Thursday, March 4, 2010

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Ki Tisa

Wow, a lot going in on this parsha...

30:11-12 - "'When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number; then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them..."  Census taking, eh?  First, this seems a little out of the blue in this context.  In any case is having people give money "as a ransom for his soul" as they are counted a way to "make sure" people participate in the census?

30:14 - "Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD."  Where does this number come from?  Rashi says that this is the minimum age for serving in the army, so the rest weren't counted.  But did women fight?  Obviously not...so were women not counted?

30:15-16 - These verses describe how all people should give at lease 1/2 shekel for census purposes (and, as noted, for "atonement"), and that the money should be used for use in the mishkan "that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for your souls."  This is interesting, linking monetary donations, atonement and communal worship.  (Is this where the Yom Kippur concept of tzdekah "tempering judgement's harsh decree" comes from?) 

30:22-24 - God describes to Moses the ingredients that are needed for the anointing oil:  myrrh, cinnamon, fragrant cane, cassia and olive oil.  I have to call b.s. on some of this.  These were really scarce, expensive things back in those days, things that could not simply be found or produced in the desert (excepting olive oil).  Yet again, we're left to believe that all these things (myrrh?!?  cinnamon?!?) were stolen from the Egyptians prior to the exodus?  I don't buy it.

30:29 - For some reason, this verse - "And thou shalt sanctify [the Tent of Meeting, the Ark of the Testimony, the table and all its implements, the altar of incense, etc.] , that they may be most holy; whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy." - made me think about what it means to call something "holy."  I have tended to think that "holy" is something "normal" that becomes imbued with God-ness or, to put it a little differently, that holiness is God-ness.  Pressing myself to think about it now, I think I've viewed holiness as some kind of magic force that enters things under certain conditions and in certain situations.  But reading this verse, with its idea that by applying an fragrant compound (prepared according to God's instructions) to things, the things themselves become capable of making other things they touch become holy...ironically leads me to rethink what "holy" means.  In the most basic sense here, something is holy because we make it holy -- combining God's instructions with earthly objects and our intentions sanctifies a thing.  For me, this sanctification isn't "magic" -- it's not anything more special, really, than the collective will of the community to say "this thing, made according to the will of God/tradition of our people, is important and special. 

I like the idea that holiness is not intrinsic to some thing or place, but is, rather, constituted by our relationship to it and to God -- that what you get out is a function of what you put into it.  More thoughts on this to come...

30:37-38 - More on holiness:  In the preceding verses, God describes how the incense for use in the mishkan is to be made.  Here, God says "the incense which thou shalt make, according to the composition thereof ye shall not make for yourselves" -- in other words, the incense you make for yourselves (i.e., for non-mishkan use) shall not be made in the same way, and that whoever does so "shall be cut off from his people" [וְנִכְרַת מֵעַמָּיו].  Interesting!  By one reading, God is saying that those who duplicate the mishkan's incense for their own use should be punished for doing so.  By another reading, however, one more in line with my discussion above, God is saying that the act of using something holy to the community for one's personal use in itself cuts one off from his/her people!  Using something holy for a profane use inherently cheapens the individual's relationship with the community, in part, because it is in no small part through the sanctification of communal spaces and objects that community itself is constituted.  That much I believe, anyway.

31:1-5 - "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 'See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and I have filled him with the spirit of God [וָאֲמַלֵּא אֹתוֹ רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים], in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise skilful works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones for setting, and in carving of wood, to work in all manner of workmanship."

I kind of like this phrasing:  Instead of making Bezalel able to do something, or commanding him to do it. God, in essence, inspires him to create works of art:  He gives him inspiration in these different ways.  (Or maybe I'm totally wrong, and Bezalel was a hunter who "became" an artist because God made him one.)

