taylweaver (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
taylweaver) wrote2005-07-17 10:46 am
taylweaver) wrote2005-07-17 10:46 am
Entry tags:
The d'var Torah I didn't give
On Friday night, the president of KOE (the shul/minyan/congregation where I attend services) approached me and mentioned that there might not be anyone to give the d'var Torah (words about the weekly Torah portion) at services the next morning. I told him I didn't have any ideas, but that I might be able to come up with something in a pinch.
Turns out they found someone.
Also turns out I came up with something. And since I didn't get to share it in shul, I figured I might as well post my ideas here.
See, I was thinking about the parsha (weekly portion), and the parts of it I remember. The first thing that came to mind was probably the talking donkey. I also thought about "Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov, mishkenotecha Yisrael" (How good are your tents, [desccendants of] Jacob, your dwelling places, [people of] Israel," because it is a line that has made it into our daily liturgy.
I thought some more about the talking donkey, and how I had once asked a bunch of ten-year-olds at camp what this section of the parsha has in common with the movie, Shrek.
Thinking of Shrek made me think about the stories I have been using in my weekly folktales and drama games class. That was when I realized that I very much had something to talk about - the story of Balak/Bilam/the donkey as a folktale. It has so many elements. A selfish/foolish king, a talking donkey, three trials - Bilam first tries to push away the servants, then gives in; he gets stopped by a talking donkey, but is then allowed to proceed; he tries to curse the people - and blesses them. Not to mention, this idea of three also applies to how many times the donkey stops and gets hit with the stick, and how many times Bilam tries to curse the Israelites.
Thinking of threes made me think not only of folktales - in which three is always a powerful number - there are nearly always three trials or three siblings or three objects, etc - but of the power of this number in Judaism, in which three is a hazakah - I don't know how to translate that into English, so I will explain the concept - that if you do something three times, it becomes a "habit" and that is the way you must do things thereafter. Or that is the way things are expected to occur thereafter. I also thought about the shalosh regalim - the three Pilgrimage Festivals, and, in particular, Pesach. During the sedder (the meal we have on the first two nights of the holiday), we have three boards of matzoh, and we have three items that must be mentioned in order to fulfil our obligations - Pesach (the lamb that was sacrificed on Passover), Matzoh, and Maror (bitter herbs). On top of that, I have heard my father teach/theorize that there are parts of the sedder that now involve four things, but that were originally three - and that a fourth was added once three became a Christian number. For example, the four sons we talk about - wise, wicked, simple, unable to ask - originally may not have included the wicked son. If you look, it seems this son doesn't quite fit the pattern - the other three want to learn, and simply do so in different ways. So this is also a time when three is a big number.
Which led me to think about freedom, because that is what Pesach celebrates, and about how we celebrate freedom with a meal that is incredibly ordered and structured. This led me to think about how structure leads to freedom. Knowing what to expect tomorrow allows us to function more freely. For example, I expect the #2 subway train to run every few minutes, and that gives me the freedom to go shopping whenever I want. If the train did not run on a reliable schedule, I would be restricted by needing to allow extra time, because I would not know how long it would take me to get to or from a place. This is a smaller example. A weightier one might be that a person who knows there will be food on the table tomorrow is freer than a person who does not know where his next meal is coming from.
I was intrigued by this idea of order being connected to freedom, and it brought me right back to the parsha, which relies heavily on this sense of order and structure. The only thing that would make it more patterned for me is if the servants had had to ask Bilam three times (which would make three sets of three). As it is, there is this sense throughout that Bilam cannot curse the Israelites because that would break the rules. It would not fit the structure of the world. Furthermore, when Bilam blesses the people, what does he praise? Their tents and their dwelling places. I can't recall which commentator (Rashi?) explains that this is because the tents were set up in ordered rows such that each tent would have privacy, because you could not look out of your tent and see into your neighbor's tent. Once again, it is about order and structure.
Then we come to the talking donkey. Here is our one break from order and structure, it seems - because since when do donkeys talk? It is a miracle, but it does not fit the way I look at miracles - though I know different people have different takes on such things. I see miracles as fitting in with the laws of nature, but being incredibly unlikely events. That is, I see the power of a miracle as being the fact that this incredibly unlikely event occurred at just the right moment in just the right place. I also see miracles as things that make perfect sense - if only we had the know-how to explain them. So how would the donkey fit into this? There is a mishna in, I believe it is Pirkei Avot, that lists things that were created in the twilight between the sixth and seventh days. Among them are some things that might occur in nature, but also some things that would otherwise violate the laws of nature as we understand them - including this donkey. To me, this offers the idea that the exceptions to the rules were built right into the system and are therefore not exceptions at all. That is, they still fit this idea of order and structure.
That having been said, the donkey also made me think about breaking order and breaking routine, but in a different way, because if I was going to give a d'var Torah, I needed to have some sort of message, so here it is: When the donkey opens its mouth, what does it say? It complains to Bilam as follows: "What have you done to me that you have hit me these three times?" When Bilam complains about the donkey's actions, stopping in the road, etc., the donkey continues in her own defense: "Am I not the donkey that you have ridden for a long time until this day, and have I ever endangered you before by taking such action?" And Bilam has to admit that no, the donkey has never done anything like this. It is only then that Bilam is able to see the reason that the donkey is being so annoying by stopping in the road - there is an angel standing in the way. The message I was going to pull from this is that when the routine suddenly changes - when people are acting differently than we would expect, it is important that we not begin by getting angry, but rather by asking what has caused such a change in behavior. Maybe there is something wrong that we should be aware of.
This is especially important to those of us who are teachers - because when a student suddenly begins acting out in class, it is important not to lose our tempers, but instead to pull the student aside and find out what's really going on. Are they not understanding the material? Has something happened at home? Are they in a fight with one of their friends? Is the classroom too hot or too cold?
Of course, this applies beyond the classroom, when we interact with all of the people around us.
And so that was sort of what I would have said if I had given the d'var Torah this Shabbat, and now I have shared it with at least a few people.
And now I know that I can think of a d'var Torah at the last minute, which means I would do even better if I had some prep time - so perhaps the next one will actually be given in shul.
Finally, on a different note: I have been posting many entries lately - catching up, I suppose, because of the busy week I had. Feel free to continue commenting on any of the entries of the past week. I am still checking those comments.
Turns out they found someone.
Also turns out I came up with something. And since I didn't get to share it in shul, I figured I might as well post my ideas here.
See, I was thinking about the parsha (weekly portion), and the parts of it I remember. The first thing that came to mind was probably the talking donkey. I also thought about "Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov, mishkenotecha Yisrael" (How good are your tents, [desccendants of] Jacob, your dwelling places, [people of] Israel," because it is a line that has made it into our daily liturgy.
I thought some more about the talking donkey, and how I had once asked a bunch of ten-year-olds at camp what this section of the parsha has in common with the movie, Shrek.
Thinking of Shrek made me think about the stories I have been using in my weekly folktales and drama games class. That was when I realized that I very much had something to talk about - the story of Balak/Bilam/the donkey as a folktale. It has so many elements. A selfish/foolish king, a talking donkey, three trials - Bilam first tries to push away the servants, then gives in; he gets stopped by a talking donkey, but is then allowed to proceed; he tries to curse the people - and blesses them. Not to mention, this idea of three also applies to how many times the donkey stops and gets hit with the stick, and how many times Bilam tries to curse the Israelites.
Thinking of threes made me think not only of folktales - in which three is always a powerful number - there are nearly always three trials or three siblings or three objects, etc - but of the power of this number in Judaism, in which three is a hazakah - I don't know how to translate that into English, so I will explain the concept - that if you do something three times, it becomes a "habit" and that is the way you must do things thereafter. Or that is the way things are expected to occur thereafter. I also thought about the shalosh regalim - the three Pilgrimage Festivals, and, in particular, Pesach. During the sedder (the meal we have on the first two nights of the holiday), we have three boards of matzoh, and we have three items that must be mentioned in order to fulfil our obligations - Pesach (the lamb that was sacrificed on Passover), Matzoh, and Maror (bitter herbs). On top of that, I have heard my father teach/theorize that there are parts of the sedder that now involve four things, but that were originally three - and that a fourth was added once three became a Christian number. For example, the four sons we talk about - wise, wicked, simple, unable to ask - originally may not have included the wicked son. If you look, it seems this son doesn't quite fit the pattern - the other three want to learn, and simply do so in different ways. So this is also a time when three is a big number.
Which led me to think about freedom, because that is what Pesach celebrates, and about how we celebrate freedom with a meal that is incredibly ordered and structured. This led me to think about how structure leads to freedom. Knowing what to expect tomorrow allows us to function more freely. For example, I expect the #2 subway train to run every few minutes, and that gives me the freedom to go shopping whenever I want. If the train did not run on a reliable schedule, I would be restricted by needing to allow extra time, because I would not know how long it would take me to get to or from a place. This is a smaller example. A weightier one might be that a person who knows there will be food on the table tomorrow is freer than a person who does not know where his next meal is coming from.
I was intrigued by this idea of order being connected to freedom, and it brought me right back to the parsha, which relies heavily on this sense of order and structure. The only thing that would make it more patterned for me is if the servants had had to ask Bilam three times (which would make three sets of three). As it is, there is this sense throughout that Bilam cannot curse the Israelites because that would break the rules. It would not fit the structure of the world. Furthermore, when Bilam blesses the people, what does he praise? Their tents and their dwelling places. I can't recall which commentator (Rashi?) explains that this is because the tents were set up in ordered rows such that each tent would have privacy, because you could not look out of your tent and see into your neighbor's tent. Once again, it is about order and structure.
Then we come to the talking donkey. Here is our one break from order and structure, it seems - because since when do donkeys talk? It is a miracle, but it does not fit the way I look at miracles - though I know different people have different takes on such things. I see miracles as fitting in with the laws of nature, but being incredibly unlikely events. That is, I see the power of a miracle as being the fact that this incredibly unlikely event occurred at just the right moment in just the right place. I also see miracles as things that make perfect sense - if only we had the know-how to explain them. So how would the donkey fit into this? There is a mishna in, I believe it is Pirkei Avot, that lists things that were created in the twilight between the sixth and seventh days. Among them are some things that might occur in nature, but also some things that would otherwise violate the laws of nature as we understand them - including this donkey. To me, this offers the idea that the exceptions to the rules were built right into the system and are therefore not exceptions at all. That is, they still fit this idea of order and structure.
That having been said, the donkey also made me think about breaking order and breaking routine, but in a different way, because if I was going to give a d'var Torah, I needed to have some sort of message, so here it is: When the donkey opens its mouth, what does it say? It complains to Bilam as follows: "What have you done to me that you have hit me these three times?" When Bilam complains about the donkey's actions, stopping in the road, etc., the donkey continues in her own defense: "Am I not the donkey that you have ridden for a long time until this day, and have I ever endangered you before by taking such action?" And Bilam has to admit that no, the donkey has never done anything like this. It is only then that Bilam is able to see the reason that the donkey is being so annoying by stopping in the road - there is an angel standing in the way. The message I was going to pull from this is that when the routine suddenly changes - when people are acting differently than we would expect, it is important that we not begin by getting angry, but rather by asking what has caused such a change in behavior. Maybe there is something wrong that we should be aware of.
This is especially important to those of us who are teachers - because when a student suddenly begins acting out in class, it is important not to lose our tempers, but instead to pull the student aside and find out what's really going on. Are they not understanding the material? Has something happened at home? Are they in a fight with one of their friends? Is the classroom too hot or too cold?
Of course, this applies beyond the classroom, when we interact with all of the people around us.
And so that was sort of what I would have said if I had given the d'var Torah this Shabbat, and now I have shared it with at least a few people.
And now I know that I can think of a d'var Torah at the last minute, which means I would do even better if I had some prep time - so perhaps the next one will actually be given in shul.
Finally, on a different note: I have been posting many entries lately - catching up, I suppose, because of the busy week I had. Feel free to continue commenting on any of the entries of the past week. I am still checking those comments.
Re: Bil`am, Balaq, and Structure
To quote you, Therefore, I feel justified in having gone outside the usual order and structure of leyniŋ (you can define this in your "Glossary of Hebrew Terms used on the Details, Details Blog") by making slightly asinine sounds for the voice of the donkey. (Although Rabbi YP, your sister-in-law's brother-in-law's cat's former owner's ex-fiancé, or whatever he is to you, really didn't like my leyniŋ of those verses, OA had waited three years to hear me read this parasha. Sadly, he came to shul late, and missed it.)
Interestingly, Bil`am's oracles are all written in poetry, and poetry is a very structured form. Ancient Biblical poetry is characterized by parallelism, in which every other line is paralleled by the next line. Thus, every thought is expressed twice. For example:
מה טבו אהליך יעקב / משכנותיך ישראל
כנחלים נטיו / כגנות עלי נהר
כאהלים נטע ה' / כארזים עלי מים
(How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob / Thy dwelling-places, O Israel;
Like streams that stretch out / Like gardens alongside a river;
Like aloes planted by the Lord / Like cedars alongside water.)
Thus, A-A', B-B', C-C'. I tried to get this across in my leyniŋ of the passage. Did I succeed?
Re: Bil`am, Balaq, and Structure
Please also be aware that it is one thing to comment on my blog, but it is another to go off on your own tangents. That is, stating your opinion on my opinions on the parsha is fine, but going off on a tangent about how you read Torah is something that belongs on your own blog. Please try to stay on-topic.
And I don't think the donkey interrupts the flow of the story at all. I think it fits right in - as you can tell from my approach to the parsha as a folk tale.
Storytelling Voices, and What Belongs on Whose Blog
If you truly view this parasha as a folktale, why would you find voices to be inappropriate? Would you refrain from using voices when reading a secular folktale to children? You might object that I was leyniŋ for adults, not children, but the truth is that when faced with the incredible maturity and holiness of Sacred Scripture, we are all children.
That is, stating your opinion on my opinions on the parsha is fine, but going off on a tangent about how you read Torah is something that belongs on your own blog.
I shall try my best to heed your guidelines as to what does or does not beloŋ on your blog. However, as an anonymous commenter posted on Fresh Samantha a few days ago, "fs- last i checked people can say watever they want according to the constitution". Anyone has the right to read, or not read, anything that I write. And you, as owner of this blog, have the power to remove any comment that I post. (At least, I think so.) In any event, I was careful to put my tangents in small print, in order to facilitate the desire of readers to skip them.
Re: Storytelling Voices, and What Belongs on Whose Blog
And I am wondering whether perhaps that anonymous comment on FS's blog wasn't you, asserting your right to corrupt her younger sisters. And you are correct. As the owner of this blog, I have the right to delete your comments. I also have the right to block anonymous comments, or comments from people who are not on my friendslist. I would rather not have to do that. I like to let people say what they want and generate discussions, and I don't like to censor people. I will, however, begin to delete comments if I deem it necessary. As such, please try a) to stay on-topic. The small print belongs on your blog, not on mine, and b) to refrain from pointless silliness. You do not need to find something to say on every single thing I post, especially if you have nothing of substance to say. (And no, "woof, woof" is not generally considered a thing of substance.)
Re: Irrelevancy and Pointless Silliness
I did not write that anonymous post.
a) to stay on-topic. The small print belongs on your blog, not on mine, and b) to refrain from pointless silliness. You do not need to find something to say on every single thing I post, especially if you have nothing of substance to say. (And no, "woof, woof" is not generally considered a thing of substance.)
I'm sorry. I shall delete the "woof, woof" comment forthwith (since, after all, I own the
Re: Irrelevancy and Pointless Silliness
Is that better?