A little post-bar real estate law tidbit

For those of you who need a breather after the bar exams, firstly, congrats on making it through that ordeal! Secondly, I thought I'd open up with a little Q & A:

Question: Where can I find a (very) early example of a deed's metes and bounds?

Answer: That's crazy! Why would you even want to know that? What's wrong with you?

Question: No, but really, where?

Answer: Okay, fine weirdo, I might not be able to give you metes, but you can actually find bounds in this week's parashah, Masei (Num. 33:1-36:13). The boundaries of "the Land of Israel" are enumerated (Num. 34:3-12): Starting in the southeast corner of the Dead Sea and running westerly to the Brook of Egypt (a now non-existent eastern branch of the Nile) via Ma'ale Akravim, Tzin, Kadesh-barnea, Hazar-addar and Atzmon in the Negev; thence northerly up the coast of the ("Great") Mediterranean Sea up to Mount Hor; thence easterly to Hazar-enan via Hamas, Tzedad, Zifron; thence southerly to the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) via Shefam and Rivlah, thence further south to the Dead Sea via the Jordan River.

It has the run-on sentence narration of many modern deeds, but is missing the distances that make of the meat of the metes and bounds sections. It's a shame, too! Since without the metes there is tremendous controversy over where these now long-gone settlements were. This is complicated by the fact that there were at least two Kadesh-barneas, several places that could have been Mount Hor.

Other parts of the parashah contain the granting clause (Num. 33:51-53) as well as some deed restrictions (Num. 33:54-56), where quiet enjoyment is only conditionally granted. But, needless to say, I think the Israelites needed to have a better real estate attorney to review this deed, as there has been a bit of a historical cloud on title.

Oslo and Utøya

I apologize for the rash thoughts of Friday. I too am a bigot, it seems. I had totally pegged the Oslo and Utøya attacks as the result of some liberal anti-religious Norwegian drawing an incendiary anti-Islamic cartoon to which the radical Islamists retorted with an incendiary of their own. I never would have guessed Norway had the wherewithal to breed and harbor such an hate-filled extremist. Spain? Sure. There's plenty of historical anger there. Germany? Duh. France? Definitely. There's plenty of current events that would bring about violent anti-Islamic feelings. But the frigidly placid Kingdom of Norway? Are there even that many Muslims to be mad about in Norway? (Evidently about 100,000 or about 2% of the population, answers Wikipedia.)

In the end, it is this general extremism that is most troubling. It is unconscionable to open fire on children at a summer camp, no matter what their political bent. Railing against the government's policies is best done by voice and votes rather than guns and bombs. I could understand, somewhat, if Norway were the last bastion of totalitarianism (which evidently the deluded Mr. Breivik may indeed have thought), and the summer camp were some sort of paramilitary Hitler Youth-esque training facility. But allowing this loophole opens the door to nutjobs like Mr. Breivik and their distorted reality.

It is attacks like these that keep me up at night. As a member of a marginal group comprising less than 2% of the population of the United States, I always feel but one armed person's delusion away from harm and terror.

Why We Fight

As the sun sets this evening, we acknowledge the coming of the 17th of Tammuz. Historically, this day has seen several calamities including the destruction of the first set of stone tablets of the Ten Commandments and the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The 17th of Tammuz kicks off the "Three Weeks" mourning period which culminates in the most calamitous day of the Jewish calendar Tisha B'Av (9th of Av). Religious Jews throughout the world will be holding a sunrise to sunset fast tomorrow and accept onto themselves the mourning restrictions of the Three Weeks period, including for abstaining from haircuts, shaving, listening to music, and conducting marriages or any other joyous events. Additionally, since the Three Weeks are seen as a time of great danger for the Jewish people, medical operations, travel either to dangerous places or by a dangerous mode (e.g., via airplane) are avoided during this period. The Three Weeks are also sometimes called Bein HaMetzarim ("between the straits") after the verse from Lamentations: all [Zion's] pursuers overtook her within the straits (בֵּין הַמְּצָרִים). (Lam. 1:3)

On this day, July 18th, we must also acknowledge that back in 1290, King Edward I of England issued the Edict of Expulsion, expelling Jews from England and recently conquered Wales for over 350 years. (In the Jewish calendar, this event was actually on Tisha B'Av and it is listed as one in a long list of great calamities in Jewish history to coincide on that date.) It is this troubled history that bears witness that our national fortunes can change at a moment's notice that keeps me on guard. It forces me to speak up, to be strong and resolute (חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ), and to never forget! May we all navigate the Straits in peace, safety and health!

