Category Archives: Deuteronomy/Devarim

V’zot Habracha, Deuteronomy 33:1-34:12

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/vezothaberakhah

I Have Been to the Mountaintop

The End of the Torah

The image of a serpent biting its own tail is prevalent in many different mythologies. It first appeared as early as 1600 BCE in Egypt, and then later amongst the Greeks who called it the “Ouroboros”, meaning “devouring its tail”. The psychologist Jung saw the Ouroboros as an archetype; an innate, universal, prototypical idea:

“In the image of the Ouroboros (the serpent swallowing its own tail) lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process… The Ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e., of the shadow…it is said of the Ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. He symbolises the One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and he therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which […] unquestionably stems from man’s unconscious” – C.G. Jung, Collected Works, Vol. 14 para. 51

Does this imagery help us to understand what is happening at that fateful moment when we turn, yet again, from the end of the Torah back to its very beginning? That instant, when we return to the start of Bereshit (Genesis), is the moment when Judaism “slays itself and brings itself to life”.

In cultures that are not based around a primary canonical text, there is a free choice of stories and they can be read in any order. However, a closed canonical culture needs to focus its adherents on the core text in order to sustain its identity. Built into the very concept of a closed canonical culture is the notion that at a certain point the story will stop. When we reach the end of the Torah we put the story of Joshua to one side, along with the entire historiography of the conquest of Canaan; turning our backs on the future we will head back towards pre-history. The biblical canon is brought to life, or better, “given a constantly renewable lease on life” (Yerushalmi, “Zachor”), by our predetermined relationship with re-reading.

The return to Bereshit is a source of eternal youth, but it is also filled with an anxiety that Jung alludes to. As the snake twists its head back into pre-history to consume its tail, the particularist tale of Exodus and Sinai is forced to confront the shadow of its universalist beginnings.

So imagine for a second what it would be like if, instead of heading back to the start of Bereshit, we allowed ourselves to read on into the book of Joshua. We would surely have to confront the crisis sparked off by Moses’ death and described by the Amora Rav in Talmud Masechet T’murah 16a: Rav Judah reported in the name of Rav: When Moses departed [this world] for the Garden of Eden he said to Joshua: ‘Ask me concerning all the doubts you have’. He replied to him: ‘My Master, have I ever left you for one hour and gone elsewhere? Did you not write concerning me in the Torah: “But his servant Joshua the son of Nun departed not out of the tabernacle?” (Ex. XXXIII, 11) Immediately the strength [of Moses] weakened and [Joshua] forgot three hundred laws and there arose [in his mind] seven hundred doubts [concerning laws]. Then all the Israelites rose up to kill him. The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to him [Joshua]: ‘It is not possible to tell you. Go and occupy their attention in war…

Rav understands that the death of Moses generates a huge sense of loss of continuity amongst the Israelites, which is then sublimated in violence towards the other inhabitants of the land. The book of Joshua deals with the Israelites’ anxiety after Moses’ death.

Additionally, were we to continue reading onwards instead of turning back to Bereshit, we would soon lose our sense of the coherence of the canon. Where does our story end? Why stop at the end of the Tanach – what about the rest of the Jewish story? Canonical cultures seem to be doing well in the contemporary world partly because they provide a sense of safety and closure.

Whether we read on after the death of Moses, or whether we choose to return to the start of Bereshit, we will be beset by tension and anxiety. Either way we will need to steel ourselves to the challenge: “Chazak, Chazak, V’Nitchazek” – “Be strong, be strong, and let us strengthen one another!” Have you ever wondered why we need to say such a strange thing at the end of the Torah?

Levy, Joel. "V'zot Habracha 5766." Limmud on One Leg. (Viewed on October 15, 2014). http://limmud.org/publications/limmudononeleg/5766/vzot-habracha/

Ha’Azinu: Deuteronomy 32:1-32:52

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/haazinu

Dripping Like Rain, Flowing Like Dew

By Rabbi Ruth Gais

Give ear, O heavens, let me speak;
Let the earth hear the words I utter!
May my teaching drip as the rain,
My words flow as the dew,
Like showers on young growth,
Like droplets on the grass.
For the name of Adonai I proclaim;
Give glory to our God! (Deuteronomy 32: 2-3).

Moses’ final words to us, his people, are poetry. These words are so important that ordinary prose just won’t work. They are so important that the entire world, heaven and earth must listen. His words, grandiloquent, fierce, and impassioned, must fall upon us like rain, touch us like dew.

I can understand the comparison to rain. Rain, as we understand more and more in our drought-stricken region, is absolutely crucial for life. These days we welcome it with gladness. But always, whenever it rains, even a light drizzle, no matter the spirit in which we accept it, we can’t help but notice it. Whatever Moses will say in the verses that follow will be like rain–an attention-grabbing teaching that we cannot and must not ignore.

But like other commentators, I’m a bit puzzled by the mention of dew. Why does Moses say that his words are like the dew? Rashi, following Sifre, a midrash on Deuteronomy, explains that everyone rejoices in the dew but rain, though vital, can be annoying to someone on a journey, for example, or to a winemaker into whose vat the rain falls as he is pressing his grapes and spoils his yield. Rashi’s answer is both practical and acute; it takes into account our very human reaction to a phenomenon that we know is crucial for our survival but at that particular moment is, well, raining on our parade.

Rashi assumes that everyone unconditionally rejoices in the dew. I love the dew because it is the antithesis of rain. Dew is shy and unpretentious, qualities which rain can sometimes also possess, but much more aggressively. Rain always calls attention to itself.

But when I think of dew, it is with a smile. I think of an early summer morning. It is calm and sleepy. I could be the only one awake in the whole world except for the birds. The sun has just risen and its rays are still gentle. I am barefoot. If I just run out the door I’ll get my feet wet and then go about my business. But if I take my time and look before I step on the grass, I can see the little drops of dew glistening on each individual blade. When I step on the grass, I shiver a little, but it’s a pleasant, anticipatory shiver, heralding all the mystery that the new day will bring. Dew is quiet, and unassuming, beneficial and dependable, yet mysterious. It is there every morning but we are likely to ignore it or take it for granted.

Dew just is. This simple fact is crucial to our understanding of the importance of dew. The implication of dew’s quiet existence is quite profound. To be aware of the dew is to become alert to all of the hidden goodness of God that we so often take for granted. In the haftarah we read for Shabbat Shuvah (the Shabbat between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) this week, Hosea tells us that God will be to Israel “ka’tal,” like the dew (Hosea 14:6), and coated with dew, Israel will blossom and flourish.

Rain, like Torah, keeps us alive but rain does not always fall. The dew, smaller and less obvious, is a constant. Both rain and dew are signs of God’s mercy, which is at times obvious, at times less so. During these days of teshuvah (repentance) when we have much hard spiritual work to do I find it comforting to think of God’s mercy like the dew, always there, steadfast in love no matter how far we might have strayed and how long we might have forgotten it.

Gias, Ruth. "Dripping Like Rain, Flowing Like Dew." MyJewishLearning.com. (Viewed on September 25, 2014). http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Weekly_Torah_Portion/haazinu_ujafedny5762.shtml?p=0

The Leader’s Call to Responsibility

Rabbi Jonathon Sacks

When words take wing, they modulate into song. That is what they do here in Haazinu as Moses, with the angel of death already in sight, prepares to take leave of this life. Never before had he spoken with such passion. His language is vivid, even violent. He wants his final words never to be forgotten. In a sense he has been articulating this truth for forty years but never before with such emotion. This is what he says:

Give ear, O heavens, that I may speak,
Earth, hear the sayings of my mouth …
The Rock, His acts are perfect,
For all his ways are just.
A faithful God without wrong,
Right and straight is He.
He is not corrupt; the defect is in his children,
A warped and twisted generation.
Is this the way you repay God,
Ungrateful, unwise people?
Is he not your father, your Master.
He made you and established you. (Deuteronomy 32: 1-6)

Don’t blame God when things go wrong. That is what Moses feels so passionately. Don’t believe, he says, that God is there to serve us. We are here to serve Him and through Him be a blessing to the world. God is straight; it is we who are complex and self-deceiving. God is not there to relieve us of responsibility. It is God who is calling us to responsibility.

With these words Moses brings to closure the drama that began in the beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. When they sinned, Adam blamed the woman, the woman blamed the serpent. So it was in the beginning and so it still is in the twenty-first century secular time.

The story of humanity has been for the most part a flight from responsibility. The culprits change. Only the sense of victimhood remains. It wasn’t us. It was the politicians. Or the media. Or the bankers. Or our genes. Or our parents. Or the system, be it capitalism, communism or anything between. Most of all, it is the fault of the others, the ones not like us, infidels, sons of Satan, children of darkness, the unredeemed. The perpetrators of the greatest crime against humanity in all of history were convinced it wasn’t them. They were “only obeying orders.” When all else fails, blame God. And if you don’t believe in God, blame the people who do. To be human is to seek to escape from responsibility.

That is what makes Judaism different. It is what made some people admire Jews and others hate them. For Judaism is God’s call to human responsibility. From this call you can’t hide, as Adam and Eve discovered when they tried, and you can’t escape, as Jonah learnt in the belly of a fish.

What Moses was saying in his great farewell song can be paraphrased thus: “Beloved people, I have led you for forty years, and my time is coming to an end. For the last month, since I began these speeches, these Devarim, I have tried to tell you the most important things about your past and future. I beg you not to forget them.”

“Your parents were slaves. God brought them and you to freedom. But that was negative freedom,chofesh. It meant that there was no-one to order you about. That kind of freedom is not inconsequential, for its absence tastes like unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Eat them once a year so you never forget where you came from and who brought you out.”

“But don’t think that chofesh alone can sustain a free society. When everyone is free to do what they like, the result is anarchy, not freedom. A free society requires cherut, the positive freedom that only comes when people internalise the habits of self-restraint so that my freedom is not bought at the expense of yours, or yours at the cost of mine.”

“That is why I have taught you all these laws, judgments and statutes. None of them is arbitrary. None of them exists because God likes giving laws. God gave laws to the very structures of matter – laws that generated a vast, wondrous, almost unfathomable universe. If God were only interested in giving laws, He would have confined himself to the things that obey those laws, namely matter without mind and life-forms that know not liberty.”

“The laws God gave me and I gave you exist not for God’s sake but for ours. God gave us freedom – the most rare, precious, unfathomable thing of all other than life itself. But with freedom comes responsibility. That means that we must take the risk of action. God gave us the land but we must conquer it. God gave us the fields but we must plough, sow and reap them. God gave us bodies but we must tend and heal them. God is our father; He made us and established us. But parents cannot live their children’s lives. They can only show them by instruction and love how to live.”

“So when things go wrong, don’t blame God. He is not corrupt; we are. He is straight; it is we who are sometimes warped and twisted.” That is the Torah’s ethic of responsibility. No higher estimate has ever been given of the human condition. No higher vocation was ever entrusted to mortal creatures of flesh and blood.

Judaism does not see human beings, as some religions do, as irretrievably corrupt, stained by original sin, incapable of good without God’s grace. That is a form of faith but it is not ours. Nor do we see religion as a matter of blind submission to God’s will. That too is a form of faith but not ours.

We do not see human beings, as the pagans did, as the playthings of capricious gods. Nor do we see them, as some scientists do, as mere matter, a gene’s way of producing another gene, a collection of chemicals driven by electrical impulses in the brain, without any special dignity or sanctity, temporary residents in a universe devoid of meaning that came into existence for no reason and will one day, equally for no reason, cease to be.

We believe that we are God’s image, free as He is free, creative as He is creative, on an infinitely smaller and more limited scale to be sure, but still we are the one point in all the echoing expanse of space where the universe becomes conscious of itself, the one life form capable of shaping its own destiny: choosing, therefore free, therefore responsible. Judaism is God’s call to responsibility.

Which means: thou shalt not see thyself as a victim. Do not believe as the Greeks did that fate is blind and inexorable, that our fate once disclosed by the Delphic oracle, has already been sealed before we were born, that like Laius and Oedipus we are fated, however hard we try to escape the bonds of fate. That is a tragic view of the human condition. To some extent it was shared in different ways by Spinoza, Marx and Freud, the great triumvirate of Jews-by-descent who rejected Judaism and all its works.

Instead like Viktor Frankl, survivor of Auschwitz, and Aaron T. Beck, co-founder of cognitive behavioural therapy, we believe we are not defined by what happens to us but rather by how we respond to what happens to us. That itself is determined by how we interpret what happens to us. If we change the way we think – which we can, because of the plasticity of the brain – then we can change the way we feel and the way we act. Fate is never final. There may be such a thing as an evil decree, but penitence, prayer and charity can avert it. And what we cannot do alone we can do together, for we believe “it is not good for man to be alone.”

So Jews developed a morality of guilt in place of what the Greeks had, a morality of shame. A morality of guilt makes a sharp distinction between the person and the act, between the sinner and the sin. Because we are not wholly defined by what we do, there is a core within us that remains intact – “My God, the soul you gave me is pure” – so that whatever wrong we may have done, we can repent and be forgiven. That creates a language of hope, the only force strong enough to defeat a culture of despair.

It is that power of hope, born whenever God’s love and forgiveness gives rise to human freedom and responsibility, that has made Judaism the moral force it has always been to those who minds and hearts are open. But that hope, says Moses with a passion that still sears us whenever we tread it afresh, does not just happen. It has to be worked for and won. The only way it is achieved is by not blaming God. He is not corrupt. The defect is in us, His children. If we seek a better world, we must make it. God teaches us, inspires us, forgives us when we fail and lifts us when we fall, but we must make it. It is not what God does for us that transforms us; it is what we do for God.

The first humans lost paradise when they sought to hide from responsibility. We will only ever regain it if we accept responsibility and become a nation of leaders, each respecting and making space for those not like us. People do not like people who remind them of their responsibility. That is one of the reasons (not the only one, to be sure) for Judeophobia through the ages. But we are not defined by those who do not like us. To be a Jew is to be defined by the One who loves us.

The deepest mystery of all is not our faith in God but God’s faith in us. May that faith sustain us as we heed the call to responsibility and take the risk of healing some of the needless wounds of an injured but still wondrous world.

Sacks, Jonathon. "The Leader's Call to Responsibility." OUTorah.org. (Viewed on September 25, 2014). http://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/rabbi-sacks-on-parsha/leaders-call-responsibility/

Nitzavim-Vayeilech, Deuteronomy 29:9-31:30

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/nitzavimvayeilech

The I-Thou Encounter

By Robbie Duschinsky

‘For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, neither is it far off… But the word is very nigh unto you, in your mouth, and in you heart, that you may do it [la’asoto]’ (Deut 30: 11, 14). What does it mean for the commandments to already be ‘very near’ to us?

One person who considers this question is the early Christian thinker Saint Paul. Paul writes ‘For the word’ – ‘that is, the word of faith’ – ‘is very near to you, in your mouth and your heart’ (Romans, x: 8). For Paul, what is near us from the beginning is the possibility of faith in G-d. Considering differences between a Christian and a Jewish perspective, the modern Jewish philosopher Martin Buber observes wryly in his book Two Types of Faith (p.53) that Saint Paul misses out the last bit of the verse from Deuteronomy ‘that you may do it’ [la’asoto]. In Buber’s account, the commandments are not too hard for us or far off – because communication with G-d is an ongoing dimension of what we do. This communication, Buber argues, is present in each connection in which someone or something is treated as meaningful and extraordinary in their own right, an encounter Buber calls ‘I-Thou’. Such encounters, he insists, occur in all kinds of circumstances – relating to other people, learning new things, encountering nature – across in all the various doings that make up the concrete practices of our lives. Each one points beyond itself towards communication with and instruction from G-d.

A surprising figure comes to Saint Paul’s defence. The psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan veers off during a discussion of psychosis to argue against Buber. Lacan argues that ‘the I is essentially fleeting in nature and never entirely sustains the Thou’ (Lacan, Seminar 3, p.286). Lacan’s point is that we are all so fractured, so dependent on other people for our self-definition: how can we sustain any relationship with the Thou? If Lacan is right, the possibility of relationship with G-d is thrown back onto the question of whether a person has faith – rather than any prior intimacy between G-d and our fragmentary, everyday human actions. But Lacan has not got Buber right at all; in fact, the opposite. For Buber, it is precisely because each of us is always fractured, never whole, and always in some way dependent upon other people, that I-Thou encounters occur in our lives. That is why G-d’s word is so near to us, always and necessarily. We can’t ever fully avoid a sense of our experiences as meaningful and extraordinary… there is so much we don’t know, we are surprised even by ourselves, and we need one another so badly.

Duschinsky, Robbie. "Another Voice 5773." Limmud On One Leg. (Viewed on September 19, 2014). http://limmud.org/publications/limmudononeleg/5773/nitzavim-vayelech/

You Are Stationed

By Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah

What are we doing when we read the Torah? Do we regard it as a resource for our own lives today, and engage with the texts as part of our own personal search for meaning and purpose? Or: Are we, like the generations who went before us, rehearsing an ancient rite as we read and reread the ‘Five Books of Moses’ each year in the context of the weekly rhythms of congregational life? Perhaps, taking a more objective approach, we read to gather fragments of evidence about the past; or, to explore the stories and mores of an ancient people; or, to discover clues to the civilisations of the ancient Near East. Perhaps we read the Torah as a work of literature; or, adopt a critical approach to its textual sources and their redaction.

Some of us will be reading the Torah for many different reasons and from many different perspectives – and, as with all the portions of the Torah, Parashat NitzavimVa-yeilech may be read on all these levels. Nevertheless, as soon as we identify this double portion, which runs from Deuteronomy chapter 29 (:9) through Deuteronomy chapter 31, we are situating our reading in the context of the annual Torah reading cycle, which dictates, depending on the particular year, that Nitzavim and Va-yeilech, will either be read together during the same week, or on succeeding weeks, one after the other. What is more, because within the annual Torah reading cycle Nitzavim or NitzavimVa-yeilech is usually read, either immediately before Rosh Ha-Shanah, or on Shabbat Shuvah, the Sabbath between Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur, these texts take on an additional resonance as conveyors of messages about personal responsibility, commitment and the need for repentance. Indeed, within the progressive Jewish world, passages from Nitzavim are also read on Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. So, the congregations of the Movement for Reform Judaism read Deuteronomy 29:9-14 as the second portion on Rosh Ha-Shanah and read Deuteronomy 30: 8-20 on Yom Kippur afternoon, while the congregations of Liberal Judaism read Deuteronomy 29:9-14 and 30:11-20 on Yom Kippur morning.

These plural frames of reference generate frameworks of interpretation, even before we examine the texts. They certainly contribute to the way I read them. And so, when I read the opening words of Nitzavim: Atem nitzavim ha-yom kul’chem lifney Adonai Eloheychem – ‘You are stationed here today, all of you, before the Eternal One your God’ (Deut. 29:9a), I am not only encountering a narrative about the Israelites ‘stationed’ – nitzavim – in the wilderness, at the end of their forty year journey c. 1250 BCE, I am also imagining the Jewish people, here and now, gathering together during the most sacred season of the Jewish year. Significantly, the text itself insists on this identification. It is clear that ha-yom, ‘today’ is not just a transient moment in time, long since passed, it is every today. As we read at Deuteronomy 29 (:13-14):

Not only with you do I make this covenant, with its sanctions, with those who are with us today, standing before the Eternal One our God, but also with those, were not here today.

Rather than analyse every word and phrase of Nitzavim- Va-yeilech, I want to stay with the thread of connection created in the text by the word ha-yom, ‘today’, and take my lead from the opening statement: Atem nitzavim ha-yom kul’chem lifneyAdonai Eloheychem – ‘You are stationed here today, all of you, before the Eternal One your God’.  In the second half of the verse, the message, kul’chem, ‘all of you’, is underlined by setting out a list: ‘your heads, your tribes, your elders and your officers; every man of Israel’ – kol ish Yisrael (29:9b); a list which continues through the next verse (29:10):

Your children, your wives and your sojourner, who is in the midst of your camp; from those who cut wood to those who draw water.

The list suggests total inclusion of all those who are part of the ‘camp’, including those who are not Israelites. At the same time, it is clear that the plural subjects, Atem, ‘You’, who are being addressed, are the male Israelites: children, wives and sojourners belong to them.

So, when it comes to the readers of this passage, in particular, those who live within the Jewish ‘camp’ today, understanding the text as addressed to them ha-yom, ‘today’, is a very different experience for male and female readers. While men can identify themselves as the active subjects, women are presented with a challenge: do I consider myself included, along with my husband, or do I want to take active steps to be included in my own right? And for those women who do not have a husband, who are single or widowed or divorced or lesbian, do I feel part of the camp? Do I want to be part of the camp? Can I include myself? What do I need to do to be included?

And what of Va-yeilech, the second part of the double portion (Deuteronomy, chapter 31)? At first sight, preoccupied as it is with the final days of Moses and the impending succession of Joshua, it seems to be less relevant for ha-yom, today. And yet, the opening two words suggest something else: Va-yeilech Moshe – ‘Then Moses went’. An echo, at the end of the wilderness wanderings, of the first journey of the first ancestor – Va-yeilech Avram – ‘Then Avram went’ (Leich L’cha, Genesis 12:4) – the simple phrase reminds us that, ultimately, each individual is challenged to go on a journey; albeit, individual women have the additional challenge of including themselves. That is why the first part of the double portion, begins Atem nitzavim – ‘You are stationed’: to be stationed is to stand in readiness for departure. And the existential message is even more powerful: it is not possible to stand still, to stay where we are; from a Jewish perspective, ‘being’ is inextricably linked with ‘doing’ and moving forward into the future. I am, therefore I act. Indeed, at the heart of Nitzavim, the reader is presented with a set of choices: between life and death, good and evil, blessing and curse (30:15-19), and so, ultimately, unless we make the choice to die, we are challenged – each one of us – to live: u’vacharta ba-chayyim ‘therefore you shall choose in life!’ (30:19).

Tikvah Sarah, Elizabeth. "Parashat Nitzavim-Vayelech 5773." Leo Baeck College, Weekly D'Var Torah. (Viewed on September 20, 2014). http://www.lbc.ac.uk/Table/Weekly-D-var-Torah/

Ki Tavo, Deuteronomy 26:1-29:8

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/kitavo

Love Is Not the Opposite of Hate

By Rabbi Bradley Artson

Human beings never seem able to express all their hatred for each other.

Men and women war against each other; blacks and whites, gay and straight, liberals and conservatives, city-folk and suburbanites–there is no end to stereotypes, hostility and mistrust. In response to this propensity to hate, Nobel laureate Elie Weisel organized an international conference on hate in Oslo, Norway. The glittering list of invited participants included four presidents, and 70 writers, scientists and academics.

The two questions which shaped their deliberations were, “Why do people hate?” and “Why do people band together to express hatred?” Although the speeches were beautiful and the resolutions were firm, the entire event was fairly predictable, except for their primary conclusion, which seems so at odds with common sense. Ask anyone what the opposite of hate is, and they will tell you it’s love. But the consensus of these most accomplished, powerful and thoughtful people was that, “Only the belief in and execution of the law can defeat hatred.”

In other words, the opposite of hate is law. The Prime Minister of Norway even bolstered that claim by quoting from the statesman/philosopher Edmund Burke (18th century England) that, “When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one.” While this insight might be news to the largely-Christian west, it merely confirms the age-old conviction of Judaism that law is the indispensable expression of love and decency. A people abandons law at the peril of their own character, justice and survival.

Our Torah portion understands that need for law, for mitzvot, insisting that, “The Lord your God commands you this day to observe these laws and rules; observe them faithfully with all your heart and soul.” Why is law essential to Judaism? Without clear standards of communal behavior and individual rectitude, each person is forced to fall back on their own sense of right and wrong. Without external guidelines, that sense can all too easily become simply a way to excuse ones own predilections and to overlook one’s own weakness.

Halakhah (Jewish Law) provides a “second opinion,” integrating the claims of conscience with the will of God and the wisdom of the sages. In addition to establishing a context for moral decision, halakhah also allows for communal cohesion. Without a binding structure for maintaining consensus, Judaism rapidly dissolves into a combination of nostalgia, good intentions and contemporary politics. No longer able to hold together a people, each individual fashions their own faith out of the inherited remains of the past, and then everybody calls their own hodgepodge, “Judaism.”

Halakhah cuts through that solipsism, forcing people to integrate the needs of their neighbors and coreligionists, an awareness of God and the sacred, and the highest ideals of human morality. In an age of lonely individuals coming together to try to foster a sense of meaning without impinging on autonomy, Jewish law forges us into a community, with a framework to channel and guide our individuality.

Finally, halakhah extends the realm of the sacred and the moral beyond a once-a-week (or once-a-year) peek into a prayerbook or a synagogue. Instead, Judaism becomes the prism through which we refract all the rays of light from every aspect of our lives, sanctifying and elevating every moment, every deed and every place.

In the words of Rabbi Pinhas in Midrash Devarim Rabbah, “Whatever you do, the mitzvot accompany you. If you build a house . . . if you make a door . . . if you buy new clothes . . . if you have your hair cut . . . if you plough your field . . . if you sow it . . . if you gather the harvest . . .. God said, “Even when you are not occupied with anything, but are just taking a walk, the mitzvot accompany you.”

Jewish law, then, is the powerhouse that has maintained Jewish unity, purpose and vigor throughout the ages. Through our halakhah, we reach beyond our drives to attain our aspirations, beyond our flaws to embody our ideals. As they have been for thousands of years, the laws of the Torah and the Talmud summon us to aim high, to become the earthly representatives of the sacred and the sublime.

In the words of Midrash Derekh Eretz Zuta, Jewish law allows us to let all our “doings be for the sake of God, revering and loving God, feeling awe and joy towards all the ‘mitzvot.'” Take a stand against hatred; do a ‘mitzvah.’

Artson, Bradley. "Love Is Not the Opposite of Hate; Law Is." MyJewishLearning.com. (Viewed on September 12, 2014). http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Weekly_Torah_Portion/kitavo_artson5762.shtml?p=0

A Nation of Storytellers

By Rabbi Jonathon Sacks

Howard Gardner, professor of education and psychology at Harvard University, is one of the great minds of our time. He is best known for his theory of “multiple intelligences,” the idea that there is not one thing that can be measured and defined as intelligence but many different things – one dimension of the dignity of difference. He has also written many books on leadership and creativity, including one in particular, Leading Minds, that is important in understanding this week’s parsha.

Gardner’s argument is that what makes a leader is the ability to tell a particular kind of story – one that explains ourselves to ourselves and gives power and resonance to a collective vision. So Churchill told the story of Britain’s indomitable courage in the fight for freedom. Gandhi spoke about the dignity of India and non-violent protest. Margaret Thatcher talked about the importance of the individual against an ever-encroaching State. Martin Luther King told of how a great nation is colour-blind. Stories give the group a shared identity and sense of purpose.

Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre has also emphasized the importance of narrative to the moral life. “Man,” he writes, “is in his actions and practice as well as in his fictions, essentially a story-telling animal.” It is through narratives that we begin to learn who we are and how we are called on to behave. “Deprive children of stories and you leave them unscripted, anxious stutterers in their actions as in their words.” To know who we are is in large part to understand of which story or stories we are a part.

The great questions – “Who are we?” “Why are we here?” “What is our task?” – are best answered by telling a story. As Barbara Hardy put it: “We dream in narrative, daydream in narrative, remember, anticipate, hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticise, construct, gossip, learn, hate and love by narrative.” This is fundamental to understanding why Torah is the kind of book it is: not a theological treatise or a metaphysical system but a series of interlinked stories extended over time, from Abraham and Sarah’s journey from Mesopotamia to Moses’ and the Israelites’ wanderings in the desert. Judaism is less about truth as system than about truth as story. And we are part of that story. That is what it is to be a Jew.

A large part of what Moses is doing in the book of Devarim is retelling that story to the next generation, reminding them of what God had done for their parents and of some of the mistakes their parents had made. Moses, as well as being the great liberator, is the supreme story teller. Yet what he does in parshat Ki Tavo extends way beyond this.

He tells the people that when they enter, conquer and settle the land, they must bring the first ripened fruits to the central sanctuary, the Temple, as a way of giving thanks to God. A Mishnah in Bikkurim describes the joyous scene as people converged on Jerusalem from across the country, bringing their firstfruits to the accompaniment of music and celebration. Merely bringing the fruits, though, was not enough. Each person had to make a declaration. That declaration become one of the best known passages in the Torah because, though it was originally said on Shavuot, the festival of firstfruits, in post-biblical times it became a central element of the Haggadah on seder night:

My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt and lived there, few in number, there becoming a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians ill-treated us and made us suffer, subjecting us to harsh labour. Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our ancestors, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with signs and wonders. (Deut. 26: 5-8)

Here for the first time the retelling of the nation’s history becomes an obligation for every citizen of the nation. In this act, known as vidui bikkurim, “the confession made over firstfruits,” Jews were commanded, as it were, to become a nation of storytellers.

This is a remarkable development. Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi tells us that, “Only in Israel and nowhere else is the injunction to remember felt as a religious imperative to an entire people.” Time and again throughout Devarim comes the command to remember: “Remember that you were a slave in Egypt.” “Remember what Amalek did to you.” “Remember what God did to Miriam.” “Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you.”

The vidui bikkurim is more than this. It is, compressed into the shortest possible space, the entire history of the nation in summary form. In a few short sentences we have here “the patriarchal origins in Mesopotamia, the emergence of the Hebrew nation in the midst of history rather than in mythic prehistory, slavery in Egypt and liberation therefrom, the climactic acquisition of the land of Israel, and throughout – the acknowledgement of God as lord of history.”

We should note here an important nuance. Jews were the first people to find God in history. They were the first to think in historical terms – of time as an arena of change as opposed to cyclical time in which the seasons rotate, people are born and die, but nothing really changes. Jews were the first people to write history – many centuries before Herodotus and Thucydides, often wrongly described as the first historians. Yet biblical Hebrew has no word that means “history” (the closest equivalent isdivrei hayamim, “chronicles”). Instead it uses the root zakhor, meaning “memory.”

There is a fundamental difference between history and memory. History is “his story,” an account of events that happened sometime else to someone else. Memory is “my story.” It is the past internalised and made part of my identity. That is what the Mishnah in Pesachim means when it says, “Each person must see himself as if he (or she) went out of Egypt.”

Throughout Devarim Moses warns the people – no less than fourteen times – not to forget. If they forget the past they will lose their identity and sense of direction and disaster will follow. Moreover, not only are the people commanded to remember, they are also commanded to hand that memory on to their children.

This entire phenomenon represents a remarkable cluster of ideas: about identity as a matter of collective memory; about the ritual retelling of the nation’s story; above all about the fact that every one of us is a guardian of that story and memory. It is not the leader alone, or some elite, who are trained to recall the past, but every one of us. This too is an aspect of the devolution and democratization of leadership that we find throughout Judaism as a way of life. The great leaders tell the story of the group, but the greatest of leaders, Moses, taught the group to become a nation of storytellers.

You can still see the power of this idea today. As I point out in my book The Home We Build Together, if you visit the Presidential memorials in Washington, you see that each carries an inscription taken from their words: Jefferson’s ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .’, Roosevelt’s ‘The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself’, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and his second Inaugural, ‘With malice toward none; with charity for all . . .’ Each memorial tells a story.

London has no equivalent. It contains many memorials and statues, each with a brief inscription stating who it represents, but there are no speeches or quotations. There is no story. Even the memorial to Churchill, whose speeches rivalled Lincoln’s in power, carries only one word: Churchill.

America has a national story because it is a society based on the idea of covenant. Narrative is at the heart of covenantal politics because it locates national identity in a set of historic events. The memory of those events evokes the values for which those who came before us fought and of which we are the guardians.

A covenantal narrative is always inclusive, the property of all its citizens, newcomers as well as the home-born. It says to everyone, regardless of class or creed: this is who we are. It creates a sense of common identity that transcends other identities. That is why, for example, Martin Luther King was able to use it to such effect in some of his greatest speeches. He was telling his fellow African Americans to see themselves as an equal part of the nation. At the same time, he was telling white Americans to honour their commitment to the Declaration of Independence and its statement that ‘all men are created equal’.

England does not have the same kind of national narrative because it is based not on covenant but on hierarchy and tradition. England, writes Roger Scruton, “was not a nation or a creed or a language or a state but a home. Things at home don’t need an explanation. They are there because they are there.” England, historically, was a class-based society in which there were ruling elites who governed on behalf of the nation as a whole. America, founded by Puritans who saw themselves as a new Israel bound by covenant, was not a society of rulers and ruled, but rather one of collective responsibility. Hence the phrase, central to American politics but never used in English politics: “We, the people.”

By making the Israelites a nation of storytellers, Moses helped turn them into a people bound by collective responsibility – to one another, to the past and future, and to God. By framing a narrative that successive generations would make their own and teach to their children, Moses turned Jews into a nation of leaders.

Sacks, Jonathon. "A Nation of Storytellers." OUTorah.org. (Viewed on September 12, 2014). http://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/rabbi-sacks-on-parsha/nation-storytellers/

Ki Tetzei, Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/kiteitzei

To Wear is Human

By Rabbi Elliot Kukla and Reuben Zellman

For all those who have ever struggled with how to discipline children’s bad behavior, this
week’s parsha, Ki-Teitze, offers an easy answer: stone them to death! (Deut. 21:21)

Thankfully, Jews have recognized for over a thousand years that this is an unacceptable solution to a common problem. In fact, we learn in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) that this apparent commandment of the Torah was never once carried out. Our Sages refused to understand this verse literally, as it conflicted with their understanding of the holiness of each and every human life.

With this scenario in mind, let us look at another verse in our parsha: “A man’s clothes should not be on a woman, and a man should not wear the apparel of a woman; for anyone who does these things, it is an abomination before God.” (Deut. 22:5) Just as classical Jewish scholars reinterpreted the commandment to stone to death rebellious children, they also read our portion’s apparent ban on “cross-dressing” to yield a much narrower prohibition.

The great medieval commentator Rashi explains that this verse is not simply forbidding
wearing the clothes of the “opposite gender.” Rashi writes that such dress is prohibited only when it will lead to adultery. Maimonides, a 12th century codifier of Jewish law, claims that this verse is actually intended to prohibit cross-dressing for the purposes of idol worship. (Sefer haMitzvot, Lo Taaseh 39-40) In other words, according to the classical scholars of our tradition, wearing clothes of “the wrong gender” is proscribed only when it is for the express purpose of causing harm to our relationship with our loved ones or with God. The prohibition that we learn from this verse is very specific: we must not misrepresent our true gender in order to cause harm. Otherwise, wearing clothing of another gender is not prohibited. The Talmud puts it most succinctly: v’ein kan toevah – “there is no abomination here.” (Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 59a-b)

So, what does this verse mean for us today? In order to understand it in our own context, we need to examine two questions: What does it mean to wear clothing of a gender we are not? And, what does it mean to cause harm?

Many people feel like their true gender is not (or is not only) the gender that was assigned to them at birth. The Torah is asking us not to misrepresent our gender, which we can understand as using external garments to conceal our inner selves. Unfortunately, many transgender and genderqueer people today feel forced to hide in exactly this way. In our society the penalty for expressing the fullness of a gender-variant identity is often severe and can include verbal, sexual, and physical abuse, employment discrimination, an inability to access education and health care and, sometimes, murder.

Gender rigidity does not just impact transgender and genderqueer people. It also harms the eight year-old boy who was suspended from school for wearing his ballet tutu to class in upstate New York, the flight attendant in Atlanta who sued her employer for firing her because of her refusal to wear make-up, and the butch lesbian who was shouted at and harassed in a “women’s” restroom in a synagogue in Los Angeles. Much of this mistreatment comes from those who insist that wearing the clothes of the “other gender” is wrong “because it says so in the Bible.”

Classical Jewish scholars do not accept such a justification for narrow-mindedness. Neither should we. Rather, we can flip mainstream understandings of our verse on their head and understand it as a positive mitzvah, a sacred obligation to present the fullness of our gender as authentically as possible. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to fulfill this mitzvah without endangering their life or livelihood, and the protection of human life always comes first in Judaism. However, the Torah wants us to be true to ourselves.

Next, we come to the second part of our prohibition: that we must not cover up our gender in order to cause harm. Transgender and genderqueer people who hide under the clothing of the gender they were assigned – rather than expressing themselves as they really are – suffer terrible harm. Rates of depression, suicide, and destructive self-medication are astronomical.

Each and every soul is created in the multifaceted image of the Creator. When we try to conceal that uniqueness, we cause ourselves pain. And when we ask others to obscure themselves we cause them harm. The great majority of our parsha is concerned with the minute details of preventing harm. The lines before our verse, teach that if we see that someone’s donkey has fallen down, we are required to help that person lift the animal up. The verse immediately following, instructs us never to hurt a mother bird as we are collecting her eggs. And the very next verse commands us to build a guardrail around the roof of our houses, to prevent anyone from falling off . The verse about what to wear is nestled amongst mitzvot that guide us towards exquisite levels of empathy and gentleness towards all of creation.

As our Sages realized, a sacred tradition that command us not to cause pain to a single mother bird, must not be asking us to stone to death small children or conceal our true gender. Jewish tradition asks us to safeguard each unique being created in the image of God, by preventing harm. When we cover up our true souls and muffle our divine reflection under clothes that feel “wrong”, we are harming God’s creation. This is what our Torah prohibits!

Kukla, Elliot and Zellman, Reuben. "To Wear Is Human: Parshat Ki Tetze." TransTorah.org. (Viewed on September 6, 2014). http://www.transtorah.org/PDFs/To_Wear_Is_Human.pdf

Sex and the Torah

By Akiva Yael

Sex saturates our Torah. So many of the stories central to our tradition thrive on sexuality, sensuality and straight eroticism. Entirely of her own volition, Sarah gives her handmaid, Hagar, to her husband for purposes of procreation. Lot’s daughters get their father drunk and seduce him. Onan resorts to the withdrawal method to avoid the risk of impregnating his late brother’s wife. Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute and tricks her former father-in-law into marrying her. Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce Joseph and then accuses him of rape when he rebuffs her advances. And Shir HaShirim was clearly intended for languid recitation under the enticing glow of a Spring moon, the scent of jasmine in the air.

Of course, our holy text devotes considerable space to delineating the prohibited and the permissible within the realm of sexuality. This week’s parshah, Ki Tetzei, addresses adultery, virginity, rape, the problem of favoring one wife over another, cult prostitution, divorce and family honor. Included in the mix is a rather fascinating step-by-step guide to taking captive a woman from a people a soldier has only just vanquished on the battlefield; as well as the parental responsibility to provide proof of a daughter’s virginity and the punishment of stoning.

The drama of human experience is clearly balanced by a strict framework of rules and regulations. What proved relevant for our people in ancient times, however, does not always resonate as well today. “But if the charge proves true, the girl was found not to have been a virgin, then the girl shall be brought out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death; for she did a shameful thing in Israel, committing fornication while under her father’s authority. Thus you will sweep away evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

I’m grateful we’ve left the days of murdering women who’ve had premarital sex behind, but the portrayal of sex in 21st century American culture doesn’t make me feel much better. We’ve retained a relentless emphasis on virginity, placing a remarkably high social value on both having it and “losing” it. For heterosexual men, there seems to be a concurrent value based around “taking” virginity. Movies and television depict consensual sex as passionate and effortless – completely devoid of anxiety, awkwardness, and very real negotiations around contraception and sexually transmitted infections. We’re generally treated to a story about romance blossoming, or an encounter that is in some way new between two (or more) people. Typically, we are not offered a portrayal of mutual fulfillment within the context of a sustaining and committed relationship. Yet, many of us have chosen partnerships or are actively pursuing partnership. The chasm between sex in the Torah and sex in Hollywood is enormous and most of us seem settled somewhere in between.

For centuries, our sages have devoted tremendous attention to sex. Their philosophical musings, judgements and advice have created a concept of sex in Judaism that is both inherently positive and profoundly spiritual. Of course, Jewish law frames all such sex within the confines of marriage. But as the right to marry has yet to be extended to all American citizens, and because marriage for many of us is a state-sanctioned category rather than a religious one, I prefer to replace the “sex within marriage” ideal with the concept of sex within a committed relationship.

In Judaism, procreation is only one, and not the primary, purpose of sex. Indeed, sex is a means for two people to truly know one another in a way no one else can. In fact, the Hebrew word for sex between husband and wife in our Torah comes from the root “to know.” Sex can prove a portal to deep and enduring intimacy, both physically and emotionally. It is essential for establishing a strong and sustainable bond between people working to build a life together.

When we think of ourselves as sparks of divinity, we must think of sex as the uniting of one divine spark with another. The resultant blaze is completely unique, unreplicable with anyone else. And if we are all drops in the ocean of infinity, uniting with another moves us slightly closer to God. In our tradition, sex is holy and within the context of mutual love, respect and commitment, it’s considered a mitzvah.

Unfortunately, from our Puritan heritage and perhaps other religious traditions, Americans have inherited negative and unhealthy attitudes towards sex. In Judaism, sex is not shameful. Neither is it a casual game or a weapon. The pleasure of both partners is paramount and God is thought to be present with those united in love. It’s as far from stoning adulterers as it is from summer blockbusters.

This week’s parshah is a great opportunity to think about our own sexuality and attitudes towards sex. Write a sexual identity manifesto, explore yourself or explore a partner. Contrast the experience of feeling connected to a partner and the sense of divine connection. Consider finding divinity solo. And always know that where there is love, respect and pleasure, so too there is God.

Yael, Akiva. "Sex Saturates Our Torah: Parshah Ki Tetzei." PunkTorah.org. (Viewed on September 6, 2014). http://punktorah.org/sex-saturates-our-torah-parshah-ki-tetzei/

Shoftim, Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/shoftim

Breathing New Life into Ancient Teaching

By Rabbi Shira Milgrom

One of the joys of Jewish life in the Land of Israel is the way ancient texts can be used in ordinary moments of daily life. A rabbinic colleague tells the story of a Jerusalem traffic jam: traffic had come to a complete halt, and drivers were leaning on their horns in frustration. The taxi driver (who was driving my colleague) finally stepped out of his car and reprimanded the driver behind him, with a full, verbatim quote of Exodus 14:15, in its original Hebrew:

“Why are you yelling at me? Speak to the people of Israel and tell them to move!” (The translation here is meant to reflect the use of the text.) Never mind that in the original context it is God speaking to Moses at the Sea of Reeds.

At another moment of Israel’s story—a moment neither joyous nor quotidian—members of Israel’s judiciary community brought a different Torah text to bear on Israeli society. It was 1982. Israel was in control of southern Lebanon when Lebanese Christian Phalangists attacked the predominately Muslim refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and many were killed. Huge protests in Israel against the killings forced the government to take action, resulting in its convening a commission to assess the responsibility of the Israeli government and army. The Kahan Commission, established by the Israeli government, was chaired by Yitzhak Kahan, president of Israel’s Supreme Court. It concluded that the Gemayel Phalangists bore direct responsibility for the massacres in the refugee camps, and that Israel was to be held indirectly responsible. It is to this second charge, that of indirect responsibility, that we turn our attention.

The Kahan Commission used as the basis of its argument an esoteric text from this week’s parashah:

“If, in the land that the Eternal your God is assigning you to possess, someone slain is found lying in the open, the identity of the slayer not being known, your elders and magistrates shall go out and measure the distances from the corpse to the nearby towns. The elders of the town nearest to the corpse shall then take a heifer which has never been worked, which has never pulled in a yoke, and the elders of the town shall bring the heifer down to an everflowing wadi, which is not tilled or sown. There, in the wadi, they shall break the heifer’s neck. The priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward; for the Eternal your God has chosen them for divine service and to pronounce a blessing in the name of the Eternal, and every lawsuit and case of assault is subject to their ruling. Then all the elders of the town nearest to the corpse shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the wadi. And they shall make this declaration: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, Eternal One, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel.’ And they will be absolved of bloodguilt. Thus you will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the Eternal” (Deuteronomy 21:1–9).

Why must the elders and magistrates of the town nearest to the corpse go through this strange ritual and ask for absolution? Because they are presumed guilty. They bear indirect responsibility for the murder, because it occurred under their jurisdiction, on their watch, in their territory. Quoting directly from the Kahan Commission:

“A basis for such responsibility may be found in the outlook of our ancestors, which was expressed in things that were said about the moral significance of the biblical portion concerning the ‘beheaded heifer’ (in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 21). It is said in Deuteronomy (21:6-7) that the elders of the city who were near the slain victim who has been found (and it is not known who struck him down) ‘will wash their hands over the beheaded heifer in the valley and reply: our hands did not shed this blood and our eyes did not see.’ Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says of this verse (Babylonian Talmud,Sota 38b):

“The necessity for the heifer whose neck is to be broken only arises on account of the niggardliness of spirit, as it is said, ‘Our hands have not shed this blood.’ But can it enter our minds that the elders of a Court of Justice are shedders of blood! The meaning is, [the man found dead] did not come to us for help and we dismissed him, we did not see him and let him go—i.e., he did not come to us for help and we dismissed him without supplying him with food, we did not see him and let him go without escort.’. . . . When we are dealing with the issue of indirect responsibility, it should also not be forgotten that the Jews in various lands of exile, and also in the Land of Israel when it was under foreign rule, suffered greatly from pogroms perpetrated by various hooligans; and the danger of disturbances against Jews in various lands, it seems evident, has not yet passed. The Jewish public’s stand has always been that the responsibility for such deeds falls not only on those who rioted and committed the atrocities, but also on those who were responsible for safety and public order, who could have prevented the disturbances and did not fulfill their obligations in this respect.”

The Kahan Commission honored the Torah, breathed new life into ancient text, and held the Israeli government to moral standards that its citizens expected: a brilliant—and all too rare—moment.

For more information on the events leading to the establishment of the Kahan Commission, click here.

Milgrom, Shira. "Shof'tim: Breathing New Life into Ancient Teaching." ReformJudaism.org. (Viewed on August 30, 2014). http://www.reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/shoftim/shof%E2%80%99tim-breathing-new-life-ancient-teaching

D’var Tzedek

By Rabbi Joshua Rabin

On December 16, 2012, 23-year old Jyoti Singh was raped by six men while riding on a bus in New Delhi, India. The attack reportedly lasted over two and a half hours, and Singh died two weeks later in Singapore from her injuries. Four of her attackers were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.

Although Singh’s rapists were convicted for their horrific crime, the sad reality is that most cases of violence against women in India go unpunished. According to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), only 40 percent of rapes in India are reported and only 26 percent of rape cases tried in court result in convictions. The CFR notes that India’s slow, underfunded and corrupt criminal justice system “exacerbated the plight of rape and sexual assault victims” rather than helping them achieve justice. Furthermore, the CFR reports that political and religious leaders promote a “culture of complicity” around violence against women, pressuring women and their families not to report these crimes or blaming the assaults on women themselves. Although we should find a small degree of comfort in knowing that Singh’s attackers were brought to justice, there is no doubt that there are countless women who will never receive the justice they deserve.

Parashat Shoftim, which begins with the Israelites standing on the precipice of entering the land of Canaan, recognizes that the emerging Israelite society must have a mechanism for justice to be served, and so dictates that a court system be constructed. However, our parashah is not content simply to command the Israelites to appoint judges upon entering the land of Canaan. Instead, the Torah specifies a code of morality that the judges must abide by: “You shall not judge unfairly; you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just.”

While our parashah could have stated the importance of impartial and ethical leaders in general, it is particularly prescient in singling out the judicial system as an area of society that must be free of corruption. In a report by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), judicial corruption is described as a serious impediment towards international development, for when the institution charged with enforcing the rule of law is compromised, “anti-corruption strategies are deprived of essential measures that are needed to increase the risks and reduce the benefits of corruption and to punish corrupt acts.” As a result, when our parashah tells us that upright judges must be chosen, God is providing the Israelites with a roadmap for an entire society to be guided by justice.

In taking a closer look at the language of Parashat Shoftim, we see that the challenge of creating just judicial systems lies in the human fallibility of the judges. Contemporary biblical scholar Jeffrey Tigay notes that by empowering all Israelites to “resist and protest abuses of authority,” this mitzvah from our parashah makes a striking distinction between what God will provide for the Israelites, and what the Israelites must create for themselves.

The 13th-century legal work, Sefer Ha-Hinukh, states that God commands the Israelites to prevent corrupt behavior “until the commands of the Torah cease to be dependent on the trustworthiness of each individual.” Explaining this interpretation, biblical scholar Nehama Leibowitz argues that by creating honorable systems of justice, the Israelites will “habituate the public to the rule of law and equity which will become second nature.” By insisting upon a just system of governance, the Torah is teaching us that we are the only obstacle to fully actualizing the potential of all human beings, and that creating institutions guided by justice is the first step in teaching an entire society what it means to pursue justice within the reality of daily living.

Contemporary philosopher Lenn Goodman writes that the Torah wants to show “how just institutions can create the good life it envisions,” commanding the Israelites to create societal structures that enable people to feel protected and valued. The situation in India supports Goodman’s claim, as Professor Mrinal Satish of the National Law University in Delhi argues that the way “the legal system deals with rape cases” results in the proliferation of violence against women in India. This is a clear instance of how a society’s ineffective and indifferent pursuit of justice not only fails to protect and value its citizens but condemns them to live lives of violence and fear.

American Jewish World Service continues to advocate for the passage of the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) as a part of the We Believe campaign. We have the opportunity to send a clear message to our legislators that all countries must implement legal systems that support women in their pursuit to achieve justice. After all, ensuring that society’s most vulnerable people are treated justly is the only way to ensure that society will promote justice for all.

Rabin, Joshua. "Parshat Shoftim 5774: Dvar Tzedek." American Jewish World Service. (Viewed on August 30, 2014). http://ajws.org/what_we_do/education/publications/dvar_tzedek/5774/shoftim.html?autologin=true&utm_source=education&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140825-E-DT

Re’eh, Deuteronomy 11:26-16:17

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/reeh

Entering a Land of Peace

By Rachel Farbiarz

In Parashat Re’eh, the Israelites are given intimation of the shape of their future society across the Jordan River. The portrait of the Israelites’ world-to-come generally radiates an exuberant sense of well-being—reflecting a society contentedly organized and functioning smoothly.

The desert nomads are regaled with how they will yearly process to a central site for the dedication of their agricultural bounty. Here, they will “rejoice before the Lord your God with your sons and daughters and with your male and female slaves…” And if the way is too long to travel with such plenty, the pilgrim will exchange his bounty for money to spend at God’s designated site on “anything you may desire.”

In this halcyon world, the bounty of the land will be mirrored in a generous social order: Debts will be remitted and slaves freed each seventh year—sent off with gifts from their masters “out of the flock, threshing floor and vat.” The “stranger, the fatherless, and the widow” will celebrate the festivals with each household. And, if God’s commands are hearkened: “There shall be no needy among you…” With these tantalizing promises of communal celebration and a caring civil society, Parashat Re’eh holds out the promise of idyll, plenty and joy.

There are, however, fissures veining the serene portrait. Until the people have “come to the resting place, to the allotted haven,” this bountiful existence will not be fully realized. The world of festive in-gatherings and pilgrimages will not be established until God “grants you safety from all your enemies around you and you live in security.” Realizing the promise of the well-ordered, abundant society that our parashah describes depends thus not only on arrival in the land, but also on reaching a state of peace therein.

The Israelites accordingly are commanded to eliminate sources of conflict—both external and internal—in settling their new world. They are to destroy all vestiges of Canaanite idol worship. Israelite cities that have strayed into idolatrous practice must be razed, and false prophets are to be cut down. Until they have emerged from this period of destruction, the parashah seems to imply, the Israelites will not realize the golden promise of their thriving society.

This approach to achieving peace and stability—the total eradication of conflict through violence—is of course understood today to be facile, cruel and ultimately unwise. Conflict cannot simply be excised tumor-like from society, and such blunt efforts to do so will likely only bring on its metastasization. Indeed, we have come to understand that conflict’s debilitating effects linger long after formal hostilities have ended.

In his lucid book, The Bottom Billion, economist Paul Collier identifies violent conflict among the several “development traps” that keep those in the world’s poorest countries—“the bottom billion”—from thriving. Specifically focusing on internal conflicts—civil wars and coups—Collier details how such instability stalks and then dismantles progress in the world’s poorest regions, effecting “development in reverse.” Collier reports that 73 percent of people in the world’s poorest countries are currently in, or have recently been through, a civil war, and that the experience of these persistent conflicts plays a significant role in “trapping” countries in poverty.

Civil wars, in Collier’s estimation, reduce growth by 2.3 percent per year. And critically, economic decline persists well after fighting has ceased. Lasting about seven years, a typical civil war thus leaves a country about 15 percent poorer than it would have been at peace. The war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, will require about 50 years of continuous peace at its current growth rate to simply return to its income levels of 1960.

With such debilitating consequences, violent conflicts are thus a formidable barrier to poor countries’ development—much less to achieving the sort of serene society depicted in our parashah. But here Collier’s analysis provides some hope and circles back to the symbiosis between peace and societal flourishing articulated in Parashat Re’eh. The strongest predictors for conflict, Collier argues, are not a country’s political, historical or ethnic configurations, but their economies. More than any other factors, low income and slow growth make it likely that a country will become mired in war. That is, while conflict impedes growth and reduces income, the relationship simultaneously holds the other way too: poverty breeds conflict.

To build societies in our parashah’s image, it may thus be wisest to heed its own admonishment: “Do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy brother. Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs.” When we do so, we invite the possibility that from our open hands will not only fall seeds of prosperity—but also of peace.

Farbiarz, Rachel. "Parashat Re'eh 5774." American Jewish World Service D'var Tzedek." (Viewed on August 20, 2014). http://ajws.org/what_we_do/education/publications/dvar_tzedek/5774/reeh.html

See and Observe

By Rabbi Yaacov Finn

This week’s parshah, Re’eh, contains an eclectic mix of laws including the laws of kashrut, tithes, remission and the pilgrimage festivals: ostensibly there is no connection between them. However, when considered in the context of the opening line – ‘See, I set before you today a blessing and a curse’ (Deuteronomy 11:26), I believe that an approach encompassing all these elements can be built. For this phrase starts somewhat oddly: it could simply have stated ‘I have set before…’. The addition of the word ‘Re’eh(See)’ is not only calling the listeners to attention but instructing them to direct their sight toward a set of options.

In doing so it is also suggesting the theme with which to connect the disparate elements of the ensuing parsha, namely, the religious requirement of sight.

Implicitly (as I hope to show), Moses is saying that to be religious and to follow a code of law takes perception: it requires the ability to ‘see’ between different choices, to ‘observe’ realities and to react accordingly. Starting with the laws of kashrut (fitness, correctness, especially for food) as presented in this week’s portion, they all focus on observable elements: Does this animal chew the cud and have split hooves? Is this bird a bird of prey? Does this fish have fins and scales? All these are objective criteria, and thus require the individual to observe, to see whether an item is permissible or not.

Moving to the laws of the tithe – the requirement either to share one’s harvest with the Levites, or the poor or to eat the produce in Jerusalem (depending on the year) – it is clearly a tool to promote a re-awakening of religious sight. By forcing the farmer to forego part of his foodstuffs, the giving of the tithe is supposed to encourage the farmer to observe how it is through divine will that the field yields its bounty. Furthermore, it is supposed to focus the farmer’s attention on those in society who are in need of support, e.g. the poor.

The laws of shemita (the remission year), require masters to let servants free and creditors to release individuals from their debts. Again, these demand an element of perception; one cannot help the poor if one doesn’t notice the poor! These laws require one to leave his or her own bubble, to ‘see’ those around them and act accordingly. Again the message is clear – ‘look’, ‘see’.

Finally, we must consider laws of the pilgrimage festivals for this is the slight exception. No longer an exaltation to be ‘observant’, the festivals are supposed to serve as a reminder of how the Jewish people are being watched over by G-d. ‘Three times in the year, every one of your males shall appear before the Lord, your God, in the place He will choose:’ (Deuteronomy 16:16). Three times a year Jews during the temple era would have to make the trek to Jerusalem to be ‘seen’, to remind them that G-d is forever watching, eternally observant.

I acknowledge I have not addressed every law (and there are many) in this week’s parshah. But based on this simple analysis it seems the whole portion is a plea by Moses in his final moments for the Jews to become a discerning people, an ‘observant’ people. This parshah is all about the requirement to be perceptive: to see, to observe and, on occasion, to be aware that we are being observed.

Finn, Yaacov. "Re'eh 5774." Limmud on One Leg. (Viewed on August 21, 2014). http://limmud.org/publications/limmudononeleg/5774/reeh/

Eikev, Deuteronomy 7:12-11:25

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/eikev

Training Days

By Rabbi Denise Eger

With preparation almost everything is possible. With the proper training program you can learn to run a marathon or ride a bike 500 miles for charity! It is a matter of discipline. It is a matter of dedication and it is a matter of preparation. It is a matter of training and building your endurance.

These are examples of how discipline, structure and belief in the cause might help someone achieve a great goal! But it doesn’t just happen because one decides to do so. It takes discipline, fortitude and perseverance. Especially for the times when the training is grueling and the body is tired or not willing!

In this week’s Torah portion Ekev, Moses shares some sage advice with the children of Israel as they are preparing to enter the Promised Land. Moses reminds the people that their journey from Egypt to the edge of Israel/Canaan was a process and describes this journey as the preparation and training for the task ahead. The forty years of desert wanderings which was once described as the consequence of a lack of faith in God (see Parshat Shelach Lecha) is now described by Moses as discipline and training for the era to come. The forty years in the desert was the necessary precursor to ready the people for the challenges of coming into and settling the Promised Land.

Moses says to the people “Remember the long way that Adonai your God has made you travel in the wilderness these past forty years that God might test you by hardships to learn what was in your hearts…” (Deut. 8:2). These tests were not merely trials but each experience along the way was to discipline and train the generations who would enter the Promised Land. Each was an opportunity to build faith and fortitude. Each encounter in the wilderness of Sinai was part of creating endurance in the Jewish people so that they would continue to honor their covenant even once they had settled the Promised Land. Moses says, “God subjected you to the hardship of hunger and then gave you manna to eat,…in order to teach you that humanity does not live on bread alone, but that a person may live on anything God decrees.” (Deut. 8:3).

Moses reminds the children of Israel anything is possible.  Sustenance will come from God in many forms, bread, manna, and yes from their faith built through these years of desert training! And Moses then places this training and the miraculous events that helped the Children of Israel do their wilderness training.  “The clothes upon you did not wear out nor did your feet swell these forty years. Bear in mind that Adonai your God is disciplining you just as a father disciplines his son.” (Deut. 8:4-5). This isn’t punishment but discipline as learning, as training, as preparation for a new life. Just as a parent tries to teach life lessons, Moses is trying to help us see God is teaching the Israelites life lessons. It isn’t always flowers and warm fuzzies but often that training and discipline is difficult. And it hardens one for the end result. In this case it was settling the Promise Land.

So the next time you set a goal in mind. Remember that it is possible but it will take endurance, perseverance, discipline, and yes faith. Just as it did for our ancestors as they entered the Promised Land.  Happy Training!

Eger, Denise. "Happy Training." Walking Humbly. Seeking Justice. Living with Hope. (Viewed August 16, 2014). http://rabbieger.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/training-days/

The Rhyme of No Reason

By Rabbi Mendel Kalmenson

During the closing days of Israel’s 1982 “Peace in Galilee” campaign in Lebanon, Tuvia Bolton was one of ten Chabad Chassidim who obtained authorization from the army to enter Beirut to cheer up the soldiers and assist them with their religious needs.

One morning, at the crack of dawn, they got their tefillin ready, and began asking soldiers if they wanted to do a mitzvah and put them on for a minute. Walking around looking for “customers,” Tuvia happened upon a line of about ten open-roofed jeeps with two soldiers seated in each. Their motors were running, and they were waiting in the chilly morning to go out on a mission.

“Tell me, Rabbi, if . . . if I put on tefillin, will G‑dprotect me?”He approached a soldier in a jeep and asked whether he wanted to don tefillin.

The fellow looked straight ahead, without reacting to the question. Tuvia stood waiting for a reply. After a few seconds of silence, the soldier turned and said (loose translation): “Get out of my sight, you religious degenerate! If you don’t get out of my face, I’ll tear you to pieces!”

Tuvia got the message that the answer was no. He tried to force a smile and figure out something to say, when the driver of the next jeep in line suddenly called out in a desperate tone of voice: “Rabbi, rabbi! Come here. I want to put on tefillin.” Happy to get away, Tuvia began to walk toward the third jeep in the line. “Tell me, rabbi,” the soldier called nervously after Tuvia had taken a few steps and was still quite a distance from him. “If . . . if I put on tefillin, will G‑d protect me?”

The man was obviously very worried. Yesterday he was probably sitting in his hardware store selling tools, and here he was today about to enter the front lines.“Listen, my friend,” Tuvia assured him, “G‑d will protect you whether you put on the tefillin or not. Don’t worry. He loves you unconditionally. But if G‑d protects you for free, why not do something for Him for free, and put on tefillin?”

It seems that the soldier who had been rude to him heard this exchange, because when Tuvia was done helping the other soldier with the tefillin, he called out, “Hey, rabbi! Come over here!”

Meanwhile he was rolling up his sleeve like he wanted to put on tefillin.

“What do you want? What happened?” asked Tuvia incredulously.

“What do you care?” he replied. “I want to put on the tefillin, too.”

“For real?”

“Listen, my friend. To put on tefillin in order to go to heaven, that’s not for me. But to put on tefillin for no reason . . . that I’m willing to do!”

And it will be, because you will heed these ordinances and keep and perform them, that G‑d, your G‑d, will keep for you the covenant and the kindness that He swore to your forefathers. —Deuteronomy 7:12

An interesting verse. Rather puzzling, even contradictory. At first glance it appears to speak of a relationship with G‑d that is conditioned upon observance: “because you will heed these ordinances, etc.” It suggests that “G‑d will keep you” only if you keep Him.

This arrangement is straightforward: keep G‑d’s will, and He will keep yours.Here we encounter the alleged classic mode of interaction between deity and worshipper, identical to the standard give and take which characterizes any commercial relationship, except that in this case the supplier can be relied upon to deliver.

This system is clearly articulated in the second paragraph of the most central Jewish prayer, the Shema (recorded later on in the same Torah portion):

And it will be, if you hearken to My commandments that I command you this day . . . I will give the rain of your land at its time, and you will gather in your grain, your wine and your oil. And I will give grass in your field for your livestock, and you will eat and be sated . . .

Beware, lest your heart be misled, and you turn away and worship strange gods . . . And He will close the heavens and there will be no rain, and the land will yield no produce, and you will perish quickly from the good land that G‑d gives you.

This arrangement is straightforward, containing no hidden fees or clauses: keep G‑d’s will, and He will keep yours. The thing is, we are taught by the sages that there’s more to our relationship with G‑d than cold business.

An inherent and unconditional bond binds G‑d and Jew, operating entirely independent of their respective performances. Jewish history is living proof of this deeper connection—a thousand times over. Just imagine if Jewish survival were linked to observance, or if Jewish devotion to G‑d depended on our people leading the good life . . .

The metaphor of covenant, achieved through an oath, is applied by the Torah to this unbreakable tie. For both a covenant and an oath are, by definition, unconditional, necessary only for moments of low or no performance.

This leaves us wondering about the above-quoted verse: “And it will be,because you will heed these ordinances and keep and perform them, that G‑d, your G‑d, will keep for you the covenant and the kindness that He swore to your forefathers,” which implies that our unconditional connection with G‑d is itself conditional!

Before unlocking the secret to understanding this enigmatic verse, an introduction is in order.

The rather unusual Hebrew word used here for “because [you will heed . . . ],”eikev, is related to the Hebrew word for heel.

Is our relationship with G‑d a game of mathematics or economics? One for me, one for You?Thus the unusual word choice leadsRashi to interpret the verse thusly: “If you will heed the minor commandments, those which a person tends to trample with his heels . . . [then ‘G‑d will keep His promise to you . . .’].”

What Rashi is saying here is that this verse isn’t referring to the quantity of divine service, but to its quality. This is about attitude, not amount.

Are mitzvot our way of paying G‑d for a service?

Are the good deeds we do our calculated trade for health, wealth, and happiness?

Is our relationship with G‑d a game of mathematics or economics? One for me, one for You?

If it is, we are bound to trip on our heels. When observing the Torah, we will come to pick and choose. And even if we choose all—because we want all—a means to serve G‑d has essentially become a means to serve ourselves.

This is not to say that the math doesn’t add up. It does. Just see the second paragraph of Shema. But good math can merely satisfy, not infatuate; it can produce money, but not love.

For love begins where mathematical equations end.

This brings us to the inner meaning of the verse: “And it will be, because you will heed these ordinances and keep them and perform them”—as Rashi explains, in the way of lovers, who skip math and discard heels—“that G‑d, your G‑d, will keep for you the covenant and the kindness that He swore to your forefathers.” G‑d will reciprocate accordingly.

Proverbs teaches: “As in water, one face reflects another, so is the heart of a man to a man.”

Our verse adds: So is the heart of G-d to man.

Kalmenson, Mendel. "The Rhyme of No Reason." Chabad.org. (Viewed August 15, 2014). http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1241533/jewish/The-Rhyme-of-No-Reason.htm

Vaetchanan, Deuteronomy 3:23-7:11

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/vaetchanan

Do Not Make Yourself a Pesel, Lest Torah Become an Idol

By Rabbi Shira Milgrom

In the next parashah, Moses will tell the Israelite people: “Thereupon the Eternal One said to me, ‘Carve out two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain; and make an ark of wood. I will inscribe on the tablets the commandments that were on the first tablets that you smashed, and you shall deposit them in the ark.’ . . . . After inscribing on the tablets the same text as on the first—the Ten Commandments that the Eternal addressed to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of the Assembly—the Eternal gave them to me” (Deuteronomy 10:1-4).

Our parashah, Va-et’chanan, contains this second text of the Ten Commandments. One would expect a perfect replica of the first set, an exact repetition, as Moses and God both promise. It is startling and wonderful to see that the texts are not identical. Traditional commentary, encoded in L’cha Dodi, tells us that both versions of the commandment to observe the Shabbat are uttered in the same instant by God (shamor v’zachor b’dibur echad); the single Divine word shatters into countless sparks as when a hammer strikes the anvil. Biblical criticism teaches that the (edited) text we have before us is made up of different versions of our sacred narratives. Either way, the Torah pushes back against the notion that there could ever be a singular version of Divine truth. Divine truth is always beyond human grasp; the pure light of the Divine is necessarily refracted by human experience into countless colors.

Were we to imagine that God’s truth could be concretized into any form—two tablets, a Torah scroll, a dogma, or text—that would be idolatry. It would trivialize Divine wisdom and limit God’s infinite Presence to the specific letters we see in front of us. In that spirit of “pushing back against singular truth,” this week I would like to share a few challenging, sometimes playful, always important insights from the Chasidic anthology, Iturei Torah. The translations are mine as are any mistakes. These commentaries are drawn from both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the Ten Commandments.

V’zot haTorah asher sam Moshe lifnei b’nei Yisrael, This is the Teaching that Moses set before the Israelites” (Deuteronomy 4:44). When we lift the sefer Torah after the Torah reading, it is our custom to recite this verse and to add: al pi Adonai b’yad Moshe,“from the mouth of God through the hand of Moses.” This is astonishing, because these two verses were combined from two stories that have nothing to do with each other . . . (R. Baruch Epstein)

“I stood before the Eternal and you at that time to convey the Eternal’s words to you, for you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain” (Deuteronomy 5:5). The “I” of a person, this is the cause of the separation between a person and his Creator. As long as we are thinking about the “I,” it is difficult to get closer to holiness. (Sifrei Chasidim)

“Do not make for yourself an idol (pesel)” (Exodus 20:4). Don’t make yourself into someone who invalidates (posel) the ideas of others. Do not separate yourself from the community nor distance yourself from its burdens and needs. (R. Aharon of Karlin)

“Do not use the name of God for falsehood” (Exodus 20:7). Do not attach God’s name to things that are false and lies. Do not put the stamp of holiness on things that are completely invalid, that may look like mitzvot but are instead serious sins. It is the way of the yetzer (evil impulse) to deceive human beings, to paint a picture of righteousness that really is dreadful sin. And that is why the world was shocked when God stated, “Do not use the name of God for falsehood,” for indeed the most serious crimes and sins and all the horrible and cruel murders are committed with the veil of truth, uprightness, and justice. (R. Reuven Katz)

“You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Here tirtzach is written with the vowel patach; in Deuteronomy, it is written with a kamatz. This is to teach that there are two kinds of murder: the physical one—and the one about which our Sages spoke (Talmud, Bava Metzia 58): “Whoever whitens (humiliates) the face of another in public as if spilled his blood.” (R. Noah Mindes)

“You shall love” (Deuteronomy 6:5). This phrase occurs three times in the entire Tanach (Jewish Bible): “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), “you shall love him as yourself,” (Leviticus 19:34) and “you shall love the Eternal” [here]. Even though we have the principal that “there is no early or late in the Torah,” there is a hint here nonetheless. The reason that the Torah commands the love of people before the love of God is to teach us that it is not possible to achieve love of God except through loving human beings. And this is what the Ari (Isaac Luria) taught: “Before praying, a person should take upon oneself the mitzvah/commandment of loving one’s neighbor as oneself—to love each and every one.” (Ben Yair HaCohen)

“And these words which I command you shall be upon your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:6). Why not in the heart? The Kotzker Rebbe taught: “Sometimes these words lie upon your heart like a stone. And when the heart opens, in a special moment, they will enter it.” Most of the time our hearts are closed and things don’t enter it. But this is no reason to slacken from or forsake the worship of God. Let these things lie upon your heart, on the outside, like a stone. And some day, in a moment of awakening, when your heart opens (Rabbi Milgrom: heartbreak?), these words will enter into it and be inside. (Shem MiShmuel)

These commentaries play at the edge between reverence and rebellion: they know and treasure each word; at the same time, no single word, no single interpretation can ever capture the whole. Torah should never become a static idol. In the ever-expanding universe of Torah, each glimpse of Divine wisdom gives birth to infinitely more.

Milgrom, Shira. "Do Not Make Yourself a Pesel, Lest Torah Become an Idol." ReformJudaism.org. (Viewed August 9, 2014). http://www.reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/va-etchanan/do-not-make-yourself-pesel-lest-torah-become-idol

And I pleaded…

By Deborah Masel Miller

Comfort, comfort My crushed, My desolate people; bring them into the room beyond comfort, where I am prayer and I am pain.

Listen Israel as My servant Moses leads you to My crying rooms; hear him plead, Oh Lord open my lips …Lord let me cross over… let my teachings fall like rain…

Generation to generation…Ears that heard God speak from fire now hear His rain fall gently on their future fields. Eyes that saw the mountain burn to the heart of heaven see the goodly land across the river; but no one hears the breaking of a heart; they do not see the face that once saw face to Face look back in wonder and ahead in anguish.

This man Moses, born to be apart, pleading for his people. I will fill the world with prayer, said he upon that other peak, before I let You flood it with Your pain. You will show mercy upon whom You show mercy, and I shall never know Your ways, yet will I not choose the cloistered Eden-comfort of a drunken Noah, nor will I let You make of me a great nation. Blot me from the book You have written. I will forge a different comfort. If they would but listen I would teach them the comfort of carving You a highway through the desert stone, of loving You with all their heart and being and might in pain and sickness, in longing and defeat…

O that I had wings like a dove, I would fly away, and be at rest, then I would wander off, I would lodge in the wilderness…I would haste me to a shelter from the stormy wind and tempest…

Enough, said the Lord to His friend Moses. Let your longing be enough; let it hover here upon the blindness of My dark night. Let your longing sing My praise from here, My wounded dove, until your people learn to carry you across upon the eagle’s wings of prayer.

Masel Miller, Deborah. "'And I Pleaded,' Wings of Prayer." Limmud on One Leg. (Viewed on August 10, 2014). http://limmud.org/publications/limmudononeleg/5769/vaetchanan/

Devarim, Deuteronomy 1:1-3:22

Link to Parsha: http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/devarim

History and Memory

By Rabbi Marc Saperstein

After a five-verse introduction, this entire parashah is presented as a speech by Moses addressed to the Israelite people not long before his death. The content of this oration is a historical overview of events experienced by the listeners or their parents, beginning after the Revelation at Sinai and continuing to the present. The events have already been narrated in earlier books of the Torah, but there are subtle shifts that make this not simple repetition. If the original narratives are a source of history, this oration is evidence for historical memory. I would like to illustrate by focusing on one passage, relating to Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon.

The original narrative comes in parashat Hukkat, Numbers 21:21–25. The facts seem straightforward. Israel sent messengers to Sihon asking for permission to pass through his territory, promising not to despoil any of the agricultural produce of the land. Sihon refused, gathered a military force and challenged the Israelites in the wilderness. The Israelites won a decisive victory and took possession of all the Amorite lands. There is no mention of God in this narrative; it is presented as simple reporting of a political decision, a military encounter, and the geographical and demographic consequences.

How different is Moses’ more expansive recounting of the same events in Deuteronomy 2:24–37. It begins with Moses’ report of a message delivered to him by God:

See, I give unto your power Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin the occupation: engage him in battle. This day I begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heaven, so that they shall tremble and quake because of you whenever they hear you mentioned (Deut. 2:24–25).

In this version, the military encounter with Sihon was a divine command, intended to enhance the prestige of the Israelites in the consciousness of the surrounding peoples. In the following verses, God is never absent for long: He has given the land of Canaan to the Israelites (2:29), He hardened the heart of Sihon to refuse passage (2: 30), He urges Moses again to take possession of the Amorite lands (2:33), He causes the defeat of Sihon and his forces (2:35) including all the significant towns (2:36), His commandment to respect the borders of the neighboring Ammonites was respected (2:37).

Thus we have two accounts of the same events: one in which human decisions and military factors are decisive, the other—perhaps in retrospect—with a thick theological overlay, making God responsible for all that has happened. Many believers will think of the second version as preferable, more pious. Some of us may prefer the more secular narrative of Numbers, without casting God as a global puppeteer, controlling human decisions, the outcome of battles, and the supplanting of a native population.

There is a twist in our parashah, however. After the report of the initial instructions from God to “engage [Sihon] in battle” cited above, Moses continues with the following verse, “And I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to King Sihon of Heshbon with an offer of peace, as follows…,” namely, the proposal in Numbers 21, including an offer (not mentioned in Numbers) of repayment for anything eaten by the Israelites. God instructs Moses to engage Sihon in battle (2:24), and Moses responds by sending Sihon divrei shalom (2:26). Was Moses violating God’s instruction? This is something that the Sages and medieval commentators, who take such details seriously, are bound to explain. 

Nachmanides explains that the verses come out of order. It is as if Moses had used the pluperfect, referring to what preceded the divine command to engage in battle: “I had (previously) sent messengers with . . . an offer of peace,” which was rejected by Sihon. Other commentators suggest that this message of peace was itself the result of an unrecorded instruction from God to Moses. Don Isaac Abravanel, whose monumental biblical commentaries written before and after 1492 summarize much of the culture of Sefardi Jewry, was not convinced: “I have found no evidence” for such a separate communication.

Instead, Abravanel insists that this peace offering was indeed a diversion from God’s instruction—which was actually to find an excuse to go to war with Sihon—and it came at Moses’ own initiative, in order to communicate to the other nations that there is a real alternative to warfare. If there is an option for a peaceful resolution of a potentially violent conflict, it is worth taking the initiative even in violation of God’s direct command.

This would be a lovely message about the Jewish love for peace. But here too there is wrinkle. Numbers 31 of parashat Mattot begins with a divine command to “Avenge the children of Israel against the Midianites.” But then it is Moses who berates the victorious Israelite army for allowing the women and children to live, and orders his soldiers to kill every male, including children, and all mature women (Num. 31:15–18). Here Moses seems to be pushing God’s command in the direction not of peaceful co-existence but of a kind of violence that is horrifying to imagine.

Two ostensible conclusions. First, that we must be extremely careful about attributing divine sanction for anything relating to war, even when reading a biblical text. And second, that it is irresponsible to generalize about Judaism—or Christianity or Islam—as a religion either of peace or of violence. That Moses can be depicted in our parashah as taking the initiative for peace in apparent deviation from God’s instructions, yet in Numbers as ordering a genocidal massacre not explicitly sanctioned by God, reveals the complexity of our biblical literature in its teachings about war and violence, with a dark side along with its stirring visions of world peace. It is for us to choose which of these elements we will live by.

Saperstein, Marc. "Parashat Dearim." Leo Baeck College Weekly D'Var Torah. (Viewed August 2, 2014). http://www.lbc.ac.uk/201108041485/Weekly-D-var-Torah/parashat-devarim.html

Personal Exile

By Rae Hendriksz

In this week’s portion, we find Moses speaking to the Israelites before crossing the
border into their new land. After forty years of living in the desert in exile, the Israelites
have been led to the land of Canaan. Before they enter Canaan, Moses pauses to recall
significant events that have shaped the community before him.

During the four decades of wandering the wilderness, the Jewish people confronted a
variety of challenges; some so great they faced complete obliteration. They did not have
any knowledge about what they would face in the coming months and years. Through
all of these trials, Moses asked them to keep their faith in God. He encouraged them to
trust that God would protect them and at the right moment, would guide them to their
land. When the Israelites happen upon potential enemies, Moses encouraged them to
exercise self-discipline. Moses says:

Have no dread or fear of them. None other than God, who goes before you, will
fight for you, just as God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes, and in the
wilderness, where you saw how the Eternal your God carried you, as a parent
carries their child, all the way that you traveled until you came to this place. Yet
for all that, you have no faith in God, who goes before you on your journeys — to
scout the place where you are to encamp — in fire by night and in cloud by day,
in order to guide you on the route you are to follow. (1:29-33)

The Israelites did not always find it easy to retain their patience and trust in God in the
face of potential enemies or the hardships of their long years in the wilderness.

Exile can take many forms, both for whole peoples and in each of our lives. We may
feel alone and alienated from relatives or friends for a variety of reasons. Perhaps we
feel we feel distant from our family or community because of differences in the way we
live our lives. Perhaps we have selected a form of banishment for ourselves and chosen
to be alone. We may feel disconnected from ourselves or our previously-strong roots, as
though we are wandering in the desert, waiting for guidance to point us in a direction.
We may feel complete overwhelmed by an obscure future that we predict will be filled
with discomfort.

When we face exile in our own lives, whether self-imposed or forced, nourishing a trust
in anything, much less God, may seem difficult or even impossible. If we are struggling
with an illness or in the midst of a difficult time in our lives, we may feel isolated and
alone. We may face similar feelings of fear about being annihilated or terrified of an
unknown future. The fear of the unknown is often greater than its actualization. How do we encourage and cultivate any trust during these moments of felt exile?

There is a common yet mistaken myth that envisions a one-way trajectory away from
Exodus to Promised Land, from alienation toward community, and from disbelief or
doubt to trust. However, Jewish literature repeatedly affirms that these feelings do not
evolve automatically from one to the next and do not remain static. The tides of exile
and trust – the ebb and flow of hope and despair remain a consistent part our lives.

Just as the Israelites had no knowledge of the future that lay before them, we face life
without knowledge of what upcoming minutes, hours, months or years will hold. Some
time ago Rabbi Aliza Berk shared with me a Hebrew saying that sobers the joyous and
encourages the sad. This too shall pass is a powerful reminder that life’s moments are
fleeting and dynamic and change over time. It prompts us to take stock of the present
moment, and to remain open to a different future. The ancient Israelites had hope that
their time in exile would at some point end, and that one day they would live in a land
they could call their own.

Hendriksz, Rae. "Torah Reflections on Parashat Devarim." The Jewish Healing Center. (Viewed on August 2, 2014). http://www.jewishhealingcenter.org/TRs/Devarim_09.pdf