Tag Archives: Angel

Sermon Kol Nidrei 2022

Posted on by
Reply

L’italiano segue l’inglese

Kol HaNedarim Sermon 2022 Lev Chadash

The 25 hours of Yom haKippurim are traditionally to be lived from the perspective of as if we are already dead – without food or drink, washing or any social entertainment. While Judaism has no definitive teaching as to what happens after death, there are many rabbinic drashot – sermons or literary constructions – which seek to understand the nature of the soul and its journey from before we arrive in this world to what happens after we leave it

One midrash (Tanchuma : Pekudei 3) has a series of stories about the journey of every soul. It begins by reminding us that every human soul is a world in miniature. It tells us that every soul, from Adam to the end of the world, was formed during the six days of creation, and that all of them were present in the Garden of Eden and at the time of the giving of the Torah.

With every potential new person, God informs the angel in charge of conception, whose name is Lailah and says to her: Know that on this night a person will be formed…. She would take [the potential embryo] into her hand, bring it before God and say: …” I have done all that You have commanded. Here is the drop [of liquid that will become the embryo], what have You decreed concerning it?” And God would decree concerning the embryo – what its end would be, whether male or female, weak or strong, poor or rich, short or tall, ugly or handsome, heavy or thin, humble or haughty. God decreed concerning everything that would happen to it except whether it would be righteous or wicked. That choice alone God left to the individual, as it is said: See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil (Deut. 30:15).

The midrash continues – while in the mother’s womb the angel would take the soul and show it everything – where it would live and where it would be buried after death; the merit of the righteous souls after death who would live in a beautiful place in the world-to-come, and the distress of the souls assigned to the netherworld because they had not lived righteous lives. The angel would teach the soul the whole of Torah, would warn them about the events that would happen in its sojourn on earth. “And when at last the time arrives for its entrance into the world, the angel comes to them and says: “At a certain hour your time will come to enter the light of the world.” The soul pleads with the angel, saying: “Why do you wish me to go out into the light of the world?” The angel replies: “You know, my child, that you were formed against your will; against your will you will be born; against your will you will die; and against your will you are destined to give an accounting before the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be God”. Nevertheless, the soul remained unwilling to leave, and so the angel struck them with the candle that was burning at their head. Thereupon the soul went out into the light of the world, though against their will. Upon going out the infant forgot everything they had witnessed and everything they knew. Why does the child cry out on leaving their mother’s womb? Because the place wherein they had been at rest and at ease was irretrievable and because of the condition of the world into which they must enter. “

I think that we have probably all wondered at some point if, what and where we were before we were born, and more frequently we imagine what might happen after we die. This midrash assumes that we each of us existed always – and will exist always – and that the period that we inhabit the earth is an interlude in which our future will be decided. I am uneasy with the notion that up until birth everything is “bashert” – foretold and “meant to be”. Predestination sits uncomfortably with the notion of free will, and so the rabbinic tradition nuances the idea, declaring that we may be subject to the will of God in our material life, but we are completely free in our spiritual life. This view is most famously found in the teaching of R. Akiva (Avot 3:15): “All is foreseen, yet freedom is granted”; and in the even more powerful dictum of R. Ḥanina, “Everything is in the power of God, except the fear of God” (Ber. 33b; Niddah 16b), and which Midrash Tanchuma (thought to be composed in Babylon, Italy and Israel between 500 and 800 CE) underlines in the passage I quoted earlier.

The Talmud teaches “Everything is in the hands of God except the fear of God” and Midrash Tanchuma tells us that “God decrees concerning everything that would happen to the newly born person except whether they would be righteous or wicked. That choice alone God left to the individual, as it is said: See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil (Deut. 30:15).

The tradition is trying to address the age-old questions –

Is God interested in us?

Does God have a plan for us?

Does God intervene in history at all?

What is our life about?

Is our life transient or eternal in some way?

Why is life unfair?

 It was a controversy that divided the various sects in ancient Judaism around the first century BCE and the first century CE– the Pharisees – forerunners of Rabbinic Judaism – accepted the idea of the immortality of the soul and they also had some notion – deliberately vague – of reward and punishment after death, while the Sadducees who opposed much of Pharisaic Judaism, did not. The Pharisees developed the role of malachim – what we would call angels – whose activities allowed God to play a role in human affairs, whereas the Sadducees completely rejected both angels and the idea of any divine interference in human affairs, teaching that free will was absolute and unchallengeable. And the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls sect appear to have believed in predestination with no room for any freewill whatsoever.  This, I think, puts into context the rabbinic teachings in Talmud and Midrash – they attempt to steer a middle way between two extremes, a technique the ancient rabbis were well practised at but which sadly seems to have attenuated in modern times.

Their middle way – that everything is foreseen yet free will is given, that everything is in God’s hands except for our own relationship with God, that it is up to each of us to decide to behave righteously or not – firmly point to the rabbinic understanding that in all ethical and spiritual matters we are the authors of our own lives. No one else is responsible for these life choices, no one else is responsible for the people we choose to become, or for the decisions we make about how we live our lives.

The word “author”, “authority” and “authenticity” are linked semantically and ideologically at the deepest levels. The author is one who creates, who brings something about, the only one who has the authority to create and to be themselves, their true authentic selves.

The liturgy of this time references the Talmud which tells us that  “Three books are opened in heaven on Rosh Ha-Shanah, one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteous are forthwith inscribed in the Book of Life, the thoroughly wicked in the Book of Death, while the fate of the intermediate is suspended until the Day of Atonement” (RH 16b).  The Book of Life in particular has resonance in the service. Three of the four insertions into the Amidah prayer reference us asking to be written into the Book of Life.

The Sefer HaHayim – usually translated as “The Book of Life” should really be understood as “The Book of Living”. Not an absolute inscription to avoid punishment for this year, but really a request for us to live our true authentic lives in the coming year. To take responsibility, to become the authors of our own story, not pallid replicas or what might matter, or living in the way we think others think we should be living, but to take our authority seriously and to make something special and individual in our lives, allowing ourselves to unfold and to give voice to our deepest and truest selves.

