In memory of Aharon

[The following post was my contribution to this week's Toronto Torah, which is downloadable here; enjoy!]

Am I doomed to play out my family’s traits in my own life? Aharon haKohen, whose yahrtzeit is observed this coming Sunday night and Monday, Rosh Chodesh Av, is proof that I am not.

We are familiar with the stories of peace and goodwill associated with Aharon. Avot d’Rabbi Natan 12 describes how Aharon involved himself in mediating people’s personal quarrels. Midrashic sources demonstrate Aharon’s conciliatory nature in dealing with the creators of the Golden Calf. Rashi (Bamidbar 20:29) states that every Jew mourned Aharon’s death because of his peace-pursuing traits. The purveyor of Peace and Torah described in Malachi 2:5-6 is said to be Aharon haKohen, who brought peace between individuals and between G-d and the Jewish people. And so on.

What we often miss, though, is that Aharon’s pursuit of peace broke from his family’s dominant trend toward קנאות , zealotry. Aharon’s great-grandfather, Levi, responded with violent outrage to Dinah’s kidnapping and to Yosef’s presumption. Aharon’s elder sister Miriam expressed indignation toward her parents and toward Moshe, and Aharon’s younger brother Moshe displayed outrage numerous times in his career. Aharon’s nephew Chur stood against the Golden Calf to the point of sacrificing his life; Aharon’s family rallied to Moshe’s call, executing the ringleaders of the Calf’s idolatry. Aharon’s grandson Pinchas crowned himself judge and executioner for Zimri; Aharon’s descendants, the Chashmonaim, did likewise against the Hellenists in the era of Chanukah. Eliyahu haNavi, who proclaimed, “I have been zealous for G-d,” was a descendant of Aharon.

Talmudic sources (such as Bava Batra 160b) identify a demanding nature – קפדנות - as an eternal hallmark of kohen conduct, such that the sages needed to create obstacles to prevent them from hasty divorce. The gemara (Sanhedrin 82b) depicts Aharon’s grandson Pinchas challenging Divine justice, and then HaShem justifying this hubris because it was the result of family influence.

Aharon’s family was known for their fiery commitment to proper religious and social conduct, and for putting their lives on the line to defend those principles. Aharon held those same values, but he acted peacefully rather than with anger. Indeed, Ramban (Bamidbar 20:8) asserts, “אהרן לא כעס מימיו, Aharon was never angered.”

Certainly, defying so thoroughly an engrained family trait requires great strength and independence, but how did Aharon even know he was right in shattering this family mold? Where did Aharon find the courage to support his iconoclasm?

Perhaps the answer lies in a brief comment by Ibn Ezra (Shemot 6:13). The Torah describes HaShem’s initial charge to Moshe and Aharon, “ויצום אל בני ישראל,He instructed them regarding the Jewish people.” Ibn Ezra explained, “יש אומרים שצוה שלא יכעסו על ישראל כי רוחם קצרה, Some say that He instructed them not to be angry at the Jewish people, for the people’s spirits were limited.” In other words, HaShem warned Moshe and Aharon to recognize the shortcomings of their generation, and to govern with patience and understanding.

Aharon accepted that the people for whom he was responsible were limited, tortured into smallness by their Egyptian masters and the suffering of exile. He resolved that despite the gene-fueled cauldron burning inside him, he would direct his energy away from the flames of outrage and toward finding creative ways to lead the nation positively, peacefully, and prosperously.

This is the Aharon haKohen who was Miriam and Moshe’s complement in government for forty years, and whose passing we commemorate in the coming week. This is the Aharon haKohen for whom the Torah records (Bamidbar 20:29), “They cried for Aharon for thirty days – the entire house of Israel.” This is the Aharon haKohen who offered korbanot to atone for a nation, and who kindled the lights of the menorah. תהיה נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים, may his soul be bound in the bond of life.

Certainly, we need leaders of fire and strength, but in our own days of limited spirits may we also merit to be led by the students of Aharon.

Mazal tov! Mazal tov!

[This week's Toronto Torah is here!]

Last night we celebrated my brother-in-law’s engagement. (To a Toronto girl, no less! I have now passed the first test of Toronto citizenship: I have mishpachah here on both sides of my family.)

And another simchah: This evening we’ll celebrate my bechor’s first siyyum, Gd-willing; we’ve finished learning Mishnayot Masechet Berachot together.

These s’machot have put me in mind to contemplate Vicarious Joy – the happiness we feel when someone else is happy.

I see two kinds of vicarious emotion:
1. I feel the same joy/sadness/revulsion/anger you feel, because I can imagine how I would feel if that happened to me;
2. I feel the same joy/sadness/revulsion/anger you feel, because you feel it.

The first, I think, is the easier one to feel; it’s natural to imagine ourselves experiencing what others experience, even if we have no direct connection to them. I heard a radio report this morning about Michelle Lang, a 34-year old reporter for the Calgary Herald, engaged to be married this summer and killed yesterday in Afghanistan, and my gut reaction was to imagine myself in that situation.

