April 14, 2012
p. 1467: Haftarah – Second Samuel
The reading sequence is different in Israel for about eight weeks this time of year. We could accommodate by splitting the torah portions but instead we will read Haftarah. AF: Isn’t this lack of conformity a problem for Judaism? PG: No. There is no requirement for conformity in Judaism. LL: The vigor of Judaism is the discussion of different ideas and approaches. PG: Anyone who calls for conformity is trying to exercise power so that everyone does it their way. Note that the Gaonate fixed the calendar.
The introduction to this psalm is an introduction to the seventh day of Passover. Note the identification as a David psalm. Note the sense of dread and the hyperbolic sense of danger. Compare to the 22nd Psalm “Lord why have you abandoned me?” SF: Is this David expressing his own fears? PG: There were three significant battles that the Israelite’s faced as they wandered: Egypt, the Amalachites and Sivan and Ok. In the confrontation with Egypt they do nothing but escape – the defeat is via divine intervention; the Amalachite conflict is similar. Sivan and Ok had to be fought in order to cross the Jordon – without divine intervention. There may be an intentional evolution toward self-reliance – until God virtually disappears in the story of Joseph.
The poet is creating a fearsome vision – ala Odin or Zeus. This is a depiction of a God in human form – the concretization of God as a commander. The modern tendency is to avoid any images of God. The ancients were accepting of imagery but did not want it to be a fixed image. CL: There was a noted Chinese emperor from about 1000 AD who like to sign the works of his courtiers that he approved of. You can imagine the same sort of thing going on with these psalms. PG: Recent archeological finds confirm the existence of David. But consider the epic of Gilgamesh – which has also been confirmed archeologically. The written account of Gilgamesh is about 1200 years later than the actual events. These Psalms may also have been created well after the existence of David. The rabbinic tradition is to ascribe unknown psalms to David.
Who is the psalmist/author’s enemy? It appears that the demons he struggles with may be those within him. “They advanced on me in my time of calamity, but the Eternal was my support.” David was a complicated, often conflicted, individual. Saul, his predecessor appears to have had severe psychological problems. David succeeds because he can, at least partially, confront his demons. He is aided by his poetry – his psalms – which reach out to God. AF: Could he have been on drugs? PG: Hallucinogens were available throughout ancient times.
“…with the crooked you are cunning…” PG: This all does not ring true if you are familiar with the life of David. This language suggests that personal weaknesses are not your fault – ultimately justice will reign. The difficulties of daily existence and the uncertainties of life may have made this more eagerly acceptable to the ancient hearers. AF: Isn’t David glorifying himself by describing his special relationship with God? PG: If you assume that this was written by David in the first place. It’s a bit more complicated than that. LL: There is a change in tone here. Some of this may have been added by another author who wanted to exalt David. The beginning is much more personal and anguished.
LL/

April 1, 2011
p. 694
Leviticus 8:1 The Eternal One spoke to Moses… The first seven chapters of Leviticus have dealt with sacrifices. What has not been mentioned is who performs the sacrifices and the qualifications of the priests. Here, Aaron and his four sons are brought before the community leadership.
8:6 GT: How do these things become sacred? PG: This is a description of the process. It is being depicted here. “..as the eternal commanded Moses.” God has instructed him – implanted visions within his brain. Consider the Chinese factory worker who is assigned the assembly of a computer component. He probably does not understand the entire machine. SF: One has to give up part of oneself to accept teachings – either pragmatically or spiritually. SN: Is Moses speaking or is Aaron speaking for him? PG: See Plaut p. 612 where Moses comes down from the mountain the second time. In verse 10 – “…let all among you who are skilled make what the Eternal has commanded.” It is the meaning of the word “skilled” here that is critical – they are the ones who are capable of accepting the vision that God has implanted in Moses – to take the idea and make it into reality. Here the word “skilled” is more akin to “adept.” Those same people who have been instrumental in creating the paraphernalia are standing with Moses and Aaron and Moses is dressing Aaron with what they have created – the breast piece, diadem, etc. The people understand because they are “skilled” meaning here, literally, “wise in the heart.” PG: Here the idea of Moses is being realized – from an inchoate vision of an individual to acceptance by a people. Truth requires a response before it is justified. The items that have been created become imbued with meaning – as does Aaron – once the items are assembled and used.
8:10 Notice that the anointing oil is used on the tabernacle – establishing their sacred purpose via public performance. LL: This is all genius. It is no easy task to create a religion. PG: This elaborate ceremony, complete with rare objects, is something that is way beyond the experience of the ordinary person. LL: There is a lesson in leadership here. Bonaparte was fascinated with designing uniforms for his various troops – as have many other military leaders. Here the genius of leadership is taking the abstraction and transforming it into reality via ritual and spectacle. PG: But it is the priests who are charged with making all of this work. They are establishing the connection between heaven and earth. They are the ones who must be trusted. Consider “performative language” first suggested by Wittgenstein. The act of speaking is creative “let there be light.” Stanley Cavell: It makes no difference what the internal condition of the speaker is. Once the promise has been made publicly they can be held to it. SF: In the Mussar tradition one must act once you have learned a certain set of values. These values become part of one’s neurobiological system. PG: The growing distrust of the priesthood – exemplified by the Maccabean revolt – was the precursor to the crisis of the first century. That crisis was responded to in two ways: by the creation of rabbinic Judaism and the establishment of the Davidic kingdom in the person of Jesus. SN: There is an enormous effort here to create a priestly class of which Moses is not a member. What are the implications of that? PG: How can Moses even have a brother? It makes no sense from the original story of Moses being saved by the Pharaoh’s sister while all the male children were being killed. Aaron appears suddenly – almost “deus ex machina.” As if he was needed in the narrative. At the time Leviticus was written the Aaronite priests were in ascendency. See Richard Eliot Friedman on “Who Wrote The Bible.” The civil service priesthood mentioned in Deuteronomy has disappeared. Remember that the Torah was likely assembled in its present form in the post-exilic period – 500 to 450 BCE. There are many ideas about the sources and ages of the component parts. SF: What is the lesson here for the modern Jew – or Board member? PG: It is the idea, the memory, the association, of Sinai. Everyone was there – male and female, young and old, rich and poor. We are descendents of that family and we identify with them and their God and their narrative. This is very distinct from Christianity and Islam. The Christians and Muslims have an ethnic history that preceded their faith. There is no Israel prior to Sinai. See Judith Pleskow’s book “Standing Again at Sinai.”

NOTICE TO READERS OF THESE TORAH STUDYPOSTS: The text submitted here is unedited. Corrections and comments are welcome. Generally, the initials shown are an attempt to credit the individual who made a particular point or responded to it. “PG” is Rabbi Paul Golomb. Page references are to Plaut. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the text but these notes will be more inteligible if read in conjunction with the cited passages.

March 25, 2012
p. 667
Leviticus 4:13 The purgation offering when the leadership has erred. Notice that only the fat is placed on the altar for sacrifice and the rest of the animal is disposed of – burned. This is different from other ceremonies where there is a feast after the sacrifice. When there has been wrong doing by community leaders what is the appropriate penalty? Clearly there are many wrongs that cannot be adequately penalized. There can only be a process of public purgation and subsequent renewal. SN: This is not a matter of making one whole – it is giving the community a way to put the wrong into the past. PG: Judgment continues to attach but the effort is to put the wrong aside. It’s like when they ritually blew up the baseball at Wrigley field when the Cubs were interfered with by a fan. The leadership has to be present and acknowledge responsibility. Try to imagine actually being there for that kind of ceremony. PG: It would be the equivalent of a perp walk. Consider the dietary laws – that were devised in early modern times once Jewish diets began to more frequently include meat. The lack of meat in the diet makes the sacrifice of the bull – without eating it – even greater. Note that although the priesthood has no civil administrative responsibility they can still be part of the guilt that needs expiation.
4:22 In the case where a chieftain has incurred guilt unwittingly… he must bring a male goat without blemish as a purgation offering. Here there is no comment about burning the meat. The text is silent as to where the sacrifice must occur. LL: Rabbi Elise Goldstein’s talk “Woman are from Genesis, Men are from Leviticus” talked about male preference for detailed rule-making. PG: She relies on Carol Gilligan’s sociological work – which has been somewhat discredited because of Gilligan’s small reference sample. Goldstein was correct in that the only voices heard as to the interpretation of biblical text were male. Consider the Talmud story of Galamiel – head of the rabbinic Academy after the destruction of the Temple: he so overstepped his authority that he was thrown out of the Academy. The result was that, once free of his onerous control, the members of the Academy doubled and there was a consequent burst of creativity. This group “invented” the importance of the Torah; just as the Bible was not an important part of the Catholic church until the Protestant Reformation forced a re-focus on the text – scripture. The Jews had previously relied on their priesthood. When the Temple was destroyed there had already been a decreasing of trust in the priesthood – which had begun with the Maccabean Revolt. It was at that time that there was a major revival of interest in Moses – and the centrality of Torah to Judaism. Previously the primary focus had been on figures such as David, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
4:27 A person unwittingly incurs guilt… a female goat without blemish as a purgation offering. Note that there are far more female goats than male goats. The latter are slaughtered. Note also that blood is considered the animating life force. That is why it is drained before sacrifice or consumption. Mary Douglas argued that ancient Israel really wanted to be vegan. Note that guilt can arise either by admission, recognition and as a result of inadvertence – without intent. Biblical texts dwell on how people think – but in the public arena the focus is on acts – what happened. Intent might impact the severity of the punishment. In Deuteronomy there is an examination of bearing false witness – which is considered an act equivalent to the crime itself.

March 10, 2011
PG: The triennial reading of Torah in the U.S. was started within the Conservative movement but is thought to have ancient antecedents in Palestine. See the Jewish Encyclopedia. Reform did fewer verses at a time so had no problem fitting them into a service. But entire Torah portions were considered too long to complete. A determination was made by a group of Conservative scholars to read a third at each service so that the entire portion would be read over three years. The practice here is less than 25 years old. Note that this portion, Ki Tisa, covers four chapters. Chapters designated as such did not exist until about 700 years ago. Synagogue’s were originally formed for the purpose of reading Torah – not for the conduct of services. There was also a long-standing tradition of reading prophets – Haftarah. Recall in the Gospel of Luke Jesus walks into the synagogue and is handed an Isaiah scroll. He decides the section that he will read from. See the reading in Luke 4: 16 which is slightly changed from the original text of Isaiah in adding a reference to the blind. Later it became traditional to link Haftarah readings with Torah readings. The celebratory notion of Succoth (originally a celebration of harvest) is re-enforced by having Simcha Torah (the beginning of a new reading cycle) at that same time. This practice was determined around the year 800. During the week one only reads the first aliyah of the same section. One could only be assured of having a minion on Shabbat and on Mondays and Thursdays (market days.) A Maftir is a reading of the last few lines of the Torah reading of the day.
p. 592
33:12 Moses negotiates with God and demands that God lead them in person from this place so that the people can be distinguished as unique. SN: This is a framing of identity in an immensely powerful way. PG: in the first chapter of Torah we learn that God speaks and creates the world, in the second chapter he establishes rules, in the third chapter he indicates that the world can be destroyed. Here God is still a mysterious figure. At this time gods were understood as being different but following their own rules and logic – capricious from a human point of view. But should we assume that the gods are completely crazy? Or is there a different message here – that there are rules and there will be justice in the universe. It is justice that will work against power. Consider Hamen’s decree – which outlives Hyman. The decree of a king could not be revoked. Power exists independently – even beyond the King. The solution was to write a new decree – that was facially consistent – but allows for self-defense. Here Moses is allowed to do what needs to be done to save the people after the incident of the Golden Calf. See the book “Arguing With God – A Jewish Tradition” by Rabbi Anson Laytner.
33:17  The Hebrew bible generally does not explore theology, but these two paragraphs are outstanding. Moses is challenging God on issues of justice – including mercy. Previously, Abraham has sought the limits of God’s justice at Sodom and Gomorrah. ML: Did this group know of Abraham? PG: Yes – this was part of their oral tradition and family lore. LL: It is significant that God describes himself as having “goodness” and “compassion.” PG: There are multiple ways of reading this. Consider the narrative and we are the fly on the wall watching the conversation between God and Moses. God is being asked to explain the relationship between justice and mercy. Only hints are given – but with the assurance that the people of Israel will have a future. We are given a theological framework for justice and mercy. One looks for a pattern that leads to a conclusion of the application of justice by applying over-arching rules. What gives anyone the ability to say what is right or wrong other than the use of power. This was the question posed by Nietzsche. Consider also Kant’s Categorical Imperative. One has to surrender some autonomy in order to make justice work. LL: This is the beginning of civilization – the surrender of personal rights such as vengeance to government by application of a system of laws. When the lawmaker is God the rules take on an eternal aspect whereas if they are promulgated by Pharaoh they die with him. “Pharaoh knew not Joseph.”
34:1 Carve two tablets of stone like the first… God’s words – Moses hand. Consider Hamlet confronting the ghost of his father – no one is there except the audience. We are the audience here.
LL/

February 25, 2012
p.550
Next week at Bethel for the Shabbaton. Visiting Rabbi Alice Goldstein will talk about the different approaches to scripture by men and woman.
Last week Moses told the people that he was ascending the mountain and would be there for 40 days. He is receiving instructions for the construction of a mishkan – an “indwelling place”” or tabernacle that will hold the Torah and be a space for offerings. See schematic p. 544
26:31 A detailed description. It is believed that this text was prepared at the time of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. Friedman suggests that the mishkan was re-built in that Temple. SF: What was the intent of the redactors here? What were they trying to do? PG: At the time this was committed to writing, between 900 and 600, the Temple in Jerusalem existed. SF: But this is about the creation of sacred space. PG: It is also a description of a real physical object – something that has been physically relocated to the Temple. The Torah became “popularized” after the return from Babylonia – between 550 and 450. At that time the mishkan as described no longer existed. The 2nd Temple is being built – it doesn’t have the ark or the tent but it reinforces and recreates the notion of Zion – a complex theology in which there is a place for Israelites to go to encounter God. Yet there is no indication that this was actually recreated in the 2nd Temple. The message is that Jews can be Jews wherever they gather by focusing on the writing rather than the alter and upon Jerusalem as a place of worship. Early synagogues demonstrate floor plans that had no particular orientation toward Jerusalem or fixed location for the ark. Now it is usually on the eastern wall – or the direction of Jerusalem. In Bombay the ark is on the western wall of the synagogue. CL: All of the major ancient cultures had permanent temples – the notion of portability here is somewhat puzzling. PG: The notion is built into the story of Abraham – who built a new altar at whatever location he felt the presence of God. Paradoxically the inner sanctum is only accessible by the high priest once a year. LL: This lends an element of mystery which is an inherent part of religion.PG: But it is important to note that the designation of a sacred place is not arbitrary – it is the place “that I will show you.” CL: Temples historically have also been a statement of the power of the state. PG: Martin Buber made the point that the association of the king with god is always fraught with problems.
26:36 RR: Is this the back story of why they had to take all of the gold and silver out of Egypt? (See below)
27:1 More detailed description of the altar. Suggests a high level of available craftsmanship. CL: Egypt was known for its gold. These details are very useful for art historians. Note the relative absence of silver in the descriptions – much more is made of gold and copper. See reference to 40 silver sockets. There may also be a translation issue as to the word for bronze. Consider the role of the story in molding our thinking: Egypt is the evil empire ala Star Wars. When the Egyptians perish we cheer – just as we did for the Death Star. Hence the redactors came up with a reason for taking all of the gold from the Egyptians – due and owing back pay.
27:9 This is the outer enclosure – made out of cloth. Note that there is no roof. Like a construction site this outer enclsoure stops people from wandering into a potentially dangerous zone – because of the presence of God. Holiness takes two forms – kadosh and kodesh. The barrier separates that which is intrinsically holy from what is contingent holiness. SF: There is a psycho-sexual element here. This layering of access is analogous to the body of a woman. Compare the work of Mary Douglas on this subject – also Vita Zornberg. PG: There are fundamental notions of creativity and birth here. Some societies become very anxious about this. As sex becomes more holy there is more celibacy. In Judaism this anxiety is manifested by the notion of “family purity.” So that men and woman cannot come into contact for a period of time during which the woman is deemed to be “unclean.”
LL/

.NOTICE TO READERS OF THESE TORAH STUDYPOSTS: The text submitted here is unedited. Corrections and comments are welcome. Generally, the initials shown are an attempt to credit the individual who made a particular point or responded to it. “PG” is Rabbi Paul Golomb. Page references are to Plaut. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the text but these notes will be more inteligible if read in conjunction with the cited passages.

February 18, 2011

p.521

23:14  This is right after the revelation of the Ten Commandments. “Three times a year you should hold a festival for Me… and you shall not come empty handed.” This is Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot. PG:  This is the first reference to a gathering of males. There is a practical basis for this reference – who was available to leave the farm. You also have to think about who is being told the story – not the situation at the time of the story. LL: I suggest that the woman were left behind because they were actually doing the important work.  Note that the numerical equivalent of “Torah” parsed is 611. That’s how we know there are 611 commandments in the Torah. This is a kabalistic process called gematria – turning letters or words into numbers. In Hebrew words are used for numbers but have other meanings as well – unlike most Arabic numbers. This is significant because Moses/authors wanted the people to know that there were other suggestions as to proper behavior embedded in the Torah. Compare the stele of Hammurabi which depicts the king sitting on a throne receiving laws from God. Law tends to be foundational and must have continuity from generation to generation – such as a constitution or a well established tradition. Laws can be derived didactically (as here) or situationally (as in the case law system.)

23:18  “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” This instruction appears three times in the Torah – virtually out of nowhere – almost as a tag line. The ethical instruction seems to be that there are certain acts that are inherently repulsive. Note that blood is equated with life – the animating force. One doesn’t eat life and hence not blood.  This is the foundation of the dietary laws and was extended into a general prohibition against mixing meat and dairy products.

23:20  An angel here is a manifestation of God’s presence. LL: I find the appearances of angels throughout the Torah somewhat troubling – inimical to strict monotheism. Here the angel cannot be defied “…for he will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him.” The Angel has god-like powers but seems to be almost a separate entity.

23:23  Fulsome promises to those who adhere to the law and abjure idolatry. As to the mandate applying only to men: see Hertz commentary from an Orthodox perspective – woman are freed from time-bound commandments since they must care for the children. This reflects real social patterns. With the advent of the feminist movement in the 1960s Hertz accepts that there is something there that must be accommodated.

23:27  Sets out some interesting boundaries for the Promised land that are much more extensive than those that appear in the Book of Numbers. This is likely a post-exilic idea that incorporated a romantic notion of David’s kingdom. They can drive out the indigenous people because they are idolaters. Note that the Hebrew word translated here as the English word “annihilate”does not mean extermination. Compare the headline “The Reds Murder the Cardinals” and its misinterpretation by Plaut when he visited Cincinnati as the triumph of communism.

24:1  Here Moses wrote down all of the Commandments of the Eternal – after he had repeated them to the people. This is the first indication of the recording of the Commandments. How it was done is unknown. There is a significant difference between verse three and verse seven in the Hebrew – not apparent in the English translation. In verse three “we will listen and we will do.” Now in the midst of the ceremony they say “we will do and we will listen.” This means that one will obey even prior to full understanding. This is the difference between seeing (reflexive and immediate) and hearing (reflecting). But how can one act before hearing? The ceremonial act is that of a witness. Some things can only be shown.  What puts us in the position of reflexively doing the right thing? Compare the debates between Buber and Rosenzweig on action vs. the ritual law.  According to Rosenzweig the ritual is the training that embeds the ability to act properly without reflection. GT: Like that American in China that saved a child that had been hit by a car while all of the Chinese stood around and did nothing. LL: Is there something embedded in us via Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christian religious tradition that is different from Eastern faiths? I will defer to my roommate who has a PhD in Chinese Art History. CL: That idea may be correct.

February 11, 2012

p. 477

This Torah portion is perfectly made for the triennial cycle – it is three chapters. See the Decalogue for public reading on p. 476. There were two separate traditions as to how to chant or vocalize the ten commandments prior to about 600 CE. The Masoretes came up with vowel and cantellation marks which include both sets – leaving it to each tradition to select the one they wanted. (The Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) refers to the transmission of a tradition.) The synagogue was not in rabbinic control until about 800 CE. Note that “Decalogue” is better translated as ten pronouncements rather than commandments. Also, some of the commandments are conflated into a single statement – although, e.g., verse 13 is publically read as four commandments when chanted.

20:1  LL: We are uncomfortable with the notion of visiting the sins of one generation onto another. PG The social concept: don’t be the children of infamous or notorious people. You will have a burden. This also makes the warning even weightier – your children will suffer the collateral damage. Idolatry is a major issue throughout the Torah but the punishments are most severe in the beginning. There is a strong pedagogical element – like a lesson from the drill instructor – a warning that idolatry leads to bad things. A distinction is made for a mezuzah or a mishkan which represents the idea of god. LL: The focus seems to be on appearances rather than the inner life of the individual.  PG: The concern of the rabbi’s is “what does it look like?” What does it look like when you walk into a McDonalds to use the washroom.  Will people assume that you are eating “tref?” Do you want to lose credibility? Are you leading others into misconduct? SF: These words have an inherent power and compassion. We are urged to move up the ladder of civilization – to be uplifted. PG: Note that the words here are spoken by Elohim not Adonoi – which is a change from the usual identification where God is addressing the people.  The Rabbi’s suggest that Elohim (the lawgiver) here is acting as a judge whereas Adonoi is the caregiver.

20:8  Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy… This is something that we wouldn’t otherwise know. See notes on seven day cycle from last week. God rested on the 7^th day.  This is the one innovation of the ten commandments that we wouldn’t otherwise have known.

20:13  Coveting does go to an individual’s inner life – not just appearances. Compare the 7 deadly sins which include anger, lust and envy. Beginning in the 1^st C. there were intense debates about what was more important – the inner life or appearances. PG: It was not until Constantine and the imposition of authority that the Christian church began to focus on appearances. Honor your father and your mother… modern scholars believe that this is a reference to burial practices since there were no communal burial grounds. The emphasis was changed to honoring the living after the people became separated from the land – disenfranchised in Babylonia.

20:15  Moses is asked to act as an intermediary and interpreter of events. We sense the presence of God in violent natural events. We are frightened and seek explanations. The people couldn’t handle the direct word of God – they had to wait for the tablets. But by the end of the Bible people experience God’s presence and handle it. See the Book of Esther. This is part of the development of the individuals relationship with God as described in the entire Bible.

LL/