JFSA - Parshat Chukat-Balak (Numbers 19:1-22:1, 22:2-25:9)

A Helping Hand Makes all the Difference

First, I want to thank everyone for the wonderful outpouring of supportive and welcoming comments following last week’s newsletter. Your feedback, thoughts, suggestions, and even critical comments are all deeply appreciated. The Jewish Federation of San Antonio is here to listen, plan, and ensure a sustainable future for our San Antonio Jewish community, and this cannot be realized without your input and participation.   Staying on the theme of appreciation and thanks, I’d like to share a special thank you to all our service members as we prepare to celebrate a safe Independence Day this weekend, and highlight a local Jewish agency, our Jewish War Veterans of America Post 753. I recently visited with one of the elders of Post 753, and as one topic flowed into another in our casual conversation, it was the theme of brotherhood and community that kept surfacing, specifically what does it mean to have indescribable bonds like these.   In this week’s Torah portion, Chukat-Balak, we read the famous lines of Bilam the prophet who was hired to curse the Israelites, but who instead blessed them unintentionally with the words, mah tovu ohalecha Yakov, mishkenotecha Yisrael (“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!”) Numbers 24:5.   Over the centuries our sages have tried to make sense of this bizarre unfolding of events with much discussion, but it is the great Rashi, one of our most well-known commentaries, who simply suggests that Bilam became inspired by the sight of the Hebrew encampment and was overwhelmed with its beauty and order, and individual’s support for one another. Bilam saw a community with a common cause, setting differences aside, and supporting one another for the good of the group.   Charles Darwin, in his most controversial book, The Descent of Man, presented the theory of the survival of the fittest. This clear concept of brute force and instinct to survive, no matter the circumstances, is how he explained nature selects the strongest lineage for continued survival. This theory presented an individual’s need over the tribe. The idea of win at all costs, no matter the moral or virtuous ramifications. Yet, in the same book Darwin finds a conflicting theory that he cannot explain. When it comes to the collective group, when we look at the characteristics of the tribe, Darwin saw an opposite theory.   “A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.” (p.132)   Darwin identified that if the individuals could somehow come together and work as a unified group the “weaker” characteristics of trust, respect, and care for one another override the system and prove to help the tribe survive over time.   It is this “brotherhood” that my friend of Post 753 referenced, and it is this sense of common purpose that we at the JFSA want to establish for our Jewish community of San Antonio.   This weekend, as we celebrate our country’s independence, please go to Post 753’s FaceBook page and share a thank you to our local veterans, or simply like their page. I know they would sincerely appreciate the thought. Shabbat shalom.

JFSA - Parshat Korach (Numbers 16:1-18:32)

Jewish Wisdom from 

Our Community and the Torah

I admit, I have struggled this week in writing this column. As the new Interim CEO, I have already received welcome feedback from the community, some good, supportive comments, and some critical, concerned, and challenging — all of which are welcome as I listen and learn in this new role.  I knew that by accepting this professional opportunity, I would not only be leading a community agency tasked with uniting, planning, and fundraising for our Jewish future, but also with listening, collaborating, and holding myself accountable to the highest standards of Jewish leadership possible.  Every day of every week the Federation staff and volunteers demonstrate their dedication to, and passion for, our Jewish community through such actions as: Partnering with other interfaith and inter-racial groups to address racism, whether through community dialogue, security training, or legislative activism through our Community Relations Council (CRC); Educating the greater San Antonio and Rio Grande Valley community on the historical significance and Jewish experience during the Holocaust through the efforts of the Holocaust Memorial Museum of San Antonio (HMMSA); Empowering Jewish families with young children to read Jewish books together, instilling a love of Jewish life from the earliest of ages with our free PJ Library SA program; Securing beyond-life gifts to ensure the sustainability of Jewish San Antonio through our LIFE & LEGACY initiative; And so much more! But candidly, what I was not prepared for, was the suggestion that connecting our Jewish Federation mission’s work to the weekly Torah portion was not necessary. Here’s my take: I am the professional leader of a Jewish agency tasked with leading our community toward a vibrant, active, and sustainable Jewish future in San Antonio. If I do not use the Torah as the guide in my decision-making; if I do not solicit the input of thousands of years of Jewish wisdom when faced with weighing the challenges of our community; and if I do not reach out to our local rabbis for their expertise, collaboration, and rabbinic understanding, then what or who should guide my leadership as the chief executive officer of a Jewish agency? In this week’s Torah portion, Korach, we read that, “[the people] assembled against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, ‘You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire community are all holy, and G-d is in their midst.’” (Numbers 16:3)  I too feel your assemblage (and I in no way claim to be remotely comparable to Moses or Aaron!) so please, please reach out and let me know how you would like to get involved and help move our Jewish community forward.  If the Jewish Federation does not have the specific committee or program to engage your passion, we will connect you to the Jewish agency in town that best suits your interests.  This is not a job for one person, nor for a great team of professionals like we have at the Federation, nor for the broad range of Jewish communal professionals across the San Antonio community.  This is a responsibility that we all have as Jewish community members tasked with laying the groundwork for the generations who will follow. We are tasked to listen, to plan, and to ensure a strong, vibrant Jewish future in our city. Please join us on this journey. Shabbat shalom.

Parashat Achrei Mot - the assumption of family

Words of Torah
Parashat Achrei Mot
Leviticus 16:1-18:30

"And Aaron shall bring his sin offering bull, 
and initiate atonement for himself and for his household."

~~Leviticus 16:6

Sometimes the Torah is obvious, overt, and the message is succinct and crystal clear. "You will not steal!" and "You will not murder!" leave zero room for misinterpretation. However, sometimes the Torah isn't as direct and obvious as it might be when offering the reader the opportunity to learn and glean from its messages and teachings.This week has a hidden gem that with a casual reading might go unnoticed.

In Leviticus 16:6 Gd in conversation with Moses lists some of the laws for the High Priests and offers the above statement expressing the expectation that Aaron and future High Priests will be imperfect and will need a sin offering at some point during their lives. Now, you might say that even this is a point worthy of discussion. That the High Priest who has devoted his life to Gd and who lived a holy experience with everything he did, would have needed to offer a bull for whatever poor choice or action he committed? And you'd be right, that is worthy of discussion...but not this week.

The hidden gem in this verse is that it assumes that the High Priest will be "human" in another way, not in his potential imperfection, but in the expectation of having a family and a "household" for whom the sin offering includes. Being the High Priest in Israel did not mean dedicating one's life, 24/7/365, to Gd, the Temple, and all things sacred. Rather, being a High Priest included having a family, growing in one's life experiences, and being part of and responsible to a community.

The sages say that in order for the High Priest to pray on behalf of the people, he needed to live life as one of them. He was no better, he was no different, he was simply "chosen" to fulfill this specific task just as the other Israelites were "chosen" to fulfill different tasks. Leadership is about being able to empathize and see what the people see, to understand for what they are looking, and to feel their emotions when things go wrong or right. Having a family provided the High Priest this critical perspective.

As Sister Sledge's famous song so eloquently states, "Have faith in you and the things you do," because "We are family!"

Shabbat shalom.

Parashat Shoftim - Lady Justice personified...

Words of Torah
Parashat Shoftim
Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9

"You shall not pervert justice; 
you shall not show favoritism, 
and you shall not take a bribe..."

~~Deuteronomy 16:19

There are many people around the globe who may at first glance be able to identify Lady Justice (pictured above).  However, if one was to ask what were the symbols that identify Lady Justice, significantly fewer would be able to answer.  Then, if you were to ask what these symbols might mean or from where these symbols obtained their meaning, even fewer, if any, would be correct. Yet, it is in this week's parsha, where we read of the origin of these three metonymic attributes.

"You shall not pervert justice" speaks to the origin of the sword.  We are obligated to ensure that the process of justice is allowed to take its course and that causing delay or unnecessary obstruction needs to be addressed with the swift stroke of the sword.

