Have you ever been in a situation where you’re confused about what to do? Where you want to know exactly what’s expected of you-nothing more and nothing less? If that’s the case than you’re in luck because that’s a core principle of this week’s Torah portion.

At the beginning of Chapter 4 in Devarim (Deuteronomy), we are told by Moses “You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of God that I enjoin upon you.” There is actually a commandment not to add, bal tosif, for which the preeminent example the rabbis give is that one cannot add a fifth species to his/her lulav or a fifth portion in one’s Tefillan. Similarly, one cannot subtract a commandment, proclaiming “I won’t keep kosher because I don’t like it.” Instead, we need to take the middle road, doing exactly what God expects of us.

The problem with this is figuring out what we are commanded to do. How many commandments are there? 613. From where do we know that? An aggadeta (non-legal section) in Babylonian Talmud Tractate Makkot 24a is the source for the 613 commandments in the Torah, stating that the numerical value of the word Torah is 611 and that plus the first 2 commandments (which God told us Himself rather than Moses) is how we get to 613 commandments. However, the Talmud does not state what those commandments are and it’s not even clear that this was a guiding principle in Talmudic times, as there are many sections of the Talmud that are not codified as laws. In Geonic period, beginning in 8^th century Babylonia, different rabbis created their own lists of commandments. It became a tradition for a rabbi to create his Sefer HaMitzvot, his book in which he listed and enumerated on the commandments. The preeminent list is that of Maimonides of 12^th century Spain and Egypt who has 14 guiding principles that he used to derive the Torah commandments. However, Nachmanides of 13^th century Spain and Israel wrote a commentary on Maimonides’ book in which he takes out some commandments and adds others! For example, Nachmanides stated that a commandment is to make Aliyah to Israel, and he did this in his lifetime. In contrast, Maimonides does not have Aliyah listed and does not even visit the land of Israel during his lifetime.

The dispute is not only between Maimonides and Nachmanides; Maimonides disagreed with multiple earlier authors, including Shimon Karraya, the author of the Halachot Gedolot, in 8^th century Babylonia. Karraya included in his list of 613 commandments the reading of the Megillah and the lighting of the Hanukkah candles, which Maimonides viewed as derabanan, or “rabbinic” commandments, and hence not part of the 613 Torah commandments. Thus you can see that what is included and what is excluded from the 613 is not cut and dry.

This becomes more complicated when one understands that over half the commandments do not apply to anyone today because they required a Temple in Jerusalem. We are no longer able to sacrifice animals, nor are we required to spend Festivals (and all they entail) in Jerusalem. Of those commandments which remain, at least 25 do not apply to those of us living in the Diaspora. What therefore are we obligated to do and how can we ensure that we do not add or subtract from that list?

Unfortunately there is no cut-and-dry answer to this quandary. I appreciate the approach of the note in the Etz Hayim Chumash that states “a modern Conservative perspective would see the Torah as a living organism, constantly shedding dead cells and growing new ones, changing and adapting to new and unprecedented circumstances.” I’ve pointed out before examples of how Judaism has made changes to existing procedures, such as the rabbis eliminating the situation of the rebellious son without uprooting that law. Similarly, Hillel issued a prozbul, having the court take control of debts so that lessors would not lose any money they had loaned out during the Sabbatical year. Ours is a tradition where laws have often been adapted to meet modern needs and I believe the Conservative movement has continued in this tradition. In our ever-changing and evolving world we need to continue to make adjustments to meet modern needs but at the same time not lose sight of tradition and custom. That is how I understand the law of not adding or subtracting-it includes both making fences around the law and changing how the law is applied as long as we do not lose sight of the core principle that the law is teaching us. Of course this is easier said than done but I believe it is important to engage in the struggle and the discomfort and from it try to apply the laws in a way that works for the majority of our community and for our continued growth and betterment. Ken y’hi ratzon, May it be our will to do so.

I was elated to hear that Jonathan Pollard is being paroled this coming November, 30 years after he was arrested for treason. I grew up seeing “Free Jonathan Pollard” placards in my synagogue on Shabbat mornings. I could not understand why someone who had aided a country friendly to the United States was being punished so severely for his actions. It felt unjust to me.

