This is the statute of the teaching that the Lord has charged, saying:

Speak to the Israelites, that they take you a perfect red cow

that has no blemish and on which no yoke has been put.

(Bemidbar 19:2)

 

This is the statute of the teaching. The rites pertaining to the red Heifer were designed to discourage association with the dead, prompted by the bereaved's often excessive love for the departed. Alternatively, that people should not make a practice of consulting the dead or familiar spirits, the text pronounced the defilement of the dead person as more contaminating than all other modes of defilement, making it the prime source of uncleanliness, defiling both man and vessels and defiling as through overhanging (ohel).

Also on account of human respect, that people should not come to use human skin for coverings and human bones for articles of use as we use the skin of animals to make waterskins and carpets, from the bones we make utensils, as we make from the leather and bones of animals, for this is to dishonor people. And so said our Sages: Why is man's skin declared impure? So that a man not make floor-coverings of his father. Why are the bones of man impure? Lest he make utensils out of his parents' bones. And the degree of impurity is proportionate to their importance ...And so with regard to their purification they took more stringent measures, demanding the use of the heifer's ashes which were very dear.

(Rabbi Bechor Shor Bemidbar 19:2)

.

This is the statute of the teaching that the Lord has charged. The crux of the mystery is its property of contaminating the pure and purfying contaminated. Perhaps we may catch a little of its significance in our attempt to understand the observance ...one of the fundamental requirements is that the heifer had to be completely red. The prophet has explained that sin is described as red; cf.: "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow". (Isaiah 1:18)

We should bear in mind that the Torah recommends the golden mean - all extremes are undesirable ...there is no better way of rectifying misdoing (the crooked), of regaining the middle way than veer to the other extreme. The cedar symbolized pride, the hyssop, the opposite. The scarlet thread between symbolizes that both are sinful. It has been said that Saul was punished for not caring about his own dignity (erring on the side of humility).

Thus though this precept is a statute which is not to be questioned, possessing without doubt a s sublime meaning known to the King who commanded it, it contains an allusion to the way of repentance to be followed by every sinner - that he should tend to the other extreme in order to regain the middle path and be purified. But while this corrective measure is beneficial and purifying for the sinner, it is wrong and defiling for every pure heart.

(R' Ovadya of Seforno, ibid. ibid.)

 

 

The Forest and the Trees

Debbie Weissman

Dedicated to my mother, Sylvia Weissman, of blessed memory,

who passed away on 21 Adar 5756

Most of the Jewish dietary laws are found in our Torah portion, especially in chapter 11 of Leviticus. Through my many encounters with people of other faiths, I have learned something new about Kashrut. As someone who grew up in a Christian environment, I always felt that keeping Kosher was strange or at least different. Christians don't have rules like these. It's true that during the period of Lent that precedes Easter, some Christians, particularly the Orthodox, refrain from eating meat - as was once customary every Friday - but there is no one food that is defined as "forbidden" all year long. Because of that, I thought that our dietary laws were simply hukim - that is, laws we must follow without any further rationale or explanation.

And then, I began to meet Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and members of other traditions. In most of those religious cultures, if not all, there are rules that limit the consumption of certain foods. Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat beef, Jainists are total vegans who won't eat even onions or garlic, because eating them involves pulling their roots out of the ground, which the Jainists perceive as an act of violence. All of these groups are expressing their religious and spiritual values through their consumption of food - or lack thereof. Thus I saw that in this regard, it is the Christians who are the exceptions among members of the various faith-communities.

This exceptionality of the Christians with regard to their lack of forbidden foods began with the beginning of Christianity. It is likely that Jesus as a Jew of his time observed the dietary laws from our Torah portion. The person who introduced the idea of freedom from these laws was Paul. In his mission to the Gentiles, he exempted them from the practical commandments between people and God. Thus there arose in the first century two kinds of Christians - that is, believers in Jesus - the Jewish Christians, who continued to observe the commandments, and the Gentile Christians, who based their religion on faith alone and not on "works."

This situation created a rift in the first Christian communities. These two groups could not sit down together at the same table and eat as one group. It is this theme - called by Christians "table fellowship" - that formed an important foundation in their spiritual lives. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul turned to the new (Gentile) Christians and requested that they compromise their beliefs and respect the customs of the Jewish Christians, although those customs were strange:" (19) Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. (20) Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food… (21) It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." Thus Paul based his request to respect the laws of Kashrut on the demand for charity and mercy towards the Other and the pursuit of peace within the fledgling Christian community.

