Jewish Relationships Initiative

Category: Parashah

  • Shabbat Shalom

    As we welcome Shabbat and read from Ki Tetzei, the musical connector is Lecha Dodi.  Based on a verse from Isaiah, we are told “Dont be ashamed” despite the trials of the week, welcome the comfort of Shabbat.

    David Sasso brings Lecha Dodi to us with Bluegrass.  Using this genre is a metaphor about reaching out to others and creating relationships wherever they may be.

    Shabbat Shalom

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    May the One who makes peace in the high places, bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

  • What Happens to the Stragglers? Parsha Ki Tetzei

    Why does a portion overflowing with civil law stop, in the middle of everything else, to tell you how to build your roof?

    When you build a new house, Torah says, put a ma’akeh, a guardrail, on the roof, so no one falls. It sits in Ki Teitzei almost an afterthought among dozens of other laws: return the lost ox, pay the worker before sundown, leave the gleanings for the poor. But ma’akeh is the right word for the whole portion. Every law here is a guardrail, a protection for those who could fall or be pushed.

    We build guardrails because we don’t fully trust each other, and a society honest about that protects people exactly where power tends to slip: the wife accused without evidence, the son a father wants to disown, the worker whose wages could vanish if no one were watching. Ki Teitzei is guardrail after guardrail, each one placed where someone could fall.

    Madison wrote the same instinct into the Constitution: if men were angels, no government would be necessary, and since they are not, government must be given enough power to govern and then be obliged to control itself. Checks and balances in our government are guardrails by another name, built because we know what power does when no one is watching or nothing is stopping it.

    What they were built to keep out has a name: Amalek. Torah tells us exactly what he did. He attacked from the rear, cutting down the stragglers, the elderly, and the exhausted, too weak to keep pace after Egypt. The Hebrew for it is zanav, to tail. And Torah adds one line about why: he did not fear God. Fearing God, in this text, means knowing something stands above you, that your own strength is never the final word. Amalek feared nothing greater than himself, and a man who fears nothing greater than himself decides soon enough that the weak exist for his convenience.

    Hubert Humphrey put it plainly, dedicating a federal building: the moral test of government is how it treats those at the dawn of life, the children; those at the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. Society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. Those are exactly Amalek’s targets.

    I recognize that fault line right now, and it does not belong to another country. Those same guardrails, due process, the courts, a Congress willing to check power rather than defer to it, get treated as obstacles rather than as boundaries. Immigration raids treat frightened, exhausted people the way Amalek treated the stragglers, as targets of opportunity rather than as human beings owed protection. Settlers in the West Bank, claiming to act in the name of my own tradition, terrorize Palestinian families with brutality that has everything to do with Amalek’s logic and nothing to do with Torah. When the government looks away from these or blesses them outright, I no longer consider them legitimate by the standards of our tradition.

    Ki Teitzei commands us to erase Amalek’s memory precisely because that instinct never fully leaves: the appetite for treating a guardrail as an inconvenience rather than a covenant. What do we do when the stragglers being picked off are visible right now, on the news, at the border, in cities, villages, and olive groves? It is one of Moshe’s final charges to his people before he dies: make sure we are never mistaken for Amalek, or for the government, or for the neighbor who lets him operate unchecked.

    I have no program to offer, no plan for how a rabbi in Philadelphia moves the world’s cruelty. But I know what my tradition asks of me before I know what to do about it: let the stragglers, wherever they are this week, be people I am responsible for, not a category I have learned to tolerate.

    What would it cost you to do the same?

  • Shabbat Shalom : Justice – Shoftim,

    “The most urgent imperative in Devarim: justice, justice — pursue it. Dylan has been asking the same question his entire life. So has Torah.

    This Shabbat, both voices together, with the artistry of Peter, Paul and Mary.

    Shabbat Shalom

     

     

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu, v’al kol Yisrael, v’al kol yoshvei tevel v’imru amen.

    May the One who makes peace in the high places bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

  • Why does justice have to be chased? Parshat Shoftim

    Tzedek tzedek tirdof, says Moses in this week’s Parshah, Shoftim. Justice, justice shall you pursue. Not achieve. Not establish. Pursue, tirdof, the same root you’d use for chasing something running from you.

    I keep circling the doubling. Rashi reads it as ends and means: one can’t justify the other. True, but not enough. Justice never holds still long enough to be caught in one hand: the justice of the letter and the justice of the spirit, what the law permits and what it should permit. Say it once, and you’ve named half of it. Say it twice, and you’ve admitted the whole thing is bigger than any single verdict.

    Moses gets specific: appoint judges and officers, gather two witnesses, investigate meticulously, take no bribe, “for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.” Then, almost without transition, a line that should unsettle us: in every generation someone will interpret this law for you, and you are not to deviate, right or left.

    Read plainly, that’s a demand for total deference. The Talmud makes it stranger, not simpler. Rosh Hashanah 25b insists this applies “even if the judge before you is Yiftach,” a flawed, minor judge from the book of Judges, “in his generation as though he were Samuel in his generation,” the greatest judge Israel ever had. The law itself hasn’t changed. But the period and society in which it is interpreted have.

    That should unsettle us more than it comforts us. A judge can be wrong, or bought, or certain he holds all of justice in his hand when he’s holding half of it. But a judge can also be persuaded, and this is less a flaw than the whole point.

    We call ourselves a nation of laws, one that holds together only if it applies to everyone alike. We build precedent so no single ruling carries that weight alone. But precedent moves too: we watched the Supreme Court overturn nearly fifty years of it, reversing Roe v. Wade. Whatever you believe about the merits, Shoftim already taught the deeper lesson: no court of last resort is anything but some version of Yiftach. We can appeal upward, term after term, but the appeal ends somewhere, and we are bound to comply, whether we agree or not. A shared law is only shared if it binds the people who lose the argument too.

    I remember waiting for test results, my wife beside me, the room dark and lonely, my imagination filling in what the doctor hadn’t said yet. The doctor could have been wrong about the diagnosis, about the treatment. What I noticed was how little the verdict had to do with the anguish. It was the not-knowing whether whoever held my chart was seeing me or processing me. Lo takir panim, the Torah tells judges: do not recognize faces. It’s a warning against favoritism, and equally a demand to see the face in front of you clearly enough to recognize the humanity looking back. You cannot do that with a law no one is left to interpret in the present moment.

    We are handing more of our judgment to systems that can never be Yiftach in any generation: built once, unable to say, “the letter of the rule does not serve the person in front of me.” Risk-assessment algorithms in sentencing. Automated denials in insurance and benefits. A frozen rule can’t be bribed, nor does it tire at the end of a long docket. But Torah already knew that a system incapable of being persuaded isn’t the same thing as a just one. Tzedek tzedek tirdof describes a pursuit, and a pursuit requires someone alive enough to be moved.

    When was the last time I let a rule be argued with? When was the last time I trusted a person in front of me more than the process built to replace them? Tirdof doesn’t promise you’ll catch it. It only takes stopping off the table.

    Shabbat Shalom.

  • Shabbat Shalom

    Re’eh-See.  This Shabbat we read the parsha asking us to see what’s going on, to choose the blessing instead of the curse.

    Playing for Change shares this cover of Marvin Gaye’s classic, What’s Going On.

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu, v’al kol Yisrael, v’al kol yoshvei tevel v’imru amen.

    May the One who makes peace in the high places, bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

    Shabbat Shalom

  • Eikev- Gratitude-Shabbat Shalom

    This Shabbat Parshat Eikev gives us many things to contemplate.  Foremost is gratitude.  v’achalta v’savata u’veirachta: you shall eat and be satisfied and bless. The obligation to feel gratitude in moments of abundance.“Eikev warns us: don’t forget God when things are good. George Harrison wrote this song after a long dark winter. Gratitude is hardest — and most necessary — when the sun finally returns.”

    Shabbat Shalom

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    May the One who makes peace in the high places, bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

  • Parshat Eikev — “My Power and the Might of My Hand”

    Every success we’ve ever had, we tell ourselves we earned outright. Ourselves alone. Our sweat, our sleepless nights, our nerve. It is almost never true, and Parshat Eikev names the lie for what it is.

    “Beware,” Moses warns, “lest you eat and are satisfied, and build good houses and dwell in them, and your herds and flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies — and your heart grows haughty, and you forget the Lord your God… and you say in your heart, kochi v’otzem yadi asah li et ha’chayil ha’zeh — my own power and the strength of my own hand have made me this wealth.” (Deut. 8:12–14, 17)

    I have sat at enough hospital bedsides to know how quickly that sentence collapses. I was with someone who had amassed substantial wealth by building a successful business, a “self-made” man. Now, breath labored, strength gone, in a bed he could no longer leave, his truth lay before him; the wealth was real. So was the hard work. But beneath it all was a foundation he never laid himself — the health, the years, the people who taught him his trade, those who lovingly supported him, and the improbable fact of even being alive to do any of it.

    That’s the forgetting Moses worries about. Not the wealth itself; the Torah has no quarrel with houses, flocks, and gold. The danger is amnesia. A heart so full it forgets what filled it.

    Even the parsha’s name makes the point. Eikev is usually translated as “because,” but its plain meaning is “heel.” The part of the body we don’t look at, the part that drags behind, trampled by everything else on its way to something more important. Rashi reads it as a warning about the commandments we treat as too small to matter. I also hear something else: the heel is what follows in the wake of a life, the consequence that trails behind and eventually catches up.

    Shel Silverstein tells this story more plainly in The Giving Tree. A boy loves a tree, and for a lifetime she gives him everything: apples to sell, branches for a house, her trunk for a boat. Every time he needs something, she says quietly, “Take it; it will make me happy.” He never once says thank you. He only says I need until there is nothing left of her but a stump. Only then, an old man with nowhere else to go, does he sit on what remains and find it, at last, enough. The boy learned to be satisfied with almost nothing, but only after he had already taken almost everything.

    Except that the warning in Eikev is supposed to land before that, before the wealth, before the haughty heart, while the tree is still standing and nothing has yet been taken. It didn’t fully take, anyway. Centuries later, Hosea accuses Israel of forgetting the God who fed them in the wilderness, nearly making Deuteronomy’s own warning come true. The timing was right. The lesson didn’t stick, regardless.

    Here is what I can’t resolve, and I don’t think I’m supposed to: the same God who watches all this forgetting happen anyway is the God who fed them manna for forty years, who let them go hungry on purpose “to make you know that man does not live on bread alone,” and fed them regardless of whether the lesson landed. The love doesn’t wait for us to get it right. It carries us toward the promised land even as we’re still telling ourselves we’re carrying ourselves.

    So here’s the question Eikev leaves me with, unfinished: not whether I’m grateful in the abstract (I usually am, in the way that costs nothing), but whether my life is built to show it while there’s still a tree standing. Whether the small commandments I keep, the heel-commandments, easy to trample, say out loud what my heart already knows. What would it look like to learn this lesson now, on time, grateful while the tree is still giving, not only afterward, thankful for what’s already gone?

     

    Rabbi David Levin is president of the Board of Rabbis and founder of Jewish Relationships Initiative and EthicalLegacy.com

  • Shabbat Shalom -Dvarim, Joni Mitchell and Both Sides Now

    As we welcome the Shabbat of Parsha Devarim, Moses recalls the long journey and we look back with Joni Mitchell.

    Shabbat Shalom

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    May the One who makes peace in the high places, bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

     

  • Matot – What holds you to another person once you want something they don’t?

    That question sits beneath Matot, and the text hides it in a structural trick. The parasha opens with the laws of vows: ish ki yidor neder l’Adonai… lo yachel devaro — if a man vows a vow, he shall not profane his word; he must do all that comes from his mouth. Yachel means to profane, to hollow out, to treat as common what should have been set apart. A vow is not a private transaction between a person and God. It’s a wall built around your speech so others can trust it.

    Two chapters later, Reuben and Gad ask to settle outside the land, and Moses doesn’t hear a request — he hears betrayal. “Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?” he demands, then goes further: you are a brood of sinful men, rising up to add to God’s anger against Israel, like the spies before them. This is not negotiation. It’s a rupture.

    What follows repairs it, and the Torah deliberately writes the repair in vow-language. “We will build sheepfolds for our flocks,” the tribes answer, “but we ourselves will go armed before our brothers until we have brought them to their place.” Break that vow, Moses warns, and you will have sinned against the Lord.  The same charge the parasha opened with for a neder left unkept.

    I don’t think that’s an accident. Wanting something different from your community isn’t, by itself, a betrayal. But the only way to want it and still belong is a vow neither side can walk back from, one earned through confrontation, not by going around it.

    In my pastoral work, I’ve sat in the room right after that rupture — before either person knows whether the relationship survives the difference or ends. What decides it isn’t who apologizes first. It’s whether the vow still holds when neither feels like keeping it. It is the opposite of yachel, a vow kept whole.

    Where in your life is a vow like that being asked to hold right now?

  • Parashat Pinchas: Who Told You That Was God?

    The most dangerous sentence in religious life is not “God is dead.” It is “God told me to.”

    Grant everything. God rewarded Pinchas. The plague stopped. The covenant was real. Let’s sit with that fully, without deflecting into questions of fallacy or anthropomorphism.

    Then what?

    Parashat Pinchas forces us to ask the question we would rather avoid: how do we distinguish between someone who genuinely heard a divine command and someone who dressed their own violent, irrational certainty in holy language?

    Pinchas did not announce a prophecy. He did not consult Moses. He did not wait for the cloud to move. He felt something burning within him, seized a spear, and acted. The text calls it kana’ut, zealotry. And zealotry, by definition, does not pause to ask whether the voice it hears is God’s or its own.

    This is not a theoretical problem. Yigal Amir was certain that God wanted Yitzhak Rabin dead and pulled the trigger on Israel’s Prime Minister. The settlers who burn Palestinian villages invoke divine command. The men who flew planes into buildings on September 11th believed, with everything in them, that they were doing God’s bidding. Every act of religious extremism in our lifetime has been committed by someone who felt what Pinchas felt: a burning, urgent, absolute conviction that the holy cause could not wait for process, permission, or the slower work of community discernment.

    Pinchas heard God. We have stipulated that. But that settled question raises an unsettled one: what did the rest of us receive when God rewarded him? A record of a single grace, given to a single person in an unrepeatable moment? Or a template, permission for anyone who burns with enough certainty to act without constraint?

    The tradition answers this with unusual clarity: it is not a template. The rabbis ruled explicitly that kana’ut cannot be taught, authorized, or legislated. What Pinchas did cannot be commanded because the moment you command it, you hand a weapon to anyone who has ever mistaken their own rage for the voice of God.

    But this only sharpens the question. If we cannot rule it out, cannot authorize it, cannot teach it, then how does anyone know, in the burning moment, whether what they feel is revelation or self-deception?

    Two traditions offer guardrails. The American tradition answers with the rule of law: no private conviction, however burning, overrides the collective agreement. The Jewish tradition answers with machloket l’shem shamayim, an argument for the sake of heaven. Hillel and Shammai disagreed about nearly everything, passionately, for decades. What made their argument holy was not that one of them was right. It was that neither of them picked up a spear. The argument itself was the faithfulness.

    Korach, by contrast, was certain. He even had a point: all Israel is holy; why does Moses alone lead? But his argument was for himself, not for heaven. Certainty in service of the self, dressed in the language of principle, is exactly what kana’ut looks like from the inside. The difference between Hillel and Shammai and Korach is not the passion. It is whether you can stay in the room when you don’t prevail.

    Both guardrails say the same thing in different languages: subordinate private certainty to collective process. Neither is sufficient on its own, and neither holds forever.

    The law is corrupted. The argument for heaven devolves into paralysis. The judges weep at the entrance to the tent as the plague spreads. This is precisely the condition that makes Pinchas feel righteous, as he confronts a genuine emergency and a genuinely failed institution.

    What does the tradition say, then? Not: pick up the spear. But also not: keep weeping. Stay in the argument, even when the argument is failing. Bear witness. Refuse both the violence and the paralysis. What we surrender is the clean story, the one where we acted, the plague stopped, and we knew we were right. What we keep is harder: the argument, the relationship, the refusal to let our certainty become someone else’s catastrophe.

    Right now, both are under assault. The rule of law is openly contested by people certain their cause overrides it. The capacity for machloket l’shem shamayim, good-faith disagreement within a shared relationship, is nearly impossible to sustain in a world that rewards the spear and punishes the pause.

    That means Pinchas is not an ancient problem we have learned to contain. He stands at the center of this moment, spear in hand, absolutely certain.

    The question is not whether we recognize him. It is whether we recognize him in ourselves.

    “The most dangerous sentence in religious life is not ‘God is dead.’ It is ‘God told me to.’”