1. religion and spirituality
2. judaism

March 21, 2015 1 Nisan, 5775
Shabbat Candle Lighting: 6:52PM
Friday Night Mincha: 6:30 PM
Morning Services: 9:00 AM
Shabbat Mincha & Mussar – 6:40 PM
Shabbat Ends: 7:53 PM
Vayikra
Shabbat Announcements
Page 544 (Torah)
Page 890 (Rosh Chodesh)
Page 348 (Maftir)
Page 1218 (Haftarah)
Shabbat Hachodesh!
Rosh Chodesh Nisan!
Mazal Tov and Welcome to our Newest Member,
Darsi Beauchamp!
Thank you Darsi for sponsoring Kiddush
March Birthdays & Anniversaries
 March Birthdays: Karen Goldberg (1 ), Brad
st
st
th
Krosser (1 ), Samuel Reich (5 ), Alle-Faye Monka
th
th
th
(6 ), Jacob Scheer (7 ), Mark Goldberg (8 ), Cindy
th
th
Billinson (11 ), Ariel Eckstein (11 ), Lisa Monday
th
th
(12 ), Kate Rubenstein (12th), Lauren Cooper (13 ),
th
th
Adeena Hudes (13 ), Rebeccah Kerievsky (13 ),
th
th
Yafitte Bendory (14 ), Rita Karmiol (14 ), Zulya
th
th
Moss (14 ), Marlene Selke (15 ), Jordan Mayor
th
th
th
(16 ), Steve Okun (16 ), Barry Schwarz (16 ), Alan
th
th
th
Antin (18 ), Kate Arian (18 ), Roni Hudes (19 ),
th
th
Izzy Sweifach (20 ). Janet Tammam (20 ), Alan
th
st
st
Winter (20 ), Tori Podell (21 ), Scott Winter (21 ),
rd
rd
Mark Gelbert (23 ), Jill Sacks (23 ), Ron Silberman
rd
th
th
(23 ), David Rehaut (25 ), Sally Cooper (28 ),
th
th
Arielle Paris (28 ), Noa Russo 29 ), Dana Shalit
th
th
th
(29 ), Fawn Zwickel (29 ), Sonya Goldberg (30 ),
st
st
Mitchell Antin (31 ), Cantor Edward Roffman (31 ).
 March Anniversaries: Javid & Sima Hakakian (3 ),
rd
th
George & Robin Muskal 11 ), Shimon Korish & Dora
st
nd
Zuker (21 ), Craig & Sharon Nessel (22 ), Ron &
rd
Kate Rubenstein (23 ), Cantor Edward & Robin
th
Roffman (29 ).

MFJC INFO ~ www.mtfjc.org
Address: 1209 Sussex Tpk., Randolph 07869
Phone Numbers: Office: 973 895 2100
Rabbi: 973 895 2103; Rabbi’s Cell: 201 923 1107
Rabbi’s Office Hours: Mornings: Tues - Fri, 9-1PM;
afternoons/evenings: 3-6PM; or anytime by appt
Menashe East rabbi@mtfjc.org
Office Hours: M-Th, 10- 5PM; F, 10-4PM
David Paris office@mtfjc.org
This Week:
March 21: Chodesh Tov for Rosh Chodesh Nisan
March 21: Shabbat Hachodesh
March 21: Me Drash – Janet Tammam delivers the
Dvar Torah this Shabbat
March 21: Jr Cong, Teen-led & Youth fun, 1030AM
March 22: Talmud Study, 9AM
March 22: Yahrzeit Minyan @ 6:30PM
March 24: Model Seder Hebrew School, 430PM
March 26: Torah Thursday, 10AM
Upcoming Events:
March 27 & 28: Shabbat Hagadol/
March 27: Relaxation Shabbat - RSVP for Friday Dinner
March 28: March Shared Kiddush, RSVP to the office!
March 31: No Hebrew School, Spring Break
April 2: Search for Chametz, 8PM
April 3: Chametz Burning, 1145AM
April 3-11: Chag Pesach – Happy Passover!!! (see attached
Schedule and Chametz Sale Form)
April 7: Passover Hebrew School & Youth Film Screening,
430PM
April 16: Yom Hashoah Service, 7PM
April 18: Communal Torah Reading – from our Shoah Scroll
Sign up with Steve Okun to read an Aliyah from Shmini
April 19-20: Rosh Chodesh Iyar
April 20: Traditional Minyan at GRTWA, 820AM
April 21-23: Yom Hazikaron/Yom Haatzmaut
How To Connect With Us
Mt. Freedom Jewish Center - on the Web!
www.MTFJC.org - YES we have a NEW LIVE website!!!
Please visit and give us feedback as we are still adding new features and content!
Facebook
Please “Like” our page Mt. Freedom Jewish Center
Not on Facebook?
