model of the Garden of Eden in which G-d’s presence dwelt in the midst.  In the arrangement of the Tabernacle and the camp of Israel is found an environment similar to the Garden where man could strive to come close to G-d. In this earthly life such an environment is inevitably tainted with sin and death.  The various forms of ritual uncleanness given in Torah, represent degrees of death which hinder one in drawing closer to HaShem, in whose Presence death cannot abide.

The greatest and most pervasive form of death is complete cessation of life, which places one outside of this earthly sphere altogether and renders one unable to obey or draw close to HaShem in any way.  The metzora conceptualizes physical death as he takes on the position of mourning his own death by covering his mouth and nose, keeping his head unshorn, and tearing his garments (cf. Leviticus 13:45).  He exists outside the camp alone, in a place completely removed from the community setting by which he may draw close to HaShem.  The affliction on his skin is white in appearance, like that of a dead man whose flesh is the first thing to decay.  Even Aaron in witnessing Miriam’s tzaraat in Numbers 12 likened its appearance to death, as a still born baby half decayed when emerging from the womb.

Despite the conjectures of the Sages and rabbis, the literal text of Torah regarding the metzora does not speak of sin as being the cause of the affliction.  The metzora is not admonished to pray or to repent during his time of isolation.  Therefore, the cure of the affliction is not dependent upon the individual’s conduct or awareness.  It would seem instead that HaShem afflicted certain individuals with tzaraat in order to provide an earthly example of a basic conceptual truth; that physically dead humanity resides outside the Garden of Eden environment in which one can draw closer to HaShem.  This malady of death can only be rectified by HaShem Himself.

The purification process of the metzora, given in Leviticus 14 is very interesting in this regard.  The first step involving two birds, crimson thread, hyssop and cedar wood occurred outside of the Tabernacle and the camp.  The overwhelming theme in this first step of purification is chayim (life) a word that occurs six times in vv. 4-7, marking the ceremony as a transition from death to life.  The focus upon the color red, evidenced in the crimson thread and blood of the bird, evoke imagery of leaving behind the whiteness and decay of death in order to take on the redness or “blood” or life.  [2]

After the bird ceremony is completed the individual’s entire body was shaved and he immersed in a mikvah.  In this way he became as a newborn baby, smooth, hairless, and pure, in the sense of a person entering a new existence. Through this “rebirth” the individual rejoined society entering again the realm of the living and the possibility of drawing closer to HaShem who dwelt in its midst. [3]  He could mingle among others but was required to dwell outside of his tent for seven days.  In rabbinic terminology “dwelling outside” of one’s tent is a euphemism for abstaining from sexual relations with one’s spouse, for a wife is often referred to as a man’s “house” (i.e. his “tent”). [4] 

After spending seven days within the camp but outside of his tent the former metzora was shaved of all hair growth that had occurred during those days and again immersed in a mikvah.  In this way a second rebirth occurred, one which would allow him to move from an existence of living among society to an existence of being within the very presence of HaShem Himself.  For after this second immersion, on the eighth day, the individual presented his offerings in the Tabernacle and was anointed with blood and oil upon his right ear, thumb, and toe, in the same fashion as the dedication of the priests.  His head was also anointed with oil reminiscent of the anointing of a king and a prophet.  Therefore in this final stage of the purification process the former metzora conceptualizes an individual who has moved from an existence of death to life, undergone two rebirths, and who now is in a position of closeness and relationship to HaShem as likened to the combine roles of the priests, prophets, and kings of Israel.

In rabbinic eschatology it is generally understood that the Messianic era will precede the World to Come.  The Messianic age is a time of rectification and restoration of this present earthly life to an existence as that in the Garden of Eden, under the kingship of Messiah.  The World to Come is a state of complete recreation of the world in which an existence unfathomable to man will be realized, as G-d will dwell directly with men (cf. Revelation 21-22).

With this in mind it would seem that the metzora serves as a physical object lesson of G-d’s complete plan of redemption for his children.  Because physical death makes it impossible for man to draw close to Him, HaShem must remove this malady in order to bring the person from death back to life.  Through this rebirth of resurrection the individual enters the “camp” of the living and community of the faithful once again, but in a way different from his former life, one in which he does not dwell within his own tent.  After a seven day period, symbolizing the earthly week and natural time, the individual undergoes a second rebirth or transformation that allows him to live in a time beyond time, an “eighth day” existence in which he enjoys closeness and service to HaShem of supernatural proportion and intimacy.  

In this way, the three part purification of the metzora perhaps speaks of three levels of future existence for G-d’s people; a. resurrection from the dead (outside the camp, bird ceremony, shaving and mikvah) b. life in the Messianic era (seven days within the camp outside of his tent) c. life in the World to Come (shaving, mikvah, sacrifices and anointing on the eighth day). Therefore, the healing of lepers by Yeshua and his disciples is strong proof that through him the malady of death is removed allowing the believer to experience the process of purification and redemption, through resurrection, the Messianic era and eventually life in the World to Come.  This healing has nothing to do with an individual’s repentance regarding sin in this life for even the most sincere repentance cannot terminate the curse of death.  Just as with the metzora, it is G-d’s mercy, according to his timing and plan, which heals one of tzaraat and that heals one of the physical death it symbolizes through Messiah alone.

A couple of interesting details along these lines can be found in the words and actions of Yeshua.  First, in confronting the Sadducees disbelief of the resurrection and their test case regarding the woman who married seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-31), Yeshua explained that in the resurrection individuals will not marry or be given in marriage but will instead be like the angels in heaven.  How interestingly this corresponds to the second step of the metzora’s purification in which he lives within society but “outside his tent” for seven days, as understood in rabbinic language to indicate a cessation from marital relations.  Yeshua’s words seem to reflect this very idea, that in the resurrected state of the Messianic age, individuals will not marry, and will therefore live “outside the tent” of their previous earthly existence.

But perhaps the most intriguing detail surrounding this topic is Yeshua’s visit to the house of Simon the Leper which presents a difficulty in interpretation for the Messianic believer.  How is it that Torah observant Yeshua would dine with a metzora when such a person was to be living in isolation and completely avoiding interactions with others?  One speculation is to understand Simon’s “leper” status as merely a way of indicating that he was a former leper whom Yeshua healed. [5]  Yet, the Gospels are very straight forward in describing others whom Yeshua healed, such as women cured of demon possession and Lazarus raised from the dead.  Mary Magdalene isn’t called “Mary the Demon Possessed” and Lazarus is not referred to as “Lazarus the Deceased”, therefore why would Simon the Leper be referred to in this peculiar way as one previously healed by the Master?

The answer might possibly lie in considering the details of the purification ritual of the metzora as given in Torah. Perhaps Simon was a “leper” in the sense that he was in the midst of undergoing purification but had not yet completed the entire procedure. It is possible that Yeshua had healed his tzaraat allowing him to begin the purification process.  After showing himself to the priest and going through the bird ceremony, shaving, and mikvah he was allowed back into society to mingle with others for seven days as he abstained from sexual relations with his wife.  Perhaps it was during this seven day period, the second step of the purification process, that Yeshua visited Simon in his home and dined with him there. 

How profound is this scenario.  As Yeshua fellowships and dines with Simon, as a metzora in the second step of purification, he also is anointed for burial by a devoted woman disciple who poured expensive spikenard upon his head.  The symbolism seems amazing.  Only through Yeshua’s death could the existence that Simon typified at that time come to fruition – as one dining with Messiah, cleansed and restored to the camp, representing the Messianic age ahead.  Therefore, what the woman did for Yeshua was to be proclaimed wherever the gospel message was preached; for her actions in the midst of such a scene illustrate the only means by which life can truly burst forth from that which is dormant and dead.

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]  R’ Hirsch as cited in Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY, 1996, p. 620.

[2] Adapted from Rav Yonatan Grossman, Parashot Tazria-Metzora, available at; http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.61/26tazria.htm

[3] Ibid.

[4]  Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2009, p. 102.

[5]  D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume Two (Shadows of Messiah), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2006, p. 451.

A Time of Transition

“Enjoy your first chametz meal . . .”

 As I read these sentiments in a friendly email sent to me this past week I couldn’t help but contemplate that this year, during Pesach, I did not crave any leavened foods at all during the entire seven days of Chag HaMatzot. This was very unusual, for typically desires for some type of bakery or bread occur during those days and by the end of the feast I have in mind one thing that I definitely wanted to eat right away.  Perhaps the reason for this was due to planning a detailed menu for the week in which breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals were considered in advance. Instead of facing bare cupboards and wondering what I might eat, I cooked and baked from scratch every day and enjoyed the most delicious leaven-free meals and desserts.  But more than likely the factor that most aided me in avoiding the usual chametz cravings was arranging vacation from work for the entire time of Pesach.  This was the first year I did not go to work during some of the intermediate days and therefore I was not subjected to the delicious sights and smells of my co-workers chametz being eaten and savored at lunch time.

 As I enjoyed my final Pesach meal of lemon-dill fish, baked potato, steamed vegetables, and sponge cake with fresh strawberries, in the afternoon on Monday, I was struck by the fact that as I prepared to make the transition back to eating chametz, the Scripture surrounding this transition time embraced themes of abstinence from eating. In purchasing the Vine of David “Meal of Messiah” booklet I was introduced to a Messianic version of the traditional Chassidic  Seudat Mashiach, the final meal of Chag HaMatzot, which centered upon Yeshua’s words over the cup of the Last Supper regarding his abstinence from drinking the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of G-d comes.  In like fashion, the parashah for this transition week, Shemini, describes Aaron’s abstinence from eating the priestly portion of the sin offering on the eighth day inauguration of the Mishkan (Leviticus 10:16-20).

 A pertinent correlation between Shemini and Yeshua’s abstinence from the fruit of the vine is noted in Torah Club Volume Two.  As Yeshua looked forward to serving as High Priest in the heavenly Tabernacle he announced at the Last Supper that he would not partake of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of G-d arrived. This is a Torah mandate, for the priests must not perform their work in the Tabernacle under the influence of wine (Leviticus 10:8-9).  Because the earthly Tabernacle is a pattern of the heavenly one, the same would hold true regarding the High Priestly service within the heavenly realm.  As the commentary describes; “When [Yeshua] returns, stepping forth from the heavenly sanctuary, He will again drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples”. [1]

 Although Yeshua does not drink of the fruit of the vine as High Priest in the heavenly Tabernacle in accordance with Torah, he yet instructed his disciples to partake of the cup of the vine as symbolizing his blood and proclaiming his death until he comes again.  In the sacrificial language of Torah for a worshipper to partake of the vine is an unknown and foreign idea.  The nesech or wine libation was completely poured into a silver funnel-like bowl affixed to the south corner of the altar and was not consumed by either worshipper or priest.  To partake of the blood of a sacrifice was strictly prohibited as the “life is in the blood”.  How is it that Yeshua so closely follows the Torah mandate regarding abstaining from the fruit of the vine as High Priest in heaven while yet instructing his disciples to partake of sacrificial elements that are foreign (drinking of wine) and forbidden (eating of blood) according to Torah?

 The fruit of the vine is a very interesting topic in rabbinic literature.  In the opinion of Rabbi Meir (BT Sanhedrin 70a) the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Etz Ha’Daas) was a grapevine.  The literal Hebrew of Genesis 3:6 gives support to this view as the phrase vatikach mipiryo (וַתִּקַּח מִפִּרְיוֹ) indicates that something was taken “from the fruit” or “from among its fruits” as possibly indicating a cluster.  Drawing on this the Midrash Rabbah (Genesis 19) conjectures that Eve “pressed grapes” taking the juice from the fruit of the tree and giving Adam its wine to drink. 

 According to midrash, in coming out of the Ark, Noah experienced a time of extraordinary divine compassion as HaShem desired for the world to be rebuilt and repopulated. Therefore, Noah’s initial endeavor in the new world would be greatly blessed by the Almighty.  For this reason Noah’s first work was to plant a vineyard with the hope that this action, with G-d’s great blessing, would rectify the sin of Adam and Eve.  The Sages teach that G-d’s blessing was so great that the same day Noah planted the vineyard it reached full maturity and he drank from its wine. Noah was unable however to rectify Adam’s sin but instead repeated it by becoming drunk and exposing his nakedness to others.

 According to Zohar (Bamidbar, Section 3, 127a) the Nazirite vow is the means by which an individual who had witnessed the punishment of a sotah (adulterous woman) lived in a manner of rectifying the sin of Adam by abstaining from wine and all grape products.  The fruit of the vine is also a focus of the Tabernacle inauguration given in parashah Shemini, as some commentators understand that Nadab and Abihu had indulged in strong wine before presenting unauthorized fire to HaShem and losing their lives because of it, thus leading to the prohibition of wine for the priests when ministering there.

Yet, the Jew in general does not abstain from the fruit of the vine but partakes of it on every feast day and festival.  Utilizing wine for a sacred purpose and drinking it in a holy manner represents a concerted effort to elevate the fruit of the vine and rectify the degradation of Adam and Noah who partook of the fruit in an unholy fashion.  How fitting the common toast l’chaim (to life) is in this regard – a toast proclaiming the desire for a rectified existence as symbolized by partaking of wine in a sanctified manner.

When Yeshua instituted the cup of the Supper he explained that he would not drink again from the fruit of the vine until he would drink it “new” in the kingdom of G-d.  When Yeshua returns, ushering in the Messianic age, the entire world will be repaired and rectified to the idyllic state of the original creation.  The wine Yeshua and his disciples will partake of in that day will be the transformed fruit of the vine, consumed in a world of perfection, peace, and complete joy.  Perhaps this is why wine libations were never partaken of in the sacrificial service of the Mishkan.  For in this earthly existence the degradation of Adam and Noah cannot be fully rectified.  The fruit of the vine — representing camaraderie and peace between two parties who partake of it together – is not a present and full reality between G-d and man in this earthly life.  Therefore the wine can only be offered up to HaShem and elevated on the altar indicating the desire and anticipation of a full rectification ahead. 

 Yeshua’s sacrifice is the means to a fully rectified existence, one in which the life of man will be transformed through the resurrection from the dead.  Blood, according to Torah, is symbolic of the spiritual aspects of both human beings and animals for the “life” is in the blood.  A human being’s life force is driven by a godly soul while an animal’s life force is driven by instincts, desires, and emotions.  For a human being to partake of animal blood is to consume and be sustained by a life force that is foreign, one that does not include a godly soul made in the image of HaShem Himself.  Although man does possess base desires, as do all animals — to survive, acquire, and procreate — one does not draw close to HaShem by consuming or being strengthened by such desires, but only by dedicating these base drives.  For this reason the blood of the sacrificial animal was never consumed for man should not sustain himself on a life force driven by instincts and emotions alone, a life force void of a godly soul.  Instead the blood was poured out at the base of the altar in dedication to HaShem. 

