http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html en-us Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:23:52 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=26
So, in the midst of this state of mind comes the ordination of Aharon and his sons as the Kohanim. Moses plays the role of high priest this one time and "invests" his brother and sons in their new roles. As he dresses them in the priestly garments I was reminded of earlier thoughts about how closely the descriptions of these vestments corresponded to the way the Torah scrolls are adorned.

The thought came to me originally while holding a Torah belonging to another congregation and noticing that the hem of the cover was adorned with a series of miniature pomagranates and little bells, just as described for the priest's vestments. The rest was simple: the breast plate on some scrolls corresponds to the Ephod and there is the sash holding the scrolls together is similar to the priestly girdle.

This thought then expands to address the questions about what fills the place of the Temple, the priests and ritual offerings in our world. Obviously, prayer replaces the ritual offerings. The term for the ritual ceremonies is "avodah" which means "service" and we call the different prayer sessions "services" and they are closely linked by their themes and even their names to the different Temple rituals. For instance, Musaf, the additional Shabbat service, directly relates to, and refers to, the additional offerings in the times of the Temple. And during Yom Kippur there is an afternoon "Avodah" ritual that recounts the ritual of the High Priest in the Temple.

If, similarly, the Torah has come to take the place of the Priests, what does that say about contemporary Judaism? Generally, I believe this to be a good thing, an adaption to a world without a Temple, without a centralized priesthood. Whether or not the Temple can be restored, this Judaism as it has been for 2000 years. But it is radically different than the Judaism we read about in the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh. And still our prayers and our traditions are so much focused on the restoration of the Temple. It feels schizophrenic.

I like to think that Judaism survives and sometimes flourishes because it is able to hold contradictory notions at its core at the same time. I can't imagine, for instance, true Zionism succeeding in returning all the Jews to Israel, or the conservative movements restoring the Temple, its priesthood and riturals to Jerusalem. Setting aside that you'd never get the different conservative groups to agree on anything, most Jews in the world are Jews only in name and would never submit to Jewish law and even observant Jews in the Diaspora are used to Judaism as they've practice it and wouldn't submit to a new, centralized, Temple-based Judaism.

And yet our prayers are full of constant supplications for the restoration of the Temple and the ritual offerings. Should we remake the prayers - edit them - in order to fit our current reality? That would, on one level, break Judaism in a fundamental way. We all, regardless of creed, read the same Aleinu, uniting us across myriad differences in one faith. Having a dozen different Aleinus would unlink us in a way that would change Judaism irrevocably.

More importantly, I don't see that praying for the restoration of the Temple while living Diaspora Judaism and never planning to live in Israel is not a bad thing. Since modern Judaism is based on the ancient rites, that the synagogue replaces the Beit Migdash, the prayer service replaces the ritual offerings, and the Torah replaces the Priests, referring back to the original entities keeps their current incarnations in perspective. In other words, we're good with the new Judaism but the new version is only Judaism in that it is based on the original. I may not want a return to the priesthood but I respect that the Torah is stand-in for the role.

]]> Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:23:52 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=25
My initial attempt focused on the mechanics and therefore the superficial aspects of the offering which dominate this portion. This is a difficult reading for most modern readers. We don't have much experience with sacrifice and in fact most of us are divorced enough from animal slaughter that the whole thing feels barbaric if not just foreign. I know quiite a few Jews who, reading this sections, find themselves thinking they would gladly forego the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem just to not be able to reinstitute the practice.

I join those who are glad that prayer was substituted for the ritual of sacrifice. As a bit of an aside, I attended a series of classes given by rabbis, mostly, discussing the different branches of Judaism. In the talk by an Orthodox rabbi, he insisted, vehemently, that restoration of the Temple and the resumption of the offerings was a core tenet. When the class put the same issue before a Chabad rabbi, he responded that the restoration of the Temple awaited the Mashiach. The Mashiach would bring total understanding of G-d's will and therefore we would know whether G-d required sacrifices or not. Until then, he said, what's the point in worrying about it. I can live with that reading.

I also feel that part of the prayer ritual and other ceremonies should continue to include the description of the sacrifices on principle. One of the things I appreciate about Jewish practice is that we haven't edited out the difficult parts or even those items that have become obsolete or obscure. We leave them there and read them and, when we choose, we struggle with understanding what they mean to us, what we may be missing as a consequence, and how we can regain that in a modern context. Look at those people who took a bull or sheep or goat, or even the poor who brought birds or flour, which would otherwise help feed their families and sacrificed it to G-d, acknowledging the place a higher power held in their world. What do we do that fills a similar role in our lives?

I also want to address is the term "sacrifice," the general rendering of the Hebrew "korban" we find in this portion. The English "sacrifice" means "to make sacred," as in killing some animal or burning an object imparts some special quality upon it. But "korban" comes from the same root as "approach" and thus the whole realm of korbanot are believed to be rituals whereby we approach G-d. This link is far more apparent in the Hebrew where it describes a member of the community approaching with an offering and both terms clearly belong to the same root. (Again, translation does betray understanding.)

The above is what I wrote, with a lot of editing, that I still feel ok about. Where I started to go off track at this point is in some random speculation about why G-d commanded us to make these offerings. Or in other words, what are the offerings for?

Being so completely divorced from the practice and even the idea of performing such offerings, as I am, is a significant hurdle to reaching a higher understanding. If you can't imagine the act it is hard to see into its deeper or higher meaning. Try as I might to see beyond my own gag reflex when confronting the image of the act, anything significant eludes me. That was my mistake, approaching the question through the physical act.

For one thing, the people of the time, most of them shepherds or herdsmen, would have been quite familiar with animal slaughter in their daily lives. All the meat they ate would have been killed, butchered and prepared by their own hands. The act of ritual slaughter would be no great hurdle for them. Second, someone reminded me that Judaism at the time these practices were first instituted was only a step or two away from the neighboring religions. These religions most likely made offerings by way of sustaining their deities. In other words, they fed their gods. Judaism removed itself only a little, initially, from this approach, still saying that the smoke from the altar was a "pleasing odor to HaShem" but not suggesting that the act sustained G-d.

However, real insight came from a teaching during morning services this Shabbat. The rabbi directed us to the last verses - the maftir - of this portion, which describe the guilt offering. Her point of departure was her recent involvement in a case in juvenile court where the defendent chose to admit his guilt. The judge made a special point of asking the defendent whether he knew what he was doing was wrong at the time he did it. The defendent said that he did and the judge had the exchange noted in the record.

The rabbi drew parallels to aspects of the guilt ritual described in these verses. The ritual applies to those who knowingly commit a crime -- generally some form of theft or otherwise depriving someone of their property -- but, when confronted, initially deny it. The culprit is required to restore the value of what they took plus 1/5 and to perform the guilt offering, acknowledging their guilt and their sin. The knowledge and the denial are key to the situation. In every case where the conditions are laid out, the common element is the denial in face of knowing that it is wrong. It is also important to note that, unlike the court case described, there is no mention of the culprit being caught. The sole impetus for reaching this point is the perpetrator's need or decision to come forward eventually to set things right.

Starting with the question of why someone does something they know to be wrong at the time, someone asked about what happens to those who never don't feel guilt or never manage to arrive at the place where they can admit their guilt. That's when it occurred to me that these offering rituals are there for those who do arrive at such a realization and therefore need a way back to the right path or a better place or whatever you want to call it. For those who simply do something wrong but never cop to their crime, there is plenty of civil law in the Torah that deals with punishing the guilty and recompensing the victims without any religious rituals involved. The guilt offering is for those who need to feel closer to G-d again after acknowledging their crime.

This is where the phrase "guilt and sin" comes in. The thief must make restitution of what they took, plus some punative amount, in recompensation to the victim -- dealing with the issue of guilt -- and also deal with the sin, which I believe refers to the crucial point of denial. The fact that these passages require both the crime and its denial in the face of knowing what was done was wrong and that the restoration and ritual are said to answer guilt and sin seems like a likely relationship. Given that the restoration of the value to the victim corresponds to the other civil code requirements where an offering is not required, it would seem that the gullt offering addresses how the denial or lie affects the perpetrator's relationship to G-d.

