“Chukkat : is it rational?”
Unisex is forbidden by the Jewish tradition and a woman should clearly be dressed or look different from a man, and vice versa. This is far from being obvious when you walk through the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, but any Israeli city or village. People want to be trendy, feel comfy, at ease, hedinistic because the system is consumaristic.
We can compare with any city in this country or even abroad, but there seems to be a problem with Jerusalem. The problem dealt with “Sanctity”. True, the city is pious and has a lot of very religious inhabitants or passers-by, tourists, pilgrims of all faiths and creeds . Some long hair male can be terribly effeminate, considering the fact that they might spend hours in combing their hair. Some yeshive bechurim/ישיבה-בחורים or students would automatically curl their peyses/pe’otפאות (hair locks) with their index in a way that is “between” malehood and feminity: some ambiguous and equivocal swing of the hips.
But the walk/gang (”גאנג ביידיש, הליכה” בעברית) has a spiritual meaning. The same shows in traditional Churches where celibacy has been a rule for centuries. Curiously, Oriental nuns would retain a strong sense of womanhood while men often tend to some sort of effeminate behavior, just as shown at the present in all western societies.
The combat for equality and pre-supposed equal rights has developed and continues to evolve in some sort of “androgynous” character that is rather pregnant in our generation. It is difficult to frankly distinguish some attitudes that swing between male and female acquired tendencies and the trends of daily new objects or products of consumption. With regards to the gay and lesbian pride, there is,by definition, a ban that blinds our awareness and even alertness. One can regret the absence of real and serious theological arguments that might not be even understood or accepted by those whoever they can be who protest against their pride.
Is it a parade or a provocation? We could also think in terms of a “farce”, a way to play the jester that curves up and down sexes and confuses them. Many things can be said or uttered in a society, especially true words when they are expressed in a jester’s way as the clown could call to the king and mock him without being punished. Religions have too often played with the sex of the angels among the humans, or they have denaturized human beings and imposed illegal postures and situations. I always keep in mind that gays and lesbians were deported as such to the extermination camps and used as playmates by masochist gangsters. In Israel, we have tragic, definitely pathetic life paths that made Jews, half-jews, supposed and fake jews the playmates of sado-masochist individuals and gangs in the whole of Europe. In that sense, the play that is “offered or presented” each year from Tel aviv to Jerusalem, also down to Eilat is somehow a pagan demonstration of a society driven to hedonism. it is also the syndrome of a specific Israeli and Jewish society that has experienced in its flesh and soul the terrible aches, pains and torture of exterminimation. We should not only reflect in terms of traditional theological or moral parameters here: the E(xtra) Terrestr(al) people th Jews are as signs of the Divine Presence became a full mockery of their human and physical dignity during the period of the Shoah.
These “problematics” are absolutely not taken into account or even mentioned by all those that report, account, define, describe after their own opinion or considerations the situation that is going on here at the present. There is, in particular because of the tragic event of the murder at the Bar HaNoar, a profound interrogation: GLBT individuals and “lobbying actors” or so-called group, could hope for a recognition that is quite impossible according to the religions in the country. On the other hand, they could really feel a desire to avoid all forms of suffering, because of a past that turns to some nostalgia, a spleen that today changes into a societal tendency with backgrounds and memories.
Some Hareidim are effeminated in their “walking”. It has always been known. it is not a process of feminization. it is a normal way that always existed inside of the Jewish relation to human nature. It “unites without really encompassing malehood and womanhood in manners that still mmaintain the differences and obligation for both sexes to meet and cope adequately. The Hareidim were not involved in the murder at Tel aviv, four years ago. It was not an anti-GLBT protest. It was an internal battle, made of turpides, temptations, drugs, addicted to all sorts of deviances. it offers the vision of more ghettos excluding individuals and not the quest for purity and righteous rights.
This week, the reading portion from the TaNaKh is “Chukkatחוקת = this is the ritual, non-rational commandment” in Bemidbar/Numbers 19:1- 22:1. To begin with, the reading portion deals with the red cow or “parah adumahפרה אדומה – red heifer” that was bred and then slaughtered mixed with cedar tree branches, hyssop and crimson stuff (scarlet); its ashes were mixed in a huge cistern whose waters were precisely handled by young children who had never been in contact with death.
We do have our own way to separate young males from any danger of corruption. Judaism can be obsessed by any kind of sin, i.e. corruptibility through the contact with death. Now, this commandment regarding the red heifer has no rational basis or explanation. Contrary to all usual commandments that are explained by the rabbis in the Gemara, it is absent from any commentary. The Mishna does include a very small Treatise Parah/פרה (Cow, heifer) as a part of the larger tractate Taharotטהרות (purifications). It is evident that there is no rational basis to the fact that if some black hair would be found on this very sacrificial and penitential cow, she would become non-kosher. This tracks back to no explainable law. One, two black hairs and the cow could not be slaughtered to produce the ashes that could save the people from their sins.
This week, we face in the reading portion the problem of how waters spring out to be drunk by the congregation and their beasts. Then we read how anomalies can turn to save the sinful. In terms of biology, it is not normal and natural to get a “parah adumahפרה אדומה – a red heifer”. The animal is a rarity and in some way a reverse of natural cow colors.
Cows are cows: we love them in this country. Black and white, they are sweet milking beasts. Brown cows in some areas and other countries. Many restaurants show ensigns in shape of a red heifer. But the red cow was not edible. It was meant to purify, was slaughtered at the top of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem and its blood sprinkled out in the direction of the West, i.e. to the world and the Temple. It is said in tractate Parah 2,1 that only eight red heifers might have be slain from the time of Moses till the destruction of the Temple. Other Jewish traditions would consider there were nine of them. Thus, it is considered as a “chokחוק = non-rational commandment/mitzvahמצוה” that still has to be perpetually fulfilled, especially in regard with the Yom Kippur ritual of purity. Nobody can show any evidence as concerns the coherence of the commandment. It is the same chok that only has to be accepted and accomplished by faith and confidence (emunah shlemahאמונה שלמה) as the Sha’atnezשעטנז (Lev. 19:19), the prohibition to mix wool and linen, except, for instance, in the girdle the High Priest (Yevamot 4b-5b). It is a very important and pending question at the present because, the people should be purified in case of building-up the Temple…
The principle of a “chok/chukka-חוקחוקה” corresponds to this: “I will leave to my sons a due share (a fixed living)” (Erubin 54a). These laws without reason are engraved, drawn like circles in order to remind God’s will: “He ordered a mark to be put on his (Abraham’s) flesh” (Shabbat 137b).
In these quotations, as in a general stand, “a chok” is full of meaningfulness in God’s eyes and His decrees are totally founded. In our society, it seems that we are at times in a situation of absence of any coherence, as if we were shapeless. There are also some trends to lead us to social or emotional lack of structural egos, destruction or lessening of consistency. Call it bozo for a while, there are times that lead people to reduce their reactions and spiritual forces. “Timtemטימטם” means this kind of tendency as in ‘troubles obstruct the heart, making a man dull (Pessahim 42a). Thus, “sin blunts the understanding of human beings (Yoma 39a), “till man become a shapeless mass” (Hallah 1c).
The example of the dough is often used because bread be “kneaded” in various shapes that may make sense or not, without reason. Yiddish and the Jewish folklore tradition have considered that “timtumטימטום” are those without clear sexual orientation, not necessarily a condemnation of homosexuals as they can be today; they represent with the lesbians a growing identity group marketing group and target. The problem is rather a sort of grin at shapeless souls, which is indeed a lack of compassion.
God convoked Moses and Aaron and told them to give water from the rock to let the congregation and their beasts drink a lot of water. Moses took his rod and addressed the “morim/rebels” to get copious water. Okay, he stuck the rock twice and not only once as usual. And God said to Moses and Aaron that because they, personally, did not obey to God’s Commandments, they will not lead the congregation into the given land!!! At this point, today, any normal guy in this country would immediately rush to the Supreme Court and make a scandal!! And they would cc/forward a note to the chief rabbinates, the members of the Knesset and eventually contact The Hague and Geneva, if not the numerous “heretics”. This is the usual way we behave at the present towards God but we hardly can notice that because we are framed both as actors and mirrors.
At the mey Merivah/Meribah watersמי מריבה, the congregation did quarrel with the Lord as He affirmed His sanctity in and through them. Such a rebellion is not acceptable. God enough, so the rebels could die in the wilderness. We had seen that the “nassi: leader, ruler, head of the nation” will not be pardoned his sin like the other members of the congregation.. He must atone in a specific way in his quality of leader.
The chokחוק seemingly extends as a law without reason that condemned Moses and Aaron not to enter the Land of Canaan. There is definitely no explanation in the Chumashחומש (Five Books of Moses). In the reading portion of this week we only know about the death of Aaron. This would eventually be more understandable. The High priest shaped the golden calf to provide a deity to the congregation as Moses did not seem to come back from the mountain. He did commit the sin of idolatry. And now he apparently dies because of copious waters? After having served as priest all over the trip throughout the wilderness?
As for Moses who never quarreled with God. This is this interesting point. He also accepted God’s decisions. He would intercede for the others, never on his own behalf. Indeed, chokkim – laws without reason or rational basis- show that God naturally speaks to the heart of His servant and to those who do follow Him. It is an indisputable evidence.
This question has always been a terrible spiritual problem for the rabbinic leadership as for the leaders of all the Churches and Muslim guides. This is a horrible quest indeed for the monotheistic believers.
This Sunday 2013, the Eastern Orthodox Church of Jerusalem will commemorate the first Ecumenical Council and the role of the Fathers. It is also, incidentally, the Day in honor of the Fathers/Dads. There is a huge responsibility that appertains to men, malehood. They have the responsibility to acknowledge that God, according to the Bible and thus in a very realistic psychological and human way, had mercy upon the loneliness of males nd created women to g o”against the will of men, meet their will face to face” in a dialogue that includes the duty and commandment to give birth in a usual way.
It is quite evident that the example of Sarah telling Abraham to go with her maid Hagar and give birth to her son (Sarah’s) implies a large reflection over centuries and in the Talmud on the many possibilities that life would never exclude to give birth and life to children and raise them accordingly. “Assited pro-creation, in vitro, in vivo processes” and all sorts of other tools and practices have beeen described in the Talmud as a consequence of the Biblical commandments and their modus operandi.
On the other hand, “spiritual fatherhood” is the privilege of all fathers, dads. It means they have to accomplish a task that is never known to them in advance. I have always been very cautious with the so-called “spiritual guidance of the spiritual guide or “father/priest, monk or others”. Insightful perceptions do exist. The Holy spirit is shared by all creatures that have a breath into their nostrils (Jewish prayer of Rosh Hashanah). The Holy Spirit allows to say “Abba, not “father”, but “daddy” (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6), even to God Himself” as jesus taught his disciples (Matthew 6:4-6, inter alia). To my knowledge – I maybe wrong – only Yiddish and Haitian Creole would pray to the Lord Father by addressing to Him as “Tatyenu/טאטיענו ” (often the translations prefer “Foter/פאטער ” for Yiddish and “Papa Nou” for the Haitian Creole version systematically.
Spiritual guidance is precisely difficult because it must take into consideration this “irrationality” of life paths along with some Divine Commandments that are not easy to understand or to cope with.
We need men of conscience. It is not a matter of politics. Not even of morals and ethics. It is beyond that, an attitude that is so evident that is implemented as a commandment that does not appeal to understanding or judgment. Yes, people have the right to err. And they are free to do whatever would not harm or restrict their true own freedom. But as regards societal errors, the leadership – whenever religious or governmental – mostly lacks the close intimacy that existed between God and His obedient servants Moses and Aaron.
“We have reached the stage of being led by people without any self-respect, leaders who attempt to save themselves at the expense of the sins, omissions and errors made by those under them, who acted under their leadership. This is unlike the faithful shepherd that the Jewish people had, who, when the people died as a result of their sins, died with them, even though there was no sin on his part”, wrote Rav Yehoshua Leibowitz , in 1986 (Yoke of heaven, p. 148). It was courageous. Curiously, he then wrote a sort of Jewish and somehow Christian-like statement about Moses.
Av Aleksandr (Archpriest Alexander Winogradsky-Frenkel)