Scrollers Preview
Parashat Bamidbar
5/28/11
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
The modern commentator, Hirsch, contrasts this book of Bamidbar (Numbers) with the previous book of Vayikra (Leviticus) when he writes that Bamidbar contrasts, “the people of Israel as it actually is” to “the ideal to which it was summoned in Va-yikra.”
This week we begin a new book, and I think that Hirsch got it right. This book of Bamidbar is gritty and harsh. It takes us down from the heights of the vision of an ideal priestly society outlined in Leviticus to the muddy, messy, earthly realm of these Israelites who are forever kvetching and rebelling and misbehaving.
This Parasha opens with what we usually call a census, but which really is a military draft. It continues with the layout of the Israelite camp like an army encamped troop by troop around the Tabernacle. Then we have a section that focuses mostly on the Levites and its clans and their duties. At the end of chapter 3, we learn that the Levites stand in for all of the first-born of the Israelites to serve God. The Parasha ends with instructions to the priests and Levites on how to break down the Tabernacle and transport it when they are on the march.
Rabbi Lawrence Kushner and the playwright David Mamet collaborated on a book of short essays related to each Torah portion. Mamet’s essay caught my attention this week. He sees a motif in our Parasha of child or infant sacrifice, in the form of the draft. Here is Mamet’s response to our Parasha, Bamidbar:
Much of the tropism to war must be infant sacrifice. The English and Germans—armies of the two most advanced and philosophic countries in the worlds of 1914 – convened across a trench to slaughter each other. Sixty thousand young men were sent to Vietnam to die in an action pointless and absurd unless its point was the very death of these young men. They died to assuage anxiety on the part of the elders themselves, in the world. Or, to put it differently, they died as a sacrifice to the sun god – a propitiation. The student opposition to the war was disproportionately Jewish – that is to say, Jews were less likely to embrace blindly the tropism to infant sacrifice. Can one trace the roots of that reluctance to the Akedah, and see the autonomic attempt at its reinstitution in this story of the draft? Does a nation require a draft as much for its psychic integrity as for its military purposes? Was the draft a proclamation of having as a nation succeeded to the status of Elder; and, so, of being prepared to sacrifice the young?
I’d like to discuss this Parasha in light of Mamet’s interpretation, first of all because it is a powerful commentary on the idea of a draft. I also see in this essay a kind of response to the idea of the redemption of the first-born and the “sacrifice” of the Levites to serve God. Looking forward to a lively discussion tomorrow!
Shabbat Shalom, Rabbi Goldenberg
Friday, May 27, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Holy Scrollers Preview - Parashat B'chukotai
Scrollers Preview
B’chukotai
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
Parashat B’chukotai seals the book of Leviticus with blessings if we follow the commandments and curses if we don’t. This section of the Torah is called the “Tokhecha” or “Reproach” and is traditionally chanted in a quiet voice.
A key word in this section is that of “keri,” which is translated as “hostility.” God warns that if we are hostile to God and to the commandments, then God will be hostile to us, shutting up the skies from bringing rain, and bringing enemies to decimate us and exile us from the land. Apparently this word “keri” doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Bible.
The Etz Hayim commentary gives several possible interpretations of “keri”. One commentator, Hoffman, understands it as ‘“at cross purposes,’ doing the opposite of what God commands, in the way that adolescents will often do thte opposite of what they are told, to proclaim their autonomy. Rashi and Ibn Ezra relate it to the word for ‘chance,’ (mikreh), following God’s ways only when convenient. . . . Salanter relates it to “kor” (cold), so that it would mean ‘calculated, without passion.’ These curses will occur not only if the people Israel violate God’s laws but even if they obey them in a spirit that drains them of religious value. . . .”
This text seems to reflect a Deuteronomic theology. We see this theology of reward and punishment throughout the Book of Deuteronomy, and this kind of language pops up in other parts of Torah as well.
As we study tomorrow, we’ll explore whether this theology works for us today, and what it means to us to walk with God, or to be hostile to God. If we imagine that this text was written during the time of Josiah, just a century or so before the destruction of the Temple and the Babylonian exile, do we see it differently?
If there is time, I hope we’ll also read the Haftarah from Jeremiah, which probably comes from the same era as our Torah text (6th or 7th century B.C.E.) Here we have a similar prediction of blessing for those who follow God and curse for those who do not, but Jeremiah is expressing these themes in the form of prayer, such as the opening line, “O Lord, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in a day of trouble, to You nations shall come from the ends of the earth and say: Our fathers inherited utter deliusions, things that are futile and worthless” (Jer. 16:19) And the closing line, “Heal me, O Lord, and let me be healed; Save me, and let me be saved; For You are my glory.” (Jer. 17:14)
B’chukotai
Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg
Parashat B’chukotai seals the book of Leviticus with blessings if we follow the commandments and curses if we don’t. This section of the Torah is called the “Tokhecha” or “Reproach” and is traditionally chanted in a quiet voice.
A key word in this section is that of “keri,” which is translated as “hostility.” God warns that if we are hostile to God and to the commandments, then God will be hostile to us, shutting up the skies from bringing rain, and bringing enemies to decimate us and exile us from the land. Apparently this word “keri” doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Bible.
The Etz Hayim commentary gives several possible interpretations of “keri”. One commentator, Hoffman, understands it as ‘“at cross purposes,’ doing the opposite of what God commands, in the way that adolescents will often do thte opposite of what they are told, to proclaim their autonomy. Rashi and Ibn Ezra relate it to the word for ‘chance,’ (mikreh), following God’s ways only when convenient. . . . Salanter relates it to “kor” (cold), so that it would mean ‘calculated, without passion.’ These curses will occur not only if the people Israel violate God’s laws but even if they obey them in a spirit that drains them of religious value. . . .”
This text seems to reflect a Deuteronomic theology. We see this theology of reward and punishment throughout the Book of Deuteronomy, and this kind of language pops up in other parts of Torah as well.
As we study tomorrow, we’ll explore whether this theology works for us today, and what it means to us to walk with God, or to be hostile to God. If we imagine that this text was written during the time of Josiah, just a century or so before the destruction of the Temple and the Babylonian exile, do we see it differently?
If there is time, I hope we’ll also read the Haftarah from Jeremiah, which probably comes from the same era as our Torah text (6th or 7th century B.C.E.) Here we have a similar prediction of blessing for those who follow God and curse for those who do not, but Jeremiah is expressing these themes in the form of prayer, such as the opening line, “O Lord, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in a day of trouble, to You nations shall come from the ends of the earth and say: Our fathers inherited utter deliusions, things that are futile and worthless” (Jer. 16:19) And the closing line, “Heal me, O Lord, and let me be healed; Save me, and let me be saved; For You are my glory.” (Jer. 17:14)
Friday, May 6, 2011
Oops - we got ahead of ourselves!
Dear Friends-
How apropos that the text we studied last Shabbat dealt with the priests and the idea of perfection and imperfection! It turns out that for the past two weeks, we've been out of sync with the calendar of weekly Torah portions. I completely forgot that on the Shabbat during Pesach that we had a special Torah portion to read, and so we got ahead of ourselves by a week.
Not to worry! There are plenty of things to study. I thought that we would spend some time on the Haftarah from last week, which is a fascinating text from Ezekiel about the restoration of the priesthood after the destruction of the First Temple.
If there is time, we will also study some selections from Pirke Avot, a tractate of the Mishnah which is traditional to study during the days of the Counting of the Omer, between Passover and Shavuot. Pirke Avot is a collection of ethical teachings and sayings of the Rabbis of the Mishnah. There will be plenty to talk about!
Looking forward to studying together.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Goldenberg
How apropos that the text we studied last Shabbat dealt with the priests and the idea of perfection and imperfection! It turns out that for the past two weeks, we've been out of sync with the calendar of weekly Torah portions. I completely forgot that on the Shabbat during Pesach that we had a special Torah portion to read, and so we got ahead of ourselves by a week.
Not to worry! There are plenty of things to study. I thought that we would spend some time on the Haftarah from last week, which is a fascinating text from Ezekiel about the restoration of the priesthood after the destruction of the First Temple.
If there is time, we will also study some selections from Pirke Avot, a tractate of the Mishnah which is traditional to study during the days of the Counting of the Omer, between Passover and Shavuot. Pirke Avot is a collection of ethical teachings and sayings of the Rabbis of the Mishnah. There will be plenty to talk about!
Looking forward to studying together.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Goldenberg
Friday, April 29, 2011
Holy Scrollers Preview - Parashat Emor 4/30/11
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?
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 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)