A House Is Being Built

This week's Torah portion (Terumah) at first glance appears uninspiring, as it's primarily a listing of the materials to be collected for the building of the tabernacle. But the rabbis and kabbalists teach us that there are multiple levels of Torah understanding including the literal, allegorical, metaphorical and the hidden meanings. This is the case here...the inspiration to be found in this portion comes from kabbalistic interpretation.

Most scholars will tell you that the primary text of the Kabbalah is the Zohar. While its origins are in dispute, it is said to recount the travels and contemplations of the second century mystic, Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai. Rabbi Simeon teaches his followers how to find the hidden, or true meanings within the Torah. For him, the building of the tabernacle and later the temple in Jerusalem is a metaphor for building spiritual awareness and the ascent of the soul towards merger with the divine.

Rabbi Simeon instructs his students to think of their bodies as divine temples, or tabernacles for collecting the spirit of God. This divine breath is exhaled by God and inhaled by humans. In a state of perfect concentration, the mystic can consciously accumulate this "spirit of life" and convert it into holy energy, or Ehohim Chayyim. This soul energy reduces the earth, air, wind and fire within the body to their simplest state of pure sound. At this point, the body and mind of the mystic has become so still that his body is a hollow channel, vibrating with divine energy. He, or she has transcended the limited perceptions of human thought and ascended towards unity with the divine.

Rabbi Simeon referred to this spiritual practice as "the House is being built." Our greatest sage, Moses, was said to be a master of the art and it's greatest practicioner.

So even the building of the tabernacle can become a meditative exercise for spiritual ascent. This is an example of what I meant in my last post, when I discussed how, for me, Kabbalah opened up a whole new dimension of meaning and inspiration within Judaism. It revealed that Judaism was so much more than the simplistic and sometimes dull faith we are taught in Sunday school. It set me on a journey home that continues to this day and which I hope to share here with you.

I hope you enjoyed this and found some level of inspiration within it. If you'd like to read more, my source for this was the book "Kabbalah...The Way of the Jewish Mystic" by Perle Epstein. She was a student and devoted follower of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.

Until next time....

Shmuel

Healing the Universe

I remember being taught early on from my father that I should be proud of my Jewish heritage and that we only had one purpose in life and that was to leave the world a better place than we found it. I've tried to live my life with these two lessons as guiding principles. But it wasn't until much later on that I really understood the full impact of them from a mystical and spiritual perspective.

When I was thirteen, I was involved in a wrestling accident that really shaped and started my spiritual journey. I suffered severe spinal damage that not only made pain a regular feature of my life, but also changed my plans completely. Before that, I'd envisioned myself being a fighter pilot and was on a path to prepare myself for the Air Force Academy. Following my injuries, I could no longer pass the physical to get into any branch of the military and was completely lost. I was mad at the world and especially God for allowing this to happen. This is where I'd say my spiritual journey really began.

Like I said, I went between being angry at God and sometimes even doubting his existence for several years. I mean, how could he have taken my life away from me like that? I considered myself a cultural Jew and ardent Zionist, but not really spiritual. I didn't think that Judaism had the answers, as it all seemed historical and the faith of another age. But I still wanted those answers and so sought them elsewhere. Over several years, I studied about every faith you can think of including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Shintoism, Native American traditions and much more. I found myself most attracted to the Buddhist and Hindu traditions of reincarnation, karma and meditation which all seemed so foreign to my Jewish heritage. Little did I know how long our tradition has taught and spoken about these exact issues.

Somewhere along my path I stumbled upon a book by Rabbi Shneur Zalman, the founder of Lubavitch Hasidism. Within it I found a whole other side of Judaism that I didn't even know existed. I found mention of meditation and the tradition of Tikkun Olam, or repair of the universe. It was my father's lesson, but in a whole new spiritual context known as the Lurianic Kabbalah. Judaism suddenly came alive for me and I realized the answers I'd been seeking were to be found within my faith and not outside of it.

I delved deeply into Kabbalah after that and read everything I could find. I learned from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan that meditation was a major component of the Bible and prophecy. I studied the teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria and learned that reincarnation had a long and proud history in Judaism and devoured the stories of the early Hasidic Masters who taught the power of directed prayer. Everything I'd been seeking for and trying to piece together elsewhere was right here in a context that I could relate to.

My journey continues towards union with the Ein Sof, the Ultimate Reality of God beyond description. I know that removing the veil that separates me from the Divine is easy in theory, but difficult in practice. For it requires dissolving my perceived self into the Elohim Chayyim, or Living God. But what I realized just a few days ago was that it all comes back to that simple lesson I learned long ago from my father... that our purpose was to leave the world better than we found it (Tikkun Olam). Our role is to lift the sparks of divinity and repair the universe. How could it all be so complex and yet so simple?

I'd like to hear your thoughts and stories. Talk to you soon.

Shmuel

Representative Government Under The Law

Ask many Americans where democracy and our system of goverment originated and they'll tell you Athens, Greece. But in the Torah portions of last week and this week, we find that the origins of a representative republic acting under a system of laws is actually to be found at the foot of Mt. Sinai with the ancient Israelites and specifically Jethro, the Midianite father-in-law of Moses.

Jethro witnesses the burden that Moses carries "from morning until evening" single-handedly settling disputes between the Israelites. In Exodus 18 verse 21 he offers the following adice:

"But select capable men from all of the people- men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens."

These indiduals, or Judges as they later came to be known lead the Israelites over the next couple hundred years and it's only with great reluctance that the Judge and prophet, Samuel, appoints Saul as King at the intense pressure and demands of the people, who want to be like other nations.

What is even more informative is that it was not just to be any popular person elected, but one who feared God, were trustworthy and who hated dishonesty. It makes you wonder how much better our government would be if we held our elected officials to a similar standard.

While at Mt. Sinai, the Israelites are also given the Ten Commandments and instructed in the laws they'd live by. We read that God instructed Moses to assemble the people at the foot of Sinai where he'd descend in a cloud and present the law for all to hear. Again, it was necessary for all of the people to be informed and consent, as opposed to the divine-monarch model of other nations. The best example that would have been known by the Israelites is that of the Pharoah of Egypt, their former taskmaster, who was worshipped as a deity and ruled by authoritarian decree.

One has to wonder what it must have been like for former slaves to realize at Sinai that they themselves held sovereignty and would be governed by representatives who only served at the consent of the people. In a matter of weeks, while celebrating Passover, Jews will be told to think of themselves as being witness to the events being described in Egypt. Those of us living in America are fortunate enough to live in a country ruled by law and at the will of the people. But now due to economic uncertainties and issues of national security, many of us seem willing to give up more of our freedoms to a centralized state who promises to be the solution to all of our problems. Are we repeating history? Are we going to once again demand to be like other nations ruled by a charismatic leader, or are we going to find the courage to protect our individual liberties and take personal responsibility in our lives? I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. When faced with this dilemma, it would be wise to once again look to our traditions and ask "What would Jethro do?"

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Talk to you soon.

Shmuel

Check this out! Products direct from Israel!

Just a quick note to let you know about my new link for Judaica and products direct from Israel. There's stuff for Shabbat, holidays, artwork, jewelry and much more. It's some really cool stuff and I wanted to share it with you directly from this site. Look for it on the sidebar..."Direct from Israel." Click on Ahuva and wander around in delight. But please make sure you return to jewsmuse.com for the latest conversation. Thanks.

Shmuel

Stuck in the Muck?

At last Friday's Shabbat service, I heard an interesting perspective from my rabbi of the parting of the Red Sea and the Israelite's crossing that I thought I'd share here. According to rabbinical commentary, Moses had just as hard a time of convincing the Israelites to flee for freedom, as he did of convincing the Pharoah to let them go. For as bitter as their lives were in bondage to the Egyptians, it was the only life they knew and they preferred the known to the unknown. Following their complaints, Moses separated himself from them in prayer and frustration while at the Red Sea. Paraphrasing the Hebrew, God interrupted his prayer and told him that while prayer was great, it was time for action...time to move...as the Egyptian soldiers were coming. With the parting of the Red Sea, the Israelites crossed, most of them looking up and around them in amazement. But according the Rabbi's, there were two that looked down and grumbled that their feet were stuck in the muck beneath them. The point is that God's presence is all around us and miracles happen everyday if we just look up and see them. But too often we get stuck in our routines and complain that life isn't getting any better. So I ask you...Do you choose to look around you and recognize the miracle of your life? Or do you choose to look down and complain that you're stuck in the muck...your life is going nowhere? Your reality is what you believe it to be.

Shmuel

A New Year for trees?

As today is Tu Bishvat, I thought this article on the history of the holiday from the Jerusalem Post would be both informative and inspirational. I'd like to know your thoughts. I found it interesting. Thanks.

Shmuel

Jan. 29, 2009
Reuven Hammer , THE JERUSALEM POST

There is a wonderful rabbinic legend that says that God transported Moses to a session of the academy in which Rabbi Akiva was teaching. Moses stood at the rear and listened to the discussion and could not understand a word of it. He was very perturbed, but then he heard Akiva explain a certain law with the statement, "This is the law according to Moses from Sinai" and was content (Menahot 29b).

This unusual story was intended to convey two messages: that through the centuries there was change and development of Halacha and that the development of Jewish practice was such that it all could be traced back to the beginning, to Moses at Sinai, even though Moses himself would not have recognized it. Like a plant or a tree it all springs from the roots and develops organically.

Which brings me to Tu Bishvat, which we will be celebrating in another 10 days. It is a perfect example of these two truths. If Moses were to return this week - or even if Rabbi Akiva were to make a sudden appearance - and see how Tu Bishvat is celebrated, be it with tree planting or with a special Seder or even just the serving of fruits native to Israel - neither Moses nor Akiva would have any idea what was going on or why. At the time of Moses no one had ever heard of Tu Bishvat - as a matter of fact no one had ever heard of the month of Shvat, that name originated much later during the Babylonian exile (See Zechariah 1:7).

At the time of Akiva, they would have known of Tu Bishvat simply as a date on the Hebrew calendar which was a cutoff date for tithing. As the Mishna records it: There are four beginnings of the year (new years)... on the first of Shvat is the beginning of year for trees according to the School of Shammai; the School of Hillel says - the 15th thereof (Rosh Hashana 1:1). As the rabbis explained, "If the fruit of a tree blossoms before the 15th of Shvat, it is tithed for the outgoing year; if after the 15th of Shvat, it is tithed for the incoming year" (Rosh Hashana 15b).

At a much later time Jewish communities in Europe adopted the practice of eating fruits - especially fruits connected with the Land of Israel - on that date and reciting special psalms that were appropriate. It is easy to understand why they did that. Tithing had no practical meaning for them since it was practiced only in the Land of Israel. By eating fruits of Israel on that day they were able to strengthen their ties with the land and to give some importance to a date that would otherwise be meaningless.

In the 16th century, kabbalists added to this practice by instituting a Seder Tu Bishvat patterned after the Seder of Pessah, a liturgy which gave a framework for eating 15 fruits (since the holiday is on the 15th of the month) and drinking four cups of wine. The various fruits were also accorded symbolic and mystical meaning. Eating various fruits was said to "repair" the sin of eating the forbidden fruit in Eden.

The next step in the organic development of the holiday occurred with the resettlement of the Land of Israel in the 19th century, when the idea of planting trees on that day to accomplish the reforestation of the land was initiated. And so it is today that Tu Bishvat is a time of planting, which may or may not make sense agriculturally. The date was selected in Second Temple times not because it was good for planting, but because it was the time of the ripening of fruit.

As a matter of fact Prof. Louis Ginzberg (the great expert on rabbinic literature who taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America) explained the difference between the views of Hillel and Shammai as having to do with the fact that Shammaites were wealthy and owned land in the more fertile valleys where trees blossomed earlier, whereas the Hillelites were the poorer farmers whose trees did not blossom until the 15th of the month.

All of these developments, then, are natural and organic - springing from the fact that the date has to do with trees - therefore it is Hag Ha'ilanot, the holiday of the trees - and with the fruit of the trees.

How does all of this connect with Moses and the Torah? The idea for designating a date which is the "new year of the trees" springs from the fact that the Torah of Moses contains commands to give tithes (Leviticus 27:30, Numbers 18:21) and prohibits eating fruit before the fifth year (Lev. 19:23-25). As with many other commands of the Torah, this needs elaboration and explanation to be observed. There must be a cutoff date to know when tithes are to be brought or when the fifth year has arrived. This was determined by the Oral Law, codified later in the Mishna.

So indeed it all goes back the Moses and the Torah he taught, which decrees that the fruit of trees must be tithed. This then leads to the decision about Tu Bishvat being the date for counting when trees blossom, which in turn leads to eating fruits on that date and celebrating it, which then leads to planting the trees that yield the fruit.

And so we have a day of celebration of nature, a day that naturally connects to ideas of caring for nature, of encouraging ecology so that trees and all green things can grow in this wonderful world that God have given into our care. As the Lord said to Adam and Eve, "Fill the earth and master it" (Genesis 1:28) after which God gave into their care "every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit" (Gen. 1:29) and placed them in the Garden of Eden "to till it and tend it" (Gen. 2:15). And that, as Tu Bishvat reminds us, is still our task.

The writer is the head of the Rabbinical Court of the Masorti Movement and the author of several books, the most recent being Entering Torah.

Which kind of Binational State?

Based upon my last post, I thought you might find this article from Haaretz.com an interesting read. Meron Benvenisti is on of the Israeli advocates for a binational Israeli-Palestinian state. I encourage you to stay open minded and consider his points. Enjoy....

Shmuel

Which kind of binational state?

_{By Meron Benvenisti}

In the rush of refreshing statements heard lately, the warnings have come from the length of the political spectrum - from Ami Ayalon to Ehud Olmert and the Geneva accord initiators and Jewish intellectuals in America - Israel faces "a threat that could spell the end of the Jewish state," meaning the danger of the binational state. Within a few years, there will be a Palestinian majority between the Jordan and the Mediterranean and according to Olmert "more and more Palestinians are no longer interested in a solution of two states for two peoples." The result is "a disaster - one state for two people."

The vast majority of public opinion rejects that option and the academic sector is revolted by the binational concept, "which hasn't solved any conflict in the world and does not work anywhere except in Switzerland." The opposition is so strong and emotional that seemingly there's no need to even define what kind of regime it would be and what the term "one state for two peoples" might mean. Examining various regimes included in the binational model might show perhaps that one or more of the options could actually please some of those who meanwhile so vehemently denounce the binational approach as a disaster.

The connection between losing the Jewish demographic majority and the fear of the demand for equal voting rights for everyone - one man, one vote - that would bring an end to the Jewish state shows that the type of regime identified with binationalism is a classic liberal regime of individual rights in a unitary, centralized state, without any regard for ethnic-collective rights.

That's the kind of regime that replaced the apartheid government in South Africa and it works with relative success. If the Palestinians do indeed force the Israelis to impose such a model, as the blacks did in South Africa, it would indeed spell the end of the Jewish state in the sense of its ethnic dominance and other national privileges.

However, it is difficult to assume that such a situation would evolve in reality because the State of Israel today without the territories seemingly has a liberal democracy, but the Jewish community in it made sure to impose an "ethnic democracy" that gave the Arabs second class citizenship.

The fear of the loss of the majority has already yielded plans for campaigns against the danger, such as the projects for increasing the Jewish birth rate, granting voting rights to expatriates or even to Jews wherever they may be. The chance of fulfilling the unitary model is nil. But the effort to identify binationalism only with that model is deliberate, meant to prevent any debate about other, more attractive alternatives.

One such alternative is a system that recognizes collective ethnic-national rights and maintains power sharing on the national-central level, with defined political rights for the minority and sometimes territorial-cantonal divisions. That model, called "consociational democracy" has not succeeded in many places, but lately has been applied successfully to reach agreements in ancient ethnic-national conflicts such as Bosnia, through the Dayton agreement, and Northern Ireland, with the Good Friday agreement. That should be food for thought for the experts who contemptuously wave off the binational option.

Why did arrangements based on one state for two peoples work in various methods and places - South Africa, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland - while the Oslo accords, based on territorial division, achieved at the same time, collapsed?

The option of power sharing and division into federated cantons is closer to the model of the territorial division of two states but it avoids the surgery, so it allows the existence of soft borders, and creates a deliberate blurring that eases dealing with symbolic issues, the status of Jerusalem or the questions of refugees and the settlers. The mutual recognition allows preservation of the national-cultural character on the national level and preservation of the ethnically homogenous regions. Everything depends, of course, on recognition being mutual and symmetric.

Those who don't recognize and accept intercommunal equality propose a third model of binationalism - even though they rise up against the very idea. They suggest cultural and civic local autonomy, but without voting in the Knesset, or alternatively, voting in Jordan, the "real Palestinian state." That is Menachem Begin's original autonomy plan, or the "functional partition" proposed by Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, a plan being implemented nowadays through the Palestinian Authority. That model has another version in the form of the "Palestinian state" defined by the separation fence: four cantons under Israel's indirect control. That's also a model for binationalism camouflaged by the division into "two states."

And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose.

Iraq: A Model For Middle East Peace?

Here's a guest commentary I wrote for my local paper. I thought I'd share it here. I'd like to know what you think.


Like many American Jews, I was disheartened by statements that President Obama recently made during an interview with Al-Arabiya television where he took an apologetic approach for past American policies and seemed to be stepping back support for Israel. How far he steps back will, I believe, determine his success in the region. For Israel remains our greatest ally in that part of the world and the best example of democracy there. And if Israel feels insecure about American support, its citizens will be more inclined to vote for hard-line candidates who promise to defend Israel, but may not take the bold steps necessary to secure peace.
President Obama campaigned on a platform of "Change." He's been called a radical by many and I believe that only a radical departure from past Middle East policy towards Israel and the Palestinians can achieve the lasting peace that I think the majority of both sides seek. So is there a model that President Obama can use? I believe so and it's in all places, Iraq!
One of the major objectives of the former Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq was to install a democracy in the heart of the Arab world as a way to combat terrorism and build stability. When the going got tough, there were those who advocated dividing Iraq into three countries along sectarian lines. But President Bush resisted these calls saying that to do so would lead to civil war, as the Sunnis of central Iraq would not share in the oil wealth of the northern Kurdish region and the southern Shia part of the country. Thus, the administration advocated a federalist power sharing arrangement with a decentralized national government in Baghdad and large local autonomy. If this applied to Iraq, how much more so does it apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where over fifteen years of the Oslo plan have lead to greater fighting and insecurity which in 2001 spilled over into the streets of downtown Manhattan.
Since the early 1990's, every US President has sought a two-state solution to the Middle East Conflict. The problem with this is precisely the same as that found in Iraq. To divide the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River into two countries will lead to an inequitable distribution of resources that does nothing to advance the national aspirations of the Palestinians, or the security needs of the Israelis. A Palestinian state in less than half of the territory is not viable enough to function as an independent entity and a return of Israel to pre-1967 borders cannot happen, as they are not defendable against outside attack. So will the federal republic solution of Iraq work here?
The "Change" that I would encourage President Obama to consider in the Middle East is a change of American policy from supporting a two-state solution to one of advocating a single federal republic shared by both the Israelis and Palestinians. As a Jew, I believe deeply in the need of a Jewish homeland and safe haven. So, I'm not proposing a one man- one vote solution as used in South Africa, but rather a national union of two autonomous states similar to the systems that have worked in Canada, Belgium, Switzerland and now Iraq.
The national government would be seated in the separate district of Jerusalem that would be shared by both Israelis and Palestinians and would be limited by constitutional charter to a few functions such as common defense, foreign policy and some resource distribution as necessary on a national scale. I would suggest a bicameral legislature similar to that of America with a "House of Representatives" selected by popular vote and a "Senate" with equal membership from both states. The executive branch would selected by the Senate to protect against extremism by either side. Finally, a "Bill of Rights" would protect the cultural and religious interests of both peoples.
Most governing would be at the local, or regional level and would include education, religious policy and community government much like the largely autonomous cantons of Switzerland. I even believe that dividing the two states of Israel and Palestine into smaller local canton-like districts may help to further insure the delicate balance necessary to prevent domination of one people over the other. It has worked in Switzerland where ethnic French, German and Italian peoples have lived in peace and security for centuries.
Although such a plan for Middle East peace may at first appear new and radical, I'm not the first to propose it. In the early 1900's, prominent Jews such as Martin Buber advocated similar proposals and more recently it has become increasingly popular among Palestinians, many of whom see a two-state solution as just a step towards a federal republic. President Bush and his administration saw federalism as the best way to bridge the sectarian divide in Iraq. It is the only way to find consensus on the issue of Jerusalem and the best method to deal with the Palestinian refugees living throughout the other Arab countries of the Middle East. I also believe it is the best way to protect the Jewish identity of Israel, as the two-state plan involves Arab-Israelis remaining within the Jewish homeland. They are growing in population at a greater pace than Jewish-Israelis and will eventually demand greater equality within the Jewish state. Under a federal republic system, they'd be citizens of the Palestinian state.
Obviously, space does not allow me to go into further explanation, as books could be written about the subject. As an American Jew, I recommend consideration of this model as the type of "Change" in our foreign policy that would serve this president, our nation and the world well. It is unlikely to happen overnight, as people have to discuss the merits and get used to the idea. But it doesn't have to take forever either. Palestinians and Israelis are both linked very much economically already. Then of course we have the model of Iraq where citizens voted in large numbers this past week for democracy and stability. Within the same 24-hour period, 10 rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel. So which is the better model? A separate Palestinian state that can serve as a militant base, or a federal republic that can enhance stability and prosperity for both peoples. Perhaps President Bush wasn't so "dumb" after all. He just understood the true merits of the American system of government and had the vision to apply them elsewhere.