Parshat Behaalotcha: A Grown-Up View of G-d

I wrote the following for this week's Toronto Torah. It's an idea that occurred to me only in the last few days, and I find it compelling. What do you think?

We may observe that each of the Torah's chumashim presents a transition for the Jewish nation:

• In Bereishit we are born, evolving into a clan.
• In Shemot we evolve further, experiencing slavery, redemption and revelation en route to becoming a G-d-centered nation with an ideology and a mission.
• In Vayikra we develop spiritually, learning the mechanics and meanings of sanctity and purity.
• In Bamidbar we again evolve, from the fresh-faced recipients of the Torah at Sinai to an older, perhaps sadder nation on the cusp of  entering the Land of Israel.
• In Devarim we lose Moshe, the great leader who had molded us, and the nation of masorah [received tradition] takes the place of the nation of direct personal experience.

The above observation runs into a snag, though, in a talmudic reflection (Shabbat 116a) on our parshah. Noting the odd insignia which demarcate the beginning of Bamidbar 10:35 and the end of Bamidbar 10:36 in the Torah, Rabbi Yehudah haNasi contends that these two verses, Bamidbar 10:35-36, constitute a chumash in themselves. Indeed, that talmudic passage even deems this an independent chumash as far as certain issues of Jewish law. [Of course, viewing Bamidbar 10:35-36 as an independent book should render the word chumash, meant to connote one of the Torah's five books, obsolete; there would now be seven chumashim! However, we will continue to use the term chumash in this article, rather than coin a new term.] But if this small section is a chumash, then what transition takes place therein?

The verses themselves do not seem to contain any action, or any lessons for Jewish practice: "And it was, when the Ark travelled, that Moshe said: Arise, G-d, and Your enemies will be scattered, and those who hate You will flee before You. And when it rested, he would say: Settle, G-d, among the myriads of thousands of Israel." How do the Jewish people change in the course of these two verses?

Perhaps an answer lies not in action or halachah, but in the depiction of G-d offered here. Until now, the "bad guys" of the Torah fought directly with the Jews; as their stories are spelled out in the Torah, the Egyptians and the Amalekites were concerned primarily with the Jews, and with G-d only second, if at all. Here, for the first time in Jewish history, G-d is presented as having enemies, and the Jews are eager for their defeat.

In the early emotional life of a child, a parent lacks any personality or identity beyond that of protector and nurturer. The narrative of a parent's existence, his life before the child was born, her ambitions and social interactions, are of no relevance for the child. At some stage, though, the child becomes aware of the parent's broader identity, and of the role that the child plays on that fuller stage. This, perhaps, is the metamorphosis that takes place in Bamidbar 10:35-36 – we learn of our Parent's existence beyond His actions of feeding, clothing, teaching and protecting us. We learn of G-d's relationship with the broader world.

Much of our Judaism is applicable only once we undergo this metamorphosis, recognizing the importance of spreading awareness of G-d and of our own responsibility to execute that mission. The concepts of kiddush HaShem and  its opposite, chillul HaShem, are about more than sanctifying the Divine Name in our own midst (Vayikra 22:32); they are also about how G-d is viewed in the greater world. (Yechezkel 38:23) The imperative, "Cause the Name of G-d to be beloved through your actions," is linked by the Talmud (Yoma 86a) to a verse in Devarim (6:5), after this book, and not in Shemot or Vayikra. And so it is that in Shemot we are told that G-d will personally wipe out the name of Amalek (Shemot 17:14), but in Devarim we are told that it is also our own mission to wipe out the name of Amalek. (Devarim 25:19)

Unfortunately, our transition did not go smoothly; in the very next biblical chapter we displayed conduct as selfish as any in the preceding chapters of our history, complaining of the faintest privation and driving Moshe to desperation. We were not yet ready, and the path to maturity was long and winding, but there were flashes of brilliance along the route, such as Yehoshua and Kalev standing up to slander, Pinchas standing up to immorality, and Devorah standing up to national cowardice.

Truth be told, we are not yet at end the end of this path; we have not yet reached the stage at which all of us, all the time, ask, "What can I do to promote G-d right now?" This is not a matter of evangelism per se, but of actions which, by dint of their visible loyalty to Divine command, challenge the foes identified in Bamidbar 10:35.

We would do well to learn the lessons of this chumash, to stop seeing G-d as exclusively personal and instead comprehend the greater picture, a universe in which we are active participants in promoting Truth. When we do, we will also merit the second half of this chumash, Bamidbar 10:36, and G-d will settle among the myriads of thousands of Israel.

Martyrdom in the Lands of Ashkenazi Jews

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here.]

I expect to present a class on rabbinic responses to the forced conversions of the Crusades, as part of my series on "Responsa that changed Jewish History". [Last week we looked at Rambam's approach to the Almohad analog.]

Here is my source sheet, for anyone interested. [In the table at the outset, a parenthesized name is that of the figure's rebbe. For example: The Rosh learned from the authors of Tosafot and the Maharam.] It's remarkable to see the embrace of martyrdom, and the relevant discussions about mourning for martyrs, opting for martyrdom where the law does not require it, and more. See the Maharam of Rotenburg, especially.

Key figures of early Ashkenaz

10th-11th century	11th century	12th century
Rabbeinu Gershom	Rashi	Sefer Chasidim Authors of Tosafot

13th century - A	13th century - B	14th century	15th century
Authors of Tosafot Maharam Rothenburg Smak (Sefer Chasidim)	Rosh (Tosafot, Maharam) R’ Chaim Or Zarua (Maharam) R’ Shimshon ben Tzadok (Maharam)	Rabbeinu Yerucham (Rosh) Maharil Menachem of Merseburg	Mahari Weil (Maharil) Terumat haDeshen

The Sefer Chasidim’s record of Ashkenazi practice

1. R’ Yehudah haChasid, Sefer Chasidim 160

אם באת לידי נסיון והתאפקת לחטוא אל תחזיק טובה לך לומר עמדתי בנסיון שמא באו אבותיך לאותה מדה וכשלא חטאו בקשו מהקב"ה כשיבואו בניו באותה מדה שיתאפקו בהם מחטוא שנאמר (בראשית כ"ב ח') אלקים יראה לו השה לעולה בני ויקרא אברהם שם המקום ההוא ד' יראה (שם שם י"ד) שיהיו בניו נשחטים על קידוש ה' ונשרפים כיצחק.

If you are tested and you keep from sinning, do not take credit for yourself, saying, ‘I withstood the test.’ Perhaps your ancestors were tested, and when they did not sin they asked of Gd that when their descendants would be tested, they would also keep from sinning. It is written, “Gd will see the lamb for the offering, my son… And Avraham called that place, ‘Gd will see,’” meaning that his descendants should be slaughtered to sanctify Gd’s Name, and burned like Yitzchak.

2. R’ Yehudah haChasid, Sefer Chasidim 704

יש שנהרג על קידוש השם ויש צדיקים שאין נהרגין אלא מתים בידי שמים על מטותיהם ואילו היו בשעת השמד היו נהרגין ולמה יפסידו, אלא שפוחתין להם מן השכר כנגד טובת הנאה שחפצים שלא לבוא לידי כך כדי שיחיו ויולידו בנים ואותם הנהרגים עודפים עליהם שכר כנגד הנאת העוה"ז שלא קבלו

Some people are killed to honor Gd’s Name, and some righteous people are not killed, but rather they die at Gd’s Hand upon their beds. Had they been in a shmad situation, they would have been killed; why should they lose out? Their reward is onlreduced by the benefit they received in fulfillment of their desire not to enter such a situation, but to live and bear children. Those who are killed receive greater reward, for the benefit they did not receive in this world.

3. R’ Yehudah haChasid, Sefer Chasidim 449

בית שנהרגו בו על קידוש ה' והדם נתון על החומה ועל האבנים ובעל הבית בא לטוח בסיד קירות הבית את הדם לא יעבור ולא יהא טח עליו שנ' (איוב ט"ז י"ח) ארץ אל תכסי דמי

If people are killed in Gd’s Name in a house, and their blood is on the wall and stones, and the owner wants to lime the walls, he may not remove the blood and he may not cover it. It is written, ‘Land, do not cover my blood.’

The honor of the martyr

4. R’ Chaim Or Zarua, Responsum 14

הנה בא אלי שארי ידידי נחמן בר' שמריה והראה לי מכתב מה"ר משה בה"ר מאיר זצ"ל שמה"ר שמריה בר' חיים ז"ל הורה ואמר שאין להתאבל על הקדושים. ומטיבותיה דמר קאמינא שלא מצא ידיו ורגליו בבית המדרש. ואומר אני שצריך כפרה וסליחה על הדבר אשר יצא מפיו כך... ומי שאמר שאין להתאבל, א"כ הוא מוציא לעז עליהם ומדמי להו ח"ו מת מתוך רשעו, פשיטא שזה עצמו צריך כפרה וסליחה.

My beloved relative… showed me a letter from our master Maharam, relating that Rabbeinu Shemarya b”R’ Chaim ruled that one should not observe mourning for the holy ones. With respect to the master’s greatness, I must say that he cannot find his hands and feet in the beit midrash; he needs atonement and forgiveness for producing such a thing from his mouth!... One who says not to mourn slanders them and compares them – Gd forbid! – to one who died in his evil. Obviously, such a person needs atonement and forgiveness, himself.

5. Maharil, Responsum 99

ועל דבר הקדיש ליתמי הקדושים, אנא לא שמיע לי מה שכתב מר בשם רבינ' הקדוש, אבל שמעתי אחרים אומרים כן ולא השגחתי בהם כי נראה לי דבר פשוט דיש לאומרו, וטעמא דידי מאבלות שכתב מהר"ם דהוי מטעם משפט רשעים בגיהנם י"ב חדש... וכן שמעתי מרבותי דהכי נפק עובד' בגזיר' פראג שיש שרצו שלא להתאבל על הקדושי', וסוף הסכימו הגדולים בימים ההם להתאבל.

והיא גופא נראה לי אע"ג שהם קדושי עליון ובמדרגה העליונה ואין בריה יכולה לעמוד במחיצתם מ"מ מי מפיס דיש עבירות שצריכות מיתה משונה וצערא דקברא כמו שכתב ר' שמחה... דאי לא תימא הכי מי שיש לו אב ידוע ומפורסם בתורה ובחסידות מנעוריו אטו מי לא בעי קדיש, הא מיתה ממרקת ויום כפורים ותשובה, וזימנין איכא כולהו בחד גברא. אלא חיישינן...

As far as kaddish for the orphans of holy ones: I never heard what the master (Or Zarua?) cited from our holy master (Maharam?), but I have heard others say this and I did not listen, for it appears obvious to me that one should recite kaddish. My reason is from avelut, which Maharam says is observed because the wicked are in Gehennom for twelve months…

I heard from my masters that some people wanted not to mourn for the holy ones after the decree in Prague, but the sages of those days decided to mourn. This appears correct to me; although they are the highest holy ones, on a high level such that none may enter their perimeter, still, who could guess? Some sins require an abnormal death and the pain of the grave, as Rabbeinu Simchah wrote… Otherwise, if one had a father who was known and famed for greatness in Torah and piety from his youth, would his death not require kaddish? Death cleanses, as do Yom Kippur and teshuvah, and sometimes a person experiences all three, but we are still concerned…

