A Quick Torah Thought

Truth be told, I would doubt that it's common knowledge for the average layman to know who built the most impressive architectural structures of our time. From the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, the Sears Towers, the Sydney Opera House, or the Burj Khalifa, the average person simply doesn't know who engineered these spectacular architectural feats. Now, imagine that President Biden, or Emmanuel Macron, or Vladimir Putin were to give a State of the Union Address, or any other type of presidential address, and dedicate a significant portion of it to the identity and lineage of the architect who was to build a new landmark building, his pedigree, specific specialties, professional training, and sub-specialties, both as a craftsman and pedagogue. That, though, is what happens in Moshe's address to the nation about the mishkan , the tabernacle and home for God.  And Moses said to the Israelites: See, Hashem has singled out by name Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, o...

Hebrew works differently than English in the sense that if two words have the same root - especially in the Tanach - you are expected to find a similarity in purpose, and meaning. I struggled in this week's parsha to find the common thread between two such words.  When Adam and Eve, walked around without clothing in the Garden of Eden, it says " ve'lo yitbo'shashu, " universally, and intuitively translated as "they were not embarrassed." You could substitute the word "ashamed," "uncomfortable," or anything that would constitute the converse of how one would feel nowadays were he to walk in the public domain entirely bare.  The same root, it would seem, is used in this week's parsha. The verse states that Moshe had tarried, or at least, the nation thought that he had: " Vayar ha'am ki boshesh Moshe la'redet min ha'har. " Moshe was late. He had delayed, come later than expected, precipitating the almost surreal...

 Sometimes, when I read the Torah I struggle to understand whether something seems strange to me because of contemporary societal norms, or whether, even today, we have some form, or expression of a biblical mannerism, or behavioral pattern in the fabric of our own everyday lives.  I am referring to the dressing of Aharon and his sons on the part of Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe, as Yitro, his father in law, himself, says, was no less than a king. A king is someone who is on a pedestal over all others. And thus, it seemed strange to me that in the Parsha of Tetzaveh, Moshe was commanded to dress his brother, Aharon, the high priest, and not just Aharon, but his sons as well. Perhaps one could say that it was an inaugural, one-time process, yet even leaving my anachronistic suspicions aside, it would seem that even at the time of the mishkan it was a dramatic act for a king to be dressing the high priest. Granted, Aharon was his older brother and there was great affection between them,...

This week's parshah starts off with each and every Jew being afforded the opportunity to give of the goodness of his heart for the collective good. You wanna give, give, you don't, that's also fine. No strings attached. And indeed, each person gave of the goodness of his and her heart.  The ironic, subtly satisfying part is that the Jewish people as a whole, despite the pro bono nature of the mishkan's construction, are commanded, "Make me for a sanctuary, and I will rest among you," which in essence means that even were certain parties to be miserly and refrain from giving, they too would be in fulfillment of God's commandment. This, thus, teaches us a fascinating dialectic, something that pertains to vital decisions we must make with halachic implications as well.  There are those deeds and actions which are obligatory. On the other hand, there are those which are referred to as lifnei m'shurat ha'din , or over and beyond the letter of the law. H...

Some of the most visually powerful verses in the portion of Mishpatim refer to the punishment of the one who mistreats the widow or orphan (Exodus 22: 21-23) You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me, and My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your own wives shall become widows and your children orphans.  The question I would like to ask is why the sword is used as the symbol for retaliation against the one who has abused the orphan or the widow. There are many ways in which a person can be punished, hanging, starvation, conflagration. The "sword" is perhaps indicative of something deeper. The verse, likewise, could have said, "My anger shall blaze forth and I shall surely smite you," or something equally destructive in nature. I would like to suggest that the sword is a form of metonymy, the sword representative or reflective of something else.  I believe we ...