The subject of the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and early Christianity is very complex and we can not go into it in this limited framework. Contemporary scholarship shows that the process took several hundred years. However, in the end, the Church Fathers decided against keeping the dietary laws as part of the new religion, even as a gesture towards the Other. Without a doubt, one of the most blatant signs of religious Judaism, as it developed through the generations, is the meticulous observance of the laws of Kashrut. But in my humble opinion, sometimes this meticulousness - or at least "the wars of the hekhsherim (certificates of Kashrut)" - appears even to a religious Jew to be somewhat exaggerated. (I jokingly call this phenomenon "Jews for cheeses.") In effect, this extra-stringent observance prevents many Jews from eating in each other's homes, or even eating with each other. I wonder if we shouldn't think about mercy towards our fellows. I don't mean - heaven forbid! - that we should actually violate the laws. But I will quote an American Orthodox rabbi who told me, more than 40 years ago, "If your friends are going to a non-Kosher restaurant, and the only thing you can have there is a glass of cola, sit there with them and drink the cola." For him - as an Orthodox rabbi - to be involved with other people is also a value - not at the expense of Kashrut, but together with it. He obviously thought less of the issue of "Mar'it Ayin" (keeping up appearances.)

I would like now to bring three vignettes from my own life in recent years. They relate to the theme of "meta-Halakha" regarding the appropriate connection between the details of the laws and their broader meanings.

First scene: I teach groups of Christians who come to Jerusalem from throughout the world. I teach them about Judaism and about Israel. Half a year ago, I tried to teach a certain group about what is Midrash, what is Mishna, what is Halakha, and something about the Jewish calendar and festivals. One of my students, an Australian Catholic, asked about what he called a "strange tension" within Judaism. Almost immediately, he changed his definition to "a dance" between two poles. One pole, according to his words: You Jews always want "to get it right;" to serve God in the most "correct" way possible. It's important to you, for example, what the correct dimensions of the Sukkah should be, when it is Kosher and when it is unacceptable, and so on. But, he continued, you also play with Judaism, you laugh, you enjoy.

I think what he was referring to primarily was that sometimes the Midrash tells us: "Don't read the text this way, read it that way." For example, "don't read banayich, 'your children' but rather, bonayich,' your builders.'" (Masekhet B'rakhot 64a on Isaiah 54:13.) I don't know if he was fully aware of what we do on Purim or on Simhat Torah. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other religious culture in the world in which innocent tomfoolery - that is, without orgies - Purim-Torah or a Purim-Spiel - is part of the religion itself. We serve God by poking innocent fun at His Torah. We dance with it, we have fun with it. In this context, we can bring in the wonderful story that appears in Masekhet Ta'anit 22a, in which Rabbi Beroka asks Elijah the Prophet which of the people going around in the market-place is destined for the World-to- Come. Elijah points to two people who say, "We are happy people and we make those who are sad, happy." The Aramaic word for "making others happy" is m'vadhin, parallel to badhanim, the jesters or jokesters known to us from Jewish folklore. To laugh and make jokes can be a religious act.

Second scene: Last fall, a wonderful man who was a dear friend and colleague of mine in inter-religious dialogue, passed away. His name was Professor Brother Jack Driscoll, of blessed memory. Jack was a devout Christian who loved Judaism. He especially appreciated the character of our Sabbath and the Midrashic method of reading texts. Once we were talking and I said that sometimes Jews have such an obsession with Halakhic detail that we lose for the forest for the trees. He replied, "But at least you have trees;" to me, that is again a kind of dance or tension between two poles.

Third and final scene: I have already mentioned the well-known Midrash about children and builders. Almost two years ago, I watched on television the Israel Prize ceremony. Psychologist Professor Mordecai Rotenberg went up to the dais to speak on behalf of the Prize laureates. He gave his own interpretation to this Midrash. Children, he said, are heirs to the past; their task is to receive the tradition from their parents and preserve it. But the term "builders" implies that they take the tradition, build on it, and shape it for the future.

We have inherited from the past the laws of Kashrut and the rest of the Halakhot in all their details. In our day, we must be faithful to the tradition of our forefathers and mothers. But together with that, in my opinion, we should be creative and courageous in interpreting and applying the Halakha, in different areas. Organizations like "Ma'aglei Tzedek" in Israel and their counterparts abroad are already trying to influence our perception of the meaning of Kashrut to include employer-employee relations and making restaurants accessible to those with physical disabilities. Innovations like these are actually in a more stringent direction. Creativity is not always in the direction of leniency. But if over-stringency means that we can no longer live together with our fellow Jews, perhaps we should think this through again.

May it be God's will that we find the right balance in our Halakhic lives, that we dance between seriousness and laughter, the straight path and the joy, the forest and the trees, tradition and innovation.

Dr. Debbie Weissman, a member of Kehilat Yedidya in Jerusalem, serves as president of the International Council of Christians and Jews (www.iccj.org.)

 

 

On Love which Distorts Perspective

"This is the thing that the lord charged, you shall do, that the glory of the Lord may appear to you." (Vayikra 9:6)

...Already in Moshe's day there were groups in Israel that yearned for God's love, but not within the parameters which Torah had established, and, as will be explained in Parashat Korach, this was the primary sin of the two hundred and fifty men who were perfectly righteous men but sinned against their hearts in that they condemned themselves to death through the holy yearning, to achieved love of God through the incense, even though it was the way of the Torah which ordained that only Aharon and his sons should offer incense ...Moshe already knew that these groups were beginning to materialize, but that the time had not yet come to burst forth... this is why Moshe said to Israel, that this is not the proper way; rather remove this evil inclination from your hearts, for this yearning - even though it's purpose be to perceive the love of God in holiness, in any case if this does not conform to God's will, it is only the way of the evil inclination to mislead and to deceive the great of Israel.

 (Haamek Davar Vayikra 9:6)

 

This is the dividing line between Judaism and idolatry; idolatry wishes to enslave the god via the sacrifice - that he do man's wish. But Israel's offerings bid man to the service of God, so that he accept upon himself the yoke of His commandments. Therefore all the sacrifices are performed according to the format of a commandment, and he who offers vows to make the commandment a lamp unto his feet. Therefore sacrifices fabricated by man's imagination undermine that truth which the sacrifice is supposed to express. They anoint subjective arbitrariness to rule, rather than obedience to the voice of God and the acceptance of the yoke of his commandments.

(R' Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Vayikra 10)         

 

…meaning that the intention to worship God may become an obstacle, if one intends not to fulfill his obligation but rather to find ways to satisfy his feelings and urges, even though his feelings and urges are ostensibly pure. These words are actual also for us ...point to the matter of transforming human urges and drives into matters of holiness, including such drives as: nationalism, politics, love of the land, love of the nation, etc., drives which exist to gratify needs and interests, and all this, as we have said, constitutes "strange fire"'.

(Y. Leibowitz: Seven Years of Discussions on the Weekly Parasha: p. 472)

 

'And Aharon Was Silent' - Silence of Pain or of Acceptance

His heart became as a silent stone and he did not raise his voice in crying and eulogy as does a father over sons, nor did he accept condolences from Moshe, for no breath remained and he could not speak.

(Abravanel, Vayikra 10:3)

 

The text does not say "va'yishtok ["he was silent"] because the holy tongue distinguishes between the synonyms "quiet" and "silence" [in the vernacular, "to shut up"]; "silence denotes only refraining from speech or crying and sighing and ceasing all other external movements, such as: following "they reeled and staggered like a drunken man" (Psalms 107:27) the psalmist says "they rejoiced when all became silent"; but "quiet" includes the calm in the heart and the inner serenity of the soul ...therefore the text testifies that Aharon, God's sanctified, not only became silent, but also "he was quiet", that his heart was also quiet and inwardly his soul was peaceful, because he did not at all question God's attributes, but he justified the sentence.

(Rabbi Eliezer Lipman Lichtenstein - "Shem Olam", quoted in "New Studies in the Book of Vayikrah" by Prof' Nechama Leibowitz)

 

The most outstanding identifying factor [of impurity] among fowl is, predation for every predator is always impure, because the Torah distanced us from them for their blood is hot because of their cruelty and black and coarse, and gives rise to black and burnt gall, and implants cruelty in the heart and there are in all the world no predators among birds other than those mentioned in our parasha, and therefore we can know that any predator belongs to the class, and if it is certain that the bird does not prey, it is certainly permissible ...here, then, is the reason for the prohibition of certain birds, because cruelty is hereditary, and it may also be the case with animals, because among those which chew the cud and have split hooves there are no predators to be found, whereas all others prey.

(Ramban Vayikrah 11:13)

 

"These are the creatures you may eat from": He began with the permissible foods, including fish and grasshoppers, implying that it would preferable that no animal be eaten, therefore it was necessary to begin "Speak to the Israelite people thus: These are the creatures that you may eat" because the new law consisted of granting permission.

(From "Torat Moshe" by the Chatam Sofer on the weekly parasha)

 

To be a 'talmid chacham' (scholar), a spiritual person, and at the same time one who slaughters and kills animals is inconsistent with the pure emotions of the heart, even though ritual slaughter and meat-eating must continue to exist in the world, in any case it is proper that this work be executed by people who have yet to reach that stage of emotional refinement, and the scholars grounded in morality, knowledge and religion, they are suitable to make certain that the slaughter of animals not be done in barbaric fashion, imbuing the entire process of eating meat with a noble light which can light up the world. This, indeed, is contained in the laws of ritual slaughter and treyfut.

(From Rav Kook's Letters, Vol. 1, Letter 178)

 

 

 

 

If you wish to subscribe to the email English editions of Shabbat Shalom, to print copies of it for distribution in your synagogue, to inquire regarding the dedication of an edition in someone's honor or memory, to find out how to make tax-exempt donations, or to suggest additional helpful ideas, please call +972-52-3920206 or at ozshalom@netvision.net.il

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il