6. Mahari Weil, Responsum 114

שפיר עבדת שהתאבלת על אחיך כיון דלאו בדין סנהדרין איקטיל לא גרע ממי שנהרג בדין המלך אע"ג שחייב מיתה מדינה... ואפילו הכי מתאבלים עליהם... וכ"ש הכא דנהרג בידי גוים במיתה משונה ובייסורים גדולים שלא בדין תורה. ולא הוי איבד עצמו לדעת אלא בקבל התראה ואמר ע"מ כן אני עושה כמו שכתב האשירי כמו שכתבת בכתבך. ועוד הכא לא הוי איבד עצמו לדעת דשמא סבור היה לברוח למקום שלא יוכלו לרדוף אחריו לתופשו... ועוד כיון שסבל ייסורין גדולים ייסורי' ממרקי' אע"פ שהיו בעל כרחו...ועוד כיון שמסר עצמו למיתה כמו שכתבת שאמר לו מאן דהוא תלך לחוץ מן החירות ומסור עצמך כדי שיהא לך כפרה וכן עשה. וכיון שמסר עצמו למיתה כדי שיהא לו כפרה ודאי יש לו כפרה.

You acted properly in mourning for your brother. Since he was not killed by a Sanhedrin, he is no worse than one killed by a king, who was legally liable to die… and yet we mourn for him.

This is certainly true here, where he was killed by non-Jews in an abnormal way, with great suffering, and against the law of the Torah. The law of suicide would only apply where he was warned and he declared, “I am doing it for this purpose,” as the Asheri wrote, as you noted in your letter.

Further, here he did not destroy himself willingly; perhaps he thought he could flee to a place beyond pursuit…

Further, since he suffered greatly, suffering cleanses even when it happens against one’s will…

Further, since he gave himself to death as you described, with someone telling him to go outside freely and surrender so that it would atone for him, and so he did, he did it for the sake of atonement and he certainly receives atonement.

Even those who are not obligated to forfeit their lives

7. R’ Yisrael Isserlein, Terumat haDeshen, Responsum 199

שאלה: כל העבירות שנאמרו בהן יעבור ואל יהרג כגון בשאר עבירות בר מע"ז וג"ע וש"ד, אם יתרצה אחד ליהרג כדי שלא יעבור ובא למלוך, האיך מורין לו?

תשובה: יראה דהאי מילתא תליא בפלוגתא דרבוותא. הרמב"ם כתב על כה"ג שאם ימסור עצמו ליהרג הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו... ובס' מצות קטן כתב דמידת חסידות הוא ליהרג ולא יעבור כה"ג... והיה נראה והואיל דפלוגתא דרבוותא אזלינן לקולא באיסור בסכנת נפשות, כדפסק תלמודא... אמנם י"ל הכא דלענין קידוש השם שלא הקפידה תורה על אבוד נפשות מישראל, ואמרה מסור עצמך על קידוש השם לא ילפינן לה משאר ספיקא דלית בהו משום קידוש השם. ונראה דלפי הענין ושרואין אנו כוונתו מורין לו.

Regarding the sins for which we say to violate rather than be killed, aside from idolatry, sexual immorality and murder: Were one to desire to be killed rather than transgress, and were he to ask us, how would we direct him?

It appears that this is subject to rabbinic debate: The Rambam wrote that if he would give himself to be killed, he would be liable for his life… The Sefer Mitzvot Katan wrote that it would be pious to be killed rather than transgress… It appears that since this is a rabbinic debate we should rule leniently regarding a threat to life, as is ruled in the Talmud… However, one could say that regarding sanctifying Gd’s Name the Torah is not concerned for the loss of life from Israel; the Torah says: Give yourself to sanctify Gd’s Name. Therefore, we do not deduce from other cases of doubt regarding law, in which sanctification of Gd’s Name is not involved. It appears that we should rule for him based on the specific case, and based on what we discern of his intent.

!!!

8. Maharam meiRothenburg 4:517

וכן אמר מהר"ם מאחר שגמר אדם בדעתו למסור את נפשו על קידוש השם מכאן ואילך כל מיתה שעושי' לו אינו מרגיש כלל וראי' מן המסורה הכוני ב' הכוני בל חליתי וחד הכוני פצעוני כלומר כשהכוני ופצעוני לא הי' לי כאב הכוני בל חליתי ומביא ראי' מספר היכלות שר' חנני' בן תרדיון הי' במקום קיסר ששה חדשים והרג שיתא אלפין דוכסין והגמונים לסוף ו' חדשים נלקח למעלה ושרפו רק אחד במקומו כדמותו. ותדע שכך הוא שאין לך אדם בעולם שאם הי' נוגע באש באבר קטן שלא הי' צועק אפי' אם יעלה בדעתו לעכב עצמו מלצעוק אינו יכול לעשות ואנו רואים קדושים שאינם צועקים כלום.

And so said the Maharam: Once one has decided to give his life for sanctification of Gd’s Name, from then on he will not sense any death carried out upon his person. There is proof from the Masorah, which records “2” for the word “They struck me (הכוני)” – “They struck me but I did not feel it (Mishlei 23:35),” and “They struck me and wounded me (Shir haShirim 5:7),” meaning, “When they struck me and wounded me, I felt no pain. They struck me and I did not feel it.” The Maharam also brought proof from Sefer Heichalot that R’ Chanina ben Tradyon was held by the Caesar for six months, and he killed six thousand dukes and officers. At the end of six months he was taken to heaven, and they burned another who appeared to be like him, in his place.

Further: You know that this is so because no human could touch fire, even with his smallest limb, without crying out, even if he would try to keep himself from screaming – and yet we see holy ones who do not cry out at all.

The dishonor of those who do not forfeit their lives

9. Tosafot Yoma 82b מה

ולנערה שבעשיית מעשה עבדה בדיעבד מחמת אונס לא תעשה דבר והוא הדין משתחוה לע"ז כדי שלא יהרגוהו איכא למילף מיניה לפוטרו בדיעבד אפי' בעשיית מעשה

Regarding the girl who did this only because she was compelled, you do nothing. The same is true for one who bows to idolatry so that they not kill him; we deduce that we exempt him ex post facto, even if he acted.

10. Baalei haTosafot, Responsum 128

והואיל והנכסים בחזקת יתמי, אין להוציא מידם אלא בראייה ברורה. ואילו שהם אנוסים נראה שהם פסולים להוציא ממון. דהואיל וקיימא לן בע"ז יהרג ואל יעבור והנה עינינו הרואות שרוב ישראל מוסרים עצמם ונהרגים על קידוש השם, ואפילו ריקים שבנו, ואפילו אחד מני אלף אין כופר, הבא להכשירם להוציא מיתמי עליו הראייה. וגם לכאורה נראה שבני אדם שהם אנוסים שהם יכולים לישמט לאלתר, והם מאחרים כמה ימים, נמצא שיש לחוש שאע"פ שתחילתם באונס סופם ברצון. וגם מסתמא אי אפשר שלא עברו עבירה אחת שלא באונס אלא לתיאבון. ומשומד לתיאבון פסול לעדות לכ"ע אפילו מדאורייתא... וגם העולם מחזיקים אותם גרועים מאד שלא להתחתן בהן ובקרוביהם, יותר משאר בעלי עבירות.

Since the assets are held by the orphans, one may not remove them other than with clear proof. Those who were compelled are ineligible to cause money to change hands [via their testimony]; since we say regarding idolatry that one must be killed rather than transgress, and most of Israel, even the empty ones among us, give their lives and are killed to sanctify Gd’s Name, and even one in one thousand does not deny Gd, therefore the burden of proof is upon one who would accept them [as witnesses]. It also appears that those who are compelled can escape soon after, and yet these people delayed for days, and so there is room to suspect that what began with compulsion concluded with volition. Further, it is likely impossible that they did not violate a single sin for desire, without compulsion, and one who assimilates in order to feed desire is invalid as a witness according to all, even biblically… Further, the world assumes such people to be most lowly, and does not wed them or their relatives, moreso than with other transgressors.

What happens when they return?

11. Rosh, Responsum 32:8

על אודות הנשים אשר לא היה להם כח לעמוד בהיכל המלך, ובעת הגזרה החליפו מפני אימת מות; וכאשר מצאו נס ונמלטו, חזרו לדתן. אמת הדבר כי מאד הרעו לעשות, וצריכות חרטה ותשובה וקבלת יסורין יותר מהמחליפין שלא בשעת הגזרה, כי פרהסיא הוא; ושעת הגזרה אמרו חז"ל אפי' לשנויי ערקתא דמסאנא אסור לשנויי. ודוגמא לדבר, למלך גדול שהיו לו הסרים למשמעתו, וקצתם סרו מעליו ושוב נכלמו וקבלם המלך. לימים נזדווג לו מלך גדול בחיל כבד, ואותו המלך קבץ כל משרתיו ואמר להם: אתם רואים שכנגדי ידו תקפה עלי, אשר יבחר בי ובכבודי יקרב אלי, ויערו נפשם למות עלי. מקצתם נזדווגו אחר המלך וקצתם נסוגו אחור והמלך נלחם ונצח להם; והנסוגים אחור בקשו להשלים עמו בתיקון קל, כאשר השלימו כבר הסרים מעליו, ולא נאות המלך לקבלם כי אם בתיקון רב. כן מלכו של עולם, מתפאר בישראל כאשר מוסרים נפשם לקדושתו; כמו שנאמר: ויאמר לי עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר

Regarding women who lacked the strength to stand firm in the king’s palace, and during the decree they changed [their religion] due to fear of death, and then they fled when they could, and returned to their religion: It is true that what they did was very bad, and they must regret it and repent and accept suffering to a greater extent than those who change [their religions] at other times, for this was public, and the sages say that at the time of a decree one may not even alter a shoelace.

This may be compared to a king who had many followers, and then some of his followers strayed, until they were embarrassed and the king accepted them back. Some time later he battled a king who had great armies, and he gathered all of his servants and told them, “You see that my opponent has a stronger hand than I do. Those who choose me and my honor should draw near, and give their lives to die for me.” Some of them followed the king, and some of them retreated. The king fought and won, and those who had retreated wanted to make peace with light repentance, like those who had strayed originally. The king did not agree to accept them without great repentance. So, too, the King of the Universe glories in Israel because they give their lives for His holiness, as it is written, “And He said to me: You are My servant, Israel, in whom I am glorified.”

12. Rashi, Responsum 70

תשובת רבינו שלמה: מן המשפחות המתגרות זו בזו בחירופים וגנאים, ונשמע לקהל קבלון וגזרו עליהם שלא ירגילו בכך. וקפצה אחת ונשבעה קודם גזירת הקהל שלא יקבלו עליהם הגזירה ולא חדלו מחירופיהם. וקפץ אחר והזכיר [לו] שנטמע בימי השמד. ועמד אחד מהם ואמר לזה, הס מהזכיר שהרי נגזר על כך, ולא הזכיר לו מי גזר עליה. ועכשיו נודע שרבינו גרשם גזר שכל המזכיר זה יהא בנידוי.

The families were quarreling with scorn and insults, and the community heard them and decreed that they not accustom themselves to do this. One of them jumped up and swore that his family would not accept the decree, and they did not cease their scorn. The other jumped up and reminded him that he had assimilated during the time of shmad. Another arose and said, “You cannot mention that, for it has been decreed!” without mentioning who had issued the decree. It is now known that Rabbeinu Gershom decreed that one who mentions such a thing should be ex-communicated.

Pro-active martyrdom

13. Rabbi Menachem Merseburg

דין מי ששחט אשתו ובניו בשעת הגזירה אין להחמיר עליו כלל, כ"ש שאדם רשאי להרוג עצמו על קידוש השם:

The law of one who slaughtered his wife and children during a decree: One should not be strict upon him at all, certainly given that one may kill himself to sanctify Gd’s Name.

14. R’ Yosef Caro, Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah 157

ומעשה ברב אחד ששחט תינוקות הרבה בשעת השמד שירא שיעבירום על דת והיה עמו רב אחר וכעס עליו וקראו רוצח והוא לא חש לדבריו ואמר הרב המונע אם כדברי יהרג אותו רב במיתה משונה וכן היה שתפשוהו גוים והיו פושטים עורו ונותנין חול בין העור והבשר ואח"כ נתבטלה הגזרה ואם לא שחט אותם אפשר שהיו ניצולים ולא היו הורגים אותם.

Once a rabbi slaughtered many children during shmad, because he was afraid the enemy would make them leave their religion. Another rabbi present was angry at him and called him a murderer, but he did not listen. The opposing rabbi declared, “If I am correct, may that rabbi be killed in an abnormal way!” And so it happened; the non-Jews caught him, flayed his skin and placed sand between the flesh and the skin. The decree [of shmad] was then nullified, and it is possible that the children would have been saved and not killed, had he not slaughtered them.

Eric Holder for Attorney General: Good and Bad for the Jews?

Per CNN, Eric Holder is President-Elect Barack Obama’s choice for Attorney General.

My gut instinct is that this is, as they say, “bad for the Jews.” Not because of Holder, personally, but because his confirmation hearings are bound to include the infamous pardon of Marc Rich.

The Rich pardon is a perfect example of the tarring ethnicities undergo when one of their own is involved in wrongdoing. I can’t imagine that any responsible party in the Jewish community would have endorsed this pardon - a trader who cheated the financial system, then wrapped himself in the Israeli flag by getting himself an Israeli passport (along with a Spanish passport) in trying to avoid extradition. But when Bill Clinton pardoned him, it was viewed as an example of Jewish malfeasance and influence.

Holder, at the time, was the deputy attorney general, and through a series of events described well here by the Washington Post, he allowed Jack Quinn to push the pardon through. So we are pretty much guaranteed that anti-Obama Congressmen will bring up this pardon as a way to harrass Holder’s appointment. And we will have to endure Marc Rich/Jewish/Israel-oriented headlines.

But, on the other hand, Holder might have a positive impact in another case - the AIPAC trial. The accused AIPAC officials relayed - to the press, to other AIPAC officials and to an Israeli diplomat - information US government officials gave them (in a sting operation), regarding anti-Israel operations in Iraq. The AIPAC guys argue that they had thought they were permitted to speak of the information they had been given.

As noted a couple of days ago in The Forward, Holder is known to be strongly in favor of First Amendment liberties, including free speech. This may help the AIPAC defendants.

So I am split on what to expect with a Holder nomination, but, ultimately, all of this points to a more central point: Realistically, Jews must accept that our kin are so involved in so many ways in so many different parts of American society, that any nominee is going to raise similar issues. Whether it’s Pollard or Rich or AIPAC or Abramoff or Agriprocessors or any other Jew or Jewish institution involved with the wrong side of the law, the bottom line is that we are going to have to get used to headlines like those we’ll be seeing during Holder’s confirmation hearings.

Such is Jewish life in the USA. The only antidote of which I am aware is to make sure we have plenty of positive Jewish examples, so that whenever someone brings up a Marc Rich, we can respond with a kiddush HaShem (sanctification of Gd's Name), “That’s not a representative. Look, instead, at…,” citing numerous examples of ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, Jews of whom Gd can be proud, and we can be proud.

Daf: Gittin 55a-56a - Feeding a child treif, suspect kiddush HaShem, Bar Kamtza's story

Still catching up, but I have tons of notes on 56-58… For those who aren't into this, feel free to jump down and see my comments on the Agunah crisis and on the rabbinic role in End of Life situations.

Gittin 55a
The gemara asks why a cheresh (deaf and mute person whose intelligence cannot be ascertained and who cannot be educated) could not eat terumah; after all, she would be like a child, who is not obligated in mitzvot, and may therefore eat non-kosher food.
Note that this permits a child to eat non-kosher food, but it does not permit us to give him non-kosher food to eat – and the same would be true for a cheresh. Therefore, one need not stop a minor or a mentally challenged person from eating non-kosher, but one may not actively give that person non-kosher food to eat. See the comments of Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 266:15-16.

The ban against giving a cheresh terumah d’rabbanan lest he give a chereshet terumah d’orayta must be a case of חדא גזירה היא.

The gemara says that the sages decreed that a stolen sin offering would be valid, lest kohanim be upset that they had been fooled into bringing an invalid, stolen offering. But how can the sages make an offering acceptable?! I presume this is a case of hefker beit din, the sages removing the item from its owner, as we have discussed in other cases.


Gittin 55b
Note Tosafot שלא.

The gemara here presents a decree against using stolen offerings, lest people say that the altar consumes stolen goods. It is not clear to me why this should be a concern – if the practice is truly legal, then what kind of kiddush HaShem is there in altering that law?!

Here we arrive at the famous “Tisha b’Av” gemara, so named because it deals with the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash [Jerusalem Temples] and the destruction of Beitar, so that one is permitted to learn this mournful segment on Tisha b’Av, even when the normal joy of learning Torah is prohibited.
I don’t have the time to transcribe all of my notes on this gemara, but I’ll include some ‘highlights’.

See Tosafot אשרי.


Gittin 56a
Note that the anonymous host of the party invites his guests via a servant, but he kicks out the guests with his own two hands. As we see regarding Bilam’s saddling of his donkey, השנאה מקלקלת את השורה, Hatred corrupts the normal order of things.

The “third calf” is supposed to be especially fine. See Tosafot for a beginning of some of the views on the definition of “עגלא תילתא – third calf.”

On the blemish to the animal’s mouth or eye, see the Maharsha’s comment on what Bar Kamtza was trying to say by creating these types of blemishes.

I was horrified, some years ago, to hear a well-respected rav and rosh yeshiva speak on the story of Bar Kamtza and arrive at the statement that the Beit haMikdash was destroyed because of ענוותנותו של ר' זכריה בן אבקולוס, the humility and patience of R’ Zecharyah ben Avkulus, and give a bizarre, original reading in an attempt to explain how this word might apply to R’ Zecharyah’s rejection of killing Bar Kamtza and rejection of bringing the korban. This is what happens when we refuse to read alternative editions. The midrash in Eichah Rabbah has this story, but adds one detail which makes everything clear: R’ Zecharyah ben Avkulus was at the party at which Bar Kamtza was humililiated, and he did not protest, feeling he was not worthy. This perfect fits ענוותנותו as it is used here and elsewhere, and no creative twisting is necessary.

The Nero mentioned here was not Emperor Nero, but rather a general by that name. See the Maharam Shif.

Nero’s refusal of his mission to destroy Jerusalem is important – it matches the Rambam’s point regarding Nevuchadnezzar and Free Will, that even if Gd wants something bad to happen, you don’t have to be the one to do it.

The gemara’s mention of “hungry as a dog” here is interesting; in the interest of clean language, we usually prefer to say “as a goat,” per Pesachim 3b.

Marta bat Baytus is not an actual name. “Marta” is a Matron, the feminine of Mar. Baytus (Boethus) was a wealthy family.

Maharsha notes the parallel between the 4 types of flour and the 4 flour offerings of the Beit haMikdash.

Marta and her servant both don’t think ahead, to realize that soon everything will be gone from the market. This reflects the general feeling of Jews of that time, that things couldn’t get any worse and that Gd would save them. Rav Y. D. Soloveitchik used to make this point on the kinah of שבת סורו, that, per Yirmiyah himself, the Jews always believed that HaShem would save them.

The reference to Abba Sikra as head of the Zealots is interesting; there were Sicarii zealots around, per the historians, known by that name because it was the title for the dagger they used. This also fits the Aramaic of סיקרא – Sikra for the color red (as in חוט הסיקרא and a red ink called סיקרא).

The Mussar in messing with the rabbi's parking spot

Last night, after coming back from Halifax, I was in an odd mood - which accounts for the remarkably foolish thing I did. If it were irredeemably foolish I wouldn’t post it at all, but I do feel like there is a lesson to be learned here.

My flight was late coming in (surprising, I know), and so I was five minutes late to minchah. In my absence someone had assumed I was still away from my Shabbos trip, and had parked in my “Reserved for Rabbi” parking spot.

This is no big deal, it happens from time to time and I somehow survive the grievous insult – but, as I said, I was in a weird mood, so I decided to park perpendicularly behind him, neatly locking him in until after my post-Maariv, ten minute mishnah class would end.

It was a joke, and everyone seemed to be laughing about it when I went out to the lot later. This includes the locked-in guilty party; he came to my mishnah class, and laughed when he saw what I had done. I apologized for any embarrassment, and it was over – or so I thought.

I received an email later last night, from a third party, castigating me for my “display of pique” against the person who had parked in my spot. To this minyannaire, it appeared that I had been angry at the tresparker, that I was taking revenge against him for his offense. Within that view of my actions, he quite logically criticized me.

I immediately assured him that I had not been at all upset at the lazy parker, that this was just a sophomoric practical joke and nothing more. But I also had to admit that I had broken Rebbe’s rule from Pirkei Avos: Choose a path which will be תפארת for you personally and תפארת for you from others. In other words, think carefully about the way that others will interpret your actions.

As part of our basic obligation of Kiddush HaShem, and avoiding Chillul HaShem, we are forced to weigh our actions based not only upon our internal calculus, but also upon the calculus of bystanders. Even if 99 out of 100 - or 14 out of 15 as I believe it was last night - will understand what you were doing, the last one is still a concern.

Last night I hadn’t thought about that perspective at all; I was just having a good time. And therein lies the mussar of messing with the rabbi’s parking spot.

In the beginning… there were billboards

Along a semi-rural highway, just yesterday, I was taken aback by a LARGE billboard mural of the cosmos – planets, sun, various stock images that convey ‘intergalactic’ – with two outstretched arms flanking it, and the logo, “In the beginning, GOD created heaven and earth,” running across the picture. There may have been stigmata on one of the hands; I drove past too quickly to be sure that wasn’t just a large bird dropping.

The mural, presumably sponsored by some local church or national Evangelical Christian organization, said many things to me.

A Plus: Cultural respect for religion
As a rabbi I respect noted to me recently, it’s easier to be religious when surrounded by a religious culture, even if it’s not your own. (Of course, this is not as true if the external religious society is directly, overtly hostile to your own… say, living as a Jew in downtown Mecca…)

I agree with him. It’s certainly easier to live in, and interact with, a world in which belief in Gd is not intellectually associated with subtle insanity. When observers’ reaction to your ritual practice is a sincere interest and respect rather than hostility, cynicism or a patronizing smile, the religious life is easier to maintain.

A Minus: Lumping us in with the Evangelicals
That said, I’m still not comfortable with the billboard; as a highly visible representation of Bible-based religion, it will likely be among the first images in local people’s minds when they read about, or encounter, people who believe in the Bible.

