...truth, the truth of the truth, and peace...

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov said: there is truth, the truth of the truth, and peace. Truth is: a kid stole an apple. The truth of the truth is: the kid was hungry. Peace is: Nobody stole anything; give the kid an apple!" (Heard from Reb Shlomo Carlebach - picked up at Kolel)

What is the Truth? And why would we rather pursue the Truth than achieve Peace? And what is Rebbe Nachman trying to teach us here?

I think that we most often look for the truth without looking for the reason for the truth or for the peaceful way to solve human interaction is because we have been told that the Truth is somehow Sacred. Someone hurt us. Why? What lay behind the action or words that hurt - what was in the other's heart? Perhaps they were having a bad day at work, and simply didn't have enough emotional energy to keep it in when they interacted with us. Perhaps they are going through a really tough time at home. Or they might be just under a lot of stress in general. That is the Truth of the Truth. Perhaps we find it difficult to extend the benefit of a doubt, because to do so would mean admitting that not just the people around us are weak, but that we are?

I think he is trying to teach us that there are offenses and there are offenses, and before we judge whether a real offense has been committed, we need to weigh the circumstances and that in most cases, dismissing any allegations or thoughts that an offense has been committed is preferable, because it gives all involved Peace. I also think he is trying to convey a Principle about G-d.

G-d works from the angle of Peace. He looks at our offenses and because we turn to Him with our shortcomings He says: Nothing happened here - here, have a blessing!". The biggest problem is that we don't work from that angle, and therefore we have great trouble rrealizing that G-d does. We treat our fellow humans from the "the truth is the truth is the truth", instead of looking beyond the Rock-Hard truth and see the Person.

G-d always sees the Person. May we learn to do so too.

Shalom!

The Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law...

Yesterday I recieved an email containing a link to an article that described appaling working conditions in a OU (Orthodox Union) run meat plant in Iowa. It had been posted to a Reconstructionist Torah study list, with intention spark discussion about what can and cannot be considered Kosher.

The Question was: "Can we consider this food kosher? Is it fit to be served in our homes and synagogues?"

My answer is "No".

It might be that the letter of the laws of Kashrut are being observed in terms of how the animals are being slaughtered and the meat treated after the animal has been killed, but in my mind there is more to Kashrut than just impeccably performed rituals. The Spirit of the Law must be observed as well or the letter of the Law is being violated. In fact the Letter of the Law has become quite useless if the Spirit is not there.

Written Torah (and in my book, written Torah does take precedence over Oral Torah/Talmud) teaches us that we are to treat all alike. That there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile in terms of what is applicable.

"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am the LORD your God."(Vayikra/Leviticus 24:22)

"The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God" (Vayikra/Leviticus 19:34)

"And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Shemot/Exodus 22:21)

Now, one could argue that those Gentile workers are not 'sojourning' or 'living with' the People, but they do work within what would be considered Jewish territory, if they are working for Jews. So if we have one Law, it applies to all within Jewish Territory - at least.

One could also argue that since Israel is in Exile, the Gentiles are sojourning among us, as we among them, and therefore we should treat them exactly as we treat other Jews.

Then there is the matter of Chilul Hashem - Shaming G-d, i.e the opposite to Sanctifying G-d.

"The Rambam (1135-1204) in his Sefer HaMitzvos (Negative Commandment #63) defines three components of the commandment regarding Sanctification and Desecration of G-d's Name: "And you shall not profane my Holy Name" [Vayikra 22:32].

This sin is divided into three component parts. (1) Anyone who is forced to violate one of the commandments for which the requirement is 'Be killed, rather than transgress'; (2) A person commits a sin for which they have no sensual passion and derive no benefit, but their intent is only to be (spiritually) rebellious and to throw off the Yoke of Heaven; (3) A person with a reputation for piety does an action which appears in the eyes of the masses to be a sin. Even if the act is intrinsically permitted, if such a person does this act - it could be a Desecration of G-d's Name (Chilul HaShem)."

The way I see it point number three would apply here - The OU certification of the plant vouches for the piety of it. And it might be that, as I said in the beginning, that the letter of the Law is being observed, but this still throws a big shadow on not only this plant, the OU, but Judaism and therefore on G-d.

How can we claim to be a Holy Nation and a Nation Priests, a Light to the Nations, if we treat non-Jews as lesser beings? Whatever it is, it's not Torah, in my mind.

Shalom!

Self-Will, Devotion and Strange Fire...

Parasha "Bamidbar" Bamidbar 1:1-4:20

"And Nadav and Avihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father." (Bamidbar/Numbers 3:4)
"And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."(Vayikra/Leviticus 10:1-2)

This is a really interesting text. Two of Aharon's son's are killed when they go to do service in the Mishkan(Tent of Meeting) - but for what are they killed? The text in Bamidbar is not very forthcoming with an explanation, so we have to look at the parallell text in Vayikra for an answer - they offered fire before the L-RD about which they had not been commanded - it not being commanded by G-d, but coming from their own intense devotion, their own desire, rather than the inspiration of G-d, made it foreign to the House of G-d.

Some Sages suggest that they were drunk, and brought the incense offering as a result of being intoxicated - this is indicated through the fact that in Vayikra 10:9 "'Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations." Torah doesn't prohibit something unless there is a reason, a practical example of behaviour that is unwanted or inappropriate.

Other Sages suggest that Nadav and Avihu were so intensly devoted to serving the Eternal One that they misused the privilege in an attempt to draw even closer to G-d than even their Father, Aharon, and that they were killed for that attempt, for wanting more of G-d than the rest of the Priest and the People. This would be indicated by the words "which He had not commanded them."

The nature of a command is that it is spoken from G-d to us - i.e it is G-d who approaches us through His Mitzvot. Nadav and Avihu turned that order on it's head and decided to approach G-d, basically without being invited and therefore without being properly prepared. They went individually, not in concert with each other, nor in concert with the other Priests, which in a sense made them vulnerable.

Rav Kook suggests that they failed to see the dynamic between the Sacred and the Mundane, the Spiritual and the Physical, that they lacked the understanding that if you "go up the mountain" you have to "come down the mountain".

"The noble sons of the High Priest, Nadav and Avihu, drew their inspiration from the wellspring of Bina. They sought the spiritual pleasantness that characterizes this elevated realm, the limited grandeur that is accessible to our world. Due to their profound awareness of personal greatness, however, they mistakenly saw in the holy realm of Bina the ultimate source of reality. They placed all of their goals in this spiritual world."

They forgot that they were serving the People before G-d as well as G-d before the People, and wanted to remain within the Spirtual/Sacred Realm, keeping the Insight and Beauty of Torah and G-d to themselves. Basically, they went for themselves, and not for G-d or for the people. The Strange Fire were their own strong but misguided desire to learn about the Mystery of G-d without sharing the knowledge with the rest of us as leaders and teachers.

Drawing near to G-d is all good - and we are supposed to, we are commanded to walk with G-d and to offer up our supplications and our gratitude - we are supposewd to have a relationship with G-d, but we are not supposed to stay "on the mountain" - we need to tend to the Mundane, we need to pay attention to the people around us, because ultimately, they the one's we serve.

Shalom!

Sources: Parasha in Depth, Parasha Shemeni
The Error of Nadav and Avihu

Consideration for the Weak

"Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD". (Vayikra/Leviticus 19:14)

This pasuk(verse) in Torah has been floating through my mind lately. It was planted as a result of a letter I got from a young woman asking about the Mitzvah to honor one's parents if same parents have been or are abusive during one's childhood.

This was what I answered:

---

"Is it right for parents to control their children completely? Is it right for them to make you become their extentions by using hurtful mindgames?"

No it's not. Definitely not. Torah is very clear on what parents should be like and what their rolemodel in relation to their kids should - G-d Himself. How do I know this? Because G-d is over and over described as a Father and a Mother in the Torah and the Tanakh, and the image one gets from this is not of one who abuses His children, controll them or play mindgames with them - it is an image of someone who is constantly concerned with the wellfare of His children, who makes sure they are whole, sane and aware that they are truly loved.

Psalms/Tehillim 68:5 "A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation"
Psalms/Tehillim 89:26 "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."
Psalm/Tehillim 103:13 "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him."
Psalms/Tehillim 27:10 "When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up."
Isaiah/Yeshayahu 66:13 "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

Now, how could a G-d who says the above accept parents abusing their children - doesn't He also say to take care of the widow and the fatherless? To care for the weak?

Exodus/Shemot 22:22 "Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child."
Deuteronomy/Devarim 10:18 "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment."
Deuteronomy/Devarim 14:29 " And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest"

From these passages we can learn that G-d take as self-evident that children who are not fatherless are to be treated well and be cared for, or there would be no reason to command us to care for the fatherless.

Leviticus/Vayikra 19:14 "Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD"

From this we can infer that those who are in anyway dependent on others or lack some ability to care for themselves, such as children who lack experience, and are physically dependent on their parents for care and guidance as children, and emotionally bonded as adults, should not be abused or stunted in their life-path.

"To what extent should you "Obey your parents?"

Talmud teaches us that if my father and my Torah Teacher are both drowning and I can save only one, I should save my Torah Teacher, the passage before that speaks of how the father is to impart Torah to his child, and if he doesn't then it is as if he was not a father at all.

Yes, Torah teaches to honor our parents, but that also implies that our parents honour us and treat us as G-d would. If they don't, then we owe them no more than normal respect and honor we owe any human being. Nothing in Torah is ever one-sided - Newton's Law #3 in physics applies very well "Every action has an equal and opposite re-action" - meaning that Torah expects mutuality between G-d and Human and between Human and Human.

The command to honour our parents carries with it the idea that they in turn honour G-d.

---

The command not to curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, to my mind means not to make life harder for others than it already is, but on the contrary try to ease another's burden as much as possible - that of course implies that I am not doing so at my own expense, as this also applies to myself.

Shalom!