"You shall not show favoritism" personifies the balanced scales.  Justice cannot "tip the scales" in favor of, or in opposition to, any judicial process.  For justice to work it needs to take its course void of any influencing factors.

"You shall not take a bribe" is highlighted by the blindfold.  If justice cannot see who is in the court to support one side or the other, then justice will not know from whom a "gift" or bribe may come. Justice is "blind" to the pressures of those who would try to influence her.

It is of no coincidence that the very next verse in the Torah following the above justice attributes is the famous "tzedek, tzedek tirdoff" ("justice, justice shall you pursue"), Deut 16:20. Although our great sages ranged from attributing this repetition from being a literary device for emphasis, to the dual stage of not only pursuing justice but also the righteous court that can and will provide it, however, to me the timing of this verse with the above three attributes is not so random or disconnected.

When I was first introduced to the concept of "pursuing justice" it was to help me understand that justice will not happen passively.  Rather, it is our obligation to be active participants in ensuring it's righteous resolution.  If allowed to float down the stream of cultural norms and society's indifference, justice will never be able to come to shore.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to "pursue" it.

Yet, at what cost should this pursuit be done?  To the ultimate death?  To one's personal discomfort?  

This is where the repetition comes in to play.  I believe that the repeated "justice" in the quote is to let us know that it is incumbent on us to pursue justice as long as one of the three attributes above is still in place.  As long as there has been no perversion, no favoritism, or no bribery, then we must still pursue the justice.  However, if it reaches a point of all three having been compromised, then we are to stop because it is now in the hands of Gd.  In situations where all three justice attributes have been compromised, then this verse teaches us that the judicial system has become so corrupt that it is beyond our human capacity to pursue...and as we have learned from history, there have been numerous times when our society has in fact compromised all three, only to experience the consequences of these corrupt societies.

Let us continue to pursue justice in order to right the wrongs and repair the ills.

Shabbat shalom

Parashat Kedoshim: otherwise possibly known as the most optimistic of Torah portions.

Words of Torah
Parashat Kedoshim
Leviticus 19:1-20:27

"Every [person] shall fear his mother and father..."

~~Leviticus 19:3

I doubt there are adults, especially parents, who have never quoted or at least referenced the words of the fifth commandment when speaking about the relationship and expectations of a child to their parent; "Honor your father and mother." 

However, this week, in the Torah portion titled "Holy Ones" (Kedoshim) we read the above "revised" obligation for a child to a parent.  

The idea of a child "fearing" a parent goes against the common culture of the western world when it comes to raising children. Do we really want our children to "fear" us as parents?  "Honor" we can certainly live with. "Respect" would be lovely. But "fear"? Really?

The idea of a child fearing a parent goes against most "normative" and commonly accepted parenting handbooks found in any modern society library or bookstore.  So why does the Torah, in the portion titled "the holy ones" (Kedoshim) use fear as the definition of the expected behavior between a child and parent?

The easy answer, of course, is that the Torah was given to us in a time when fear was an acceptable emotion for children to have toward their parents.  In fact, one need only go back a few generations in this country to know that the use of fear in parenting was a common and accepted form of raising children.  So, why wouldn't it make sense when taken in the context of the time the Torah was written?

The reason for my difficulty with this passage is because I genuinely believe that although the text may be dated, the lessons to be learned from the text are eternal. So what does it mean that a child "fear" their parent in the context of today's society?

As an educational administrator I have often had conversations with teachers on the topic of discipline. "How can I get them to behave the way I want?" "I'm not a mean or strict person, so scaring them doesn't come naturally to me" are common variations of beginning teachers perceptions about how they need to manage their classrooms. They genuinely believe that discipline comes from the creation of a fearful environment and so scaring the students into submissive behavior is how they will have respectful students in their classroom.

On the other hand, "master teachers" (whom I differentiate from veteran teachers - which is a separate discussion for another blog) have come to understand that a respectful classroom environment does not mean that every child is always on task and/or never disruptive.  The master teacher develops a culture of dignity in their class, respect to oneself, others, and the inanimate room and objects themselves. Of course, the master teacher will never define this environment as originating from a sense of "fear", but the sociologist may argue differently!

"Fear" is defined as "an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous." Sociologists will tell us that the reason someone follows the rules is because they are not interested in suffering the consequences if caught breaking the rules.  It is natural to balance the risk vs reward of choosing to behave poorly, but if the risk is too great the choice is rarely too difficult.  In other words, the master teacher has established an environment where the common understanding of the community is to follow the accepted norms.

So why use "fear" in the Torah to describe the relationship between a child and parent? Because Gd is simply saying, kids, just know that the risks and consequences to mistreating your parents is way too great for you to even consider...just don't bother.  It takes the discussion off the table with the intent that the optimal behaviors will follow.

Here's to my (and apparently Gd's) eternal optimism!

Shabbat shalom.

Parashat Vayikra - what does it mean to sacrifice?

Words of Torah
Parashat Vayikra
Leviticus 1:1-5:26

"When a man among you bring an offering to Hashem..."

~~Leviticus 1:2

Welcome to the most challenging of Books of the Torah to understand...let alone teach! However, that being said, it is referred to by some as the easiest to interpret.  Because of the clear dictums, directions, authoritative statements, and commands, it is assumed that there is less interpretive room to personalize the texts...which also assumes that it provides us with more clarity for how the ancient Hebrews lived their ritual lives while wandering in the desert.

In my interpretive reading, this book is a little different.  Although there are clear statements of how to perform certain rituals, and how to specifically behave under certain circumstances, for me this book is a lot about the ethics and morals of living a Jewish life in the 21st Century.

For instance, I was told at a young age that Gd does not want Jews today to actually perform the sacrifices as described in these chapters of Vayikra (Leviticus).  In fact, according to the rabbis, Gd actually prohibits us from performing these sacrificial rituals while our people are living in a "post-Temple" Diaspora without a Beit Mikdash in Jerusalem. My rabbi taught me many years ago that we pray three times a day instead of performing the three described daily sacrifices.  Each service, the shacharit, mincha, and maariv services were designed to replace the formal morning, afternoon, and evening sacrificial rituals respectively.

Today, when I look back at this explanation, although it was "sensible" and rationale back when I was a pre-bar mitzvah teen trying to understand the why behind prayer, I am  pretty sure that either I didn't truly understood my rabbi, OR, maybe my rabbi only explained it with enough depth to simply appease me with my limited adolescent understanding.  Today, however, I reflect on the explanation that I received back then and am challenged with its simplicity.  Today, I need more than "we've simply switched sacrifices for prayer services" as my answer.

When I consider what sacrifice means, "to give up something that you want to keep in order to get or do something else or in order to help someone else," I am immediately struck by its similarity with my own definition of tfillah!  When I pray, I basically give up my time in order to be part of a community and to help be there for someone else who might need a community with whom to pray.  Is this true?  Am I actually performing a "sacrifice" when I pray?  OK, maybe it's not the year-old bull or first fruits that I'm bringing to the alter, but maybe it's my time, my energy, my commitment, and my support, that I am sacrificing in order to fulfill this priestly mitzvah?

So maybe Vayikra after all is not just about the disconnected and irrelevant sacrifices that were performed in biblical times, maybe these sacrifices are actually happening in different forms all over the world each day, multiple times a day?  At least, that's what I believe...

Shabbat shalom!

Parashat Tetzaveh - the sanctity of purple...

Words of Torah
Parashat Tetzaveh
Exodus 27:20-30:10

"And they shall take the gold, and the blue, and the purple, and the scarlet..."

~~Exodus 28:5

Last week the color purple appeared in our Torah, but even though this obscure and rare color in ancient times is mentioned, it is only referred to in both last week's and this week's text preceded by the mentioning of blue and followed with reference to red.

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to sit with a group of lay leaders and discuss our then school colors of blue and white.  There was no question that these colors had obvious connection and meaning to the Jewish community, Israel, and to the children whom we served.  Yet, once we began to discuss our potential color palate it was clear that the connection to the blue and white, albeit for very good reasons, did not differentiate us nor create a compelling reason for the children to take particular pride in our school colors.  When speaking to the children they felt pride with their blue and white, but expressed it as if it were the "given" color of the Jewish people, not because they felt a bond to the reasoning or rationale for our school displaying these great colors.

