OzTorah

Towards the end of the sidra comes the go’el, the family representative whose task is to stand up and act on behalf of his relatives.

If one of the family sold a parcel of land because of poverty, the go’el redeemed it for him. If a relative sold himself into servitude by reason of his debts, the go’el stepped in to redeem him. If a relative died without issue, the go’el had children on his behalf. The go’el was the avenger of blood if one of the family had been killed.

This task represented the beginnings of Hebrew criminal law, which eventually developed a sophisticated court system as codified in the Mishnah Sanhedrin.

The institution of the go’el shows a family that is united in defence of its own interests. Families may and do squabble amongst themselves, but the strong family has a sense of solidarity and cares for its own. Such families tend to develop their own leadership structure, usually based on chronological seniority. It has of course its inbuilt drawbacks.

A magazine article I read some years ago was entitled “The Demise of Dad the Dictator”. It recognised that being the head of the family could turn you into a bully, but a family without a head can become a family without a mind and heart. In Jewish life it is hardly possible to have a Seder, for example, unless there is an elder in the chair.

Our challenge is to cultivate a sense of family structure without allowing the elders to become dictators.

Q. Is it true that six questions are asked of everyone when they knock at Heaven’s door?

A. What the Talmudic text says (Shabbat 31a/b) is, “When they bring a person to judgment they say to him, Were your dealings honest? Did you devote time to Torah? Did you engage in procreation? Did you look forward to salvation? Did you reason wisely? Did you deduce one thing from another?”

On the day of the final account and reckoning when you want to know, “Do I deserve the heavenly life of the next world?”, you will be asked by means of these questions, “Did you aspire towards heaven in this world?”

The six things are deduced from the verse (Isa. 33:6),”There shall be 1. faith 2. in your times, 3. strength, 4. salvation, 5. wisdom and 6. knowledge”.

They are basic human activities, not necessarily measures of achievement but marks of commitment.

To take two examples, one does not need to become a great scholar but to give time to Torah; one does not have to produce a set number of sons and daughters but to make procreation possible.

In the Talmud, Resh Lakish links each of the six with one of the six sections of the Mishnah:
• “Faith” is Zera’im, “Seeds”: a person’s trade or profession must be aspire to be worthy of God.

• “Your times” are Mo’ed, “Sacred Times”: every occasion must be dedicated to the Almighty.

• “Strength” is Nashim, “Women” (i.e. marriage and divorce): one’s personal and family life must bring strength to the family and community.

• “Salvation” is Nezikin, “Damages” (i.e. civil and criminal law): the law must bring peace and quality to society.

• “Wisdom” is Kodashim (“Sacred Things”): the intricate rules of Jewish law require careful study and analysis.

• “Knowledge” is Tohorot (“Pure Things”): the standards of pure and impure require attention based on study.

The six are essential for a good Jew, but they all require the additional dimension of piety, Yirat HaShem.

“And Moses spoke to the Lord as follows, ‘Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation who may go out before them and who may come in before them, who may lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep which have no shepherd'” (Num. 27:15-18).

Why is it at this particular point that Moses raises the issue?

Three events appear to be behind the question:

1. God has told Moses he is to die before the Israelites enter the Promised Land because he disobeyed the Divine commandment by hitting the rock instead of speaking to it (Num. 27:12-14).

2. The daughters of Tzelofchad have asked for a share in their deceased father’s inheritance because there are no sons (Num. 27:1-11); this makes Moses think about who would inherit his own role (Rashi).

3. Pinchas, who might have succeeded to the leadership, has shown himself to be zealous but impetuous (Num 25:1-15).

Why should God consider Pinchas as the future leader?

Moses had sons, after all. But as in this case, sons do not necessarily have their father’s capacity, and Moses realised that someone else would need to be chosen.

Pinchas would have been a good choice. He was young, able and passionate about God. He had priestly lineage and learning; he had everything going for him. But when a crisis erupted and he showed himself to be somewhat too fanatical, he displayed a lack of balance and crisis control, and such a person was not dependable enough when it came to dealing with people.

But surely God had a somewhat different view when He decided that Pinchas would not lose his priestly status despite his over-zealous action in killing an Israelite sinner and the woman with whom he had sinned (Num. 25).

How is it that Pinchas could be a kohen but not a leader?

The answer is that the kohen carries out ritual functions in the sanctuary and does not necessarily have to be a people person. The leader, however, has to know what is politic and be “a man in whom there is spirit”, as was the eventual appointee, Joshua (Num. 28:18).

What does “spirit” mean in this connection? Rashi explains that it means a leader capable of understanding the spirit and personality of each of his people. The leader has to be a leader for the whole people and enjoy their trust and confidence.

The dates and procedures of the festivals take up an important section of today’s sidra.

All the Biblical festivals are there – except for yom tov sheni shel galuyot, the second days observed in the Diaspora but not in Israel (except for the second day of Rosh HaShanah, which is observed everywhere).

How the second day came into being has to do with the ancient procedure whereby Rosh Chodesh was declared after eye witnesses testified that they had seen the new moon. Without such testimony it was not certain whether a given month would be 29 or 30 days.

But it took time for the news that it was Rosh Chodesh to reach outlying communities. Hence Diaspora centres added an extra day to Pesach, Shavu’ot and Sukkot in order to ensure that one at least of the two days was the correct date as observed in Eretz Yisrael.

Eventually the calendar was fixed by mathematical calculations, but the second day yom tov, having become firmly entrenched, was retained and the rabbis insisted on its sanctity being upheld.

Some enjoy the second day. Others grumble about it. But there is a positive way to handle it ­ two in fact.

One: if one day is really enough for you, why not consider living in Israel?

Two: give each of the two days a different feeling and flavour. Choose a different shule for the second day if you can; select different menus for the festival meals; invite different guests; go for a different yom tov stroll; prepare different divrei Torah; sing different songs at the table.

In short, let each day make its own distinctive contribution to your Jewish experience.

Q. What does Judaism say about environmental preservation versus human development?

A. Judaism, through the Bible, was the originator of the idea of a duty towards the environment.

Jewish ethics cannot therefore view with unconcern the danger of widespread environmental devastation, and it is characteristic of Judaism that a major Jewish organisation – the Jewish National Fund – works so energetically to ensure the health of nature and the environment.

The Biblical principle begins with Deut. 21:19:20, with its command against the wanton destruction of trees; from this derives the general rule of bal tash’chit, which prohibits any form of wanton destruction, including stopping up a spring, demolishing a building or smashing household goods (Kidd. 32a).

However, there must be a balance between the needs of nature and those of man, and if they clash, human needs, if responsibly defined, must prevail.

It would be ludicrous if the wish to preserve the environment at all costs were to result in a world in which human beings felt excluded and irrelevant.

The world has been made for man, not man for the world; man is not an intruder, and God’s work of creation is clearly stated as reaching its culmination in the creation of human beings, with the right to inhabit, enjoy and utilise nature and its facilities. Genesis 1:28 empowers man to “subdue” the earth, though not to abuse or disregard it.

The Midrash relates that God told Adam, “See how lovely and worthy of praise are My works. They have all been created for your sake. Take care not to spoil or destroy My world” (Ecclesiastes Rabba to 7:13).

The question we have to ask is, in what circumstances should man’s needs prevail in a clash with nature?

The answer must be that whatever is essential for normal living must be accepted as the highest priority, though “normal living” does not mean mere commercial advantage or a wish for power, domination, success or status.

Constructive human activities which are generally viewed as indispensable for life do not infringe the prohibition of bal tash’chit even if there is some cost to the environment.

Every attempt must be made to accommodate the claims of the champions of the environment, but not at the expense of human need.