 In admonishing his followers to partake of his blood in sacrificial terms Yeshua encouraged the individual to be sustained and nourished by a human life force that is completely and perfectly godly.  His blood is “real drink” in that it represents the perfect functioning of the godly soul in complete submission to HaShem.  Partaking of such “blood” does not conflict with the concepts presented in Torah but instead fulfills them in ways that animal sacrifices could not, and that looks ahead to the rectified existence of the Messianic age.  In that day the life force of humanity will function on a level beyond that of mere dedication, as in this life, but instead will experience an elevation and transformation in the resurrected state. 

 In the meantime, Yeshua functions as High Priest in the heavenly Tabernacle, abstaining from the fruit of the vine while ministering there.  His disciples partake of wine as symbolizing his blood awaiting the complete rectification of Adam’s sin and restoration of human existence.

 Interestingly, the inaugural ceremony of the Tabernacle given in parashah Shemini parallels many of the events at Sinai. According to the Sages, in experiencing the giving of Torah at Sinai the children of Israel reached a point of perfection equal to that of Adam prior to the fall.  If the sin of the golden calf had not occurred a perfected state of existence, as in the Garden of Eden, would have been ushered in when Moses brought the tablets down from HaShem initially.  But instead of rectifying the world the people sinned and fell.  After this occurred G-d’s presence was removed from the midst of the nation as Moses pitched his tent outside the camp and met with G-d there (Exodus 33:7).  Later, G-d promised Moses that His Presence would once again reside among the people (Exodus 34:8-10).  This required the building of the Tabernacle and its inauguration ceremony in which the sin of the golden calf was atoned for and the experience of Sinai was recreated. [2]

 At the inauguration both Aaron and the people offered a sacrifice of a young calf (egel), bringing to mind and atoning for the sin of the golden calf.  A bull and a ram were brought for peace offerings paralleling the very first peace offerings given at the base of Sinai and emphasizing that “today G-d will appear to you” (Leviticus 9:4). A tragic parallel is also witnessed in the inauguration event.  At Sinai, Moses warned the people not to break through the base of the mountain in order to draw close and “come up to” HaShem, on penalty of death (Exodus 19:21)  In bringing unauthorized fire before HaShem, Nadab and Abihu desired to draw close in ways forbidden in the functioning of the Tabernacle. They did so at the cost of their lives. [3] Although Sinai was recreated through the inauguration of the Tabernacle on that eighth day, mankind was not rectified. Ultimately Aaron and his remaining sons experienced the degradation of both Adam and Noah, rooted again, it would seem, in the fruit of the vine.   

 As that most awesome and tragic day came to a close, Moses confronted Aaron’s sons Eliezar and Ithamar regarding the he-goat for a sin offering.  Instead of eating the sacrificial portion the entire goat was burned upon the altar. The eating of the portion by the High Priest was necessary for the atonement of sin to be complete.  On that day three he-goat offerings had been presented, two which were unique, one-time sacrifices for the day of inauguration never to be repeated again.  The third he-goat was the sin offering for Rosh Chodesh, the “New Moon” or “head of the month” as the Tabernacle was inaugurated on the first day of Nisan one year after the exodus from Egypt.  Rashi and others understand that the he-goat not eaten by Aaron and his sons was the sin offering for Rosh Chodesh. 

 Rosh Chodesh is a minor festival with major Messianic indications.  The sin offering of this day is unique among all other sin offerings being described as an offering “for HaShem” (l’chatat l’Hashem/”לְחַטָּאת ל, ). From this the Sages understand that the Rosh Chodesh sin offering atoned for the eating of unclean sacrificial portions of food that the worshipper was not aware of and never became aware of.  Therefore, the sacrifice is described as “for HaShem” for He alone was aware of the unclean state of the sacrificial portions unknown to the worshipper. 

 Yet, in Talmud (BT Shavuot 9a) R. Simeon b. Lakish teaches that l’chatat l’Hashem can also be understood as describing an atonement offering on behalf of HaShem (as it were) for diminishing the size of the moon.  This understanding is based on Genesis 1:16 in which G-d is said to have created two great lights, the greater one to rule the day and the lesser one to rule the night.  From this verse the rabbis understand that initially the sun and moon were created equal in greatness (as two great lights) after which the moon was diminished and made lesser to the sun.  Although there are a multitude of interpretations regarding why this diminishment of the moon occurred and what it is meant to symbolize, Isaiah, speaking of the Messianic age to come, prophesies in that day; “the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun” (30:26).

 Therefore, each Rosh Chodesh is a means of looking forward to the time of Messiah when the sun and the moon will be equals symbolizing the return of all creation to its original perfect state.  The waxing and waning of the moon is an unassuming yet consistent monthly testimony of renewal and rebirth alluding to the Messianic age and the resurrection from the dead in which all things will be renewed.

 By not eating of the he-goat sin offering of Rosh Chodesh that day, Aaron inevitably highlighted the idea of an atonement offering on behalf of HaShem – a repentance of sorts for diminishing the moon and allowing an imbalance to enter the created order, an imbalance of light and darkness, a waxing and waning of good and evil so to speak.  This is the reality of our present existence, so painfully understood by Aaron on the inauguration day.  An existence that is unable to bring about the repair or rectification of the world fully, but that looks forward to the day when the sun and moon will be equal once again in the Messianic age ahead.

. . . . . . . .

As nightfall of Nisan 22 arrived, I counted the Omer, unpacked and repacked items and prepared my kitchen to once again accommodate chametz cooking and eating.  Being satisfied and full from my fish dinner, I went to sleep and didn’t even think about my first chametz meal until the next morning.  Nothing more than a store bought cherry pastry and a cup of coffee before heading off to work at the hospital once again. 

Although the Scriptural theme of abstinence from food accompanied this transition week in which abstinence from chametz was concluded, the thoughts of Aryeh Kaplan provide a most beautiful view regarding this transition time in light of the counting of the Omer, and Shavuot ahead. 

 Kaplan relates that the reason Chag HaMatzot comes immediately after Passover is because the Israelites were at the 49^th degree of depravity in coming out of Egypt.  Individuals on such a low spiritual level, being very weak, must completely abstain from any traces of that which might tempt them to sin for they have no strength to resist such things.  For seven days one does not eat or have any traces of chametz in the home but instead completely nullifies, disowns, and refuses to use for any purpose this symbol of sin and arrogance. This is the first step of the spiritual journey that leads to Sinai and the giving of Torah.  After this we begin to eat chametz once again in the normal daily fashion, enjoying its taste and nutritional benefits.  During this time the days of the Omer and the path toward receiving Torah progresses until –at the 50^th day — one is so matured and strong spiritually, so refined, that chametz is not only partaken of in daily eating but it is also given as an offering to HaShem.  Sin fully transformed is the end goal of the Omer period, for on Shavuot two leavened loaves of bread were offered, being unique among the festival offerings. [4]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume Two (Shadows of the Messiah), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2006, pp. 428-429.

[2] Adapted from The Tanach Study Center, Parshat Shmini, available at:  http://www.tanach.org/vayikra/shmini.txt

[3] Ibid.

[4] Based on Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Reader, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY, 2002, pp. 116-117.

