NOTE TO READERS. THESE NOTES CANNOT REALLY BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT THE TORAH TEXT THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED. IF THE READER DOES NOT HAVE A COPY OF PLAUT YOU MAY WANT TO READ THE PORTION AT https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/jpstoc.html
Page 522
Exodus 23:25 “When my angel goes before you…”
Here we find more detail with respect to other rules of conduct, observing the Sabbath and festivals and the rewards that are promised for our obedience. “”When my angel goes before you… and when I annihilate them (your enemies such as The Canaanites, Moabites and Hittites.) From a modern perspective this is a nihilistic and savage view. It is an intolerant and jealous God – not only as to other gods but as to other cultures. As we move from the Torah to the Prophets God moves from being parental to marital. In ancient societies religion was a part of everyday life that it isn’t today for most modern cultures. No separation between church and state so things like war, treaties and political decisions all have an immediate and important religious dimension. In the early text such as Exodus there is a permeable boundary between divine and human. To have a divine being such as an angel creates a theological problem in monotheism. In retrospect it appears that none of these things promised as rewards and punishments really happened – unless they are still happening – very slowly. This is a problem for the rabbis who start thinking of an afterlife because of the perceived lack of justice in the actual world. The notion of an afterlife is a convenient panacea. LL: Some of this seems to be hyperbole akin to what the coach says during halftime in the locker room. It is over the top exhortation and should be recognized as such. RB In the Mishnah the rabbis acknowledge that they have no idea why bad things happen to good people but agree that we are responsible for enforcing justice in this world. In our society the boundaries between different peoples are thin – which brings the question as to how far that should go. RR Sounds like the concern of the author is to proceed gradually so as to avoid a return to chaos. Consider Jim Carey in Bruce Allmighty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Almighty Prayers are not being answered so the deiffied Bruce winds up answering all of the prayers “yes.” Bob R – when the Imam was here he warned us to be aware of the things in scripture that are “seeds” of the problems we have today. Scripture has to be read with a filter. Look at line 32 which seems to preclude any accommodation to the people who are being displaced. RB:: There are Jews today who still take this literally and do not mix with “the other.” PC: We can now reject this totally which says something about Judaism today.
24: 1 Come up to the Eternal… and bow low from afar. Moses wrote down all of the commands of the Eternal. The blood of the covenant is splashed on the people. When you behold G you can engage in eating and drinking. Moses remains on the mountain forty days and forty nights. LL What is the pedagogic intent here? Why is Moses going up the mountain several times? RB: Note that 40 years is a generation whereas 40 days is just a long time. The appointment of Aaron and Hur to determine legal disputes indicates the importance of law in the society – and even today. Note that there is some language here which suggests that a fetus in not a person. Note also that the eye for an eye principle is actually a relaxation of an earlier practice where an entire village could be wiped out in revenge for the killing of one person. See Essays on page 526 of Plaut.
24:7 See RB handout on “We will do and we will listen” ending with the following statement of Rabbi Kushner:
Rabbi Harold Kushner (Etz Chayim 378): “The literal meaning of the two words naaseh v’nishma is “we will do and we will obey.” This famous reply represents the Israelites’ faithful acceptance of their role as God’s chosen people. The Sages were impressed by the eagerness with which the Israelites accepted the burdens of being God’s people and following God’s laws. To say “I will do” even before one understands is to say, “I have faith that God will lead me in the proper path.” According to a talmudic legend, the angels were so impressed with this show of faith that they came down from heaven and placed to crowns on the head of each Israelite, one for doing (naaseh) and one for obeying, or seeking to understand (v’nishma). The Israelites could have responded, as most would today, “We will seek to understand and, if we are persuaded, we will agreed to do them.” Instead, having met God in Egypt, at the sea, and at Mount Sinai, the Israelites trusted that God’s demands would be reasonable and in their best interest. Just as we accept medicine from our physician on trust, without understanding what it is or how it works, and commit ourselves to marriage, to parenthood, and to a career as acts of faith before we fully understand what they will entail, so too the Israelites accepted God’s will. There are many things in life that we cannot appreciate before we have lived them and come to appreciate their value. We must do them first (naaseh) and only afterwards realize why (nishma).”

January 30, 2016
Rabbi Paul Golomb filing in for Rabbi Lean Berkowitz.
In the Hebrew (right side of the Plaut text) there are two sets of cantellation marks. One is used for private readings and the other for public. Note the half tone page. The term “Decalogue” means ten utterances. Not “commandments.” Or even obligations. Protestants and Catholic versions of the Decalogue start with “you shall have no other gods before me” whereas here it is “I am the Eternal your God.” The former is clearly a commandment whereas the latter is a statement. Note the way this is broken up into ten statements but they do not comport with the verses. Normally at the end of a verse in a printed text there is a colon. See verses three through six – no colon until the end of six – effectively turning it all into a separate statement. Verse thirteen has four colons – turning it into four statements. In the Hebrew there is a colon at the end of every verse – which creates an ending for the listener. Making a statement conjunctive or disjunctive can make for different meanings.
26: 1 The use of the word “shall” is a commandment. LL See Freud’s book “Moses and Monotheism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism wherein it is posited that Hebraic monotheism is derivative of Akhenaton’s monotheism. PG: Freud is very interested in what is retained – here he is assuming that the notion of monotheism was retained by the Hebrews. Scripture is designed to unfold and is sensitive to the learning process. Medieval commentators were concerned about the process of moving a group of individuals who were living in one polity and theopolitics into a new one. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/
26:4 No sculptured images – the third and forth generations shall be punished for violations. The fear of G is basic here but consider who is being addressed – these are a people who are new to these notions and hence the use of hyperbole. A more carefully reasoned explanation would come later. Recall that G spoke to Moses from the burning bush by saying “I am the G of your ancestors.” Abraham Isaac and Jacob are mere abstractions at this point to these people. Here they are reminded that this is the G who brought them out of Egypt.
26: 7 You shall not swear falsely. LL This is foundational to having a system of government and justice that is predicated on laws. PG It also makes clear that one cannot swear by any other authority.
26:8 Keep the Sabbath day holy and do not work. The definition of “work” has proved problematic. Most of Jewish practice comes from the Talmud where there is extensive discussion about what constitutes work. The Orthodox have a principle that the well being of the individual comes first so the rule can be bent. Shabbat in an absolute sense is unobtainable. The best we can do is try to adhere to the law. Consider the Shabbat elevator which stops at every floor. Compare the information in 26:11 to the opening lines of Genesis. Are these words familiar to the people? We as the readers are privy to this information because we have read Genesis. Note the use of the seven day cycle which becomes intrinsic to society.
26:12 Honor your father and your mother. What connects this with remaining long on the land? Could you be disinherited? What does the word “honor” mean here? This is not obedience. It is more suggestive of maintaining continuity. Hannan Brichto (sp? Not found.) – said that they should be cared for in old age and then by preserving their graves. Typically, burial took place on the land. Consider the sweeping of the graves in Chinese culture and Rosh Hashanah – honoring of the dead. This became important when the Jews were wondering and landless. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother

26:13 You shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness. The half tones in the Hebrew denote spaces between each of these sins.
26: Do not covet your neighbors house etc. or anything that is your neighbors. But isn’t this an emotional reaction? And therefore unavoidable? But we cannot translate this emotion into action.
Note that the commandment as to Shabbat is out of step with the others. The others are immediately obvious and learned in kindergarten. All of this is somewhat banal except keeping the Sabbath holy. This is the only piece of revelation that is truly revelatory.
26:15 Thunder and lightening. Be not afraid but let the fear of god be forever with you so you do not go astray. See footnote suggesting that this parsha may be out of place. Note that we have moved from a direct experience of G and tablets written by Him to an indirect experience via Moses. Jacques Derrida said that very few gifts are true gifts – they are given in exchange. See: http://www.academia.edu/6141439/Marions_and_Derridas_Philosophy_of_the_Gift

January 26, 2013
p. 465
This is the Song of Deborah from the Haftarah – preceded by a narrative. The connection to the Torah portion is to the Song of the Sea.
9:2 The song is schematic but is explained in part via the narrative. The beginning is an exhortation. Note that the phrase “grow loose” is the same as “grow long” and connects to the story of Sampson from the Book of Judges. There was a group of Nazarites who followed this practice. Compare the practices of the Sikh. It indicates a personal spiritual quest. Treatment of hair is an indication of status in many societies. Note also the reference to marching from the land of Edom – which is east and south of ancient Israel near the Dead Sea. Edom is associated with Esau – which was established as a kingdom – biblically speaking – before Israel. The suggestion is that God had a covenantal relationship with the Edomites. It is ambiguous here if “marching out of Edom” is a metaphor for abandoning the Edomites or is merely a spread of the covenant to Israel.
9:6 Ther was likely a back story wherein the characters of Deborah and Barak were well known. The roads falling into disrepair suggests no central authority – the twelve tribes were separate.
9:11 Under the charismatic leadership of Deborah and the military leadership of Barak they pull themselves together.
9:14 They need to unite to fight a battle. Six tribes respond to the call. The others are reproached by the poet. Not all of the tribes are mentioned. This part is ignored in the narrative.
9:19 Although Israel prevailed not everyone participated and there was an element of luck – a flash flood in a wadi. God’s angel curses a tribe that held back. The entire Book of Judges is somewhat anomalous with other sections of Deuteronomy. They were likely organized and written about 600 BCE. The Deuteronomist is thought to have taken pre-existing material – like this Song – and written explanations – which is the narrative. Note that the Ashkenazi are more amenable to autocracy – hence the Hasidic respect for a rebbe. The attitudes of the Sephardic Jews are different; they are disinclined to accept dictatorial powers. Deborah represents a figure who has likely seized power. CL: This is uniquely about a woman who has a following. As poetry this is an artistic expression. She has followers like Madonna or Lady Gaga. PG: But once she passes from the scene there is no continuity – that is the advantage of a monarchy with rights of succession. Moral authority often collapses at the point of a bayonet. LL: Today there are cultural wars that do not involve troops or bayonets. It is difficult to predict the long term outcome of those wars.
9:24 The story of fierce Jael. The word “Kenite” seems to refer to a non-Israelite Bedouin type people. Jael is the most blessed of the “woman in tents.” by virtue of having killed the leader of the invaders.
9:28 The story of the mother waiting for her son appears in other ancient poetry. It is derisive.
Now for the preceding narrative:
4:4 This opens with a description of Deborah’s background. Note that Barak will only undertake his assignment if she comes along. As a prophet she brings the presence of God with her. Here is a close description of the battle and victory but there is no reference to the call to arms going out to all of Israel – as appears in the poem. LL: How do the ultra orthodox reconcile their treatment of woman with Deborah’s prominent role here? PG: See the work of Daniel Boyarin and others on the influence of sexual repression on Jewish thought and the ultra orthodox: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/sex Every society needs to deal with the issue of sex and they are frequently at odds as to their approaches. In ancient Israel this was addressed by redirecting sexual energy to the love of God. Compare the attitudes of Maimonides and Nachmonides on the subject of family purity.
Nahmanides allegedly [3] wrote a book on marriage, holiness, and sexual relations for his son as a wedding gift, the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (אגרת הקודש – The Holy Epistle). In it Nahmanides criticizes Maimonides for stigmatizing man’s sexual nature as a disgrace to man. In the view of the author, the body with all its functions being the work of God, is holy, and so none of its normal sexual impulses and actions can be regarded as objectionable.
SF recommends we read The Palm Tree of Deborah by Moses Cordevero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomer_Devorah
It is a commentary on this Song and narrative used in mussar teachings.
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.

 November 3, 2012

p. 149
Second Kings: 4:1 “Now a creditor is coming to take away my two sons to be his slaves.” A commentary about justice. It is taking a diffuse event –Sodom and Gomorrah in the Torah portion – and trying to make sense of it. Here it is personalized into an account of a woman’s anguish and questions about the death of her husband. She cries out to Elisha.
4:5 A miracle of oil. Just as justice in Sodom derives from a supernatural force – so does it act here. The first step is going around to all of the neighbors. She is able to call upon her community for support. The destruction of Sodom was brought about via inhospitality. Here that is turned on its head. The community is generous for the sake of an individual. The phrase “the man of God” refers to a member of a band of spiritualists who engaged in ecstatic practices. We use the word “prophet” but that is a problematic word in referring to this group. Amos said “I am neither a prophet or the son of a prophet.” These figures appear throughout. SN: What is the significance of the non-public aspect of this event?PG:  That is unclear. LL: Perhaps there was a social stigma attached to publically asking for and expecting assistance.
4:8 Special treatment for a man of God. One of the ways these special people were identified may have been as to how their hair was cut – a tonsorial. Elisha was called to “orders” by Elijah – of whom we know virtually nothing. He does not wear the tonsorial but was recognized as having prophetic ability. See footnote 9. This echoes the Torah portion where Abraham runs out of his tent and offers strangers a meal. It is unknown which of the accounts came first and so which drew upon the other. See Michael Fishbane at the University of Chicago – who writes on biblical interpretation within scripture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fishbane
4:11 An exact reference or adaptation to the story of Sarah. The boy born to the otherwise barren woman “dies” and she seeks out the man of God who predicted that she would have a son. Note that here it is the husband who sees limitations to divinity and the wife who is the believer – just the opposite of Sarah and Abraham.
4:23 The Mishna tells us that Ghazi is one of the people who will find no place in the afterlife. His conduct is questionable.
4:31 The boy sneezes and opens his eyes. The life force of Elisha is imparted to the child. Also, appears to be ancient CPR. Ghazi says that the child has not awakened – not that he is dead. What is the significance of sneezing seven times? The expulsion of the demon or whatever was choking off the life of the child. Again, one can ask the question: why is this woman favored whereas the sons of other mothers will die. This is the ambiguity, the uncertainty, of life.
Remember that God has disappeared as an active presence after the “still small voice.” See Jack Miles book God: a Biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_A_Biography ” See also Friedman The Hidden Face of God. http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Face-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/006062258X

August 18, 2012
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.

This is one of the three most interesting Torah portions in Deuteronomy. Here we are dealing with the issue of the social wheel – societal welfare. This is a repetition to some extent to the end of Leviticus but here the emphasis is on the remission of debt.
p. 1269
15:1 “Every seventh year you shall practice remission of debts.” SF: Who is being lent to? If to family or tribe there is an implied obligation to consider their welfare. PG: Generally, laws governing proper behavior in society fall upon the tribesman and alien alike. But here we are told differently. “you may dun the foreigner..” Note that the debt is remitted in the same year that the land is left fallow. This is per a pre-established calendar. There may be a relationship between land and loans. But loans are probably not always money – that is an anachronistic notion since money is never even listed or noted in the Torah as existing. The word “zuz´ means “move” which is the concept behind money. Temple weights and measure are mentioned frequently but they could be weighing grain. Even the word “shekel” refer to a specific weight. This is a barter system. So a loan may be of land, grain, metal, or other commodity. There are also references to a “pledge” for a loan. In an agrarian society the loan of seed is probably the most common. Accordingly, if a foreigner comes and asks for a loan of seed they are on a different land cycle than one’s neighbors. It would be irrational to forgive a loan which cannot be paid in the normal course of events. AF: Also, the foreigner is not obligated to follow the Torah. SF: This could also be advantageous to the lender – who can receive payment from the foreigner when the lenders land lies fallow.
15:4 “There shall be no needy among you…” SF: There is an implied obligation of charity here. PG: But one must follow the instructions of Torah in order to obtain this blessing. This is part of what makes a stable, productive and happy society. For the most part the instruction of Torah has to do with how we relate to other individuals. Much of this is emotionally tough in terms of keeping all of these rules. Life impinges and actually prevents us from following the rules. It’s like putting one’s mind at ease on Shabbat – almost impossible. The example of walking past a wall that needs repair and you think about it. It would mean you could never repair the wall because that would turn what you did on Shabbat into forbidden work. This is why there are many books about keeping Shabbat. LL: Are we being taunted by being told of an unobtainable goal? PG: No, It is like an Olympian striving to an ideal. DC: It makes me angry that the Orthodox spend so much time thinking about how one gets around the rules and at the same time pretend to be holy. PG: There is a tipping point at which efforts to keep the rules become something else.
15:7 Open your hand to the needy in your land. SF: The hard part is to have faith that there will be a reward for this good conduct. LL: No. There should be no reward for charity – it should be its own reward. PG: There is nothing like that idea of charity as its own reward in the Torah. If you do not do charity you will create dissonance in the community, you will incur guilt – or perhaps the devolution of society into revolution and chaos. With your few pounds of seed you are buying social peace. AF: This implies that the land is very rich and that everyone will be able to be charitable. HF: I reject the notion that only the very rich can be charitable. PG: In the rabbinic era this notion of charity and land all changes because the former Israelites no long have land – loans then become money. And the rise of the notion of interest. This is no longer charity. We have to think about the principles we want to preserve. LL: Our notion of what constitutes charity has changed. One can be charitable by giving to causes that focus on other than the poor.
LL/