October 31, 2015
Today’s NY Times – an illustrated guide to the 613 Jewish Commandments. Class: Seventeen congregants in attendance – plus Doi Cohan.
Page 132
RB: See And Hannah Wept by Michael Gold at http://www.amazon.com/Hannah-Wept-Infertility-Adoption-Jewish/dp/0827603061in response to a Jewish wife’s infertility per question raised last week. He also wrote Does God Belong in the Bedroom. http://www.amazon.com/Does-Belong-Bedroom-Michael-Gold/dp/0827604211
21:1 The Eternal now remembered Sarah… LL:  Can God forget? SamF: more “ignores” or “overlooks.” AF: It is a question of scheduling. RB: This notion of scheduling works with the Hebrew translation for “the appointed time.” SamF: It could also refer to human time – God’s time is unknown to us.
21:6 Hagar the Egyptian bears a son to Abraham. This is Ishmael. It is unclear what he was doing that disturbed Sarah. Note that she was the one who “set up” Abraham and Hagar and promised to accept Ishmael as her own. Why is there frequently a perceived threat from the second born? There is no story in Genesis in which the first born is dominant. This radically undermines the notion of primogeniture. The authors seem to be looking at attributes of leadership instead of birth order. It is notable that Isaac does not seem to be a high achiever and is most famous for almost being sacrificed.
21: 14 Early next morning…Hagar “places her son on her shoulder”, leaves and, when they run out of water, casts Ishmael under a bush. An Angel leads them to a well. Ishmael then becomes a bowman. Consider Ishmael in Moby Dick as the harpooner. Moby-Dick; or, The Whale (1851) is a novel by Herman Melville considered an outstanding work of Romanticism and the American Renaissance. A sailor called Ishmael narrates the obsessive quest of Ahab, captain of the whaler Pequod, for revenge on Moby Dick, a white whale which on a previous voyage destroyed Ahab’s ship and severed his leg at the knee. Although the novel was a commercial failure and out of print at the time of the author’s death in 1891, its reputation as a Great American Novel grew during the 20th century. William Faulkner confessed he wished he had written it himself,[1] and D. H. Lawrencecalled it “one of the strangest and most wonderful books in the world”, and “the greatest book of the sea ever written”.[2] “Call me Ishmael” is one of world literature’s most famous opening sentences. CL: It is notable that the Ishmael in Moby Dick is also an outsider as well as the only survivor of the voyage. Does the discarding of the second wife and her child perhaps constitute a criticism or even a rejection of polygamy? RB: Polygamy was not banned in Judaism until the 12th C. And that only applied to the Ashkenazic community – it continued among the Sephardim.
21:22 Abimelech and the water well. Abraham gives him seven lambs and calls the place “Beersheba” which means “they took an oath.” but is also a play on words for seven sheep.  Remember that Abraham also negotiates for Sarah’s grave. He is a negotiator and abjures force. This is an exemplary form of leadership. These vignettes also are fundamental to the Jewish right to the land. The land is purchased – not stolen or taken by force. This in contrast to the ultimate subjugation of the Canaanites.
21:32 Abimelech returns to the land of the Philistines. Abraham plants a tamarind tree.
22: 1 God tests Abraham by challenging him to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. Here is the famous phrase “Here I am.” An angel of the Eternal calls out to him and releases him from the obligation to sacrifice his son so Abraham offers a ram instead. LL When and why do the authors use the trope of an angel as messenger rather than have God speak directly? Is there a clear distinction between God and human? God takes on the manifestation of human? See the Essay The Messenger on page 138. RB: This is a major problem with the divinity of Jesus for Jews. Maimonides rejected the idea of God taking on human form as a way of rejecting Christianity. The Reform movement also rejects the notion that God can take on human form. SF There is a cabalistic notion here of an angel as a manifestation of divine force. There is a real force in nature that is beyond our consciousness. Note that Abraham returns to Beersheba without Isaac. The next time we read of Isaac he is in a place associated with his brother Ishmael. This account has been construed as an argument against child sacrifice – which still existed in other cultures.

Rabbi Berkowitz’s d’var Torah on parashat Vayera from our Shabbat evening services. Cross-posted to This is What a Rabbi Looks Like.

Each year, I get into an argument with my students about the merits of Purim versus Halloween. If you think about it logically, it makes far more sense to dress up and go house to house giving people candy than to bang on people’s doors and demand it. I never win this argument; just as I never win the argument that a headband with ears on it does not turn a mini-dress into a cat costume.

