Hebrew School Play

The following, in three segments, is a play the Hebrew School students performed last Wednesday, January 23, 2008. The subject: how did Moses get his stutter?

Part 1







Part 2:





Part 3:

Orthodox Stance -- Go See It!

ORTHODOX STANCE will begin its exclusive NYC theatrical engagement at Cinema Village on January 25th and tickets are now on sale!

The film will screen daily at 1:30 PM, 3:20 PM, 5:10 PM, 7 PM, 9 PM, and tickets can be purchased at www.cinemavillage.com and at the box office:

Cinema Village, 22 East 12th Street (University Place & 5th Avenue)
212-924-3363. N, R, 4, 5, 6 or L train to 14th Street/Union Square

This film has been getting a lot of attention largely because the subject, Dimitry Salita, struggles in a respectful way with living in both the secular world of boxing and the religious world of Judaism. He is a solid young man with a lot of talent and he tries his best to live a life according to the mitzvot. As I am sure you have heard, he won't fight on Shabbas (listen up kids!)

I am always taken by these kinds of stories, stories where people try and bring holiness into a place where holiness is not often found, because it takes a lot of a person to be a pioneer in this way, or to stick to their convictions when not sticking to their convictions would be easier. I will have more to say about the film after I have seen it. I have seen earlier versions of it and have met Dimitry (and seen him fight).

What I would like to emphasize here is the dedication and the tenacity that the film maker, Jason Hutt, has brought to this, his work for the last couple of years. Jason likes to avoid attention and so I will not say too much about him here-- about his own ability to navigate the different worlds of Judaism and secularism, his own gentlemanly and pugilistic spirit, his own powers of observation and how they help to create a better world, but I will say that Jason deserves a lot of appreciation for sticking with this project and making sure that it was something that would be compelling, honest and engaging. He has believed in Dimitry, the film, the struggles of living in this dual world, the capacity of film to enter people into new worlds and important struggles, for a long time. If the fly on the wall had as much talent and passion as Jason for its art, we would surely put down the swatter and invite it to lunch (or fund its next projects).

Many of you have seen Jason Hutt at the shul over the past couple of years. He has been one of the supporters coming from Park Slope, dancing Tango at the Purim Bang, davenning Tisha b'Av on the floor with candles, and davenning with us on occasion on a Shabbas. He speaks kindly of our shul and we should make sure to return the support by spreading the word about his film and going to see it.

If you can, please try and see it this weekend so that interest will continue to be generated and it will get a longer run at Cinema Village. This way more people will get to see it.

"Take off your shoes, for the ground on which you stand is holy."

Last month at the ICP, there was an exhibit by the photographer Gerda Taro.  She was a photographer from the early part of the 1900s and her work primarily centered almost exclusively around the Spanish Civil war.  As a leftist, she sided with the Republicans against the rebels who tried in a coup to take power.  She was killed when a Republican tank struck the vehicle she was in as it retreated from the Battle of Brunete.  The photograph above is a picture of a woman at a firing range, practicing before battle.

What I like about the photograph, particularly, is the way that she framed her subject in the shot.  She worked with a camera that took square photographs (as opposed to rectangular) and, as you can see, the chosen placement of the woman in the frame cuts off her shoe and allows for more space on the right and more focus on the pistol.  Taro could have moved back some distance and got both of them in the shot, but did not. 

I take this to be an intentional move by Taro, meant to de-emphasize fashion (represented by the shoe) and to emphasize the drama of the woman's conviction.  Taro, herself, also chose to become involved-- less interested in Parisian life and more interested in devoting herself to a cause that she believed in. 

This question recently came up in a class at the shul when we were talking about the life that Moshe found in Midian.  It seemed that he was finally comfortable there, finding a wife and a life away from the oppression of his fellow Israelites.  He must have appreciated being away from all of the violence and the culture of oppression that he was around in Egypt.   It would be interesting to see how he would have been affected psychologically from killing a man (I am not sure anyone has done a comparison between Moshe and others who have taken lives), and interesting to consider that he would have appreciated being away from the place of that incident.  In Midian, he could have found peace.  

When Moshe names his son Gershom "I was a stranger there" most people (see the Hertz Chumash) read this as "I was a stranger in Egypt.  I was not royalty, but one of the Others" which most take to mean a move towards solidarity with the Israelites.  But it seems just as plausible to mean "I was a stranger in that environment.  I wasn't comfortable despite my luxurious surroundings.  That was not my place."  He could only know his discomfort and a sense of dislocation  when he found a place where he did fit, namely Midian.

This heightens the personal drama and highlights the sense of self sacrifice of Moshe.  Moshe left Midian after seeing the burning bush and re-entered Egypt where he would be uncomfortable and in danger.  He, in effect, chose dislocation for a sense of conviction.  He cast aside fashion and comfort for a cause he believed in.  

A question:  Most commentators read God's command to Moshe to remove his shoes near the burning bush as a desire to keep refuse which could have accumulated on Moshe's shoes away from the ground which was holy.  But could it be that when God appeared to Moshe and said, "Take off your shoes, for the ground on which you stand is holy" that God meant to teach that Holiness has nothing to do with comfort, fashion, or intermediaries (as represented by the shoes), but it has to do with engagement and real feeling (whether good or uncomfortable)?    

Halacha like Love?

This is a playful and interesting poem by W.H. Auden about the Law-- What is it? From where does it derive its authority?  How should one think about it?

I think its helpful when thinking about Halacha.

