Musings on Parshat Chukas

Following are some  of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge  from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our  interpretations  may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

Red heifer ceremony;death of Miriam; people’s complaint about lack of water; sin of Moshe and Aaron when hitting the rock; Edom refuses passage through its land; death of Aaron; battle with Canaanites; fiery serpents; encampment places; the water poem; conquering Amorites; Song of Victory; defeat of Og King of Bashan.

We are taught that Hashem sends the cure before He imposes the illness. This week’s Parsha, which describes the deaths of both Miriam and Aaron, is preceded by the Para Adumah ceremony—which will be needed for anyone who comes into contact with death.

What is a Chok?

The traditional definition is  that is a Chok is a law that has no rational basis; a law that does not make sense. Rabbi Menachem Leibtag offers alternative definitions: a fixed law or statute (Korban Pesach); something constant that does not change (laws of astronomy); a procedure; a recipe; something that occurs on a regular basis (Jewish Holidays). Some Chukem may be beyond our understanding while others are logical and make sense.

The opening verse of “zos chukkas hatorah” is then translatable as “these are the immutable, unchangeable procedures that need to be followed” in the Parah Aduma (red heifer) ritual:

·       Slaughter of unblemished red heifer (that had never been broken to the yoke) by the priest  outside the camp

·       Sprinkling the blood of this heifer seven times opposite Ohel Moed entrance

·       Burning the carcass together with hyssop, cedar wood branches and scarlet until it turns to ashes

·       Mixing ashes with fresh water then…

·       Sprinkling the person who came into contact with a corpse (and now in a state of Tumah ,ritual impurity) on day 3 and day 7

·       Collecting ashes and storing them outside the camp

After the ceremony, the person who was Tameh (impure) becomes Tahor (pure) but the priests who participated in the preparation of the ashes and water of purification (who were Tahor) now become Tameh. The understanding of this ritual and its meaning remains a mystery.Perhaps it is the symbolism relating to slaughtering the heifer, burning it and the sprinkling of water and of blood that facilitates the seven day rehabilitation process.

Some suggest that this ceremony provided an opportunity to make the point that the priests, though considered elevated in their dedication to the Temple service, are no different than us and become Tameh like the rest of us when coming into contact with death. Some focus on the combination of the majestic cedar wood with the lowly hyssop as representing opposite human behaviors  and how these extremities may be associated with death (of spirit, personality). Some concentrate on the red color representing either life or death or forgiveness.

According to the Mishna, the ceremony of the Parah  Aduma was performed once by Moshe, once by Ezra and five times after. With the destruction of the  Holy Temple, the ritual disappeared.

Understanding Tumah and Tahara

It is noteworthy that there is no Biblical injunction against being in a state of Tumah.  A person's status in this regard is relevant only regarding the permissibility of entry into holy places (Mishkan / Temple/ Mount Sinai). This may be  a manifestation a Societal /human deep-rooted uneasiness with Death, since it is Death that is the source of Tumah. The Torah is  not allowing this fear/discomfort to  enter, permeate and taint the pristine source of life and inspiration.

We think Tumah can best be understood in psychological terms.  Our hypothesis is that Tumah is a state of cognitive loss; a "death" or "dispirited" state during which one is so deeply depressed, apathetic, and/or guilt-ridden (on some level)  that he/she no longer has the capacity to enter into any  relationship--not with Hashem and not with other human beings.

Contact with death precipitates a state of Tumah.  A corpse is considered the "ultimate father of all Tumah," because contact with death triggers a primordial uneasiness, fear (of one's own mortality? of contagion?) and negativism that can absorb all of the person's emotional energy.  (Even medical students report a sense of uneasiness after the first encounter with a cadaver.)  Death of a family member can evoke negative emotions including sadness, resentment, anger, feelings of unfairness, and guilt.  The person who encounters death is self-absorbed, sad, and depressed.  These feelings interfere with one's ability to connect with others.

The Torah's insight into the profound (oft-times unconscious) forces that dominate a human being's emotions and behavior is further evident in the reality that the negativity  associated with death becomes diluted the further one is removed from the source.  Thus, a person who touches a corpse (called a "Rishon L'tumah") experiences the most intense emotional negativity (i.e.,Tumah).  As that person comes into contact (e.g., shakes hands) with others, the emotion of the "death association" by the latter is a step removed and diluted.  And so on down the line as each Tameh person comes into contact with another person or object, the transmission (emotional response to the original source of Tumah) weakens.  (The laws of Tumah are lengthy, complicated and well beyond the scope of this article.  It would be interesting at some point to study the details of Tumah and see if they fit the hypothesis we are proposing.  For the moment, however, our interest here is in providing a conceptual framework for understanding the psychological meaning and emotional dynamics of the thing that is Tumah.)