In rabbinical school I began to understand the other side. I had a roommate whose father served in the US Navy and who is currently a Navy Chaplain. On a number of occasions we argued about Jonathan Pollard’s life sentence. The argument got more and more heated as other classmates joined in. One of my classmates pointed out why there were different sides. He pointed to one of my classmates and said “Army family.” He pointed to my roommate and said “Navy family.” Then he pointed to me and said “ZOA family.” From that simple encounter I understood why we were on different sides. I grew up a staunch Zionist, with my love for Israel and importance of its security being primary. My classmates grew up with the emphasis on serving in the military and the staunch belief that you NEVER reveal any military secrets or classified information. Therefore, Pollard providing this information was a crime of the most severe order and he (according to them) should never be released. For them it didn’t matter that Pollard helped Israel-what mattered was a betrayal of the United States.

I still believe that Pollard served for far too long (much longer than anyone else convicted of the same degree of espionage against the United States). He acted wrongly but he was punished far too severely for his wrongdoings. I am glad that he will be reunited with his family and hope he will be able to make Aliyah to Israel.

Is there an argument you were dead set on winning? One where you just had to prove that you were right? If so you’re in good company, for that is exactly how I perceive Moses to be in this week’s portion.

The Book of Deuteronomy was referenced by the rabbis as mishneh Torah, the repetition of the Torah. Much of Deuteronomy is Moses repeating or reiterating events that have previously occurred. However, Moses appears to add his own revisionist history to the events. For example, in Chapter 1 verse 22, he states “all of you came to me and said ‘let us send men to reconnonter the land for us…” whereas in Parshat Shelah Lecha, it was God who told Moses “send our men to reconnoiter the land.” Furthermore, Moses asserts that his reply to the spies who gave bad reports was “have no dread or fear of them,” whereas in Parshat Shelah Lecha it was Caleb who said this. There are other examples as well, but I think the point is clear-why is Moses changing the story?

The best example I can think of as to why our mind engages in revisionist history, or a changing of the story, is from the Israeli film Waltz with Bashir, produced 26 years after the First Lebanon War. The director Ari Folman, also a character in the movie, was talking to a friend at a bar who was sharing his memories from the war when Ari realized that he had no recollection-he had blotted it out. He interviewed a lot of his friends and found that their memories of the war were also shady. He then has a conversation with a psychologist, who says, “We don’t go to places we don’t want to;” “Memory takes us where we want to go.”

I don’t see Moses as lying or deliberately misrepresenting or revising history; rather I see him as having a skewed portrait of the incident of the spies 38 years afterwards because he wants to come out on the “right side of history.” He recognizes that because of the spies’ negative report, an entire generation of Israelites had to die off and be replaced. Subconsciously Moses wants to see himself in the light of defying the spies, being reluctant to send them out and then opposing their message when it is delivered. Can we really blame him? He’s in his final years, he knows he will be unable to enter the Promised Land, so the least we can do is put him as a defender of his people and of the Almighty God. The bottom line is that Moses is remembered not for what he said in his last years but for what he did in leading our ancestors out of Egypt to the Promised Land and giving them the Torah. Whether or not Moses’ words in this portion are correct is insignificant compared to who he was and what he did.

What does any of this have to do with us? I believe everything. It is easy for us to engage in revisionist history or change our story, and while I’m not a psychologist, I believe that most of the time it is subconsciously. By nature we want to have our views accepted and embraced and to know that we always did or said the right thing. The bottom line, however, is that it does not matter. What matters is that we look in the mirror each morning and we smile, knowing that we are doing the best we can and acting in a righteous, ethical manner.

The rabbi who officiated at Karina and my wedding pulled us aside after the ceremony. He said “I don’t want to hear 6 months down the road, ‘He said, she said…’” The point he was making was that it does not matter who said what or even who did what-what does matter is that we work together day after day to strengthen our relationship. When you fight or feel stress, what is imperative is to come back together as a unified couple, to use the cliché but true “kiss and make up.” We all know of feuds where people don’t even remember what they are arguing about, and this is antithetical to what we try to achieve in marriage. My prayer for you as we approach your wedding is to always keep in mind the big picture-your love for one another and your desire to build a household and family together, and that this will be stronger than anything else. May you never enter into the realm of “he said, she said” for that is far less significant than what you share together and why you came before us this morning. Like Moses, who you are and what you believe is the essence of what you will become through your marriage. Mazal Tov on your upcoming simcha!

Who was Balaam son of Beor? According to this week’s Torah portion, he is a true non-Jewish prophet. He blesses Israel, being the author of our “Mah Tovu” prayer. He also follows the will of God, doing exactly what he is commanded to do-with one possible exception.

Our weekly Torah portion begins with Balak hiring Balaam to curse the Israelites. Balak saw Israel defeat Sihon the king of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan, and he knew that his territory, Moav, was next. Just like Pharaoh, Balak sensed that Israel is too numerous and will defeat him-unless a prophet of God intervenes on his behalf. As a true prophet, Balaam said he could not curse Israel unless God ordained it, and God did not permit him to do so. Balaam dismissed the dignitaries, making Balak all the more desperate, so he sent new, noble dignitaries. Balaam had the dignitaries stay the night so he could await instructions from God. God told Balaam that he could go with the men as long as he did what God commanded, so Balaam went off with Balak.

Here is where we run into the quandary: Two verses later, God got enraged by Balaam going with the men, so much so that he sent an angel with a drawn sword to block his path. Balaam’s donkey wouldn’t move, so he beat her thrice until the donkey opened Balaam’s eyes to the angel. Why did God reverse His permission to let Balaam go with the men? Was he doing reverse psychology or engaging in passive-aggressive behavior? Why instead did God create a supernatural event?

Rashi, from 11^th century Troyes, said that God saw that Balaam badly wanted to go with the men so he let him. Balaam jumped at the opportunity to go, thinking he’d be able to change God’s mind so he could curse the Israelites. Rashi’s interpretation feels like apologetics to me, as if God did not want Balaam to go, why give him the option? Abraham ibn Ezra, from 12^th century Spain and Italy who was also a poet, comments that God wanted Balaam to go with the second group of honored princes, rather than the first group of commoners. The challenge with this is why should it make a difference who Balaam went with if the intent to curse the Israelites remained, and why would God become incensed if Balaam was acting correctly? The interpretation that resonates most with me is that of Ramban, or Nachmanides, a 13^th century Spaniard who was also a Kabbalist. Ramban asserts that God always wanted Balaam to go with the men so he could bless the Israelites. Like Moses talking to the rock, this was intended to be an act of Kiddush Hashem, sanctification of God’s name through great action-the greatest gentile prophet praising the Israelite God. All Balaam had to do was reiterate to the second group of men that he would do exactly as God commands. Instead Balaam said nothing, giving the impression that he agreed to curse the Israelites. Thus, instead of a sanctification of God’s name, this became a hillul hashem, a desecration of God’s name.

Nachmanides’ interpretation applies directly to our lives. Whenever we perform an action, we need to look for opportunities to sanctify God’s name. At times this can be so simple as saying, “I am performing this action in order to honor God,” as Kabbalists do. The little signs of intent, like saying a blessing before eating to acknowledge the work that created it, or helping your neighbor carry a heavy load, are what bring sanctification of God into the world. Through striving to be mindful, we can ensure that the world in which we live is one where godliness shines through.

The beauty of Judaism is that there is something for everyone in it. Judaism’s belief, as illustrated in Pirkei Avot, is to that all is in Torah. There are Jewish teachings on how to conduct oneself in business, how to create sacred relationships with those around you and even on how to fulfill your partner’s sexual needs.

While many are not religious, most are searching for meaning in life as well as belonging to a community. These are universal desires which are at the center of what Judaism is about. At the same time, Judaism recognizes that there are seventy faces to Torah; there are multiple interpretations as to what texts mean and that we should strive to find the one most personally meaningful to our life.

One of the highest Jewish values is k’vod habriyot, to treat every human with dignity and respect. This is true regardless of one’s gender, age, religion or sexual orientation. My goal is to foster positive experiences with those around me, bringing empathy and a listening ear into every encounter.

