Esther's Bloody War?

In case the few remaining readers have been wondering where I've been, quite a bit of my time in the past week has been dedicated to writing a new edition of Shiur Theatre - "Esther's War" - for our Beit Midrash. In a presentation this Shabbos, we will look at the halachic and ethical questions raised by the bloodshed, and fear-based conversion, that occurred in the events of the original Purim.

I don't expect to share the script here (at least, not until I see how it is received on Shabbos...), but here is the accompanying source sheet. I don't imagine it will be all that intelligible without the script, but some of the sources may be interesting. It is also downloadable in pdf here.

Persian conversion to Judaism out of fear: Is it legitimate?

1.   Esther 8:17

וְרַבִּים מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מִתְיַהֲדִים כִּי־נָפַל פַּחַד־הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם:

And many from the population converted themselves to Judaism, for the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them.

2.   Talmud, Yevamot 24b

וכן מי שנתגייר לשום שולחן מלכים, לשום עבדי שלמה, אינן גרים, דברי ר' נחמיה; שהיה רבי נחמיה אומר: אחד גירי אריות, ואחד גירי חלומות, ואחד גירי מרדכי ואסתר אינן גרים... א"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב: הלכה כדברי האומר כולם גרים הם...

One who converts in order to partake of a royal table, or to be among Solomon's servants, is not a valid convert, per Rabbi Nechemiah. For Rabbi Nechemiah said: Those who have converted for fear of wild animals or due to dreams, and those who converted in the days of Mordechai and Esther, are not valid converts…

Rav said: The law follows the view that they are all valid converts [after the fact].

3.   Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 268:12

כשיבא הגר להתגייר, בודקים אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה או מפני הפחד בא ליכנס לדת.

When one comes to convert, we investigate whether he might be trying to enter the religion to acquire money, or to achieve power, or out of fear.

4.   Tosafot, Yevamot 24b לא

קשה דאמרינן בהערל (עט.) גבי מעשה דגבעונים דבימי דוד נתוספו גרים על ישראל ק"ן אלף וי"ל דמעצמן נתגיירו כדאשכחן גבי מרדכי ואסתר ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים

But doesn't the Talmud (Yevamot 79a) say regarding the event with the Gibeonites in King David's day, that 150,000 people converted? Perhaps they converted independently, as occurred in the days of Mordechai and Esther…

The invasion of Canaan: Does the Torah endorse bloodshed beyond self-defense, and looting?

5.   Bereishit 34:25-27

וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי־בְנֵי־יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל־הָעִיר בֶּטַח וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל־זָכָר: וְאֶת־חֲמוֹר וְאֶת־שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ הָרְגוּ לְפִי־חָרֶב וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־דִּינָה מִבֵּית שְׁכֶם וַיֵּצֵאוּ: בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ עַל־הַחֲלָלִים וַיָּבֹזּוּ הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ אֲחוֹתָם:

And on the third day, when they were in pain, two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, brothers of Dinah, took their swords and came upon the secure city, and killed every male. And they killed Chamor and his son Shechem by the sword, and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem, and they left. The sons of Yaakov came upon the corpses and despoiled the city, for contaminating their sister.

6.   Yehoshua 12:7-24

וְאֵלֶּה מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... מֶלֶךְ יְרִיחוֹ אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ הָעַי אֲשֶׁר־מִצַּד בֵּית־אֵל אֶחָד: מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרוֹן אֶחָד: מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ אֶחָד:... כָּל־מְלָכִים שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד:

And these are the kings of the land whom Yehoshua and the Children of Israel struck… One was the king of Jericho, one was the king of Ai beside Bethel. One was the king of Jerusalem, one was the king of Hebron. One was the king of Yarmut, one was the king of Lachish… all of the kings were 31.

7.   Devarim 20:10

כִּי־תִקְרַב אֶל־עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ וְקָרָאתָ אֵלֶיהָ לְשָׁלוֹם:

When you draw near to a city, to battle it, you shall call to it for peace.

8.   Commentary of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Devarim 23:10

הספרי מדגיש "על - איביך - כנגד אויביך אתה נלחם"; התורה מניחה שתילחם רק באלה שהראו את עצמם כאויביך, שסבלת מאיבתם ואתה מצפה מהם למעשי איבה, ולפיכך אפילו תתקיף אותם, רק תגן על עצמך; דברים אלה שוללים כל מלחמת כיבוש

"When you go to war against your enemy" – A midrash emphasizes, "against your enemy – you wage war against your enemies." The Torah establishes that you will battle only those who show themselves to be your enemy, from whose enmity you have suffered, and from whom you anticipate acts of enmity. Therefore, even should you strike them, you shall only defend yourself. This message rejects all wars of conquest.

9.   Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:7

כשצרין על עיר לתפשה, אין מקיפין אותה מארבע רוחותיה אלא משלש רוחותיה, ומניחין מקום לבורח ולכל מי שירצה להמלט על נפשו

When besieging a city to capture it, we do not surround it on its four sides, but only from three sides. And we leave a space to flee, and all who wish may flee for their lives.

10.      Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:14

חייבין להושיב דיינין ושופטים בכל פלך ופלך לדון בשש מצות אלו, ולהזהיר את העם... ומפני זה נתחייבו כל בעלי שכם הריגה, שהרי שכם גזל והם ראו וידעו ולא דנוהו...

Noachides are obligated to establish judges in every place to judge these six commands and instruct the nation… and this is why all of the members of Shechem were liable for death. Shechem kidnapped, and they saw and knew and did not judge him…

11.      Devarim 9:5

לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ וּבְיֹשֶׁר לְבָבְךָ אַתָּה בָא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת־אַרְצָם כִּי בְּרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ד' אֱלֹקֶיךָ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ...

Not due to your righteousness and the straightness of your heart do you come to take their land, but due to the wickedness of these nations does your G-d take them from before you…

12.      Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, Amud haYemini 16:2

אין יסוד מספיק להתיר פעולה נגד הציבור שנמנע למלא חובתו ולבער מתוכו את המרצחים, כל עוד שיתכן שיש להם אמתלא של פחד או לחץ וכוצא בו.

There are insufficient grounds to permit action against a community that refuses to fulfill its obligation and eliminate murderers from their midst, so long as they may have the excuse of fear, pressure and the like.

