The Nature and Purposes of Sacred Space - Part 3

Introduction - we will spend most of our time in this lesson on personal standards required to be and to serve as priests. Then we will examine the role and service of the Levites.

We will work at three levels - 1) what did these mitzvot mean in the context of the ancient Temple, 2) what might they mean in the operation of our most usual sorts of scared space, such as our churches and synagogues, and 3) what might they mean on the more personal level, that is, how “internal” priests and Levites might serve within us to operate sacred space where encounter with the Divine is facilitated to lead us to greater holiness.

As we proceed, we’ll explore this concept of “internal clergy” - what it might mean and how it might work. Just from the words, what ideas are triggered initially in your mind?

(Discussion - Possibilities might include: conscience, mind, ego, driver of intentionality or will, governor of soul, better self, etc. Is there something

inside of us that lights the fire of our offerings, pushes us toward God’s way, and facilitator of our drawing near to God? What is that? Can we think of these mitzvot regarding the priests as guiding us as well with regard to such “internal priests”? I would like for us to suspend doubts, if we have them, and work on the hypothesis that they do.)

XXV. Read Exodus 30:19-20. What do you make of the requirement for priests to wash their hands and feet with water when they enter the sanctuary or when they approach the altar to serve?

(This practice was clearly seen in part as encouraging physical cleanliness. But, even more, it was to serve as a sort of spiritual purification. This, as Chinuch teaches, elevates for us the Temple and the activities done there. Also, as we approach sacred encounter, we “wash away” the stuff of the ordinary world in order to draw near the Divine with “new” skin and self.

Is there a way to accomplish this in our own communal or personal sacred space?

Jews have the mikvah. We could wash hands as we move into sacred space. Or we could mentally or spiritually achieve some other sort of separation from secular to sacred as we cross the threshold with certain thoughts or meditations or changes of perspective.)

XXVI-XXVIII. Read Exodus 28:2-4, 28, 32; 29:8. Why did the garb of the priests matter in days of old, and should the dress of our modern day priests or our inner priest matter to us? How?

(While the exact nature and purpose of these ancient clothes remain unclear, certain truths can be gleaned from these mitzvot.

First, the garments and other elements were beautiful and splendid in a way that inspired the worshippers that beheld them. The priests served the Sovereign in sacred space, and the sight of them suggested the glory of the One they served. Further, the clothes displayed symbolic meaning through their material make-up, function, stitching, and other adornments that reminded both the ones who wore them and those who observed them of the holiness of the sacred drama.

Some sages suggested that the garments served to atone for various sins. These were garments of the soul, which helped to bring out inherent luster and strengths. In a way, this allowed the true holiness and splendor of the garments’ true inner counterparts to envelop the priest, transform him, and

rectify the world from which all our actions flow. We, thus, could identify our essence with these noble qualities. Sins could thus be seen as merely outward failures, not inherent spiritual deficiencies.

We, too, tend to expect more than ordinary clothes or even suit and tie or dress from our clergy. It may be robes. Should/could it be more? Or is garb less important for us than the Biblical language suggests it was for the Temple, or even altogether unimportant?

Discussion.)

XXIX-XXXV. Read Leviticus 10:6-7; 21:1-3, 11. What are these mitzvot all about? Why do you think there’s a concern about the immediate capacity of a priest who’s touched death to facilitate sacred encounter? Does this have any meaning to us today? If so, what?

(While certain of these mitzvot appear on the surface to guide generally toward proper demeanor and appearance of the priest, they are designed mainly to prevent a priest who is in mourning from, at the same time, conducting worship. The behaviors described in the first mitzvot characterize a person whose thoughts and spirit are directed toward grief rather than the religious functions performed in sacred space.

We will discuss these concepts in far greater depth in upcoming chapters, so we must postpone a good bit of important substance until then. But let’s at least simply understand here that the drama of death and the drama of formal sacred encounter are both significant, but separate elements of living. This is not to say that God is with us only in sacred space. God is with us in each drama. The Torah, however, guides us to live them fully and, thus, separately, not mixing or diluting them in ways that diminish each. This separation is especially essential in the case of priests who lead in sacred encounter and must be thoroughly engaged with worshippers experiencing sacred drama.

These requirements are so important that even contact with the death of kin must be avoided, in the case of the High Priest, when grief can only distract from service. God imposes limitations and disciplines on priestly life that foster focus, single-mindedness, order, and decorum in their attitude and service. Our clergy help lead us to holiness principally through sacred encounter. God expects their full devotion in those sacred moments.

Do we learn lessons from this guidance for the conduct of our modern-day priests or our inner priest?

Discussion - the separation of experiences of fundamentally important, but different chapters of our lives is wise, especially to avoid mixing and diluting with sacred encounter those emotions, feelings, thoughts, and soul energy that are by necessity oriented to different tasks.)

XXXVI-XXXVII. Read Leviticus 22:2 and 21:6. Again, I want to delay our consideration of what “tamei” and “tahor” mean until we dig deep on them and related concepts in the next chapter. These are very difficult matters. I have hypotheses to suggest when we come to them. But, for now, I simply want you to remember the point we discussed a moment ago: there are certain dramas of life after which we, here specifically the priests, require a separation before being able again to be wholly focused and whole-hearted in the sacred encounter that is experienced in sacred space.

XXXVIII. Read Leviticus 10:8-11. Why would you think priests and worshippers are forbidden from entering the sanctuary while intoxicated?

(Worshippers and priests can hardly experience sacred encounter appropriately and fully while mentally, spiritually, and physically diverted by drink or intoxicant. This risk becomes exceptionally dangerous if the priest errs in the sacred process as a result of being so diverted. Surely, too, intoxication is a certain sign of disrespect for the sanctuary, the Way of life it promotes, the holiness that we aspire to attain and promote, and the One we come there to encounter and follow.)

XXXIX-XLI. Read Leviticus 21:23, 17-18. We moderns, I think rightly, generally, support inclusion and rights for the disabled. Do our sentiments conflict with these words? How might they be made compatible? Think broadly about the purposes served by the mitzvot.

(While there can be a debate about the merits of this whole-scale prohibition, I think the mitzvot, at the least, are fundamentally saying that a priest must be fully capable of facilitating sacred encounter. Such work may involve sight, movement, other senses, and focus and attention, but if the priest has limitations that diminish these capacities, the words here say such limitations are disqualifying, either temporarily or permanently.

It may be that these senses speak to inner capacities, too. The “inner priest” who is “blind” or “deaf” or “dumb” or otherwise blemished, perhaps spiritually, should be disqualified as well.

What might we more specifically be talking about here? Can you think of disabilities or blemishes that would make our present-day or inner priests incapable of facilitating sacred counter for us?

Discussion.)

XLII-XLVII. Read Leviticus 21:13-15; 21:7. We certainly are far more liberal today about marriage choices our modern day priests are able to make. Do

we see any wisdom in these ancient practices, or they just old-fashioned and without meaning in our times?

(If a person or force or element of life that plays a priestly role lacks a whole and devoted love, support, and comfort, there arguably could be a missing quality, if not a void. In addition to the gift of being “well married,” the priest also benefits from bearing responsibility for, and giving, love, compassion, and support to the spouse. The mutuality of such a special relationship and the sharing and service it involves surely informs, enriches, and adds value to priestly service to others and to God.

While some can survive and even perform work well in less desirable personal circumstances, it is likely true generally that being married to a person who is incapable of loyalty, caught up in or deeply wounded by previous relationships, or of poor character would undercut the spirit, joy, full duty, and dignity expected of the priest.

One key point the sages make is that if a priest is going to properly castigate the sinner and help him turn back from wrongdoing, he must be upright himself. Finally, if the priest is there to help lead us to holiness, he must live to the highest standard.

As we continue to think about the work of our inner priests, do you see truths in these mitzvot that might enlighten us further?

Discussion.)

XLVIII-LIV. Read Numbers 18:23, Numbers 4:19, Deuteronomy 18:1-2, Numbers 35:2, Leviticus 25:34 and Deuteronomy 12:19.

We spent time in our study of Torah last year on Levi and the role of the Levites who succeeded him. For those of you who studied the Prophets and the Psalms with me, we learned a good bit about the Levites in those texts as well. We will learn even more when we get to the next chapters in this year’s study. But let’s start today by looking at several mitzvot that introduce us to the Levites, their role in the operation of sacred space, and how they might matter to us in our own time.

A. Assuming, as we will learn in greater detail in coming weeks, that the Levites have discrete, full-time duties in the Temple and the Levitical cities, what do we learn from the mitzvot we’ve just read?

(The Levites, like the priests, were expected to devote themselves fully to service of God, facilitate our coming near to God, and teach and inspire the people to live in God’s Way. They had discrete roles in sacred space, including guarding, singing, being gatekeepers, and opening and closing the gates. They were not generally to engage in, or be concerned about, the interests of commerce, war, and other such matters. Thus, they were to be separated apart, supported, and kept from the affairs that would distract

them from their divinely established mission. It was/is our duty, that of those served by the Levites, to support them entirely.)

B. What might this mean to us today, with respect to those who preform Levitical duties in our external or internal sacred space?

(We have the duty to support full-time servants of God who help bring us to God and God’s ways, whether they serve us in church or synagogue, cities in which they dwell, or even internally within ourselves. How, and in what ways might we do this? What might such support entail?

Discussion - Cover ideas of material, spiritual, and moral support for those who study, teach, minister, bring people to God, including that part of ourselves that is devoted to God and bringing all of our other constituent parts to service of God.)

Conclusion.