Skip to content


Parashat Terumah 5782 — 02/05/2022

Parashat Terumah 5782 — 02/05/2022

Beginning with Bereishit 5781 (17 October 2020) we embarked on a new format. We will be considering Rambam’s (Maimonides’) great philosophical work Moreh Nevukim (Guide for the Perplexed) in the light of the knowledge of Vedic Science as expounded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The individual essays will therefore not necessarily have anything to do with the weekly Torah portion, although certainly there will be plenty of references to the Torah, the rest of the Bible, and to the Rabbinic literature. For Bereishit we described the project. The next four parshiyyot, Noach through Chayei Sarah, laid out a foundational understanding of Vedic Science, to the degree I am capable of doing so. Beginning with Toledot we started examining Moreh Nevukim.

Shemot 25:1-27:19
I’d like to turn briefly to the second part of last week’s quote from Chapter 6:

Thereupon the term woman was used figuratively to designate any object apt for, and fashioned with a view to being in, conjunction with some other object. Thus it says: The five curtains should be coupled together, a woman to her sister. Hereby it has been made clear to you that the terms sister [achoth] and brother [ach] are likewise used equivocally with figurative meaning just as with man and woman.

It is not clear to me whether Rambam means that ishshah/achot (woman/sister) is “used figuratively to designate any object apt for, and fashioned with a view to being in, conjunction with some other object.” The word for curtain used in the verse cited, yeri’ah, is feminine, so the translation “one to the other” (as the verse is translated into idiomatic English) would have to use the feminine forms ishshah and achotah. The equivalent masculine form is ish el achiv, literally “a man to his brother.” I searched for this phrase on Google and there are several instances where “Joseph’s brothers said to one another,” where the expression ish el achiv is used in its literal sense. The only other place I could find it is in the description of the Cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant, which faced each other. Cheruv (Cherub) is a masculine word, although the Rabbinic literature describes them as a boy and a girl, and they are said to be “facing one another” / panim ish el achiv. In any event, it is clear that ach / achot = brother / sister, both have the connotation of partnership with a like object. Needless to say, neither ach nor achot can be used in reference to Gd, as Gd is never in a relationship of likes or equals.

A related issue is the fact that Gd is always referred to in the masculine gender, when gender is of course irrelevant to Gd. Gd is referred to as “father,” “king,” “man of war,” etc. Why should this be? Referring back to last week’s discussion, I think it has to do with the Unity of Gd, the value of unbounded Unity, One-ness, that we associated with the male principle. The female principle has more to do with relationships, Two-ness. Thus the Shechinah, or indwelling presence of Gd, representing Gd’s relationship with us and with the world, is a feminine noun, and is often considered Gd’s female side. I put these ideas out as possibilities – perhaps as we go further in Rambam we’ll get some other ideas.

Continuing with Chapter 7, Rambam takes up words based on the root Y-L-D, which has the surface meaning to bear children. He writes:

To bear children [yalod] The notion understood by means of this word is well known. It is that of procreation. Thus: And they have borne him [vayaldu lo] children (Deut 21:15). Afterwards this word was used figuratively to designate the bringing to existence of natural things. Thus: Before the mountains were brought forth [yuladu] (Ps 90:2). It was likewise used figuratively to designate, by analogy with procreation, the notion of earth bringing forth her vegetal produce. Thus: And make it bring forth [v’holidah] and bud (Isa 55:10). It was likewise used figuratively with reference to happenings occurring in time, as though they were things that were born. Thus: Thou knowest not what a day may bring forth [yeled] (Prov 27:1). It was likewise used figuratively with reference to happenings within thought and the opinions and doctrines that they entail. Thus it says: And bore [v’yalad] falsehood (Ps 7:15). It is a derivation from this meaning when it is said: And they please themselves in the children of strangers [yaldei nachrim] (Isa 2:6). That is, they are content with their opinions; or, as Jonathan ben Uzziel, peace be on him, has put it in his interpretation of this verse: They walk according to the laws of the gentiles. In this sense whoever instructs an individual in some matter and teaches him an opinion, has, as far as his being provided with this opinion is concerned, as it were engendered that individual. In this sense the prophets’ disciples were called sons of the prophets, as we shall explain when treating the equivocality of the term son.

We have similar usage in English – an idea may be called a “brainchild.” D.W. Griffith’s classic 1915 film about the Civil War was called “Birth of a Nation.” “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation…” Renaissance in French is literally “re-birth.” We are all Gd’s children. The Hebrew word toledot comes from the same root and we translate it as “generations,” which is a figurative use of the idea of giving birth.

I think the basic idea behind all the figurative uses of the idea of birth is that of cause and effect. The “parent” is the cause and the “child” is the effect. It’s of course literally true with actual biological childbirth, and it is figuratively true in the figurative cases – the “day” (i.e. time) is the cause in an abstract sense, and all activity is the effect, because time is the field in which action takes place. Our thoughts can be the cause, and the resulting actions are the effect. This can also turn around – by behaving in specific ways we can culture our thoughts to reflect higher values. This culturing and refinement, according to Ramban, is the purpose of the mitzvot of the Torah. In addition, our actions create reactions in the environment that affect everyone and everything. These actions can be in accord with Gd’s Will or the opposite, and the reaction from nature is either in the direction of increasing happiness and support for our actions, or the opposite.

We believe that Gd is the ultimate cause of everything that happens in creation, yet Gd is transcendental to creation. As we shall see when we consider the uses of the word place [makom], Gd is the Place of the world, the world is not the place of Gd. We acknowledge this relationship when we say in our daily liturgy that Gd “in his mercy renews every day the work of creation.”

Science, on the other hand, deals with cause and effect without relationship to anything transcendental. Classically, science proceeds on the assumption that a given cause will always create a given effect – belief in the regularity of nature underlies all scientific endeavor. Developments in modern physics, particularly in quantum mechanics, appear to belie the notion that creation is self-sufficient, and that it exists separate from consciousness and from the transcendental. Next week I will, Gd willing, discuss some of these issues.

***************************************

Commentary by Steve Sufian

Parashat Terumah

“Terumah” means “gift” or “offering.”  In this parshah, Gd asks our ancestors to give a gift of an offering from their heart and then He gives the Great Gift of detailed instructions for building the Mishkan, a place where certain rituals (yagya?) are performed to create specific results in the environment. The commentators, from the Talmud on, all point out that Torah says Gd dwells in the human heart and soul, not in the Mishkan. The detailed instructions make it clear that this Sanctuary is an expression of the same pattern that is present in the universe and in the human body. In the human body, for example, Gd created 248 limbs which correspond to the 248 positive commandments of the Bible – in the Mishkan, there were 48 beams, 100 hooks and 100 loops.

Obviously, Gd is Everywhere, Omnipresent – He dwells everywhere so this statement “may dwell in their midst” means that the harmony between their open hearts and the Mishkan created in part by their offerings will be so great it will resonate with the personalities and physiologies of all who enter, even our ancestors who just a few days before were terrified by the sound of the Lord’s voice.

Neither modern synagogues – for example, Beth Shalom – nor modern homes seem to be built according to the plan of the Mishkan so what can we do in order to be aware of Gd’s dwelling within our synagogues, our homes, our minds, feelings, egos, bodies?

The key seems to be in Gd’s command to Moses:

“Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering.”

By behaving with generosity to all, we make offerings to Gd because “love thy neighbor as thyself – Self — “is inextricably intertwined with “love the Lrd, thy Gd, with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might”.

Another way to make offerings to Gd and to be aware of Gd’s Presence is through the daily prayers of our religion: waking, morning, afternoon, evening and bedtime. These have the value of opening our hearts even though we may be fatigued or stressed and the Joy of Gd’s Presence enters into the words and to our awareness.

A third way is to come to our synagogue or to connect to services through Zoom: personally, I feel magnetically drawn to our synagogue, especially to the Torah Scrolls and so I come regularly.

Whatever way we can offer to Gd, let us offer and let us be fully aware of Gd’s Presence dwelling within us and around us.

Baruch HaShem