The Trouble with Intentions

For almost four years now, since I began this blog back in the fall of 2006, it has been my intention to read a different Messianic/theological book selection each month and keep myself accountable to this goal by writing a monthly book review (contained under the “reading corner” tab).  This month of March it was my intention to read Daniel Boyarin’s “A Radical Jew”, but here I am on the 28^th day of the month with only half the book read.  Today I must finish the removal of chametz from the kitchen, tomorrow I will host 10 guests in my home for the Seder, and after that is the Yom Tov of first day Matzot.  Although my intentions were well meaning, Boyarin’s book will not get finished this month and I will not write a review of it for March.  Because I have other books “waiting in the wings” I do not plan to finish the book anytime soon or stretch out its reading over a couple of month’s time.   

The trouble with this unrealized intention is that “A Radical Jew” is one of the most unique selections I have read, as Boyarin, an Orthodox Jew, attempts to understand Paul’s motivation and hermeneutic as seen in the Apostolic Scriptures.  Boyarin presents Paul as a man driven by a desire for all people to be children of HaShem, a desire spawned from a union of Hebraic monotheism with the Greek ideal of universalism.  Such a desire could only be accomplished through a theology in which the allegorical meaning of Torah supersedes and fulfills its literal observance.  For Boyarin, Paul “redefined Jewishness in such a way that everyone could be Jewish”. 

But perhaps the most intriguing thought that Boyarin presented, in my partial reading of the book, is that Paul considered his Apostleship to be superior to others due to his gospel coming to him through a direct revelation of Jesus.  Unlike the other Apostles who knew Jesus in the flesh as their teacher upon the earth, Paul received his calling and revelation from the resurrected Christ “in the spirit” and from G-d who raised him.  Paul therefore considered himself an Apostle “not of men” and one who understood more than mere human teachings or corrections to traditions of Judaism, as the other Apostles did. 

With this idea in mind, I found myself contemplating Paul’s instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34.  Although this passage has been well considered in Messianic circles regarding when and how often the Supper should be observed, especially in relation to the Passover Seder, what caught my attention was the fact that Paul clearly explains his instructions about the Supper as being directly received from the Lord himself (v. 23). Certainly the details  that Paul gives after this statement, in vv. 23b-25, were not a direct spiritual revelation from Yeshua. Such information would have been common knowledge among believers regarding the symbolism of the Last Supper and certainly related to Paul by Peter himself with whom he spent fifteen days, early in his ministry, while in Jerusalem as recorded in the first chapter of Galatians.

The special revelation that Paul seems to be relating involves the understanding that  partaking of the Supper elements in an unworthy fashion, by “not discerning the Lord’s body” was to eat and drink damnation upon oneself (v.29).  For Paul, to “discern the Lord’s body”, was to understand Yeshua’s sacrifice as a Passover offering (1 Corinthians 5:7).  By likening Yeshua’s death to the Korban Pesach, Paul presents Yeshua’s sacrifice as a shelamim (peace) offering.

In Torah there are two types of peace offerings.  One is the Shalmei Todah or Thanksgiving offering brought in recognition of a miraculous rescue performed by the hand of HaShem on behalf of an individual. The other is the Shalmei Neder u’Nedavah, or Votive/Freewill offering brought by an individual due to a vow made to HaShem and not in recognition of a particular event or miracle.  All peace offerings were to be eaten within a very specific timeframe by the priests (who received the breast and thigh) and the individual (who received the rest of the meat). The Thanksgiving offering was to be consumed within one day (by the morning following the sacrifice) and the Votive/Freewill offering was to be consumed within two days. Any meat that was leftover past the given timeframe was to be burned.

The Pesach offering is understood to be a type of Thanksgiving/Peace offering meant to memorialize the rescue of Israel from Egypt by the miraculous Hand of HaShem. As a Thanksgiving offering the Pesach was to be completely consumed in one day, with the entire animal (minus the portions for the altar, such as the fats, kidneys and lobe of the liver) completely eaten during the night of the Seder. 

Parashah Tzav relates that the timeframe of the peace offerings was so important that the intention of the person in bringing the sacrifice and eating its meat was a very serious matter;

“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.”

(Leviticus 7:18 Original JPS Translation)

From this the Sages derive that one who intended (in his thoughts during the offering of the sacrifice) to eat the peace offering beyond the timeframe specified in Torah, would be in danger of karet – being totally cut off from the community of Israel and forfeiting their share in the World to Come. [1]  In rabbinic literature, karet is understood to be “death by the hand of heaven” involving an early death, and in some cases childlessness, as a punishment upon the individual. [2]

According to Rambam there are three types of wrong thoughts or intentions a person can have when bringing an offering.  One is an intended change of name.  An example of this would be a person who sets aside a lamb intending it as a sin offering but later changes his mind and offers it as a peace-offering instead.  A second type of wrong intention is a change of place, when a person brings a peace-offering with thoughts of eating it outside of the place assigned by Torah (within the confines of Jerusalem for the individual or within the confines of the Temple for the priests).  A third type of wrong intention is a change of time intending to consume a sacrifice outside of its allotted timeframe (as described in Leviticus 7:18).  Of the three wrong intentions regarding sacrifices only an intended change of time brings with it the possibility of karet.  The other two (change of name or change of place) simply invalidate the sacrifice but do not bring condemnation upon the one bringing the offering or the one performing the blood service.  [3]

With this in mind, when Paul gives additional revelation regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23, he does so with the understanding that Yeshua’s sacrifice is a Peace/Thanksgiving offering, likened to the Korban Pesach — a sacrifice through which HaShem provided miraculous rescue from sin and death; rescue that makes it possible for one to enter a new existence in the World to Come. Therefore, Paul admonishes each individual to examine himself, in order not to participate in the Supper in an unworthy manner (v.28).

Typically this examination is understood as an awareness and confession of sin before partaking of the elements.  But in light of Yeshua’s sacrifice being as a Korban Pesach, perhaps Paul is instructing the Corinthians to examine their intentions.  Each individual should be intent regarding designation; understanding the bread and wine to represent the body and blood of Yeshua.  They should also be intent regarding place; as the Supper is a meal to be conducted among believers only.  To neglect either of these intentions would be to invalidate Yeshua’s sacrifice altogether.

Yet, the intentions of designation and place do not seem to be specific issues for the Corinthian believers who assembled together in one place (v. 20) and participated specifically in “this” bread and “this” cup (v. 26).  Although they were gathering together as believers and recognizing the Lord’s body and blood in the elements, their activity was not considered the Lord’s Supper (v. 20).  In Paul’s view what the Corinthians were doing was invalid, and worse yet, was bringing condemnation upon them.  

What seems to be missing in the Corinthian observance is the intention of time, for according to Torah purposeful eating of a peace offering outside of the intended timeframe caused one to bear his own iniquity.  Remarkably, the condemnation that befell the Corinthians resulted in sickness and death among them (v. 30).  This is the same consequence understood by the Sages regarding the punishment of karet, a punishment threatened when the proper timeframe for eating the peace offering was intentionally ignored.  Paul also explained the reason for such severe chastening was “that we may not be condemned with the world” (v. 31), a fitting definition of the punishment of karet in layman’s terms.