The stories in midrash Tanchuma remind us that each of us is as valuable, as important, as cherished as anyone else. Our souls were all present in the Garden of Eden,  our souls were all present at Sinai, our souls each encompass a whole unique world. We dwell in eternity, and we have a few passing years while on this earth to understand and to express ourselves, to let our complexity and our uniqueness blossom, to become our true and unafraid selves. God gives this gift to us and asks us to live, to be the authors of our lives, to fulfil our purpose in creation.

This night of Kol HaNedarim and the hours that will follow it are an invitation to us. Leaf through the pages of our personal Sefer HaHayim and ask ourselves – is this the way we want to be living our lives? Is this the story of our true authentic selves?

We are the authors of the book our lives. And a new page is ready to be written. What will you write?

Kol HaNedarim – Sermone 2022 Lev Chadash

Di rav Sylvia Rothschild

          Le venticinque ore di Yom HaKippurim, tradizionalmente, devono essere vissute in una prospettiva che richiami l’idea di essere come già morti, senza cibo o bevande, senza lavarsi e senza qualsiasi intrattenimento sociale. Sebbene l’ebraismo non abbia un insegnamento definitivo su ciò che accade dopo la morte, ci sono molte derashot rabbiniche – sermoni o costruzioni letterarie – che cercano di comprendere la natura dell’anima e il suo viaggio, da prima dell’arrivo in questo mondo a ciò che accade dopo averlo lasciato.

          Un midrash (Tanchuma: Pekudei 3) ha una serie di storie sul viaggio di ogni anima. Inizia ricordandoci che ogni anima umana è un mondo in miniatura. Ci dice che ogni anima, da Adamo alla fine del mondo, si è formata durante i sei giorni della creazione, e che tutte erano presenti nel Giardino dell’Eden e al momento del dono della Torà.

          Per ogni nuova potenziale persona, Dio informa Laila, l’angelo incaricato del concepimento, dicendo: “sappi che in questa notte si formerà una persona…” [l’angelo] prende [l’embrione potenziale] nella sua mano, lo porta davanti a Dio e dice: … ”Ho fatto tutto ciò che hai comandato. Ecco la goccia [di liquido che diventerà l’embrione], cosa hai decretato a riguardo?” E Dio decreta sull’embrione, quale sarà la sua fine, se maschio o femmina, debole o forte, povero o ricco, basso o alto, brutto o bello, pesante o magro, umile o altezzoso. Dio decreta tutto ciò che gli accadrà, tranne l’essere giusto o malvagio. Quella scelta soltanto è lasciata da Dio all’individuo, come è detto: Vedi, io ho posto davanti a te oggi la vita e il bene, e la morte e il male. (Dt 30,15).

          Il midrash continua: mentre sta nel grembo materno l’angelo prende l’anima e le mostra tutto. Dove andrà a vivere e dove sarà sepolta dopo la morte; il merito delle anime rette che dopo la morte vivranno in un posto bellissimo, nel mondo a venire, e l’angoscia delle anime assegnate agli inferi perché non hanno vissuto vite rette. L’angelo insegna all’anima l’intera Torà, avvertendola degli eventi che accadranno durante il suo soggiorno sulla terra. “E quando finalmente giunge l’ora della sua entrata nel mondo, l’angelo si avvicina e dice: ‘A una certa ora verrà la tua ora per entrare nella luce del mondo’. L’anima supplica l’angelo dicendo: ‘Perché vuoi che esca alla luce del mondo?’ L’angelo risponde: ‘Tu sai, figlia mia, che sei stata formata contro la tua volontà; contro la tua volontà nascerai; contro la tua volontà morirai; e contro la tua volontà sei destinato a rendere conto davanti al Re dei Re, il Santo, benedetto sia Dio’. Tuttavia, l’anima non vuole andarsene, e così l’angelo la colpisce con la candela che arde sul suo capo. Allora l’anima esce alla luce del mondo, sebbene contro la sua volontà. Uscendo, il bambino dimentica tutto ciò a cui ha assistito e tutto ciò che sa. Perché il bambino piange quando lascia il grembo materno? Perché il luogo in cui è stato tranquillo e a suo agio è irrecuperabile e per la condizione del mondo in cui deve entrare.”

          Penso che, probabilmente, a un certo punto tutti ci siamo chiesti se, cosa e dove fossimo prima di nascere, e ancora più spesso immaginiamo cosa potrebbe succedere dopo la nostra morte. Questo midrash presuppone che ognuno di noi sia sempre esistito, che sempre esisteremo e che il periodo in cui abitiamo la terra sia un intermezzo in cui si deciderà il nostro futuro. Sono a disagio con l’idea che fino alla nascita tutto è “bashert” – “predetto” e “destinato ad essere”. La predestinazione stride con la nozione di libero arbitrio, quindi la tradizione rabbinica sfuma l’idea, dichiarando che possiamo essere soggetti alla volontà di Dio nella nostra vita materiale, ma siamo completamente liberi nella nostra vita spirituale. Questo punto di vista è più notoriamente presente nell’insegnamento di R. Akiva (Avot 3:15): “Tutto è previsto, ma la libertà è concessa”; e nell’ancor più potente detto di R. Ḥanina, “Tutto è in potere di Dio, tranne il timore di Dio” (Ber. 33b; Niddà 16b). Il Midrash Tanchuma (si pensa sia stato composto a Babilonia, in Italia e Israele tra il 500 e l’800 d.C.)  lo sottolinea nel passaggio che ho citato in precedenza.

          Il Talmud insegna: “Tutto è nelle mani di Dio tranne il timore di Dio” e Midrash Tanchuma ci dice che: “Dio decreta tutto ciò che accadrà alla persona appena nata, tranne se sarà giusto o malvagio. Dio ha lasciato solo quella scelta all’individuo, come è detto: “Vedi, io ho posto davanti a te oggi la vita e il bene, e la morte e il male.” (Dt 30,15).

          La tradizione sta cercando di affrontare le domande secolari:

          Dio è interessato a noi?

          Dio ha un piano per noi?

          Dio non interviene affatto nella storia?

          Di cosa tratta la nostra vita?

          La nostra vita è transitoria o in qualche modo eterna?

          Perché la vita è ingiusta?

          A tale proposito ci fu una polemica che divise le varie sette dell’ebraismo antico intorno al I secolo a.C. e al I secolo d.C.: i farisei, precursori dell’ebraismo rabbinico, accettarono l’idea dell’immortalità dell’anima e ebbero inoltre qualche nozione, volutamente vaga, di ricompensa e punizione dopo la morte, i sadducei invece, che si opponevano a gran parte del giudaismo farisaico, no. I farisei svilupparono il ruolo dei malachim, quelli che chiameremmo angeli, le cui attività consentirebbero a Dio di svolgere un ruolo negli affari umani, mentre i sadducei rifiutarono completamente sia gli angeli che l’idea di qualsiasi interferenza divina negli affari umani, insegnando che il libero arbitrio è assoluto e incontestabile. E sembra che la setta degli Esseni e dei Rotoli del Mar Morto credesse nella predestinazione senza spazio per alcun libero arbitrio. Questo, penso, contestualizza gli insegnamenti rabbinici nel Talmud e nel Midrash: essi tentano di orientarsi su una via di mezzo tra due estremi, una tecnica in cui gli antichi rabbini erano ben rodati ma che purtroppo sembra essersi attenuata nei tempi moderni.

          La loro via di mezzo, in cui tutto è previsto ma esiste il libero arbitrio, in cui tutto è nelle mani di Dio tranne che il nostro rapporto con Dio, in cui spetta a ciascuno di noi decidere di comportarsi rettamente o meno, punta fermamente all’idea rabbinica che in tutte le questioni etiche e spirituali siamo noi gli autori della nostra stessa vita. Nessun altro è responsabile di queste scelte di vita, nessun altro è responsabile delle persone che scegliamo di diventare, o delle decisioni che prendiamo su come viviamo le nostre vite.

          Le parole “autore”, “autorità” e “autenticità” sono legate semanticamente e ideologicamente ai livelli più profondi. L’autore è colui che crea, che realizza qualcosa, l’unico che ha l’autorità di creare e di essere se stesso, il proprio vero sé autentico.

          La liturgia di questo tempo fa riferimento al Talmud, che ci dice che: “Tre libri sono aperti in cielo a Rosh Ha-Shanà, uno per il completamente malvagio, uno per il completamente giusto e uno per l’intermedio. I completamente giusti sono immediatamente iscritti nel Libro della Vita, i del tutto malvagi nel Libro della Morte, mentre il destino degli intermedi è sospeso fino al Giorno dell’Espiazione” (RH 16b). Il Libro della Vita, in particolare, ha risonanza nella funzione. Tre dei quattro inserimenti nella preghiera dell’Amidà fanno riferimento a noi che chiediamo di essere scritti nel Libro della Vita.

          Il Sefer HaHayim, di solito tradotto come “Il libro della vita”, dovrebbe in realtà essere inteso come “Il libro del vivere”. Non un’iscrizione assoluta per evitare la punizione per quest’anno, ma una reale richiesta a noi stessi di vivere la nostra vera vita autentica nell’anno a venire. Assumerci la responsabilità, diventare gli autori della nostra stessa storia, non pallide repliche di cose che potrebbero importare, o vivere nel modo in cui pensiamo che gli altri pensino che dovremmo vivere, ma prendere sul serio la nostra autorità e creare qualcosa di speciale e individuale nella nostra vita, permettendo a noi stessi di realizzarci e di dare voce al nostro io più profondo e vero.

          Le storie nel Midrash Tanchuma ci ricordano che ognuno di noi è prezioso, importante e amato come chiunque altro. Le nostre anime erano tutte presenti nel Giardino dell’Eden, le nostre anime erano tutte presenti nel Sinai, ciascuna delle nostre anime racchiude un intero mondo unico. Viviamo nell’eternità e abbiamo pochi anni che passano mentre siamo su questa terra per capire ed esprimerci, per far fiorire la nostra complessità e la nostra unicità, per diventare il nostro sé vero e senza paura. Dio ci fa questo dono e ci chiede di vivere, di essere gli autori della nostra vita, di realizzare il nostro scopo nella creazione.

          Questa notte di Kol HaNedarim e le ore che la seguiranno sono un invito per noi. Sfogliamo le pagine del nostro personale Sefer HaHayim e chiediamoci: è questo il modo in cui vogliamo vivere le nostre vite? È questa la storia del nostro vero sé autentico?

          Siamo gli autori del libro delle nostre vite. E una nuova pagina è pronta per essere scritta. Cosa scriveremo?

Traduzione dall’inglese di Eva Mangialajo Rantzer

Terumah – the riddle of the cherubim

Posted on by
Reply

“Make two cherubim of gold—make them of hammered work—at the two ends of the cover.  Make one cherub at one end and the other cherub at the other end; of one piece with the cover shall you make the cherubim at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, shielding the cover with their wings. They shall confront each other, the faces of the cherubim being turned toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the Ark, after depositing inside the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you—from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Testimony—all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people.” (Exodus 25:16-22)

וְעָשִׂ֛יתָ שְׁנַ֥יִם כְּרֻבִ֖ים זָהָ֑ב מִקְשָׁה֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹתָ֔ם מִשְּׁנֵ֖י קְצ֥וֹת הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת׃ וַ֠עֲשֵׂה כְּר֨וּב אֶחָ֤ד מִקָּצָה֙ מִזֶּ֔ה וּכְרוּב־אֶחָ֥ד מִקָּצָ֖ה מִזֶּ֑ה מִן־הַכַּפֹּ֛רֶת תַּעֲשׂ֥וּ אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֖ים עַל־שְׁנֵ֥י קְצוֹתָֽיו׃ וְהָי֣וּ הַכְּרֻבִים֩ פֹּרְשֵׂ֨י כְנָפַ֜יִם לְמַ֗עְלָה סֹכְכִ֤ים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם֙ עַל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת וּפְנֵיהֶ֖ם אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו אֶל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת יִהְי֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הַכְּרֻבִֽים׃ וְנָתַתָּ֧ אֶת־הַכַּפֹּ֛רֶת עַל־הָאָרֹ֖ן מִלְמָ֑עְלָה וְאֶל־הָ֣אָרֹ֔ן תִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ וְנוֹעַדְתִּ֣י לְךָ֮ שָׁם֒ וְדִבַּרְתִּ֨י אִתְּךָ֜ מֵעַ֣ל הַכַּפֹּ֗רֶת מִבֵּין֙ שְׁנֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־אֲרֹ֣ן הָעֵדֻ֑ת אֵ֣ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֧ר אֲצַוֶּ֛ה אוֹתְךָ֖ אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

I have always loved cherubs. It is a love I inherited from my grandmother who had several decorating her homes.  And I too occasionally add to my own collection of sweet faced plump winged babies.

But the cherubim of bible should not be viewed as these somewhat kitsch figures – we do a great disservice to the text to fall into this cosy view.

We first meet the cherubim in the book of Genesis at the denouement of the second creation story: “God drove the human out, and stationed east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen 3:24 )

וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן֩ מִקֶּ֨דֶם לְגַן־עֵ֜דֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֗ים וְאֵ֨ת לַ֤הַט הַחֶ֙רֶב֙ הַמִּתְהַפֶּ֔כֶת לִשְׁמֹ֕ר אֶת־דֶּ֖רֶךְ עֵ֥ץ הַֽחַיִּֽים׃ (ס)

Their purpose is to prevent the human beings gaining access back into the garden and eating from the tree of life, something that we know will mean humanity acquiring  eternity, a characteristic of the divine that is denied to mortals.

Wherever the cherubim appear we are in sacred space. While the word appears almost a hundred times in the Hebrew bible, we know very little about them except for the fact they were winged. How many wings seems to be unclear – it varies in different descriptions. Sometimes they are clearly representational figures such as in Solomon’s Temple, at other times God flies in the skies, carried by the cherubim.

“In the Shrine he [Solomon]  made two cherubim of olive wood, each 10 cubits high. [One] had a wing measuring 5 cubits and another wing measuring 5 cubits, so that the spread from wingtip to wingtip was 10 cubits;  and the wingspread of the other cherub was also 10 cubits. The two cherubim had the same measurements and proportions:  the height of the one cherub was 10 cubits, and so was that of the other cherub.  He placed the cherubim inside the inner chamber. Since the wings of the cherubim were extended, a wing of the one touched one wall and a wing of the other touched the other wall, while their wings in the centre of the chamber touched each other.  He overlaid the cherubim with gold.”   These are huge figures, over twenty feet high, with matching enormous wingspans, dominating the inner chamber. Yet we know them to be olive wood, representations – but of what? And to what purpose? Will God speak to the people from above them?

The most famous depiction of the cherubim is that of Ezekiel, who was among those sent into exile with the king in 597BCE (see 2K 24:14-16) At a body of water he calls the Nehar Kevar, (the Kevar canal) he has a vision. This canal appears to be the area in Babylonia where the exiled Jews were settled and is separately documented in Akkadian literature. He documents part of his vision thus:

“The cherubs ascended; those were the creatures that I had seen by the Kevar Canal. Whenever the cherubs went, the wheels went beside them; and when the cherubs lifted their wings to ascend from the earth, the wheels did not roll away from their side. When those stood still, these stood still; and when those ascended, these ascended with them, for the spirit of the creature was in them. Then the Presence of the Eternal left the platform of the House and stopped above the cherubs.  And I saw the cherubs lift their wings and rise from the earth, with the wheels beside them as they departed; and they stopped at the entrance of the eastern gate of the House of the Eternal, with the Presence of the God of Israel above them.  They were the same creatures that I had seen below the God of Israel at the Kevar Canal; so now I knew that they were cherubs.” Ezekiel 10:15-20

Now it is well known in ancient near eastern mythologies – and even in later western ones –  that the divine being rides some kind of chariot pulled by some types of mythic beasts, and I am certain that the cherubim of the bible must have their origin within even older mythologies.   But that doesn’t really explain their presence in our sacred space, using their wings in some kind of protective way, guarding the area between God and us – for God is often depicted as being seated above the cherubim (for example Hezekiah’s prayer recorded in the book of Isaiah speaks of God “enthroned above the Cherubim”

There is no sense of the cherubim being in any way angelic or quasi divine in the Hebrew bible, they fulfil no role in bridging the space between us and God. They simply are there, figures beyond which we cannot see or go.  The idea of their being in some way angelic comes in later commentaries , so while both Rashi and Ibn Ezra see nothing angelic in the cherubim, the midrash in Genesis Rabbah 21 suggests that they were beings who were created on the third day, with no definite shape or form, while the Tanna d’bei Eliyahu (10th century) believes them to have been part of the group created before the beginning of our world., Bachya ben Asher  in 14th century Spain also believes they are angels but intriguingly he has a reason – it is important to believe in angels because prophecy can only happen through the mediation of an angel, and given that the God speaks to Moses from above the cherubim, these must logically be angels. There are two of them above the ark, to make clear that they are not the image of the one God.

So while there is much speculation about what the Cherubim might be, their connection to the mythic beasts of other traditions – gryphons or sphinxes, centaurs or Assyrian Lamassu, or the way they may have segued into Judaism from the Akkadian winged bulls the kirubu or the shedim that guarded palaces– the reality is, as is often the case, hidden in the past. So by the time of the Talmud it is clear that no one knew much about the cherubim.  There are several discussions recorded including the one found in Chagigah 13b

“What is the meaning of “cherub”? Rabbi Abbahu said: Like a baby [keravya], for in Babylonia they call a baby ravya. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, what is the meaning of that which is written: “The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle”? The face of a cherub is the same as the face of a man; what is the difference between them? He replied: The difference is that the face of a man is referring to a large face, whereas the face of a cherub means the small face of a baby.”

It is from this and other passages that the elision from guardian of the divine mystery to cupid-like plump baby boy has occurred, and we have stopped really asking ourselves about the purpose of the cherubim in the Hebrew bible.

Clearly the cherubim serve God, and clearly too they provide a barrier or boundary between the sacred and the mundane; they prevent us from coming to close to the mystery.

But what do they represent to us? What function do they have? We assume that God does not need the protection the cherubim provide, so are they there to protect us?

There is a wonderful, almost transgressive piece in Talmud about the cherubim and what they were doing.

“Rav Ketina said: When the Jewish people would ascend for one of the pilgrimage Festivals, the priests would roll up the curtain for them and show them the cherubs, which were clinging to one another, and say to them: See how you are beloved before God, like the love of a male and female. The two cherubs symbolize the Holy One, Blessed be God, and the Jewish people.” (Yoma 54a)

Throughout the tradition there is a thread which asks – what do the cherubim say to us, what are they symbolising?

Rav Ketina stretches the point of the almost to breaking in order to teach that the two figures which are touching at the wingtips, (and whose spreading wings as described in the Exodus passage above, uses a phrase also used as a euphemism for sex elsewhere in bible).  So he posits that the two figures looking at each other, touching each other, are symbolic of God and Israel, entwined in a relationship of love. (Even more unusual of course is the idea that the people got to see the cherubim but that is for another day.)

Later commentators take up the male-female balance of the cherubim explicated by Rav Ketina and suggest that this is not symbolising God and Israel, but reminding us of the imperative to have children and create the next generation.

There are other suggestions as to what the cherubim might symbolise – different attributes of God, mercy and justice, the importance of contact with the other, teacher and pupil, study partners, the mystical world and the world we can know, the bringing close and the keeping of boundaries…..

The text tells us that the cherubim are shielding the cover of the ark with their outstretched wings and they are facing each other and also looking slightly downwards at the cover. To me it is an image of a partnership of protection and support. There is something enveloping about those wings creating a space within them as they touch each other, rather as an adult holds a baby, or a comforter holds the comforted, or lovers hold each other close. The fact that they are both gazing towards the thing they are holding, and their faces are turned towards each other adds to the sense of intention. These are no guards to keep away the people seeking God, no fearsome bouncers keeping us out of sacred space, but protective and nurturing figures, taking care of a precious object. Rather like their parallel the Sphinx, they pose a riddle for the traveller, a riddle whose answer is firmly human focused.

They are not angels, but they prefigure what will be as religion becomes institutionalised, and we have to ask ourselves how will we nurture the word of God in our time and space? How will we show love? How will we communicate? How will we see the other who is just like us but who is not us? How will we protect the sacred and yet allow the word of God to come into the world?

The questions implied and threaded through the appearance of the cherubim almost one hundred times in our bible are questions that challenge us. They ask how God is brought into our world, and each one of us is part of the answer.

 

 

 

Vayishlach: we all struggle with who we are to become our best selves

Posted on by
Reply

 

Genesis 32:25

(25) Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.

 בראשית ל״ב:כ״ה

(כה) וַיִּוָּתֵ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב לְבַדּ֑וֹ וַיֵּאָבֵ֥ק אִישׁ֙ עִמּ֔וֹ עַ֖ד עֲל֥וֹת הַשָּֽׁחַר׃

What happened at the Ford of Jabok was critical in Jacob’s life leaving  him physically marked for life and with another name. He was alone, yet a ‘man’ wrestled with him till dawn. Who that ‘man’ was is open to interpretation but Jacob is in no doubt – he names the place P’niel because he has met God face to face.

The Bible gives a dubious etymology for Jacob’s new name, Israel, but what is important is the meaning given – one who struggles with God and with other people, and is able to do so.

We take this name for ourselves; we are Am Yisrael, the people of Israel, and our defining characteristic is that we too must wrestle with God and with our world and make something of ourselves in that struggle.

Judaism is a religion of enquiry; questions are met with more questions, not with definitive answers. Despite the systematizing work of Saadiya Gaon and Maimonides who responded to the doctrines of Christianity and Islam, Judaism remains a religion of deed, and not of creed. We must keep on engaging with ideas, imagining possibilities, wrestling with God and with our world, in order to be truly alive.

This dynamic tradition of enquiry and analysis has kept us going over the centuries, adapting where necessary, accepting knowledge from outside sources and bringing it into our world view. It is the life-source of progressive Judaism, as we keep our minds open to the world and its knowledge while grappling with our texts and their questions.

Jacob at Jabok is a metaphor for us in so many ways – fearful of the unknown future, struggling with the temptation to run back to the familiar, yet ultimately moving forward carrying the wounds of our struggle with us. I’m proud to belong to a tradition that eschews doctrine and dogma, demands we struggle with God and with ourselves, and helps us aspire to be our best selves.

 

 

 

Parashat Balak: Prophecy and Leadership can come from the most unexpected places, OR Female Donkeys have much to teach us

Posted on by
Reply

Twice in Torah an animal speaks. The first is the Nachash, the serpent in the Garden of Eden whose conversation is instrumental in Eve eating the fruit from a forbidden tree (Genesis 3); and the second is the donkey who three times tries to protect her owner (Balaam) from the wrath of God before her mouth is opened by God to challenge his behaviour. (Numbers 22)

Interestingly both animals speak in the interrogative as they initiate the conversation. The serpent has its own agency, approaching the woman without prior recorded interaction, and it clearly understands the reality of the situation they are in rather better than the woman does. The serpent asks her “Has God said that you should not eat of any tree in the garden?” and on being told that the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden was forbidden lest they die, the serpent says, quite truthfully – “you shall not die, for God knows that in the day that you eat it, then your eyes will be opened and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil”.  He does not seduce her to eat the fruit or even recommend that she eat it – he simply points out that the punishment she believes will follow is not the case, and instead a different outcome will emerge – the humans will have godlike qualities that currently they do not possess, the ability to make moral judgments.  The tree itself is beautiful, the fruit looks delicious, and the woman – now clear of her fear of death – eats and gives to her partner. There is nothing to warn of danger in the presentation of tree or fruit, and the intervention of the serpent seems a necessary catalyst for the human beings to take the next step.

In contrast, the donkey does not speak at first. She is simply trying to get out of the way of the angel by any route possible, squeezing herself and her rider into increasingly small spaces, and bearing the cruel punishment by Balaam in silence until eventually, when Balaam’s beatings of her become unbearable, God opens her mouth and she asks “What have I done to you that you have beaten me these three times?”  When Balaam answers “because you mocked me, I wish I had a sword in my hand for I would kill you”, she asks two more questions: “Am I not your donkey upon which you have ridden all your long life until today? Have I ever done this sort of thing before to you?” To which Balaam answers with one word: “No”.

Only then does God open Balaam’s eyes and he sees what the donkey has seen all along – the fiery angel standing in the way, who DOES have a sword in its hand. Balaam bows down and falls prostrate to the ground, and the angel of God asks the same question the donkey did – “Why have you beaten your donkey three times?” before going on to explain that the angel is there as an adversary (le’Satan), “because your way is contrary to me”

The serpent is “arum” – subtle or cunning (though it has another meaning of cautious and prudent). It is its own self, beholden to none.

The donkey ‘s personality is not described in the same way, but we understand her by her behaviour. Firstly, she can see the angel when no one else can – she is a perceptive animal. She only speaks when God ‘opens her mouth’, rather than from her own initiative, she has been Balaam’s donkey for many years and served him faithfully. Her questions are personal, immediate, and relational. “What have I done to you that you hurt me?” “Am I not your long term and faithful donkey?” “Have I ever done this before?”

She is a faithful servant, dedicated to helping and protecting the person she sees as her master – quite unlike the serpent who is an individual with agency, dedicated to – well who knows what? Truth? Mischief? Action?

In both cases the intervention of the animal allows their human interlocutor to perceive and know what the animal already knows. They seem to mediate divine revelation, albeit in different ways and with different outcomes. The serpent is punished, lowered, put in opposition to humankind. The donkey is defended by the angel who asks the same question she asked of Balaam, and it is made clear that while the angel might have killed Balaam, it had no intention of hurting the donkey.

I find it interesting that the donkey is not “Chamor חֲמוֹר” but an “aton  אֲתֹן” – very specifically she is a female donkey, her verbs are in the feminine, this is the deliberate presentation of a female protagonist.

I find it interesting too that the donkey is contextualised in relationship; her interventions are not grand or self-centred but to do with the bond and connection between her and Balaam. She doesn’t feel the need to tell him of the angel in the road, but to ask about what has happened between them that their rapport has failed and he is beating her.

I don’t see this as subservience, even though the donkey is clearly of low status in human society. Instead between the two stories I see two models of change. The first is hierarchical, the shrewd and calculating “catalyst figure” knows the information and by their line of questioning is leading the other person towards the information it wants them to know. The question is asked and the answer is challenged with the facts. The change happens but the outcome is not really happy for either protagonist.

In the second story, while the “catalyst figure” knows the information, it makes the assumption that the other also holds information, and it takes care of them and uses their relationship and the trust built up between them to allow the other to learn.  Even when there is a further intervention (when God opens the mouth of the donkey) she does not discuss the revelation in front of them but formulates her response around the relationship between them.

While it may be unfair to say that the first model is the “male” one and the second model of leadership the “female” one, it is I think true that generally female leadership is characterised by being more transformational, task focussed, collaborative and often indirect, whereas generally male leadership is characterised by being more transactional, hierarchical and focused on the achievement of the preferred outcome.  It is no surprise to me that the serpent is masculine but the donkey feminine.

The donkey provides a voice of gentle sanity in a story that describes testosterone fuelled attempts to increase power and demonstrate status in the world of the king and the prophet – and all the time the reader knows the added irony that the Children of Israel know nothing of what is going on, so that the grabs for more status and power are irrelevant to them. The great Seer Balaam proves to be a comically less able prophet than his donkey, the great King Balak’s frustration grows to almost laughable boiling point as he tries again and again to have his enemies cursed – paying a fortune to no avail. Again and again we are invited to understand that there is much more to the world than we can easily see; that the apparently important figures are in fact not so important in the larger scheme of things; that if we only pay attention to the surface or believe the publicity of those who claim leadership rights, then we are missing the complexity and connectedness, the way relationships and shared values organise or world.

There are many variants on the theme that behind every great man is a person supporting them selflessly to enable that greatness – usually a woman. But my two favourites which both speak to the story of Balaam and his female donkey are from popular culture.

John Lennon wrote (though not about Balaam) “As usual, there is a great woman behind every idiot.” And Harrison Ford opined “Behind every great man is a woman. Telling him he’s not so hot.”

The bible seems to agree. And the prophet Zechariah reminds us

גִּילִ֨י מְאֹ֜ד בַּת־צִיּ֗וֹן הָרִ֨יעִי֙ בַּ֣ת יְרֽוּשָׁלַ֔ם הִנֵּ֤ה מַלְכֵּךְ֙ יָ֣בוֹא לָ֔ךְ צַדִּ֥יק וְנוֹשָׁ֖ע ה֑וּא עָנִי֙ וְרֹכֵ֣ב עַל־חֲמ֔וֹר וְעַל־עַ֖יִר בֶּן־אֲתֹנֽוֹת:

Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion, shout O daughter of Jerusalem, behold your king is coming to you, righteous and redeeming, poor and riding on a donkey (chamor), and upon the foal of a (female) donkey.

Come the messianic times, the child of that donkey who protected and supported her rider Balaam, will have the honour to bring the anointed one into Jerusalem.  The line of Balaam’s donkey will ascend into the service of the messiah. The line of the serpent in Eden will be lowly and in opposition to humankind.  Very different outcomes from the different interventions of the animals who speak.

 

 

Parashat Vayishlach: a bite or a kiss? a messenger or an apology?

Posted on by
Reply

In parashat vayishlach we see the moment where Jacob the trickster, the one focussed only on himself and his own needs and aspirations, is able to change. He is on his journey home, a wealthy and powerful man. However he must first encounter his estranged brother Esau whom he had dispossessed from his birthright and from whose terrible pain and murderous anger he had fled all those years ago.

In preparation for the encounter he sent out messengers in order to both impress Esau with his power and wealth, and in order to try to find out what was likely to be ahead of him. The messengers’ report on their return distressed him – they had met Esau on his way to meet Jacob, accompanied by four hundred men. His response – to try to save what he could of his family and possessions by dividing them into two groups, and then he prayed for help, invoking the merit of his ancestors and the promises God had made to him regarding his descendants. Following this, he began selecting groups of animals that he could send ahead as gifts to Esau, in order to appease him before their meeting. Then he says a particularly curious sentence, given what is about to happen:

וְאַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן֙ אֶרְאֶ֣ה פָנָ֔יו אוּלַ֖י יִשָּׂ֥א פָנָֽי”

And after this, I will see his face, perhaps he will raise my face/accept me”

Having taken his family, divided into two camps, across the ford of Jabok and over the stream, Jacob was left alone, yet in the same sentence that tells us  וַיִּוָּתֵ֥ר יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב לְבַדּ֑וֹ that he had been left behind and was completely and utterly alone, we are also told

     וַיֵּֽאָבֵ֥ק אִישׁ֙ עִמּ֔וֹ עַ֖ד עֲל֥וֹת הַשָּֽׁחַר:

And a man wrestled with him until the morning dawned.

He was alone, but he was not alone. He was in the dark of the night. He was wrestling. His struggles through the dark night of his soul changes him forever. He is in liminal transitional time after which he will be transformed and given a new name – though not so transformed that he would lose his old name forever….

Who is Jacob wrestling? The narrator of the text tells us it is “ish- a man.”

The wrestler himself is more complex telling Jacob that he has struggled with God and with men and has prevailed:

כִּֽי־שָׂרִ֧יתָ עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים וְעִם־אֲנָשִׁ֖ים וַתּוּכָֽל:

Later in the text Jacob seems to believe the fight was with God, as he names the place Peniel, the face of God:

וַיִּקְרָ֧א יַֽעֲקֹ֛ב שֵׁ֥ם הַמָּק֖וֹם פְּנִיאֵ֑ל כִּֽי־רָאִ֤יתִי אֱלֹהִים֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־פָּנִ֔ים וַתִּנָּצֵ֖ל נַפְשִֽׁי:

And he continues “for I have seen God face to face and my soul is preserved”

Traditional explanations are that Jacob is fighting an angel, in particular the guardian angel of Esau who is attempting to weaken Jacob before the meeting, or that ‘the’man’ was Jacob himself, struggling with himself and his own feelings and needs, with the two inclinations all humanity possess – the yetzer ha’ra and the yetzer ha’tov, the inclination to be motivated primarily for one’s own self-interest versus the inclination to be motivated for the good of the community and of others, battling it out for charge of his soul.

There is, I think, a clue to this critical and iconic night of struggle in another part of the sidra. When Jacob meets Esau we find that Esau was coming with a welcoming party not a gang of ‘heavies’, and we are told that far from there being a clash between the brothers there is instead from Esau’s side real emotion and warmth at their reconciliation. We are told that he ran to Jacob and embraced him and fell upon his neck and kissed him:

 וַיָּ֨רָץ עֵשָׂ֤ו לִקְרָאתוֹ֙ וַֽיְחַבְּקֵ֔הוּ וַיִּפֹּ֥ל עַל־צַוָּארָ֖ו [צַוָּארָ֖יו] וַיִּשָּׁקֵ֑הוּ וַיִּבְכּֽוּ:

But written in the Masoretic text over the words “and he kissed him” וַיִּשָּׁקֵ֑הוּ are dots, and these are understood in the midrash to be there to draw attention to the word and to add to its meaning. Rashi quotes midrash (Sifrei) and comments that the dots are there to show that the kiss, while it seemed whole hearted, was actually insincere. But the weight of rabbinic tradition goes even further. In Midrash Genesis Rabbah (78:9) we are told that R.Yannai plays on the word ‘vayeshakei’hu’ and by changing just one letter in the word while keeping the sound, one can translate it as Esau biting Jacob. From this midrash comes the stream of Rabbinic traducing of the biblical Esau, to develop him into an enemy of the Jewish people, eventually becoming Edom, the code for the Roman oppression.

 

I do not like this interpretation, being in fact a big fan of the biblical Esau who just couldn’t somehow get it right, but who clearly loved his parents and who wanted to be the son they wanted. However, I would suggest that what was good enough for R.Yannai is good enough for us – so let us look at another word that could be available to the midrashic technique of creating a homophone with a meaning that can alter our understanding of what is happening. ‘Vayishlach’, the name of the sidra, comes from the root שָׁלַח ‘to send’

One homophone, a letter different, is the root סָלַח ‘to pardon or to forgive’

When Jacob then is sending out messengers, maybe we could see that he is in the beginning of the process of searching out for forgiveness, something he clearly needs to do as he has achieved so much of the material possessions he has desired but has not yet matched this achievement with the facing of what he did that had brought him to Laban as a young and frightened boy, alone in the world after having betrayed his father and brother, effectively excluded from his father’s house and inheritance.

So what happens if we bring this word play back into the text? When Jacob wrestles with a man while all alone, while he recognises that the man is in some way both God and human, he is indeed wrestling with himself and his own inclinations. But what he is wrestling with is not so much his two natures but his desire for pardon and his desire not to have to ask for it, not to have to climb down from his arrogance and his power and admit his wrong doing. In Jungian terms, Jacob is fighting with his Shadow side, the darker side of his own self, the irrational and instinctive and unknown aspect of his personality where a perceived personal inferiority is recognised as a perceived moral deficiency in someone else.

 

We all know the phrase that ‘sorry seems to be the hardest word’. For some people it is so hard that they will do almost anything not to have to say it. They will pass on the blame to others, project their feelings so that they see the reconciler as the attacker, reconstruct their narratives of the past so that they will appear the blameless ones, or even the victims of others. They will blacken the name of someone else in preference to owning up to their own mistakes. They will put obstacles in the way of meeting and encountering the other, so as not to have to face up to the humanity and reality of the person whom they have wronged. They will see the ‘admission’ of an apology as something that makes them vulnerable, lose power, or lose their status and become in some way the loser. Saying sorry might mean taking some responsibility for a problem, diminish them in some way, give others the right to judge…

 

We see this everywhere, from individual human interactions to workplace politics to the way that nations in conflict will absolve themselves from the problem and blame it all on the other side. The midrash that claims that Esau bites Jacob rather than kisses him is a manifestation of it. So the idea that Jacob is wrestling in order to say ‘selicha: I am sorry, please forgive me’, is a nice counterpoint.

 

It takes him the whole night and he is physically damaged in the encounter, leaving it with a permanent limp to remind him of both the struggle and the outcome. He is also changed – he can become Israel, the one who struggles with God- while sometimes reverting to Jacob, the heel and the trickster. Saying sorry isn’t a one-time thing – we can find it hard to repeat the word, or to say it in the next situation we should be saying it having made another mistake.

 

And yet apologising when we are at fault is the beginning of redemption. It is about recognising the effect of our actions and taking responsibility for them in order to change our selves and out behaviours. It is at the root of the idea of teshuva, of return to God, of return to the right behaviour that we would want and expect from ourselves.

It is the moment we can turn from Jacob to Israel, the moment when we stop focussing on our pride in our possessions and begin focussing with empathy on others and their needs.

 

Saying sorry is the pivotal moment when we change, when we notice our negative impact and begin to heal it. It is a lifetime process, a skill we need to practise again and again, the moment when we stop being obsessed with our own power and status and rightness and look around us with empathy and compassion and try to care more about others than about ourselves.

When Jacob wrestles and the dawn breaks, he realises that his struggle has meant that his soul is preserved, the sun comes up, the dark night of the soul is over. How did he preserve his soul? He learned of the importance of recognising his own responsibility in what he had done, he said ‘selicha’ he made his peace with the part of him that didn’t want to admit to any flaw or vulnerability. He took his place in the world and limped out, damaged by the encounter but also blessed by it, into the future.

Vayeshev

Posted on by
Reply

Two different approaches to life can be found in this sidra – the first being when Joseph is seeking his brothers in Shechem, “And a man found him and he was wandering in a field, and the man asked him: ‘what are you looking for?'” (Gen 37:15). Had he not met this person and been told that his brothers had moved on to Dotan, he would have returned safely to his father and his life in Canaan would have continued uneventfully, though with continued sibling friction we assume. Having met him however, the train of Joseph’s life was inevitably altered, he went down to Egypt and so opened the way for the whole people of Israel to travel to Egypt and to settle there.

 Who was the man he met who so changed the course of Israelite history? Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Yitzchak (1040 -1105) suggests that this pivotal figure must have been important and suggests it is the Angel Gabriel. Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) is more pragmatic and suggests that this is truly an ordinary passer-by who just happened to be there with information at a critical moment. And Ramban (Moses ben Nachman 1194-1270) beautifully marries the two ideas by suggesting this is truly an ordinary human being, but acting as a messenger of God, a malach (the Hebrew word for messenger, also used for describing what we might call a divine messenger or angel).  So possibly this could be the divine plan in action, or it could be a coincidence with ramifications, but either way, Joseph is the passive recipient of the event – his life is radically transformed without any active intention of his own.

The second approach to life can be found in the actions of Tamar who, through no fault of her own, finds herself waiting for release from her status of childless widow.

 When it becomes clear that the family who can liberate her are choosing not to do so, she takes matters into her own hand. Never mind that she has to dress as a prostitute, nor that she has to waylay her own father in law in order to progress her cause. Never mind that she suffers the charge of adultery when her condition becomes known – Tamar chooses this path rather than find her life unfairly stopped by the refusal of others to do what is required. And she succeeds in her task, eventually acknowledged as a woman who has behaved with righteousness What can we learn from the two stories? – that sometimes our lives can be changed by random events, that we may have no power over what happens to us sometimes, but the outcome of these events IS still something we can exercise control over. Whether we choose to see the turning points at all, whether we choose to see them as entirely random or as part of a divine plan is up to us, but either way Joseph uses his talents to make a success of his life in Egypt having arrived there in very unpromising circumstances, and we too can turn discouraging experiences into better ones by using the various skills we each possess. And sometimes life is unfair and people are obstructive to what should rightly happen, and then we have to be more proactive ourselves, as Tamar risked everything to be.

 It so happens that Joseph is the precursor of the leader to be known as the Mashiach ben Yosef, while Tamar’s twins include Perez the ancestor of David and of the Mashiach ben David. (see Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52a) Whatever these leaders known as ‘messiah’ may also be, they embody between them righteous behaviour and good leadership.  Rav Kook (1865-1935) described them as the universal and the particular leaders, Joseph took care of the physical needs of the people and spoke the languages of the world, whereas Judah was responsible for the special holiness of the Jewish people. We need both aspects – the universal and the particular, the making the best of what we have and the go-getting to make the best world we can – in order to fulfil our lives and make them the richest we can.