Parsha Pix

Following the birth of a baby boy, there is a 7-day period of Tum’a for the mother followed by a 33 day period of Tahara.
Knife for Brit Mila follows the 7th day, i.e. on the 8th day.
For the birth of a baby girl, the periods of Tum’a and Tahara is 14 days and 66 days.
Then come the turtle dove and lamb, which are two parts of the Korban Yoledet, the offerings of the woman who has given birth, after 40 or 80 days.
There is a hand afflicted by a NEGA… this represents the various N’GA’IM that can afflict the body of a person.
The shirt with a NEGA represents those garments and materials that are able to be afflicted with NIG’EI HABEGED.
The number sign, a.k.a. SULAMIT (in Hebrew), pound sign, hash, cross-hash, hex, and the best name: octothorpe. In this Parsha- Pix, it represents the SH’TI & EIREV, the warp & woof weave of garments afflicted by a NEGA.
That lizard-like reptile is a CHAMELION, noted for changing colors - a significant factor in the determination of NEGA’IM.
The traffic light also refers to the changing of colors in the NEGA’IM. This is a particularly appropriate graphic to use for this, since its colors are all mentioned in the sedra. Hair in a wound changing to yellow (or not). And the term Y’RAKRAK, greenish, or maybe strong green. So too ADAMDAM, reddish, or powerful red.
The two birds are part of the purification process of a M’TZORA. The TZIPOR (two of them) of the purification process for a M’TZORA is the D’ROR - speculated to be a sparrow or one type of swallow. Pictured in the ParshaPix are sparrows. Neither bird of the two required is a korban (sacrifice) and is therefore not necessarily a dove or turtledove - those being the only two birds eligible for the Mizbei’ach.
Also pictured are the cedar tree (EITZ EREZ), the hyssop plant (EISOV), and a red wool thread (SH’NI TOLAAT, not shown), all part of the M’tora’s purification.
The M’tzora is required to shave all the hair of his body (razor)...
including, as is mentioned in the Torah, the eyebrows. In the picture, one eyebrow has already been shaved.
The 2+1 on the lamb are for 2 male sheep and 1 female - part of the procedure of purification.
To the right of the traffic light are the three recipients of the blood and oil of the purification process - the earlobe (one opinion - others hold the top of the outer ear, or the middle ridge of cartilage), thumb, and big toe - of the right ear, the right hand, and the right foot.
Pictured is HaRav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohein Kook zt"l, wearing glasses. This stands for the oft repeated phrase, V’RA’A HAKOHEN, and the kohein saw. Searching the Tanach, one finds that the phrase occurs 14 times altogether, 13 in Tazri’a (chapter 13 therein) and once, a 14th time, in chapter 14 (M’tzora). And to make the life of a Bar Mitzva boy who is trying to study this parsha chal- lenging, V’RA’A HAKOHEN comes in 8 different TROP-combinations. And this doesn’t take into account the 5 V’RA’AHU HAKOHENs with their TROP variations. And this is also not to mention the 40 HEI-VAV-ALEFs in Tazri’a, 18 of which are HI (meaning she) and 22 of which are HU (meaning he), but in most cases really meaning “it”. Not to mention other layning hard-spots in M’tzora. In all, a tough pair of sedras to read. But we digress…
Besides one’s body and certain garments (wool, linen, leather), certain types of homes (depends upon building materials) are subject to N’GA’IM. There is an afflicted house in the lower-left of the ParshaPix.
The double three domino stands for the unique pair of consecutive p’sukim that contain three words each. ULTZARAAT HABEGED V’LABAYIT: V’LASEIT V’LASAPA- CHAT V’LABAHERET:
Along the right side of the PP from the top is EEYORE, Winnie the Pooh’s donkey friend. His name is pronounced very much like the name of the month IYAR that we announce this Shabbat.
Looney Tunes’ Tazmanian Devil, affectionately known as TAZ
followed by the third largest bird in the world, the Rhea of South America. Together, they give you TAZRI’A.
This leads to orange juice, MITZ ORANGE. Take away the NGE and you get MITZORA.
And two Unexplaineds, plus the MazalPic, and these bullets (easy).

