Holy Scrollers Preview
Parashat Emor: Leviticus Chapters 21-24
4/30/11
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
This Parasha basically brings to a close the priestly handbook theme of Leviticus, as the last two Parashot of the book will focus more on laws such as the sabbatical and the jubilee years – law related to land.
Leviticus Chapters 21-22 – Laws concerning the priests, specifically boundaries around contact with the dead, and who they may marry, and laws preventing priests with defects to offer sacrifices. Also includes laws regarding who may eat the sacrificial meat, and an injunction against offering animals with defects.
Chapter 23 – Here we have the calendar and rituals of major holidays, including Shabbat, the 3 Pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot,) and Shabbat.
Chapter 24 – Here we have some miscellaneous laws about lighting the menorah and the bread of display. And then we have the only narrative in this Parasha, the case of a fight between half-Israelite and an Israelite. The half-Israelite blasphemes God’s name, and Moses goes to God to find out what the punishment should be. It is the death penalty. All who heard the blasphemy are to lay their hands on his head, and the whole community stones him.
This Parasha gives us a picture of how a religious or a holy community functions. It sets standards and expectations for the religious leadership, as well as standards of scrupulousness on the part of Israelites participating in the sacrificial ritual. It sets the holiday calendar for the year, and it deals with how to handle blasphemy – someone who crosses the perhaps most important religious boundary – that of pronouncing the ineffable name of God.
One theme here is that of preserving a sense of wholeness or even perfection– neither the priest nor the animal he is sacrificing may have any physical defects. After all, the sacrifices are, in the word of this Parasha, God’s “lechem” or “bread,” and the priests are the ones who are bringing that food to God. We’ll explore what this standard of perfection means to us and why public religious leaders are held to this standard.
This Parasha offers what I would call “the way” to participate in the holy community of Israel. This “way” includes offerings to God and observing sacred times of year. This “way” is guarded and facilitated by priests who have to meet certain standards. Are these the ingredients we see as part of “the way” of holiness in our own lives? Do these standards of wholeness and perfection have any meaning for us today?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Holy Scrollers Preview - Parashat Kedoshim 4/22/11
Holy Scrollers Preview
Parashat Kedoshim
Lev. 19-20
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
Because we do not have double Torah portions this year, this week we have the pleasure of delving into Parashat Kedoshim and spending some quality time with it. (On non leap years, we would be studying it together with last week’s Parasha, Acharei Mot.)
This Parasha is really uplifting and edifying for about the first chapter or so. We have laws that express the core Torah values of protecting the most vulnerable in our society. In chapter 19, we learn that to be a holy community, we need to feed the hungry and provide for the poor, refrain from placing stumbling blocks in the way of the disabled, and treat the elderly with respect.
And then we get to chapter 20. Here we learn that to be a holy community, we need to refrain from incest and adultery and other proscribed sexual acts. Violation of these sexual prohibitions results in the death penalty in most cases. In verse 13 we have the law prohibiting sexual relations between men. This prohibition first appeared in last week’s Parasha, but this week we discover the penalty, which is death.
The Etz Hayim commentary is quite helpful here, I think. Although we are a Reform congregation – not Conservative – the explanation still resonates: “Conservative Judaism tends to give the tradition the benefit of the doubt when it baffles us but does not morally offend us. When the tradition asks us to do something that does offend us morally, Conservative Judaism claims the right to challenge and, if necessary, change the tradition, not because we see our judgment as superior to that of the Torah but because our judgment has been shaped by the values of the Torah and we are in effect calling the Torah to judge itself.” (page 697 comment below the line on verse 19)
I would like to spend some time on this question of how we handle those parts of Torah that create moral conflict for us today. Do we agree that parts of the Torah can be used to critique other parts? How do modern secular values play into these judgment calls? Should they? Can we see modern secular values as rooted in Torah, or is this wishful thinking?
I would also like to look at the larger question of holiness and distinction. The words “kadosh,” “holy,” and “l’havdil,” “to set apart” come back again and again in this Parasha. We are to be holy, and God has set us apart from other peoples. Do we see ourselves as striving for holiness as individuals? As a community? Does this set us apart from other people?
Parashat Kedoshim
Lev. 19-20
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
Because we do not have double Torah portions this year, this week we have the pleasure of delving into Parashat Kedoshim and spending some quality time with it. (On non leap years, we would be studying it together with last week’s Parasha, Acharei Mot.)
This Parasha is really uplifting and edifying for about the first chapter or so. We have laws that express the core Torah values of protecting the most vulnerable in our society. In chapter 19, we learn that to be a holy community, we need to feed the hungry and provide for the poor, refrain from placing stumbling blocks in the way of the disabled, and treat the elderly with respect.
And then we get to chapter 20. Here we learn that to be a holy community, we need to refrain from incest and adultery and other proscribed sexual acts. Violation of these sexual prohibitions results in the death penalty in most cases. In verse 13 we have the law prohibiting sexual relations between men. This prohibition first appeared in last week’s Parasha, but this week we discover the penalty, which is death.
The Etz Hayim commentary is quite helpful here, I think. Although we are a Reform congregation – not Conservative – the explanation still resonates: “Conservative Judaism tends to give the tradition the benefit of the doubt when it baffles us but does not morally offend us. When the tradition asks us to do something that does offend us morally, Conservative Judaism claims the right to challenge and, if necessary, change the tradition, not because we see our judgment as superior to that of the Torah but because our judgment has been shaped by the values of the Torah and we are in effect calling the Torah to judge itself.” (page 697 comment below the line on verse 19)
I would like to spend some time on this question of how we handle those parts of Torah that create moral conflict for us today. Do we agree that parts of the Torah can be used to critique other parts? How do modern secular values play into these judgment calls? Should they? Can we see modern secular values as rooted in Torah, or is this wishful thinking?
I would also like to look at the larger question of holiness and distinction. The words “kadosh,” “holy,” and “l’havdil,” “to set apart” come back again and again in this Parasha. We are to be holy, and God has set us apart from other peoples. Do we see ourselves as striving for holiness as individuals? As a community? Does this set us apart from other people?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Scrollers Preview for 4/15/11 Acharei Mot
Holy Scrollers Preview
Aharei Mot
Leviticus 16-18
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
This week’s Torah portion takes us back to the last piece of narrative we had in the Book of Leviticus, when, on the day of initiating the sacrificial system, Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu are consumed by God’s fire for bringing a sacrifice that hadn’t been requested. The name of the Parashah “Acharei Mot,” means “after the deaths of. . .” referring to Nadav and Avihu.
This event provides the context for what follows -- instructions for the purification and expiation of the Mishkan and of the People on Yom Kippur; laws regarding proper slaughter and consumption of meat; and laws prohibiting certain sexual relations, including incest.
I’d like to spend most of our time with the first section and explore what we think the difference might be between cleansing and purging the Mishkan of “tum’ah,” or impurity and the ridding of the Israelite people of “avon,” “pesha” and “chet,” which are all variations on the idea of sin. Ritual impurity is cleansed with the blood of sacrificial animals. There is cleansing on behalf of Aaron and his household as well as on behalf of the people. But then there is this additional ritual of the goat of Azazel, where one goat is sacrificed, and the other, after the sins of the people have been confessed over it, is let loose in the wilderness. Why do we need both of these rituals?
We’ll also study the sections of the Mishnah (Oral Law) which expound on the ritual of Yom Kippur, especially the goat of Azazel.
It’s interesting to be focusing on Yom Kippur in the middle of April as we prepare for Passover (This parasha is almost exactly 6 months before and 6 months after Yom Kippur.) Perhaps we’ll gain some insight into this juxtaposition as well.
Shabbat Shalom!
Aharei Mot
Leviticus 16-18
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
This week’s Torah portion takes us back to the last piece of narrative we had in the Book of Leviticus, when, on the day of initiating the sacrificial system, Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu are consumed by God’s fire for bringing a sacrifice that hadn’t been requested. The name of the Parashah “Acharei Mot,” means “after the deaths of. . .” referring to Nadav and Avihu.
This event provides the context for what follows -- instructions for the purification and expiation of the Mishkan and of the People on Yom Kippur; laws regarding proper slaughter and consumption of meat; and laws prohibiting certain sexual relations, including incest.
I’d like to spend most of our time with the first section and explore what we think the difference might be between cleansing and purging the Mishkan of “tum’ah,” or impurity and the ridding of the Israelite people of “avon,” “pesha” and “chet,” which are all variations on the idea of sin. Ritual impurity is cleansed with the blood of sacrificial animals. There is cleansing on behalf of Aaron and his household as well as on behalf of the people. But then there is this additional ritual of the goat of Azazel, where one goat is sacrificed, and the other, after the sins of the people have been confessed over it, is let loose in the wilderness. Why do we need both of these rituals?
We’ll also study the sections of the Mishnah (Oral Law) which expound on the ritual of Yom Kippur, especially the goat of Azazel.
It’s interesting to be focusing on Yom Kippur in the middle of April as we prepare for Passover (This parasha is almost exactly 6 months before and 6 months after Yom Kippur.) Perhaps we’ll gain some insight into this juxtaposition as well.
Shabbat Shalom!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Scrollers Preview for 4/9/11 Parashat Metzora - Herb Ross
This week's portion deals with procedures for the re-entry of a "metzorah" (impure person) into the community.
Rabbinic commentary concentrates on the idea of moral stigma: the result of gossip, slander, jealousy, malice etc. and its consequences, in order to draw lessons from the text about transgression and redemption.
Are such interpretations flirting with the idea of "blaming the victim?" I don't think the text really takes us there. Yet at one point, we read that such afflictions would be Divinely imposed.
To the "original" listeners or readers, could the presence of scaling skin eruptions, penile or vaginal discharges, the appearance of something on clothing or the walls of houses have meant to be just what was described, threatening to the individual or to the community?
Did they see God as the exclusive source of all good and evil in their lives?
The portion deals with the community's responsibility, expressed through the function of the priest to identify, deal with, and see to the re-incorporation of the afflicted into the fold. They trusted his performance of the rituals as described to "redeem" the individual and to insure safe re-incorporation.
Was there not a "public health" aspect to his duty?
The afflicted individual's role is passive here, except to provide the material for the ceremony. Think of how much has changed with regard to his/her role since then.
Who performs analogous functions now? Society has assumed the priestly role with respect to protecting society while seeking to provide for the afflicted.
I am hoping for vigorous debate as well as dissent on Saturday. See you then. Herb
Rabbinic commentary concentrates on the idea of moral stigma: the result of gossip, slander, jealousy, malice etc. and its consequences, in order to draw lessons from the text about transgression and redemption.
Are such interpretations flirting with the idea of "blaming the victim?" I don't think the text really takes us there. Yet at one point, we read that such afflictions would be Divinely imposed.
To the "original" listeners or readers, could the presence of scaling skin eruptions, penile or vaginal discharges, the appearance of something on clothing or the walls of houses have meant to be just what was described, threatening to the individual or to the community?
Did they see God as the exclusive source of all good and evil in their lives?
The portion deals with the community's responsibility, expressed through the function of the priest to identify, deal with, and see to the re-incorporation of the afflicted into the fold. They trusted his performance of the rituals as described to "redeem" the individual and to insure safe re-incorporation.
Was there not a "public health" aspect to his duty?
The afflicted individual's role is passive here, except to provide the material for the ceremony. Think of how much has changed with regard to his/her role since then.
Who performs analogous functions now? Society has assumed the priestly role with respect to protecting society while seeking to provide for the afflicted.
I am hoping for vigorous debate as well as dissent on Saturday. See you then. Herb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)