Torah Connection - Behar/Behukotai

This week's doubled parsha is also the last reading in the book of Leviticus.  Frequently called the "Tochecha" - "Rebuke", it concludes with a listing of possible dedications for the Temple.  This is the basis for the practice of tithing, contributions for the support of the priests (kohanim).  One may tithe property directly, or "redeem" it by paying a monetary equivalent.  The monetary equivalent is assessed a premium, generally 20% of nominal value.

This section starts, however, with a listing of valuations for "vows of persons", assigning a monetary value to individuals who may be "consecrated":

¹ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
² Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the equivalent for a human being, ³ the following scale shall apply: If it is a male from twenty to sixty years of age, the equivalent is fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary weight; ⁴ if it is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. 5 If the age is from five years to twenty years, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. ⁶ If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and the equivalent for a female is three shekels of silver. ⁷ If the age is sixty years or over, the equivalent is fifteen shekels in the case of a male and ten shekels for a female. ⁸ But if one cannot afford the equivalent, he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him; the priest shall assess him according to what the vower can afford.

What is this about?  Are these slaves being "consecrated" to the Temple?  Is it the vower consecrating him/herself? Why different valuations for different people?  Why are children younger than 1 month not even listed? It is easy to dismiss the lower valuation for females as simply a reflection of the sexism of those days, but what about the other differences? A child's valuation is the smallest.  A youth's valuation is about the same as a senior's, and an adult's valuation is much higher.  What is this, Disneyland ticket prices?  Perhaps, in a sense, yes.  Being "consecrated" to the Temple in some ways has a spiritual "admission price".  Does that make the sexism less egregious?  Does the sexism in this case simply imply a recognition that women, like minors and seniors, are a disadvantaged group that is less able to pay full fare?  Note that "financial aid" is also mentioned in the last verse:

⁸ But if one cannot afford the equivalent, he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him; the priest shall assess him according to what the vower can afford.

Ostensibly a simple passage about providing for the day-to-day support of the Temple (in addition to the offerings described earlier in Leviticus), this reading has several layers of complexity.  No wonder most of the commentary on this Parsha prefers to focus on the blessings/curses!  And yet, this is the closing of the whole book of Leviticus!  Surely this is not to be ignored....  I did find one commentary, which suggests that the purpose of this "price list" is to reassure us of our fundamental worth before G*d, in spite of all the horrors which are prophesied just prior. The valuations are preset regardless of the person's level of observance or shortcomings. Given the questions above, though, this is really not satisfying.  Does G*d really value us differently based on age and gender?
I actually kinda like the Disneyland metaphor.  A spiritual "admissions price" that takes into account the customer's ability to pay.  
What do you think?

Down Syndrome Blogger

No, not a blog about Down syndrome.

 A blogger with Down syndrome. 

 She is 24 years old, and makes quilts for children in the local hospital. And she plays piano, has been a girl scout, graduated high school, etc. etc. So why not write a blog, too?

Lag Ba'Omer

The fifty days from Pesach to Shavuot is traditionally counted, day by day and week by week, as the "Omer" - "Sheaf".  This is an agricultural practice, counting the days to the first harvest.  It is a somber time, during which traditional Jews do not hold weddings or other celebrations, and many refrain from haircuts during this time, as well.

Except for Lag Ba'Omer -- the 33rd day of the counting.  Israeli bridal shops do a brisk business in the weeks just before this date, and men's beards and hair is trimmed back from the leonine growth of over a month.  Children celebrate by picnicking and lighting bonfires in commemoration of the campaigns of Bar Kochba against the Romans 60 years after the fall of the Temple.

Here in the US we usually barely notice this holiday.  But today, with the warm spring sunshine, and a serendipitously free afternoon, my husband and I and the 2 little boys set up the porch swing on the back porch, and then I gave three of the four of us haircuts.  My littlest didn't want one, so he still has adorable blond Shirley Temple curls all over his head. Yes, I cut my own hair....  It's a bit shorter than I wanted, but not too bad!  Daddy and the big boy look great, though!

Not until after we were done did I realize that it actually is exactly Lag Ba'Omer today.  How cool is that?

Cherish Our Children International

Leah Spring, who is at this very moment bringing home her third adopted son with Down Syndrome from Serbia, also runs an info blog about Serbian adoption.  In her first adoption, she was burned by some corrupt agents and facilitators, and after working to expose and clean up the culprits, she educated herself about the Serbian process, which was transformed at the same time.  These days, all adoptions must be processed directly by the government Ministry of Justice -- no outside agencies are allowed. The process is very streamlined, taking only a few months altogether, with just about 3 weeks in-country.  Cutting out the middlemen has slashed costs, as well. An average Serbian adoption now costs $10-15K, less than half of most other countries.

Most adoptive families, however, are reluctant to proceed without the handholding of a knowledgeable agency.  Here is where Cherish Our Children International (COCI) comes in.  This is a non-profit organization with projects around the world, ranging from providing medical care and education to children in Kenya to sponsoring Jewish/Arab integrated soccer leagues for disadvantaged kids in Israel to helping incarcerated youths in Texas break the cycle of crime.  In Serbia, they work to improve the quality of life for institutionalized orphans, especially those with special needs.  As part of that, they assist adoptive parents with the logistics of the in-country process free of charge.

However, they also have projects aimed at helping integrate children with special needs into their society at home.  With minimal manpower, they find ways to make a difference in the lives of families, so that children with disabilities are able to have their needs met at home, in the care of their loving families, instead of being institutionalized for life.  Here is a 2-part video showing the kind of work they do:

What about RAD?

The scariest aspect of adoption is the possibility of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD). Now, all children going through a change in caregivers will have attachment issues - whether it is acquiring a new step-parent or being placed for foster care/adoption.  In most cases, however, these issues will gradually subside with parental consistency and love.  Parents can certainly make the normal process of attachment easier or harder by their actions, behaviors and expectations, but on rare occasions, the "normal process" simply fails to present itself.  A child will appear to go through the motions of bonding, but then either lash out at other family members, clam up into his/her own world, or show indiscriminate affection.

Really, not enough is known yet about RAD and what constitutes effective treatment for it.  Consistency - above and beyond that needed for all children - is foremost.  I suspect that unrealistic expectations play a big role in triggering RAD.  Parents who report inadequate preparation and support from the placement agency are more likely to struggle with it.  Also, it seems that many adoptive parents assume RAD is to blame when the normal process of attachment is longer or more difficult than they bargained for.   But research suggests that there is at least a genetic component to the predisposition to RAD.  This is the scary part!  You can do everything right and still end up with a nightmare situation.  Success stories are few, and one out of every five adoptions is disrupted.

The Mayo Clinic recommends parental preparation, therapy, and possibly drugs to help children with attachment issues.  They warn against radical, unproven and coercive "therapies".  For example, in the context of proper attachment therapy, the adoptive parents are the only source of anything during the initial bonding period: Food, drink, affection, assistance with daily tasks, etc.  On the other hand, some take this to an extreme of "holding therapy", where the child is forced into submission by coerced physical contact.

Seems to me like this is just another one of the ways that hurt children are hurting.  Some are malnourished.  Some are long-term non-verbal.  And some resist attachment.  As in all aspects of child-rearing, I think it is paramount to consider the child's needs first.  What does this behavior mean?  Just that the child is hurting. S/he needs that hurt validated, and the need behind it fulfilled.  This may take longer, and may require more professional assistance, but I think that a child-based approach has the best chance of producing positive results.

Torah Connection - Emor

This week we learn about the specific right and responsibilities accorded to the Kohanim (Priests).  They have no land-ownership in Israel, but are guaranteed a livelihood from the Temple offerings.  They are set on a pedestal, but are obliged to hold themselves up to a higher standard than the rest of the populace - there are restrictions on whom they may marry, as well as whose funerals they may attend.

There is a section near the beginning of the parsha, however, which is somewhat disturbing from a Special Needs perspective:

16 The Lord spoke further to Moses: 17 Speak to Aaron and say: No man of your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the food of his God. 18 No one at all who has a defect shall be qualified: no man who is blind, or lame, or has a limb too short or too long; 19 no man who has a broken leg or a broken arm; 20 or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf, or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy, or crushed testes. 21 No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the Lord's offering by fire; having a defect, he shall not be qualified to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat of the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy; 23 but he shall not enter behind the curtain or come near the altar, for he has a defect. He shall not profane these places sacred to Me, for I the Lord have sanctified them.

Why are people with disabilities excluded from the holiest task of the Temple service?  Yes, they are included in most aspects of Temple life, but why is their presence considered "profane"?

I searched and found a few sources that address this.  Here is what seemed to me the best formulation of rabbinical thought on this:

While the exclusion of disabled kohanim from offering korbanot is Biblical, the rabbinic parallel is the exclusion of disabled kohanim from doing birkat kohanim (the priestly blessing, also known as duchening). Here, though, there's an interesting exception which we might be able to apply to the Biblical case as well. As formulated in the Shulchan Arukh, the rule is that a kohen who has a glaring problem with his face or hands is not allowed to do birkat kohanim, because people will stare at him; however, if he is a local resident and everyone is used to him, he is allowed.<14>

The point is made that this is a concession to prejudice:  Since we live in a society where the disabled are viewed as "different", the difference would detract from their ability to effectively represent the people in the public sphere.  Hence their exclusion from the highly visible role of serving around the Holy of Holies, but not from other tasks, wherein they are equal to any other Kohanim.  

This is not really a satisfying explanation, but it was the best I could find.... However, then I noticed a glaring exclusion from the list of disabilities.  Where in other contexts blindness and deafness are mentioned together (c.f. last week's Parshat Kedoshim, where we are admonished "You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind."), here only the blind are mentioned.  Why are the deaf not excluded?

I could not find any sources which address, or even acknowledge this discrepancy.  I wonder if the issue is that the deaf would not be visibly different, while the blind would navigate their environment more tentatively, thus betraying their disability? Or perhaps a different explanation? 

Any ideas???

How busy is too busy?

On Tuesday I wrote my theory on family planning.    But I think there is something else, something that goes beyond how many children you have.  I know parents of only children, and even childless people, who are waaaay busier than me.  WAAAAAYYYYY more stressed.  Heck, I have a friend who just posted on Facebook that she is "too busy to floss".   She has one preteen child.  So clearly number of children is not the only factor in determining one's busy-ness.

I remember before I had children, being terribly busy.  I worked 60 hour weeks, and then I was involved in local politics the rest of the time.  When I had my first child, I thought I would return to work part-time after my maternity leave.  Fortunately, my company's idea of "part time" was 40 hours/week....  so I stayed home.  Over the past 19 years I went back and forth several times between working full-time, part-time, or SAHMing.  I know what busy with kids is, and I know what busy without kids is.  I also know what it feels like to goof off on whatever commitments I have, whether at home or in the workplace.

I have concluded that people make themselves as busy as they are comfortable with, regardless of how many children they have. People can raise many children with a laid-back attitude, or an only child and be busy with work, hobbies, etc up to the gills.

(As an aside: I find it curious indeed that people who think having another child would take time/attention away from my existing children would think nothing of it at all if I chose to take a full-time job. Trust me, a full-time job takes time/attention away from your kids a lot more than a new baby.  With a new baby, you have to multitask, and sometimes the older child has to wait his/her turn.  With a job, you are just not there.  As they get older, the kids occasionally grumble about their siblings being disruptive when they need my attention, but that is made up for by the times they spend together with each other.  As I have matured, I think that making the children wait for each other is actually a benefit in its own right.   The ability to delay gratification is a prime indicator of success in life.  How often do we undermine our children's ability to learn this by jumping at their beck and call?  Siblings provide an automatic mechanism for practicing patience.)


What do you think?