21:1-11 - Ah yes... The Laws. A brief comment on these verses: I get that slavery at the time was all right, and that the Torah is actually placing limits on its practice and implementing protections for the owned "servant." But to make this comment is in some ways to historicize the Torah, to suggest that morals can and do change. Surely no one in this century would turn to these verses as legitimation for slavery, right? But if certain words of Written Torah are clearly no longer binding, then doesn't it equally follow that the same would apply (if not more so) to Oral Torah? I'm open to hearing the counterarguments to this view, but it's subjects like this that make me on the one hand admire the ethics of the Torah for its time, but reject them for our time.
21:4-6 - Nice...and weird. The first of these verses (4) seems to say that if the Master provides for his Slave/Servant [עֶבֶד] a wife, that wife -- and any children that are produced -- are the property of the Master, not the Servant. The next verse (5), though, seems to say that if the Servant loves his wife and children and does not want to be separated from them after serving the master for six years -- at which point normally he would be freed -- then, apparently instead of being rewarded for this familial loyalty, the next verse (6) explains how he is to be punished in two ways: (a) "his master shall bore his ear through with an awl"; and (b) he loses his freedom and must serve his master forever [וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם]. Am I missing something here? This seems extremely punitive. Geez.
21:15 - "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." Really? Put to death just for striking a parent? See comment above about 21:1-11. A question: Was this really such a problem in Biblical times such that this harsh punishment was demanded? Or was the point to emphasize the need to honor father and mother? And how often was such punishment actually imposed, if ever?
21:16 - Death penalty for kidnapping. Kind of rich, given that slavery itself was okay.
21:17 - Here, "he that curseth [וּמְקַלֵּל]" mother or father gets put to death. See comment on 21:15. By the way, what constitutes a "curse" in this situation? (Good thing this fell by the wayside. I think I'd be given the death penalty a thousand times over!)
21:20-21 - "And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money." Uh, so if I hit my servant and he dies, I get "punished"...unless he lingers for 24 hours or more before dying, in which case I'm off the hook?!? Yikes.
21:22-25 - Ah, yes. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. Funny, I never realized that these verses are in the context described in 21:22, in which two men are fighting and, presumably by accident, injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. Clearly these verses aren't to be taken literally, right, that if you blind someone by accident -- even if through negligence -- your eye should get put out?
21:26-27 - If you poke out your servant's eye or tooth, the servant should go free as compensation. At least there's some incentive here not to mistreat your servants, right?
21:33-34 - If you open a pit, and someone's animal falls into it, you're responsible for making restitution. Weird. It makes sense, but why these two verses sandwiched in between verses about goring oxen (21:28-32, 21:35-36). Why break up the flow in this way? Is there a point?
22:1-2 - Something has to be left out here. "If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him [אֵין לוֹ, דָּמִים]. If the sun be risen upon him [אִם-זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו], there shall be bloodguiltiness for him--he shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." So if a thief is killed while in the commission of his theft, that's okay, but what does it mean by "If the sun be risen upon him"? Does this mean if time goes by before he is identified as the thief, i.e., not caught in commission of the act?
22:8 - A translation issue. The verse says if two people disagree if something was stolen, according to Mechon Mamre, "the cause of both parties shall come before God [אֱלֹהִים]; he whom God [אֱלֹהִים] shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbour." The Kehot translation, however, translates elohim [אֱלֹהִים] as judges. This is a big difference. Which is it? The latter clearly makes more sense, but the Hebrew elohim clearly points to the former translation as being right.
22:17 - "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress [מְכַשֵּׁפָה] to live." Hmmm. Questions: What the heck is a "sorceress" in this context? Is there a modern equivalent? And why are they so bad?
22:18 - No bestiality. Was this a serious problem back then? Why did this merit a prohibition? I wonder...
22:20 - Says the verse, "And a stranger [גֵר] shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers [גֵרִים] in the land of Egypt." I like the sentiment, but I wonder what exactly is meant here by ger or "stranger." Foreigners? Non-Jews? Anyone not a member of one's own community?
22:24 - No usury a/k/a interest. I'm interested to see how the Talmud deals with this little problem.
22:27 - "Thou shalt not revile [לֹא תְקַלֵּל] God, nor curse [לֹא תָאֹר] a ruler of thy people [נָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ]." What's the difference between t'kaleil and ta'or? Are these two different things? And what does it really mean to revile/curse God? The Torah is indeed a strange, vague book... (And does "a ruler of thy people" mean whoever the leader is? We in the U.S. certainly don't follow this commandment!)
22:30 - Nice and clear: Don't eat meat torn from living animals.
23:2 - What the heck does this mean: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice"? The first part I get: don't follow the majority if it's doing the wrong thing. But the second part? No idea.
23:8 - No bribes. The Hebrew here is really nice: וְשֹׁחַד, לֹא תִקָּח: כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר פִּקְחִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים
23:20-25 - Yikes. Fire and brimstone about what God will do to the inhabitants of the Land of Israel so that the Israelites will take it. But there is strangeness too: Instead of God saying what God will do himself, instead an angel [מַלְאָךְ] is appointed "to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared." God tells Moses to tell the people that they should "Take heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; be not rebellious against him; for he will not pardon your transgression; for My name is in him." This is strange. Why does God tell the Israelites to pay heed to the angel, a messenger, as opposed to God? How does the angel have the power to pardon transgression? I thought only God could judge?!? And let's not get into the implications of this verse for Middle East peace... (!)
23:27-33 - The Israelites are not encouraged to show much mercy toward the inhabitants of the Land of Israel... How can God be this way toward innocents? What did the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, etc. do to deserve being wiped out?!?
24:3-4 - Talk about leaving out the details! After three chapters of God telling Moses what God wants the Israelites to do (or not do), here, in two verses we read: "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said: 'All the words which the LORD hath spoken will we do.' And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD..."
Huh!?!
First of all, how do we know what it was exactly that the people agreed to do? Are we to believe that Moses was able to repeat verbatim everything that God said, as opposed to giving his version of what he heard? Second and related, what exactly did Moses write down? Exactly what God said? Exactly what Moses had just told the people? And what was this that he wrote down, the Torah itself? All pretty vague. The most significant thing for me is that it underscores the idea of al pi adonai b'yad moshe -- according to the word of God by the hand of Moses, i.e., human beings have a role in even the most basic interpretation of what the Torah is telling us.
24:4 - The rest of the verse: "And Moses ... rose up early in the morning, and builded [sic] an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel." Trying to picture this strange thing: Twelve pillars...of what? And where exactly is "under the mount" [תַּחַת הָהָר]? Weird.
24:7 - "And [Moses] took the book of the covenant [סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית], and read in the hearing of the people..." Book of the Covenant?!? So is this the Torah?
24:9-11 - First of all, here's a truly bizarre sight: ""Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israel [וַיִּרְאוּ, אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל]; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness [כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר, וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם, לָטֹהַר]." Wait, they saw God!!?! With something sapphire-like under his feet?!? In the first place, what does this mean and what did it look like? I can't picture this. Second, I thought God was pretty clear that only Moses could come near. In 24:2, God says "Moses alone shall come near unto the LORD; but [Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel] shall not come near; neither shall the people go up with him.' " But then in 24:11, God seems to backtrack on this: "And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink." What could this possibly mean?
24:12 - "And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.' " Huh. So then what was Moses writing down before, and telling to the people, then reading out loud to the people?
24:13-14 - God has just told Moses to come up to the mountain to receive tablets, the law, etc. In this verse, though, we read "And Moses rose up, and Joshua his minister; and Moses went up into the mount of God." Was Joshua going with him? The text is unclear. It would seem not, as it says Moses went up [וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה], not 'Moses and Joshua' went up. But in the next verse Moses tells the elders "wait for us here until we return to you" [שְׁבוּ-לָנוּ בָזֶה, עַד אֲשֶׁר-נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם]. Wait for us until we return. So does Joshua go with him or not?
(Rashi offers a possible explanation (see his commentary on 24:13 here), based on what we have not yet read: "I do not know what business Joshua had here [לא ידעתי מה טיבו של יהושע כאן], but I would say that the disciple [Joshua] escorted his mentor [Moses] until the place of the limits of the boundaries of the mountain, for he was not permitted to go past that point. From there Moses alone ascended to the mountain of God. Joshua pitched his tent and waited there for forty days. So we find that when Moses descended, “Joshua heard the voice of the people as they shouted” (Exod. 32:17). We learn [from there] that Joshua was not with them." Perhaps. But it begs the question of why these key details are left out in the first place...)
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Here we go again...
ReplyDelete1) laws of slavery - the problem is that the Hebrew word "avdus" could be slavery or servitude. There are different types of slaves too. A Jewish slave was an indentured worker for 6 years, yes, but he was protected against beatings, only allowed to do certain types of work, humiliating him was against the rules and his master had to provide room, board and health care for him and his family, even though his family weren't his slaves. In fact, a slave was a lousy thing to have in Jewish society.
And no, it's not that the laws are no longer binding but just not practised. If a completely halachic society was set up then one of the penalties for theft and an inability to pay the victim back would be servitude for 6 years with all the perks and benefits. Read what Rav Hirsch says about it.
> Am I missing something here? This seems extremely punitive. Geez.
A Jewish slave goes unconditionally free after six years. if the slave himself refuses to leave then, and only then, does he become a permanent slave with a hole in his ear. He doesn't have to undergo the procedure but chooses to as a consequence of refusing his freedom.
> Put to death just for striking a parent?
Any death penalty in the Torah only takes place after the following conditions are satisfied:
1) The person about to commit the crime is warned by two specific witnesses (and not just anyone qualified)
2) The person then acknowledges the warning, verbally accepts that he will be guilty of punishment
3) The person then commits the crime
4) There is a trial at which testimony is given before 23 judges who, after trying their best to discredit the witnesses, have to vote
5) The vote to condemn has to be at least 2 higher than the vote to acquit. 22-21 is not enough.
So no, it's highly unlikely that anyone was put to death for this, or many other things like not keeping Shabbos, etc. It is definitely to emphasize the terrible nature of the crime that the death penalty is emphasized.
> Death penalty for kidnapping.
For kidnapping, using as slave labour and then selling to another person. You cannot compare this with slavery where the person has previous committed a crime and is sentenced by the court to 6 years of labour. In this case, the criminal has committed 3 terrible crimes.
> By the way, what constitutes a "curse" in this situation?
ReplyDeleteCursing the person using one of God's specific holy names. The blasphemy associated with that is severe.
>Uh, so if I hit my servant and he dies
The assumption was that a fatal blow killed within 24 hours. If the person lasted longer, than it was no longer DIRECTLY responsible even though it might have contributed. This doesn't mean no punishment, just not the most severe level of punishment.
> Clearly these verses aren't to be taken literally, right, that if you blind someone by accident -- even if through negligence -- your eye should get put out?
The Talmud makes it very clear that this refers to monetary compensation. Justice must be served. If I have only 1 eye and I poke out one of your, you aren't blind but poking out my functional eye leaves me that way. Is that just? What if I have no hands but somehow manage to lop off one of yours? Do I get off scot-free? This law has ALWAYS meant that the value of the destroyed organ/part is assessed and paid as compensation.
> Weird. It makes sense, but why these two verses sandwiched in between verses about goring oxen
the Torah is looking at it from the perspective of overall categories of damages, not relevant specific cases. Two cases might be similar but belong to different categories.
> So if a thief is killed while in the commission of his theft,
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways the thief is caught. Either it's in the night and the assumption is that he's going to kill you if you attempt to defend your property. Based on that assumption, you have a right to defend yourself by killing him first. However, if it as obvious as the sun shining, the meaning of that expression, that he isn't there to harm you, then you are not allowed to kill him.
> , "the cause of both parties shall come before God
In those verses "elohim" means judges.
> Is there a modern equivalent? And why are they so bad?
Sorceress and sorcerors were people who claimed to have magic powers that could counteract the will of God, hence the high level of blasphemy that attaches to them. Nowadays, we might say the same about psychics and other whackjobs who claim to have magic powers. We wouldn't kill them though. No court for that.
22:18 - No bestiality. Was this a serious problem back then?
Ay Scotland, where the men are men and sheep are scared!
> I wonder what exactly is meant here by ger or "stranger." Foreigners? Non-Jews? Anyone not a member of one's own community?
A non-citizen resident of the country. Since Jews were citizens, it meant the local non-Jews who lived by the rules expected of them. They were to be fully protected by the law.
> I'm interested to see how the Talmud deals with this little problem.
There's a whole chapter in Bava Metzia dealing with this. And yes, these rules are binding today. if you loan me $50, I have to pay you back just $50, not one cent more, even voluntarily to thank you. But think about this: You loan me $50 Canadian which is $47 American. When I pay you back, $50 Canadian is worth $49 American. That's also interest and not allowed. You see how it is still relevant.
> What's the difference between t'kaleil and ta'or?
Kaleil means to treat lightly, with low esteem. Taor means to curse with bad fortune.
> The Torah is indeed a strange, vague book...
That's why we have a Talmud. It explains the entire thing.
(And does "a ruler of thy people" mean whoever the leader is?
Usually it means the king.
> Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;
ReplyDeleteThis means that if the court votes 22-21 to condemn someone to death, it doesn't go through. You need more than just a simple multitude to kill him.
> neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice"
If you see justice is being perverted, even if you have testimony that is relevant, if it will aid in the perversion of justice don't offer it.
> Why does God tell the Israelites to pay heed to the angel, a messenger, as opposed to God?
remember what I told you last week. All the verses around the giving of the Torah are out of chronological order. These verses belong after the sin of the Golden Calf when God said that He would lead the people to Israel by means of an angel instead of Himself as punishment.
> The Israelites are not encouraged to show much mercy toward the inhabitants of the Land of Israel...
Two things
1) The Talmud notes that before Joshua entered the land, he sent a proclamation ahead: we're coming to take everything. Get out now and we'll let you leave. Those who wish to make peace, we'll make peace as long as you accept we're in charge. Those who wish to make war, let's rumble. So only a segment was included in this ruling.
2) Read through the book of Judges and you see that our ancestors didn't follow this rule, left the Canaanites alone in many places and subsequently wound up fighting many wars against them because of this. Sometimes the best policy is to completely eliminate the enemy, as distasteful as it sounds to 21st century ethics.
> First of all, how do we know what it was exactly that the people agreed to do?
Out of order. This section, along with the altar, the blood and the ceremonials all go back to the day before the giving of the Torah.
Look, do yourself a favour (and me too!). Buy an Artscroll Stone Chumash. It has answers to most of your questions. You'll get far more out of it than the way you're doing things now and probably other insights as well. Once you're through that, you can move on to more complicated commentaries.