I don’t have anything against Halloween—or Jewish children’s participation in it. I don’t necessarily think Jewish schools should include it in the curriculum, but an American Jewish child trick-or-treating poses no spiritual threat for me.

I have happy memories of attempting to keep my costume visible under a puffy winter coat, of the spooky house where the local Drivers’ Ed teacher served hot apple cider out of a cobwebbed punch bowl, and of the annual post-trick-or-treat candy exchange with my brothers.

Now, for the first time, I’m preparing to experience Halloween from the other side of the door. And as I read this week’s Torah portion, I wondered: How would Abraham and Sarah welcome their trick-or-treaters?

Abraham and Sarah are known for the mitzvah of hachnasat orchim, welcoming guests, or what our movement now calls “audacious hospitality.” That distinction stems from this week’s Torah portion, Vayera, where Abraham and Sarah welcome three strangers into their home, who tell them that, after decades of infertility, they will finally have a child of their own.

Abraham, in this scene, is 99 years old, and recovering from major surgery. And yet, these few lines are punctuated with words for speed. Abraham runs from his tent to greet the wayfarers, he hurries to Sarah and tells her to hurry and make cakes for the guests. He runs to the flock and chooses a calf to serve the travelers, which his servant hurries to prepare. Though he does not yet know that the strangers are messengers from God, he offers them the royal treatment: water for drinking and bathing their feet, curds and milk and fatted calf to eat—there is no kashrut yet—and a place to rest under a shady tree. And though he is a pretty important person himself, Abraham even waits on the men as they eat (Gen. 18: 1-8).

The plain text shows that Abraham and Sarah go above and beyond to make their guests feel welcome. The rabbis craft legend upon legend of Abraham and Sarah opening their home to strangers and going out of their way to help those in need.

Some say that Abraham and Sarah’s tents were open on all sides, so that no one would have to go around in circles looking for a way in. They provided not only what the guests were accustomed to, but the finest of everything: wine, wheat bread, and meat. And they did not simply sit there and wait for guests to arrive: they went out into the world to invite people in, even setting up way-stations along the road where people could eat, drink and rest, wherever they happened to be (BOL 679:361, Avot 1:15/ARN 7).

In fact, the tamarisk or eshel tree that Abraham plants at the end of chapter 21 is said to be a wordplay on she-al, “asking,” as in “whatever you ask for, I will give you.” Or eshel could be an acronym for achilah (eating), shtiyah (drinking), and linah (lodging) or l’vayah (accompanying) depending on which rabbi you ask (Legends of the Jews v. 248, n. 225, EC 117, Plaut 145). Once the travelers had finished enjoying whatever Abraham and Sarah had provided for them, they were encouraged not to thank their hosts, but to praise God who had provided everything (Sotah 10a). Abraham and Sarah’s hospitality reminds us that food and drink and shelter are not ours to give, but God’s to share.

Is this how it feels to approach our door?

So how might the Jewish tradition help us to practice hachnasat orchim in our homes on Halloween? And what can the opening of our homes on Halloween teach us about audacious hospitality in our Jewish community?

First of all, what do you say when you open the door? I was an imaginative kid who loved dressing up, and often trick-or-treated as obscure literary characters or in costumes I had made myself, long after I should have been “too old.” And I speak from experience when I say that there is no more heartbreaking question for a costumed child than, “What are you supposed to be?”

These people weren’t trying to be mean or dismissive. They were just curious. They wanted to know what I was trying to be so that they could react appropriately.

Likewise, when people come into our synagogue, we’re curious to know who they are, so that we can respond accordingly. We strive to welcome people of all ages and backgrounds, all gender identities and sexual orientations, and from families of all shapes, sizes and compositions. Naturally, when we meet someone whose identity doesn’t fit into our preconceived notion of Jewish-ness, gender, or family, we’re curious.

When we ask questions like, “How did you become Jewish?” “Are your children adopted?” “Why is your last name McCarthy?” we may just be trying to get to know someone. But even our most basic questions may hit a nerve: when we ask a single person where his or her partner is, when we ask an infertile couple about their children, or when we ask a person of color when he or she converted, not realizing that this isn’t always the case.

Just as we might better welcome a trick-or-treater by saying, “What a great costume! Tell me more about it!” we might better welcome a new person to our synagogue by saying, “We are so glad you’re here! Tell us about yourself!” This sends the message to our children, and our guests: You are welcome in our home, we want you to be comfortable being whoever it is that you are, and we hope that you will tell us your story in your own time.

