A Quick Torah Thought

The Ramban writes in this week's Torah portion, Massei, that Herzl was in violation of a Torah commandment by acquiescing to accept Uganda, even temporarily, instead of the Land of Israel.  Rashi shares that there is no commandment per se to settle the land, but rather, sees it as a causal consequence of conquest of the land. The Ramban, though, shares that were one to supplant the desire and actualization of one's dream to attain the land, by entertaining another - as fit for the Jewish people, then ipso facto, a communal, societal Torah obligation has been violated.  That, perhaps, would explain the divine intervention in the rejection of Herzl's plan.  The Ramban writes that the Torah forbids any attempt to conquer another land at the expense of the Land of Israel. It would seem, in Herzl's vision, that the choice of a land other than Israel, the historical complexity notwithstanding, went hand-in-hand with his willingness, and even aspiration, to achieve a secular s...

I once spoke at a local shul after davening about the topic of this week's Torah portion, namely oaths and vows. I spoke about the annulment of vows and ventured that the Torah saw the woman as being in need of protection, for what she promised to do needed to first be green-lighted by a male with authority over her. I remember so vividly, after I spoke, being excoriated by a friend, a friend who was very dear to me. He accused me of presenting the Torah in a patriarchal light, chauvinist and even sexist. Women, he argued, do not need a protective veil draped over their shoulders by a man. At the same time, a simple reading of the text creates a clear bifurcation between women whose oaths can be annulled by a man, a father or spouse, and those which can not. A daughter's vow can be annulled by her father, and a wife's by her husband; these clearly bespeak a patriarchal interpretation – a woman can not do something that contravenes the fragile fabric of the home life, and ...

The Midrash on this week's parsha states that one brings atonement and peace to the world, when weeding out evil. The Midrash asks why is it that the opening verses of the Parsha state that Pinchas brought atonement to the world, if the only way to do so is through bringing a korban, or sacrificial offering? Thus, teaches the Midrash, killing evildoers is like bringing a korban.  Though it may be mindboggling in its own right how Pinchas was vilified after killing Zimri, the Prince of Shimon, given that his zealous act ended a plague that had already killed 24,000 men, that notwithstanding, it is important to conceptualize the sheer courage his act required. Stepping up to the plate, when everyone around him was on a much higher level, a stature he could seemingly never attain. With his great zeal, uprooting evil, he brought peace, atonement and restored order to the people of Israel.  When seeing the Midrash I couldn't help but recall the infamous episode in 1948 involving th...

 A curse is meant to succeed, not like the glib, meaningless curses tossed around today. A curse was once upon a time meant to function, to not only bespeak one's disdain for the party being cursed, but also, cause the person who has been cursed to suffer, become susceptible and the recipient of a worse fate.  Why then did God intervene in the case of Bilaam? Hashem gave Bilaam the power to curse, only to override the very functionality given to him.  It would seem, like the Haftorah states, that God's majesty is seen in His willingness to overrule the very rules he created, were they be in contravention of the betterment of the Jewish people. For what's the point of a world where one could use its implements to hurt the party most beloved by God Himself?  Though I'm not 100% sure the two are connected, it would seem that the idea behind the ben sorer umoreh is similar. A wayward son, who steals from his parents to guzzle wine and feast on meat, as bad as he is, is s...

Every year anew, we are faced with the challenge of understanding why it was that Moshe and Aharon were forbidden from entering the land of Israel. Most people know what Rashi has to say about the matter: they should have spoken to the rock, not smitten it. So many questions abound: Why did Moshe strike the stone twice, if one time would have sufficed? Why are Moshe and Aharon, the Ramban asks, chastised only after they have smit the stone the second time? Why was Moshe told to take his staff? These questions all lead the Ramban to reject Rashi's view.  The Ramban, though, treated Rashi with silk gloves; when the Ramban comments on the Rambam's opinion, he minces no words: "He ("The Rambam") adds insult to injury" - or in Hebrew  hosif hevel l'havalim, " vanity to vanity . " The Ramban rejects the Rambam's opinion with such vigor, attacking it from every angle. The Rambam wrote that it was Moshe's anger that precipitated the severe puni...

There are at least two things that left me baffled about this week's Torah portion; they both revolve around the ketoret or the incense offering.  Firstly, how could it be that 250 people offered the sacred incense offering, knowing that only one would be chosen, and very possibly, Aharon at that? Each knew what the stakes were: death. Plain and simple. It was either him, or one of the 250 others (Aharon included). And yet, each so willingly, with the greatest of alacrity, brought forth and prepared the most sacred of incense offerings, a concoction of spices that to this very day one is forbidden from preparing.  I can't help but being reminded of Stalin; his paranoia led him to replace his security chief at whim, each incoming chief knowing that he too would be replaced and relegated to most certain death. Yet, for those fortunate - or unfortunate few - they had the greatest certainty that they had been chosen, hand-selected, by no other than Stalin himself; in the case of t...