When people who have seen this billboard associate me with biblical religion, they will assume that I am one of those people who would put up such a billboard, who would attempt to foist his own belief on society, who denies the validity of scientific method, who wants children to study Creationism (or its not-distant-enough cousin, Intelligent Design) in the public schools, who believes that the United States of America should ban all abortions, etc.

I don’t want to have to find clever ways to inject into routine conversation, “You know, Judaism doesn’t agree with the Church on many issues.” Or, “Isn’t it interesting to note the significant philosophical and practical differences between different Bible-based religions?” These don’t really lend themselves to snappy dialogue.

A third point: Public religion
And a third thought: Even if I disagree with their substance as well as method, I appreciate and respect their pride in expressing their religious belief publicly. Maybe it’s just that they don’t realize how the rest of the world sees them, but I don’t think so – I think they are proud of their religion, and they have no qualms about letting people see it.

So many Jews rely anachronistically on questionable justifications for keeping their yarmulka, their tzitzit, their menorah, their mezuzah, invisible. Anti-Semitism is certainly not gone, and a public yarmulka may well earn a Jew odd looks in certain contexts, but, really, how dangerous is it to have a menorah in my window, in 95% of the USA? How hazardous is it to have a mezuzah on my doorpost (assuming I don’t live in one of those stubbornly resistant co-ops)?

In this, perhaps we could take a lesson from the Evangelicals’ billboard, even if it is overdone. Religion shouldn’t be a subject of shame, and a good way to dispel people’s misconceptions about Judaism – aren’t you like those Evangelicals? - is to expose them to the real thing. Perhaps we could benefit from becoming ‘billboards’ of our own, living Kiddush HaShem, in daily life.

Derashah: Vayyichi 5768: Yosef and the Jewish-American Citizen

The chamber is beautifully appointed, a fittingly luxurious bedroom for the viceroy’s father… but illness burdens its sole occupant. Yaakov, knowing he is near the end of his storied life, calls for his son.
This son rarely visits, as evidenced by the fact that a special courier must inform him that Yaakov is ill… but, at last, the son enters. The viceroy of Egypt, Tzafnat Paneach to his Egyptian court, Yosef ben Rachel to his father, enters the room.
Yaakov speaks. He pleads with his son, “Please, grant me this one request: When I die, return my body to Canaan, to the cemetery of my ancestors.” What son could refuse such a plea from his father? And yet, Yaakov feels the need to twice demand an oath from Tzafnat Paneach, viceroy of Egypt: “Swear to me. Swear you will fulfill my last wish." And then the bedridden Yaakov bows in gratitude to his son.

What happened?! In a Torah filled with dysfunctional family relationships, Yaakov and Yosef were an island of love, a model for their descendants!
Yaakov gave Yosef a ktonet pasim, a special tunic, to mark Yosef’s favor!
Yaakov sent his other children to herd sheep, but sheltered Yosef at home!
Yaakov mourned Yosef’s absence every day for 22 years; contrast that with his utter non-reaction when Shimon was imprisoned in Egypt!
When Yaakov and Yosef met at last, Yaakov declared, “Now I can die, for I have seen your face!”
How did this loving father and son lose their closeness such that now they never met, such that Yaakov felt the need to bow to Yosef, such that Yaakov felt compelled to twice demand an oath of him for the most basic request?

This problem has bothered many classic commentators, who have offered a range of solutions. Based on a terse note in the Siftei Chachamim on ויפג לבו, we might add our own suggestion:
The Siftei Chachamim commentary to Rashi on last week’s parshah suggested that Yaakov didn’t believe that Yosef was alive because he couldn’t conceive of a situation in which Yosef, his loyal Jewish son, could be permitted to reign in Egypt. What kind of job is Egyptian viceroy for a nice Jewish boy?
Now, though, Yaakov sees his son indeed reigning in Egypt - and he fears that Yosef is no longer a “nice Jewish boy,” that Yosef has, in fact, been Egyptianized. Just as Yishmael and Esav had rejected the path of Avraham and Sarah to adopt Canaanite ways, Yosef has now left the fold, becoming an Egyptian citizen.

In fact, Yosef does appear to have become an Egyptian, based on the Torah’s definition of citizenship.
Mordechai Zer-Kavod suggested in an essay entitled הנכרי והגר במקרא, “The Foreigner and the Stranger in Tanach,” that the Torah recognizes four categories of citizen: Ezrach, Ger Toshav, Ger and Nochri.
An Ezrach, a full citizen, is entitled to political rights and social support, and shoulders communal obligations. A Ger Toshav has fewer rights and responsibilities. The Ger, the sojourner, possesses still fewer rights and responsibilities, and the Nochri, the stranger, has no claims upon, or responsibility toward, the community.

The first three generations of Jewish history see Jews in the three sub-citizen roles of Ger Toshav, Ger and Nochri; neither Avraham nor Yitzchak nor Yaakov become true אזרחים, true citizens, anywhere they live.
Avraham and Sarah are everybody’s best friends; they are close with Aner, Eshkol and Mamre; Avraham befriends Malki Tzedek of Shalem; Avraham and Sarah welcome outsiders into their home. Despite this extroversion, though, Avraham identified himself only as a Ger Toshav; he had the right to purchase land and to live among the Canaanites in peace, but he was not an Ezrach, he was not of them.
Yitzchak and Rivkah were less engaged in society; they interacted only with the Philistines of Grar, and that was quite a debacle. In fact, the midrash (cited in Rashi on Shmos 12:40 and elsewhere) notes that the prediction of גר יהיה זרעך, that Avraham’s descendants would be Gerim, sojourners in a land not their own, was first fulfilled with Yitzchak.
And then it gets worse - Yaakov’s family can’t seem to get along with anybody! Their contacts are with Esav, Lavan and Shechem, each one a bigger disaster than the last. Yaakov is a Yosheiv Ohalim, a tent-dweller, and that seems to be where he fares best; the world, for him, is a series of dangers. Yaakov is practically a Nochri in his own land. The disastrous foray to Egypt for food, viewed from the perspective of Yaakov’s sons, must have seemed like more of the same.

