October 19, 2013
This story of Abraham’s encounter with God takes place in Hebron right after the birth of Ishmael. Abraham is recovering from his circumcision.
p. 123
18:1 The first and second sentence seem to be disconnected. We are told first that the Eternal appeared and then three strangers appear. We are to assume that they are a manifestation of God. God is present to visit Abraham, in part, because he is ill. This establishes the mitzvoth of visiting the sick. See footnote 3 – Maimonides understood the entire episode to have been a vision.
18:8 Note the ostensibly non-kosher presentation. A major question is presented: did Abraham have the Torah? Christians would argue not. But per rabbinic argument there is no before or after in the Torah.. He knew the law. Per Rashi the men pretended to eat out of courtesy. Alternatively, they may not be known by Abraham to be Jewish. Throughout the Middle Ages meat and milk could be on the table – just not mixed. They could be consumed sequentially. The practice changed toward the end of the Middle Ages. Note that there is a difference between a milk product and a meat product in terms of preparation. There must be much greater scrutiny of meat products than milk since with meat there must be ritual slaughter. Also, historically there has been a rejection in Judaism of the asceticism practiced by other faiths. Strict adherence to rules replaces asceticism.
18:9 Sarah laughs. This is the sole encounter between God and Sarah. Contrast the meeting between God and Hagar where God speaks directly to Hagar. Abraham’s response to God’s statement that Sarah will have a child is ambiguous. He is happy that he already has a child. Sarah is actually challenging the notion of progress – in the sense that progress is defined as something new that alters the established order. Ishmael comes to represent Islam and Esau represents Christianity. Up until now we are not privy to God’s long term plans. This is the first expression of the covenant.
18:16 “Should I hide from Abraham what I am doing?” God appears to be ambivalent about how to proceed – and he talks to Himself. The Eternal tradition seems to convey a much more anthropomorphic image of God. This suggests that God wants to see what Abraham’s response to the plan will be. He asks a rhetorical question. We are engaged in a literary drama. Abraham is at a crossroads and a fateful decision will have to be made. Will Abraham’s nation be a righteous one?
18:20 -26 Will you sweep away the innocent along with the wicked? This is not merely a question of reward and punishment but justice. Talmud study is intended to be difficult. An active reader has to fill in the gaps. Abraham is probing the nature of justice – how is it to be determined.
LL/

October 5, 2013
p. 59 The story of Noah
There are clearly two recognized creation accounts but some attempt to rationalize them into one consistent account. This is typically done by the ultra-orthodox. In assembling the Book of Genesis one wonders at the motivation of having two different versions of creation. What is being signaled? LL: Isn’t the story of Adam and Eve intended to explain the presence of evil in the world? CL: Literary scholarship at the beginning of the 20th C argued for the presence of two politically different tradition that were satisfied by the presence of both accounts. See: Albrecth Alt’s work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_Alt. He wrote God of Our Fathers: A Contribution to the Prehistory of the Israelite Religion.
PG: The inclusion of two creation accounts for political reasons would be a compromise unlikely to satisfy either side. The difference is in the image of God that is being presented. In the first account He is a creator; there is no indication that He will be present in the affairs of men. He is not a “hands on” God in that sense. Midrash would suggest that both accounts are acceptable as different ways of looking at the same thing. Consider the parable of the two cards: In one pocket the card says “I am the height of creation” and in the other pocket “even the lowly mosquito is before me.” LL: Perhaps this challenges our notion of what is a “book.” A book is not necessarily a continuous account from beginning to end. It can be in the nature of an assembly of “gleanings.” PG: That is true but there is something else going on here in terms of posing the question “where did everything come from?” This is the first time that this powerful religious and philosophical question is being explored via a single deity. Other religions before and at the time had multiple gods and the creation of the world was an accident. Here creation is purposeful and there is an assumption that the purpose will ultimately be revealed and fulfilled. The assertion here is that we as humans can have an impact on that outcome by our behavior. SF: We are in partnership with God – we have a place in the world and moral responsibility for it. PG: The second story creates the relationship with God. The sequence is a presentation first of transcendence and then of immanence. This takes us to the story of Noah.
6:9 There is a suggestion that this generation of the flood already knew Torah and the laws of Sinai. Note the use of the word “corrupt.” The Midrash makes the argument that the corruption was not technically a violation of the law; it was the accumulation of many minor sins. Note that virtually every ancient culture has a flood story.
6:17 The first appearance of the word “covenant.” Notice that Noah is silent and does not challenge God’s justice as does Abraham subsequently.
7: 1 Take seven pairs of every pure beast… Notice that the name of God has changed here to “the Eternal One.” The pure animals were for sacrifice as needed. This is very similar to the Gilgamesh epic from Babylonian culture.
7:6 This goes back to referencing God – not The Eternal
7:10 A combination of ways that a flood can occur. CL: there is an association with a volcanic event from 1260 BC that could have caused a major flood in the eastern Mediterranean. PG: This is part of the search for biblical verisimilitude. In fact there have been major floods all over the world and it is very difficult to pin-point one. LL: But there was likely one in the eastern med that gave rise to this story. From the viewpoint of the writer/redactor this was their world. SF: We need to remember that they were between the Tigris and Euphrates river. Probably an area that flooded frequently. PG: Bibical verisimilitude is interesting but it does not tell us what this means or was intended.
7:13 “some of every species” here compares to the phrase “each true to its type” in the first story. Note that God closes the door – this is the immanent God who is present as distinguished from the transcendent. PG: There is still a group trying to justify all of this as true and have built a one-tenth replica of the ark for demonstration purposes.
LL/