Parshat Ekev on loving the “Ger”

Aug 6, 2015 | Torat Devorah

The Torah commands us to love three entities: God, our neighbor, and the “ger.” The term “ger” is usually translated to mean “convert” or “proselyte,” but it literally means “stranger.” In the context in which love of the “ger” is commanded, the Torah (Devarim 10:19) uses a play on words: “Love the ‘ger’ because you were ‘gerim’ in the land of Egypt.” Ibn Ezra (Shmot 20:1) categorizes this latter commandment in the group of commands which are given along with a simple reason which does not require extra deliberation or a sought explanation. On the simplest level, the correct translation of the term “ger” in this context would be “stranger,” for the Israelites were strangers in Egypt, not converts to Egyptian religion and society. They were, in effect, outsiders.

Rashi invokes this verse when he describes how the Jews will view Moshe’s (not Jewish) father-in-law if he travels with them in the desert (Bamidbar 10:31). Others imply that the verse does refer to converts. The midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 8:2) records the following parable in describing the plight of a “ger.” A king has flocks of sheep, but one day a gazelle comes and joins them. The gazelle goes out with them to pasture and returns with them at night. When his shepherds tell him of this gazelle, the king takes great delight in watching the gazelle, seeing that it eats, that his shepherds don’t hit it to stay in the assigned areas, that it drinks first when the animals return. They ask him, “You have thousands of sheep over which you make no fuss. So why do you care so much about this one gazelle?” The king answers, “The sheep does what it wants. It goes out and comes back in the evening to sleep, as is its nature. But a gazelle is wild and does not normally live a domesticated life in the presence of sheep or humans. Shouldn’t we give tremendous credit and special attention to this one, who gave up an expansive wilderness and life among all the wild creatures to come and live in our yard?” The midrash concludes, “Shouldn’t we also give tremendous credit to the ‘ger’ who has chosen to leave his family and his people [the nations of the world] to join our ranks? This is why we must be very sensitive so as not to harm the ‘ger’ in any way.”

For the land… is not as the land of Egypt.. where you did sow your seed, and did water it by foot, like a vegetable garden… [rather] it drinks water of the rain of heaven (11:10-11)

“Rain” represents the reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth. “A vapor rises from the earth” to the heavens, and the heavens return it as rain which “quenches the face of the land” (Genesis 2:6). This represents the spiritual truth that “an arousal from below evokes an arousal from above” — that G-d responds to the efforts of man, reciprocating our prayers, yearnings and deeds with nurture from Above.

The Chassidic masters explain that this is the doctrine of the rain-watered land. Egypt, however, was nourished not by descending rain but by the overflow of the Nile, which would periodically flood the land. The spiritual “Egyptian” is one who does not recognize the Heavenly source of the blessings of life. He believes that all is generated from below — that everything he has and has achieved is of his own making. The people of Israel had been subjected to the Egyptian mentality for four generations. Thus they had to spend forty years in the desert during which they were subjected to a diametrically opposite set of circumstance, in which one’s daily bread descends from heaven and one’s own efforts have no effect on the result. Only after this lesson in the true source of life could they enter the Land that “drinks water of the rain of heaven” — where man’s efforts are crucial and significant, yet are permeated with a recognition of, and dependence upon, the true Source of All.

Prepared by: Devorah Abenhaim

Parshat Vaetchanan on Standing during Torah reading

Jul 28, 2015 | Torat Devorah

In most congregations, it is customary to stand when the Ten Commandments are read. We also stand during the reading of the Song at the Sea (Shirat Hayam – Exodus 15:1-19), but the custom to do so during the reading of the Ten Commandments inspired much debate.

During the Temple period the Ten Commandments were read daily in the Temple (Mishnah Tamid 5,1) and as Rabbi Ovadia of Bertinoro explains: “Since they are the essence of the Torah; and it would have been proper to read them each day, everywhere, but (this reading) was eliminated because of the claims of the heretics who said that they alone were given at Sinai and not the remainder of the Torah”. In Berachot 12a Rashi explains ‘heretics’ to mean ‘gentiles’. Rabbi Simchah of Vitry adds, “So that the disciples (of Jesus) would not say the remainder of the Torah is untrue” (Machzor Vitri, p.12). In contrast to Christian belief which believes that the Ten Commandments alone were given at Sinai, and in order to emphasize that the entire Torah was given at Sinai, we do not single out one      portion of the Torah to read in the prayers.

