“The Journey of the Soul”

(Insights from this week’s Portion: Re’eh)

· This Week’s RRR (Relevant Religious Reference): “You are children to Hashem your G-d – you shall not cut yourselves... for a person who has passed away” – Deuteronomy 14:1

· This Week’s SSC (Suitable Secular Citation): “I know there will be no more tears in heaven.” – Eric Clapton, Tears in Heaven

MAY “HAMAKOM” COMFORT YOU

Without question, the death of a loved one can bring a crushing blow to the hearts of those left behind. When those we love are no longer with us, we are likely to experience a gaping void which we feel can never again be filled. In ancient times, pagan mourners even expressed their grief-stricken desperation by various forms of self-mutilation. While the Torah is keenly sensitive and realistic regarding the intense emotions that arise in the throes of personal tragedy, why does our verse above prohibit self-mutilation as a response that is inappropriately extreme?

The answer seems to lie in the language we use to comfort a mourner during the shiva period: “May HaMakom (The Place/the Omnipresent) console you among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem!” Of all words that we might have chosen to refer to G-d (the Compassionate One, the Holy One, etc.), why do we select the word HaMakom (The Place/the Omnipresent) in the context of comforting a mourner?

“THE PALACE” WITHIN “THE PLACE”

One reason is that this particular title, “The Place”, reassures us that we all – those living in the “here” and those living in the “hereafter” – are existing in the very same overall Place, under the shelter of G-d’s all-encompassing Umbrella. The dearly departed soul has moved on to another room within the “proverbial Palace”, but he/she has not moved far, and we can confidently look forward to being reunited at the proper time.*

REUNION OF SOULS

In this light, we can see why a mourner’s decision to inflict self-damage is deemed an excessive response: this act reveals the hopeless assumption that death does not represent a human soul’s transition, but rather a chillingly final end of that being’s existence. In stark contrast, mentioning “The Place” teaches us that while it is certainly natural and appropriate to cry, grieve, and experience a wide array of emotions over the temporary loss of a tangible relationship, we can take consolation by the assurance that this loss is indeed temporary. May we all be comforted by the assurance that we will one day be reunited with our loved ones – with those who have been relocated to another destination nearby!

Have a Wonderful Shabbos! Love, Jon & The Chevra

[*NOTE: This email does not tackle the obvious question of why we should have confidence in the veracity of the above ideas, since the treatment of that topic requires far more than a brief weekly blast allows for. Here is one approach, in the broadest of brush strokes. Let’s assume that a system of belief (e.g. Judaism) espouses two types of idea: 1) ideas that can be empirically investigated, and 2) other ideas that are beyond empirical research (e.g. the existence of a Soul or an Afterlife). If sufficient evidence is found that corroborates the unique positive claims of those ideas that can be investigated (i.e. “1” above), then depending on other factors, it may be reasonable to extrapolate credibility to un- researchable claims espoused by that same system (i.e. “2” above). Again, this discussion requires much elaboration. For the meantime, I hope that you have found the ideas above to be uplifting.]

Text Copyright © 2008 by Jon Erlbaum and Torah.org