Sunday, April 27, 2014

Parshat Acharei, (Leviticus 17:1-17:7), 4/9/14

“7. And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations.”

Because the Jews only have one G_d, sacrifices should only be brought to the Tent of Meeting. They can't do it at home.

This reminds me of the Buddhist koan below:
CASE #20: Indra’s Grass Stalk
When the World-Honored One was walking with his assembly, he pointed to the ground with his hand and said, “This place is good for building a temple.” Hearing this, the god Indra took a stalk of grass and stuck it in the ground and said, “The temple has been built.” At this, the World-Honored One smiled.
I read the koan as meaning that any place can be a temple, and any thing can be a temple. Are these opposing statements to the Torah? Much of the Torah seems to be telling Jews that they need to do things differently that the people who enslaved them.

But this isn't just about being different. It is about being precise. A famous economist (non-practicing Jew) used to lament how we had so little self-discipline today. I was happy to hear that Buddhist monks break their vows all the time. As long as they commit very minor transgressions, all they need to do is to confess to another monk. But something more severe requires that they might be banned from the zendo for a month. And there are a few acts that immediately defrock them.

Rules are precise. I suspect this rule of only doing offerings in the Tent of Meeting came because people were side stepping the practice and getting lazy. And further, I suspect that since the offerings were a means for the kohens to be sustained that it was especially important to make offerings in the Tent.



Parshat Acharei, (Leviticus 16:25-16:34), 4/8/14

The sprinkling of the blood represents the passions of man and the smoke from the fat represents the pleasures of man.

Passions and pleasures should be godly.

But what is the difference between passions and pleasures? Are there pleasures that aren't connected to passion?

Pleasure is: “a feeling of happiness, enjoyment, or satisfaction: a pleasant or pleasing feeling”
“Passion stems from the Latin work pati, meaning “to suffer.” The stem pass comes from the word passive meaning “capable of suffering.” Pass was coined in the early 16th century to denote "the suffering of Christ on the cross." English also acquired the word through the Old French word passion meaning "strength of feeling.” This has been transferred in our modern times to denote sexual attraction and anger. Webster states the word passion “is a strong feeling, especially of anger, love or desire.” It says that passion “is an emotion, an intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction.” It also says that passion “is the sufferings of Christ between the night of the last supper and His death.” Interestingly enough one version states, “it is also the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces.” What stronger force is there then God? Wasn't it God who wanted “The passion of Jesus” to be a reality?—See more at: http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-passion-of-jesus-faq.htm#sthash.bmmVgSWs.dpuf
Passion and pleasure are both feelings, though pleasure seems to come from passion. Pleasure is also defined as a “state of gratification.” Passion sometimes seems uncontrollable, which makes it a challenge to be godly. We want to feel passion. Yet sometimes passion leads us to places that we shouldn't be. How does one lead a passionate life but not hurt others? Is controlling passion being inhibited?

The parshah is about Yom Kibbur, the holiday for atonement. Everyone observes Yom Kibbur by not working and not eating. I like how atonement is celebrated with pleasure and passion. Atonement does not seem to be sitting in the corner, biting one's tongue. Instead it is to live life fully, yet in a godly manner. At first, thought, this might be a contradiction. Yet if the passion is not godly, then it will be followed with regret.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Parshat Acharei, (Leviticus 16:18-16:24), 4/7/14

“21. And Aaron shall lean both of his hands [forcefully] upon the live he goat's head and confess upon it all the willful transgressions of the children of Israel, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins, and he shall place them on the he goat's head, and send it off to the desert with a timely man.”

What a great idea to put all the sins on the goat and then to send it off to the desert. Yet, if one were to focus compassionately on the goat, they might think that someone has made the goat a scapegoat (which maybe is where the word came from). Even with the ten commandments, people still go astray. Rabbi Baker told us the other day that if one has urges to do something wrong they should take it to another village so they won't cause harm to their family. How is this that people know the right thing to do, and yet do the wrong thing? Maybe someone should start renting out scapegoats so we can all feel better about our transgressions.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Parshat Acharei, (Leviticus 16:1-16:17), 4/6/14

When we are told a story, we ask ourselves either consciously or unconsciously, “what do I make of this.” And so it is with this parshah.

I think this is about intention, as is most of the Torah.

God reminds us that Aaron's sons died because they did not pay attention. Our connection with all is for me the “holiest of holies.” When we make up our own rules that don't account for the wishes of others we will get stung in one way or another.

These offerings make everyone pay attention. It is interesting that the offering is not only to G_d, but to Azazel. Azazel is a precipitous land—a cut-off land.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch this all...to be there? It was a happening if there ever was one. With blood and smoke and bulls/rams/ and goats...wow! What an occasion!

Because we are human we have a tendency to stray—to not pay attention to the consequences of our actions. By having regular offerings (and more modern versions of offerings) we are reminded over and over again that what we do makes a big difference. Life is not a willy-nilly chance operation.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 15:29-15:33), 4/5/14

I received some interesting feedback from yesterday's post. One said, “Almost no Jews...except the very orthodox...believe or live by this stuff...we take lessons from it....” What is that about? Having a precious Torah and not following it. What are the lessons to learn as we read in this parshah: 
29. And on the eighth day, she shall take for herself two turtle doves or two young doves, and bring them to the kohen, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
30. And the kohen shall make one into a sin offering and one into a burnt offering, and the kohen shall effect atonement for her, before the Lord, from the uncleanness of her discharge. 
Is it that the woman has done something wrong by menstrating and thus needs to do a sin offering? Is it that we should be good people? If so, it seems this is not a good metaphor.

Let's say that it is really not a good message? Should the Torah be rewritten? Is it an useful book? Why? 

All questions for me to answer. I guess that the ridiculous nature of it all might be the brilliance. 

In Buddhism, we call this an “opportunity for practice.” Maybe I'll do better tomorrow.

Another wrote about Japanese Tea Ceremony. She wrote, “In Chado, purifying the utensils before and after making tea, etc. are occasions for us to be aware of our heart, checking if we have purity of heart, to make a bowl of tea with all our heart for our guest, without being concerned about showing off, having made a mistake the last momrent, or  making a mistake the next moment.  Like Shinto and many other religiouis practices, in Tea, rinsing mouth and hands at the tsukubai (garden basin) is symbolic of purifying speech and actions.”

When I woke this morning I remembered how my sisters used sanitary napkins (Kotex). Here's a few fables about Tampax and virginity. I remember that girls would get out of swimming class if they were having their period. Not the same as being ostracised from the community, but almost...having to sit and watch.

I can understand one wanting to purifying speech and actions. What I don't get is why purification is necessary after natural  functions occur in our bodies.

But then, we do wash our hands after going to the bathroom? What's the difference?


Saturday, April 19, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 15:16-15:28), 4/4/14

My mother sometimes called me “a first class slob,” and my father would disown me when I didn't wash my hands when I went to the bathroom. Part of my interest in the Torah is to find how my parents came to be the way they are. As I read so much in Leviticus about cleanliness, I remember how upset my grandma was when she visited my newly married sister and complained bitterly to my mom (her daughter) that my sister wasn't a good housekeeper. Years later, my mom paid for a housekeeper for my sister's daughter. I married a very neat person. I think when I saw her iron one of my shirts I knew that she was just what I needed. Thankfully, she had/has many other abilities.

I feel sad for the young men and woman who are taught here in the parshah that they are unclean much of the time. Men have emissions in their sleep, and women menstruate monthly. What is the purpose of those mortifying sentences? Is this why Jews are said to have a lot of guilt? Is this why my parents barred me from learning about religion?

 “16. A man from whom there is a discharge of semen, shall immerse all his flesh in water, and he shall remain unclean until evening. 19. If a woman has a discharge, her flesh discharging blood, she shall remain in her state of menstrual separation for seven days, and whoever touches her shall become unclean until evening.”

Friday, April 18, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 14:54-15:15), 4/3/14

This parshah deals with seminal emissions. It is interesting that no distinction is made between emissions caused by masturbation, and those resulting from “wet dreams.” We are responsible for anything that happens. Both are intentional because they were came from us. Metaphorically, we are responsible for everything that happens, whether we intended it to happen or not.

I heard from one of the rabbis that the reason Jewish men pray every day is because they might have had an emission. Metaphorically, again, they might have done something wrong and they therefore need to be cleaned.

The harm here is that many read this as literal and have guilt from their emissions, whether caused by dreams or by stimulation. The guilt is unfortunate. It is hard enough growing up and dealing with urges with no outlet.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 14:33-14:53), 4/2/14

I'm curious now to reexplore dualism in relation to the many dualisms in Judaism, like clean/not clean and good (Jews)/bad (Pharaoh). Kosho (Zen teacher) says that we are wired with a discriminating mind, but that Buddha said we can go beyond that.

Michelle, my acupuncturist, says that she just celebrates freedom on Passover. Is there freedom without slavery? Is there life without death? Are rocks and other inorganic things not living because they don't have a birth/death cycle? Why do Buddhists say that there is no birth and no death?

“And he shall look at the lesion. Now, [if] the lesion in the walls of the house consists of dark green or dark red sunken looking stains, appearing as if deeper than the wall, sunken-looking stains: sunken in their appearance 38. then the kohen shall go out of the house to the entrance of the house, and he shall quarantine the house for seven days.”

I read that the Egyptians had hid money in the houses, so some wanted the houses condemned so that they could be torn down and the money could be found. Crazy?


Monday, April 14, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 14:21-14:32), 4/1/14

It is advantageous for a society to have a means by which all can be cleansed. If people do not have such an opportunity, they might have a greater probability of becoming repeat offenders.

This parshah is a sin offering, a burnt offering, a meal offering, and an offering because one has a "lesion of tzara'th." Is the kohen attempting to cover all the bases just in case the poor person has done more than have a lesion on his skin? Or is the lesion simply a pointer that the individual has messed up in a big way?

Funny that this offering is for a male. Don't women have lesions as well?

“And he shall slaughter the guilt offering lamb, and the kohen shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering's and place it on the cartilage of the right ear of the person being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.”

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Facebook dialogue and Why I won't support a political candidate (over another)

Yesterday someone called and asked if I'd support a political candidate. I told her no, that I was too busy. Then she pressed and asked if I'd do some work for her candidate in a month or two. I explained that if I worked for her candidate I'd have to work for the opposing candidate because I support both of them. She said that she understood. I said that I didn't think she did (because she was supporting A instead of A & B). She agreed.

I see both candidates as my children or siblings. I hope that they both win. I'm sure they both have our best interests in their heart.

Jeff, a former student, was irritated with me because I didn't include his last comment (which was written after I wrote (but not posted) the last post to this blog). I apologize, Jeff, for not including your last comment.

A little kid was coming out of the temple. He declared to me proudly, “I'm a Jew.” Then he told me that his mom was a Jew, but his dad was not. I said to him, “but your dad is a human being.” 


I yearn to belong to the human being tribe until I realize that I'm just one of the living things tribe. And then, not really believing there is a meaningful difference between the living and the not-living, I just wish to be part of it all. 

It is for this reason that I mourn how different belief (religions or politics) systems separate us. We don't seem to acknowledge that one could be on the “other side,” still be a good person and still be right.

Here's the dialogue:

Jeffery Ashbaugh The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away. -- Pablo Picasso
Scriptural commentary is not your gift, but the imagery is . . . keep illustrating.
April 10 at 12:55am · Like

Mike Mccarty IDN...the best commentary should leave as many questions as the story if not actually expanding on the void.
April 10 at 7:36am · Like

Kim Mosley Yesterday someone wrote that they didn't like my art. I deleted that. But then I wrote them that the important thing is to keep at it. Sometimes things work, and sometimes they don't. A research scientist might fail over and over again for many lifetimes. But he accomplished much. What doesn't work is articulated. I showed the above drawing to my wife. She told me to put a disclaimer that you shouldn't cut your hair while standing in a tub (with an electric hair clipper). I like her commentary.
April 10 at 7:44am · Like · 1

Kim Mosley Starting another koan class tonight. The commentaries will definitely mix you up if the koan itself doesn't. Then at the end of the commentary is a verse, which gleefully adds more confusion to our discursive minds. Life itself has more questions than answers. Thanks for saying that Tobias (Mike).
April 10 at 10:28am · Like

Kim Mosley Jeff, your comment reminded me of what a college teacher said to me, "Mosley, sometimes you do the worst work I've ever seen...and sometimes you do the best."
April 10 at 10:30am · Edited · Like · 1

Jeffery Ashbaugh It is not your comments but their context. Framing your commentary using your Buddhist name and book-chapter-verse of the Torah give the illusion of exposition from a position of understanding/authority. Maybe magic realism-ish or as Roland Barthes did in his book, "Empire of Signs," wrote of a illusionary country called Japan, a fantasy using reality to give the illusion substance. If your only purpose is to confuse, that is fine as well, it is just not exposition, that's okay too.
I like Linda's comment as well.
April 11 at 2:11am · Like

Mike Mccarty Who knows if it is possible, or even if it is a good idea, but in this increasingly complex religious world, the opportunity to acknowledge overlap and resonance with another faith once conceived in diametrical opposition would not be a bad thing. Perhaps, confusing the boundaries...eliminates the illusion of dualism.
April 11 at 7:58am · Like

Kim Mosley I was asked to work to support a candidate for office. I told the nice woman who called that I support all the candidates, so if I worked for one I'd have to work for the others. We don't know, in the end, who would have done the best job, if "best job" even exists. I went to my grandson's passover service at school. I have trouble when I hear the words "we." I like the idea of all sentient beings being connected by Indra's net. http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html
Indra's Net, a metaphor for the non-dual nature of all
www.heartspace.org
An essay on the unique genius behind Indra's Net to descrive the non-dual transc...See More
April 11 at 8:26am · Like · Remove Preview

Kim Mosley Jeff, does any commentary make sense when one takes the Bible literally?
April 11 at 8:29am · Like

Jeffery Ashbaugh Yes, if you want to listen to what it says and not looking for it to agree with personal want. One of best non-denominational teachers in America is John MacArthur Jr. His exposition is in context of Jewish life and times, yet allowing the scripture to...See More

Grace to You
www.gty.org
Grace to You... John MacArthur’s in-depth Bible teaching brings the life-transforming truth of God’s Word to millions of people every day.
April 11 at 1:04pm · Like · Remove Preview

Kim Mosley Thanks Jeff. Here's a quote from one of his sermons: “Rabbis would expound the Scripture and explain Scripture and quote other rabbis to validate their interpretation. But this kind of teaching was beyond anything anybody had ever heard. It was a level of wisdom, a level of knowledge, a level of understanding without equal. The people are dumbfounded. They are shocked. They are startled by this flawless, adept instruction, the likes of which they have never heard. He [Jesus] doesn’t quote rabbis. He doesn’t validate his teaching by any human source. He doesn’t necessarily connect with the tradition. But there's never been anything like it.’

I think, as Jesus got his teaching from G_d, we can respond to the Torah via our experience (not exclusively commentators). What you describe as "personal want" is, without the negative connotation, exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to inform my experience. The commentators and the rabbis allow us to connect with a very cryptic and sometimes contradictory text.
April 11 at 2:13pm · Like

Jeffery Ashbaugh First MacArthur is teaching with scripture, Matt 7:29, He taught with authority not like the scribes. Mark 1:22, And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. Etc.

Second, the "personal want," I described is being objective vs subjective...bring personal ideas to be supported over what is actually being said. Nothing negative meant.

Third, Jews are waiting for the Messiah, Christians have Him in Christ. The Messiah can teach with authority given Him by G_d. Christ was not a commentator and we do not have His authority, it is not given to us by scripture, and it cannot be taken. We are not "as Jesus." Our experience may be understood thru scripture but scripture is not subject to our experience.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 14:13-14:20), 3/31/14

Rabbi Baker suggested that sacrifices have to be obligations. Which makes me think about what I do because of choice and what I do because of obligation. When I had a regular job, I had a contract that told me what I should and shouldn't do. It was elaborated on by the board policy and procedures. So to keep my job, I was obliged to follow those rules.

How about me as a parent? What is my obligation, and what do I do from choice? Living in the USA we are obliged by law to protect our kids. But beyond that, my obligation seems to be determined by my decision to commit time and resources to their benefit.

Suppose that I had sinned and wanted to do a guilt offering as in Leviticus 14:13. Because I (hypothetically speaking) have a certain connection with G_d, I would follow her wishes as to the process for the offerings. Given my relationship to G_d, I did not have a choice to make this offering. I had hurt someone, and therefore, according to my contract with G_d, I need to make an offering to clean things up (like me).


Some Facebook comments on this post:

JA: Yes, if you want to listen to what it says and not looking for it to agree with personal want. One of best non-denominational teachers in America is John MacArthur Jr. His exposition is in context of Jewish life and times, yet allowing the scripture to say what it says. All of his work is available free on the site, http://www.gty.org Whether one agrees with him or not, his information, historical context, and understanding are worth considering.

Grace to You (www.gty.org)... John MacArthur’s in-depth Bible teaching brings the life-transforming truth of God’s Word to millions of people every day.
10 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

Kim Mosley: Thanks Jeff. Here's a quote from one of his sermons: “Rabbis would expound the Scripture and explain Scripture and quote other rabbis to validate their interpretation. But this kind of teaching was beyond anything anybody had ever heard. It was a level of wisdom, a level of knowledge, a level of understanding without equal. The people are dumbfounded. They are shocked. They are startled by this flawless, adept instruction, the likes of which they have never heard. He [Jesus] doesn’t quote rabbis. He doesn’t validate his teaching by any human source. He doesn’t necessarily connect with the tradition. But there's never been anything like it.’

I think, as Jesus got his teaching from G_d, we can respond to the Torah via our experience (not exclusively commentators). What you describe as "personal want" is, without the negative connotation, exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to inform my experience. The commentators and the rabbis allow us to connect with a very cryptic and sometimes contradictory text.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Parshat Metzora, (Leviticus 14:1-14:12), 3/30/14

9. And it shall be, on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair: [that of] his head, his beard, his eyebrows; indeed, all his hair, he shall shave off. He shall then immerse his garments and immerse his flesh in water, thus becoming clean.

Is this a baptism?

My wife is worried that he'll drop the hair trimmer and electrocute himself. I wonder what he does with the hair on his back. Someone must shave that off for him.

Rather than, as in Christianity, being all sinners, there are many avenues in Leviticus for redemption from our uncleanliness. The avenues are more difficult than our sinful acts themselves.

This final cleansing comes after the sores heal. The clothes are also washed.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Parshat Tazria, (Leviticus 13:55-13:59), 3/29/14

Social Engineering? Perhaps that is the reason for the eradication of tzaraath, “a disfiguring condition of the skin as well as conditions seemingly equivalent to mildew on clothing and houses” (Wikopedia).

Wikopedia goes on to say, “The Talmud, and the majority of historic Jewish literature in general, regards tzaraath as a punishment for sin; it lists seven possible causes fortzaraath:
  • an evil tongue (malicious gossip)
  • murder
  • a vain oath
  • illicit sexual intercourse
  • pride
  • theft
  • miserly behavior”
This seems similar to the Buddhist view of karma, which we define as intentional action. When we do the wrong thing we end up paying for it in this life or in a future life. When we do good, we end up benefitting from it.

We do not know whether the priests really believed that there was a causal relation between our actions and our skin conditions, or whether this was a means to get us to behave. Did it work? How might have we behaved if there was not a lesson to be learned from bad behavior.




Sunday, April 6, 2014

Parshat Tazria, (Leviticus 13:40-13:54), 3/28/14

40. If a man loses the hair on [the back of] his head, he is bald. He is clean.

41. And if he loses his hair on the side toward his face, he is bald at the front. He is clean.

There are three leprosies. Body, garments, and home (food). If you don't eat kosher, your body will become unhealthy.

Leprosy, according to Rashi, comes because of transgressions. (Though other commentators says that the bad stuff that happens to us isn't because of the stuff we do.) This seems like a contradiction.

I put in the drawing women to touch the man's skull because the kohens said that he was clean. There should be more women in the Torah. They deserve equal time.


Saturday, April 5, 2014

Parshat Tazria, (Leviticus 13:29-13:39), 3/27/14

Maybe this is all about humbling. As the kohens inspects us, we discover our blemishes and realize that we are not perfect nor are we gods.

Black hair is a sign of purity. Golden hair is unclean. Is there a problem with blonds in the Torah?

Friday, April 4, 2014

Parshat Tazria, (Leviticus 13:24-13:28), 3/26/14

This parshah is about burns, and separating burns from leprosy. So is this about our internal cleanliness too? Why is this in the Torah and not in a medical book? I read that there weren't doctors then. I suppose that between the priests and common knowledge, most ills were dealt with according to the wisdom of the time.

Again we see phrases “...its appearance is deeper than the skin” the subject is unclean and “...it is not lower than the skin” the subject shall be quarantined. This would suggest again that this is about who we are vs. what we look like.

In Judaism, you should always rebuke someone who is not doing the right thing, but never embarrass (which is like killing) them. Wow! What a challenge. The external scabs both humble us, and let others know that we are not G_ds. They invite rebuking. Wise men appreciate criticism. How did they become that way? Did they listen?


Thursday, April 3, 2014

Parshat Tazria, (Leviticus 13:18-13:23), 3/25/14

Michael said that commentators have said that the lesions are on our person, not on our skin. I thought about how bad I feel when I hurt someone or do something stupid. That makes me feel unclean. Does it take a priest to tell me whether my lesion is erupting...or not?


Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Parshat Tazria, (Leviticus 13:6-13:17), 3/24/14

G_d doesn't seem to like blemishes. The requirements for the offerings were always for animals without blemishes. We hear, “cleanliness is next to godliness." And now we apply the standard to people? When they have blemishes they are unclean.

Even live flesh growing in a lesion is unclean. Why? But if live flesh turns white then it will be called clean.

And we learn from the commentary that the priest will not examine a bridegroom during seven days of a wedding feast, or during a festival.

Is this about health or is this about purity of spirit? I do not know.