13.      Rabbi Yehudah Loeb (Maharal), Gur Aryeh to Bereishit 34:13

ואף על גב דאמרה התורה (דברים כ, י) "כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום", היינו היכי דלא עשו לישראל דבר, אבל היכי דעשו לישראל דבר, כגון זה שפרצו בהם לעשות להם נבלה, אף על גב דלא עשה רק אחד מהם - כיון דמכלל העם הוא, כיון שפרצו להם תחלה - מותרים ליקח נקמתם מהם.

Deuteronomy 20:10 says, "you shall call to it for peace", but that is where they have not acted upon Israel. Where they have acted toward Israel, such as here [Shechem] where they had broken forth, doing this repellent thing, then even though only one of them had done it, since they had attacked first, Israel was permitted to respond. So, too, for all wars, even where only one of them had acted, he is part of the nation. Since they attacked first, we were permitted to go to war against them…

14.      Talmud Yerushalmi, Sheviit 6:1

שלש פרסטיניות שלח יהושע לארץ ישראל עד שלא יכנסו לארץ מי שהוא רוצה להפנות יפנה להשלים ישלים לעשות מלחמה יעשה

Joshua sent three messages into Israel, before the Jews entered the land: Those who want to leave, may do so. Those who want to make peace, may do so. Those who want to make war, may do so.

15.      Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:1

אין עושין מלחמה עם אדם בעולם עד שקוראין לו שלום אחד מלחמת הרשות ואחד מלחמת מצוה, שנאמר כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום, אם השלימו וקבלו שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח עליהן אין הורגין מהן נשמה והרי הן למס, שנאמר יהיו לך למס ועבדוך

We may not declare war upon any human being, anywhere, until we first sue for peace. This applies both to "authorized wars" and "obligatory wars," as it is written, "When you draw near to a city to fight against her, you shall call to her for peace." Should they make peace and accept the laws in which Noachides are instructed, we would not kill anyone there. We would collect taxes, as it is written, "They will be tribute to you, and will serve you."

16.      Commentary of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Bereishit 34:25

עתה מתחילה הגנות, ואין בדעתנו לחפות עליה. אילו הרגו את שכם וחמור, ודאי היה הדין עמהם. אך הם לא חסו על אנשים חסרי מגן, המסורים בידיהם בלא כוח. גדולה מזו, הם שדדו, ובדרך כלל פקדו על אנשי העיר את עוון אדוניהם. לכך לא היתה כל הצדקה.

Now the disgrace begins, and we do not intend to cover it up. Had they killed Shechem and Chamor, justice would certainly have been with them. But they did not spare the defenseless men who were given into their hands, who had no strength. Worse, they looted, and generally made the inhabitants pay for the crime of their master. For this there was no justification.

17.      Rabbi Avraham Shapira, War and Ethics, Techumin 4, pg. 182

כל עוד אין סכנה ממשית לחיילינו אין היתר לפגוע בנפש ואף לא ברכוש. אולם כאשר הסכנה היא מוחשית, הרי שיש לזכור שעל כף המאזניים אין עומדת רק היחידה הלוחמת מול האוכלוסיה האזרחית, איבודה של יחידה אחת או חלק ממנה עלול לפגוע במערכת המלחמה כולה.

When there is no substantive risk to our soldiers, there is no permission to strike lives or property. However, when there is a discernible risk, one must remember that it is not only a matter of weighing one unit opposite a civilian population on the scale. The loss of one unit, or part of it, can affect the entire battle…

18.      Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Ethics and War, Techumin 4, pg. 185

המחיר נתבע גם מהאויב, שאף הוא נחון בצלם אלוהים, ויש לדאוב בכל מקרה שמעשה ידיו של הקב"ה טובעים בים. בנקודה זו מהווה הגורם הכמותי גורם בעל משמעות, ויש בהחלט לשקול את מידת הצידוק שבפגיעה ברבים על מנת להציל את היחיד.

The price [of war] is also paid by the enemy, who is also graced with the Divine image, and one should grieve whenever G-d's creations drown in the sea. On this point, the issue of quantity is meaningful, and one certainly must weigh the justifications for harming many in order to save an individual.

The eternal war with Amalek: Where does it come from, and where is it going?

19.      Verses of Amalek

• Bereishit 36:12                        Amalek is the grandson of Esav
• Shemot 17                    Amalek's first unprovoked attack in the wilderness
• Bamidbar 14                Amalek's second unprovoked attack in the wilderness
• Devarim 25                  Amalek's first unprovoked attack in the wilderness, re-told
• Shoftim 3                      Amalek and Moav join forces against the Jews
• Shoftim 6                      Amalek and Midian join forces against the Jews
• Shemuel I 15                King Saul leads a war against Amalek
• Shemuel I 27                Future-King David raids Amalek
• Shemuel I 30                Amalek burns down the Jewish city of Tziklag
• Shemuel II 1                  An Amalekite claims to have murdered King Saul
• Divrei haYamim I 4       The tribe of Shimon wages war upon Amalek

20.      Talmud Yerushalmi, Yevamot 2:6

"כי המן בן המדתא". וכי בן המדתא היה? אלא צורר בן צורר אוף הכא קוצץ בן קוצץ.

"For Haman, son of Hamedata" – Was Haman really a son of Hamedata? No; the text is simply identifying Haman as an enemy, "son of" an enemy.

21.      Talmud, Gittin 57b

מבני בניו של המן למדו תורה בבני ברק

Some of Haman's grandchildren learned Torah in Bnei Brak.

22.      Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, Fate and Destiny, footnote 25, citing Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik

If any people seeks to destroy us, we are commanded to do battle against it when it rises up against us, and this battle of ours is an obligatory war on the basis of the verse from Exodus (17:16), "The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

23.      Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, pg. 1

In the spring of 2004, as this book was slouching toward completion, Jeffrey Goldberg reported in the New Yorker about a series of disturbIing interviews he had recently conducted with Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. "The Palestinians are Amalek," he was told by Benzi Lieberman, chairman of the Council of Settlements. "We will destroy them," Lieberman continued. "We won't kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism." And Moshe Feiglin, a leading Likud activist, told Goldberg: "The Arabs engage in typical Amalek behavior. I can't prove this genetically, but this is the behavior of Amalek."

The bloody war of Purim: How bloody was it?

