CLOSURE- IS IT POSSIBLE?

Recently, the Boston media announced that it was a citizen’s tip that led to the arrest of a sports utility driver who killed a graduate student in a hit-and-run accident about three months ago. The victim’s brother said,” I am happy about the arrest. It will not bring my brother back but at least it will help us reach some closure.” My question is this: can the arrest of the culprit really bring “closure” to the family at all?

In psychological sense, the term “closure” has a long history, and comes from the Gestalt school in Germany which was concerned with the organization of mental processes. It was actually Max Wertheimer who, in 1923, coined the term, and now is part of our ordinary language.

I do not really understand the concept of “closure,” for it implies that one can simply whitewash memories of a sad event. I don’t think that is possible. We can understand and often accept the death of a person who lived a long and fulfilling life, but there is an element of unfairness when we lose someone in a tragic way. The more horrific the event, the deeper our anger and grief. I don’t think parents can ever get over their pain when they bury a child; this becomes even worse when it happens as a result of a senseless killing. There was an outrage in Israel, mid-February, when the newly appointed Jordanian minister of Justice, Hussein Mjali, called for the release from an Israeli prison of Ahmed Dakamseh, a Jordanian soldier, who had murdered seven Israeli school girls and injured six others near the Israeli-Jordanian border in 1997. I can empathize with the anger of the Israeli citizens over this insensitive request.

Total closure, I maintain, does not exist. The Talmud says, “only after twelve months does one begin to forget the dead (Ber. 58b). The impact of the event, however, stays with us for many years to come. Does that mean that we cannot go on living? Yes, we can and often do, and with progressively diminished pain and anguish in our hearts. If we are fortunate, with time, we can experience the softening of the edges of our grief, slowly and haltingly. No, there is no such thing as closure. There is only the dulling of the pain, and most of us go on living because we have fewer choices. Fortunate are those sufferers who have the support of family and friends who can empathize with them during their ordeal, and help them move forward through the path of life.

May God spare us of these kinds of pain, and give us the strength to help those who are going through the valley of the shadow.

Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino@tbsneedham.org
Feb. 2011

PUNCTUALITY

I rely on people’s words, and expect that they will be fulfilled on time. Thus, for instance, I don’t like it when someone shows up late at a meeting, or sends a letter (or email) way after its due date-- unless, of course there is a good excuse.

I believe that, in the great scheme of things, we live in an orderly world. Seasons come after one another, just as day follows night. We could not function if we were left guessing all the time. The Book of Ecclesiastes reminds us that God “brings everything to pass precisely at is time” (beito, 3: 11), and the Book of Proverbs praises the “word rightly timed” (davar beito, 15: 23). Timeliness was also stressed by the Rabbis. One sage taught, “If a fig is plucked at the proper time, it is good for the fig and good for the tree” (Gen. R. 62.2). This kind of world is dependable and reassuring.

I am an organized person who plans things ahead. Rarely do I leave things to the last moment. I respect people’s time and word, and expect the same from the others. When I was a congregational Rabbi, my weekend talks were often prepared early on Mondays or Tuesdays, and the outline of my High Holiday sermons was penciled by June or July, even though the festival would be celebrated around Sept/October. In synagogue life I could never predict what would happen towards the end of the week: a funeral, an unexpected meeting, an illness. So, I would leave myself plenty of time for surprises and unplanned events. I also conducted religious services on time, began meetings promptly, and taught classes as scheduled. Even now, at the University I expect my students to turn in their assignments as indicated in my syllabus.

Regrettably, many people I know have a hard time managing their time well, and function with the mentality of “mañana” (Spanish, for tomorrow). They are perennially late, or promise and do not fulfill, or leave things to the last moment. Their thinking is, if I can do it tomorrow, what bother today? I have a hard time dealing with this type of behavior.

I have been accused of having an A-type personality. I gladly accept this accusation, but believe it is better this way than interacting with unreliable people and their vague promises. Being “on time” is simply a matter of courtesy and respect for others. In the “Merry Wives of Windsor,” Shakespeare wrote, with a bit of exaggeration, “Better three hours too soon than a minute late”. Similarly, The French King Louis XVIII is reported to have said, “L’exactitude est la politesse des rois” (“Punctuality is the politeness of kings”), a trait we should all try to emulate. I believe things ought to be done, as the Good Book says, “beito, “in its time.” And not leave people constantly wondering if they will ever happen or not.

Rifat Sonsino

rsonsino@tbsneedham.org

Feb. 2011

THE "EAR" AND "HEARING" IN THE BIBLE

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962) makes an interesting observation: “In the Bible, the key word for man’s response to God is ‘hearing,’ rather than ‘seeing’” (Vol. 2, p. 1). The reason for this may be because, according to biblical teaching, humans “cannot see My face” (Ex. 33: 20), even though a few have done it without providing a clear description of the divine (e.g., Ex. 24: 11; Isa. 6:1). The watchword of the Jewish faith is: “Hear, O Israel, the Eternal (YHWH) is our God, the Eternal is unique” (Deut. 6: 4).
The term ozen is used in the Bible to identify the human “ear” as part of the human body. It is the organ for hearing (Deut. 29:3). Just as humans have oznayim (dual of ozen), “ears,” (e.g. Gen. 20:8; 35:4), so do animals (e.g. Am. 3:12; Prov. 26:17). Figuratively speaking, God, too, has “ears” (Num. 11:18:“ozne YHWH” lit. “the ears of the Eternal”), for, as the psalmist points out, “Shall He who implants the ear not hear?” (Ps. 94: 9). On the other hand, idols, which do have ears, cannot hear and pay attention (Ps. 115: 5).
One can have “heavy ears” (Isa. 6: 10), refusing to hear God’s message or be deaf: “deaf, though it has ears” (oznayim lamo”) (Isa. 43: 8).
To “incline the ear” means to pay attention (Ps. 45:11; Jer. 7: 24). “Stopping the ear” refers to willful ignorance (Pr. 21: 13). An “uncircumcised ear” implies disobedience (Jer. 5:21). To “uncover the ear” has to do with showing respect for the other (I Sam. 20: 2) or to “disclose” the truth (Ruth 4: 4). To “pierce” someone’s ear is symbolic of servitude (Ex. 21:6; Deut. 15: 17). For God to give ear (ha-azina) means to listen to prayers (Ps. 55:1; 80:2). Even nature is called upon to give ear (ha-azinu) as witnesses to one’s pronouncements (Deut. 32:1; cf. Isa. 1: 2).
One can speculate that one of the main reasons why the Bible speaks so much about “hearing” is because most biblical Israelites had an “oral” culture and did not know how to read and write; they got their information by listening to oracles, prophetic speeches or priestly instructions (“Torah”). One scholar claims that “Ancient Israel before the seventh century BCE was largely non-literate” (Schniedewind). Literacy was most likely limited to those in the higher echelons of society, such as priests, scribes and wisdom teachers. The earliest known piece of writing in ancient Israel (in Hebrew/Canaanite) are the Gezer Calendar and the four ostraca found at Tel Arad (both from the 10th cent. BCE). Some of the oldest examples of biblical literature include “The Book of Yashar” (Jos. 10: 12-13), “The Song of Moses” (Ex. 15) and “The Song of Deborah” (Judg. 5). The Bible makes reference to written documents too: For example, “a bill of divorce” (sefer keritut) (Deut. 24: 1) and a scroll written by Barukh, Jeremiah’s secretary (Jer. 36: 4); it also requires that kings read the Torah (Deut. 17: 19), and mentions king Hezekiah reading documents (“sefarim,” II K. 19: 14)—all activities reflecting the actions of the intellectuals in society--, but it never refers to a “school” or to ordinary people reading or writing. The level of literacy increased as times went by. Already, the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that during the First Revolt against the Romans, the rebels in Jerusalem “carried the fire to the place where the archives were deposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors in order to dissolve their obligations to pay their debts” (Jewish War 2. 247).
Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino@tbsneedham.org
Jan.2011

"FEET" IN THE HEBREW BIBLE; METAPHORS AND EUPHEMISMS

In the Hebrew Bible, the ordinary word for a human foot is regel. The plural is the dual form, raglayim. The word raglim (plural of ragli) means “foot soldiers” (cf. Jer. 12: 5), and the word regalim simply refers to the three pilgrimage festivals, Passover, Weeks (Shavuot) and Tabernacles (Sukot).
When Abraham welcomed the three guests in Mamre (without knowing they were divine beings), he told them to “bathe your feet (rahatzu et raglekhem) and recline under the tree” (Gen. 18: 4). Human toes are called etzbaot raglayim (lit. fingers of the feet; cf. II Sam. 21: 20). Animals too have raglayim: At the end of the forty days of the Deluge, Noah let out a dove, but it “could not find a resting place for its foot” (l’kaf ragla) ( Gen. 8: 9).
Raglayim is also used metaphorically. Tables, for example, have “feet.” After the Exodus, God told Moses to ask the Israelites to set up a portable sanctuary, the Tabernacle, and, among other items, to build in it a table of acacia wood with four rings attached “to the four corners at its four legs” (arba’ raglav) (Ex. 25: 26). Even God has “feet.” When Moses and his entourage went up to Mt. Sinai, one biblical myth states, “they saw the God of Israel; under His feet (raglav) there was like the pavement of sapphire” (Ex. 24: 10; cf. Ps. 18: 10). During the medieval times, many philosophers rejected the idea of divine corporeality. Maimonides agreed with Onkelos (2nd cent. CE), the author of the Aramaic translation of the Bible, who rendered the 3rd pers. suffix as “its” (i.e., “its feet”), referring thus to God’s throne, and not to God’s feet.” Similarly, he adds, “God’s feet” in Zech 14: 4 refers to causation, namely, to “the wonders that will then become manifest at that place” (Guide, #28).
The psalmist spoke of the “foot (regel) of arrogance” (Ps. 36: 11) and of God laying the world under “the feet” (raglav) of human beings (Ps. 8:7), as symbol of domination. In the rabbinic period students “sat before the sages,” as a sign of respect. (See, Ethics of the Fathers, chap. 5: 15; Cf. Luke 10: 39 [“Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet”]; Acts 22: 3; Sitting “at the feet of teachers” is also mentioned in the Zohar 1/4a; 2/55b).
At times, “feet” refers, euphemistically, to “genitalia.” During the period of the Judges, the courtiers of the king Eglon of Moab thought that the king was “relieving himself (mesih et raglav, Judg. 3: 24) in the cool chamber,” when in reality he had already been killed by Ehud, the Benjaminite. (The verb mesih, from the root suh, literally means, to anoint oneself after washing). During the monarchy, an Assyrian representative insulted the Judean soldiers by saying that they “drink their urine” (me raglehem; literally, the water of their feet (II K. 18: 27). At the end of the book of Deuteronomy, among the curses listed as punishment for not observing the commandments, we are told that during a foreign invasion, each woman shall eat “the afterbirth that issues from between her legs” (miben ragleha)” (Deut. 28: 57). The prophet Ezekiel accuses the Judeans of copying the idolatrous ways of the gentiles by saying, you “spread your legs (raglayih) to every passerby, and you multiplied your harlotries” (Ezek. 16: 25).
Most likely this is also the kind of euphemism used in the following texts: In the book of Ruth, we are told that when Ruth met Boaz, her future husband, in the threshing floor, she “uncovered his feet (vategal margelotav) and lay down” (Ruth 3: 7). While some scholars claim that she slept chastely, others more convincingly argue that she actually had sex with him. Similarly, during the period of the Judges, when Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, drove a tent peg through the skull of Sisera, the Canaanite general, the poet says, “between her feet (ben ragleha) he sank” (Judg. 5: 27). Some scholars think the general died after she slept with him. More problematic is the case of the circumcision of Moses’ son. In an obscure passage, we are told that on the way down to Egypt, God tried to kill “him” (Moses? or, Gershom, his son?). So, “Zipporah [Moses’ wife] took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his (whose?) leg (raglav)with it” (Ex. 4: 25). One biblical scholar maintains that Zipporah took the bloody piece of skin that she had removed from her son’s penis and touched Moses’ “feet” (that is, Moses’ penis) in order to save her husband’s life by “tricking the homicidal deity into thinking that Moses himself had just been circumcised” (M. Coogan).
The term “feet” may have also been euphemistically used to refer to the private parts of angelic divine beings. In his famous vision, the prophet Isaiah relates that he had seen seraphim (winged divine beings) attending God in the Jerusalem Temple. Each seraf, he added, had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his “legs” (raglav), and with two he would fly” (Isa. 6: 2). Were these seraphim covering their own genitals? G. B. Gray says, yes: “their feet, i.e., their nakedness.” The New Oxford Annotated Bible (2001) agrees: “Feet, genitals.”
Thus, a simple word, meaning “foot” in the Bible, may, by extension, refer to animals, objects, and even to God.
Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino@tbsneedham.org

WHAT DOES THE BIBLICAL TEXT REALLY MEAN? METAPHORS AND EUPHEMISMS

The Bible was written in an archaic language, and, therefore, it is, at times, difficult to figure out what the authors/editors meant to say. Often, the Bible uses figurative language and even euphemisms that are different from ours. In the next few postings I would like to explore a few examples.
But first, a definition. A “metaphor” is a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a similarity, such as, “My life is a dream,” or, “He is drowning in money,”; whereas “euphemism” refers to the substitution of an inoffensive noun or verb for one that could be offensive or unpleasant, such as, “he passed away” for “he died.”
Let us start with the various meanings of the Hebrew word yad, “hand.”
a) In its basic meaning, yad refers to the human hand, such as, “When Joseph saw that his father was placing his right hand (yad yemino) on Ephraim’s head, he thought it wrong” (Gen. 48: 17)
b) By extension, yad is also used a metaphor for “power” or “strength,” such as, “When Israel saw the wondrous power (ha-yad ha-gedolah) which the Lord had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord” (Ex. 14: 31)
c) At times, yad can mean “side,” “along,” such as, “The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe in the Nile, while her maidens walked along ( al- yad) the Nile” ( Ex. 2: 5)
d) In some cases, yad can mean “place,” such as, “The men of Ai looked back and saw the smoke of the city rising to the sky; they had no room (yadayim, lit. ‘hands’) for flight in any direction.” (Josh. 8: 20)
e) In a few places, yad means “monument,” in the sense that a hand points to and marks, such as, “”Saul went to Carmel, where he erected a monument (yad) for himself” (I Sam. 15: 12), or, ” I will give them [i.e., Sabbath observing eunuchs who were high government officials], in My House, and within My walls, a monument and a name (yad va-shem), better than sons and daughters.” (Isa. 56: 5) (Note: the well-known Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem today is named “Yad Va-Shem”).
f) In addition, some scholars have suggested that yad has also been used as euphemism for “latrine” and “genitals,” and point to two possible texts. The first one is in Deuteronomy, which reads, “You shall have a yad outside the camp, where you can relieve yourself” (23: 13). Some sources translate the word as “place” or “area,” in the sense of “designated area” for defecation (NRSV; see also Onkelos, Sifre). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, “hand” is used in relation to latrines: “There shall be a distance between all their camps and the ‘place of the hands’ (m’kom yad) of about 2000 cubits” (The War Scroll, 7/7), and, “You shall make latrines (m’kom yad) for them outside of the city” (Temple Scroll, 46/13). Consequently, the Jerusalem Bible translates the passage in Deuteronomy as, “You must have a latrine outside the camp.”

The other word is found in an obscure passage in Isaiah 57:8: addressing the idolaters among the Israelites, the prophet says, “You have loved bedding with them [the pagan objects], you have looked upon the yad.” Some interpreters render the last word as “place” (Metzudad Tzion), others, as “symbol” (Anchor Bible, McKenzie), or “you have chosen lust” (NJPS), and some, influenced by the context, translate it as “phallus,” (e.g., You have looked on their manhood” (New American Bible), or “You looked upon with lust on their naked bodies” (New International Version, 2010).

This survey clearly indicates that a simple Hebrew word meaning “hand,” has been used in the Bible by extension metaphorically as well as, possibly, euphemistically.

Next I will study the word, “feet.”

Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino@tbsneedham.org

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA: DID MY STUDENT CHEAT?

A few weeks ago, after I administered the mid-term exam, one student confidentially told me that she had seen one student surfing the net for the correct answers. (I do allow laptops in the room). She did not want to be a snitch but felt that such action was unfair to the rest of the students. I have been teaching at Boston College for the last 10 years, and I have never before experienced anything like that. I was really hurt, because I felt the “cheater” had abused my trust.
I thanked the student and said that I needed to think about what course of action to take next. I then contacted my colleagues on the faculty and asked for their input. I also put my dilemma on Facebook and solicited advice. The responders were all over the map: you should give a new exam to the whole class; ask the “cheater” to come forward; force the accuser to identify the culprit and let the accused defend him/herself; forget about it inasmuch as you did not witness the infraction.
To force the accuser to reveal the name of the “cheater,” I felt, would jeopardize her standing in class. On the other hand, could she be a liar? Wanting to make sure that the allegation was correct, I questioned the accuser whether the “cheater” was on her side of the room or on the other side, and how did she see that someone was in fact looking for answers on the web? She told me that the student was sitting towards the front, and that she could see the monitor from the back. Later on, she even volunteered to reveal the name of the culprit, but I felt that this accusation would force the alleged “cheater” to confront her later on, an event that I was determined to avoid.
During the next class, I told the students that I was informed by a student that someone had cheated during the exam, and if that person were to show courage and identify him/herself to me alone, I would give that person an F, and the whole thing would be forgotten. But if within 24 hours no one would come forward, I would have no other alternative but to give another exam, because the first one was tainted. Regrettably, no one confessed.
So what did I do? Because I did not personally witness the cheating incident, I gave everyone a short quiz instead of a new exam. I was not happy with this solution, but I felt it was the best compromise. However, I am still sad that someone in class wanted to take an easy way out and burdened everyone else with a new quiz.
What would you have done?
Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino@tbsneedham.org

ABRAHAM'S "CHEESEBURGER"

It is well known in many Jewish circles today that the mixing of dairy and meat products is prohibited. In other words, you cannot have a cheeseburger! One can eat dairy and then meat, some say immediately after, others by waiting up to two hours. But if you wish to eat meat first and then dairy, you have to wait up to six hours. (Some wait only two hours.) Yet, the biblical text clearly states that when three angels came to visit Abraham, he “took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared” (Gen. 18: 8), and stood by them “as they ate.” The word “curd” here (hemah in Hebrew) is most likely a type of modern yogurt; “calf” (ben bakar in Hebrew) could refer either to the entire calf (Josephus says he served them “a roasted calf”), or part of it (some rabbinic sources say he served them only tongue with mustard, a delicacy). What is going on here?
Ancient sages were very much aware of the problem of Abraham serving dairy and meat products together in contravention of the laws of Kashrut, and tried to resolve it in a variety of ways: First, they dealt with the issue of angels eating food. A few ancient sources---(like Tobit {12:19; an Apocryphal book of the third cent. BCE}; Josephus {the first century CE historian; Antiquities 1: 11/2}, Targum Jonathan as well as some later rabbinic commentators {e.g. BM 86 b; Rashi})--- specify that the angels did not eat, but pretended as if they were eating; one Talmudic source, however, says that the angels actually did eat, thus following the local custom (BM 86b).
Second, with regard to the mixing of milk and meat, rabbinic sources came up with a few fancy answers:
a) The mixture of milk and meat was forbidden only after the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and, because Abraham lived before that period, it was perfectly legitimate (Etz Hayyim).
b) Abraham served the angels milk and only then did he offer them meat in accordance with the dietary laws, for, even though not commended, Abraham followed all the laws of the Torah (Kid. 4: 14).
c) Abraham served the angels milk and meat together because he thought they were gentiles who were not bound by Jewish law (Likute Sihot, Vol 5, p.193, n.63).
d) The Meam Loez, the famous Sephardic commentary written in Izmir, Turkey, in Ladino, by Rabbi Jacob Kulli (1864), claims that Abraham stood by the angels, making sure that each guest chose to eat either dairy or meat, and would not mix the two.
In reality, the rule against mixing dairy with meat is not biblical, and Rabbis had a hard time justifying it on the basis of a law that prohibits “boiling a kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex. 23:19; 34: 26; Deut. 14: 21). The original meaning of this law is unknown. Maimonides suggested a pagan background. But the Rabbis, for reasons that are not clear to us, turned this prohibition into a major component of the laws of kashrut that bind many observant Jews today.
Bottom line: our biblical law is unaware of this rabbinic rule, and the sages used an obscure text to justify it. Consequently, many Jews feel guilty today when they consume the two together.
Rifat Sonsino
rsonsino@tbsneedham.org