Professor Eliezer Bashan explains that the question of the daily recitation of the Ten Commandments arose again in Babylonia during the Gaonic period and also in Spain, where there was an initiative to re-instate their public reading. The Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet) prohibits reciting the Ten Commandments, as did later halachic authorities (Rabbi Moshe Isserles, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, 1,5; Be’er Hetev and Mishnah Berurah: “because of the heretics of Israel who would say – only this is the Torah”). Rising for the  reading of the Ten Commandments first appears, to the best of our knowledge, in a           responsum of Maimonides which relates a dispute over this issue. Maimonides states: …”That which the late rabbi instituted, to sit, is proper and his proofs are correct… and there is nothing to add to them. And it would be proper to do this in every place where they are accustomed to stand; one should prevent them from doing so because of the possible damage to belief, as some people may imagine that there are various levels of Torah and that only some parts are exalted, and that is a very bad thing…” But despite Maimonides’   unequivocal answer, popular custom prevailed and people continued to stand during the reading of the Ten Commandments. For example, Rabbi Shmuel Abohav ( 1610 – 1694) was asked by the community in Reggio di Calabria, Italy, if it is correct to observe the custom of standing during the reading of the Ten Commandments. In his reply he states: “We rule to observe this custom which has spread over most of the congregations of Israel” . He justifies standing as an expression of honor and reverence, “As if we were welcoming the  Holy Presence(Shechina) on this great and awesome occasion(of Matan Torah). In his        opinion “there no longer exists the fear that the claims of heretics would affect believers the sons of believers”. In other words, past objections to standing were no longer relevant. He sums up: “Wherever this custom is observed let people cling to the customs of their fathers since their intention is for the sake of Heaven” (D’var Shmuel, Venice, 1702).

Prepared by: Devorah Abenhaim

Parshat Matot Masei On Tzlofchad’s daughters an epilogue

Jul 15, 2015 | Torat Devorah

In  commemoration of the 5th yahrzeit of our father and Zaidie, Cecil A. Labow – Zisse Alexander ben Yisrael Meir HaLevi Z”L,  on the 3^rd of Av

Martin S. Labow and Devorah Bat Sheva Abenhaim

Chapter 36 concludes the Book of Bamidbar. We are told that “the heads  of the fathers of the family of the children of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, of the families of the children of Joseph, approached and spoke before Moses and before the princes, the heads of the fathers of the Children of Israel”. A very long and detailed description which will set the tone for a discussion which we were first introduced to when learning about the laws of inheritance in chapter 27 of  Parshat Pinchas. We were told of  Zelophehad was the son of Hefer, who was a descendant of Manasseh, and who died in the wilderness without male issue(Bamidbar 26:33) “Lo hayoo lo banim, ki im banot”. His daughters requested of Moses that they be recognized as female heirs, and granted their father’s inheritance of the land. After all, they said, although he died in the wilderness, he was not “among the assembly that was gathering against Hashem in the assembly of Korach”(27:3). In fact Sifrei 133 explains that not only did he distance himself from “Adat-Korach”, he was not guilty of any other sin which caused others to sin. Mose’s did not have an answer….that it why we read “And Moses’s brought their case before Hashem”(27:5). Rashi tells us that this is a rare instance in which Moses had to actually ask Hashem for an answer before the halachah was revealed to him. The fact that he had to do so here indicates that the law had purposely been concealed from him(Gur Aryeh). Aggadah tells us that that the question of inheritance was very complex in that both Zelophehad and his father were among those who Moses had led out of Egypt. As the first born , Zelophehad was entitled, not to two portions, but to THREE, two as the first born, and one in his own right. This is probably why he had to defer to Hashem’s Divine decree, not knowing whether or not the daughters were entitled to the three portions! “And Moses’s commanded the Children of Israel according to the word of Hashem, saying “the tribe of the children of Joseph speaks properly”(36:5). The daughters of Zelophehad were given freedom of choice within their own tribe, to ensure that “an inheritance of the Children of Israel should not be redirected from tribe to tribe, rather the Children of Israel shall cleave every man to the inheritance of the tribes of his fathers”(36:7) We read that they, namely Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah became wives to the sons of their uncles. “To cousins from the families of the children of Manasseh, son of Joseph, did they become wives, and their inheritance remained with the tribe of the family of their father”(37:12)

Chazak! Chazak! Venitchazeik- Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!

Prepared by: Martin S. Labow and Devorah Abenhaim

Parshat pinchas on Tzlofchad’s courageous daughters

Jul 9, 2015 | Torat Devorah

The daughters of Tzelofhad…came forward…They stood before Moshe, Elazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, ‘Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (Num. 27:1-4)

Moshe was getting ready to divvy up the Land of Israel, as the people reach the end of their wanderings in the desert and prepare to enter this new stage of their national existence. But in the system being established by Moshe, land will be given only to men and passed on through men. Having no brothers, the sisters realize that there is no one to inherit what would have been the portion allotted to their father; their immediate family will not share in the Land. And so they come forward to petition Moshe for a different outcome. Moshe takes their plea to God – Who responds: “The daughters of Tzelofhad speak correctly; you will surely give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen, transfer their father’s share to them.” (27:6)

God goes on to impart to Moshe a more broad principle that in any case in which a man dies without living male descendants, his daughters then become his heirs.

The daughters of Tzelofhad accomplish something quite significant; a change in the law going forward that gives women a degree of rights that they did not have before – though it is true that they inherit only when there are no sons. The daughters of Tzelofhad are bold in taking action and asking for what they want, and they most certainly make history in a positive way.  There is an argument to make that the daughters of Tzelofhad are, in their way, quite “well-behaved.” They are, if anything, more well-behaved than the Israelite men, who have recently been acting rather inappropriately with those Midianite women.

