There are so many great Rashis in this week's parsha, it is so hard to choose only 8 questions!
According to Rashi...
1.Yosef's bones were taken to Israel. What happened to the remains of the rest of the brothers? (13:19)
2. Where did the Bnei Yisrael learn to cry out to Hashem? (14:10)
3. How did the cloud and the fire stop the Egyptians? (14:24)
4. How does Rashi reconcile that the Torah says the Egyptians sunk like stones, led, and straw? (15:5)
5. What prophesy did Miriam have? (15:20)
6. Which mitzvot did the Bnei Yisrael receive at Marrah? (15:25)
7. What herb was the maan like?
8. Why is the word "chair" spelt differently when referring to God's throne? (17:16)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Christopher Hitchens, Iraq, and Amalek
In his many debates with Rabbis, Christopher Hitchens was often challenged that Judaism charges people to be kind to others. To which Hitchens would answer, "Not if you have the misfortune of being a Midyanite or an Amalekite to whom Jews are charged with genocide."
As I watched these debates I was always bothered that nobody ever took him up on the context.
As for the Midyanites, Hitchens is correct that the Torah says, "Harass the midyanites..." But he failed to read the next verse which says, "for they are harassing you."
Hitchens of all people should appreciate this. He, after all, supported America's war with Iraq because he believed in the Jewish principle when someone comes to slay you, slay them first!
Amalek is a different story. Unlike Midyan and other nations whom there is a particular context to when they must be battled, the Torah tells us in this week's parsha, Bishalach, that we must wage an eternal war against Amalek. But once again, Hitchens demonstrates his ignorance, arrogance, and antipathy towards Judaism and reports only half of a story in order to make his point.
1. Hitchens'vulgar and ignorant understanding of the Torah was that any person can act on any impulse if it is written in the Torah. Therefore, the Torah says that an adulterer is stoned, so if you think you know someone is committing adultery then you have a religious obligation to kill him. But he fails to understand that the Torah is a law book that was predicated on a system of courts and a government. Adultery is against the law but so is killing a person without due process. Israel was a nation and civilization before it became a religion. Adultery is illegal and it is a serious crime. But that does not mean that the people, or even the courts, regularly carried out the death penalty for adultery. Hitchens should have known better then to judge a legal system before studying the history of the people that lived by that system.
If a Jewish individual would act on his own and kill another person because he believed that person was a descendant of Amalek, that Jew would be tried and likely convicted for murder in a Jewish court.
If he would argue that there are Jews today in Israel that are stoning people for immodest dress, the fact that the entire Jewish world from left to right has condemn these fanatics actually demonstrates that over all Judaism and its adherence are outraged by such behavior. That outrage is founded in the Torah.
2. The Mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is only in affect when Israel is a sovereign nation in its land with a Jewish king. The king is then commanded to go after Amalek. However, "No war can be waged on any person in the world without first calling out to them in peace. If they make peace and accept the seven noachide laws then it is forbidden to kill even one single soul."
I would hope that Hitchens would have been against establishing peace with any nation that on principle rejects laws that prohibit murder, theft, rule of law, and humane treatment of animals (I imagine he would not have a problem with them rejecting laws against blasphemy, idolatry, and sexual immorality).
3. An interesting fact about Amalek that makes them unique from every other nation is that Amalek seems to dwell all over the place in the ancient world. Other nations generally inhabited one specific region. Amalek appears between Egypt and Israel, in Southern Israel, in the territory of Seir, and in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. This has led many to believe that Amalek was a nomadic tribe that wondered from place to place where ever conditions suited them or where ever other nations would harbor them.
Others believe, however, that Amalek does not represent a particular nation as much as it represents a particular evil philosophy.
Other nations attacked when they felt threatened by the Jews. Amalek attacks with no so interest or apparent reason other than pure hatred. They attacked us when we were weak, tired, and unprepared. They did not use conventional warfare, but rather they attacked the women children, and elderly.
