“So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.”

              All of us find ourselves in difficult and challenging situations in life. The way we view our challenges is personal, but it is recommended by social workers and spiritual leaders not to feel hopeless. Hope is the belief that from every crisis some good will emerge, and that crisis could be a device to make us stronger – if hope is the basis.

             How does hope work in the political arena...? Listening to our president on Sunday, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, I felt uncomfortable.  I am not sure what exactly was on his mind when he chose to quote a Talmudic passage;

“So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.” 

            Surely, he is sending a message of hope. But if he was trying to talk to the Jewish audience and impress them, he probably did not realize that for Jews, the power of hope is what kept them alive for centuries. For Jews hope is not just a word – it is part of their daily life. So what and where is his amazing so-called message?

            I agree with Obama that we should not give up the vision of peace in the Middle East. But the use of this Talmudic passage is out of context and irrelevant. First he offers a plan that endorses a Jewish state with its 1967 borders with agreed land swaps as the basis for a Palestinian state. Secondly, he sees an urgent need for a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. This is not very hopeful. This is urging Israel to be unsafe and in danger.

            I wish that Obama would focus on a peace process that is the work of the Israelis and the Palestinians together. Peace of the land does not solely depend on Israel. The retreat to the 1967’s borders alone will not bring peace. The Palestinians need to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Arab Middle East first. They have to recognize the fact that Israel is rooted in ancient history. Without this, painful sacrifices and security guarantees will not, and cannot bring peace.

            Perhaps, it would have been helpful if Obama would have used a phrase of hope taken from the Quran, to balance his speech a little? I am sure that the Arab world sees challenges and difficulties as well. How is this phrase;

"And never give up hope of Allah's soothing Mercy: Truly no one despairs of Allah's soothing Mercy except those who have no faith." (12:87)

Do you see hope for a brighter future in the Middle East?

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

"Death and life are in the power of the tongue" (Proverbs 18:21) - Arakhin 15b

       Who amongst you has not been negatively affected by gossip and evil speech? I bet you that there will be no one out there. Not only that, but I think you will agree with me that somehow, sometime in your lifetime, you were the one to “bad mouth” another person behind his/her back. Personally, I have been a victim of slander, which left me wounded up to this day. Some of you will be there for me to share the feeling of helplessness.  What a terrible feeling it is to “be” a topic of a conversation when you are not present, when you cannot defend yourself. I know for a fact that it is impossible to undo the harm.

          Ethnographic accounts and social research show that gossip is actually a good thing. It serves as a mechanism to keep a society in control, in unity and solidarity. When people gossip, they seem to make ethical judgments about behavior and maintain their group’s social values (Max Gluckman). Gossip, anthropologists claim, is  good for you because it provides the individual with an emotional or psychological comfort that creates a feeling of well-being and belonging to a community (Robert Paine).

       As much as I can get what anthropologists are trying to convey, I am not so convinced that gossip, tale bearing and spreading malicious lies about someone are healthy, not for society and not for individuals. They all cause emotional damage and compromise the integrity of many. Thus, Judaism is totally against any speech as such as we are constantly reminded of the biblical commandment, "Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people" (Lev. 19:16). The term that is often used in the Talmud speaks for itself –– lashon harah -- which literary means Evil tongue. In tractate Arakhin 15b we find a number of condemnations of this kind of speech;

     a. It has been considered to be a greater sin than killing someone;

 The School of R. Ishmael taught: Whoever speaks slander increases his sins even up to [the degree of] the three [cardinal] sins: idolatry, incest, and the shedding of blood.

b. It is considered to have a ‘deadly’ implication;

In the West [Palestine] they say: The talk about third [persons] kills three persons: him who tells [the slander], him who accepts it, and him about whom it is told.

          While it is obvious that the one who is spoken about is harmed, the one who speaks lashon Harah is also harmed by lowering himself spiritually. The reputation and dignity of self is compromised and makes this person unworthy. And as we know we shouldn’t talk about others, we do not think that by listening to gossip and being part of an audience, we make lashon harah possible. Thus, the one who listens to lashon Harah is as guilty and also harmed.  

R. Hama b. Hanina said: What is the meaning of: Death and life are in the hand [power] of the tongue? Has the tongue ‘a hand’? It tells you that just as the hand can kill, so can the tongue. One might say that just as the hand can kill only one near it, thus also the tongue can kill only one near it, therefore the text states: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened arrow’. Then one might assume that just as an arrow kills only within forty or fifty cubits, thus also the tongue kills only up to forty or fifty cubits, therefore the text states: ‘They have set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth’. But since it is written already: ‘They set their mouth against the heavens’, why was it necessary to state also: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened arrow’? — This is what we are informed: That [the tongue] kills as an arrow. But once it is written: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened arrow’, why was it necessary to state: Death and life are in the hand of the tongue’? — It is in accord with Raba; for Raba said: He who wants to live [can find life] through the tongue; he who wants to die [can find death] through the tongue.

     c. It is socially and spiritually unacceptable;

R. Hisda said in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: One who slanders deserves to be stoned.

Hisda says in the name of Mar ‘Ukba: Of him who slanders, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: He and I cannot live together in the world.

In tractate Makkot 23a and in Pesakhim 118a;

…and Rav Sheshet for Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria; Anybody who tells the evil tongue, and anybody who accepts the evil tongue, and anybody who bears false witnessing on his friend – deserves to be thrown to the dogs…

    

       And if you wonder what is considered evil speech, you will find that anytime you say anything about a person that is not present in the room (good or bad), you are guilty of it.

What constitutes evil speech? — Rabbah said: For example [to say] there is fire in the house of So-and-so. [The fire of the oven. The suggestion: they are wealthy and eating all the time.] Said Abaye: What did he do? He just gave information? — Rather, when he utters that in slanderous fashion: ‘Where else should there be fire if not in the house of So-and-so? There is always meat and fish’ [Behind that apparently innocent phrase lurks the slanderer's purpose.]

          Rabbah said: Whatsoever is said in the presence of the person       concerned is not considered evil speech. Said Abaye to him: But then it is the more impudence and evil speech! — He answered: I hold with R. Jose, for R. Jose said: I have never said a word and looked behind my back. [To see whether the man concerned was near. I would say it to his face, which proves that in such a case it is not accounted slander (Rashi).]

          So, now, let me ask; what would motivate us to engaging in evil speech?

- Are we trying to avoid aggressive confrontations with friends?

- Is it possible that instead of telling our friend we are angry with him/her, we want to    take the revenge by gossip?

-Perhaps we all suffer with poor self esteem that we want to gain control and win friendship by slander?

-Are we trying to protect self-interest by this kind of communication?

          Let’s face it -- There is no benefit gained from gossip. Let us all remember what the Psalm 34:13 reminds us "to guard our tongue from evil and our lips from deceitful speech." Let us keep our good intention by talking to each other, not by hiding from one another.

-

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

Suffering and perceptual theology - Berakhot 5a-b

     The topic dealt with in this section of the Talmud is suffering. The rabbis try to understand why people suffer, and in that way, they mean to provide some “therapeutic” tools (if you may) that could make it easier to deal with the difficulties. Indeed, it is very painful to observe our loved ones bearing pain with helplessness and despair. It is difficult when we face health challenges that take us beyond the limits of endurance.

          Many times, patients during my pastoral visits ask for my explanation why they have to face medical challenges. They lose hope, express anger at God, and basically ask me: “Why me? Have I not done good things in life? Have I sinned without even being aware of it, or, why am I punished by God? The truth is that there are different ways to explain suffering, even if only on the theological level. Interesting, there are those who take a distance from God while others find God in their painful experience and grow closer to spiritual life.

          Pain and suffering are universal experiences and part of the human condition whether in small, undeveloped and primitive societies or in large, developed and industrialized ones. However, anthropological studies show that the perception, the understanding and the meaning assigned to pain and suffering are not universal and vary from culture to culture. I would say, each with its own theology.

          Take for example how other societies perceive suffering and pain; some attribute sufferings to the wrong doing of members of the tribe, who provoke bad spirits to react back as punishment. The Paracas of the Southern Coast of Peru release these evil spirits by perforating the skull to relieve internal pressure of a possessed person. The Nuer tribe in Africa believes that pain is a result of collective societal transgressions. And Buddhism always explores the origin of suffering of oneself and believes that it is a product of self invoking mind activities, a constant universal human condition.

          The monotheistic faiths consider suffering within the context of God's power. In Islam, with resemblance to Judaism and Christianity, there are two views of suffering; it is either the result of personal sin and is a way to cleanse the self of imperfection and sins, or, it is a test of faith that will be rewarded by God. 

          While the Jewish way of looking at suffering is equally embracing joyful moments to be  integral in life, there was a search to find meaning in suffering.  There is the understanding that one can be in pain but not necessarily suffer. Suffering seems to be a state of mind, an attitude, a spiritual dimension of pain. The anthropologist Cifford Geertz (The Interpretation Of Cultures, p.105) puts it perfectly:

 “As a religious problem, the problem of suffering is, paradoxically, not how to avoid suffering but how to suffer, how to make of physical pain, personal loss, worldly defeat, or the helpless contemplation of others’ agony something bearable, supportable- something as we say, sufferable”.

          Going back to Berakhot 5a-b we learn that the rabbis struggle with the question of why we suffer. Their logic raises some tough questions for me[1]. First they suggest that if one is inflicted with pain, one needs to search for the reason;

          Raba (some say, R. Hisda) says: If a man sees that painful sufferings visit him,let him examine his conduct. For it is said: Let us search and try our ways, and return unto the Lord (Lamentation 3:40). 

          If he examines and finds nothing [objectionable], let him attribute it to the neglect of the study of the Torah. For it is said: Happy is the man whom Thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest out of Thy law (Psalm 94:12).

           If he did attribute it [thus], and still did not find [this to be the cause], let him be sure that these are chastenings of love. For it is said: For whom the Lord loveth He correcteth (Proverbs 3:12).

          I do not think that many of you will assume that we deserve suffering because we are loved by God. This is difficult to digest. How could a loving God inflict such suffering on a righteous person? Why would anyone accept this? How can suffering be a token of love…?

          Raba, in the name of R. Sahorah, in the name of R. Huna, says: If the Holy One, blessed be God, is pleased with a man, he crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] he crushed him by disease (Isaiah 53:10). …….

          And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days.  And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand (Isaiah 53:10).

          OK. So one can suffer because God loves him so, and there will even be a reward in the next world. But, if I to continue to worship God with Torah study and prayer, how could I possibly do so when I suffer?

          For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The word 'covenant' is mentioned in connection with salt, and the word 'covenant' is mentioned in connection with sufferings… Even as in the covenant mentioned in connection with salt, the salt lends a sweet taste to the meat, so also in the covenant mentioned in connection with sufferings, the sufferings wash away all the sins of a man.

          The tool that is supposed to help deal with this problem is to vision how suffering is supposed to erase, or to repent for sins. I cannot accept the idea that sick people are sinners. I know plenty of righteous people who suffer, and bad people who flourish. Interesting enough, there are three stories following this long Gemara discussion. The cases of 3 sages who were sick and simply could not accept the suffering or the rewards. Here is only one story in 5b;

            R. Johanan once fell ill and R. Hanina went in to visit him. He said to him: Are your sufferings welcome to you? He replied: Neither they nor their reward. He  said to him: Give me your hand. He gave him his hand and he raised him. Why  could not R. Johanan raise himself? They replied: The prisoner cannot free himself from jail.

          There is a certain level of consciousness that promotes healing and endurance of suffering. It is very personal, and each one of us needs to tap into this well of theology. In many ways, if we re-examine what the rabbis teach us, we can see that a certain kind of acceptance, a Letting Go, could give some comfort.

What do you think of this kind of theology of suffering? What is yours?

© Rabbi Ziona Zelazo

---

[1] The following is inspired by a teaching of Rabbi Amy Scheinerman last weekend in NJ;

Baba Batra 99a - Facing each other - the cherubim and us

          Most common discussions between people today are conducted through the internet. Skype, Facebook or simple email modalities replace the intimate face-to-face interactions. Our life today also requires us to run, run, run, from one place to the other. We over task and thus, hardly take the time to listen to our colleagues, our peers, or our beloved relations, let alone, spend quantity and quality of time sharing. I ask where can we find the authentic commitment to each other? I wonder whether we understand the meaning of face-to-face interaction. I worry that the intimacy between us is losing its intensity and being diluted.

          Lets us look at a very important symbol that was commanded by God for us to embrace. In Exodus 25:18 God commanded the Israelites to make the Cheruvim – the cherubs with the Ark covering. In Exodus 25:20 we read that the specific positioning of the cherubs is designated to face each other;

          And the cherubs would spread out their wings in an upward  direction as they cover up the ark-covering with their wings. And their faces face each other ; towards the ark-covering  their faces should be [my translation].

In II Divrei Ha-Yamim 3:13 we read that Solomon the king built the ark with its cherubs facing the Temple, not each other;

          The wings of the cherubs are spread for twenty amot (measure), and they stand on their feet and their faces are towards the Temple.

Why do we have such a difference in the cherubs placement? What does it mean?

This question is addressed in Bava Batra 99a;

            And how they {the cherubs} stand? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer [debate]: One taught that the two keruvim faced one another; the other taught that they faced the Temple. And to the one who said that they are facing one another - the verse in Exodus 25:20 says that they faced each other, while for the one who said that they face the Temple, In II Divrei Ha-Yamim 3:13 it says that they faced the Temple. This [difference in text] does not pose a problem; Here {Rabbi Yochanan} it refers to the time when the people of Israel were doing the will of God. Here {Rabbi Eliezer} it refers to the time that the people of Israel were not doing the will of God [My translation].

          According to this approach in the gemara, the keruvim represented the relationship between God and the Jewish People. When the Israelites behaved properly and the relationship was good, the keruvim looked at each other, but when there were difficulties with the relationship, they looked away from one another. It is as if the deeds brought about the presence of God right between the cherubs, not anywhere else.

          When we are in a relationship we commit to act in such a way that it would open the space for holiness. More we look at each other, more we engage in this creation of sacredness. When we avoid facing each other we neglect the mission of creating the spirit that fills the space to do well. When we loom away, we destroy a relationship. As Martin Buber wrote that “Spirit is not in the I, but between I and Thou. It is not like the blood that circulates in you, but like the air in which you breathe". Buber tells us that we live 'in' the spirit, not the spirit in us, but this - only when we enter into this relation with the whole being.

          Let us remember that the whole being is the way the cherubim faced each other. So take it in to your life as a Face to Face interaction, which would affirm the key to a good and meaningful life.    

  

Incense during Prayer?

             One of the things I love about meditation is the ambiance. The light of the candle which is lit in front of me is enhanced by the fine unique and pleasing aroma of the burnt incense. The room is filled with the smell of nature that makes it totally possible to get into the moment. When I enter a room that is full of this fragrance, I immediately shift gears from the daily routine to a tranquil time. It allows me to pray and reflect with ease. It opens the space to welcome the divine and the sacred.

            Incense is used in many religions, but in Judaism we only reminisce of this practice. We do not use the aromatic incense during worship in the synagogues. All we have left is the Havdalah service as the Shabbat exits, when we smell the sweet-smelling spices. Simultaneously, we praise God for making the distinction between the holy and the mundane. From this week’s portion, Exodus 30:7-10 we learn that the High Priest used to burn incense twice a day in the Temple, right after the sacrifice ritual;

On it [the altar] Aaron shall burn aromatic incense; he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps, and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps – a regular incense offering before the Lord throughout  the ages.

            Perhaps there should be no wonder that Judaism does not incorporate incense during services. After all, we have no Temple and we do not sacrifice animals. But, should we not keep at least something...? I wish we could consider walking into a synagogue, filled with the sweet aroma of incense. I would not, however, want the aroma to be as strong as the Talmud describes to us in Yoma 39b;

            The goats in Jericho [which is far from Jerusalem] used to  sneeze          because of the odor of  the incense. The women in Jericho did not have to perfume themselves, because of the odor of the incense. The bride in Jerusalem did not have to perfume herself because of  the odor of the incense. R. Jose b. Diglai said: My father had goats on the mountains of Mikwar and they used to sneeze because of the odor of the incense. R. Hiyya b. Abin  said in the name of R. Joshua b. Karhah: An old man told me: Once I walked towards Shiloh and I could smell the odor of the incense [coming] from its walls.

            Interesting enough, the use of incense (or ketoret in Hebrew) according to Exodus 30: 34-38 was a sacred act, which belongs only to the High Priest. No one but Moses got the formula for the mixture of the three precious spices combined with frankincense; 

            And the LORD said unto Moses, Take unto yourself sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; these sweet spices with pure frankincense: of each shall there be a like weight: And you shall make it a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, tempered together [salted], pure and holy: And you shall beat some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with you: it shall be unto you most holy. And as for the perfume which you shall make, you shall not make to yourselves according to the composition thereof: it shall be unto you holy for the LORD.

            The fascination of the ketoret in the Talmud extends to more than fifty different discussions in various tractates. There is an attempt to find meaning in the use of incense. I will list only a few examples.

            One addresses the social and the religious framework of the People of Israel. While the Hebrew Bible tells us about four spices used for the ketoret, the Talmud in Kritoth 6b lists eleven ingredients; some fragrant spices as well as the foul-smelling galbanum, which itself acquired a pleasant aroma when combined with the other spices of the ketoret. So were the mixed spices as the symbol of the different kinds of people who join together, positively impacting upon one another;

            Said R. Johanan: Eleven kinds of spices were named to Moses at Sinai. The verse says: "Take for yourself spices ­- balsam, onycha, galbanum, spices, and pure frankincense." If  the Torah only meant that the four main substances should be taken and nothing else, it should simply have said, "Take for yourself balsam, onycha, galbanum and pure frankincense." The Torah uses the word spices (samim), repeated twice. This indicates that there were other spices. Said R. Huna: ‘Where is the text? Take unto thee  sweet spices, at least two; balsam, and onycha, and galbanum, that makes together five; ‘sweet spices’ means another five, that makes together ten; ‘with pure frankincense’, which is one, that is together eleven.

In Berachoth 6b incense symbolizes prayer;

       R. Johanan says: [Special care should be taken] also about the evening-prayer. For it is said: Let my prayer be set forth as incense before Thee, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.

            Lastly, according to Arachin 16a and Zevachim 88b the incense was used in the Tabernacle to atone for lashon hara – slander, when the speaker hides his true feelings from the subject of his criticism and the 'victim' has no awareness that someone is criticizing him.

            The rabbis have given lots of thinking on the way worship works. They took the few verses from the Hebrew Bible and tried to add understanding to the hidden meaning of the practice. I wonder why we do not continue to explore. I am looking for more ways in which I can connect to the divine. I would like to connect to my ancestors and the way their spiritual means showed devotion to God through smoke and aroma. I would want my lungs to be filled with aroma during prayer. I wish I could rediscover the mystery of the ketoret as I get into the moment. But may I add that all of this without animal sacrifice, as I am not voting for this.

Eye for an Eye - Baba Kamma 83b-84a

In Exodus 21:24 we find the verse  “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”. It came from the Code of Hammurabi, the Babylonian king in 1792-1750BC. It survived to be used in the Hebrew Bible and in Matthew 5:38: “Ye have heard that it hath been said; An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.

The physical retaliation such as "An eye for an eye" etc. must be one of the most disturbing and controversial principle in the Torah. Is it possible that there is such a vengeful justice in the Hebrew Bible? Many sages of the Gemara, as we see in Babba Kamma (83b-84a), struggled with the same question and did not want anyone to think that taking a limb for a limb was acceptable. We have two full pages bringing numerous different ideas as to why this verse MUST NOT be literal. Some sages believe that the principle has to do with the appropriate monetary value of damage to a human being;

Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out.  [Not so; for] it is laid down, 'He that smiteth any man…' 'And he that smiteth a beast … (Lev. XXIV) just as in the case of smiting beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid. 

Others tried to view the verse by applying the universal perspective. The assumption is that since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner. What, for example, would be the law of a physical retaliation in the case of a blind or eyeless offender? The sages believe that this verse is only a parable for money and cannot be taken literally.

It was taught: R. Dosthai b. Judah says: Eye for eye means monetary compensation. You say monetary compensation, but perhaps it is not so, but actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] is meant? What then will you say where the eye of one was big and the eye of the other little, for how can I in this case apply the principle of eye for eye? If, however, you say that in such a case monetary compensation will have to be taken, did not the Torah state, Ye shall have one manner of law (Lev. XXIV, 22)  implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases? I might rejoin: What is the difficulty even in that case? Why not perhaps say that for eyesight taken away the Divine Law ordered eyesight to be taken away from the offender (Without taking into consideration the sizes of the respective eyes)? For if you will not say this, how could capital punishment be applied in the case of a dwarf killing a giant or a giant killing a dwarf, (Where the bodies of the murderer and the murdered are not alike)   seeing that the Torah says, Ye shall have one manner of law, implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases, unless you say that for a life taken away the Divine Law ordered the life of the murderer to be taken away? Why then not similarly say here too that for eyesight taken away the Divine Law ordered eyesight to be taken away from the offender?

There are two views in the Gemara that take the verse literary (but they are "proven" wrong). The first view is that of Abaye, quoting the Study Hall of Hezekiah. He states that the reason we only collect money in this situation is because it is impossible to make sure the punishment will not kill the guilty party. However, if we somehow had a way to inflict the damage while being sure that the person would not die, then an eye for an eye could be taken literal.

"Abbaye said: For the School of Hesekiah taught: Eye for eye, life for life, but not ‘life and eye for eye’. Now if you assume that actual retaliation is meant, it could sometimes happen that eye and life would be taken for eye, as while the offender is being blinded, his soul might depart from him."

The second view is that of Rebbe Eliezar who states that an Eye for an Eye is meant literally. 

       "It was taught: R. Eliezer said: Eye for eye literally refers to the eye            [of the offender]."

The natural tendency of people is to believe that for every wrong done there should be a compensating measure of justice. When it comes for revenge it becomes a bigger problem. There is lots of anger to deal with. Let us ask ourselves – 
- Is it “productive” to hurt others because they hurt us?  

- Is it healing to fight “fire with fire…”?

- do you think you would be able to apply the principle “eye for an eye” in such a way that you do not hurt others more than they hurt you?

Yishar Koach and Matan Torah – Shabbat 87a

         Did you ever wonder where the term Yishar Koach (יישר כוח) comes from? It literary means “may your strength be firm” and is one of the most common ways to congratulate somebody after an Aliya to the Torah. Eliezer Segal wrote that it can probably be traced to ancient times.  While the Sephardic Torah scrolls were housed in a special box that can stand safely on the reading table, the Ashkenazic Torah was hand held by the reader. It could be understood that by-standers would encourage the reader to maintain the requisite vigor. Thus, Yishar koach became an encouragement to the reader, “May you have strength not to cause the Torah to fall.”

            The Gemara relates Yishar Koach in Shabbat 87a within the context of giving the Torah at Sinai. The sages teach us that when Moses broke the tablets God approved it and said: “Yishar Koach that you broke them” (Shabbat 87a).

'He broke the Tables': how did he learn [this]? He argued: If the Passover sacrifice, which is but one of the six hundred and thirteen precepts, yet the Torah said, there shall no alien eat thereof: here is the whole Torah, and the Israelites are apostates, how much more so! And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Because it is said, which thou brakest, and Resh Lakish interpreted this: All strength to thee that thou brakest it.

            Certainly, God and Moses had a special relationship. We further learn from Rabbi Yosi that God wanted to give the Torah on Friday, but Moses asked him to delay it by one day, so that the Torah will be given on Shabbat, the 7^th day in Sivan. God agreed to this as well and gave the Torah on the 7^th day of Sivan. The problem is that we celebrate Shavuot - Zeman matan Torateinu - the time of the giving of our Torah - on the 6^th day of Sivan, not on the 7^th.

            To exercise your power and create your own midrash, what in your mind is significant in Moses’ action of breaking the tablets, and why did God approve such an action?

Shabbat 86b

We had our first class and loved it. What was it like to wait for Moses to come down the mountain?