Category Archives: Shemot

Tetzaveh 2014

Leave a reply

Light and Purity?  Urim and Thumim?  How troubling?  Why would a game of chance or worse – a form of divining – be used to make important decisions by a High Priest?  It seems so antithetical to our tradition as we know it today, so offensive to our current sensibilities.  Our modern compass insists that we find the right answers using our G-d given talents and abilities of logic, empathy, fairness, compassion.    Moving from “why” to “when” helps.  When might it make sense to use games of chance to make important decisions?

In elementary schools, educators often help students find the right answers to academic questions in the classroom using our minds and hearts.  On the yard, we often help students see better solutions to social conflicts that arise and more humane methods of interacting with each other.  When one person has hurt another, we help them figure out how to begin to make it right and make a plan for how to respond differently should a similar situation arise in the future.

Yet there are times when there is no right answer.   When the ball in a four-square game lands in an indeterminate spot and no adult saw it;  when two students would like to play with the same ball for two different purposes and run and reach it at approximately the same time; when students disagree about whether a soccer ball hit a player’s hand.  There are myriad of these types of situations without a clear right answer.  In these situations, we teach students to play rock, paper, scissors, a game of chance they can play with their hands.  Most of the time, it solves these minor conflicts with no fall out.  Before I knew this method for solving minor disputes, I saw small matters escalate to yelling and even to violence.

Consider that the beginning of many major sporting events – NFL games, tennis matches, basketball games start with the toss of a coin, because it just seems the fair way to determine slight advantage in a high stakes game.

I remember hearing about state legislators from opposite parties in yester-decades who would play cards at night to decide details of important legislation.  I found this totally offensive.  In today’s gridlocked political climate, though, it makes more sense.  When people hold very different ideas about what should be, but agree that even the solution they like least would be better than no solution, a card game allows work to continue and constituencies to have faith that government can work even when principled politicians differ.

As adults, we often find ourselves agreeing with each other politely to avoid uncomfortable disagreements.  How much lighter we might feel if we knew we could always speak truth because should agreement remain elusive, a system was available for deciding the matter?  It might allow us to hold more closely the adage from the grandmother of my friend and mentor, Susan Audap:  “If we agree on everything, one of us isn’t necessary.”  When we allow this truth to outweigh our preference to avoid temporary discomfort, better ideas often arise that allow all parties to see matters in entirely new light.

Purity in this construction is not demagoguery but systematic progress despite disagreement with the potential for great light.   Light is synergy that comes from thought partnership among those who see differently but trust each others’ wisdom enough to engage in moments of co-creation rather than antagonistic intellectual and emotional battle.  The availability of a game of chance if the tide turns against synergy or if time-boundness requires a quick answer offers the freedom needed for this creativity.  Chance when used as a tool then, paradoxically serves purity and the light of greater wisdom.

A Terumah Parable

1 Reply

The following is as recorded in A Treasury of Jewish Folklore edited by Nathan Ausubel:

The Preacher of Dubno, Jacob Krantz, was once asked why the parable has such persuasive power over people.  The Preacher replied, “I will explain this by means of a parable.

“It happened once that Truth walked about as naked as his mother bore him.  Naturally, people were scandalized and wouldn’t let him into their houses.  Whoever saw him got frightened and ran away.

“And so as Truth wandered the streets brooding over his troubles he met Parable.  Parable was gaily decked out in fine clothes and was a sight to see.  He asked, ‘Tell me, what is the meaning of all this?  Why do you walk about naked and looking so woebegone?’

Truth shook his head sadly and replied, ‘Everything is going downhill with me, brother.  I’ve gotten so old and decrepit that everybody avoids me.’

“‘What you’re saying makes no sense,’ said Parable.  ‘People are not giving you a wide berth because you are old.  Take me, for instance, I am no younger than you.  Nonetheless, the older I get, the more attractive people find me.  Just let me confide a secret to you about people.  They don’t like things plain and bare but dressed up prettily and a little artificial.  I’ll tell you what.  I’ll lend you some fine clothes like mine and you’ll soon see how people will take to you.’

“Truth took this advice and decked himself out in Parable’s fine clothes.  And lo and behold!   People no longer shunned him but welcomed him heartily.  Since that time, Truth and Parable are to be seen as inseparable companions, esteemed and loved by all.”

Terumah 2014

Leave a reply

I had the opportunity this weekend to hear four rabbis discuss parashah Terumah.

Former President of the World Union for Progessive Judaism, Rabbi Stephen Fuchs, taught that we learn that the ark is to be gilded on the inside and the outside to indicate that we must work to develop ourselves on the inside and not just on how we appear on the outside; that we should strive to make who we are on the inside of pure proverbial gold.

Co-Senior Rabbi of Congregation Emanuel in San Francisco, Rabbi Jonathan Singer, commented that G-d has given us a blueprint, but it is our job to follow it to build the society G-d wants; that if we follow all of the instructions that have been given to us we can come closer to G-d.

Director of the Religious Action Center, Rabbi David Saperstein, said that the punchline of this parashah is at the beginning:   וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם

“and they will make me a mikdash and I will dwell among them.” The “them” here is the Israelites. G-d dwells not in the mikdash but among the people.  G-d is not out of reach, but among us.

Senior Rabbi of Netivot Shalom in Berkeley, Rabbi Menachem Creditor, noted that the parashah indicates that the details matter and that often we find G-d in the details.  He also suggested that this parashah should lead us to consider the impact of wealth on our relationship with G-d and each other.

It seems to me that much of the spirit of this parashah stands as a paradoxical partner with the previous parashah, Yitro.  In Yitro, we learn that the altar G-d wants is of the earth and of unhewn stones.  In Terumah, we are told to build a gilded ark of all the finest materials.   While the mishkan and altar are not identical, these sets of directions seem not to go well together.  The previous parashah tells us not to make any images of G-d and this parashah tells us to craft cherubim.  While cherubim are not G-d it bothers our sensitivities around the issue of not making likenesses of the divine.

How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory messages?  Are we to decide between the two parashot?  Is it like the directions we often give 5th graders to teach them to follow directions – the one with 15 items that I first saw in Sandra Zendlovitz’s, z’l 5th grade class:

1)   Read all the directions first before you write anything.

2)    Write your name and the date.

3)   Write a paragraph about the house you live in.

4)   Write a sentence about the ocean.

5)   Write a ten line poem about the sky.

…

15) Complete only item number one?

After all, we have seen in previous passages that we are not to blindly follow all dicta, but to follow the example of Abraham and Moses who argue with G-d.  Throughout the Torah we receive the message that we are responsible for understanding G-d’s will.  I wrote about the Torah’s message to us on this subject  in my post about Yitro (see Yitro 2014, subheading “Empowered Relative to Leadership”).  We are to be a kingdom of priests without intermediaries.  It is up to us to make sense of G-d’s instruction.

It seems unlikely that this parashah would be entirely a test of us and that we are intended to ignore it outright.  Rather, we must make sense of the paradox.  After all, there is indeed something beautiful about the idea that we bring our very best to carry that which symbolized both our connection to G-d and our peoplehood – the ark.  There is indeed something beautiful about the notion Rabbi Fuchs suggests that we gild the inside and outside of the ark and ourselves; as Rabbi Singer suggests that the blueprints G-d offers are complex and they are for us to make sense of; as Rabbi Saperstein suggests that G-d dwells among us after we have put in collective and substantial effort; as Rabbi Creditor suggests that we often find G-d in the details and that G-d is with us everywhere we go as a community.

How do we reconcile these instructions to have an altar of earth and no images of the Almighty with the instructions to build an elaborate gilded ark with cherubim?  I have not figured it out yet.  It reminds me of the teaching of the early Chasidic leader Rabbi Simcha Bunim that we should always have in one pocket a paper that says “I am but dust and ashes.” and in the other pocket a paper that says “The world was created for my sake.”  We are wise to be present with not just our individual but our collective humility and humanity, our fragility and our strength.  Still, this does not satisfy me, and I welcome help reconciling this paradox.

Mishpatim 2014

Leave a reply

What purpose do rules serve?  Why have them?  What consequences should be in place when they are not followed?  As I read this week’s parashah, I noticed categories of rules that I offer below with examples. I am sure other people have identified more exhaustive lists and more precise category names.  I welcome comments that identify scholarly work on the topic.  Here are the six categories I identified with examples for each and a few examples that clearly fall into multiple categories, of which there are many more.  Fairness really runs through nearly all.   These are:  Deterrence, Restitution Empathy, Fairness, Refresh, peoplehood/loyalty/memory

In a school when a student violates a school value, we think about these dimensions of rules and consequences.  Many times, when a student has received a consequence, one staff member will come up to me and say they thought the punishment was too harsh because of the student’s unique circumstances and the troubles s/he faces in their home life and another staff member will come up to me and ask why was the consequence not more severe since so many students saw what happened and might think it’s not such a big deal.  The first staff member is calling for a greater measure of empathy, and the second staff member is calling for a stronger deterrent.  Most of the time, our job is to consider all of the elements and try to balance them.

