All For One, One For All: Korah 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: When did you most blatantly put yourself in a difficult position in order to advocate for another person? Was it worthwhile?

Moses is no stranger to taking risks to fight for Israel after their mishaps, and his actions after Korah’s rebellion is no exception.

The Pitch: “But [Moses and Aaron] fell on their faces and said, ‘O God, Source of the breath of all flesh! When one man sins, will you be wrathful with the whole community?’” – Numbers 16:22

Swing #1: “The Torah gives no reason why [innocent women and children] are punished for what only the men have done. Earlier in the chapter, in fact, God threatens to annihilate all the Israelites, but Moses and Aaron appeal for more selective punishment. … Yet even though God accedes to their pleas, innocent women and children die with the guilty. Indeed women and children have always been victims in war, even holy ones.” – Ellen Frankel, Ph.D., The Five Books of Miriam

Swing #2: “Moses seems to be in touch with a sense of justice that was not previously recorded in Torah to which even God must subscribe. It is very much an echo of Abraham’s challenge in Genesis. God implicitly assents to Moses’ claim.” – Sheldon Lewis, Torah of Reconciliation

Swing #3: “Hezekiya taught (Jeremiah 50:17): ‘Israel are scattered sheep’; why is Israel likened to a sheep? Just as a sheep, when hurt on its head or some other body part, all of its body parts feel it. So it is with Israel: when one of them sins, everyone feels it.” – Leviticus Rabbah

Late-Inning Questions: How do our commentators understand collective guilt and innocence? Why does Moses use this particular strategy to prevent the Israelites from suffering total destruction? How does he manage notions of justice and mercy? What does today’s society need more of — justice or mercy?

On-Deck at TBT: As this is my final Shabbat as Temple Beth Tzedek’s rabbi, I’ve decided to retire the “Virtuosity Savored” blog. I am grateful to everyone who’s read my thoughts and considered my questions for almost eight years. While my new project is still taking shape, I invite you to subscribe to my newsletter, “RAJR, Over and Out”, on which I hope to incorporate different kinds of content (text, video, and podcasts) all on one platform beginning in September. It likely will be a mixture of conversation on Judaism, baseball, what makes us laugh and what makes us cry. Hope to see you there. Until then …

Shabbat Shalom!

The Good Place: Shelakh Lekha 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: To paraphrase The Beach Boys song “Sloop John B,” what was the worst trip you’ve ever been on? Which was worse, the journey or the destination? Is there any chance you’d try to go back, knowing what you know now?

As ten Israelite scouts scare the people they’re supposed to lead, Joshua and Caleb try to convince the nation that they’re headed to someplace good:

The Pitch: “[Joshua and Caleb] exhorted the whole Israelite community: ‘The land that we traversed and scouted is an exceedingly good land.’” – Numbers 14:7

Swing #1: “Joshua and Caleb rise to thwart the acceptance of that critical report by retaining its language: ‘The land we traversed and scouted is an exceedingly good land.’ The linguistic overlap not only sharpens the contrast, but suggests that at issue was a divergence of opinion, not of fact. Both groups looked at the same landscape, but saw what they wanted to see. Reality is always colored by the predisposition that we bring to it. In the incisive words of the Rabbis, ‘We are usually aided [by desires of which we are unaware] to get to where we want to go.’” – Ismar Schorsch, Canon Without Closure: Torah Commentaries

Swing #2: “[Bible scholar Will] Kynes astutely observes that Moses’ command to ‘spy out’ the land and ‘see’ what it is like leads to contradictory conclusions. It [thus] does not appear that ‘spying’ after ‘your eyes’ necessarily opposes remembering God’s commandments. Kynes argues that ‘it may even be Joshua and Caleb and not the other spies who are truly following their eyes’ – as opposed, say, to their fears, or their faithfulness.” – Shai Held, The Heart of Torah, Volume 2: Essays on the Weekly Torah Portion: Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

Swing #3: “[Joshua and Caleb said,] ‘Concerning what you have charged us to investigate the land, we testify that it is a good land, exceptionally good, without drawbacks. We do not agree with our colleagues who, although testifying that the land was good, added the reservation that the “land consumes its inhabitants.” Concerning what my colleagues have said: about the land “consuming its inhabitants, we can testify כי לחמנו הם, “they are our bread,” they will not even have the courage to frontally face us, the very opposite of our colleagues’ saying that they are a “tough people.”’” – Sforno

Late-Inning Questions: How do our commentators understand the scouts’ motives? The Israelites’ motives? How much does fear motivate each group? Is fear itself the only thing we have to fear?

On-Deck at TBT: June is Pride month, and TBT will celebrate Pride Shabbat Saturday, June 24th. Our guest speaker will be Jack Kavanaugh, Executive Director of Gay and Lesbian Youth Services of Buffalo, NY. Plus, enjoy rainbow challah at kiddush!

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of fearful trips, it’s always heartbreaking when a team is poised to move to another city. But it looks like the A’s will move from Oakland to Las Vegas sooner or later. It’s yet another example of how fans are hurt way more by team owners than by the team on the field.

Shabbat Shalom!

The Best Policy: B’ha’alotkha 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: What does “being accountable” mean to you? In what ways do you stay accountable for your behavior?

Knowing that their ritual impurity would make them ineligible to bring the Passover sacrifice, a group of Israelite men ask their leaders how they can be accountable:

The Pitch: “Those men said to [Moses and Aaron], ‘Unclean though we are by reason of a corpse, why must we be debarred from presenting the Lord’s offering at its set time with the rest of the Israelites?’” – Numbers 9:7

Swing #1: “Rabbi Mordechai Shakovitzky said that what those men in Moses’ day did was actually quite inspiring. They didn’t really have to come and plead with Moses for a second chance; they had the perfect alibi. They could have simply said, ‘Sorry, we were busy with another mitzvah.’ They were tamei and spiritually unable to participate. They had no reason to feel guilty. They couldn’t be faulted. And yet, it did bother them. They felt left out and genuinely desired to to be together with their brethren in the observance of another mitzvah, the Pesach offering. People who had every opportunity to be free of obligation and willfully choose to actively seek such obligation are indeed deserving of honorable mention.” – Rabbi Yossy Goldman, From Where I Stand: Life Messages From the Weekly Torah Reading

Swing #2: “[Those men said:] Why are we not allowed to eat holy things while in a state of ritual impurity, seeing that last year when we were in Egypt we also ate it in a state of ritual impurity? The reason is that at that time we had not been warned not to do so.” – Chizkuni

Swing #3: “Another meaning of the words למה נגרע may be that they argued that seeing their impurity ended that evening, why could not others slaughter the Passover on their behalf and they would be able to eat it on that night at the same time as all the other Israelites? After all, the same is permissible if a person had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a dead mouse, for instance? When the Levites emphasized the words ביום ההוא, this was a reference to such impurities which come to an end on the evening of the day they have been contracted.” – Or HaChaim

Late-Inning Questions: How do our commentators understand the reasoning of these ritually impure men? Do you appreciate their approach with Moses and Aaron? Why is being forthright such a rare behavior nowadays?

On-Deck at TBT: June is Pride month, and TBT will celebrate Pride Shabbat Saturday, June 24th. Our guest speaker will be Jack Kavanaugh, Executive Director of Gay and Lesbian Youth Services of Buffalo, NY. Plus, enjoy rainbow challah at kiddush!

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of being accountable, Hall of Fame pitcher Christy Mathewson was thought to be so honest that umpires sometimes asked him to weigh in on a questionable call, knowing that he wouldn’t be afraid to rule against his team if need be. I honestly don’t know whether teams would appreciate that practice today.

Shabbat Shalom!

Orderly Conduct: Naso 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: Have you ever regretted following someone else’s orders? What were the consequences of your compliance?

An apparent redundancy in the Torah text indicates our ancestors’ willingness to do as God says:

The Pitch: “The Israelites did so, putting [people with the skin affliction tzara’at] outside the camp; as יהוה had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did.” – Numbers 5:4

Swing #1: “Why does the Torah say again at the end of the verse ‘so the Israelites did’? Not only did [the Children of Israel] fulfill the letter of the law by ‘putting them outside the camp,’ but they also acted in accordance with the spirit of the law, keeping away from the sins that cause leprosy, foul discharge and death. ‘As יהוה had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did;’ that is, they acted in keeping with the purpose for which God had given them the commandment.” – Binah Le’Ittim

Swing #2: “This verse expresses compliance. … It was also important to make the point that all of the details of law and ritual prescribed in the Torah came directly from God, through Moses.” – Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1-20

Swing #3: “There was no difficulty from the point of view of those who had to command the metzora’im to go outside the Israelite camp, and that did not require warning. The difficulty might have been only from the perspective of the metzora’im, who had to be asked to leave the Cloud of Glory, and perhaps an argument would arise. However, the metzora’im accepted this command with joy, to attain atonement for their sin. Thus, it was not as if they harkened to a warning, but rather as if they easily fulfilled the word of God as well.” – Meshekh Chokhmah

Late-Inning Questions: Why do our commentators think that the Israelites are so willing to comply with God’s request, especially since the Israelites have no problem defying God at other times? Are you skeptical that the Israelites are as enthusiastic as our commentators think? Is it better to practice civil disobedience or uncivil obedience?

On-Deck at TBT: June is Pride month, and TBT will celebrate Pride Shabbat Saturday, June 24th. Our guest speaker will be Jack Kavanaugh, Executive Director of Gay and Lesbian Youth Services of Buffalo, NY. Plus, enjoy rainbow challah at kiddush!

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of following orders – or not following them – I have fond memories of watching a Cleveland game in July 1999 in which Alex Ramirez was supposed to play right field and Manny Ramirez was supposed to be the designated hitter. But Manny, being Manny, ran out to right field for the first inning, which caused Cleveland to lose their DH and forced starting pitcher Charles Nagy to bat sixth in the batting order. That might have been the crucial factor leading to their 4-3 loss to Toronto.

Shabbat Shalom!

Meet John Doe: Shavuot 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: When do you prefer to stay anonymous? Do you meet resistance from others on those occasions?

We read the book of Ruth on the second day of Shavuot, and we learn that before he’s allowed to marry Ruth, Boaz must consult with a family member who has a closer claim to Ruth than he does. But we never officially find out this man’s name:

The Pitch: “Meanwhile, Boaz had gone to the gate and sat down there. And now the redeemer whom Boaz had mentioned passed by. He called, ‘Come over and sit down here, So-and-So!’ And he came over and sat down.” – Ruth 4:1

Swing #1: “Boaz probably addressed him by his real name, Tov; it is Scripture that disguised his name to avoid his embarrassment.” – Rav Alkabetz

Swing #2: “Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: He was mute from matters of Torah. He [So-and-So] said: ‘The first ones died only because they took them, and I will take her? Heaven forbid that I take her, I do not want to taint my children, I do not want to mix dross with my children.’” – Ruth Rabbah

Swing #3: “The author’s anonymization of the man must … be an expression of indirect condemnation of him as a man who refuses to safeguard the good name of the family for posterity.” – Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth

Late-Inning Questions: What do our commentators think of this nameless man? By not revealing the man’s name, are the text’s authors and editors being too judgmental about his character, or are their opinions justified? When is it helpful and when is it hurtful to withhold a person’s name?

On-Deck at TBT: We’re getting close to our Tikkun Leyl Shavuot, a time to hear from leaders and teachers throughout Jewish Buffalo as we celebrate the anniversary of the encounter at Mount Sinai. Join us through the night of Thursday, May 25th-Friday, May 26th, concluding with a sunrise service and breakfast.

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of withholding names, according to baseballhistorian.com, there’s a great story of Casey Stengel managing the first New York Mets team and almost forgetting one of his starters: “‘We got five or six fellas that’s doing very good. And the best played for Hornsby in Cincinnati, bats left-handed, and hit .300, done very good. Delighted to have him, is married, has seven kids in the station wagon he drives down here from Cincinnati where he lives,’ – on and on went the ‘Old’ Perfessor, remembering everything except Bell’s name. Finally as Stengel rambled on and declared, ‘if he can hit for us like he hit for the Reds, he’d ring the bell … and that’s his name: Gus Bell!’”

Chag Sameach & Shabbat Shalom!

Leviticus – The Sequel?: B’midbar 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: Have you seen any movie sequels that you felt were superior to the original film? Why do so many sequels fall short of expectations?