TTRIDDLES... are Torah Tidbits-style riddles on Parshat HaShavua (sometimes on the calendar). They are found in the hard-copy of

Last issue’s (Pesach) TTriddles:

[1] Mehetabel follows command
Command is TZAV. Gimatriya is 96. That’s the number of p’sukim Tzav has, according to tradition. The problem is that we count 97 p’sukim - could be one-off in gimatriya doesn’t matter; could be a slight difference in dividing the sedra into p’sukim. Anyway, Mehetabel is numerically equal to 40+5+10+9+2+ 1+30 = 97. Who was she? A queen of Edom (B’reishit 36:39). Who was he? Grandfather of Sh’maya (Nechemya 6:10). How’s that for a neutral name. Know any boys or girls named Mehetabel? Didn’t think so.
[2] All except 100 conform to the rule
All Menachot (flour & oil offerings) in the Mikdash are made according to matza rules - they may not be chameitz. Aside from the Two Loaves of Shavuot, which were chameitz, the other exception to the rule are 10 of the 40 accompanying loaves / wafers / crackers / whatever for the Korabn Toda. Psalm 100 is MIZMOR L’TODA.
[3] We announce their day
On the Shabbat following Pesach, we in Israel read Parshat Sh’mini, thereby announcing the fact that in Chutz LaAretz, they were celebrat- ing the Yom HaShmini of Pesach.
[4] 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th (twice), 15th, 17th, 18th, 20th (twice)
Numbers refer to the Hebrew Alef-Bet. Take a HEI, VAV, CHET, two MEMs, a SAMACH, PEI, TZADI, and two REISHes and arrange them to spell PESACH, MATZA, and MAROR.
That’s it. A very modest TTriddle-set, especially for a Trippple issue.

This week’s TTriddles:
[1] This ZOT binds these and no others
[2] Did this before. And now again.
[3] Elul combines with water, fear, and pocket, but in England, it’s the cup in Chanuka
[4] 3 arrows, not 4 gate people
[5] What would have happened to Groucho Marx had he been a purifying former m’tzora?
[6] Eyes at the end - just these two
[7] And Leah became pregnant and (then) gave birth - this week?

Divrei Menachem

Divrei Menachem

Parshat Tazria introduces us to the laws of spiritual impurity (Tumah) associated with human beings. After becoming contaminated in one way or another, the individual is to undergo a period of cleansing, often culminating in the bringing of an offering. This latter sacrificial part of the process underscores the concept that the Tumah state reflects some inner condition that needs rectifying.
For example, even though the mother has given birth to a beautiful new offspring, she is ultimately to bring both an Olah and a Chatat offering as atonement for the possibility of having negative thoughts during her labor pains, both against G-d and her husband (Ibn Ezra; Nida 31b).
While many of the laws in our parsha pertain to physical hygiene, clearly the Torah is teaching us that the soul needs nurturing, no less than the body. To quote the late Dr. Morris Mandelz”l,“There is no life in the body without the soul… Every movement is an offshoot of the soul’s power. Belief in Hashem is the foundation
for all the preventive and remedial diseases of the soul… and if applied properly to life and living, it will simplify all remedies.. to sustain the life and health of the body.”
How pertinent and profound is the wisdom of our Torah!

Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff

We would greatly appreciate your feedback on the new features (and old ones) in Torah Tidbits [Please send to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)]

Towards Better Davening and Torah Reading

Splitting Hairs - US-ARA and US-ARAHHH

They look the same? Look again. One has a MAPIK in the HEI, the other doesn’t.
That’s US-ARA (US rhymes with loose) and US-ARAHHH.
Both words refer to the hair in a blemish, as to whether it has or has not turned white.
Artscroll’s Stone Chumash renders the first one as ‘the hair’ and the second one as, ‘its hair’. That might just be their way of coping with the missing MAPIK in the first instance. The fact is, that our Chumashim asterisk the MAPIK-less HEI, indicating that it should have the MAPIK, but our Tradition leaves it out.
Did it drop out by accident? Is it explainable by drash? Is it an error to read the first instance with a MAPIK? Hey - sometimes we just raise questions. Maybe a TTreader will give us some answers.

Oz Torah

From “OzTorah” by Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple, AO RFD, Emeritus Rabbi of the Great Synagogue, Sydney - http://www.oztorah.com

A look at Tazri’a and M’tzora

Euthanasia & the sanctity of life

This week’s sidra focuses on medical issues. The Torah is co-extensive with life. Nothing human is outside its concern. This has been the case not only in ancient times, but throughout history. Human life and health are major priorities for Judaism. Since life is given by God, its preservation is a religious and moral duty. What I do with my body and my life is not just my problem, but God’s. This is why we cannot unquestioningly accept the view of Justice Cardozo that “every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” It sounds fine, but it fails to recognize that our bodies are not our own. I may place my material possessions at risk, but not my body or my life. Hence the cry for euthanasia - “assisted suicide” -  can have no echo in Judaism.
Obviously Judaism fully recognizes the problems of the dying patient and the agonies of the family. But it has always set its face against compromising anyone’s right to live, even that of the patient whose condition arouses in himself or others the feeling that there are times when life no longer has meaning. Life is a precious boon given by God. Only He has the prerogative of ending it. The body is His property; only He may determine its destiny. One may not commit murder, nor shorten anyone’s life, even by a moment.
The rule is, “A gosses (a dying person) is a living person in every respect… One may not close the eyes of a dying person. He who touches them or moves them is a shedder of blood, for Rabbi Meir used to say: This may be compared to a flickering flame. As soon as a person touches it, it becomes extinguished. So, too, whoever closes the eyes of a dying person is deemed to have taken his life.”
An argument put forward by the proponents of euthanasia is that there can come a time when one’s life is not really life and a person is no longer really a person. Helga Kuhse, in “The Sanctity-of-Life Doctrine in Medicine: A Critique”, quotes Dr Michael Tooley, who suggests that “we reserve the term “person” for those beings who are capable of understanding that they are continuing selves.” Kuhse’s conclusion is that neither human fetuses nor human infants, nor humans with severe mental retardation or brain damage are “persons,” and it would not be directly wrongful to take their lives. She advocates that competent patients should have the right to choose death and incompetent patients (where their express wishes are not known) should be dealt with in a way that considers the patient’s wellbeing and the prevention of pointless suffering.
This sort of thinking has no place in Judaism, which insists that the right to life is absolute, not relative. To borrow a phrase used by the Talmud, who has the right to determine that one person’s blood is redder than another’s? It is the most dangerous moral judgement of all to make distinctions between the relative value of people’s lives - the sick as against the healthy, the almost dead as against the fully living, the old as against the young and, as the moral slide gains momentum, the poor as against the rich, the coloured as against the white, the Jew as against the gentile…
From the Jewish point of view, then, active euthanasia is totally forbidden. Is there, however, any room for passive euthanasia, withholding treatment which may be artificially delaying a person’s demise?
R’ Moshe Isserles says in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch: If there is something which inhibits the soul’s departure, such as nearby noise of knocking like wood- chopping, or if there is salt on the patient’s tongue and these hinder the soul’s departure, then it is permitted to remove them from there because this does not entail a (positive) act but only the removal of an impediment to death.” The question is, are we shortening a patient’s life, which is forbidden, or shortening their dying, which can be permitted.

TTRIDDLES... are Torah Tidbits-style riddles on Parshat HaShavua (sometimes on the calendar). They are found in the hard-copy of

Last issue’s (Pesach) TTriddles:

[1] Mehetabel follows command
Command is TZAV. Gimatriya is 96. That’s the number of p’sukim Tzav has, according to tradition. The problem is that we count 97 p’sukim - could be one-off in gimatriya doesn’t matter; could be a slight difference in dividing the sedra into p’sukim. Anyway, Mehetabel is numerically equal to 40+5+10+9+2+ 1+30 = 97. Who was she? A queen of Edom (B’reishit 36:39). Who was he? Grandfather of Sh’maya (Nechemya 6:10). How’s that for a neutral name. Know any boys or girls named Mehetabel? Didn’t think so.
[2] All except 100 conform to the rule
All Menachot (flour & oil offerings) in the Mikdash are made according to matza rules - they may not be chameitz. Aside from the Two Loaves of Shavuot, which were chameitz, the other exception to the rule are 10 of the 40 accompanying loaves / wafers / crackers / whatever for the Korabn Toda. Psalm 100 is MIZMOR L’TODA.
[3] We announce their day
On the Shabbat following Pesach, we in Israel read Parshat Sh’mini, thereby announcing the fact that in Chutz LaAretz, they were celebrat- ing the Yom HaShmini of Pesach.
[4] 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th (twice), 15th, 17th, 18th, 20th (twice)
Numbers refer to the Hebrew Alef-Bet. Take a HEI, VAV, CHET, two MEMs, a SAMACH, PEI, TZADI, and two REISHes and arrange them to spell PESACH, MATZA, and MAROR.
That’s it. A very modest TTriddle-set, especially for a Trippple issue.

This week’s TTriddles:
[1] This ZOT binds these and no others
[2] Did this before. And now again.
[3] Elul combines with water, fear, and pocket, but in England, it’s the cup in Chanuka
[4] 3 arrows, not 4 gate people
[5] What would have happened to Groucho Marx had he been a purifying former m’tzora?
[6] Eyes at the end - just these two
[7] And Leah became pregnant and (then) gave birth - this week?

Vayakhel- P'kudei Stats

V P V+P
Sedra among 54 22nd 23rd -
Sedra of Sh’mot’s 11 10 11 -
lines 211.2 158.7 369.8
rank (among the 54) 22nd 41st (2nd)
Parshiyot 13 20 33
  P’tuchot 7 6 13
  S’tumot 6 14 20
P’sukim 122 92 214
rank (Torah/Shmot) 17/3 40/10 (2nd)
Words 1558 1182 2740
rank (Torah/Shmot) 24/6 42/9 (2nd)
Letters 6181 4432 10613
rank (Torah/Shmot) 21/5 44/10 (2nd)
MITZVOT 1 0 1
###
Parshat Para can be read with Ki Tisa, Vayakhel alone, Vayakhel-P’kudei (this year), Tzav, and Sh’mini

Vayakhel-P’kudei is the 2nd longest of the double sedras, trailing behind Matot-Masei. The addition of Para - the 2nd longest Maftir we have, with 22 p’sukim, makes it even longer, but still behind M&M.

It's Not a Sin, but...

First, an observation: This year, the Four Special Parshiyot span six Shabbatot - Sh’kalim, break, Zachor, break, Para, HaChodesh. (As of this writing, we are two down, two to go - which isn’t relevant to the point of this Lead Tidbit, hence the parentheses. Neither is the fact that they usually span only five Shabbatot.) However, between Purim and this Shabbat (a much more condensed period of time), we find the elements of the Four Parshiyot. Purim mirrors Zachor and has the tie-in to Sh’kalim because of the giving of Zeicher L’Machatzit HaShekel, as well as the counterpart of Haman’s offer of silver to enrich the king’s coffers in exchange for permission to destroy us. And Ki Tisa is where Parshat Sh’kalim comes from. This Shabbat is Para and we bench Rosh Chodesh Nisan, the first of the months, as we will read in HaChodesh next week. Just an observation, and maybe a point to ponder. The Parshiyot seem to be more intertwined than we usually think of them.
Back to Vayakhel-P’kudei - Para. Being TAMEI from contact to a dead body is not in and of itself a sin. This is a fact we sometimes forget in light of the well-known idea that the Para Aduma is a KAPARA and/or TIKUN for the Sin of the Golden Calf. The Para Aduma is not a Korban. It is therefore not a Korban Chatat, although it is often referred to as CHATAT. For example, the potion prepared from its ashes is called MEI CHATAT. And there are other usages of the word CHATAT related to Para Aduma. But the Para Aduma potion is used to purify (L’TAHEIR) a person who is T’MEI MEIT, not to effect atonement for any sin.
Being TAMEI is not a sin, per se, but it is not the ideal state for a Jew to be in.
Furthermore, if one is TAMEI and he eats sacred foods or enters the Beit HaMikdash area, then he is sinning, in a grand way.
It’s as if we are told, if you are TAMEI, that’s acceptable, but if you dare approach the sacred, you’re in big trouble.
And another furthermore, if, at the time of the Beit HaMikdash - past or future - a person chooses to remain TAMEI and thereby be ineligible to eat the Korban Pesach, such a person is considered to have intentionally refused to participate in Korban Pesach and can be liable to the heavenly punishment of KAREIT. This, if one had the opportunity to become TAHOR and decided not to undergo the purification process.
So, we might say that being TAMEI is not the ideal and can lead to dire consequences when combined with other situations. But not in and of itself.
A kohein at the time of the Mikdash, who is called upon to serve in the Mikdash, must purify himself. A non- kohein can technically “get away” with remaining TAMEI during the normal course of everyday life, but he too - the non-kohein, that is - has situations which require him to purify. These include not only Korban Pesach, but the eating of Maaser Sheni, the bringing of a Korban Chatat, and other such situations.
Even when someone bakes bread that requires the separation of Challa, to be given to a kohein - this has to be done in a state of TAHARA.
This year’s coinciding of Parshat Para with the double sedras of Vayakhel and P’kudei make the message of Para stronger and clearer.
Building the Mikdash, service in the Mikdash, visiting the Mikdash - these do not mix with remaining in a state of TAMEI.
We are also taught that there were individuals who did not want to remain TAMEI any longer than they had to, and always strived to be TAHOR and when they became TAMEI by chance or requirement, they would strive to undergo purification as soon as feasible.
So too, did these individuals try never to eat food that was TAMEI, even though the food is still kosher and permissible for consumption.
Bottom line: TAHARA goes hand-in- hand with our striving towards more spirituality and kedusha (sanctity) in our lives. Parshat Para gives us pause to reflect on the proper path we should seek in our Torah lives. And if we truly yearn for the building of the Beit HaMikdash, we need to pay more attention to the TUM’A-TAHARA issues on all levels - literal and figurative.

Word of the Month

A weekly feature of Torah Tidbits to help clarify practical and conceptual aspects of the Jewish Calendar, thereby better fulfilling the mitzva of HaChodesh HaZeh Lachem…

A look at T’tzaveh

Wear, what & why

The kohein’s vestments were carefully specified, and every detail had to be correct. In the sanctuary nothing shoddy could be tolerated, neither in the procedures of sacrifice and worship, nor in the garb and appearance of those charged with the responsibilities of leadership and office.
Clothing mattered with the kohein: it also matters with the rabbi. A scholar must not have even a speck on his garments: it would be an insult to God and the Torah. Shabbat and festival clothing must be even better and more dignified than weekday clothing. Concessions might be made in extreme climatic conditions, and in very hot weather relatively casual dressing may be acceptable - but even then one must be tidy and neat.
In a British synagogue where I once served, the dress code was very British and a prospective chazzan was ruled out because he was wearing brown shoes. In my synagogue in Australia no one even noticed if people came in sandals, though I once gently remonstrated with a member who came on Shabbat in shorts. But in Israel no one seemed bothered when a young man came to synagogue on Kol Nidre night wearing shorts.
The moral? Take account of the environment, certainly, but don’t say, “Who cares what you wear?” Your garments say something about you. The Torah says that the kohein’s clothing should be “for honour and glory” (Sh’mot 28:2). Since we are meant to be “a kingdom of kohanim,” (19:6) we should ensure that our clothes proclaim honour to ourselves and the glory of God.

Don't Rain on My Parade!

If you have raised a child, you have had this experience. Your little boy or girl came home from school with a sample of his or her artwork. To you it just looked like a hodge-podge of scribbles, random color smears. But your child exclaimed, “Look, Mommy, it is a picture of the trees and fields that we pass on the way to grandma’s house.” Or, “Wow, Daddy! I drew the sun and the moon and the stars in the sky!”
What do you do with the picture? What most of us would do, and certainly what my wife and I did many times with our kids, is to tell them how beautiful the picture is, how it looks just like what they describe it to be, and then post it on the refrigerator door or some other prominent place, then show it off for all to see.
Imagine how devastating it is, on the other hand, if the child gleefully brings his work of art to the parents attention only to have the parents say, “Ugh! What an ugly picture! It’s just a bunch of smudges on paper! It doesn’t look at all like a forest or field! Sun and moon and stars, no way!”
Such a parent has extinguished the poor child’s exuberance. By cruelly scoffing at the youngster’s attempt to produce a work of art, the parent has seriously harmed the child’s self- esteem. The parents had an opportunity to deliver words of encouragement which would have had a long- term impact. Instead, they instilled in the child a lack of self-confidence which may very well have left a lifelong scar.
The Jewish tradition condemns the scoffer and sees in cynicism a powerful destructive force.
What, you may ask, does this have to do with this week’s Torah readings? Let me explain. Although the primary Torah portion this week is Parshat T’zaveh (Sh’mot 27:2- 30:10), we also will be reading an additional selection, and a very important one at that.
This week is one of the four special Shabbatot which precede the approach of Pesach. Two weeks ago was Parshat Sh’kalim, which was discussed in this column. This week is Parshat Zachor, where we read the story of Amalek’s treacherous attack upon the people of Israel as they marched through the wilderness (D’varim 25:17-19).
Amalek’s cowardly attack is to be remembered for all generations. There are many views as to what was so dastardly about his actions. Indeed, he is often portrayed in our tradition as the precursor to the genocidal murderers, the Hamans and Hitlers, of our tragic history.
But let me share with you a different view of the nature of Amalek’s crime. Our Sages in the Midrash Tanchuma note that we encountered two “visitors” soon after we left Egypt, as we began our trek through the desert. One was Yitro, who ultimately joined us, and the other was Amalek who attacked us from the rear.
The Midrash Tanchuma draws upon the verse in Mishlei 19:25, which reads, “Beat the scoffer, but the simpleton will become clever.” The simpleton, says the Midrash, is Yitro, who overcame his prior beliefs and became clever. The scoffer, on the other hand, Amelek, was blinded to the miracles of the Exodus by his cynicism, and his evil was unredeemable.
Amalek is the ultimate scoffer, the paradigm of cynicism. He is described as “asher karcha”, usually translated as “the one who ‘surprised you’, or ‘happened upon you’, on the road as you left Egypt.” (D’varim 25:18)
But Rashi offers other explanations, one of which is quite fascinating. Rashi suggests that “asher karcha” can mean “he who cooled you off”, and he offers the metaphor of a seething cauldron or tub of boiling water, which Amalek cooled off by jumping into it.
The seething cauldron can be a metaphor for either the fear with which the other witnessing nations were overcome, which was dissipated by Amalek’s precedent.
Alternatively, it can be a metaphor for the bubbling enthusiasm of the triumphant Jewish people, which was diminished, perhaps permanently, by the effects of Amalek’s attack.
Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, in his posthumously published essays on Purim, takes the latter approach. “The Jewish people”, he writes, “were full of a spiritual energy and optimism that was dimmed by the scoffer Amalek.” The scoffing cynic has the ability to burst the bubble of enthusiasm with a shrug and a “so what?” or “big deal!” Amalek rained on our parade.
Sensitive students of the psychology of religion know the effects of cynicism and sarcasm upon spirituality and soulful moods. One such student was the famed 18th century pietist, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato, more commonly known as the Ramchal. This is what he writes in his masterpiece, Mesilat Yesharim (The Path of the Just), towards the end of the fifth chapter:
“Scoffing has a sinister and depraving effect. As a shield that is anointed with oil causes the arrows that strike it to glance off without touching the body, so scoffing renders reproof and chastisement ineffective. A single sarcasm or jest is liable to blight most of the spiritual zeal and enthusiasm which a man may have acquired from the experience that taught him to be particular and scrupulous in his actions. As a result of ridicule he is apt to cast off all that he has learned so that there is no sign of it left in him, not because it is not instructive, nor because he lacks understanding, but because mockery has the power to destroy every vestige of conscience and reverence.”
When we observe Parshat Zachor and read the story of Amalek in shul this Shabbat, we are commanded to forever remember what he did to our people. Of course, we will try to remember the primary lesson, namely to never forget the genocidal intentions of our enemies beginning with Amalek and continuing to this very day.
But it would also be instructive to remember Amalek as the cynical scoffer who would diminish our fervor and spirit. In remembering him in this manner, we would also do well to resolve that we ourselves are never guilty of mocking the accomplishments of others. We must be careful not to rain on the parade of other human beings, but rather to appreciate their accomplishments with neither envy nor disparagement.
We must find room on the doors of our refrigerators to proudly exhibit the childlike paintings of those who show them to us with enthusiasm.

