Parshah Shemini

Shemini (Hebrew for "eighth", the third word in this parshah is the 26th weekly Torah portion. It constitutes Leviticus 9:1 - 11:47. It tells the story of the consecration of the tabernacle, the death of Nadab and Abihu, and the dietary laws of kashrut.

There are things that we can only describe as a bit puzzling to the modern mind in this week's parsha.

-Lots of blood and guts in the sacrifices that consecrate the tabernacle.
-Nadab and Abihu get fried when they offer strange fire to G-d
-Aaron holds his tongue about this after Moses talks with him...
Then Moses said unto Aaron: 'This is it that HaShem spoke, saying: Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.' And Aaron held his peace.

-Various animals/foods are distinguished as clean and unclean

This seems to be the guiding principle of the parshah... perhaps Leviticus (and the commandments in general)...

11:44, 45 For I am HaShem your G-d; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. For I am HaShem that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your G-d; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

"The Hebrew word for "holiness," "kedushah" ( קדושה‎) has the connotation of "separateness." That which is holy in Judaism is set apart, and the separation is maintained by both legal and spiritual measures. Certain places and times are intrinsically sacred, and strictures are placed on one's actions in those situations"(Wikepedia).

At this time I'm not really sure what to make of a parshah like this...

G-d consuming offerings and Nadab and Abihu (even with good reason- some have posited drunkeness)... it all reminds me of... well, I hate to say it... The scene in the wizard of Oz when Dorothy (Toto) finds the wizard behind the curtain...

Is it possible that G-d's initial attempts to separate out a group of people as a holy nation for His purposes started out as an experiment of sorts? In other words, G-d stood behind the curtain throwing levers to create fire and smoke to awe the peeps into going along...

As time goes on you find no such antics (certainly not to this degree) in the kingdom (David, Solomon -->) and exilic/prophetic periods... Nothing of this kind reported in the days of the inter=testamental period, the days of Jesus on... The NT reports various healings but nothing quite like the giving of the law/Sinai and the tabernacle in the desert incidents.

So did G-d change his/her game plan for communicating with the peeps? And, why have we not had any smoke and fire for the past 20 centuries or so... Why none in my (your) lifetime?

It is most likely that we see an evolution in how the people of G-d writing Torah express their perceptions/conceptions of G-d... It's interesting to think of the Jewish Bible less as a story of G-d's dealings with the peeps and more as a story of the evolution of the peeps perceptions/conceptions of G-d and the laws of the people...

Hmmm... better start re-looking at some reformed and reconstructionist weltanschaungs...

PS This week is Passover... this year in my heart and mind... next year, perhaps a move in the Jewish Holidays from heart and mind to heart, mind and hands... time will tell.

Second Soul

March 2, 2010

Second Soul: Parashat Ki Tisa (Exodus)

by Rabbi Adam Kligfeld

There is a mystical tradition that states that a Jew gains a neshamah y’teyrah, an extra soul, on Shabbat. For those 25 hours, we are doubly spiritually charged, or at least potentially so.

Although Rashi, the great medieval French rabbi and commentator, is not the author of this idea, his comment on a well-known verse within Parashat Ki Tisa takes us in a similar direction. The familiar “V’Shamru” song/prayer is lifted directly from a section within Ki Tisa — one of many moments of revelation during which God mentions the idea of, and the commandment regarding, observing Shabbat. In describing the first week of creation, God says, “uvayom hashvi’i shavat vayinafash” — on the seventh day God ceased working (shavat, from which we get the word Shabbat) and was refreshed.

It is that last word that is most interesting. The Hebrew is vayinafash, a verb from the root nefesh, meaning “soul.” The Jewish Publication Society translates the word as “and was refreshed,” as if something happened to God, in a passive way. By stopping, God simply was refreshed. In his “The Five Books of Moses,” scholar Everett Fox translates the word as “paused for breath,” suggesting a second, active action. God both actively stopped working and actively paused to take in, as it were, a much-needed breath. The old and venerable Hertz Chumash translates it more simply as “He rested,” again suggesting an action taken by God in addition to ceasing work.

What did God do on the seventh day? Better yet, what is God trying to tell us about our experience of Shabbat by using this word vayinafash to reminisce about that initial Shabbat of creation? Here is where Rashi comes in. He first says that vayinafash means “God rested.” But then he explains the meaning of that rest. “God restored God’s own soul and breath by taking a calming break from the burden of the labor.” By using this anthropomorphism, Rashi invites us to imagine a God with a soul, a God with needs, a God who could be, as it were, burdened.

But within this comment, Rashi is not only describing God. Rashi also, and perhaps principally, speaks to the human goal for Shabbat and in doing so puts an active spin on the mystical tradition of the double soul.

Our tradition speaks of many “doubles” on Shabbat. The Israelites received a double portion of manna, represented by our two loaves of challah. That double portion simply came to them. It was a gift from above, with no conditions or strings attached. Rashi’s read on vayinafash suggests that our second soul does not come without its price, or at least its effort. In an ironic twist, we need to “work” to earn our pause from work. Only by actively stepping away from those things that define our non-Shabbat world, our Sunday through Friday weeks, do our souls get the boost we so sorely need.

I am a Conservative rabbi. The central vehicle through which I achieve and experience Shabbat is the concept of restraint and prohibition. Feeling bound by the structure and stricture of halachah, or Jewish law, I enter Shabbat via the rabbinic definitions of prohibited labor, which were set up both as a living commentary on the words of the Torah and also as a way of standardizing practice among Jews. Those rules are a fundamental guideline for my observance of Shabbat. At the same time, I acknowledge the multiple paths within Jewish life and the many people within the Jewish community who do not feel bound by the fundamentals of Jewish law.

I firmly believe that Rashi’s message speaks to every Jew, transcending the category of “prohibited labor” that is resonant for some, but not for others. There is an important personal, individual aspect to Shabbat as well. Each of us knows which things in our lives most anchor us to the feeling of work and most burden us. Each of us has activities, habits, behaviors that, though they play important roles in our lives, need not intrude on each day.

Each of us is aware of the things we ought to step back from in order to imbue our own religious experiences with Judaism’s message of 24/6 as opposed to 24/7. Each of us, then, has the blessing, and weekly opportunity, to craft a Shabbat of restraint, withholding, ceasing and active resting that has the best chance of restoring our neshamah, our nefesh, so that we can imitate God ... vayinafash.

Whatever denominational category does or does not inspire you; wherever you place yourself on the spectrum of Jewish observance; whatever your personal theology says about your belief in a commanding God, spend this Shabbat considering what you most need to not do for that second soul to descend upon you Friday night, ascending heavenward on the wisps of the Havdalah flames Saturday night, leaving you restored and ready for the week to come.

Shabbat shalom.

Rabbi Adam Kligfeld is senior rabbi of Temple Beth Am (tbala.org), a Conservative congregation in West Los Angeles.

---

Real Belief: Creed or Relationship?

Prov 3:5,6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Her and she will guide your paths.

In Judaism trusting God is less a matter of cognition and belief... more a matter of loyalty and obedience...

Loyalty to God, Torah, and Israel, therefore, is the hallmark of the Jew: loyal behavior, not systematic theology, is what is expected and demanded.


Emunah: Biblical Faith

In the Torah, faith in God means trust, not belief in particular propositions.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Thinkers_and_Thought/Doctrine_and_Dogma/Biblical_Faith.shtml

By Dr. Menachem Kellner


The term emunah, which is rendered in English as "faith" or "belief," occurs for the first time in the Torah in connection with Abraham.

After obeying God's command to leave his family and home, Abraham is led to the land which God promises to give to his descendants. Famine forces him to sojourn in Egypt, where his wife Sarah's beauty almost precipitates a tragedy. Back in the land promised by God, Abraham and his nephew Lot find that they cannot live together in peace, and each goes his own way. Lot is captured by enemies and then freed by Abraham.

Abraham Questions God

"After these things," the Torah tells us, "the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.'" Now, for the first time, Abraham questions God: "O Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless…to me thou hast given no seed."

God has repeatedly promised Abraham that the land to which he has been brought will be given to his descendants. But Abraham remains childless: what is the use of a "great reward" if there are no children to whom it can be bequeathed? In response, God brings Abraham outside, and says: "Look now towards heaven and count the stars, if thou be able to count them…so shall thy seed be." What is Abraham's response to this new promise? "Vehe'emin,and he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness" (Genesis 15: 1‑6).

What is the nature of Abraham's belief which God counted as "righteousness"? It is quite clear that Abraham's righteous belief was not a matter of his accepting God's statements as true, or of having given explicit intellectual acquiescence to the truth of a series of propositions such as:

1. God exists.

2. God communicates with individuals and makes promises to them.

3. God has the power to keep promises made.

4. God may be relied upon to keep promises.

In God We Trust

No, the context makes it very clear: Abraham's act of righteousness is his demonstration of trust in God. There can be no doubt that, had he been asked, Abraham would happily have affirmed the truth of the four propositions listed just above. The Torah, however, gives us no reason for thinking that Abraham ever asked himself the sorts of questions to which our four propositions could be construed as answers.

The emunah spoken of here is more than belief that certain statements about God are true; it is belief in God, trust and reliance upon God, all of which call forth behavior consistent with that stance of trust and reliance.

The point I am making here about the meaning of emunah is neither new nor controversial; it is just not often noticed. Yet perusing a concordance and examining the verses in context is enough to convince any reader that the basic, root meaning of emunah is trust and reliance, not intellectual acquiescence in the truth of certain propositions.

A few further examples should suffice to make the point clear. God is described as a God of emunah in the great poem Ha'azinu: "The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of faithfulness [emunah] and without iniquity; just and right is He" (Deuteronomy 32: 4.). God is not being described here as agreeing to the truth of certain statements. The verse itself teaches us which of God's characteristics make it possible to appeal to a "God of faithfulness": God is free of iniquity, just and right.

Even in cases where the Hebrew can be construed in terms of "belief that" as opposed to "belief in," reading the verse in context almost always reaffirms the point being made here about the connotation of emunah in the Torah. In Deuteronomy 9:23 Moses berates the Jews: "And when the Lord sent you from Kadesh‑Barnea, saying, 'Go up and possess the land which I have given you'; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God, and ye believed Him [he'emantem] not, nor hearkened to His voice."

This verse might be construed as saying that the Jews simply did not believe what God was telling them; i.e. they did not believe that God was speaking the truth. This, however, is an entirely implausible interpretation. In the first place, the parallel between "believing" and "hearkening" is clear; the Jews are being castigated for failing to do what God told them to do, not for their failure to believe some statement or other.

Why did they fail to do what God instructed? The Jews failed to trust God, and therefore they failed to obey God's, command. God commanded the Jews to ascend to the Land of Israel and conquer it, promising that they would succeed. The lack of emunahin this verse relates to the Jews' failure to trust God to keep the promise made. Furthermore, what was the content of God's statement concerning which the Jews showed lack of emunah? It was the command to ascend to the Land of Israel.

If one disobeys a command and is therefore accused of lack of emunah, it makes much more sense to say that one is being accused of lack of trust in the commander than of quibbling over the accuracy of statements made by or about the commander.

Theology and the Torah

My claim here is that the Torah teaches belief in God, as opposed to beliefs about God. That is not to say that no specific beliefs are implied or even explicitly taught in the Torah. The Torah obviously assumes God's existence, although it nowhere states simply that God exists, or according to most interpreters, commands belief that God exists. The Torah also clearly teaches that God is one: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6: 4)…

If, then, there are specific beliefs taught in the Torah, why can we not say that the emunah which the Torah both demands of a Jew and seeks to inculcate, is belief that certain statements are true, as opposed to trust in God, trust which finds its expression in certain forms of behavior?

The answer to this question has to do with the Torah's understanding of itself and its understanding of the nature of human beings. To state part of the answer in summary fashion: the Torah teaches, occasionally explicitly, more often implicitly, certain beliefs about God, the universe, and human beings; notwithstanding this, the Torah has no systematic theology.

Judaism emerged through a struggle with idolatry, demanding loyalty to the one God, creator of the universe. This loyalty was to find expression in certain ways, pre‑eminently through obedience to God's will as expressed in the Torah.

So long as one expressed that essential loyalty in speech and (especially) in action, little attempt was made to enquire closely into the doctrines one affirmed; indeed, no attempt was even made to establish exactly what doctrines one ought to affirm. Furthermore, Judaism developed as a religion intimately bound up with a distinct and often beleaguered community.

Loyalty to the community was a further way in which loyalty to God and God's revelation was expressed. Loyalty to God, Torah, and Israel, therefore, is the hallmark of the Jew: loyal behavior, not systematic theology, is what is expected and demanded.

Dr. Menachem Kellner is Sir Isaac and Lady Edith Wolfson Professor of Jewish Religious Thought at the University of Haifa.

Devekut and Dependence vs Independence

If you are recieving this blog notice and prefer not to just email me and let me know...

I originally thought of my blog as a gallery... a place in which I would create and display personal creations... I now think of it more as a co-op gallery... a place where I collect and display beautiful ideas created by many varying people (myself included... maybe something you send me too!?)

My last blog has gotten me thinking about devekut, "clinging to God". Does the ground of our being want dependent children who hold fast to him/her and are fixated in thought upon him/her... or, does the almighty wish for strong, competent independent children who fully acknowledge mother/father God but get on with it in the real world and Tikkun Olam!

As is almost always the case, the ideal is likely a middle way...

Devekut

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Kabbalah_and_Mysticism/Kabbalah_and_Hasidism/Hasidic_Mysticism/Hasidic_Ideas/Devekut.shtml

Devekut is an attachment to God, having God always in the mind, an ideal especially advocated in Hasidism but found, too, in earlier Jewish writings. The term devekut, from the root davak, to cleave, denotes chiefly this constant being with God but sometimes also denotes the ecstatic state produced by such communion. The relevant verse is found in the book of Deuteronomy, a book replete with the summons to love God, in the verse: "To love the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways and to cleave unto Him" (Deuteronomy II: 22).

The Talmudic rabbis understand the cleaving to God mentioned in the verse as referring to the Torah and its students. Being attached to the Torah and its study constitutes the only possible cleaving to God at all applicable to finite human beings who can never actually 'cleave' to God Himself. But in a notable passage, Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed, 3. 51) develops the idea that it is possible for the greatest saints to have God always in the mind. Such saints, says Maimonides, are immune from the common mishaps of human life. As their minds are on the highest, nothing on earth can affect them; they can even walk through fire and water without suffering an harm.

Hasidism relies on this passage but, following a comment by Nahmanides to the verse, extends the ideal as attainable by lesser mortals, although, in its fullest sense, it can only be attained by the Hasidic master, the Zaddik. Nahmanides writes in his commentary:

"The verse warns man not to worship God and a being beside Him; he is to worship God alone in his heart and in his actions. And it is plausible that the meaning of "cleaving" is to remember God and His love constantly, not to divert your thought from Him in all your earthly doings. Such a man may be talking to other people, but his heart is not with them since he is in the presence of God. And it is further plausible that those who have attained this rank, do, even in their earthly life, partake of the eternal life, because they have made themselves a dwelling place of the shekhinah."

The Hasidic ideal of "serving God in corporeality," that is, serving God by having the mind on Him even when engaging in business or other worldly pursuits, is based on Nahmanides' understanding of the ideal of devekut. It was also in obedience to this ideal that Hasidism understood the rabbinic doctrine of "Torah for its own sake" to mean that when studying the Torah the mind should be on God. This attempt to convert the study of the Torah from an intellectual into a devotional exercise angered the mitnagdim, the opponents of Hasidism, because, for them, to study with anything in mind other than the subject studies, is not to study at all.

Hasidic fondness for song and melody is based on this ideal. A particular melody of plaintive yearning, "soul music," is called a devekut niggun, an attachment melody, which Hasidim repeat over and over again in order to cultivate this state to the highest degree possible for ordinary worshippers.

Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs (1920-2006) was a Masorti rabbi, the first leader of Masorti Judaism (also known as Conservative Judaism) in the United Kingdom, and a leading writer and thinker on Judaism.

Thinking versus Clinging

Finally reading a good book on Maimonides (by Heschel)... It seems, as Aquinas was to Catholicism so was Maimonides to Judaism...

I found this brief article helpful... Maimonides notion of clinging is very similar to Kierkegaard's notion of dependence.

What is the Virtue of Man?

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1330

Moses Maimonides (Rambam) in his "Guide for the Perplexed" states that the classical Greek philosopher Aristotle reached the highest level of understanding a human being can reach short of prophecy, and calls him the greatest of philosophers. Yet, Maimonides refutes many of Aristotle's basic tenets of philosophical speculation, especially his postulations regarding man's duty in the world.

Where did Aristotle fall short to the extent that he, the greatest of philosophers, did not attain the wisdom of prophecy, a wisdom which even the simplest of our ancestors achieved at Mount Sinai?

Aristotle reasons that the "virtue" of a creature is to be found in its fulfilling its natural function. Thus, a bird could be called virtuous in flying, a fish in swimming, and a lion in killing a zebra.

What is the virtue of man? Aristotle suggests that since that which is distinctly human is the capacity for rational thought, it follows that man's highest nature is to be found in the realm of the mind. The highest ability of the human mind is the ability to think. Therefore contemplation, the activity of the mind, is the source of man's highest joy. Aristotle concludes that the virtue of man, the fulfillment of his natural inclination, is to philosophize (not a surprising conclusion for a philosopher!).

A "thinking being" can create incredible inventions enabling man to communicate between continents, prolong life-expectancy, and most remarkably, explore the far-reaches of space. It also enables man to abuse the environment, extinguish entire species, and most regrettably, develop weapons capable of annihilating millions in an instant.

According to Maimonides, however, the virtue of man is to cling to his Creator. In other words, man is a "praying being."

Aristotle's "thinking being" strives to rule the world through subjugation and domination. Maimonides' "praying being" has a much greater potential to be the true "king" of this world by elevating the world. If man abides by the will of his Creator - the King of kings - he is capable of more than mere thought; he is capable of prayer. This prayer binds him to his Creator to make him a full partner in building a world of truth and beauty.

Moses the Egyptian

In reading the elaborate details of the Tabernacle ritual system in Exodus and Leviticus... in concluding that this system was put in place as an "allowance", not as an "ordinance"... my mind again turns to Moses.

As Egyptian royalty he was certainly exposed to, if not deeply involved in, Egyptian religion... The Egyptians had developed an extremely sophisticated religious system and practice... They were the world power of their time. If God was taking Israel out of Egypt in order to form his own nation... eventually a kingdom, certainly this nation had to have it's own religious system and practice comparable to that of Egypt...

I am not talking about spirituality or spiritual "practice" here but temple/priesthood system... For more on this see:

An Overview of the Ancient Egyptian Cult
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cults.htm

The Priesthood and the Temples of Egypt
http://www.philae.nu/philae/priesthood.html#Priesthood

Moses the Egyptian
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ASSMOS.html?show=reviews

Weekly Torah Portion: Tzav

Tzav (צו — Hebrew for "command,” the sixth word, and the first distinctive word, in the parshah) is the 25th weekly Torah portion (parshah) in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading and the second in the book of Leviticus. It constitutes Lev 6:1-8:36.

The parshah teaches how the priests performed the sacrifices and describes the ordination of Aaron and his sons.

I don't really get the whole sacrificial system thing... the whole idea of a temple cult seems questionable on many levels... I've attached a portion of a well written article below that offers sensible interpretations concerning how to conceptualize the sacrificial system... G-d did not create it, S/He tolerated it...

David's words make sense to me here: Psalm 51:¹⁶ You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. ¹⁷ The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Frequently Asked Questions

About Animal Sacrifices and the Messianic Period

http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/faq_sacrifices.html

1. If God wanted us to have vegetarian diets and not harm animals, why were the Biblical sacrificial services established?

During the time of Moses, it was the general practice among all nations to worship by means of sacrifice. There were many associated idolatrous practices. The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides stated that God did not command the Israelites to give up and discontinue all these manners of service because "to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used," For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but "He transferred to His service that which had served as a worship of created beings and of things imaginary and unreal." All elements of idolatry were removed. Maimonides concluded:

By this divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our Faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.

The Jewish philosopher Abarbanel reinforced Maimonides' argument. He cited a Midrash that indicated that the Jews had become accustomed to sacrifices in Egypt. To wean them from these idolatrous practices, God tolerated the sacrifices but commanded that they be offered in one central sanctuary:

Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let them at all times offer their sacrifices before Me in the Tabernacle, and they will be weaned from idolatry, and thus be saved." (Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 562)

Rabbi J. H. Hertz, the late chief rabbi of England, stated that if Moses had not instituted sacrifices, which were admitted by all to have been the universal expression of religious homage, his mission would have failed and Judaism would have disappeared. With the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis state that prayer and good deeds took the place of sacrifice.

Rashi indicated that God did not want the Israelites to bring sacrifices; it was their choice. He bases this on the haphtorah (portion from the Prophets) read on the Sabbath when the book of Leviticus which discusses sacrifices is read:

I have not burdened thee with a meal-offering, Nor wearied thee with frankincense. (Isaiah 43:23)

Biblical commentator David Kimhi (1160-1235) also stated that the sacrifices were voluntary. He ascertained this from the words of Jeremiah:

For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:22-23)

David Kimchi, notes that nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there any reference to sacrifice, and even when sacrifices are first mentioned (Lev. 1:2) the expression used is "when any man of you bringeth an offering," the first Hebrew we ki being literally "if", implying that it was a voluntary act.

Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Only non-animal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mountain."

Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:

What I want is mercy, not sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6)

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?" sayeth the Lord. "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he-goats...bring no more vain oblations.... Your new moon and your appointed feasts my soul hateth;...and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-16)

I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me burnt-offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy song; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-4)

Deeds of compassion and kindness toward all creation are of greater significance to God than sacrifices: "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Prov. 21: 3).

Perhaps a different type of sacrifice is required of us today. When Rabbi Shesheth kept a fast for Yom Kippur, he used to conclude with these words:

Sovereign of the Universe, Thou knowest full well that in the time of the Temple when a man sinned he used to bring a sacrifice, and though all that was offered of it was fat and blood, atonement was made for him. Now I have kept a fast and my fat and blood have diminished. May it be Thy will to account my fat and blood which have been diminished as if I have offered they before thee on the altar, and do Thou favor me. (Berachot 17a)

Vayakhel- "And he assembled"

Vayakhel (ויקהל — Hebrew for "and he assembled,” the first word in the parshah) is the 22nd weekly Torah portion (parshah) in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah readings and the 10th in Exodus. It constitutes Exodus 35:1-38:20.

Rabbi David Aaron suggests that a Jew is not to come to the Torah to study, but rather to engage...

"...getting involved with the Torah is a living encounter with the author, God... the Torah is not a book, it is a meeting place... We do not study Torah, we immerse ourselves in it..."

"...according to the Kabbalah, you are a soul, and that means that the real you is a part of God. Therefore, when you immerse your true self in the Torah, it is as if the author continues to study His own book through you, the reader, because you are actually a part of the author."

So, moving forward I am trying to practice this notion, Torah immersion (not study)... Torah as a meeting place, not a book.

A few themes stand out this week as these phrases are repeated throughout the parshah...

-Individuals contributing of their possessions as their heart moves them.
-Individuals with G-d given skills working as artisans in the creation of the tabernacle and it's vessels
-The color patter of blue, purple and crimson

So, how to take these items and transform them from concepts/notions to relational dialogue... how to metamorphasize "book reading" into an encounter with my soul which is a sliver... a fragment, of the ultimate ground of all being...

Dialogue... "prayer"... talking to G-d as I read and as I contemplate...

-Lord, may my heart be moved this week to give of myself and means to those things you desire to see actualized in this world.
-HaShem, may I be cognizant of the skills you have endowed me with and use my time wisely... not to obtain the empty praise of man, but rather to live purposefully... to focus my time, attention and energy on what I am called to in light of how you have gifted me. Pursuing and investing in the things that matter in the broad scheme of things in light of what I can influence given my gifts.
-Blue, purple and crimson... you know my thoughts and heart in this.

Oh Lord, as I immerse myself in Torah this week help me to meet, not think... to engage, not observe. To transform, not gather information... It is all returning and remembering... not learning and becoming...

HaShem, aid me in my attempts to become what I was and what I truly am... your issue.

PS I was reminded this week that the temple system was not set up for HaShem's benefit but for that of the peeps... G-d allowed it for a time as Israel needed it given the religious context of the day and times... True service and sacrifice is in the heart... thanks to Rambam for this reminder.