Tzlafchad. That is one long name. A real mouthful. But what’s more interesting are his daughters, and what we can learn from their ancient petition to Moshe.
Here’s what they asked Moshe (Numbers 27:3-4):
Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he had no son? Give unto us a possession among the brethren of our father.
So Moshe brings their case to God, and God says to Moshe that they should be allowed to possess their father’s land.
A while back I reviewed an essay in a book called Torah of the Mothers. One of the essays in this book, written by Sarah Idit (Susan) Schneider, discusses “The Daughters of Tzlafchad: Toward a New Methodology of Attitude Around Women’s Issues”. I can’t share the entire essay with you; for that, you will need to read the book yourself. However, I can relate to you some of the highlights of the essay, especially the ones I found compelling.
Why is it that women look to the example of the daughters of Tzlafchad? Sarah Schneider suggests they got their timing correct (they asked Moshe at the right time), and they asked in a respectful manner. She quotes Bava Batra 119b as a source for these attributes of their petition, and she further states that they trusted in God.
But it is not just the daughters of Tzlafchad that got something right here. Moshe, too, showed his exemplary behavior as their leader, in that he had empathy for their dilemma. He respected their love of the land, and so he prayed for a favorable verdict. Sarah Schneider writes:
The Torah is teaching a powerful lesson to the Rabbis of today. If they are to imitate Moshe (which they must strive to do) then they must find a place of deep and authentic compassion for the women who approach them with halakhic petitions. Their empathy should be so compelling that it moves them to prayer.
To me, as I review Sarah’s essay, I find the key here is the connection, the relationship. The Daughters of Tzlafchad had a certain basic trust in Moshe, and he had an understanding, an empathy for their needs. It is important to show respect for a leader; at the same time, for someone to be a true leader, the person needs to be a true listener.
When I photographed this guy in early July at Ein Gedi, I didn’t know what he was. Cute, that’s for sure. Turns out he’s (or she?) a hyrax, an animal that frequents these parts.
Does this look at all like a bunny rabbit? Because in Modern Hebrew, a shafan is a rabbit. But in ancient Hebrew, the word shafan probably applies to a hyrax. See Psalms 104:18 —
The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the conies.
הָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים, לַיְּעֵלִים; סְלָעִים, מַחְסֶה לַשְׁפַנִּים
Conies are the translation of shefanim and supposedly refer to these furry fellows.
For more on nature at the Dead Sea, see:
If you like animal photos, see Dina on Parshat Balak.
And to read more inspiring posts by other inspiring bloggers, visit Jack’s Haveil Havalim #173.
Can you identify what is in this photo?
Hint from Parshat Korach (Numbers 18:30) —
Therefore thou shalt say unto them: When ye set apart the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing-floor, and as the increase of the wine-press.
Ilana-Davita (5.) was the closest thus far. I’ll post the answer with more photos and explanation next week.
Yesterday was Parshat Naso, a great parsha with laws of the suspected adulteress, laws of the nazir, the Kohen’s blessing and gifts of the tribes. Maybe next year I’ll write a post on this parsha, but some bloggers came up with some good divrei Torah (words of Torah) that I would like to present.
First, read Jack’s Haveil Havelim #168 Go Celtics Edition.
On Parshat Naso:
From Parshat Behar, Leviticus 25:10
“proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof”
וּקְרָאתֶם דְּרוֹר בָּאָרֶץ לְכָל-יֹשְׁבֶיהָ
The above phrase is written on the Liberty Bell. If you read it in the context of the Torah portion, you will realize that it is talking about freeing slaves. In the fiftieth year, one is supposed to free one’s slaves. So one could say the Liberty Bell designers got it wrong; it’s only slaves that are being freed, not everyone. But when you own another human being, you the master is not truly free, either. So indeed the freeing is for everyone.
Here’s a little more explanation of this idea of a master not being free:
The Pnei Yehoshua explains this with a profound psychological insights. Slavery does not only deprive the slave of his freedom, but the master as well. A person who dominates others is not truly free either, and the Talmud correctly states that one who acquires a slave acquires a master over himself (Kiddushin 20a). He who enslaves another becomes enslaved himself.
And here’s background on how the phrase on the Liberty Bell was chosen:
The Pennsylvania Assembly ordered the Bell in 1751 to commemorate the 50-year anniversary of William Penn’s 1701 Charter of Privileges, Pennsylvania’s original Constitution. It speaks of the rights and freedoms valued by people the world over. Particularly forward thinking were Penn’s ideas on religious freedom, his liberal stance on Native American rights, and his inclusion of citizens in enacting laws…
the line in the Bible immediately preceding “proclaim liberty” is, “And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year.” What better way to pay homage to Penn and hallow the 50th year than with a bell proclaiming liberty?
It would have been nice if I had posted this a week and a half ago, right before we read the Torah portion of Behar in the synagogue. However, that did not happen. So I will connect it with Memorial Day, which is tomorrow. On Memorial Day we remember those that died for freedom. We have freedoms today because what of others sacrificed.
Parshat Behukotai 26:37 says “each man before his brother as if from before a sword”. Please note the “as if”. This is analogy for something. For what? Rashi explains that each man will stumble over each other’s sins. We are all responsible for each other:
כל ‘שראל ערבים זה לזה
Shabbat Shalom.
Notable Links from the Internet:
The Best Overall:
On Israel:
Art Links:
- Parshat Acharei Mot: Leviticus 16:10 Scapegoat by by William Holman Hunt
וְהַשָּׂעִיר, אֲשֶׁר עָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל לַעֲזָאזֵל, יָעֳמַד-חַי לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו–לְשַׁלַּח אֹתוֹ לַעֲזָאזֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה
“But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the LORD, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness.”
This a good example of a pre-Raphaelite school painting.
- Israel Broytman, painter
Famous Bloggers:
From this article:
Male bloggers tend to write about politics, technology and money; women are more likely to blog about their private lives and use an intimate style of writing.
At some point, I may do a post about women bloggers. Especially on how they deal with conflict. If anyone finds any relevant links, feel free to leave them in the comments. Or any of your own experiences with conflict and blogging. (Jack tried to help me find some a few weeks back, but the ones he sent me didn’t seem to fit my idea. Thanks for trying, Jack).
ֹבָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבו
He shall dwell in isolation; his dwelling shall be outside the camp (Vayikra Tazria 13:46)
From Twerski on Chumash, by Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski, M.D.
One Friday, when R’ Aryeh Levin davened Minchah at the Kossel, he saw a woman crying bitterly. To his inquiry about her distress, she said that her son was hospitalized in isolation in a Jerusalem hospital for lepers. R’ Levin decided to visit the hospital, where he found that there were twelve Jews along with three hundred Arabs. Upon seeing him, the Jews burst into tears. “We have not had a visitor for years,” one man said. R’ Levin made it his business to visit them every Friday. One time they said to him, “Each time you come, we think this is the last time we will see you. All we do here is await death. No one has ever been discharged from this place.”
When the Jews asked for kosher food, R’ Levin’s wife would cook for them, and he personally brought the food to them. On Rosh Hashanah his son accompanied him to blow the shofar for them.
One time, R’ Levin asked the Rebbe of Sochachov to assist him in bringing food to the patients in the leper hospital in Bethlehem. He noted that R’ Levin went into each patient’s room to exchange a few words with them.
“Why do you take so much time to visit this Arab hospital?” the Rebbe asked. “Don’t they have their own clergy?” R’ Levin answered, “There is one Jewish patient there who needs my visit. Once I am there, I will not discriminate, and I will visit all the patients.”
More on Rabbi Aryeh Levin and his biography, A Tzaddik in Our Time
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has a nice d’var torah on Parshat Tazria. Why is circumcision a sign of the covenant? First, he tells a bit about life during the time of Hosea:
Hosea lived in the eighth century BCE. The kingdom had been divided since the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom in particular, where Hosea lived, had lapsed after a period of peace and prosperity into lawlessness, idolatry and chaos. Between 747 and 732 BCE there were no less than five kings, the result of a series of intrigues and bloody struggles for power. The people, too, had become lax: “There is no faithfulness or kindness, and no knowledge of God in the land; there is swearing, lying, killing, stealing and committing adultery; they break all bounds and murder follows murder” (Hos. 4: 1-2).
He then contrasts the word Ba’al, which means husband in Hebrew but also refers to the idol of those times, with the word Ish.
[Ba’al] was also, of course, the name of the Canaanite god – whose prophets Elijah had challenged in the famous confrontation at Mount Carmel. Baal (otherwise known as Hadad, and usually portrayed as a bull) was the god of the storm, who defeated Mot, the god of sterility and death. Baal was the rain that impregnated the earth and made it fertile. In terms of myth, Baalism is the worship of god-as-power.
In contrast, Ish(man) and Ishah(woman) are explained:
Here the male-female relationship is predicated on something quite other than power and dominance, ownership and control. Man and woman confront one another in sameness and difference. Each is an image of the other, yet each is separate and distinct. The only relationship able to bind them together without the use of force is marriage-as-covenant – a bond of mutual loyalty and trust in which each makes a pledge to the other to honour one another and the reciprocal duties that bind them together in a moral bond.
His conclusion:
Now we understand why the sign of the covenant is circumcision. For faith to be more than the worship of power, it must affect the most intimate relationship between men and women. In a society founded on covenant, male-female relationships must be built on something other and gentler than male dominance, masculine power, sexual desire and the drive to own, control, possess. Baal must become ish. The alpha male must become caring husband. Sex must be sanctified and tempered by mutual respect. The sexual drive must be circumcised and circumscribed so that it no longer seeks to possess and is instead content to love.
Aside from me: so does this mean in Birkat HaMazon, the blessing after meals, I can say “Ishee instead of Baalee”? (Both mean my husband)
Alpha Man Definition
Cross-posted to Congregation Etz Ahaim’s forum (thank you, David Weintraub, for providing our community with another toy means of communication)
My husband reads the parsha in depth every week. This week, he said, he gets off easy. There is not a lot of Rashi commentary, because a lot of the parsha is repetition of what was previously said. So, my son wisely asks, why does it need to be repeated? “That’s tonight’s question, replies my husband. Easier to ask questions than to give answers.” A basic theme of this blog, too.
I found one Rashi commentary that is in this week’s parsha but not in last week’s, Ki Tisa. (This is with the help of Avigdor Bonchek, author of What’s Bothering Rashi.)
Exodus 35:34:
וּלְהוֹרֹת, נָתַן בְּלִבּוֹ: הוּא, וְאָהֳלִיאָב בֶּן-אֲחִיסָמָךְ לְמַטֵּה-דָן.
And He hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he, and Ahaliav, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan.
Rashi explains that Ahaliav, the son of one of Jacob’s maidservants, is on equal footing here with Bezalel, son of Leah, one of Jacob’s wives, in the holy work of constructing the Mishkan. This exemplifies Job 34:19: “He does not recognize the wealthy over the poor.”
Avigdor Bonchek explains that even though there is a very similar pasuk in Ki Tisa, that one does not get Rashi’s commentary, because that one uses the word “with”. “With” might mean Ahaliav is a subordinate. In VaYakhel, the pasuk uses “and”. “And” puts the two men on equal basis.