By understanding the psychological underpinnings of Tumah, perhaps we can get some measure of insight into the paradox of the Parah Aduma that is "mtahar temaim" and "mtamay tehorim" (changes one who is Tameh into  a state of Tahor and  can change  one who is Tahor to become Tameh). 
A person who heretofore has been in a state of Tumah (as a result of contact with a corpse) undergoes the ceremony and returns to his non-Tumah state.

But the priests who perform the rituals who  started off being Tahor, now come into contact with death (of the heifer) and experience the  aforementioned galaxy of negative feelings i.e., Tumah! 

Moshe strikes the Rock…and is denied leading the Jewish nation to the Promised Land.

During Miriam’s lifetime a well accompanied the Jewish people supplying them with critical water supply during the desert wanderings. Miriam dies. The water supply dries up.

The people complain. Moshe and Aaron flee to the Ohel Moed and “fall on their faces” (to pray? to appease the demonstrators? In disgust?).

Hashem tells Moshe to “take THE rod”(Moshe’s ?Aaron’s? the rod from last week’s Parsha that put forth buds, bloomed and bore ripe almonds that  was left near the Holy Ark “to be a token against the rebellious children”? )  and…

“Speak to the rock before their eyes”…”and you shall bring out water from the rock”. Moshe takes a rod (the same? another one?) and speaks harshly to the assembling nation: ”listen here you rebels, can we bring out water from the rock?” Moshe, carried away by anger, raises his hand (holding the rod), hits the rock twice and abundant waters  come out to quench the thirst of the  congregation and their cattle.

Hashem’s response: “Because you did not believe in Me (alternate translation: were not supportive enough of me) to sanctify me in the eyes of the Children of Israel therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land I have given them .These are the waters of Meriva…where He was sanctified in them.”

Commentators differ on what Moshe did to deserve such a harsh punishment.

·       Rashi, later followed by Shadal, says Moshe hit the rock instead of talking to it. Had he spoken to thee rock as instructed the people would have reasoned that if the inanimate rock performs the will of Hashem, how much more they are bound to do it!

·       Ramban focuses on the “shall we…?” in which Moshe seems to give part of the credit to himself and to Aaron instead of attributing the water-extraction to Hashem alone.

·       Ibn Ezra faults the two leaders for their undignified, unstatesman- like reaction to  the nation’s demand for water(fleeing and falling on their faces)—and also  for the unnecessary hitting of the rock twice. The leaders display a lack of respect for the people and their need for water.
     

·       Saadia Gaon understands the phrase “talk to the rock” as “talk to them (the Jewish people)...near the rock …”about  their inappropriate behavior.  Instead Moshe berates them and strikes the rock twice.

·       Haketav V’HaKaballah focuses on Hashem’s command to speak to the rock L’EYNEHEM,”before their eyes”. Since sounds and speeches are absorbed by ears, not eyes, it must mean that Hashem was not referring to the physical eye  but to the mind’s eye. Not physical sight but Insight. Moshe ‘s failure was in wasting  the opportunity to help the nation “see”(understand) the enormous capability of Hashem.

  

·       Rambam draws our attention to Moshe’s  pejorative description of the people :”listen here YOU REBELS”(or fools or “teachers” who presume to teach leaders).The people looked up to their leader and emulated his behavior. But instead of being patient Moshe became exasperated. For a man in his position this public behavior amounted to a desecration of Hashem’s name.

·       Joseph Albo notes that Hashem subjects Nature to the control of believers. In the Korach incident, Moshe took the initiative to announce that the “earth would open its mouth”—and Hashem complied. In response to the demand for water, Moshe and Aaron should have taken the initiative to announce that a rock would split and water would flow. Instead they became panic- stricken, fled from the people, fell on their faces and prayed to Hashem for a solution.

·       Others, finding  no serious wrongdoing in this incident, conclude that the  punishment was for earlier sins, possibly of the Golden Calf (Aaron) and The Spies (Moshe) which the Torah for some chose to keep hidden. (Perhaps to avoid publicly embarrassing them.)

Rabbi Leibtag, noting that the punishment is ”you shall  NOT LEAD THIS NATION into the land…” concludes that they were punished for their failure as  leaders and will not LEAD the people there. They failed to sanctify Hashem’s name many times during the crises and rebellions that characterized the  desert trek ; this was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. They should have used moments of  crisis to teach and show the Jewish people Hashem’s unlimited powers to help. Perhaps one who “has his head in the clouds” i.e. is in a constant state of involvement with Hashem, is not qualified to lead since he is unable  to relate to the mundane day- to- day caring for a nation.

“Take THE rod…” and just any rod leads some to conclude that the rod in question was the one left in the Ohel Moed that was to be taken out any time the nation complains or rebels.  Viewing this rod would  remind the nation  of the punishment that awaits such behavior. And with this, according to Rabbi Leibtag, we understand the necessity for Moshe to preface his comments to the nation with “Listen here you rebels”. Namely, you are acting in exactly the way this special rod was to remind us not to behave (“to be a token against the rebellious children”)…and there will be serious consequences.

Aaron’s role

His was a secondary role. He did not disobey Hashem.He did not strike the rock. He did not angrily call the people rebels. Perhaps the reason for his being punished was his failure to intercede when it became clear that Moshe was having difficulty in dealing with the people. Aaron was Ohev Shalom V”rodeef Shalom, a kind of social worker/peacemaker, always attempting to get quarreling parties to resolve their differences and become friends again.

Hashem instructed Moshe to assemble the Jewish people with his brother Aaron. This seemingly superfluous identification of Aaron as Moshe’s brother may suggest that it was because of their sibling relationship that Hashem wanted Aaron along as advisor and confidant. Aaron appears to have failed in this task and thereby suffered. How often a competent  professional is able to deal with conflicts and  problems between clients who are strangers but  is paralyzed and ineffective when family matters are involved.

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Korach

Following are some  of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge  from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our  interpretations  may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

What Korach the demagogue and some of Shevet Reuven  really wanted, and  how they and their adherents are punished; the “rod test” vindicating Aaron; Cohen and Levite duties and gifts; Levites gifts to Cohanim.

Following  the interpretation Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, the dramatic and tragic saga of Korach and members of  the tribe of Reuven and  their followers  involves “TWO INDEPENDENT GRIEVANCES RAISED BY TWO INDEPENDENT GROUPS SITUATED IN TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS”  who were  united by Korach’s behind- the- scenes manipulation. The saga unfolds in a Hollywood-like style  of “cutting” to a scene and jumping back and forth from one scene to the other, from one location to the other.

Who is Korach and what did he really want?

Levi sired Kehas who in turn sired Amram,Yitzhar,Chevron and Uzieel. Amram was the father of Moshe, Aaron and Miriam. Korach was one of Yitzhar’s three sons.

Korach was consumed with jealousy of his cousin Moshe because (according to Rashi) Moshe appointed his cousin Elytzaphan(son of Uzieel, Kehas’ fourth son ) as the leader of the Kehas dynasty instead of him, the offspring of brother number two. Korach was seeking  to replace Aaron  and install himself as the  religious leader. Korach did what demagogues do: Posing as the champion of the people; telling the Jewish people that he was confronting Moshe not for himself but because he cared about them; expressing  that every one of the Jews is holy and therefore entitled to offer Korbanot(“ki chall haam kulam kidoshim”). Korach and his 250 person  group object to Aaron’s exclusive rights to the Priesthood.(Note: his followers are referred to as “Adas Korach”. The word Adas, rather than Kahal, suggests  dissension, disunity and unhappiness.)

What  does Korach  do?

Although the Torah offers limited information about his behavior, the Sages fill in the gaps for us  regarding how  Korach stirred up the rebellion against  the leadership by mocking and discrediting Moshe publicly.

Korach (with  his followers)  approached Moshe and asked  if a garment that is made entirely of blue wool requires Tzitzis, to which Moshe answered “Yes”. Korach sarcastically commented  on the seeming  ridiculousness of an all-blue garment  requiring four additional blue threads to make it ritually correct.

Korach then asks if a house filled with Torah books requires a Mezuzah, to which Moshe responded “Yes”. Korach’s mocking response is to question aloud  how a house filled with Torah does not fulfill the Miztvah but a few verses contained in the Mezuzah do!

Korach then goes on to offer a parable about a poor widow, designed to show how overbearing are the Torah and its Mitzvos.

What do the  children of Reuven want?

These are Korach’s neighbors (“woe to an evil person; woe to his neighbors”) whose  rejection of Moshe’s authority and leadership may have been triggered by the loss of that tribe’s loss of primacy (as  the offspring of Yaakov’s first born son). Theirs is a rebellion to regain this lost political leadership. They ,too, voice  concern for the welfare and future of the Jewish people. They rail against Moshe: ”Is it a small thing that you  brought us up from out a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert, but you also make yourself a prince over us?”(Note this insolence to Moshe and  ironic  characterization of Egypt as  “a land flowing with milk and Honey”…the very words that apply to the Promised Land of Canaan!)

Who gets punished…and how?

Hashem tells Moshe to…” tell the congregation(eidah) to …leave the dwelling (“Mishkan”)of  Korach ,Dasan and Aviram. ”The congregation abides as “Dasan and Aviram came out and stood at the door of their tents with their wives and their sons and their little ones…The ground cleaves asunder…The earth swallowed them up and their households and all that  pertained to Korach and all their goods..and the earth closed upon them and they perished…”.

·        Dasan and Aviram and their devoted allies are swallowed  up.

·        A fire that came from Hashem consumed the 250 men in Adas Korach at the Ohel Moed.

·        According to the Torah (Bamidbar 26:12) “the sons of Korach did not die”.

·        Korach’s fate remains unclear. In Bamidbar 26:10 we read that “…the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up WITH KORACH” but the in Devarim 11:6 it seems that ONLY DASAN AND AVIRAM were swallowed up!

Why the ambiguities?

Rabbi Leibtag suggests that these events are not too different from modern day coalition politics. In this case, Korach the demagogue is in the background—moving from group to group and location to location—inciting each of the groups to give voice to their protest and, in effect, creating one large block of supporters to help him achieve his goal of becoming the next national leader!

The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:17) considers the rebellion of Korach as the paradigm of a dispute that was "sh'lo l'shem sha'mayim" (an argument not for the sake of Heaven). Korach‘s arguments seem to be "l'shem shamayim" but these claims are really  a red  herring. “His primary interest is to promote himself, to build a powerbase from which he himself can emerge as the new leader.”

Concludes Rabbi Leibtag: “ Parshat Korach thus teaches us that whenever a dispute arises over community leadership or religious reform, before reaching conclusions we must carefully examine not only the claims, but also the true motivations behind the individuals who promote them…. every individual must constantly examine the true motivations behind all his spiritual endeavors.”

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Behaalosecha

Following are some  of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge  from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our  interpretations  may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview:

Lighting the Menorah; dedicating the Levites; Second Passover; Clouds’ protective and travel roles; Silver Clarions; Inviting Hovav(Yisro) to stay; Invoking Hahem(“Vayeh B’nsoa Haaron…); Murmurings and rebellions; Sharing leadership; Yehoshua’s jealousy; Sibling maligning of Moshe and Moshe’s uniqueness.

There is more to  a complaint  than meets the eye.

In this parsha,  the Jews arrive in the Paran desert from the Sinai desert on their way to the land of Canaan. Three unrelated incidents describe legitimate complaints that, upon further analysis, turn out to have deeper, unrelated  roots.

“We Demand Meat” say the Jews…

…reminiscing how in Egypt “…they ate fish Chenam (for free)” and how tired they are of the  same old Manna (food gift from Hashem). Nechama Leibowitz  in her Studies cites the  Ramban’s  explanation  the Jews were given  small fish caught in the nets that had no value ;  a kind of “freebie” for the King’s workers. Ibn Ezra says fish were plentiful and cheap, not free. Either way, the Jews’ selective memory made them forget the price they paid for this “wonderful” fish and vegetable treat: slavery, suffering, persecution. The Sages explained the word Chenam  not as  “free of charge ” but “free from Hashem’s commandments”. The Jews’ discontent was really about their wish to avoid the yoke of civilization and self-discipline demanded of them now by Hashem and His Torah. They wanted to return to their Egyptian lifestyle of unrestricted behavior in all aspects  of their lives. The food issue was a pretext for something more fundamental.

Yehoshua Ben Nun exhorts Moshe to stop  Eldad and Medad from continuing their prophetic pronouncements after Hashem , in response to Moshe’s request for lightening his leadership burden, grants the gift of prophecy to 70 of the Elders including Eldad an Medad. Yehoshua seems to be trying to  protect Moshe, fearing that his honor and authority would now be reduced. But Moshe’s noble response suggests that it was jealousy that drove  Yehoshua not altruism “…Are you jealous for my sake? I wish all of Hashem’s people were Prophets and that Hashem would endow them with His Spirit.”

Miriam and Aaron speak out against their brother Moshe.

Their complaint was that Moshe engaged in inappropriate behavior by  taking a Cushite woman for a wife (Tzipora)  while they, who were also prophets of Hashem,  presumably always only did the correct  and appropriate thing.They  were defending the honor of Tzipora from whom apparently Moshe withdrew physically once he became a Prophet. (Others maintain that the Cushite woman was not Tzipora  but an Ethiopian woman he took for a second wife.) The Torah tells us “Vayeshma Hashem… Vayered Hashem” i.e., Hashem  “heard” -- understood  what was really going on -- and He descended. The term Vayered Hashem is used to mean an investigation into,  a delving  into, deep, underlying motives and their implications.

This was about sibling rivalry and  jealousy. For “blackening” Moshe’s name, Miriam (apparently the main culprit) was afflicted with the Whiteness of Tzaraas. The ever- noble Moshe described as “Anav M’od” (humble, unassuming), who uniquely is granted the ability to interact with Hashem “Pe El Pe”(face to face), responds to his maligners’ begging for intervention to Hashem simply and elegantly with just these  five words :”Kael Rfah Na LaH”—I beg of you  Hashem to heal her now.

The Torah records for us the  history of our people and our unique relationship with Hashem. By reading this we are given the opportunity to study human behavior and psychology as it existed (and still exist) and the ways that our  internal conflicts influence our behavior. Perhaps it is for us to take a mirror to ourselves and, now more cognizant of these inherent emotions, rechannel these energies towards living the Torah’s ethical and moral values.

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Tumah

This article presents ideas and interpretations that emerged from the weekly Chumash learning group that meets in the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We invite your comments, observations and participation. 

The group attendees are Dr.Yehudah Valledaris, Lenny Koegel, Miriam and Dr. Arthur Nathan, Stu Dubner, Jeff Benkoe, Ed and Elaine Feldman, Marty Langert, Richard Snitkoff and Les Gardonyi.  I am responsible for the integration of the ideas and their formulation.  Thanks to Dr. Isaac Benzaquen for reviewing this article and sharing his insights into the psychological concepts and terms.

How are we to understand this concept of Tumah/Tahra,conventionally translated as states of impurity/purity or unclean/clean? It is noteworthy that there is no Biblical injunction against being in a state of Tumah.  A person's status in this regard is relevant only regarding the permissibility of entry into holy places (Mishkan / Temple/ Mount Sinai).


We think Tumah can best be understood in psychological terms.  Our hypothesis is that Tumah is a state of cognitive loss; a "death" or "dispirited" state during which one is so deeply depressed, apathetic, and/or guilt-ridden (on some level)  that he/she no longer has the capacity to enter into any  relationship--not with Hashem and not with other human beings.


Contact with death precipitates a state of Tumah.  A corpse is considered the "ultimate father of all Tumah," because contact with death triggers a primordial uneasiness, fear (of one's own mortality? of contagion?) and negativism that  can absorb all of the person's emotional energy.  (Even medical students report a sense of uneasiness after the first encounter with a cadaver.)  Death of a family member can evoke negative emotions including sadness, resentment, anger, feelings of  unfairness, and guilt.  The person who encounters death is self-absorbed, sad, and depressed.  These feelings interfere with one's ability to connect with others.


The Torah's insight into the profound (oft-times unconscious) forces that dominate a human being's emotions and behavior is further evident in the reality that the negativity  associated with death becomes diluted the further one is removed from the source.  Thus, a person who touches a corpse (called a "Rishon L'tumah") experiences the most intense emotional negativity (i.e.,Tumah).  As that person comes into contact (e.g., shakes hands) with others, the emotion of the "death association" by the latter is a step removed and diluted.  And so on down the line as each Tameh person comes into contact with another person or object, the transmission (emotional response to the original source of Tumah) weakens.  (Please note that the halachos of Tumah are lengthy, complicated and well beyond the scope of this article.  It would be interesting at some point to study the details of Tumah and see if they fit the hypothesis we are proposing.  For the moment, however, our interest here is in providing a conceptual framework for  understanding the psychological meaning and emotional dynamics of the thing that is Tumah.)

A woman who menstruates, a women who has given birth, and people who experience abnormal sexual emissions (zav, zava) are deemed to be in a state of Tumah because  blood and fluids associated with the procreative process represent on some level of the human mind the (potential) death of a human life. Bad and sad feelings result (e.g., postpartum depression) and fill the person with negativity...i.e., Tumah. 

Guilt can drive a person into a state of Tumah - for example, when a person is in the disease state known as Tsaraas, a dermatological disorder characterized by symptoms of coloring, depth, extent.  It is thought that this condition is brought upon a person for having maligned other people (Metzorah =Motze Shem Rah).  Deep in the recesses of our soul we are aware that in speaking/behaving badly towards another our behavior is  inappropriate and harmful. Our conscience struggles with his behavior and experiences guilt on some level.  Struggling with "one's own demons" causes a person to be Tameh because preoccupation with one's own emotions interferes with the ability to relate to others.  (Note: Perhaps Tsaraas is the psychosomatic manifestation of guilt.)
                                  
The treatment of Tsaraas is also revealing.  One is isolated (moves outside the city) and prohibited from socializing with others, presumably to allow for a period of introspection regarding the ramification of one's behavior (a "time out" in current parlance.)  Other details of this isolation are remarkably similar to the Shiva regulations,when a person struggles with the emotional aftermath of death.  The psychological reverberations of death, loshon harah, tsaraas and guilt seem inextricably linked.   

The person engaged in incestuous relationship may be so racked with guilt (on some level) that he/she is unable to function in society and thus, ipso facto, exists in a state of Tumah.  The associated blood and emissions further  intensify that person's self-absorption, guilt and negativity.

Coming into contact with a dead Sheretz (insect, reptile) also makes a person Tameh.  People often react to touching swarming, creeping things with revulsion, disgust, fear and  general unease.  At that point these emotions prevail and interfere with the ability to relate to others.  One is in a state of Tumah.

Over the years it has noted (and, in our generation, said in the name of Rav Solovetchik a"h) that to understand the deeper meaning of a word, look for where that word first appears in the Torah.  The first time we encounter the root-word Tumah is in Breishis 34:5 after Shechem's seduction and rape of Yaakov's daughter, Deena.  Here the Torah focuses on Yaakov's reaction: 
"Yaakov learned that his daughter Deena had been Teemay (defiled)" and "Yaakov remained silent  until they (his sons) came home."  Tumah is the condition that is characterized by a seething rage, deep mental anguish, and a state of speechlessness all part of a galaxy of negative emotions that prevent inter-personal relationships.  Yaakov's internal turmoil presumably mirrored that of his daughter.

By understanding the psychological underpinnings of Tumah, perhaps we can get some measure of insight into the paradox of the Parah Aduma, red heifer, that is "mtahar temaim" and "mtamay tehorim" (changes one who is Tameh into  a state of Tahor and, paradoxically, can change  one who is Tahor to become Tameh).  A person who came into contact with a corpse engages in a seven day rehabilitation that culminates in a ritual involving  slaughtering the heifer, burning it and the sprinkling of blood.  The outcome is that the  individual who heretofore has been in a state of Tumah (as a result of contact with a corpse) now comes back into the original state of non-Tumah.  But the priests who perform the rituals and started off being Tahor, become Tameh! 

The ritual and symbolism of the Parah Aduma complete the working-through process required for the elimination of the negativity (Tumah) that has enveloped the person since his initial contact with the corpse.  The priests, on the other hand, are filled with positive energy and emotion when they start this ceremony, standing ready to pave the way for  the  individual who is Tameh to return to Society.  But the priests, because they now find themselves in contact with death (dead animal, blood sprinkling) experience the negative emotional associations described above, i.e., a state of Tumah.
                                      
The Mishkan, the Beis Hamikdash and Mt. Sinai have been designated by the Torah as places where an individual can have a relationship with Hashem. It is in these locations  that one can bring a Korban, an offering of/from oneself to experience closeness with the Divine.  It is in these  locations that Hashem communicates with us (from above the Cheruvim, and from atop the mountain).  Indeed, the Ramban, and more recently, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, note that the role of the Mishkan during the wandering in the desert was to serve as a constant and concrete reminder of the Mt. Sinai experience, as a kind of visual representation of the place that the special relationship with Hashem was forged.  The encampment surrounding the Mishkan, the flames from the offering of korbanot in the very center mirrored the encampment on and around Mt.  Sinai where Korbanot were offered amidst the fiery scene.

To develop a relationship one needs to prepare oneself, much as a farmer needs to plow his fields and plant seed if he is to reap the benefit of rain.  The Torah is alerting us to the reality that if we are filled with negativity in a state of emotional self absorption (Tameh) it is pointless to enter the Mishkan, for no relationship can or will happen.  This Torah truth is, of course, equally applicable to our human relationships, particularly the most important one of all, the spousal situation.  When there is the aura of negativity in one of the partners, there can be no relationship. In our view, this is the deeper message of Tumah for us all in our religious and  personal lives. 

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz 

Musings on Parshat Shlach

Following are some  of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge  from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our  interpretations  may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

On Yehoshua’s name

“…and Moshe called Hoshaya  Ben Nun, Yehoshua.”

Some commentators maintain that the name change had been made earlier. Jonathan Elkoubi thinks that Moshe Rabbenu purposely  changed the name  here  because Yehoshua was not among the prominent, wealthy Princes selected. By adding to his name with a letter that represents  Hashem, Moshe enabled  Yehoshua to be equal in stature with  the others.

On the sin of the Spies…

(…Commonly referred to as Meraglim, though that name never appears in the text).

R’ Isaac Arama, the fifteen century author of Akedat Yitzchak (cited by Nechama Leibowitz in her Studies) observes that instead of acting as neutral observers and just reporting the facts, they offered their (unsolicited) opinions.

Similarly, Rabbi Menachem  Leibtag’s view is that the group was on a National Fact Finding mission to report back the facts regarding  1) the suitability of the Land as a Homeland and 2) the feasibility  of  conquering the Land. Instead, the majority, after first reporting some facts, launch into a harsh tirade about  the impossibility of conquering the land because the people are fierce…the cities are fortified… the residents are giants …the land consumes its inhabitants…

The text says it all

After reporting how the land “flows with milk and honey”, the Spies add   "EFES"-- a word meaning nevertheless, but, zero designed by the speaker to negate everything that he just said—and  then launch into a series of reasons why the Land could not be conquered. They opine that “chazak hu memenu” meaning “they (the inhabitants of the land) are stronger than we” but also translatable as “they are stronger than Him”.This  Midrash cited  by Rashi points to the Spies’ true agenda:  to rouse the people against Hashem by insisting that the nations of the Land are stronger than Him!

What links the story of the Spies at the beginning of the Parsha to the Commandment of Tziztis at the end?

From Martin Buber and other commentaries we learn that proximity of topics has significance (Smechus Parshios) and repetition of certain words/phrases helps us identify the underlying  theme. In the Spies saga the Hebrew root-word “tur”-- meaning travel, scout, explore , go after, follow -- appears often. And understandably so, since the Spies story concerns itself with travels.

At the end of the Parsha we read  “vlo sasuru achari levavchem vacharey eeyneychem” meaning  that  Tzitzis helps us so that “we shall not follow our own hearts and our own eyes after which we may go astray”. The word sasuru relates to the root tur at the beginning of the  Parsha.

Tzitzis help us to not let our eyes cause misperception and to prevent  our hearts from causing us misconception.That the Spies were guilty of exactly both of these  negative behaviors  is  perhaps subtly suggested by the repetitious use of the root whose deeper meaning  we only begin to understand at the end of the Parsha. 

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on (Parshat) NASO

Following are some  of our ideas, insights and interpretations that emerged from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We invite your comments, observations and participation. 


  The following disparate topics covered in NASO...

• Tumah--"unclean" persons who must be removed from the camp(metzorah; contact with death; abnormal body discharge)   
• Sotah, a woman suspected by her husband of unfaithfulness, who must undergo  a water-drinking ceremony in the Temple (the only explicit example in the Torah of trial by ordeal)   
• Nazir, a person, who for personal reasons,vows to abstain from wine intoxicants; to let his hair grow and  to avoid contact with a dead body during the period of his vow (30 day minimum)
• Priestly Blessing
• Offerings of the Princes

...are linked by the Kohen-- and his key role  as a  psychologist/social worker--who facilitates  the individual's return back into the community. (The tamee stayed outside the camp; the sotah stood apart and accused by the community; the  Nazir  voluntarily separated himself from Society; the Nasiim initially refused to join in with the masses to donate to the building of the Mishkan.)


Our Thoughts on The Priestly Blessing

• It is Hashem's blessing, not the Kohen's
• Kohen's presence reflects the idea of engaging Man in building the relationship with Hashem
• In the singular to unite the nation as one (Ish Echad Blayv Echad)
• In the singular because the Priest addresses each individual and his unique needs
• A tutorial teaching each Jewish person how to address and bless his fellow Jew

Some thoughts on Sotah

• Giving the woman a chance to clear her name
• Torah goal of wanting marriages to succeed
• Public ceremony in Temple will deter any would-be wayward spouse
• "Time out" for husband lest he take matters in his own hands during this period of uncontrollable rage

On the root-word NASO
If one is in the "desert of life", afraid, alone one must lift himself up (NASO) to get back on track.Then, aided by Hashem's Blessing ("YISAH Hashem panav...") one has the potential to be counted among the Nesiim (root=naso)listed at the end of the Parsha.
(from my father, Rav Moishe Berenholz,A"H)

Shavuoth, Relationships & Tumah

This article presents ideas and interpretations that emerged from the weekly Chumash learning group that meets in the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island.We invite your comments, observations and participation. 

The group attendees are Dr.Yehudah Valledaris, Lenny Koegel, Miriam and Dr. Arthur Nathan, Stu Dubner, Jeff Benkoe, Ed and Elaine Feldman, Marty Langert, Richard Snitkoff and Les Gardonyi.  I am responsible for the integration of the ideas and their formulation.  Thanks to Dr. Isaac Benzaquen for reviewing this article and sharing his insights into the psychological concepts and terms.

"R' Isaac further said that a person is obligated to purify himself for the Festival" (Tractate Rosh Hashanah 16:b).

The need to not be in a state of Tumah is especially important for the upcoming Holiday of Shavuoth, the anniversary of the receipt of the Torah on Mount Sinai. This Divine manifestation and revelation is the fundamental experience that created a unique relationship and bonding between Hashem and us. On Shavuoth we recall and try to relive the emotional experience of Mount Sinai.

How are we to understand this concept of Tumah/Tahra,conventionally translated as states of impurity/purity or unclean/clean? It is noteworthy that there is no Biblical injunction against being in a state of Tumah.  A person's status in this regard is relevant only regarding the permissibility of entry into holy places (Mishkan / Temple/ Mount Sinai).

We think Tumah can best be understood in psychological terms.  Our hypothesis is that Tumah is a state of cognitive loss; a "death" or "dispirited" state during which one is so deeply depressed, apathetic, and/or guilt-ridden (on some level)  that he/she no longer has the capacity to enter into any  relationship--not with Hashem and not with other human beings.

Shavuoth is the holiday for celebrating relationships.  Perhaps we can now understand some aspects of the Counting of the Omer that occurs between Pesach and Shavuoth.  We count up to 49, not down from 49, despite the fact that the latter approach conveys a greater level of anticipation and excitement.  ("We have only x number of days left...") If an individual failed to count one day, he cannot recite the blessing when he counts the remaining days!  Why?  Is the number 49 of days leading up to Shavuoth coincidental or significant? 

To be prepared for the relationship experience that is Shavuoth, we must actively  build a reservoir of positive emotional/religious energies.  It is a building up process, day by day to neutralize the deep feelings of depression and worthlessness that we experienced in Egypt (that is captured in a poetic description of our having plunged to the 49th level of Tumah—meaning, in our view, to the depths of despair.)  If perchance we forget to count one day (i.e., we fail  to think and emote positivity), we have interrupted the integrity of the building process.  Each day is an emotional building block that builds on the previous day's building block.  By missing a link of a day we are no longer able to achieve the totality of the rebuilding of our spirit, a recognition that manifests in the inability to recite the Bracha.

We hope and pray that whatever we experience while counting the Omer helps us emerge from whatever Tumah state we may have been in, thereby preparing us for re-accepting and re- experiencing the defining Jewish relationship at Mt. Sinai on Shavuoth.  And we hope and pray that this healthy emotional condition extends itself to all our personal, human relationships.

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz