The divine/human rupture and God's tears

The Meaning of Tisha B’Av

The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not something many of us find compelling. Judaism now is certainly better than during temple times (do we really want to replace prayer with animal sacrifice?) and Jerusalem is a beautiful city. The following sources give a different narrative to Tisha B’Av: the destruction of the Temple is the destruction of the nexus connecting God and the world, and allowing for the infusion of blessings into the world. The brokenness of the Temple and God’s sadness is really sadness over the pain of the whole world, and all the brokenness in it. And in crying, we join God in feeling the pain of the world and yearning to heal it. I apologie for the brief notes on each text; hopefully you can find the questions interesting, and add your own interpretations.

The Exile of the Shekhinah

Ezekiel 10-11

^10:15The cherubim mounted up: this is the living creature that I saw by the river Chebar. ^10:16When the cherubim went, the wheels went beside them; and when the cherubim lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the wheels also didn't turn from beside them. ^10:17When they stood, these stood; and when they mounted up, these mounted up with them: for the spirit of the living creature was in them. ^10:18The glory of the LORD went forth from over the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. ^10:19The cherubim lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight when they went forth, and the wheels beside them: and they stood at the door of the east gate of the LORD's house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.

^11:14The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ^11:15Son of man, your brothers, even your brothers, the men of your relatives, and all the house of Israel, all of them, are they to whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD; to us is this land given for a possession. ^11:16Therefore say, Thus says the Lord God: Whereas I have removed them far off among the nations, and whereas I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them a sanctuary for a little while in the countries where they are come.

^11:22Then did the cherubim lift up their wings, and the wheels were beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. ^11:23The glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood on the mountain which is on the east side of the city.

Temple had held god’s presence (e.g. exodus: filled tent of meeting—this was whole purpose of construction of Temple)

Sadness of god’s presence departing

Even if Jerusalem now rebuilt, shekhinah hasn’t returned

Megillah 29a

It has been taught: R. Simon b. Yohai said: Come and see how beloved are Israel in the sight of God, in that to every place to which they were exiled the Shechinah went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, “Did I reveal myself unto the house of thy father when they were in Egypt.” (I Sam 2:27) They were exiled to Babylon, and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, “for your sake I was sent to Babylon.” (Is 43:14) And when they will be redeemed in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, as it says, “Then the Lord thy God will return [with] thy captivity.” (Dt 30:3) It does not say here ve-heshiv [and he shall bring back] but ve-shav [and he shall return]. This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return with them from the places of exile.

Where [is the Shechinah] in Babylon?-Abaye said: In the synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue of Shaf-veyativ in Nehardea. Do not, however, imagine that it is in both places, but it is sometimes in one and sometimes in the other. Said Abaye: May I be rewarded because whenever I am within a parsang I go in and pray there.

The father of Samuel and Levi were sitting in the synagogue which ‘moved and settled’ in Nehardea. The Shechinah came and they heard a sound of tumult and rose and went out. R. Shesheth was once sitting in the synagogue which ‘moved and settled’ in Nehardea, when the Shechinah came. He did not go out, and the ministering angels came and threatened him. He turned to him and said: Sovereign of the Universe, if one is afflicted and one is not afflicted, who gives way to whom? God thereupon said to them: Leave him.

How does this text view exile of shekhinah? (positive thing-blessing)

Mishnah Sotah 9

WHEN [THE SECOND] TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED, THE SHAMIR AND NOFET TZUFIM CEASED, AND MEN OF FAITH DISAPPEARED FROM ISRAEL... RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: R. JOSHUA TESTIFIED THAT FROM THE DAY THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED, THERE IS NO DAY WITHOUT A CURSE, THE DEW HAS NOT DESCENDED FOR A BLESSING, AND THE FLAVOUR HAS DEPARTED FROM THE FRUITS. R. JOSE SAYS: THE FATNESS WAS ALSO REMOVED FROM THE FRUITS.

R. SIMEON B. ELEAZAR SAYS; [THE CESSATION OF] PURITY HAS REMOVED TASTE AND FRAGRANCE [FROM FRUITS]; [THE CESSATION OF] THE TITHES HAS REMOVED THE FATNESS OF CORN. BUT THE SAGES SAY: IMMORALITY AND WITCHCRAFT DESTROYED EVERYTHING.

Connected to removal of divine presence: full flavor o world lacking

Divine absence is palpable

How else does divine absence manifest itself?

What is purpose of remembering destruction according to this text?

--remember: life can be better—we can have more full relation to reality

Lamentations 1:8

Jerusalem has surely sinned, therefore she has become a niddah; All those who had honored her despise her because they saw her shame (ervatah); she moaned and turned away.

What does it mean here by “niddah”?

Targum Yonatan & rashi: nidah from nad=exile, wandering

Meshech Hohmah: [sinning] became something regular and she no longer felt embarrassment, like a woman in Niddah who is dirty, nevertheless she does not feel shame because her period is regular and it is something natural. So too because of our sins was Jerusalem with the abundance of sins.

Nb negative connotation of niddah (not how I understand it)

Metaphor: dirty with sin, causes separation from husband

Mystics: Human niddah is metaphor for divine niddah

Niddah: separation from husband—does this apply?

Shekhinah=divine immanence in us, world

Separated from transcendent aspect of god

Rupture/separation within godhead

If this is the case, what is the meaning to our own exile? [feel pain of separation from God]

Zohar I: 182a:

"As many were appalled at you -- so marred was his visage unlike that of a man, and his form unlike that of the sons of men" (Isaiah 52: 14)^. Come and see. It has already been explained that when the Temple was destroyed, and the Shekhinah went into exile into the lands of the nations, it is written it is written "Behold the Arelim cry openly, and the angels of peace weep bitterly" (Isaiah 38: 71) They all wept over this, and composed dirges and lamentations, and all tin- the Shekhinah who had been exiled from her place. And just as she suffered a change from her earlier state, so too her husband: his light no longer shone, and lie was changed from what he was before, as it is written, “Sun was darkened as it rose" (Isaiah 18: 10), and of this it is written, "so marred was his visage unlike that of a man.- Another interpretation: "So marred was his visage unlike that of a man" it refers to the servant, whose countenance and form were changed from what they were before. Another interpretation: "So marred was his visage unlike that of a man" as it is said "I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering" (Isaiah 50: 3), for from the day that the Temple was destroyed the heavens did not shine with their customary light. The secret of the matter is that blessings reside only in the place where male and female are together, and they have explained it, as it is said "male and female He created them, and blessed them” (Genesis 5: 2), and so "marred was his visage unlike that of a man."

Plays out metaphor of family drama—divorce

God is exiled from himself—exile is rupture within god

God is exiled from world

The divine within us doesn’t shine, also: the divine in higher spheres

Even god affected by the separation

What does this add?

Tragic element

Emotional aspect (relational)

What are ramifications for reality? [back to sotah text]

Divine Crying & Human Crying

Berachot 3a, as paraphrased by www.aish.com

One day Rabbi Yossi went on a journey. He saw that the time for prayer had arrived, and he did not want to be disturbed. He knew that if he would stand at the side of the road passersby might disturb him, so he looked for a quiet place near the road. He found an old ruin that was close by. The walls looked old and black, the ceiling looked like it might fall, the door was torn off its hinges, and the inside had a frightening dim appearance.

But all of this did not stop Rabbi Yossi. He went into the ruin and spent a long time praying to the Almighty. When he finished, he wanted to leave and continue on his way, but at the entrance he was startled to see somebody waiting for him. Rabbi Yossi took a good look and immediately realized that this could only be the Prophet Eliyahu.

"My greetings to you, Rabbi," Eliyahu began. And Rabbi Yossi replied with trembling in his voice, "My greetings to you, my rabbi and my teacher." Eliyahu said to him, "I have been standing here and guarding you for a long time, Rabbi Yossi. Why did you come into this ruined building?" Rabbi Yossi replied, "I wanted to pray in quiet." But Eliyahu told him, "That is not good. It is dangerous to enter this type of ruin. However, if you did enter and stay for a while anyway, please tell me if you heard any noise in the ruin."

"Indeed I did hear a sound, my teacher. When I entered I began to hear a quiet and mysterious voice, deep and quiet, a voice from heaven that pierced straight into my heart. I understood that I was hearing the sound of the Divine Shechina, G-d's voice, hiding as it were in this ruin. The voice became stronger and stronger, all the while weeping and full of yearning. This is what it said: 'Woe to the children who caused their father to be angry. Woe to the children who have been sent to exile, away from their father's table. Woe to Yisrael, who made me angry with their sins and caused me to vent my anger on them. Woe to Yisrael, whose holy Temple has been destroyed, and whose land was consumed, and who were exiled from their land. Woe to the father who was forced to do all of this. Woe to the father who destroyed His own house and expelled His sons and drove them from their land.'"

