The Covenant Of Peace (Pinchas 5767)

At the end of last week’s Parashah, Pinchas killed a Jewish man (Zimri) and a Midianite woman (Kozbi) for indulging in an illicit relationship:

Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen, saw (them) and he arose from within the community. He took a spear in his hand. He came after the Jewish man to the tent, and he impaled the two of them - the Jewish man and the woman through her genitals, and the plague stopped from upon the Children of Yisrael. (BeMidbar 25:7-8)

Our Parashah begins with God’s surprising blessing to Pinchas:

And God spoke to Moshe saying. Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen turned back My anger from upon the Children of Yisrael, when he was zealous on My behalf amidst them, so I did not destroy the Children of Yisrael in My zealotry. Therefore say - behold, I give to him My covenant, peace. Therefore say - behold, I give to him My covenant, peace - because he was zealous for his God and he atoned for the Children of Yisrael. (ibid. 10-13)

The actual blessing of Pinchas was that he became a Kohen:

Even though the priesthood had already been given to the descendants of Aharon, it was given only to Aharon and his sons who were anointed with him, and to their descendants who were born after their anointing. But Pinchas, who was born before this and was not anointed, did not enter into the priesthood until now.... (Rashi ad loc.)

The priesthood was granted to Aharon and his sons and to any male descendants born afterwards. As Pinchas was already born at this point, he was not automatically a Kohen. There is a wealth of literature on this point, some simple, some fascinating and highly esoteric.

The blessing of priesthood in response to violence is especially paradoxical. The Kohen is supposed to be a man of peace:

Be one of the students of Aharon the Kohen: loving peace, pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them near to Torah. (Avot 1:12)

Further, a Kohen who kills, while not losing his priesthood, becomes ineligible to function in his priestly role. This problem is noted by the Zohar, which also offers an answer:

What does the verse mean, ‘because he was zealous for his God,’ which implies that because of this act he gained the priesthood, but not before this. Come and see - any Kohen who kills is forever disqualified from the priesthood. For by so doing, he certainly invalidates his level. Strictly speaking, Pinchas was disqualified from the priesthood. Because of this, God needed to give him a new, permanent priesthood for him and his descendants for all generations. (Zohar HaKadosh 3:124a)

It is not entirely clear what this means. The Kohen embodies connection between this world and the next – his role is to connect man and God. This can be seen in the priestly blessings, and most potently, in the priestly role in the Temple, the place where Man and God meet. This helps us to understand why, under normal circumstances, a Kohen may not come in contact with the dead: the separation between physical and spiritual that occurs when a person dies is the antithesis of the job of the Kohen. A Kohen who kills has fundamentally undermined his role and is thus disqualified.

Sometimes, however, the momentary act of violence is essential to preserve and maintain life. It is a sad reality that in some circumstances a violent action will prevent a great deal more violence. It is obvious that extreme caution must be exercised in this regard, yet the reality is irrefutable. At various times in history, there are those who denied this and insisted that violence is never the answer to a problem, no matter the consequences. Sometimes, being merciful to the evil will result in evil to the merciful.

In this case, Pinchas was prepared to act against the perpetrators to stay the plague and restore the Jewish people’s relationship with God, while others stood about, unable to act. This made him subject to extreme criticism and even attack from his peers. Yet God indicated that Pinchas had acted justly by rewarding him with the most counter-intuitive form of blessing - an all-new form of priesthood. This was a unique priesthood, one granted by bringing peace the hard way.

Dating In Context

A lot of dating takes place out of context. The courting pair visits restaurants, hotel lobbies, theatres, parks and museums in their efforts to decide whether they are suited. This is vital: quality time spent together discussing serious issues and simply ‘hanging out’ in each other’s company are key ways of assessing long-term suitability and compatibility of aims. Yet this is all insufficient unless what we might term ‘context’ is added to the equation. If two people don’t see each other in the context of their existing lives, do they really have any chance of properly assessing the other? This concern seems especially germane in younger, very religious circles, where the prevalent mode of dating allows hardly any time for getting to know one another, let alone seeing each other in context. It also features as a key issue with ‘international dating’, in which one party pays the other a short and very intense visit, making it difficult to gain any real insight into each other’s lives.

The Mishnah in Avot says:

Al tadin et haverkha ad shetagia limkomo - don't judge your fellow until you reach his place. (Avot 2:4)

The usual understanding of this is that one shouldn’t judge another until one has experienced the same set of circumstances in which a particular event occurred. One simply cannot understand another person’s behaviour and motivation unless one has been in the same ‘place’.

The Me’iri (ad loc.) offers an alternative, more literal reading in the name of ‘a few of his teachers’. He suggests that the correct understanding of the Mishnah is that one can’t properly judge someone until one has visited their place – i.e. seen them in their home environment, and, as he puts it, ‘seen their behaviour in their place’. Everyone behaves differently at home from when they are elsewhere; the former is a much more accurate indicator of their true character and behaviour than the latter.

