Leadership is a role, not an identity

Korach

Num. 16:1 - 18:32

 

Précis: Korach foments a rebellion, claiming that Moses and Aaron have taken too much power for themselves. Datan and Abiram also attack Moses’ leadership, claiming that Moses has brought them from a land of milk and honey (Egypt!) only to let them die in the wilderness. A test of fire offerings is arranged, and Korach and his followers are destroyed as the earth opens and swallows them. The People continue to complain, God threatens to destroy them once again, but Moses and Aaron intercede. A plague takes the lives of 14,000 people. A final test, that of staffs, is performed, and when Aaron’s staff miraculously blossoms on the following morning, it is clear that his status as High Priest is secure.

           

Num. 16:16-17 “Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the Lord tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the Lord. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.”

Rabbi Sacks has noted (Rabbi Sacks Legacy, 7/4/24), that we usually place most of our attention on the rebels, and we do not think much about Moses’ response. Maimonides reminds us that this rebellion happened after the return of the spies.  As long as the People expected to reach the Promised Land, there was no reason to question Moses’ leadership. When people have nothing to lose, rebellions happen.

When Korach faces Moses, Moses at first suggests a trial of incense to allow God to make the decision. But God threatens to punish the whole congregation, and Moses and Aaron intercede on their behalf. Moses separates the evil-doers from the rest of the People at God’s instruction.  But Moses then does something unprecedented. He says (16:28-30):

“This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all humankind, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the realm of the dead, then you will know that these men have treated the Lord with contempt.”

This was the only time Moses asked God to punish someone, and the only time he challenged God to perform a miracle. God accedes to Moses’ request. When the rest of the People object to the slaying of the rebels, they seem ready to blame Moses. God sends a plague, and Aaron must atone for the People. Only after an additional miracle takes place (the flowering of Aaron’s rod) is the rebellion finally ended.

Moses’ leadership is called into question by Sacks. In anger, Moses took the rebellion personally. First, he defends himself after being insulted by Datan and Aviram. Second, he asks for a demonstration from God to show that he is in fact the true leader. The conflict was intensified instead of defused because Moses took it personally in anger. Anger has a place, Sacks notes. Anger motivated Moses to seek the salvation of the Israelites from slavery. But in anger, he killed a task master and was forced to flee. He is ultimately denied entry into the Promised Land 40 years later, when he strikes the rock in anger, after calling the People demanding water “rebels.”

Sacks cites Harvard leadership expert Ronald Heifetz who makes the point that it is essential for a leader to distinguish between role and self. A role is a position we hold. The self is who we are. Leadership is a role. It is not an identity. When a leader takes personal attacks personally, the leader makes himself the issue.

"For we can certainly do it"

 Sh’lach

Num. 13:1-15:41

 

Précis: Moses is ordered to “send out” (sh’lach l’cha) spies to examine the land. Representatives of each tribe go out, report on its bounty, but also report about its fearsome inhabitants. The People are frightened, and their “murmuring” turns into something close to panic. God tells Moses that He will destroy the People, but Moses intercedes; the People are sentenced to spend 40 years in the wilderness. The parasha then returns to matters concerning the Tabernacle, with a discussion of the offering for unintentional sins. Near its end, the parasha discusses the wearing of tzitzit.  

 

Num.13:30 “Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, ‘We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.’”

 

Twelve spies had been sent out; ten of them reported that while the land indeed flowed with milk and honey, the cities were fortified, and the inhabitants were too fearsome to conquer. Only Caleb and Joshua believed in God’s promise that the Israelites would conquer the land despite fearsome obstacles.  

The ability to overcome one’s foes is not merely a matter of power. It is girded by the spirit and belief in the righteousness of one’s cause. In the past two years, we have seen this spirit and belief displayed by the Ukrainians in their fight against Russia.

This week, we see it in the spirit and belief of Israel to defend itself from the threat of a second Holocaust perpetuated by Iran. Israel has demonstrated its spirit and belief in the righteousness of its cause in the face of a foe much larger, much wealthier, and far more populous. May its efforts reflect the bravery and ultimate success of Caleb and Joshua.

A Prayer for Israel; Miriam the Prophet

Before a word of Torah, I am including a statement from the Conservative Movement which ably expresses our prayers for Israel:

Avinu she-ba-shamayim, stronghold and redeemer of the people Israel: Bless the State of Israel, [that it may be] the beginning of our redemption. Shield it with Your love; spread over it the shelter of Your peace. Guide its leaders and advisors with Your light and Your truth. Help them with Your good counsel. Strengthen the hands of those who defend our holy land. Deliver them; crown their efforts with triumph. Bless the land with peace and its inhabitants with lasting joy. And let us say: Amen.(Prayer for the State of Israel from Siddur Lev Shalem)

Dear Community,

A few hours ago, a heavy but necessary decision was made: Israel took pre-emptive and decisive military action to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities. In a world of continued instability and danger, Iran has brazenly pushed forward its nuclear ambitions, disregarding international agreements and relentlessly calling for the destruction of our homeland. This is not just a geopolitical issue; it is a matter of Israel’s very survival. We stand behind Israel’s right to self-defense, protecting itself, others in the region, and all those in range of Iran’s weapons of mass destruction and the terror it sponsors through Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Our fervent prayers are with the people of Israel. We pray for the success of the IDF and for the safety of those seeking shelter in the shadow of the threat of retaliation. Our hearts also remain with the Israeli hostages who have lived in Hamas captivity for 615 days and whose fate is even more tenuous at this moment.

As Shabbat approaches in Israel and around the world, we stand together, praying for security, peace, strength, and hope. 

 

B’haalot’cha

Num. 8:1 - 12:16

 

Précis: The parasha begins with a description of the making of the seven-branched menorah, a central Jewish symbol. The parasha returns to narrative with a recounting of a second Passover celebration (required because some of the Israelites had been ritually impure when the first anniversary of Passover was celebrated). The cloud of God’s Presence lifts, and the march of the People through the wilderness of Sinai begins. The people began to murmu about a lack of meat. God provides, but the People are struck with a plague. This time, even Miriam and Aaron seem to have complaints about Moses, cast in terms of their critique about his “Cushite woman.” 

 

Num. 12:1-2 “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses about the Cushite wife whom he had taken, because he had married a Cushite wife. And they said, ‘Has Adonai only spoken through Moses? Has not Adonai also spoken through us?’”

This incident has been one we have reviewed before, but which bears reconsideration. What, exactly, did Aaron and Miriam do to receive God’s rebuke, and why is Miriam the only one to be explicitly punished? Some suggest that her use of the “Cushite” term was a form of racism, as that land was associated with dark-skinned people. Others suggest that their claim of prophetic importance was the problem.

            Rashi, however, suggests an alternative interpretation to Miriam’s statements about Tziporah with a focus on the word “married.”  He declares that Miriam was acting righteously, because Moses was no longer performing his conjugal duties with his first wife, Tzipporah.

            Let’s imagine the following: Tziporah shared with Miriam that she had not been intimate with Moses for quite some time because of Moses’s commitments to God. Miriam felt empowered to speak up on behalf of her sister-in-law. She decided to share this intimate detail with Aaron.  So, perhaps, Miriam is saying, “I’m a prophet too, but I don’t ignore my marital responsibilities!”

            Viewed in this light, Miriam is a prophet in another sense: she stresses the importance of marital relations as a key to a successful and lasting marriage.

            In most of the Torah, Miriam is celebrated (watching over Moses in the basket, leading the songs and dance at the Red Sea, and the tragic loss her death brings to the Israelites). It is most unfortunate that our text here seems to single her out for punishment, and thereby ignores one of her great contributions: as a role model for promoting healthy sexual relationships between spouses.

Don't be so humble, you're not that great

 Naso

Num. 4:21-7:89

 

Précis: The parasha (the longest of the weekly readings) opens with a continuation of the listing of the Levitical families and their duties regarding the transportation of holy vessels. This is followed by a brief commandment concerning restitution for wrongs. The parasha then turns to a mysterious procedure for testing a wife’s fidelity when questioned by her jealous husband. Next, we have a discussion of the laws of Nazarites, and the recitation of the “Priestly Benediction.” The parasha concludes with the presentation of identical gifts by each tribe for the dedication of the Altar.

 

Num. 6:2-21 “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow to set himself apart for the Lord as a Nazirite, they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink… During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long. Throughout the period of their dedication to the Lord, the Nazirite must not go near a dead body…."

 

Cantor Jamie Marx has insightful comments on the subject of the nazir (10 Minutes of Torah, 6/1/25). In it, Marx expresses his desire to live a life of modest ambition and a desire to help others in a meaningful way, to make a positive impact on the world, but without obligating himself to a life of asceticism. As he says, “Moderation in all things, even moderation.”

He ties this wish to the opening verses of Naso, which describes the Nazarite’s vow which he sees as a desire to serve, a need to strive, and a measure of restraint.

While the text tells us how the Nazir is to act, it omits any explanation of why such vows are to be made.

There is an entire tractate of the Talmud devoted to such vows. There, the discussion also focuses on the how, but not on the why. This is particularly confounding, given that Judaism as a rule eschews asceticism and self-righteousness. Marx quotes Golda Meir as saying, “Don't be so humble, you're not that great."

Nazirites volunteered to go beyond what is required of all, explicitly setting themselves apart for the Lord.  This reminds me of modern volunteerism. Our obligation as Jews is to try to make the world a better place, and the world lacks no shortage of healing needs. How can we set ourselves aside for the Lord? Perhaps through a stronger commitment to our communities and our People. The particular task may be short or long-term, but the work is there for all of us. As Rabbi Tarfon is quoted in Pirke Avot (2:16), "It is not your obligation to complete the task, but nevertheless, you are not at liberty to neglect it."

Have a Pizza for Shavuot!

 As we approach Shavuot, I wanted to share some words about the holiday which I have previously circulated.

First, I wanted to take a look at a custom many observe during this holiday: eating dairy.

            While dairy foods are customarily associated with Shavuot, there’s no real understanding as to why this is the case. Several ideas have been floated to suggest a connection.  In Psalms 68:16, Mount Sinai is called “Har Gavnunim,” a Hebrew word similar to the Hebrew word for cheese (“gevinah”). Gematria suggests that the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew word for milk (“chalav”) is 40, which is the number of days Moses spent on Mount Sinai. A more far-fetched idea is that until the Torah was given, Jews had no idea which animals were kosher, so they lived on dairy or pareve foods only.

            Perhaps there is a single textual connection which gives substance to this custom. In Ex. 34:26, we read, “Bring first fruits to the house of God; you shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.” The holiday of Shavuot is when first fruits were offered, and the same verse refers to milk.

            The Ashkenazi custom of eating blintzes, it has been suggested, comes from the idea that two blintzes on a plate look like the scrolls of Torah!      

            Second, for those who are not lactose intolerant, may I suggest that eating a cheese pizza works out very well. The triangular shape of a slice reminds us of the three kinds of Jews: Priests, Levites, and Israelites. A typical pizza is sliced in 8ths and represents the seven weeks of the Omer and the first week afterwards, starting with Shavuot. The crust is brown (like the wilderness), the sauce reminds us of the “Red” Sea of the Exodus, and the white (the cheese) is in tradition a symbol of physical and intellectual purity, being the true color of light, without any modification.  

Finally, there is something additional to say about pizza. In The Alienated Minority - The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe by Kenneth R. Stow, he discusses early Jewish Italian commentaries on major Jewish texts written in “Judeo-Italian” (which used Hebrew script to transliterate Italian words). One such commentator, Judah Romano, explained what Maimonides meant when he used an obscure word “hararah” (a kind of flat cake which could be kept warm for eating on Shabbat without violating the laws of Shabbat). Romano used a one-word Italian term to explain what this “flat cake” was, using the Hebrew letters peh-yod-zayin-heh: “pizza” Stow writes, “This is the first known written attestation to this now international term.” So, while Jews may not have invented pizza, we were apparently the first to write about it! Chag Sameach!

In the Wilderness

 B’midbar

Num. 1:1 - 4:20

 

Précis: B’midbar is an amalgamation of the narrative of wilderness wanderings, sacrificial requirements, the establishment of Israel’s moving camp, and census data. As B’midbar ("in the wilderness”) begins, Moses is directed to take a census (“take the number”) from which the English name (Numbers) of the Book derives.

 

Num. 1:1 - 2 “And Adonai spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai… saying, ‘Take the number of the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their father’s houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls.’”

 

Richard Elliott Friedman’s introduction to this Book is insightful (Commentary on the Torah, 2001) noting that “wilderness emerges through the narrative not only as a setting but also as a theme of considerable significance.” Wilderness, he contends, is a far better name for the Book than the Greek-derived “Numbers” because it captures the pervasive feeling of the Book. He contrasts the wilderness experience at the outset as “a kind of ideal.” Everything is orderly, protected, and close to God. All is provided: food, water, and direction. As he notes, “the miraculous is the norm.”

At the same time, the wilderness becomes the setting for rebellion, infighting, and hostility from others as well. There are power struggles which could have been averted. Perhaps most importantly, the Book reflects what we initially saw in Leviticus: being close to the Divine is both glorious and dangerous. But contrary to Leviticus, God is often pictured as speaking and acting in reaction to the Israelites, rather than dictating law or action. Leviticus is about God giving the rules, and Numbers is about how the People first experience living under the rules.

Numbers is the story of a people coming to terms with its constitution. As such, it is particularly important to think about its relevance to the challenges facing all of us today.

Minority Rights

 

B’har- Bechukotai

Lev. 25:1 – 27:34

 

Précis: B’Har begins with a description of the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee (Yovel) Year. In the 50th (Jubilee) Year, we are to “proclaim liberty throughout the land” and property is restored to its ancestral owners. The parasha continues with the prohibition against unlimited slavery, as well as the rules for the treatment of those who are slaves.

Bechukotai, the final parasha in Vayikra, begins with a statement promising blessings if the People follow Adonai’s ways. But, if the People disobey, terrible punishments will be visited upon them. Leviticus then concludes (as it opened) with regulations regarding the upkeep of the Sanctuary, from tithes, land gifts, and firstborn redemption.

 

Lev. 25:35 – “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a resident alien, so they can continue to live among you.”

 

Last week, I offered a concise and simple statement: one law applies to all, regardless of citizenship. This week, I wanted to go into some additional detail, specifically about the “ger toshav” or (stranger or resident alien). Rabbi Sacks has listed many instances of the Torah’s command to love the stranger (Rabbi Sacks Legacy, 5/23/24). He notes that the Sages went so far as to say that the Torah commands us in only one place to love our neighbor, but thirty-six times to love the stranger (Baba Metzia 59b).

What then made a legitimate ger toshav? The law over the centuries consistently held that a ger toshav is a non-Jew living in Israel who accepts the Noahide laws binding on all human beings. This became the first extant form of minority rights.

According to Maimonides, “One should act towards resident aliens with the same respect and loving kindness as one would to a fellow Jew” (Hilchot Melachim 10:12).

According to this point of view, you don’t have to be Jewish in a Jewish society and Jewish land to have many of the rights of citizenship. You simply have to be moral.

The story of David and Bathsheba is a Biblical exemplifier of this ancient fact. Please recall that the hero of the story Uriah, is a ger toshav whose loyalty to Israel, despite himself not being Jewish, is contrasted with King David, who stole his wife and connived to have him killed. The fact that our Bible tells such a story in which a resident alien is the moral hero, and David, Israel’s greatest king, the wrongdoer, tells us much about the morality of Judaism.

As Sacks concludes: “Minority rights are the best test of a free and just society. Since the days of Moses, they have been central to the vision of the kind of society God wants us to create in the land of Israel.”

Why this emphasis? It’s because we as Jews knew oppression in Egypt, and knew what it was like to be mistreated as a stranger. We could not and cannot inflict on others what was inflicted upon us. 

One manner of law

 Emor

Lev. 21:1 - 24:23

 

Précis: This parasha is divided into four sections. First, it reviews procedures for the Priests to use to remain ritually pure. Second, it outlines the festival and holiday calendar. Third, it explains the use of the oil and the bread on display on the altar. Finally, there is a brief narrative about a blasphemer who is condemned to death.

 

Lev. 24:22 “You shall have one manner of law, for the stranger as for the home-born; for I am Adonai your God.”

            God is not just the God of Israel the commentators assure us. God is the God of all people, and all are formed in God’s image.  

            There is no wriggle room for deviation from this bedrock principle: the law must apply to all equally, regardless of their origin. It is heartbreaking to see how the strangers among us are not accorded the same “manner of law” which is embodied in our constitutional guarantees.

 

Neighbors

Achrei Mot-Kedoshim

Lev. 16:1-20:27

 

Précis: Achrei Mot begins with Adonai speaking to Moses after the death (achrei mot) of Aaron’s sons. It describes the rituals for Yom Kippur, including the prescribed sacrifices. The parasha concludes with a listing of prohibited marriages. 

The opening words of Kedoshim are “You shall be holy” (kedoshim tihyu), and it continues with various descriptions of how the People are to strive for holiness.  Consideration of the poor through the commandments to leave the corners of fields for gleaners is included, as are mandates which complement the ethical principles of the Ten Commandments (being honest, avoiding vengeance). This parasha is often viewed as the very core of moral teaching for the Jewish People.

 

Lev 19:18:  You shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

 

To whom does this commandment apply? Who is your “neighbor”? Robert Silverman has written about this difficult matter (Mosaic, 12/16/15).

Among the earliest inquiries on record is found in the Christian Gospel according to Luke, composed about 100 CE. There, a “learned Jew” asks Jesus who is the "neighbor" discussed in this verse.  

Jesus responds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, when a Jew is robbed and eft for dead on the road to Jerusalem. Two Jews see him lying there but offer no help. Then “a certain Samaritan” finds him and cares for him. Jesus then asks: “Which now of these three was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?” “He that showed mercy,” says the “learned Jew.” (It is important to note that the Samaritans were considered to be enemies of the Jews.

            But how did Jewish exegetes explain the verse? Some suggested that the correct interpretation was more like “friend” or "companion” based on its usage in the book of Job. This implies a closer relationship than the Samaritan.

            Subsequent rabbinic interpretation became (unsurprisingly) ever more complicated, depending of course on how the Jews were being treated by the majorities where they lived after the destruction of Israel. Some, including Rambam, felt that this commandment applied only to fellow Jews (and some extended this to include only those fellow Jews who observed the mitzvot!).

However, the majority of Jewish commentators take note of Lev. 19:33-34, describing the “ger” (resident alien or foreigner) who lives among Jews. The passage emphasizes that the Israelites should treat these foreign residents with respect and kindness, similar to how they would treat their own native-born citizens. Israelites are commanded to love the ger as themselves, because they were strangers in Egypt.  

Of course, the issue of how to treat strangers among us is at the front of the debate regarding immigration. Here, it seems that the Christian and the predominant Jewish thoughts converge: the “ger” (the “alien who lives among you” is to be treated with respect and love. 

Tsara'at - No, It's not Leprosy

 Tazria - Metzorah

Lev. 12:1-15:33

 

Tazria begins with laws concerning the need for ritual purification of women following the birth of children, and the laws of what is usually referred to as “leprosy” of the skin and on garments (although this translation is most certainly erroneous; it appears to refer to an affliction which renders the person, garment, or home ritually impure).

Metzorah discusses laws for the purification of “lepers” with sacrifice and water. It also discusses growths on walls of a house which cause ritual impurity. The parasha concludes with a discussion of bodily secretions which are another source of ritual impurity

 

Lev.13:1 “Adonai spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, ‘When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly infection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests.’”

Rabbi Sacks taught that the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated tsara’at, the condition whose identification and cleansing occupies much of Tazria and Metzorah as “lepra,” which in term was translated into “leprosy.”

That concept has been almost universally rejected. As Maimonides stated, “Tsara’at is a comprehensive term covering a number of dissimilar conditions. Thus, whiteness in a person’s skin is called tsara’at. The falling off of some of his hair on the head or the chin is called tsara’at. A change of color in garments or in houses is called tsara’at” (Hilchot Tumat Tsara’at 16:10).

In trying to discern the reasons for the condition, the Sages looked for clues in the Torah. Noting that Miriam was smitten by tsara’at for speaking badly about her brother Moses (Num. 12:10), they concluded that the condition could arise from evil speech (lashon hara). The Sages also noted the linguistic connection between “metzorah” (a person afflicted by the condition) and the Hebrew phrase “motzi shem ra,” (slander). The Sages noted wisely: “Evil speech kills three people: the one who says it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom it is said.” (Arachin 15b.)

            We live in a time when it is difficult to avoid “evil speech” in our political discourse, particularly when such speech is based on lies. How are we to adapt our tradition’s aversion to evil speech and slander to present circumstances? I do not have an answer, only the question, which leads me to ponder how we can restore essential civility to our families, communities, and the world at large.

Enthusiasm

 Shmini

Lev. 9:1-11:47

 

Précis:  On the final day of the week-long ordination ceremony, Moses instructs Aaron and his sons on the proper rituals. Aaron makes his offering. Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu offer “strange fire” before God. They are slain. Moses tells Aaron that he must not engage in normal mourning rituals. The Priests are prohibited from drinking alcohol while they are engaged in their sacred duties.  Next, God tells Moses and Aaron to instruct the people about the animals they are permitted to eat (part of the laws of kashrut). A general warning to guard against defilement and to be concerned about ritual purity is given.

Lev. 10:1-2 “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense on them, and offered strange fire before Adonai, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Adonai, and devoured them…”

           Rabbi Jonathan Sacks z’l, explores an unusual area for a Jewish exegete of Torah: the history of the English word “enthusiasm” (Covenant and Conversation, 4/13/23).  He notes that today we regard enthusiasm as something positive, but this has not always been the case.  He unearths 17^th century English to reveal that enthusiasm once referred to someone possessed by a spirit or demon, or referred to extreme and revolutionary Protestant sects (especially Puritans). It was a synonym for religious extremism, zealotry and fanaticism. He cites the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), who suggested that there are two ways in which religion can go wrong: through superstition and through enthusiasm. These are quite different phenomena.

Superstition is driven by ignorance and fear. The enthusiast in this original context believes that rules and regulations are for ordinary people, not for them. We, they contend, are inspired by God, and know better. That, said Hume, can be very dangerous indeed.

Sacks says this is the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from the death of Nadav and Avihu. While there are indeed different traditions about the reasons for their sudden death, Sacks suggests that the history of the word “enthusiasm” helps us to understand the episode. They were “enthusiasts” in the sense in which the word was used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, full of religious passion, believing that God was inspiring them to do deeds in defiance of law and convention. They were very holy but they were also potentially very dangerous.

Our tradition is filled with rules and regulations (chukot and mishpatim) designed precisely to curb unwarranted “enthusiasm.” As we see in the world today, “enthusiasm” without the constraint of law and rules can quickly lead to extremism, fanaticism and ultimately to authoritarianism. .

            The modern definition of “enthusiasm” is thus positive, but it is at our peril that we forget its earlier meaning. 

Withholding testimony and keeping silent

 Vayikra

Lev. 1:1 - 5:26

 

Précis: The title of the Third Book of the Torah, Vayikra (“And He called”) is usually translated as “Leviticus” in English, from its Septuagint (Greek) name, which in turn is based on the fact that much of the Book concerns ritual sacrifices performed under the auspices of the Levites. Many traditional commentators note that the Book is found in the center of the first Five Books and intuit from its positioning the “centrality” of its teachings to Jewish tradition. 

            The introduction to this Book in Etz Hayim reminds us that the “central concern” of the ancient Israelites was “how they were to express their loyalty” to Adonai. The answer from Vayikra: they were “to be holy, for I Adonai Your God, am holy.”  They expressed their loyalty to God and their commitment to be holy through a system of sacrifices, while for 2,000 years that loyalty and commitment have been through prayer, study, and acts of righteousness.

 

Lev.5:1 “And should a person offend when he has heard a voice in adjuration, he being a witness, or has seen or known, if he does not tell, he shall bear his punishment.”

Through commentary, we learn that this text teaches that if one is a witness to wrong-doing, and has been told not to withhold testimony about it, that a failure to provide the testimony incurs guilt, and the individual is to be punished.

In recent weeks, we have seen officials of the current U.S. administration appear before Congressional committees to explain a variety of instances in which they not only witnessed improprieties, but in fact participated in them. For example, the recent revelations about the use of unofficial messaging systems and Gmail containing items of national security has been shrugged off as “nothing important, a glitch.” In 2016, the phrase “lock her up” may well have resulted in the close loss of the presidential election by Hillary Clinton. Do you remember why this phrase was chanted?  It was because of her alleged breach of security by her use of unofficial emails! The hypocrisy is palpable.

Getting back to the verse in question this week. A failure to withhold testimony incurs guilt. The obverse is also true: keeping silent in the face of transgressions is similarly prohibited. When we are daily faced daily with barrages of “executive orders” that are on their face either illegal or unconstitutional, it is easy to look away. We must not.