T'tzaveh-Zachor

Don’t Rain on My Parade!

If you have raised a child, you have had this experience. Your little boy or girl came home from school with a sample of his or her artwork. To you it just looked like a hodge-podge of scribbles, random color smears. But your child exclaimed, “Look, Mommy, it is a picture of the trees and fields that we pass on the way to grandma’s house.” Or, “Wow, Daddy! I drew the sun and the moon and the stars in the sky!”
What do you do with the picture? What most of us would do, and certainly what my wife and I did many times with our kids, is to tell them how beautiful the picture is, how it looks just like what they describe it to be, and then post it on the refrigerator door or some other prominent place, then show it off for all to see.
Imagine how devastating it is, on the other hand, if the child gleefully brings his work of art to the parents attention only to have the parents say, “Ugh! What an ugly picture! It’s just a bunch of smudges on paper! It doesn’t look at all like a forest or field! Sun and moon and stars, no way!”
Such a parent has extinguished the poor child’s exuberance. By cruelly scoffing at the youngster’s attempt to produce a work of art, the parent has seriously harmed the child’s self- esteem. The parents had an opportunity to deliver words of encouragement which would have had a long- term impact. Instead, they instilled in the child a lack of self-confidence which may very well have left a lifelong scar.
The Jewish tradition condemns the scoffer and sees in cynicism a powerful destructive force.
What, you may ask, does this have to do with this week’s Torah readings? Let me explain. Although the primary Torah portion this week is Parshat T’zaveh (Sh’mot 27:2- 30:10), we also will be reading an additional selection, and a very important one at that.
This week is one of the four special Shabbatot which precede the approach of Pesach. Two weeks ago was Parshat Sh’kalim, which was discussed in this column. This week is Parshat Zachor, where we read the story of Amalek’s treacherous attack upon the people of Israel as they marched through the wilderness (D’varim 25:17-19).
Amalek’s cowardly attack is to be remembered for all generations. There are many views as to what was so dastardly about his actions. Indeed, he is often portrayed in our tradition as the precursor to the genocidal murderers, the Hamans and Hitlers, of our tragic history.
But let me share with you a different view of the nature of Amalek’s crime. Our Sages in the Midrash Tanchuma note that we encountered two “visitors” soon after we left Egypt, as we began our trek through the desert. One was Yitro, who ultimately joined us, and the other was Amalek who attacked us from the rear.
The Midrash Tanchuma draws upon the verse in Mishlei 19:25, which reads, “Beat the scoffer, but the simpleton will become clever.” The simpleton, says the Midrash, is Yitro, who overcame his prior beliefs and became clever. The scoffer, on the other hand, Amelek, was blinded to the miracles of the Exodus by his cynicism, and his evil was unredeemable.
Amalek is the ultimate scoffer, the paradigm of cynicism. He is described as “asher karcha”, usually translated as “the one who ‘surprised you’, or ‘happened upon you’, on the road as you left Egypt.” (D’varim 25:18)
But Rashi offers other explanations, one of which is quite fascinating. Rashi suggests that “asher karcha” can mean “he who cooled you off”, and he offers the metaphor of a seething cauldron or tub of boiling water, which Amalek cooled off by jumping into it.
The seething cauldron can be a metaphor for either the fear with which the other witnessing nations were overcome, which was dissipated by Amalek’s precedent.
Alternatively, it can be a metaphor for the bubbling enthusiasm of the triumphant Jewish people, which was diminished, perhaps permanently, by the effects of Amalek’s attack.
Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, in his posthumously published essays on Purim, takes the latter approach. “The Jewish people”, he writes, “were full of a spiritual energy and optimism that was dimmed by the scoffer Amalek.” The scoffing cynic has the ability to burst the bubble of enthusiasm with a shrug and a “so what?” or “big deal!” Amalek rained on our parade.
Sensitive students of the psychology of religion know the effects of cynicism and sarcasm upon spirituality and soulful moods. One such student was the famed 18th century pietist, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato, more commonly known as the Ramchal. This is what he writes in his masterpiece, Mesilat Yesharim (The Path of the Just), towards the end of the fifth chapter:
“Scoffing has a sinister and depraving effect. As a shield that is anointed with oil causes the arrows that strike it to glance off without touching the body, so scoffing renders reproof and chastisement ineffective. A single sarcasm or jest is liable to blight most of the spiritual zeal and enthusiasm which a man may have acquired from the experience that taught him to be particular and scrupulous in his actions. As a result of ridicule he is apt to cast off all that he has learned so that there is no sign of it left in him, not because it is not instructive, nor because he lacks understanding, but because mockery has the power to destroy every vestige of conscience and reverence.”
When we observe Parshat Zachor and read the story of Amalek in shul this Shabbat, we are commanded to forever remember what he did to our people. Of course, we will try to remember the primary lesson, namely to never forget the genocidal intentions of our enemies beginning with Amalek and continuing to this very day.
But it would also be instructive to remember Amalek as the cynical scoffer who would diminish our fervor and spirit. In remembering him in this manner, we would also do well to resolve that we ourselves are never guilty of mocking the accomplishments of others. We must be careful not to rain on the parade of other human beings, but rather to appreciate their accomplishments with neither envy nor disparagement.
We must find room on the doors of our refrigerators to proudly exhibit the childlike paintings of those who show them to us with enthusiasm.

Supervision - is it really necessary?

I received a few letters from readers regarding the past few articles that related some of the stories of mistakes that had been prevented by Puah’s supervision.
Some of the letters were concerned that we were using scare tactics and were causing more pressure for couples who are already extremely stressed at having to enter a hospital setting and undergo fertility treatment.
Another reader stressed that the clinics are already employing strict systems to prevent mistakes and another set of eyes of the Puah supervisor will not prevent all mistakes occurring in the same way that kashrut supervision is not 100% effective.
I would like to address these claims. My aim was not to add more anxiety, rather to raise awareness of the real need for supervision. If nothing can be done to prevent mistakes then the reader is correct that we should not scare people, since this will just add more pressure. However since in the area of fertility we do have an intricate supervision system in place, that has been tried and tested and has revealed and prevented dozens of mistakes, we should make the community aware of the need for such supervision.
In fact the presence of the supervisor in the lab and her accompanying the couple throughout the treatment has been a very calming element for many couples and given them a sense of security and extra confidence in the medical system and the integrity of the treatment. Puah does not work in opposition to the doctors or the clinics, but, rather, together with them to assist the couples to have the best outcome. Most doctors and embryologists do not resent the presence of the Puah supervisor, on the contrary, they welcome the Puah Institute into their laboratories recognizing the positive role that supervision can play as an essential part of treatment.
I repeat what we have said several times that the basis for halachic supervision for fertility treatments is different from that of kashrut supervision for food production or preparation. In the latter the idea is to prevent malicious intent or glaring errors, whereas the former is to prevent human error that can and does occur in labs worldwide. The constant, direct and exact surveillance of the fertility treatment ensures knowledge of the integrity of the treatment.
Questions have been raised in the past regarding cases that were performed without supervision and the answers have been given for these de facto situations, but in our experience all couples would prefer to know initially that they could would have no possible question about the treatment and our supervision has been an encouragement and often a determining factor in the couple’s decision to go ahead with treatment.

Rabbi Gidon Weitzman

The Puah Institute is based in Jerusalem and helps couples from all over the world who are experiencing fertility problems. Puah offers free counseling in five languages, halachic supervision, and educational programs. Offices in Jerusalem, New York, Los Angeles and Paris. Contact: (02) 651-5050 (Isr). http://www.puahonline.org