TORAH INSIGHTS FOR A MODERN AGE

By

DAVID ROTENBERG

Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700)

submitted to Dr. Mike Gismondi

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

August, 2013

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………... 5

Essay One: Joseph vs. George – A Modern Look at Faith ………………….. 11

Essay Two: What’s in a Name? ……………………………………………….. 18

Essay Three: Talk to Strangers ………………………………………………... 23

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 29

References ………………………………………………………………………. 34

3

ABSTRACT

Today’s Jewish community features very different demographics from

previous generations’ due to large sections of the population being unaffiliated,

non-observant, or “Modern Orthodox”. As a result, any efforts to reconnect the

unaffiliated and/or reach these other segments of the community for spiritual

direction and Torah education must be targeted in new strategic ways. This

project employs both the scriptural and comedic knowledge of its author, Rabbi

David Rotenberg, a semi-professional stand-up comic, to develop contemporary

Torah insights targeted at a modern audience.

The project focuses on lessons applicable to three of the 54 weekly

portions of the Chumash (Five Books of Moses), Vayigash, Kedoshim, and Emor,

each developed as an independent essay, although numerous additional relevant

sources are also discussed. Each essay establishes an accepted understanding of

the relevant Torah concepts, rooted in the text and traditional commentaries.

This conventional thinking is then challenged with original questions, and

comedic sources are introduced as a form of unorthodox commentary. The

essays conclude by demonstrating a connection and revealing the newly-inspired

message.

4

Through the substantive content yielded by the integration of humour

sources with Biblical content, the original query – whether new Torah insights

could be developed to appeal to a modern audience – can be answered in the

affirmative. While the research and subsequent development of these chidushim

(new Torah insights) are absolutely a success, they represent but a minute

sample size of the canon of Torah. Furthermore, this project acknowledges the

fact that this work is successful due to the expertise of its author as a practitioner

of Jewish education and ministry as well as comedy, and is thus something not

easily copied by anyone. Nonetheless, it does prove that creating such

chidushim is possible, in addition to yielding three humorous modern Torah

lessons not previously available to any audience. In addition, it demonstrates the

potential for any Jewish educator with specialised expertise to undergo a similar

exercise, and produce similarly innovative results.

5

Introduction

Of what significance to today’s modern world is a sacred text given

nearly 4000 years ago? If, as is a core belief of Judaism, the Torah is authored by

an Infinite God, then its laws, morals, and ethics are wholly relevant even today.

Jewish Law is continually being applied to new situations, and the study of both

the scripture and the lessons of the Torah, is central to Jewish life. We study

Torah for the sake of our own religious development, for the spiritual benefit to

our community, and to grow in our understanding of God and His creation.

Nonetheless, working as a Jewish spiritual leader in today’s modern age is not

without its challenges.

Jewish people of my parents’ generation recall that any time they asked

why Jewish belief/tradition dictated a certain practice, the response was a

Yiddish expression loosely translated as “That’s how it is, and that’s how it will

always be.” Ironically, Judaism has never been a religion that espouses blind

faith; critical thought and debate are pivotal to Jewish learning, and the study of

scriptural texts and their commentaries is fundamental to Jewish life.

Regardless, while it is questionable whether those previous generations found

such an answer even remotely satisfying, most of today’s Jews have no interest in

blindly accepting any religious direction without explanation or meaning.

6

In today’s Jewish community, we see numerous attitudes towards

religion. As in previous generations, the devoutly observant demographic is

alive and well. What outsiders would likely call “Ultra-Orthodox” levels of

practice, and extreme dedication to Torah study characterise this segment of the

population. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who are unaffiliated

with any formal aspect of Judaism and have no ties to Jewish community

institutions. In many cases such people are wary of anything perceived as

religious, and - whether the cause or the effect - are at risk of assimilating into

secular society so fully that they will eventually vanish from the Jewish nation

entirely.

In between these two extremes are Jews that span a vast range of levels

of Jewish affiliation, observance, and education. For them, Judaism is absolutely

applicable and valuable in their lives, but Torah learning may be less of a priority

to them and/or they may be more discerning in their choice of sources for study.

The most traditional commentaries on both the Written and Oral components of

the Torah come from the period of the “Rishonim” (between the 11th and 15th

Centuries), with others being written by sages that have lived since. While they

all offer deep Torah insights that are completely applicable today, many Jews are

looking to more contemporary sources for chidushim (new Torah insights).

7

As even the most recent rabbinic texts rely on more mainstream

thinking, they are suited primary for a particularly religious audience. However,

with an incredible proliferation of the “Modern Orthodox” community,

increased demand for Torah lessons suited to the non-religious population, and

worldwide outreach initiatives geared at attracting the unaffiliated back to their

heritage, today’s Jewish world necessitates a new treatment of our holiest of

scriptures that will catch the attention of – and appeal to – a broader audience,

while staying true to the spirit of the text.

As a rabbi, I am a duly trained and recognised authority on Jewish

scripture and theology. Over the course of my career to date, a large majority of

my work experience has been with the target demographics described above. In

my spare time, I also moonlight as a semi-professional stand-up comedian,

performing at comedy clubs and other private events on-and-off for the last 15

years. One of the factors of my success in the Jewish field is my ability to use

humour – both my own and quotes from various comedic sources – in my

ministry and teaching.