This is a very elliptical way of arriving at the realization that G-d doesn't command the offerings because G-d needs the sacrifices. The rituals are there because we need them.
]]> Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:17:43 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=24
On its own, this seemed sufficient for my purposes, which was making sense of the repetition. However, after I wrote that entry, other, more important implications started to come to mind. For instance, a number of people discuss the not-very-great distinction of the cover the Ark of the Covenant with its two solid gold cherubim and the golden calf. Aside from the gold, both would seem to violate the commandment prohibiting graven images. In fact, the two seem so similar that you could easily feel an "in your face" factor. For one, we get punished and for the other we earn G-d's presence among us. The key difference between the two items is that one is a fulfillment of G-d's commandment and the other is not. You might even take it further by noting that the figures that make up the Ark cover appear to be in direct contradiction of a commandment. Apparently G-d is not subject to the commandments and we may break a commandment when doing so fulfills G-d's will.

There is so much in the Torah that would be meaningless except for G-d's commandment. (Of course, I understand that for those that don't believe in G-d or don't believe in G-d as a presence in their lives, this all seems meaningless anyway, and G-d saying so don't make any difference. However, I'm not writing for that audience, am I?) Our actions in these cases only become sacred when we are fulfilling G-d's intention. One simple example is Shabbat. What makes that day any different different than the other six? There is nothing inherently different and only the commandment to keep it sacred sets it apart. You can refrain from working on Monday and it doesn't mean anything. In fact, sleeping in on Saturday doesn't make it Shabbat. That's the part about intention. Of course, in Judaism there is less emphasis on how you feel or what you think than in what you do. If you fulfill the commandments, there is no one who can judge your intentions. But intention is what makes you fulfill the commandments, to keep Shabbat, to keep kosher, to ... whatever you believe G-d wants of you.]]> Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:33:13 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=23
Generally, there is no perfect edition, one that you can rely upon to answer all your questions all the time. Some 'read' better than others and that can be very subjective, while others do a much better job of rendering the sense of the original Hebrew. Some provide more thorough notes, sometimes having page after page of commentary for every line or two of text, sometimes in mind-numbing detail over apparent trivialities, while others touch only randomly on the material at hand with wide gaps in what they discuss leaving you clueless about the rest of the material. What works for one person may not satisfy another. And, the more you look, the more you may find it takes more than one edition to satisfy your needs.

Several biases are at work in my list and assessments. There are hundreds if not thousands of commentary sources available. I have intentionally focused on Torah editions with commentary from a Jewish perspective in Hebrew-English editions since I like to have the Hebrew at hand when I need it. I've gotten to prefer those who strive to bring out the subtleties of the Hebrew and don't soft-pedal the meaning. Don't make it pretty if it isn't : e.g., If the Hebrew says "whore after other gods" don't translate it "strive." While I think the commentary-only editions have their place, I like the commentary paired with a text. Afterall, translation is a form of commentary.

One-volume editions:

T'rumath Tzvi : the Pentateuch / with a translation by Samson Raphael Hirsch and excerpts from the Hirsch commentary ; edited by Ephraim Oratz ; English translation from the original German by Gertrude Hirschler. New York : Judaica Press, 1986.
A very good, traditional translation with an excellent commentary. The includes the Haftarah readings with information about special readings. You would not go wrong using this as your primary source. However, it should be noted that Hirsch was a 19th century scholar (1808-1888) and one of the leaders of the modern Orthodox movement and therefore quite a traditional approach. Also note that this is a translation from Hirsch's original German and the commentary here is extracted from an earlier multi-volume edition. http://www.judaicapress.com/

Pentateuch & Haftorahs: "The Hertz Chumash" edited by Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz. Soncino, $35 http://www.soncino.com/Bibleset.html
Another traditional and very reputable commentary. Of this and Hirsch, I think the Hertz is drier and presents its commentary with less sense of the controversy and disputations involved.

The Chumash: the Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos: The Stone Edition (Artscroll Series: Stone Edition) / with a commentary anthologized from the rabbinic writings by Nosson Scherman ; contributing editors, Hersh Goldwurm, Avie Gold, Meir Zlotowitz ; design by Sheah Brander. Brooklyn, N.Y. : Mesorah Publications, 1993. $40 http://www.artscroll.com/stonechumash.html
A traditional (very Orthodox) commentary, with a good balance of text and commentary. I should mention that there is also a comparable Stone Tanach available.

Soncino Chumash: Soncino Books of the Bible / edited by Rev. Dr. A. Cohen. 2nd ed. London ; Jerusalem ; New York : Soncino Press, 1985, c1983. $30 http://www.soncino.com/Bibleset.html
Another traditional commentary. Part of Soncino's Books of the Bible series which is worthwhile if you are interested in a extensive set of Tanakh commentaries.

The Torah : a modern commentary / general editor, W. Gunther Plaut ; general editor, revised edition, David E.S. Stein. New York : Union for Reform Judaism, c2005.
As it says, a modern commentary from the Reform movement, also very reputable. Recently revised, with extensive corrections. For reasons I can't explain, I was never able to warm up to Plaut and no one in my group uses it on a regular basis. http://urjpress.com/

The living Torah = The five books of Moses : a new translation based on traditional Jewish sources, with notes, introduction, maps, tables, charts, bibliography, and index by Aryeh Kaplan. New York (413 E. Third St., Brooklyn 11218) : Maznaim Pub. Corp., c1981.
Kaplan was a prolific and charismatic scholar, with a very strong foundation in mysticism, with many adherents. Kaplan's translation features many distracting [paranthetic] textual bridges to render the clearer meaning but he loses literal authenticity with the text. The relatively brief commentaries and textual renderings are centered on Talmudic readings.

Etz Hayim: A Torah and Commentary / senior editor, David L. Lieber ; literary editor, Jules Harlow ; sponsored by the Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society, c2001. $72.50 http://www.jewishpub.org/
The Conservative movement's commentary with the JPS translation. I think the translation is not as good as the others - it misses a lot of the flavor of the Hebrew - but it has a very insightful commentary. There is a less-expensive travel sized edition and also a study guide available.

Commentary on the Torah : with a new English translation by Richard Elliot Friedman. HarperSanFrancisco, March 2004.
My personal favorite. I think the translation is the best rendering of all the editions I've read. The commentary is very liberal and humanistic and idiosyncratic to the author's perspective, textual analysis of the Torah. Friedman the author of Who Wrote the Bible, The Bible With Sources Revealed and several other related texts, is a professor at UC San Diego. Available in paperback only.

The JPS Tanakh.
http://www.jewishpub.org/product.php?isbn=0827602529
As I've mentioned before, I'm not a fan of the JPS translation. It takes too many shortcuts with rendering the Hebrew to the point where a reader can really miss the point. This edition also has very minimal commentary. I mention it here because it needs to be included and it is clearly a popular version of the text, used by many other editions.

Multi-volume series:

The JPS Torah Commentary: in five volumes. $300
http://www.jewishpub.org/product.php?isbn=0827603312
Same translation as other JPS editions but each volume by a different commentator with extensive notes. The notes are (almost?) worth the limitations of the translation.

The Torah with Rashi's commentary : Perush Rashi al ha-Torah. Sapirstein Edition Rashi: Sapirstein Edition Rashi: translated, annotated, and elucidated by Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg. Artscroll Mesorah. 1999- . $72-116 depending on edition. http://www.artscroll.com/sapirsteinrashi.html
As it says, highlights of Rashi's classic commentary.

Metsudah Chumash/Rashi translated by Rabbi Avrohom Davis. Judaica Press, $84
http://www.judaicapress.com/product_info.php?products_id=421
A different Rashi edition, more readable than the Artscroll.

The Commentator's Bible: The JPS Miqra'ot Gedolot: Exodus by Michael Carasik 2005. Amazon $47.25
Also known as the Rabbi's Torah, this is the ultimate classic commentary edition. This is the only Hebrew-English edition in print and only Exodus has been released so far. Of course, it still depends on the JPS translation.

