McLovin, a character from Judd Apatow’s Super bad can actually teach us a lot about Rosh Hashannah. There are two archetypal narratives that run through Western literature. One is Greek and the other Jewish. Those of you who are familiar with the Oedipus the King know that in Greek drama one can not change fate. What is destined can not be changed. The way a person is, is how they will be. The Jewish narrative, however, is one that is typified by change. All our biblical characters change. Abraham is not “destined” to work in an idol shop, Moses is not “destined” to be Prince of Egypt, and Joseph is not “destined” to be a slave. A system of Mitzvot, commandments, is dependent on the free exercise of will and the ability to change. That idea of change is represented by Rosh Hashanah.

So, Fogel is character in the Jewish model. By changing his name to McLovin he begins to change his whole persona. High school has a way of limiting one’s self identity. The things that we do in High School, debate team, Football, drama, or Math team have a way of limiting us. We become our actions and become grouped and pigeon holed by what we do. The same can be said of the year. We establish habits and move through life unquestioningly. Just, how many of us consciously think about our running narrative with an eye towards change.

Yet, just like McLovin’s ID the Jewish month of Elul comes in and gives a person the power to change themselves. In this way, the Jewish New Year is very similar to starting college. I was joking with some freshmen last week that they could make up an entire Bio and no one would be the wiser. Didn’t like being on the Math team? Don’t tell anyone. Addicted to Yu gi yoh? No one is the wiser. Freshman year gives one the opportunity to recreate one’s narrative.

This year lets all be like freshmen. I don’t mean to lie about high school or try to get fake ids with funny names. No, when I advocate being like a freshman, I am advocating having the ability to consciously change. – Once one strips away all the “stuff” that one does, there is still an essence, a core personality. This Rosh Hashanah find a quiet place and look for that core essence within.

1. By Yirmiyahu (in Eicha, duh)

2. by Yishayahu (someplace in Tanach, take a guess) and, as luck would have it,

3. by Moshe in this week’s Parshat Devarim!

The Medrash explains the interplay between the three Eicha instances by describing a mashal of a beautiful prestigious woman with 3 close friends.  The first friend knows the girl when she was at her best: pretty, beautiful, successful. The second friend knows her when she’s past her prime involved in all sorts of shady overindulging activities (i.e.,  too many late nights at The Dive bar). The third friend knows her only in her downfall.

• Moshe is friend 1, knowing the Jews in good Mt. Sinai times, he laments:  “How (eicha) can I carry your contentiousness, your burdens and your quarrels if I am all by myself ?"  
• Yishayahu is friend 2:  knowing the Jews as sinners: he laments:  “"How -- eicha -- has the faithful city become a prostitute?"
• Yirmiyahu is friend 3:  knowing the Jews in our lowest of lows, he laments, as we all know the tune: “"Alas -- she sits in solitude! The city that was great with people has become like a widow."

One might suggest the medrash is also teaching us a deeper understanding of what it means to lament about our own problems and how everything is relative.

Moshe’s use of the word Eicha, in good times, refers to when the Jews were being really difficult to deal with when setting up the judicial system. This was certainly a critical leadership challenge during those high mt-sinai times, but relative to Yirmiyahu’s same use of the word, lamenting the almost complete annihilation of our people and destruction of our Temple, the problems seem in almost completely in different ballparks. Right? 

Here’s the takehome: Often when things are going really good, our small problems become major. 

Depressed over a bad date?  Feel like complete dirt because you didn’t get an evite to someone’s shabat meal or birthday party. (cue the Bar Kamsa segue). The message might be to keep things in perspective and realize that if your day-to-day woes certainly seem “Eicha-worthy,” you might really be in a pretty good place!!!  What an awesome indicator...in actuality your current life problems might be a lot more manageable than you think.

Good Shabbos and Gezunde Tzores! 

(no clue if that phrase makes sense here, but nice yiddishy enders are always heimish)         (see!) 

Elchanan Shoff

(the following is based upon chapter 4 of the sefer "Hamitzvos HaSehkulos" of the saintly Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe z"l)

Mystics dress in white gowns and burn incense. Us rationalists wear business suits and designer shirts and ties. But why is it that some of us can be so confused by and indifferent to talk about demons, angels, and heaven?

There are seven commandments that are considered by our sages to be as important as the entirety of the Torah. One of them is tzitzis. Tzitzis are the fringes that a male Jew is obligated to affix to his four cornered garment, should he choose to wear one. Although most clothing is no longer made with four corners, Torah observant Jews wear special undershirts of four corners colloquially called "tzitzis," so as not to miss the grand opportunity to perform this mitzvah.

But what is behind this mitzvah? Why is it worthy of being dubbed as valuable as the entire Torah?

Tosafos (Menachos 43b) tells us that these strings are similar to a brand that a slave wears informing the world that he is enslaved to his master alone. The Midrash (Numbers Rab. 17:6) however paints a very different sounding picture of this mitzvah. "A parable – A man has fallen overboard at sea, and is in grave danger! The captain extends him a line and tells him, grab a hold, don't let go, for letting go of this line is forfeiting your very life. "Grab onto my commandments," says G-d; "letting go of them is forfeiting your very life."

A glorious picture! Our tzitzis are our very lives, connecting us to G-d, our captain who is waiting for us to join him on the deck, and be saved from the turbulence of life's raging tempests. He beseeches mankind to simply embrace Torah values and he will then pull his end of the cord. Man wearing his tzitzis is showing that he is just a tug away from an audience with the divine presence. How very different from the Tosafos' image of the torah adherent as a branded slave is this Midrash!

Man is a composite of spirit and earth. He is caught in a tug of war between his earthly impulses and his spiritual aspirations. There are two parts to his job on this earth. He must firstly learn not to be beholden to the calls of his animalistic physical side, and he must also learn to attach to the spiritual. Man must brand himself and show that he is not enslaved to the physical but rather answers to a much higher calling. He must then also begin to grasp at and hold onto the line extended to him from the Master of the universe who is beckoning to him, and inviting him to take his rightful place on the deck of the ship.

There are two genres in classic Jewish scholarship in explaining the meaning of mitzvot. Sefer Hachinuch explains the more basic and rational reasons for the commandments. This explains the branding of the person, how the mitzvot ensure that he simply not drown in the ocean of the physical world. Others, such as Ridvaz, (in his Metzudas Dovid) explain the more mystical significances of the commandments. This provides explanations as to how the mitzvot then attach man to his Maker and bring him up onto the deck of the ship.

Rationalism and mysticism are both accurate and true. The rationalist explains how the mitzvot affect the physical world, and why they elevate a man above it. The mystic explains how it is that the mitzvot bring one into a spiritual world, and teach us "spiritual physics," explaining how those mitzvot bring us close to G-d. Every Jew is both a mystic and a rationalist. He lives an existence of the tangible intermingled with the spirit. Those who wear tzitzis have access, on their very person to a message that encompasses the entire mission of man in this world. There is mysticism in the rational, and rationalism in the mystical. This is the secret of tzitzis.

We all know that one person who can find the worst in every life situation. They spend the entire time at a wedding complaining about the food and the lack of dance floor place. They spend every moment at a ball game portending imminent doom for their team, and them mention every five minutes how bad traffic is going to be on the way home.

It’s unavoidable that we will encounter such a person in our lives. However, it seems that’s exactly what we do every year on Sukkos. Sukkos is referred to as “Zman Simchasaynu”, “The time of our happiness”. To the extent that the Mishnah in Sukkah (51a) states about the Simchas Beis Hashoevah in the Beis Hamikdash, “Whoever did not the Simchas Beis HaShoevah never saw rejoicing in his life.” With all this joy and good cheer flying around, we abruptly change the mood by reading Kohelles. Let’s be honest, Kohelles is a real downer-so why would we read it on Sukkos/Shemini Atzeres? Shouldn’t we read something happier, that is more uplifting and fitting with the mood of Sukkos?

As the baseball playoffs are in full swing, I am always amused at the clichés that players spout to avoid saying anything controversial or intelligent. No one can give it 110%, and we all take it one day at a time. But if there is one baseball cliché that I think really does make sense is “don’t let the highs be too high and the lows be too low.” Baseball players play 162 games, and they can’t afford to get too excited by one win or too depressed by one loss, because ultimately every game is only 1/162 of the season. If you get too excited you run the risk of burning out or getting overconfident, and if you become too depressed it will affect your performance in future games, so you must keep an even keel.

This could be the purpose of reading Kohelles on Sukkos. Sukkos is a tremendous high, an intense happiness that lasts throughout the Chag. However, that can’t last. Just like the intense simcha a couple feels at their wedding and sheva berachos can’t possibly last throughout the entire marriage, so too the intense joy of Sukkos must be tempered somewhat and kept in perspective. Kohelles is that perspective. By realizing that this intense joy is temporary and fleeting, it allows us to not let the highs be too high. Life is a 162 game season, and by keeping our moments of intense joy in perspective and realizing that these moments are in fact fleeting, it will also help keep those moments of intense pain in perspective as well. We may have lost out on that great job, but there will others. We may have just broken up with someone, but that could be the opportunity we need to meet someone truly special in the near future.

So tomorrow don’t look at Kohelles as the downer on a fun and exciting Yom Tov, realize that it’s just there to help you keep your simcha in perspective. And we look forward to hopefully seeing all you Mets fans out here in the Bay Area for a Mets-A’s world series.     

Why is it so imperative that the two goats be indistinguishable?

Furthermore, the Rambam (5:15) clains that if one of the two goats dies before the lottery is performed, then a replacement goat is brought for the animal that died and the lottery is continued. However, if one of the goats die after the lottery was performed, then two new animals must be brought and the lot must be redrawn. Why, if the goralos have been drawn, does it not suffice to replace the goat that died? After all, if one of the goats would die before the execution of the goralos we would just replace the one that died. Why not do the same in this case as well? What message is reflected in the twin goats and their selection via a lottery?

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains that the twin goats are a symbol of one of the most fundamental ideas of Judaism, namely that each and every person has free choice. The two goats and lots must be identical with no mark or sign that makes one discernible from the other. If one goat should die before the lottery then a replacement may be brought for neither animal has been chosen for a specific task. However, if one goat should die after the lottery, it can not be replaced for that new animal will have lost the symbolic power of bechira, choice. When it is taken, its fate has already been chosen for it. Only by redoing the lottery can we return the bechira for each animal. 

Yom Kippur is the day we stand in judgment before G-d. It is a day that we must utilize to reevaluate the direction of our lives. We must make the critical choice about how we plan on continuing to live our lives. Will we choose to follow in the footsteps of G-d, fulfilling his mitzvah as represented by the÷  karban L'Hasshem. Or will we decide to follow our own temptations with the result being lazazel, the barren wasteland. At times the two choices we have appear identical on the surface. However, when looking at the long term ramifications of our decisions, we can see that one leads L'Hashem and the other Lazazel.

We find the same requirement of twin hood regarding the karban that the meztora, the leper, offers as part of his purification process. The  Rambam writes that the Shnei Tziporim, the two birds, that the leper brings should appear identical, have the same build, have the same valuation, and should be purchased at the same time.Chazal tell us that an individual is inflicted with tzaras as a result of speaking loshon horah. Gossiping negatively about others destroys the society that we live in. Part of the punishment for tzaras the separation of the metzora  from Jewish society. With his exclusion from society the healing process of the metzorah can begin. The shnei tziporim that he brings represent the choice that he must make. Is he willing to live harmoniously in society respecting each and every individual, or does he wish to remain separate from society with his own ego and attitudes guiding him? Cognizant of this decision, he is ready to offer the two birds and be readmitted into the camp of Jewish society amongst the peers he has chosen to live with.

The above concept may help us explain why Hashem chose the month of  Sivan in which to give the torah. The constellation for the month of Sivan is Gemini, the twins. When Klal Yisroel were offered the Torah, Hashem them the choice to accept the Torah or not. They accepted it with the famous phrase Naseh V Nishma but they nevertheless did have the option to refuse it. This is reflected in the choice of the Sivan being the month of Kabalas HaTorah.

We are all familiar that  the Yom Kippur day itself has the power to achieve atonement for a person from his sins. However, the Rambam writes that this only works for sins between man and G-d. For sins between man and man, the individual is required to seek forgiveness from the one that he wronged. He also must correct the negative deed that was done. The lesson from  the Metzora's Shnei Tziporim reminds us of the importance of making the conscious decision to live in harmony with our fellow man as well as the need to seek forgiveness when we violate that accord. It is not by coincidence that the second set luchos, the second Kabbalas Hatorah occurred on Yom Kippur the same day that the shnei seirim are offered. Once again it is our obligation, as we stand in judgment, to make our choice. May we all follow the Torah and be zocheh to follow in the ways of Karban L'Hashem and not L'azazel.

But there is also another lesson that we can derive from the fact that Rosh Hashanah is the "head" of the year that relates to the way we should view our own heads.  Indeed, to highlight the importance of the "head" metaphor of Rosh Hashanah, it is customary to eat the head of a fish (or even a ram) on Rosh Hashanah, or, at least to have it on our table, as our way of expressing our desire to "be a head and not a tail."

Translating this custom in terms that are relevant to the average person, the following insight can be offered:

Many of the challenges in life that we are confronted with relate to the way we are influenced by the actions of others. Without realizing it, we follow blindly the fads that have been established by others; mostly people we do not know or respect. But once a fad becomes entrenched in society, even the most independent minded people follow blindly.

Even many non-conforming rebels of the sixties and seventies joined communities where they would wear the same ripped jeans etc., i.e. total conformity with the non-conformists.

The message of Rosh Hashanah is that we should truly be a head and not a tail. This does not mean that we cannot follow the customs of our community, but we must use discernment as to when we should follow and when we should lead.

To help us in this evaluation, we must refer once again to the head metaphor. Just as there is a head of a body and the head of a year, there is also a head of ideas, values and behaviors.

Torah is the head of all wisdom. The Divine commandments (Mitzvot) are the heads of all behaviors. Goodness and kindness are the heads of all virtues. Righteous people are the true heads of society. And, of course, G-d is the Head of all existence.

When we have to make choices about matters pertaining to our "heads," G-d, Torah etc., we have to see to it that we become the heads and guides of others. When dealing with mundane matters-things that are morally and spiritually neutral-then it does not necessarily matter whether we follow the crowd or we become pace setters.

This then is the lesson of Rosh Hashanah-The Head of the Year. Be a head, a leader in matters of holiness, in all matters that involve the head.

And the follow up lesson from the designation of this day as the Head of the Year is that we must determine where our head is. In what pursuits do we invest our most important faculty-the mind? If a mind is a terrible thing to waste, then to use our minds for things that ought to be wasted is even more terrible. Is our mind obsessed with material pursuits? Is our mind preoccupied with selfish interests? Is our mind involved with petty squabbles and trivial pursuits? Or is our mind focused on growing spiritually? Does our mind dwell on how we can be selflessly devoted to our families and others? Do we concentrate our minds on how we can better serve G-d, by studying Torah and observing the Mitzvot?

On Rosh Hashanah we ask ourselves: Where is my head? And am I a head or a tail?

Historically speaking, we are living at the tail end of exile, on the very heels of the Redemption through our righteous Moshiach, who will be our head. An important part of the Rosh Hashanah emphasis on the head is that we plead with G-d to turn our tail situation into a head situation; that He bring an end to the exile and usher in an age when the entire world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d (Head).

May we all be inscribed and sealed for a good and sweet year;  a year when we will all be heads and not tails!

---

Rabbi Yisroel Fried serves as one of the all-star Rabbis of the West Side Chabad in Manhattan. Check out their website for upcoming Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur/Succos events as well as their all new LULAV HOME DELIVERY PROGRAM

The book was found open to a page describing, in Latin, Psalm 83, in which God hears of other nations' attempts to wipe out the name of Israel.

I "unearthed" this information from a "blog" next to another blog that described the death of a dozen Israeli troops at the hands of terrorists in Lebanon. It appears that Psalm 83 is the theme common to both bog and blog. "Israel bashing" is as ancient as the former and as up-to-the-minute as the latter. Let me quote:

"They plot craftily against Your people and take counsel against Your treasured ones. They say, 'Let us wipe them out as a nation; Israel's name will be mentioned no more.' Unanimous in their counsel they have made an alliance against You."

Once again, we witness a lamentable league of nations unusually-united in their efforts to destroy Israel.

After examining the bog, an expert said, "It could take months of study just to identify the safest way to pry open the pages without damaging or destroying the text." But, after reading the blog, I fear it could take another millennium to identify the cause of such eternal enmity. I find myself asking what has changed in the 3,000 years representing the textual time span between the bog and blog?

Nations now, just as then, desire the destruction of the Jewish state and continue to refuse to recognize its very existence. Amidst all the rhetoric revolving around United Nations resolutions, it's helpful to remember this: Only one party in the Middle East supported the establishment of the proposed Palestinian Arab state: the Zionists! Every single Arab State opposed the United Nations resolution, which would have created an independent Palestine Arab nation. Their sole concern was that not one inch of Palestine be controlled by a Jewish state.  

To quote the late, great Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky who, in his address to the Peel Commission, 10 years prior to the U.N. resolution: "This is not at all an issue about ousting the Arabs. On the contrary, the idea is that Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan should hold the Arabs, their progeny, and many, many Jews. I do not deny that, in the process, the Arabs of Palestine will necessarily become a minority there. What I do deny, emphatically, is that that is a hardship.

"One fraction, one branch of that race, and not a big one, may have to live in someone else's state. ... It is quite understandable that the Arabs of Palestine would also prefer Palestine to be Arab State number 8, number 9 or number 10 ... . But when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite vs. the claims of starvation."  

In this week's liturgical cycle [Isaiah 55:1-3], the Prophet, too, speaks of appetite. What, after all is said and done, is our appetite as Zionists? Isn't it just for a little peace on a little piece of land? Isn't it just for the piece of reassurance contained in the portion of this week's Haftorah (Isaiah 54:14-17). "You shall be safe from oppression ... ruin shall not come near you. ... No weapon formed against you shall succeed"?

Through time immemorial, from the most ancient bog to the very latest blog, our craving remains constant -- you could label it, as our rabbis did, B"L"G. -- "Ba Letzion Goel -- May redemption come to Zion."  

That's what we hunger for. That's what we thirst for: a bissele B"L"G; just a taste. And if not today, then tomorrow, speedily and soon, and in our time ... Amen.

Rabbi Ira Samuel Grussgott is the religious leader of Congregation Kesher Israel in Center City, Philadelphia
(this article is reprinted from Philadelphia's Jewish Exponent  here)

On this 3rd level - Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin - Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue: Beit Shammai asserts that on the 1st night, you light 8 candles, on the second, 7, down until the last night, when you light only one candle. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, says that you light one candle on the first night, 2 on the second, etc… until 8 on the last night.

Now, here, things get really interesting. The Gemorah offers 2 different explanations as to the logic behind Hillel and Shammai’s disagreement. According to Rabbi Yosi Bar Avin, Beit Shammai holds you light 8 to 1, because the mitzvah is supposed to tell us how many days are left to celebrate Hanukah’s miracles. Beit Hillel, however, lights 1 to 8, to represent how many days of the holiday have already.

Rabbi Yosi Bar Zveidah has a different theory as to the nature of the disagreement between Shammai and Hillel. Beit Shammai notes that for Sukkot, the sacrifices each day were brought in successively decreasing totals- 13, 12,…So, too, he argues, should Hanukah be done, lighting 8, then 7, etc. But Beit Hillel, according to Rabbi Yosi Bar Zveidah, believes that we are Ma’alin B’Kodesh, V’Ein Moridin (we must constantly be increasing in our mitzvoth), and thus should go from 1 to 8.

Given these opinions, what can we learn from the seemingly different understandings of Shammai and Hillel’s opinions on how many candles to light each night? Further, does this understanding make sense given the mesorah that, while we follow the opinion of Beit Hillel now, we will follow Beit Shammai in the near future of Yimot Mashiach?

To start, while it seems that Rabbi Yosi Bar Avin and Rabbi Yosi Bar Zveidah have entirely different ideas as to the root nature of Shammai and Hillel’s opinions, they in fact both result from the same understanding of the purpose of Hanukah. From the two Rabbi Yosi’s, we see that Shammai sees Hanukah as a finite holiday, and that it is a given that there will be 8 days to the chag (thus we light from 8 to 1). Further, Shammai suggests that Hanukah is actually modeled somewhat after our Torah-based chagim, and that we should follow the example of Sukkot, as we light candles to commemorate a holiday that is essentially in our past, and relevant only for the commandments established for us by earlier generations (or Hashem, Himself).

Beit Hillel, on the other hand, suggests that we must count each day of Hanukah that has passed- it is an ongoing miracle, in a sense, that we must live and celebrate with each successive day. Only after the 8th day, when we learn that the nes of the oil was no longer necessary, does Beit Hillel declare an end to the growing number of flames. This goes very well with our other understanding of Beit Hillel: that we must always increase our level of k’dushah, rather than allow it to decline. Unlike Sukkot which is declared as finite, Hanukah is an active struggle we live through as we try to increase our k’dushah.

So, we have Shammai who sees Hanukah as a given: something in our past which we commemorate and celebrate like any other holiday; and we have Hillel, who sees Hanukah as a new miracle every year, in which we constantly strive to improve ourselves. This makes perfect sense when we consider that we follow Hillel now, and Shammai in the future: the story of Hanukah identifies the greatest struggle we face as a People – loss of our unique identity and connection with G-d. So until we fully re-connect with Hashem, we must see Hanukah every year as a new miracle of oil, and a new challenge to fight off the Helenistic tendencies and forces of our surrounding environments. So we light from 1 candle to 8, recognizing our constant need to grow. B’ezrat Hashem, that victory will soon be complete, and we will have a new Chanukat HaBayit. At that point, we will be able to adapt Shamai’s philosophy and look back on Hanukah as a finite symbol of our victory, much like sukkot: a chag that is a given, and not necessarily a call for spiritual struggle. And I think this is the message that binds all Jews together in Hanukah, whether we realize it consciously or not. By lighting the way we do, with a new light every night, we’re recognizing that no matter who we are as individuals or a community, we need to grow and continue our struggle to become better on multiple levels. And if we do, we should soon find ourselves following Shammai, lighting 8 candles on the 1st night of Chanukah, in a world that would be Mehadrin Min Hamehadrin for all of us.

This sources used in this D’var Torah were influenced bu Hegyonei Halachah, V 2.

This actually not an easy thing to explain and if you try to think of a solid argument to promote marrying Jewish for someone completely secular it is pretty difficult.

Recently, a bangitout.com reader sent us the below article. Let us know if you can come up with some ideas yourself: This is a question that has, especially in our generation in America, failed produce a satisfactory and effective answer.

It's time we changed that:

Can You Oppose Intermarriage Without Being Racist?
By Rabbi Aron Moss/Sydney

I am pleased to share with you, dear readers, some fascinating exchanges I have had with my Jewish brethren in Australia, touching on some of the important questions facing our people today. Sit back and enjoy the read!

Question: Rabbi, I am not asking for a sermon -- I get enough of them from my parents. I am asking for an explanation.

I am seriously dating a girl who is everything I ever dreamed of. She is smart, pretty, funny. Definitely marriage material. But -- you guessed it -- she isn't Jewish. My parents have refused to even meet her and have told me that if we get married they won't come to the wedding. My grandmother is beside herself.

My! question is: My parents aren't religious, we never kept kosher or any of the Jewish festivals. There was nothing very Jewish about our home. Why all of a sudden are they so Jewish when it comes to whom I marry? Isn't that totally hypocritical? When I ask them this question, they just answer: "This is different." But that makes no sense to me. Why is this different?

Answer: This is not only your personal question; it is the question of the generation: Why does intermarriage touch a nerve in so many people more than any other Jewish issue?

Your frustration is well-founded. It is unreasonable of your parents to expect Judaism to be important to you if it never seemed important to them. What's more, they! can't explain to you why they feel the way they do. They probably can't even explain it to themselves. But I have a theory.

There is a profound truth that somehow our parents learnt subconsciously from their parents, and that is: Jewishness is who you are, not what you do.

There is no such thing as one Jew who is more Jewish than another. Whether you practice Jewish customs or not, keep the festivals or not, live in Israel or not, eat sushi or not, a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Jewishness is an irreversible status that is not defined by how you live your life.

A Jew may be sitting in a church eating bacon on Yom Kippur dressed up as Santa Claus, but he's still 100% Jewish. Is he a good Jew? A faithful Jew? A proud Jew? G-d knows. But a Jew he remains. Because Jewishness isn't something you do; it's something you are. Nothing you do can affect who you are.

Nothing, that is, with one exception: whom you marry.

The person you marry becomes a part of wh! o you are. Getting married is not a hobby or a career move; it is making someone else a part of your identity, and becoming a part of theirs. Your spouse fills a void in your very being, and you fill the void in them. So marriage, like Jewishness, is not something you do, it is something you are.

Every person, non-Jew and Jew alike, is created in the image of G-d. There is nothing, heaven forbid, wrong with non-Jews. But they aren't Jewish. If you marry a non-Jew, you're still 100% Jewish, but a part of you -- your other half -- is not. You can be happy together. You can be in love with each other. But there is a part of you that you will never share.

Maybe this is the challenge of our generation: to face the questions of what it means to be in love, what it means to marry, and what it means to be Jewish. And -- unlike any generation before us -- come up with real answers.

Rabbi Aron Moss

---------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Up - Readers' Comments, Questions and Answers:

Presented below is a selection of some of the feedback Rabbi Moss received. Names and details have been changed.

Ruth writes: I am the product of an interfaith marriage. My parents exposed me heavily to their religions' practices and symbols, and agreed to let me 'choose' my path, thus avoiding the difficulties of resolving their differences of faith. But I must say that it left me lonely, not fully identifying with or accepted by groups of peers that maintain a religious identity (most people). It also left me ! without the confidence provided by trusted reliance on a codified set of values.

Joanne writes: Growing up as a reform Jewish woman, I had many opportunities to intermarry. Our house was filled with secular books on philosophy, psychology, poetry, art, history and the like but did not have even one Jewish book. We never attended Temple services. I think I was about 25 or 30 years old when I learned about the actual existence of Torah.

However, years before, when I was about 18, I found a book by Ariel Durant, entitled ANTI-SEMITISM. Mrs. Durant and her husband Will were famous philosophers and historians. She wrote in her book, that as a Jewish woman! , she would not intermarry, because she "would not have wanted to face Hitlers' death camps ALONE." That quote made a profound impression on me. I repelled all of my non-Jewish boyfriends thereafter.

The fact that Hitler would send me and my children to the gas chambers, but not my non-Jewish husband, meant that Jews and non Jews should be friends, but they ought not to marry to each other.

Elaine writes: Your article on intermarriage was brilliant. However, I would like to share my story regarding intermarriage which is very different.

I am married for 39 years to the same person who is not Jewish. My sons were raised in a Jewish home though. Shabbat dinner every weekend, Bar Mitzvah, and the works. My children and I are active members of an Orthodox synagogue. My first born son just married a lovely Jewish woman. My second son is dating a wonderful Jewish woman.

Because of my marriage I actually worked much harder at being Jewish than I would have had I married a Jewish man. I felt an obligation to do this as a result of my choice to intermarry. In addition, my husband was a very powerful elected official, who through my influence authored laws for Kashrut, secured the arrangements for the first mikvah in our community to be built, and authored numerous laws to help the Jewish people.

While I understand the debate regarding assimilation, sometimes there are exceptions. I am one of them.

Rabbi Moss responds: Thank you for sharing your unique story. The J! ewish people owe a debt of gratitude to your husband for all he has done. And you should be very proud of the children you have brought up together.

In my letters I did not claim that intermarriage could never be happy. It can be, and perhaps you are a fine example of that. I also didn't claim that intermarriage means the end of a Jewish family -- your children are testimony that it is not always the case. Even though I do believe that your story is a rare exception -- very few children of intermarriage have any Jewish identity that lasts to the next generation -- but your story is certainly possible, and doesn't contradict anything I wrote.

My point was that there is something that an intermarried couple can never share, and that "something" is an intrinsic element of our personality -- our Jewishness. You can share holidays and traditions, but Jewishness is an absolute: you either have it or you don't.

Please don't get me wrong, I am! not saying there is anything wrong with your husband. I am not saying he is inferior or an outcast or anything of the sort. Each of us, Jew and non-Jew alike, is created in the image of G-d. My point is that Jewishness is our being. When a bomb kills people in an Israeli cafe, they are our people, and we feel a stab in our hearts; when 6,000,000 Jews are killed the Holocaust, we are sickened to the very core of our being; when we stand under our child's Chuppa it is our grandparents' souls that descend to bless their offspring. A non-Jew can participate, commiserate, appreciate and be supportive of all the above; but it is not part of his essence. He may be the kindest person in the world, but he is just not Jewish. He needs not to be Jewish.

And if a non-Jew feels that he or she truly identifies with the Jewish people's pain and joy, history and destiny, then they are welcome to join. What is ours can become theirs too. That was real co! nversion is all about.

Gary writes: Don't you think it is absurd to think that spirituality has attributes -- like Jewish or non Jewish or black or white etc.? All human beings are one.

The question "who am I?" is the eternal question all humans must eventually ask. Ultimately they will discover that there are no distinctions. How can anything that concerns "spirit" be Jewish? There is a transcendence that we must experience that is beyond Jewish or Christian or Islam or Buddhist or even Atheist. Time to graduate from the ethnic stereotypes and embrace the universal energy of oneness.

Imagine...

Rabbi Moss responds: The idea that all souls are the same is one of the biggest mistakes of modern new-age spirituality.

We are so used to thinking that definitions create barriers, and barriers cause hatred. We are convinced that to be spiritual means to have no borders.

From a Torah and Kabbalistic perspe! ctive, this totally misses the point of existence.

Before creation, G-d had undefined unity already. He was all there was, there were no borders, definitions or distinctions. If that is what G-d wants, He would not have created the world.

Creation was the act of making borders. From unity came multiplicity. General divisions such as Male/female, body/soul; and specific divisions into nations, cultures and individuals.

Why did G-d create multiplicity? Because the deepest unity is the unity found within diversity. If we are all the same, then unity is no big deal. So G-d gave us all specific souls with their unique and diverse perspectives. When each individual as an individual, and each nation with its own style and language recognizes the same G-d, then that is real unity. That is something G-d "couldn't" have without a word like ours.

To blur the boundaries between nations, genders and individuals is to avoid facing ! the challenge -- to find unity in our differences.

For the unity of humankind we need one G-d; but for G-d's unity to be complete we need human diversity.

Jews should be Jews, non-Jews should be non-Jews, men should be men and women should be women. And every individual has to be themselves. Only then can we learn from each other the wisdom that we ourselves lack.

The majesty of G-d is revealed when each one connects with Him from their unique vantage point. There is a contribution that only you can make to G-d's master plan. That's why you were born as you are - a Jew, a man, and Gary. With much blessing to a unique being,

Hannah writes: I know of one young man in California who came to talk with Rabbi F. about marrying his non-Jewish girlfriend. The rabbi talked and talked and talked, till he was blue in the face and in the end the young man called to say he was breaking off the relationship. The ! rabbi asked him what he had said that finally convinced him. He said, "Nothing, actually, but when I saw your beautiful children, I realised that I wouldn't want to miss out on having a Jewish home!"

Leon writes: My parents never approved of my marriage to a woman of a darker color. Because my parents were of a lighter shade of black, they expected me to marry a lighter color person or a white. But I believe that you marry from the heart. I also believe you try and become one with your partner that you choose in marriage.

Yet I, for one, would never marry a person that is not of my ethnicity because it just does not work. Marriage is so difficult and challenging even when you marry someone from the same community. To marry someone from another race or religion, just makes the challenge of enjoying a good marriage far more harder.

I wonder, how many intermarried couples are truly happy inside?

Sarah writes: It is very common that people who don't value religion in their lives, intermarry freely. But once there are children involved, the idea of values and religion come to the surface. Then the trouble starts, since there is no common ground in an intermarried couple. For example, two people like the same car, and buy one together, without discussing where they want to go or end up with the car!

Intermarriage in my opinion is a profound mistake. Don't do it to your children. It is hard enough to grow up normal in any home, let alone in a home where the parents come from two different religions, histories, and civilizations.

Tony writes: Wow... That was great reading. Some personal experiences.

I'm Christian, my wife is Jewish, we've been married twenty years. While we dated, I agreed that any children we might have would be raised Jewish. My consent was not only to please my wife to be, but also a self(ish) interest. I consid! er Judaism the foundation of Christianity, without Judaism there would be no Christianity, or Islam for that matter. Therefore, in order for Christianity to continue, Judaism must continue. One important way for Judaism to flourish is for Jews to marry other Jews; otherwise the Jewish people will be lost. I'm truly proud that my wife and daughters are Jewish.

Rachel writes: Last week my husband and I proudly marched in the Israeli Day Parade in New York City. Many groups marched, but we represented the Jewish War Veterans of the USA. It was beautiful.

Unfortunately a small group of Palestinians standing with a group of Chasidic Jews, I believe they were Satmars, were cursing Israel. I was upset that fellow Jews would be so anti-Semitic and side with a group of people who want our people driven into the sea. Of course all the media focused on this small group of protesters.

Why would this Orthodox group of Hassidi! m be so against Israel? This really disturbed me deeply. I am proud of being Jewish, proud of being American, and I am proud that we have reclaimed our ancient land in 1948.

Rabbi Moss responds: I will not defend the actions of such people. They represent no one other than themselves. Even the main anti-Zionist groups (Satmar and Neturei Karta) have distanced themselves from these attention-seeking anti-Jewish crack-pots. What they are doing is evil.

America is a free country, but for a Jew to side with murderers is unconscionable. The belief that there should not be a secular State in Israel is one thing, but if those that hold that belief are led to identify with those who murder Jews r! ather than the Jews who they are targeting, then they are beyond the pale of Jewish debate. The same goes for the extreme left, who are similarly enamored with the Palestinian cause while seeming not to notice Palestinian terror, murdering Jewish children, women and men in cold blood.

Don't be fooled by the Hasidic garb. The basis of Hasidism is the three pillars: love of G-d, love of Torah, and love of our fellow Jew. If any one is missing, the others fall down. But with all three, the Jewish people are invincible.

Rabbi Aron Moss teaches Kabbalah, Talmud and practical Judaism at the Foundation for Education in Sydney, Australia.

Editor's Note: the following is in response to various communications which I have received: Rav Schachter's dvar Torah portrays women very positively. He describes the bina yeseira with which they are endowed, the added element of imetatio dei which they are privledged to observe, etc. The statement about monkeys or parrots reading the kesuba was clearly intended to dramatize the halachic insignificance of the reading of the kesuba from the standpoint of the siddur kiddushin (marriage ceremony). It was not intended to imply or insinuate anything else. And his analogy applies equally for men or women reading the kesuba.

I

Some of the non-Orthodox denominations celebrate the bat mitzvah of young girls at thirteen - the same age that the boys celebrate their bar mitzvah. These groups felt uncomfortable about the discrimination between the sexes which had been practiced by Jews for millennia, and finally did away with it.

The rationale for this distinction is presented by the Talmud as follows: the Torah says (Braishis 2:22) that G-d created Eve from the body of Adam. The term used is "vayiven", from the verb bonoh, "and He built". The rabbis had an oral tradition that this verb "vayiven" has an additional level of interpretation, from the root "binah". "Binah yeseirah" was given to women more so than to men. Women mature intellectually at an earlier age than men; therefore girls should become bat mitzvah at age twelve, while boys only attain their intellectual maturity at age thirteen (Talmud Niddah 45b).

By insisting that the girls observe their bat mitzvah at age thirteen, just the same as the boys, one is in effect insulting the women, and denying that they were created with this "binah yeseirah".

In a recent study published in Time Magazine (May 10, 2004, p. 59) it was reported that the brain mass of females reaches its maximum size at age eleven, while that of the males only reaches its maximum size at age twelve and a half. It would appear that the ages of bar and bat mitzvah were established by the halacha in accordance with this attaining of maximum size of the brain mass, and the rabbis derived this point of biology from their additional level of interpretation of the possuk in Braishis. The Talmud (B'choros 8b) relates that in the days of the tanaim, the rabbis were able to read in between the lines of the chumash and discover scientific details in the area of biology, which the scholars of Athens had not yet ascertained through their scientific research. In later generations, however, this ability to "darshen" psukim was lost, to the extent that the chachomim couldn't even figure out halachos by reading "in between the lines" of the text of the Torah.

II

A new trend is emerging among certain "modern Orthodox" circles. A scholarly woman is called upon at a wedding ceremony to read the kesuba. They say that "halachically there is nothing wrong with this!" In a certain sense this statement is correct. If one only judges the issue from the perspective of the laws of "siddur kiddushin" there's nothing wrong. Yes, even if a parrot or a monkey would read the kesuba, the marriage would be one hundred percent valid. Strictly speaking,the reading of the kesuba is not at all a part of the marriage ceremony. This minhag was introduced in the days of the rishonim after the geonim had done away with the ancient practice of having a long pause (of several months) between the erusin and the nissuin. When a young girl would be married for the first time, the pause would be "a yohr un a mitvoch". The date for the chuppah would be set for the first Wednesday following the entire year after the erusin (see Talmud Kesubos 2a). In the days of the Talmud there would have been no objection if "borei pri hagoffen" would have been recited over the cup of wine used for the six brachas of nissuin, despite the fact that that same bracha had already been recited in connection with the cup of wine used for the "birchas erusin" [1], because there was a pause of months in between the two occasions. However, once the geonim introduced the practice of having the nissuin follow immediately after the erusin, the reciting of the blessing of borei pri hagoffen the second time seems very strange! There was no longer a pause of several months between the two brachos, but merely a pause of a few moments, and the reciting of the second bracha really seems absolutely unnecessary! This is what prompted the rishonim to institute the slow reading of the kesuba in between the erusin and the nissuin, to establish a hefsek between the two "brachos al hakos", so that the second borei pri hagoffen will not seem so superfluous. It is for this reason that many have the practice that if someone is scheduled to speak under the chuppah, or if a chazzan is going to sing something, that these take place right after the reading of the kesuba. The greater the pause, the better. Some rabbis have the practice of reading the kesuba very quickly. I remember that when Rav Eliezer Silver zt"l would be called upon to read the kesuba at a chasuna, he would do so very slowly. Since the whole purpose of krias hekesuba is to introduce a pause between the brachos over the two cups of wine, the longer the pause - the better! (See Beikvei Hatzohn pg. 268.)So it is a correct observation that if one only studies Even Hoezer Hilchos Kiddushin and Hilchos Nisuin there's absolutely no mention whatsoever that anything is wrong with a woman reading the kesuba. Yes, a monkey could also read the kesuba!

But when a shailah is researched one must look through the entire Shulchan Aruch, and consider all the various aspects of that shailah. Just because there is an issue that does not appear in Even Hoezer Hilchos Kiddushin or Hilchos Nissuin, it doesn't mean that the issue is "non-halachic". Orach Chaim Hilchos Krias HaTorah is just as "halachic" as Even Hoezer Hilchos Kiddushion. In Hilchos Krias HaTorah the Shulchan Aruch quotes from the Talmud that although judging from the perspective of Hilchos Krias HaTorah alone a woman may receive an aliyah, from the perspective of Hilchos Tznius this is not permitted. All people were created b'tzelem Elokim, and the Torah has instructed each of us to preserve his tzelem Elokim. One aspect of Elokus is the fact that Hashem is a "Keil Mistater", He always prefers to hide b'tzinah. Therefore we assume that part of our mitzvah of preserving our tzelem Elokim is for all of us to lead private lives. The prophet Micha (6:8) uses the verb "leches" in conjunction with tznius: "vehatznea leches im Elokecha." The rabbis of the Talmud (Sukkah 49b) understood the choice of that particular verb to be an allusion to the expression in Koheles (7:2) "tov laleches el beis ovel mileches el beis mishteh." This particular form of the verb appears in connection with a funeral and a wedding - occasions which are intended for a public outpouring of emotion. The navi Micha is telling us that even on these occasions one should tone down his public display of his inner emotions. And kal vachomer, so much more so all year long, one should try to lead as private (as tzanua) a life as possible .

Sometimes the halacha requires of us to act in a public fashion (b'farhesia), as for example to have tfilah b'tzibur, krias haTorah b'tzibur, etc. On these occasions the halacha distinguishes between men and women. We only require and demand of the men that they compromise on their tznius and observe certain mitzvos in a farhesia (public) fashion. We do not require this of women. They may maintain their middas hahistatrus, just as Hashem (most of the time) is a Kel Mistater (Yeshaya 45:15). Of course, if there are no men in the shul who are able to lein and get the aliyos, we will have no choice but to call upon a woman, and require of her to compromise on her privacy and lein, to enable the minyan to fulfill their obligation of krias haTorah. If there is a shul where a woman gets an aliyah, this is an indication that there was no man who was able to lein, and this is an embarrassment to that minyan. This is what the rabbis meant when they said that a woman should not lein - for this would constitute an embarrassment to the minyan.(Megillah 23a.)

And the same is true regarding a woman reading the kesuba in public at a chasuna. Of course the kiddushin will not be affected in the slightest! An animal can also read the kesuba without affecting the kiddushin! The truth of the matter is that no one has to read the kesuba! We have a centuries-old custom to create the hefsek through the reading of the kesuba. Because we plan to satisfy the view of the Rambam that the kesuba must be handed over to the kallah before the nissuin [2], the rishonim thought that we may as well read that kesuba which we're just about to hand over. But nonetheless it is a violation of kvod hatzibur to have a woman surrender her privacy to read the kesuba in public. Were there no men present who were able to read this Aramaic document?

III

Clearly the motivation to have a woman read the kesuba is to make the following statement: the rabbis, or better yet - the G-d of the Jews, has been discriminating against women all these millennia, and has cheated them of their equals rights, and it's high time that this injustice be straightened out!

What a silly misunderstanding! Our G-d never intended to cheat women of their rights and privileges! Quite the contrary! He wanted to give women the ability to fulfill vehalchta bidrachav in a more complete way - without ever having to compromise their tznius.

IV

The Talmud records that during the period of the Second Temple the Tzdukim had many disputes with the chachamim. The Tzdukim did not follow the Torah Shebeal Peh, and had many complaints against the rabbonim, based on their fundamental misunderstanding of the principals of the halacha.