Visit www.facebook.com to enter your email and create an account!
Instagram
Follow us, tag us, like us! Mtfreedomjewishcenter
Not on Instagram?
Download the app for iphone or android and get started and enter your email address
or link your facebook to get started!
Twitter
Chat with us on the twitterverse! @Mtfreedomjc
To join download the Twitter app for your smartphone or visit www.twitter.com to
get started!
Having Trouble?
Please email Gabrielle.r.auerbach@gmail.com for help getting connected.
Thank you to those who made donations in the month of February 2015!
February 2015 Tribute Donations to MFJC
Tributes In Honor Of
Edden Chirnomas’ Bat Mitzvah
Steven & Helen Schwartz
Birth of Maya Esther Klar
Hezy & Janet Cohen
Noa Russo’s Bat Mitzvah
Steven & Helen Schwartz
Birth of Caleb Svirsky
Bruce & Hannah Goldman
Virginia Baker’s Continued Good Health
Geoff & Marilyn Lampel
Tributes In Memory Of
Paul Fishbein’s Continued Good Health
Geoff & Marilyn Lampel, Stephen & Shelly
Winters, Michael & Rochelle Zeiger
Al Wolf
Rob & Susan Gaynor
David Leibowitz’s Continued Good Health
Geoff & Marilyn Lampel, Michael &
Rochelle Zeiger
Beena Levy’s Continued Good Health
Geoff & Marilyn Lampel, Stephen & Shelly
Winters, Michael & Rochelle Zeiger
Joseph Feit
Rob & Susan Gaynor
Sam Lewin
Siddur Donation by: Marvin & Miruam
Raber
David Yarosh’s 3rd Yahrzeit
Siddur Donation by: Mark & Martha Moritz
February 2015 Yahrzeit Donations to MFJC
IN MEMORY OF:
Aaron Engel
Alice Horowitz
Allen Bain
Ann Herman
Annie Saltz
Archie Schwartz
Bernard Trachtenberg
Bessie Hirschhorn
Celia Krosser
Esther Gruss
Frances Lasker
Francis Lasker
Harry Brooks
DONOR
Bendory, Yair & Aliza
Horowitz, Janet
Ledner, Susan
Benson, Fred & Judy
Koval, Lou & Linda
Digaetano, Mona
Shapiro, Stanley & Gladys
Dolch, Sylvia
Lasker, Jeffrey & Weiss, Susan
Spielman, Joel & Gruss, Leah
Lasker, Jeffrey & Weiss, Susan
Levat, Gary & Suzanne
Brooks, Jack & Doris
IN MEMORY OF:
Harry Robert Rippel
Julius Beber
Mamie Lerner
Maurice Kirshenbaum
Milton Levine
Miriam Schwartzbard
Pauline Rehaut
Rebecca Desick
Rebecca Merson
Rita Bodnar
Rose Koshar
Sarah Schwartz
Steven Lerner
DONOR
Selke, Marlene
Kirshenbaum, Caroline
Lerner, Seymour
Kirshenbaum, Caroline
Levine, Skip & Louise
Rosenfarb, Jack
Rehaut, Elaine
Gaynor, Robert & Susan
Merson, Howard
Bodnar, Joel & Ruth
Koval, Lou & Linda
Digaetano, Mona
Rehaut, Elaine
There are many ways to honor a person, commemorate an occasion, or memorialize a
loved one at Mt. Freedom Jewish Center
Please call the office at 973-895-2100 with any questions.
Before Pesach it is a requirement to eliminate all Chametz from our possession. Halacha does allow
for Chametz (e.g. liquors, mixtures, etc.) to be sold to a non-Jew in those circumstances when
elimination is not an option. Arrangements for such sale should be made through our rabbi using
the attached contract. We welcome you to visit us at the synagogue to complete the transaction. The
rabbi will be available after morning minyan during the week. Or, if you would like, you can arrange
a specific appointment with the rabbi. If you will be unable to come in, you can complete the
contract and send it in to the office as soon as possible. It must be received by Thursday, April 2,
2015.
This year, Pesach 5775/2015, the general sale of Chametz will take effect on Friday morning, April
3rd before 11:00am. All Chametz which was not sold must be burned/destroyed by 11:57am on
Friday. While the rabbi does not accept personal monetary gifts for this service, he encourages
contributions to MFJC’s Relief Fund (for Ma’ot Chitim - Fund for Those in Need).
All of these funds will go to Pesach needs and support needy people in and around our community.
NOTE: Kitniyot (food made from legumes, not eaten by Ashkenazim on Pesach) need not be sold.
Chametz utensils as well, should not be sold so as not to require a new Tevilah immersion.
