Torah Tidbits: Parshat Vayikra

1:1 - "And the LORD called [וַיִּקְרָא] unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying..."  This word "called" -- vayikra -- is a curious one.  Usually it's God speaking to Moses.  Why the difference?  Rashi suggests this is a term of affection:

Every [time God communicated with Moses, whether it was represented by the expression] וַיְדַבֵּר, “And He spoke,” or וַיֹּאמֶר; “and He said,” or וַיְצַו, “and He commanded,” it was always preceded by [God] calling [to Moses by name] (Torath Kohanim 1:2-3). [קְרִיאָה] is an expression of affection, the [same] expression employed by the ministering angels [when addressing each other], as it says, “And one called (וְקָרָא) to the other…” (Isa. 6:3).

Who knows.  It certainly makes the book sound better than vayidaber!  (By the way, Rashi has a lot to say about pretty much every word in this verse!  It's always interesting to me why he says something here but not there, a lot here, very little there...)

1:4 - "And he [one coming to offer a sacrifice before God] shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him [וְנִרְצָה לוֹ] to make atonement for him [לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו]."  To make atonement for what?  Rashi asks the same question:  "For which [sins] will [the sacrifice] be accepted for him [thereby atoning for them]?"  The answer?  After apparently saying that a burnt offering cannot (?) atone for capital offenses, Rashi concludes "we determine that it is accepted only for [failure to perform] a positive commandment [for which the punishment is not expressly stated in the Torah, or [violation of] a negative commandment that is attached to a positive commandment."  Oooookay.  Where Rashi gets this from is beyond me, and what's particularly strange here is that this isn't a minor point:  At issue here is what exactly can a person atone for through sacrifice.  If Rashi is right, then eating something non-kosher cannot be atoned for through sacrifice, but not honoring one's parents can?

1:10 - "And if his offering be of the flock..."  Lots of talk in this parsha about different kinds of sacrifices without, it seems to me, any explanation of the differences.  Variously mentioned are bulls, sheep, birds, and "meal offerings."  Is there any difference between them?  Do they atone for different things, or are they merely more/less "expensive"?

1:15 - "And the priest shall bring [the fowl] unto the altar, and pinch off its head..."  Why is the priest charged with slaughtering bird sacrifices but not bulls or sheep? 

2:3 - "But that which is left of the meal-offering [הַמִּנְחָה] shall be Aaron's and his sons'; it is a thing most holy [קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים] of the offerings of the LORD made by fire."  First, why do Aaron & Sons get some of the meal offering but not of the other offerings?  Why no meat for the priests?  Second, why is the meal offering in fact "a thing most holy"?  What's the difference?

2:11 - "...ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey [וְכָל-דְּבַשׁ], smoke as an offering made by fire unto the LORD."  Honey?!?  First, why not offer honey?  Second, and more importantly, how in the heck could there have been honey bees in the desert?!?

2:13 - "And every meal-offering of thine shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God [מֶלַח בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיךָ] to be lacking from thy meal-offering; with all thy offerings thou shalt offer salt."  Salt of the covenant of God!?!  To what does this refer?  Rashi reports, intrestingly, that "there was a covenant made with salt since the six days of Creation, in that the lower waters were promised that they would be offered on the altar. [And how were they offered? In the form of] salt [which comes from water,] and in the water libations on the Festival [of Succoth]."  No reference is given.  Did Rashi just make up a midrash?  I mean, is this really what melach brit elohecha means?!?

3:1 - "And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offerings [שְׁלָמִים]..."  What is a "peace offering"?  What is it supposed to do that "burnt-offerings," "meal-offerings" and "sin-offerings" don't do?  Rashi says they are "[So named] because they instill peace (שָׁלוֹם) in the world. Another explanation: [They are called שְׁלָמִים because they bring about harmony (שָׁלוֹם) , [since some portions of the sacrifice go] to the altar, to the Kohanim, and to the owner [of the sacrifice]. — [Torath Kohanim 3:156]."  Not sure how this explains anything, though...

3:17 - "It shall be a perpetual statute [חֻקַּת עוֹלָם] throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat [כָּל-חֵלֶב] nor blood."  The not eating blood I get, but not to eat fat?!?  Rashi says it's "explained very clearly" in Torath Kohanim 3:189.  Huh.  Don't have a copy of that lying around...

