• Sardines - so the ‘din’ should ’sar’ from us
• Brocolli - “bracha li”
• Avocado - so we should merit a good advocate

and the best one…

• One should eat lettuce, half a raisin, and celery, and say: “Let us have a raise in salary”.

Ouch.

ShareThis

By passing the meticulous screening process, I have now become a Google Adwords certified professional. This screening process involves successfully managing multiple clients’ Adwords accounts, studying what really works for our clients and passing a rigorous exam, administered by Google.

At SalemGlobal, we are experts at helping our clients get the most out of their Adwords accounts, and Google agrees.

ShareThis

Wall Street is a a bunch of six year old kids that have brought home a big sack of Halloween candy. The taxpayer is the parents, who instead of hiring a responsible adult to babysit, opt for a seven year old for the job. The main point of the job is to keep the six year olds from doing what six year olds do best in this situation, i.e. eat too much candy. Not surprisingly, the seven year old does not exactly prioritize this as his mission, and the six year olds eat way too much candy and get sick, all over the rug. The parents come home to discover the mess. They pay the babysitter and send him home (actually this part of the analogy isn’t quite right - they actually pay him double and ask him to return the next evening for a repeat engagement). On his way out the door, the seven year old babysitter comments, “You know what the problem is here, right? You’re going to need lots more candy…”

There, that should set you straight!

ShareThis

At our Friday night dinner table, Sue pointed out the importance of the placement of these passages - right before the dire warnings of exile in chapter 28. The obvious difference between Bikkurim and Maaser is that Bikkurim is a thanksgiving offering to God, with its attendant pomp and ceremony, and the declaration discussing national history - and the requirement that this be performed at the Temple - reflect this character. Maaser, on the other hand, is about the social justice system demanded by the Torah. It takes place locally, involving one’s landless neighbors. Only Maaser ends with a plea for God’s blessing (Deuternonomy 26:15):

“Look forth from Thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel, and the land which Thou hast given us”

The message is clear - it is Maaser which God judges us on. It is the support of the weaker elements of society which allow us to invoke God’s blessing and to hope to avoid the consequences of chapter 28. The emphasis in Maaser on attention to detail, and its proximity to the ceremonious Bikkurim, serve to reinforce the idea that our welfare as an independent nation enjoying God’s protection is based solely on the state of our social contract, not on the ceremonial trappings of the religious establishment.

ShareThis

Ki Tisa begins with two similar yet different passages - the bring of Bikkurim (first fruits) to the temple, with its attendant declaration, and the giving away of Maaser (tithe) to the landless, with its declaration. It’s worth having a brief read of the passages themselves before continuing, in Deuteronomy 26.

The Bikkurim declaration is a historical review of God’s promise to the forefathers of the nation, beginning with the Canaanite period before the Egyptian exile. It takes place at the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Maaser declaration is concerned with the meticulous attention to detail in the rules of Maaser. It also refers to God’s promise to the forefathers.

The Mishna points out that there are people, e.g. a convert, who bring bikkurim and maaser but  without the declaration - because the references to ‘our forefathers’ do not apply. The Ramabam (based on the Yerushalmi) overrules the mishna in the case of Bikkurim - the convert is considered a descendant of Abraham - but agrees in the case of Maaser that the convert is ineligible to make the declaration. Why the difference?

Ramban on Deuteronomy 26:13 suggests that the forefathers of the Maaser declaration are actually the generation of the exodus (based on the reference to ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’, which does not appear in Genesis but is first spoken to Moses). The question arises, though - why did God make these promises about the Land of Israel to Moses, wasn’t the promise to Abraham still in effect?

There are other instances, though, of commandments with a dual nature. Shabbat occurs every seven days - but we are still commaned to sanctify it. The first-born is born holy - but we are still commanded to sanctify it. Apparently, God wishes for us to participate in these sanctifications - it is not sufficient that they exist independently. Similarly, perhaps there was an existing promise - but we were then required to participate in it, and that is the nature of the covenants of Sinai.

If so, the convert is not considered a descendent of the forefathers  of the Exodus (as opposed to his being a descendant of at least one of the patriarchs). Moreover, Bikkurim seems to be a celebration of the promise to the patriarchs, which was a one-sided grant by God. Maaser, however, stems from the bilateral covenant in which Israel is responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the Torah.  While the convert certainly assumes these obligations, he cannot say thet the Israelites of Sinai were actually his forefathers, and so is exempt from the Maaser declaration.

This idea went over well at the DJC. After discussing it at home, though, a much better analysis was advanced by Sue…so please see part II for details…

ShareThis

Every year, we approach the High Holidays with sincere intentions and high hopes. We resolve to change our ways, to improve ourselves and our relationships with God and with our fellow man. And yet, gnawing at the back of our minds is the knowledge that next year, we will more than likely be back at the same spot, having perhaps experienced some success during the year but also much failure. We know that we will be making the same resolutions, with the same hope for improvement but also with the fatalism borne of long experience.

Perhaps baseball can shed some light on this predicament. Growing up in Brooklyn in the 1950’s, Schulweiss was of course a Brooklyn Dodgers fan. Every spring was filled with hope, and these hopes only intensified in September as fans dared to hope that this would be the year that the Dodgers would grasp the brass ring. And yet, at the same time, these fans knew from long experience that their hopes would likely be frustrated come October, as the prize slipped from their grasp. Yet the same hopes would genuinely spring up again and again, season after season - perhaps this will be the year!

Meanwhile, those smug Yankees fans of the period just knew at the beginning of  each season, with a fair degree of certainty, that their hopes would be fulfilled and the Yankees would bring home another pennant and likely a World Series victory.

So it is somewhat comforting to know that despite the fact that we so often fall into the same old patterns, despite our best intentions - there is hope for change and success! Even the hapless Boston Red Sox, despite decades of perennial dashed hopes, had their dogged persistance finally rewarded. Similarly, we may continue to dare to hope that this will be the year that our renewed efforts of teshuva will finally yield their fruits.

At the same time, those Yankees fans among us - those who succeed, year after year, of achieving the lofty goals they set for themselves each Rosh HaShanah - must continue to beware the pitfalls of over-confidence, lest they lose that edge which somehow enables them to reach their goals.

May the coming new year bring renewed hope, improvement, and success to all of us.

ShareThis

ShareThis

ShareThis

“50% successful,” he replied. “The poor people are willing to accept the money…”

(Hat tip - Jay of Medex Medical Supplies)

ShareThis

Before giving my thoughts, I would like to digress to an idea I heard recently at the YCT Yemei Iyyun in Tanach from Dr Aster about the place of Hazael, king of Aram, in Tanach. II Kings 8 tells us:

7 And Elisha came to Damascus; and Ben-hadad the king of Aram was sick; and it was told him, saying. ‘The man of God is come hither.’ 8 And the king said unto Hazael: ‘Take a present in thy hand, and go meet the man of God, and inquire of the LORD by him, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?’ 9 So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him, and said: ‘Thy son Ben-hadad king of Aram hath sent me to thee, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?’ 10 And Elisha said unto him: ‘Go, say unto him: Thou shalt surely recover; howbeit the LORD hath shown me that he shall surely die.’ 11 And he settled his countenance stedfastly upon him, until he was ashamed; and the man of God wept. 12 And Hazael said: ‘Why weepeth my lord?’ And he answered: ‘Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child.’ 13 And Hazael said: ‘But what is thy servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?’ And Elisha answered: ‘The LORD hath shown me that thou shalt be king over Aram.’ 14 Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him: ‘What said Elisha to thee?’ And he answered: ‘He told me that thou wouldest surely recover.’ 15 And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took the coverlet, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died; and Hazael reigned in his stead.

This is introduced much earlier, in the time of Elijah, in I Kings 19:

15 And the LORD said unto him: ‘Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when thou comest, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram; 16 and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. 17 And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.

Dr Aster mentioned a stele found in Hazor (?) in which the Aramean king boasts of his illustrious father (the king preceding him) and his election by his god Hadad, and his conquest of Israel. Dr. Aster accepted the opinion that this Stele was written by Hazael (this is debated among scholars). If so, the Tanach seems to be responding to a contemporary issue.

1. Hazael claims royal lineage - Tanach quotes his own words in contradiction (”But what is thy servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?”). Moreover, Tanach charaterizes him a a usurper rather than a member of a dynasty (”he took the coverlet, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died; and Hazael reigned in his stead.”)
2. Hazael claims election by Hadad - Tanach rebuts that God was responsible for his acsension to the throne (’Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when thou comest, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram’)

Now with this idea - that Tanach is speaking to contemporary issues - we can revisit Bilaam. I recently purchased The Sacred Bridge, an overview of Ancient Near East archaeology and worthy successor to the MacMillan Bible Atlas - a beautiful and fascinating work. One tidbit I picked up is that Bilaam was written about in other artifacts from the period, found in Jordan. He was clearly a well-known contemporary figure.

Furthermore, the Torah tells us that Midian and Moab formed an alliance against the Israelites. However the Torah commands that Moab not be attacked - Deuteronomy 2:9, “Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle.” Midian, however, was fair game.

So, the picture that emerges is, Midian sent a force northwards to join with Moab against the Israelites. Bilaam was a well-known Midianite and was involved in the effort. The Torah’s focus is on the cosmic significance of this struggle - on one level it was a military conflict, but it must also be understood as a battle that reflected cosmic forces that must be interpreted through the lens of monotheism and God’s election of the Israelites.

ShareThis