CONTRACT FOR AUTHORIZING THE SELLING OF CHAMETZ
Passover 5775: April 3 – April 11, 2015
Be it proclaimed that I hereby empower and authorize Rabbi Menashe East to sell all Chametz
that may be in my possession, wherever it may be - at home, a place of business or elsewhere.
This includes all goods which may be delivered to me over Passover as well as stocks owned in
full or in part in corporations which sell or deal with Chametz. The rabbi has full rights to sell,
dispose, and conduct all transactions, including rental of the store where the Chametz is stored
and rental of right of way as he deems fit and proper, for such time which he believes necessary
in accordance with detailed terms and forms explained in the contracts in their possession. The
above power hereby being given is meant to conform with all Torah and Rabbinic regulations
and laws, and also in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey.
NAME:___________________________________________________________
ADDRESS(ES) WHERE CHAMETZ IS STORED (Home, Office, etc.):
STREET:___________________________________________ CITY:_____________________
STATE:__________
PLACES WHERE CHAMETZ IS STORED (Kitchen, Pantry, etc.):
_________________________________________
ESTIMATED VALUE OF CHAMETZ (Edibles):___________________
ACCESS TO CHAMETZ CAN BE ARRANGED BY CONTACTING:
NAME:__________________________________________
PHONE NUMBER:_______________________
If you or your Chametz will be in a different time zone for Pesach, please detail so that your
Chametz will be sold and repurchased at the appropriate
time:___________________________________________________________
TO THE ABOVE, I AFFIX MY SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:____________________________________________ DATE:__________________
P.O. Box 202, 1209 Sussex Turnpike, Mt. Freedom, New Jersey 07970 PHONE: (973) 895-2100 FAX (973) 895-2232
Email: Office@MTFJC.org
Pesach 5775 - 2015
Candle Lighting and Services Schedule
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Bedikat Chametz (Search for Chametz)
Friday, April 3, 2015
EREV PESACH
Morning Minyan
Siyum B'Chor
Finish eating Chametz before
Complete Sale and Burn Chametz
Candle Lighting
Mincha & Maariv
FIRST SEDER
8:00 PM
6:45 AM
7:30 AM
10:53 AM
11:57 AM
7:07 PM
7:00 PM
Shabbat, April 4, 2015
SHACHARIT - First day of Pesach
Mincha & Maariv – 1st Day of Omer
Candle Lighting
SECOND SEDER
9:00 AM
7:00 PM
After 8:08 PM
Sunday, April 5, 2015
SHACHARIT - Second Day Pesach
Mincha & Talmud Class
Maariv, Havdalah & Yom Tov Ends
9:00 AM
7:00 PM
8:09 PM
Monday, April 6, 2015
Shacharit – Chol HaMoed Pesach
6:45 AM
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Shacharit – Chol HaMoed Pesach
Youth Film Screening - Prince of Egypt
6:45 AM
4:30 PM
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Shacharit – Chol HaMoed Pesach
6:45 AM
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Shacharit – Chol HaMoed Pesach
Set up Eruv Tavshlin
Mincha & Maariv
Candle Lighting
6:45 AM
Friday, April 10, 2015
Shacharit – Seventh Day Pesach
Mincha & Maariv
Shabbat & Yahrzeit Candle Lighting
9:00 AM
6:30 PM
7:14 PM
Shabbat, April 11, 2015
Shacharit – Eighth Day Pesach
YIZKOR
Mincha, Maariv and Final Matzah Meal
Yom Tov ends
9:00 AM
Approx. 10:30 AM
7:05 PM
8:15 PM
6:30 PM
7:13 PM
Sold Chametz can be eaten after 9PM on April 11th
From Sorrow to Joy
Please join MFJC during the State of
Israel’s High Holidays as we
remember our loss and redemption as
a people, a nation, and community.
Yom HaShoah V’Hagevurah
Thursday, April 16th
Service: 7:00 PM
Commemorate those who perished in
the Holocaust as we share stories of
our loss and resilience
Yom HaZikaron
Wednesday, April 22nd
Service: 6:30-7:30 PM
Remember Israeli soldiers who fell
defending Israel and victims of terror
who have fallen supporting Israel’s
struggle to survive
Followed by
~
Yom Ha’aztmaut Celebration
7:30 PM Hallel and Song
Honoring Israel’s 67th Independence
Day – We celebrate the Jewish
people’s return to Eretz Yisrael with
music and song!
Thursday, April 23rd
Festive Morning Service 6:45AM
followed by Breakfast
These programs are
Free and open to the Public!
The Huntington News: Independent Student Newspaper of
Northeastern University
Letter: SGA to vote on SJP divestment referendum, by Zachary Ramsfelder
Posted by news on Thursday, March 5, 2015 ·
Recently, the Student Government Association (SGA) allowed a referendum to proceed from
Northeastern University’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) that called on Northeastern to
divest from several corporations due to their commerce with the Israel Defense Forces. The SGA
had previously rejected this referendum, and, in response, its proponents claimed that the negative
vote had denied students a “true educational experience” and free speech, and that this rejection
constituted “institutional oppression of SJP.” These claims were patently false.
No one at NU was denied an education because of this now-overturned SGA decision. Anybody who
wanted to learn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could attend a variety of events on campus,
hosted both by SJP and pro-Israel groups. The fact that SJP loudly and successfully protested
SGA’s original decisions contradicts the claim of free speech abridgment, which is especially
ridiculous in light of SJP’s history of obstructing and disrupting pro-Israel students’ and their guests’
free expression. As for “institutional oppression,” not getting your way simply does not qualify as
oppression. As George Deek, an Arab-Christian and Israeli diplomat, recently remarked at NU in
reference to the Palestinians, “The narrative of victimhood is a narrative that paralyzes us and
corrupts us…when a group defines itself as a victim, it no longer takes responsibility.”
The SGA originally rejected the proposal, citing well-founded concerns about students’ comfort. I can
speak for many Jews, who comprise a minority on campus, when I say that I would be deeply
offended if a student government referendum called for divestment as a means of attacking Israeli
policies while giving countries with far worse human rights records a free pass. The “discomfort” felt
by Jewish students, and mocked by SJP’s petition, contradicts NU’s core value of “foster[ing] a
culture of respect that affirms inter-group relations and builds community.”
Why has Israel been so targeted? SJP provides a facile explanation in its referendum for why Israel
is the subject of this divestment campaign. It argues that more international business is conducted
there than in countries with worse human rights records, a lacking rationale. Firstly, it is false by any
measurable standard: as of 2013, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
Thailand, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Singapore were all recipients of more foreign
investment than Israel despite having worse human rights records. Secondly, even if it were true that
more international business is conducted in Israel, perhaps it would be because Israel has an
educated, liberal society that is conducive to such commerce.
Furthermore, when it comes to claims that the investment of the university’s endowment in
Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, Raytheon and Motorola Solutions is financing Israeli control of the
Palestinian territories, proponents of these allegations should do some simple math. NU’s
endowment was $713 million in 2014. Even if every last dollar were invested in those companies,
this would represent less than one-half of one percent of those companies’ combined $170 billion
market value.
So what is to be gained by divesting from companies that do business in Israel? In actuality, the
referendum does not intend to make a difference, but it intends to indict Israel as the most significant
human rights violator despite the fact that it is not. Is Israel perfect? No. And despite the allegedly
moderate Palestinian Authority having been found liable for lethal terrorism in federal court, I would
still argue in favor of its evolution into a full-fledged state, as all people, including both the Jews and
Palestinians, deserve self-determination. But unless you have ulterior motives in targeting the Jewish
State, there is simply no reason to support SJP’s petition.
– Zach Ramsfelder is a sophomore political science major.
Dear Senators,
My name is Zach Ramsfelder, and I am a sophomore studying Political Science at Northeastern
University. It has come to my attention that numerous organizations external to the University
community have written you in support of Students for Justice in Palestine’s divestment referendum,
the matter of whose advancement is scheduled for an SGA vote on Monday. I feel it is my
responsibility, as a Jewish member of the Northeastern student body, to address the claims made by
these intervening parties both on my own and on my community’s behalf.
First and foremost, I must confront SJP’s and the intervening parties’ chosen tactic head-on.
Divestment from Caterpillar, Raytheon, Motorola and Hewlett-Packard is unfeasible, due to the
nature of the mutual funds through which Northeastern has indirectly invested its endowment in
those companies, and feasibility is a requirement for all referendum questions pursuant to the SGA
Bylaws. Its effect on those companies will be completely immaterial, as Northeastern’s total
endowment was about $700 million in 2014, and even if every last dollar was invested in the four
companies, this sum would amount to less than one half of one percent of their $170 billion market
cap, meaning that Northeastern’s stake in those businesses almost assuredly has no impact in the
Palestinian territories. Additionally, as studies of other divestment campaigns have shown,
divestment is completely ineffectual in terms of applying financial pressure to a target. Therefore, the
sole effect of symbolic divestment is to defame the State of Israel and denigrate its supporters on
campus, while giving a free pass to countries with utterly despicable human rights records.