4:2 - On this verse, Rashi offers a comment concering what a "sin-offering" is: 

Our Rabbis explained: A sin-offering is brought only for such a transgression whose prohibition is expressed [in the Torah] as a negative commandment, and whose willful violation incurs the penalty of excision (premature death by the hands of Heaven). The unintentional violation of such prohibitions incurs a sin-offering [upon the individual]. — [Torath Kohanim 4:196; Shab. 69a)]

Well, at least this explains what it is...

4:13 - "And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly [וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר, מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל], and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty..."  What, exactly, is this thing that is hid from the kahal?  Rashi says "the thing" in question "[means that the Sanhedrin] issued an erroneous decision regarding any matter in the Torah that incurs the penalty of excision, by declaring that matter permissible. — [Hor. 7b]"  Huh.  But how exactly would the Sanhedrin know that it did so?

4:20 - "...and the priest shall make atonement for them [וְכִפֶּר עֲלֵהֶם הַכֹּהֵן], and they shall be forgiven."  It's very interesting to me, this concept at the center of vayikra, that the priest -- through sacrifice -- can "make atonement" for one who has sinned.  I know it's not the same thing, but there's something very Catholic/confessional about this.  As a Reform Jew, I'm so used to thinking about there being nothing between me and God -- nothing able to come between me and God -- that to read about the priest being able to effectuate atonement is strange to my eyes.  The question in my mind is, doesn't the change represent progress?  Do we need a priest -- or a temple, or sacrifices, or...? -- in order to atone?  Hmmm....

5:2-3 - "or if any one touch any unclean thing [דָּבָר טָמֵא], whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean swarming things, and be guilty, it being hidden from him that he is unclean; or if he touch the uncleanness of man [בְּטֻמְאַת אָדָם], whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; and, when he knoweth of it, be guilty..."  Rashi explains that the uncleanness in question comes from corpses or "a man or woman who has experienced a discharge."  Issues of ritual impurity are not new to me, but to read about them...is to confront a decidedly outdated, pre-modern view of the world that holds no meaning for me.  It's one of the most foreign parts of Judaism to me.  I can appreciate the symbolism of the mishkan, I can acknowledge the role of community in expiating individual sins against God, and I can even appreciate the need to respect holy things.  What I have a hard time doing is seeing how coming into contact with the dead or having one's period changes any of this.

5:7 - "And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his forfeit for that wherein he hath sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD: one for a sin-offering [אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת], and the other for a burnt-offering [וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה]."  Again, what's the difference?  You'd think this parsha would tell us a little something about it...

5:16 - Yet another kind of offering:  the "the guilt-offering" [הָאָשָׁם].  Again, what's this as opposed to the other kinds of offerings?  And why not explain this better in the Torah itself?!?

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Vayakhel-Pekudei

Parshat Vayakhel


35:2 - "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death [כָּל-הָעֹשֶׂה בוֹ מְלָאכָה, יוּמָת]."  Put to death for violating Shabbat?  Another instance where the death penalty is no longer applied.  And is not appropriate.

35:3 - Do not light fires on Shabbat.  Actually, the verse says do not kindle fires "throughout your habitations" [בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם].  Why is this added?  It surely isn't to imply that it is okay to light fires on Shabbat in all places other than one's place of living.  But then why add this qualification?  Strange.

35:10 - "And let every wise-hearted man [וְכָל-חֲכַם-לֵב] among you come, and make all that the LORD hath commanded..."  Another use of this strange locution, attributing wisdom to the heart.  What does it mean?

35:22 - "And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing-hearted, and brought nose-rings, and ear-rings, and signet-rings, and girdles [וְכוּמָז]."  Kehot translates this word v'chumaz as "buckles,"  but the real fun is in Rashi's commentary.  What are these girdles/buckles?  "This is a golden ornament placed over a woman’s private parts. Our Rabbis explain the name כּוּמָז as [an acrostic]: כַּאן מְקוֹם זִמָּה, [meaning] here is the place of lewdness. -[from Shab. 64a]"  Ah well.  Not so nice, but not that surprising either, right?  Question:  Does the fact that the Talmud considers a woman's privates to be inherently lewd mean that for all time that's the way it has to be?  Can there be any acknowledgement that such views are outdated?

35:29 - "The children of Israel brought a freewill-offering unto the LORD; every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all the work, which the LORD had commanded by the hand of Moses to be made."  I'm just curious:  whose heart didn't make them "willing" to contribute?

36:8-38 - Verse 8 says "And every wise-hearted man [כָל-חֲכַם-לֵב] among them that wrought the work made the tabernacle with ten curtains...."  In verse 10, "And he coupled five curtains..."  In verse 11, "And he made loops of blue..."  In verse 13, "And he made fifty clasps of gold..."  And so on.  So who is the "he"?  In verse 6, Moses tells the people to stop bringing offerings because they had already brought enough for the mishkan and then some.  The next person mentioned is "every wise-hearted man" in verse 8.  But the next 30 verses all refer to this "he" who, in effect, builds the physical structure of the miskhan.  The singular forms of the Hebrew are used here, not the plural.  Am I just misunderstanding the grammar here?

An aside:  While I'm sure there's a "reason" for it, to my eyes it seems very strange that the details of the mishkan's constitution and construction are described in detail, multiple times; first when God tells Moses what to do, then Moses tells the people what to do, then what it is the people did.  Frankly there's something weird in my view about the Torah providing so much detail about these physical things while glosssing over important details when it comes to so many other laws.  It makes sense if the Torah is a blueprint for establishing a set of new religious practices in a certain place and time...but not if the Torah is supposed to be a timeless document.

38:8 - "And he [Bezalel] made the laver of brass, and the base thereof of brass, of the mirrors of the serving women [בְּמַרְאֹת הַצֹּבְאֹת] that did service at the door of the tent of meeting."  What are these mirrors, exactly, and what is the point of using them to fashion the laver, particularly because this detail was not commanded by God?  (Kehot translates this as "the mirrors of the women who had set up the legions.")  Rashi's commentary, at once fascinating, beautiful, and terrible, is worth citing at length:

Israelite women owned mirrors, which they would look into when they adorned themselves. Even these [mirrors] they did not hold back from bringing as a contribution toward the Mishkan, but Moses rejected them because they were made for temptation [i.e., to inspire lustful thoughts]. The Holy One, blessed is He, said to him, “Accept [them], for these are more precious to Me than anything [אלו חביבין עלי מן הכל] because through them the women set up many legions [i.e., through the children they gave birth to] in Egypt.” When their husbands were weary from back-breaking labor, they [the women] would go and bring them food and drink and give them to eat. Then they [the women] would take the mirrors and each one would see herself with her husband in the mirror, and she would seduce him with words, saying, “I am more beautiful than you.” And in this way they aroused their husbands desire and would copulate with them, conceiving and giving birth there, as it is said: “Under the apple tree I aroused you” (Song 8:5).

Beautiful, right?  But then it takes a turn to a darker side:

This is [the meaning of] what is בְּמַרְאֹתהַצֹבְאֹת [lit., the mirrors of those who set up legions]. From these [the mirrors], the washstand was made, because its purpose was to make peace between a man and his wife. [How so?] By giving a drink from the water that was in it [the washstand] to [a woman] whose husband had warned her [not to stay in private with a certain man] and she secluded herself [with him anyway. The water would test her and either destroy her or prove her innocence. See Num. 5:11-31].

So if I understand Rashi's commentary correctly, women are precious because they helped perpetuate the Jewish people even though the men were tired from labor...but they are also fundamentally untrustworthy and should be judged by magic rather than their word.  Not nice.

Parshat Pekudei

38:21 - "These are the accounts of the tabernacle [פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן], even the tabernacle of the testimony..."  The first section of this parsha enumerates in detail the exact amounts of precious metals collected for purposes of building the mishkan.  It made me wonder why these exact numbers are important enough for inclusion in the Torah.  Is it to provide "proof" that it was indeed built?  Does it suggest some measurement of the "wise-heartedness" of the people who "donated"?  Would the mishkan have been less grand/impressive/important had the numbers been less?

38:22 - "And Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, made all that the LORD commanded Moses."  This is an interesting statement, one that Rashi discusses at length.  To wit, why does it say Bezalel make what God commanded Moses when he (Bezalel) wasn't present when the instructions were given?  Why doesn't it say Bezalel made what Moses commanded him?  Rashi explains that while Moses commanded that the mishkan be constructed after its contents, but Bezalel understood -- "correctly" -- that the contents should be made first.  Moses, incredibly, agrees: 

Moses said to him [Bezalel], “You were in the shadow of God [בְּצֵל אֵל, which is the meaning of Bezalel’s name. I.e., you are right], for surely that is what the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me.” And so he did: [Bezalel] first [made] the Mishkan, and afterwards he made the furnishings. -[from Ber. 55a]

This statement is remarkable for a couple of reasons.  First, it's a particulary tortuous way of resolving an apparent problem in the text.  Rashi could easily have let this verse alone, implying equivalence between what God told Moses and what Moses told Bezalel.  Second, it raises the possibility -- both troubling and encouraging -- that Moses, for whatever reason, didn't get God's words right, and God doesn't step in to correct things.  And if he doesn't get this right, what else might Moses not be getting right?  Since everything but the Ten Commandments was b'yad Moshe, doesn't it imply other things could be wrong?  As troubling as that might seem, it also reminds me at least of the liberal implications of b'yad Moshe and lo bashamayim he:  that ultimately it is up to us to understand, interpret and apply the Torah to our lives.
38:27 - "And the hundred talents of silver were for casting the sockets of the sanctuary, and the sockets of the veil: a hundred sockets for the hundred talents, a talent for a socket."  For some reason this verse spoke to me:  According to the Torah narrative, the wealth of the people, given by God/taken from Egypt, donated by the people, is physically used to bind together the structure of the mishkan.  Not converted into money to buy things, but physically used to construct it.  I know that one of the big turn-offs of "organized Judaism" for many people is this focus on money, but there is a point to it beyond the "needs" fo the money to keep the organization functioning, namely people's personal investment in the community.  I need to think about this more...

39:28 - "and the mitre of fine linen, and the goodly head-tires of fine linen [וְאֶת-פַּאֲרֵי הַמִּגְבָּעֹת שֵׁשׁ], and the linen breeches of fine twined linen..."  Kehot translates this more interestingly as "glorious high hats of linen."  This makes me smile, I must confess...

39:31 - "And they tied unto [the plate of the holy crown] a thread of blue, to fasten it upon the mitre above; as the LORD commanded Moses."  Pretty short and sweet...but Rashi has a lot to say about the meaning of "to fasten it upon the mitre above."  It's interesting to me that he comments on some things but not others...

39:33 - "And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses, the Tent, and all its furniture, its clasps, its boards, its bars, and its pillars, and its sockets..."  And yet another recounting of all the bells and whistles of the mishkan, for the third (?) time.  Again, why the repetition of these details, while other, seemingly more crucial things, only get said once?

40:1-16 - "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 'On the first day of the first month shalt thou rear up the tabernacle of the tent of meeting. And thou shalt..."  The next 14 verses explicate all the things God tells Moses todo concerning the construction of the mishkan, all its furnishings, and the installation of Aaron and his sons as priests.  Are we to understand that Moses -- himself, without help -- did all of this?!?  (You'd think this would be something for Rashi to comment upon...)

40:17 - "And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up."  Hmmm.  In 40:2, as we just saw above, God says "'On the first day of the first month shalt thou rear up the tabernacle of the tent of meeting."  So are we to understand that an entire year elapsed between God telling Moses what to do and the mishkan actually being raised?!?

40:33-38 - A strange sight, worth quoting at length:

And he reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the screen of the gate of the court. So Moses finished the work. Then the cloud [הֶעָנָן] covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.  And whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward, throughout all their journeys.  But if the cloud was not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and there was fire therein by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.

I'm trying to understand this.  So the mishkan is completed, but then immediately (?) it is covered by a "cloud" -- presumably the presence of God? -- which prevents Moses from entering.  So then did Aaron & Sons enter?  Am I missing something?

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?!?

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Tetzaveh

This parsha takes the level of detail provided in Parshat Terumah to an entire new lever.  In Terumah, we read about the most minute details concerning the construction of the tabernacle, including many of the structures within it.  Here, the focus is on the specific rites involved in Moses's installation of Aaron and his sons as Priests and on as the unique kinds of garments they are to wear (particularly Aaron as High Priest) in their service.  Before making sharing some of my comments on specific verses, two general comments are in order:

1. I personally had a hard time picturing the specific kinds of clothes, adornments and rites of installation described in this parsha.  It made me think about how there are many passages in the Torah which offer ambiguous descriptions of things.  While I'm sure the Talmud "clarifies" these things, it makes one wonder to what extent the Torah is in fact a narrative tied to its time and place rather than a document timeless and universal in its relevance.  (Though see the illustrations provided by our Chabad friends at Kehot, in particular pages 216-25). 
   
   
2. The discomfort I felt reading about the weath and ostentation involved in the building of the tabernacle was, for some reason, multiplied several times over reading about the priestly garments and rites of consecration.  Perhaps it is the involvement with individual people rather than buildings that makes the difference for me.  In any case, given who I am today, I would be absolutely mortified to belong to a religion that required gold forehead plates, flowing robes, and animal blood in order to have a relationship with God.  While I appreciate that these things were considered more or less normal at the time, it again goes to show that it's a good thing that things have changed and will continue to change.

28:3 - "And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise-hearted [חַכְמֵי-לֵב], whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom [אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּאתִיו רוּחַ חָכְמָה]..."  This is a curious description, those who are "wise-hearted."  To whom is God referring, exactly?   Who is excluded from this subgroup?  What's most interesting about the phrase "wise-hearted" is that it's a bit oxymoronic:  the heart is usually emotional, while the head is wise.  What is God trying to say here?

28:4 - In this verse and the ones that follow, God explains that a specific kind of garment called an "ephod" [אֵפוֹד] should be made for Aaron and describes what this garment is like.  As noted above, I had a hard time picturing this garment (Kehot's illustrations notwithstanding).  Apparently so did Rashi, who relates in his comments to this verse that he "did not find the explanation of its pattern in the Baraitha."  However, "My heart tells me [ולבי אומר לי]," he says, that certain of its characteristics can be deduced from other tanakh passages.  Sometimes, it seems, you kind of have to make an educated guess.

28:29-30 - One element in particular of Aaron's costume is a "Breastplate of Judgment" [חֹשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט], into which are to be placed "the Urim and the Thummim" so that "they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD."  Rashi explains that "the Urim and the Thummim" refers to the actual name of God, which was to be written on a piece of parchment (?) in placed within the folded-over breastplate.  I am struck by the literalness of this:  "Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually" is physically manifested by (a) a breastplate on which is engraved the names of the 12 tribes and (b) a piece of parchment on which is written God's name placed inside of it. 

Personally, when I think about something "being upon my heart," I tend not to think of it literally in this way; I think of taking something seriously or investing myself emotionally in something.  I suppose there's nothing to preclude my physically putting something on my chest as a sign or reminder of the thing I'm supposed to take seriously, but the physical form would only be a practical manifestation of the underlying thing.  Aaron's "Breastplate of Judgment," though, is explained in precisely this way, that by wearing vestments on which the names of the tribes are written, and the name of God is inside of them, Aaron as the high priest literally "bear[s] the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart" when he enters the Holy of Holies.  So how are we to understand this in the broader context of observing mitzvot?  That adhering to literal interpretation trumps meaning, regardless of how the world changes?  For example, is the essence of the mitzvah not to eat leavened bread during pesach honored by finding ways to substitute all ingredients so that, to the observant Jew, everything looks exactly like it does "on all other nights" -- cakes, rolls, etc. -- or is the point not just to make things different but to have them seem and feel different?  What if following the law doesn't evince the intended kavanah?

In my opinion, it is absurd to think that what it means to put the things God commands us on our hearts will be the same for all people for all time.  Perhaps for the Israelites fresh out of Egypt's idolatry, certain specific physical objects made of gold were needed to do so, but they are not for us.  Well, at least not for me...

28:35 - "And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and the sound thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not."  This idea that if Aaron doesn't do certain specific things he will die, is something I "get" but is nevertheless troubling to me.  I suppose it's the byproduct of purity:  if it has any meaning, something really bad has to happen if one is "impure" in the presence of God.  But what's the mechanism by which this happens?  I'm imaging a laser projected through a mirror, where if the mirror is imperfect in even the tiniest way, the laser light would cause the lens to explode.  But this is a pretty outdated way of thinking about God, no?  In any case, I suppose it isn't an issue so long as the temple is not rebuilt, and the presence of God doesn't come down to earth (!).

28:36-38 - A plate of gold to be placed on Aaron's forehead with the words "HOLY TO THE LORD" [קֹדֶשׁ לַיהוָה] on it?!?  Seems kind of like tefillin with bling.  But do the words "and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD" actually mean that Aaron always wore this thing on his head?!?  Rashi says no.  Actually, he says "It is impossible to say that it should always be on his forehead, for it was not on him except at the time of the service. But [it means that] it will always make them [the sacrifices] favorable Even when it is not on his forehead, namely if the Kohen Gadol was not ministering at that time."  This is, frankly, silly.  The text says "it shall be always upon his forehead" [וְהָיָה עַל-מִצְחוֹ תָּמִיד].  If the intention was to say that it should be on his forehead at all times while certain rites are being performed, that would make complete sense.  But that's not what the Torah says.  This can't be what it means...

29:13 - "And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the lobe above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and make them smoke upon the altar."  Gross!!

29:20-21 - As part of consecrating Aaron and his sons as priests, Moses is supposed to kill a ram, then smear its blood on the tip of their right ears, the thumb of their right hands, the big toe of their right feet; and to sprinkle the blood on the altar and on Aaron & Son's garments.  My question is, wouldn't this permanently stain the priestly garments?!?  Would they be replaced?!?

29:29 - "And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them, and to be consecrated in them."  Is this to say they never changed out these garments?  That they lasted for generations and generations?!?

29:35-37 - "And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days shalt thou consecrate them."  Seven days?  What abbout Shabbat?!?  How could all of the consecration activities have continued for seven days straight?!?

29:45-46 - "And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am the LORD their God."  I have always liked this sentiment -- of God being among the people, not within a structure -- but this begs a question (at least to me):  Now that there is no mishkan, and no Temple...does this mean that God no longer dwells "among the children of Israel"?  If not, then what are the implications of this for the way we think about our relationship with God?  If God does, then clearly something has changed from the days when the tabernacle was needed in order to bring God into the midst of the people.

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Terumah

25:1-2 - "'Speak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering; of every man whose heart maketh him willing ye shall take My offering."  So what if the men's hearts didn't 'make them willing' to contribute?  Would that have meant that the mishkan wouldn't have been built?  And given how its construction requires so much in the way of precious metals, stones and fabrics --as we subsequently read -- what if the required materials weren't given?  I'm just saying that while a freely-contributed system makes a lot of ethical sense, it's not exactly the most practical way to go about building the tabernacle.

25:3-7 - Wow, God is asking for a lot of valuable items:  gold, silver, brass, dyed fabrics, and animal skins (seal skins?!?) and stones...  First, are we to understand that the former Egyptian slaves took all this stuff with them at the time of the Exodus?  (They certainly didn't have the time or means to mine these metals in the desert!)  Second, while I grant that the mishkan was important, it seems so glaring that a people who were asked to give up the worship of idols would be asked right away to build a religious structure with so much wealth.

(I have heard it suggested that while the mishkan seems borderline-idolatrous from a modern perspective, at the time of its construction, it was indeed a radical departure from the kinds of religious structures employed by polytheistic cultures of the time in that, for example, there were no depictions of the divine.  This makes a lot of sense to me.  If this is right, however, it implies that idolatry is in some ways a relative, changing concept:  the specific things we would identify as idolatry aren't necessarily the same things that our forefathers would (and vice-versa).  But if that is true, then isn't it likely that at least some of the rituals and practices from centuries past are no longer able to elicit the kinds of contemplative or emotional responses that they once did and therefore should be changed?  I wonder what I -- or any Reform Jew -- would make of the mishkan if we could go back in time and bear witness to the rites that took place in it.  Would we be impressed by the animal sacrifices, the burning of incense, etc.?  Or would we be alienated and put off by the entire thing?)

25:8 - "And let them make Me a sanctuary [מִקְדָּשׁ], that I may dwell among them."  Nicely worded!

25:18-21 - "And thou shalt make two cherubim [כְּרֻבִים] of gold..."  How strange these cherubim out of all the things God might ask the Israelites to put on the cover of the Ark, and how wierd the level of detail offered in their description!  I wonder what these things meant to them at the time...

25:22 - "...and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel."  Huh?!?  This seems to be riding pretty close to the line for God to speak as if from the cherubim.  If the point is to wean the Israelites away from idolatry, why not just have the voice eminate from nowhere, or from everywhere, or from just the Holy of Holies?

25:23-30 - All these details about the table for the "showbread" [לֶחֶם פָּנִים].  Seriously, how were they supposed to make something so elaborate in the desert?!?

25:31-40 - Incredible detail on how to make the "candlestick" [מְנֹרָה].  Why are all these details -- of the number of branches (seven), its constitution (a single piece of gold), the "cups" [גְבִעִים ] on the branches that are supposed to be "made like almond-blossoms"  -- so specific?  What was the point of being so specific here?

26:4-6 - Crazy details!  About the way to connect the sections of the curtains together, with holes in specific places, and clasps made of gold.  Incredible!

Random questions: 

1. Apart from these and other passages in the Torah, is there any independent evidence that the mishkan ever actually existed?  I'm not saying it didn't, but I am curious:  Did anyone else ever see it and leave a written record?  I mean, coming across this structure in the desert must have been a sight to behold...
2. The tabernacle was a huge thing, with lots of parts, some of which were themselves incredibly large.  Are we to understand that this entire thing was taken apart, packed up, moved, then reconstructed every time the Israelites moved their camp in the desert?  For 40 years?!?  How many times, then, would this have occurred?  For how long did it ever stay in one place? 

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Mishpatim

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...)

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Yitro

18:14-16 - An interesting story...  Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, asks Moses what he's doing sitting around dealing with the masses all day.  Moses answers "'Because the people come unto me to inquire of God; when they have a matter, it cometh unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and His laws.'"  My question is what "statutes"? what "laws"?  The Torah has not yet been given!  (I know, I know, midrash invariably explains how the Torah was already revealed to Moses or some such thing.  But I found these verses jarring anyway.)

18:17-23 - Jethro tells Moses why his plan isn't a good idea, and suggests instead appointing others to handle all but the most important matters and questions:  "Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God be with thee: be thou for the people before God, and bring thou the causes unto God."  But who is Jethro to make this kind of suggestion?  How does he know what God does or doesn't want?  Why in this case has God remained silent, not telling Moses what to do?  Perhaps this is because the matter concerns the interpretation of the law rather than its content; the latter is God's job (through Moses), but the former is a human job.  Maybe.

19:3 - Trying to picture this:  "And Moses went up [עָלָה] unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain [מִן-הָהָר]..."  So Moses climbs the mountain...part way?  Then God calls to him from the mountain?!?  Not from the heavens, not from the top of the mountain, but from the mountain?  Interesting...

19:7-8 - Another minor point of confusion (inconsistency?):  God has just finished telling Moses that, if the Israelites keep their side of the covenant, they will be for God "treasure from among all peoples."  Moses is then instructed to tell the "children of Israel" about this.  First, we read that "Moses came and called for the elders of the people [זִקְנֵי הָעָם]" to give them the message.  Immediately thereafter, though, we are told "And all the people [כָל-הָעָם]answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.'"  So who got the message?  The elders or all the people?  (Or does "all the people" refer to just the elders?)  The difference is critical, because this is the moment of acceptance before the giving of the Ten Commandments.  Did all the people agree, or only the elders?!?

19:14-15 - "And [Moses] said unto the people: 'Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.' "  Oy.  Vey.  I get it, I really do; things were different back then.  Purity was a different ball of wax, as it were.  Or was it?  Purity laws are still fundamental aspects of Orthodox Judaism, and of all the things in the Torah I have a problem with, this is way up there.  I'll keep my powder dry on this for now, but as far as I can tell, this is the first mention about women having the potential for being unpure...

19:16 - A nitpick:  "...there were thunders and lightnings [sic] and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn [קֹל שֹׁפָר] exceeding loud"  A shofar?  Was God blowing a shofar?  Hmmmm.....

19:21-24 - Weird.  God tells Moses to tell the people not to approach the mountain lest they die.  In the immediately following verse, God then says that the priests who do approach should "sanctify themselves" lest they die.  Moses, rightly I think, then points out to God that "'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.' "  God replies, you and Aaron come up, but "let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD."  Huh?!?  Did God get confused and miss the part where he told Moses none could approach?!? 

20:2 - Ah yes, the Ten Commandments...  Here's #1:  "I am the LORD thy God..."  Not to be nitpicky here, but frankly this isn't a commandment.  Proclamations 2 through 10 are clearly commandments -- do this, don't do this -- but #1 is a statement.  If the commandment were to know that the Lord is God or to believe that the Lord is God, then why doesn't it say so?  (To be fair, the statements that constitute the "official" Ten Commandments are not universally recognized as the same.  See this interesting chart.)

There is a strange divergence between the verse numbering in Mechon-Mamre on the one hand, and other sources I have seen on the other.  Specifically, Mechon-Mamre incorporates the words "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" [לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עַל-פָּנָי] into verse 20:2, while the other sources I have consulted say that these words make up their own verse, 20:3.  This throws off the verse numbering for the rest of this chapter insofar as I am providing links to the Mechon-Mamre site.  It seems to me that Mechon-Mamre must be wrong, but to avoid confusion, for the verses that follow, I will provide the link to the verse as numbered in Mechon-Mamre, then include the actual number in brackets immediately after.  Weird!

20:3-5 [20:4-6] - #2 = No idols...  But the verse reads differently than I had always thought:  It doesn't say no idols of other Gods...it says no idols or graven images whatsoever "of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."  What?!?  The commandment is no sculptures or pictures of anything at all, even if they are not intended to be worshipped?!?  The next verse says "thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them," but if the intention was to allow likenesses of things but not to allow their worship, why not say 'thou shalt not worship idols or graven images'?

20:6 [20:7] - Commandment #3, not to take the "take the name of the LORD thy God in vain."  Yet another instance of the Torah leaving out the key details of something supposedly of critical importance.  I hope I don't do this without realizing!! : (

20:7-10 [20:8-11] - Commandment #4 - remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  See, here we get some specific instructions, viz. don't work.  Of course, what constitutes work isn't said here, but at least we get direction.  (Of special note: look at the list of who shouldn't do work:  "thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."  So why, then are shabbas goys all right?)

20:11 [20:12] - Commandment #5, to honor mom and dad.  Ugh.  I'll get to this in my Mitzvah of the Week project at the proper time, but it's worth pointing out here, again, that the Torah offers no explanation of what this means.  The other interesting thing is the second half of this verse:  "that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."  This is the only one of the Ten Commandments to offer an explanation of why one might want to do it.  Is it possible that honoring father and mother wasn't so self evident? ; )

20:13 [21:14] - Commandment #10 (6-9 are pretty self-explanatory) - 'Do not covet...'  This is also an interesting commandment in that it seems to prohibit an emotion rather than behavior or belief.  How is one supposed to stop one's self from feeling something?!?

20:15 [20:16] - In this verse, the people of Israel say to Moses after hearing the Ten Commandments "'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'"  Uh, but in verse 20:1, we read "And God spoke all these words, saying..."  Didn't they already hear God's voice, then?  The last verses of Chapter 19 relate God telling Moses to go tell the people "So Moses went down unto the people, and told them," but 20:1 doesn't say 'Moses spoke to the people, saying'; it just says "God spoke all these words."  Who said what to whom?!?  The verses that follow are more confusing.  First Moses reassures the people they won't die ("'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.'")  Then "Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was" at which point God tells him:  "Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven."  So here it is implied that the people did hear God talking to Moses, in which case they did hear God's voice.  Which way is it?

20:20 [20:21] - Neat idea here:  "in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee" [בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי, אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ].  We need no set, "special" place to worship God; wherever we are, there God is.