This time I went out for Shabbos dinner AND had lunch at home- usually I don't do either, let alone both.

In fact I even had guests so I put on a show!  In honor of the "red red stew" and lentils that Esau requested from Jacob (Gen. 25:30, 25:34) I made an all-red shabbos lunch for myself and two guests.

Here it was:

red bread (whole wheat flour mixed w/red soda)
apples
strawberries
lentils w/canned diced tomatoes (this was my cholent/stew - in crockpot overnight.  Lentils much lighter than conventional beans- must try more as cholent?)
canned salmon w/tomato sauce
smoked salmon
as a cold salad, red kidney beans w/more diced tomatoes
lentil pizza (with various cheeses on different parts of it- most of it will be lunch tuesday)
to drink, raspberry crystal light (also had wine and water to drink)
a red cake (white cake mix w/red soda- also, as an icing mixed vanilla icing with strawberry preserves)

Posted by conservadox at 2:33 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Three interesting points:

1.  This week's parsha is about Jacob's exile from Canaan.  The Gutnik notes that just as Jacob's exile was not entirely negative, the current exile is not either, becuase Jews can "convert the spiritual vaccuum of exile so that it becames an environment which is conducive to holiness."

This is common Chabad doctrine- the idea that by performing mitzvos on a space we make it holier.

There was a time a few months ago when this concept really came alive for me.  Last July 4 weekend I visited Dallas, and was on Dealey Plaza (I think on Sunday the 5th).  I went to the infamous "grassy knoll" *- certainly not a place most people associate with holiness. I happened to have some peanut butter on hand,  so I said the appropriate (?) blessing and ate it there.  

I guess Gutnik would say that by performing a mitzvah on the grassy knoll, this place of infamy*, I sanctified that spot.  I cannot say whether my activity had any supernatural effect.  But surely it had an effect on me (at least enough that I remember it!)

2.  Also...the Gutnik asks how Jacob could marry 2 sisters, given the common Midrashic idea that the Patriarchs kept the mitzvot before Sinai.  Gutnik explains: if the Patriarchs did keep the mitzvos it was just a personal stringency, and the basic ethical notion against fraud took priority.  And since Jacob had already promised to marry Rachel, his invocation of halachic stringencies would have been fraud.  A nice example of how ethics take priority over ritual. 

3.  Also....the Gutnik has a nice way of comparing Leah and Rachel. Because of Rachel's flawless beauty, she is compared to the "perfect tzadik."  Because of Leah's "weak eyes" and some other midrashic stuff, she is compared to the baal teshuvah and referred to (by Gutnik) as "outgoing" enough to bring the outside world to holiness.

The broader concept here is: it takes all kinds to bring goodness into the world: the introvert and the extrovert, the perfect and the evolving.

There's a personal story I have that supports the point.  A few months ago, I stayed with a frum family for shabbos.  (Why? Long story... not relevant to this post).  Daddy asks me who was my mentor.  I dodge the issue because really there's no one person who fits the description for me.  In the past ten years, I've lived in five cities and belonged to about ten shuls (including four C, one Sephardic O, one yeshivish-leaning O, one Chabad, one modern O, and two nondenominational).  So I've learned from breadth rather than depth. 

By contrast, many people fall in love with one shul or rabbi and are guided over time by same.  Both breadth and depth have value; depth would have given me the advantage of a close personal relationship with a spiritual mentor. 

But breadth has allowed me to learn from a variety of approaches and avoid stagnating by being stuck in one spiritual "place."  (And yes, I have become more observant as a result, since my evolution has been mostly towards more traditional shuls). 

As I said, it takes all kinds. 

Posted by conservadox at 2:33 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 23 November 2009 2:48 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In this week’s parsha, Isaac says to Jacob “May [God] give the blessing of Abraham to you” (Gen.28:5).  This blessing occurs right before Jacob leaves Canaan to find a wife-so naturally (says the Gutnik Chumash) Rashi thinks this blessing must be connected to wives and children.

Specifically, Rashi concludes that the blessing was related to God’s promise to Abraham that the nations of the world “will be blessed through your children” (Gen. 22:18)   That blessing, like the one to Jacob, “was given to Abraham before embarking on a journey, which is precisely what Yaakov was about to do here. 

Rashi comments there that God gave Abraham this blessing because ‘traveling diminishes … fertility’ so the blessing of Abraham was especially apt for Yaakov at this time, since he was embarking on the task of building a family.” (Gutnik commentary to 28:5).

For once, Rashi and common sense concur!  Traveling really does make family formation difficult.  I am living in a new city for an [academic] year to go to school, and am finding that it makes dating very difficult.  The women I have dated have no desire to move from where they are to where I normally live (especially since where I normally live is a smaller, duller city with a MUCH smaller Jewish community; its only possible advantage is warmer weather).*   And even if they did, I will only be here six more months and a possible Ms. Right is unlikely to want to make that decision after just six months.

Some of my well-intentioned relatives say “Oh, well don’t be worried about this; the right woman will move for you.”  This view is all well and good when you have been happily married to someone for 17 yrs (as the aforementioned relatives have been). But at the very start of a relationship, when two people barely know each other, its not quite as plausible to expect geographic flexibility- as I am learning the hard way. 

I wish I could live in one place that I actually liked (as opposed to merely tolerating)- but unfortunately, my life has played out that I either have to have good jobs in bad cities or bad jobs (usually temp jobs) in good cities.  And as a man I know that I am not going to be particularly desirable in a good city as a semi-employed bum, so the 2^nd option really is no better than the first.

One advantage of the Gutnik is that (unlike the Chumashes I have been using for the past two years, Sforno and the Women’s Commentary) it contains Haftorot.  This week’s Haftorah (the book of Malachi) says that God says “You bring stolen, lame and sick ones [animals]and bring [them as] gift offerings.” (Mal. 1:13]. 

Conventional wisdom among liberal Jews has always been that the Prophetic books are about ethics, not just about ritual. Malachi suggests otherwise.  The line between prophets and Torah is in fact a blurry one; prophets sometimes emphasize ritual and Torah ethics.  In Biblical Judaism the division simply wasn’t as sharp as it may seem today. 

Of course, that begs the question: why ritual?  One answer (probably Malachi's) is that God said so.

But if you don't find that persuasive, it seems to me one could argue that ritual and ethics are intertwined- that by creating God-consciousness, ritual increases ethical behavior. 

A second alternative is favored by Richard Elliot Friedman (author of a liberal Chumash I read some yrs ago); he argues that ritual is a kind of confidence-builder: our ethics may never be perfect, but at least ritual we can get right.  

*So if you're trying to narrow down where I live normally, its a warm-weather city with one or two of each denomination.  I'm not telling you more beyond that. 

Posted by conservadox at 2:14 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 16 November 2009 2:19 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Since the tragedy in Mumbai happened a year ago [and also because I'm not sure if I can do dinner at home this coming week], I thought I would make this something of an Indian Shabbat.

Baked bananas [haven't had in awhile, but always delicious]

Yellow beans with tandoori sauce w/yogurt (OK)

Fish with vindaloo sauce (turbot, sea bass, minced whitefish – all OK I think the turbot was the best; the sea bass wasn’t worth the extra cost)

Whole wheat noodles with a mediocre attempt at pad thai sauce (VH – don’t recommend this one; some of their other sauces are better)

Choc cake (nothing special, maybe because mix was parve)

Next week I want to do something red [since Esau craves red lentils] in honor of Toldot- but not sure yet whether lunch or dinner. 

Posted by conservadox at 2:13 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

If anyone out there reads this blog, you might be aware that I use a new Chumash every year (both for my own use and for my commentaries on this blog). 

I am now starting with the Gutnik Chumash, the new Chabad chumash.  It consists of commentaries on Rashi's Torah commentary, sort of written by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson.  I say "sort of" because the Chumash was written after the Rebbe's death by Chabadniks, based on notes which in turn were based on the Rebbe's talks.  So they are kind of a "Cliff's Notes" version of whatever the Rebbe actually said, which I suppose mean anything silly or erroneous is the fault of the Rebbe's disciples rather than the Rebbe himself.