Anchor Bible Series
http://www.randomhousedirect.com/anchorbible/
A massive Bible edition, with most books spread over several volumes. While Anchor is a Christian publishing house, some of the books of the TANAKH are edited by noted Jewish scholars.


Commentaries without text (note that I discussed several other of this sort of commentaries in an earlier posting):

A Torah Commentary for Our Times: Three-volume Boxed Edition. Harvey J. Fields, Illustrated by Giora Carmi. URJ Press. $50
http://www.urjbooksandmusic.com/
Three slender paperback volumes providing a compilation of commentary with a focus on liberal perspective.

What's Bothering Rashi? : a guide to in-depth analysis of his Torah commentary. by Avigdor Bonchek. Feldheim. $95 http://www.feldheim.com/
I find it hard, myself, to care about what bother's Rashi. That is until I read the entries and discover, most of the time, that there is some interesting anomally in the text that has sparked his analysis. I should mention that there are a couple of sources that will send you weekly WBR? critiques via email.

The women's Torah commentary : new insights from women rabbis on the 54 weekly Torah portions edited by Elyse Goldstein. Woodstock, Vt. : Jewish Lights Publishing, c2000.
Separate essays by different authors for each parsha from a women's perspective. This is one of the most valuable titles in this list simply because it provides a point of view generally missing from most of the Torah commentary you will find. http://www.jewishlights.com/

Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics by Jacob Milgrom. Fortress Press, $24
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/
One whole book just on Leviticus. Need I say more? Perhaps I do. Milgrom, who edited some of the JPS Torah Commentary volumes (but notably not Leviticus) shows a real flair for pulling the rabbit out of the hat in this volume. Of the five books of Torah, Leviticus contains the least narrative and the most ponderous rule-setting and yet Milgrom brings it to life. If you are ever inclined to give Leviticus another chance, take Milgrom along with you.

Daily Dose of Torah. Artscroll ; Mesorah, 2006- $15 each
http://www.artscroll.com/Books/dd3h.html
In a very interesting experiment, Artscroll is publishing this series on a subscription basis, with each volume containing 4 portions appearing in time for the current Torah reading. Each volume contains brief commentaries providing 6 daily readings touching on Torah, Mishnah, Gemara, Mussar and Siddur. Not an indepth commentary for each portion but short, intense readings highlighting specific passages. The discussions of Mishnah and Gemara may be overwhelming for those not familiar with the fine detail of Jewish law (such as whether it permissible on Shabbat to leave your house with a seed in your mouth) but can be interesting and educational in their reasoning.

English-only:

The five books of Moses : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ; a new translation with introductions, commentary, and notes by Everett Fox. New York : Schocken Books, c1995.
Fox's translation annoys me.

The Five Books of Moses : a translation with commentary by Robert Alter. New York : W.W. Norton & Co., c2004.

The Jewish study Bible : Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation. / Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, editors ; Michael Fishbane, consulting editor. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, c2004.
This is the edition I recommend (and even give) when Hebrew is not a consideration.


Online sources:

Aish Weekly Torah Portion
http://www.aish.com/torahportion/

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/index.htm
Provides a wide selection of weekly commentaries; view on the Web or subscribe via email.

What's Bothering Rashi?
http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/bonchek/index.htm
online companion to text series above



]]> Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:27:33 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=22
It is strange to say, but I find myself drawn to this repetition. While I don't expect everyone to feel the same way, I want to suggest you read it out loud in order to get the feeling for the detail and the completeness of the narrative. You might find yourself, as I do, thinking of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail where the priests call for the "holy hand-grenade." Resist the impulse. I won't go as far as to call it poetry, except there is some rhythm and aliteration in the Hebrew that doesn't come through the English, but there is some power in the narrative that I find hard to explain.

If you want a more sagacious insight, I like the note by R. Sh. Hirsch from his Pentateuch. R. Hirsch says (not in so many words, mind you) that nothing means anything except through its intention. Therefore, the construction of the pieces needed for the creation of the sanctuary and the ordination of the priests are only so much craftwork, indistinguishable from the work needed for objects for everyday use. Only the intention of creating holy space and sacred officiants makes these items different from the rest of our labors. Thus, he says, it is necessary to repeat the instructions, noting their source, and reminding us of their intention, in order to bring the sacredness to the work and eventually to the outcome.

On a lighter note, while reading this portion in our study group this week, I noticed a point of commentary that said that the women spun the goat hair while it was still on the goats, according to Rashi. Other than saying that this helped keep the luster in the yarn, there was no further information except a reference to the Talmud. We decided to look this entry up in the Talmud and discovered that the Hebrew actually says that the women "spun goats" not "goat hair." Rashi, who takes every word, every letter, even every space in the Torah as G-d's intent, apparently saw this unusual phrase as meaningful and this is the meaning he derived. For my part, I once tried spinning wool, with the loose fibers in one hand and the spinning energy imparted by a weighted bobbin hanging down. I could only imagine what spinning wool while the hair was still attached to the goat would look like. I can't see how you'd get the goat to spin.
]]> Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:37:16 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=21
OK, so we all know the story of the golden calf, but I may highlight a few things you may not know or took for granted.

While Moshe is on Mount Sinai learning how to conduct a census, concoct incense and aromatic oils, build the Mishkan, and ordain the priests, the people get edgy and start to think he's not returning. They approach Aaron and demand he "make us gods" (the Hebrew is quite clearly plural) to lead them. Aaron instructs them to bring him gold, which he smelts and forms into a golden calf. It might be the Aaron was hoping to divert the people from their purpose because he then constructs an altar and declares that the next day will be dedicated to G-d (YHVH). (Again, the Hebrew is quite clear between the "gods" represented by the golden calf and G-d.) However the people continue their revelling before the golden calf the next day.

My interest here is in the character of Aaron. I find him a bit hard to fathom. Not only does he comply with the people's request but he lies about his involvement when he is confronted. This doesn't look good especially for someone in his position. But somehow, he not avoids punishment with the others, but he still gets to be the High Priest. For contrast, see what happens to Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu for the relatively minor error of bringing "strange fire" into the sanctuary. In a later incident both Aaron and Miriam are bad mouthing Moshe and his wife but only Miriam is punished. So why does he get a free pass?

I don't have a ready answer for this without going into a whole other approach to reading Torah. This comes, in large part, from the commentary by Richard E. Friedman. In his view, the Torah is comprised of several texts that were stitched together some time after they had become fixed in the people's minds. Thus, it wasn't possible to change the texts -- folks would have noticed any deletions or amendments -- so they were merged, even when conflicting versions sat side-by-side. Some of the versions reflect political differences between factions of the Israelites.

One of these conflicts was between the Aaronite priests, those decended from Aaron, who had control of the Temple and all of centralized Jewish ritual, and all the other priests, including the Mushite priests, descendents of Moshe. The parts of the Torah which put Aaron in a bad light, in Friedman's view (if I have it right), were contemporary propaganda or slander by those representing the rival faction. This is at least one plausible explanation for Aaron's otherwise puzzling behavior with the golden calf. It explains how Aaron could be shown in such a negative light and yet still become High Priest.

My next item deals with what happens when G-d tells Moshe what's going on below and declares His intension to wipe out the Israelites and start over with Moshe's offspring. In a scene very reminiscent of Avraham bargaining with G-d for the lives of the citizens Sodom and Gomorrah, Moshe convinces G-d to spare the people. We've already seen quite a bit of Moshe bargaining with G-d, so this is not a new insight into his character. But the resemblance of this scene to the one with Avraham, especially when the alternative G-d is proposing to Moshe is to make him the new patriarch, provides an important clue to Moshe's role in the history of the Israelites.

When Moshe heads down the mountain to deal with the people, he encounters Joshua who declares that he hears the cries of battle. In one of those wonderful, almost poetic examples of word play that pepper the Torah, Moshe says "It is not the cry of triumph, it is not the cry of defeat, it is just a cry." Again, it helps to look at the Hebrew where the word for "cry" (or you could translate it "call" or "shout" or "chant" or "song") is the same in each case, except in the last instance it is in emphatic form ("just a cry").

