Torah Tidbits: Parshat Beshalach

And now, finally, I am caught up!  Phew!  Now it's time to keep the Torah Train on the Tracks and turn to other things...  Stay tuned!

13:19 - "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him..."  (This must mean Joseph's mummy, right, per Genesis 50:26.)

13:21 - Interesting:  "And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and by night."  If memory serves, this is the first time we read in the Torah about something (a) supernatural/miraculous, something that couldn't even possibly be explained away, and (b) that was witnessed by the masses. 

14:19 - God gets ready to part the Red Sea, when we read that "And the angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind" the Egyptians.  Huh?!?  Didn't we just read in 13:21 that it was "the LORD" that was doing the guiding?!?  Did I miss something?

15:1-18 - The Song at the Sea in praise of God...  Quite beautiful, actually.  But there are some snags.  How was Moses able to sing about things that hadn't yet happened?  Like what Pharaoh said after the Israelites had left (15:8)!  Like speaking of the destruction of the peoples of the Promised Land in the past tense (15:14-16)!  The building of the Temple (15:17)!  Geesh.

15:20-21 - Nice interlude for Miriam here, who, after the long Song at the Sea, "took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances" and sang. 

15:26 - Ah yes, the fire and brimstone:  After only three days wandering the desert, they can't find water, and the people turn to Moses for answers.  God provides water, saying "'If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His eyes, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD that healeth thee.'"  I know I have a lot to learn in terms of understanding the role of punishment vs. rewards, and I'm sure my thinking will evolve on the subject...but frankly this is some of the hardest stuff to swallow in the Torah:  That punishments and rewards are causal effects of whether or not I observe the law.  I just don't -- I can't -- see the world working this way.  I can't believe in a God that operates in this manner, nor in a religious-legal system predicated on God doing so.

16:2-3 - So this is where Jewish whining comes from:  "...and the children of Israel said unto [Moses and Aaron]: 'Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh-pots, when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.'"  Nice!  But it makes me wonder:  Why don't we talk about this during Passover?  I think it would make a good subject:  Why is it, just when we've gotten the greatest thing in the world (i.e., freedom), we complain and want more?  I would think the haggadah should talk about this lessons in this...

16:13-15 - Another nomination for the "strangest verses in the Torah" award:  God produces manna, apparently overnight, and in the morning, "when the layer of dew was gone up, behold upon the face of the wilderness a fine, scale-like thing, fine as the hoar-frost on the ground."  Say what?  Kehot translates this as follows:

When the sun rose and the layer of dew rose, behold, over the surface of the desert a thin substance that had been packed within the two layers of dew was exposed, as if the dew had been peeled back. It had a thin crust on top and was as fine as the frost on the ground. Underneath this was another layer of dew.  This substance was thus protected by dew both above and below. Although dew usually descends from the atmosphere onto the earth, here, the dew miraculously rose from the ground.

I still can't figure out what this is supposed to look like...

17:11-12 - Curious:  When Moses physically lifts his hand on the hill top, Joshua and the Israelites prevail over the forces of Amalek.  When Moses lowers his hand, though, Amalek prevails.  As if to drive the point home that there is an actual connection between the position of Moses's hand and the fortune of the Israelites in battle, we read that "Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun."  Why was this necessary?  Why not just wave the staff once or some such thing?  Seems like overkill.

17:14-16 - I don't get it.  A couple mitzvot directly pertain to never forgetting what Amalek did and to destroy their seed...but what did they do that was so bad?  This is it?  Huh...

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Bo

10:7 - I understand that, according to both the narrative and many commentaries, God needed to unleash the plagues on Egypt not only so that Pharaoh would let the Israelites go but because God wanted the Israelites themselves to see his power.  I get that.  But here is another one of those verses that give me pause:  Pharaoh's courtiers basically tell their king to give in, but he won't.  So despite the fact that clearly there were Egyptians ready to free the Israelites, God keeps hardening Pharaoh's heart (in 10:20), which sets the stage for the worst plagues to come.  I'm not a fan of collective punishment no matter what the reason.

10:24-27 - The back and forth between Moses and Pharaoh over the so-called three day sojourn into the desert continues, with almost comedic effect.  Here, Pharaoh, who by now clearly understands the Israelites are asking for freedom, not a vacation, says they can go into the desert...if they leave their flocks behind.  Moses offers a fabulously opaque excuse:  since they didn't know exactly what animals God would want them to sacrifice, they needed to bring all of their animals along with them!  But God "hardens" Pharaoh's heart, and the answer is no.  (Though it seems to me that the word used here, וַיְחַזֵּק , is better translated as "strengthened" than "hardened," no?)

11:2 - Unless I've missed something, this is the first time God says please!  Mechon Mamre translates the Hebrew "דַּבֶּר-נָא, בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם" as "Speak now in the ears of the people," but Kehot translates it -- more accurately, I think -- as "Please speak to the people".  It's weird, because Mechon Mamre literally translates "in the ears of the people" but ignores the na suffix on the word "speak," while Kehot does the opposite, leaving out "ears" but including "please."  My question is:  Why does God say "please" here?  Why not just command?

11:7 - What the heck does this mean:  "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."  What do dogs have to do with anything?!?

12:2 - "'This month [Nisan] shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you..."  This may be an ignorant question, but huh?!?  I thought Tishrei was the first month of the year, ergo Rosh Hashanah?

12:11 - A poetic verse (in Hebrew), and a great image:  "And this is how you shall eat it: with your waist belted, your shoes on your feet, your staff in your hands, and you shall eat it in haste this Passover offering to God."  Do traditional sederim do something to commemorate this?

12:12 - Fascinating!  I always thought the slaying of the firstborn was carried out by the Angel of Death, not God (a la verse 9 of had gadya), but the text is very clear (both here and at 12:27 and 12:29):  It was God alone who does the killing.  This makes sense, but why did I have it my head that it was the Angel of Death?!?

12:14-20 - These verses made me sigh.  Here we have in unambiguous, explicit details about what we're supposed to do on pesach: (a) eat matzot, (b) not to eat anything leavened or have anything leavened in the home, (c) not to work on the first and last of the seven days of the holiday, and (d) to do these things "for all generations."  So much in the Torah is ambiguous; so many of the mitzvot, it seems to me, are not explicitly commanded in the Torah but rather by the commentators.  But here we have a nice set of dos and don'ts that leave little to the imagination.  This begs the question:  Of the 613 mitzvot, how many are clear like this?  I wonder...

12:21-23 - I'm sure there's a good answer for this, but why would God need the Israelites to mark their houses with blood so that their firstborn would not be killed?  Doesn't God know everything?  A shudder to think the alternative was the case:  That putting blood on the house was the litmus test to find out who didn't believe in God...

12:35-36 - Let me get this straight:  The Israelites "asked" the Egyptians for their "silver and gold," and because "the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians...[the Egyptians] let [the people] have what they asked," and in doing so "despoiled the Egyptians."  Are we to understand that God made the Egyptians give up all their wealth?!?

12:38 - Who, exactly, made up the so-called "mixed multitude" [עֵרֶב רַב] that accompanied the Israelites when they left Egypt?  Obviously non-Jews...  But who were they?  Why did they come?  What happens to them?  Weird...

12:43-50 - Concerning the laws of pesach, God has a lot to say here about who can't eat of the sacrifice:  not "aliens" (or "strangers"), and not "A sojourner [nor] a hired servant."  And you can't take it out of your house, "neither shall ye break a bone thereof."  Etcetera.  If this means non-Jews can't eat of the sacrifice, then what of matzah?  What of the ceremonial foods eaten at a seder to take the place of the sacrifice?  (An aside:  Why don't we eat lamb on pesach?  The Temple and the preisthood were not yet established, so there were no rules about ritual sacrifice to follow.  Ergo, the destruction of the Temple, it seems to me, should not have any bearing on whether we sacrifice lambs today.  I'm probably missing something...

13:1-2 - A-ha moment #1!  So this is where pidyon haben comes from:  God sparing the firstborn of the Israelites!

13:9 - A-ha moment #2!  So this is why we put a bayit of the tefillin on the arm:  because God took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand!

13:14-16 - Where the Torah tells us about the "good son," in eloquent Hebrew:  "If in time to come, your child asks you, saying: 'What is this?' You shall say to him, 'With a mighty hand God brought us out of Egypt, from the House of Bondage.'"

Is the Kotel a Jewish tourist trap?

Yesterday's article by URJ President Rabbi Eric Yoffie at jweekly.com, about recent events at the Kotel, got me thinking.

(For those who missed it, "Women of the Wall," a group of women who meet regularly to conduct services at the Kotel, ran into trouble last November when one of their group brought a Torah scroll and put on a tallit.  That ran afoul of a previously-issued High Court ruling that required the group to adhere to the regulations for behavior at the Kotel, regulations, of course, written by Orthodox Jews who are, shall we say, unsympathetic to such behavior.  You can read a contemporary account of what happened here.)

I get why some Orthodox Jews view it as a holy place.  It's the sole remnant of the Temple.  Insofar as some pray for the restoration/rebuilding of the Temple, it stands to reason that the Kotel is hugely significant.  (Why it's considered to be a synagogue for legal purposes is another matter...)  But for the rest of us Jews who do not hope and pray for the restoration of the Temple and the resumption of sacrifices...why do we make such a big deal out of it?  Yoffie writes, "Throughout the generations, the Kotel has been a source of inspiration to Jews everywhere. It is a concrete symbol of our love for Jerusalem and our common Jewish destiny. The Wall belongs to the entire Jewish people; it must be a place that unifies our people, where all Jews are welcomed and all are respected." 

Frankly, I don't buy it. 

As far as I can tell, the Kotel is a tangible symbol of what divides Jews, not unites them:  Those who long for the restoration of the Temple vs. those who don't; those who view it as a powerful religious site vs. those who view it as a powerful nationalist site.  It may be "a source of inspiration to Jews everywhere," but if the things we're being inspired to do are widely divergent, it's hard to see how it unifies us.

The first time I went to the Kotel was in High School, on Tisha B'av.  It was one of the most profoundly moving experiences of my life.  I had planned for my semester in Israel for years, hoped and dreamed it would come...and when I saw it lit up at night, thousands of Ultra-Orthodox chanting Eicha, I wept on the stones for what seemed like hours.  By the end of my six months in Israel, it still felt special.  Several years later when I returned, it felt familiar, but there was something strange about being there -- I felt as if I was supposed to feel something, and the more I thought about it, the more I didn't know what was even appropriate to feel.  And, of course, I got hit up a dozen times for money every time I went to pray. 

And then it started to feel a bit idolatrous. 

In my opinion, one of the genius things about Judaism is its distinction between real holiness and its trappings.  Jews aren't supposed to have holy places -- anywhere 10 Jews come together to pray is perfectly holy enough, thank you.  We don't need art, or things, or monuments...just Torah and people.  The Kotel, though, seems to undo all of this, as if the remnants of the retaining wall of the Second Temple could ever be imbued with any holiness beyond that brought by the people who go there...and the Orthodox certainly have no monopoly on that.

Don't get me wrong, I think people have the absolute right to feel whatever they want to feel about the Kotel.  That's none of my business.  But from where I stand, it's the ultimate Jewish tourist trap:  That place to which we're all supposed to go, supposed to feel something...supposed to put our prayers on paper and stick them between the stones where they're supposed to get to God faster.  Where we get hit up for money from every other Black Hat in Jerusalem. 

Others can have a blast there if they must, but sorry to say I think it's baloney.

Mitzvot of the Week: #2, #3 - Not to believe in other gods/To believe that God is one

Introduction:

The Rambam doesn't make things easy here.  By my reading, there is a "double-double" approach to the uniqueness of God.  First, as in Week 1, he seems to approach this mitzvah from two different angles, "belief" in vs. "knowledge" of God's oneness.  Second, the mitzvah is really two mitzvot, one positive, one negative.  So what we have here, at first blush, are four possible approaches -- (1) to believe in God's oneness and (2) not to believe in other gods (from Sefer HaMitzvot); and (3) to know that God is one and (4) not to consider that there are other gods (from Mishneh Torah).  I look at his arguments for all four of these positions, but I adhere to the Rambam's classification system by considering that these positions really constitute two mitzvot, opposite sides of the same coin.

In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandments - Mitzvah 1), "The exhortation against believing [מלהאמין] in the Divinity of aught beside Him" is stated as the first negative commandment.  The Rambam here cites Exodus 20:3:  "There shall not be unto you any other gods before my presence" (לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עַל-פָּנָי).  As with the first mitzvah concerning belief/knowledge of God, he cites Makkot 23a as to the status of this "exhortation" as a negative commandment. 

On the positive side (Positive Commandments - Mitzvah 2), he writes that to believe in God's oneness means "to believe [להאמין] that the Maker of the creation and its First Cause is one, as the Exalted One has said (Deuteronomy 6:4): "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." "The intent here," Rambam continues, "is that He took us out of the house of bondage and bestowed upon us what He did out of lovingkindness and beneficence only, so that we believe in the Unity, as is our obligation." This mitzvah, he says, is also known as "mitzvath yichud" (i.e., the commandment of unity).

In the Mishneh Torah, however, these mitzvot are explained slightly differently.  In Chapter 1.6, he explains that "Anyone who presumes [המעלה על דעתו] that there is another god transgresses a negative commandment" [emphasis mine] while in Chapter 1.7, he writes "The knowledge of this concept [that God is one] fulfills a positive commandment, [as implied by Deuteronomy 6:4]..." [emphasis mine]. 

Some preliminary thoughts and questions:

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Vaeira

6:2 - "And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: 'I am the LORD [יְהוָה];"  Funny, the relationship between God's "Lord" name and the present tense "is" never really occurred to me.  That word is the almost always unused word for "is", right?  I like the idea of using abstract words concerning tense (e.g., "I will be") to talk about God .

6:4 - Why does God refer to Canaan as "the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned"?  Isn't calling it Canaan enough?  Is there another Canaan?!?  When God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he says something like "your son, your only son, the one that you love, Isaac," but here Abraham has two sons, so until Isaac is mentioned by name, it could be either one. 

