“What have I done to you, that you have struck me?” (Num 22:28). The one speaking here is Balaam’s donkey. She speaks not just once, but thrice – and she is clearly incensed, and rightly so. She saves her master from death three times, and he beats her with a stick each time. She objects. She is a good donkey.It is certainly not her fault that her master is blind and cannot see the huge, hulking and angry angel that is barring her path with a big sword. Hasn’t she always been a good donkey? Has her master ever seen her behave in any bad way before? In the end Balaam is kind of sorry for hurting her, though he meanders through a few excuses first.
“But, you might think, this isn’t a story about animal rights!”

It isn’t? Are you sure about that? Because I am not. I am not sure at all. Torah has a tendency to be so deep in layers, side-stories and imagery, that it is said to contain everything – so why wouldn’t it have something to say about animal rights?

Balaam’s donkey is a very strong story about animals, animals’ feelings and our obligation to treat them with respect and compassion. There are more passages that teaches us that when G!D gave us this earth live on, E meant us to take care of it and all its inhabitants.
“When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from assisting him, you must nevertheless assist him” (Exodus 23:5)

This teaches not just that we should help an animal belonging to our enemy (or anyone) when it is in need, it also teaches (by inference) that we may not overburden an animal in our care.
“Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor, in order that your ox and your ass may rest, and that your bondman and the stranger may be refreshed.” (Exodus 23:12)
Yes. Animals have the right to celebrate Shabbat – rest and recouperation from their six days of labor. In the same vein Leviticus 22:27 teaches that animal mother and baby have the right to spend at least the first week of the baby’s life together, before the baby might be considered for sacrifice. Once it is selected for sacrifice – the method of slaughter shall be done by “by cutting the windpipe and carotid arteries in one motion, which causes the animal to die quickly” –
A mother and baby may not be killed on the same day – Leviticus 22:28 – and I was taught that this also means that they may not be killed within sight or hearing each other. To spare their feelings. This – caring for the feelings of animals is reflected in yet another place, Deuteronomy 22:6-7:
“If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not take the mother together with her young. Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life.”
Torah recognizes that animals can feel physical and emotional pain, and it is our obligation to make sure that we minimize animal suffering as much as is humanly possible. This Torah commandment is mirrored in Talmud which teaches that we are to make sure our animals are fed before we ourselves eat (Berakhot 40a).

There is a story in Talmud about R’ Yehuda HaNasi who was punished with suffering because he was cruel to a calf that sought his protection right before it was to slaughtered for sacrifice. That same story also relates that he was freed from his suffering because he had compassion with a litter of weasels (Bava Metzia 85a):
“[The suffering] came about because of an act – what was it? A calf was being brought to be slaughtered. It ran off and hid under the corner of Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi]’s cloak and was crying. He said to it: “Go, for this is the reason you were created.” The [heavenly angels] said: “Since he has no mercy, let us cast suffering upon him.” [The suffering] went away because of an act – what was it? One day, Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi]’s maid was sweeping the house, and [she saw] baby weasels on the floor and was about to sweep them away. He said to her: “Leave them, for scripture says (Ps 145:9), ‘His mercy is upon all creatures.’” The [heavenly angels] said: “Since he is being merciful, let us have mercy on him.”

But why does Torah concern itself with the treatment of animals at the same time as it seemingly demands animal sacrifices for just about every occasion? That seems a tad contradictory, doesn’t it?
Yes, it does. However, if one reads Torah carefully one will find that animal sacrifices had at least 2 functions: Restore or celebrate one’s relationship with G!D and as a means to eat meat.

Dr. Yitzhaq Feder writes:
“…in Leviticus 17, where a further set of restrictions are imposed on Israel as part of the Sinai covenant. Aside from other dietary laws such as those found in Leviticus 11, this chapter emphasizes that the domestic animals eligible for sacrifice (cattle, sheep, and goats) may only be consumed in the sanctuary as part of sacrificial offerings. Practically speaking, for an Israelite camped in the wilderness and yearning to grill up a “manna-burger,” the only available option would be to bring a “well-being” offering [5](שלמים). Whereas other sacrifices are entirely burnt on the altar or permitted exclusively to the priests, the well-being offering allowed the offering person and his family to partake in the meat. This point is emphasized in v. 5: “so that the Israelites will bring their offerings (זבחיהם) …to the Tent of Meeting to the priest and to slaughter well-being offerings (זבחי שלמים) to the Lord from them.”

Violation of this requirement – the killing of these domestic animals outside of the tabernacle – is explicitly equated with murder (3–4):

“If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox, a sheep or a goat in the camp, or slaughters outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that person – he has spilled blood; that person shall be cut off from among his kinspeople.”

Dr. Yitzhaq Feder continues:
“Together these laws reveal a deep concern for the value of animal life. As in Gen 9, the prohibition of consuming blood is based on the awareness that it is the blood, identified with the vital spirit (nefesh), which demands accountability for unjustified killing. But Leviticus 17 takes this view a step further in imposing an additional restriction on Israel. Specifically, sacrificial animals first must be offered as well-being offerings before they can be eligible for private consumption. Disobedience to the divine command is tantamount to bloodshed.”
So, killing and eating animals without taking responsibility for it before G!D was equal to murder. Thus Torah’s care and concern for animal well-being and sanctity is built into the very fabric of how Torah thinks we are to eat our meat.
This, together with the laws about how to treat animals in general teaches me that G!D is concerned with the well-being of all of Creation, and that E does care about what and how I feed myself – especially that I acknowledge the price the animals I eat paid in order for me to fill my belly, and that I recognize that it is ultimately G!D Who makes sure that I actually have food to eat.

Parasha Balak – Numbers 22:2-25:9

Focus: Numbers 22:12, 20, 22

“But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not curse that people, for they are blessed.”[…]”That night God came to Balaam and said to him, “If these men have come to invite you, you may go with them. But whatever I command you, that you shall do.” […]”But God was incensed at his going;”

In this week’s Parasha G!D tells Balaam not to go, and at first Balaam refuses. Because G!D tells him not to go. It could have ended there – but it doesn’t. Why? Because Balaam is not satisfied with the first ‘dream-encounter’ he has with G!D, Balaam is not satisfied with obeying G!D, despite claiming that not for any reward will he come. That small voice at Balaam’s core doesn’t say what he wants it to say. So he delays the guests return to their own country by promising that he will find out what else G!D may have to say.

G!D gives Balaam an alternative: “If these men have come to invite you, you may go with them.” G!D is saying “Consider your motivations, Balaam, and consider the motivations of others, if those motivations are of good, go ahead, go with them. “Why does G!D seemingly change Eir mind? E doesn’t. E sees that Balaam is reluctant to obey a direct command “Do not go!”, (for what reason he is reluctant, isn’t clearly stated – but I think greed and a sense of self-importance is a big player in this story) so G!D makes Balaam think about what is at the core: Balaam’s motivations and the motivations of the delegation from Balak. Balaam uses this mental ‘loop-hole’ to get it his way. He considers his own motivations and the possible motivations of the Balak delegation – and then he goes – after all G!D gave him permission, didn’t E?

So, what is in this Parasha for us?

While looking for sources to squeeze something from on Parasha Balak, I ran into Rabbeinu Bahya:

“if these men came to call you, arise and go with them.” Seeing G-d had previously told Bileam: “you must not go with them”, how could G-d reverse Himself? You may compare this to G-d saying to Moses: “send for yourself men, etc.,” (the spies in Numbers 13,2). G-d said to Moses: “send according to your considerations.” G-d meant: “I do not command you to dispatch spies seeing I already told the Jewish people: ‘I will bring you up from the poverty of Egypt to a good and generous land (Exodus 3,17).’” However, when I told them (Deut. 1,21) “go up and take possession,” they did not believe Me but said: “let us (first) send men (spies), etc.” G-d therefore consented to let the people do what they wanted. Here, on an individual basis, we face a similar situation. Although G-d had told Bileam previously (in his own interest) “do not go,” now that He saw that Bileam was bent on going he did not restrict his freedom of choice. This is an illustration of the Rabbinic dictum (Tanchuma Balak 8) that G-d allows a person to pursue the lifestyle he chooses for himself.”

All my adult spiritual life I have heard people talk about the “theodicy problem” – i.e how to reconcile the obvious presence of evil in the world with G!D’s Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence and All-loving. To me it has always been obvious. Free Will. Our Free Will. To do what is right or to do what is wrong.

“Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.” (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)

It is there – at our core being, some call it ‘conscience’, others speak of it as ‘the small voice’, and still others call it ‘the voice of G!D’. Judaism calls it Torah. It is there, and we can hear it. It is our choice to follow that voice. G!D is going to point us in the right direction, nudge us along the way – but if we insist on not following that small voice, G!D is not going to force us, or anyone else.

“But why? If someone is about to do something horrible, why won’t G!D stop them? E must not be Omnipotent.” It doesn’t have anything to do with G!D’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, or All-loving – it has to with how G!D set things up from the very Beginning. G!D created order out chaos (Genesis 1:1-2), and one of the ‘orders’ E created was our ability to discern between good and bad. R’ Harry Kushner suggests that “Let us make man in our image” means that G!D asked the animals of the world to lend their ‘Animalness’ to the creation of Human, while G!D lent Eir ‘G-dliness’, so that Human would be both – with attributes from both G!D and Animal.

“And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.” And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. […]”And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.” […]”And the LORD God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:16-17; 3:22).

Would you trust, love, revere and obey an Entity that could and would force you to do what E wants? Would you consider Eir a ‘Good G-d’? I wouldn’t. G!D doesn’t stop people from doing horrible things, not because E can’t, but because if E did E would be in violation of our (and Eir) free will – and then E would no longer be G!D. E would be something else entirely. Both G!D and Human have Free Will – that comes with “knowing good and bad” – the difference between G!D and Human is that G!D uses Eir free will perfectly, while Human doesn’t. It is because Human doesn’t, that the world is full of what we call evil.

That brings us to ourselves, and the lesson from Balaam: How often do we ‘require G!D to give us alternatives’ and how often do we use those alternatives to wiggle out of what that small voice (G!D) tells us to do or not do? How do we use the leeway G!D gives us to make good and honorable, loving and ethical decisions, and how do we use it to ‘get our way’?

Tzedakah. Just Distribution of the Resources of Society. We are commanded to care for the Stranger, Widow and Poor – no matter what we think about their ethicity, gender, sexual identity, gender expression and skin color. Their status, as Stranger, Widow and Poor, is the only thing that is relevant in the eyes of G!D and Torah. But today’s Jews have forgotten what it means to be a Stranger, so today’s Jews believe what it truly means to be a Stranger, Widow or Poor is irrelevant to them.

My solution: pick 1 person in your community/neigborhood. Stranger, Widow, Poor, does not matter, and focus your Tzedakah on them. Make sure they have a safe place to sleep, three nourishing meals a day, a way to care for their personal needs, a little pocket money, access to public transportation and let them be. That is Just Distribution of Resources.

Parasha Chukkat på Numbers 16:1-22:1
He struck the rock instead of speaking to it. So he lost The Land (Numbers 20:8, 12).
It starts much earlier, though. Basically every time there is a crisis in the camp, Moshe falls on his face. He never stands up to the people. Moshe constantly refused to face real life, real problems face on, standing on his feet once the people had left Egypt. When it counts Moshe spends his opportunities to Lead on his face, praying (and covering his anger – thank you Karla!) The final straw, sort of, for Moshe’s ticket into the land comes when the scouts come back, and manages to rile the people up against the idea of entering The Land. Moshe falls on his face again, passing on the chance to say “Enough is Enough!” – leaving Joshua and Caleb to stand up for G!D against the people. So when Moshe completely looses it after Miriam’s death it is basically an afterthought. it isn’t a punishment as much as it is natural consequence of Moshe’s own behavior. If you so like you could say that Moshe failed to live up to his potential as leader, because he didn’t support his second-in-command, when he was right. He didn’t support hope. So how is this tied to the Water Episode in Chukkat? It is tied into Chukkat through Moshe’s basic character. It is the last episode in a chain of not standing up. Moshe fails to deal with stress, grief and fear in a manner that benefits the people or G!D. Crazy with grief, ritual impurity (see my earlier post on this) he reverts to what he is used to – violence and physical force. When it finally really counts and Moshe finally stands up, he stands up for himself and his brother, not G!D or what is right.

So why? Why the harsh consequences? Because Miriam, Moshe and Aharon all belonged to the generation that listened to the scouts. Moshe became a liability. G!D realized that E could not ‘work around’ Moshe, E needed the ‘Egyptian generation’ gone, to give Joshua and Caleb the room they needed.

So… what is in this for us? What can we learn from Moshe’s final failure?

There is a time for everything – a time for praying in private in your heart and your soul and a time for praying with your feet and your mind. Praying in public doesn’t get things done, really.
Standing up for G!D – for G!D’s Holiness, and for our own Holiness we need to learn how to pray on our feet. We need to accept that Holiness burns, it brings risk, it brings passion and it is likely to bring people’s ire. We need to understand that standing up for G!D’s Sanctity (Holiness) is standing up against what is wrong, and standing up for what is right. In the face of crisis and evil we cannot afford to risk our and G!D’s Holiness by falling on our faces, refusing to say “Enough is Enough”.
There is a time for praying in private, a time for praying on your feet, but never a time for not praying – the trick is to know which time it is.

Parasha Chukkat. Numbers 19:1-22:1

The Red Heifer ritual has one and only ONE purpose – remove impurity incurred from a human corpse. If we accept the text as a narrative – the ritual arrives timely to deal with ‘contact with a human corpse’ and the grief incurred as a result of the death of Miriam. Only that is not what happens. Because the ritual cannot be performed.

For almost 40 years it had been Them – Moshe, Miriam and Aharon together – dealing with the Israelites, G!D and the Wilderness. And then when they are almost there, almost at the border, at Kadesh, “Miriam died there and was buried there.” Numbers 20:1. I can imagine that Miriam’s death in itself was a blow beyond comprehension for the two remaining Siblings. They should have and would have dealt with it through the Ritual of The Red Heifer, which G!D had just given to them. There was just one little snag – the Ritual of The Red Heifer requires Living Water, running water – and there was none at Kadesh.

The way I read the text, the entire camp was ritually impure – even Moshe and Aharon – or especially Moshe and Aharon, since Miriam was their sister – that meant no spiritual rituals, because ritual impurity barred everyone from doing service at the Mishkan. The people complain. “Give us water, so we can become clean, resume our daily lives, care for our families and our livestock! Use that magical Staff of yours and just strike a Rock for us!” A pretty reasonable demand and complaint under the circumstances. G!D intervenes. “Speak to the rock, and it will give you water!” However, ritually impure, grief-stricken, angry and pretty stressed out Moshe forgets what G!D said, and strikes the rock (as he has done before) instead of speaking to it. Water does spring forth – G!D is not going to let the people die of thirst, spiritual or otherwise. But for Moshe it spells disaster. On top of losing his sister he now also loses the Land. All because he had no way to deal with his grief. He had ONE out (G!D), and because he couldn’t see straight he botched it. Instead of SPEAKING, he went ballistic and used what he remembered doing when he was younger. But that is what death, grief and loss do to us. We act from the inner chaos created by the contact with death.

Moshe had grown from using violence to solve his problems (Exodus 2:12), to use force to get what he needed (Exodus 17:6), and now he is asked to simply speak to get what he needs (Numbers 20:8) – and under any other circumstance he would have done that – but the Chaos imparted on him through the death of Miriam and the resulting grief, clouded his soul. He lost the Land, so did Aharon. (I might back to why I do not think it was an actual punishment from G!D for botching the water issue at Kadesh).

So what is in this narrative for us? What can we learn from Parasha Chukkat, including the Ritual of The Red Heifer?

Death is the ultimate Invoker of spiritual, emotional and mental Chaos. One cannot touch Chaos and not be affected. That is what the Ritual of The Red Heifer is there to restore order to. By being so extensive and so all-involving it makes sure that every little bit of Chaos is eradicated. It teaches us that grief is a process that takes time, and it cannot be rushed. It is a process that involves our entire being and the beings of those around us, everyone we touch will be affected by our ‘impurity’. People who grieve tend to withdraw from others, often because they do not want to ‘infect others with their emotional, spiritual and physical affliction’ – Torah teaches us that this is not good. To purify ourselves of grief and the chaos of death, we need to involve others in our grief-work, we need to accept that those around us who participate in the process will be infected – how else can they truly empathize with us and share in our grief and in our ‘purification and purge’ from death?

G!D hates death, or probably the effects it has on us, more than death itself. That is why E gave us a communal way of dealing with those effects. E said, “When you grieve, don’t carry the burden alone, involve others in your grief, let them take on part of your emotional, spiritual and physical affliction and unburden yourself, so you can move back into the community and in turn take on part of other peoples’ burden.”

“There are two types of thinking; one that deals with concepts and one that deals with situations. In our own time, the nineteenth century conflict between science and religion is being replaced by a controversy between the type of thinking that has as its object particular concepts of the mind and a way of thinking that has as its object the situation of man. Conceptual thinking is an act of reasoning; situational thinking involves an inner experience; in uttering judgment about an issue, the person himself is under judgment. Conceptual thinking is adequate when we are engaged in an effort to enhance our knowledge about the world. Situational thinking is necessary when we are engaged in an effort to understand issues on which we stake our very existence.”[…]”The attitude of the conceptual thinker is one of detachment: the subject facing an independent object; the attitude of the situational thinker is one of concern: the subject realizing that he is involved in a situation that is in need of understanding.”
(“God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism” by Abraham Joshua Heschel. My emphasis)

One of the worst things that ever happened to Torah was the compilation and redaction of the Mishna and Gemara. Do not get me wrong, I love Torah, and I love the Mishna and Gemara, without them I would not be the man I am. So let me explain.

While Torah, Mishna and Gemara were still not compiled and redacted they were still dynamic, fluid and alive. They were present in daily life, in court, in prayer, in conversations and business dealings – they were still being formed and formulated in relation to real, living people with real, active problems and events that needed solving. Once they were canonized, compiled and redacted they were effectively closed to further engagement from the outside; they lost most of their elasticity. They became immutable monoliths that took on the appearance of Codes of Law.

The further away from the time they were canonized, compiled and redacted we get, the more of their remaining elasticity they lost. They became Concepts.

Concepts are in themselves detached from the practical reality they propose to relate to. Concepts are categories of thought that order reality into theoretical objects – like the pre-digital catalogue in a library. Each book has a card telling the librarian who wrote book, when, where and perhaps a short synopsis. However that card is not the book, and it will not let anyone experience the actual book.

Torah and Talmud were never meant to become Legal Monoliths. They were never meant to be Concepts, emotionally, spiritually and socially, removed from the real, actual lives of people.

I believe that they were meant to remain open, fluid, elastic and alive.

While Torah speaks of the Jewish People as a collective and that on our most holy days we relate to G!d as a collective, responsible for our sins as a collective, both Torah (Chumash) and Tanakh emphasises that in interrelational situations we are individuals. And most situations in day-to-day living are interrelational.

Indviduals require individual solutions. Both Torah and Talmud acknowledges this:

“But if his means do not suffice for a sheep, he shall bring to the LORD, as his penalty for that of which he is guilty, two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.”[…]”And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for that of which he is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering;” (Leviticus 5:7, 11)

“And if his means suffice not” (Leviticus 5:7), and it is stated: “And if his means not suffice” (Leviticus 5:11), indicating that the sliding-scale offering applies only to one who can come to a state of poverty and wealth. This serves to exclude a king and an anointedpriest, who cannot come to a state of poverty.”[…]”And what offering are theyliable to bring? It is a sliding-scale offering based on their financial circumstances, as delineated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:1–13). Rabbi Elazar says: The king brings a goat.” (Horayot 9a:,11) (my italics)

This does not mean that Torah and Halacha shouldn’t have a firm frame-work from which to engage with Jews in general principles. It means that within the frame-work of the general principles there must be made enough room to engage with the individual through specific principles. This room can only be created when Torah as well as Talmud are allowed to remain as open, fluid and alive as they once were. When we think of them in a conceptual manner as legal monoliths and use them as legal monoliths we fail to engage in a “way of thinking that has as its object the situation of man.” We fail to fulfill the commandment to love our fellow human as ourselves. The “situation of man” is ultimately one of inquiry, of interaction and of a desire for reciprocity, both human and Divine.

To respond to the “situation of man” in a manner that affirms Torah and Talmud as eternal and living, general and specific, we need to adopt the “attitude of the situational thinker”. An attitude of concern: realizing that we are involved in a situation that requires personal engagement with Torah, ourselves and others.

We need to be willing to let our “house be a meeting house for Sages, become dirty in the dust of their feet and drink their words thirstily” as well as “Only to do justice And to love goodness, And to walk modestly with your God” (Pirke Avot 1:4, Micah 6:8).

Heschel uses the word “religion” – I would like to use the word Judaism and paraphrase: When our Jewish Communities replace faith with creed, worship with discipline, love with habit”[…] “when Judaism becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when Judaism speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion…” it is no longer authentic, it no longer responds to the needs of its people.

When the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, the Sages of that time replaced the Temple Service with Prayer, Torah Study and Acts of Loving-kindness. To do that they had to turn much of Torah up-side-down. They had to think outside the box. They had to be creative. They dared to look at Torah and their inherited Tradition from new angles to meet a new Jewish reality. They succeeded – not because they held on to a system and a way of life that was lost to them, but because they were innovative with the resources available to them and the Jewish people.

Only if today’s Sages do what their predecessors did will the Jewish Tradition and the Jewish people survive, grow and thrive. That means rewriting halacha, widening the definitions of Talmudic and Torahic concepts and allowing those definitions to become part of Tradition as well as of halacha. Allowing those definitions to become part of what it means to be Jewish.

R’ Ben Bag-Bag said: “Search in it [Torah] and search in it, since everything is in it. And in it should you look, and grow old and be worn in it; and from it do not move, since there is no characteristic greater than it.”

He didn’t say “Search in it since everything up til the 1st century CE is in it”. “Search in it and search in it, since everything is in it”, means that if it is about Human and Divine reality it is in There and it can be found if we look for it. Since everything is in it – every human and Divine reality – we have to also look outside and learn about those human and Divine realities. If we do not Judaism becomes something stale and withered that can give life to no one.

People do not search out Judaism and Torah or stay with Judaism and Torah if they do not feel it has something to say to them on a personal level. If they feel pushed away or even punished by their community for who they are on a deep emotional, spiritual, social and physical level, they will leave and either seek out another community or leave Judaism and G!d entirely.

Torah isn’t ‘just’ a Book. It is a living, breathing, organism, that speaks, listens and responds to our time and our reality. But as it is with all living, breathing beings, we have to interact with it for that to happen. Judaism is not just a religious tradition governed by a set of dead sayings from Rabbis past, cut in stone, to be worshiped like the golden calf. Judaism is also a living, breathing, organism, that must be allowed to speak, listen and respond, to our time and our reality in a manner that takes our lives and our realities into account.

Numbers.13:1-3, 17-33. Joshua 2:1-24.

The connection between the Parasha and the Haftarah is SPIES and the Idea of Entering the Land.

In the Parasha G!D tells Moshe to send out spies to scout out the Land that they are about to enter. In the Haftarah Joshua sends out spies to scout the land around Jericho.

Moshe sends out 12 scouts. Joshua sends out 2 scouts.

Perhaps Joshua has learned from history and realized that sending too many will only give more people reason to fear and complain if what they see is not to their liking. Because this is what both the parasha and the haftarah is about – Perception – how we see things, how we listen and what we hear of what is said to us.
When the scouts Moshe sends out come back they report:

“We came to the land you sent us to; it does indeed flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the Anakites there. Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region; Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites inhabit the hill country; and Canaanites dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan.” […] “We cannot attack that people, for it is stronger than we. “The country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size; we saw the Nephilim there—the Anakites are part of the Nephilim—and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them.” Numbers 13:31-33

The scouts that Joshua sent out came back and reported:

”The LORD has delivered the whole land into our power; in fact, all the inhabitants of the land are quaking before us.” Joshua 2:24

It is interesting how our self-perception can cause us to see things that are not really there. And how trust and cooperation can change how we see things that without trust and cooperation seem like insurmountable obstacles. The scouts that Joshua sent out asked for help – from Rahav, the courtesan – and listened to what she said about the state of the land they were spying on, trusted her and what she told them and repaid Rahav’s kindness. Because of this they could come back and give a positive report: “We are strong enough to do this – the inhabitants are afraid of us!”
When we trust each other (and G!D), ask for help and cooperate, the obstacles we face tend to grow smaller and we grow taller. In our own eyes and others’. Another lesson that we can learn from this week’s texts is the lesson that the majority is not always right.

”Caleb hushed the people before Moses and said, “Let us by all means go up, and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it.” Numbers 13:30

Caleb (and Joshua) did their best to counter the negative report, but as is often the case in the face of fear – Their voices of trust are silenced.

The voice of dissent is shouted down, and the resulting consequences does damage to an entire generation.

Talmud is full of dissenting voices – minority opinions – Rabbis and Sages who do not agree with the majority. Rabbis and Sages who dare to speak for courage and trust in Torah, in G!D. In G!D’s Presence, Justice and Mercy. That is not to say that the majority is always wrong – it is to say that voices of dissent are needed to present what is possible in the face of reality.

The question this week’s Parasha and Haftarah asks us is: “Will you be one of the trusting, courageous minority or will you listen to your fear and follow the majority?”

לֹא־יִהְיֶ֤ה כְלִי־גֶ֙בֶר֙ עַל־אִשָּׁ֔ה וְלֹא־יִלְבַּ֥שׁ גֶּ֖בֶר שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֑ה כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ כָּל־עֹ֥שֵׂה אֵֽלֶּה׃ (פ)

It is interesting to see what Talmud has to say in comment to this verse – because Chazal doesn’t actually say anything – they use this verse to justify prohibiting other behaviors:

Removal of white hairs “for the purposes of beautification”

(Makkot 20b:5; Shabbat 94b:9)

Removing scabs off a wound “to adorn or beautify oneself,”

(Shabbat 50b:10)

Removal of hair in the armpit or pubic area – “as this behavior is the manner of women.” (Nazir 58b:10; Nazir 59a:1)

Nazir 59a:1 also states:

“Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged,

The Gemara raises an objection to the issue of flogging for the violation of removing hair from the armpit and pubic hair – “The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law.”

Talmud then goes on to say:

”What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman’s garment, and a woman may not wear a man’s garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that “it is an abomination to the Lord your God,” and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment. (Nazir 59a:2)

Not even Chazal can actually find any abomination in the act of wearing a garment. In the other passages from Talmud, they have basically wrung their brains and their imaginations to come up with reasons for this commandment in Torah.

The Sages really did not know WHY it is stated in Torah: “A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God.”

So what is Torah talking about when it prohibits the wearing of clothes of the opposite sex?

Part of the answer, I think we can find with Rashi:

”לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה THE APPAREL OF A MAN SHALL NOT BE ON A WOMAN — so that she look like a man, in order to consort with men, for this can only be for the purpose of adultery (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1; Nazir 59a).

Rashi quotes Sifrei Devarim (Halachaic Midrash), where is says:

”(Devarim 22:5) “A man’s vestment shall not be upon a woman”: What does Scripture come to teach us? If that she should not wear colored clothing, is it not written (Ibid.) “for the abomination, etc.”? And this is not an abomination. It means, rather, that a woman should not wear what a man wears and go among the men (for licentious purposes), and a man should not wear colored clothing and go among the women.”

Rashbam states the same as Rashi:

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה – ללכת בין האנשים ולזנות”. לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, in order to walk among males and seduce them.”

Fraud. Pretending to be something one is not for the sake of committing a sin.

From what Sifrei Devarim, Rashi and Rashbam say it becomes clear that Torah isn’t talking about people who are transgender. Torah talks about people who disguise themselves as the opposite gender in order to decieve, getting access to the opposite sex and either commit adultery or engage in other illicit sexual activity.

But I think there is more to it than that.

The prohibition against dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is placed in a context of ordinary ethical rules – about how to deal with what happens to one’s neighbor’s property, returning lost objects, saving one’s neighbor’s lost animals, what constitutes adultery and rape – so it is about ordinary actions, not about ritual/religious matters – which some have argued to get around this text. I do not necessarily think they are wrong, I just do not think it is that complicated

I think it is about Torah wanting humans and creation to be honest.

Basically all actions, items and beings in Torah that seem to be or create a mix of two or more things are considered either unclean or an abomination to G!D – (with the exception of two things: The clothing of the High Priest and tzitzit – both items or signs of holiness.)

A pig pretends to be a cow (cloven hooves) but does not act like a cow (chew its cud).

A shrimp pretends to be a fish (swims in the sea) but does not look like a fish (no scales or fins).

A person who pretends to be a person of the opposite sex through their clothing is such a mix.

But such a person is not transgender.

A transgender person is someone who, physically and/or mentally, emotionally, socially, identify as being somewhere on the spectrum between the categories male/masculine and female/feminine. They may or may not have physical ambiguous inner and outer sexual organs, as well as an inner sense that they are the opposite of their birth-assigned gender or no gender at all. They may also have non-ambiguous inner and outer sexual organs, as well as an inner sense that they are the opposite of their birth-assigned gender or no gender at all.

We do not need to understand exactly what it is like to be transgender or exactly how someone identifies. However, it can be helpful to understand how those different variations may come about.

I believe, based on basic science, that it all has to do with hormones.

All human fetuses are female in reality and appearance. Not until 6-7 weeks into pregnancy is the physical manifestation of sex determined. At that time in human physical development, the fetus is flooded with the hormones that coincide with the chromosomal blue-print – testosterone for XY and estrogen for XX and its reproductive organs take on the physical appearance congruent with the chromosomal blue-print. This is the general scientific expectation.

When, as happens at times, the hormone that is non-congruent with the blue-print is released, instead of one that is congruent with the chromosomal blue-print, the child ends up with variations in its reproductive category, so that it is born with an ambiguous sex identification. The intensity (amount of hormone released) of the flooding, science suggests, is responsible for how strong the ambiguity is.[1]

Because science cannot determine exactly where identity is situated in the human organism, and human experience tells us that we all have some sort of gender identity, it is plausible, also scientifically, to assume that this hormonal flooding is responsible also for the formation of gender-identity, and that the amount of hormones released at the flooding determines where within the spectrum man <—> woman the child will identify.

Written Torah does not have an expression for the category “transgender”. By saying that G!D created Human in G!D’s image and that G!D created Human ‘male and female’ Torah is saying that G!D created Human with all possible gender-variations. It also says that G!D blew the breath of life into Human, so that Human became a living being/soul – לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃ [2]. (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7[3])

So what does Written Torah say about transgender people? It says that Its precepts apply to transgender people the same way they apply to those who are not transgender.

By the logic of what I said about Devarim/Deuteronomy 22:5 – that it is an ethical commandment not to deceive – transgender people are commanded to be honest and not deceive either themselves or others and present as the people they are spiritually, mentally and intellectually – A trans man is commanded to present himself to the community as the man he is. A trans woman is commanded to present herself to the community as the woman she is. To do otherwise would be to violate the Torah commandment not to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex.

Talmud does have categories for various physical gender variations (6 categories, including the two binary ones[4]), and it does make room in halacha for those people. But neither Torah nor Chazal were aware of the subtleties of human identity or the inner workings of hormones and genes.

If they had been aware – transgender, as we know the category today, would most likely have been included among the categories, or included in one of them – simply because halacha is a binary system. To determine sex and gender was important to our Sages. But since they did not have this 7th category – a person with a soul of one gender and a body of another – we cannot know how they would categorize a transgender person.

—

Traditional Judaism (Orthodoxy) has chosen to say that a person’s gender cannot ever change – even if that person undergoes gender-reassigment. However it is not as bleak as it has been – Orthodoxy does affirm that transgender people are to be welcome and treated with compassion in the Community. They will however never be accepted halachaically as the gender they present as.

Conservative Judaism welcomes transgender people and does accept that they are halachaically the gender they present.

Progressive Judaism welcomes transgender people and does accept that they are halachaically the gender they present as, with or without gender-reassignment.

Notes
[1]There are also variations in chromosomes that influence some types of ambiguous physical manifestions in the reproductive organs, but those are to complicated to go into in this essay.

[2] soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion, that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man.

[3] וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃

the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.

[4] Zachar: This term is derived from the word for a pointy sword and refers to a phallus. It is usually translated as “male” in English.

Nekevah: This term is derived from the word for a crevice and probably refers to a vaginal opening. It is usually translated as “female” in English.

Androgynos: A person who has both “male” and “female” sexual characteristics. 149 references in Mishna and Talmud (1st-8th Centuries CE); 350 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes (2nd -16th Centuries CE).

Tumtum: A person whose sexual characteristics are indeterminate or obscured. 181 references in Mishna and Talmud; 335 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

Ay’lonit: A person who is identified as “female” at birth but develops “male” characteristics at puberty and is infertile. 80 references in Mishna and Talmud; 40 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

Saris: A person who is identified as “male” at birth but develops “female” characteristics as puberty and/or is lacking a penis. A saris can be “naturally” a saris (saris hamah), or become one through human intervention (saris adam). 156 references in mishna and Talmud; 379 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.

(Terms for Gender Diversity in Classical Jewish Texts by Rabbi Elliot Kukla, 2006)

Dr. Rabbi Norman Solomon presents a number of principles that the Rabbis and Talmudic Sages devised to deal with problematic Torah Texts and Halacha derived from Written Torah. Rabbi Solomon then asks a few pertinent questions. Robert Kaiser summarized the questions like this: ”After introducing these ideas, the author, Rabbi Dr. Norman Solomon, then asks what they mean and are they enough?”

It needs to be said that I had never heard of these principles before reading the essay by Dr. Rabbi Norman Solomon. It also needs to be said my knowledge of Torah (especially Oral Torah) is limited.

משום איבה mishum eiva (“on account of hatred”). This principle was invoked to avoid carrying out actions that though halachically correct, would offend people or cause strife.

What does it mean, and is it enough?

What it means certainly depends on context – on its own it does smack of ‘people pleasing’ – i.e “let’s not anger the Gentiles and draw their ire”. Put into the context of Jews being at risk of persecution is becomes a matter of preemptive self-defense.

Is it enough? Honestly, I am not sure it is.

There are several sites online that use the ‘original rulings’ of Talmud to discredit and revile Jews and Judaism based on direct (often misunderstood) and verbatim quotes from Talmud. Elisabeth Dilling[1] is one example that is not directly connected to White Supremacism, but is certainly used by White Supremacists.

What can be done? I am not sure about that either – mostly because I am not knowledgeable enough to know how Responsa is arrived at and how it is published so it is available to the general public.

Personally I would like those ‘ambiguous’ statements revoked – both the original and ‘the fixings’.

דרכי שלום darkei shalom (“the ways of peace”). This is the inverse principle to mishum eiva: we require certain behaviors, even if they are not what pure Halacha would like or demand, to avoid quarrels or make people feel good.

This might actually be something good – if it was applied evenly in all cases where “the ways of peace” are in fact preferable from an ethical standpoint – such as within the family (abuse, divorce). Today the reverse is often the norm – i.e, abuse and refusal to issue a get are considered a matter where ‘peace’ is more important than the well-fare of those abused or the woman wanting or needing a divorce. An ethical and egalitarian application of the “ways of peace” would pretty much be the opposite of what is practiced today.
Is it enough? Yes, if it is practiced opposite to the norm – i.e to actually achieve equity and justice, not just for some and not just for the sake of not ‘upsetting the boat’.

תקון עולם tiqqun olam (“establishing the world aright”) – This is, in its strict sense, an “extra-legal” measure introduced within the community to avoid impossible situations.

It is very much the same as דרכי שלום darkei shalom to me – this is about social justice, and making right that which is wrong, both locally and globally.

Justice is not just making sure we have courts and judges – even the Gentiles have that – this is also about making sure true justice is pursued and practiced. And yes, that means rewriting Halacha in a way that is in accordance with תקון עולם tiqqun olam – establishing the world aright. We have to be fearless and realize that as our society and our world has changed and expanded, so too must Halacha change and expand.

I remember a modern Midrash I read some 20 years ago:

”A poor widow with a handful of children had been saving for weeks in order to be able to buy a chicken for Yom Tov dinner. She bought her chicken, took it to the shochet to have it slaughtered. The shochet told her that her chicken was not kosher (something was wrong with its innards). She was heartbroken, so she went to her Rabbi and told him the story and asked him what she could do. The Rabbi took a close look at the chicken – true enough, the chicken was not kosher. But then he remembered that there was a lesser authority on the matter and according to that lesser authority the chicken was kosher and just fine to eat on Yom Tov. So he declared the chicken kosher and the widow thanked him and went away to prepare for a joyful Yom Tov.”

I think we need to be less fearful of relying on ‘lesser authorities’ and ‘minority opinions’. They are after all recorded in our Literature. In many cases minority opinions have been accepted as norm – notably often to put in place restrictions where the majority has already ruled leniently[2].

דרכי נועם darkei noam (“the ways of pleasantness”) – The rabbis use this to avoid insisting on certain strict legal practices if they have unpleasant consequences.

To me this is equivalent to the obligation to lie to a bride or bridegroom about the beauty of the bride. Yes. We do it. Because to not do it would be cruel and uncharitable.

Is it enough? Not really. Again we need to be fearless and look to the, in this case, House of Hillel. In my opinion we need to rule more often according to the principles of Hillel and less according to the House of Shammai. If people want to follow Shammai in their personal observance – fine – but when applying Halacha to others – go with Hillel.

קדוש ה‘ Kiddush Hashem (“sanctifying God’s name”) – This refers to behaving in such a manner as to bring credit to God, even when not halakhically required.

This, to me, translates best into “avoiding חילול השם – Chillul Hashem” – people who know us as Jews will probably be more sensitive to us seemingly violating Torah, than to us go beyond what Halacha requires.

”The Talmud points out that the implication of R. Akiva’s statement is that it would be all right to defraud this gentile if it weren’t for the need to sanctify God’s name, and thus, we see what ethical hitch this principle has come to solve.”

This, I think, is my main problem with so much of Halacha and the thinking in Talmud – the Sages (Chazal?) cannot be trusted to actually rule on an ethical and moral high level, not among Jews and not among Gentiles.

I will fall back on Written Torah: “You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.”[…]”There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you‘”[3] .

Rabbis through the ages have always rewritten Halacha, bent halacha, redefined and remodeled halacha – but halacha has stayed the same – the rewritings, bends, redefinitions and remodellings have seldom survived, and when they have survived they have either been labelled “heresy” or “fringe opinions”.

This despite Torah Itself stating: “Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.”[4].
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”[5] As far as I know he was referring to Vayikra/Leviticus 19:18 – “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your neighbor. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.”

We need to trust G!D when E says that we can actually know and understand Torah enough to apply it to our lives in a sensible manner. We need to find the courage to step out of our halachaic comfort zone and deal with what Written Torah tells us before we go digging in Oral Torah.

Studying Oral Torah is a good thing. We need to know what the Sages thought and taught was Halacha before we change our observance or decide to simply ignore what they say; however, putting the cart before the horse (putting Oral Torah above and before Written Torah), in my opinion is what created the problem of those, some times horrible passages, in Torah and Talmud in the first place. We truly need to be fearless. We truly need to think for ourselves, also in the face of the toughest Sages and Rabbis. They were ordinary men and women. They learned and studied Torah, in their times, from their perspective. They shared their understanding and opinion of what they learned – but really, that was all they did – Commentaries is what they left us, debates, metaphors, analogies and halacha based on their needs. Inspired by G!D because they were all focused on G!D, they all sought and communicated with G!D. But… so are we and so do we.

I will follow Oral Torah when it expresses Written Torah in a manner that concur with a modern and human ethics, but when it does not, I will wrest from Written Torah a meaning that does – as Ben Bag-Bag said: ”Turn it, and turn it, for everything is in it. Reflect on it and grow old and gray with it. Don’t turn from it, for nothing is better than it.”[6]

1. http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/dcontents.html
2. Case and point: Women’s Obligation/Permission to Wear Tsitsit http://utj.org/viewpoints/videos/women-and-tsitsit-tallit/
3. Shemot/Exodus 23:9; 12:49
4. Devarim/Deuteronomy 30:11-14
5. Rabbi Hillel the Elder
6. Pirkei Avot 5:22

]]> https://trekkingtorah.wordpress.com/2018/05/29/morally-problematic-halachot/feed/ 0 Silly Old Bear https://trekkingtorah.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/a-mixed-multitude-went-with-us/ https://trekkingtorah.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/a-mixed-multitude-went-with-us/#respond Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:27:04 +0000 http://trekkingtorah.wordpress.com/?p=406 Continue reading A mixed multitude went with us]]>

I always land on the same two passages in the Exodus Story:

“And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.”[…]”One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.'” (Shemot/Exodus 12:38, 49)

I always find the same thing puzzling – why is the mixed multitude and the commandment to have one and the same law for the Jew and the Stranger never mentioned when the this declaration of freedom is taught and talked about?

They should be. They are both central to the story, so it makes no sense. It makes no sense at all. The Story is at the very core of what it means to be a Jew and over and over again Torah admonishes us to treat the Stranger the same as the Jew.

It even points out the fact that we were once strangers in Egypt as the reason why we must treat the Stranger the same as the Jew, and not oppress them:

“And a stranger shalt thou not oppress; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Shemot/Exodus 23:9)

And yet – it is nowhere in any traditional or even modern Haggadot. It is just not there. Why? Honestly? Because, despite priding us of being Ethical Monotheists, we are just as xenophobic as everyone else.

Over the course of our history our Sages and Rabbis have jumped through hoops to ‘get around’ the commandment to treat the Stranger the same as the Jew, and not oppress them. By redefining – again and again – the term “stranger” they have falsified the meaning of Torah. They have used Torah to justify their own xenophobia. They have gone from “non-Jew who moves/lives among the people of Israel” to “non-Jew who follows the 7 Noachide Laws” to “non-Jew who wants to convert to Judaism”, to “someone who has converted to Judaism”. All but the first definition are xenophobic and against Torah.

The word ‘ger’ means “a guest; by implication a foreigner: – alien, sojourner, stranger” – nothing else. The “mixed multitude” that is mentioned in Shemot/Exodus 12:38 were strangers who chose to leave Egypt together with us, they chose to cast their lot with us. In fact – if one looks at the root for ‘mixed = ereb’ – one finds ‘ârab’ – which means among other things: “to pledge, give pledges, be or become surety, take on pledge, give in pledge“. They gave themselves in pledge to us (by implication for our security) , and G-d said that they were to be treated the same as the Jew. Not just during the Exodus, but forever. Don’t you think they deserve to be mentioned in our most sacred Story?

How can we celebrate Pesach – the Story of Freedom – and at the same time invalidate Torah? How can we use the xenophobic falsifications of Torah taught by countless Rabbis and Sages and still lay claim to the Freedom granted us by G-d when E lead us and a multitude of Strangers out of Egypt? How can we do this and still call ourselves Jews?

In a post on a general spirituality blog I wrote:

“Dogma – any kind of dogma, within any field of inquiry – has in its very nature a great potential to sooth and comfort. This is why so many people are drawn to it. That was why I was drawn into a dogmatic cult in my youth. It feels good to know exactly what to believe. How to express that belief. It gives a sense of security to have clear and defined lines and boundaries around one’s beliefs.”[…]”At its very core dogma is a monster. A monster that will lead to us to dark and dismal places, where it will eventually suffocate our minds, souls and spirits to death.

This becomes even more clear when looking at Torah and all its laws, precepts and prohibitions. Some people choose to follow everything Torah says to the letter – no exceptions – even to a point where absurdity takes over, and Torah is no longer about a life and a death and everything in-between, but an instrument for prohibiting things we are not comfortable with for some reason – and in extension of that for judging others as ‘less than us’ when they do not live Torah the same way we do.

It becomes absurd when following the rules becomes more important than, and in many cases contrary, to the core of Judaism. (“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” Hillel the Elder) – yes we can be of House Shammai and apply Torah stringently for others (and leniently for ourselves), so they wont want Judaism or we can be of House Hillel and apply Torah leniently for others (and stringently for ourselves) so they will want Judaism.

The core of Torah is to love G-d and our fellow human beings (Deut 6:5, Lev 19:18). Nothing is more important. We are not doing that if we constantly judge others and put up ‘obstacles of halacha’ in-front of them, instead of trusting that G-d is guiding them on the path E wants them to walk.

After all G-d told us through Moshe: “Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?” No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.” (Deut 30:11-14, JPS 1985) So if we have Torah very close to us, then we can trust that others do too.

I started a wish-list and decided that I would buy the books on that wish-list one or two books at a time. The very first book I ordered was “Heavenly Torah” by Abraham Joshua Heschel.

Today I got it:

I had no idea it was such a BRICK – it’s THICK and I love it – I love BRICKS.

Now I only need to read it

The Herzl/Rocky Mountain Hebrew Academy boys basketball team in Denver qualified for the regional championship, but won’t be able to play because the game was scheduled to take place on Shabbat. The Colorado High School Activities Association governs the league the boys play in, and has refused to move the game to a time when the team could play without breaking Shabbat, claiming that rearranging the schedule on the regional level would be too complicated.

Wasn’t Lieberman nearly Vice President while observing Shabbos? I don’t particularly see why creating exemptions for those that observe it is necessary. Isn’t there a principle of darura (arabic for necessity) in Orthodox Jurisprudence as there is in Islamic? A rabbi should just say “necessity requires that these boys kick ass on shabbos — one time exception!” Why do we like to pretend that religions aren’t flexible? (My bold)

Sanhedrin to Bush: Declare That Israel Belongs to Jews
visit site
World
(tags: Israel, Bush, peace, extremism )


Zahra
– 2 hours ago – ynetnews.com
Right-wing rabbis pass on small letter to be delivered to US president on his upcoming visit which asks leader to free convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, declare Israel belongs to Jews, urge American Jews to make aliyah…

This to me is utterly outrageous. The Jewish Right seeking out the Christian Right to bring about something that is basically in G-d’s hands. It is also utterly hypocritical.

1. No Sanhedrin exists, and has not existed since 358 and it’s last Nasi, (prince) Gamaliel VI was strripped of his rank and killed in 425 by Emperor Theodosius II, so Rabbi Steinsaltz cannot be the “president” of a Sanhedrin. I used to admire Rabbi Steinsaltz for his work translating the Talmud in to English, but I must say, that I am deeply disppointed. Rabbi Steinsaltz may be an excellent translator of Talmud, but he is no, nor will he ever be a Nasi.

2. This proposed unholy alliance, between the Christian Right, represented by one of the bloodiest Presidents in US history and the Jewish Right, represented by a bunch of Rabbis, who honestly shouldn’t be called Rabbis, is just that – UNHOLY. Words like blasphemy, heresy, apostasy and other like words pump thorough my mind right now. It will not seve the Peoples of trhe Middle East simply because it’s contrary to what G-d has promised.

3. These people are trying to bring about something that is G-d’s job, not ours. People should make Aliyah because they want to, because they have a deep desire to live as Jews in Israel to return from exile, not because an American President forces them to.

Am I so arrogant that I dare claim that I know the pshat (plain meaning) of Torah and Tanakh better that a Rabbi? Yes, I am and I do. What he is attempting is in it’s very nature a violation of Torah. The only way for the Jewish People to “re-gain” the Land Promised to Avraham Avinu is by repenting and return to Torah (note that the People has NEVER been in possession of what G-d promised then in it’s entirety). There has never been another way. It’s in the Covenant, it’s in what every Jewish male bears in his flesh. So Rabbi Steinsaltz is teaching Chilul Hashem – Shaming the Name.

I shake the dust of my feet in his face.
Dov