Paul makes clear that every time the Corinthians gather together to eat the specific bread and specific cup of the Lord they proclaim Yeshua’s death until he comes again (v.27).  Although it is debated, there are numerous indications within the Gospels indicating that Yeshua’s death occurred on erev Pesach (Nisan 14 afternoon), at the same time the Passover lambs were slaughtered.  Therefore, in coming together as believers and recognizing the elements of the Supper at various times through a regular fellowship meal, the Corinthians were celebrating outside of the intended timeframe of the Korban Pesach offering of which Yeshua’s sacrifice is likened.  For the Korban Pesach was to be observed on the on the 14th of Nisan at twilight (Leviticus 23:5).  To observe at other times was to intentionally partake of this Peace/Thanksgiving offering outside the designated Torah timeframe and to bring condemnation upon oneself. 

Instead of understanding the eating and drinking of the Supper elements in an unworthy manner to involve a lack of reverence through a selfish and gluttonous meal void of examining oneself regarding sin — could it be — that Paul’s instructions from the Lord to the Corinthians regarding the Supper were very different than we assume?  Are we to believe that a divine revelation regarding the Supper would involve little more than a hand-slap for inconsiderate table manners or a reminder regarding the commonly understood symbolism of the Last Supper?  Would such infractions bring sickness and death to the community, and threaten to condemn them along with the rest of the world?  Perhaps instead, the central problem at Corinth was the partaking of a fellowship meal as the Lord’s Supper apart from the designated timeframe of the Passover evening which incorporated the understanding of Yeshua’s sacrifice to be as a Korban Pesach/peace offering.

Certainly this is a radical idea, perhaps spurned on by the intention to read a book about “A Radical Jew” by a radical Orthodox scholar who would delve into the hermeneutics of one of the most controversial “Christian” figures of all time, Paul of Tarsus.  In the plainest sense, the consequence of such an idea would result in damnation and judgment upon the overwhelming majority of believers throughout the centuries who have observed the Lord’s Supper apart from a Pesach timeframe. This indeed is a harsh and impossible consequence that need not be the case necessarily. 

For the audience Paul addressed in Corinth — being first century believers associated with the synagogue while the Temple was yet functioning — would have understood and been thoroughly taught regarding the various sacrifices and their details as given in the Torah.  As time went by and the “church” separated from its Jewish origins such understanding and detail would have been lost, with Messiah’s sacrifice as “our Passover” bringing to mind the lamb’s blood applied to the lintel and little else. In this way, those who have for centuries observed the Lord’s Supper daily, weekly, monthly, and/or quarterly could not be held accountable for purposefully intending to overlook or neglect the Torah specified timeframe of a Thanksgiving offering such as the Korban Pesach to which Yeshua’s sacrifice is likened.

. . . . . . .

Although Boyarin’s book provided intriguing thoughts about Paul and especially the self-understanding of his Apostleship, from his own pen in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul defined himself as “least of the Apostles” instead of the most superior.  But it would be unfair of me to judge Boyarin along these lines for perhaps Paul’s words in chapter 15 were considered later in the book. At this point I cannot know. Oh well . . . that’s the trouble sometimes, with even the best and most long held intentions.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]  Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn NY, 1994, notes on “Pigul/Rejected”, p. 576.  

[2] Ibid., citing Ramban in notes on kares, p. 577.

[3]  Rambam, Laws of Invalidated Sanctified Things, 13:1,2; 15:1; 16:1 as cited in OU Torah Insights (Shabbat Parashat Tzav), available at;  http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5765/tzav65.htm

Going Outside the Camp

A couple of weeks ago, after waiting more than a year with much anticipation, I found out that I will have opportunity to travel to Israel with FFOZ in November.  As January ’10 rolled around I was informed that a tour was scheduled for this year and that I occupied the eleventh spot on the waiting list for it.  In February, the thirty folks who had originally signed up for the tour back in ’08 (which was cancelled for ’09) would be notified.  As openings were available those on the waiting list would be informed.  After receiving the email that an opening was available for me I found myself laying in bed that night thinking about the opportunity that had come my way.  Instead of feeling excited or happy, I was surprised that I actually felt hesitant and a little frightened about it all. 

Although I have traveled alone before, I have never yet been outside of North America, or to a country that is considered a high security risk.  Perhaps something so long awaited for  brings a bit of “numbness” when it finally comes to pass?  Instead of mailing in the security deposit right away, I took a few days to think about this decision.  Inevitably I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to travel with such an excellent tour.  But even after securing my place a real excitement still hasn’t set in.  All I can think is that going “outside the camp” of my American country and culture is something that isn’t as easy for me as I may have imagined it would be.

Although  my study of Torah has been limited due to the time involved with Pesach cleaning and preparations I did find my curiosity peaked in reading about the sin offering of the anointed Priest in Vayikra this past week (Leviticus 4:3-12).  This offering is one of only four in Torah in which the hide, innards, and offal of the sacrifice is burned outside the camp (michutz lamachaneh / מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶ ).  Other offerings having this distinction include the sin offering for the entire assembly of Israel (Leviticus 4:13-21), and two offerings on Yom Kippur –the bull as a sin offering for the High Priest and his household, and the goat chosen by lot for HaShem as a sin offering for the people.  All offerings burned outside the camp had their blood service performed within the Tabernacle itself, rather than upon the altar of sacrifice in the courtyard. 

Apart from the anointed Priest, Leviticus chapter 4 also describes the sin offering for the congregation, for a ruler, and for an individual.  Of these four sin offerings the anointed Priest’s is unique in that he is not described as sinning unintentionally, nor is there any mention of atonement or forgiveness in relation to his offering.  Unlike the sin of others, the anointed Priest’s sin is described as “bringing guilt upon the people” (v. 3).  This most unusual phrase, le-ashmat ha’am (לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם) is interpreted in various ways among the commentators. 

Rashbam understands that the anointed Priest brought guilt upon the people by giving incorrect instruction regarding Torah which caused the people to err and sin.  [1]  Ibn Ezra takes a most literal approach, understanding the Priest’s personal sin to bring guilt upon the people because of his high status. By sinning, the High Priest caused all of Israel to be guilty because he must be free of sin to atone for them through the service of the Tabernacle. Therefore, the High Priest was punished more severely for his sin as alluded to by the omission of atonement and forgiveness in relation to his offering. [2]  Ramban goes so far as to say that the High Priest was required to pray and beg of HaShem for forgiveness rather than find it through sacrifice alone. [3] To add to this thinking the Bekhor Shor relates that the High Priest’s guilt when sinning was equivalent to the entire people. [4]

But a most interesting interpretation of le-ashmat ha’am is presented by Sforno who understands that guilt is not placed upon the people by the High Priest’s sin but instead that the people bring guilt to the High Priest by their sin.  In Sforno’s view even the people’s inadvertent sins befall the priest on their account.  Therefore, instead of understanding that the Priest’s guilt affects the people, it is the people whose guilt is leveled against the priest. [5]  If the people do not act appropriately the High Priest bears the blame.  This thinking is also presented in Leviticus Rabbah 6:6 which relates that when the High Priest sins, the people are to blame.  Sforno finds proof for his interpretation in the fact that Torah does not indicate that the Priest ever realizes his guilt for he is not said to have inadvertently sinned.  This is because the sin was not of his doing, but happened to him by the fault of the people. [6]

The commentators also notice the juxtaposition of the anointed Priest’s sin offering with the instructions for the sin offering of the congregation which follows (vv. 13-21).  The two are mirror images as both involve a bull sacrifice, blood service within the Tabernacle, and burning of the hide and innards outside the camp.  When seeing the Priest bring a sin offering to the Tabernacle the people would be immediately alerted regarding their own sinfulness, for the two go hand in hand.  No matter how one interprets the “guilt upon the people” in relation to the Priest’s sin offering, such an offering would always result in discovery of inadvertent sin for the community at large.

With this in mind, my thoughts were drawn to Hebrews 13:10-13;

We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.                                                                     (Hebrews 13:10-13 ESV)

In Christian commentary, going “outside the camp” as described in the above verses is often understood as a call for the Jews, to whom Hebrews was written, to separate themselves from the community of Israel and abandon Judaism in order to follow Christ [7].  Being “outside the camp” means leaving behind the “Jewish dispensation” [8] and “withdrawing from the earthly Jerusalem and its sanctuary” [9].  Yeshua, who suffered “outside the camp” is understood as one rejected by Israel and no longer part of her community. The reproach that the believer, especially the Jewish believer, must bear is exclusion from the Jewish people.  Typically, the symbolism involved in this passage is understood to reflect the Yom Kippur sacrifice of the High Priest whose blood was offered in the Tabernacle and hide burned outside the camp.  

Curiously, to burn a sacrifice outside the camp according to Torah instruction was not to leave behind the community of Israel but rather was a means of functioning within the community in order to obtain atonement and forgiveness for sin in specific situations.  Although it is true that the offering of the High Priest on Yom Kippur was burned outside the camp, a couple of details seen in Hebrews 13 seem to refer instead to the sin offering of the anointed Priest and corresponding sin offering of the community as given in Leviticus 4.  

In v. 13, the author of Hebrews relates that Yeshua suffered outside the camp and that the appropriate response was for the people to go to him there, “bearing his reproach”.  This reflects the exact pattern of Leviticus 4:3-21, where the sin offering of the anointed Priest brings “guilt upon the people”. If a sin offering was made by the High Priest with its blood service performed inside the tent, and hide burned outside the camp, the appropriate response of the people would be to offer an exact sacrifice which also would be burned outside the camp.  In this way they bore the High Priest’s reproach by going outside the camp to him, as the people’s sacrifice was burned in the very same place of ashes as the High Priest’s sacrifice was.

In considering Yeshua and his sacrifice in relation to his role as High Priest of the heavenly Tabernacle, bringing guilt upon the people who “bore his reproach” could not have been the result of an error in Torah judgment or of personal sin, due to his perfect/sinless life.  Instead, Yeshua’s sacrifice, as High Priest, gives witness that the guilt of the people has been placed upon him (cf. 1 Peter 2:24). The appropriate response then within the community of Israel, according to Torah, is to recognize the personal gravity of this situation, and inadvertent sin which has been committed, and follow the lead of the High Priest by seeking atonement and forgiveness for such sin through him.

A second detail pointing to the sin offering of the anointed Priest is found in Hebrews 13:10 that speaks of “an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat”. Classic Christian commentators typically understand the altar here as referring to Yeshua’s sacrifice which those who adhere to the Law of Moses cannot partake of or find benefit from.  In the words of Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; “they who serve the Jewish tabernacle have no right to eat our spiritual Gospel meat, namely, the Jewish priests, and those who follow their guidance . . .” [10]

The book of Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple, at a time in which the priests were ministering daily within it (cf. Hebrews 10:11).  The altar from which the priests had no right to eat was a present reality of the Temple system.  No ceremonial portion of meat was ever given to the priests from animals whose blood service occurred inside the Tabernacle.  Therefore, the author of Hebrews is merely stating a fact based on Torah in vv. 10-11, that the bodies of animals whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest were sacrifices from which no priest had a right to eat.  This would include the Yom Kippur offerings (bull for High Priest and goat for HaShem) as well as the sin offering for the anointed Priest and the sin offering for the community, all of which had blood smeared upon the horns of the altar of incense within the Tabernacle.  This “altar” (of incense) is the one “from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat”.

However, an additional unique feature of the sin offering of the anointed Priest is found in Leviticus 4:10 in which the removal of the kidneys, liver, and fats of the sacrifice is likened to that of the peace-offering.  In Torah the breast and thigh of the peace-offering was given to the priest to eat.  Although the sin offering of the anointed Priest was handled in the same manner as the peace-offering there was no portion allotted from it for the High Priest, because its blood service was performed within the Tabernacle.  From this association with the peace-offering,  Rashi understands that the sin offering of the Priest was the “cornerstone of the entire system of atonement” bringing well-being (or peace) between G-d and man. [11]  In like fashion, the author of Hebrews in describing Yeshua’s sacrifice outside the camp, understands it as a means of sanctifying the people, or providing well being in their relationship with HaShem.  

. . . . . . . .

Over the years I have personally known numerous people who have traveled to Israel and visited Jerusalem.  Although each person has a different story to tell and a different viewpoint regarding the trip at large, one common factor related by all believers is an uncanny sense of peace and well-being when one is in the Land.  One lady I know, a devout Christian, described this spiritual phenomenon as “coming home”.  Another person explained that they were overwhelmed with a sense of holiness and awe while there.  Much different that going “outside the camp” into a strange and foreign environment it would seem that going to Israel is to return to the very camp that Yeshua’s followers were meant to function within all along.  

Inevitably, I know myself well enough to realize that my current lack of excitement and thoughts of nagging hesitation regarding my upcoming trip to Israel  is nothing more than a defense mechanism.  Because I have been involved with two group trips to Israel in the past, both of which fell through last minute, I find myself hopefully cautious about this one, and reluctant to get too excited too early.   L-RD willing I will actually make it to Israel this time!  

___________________________________________________________________

[1] Rashbam as cited in Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Leviticus), Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2009, p. 22

[2] Ibn Ezra as cited in ibid.

[3] Nachmanides as cited in ibid, pp. 21-22.

[4]  Bekhor Shor as cited in ibid, p. 21.

[5]  Sforno, as cited in ibid, pp. 21-22.

[6]  Ibid.

[7]  The Nelson Study Bible (NKJV), Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2101.

[8]  Wesley’s Notes on Hebrews 13:13 available at;  http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-13.htm

[9]  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Hebrews 13:13, ibid.

[10]  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Hebrews 13:10 available at; http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-10.htm

[11] Rashi, as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid, p. 23.

Heeding a Blessing in Disguise

A fellow nurse that I work with recently and unexpectedly spent two nights in the hospital. Every nurse dreads the thought of being on the receiving end of hospital care, so when he returned to work I welcomed him back and asked how his stay in the hospital was. Interestingly, he told me that the most challenging thing about his hospitalization was not the lack of privacy, or the inevitable injections and blood draws, but the worst part of the experience was “all the noise”.  “Though we work in it all day” he said “I never realized, until I was forced to lay in a bed and listen, just how incessantly noisy a hospital floor really is”.

Working in a critical care setting I am continually surrounded by alarms and warnings of numerous varieties.  Just about every piece of equipment I work with has an alarm or warning tone of some kind associated with it.  Yet, a nurse quickly learns that the majority of the time the alarms and bells are really of no consequence.  The pulse oximeter goes off when a patient scratches his nose, the ventilator alarms when the patient coughs, the telemetry beeps because one of the leads has become disconnected.  Most of the time a minor adjustment is all that is needed to quiet the alarm. Because of this it’s easy to become very casual with all the sounds and to even find oneself almost oblivious to the incessant noises that are a part of a nurse’s day.

In completing the book of Leviticus this past week, I unexpectedly found myself in the midst of a flurry of passages that were quite alarming, specifically the verses that are known in Judaism as Tochachah or The Admonition.  These verses, found in Leviticus 26:14-43 contain 49 curses or punishments that HaShem tells the children of Israel will befall them if they fail to follow His decrees and observe His commands. Leviticus 26:14-43 along with Deuteronomy 28:15-68  are considered the two Tochachah or two Admonitions to Israel that are so serious that anyone who makes aliyah to read them in the synagogue must do so on an empty stomach and in a low tone of voice. 

But the Tochachah of Leviticus 26 is unique because woven among the horrible descriptions of punishments and curses is a little word that is used only seven times in all of scripture and contained in this chapter alone, the Hebrew word keri (qof, resh, yod). According to the rabbis there are two basic ways the word keri can be understood.  The first way is as a refusal.   Rashi (quoting the 10^th century grammarian Menachem) derives keri from the two letter shoresh K-R (qof, resh) which means “to prevent, refuse, withhold”.  Onkelos agrees with this interpretation and understands keri to mean “stubbornness or refusing to approach” Saadiah Gaon translates keri as “rebellion”.  So, keri can be understood as the flat-out refusal to obey Torah and to repent when faced with the punishments and curses that come as a consequence. 

Yet, a second way to understand keri is as an occurrence.  Torah Kohanim interprets keri based on the shoresh K-R-H (qof, resh, hay) to mean “occurring in an unplanned way”.  Ibn-Ezra gives further explanation of this by using 1 Samuel 6:9 as a proof text.  In the 1 Samuel pasuk the Philistines are preparing to send the stolen Ark of the Covenant back to Israel due to hardships and suffering that has come upon them since it has been in their camp.  As they prepare the Ark for departure upon an ox-drawn cart, they speculate that perhaps all the suffering is not due to the Hand of G-d but rather may have been merely “an incident” or “by chance”.  The Hebrew word for “chance” in this verse is mikreh which derives from the shoresh K-R-H.  In this way Ibn-Ezra understands that keri can also evoke the meaning of casual, intermittent or inconsistent obedience to Torah which lends itself to regarding misfortunes as mere coincidences instead of real and serious warnings from the Hand of HaShem Himself. 

The sages generally understand the Tochachah to be “blessings in disguise”.  Because this world is not one of award and punishment, the Admonition of Leviticus 26 is seen as a series of warnings, in the form of very difficult circumstances, that are meant to alert the children of Israel when things are off-track.  Therefore, when the people experience hardships and sorrows they must not deny them or attribute them to bad-luck or chance, but instead they should be warned to consider their lives closely and to adjust whatever might be out-of-line regarding Torah observance and devotion to HaShem. 

According to the tosafot, Ezra instituted the reading of the Tochachah prior to Shavuot and Rosh Hashanah.  The Tochachah of Leviticus was to be read on the Shabbat two weeks prior to Shavuot and the Tochachah of Deuteronomy was to be read on the Shabbat two weeks prior to Rosh Hashanah.  Though there are numerous opinions as to why the Tochachah are to be read at these specific times, one understanding involves the numeric details involved with the two moedim.  Just as Shavuot is preceded by the 49 days of the Omer count, so the Tochachah of Leviticus, which contains 49 warnings, is read and considered during this time.  Traditionally the shofar is sounded 100 times in the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah, so this holiday is preceded by a reading of the Tochachah in Deuteronomy which contains 100 admonitions and warnings to repent.

Yet, behind the numerous warnings found in the two Tochachah, the persistent message of keri in Leviticus 26 sends out a unique and repetitive theme. A warning that is the very substance of the Tochachah itself, which evokes great caution regarding being casual or stubborn in times of suffering and heartache, for such circumstances may very well be G-d’s way of setting one back on track.

 . . . . . . . . .

Having worked at my current job for almost two years now, I am so accustomed to the sounds of alarms that I know immediately what needs to be taken care of by simply hearing the differing tones and rhythms.  I can easily distinguish the sound of a telemetry alarm, from the sound of a mechanical ventilator alarm, from the sound of a pulse oximeter alarm, and so on throughout the day.  Yet, during a recent day at work, I was startled and alerted to hear an alarm that was totally unfamiliar to me, a sound that I had never heard before buzzing and buzzing without stopping.  Another nurse heard it also and both of us quickly rushed to the patient’s room to investigate the matter.  Turns out, that the patient’s family brought in an alarm clock and had forgotten to turn off the alarm function which was set to go off at 9:00 a.m.. The unfamiliar sound drew our attention much more quickly than the beeping and buzzing of the alarms that we are so familiar with. This foreign alarm caused us to disregard our usual casualness and to attend to the matter immediately and without delay.  

In less than 24 hours, I will listen to the sound of the shofar as I gather with my Torah community to celebrate Rosh Hashanah.  Though I hear the shofar sounded every erev Shabbat when we meet together, it never fails to amaze me that the sound it produces is always unique.  The pitch, tone, and quality of the shofar are different each time it is played.  On Rosh Hashanah I will hear the shofar sounded not just once, but over and over again as the admonition for “tekiah”, “shevarim”, and “teruah” are given.  

After considering the Tochachah in my studies this past week, I can’t help but wonder if perhaps G-d chose the shofar as the instrument of warning and repentance for just this reason.  For the shofar is an instrument that has no consistency and no redundancy in the sounds that it produces.  The warning and call that it issues is foreign, unfamiliar and completely new every time it is sounded.  In this way it demands to be heeded with an attentiveness that makes familiarity and casualness impossible. What a wonderful point to remember as I close my eyes and allow the sounds of its reverberations to wash over me this upcoming Rosh Hashanah.  A most fitting reminder to consider the heartaches and challenges I currently face as “blessings in disguise”, as warnings and opportunities for change and adjustment so I can follow HaShem even closer in the upcoming year ahead.

When Advice is Hard to Come By

A little over a week ago, I found myself laying flat on my back, shaking uncontrollably.  Blinded by bright lights, I could make out the form of two women standing over me. With looks of concern on their faces they questioned if I was alright.  Though I was having trouble enunciating I assured them that I would be fine.

 Though it might sound as if I had been in a car accident, or perhaps experienced a terrible nightmare, the above scenario took place while I was at the dentist’s office.  Earlier in the day, one of my molars cracked and a good portion of it broke off.  Though a significant amount of the tooth was missing, I experienced no pain.  Later that afternoon I was squeezed in at the office as an emergency appointment.

 After numerous x-rays of my mouth were taken, I was told that things weren’t too bad.  The dentist would merely drill out the old filling and put in a composite material for now, no problem.  However, after numerous injections of anesthetic, and more than 30 minutes of drilling I came to find out that things were worse than expected.  I had to immediately decide upon one of two options.  Option one was a root canal.  If I took this option I would need to undergo additional oral surgery at a later date in order to have the tooth capped because there was not enough of my original tooth left to place a cap upon.  The other option was to have the tooth extracted and an implant placed in about 6 months. 

 That’s when I began to shake uncontrollably, my nerves were absolutely frayed.  The pretty young woman who is my dentist and her hygienist explained to me that they would be placing a temporary filling and that I would have to wait 90 minutes before they could work on me further.  Because I was an emergency appointment and the office was very busy that day, I could take this time to relax and make my decision and then in 90 minutes they would either do the root canal or extract the tooth, the choice was up to me. 

 Upon leaving the dental office for the 90 minute delay, I went to my car and started to make some phone calls.  I have had meticulous dental care all my life and other than standard cavities and fillings had never had any complications at all.  Now I would have to make some serious decisions and I badly needed some advice.  I called two people who have always been quick and ready to advise me on various matters in my life, and the most curious thing happened, neither one of them knew what to say.  They both literally had the same response; “Paula, I don’t know what to tell you, the choice is up to you.”  That’s when I knew I was in trouble, because only when the situation is hopeless is advice hard to come by.

 In completing parashah Behar this past week, I found it interesting that the portion concludes with the first two verses of Leviticus 26;

 You shall not make idols for yourselves, and you shall not erect for yourselves a statue or a pillar, and in your land you shall not emplace a flooring stone upon which to prostrate oneself – for I am HaShem, your G-d.  My Sabbaths shall you observe and My Sanctuary shall you revere – I am HaShem (Leviticus 26:1-2 Stone Chumash)

 Though some of the sages merely recognize these final lines as a general admonition to all of Israel, Rashi and others see it differently.  According to Rashi, these admonitions are meant to follow the chronological order of the passage which had previously spoken about the Jew who becomes destitute and sells himself as a bondservant to a Gentile.  In the eyes of the sages a Jew who must sell himself to a non-Jew is considered the ultimate denigration.  A situation so bad that the Torah instructs the Jew’s relatives to do whatever it takes to redeem him and buy him out of such a predicament (Leviticus 25:48-49).  If his relatives are unable to redeem him and he cannot redeem himself then the situation is hopeless, nothing more can be said. The choice to sell himself was up to the Jew and now he must face the ever present reality of being influenced and possibly assimilated into the pagan religion and customs of the Gentiles with whom he is employed. 

 Though such a situation leaves the sages and the people of Israel speechless, HaShem lends two pieces of advice for this most unfortunate Jew in Leviticus 26:2.  By “observing My Sabbaths” and “revering My Sanctuary” the Jew who has sold himself to a non-Jew can avoid the temptation of adopting pagan beliefs.  R’ Moshe Feinstein in his Darash Moshe questions why the Torah doesn’t issue additional warnings to the bondsman living among non-Jews.  Surely issues such as refraining from intermarrying and keeping kashrut would be valuable pieces of advice that a person in such a situation should be reminded of.  Why are the two mitzvot of keeping Shabbat and fearing the Sanctuary singled out as the most valuable pieces of advice to be given to the Jew who has hired himself out to the non-Jew?

 Feinstein points out that the religious life of the pagan centers around his place of worship and that the pagan views his home life and religious life as two separate entities.  The pagan worships his god in the temple and does what he pleases when he returns home.  In the pagan system great honor and fear is awarded to the sacred place of worship which is the focal point of his religion. 

The Jewish bondsman living among non-Jews must have a different set of priorities if he is not to be influenced and assimilated by the pagan culture in which he lives and works.  The Jew, like the pagan, is to fear the Mikdash (Tabernacle/Holy Temple) and to have a great respect for it.  However, the observance of HaShem’s Shabbats is to take precedence.

  Of all the  “Shabbats” in scripture (such as those incorporated with Festival days) only the seventh day Sabbath and the Shemittah year are designated as “My Shabbats” and are to be considered as “unto HaShem” (Exodus 16:25, Leviticus 25:4) .  The Yovel year is said to be “kodesh tiyeh l’chem” holy to you (Leviticus 25:10) and the Yomim Tovim are times that are to be designated and fixed by Israel (Leviticus 23:2,4). 

 But the Shabbat and Shemittah year are “G-d’s Shabbats” because He alone determines the time in which they will be observed.  The Sabbath has a set time, once every 7 days, as does the Shemittah year as once every 7^th year.  The times of these observances are fixed by G-d and remain constant independent of Man.  Even if man is unaware that the 7^th day is the Shabbat and continues to work on that day, and even if the Beit Din of Israel failed to sanctify the 7^th year and sowing and reaping of the land still took place, yet the Shabbat day and the Shemittah year remain a reality none the less.

The Mesech Chochma points out that the Shabbat and the Shemittah year are memorials of creation that HaShem created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.  Since the creation was accomplished apart from the interaction of man in anyway the times of the Shabbat and Shemittah year, which remember the creation, are determined solely by HaShem.  Yet, because the Shabbat and Shemittah year memorialize creation the focus of their remembrance is man, who is the pinnacle of creation.  In this way all the mitzvot and halachah are incorporated in the observance of G-d’s Shabbat’s, because mankind is the subject and HaShem’s instructions are to be the focus of the Jewish religion.

Therefore, by admonishing the Jew who is a bondservant to a non-Jew to prioritize “observing my Sabbaths” before “fearing my Sanctuary”, G-d is warning this person to not focus on the “institution” of religion as incorporated in the structure in which the worship takes place.  Instead of seeing the structure of worship as the subject and man as the object, as idolatry does, the Jew is to see man as the subject and the structure of worship as the object of his religion and his devotion to HaShem.  According to Yevamoth 6b one does not reverence the Shabbat but “Him who ordered the observance of the Shabbat” therefore in reverencing the Sanctuary one is not to reverence the structure but “Him who gave the commandment concerning the structure”.  

This concept can be illustrated through the story of a prominent rabbi who was visiting France.  While in Paris, a fellow Jew, who had spent his childhood in the city, offered to give the rabbi a tour.  He showed the rabbi all the popular sites, the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Louvre.  As the day began to come to a close and the sun was setting in the west the fellow took the rabbi to Notre Dame.  He had arranged the tour to end at this point because the rays of the setting sun would cause the famous stained glass windows of the Cathedral to be illuminated with such magnificence as to be a most spectacular conclusion to the day. 

Upon entering the Cathedral the stain glass windows glowed with a splendor and radiance that was breathtaking.  The rabbi looked around for a brief moment and then proceeded to run out of the Cathedral.  Startled, the fellow Jew followed the rabbi outside and questioned what was wrong.  The rabbi admitted that he felt scared because he was totally overpowered by the building.  It had nothing to do with halachah or the fact that the Cathedral was a Christian place.  But instead the rabbi explained; “I’m nothing in that place, I’m squashed, I’m a little ant in the presence of this enormous building”. The fellow understood immediately and agreed that they must not re-enter, because to do so would be idolatrous.

This is the same concept that HaShem advised the Jewish bond slave among the non-Jews not to become involved in.  A system in which there is an object which is all important and man must nullify himself in the face of such an enormous object, whether it’s an idol or a building or an institution.  G-d’s warning to the Jew who found himself in the most denigrating and hopeless circumstance of being a servant to a Gentile was to remember that the structure of religion is to never become the focus or the priority. The “institution” or “system” of religion must always be the object, and man must be the subject.  “Observing my Shabbats” must always take precedence over “fearing My Sanctuary”.

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

Although my recent dental emergency was unnerving and seemed hopeless at the time, and despite the lack of advice I was able to get from others, inevitably I elected to have the tooth extracted.  Once I made that decision, while sitting in my car, I was able to recline the seat and take a nice nap for the duration of the 90 minute wait.  Through the entire procedure (including a bone graft) I remained calm and undisturbed.  What seemed like an overwhelming situation came into proper focus once I weighed the options for myself and made a decision. 

How good of HaShem not to leave his people, who find themselves to be in the most impossible and hopeless of situations, without advice.  Instead, by cautioning them to be careful of obsessing or focusing on a place of worship or an institution, the Jew living among the non-Jew was reminded that Shabbat and all the mitzvot accompanied him wherever he might go.