So far I am surprised by how fundamentalist the Chumash is, if that's the right word.   To at least as much of an extent as the Artscroll and maybe more, it ignores science and history aggressively, and tends to take the most bizarre Midrashic legends pretty literally.  For example, in explaining certain issues related to Abraham, it assumes that most people had unusually long lifespans as did Abraham himself- a rather odd view given our knowledge that life expectancy seems to have increased rather than decreased over the centuries.

On the other hand, it is basically a commentary on Rashi, and Rashi leans in that direction to a much greater extent than other well-known medieval commentators.  My next post will be a dvar Torah on this week's parsha (Chayei Sarah) focusing on a couple of the Gutnik's insights.

Posted by conservadox at 12:49 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The Gutnik Chumash raises a couple of issues in passing that grabbed me.

In the context of discussing Abraham's purchase of a tomb for Sarah (Gen. 23), the Chumash notes the difference between "national ownership" and "personal ownership" of land.* "National ownership" means the land is part of nation X or Y (e.g. the US or Canada).  "Personal ownership" is of course private ownership.  Specifically Gutnik notes that both coexist, becuase even though an individual may own land privately, "its general right of ownership belongs to the government ... which may impose taxes on the owner [and]... evict the owner from the land." (Citing Talmud).

This view rejects the property rights stream in American politics, which treats property as inalienable and overlooks the governmental role in creating and enforcing property rights.  The state not only creates a justice system to protect property, but creates rules of law that define who owns which property and where everyone's boundaries are.  The Constitution may (at least in the USA) limit government's rights, but the Constitution too is a state creation.

A second interesting issue relates to race and religion.  Abraham tells his servant Eliezer to get a wife for Isaac from his relatives in Haran but to take the wife back to Canaan rather than to have Isaac go to Haran (23:6).Why?  

On the one hand, the Gutnik cites the 17thc. Kli Yakar's statement that the people of Canaan "had a genetic predisposition to self-indulgent desires."  A little racist, but understandable - if they are genetically messed up obviously you don't want to marry them.

But why stay in Canaan then instead of moving to Haran?  Abraham describes God as the God "of the heaven and the God of the Earth."  (24:3) Rashi interprets this to mean that although God was always the God of Heaven, Abraham's prosletyzing made him mentioned often enough to be the "God of the Earth." So far as good.  The Gutnik infers that this "mentioning" must have been where Abraham lived,i.e. in Canaan.  So the Canaanites, despite their self-indulgence, were God-mentioners; maybe they worshipped God along with dozens of other deities.  (PS This has a historical basis that the Gutnik ignores- El is both a name for God and also a Canaanite hame for same). By contrast, the Haranites were presumably 100 percent idol-worshippers so it wouldn't make sense to live there.  So Isaac has the best of both worlds: he lives in a place where God is mentioned but has a wife from a (idol-worshipping) family of good moral character.

But what's really interesting about this interpretation is that the Gutnik is severing the link between good religion and good character: the relatively moral Haranites are the most flagrant idol-worshippers.  Is Gutnik trying to tell us that being frum doesn't always lead to good moral behavior?

Maybe- though on the other hand, Laban (Rachel's uncle) is not such a great guy as we will see in upcoming parshiyot.  So even if the Haranites are better than the Canaanites they still need a little work.

*Full context: When trying to buy the tomb, Abraham describes himself as a "immigrant and resident" (Gen. 23:4) Rashi is trying to figure out why the Torah uses both terms, and suggests that he wants to buy as an "immigrant" but if they refuse to sell the land he will take it over as a "resident." But Rashi and Gutnik fail to answer the question- "You and whose army?" Will some sort of miracle give Abraham the land or something?

Posted by conservadox at 12:49 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

A sudden thought:

Patty is to Cathy as

Ishmael as to Isaac (or perhaps Islam is to Judaism?)

 see  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTqKcojrVY if you don't know anything about Patty and Cathy!

Posted by conservadox at 4:03 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

From the Jewish Theological Seminary:

Taste of Torah

A Commentary by Rabbi Matthew Berkowitz, director of Israel Programs, JTS  

Genesis 22:2 And God said, “Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and raise him up as an offering on one of the mountains that I will point out to you.”

Joseph B’khor Shor, “raise him up as an offering,” The Holy One Blessed be He masked his words, and Abraham thought that God commanded him to slaughter Isaac and burn him there. For that reason, Abraham brought along with him fire, wood, and a knife. But God did not, in actuality, command this; rather God said, “raise him up” on the altar and the intent was once he was raised up, the commandment would be fulfilled.

One of the most terrifying and troubling texts of all of Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, appears in this week’s Torah reading, Parashat Va-yera. In Akeidat Yitzhak (the binding of Isaac), we confront an Abraham blinded by the divine command to bring his beloved son Isaac for a sacrifice. Rather than question God’s demand (as he does in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah—seemingly for total strangers), Abraham listens to the voice of God and prepares Isaac for the trial of his life. So many questions arise in the heart and mind of the thoughtful reader. How could Abraham, who had prayed long and hard for progeny, be so willing to sacrifice his son Isaac? Since God promised Abraham a future teeming with descendants, why doesn’t Abraham challenge the Source of blessing by arguing that God is going back on his promise? And, of course, what is the nature of a God that would demand child sacrifice? While these queries represent some of the philosophical challenges of this narrative, the story itself also offers some portals of understanding into God’s and Abraham’s actions.

In explaining the second verse of Va-yera, Joseph B’khor Shor raises the possibility that Abraham incorrectly hears the command of God. God declares, “Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and raise him up as an offering on one of the mountains that I will point out to you.” God does not explicitly tell Abraham to slaughter his son. Rather, the words employed are veha’alayhu sham l’olah (bring him up there for elevating). These words lead both Rashi and B’khor Shor to comment that God’s intent was simply to ask that Abraham “bring Isaac up,” and that once he would be brought up, God would then request that he be taken down.

For Joseph B’khor Shor, Akeidat Yitzhak represents a breakdown in communication. Abraham misinterprets the words of God and such misperception leads to almost tragic consequences. God tells Abraham simply “to bring his son up”; Abraham, however, hears “sacrifice Isaac as an offering to God.” Almost daily, we encounter minor breakdowns in communication. An email text is misinterpreted. Human nature compels us to jump to judgments and conclusions that often times are absent from the source’s original intent. If nothing else, this pivotal story of Israelite experience commands us to sharpen our communication skills—in both listening to the voice of God and our fellow humans. Questioning, verifying, and pushing back are positive attributes that can only bring us to live holier lives. A life led in simple and blinding obeisance contains within it seeds of destruction—and there is no guarantee that an angel of God will stay our hand the next time we confront such a situation.

Posted by conservadox at 3:09 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

This coming week’s Torah portion includes the Akedah- in which God suggests to Abraham that he sacrifice Isaac, but at the last minute tells Abraham to stop.  How can God go from promising Abraham that Isaac will be the ancestor of a great nation, then telling him to sacrifice Isaac, then stopping Abraham at the last minute?  Not only does this narrative, when interpreted conventionally, make God out to be cruel, it also makes God out to be a flip-flopper. 

Saadia Gaon (a 9^th c. Iraqi rabbi) deals with these concerns in an interesting way.  First, he notes that the Torah never tells Abraham directly to kill Isaac; since the language tells him to “bring” Isaac, Saadia suggests that God is being purposefully ambiguous, at most telling Abraham to be prepared for the worst.

More audaciously, Saadia suggests that even if Isaac had been sacrificed, he would have been resurrected (in order to avoid the possibility that God would promise all sorts of things for Isaac and then have him killed).

Posted by conservadox at 9:01 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 31 October 2009 9:02 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink