Loving Fish and Loving Our Children

Parshat Ki Teitzei contains the mitzvah of Shiluach Haken; sending away the mother bird before taking the chicks or the eggs. It would seem that this mitzvah is meant to instill compassion. Yet the Talmud in Brachot forbids a person to reference this mitzvah in our prayers when we beseech Hashem for compassion (Brachot 33). 

Upon further analysis, the entire episode could be construed as cruel. After all, where’s the compassion in taking a mother bird’s young? The Ramban explains that we are not showing compassion to birds. After all, we eat birds. But shoo-ing the mother bird is meant to foster within us more compassion- for our fellow human beings. In this way, it’s like “not embarrassing the Challah” on Shabbat by covering it before Kiddush. Bread doesn’t get embarrassed. But we practice our sensitivity even on inanimate objects so that it is well developed and primed to be directed towards other human beings.

This discussion about Shiluach Haken always reminds me of something I heard from Rabbi Avraham Rivlin, Mashgiach at Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh. When a person says that he loves fish, he does not mean what he says. For if he really loves fish, then he would catch the fish, give it a kiss and then let it go. Rather, when a person says that he loves fish what he really means is that he loves to eat fish, or he loves how he feels with his mouth or belly full of fish. The language of love is expressed towards fish but what is meant is really an exercise in ego.

We don’t all love fish, but we all should have loved ones in our life. When we say we love our spouse, we love our relatives, we love our children- what do we mean? Which kind of love is it? Is it the kind of love that is sincerely concerned with the other? Or is it an egotistical, self-centered type of love? Do we want what’s best for our loved ones? Or do we want from our loved ones what we think is best?

Happy Birthday Shoshana!

9 years ago on Parshat Shoftim, we named our daughter Shoshana Tova.
To read my remarks at that time, click here.

My bracha to her is that she continues to grow in her Midot Tovot and her Avodat Hashem; and that she continues to make us very proud.

"As A Parent Carries a Child": The Torah's "Givens" on the Parental Role

I am intrigued by the lessons that we can learn from the Torah’s “assumptions” upon which it teaches us lessons and comparisons. In the past I have pointed out two such examples:

Parshat Kedoshim (19:18)

וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:

“Love your neighbor as yourself”

The Torah’s point of departure and assumption is that we should love ourselves and then spread that love to include others. In an age in which rates of depression and anxiety are rising, even the Torah’s “given” requires notice and contemplation.

Similarly In Parshat Ekev, which we will be reading in a few weeks (8:5):

You shall know in your heart, that just as a man chastises his son, so does the Lord, your God, chastise you.

הוְיָדַעְתָּ עִם לְבָבֶךָ כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יְיַסֵּר אִישׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְיַסְּרֶךָּ:

Here again the Torah makes an assumption about a parent’s role and responsibilities towards a child- to chastise- and then applies what is assumed to be a familiar attitude to God as well. Here too the Torah’s assumption is no longer a “given”. Rather the idea of a parent correcting and constructively critiquing a child is something that the Torah is teaching us and challenging us to consider implementing today.

A third example of this phenomenon can be found in this week’s Parsha, Devarim (1:31):

and in the desert, where you have seen how the Lord, your God, has carried you as a man carries his son, all the way that you have gone, until you have come to this place.		לאוּבַמִּדְבָּר אֲשֶׁר רָאִיתָ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאֲךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא אִישׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּכָל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר הֲלַכְתֶּם עַד בֹּאֲכֶם עַד הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה:

Moshe recounts the relationship that God had with the Jewish People during their sojourn in the wilderness. In so doing, Moshe compares that relationship with the relationship between a parent and child. When a child is young, a parent will literally carry their child. When the child gets a little older the parent will no longer literally carry them, but will take care of all of their needs. And when a child grows up a little more (by the time they are teens if not earlier), then the notion of “carrying” takes on different connotations. In Hebrew the word for carry can also mean “to tolerate” or “to empathize”.

In reviewing the relationship between man and God in the wilderness we can gain insights into the Torah’s expectations of a parent towards their child: Patience, tolerance, acceptance and unconditional love.

But that relationship must also contain guidance, constructive criticism, pointing out mistakes with the intent to learn from them, and expressing disappointment and anger (NOT necessarily feeling those emotions, but effectively exhibiting them as a teaching tool.)

It may be that the Torah’s assumptions about how parents interact with their children may no longer be as widespread or popular in our modern age. Yet that does not detract from the Torah’s timeless wisdom. It challenging us to examine our relationships, especially with our children, and ask ourselves: “Are the Torah’s “givens” our “givens”? And if not, why not? 

Ignoring vs Replacing God in Our Lives

On the Aish Hatorah website, there is a testimonial quote from famous Producer/ Director Steven Spielberg:

"Thank you Aish HaTorah for the good work you do, and the message you put out. I could have used you in my life about 25 years ago."

It has been suggested that Spielberg is referring to his first marriage to Amy Irving, who was not Jewish. That marriage only lasted for a short period of time and is best known for its dissolution, famous for being contentious and considered one of the “most expensive Hollywood divorces in history.”

I was intrigued by Spielberg’s statement because it implies that although Steven might not be interested in engaging in further Jewish study or observance, he recognizes the value contained therein. He is self-aware enough to realize that something may be missing in his life, and Jewish wisdom and practice could potentially address that which he feels he is missing.  He may not pursue those goals  for any number of reasons that we all have given as excuses for why we don’t take risks or try something knew, or engage in something difficult. 

But at least the realization of that need remains, waiting for the day that Spielberg, or any of us, is willing to give it a try.

I am reminded of this story due to a pasuk in this week’s Haftorah: the second of the Three Haftarot of Doom, another selection from Jeremiah:

For My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me, the spring of living waters, to dig for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that do not hold water.

יגכִּי שְׁתַּיִם רָעוֹת עָשָׂה עַמִּי אֹתִי עָזְבוּ מְקוֹר | מַיִם חַיִּים לַחְצֹב לָהֶם בֹּארוֹת בֹּארֹת נִשְׁבָּרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָכִלוּ הַמָּיִם:

The prophet speaks of two evils perpetrated by the nation at that time: One is ignoring God. This is a challenge that has afflicted mankind, and Jews in particular, since the beginning of time. We look for God during the tough times, but ignore Hashem when the going is good. Or we ignore God when He makes demands that we find onerous or challenging or outdated.

But I believe that the Jews’ fate was sealed when Jeremiah pointed out the second evil: Replacing Hashem with “broken cisterns”. It’s one thing to give into temptation or laziness or the spirit of the times and ignore Hashem. That’s bad but understandable- after all, we are human. What is worse, and according to Jeremiah inexcusable, is when we replace Hashem, spirituality and the search for transcendence- with replacements that may seem easy/ fun/ pleasurable- but will ultimately be proven to be empty cisterns if there is no God in the picture.

As we observe the intensified mourning of the Nine Days, let us think about the lesson of Jeremiah: Let us be on guard against ignoring God. But even if we do, let us make sure to never replace God. 

Leaders Must Encourage "The Spirit of Man"

In Parshat Pinchas, Moshe is reminded of his own mortality and asks Hashem to appoint an appropriate successor.

Moses spoke to the Lord, saying:		טווַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה לֵאמֹר:
16"Let the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,		טזיִפְקֹד יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל בָּשָׂר אִישׁ עַל הָעֵדָה:

The description of God as “God of spirits of all flesh” is unique, and Rashi comments on it usage:

God of the spirits: Why is this said? He said to Him, “Master of the universe, the character of each person is revealed to you, and no two are alike. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his individual character.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 10]

אלהי הרוחות: למה נאמר, אמר לפניו רבש"ע גלוי וידוע לפניך דעתו של כל אחד ואחד ואינן דומין זה לזה, מנה עליהם מנהיג שיהא סובל כל אחד ואחד לפי דעתו:

In a subsequent verse, Moshe emphasizes the need for appropriate leadership: for if not the people will be left as sheep without a shepherd”. The implication seems to be that the quality of leadership Moshe is emphasizing is that of pastor: understanding the unique attitudes and needs of each person and appropriately addressing them in a personalized manner.

However, when Hashem tells Moshe that Yehoshua is the right leader to take over for Moshe, there seems to be a change in emphasis:

The Lord said to Moses, "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man of spirit, and you shall lay your hand upon him.

יחוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה קַח לְךָ אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר רוּחַ בּוֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ אֶת יָדְךָ עָלָיו

Here Rashi quotes the Midrash Sifrei:

אשר רוח בו: כאשר שאלת שיוכל להלוך כנגד רוחו של כל אחד ואחד:

“as you requested, that he be able to go opposite the spirit of each individual”

Moshe asked for a leader that could personalize his message and individualize his advice according to the unique needs of each Jew. God provides a leader with an additional skill set: challenging each person. Why must the people be challenged? For the sake of unity.

The successor to Moshe would need to navigate the different interests and priorities of the people in order to craft a unified national mission- and then get everyone to buy into that mission.

Addressing the needs of each person in a compassionate and personalized manner is an important aspect of leadership. Just as important is challenging people to put aside their differences for a common good; to see ourselves beyond our specific needs and as a part of something greater than ourselves. 

Lighthouses and Flashlights: Thoughts on Shabbat Independence Day

How to take Bilam’s words after being hired by Balak to curse the Jews gets a little confusing: The intent was for Bilam’s words to be curses. What is actually said, sounds a lot more like blessings. And the Talmud in Sanhedrin (105) confirms that what was expressed were in fact blessings- even though Bilam intended them to be taken as curses. And ultimately all of Bilam’s “blessings” (which he intended as curses) will unfortunately be transformed into curses- except for one (24:5 “How good are your tents, oh Jacob”, which will always remain a blessing). Confused yet?

I’d like to focus on one of Bilam’s statements (23:9):

הֶן עָם לְבָדָד יִשְׁכֹּן וּבַגּוֹיִם לֹא יִתְחַשָּׁב:

it is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations

The Netziv explains this verse to highlight the importance of Jews maintaining a unique identity, especially while living acculturated lives among other nations in the Diaspora. He suggests that we are only an Am, a nation, when we dwell alone and maintain our unique culture and religious outlook. Once we are BaGoyim, assimilated among the nations and have lost our unique religious identity, the Jewish People are no longer “reckoned” ie we are not able to meaningfully contribute to society and the broader world.

(Rabbi Jonathan Sacks suggests that Bilam’s statement should be understood as a curse/ self fulfilling prophecy, and that Jews situated among other nations confront unique opportunities, and not just threats. See here for his thought provoking approach.)

This year, as we celebrate American Independence Day, there is much discussion about the place of religion in 21^st century America. This conversation is magnified within the Orthodox community. America has been a “Medinah Shel Chesed,” a kind state, in the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein. The Puritan influences and Judeo- Christian ethic of America’s Founding Fathers, has allowed Judaism to flourish in this country. Strong protection of freedom of religion and the importance of separating religion and state in this country has paved the way for American Jews to flourish and feel comfortable in a way unparalleled in any other country of the Diaspora, and perhaps any other time in history.

But today some suggest that religion is under assault in America. More and more Americans are atheists. The younger generation does not affiliate, or even identify, with religion of much as their parents/ grandparents. Modernism, and now post modernism, espouses ideals that challenge religious values and practices.  Are the best days for Judaism in America behind us? How should we respond to these challenges?

There’s a lot to digest and discuss, but here is one initial thought: We need to differentiate between lighthouses and flashlights.

I love lighthouses and everything about them: their history, how they look, where they are located, how they function. Lighthouses provide light to ships so that they know not to crash into the rocky shore. The light is a beacon for the captain to follow. It is not meant to be used to help someone carve out their own path. On the other hand a flashlight provides light that is customizable to the interest and direction of the one holding the flashlight.

For a long time Orthodox Jews were comfortable considering America as a lighthouse: American values matched up nicely (if not precisely) with traditional Jewish values. Today this is no longer the case. American values can no longer serve us as a lighthouse. But they can serve as a flashlight. Freedom of religion enables us to continue to thrive in this country. Robust religious liberties will allow us “live and let live”; diverging from mainstream American values when they contradict with Torah and providing a warm but firm moral voice in our efforts to positively influence the world around us.

This July 4^th weekend, let us not be frustrated by how American values have shifted away from traditional Jewish values in some ways. Rather, let us celebrate America as the greatest flashlight in the world, allowing Torah to flourish and Jewish communities to thrive.

38 years to Cross a Nine Inch stream

Towards the end of Parshat Chukat, after the incident with the copper snake, we read about a number of stops that the Jewish people made during their travels through the wilderness. The setting is after the sin of the spies and the corresponding Divine decree of 40 years of wandering.

The children of Israel journeyed on and camped in Oboth.		יוַיִּסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּאֹבֹת:
11They journeyed from Oboth and camped in Iyeh Ha’Avarim (the wasteland passes in the wilderness), which faced Moab, toward the rising sun.		יאוַיִּסְעוּ מֵאֹבֹת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּעִיֵּי הָעֲבָרִים בַּמִּדְבָּר אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי מוֹאָב מִמִּזְרַח הַשָּׁמֶשׁ:
12From there they journeyed, and they encamped along the stream of Zered.		יבמִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּנַחַל זָרֶד:
13From there they journeyed, and they encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which was in the desert, extending from the Amorite border, for Arnon was the Moabite border between Moab and the Amorites.		יגמִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ מֵעֵבֶר אַרְנוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר הַיֹּצֵא מִגְּבֻל הָאֱמֹרִי כִּי אַרְנוֹן גְּבוּל מוֹאָב בֵּין מוֹאָב וּבֵין הָאֱמֹרִי:

We know nothing about what transpired in these location; only that “they camped” and “from there they journeyed”. Yet if their names are mentioned there must be something worth knowing and learning about these stops. Here the Midrash Rabba offers an approach to fill in the details:

ד [כא, י] ויסעו בני ישראל ויחנו באובות שנעשו אויבים למקום ויחנו בעיי העברים שהיו מלאים עבירה ויחנו בנחל זרד שלא היה הנחל אלא מלא זרת ולא יכלו לעוברו ל"ח שנה שנא' (דברים ב) עתה קומו ועברו את נחל זרד וכתיב (שם /דברים ב'/) והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע עד אשר עברנו את נחל זרד שלשים ושמונה שנה עד תם כל הדור משם נסעו ויחנו מעבר ארנון שנתרצה להם הקב"ה.

The Midrash suggests that these place names hint to the uneasy relationship between Israel and Hashem during their time in the wilderness:

Oboth: related to word “Oyev,” enemy- Israel and Hashem were enemies at that location.

Iyeh Ha’Avarim: related to word “aveira”, sin- Israel was full of sins in that location

Part of the problem in each of these locations is that the nation did not attempt to learn or gain in some way from their experiences in each place. They remained bitter and downtrodden- primarily from the sin of the spies and its aftermath, which was exacerbated by the Korach Rebellion and other complaints against Hashem. Instead of seeing the positive, the people acted in each location with enmity and sin.

Most interesting to me is the Midrash’s treatment of a third location:

Nachal (stream of) Zared: related to the word zeret, which is a Biblical measurement, approximately 9 inches. According to the Midrash, “the brook was only a zeret wide, and yet the nation was unable to cross it for 38 years.”

Why didn’t Bnei Yisrael just jump across Nachal Zared? Even I can jump that far!

The people were stuck. And when you think you can’t do something- you are right and it can’t be done.

38 years later when the Jews finally are ready to cross Nachal Zered they probably felt very silly. They must have asked themselves, “what took us so long to cross this tiny stream?”

The answer is that the challenge remained the same all along. But over the course of 38 years the nation changed, along with their attitudes towards that challenge.

Each of us confronts challenges in our lives. Oftentimes those challenges seem insurmountable. And yet with time, we are able to overcome these challenges. Once we do so, we sometimes wonder what took us so long? The answer is that the challenge did not change. We changed, along with our perspective on the challenge.

Summer is a time for travels- family vacations, changes of schools, changes of jobs. Let us make sure to gain something positive or learn something from each of our travels. And when presented with challenges let us internalize the lesson from Nachal Zered: what seems insurmountable at first can become achievable with a change of perspective or a change in attitude.