Here's what you can't be in order to qualify as a British monarch:
- You can't be a Catholic
- You can't be a bastard
- It helps to be a male
- Did I say you can't be a Catholic?
- Non Anglicans need not apply.
- If you are divorced, or marrying someone who is, it gets complicated. It's now allowed, but discouraged.
- Unless you are Catholic. Then it doesn't matter.
Interestingly, it would appear that mental illness is not a disqualifier for the throne. Here's a (very partial) list of mentally ill monarchs. Evidently the British royal family has dropped their "stiff upper lip" and now will more readily admit to these kinds of challenges.
There are strange qualifications for leadership in various cultures. Which brings me to our Torah portion.
I've always encouraged our students to challenge the Torah if they find a verse problematic or offensive. I see it as a sign of true religious maturity to ask tough questions of the text. One part of this week's portion of Emor has prompted more consternation than most. It's where the qualifications for the priesthood are discussed. The list from Leviticus 21 disqualifies priests who are blind or lame, who have a limb that is too short or too long or broken, priests who have a hunchback or who are short, priests with a growth in their eye, and priests with crushed testes (ouch!).
The fact that disabilities or deformities are grounds for disqualification is anathema to many Jews, and many of our b'nai mitzvah have close relatives who are physically or mentally challenged. These prohibitions really bothers them, more than almost any other controversial prohibition in the Torah.
So how could this have been allowed? It's not so far fetched to disqualify people who appear impaired when you think that a generation ago, before the advent of TV, a US president had to hide the fact that he was wheelchair bound.
But the restrictions on the priesthood in Leviticus are not as much of an indictment of Jewish ethics as it seems. The priest was more of a figurehead than an actual leader. Aaron, the first cohen, spoke beautifully, but it was Moses' words that he spoke to Pharaoh, not his own. Moses, who was speech-challenged, was the actual leader; he made all the decisions. The priest never actually legislated, judged or ruled in ancient Israel. He hardly made any decisions at all; not on policy, not on diplomacy and not even on what to wear. Everything was laid out by protocol (and by his priestly dressers). Like the British monarch, the cohen was there to symbolize the state, on coins, at festivals, wherever a figurehead was needed. They were asked to keep their opinions to themselves, much as Charles has toned down his advocacy for pet projects like Climate Change since he's become King.
Still, the mere fact of such a lack of inclusivity is disquieting.
Rabbis have no restrictions on their appearance or skills. Basically, any Jew can qualify as a rabbi. In a few weeks, on Pride Shabbat on June 2, we'll have as our guest a well known rabbi who happens to be blind - the first female rabbi with that challenge. Rabbi Lauren Tuchman (no relation to a TBE'er with a similar name), will speak of the Transformative Power of an Inclusive Torah, also the title of her Eli talk.
Judaism is not about keeping people out, especially since talented leaders are so needed.
The British monarchy? Not so inclusive. But improving. We just need to hope that the heart will eventually open wide and those words of love and inclusion will fall in. At some point there will be no outsiders, no strangers, and Jews, Muslims - and Catholics - won't have to act so overjoyed with simply being tolerated and invited to the feast.
Listen to this brand new version of "Adon Olam" composed in honor of the Coronation of King Charles. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment