*Be the Change You Want to See In the World

Tetzave 5772

There is a Talmudic story of 3 gentiles who indivudually approached Shammai and Hillel desiring to convert to Judaism. The last of the three was passing by a house of study and heard a verse from this week's Torah reading, And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, and an ephod and a robe and a checkered tunic, and a mitre and a girdle... (Exodus 28:4) The majesty of the clothing intrigued him and he asked “For whom are these?” “For the Kohen HaGadol” he was told. The non-Jew decided to convert to Judaism and went to Shammai and said, “Convert me on condition that you appoint me a Kohen HaGadol” – to which Shammai took a building ruler and drove the man away. The man then went to Hillel with the same request and Hillel converted him and then said to him that before a person can become king, he must learn the art of governance – go and study the laws. The convert learned that only someone born into the Priestly class may serve as the Kohen HaGadol. The convert went to Shammai to apologize for his earlier inappropriate demand; then he went to Hillel and said, “blessings rest on your head for bringing me under the wings of the Shechinah!” The three converts later met in one place and said, “Shammai's impatience sought to drive us from the world, but Hillel's gentleness brought us under the wings of Gd.”

Video-Vort Terumah 5772

 

Terumah 5772

The English translation of the Etz Chaim chumash comes from the Jewish Publication Society. The translation is respected for its nuanced synthesis of traditional meaning and historical opinion. In this vain, to read the JPS translation of tachash (תחש) – an animal whose hide was used as part of the covering of the tabernacle housing the ten commandments – as ‘dolphin’ is…perplexing? The commentary in the Etz Chaim chumash even says that the word more likely means “dyed sheep or goat leather.” The rabbis in the Talmud also debated the meaning of the word. They start by arguing if the animal must be of the kosher variety. They tackle the question of domesticated animal versus wild beast. The lone elements they seem to agree on is that it was a brightly colored animal that existed only during the days of Moshe. The King James Bible translates the word as ‘badger,’ and it is from this translation that we locate the path to the dolphin. The German word for badger is dachs (i.e., dachshund hound). Martin Luther believed the German language to be descended from Ancient Hebrew and deduced that the German cognate for tachash is dachs. Luther was wrong that German is phonetically derived from Hebrew. However, modern scholars have used Luther’s method to trace back cognates from Semitic languages that are related to ancient Hebrew. The Arabic word tuchEas is a word applied to small cetaceans (aquatic mammals), most commonly the dolphin. Were there dolphins in the desert? Only those left on dry land during the splitting of the sea….

Video-Vort Mishpatim 5772

 

Mishpatim 5772

וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים...וְאִם-אָסוֹן, יִהְיֶה—וְנָתַתָּה...עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן – And if men strive together.... if any harm follow, then thou shalt give... eye for eye, tooth for tooth. (Exodus 21:22-24) These verses in the Torah are vividly clear and unambiguous, and yet, Judaism has never understood this instruction in literal terms but as the basis for monetary compensation to the injured. The Talmud vociferously makes arguments of logic against the literal interpretation as lex talionis. Ultimately, it is a verse elsewhere in the Torah that provides scriptural proof that these verses cannot be understood literally as corporal punishment identical to the offense. Why does our Tradition stridently fight to persuade, convince and genuinely force us to accept this idea of monetary compensation? The answer is found in Judaism's focus of concern: retribution and punishment against the perpetrator is not the goal of the Jewish legal system, but of protecting the well being of the victim – an idea that ultimately gets adopted by the Westernized legal systems...thank Gd.

President Obama in 2012 Election?

In contemplating the 2012 Presidential Election, a friend in the U.S. recently contacted me here in Israel and produced the following correspondence:

What's your take on President Obama's policies and interaction with Israel -plus the comments he made about 1967 borders?

A.F.: I think President Obama came into the role of president with genuine desire to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict starting with Israel and the Palestinians. I think he believed that if he showed the Arab world that he respects them, their customs and cultures and validates their hurt and pain over the *results of the Six Day War then they would meet him half-way in being prepared to make the painful concessions being asked of both Israel and them. I was not upset over his Cairo speech as I saw it as the above, and -- were the U.S. and Israel dealing with another Westernized country/people it would have been the right approach. As I see it, the problem is that the West is not respecting the culture of the non-Israel Middle East enough to treat it according to its approach to matters of conflict. The international community is trying to impose Western diplomatic tools on to a conflict for whom not all the participants react similarly to those tools. It's like respectfully bowing to someone -- but in the culture of the person receiving the bow it is seen as a sign of submission....

I think President Obama feels like most in the international community -- since Israel is the modern, Western country it is in the better position than the Palestinians to intellectually and emotionally understand the conflict and should be willing to make the decisions necessary to appease the other side and bring the problem to an end. Of course, this opinion falls into the same trap as that expressed above re not respecting/understanding the position of the Arab/Muslim population.

Regarding the president's comments on 1967 borders -- it was a mistake for him to say it.

(*part of President Obama's misunderstanding of the situation is to believe the hurt and pain of the Arabs is the result of the Six Day War – in fact, it includes the war in '48.....)

Would what he said stop you from voting for him? I remember you saying any US administration is viewed the same way by Israelis. Essentially, outside of Ron Paul, everyone has the same stance.

A.F.: The 2012 election is a tough question (I do get to vote as I am a U.S. citizen). Truthfully, I'm undecided. The only real qualm I have with President Obama is the Israel issue -- because it's been 3 years of him not changing his approach that has been unsuccessful and damaging. I'm looking for his wisdom and leadership on the matter and I'm not seeing it -- it's fine to make mistakes...I don't see where he has significantly changed or tweaked his approach to this conflict that gives me confidence that 4 more years of him in office will be good for the future health of the Arab/Israeli conflict. I do want to be clear regarding Israel and how I vote in the U.S. Elections – unless I feel sure that a candidate's approach to Israel is damaging/harmful/dangerous to Israel, then the other elements of ideology will persuade/influence my vote. I felt as you describe re Bush II/Gore, Bush II/Kerry, and Obama/McCain. In each of those elections I voted for the Dem. I'll have to see who is the Rep. candidate, and I'll have to decide if I think the current president shows enough wisdom and clarity on the Israel matter by changing approach before I cast my vote.

How was/is Obama's approach damaging? Are Israelis generally distrustful of the President now?

A.F.:

1) I think that Israelis do not believe President Obama is particularly favorable toward Israel. He's as favorable toward Israel as he is the Palestinians which is to say that he doesn't really recognize Israel as being much a victim to the Arab world's anger, anti-Semitism and propaganda....or that the 60+ years of U.S./Israel friendship warrants any greater fidelity to Israel.

2) Anything 'pro-active' the current administration has done to advance the peace process has been to make demands on Israel and not on the Palestinians.

3) President Obama's manner and policies has emboldened the Palestinian leadership and people to feel that the U.S. will continue to press Israel toward up-front concessions without the Palestinians having to make any themselves.

4) President Bill Clinton was in awe of Yitzchak Rabin and had a deep respect for Israel's leaders and its people for the country that Israel is despite all the reasons it should have failed. President Obama gives me the impression that Israel is a headache to him and that there is no greater moral imperative concomitant with Israel's existence – even in the light of the history of the Jewish people – than there would be for any other country.

 

 

Video-Vort Yitro 5772

 

Yitro 5772

וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ, וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ, לְשָׁלוֹם; וַיָּבֹאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה- And Moshe went out to meet his father-in-law, and they bowed down and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent. (Exodus 18:7) 

In response to the question of who is the ‘they’ who bowed down to Yitro along with Moshe, Rashi says ‘a great honor was bestowed on Yitro that at the same moment that Moshe went out to greet him, so did Aaron.’ The Torah says explicitly that Moshe went out to meet his father-in-law, but from where does Rashi have proof that Aaron did, too? Elsewhere we learn that the use of the root י.צ.א (go out) is used instead of the word ה.ל.כ (go) to express that the Shechinah (Gd’s presence) leaves a place with the tzadik to whom the word refers. Accordingly, the words  וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה (And Moshe went out) tells us that the Shechinah also went out of the Israelite camp. However, was a prophet as great as Aaron in the Israelite camp then the Shechinah would not have left the camp with Moshe. Since we know that Gd’s presence did leave the camp, we know that Aaron must not have been in the camp. Thus, Rashi teaches that the person accompanying Moshe in bowing down to Yitro had to be Aaron.

Video-Vort B'shalach 5772