Skipping ahead a little bit, Moshe returns to the heights of Mount Sinai to confer with G-d about what to do next. And there he begs G-d to prove G-d's goodwill by letting him see G-d's glory. G-d responds that no one can see G-d's face and live, but offers to cover Moshe's eyes as G-d passes and then allow Moshe to see G-d's back. This is a remarkable scene, one that has struck me each time I've read it.

Different scholars handle this in different ways, often dismissing the literal meaning, that G-d can be scene, the G-d has a face or a back. I do appreciate some of the teachings that come from this, that the Hebrew used here for "back" actually means "past" or even "consequences" and therefore Moshe sees not a physical presence but the after-effect of G-d's presence.

However, let's stick with the literal meaning and assume that at least on some level Moshe was asking for a peek and G-d arranged it. What I note here is the contrast between Moshe's request and what the people did with the golden calf. Despite whatever we may think we know, the people have a very limited experience of G-d. Going back to the Ten Plagues, the Torah makes it clear that these didn't touch the Hebrews where they lived. Until they get to the Sea of Reeds, they have little direct experience with G-d's powers. They do get manna and then there is that little incident called the Ten Commandments. But when Moshe seems to disappear, they feel lost and abandoned and they seek solace in creating a god they can see and touch.

For me one of the most difficult tenets of Judaism is absolute faith in a G-d you cannot only not see but cannot represent in any physical form. The proof of this for me is found in Moshe's request to see G-d. Moshe has seen proof after proof of G-d's presence and power, ever since the burning bush, and speaks with G-d on a regular basis. For all Moshe's access, even he feels the need for visible proof. How can we blame the Israelites -- or any of us -- wanting the same thing?]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:05:05 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=18
Most obvious is setting aside the Shabbat from the rest of the week. There is no distinction between one day from the next except that G-d sets the seventh day apart from the rest. In the language of Havdalah, the ritual at the end of Shabbat the root of which means "separation", we acknowledge the division between the holy and everything else.

In other prayers we acknowledge G-d as the one who divides light from dark. To take it further, much of the creation in the first chapter of Geneis involves separation, rather than creation in the normal sense. For instance, G-d does not create the world or the light, but separates the water from the land, and divides the light from the dark.

Some other distinctions found in Judaism are the separation of certain foods from others (kashrut) and the prohibitions of mixing wool and linen (shatnitz), crops of different kinds in the same field, and of yoking two different kinds of animals together. While it is possible to think of possible benefits for some of these rules (e.g., an ox and mule can't pull equally) most have no obvious practical reason. We make the distinction because G-d commands it.

Next ... The Golden Calf]]> Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:35:46 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=17
The half-shekel contribution. On the surface it doesn't look like much. Each male over 20 years is to make a contribution of a half-shekel to G-d as an atonement offering. It appears to be both an offering, a contribution towards the construction of the tabernacle, and a form of a census. Since this portion is still relating the instructions Moshe is receiving from G-d on Mount Sinai, the actual donation/offering/census does not take place at this point. However, the donation takes place "when they are numbered" (30:12) and I believe that the actual census will take place near the beginning of Numbers.

What has aways moved me about this is that the instruction is explicit that no one shall give more and no one shall give less than a half-shekel. This is obviously important for the purposes of a census, since the number of coins is supposed to represent the number of men and different rates of donation would mean a miscount. However, the effect of the half-shekel requirement is that no one gives more or less to the construction of the Holy Tabernacle. No one can say that they had a bigger role or that someone else did less to help in creating this central artefact of the Jewish cultural identity. Therefore no one can lay claim to a bigger part.

I imagine almost any congregation in any religion has wealthier and a poorer members. Even in cases where contributions are managed by tithing and the amount each one contributes is not a matter of generosity, some members give more than others. And many congregrations will acknowledge the larger gifts in some fashion or other. The stories of the rich member getting special favors in recognition of their greater contributions have always irked me.

In "Fiddler on the Roof" Tevye's "If I was a rich man" includes a reference to how his imagined fortune would get him a place by the western wall, a place of honor, of the synagogue. I've seen enough of that in modern American congregations and it's always soured me on how religion can be practiced.

Thus, the half-shekel brings the rich down to the level of everyone else and forces the poorest to meet up to their responsibilities in order to counted with all the others. The fundamental equality (despite the fact that a half-shekel means very different things to the rich and the poor) of this requirement seems to set a very important precedent in the role of the everyday world in the realm of the sacred. The rich get no more and the poor get no less.

But wait (as they say in the infomercials) but that's not all. The half-shekel by itself seems to have added signicance. The fact that it is a fraction of a whole coin sends a message that no one is complete unto themselves. Everyone provides part of what is needed and it is necessary for others to do their parts to make a whole. In this demonstration of collective responsibility is a lesson about community.

There is also a link to the teaching of R. Tarfon: "You are not required to complete the task, yet you are not free to withdraw from it." (Pirkei Avos 2:21) Even though your contribution does not make a whole, does not complete something, is no excuse to not make the effort.

And, therein ends this lesson.]]> Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:56:02 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=16
However, now I feel I need to say something pithy about Tetsaveh and my heart isn't in it. It is not my favorite portion, even though some interesting points come to mind. When we last saw Moshe, he was on Mount Sinai receiving instructions from G-d about the religious objects and rituals involving the contruction of the Mishkan and the dress and ordination of the priests. I mentioned that last week there is an amazing splash of color and concreteness about the instructions for the Mishkah. I can't say that the description of the priestly garments and the investature rites do as much for me.

Having said that, I will say that I'm fascinated by the Ephod with its breast plate and the mysterious Urim and Thummim. The Ephod seems to hold the Urim and Thummim, items about which we know nothing, but which appear to have mystical powers. Some believe that the stones set in the covering breast plate would be lit from behind by the Urim and Thummim, thus conveying a Holy decree. OK, it sounds a bit like a sacred ouija board or magic 8 ball. (It's good I don't believe in hell, otherwise ...) We just don't know but that doesn't keep people from wild speculations.

Another thing that comes to me about the priestly garments is that modern Jews mimic many of the features spelled out here in the way the Torah is dressed. I really came home to me once while carrying a Torah at another congregation. I noticed that the hem of the Torah cover was decorated with tiny pomegranates and bells. ("a golden bell and a pomegrante, a golden bell and a pomegranate upon the bottom hems of the robe..." 28:34) Many Torahs have breast plate also. It is potent symbol to me how Judaism made the transition from a Temple religion run by a hereditary priesthood to a Diaspora religion based upon adherence to this sacred text; that the Torah displaces the Temple ritual and the priests.]]> Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:22:21 GMT http://www.jaffebros.com/torah/index.html?p=15
I'm not knocking the assembly instructions for the Mishkan (the portable Temple). If most flat-pack furniture came with such good instructions, putting together a home office or entertainment center would be a snap. And the colors described are almost shocking in their vibrancy, especially since there is so little color anywhere else in the Torah. This one of my wife's favorite sections, mostly for the colors, but also for the concreteness of the description.

One of the most striking aspects of this parsha is the very realness of the instructions for the Mishkan. You can't help but think this was real. Whatever your relationship to Torah or G-d and the miracles, the creation of the Mishkan just feels like it really happened. I figure that the people of the time - not far from nomads and therefore experienced with living in tents - could readily recognize whether the contstuction of the Mishkan was practical or not. To us it could be anything but the people of the time would know one way or another.

However, what pulls on my attention is the order of things. Many sages believe that the Mishkan was an act of redemption after the Golden Calf. However, the Golden Calf hasn't happened yet. What gives? One explanation is that the narrative isn't chronological, that things don't happen is the same order as they are described. Hmmm, that's a bit of stretch.

I also note that at the end of Yitro (a couple of weeks ago) there are instructions for creating an altar that say it should only be a pile of uncut rocks. So why the Mishkan with its elaborate gold-sheathed wood forms? What happened to the pile of rocks? Again, according to one rabbi I heard speak, this is supposed to be superseded by the Mishkan after the Golden Calf. You want to make sacred objects out of gold? Here's stuff that you can do.

So, for all the concreteness and vividness of the Mishkan, it feels out of place. I have no answer for this. It's just there. I think about it some more and get back to you next year.]]> Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:58:30 GMT