It was because of these discussions that I sought broader counsel and investigated the history of a variety of colors that have been part of our people's tradition for centuries.  It was as part of this research when I was exposed to a wonderful midrash (rabbinic explanation) about the color purple, which ultimately directed our decision to pursue it as our school color.

The midrash that was shared could also not be told without first, like in this week's parashah, bringing our attention to the blue and red origins of this color. It was explained that blue has always been the color associated with the Divine.  Blue represented the heavens and referenced Gd.  Red, on the other hand, represented humanity and the life blood that flows through living creatures.  Consequently, where the Divine and human meet, where these two colors mix and create the color purple, is in the school setting.  When education possesses a Divine quality, when schooling is not only about the academic experience, but rather about the human experience and search for wisdom, then the blue and red mix to create a true purple.

Ironically, since we selected this as our school color we have had many people over the years ask about its rationale.  Not that these individuals are particularly interested in the why behind the choice of purple, rather, more often than not, they want to know why we chose such a "non-Jewish" color.

Obviously, I have learned over the years that there are so many reasons to not engage someone who approaches life in this closed-minded manner, and maybe this will be a good subject to discuss in a different parashah   Yet, this always awaken my constant amazement of how so many of our Jewish traditions and concepts have been "taken over" over the years to the point that if mentioned from a Jewish perspective people truly believe that they have no reference point in our Jewish tradition.  Gd's covenant with Noah following the flood was a rainbow. I once, as a single young Jewish adult just starting in the classroom as a Jewish educator, drew a rainbow on the whiteboard in preparation for the next class.  It wasn't until I was married a year later that one of those students shared with me that the students at the time thought I was making a statement about my sexuality. The fact that it happened to be a class on Bereisheet and the story of Noah and the flood somehow missed got lost in their perceptions.  Or, how about angelology?  Mention an angel and people begin to think of cherubs flying around on St. Valentine's Day with bows and arrows and not the angels who came to visit Abraham, or those who appear time and time again in the stories of our prophets.

So yes, maybe purple has become associated with the general non-specifically Jewish world, but if it symbolizes the place of connection between the Divine and human, then that's still good enough for me!

Parashat Mishpatim - no cheeseburgers for me!

Words of Torah
Parashat Mishpatim
Exodus 21:1-24:18

"Thou shalt not boil a baby goat in its mother's milk."

~~Exodus 23:19

This week's Torah portion is a little out of character compared to the story-telling nature of the rest of the Book of Exodus.  This week's parshah (portion) is more of a long list of mishpatim (decrees) on how we are to live our lives.  In fact, this week we read 53 of the 613 total mitzvot...although even this isn't the most mitzvoth in any one parshah.

Even so, it is the above brief sentence that I believe has brought me to where I am today.  It is this compact statement that has been interpreted by the rabbis for many centuries as the prohibition from eating meat and milk together that has been my driving force into Jewish education...so no cheeseburgers for me!

When I was a young child it baffled me that the rabbis used the rationale and clearly obvious prohibition as a statement of ethical behavior (don't milk a goat and then kill it's baby and cook these two items together), yet, did not extrapolate this exact theory for doing likewise with chicken???  Have you ever had a schnitzel (fried chicken breast that was dipped in eggs and coated with bread crumbs)?  I DON'T GET IT???  If it would have only applied to goat's meat and goat's milk I probably would have stopped there.  But turning it into no cheese of any kind with no meat (and now no poultry) of any kind seems disingenuous to the intent of the mitzvah.

As a child I asked my rabbi about this and got some complicated round about non answer that left me scratching my head and feeling like the idiot that ultimately got kicked out of my Hebrew school.  Actually, my parents were politely asked to not have me return, but either way I never went back soon after voicing this confusion.

Is an egg not a by product of a hen?  Is a chicken breast not the previously living offspring of another hen?  So why are they not prohibited to be used together???  

Again, please don't get me wrong.  I am not looking for any more laws of kashrut to prohibit my love of eating.  What I am searching for is to better understand the duality of these two experiences.  

Now, maybe I'm not destined to solve this dilemma in this lifetime.  Maybe for me, asking the question, and ultimately becoming a professional Jewish educator committed to getting my students to ask their own driving questions is my purpose in this life.  But if there is anyone out there that has any perspective on why these two are not the same, I would be forever grateful!

PS using the old "chicken is poultry" and therefore exempt from this category of "meat" doesn't fly since the rabbis bundled chicken with meat from a "no meat and milk" perspective...last time I checked chicken parm was still a no go.

Parashat Yitro - the difference between "we" and "me"

Words of Torah
Parashat Yitro
Exodus 18:1-20:23

"Honor thy father and thy mother..."

~~Exodus 20:11

This week I'm going to touch on what I believe is the true beauty and nature of the Torah... that we can read the exact same text every year, keeping the same inflections and cadence (at least in the Hebrew, through the trope) and yet, every year the same text can have something new and beautiful to teach us. 

I can only imagine how many times I have read the above verse.  I vaguely remember the first time I was formally taught about honoring my parents. I was in religious school, probably about 6 or 7, when the teacher went over the 10 Commandments and focussed on this one in particular.  This commandment, unlike the others, was very tangible and real.  It was a commandment that seemed logical, even to such young children as we were, and one that seemed easy for us to "own."

Now fast forward decades later, and probably thousands of readings later, and I just noticed what seems like an extraneous "thy" or in modern English "your." 

"Honor your father and your mother." Would this commandment not be identical if it read, "Honor your father and mother"? Why the extra "your"?

After doing some research, apparently some scholars have suggested that this might actually be the representation of an additional family member to be honored...someone like maybe an older sibling.  But as those of you who have read my postings before, you know that I am not one for adopting convenient explanations that seem to bring in new subjects and topics when there is plenty to read and understand from the existing text itself.

For me, this extraneous "your" seems to be adding an extra influence on the separation between the natural combination of "father and mother."  Together they are one unit, one pair, one team of parents acting together to be treated as one.  BUT, separate the two, as in adding an extra "your," and now they are not one pair but two individual beings, each equally deserving of their child's honor, irregardless and irrelevant of the other.

Children of divorced parents may find this explanation easier to understand or accept than those of happily married parents.  However, even those children with parents who epitomize the united and loving parental team, can (and now I would say "should") appreciate the separation of the father and mother in this commandment.

No matter how loving of one another parents are, each parent needs to have a unique and original relationship with their child.  I am amazed that I never realized this nuance before, but be guaranteed that I will never be able to think of it differently again.

To honor one's father and mother means to develop a unique relationship with each one separately.  Just as Hillel redefined the "Golden Rule" by looking at the negative space in one's actions, so too must we look at our unique relationships with our parents and how what might work for one might not for the other, and vice versa.

Shabbat shalom... and happy honoring!

Parashat Beshalach - how long can you keep reality from becoming legend?

Words of Torah
Parashat Beshalach
Exodus 13:17-17:16

"Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; 

that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness."

~~Exodus 16:32

First of all, my apologies for my online absence.  There is a wonderful Yiddish phrase that states, "mensch tracht an Gt lacht" (people plan and Gd laughs).  Well, with all my detailed plans and good intentions, I guess I've been giving Gd a good laugh lately :)

But seriously though, in regards to this week's parashah, I want to focus this week on the above verse from Chapter 16.  We know from verse 16:20, and then again in 16:24, that any manna kept beyond it's intended time to be eaten developed maggots and became inedible.  Of course Gd could easily have extended the "shelf life" of this particular portion, just as Gd did for the Shabbat allocation, but since it had no intention of ever being consumed why extend it's life, and more importantly, why even bother to set it aside for "generations" since there is never any intent for it to ever be consumed?

These are the moments of the Torah when I am most challenged.  Yes, there are plenty of rabbinic explanations and great prognostications by our most scholarly sages as to the rationale, but my struggle is much more simple...if there's a lesson to be learned from this action why do it in such a completely irrational or even contradictory manner?

The Great Lubavitcher Rebbe explained it thus, "The challenge is to retain this recognition also after entering the land."  It is the transition from having your bread delivered to you daily by miracle to having to make your own that will quickly be forgotten and dismissed as myth and/or legend down the road.

For instance, when WWII came to an end, and General Eisenhower saw the reality of what evils occurred in Europe firsthand, he ordered every American soldier under his command, whether personally responsible for the camp liberations or not, to visit a camp and see with their own eyes what had really gone on.  Only this way could Eisenhower try to make sure that the realities of the Nazi's attempted genocide could live on in history as "real" and not become accusations of exaggerations or turned into false-history in generations to come.

OK, so keeping the idea of the manna makes sense (not that the Torah always has to make sense to me...I am very comfortable with this reality). However, actually taking the manna and "saving" it in a container for future generations???  This is where I struggle. But that's OK, I'm not supposed to "get" everything, and I have no expectations of ever understand everything there is to know, but nonetheless, it's the struggle that I enjoy, and it's the struggle that keeps me interested and wanting more.

Shabbat shalom!

Parashat Bereisheet - the difference between "same" and "equal"

Words of Torah
Parashat Bereisheet
Genesis 1:1-6:8

“It is not good for the man to be alone;
I will make him an ezer k'negdo.” 
~~ Genesis 2:18

There is much (possibly too much) vastly conflicting interpretations of the term "ezer k'negdo."  I am certainly not a linguist, nor a scholar of ancient languages.  I am not even enough of a biblical scholar to be able to pull out most references to the use of the root form of either "ezer" or "k'negdo" across the Torah.  However, what I can do is read a text and follow the three stage interpretation that was taught to me at the seminary during my graduate studies.

   Step 1: What does the text say?
   Step 2: What does the text mean?
   Step 3: What does the text mean to me?

Too often readers of the biblical text jump directly to step three, which not only clouds the text's original meaning, but is also usually taken completely out of context and in turn manipulated to try and support a vastly different position or idea than what the text is actually saying...but I leave this discussion for another time.

The most common and academically accepted interpretation of "ezer k'negdo" is some form of "opposite helper" or "helper-against him" or any other variation of this seemingly contradictory phrase. So using our three step process, this means that the above text when taken literally simply says something to the effect of, 

"It is not good for the man to be alone; 

I will make him a partner who will help him and challenge him."

The next step is to better understand what the sages and rabbinic scholars (not to mention today's marriage counselors, psychotherapists, and other social work professionals) say about this strangely worded phrase, which by most counts is interpreted to mean what we understand any healthy spousal relationship to be about...partnership.  Each spouse is expected to support and help the other, yet, at the same time not always be in agreement, but rather provide an alternative "opposite" perspective when needed so that the relationship can grow, and so that the end result is a deliberately processed and well-thought out co-decision.

Unfortunately, there have been individuals, including scholars and recognized community leaders, who interpreted the ezer k'negdo as a statement of power, control, and one-upmanship of men over women.  These individuals suggest that because the woman was created as the "help-mate" for the man, that in some way this should mean that the woman should be subservient to the man and in some way a second class citizen.  And this was certainly the case for many years, even in this great nation, as to why women's right to vote (as well as many other rights) was not established at the same time men's rights were given, but rather only centuries later following the women's suffrage.

However, what I find most curious of all, is this awkward stage in our history that we are living through today, where for some reason "equality" and "equal rights" has in some places taken to mean "sameness" and "monotony."  

I want to unequivocally state that women deserve to have equal rights, benefits, pay, and opportunity to every possible experience in today's world as do men.  But, that does not mean that I support women feeling that they need to be the "same" as men.  As ezer k'negdo so beautifully states it, men and women should "help" one another and "challenge" one another to be the best that we can be as individuals, as a community, and as a society.  Equality means that there is equal push and pull in both directions when this relationship is respected and encouraged.  But this is not "sameness."  If that were the case, it would be in exact contradiction to k'negdo, and in turn bring about a push-push or pull-pull relationship, which defeats the purpose and obvious textual intent.

My unprofessional sociological best guesstimate is that as we (read "men") continue to portray a perceived time in our history where we (read "men" again) believe there exists equal rights for women (unlike pre-sufferage where this could never have been claimed by the men in our society) is causing the women's rights movement to fight a fight that seems solved to those who don't understand it, appreciate it, or care about it.  Unfortunately, I believe that because of this unforgiving battle it has morphed in some places to a fight for "sameness," because that is a condition that we as a society could never claim to have conquered, but which is also unquestionably the wrong fight to fight.

I want equality, I believe most rationale, patient, and understanding men want this too, but I don't support sameness, which I also believe most women don't want as well.  Women and men have unique skills, qualities, and naturally ingrained characteristics that make their uniqueness a blessing.  This does not mean that women cannot pursue the same dreams as men, it simply means that the two genders are different. As ezer k'negdo so eloquently expresses it, we want a society where men and women can help one another by challenging one another.  Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go!

Parashat V'zot Habracha - Knowing someone face to face...

 

Words of Torah
Parashat V'zot Habracha
Deuteronomy 33:1-34:12

“And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, 

whom Hashem knew face to face...”  ~~ Deuteronomy 34:10

As we once again bring another cycle of the Torah reading to a close, we are once again reminded of the stature of our greatest prophet, Moses.  No one had, or has had since, the opportunity to have as personal a relationship with Gd as Moses.  

Verse 34:10 above could have easily concluded with "...whom Hashem knew" and that would could have been enough.  But, by adding the "face to face" we are introduced to a very personal and unique relationship that no other biblical character (not even our patriarchs and matriarchs), nor anyone since, has ever experienced.

So, if Gd, who has a spiritual connection with every living being on earth only had one "face to face" relationship, it got me wondering just how many face to face relationships we humans actually have with one another?  

In order to answer this question I first had to ask another; what does having a "face to face" relationship even look like?

Rashi explained the uniqueness of the panim el panim ("face to face") expression to mean, "[Moses] was quite familiar with [Gd], speaking to [Gd] anytime he wished."

Yet, many would claim that they in fact do speak to Gd any time they want.  But, what is usually the case is that these conversations are one-way communications, where an individual feels comforted by sharing their thoughts, feelings, concerns, and/or wishes with Gd, but never expecting a spoken reply in return.  Moses, however, spoke to Gd; Moses was able to engage in a personal two-way dialogue with Gd "face to face."

Of course, there is a story of a man in recent years who was able to get a reply from Gd in one of his pleas to be heard.  We understand that his conversation went something like this:

     Man: "Gd, how long is a million years?" 
     Gd: "To me, it's about a minute." 
     Man: "Gd, how much is a million dollars?" 
     Gd: "To me, it's like a penny." 
     Man: "Gd, may I have a penny?" 
     Gd: "Sure, just wait a minute." 

Obviously, putting aside the tongue-in-cheek humor; with how many people do we really speak to "face to face?"  Who are the ones who when we speak they listen, and when they speak we listen equally focused?

When I realized the gravity of this question, I also realized that the number of people with whom I thought I had "face to face" dialogues dropped significantly.  How many times are we distracted by the multitude of other things going on in our lives, or how many acquaintances do we know to whom we politely listen but whom we never actually hear?  How many times a day are we saying things to others, but to whom we may be never actually speaking?

And when we take this incredible communication to another level, whom do we actually know well enough to speak to in this way?

It is said that when we look into the face of another we are not only able to see past their physical features, but that we are able to gaze into their soul and see their true self.  Given this level of personalized communication, probably like Moses and Gd had themselves, speaking to someone "face to face" is then not only about being heard at any time on any subject, rather, it is also about knowing the person to whom you're speaking in such an intimate and personal way that the words being spoken and respectively heard are in such sync and harmony that the experience becomes "face to face."

So, with how many people can you claim to have this kind of relationship?  

Gd only had one!