Anyone’s life can be fashioned into a spiritual masterpiece #Hukkatbalak#devartorah#parashathahavua

The first half of this week’s Torah reading, Parashat Hukkat, makes us confront death. We shall read about Miriam’s and Aaron’s death and we know how much they meant to the Jewish people. Because of Miriam’s merit according to the Midrash, a well followed the Israelite camp providing them with water. When she died the well disappeared. Aaron was a pursuer of peace and was mourned by all of Israel. The Torah portion begins for the laws of the red heifer whose ashes can make somebody ritually ready after being contaminated by a corpse. It ends with the military victory over King Og of Bashan and Sichon, king of the Amorites. Although the Torah doesn’t tell us the human cost of that war, we know from our history that even in victory we mourn the death of our soldiers who never made it home again.

By reading about those deaths we are forced to confront our own mortality.  I like to share something that my friend and colleague Rabbi Steven Saltzman of blessed memory wrote:

“Judaism doesn’t teach how to avoid pain and sorrow; it teaches us how to stand up without being broken by it. How to live in a world where painful tragic things happen, and still affirm it to be God’s world….

“None of us wants to feel that, at the end of his days, he will have passed through the world and left no trace behind, that he has had no real impact on the world. We would like to justify our existence, to stake our claim to some sort of immortality, and some remarkable achievement that will leave the world different for having been part of it. And yet, what can we do? Very few, if any, of us will write a book that we reread 20 years from now. It is not likely that any of us in this room today will come up with a medical discovery that will save lives, or an invention that will enrich lives. Who of us will have a bridge, a street, a building named after him?

“But Judaism speaks to the secret yearning of ours, and says that it is possible. It is within the power of everyone of us to be a memorable person, to live a significant and impressive life. Judaism offers us not only the secrets of life, but the secret of immortality, a living beyond our appointed years-how to be the kind of parent who will be remembered with words of blessing, how to be a friend who won’t easily be forgotten, how to be the kind a neighbor whose impact on the community will remain even after he is gone from the scene.

“Anyone’s life can be fashioned into a spiritual masterpiece. The equivalent of sainthood is not reserved for a small group of unusual souls who were separate from the rest of society. Sainthood, that is, a life a spiritual excellence, is the prerogative of every normal husband or wife, parent, working person, anyone who takes life seriously. You don’t have to have a particular talent for religion to be a spiritual remarkable person.” (From Yom Kippur Readings edited by Rabbi Dov Peretz Elkins, page 199)

When we meet our Maker in 120 years God won’t ask us why we weren’t like Aaron or Miriam. God only asks of us that we fashion our lives so that we make our little corner of the world a little bit better, a little bit brighter, and a little bit cleaner. God only desires of us to become the person we already aspire to be.

 

Never underestimate the role of Jewish women #korakh#devarTorah#parashathashavua

In the first verse of this week’s Torah portion, Korakh's partners in rebellion are identified: Datan and Aviram sons of Eliav and On ben Pelet, from the tribe of Reuven. As the story unfolds, the name of On no longer appears. The Talmud and the Midrash tell us that On was dissuaded from rebelling against Moses by his wife, who is thus credited with saving his life. Apparently, On heeded his wife's advice and is considered to have done teshuva, repentance. The Gemara quotes the verse in Proverbs (14:1): "A wise woman builds her house; a foolish one destroys it with her own hands". The wise woman, says the Gemara, is On's wife, and the foolish is Korakh's.

This praiseworthiness of women has a long precedent. When Abraham hesitated to comply with Sara's demand to expel Hagar and Yishmael because she recognized his bad influence on Isaac, God told him to listen to all she says. Rebecca took a very practical position vis a vis the blessings of Isaac in directing Yaakov's actions. Rachel and Leah "deceived" Jacob when it was the future of the Jewish People that was at stake. Yocheved and Miriam acted courageously by disobeying Pharaoh and are highly praised for their role in preserving the future nation of Israel. Miriam's prophecy to her father Amram consisted of a logical argument which convinced him to take back his wife; Moses, the redeemer of Israel was the result. The Gemara says: "Because of righteous women our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt." Many other women in the Bible like Deborah, Yael, Esther Ruth, and Naomi were instrumental in saving the Jewish people.

In my Tuesday’s short story class we read “What To Do About The Women” by Talya Jankovits. Because the ultra-Orthodox rabbis in the story demanded the removal of all pictures and photographs of girls and women of all ages so that they would never unnecessarily see the face of a woman. Then women began losing their faces. Their faces had no eyes, noses, and mouths. Their faces became blank canvases. The Rabbis’ solution was to sequester all females in their homes until they figure out what caused this spiritual plague. Then all the women of their community disappeared. To bring them back, all the men purged every last trace of their women until there was nothing left. “Not even a fleeting image to remember them by.”

The moral of the Torah reading and of the story is to never underestimate the role of women in Judaism and Jewish history.

TB Khullin 43b-44a Choose your lane.

Dappim TB Khullin 43b-44a explains how one should find the answer to his/her halakhic question. As we shall see in the following story Rav Ukva thought he was being pious by accepting the contradictory stringencies of  Rav and  Shmuel. Ultimately he wasn’t being pious, but rather foolish.

 “The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.

“I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.

“The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.

“Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.

“And one who wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.” (TB Khullin 43b-44a, Sefaria.org translation)

Finding a rabbi to answer your halakhic questions is the complete opposite of what the musical group The Miracles advise when seeking a bride. They sang “My mama told me, you better shop around (shop, shop around, uh-huh-huh) Whoa yeah, you better shop around (shop, shop around). You shouldn’t shop around to find the Rabbi who will give you the most lenient answer (I never heard of a person who shopped around for stringent opinion although that type of person must exist). Once you ask a rabbi for a halakhic decision whether it is lenient or stringent, you should comply with that decision.

I recommend finding a rabbi whose overall theology and approach matches yours. This is the Rabbi you want to ask all your questions. Today’s daf teaches us to choose a lane and stick to it.

 

 

 

Be careful of a person’s reputation #shelakhlekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

In this week’s Torah portion Shelakh Lekha an anonymous man violated Shabbat by gathering wood.  (Numbers 15:32-35 ) In rabbinic literature he is known as the mekoshesh etzim, מקשש עצים. The Gemara in massekhet Shabbat presents three suggestions of the specific av melakhah, category of work, he violated. 1, He carried the wood four amot in the public domain; 2, He detached the tree from the ground; 3. He gathered the wood together. Rabbi Akiva’s identification of this anonymous person as Zelophehad  is troublesome (See how his famous daughters challenged the patriarchy and won in Numbers 27:1-11). Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira chastises him for this identification.

“Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it. And if it the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.” (TB Shabbat 97, Sefaria.org translation) Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s chastisement teaches a very important and needed moral lesson for our time as well. One should never suspect the innocent person of indiscretion and falsely accuse him.

In Shakespeare's Othello, Iago famously declares, "He that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed." For centuries, this sentiment has resonated because a person's reputation—their good name—is the culmination of a lifetime of honesty, hard work, and moral choices. It is a currency built on trust. However, this priceless asset is terrifyingly fragile. When an innocent person is targeted by false allegations, the loss of their good name can be swift, devastating, and nearly impossible to fully repair

Why are we more willing to believe a person misbehaving than giving him the benefit of the doubt? Why do people accept as true undeniably false conspiracy theories? Rabbi Zelig Pliskin in his book Begin Again Now provides a method to “focus on the virtues of all the people you meet and honor them for those virtues. Master the habit of speaking well of everyone and everything you can. Train yourself to notice even the slightest good qualities and virtues. Keep asking yourself, ‘What positive qualities do I see in this person?’” (Page 279)

Don’t accept at face value all the rumors swirling around an innocent person. Until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, continue to look for the good in the person

Khullin 41 Does it pass the smell test?

Israel having a monotheistic faith was unique in the ancient world. Being a minority, Jews were susceptible to the influences of idolatry of the surrounding nations. The prophet Hosea criticizes the people for taking the very grain, wine, and oil that God provided them and dedicating those resources to false gods (Hosea 2). Jeremiah rebukes the people for chasing after foreign gods. (Jeremiah 2) Indeed the entire Bible can be looked upon as a war against idolatry. The rabbis faced the same problem and continued their war against idolatry.

The rabbis on today’s daf TB Khullin 41 worry about mar’it ’ayin (מרעית עין). Mar’it ’ayin is “appearance, a halakhic law that branches out from the rule "And you shall be clean from the Lord and from Israel ," which prohibits certain actions that in themselves are not sinful , but may appear to be sinful, or create the impression that other actions that are forbidden are permitted. This includes the obligation not to be suspected by people of doing inappropriate acts.” (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F)

Although shekhita, slaughtering the animal, is the first of the four steps of animal sacrifice in the Temple, is a religious act, shekhita of khullin, non-sacrificial animals i.e. meat we can put on our table, isn’t a religious act. It is only a matir (מתיר) that allows us to eat it. Nevertheless, the rabbis forbid certain acts of shekhita because of mar’it ’ayin. Somebody watching you might think that you are sacrificing the animal to a foreign god.

“MISHNA: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. But one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. And on a ship, one may slaughter an animal onto vessels as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not appear to emulate [yeḥakkeh] the heretics. 

“GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, but one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter into seas? Is it that one may not perform it, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to the angel of the sea? If so, slaughter into a round excavation containing water should also be prohibited, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to his reflection [bavua], which is also similar to idolatry. Rava said: The tanna’im taught that halakha in the case of murky water, in which no reflection can be seen.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The rabbis were worried when a person slaughter sent animal that he should not give the appearance of worshiping a foreign god even though that is the farthest thing from his mind. In other words, does his shekhita past the “smell test.”

Squawking or nonsquawking? #Beha’alotekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

Who hasn’t flown on a flight when young children or babies are crying! I read where a person was seated behind two small children who were not happy about being on a plane. Their cries of complaint filled the cabin. Just before takeoff, a flight attendant stopped next to them and said with a big smile, “What is all this squawking up here?” After charming the fussy 3-year-old and his younger sister for a few minutes, the flight attendant bent down and whispered very seriously, “I must remind you, this is a nonsquawking flight.”

The little ones became unbelievably quiet. That made everyone feel better. It’s a long journey when you have to sit in the squawking section.

Once I asked an assembly of day school students what we Jews are good at. They gave me a lot of good answers except the one I was looking for based on this week’s Torah portion of Beha’aotekha. We Jews are good at complaining. Despite the fact that God provided the miraculous manna for them, “The rift raft in their midst felt a gluttonous craving; and then the Israelites wept and said, ‘If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, onions, and the garlic. Now our gullets are shriveled. There is nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to. ’” (Numbers 11: 4-6) To say the least, Moses wasn’t pleased, and he complained to God “Where am I to get meat to give to all these people, when they whine before me and say, 'give us to meat to eat!'” (Numbers 11:13)

I’m sure God would like to remind all of us every morning that He wants this day to be a nonsquawking flight. We should try to do all things without complaining and disputing. If we went through each day without complaining, how would it affect our family and friends?

Squawking or nonsquawking? The choice is ours.

 

Khullin 7b The reason why there’s no requirement for ritual slaughter for fish

When I was in rabbinical school, I only studied the laws of milk and meat mixtures with Dr. José  Faur. Ritual slaughtering , shekhita, was not in the course syllabus. Although two of my fellow students and their own studied how to slaughter correctly chickens with Dr. Zucker. They passed the exams, but I never learned whether they continue along this side gig in the rabbinate.

For a kosher animal shekhita, the shoket, the ritual slaughterer, needs to slice through the majority of both the windpipe and esophagus. For a kosher bird shekhita, the shoket has to slice through the majority of either the windpipe or the esophagus. Although I knew that animals and birds needed to be richly slaughtered and fish were exempt, I never knew the reason why fish were exempt until I studied yesterday’s daf TB Khullin 27b.

“The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman… (In other words based on this verse,when it comes to birds the Rabbi split the difference between the two simanim of the animals and fish which do not require slaughter at all.-gg)

“The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: “If flocks and herds be slaughtered for them…or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them” (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof…

“The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.” (Sefaria.org translation)