31:6 - "And I, behold, I have appointed with [Bezalel] Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom [וּבְלֵב כָּל-חֲכַם-לֵב נָתַתִּי חָכְמָה], that they may make all that I have commanded thee..."  Again, nice imagery, though it begs the question: Who are these "wise-hearted" people?  Everyone?!? 

31:13-17 - These verses go into the "Huh, I never realized that" category a/k/a/ the "full" v'shamru.  Verses 16-17 I already knew:  this is the "v'shamru" we sing on Shabbat, in which God states that the Shabbat is "a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work and rested."  That is, Shabbat is a sign of God's covenant with the people of Israel because it was on the seventh day God rested. 

Nice, right?  But in the prior three verses, 13-15, the ones I somehow never recall learning, a somewhat "different" take, with fire and brimstone, is offered:  "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying: Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the LORD who sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."  In other words, this "V'shamru #1" says, basically, Shabbat is so that you will remember that God makes the people of Israel holy and that if you transgress it, you should be killed; "V'shamru #2," on the other hand, portrays Shabbat much more benignly, as a sign that God created the world in six days then rested.  V'shamru #1 threatens; V'shamru #2 promises. 

Two thoughts:  First, it isn't surprising that I, a Reform Jew, was never really exposed to V'shamru #1, kind of like the middle paragraph of the v'ehavta is excised from Reform liturgy.  Reform Jews get very uncomfortable with the image of God as punisher.  I need to give this more thought.  Second, the brimstone in  V'shamru #1 - "for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people" [וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ]- might also be read in the way I suggested reading the passages about those who use mishkan incense for their own, personal use:  that one's life, in a very real way, is bound up with the life of one's community (and moreso during the time of the tanakh)...to violate this central law of shabbat observance is, in a way, to break the central binding law of the community.  One who does so -- one who disregards this most fundamental tenet -- in some sense does "cut off" his or her soul from that of the people.  As before, I'm probably soft-pedaling what was actually a capital offense (though it begs the question of how many people were actually executed for violating shabbat...), but it seems to me that the relevance here is precisely this:  to the extent you fail to abide by the norms, laws and beliefs of one's community, you are cut off from them.

31:18 - The Ten Commandments!  Or are they?  This verse relates that Moses received from God at Sinai "the two tables of the testimony [שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת], tables of stone [לֻחֹת אֶבֶן], written with the finger of God."  Did I miss something?  How do we actually know what is engraved on these "tables of stone"?!?

32:1-5 - The Golden Calf!  A number of questions/puzzling things:
  1. Aaron tells the people to "'Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.'"  First of all, this instruction implies that everyone except men -- including young boys -- wore earrings.  Was that true?  Seems a bit odd.

  2. "And all the people broke off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron."  All the people?!?  This must have been tons and tons of gold!  What was left to use for the mishkan?!?

  3. Out of curiosity, why a calf?  Why not a lamb?  Or a crocodile?  Was there a reason Aaron decided on a calf?

  4. Verse 4 is confusing to me:  "and they said: 'This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.' "  Who is the "they"?  Rashi explains that it is the "mixed multitude" speaking here, the non-Jews who had come along during the exodus.  Are we to understand that the mixed multitude pressured (!) the Israelites into doing something they otherwise would not have done?

  5. How could Aaron have caved so easily to popular demands for an idol to worship and still have the standing (and the blessing of God) to become High Priest?  Rashi's commentary on verse 5 "And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said: 'To-morrow shall be a feast to the LORD'" is that all of this -- the altar, the festival the next day -- was pure stalling tactics meant to buy time until Moses could return.  But this was a big gamble.  Given that the mixed multitude was in the minority (right?), why did Aaron cave so quickly into their demands for an idol? Why not encourage the Israelites to have faith?  Surely this was not Aaron's finest hour...
32:7-14 - Another great moment of our prophets arguing with God that the people should be saved...  After the Golden Calf is fashioned, God complains to Moses that the people "have dealt corruptly" and "they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them."  God adds (famously) "'I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people [עַם-קְשֵׁה-עֹרֶף הוּא]."  Therefore, God says, leave me alone so that I can destroy them.  Moses pleads their case, "And the LORD repented of the evil which He said He would do unto His people."  Phew!  The striking thing, to me, is that God complains about how obstinate the Israelites are as if he weren't already aware of that fact.  Moreover, God seems to be pretty short-tempered with a people who have only known idolatry most of their lives.  The Old Testament God is a pretty Short Tempered God...

32:15-16 - A remarkable description of the "tables of the testimony":  "tables that were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables."  Rashi "explains" that their being written on both sides was so that the letters could be read from either side, implying that the writing on one side was, in effect, the mirror-version of the writing on the other side.  Not sure I read the verses that way -- I think that לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים can just as easily be read as saying the tablets were engraved with different words on their two sides -- but who am I to contradict Rashi, right?

32:17-20 - Moses comes down from the mountain, sees the Golden Calf, then shatters the tablets.  That much I remember from Sunday school (!).  But then there's this part I don't seem to recall learning:  "And [Moses] took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it."  Interesting.  Rashi's explanation is pretty vanilla, at least by Biblical standards: by making them drink the Golden Calf. Moses "intended to test them like women suspected of adultery [are tested, as prescribed in Num. 5:11-31] (A.Z. 44a)."  To my eyes, this seems like the most visceral, personal kind of punishment, as if to say, "You like your golden idol...then eat it!"  I have a much harder time buying into the "trial by ordeal" aspect implied by Rashi's commentary.

32:25-29 - Moses next commands, that "Whoso is on the LORD'S side, let him come unto me."  The Levites, who answered this call, are then instructed to "go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.'"  The Torah relates that "the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."  This, frankly, makes no sense.  First of all, who are these 3,000 people exactly?  The mixed multitude who encouraged the making of the GC in the first place?  The people who did not view themselves as being on God's side?  Second, this seems like an awfully small number given that we read how everyone -- including women and children -- played a role in the fabrication of the Calf.  Third, and to the point, what was the capital offense?  Certainly not wanting to make the Calf; that would have included almost everyone.  Aaron wasn't included, so he's off the hook.  But we don't read anything about who actually prayed to the thing.  Were these people, perhaps, the ones who were executed?  It's a big question mark...

32:30-33 - Moses now turns to God, to ask for forgiveness.  First, though, he says to the people "'Ye have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up unto the LORD, peradventure I shall make atonement for your sin.'"  Again, what was the sin for which (a) they did not have to be killed but (b) did need God's forgiveness?  It isn't clear.  Moses says to God "'Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them a god of gold," but clearly this in itself isn't a capital offense, or everyone should have been killed. 

Moses's exchange with God that follows is interesting.  Moses says "Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.' [מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ]"  God replies, "'Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book. [אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי]"  Hmmm.  First, and most important, what is the "book" in question, and what does it mean to be blotted out of it?  The Torah?  Rashi seems to think so, but this makes little sense.  If not the Torah, then what?  Perhaps the Book of Life about which we speak at the High Holy Days?

32:35 - "And the LORD smote the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made."  Kehot translates this as "Then the Lord struck the people with a plague, because they had made the calf that Aaron had made."  Where to start?  First, what kind of plague?  Did people actually die?  What made these people different from the ones the Levites killed a few verses back?  Even stranger is the language "because they had made the calf that Aaron had made" [עַל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת-הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אַהֲרֹן].  This is pretty tortured language here.  Who is being held responsible here, Aaron or the people?  (In the end, I'm having a hard time figuring out who survived the GC incident, with all the executions, plagues, and trials.)

33:7-11 - These strange (am I overusing this adjective?) passages describe the procedure by which Moses would communicate with God on the people's behalf.  As far as I can tell, Moses pitches the "Tent of Meeting" [אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד] outside of the camp.  Every person who wanted something from God [כָּל-מְבַקֵּשׁ יְהוָה] would go to this tent and wait outside.  Moses would then come and enter the tent, at which point "the pillar of cloud descended" [יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן], blocking the entrance of the the ohel mo'eid, and someone -- presumably God -- would speak to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" [פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ].  The strange things are (a) no where in this passage is there a description of what actually happens between Moses and the people who come wanting something from God; and (b) how is it even possible for God to speak to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"?!?

33:18-23 - A curious set of instructions from God:  Moses asks God to show him his glory ("הַרְאֵנִי נָא, אֶת-כְּבֹדֶךָ"), to which God says that while he will "make all My goodness pass before" Moses, Moses will not be able to look at it directly:  "'Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.'"  God tells Moses that he will place him "in a cleft of the rock and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by."  Okay, but then how was it possible just above for God to speak with Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"?!?

34:6-7 - Again I come to one of my favorite passages...only to find that my Reform education "excised" the non-touchy-feely parts.  This is the part I know:  "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin..."  Nice right?  Then comes the brimstone:  "...and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.'"  So crazy that these lines get left out in the Reform telling...

34:10 - God says to Moses:  "'Behold, I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do marvels [אֶעֱשֶׂה נִפְלָאֹת], such as have not been wrought in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD that I am about to do with thee, that it is tremendous."  What "marvels"?  Something post-splitting the Red Sea? 

34:11-16 - Tough talk from the Lord.  God promises here to expel from the Promised Land "the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite" and warns Moses not to "make a covenant" with these peoples "lest they be for a snare [מוֹקֵשׁ] in the midst of thee."  Moreover, Moses is instructed (a) to "break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and ye shall cut down their Asherim [sacred trees]"; (b) not to "take of their daughters unto thy sons" lest "their daughters go astray after their gods, and make thy sons go astray after their gods"; and (c) not to make "molten gods." 

First of all, I can understand (sort of) the need in ancient times to vanquish the inhabitants of a land you want to conquer and possess, but surely this "advice" no longer makes any sense today.  The idea that people need to be wiped out in order to avoid their pernicious influences -- as opposed to just being secure and confident in one's own identity -- is similarly outdated.  Second, this mention of not letting the non-Jewish women get ahold of the Jewish sons is interesting to me.  It doesn't say that intermarriage is inherently bad, it simply says that it is a bad idea to the extent it may encourage Jewish men to stray from Judaism.  This certainly doesn't make the Jewish "sons" out to be very committed to Judaism!

34:21 - "Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; in plowing time and in harvest thou shalt rest."  Hmmm.  Why specifically mention plowing and harvesting if the real intent of Shabbat were to prohibit many more kinds of work?  Why mention just plowing and harvest?  Rashi (after asking this very question) opines that this is a reference to letting the fields lay fallow once every seven years, but this seems pretty tortured to me.

34:24 - "For I will cast out nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders; neither shall any man covet thy land, when thou goest up to appear before the LORD thy God three times in the year."  Hmmm.  So much for that plan...

34:27-28 - "And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.'  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words [עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים]."  On the one hand, we have some better evidence here that it was actually the Ten Commandments on the tablets.  On the other hand, is this to say that the first set of tablets was written by the finger of God -- the ones Moses destroyed -- but that the second set, i.e., the set that actually survived, was not written by God but rather by Moses!?!  Is there any significance to this distinction?!?

6 comments:

  1. I don`t have a huge amount of time but lets seem what I can fit in:

    . First, this seems a little out of the blue in this context.

    The silver was used for parts of the Mishkan. The ransom for the soul is a limited English translation. The idea of the donation was to pledge one`s soul to the great soul of the nation.

    . Where does this number come from? Rashi says that this is the minimum age for serving in the army

    Women were not counted in this census.

    . have to call b.s. on some of this. These were really scarce, expensive things back in those days,

    God would not ask them for things they did not have. At any rate, archeological evidence does suggest there was enough of each in Egypt at the time to make it plausible they had the amounts listed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. > In the most basic sense here, something is holy because we make it holy -- combining God's instructions with earthly objects and our intentions sanctifies a thing.

    Remember that the Hebrew root KDSh means separate. Kodesh means holy. A kedeisha is a prostitute. Same root, same underlying idea of separation from average, albeit in two different directions. Some things are intrinsically holy without out input, like Shabbos. Other things we do make holy by setting the item apart for sacred use.

    > I like the idea that holiness is not intrinsic to some thing or place,

    Well that’s only the case some of the time. For example, there is a level of holiness on the Temple Mount even though there’s a mosque there now. Israel has a level of holiness despite the lack of a proper Torah-based government. On the other hand, yes it’s nice to know we can make something holy through our efforts.

     I kind of like this phrasing: Instead of making Bezalel able to do something, or commanding him to do it. God, in essence, inspires him to create works of art:

    The commentators explain this as follows: the construction of the Mishkan did not involve simply fabricating the items. They had to be constructed with the proper set of mental intentions as well. Betzalel could build it but he had to have the right thoughts and understanding of the spiritual content as well as the physical content.

    > Again, nice imagery, though it begs the question: Who are these "wise-hearted" people? Everyone?!?

    Same thing I told you last week. The experts in each field.

    every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."

    There are two aspects to Shabbos. There is the positive – observe it, receive its holiness, use it to make yourself a closer relationship with God. However, there is the negative – since Shabbos is so holy, rejecting it is like rejecting God, something He doesn’t take kindly to, hence the punishment aspect.


     As before, I'm probably soft-pedaling what was actually a capital offense (though it begs the question of how many people were actually executed for violating shabbat...),

    I doubt anyone ever was. Once you learn about how capital punishment worked, you’ll quickly see that getting a conviction was pretty much impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > In the most basic sense here, something is holy because we make it holy -- combining God's instructions with earthly objects and our intentions sanctifies a thing.

    Remember that the Hebrew root KDSh means separate. Kodesh means holy. A kedeisha is a prostitute. Same root, same underlying idea of separation from average, albeit in two different directions. Some things are intrinsically holy without out input, like Shabbos. Other things we do make holy by setting the item apart for sacred use.

    > I like the idea that holiness is not intrinsic to some thing or place,

    Well that’s only the case some of the time. For example, there is a level of holiness on the Temple Mount even though there’s a mosque there now. Israel has a level of holiness despite the lack of a proper Torah-based government. On the other hand, yes it’s nice to know we can make something holy through our efforts.

     I kind of like this phrasing: Instead of making Bezalel able to do something, or commanding him to do it. God, in essence, inspires him to create works of art:

    The commentators explain this as follows: the construction of the Mishkan did not involve simply fabricating the items. They had to be constructed with the proper set of mental intentions as well. Betzalel could build it but he had to have the right thoughts and understanding of the spiritual content as well as the physical content.

    > Again, nice imagery, though it begs the question: Who are these "wise-hearted" people? Everyone?!?

    Same thing I told you last week. The experts in each field.

    every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."

    There are two aspects to Shabbos. There is the positive – observe it, receive its holiness, use it to make yourself a closer relationship with God. However, there is the negative – since Shabbos is so holy, rejecting it is like rejecting God, something He doesn’t take kindly to, hence the punishment aspect.


     As before, I'm probably soft-pedaling what was actually a capital offense (though it begs the question of how many people were actually executed for violating shabbat...),

    I doubt anyone ever was. Once you learn about how capital punishment worked, you’ll quickly see that getting a conviction was pretty much impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >but it seems to me that the relevance here is precisely this: to the extent you fail to abide by the norms, laws and beliefs of one's community, you are cut off from them.

    Yes. As Saadiyah Gaon once wrote – more than the Jew keeps Shabbos, Shabbos keeps the Jew.

    >How do we actually know what is engraved on these "tables of stone"?!?

    Different commentators have different opinions on what was written on the first tablets. Some say it was the Ten Commandments. Others say is was all the laws, both those we now have in the Written Torah and the others from the Oral Torah.

    >First of all, this instruction implies that everyone except men -- including young boys -- wore earrings. Was that true? Seems a bit odd.

    Even men wore earrings back then. What’s so odd about that?
    1. "And all the people broke off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron."
    Depends how you define “people”. Many commentators hold that when the Torah refers to the generic “the people” it’s referring to the non-Jews who accompanied the Bnai Yisrael at the Exodus. It was they who had a hankering for an idol and brought their gold.
    2. Out of curiosity, why a calf?
    Aharon didn’t make the calf. Read the text carefully. Now, why a calf? Different animals have different symbolic meanings. A crocodile would have represents the idol worship of Egypt, something they had no further connection to. On the other hand, a lamb represents the passive person who leaves his care to God. A calf is capable of some labour but follows its mother obediently, in other words, a faithful servant.
    >Are we to understand that the mixed multitude pressured (!) the Israelites into doing something they otherwise would not have done?
    Yes. History is full of examples of small groups of determined people overriding the better judgement of a more passive majority. How many die-hard communists lived in Russia in 1917 but they took over the country!
    3. How could Aaron have caved so easily to popular demands for an idol to worship and still have the standing (and the blessing of God) to become High Priest?
    Again, read the text carefully. He wasn’t asked for an idol but for a replacement for Moshe Rabeinu. He didn’t actually make the idol but said he would hold a holiday for God. His whole strategy was to delay until Moshe returned.
    Given that the mixed multitude was in the minority (right?), why did Aaron cave so quickly into their demands for an idol? Why not encourage the Israelites to have faith? Surely this was not Aaron's finest hour...
    Yes, and Moshe criticized him for it. At any rate, the Talmud tells us that the MM’s seized power of a sort, killed Aharon’s assistant Hur and threatened him with death unless he complied. Now, Aharon knew it was just a matter of a short bit of time until Moshe returned so the stalling was all he could do.
    >The striking thing, to me, is that God complains about how obstinate the Israelites are as if he weren't already aware of that fact. Moreover, God seems to be pretty short-tempered with a people who have only known idolatry most of their lives.
    1) Who says He wasn’t aware? He was speaking with Moshe and explaining His upcoming actions.
    2) If you tell your son something is really, really important, and your son looks at you and says “Sure dad, I understand and I’ll never do it” and then 5 minutes later he goes and does it, what would your reaction be? How much more so the nation of Israel which had just been released from slavery by God and which then turned their backs on Him?
    >but who am I to contradict Rashi, right?

    And don’t ever forget that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. > To my eyes, this seems like the most visceral, personal kind of punishment, as if to say, "You like your golden idol...then eat it!" I have a much harder time buying into the "trial by ordeal" aspect implied by Rashi's commentary.

    Read Rashi again. Only certain people had to drink.
     This, frankly, makes no sense. First of all, who are these 3,000 people exactly? The mixed multitude who encouraged the making of the GC in the first place?
    There were three classes of criminals. Those who had been properly warned before worshipping the calf were executed by Moshe’s court. Those who had no witnesses to warn them were tested by the gold-laced water. The ones who had been warned but not in a way suitable for the court were executed by the Levites.
    >The people who did not view themselves as being on God's side?
    The people were passive in preventing the idol worship and remained passive at this point.
    > Second, this seems like an awfully small number given that we read how everyone -- including women and children -- played a role in the fabrication of the Calf.
    All the mixed multitude.

    > Third, and to the point, what was the capital offense? Certainly not wanting to make the Calf; that would have included almost everyone.
    Actually worshipping it was the capital offence. Again, only a small number actually went that far.
    >Again, what was the sin for which (a) they did not have to be killed but (b) did need God's forgiveness?
    The mixed multitude forced them to make an idol and worshipped it in front of them and they did… nothing. They all stood back and thought: not my problem. The allowing of evil to occur and thinking: Well, it’s not my fault so I don’t have to care, is not good.
    >First, and most important, what is the "book" in question, and what does it mean to be blotted out of it? The Torah?
    The Book of Life that sits before God.
    >First, what kind of plague? Did people actually die?
    The word “plague” generally refers to the disease of pestilence and yes, people died. These were people who had quietly sympathized with the idol worshippers even though they did not show outward support. Only God could know who they were so only He could mete out this justice.
     The strange things are (a) no where in this passage is there a description of what actually happens between Moses and the people who come wanting something from God

    If you look at the time line, he was only there for a couple of days so it probably didn’t happen since he spent those two days begging God for forgiveness.

     ; and (b) how is it even possible for God to speak to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"?!?

    That’s why Moshe was so great, because he could still function at that level of spirituality. See, you have to understand the Jewish conception of prophecy. It is such a high level of spirituality that all other prophets would go unconscious and receive the prophecy as if in a dream, then they would wake up and have to remember what to say. Moshe Rabeinu was different. He could remain awake and converse normally like two people speaking face to face.

    > Okay, but then how was it possible just above for God to speak with Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"?!?

    Based on what I wrote, it should be clear. It’s one thing to remain alert in the state of prophetic revelation, another to be able to withstand the sight of God’s unvarnished glory

    ReplyDelete
  6. > So crazy that these lines get left out in the Reform telling...

    I don’t mean to be offensive but Reform Judaism is like parenting without any discipline. Sometimes a parent shows love by being firm with the child and setting limits. Sometimes punishment is needed. A child doesn’t understand this, he wants candy all the time and no consequences for misbehaviour and if you let kids run the world, that’s what kind of laws you’d get.

    >What "marvels"? Something post-splitting the Red Sea?

    Originally, before the sin of the spies, the entire conquest of Israel was meant to be on a miraculous basis.

    >not to "take of their daughters unto thy sons" lest "their daughters go astray after their gods, and make thy sons go astray after their gods"; and (c) not to make "molten gods."

    Ah yes, the intermarriage thing.

    > First of all, I can understand (sort of) the need in ancient times to vanquish the inhabitants of a land you want to conquer and possess, but surely this "advice" no longer makes any sense today.

    Really? Then explain what the Russians are doing in Chechnya, the Chinese in Tibet, the Sudanese in Darfur, the British in Ireland…

    Heck, how much of Canada and America was cleansed of natives when the Europeans came out here?

     The idea that people need to be wiped out in order to avoid their pernicious influences

    Go further and read the book of Judges. We are a people very susceptible to assimilation. By not wiping out the Canaanites like God said, many bad things happened to our ancestors.

    >Second, this mention of not letting the non-Jewish women get ahold of the Jewish sons is interesting to me.

    Actually if you read the wording of the verse carefully, you see that this is where partilineal descent comes from. We don’t worry about the child of a Jewish mother because it’s Jewish, but the child of a Jewish father isn’t and so is lost to the people.

    >It doesn't say that intermarriage is inherently bad,

    Well later on it will.

    >Why specifically mention plowing and harvesting if the real intent of Shabbat were to prohibit many more kinds of work?

    Rashi’s explanation needs an… explanation. See, I might have thought that since the seventh year is called a Sabbatical year, that I don’t have to observe both the weekly and the yearly Sabbath, just the yearly one during that time. By emphasizing the times of the year, the verse hints that the weekly Shabbos applies at all times.

    >On the one hand, we have some better evidence here that it was actually the Ten Commandments on the tablets.

    That’s what most commentators say.

    Both sets were written by God. However, the first tablets were provided by God while Moshe had to provide the second set. The significance is that the first set were entirely Godly and by accepting them our ancestors would rise to a higher Godly state. The second set were a partnership between man and God and the people therefore remained as they were.

    ReplyDelete