At the Jericho Jewish Center, we offer Hiking and Halacha, an opportunity to enjoy nature while sharing in a short teaching on spirituality. We also have Shabbat at Theodore Roosevelt Beach as an opportunity to engage in community in a beautiful, family-centered environment while the sun is setting. In addition, we have a Friday Night Live musical Shabbat service led by both children and adults. Our goal is to foster meaningful and engaging relationships, both inside and outside the synagogue walls.

There’s a bizarre passage between Aaron’s death and the Israelites’ journey towards Edom. Numbers Chapter 21 verses 1-3 read “When the Canaanite, king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by way of the Atarim, he engaged Israel in battle and took some Israelites as captive. Israel made a vow to God, saying ‘If you deliver this people into our hand, we will proscribe their towns.’ God agrees to do so, delivering the Canaanites, and they and their cities were proscribed. That place was named Hormah.”

What does Hormah mean? It comes from the root herem, which many have heard as “excommunication.” The biblical meaning of herem, however, is a complete conquest, with no survivors, and with all the property consecrated to God. Our ancestors were instructed to kill all of the Canaanites, as they were one of the seven nations whose land Israel was to inherit. According to Numbers 21, they did just that.

This text has a very different outcome than that from two weeks ago, immediately following the incident of the spies, when we read in Numbers Chapter 14 Verse 45: “The Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in the hill country came down and dealt them (the Israelites) a shattering blow at Hormah.” Why the discrepancy between the two texts? Why in one is Israel triumphant whereas in the other they are defeated?

Both texts begin with the Canaanites attacking Israel: the ending, however, is different. Rashi, the biblical commentator par excellence, who lived in the 11^th century and who also worked as a vintner, references Tractate Rosh Hashnah in the Babylonian Talmud, which states that the Canaanite King heard that Aaron had died and that therefore the cloud of God’s presence was no longer on the Jewish people. Without their spiritual leader, our ancestors lost sight of God and were vulnerable to attack. Rashbam, Rashi’s grandson who lived in 12^th century France, points out that Israel came “by way of the Atarim” and if one removes the letter “aleph” you get “tarim,” one of the names for the spies. In other words, the spies who said “the enemies are too big and numerous for us” receive their worst nightmare-those very enemies come after them, taking captives. Hayim ben Moshe ibn Attar, an 18^th century Moroccan commentator who made Aliyah, points out what a major test this was for our ancestors, for if Israelites were being taken captive outside of the land of Israel, who knows what would happen when they reached the promised land?

Unlike the incident with the spies, however, the Israelites turned to God this time. They vowed to destroy all that was the Canaanites, as they had been commanded, if God delivered the Canaanites into their hands. God heard their voice and fulfilled his end of the bargain, delivering the Canaanites into the Israelites’ hands. The Israelites likewise fulfilled their vow, destroying the Canaanites.

What lessons can this section of the portion teach us? One is that our outlook often leads to the result that we achieve. The spies caused the Israelites not to believe they could succeed against the people of the land of Canaan-and so they got routed by the Canaanites. In contrast, two portions later the Israelites have learned their lesson: to have trust and faith in God. As a result, this time they succeed in defeating the Canaanites.

This lesson hit too close to home with the recent shooting of nine individuals at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. This atrocity would lead most people to want the perpetrator, Dylan Roof, to be given a swift execution. Interestingly, however, the families and friends of the victims had a different message: they wanted Dylan to repent and put his faith in God! One even told Dylan that he’s welcome back to the Bible study at any time! These responses are difficult for us to understand. After all, we are the people who never forget the atrocities that have befallen our people-and rightly so. Perhaps the worshippers of Emmanuel AME have a lesson to teach us: we cannot control what comes our way but our challenge is to continue to have faith in God when atrocities occur. That does not mean that we do not seek justice but rather that we do not let the tragedies that come our way shatter our faith. My prayer for us on this Shabbat is that we remain steadfast and confident in our beliefs as to who we are and what our mission is in this world and that we do not allow anything to shake that core. In that way we will be victorious like our ancestors were. As it states in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers): “Who is strong? One who controls his/her inclinations.” May we use all our thoughts and actions for good, and may they strengthen our faith in God, in ourselves and in one another-for each of us is made in the image of God. Shabbat Shalom.

What does forgiveness mean? Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines forgiveness as “to stop feeling anger towards.” From this definition, I think we can learn a great deal about the responses of the bereaved from the Emmanuel AME Church towards Dylan Roof.

A congregant spoke with me about the difference between how the friends and family of the Emmanuel AME Church victims responded versus how we as Jews would respond. As Jews we are commanded to remember the actions of Amalek, how they attacked us from behind. We are commanded to blot them out with the words “Do not forget.” We have two holidays that focus on remembrance: Our Holocaust Remembrance Day (יום השואה) and our Israeli Soldier Memorial Day (יום הזכרון). In particular regarding the Holocaust, we say NEVER AGAIN or We Shall Never Forget. We do this with good reason, for as George Santayana pointed out, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

In contrast we have the bereaved from the Emmanuel AME Church whose main refrain to Mr Roof was “I forgive you.” One even said to him “You’re welcome to our Bible study next Wednesday night.” Why would they embrace a murderer rather than attacking him?

I believe Webster’s definition of forgiveness demonstrates this. Too often we associate forgiveness with forgetting, and this is not the case. The bereaved will NEVER forget the atrocities that Mr. Roof did. One specifically said to him. “You took someone dear to me. I can never call her again, talk to her again.” This was followed by “I forgive you and may God have mercy on your soul.” What this woman was doing, in my opinion, was to say to Mr. Roof ‘There are some things you cannot take away from me-one of which is my ability to forgive, to let go of the anger, rage and hatred that I feel for you and for those like you.’ No matter what happens to us, no matter what we cannot control, forgiveness is in our power. We have the opportunity to let go of the legitimate hurt, anger and hatred that we feel and not let them bring us down. These victims recognized that they could not “let hate win.”

A couple years ago I saw a video where a man was complaining to his father about something done to him by another 10 years ago. He went on and on describing the situation. The father finally said, “How much rent are you charging him?” Taken aback the son replied “What do you mean? I haven’t seen him in years!” The father replied, “He’s still in your head.”

The lesson I learned from the members of the Emmanuel AME Church is the importance of letting go of negative emotions, no matter how difficult and how much pain we feel. This is not a one-step process or something that can occur overnight. However, by doing so, we are empowered to act in a way that lets love and community win out. I don’t think I could have acted in the way that the members of Emmanuel AME did and I commend them for their courage. At the same time, I’ve learned that when I feel negative emotions that I strive to let go of them and take them out of my head, putting in their place love and devotion.

What does true freedom mean to you? For some it is being able to do whatever you want. For others freedom is the abdication of responsibility. For me, true freedom is represented by a Jewish ceremony mentioned in today’s Torah portion I’ve only been to twice. I do not remember the first time I attended, as I was only 31 days old. The second time was at my former congregation two years ago. The ceremony is pidyon haben, the redemption of the firstborn son.

What is the ceremony of pidyon haben about? Originally, the first born males were supposed to serve G-d in the Temple. However, as enumerated in Tractate Megillah of the Jerusalem Talmud, the firstborn men rushed to sacrifice to the golden calf. As a result, the Levites were appointed to serve in the Temple instead. There were more firstborn males than Levites, and these extra firstborn were redeemed at five shekels apiece, which was given to Aaron and his sons. Five shekalim was a lot of money in Temple times, perhaps a penalty to increase the firstborns’ remorse for turning away from G-d.

We symbolically remember this redemption through continuing the ceremony of pidyon haben. The qualifications for redemption are that the child is male, the first issue of the womb, a natural birth and not descended from a Kohen or Levi on either side. These restrictions are what makes it so rare for this ceremony to be done. The ceremony occurs when the child is 31 days old except on a Shabbat or Festival, in which case it is pushed to the next date. At the ceremony, the parents bring their child to the Kohen, who says “Which is your preference: to give me your firstborn son, the first issue of his mother, or to redeem him for five shekalim, as you are obligated according to the Torah?” I have never heard of a parent choosing to give their 31 day old son to the Kohen! For redemption, five silver coins are given to the Kohen and are held over the baby boy’s head, indicating that this child is redeemed. If one was not redeemed as a child, Tractate Kiddushin in the Babylonian Talmud states that he must redeem himself as an adult. An example of this occurred two years ago, when a member of my former congregation redeemed himself at a pidyon haben.

What does this have to do with us? After all we now live in a post-Temple, egalitarian age. Some find pidyon haben to be sexist and have created pidyon habat ceremonies to symbolically redeem their first-born daughter. While the ceremony of pidyon haben might seem outdated or exclusive, a vestige of years past, I would argue that the principles behind it have everything to do with who and what we are. The first commandment is that G-d redeemed us from Egypt, a commandment which pervades the entire Torah. This demonstrates that before we could be free to worship the one true G-d, we needed to be redeemed from slavery. Similarly, there is merit to continuing the tradition of pidyon haben, acknowledging that true freedom must begin with redemption. May we actualize the teachings of pidyon haben to truly feel free to serve G-d and to lead our community? To crystallize this teaching through prayer, I ask that you turn with me to the reading Teach Us True Freedom and continue responsively.

Our tradition teaches that Moses was the best prophet ever and there was no one like him. However, this week’s parsha demonstrates that there were other prophets in Moses’ time, if only for “bit parts.” When everyone left the camp, two men named Eldad and Medad stayed inside and began to prophesy. Joshua get upset on Moses’ behalf, as here were two men taking over Moses’ role. He told Moses “STOP THEM!” to which Moses almost laughed, saying “Are you jealous on my behalf? Would that all people be prophets that G-d would put His voice inside them.”

This is a radical statement for Moses to make! After all, if everyone claimed to have the “word of G-d” there would be chaos! We also don’t look to highly upon our “street-corner prophets” proclaiming the “will of G-d.” It seems, however, that Moses was imparting an important message: not everyone was dependent on him for the words of G-d. If we passively wait for one person to impart G-d’s message onto us, we lose valuable opportunities to do good in the world and actively find the words of G-d. Each of us, like Eldad and Medad, needs to seek out the word of G-d through our personal supplications and our heartfelt prayers. It is easy to rally behind your leader and dangerous to get others involved. However, as a great leader, Moses understood that he could not do it all on his own, and that he needed to take the risk of having others feeling free to prophesy.

There’s another lesson here: Moses had the self-confidence necessary to allow others to connect with G-d independently from him. He did not feel the need to be the sole intermediary between the people and G-d. This required Moses to take a risk, as others could have easily turned away from him and followed Eldad and Medad. However, instead of being jealous of the attention that Eldad and Medad received, Moses was strong enough to embrace it and “let it be.”

I think this concept strongly ties into a marriage. Marriage is a give-and-take between leading and following. It is a blend between at times doing things the way you want and at other times following the will of your partner or creating a compromise. This not only takes hard work but it also requires each person to have the level of confidence necessary to meet the needs of the other without viewing it as a diminishment of oneself. Knowing Rebecca and Matt for the short duration of time that I have, I know that you have a high level of mutual respect and will give one another time to shine. You will support one another through the highs and lows of life and raise each other up to new heights. You will recognize, as Moses did, that the ideal is for both parties in the relationship to be strong and at their best.

Similarly, each of us has the opportunity to personally connect with G-d independently from someone serving as an intermediary. We do not need a Rabbi or Cantor to be our direct link to G-d: rather, each of us can form our own, personal connection to G-d through prayer and study. I cannot see a better time to do this work than right now, as we recently celebrated the giving of the Torah and the holiday of Shavuot. Let us follow the examples of Eldad and Medad and strive to develop a strong, personal relationship with our Creator. Ken Yhi Ratzon, may it be our will to do so. Shabbat Shalom.

Yesterday I discussed with you different Midrashim on the giving of the Torah and from it different ways we can view the Torah’s impact on our lives.  Today I would like to shift to discussing a book from our tradition that we read today: The Book of Ruth.

I will begin with a brief summary, mostly of Chapter 1.  Ruth is a Moabite married to one of two brothers, Machlon and Chilyon, both of whom mysteriously pass away.  The brothers’ father had also died but his wife, Naomi, was still alive.  Naomi was going to leave Moab to return to Bethlehem, but her daughters-in-law would not leave her side.  With persistence she gets her daughter-in-law Orpah to leave but her other daughter-in-law, Ruth, refuses to leave, stating “Your people shall be my people and your God shall be my God.”  Ruth returns to Bethlehem with Naomi, where she marries a man named Boaz and lives the rest of her life.

