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!
Posts
> Funny, the relationship between God's "Lord" name and the present tense "is" never really occurred to me.
ReplyDeleteGod exists outside of time and space, both being creations of His. Therefore it's always "Now" for Him. As well, there is no better way to describe an infinite being than "is". The "I shall be" name refers to the fact that His position as God of Israel, the YKVK was in the future since we hadn't been redeemed from Egypt. So at that point in time, His aspect of YKVK was still in the future.
> Why does God refer to Canaan as "the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned"?
Canaan was a person, the fourth son of Cham. So the standard usage of the time was to append "the land of" to such place names.
> "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses."
Jochebed was his aunt. They were still B'nai Noach at that point so it was permitted. no one i am aware of says that the Torah was in force before Sinai. Yes, there is a tradition that the Avos kept the entire Torah but it is clearly noted that this was done voluntarily and without threat of punishment for lack of observance so it was not in force.
> Why doesn't God just fix Moses's speech?
He was going to, as the line "Who makes the lame walk and the blind see, etc." implies but because Moshe kept complaining that he didn't want to go God said "Fine, have it your way. Aharon can do the talking, keep your lisp."
> , but it disturbs me that God would in essence inflict collective punishment on all of Egypt
But many if not most Egyptians participated in the slavery. Remember that our ancestors weren't slaves just to Pharoah but to all of Egypt. During the day they did government work but at night any Egyptian could come along and take a Jew for himself.
Further, be careful with your statements. I could rephrase it as: "but it disturbs me that the Allies would in essence inflict collective punishment on all of Germany - a dictatorship"
> 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.
1) So who says our morals are superior?
2) Why should twentieth century morality be applied to a situation 3300 years ago?
> Second, how the heck could the Egyptians change their staves into snakes!?!
According to Malbim, Rambam and others, they couldn't. It was all sleight of hand and trickery, not unlike what professional magicians do today. that's why Aaron's snake was so scary to Pharoah.
> 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?
Quite the opposite. First of all, God being who He is, He knew Pharoah's attitude. Yes, it was a set up. He had Moshe ask for something completely reasonable and then punished him until Pharoah himself set them free. Pharoah would never have called the bluff because of his arrogance.
> The magicians of Egypt are able to reproduce the First Plague and turn water into blood.
By mixing in red mud from Upper Egypt into the water. Again, sleight of hand and rudimentary knowledge of chemistry.
> And then the frogs... How did these "magicians" have any power at all
Same thing - they "produced" frogs with trickery.
ReplyDelete> Again, I thought the Egyptians didn't believe in "God" as in, Adonai.
So go read the text again. It isn't YKVK but the finger of Elokim. Elokim as a name for God is generic. Mitzrayim had elohim, the Caananites had 'em, etc. So that very specific word means "This is the finger of a genuine god!"
> If we were to sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their very eyes, would they not stone us?!"
Rephrase it: Our religion involves sacrificing an animal you worship. This might just piss you folks off. I mean, talk about rubbing it in your face and all. So we're going to go to the desert where we won't bother you. Seems kind of considerate, don't you think?
Suggestions:
1) You need a better translation
2) You need to read some meforshim.
I appreciate your taking time to offer your comments. (I subscribe to your blog, BTW.)
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that if I took the time to study the parshot in greater depth, I could find many different commentaries and explanations that would significantly add to my understanding of the text. What I'm trying to do is approach the primary text on my own at first, without turning to others' thoughts...at least for now. I'm no expert; far from it. But I am a reasoning human being that can form my own conclusions -- however partial, incomplete or, ultimately, incorrect they may be. My hope is that this "first time" around, I'll try to stick to the text as much as possible; the "next time" around, I'll branch out with more commentaries. But there is some point to confronting the text directly, no, before considering what other people have to say.
For Orthodox Jews, I have no doubt that my thoughts/reactions are really simplistic. But I'm not Orthodox, nor will I ever be (sorry!). What I am trying to do is take seriously the commandment to study Torah, and to see where it takes me... :)
Thanks for the support, it is very much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteNow, things to remember:
1) The Torah is a Hebrew book. Reading it in English means you are not reading the Torah but someone's translation. many words and phrases are difficult. Sometimes there are two or three words in Hebrew that all translate identically into English but have subtle nuances that the translation then misses. For example, there are half a dozen words for lion in Hebrew, three or four for gold, and all mean something different that doesn't reflect in basic translation. Therefore it is critical to read the Torah with a decent commentary that will pick up on these subtleties, otherwise you are mising much of the intent of the text.
2) You wouldn't read "Harrison's Guide to Medicine" without a teacher to emphasize to you how to understand it. You wouldn't read a complicated engineering manual on your own. The Torah is a complicated, precisely worded book with many layers of depth. Why take a chance of misunderstanding? Seek out someone who knows the text and ask for help. You'll benefit far more in that way.
I do, actually, read Hebrew fairly well; I would say I get 90% without resorting to a dictionary. I've been reading the Hebrew as well as two or more English translations from various sources.
ReplyDeleteOf course you are right that there are, as you put it, "subtleties" in the language that make things dificult to understand on one's own. I was divided on how to proceed with this. Once I start relying on others to tell me, in effect, what the text is saying, I give up my own intellectual autonomy in terms of interpretation. This isn't to say others don't have important things to say, but on this first read-through, I'm trying to stick to my own impressions unmediated by commentaries. Yes, I run the risk of saying dumb things, but the exercise of confronting the text alone is a pretty empowering thing to do...
Besides, I'm highly skeptical of those would purport to tell me what the Torah is really saying. This isn't to say there aren't people much more knowledgeable than me on this subject; of course there are. But what makes one interpretaiton "better" than another? What makes JPS "wrong" and Chabad "right"? What's even to say that consensus is right in a given case?
Actually, I suspect that much of the "intent" of the text to which you refer is not the product of the Torah's author(s) but rather of commentators who came later. Yes, I know it's not frum to say that -- Oral Torah is equivalent to Written Torah, I know, I know -- but as a Reform Jew, who is trained in the deconstruction of texts, I simply can't accept the proposal that the Torah -- or any text for that matter -- has a timeless, unambiguious meaning "out there" somewhere to be discovered. Texts mean what we make of them, and what we make of them changes. That's the liberal postmodern in me :)
About studying with someone else, that's absolutely a good idea, and at some point I intend to pursue it. One always learns more with others than alone. But my objective in doing so would not be to learn what the Torah "really" says but rather to discover questions in it worth discussing.