Honest to the Point of Recklessness; Self-Centered to the Extreme (Hunter/Garcia- "Althea")

After enough weight/fat comments from my four children, after taking several days to recover from the more than twelve miles I walk each Shabbat, after growing frustrated that some of my clothes don’t fit so nicely, when looking at pictures from my when my wife and I first met, one thing became incredibly clear. I needed to lose weight. So I joined a gym. Prior to beginning this regimen, I met with the trainer. During our meeting, I had flashbacks to my days in college playing basketball for the school team. I sat with the trainer. I imagined that in three months I could easily drop forty pounds and return to my college basketball playing physical condition. Nothing that some weights, running diet supplements couldn’t take care of . However, the trainer reminded me of two important points. First, there was no way I could return to the physical condition of my college days unless I quit work, worked out all day every day, hired a coach for most of each day, and ceased eating my wife’s outstanding cooking. Second, I was so out of shape that had I tried to engage in my college workouts I probably would have succumbed to a heart attack. Of course I would have loved to lose all this weight in three months. I would have loved to return to my college physical condition or my pre-fatherhood weight. The trainer explained to me what I already knew. The key is to lose this weight in a healthy manner that doesn’t damage joints, bones, ligaments and tendons. So instead of engaging in “Extreme Weight Loss”, I have engaged in a less extreme, healthier manner of weight loss.

This morning we read from Pasha Naso. The Parsha’s 176 psukim make it among the longest single parshiot in the entire Torah. Its length is also reflected in the wide variety of topics covered including: further description of Priestly obligations, the dedication of offering that each tribe brought prior to the Mishkan’s opening and laws concerning the wayward wife. Each of these seemingly disparate narratives and laws focuses upon a specific segment of the population. However all of the narratives and laws contain the common thread of raising the level of holiness in our lives. The Parsha also provides a mechanism for the most common individual to engage in an “extreme” spiritual makeover. There are only three requirements to engage in an “extreme spiritual makeover”: a time requirement, abstaining from God’s creation and the blessings that correspond to the celebration of God’s creation, and leaving one’s body untouched. Ki Yafli Lindor Neder Nazir L’Hazir LHashem the individual makes a neder swears a vow to forego, grapes& grape products, and haircuts for thirty day period. Once those requirements are satisfied then Kol Yemai Nizro Kadosh Hu L’Adoshem – all the days of being a Nazir, he is only to the HaShem . When the thirty days of “extreme” spirituality are complete, Yavi Oto el Petach Ohel Moed, V’Hikriv et Korbano L’Adoshem Keves Ben Shnato tamim Echad L’Olah V’CHavsah Echat Bat SHatah Temimah L’Chatat V’Ayikl Echad Tamim Lishlamim – He shall bring himself to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. He shall bring his offering to Hashem: one unblemished sheep in its first year as an elevation-offering, one unblemished ewe in its first year as a sin offering, and one unblemished ram as a peace offering. After successfully achieving this higher spiritual plane, the Nazir brings a sin offering. But what was the Nazir’s sin?

The Gemarah in Taanit 11A makes the following statement in Shmuel’s name. Kol Hayosheiv B’Taanit Nikrah Chutach –whoever indulges in fasting is dubbed a sinner. Shmuel based his comment on R’Eliezer Haakapar’s Berebi’s position: if someone who denies himself wine (a Nazir) is considered to be a sinner, then of course someone who denies himself food, must also be considered a sinner. In Maimonides Mishnah Torah Deot 3:1, the Rambam takes R’Eliezer’s position to its logical conclusion. Hoil Hakanah Vitava VHichvod UCh’Yotzei Bahem Derech Ra’ah Hein…If a man should argue; since envy, passion and pride are evil… then shall I divorce and separate myself utterly from them till I eat no meat nor drink wine, nor marry, nor reside in a comfortable dwelling nor wear fine clothes but only wool and sackcloth after the manner of the heathen priests…. The sin is grapes are permissible; we need them in order to make Shabbat and Yom Tov Kiddush. Hair cuts are a way of celebrating joyous occasions such as Rosh Chodesh or a Chag. So for Shmuel and the Rambam, the sin is a result of the Nazir’s vowing to and successfully abstaining/ separating himself from that which was originally permissible.

Yet, the Torah describes the Nazir as holy. The Torah describes the Nazir as belonging to God. This “closeness” to God hardly suggests the actions of “sin”, or the vow of “sin”. Ramban, Nachmanides explains the necessity for the sin offering because the Nazir has forsaken his vow. After completing his 30 days of abstinence; the Nazir’s return to the world warrants a Chatat (sin) offering. For Ramban, the sin is the Nazir’s return to the world and re-newed exposure to death and impurity. For Ramban, the sin is the Nazir’s forsaking the original vow. For Ramban the fact that the Nazir is obligated to end the vow is immaterial.

While Maimonides represents the view that becoming a Nazir is a sin and Nachminides represents the view that forsaking the Nazarite vow is a sin; there is a third more moderate position. R’ Solomon Astruc (14^th Century, Barcelona), commenting on the phrase “for that which he sinned”, wrote in his Midreshei HaTorah: for the fact that his passions got the better of him, till he was driven to abstain from wine to subdue his material desires and bodily wants and deny himself the legitimate enjoyment of wine that makes glad God and man…For R’Astruc the sin is the fact that Torah, its restrictions, its teachings and it commandments were not enough for the individual to control his physical desires. The individual needed “extreme spirituality” to deal with his overly physical oriented existence.

Certainly there will be times when we need an “extreme” makeover, either physical or spiritual. The fact of the matter is the danger in the “extreme” version of anything is that it is out of the ordinary, and generally unsustainable. Judaism has existed for thousands of years. One of the reasons for Judaism success up until the post war modern era has been because Judaism frowned upon extremism and “extreme” spirituality. Rather the basis for Judaism has remained focused in the fact that we do not separate ourselves from the community. Rather we work towards improving ourselves, our community and our world.

Peace,

Rav Yitz

"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know" - (Black Throated Wind) John Barlow/Bob Weir

I just finished reading the New York Times Op-Ed section. I know... I know.... here in Toronto in the Jewish community the New York time is not exactly well regarded because of the perceived anti Israel bias..., and its liberal bias. I can't help it...I spent too many years in the New York/New Jersey area and I have always read the Op-Ed. This morning's piece was incredibly fascinating. David Brooks who will never be mistaken for the "Liberal" bias of the Times, wrote a fascinating article about Adult Education, and specifically his experience in Adult Jewish Education with a Jewish Educator. Apparently, in a place like Washinton DC, a place where relativistic morality pervades all aspects of life, this particular educator has offered a breath of fresh air as well as inspiration vis a vis Torah Study. Brook's point was that adult education can be a powerful method of building community.

I have to laugh. Not because Brook's point is ridiculous. Hardly. Brooks is spot on. I laugh because he sounds like he just discovered something new or that he just created some type of Chidush (new conclusion/interpretation). This adult learning community is as old as the Yeshivot of of Pre-war Europe, and as ancient as the Talmudic Academies. Learning had been a community endeavor. Within the walls of the Yeshivot, and the Talmudic academy, students would learn in Chavrusa - study partners. The Rebbe would give a Shiur - a lesson based upon what had been covered in the Chavrusa portion. Everyone would be learning together for the sake of the community not for the sake of individual accomplishment. Further to that end, community of Europe and even in some communities here in North America, including Toronto con sider it an honor to support a community of people who learn. This is known as the Kollel in which people learn and the community supports the learning even if some cannot actually participate in the daily learning. The result is that the entire community is focused on and engaged in learning for adults.
There is a moment in this week's Torah Portion, Shmot, after Moshe Rabeinu is born and is now being raised in the Pharaoh's palace as an Egyptian. Vayigdal Moshe VaYeitze... Moshe grew up and went out (Ex. 2:11). One could argue that this really was the turning point in the the 120 year life of Moshe. He grew and he went out from the palace. He went out and looked at the world outside of the palace. He grew up and he went out to absorb what the world had to offer. Of course when he did go out, Moshe saw the task master striking the Hebrew slave and after checking to make sure no one was watching, Moshe killed the task master who had been beating the helpless slave.
The point is that Moshe was not satisfied with what he had learned in the Palace. Even after he had grown, he remained intellectually curious. he was not willing to live in a gilded cage with his own set of assumptions, his own biases, and his own perspective of the world. Instead Yeitzeh -he went out to see the world, experience it, be challenged by it, learn from it, and draw a new set of conclusions if need be.
In a sense this is the first step towards adult education and adult learning. The adult has to be open enough and receptive enough and willing to engage in the learning, and the texts. The adult has to be willing to question his/her sets of assumptions, his/her pre-conceived understanding of the text as well as bias towards that text; and almost suspend all that baggage just long enough to Yeitzeh to go out from the comfortable confines of the self and learn. Underlying Brooks' piece is something quite substantial. As non-orthodox shuls across North America struggle to re-invent themselves, to attract young people who are either too busy, too dis-interested, or too suspicous; perhaps focusing on and creating adult learning communities should be the foundation upon which non-orthodox shuls re-invent themselves.
-Rav Yitz