One of their big issues was this issue of discrimination against women. According to the Torah law, a daughter will only inherit a parent where there were no sons. The Tzdukim felt that this was unfair, but there was nothing they could do about this because this point is explicit in the chumash (Bamidbar 27:8). But the following case is not explicit: if someone dies leaving a daughter and they previously had a son who had predeceased the parent, and that son left a daughter, i.e., a granddaughter of the deceased. According to the halacha, the granddaughter receives the entire inheritance while the daughter gets nothing. The Tzdukim were famous for their dispute with the chachamim in this instance, and they felt that the daughter should at least share along with the granddaughter (Bava Basra 115b). They preached that the rabbis were cheating that daughter, and that women should have equal rights to those of men!

Years later, after the destruction of the Second Temple, the early Christians picked up some of the "shtik" of the Tzdukim. Just like the Tzdukim of old pushed Shavuos off to a Sunday, in order to have an "extended holiday weekend" (see Menachos 65a),so too the Christians pushed off the observance of Pentecost (the holiday of the fiftieth day) to Sunday. And so too they felt that the rabbis had discriminated against women, so they preached (Talmud Shabbos 116b) that sons and daughters should always share an inheritance equally. They also did away with the women's section in the synagogue and developed the notion that "the family that prays together stays together".

History repeats itself. In recent years, the Reform and the Conservative movements have expressed this same complaint against the rabbis, or better put - against the G-d of the Jews: discrimination against women! Look what has become of the Tzdukim, the early Christians, the Reform, and the Conservatives...

V

Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote in one of his teshuvos that if a woman choses to listen to shofar or to shake a lulav, despite the fact that these are mitzvos aseh shehazman gramma, we must determine what motivated her to do so. If she's upset at the rabbis and at the halacha, and her shaking lulav and listening to shofar is done out of protest to the tradition, then these acts constitute an aveira. Only if what motivates the woman to volunteer these mitzvos is her sincere desire to come closer to G-d is she in the category of "aina metzuvah veosaah", and she is deserving of reward.

VI

The non-Orthodox movements have whole-heartedly approved of women rabbis. We read in the papers that a certain "Orthodox rabbi" has stated publicly that "the stupidest thing about Orthodoxy is that they don't approve of women rabbis."

In Pashas Dvorim we read that Moshe Rabbeinu appointed many rabbis to serve the community. The expression used by the chumash is (Dvorim 1:13), "let us appoint anoshim". Rashi quotes from the Sifre a fascinating comment: what is the meaning of the term "anoshim"? Was there even a "salka daitach" to appoint women rabbis?? The expression must certainly mean "anoshim tzadikim".

Why was it so obvious to the tanaim that we can not have women rabbis? After all, Tosfos (Bava Kama 15a) raises the possibility of giving semicha to women, and having them serve on a beth din. So if women can possibly receive semicha, why can't they serve the community as rabbis?

The answer is obvious. Although we must sometimes compromise on our midas hatznius and do certain mitzvos befarhesia (in public), this is not required of women. Women are not being discriminated against. They alone, unlike men, are given the opportunity to maintain their midas hahistatrus at all times.

VII

Our generation is so much into publicity that this midas hahistatrus is totally unappreciated. We live in a generation in which there is no sense of shame. People will do the most intimate and the most private acts in a most explicit and most demonstrative fashion. Their arrogant attitude has led them to believe that if they were G-d they would always be bragging, boasting, and showing off, always "making a statement". They don't have the slightest notion that G-d exists, is a "Kel Mistater", and has created all of us with a tzelem Elokim, which also includes this midas hatznius.

In some kehillos in Europe the nusach hatfillah for Rosh Chodesh Benshcen included a request that G-d should grant us "chayim sheyesh bohem busha uchlima" [3], i.e., a sense of shame and a sense of tznius and privacy. We have a lot to pray for in our generation!

_______________

[1] The truth of the matter is that historically the reciting of birchas erusin over a cup of wine seems to have been introduced during the period of the geonim, and was probably not practiced at all in the days of the Talmud.

[2] See commentary of Magid Mishna to Rambam Hilchos Ishus (10:7)

[3] The common nusach for this tfilah is, "chaim sheain bohem busha uchlima".

Read More Articles like these at www.torahweb.org

Is there really anything so terrible about giving Aunt Ethel a peck on the cheek at the family reunion? Rabbi Akiva Tatz once made the following brilliant observation. If one kisses his aunt and in doing so has inappropriate feelings, then I’m sure you’d agree that he shouldn’t be kissing her. And if he does not have those feelings; isn’t it a shame that he has desensitized himself to the point that he can actually kiss another person and feel nothing?! Touch is something special, something that can be incredibly meaningful. We must understand well, that one who truly values it will not abuse it. One who eats three meals a day on the finest china will have nothing left for a special occasion. Should we allow any of passiveness to seep into our human relationships, we are in big trouble.

We are all familiar with the concept of investment. Give me five dollars today and I’ll give you fifty tomorrow. Who would turn down such a deal? But what if you were in a candy shop with only five dollars! Think of what you could buy with five dollars! Your average American born groom, walking down the aisle, has been involved in numerous physical relationships. In contrast, the typical yeshiva boy has never touched a woman other than immediate family members, with the possible exception of the register lady at the supermarket when she hands him his change. The religious bride coming down the aisle toward him probably had about the same amount of contact with men. Imagine the potency of this relationship! The first person either husband or wife will ever touch in a passionate manner is their spouse. They have something explosive together, and are very lucky that they didn’t squander it in their youth.

So practically, abstaining from physical contact should make for a better relationship. But shouldn’t one have experience? How can I know if the relationship is going to work? Maybe I should test the market? We need not elaborate on the obvious issues that can arise when one begins to compare his or her spouse to others. One who has had much experience in relationships will likely measure his or her spouse against previous relationships. But is this a good thing? It is certainly healthier for one to say “My wife is beautiful” than “My wife is the most beautiful.” The first is a statement of one’s feelings. The second is a comparison. The one who made the first statement is happy with his spouse. The second almost sounds as though he would abandon his wife should he find someone more beautiful; but unfortunately he just can’t find one. One whose experience in relationships is confined to his spouse is more likely to be happy with what he has. Most people don’t feel tremendously unfortunate that they don’t have the gift of flight. But should they live in a society where everyone else has a set of wings, all the walking might get to them. When we appreciate what we have without any outside measurement, then we are truly happy. One who can learn to appreciate his spouse without the need to compare her, or his relationship with her, to anything else, is a very lucky person. He certainly is not missing anything by not “testing the market.”

But there’s something a lot deeper going on here. We all find the idea of prostitution abhorrent. What is the reason exactly? The male-female relationship is a powerful one. It can be holy, sacred, and special. One who sells this for money degrades this relationship. They take something holy and lofty, and trample on it. It is my contention that those who engage in physical relations simply for the purpose of pleasure are in this same ballpark. Someone who engages in this holy act just to get pleasure out of it, with no higher goal than physical enjoyment, might as well be selling it for money. It almost becomes difficult to distinguish trading it for money with trading it for personal enjoyment. Though this puts it in a very severe light, its frighteningly true.

The concept applies to even something as seemingly trivial as speech. Many argue that there is no reason to avoid platonic relationships with members of the opposite sex. “We just talk.” Judaism feels otherwise. The Talmud (Eruvin 53b) tells the following story. “Rabbi Yossi HaGlilli was traveling when he met Bruriah (Rabbi Meir’s wife) on the way. He asked her “Which path should I take to Lud?” Bruriah responded “Glilli, You imbecile, Don’t the sages say (Avos 1:5) “Don’t be excessive in talking to women? You could have said ‘Which to Lud’!”

Rabbi Yossi was called an imbecile for saying a couple of extra words! What’s the big deal? They are only words?!?! To understand this, we must first understand the value of speech. You see, if speech is meaningless, then no matter what you say, or whom you say it to, it really doesn’t matter. This is not how we perceive speech however. Man is the only being that can communicate with any level of sophistication, and develop a concept or convey an idea. Our intellects would be about as developed as those of an animal if we didn’t have this ability to communicate; to talk. Try to teach a child without the use of words! Imagine trying to think about a deep philosophical concept without the use of words! Impossible! Speech is something that differentiates human from animal. It allows ideas and concepts; spiritual (i.e. non-physical) things, to come from a physical being. Imagine trying to emotionally bond to someone else without the use of words!!! Without talking. Haven’t we all heard that communication is the cornerstone of any relationship? Don’t we all know that one can sometimes never repair damage done by a bad word, and conversely never forget a kind one? With something as potent as speech; something as valuable and precious as words; can we afford to overuse them?

Our Rabbi’s tell us (Talmud Chagigga 5b, Vayikra Rabba 21:7) “Even light chatter between husband and wife is recorded [by God]” This is not meant to discourage such banter, (as is evident from Talmud Chagigga 5b and Rambam Ishus 15:17,) it is simply meant to remind one that he is not engaged in something trivial. Far from it! This conversation that he is having is priceless. When we appreciate the value of something, we are generally more careful with it. If we understood the power of speech when used correctly, and how destructive it could be under the wrong circumstances, we’d certainly watch our speech more carefully. When we begin to see that every word is worth a million dollars, then we understand why Bruriah called Rabbi Yossi an imbecile over two words. The man had thrown away a couple of million dollars!

But back to touch. I would like to point out one other reason why it is a good idea to avoid physical contact. This concept is called “Bribery.” Deuteronomy 16:19 and Exodus 23:8 both point out that the problem with bribery is that it blinds the wise and intelligent. This does not only warn us not to accept a few dollars under the table when judging a case. It tells us much more. It is almost impossible to believe the testimony of a mother as to whether or not her son committed a crime. The uninvolved bystander is far more capable of being objective. The root of bribery is when a person stands to gain personally from one decision, over another. When such a situation arises, it is next to impossible for one to be objective. When a person is dealing with the rest of his life, and his childrens lives, and his grandchildren’s lives, and their grandchildren’s lives; which is what a person does when looking for a marriage partner; it can be very hard to make a decision when one is physically involved with another person. We’ve all heard that “love is blind.” The Torah tells us that it’s not love, its self-interest. “Bribery Blinds,” would be a more accurate slogan. Our sages teach us that one is connected to his or her spouse for all eternity! That’s a long, long, long time. You want to get the best possible candidate. To let momentary feelings guide the decision, and be anything less than objective when making such a decision would be disastrous.

There is one thread that has run through this brief look at negiah. Value. Appreciation. If relationships are nothing, have as many as you want. If touching is nothing, touch whomever you please. If speech is nothing, talk your life away. But these are gifts. They are valuable, and like gunpowder, can make ear-splitting noises and accomplish nothing. But when just a little bit of that powder is confined, and hit with a hammer, it can send a bullet a mile away. It is fascinating to observe that many who would be horrified by the idea of using their looks to get a promotion at work, are more than willing to use their looks when in search of a soul-mate. Foolishness! This is someone who doesn’t appreciate the value of relationships! Is your job more important that you, and the person who you may spend your entire life with? We must keep in mind that it often pays to invest. The dividends are worth it. Part with the pennies today; you’ll be a millionaire before long.

In the time that has since passed, he has decided – in every apparent way – to cast off the admittedly weighty, perhaps cumbersome, sometimes illogical yoke of orthodox observance. No one to blame. No scapegoat to pin this on. Our home was a modern one where Batman yarmulkes, a Talmudic scholar/Kabbalist father, Puerto Rican beaches, festive sedarim, Skinemax, Mishmar, and an impressive shul attendance record all mixed into one latently confusing cornucopia of American Jewry ... but it produced two entirely devout Jewish women who possess an unquestioning devotion to all that is Baruch Hashem. Based on these findings, I have to conclude that my brother is merely an unavoidable statistical certainty – some Jews will be lost regardless of their background. Lost like the millions throughout our age old history, all for “reasons” – some so compelling that even Ben Brafman couldn’t argue against them – other Jews are just lazy or uninterested.

Lost members of the tribe. Who knows for how long? Who knows how far-gone?

This weeks parsha takes a stab at an answer.

Nitzavim begins with a “dying” Moses attempting to convey his last farewell, his final thoughts to his beloved nation. He begins with a covenant establishing the infinite bond between Hashem and his people and, in a seemingly strange verse, Moses declares that (29:13-14) “not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath-curse. But with whoever is here with us standing today in the presence of Ad-noy, our G-d, and with those who are not here with us today.”

The covenant is even with those who were not there. Sure you could say the pasuk means the people not yet born, but perhaps it refers to those who simply got lost on the way to the meeting. The ditchers. The late sleepers. The kids who painted their faces, pierced their nipples, and ran down to New Sodom for the weekend.

Moses’ last efforts come to make clear that the covenant that Jewish men and women have with G-d exists even with the slackers, the secular philosophers, the deniers. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to drive home this concept like a Holocaust or a sickness in the family (C’V), but the message remains: You can eat as many Happy Meals on Yom Kippur as you please, but you are always in the loop. Have we not seen the cancer victim call his rabbi after forty years of agnosticism? Have we not heard of the miraculous tales of teshuvah after the proverbial point of no return had been long ago tread over? Or the mysterious donation to the yeshiva in the rasha’s will? So the answer is that no Jew is ever lost as long as they still live and breathe. Even if their fellow Jews have lost hope, G-d and his covenant are still stirring somewhere deep and immovable. But how is that possible? Why is it that Jews return even after a lifetime of indifference, animosity, and secularism? Nitzavim has us covered there as well (30:12-14) “It is not in heaven, [for you] to say, "Who will go up to heaven for us, and acquire it for us, and inform us of it, and we will fulfill it? Nor is it overseas, [for you] to say, Who will travel overseas for us, and acquire it for us, and inform us of it, and we will fulfill it? For the matter is extremely close to you; in your mouth and in your mind to fulfill it.”

Our sages believe that these verses are speaking about both Torah (living an observant “religious” existence) and teshuvah (returning spiritually to G-d during one’s lifetime). The idea is, like Maimonides explains in his Hilchot Teshuvah, that a person has the power to virtually erase his past at any time and start afresh as if it were the first day of their lives. We always have the power to start over. Nitzavim teaches us that not only do we have the power, but the instinct as well. We have ineffable, indestructible, forever straining to soar neshamas, and no matter the distance we may travel to avoid the covenant – no matter the walls – no matter the efforts to become lost and forgotten, it remains impossible to escape the tether that G-d mercifully implanted within.