And here's the derashah... (Behaalotcha 5777)

... from the aquarium billboard:

A couple of years ago, the Nova Scotia board of tourism posted a giant billboard on Bathurst. It featured a monster-sized, awesome picture of a diving whale off the Nova Scotia coast, and it said in tall letters, “We heard you have an aquarium. That’s nice.”[1]

I give the ad campaign a 10 for snark, and a 10 for content – it reminded me that I really, really want to see Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, I have a problem: minyan. Other than in Halifax, there aren’t too many minyan options in the Maritimes. Is a Jew – and especially a male, who has extra obligations – allowed to go to a cottage, to go on vacation, without a minyan?

Of course, going to Nova Scotia can have religious value. We can appreciate Divine creation, declaring מה רבו מעשיך ד'! Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote, “I almost believe that all you homebodies would one day have to atone for your staying indoors, and when you would desire entrance to see the marvels of heaven, they would ask you, ‘Did you see the marvels of Gd on earth?’ Then, ashamed, you would mumble, ‘We missed that opportunity.’”[2]

There is also religious value in charging our batteries, absorbing energy for future mitzvos. The Shulchan Aruch writes, “Eating or drinking for your own pleasure is אינו משובח, not praiseworthy. One should intend to eat and drink in order to live, to serve the Creator.[3]”

But I’m not talking about going to Nova Scotia in order to appreciate Hashem’s creation, or to recharge for spiritual service. Yes! Admiring nature can be a spiritual experience, but I’m just talking about going as a human being. Human beings love to experience the new and different, we relish natural beauty, we dance to music, we expand our souls through literature and art. Is being human justification for missing minyan, or not learning another page of gemara, or not volunteering for an organization?

Of course, I’m not going to pasken here. First, because psak rightfully belongs solely with shul rabbis. Second, this is a simple, perhaps even a bit oversimplified, derashah; it’s not a shiur. So instead I’m going to focus on the underlying philosophical question: How do we look at sacrificing a mitzvah for the sake of being human?

Let’s review two stories from our parshah: The lashon hara about Moshe, and Pesach Sheni.

First, the lashon hara: As the Talmud[4] tells it, Moshe separated from his wife Tzipporah because he expected to speak with Gd at any time and he needed to be available, just as Jewish men and women separated from each other temporarily at Har Sinai. His siblings, Miriam and Aharon, were scandalized; after all, they were prophets too, but they had families! Hashem decisively declared Miriam and Aharon wrong about Moshe, and they were both punished with tzaraas.[5]

But here’s what people often miss in the story! Miriam and Aharon were right about everyone not named Moshe, everyone who did not speak to Gd “face to face”. Normal human beings are meant to pursue normal human life, with families! And as the sage Ben Azzai noted,[6] does not family life impose obligations which necessarily obstruct total commitment to the omnipresent mitzvah opportunity? Will not a spouse, a parent, a child, a friend, a neighbour, an organization lay ineluctable claim to your hours, directly and indirectly? Will not participating in a family involve diapers and carpools, cameraderie and sympathy – in short, being human?

If Miriam and Aharon are correct, does that not mean that the Jew is supposed to be a human being, to recognize the limits of Covenant and honour human need?[7]

Rabbi Alex Israel of Yeshivat Eretz haTzvi eulogized Rav Yehudah Amital z”l, former Rosh Yeshiva in the Gush. He reported on the time when Rav Amital saw someone straining to fulfill the minutia of a ruling in the Mishneh Berurah. Rabbi Israel wrote, “Rav Amital saw him and gently said to him: “Danny. Be normal!” He believed that strict and full accordance with the Halakha was a way of life that demanded effort and work, but that it should not take a person away from the orbit of normal people, or regular living.[8]”

So far, then, it seems that Miriam and Aharon are right, and it’s fine and appropriate to relax and take a few days in Nova Scotia. Be normal!

But there is another story in our parshah: Pesach Sheni.

At the start of their second year in the wilderness, the Jewish people brought the korban Pesach, but a small community was denied participation because they were tamei, ritually impure. According to the Talmud,[9] they were ineligible for the best of reasons – they were the chevra kadisha, carrying the bones of Yosef and his brothers. So they were exempt. They could relax. They were required to relax! While the rest of the nation went about their duties.

But that’s not what these Jews did; they came to Moshe in protest, למה נגרע, why should we lose out on this mitzvah? We don’t want an exemption! We don’t want to relax! We want to do the mitzvah! And although they did not receive exactly what they wanted, they are unquestionably admired for seeking greater duties, greater obligations![10]

And if I quote Rav Amital on one side, I must also quote Rav Asher Weiss, the posek of Shaare Zedek Hospital, on the other. He was asked about a thoroughly exhausted person, awake all night for a particular mitzvah, going to sleep at the end of the night, shortly before the time for Shacharis. Since he would be out cold come morning, our Sleeping Beauty would be exempt from davening when the time came. Rav Weiss replied, in part, “One who keeps himself from becoming obligated in a mitzvah, before its time arrives, has not ‘failed’ in the mitzvah. However, the desire of the Torah – רצון התורה – places an expectation upon people to make certain they will be able to fulfill mitzvot, and indeed pursue their fulfillment.[11]” The desire of Torah is that the exhausted individual push past his boundaries and achieve more!

So who is right, Rav Amital or Rav Weiss? Is rest and relaxation in Nova Scotia a fulfillment of the message of Miriam and Aharon, or a violation of Pesach Sheni?

Let’s go back to a problem at the start of Bereishis.

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik noted[12] that plants, fish, birds, animals and human beings were created with shared language in the 10 Declarations of Creation:

·         אמירה, עשייה, בריאה – the same verbs create all of us.

·         We were all brought forth as miraculous life from dead matter.

·         Gd expressed a desire for all of us to bear fruit and multiply.

·         Both animal and human are vegetarian at the outset.

·         Adam was even named for the mud from which he and the plants and beasts were taken.

At first blush, to be human is to be a mobile plant, a fish with lungs, an earth-bound bird, a two-legged animal with opposable thumbs.

But first subtly, and then explicitly, Hashem differentiates the human being from all else by communicating with us:

·         The fish and birds are blessed with procreation, פרו ורבו, but humans are told פרו ורבו.

·         Gd tells the reader that animals are to eat plants, but Gd tells the human being directly to eat plants.

·         And then, most powerfully, ויצו! Gd commands us! As Rav Soloveitchik wrote, “Gd takes man-animal into His confidence, addresses him and reveals to him His moral will.”[13]

Once Gd gives us not instinct but instruction, not physicality but spirituality, we enter into a relationship with Gd, our first and primary commitment, in which we must strive to prioritize that instruction above all else.

And to me, this is the big question of Bereishis, and our parshah, and I think of Nova Scotia as well:

·         When human beings “enter Gd’s confidence”, are we meant to shed our animal skin, to transcend the plant, fish, bird and beast, to bond with Gd and never look back?

·         Or is our spirituality meant to co-exist with our original, animal character, so that we are both human and pursuers of the Divine?

And I would suggest that the answer also appears right there in Bereishis. Right after ויצו charges Adam with spirituality, Gd charges Adam with sociality. Hashem declares לא טוב היות האדם לבדו – it is not good for the human being to be alone. And Gd searches the kingdoms of beasts and birds, who could have been mates of animalistic humanity prior to ויצו but who are now inadequate for the Commanded personality. And Gd finally separates the souls of Adam and Chavah into different bodies, to join with each other socially.

If ויצו meant that we were only to bond with Gd, then there would be no role for a mate and the demands of family. We would spend our lives seeking to grow out of our desires and become as superhuman as possible. No sports, no hobbies, no literature, no tourism, no artwork, no gourmet dining.

Of course, when Gd seeks a mate for Adam, when Gd creates the concept of community, Gd is undoubtedly looking for that mate to help Adam become a better spiritual person, become a better citizen of that ויצו mandate – but here’s the thing: Gd also implies a parallel mandate: Be a mensch! Be normal! You are to have spouses and children, and therefore you shall have parents and siblings and communities, and you will need those most human experiences and sympathies and goals. Live the life of a human being, feel the emotions of a human being, experience the pain and joy of the people around you!

If Gd desires for human beings to exist in the company of others, then ויצו must not supercede our humanity. We are charged with two competing and complementary aspirations: ויצו, to bond with Gd, and לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, to bond with man. We must aspire to be godlike and we must aspire to be human.

The challenge is for a human being, over the course of a lifetime, to feed both of these drives[14] – to excel in both arenas. To produce a mosaic of ten thousand occasions, a million instants when we learn a page of gemara or give tzedakah or go for a walk in the woods, we become ideal servants of Gd, fulfilling every mitzvah and spending our every moment in search of ways to grow closer to the Shechinah, and we become ideal human beings, living life, reading books, seeing Nova Scotia, playing games, visiting art museums, viewing plays, growing in our ability to be sympathetic, productive members of society.