When the Torah commands us to wage war on Amalek, it is telling us to stomp out this type of evil where ever it exists.
This idea is supported by the fact that the Tanach reports at least twice that the Jews succeeded in completely eradicating Amalek (once by the hands of Shaul and Shmuel and once in Chronicles 4:43) and yet Jewish tradition insists that Haman, who came many years later, was a descendant of Amalek.
The war against Amalek is a war against evil where ever it is found, and this lesson is as relevant today as it ever was.
Once again, Hitchens either deliberately, or through gross ignorance, used the Bible out of context to bring calumny upon the Jewish people. He portrays the people who were the target of attempted genocide as a people who promote genocide.
And yet, I must admit, when I finished writing this post I realized that I had to edit and change all present tense Hitchen verbs to past tense. While I disagree with him so often, and even find his methods of argument at best unfair and at worst reprehensible, I can't help but lament his passing because he made us think, and for that I am grateful.
Go to Hell Christopher Hitchens, you earned it!
Hitchens of all people should appreciate this. He, after all, supported America's war with Iraq because he believed in the Jewish principle when someone comes to slay you, slay them first!
Amalek is a different story. Unlike Midyan and other nations whom there is a particular context to when they must be battled, the Torah tells us in this week's parsha, Bishalach, that we must wage an eternal war against Amalek. But once again, Hitchens demonstrates his ignorance, arrogance, and antipathy towards Judaism and reports only half of a story in order to make his point.
1. Hitchens'vulgar and ignorant understanding of the Torah was that any person can act on any impulse if it is written in the Torah. Therefore, the Torah says that an adulterer is stoned, so if you think you know someone is committing adultery then you have a religious obligation to kill him. But he fails to understand that the Torah is a law book that was predicated on a system of courts and a government. Adultery is against the law but so is killing a person without due process. Israel was a nation and civilization before it became a religion. Adultery is illegal and it is a serious crime. But that does not mean that the people, or even the courts, regularly carried out the death penalty for adultery. Hitchens should have known better then to judge a legal system before studying the history of the people that lived by that system.
If a Jewish individual would act on his own and kill another person because he believed that person was a descendant of Amalek, that Jew would be tried and likely convicted for murder in a Jewish court.
If he would argue that there are Jews today in Israel that are stoning people for immodest dress, the fact that the entire Jewish world from left to right has condemn these fanatics actually demonstrates that over all Judaism and its adherence are outraged by such behavior. That outrage is founded in the Torah.
2. The Mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is only in affect when Israel is a sovereign nation in its land with a Jewish king. The king is then commanded to go after Amalek. However, "No war can be waged on any person in the world without first calling out to them in peace. If they make peace and accept the seven noachide laws then it is forbidden to kill even one single soul."
I would hope that Hitchens would have been against establishing peace with any nation that on principle rejects laws that prohibit murder, theft, rule of law, and humane treatment of animals (I imagine he would not have a problem with them rejecting laws against blasphemy, idolatry, and sexual immorality).
3. An interesting fact about Amalek that makes them unique from every other nation is that Amalek seems to dwell all over the place in the ancient world. Other nations generally inhabited one specific region. Amalek appears between Egypt and Israel, in Southern Israel, in the territory of Seir, and in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. This has led many to believe that Amalek was a nomadic tribe that wondered from place to place where ever conditions suited them or where ever other nations would harbor them.
Others believe, however, that Amalek does not represent a particular nation as much as it represents a particular evil philosophy.
Other nations attacked when they felt threatened by the Jews. Amalek attacks with no so interest or apparent reason other than pure hatred. They attacked us when we were weak, tired, and unprepared. They did not use conventional warfare, but rather they attacked the women children, and elderly.
When the Torah commands us to wage war on Amalek, it is telling us to stomp out this type of evil where ever it exists.
This idea is supported by the fact that the Tanach reports at least twice that the Jews succeeded in completely eradicating Amalek (once by the hands of Shaul and Shmuel and once in Chronicles 4:43) and yet Jewish tradition insists that Haman, who came many years later, was a descendant of Amalek.
The war against Amalek is a war against evil where ever it is found, and this lesson is as relevant today as it ever was.
Once again, Hitchens either deliberately, or through gross ignorance, used the Bible out of context to bring calumny upon the Jewish people. He portrays the people who were the target of attempted genocide as a people who promote genocide.
And yet, I must admit, when I finished writing this post I realized that I had to edit and change all present tense Hitchen verbs to past tense. While I disagree with him so often, and even find his methods of argument at best unfair and at worst reprehensible, I can't help but lament his passing because he made us think, and for that I am grateful.
Go to Hell Christopher Hitchens, you earned it!
Daily Business Ethics Halachah #7
We are learning from Case Studies in Business Ethics by the late Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l professor of economics at Yeshiva University.
Lying:
Question: if an unexpected visitor comes by without an appointment is it permissible to lie and say you are busy or have someone say you are not present?
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (Israel 1910-1995) dealt with this question. The gemara cites a story of a particular town taht held an unusually high standard of integrity. Rav Tavut moved to the town but was eventually banished for excactly this case. An unannaunced woman came to see Rav Tavut's wife and Rav Tavut. She was busy with personal matters so rav Tavut lied and said she was not home. When the lie was eventually discovered the people banished Rav Tavut.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbauch ruled that the standards of that town were beyond the letter and not required in general society. The conduct of Rav Tavut would have normally been regarded as permissible.
If K knocks on D's door without an appointment, D is under no obligation to see him. Moreover, D's right to privacy puts him under no duty to inform K what he is doing at that time or why he does not wish to see him.
With the aim of avoiding friction with K, it is permissible for D to inform K through another person that he is not home. This is considered a permissible lie and is an application of the principle of darkei shalom - fostering peace.
Lying:
Question: if an unexpected visitor comes by without an appointment is it permissible to lie and say you are busy or have someone say you are not present?
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (Israel 1910-1995) dealt with this question. The gemara cites a story of a particular town taht held an unusually high standard of integrity. Rav Tavut moved to the town but was eventually banished for excactly this case. An unannaunced woman came to see Rav Tavut's wife and Rav Tavut. She was busy with personal matters so rav Tavut lied and said she was not home. When the lie was eventually discovered the people banished Rav Tavut.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbauch ruled that the standards of that town were beyond the letter and not required in general society. The conduct of Rav Tavut would have normally been regarded as permissible.
If K knocks on D's door without an appointment, D is under no obligation to see him. Moreover, D's right to privacy puts him under no duty to inform K what he is doing at that time or why he does not wish to see him.
With the aim of avoiding friction with K, it is permissible for D to inform K through another person that he is not home. This is considered a permissible lie and is an application of the principle of darkei shalom - fostering peace.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Daily Business Ethics Halachah #6
We are learning from Case Studies in Business Ethics by the late Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l professor of economics at Yeshiva University.
There are copious Jewish sources that condemn the trait of envy. However, the Talmud on Bava Batra 22a says that a certain type of envy, referred to as kinat soferim - the envy of scholars - is not only allowed but encouraged.
Rabbi Levine writes that effective moral training must include an understanding of proper jealousy.
Jealousy is an inevitable fact of life and therefore the trait must be acknowledged, harnessed, and channeled in productive ways otherwise it will manifest in destructive ways.
"To successfully reduce envy int he material realm, a proper incentive-disincentive system must be set up to foster competition in the spiritual realm."
Envy in the material realm is the envy of the procession of others. By contrast, kinat soferim is a jealousy of the attained attributes and positive achievements of role models. Things like education, scholarship, and character developments should be made objects of envy. These are things that cannot be stolen or misappropriated and there are no short cuts to achieving them. The envy of these things is meant to inspire us to work harder and ethically towards a positive goal.
There are copious Jewish sources that condemn the trait of envy. However, the Talmud on Bava Batra 22a says that a certain type of envy, referred to as kinat soferim - the envy of scholars - is not only allowed but encouraged.
Rabbi Levine writes that effective moral training must include an understanding of proper jealousy.
Jealousy is an inevitable fact of life and therefore the trait must be acknowledged, harnessed, and channeled in productive ways otherwise it will manifest in destructive ways.
"To successfully reduce envy int he material realm, a proper incentive-disincentive system must be set up to foster competition in the spiritual realm."
Envy in the material realm is the envy of the procession of others. By contrast, kinat soferim is a jealousy of the attained attributes and positive achievements of role models. Things like education, scholarship, and character developments should be made objects of envy. These are things that cannot be stolen or misappropriated and there are no short cuts to achieving them. The envy of these things is meant to inspire us to work harder and ethically towards a positive goal.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Daily Business Ethics Halachah #5
We are learning from Case Studies in Business Ethics by the late Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l professor of economics at Yeshiva University.
"Moral training against selfishness begins with the notion that denying one's fellow a benefit when it costs one nothing constitutes obnoxious conduct. The sages identified such conduct with the sin of Sodom."
Case: A meets his neighbor B at an affair many miles from their respective homes. A drove with his own car while B hired a car service. Neither knew that the other would be attending. A offers B a ride home.
A had originally planned to drive both ways by himself and incur all costs of gas and tolls. It is ethical for A to now ask B to share the expenses with him?
Rabbi Levine writes that demanding B to pay for his ride in this case would be an example of the attitude of Sodom.
If the common practice is for B to offer to pay then dropping a hint to B that he should pay would not be "obnoxious" but merely unsociable and ungracious conduct.
However, it is the "gentlemanly" or even expected for B to offer to pay. But he is certainly not legally required to. He is not even ethically required to. For him to offer to pay would conducting himself above the letter of the law.
"Moral training against selfishness begins with the notion that denying one's fellow a benefit when it costs one nothing constitutes obnoxious conduct. The sages identified such conduct with the sin of Sodom."
Case: A meets his neighbor B at an affair many miles from their respective homes. A drove with his own car while B hired a car service. Neither knew that the other would be attending. A offers B a ride home.
A had originally planned to drive both ways by himself and incur all costs of gas and tolls. It is ethical for A to now ask B to share the expenses with him?
Rabbi Levine writes that demanding B to pay for his ride in this case would be an example of the attitude of Sodom.
If the common practice is for B to offer to pay then dropping a hint to B that he should pay would not be "obnoxious" but merely unsociable and ungracious conduct.
However, it is the "gentlemanly" or even expected for B to offer to pay. But he is certainly not legally required to. He is not even ethically required to. For him to offer to pay would conducting himself above the letter of the law.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Shmuley Christian Zionism and the Rebbe
Shmuley, Christian Zionists and the Rebbe
Guest post by Daniel Friedman
Rabbi of Beth Israel Edmonton and Christian Zionism Scholar at the University of Alberta
Can Christianity and Judaism re-embrace after two millennia? Rabbi Shmuley certainly thinks so. His newest product, Kosher Jesus, aims to revive the historical Jewish Jesus, in an effort to build bridges between the Jewish and Christian religions. And in an age when Israel’s entire legitimacy is under attack, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to stand united with Evangelical Christians, who unconditionally support Israel? This book is the result of the perfect storm – the Hollywood Rabbi, combined with the unprecedented Christian support for Israel over the last decade, combined with the ideological confusion of Chabad since the passing of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1994.
The first factor – Rabbi Shmuley’s status as rabbi to the stars is something that’s obvious to everyone. You start with Kosher Sex, which projects you to stardom, you follow that up with Kosher Adultery and before you know it, you’re up to Kosher Jesus. What next? That’s anyone’s guess, but as long as we have Rabbi Shmuley – we can rest assured that he will continue to push the envelope and at the very least, keep us entertained. Don’t get me wrong, personally, I think Shmuley’s a great guy and he must be commended for the amount of good he has done in the world, but first and foremost, he’s a celebrity.
