Twitter

Friday, March 18, 2016

Intrigue in Shushan

Intrigue in Shushan
Rabbi Ari Kahn[1]
Purim is a raucous holiday. With gifts and costumes and perhaps a little wine, it is a day (or, in Israel, what seems like an entire week) of celebration and happiness. What is the source of this festive atmosphere? Our automatic assumption is that an answer may be found in Megillat Esther, The Book of Esther that tells the story of this unique celebration and is read on Purim. And yet, the story told in the Megillah is a complex one, and, in fact, gives only a partial answer to our question. At the very least, we must admit that as far as the heroine of the tale is concerned, the story’s ending was not necessarily “happily ever after” on a personal level. More generally, the Megillah describes turbulent times, rife with existential danger, reversals of fortune, and dramatic changes of status; the complications are magnified when we read the text through the eyes of traditional rabbinic commentary.

Ahashverosh is introduced as a king who loves to party. We know very little about him from the text, other than the fact that he seems to be a gracious host, attentive and caring - that is, to everyone but his wife. We are provided with important background information about this Persian monarch by rabbinic tradition: Ahashverosh was a usurper to the throne. The real royalty was his wife Vashti.[2]
When Ahashverosh overthrew the king, the foremost symbol of his conquest was Vashti, whom he wished to display for all to see, like all of his other possessions and conquests. Thus, the order to parade Vashti before the officers and ministers of his court was no mere drunken whim; the very fact that he could order her to appear was proof of his power and authority. Although some 20th and 21st century writers have described Vashti as a feminist heroine, it would be best to avoid reading modern values into ancient sources, which may lead to an anachronistic reading of the story. It seems likely that the struggle between Vashti and Ahashverosh was not a battle between sexes as much as between classes, namely between the new ruling class and the old regime that had been ousted by force.

Vashti’s refusal to comply puts Ahashverosh in an untenable position; in fact, all the other nouveau lords and ministers understood the problem immediately: Vashti’s defiance threatened them as much as it did the king, for all of them had taken the estates and wives of the former aristocracy. They feared all the conquered women would follow Vashti’s cue, and a wide-scale rebellion would result. They urged Ahashverosh to nip the uprising in the bud, forcing him to choose between losing his trophy wife and losing his throne.
Theirs was not a loving relationship: Vashti detested the former stable boy[3]  who had risen to power through violence and ruthlessness, nor did she have any illusions about her husband’s priorities or methods. She made a conscious choice in favor of her own dignity by refusing to be put on display, choosing death over a life of subjugation and humiliation.

With Vashti gone, however, Ahashverosh was faced with a new problem: He was in desperate need of the stamp of legitimacy and nobility Vashti had provided. His most important trophy was gone, and he needed a new queen.
An empire-wide search was initiated, capped off by a bizarre and sordid contest: The winner would become queen and the losers would join the royal harem, the “stable” of the king’s mistresses. Ironically, but not surprisingly, Esther, the Jewish girl who had no desire to be queen, was chosen. Her disinterest, her lack of desire to win, her “standoffish” attitude, is precisely what reminded Ahashverosh of his not-so-dearly departed, aristocratic wife Vashti. Esther was the perfect Vashti replacement.
Things begin to move along smoothly for Ahashverosh: He subcontracts most decisions to his diabolical, megalomaniacal, anti-Semitic chief-of-staff, Haman. And as diabolical, megalomaniacal anti-Semites are wont to do, Haman conceives a plan to make the world Judenrein.

The pieces begin to come together; the gears begin to mesh. Esther, who has been perceived up to this point as passive, distant, even docile, reveals a completely different side of her personality, displaying leadership, spunk and brilliance. On the one hand she requests that the Jews fast and pray for her. On the other hand, she sets in motion a plan to divide and conquer, pitting the megalomaniacal Haman against her insecure, paranoid husband. She invites both men to a private party. The ever-suspicious Ahashverosh cannot sleep; he knows something is awry, but is racked with doubt. Is Haman plotting against him, or is it Esther? Are they perhaps in cahoots? Will he be forced, once again, to choose between two things he values – his wife and his closest advisor – in order to remain on the throne? Perhaps he should have both threats eliminated, have both Haman and Esther killed, despite the messy and inconvenient aftershocks? This is not, after all, the first plot to assassinate him. It had happened before, when, of all people, a Jew named Mordechai had saved his life.
Unable to sleep, in search of insight or precedent, he reads through old protocols, when his train of thought is interrupted by a commotion outside: Haman has come to the palace, uninvited, in hopes of convincing the king to have Mordechai executed. Ahashverosh, focused on solidifying his power, is keen to publicly reward Mordechai for his loyalty, as a means of staving off insurgency. For his part, Haman is completely focused on himself. Oozing megalomania, he can think of no one more worthy of the king’s largesse than himself, and suggests that the unnamed object of Ahashverosh’s favor be dressed in the king’s clothes and paraded through the city on the king’s horse by a member of court.

This is clearly not the wisest thing to suggest to an insecure ruler who is hyper-sensitive to the trappings of royalty. Ahashverosh’s suspicions about Haman are compounded by Haman’s own greedy grab at the spotlight. It is surely no coincidence that Ahashverosh, himself an erstwhile stable boy, commands Haman himself to lead the royal mount through the streets of Shushan: This is a demeaning job for a person of such high station, a clear demotion in the eyes of the king, and perhaps also a silent warning to his upwardly mobile advisor to tread carefully: The path between the palace and the stables can be a two way street.

One party follows another. On the second night, Esther levels accusations at Haman in language she knows will resonate in Ahashverosh’s tortured mind: Haman has been insubordinate, and has attempted to manipulate Ahashverosh into a self-destructive policy that would eliminate the king’s most loyal subjects and bring about widespread unrest in the kingdom. Soon Haman is led to the very gallows he had prepared for Mordechai, while Mordechai, and with him all the Jews of the kingdom, rise to unprecedented positions of respect and influence.

What is it that we celebrate, then, in the frivolity of Purim? An unbiased reading of the story leaves us nonplussed, because it seems no more than the story of a man who kills his wife on the advice of his best friend and then kills his best friend on the advice of his wife. For Jews, though, the story cannot be read without a very particular bias: For us, Purim is a joyous day. The Megillah is a microcosm of a very particular view of Jewish history, fraught with assimilation and heroism, existential danger and Divine intervention, and above all, Jewish survival against seemingly insurmountable odds. The Book of Esther celebrates our collective happy ending; it celebrates the miracle of Jewish survival, celebrated each year with food and drink and the exchange of gifts and good will. It celebrates the fact that the real and true King, the only King, the Master of the Universe, has stepped in to rescue us from annihilation throughout history, and it gives us hope that He will never abandon us, even in times of great darkness and danger. L’chaim!



[1] This article appeared in the “In Jerusalem” section of the Jerusalem Post March 18th 2016 page 12
[2] Talmud Bavli Megilah 10b
[3] Talmud Bavli Megilah 12b 

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Parashat Vayikra 5776 - Obedience

Echoes of Eden
Rabbi Ari Kahn
Parashat Vayikra
Obedience

The world of sacrificial offerings is a new, different and foreign world. As readers, we get lost in the strangeness of the entire subject, and do not pause to think about what we have read, to understand and internalize. The basic premise of sacrifice creates a world of responsibility, in which the individual bears responsibility not only for conscious behavior, for deliberate action - as is the case in the “normal” world - but also for accidental transgressions, for what happens when we lose focus, act absentmindedly or allow ourselves to be led astray by shallow thinking. In this strange parallel universe, even unintended outcomes become the individual’s responsibility, and must be atoned for.

This being so, we tend not to look for a system, for a method in the litany of offerings that comprise the bulk of the book of Vayikra. Have we ever attempted to discern common threads among the various types of sin offerings, or to create categories that would enlighten or inform? Is there something to be learned from the type of animal each sin offering involves? Which offerings are of large animals, and which of small animals? What obligations can be met by sacrificing fowl, and which by grain? Which offerings are comprised of male animals and which of females? Which transgressions are clustered together, and why? What can we learn from the implications of these groupings?

Leaving the micro analysis for a moment and turning to the macro, to the broad mechanics of Temple service, we are able to discern the objective of offerings in general: The Hebrew word for all ritual offerings is “korban,” a derivative form of the root krv– to come near, to approach. Sacrificial offerings afford the individual who has become estranged from God the means to return, to rebuild intimacy.

This objective is described time and time again in the verses of Vayikra as “a pleasant smell for God.” The commentaries are quick to note that this is, at best, an anthropomorphism: God has neither a nose nor a sense of smell, nor does He sit in heaven waiting to be placated by the smell of an earthly BBQ. One of our greatest commentaries, Rashi, explained this concept in a very different way, based on comments found in the Sifri, an ancient Midrash: Sacrificial offerings are not some type of magical divination, voodoo or “hocus pocus;” rather, the key to the korban’s efficacy is obedience.

Nichoach: [This word implies]Nahat ruah, pleasure of spirit, for I spoke and you fulfilled My will. (Rashi, Vayikra 1:9)

Man has sinned by neglecting, ignoring, or forgetting the word of God, but God allows man to correct this mistake by giving us a second chance to obey His command, thus making reconciliation possible. By bringing the precise offering in the precise fashion prescribed, in adherence to the Word of God - even when it bears no intrinsic logic - man is allowed to make amends. Rashi seems to be implying that the main consideration, the element in which God “takes delight,” is not the “pleasing smell” but rather that the Divine spirit is uplifted by man’s adherence to God’s command. The earlier failure to obey is healed by this new opportunity. Thus, the offering itself is almost irrelevant; it bears no intrinsic meaning, other than as an opportunity to exhibit submission to God’s Will and adherence to God’s command. The procedure is the offering; the precise attention to the details is what transforms the sinner and heals the rupture in the relationship.

In his commentary to Psalm 40:7, Rashi is even more emphatic:

You did not desire slaughter or meal-offerings; … You did not request burnt-offerings and sin-offerings. (Tehillim 40:7)

“Slaughter or meal-offerings:” [This refers to] the day the Torah was given, as it states (Shmot 19): “If you listen to the voice of God.” Similarly, [God] said (Yermiyahu 7:22), ‘For I did not speak to your fathers, nor did I command them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;’ I wanted to bring you close, and I had no need to burden you with daily or holiday (offerings). The only pleasure I derived was that I commanded and you adhered to My request, which is a small gesture. (Rashi, Tehillim 40:7)

The verse from the prophecy of Yirmiyahu cited by Rashi is a small part of an entire chapter that laments the behavior of the Jewish community. The Temple had become a place that did not celebrate mans adherence to the will of God. Quite the opposite: The chapter tells the tale of a city, of an entire society, in which strangers were oppressed, the weak and disenfranchised exploited, and justice trampled. Stealing, murder, adultery, and false witness had become the norm; decency was nowhere to be found. In that society, people deluded themselves into thinking that the Temple service would excuse their behavior. They believed that they could bribe God with offerings and save themselves through the merit of their sacrifices. Yirmiyahu attempted to open their eyes, to dispel their illusions by describing the gruesome fate that awaited their generation, and the Temple they had misused.

Sacrificial offerings are not magic; they are, however, a means through which man may come closer to God. They do not take the place of decent behavior, nor are they generally a remedy for deliberate transgressions. Sacrificial offerings bring about rapprochement only in conjunction with general adherence to the word of God. There is no magic involved. Unlike primitive cultures who believed they could force Gods hand or sway God from meting out punishment, Jewish sacrifice is a method of re-attuning an estranged individual to the Voice of God. This is the source of pleasure, the nachat ruach that God draws from the offering: A person who has become estranged, has taken the relationship for granted and become negligent in the service of God, now seeks a way back to intimacy. The precise adherence to the korbans rituals reaffirms the human desire to adhere to Gods commandments. Sacrifices brought in this spirit are a step toward perfecting the world, not a fig leaf for moral decay.

For a more in-depth analysis see:




 Echoes of Eden

Vayikra; Audio and Essays

Audio and Essays Vayikra

New Essay:
Obedience

Lectures on Vayikra:
A Pleasant Aroma

Introduction to Vayikra; Whither Korbanot

Kayin & Hevel; Proper and improper Korbanot

An Endearing Scent



Parashat Zachor – Haftorah

Essays Vayikra
VAYIKRa - Making Space for Holiness

Vayikra 5769 - Angelic Speech

Parashat Vayikra 5774 Intimacy

Vayikra - And He Called

The Mystery of the Sacrifices

Echoes of Eden Vayikra







Sunday, March 6, 2016

Parashat P’kudei - Clouds, From Both Sides

Echoes of Eden
Rabbi Ari Kahn
Parashat Pkudei
Clouds, From Both Sides

As the book of Shmot draws to an end, a cloud envelops and fills the newly completed Mishkan. In a general sense, we understand that this is what makes the Mishkan operational:

The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and God's glory filled the Mishkan. Moshe could not come into the Tent of Meeting because the cloud rested on it and God's glory filled the Mishkan. [Later], when [God] raised the cloud up from the Mishkan, it [would be a signal] for the Israelites to move on, [and this was true] in all their travels. When the cloud did not rise, they would not move on, [waiting] until the day it did. God's cloud would remain on the Mishkan by day, and fire was in it by night. This was visible to the entire House of Israel, in all their travels. (Shmot 40:34-38)

What is the significance of this cloud? Although we may not have paid proper attention to it, we have seen this cloud but not really focused on it throughout the entire book of Shmot; we might say that the cloud has been a major subtext. Thus, when the Jews first left Egypt, the cloud accompanied them:

God went before them by day with a pillar of cloud, to guide them along the way. By night it appeared as a pillar of fire, providing them with light. They could thus travel day and night. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire at night never left [their position] in front of the people. (Shmot 13:21-22)

Always present, always in the background; like a vigilant mother, the cloud had been watching over them, protecting them. Although we generally think of clouds as ethereal, as a bit of heaven, the cloud had been their constant companion in a very real sense, separating between their camp and the Egyptian army, leading them through the sea, showing them the way forward. In a similarly real sense, when the time came for the Revelation at Sinai, God descended to earth, as it were, and appeared on the mountain in a cloud:

God said to Moshe, 'I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all the people will hear when I speak to you. They will then believe in you forever.' (Shmot 19:9)

When Moshe was invited to ascend Mount Sinai to receive the Tablets, he climbed heavenward, making his way through the cloud:

As Moshe climbed the mountain, the cloud covered the mountain. God's glory rested on Mount Sinai, and it was covered by the cloud for six days. On the seventh day, He called to Moshe from the midst of the cloud. To the Israelites, the appearance of God's glory on the mountain top was like a devouring flame. Moshe went into the cloud, and climbed to the mountain top. Moshe remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights. (Shmot 24:15-18)

These verses, describing the Revelation, bear a striking resemblance to the verses at the end of the book of Shmot that describe the completion of the Mishkan. Perhaps by considering the similarities between these two sets of verses, we may gain a better understanding of the final chord sounded as Shmot comes to an end, and, as a result, of the Mishkan itself.

The key, it seems, is the cloud: According to tradition, the protective cloud that had accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt dissipated when the people worshipped the golden calf. This seems to represent a strange, stern quid pro quo: The people were confused; they felt vulnerable and abandoned due to Moshes absence, and they failed to appreciate that Gods Presence was still very much with them in the form of the protective cloud. And because they turned a blind eye toward the ever-present manifestation of God, taking the cloud for granted, it was taken from them. This is the price to be paid for not appreciating Gods protection: The protection is revoked. The cloud vanishes.

In the aftermath of the sin, Moshe prays for forgiveness on behalf of the nation. He pleads that Gods presence return and dwell among the people. Moshe goes so far as to say that if God is not in their midst He may as well not go through the motions of allowing the Jews to continue their journey to the Promised Land (Shmot 33:15-16). Moshe understood that without God in their midst, their efforts would be futile, meaningless.

This, then, is the true significance of the final verses of Shmot: The cloud has returned. For the first time, the people are granted a clear sign that the sin perpetrated at the foot of the mountain, the sin that had banished the cloud, has been forgiven. The cloud expresses the rekindled intimacy between the Jewish People and God. Now that they are once again granted protection and guidance, they are able to move on, both spiritually and geographically, continuing their quest to create a holy society in the Holy Land.



 Echoes of Eden

Audio and Essays Parashat Pikudei

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Parashat Vayak’hel - Light My Fire

Echoes of Eden
Rabbi Ari Kahn
Parashat Vayakhel
Light My Fire

In the aftermath of the golden calf debacle, in the wake of the destruction and death it caused, and after God agreed to forgive the nation and move forward, Moshe descends from Mount Sinai with a new set of Tablets. At last, Moshe has the opportunity to speak to the people. These same people had stood at Sinai and heard the commandments spoken by God Himself, but had backslid, and worshiped the golden calf. Now, Moshe is to transmit everything he learned at the summit of Mount Sinai. Where should he begin? As readers, we might imagine the crackle of expectation in the air: Moshe is presented with an unparalleled opportunity to educate and inspire the repentant nation, to transmit the Torah he has brought down from on high. How should he proceed?

This very particular moment, a moment laden with remorse, tinged with longing for the holiness that had been forfeited, awash in the desire to hear and obey the word of God, is where Parashat Vayakhel begins. Moshe gathers the entire nation, and he begins with Shabbat. Why was this his choice for the first and foremost lesson? The logic behind the selection of Shabbat may be seen from various perspectives: On the one hand, Shabbat may have been used as an antidote to idolatry. The people needed a refresher course, as it were, in Jewish theology, and as a lesson of God as Creator of the universe, Shabbat is an outstanding reminder and teaching aid. Additionally, Shabbat is more than a dry lesson in Jewish thought; it is a powerful and moving experience which, we might conjecture, people had been easily led astray by the thrilling, sensual extravaganza of idolatry: The food and drink and physical pleasure of Shabbat was intended to counter the very powerful experience of worshipping the calf.

We should note that this is not the first, the second, nor even the third time that Shabbat is mentioned in the book of Shmot. The first time was when the manna fell for six days, and desisted on the seventh. The people noticed that a double portion had fallen on the sixth day, and Moshe explained that this is what he had taught them (presumably at Marah) regarding Shabbat: No one was to go out on the seventh day to collect the manna. This was their first experience of Shabbat, and this single prohibition was later included in the larger corpus of the Laws of Shabbat. Indeed, the Torah tells us that there were those who violated Shabbat, even when there was only one single prohibition, going out with basket in hand with the intention of collecting the manna.

In Parashat Vayakhel, as Moshe begins to teach the people Torah, another prohibition is added, a second Law of Shabbat singled out: It is prohibited to light fire on the Sabbath day. Eventually, the corpus of Shabbat Laws will include 39 categories of creative work that are prohibited on Shabbat; these categories are derived from the Torahs description of the creative work employed in building the Mishkan. These 39 categories are outlined by our sages in the Mishnah, as an extrapolation of the relevant passages from the Torah, with the notable exception of the two categories we have seen singled out and specifically prohibited by the Torah itself, namely: carrying objects between domains, as was specifically prohibited regarding the manna, and the use of fire, as we have seen in this weeks parashah.[1]

In a sense, these two categories of creative work stand at opposite poles on the spectrum of human endeavor; perhaps that is why they are singled out: Neither the kindling of fire nor the transport of objects from one domain to another fits easily into the formal categories that comprise the laws of Shabbat. These two categories represent two extremes as far as human creativity is concerned: Fire is the most elusive of the elements; in the more abstract, conceptual name we use to describe it energy it is the very symbol and essence of human creativity and ingenuity. We might say that all of technology is, in one way or another, mans harnessing of energy, his use of fire for the advancement of humankind. Conversely, carrying objects is the least creative of the categories of work that are forbidden on Shabbat, as the object itself undergoes no transformation but is merely transferred from one location to another. However, these two outliers may convey a message that is far deeper than meets the eye.

Let us return to the primary discussion of Shabbat, found in the Ten Commandments. The fourth commandment, as found in the book of Shmot, reads:

Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. For God made the heaven and the earth [and] the sea, and all that is in them, in six days, but he rested on the seventh. God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Shmot 20:8-11)

On the other hand, in the parallel passage in the book of Dvarim, when the Ten Commandments are reiterated, there is a striking difference:

Observe the Sabbath to keep it holy, as God your Lord commanded you. You can work during the six weekdays, and do all your tasks You must remember that you were slaves in Egypt, when God your Lord brought you out with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. It is for this reason that God your Lord has commanded you to keep the Shabbat. (Dvarim 5:12-15)

The description of Shabbat in Shmot refers to the Creation narrative as the rationale for Shabbat observance: Through our cessation of creative work on the seventh day, we acknowledge and testify that God is the Creator. In particular, we should not overlook the fact that the very first act of Creation was the decree, Let there be light. So, too, according to a rabbinic tradition, mankinds first foray into creativity was with the discovery and use of fire. In emulation of God, Adams first creative gesture was the use of fire when the first Shabbat drew to a close. For this reason, the prohibition against the use of fire on Shabbat is singled out; it is, in essence, the very heart of the matter, the very crux of the story of the Creation of the universe and of mankinds place within it as a sentient being created in the image of God.

On the other hand, the Ten Commandments recorded in Dvarim memorialize the Exodus from Egypt: As we stress in the haggadah, God took one nation from the midst of another, carrying us out quite literally, removing us from one domain to another, from the house of bondage to the wide open spaces of freedom.

We may say, then, that the two formulations of Shabbat, the two rationales for observing Shabbat that are recorded in the two accounts of the Ten Commandments, are reflected in the two prohibitions that were singled out: lighting fire, as a reflection of Creation, and transferring objects between domains, as a reflection of the Exodus. By honoring and cherishing Shabbat, we testify to both of these historic events and strengthen our commitment to our covenant with God. By desisting from creative work, and particularly from the two categories that were singled out, we take advantage of our weekly opportunity to emulate God and tap into the holiness of the seventh day.

For a more in-depth analysis see:


Echoes of Eden

[1] See my previous treatment of these two prohibitions of Shabbat in A River Flowed from Eden (New York: Kodesh Press, 2015), p. 87-90.