Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

Shabbat Shalom-

In light of recent Israeli events which do not make most American headlines,
I thought I would use a verse in this week’s portion as a springboard to a
relevant issue. To see one of the press releases of the Masorti/Conservative
movement see the following links:

Conversion and Democracy, a
Masorti statement

A Supreme Court Decision, now being circumvented

“As the sin-offering as the guilt-offering, one method-teaching for them.” (Lev 7:7)

The verse in its context teaches us that both these types of offerings much
be offered in the same way, the same Torah (method). The verse, though
not readily relevant, echoes other calls for unity in ritual practice then and
now. To what extent must our practice be uniform for us to be a united
people? Are we to be a melting pot or a salad bowl, of plurality or
conformity? Our portion calls for us to offer our offerings in a
uniform manner, any deviation from which might suffer one’s offering to not be
accepted (7:19), to consider oneself sinner (7:19), or even excision from the
people (7:20-21).

It is clear from not only Rabbinic but even Biblical sources that this unity
of worship was the ideal rather than the reality. For every call to unity
of worship there was a condemnation of deviant forms. For every majority
opinion quoted there is necessarily a minority. And yet, the Israeli religious
system insists on condoning only the official form of Judaism recognized by the
official state rabbis or any party with enough political power. Are they
justified by calls for unity of practice or are the liberal movements justified by their
calls for unity as a ubiquitous democratic right?

It is true that as a religious community under God, our public practice is
under more scrutiny than our private, i.e. my decisions on where I eat out do
not affect others whereas my kashrut practices at home do affect my
guests. However, that is no justification for constantly searching for the
strictest opinion that satisfies all by accommodating the strict and causing the
lenient to conform. Why conform when we can compromise? Why must we
constantly build on the letter of the law and ignore the spirit? Why must
we rely on our emotions and ignore the letter?* The questions get at the
very center of the debate at what it means to be a Jew today.

As far as I’m concerned, since forcing people into a certain practice will
limit the meaningfulness of their practice and generally alienate them for the
coercer, the current practice of requiring marriages and conversions in Israel
to be ministered by Orthodox rabbis in order to be registered is a disgrace to a
state that calls itself democratic. Not all dilemmas in the state today
are external. A state that denies basic religious freedom is not a democracy
even if we add to ‘democratic state’ the adjective, ‘Jewish’.

So, when the text calls for the two offerings to be offered under the same
Torah-method, I do not understand the text to require all people to bring them
uniformly in practice. I must understand the text to say that whichever
offering we bring, in whatever way we approach our relationship with our people,
what makes our approach Jewish is not our technique, but our dealing with the
method and language of our people. To deny another person the right to his
worldview is equivalent to claiming a hold on the truth– something I am not so
arrogant to do.

“Have we not one Father to us all? Has not one God wrought us?
Wherefore do we betray a man his fellow, profaning the covenant of our
fathers?” Betrayed has Judah and abomination has been done in Israel
and in Jerusalem, for Judah profaned what is holy to YHWH, what he loves,
and espoused a daughter of a foreign god. YHWH should cut off the man that
does this– his children (?), whether from the tents of Jacob, or from the
presenter of a gift to YHWH of Hosts.” (Malachi 2:10-12, based on NJPS
1985)

Have a caring week!

*These are somewhat technical generalizations relating to the conversion
“Who is a Jew” debate I shall not go into here.

Shabbat Shalom-

It’s been awhile since the last time I wrote you all, and there’s nothing
like an instruction manual for Temple worship to give a guy a kick start.
It’s funny I say ‘guy’ there because there’s a lot of gender stuff going around
in the reading. All the animal offerings are male except for that of the
commoners. On the other hand, the offering described as fiery (‘iSheH) is
often mispronounced as woman (‘iShaH) so women do find their way into the
reading, usually smelling good too (e.g. Lev. 1:9 A pleasant smelling ‘iSheH to
YHWH).

I’m probably one of the few individuals who actually enjoys reading
Leviticus. That is probably because of two interrelated reasons: 1) I see
the sacrificial system as a symbolic system that teaches us about
how our ancestors related to God and each other and 2) I have no desire to
return to a sacrificial cult and thus can distance myself from our ancestors’
practices and can rely on Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam,
12th Century, North Africa) for this, that animal sacrifice was but a stage in
Israelite history. One may even see a hint of this in Lev. 5:11 where a grain
offering can be substituted for an animal. Rav Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of
Palestine, at the beginning of the century held that when the Temple was
restored, all offerings would be vegetable.

On a purely linguistic level it is easier to move away from animal sacrifice
since the word used both for an offering (KoRBaN) and the action (HiKRiYB) mean
to draw near or closen, rather than to give up. In any case, the same verb
is used for the grain offering (2:1).

Now armed with a rationale for animal sacrifice in the Torah, that it was an
injunction to wean the Israelites off of unethical idolatrous practices rather
than for all generations, we must consider the conflict of this view with
tradition. Even if we understand that ritual in general is important for
our relationship with God and others and we also sublimate sacrifices into repentance,
prayer, and good works (BT Ta’anit 27b, Bemidbar Rabba 18, 21) we must still deal
with the issue of our philosophical dissonance with traditional thinking.

Last year as I was in studying in Jerusalem , people kept offering for me
to go with them to pray at the Western Wall, an exposed remains of the Second
Temple. I have had emotional experiences there, crying at the wall and
all it symbolized: the concreteness and ancientness of our traditions, the
brilliant history of our people, the absurdness that one faith could deny the
other with both so visually rooted there, or wonder that in this place our
ancestors offered their offerings by fire, a pleasant odor to the Lord.

What does it mean to touch these ancient stones that once reeked of blood,
blood offered in love and fear, animals created by the Deity and returned to Him
in symbolic thanks and supplication? What does it mean that these stones
once beckoned Jews from across the Mediterranean to make pilgrimage? Are
they ruins of past glory or the ashes from which the phoenix of a Third Temple
will arise? I can only say that I see it as I see everything else in Jewish
history, as a chain connecting me to my past. The edifice resonates with
my past and my connectedness.

These stones symbolize the
monumental devotion of our ancestors to God, a God whose prophet rebuked
the people “For lovingkindness I desire, not slaughter-sacrifice and
knowledge of God more than upwards-burnt offerings.” (Hoshea 6:5).
These stones for which so many died, the Psalmist sang in apology, “You do
not desire a slaughter-sacrifice that I bring; an upwards-burnt offering you
will not accept. Slaughter-sacrifices to God are a broken spirit; a broken heart
and depressed, God does not spurn.” (Psalm 51:18-19). More important
than the stones are our character. Before we worry about building a Temple
of stone, we must build a temple of friendship and peace (shalom), for the
ordination of sacrifice was but one commandment meant to purify man our
character (Bereishit Rabba 44:1, 2nd century CE).

‘What need have I of all your slaughter-sacrifices?’ says the Lord. ‘I am
sated with upwards-burnt offerings of rams, and suet of fatlings, and blood of
bulls; and lambs and he-goats I have not desired. That you come to appear before
Me-who asked that of you? Trample My courts no more; bringing oblations is
futile, incense is offensive to Me. New moon and Sabbath, proclaiming of
solemnities, I cannot abide iniquity in assembly. Your new moons and fixed
seasons my soul hates; they are become a burden to Me, I cannot endure
them. And when you lift up your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; also at
your increasing prayer, I will not listen. Your hands are stained with
blood-crime. Wash, be clean! Put your evil doings away from My sight. Cease to do evil;
learn to do good. Seek justice; aid the wronged. Judge for the orphan; plea for
the widow. (Isaiah 1:11-17, based on
NJPS)

When I reach out to touch the Temple stones in Jerusalem and I think of these
chapters of Leviticus, of the age-old Jewish yearning for the return of the
sacrificial cult, I feel the pulse of the more principle intention, to bring
goodness (Godliness) to earth. “He has told you, O man, what is good,
/ And what the Lord requires of you: / Only to do justice / And to love
goodness, / And to walk modestly with your God.” (Micah 6:8-9)

On the other hand, maybe vegetarians are on to something. Who wouldn’t
come to a temple rebuilt with woks of stir fry and tofu?

Have a caring week!

Benjamin Fleischer

Here’s another great dvar
Torah I found.

http://www.torahaura.com/Bible/here__/LTW_5761/LTW_5761_Va-Yikra/ltw_5761_va-yikra.html

http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/parashah/5761/terumah.shtml

http://members.aol.com/Sauromalus/jewishveg.htm

The chapters from Maimonides may be found here:

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/benjo4u/Religion/docs/Rambam-Sacrifice.htm

[I have of course avoided the issue of a centralized religious cult in
general since people usually see that as secondary to the problem of sacrifice
itself. I am also again a centralized theocratic regime legalized only
their views.]