November 10, 2012
p. 169
First Kings – The connections between this Haftarah and Torah are multiple but see particularly page 156 where the section begins “Abraham was old and advanced in years…”
1:1 Note that King David already likely had several wives so bringing a young virgin to “keep him warm” was not startling to the reader/listener of the time. Note the Shunammite origin of the young woman – in the Torah portion Elisha also encounters a Shunammite woman. See footnote 4 re virility. CL: This was a common practice in ancient cultures and had a mystical aspect. The young woman was intended to impart her energy and purity to the king.
11:5 Adonijah, the handsome fourth son, would become king. The first paragraph has established that David is alive but frail. Who will be his successor and when will the successor begin to reign? Adonijah is the oldest surviving son and older than Solomon. LL: Both paragraphs endorse the notions that those who are “beautiful” or “handsome” are automatically entitled to special treatment. These words are also a-cultural so that the reader imposes the standard of the reader’s time. See the comment about Rebekah on page 165 and what constitutes “beauty.” “Her behavior shows modesty and hospitality; she is kind to animals and respectful of her own family.” Adonijah reaches out to priests from different areas of the Kingdom for support. He has a party but does not invite Nathan or Solomon or the elite warriors.
11:11 Nathan involves Solomon’s mother Bathsheba. “Advice that will save your life and that of your son.” This suggests that competitors to Adonijah will not fare well and could be executed as traitors.
11:15 Bathsheba complains to the King. Nathan the prophet arrives and tactfully broaches the same question: who will succeed the King David? David takes an oath that Solomon will in fact succeed him. What can we learn from this? One thing is the ascendance of merit over “handsome.” This is the first instance of leadership transition. The individual who looks the part may not be the best choice. PG: Babe Ruth was once asked why he earned more than Herbert Hoover. “Because I had a better year.” he replied. Ruth was also vastly more popular than Hoover – but this doesn’t mean he would have made a good president. How does this translate to nobility that retains leadership for 1,400 years via dynastic succession? There is something about the expectation of one who is born into a family that has power.
Later: The foregoing was the Torah portion for the young man who was being bar mitzvohed today. He suggested a different lesson: That there is a certain established order to things and one needs good judgment to determine when to follow the established order or to defy it. He gave examples of teenage smoking or failing to do one’s homework or just being lazy. These are actions in defiance of the order of things and of good sense. Adonijah should have known better.
LL/

October 20, 2012
p. 85
54:1 Noach – LL: Clearly the function of woman in this society is to have children. PG: The society is pro-natal. In Victorian society a sense of prudery was developed to thwart population growth. This is also metaphorical – Israel is the “barren woman.” The use of the word “widow” is problematic for translation. It is closer to “barren” than without a husband. See footnote indicating “abandonment.”
54:5 A continuation of the metaphor – where Israel is now “the wife.” Here punishment occurs when God withdraws His presence because of the sins of the people. Going into exile is only a “moment.” Note the poetry and parallel structure of line 5. This is the use of different words saying the same thing. Adonoi and Elohim are here used interchangeably. See the book “God and the Big Bang” which considers the nature of time and the role of the observer as connected to the six days of creation. Is it acceptable that God has partially destroyed his own creation by use of the flood? Rashi questioned why we need the account of creation at all. PG: Torah is about the relationship between Israel and God. Any relationship starts with the act of creation. But once we posit god as a creator we automatically assume the possibility of destruction. Compare with Zoroastrianism where there is God the creator and God the destroyer. In Buddhism a balance is sought. Judaism accepts that creation/destruction is the reality of a single entity. LL: This is more analogous to a farmer who sees that his field is stricken with ergot. He wants to remove the tainted crop and keep the healthy part. PG: Like the process of maturation in the individual – a society matures and internalizes rules of conduct. Also, in these times flood was the perfect metaphor for total destruction.
54:9 Never again. The language of the prophet to the people is meaningful at the time but it is also relevant a thousand years later. LL: But this doesn’t seem to be a promise that was kept in light of the Shoah. PG: See: Evil in Modern Thought by Susan Neiman http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-neiman.html    which considers the Lisbon earthquake and the Holocaust. Evil is seen in the latter but not the former. CL: The natural event may not be evil but the response or lack of response on the part of government can be construed as evil. Voltaire was arguing, during the Enlightenment, that Man is not all bad.