Parshat Chukat

I just started this week’s parsha (so I’ll probably post more on it later this week), but immediately I got inspiration! The parsha starts off with the sacrifice of the red heffer. Rashi states that the reason the parsha starts off stating up front that this is chok (statute without apparent explanation) is that Hashem is aware that outsiders will look at this law and mock the Jews because of it.

“What, the person who burns and creates the ashes is impure, but one sprinkled with the ashes becomes pure? And The person doing the sprinkling must be pure, and becomes impure, but the person sprinkled becomes pure? This is bizarre, either a substance purifies or it makes people impure, how does it create the opposite of the person’s current condition in them? This proves the Torah cannot be correct since this law is so counter intuitive!” So, God states up front- this law is one that does not have an explanation, it cannot be understood- yet we must obey it! How important is this law? Without it, somebody who has contracted tumat meit (impurity from a dead body) is subject to the penalty of kares (spiritual excision) if they enter the precepts of the Beis Hamikdash. In order to emphasise this point, the Torah makes it clear that the same applies to the camp of the Levi’im in the desert!

A quick word on the camps- In the desert the camp of Bnei Yisrael was divided into three- the camps of the three tribes (which a person with tzora’as had to be outside of), the camp of the Levi’im (at a holier level) and in the center the Beis Hamikdash and the third camp around it (the holiest level). These corresponded to the Temple in the following way- the whole of Jerusalem equated to the camp of Bnei Yisrael, the Beis Hamikdash to the camp of the Levi’im, and the Heichal to the camp of the mishkan.

Now, the idea of an inexplicable law which no one understands, yet must be done, led me to this line of thought: How often we do meet people (especially from the more liberal movements), who will state- “The reason for x law is not known (or I do not know it) and thus it is not necessary to observe it? Or “x law is outdated, the reason for it no longer exists, therefore we should not observe it.” Both of these statements show a fallacious thinking that is shown up in our parsha.

The first line of reasoning equates personal knowledge with what we have to observe. Yet we are told that when the Jews accepted the Torah they stated “Na’aseh v’nishma” “We will do and we will understand”- in other words, doing trumps understanding- our personal understanding is immaterial, we have to do what we are commanded to do, regardless of whether we understand why we do something. The sacrifice of the red heffer underlines this- we do not understand why it works, or how it works, yet we do it lest our souls be eternally cut off from God!

The second line of reasoning is essentially stating that human understanding trumps the commandments of God. This line of reasoning assumes that why we think a law is there, is the reason for the law! But the problem here is that we cannot be sure as to why we obey any commandment. We may THINK we understand, but we cannot know whether our understanding is correct or not. Once again, the red heffer underscores this point- here is something we CANNOT understand, yet it must be done. Now, if there exists laws for which it is clearly stated there is no rational explanation, how can we know whether other laws, where we think we understand them, do not have some element of divine understanding to them that is beyond our understanding?

In summary: The parah adumah emphasizes to us the nature of the Torah- we can study it, we can offer explanations to it (and apparently Rabbi Akivah offers an explanation for the parah adumah, but I have never read it), but in the end- we have to understand that the mitzvoth of the Torah are a “chok l’Bnei Yisrael”- a statute for the Jews- we obey it because it comes from God- not because we understand it!

Daily updates? How very unlike me!

Dunno what it is, the new platform, my current circumstances, or maybe I’m just really bored at work lately, but I seem to be putting out a lot of posts lately!

What happened today that has me walking on cloud nine at the moment? A couple of things:

1) My little ones birthday today (Happy Birthday Yoav!) What can I say, the nursery school (kindergarten for those who use that other version of English…) teacher put on a great Birthday ring for him and it was a fun, happy occasion.

2) A week ago my ex decided to block access to the kids. Today her lawyer responded to our court application by agreeing not to oppose, agreed that all access would be reinstated, and would not oppose us getting a court order to enforce my rights to access.

But these two things got me thinking (and with me that is always dangerous- when I think I come up with bizarre and weird linkages. Not my fault, I have played Dungeon’s and Dragons for way too many years!) I gave one interpretation of the parsha in my previous post- but there is another viewpoint which sees Korach as good, but ultimately misguided. he and his followers all wanted to be Kohanim and Kohanim Gedolim (Priests and High Priests)- and indeed, in the time of Mashiach the Levi’im will serve with the Kohanim in the Temple. In some way, Korach was trying to force the ultimate redemption, trying to force the start of the Messianic age. Some things are not ours to force, but occur because Hashem has determined that it is time for it, that we merit to have such a time start. Thus Korach was ultimately wrong and paid the price for his actions. But, in the end an important result came out of it as well- there was no longer any doubt from the Nation about Moses right to pasken (explain and expound) the Torah or of the right of Aharon and his descendants to be the Kohanim.

So, how does this relate to my personal situation? Only by REALLY stretching things. In some way, ny ex must have expected to achieve some positive outcome (don’t ask me what- the kids have virtually been in tears everytime I have spoken to them this week and asking when they can see me. Their suffering is what has been really bugging me this week) but in the end she was ultimately wrong, and the overall result is that in the long run her position has weakened. It is now clear that there can no longer be a discussion about my rights to access or reduction in access- in the end, what was the situation before is now clear, and no longer subject to debate, question or discussion.

(Yeah, I know- hubris and all that in comparing myself and my ex to Moses and Korach. Lets just be clear- I don’t for a minute think that either of us are in any way analogous to those two, just that the one situation is reflective of the other!)

Messianic Jews: Are they Jewish?

This is an oft asked question and one you repeated ad nauseum on forums like Yahoo! Answers. The issue always seems to be: are Jews that believe in Jesus still Jewish? Are so called Jews for Jesus, Messianic Jews, “Completed” Jews or one of the myriad other labels such groups use Jewish? So, lets first investigate: who is a Jew?

From the Orthodox point of view it is very easily defined: If your mother was halachicly Jewish, you are Jewish. If you had an Orthodox conversion, you are Jewish. That’s it. The liberal movements vary from this (mostly in that they obviously accept conversions that are not acceptable to Orthodox) and Reform (and the other even more liberal movements) accept patrilineal descent though only combined with active participation in the Jewish community.

So, let us now assume that an individual who is actually Jewish by the Jewish definition joins one of the messianic movements (and please note, in the majority of these movements the number of people that are actually Jewish is only a small percentage of the total), what is his status? simply put, they are an apostate, they are outside of the Jewish community and are not considered part of the Jewish people.

But wait you cry- there is a concept in Judaism that one Jewish, either born or converted, you are always Jewish- how can you deny this person their Jewishness? Actually we, don’t deny their Jewishness; note- above I said that they are outside of the Jewish community and people. What practical ramifications does this have?

• They cannot be a member of any Jewish communal organisation (including synagogues)
• They are not counted towards the minimum number of people required for prayer
• They may not lead the congregation in prayer
• They may not receive any honours in synagogue (such as being called to recite the blessings on the Torah, carry the Torah, wrap the Torah, open the ark, say communal blessings such as havdalah, lead the service etc)
• They may not marry a Jew (obviously a civil marriage is always possible but the religious marriage is not allowed)
• They may not participate in any religious functions (such as weddings)
• If they do not repent before they die, they may not be buried in a Jewish cemetary
• If they do not repent before they die the Jewish laws of mourning do not apply to them and the Kaddish (prayer for the dead to help the soul of the deceased) is not said for them

So, what do we mean when we say that they do not loose their Jewishness? In essence. all it means is that the path of repentance is always open to them. If they repent and return to Judaism, they are Jewish without the need for a conversion. There are some opinions that state they need to go to a mikveh, that is where it ends.

In short- no Jew who believes in Jesus (or any other divine, prophetic or semi-divine figure outside of the beliefs of Judaism) remains a member of the Jewish community or people. It is the one thing that all the movements within Judaism agree on, even when they often agree on very little else!