This idea is hardly revolutionary. In my Jewish education, I have

learned from numerous teachers whose classes could be considered anything

from mildly funny to downright hysterical. The sharing of jokes in the context of

8

a Torah lesson is even recorded as far back as the time of the Talmud. Nor is the

use of humour in learning restricted to any one field.

Humour is generally accepted to put people in a positive mood, of

which point there is actually medical support. According to a 2001 article in the

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians, “considerable physiological changes

occur after laughter. The blood flows more freely, the immune response is

stimulated, muscles pump, endorphin production is increased and there is some

relaxation. All of these, not surprisingly, make one feel better.” (Calman, 2001, p.

227) A Torah.org article on Maimonides’s Laws of Understanding, stating “...we

should feel an intense joy at the opportunity to fathom G-d's Torah. And there's

nothing like a little humour to bring out that warm, joyous feeling -- allowing us

to loosen up and maintain our focus,” (Rosenfeld, 2008) would seem to concur.

This by itself can make one more receptive to material on any topic.

Furthermore, articles in Medical Teacher, Nurse Education Today, and the

Journal for Nurses in Professional Development all reference the use of humour

in various teaching contexts in the medical field. Although the benefits of

humour as a teaching/learning tool are put under such scrutiny in some of these

publications, perhaps this is a product of medical experts attempting to resolve a

wealth of anecdotal evidence with limited scientific corroboration on the subject.

9

While humour is certainly employed in education in various spheres,

this project aims to take its application to another level. In accordance with the

famous concept “Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chayim” – both these and these are the

words of the Living God, any Torah thoughts or discussions, including new

ideas that are borne out of Torah learning – provided that they are consistent

with the fundamental beliefs of Judaism – themselves become part of the greater

body of Torah. With this in mind, the use of humour – so obviously enjoyed by

most people - may now be employed not only to conduce Torah learning, but to

generate a brand of original chidushim geared primarily toward the wide target

audience described above.

In an attempt to consolidate the various experts’ explanations of

interdisciplinarity, the preface to MAIS 700 text, “Case Studies in

Interdisciplinary Research” states that each of the definitions shares the

following characteristics:

“Interdisciplinary research has a particular substantive focus.

The focus of interdisciplinary research extends beyond a single disciplinary

perspective.

A distinctive characteristic of interdisciplinary research is that it focuses on a

problem or question that is complex.

Interdisciplinary research is characterized by an identifiable process or mode of

inquiry.

10

Interdisciplinary research draws explicitly on the disciplines.

The disciplines provide insights into the specific substantive focus of

interdisciplinary research.

Interdisciplinary research involves integration.

The objective of integration is pragmatic; to produce a cognitive advancement

in the form of a new understanding, a new product, or a new meaning.”

(Repko, Newell, and Szostak, 2012, p. xviii)

Over the following pages, three independent essays are presented, each

developing new Torah chidushim. Each essay establishes an accepted

understanding of the relevant Torah concepts, rooted in the text and traditional

commentaries. This conventional thinking is then challenged with original

questions, and comedic sources are introduced as a form of unorthodox

commentary. The essays conclude by demonstrating a connection and revealing

the newly-inspired message. According to the comprehensive definition of

Repko et al., I posit that the research and conclusions contained in the following

pages constitute an example of interdisciplinarity more representative of this

field even than originally intended.

While the research conducted for the purpose of this project yielded

numerous connections between Torah ideas and comedic sources, the three

following essays were developed specifically to provide a structural and

11

thematic cross-section of the Chumash (Five Books of Moses), as well as a variety

of forms of comedy.

Essay 1: Joseph vs. George – A Modern Look at Faith

Parshas Vayigash recounts the resolution to the gripping tale of Joseph

and his brothers. A detailed account of the conflict between Joseph and ten of his

11 brothers appears in Parshas Vayeshev (read two weeks before Vayigash) and

is discussed at great length in the Medrash (part of the Oral Torah) and

commentaries. At age 17, Joseph is kidnapped by his brothers and sold into

slavery in Egypt. Over the next 13 years Joseph becomes head of his master’s

household, is wrongly imprisoned, and eventually – after correctly interpreting

the Pharaoh’s dream and coming up with an economic strategy for Egypt to

survive the impending famine – rises to prominence as the second-in-command

over the Egyptian Empire. Several years later, Joseph’s brothers come down to

Egypt in search of food, and come face-to-face with the Egyptian viceroy who

they do not recognise as their brother. At first, Joseph deals harshly with them in

order to ascertain their true intentions and to convince them to bring the twelfth

brother, Benjamin, back with them, but eventually reveals his true identity.

Following an emotional reunion, the brothers return to Canaan to share the news

with their father, Jacob, that Joseph isn’t dead (as he had believed for the past 20

years), and the entire nation then moves to the Goshen province of Egypt to be

12

close to Joseph and survive the famine. Tangentially, it is this sequence of

events, culminating in the Jewish people sojourning in Egypt that was the

precursor to their eventual subjugation and slavery there.

While Joseph’s bombshell revealing his true identity - and the brothers’

opportunity to later inform Jacob that his son is alive - make for an exciting

climax to a story which develops over three weeks’ readings, a careful analysis of

the dialogue in this section yields multiple questions:

Question One: Upon returning to Canaan, the brothers immediately

inform Jacob, “Joseph is still alive and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt.”

(Stone Edition Tanach, 1996, p.116) The same verse tells us that Jacob’s heart

rejected this report and that he didn’t believe them. Then, the very next verse

states, “However, when they related to him all the words that Joseph had spoken

to them, and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to transport him, then the

spirit of their father Jacob was revived.” (ibid) Leaving the relevance of the

wagons aside momentarily, it seems strange that in one verse, upon hearing the

news that Joseph is alive, Jacob dismisses this report, and yet only one verse

later, upon hearing “all the words that Joseph had spoken”, not only does Jacob

accept the news, we’re also told that his spirit is revived. Was something left out

of the original report that prompted Jacob’s disbelief? If not, what was it about

13

Joseph’s words that they – in combination with the wagons – convinced Jacob

that his son was truly alive?

Question Two: As mentioned above, part of what convinced Jacob that

Joseph was alive was seeing the wagons that Joseph had sent to transport Jacob

and family to Egypt. Strangely, the significance of these wagons and how they

contributed to convincing Jacob of the truth of his sons’ report is not explained

anywhere in the text. In these cases, the natural first step is to look at the

commentary of the Medieval French scholar, Rashi. In his explanation of Genesis

Verse 27, Rashi points out that Agalah, the Hebrew word for ‘wagon’, sounds

similar and is spelled identically (in Hebrew) to the word Eglah (calf).

Coincidentally, Rashi continues, the last topic of Jewish Law that Joseph had

studied with Jacob before going missing was an obscure concept known as

“Eglah Arufah”. Therefore, the sending of the wagons was a subtle hint from

Joseph to his father regarding their Torah study from years previous. (Mikraos

Gedolos I, 1995, p.926)

Although this insight explains the supposed meaning of the wagons, a

crucial point nonetheless seems to have been overlooked. The Chumash

explicitly refers to “the wagons that Joseph had sent to transport [Jacob]” (Stone

Edition Tanach, 1996, p.117) as being one of the factors that convinced Jacob of

the truth that Joseph was alive. Yet, according to Verse 19 (ibid), it was actually

14

Pharaoh who had provided the wagons to Joseph’s brothers. If so, of what

consequence should they actually be?

Question Three: Upon revealing his true identity to his brothers, Joseph

makes an extended speech about his time in Egypt, the famine, and how his

position of authority will help his family survive. As part of this monologue,

Joseph, addressing his brothers, makes the following intriguing statement, “And

now: It was not you who sent me here, but God…” (ibid) Obviously, Joseph’s

intention here is to convey to his brothers that he forgives them for what they did

to him. However, if this is what he is attempting to convey, shouldn’t he simply

say so directly? As mentioned previously, the ten brothers’ actions against

Joseph are clearly documented in Vayeshev. What is intended by this hyperbole

absolving them of any responsibility in his travails?

To recap, three questions have been raised: 1) Why is it that Jacob rejected

the original report that Joseph was alive, but upon hearing “all of the words of

Joseph” he was convinced? 2) Seeing the wagons that hinted at their Torah

learning together helped convince Jacob that Joseph was alive. However, how is

this relevant if Pharaoh was the one who sent the wagons? 3) Joseph clearly

forgives his brothers for their role in his plight. However, does that warrant a

revision of history that completely absolves them of any wrongdoing? While

these three questions are all legitimate independently, I suggest that their

15

answers are linked. I also suggest that the key to answering these questions can

be found in a scene from the TV series, “Seinfeld”.

In the Season 4 Finale, “The Pilot” (“Seinfeld Scripts”, The Pilot (1)), Jerry

Seinfeld and his best friend George go about producing the ill-fated pilot of their

sitcom, “Jerry”, which is essentially a parody of “Seinfeld” itself. Facing the

prospect of the pilot actually moving forward, George, a lifelong loser, is

suddenly struck by a fear of success and goes to consult his therapist…

George: What if the pilot gets picked up and it becomes a series?

Therapist: That’d be wonderful, George. You’ll be rich and successful.

George: Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m worried about. God would never let me be

successful. He’d kill me first. He’d never let me be happy.

Therapist: I thought you didn’t believe in God?

George: I do for the bad things!

Unfortunately, George’s attitude here is not unique – particularly in

today’s world. For some, as in this situation, people claim not to believe in God

when things are fine, but are ready to blame Him whenever something goes

wrong. For others, it’s easy to believe when things are going their way, but as

soon as things get rough, they conclude that there mustn’t be a God. However,

having faith only in select situations is no faith at all.

With this in mind, we can now start to understand Joseph’s words to his

brothers. Granted, there is no getting around the brothers’ role in Joseph’s

tribulations. However, when Joseph tells his brothers that it was not them who

16

sent him to Egypt, the most important part of this statement is that it was

actually God who was responsible. Although things eventually turned around

for him, Joseph’s brothers’ actions resulted in him living through a terrible

ordeal. Throughout, Joseph nonetheless remained steadfast in his beliefs, and

came to see that God’s plan was to eventually lead him to a position of

prominence in order to facilitate his nation’s survival. To now blame his

brothers for any of his past hardships would show a lack of trust that everything

had transpired according to a Divine plan. While the seemingly total absolution

of his brothers’ guilt is admittedly rhetorical, this statement was necessary to

show that Joseph’s faith was completely intact.

Seeing that Joseph continued to believe even in the bad times is one piece

of the puzzle. However, as described above, sometimes it’s harder to remember

God’s role in our lives when things are already going our way. It’s for this

reason that the Torah focuses on the message of the wagons. It’s true that it was

Pharaoh who was originally responsible for providing Joseph’s family with

wagons. However, as Rashi implies (Mikraos Gedolos I, 1995, p.926), Joseph no

doubt sent a subtle message to his father to accompany the wagons, hinting at

the concept of Eglah Arufah and their study together. The message of the wagons

told Jacob that, even despite having risen to a position of great power, Joseph’s

commitment to God’s Torah, its study, and its laws, remained at his core. While

17

the physical amenity of the wagons may have been Pharaoh’s contribution, their

spiritual undertones were supplied entirely by Joseph.

Considering both of these ideas, we are finally able to comprehend what

changed in Jacob’s heart and mind when he saw the wagons and when his sons

shared with him exactly what Joseph had said. When they reported simply that

Joseph was alive and that he was, in fact, a ruler over Egypt, Jacob was reluctant

to accept their story. Perhaps it wasn’t actually true that Joseph was alive, and

even if he was, if the most important piece of information to share is that he is a

ruler over Egypt, it would seem that the spiritually-inclined Joseph had indeed

been lost. Elaborating further, however, Jacob’s sons shared Joseph’s own words

as well as the discreet message of the wagons. Together, these proved that

through both the bad times and the good, Joseph’s belief never wavered and that

even today, as an Egyptian viceroy, his knowledge of and commitment to Torah

were as strong as the day they last studied together. Once this was clearly

established, not only was Jacob able to accept that Joseph was alive, but his very

spirit was, in fact, rejuvenated.

In my rabbinic work with students ranging from elementary school to

retirement age, it is clear that many people today are searching for meaning,

some even desperate to find truths in which they can invest. Unfortunately,

people today are also very fickle and quickly stray from a path of belief

18

whenever that faith faces even the smallest of challenges. The lesson of George

versus Joseph is that it is important to know who we are and what we believe,

and that through everything we face, to be true to God and to ourselves.

Essay 2: What’s In a Name?

A few years ago I came across an article online suggesting that the idea of

having distinctly Jewish names was an outdated practice, and that we, as a

nation, should give it – and them - up. In his 2009 article for Jewcy.com, a

blogger calling himself “Patrick Aleph” gives an extensive list of the reasons he

advocates for Jews to literally change their last names. The author explicitly

admits to using ‘Aleph’ – the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet - in place of a last

name, in order to post to various websites that wouldn’t allow him to use only

the initial, “A” (which he uses in other contexts), while maintaining his policy

never to let anyone know his real family name. Over the course of the post,

Aleph suggests that: a) Jewish names’ main function is as a way for Jews to band

together and collectively rebel against persecution and anti-Semitism which he

claims – quite mistakenly – aren’t particularly prevalent today, b) maintaining

Jewish names has become a cliché form of fraternity that fuel “commercial,

transactional, [and] capitalistic urge[s]” (Aleph, 2009) in our Jewish relationships,

c) having traditional Jewish names is unfair to those Jews whose names are less

19

Jewish sounding, and even that d) hanging onto our names is exclusive of

converts to the faith. For these reasons, he posits that Jewish names are “nothing

worth saving” (ibid) and that “these names need to perish into the history

books.”(ibid)

In searching for this article years later, I discovered a number of readers’

responses that suggest I am nowhere close to the only one who found this article

ludicrous and distasteful. It seems that there is a widely-held attitude that

Jewish names do continue to have an appropriate place in today’s world.

However, while most of the objections raised are more intuitive in nature -

people simply disagreeing with Aleph’s dismissal of the benefits of Jewish names

and/or his arguments for why they have such a “dark side” – I contest his

position entirely on spiritual and religious grounds.

Regarding an incident in Parshas Emor involving a Jewish man of

Egyptian descent, the Medrash (part of the Oral Torah which elaborates on the

episodes found in the Written Torah) states a powerful idea: “Rav Huna says in

the name of Bar Kapara, ‘Because of four things, Israel was redeemed from

Egypt: That they didn’t change their names or their language, they did not

engage in evil speech, and not one among them was found who [engaged in

forbidden sexual relationships].” (Medrash Rabbah II, p.47)

20

This Medrash is meant to resolve a famous seeming contradiction. On one

hand, a verse in Ki Savo (Metsudah Chumash/Rashi V, 1993, p.305) which states

that Jacob (and his descendants) grew into a nation during the exile in Egypt is

interpreted by the Talmud (Torah Temimah V, 2005, p.476) as evidence the

Jewish people were unique in Egypt. Yet, there is also an accepted idea that over

the course of 210 years of the Egyptian exile, the Jews had come to adopt most of

the Egyptians’ negative traits and behaviours. (Rosensweig, 2006, para. 4) Our

Medrash accepts the fact that the Jewish people had sunk to an extremely low

spiritual level, and weren’t, in fact, particularly distinct from the Egyptians.

However, despite their assimilation, the Israelites always maintained these four

crucial ties to their morality and heritage, and it was in the merit of that

continuity that they deserved to be redeemed.

Accepting the Medrash at face value, it is obvious that, if maintaining

Jewish names is a significant enough statement that it could suffice as one of only

four things that warranted our redemption, the Torah must believe that it is an

important practice – contrary to Aleph’s opinion. However, upon a closer

examination of the four items mentioned, the one in which we’re the most

interested – Jewish names – seems somewhat out of place.

Principles of sexual morality are one of the most fundamental pillars of

societal decency and family values, and engaging in forbidden relationships (i.e.

21

adultery) is one of only three prohibitions (together with murder and idol

worship) the Torah expects one to forfeit one’s life as opposed to transgress.

(Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin, p.74a) “Evil speech” is a category that includes several

different acts of making hurtful, and/or harmful comments – whether true or

false – to or about another person. Engaging in evil speech can incorporate the

transgression of up to eight distinct prohibitions (Kagan, p.12), and this area of

law is a classic example of the Torah’s heightened level of sensitivity and

expectations with regard to our interpersonal relationships. Having a unique

shared language is something that not only connects a people to their history, but

is one of the criteria for qualifying as a nation. (Oxford Dictionaries Online

(World English), “Nation”) Furthermore, Hebrew is the language of the Torah,

the language our prophets spoke, and the language in which we’ve prayed for

thousands of years.

Considering their ethical and/or traditional significance, it is easy to

understand why these three are cited in the Medrash. On the other hand, while

many Hebrew names have beautiful translations, it is hard to see what spiritual

value they have. Even any of us who rally so strongly against the above

suggestion to eliminate them would be hard pressed to identify what makes

keeping our Jewish names so consequential that it warrants being grouped

together with the other three.

22

Contemplating the significance of Jewish names, I’m reminded of Michael

Gelbart, a stand-up comic I’ve seen live and worked with personally on multiple

occasions at Yuk Yuk’s in Ottawa. In his episode of “Comedy Now!” (“Comedy

Now!”, Michael Gelbart Clip 2) he makes the following observation:

They have names today I never heard of as a kid. I was watching the MTV Video

Awards recently, and the category was “Best Hip-Hop Artist” and the guy comes

out to accept the award, and he’s thanking his posse, you know, and there were a

couple of names there I’d never heard in my life. And I’m gonna do it for you

now, and there’s always one name that doesn’t go with the rest of the names. See

if you can guess which one it was: ‘Okay check it out…to Dr Dre and Snoop

Dogg, keep it real! To DMX, you da bomb, big dawg! To Biggie Smalls and

Tupac, I know you’re lookin’ down on me with love! To my manager, Howard

Rosenfeld…’

What’s so hilarious about this bit is just how much it rings true. Not only

are such unusual juxtapositions of names comically commonplace, but there is

no mistaking what kind of name Howard Rosenfeld’s is. New names – both

stage names and given names – are constantly being made up, and whether it’s

an awards presentation or a daytime talk show, it’s easy to laugh at the

ridiculousness of some of them. Conversely, the traditional Jewish name in the

list can be immediately recognised as such.

It’s our names that most easily identify us, and upon assimilating into

another lifestyle or culture, one’s name is one of the simplest things to change. In

23

Egypt, the Jewish people – despite giving into the appeal of the Egyptian

lifestyle, and letting much of their own heritage slip – held strong to the thing

that would have been easiest to change, and instead made it clear who they

really were. Of course adhering to a strong moral code and maintaining ties to

history and culture seem like the more noteworthy efforts the Israelites made in

preserving their Judaism; in truth, they are. Nonetheless, it’s the unmistakable

implication of preserving our names – and by extension, our Jewish identity –

that made the bigger statement.

In today’s modern world, with assimilation rampant and many Jews

abandoning Jewish practice altogether, Jewish leaders and laypeople alike are

struggling for answers to how to preserve our heritage. While as a stand-alone

strategy, strengthening our commitment to Jewish names would be overly

simplistic, perhaps this is an easy yet effective first step. If preserving our

traditional names is something that associates us with our people, gives us an

inherent sense of Jewish identity, and has a precedent of maintaining us

spiritually as a nation, maybe it is something worth a try.

Essay 3: Talk to Strangers

Ever since we’re young we are taught never to talk to strangers.

Obviously, for children this can be an important safety lesson, but it seems that

24

too many adults take this rule far too literally. We encounter newcomers to our

community institutions regularly, and ideally we would want all to feel

welcome. Unfortunately, our nature is often to be tentative in approaching those

who are unfamiliar, which is likely to be more uncomfortable for the stranger

than it would be for us to push ourselves to be more open.

With regard to our interactions with strangers, the Torah’s view is crystal

clear. The Chumash in Parshas Kedoshim instructs, “When a [stranger] dwells

among you in your land, do not [mistreat] him. The [stranger] who dwells with

you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for

you were aliens in the land of Egypt – I am Hashem, your God.” (Stone Edition

Chumash, 1994, p.664) This warning builds on what was already expressed in

Parshas Mishpatim ,“You shall not taunt or oppress a stranger, for you were

strangers in the land of Egypt”(ibid, p.430), and the positive directive to love the

stranger is reinforced in Parshas Eikev, “You shall love the [stranger] for you

were strangers in the land of Egypt.”(ibid, p.992) In all of these cases, the Torah

is going out of its way – repeatedly – to require us to treat the stranger with

proper courtesy, not to taunt or oppress him, and even to go so far as to

approach him with love.

These rulings are hard to argue against, and are an obvious example of

how the Torah’s expectations for our behaviour far exceed those of society.

25

However, upon considering these commandments more critically, two questions

arise. First, technically there is no reason why strangers would be excluded from

the famous directive “You shall love your fellow as yourself.” (Metsudah

Chumash/Rashi III, 1993, p. 272) Why does the Torah need to single out the

stranger for this positive attitude and treatment when the more general

commandment should seem to apply? Second, it is extremely rare that the

rationale for a mitzvah (commandment) is stated explicitly in the text of the

Chumash. What is special about this case such that we are given an explanation

for the required mode of behaviour with regard to strangers - namely that we too

were once strangers (in Egypt) - in each of the three instances where the issue is

addressed? At face value, the provided reasoning doesn’t explain why our

treatment of strangers would warrant being one of the exceptional cases where

the Torah explains itself. Furthermore, if there is, in fact, a reason why the

universal command to love one’s fellow does not apply here, this explanation

isn’t particularly compelling such that the command to love the stranger

intuitively takes its place.

On the verse in Kedoshim reminding us that we were once strangers in

Egypt, Rashi explains, “Do not remind your fellow of a defect which you [also]

have.”(ibid) Essentially, he’s pointing out the potential hypocrisy that would be

involved in mistreating a stranger, considering the fact that we were once in the

26

same situation. However, as wise as this elucidation is, it does not settle the

issues raised above. Instead, in order to fully resolve these difficulties, I will

share a humorous personal anecdote.

I am extremely passionate about hockey, and being from Ottawa, I am a

die-hard fan of the Ottawa Senators. From the spring of 2002 until the fall of

2004 I attended rabbinical school in Toronto, during the height of the rivalry

between the Senators and the Toronto Maple Leafs. Being division rivals, the two

teams met several times a season, and they were often matched-up against each

other in the playoffs. While I had always found that Toronto’s superiority

complex greatly influenced the attitude of Maple Leafs fans, this situation was

even more difficult being an Ottawa supporter living in Toronto. Anyone who

knew I was from Ottawa made it their personal mission to make my life as

difficult as possible simply because I was a Senators fan.

As luck would have it, in the spring of 2004, the Senators and Maple Leafs

met in the playoffs for the fourth time in five years. The series was hard-fought on

the ice, and felt just as intense watching as a fan, particularly one living in

“enemy territory”. After five games, Toronto led the best-of-seven series three

games to two, putting the Senators in a must-win situation in Game 6 back in

Ottawa. Being such a huge fan, and never having attended a playoff game, when

I was offered a ticket for Game 6, I didn’t hesitate and gladly drove the four hours

down Highway 401 to get home and cheer on my team.

Stepping into an arena full of fellow Senators fans felt incredible, and the

building was electric. Of course, the Maple Leafs were well-represented as well,

with the Toronto fans convinced that the series would be ending that night, and

being quite raucous and obnoxious in expressing that opinion. Nearly 20,000

people were on the edge of their respective seats for the entire game, and tied 1-1

27

after regulation time, one – and then a second – sudden-death overtime were

required. Finally, part-way through the fifth period, one of the Ottawa players

won a puck-battle in the corner and threw the puck out in front of the net, where

one of his teammates redirected it into the goal, winning the game and keeping the

Senators alive in the playoffs.

When that goal was scored, the crowd absolutely erupted. Thousands of

us leapt to our feet, screaming, clapping, and cheering. Everyone was high-

fiving. Jubilant, I threw myself fully into the celebration as we began to file out of

the arena. Just then, I saw an enormous, sweaty, most likely inebriated fan

coming towards me, and as I was about to join him in a high-five, I noticed he was

going in for the hug! My first reaction was to run, duck, or hide...anything to

avoid an awkward involuntary embrace with this off-putting beast of a man. But

then, in the thrill of the moment, realising that he and I were likely sharing the

exact emotions over our team’s triumph, I asked myself, “Why not?!” and

jumped whole-heartedly into a celebratory hug with my fellow fan. Even though

Toronto prevailed in Game 7 to win the series, that night in Ottawa is still one of

my best hockey-related memories.

Who is a stranger? He or she is someone with whom we aren’t

acquainted, and consequently, someone with whom we may feel we have

nothing in common. However, the nature of not knowing someone personally is

that we really don’t know for certain whether we’re as different as we suspect, or

if maybe we’re more alike than originally anticipated. As such, while the broad

command to love one’s fellow absolutely applies, the Torah takes human nature

into consideration and realises how our natural inclination to stick to what/who

28

we know could influence our interactions with someone foreign to us. To

counteract this tendency, the Torah prescribes an additional commandment to

love the stranger.

How, though, are we to overcome this natural inclination to be wary of

the stranger? All it takes is an introduction and the establishment of some

common ground. In the above story, while I don’t typically make a habit of

hugging overweight, unhygienic strangers, it was the identical Senators crests on

our respective jerseys and the realisation that we were experiencing similar

thoughts and feelings at the same moment that made that connection. In the

situation described in the Chumash, the Torah is making the introduction for us,

pointing out that the stranger’s experience as a newcomer to our community is

actually something we can relate to, having ourselves been strangers in Egypt.

In this light, we now see that the Torah isn’t attempting to justify this command

by referencing the fact that we were once strangers in Egypt; no justification is

actually necessary. Rather, upon requiring us to act in a way that might be

difficult for us, the Torah is helping us by offering a key in overcoming our own

personal issues.

If we make the proper effort, our community institutions will be places

where all feel comfortable and welcome. The first step is realising that it might

not be such a bad thing to tal7k to strangers. In fact, it might just be a mitzvah.

29

Conclusion

This project set out to answer the question of whether new Torah insights

could be developed that – while preserving their theological integrity – would

appeal to a new modern audience. By using humour in the form of TV comedy,

stand-up, and a funny anecdote, the above three essays are only a small sample

of the kind of chidushim that can be generated using the proposed methodology.

By extension, the chosen topics of belief in God, Jewish names and identity, and

treatment of strangers, are only examples of the kinds of issues to which

humour-inspired elucidation can bring new meaning. Other subjects for which

new insights emerged over the course of my research include: setting priorities,

compassion, expressing gratitude and prayer, charity, finding one’s ‘calling’,

fulfilling vows, ethical business practices, and numerous others. Similarly, the

humour sources used to develop these lessons include various television shows,

movies, stand-up from numerous comics, comedy books, anecdotes, and jokes of

all descriptions.

No doubt, there are those who, being less open-minded, would question

the appropriateness of this method, and as a result would challenge the validity

of the insights found in this work. That said, those who would feel this way –

not at least realising the benefits of such work to others even if it is not of interest

30

to them – are no doubt on a level of piety beyond these essays’ target audience.

This segment of the Jewish population presumably is not in need of a

contemporary treatment of the Chumash. For those identified as the target

audience, however, a modern alternative to traditional commentaries, and

accessible, relatable lessons absolutely do have their place in the extended canon

of Torah. And while everyone – student and teacher alike – will have different

senses of humour, it is clear that comedy can be used not only as a tool in a

learning context, but as an essential component of the substantive learning itself.

In an effort to draw a precise conclusion to this project’s initial query -

whether new Torah insights could be developed which would appeal to the

audience of today’s modern world – a quirk of the content expounded within the

paper warrants mentioning. While implied in this paper’s introduction, it should

be stated explicitly that the substantive Torah through which my affirmative

conclusion was derived, is my own. In other words, in a sense, the author of this

paper is in the somewhat irregular position of being the subject of his own

research. As a rabbi with an unconventional sideline, it is my trans-disciplinary

expertise that makes the chidushim developed above possible.

This fact is not meant in any way to disqualify the validity of those

chidushim or of the conclusion of this work. It simply initiates a larger question

regarding the inspiration for, and development of, Torah commentary as a field

31

in general. The work of a rabbi is a vocation that, by its nature, spans numerous

disciplines, including (but not necessarily limited to) religious ministry,

education, and personal and professional development. However, the wildcard

factor in any spiritual leader’s craft is their personality, both as it applies to, and

independent from, their performance as a practitioner.

Even while traditional Torah commentaries have typically relied on

mainstream ideas to inform their insights, each has their own style. For example,

despite both being from the period of the Rishonim, Rashi’s commentary

regularly relies on Midrashic and Talmudic interpretations, whereas Rambam’s

work is known for critical and rational thinking. Going one step further, it is

certainly possible that each rabbi’s background and personal and/or professional

life influences their respective outlook. By way of illustration, Rabbi Yehuda

HaNasi, a sage of the Mishna, was an extremely wealthy community leader,

believed to descend from the royal line of King David, while Reish Lakish, one of

the masters of the Gemara, was known to be a reformed criminal, while

Rambam, the Rishon-era commentator mentioned above, practised as a

physician. It would be difficult to suppose that these personal identities would

not provide a unique lens through which they would each read and contemplate

the Torah.

32

By the same token, today’s modern world both requires and encourages a

breed of rabbis (and other Jewish educators) with correspondingly distinctive

areas of expertise and/or interest. Just as someone like Rabbi Abraham Twerski,

a trained psychologist with a wealth of experience in the field of recovery from

substance abuse, can offer unique analogies and insights into the Passover

Hagadah, the text which recounts the bondage-to-freedom story of the Exodus

from Egypt, (as well as other insightful works), any rabbi of this ‘new breed’

should be capable of integrating his individual skill set with his Torah

knowledge, in order to make the Torah more accessible, relevant, and/or

meaningful to the target demographic. In many cases, the trick is to know one’s

audience.

For me, it could be argued that the two aspects of my life as a rabbi and

comic are incongruous. However, looking at the staggering numbers of

unaffiliated Jews, as well as the large portion of the observant population

immersed in our modern world, I would contend that practitioners with

unorthodox specialties such as mine are an absolute necessity at this time in our

history. Like others with similarly distinct personalities, I have identified my

audience, and I not only possess knowledge (whether of comedy, sports, pop

culture, etc.) that speaks to them; I am one of them. It is my consequent ability to

relate to my audience, combined with my ability to not only entertain with

33

comedy, but to integrate the comedy into my rabbinical work, that makes me

successful.

Deuteronomy 30:12 tells us that “[the Torah] is not in Heaven”. One

meaning of this verse is that grasping the Torah’s meaning and observing its

laws are goals that should be attainable by all. However, it also comes to tell us

that the Torah is not some stagnant document which remains perpetually at

arm’s length; rather, it has been given into the hands of humanity to continue to

grow as an ever-expanding, ever-evolving canon. In a final concluding thought,

my role in the chidushim developed in this project, as with those incredible

insights offered by other rabbis in whose company I’m both proud and humbled

to be considered, may certainly be lauded. However, if, as stated at the very

opening of this paper, the Chumash is a multi-layered text believed to be

authored by an Infinite God, then perhaps the various commentaries – whether

ancient or postmodern – don’t actually add anything new. Just maybe, they

simply reveal deep insights and meanings which were intended all along.

34

References

Quoted Print Sources

Artscroll (1994). Stone Edition Chumash, The. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah

Publications Ltd.

Artscroll (1996). Stone Edition Tanach, The. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah

Publications Ltd.

Epstein, Rabbi Baruch Halevy (2005). Torah Temima. Jerusalem, Israel: Chad

v’Chalak Publishing.

Kagan, Rabbi Yisroel Meir. Sefer Chofetz Chayim. Jerusalem, Israel: Agudat

Notzrei Lashon.

Metsudah (1993). Metsudah Chumash/Rashi, The. Hoboken, New Jersey: KTAV

Publishing House.

Mikraos Gedolos (1995). Chamisha Chumshei Torah. Jerusalem, Israel: Bruchman

Publishing.

Repko, Allen F., Newell, William H., & Szostak, Rick (2012). Case Studies in

Interdisciplinary Research. United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc.

Tal-Man (1981). Babylonian Talmud (Volume Sanhedrin). Jerusalem, Israel: Laor

Publishing.

Vilna. Medrash Rabbah. Israel: Books Export Enterprises Ltd.

Quoted Online Sources

Aleph, Patrick (2009, October 19). Change Your Jewish Last Name. Jewcy.

Retrieved from:

http://www.jewcy.com/religion-and-

beliefs/change_your_jewish_last_name

35

Calman, Professor Sir Kenneth (2001, May/June). A study of storytelling,

humour and learning in medicine. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians.

Retrieved from:

http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/1/3/227.full.pdf+html

Comedy Network, The. “Michael Gelbart Clip 2”. Comedy Now! Retrieved from:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip45527

Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English). “Definition of ‘Nation”. Retrieved

from:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation

Rosenfeld, Rabbi Dovid (2008). Torah Through Laughter. Maimonides on Life.

Retrieved from:

http://www.torah.org/learning/mlife/ch2law7a.html

Rosensweig, Rabbi Michael (2006). The Art and Urgency of Prayer. TorahWeb.

Retrieved from:

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2006/parsha/rros_beshalach.html

Seinfeld Scripts. “The Pilot (1)”. Retrieved from:

http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/ThePilot.htm

Unquoted Research Sources

(Print)

Barry, Dave (2010). I’ll Mature When I’m Dead. USA: Penguin Books.

Black, Lewis (2005). Nothing’s Sacred. New York, New York: Simon Spotlight

Entertainment.

Claro, Joe (1996). Random House Book of Jokes and Anecdotes. Toronto, Ontario:

Random House.

Colbert, Stephen (2007). I Am American (And So Can You!). New York, New

York: Grand Central Publishing.

Donin, Rabbi Hayim Halevy (1972). To Be a Jew. USA: Basic Books.

36

Ferguson, Will (2006). Penguin Anthology of Canadian Humour, The. Canada:

Viking Canada.

Frazier, Ian (2010). Humor Me. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Johnson, Eric W. (1989). A Treasury of Humor. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus

Books.

Kagan, Rabbi Yisroel Meir (1906). Mishna Berura. Jerusalem, Israel: Machon

Daas Yosef.

Karo, Rabbi Yosef (1563). Shulchan Aruch. Jerusalem, Israel: Meoros Publishing.

Kitov, Eliyahu (1997). Book of Our Heritage, The. Jerusalem, Israel: Feldheim

Novak, William & Moshe Waldoks (1981). The Big Book of Jewish Humor. New

York, New York: First Haper Perennial.

Reiser, Paul (1994). Couplehood. New York, New York: Bantam Books.

Remnick, David & Henry Finder (2008). Disquiet Please! More Humor Writing from

the New Yorker. USA: Random House.

Sykes, Wanda (2004). Yeah, I Said It. New York, New York: Atria Books.

(Online)

Comedy Central - Stand-up Comedy and Joke-of-the-day:

http://www.jokes.com

Comedy Network, The:

http:///www.thecomedynetwork.ca

Lots of Jokes:

http://www.lotsofjokes.com

Jokes Warehouse:

http://www.jokewarehouse.com

Seinfeld Scripts:

37

http://www.seinfeldscripts.com

Simply Scripts – Movie Scripts and Screenplays:

http://www.simplyscripts.com

YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com