A Quick Torah Thought

Whoever has ever run a household budget, let alone an organization, business, campaign - and certainly a synagogue - knows that there's never enough money. At some point, there's gonna be a hole, a shortfall or the need for some money to tide you over from one month to the next. We know it, and everyone knows it, and Moses also knew it! And yet, when the craftsman and artisans building the Mishkan came and said, "We've got enough!," Moshe, without missing a beat, said, "STOP! No More! We're fully covered," a call then resounding through the camp, telling the masses to halt their donations immediately.  Transplant that on modern times. As a rule of thumb, I try not to ask people to donate money for any cause; I think it's a personal decision, and I'm not looking to reciprocate and donate to each and every cause simply because I felt a particular cause was important and so asked others to partake. That notwithstanding, a week doesn't go by ...

Reading the parsha, I couldn't help but ask: Why was Aharon spared? "Every man must kill son and brother alike," Moshe commanded the Levites - and so, why wasn't Aharon killed the likes of everyone else.  Nepotism has never been acceptable in Jewish thought, but in reflecting on the question, I can't help but remember an anecdote - probably fictitious - in which a new associate, after making a business mistake of the greatest enormity, renders his resignation.  The employer looks him square in the eyes and says, "You just got a million dollar education. You're not going anywhere!" According to the Midrash, the ignominy of Aharon's deeds was carried on to his sons, and Nadav and Avihu were punished more severely for the "foreign fire" they had sacrificed as a result.  Likely, in sparing Aharon, Hashem was conveying that on the one hand he eschews nepotism, but that notwithstanding, does give leaders a second chance when the onus of the m...

One of the things that is most unique about the story of Megillat Esther is the fact that it presents, to the best of my knowledge, an unparalleled depiction of gender relations in the Tanach where man and woman are on equal footing. The Torah, for one, depicted a very patriarchal society, but in the story of how things unfold between Mordechai and Esther, the two of them climb to the same stature, each commanding the other, each directing the actions of the other, each acquiring a posture on parity with the other. The Megillah explicitly states that Mordechai had adopted Esther. It is unclear though whether they were husband and wife, or simply, Esther was an orphan in his home. It would seem the former is the more accurate reading because the Megillah states how beautiful Esther was in the context of her having been adopted by Mordechai, seeming to connote that there is some logical connection between her adoption and her looks. Thereafter, after Vashti is demoted – the Megillah ...

A friend of mine spoke Friday night in shul and posited the following question:  "Why weren't the cherubs considered idolatry?" I couldn't help at first but feeling that he was missing the point, but on second glance, the cherubs, baby-faced, golden and engraved, seemed to be not very different than the golden calf.  What, then, is uniquely characteristic of the cherubs that enable them to fulfill their unique function, and not be tantamount to idolatry? The cherubs were attached to the golden cover, the Kaporet , that covered the holy ark, where not only the broken tablets were held, but also, the fully intact ones, as well as the Torah written by Moshe Rabbeinu. God's voice came down to the Jewish people ONLY through the cherubs, which means, presumably that there was something unique about this relationship between God's voice, the two cherubs, and the Jewish people, symbolized either by the Kohen Gadol who would enter the place of the Holy of Holies once a...