Context affects choices.  When a school is in chaos and the restoration of order and clear boundaries and trust are needed, the need for deterrence may be weighed more heavily.  In such cases, having empathy for the many members of the community indirectly affected by a violation may outweigh empathy for the offender.   Almost always, a healing process that includes restitution and re-commitment to a willingness to abide by the school’s values is part of the process.  For most students, the conflict resolution process generates empathy and serves as a far stronger deterrent than the consequence, but the consequence often serves as an important marker of seriousness.

I notice also that there are at least five types of people this set of rules expresses empathy for – the victim, the offender, the stranger, the enemy, the weak.

 

Here are categories and examples:

Deterrence Restitution Empathy/Compassion Fairness Refresh Peoplehood/loyalty/memory
He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. 12  14 When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death. 15 He who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. 16 He who kidnaps a man — whether he has sold him or is still holding him — shall be put to death. 17 He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death 

23 But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 18 When men quarrel and one strikes the other with stone or fist, and he does not die but has to take to his bed — 19 if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure. 20 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. 21 But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property. 

22 When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning

 13 If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he can flee.9 You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.

4 When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him.

5 When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him.

You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan.

 

 

 6 You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes. 7 Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer. 8 Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right.1 You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness: 2 You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong — you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty — 3 nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute.

 

 

  When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment.  (and Empathy) 

10 Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; 11 but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow. Let the needy among your people eat of it, and what they leave let the wild beasts eat. You shall do the same with your vineyards and your olive groves.12 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. (and peoplehood)

 

 14 Three times a year you shall hold a festival for Me: 15 You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread — eating unleavened bread for seven days as I have commanded you — at the set time in the month of Abib, for in it you went forth from Egypt; and none shall appear before Me empty-handed; 16 and the Feast of the Harvest, of the first fruits of your work, of what you sow in the field; and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in the results of your work from the field. 17 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Sovereign, the Lord.18 You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying until morning.

19 The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

 
26 When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. (Deterrence, Empathy, Restitution and Fairness) 28When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished. . 29 If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring, and its owner, though warned, has failed to guard it, and it kills a man or a woman — the ox shall be stoned and its owner, too, shall be put to death. 30 If ransom is laid upon him, he must pay whatever is laid upon him to redeem his life. (Deterrence, Restitution and Fairness)

Yitro 2014

Leave a reply

In this portion, we will hear for the first time the ten commandments.  The Torah seems to begin to shift from a story of our people to principles and rules for our people to set up the society G-d seeks to create through partnership with us.  The narrative, however, seems to provide a number of cautions about how to understand G-d’s instruction; cautions that should humble and empower us; humble us relative to other peoples and empower us relative to other people.

Humbled Relative to Other Peoples

At the very beginning of this shift, the very first set of guidelines for organizing society come not from G-d, not from Moses, not from any person of Israel, but from Yitro of Midian, Moses’ father in law.  At the beginning of the parashah, Jethro teaches Moses how to set up a system of judges so that the task of leading so many people will be manageable.   Perhaps this instruction from Jethro comes before we receive the ten commandments and the instructions that follow to teach us to remember always that we learn and gain from interaction with other peoples.   We are not as much as we have become nor can be, nor can we reach our potential if we insist on being entirely self-sufficient.  From the very beginning of the organization of our people, we have learned from the cultures and insights, habits and traditions of other peoples.  There is no contradiction with being entirely Jewish in this so long as we know ourselves well enough to understand the difference between learning from other cultures and crossing the line to becoming something else.

The teaching that we not only can, but should and even need interaction with other cultures in order to find the ideas that will help us make the compassionate, just society G-d seeks through partnership with us to create seems to be reinforced by the metaphor that ends the parashah: the altar of unhewn stones.

וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי לֹא תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלֲלֶהָ

“And when you make for Me an altar of stones, you shall not build them of hewn stones, lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it.”