Even though we’ve started reading a new book of the Torah, there are many indications that the text has not moved on from the concerns of Leviticus:

The Pitch: “For the Lord had spoken to Moses, saying: Do not on any account enroll the tribe of Levi or take a census of them with the Israelites. You shall put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall tend it; and they shall camp around the Tabernacle. When the Tabernacle is to set out, the Levites shall take it down, and when the Tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up; any outsider who encroaches shall be put to death.” – Numbers 1:48-51

Swing #1: “These verses describe the appointment of the Levites as the aristocrats of the tabernacle of testimony – the nobles and counts, one might say – for all time. Later in the Bible, the Levites will become the administrative arm of the kingdom of David, and will be counted as part of the loyalist core of the Davidic and Solomonic administrations. Indeed, in every biblical society that has passed through the first two stages – census and assignment, or counting and accountability – there evolves a third stage, namely the administrative bureaucracy of managers and accountants.” – Avraham Burg, Very Near To You: Human Readings of the Torah

Swing #2: “The obvious sense of the verb is ‘to appoint’ or ‘to install,’ but the Hebrew puns on the term paqad used for the census, recasting it here in the causative conjugation: you are not to reckon the Levites, but instead you must make them reckon with the Tabernacle, confer upon them the responsibility of its maintenance. The emphasis on the central role of the Levites will continue through much of the Book of Numbers.” – Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary

Swing #3: “The Midrash explains that God does not need the light of the candelabra, but He wanted us to provide that light in the tabernacle so that He in turn could provide a great light for us in the world of the future. God also wishes to demonstrate to mankind at large that those who kindle lights for Him, deserve to have Him light the way for them. … The leaders of the people especially, need visible reminders of that. Therefore, leaders, i.e. Levites were encamped around the tabernacle.” – Akeidat Yitzhak

Late-Inning Questions: Why do our commentators believe that the Book of Numbers continues talking about Levites? Does the book simply have the wrong title, or do book titles not matter as much as we think they do? Is this similar to the fact that one of the Five Books of Moses never mentions Moses? Should a title summarize the work, or should it simply invite us to look inside?

On-Deck at TBT: We’re getting close to our Tikkun Leyl Shavuot, a time to hear from leaders and teachers throughout Jewish Buffalo as we celebrate the anniversary of the encounter at Mount Sinai. Join us through the night of Thursday, May 25th-Friday, May 26th, concluding with a sunrise service and breakfast.

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of strange names, both the New York (now San Francisco) Giants and the New York Mets once played their home games at a Manhattan stadium called the Polo Grounds. Hopefully, their fans knew what sport to expect when they bought tickets to the games.

Shabbat Shalom!

Open Doors: BeHar-Behukotai 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: How literally do you understand the phrase “All Are Welcome” on an event invitation? Do you trust it, or wonder whether the event planners will truly accommodate all people according to their needs?

As the Torah text begins to explain the laws of the sabbatical year, the list of those allowed to consume that which grows during that year is extensive:

The Pitch: “Six years you may sow your field and six years you may prune your vineyard and gather in the yield. But in the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest, a sabbath of יהוה: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines; it shall be a year of complete rest for the land. But you may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce—you, your male and female slaves, the hired and bound laborers who live with you, and your cattle and the beasts in your land may eat all its yield.” – Leviticus 25:3-7

Swing #1: “There are … several features of Solomon’s [Temple-building] program that recall its protological archetype. For example, it takes him seven years to complete the work, just as it takes the divine king seven days to complete creation. That the correspondence is more than coincidence can be seen from the fact that Israelite agricultural law included a cycle of seven years, six of work, and one of rest, which is called ‘Sabbath’.” – Jon D. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: An Entry Into the Jewish Bible

Swing #2: “The only woman directly mentioned in Parashat Behar is the amah (the slave woman), and this is significant because it indicates Behar’s concern for the most vulnerable members of society. The amah is listed as one of the people who will eat the wild produce of the land during the shemita year rather than harvested food. In that respect, she is equal to all other Israelites, although she may have sold herself, or been sold by her father, into slavery.” – Sharon Brous & Jill Hammer in The Women’s Torah Commentary: New Insights From Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions, Rabbi Elyse Goldstein, ed.

Swing #3: “A subdued but present association in the Commandments [is] the Sabbath Commandment and the coveting Commandment lift[ing] up cattle, the ox, and the ass as being provided rest and protection.” – Patrick D. Miller, The Way of the Lord: Essays in Old Testament Theology

Late-Inning Questions: Do our commentators seem surprised by the extent of inclusion in these verses? Does it seem to differ in spirit from other passages in the Torah? Should we be impressed by the Torah’s progressive stance? Is some inclusion better than none at all?

On-Deck at TBT: We’re getting close to our Tikkun Leyl Shavuot, a time to hear from leaders and teachers throughout Jewish Buffalo as we celebrate the anniversary of the encounter at Mount Sinai. Join us through the night of Thursday, May 25th-Friday, May 26th, concluding with a sunrise service and breakfast.

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of inclusion, it’s heartening to know that 28 out of the 30 Major League teams will be hosting a Pride Night at one of their games this season. Now if we can only get the New York Yankees and Texas Rangers to sign on …

Shabbat Shalom!

Food For Thought: Emor 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: Do you have any “sacred” recipes in your home or family? Are they kept secret from people outside your sphere of influence, or do you share them freely?

It’s curious that, in the laws defining proper priestly conduct, a special “Godly food” is introduced:

The Pitch: “For [the priests] are holy to their God and you must treat them as holy, since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you, for I, יהוה who sanctify you, am holy.” – Leviticus 21:8

Swing #1: “Although the priest depends for his living on the ‘Priestly Gifts’ which you give him, you are not permitted to treat him with disrespect or contempt. Instead, you are required to sanctify him, because ‘he offers the bread of your God.’ The meal of a righteous man or of a scholar has the same hallowed character as a sacrifice. Accordingly, the gifts which you give to the priest are equal in value to the offerings which serve to atone for your sins. Moreover, the priest in his turn hallows the people of Israel with his study and worship. For all these reasons, the priest ‘shall be holy to you, for I, יהוה, who sanctify you, am holy.’ I, יהוה, have sanctified you through the priest who hallows you with his study and worship. Hence you must honor and hallow him even though he is dependent on your gifts for his living.” – Ketav Sofer

Swing #2: “There is some curiosity regarding the designation of offerings … as ‘the food of their God’. There are indications that Israel’s neighbors thought of sacrifices as food for gods, but the Old Testament writers consistently reject this notion for sacrifices offered to יהוה. Perhaps the cult of the dead involved food offerings to one’s ancestors, and these laws make it clear that Israelite offerings should go to יהוה  alone.” – Timothy M. Willis, Leviticus

Swing #3: “All that is contained in the ‘order of sacrificial service,’ its proceedings, offerings, burning of incense, singing, eating, drinking, is to be done in the utmost purity and holiness. It is called … ‘the bread of your God’, and similar terms which relate to his pleasure in the beautiful harmony prevailing among the people and priesthood. He, so to say, accepts their hospitality and dwells among them in order to show them honor. He, however, is most Holy, and far too exalted to find pleasure in their meat and drink. It is for their own benefit … the nobler ingredients of the food go to strengthen the heart; the best of all, the spirit.” – Yehudah HaLevi, Kuzari

Late-Inning Questions: How do our commentators understand “the bread of God”? How do these opinions contrast with passages in Leviticus that describe God enjoying the aroma of certain sacrifices? Is it all right to think of God as enjoying the sense of smell but not the sense of taste? How can we ensure that eating is a “holy act”?

On-Deck at TBT: I’m excited to welcome my friend Rabbi Jeni S. Friedman, PhD, as this year’s Klein Weekend scholar. Please join us and support the program, taking place May 5th-7th, as we explore Global Jewish Peoplehood.

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of holy food, the owner of the 19th-century St. Louis Browns, Chris von der Ahe, is widely credited with inventing the hot dog. He sought an easier way to sell sandwiches at the ballpark, and – whether you regard the hot dog as a sandwich or not – the concoction has remained closely associated with baseball ever since.

Shabbat Shalom!

Blood Curdling: Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: Have you ever gone to great lengths to bring someone a gift, only for something to go wrong before the person could receive it? Were you able to compensate for the snafu somehow?

