The spiritual dimension of the Prayer shawl [tallit] for women -- Menachot 43a,b

       When my daughter gave birth to her firstborn, [my first grandson], she taught me new ways to care for infants. One of the things that was new to me was the practice of swaddling the baby. The American Academy of Pediatrics claims that a blanket wrapped snugly around the baby’s body can resemble the mother’s womb and can help soothe the newborn baby.

      Snuggle? Yes. When I wrap myself in the prayer shawl – the tallit -- I feel like a baby that is swaddled. I feel wrapped securely in my tradition that is like a womb. I sense as if I am being enveloped with the soothing caring presence of God. I actually believe that the tallit helps me contain my own energy next to my body, so that I can connect better with the Divine. Praying without a tallit gives me a different sensation. Reading the Torah without a tallit feels like I am half naked.

      So why, do you think, has the vast majority of Orthodox rabbis determined that women cannot pray at the Kotel with a tallit/tzizit (* ? Why would men want to deprive women of a spiritual dimension of prayer? After all, we learn that Jewish texts do not mention the prohibition for women to wear a tallit!! Yes! Women are exempt from the obligation to wear the tallit but are not forbidden to wear it! The exemption comes from the Torah that address the "positive time-bound commandments” which only men are required to perform. For example, like waving a lulav during Sukkot, the mitzvah of tzitzit is also time-bound since it applies only during the daytime.

     According to the Gemara in Menachot 43a, in Talmudic times some respected sages let their wives and daughters wear a tallit. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Amram used to attach the fringes to the garments of the women of the house --

  Rab Judah attached fringes to the aprons of [the women of] his household [For he held that women are also bound to wear tzizit]…  But since he attached [the fringes to the women’s garments], obviously he is of the opinion that it is a precept not dependent on a fixed time [For women must observe only those positive commandments that do not depend upon the time of the year or of the day for their performance].

The teaching continues to say that women are permitted to wear a tallit just like the others 
-- 

     Our Rabbis taught: All must observe the law of tzizit; priests, Levites, and Israelites, proselytes, women and slaves. R. Simeon declares women exempt, since it is a positive precept dependent on a fixed time, and women are exempt from all positive precepts that are dependent on a fixed time. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? It has been taught “and when you see it”, this excludes clothing worn at night.

      Wearing a tallit is not always a matter of halacha. It could also be a matter of a sociological/personal choice for many women I know. And despite the insinuations made by those who object to this practice, not all women who wear a tallit are doing so to fight for gender equality. They are not necessarily feminists who want to show that women can do what men do. They do not even care about the media and have no intention to upset the Ultra-Orthodox population. These women choose to wear a tallit because they find it meaningful on a spiritual level. Some will tell you that it helps them connect with God. Others will share that they want to fulfill a commandment that is dictated to all, not only to men. Basically, women challenge the position of Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Orakh Chaim 17:2) who felt that donning of a tallit by a woman would be an act of religious arrogance. While it is difficult for me to understand this logic, the variety of the most gorgeous feminine artistic tallitot you can find today, show the opposite. They bring a sense of pride for those who wear them, reminding them that they perform another mitzvah, which is Hiddur Hamitzvah -- the practice of excessively adorn a commandment with beauty. 

     The fact that the woman's tallit does not resemble the traditional pattern worn by men is actually in compliance with the decision of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (a 20th century orthodox rabbi) who did not reject or object to women wearing a tallit, as long as they use differently colored tallit to avoid confusion with men’s clothes (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim 4:39).

     It does not surprise me that the symbolic ritual of the tallit has become such a focal point at the Western Wall, stimulated by the group called the Women of the Wall. It is not a new debate, as it has been a debate for ages noted in the history of Jewish law, going back to the 11th century in Egypt, Europe and Israel. The difference is that today, the fight to wear a tallit at the Kotel by the Women of the Wall has a wider implication- the struggle for religious freedom for women without undermining halacha at all. 

     Today I am troubled to witness the lack of religious pluralism in Israel and I am equally  concerned that the ideal of Israel as a democratic Jewish state is fading. I am not happy to see the power of a minority group -- that of the Ultra–Orthodox, calling the shots in Israeli daily life. This is why I respect the Women of the Wall; by insisting on praying their way with a tallit, they lead the way for a better understanding of the Jewish law.
------------
*) Tzitzit is the Hebrew for the specially knotted ritual fringes attached to the four corners of the prayer shawl] to the garments of the women of their houses -- Note that a prayer shawl without the tzizit is not considered a tallit.

(C)Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

Ketubot 62b and Vayikrah

Dr. Ruth Calderon's speech in the Knesset is still in the thoughts of so many. It is amazing to see how her Talmudic teaching of Ketubot 62b turned to become a powerful tool to force us to look into what needs some extra attention in our own life. Gladly, I read an additional insight that I would like to share with you. In his new post today, Rabbi Marc Angel connected her speech to  the upcoming Torah portion of Vayikrah.

Published on Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals (http://www.jewishideas.org)

Sins Against Others, and Sins Against Ourselves: Thoughts for Parashat Vayikra, March 16, 2013

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

Ruth Calderon, a new member of the Israel Knesset, has a Sephardic father and an Ashkenazic mother. She was raised outside the Orthodox religious establishment in Israel, but has earned a doctorate in Talmudic literature from the Hebrew University. She works to bridge gaps among all segments of Israeli society.
In her inaugural speech in the Knesset, she made an impassioned plea for all Jews to draw on the wisdom of Torah. The Torah heritage does not belong to one segment of the Jewish population, but to all Jews.
In the course of her talk, she cited a Talmudic passage (Ketubot 62b) about Rabbi Rehumei who devoted his life to Torah study in the academy of Rava in Mehoza. Once a year, on the eve of Yom Kippur, he would leave the bet hamidrash to return home to his wife. One time, he was so engrossed in his studies that he forgot to return home. His wife was waiting eagerly for him. When she realized that he was not going to return, a tear rolled from her eye. At that moment, Rabbi Rehumei was at the yeshiva on the roof. The roof collapsed under him, and he died.
Ruth Calderon drew the following lessons from this story: One who forgets that he is sitting on another’s shoulders will fall. Righteousness is not adherence to the Torah at the expense of sensitivity to human beings. In a dispute, both sides feel they are right and are doing the right thing. Rabbi Rehumei believed that studying Torah was the highest value. His wife thought that she was more correct, since all the work and responsibility of the household fell on her while her husband simply sat and studied. Mutual respect comes about when each side seriously understands the position of the other.
These are important lessons. Yet, I think this Talmudic story may be interpreted in a different way. The odd details of the story raise many questions.
If Rabbi Rehumei was so devoted to Torah study, why did he get married in the first place? What kind of marriage is it where a husband visits his wife once per year? Even this one visit was on Yom Kippur when marital intimacy is forbidden, and when Rabbi Rehumei would likely have spent the day in synagogue praying rather than speaking with his wife. Why didn’t Rava, head of the academy, teach his student/s to be more responsible husbands? Why did Rabbi Rehumei’s wife tolerate such an impossible marriage? When the tear rolled from her eye, why was her husband on a roof, rather than in the bet hamidrash proper? And why would the roof have collapsed just then? Did other students get injured, or was Rabbi Rehumei the only victim?
I think the Talmudic story is indicating a transformation within the mind of Rabbi Rehumei’s wife (whose name is never given!). She had apparently been taught that it was proper for a husband to devote himself to Torah study, leaving all responsibility of the family and household to the wife. She had been “brainwashed” to think that this was the best and most pious way to serve God. She accepted these sacrifices for a number of years. If only her husband returned once a year, and even if that was only on the eve of Yom Kippur, she was willing to live within the system.
But when her husband failed her even on this one occasion, it dawned on her that her life had been a disaster. She was a victim of a “yeshiva system” that encouraged men to study Torah at the expense of the well-being of their wives. In fact, she had no real marriage to Rabbi Rehumei—he was away all year; his devotion was to Torah study, not to her. I don’t think the tear from her eye was the result of her disappointed longing for her husband; rather, it was a tear of mourning for her own wasted years of life married to a man who had no real concern for her. When the Talmud reports that Rabbi Rehumei was on a roof that collapsed, this may be a figurative way of saying that in his wife’s estimation, Rabbi Rehumei no longer was on a pedestal. When she understood how terrible her situation was, and how her husband had exploited her goodness for all these years, his status in her eyes plummeted. Whatever positive feelings she had toward him were now dead.
Some years ago, I heard a lecture by a prominent psychiatrist who described the following scenario. A husband and wife shared a bed and blanket; yet each morning, the husband woke up in bed with the entire blanket wrapped around him. The wife woke up on the floor, shivering, without a cover. The psychiatrist asked: who is the guilty party? The obvious answer is: the husband is at fault. He takes the bed and blanket for himself without consideration of his wife’s needs. The psychiatrist explained: yes, the husband is at fault. But equally at fault is—the wife!
Why is she at fault? She is the victim?
The answer: why didn’t she speak up for herself? Why didn’t she tell her husband that she had equal rights to the bed and blanket? Why did she accept an intolerable situation in silence, when she could have/should have confronted her husband to insist on an equitable arrangement? If she accepted the abuse in silence, then she shared in the responsibility for allowing the situation to persist.
I think this insight would have been helpful to Rabbi Rehumei’s wife. Why did she allow years of her life to pass in such an unsatisfactory marriage arrangement? Why didn’t she raise her concerns directly to her husband, or even to her husband’s teachers at the yeshiva? Why didn’t she speak with other such wives to see if they could work together to change a system that was so disdainful to the feelings of women? The system was allowed to persist due to the unwitting collaboration of the victims themselves!
Once Rabbi Rehumei’s wife shed her tear, I think that was a great moment of clarity for her. She now realized that she could no longer tolerate the status quo. She no longer wished to be married to such a man or to live within such an oppressive system. She also had rights, she also had feelings that needed to be respected, she also had her own legitimate desires and aspirations.
This week’s Torah portion describes various sin offerings that were brought as part of the Mishkan service. When we think of sins, we usually think of sins that we have committed against God’s commandments or against our fellow human beings. We also need to think about sins that we commit against ourselves!
We sin against ourselves when we allow others to exploit us, when we do not stand up for our own legitimate rights and needs. We sin against ourselves when we bend our heads under the weight of a corrupt system that does not really care about our real feelings and needs.
Much human suffering could be alleviated if we avoid seeing ourselves as victims, but rather see ourselves as responsible human beings who can—and must—shape their own destiny to the extent possible.

Marital sex is the context in Ruth Calderon's speech-Ketubot 62b

      In her February 12, 2013 inaugural Knesset speech, Ruth Calderon made a macro connection between politics and Talmud. I think it is also important to hear the micro message that is embedded in the Talmudic story – which has nothing to do with politics. One may wonder how her vision of her party ‘Yes Atid’ (‘There is Future’) is related to the story.

      She remarks on a story from Ketubot 62b about Rav Rechume who would study Torah with Rava in a very prestigious Yeshiva in Mehuza. He regularly came home once a year on the eve of Yom Kippur to be with his wife; One year his involvement in Torah study was so intense that he forgot to go home. His wife was in pain and cried. As her tears fell, the rooftop where the rabbi was studying collapsed and he died.

       Ruth Calderon’s conclusions from this story are as follows;

“What can I learn about this place and my work here from Rabbi Rechume and his wife? 

I learn that one who forgets that he is sitting on another’s shoulders – will fall. 

I learn that righteousness is not adherence to the Torah at the expense of sensitivity to human beings. 

I learn that often, in a dispute, both sides could be right, and I understand that my disputant and I, (the woman and Rabbi Rechume), can feel that they are doing the right thing and are both responsible for the home. Sometimes we feel like the woman, waiting, serving in the army, doing all the work while others sit on the roof and study Torah; sometimes others feel that they bear the entire weight of tradition, Torah, and our culture while we go to the beach and have a blast. Both I and my disputant feel solely responsible for the home. Until I understand this, I will not perceive the problem properly and will not be able to find a solution. I invite all of us to years of action rooted in thought and dispute rooted in mutual respect and understanding”.

     Looking at the context of this story in Ketubot 62b, we will see that it has to do with sexual obligations that are demanded from married men and women;– In Exodus 21:10 we read that marital sex is one of the woman's rights: ‘Her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage relations he shall not diminish.' The Talmud instructs that a man is obligated to sanctify married unions, and has to please his wife by having marital relations with her at the appropriate times, and also at other times when she so desires. The Talmud also specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation and that a man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations.

     Our Gemara now criticizes men who leave their wives for long periods of time for the sake of studying Torah. Although men can leave home without permission from their wives, and that women actually have no say in the frequency of marital relations, it shows that if a man believes that studying Torah is more saintly and more important than his obligation to be with his wife, God will eventually punish them for this transgression;

-“The Sages ruled: Students may go away to study Torah without the permission [of their wives even for] two or three years. Raba stated: The Rabbis relied on R. Adda b. Ahabah and act accordingly at the risk of [losing] their lives [i.e., they die before their time as a penalty for the neglect of their wives (v. Rashi]". 

     To illustrate the severity of improper “saintliness” concerning one’s wife, the sages use the story of Rav Rechume,

“Thus R. Rechume, who was frequenting [the school] of Raba at Mahuza used to return home on the Eve of every Day of Atonement. On one occasion he was so attracted by his subject [that he forgot to return home]. His wife was expecting [him every moment, saying.] ‘”He is coming soon”, “he is coming soon”. As he did not arrive she became so depressed that tears began to flow from her eyes. He was [at that moment] sitting on a roof. The roof collapsed under him and he was killed”.

     Rav Rechume dies because of the pain he inflicted on his wife. The Gemara continues with the story of Yehuda ben Hiyya, who dies because of a tragic misunderstanding when he did not return home from his Yeshiva;

     "Judah, the son of R. Hiyya and son-in-law of R. Jannai was always spending his time in the school house but every Sabbath eve he came home. Whenever he arrived the people saw a pillar of light moving before him. Once he was so attracted by his subject of study [that he forgot to return home]. Not Seeing that Sign, R. Jannai said to those [around him], ‘Lower his bed, for had Judah been alive he would not have neglected the performance of his marital duties’. This [remark] was like an error that proceeded from the ruler, for [in consequence] Judah's soul returned to its eternal rest". 

     Ruth Calderon’s macro message is not wrong when she equates Rav Rechume and his wife to the different factions in the Israeli political/social front, namely the conflict between the Ultra-Orthodox population and the secular Israeli. She wisely calls the nation to be considerate and mindful about these conflicts. And she is right to ask for clarity and acknowledgment of the pain of each member of its society as it is envelops with its dreams and ideals.

     On the micro level, I see another message in Ketubot 62b -- a message of caution for couples; no partner should be deprived of respect, love, pleasure or else because of a spouse’s extra hours of work in the office, extensive business trips or internet related work. Men or women who will spend too much time away from home will end up sacrificing their family unity and sanctity.

- What did you get out of the stories from this page of Gemara?

- Can you picture yourself as one of the characters of these stories?

- How frequently do you think a couple needs to see each other in order to maintain a positive relationship?

To listen to the speech click here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8nNpTf7tNo

Be true to yourself - Ask Zusya's question

 
     I always thought I was true to myself, but lately, I have been questioning what it really means in my life as a rabbi. Being the anthropologist that I am, I am in love with the spirituality of other cultures, but being the Jew that I am, I find myself adoring elements that are considered Idolatry in Judaism. If I meditate the Zazen style, I am told it is “Not Jewish”. When I adorn myself with a necklace made out of beads by the Massai, I am told I use idolatrous items.

      So, it was not surprising that I was deeply touched by the off-Broadway play “My Name Is Asher Lev” (Playwright Aaron Posner, adapting the novel written by Chayim Potok). I fully identified with Asher Lev, who as a religious man, posses a passionate artistic spirit. Even though his paintings are against all Jewish standards he cannot help himself but paint. His dilemma is how to please the two worlds he lives in; his faith, his parents and his community on the one hand, and himself on the other.

      Jacob Kahn, his art teacher labels Asher Lev “a whore” because he is now hiding his payos and is painting without expressing his true feelings. Asher rethinks what his teacher told him and becomes convinced that there is a difference between naked women and a nude. His father calls this “moral blindness.”

      The Talmud recognized our obligation to be honest when dealing with others and live with integrity, but perhaps, not emphasizing enough the need to live authentically with ourselves and with what we really are in order to feel whole. Tractate Shabbat 31a teaches —

           Raba said; When man is led in for Judgment [called to account before God] he is asked; “Did you deal faithfully [with integrity], did you fix times for learning, did you engage in procreation, did you hope for salvation, did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom, did you understand one thing from another.”

 What about being true to oneself? The Chasidic masters probably asked the same question, and came up with the following story about Rabbi Zusya of Hanapoli [you can find this story and more in the books "Tales of the Hasidim" by Professor Martin Buber];

      Once, the Hassidic rabbi Zusya came to his followers with tears in his eyes. They asked him:

"Zusya, what's the matter? 

And he told them about his vision; "I learned the question that the angels will one day ask me about my life."

The followers were puzzled. "Zusya, you are pious. You are scholarly and humble. You have helped so many of us. What question about your life could be so terrifying that you would be frightened to answer it?"

Zusya replied; "I have learned that the angels will not ask me, 'Why weren't you a Moses, leading your people out of slavery?' and that the angels will not ask me, 'Why weren't you a Joshua, leading your people into the promised land?"'
Zusya sighed; "They will say to me, 'Zusya, why weren't you Zusya?'"

This story brings up the question whether we choose to stay with our tendency to hide beneath a mask of pretense, or go a step further to explore our authenticity and express ourselves to its fullest. Surely, we need to avoid false relationship between ourselves and others. More than that, Carl Jung was right too:

      "In the final analysis, we count for something only because of the essential we embody, and if we do not embody that, life is wasted."

Asher Lev knows in his heart that he needs to be himself and here is a very strong quote from the book;

      “But it would have made me a whore to leave it incomplete. It would have made it easier to leave future work incomplete. It would have made it more and more difficult to draw upon that additional aching surge of effort that is always the difference between integrity and deceit in a created work. I would not be the whore to my own existence. Can you understand that? I would not be the whore to my own existence.”

What about you? Are you inspired by Asher Lev and Zusya?
Where are you not being true to yourself?
What makes you feel whole and complete?What makes you feel proud of yourself?



The Jewish Rain Dance - Ta'anit 23a

      What is there to do when we face a natural disaster such as droughts? Just this summer of 2012 we suffered one of the most severe droughts, including last year’s drought in the South Central states and an extreme five-year drought in the American West a decade ago.

     In April of 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke: “Now, therefore, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.” But after the rain had not arrived, he said in a speech in May, explaining how some of the nation’s most serious problems could be solved: “I think it’s time for us to just hand it over to God, and say, ‘God: You’re going to have to fix this”. In Jul 18, 2012, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was praying for rain to bring relief from the drought; “I get on my knees every day,” Vilsack told reporters at the White House today. “And I’m saying an extra prayer now. If I had a rain prayer or a rain dance I could do, I would do it.”

      What were these politicians thinking? Did they honestly believe that prayers for rain will affect the cosmos? Did they really believe that prayer and fasting for rain will stop a drought? According to anthropologists, prayers help people cope and feel that they are not helpless and can exercise a degree of control during unpredictable and uncontrollable events. This is the power of rituals, prayers, sacrifice and magic, which extract meaning, unity and peace of mind by doing something that make the connection with the divine stronger. Thus, the Native American tribes, for example (mainly in the Southwest) perform a ritual dance to ensure rain. This is their yearly summer Rain dance (known as the Snake Dance), when rain is needed for crops and droughts most often occur. Before the dance itself, the priests retreat to an underground religious structure (kiva) for 12 days, where they fast and pray.

      In the Mishnah and the Talmud (Tractate Ta’anit), there are many sections that are specifically dedicated to instructions of what to do during droughts. The rabbis instituted communal fasts, public prayers and sounding the horn when a drought was happening. They also included many prayers for rain in the winter times, and for dew in the summer time, standardizing them in the liturgy.

      A fascinating story about control and act of compelling the divine during a drought is in the Gemara - Ta’anit 23a. During a severe drought in Israel and after communal fasting and prayers rain did not come. The people approached their community sage, Honi, known as the “Miracle Maker”. He was able to directly communicate with God. He even had the liberty to engage in a chutzpadic dialogue with god;

             Once it happened that the greater part of the month of Adar had passed  and yet no  rain had fallen. The people sent a message to Honi the Circle Drawer: “Pray that rain may fall”. He prayed and no rain fell.

           He drew a circle and stood within it in the same way as the prophet Habakuk (2:1) had done, as it is said: ‘I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower etc.’ He exclaimed [before God]: “Master of the Universe, Thy children have turned to me because [they believe] me to be a member of Thy house. I swear by Thy great name that I will not move from here until Thou hast mercy Upon Thy children”!

         Rain began to drip and his disciples said to him: “We look to you to save us from death; we believe that this rain came down merely to release you from your oath”. Thereupon he exclaimed [to God]: “It is not for this that I have prayed, but for rain [to fill] cisterns, ditches and caves”. The rain then began to come down with great force, every drop being as big as the opening of a barrel and the Sages estimated that no one drop was less than a log.

      His disciples then said to him: “Master, we look to you to save us from death; we believe that the rain came down to destroy the world”. Thereupon he exclaimed before [God]: “It is not for this that l have prayed, but for rain of benevolence, blessing and bounty”. Then rain fell normally until the Israelites [in Jerusalem] were compelled to go up [for shelter] to the Temple Mount because of the rain. [His disciples] then said to him”: “Master, in the same way as you have prayed for the rain to fall pray for the rain to cease”.

      He replied: “I have it as a tradition that we may not pray on account of an excess of good. Despite this bring unto me a bullock for a thanks-giving-offering.”

So, as rain was still not satisfactory, Honi continued with his demands;

      They brought unto him a bullock for a thanks-giving-offering and he laid his two hands upon it and said: “Master of the Universe, Thy people Israel whom Thou hast brought out from Egypt cannot endure an excess of good nor an excess of punishment; when Thou wast angry with them, they could not endure it; when Thou didst shower upon them an excess of good they could not endure it; may it be Thy will that the rain may cease and that there be relief for the world”. Immediately the wind began to blow and the clouds were dispersed and the sun shone and the people went out into the fields and gathered for themselves mushrooms and truffles.

     It is clear that the Talmud does not really approve of magic or miracles and is ambivalent about them. However, there still is a Honi, who works like a shaman in a community. The head of the Sanhedrin was about to excommunicate Honi because of his practice to compel God, but Shimon ben Shetach excused Honi of his merit to have this special relationship with God.

      What can we learn from the story of Honi and what does it teach us about the power of prayer?

     So, how different is this story from what the Native American do when they dance to bring rain?

     In the age of weather predictability technology – do we still need to pray for rain, or is prayer alone a tool to help us deal with horrible situations?

Who needs criticism? TB Arachin 16b

Who likes criticism? Who enjoys hearing judgmental comments and faulty finger-pointing?

     One thing is for sure; I resent criticism, especially if it is harsh. I hate it when people put a mirror in my face and say: “Look at yourself… and see how wrong you are”. To be honest, it is often painful and difficult to take, even constructive criticism and correction.

     The act of criticism from a Jewish perspective, when offered among Jews in order to correct wrong behavior, is a Mitzvah, called tochecha in Hebrew or rebuke. Its origins are found in the Bible; “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely reprove your fellow; and not bear sin because of him.” (Leviticus 19:17) But we need to be aware of the fact that there are situations in which offering criticism does not help but only shames the person. So, how and when should we offer criticism? What kinds of risks are we taking?

     Based on this Biblical verse, the rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 16b explore the notion of rebuke. There is a similar principle in BT Shabbat 55a;

1. To rebuke is to fulfill a social obligation even if one refuses to accept the rebuke;

      From the repetition of the word 'rebuke' in the verse “rebuking you shall rebuke” or “you shall surely rebuke” we learn that there is an obligation to repeat the reproof, even though it was not accepted when administered first. Thus, rebuke is a social obligation.

         Our Rabbis taught: …Whence do we know that if a man sees something unseemly in   his neighbor, he is obliged to reprove him? Because it is said: ‘You shall surely rebuke’.
If he rebuked him and he did not accept it, how do we know that he must rebuke him again? The text states: ‘surely rebuke‘ anyway. One might assume [this to be obligatory] even though his face blanched, therefore the text states: ‘You shall not bear sin because of him’.

     When the rabbis discuss how and when to rebuke another person they acknowledge the fact that there are people and contexts in which offering rebuke does not help. Here, we find a number of principles;

2. Human beings have a hard time taking criticism;

     R. Tarfon said, “I wonder whether there is anyone in this generation who can accept reproof, for if one says to him, ‘Remove the mote from between your eyes,’ he would reply, ‘Remove the beam from between your eyes!’ ”

     Rabbi Tarfon observed that people no longer accepted criticism as an act of love. Instead of listening openly to a description of how they had acted inappropriately and then working to modify their behavior to remove that flaw, the object of rebuke would respond defensively by either ignoring or insulting the person who had highlighted the error.

3. It is an art to know how to criticize in the right way;
    
      R. Eleazar ben Azariah said, “I wonder if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to rebuke!”

     Rabbi Eleazer ben Azaria begs us to think about the right way to criticize another person. Even if we do not mean to insult or hurt, we do offer words that push buttons. What words should we use or avoid?

4. One who wants to improve oneself will want to hear criticism because he/she knows that it will make him/her better, and will consequently love the one who criticism him/her.
    
      R. Yochanan ben Nuri said, “I call heaven and earth to witness for myself that Akiba was often rebuked by me, for I used to complain against him before Rabban Gamliel, and he showered love upon me all the more, fulfilling what has been said, Do not rebuke a scoffer, for he will hate you; reprove a wise person and he will love you (Proverbs 9:8).”

     However, contrary to Arachin 16b, the Talmud commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1105), emphasizes a different principle; that one should not offer criticism if it will not be heard or obeyed, and no rebuke should be addressed to one who is sure to ignore it, as the Babylonian Talmud in Yevamot 65b puts it; 

     R. Ile'a further stated in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: As one is commanded to say that which will be obeyed so is one commanded not to say that which will not be obeyed. R. Abba stated: It is a duty; for it is said in Scripture (Proverbs 9:8); Do not reprove a fool, as he will hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you. 

     Now, let’s face it. It is so much nicer to be praised, so why would anyone accept rebuke? But since criticism is a social control - mechanism and a fact of reality, perhaps the question is not why people should accept rebuke, rather I suggest the question – in what way we should offer rebuke. A rebuke properly offered, without anger or attitude, for example, could become an act of affirmation and love, not resentment. It shows that we care enough about this person and want to help correcting wrong doing. In addition, my colleague Hune Margulies from the "Martin Buber Institute Dialogical-Ecology" offered another important question:

"Who can consider himself qualified enough to offer truly useful rebuke? or morally worthy? are we rebuking someone for sinning differently than we do? we cannot learn how to fly because we are not meant to, and likewise it so hard to learn how to rebuke because maybe we shouldn't".

Friends, colleagues and family who are willing to point out our errors offer us a gift. How else will it be possible to correct wrong doing? By looking at the mirror that they place in front of us we can understand that the way we act depends on how others perceive our actions, and we need to respect that as well.

     Yes. There is a lot we can learn from criticism even though it may appear negative. If we wish to improve and develop we should invite constructive criticism and appreciate their suggestions.

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

The angels among us

              Often, when I minister pastoral care for patients before their upcoming surgery I offer them a small section from the bedtime Sh’ma prayer;

In the name of Adonai
the God of Israel:
May the angel Michael be at my right,
and the angel Gabriel 'strength of God'. be at my left;
and in front of me the angel Uriel,
and behind me the angel Raphael 'healer of God'
and above my head
the Sh'khinah.

          Patients tell me that they feel comforted by this prayer and share that it gives them the opportunity to visualize a connection with the divine. The skeptics may ask; “where are these four angels? I really cannot see them.”

·       When Abraham was sitting outside of his tent after his circumcision and the three visitors came to his tent, he did not know they were angels. The Gemara in Baba Matzia 86b asks; “Who were the three men”?

The Gemara answers; “Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Michael came to bring the tidings to Sarah [of Isaac's birth]; Raphael, to heal Abraham and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom”.

 The Gemara continues; “But is it not written “And there came the two angels to Sodom at evening” (Gen. 19:1)? The answer; Michael accompanied him [Gabriel] to rescue Lot”.

          Although Lot calls them angels, the people who wanted to hurt the angels referred to them as People; “And they called out to Lot; where are these people who came to you at the night”? (GEN. 19:5)

·       When Jacob was wrestling until dawn with an unknown man, Jacob did not know he was dealing with an angel. The Gemara in Chulin 91b describes the scene:

  “... and the man said to Jacob: ‘let me go since the dawn has broken’ (Genesis 32:27). But Jacob said: ‘Are you are thief or a kidnapper that you are afraid of the dawn’? The man said: ‘I am an angel. And from the day I was created my time did not come to sing [to God in the morning service] until now’.

And the Gemara continues; “This supports the teaching of R. Hananel in the name of Rav; three assemblies of ministering angels sing praise each day. One sings “Holy”. Another sings “Holy” and another sings “Holy is the Lord of Hosts”.

          From here, the Gemara explains the Divine mission of this angel is. This, in fact, reflects our liturgy today. In our daily prayers we refer to the songs of praise which the angels sing before God.

          So, we really do not need to look for winged entities in order to be convinced they exist. The Gemara in Yoma 37a tells us that we, as humans, can emulate angels;

“….. And we have learned in a Baraita (an eternal source for the Talmud), that when three [students] walk [with their Master], the Master ought to be in the middle, the greater of two on his right, and the other on his left. And so we find that of the three angels that came to Abraham, Michael was in the middle, Gabriel on his right, and Raphael on his left.

R. Samuel b. Papa explained before R. Adda, that it is meant, he should walk on his right, but a little behind, and not side by side. Did we not learn in a Baraita that he who precedes the Master is rude, and he who walks behind his Master is too ostentatiously humble? He should fall a little back--not precede, and not follow.

          The important item that Rashi adds is that by this composition of walking, the students, walking alongside to their Master protect him, just like the angels as described in the bedtime Sh’ma.

          I think that one way to ‘see’ angels is to look around and watch how people act. Midrash Tanchuma reassures us that there are angels among us. These are created through the deeds of man. When one does a good deed, God gives this person one angel. If one fulfills two good deeds God gives this person two angels, and so on. Many of us are performing good deeds and thus are granted angels. All we need to do is recognize who they are. At difficult times look in people’s eyes and you will find the angel who carries God’s essence. Could your doctors and nurses at the bed side be the angels at time of a health crisis? Could a child who helped your elderly mother be an angel? Or, perhaps, could it be you who carries out a divine mission to help others? 

            Each one of us carries the divine and is an angelic being, but it is not obviously recognized that our own body is a container of angelic energy. It is not easy to realize a world that is beyond the material. It was called by the Baal Shem Tov “seeing the Divine Presence in everything”. This time, we are asked not only to become aware of who is in our community, but also to recognize the spiritual essence that lies behind the external form of people. Perhaps God’s intervention is manifested by each one of us for each one of us through the angelic metaphorical essence. May we be guided by angels that God implanted among us. Let us affirm; “Here, God is sending me an angel and God’s Name is within him or her” and remember that we do not journey alone.

Modesty? What is this all about?

In light of what happened in Beth Shemesh, when Ultra-Orthodox men made an innocent 8 years old girl an outcast, I have been very upset. Why is it the woman who is blamed for the uncontrolled sexual desires of men. Why does a little girl become a sex object in the eyes of men who are constantly trying their best to demoralize Jewish women and dis-empower women?

A timely Op-Ed in the NY Times a few days ago makes some good points. While Orthodox men today claim that controlled sexuality in men is women's solely responsibility, the Talmud teaches the opposite. The men should be responsible for their own actions and how they interact with women.

Read this article below:

Op-Ed Contributor

Lechery, Immodesty and the Talmud

By DOV LINZER  January 19, 2012

IS it possible for a religious demand for modesty to be about anything other than men controlling women’s bodies? From recent events in Israel, it would certainly seem that it is not.

 

Jennifer Uman

Last month, an innocent, modestly dressed 8-year-old girl, Naama Margolese, living in Beit Shemesh, described being spat on and vilified by religious extremists — all men — who believed that she did not dress modestly enough while walking past them to the religious school she attends. And more and more, public buses in Israel are enforcing gender segregation imposed by ultra-Orthodox riders in and near their neighborhoods. Woe to the girl or woman who refuses to move to the back of the bus.

This is part of a larger battle being waged in Israel between the ultra-Orthodox and the rest of Israeli society over women’s place in society, over their very right to have a visible presence and to participate in the public sphere.

What is behind these deeply disturbing events? We are told that they arise from a religious concern about modesty, that women must be covered and sequestered so that men do not have improper sexual thoughts. It seems, then, that a religious tenet that begins with men’s sexual thoughts ends with men controlling women’s bodies.
This is not a problem unique to Judaism. But the Talmud, the basis for Jewish law, offers a perhaps surprising answer: It places the responsibility for controlling men’s licentious thoughts about women squarely on the men.

Put more plainly, the Talmud says: It’s your problem, sir; not hers.
The ultra-Orthodox men in Israel who are exerting control over women claim that they are honoring women. In effect they are saying: We do not treat women as sex objects as you in Western society do. Our women are about more than their bodies, and that is why their bodies must be fully covered.

In fact, though, their actions objectify and hyper-sexualize women. Think about it: By saying that all women must hide their bodies, they are saying that every woman is an object who can stir a man’s sexual thoughts. Thus, every woman who passes their field of vision is sized up on the basis of how much of her body is covered. She is not seen as a complete person, only as a potential inducement to sin.

Of course, once you judge a female human being only through a man’s sexualized imagination, you can turn even a modest 8-year-old girl into a seductress and a prostitute.

At heart, we are talking about a blame-the-victim mentality. It shifts the responsibility of managing a man’s sexual urges from himself to every woman he may or may not encounter. It is a cousin to the mentality behind the claim, “She was asking for it.”
So the responsibility is now on the women. To protect men from their sexual thoughts, women must remove their femininity from their public presence, ridding themselves of even the smallest evidence of their own sexuality.

All of this is done in the name of the Torah and Jewish law.
But it’s actually a complete perversion. The Talmud, the foundation of Jewish law, acknowledges that men can be sexually aroused by women and is indeed concerned with sexual thoughts and activity outside of marriage. But it does not tell women that men’s sexual urges are their responsibility. Rather, both the Talmud and the later codes of Jewish law make that demand of men.

It is forbidden for a man to gaze sexually at a woman, whether beautiful or ugly, married or unmarried, says the Talmud. Later Talmudic rabbis extended this ban even to “her smallest finger” and “her brightly colored clothing — even if they are drying on the wall.”

To make these the woman’s responsibility is to demand that Jewish women cover their hands, and that they not dry their clothes in public. No one has ever said this. At least not yet.

The Talmud tells the religious man, in effect: If you have a problem, you deal with it. It is the male gaze — the way men look at women — that needs to be desexualized, not women in public. The power to make sure men don’t see women as objects of sexual gratification lies within men’s — and only men’s — control.

Jewish tradition teaches men and women alike that they should be modest in their dress. But modesty is not defined by, or even primarily about, how much of one’s body is covered. It is about comportment and behavior. It is about recognizing that one need not be the center of attention. It is about embodying the prophet Micah’s call for modesty: learning “to walk humbly with your God.”

Eight-year-old Naama could teach her attackers a thing or two about modesty.

Dov Linzer, an Orthodox rabbi, is the dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School in the Riverdale section of the Bronx.

 A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 20, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Lechery, Immodesty And the Talmud.

Prayers at end-of life and advanced directives – Ketubot 104a

It is often that I am invited or asked to offer a prayer for healing for people who are sick. Even those who claim that they do not believe in prayer per se are willing to listen to a prayer when they are ill. And those who claim that they do not believe in praying for someone, are found to express verbally in some way or another encouragement and hopes for their loved one. The difficulty arises when there is so much pain involved, when there is no quality of life anymore, and no hope left for recovery or survival. Not always we feel that we have the permission or feel free to pray for a speedy death. Some tell me that they feel phony by giving ‘false hope’ and they also feel guilty when they wish that suffering should end with death.


In the Gemara in Ketubot 104a we read of a case, where prayers for healing could make the difference between life and death;

     On the day when Rabbi [R. Judah haNasi (135-220 C.E.) compiled the Mishnah] died the Rabbis decreed a public fast and [before that] they offered prayers for heavenly mercy [that he would not die].

     Rabbi's handmaid ascended the roof and prayed: 'The immortals [the angels] desire Rabbi [to join them] and the mortals [humans] desire Rabbi [to remain with them]; may it be the will [of God] that the mortals may overpower the immortals'. When, however, she saw how often he resorted to the privy [He was suffering from acute and painful diarrhea] painfully taking off his tefillin [These must not be worn when the body is not in a state of perfect cleanliness] and putting them on again, she prayed: 'May it be the will [of God] that the immortals may overpower the mortals'. As the Rabbis incessantly continued their prayers for [heavenly] mercy she took up a jar and threw it down from the roof to the ground. [For a moment] they ceased praying and the soul of Rabbi departed.

While Rabbi Judah’s handmaid, but not the rabbi's. students, is praised in the Gemara for her actions, as she understood when enough is enough, the Jewish law sanctions passive euthanasia -- at least in those cases in which the dying individual is incurable and/or is in great pain. Take this Talmudic story and parallel it with what is going on in our society. If prayer could be paralleled with our advanced medical technology to prolong life (many times at all costs), there is an awareness that actions such as termination of life support create potential moral and medical conflicts between health care providers, family members and patients. The ongoing discussion whether it is or it is not ethical to disconnect the machine causes terrible tension to arise. It is especially very sad when family members or health care providers insist on providing care where there is no hope for recovery.

In the USA, the term ‘euthanasia’ has a negative connotation and implies helping death even when there IS hope. This is not what I am talking about. I am clearly advocating for assisting death with Comfort Caring Care when the time is right.   

Similarly, Reform Rabbi Solomon Freehof of the 20^th century claims that just the way a man and woman have the right to live; they also have the right to die with dignity. He concludes that if one may pray for the death of the hopeless ill, one may take other measures which will promote the inevitable end.

In light of my experience as a chaplain, I know that there are some ways to bypass some of the ethical questions and dilemmas that family members and health care providers are faced with and deal with. I refer to the Advance Directives form that everyone can complete even way before sickness strikes -- and this can be achieved even without any attorney. This advanced medical decision allows our given autonomy to instruct family and physicians in advance, what kind of treatment should be given when End of Life knocks at the door. Some patients choose the DNR, some want no heroic measures and others want all to be done. I have to admit that Advanced Directives are not always followed… or patients change their mind during crisis, but at least for the most part, it gives family members a peace of mind (ideally, but not always) and dignity could be achieved.

Today's concepts of Advance Directives presume an individual autonomy that was not presumed in Talmudic times. But the account in Ketubot 104a of the anonymous maid of Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, and how she changed her prayer as Rabbi was dying, remains a powerful primary resource for Jewish end-of-life decision-making. 


I have presented a very complicated topic in a rather simplistic way. But, I still would like to send out my encouragement that we keep praying for our loved ones when they need the extra energy to go on. Together with my suggestion to let the conversations of Advanced Directives start with family members as we exercise the ability to listen to one another with love, understanding and – prayers.

About the One Who is Not Forgiven

Quiet often we are instructed to feel obligated to forgive our loved ones and other relations. As I wrote in the previous post, it is important to act in a Godly manner and bypass anger with forgiveness and mercy. Rarely do I hear discussions about the severe negative impact that non-forgiveness has on the person who is not granted forgiveness.

  It is important to focus on what goes on with a person who was not forgiven. Recently I met with Sara (not her real name) who shared a very painful story about not being forgiven by  (what was) her best friend -- a story full of anger, sadness and toxic energy.  

In Sara’s description, the mere thought of this person gives her pain. She said: “I feel like a knife is stubbing my heart every time I am around this individual.” I tried to re-direct her attention from painful feeling of “not being forgiven” to a more positive understanding of it, but Sara kept expressing her anger and sadness. I also sensed her deep mourning for the loss of this friendship by holding onto grievance. In a way, she has been forced to keep this individual in her life, while in fact - he is no longer a part of it.

Sara claims that in order to obtain forgiveness, she acted according to the Jewish ethical law. She sincerely apologized three times for the wrong she committed against this friend. Still, her friend refused to grant forgiveness. This law is described in the Gemara, Yoma 87a;

R. Jose b. Hanina said: One who asks pardon of his neighbor need do so no more than three times, as it is said: Forgive. I pray thee now . . . and now we pray thee (in Gen. 50:17 the brothers, in their appeal to Joseph to forgive the wrong they had done to him, use the term ‘na’ [O, pray] three times).

The Gemara in Baba Kamma 92a also teaches;

Our Rabbis taught: ….For regarding the hurt done to the feelings of the plaintiff, even if the offender should bring all the 'rams of Nebaioth' in the world, the offence would not be forgiven until he asks him for pardon…

Sara believes that if one truly asks for forgiveness there is no option but to forgive this person as an obligation; Maimonides writes in Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 2:10

”It is forbidden to be obdurate and not allow yourself to be appeased. On the contrary, one should be easily pacified and find it difficult to become angry. When asked by an offender for forgiveness, one should forgive with a sincere mind and a willing spirit... forgiveness is natural to the seed of Israel."

            Unfortunately, Sara’s ex-friend cannot get over the hurt. But, there is nothing more that Sara can do in order to un-do her hurtful deeds. Perhaps the only thing that was and is left – is to seek redemption and repentance by apologizing. Thus, anyone who denies forgiveness after being begged for it is cruel!  The Mishnah in Baba Kamma 92a also believes it is so;  

 Mishna; even though the offender pays him [compensation], the offence is not forgiven until he asks him for pardon… whence can we not learn that should the injured person not forgive him he would be [stigmatized as] cruel?

            I hope that all of us would have the ability to forgive because forgiveness is a great gift that could be given to others. It helps release pain and relieves emotional turmoil - for both parties involved. Let us show this high moral and divine quality in us that could repair and build, not destroy and tear down. As the Gemara in Ta’anit 25a informs us that the prayers of the great sage, Rabbi Akiba were answered because he was forbearing and forgiving, I pray that we could be like Rabbi Akiba and spare the pain that Sara shared with me;

.

R. Eliezer long prayed for rain but was not answered. R. Akiba came up to the Bima, offered a prayer of a few verses, and rain descended. A voice from heaven was heard to say, “It's not that R. Akiba is the greater man, but R. Eliezer remembers his wrongs and those who wronged him, and R. Akiba forgets”.

May My mercy suppress My anger; Berakhot 7a

     Often when we feel angry with someone who hurt us in any way, we seem to forget all the positive qualities that still exist in that person. We may feel that revenge is essential and that the relationship is doomed. As the Jewish nation is approaching the High Holiday season, aka Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Jewish people are encouraged to forgive those who hurt them, to love and be kind to those who are not exactly “loveable” and worthy. There are many who are faced with the serious dilemma how to forgive with kindness and compassion. People do not know how to take a complete primary, natural, and mature emotion such as anger and transform it to love and forgiveness. And worse is the fact that many feel guilty about not being able to bypass their anger.

            There is a lot to say about the ways to manage anger. I am sure you are aware of the many workshops and life coaching sessions that are offered worldwide. I personally know people who have been going to psychotherapy for years and years, yet, not being able to forgive an abusive father or attend lovingly to a friend who betrayed their trust. So, how about a new way to look at anger management?

           Actually, I do not have the perfect solution to offer you. But instead, I would like to share a very special text from the Gemara that is dear to me and gives me the chill everytime I read it. It might give us an important insight of what it means to manage anger. It is a text that teaches us that anger management is required not only of us, but also of God. The rabbis in the Talmud have no hesitations to claim that God has the need to pray, just like us; that God needs human’s blessings just the way human need God’s blessings; and that God needs to meditate on controlling anger with mercy, just like the way we are told to do.

The text of interest is in Berakhot 7a and starts with the following;

What does God pray? R. Zutra b. Tobi said in the name of Rab: “May it be My will that My mercy may suppress My anger, and that My mercy may prevail over My [other] attributes, so that I may deal with My children through the attribute of mercy and, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice.”

            The rabbis teach us that God may lack full control over God’s own actions and emotions, but God does not give up the wish to repair anger with mercy. It is an amazing thought that from all prayers, God needs to pray this particular prayer about repairing anger with mercy.
And the Gemara continues:

            It was taught: R. Ishmael b. Elisha* says: I once entered into the innermost part [of the Sanctuary] to offer incense** and saw Akathriel, the Lord of Hosts, seated upon a high and exalted throne. God said to me: Ishmael, My son, bless Me! I replied: ”May it be Your will that Your mercy may suppress Your anger and Your mercy may prevail over Your other attributes, so that You may deal with Your children according to the attribute of mercy and may, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice!” And God nodded to me with his head. From this we learn that the blessing of an ordinary person must not be considered lightly in your eyes.

----

* One of the lasts High Priests of the Second Temple, around the first century of the Common Era.

** Once a year, on Yom Kippur, only the High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies.

            We see that God is asking a human for a blessing. Rabbi Ishmael blesses God with the same words that God uses in God’s own prayer. Mainly, that God should let the attribute for mercy win over the attribute for anger. Rabbi Ishmael wishes for God that God should conquer the inner psychological struggle, just the way we are encouraged to do over and over again. God is struggling along with us. Then, God nods to affirm the blessing with silence and acceptance. Rashi says that it means that God is saying Amen to Rabbi Ishmael’s prayer.

            God and Rabbi Ishmael are mirrors of each other and a there is a sense of intimacy between them. If we believe that we are created in the image of God, I would suggest that this scenario should be taken as a model of how to form our understanding of feeling of anger, mercy and forgiveness.  Perhaps we could be inspired and comforted by this image of God that is struggling to keep the balance between anger, mercy and judgment.  Perhaps we could take it upon ourselves to remember that it is OK for us to struggle with the same issues with no guilt as well.  

            Furthermore, I would suggest that when we keep meditate and remind ourselves that the goal is mercy, not anger, we might be able to shift things around subconsciously and gain the strength to easily forgive. And this way of thinking should be done not only before the High Holidays, but all year around. And then we may ask God to help us to forgive those who have hurt us.

            What are your issues with anger and forgiveness? Is this Gemara helpful to you at all?


© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

The Spirituality of Na’aseh Ve’nishmah; Shabbat 88a

        Preparing for this week’s festival of Shavuot, I wonder about the real meaning of the unconditional commitment that the Israelites proposed. As they stood at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, they said to Moses; Na’aseh Ve’Nishmah --  “We will DO [observe the Laws] and then we will listen/understand ” [study these laws]. An outsider would think that we have a nation that is unrealistic and quick to make decisions. Personally, I could see how strange it could be to get involved in something without knowing what the rules of game are. Just like being used to have a User Guide Manuel for new items that I buy. First comes the understanding, and then comes the action. Indeed, the Gemara in Shabbat 88a relates that;

 A foreigner (Nochri) said to Rava, "You are a hasty nation, who put its mouth before its ears [when you said 'Na'aseh v'Nishma' and accepted to do the commandments even before you heard what those commandments are]."

         On the other hand, there seem to be some merit to the Israelite statement. The Gemara in Shabbat 88a reflects the idea that the People of Israel have taken upon themselves a special task that deserves an award. For the rabbis, the words na'aseh v'nishmah indicates the worthiness of the Jewish people for divine revelation.

R. Simai lectured: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hear ,' six hundred thousand ministering angels came and set two crowns upon each man of Israel, one as a reward for  'we will do,' and the other as a reward for 'we will hear'.

      But, what exactly made the People of Israel worthy of the divine revelation? Why do they get the reward? The rabbis felt that the Israelite must have been special as they were able to tap into a divine secret and managed to imitate what the angles do. Just as the angels know first to obey and then to understand God's word, so too the People;

R. Eleazar said: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hear,' a Heavenly Voice went forth and exclaimed to them; “Who revealed to My children this secret, which is employed by the Ministering Angels?

Another way the rabbis show that the People of Israel were unique is by comparing them to an apple tree. The Gemara cites the verse, "[He is] like an apple tree ("Tapu'ach") among the trees of the forest..." (Shir ha'Shirim 2:3). … just as an apple tree reverses the natural order and produces its fruit before its leaves, so, too, the Jews reversed the natural order at Mount Sinai when they said "we will do" before "we will hear." The implication of the Gemara is that the apple tree is different from all other trees, and so are the Israelite. While other trees produce leaves before fruit, the apple tree produces apples before it sprouts its leaves.

R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: What is it that was said: “As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons; in his shadow I like to sit and its fruit is a delight to my palate” (Song of Songs 2:3).  The two lovers in this poem were regarded as God and Israel.  Why were the Israelites compared to an apple tree? Why were Israel compared to an apple? To teach you that; just as the fruit of the apple tree precedes its leaves, so did the Israelites give precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken' [my translation].*

          Perhaps Israel is unique, but I think that each one of us has the same merit. I speculate that the People of Israel could have not reached this point of the “unrealistic” decision if they were not at a high state of a consciousness shift. And so do we, need to reach a special spiritual level to be able to be a doer before a thinker. The People of Israel must have been in a highly meditative state. They were at the moment where they completely trusted the process, mainly – God, and let go of control. They prepared for this time by getting themselves pure. They already established the intention to be there and obey no matter what. This was their time to BE-Come. They were ready to create an identity for themselves, so by challenging themselves, they went beyond the ordinary. They trusted! Perhaps they were able to inject a balance between actions and their intentions, so that their well being could remain intact? Perhaps they found the balance between their relationship to the divine and their own inner sense of well being and trustfulness?

          If I were standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, I too, would have chosen to first commit to Doing and then to Understanding. I believe that when we allow ourselves to be spontaneous, putting the intellect away, we may find ourselves in a place of growth and reward. The art of meditation is teaching that indeed, when we depend too much on the intellect it could interfere with our own growth. The intellect does not let us surrender, be fully present in the moment, and Letting Go.  More than that, when we set aside the intellect we create an opening for the divine connection.

          If I were standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, surrounded by smoke, fire, light and thunder, I too, would have chosen to first commit to Doing and then to Understanding.  To me, there is nothing unusual to embark on unknown journeys because there is something special by taking risks in life and get onto waters that are challenging. How many times did we take risks by just taking a deep breath and go for the scary, but challenging step? I have been there many times…

          So, now, take a moment, pause and ask yourself – are there new visions for your future that may need a risk? Will you be willing to just act before calculating too much, so that it will prevent you from going ahead?
---------

      *Tosafot observes this is untrue of the apple tree, which grows like all other trees; consequently refer this to the citron tree. As the citron remains on the tree from one year to the next, at which time the tree sheds its' leaves of the previous year, the fruit may be said to precede the leaves.

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo