Have you ever been faced with a difficult decision, paralyzed in not knowing how to respond? Have you every just wanted a sign from G-d as to how to proceed? If that’s the case you’re in luck because our people had similar signs as they traveled through the desert.

In this week’s parsha, the finishing touches are put upon Aaron’s outfit before his coronation as Kohen Gadol, the High Priest of Israel. One of those items is his breastplate, or Hoshen, which contained twelve stones, one for each of the tribes. However, it also contained something else very special: the Urim (אורים) and the Tumim (תומים).[1)] What were the Urim and the Tumim? Rashi from 11^th century France stated that the Urim contained the Tetragrammaton, the holy 4-letter name of G-d.[2] Items with this name cannot be discarded, having to remain in perpetuity or buried in a special place known as a Geniza. Elaborating on Rashi’s point, Rabbenu Bahya ibn Asher, a 14^th century Kabbalist, asserted that these were oracular devices utilized to communicate with the Divine, below the level of a prophet and above that of hearing a heavenly voice.[3] Further elaborating on this is the Toledot Yitzhak,[4] who references the Jerusalem Talmud,[5] which gives the origin for their names: Urim-that they enlightened Israel, Tumim-that they made Israel perfect, that at the time when Israel was pure, they showed Israel the proper way.

This is all very nice but we’re still not certain as to how these oracular devices worked or why they maintained a central position in Aaron’s breastplate. For that we need to go back to Parshat Tetzaveh in Exodus, the other source for Aaron’s garments. There[6] it stated, “And you shall put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Tumim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, in his coming before G-d; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before G-d continually.” Now we have the sense that these items were used for purposes of judging Israel, but we are still uncertain as to what way they did so.

A story from the First Book of Samuel gives us insight that these devices were utilized to determine whether or not to go to war.[7] Before a battle with the Philistines, King Saul made an oath that no Israelites should eat anything until the Philistines were routed. However, his son Jonathan did not hear the oath, saw honey on the ground, and ate of it. When Saul asked G-d if he should go after the Philistines, there was no reply. Immediately he knew that something was remiss so he took out the Tumim, and it singled out Jonathan as being guilty of violating Saul’s oath.

According to the rabbis, the Urim and the Tumim were also consulted by King David to determine whether or not he could expand Jerusalem’s borders[8] as well as in Temple times to determine whether or not the Temple could be expanded.[9] These devices could only be consulted by top officials, such as army generals.[10] The question is why would the rabbis increase the significance that the Urim and Tumim played for their ancestors? After all the rabbis had stated that formal prophecy had ended, proclaiming חכם עדיף מנביא,[11] a sage is preferable to a prophet, as well as disregarding a heavenly voice (בת קול) proclaiming that the Torah is not in heaven![12] Why put new emphasis on the importance of this oracular device? Perhaps the rabbis were enchanted with the idea of a direct pathway to G-d that the leaders of the Bible were able to utilize. Perhaps they longed for a similar means to correctly determine exactly what G-d wants from us. In any event, the Urim and Tumim were long gone by the time the rabbis compiled the Talmud; by that time, the rabbi was the chief authority in determining Jewish law.

How do we relate to the Urim and Tumim today? I would argue that while we do not have oracular devices that we utilize to connect with the Almighty, as devoted Jews we are striving to determine what G-d wants from us on a daily basis. Before making major changes in our life practices, we consult with those around us, not taking decisions lightly. The same was true with our ancestors who utilized the Urim and Tumim to be thorough and consider every option before making decisions. Our task is to determine what are our modern day Urim and Tumim are, our means of connecting with the Almighty and determining that we are proceeding on the correct path. It is much easier said than done, yet it is our opportunity and our responsibility to engage in this process, all the while looking for subtle signs of Divine affirmation. May the process of living one day at a time striving to be the people we are meant to be carry great meaning and fulfillment for each of us.

[1] Leviticus 8:8

[2] Rashi on Leviticus 8:8

[3] Rabbenu Bahya Leviticus 8:8

[4] Isaac Karo, 15^th Century Spain

[5] Tractate Yoma Chapter 7 Law 3

[6] Exodus 28:30

[7] 1 Samuel 14

[8] Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 41a

[9] Babylonian Talmud Tractate Shevuot Chapter 2 Mishnah 3

[10] Babylonian Talmud Tractate Yoma 7a

[11] Bablyonian Talmud Bava Batra 12a

[12] Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 59b

When I heard about the death of Antonin Scalia, I knew things would not be pretty with whomever Obama nominated. After all, Conservatives still shudder remembering their “Getting Borked” in 1987, so why not repay the favor? Unlike many, I found some things favorable about Scalia, including his friendship with justices from “across the aisle,” including Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I knew that Obama’s nominee would need a similar quality of appealing to both liberals and conservatives.

When brainstorming who I thought the nominee would be, I first looked for who was the head of the DC Court of Appeals. It was then that I came across (for the first time) the name Merrick Garland. Upon researching him I saw that this was the right man to replace Scalia, someone moderate in nature who could appeal to those on both sides of the aisle. It was a brilliant move on Obama’s part to choose someone with more conservative views (among his decisions were an en banc review of the revocation of the DC handgun ban, refusal to allow federal courts to apply habeus corpus to Gitmo prisoners, opposing voting rights for DC residents and often rejecting the appeal of criminals). I see Garland as someone with strong appeal to Conservatives who was nominated by a Liberal.

The fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is telling Republicans not to even meet with Garland and not to consider him even after election is petty and shameful. The fact that politicians are so bent on getting revenge on Obama or bearing a grudge from the 1980s is such childish action. When are we going to grow up and judge someone on the merits of his position rather than on who nominated him?

The Republican party’s leadership had better wake up and play nice in the sandbox. Instead of taking these low blows they should say “We will consider Garland on the basis of his qualifications.” I believe if they do so they will find that they maintain the balance of power in the Supreme Court. If they do not do so then this, combined with their party’s leadership squabbles with Donald Trump, will lead to a bleak future for them.

I don’t want to sound hypocritical. Because my wonderful daughter was born 23 days ago I will not be at AIPAC this year. However, I want to challenge those who are planning to walk out on Donald Trump’s speech to think of the implications of this.

As pointed out in an article written by two of my classmates whose opinions I deeply respect, Bava Metzia 37b says that “silence is tantamount to consent.” I would never argue for silence as regards Trump. I find heinous his attacks on Muslims, Hispanics, the LGBT community and the differently-abled. As one who served on the board of the immigration reform group Humane Borders, who spoke in Tucson about the importance of civil marriage for all people regardless of their sexual orientation and who worked for a Muslim nonprofit group in Chicago as well as partnering with the 96th Street Mosque in Manhattan and the Islamic Center of Long Island, I find Trump’s remarks deplorable. His refusal to condemn KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and then feign ignorance was inexcusable. His mocking of reporter Serge Koveleski and then saying he didn’t know of him was childish, small-minded and unconscionable. This man is a paradigm for what is wrong with America, and the racism and xenophobia he has shown makes me feel that I am living in the jingoistic age of 1898 rather than in the “progressive” age of 2016.I support those who speak against him and challenge him.

At the same time, there is a way to challenge Trump without walking out of the room and which I believe would be more productive. Leviticus 19:17 teaches us “You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; but you must surely reprove your neighbor.” Trump needs to be challenged on the points he makes. He needs to hear loud and clear that appealing to people’s animalistic, base natures will not work, that we subscribe to a higher power of pluralism, multiculturalism and respect for all. Walking out of the room does not give that message to Trump; rather it gives him increased attention and a podium to speak to those who might be more embracing of his views. Let him speak in accordance with the first amendment of our founding fathers, but do challenge his message of racism and intolerance.

I wish I could be in the room to model this principle in which I believe so strongly. There is a middle road between silence and walking out. I hope that this high road will be taken tomorrow.

This is considered the most important Shabbat of the year, where everyone is commanded to come to synagogue and hear the Maftir Torah reading. We are commanded to remember the actions of a people called Amalek, who attacked us from behind when we were leaving Egypt for the Land of Israel, purposefully cutting off the stragglers in the group, the young and the old alike. We are commanded to blot them out, the reason that every year we blot out the name of a descendant of Amalek, Haman. This commandment is considered so important that we are instructed both to remember and to never forget what Amalek did to us.

Why is so much importance given to how Amalek treated our ancestors? It’s especially interesting because the incident with Amalek occurred shortly after leaving Egypt, whereas in Deuteronomy, 40 years later, the Israelites are ready to enter the Land of Israel. During that time numerous other nations waged war against Israel, so why single out Amalek? Rashi, an 11^th century French commentator, argues that the other nations were afraid to wage war against Israel, as they knew about the plagues that had befallen the Egyptians and their drowning in the sea. Amalek, however, was the instigator, unafraid of G-d and of the consequences of waging war. Rashi brought in a comparison story of a boiling bath that no creature could enter…until one villain came and leapt into it. While he was scalded, he cooled off the bath for the others.

Classroom management teaches us that when a classroom is spiraling out of control, one must immediately target the ringleader, and if s/he is punished, things will get toned down quickly. Amalek was that ringleader, the first to wage war against Israel and thus to challenge G-d.

Rabbi Ephraim of Luntshitz, a 16^th century Polish commentator who wrote Kli Yakar, has a very different take. He juxtaposes Israel being reminded about Amalek with the section before, which instructs Israel to keep just weights and measures. This is also why, in his view, we read Parshat Shekalim first, as it focuses on the importance of everyone giving an equal contribution. Our ancestors did not trust that God would provide for them, so they did not use fair weights, rather keeping their scales unbalanced or pouring salt on the increase the weights. This lack of trust in one another made Israel weak and prime targets for an attack. Rabbi Ephraim goes one step further, asserting that the cloud of glory representing G-d had protected Israel from its enemies throughout their journey until this point. Amalek therefore came to teach Israel a lesson about proper behavior towards one’s fellow; As G-d says, “Those who lie are not allowed to live in my house.” Therefore, the word זכור, remember, is tied to Amalek’s attack, whereas the phrase לא תשכח, do not forget, is connected to the Israelites’ remembering to trust in G-d and to treat one another fairly.

What does any of this have to do with an Aufruf and an upcoming marriage? First, we need to remember that marriage, even more so than other human relationships, begins with trust in the other. Without trusting one’s partner, the foundation collapses. Marriage requires open communication and honesty, as well as a belief that the other is genuine and true. These convictions will help “protect” the marriage and let the love between you continue to blossom. It will strengthen your marriage, whereas lack of trust will weaken it.

However, there is another connection-the importance of remembrance in a marriage. When things are going great, when you’re in the “honeymoon period,” you don’t need to remember your past-rather you can live in the moment and enjoy life. It’s when things start to get more challenging, when there are lapses in communication or arguments that you need to remember what brought you together in the first place-your devotion to each other and the love and affection you show one another. Through remembering these good times: the first date, the engagement, the upcoming wedding, and the journeys you will take together in the future, you will help ensure that your marital bond always remains strong.

Ashley and Josh, I know that you will always be there for each other and trust in one another and that this will help you conquer any challenge you might face through your working together as a team. Mazal Tov on your Aufruf and your upcoming marriage!

This is the part of the Torah during which I start to see eyes glazed over and have people ask me, “What significance do these readings have?” The truth is there is something very special about Parshat Tetzvaeh-it is the only Torah portion in Exodus through Deuteronomy in which Moses is not mentioned by name! Rather the first verse of the portion reads “YOU (Moses) command the people Israel!”
Why is Moses not given the prestige of being addressed by name in Parshat Tetzaveh. The Tosafot say it has to do with the golden calf escapade in next week’s portion. G-d wanted to destroy the Israelites after the creation of the calf, but Moses interceded, making a bargain with G-d. Moses said, “And now lift up their sin, and if not, erase me from the book you have written.” G-d replied, “Fine, I will not destroy the people but I will erase your name from a parsha.” One of the principles of the rabbis is that the Torah is not written in chronological order, so the section with the golden calf could have preceded Parshat Tetzaveh and the description of the tabernacle.

