Tazria-Metzora
This is a double Torah portion. Parashat Tazria describes the period of impurity after child-birth. It also goes into great details about the ailment of tzara'at - a disorder which could affect skin or clothes. Parashat Metzora deals with the purification ritual for a leper (probably not the illness we know as leprosy today) as well as with houses which seem to be affected by a similar plague. Metzora concludes with other emissions which cause impurity.
Tazria-Metzorah – Nina J Mizrachi
Nina J Mizrachi is a rabbi and the Director of JCC Chicago's Pritzker Center for Jewish Education. A product of both the Reform and Conservative Movements, with the influence of modern Orthodoxy and Jewish Renewal, she has broad-based experience in the American Jewish community.
This week's double portion of Tazria-Metzora focuses on divinely-caused skin afflictions and other physical conditions which impact on one's eligibility for religious ritual or entrance into sacred space. Though not the original message of the text, Sages use this passage to identify moral or spiritual failings as one cause of illness. Some believers continue to attribute such physical afflictions to Divine judgment or perhaps accept them as isurei shel ahavah – chastisements of God's love which challenge our faith in order to bring us closer to God. Others look to science for explanations, treatments and cures. This is not to say that they are "nonbelievers", but rather that they have a different understanding of the Divine - one which rejects the notion of a God who intervenes directly to mete out reward and punishment. Still others, sometimes referred to as "nonbelievers", simply reject any belief in God, looking to the human being as the source for moral and ethical behavior.
"Believers" and "Nonbelievers" have for centuries argued over the "true" source of ethics. In reality, we live in a world of many contradictions. While most people in the United States believe that morality and ethics come from religion, they may not base their morality on the tenets of their religion. Consider further the source of morality and ethics for the atheist, agnostic or secular humanist, whose beliefs are based on the needs of human beings, rather than those of God. Religious ethics contain moral precepts that one is "commanded", though this belief has proven problematic in a society that is often identified as "post-authoritarian".
It is clear people are grappling with such issues of belief. Consider our media. One week the lead article of a newspaper reads: "How spiritual are you? You may be closer to God than you realize." Then we are bombarded with statistics about the growing number of young atheists, as another newspaper's lead article declares: "The unbelievers: Young atheists bring a friendly kind of skepticism to a campus near you." A Pew Research Center survey reports that twenty percent of young Americans are atheists, agnostics or have "no religion", representing an eleven percent rise since 1988.
To further complicate things, a number of scientists are emerging as spiritual leaders. One such person is Ursula Goodenough, a leading American cell biologist, who recently published her book, The Sacred Depths of Nature. She begins by asking, "Why am I not religious?", but moves toward different, deeper questions: "What is being religious anyway? What about the way I feel about how cells works or creatures evolve? Doesn't that feel the same as when I'm listening to St Matthew or standing in the nave of Notre Dame Cathedral?" Some believe that Ursula Goodenough's focus on the wonder and "religious emotions" elicited in the context of a deep understanding of nature constitute a belief in "religious naturalism". They predict that this belief may yet become the foundation for a world view and a common religious orientation which speaks to the growing number of young people who identify as "global citizens" sharing responsibility for the well-being of the earth and all of her inhabitants.
In the context of shifting paradigms for ethical and moral development and the deconstruction of institutions which have shaped religious identity for generations, the discussion is beginning to shift from "Who is right?" to "What can we learn from one another?" Some secular humanists say they are tired of defining their identity by negating the beliefs of others.
The NY Times reported that atheists are looking to religious communities as positive models expressing values and creating community. They are realizing that charitable giving, for example, is foundational to a community. More comfortable in their own skin, the new atheists on one college campus are inviting outsiders to their meetings and partnering with evangelicals for service projects.
All of this reflects a major flux in the engagement between believers representing a spectrum of beliefs, and nonbelievers. In this context, how might the parasha guide us? We return to the commentary of our Sages who used this passage to discuss the impact of moral failing on the cohesiveness of a community. They suggest that these afflictions result from speaking lashon ha-ra, which is the use of "bad" speech, e.g. slander and gossip. The result, intended or not, is prejudgment of others and a growing lack of trust between people. This erodes the very foundation of a community. Fundamentalism, to the right or to the left, is an affliction we face today - in the Jewish community, and beyond.
It would do us well to embrace a diversity of beliefs and practices as integral to the very the fabric of our Jewish heritage. Rather than speak against one another, we should speak on behalf of the other, in light of shared concerns about improving the human condition. We do not have to share the same beliefs, nor should we judge those who identify as "nonbelievers". However, we can move from tolerance to acceptance, from isolation to inclusiveness. Through compassion, cooperation and generosity we can heal ourselves from the afflictions of disdain, divisiveness, and destruction. In this I believe.
Another Voice - David Renton
David Renton is a chartered accountant and a member of Limmud Conference Steering Groups for 2009 and 2010.
As we approach the General Election, Britain faces a range of social and economic problems, yet public engagement in the electoral process has never been lower (since the establishment of universal suffrage at least). The exercise of the vote, once considered a civic responsibility, seems to be an irrelevant activity to an increasing proportion of the population.
Jewish commentators have alluded to the importance of strong government and the need to engage in civil society. Pirkei Avot famously states that one should "Pray for the welfare of the government, for without fear of governmental authorities people would swallow each other alive", whilst R’ Shimson Raphael Hirsch goes even further, commenting that "it is our duty to join ourselves as closely as possible to the state which receives us into its midst, to promote its welfare and not to consider our own well-being as in any way separate from that of the state to which we belong."
Clearly, we have responsibilities as Jews to go beyond the sometimes narrow vistas of our own community and engage with wider society. Putting a cross on a ballot paper may not be the ultimate act of engagement in civic life but a basic and crucial one nonetheless if we wish to be stakeholders in a fair and equitable Britain.