But then Yosef reverses the trend of social estrangement; he fulfills every biblical criterion of Ezrach, of citizen, as an Egyptian.
An Ezrach is a permanent resident, while a Ger intends to stay temporarily, לגור שם. Yosef intends to remain in Egypt until his death, as evidenced by his request for burial in Canaan.
An Ezrach owns land; Gerim live בארץ לא להם, in a land not their own. Yosef claims land in Goshen.
And, as Zer-Kavod notes, only an Ezrach has true political power, while a Ger survives on the mercy of the law. Yosef is the law, Yosef is political power incarnate. Remember what he told his brothers? “Go tell Dad, שמני אלקים לאדון לכל מצרים, Gd has made me the master of all of Egypt.”
And so Yaakov wonders if his son, Yosef, has gone the way of Yishmael and Esav, abandoning his Jewish heritage and identifying as an Ezrach, a citizen of Egypt, instead.

But while Yaakov sees Yosef walk like an Egyptian, but Yosef yet thinks like a Jew. Yosef has acquired Egyptian citizenship without abandoning his Jewish identity.
First, Yosef never forgets that he is in exile. When naming Ephraim, he labels Egypt ארץ עניי, the land of my suffering, even though he is now the Egyptian viceroy. He asks that his bones be returned to Israel, another sign that even if he will not leave Egypt alive, this is still not home for him.
Second, every step of the way, Yosef identifies himself as an Ivri. Like Avraham before him, Yosef emphasizes that he comes from a different place and tribe. Yosef even tells Paroh that his success is Jewish, credited to only one source, the Jewish Gd; הלא לאלקים פתרונים.
Yosef is a new breed of Jew, a break from the model of his ancestors, a Jew who can not only survive among the nations, but who can even lead, using his Jewish identity as the basis for his leadership.

This should not be viewed as a quirk of Yosef; Yosef’s participation in the whole of the human community is the model prescribed by R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch for the MenschYisroel, the complete Jew.
In an essay entitled “Religion Allied to Progress,” Hirsch wrote of a Judaism that “extends its declared mission to the salvation of the whole of mankind.” As he put it, “The more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views and aspirations.”
This is Yosef - Concerned with the salvation of the whole of mankind and taking a leadership role within society… as a Jew.

Yosef’s path has never been the path of every Jew. For every cosmopolitan Rambam, for every political Shemuel haNagid and Abarbanel, for every influential Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, dozens if not hundreds of Torah giants have stood back from society, considering the influence of the greater world a poison without antidote - and the world has been quite content with that separation.
Today, though, in America and beyond, the Jew is summoned to lead secular society. Socially, politically, scientifically, morally, philanthropically, the body politic turns to the Jew and asks, “What can you provide?” Congressional hearings on medical ethics routinely solicit Jewish opinion, victims of international disasters seek Israeli aid, non-profit organizations appeal to Jewish philanthropies, newspapers and television pundits ask the Jewish community for comment, Jews are accepted as professors and authors and politicians and producers and members of every level of the workforce. Every opportunity of which the ghetto-bound Jew was deprived is available to her descendant.
Given this opportunity to seek what Hirsch termed “the salvation of the whole of mankind,” and given this opportunity for Kiddush HaShem, we would ill-serve the purposes of Torah were we to back away into our Ohalim. Certainly, we must tread carefully, as Yosef did - informing the world of our Ivri status and retaining an awareness that secular society is not truly home. But we can do this; Yosef is given to us as a model.
Yosef leads as a Jew - and we can do the same.

This past December 10th, the 7th night of Chanukah, Caren and I were privileged to be invited to the Chanukah party held by the President and First Lady at the White House. The event was remarkable on many levels, but one particularly relevant point is the way we were honored as Jewish leaders in America. The food was all kosher - with two certifications, of course - a kosher menorah was lit, a maariv minyan was held, every possible halachic concern was satisfied. This was a celebration for us as Jews, because we are Jewish, because we visibly retain our identity, even as we are active members of American society.
We are the heirs of Avraham the Ger Toshav, and the heirs of Yosef the Ezrach. The models of Yitzchak and Yaakov remain very much a crucial part of Torah - we need to have people sitting and studying Torah in the Ohel - but in this land of opportunity we have been given the greatest opportunity, the chance, as Hirsch said, to work for the salvation of the whole of mankind. Like Yosef, we can shoulder this responsibility - and, with Gd’s help, like Yosef, we will succeed.


Additional thoughts:
1. The affection seems to go from Yosef to Yaakov as well - from the moment Yosef meets his brothers in Egypt, he can’t stop asking them how his father Yaakov is doing. And when Yosef reveals his identity and then speaks of Yaakov, he refers to his father four times - and he doesn’t say אבינו, our father, but rather, all four times he says אבי, my father.

2. In terms of Yaakov's suspicions: Although Yaakov gives Yosef a double portion in Israel, he eliminates Yosef’s name; the double portion will instead be given to Yosef’s sons, Ephraim and Menasheh!

3. On this reading of the Yaakov/Yosef suspicion, see also Avraham Ahuviah in http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/betmikra/mealilot.htm

4. A side note: Yaakov demands an oath from Yosef. Yaakov’s first speaking part in the Torah, his purchase of the bechorah, ends with him demanding the same thing, saying השבעה לי כיום.

5. Note that there were also Jews who fulfilled this Yosef "citizen" role in the days of the Gemara; cf the discussion of Jews who travel among the aristocracy wearing the קומי haircut, such as Sotah 49b.