6:20 - Okay, this verse bugs me.  To wit, "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses."  Uh, I thought you weren't supposed to do that (see Negative Commandment 333).  What gives?  Kehot's "A Closer Look" is, frankly, both incoherent and, interestingly enough, improperly edited so that we can't even say what they were trying to say:

The Torah prohibits a man from marrying his father's sister.  However, as we have seen [footnote refers to Genesis 23:16, where Joseph, apparently, serves improperly-slaughtered meat to his brothers the interpolation is hilarious], before the Torah was formally given, only the Torah's [sic] for non-Jews were legally binding, and non-Jews are permitted to marry paternal relatives, so Amram was permitted to marry his father's sister.

This is how Chabad (and others, presumably) evades dealing with the contradiction between (a) their insistence that the Torah is eternal and, therefore, in force for Jews from the get-go; and (b) the obvious fact that no one could have known even theoretically what was in it before its "revelation" at Sinai.  Why can't they just admit that the taryag mitzvot came long after the events of Exodus?!?

6:29-7:2 - God tells Moses to speak to Pharaoh; Moses complains about his speech impediment; God then tells him Aaron "shall be thy prophet."  Why doesn't God just fix Moses's speech?  Or tell him to go ahead and speak with his lisp anyway?  It seems strange, at least to me, that God would basically play along with Moses's insecurity on this point.

7:3-5 - Ah yes:  God tells Moses what to say to Pharaoh, but wait, God also plans to "harden Pharaoh's heart," basically in order to provide a pretext for unleashing the plagues.  Maybe I'm a simpleton, but it disturbs me that God would in essence inflict collective punishment on all of Egypt -- a dictatorship -- because of the quite understandable reluctance of Pharaoh to let all the Hebrews take a 3-day vacation in the desert (more on this in a bit).  Why not just unleash plagues until Pharaoh caved?

This speaks to a wider theme in the Torah that, for obvious reasons, is hard for some modern folk (myself included) to stomach:  Back in the day, entire peoples would be punished if not wiped out for standing in the way of the Israelites.  This isn't such a cool thing today.

7:9-13 - The "pre-plague":  Aaron's staff becomes a snake and eats Pharaoh's magicians staves, who are themselves turned into snakes.  First, the word used here for the magicians of Egypt -- חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם -- is excellent!  Second, how the heck could the Egyptians change their staves into snakes!?!  I buy (!) that God could do this, but that others could do it...no way.  So what gives?

7:16 - This verse, and others, make something clear that I never realized:  Aaron and Moses were not sent to Pharaoh to "free the slaves"; they were sent to get them a three-day break to go into the desert and make sacrifices.  Perhaps Pharaoh understood that this was essentially the same thing, or that it might have that as its net effect, but it is different than demanding total freedom.  Who knew?  But what if he had called the bluff?  Would the Hebrews have come back?  Or would God have "made sure" that Pharaoh didn't agree?

7:19-22 - The magicians of Egypt are able to reproduce the First Plague and turn water into blood.  Pretty nifty.  Again, how exactly were they able to do this?!?

8:1-3 - And then the frogs...  How did these "magicians" have any power at all?!?

8:12-15 - Finally the magicians drop the ball:  They can't make lice.  And how do they react:  "'This is the finger of God'"  Again, I thought the Egyptians didn't believe in "God" as in, Adonai.  So what's the deal?!?

8:21-24 - This is kind of funny...  So after the swarm comes, Pharaoh relents:  "'Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land.'"  That is, go take your three-day break, but do you sacrifice here (i.e., in Egypt) as opposed to out in the desert.  Moses's response, taking from Kehot, is classic:  "It would not be proper to do so, for it is the deity of Egypt that we would sacrifice to God, our God. We are going to sacrifice sheep, one of the animals you worship as an idol. If we were to sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their very eyes, would they not stone us?!"  Does Moses really believe this baloney?!?  But it works!  Pharaoh relents!

Hard to even know how to respond to such bile...

Last night, before turning in for bed, I turned to a 9:30pm Queens Public Television (QPTV) program on Channel 82 called (!) "Judaism."  (Based on the programming guide, it seems like a regular spot.)

I know, I know:  big mistake.

The entire 30 minute segment was of a single guy standing in front of a bookcase, ranting directly into the camera.  I really should have known better, but photos of Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein were visible over his right shoulder, and in light of my recent foolhardy attempt to take a dip into that pool of quicksand (here, here and here), I couldn't resist.

It's not that the guy (whose exact name I can't remember) said anything I haven't heard before:

• he likened the Maccabees revolt against the Seleucids and Hellenistic Jews in the 2nd Century BCE to Yigal Amir's assassination of Rabin:  in both cases, he claimed, "real Jews" did what was necessary to save Judaism from "assimilationist, evil Jews"
• he claimed that the "so-called Chassids or Chassidic Jews" do not have the spirit to keep Judaism alive
• he repeated many times -- actually screamed -- "No Arabs, No Terror!!!"
• he discussed how "Rabin HaRasha" ("Rabin the Evil One"), among other things, was responsible for murdering unarmed, innocent people during the Altalena affair; was an alcoholic and a "nicotine addict" (!); and "ate swine, pork" when he visited the U.S. and that, in sum, "what went around, came around," viz., his assassination

And so on.

As I said, nothing new here. 

But listening to this sad, angry little man, and thinking about what he said and what he represents, I became deeply sad...and very angry.

It makes me sad and angry that bigoted, fundamentalist nutjobs like him put on their kippas and spew this hateful, murderous bile...while insisting that Jews who eat pork are the evil ones.

It makes me sad and angry that many Jews think that it's only other religions that have crazies like this guy; "goyyim, sure, but not us."

It makes me sad and angry that my religion -- the beautiful, comforting and meaningful tradition without which I don't know who or what I would be -- gets perverted and twisted by the dirty hands and foul mouths of such sick people.

It makes me sad and angry that anyone could ever turn to a literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago as justification for inflicting pain and suffering on other people.

It makes me sad and angry that many American Jews turn a blind eye to this billious intolerance out of a misguided and misdirected "support for Israel."

It makes me sad and angry that so many people are so narrow-minded to think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "all the Arabs fault," and that if they would all just move to the Saudi desert, everything would be perfect.

It makes me sad and angry that saying these kinds of things leads others to think I'm a "self-hating Jew."

It makes me sad and angry that some Jews have spent so much of their time and effort to give the veneer of intellectual legitimacy to philosophies that only lead to the misery and suffering of other human beings.

It makes me sad and angry that I once thought there was something different and special about Jews...only to learn that we're just as screwed up, crazy and ignorant as everyone else in the world.

But listening to the broadcast reminded me of something else as well that I don't remember enough, and is part of the reason I'm writing this blog in the first place:  What other people say, think and do affects me as a Jew, but it does not -- it cannot -- define my Jewishness.  I too get to say what I feel, think and believe and in doing so play my part in shaping what it means to be Jewish.  To paraphrase Hillel,

If I do not play an active role in defining what Judaism means to me, who will do it?  But if all I do is think and write about myself, failing to speak out against the ignorant, the intolerant, and the fundamentalists who routinely arrogate to themselves the right to define authentic Jewishness, then what does that make me?  And if not now, when?

Mitzvah of the Week: #1 - To know/believe there is a God

Okay, after a lot of work on this, I'm back on track!  Except doing so meant some re-jiggering of "week 1."

That post, now significantly reworked, is here.

Onward to Week 2: Not to believe in/consider the thought of a divinity other than God.

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Shemot

1:8-10 - Interesting verses...  First, we have the explanation for the difference between Josehp's Pharaoh-friend and Moses's Pharaoh-enemy ("Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph").  Second, it's eye-opening to read with a blank-slate what this "new" Pharaoh did:  Seeing that "the children of Israel are [becoming?] too many and too mighty for us," he argues that the Egyptians should "deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land."  I somehow always had it in my head that Pharaoh's inflicting labor on the Israelites was out of plain malice or evil, but put in this context it makes sense that the Egyptians would be concerned about a growing number of non-Egyptians in their midst.  Not that the response was morally justified, but the idea that the Israelites would be viewed as a domestic threat is not a far-fetched idea.

1:15-21 - A remarkable story!  Pharaoh commands the Hebrew midwives to put to death all the boys they deliver, but "the midwives feared God" and did not do so, offering excuses to Pharaoh afterwards about how Hebrew women know how to give bith so well ("like animals") and did so before midwives could even arrive.  God was so pleased with them that "the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty" and "He made them houses."  It's interesting to me how women in the Torah narrative often lie to other, powerful men in order to save themselves and others (e.g., Rachel lying to her father about stealing the idols, Leah and Rachel deceiving Jacob, etc.).  Pretty gutsy, actually.  On the other hand, I find it a little hard to believe that Pharaoh would have bought such a bogus line.  If Hebrew women didn't need midwives, then why were there Hebrew midwives in the first place?!?  Another interesting thing:  what does it mean that God made them houses?!?

2:10 - Moses receives his name מֹשֶׁה (moshe) כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ ("because [the Pharaoh's daughter] drew him out of the water").  I never knew that!  One thing that I'm enjoying in my read-through is learning why people are given the names they're given.  (Well, at least the men; not much about womens's names is explained.)

2:12 - Moses kills the Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew man...  Was this actually the right thing to do?  We're led to believe it is, but was it?  If the taskmaster would have killed the man, perhaps, but one gets the sense that Moses killed the Egyptian because just intervening might have led to his own capture and/or execution.  But I still wonder...was this killing kosher?

3:2 - The "Burning Bush" episode begins...  One thing that struck me immediately is that while I always thought it was God who appears in the BB, it's actually an angel of God.  God calls out of the bush in 3:4, but does not appear.  So, then, what does Moses actually see?  We don't know.  Does the angel come in the form of a flame?  We don't know.  Weird.

3:4-6 - God now calls to Moses out of the bush (where did the angel go), telling him to remove his shoes "for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."  Then a strange thing happens:  "And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."  First, I thought it was the angel, not God in the bush.  Second, this expression implies that had Moses not been afraid, he could have seen God...even though we know this was impossible. 

3:10-12 - God tells Moses that he will send him to Pharaoh in order to get the children of Israel out of Egypt.  Moses, reasonably, asks "who am I" to undertake such a task?  God's answer is maddeningly vague:  "I will be with thee; and this shall be the token unto thee, that I have sent thee."  But what does God mean by the "token" (הָאוֹת)?  What is it?  The text doesn't say.  So basically, God doesn't answer Moses at all.  Nice.

3:13-15 - Fascinating!  Moses asks God what he should say when the Israelites ask him what God's name is:  "What is His name? what shall I say unto them?"  God's answer is terrific -- again vague, but also, in a poetic way, accurate:  "I will be what I will be" (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) and "I will be the one who sent you to them" (אֶהְיֶה, שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם).  Here is God saying, in effect, my name isn't important; what is important is what I do.  God then goes on (my translation):  "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'the Lord -- God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob -- has sent me to you.'  This is my name forever, how I am to be remembered for all generations."  For deeds, not words, are we to remember God...

4:1-17 - In this remarkable passage -- with echoes of God's debate with Abraham over the fate of Sodom and Gemorrah -- Moses complains to God that the people will not believe him "'...for they will say: The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.'"  In the exchange that follows, God shares with Moses the magic signs he will need to prove God is with him.  First, the staff that turns into a snake.  But then two more signs that, if I recall correctly, never again appear in the narrative:  by putting his hand on his chest, Moses's hand became "leprous, as white as snow," only to return back to normal when the act was repeated; and God tells him that if he takes water from the Nile and pours it onto the ground, it will turn into blood.  But Moses, the reluctant prophet, then objects he isn't a good public speaker speaker.  God says take Aaron with him.  What strikes me is that, essentially, God capitulates to Moses's complaining.  Why not just reiterate his command and be done with it?  Why bother to reason with Moses? 

4:21-23 - This part I have never been able to come to grips with:  God tells Moses that, in spite of all the powers granted to him, Pharaoh will not allow the Israelites to leave because God "will harden his heart."  Why does God do this?  Was it not possible that, had God not done so, Pharaoh would have been swayed by the powers God gave to Moses, thereby avoiding the plagues to come?  This is reminiscent of the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil in Eden...why does God put the tree there only to command Adam and Even not to eat of it.  Here, if we are to believe the narrative, God indirectly condemns the Egyptians to great suffering for seemingly no reason at all.  Why would God do this?

4:24-26 - This has seriously got to be the weirdest couple of verses in the Torah.  Immediately after God tells Moses what he needs to do in front of Pharaoh, we read:  "And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him."  What?!?  Why?  Then it gets seriously weirder:  "Then Zipporah [Moses's wife] took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said: 'Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.'  So He let him alone. Then she said: 'A bridegroom of blood in regard of the circumcision.'"  Then we go right back into the narrative streat, with God telling Aaron to go meet Moses for their showdown with Pharaoh.

What more needs to be said?  If there was ever some evidence of bad editing in the Torah, this is it.  The lines make no sense, are totally unrelated to what comes immediately before and after, and, well, they're just weird.  (Something to study up on...?)

5:1-2 - First of all, it's interesting to me that the first time Moses (and Aaron) go to Pharaoh, it's not to ask that the Hebrew slaves be freed but rather that they get a few days off, as it were, "that they may hold a feast unto [God] in the wilderness."  Moreover, Pharaoh's reply is pretty reasonable under the circumstances:  "Who is GOD that I should heed His voice and let Israel go?  I do not recognize GOD, nor will I let Israel leave" (from Kehot).  Seriously, why should Pharaoh agree to Moses's request?  I'd think it was a scam too!

6:1 - So Pharaoh says no, punnishes the Israelites by demanding that they make the same number of bricks with no straw, and Moses complains that things are now worse, not better.  God's answer?  "And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh; for by a strong hand shall he let them go, and by a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.'"  See the logic?  God hardens Pharaoh's heart, which causes him to punish the Israelites, which causes God to punnish Pharaoh.  !!!!!

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Vayechi

48:5 - Jacob blesses Joseph's Egypt-born sones, Ephraim and Menasseh...  But they're not Jewish!?!  Their mother was Egyptian and, from what we read in the Torah itself, she never converts.  Incredible!  (And not the first time that intermarriage isn't such a bad thing...)

48:8-9 - You have to love Chabad...  What we read in these verses is "And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said: 'Who are these?' And Joseph said unto his father: 'They are my sons, whom God hath given me here.' And he said: 'Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.'"  Pretty straightforward, right?  The Kehot interpolated text, though, offers some choice "extras" (that clear up my point above as well, apparently.  It's worth quoting at length (as a reminder, the bold is the direct translation, the plain type is the Kehot "interpolation"):

So Israel saw Joseph's sons and prepared to bless them, but just then, his Divine inspiration left him. He understood that this meant that they were not worthy of being blessed, and therefore asked Joseph, "Who are these sons of yours, whom I thought I knew so well? Why are they unworthy of my blessing? Is it perhaps because they were born and raised in this country, which is infamous for its lechery?" In fact, God withdrew Jacob's inspiration on account of the unworthy descendants that would descend from Joseph's sons—King Yehu and his sons from Manasseh, and King Yeravam and Achav from Ephraim—but Jacob did not know that his Divine inspiration was withdrawn for this reason.  In order to prove that his sons were worthy of Jacob's blessing, Joseph replied to his father, "Precisely because the Egyptians are notoriously lecherous, I went out of my way to ensure that the integrity of my marriage be beyond reproach by following the norms dictated in the Torah, even though we have not yet been formally required to do so, and even going beyond them. Specifically, I had my marriage contract written out, as the Torah requires, and I also had a document written attesting to my engagement, even though the Torah does not require this." Joseph then proceeded to produce these documents. He continued, "So you see, they are my sons, whom I made sure God gave me in accordance with His highest standards of marital integrity, even though they were born in this licentious country. Thus, they are truly worthy of your blessing." Joseph then prayed to God to once again grant Jacob the inspiration to bless them, which He did. So Jacob said, "If you would, bring them to me so that I may bless them."

Kind of impressive, no?  Just "fill in" all the question marks with your own text...  Amazing.

48:16 -"הַמַּלְאָךְ הַגֹּאֵל אֹתִי מִכָּל-רָע, יְבָרֵךְ אֶת-הַנְּעָרִים"  Nice!  As Jacob blesses Joseph's sons, now he seems to recognize that all those times a "man" came to help him find the way, it was really an angel...

48:17-19 - History repeats itself!  Jacob, who had tricked his father into giving him, the younger son, his blessing and birthright, here deliberately decides to give his blessing to Ephraim - the younger son - rather than Menasseh.  Obviously Jacob has a soft spot for second-borns...

50:2-8 - Joseph has Jacob enbalmed (לַחֲנֹט)?!?  I thought that was assur!  And it takes 40 days?!?  I thought you're supposed to get them into the ground ASAP!?  (Was this done in order to be able to bring the body to Hebron for burial?)  And the Egyptians wept for him...and travel with him en masse to the burian in Cannan.  Amazing.  What causes things to change?!?

50:26 - When Joseph dies, he is embalmed and buried in Egypt.  I never realized that he was buried there...  And embalmed?!?  Is he a mummy?

Mitzvah of the Week: Update

Not a very auspicious start to my Mitzvah of the Week project, is it?

In order to make it work, I need to devote more time to the ground work -- to knowing what the mitzvah in question, thinking about it before jumping in, then taking the time to write a thoughtful post-mortem.  The holidays have made this hard, not to mention that I've been a little intimidated by the literature.  You'd think it would be easy to find (a) an unambiguous list of the mitzvot themselves and (b) sufficient background material to make sense of what they actually ask one to do.  In reality, it isn't so easy.  I've already come to the realization that the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot is really only the tip of one iceberg.  The paragraph or two he offers by way of explaining each miztvah is one thing; his Mishnah Torah has many, many volumes, each of which takes a handful of mitzvot and treats them in much greater depth.  This is good, because it provides a lot more food for thought and much more explanation than in Sefer HaMitzvot alone.  The problem is that the order in which the mitzvot are treated in the Mishnah Torah isn't the same as in Sefer HaMitzvot.  So I either have to spend $600 to buy the entire set up front, or go with the flow and work through the volumes in their original order.  I'm going with the latter.

So I apologize for the delay, but it should be worth it...  Stay tuned!

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Vayigash

44:18-34 - At the beginning of the parsha, Judah makes his plea to Joseph that he take him in Benjamin's place for having "stolen" the goblet (Joseph himself had the goblet put in Benjamin's pack).  Judah's speech is very expressive, conveying not only his frustration but also his concern for his father Jacob's well being.  What is interesting to me, though, is how important the sons of Rachel (i.e., Joseph and Benjamin) are to Jacob vis-a-vis the his other sons.  What makes them so important?

45:16-20 - After Joseph reveals his true identity to his brothers, Pharaoah learns of what has happened.  What is interesting his the Egyptian ruler's reaction:  to send gifts and wealth back to Caanan.  Seems to me a strange response to learning of Joseph's deception...

45:24 - As Joseph bids farewell to is brothers as they return to Caanan bearing gifts from Pharaoah (!), Joseph tells them not to get angry along the way (the unfortunate Mechon Mamre translation is "'See that ye fall not out by the way,'" but the Hebrew, al tirgizu baderech, which clearly speaks of anger).  What could this mean?  With what is Joseph concerned?!?

45:27-28 - Another neat juxtaposition of Jacob and Israel.  The first verse reads, "And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them; and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived."  The second verse, though, says "And Israel said: 'It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive; I will go and see him before I die.'"  I'm trying to make sense of these differences, but I'm having trouble.  Does it mean something when one word is used in place of the other?  I can't tell...

46:2 - A fabulous verse:  ""And God spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said: 'Jacob, Jacob.' And he said: 'Here am I.'"  First, what is meant by "visions of the night"?  My first thought was it must be a dream, but the Hebrew, b-mar'ot halailah, isn't a dream but rather precisely as it was translated: "visions of the night."  What's the difference between a dream and a night vision?  What did Jacob see?  Second, again we see here the divine calling the name out twice, with the person responding hineini or "here I am" (as the angel in the akedah to Abraham).  It's an interesting locution, actually:  Why does God call the name twice as opposed to once?  Why doesn't God say "Jacob, I have something to say"?  And why does Jacob answer "here I am," as opposed to "Yes?"  or "What do you want?"

46:4 - God promises to go down to Egypt with Jacob but also to bring him up again... and Joseph will put his hand on Jacob's eyes.  Strange!  Or does it presage the Exodus?

46:5 - An example of Jacob and Israel being used in the same verse!

47:13-27 - How did I miss this one in Sunday school?!?  Famine comes to Egypt, and Joseph does what he can to help the people of the land...for a price.  First he takes their money for food, then takes their animals, then he takes their land for Pharaoah and Egypt.  Then comes the kicker: The people have lost everything they have, then they happily agree to become serfs:  "And they said: 'Thou hast saved our lives. Let us find favour in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's bondmen.'"  Thereafter, 20% of the crops they grow on the land that used to be theirs must now be given to the state.  So basically, Joseph uses food as a weapon to take away everything the people own, transforms them from landowners to serfs, and all in the service of an idolator.  Are we supposed to admire Joseph for this?  Why didn't he find a way to help the people of Egypt without bankrupting them?!?

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Mikeitz

41:1-7 - I find the prevalence of dreams in Joseph's life -- and the lives of those he encounters -- interesting.  Are these dreams God's indirect communications?  As a means of intervening in human affairs without doing so directly?  We've seen God, angels, "men" who may or may not be angels, and now dreams all doing the talking (in descending level of clarity).  Here we have Pharaoh himself dreaming.  Putting aside modern psychology, is this supposed to be God speaking to Pharoah in his dreams as a means of getting him to seek out Joseph?  Hmmm...

41:15-38 - Here, Pharoah relates his dream to Joseph, who interprets the dream (according to the Kehot translation) "not by [his] own power" but rather "God will provide an answer through [him] for Pharaoh's welfare."  Pharoah is pleased with this interpretation, asking "'Could we find another man like this, who clearly has the spirit of God within him?'"  How strange!  In the first place, we have the idea that Joseph can interpret dreams with God's help; does this imply they cannot be interpreted with without God's help?  (Or is this Joseph trying to humble himself before Pharoah?)  Second, and more puzzling to me, is that Pharoah clearly accepts that (a) Joseph is able to interpret these dreams better than this own councilors and, by extension, (b) God exists and is all-knowing enough to allow Joseph to do so.  Again, we have evidence that the ruler of Egypt did accept that there is "a" God who is knowing and powerful.  Why did the Pharoah of Exodus seem to forget this?!?

41:39-46 - Continuing this theme, these verses show Pharoah bestowing title and power to Joseph, making him more powerful than anyone in Egypt excluding himself!  (I never realized how powerful Joseph was...)  This is incredible on several levels:  Why would he make an outsider so powerful, one in jail no less!  And what's more, he gives an Egyptian woman to him!!  (What happened to not marrying non-Jews?!?)  Incredible!

41:50-52 - Joseph has two sons by his non-Jewish wife, who most certainly aren't then Jewish!  What's going on here!?!  I thought intermarriage was a no-no?!?

42:24 - Moving on to the episodes in which famine drives Joseph's brothers into Egypt in search of food...  Here, I think, are some of the most human, moving portions of the Torah.  From Kehot, "[Joseph] turned aside...from [his brothers]...and wept"  because he was so moved to see them after so long.  (Though it begs the question of why he felt the need to keep his identity hidden from them for so long.)

42:38 - More emotion, as Jacob laments the prospect of sending Benjamin to Egypt at Joseph's request -- "'...should disaster befall him along the road you travel...you will bring my white-haired head down to the grave in grief.'"  These scenes are so much more descriptive than, say, when Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac -- there, we know nothing of his thoughts and feelings.

43:16-18 - Great drama, as Joseph toys with his brothers, who do not know who he is... 

43:30-31 - On seing Benjamin, Joseph can hardly control himself...he has to leave the room to weep, before coming back in to order that the meal be served.