Does Father know best?

Have you ever wondered where the much bandied about "silence is consent under the law" maxim came from? Well if you guessed, this week's parashah, Matos, then you probably don't need this refresher. But if you guessed that Pope Boniface VIII and/or Sir Thomas More's speech in his own self-defense, then you're probably historically much closer.

After ending last week's parshas Pinchas with reviewing the various offerings that are brought for Shabbos and the holidays, the Torah then moves to the subject of nedarim, shevuos, and issarim, which roughly translate, though not well, into vows, oaths and bonds.

A neder becomes a personal (or household-level) change to the general halakhah. For instance, the Nazirite "vow" to abstain from cutting ones hair and to abstain from wine is a neder; though it is perfectly acceptable for the general public to get a haircut and drink wine, a Nazirite that does so is subject to punishment. Most Jews are more familiar with nedarim from the annual annulment of them comprised of the Kol Nidrei prayer on Erev Yom Kippur. Shevuos are oaths taken while bearing witness in a legal proceeding, while issarim are also less restrictive bonds to abstain from something. (Shevuos and issarim, by the way, are also annulled each year as part of the Kol Nidrei ( Kol nidrei, va'issarei, . . . u'shevuos . . . ), so no worries there.)

In the end, Judaism has mixed feelings about nedarim. Wise King Shlomo said in Koheles: Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. (Eccl. 5:4) In fact, the Nazirite neder requires that a sin offering be brought upon fulfilling the vow. This is an interesting review of some of the dichotomous feelings about nedarim and asceticism in general.

This is all well and good, but can you get to the old guy in a powdered wig? Verily, I shall, my dear reader. You see, for all the promise of gender equality from last week's portion and Tzelophehad's daughters, this week's opener starts off with a patriarchal smackdown on women's rights.

While in verse 30:3, if a man makes a vow, oath or bond, it is binding - no questions asked (except for a rescission by a Beis Din - Rabbinical court). But the next thirteen verses (vv. 4-16), concern what happens when a woman makes a vow or bond (tacitly stating that a woman would not be able to testify in court with an oath). There are several cases that are considered:

1) If a girl "in her youth" living "in her father's house" (Num. 30:4-6)

2) If a girl living "in her father's house" who is "married" (Num. 30:7-9)

3) A widow or divorcee (Num. 30:10)

4) A married woman "in her husband's house" (Num. 30:11-16)

The only case in which all vows and bonds are legally binding is in that of a widow or divorcee, that is, whenever there is not a man around to potentially overrule her. In each of the other three cases, her father (case 1) or her husband (cases 2 & 4) can annul the vow within a specified time-period (24 hours for cases 1 & 2; or until sundown for case 4). But, if the father (or husband) "is silent to her" (וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ) about the vow, then the vow is valid and can never be annulled (outside of a Beis Din ruling as with a man's neder).

In reality there is a fifth unstated case, which is a girl who is living in her father's house but is no longer "in her youth" (which the Rabbis concluded only encompassed the ages between 11 years and 1 day and 12 years and 1 day). In this case, since by 12 years, the girl would be bas mitzvah and legally responsible for her own actions, her father has no ability to remove a vow or bond. Upon marriage, however, the annulment powers transfer to the husband, albeit with a shorter rescission period (until sundown, rather than 24 hours).

Further, it must be understood that according to Judaism, while men are subject to all 613 mitzvos, time-specific commandments are not mandatory for women. The intent is certainly to prevent a woman from voluntarily taking on too many mitzvos at the expense of child-rearing, family raising, etc. So while if a woman voluntarily attempts to follow all of the time-specific commandments, there is no repercussion for falling short here-or-there. However, this is no longer the case if, for instance, the woman made a neder to follow these optional mitzvos. Clearly, this justification is no less gender-biased or replete with "Father knows best"-ism than the text itself, but it is important to note that there is no imperative for a father or husband to strike the would-be nedarim.

While our parashah's verse is used as a means of limiting the misogynistic power of fathers and husbands, the macro-lesson here is clear (though no longer specifically socially acceptable in the case of nullifying female vows): If you do not like what you hear, speak up! That's part of the impetus for this blog. Speak out! Get active! Remove yourself from the silent (consenting) majority!

An Inheritance Rehash

So far we've just touched on one aspect of parshas Pinchas, that of Tzelophehad''s daughters and inheritance. Interestingly enough, the entire parashah is more or less on a similar vain.

In chapter 25, the eponymous Pinchas is rewarded for his zeal in killing Zimri with the gift of the everlasting priesthood (kehunah, not to be confused with the big kahuna of Hawaiian and Kevin Spacey fame). This establishes the line of the high priests which shall be passed on to Pinchas's offspring.

In chapter 26, there is another one of the seemingly everpresent censuses to determine the number of people who will be splitting up the Holy Land once it is conquered, as their national inheritance.

Chapter 27 is when Tzelophehad's daughters come up and inheritance is expressly discussed. Then G-d tells Moshe to go up to Mount Avarim and from that vantage point look across the Yarden River valley at the Land of Israel. Moshe asks for G-d to choose someone to serve as the his successor.

Then the final two chapters of the parashah deal with the various sacrifices that must be made for Shabbos and the holidays, Pesach, Shavuos, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkos.

Well that's not very inheritance like, man?! What have you been smoking? The Pesach seder makes explicit reference to the fact that the rituals of Pesach are meant to serve as a spiritual inheritance for future generations. The rituals and laws of Shabbos and the holidays serve as a token of our Jewish heritage, both religiously and culturally, if only as a way to ensure that families convene together every Friday evening and handful of other times throughout the year for a nice hot, home-cooked meal.

Girlfight!

Evidently a short, harmless clip of female fisticuffs has everyone up in arms! No, not the Michelle Rodriguez movie (which I had no clue existed until this very post). Some 8 year old Sheila from Down Under who followed her kickboxing parents footsteps into a ring against a similarly trained 7 year old opponent. The fight was featured on a Today show clip which decried the danger of letting girls play contact sports.

As Mike Adamick writes in Jezebel, it is particularly ironic that this piece which panders to the Victorian "sugar & spice and everything nice" notion of girls is sharing airtime with the US Women's Soccer team's impressive run to its 3rd Women's World Cup Final (this being the 6th overall final in history). How belittling? Especially, considering the Women's Team has never placed lower than 3rd place, while the US Men's team has never placed higher than 3rd in any of their Cups.

I can understand why Matt Lauer and Ann Curry would not want to put their children (not just their daughters) into a boxing ring at such a young age. I myself cringe any time my wife goes to a non-competitive kickboxing-based workout class. I'm no fighter. From the looks and sounds of them, neither are Lauer or Curry. But that aversion need not, and specifically from high profile public figures should not be, directed only at girls.

Kletzky Tragedy

I am deeply saddened by the news of gruesome demise of young Leiby Kletzky (z"l). I can only imagine the unspeakable horror that his parents, friends, and community members are going through in Borough Park.

I have sat here for a while trying to figure out whether and if so how I want to approach this topic which is dominating the headlines in New York and throughout the Jewish world. I've tried several times to put something together on this, but in the end I cannot. My prayers go out to the Kletzky family and to the immortal soul of the poor slain child.

Bar Review Course

This week's parashah is Pinchas, in honor of Pinchas ben Elazar ha-Kohen, who at the end of last week's parashah killed Zimri who was conspicuously and blatantly trying to take a Midianite lady as a wife (remember, when Balaam tried to get the Midianite women to seduce the Israelites? Yeah, Zimri was Client #1.)

Now it's studying for the bar season and so that frummy law school graduates won't have a leg up on you, I'll start with a short synopsis on Judaism's take on the administration of an estate.

The Land of Israel was just apportioned among all of the men of Israel according to a census. However, there is an issue of one particular, Tzelophehad of the tribe of Menashe, who died during the wanderings of the desert with no male heir. His daughters ask Moshe why should our father's name be wiped out simply because he had no sons?

Such questions of estates are essential to any society, especially one as law-based as that of the Jews. Moshe prays on the issue and G-d, the ultimate bar exam grader, answers:

Zelophehad's daughters speak justly. You shall certainly give them a portion of inheritance along with their father's brothers, and you shall transfer their father's inheritance to them. (Num. 27:7)

The Torah then goes on to state as a commandment, that if a man has no sons, then his estate will go to his daughters; and if no sons or daughters, then to his brother; and if no sons, daughters or brother, then to his uncle; and if he doesn't have any of those then to his closest kinsman. That's a pretty simple - find the closest relative, easy enough. That's what they teach for the bar, right? See intestacy, isn't all that hard, right?*

* WARNING: I have no clue whether this is correct, I just haven't posted in a while and it seems like a topic that several of my soon-to-be bar taking friends have been talking about, so I figured why not confuse them with neither specifically common Federal law or New York State law. Right? You guys have extra room in there for some Torah law still, yes?

Another Weekend, Another Update; or, "I'm a Psychic!"

This weekend, in Miami Beach, I was hanging out at a bachelor party with a bunch of buddies from my college days. Naturally enough, three of us requested that there be at least a few regular hamburgers with no cheese and that at least one of the pizzas be just plain cheese. Even though one of the coordinators of the party was nice enough to bring a package of "all beef" sausages for us, it turned out they had dried skim milk as an additive (why? I don't know), so we politely declined. Out at the steakhouse, while I broke from the other two and had a steak (it's a party, right?), they had various fish dishes. All of this different-ness generated a few questions and conversations at this otherwise hedonistic celebration of the end of bachelordom, that featured a bona fide "Beer Olympics" which was obviously dominated by the bachelor's own hand-picked team.

Being that the group was mixed in with a few non-Jews, there were some "simple son" questions of "What are the rules?" My roommate, who despite perfectly fitting the bill was for the first-time ever called a "WASP" over the weekend, led that charge asking what did a hamburger have to do with not eating pork? (Since that was the only restriction he had known about.)

The bachelor himself brought out his favorite question: "What's the reason that I can't have chicken and cheese together?" Which is an interesting question, certainly. It's a matter of Talmudic "building a fence around the law" by broadening the restriction so that even if you break the custom (by eating a chicken parm, e.g.), you're still a good deal away from breaking the Biblical commandment itself. This led to a discussion of the concept of Karaitism, an Abrahamic sect that just follows the Biblical rules as stated in the Torah itself eschewing any and all Rabbinical interpretations and whether it was Judaism or not, etc.

I had some personal conversations with one of my buddies about how he feels very culturally Jewish but is not sure whether he believes in G-d, or at least in "the vengeful, Jewish G-d". I pointed out, much like my post of Thursday afternoon, that this was just a misconception. There are certainly instances where G-d acted vengefully (Noah & the Flood came to mind) and there are two different instances in the Torah (parshiyos Bechukosai & Ki Savo) where Israel is promised blessings if they perform the mitzvos and terrible curses if they don't. But Judaism generally envisions G-d as a parent figure who just wants His children to have good lives.

Then, current events came around and we started talking about how disgusting the intactivists are and I was at the very least pleased that the whole group, Jews & Gentiles alike, agreed that the measure was just thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

So, there you have it, outside of the small electrical fire, having to sleep through a balmy Miami night with no air conditioning, approximately 60 irritating mosquito bites, I pretty much foresaw the entire weekend. . . . spooky, huh?

Later this week I'll try to see what I can prognosticate with this week's parashah, Pinchas.

I'm no angel

N.B. - I feel that I should confess a few items to my audience. Those of you who checked the blog last night might notice that the Misconception post looks a tad different now. I lost my cool when frantically scrawling that post and wrote some things that this morning I(/my darling wife) realized had no place on a blog meant to spread the word against bigotry and hatred. Hopefully, everyone's OK with the (multiply) re-edited post as it stands now and I will try my best to keep calm going forward and liberally edit and re-edit as necessary.

As the incomparably coiffed Gregg Allman sings "I'm no angel!" But conveniently enough, our parashah features one prominently (Num. 22:22-35).

Balaam's donkey, to which I've referred in previous posts, witnessed an angel standing in the road with drawn sword blocking its path. The angel was trying to prevent Balaam from following through on his mission to meet with Balak and curse the Israelites. When the donkey tried to avoid the threatening angel by veering into a field, Balaam (who, though a prophet, did not see the angel) beat the donkey and turned her back onto the road. The angel then placed himself in two other successive locations at each of which the donkey tried to avoid the angel and was subsequently beaten. Miraculously, the donkey starts to speak and asks Balaam why he was beaten three times. Only after conversing with the donkey are Balaam's eyes opened. He sees the angel and realizes the evil that he has committed.

Sometimes in life, we naturally develop blinders - "keep your head down" we are commonly told. In today's society, we sometimes lose ourselves in the hustle bustle of the times; whether it's diving headlong into our job and losing sight of our personal life, or diving headlong into a relationship at the expense of our friends and families. Rabbi Josh Runyan's article concludes that we should let the large Biblical miracles remind us to enjoy the everyday miracles happening all around us. However, I see the tale as far more cautionary than a simple wake up call to the commonplace miracles of life.

While I too see the Divine behind the chaotic, stochastic nature of life, I think the tale bears more of an ethical imperative. Balaam's "blinding" hatred and lust for wealth were so complete that it took a miracle to help him see the truth standing right in front of him. In contrast to Balaam's attributes, Avraham Avinu is credited with exhibiting "a good eye, a meek spirit and a humble soul." (Pirke Avos 5:19) Clearly, there is some sort of spectrum between these two poles, but if we try to shade healthily towards the Avraham side, we should be in good shape. May we all keep our good eyes open to the truth in front of us and our blinders loose (in the off chance the truth is slightly to the side of us).

With that, I'm off to Miami for the weekend.

Misconceptions about Judaism

Today, I again saw a gaggle of Jews for Jesus on my way to work. Unfortunately, as with all things, this second encounter was not nearly as upsetting. Perhaps, now reawakened to their program of proselytism, I am now inoculated from the harm. I am still disturbed by their behavior and their message. At the very least I was glad to see them inside the turnstyles - at least they had to pay a little bit of money to circulate their shrift.

Identifying themselves at all, however vague, is better than other "Messianic Jews", like Sid Roth of It's Supernatural! TV infamy, who hide their true intentions.¹ Last autumn, my father-in-law and wife were lucky enough, presumably only for having the lucky coincidence of a Jewish last name and Russian first name, to receive a free book from this creep: They Thought for Themselves. Nowhere on the cover, summary, acknowledgments, anywhere except in the text itself does Roth's Christian prerogative become clear. Preying upon those without strong ties to their own traditions, Roth uses anecdotes of a few unfortunate compatriots who suffered under the Soviets and instead of returning to Judaism were led astray by Roth and his spawn. Its a cruel melange to insult Jews and Judaism for not "thinking for themselves" while advocating Christianity in its stead.

A typical misconception about Judaism (often purported by Christianity as a means of comparison) is that of a stern religion of rules given by a "law & order" G-d of wrath and vengeance. This line of attack lends itself easily to the Jews for Jesus & Sid Roths of the world to try to target those who may not fully know or understand all the rules. Instead, with a slight of hand, they propose a "simpler" regime where all one has to do is act ethically, not learn a bunch of rules about rituals which can no longer be done or the intricacies of how not to boil a calf in its mother's milk or pray in a particular way at a particular time. Certainly, there is some truth to this characterization of Judaism - it is much more practice-based than faith-based; however it is dangerous to let this generalization run wild.

In this week's parashah, there are no mitzvos given; it's just chock full of narrative, with no new rules. The narrative is meant to help the reader understand and deal with similar ethical issues should they arise in everyday life (not that talking donkeys are all that common outside of Far Far Away). This week's haftarah, Micha 5:6 - 6:8, which was chosen since the prophet references the villainy of the parashah's Balak and Balaam, further dispels this troubling misconception. Micha states that as opposed to offerings and sacrifices of "thousands of rams, [and] ten thousands of rivers of oil," (Micha 6:7) G-d wants man: "only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [your G-d]." (Micha 6:8)

Well, that doesn't quite seems like hellfire and brimstone, does it. Yes, there are a lot of laws; it can be a lot to handle. In the end, the point of the mitzvos is to help Jews live fulfilling lives. However, while not advocating antinomianism, Micha's message is that without justice, mercy and humility, all of the mindless mitzvos performance is meaningless to G-d. Judaism is not a religion of rote ritual and empty practice, rather one of deep ethical responsibility, contemplative intent, thoughtful reflection and fulfilling love.

¹ Again, I'd really rather not give this guy any real publicity, so at your own risk google whatever you want about him and his treachery.

Weekend Update - Part 2

(cont. from Part 1)

Let's be clear, our communal relationship with G-d has had its ups and downs. But in general, if you reaffirm your dedication and devotion to one another daily and steer clear of the pitfalls in the G-d/Jews marriage, you'll pretty much be set (whether Jew or Gentile). And what were these pitfalls? Infidelity and baseless hatred.

The Talmud in Yoma 9b (pg. 24) indicated that the 1st Temple was destroyed because of the prevailing idolatry, sexual depravity and murder. These are the "Big Three" mitzvos that cannot even broken in order to save your own life. Clearly, the prevalence of these transgressions reveals a gross rejection of the commitments made during the wedding of G-d and the Jewish people (which is represented by Shavuos, the festival of the Giving of the Torah). The Jewish people were unfaithful in their relationship with G-d, for which a "short" 70 year exile in Babylon was decreed.

The 2nd Temple's destruction was ascribed (ibid., pg. 25) to baseless hatred (in Hebrew, שנאת חינם, sinas chinam). In Pirke Avos 2:16, Rabbi Yehoshua groups sinas chinam with the evil eye (jealousy) and the evil inclination as things that "remove a person from this world." Based off the relative severity of the exiles (70 years versus 1,940 years and counting), it is clear that baseless hatred and jealousy is far worse than even the Big Three of idolatry, sexual depravity and murder.

In this week's parasha, Balak (Num. 22:2-25:9), we meet a non-Jewish prophet (one of 7), Balaam, who is sent to curse the Jewish people in an attempt by the Moabite king, Balak, to weaken the Israelites enough to defeat them in battle. In a twist, Balaam instead blesses the Jewish people several times, culminating in the would-be curse which is now recited every morning upon entering a synagogue: "How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!" (Num. 24:5)

Though Balaam was one of only 7 non-Jewish prophets in the Tanakh, he wantonly advocates for all of the Big Three and is guided by a deep seated hatred of the Jewish people. Balaam himself is an idolater who serve Baal in one breathe while communicating G-d's words in the next. In Num. 25, the Moabite women try to seduce the Israelite men into sexual depravity and idolatry, at Balaam's suggestion (though his involvement isn't specifically introduced until a later parasha). Further, Shemos Rabbah 1:9 relates that Balaam was one of three advisers of Pharaoh, when Pharaoh asked what he should do about the "Jewish problem". Balaam advised the Pharaoh to kill the Jews, for which, though delivering three blessings to the Jewish people, he is killed by Yehoshua in parshas Matos (in a few weeks).

Balaam's wickedness and subsequent demise serve as a lesson to those who commit the physical act that spiritually represent the potential stumbling blocks in marriage. The not-so-profound lesson being that hatred and infidelity, no matter how beautiful and poetic the repentent words of the adulterer (or, worse, hater), can destroy a marriage. Two whole posts to prove a relatively simple statement, but there you go.

And with that I wish my friends, the newlyweds, a lifetime free from the infidelitous Big Three, and even more so, from sinas chinam. May you enjoy all the happiness, devotion, and fulfillment that comes from their absence.

Weekend Update - Part 1

Let's see the past four days of July I've seen the temperature vary from 73 and sunny to 81 and sunny. I've seen almost 180 degrees of views of Mount Rainier's dominant visage that without severely spraining my foot and ankle last Thursday would have required a more up-close exploration. I choked down the rage at seeing a perfectly good building facade pocked by misguided militant hippie activism and managed to hold down my lunch while deep behind enemy lines within Greener/hipster central at Darby's Cafe (it would've been even harder had we waited for a table at Sage's). That's right, you guessed it, I was in the great Pacific Northwest for The Fourth and it could not have been nicer (except for maybe without the sprain and the general degradation of my once proud Tree City USA to a Mos Eisley-esque hive of scum and hippie-y).

Anyway, you can't go home again, blah, blah, blah. Like any good Jewish boy from the Northwest, I spent this past Shabbos at the Christian wedding of two of my high school friends. It was both far more religious and far more meaningful than I had previously expected of a couple that's been dating for over 10 years already. For all the time during and since high school that we hung out together, I had completely forgotten that their families were relatively religious. If not their specific families, when the program called for the Lord's Prayer, their extended family and almost everyone invited, without skipping a beat, bowed their heads and recited it from memory in eerily perfect unison. (Though I guess, I could probably do a snap rendition of the Shema, the Shechechiyanu, the Kaddish and a few select others with a big group.)

As isolated and exposed as the Lord's Prayer made me feel, my heart's cockles were warmed by the recitation of a short snip-it of Shir haShirim (2:10 - 13, to be exact). My own wedding featured Shir haShirim heavily, with my kesubah featuring the entire book in micro-calligraphy as ornamentation. Meaning "Song of Songs"(though some English Bibles, including Toni Morrison's, call it "Song of Solomon" instead), Shir haShirim is considered the holiest book in the Tanakh; Rabbi Akiva is famously quoted as saying in Megilla 7a that "If the Torah is Holy, then Shir haShirim is the Holy of Holies." The Commentators indicate that the book, which is read each year during the intermediate days of Pesach (or every Friday night, by Sephardic Jews), is really a mystical love song between G-d and the Jewish people.

The particular portion of Shir haShirim promised that the darkness of winter and its accompanying rain are gone (which pleasantly enough was true in this case) and spoke of the beauties of springtime (birds chirping - check!; sun shining - check!; flowers blooming - check!). Sure Shir haShirim is allegorically speaking of the Exodus from Egypt, but in the Pacific Northwest we'll take nice sunny days on their face value any day.

I think the couple chose not to go for the Shir haShirim mainstay of "I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine" (6:3), since modern couples tend to shy away from the more contractual, property-like vestiges of the marriage ceremony which form the basis of the Jewish wedding. But any shout out to the Tanakh, even side-by-side with the ever present Corinthian "Love is patient . . . " quote, is great. This was an especially nice sentiment since Christianity generally maligns HASHEM as a deity of austere punishment in comparison to Jesus's love-based message. Further, the minister tinkered with the "standard" vows to make sure that both bride and groom "choose" their counterpart not just on that day, but every day, as G-d and the Jewish people affirm in daily prayer.

(more later today)