Wednesday, July 27, 2016

But I Say That The Women Today Are Smarter Than The Men In Every Way (Norman Span - " Man Smart, Women Smarter")



History was made this week. The proverbial glass ceiling was broken. For the first time in the history of the United States, a major political party formally nominated a woman for the President of the United States. While so many participants at the Democratic National Convention were praising themselves, while the press was taking a “pause” to recognize the historical significance, one talking head rightly pointed out just how behind the United States is. After all Angel Merkel has been the leader of Germany for many years already. Great Britain was led by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s. Indira Gandhi led India  in the first half of the 1980’s, Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the late 1980’s and then in a second term in the mid 1990’s. And before all of those women were elected to office, Gold Meir a diminutive Jewish woman from Milwaukee Wisconsin (via Kiev), became Prime Minister of Israel in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Yes Golda Meir broke the glass ceiling nearly 50 years ago. However Jewish law began breaking glass ceilings long before Golda Meir.
                This Shabbat we read from Parsha Pinchas. The first few psukim (verses) of the Parsha are a direct continuation of the previous Shabbat Parsha Balak. There is no elapse of time in the narrative. Balak concludes with a plague upon B’nai Yisroel for its worship of Moabite/Midianite god, Baal Peor. Aaron’s son Pinchas zealously acts by killing Zimri from the tribe of Shimon and Cozbi the Midianite woman. God tells Moshe to reward Pinchas for his behavior by giving him the Brit Shalom, the Covenant of Peace. This covenant is only for Pinchas and his descendants. Keeping in mind that B’nai Yisroel has now concluded it 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and are poised upon the eastern bank of the Jordan River; a new census is taken. Just like we needed to know how many left Egypt, we now need to know how many will enter into Eretz Canaan. After the census is taken Moshe must judge a legal case concerning the laws of inheritance when a man has only daughters. This brief narrative is about the “Daughters of Tzelophchad”. Following this narrative, God commands Moshe to teach the new generation the laws for time bound offerings including the Shabbat offering, the Rosh Chodesh offering, the offerings for the Shelosh Regalim (Three Pilgrimage Festivals etc).
The narrative concerning the Daughters of Tzelophchad is really the first instance in the Torah of a glass ceiling breaking. No, it may not be as dramatic as becoming the first Prime Minister or President, however the seeds for ground breaking change at the highest level, owe, in small part to small very subtle shifts in social norms. This narrative illustrates the point. B’nai Yisroel is about to enter Eretz Canaan. Each tribe is to receive an area. Each family within each tribe is to receive tribal land. Until that moment, in that part of the world, and at that time, inheritance was through the man. A son inherited his father. If there was no son, then inheritance would revert to the living brother (if one existed). Or land would be inherited by the son- in law, or held in trust, until the daughter of the deceased married. The idea that a daughter could inherit was unheard of, and unthinkable. How do we know this? The daughters present their case to Moshe and he doesn’t know how to decide. So he asks God: Avinu Meit BaMidbar V’Hu Lo Hayah B’Toch Ha’Eidah HaNoadim Al Adoshem B’Adat Korach Ki v’Cheto Meit U’Vanim Lo Hayu Lo – Our father died in the Wilderness, but he was not among the assembly that was gathering against Hashem in the assembly of Korach, but he died of his own sin; and he had no son. Lamah Yigra Shem Avinu MiToch Mishpachto Ki Ein Lo Bein T’nah Lanu Achuzah B’Toch Achei AvinuWhy should the name of our father be omitted from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers. Quite cleverly, the daughters explain that their father did not participate in any rebellion against Moshe’s nor God’s authority. Rather he committed and individual sin that led to his death. However that should not preclude him nor his family from receiving land. Clearly this was entirely new and Moshe had never no idea how to solve this precedent setting legal issue. VaYakreiv Moshe et Mishpatan Lifnei HashemSo Moshe brought their claim to Hashem. However a hint as to decision exist in the word MishpataN (their claim). The last letter of the word is written in a bold font compared to the rest of the Torah letters. This special letter designating the daughters tells us that the daughters were meritorious and worthy of making the claim. They did so in a respectful manner mindful of the law and willing to work within the system.  The rest of the narrative substantiates the final letter’s special font in MishpataN as God instructs Moshe that indeed, the daughters inherit and this precedent will become law just like the laws that Moshe presents to B’nai Yisroel at the Parsha’s conclusion.
Yes, we take it for granted that woman can own land. However it didn’t always use to be like that. First Lady Michelle Obama pointed out in her speech to the Democratic National Convention, that young millennial woman (including my three daughters) take for granted that a woman can aspire to anything including President of the United States. But for those who came first, for those who set the precedent, it wasn’t something to be taken for granted. It wasn’t considered normal.  As God says to Moshe- Kein B’not Tzelophchad Dovrot The daughters of Tzlophchad speak properly. The daughters had merit, they wanted the same responsibilities and land oriented obligations as everyone else who had received land.  They did not want any special favors; just an equal opportunity. Yes, sometimes the glass ceilings breaks as a result of one big rock. Sometimes it breaks as a result of thousands of small stones thrown at the ceiling over the course of time, chipping away here and there, making a tiny crack here and there, until finally it shatters.
Peace
Rav Yitz

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

What Fatal Flowers Of Darkness Bloom From Seeds Of Light (Robert Hunter & Jerry Garcia - "Blues for Allah")



                The Republican Convention occupied much of the news this week. Even on talk radio here in Toronto, one of the programs was dedicated to American trivia and American politics. Granted, there were all types of news worthy issues that came out of the Republican National Convention. However one story of particular interest was what didn’t happen at the convention. What didn’t happen was the Modern Orthodox Rabbi who converted Ivanka Trump, Rabbi Lookstein, was asked to begin the convention with a convocation. The Rabbi is retired from both the Jewish day school and the congregation that he led for decades; so he agreed to speak. Soon after he accepted the invitation, graduates from his school, and former congregants send out a petition trying to make it clear to Rabbi Lookstein, that speaking at the Republican National Convention would tarnish him and the community due to guilt by association. The person who began the petition explained that Rabbi Lookstein's words would be diminished by the fact that the presumptive nominee had said controversial, demeaning and often time’s hateful words, and the Rabbi would be associated with those words. Furthermore, there are many who have voted for the presumptive nominee who are part of the racist underbelly of the United States, including David Duke and those of his ilk. So even if the presumptive nominee is not a racist, the fact that he never disavows that racist undercurrent of the electorate is equally as problematic.
This Shabbat we read form Parsha Balak. Balak was a Moabite King. After watching what B’nai Yisroel had done to the Ammonites, Balak was distressed. He realized that fighting B’nai Yisroel with a regular army was doomed to fail because he realized that God had blessed them. Being a clever king, Balak surmised that the only way to fight B'nai Yisroel was to fight them on a spiritual level. Since God blessed B’nai Yisroel, Balak wanted to find someone to curse them. There lived a prophet, a “Prophet Consultant,” a “hired gun” if you will, named Bilaam. King Balak hired Bilaam to curse B’nai Yisroel. Bilaam is visited by God and told not to curse B’nai Yisroel. Bilaam ignores the visitation. On his donkey heading towards B’nai Yisroel’s camp, and preparing his curses, the donkey stops. Although Bilaam could not see the angel standing in the middle of the road with a sword drawn, the donkey did. As a result the donkey refused to continue forward. Finally Bilaam realizes that there is a divine force in the middle of the road and must confront it. Bilaam listens and heads toward the camp. Looking down upon the encampment, Bilaam blesses B’nai Yisroel with words that we say upon entering into any synagogue, words that we teach our children at the youngest of ages. Ma Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov Mishkenotecha Yisroel – How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel – Kinchalim Nitayu K’ganot Alei Nahar K’Ahalim Natah Adoshem Ka’Arazim Alei Mayimstretching out like brooks like gardens by the river, like aloes planted by Hashem, like cedars by the water (Num 24:5-6). Try as he might, Bilaam is unable to curse B’nai Yisroel, rather he blesses them.
            These are certainly beautiful words, so beautiful in fact, that they are part of the morning service. These words are so beautiful in fact, that we say them every morning. Yet, despite these beautiful words, ChaZaL, the Talmudic Sages, look at Bilaam and they see a disingenuous person. The Commentators wonder why God gets so angry with Bilaam for going with Balak and the Moabite officers even when God told him to go with them.  V’Yavoh  Elohim El Bilaam Lailah, VaYomer Lo Im Likro Lecha Ba’u Ha’Anashim Kum Leich Itam V’Ach et HaDavar Asher Adabeir Eilecha Oto Ta’AsehHashem came to Bilaam at night and said to him “If the men come to summon you , arise and go with them but only the that I shall Speak to you – that you shall do. Bilaam BaBoker VaYaChaVeish et Atono VaYeilech Im Sarei Moav – Bilaam arose in the morning and saddled his she-donkey and went with the officers of Moav. VayiChar Af Elokim Ki Holeich Hu…. God’s wrath flared because he [Bilaam] was going... Why does God so angry? What did Bilaam do so wrong? What did ChaZaL see in the text to warrant such a deep seated disgust with Bilaam? Certainly it could not have been the words of blessing uttered at the end of the Parsha. Rather the problem is what the word “with” means. God says “Leich Itam” – go with them.  Bilaam, we are told “Valeich Im Sarei” Bilaam went with them [the officers]. The issue is the way in which Bilaam went with them. God’s instruction “Leich Itam” suggests a passive sort of going. Several of the classical commentators including RamBan (13th Century France) and Sforno (16th Century Italy) suggest that word “Itam” suggests that passive accompaniment. However Bilaam saddles the donkey himself, which already suggests an active desire to go. We saw this with Pharaoh saddling his chariot to chase B’nai Yisroel, and we saw this when Avraham saddles the donkey first thing in the morning when preparing to fulfill God’s instructions regarding offering Yitzchak as a sacrifice. “Im” also defined as “with” or “along with”. “Im suggest a type of equality. That is, Bilaam actively accompanies the Moabite officers and Balak. In a sense Bilaam was an active participant in his desire to curse B’nai Yisroel. ChaZaL’s disdain and animosity towards Bilaam was because he clearly intended malice towards B’nai Yisroel. He actively pursued his intentions until God became explicitly involved.
            It is safe to say that the Rabbi Lookstein had no intention of harming people, saying nor saying hateful words. Rather quite the contrary, Rabbi Lookstein’s words were designed to provide a moral voice to the convention and a reminder of the foundations upon which the process is built, democracy, law, the constitution and goodness. His words were actually quite beautiful. The problem is association. I have no doubt that the intention of Rabbi Lookstein’s association with the RNC would have been passive accompaniment as God had instructed Bilaam. It appears to be a very fine line between passive accompaniment and active accompaniment. In fact its two letters: “Aleph” “Tav” or “Ayin” “Mem”. However after watching how this campaign preys upon fear and ignorance, do I really think that the American public would see that difference?  Maybe, but I am guessing that those whose fears and ignorance are preyed upon are unable to see the difference.

Peace,
Rav Yitz

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Ain't No Time To Hate, Barely Time To Wait; And What I Want To Know, Where Does The Time Go? ( Robert Hunter & Jerry Garcia - "Uncle John's Band")



Well, I sent my 16 year old off to Israel as part of her summer program this week. The house has been cleaned. My wife and two younger children are off at summer camp. The house is quiet and I finally took a huge cleansing breath appreciating the quiet at least for a moment. I am sure in a couple of weeks it will feel too quiet and I will begin missing my family. In the meantime I have had a chance to kind of catch up with what has been going on in the world. Certainly the tragedy surrounding the events in Dallas serves as a stark of last week’s Parsha, Korach, and the fact that at times it seems that American society is left standing at an abyss with some Americans being swallowed up by hate, or the tragic results of the expression of that hate. However earlier this week, I watched the memorial service for the slain Dallas policemen. I watched and listened as former President George Bush spoke eloquently and powerfully sounding like a statesman: "At our best, we know we have one country, one future, one destiny. We do not want the unity of grief, nor do we want the unity of fear. We want the unity of hope, affection and high purpose," I watched and listened as President Obama stood up and spoke eloquently and powerfully sounding like a statesman, reminding us that words without deeds are empty and that, ultimately, a change in attitude is best expressed by a change in behavior: "I've seen how inadequate words can be in bringing about lasting change. I've seen how inadequate my own words have been." Then I saw a quiet and subtle act, a quiet and sublet deed that reflected both men’s call for a coming together and focusing upon that which binds society as opposed to what divides it.  I was moved by a very subtle moment when former President Bush took the First Lady’s hand and held it.  
This Shabbat we read from Parsha Chukat. Chukat begins by telling us the Law for the Red Heifer. A Chuk is a statute for which there is no logical reason. Unlike Mitzvot which is a commandment, and for which reasons and rationale may abound in order for the Mitzvah to make sense, a Chuk is simply taken on faith. Unlike a Mishpat, which is a judgment that comes from a specific case/decision, a Chuk is seemly plucked out of the air and there is no thought given to decisions. The Chuk concerning the Red Heifer is that the individual Priest who prepares the mixture that will render the entire nation spiritually pure, will himself become impure from the mixture. However the Parsha continues the theme of Chukat following the statute of the Red Heifer. A brief narrative concerning the death of Miriam, the lack of water and B’nai Yisroel’ s resulting anxiety and lack of faith leads to the issuance of another Chuk. Moshe and Aaron don’t know what to do and God tells them: Kach et HaMateh v’Hakhaeil Et Ha’Edah Ata v’Aharon Achicha v’Dibartem El HaSela L’Eineihem V’Natan Meimav V’Hotzeitah Lahem Mayim Min HaSela V’Hishkita et HaEidah v’Et B’IramHashem spoke to Moshe saying: Take the staff and gather together the assembly, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes that it shall give its waters. You shall bring forth for them water from the rock and give drink to the assembly and to their animals (Num. 20:8). This statute was directed at Moshe and Aaron. There was no apparent logic or reason for it. Why does Moshe need to take the rod if he has to speak to the rock to get the water? And when Moshe fails to heed the statute, he is punished without any mercy. He is forbidden to lead B’nai Yisroel into Eretz Canaan. The last time God issued such a directive to Moshe (back in the book of Exodus 17:6), Moshe was instructed to strike the rock. Now, without warning God has changed the way Moshe was to draw water from the rock. Now without warning of the punishment if Moshe fails to heed the directive, Moshe is unable to fulfill his mission and bring B’nai Yisroel into Eretz Canaan. The Parsha concludes with B’nai Yisroel defeating the Amorites and temporarily dwelling on the planes of Moav, on the Eastern side of the Jordan River.
            The Torah text offers a very simple explanation of Moshe’s sin and ensuing punishment. After striking the rock twice, water came out from the rock, and the assembly drank, God explains the reason for the harsh punishment. Ya’an Lo He’ehmantem Bi L’Hakdisheine L’Einei Bnai Yisroel Lachein Lo Taviu et HaKahal Hazeh el Ha’Aretz Asher Natati Lahem: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this congregation to the Land that I have given them (Num. 20:12). The most humble man who had the closest relationship to God, receives perhaps the most hurtful of punishments for a moment of weakness. However it seems that Moshe’s ultimate shortcoming was that he wasted an opportunity to teach this new generation, this generation that was not familiar with slavery, nor familiar with life in Egypt, nor directly experience the miracle of the Exodus. Moshe, the greatest teacher, prophet, and transmitter of law and theology missed a glaring opportunity to teach B’nai Yisroel. When such a person with vast amounts of power and responsibility miss a sacred opportunity to teach, to explain and create an opportunity for the common folk to draw closer to God, then we can understand the harshness of the punishment. While we may disagree, we can appreciate why God could no longer support Moshe as the leader to bring B’nai Yisroel into Eretz Canaan.
When Moshe hit the rock, he not only missed an opportunity to teach a fundamental lesson to this new generation that was coming of age in the Wilderness. By losing his temper, as justified as he may have been, by hitting the rock, he also diminished himself. No longer was he a statesman concerned about the welfare of the community during a moment of crisis. For a brief moment he became caught up in his own emotion. One of the pundits commented that after watching and listening to both President Bush and President Obama; the two candidates running for President, by comparison, seem small. His point is well taken, inspired leadership, greatness in leadership is about sanctifying moments in word and deed. Anything less than that diminishes the leader. Moshe found that out as he no longer had the zechut, the merit, to enter into the land. It seems that many in the United States electorate understand that as their vote will be about a choice against someone as opposed to a choice for someone.
Peace,
Rav Yitz