The second factor – Evangelical Christians. Here’s where he is absolutely wrong. Shmuley writes in a Jewish Week op-ed, “At so many public Christian events in support of Israel, pastors refer to Jesus haltingly if at all, afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities, while the Jews likewise are on guard to ensure that they are not accused of being used as props for a covert Christian evangelizing effort. If Jesus can never be mentioned we risk the relationship becoming a fraudulent one, with mutual suspicion growing on both sides.” As a scholar of Christian Zionism, I too am a huge believer that Evangelicals are the best friends we have and we must do everything we can, to encourage their support. But the fact that they do not dare mention the word ‘Jesus’ at a rally in support of Israel is of the utmost significance. You walk into one of these rallies – Shmuley’s right, you can stab a knife through the tension in the room over the Jesus issue. But it’s that tension that is driving the relationship. The fact that every time they get up, they need to convince us that they are our friends, that they love us unconditionally, that they are remorseful for Christian past misdeeds, that they are not trying to convert us – that is what is makes us so powerful in their eyes and in reality. Drop the Jesus tension and we’re done – game over. What’s more, the reason we need the State of Israel is in order to eternally perpetuate our Jewish identity. Once that identity is called into question, because we all can be friends of Jesus, the borders have come down between us and them. Where does that leave the future of the Jewish people? Yes, we need their support, but we need to make those lines of demarcation between Judaism and Christianity abundantly clear, otherwise it will be the beginning of our downfall.
The third factor – Chabad. Following the Rebbe’s death, the Lubavitch movement was in crisis. After years of believing he was the Messiah, what now? What followed was a process of rationalizing how the Messiah could in fact rise from the dead and therefore that the Rebbe could keep his Messianic status. Now, while it may be true that there are traditional Jewish sources to account for such a belief, the problem is that up until now that was not normative Jewish belief. Rather, that was the line that demarcated Judaism from Christianity. Jews believe in a Messiah who comes from the living, Christians believe in a Messiah who comes from the dead. But due to the emotional and psychological crisis that engulfed Chabad, they were able to use the traditional interpretive process to find sources that justified their ongoing belief in the now-deceased Rebbe as Messiah, and it was irrelevant to them that they had crossed over the demarcation line between the two religions. That was all fine for many years and Chabad has gone on to grow and continue to do the wonderful work they do in outreach.
Fast forward eighteen years and enter Rabbi Shmuley in 2012, who says, well if we can employ that investigative and interpretive process vis-à-vis the Rebbe, let me take a look at Jesus and see who he really was. And all hell breaks loose. Now I’m not saying that this was how Shmuley came up with the idea. I believe that he sincerely wanted to build bridges with the Christian community. But the previous taboo for traditional Jews of engaging with Jesus had effectively been removed in Lubavitch. And while he presumably made no conscious connection, there is no doubt that due to his affiliation with Chabad, he saw no objection to the discussion. And that’s why Chabad has gone ballistic over Shmuley’s latest book, with pronouncements of heresy and excommunication from prominent Chabad rabbis. For years, they paid scant regard to his antics, simply dismissing him as an individual, no longer connected to the movement. But now they realize what their eighteen year old silence has wrought. If Shmuley can’t distinguish between Kosher and Jesus, then where does that leave the rest of Chabad?
Guest post by Daniel Friedman
Rabbi of Beth Israel Edmonton and Christian Zionism Scholar at the University of Alberta
Can Christianity and Judaism re-embrace after two millennia? Rabbi Shmuley certainly thinks so. His newest product, Kosher Jesus, aims to revive the historical Jewish Jesus, in an effort to build bridges between the Jewish and Christian religions. And in an age when Israel’s entire legitimacy is under attack, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to stand united with Evangelical Christians, who unconditionally support Israel? This book is the result of the perfect storm – the Hollywood Rabbi, combined with the unprecedented Christian support for Israel over the last decade, combined with the ideological confusion of Chabad since the passing of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1994.