The interfering external organizations made several arguments that must be refuted. Firstly, nonadvancement of the referendum should not be conflated with censorship of free expression, a
rhetorical sleight of hand that basically every intervening party attempted in their letters to you. Any
interested students have been, will be, and should continue to be able to discuss and learn about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict at numerous events on campus hosted by both Students for Justice in
Palestine and Huskies for Israel, regardless of the outcome of Monday’s SGA vote. Furthermore, I
would argue thatadvancement of the referendum would preclude actual dialogue by substituting a
one-sided and misleading yes-or-no question for meaningful discussion and debate of the relevant
issues. Secondly, despite their attempts to claim otherwise, neither Martin Federman nor Jewish
Voice for Peace should be considered legitimate representatives of the mainstream Jewish
community, as their political views on this matter lie on its left-most fringes (I do not comment on
their left-wing orientation in order to disparage either them or the political left, but it is simply the case
that their views are not representative of most members of the community). In fact, they should be
counted as part of the inappropriate outside interference they warn about but that has actually come
overwhelmingly from referendum proponents.
Thirdly, the ACLU’s and Palestine Solidarity Legal Group’s assertion that they or the Department of
Education’s Office of Civil Rights reserve the right to tell the Jewish community what does or does
not constitute anti-Semitism is frankly absurd and offensive on its face, and furthermore, their
rejection of the notion that support for the State of Israel is characteristic of the mainstream Jewish
community is willfully ignorant of the 2000 or more years in which Zionism has been integral to
Judaism and Jewish culture. Their faux-intimidating and condescending legalistic arguments, made
in order to declare that anti-Israel sentiment is categorically not anti-Semitic, relied heavily on OCR
findings, published after the investigation of three complaints filed in the University of California
system; these arguments are misleading for several reasons on which I will elaborate.
The OCR letters cited by the ACLU and PSLG all specifically state that “this letter is not a formal
statement of OCR policy and it should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such…The
complainants may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a
violation.” Yet this admonition didn’t stop the authors of the letter to the SGA from doing exactly that.
The OCR investigations also focused solely on manifest behaviors such as pro-Palestinian students
verbally harassing a pro-Israel female student by calling her a “slut” and a “whore”, and made no
consideration of the unduly Israel-obsessive condition of campus activism, and the ulterior motivation
behind such monomania.The initial complaints in the investigations were about anti-Israel events on
campus (those who oppose this referendum by no means seek to prohibit such exercises of free
speech), not a student government-approved referendum that has the potential to officially codify a
hostile environment for pro-Israel students. The authors of the arguments also repeatedly try to
conflate referendum-voting rights with the freedom of expression in order to assert that nonadvancement of the referendum would represent censorship of free speech, which, as I have written
above, is simply untrue.
The Northeastern students who oppose this referendum absolutely stand for the freedom of
expression, but calling on the Board of Trustees to divest from four companies that do business with
Israel is not conducive to the multilateral dialogue that can help bring peace to the Middle East. By
putting this impractical divestment campaign to a yes-or-no vote, we are denying the possibility of a
more meaningful campus discussion and reducing some 70 years of debate to a punitive measure
designed to demonize one side of the controversy. As such, this referendum would discourage
complex dialogue, could stand to hurt Northeastern co-op opportunities, would introduce an
unprecedented degree of hostility and antagonism to campus climate, and has been completely
ineffective at every university that has passed a similar measure. A more productive venture would
be a campus-wide forum of the issues facilitated by the Center for Spirituality, Dialogue and Service.
Finally, I would like to encapsulate my view, and the view of the SGA Cabinet members, when they
originally declined to proceed with this referendum, with an exceptionally applicable University policy.
One of Northeastern University’s core values is “foster[ing] a culture of respect that affirms intergroup relations and builds community.” Allowing the advancement of a referendum, already
acknowledged by the SGA Cabinet to be incredibly divisive, would contradict the above mission and
would be a grave error. As members of our student government, I believe you recognize the
importance of supervising student affairs for the better, and Monday’s referendum vote is one such
opportunity.
Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully consider this matter, and I hope that tomorrow, you will
stand for a united Northeastern community and vote “no”.
Regards,
Zach Ramsfelder ‘18
WEEKLY PARSHA
By Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh HaYeshiva and Dean
of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Parshat Vayikra
|
March 20, 2015 / 1 Nisan 5775
A Sweet Savor
"The priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, a sweet
savor unto the Lord" (Vayikra, 1:13). We are told eight times in this week's parasha that the sacrifices are a
"sweet savor" to God. This graphic anthropomorphism of God is challenging to modern ears, but we can
understand the power that it held for people in the past. It communicates the idea that our sacrifices rise up to
God: the smoke rises to heaven, bringing with it the smell of the burning meat, and God is pleased by our
offering. The message is clear: God desires our sacrifices.
Rambam believed otherwise. He was bothered by the institution of sacrifice and claimed that God only
commanded it as a concession to human weakness. In his Guide to the Perplexed, Rambam suggests that
God used sacrifices as a way of weaning the people off idolatry (III:32). As the method of worship for all the
pagan gods, sacrifice was the only form of worship the people of the time could conceive of; they would not
have been able to worship God solely through prayer. Thus, God moved them away from idolatry and
commanded that they redirect their worship - with sacrifices - to God. God may have desired sacrifices as a
temporary concession, but God certainly does not desire the practice as an ideal form of religious worship.
Ramban rejects Rambam's position, pointing out that sacrifices were used to worship God even in situations
free from a context of idolatry. Indeed, Kayin and Hevel offered sacrifices that were acceptable and pleasing
to God, as did Noah. Furthermore, Ramban states that it is religiously offensive to suggest that the entire
institution of sacrifice was not God's true will:
His [Rambam's] statements are preposterous. They "heal the great hurt superficially" and render "the
table of the Lord disgusting" by limiting its use to placate the wicked and the foolish. But the Torah
states that they are "...a sweet savor" (commentary on Vayikra, 1:9).
This debate - and the significance of sacrifices as a "sweet savor" - becomes central in the context of Pesach:
Should we still bring a korban Pesach today? Starting with the Hatam Sofer (19th century, Hungary), there
have been those who have argued for continuing the practice, even in the absence of a Temple. Putting aside
questions of politics and practicality, is such a thing even halakhically possible?
On the one hand, one could argue that we are all considered temei met, impure due to contact with a
corpse. Indeed, last Shabbat was Parashat Parah, named after the special maftir from Bamidbar 19 detailing
the laws of impurity of corpses and the purification ritual involving the ashes of a red heifer. This reading
reminds us how the people had to purify themselves in order to bring the Pesach sacrifice. But this is not an
obstacle today. Given that we are all impure, we could bring the sacrifice regardless, based on the principle of
tumah hutra bi'tzibbur, communal impurity is set aside for communal sacrifices.
But what about the absence of the Temple? This also need not be a halakhic barrier. The Gemara in Megilah
(10a) states that the original kedusha, the sanctity, of Jerusalem and the Temple from the time of Joshua
remains today. Rambam rules this way, explaining that the kedusha of the Temple and Jerusalem never
departed, for once God's Presence rests in a place it remains there for all eternity (Laws of the Temple, 6:1416). One might argue that this does not sufficiently address the lack of a physical Temple, but the Gemara
Megilah (10a) also says "makrivim af al pi she'eyn bayit," "one can offer sacrifices even without a
Temple." Rambam also rules in accordance with this.
So, even though we are ritually impure and without a Temple, it would seem that we could still offer sacrifices.
(And the priestly garments could be easily manufactured - there is an institute in Israel that has already done
so!) This position was argued by Hatam Sofer in a responsum, but for him the discussion was merely
theoretical (YD 2:236). In the following generation, his student, Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher, tried to make the
theory a reality.
Rav Kalisher wrote an entire book, Drishat Tzion, arguing for the obligation to bring the korban Pesach. In
writing the book, he hoped to put the bringing of the korban Pesach at the top of the communal agenda. Rav
Kalisher's initiative and his motivation for it can be better understood in a larger historical context. He began it
when the Reform movement was just starting. The rejection of both the significance of the Land of Israel and
the concept of shivat Tziyon, the return to the Land of Israel, was high on the agenda of the budding Reform
movement, and the repudiation of the whole institution of sacrifices went hand-in-hand with this. It was thus
important for Rav Kalisher to reassert the centrality of the Land of Israel, the Temple, and the sacrifices.
In hopes of getting other rabbis to sign on to his initiative, Rav Kalisher sent his book to Rav Yaakov Ettlinger,
a staunch opponent of the Reform movement in Altona, Germany, for approval. Rav Ettlinger did not sign on.
Instead, he offered a surprising counter-text to the passage in the Talmud allowing one to bring sacrifices
without a Temple, and his response brings us back to the phrase, "a pleasing smell" (Teshuvot Binyan Tzion
1).
Rav Ettlinger quotes a Biblical verse at the end of Vayikra that prophesizes the destruction of the
Temple. That verse states: "And I will lay waste to your Sanctuaries, and I will not smell the sweet savor of the
sacrifices" (Vayikra, 26:31). According to Rav Ettlinger, this verse is telling us that, although the Sanctuary
retains its sanctity even after its destruction, and one can technically still bring sacrifices, God declares that
God no longer desires such sacrifices, that they will not be considered li'rayach nichoach, as a sweet savor.
And it is a halakhic principle that a sacrifice that is not considered to be for a sweet savor is invalid. In an
astounding move in the context of a halakhic, Torah she'b'al Peh argument, Rav Ettlinger states that,
"although the Talmud says that one can still bring sacrifices, God states: 'I will not smell their sweet savor.'"
God trumps the Talmud!
But what about the statement that sacrifices can still be brought? This, answers Rav Ettlinger, is only when
God is no longer "laying waste to the Sanctuary." At any time in which the Temple is being actively rebuilt but
has not yet been completed - such as the beginning of the Second Commonwealth or as will be in Messianic
times - one can bring sacrifices without a Temple. But as long as the Temple is laid waste, then God is telling
us that God does not want our sacrifices.
Rav Ettlinger's approach is of great importance. It speaks to how we deal - theologically and practically - not
only with the destruction of the Temple, but with other historical developments that the Jewish people have
had to face. He argues that God sends us messages through historical events, and in our responses, we
should not try to recreate previous realities in today's world. Rather, we should respond in a manner
appropriate to the context of contemporary realities.
The question of how to respond to the destruction of the Temple, and along with it the corresponding
transition to a Judaism in which prayer and Torah learning are the central forms of worship, is actually
debated in Hazal. There are those that see our contemporary forms of worship as mere substitutes for a more
ideal, sacrificial order - "nishalma parim si'fateinu," "let our lips be a substitute for oxen" (Hoshea, 14:3) - and
there are those who state that prayer and Torah are greater than sacrifice. The latter approach can be seen in
a verse from Tehillim, a verse that follows the opening of the Shemoneh Esrei itself: "God, open up my lips,
and let my mouth speak of Your praise. For You do not desire a sacrifice, that I should give it. A burnt offering
you do not want" (Tehilim, 51:16-17).
As we approach Pesach and prepare to celebrate the seder with all its rituals, we can reflect on the meaning
of the seder night and how it has transformed from the time when we had a Temple and the entire people
gathered together to sacrifice and eat the Paschal lamb. While our sedarim are certainly less bloody, and
while we may believe as Rav Ettlinger did that such sacrifices are no longer desired, we can still be saddened
by the loss of the sweet savor that came from a truly communal, nationwide celebration of the chag of
Pesach. Without sacrifices, it is up to us to identify how our worship, on the seder night and throughout the
year, can bring us together as a people and connect us to God, so that it may rise up and be received by God
as a sweet savor.
Shabbat Shalom!
Shabbat Shalom
Vayikra 5775 (Leviticus 1:1 – 5:26)
Efrat, Israel – “He [God] called to Moses, and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting saying…”(Leviticus 1:1)
So opens the third book of the Pentateuch, the book known as Torat Kohanim, the book of the priest-ministers of the Divine
Sanctuary, the guardians of the rituals connecting Israel to God. Indeed, this book in Hebrew is, like the others, called by its
opening word, Vayikra.
And herein lies a problem. Each of the other four books is called by its opening words, but in those instances the opening
words have great significance.
Bereishit [Genesis] is the beginning, the moment in which God called the world-creation into being; Shemot [Exodus], the
names of the family members who came down to Egypt, and the exile-slavery experience which transformed them into a
nation with a national mission; Bamidbar [Numbers], the desert sojourn of a newly freed people who had to learn the
responsibilities of managing a nation-state; and Devarim [Deuteronomy], the farewell words of Moses.
But what is the significance of Vayikra – God calling out to Moses, as the name for a biblical book? Did not God call out to
Moses from the time that he came onto the scene of Jewish history? And why is it specifically this time that Moses chose to
express his modesty, the word is spelled with a small alef, as if to record that God merely “chanced upon him” (Vayiker), but
had not specifically called out to him? I believe that the answer lies in the very strange final words of the last portion of the
Book of Exodus, at the conclusion of Pekudei: “The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the
Tabernacle.
Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud rested upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle…”
(Exodus 40:34-35) We saw in last week’s commentary the majestic words of the Ramban (Nahmanides), explaining how the
Book of Exodus concludes the Jewish exile with the glory of the Lord resting upon – and filling – the Tabernacle. Was it not
Moses who asked God to reveal His glory to him? Was Moses not the supreme individual in human history who came closer to
the Divine than anyone else, who “spoke to God face to face,” whose active intellect actually kissed the active intellect of the
Shechina? Why is Moses forbidden from entering the Tent of Meeting? Moses should have entered straightaway, precisely
because the glory of God was then filling the Tabernacle! Apparently, the Bible is teaching a crucial lesson about Divine
Service: God wants human beings to strive to come close to God, but not too close. God demands even from Moses a
measured distance between God and human beings. We must serve Him, but not beyond that which He commands us to do. In
Divine Service, we dare not go beyond the laws He ordains that we perform. There is no “beyond the requirements of the law”
in the realm of the laws between humans and God.
God understands the thin line between kadosh and kadesh: Divine service and diabolical suicide bombers, fealty to the King of
all Kings and fanatic sacrifice to Moloch. Hence not only does our Bible record the commands God gave to Moses regarding
the construction of every aspect of the Divine Sanctuary (Truma and Tetzaveh) but it painstakingly informs us again and again
in Vayakhel and Pekudei that those orders were carried out exactly as they had been commanded, no less and no more: “Moses
did according to everything that the Lord had commanded, so did he do” (Ex. 40:16).
This is why, further on in the Book of Leviticus God metes out a stringent death penalty upon Nadab and Abihu, sons of
Aaron, when they bring before the Lord a “strange fire which they had not been commanded to bring” (Lev. 10:1) in the midst
of national fervor of exultant song. Moses even explains this tragic occurrence by saying, “of this did the Lord speak, saying ‘I
will be sanctified by those who come [too] close to Me.’” Too close to God can be more dangerous than too distant from Him.
This is why both the Rambam (Maimonides) and the Ramban interpret the commandment par excellence in interpersonal
human relationships, “You shall do what is right and good” (Deut. 6:18), to necessitate going beyond the legal requirements, to
make certain that you not act like a “scoundrel within the confines of the law,” whereas in the area of Divine-human
relationships, you dare not take the law into your own hands; our legal authorities are concerned lest your motivation be
yuhara, excessive pride before God, religious “one-upmanship.”
Thus the sacred Book of Vayikra, the book which features our religious devotion to the Lord, opens with Moses’s reluctance to
enter the Tabernacle of the Lord unless he is actually summoned to do so by God. His humility is even more in evidence when
he records only in miniature the final letter alef in the word Vayikra, as if to say that perhaps the call he had received by God
was more by accident than by design.
The Midrash (Tanhuma 37) teaches that the small amount of ink which should have been utilized on the regular-sized alef of
the Torah (as it were), was placed by God on Moses’s forehead; that ink of humility is what provided Moses’s face with the
translucent glow with which he descended from Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:33-35).
Fanatic zealots are completely devoid of humility; they operate with the fire without rather than the radiant light from within!
Shabbat Shalom
Attitudes to Leviticus
This week is a week of beginnings in our Torah reading cycle. We experience the rare event of
taking three scrolls from the Ark this Shabbat. The first is the regular Shabbat portion cycle. This
week we begin the third book of the Torah, Leviticus, Vayikrah. Our second scroll is read in
honor of the coincidence of the new month of Nisan, beginning on Shabbat. And our third scroll
is the final installation of the special unit of Torah readings that are arranged as we lead into
Pesach. This final, special reading is called Parshat Hachodesh and it marks the historic event of
the start of God-given time to the Israelites in Egypt.
Our regular Shabbat reading, Leviticus, also known as the Law of the Priests, centers on the
sacred realm - the pure, impure, holy and profane. Of all the books of the Torah, Vayikrah is the
most esoteric. Some students may approach this book, feeling similar to the Talmudic
explanation as to why the Torah would include the mitzvah for parents to stone their wayward
son, to which, the answer is given - there never was such a case, but the Torah included that
injunction as opportunity to learn. We don’t perform these mitzvot, but we can learn from them.
Perhaps, the great yeshivot and study halls would start children on their course of study with
Leviticus as a pedagogic value: the student of Torah must study all of Torah, no matter the
degree of application. Torah Lishmah, Torah study for its own sake is the highest achievement in
the sphere of Torah. If teachers give students a demanding, intellectually challenging goal in
their studies, students are more likely to try and reach, rather than settle with the lowest common
denominator. By beginning a life of Torah study with Vayikrah, students understand that they are
being challenged to study Torah for its own sake.
However, Maimonides laments in his introduction to the Mishna that of all talmudic discourse the order of Kodshim, the sacred realm, has the least original insights. He suggests that the
reason for the dearth is because we don’t offer the sacrifices daily. Prayer in synagogue has
replaced the sacrifices that were offered in the Temple in Jerusalem. So a regular challenge that
we face as we move through this book is making the texts and the commandments relevant.
On a somewhat painful note, Nachmanides explains in his introduction to the book of Vayikrah
that the goal of this book is to teach the community how to preserve the Divine presence in the
Temple. But the painful reality is that when the Temples fell and our exile began, we lost the
Divine presence. We live in a state of hester panim, the hidden face of God. Then studying
Leviticus is to look at a portrait of a world long gone.
Finally, when thinking about Vayikrah, we recall the prophetic mantra, which finds many
resonances from the phrase ‘why do you offer Me all these sacrifices?’ In ancient Israel,
sacrifices were so commonplace that they became empty; meaningless gestures. This is the
danger of ritual; our sacred task can become ritualized. We put food in our mouths at dinner time
even though we are not hungry; we offer a sacrifice to God, even though it is insincere. Solomon
wrestled with this idea: ‘Righteousness and justice is more desirable to God than sacrifices.‘
(Proverbs 21:3) Prayer, like sacrifices has the danger of becoming routine. This is the work of
the searcher - sanctify the ordinary.
Shabbat Shalom Umevorach,
Rabbi Menashe East