This is very important advice for those involved in the shidduch scene. Shouldn’t proper dating afford each discreet opportunities to see the other on his or her home turf? If the two people live in different cities, that will certainly involve visiting each other at home; irrespective, it must always include some exposure to family members, friends, favourite haunts, trusted advisers, and perhaps even Shul and community life. Of course, this exposure needs to happen gradually and organically as part of the development of the relationship, at a stage and in a way that is comfortable for both parties. It is clearly not without its risks, yet it is essential. So essential, in fact, that I am sceptical about the depth of any relationship from which it has been absent.

This is much easier said than done. In many parts of the observant world, dating is conducted away from the public gaze exposure and even from friends, partly for reasons of modesty and partly because people ‘might talk’. While the former is valid and must be taken into consideration, the second is a regrettable feature of a Jewish world that can’t quite take the laws of lashon hara (forbidden gossip) sufficiently seriously. At least among some younger people, this may rule out introducing context to the relationship as simply too risky.

Admittedly, properly contextualised dating is more likely to happen among older singles who date for longer and are less inhibited about exposing their relationship to others. Would it take a huge culture change to allow religious dating for younger, very religious Jews in this way? Perhaps, but with what at least seems to be a substantial increase in the number of failing relationships, one I’m not sure we should dismiss without serious consideration.

This article first appeared on Cross-Currents

Treif Food That Looks Kosher

Congregant to rabbi: ‘Don’t worry rabbi, the food is kosher, it’s just not under supervision. If you want, we’ll get you a special meal.’

Jews love eating and they celebrate their great family occasions with food. The selection of the catering will be a major decision, one which the rabbi may only find out about some while after it has been taken. At least in densely Jewish areas, the variety and sophistication of kosher catering have never been greater, yet for a number of reasons, some choose non-kosher alternatives. From a rabbi’s perspective, this is a great shame; a wedding or bar/bat mitzvah is a key moment in one’s Jewish life, a time to renew and enhance one’s relationship with God through Judaism. Serving non-kosher food demonstrates that the ‘Jewishness’ of the occasion is superficial and the commitment of the celebrants to a real Jewish affair negligible.

Yet someone who arranges a non-kosher dinner knows just what they are serving to their guests; what of the ubiquitous ‘kosher-style’ food? ‘Kosher-style’ catering comes in different guises, calling itself variously: ‘kosher-but-not-supervised’, ‘strictly-kosher-but-without-beth-din-fees’ and ‘we-buy-only-kosher-products-you-can’t-tell-the-difference’. Of course, it is possible that everything served is actually kosher, but this is highly improbable. Here is a very short (and by no means exhaustive) list of issues:

• There is no way to verify that every product used is kosher (hundreds of ingredients are used to prepare every banquet, many very similar to non-kosher alternatives).
• The event cannot be kosher unless the food is prepared in a dedicated kosher facility or the kitchens have been completely kashered by a knowledgeable person.
• The cooking, kitchen, serving and dining utensils must be used exclusively for kosher catering; they cannot have been used previously for anything non-kosher, nor obtained from a regular hire company.
• The correct separation between meat and milk demands distinct kitchen areas and dedicated utensils for each, with no possible confusion or cross-over.
• Careful scrutiny is required to ensure that vegetables are free of infestation, eggs contain no blood-spots and that the cooking of the food is conducted under Jewish supervision.

Not one of the above-mentioned is stringency, indeed each is a basic constituent of kashrut observance; according to most opinions, kosher food cooked in clean utensils previously used for non-kosher food is Biblically forbidden. Regrettably, and there is no pleasant way to say this, all cooked food prepared in these circumstances is treif beyond question; indeed the diner at such a simchah is likely to work his or her way through a considerable number of Biblical prohibitions in the course of the meal. Since the basic ingredients are kosher, the food looks acceptable, but is not; from a Jewish perspective, the difference between this food and ‘really treif’ fare, is that one only feels guilty when eating the latter!

It is improbable that celebrants of the ‘kosher-style’ simchah are aware of all this; they are not serving their guests non-kosher food out of malice, yet they unwittingly give the impression that everything is in order, when it is not. Better to tell one’s guests in advance that the food won’t be kosher and let them make their own decisions; better still, opt for a kosher caterer.

All this leads to a discussion of rabbinical policy, for inevitably rabbis get caught up in this issue. Obviously, one guides one’s congregants to plump for a kosher affair, yet one is always aware of a lurking concern – striking the right balance between encouraging Jewish observance and being so demanding that the punter might ‘take his business elsewhere.’ The policy of the London Beth Din expresses this sensitivity; it will not authorise a chuppah scheduled to take place at the same venue as a non-supervised banquet (obviously this includes ‘kosher-style’), yet will do so if the chuppah is held in a Shul with the festivities elsewhere.

I know of colleagues who impose restrictions on the extent of bar mitzvah celebrations for those who will follow the Shul service with a non-supervised dinner and others who ignore the issue altogether. Some rabbis will attend a ‘kosher-style’ or even ‘not-even-trying-to-look-kosher’ simchah and eat a kosher airline meal, yet others feel that to do so confers legitimacy on the occasion and its catering arrangements. I admit to having declined a number of invitations on this basis and to having persuaded at least one family to hold a kosher function after all when they realised that I wouldn’t otherwise attend. It is actually very hard to achieve the right balance and unlikely that one does so in every case.

Rabbis and communal leaders must also be acutely sensitive to the reasons that lead people to choose non-supervised catering. For some it may be weakness in their commitment to Judaism or the supposed low quality of the catering, although today many kosher caterers offer superlative cuisine and service. Yet for others, it is the perceived cost of hosting a kosher affair. There are modest ways of catering a beautiful kosher simchah, but the client may not find out about them without assistance. Kashrut authorities are always helpful to families who approach them in this regard, but communal rabbis and lay leaders must be at the forefront of ensuring that no one opts for a non-kosher simchah due to the cost.

The discovery that ‘kosher-style’ catering does not produce kosher food may be disconcerting, yet it indicates that kashrut deserves to be taken seriously. In common with every area of Jewish law, it offers a nuanced, sophisticated system of rules and thus penetrates far beyond the superficial appearance of the food. We need to be real about this: fish served in non-kosher restaurants is not kosher, unchecked salads may be crawling with bugs and supermarket pre-packed meals often contain a myriad of hidden animal derivatives. These foods may look kosher, but they are not.

A version of this article first appeared in the Jewish Chronicle. It is republished here with permission.

Korach's Bad Deal (Korach 5767)

Much has been written about Korach: it has even been suggested that even if a rabbi who only has one Drashah, it is likely to be on this Parashah!

The rabbis find the genealogy of Korach at the start of the Sedra to be superfluous to the narrative:

And Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, took and Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eli’av and On, son of Pelet, sons of Re’uven. And they arose before Moshe and four-hundred men from Beney Yisrael, princes of the community, called to the assembly, men of fame. (BeMidbar 16:1-2)

The Gemara understands that these names are intended to convey aspects of Korach’s character rather than to tell us the name of his antecedents:

And Korach took. Said Reish Lakish - he took a bad purchase for himself. Korach - he made a bald patch in Yisroel. Son of Yitzhar - a son against whom the entire world boiled like the afternoon. Son of Kehat - a son who blunted the teeth of those who bore him. Son of Levi - a son for whom accompaniment was made in Gehinam. (Sanhedrin 109b)

Rashi comments:

A bad purchase - he started to argue. He made a bald patch in Yisrael - they were swallowed up. Boiled - he caused anger. Blunted the teeth of those who bore him - he disgraced his ancestors with his wicked deeds. Requested mercy for himself - so that he should not be counted with them. (Rashi ad loc.)

The assumption of this Gemara is that names are significant and that when they appear, especially when redundant to the narrative, they are to be seen as describing the attributes of the people involved. This is common, and also appears in a simpler guise where a Biblical figure is described as ‘the son of so-and-son’, when we already know his parentage. The sources often interpret this to mean that he acts like his father or looks like his father, rather than as a simple genealogy.

The particular text here needs some explanation:

• ‘Korach’ comes from a root meaning ‘bald’.

• ‘Yitzhar’ comes from a root meaning ‘shining’, read here as ‘boiling’.

• ‘Kehat’ comes from a root meaning ‘blunting’, as in ‘blunt his teeth’ in reference to the wicked son of the Seder.

• ‘Levi’ comes from a root meaning ‘accompany’, as in the word we use for a funeral – ‘levayah’, which actually means accompanying the deceased on his or her final journey.
  

It is well-known that the genealogy of Korach is not traced back as far as Levi, even though when the family is mentioned later in the Tenach, it is:

These are those who stood and their sons from the sons of the Kehatim - Haymon the singer, son of Yo’el, son of Shmuel Son of Tachat, son of Asir, so of E’yasaf, son of Korach. 23 Son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, son of Yisrael. (Divrey HaYamim I:6:18, 22-23)

We are to assume that the bad character traits of Korach could not be traced back as far as Yaakov. While there are numerous explanations of the discrepancy in the genealogies, we could suggest that the aggression of Levi so clearly demonstrated in the episode of Dina and her rescue from Shechem, was the root of the rebellion of Korach. Perhaps the feistiness itself was inherited from Yaakov, whereas the first misuse of the trait can only be traced to Levi. So while in the genealogy in Divrey HaYamim, Yaakov appears, the story of Korach only traces the villain to Levi.