This sounds like a reasonable solution yet I wonder if G-d would be so fickle as to erase Moses’ name because of a bargain that saved the people! Another explanation can be found in the fact that G-d says “all who sin against me shall be destroyed.” Perhaps in the process of sinning against the Israelites Moses sinned against G-d, declaring that his name should be erased from the holy Torah. He also smashed the tablets, which were written by G-d’s hand, thereby destroying the holy work of the almighty. I can see G-d saying to Moses “You destroy my tablets? Then I will remove your name, your identity, from part of my holy book.”

What are the key lessons we can learn from this episode? One is to be careful about what you wish for: Moses saying “Erase me from your book” leads to G-d replying “Fine, I’ll erase you!” The other lesson is to act slowly and purposefully, keeping one’s emotions in check. Rather than smashing the tablets, Moses should have stopped, taken a deep breath and thought about how to constructively respond to the situation. We can learn from both of these lessons that even our greatest leaders have challenges and that through slowing down and responding appropriately, we can achieve a more favorable result. Let us keep our names, our true identities, at the forefront of who we are, rather than risking their getting erased.

Why of all things would God want Israel to make Him a Sanctuary? After all, King Solomon said in 1 Kings 8 “the heavens cannot contain you, how much more this house that I have built!” Yet this is exactly what God wants, for in this week’s portion he commands Moses “let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” If God is everywhere, unbound by space, then why create a home for Him?

The commentator Menachem ibn Zerach, from 14^th century Spain, commented in his book Tzedak Laderkh that the text does not say “that I may dwell in its midst (betocho) but rather among them (betocham.) This demonstrates that God’s presence does not rest on the sanctuary by virtue of the sanctuary but by virtue of Israel, for they are the temple of God.” As the servants of God, we play an important role. From our actions, we can either uplift God’s name or defame God’s name.

Malbim, a 19^th century Hasidic Russian commentator, takes the image one step further. He asserts that the true מקדש, or Sanctuary, is in the recesses of one’s heart-that each of us should prepare ourselves to be a dwelling place for God and a stronghold for the excellency of His Presence, as well as an altar on which to offer up every portion of his soul to God. Such a reading is surprising to many of us. We are so used to the מקדש as being a consecrated place on which animals are slaughtered and today where prayers are given to God, not our own bodies as serving as that Sanctuary.

Even though we tend to think of places as sacred rather than people, there is merit to the latter. The belief that the body is a Temple is profound, for it indicates that our bodies are not our own to use as we please but rather need to serve a higher purpose. Each fiber of our being is supposed to be utilized for a godly purpose, to serve the will of our creator. As we say each Shabbat morning, כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה מי כמוך, “all of my bones cry out, God who is like you?” True God dwells in a Temple, but not just the shul, for God can be found in each person who does מצוות and helps those around him/her.

A song by Randy Scruggs and John Thompson, originally intended for Church worship, has become commonplace in some liberal minyanim. The song goes like this: “LORD prepare me to be a Sanctuary, pure and holy, tried and true, and with thanksgiving, I’ll be a living, Sanctuary for you.” The purpose of this song is not to annul the role of worship within a church or synagogue but rather to indicate that God can be found dwelling in each and every one of us wherever we are at. Our job is to be a servant of God, doing exactly what God wants from us even when it is difficult. This is the message of Sefer Ha-Hinuch, the Book of Education, published anonymously in 13^th century Spain, which states “God desires us to perform His commandments for not other reason but to promote our own well-being.” He references Deuteronomy 10:12-13, which asserts that following the commandments is for our own good. It is to our advantage to create a society where we are watching out for those who are vulnerable and need our help. Similarly, it is in our best interest to watch what we eat, to take time to rest, to let our land lie fallow. However, the author of Sefer HaHinuch is aware of how easy it is for us to go astray. That is why he comments that a Sanctuary is needed, “a place of the highest purity to purify the thoughts of man and reform his character.” While we should be serving God in all our deeds, both inside and outside the synagogue, at times we need a holy place such as this to center and redirect us in living the way God wants us to.

As I anticipate becoming a father, I think of the lessons I want to teach my child, of how I want to communicate that life has a higher purpose and that we were brought into this world to do holy, important and Godly work. I want to demonstrate that it is not just in a synagogue that we are the agent of God but rather with every fiber of our being each and every day of our lives. Our task is to create a dwelling place for God everywhere we go, where God can look at us and say “you’ve set a good example-this is a person who I am worthy of dwelling in his/her midst.” May this be our Terumah, our own personal contribution to the world.

A quotation often attributed to Mahatma Ghandi is “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” In other words, when you are wronged or oppressed, you should utilize Satyagraha, nonviolent resistance, rather than resorting to violence. Civil disobedience as a defined term goes back at least as far as Henry David Thoreau in the 19^th century and was epitomized by Martin Luther King Jr. just over 50 years ago. It’s very easy to say don’t fight violence with violence-that is, except when you are being attacked.

Judaism presents a very different approach to how to respond to an attacker. We know the famous rabbinic reference הבא להרגך השכם להרגו, “When one comes to kill you, arise to kill him.”[1]  In a similar vein we have this week’s reference to the penalty for damages: “If damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”[2] Sounds pretty fair and straightforward, right?

Those who know rabbinic exegesis on the Bible might think that the rabbis would love this. After all, one of their core principles is מידה כנגד מידה, measure for measure. This is basically “what goes around comes around,” that what you do to others will be done to you. It is therefore surprising to discover that this line of reasoning does not sit well with the rabbis, who reinterpret this biblical verse!

Starting with Talmud Bava Kama,[3] we see the following Mishnah: “One who injures another becomes liable (monetarily) to the other for five items: damage, pain, healing, loss of time and embarrassment.” In other words, injuries, or נזיקים, require monetary compensation. The Gemara, or commentary on this Mishnah, asks Why? Don’t we know in the Torah “an eye for an eye?” The response is Do not let this enter your mind, for look at the following example. Leviticus teaches “He who smites a beast shall make pay.”[4] Just as in the case of a beast one must pay compensation, so too in the case of a person one must pay compensation.

Now wait a second. This might be fine except the Gemara cuts out the second half of the verse! The verse in its entirety reads “He who smites a beast shall pay, but he who smites a person shall be killed!” Through cutting the second half of the verse, we change its entire meaning! Luckily, the Gemara recognizes that this might not satisfy us and brings in another reason why an eye for an eye means monetary compensation. In Numbers[5] it states “You shall not accept ransom for the life of a murderer.” The rabbis take this to mean that you cannot take ransom, or money, only for a murderer but anyone guilty of manslaughter or injuring another can pay through monetary compensation.

Why make two arguments, each of which appears to be weak? I believe it is because the rabbis, like us, were uncomfortable with the idea of exacting punishment in exactly the same way the offense occurred. They couldn’t get rid of the verse, for this is the holy Torah, so instead they reinterpreted it and (for those who did not buy the reinterpretation) they limited its applicability, as they did for the rebellious son. By stating that each of these examples was equal to a monetary amount equal to the offense committed, the rabbis administered justice for the offense while not doing it in the exact way proscribed by the Bible, a way with which they were uncomfortable.

What do we do when we’re uncomfortable with taking a text literally-especially if it’s a text that the rabbis did take literally? How do we balance making changes that we need to live in our modern society with not forsaking or abandoning the Torah? I would argue for us to follow in the rabbis’ exegetical traditions in keeping the text as it stands but in reinterpreting it in a way that it makes sense for our lives. Some would argue that this position is sacrilegious, as our generation is so much lower than previous ones in terms of our knowledge of Torah, so what gives us the right to reinterpret in the way they did? I would argue differently-that if we are not constantly reinterpreting, making changes from within the framework of Torah and Halacha, than we are following a tradition that is stale and which has lost its meaning. Yes it’s a slippery slope and one which must only be done with extreme caution and with utmost respect for those who came before us. However, I believe that it is a slope worth standing on. I would much rather make changes from within the bounds of tradition than to refuse any changes[6] and have people say “This no longer applies to me”; in other words to throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is not just me talking-a common phrase in the Talmud used for deciding Halacha is פוק חזי; to go out and see what the people are doing. Let us find ways to follow the rabbis’ example of revering Torah and tradition while concurrently utilizing exegetical reinterpretation to create a living Judaism. After all, the Torah says “You shall live by them,”[7] which the rabbis interpret as “Live by them-Don’t die by them.”[8]

[1] Numbers Rabbah, 21:4. This is in Chapter 3 of Midrash Tanhuma Pinchas referring to the verse צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם.

[2] Exodus 21:23-25

[3] 83b

[4] Leviticus 24:21

[5] Numbers 35:31

[6] A point of view which unfortunately is becoming more common based upon the Hatam Sofer’s statement חדש אסור מן התורה, that innovation is forbidden from the Torah. That statement first appears in Talmud Kiddushin 38b

[7] Leviticus 18:15

[8] Sanhedrin 74a. Note that this only applies to violating a commandment to save your life (and the rabbis disagree about which commandments one must die for). It is often taken by liberal rabbis (like me) further-that we need to set halachic boundaries that our communities can live by-not the original intent of the passage.

One of my favorite lines in this week’s portion has always been “and you shall be to me a kingdom of Kohanim (priests) and a holy nation.” Rabbi Jonathan Sacks asserts that this phrase is “the shortest, simplest, most challenging mission statement of the Jewish people.”[1] What does it mean to serve G-d as a kingdom of Kohanim, especially in light of the fact that most Israelites are not Kohanim? Rashi from 11^th century France defines the word “Kohen” as a prince, referencing 2^nd Samuel, [2] where it states that David’s sons were Kohanim. We know that David was descended from the tribe of Judah, not from Levi as Kohanim were, so therefore the term Kohen must have an alternative meaning.

Nachmanides, from 13^th century Barcelona, has a different understanding, writing that Kohen means servant. Our people’s task as they are about to receive G-d’s Torah is to commit to being His servants. G-d made us free from slavery so that we would serve Him wholeheartedly, as a Kohen must serve G-d through the offering of sacrifices.

The interpretation that I prefer is that of Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno, of 16^th century Italy. He interprets Kohanim as “instructing the entire human race that we should all call out in the name of G-d and to serve Him with one accord. Each of us is a Kohen of G-d,[3] instructed to teach Torah and live life in the most ethical manner. In being given the Torah, our task is to spread monotheism and our service of G-d to all the people of the world, to be the active agents of G-d, the “G-d Squad” if you will. This is a democratized process, not limited to the work of the Kohanim but rather one which applies to every Israelite.

The key is the democratization-that we are a “kingdom of Kohanim.” The obligation to follow a higher ethical and moral standard is not limited to a small subset of our people but rather applies to each and every one of us. G-d wants us to stick together as a people, united in our bringing His presence into the world.

Why then is the word Kohen used? Perhaps it is because Kohanim had to hold themselves to higher religious standards than Israelites. They were more limited in terms of what they could eat, who they could marry and where they could go. Unlike other Israelites they could not own their own land or venture off to acquire more material possessions. These restrictions were meant to focus them on the spiritual task of serving G-d and atoning for the wrongdoings of the Israelite community. Furthermore, the Kohanim had to be pure, without blemishes. All of Israel was meant to emulate the Kohanim-not to follow their restrictions but to conduct their affairs scrupulously, with honor and out of devotion to G-d.

The second part of the verse, being a גוי קדוש, a holy nation, is far less commented upon yet I believe equally as intriguing. What does it mean to be holy? No one’s 100 percent sure-it’s one of those things that you know when you see it. Many commentators define holiness as being “set apart.”[4] This makes sense when you think about the interplay in rabbinic literature between the גוים, all the other nations of the world, and the גוי אחד, the one, unique nation of Israel. Every weekday morning and afternoon, we pray that G-d שומר גוי אחד ושומר גוי קדוש, protect the one nation and protect the holy nation which is set apart from all others. In being a גוי קדוש, our actions need to be such that they separate us from the societal norms. This is not to say that we are any better than anyone else but rather that as a people we need to follow a high ethical and moral standard.

How many times have you cringed when you’ve heard of a Jew who did something illegal or unethical? How many times have you wondered if someone’s actions are “bad for the Jews”? We inherently know that we are a גוי קדוש, one nation which is supposed to rightly or wrongly follow a supreme moral example in our service of G-d. Our ancestors resolutely committed to it, proclaiming נעשה ונשמע, WE WILL DO AND WE WILL HEAR. This is of course easier said than done, as we see with the creation of the Golden Calf 40 days after Moses went up Sinai to receive the 10 Commandments. However, we resolutely made the statement that we strive to observe G-d’s will and set an example for all the other nations.

Let us think of ways that we can fulfill this mission statement, being united as a people in service of the Almighty and striving to always live in accordance with a high code of ethics. When we see a member of our community going astray, let us gently but firmly fulfill הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, taking him/her aside and asking him/her to correct his/her behavior. May we every day emulate the precept of נעשה ונשמע, actively working to make this world more G-dly, more righteous, more ethical and more spiritual.

[1] Jonathan Sacks,  Covenant & Consersation: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible Exodus: The Book of Redemption London, England: Maggid Books & The Orthodox Union, 2010), p. 131.

[2] 2 Samuel 8:18

[3]Based off Isaiah 61:6

[4] See Rashi on Leviticus 19:2

The ninth plague, of darkness, is extremely telling. According to Midrash, the Egyptians could not see everything but the Israelites, in their neighborhood of Goshen, had full access to light. This was an all-consuming darkness, where “people could not see one another and for three days no one could get up from where he was.”[1] The medieval commentator Nachmanides describes the darkness as a fog-like condition which extinguished all flames. Ibn Ezra said it was so dark that the Egyptians could not even keep track of the passing days.

The Etz Chaim Chumash challenges the idea that this was a physical darkness, as why then would the Egyptians not light candles? It comments that perhaps it was “a spiritual or psychological darkness, a deep depression.”[2] After all, this is the ninth plague that has befallen the Egyptians, and it is one that attacks the sun, which they worshipped. Perhaps the Egyptians no longer believed there was hope for a better future, so why bother doing anything?

In such a condition of fogginess, confusion and depression, it was the perfect opportunity for Israel to enter into armed rebellion against the Egyptians or at least steal all of their belongings. However the Israelites did neither of these, instead leaving the Egyptians and their property untouched.

When one is vulnerable, surrounded by complete darkness, s/he realizes the kindness of others. As Samson Raphael Hirsch points out, this led the Egyptians to willingly give the Israelites their silver and gold during their exodus. It also led to some of the Egyptians joining with the Israelites in leaving Egypt. These Egyptians saw that because the Israelites left their belongings alone during a time of vulnerability that this was a trustworthy people who they could join, as opposed to staying in a harsh, Egyptian society.

This illustrates a core teaching of Judaism. As Jews we are not supposed to take advantage of the misfortunes of others, especially when they did not provoke the situation. The plagues were meant to be primarily against Pharaoh, to show him who G-d was, yet they affected all of the Egyptians. Our ancestors recognized that the plagues falling on the Egyptians did not give them the right to “run amuck” and plunder their belongings. It would have been enticing for a slave to turn on his master at the slightest opportunity, yet the Israelites understood that the plagues were there for a higher purpose, to demonstrate the power of G-d.

There are times in each of our lives at which we might feel schadenfreude, pleasure in the pain of someone else, especially if that person has exploited or taken advantage of us in the past. It is tempting to descend on him/her at this moment of great vulnerability. Our ancestors understood, however, that this human temptation was not something to embrace. The Egyptians were suffering enough from G-d, and our ancestors would soon be free from their tyranny. The compassion that they showed the Egyptians during this time would not go unnoticed. Perhaps our ancestors were starting to learn what it means to be a people of G-d: to show compassion and mercy to those who are in a weaker state, even when one can make a valid argument to do otherwise. May we learn from their example and make it our own.

[1] Exodus 10:23

[2] Etz Chaim Chumash, Page 377, note 23

Do you believe in magic? One of my Jewish Studies college professors asserted that there is magic in Judaism; the key is that “our magic comes from God and is good; others’ magic comes from man and is bad.” As we begin to read about the Ten Plagues in this week’s portion, I think a lot about divine magic. However, I want to start with the sign before the plagues, that of Aaron’s rod turning into a snake.

In most of the Torah, the snake is a bad animal. In Genesis, the snake talks Eve into disobeying God and eating from the tree of knowledge. In Numbers, the people are disobeying God and are struck by snakes, until a copper snake is mounted to heal them. Here, we have a snake as a sign of God’s presence.

What’s even more interesting is that Aaron’s rod can not only turn into a snake but also act on its own. When Pharaoh implores Aaron “show me a sign” and he throws his rod down and it becomes a snake, the Egyptian magicians are able to replicate this same act. The difference is that Aaron’s “snake” swallows theirs and then turns back into a rod. This is the start of the Israelite “magic,” under the control of God, superseding the Egyptian magic.

Why would Pharaoh ask Israel to show him a sign? Such a question is raised by Isaac ben Judah Abravanel.[1] Abravanel comments that it because Pharaoh has already questioned God’s existence. If Pharaoh does not believe in the Israelite God, but rather that he himself is god, why would he ask for a sign?

Furthermore after seeing the sign, why spurn Moses’ request to let the Israelites go-and not once but through 10 plagues! At least elsewhere, in the Book of Isaiah, King Ahaz of Judah spurns Isaiah’s attempts to show him a sign of God’s presence. Here Pharaoh asks for a sign but then disregards it. In Shemot Rabbah[2] Pharaoh clucks like a hen, saying “Such are the wonders of your God! Usually, people bring merchandise to a place where it is needed…Don’t you know that I am the master of all magic arts?” It is clear that neither Pharaoh nor his magicians were ready to embrace this magic, until the third plague when the magicians are forced to concede אצבע אלוהים, this is the finger of God!

Was it really the case that Pharaoh disregarded the miracle? Another Midrash in Shemot Rabbah[3] indicates that Pharaoh was shaken when he saw Aaron’s rod consume the others, thinking ‘what if he tells the rod swallow Pharaoh and his throne’? Pharaoh was forced to concede that this was a supernatural act, an inanimate object “swallowing” other inanimate objects. If a snake had swallowed another snake, Pharaoh could have conceded that it was following the laws of nature. We see later in the Torah other examples of Aaron’s rod acting supernaturally, like when it grows almonds on it in Numbers, indicating that he is the true High Priest.

Aaron’s rod is considered so great that according to Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers)[4] that “the rod”[5] was one of the ten wonders created at the beginning of the world. It was not an ordinary walking stick but rather something imbued with divine powers, utilized to give testament to God’s will.

We learn from Aaron’s rod that we do not need a magic carpet or a fairy princess with a wand to bring forth miracles; rather an everyday item, if imbued with the will of God, can produce the most fascinating of miracles. Magic in Judaism is a tool through which to recognize the power of God, as opposed to being utilized as an end to itself. The signs of God’s presence are in front of us; if only we choose to accept them. Ken yhi ratzon, may it be our will to do so.

[1] 15^th Century Spanish and Portuguese commentator (until exiled to Italy under the Inquisition) who had great wealth and who supplied provisions for the royal army under Queen Isabella. On a number of occasions he gave large sums to allow Jews to stay in Spain until he was expelled by the Inquisition.

[2] 9:4

[3] 9:7

[4] 5:8

[5] It does not specify whether it was Aaron’s or Moses’ rod. Most commentators say it was Moses’, yet both rods were used to perform supernatural wonders.