The latter is more challenging, I believe, because it requires of us that we adopt others’ emotional state. Logically, it means that I would be happy just becausehe was happy, or sad just because he was sad, even if I didn’t know why he was happy or sad, even if his emotional reaction to a situation is foreign to me.

The Torah (Shemot 4:14, as explained in Shabbat 139a) describes Aharon meeting his brother Moshe and feeling great happiness for him, after Gd selects him to lead the Jews out of Egypt. It says, “וראך ושמח בלבו,” “He will see you and be glad in his heart.” And the gemara says Aharon is rewarded with the honor of wearing the Kohen Gadol’s special breastplate upon his heart.

Rashi takes this gemara as saying that Aharon felt joy that Moshe had been selected, and he views the gemara’s praise of Aharon as praise that he was happy rather than jealous. But the Torah’s sentence itself – “He will see you and be glad in his heart” – suggests that Aharon’s joy comes before he actually knows anything about Moshe’s appointment. This read is cemented by Shemot 4:27-28, in which it is explicit that Aharon does not know: Gd tells Aharon to go meet Moshe, he meets Moshe, and then Moshe tells him about the appointment.

This suggests that Aharon’s joy is simply triggered by seeing that Moshe is happy. He sees that Moshe is glad, and therefore he is glad, even without knowing why. It’s pure. [I know there is one weakness in this: Moshe resisted being selected! אף על פי כן. His resistance was not sadness; it was humility.]

This also puts me in mind of another point: Our natural expectation that others will be happy when we are happy, and sad when we are sad. We expect it, I think, and we are disappointed when it is not forthcoming, and it makes us doubt our relationships. Interesting, but seder starts in a minute, so I’ll have to return to this thought.

In Defense of Public Policy (Derashah Ki Tisa 5769)

Science fiction revels in the “What if” – as in, “What if Lincoln had not gone to Ford’s Theater on the night of his assassination?” “What if Napoleon had not invaded Russia in 1812?” and so on.

The Torah’s key moments are likewise open to an imaginative re-write. From “What if Adam and Chavah had not eaten the fruit,” to “What if Moshe had not struck the rock,” we can ask all sorts of open-ended questions and speculate about the answers.


Our own parshah presents a fascinating “What if” possibility, regarding the עגל הזהב, the Golden Calf: What if Aharon had said No?

As Ibn Ezra explains the story of the עגל, the Jews asked Aharon to create a physical symbol of Gd’s presence. Aharon saw nothing halachically prohibited in this request, and so he cooperated – only to have the project hijacked, the calf turned into an idol.

In our alternative universe, what if Aharon had looked at the proposed Calf not through a Halachic lens, but through a Public Policy lens? Aharon says to himself, “Hmm… where is this going?” And Aharon refuses. The nation is angry; they call him a machmir. They accuse him of being overly suspicious. They decry his “slippery slope” argument.

But, in the end, Moshe comes down from the mountain to find a righteous nation, instead of a nation of idolaters. The Luchos are never broken. There is no need for a central Mishkan, or even a central Beit haMikdash. Every city becomes a Yerushalayim, every home a Beit haMikdash, every table a true altar for Gd. The course of Jewish history, down to today, is forever changed.


Aharon’s Policy decision to permit the Calf changed Jewish history – and similar decisions, by other critical figures, have done likewise.
Dovid haMelech, King David, actually went both ways on matters of Policy:

• Dovid haMelech saw Batsheva, and fell for her. He calculated that Batsheva was Halachically permitted to him, and he had her brought to him, regardless of obvious Policy considerations.The result was Divine wrath and severe punishment, affecting both Dovid and the nation.
• On the other hand, later in his career Dovid haMelech had the opportunity to confiscate property using his royal powers. Halachically, he could have done it - but he declined because it smacked of theft, and he was praised for the decision.

The course of Jewish history has changed, and changed again, because of such Policy choices. Beyond Halachah, good Policy decisions have aided us, and bad Policy decisions have been our ruin.


What is Policy?

We often describe “Halachah” as a system that encompasses all of Jewish life, but it does not cover many situations:

• Within the bounds of Halachah, I could spend all day, every day, surfing the Internet, never working, and living off of tzedakah.
• Within the bounds of Halachah, I could purchase minority shares in companies that sell weapons to terrorists.
• Within the bounds of Halachah, I could, to cite a rabbinic mentor of mine, let my teenage daughter hold a co-ed slumber party.

This is why we need to establish Policy beyond Halachah, studying our values and using our human intuition and predicting the results of our actions, to chart a future course.

• Policy choices can be constructive, recommending that we do certain things.
• And Policy choices can be restrictive, recommending that we not do certain things.

Policy was what told Dovid haMelech not to confiscate property.
Policy would have told Dovid haMelech not to take Batsheva that way.
And Policy would have told Aharon not to create the עגל.


The Torah empowers our Jewish leadership to make these Policy decisions, to think ahead and plan and legislate for the sake of the community.

The Torah commands our sages, “ושמרו את משמרתי, You shall guard My preserve,” and the gemara explains, “עשו משמרת למשמרתי, Make a (rabbinic) preserve beyond My (biblical) preserve.” This is the source for rabbinic law.

The Torah instructs a rabbinical court, “ובערת הרע מקרבך, You shall eradicate evil from your midst,” and a properly certified court may take measures it deems appropriate to protect society.

Chatam Sofer, as we will discuss in the class this afternoon, argued that sages who calculate Policy actually possess רוח הקודש, a prophetic inspiration which guides them in their decisions and guarantees they will not err. Others suggest that Policy-making is a more earthly process, and that sages can, indeed, make mistake, just like anyone else. However we understand it, our rabbinic leadership is charged with the responsibility of trying to create Public Policy.


But the Torah does not stop with sages – it also places responsibility for Personal Policy on the shoulders of every Jew - every individual and every family.

Ramban explains, when the Torah says “קדושים תהיו, You shall be holy,” that is a sacred charge for every Jew: “קדש עצמך במותר לך, Restrain yourself even from that which is technically permitted, in order to sanctify yourself.”

Chatam Sofer put it more positively, writing, “He who would achieve piety before his Creator will be recognized by his deeds – by those practices which he originates for the sake of heaven...”

We make policy for ourselves, both the Ramban’s restrictions and the Chatam Sofer’s positive institutions, in order to sanctify ourselves. This is our responsibility, and this is our privilege.

HaShem did not tell Aharon and Dovid what to do, and HaShem does not tell us what to do, HaShem neither legislates against every possible danger nor institutes every possible piety. Rather, HaShem offers us the leeway to make a reasoned calculation, and to create sanctity for ourselves.

(We are celebrating an Engagement this Shabbat, so here I discussed the couple, and the role of Policy in shaping a Jewish home.)

-
Notes:
1. For Dovid's restraint, see Bava Kama 60b. For the empowerment of courts to make policy decisions, see Moed Katan 5a, Yevamot 90b and Sanhedrin 81b for various examples.

2. Chatam Sofer's remarkable statement about personal originality is part of a great teshuvah, in 1: Orach Chaim 197. His comments on prophetic policy-making are a major theme in his derashot. See the work of Maoz Kahana, Tarbiz 76:3-4 (2007): 519-556. (Hat-tip to Menachem Butler for highlighting this article.)

3. Of course, in that alternative Eigel universe, the nation might simply have killed Aharon as the midrash explains they killed Chur. But you get the point.

4. Also re: the Alternative Eigel universe: The replacement of Mishkan for Eigel is Rashi's stance; Ramban disagrees.

5. Further re: the Alternative Eigel universe: Without a Beit haMikdash Yerushalayim might still have held primacy as the site of the Akeidah, but I wonder what practical role it would have played.

Newsflash: Peer Pressure affects diet, alcohol consumption

[Note: This week’s Haveil Havalim is here.]

I love those studies that make you scratch your head and say, “And just how much did you spend on this?”

Yes, I know that sometimes we need the proof that comes with statistical analysis, and sometimes a study does provide refined insight… but please don’t tell me that the overall findings in these tautological studies are "surprising":

People without job training or experience
earn lower salaries!
Film at 11!

Popular people tend to be invited to more parties,
studies show

Well, here’s one fresh out of the Inbox: Part Of The In-group? A Surprising New Strategy Helps Reduce Unhealthy Behaviors.

The article explains, “Authors Jonah Berger (University of Pennsylvania) and Lindsay Rand (Stanford University) found that linking a risky behavior with an "outgroup" (a group that the targeted audience doesn't want to be confused with) caused participants to reduce unhealthy behaviors.”

So, in other words: To avoid being associated with a certain group, I won’t act like the members of that group.

Didn’t we all learn this back in high school?

Here’s one study they ran: “Students on their way to a campus eatery were surveyed about perceptions of the media. A control group read an article about politics and pop culture, and a second group read an article associating junk-food eating with online gamers (an "outgroup"). When research assistants observed the two groups ordering food, they found that the group who had read the article about online gamers made healthier choices.”

Right – The geeks eat junk food, I don’t want to be called a geek, so I won’t eat junk food. Thank you, U of P and Stanford, for clarifying that point for me. (Apologies to on-line gamers; this was not my study.)

In truth, there is one pedagogic point I should make, and I would have loved to see the study examine this:

The study's method is a negative reinforcement technique, preying on people’s fear of being despised. It’s the equivalent of telling your child, “Don’t wipe your nose on your sleeve; only low-class people do that.”

Far better – and more effective, I would hope - to choose a positive reinforcement technique: “You know, respectable people use tissues.”

Avot d’Rabbi Natan records regarding Aharon haKohen: Aharon would make sure to greet everyone warmly and inquire after their welfare. Then, one those people were faced with opportunities to sin, they would resist the temptation – because they wanted to be the type of person worthy of being greeted by Aharon haKohen.

Yes, I’d prefer the positive – Link healthy behavior with the in-group, and watch how people flock to it.