24.      Esther 8:5-8

וַתֹּאמֶר אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב וְאִם־מָצָאתִי חֵן לְפָנָיו וְכָשֵׁר הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְטוֹבָה אֲנִי בְּעֵינָיו יִכָּתֵב לְהָשִׁיב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הָמָן בֶּן־הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי אֲשֶׁר כָּתַב לְאַבֵּד אֶת־הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ... וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וּלְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הִנֵּה בֵית־הָמָן נָתַתִּי לְאֶסְתֵּר וְאֹתוֹ תָּלוּ עַל־הָעֵץ עַל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בַּיְּהוּדִים: וְאַתֶּם כִּתְבוּ עַל־הַיְּהוּדִים כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְחִתְמוּ בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי־כְתָב אֲשֶׁר־נִכְתָּב בְּשֵׁם־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְנַחְתּוֹם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לְהָשִׁיב:

And Esther said: If it would be good before the king, and if I have found favour before him, and if it would be appropriate before the king, and if I would be good in his eyes, let it be recorded to retract the scrolls, the plan of Haman son of Hamedata the Aggagite, who has written to destroy the Jews in all of the king's lands!...

And King Achashverosh said to Queen Esther and to Mordechai the Jew: Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther, and they have hung him upon the tree for sending his hand against the Jews. Now, write upon the Jews as is good in your eyes in the name of the king, and seal it with the king's ring, for one may not retract a text written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring.

25.      Esther 8:10-11

וַיִּכְתֹּב בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ וַיַּחְתֹּם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים בְּיַד הָרָצִים בַּסּוּסִים רֹכְבֵי הָרֶכֶשׁ הָאֲחַשְׁתְּרָנִים בְּנֵי הָרַמָּכִים: אֲשֶׁר נָתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־עִיר־וָעִיר לְהִקָּהֵל וְלַעֲמֹד עַל־נַפְשָׁם לְהַשְׁמִיד וְלַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת־כָּל־חֵיל עַם וּמְדִינָה הַצָּרִים אֹתָם טַף וְנָשִׁים וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז:

And he wrote in the name of King Achashverosh… that the king had permitted the Jews of every city to gather and stand upon their lives, to destroy and kill and eliminate the collective might of the nations who had besieged them, children and women, and take their spoils.

26.      Esther 9:15-16

וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר־בְּשׁוּשָׁן גַּם בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וַיַּהַרְגוּ בְשׁוּשָׁן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת־יָדָם: וּשְׁאָר הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בִּמְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ נִקְהֲלוּ וְעָמֹד עַל־נַפְשָׁם וְנוֹחַ מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהָרֹג בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת־יָדָם

And the Jews of Shushan gathered on the 14^th of Adar as well, and they killed in Shushan 300 men, and they did not extend their hand to the spoils. And the rest of the Jews in the king's lands gathered and stood for their lives, and gained reprieve from their foes, and killed their enemies, 75,000, and they did not extend their hand to the spoils.

The Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes a Right to Die

This past Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal ban on assisting suicide violates the rights of Canadian citizens. As they put it here, "The prohibition on physician‑assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." They ruled that the prohibition is "of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition." The Canadian legislature now has twelve months to re-write the law to accommodate the view of the Supreme Court.

This is not the space for a full treatment of this subject (feel free to come to my upcoming talk on the subject at Shaarei Shomayim in Toronto on February 23rd). I will not go into halachah here, other than to say that Jewish law is very clear in forbidding actively ending a patient's life.

In this space, I'd just like to point out a tried and true legal principle: Hard cases make bad law. It would be inhuman and un-Jewish to deny the wishes of people who are suffering without remedy - but crafting legislation to address exceptionally difficult situations will produce laws that endanger the rest of society.

Here are some of the challenges such laws would need to address:
* Will we impose age limits, or will we go the way of Belgium, which permits the death of minors? In the Netherlands, a 17 year old - who cannot be trusted to vote - can override parental  refusal and choose death.

* How will we avoid pressure on patients to choose assisted death? As Margaret Dore, a lawyer in the state of Washington, has testified from her experience with their legalized assisted suicide, the existence of this option leads to subtle and unsubtle pressure upon patients to choose death.

* Who will advise the patient in this matter? Will we ask doctors, who function as the protectors of our healthcare resources, to counsel patients on whether or not to tax those resources? [Indeed, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada notes that doctors must be able to "Appreciate the possibility of conflict inherent in their role as a health advocate for a patient or community with that of manager or gatekeeper".]

* Who will testify as to the patient's wishes, where the patient cannot speak? Paragraph 27 of Quebec's Assisted Suicide bill permits relatives to testify [only minors and members of the healthcare "team" may not do so]. Mind you, our Succession Law will not allow relatives to testify regarding the authenticity of a will, because of conflict of interest... but they could testify that a patient wanted to die?

* Will physicians be compelled to help end lives of patients? As noted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, physicians are not necessarily permitted to refuse to treat on moral or religious grounds.

* Who is going to pay for this - should OHIP (Ontario's provincial health insurance), which doesn't cover routine dental and eye exams, pay for death? [Paragraph 26 of Quebec's Act seems to say that Quebec's provincial health insurance does cover the cost of ending a patient's life.] And if not, then could a suffering person be denied death - a human right, per the Supreme Court - because he couldn't pay for it?

As I said above, we must find a way to help people who are suffering. But in my view, licensing assisted suicide is fraught with so many problems as to make responsible legislation an impossibility.

Why ISIS burned the pilot

Since ISIS began spreading a video showing their burning of captured Jordanian pilot Moath al-Kasaesbeh, various writers have tried to explain the psychology behind both the burning and its publication. CNN posted a piece suggesting the act was meant to communicate fearlessness. Forbes added that it was a recruiting tool, meant to appeal to those who would find it attractive. The Observer explained the video as intimidation of potential opposition.

I believe there is merit to all of those points, but to me there is another, deeper issue involved: Religion. Put simply, burning Moath al-Kasaesbeh alive, and posting the video, was not necessarily part of  a strategy. Rather, it was a religious act for ISIS. Indeed, along with the video they disseminated "talking points" providing an Islamic justification for their actions.

It is fundamental to the nature of a religious cult that members of the cult see inherent beauty in fulfilling its religious demands - and the more demanding, the better. To a member of a religious cult, the sight of cult members joyously carrying out their duties is the most attractive and inspiring scene imaginable. (Indeed, ISIS made sure to air footage of cheering crowds, including young children.)  As far as the objections of outsiders - they are simply uninformed non-initiates, who don't understand. So ISIS had no concern for international revulsion; to them, any objective observer would recognize the beauty in the burning. Anyone else is simply a fool unworthy of consideration.

But if that's correct, then we must ask: what about us? Jews also see inherent beauty in fulfillment of our religion's demands. And indeed, when people outside our community express hostile opinions of our practices - shechitah (kosher animal slaughter), for example, or brit milah (circumcision) - we, too, might write them off as uninformed. So if religious fervor can so drastically corrupt the human moral compass, how can we prevent ourselves from misinterpreting Judaism and descending to ISIS-level depravity?