The system Moshe is trying to establish for the Israelites is a society of God’s people in the Land. At this moment, one could argue (and certain rabbinic midrashim did) that these women have better values than the men to whom the land is supposed to go; they want their share of the Land more than the men do! They are not rebelling against the system, really; quite the opposite, one could say, they’re deeply committed to its values and want what the system wants, at least for its male members. And it’s this challenge of the system, coming from within the system and motivated by a commitment to the system and its ideals, that makes a historic change for the better.

It is interesting to note that when the daughters of Tzlofchad approached Moshe and asked to inherit their father’s portion of the land of Israel, the Torah tells us that Moshe did not respond to them immediately. Instead, he brought the matter before Hashem and asked what to do?  Many suggest that Moshe simply did not know the answer and therefore sought Hashem’s counsel. The Chafetz Chayim suggests that Moshe did indeed know the proper answer, yet he felt that he could not be objective. When the daughters of Tzlofchad came to Moshe they described their father as having died in the desert as a result of his own sin, and that he had not been one of the followers of Korach.  Rabbi Zwickler of NJ, comments: “Moshe was worried that perhaps his judgment of this case would be impaired because the episode of Korach was mentioned, and that situation touched him in a very personal way.  There are times in life when are asked to give someone advice or judge a persons behavior and we are challenged with the question of our own objectivity. In such situations it is important to be honest with ourselves and learn from the lesson of Moshe.”

Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim

Parshat Balak on differing prophetic styles

Jul 2, 2015 | Torat Devorah

The Midrash states: “What is the difference between the prophets of the Jewish people and the prophets of the nations of the world? The prophets of Israel forewarned the nations not to transgress. However the prophets of the nations created breaches to destroy mankind so that it should have no connection with the world to come. The prophets of the Jewish people expressed the Attribute of Mercy, while their prophets expressed cruelty. Bilaam, the prophet of the nations, wanted to uproot and destroy an entire nation. This is the reason the Torah tells us the story of Bilaam. It is so that one should understand why there is no longer Divinely inspired people (prophets) among the nations of the world. If the power of prophecy would be given to an individual from the nations, it would be used for destruction, as Bilaam had done. Bilaam, being given prophecy, is the reason the nations of the world cannot claim at the end of time that G’d did not grant them the same opportunity as He had the Jewish people.”

The Torah states when Bilaam was on the way to curse the Jewish people, “G’d’s wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of Hashem stood on the road to impede him. Bilaam was riding on his donkey…The donkey saw the angel of Hashem standing on the road with his sword drawn in his hand….” The Midrash asks, “Why did the angel have a drawn sword in his hand? The angel could have blown upon Bilaam and caused him to die. As we see regarding the destruction of the army of Sancherev. When Sancherev had come upon the Jewish people with millions of troops to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple, the verse states, ‘The angel of Hashem went forth and had smitten the camp of Ashure. He had blown upon them and they dried-up.’ Why did the angel come upon Bilaam with a drawn sword, when he could have simply blown upon him? The angel said to Bilaam, ‘The power of the mouth was given to Yaakov. As the verse states, ‘The voice is the voice of Yaakov and the hands are the hands of Esav.’ It also states regarding the nations of the world, ‘By the sword you shall live…’ But you, Bilaam, took hold of the craft of the Jewish people and came upon them with your mouth (to curse them). Therefore, when I come upon you I shall do so with your craft (the sword).’ This is the reason the angel came upon Bilaam with a drawn sword.”

Rashi cites Chazal who explain that before Balak commissioned Bilaam to curse the Jewish people he had consulted with the Midianites in order to ascertain the secret power of the leader of the Jewish people. They had told him that the power of their leader lies in his mouth, his verbal expression. They therefore summoned Bilaam to counter Moshe, with his power of expression to curse the Jewish people. However, Balak and the Midianites had no understanding of the essence of Moshe’s power. The effectiveness of Moshe’s ability emanated from his unique dimension of spirituality. Moshe had no relevance to evil, as Bilaam had. He was imbued with holiness only to carry out the Will of G’d. The only commonality between Moshe and Bilaam was that both of their expressions emanated from their mouth. Although Bilaam’s curse was lethal, as it had proven to be, it had no relevance to his spirituality; but rather, it was rooted in his evilness/physicality. Chazal tell us that when Moshe had killed the Egyptian in Egypt when he was beating a Jew, he had done so through the enunciation of one of the Names of G’d. His killing of the Egyptian, through verbal expression rather than a physical act, was an indication of the spirituality of Moshe. Bilaam was known for his “evil eye.” Chazal tell us that when Bilaam initially wanted to bless the Jewish people, G’d had said to him, “Do not bless them. They do not need your blessing.” It is as one says to a bee, “We do not need your honey and we do not need your sting.” This is because a blessing that emanates from an evil source is the equivalent of a curse.

Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim