Monday, April 29, 2013

B'har-Bchukotai


Leviticus 25:1-27:34

When It’s Hard to Believe Life Will Get Better

D'var Torah By: Billy Dreskin  
In this week's double parashah, B'har/B'chukotai, we read (among many other topics) of the mitzvah to observe the yovel, the fiftieth "Jubilee" year. From the second half of Leviticus 25:10: "It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to your holding and each of you shall return to your family."

For two years (this one and the sh'mitah/sabbatical year, which occurs previously in the forty-ninth year), the land is to lie fallow. Nothing is to be planted, and God promises the Israelites that enough food will grow for them to eat and stay healthy until the harvest returns after their resumption of planting in the fifty-first year. And, as the text demands, every Israelite is to return to the original tribal land that was parceled out during Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

Commenting on this passage, Rabbi Yitzkhak Nafkha (third century CE) looked at Psalm 103:20 ("Bless the Eternal, O God's angels, mighty creatures who do God's bidding, ever obedient to God's word.") and wrote, "This is referring to those who observe the [mitzvah of letting the land lie fallow]. Why are they called 'mighty creatures'? Because while it's common for a person to fulfill a commandment for one day, for one Shabbat, or even for one month, can one do so for an entire year? This person sees his field and trees ownerless, his fences broken and fruits eaten, yet controls himself and does not speak. Our rabbis taught, 'Who is strong? One who controls passion.' Can there be a mightier creature than a person like this?" (Midrash Tanchuma on Parashat Vayikra).

Around Hanukkah of 1998, a young Joshua Davidson (now senior rabbi at Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester in Chappaqua, New York) presented my eight-year-old son Jonah with a trumpet. It had been Josh's from his childhood and I can recall him playing it in high school. Josh felt that Jonah was the right person to receive the trumpet for a number of excellent reasons. First, Jonah had been learning from Josh how to play the shofar, and it's a very short journey from shofar-player to trumpet-player. Second, Jonah and Josh shared the same initials-J.M.D.-which were embossed on the outside of the trumpet case. Eight-year-old Jonah's response, as always throughout his life, was unrestrained. He thought it was incredibly cool to have received the instrument, especially with his initials included. He also felt it looked "a little old," which it was, even if Josh really wasn't (yet). But the real stumbling block for him concerned the mouthpiece, the metal attachment that's blown through to initiate the trumpet's sound. Jonah could never imagine using someone else's mouthpiece because, as he insisted, "It must be covered with millions of disgusting germs!" Not wanting to undermine the possibility of a future, virtuoso world tour, I assured him we could sanitize the mouthpiece so that he could play it without fear of contamination. Which we did and, for a good number of years, we were privileged to enjoy watching our son play in school concerts and hearing him sound the shofar when Ellen and I led Rosh HaShanah family services.

Continue reading.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Emor


Leviticus 21:1−24:23

Priests, Men, and Women


D'var Torah By:
Dalia Marx

How have men and women today inherited the roles and activities of the ancient priests? We can find some interesting theories about this in Parashat Emor, in Talmud and Mishnah, and in later commentaries and prayers. Between the sections of the Torah dealing with special laws relating to priests, the list of the Festivals, and the acts of the blasphemer, the Torah commands the preparation of the loaves for the Tabernacle:

"You shall take choice flour and bake of it twelve loaves, two-tenths of a measure for each loaf. Place them on the pure table before the Eternal in two rows, six to a row. With each row you shall place pure frankincense, which is to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering by fire to the Eternal. He shall arrange them before the Eternal regularly every sabbath day-it is a commitment for all time on the part of the Israelites. They shall belong to Aaron and his sons, who shall eat them in the sacred precinct; for they are his as most holy things from the Eternal's offering by fire, a due for all time" (Leviticus 24:5-9).

The Torah provides baking instructions for the loaves and their arrangement on the special designated table. Each of the loaves contained two tenths of a measure of fine semolina flour and the loaves were arranged in two groups, "two rows, six to a row." In his liturgical hymn Azameir Bish'vachin, the medieval kabbalist Isaac Luria (Ha-Ari) expresses hope that the Shechinah will be adorned by six loaves on each side [of the table], next to one another. The twelve loaves symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel and the placement of the entire people in a holy site. According to Josephus, who describes the structure of the sanctuary as a model of the universe, they represent the zodiac and the months of the year (Wars 5, 5 217). Thus, the loaves have both a national and a cosmic import.

Continue reading.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Acharei Mot-Kedoshim

Leviticus 16:1-20:27

What Does It Mean To Be Holy? 


 D'var Torah By: Dalia Marx

 In the democratic society of Israel, we with struggle the concept of what it means to be am chofshi b’artzeinu, “a free people in our land.” We ask, “What does the responsibility of freedom require from us?” Every year, it seems the answers are less obvious and the search to find them becomes more demanding.

Maybe our parashah can help by guiding us to approach freedom from the perspective of holiness. This week, we read two parashiyot, Acharei Mot and K’doshim. K’doshim starts with God’s call: “You shall be holy, for I, the Eternal your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). This difficult demand is directed to “the whole Israelite community” (19:2). It is addressed not only to the priests, elders, and respected ones, but also to all men, women, and children; young and old; and leaders as well as average people.

What does the commandment “to be holy” mean? How can you demand that a person or a nation be holy? Interpreters in all generations have tried to answer this question. But in Parashat K’doshim, we can find simple, direct answers in a long list that details what “You shall be holy” means. The commandments here have deep meanings, and the most prominent ones are those that include both man-to-man and person-to-Maker directives. Consider these examples: “You shall each revere your mother and your father, and keep My sabbaths: I the Eternal am your God” (19:3); “You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another. You shall not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Eternal” (19:11‒12).

Parashat K’doshim teaches us that we cannot separate decent relations between humans from the commandments between a person and his (or her) Maker. Harming or insulting a person is the same as harming or insulting the image of God in that person; therefore, it is harming or insulting to God. Embezzling public money is not different from embezzling that which is holy to God. The reason to “be holy” is because “I, the Eternal your God, am holy.” The holiness of God requires that we lead a holy life.

Continue reading.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Tazria/M'tzora


Leviticus 12:1–15:33

A Women's Sacrifice: A Women's Tractate 


D'var Torah By Dalia Marx


The notion of "marginality" usually brings to mind thoughts of exclusion and disavowal. Marginality may, however, embody exciting possibilities and unexpected opportunities. Sometimes, as Yankele Rotblit's song, "You Took My Hand in Your Hand," tells us, "you can see things from there that you can't see from here." I shall now offer such a reading of one case of marginality.

This week we read the double portion, Tazria/M'tzora. Parashat Tazria opens with a description of the purification process to be undertaken by a woman following childbirth. The process has two stages: first come the days of her flow (Leviticus 12:2), seven days when a boy is born and two weeks for a girl. Then, the mother must remain in the blood of purity (12:4) for thirty-three days when a boy is born or for sixty-six days when a girl is born. After purification, she must go to the priest and offer a lamb as a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove as a sin (or purgation) offering (12:6). Scripture mentions an alternative offering for women who cannot afford a lamb: "And if she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering. And the priest shall effect atonement for her, and she shall become clean" (12:8).

Many women could not afford to sacrifice a lamb and the Torah gives them a "plan B"-the offering of two birds. Birds were the smallest and least expensive animals that could be sacrificed. They also constituted the offering made by marginal people: the leper, who perhaps could not afford a lamb (Leviticus 14:1-11), men and women who suffered discharges (Leviticus 15:14-15; 29-30), the Nazirite who was made impure through contact with a corpse (Numbers 6:10-11), and the woman who has given birth.

It is said that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the head of the Sanhedrin (who lived in the generation of the Temple's destruction), witnessed a time when the price of offering birds increased unreasonably. He made a decree to correct this situation, swearing in the name of the Temple to remedy the injustice: "By this Temple, I shall not go to sleep tonight until [a pair of birds is sold] for a dinar!" (K'ritot 1:7). This decree is founded upon the sensitive assumption that it is unreasonable to require a woman to leave her home and responsibilities to visit Jerusalem each time she gives birth or has a miscarriage. His bold decree, which contradicts the overt instruction of the Torah, allowed women to make a single offering for multiple births-and prices plunged together with demand. Professor Hannah Safrai, z"l, said the decree demonstrates that what was good for women was thought of as being good for the Temple.1

But apart from the fact that many of the bird offerings were brought by women, can we find a symbolic connection between the fowl offering and women-in particular, women who have recently given birth? I think so. When a woman gives birth, the fetus that was hidden inside her becomes a self-sustaining being in the world. In the fowl sacrifice-in particular, when fledglings are being offered-the fledglings that were hidden in their nest remind us of a fetus in its mother's womb.2 The mother is asked to sacrifice other "babies"3 in exchange for her own; similar practices are found in other cultures.

Tractate Kinim in the Mishnah, which deals with bird offerings, grants extensive authority to a woman who brings a fowl offering consisting of two fledglings: she can determine which one will be the burnt offering and which one will be the sin offering. These two sacrifices involved different procedures (Mishnah Z'vachim, Chapter 7). Such a pair of birds is called a ken mefureshet (literally, a designated nest). When particular birds were not designated for particular sacrifices, it was called a ken stuma (an undesignated nest) and the priest would determine which of the fledglings would be sacrificed as a sin offering and which would be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Naturally, in the hectic reality of the Temple, it was easier to deal with a ken stuma: when undesignated fowl were brought, there was less possibility of mix-up and confusion. The Sages of the Mishnah seem to subtly suggest that women should leave the designation of the sacrifices to the priest. Nevertheless, they never question the woman's right to predetermine which bird will be used for which sacrifice.

All of this is somewhat surprising, considering that men made no similar sacrifice upon founding a family. Men were obligated to fulfill the commandment to visit the Temple and bring sacrifices on the Pilgrimage Festivals that marked the annual cycle of seasonal events (Deuteronomy 16:16). Women's visits to the Temple marked personal events related to the human (and especially the feminine) life cycle. A father is required to circumcise his son, but not to celebrate his birth in the Temple. The agents involved in the mother's offering are the woman and the priest-it is she who must bring the offerings to the priest and instruct him in how to sacrifice them. The woman brings the pairs of birds and takes care of them.

This short look at the fowl offering shows that even if women had a marginal role in the activities of the Temple, and even if their participation in the Temple rites invited mixed reactions both by their contemporaries and by later commentators, they did have a valid connection with it. They visited the Temple and actively participated in its rites. Even if there were some qualms regarding women choosing birds for sacrifice, it was the woman's choice (if she wanted to choose) that was decisive. If the priest failed to follow her instructions, the sacrifice was invalid.

While marginal, the sacrifices of women described in this parashah-and elaborated upon in Kinim-open a door for the empowerment of women, bring them into the public space, and make their voices heard.

Kinnim (Tractate), Jewish Women's Archive. Professor Zohar Amar believes that most of the fowl offerings involved dove fledglings. See his Masoret Ha'Of, Tel-Aviv 5764, pp. 191-213

Hannah Safrai, Parashat Tazriya on the Kolech website. I thank Rabbi Shlomo Fox and Professor Moshe Koppel for their important comments on this article.
Moshe Koppel, Biur hadash LeMassekhet Kinnim al pi Torat HaHeshbon, Jerusalem 1998. It is interesting to note that although Kinim has no parallel tractates in the Tosefta or Talmud, many exegetes throughout the generations chose it as the subject for special commentaries, including those of the RaAVaD, ROSh, and R. Zarhiya HaLevi.

Portions of this article were previously published at http://www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Rabbi Dalia Marx is an associate professor of liturgy and Midrash at the Jerusalem campus of HUC-JIR. Her new book is Tractates Tamid, Middot and Qinnim: A Feminist Commentary, published by Mohr Siebeck.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

SH'MINI


LEVITICUS 9:1-11:47


A few years ago I overheard an amusing conversation at a social event. It went more or less like this:

A: “Eat the salad, it's not fattening, it's only lettuce.”
B: “Yes, but it is from [here a politically controversial area was mentioned].”
C. “Right, this lettuce is ideologically wrong.”
A: “Why? I always try to buy lettuce from [the controversial area].”
D: “Oh, forget politics. The important thing is that no bugs are ever found in this lettuce.”
B: “I prefer the bugs to all the chemicals used to kill them.”
C: “Not only that, it’s also much more expensive.”

This casual conversation is informative. It teaches that considerations about what and how we should eat are complex and sometimes contradictory, and that ideological, economical, aesthetic, health-related, and many other issues have to be taken into account. We Jews call this kashrut.

In Parashat Sh’mini, Chapter 11, we find the first full formulation of the laws of kashrut. First the laws regarding “land animals” are specified, then laws governing “all that are in the waters.” Regarding poultry, the Torah then provides a list of non-kosher birds and prohibits the consumption of “every swarming thing.” These laws of kashrut have remained more or less the same today, though they have expanded greatly through the ages.

In the State of Israel in recent years, we are witnessing an ever-growing stringency in the application of the laws of kashrut regarding its ritualistic, technical aspects. But it seems in many circles, there is less and less interest in the profound sense of kashrut. Many friends and relatives can no longer dine together, not because of questions about kashrut but because questions regarding hechsherim (kashrut certificates).

Continue reading.