This story is very peculiar me for a few reasons.  First, Ruth is not only a non-Israelite but a Moabite, one of the enemy nations of the Israelites.  In Deuteronomy 23:4 it states, “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the Assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter the Assembly of the LORD forever.”  This verse explicitly states that a Moabite can never become an Israelite, and yet here we have Ruth saying, “Your people shall be my people and your God shall be my God”-the ultimate conversion to Judaism and acceptance of Torah.  What makes the situation even more interesting is that we find out at the end of Chapter 4 that Ruth is the great-grandmother of King David, not only our greatest king ever but also the ancestor of our future Messiah.

The first question to answer is why is there so much hostility towards Moabites?  Yesterday I brought in a Midrash which mentioned that the Ammonites would not accept the Torah because it says one cannot commit adultery, and their essence (or origin) is adultery.  This is referring to Genesis 19, where Lot escapes from Sodom with his daughters while the city is destroyed.  They went to a cave where to their knowledge they were the only people alive, as their homeland, Sodom, was destroyed.  The daughters each give Lot wine to drink, and when he was asleep they lay with him.  Each daughter gave birth-one called her son “Ben Ammi,” meaning “son of my nation,” and he is the ancestor of the Ammonites, and the other called her son “Moab,” meaning “from my father,” and he is the ancestor of the Moabites, Ruth’s people.  This etiological story of an illicit union forming enemy nations is a source for Israelite hatred of the Moabites, which is why it is interesting that King David’s great grandmother was a Moabite herself.

Even more fascinating is the fact that this is not the only incestual union in David’s lineage.  In Genesis 38, we learn of Judah’s son Er being the husband of Tamar but then mysteriously passing away.  Judah’s second son, Onan, then becomes Tamar’s husband (through the laws of Levirite marriage) and also passes away.  The third son is withheld from Tamar, who in an effort to remarry and become pregnant dresses up as a prostitute and seduces Judah, her father in law.  Out of this illicit union come two twins, one of whom is Peretz, a 10^th generation ancestor of King David.

We thus observe two incestual unions in the lineage of our greatest king ever.  I see this as indicating that one’s lineage does not unduly impact on who a person is, but rather each individual is able to make his or her own choices.  It is true that one’s genetic makeup can create a proclivity for certain behaviors, both good and bad, in that person.  David demonstrated the courage and strong leadership of his great-grandmother Ruth and of his great-great-great grandfather Nachshon, who according to Midrash was the first to leap into the Sea of Reeds when the Egyptians were coming to destroy the Israelites.  He also engaged in at least one illicit union, the affair he had with Batsheva.  However, David was his own person, and the choices he made demonstrated an independent personality.  Similarly, the choices Ruth made to stay by her mother-in-law’s side in her time of need and leave her own people to join a foreign nation demonstrate great courage and leadership.  It demonstrates that we cannot judge people wholly by what their ancestors did or by what those around them do, as while the Moabites may have been the enemies of the Israelites, we have at least one Moabite who extended a hand and found a place in the Israelite community.  From the book of Ruth, I have gained appreciation to see each person as an individual who has something to contribute, rather than as simply a product of his/her lineage.

The same is true with Yizkor. Our parents have instilled in us proclivities and habits for both good and bad, as well as teaching us values. WE remember and are grateful for who they are/were and for the experiences we have shared with them. At the same time, each of us is our own person with our own rights and responsibilities. Let us use our limited time on earth to make positive and productive choices, as Ruth did.

I have been blessed to get to know each of you as an individual over the course of my first year in Jericho.  I have shared in beautiful conversations before the Torah reading and during Kiddush, learning from you during each one.  The warmth you have shown me since the day you received me as your Rabbi last June has been incredible, and I look forward to many more wonderful years together.

Thank you to each and every one of you for all that you do to strengthen our congregation, be it coming to minyan, serving on a committee or on our Board, giving generously of yourself and contributing to our community in so many ways.  Also, thank you for your patience with me, a newcomer to our community.  I learned so much from you and have grown in confidence with your help.  Thank you for an enriching and enjoyable year.