Judaism has an important, albeit fragile, safety net: respect for the opinion of non-Jewish society. From the biblical message (Bereishit 1:27) that all human beings are created "in the image of G-d"...

to the biblical examples of non-Hebrews like Malkitzedek (Bereishit 14) and Yitro (Shemot 18) as people whose opinions mattered to our righteous ancestors...

to the talmudic declaration that "The law of the government is the law" (Bava Kama 113a)...

to the talmudic observation that "The pious of the nations of the world also gain admittance to the next world" (Taanit 29a, Yalkut Shimoni 765)...

to the legal obligation of kiddush HaShem (sanctifying G-d's Name in the eyes of the world) (Yechezkel 38:23, Yoma 86a, Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 2:5)...

...Jewish tradition teaches the Jew to value the opinion of his non-Jewish neighbours. Not to the extent of denying G-d's Word and cancelling the Torah, but to the extent of compelling us to think very carefully when our values don't fit those of general society, and to accept outside wisdom when appropriate.

Of course, there are areas in which the Torah's laws ultimately do run counter to society's values, where society and Jewish tradition view each other reciprocally as benighted. Some areas cannot be reconciled, and that's why I view this safety net as "fragile". But overall, our respect for the opinions of those who are outside our circle plays an important self-policing role, ensuring that we do not fall into self-absorbed, ISIS-style excesses. Thank G-d for this very important element of Judaism.

May we always be careful to preserve that respect, and the self-awareness it brings.

The War on Miriam?

While preparing a class on Miriam last week, I came across essays (here and here) which show that Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, in the first century CE, presented a diminished version of the midrashic tradition regarding Miriam.

In rabbinic tradition - which Josephus and Pseudo-Philo demonstrate that they knew, even as they report it in an altered form - Amram and Yocheved, parents of Miriam and Aharon, separate from each other when Pharaoh decrees the death of Jewish baby boys. Miriam reports a prophetic vision that her parents will produce a son who will rescue the Jews, and she convinces them to return to each other. Then, when that baby (Moshe) is put into a box in the river, Miriam stands guard over him. [See Exodus 2 and Talmud Megilah 14a.]

In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews II 9:3-4, per the Whiston translation available here, there is no separation of husbands and wives. Amram has a vision that his son will rescue the Jews from Egypt, and Miriam goes to the water to watch over Moshe only because her mother has told her to do so.

In Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities of Philo 9, per the James translation available here, the husbands and wives separate, but Amram is the one to insist that Jews continue to have children. Miriam does then have a vision regarding Moshe, but she does not watch over Moshe on the river at all.

What is this evisceration of Miriam's role about? Is it simply misogyny? Or an attempt to conceal from the Romans the possibility of Jewish insurrection, as represented by a fearless Miriam? Or something else entirely?

Moshe the Superhero (Vaera 5775)

Long-time readers of this blog (=those who remember the days when I would post three times per week) know that I am unable to get Moshe Rabbeinu out of my mind. I've written a lot about Moshe, from various perspectives. But this week I had a new thought - new for me, at any rate - which I have turned into a derashah/parshah article for Toronto Torah. I'd love your thoughts:

In 1951, a lawsuit by Detective Comics against Fawcett Publications, over copyright infringement with its Captain Marvel character, reached the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. In its decision, the court defined a superhero as having three key elements: Mission, Powers and Identity.

By this set of criteria, Moshe Rabbeinu was a superhero. His mission was to bring the Jews out of Egypt, to Sinai, and to their land. Moshe was given miraculous powers. And even without a codename and costume, Moshe did maintain a superhero’s secret identity, as seen in Parshat Vaera.

The secret identity

Scholars of comic books discuss the purpose of secret identities. Beyond protecting loved ones from harm, the secret identity is a tool:

· It is a mask, affording the hero a respite from being heroic;

· It is a divider, allowing her to develop multiple sides of herself independently;

· It is a shield, enabling her to avoid persecution for being different.

However, Danny Fingeroth, author of Disguised as Clark Kent: Jews, Comics, and the Creation of the Superhero, suggests that the secret identity may be the hero’s true nature. Isolating a part of himself from conflict, heroics and the public eye, keeps the hero’s personal character pure.

This privacy, which Michah 6:8 would name tzniut, may be at the heart of the second account of Moshe’s development, in Parshat Vaera.

Moshe 1.0 – Shemot 2:1-6:13

An anonymous Levite man and woman conceive a child. When the child is too old to remain hidden from the Egyptians, his mother puts him in a basket in a river, while his anonymous sister stands guard. The Pharaoh’s anonymous daughter saves the baby, and names him Moshe.

The baby is raised in the palace. One day, he intervenes to save an anonymous Jew from an equally anonymous Egyptian, killing the latter. On the following day he disrupts a fight between two anonymous Jews, but his identity as the killer of the Egyptian becomes known. Moshe flees to Midian, where he is identified as “an Egyptian.”

Decades later, Moshe encounters G-d at the Burning Bush, and G-d charges him to take the Jews out of Egypt. Despite his repeated refusals, Moshe goes to Pharaoh, armed with miracles and accompanied by his brother and prophet, Aharon. Pharaoh reacts with increased brutality to the Jews, and Moshe protests to G-d.

Moshe 2.0 – Shemot 6:14-7:13

Yaakov’s eldest son, Reuven, produced four sons, whom we name. We then name Shimon’s six sons. We then detail Levi’s sons and their families, ultimately yielding Moshe and his extended family.

G-d picks Moshe to take the Jews out of Egypt, and he refuses. G-d assigns Aharon to be his prophet, and empowers the pair to perform miracles to impress Pharaoh. They visit Pharaoh and perform the miracles, and Pharaoh rejects Moshe’s message.

The lesson of the two accounts

Perhaps the first account is Moshe’s public face, the heroic story which the Jews and Egyptians will know. This is the Moshe who will lead the Jews through religious ecstasy and distance from G-d, who will inspire them to brave hunger and war and fear and mutiny and Divine threats of eradication. He is larger than life, framed by miracles and heroism. And in this story, the other figures have no names; they are just part of the Moshe Story.

The second account is of a Jewish boy with a family that includes many people we will meet later in the Torah – Elazar, Korach, Nadav, Avihu, Eltzafan, Pinchas, etc. The legendary events of Moshe’s youth are played down; the story dedicates its space to the names of Moshe’s family, the people who raised him and surrounded him. Moshe is a human being, and even his conversation with G-d is humble and stripped of drama.

This second account is Moshe’s secret identity, which the world will not see. This is Moshe’s private life; it is tzanua, stored away to preserve the purity of Moshe’s roots and his character, untouched by the violence and conflict that absorb his public life. Unlike his identity as the killer of the Egyptian assailant, this identity will be kept private.

There are other ways to explain the two biblical accounts of Moshe’s origin, but I believe this lesson should carry special power in our day. Our world exposes our identities, on-line and off-line, at work and in shul and in school. Our most popular modes of on-line entertainment demand that we log in and share our names and identities, often with others we have never met in person. Perhaps it would be wise for us to ask ourselves: Can we keep something back? Do we have something tzanua, a secret identity that the world cannot touch and abrade and change? Should we?

Medical Halachah: Treating diabetes on Shabbos

I expect to deliver a shiur in Toronto on Sunday, on Treating Diabetes on Shabbat. Below are the questions I hope to address. I'd greatly appreciate feedback (from doctors or patients) on other questions I should be including:


General
Dealing with pikuach nefesh and possible safek pikuach nefesh
A situation that could become pikuach nefesh if left untreated
Compliance with medical advice, in halachah

Blood testing
Preparing the site of a stick
Drawing blood
Postponing a test until after Shabbos
Use of a blood glucose meter
Is a battery-operated CGM machine better than traditional lancing and testing?

Delivering insulin
Assembling a needle
Measuring insulin for injection
Status of subcutaneous injections
Carrying an insulin pump outside an eruv on Shabbos

For pills taken by people with Type II diabetes
Taking pills on Shabbos

Delivering sugar
Carrying candies outside the eruv, in case of need
Eating before davening

Concerns related to Shabbos meals
Kiddush – materials and shiurim
HaMotzi – materials and shiurim
Measuring food to gauge sugar impact
Eating seudah shlishit, where that will necessitate a blood test, as well as insulin or pills

What am I missing?

Thoughts on Leelah/Josh Alcorn's death

This week, millions of people learned the story of Leelah/Josh Alcorn, from news stories about her suicide. Briefly, as I understand it, Josh Alcorn was a teenage boy from Ohio who became certain, over a period of years, that he was truly a girl in a male body. He wanted to undergo transgender transitioning; he adopted the name Leelah and the identity of a girl. Leelah's parents, deeply religious Christians, rejected this outright; according to Leelah, they called it "a phase". Leelah grew frustrated and depressed, and finally committed suicide, leaving behind a note describing a life of loneliness and hopelessness.

This post is not a message about transgender transitioning in Judaism; you can read a detailed halachic article on the subject, by Yeshiva University's Rabbi J. David Bleich, here. What I want to focus on is the approach of parents when their children embark on paths that run counter to their parents' Judaism. Transgender teens may not be all that common, but teens who feel personally, emotionally committed to un-Orthodox lifestyles are found throughout our communities. How should we respond?

I cannot judge the Alcorn parents:
* I don't know anything about their actions - other than the little in the news reports, most of which is drawn from Leelah's accounts.
* Teens do go through phases, despite their certainty that the mood of the moment will endure forever.
* Denial is a normal (if unhelpful) way to deal with situations when we are out of our depth.
* Fundamentally, Judaism does obligate parents to educate their children - and even strangers to educate their neighbours (Vayikra 19:17) - in the expectations of our religion.

But I want to identify reasonable, Torah-based ways for parents to handle situations like this one. I would very much appreciate your ideas; please leave your thoughts in the Comments section.

Here are three points which sound to me like reasonable, Torah-based building blocks to me (all of which may have been part of the Alcorns' approach to Leelah):

1. Love - Every child must know that his/her parents love them, and that their parents' commitment to them does not depend upon how they behave. We can show love and disapproval simultaneously, as is implicit in the Chazon Ish's prescription (Yoreh Deah 2:16) of love toward people whose behaviour we believe is inappropriate. Rav Kook was famous for this approach, as well.

2. Respect -  Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, in his Pirkei Chinuch (Volume 1, pg. 128), notes that parents must treat their children with the same respect that they employ when addressing adults. This includes both the style (tone of voice, choice of words) and the substance.

3. Professional Counseling for the Parents - There is a parental inclination to keep everything in-house, since we know our unique situation best. Logically, though, one should err on the side of consulting experts who might be able to help parents discern the difference between phases and enduring issues, and to help them strategize. [Of course, finding unbiased experts is difficult; this is a significant hurdle.]

What would you add/amend?

The popular practice of resurrecting esoteric prayers

Marking the yahrtzeit of Rabbi Yaakov Reischer (6 Tevet), and recognizing the popular trend of adding prayers that come from mystical or otherwise esoteric sources, here is a translation of a segment of Rabbi Reischer's Shevut Yaakov (2:44).

Rabbi Reischer, writing in the late 17th or early 18th century, was discussing a group that had taken upon itself to rise early to pray regarding the destruction of the Beit haMikdash. He was known for expressing himself boldly, and he does not disappoint here:

[The question:] "Let our master teach us: Recently, certain special people have accustomed themselves… to gather in the synagogue at the start of the final third of the night, and to lament the destruction [of the Temple]. Challengers have risen against them, and those who have concluded that this activity is not good and proper, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, 'Not all who wish to take upon themselves the title [of righteousness] may do so.' (Berachot 16b)"…

Response: I will begin with his final point, in which he wrote, "We will add that they are a group, and so there should be no concern for [the appearance of] self-righteousness." In my humble opinion, the opposite appears more likely. An individiual, specifically, who reveres Heaven and wishes to be strict for himself, and walks privately, is certainly remembered for the good, and there is no concern for self-righteousness… And even an individual, if he would act unusually in public, would have concern for self-righteousness; it would be appropriate for him to do everything privately…

Aside from all of this, it appears to me that there should be concern regarding doing this communally, since the sages already enacted the order of three [daily] prayers, parallel to the sacrificial offerings. Therefore, one who would add a communal prayer would violate the prohibition against adding. Although we follow Rabbi Yochanan's legal positions, and he said, "I wish that one would pray all day (Berachot 21a)," that referred to an individual taking on a voluntary prayer, if he could say something new therein…

For this reason I have always protested against initiators who have newly arrived, publishers who publish in the siddurim pleas and requests from the book Shaarei Zion and the Shelah, so that people recite these prayers in the community as well. In my humble opinion this is incorrect, and it involves violation of "Do not add" [and] "crossing the border established by the early ones," the order of prayers. There is also concern for Gittin 3a, "If you add words, people will come to remove" from the established prayer, enacted by early authorities. Especially one whose Torah is his trade, he certainly has concern for loss of Torah when increasing prayer inappropriately… If one wishes to add prayer, he may recite Tehillim, which is like involvement in Torah and which holds great power…

Hebrew:

מה ששאל עוד וז"ל ילמדינו רבינו באשר שמקרוב התנהגו איזה יחידי סגולה... להתאסף לבה"כ בראש האשמורה השלישית של הלילה ולקונן על החרבן וקמו עליהן עוררין ומסיקין דמסקו אדעתייהו דלאו יאות ושפיר עבדי כדאיתא בפרק ב' דברכות דאמר רשב"ג לא כל הרוצה ליטול את השם יבא ויטול...