The first factor – Rabbi Shmuley’s status as rabbi to the stars is something that’s obvious to everyone. You start with Kosher Sex, which projects you to stardom, you follow that up with Kosher Adultery and before you know it, you’re up to Kosher Jesus. What next? That’s anyone’s guess, but as long as we have Rabbi Shmuley – we can rest assured that he will continue to push the envelope and at the very least, keep us entertained. Don’t get me wrong, personally, I think Shmuley’s a great guy and he must be commended for the amount of good he has done in the world, but first and foremost, he’s a celebrity.
The second factor – Evangelical Christians. Here’s where he is absolutely wrong. Shmuley writes in a Jewish Week op-ed, “At so many public Christian events in support of Israel, pastors refer to Jesus haltingly if at all, afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities, while the Jews likewise are on guard to ensure that they are not accused of being used as props for a covert Christian evangelizing effort. If Jesus can never be mentioned we risk the relationship becoming a fraudulent one, with mutual suspicion growing on both sides.” As a scholar of Christian Zionism, I too am a huge believer that Evangelicals are the best friends we have and we must do everything we can, to encourage their support. But the fact that they do not dare mention the word ‘Jesus’ at a rally in support of Israel is of the utmost significance. You walk into one of these rallies – Shmuley’s right, you can stab a knife through the tension in the room over the Jesus issue. But it’s that tension that is driving the relationship. The fact that every time they get up, they need to convince us that they are our friends, that they love us unconditionally, that they are remorseful for Christian past misdeeds, that they are not trying to convert us – that is what is makes us so powerful in their eyes and in reality. Drop the Jesus tension and we’re done – game over. What’s more, the reason we need the State of Israel is in order to eternally perpetuate our Jewish identity. Once that identity is called into question, because we all can be friends of Jesus, the borders have come down between us and them. Where does that leave the future of the Jewish people? Yes, we need their support, but we need to make those lines of demarcation between Judaism and Christianity abundantly clear, otherwise it will be the beginning of our downfall.
The third factor – Chabad. Following the Rebbe’s death, the Lubavitch movement was in crisis. After years of believing he was the Messiah, what now? What followed was a process of rationalizing how the Messiah could in fact rise from the dead and therefore that the Rebbe could keep his Messianic status. Now, while it may be true that there are traditional Jewish sources to account for such a belief, the problem is that up until now that was not normative Jewish belief. Rather, that was the line that demarcated Judaism from Christianity. Jews believe in a Messiah who comes from the living, Christians believe in a Messiah who comes from the dead. But due to the emotional and psychological crisis that engulfed Chabad, they were able to use the traditional interpretive process to find sources that justified their ongoing belief in the now-deceased Rebbe as Messiah, and it was irrelevant to them that they had crossed over the demarcation line between the two religions. That was all fine for many years and Chabad has gone on to grow and continue to do the wonderful work they do in outreach.
Fast forward eighteen years and enter Rabbi Shmuley in 2012, who says, well if we can employ that investigative and interpretive process vis-à-vis the Rebbe, let me take a look at Jesus and see who he really was. And all hell breaks loose. Now I’m not saying that this was how Shmuley came up with the idea. I believe that he sincerely wanted to build bridges with the Christian community. But the previous taboo for traditional Jews of engaging with Jesus had effectively been removed in Lubavitch. And while he presumably made no conscious connection, there is no doubt that due to his affiliation with Chabad, he saw no objection to the discussion. And that’s why Chabad has gone ballistic over Shmuley’s latest book, with pronouncements of heresy and excommunication from prominent Chabad rabbis. For years, they paid scant regard to his antics, simply dismissing him as an individual, no longer connected to the movement. But now they realize what their eighteen year old silence has wrought. If Shmuley can’t distinguish between Kosher and Jesus, then where does that leave the rest of Chabad?