The Torah speaks of consequences for a particular improper sacrificial offering:

The Pitch: “If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to יהוה, before יהוה’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that party: having shed blood, that person shall be cut off from among his people.” – Leviticus 17:3-4

Swing #1: “The starkness of this formulation is quite startling, and very much in keeping with the emphasis throughout the chapter on the sacrosanct character of blood as the principal bearer and symbol of life. The person who slaughters an animal without having the priest cast some of its blood on the legitimate altar of YHWH is considered to have committed murder. The blood on the altar, then, offered up to the deity together with the burnt suet, is an expiation for the blood of the animal spilled in the slaughtering process, a ritual recognition that the taking of life, even for consumption as food, is a grave act that must be balanced by an act of expiation.” – Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary

Swing #2: “Such slaughtering seems to be equated with the murder of a human being, cut off from amid his kinspeople; Schwartz understands this as premature death (dying before one’s normally allotted time); Tikvah Frymer-Kensky as dying without heirs.” – Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses

Swing #3: “It is as if it said, ‘It shall be considered [for that person] as blood of a person.’ Because if not, would we not know that it is considered bloodshed [of an animal] when a person spills blood during the slaughtering?” – Siftei Chakhamim

Late-Inning Questions: How does this rule reflect respect for animals? Does this seem to contrast from so many other rules regarding animal sacrifice? Is it sensible to regard animal life as equally important to human life?

On-Deck at TBT: I’m excited to welcome my friend Rabbi Jeni S. Friedman, PhD, as this year’s Klein Weekend scholar. Please join us and support the program, taking place May 5th-7th, as we explore Global Jewish Peoplehood.

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of gifts that go awry, I admit that I love the comment made by college football commentator Beano Cook after Major League Baseball gave a lifetime pass for any game to the Americans released from Iranian captivity in 1981: “Haven’t they suffered enough?”

Shabbat Shalom!

The Born Forgiveness: Tazria-Metzora 2023

Pre-Game Chatter: How do you achieve a sense of normalcy after life’s most dramatic moments? Do you rely on the passage of time, or do you find other ways to speed up the recovery process?

The Torah prescribes rituals to enable a mother of a new child the chance to restore a sense of equilibrium:

The Pitch: “On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. He shall offer it before the Lord and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female.” – Leviticus 12:6-7

Swing #1: “That is why the birthing mother at the end of her ordeal brought a burnt offering to the Tabernacle as well as a purification offering. Whereas the latter signified the end of her impure state, the former embodied a joyful gesture of thanksgiving to the Almighty for an instance of unmerited grace.” – Ismar Schorsch, Canon Without Closure: Torah Commentaries

Swing #2: “The reason why the expression וטהרה, ‘she regained her ritual purity,’ is in place is because until the expiry of these days and her having brought the requisite offerings, she cannot partake of food which is the residue of animals that have been slaughtered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, as well as agricultural products to be given to a priest.” – Daat Zkenim

Swing #3: “Our sages of old hold that the reason why most women are in personal need of atonement is that during the excruciatingly painful experience of giving birth they vowed never again to have marital relations with their husbands. Seeing that such a woman swore out of extreme pain and her oath is therefore not really effective legally, since she is contractually obligated to have relations with her husband, God wanted her to escape the consequences of such an oath, and by allowing her to bring this sacrifice He forgave her.” – Tur HaAroch

Late-Inning Questions: Do our commentators seem to think that the Torah text is sensitive to a new mother’s emotional and spiritual needs? Do these seem to be helpful rituals for such a woman? How does the arrival of a new life cause us to reassess our own?

On-Deck at TBT: I’m excited to welcome my friend Rabbi Jeni S. Friedman, PhD, as this year’s Klein Weekend scholar. Please join us and support the program, taking place May 5th-7th, as we explore Global Jewish Peoplehood.

The Big Inning at the End: Speaking of reestablishing normalcy, I always liked the way the 2016 Chicago Cubs celebrated each victory. For the first 10 minutes upon entering the clubhouse after winning a game, the players would have a raucous dance party. Then, the lights went up, and the players and coaches regrouped to focus on the next game. If it sounds odd, well … they did win it all that year.

Shabbat Shalom!