Two Birds In a Field

When someone afflicted with tzaraat — a mysterious, possibly supernatural skin disease which causes ritual impurity — finds themselves healed, the Torah establishes a process whereby they begin to be assimilated back into the community. Initially, the priest joins them outside the camp — the afflicted person being required to remain outside the camp for the duration of their affliction — and performs a ritual involving two birds:

The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar wood, the crimson fabric, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. He shall then prinkle it seven times on the one who is to be cleansed of the tzaraat and cleanse them; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country. (Leviticus 14:5-7)

In a way, these two birds are like an emblem of the person who has just emerged out of a time of trouble, illness or severe danger. It is as if there are two of me, the one who escaped, and the one who did not. And the problem is that it is very difficult to know, to really know in my bones, which of those two people I actually am, the one who escaped… or the one who did not. That other self, the one who did not escape (or is it the one who did?) remains right there with me — sometimes standing a ways off, sometimes standing just a little to one side, sometimes right there in front of me casting a shadow between me and the rest of the world.

This ritual in the fields can be compared to the gomel blessing, which is to be uttered before the Torah by someone who has just recovered from a severe illness, escaped a dangerous situation or come home after a long journey:

Blessed are you, Adonai our God, ruler of the universe, who rewards the undeserving (in fact, the word chayavim feels much more forceful than that — the ones condemned to die) with goodness, and who has rewarded me with all good.

The rituals are not at all the same in form, but they are similar in function, forcing a separation between those two people — the one condemned to death and the one inexplicably rewarded with life — reminding us who we are, that we are the one who got away, the one still standing on this side of the gateway between life and death.

And the fact that the blood of the bird who did die acts as an agent of purification — isn’t this like a sign of forgiveness from that other self, a sign that that person, the one we aren’t but could be, somehow loves us and wants to be happy that this person, the one we are, made it through alive?

Rabbinic Who’s Who #2: Hillel and Shammai

Teaching class from the sukkah this week! We begin our exploration of individual rabbis with a two-for-one deal: Hillel and Shammai, last and most famous of the Zugot (the “pairs” of pre-rabbinic sages who served as leaders of the Sanhedrin in the period before the destruction of the Second Temple). The disagreements and debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai served as a model for future rabbinic culture, which places a high value on the importance of debate. “Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai.” (Mishnah Avot 5:17)

Rabbinic Who’s Who #1: Periods of Rabbinic History

I with my students’ permission, I am recording my latest class and posting the videos to YouTube. In this series of classes, the intent is to explore the history of Jewish thought by looking at individual rabbis or key Jewish thinkers – who they are, the important aspects of their teachings, and the historical period in which they lived. This first session we begin by looking at the general periods of rabbinic history, from the time of the Zugot (Second Temple period) to the present day.

My Trouble With Shabbat

My problem with Shabbat sometimes (and this isn’t going to make a lot of sense at first, so bear with me) is that I like to have rules — clear, unambiguous rules. I don’t like to have to fall back on feelings, on “I’ll know it when I see it.” On the contrary, I like to have a concrete understanding of what I am doing or not doing in a given situation.

On the other hand, I am starting (slowly) to come to terms with the fact that some aspects of the traditional set of rules for Shabbat really don’t work that well for me, at least not if we accept the notion that the overarching purpose of Shabbat is to give us a chance to recharge, reconnect and deepen our spiritual lives.

To take just one example, I personally have a lot of trouble with the traditional injunction against writing on Shabbat. I am by nature a writer. I always have been, ever since I learned to read and write. Writing comes easily to me — much more easily than speaking, actually — and it’s one of the primary ways in which I relax, process the world around me, and connect with myself and others. It therefore comes as a natural impulse to me that on a day in which I’m supposed to be resting and recharging my batteries, I would want to spend some part of that day scribbling in one of the notebooks that serve me more or less as a second brain. This is something that I do throughout the week in the little snippets of time between other things I have to do, but I never feel like I get “enough” time to write, and several hours of uninterrupted writing time without any pressing concerns is about the closest thing I can imagine to heaven.

All the same, I can definitely sympathize with the tradition that includes writing in the category of “work” prohibited on Shabbat. Writing is a creative endeavor, and it can certainly be a labor-intensive activity. Whether there is a difference between writing that would be “work” and writing that would be “not work,” and how we would distinguish between the two, is an open question. The same thing goes, I suppose, for any kind of creative activity that falls within the 39 kinds of forbidden labor but which might be either relaxing or tiring, depending on when one is doing it and how it is being approached. 

Because of this, the rabbinic approach — to avoid the issue altogether by focusing on the type of labor and prohibiting them categorically — makes a certain kind of sense. What I worry about sometimes is that the way in which they identified the list of activities to be prohibited was deeply embedded in the social, economic and technological conditions of their own times and makes less sense in our own.

As for myself, I must admit that during this summer I have developed the habit (I won’t dignify it with the term practice) of writing in my notebook on Shabbat. This probably has as much to do with where I am at the moment than anything deeper — spending the summer by myself in Chicago has made it rather difficult to fill up the long summer Shabbats in ways that feel enriching and spiritually rewarding. All the same, I am somewhat bothered sometimes by how disconnected my Shabbat practice sometimes seems. A large part of this feeling must be because any Jewish practice cannot be completely personal. Ours is a tradition that thrives off of community, and what seems to be missing much of the time in my Shabbat practice , whatever it may be, is the sense that it is developing in relation to others besides myself.

The idea that has been floating around in my head lately in response to these feelings is the development of small, discrete “circles of practice” –groups of three or four individuals, or a few families — that would come together to work toward the development of shared approaches to Jewish practice. This need not be oriented toward any traditionalist understanding of halachah (though it certainly could be, and halachah would probably form one of the sources of inspiration for any such group in some way), and the goal of the group need not be a uniform set of practices. The idea, rather, would be to have a small community in which people could work out their approach toward various aspects of living Jewishly together, get feedback, share ideas. Such a group might exist within a synagogue community, or consist of members of different synagogues, or outside the developed communal structure of institutional Judaism altogether. The important part would be the indiviudal members’ commitment to work together to help expand their collective understanding of practical Judaism, in whatever form that might take.

Heichal

(A friend had been teaching the kids in her student teaching class about the space program. Meanwhile, we’d been studying the story of the four who entered the Pardes (the orchard) in Talmud class. Somewhere between the two, this poem came out.)

Heichal

When first we breached the blanket of air
Wherein we lay snugly wrapped for all the years of our species’ gestation
Like the pupa of a moth in its coccoon
Slowly liquifying to rebuild itself into a thing that flies
Our eyes beheld a novel thing–
What it is to be dazzled, not by light,
But sheer immensity of space

How well our ancestors knew
The sky we look upon by day,
Opaque and cloudy blue,
Is but a bowl in which we float,
A nest you built to hold us close
Until our wings grow strong,
A window to our other, truer home

Four there were who went there once
Or so they say, and of them three
Did not have the courage but to peek
And so were stricken–
Dead or mad, or shaken so
As to leave behind him all he thinks he knows
Like a child’s broken toys

But we–
May we take our heart from the last
Who went with arms outstretched,
Eyes open wide to see you there
Your hands held out to welcome us
Like a mother beckons her dearest child
Into the water
May we, like that one, say to you–
We come in peace
We go
In peace