W. H. Auden
Law Like Love

Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.

Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.

Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.

Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.

Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.

Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.

And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.

If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,

No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyvay:
Like love I say.

Like love we don't know where or why,
Like love we can't compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.

Problematic Texts I

The stories of the Torah do not always end up so pleasant. And as much as I like to emphasize the fact that Yaakov and Esav seem to reconcile at the end of their lives in burying their father, there exists within Judaism (thank you Max Sparber for that language) the idea that they remained bitter until the end of their lives. After implying that he would follow his brother and live near him, he manages to have Esav go one way first, enabling him to go another.

According to Midrash Rabbah, at the end of his life, when Yaakov was carried up to the cave of Machpelah, his right to be buried there was disputed. Naphtali had to run back to Egypt for the deed to show that he (ahem) indeed was entitled to be buried there.

When Hushim, son of Dan, saw Esau restraining them from burying Jacob, he killed him. The violence that takes place while legal remedies are being sought..... The sad addendum to this needless violence is that the Midrash suggests that Jacob was pleased to see his brother killed. And that this fulfilled a prophecy of Rifka, that they would both die on the same day.

Here is the text:

בראשית רבה (תיאודור-אלבק) פרשה צז ד"ה (כא) נפתלי אילה

(כא) נפתלי אילה שלוחה מלמד שקפץ למצרים כאייל והביא שטר המערה לקבור את אביו, עד שהוא הולך בא חושים בן דן והיה חרש, וכשראה עשו מונען מלקבור את אבינו יעקב, דקרו בידו על צוארו, והתיז את ראשו, ונפלו שתי עיניו על מיטתו שליעקב אבינו, ופתח עיניו וראה נקמה ושמח שנ' ישמח צדיק כי חזה נקם (תהלים נח יא), ונתקיימה נבואת רבקה שאמ' למה אשכל גם שניכם יום אחד (בראשית 45:27

Bereshit Rabbah 98:17-

NAPHTALI IS A HIND (a female stag) LET LOOSE (XLIX, 21). This teaches that he sped to Egypt like a hind and brought the title-deeds of the cave [of Machpelah], so that his father could be buried. While he was gone there came Hushim the son of Dan, who was deaf. When he saw Esau restraining them from burying our father Jacob, he stabbed him with his hand through the neck and struck off his head. His [Esau's] two eyes fell upon the bier of our father Jacob, whereupon he [Jacob] opened his eyes, saw vengeance, and rejoiced, as it says, The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance (Ps. LVIII, 11). Thus was fulfilled Rebekah's prophecy when she said, Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day (Gen. XXVII, 45)?

Would anyone like to offer ideas about how to approach these problematic texts?

Rabbi, is there a blessing for a cheeseburger?

The first source in the gemara deals with making blessings on things that are not acquired properly. The second source deals more directly with the question of cheeseburgers.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף ו עמוד ב

רבי אליעזר אומר: הרי שגזל סאה של חטים וטחנה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה, כיצד מברך? אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ, ועל זה נאמר: ובוצע ברך נאץ ה'

R. Eliezer says: If one stole a se'ah [a measure] of wheat, ground and baked it and set apart the Hallah, what benediction can he pronounce? This man would not be blessing, but contemning, and of him it is written, The robber [bozea’] who blesseth, contemns the Lord. (Psalms 10:3)

הלכות ברכות לריטב"א פרק ה אות יב

יב. מי שאכל או שתה דברים האסורים מן התורה או מדבריהם אינו מברך לפניהם ולא לאחריהם כלל שאין זה הנאה, ועל המברך נאמר (תהלים י') ובוצע ברך נאץ ה', ואין צריך לומר כשאכלם באיסור אלא אפילו אכלם בהיתר מפני חליו שהיה מסוכן אינו חשוב נהנה ואינו מברך עליו כלל, שכל הנאה שתחילתה באונס וסופה ברצון אינה הנאה'

One who ate or drank something that is forbidden either in the Torah or by the rabbis should not make a blessing after or before it at all, for one does not derive benefit from it. And about the person who does bless it is said, “The robber who blesses expresses contempt for God (Psalm 10:3),” It is not necessary to say that one does not bless only when one eats in that is forbidden (and does so willlingly), rather even when one eats (something that is forbidden) with permission because he is sick or in danger, since it is not considered “benefit,” you don’t need to bless on it at all. For any “benefit” that at the beginning is because of force at the end is out of will is still not considered benefit. (See also Ketubot 51b.)

(What I take this to mean is that if someone has to eat something that is forbidden in order to derive a later benefit from it -- that is, it will have curative affects, even though that cure would be seen as a benefit, it is not considered as such because initially, upon ingestion, one was performing the act because of dire need.)

So, the answer is no.

Is posting a picture of a cheeseburger on a blog deriving benefit from it even if it's purpose is to teach one about the impermissibility of making a bracha on one? Hmmm.....

Channukah Irony

One of the nice things you can do on Channukah is put more candles burning in the Channukia after the first set burns down, so you can be near the Channukah candles for longer. (Just don't say the bracha again.)

The problem with this is that because most boxes come with only slightly more candles for the holiday, using part of another box may have you end up the next year with a box of candles left over with only a couple candles in it. Then when you look at your Channukah supplies you may think that you don't need to go out and get candles because you will see the box and assume it's full.

This happened to us this year and we didn't know it until tonight when (lo and behold!) there had only been candles for the first two nights.

How odd it was to realize that indeed the box was empty.....