Daily Business Ethics Halachah #4
We are learning from Case Studies in Business Ethics by the late Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l professor of economics at Yeshiva University.
Fully recognizing that bias may be created by means other than the acceptance of money, Jewish law prohibits the judge from submitting to a bribe of words. This is called Shochad devarim.
The parameters of Shochad devarim are very strict. If person A does not usually say 'good morning' to judge B, and before the trial A says 'good morning' to B this is considered shochad devarim an judge B would be disqualified from hearing the case.
Question: it seems that if A wants to create a mistrial it would be very easy to do so. All he has to do is find the judge before the trial and say hello. he can continue to do this ad infinitum. How does Jewish law deal with this possibility?
Fully recognizing that bias may be created by means other than the acceptance of money, Jewish law prohibits the judge from submitting to a bribe of words. This is called Shochad devarim.
The parameters of Shochad devarim are very strict. If person A does not usually say 'good morning' to judge B, and before the trial A says 'good morning' to B this is considered shochad devarim an judge B would be disqualified from hearing the case.
Question: it seems that if A wants to create a mistrial it would be very easy to do so. All he has to do is find the judge before the trial and say hello. he can continue to do this ad infinitum. How does Jewish law deal with this possibility?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Who Needs the Children?
After the plague of hail, Pharaoh and Egypt were broken. They were prepared to let the Bnei Yisrael leave - at least temporarily. Pharaoh calls Moshe to his royal chamber and asks Moshe, "Who needs to go with you?"
Moshe told Pharaoh that everyone needs to go. "Our young and our old...because it is a festival to God for all of us."
Pharaoh then has a sudden change of heart. "No!" he says. "Take the men and go worship God if that iswhat you really want!."
Rashi explains Pharaoh's reply:
Pharaoh thought he caught Moshe in a lie. "You said you are just going to worship. If that were true, why do you need the children? It is not normal for kids to participate in services!"
Obviously Pharaoh had never been to Beth Israel!
That was the way that Pharaoh thought. In his mind, prayer was something that was the duty of only one segment of his society. But Moshe was not lying. Then and now, for the Jewish people our prayers and celebrations are not complete without the participation of the entire community.
This Shabbat is new members Shabbat at Beth Israel. We are welcoming all the people who have decided to join our wonderful congregation in the past year. Some members are also members of other synagogues in Omaha. Some have moved here from other cities. And some are joining a Synagogue for the first time in their lives.
Whoever you are, and where ever you come from, welcome to our Beth Israel community. With your presence and participation, our prayers and celebrations are enhanced.
May we have many Shabbats, festivals, and happy occasions to celebrate together as a community, and may we all merit to see the day when all Jews, where ever they are in the world, are joined together in prayer and thanksgiving to Hashem!
Shabbat Shalom.
Daily Business Ethics Halacha #3
We are learning from Case Studies in Business Ethics by the late Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine z"l professor of economics at Yeshiva University.
Questions: Is a judge permitted to take a payment from a litigant with the stipulation that the judge be as fair as he possibly can?
Questions: Is a judge permitted to take a payment from a litigant with the stipulation that the judge be as fair as he possibly can?
The Torah prohibits bribes of any kind because it will ultimately have an affect on the way that the judge views the case.
It is even forbidden to give a bribe that comes with the stipulation that the judge should conduct a fair trial.
The Gemara in Ketubot says that a bribe is forbidden because it makes the judge empathize with the litigant and feel somehow that they are connected to one another.
As soon as a man receives a gift from another he sees the giver as an extension of himself and nobody can see himself as guilty.
The Hebrew word for bribe is shochad. according to the Gemara it means shehu chad - he is one with you.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Omaha or Akko?
I just met for coffee with Emily. Emily goes to Beth Israel - at least she used to go to Beth Israel. Now Emily is a student at the University of Haifa. She is back in Omaha on break, but when she returns to Israel she will officially make aliya and make Israel her permanent home.
At our meeting Emily reminded me that it was less than one year ago that I met with her for coffee and tried to convince her to go on a birthright trip to Israel. Now, a year later she is a passionate Zionist and will start her new life in the Jewish State!
Nothing could make a Rabbi prouder than hearing something like that.
At the same time, I have to admit that I am a bit jealous of Emily. When I was her age I also wanted to move to Israel. I had all sorts of plans to make it possible but in the end the uncertainty of learning a new language, a new culture, making a living, and being far from family were too much for me.
I took a different path with my life. When I look back, I have no regrets. I have a beautiful family and a meaningful job that I wake up every morning excited to do.
When I was first introduced to Akko a few years ago, I must admit that I dreamed every day of leaving the wonderful community in Omaha and helping to build the wonderful community in Akko. I still dream of that periodically, but the reality is that the older I get the more impractical that dream becomes.
I love what I am doing here and in many ways I feel that I am contributing to the Jewish people more than I would if I lived in Israel. Emily is not the first student that I have encouraged to visit Israel and she will not be the last. Most will probably not stay in Israel, but many will grow to love and support the Jewish State.
And more important than the land of Israel is the Torah, and believe it or not, there are still a few Jews left in Nebraska that have become estranged from the Torah and I hope to reintroduce it to as many of them as possible and inspire them to rekindle the love that their ancestors had with our heritage.
All in all I am happy and fulfilled here.
But I suffer from a bug that is common to most Rabbis and Jewish educators in the Diaspora. We want to be in Israel but we feel we have work to do here. There is no cure. i will continue to send students to encounter Israel and I will continue to partner with our friends in Akko who are building a Jewish community in a Jewish city in the Jewish State, and maybe one day I will myself merit to live in Akko, or Hebron, or Shilo.
But today I have to get back to work. Judah Halevi wrote, "My heart is in the East while I am in the West." That does not apply to me. I love Israel and will continue to work to support it any way that I can. But my heart is right here in Omaha with the Jewish community.
At our meeting Emily reminded me that it was less than one year ago that I met with her for coffee and tried to convince her to go on a birthright trip to Israel. Now, a year later she is a passionate Zionist and will start her new life in the Jewish State!
Nothing could make a Rabbi prouder than hearing something like that.
At the same time, I have to admit that I am a bit jealous of Emily. When I was her age I also wanted to move to Israel. I had all sorts of plans to make it possible but in the end the uncertainty of learning a new language, a new culture, making a living, and being far from family were too much for me.
I took a different path with my life. When I look back, I have no regrets. I have a beautiful family and a meaningful job that I wake up every morning excited to do.
When I was first introduced to Akko a few years ago, I must admit that I dreamed every day of leaving the wonderful community in Omaha and helping to build the wonderful community in Akko. I still dream of that periodically, but the reality is that the older I get the more impractical that dream becomes.
I love what I am doing here and in many ways I feel that I am contributing to the Jewish people more than I would if I lived in Israel. Emily is not the first student that I have encouraged to visit Israel and she will not be the last. Most will probably not stay in Israel, but many will grow to love and support the Jewish State.
And more important than the land of Israel is the Torah, and believe it or not, there are still a few Jews left in Nebraska that have become estranged from the Torah and I hope to reintroduce it to as many of them as possible and inspire them to rekindle the love that their ancestors had with our heritage.
All in all I am happy and fulfilled here.
But I suffer from a bug that is common to most Rabbis and Jewish educators in the Diaspora. We want to be in Israel but we feel we have work to do here. There is no cure. i will continue to send students to encounter Israel and I will continue to partner with our friends in Akko who are building a Jewish community in a Jewish city in the Jewish State, and maybe one day I will myself merit to live in Akko, or Hebron, or Shilo.
But today I have to get back to work. Judah Halevi wrote, "My heart is in the East while I am in the West." That does not apply to me. I love Israel and will continue to work to support it any way that I can. But my heart is right here in Omaha with the Jewish community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)