Consider our culture and peoplehood as a stone.  We are not asked to shape it and change it to fit with others, nor are we asked to change or cut away at other cultures to make them fit with ours.  The Midianites gave up nothing of who they are, made no apologies for who they are and neither did the Israelites, and yet there was an exchange of ideas and sharing of practices that could only facilitate peace and cooperation within and between cultures.

The Bible’s metaphor is not one of a salad bowl, nor a melting pot, but one of an altar of unhewn stones.  We need to be proud of who we are, recognize and support other cultures in being proud of who they are, and find a way to fit ourselves together in the great altar G-d really wants – a cooperative interdependent society.  As we go into MLK day tomorrow, this message seems all the more appropriate.  Dr. King’s message was not that we should all become one people.  It was that injustice to any people threatens justice for all peoples and we must be responsible for protecting each other’s freedom in order to have freedom ourselves.  Dr. King’s message of integration was not a message of assimilation.  Rather, Dr. King’s dream was that we should be able to “..work together, to pray together, to struggle together…”; that we should stand with strength as who we are and stand up for one another.

Too often, we try to shed our heritage and culture, apoloigize for it, mask it.  Dr. King’s message and this parashah’s message are to come together as unhewn stones and in figuring out how to come together, build the altar G-d really wants, one of cooperation and interdependence.

A note on interdependence:  This is a word used much in the modern self help literature.  Stephen Covey in his 7 Habits of Effective People explains that one cannot be dependent and interdependent.  He wrote that “interdependence is a choice only independent people can make.”  Mahatma Gandhi put it differently.  He wrote:

“Interdependence is and ought to be as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being. Without interrelation with society he cannot realize his oneness with the universe or suppress his egotism. His social interdependence enables him to test his faith and to prove himself on the touchstone of reality.”

Mahatma Gandhi, Young India, March 21, 1929, p. 93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence

The parashah further describes the altar.  We are to build an altar of earth – that from which we are made and to which we will return – with no stairs.  It is not an altar of one over the other but an altar of strength in togetherness.  It is about power-with rather than power-over as Starhawk might put it. Often when we try to ascend rather than to serve, our greatest vulnerabilities and embarrassing flaws are most exposed.  Later there are guidelines for elaborate bejeweled gilded structures but here we see expectations for humble structures.

Empowered Relative To Leadership

While the parashah admonishies us to remain humble in relationship to other peoples, it lifts us up in relation to our own leadership.  We are here called a kingdom of priests.  We do not need intermediaries to communicate with G-d.  In this parsashah, the people ask for intermediaries rather than being told they must have them.

A further illustration of the point is that there seems to be confusion between G-d and Moses about who is supposed to be where right before the revelation of the ten commandments. Consider Chapter 19, verses 21-23:

21 The Lord said to Moses, “Go down, warn the people not to break through to the Lord to gaze, lest many of them perish. 22 The priests also, who come near the Lord, must stay pure, lest the Lord break out against them.” 23 But Moses said to the Lord, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for You warned us saying, ‘Set bounds about the mountain and sanctify it.'” 24 So the Lord said to him, “Go down, and come back together with Aaron; but let not the priests or the people break through to come up to the Lord, lest He break out against them.”  Translation Source: http://www.jtsa.edu/prebuilt/ParashahArchives/jpstext/yitro.shtml

G-d seems to be saying that the priests should prepare themselves to ascend.  Moses seems to remind G-d that they cannot ascend.  G-d seems then to say that the priests will not ascend, just Moses and Aaron.  It sounds like bickering of parents trying to figure out who already told the kids what about where to sit.  That there is confusion here may be intended to teach us that understanding G-d’s will is not an easy thing, for if even Moses and G-d had to engage in back and forth to get it straight, certainly we should engage directly with text and with G-d rather than take as divine any human interpretation.

Ultimately, the priests were not allowed up.  There is then no human being nor set of human beings who have a monopoly on understanding G-d’s intentions, and we humans have as much a responsibility as anyone else to try to understand G-d’s intention for us.  We are not to follow anyone thoughtlessly.  We have a responsibility to do what we have done for thousands of years:  interpret, debate and try to understand G-d’s desire of us in a changing and evolving world that we might make the peaceful just society G-d intended for us humans as G-d’s partners to complete.

Beshalach Stokely Carmichael Quote

Leave a reply

Consider the following three quotes in connection with the commentary on Beshalach:

1) “…we must dismiss the fallacious notion that white people can give anybody their freedom. No man can give anybody his freedom. A man is born free. You may enslave a man after he is born free, and that is in fact what this country does. It enslaves black people after they’re born, so that the only acts that white people can do is to stop denying black people their freedom; that is, they must stop denying freedom. They never give it to anyone.”[22]

— Stokely Carmichael

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokely_Carmichael

 

2) “You get freedom by letting your enemy know that you’ll do anything to get your freedom; then you’ll get it. It’s the only way you’ll get it.”

–Malcolm X, Advice to the Youth of Mississippi (31 December 1964)

Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

3) “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

— Martin Luther King Jr.,  “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963

Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/martinlutherkingjr/a/mlkquotes.htm

Beshalach 2014

Leave a reply

Three insights came to me as I read the Torah portion, Beshalach, this week.  The first stems from the phrase

כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד עוֹלָם

“As you have seen the Egyptians until today, you will never see them this way again.”

 

The Biblical authors knew that our perception of our heritage matters a great deal.  Oppressed people across the globe – Zainichi Koreans in Japan, African-American and Native-American peoples in the U.S – perform lower academically than their counterparts with no history of severe oppression in the land where they reside.  This is true even for peoples whose governments have attempted to make restitution through progressive policies.  It is true for peoples who perform much higher in other countries altogether such as Koreans in Korea and Afro-Britains in Britain.  The argument is easily made that generations-deep memory profoundly matters.

That may be the reason the Biblical account goes to such lengths to make sure we know nothing was given to us by the Egyptians and that G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart.  It was not their generosity nor magnanimity through which we gained our freedom, but through G-d’s will that we took it.  We are G-d’s people and go forth in strength and confidence in whatever land we travel.  Yes, our people have been oppressed time and time again in country after country, but to paraphrase Maya Angelou, still we rise.  We know we will because the origin of our freedom is the strength of G-d’s hand when G-d delivered us from the Egyptians.

This helps us understand differently the perspective of leaders such as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael who advocated for a forceful approach to demanding rights.  Thank goodness for Dr. King who showed that demanding one’s rights with strength can happen without violence.  Thank goodness for Nelson Mandela who turned from violence to nonviolence to win, and no one doubts Madiba’s strength.  The Torah’s message is not that violence is necessary, but that a narrative of our ancestor’s strength rather than weakness, as agents of our destiny rather than recipients of charity, is necessary to bequeath to later generations if they are to march forward with the pride we hope for them.

Second, I love the concept of The Omer.  The Omer is just enough food.  If our ancestors gathered too much, the extra went bad.  This may well be the root of the idea “from each according to ability, to each according to need” which formed the philosophy of kibbutzim and communism.  It informs thinking in education today when we recognize that equal is not equitable.  Often in explaining this concept to students, we talk about glasses.  Not everyone needs glasses in order to see and so not everyone has them.  Not everyone needs a listening device, not everyone needs to meet twice a day with the teacher.  An ephah is ten times an Omer, ten times what is just enough, ten times what each needs.

Third, many look to the story of Moses for allegories about leadership.  G-d tells Moses to strike the rock in this portion, not to talk to it, and Moses does without repercussion.  Later, the children of Israel cry out to Moses again and G-d tells Moses to talk to the rock and he strikes it.  The rabbis comment that because Moses did not follow G-d’s instructions and became angry and acted in a way that made it appear he had the power, he was not allowed to enter the land of Israel.  Perhaps this is only part of the story.  Perhaps Moses acted out of patterned behavior rather than attuned behavior.  He wasn’t listening carefully.  That which led G-d to choose him, that he stopped to notice that the burning bush remained unconsumed, he no longer had.

G-d chose Moses, the sages tell us, because he stopped and noticed that the burning bush was not consumed.  It was not that G-d had sent the burning bush as a sign, but that Moses saw something different than what others would have.  He stopped and took notice where everyone else might have passed by what they would have thought of as a common occurrence – a little fire in a dessert.  Maybe the story of striking the rock instead of speaking to it offers a different way of understanding a facet of G-d’s choice not to let him cross into the promised land.  When he struck the rock a second time, maybe it was because he had struck the rock once before and so struck it again.  Perhaps Moses’ muscle memory took over and swayed his movements more than even G-d’s spoken word.  Perhaps one reason Moses had to step down was because he was no longer awake to, alert to alive to G-d’s slightly different instruction, and therefore was no longer sufficiently attuned to lead the people into the promised land.