"You heard very well," Eliyahu told the rabbi. "You should know that this voice which you were privileged to hear has been echoing through the world for many years. And it was not heard once, or for just one hour, one day, or one week. Ever since the Temple was destroyed, every day and every hour, the Shechina weeps about her children, who are missing, and the Almighty is sorry for the destruction and the loss, and yearns for redemption. From the time that Bnei Yisrael went into exile they did not go alone, for G-d went into exile with them. Every time Yisrael praise G-d in their prayers and show G-d that they have not lost hope, G-d nods his head in agreement, and says, 'Why did I destroy my house and my land? Why did I send my people into exile? How good it will be when everything returns to the way it was, when mankind will improve their ways, and when Yisrael will return in full to their land and to the Temple.'"

When Eliyahu finished what he had to say, he left.

--purpose of our crying?

get god to cry too

yearning makes us remember brokenness

Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5 (BT Sanhedrin 46a; Hagiga 15b)

R. MEIR SAID: 34 WHEN MAN SUFFERS [e.g. from execution] WHAT DOES THE SHECHINAH SAY? — MY HEAD IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME, MY ARM IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME. AND IF GOD IS SO GRIEVED OVER THE BLOOD OF THE WICKED THAT IS SHED, HOW MUCH MORE SO OVER THE BLOOD OF THE RIGHTEOUS!

--what is relation of our experience and god’s experience?

--how would we experience the world the way god does? Can we?

--what is the purpose of human crying? [expand our consciousness]; Gilligan’s thy of moral development; tikkun olam; fasting: experience hunger of the poor, give that money to the poor—act & feel on behalf of needy

Kalonymous Kalman Shapira, Warsaw, Feb 11 1942

Now the Jew who is tormented by his afflictions thinks that he alone suffers, as if all his personal afflictions and those of all Israel do not affect [god] above, God forbid. Scripture says, however, “In all their troubles He was troubled.” [Is 63:9] and the Talmud states, “When a person suffers, what does the Shekhinah say? 'My head is too heavy for me, my arm is too heavy for me.” Our sacred literature tells us that when a Jew is afflicted, God blessed be he suffers (as it were) much more than the person does.

It may be that since He, blessed be He, is not subject to any limitation—for which reason no conception of Him is possible in the world—therefore His suffering from Israel's troubles is also boundless...

Now since His suffering is, as it were, boundless and vaster than all the world-- for which reason it has never penetrated the world and the world does not shudder from it-therefore the angel said, 'let me weep so that you won't need to weep.' [The angel Metatron wanted] the divine weeping to be manifested in the world. For then God would no longer need to weep; once the sound of divine weeping would be heard in the world, the world would hear it and explode. A spark of his suffering, as it were, would penetrate the world and would consume all His enemies...

God wanted to atone for Israel's sins, and the time was not yet a time of salvation. He answered [Metatron saying], 'I will go to a place where you have no permission to enter and weep there’...

The weeping which a person does together with God—that strengthens him. He weeps—and is strengthened; he is broken—but finds courage to study and teach.

Why does god cry? What do you think of this concept?

--why do we cry? What does it accomplish? [gives us strength]

Korach: Controversy for the sake of heaven

This week's parsha deals with a controversy (really, a communal fissure) which Korach instituted against Moses' leadership. The rabbis see this as the quintessential dispute "not for the sake of heaven," which the Talmud prohibits:

Sanhedrin 110a
And Moses rose up and went in to Dathan and Abiram (Num 16:25). Resh Lakish said: This teaches that one must not be hold fast in a dispute (mahzikin bemahloket); for Rab said: He who holds fast in a dispute violates a negative command, as it is written, And let him not be as Korah, and as his company (Num 17:5).

In other words, what is prohibited is holding your ground--putting truth (or trying to be right) over peace. Why did Moses go over to Dathan and Aviram? The Talmud assumes it is to make peace, to try to end the quarrel. Pirke Avot distinguishes between this kind of uarrel, which we should end, and a kind which will never end:

Pirke Avot 5:20
Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is the debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly.

What is the difference between the two? It is not the topic-- both of these controversies are over religious issues. Rather, it has to do with the motivation--is it coming out of an authentic desire to interpret God's will, or out of selfish motives? Korach wanted to be the leader, not because he thought that was what God wanted, or because it would be better for the people; he was just resentful he didn't get to be the leader:

Rashi on Num 16:1
Korah… took: He took himself to one side to dissociate himself from the congregation, to contest the [appointment of Aaron to the] priesthood. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it וְאִתְפְּלֵג,“and he separated himself.” He separated himself from the congregation to persist in a dispute. Similarly, מה יקחך לבך, “Why does your heart take you away?” (Job 15:12) meaning, it removes you, to isolate you from others (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2).
…Now what made Korah decide to quarrel with Moses? He envied the chieftainship of Elizaphan the son of Uzziel whom Moses appointed as chieftain over the sons of Kohath by the [Divine] word. Korah claimed, “My father and his brothers were four [in number]” as it says, “The sons of Kohath were…” (Exod. 6:18). Amram was the first, and his two sons received greatness-one a king and one a high priest. Who is entitled to receive the second [position]? Is it not I, who am the son of Izhar, who is the second brother to Amram? And yet, he [Moses] appointed to the chieftainship the son of his youngest brother! I hereby oppose him and will invalidate his word (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 1, Num. Rabbah 18:2).

So this is a controversy not for the sake of heaven--anything that is not a principled dispute, but a personal rivalry.

Avraham Ehrman, Halichos Olam/Journey to Virtue, ch 9:
...Sadly, disputes sometimes degenerate to the point where the parties are divided into two camps, with the adherents of each side united not only by their mutual loyalty but also by antagonism toward their opponents. When a dispute stops being concerned solely with particular issue (money, honor, policy, etc.) and enters the stage where either side relates to the conflict as a personal -- "us" vs. "them" situation, then it has become a machlokes (literally: division).
Mr. Gold and Mr. Silver own two competing stores. Their competition is ruthless, with such claiming that the other engages in unfair business tactics. As long as their disagreement is related to the issues and were not personal in nature, they were involved in a "dispute." However, when they shopped talking to each other and a feud developed between the Gold and Silver families, their dispute has degenerated into a "machlokes " and is strictly forbidden...

We can tell if it is a dispute by our feelings--are we resentful? do we get along otherwise? And how do we treat them--do we honor them? Often, if we fall into a disagreement with someone, we have a falling out, we don't talk to them any more, we think ill of them. What this is saying is that at that point, the mitzvahdik thing is to make peace.

On to the controversy for the sake of heaven--what is it? The quintessential example is that of Hillel and Shammai. A very interesting thing is written in the Mishnah:

Yevamot 1:4:
Bet Shammai allows ‘rivals’ to brothers, and Bet Hillel forbids. If they performed halitzah, Bet Shammai prohibits from [marrying into the] priesthood, and Bet Hillel permits. If they performed levirate marriage, Bet Shammai permits, Bet Hillel forbids. Even though these forbid and these permit, Bet Shammai did not restrict themselves from marrying women from Bet Hillel, nor did Bet Hillel from Bet Shammai. All of the pure and impure [foods] that these declared pure and these declared impure, they would not restrict themselves from placing one on top of the other.

"Rivals" are two wives of the same man. If Bet Shammai prohibited a certain marriage, then the child of such a marraige is (in their view) a mamzer! And if that mamzer went and married someone from Hillel, their children are memzerim. Eventually the whole blood line gets corrupted, and Shammai should never marry a Hillelite on the suspicion of mamzerut, and vice versa. The community would get entirely divided.

This scenario is not so dissimilar from the Israeli courts not accepting conversion outside of certain courts. It creates a division in the Jewish community, and shows a basic lack of respect of other peoples' points of view.

Bet Shammai did think they were right. But they understood that maintaining peace, maintaining community, was more important. They disagreed with Bet Shammai, but their disagreements did not divide them. They could have a principled disagreement without that coming between them.

Ehrman, later in the same chapter, applies this notion to the contemporary Jewish scene:

The principles discussed so far in this chapter apply to disputes involving personal honor, money, property, etc. However, when community leaders and other respected individuals stray from the path of righteousness and influence people to sin, then one is required to make a machlokes with them for the sake of Heaven.
When Moshe Rabbeinu descended from Mount Sinai, he found that some Jews had engaged in the sin of The Golden Calf, creating a looseness and laxness in the people as a whole. Therefore, Moshe initiated a conflict with his battle cry, "Who is for Hashem –come to me!

He continues to say that one must be sure never to overly embarrass the other party, and to treat them with respect. It is interesting reading this as one to whom (maybe) he refers--does he mean all liberal rabbis? Probably (I should ask him). And I am okay with that, as long as it is conducted like Hillel and Shammai--does he believe that my interpretations come from a deep engagement with Torah? Can we trust that orthodox interpretations come from the same, and avoid criticizing and slandering orthodoxy, something that happens all too often in liberal circles?

Isaiah Horowitz has an amazing understanding of this kind of controversy. He says that actually, they are two aspects of a deeper truth which is too complex for the limited human mind to grasp. Practically, one has to become halacha, but both are manifestations of the divine voice of revelation:

Isaiah Horowitz, Sheney Luhot Haberit, Bet Hochmah
I need to reveal secrets… to understand how all the words of sages are the words of the living God. And in this one should look into what they said in the first chapter of Eruvin: “Abba said that Shmuel said, for three years the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed. These said halacha agrees with us, these said halacha agrees with us; a heavenly voice came forth and said to them, “these and these are the words of the living God, but halacha is in accordance with the House of Hillel.” …
In the first chapter of Hagigah: “Masters of gatherings—these are the sages who sit gathered together and study Torah. These declare impure, these declare pure; these forbid, these permit; these declare unfit, these declare fit. Lest a person should say, “since these declare impure, these declare pure; these forbid, these permit; these declare unfit, these declare fit, how can I learn Torah?” Thus the Torah says, they were all given by one shepherd, one God gave them and one leader spoke them from the mouth of the Lord of everything, blessed be He. As it says, “God spoke all these things.”
Avodat Hakodesh, Tahlit 23, wrote “That source is always flowing. It has front and back, and it includes all the changes and opposites and changing and reversing aspects, for pure and impure, permitted and forbidden, fit and unfit, as is known to those wise of heart. And the “great voice which doesn’t cease” (Dt 5:19) is drawn from the source and comes from it, and is comprised of all the changing aspects… and all of the prophets and sages received his own [aspect]: this one received pure and this one received impure…
All this is from our perspective… it is impossible [for us] to uphold two sides of a contradiction, and halacha is decided in accordance with one of the two opinions… They are all one from the giver’s (blessed be He) perspective, but from our perspective they are multiple, and halacha is in accordance with Hillel alone.

In other words, truth does violate the law of noncontradiction--sometimes a and not-a are both true. The human brain, though, is wired to only be able to think a or not-a at one time. So this controversy is absolutely necessary for revealing the fulness of God's wisdom. This is the manifestation of divine unity; Hillel or shammai alone only manifest part of the divine wisdom, not the wholeness. and each of us have our own piece of revelation to bring into the world, our own piece of the divine voice that only we can reveal. The challenge is, can we appreciate Shammai and completely disagree with him, at the same time.

Parshat Shlach

Parshat Shlach--June 4, 2010

In the parsha, Moses sends out twelve spies to scout out the Land of Israel, and ten of them bring back a negative report. Sending out scouts wasn’t necessarily a bad thing--Joshua sent spies to Jericho (they brough back an encouraging report). Just because God says to conquer, you don’t do it blindly. The real issue is the false, slanderous report--the dibah (by the way, a lot of ink has been spilled about the fact that dibah is used in Gen 37:2 to mean a true but negative report. Most mefarshim argue that the meaning of dibah depends on the whole phrase):

(כז) וַיְסַפְּרוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ בָּאנוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלַחְתָּנוּ וְגַם זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הִוא וְזֶה פִּרְיָהּ:

(כח) אֶפֶס כִּי עַז הָעָם הַיּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ וְהֶעָרִים בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד וְגַם יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק רָאִינוּ שָׁם:

(כט) עֲמָלֵק יוֹשֵׁב בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב וְהַחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי יוֹשֵׁב בָּהָר וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל הַיָּם וְעַל יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן:

(ל) וַיַּהַס כָּלֵב אֶת הָעָם אֶל משֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר עָלֹה נַעֲלֶה וְיָרַשְׁנוּ אֹתָהּ כִּי יָכוֹל נוּכַל לָהּ:

(לא) וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר עָלוּ עִמּוֹ אָמְרוּ לֹא נוּכַל לַעֲלוֹת אֶל הָעָם כִּי חָזָק הוּא מִמֶּנּוּ:

(לב) וַיֹּצִיאוּ דִּבַּת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תָּרוּ אֹתָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ אֶרֶץ אֹכֶלֶת יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ הִוא וְכָל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ בְתוֹכָהּ אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת:

(לג) וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ אֶת הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק מִן הַנְּפִלִים וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם:

The spies start out with a balanced report, thinking will go one way. Joshua steps in and encourages the people, and the tide turns against them. So what do they do? They exaggerate, saying the land "eats its inhabitants." According to Rashi, they see funerals everywhere, so they assume it's such a terrible place. The irony is, God had made a miracle, and arranged these funerals so the spies wouldn't be noticed. They took a blessing and saw a curse! Similarly, Nahmanides says that they saw this huge produce, and saw that the people were huge, and said "only big people can survive here"--when really the land was so rich that it made them big. Again, they took a blessing and saw a curse. They weren't intentionally lying, they were just foold (see Midrash Rabbah 16:2).

We do this with individuals. When someone we dislike does something nice, we assume negative or selfish motives. Sometimes a situation may really be for the best, we just see the negative. It is difficult--but our parsha tells us to do this-- to reserve judgment until the facts are known.

I was very impressed by President Obama’s response to this week's incident with the flotilla headed for Gaza, waiting until all the facts come out until rushing to judgment. It turns out that the people who were killed were members of a jihadist moslem group from Turkey, the IHH, who attacked the police officers as they boarded the boats, and then lied to the world about being shot at from the sky by the helicopters (as my friend Ruben Modeck pointed out, if they were being shot at, why were they all standing around on the top deck of the ship). NPR, reporting the incident, said that commandos raided a humanitarian boat, killed "nine innocents." Sometimes we do not even know when we rush to judgment--we are blinded by our own prejudices.

This parsha calls us to reserve judgment, to evaluate the facts objectively, and to be able to see God's blessings when they come into our lives.

Still basking in the aftermath of Shavuot

I'm still basking in the aftermath of Shavuot at Kol Haneshamah-- the first time since Israel I've been somewhere where a minyan stayed up all night (thanks to David & lucy's generous hosting), and a great Shavuot day picnic with only mild injuries (Thanks to Bruce and Miriam for organizing). I'm now here at the RA, and David Heller inspired me to FINALLY start a blog. Will anybody read? Will anybody care?

WHERE'S THE CHEESE

Many people over Shavuot asked me the origin of the custom to eat dairy. It turns out that this is a widespread and popular custom, the origins of which are not at all clear.

A number of reasons have been adduced for the custom, including:
-the gematriya of milk (halav) is 40, the same as the time Moses was on mt. Sinai
-Sinai is also called Mt Givnonim, similar to the Hebrew for cheese.

According to Rabbi Abraham Gombiner (17 c Poland), the custom was not about refraining from eating meat, but rather eating meat and milk as close together as possible within the boundaries of halacha. This, he writes that we serve 2 separate loaves of bread (1 with the milk meal and 1 with the meat meal), and that we must be sure to ‘clean our mouths' well (kinuah, done by eating a piece of bread) after the milk and before the emat. He suggests that it may symbolize the 2 loaves of bread sacrificed on Shavuot in the temple. He also suggests that it may be a remnant of a pagan custom of boiling a kid in its mother's milk on the ‘festival of first fruits.'

Interestingly, Joseph Caro, the 16th century posek, mentions no such custom--apparently, it was an ashkenazic thing. The Chofetz Chayyim (19th-20th century) states that the jews had received the laws of kashrut but were unprepared to shecht and cook meat (they had no fleishig pans); this explanation seems dubious to me for a number of reasons. First of all, they could not have had cheese either, as that requires you to have kosher meat (rennet for hard kosher cheese needs to come from a kosher animal). Also, the original custom (at least back in the 16th century) is to eat both meat and milk.

One explanation which I find rather persuasive is that the mitzvah to bring first-fruit offerings is immediately followed by the injunction not to boil a kid in its mother's milk (Ex 34:25). This explains why the original custom was actually to eat both. (Sefer Matamim) All of these explanations have the feel of post-facto explanations of a popular custom whose origins were obscure. It goes to show that popular customs really have lives of their own. Or maybe it just shows how much folks like cheesecake.

Thanks to Ben Stein for this great opportunity to learn!

L'shalom,
Rabbi Siff