Click the pumpkin for more information.

Once someone is in the door, we, like Abraham and Sarah, want to provide them with the best of everything, and whatever it is that they need. This year, the Food Allergy Research and Education organization has asked that houses put out a teal pumpkin (or a sign with a teal pumpkin on it) to let trick-or-treaters know that there are non-food treats available for children with life-threatening food allergies.

This, also, has applications in the synagogue. We should strive to meet the needs of our guests: with allergy-friendly snacks, accessible facilities, and transliterated or large-print siddurim for those who struggle with Hebrew or reading. This also applies to the language we use: “partner” and “parent” rather than wife, husband, mother or father; “person from another faith background,” rather than “non-Jew.” By expanding our language, we are less likely to exclude someone who doesn’t fit into our original boxes.

And like putting the teal pumpkin on the porch, we need to let potential guests know that we are welcoming. What does it say on our lawn, on our door, on our website to let people know that we have what they need, and that we can provide a safe space for people in the LGBT community, for interfaith families, and for people with special needs. What would it be like to put on our front door: Come in! We have an elevator and gluten free cookies!?!

And if we were truly to be like the Abraham and Sarah of legend, we may not even want to make our trick-or-treaters come all the way to our house. In some communities, neighborhood groups set up a “trunk-or-treat” so that younger children can go from car to car in a lighted parking lot, rather than wander through a dark cul-de-sac, ringing doorbells.

This can be compared to Abraham stocking his warehouses on the side of the road. And it can inspire us to imagine ways that we can rush out to greet the people who need us. Where are the travelers passing through that we could go to meet them? And what kind of physical and spiritual sustenance can we provide for them along the way?

A Conservative colleague of mine once shared that, coming from a traditional household, trick-or-treating had not been an option. Instead, she stayed home with her family and passed out candy to the neighborhood children. How was this explained to her? “My father told us we were practicing hachnasat orchim.”

In the Genesis text, Abraham gives the calf to a servant to prepare for the guests. A midrash tells us that this servant was actually his son Ishmael, and that Abraham delegated this task so that Ishmael could learn the importance of welcoming guests (Gen. R. 48:13).

Centuries later, we are still learning from Abraham and Sarah how practice audacious hospitality. As we celebrate Shabbat as a community, and as we look forward to welcoming trick-or-treaters into our homes, may our doors be open wide, may our treats be both safe and sweet, and may we imagine new ways we can run out of our tents to do the mitzvah of welcoming guests.

Shabbat Shalom and, for the first time from the bimah, Happy Halloween.

October 17, 2015

page 69 The Tower of Babel and the genealogy of Abraham. What questions is this trying to answer and what message is it trying to send? In some respects it is very political – even with application to modern times..

11:1 Let us confuse their speech – the eternal scattered them over the face of the earth. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_01801.html  GT: The question is why there are different languages – it is an attempt at an explanation. SB: This sounds like midrash to me – an explanation instead of a pure narrative. MS: There is a contradiction here. They wanted to not be scattered but were scattered by God. MaryS: The notion of a tower to the sky seems to challenge God. LL: I agree. There seems to be a bit of hubris here and a punishment by being scattered. CL: This is not how bricks were made in ancient times. Tar as such would not have been used. It was bitumen – which is different. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat_of_Ur#Neo-Babylonian_restoration

AF: The people are organized and self managed and God worries that “no scheme of theirs shall be beyond their reach.” It is as if the tower is an idol and they are reaching beyond God. Shira – the language is reminiscent of Pharaohs’ in the sense that the people are becoming a threat. RB: Modern scholars believe this is a description of the construction of a ziggurat – a place where the divine and human can meet. That is a Babylonian notion and should be contrasted with the idea of man and God as separate – not mating with each other and having very special interactions. RB: We are still a people that like to make big things and are periodically warned about that. Look at global warming as an unintended consequence of human activity – or the loss of species. This could also be considered in praise of diversity. We have a dichotomy between a tower culture and a mountain culture. Ours was more of a mountain culture where our focus is nature – but we should not bow down before the leafy tree. We do build a structure for God – the mishkan and the Temple – which is destroyed. If this is being compiled in exile it may be an indirect reference to the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the people. Throughout the Torah there is a conflict between focus on the man-made vs spiritual values. SF: This is also a contrast between an agrarian and municipal structure of society. Our faith is people centered – neither tower or mountain. CL: The writers may have been seeing themselves differently than the people living between the Tigris and Euphrates. There the land was flat and each town had a patron God and was controlled by a priest. The Hebrew people clearly saw themselves and their society in contrast. SB: Nothing is permanent. LL: Acceptance of constant change is a very modern concept – starting with the Enlightenment. There were Egyptian societies and feudal societies that were very long –lived. It is just a matter of mind –set; what we are willing to accept. RB: There is a good deal of word play here based on the word “babel” for towers. They are mocking the Babylonian culture. This can also be viewed as rampant capitalism vs socialism – a focus on profit and outcomes instead of on people.

11:10 The line of Shem. See footnotes on page 70 and 71.. Noah had three sons. We are assumed to descend from Shem. AF: They seem to be establishing a basis for primogeniture here by emphasizing the importance of the first born. RB: That may be the norm but the rest of the Torah speaks against the norm by favoring the second son or, in the case of Joseph, the next to last. The writers seem to be intent upon contradicting the norm. LL: What is the purpose of establishing this lineage? It seems to place a premium on pedigree? What about the illegitimate child? Note that a “momzer” has a very defined meaning in ancient times. It was a child conceived illegally by contact with a married woman. A single woman was effectively married to whoever fathered her child.

11:27 The chronicle of Terah… The naming of the wives is a first. Terah only makes it halfway to his goal and there is much midrash about that. Abraham was able to complete his journey. Note that the midrash on the origin of Abrahams name dwells on where he came from, who his family was and where he stands. His people are called “ibri” – the people from across the river i.e. foreigners.

October 10, 2015

Page 29

We are now in the 3d of the triennial reading cycles.

4:25: “Adam was once again intimate for his wife… had knowledge of her… Then it was that the people began to invoke the Eternal…” This is a bit confusing in that Abraham is generally considered to be the first monotheist. Here the Eternal is invoked before Abraham. “There is no before or after in the Torah.” There is also a suggestion that this section marks the beginning of humankind. BR: Do the Rabbi’s discuss when life begins? What does this portion suggest as to that issue? RB: There is a reference elsewhere to the penalty for hurting a pregnant woman – that is not murder. The content of her womb is considered property – not life. Maimonides said that even during the birth process the fetus can be destroyed to save the life of the mother. The word “begot” here means “gave birth to.” So in that sense life begins at birth.

5:1 Genealogy with very long lives – leading to Noah.  Note that all of the numbers do not add up in the English translation – but they do in Hebrew. Life spans are drastically reduced after the flood. That was part of humankinds punishment for corruption.  See The Blue Zone for a discussion of longevity in the modern world. https://www.bluezones.com/ Note that there is no mention of woman being born. Adam begat sons and daughters but the daughters are never identified. What does “walked with god” mean here as to Enoch? It could mean a prolonged illness – a deep spirituality- or righteousness. JB At this pre-commandment time there were very few rules so it makes “walk with god” even more mysterious. This was prior to the giving of the Law. “God took him” could also mean that God took him so he would not be involved in the subsequent corruption.  The gematria here is extensive. See The Message Behind the Numbers at page 42.   One Hundred Twenty, seen as the ideal age, is 1 times 2 times 3 times 4 times 5. SN:  Methuselah’s longevity was enshrined by Gershwin see: http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/itaintne.htm

Methus’lah lived nine hundred years

Methus’lah lived nine hundred years

But who calls dat livin’ when no gal’ll give in

To no man what’s nine hundred years

I’m preachin’ dis sermon to show

It ain’t nessa, ain’t nessa

Ain’t nessa, ain’t nessa

It ain’t necessarily so

Some of these names are not seen again. See the software “Bibleworks.” http://www.bibleworks.com/

Note that Rabbi Berkowitz’s Midrash class starts on October 20^th.

6:1 Finally there is mention of daughters. Strange references to “divine beings” here. No divine female creatures. The rabbi’s don’t want to talk about all of this so there is very little midrash. Nepthali means “to fall.” Consider A Wrinkle in Time – the 4^th book is really a midrash on this section. This can also be read as a strong statement against the mythology that is found in other cultures – such as the Greek. It argues that there is no such thing as “superhuman.” See also Madeline L’Engel’s “Many Waters.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_L%27Engle

6:5 I will wipe the humans I have created off the face of the earth… but Noah found favor in God’s sight. See Midrash on handout sheets.

October 3, 2015

Page 1420

Epilogue: The Death of Moses. This is not a portion that would be read at a service. There is a Jewish tradition of not ending a reading or service with tragedy – that applies to all denominations. The author here is speculated to be the 2^nd Deuteronomist. It is similar in some ways to the ending of the Book of Genesis which ends with a blessing of the sons. Here there is a blessing of the tribes. We should consider who the author is favoring – if any. Note that the poem predates the rest of the text. Also, there is recitation of the fate of the tribes in the song of Deborah (Judges 5.)

33:1 This is the blessing of Moses and each of the tribes is named. The blessing of Reuben has a mixed messages here. His is one of the tribes that stay east of the Jordan with Gad.  Judah – a play on the word for “hands.” His descendants become the entire southern nation of the Promised Land – the southern kingdom. See Chart on page 1430 which summarizes how each of the tribes is characterized in Genesis, Judges and Deuteronomy – if they are mentioned at all. SF: There is an incident in which Judah slept with Tamara. RB: There are two incidents in which Judah did a wrong but later took responsibility for it.  Judah has sent Tamara away after her husband dies, she disguises herself as a prostitute and slept with Judah by tricking him. She took some identifying material from him which she later used to exonerate herself from a charge of prostitution. Judah owns up to his own mistakes and takes responsibility.  Hence, he is a flawed leader. SF: You need humility and courage to be a leader.  Judah means “now I will give thanks.”

The Levites: The reference here is to Moses striking the rock to obtain water. They are of the tribe of Moses; have responsibility for the Temple and have no land. The suggestion is one of rebelliousness with phrases like “who you tested” and “challenged.” LL:  I find the obscure reference to “Thummin and Urim” fascinating. Why would a society that was so strongly monotheistic and opposed to worship of other gods have oracular stones to reveal God’s will?

33:12  Here we see just a short comment about Benjamin and a very elaborate recital about Joseph. A glowing report for them. Joseph “rests between God’s shoulders…”  Note the poetic parallelism and merismus. Also, the tropes such as “… the favor of the Presence in the bush…”  The tribe of Joseph is subsequently divided into Ephraim and Manasseh.

33: 18 Zebulon, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Asher…  Again, the poetry is pre-exilic. According to the modern documentary hypothesis the poem was an originally separate text, that was inserted by the Deuteronomist into the second edition (of two) of the text which became Deuteronomy (i.e. was an addition in ‘Dtr2’).

The poem notably does not describe Simeon, which may provide a date for the composition of the poem, as Simeon are believed to have gradually lost their tribal identity, since its traditional territory was wholly within that of Judah. The poem also only mentions each tribe briefly, except for the tribes of Joseph and Levi, which may indicate both that the poem originated within the Levite priesthood, within the territory of the Joseph tribes, or more generally the northern kingdom of Israel where Ephraim, part of the Joseph tribe, was the most prominent.

It is difficult to establish the connection of the blessing of Moses with that of Jacob. Most authorities maintain that the former depended directly upon the latter; and their chief argument is based on the passage on Joseph, part of which is contained also in Jacob’s blessing. But there can hardly be a doubt^] that the passage on Joseph in Jacob’s blessing was amplified from the material contained in the blessing of Moses. Otherwise a similar argument might be based upon the same arrangement in each blessing of the tribes of Zebulon and Issachar, and upon other points of agreement which, however, indicate a similarity of the matter rather than any direct connection. At all events, there are striking differences between the two blessings.

AF: What is the basic purpose of a blessing. See:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_Moses SF: Blessings are conveying God’s energy to that person who is blessed. RB:  A form of channeling. There was a feeling that the border between human and divine was permeable. This is in the nature of a last will and testament – favoring one or the other children. This is an “ethical” will charging the “children” with responsibility. Blessings are frequently accompanied by a “laying on of hands.” This is done in the ordination of  rabbis and priests.

34:1 Moses ascends Mt. Nebo. God speaks to him further identifying the land but warns him that he shall not cross the Jordan. He dies at age 120 and his burial place is unknown.  Never again was there a prophet like Moses who the Eternal spoke to face to face. RB: There are four different authors here including the Yahwist – who we haven’t heard from in quite some time. Authorship is suggested by style and tone.(LL: There is a modern technique that uses computerized word frequency analysis.)  There is a transition here from a prophetic model to a rabbinic model. RB: This is her favorite Torah text because it relates to Genesis and God burying the dead. Moses dies by “divine kiss.”