The lesson of ויצו is that we must aspire to defy human weakness and draw close to Gd.

The lesson of לא טוב היות האדם לבדו is that we must aspire to be human.

Those aspirations must never be separated. The Jew who tours Nova Scotia or reads a novel must also make a siyum haShas. And the Jew who makes a siyum haShas must also go to Nova Scotia – or at least the Toronto Aquarium, nebach. The Jew who schmoozes with friends on Shabbos afternoon must also make time to learn. And the Jew who learns must also make time to schmooze. We can satisfy both, if we look at our lives not moment by moment, analyzing each decision in a vacuum, but as a whole, to gauge whether we are satisfying our duties in both areas.

These are our grand aspirations. The poet Cordelia Ray wrote of human aspiration,[15] “We climb the slopes of life with throbbing heart, and eager pulse, like children toward a star.” May our twin goals, spirituality and sociality, be the binary stars that make our hearts throb. We can never fully achieve either one while we yet stand on the slopes of life – but may our mission, and our passion, be to make that climb.

---

[1] https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-11-at-6-51-19-pm.png?w=600&h=450

[2] Collected Writings Vol 8 pg. 259 “From the notebook of a Wandering Jew”

[3] Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 231:1

[4] Shabbat 87a

[5] Shabbat 97a

[6] Yevamos 63b

[7] Indeed, when Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son came out of their cave after 12 years of non-stop study in hiding from the Romans, they could not deal with human beings; shocked to find people spending time plowing, they turned their gaze upon the fields and those fields were incinerated. Hashem rebuked them, “Did you emerge to destroy My world? Go back into your cave!” They observed a year of mourning in the cave, and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai emerged much chastened. (Shabbat 33b) Human beings are expected to live as human beings do.

[8] http://text.rcarabbis.org/in-memory-of-rabbi-yehuda-amital-ztl-reflections-by-nathaniel-helfgot-yehudah-mirsky-alex-israel-yair-kahn-and-reuven-ziegler/ And also expressed in hesped by R’ Yoel Amital - http://shaalvim.co.il/torah/maayan-article.asp?id=425:

אבא, בזמן השואה הכנת את עצמך למות על קידוש השם, ולאחר השואה המניע העיקרי של הרבה פעולות שעשית היה למנוע חילול השם; רצית למות על קידוש השם – אבל קידוש השם היה המניע העיקרי שלך בכל חייך, קידוש השם כפי שמגדיר אותו הרמב"ם בהלכות יסודי התורה: "עושה בכל מעשיו לפנים משורת הדין, והוא שלא יתרחק הרבה ולא ישתומם". המקור לענין שדברת עליו הרבה פעמים על הצורך להיות "יהודי נורמלי", לא להתנהג בצורה משונה וחריגה אלא דווקא כ"יהודי פשוט", גם הוא נמצא בדברי הרמב"ם הללו: "שלא יתרחק ולא ישתומם".

[9] Succah 25a-b

[10] It is as the Talmud (Sotah 14a) states regarding Moshe, that he longed to enter Israel not to enjoy the produce, but to fulfill mitzvot from which he was exempt!

[11] Minchat Asher II 9. Ditto Rav Aharon Lichtenstein on tiyulim and exemption from Succah, at the end of http://etzion.org.il/en/travelling-and-mitzva-sukka

[12] The Emergence of Ethical Man

[13] We are also צלם אלקים, and it fits, but I didn’t want to go into that here.

[14] חציו לכם וחציו לד' of Shavuos – Beitzah 15b

[15] https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/aspiration

Wuthering Heights

During Yom Tov, I had the opportunity to read Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. I had never read any of the works of the Bronte sisters, leading me to feel culturally deficient, so I finally bit the bullet and read this one.

At first, I couldn’t stand the book. Every character – save the twin narrators, Mr. Lockwood and Nelly Dean – is a villain, some through malevolence and some through weakness of spirit and some through caprice. Not only that; these villains are far over the top, painted in such forceful colours as to be fairly unbelievable.

But the book has grown on me since I finished reading it. I tend to agree with Rabbi Shalom Carmy's thought, expressed in a Tradition article last year last year (45:2, As We are Now is Not the Only Way to Be: On the Place of the Humanities in Contemporary Religious Culture): Our religious identities can be greatly enriched by exposure to the humanities. This book has given me much to think about along those lines.

In particular, Wuthering Heights offers a vivid portrayal of the effects of scorn on human beings.

• Experiencing even mild scorn and contempt drives certain characters to radical selfishness, to abuse of others, and to malevolence that endures across years and generations. (Think of Heathcliff's response to Hindley Earnshaw, and Isabella's son Linton's response to Heathcliff.)
• Other characters respond to scorn with equanimity, even if they are troubled. (Think of Heathcliff's responses to Nelly Dean.) 
• This is a book of villains, and so it is hard to find someone driven by scorn to deeds of greatness – but on some level this may be seen, I think, in Nelly Dean, and perhaps in Catherine Earnshaw as well.
• And then there is Joseph and his contrarian response to scorn, I suppose, but I'm not sure how to read him; he is really presented as more of a caricature.

The characters' responses vary as broadly as do the natures of the characters, and their situations in life.

At the other end of the relationship spectrum, affection at times drives a character away (Heathcliff and Isabella), and at other times has a humanizing effect (Hareton and Cathy). There is more to be said here, but in the interest of space I'll leave this be.

So how might this influence my religious identity? I'd rather leave this as a general comment, because the ideas are bigger and more abstract than any application I would give them, and applications will necessarily shrink them – but think about the various ways people response to biblical criticism [as in, criticism that leveled by the bible, not criticism of the bible...], or to harsh disapproval and mussar, particularly by parents.

Wuthering Heights is, on some level, a cautionary tale about the hazards and potential benefits of scorn; neither can promise a positive response, neither is entirely negative, and the intensity of the response to each will not necessarily be commensurate with the intensity with which they are applied. It has much more to do with the natures of the characters themselves, and their personal situations, and sensitivity to both is warranted when deciding how to instruct.

ואכמ"ל.

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.

Derashah: Bechukotai - The Beauty and the Beast within ourselves

Polar Bears were declared an Endangered Species this past week, presenting a chance to tell the following story:
A man was arrested and taken to court for shooting an endangered bald eagle.
The judge said the man would be jailed unless he had a VERY good excuse.
The man said he would never have done it, but his children hadn't eaten a decent meal in weeks, so he killed the bald eagle to feed them. The judge said he'd let the man go with just a warning if he promised he would never kill an endangered species again. The man agreed.
As the man was leaving, the judge stopped him and asked: “Well, what does a bald eagle taste like?”
The man answered: “Well, something like a cross between a California Condor and an Ivory-billed Woodpecker.”


The dodo is gone, the saber-toothed tiger has disappeared… and, according to our parshah, some day soon we might see many more species go extinct. The parshah predicts that when we follow the Torah, we will have peace and plenty in Israel, and והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ, HaShem will eliminate wild animals from the land. So what will HaShem do with all of those animals?

In the midrash, R’ Yehudah says מעבירם מן העולם - HaShem will remove them from the world. The UN’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre will be furious, of course, but on the whole, it’s probably better to let Gd deal with the UN anyway.

R’ Shimon, on the other hand, says משביתן שלא יזוקו, HaShem will prevent them from causing harm.

Note that while R’ Yehudah’s view does fit the pasuk’s language of והשבתי better, R’ Shimon’s view matches Yeshayah’s prediction of וגר זאב עם כבש - that the wolf will lie down with the lamb. Per R’ Yehudah, there will be no wolves to lie down with any lambs!


R’ Yehudah and R’ Shimon are relevant to more than the saber-toothed tiger; their two visions, the eradication of evil and the conversion of evil to good, describe two distinct eschatological views regarding the ultimate end of evil in a Messianic age. R’ Yehudah sees the Messianic era as a time when evil will simply be annihilated. R’ Shimon, on the other hand, anticipates reformation, a popular return to beneficence.



Both views, of course, have ample basis in Tanach’s descriptions of our national fate, and the fates of other nations.

• Our parshah presents a tochachah, a warning of punishment to befall the Jews if they stray from the Torah. A second version of this tochachah appears in Parshat Ki Tavo, but with a major difference. Our parshah’s warning ends with repentance, או אז יכנע לבבם הערל, we will be humbled and return to Gd; this is R’ Shimon’s view. The warning in Ki Tavo, on the other hand, ends with the eradication of evil-doers as they are defeated and sold into slavery, full stop. No teshuvah; that’s R’ Yehudah’s take.

• Fast-forward to the city of Nineveh, in the day of Yonah. Yonah warns the population that HaShem is going to punish them - and they repent, and are forgiven. R’ Shimon’s view. But then, a generation or two later, they fall back into sin and the prophet Nachum comes to tell them that this time, they are going to be destroyed. R’ Yehudah’s view.

• Zecharyah, at the start of the second Beit haMikdash, predicts an ultimate messianic time heralded by an apocalyptic war in which one-third of the population will be killed. R’ Yehudah’s view. But Malachi, a generation later, foretells a possibility of והשיב לב אבות על בנים ולב בנים על אבותם, when those who have strayed will become united in teshuvah and in service of HaShem. R’ Shimon’s view.


But R’ Yehudah vs. R’ Shimon is more than an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin dialogue about what Gd will or will not do; we may read this as a debate about the basic character of Gd’s Creations - animals and humans alike:

• The possibility of Annihilation means that Good is not eternal, that there is a point when we declare the Good to be dead, when we say Enough. שובו בנים שובבים חוץ מאחר, repentance is a privilege which may be withdrawn.

• Reformation means that there is always an enduring remnant of Good within every being, that we can always return, that the Divine temper can and will bide its time as long as is necessary for us to act on the good within.

Within this debate, we must always opt for the optimistic view of R’ Shimon.


In dealing with community and family, we must choose the optimistic view. Like Beruriah arguing that we should pray for the wicked to repent rather than to disappear, like the Rambam ruling that we must work with even the most recalcitrant students to bring them to the point where they are suited to learn Torah, we must believe in that ultimate good.

• This means we invite back relatives and guests who don’t know how to share control of a conversation, and we try to sensitize them to polite society.

• This means we associate even with people who are insensitive in their language, and hope to help them become more careful.

• This means we continue to offer children, spouses, siblings, another chance. And another. And another.

Please note: I’m not talking about dangerous situations, about accepting back an abusive spouse or otherwise imperiling personal safety. In those cases, giving another chance is generally a terrible mistake. But where personal safety is not in question, we side with R’ Shimon and believe that no person is irredeemable.

As an anonymous man told R’ Elazar b”R’ Shimon in the gemara, “If you think there is something wrong with me, go tell my Creator that He erred.”So long as we are not in personal danger, we take every step to help others redeem themselves.


And there’s another time when we must opt for R’ Shimon: When assessing ourselves, when evaluating the traits we have trouble controlling, the temptations that chip away at our resolve until we surrender. Rather than give up the beast within ourselves as evil, a la R’ Yehudah, we take the view of R’ Shimon and seek out the good, robbing the beast of its fangs by turning these traits in a positive direction.

• __________ gave a great dvar torah at Seudah Shlishis a while back, arguing that lazy people can use their laziness for good: If we’re drawn to an aveirah, we can contemplate how much time and effort it would involve, how comfortable our bed is, and so on, and procrastinate until the opportunity is gone.

• Hyper-critical people? No problem. We can use that trait to identify our own flaws, and to learn from the weaknesses of others and identify them in ourselves.
• Stingy? We can use that trait to motivate ourselves to avoid self-indulgence and extravagance.

R’ Shimon’s approach of finding the good can help us salvage more than personal ego; it can help us act on the positive potential implanted within us.



The Torah follows up its dramatic Tochachah warning with a dry technical discussion about ערך. An ערך is a personal price, a shekel amount assigned to every human being, based solely on age and gender, not righteousness or wealth or family or wisdom or skills. The Torah describes how a person might choose to donate his or someone else’s ערך-amount to the Beit haMikdash.

Don Isaac Abarbanel explained the Torah’s transition from graphic warning to dry legal code: After all of those dire predictions of punishment, we might question ourselves, our legitimacy in the covenant, our value as human beings and Jews. To this the Torah responds - everybody has an ערך, everybody has a value.

Perhaps, one day, HaShem will take the route of R’ Yehudah and eliminate the animal and the animalistic - but we, within our own capacities, apply R’ Shimon’s idea. משביתן שלא יזוקו, we recognize the good and use it to turn the animal - in our neighbors, in our relatives, and in ourselves - to the best.

-
Notes:
1. I started out writing an entirely different derashah, about the Conversion Crisis, but I didn't like the way it was coming out, so I turned to this one. Kind of dry, I have to admit. I am into the core idea, though, and it's 3 PM on Friday afternoon.

2. The midrash with R' Yehudah and R' Shimon is in the Sifra to Bechukotai (1:2).

3. Of course, Avraham does exile Yishmael, but this is at Divine decree, so I consider it a justified exception to the rule.