תשובה הנה במה דסיים אפתח שכת' "ונוסיף ע"ז דהם ציבורא דלית ביה משום חשש יוהרא" ולע"ד נראה יותר להיפך דדוקא יחיד ירא שמים שרוצה להחמיר על עצמו והצנע לכת ודאי זכור לטוב ואין בו משום יוהרא... וכן אפי' יחיד שעושה דבר בפרהסיא מה שהוא שלא כדרך העולם יש חשש יוהרא כי ראוי להיות הכל בהצנע...

ובר מן כל דין נ"ל דיש חשש לעשות כן בציבור כיון דכבר תקנו חכמים סדר תפילות בכל שלש פעמים כנגד הקרבנות נמצא דהמוסיף איזה תפילה בציבור עובר משום בל תוסיף. ואף ע"ג דקי"ל הלכתא כר' יוחנן הלואי שיתפלל אדם כל היום היינו ביחיד ובתורת נדבה אם יכול לחדש בה דבר...

ומהאי טעמא כל ימי אני קורא תגר שחדשים מקרוב באו המדפיסים והדפיסו אצל הסידורים תחנות ובקשות מספר שערי ציון ושל"ה וע"י כן מתפללין כן בציבור ולע"ד אין זה נכון ואיכא משום בל תוסיף על גבול שגבלו ראשונים סדר תפלות ואיכא למיחש למה דאיתא בגיטין אי מפשת דיבורא אתי למגזיה בתפלה הקבוע מה שתיקנו ראשונים. ובפרטות מי שתורתו אומנותו ודאי יש חשש ביטול תורה להרבות בתפלה יותר מדי... ואם רוצה להרבות בתפילה יוכל לומר תהלים שהוא כעוסק בתורה ויש בה סגולת הרבה...

A Tale of Two Tunics

I have a feeling I'm going to get in trouble for the following piece, but I like it too much to keep it to myself...

Bereishit is filled with haberdashery, from Eden chic to Esav's treasured garb, to Tamar's costume, to Yosef's palace ensemble. The clothing of Bereishit protects, conceals, deceives and honours. Perhaps the best-known clothing in this book, though, is Yosef's Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, a.k.a. his ketonet pasim.

Yosef's tunic is not the only biblical ketonet, though; another ketonet is a critical part of the kohen's uniform. (Shemot 28:39-40) Indeed, the Talmud connects these two ketonet garments explicitly, saying: "The kohen's ketonet atones for bloodshed, as Bereishit 37:31 says, 'And they slaughtered a goat, and they dipped [Yosef's] ketonet in the blood.'" (Zevachim 88b)

The talmudic logic seems to be that Yosef's brothers dipped his ketonet in blood to provide "evidence" of his death, and so the kohen's ketonet atones for bloodshed. This formula is odd on many levels, but here is a basic challenge: We are taught (Rosh haShanah 26a) that an entity which represents a person's criminality cannot also defend him. For example, the Kohen Gadol does not wear gold when he enters the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur; gold is reminiscent of the Golden Calf. So how can the kohen's ketonet simultaneously recall the bloody deception surrounding the sale of Yosef, and yet atone for bloodshed?

Let us look more closely at the sale of Yosef. The sons of Leah may have shunned Yosef because of Rachel. (Bereishit 37:2) They may have been turned off by Yosef's reports on their bad behaviour. (ibid.) Certainly, they were antagonized by Yosef's dreams. (ibid. 37:5-11) However, a passage in the Talmud (Shabbat 10b) contends that the sale of Yosef was actually triggered by two sela of wool, which marked his ketonet as unique.

As depicted in that talmudic passage and in Rashi's commentary there, Yosef's ketonet was not luxurious, and the brothers would not have envied such a small difference. Rather, the brothers were outraged by the fact that there was any difference, that Yaakov had marked this son as holding a unique role that they could not share. In their eyes, setting Yosef apart was an unjust attack on their legitimate membership in the family.

Long before the Enlightenment taught humanity to question received tradition regarding class and gender identities, Korach (Bamidbar 16) and King Uziahu (Divrei haYamim II 26) challenged the law that one must descend from Aharon in order to act as a kohen. Today, it is nearly universally axiomatic that "separate but equal" is unjust; as Justice Earl Warren wrote, separate is "inherently unequal." Our sense of fair play demands that human beings choose their destinations. Thus it is no surprise that Yosef's brothers would resent Yaakov's act of segregation, and that the Talmud would criticize it.

On the other hand, separation is fundamental to Judaism. At the genesis of Creation, G-d separates light and darkness, land and sea, and He stresses that life forms are to exist "according to their species". G-d separates Avraham and Sarah from their family. G-d says of the Jews, "I have separated you from the nations" (Vayikra 20:26), and then He separates the Levites from the rest of us. (Bamidbar 8:14) How can we expect a humanity which resists segregation to respect a religion which sanctifies it? How can the same ketonet represent the flawed separation of Yosef, and the sanctified separation of the kohen?

Perhaps a meaningful difference between flawed separation and acceptable separation is the identity of the Separator. As the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 5:2) notes, establishing distinctions requires intelligence – and establishing distinctions which shape the lives of human beings requires the Supreme Intelligence of Hashem. Hashem is the One who distinguishes between sacred and mundane, between light and dark, between the Jews and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of creative activity.

The kohen's ketonet highlights Divine separation. True, the ketonet represents the bloodshed which resulted from separating Yosef. However, in donning this tunic the kohen restores the power of separation to G-d, righting an ancient wrong. Further, the nation that accepts the kohen demonstrates its acceptance of legitimate, Divine separation. [And see Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 7:3, which adds that the ketonet also atones for kilayim – a mixing of species which G-d has deemed separate.]

Realistically, life requires that we assign roles, defining confidants, spouses, political leaders, religious authorities, and so on. We need to define eligibility. But to the extent possible, we must respect the impact of distinctions, and practice humility, minimizing our meddling. G-d has assigned different roles to different nations, to different families of Israel, and to different genders; may we refrain from arrogating the power of segregation and creating novel restrictions and boundaries. May we channel our efforts into accepting our Divinely assigned roles, and fulfilling the tasks vouchsafed to us.

#BeTheWall for Israel

This campaign is something my Beit Midrash developed with our local Bnei Akiva chapter, and it's been spreading on Facebook. The idea, which is based on The Shmira Project, is simple: Take on a mitzvah practice for Kislev, and dedicate the merit to a community in Israel.

I'm doing it, committing to extra care in my berachot, and dedicating merit to Gilo. If the project appeals to you, please join me.

Why Do Rabbis Crash?

In an article titled "Rabbis on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown", Jay Michaelson contends that the special political/emotional/psychological pressures of the rabbinate, coupled with the workload, could be one reason behind the regular appearance of scandalously poor decision-making by people who are trained to be wise, selfless community leaders.

In the comments on his piece, the author is taken to task by readers who think he is exonerating misbehaving rabbis. But I don't think he's finding criminals innocent; I think he is trying to identify a flaw in the system, which is making their crimes more likely. And I think I have something to add to that useful endeavour: 

Many articles have documented the link between exhaustion and impulsivity and poor self-control. Perhaps one of the best is a 2002 piece by the incredibly well-published psychologist and professor Dr. Roy Baumeister in The Journal of Consumer Research, titled, "Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, andConsumer Behavior". [It's certainly influential; according to Google, it's been cited in 625 separate publications.]

Per Dr. Baumeister, one of the key ingredients of self-control is "the capacity to alter the self." And he contends, citing studies, that someone who perpetually exercises self-control can actually deplete it, making it unlikely that he will be able to continue to apply self-control. In one study, "participants in various control conditions were exposed to similar stimuli but did not have to regulate their behavior. For example, they watched the same upsetting film without having to regulate their emotions, or they were permitted to eat the chocolates and cookies instead of the radishes. Afterward, we measured self-regulation in ostensibly unrelated other tasks, such as physical stamina on a handgrip exerciser, persistence in the face of failure on unsolvable anagrams, or refraining from laughing and smiling while watching a comedy video. The findings repeatedly showed that self-control was poorest among people who had already performed a prior act of self-control."

Now imagine a rabbi who is involved with congregants on many diverse levels – pastoral, administrative, ritual, social, organizational – for 90-100 hours per week, including Shabbat. And imagine that yes, he owns impulses for grossly inappropriate behaviour. But he doesn't have daily time to flee the situation and recharge. How long will it be before he yields to a grotesquely wrong impulse?

Of course, other jobs also involve long, intense hours – and we see these breakdowns of self-control among professionals in those fields, too. We see it among politicians and doctors, police officers and nurses. And we see it among mothers. [It may exist in the modern wave of stay at home dads, too; I don't know.]

The uncomfortable reality, which I observed in my own synagogue rabbinate days, is that the job we have created for synagogue rabbis is impossible. Not "impossible" in the sense of "boy, that's hard". "Impossible" in the sense that there are not enough hours for them to do the job demanded of them, and recharge.

Here's a breakdown of a sample rabbinic week, acknowledging it depends on the nature of the shul/community:

3 classes = 3 hours of class, 9 hours of preparation = 12 hours

Shabbat sermon = 4 hours of preparation (on a good week!)

Hospital visits = 6 visits = 4 hours

2 funerals = 4 hours for the funerals, 4 hours beforehand with the families, 3 hours of attending the shivah homes = 11 hours

Nursing home visit = 1 visit to see various patients = 2.5 hours

Shul bulletin responsibilities = 1 hour (will vary widely across shuls)

Pastoral counseling = 8 appointments (if he's lucky) = 6 hours (if he's even luckier)

Answering halachic questions = 45 minutes each non-Shabbat day = 4.5 hours

Answering email questions/comments from the community = 30 minutes per day, including Motzaei Shabbat = 3.5 hours (if he's absurdly lucky)

Community organization meetings (schools, UJA Federation, JCC, etc) = 2 per week, 2 hours each = 4 hours

Tzedakah disbursement = 1 hour (will vary widely)

Attend 2 weddings = 4 hours per wedding = 8 hours (seasonal, of course, and depends on community)

Attend 2 L'chaims = 30 minutes per L'Chaim = 1 hour (ditto)

Work with shul committees to plan programs = 3 meetings = 3 hours

Preparing divrei torah/articles for special events = 2 hours

Participate in three shul programs (Sisterhood, youth, social, etc) = 3 hours           

This list is already at 70 hours, and it does not include:

Shabbos responsibilities

Pre-Yom Tov responsibilities
Community dinners and fundraising events

Responsibilities to the Eruv, Vaad haKashrut, Chevra Kadisha – and, yes, mikvah

Daf Yomi, which is standard for rabbis in many communities

Responsibilities to community organizations beyond attending a meeting

Learning with conversion candidates
Other life-cycle events - Bris, Pidyon haBen, Unveiling, etc.

Teaching Bar Mitzvah and Bar Mitzvah students

Meeting with couples to prepare for marriage

Mediating disputes within families or between people

Writing articles for local newspapers

Calling shut-ins to wish them Good Shabbos

Oversee Adult Education efforts

Legwork to help people find work, a shidduch, a chavruta or a pair of tefillin

Meet with potential donors for the shul

And contrary to popular belief, this is not subject to synagogue size. A smaller community will have fewer hours devoted to some of the items on this list, but that will be balanced by greater responsibilities in other areas. In a smaller synagogue, rabbis have greater administrative responsibilities, and greater roles in communal institutions. They also do the programming/promotional work which is managed by committees in larger synagogues.

So yes – I'm not exaggerating when I say this is an impossible job. There is no opportunity to recharge the resources of self-control.

Is there anything we can do? Maybe, but I think that the best shot comes not from the rabbis or their organizations, but from the communities. It's Reality, for at least these three reasons::

1. There are more rabbis than there are positions, and so a shul can create an unrealistic job description and find a dozen or more qualified applicants. There is no check on the Search Committee and its polls of the synagogue membership, and no one saying, "Does that actually work?"

2. Rabbis are poor time managers. I believe it's a product of the system of yeshiva education, in part, in which we just throw time at our learning without spending a lot of energy figuring out whether we are learning efficiently. All use of time for Torah is good, right? [I also suspect that the rabbinate self-selects people who fit this mold; anyone with a sane understanding of how time works would find a different life.]

3. Rabbis are heirs to a tradition that idolizes total dedication, as I discussed here.

So I'd like to see the communities take the lead on recognizing the problem posed by their job descriptions.

I once counseled a friend who was interviewed for a shul job that was advertised as 20 hours per week. I suggested that he ask the committee how they wanted the 20 hours used. As I sit here now, I think that would be a good exercise for search committees in general, before they ever see candidates – break down the hours of the week and see how they fit your job description.

I have much more to say on the topic, but the reason I post only infrequently is that I am also doing one of those ridiculous jobs. I think my self-control is saved by the time I spend locked in traffic on Bathurst; if I don't use the phone at those times, and I let go of the fantasy that switching lanes will get me to my destination sooner, then that becomes time for my recharging…

But I have written a lot on the Rabbinic Job Description over the years; click here for other posts on the topic.

Poppies for Remembrance Day

Jewish Canadians love Prime Minister Stephen Harper; the surest way to earn an ovation at a Jewish event is to thank the Prime Minister for his support for the State of Israel. We are glad to live in a democracy that endorses our freedom of religion, and we certainly take advantage of the rest of the freedoms guaranteed by our laws, overseen by our government, and safeguarded by our military...

...so why are November's poppies, marking Tuesday's Remembrance Day, relatively uncommon in the observant Jewish community?

As I've written elsewhere, it seems to me that overt patriotism is somewhat “un-cool” in Torah-observant communities, in Canada and beyond. Perhaps this is a product of centuries of harm wreaked by a range of governments upon our people. Maybe it's due to Jewish law's insistence that the Jews should be "other" when living among non-Jewish neighbours. Or, it could be because of the way that those neighbours have marked us as "other" in painful ways.

Despite all of the reasons why Jews may be uncomfortable with patriotic expression, I believe that Canadian Jews ought to clearly, publicly express our gratitude for those who have given their lives in the Canadian military. Whatever the misgivings of Pirkei Avot (1:10, 2:3 and 3:2) regarding government and its intentions, we owe a great debt to Canada's soldiers, for their historic roles and for their current actions. I believe we ought to wear the poppy.

Within the realm of halachah, I have heard the contention that wearing a poppy may run afoul of the law of chukot akum, prohibiting dressing "in the manner of the nations", but a read of the relevant sources (Sifri Devarim 81, Maharik 88, Shulchan Aruch and Rama Yoreh Deah 178:1) makes clear that the prohibition applies only to (1) immoral dress and (2) dress worn for reasons which might trace back to idolatrous practices. Neither appears relevant in this case.

I wouldn't wear the poppy in shul for davening, because it would be a distraction for me. I also wouldn't insert it on Shabbat, because of concern for the laws of "stitching" involved in pinning the poppy. But for other times, I will wear my poppy in memory of the fallen. Hakarat hatov (gratitude) and darchei shalom (maintaining a peaceful society) trump being cool...

Ayeh? (Vayera 5775)

A thought:

Three passersby are welcomed to the tent of Avraham and Sarah, presented with water for their feet, and shown to a shady place beneath a tree. Bread and water are promised, and a much broader repast is laid before them. The appreciative wayfarers dine, and then turn to Avraham with a question: Ayeh? Where is Sarah, your wife? (Bereishit 18:9)

What is their purpose in asking Ayeh? It is not a request to meet the chef; Avraham and Yishmael also prepared the food. Further, they did not actually ask to meet her. And third, the question is unnecessary; as seen in the next biblical chapter, these are angelic beings! Why do they need to ask after Sarah's whereabouts? [Perhaps malachim are not omniscient, but given our first two points, they seem to be seeking something other than Sarah's GPS coordinates.]

Generations of commentators have perceived different messages within the visitors' question; see Bava Metzia 87a, Avot d'Rabbi Natan II 37, and Rashbam here for a range of approaches. However, we might gain additional insight by noting that our Torah portion includes two more Ayeh questions:

• After their conversation with Avraham, the visitors journey to the city of Sdom, where they find hospitality in the home of Sarah's brother Lot. The residents of the city are hostile to guests, and wish to harm them. They crowd around Lot's house, and demand, Ayeh! "Where are the men? Take them out, and we will 'know' them!" (Bereishit 19:5)
• The end of our portion finds Avraham and Yitzchak en route to bring an offering to G-d. After three days, they come to a mountain, and Avraham dismisses their two escorts. Avraham loads his son with the firewood, takes up the fire and knife in his own hands, and sets course up the slope. At this late stage, Yitzchak turns to his father with the question, "Here is the fire, here is the wood, but Ayeh, where is the lamb?" (Bereishit 22:7)

We may suggest that in all three of these cases, the query of Ayeh is not merely a request for information. Indeed, both the malachim and the people of Sdom know exactly where their subject is! But in all three instances, asking "Ayeh" is really asking, "Is this being playing its role?" Ayeh is a summons: the time has come, destiny is here, take your place and perform your role! [Indeed, the same may be said for many of the appearances of the Ayeh question in Tanach, and perhaps for all of them.]

• Climbing Mount Moriah, Yitzchak turns to his father to declare, "It is time for the lamb to play its destined role, as a gift for G-d," and indeed, Avraham responds knowingly, "G-d knows where the lamb is – my son." [See Rashi to Bereishit 22:8.]
• The villianous people of Sdom attack the home of Lot and demand, "It is time for these guests to play their destined role," to suffer abuse at our hands!
• And the malachim similarly address Avraham regarding Sarah. "Until now, Sarah has been the faithful follower of your prophecy, travelling from Aram to Shechem to Egypt to Elonei Mamrei. Until now, Sarah has enabled your survival and success. Sarah gave you Hagar, and even insisted you take her as a full wife. But Ayeh! Where is Sarah, the woman you wedded? What she has done to this point is not the sum of her existence, this is not the person she is meant to become. It is time for Sarah to take on a new role." And so Sarah becomes the matriarch who determines the future of the Jewish people, and even the world. [This may also be linked to the change in Sarah's name; see Rashi to Bereishit 17:15.]

The Ayeh summons is not only a biblical call; ayeh is a summons for every human being, in every age. In the absence of visiting malachim, though, we are left to put the question to ourselves: where are we? And like the malachim, we know the literal answer, but the deeper question remains: where are we meant to be? Has our time come, is our destiny at hand, are we fulfilling the role for which we were created, and for which we are uniquely suited? May we not only ask the Ayeh question, but through our lives may we provide its answer.