Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Leviticus Acharei Mot & K'doshim (Double Portion)

Acharei Mot & K’doshim (Double Portion)
Leviticus 19:1 – 20:27
Leviticus 16:1 – 18:30

I. Summary of Acharei Mot

A. Acharei Mot = (God spoke to Moses) “after the death” (of the two sons of Aaron)

B. God instructs Moses to tell Aaron to 1) enter Tabernacle only under certain conditions (with sacrificial bull of purgation to make expiation for his own sins, bathed and dressed in linen sacral vestments), 2) confess all sins of Israelites over specially selected goat and then sending the “scapegoat” to Azazel (viewed by some as a demonic-like being) into wilderness carrying sins of Israelites and 3) offer his bull of purgation with specified procedures. All this purges Tabernacle of impurities and provides expiation for sins of all priests and all Israelites (16:1-28)

C. God instructs Moses on the Yom Kippur laws for fasting and atonement. (16:29-34)

D. God issues warnings to Moses against 1) the offering of sacrifices outside the Sanctuary and 2) the consumption of blood (“life of all flesh”). (17:1-16)

E. God condemns to Moses the sexual practices of some neighboring peoples and prohibits certain forms of sexual relations. (18:1-30)

II. Commentary on Acharei Mot (Plaut, various websites and prior Hevreh discussions)

A. Holiness Code – Parasha marks beginning of “Holiness Code” (Lev chs. 17-26). Distinctive feature = explains purpose/intent of laws and constantly refers to overall purpose of laws being to maintain holiness of Israelites.

B. Getting close to God on Yom Kippur – Opening words refer back to Nadab and Abihu (who tried to get too close to God (alien fire) and were, as a result, killed). Theirs wasn't just a simple mistake like that of Eleazar and Ithamar (who tried to follow God's directions and were forgiven for their transgression of not eating purgation offering in sacred area … Lev 10:17). Rather, Nadab and Abihu's sin was that they had acted with arrogance and self-importance and therefor could not be forgiven. The referral back to Aaron’s deceased sons in this parasha reminds us that when God reviews our errors and mistaken ways--as Adonai does on Yom Kippur--God looks for humility, which enables us to change our ways and thus draw closer to God ("Through those near to Me I show Myself holy" … Leviticus 10:3). When we commit errors in behavior and then repent, we are forgiven; however, when we approach God with conceit and superiority, we demonstrate that we prevent ourselves from being close to God.

C. Vulnerability of Aaron – Parasha shows the vulnerability of Aaron (enter the Shrine only under strict circumstances i.e. with proper sacrifices, dressed correctly and carrying out proper rituals … essentially told that two of his sons were killed for their transgressions and he would be to if he breaks God’s rules).

D. Nakedness as vulnerability - The people who are closest to you are the people whom you know best. Do not uncover their weakness. Do not expose their vulnerability. Let us clothe our loved ones with kindness. Let us wrap them in blessings as with a garment. See the best in everyone is like "a lily among the thorns."

E. Ancient v. today’s Yom Kippur - This parasha reveals at least two differences between the original Yom Kippur service and the one we observe today: 1) The ancient service contains tangible elements that would presumably make it easier for a person to grasp the process of atonement. The bull and goat sacrificed on the altar, the blood that is dashed and sprinkled and the goat that carries away the community's sins … the High Priest engages in the service with all of his senses. 2) The Israelites were not participants in ancient service whereas we have a participatory role today.

F. Tears - How can our tears be a source of atonement when God did not allow Aaron to mourn his own sons? Crying is about being vulnerable. Noah was punished after the Flood because he never cried over the lack of repentance of humankind. Torah draws attention to Nadab and Abihu’s deaths to give Aaron another chance to cry out, to mourn, to shed tears. And though he misses the opportunity once more, surely another circumstance will present itself in the future.

G. Azazel goat and true repentance - The Azazel goat (laden with the sins of the people) is not sacrificed but remains alive. Suggests we must carry with us the memory of our transgressions to remind us not to repeat the mistakes of the past. If the repentant individual has the opportunity and the ability to sin and refrains because the individual has repented rather than because the individual is afraid or because that person lacks the capacity to sin, then that is true and complete repentance.

H. Power of sexual relationships - The portion remains paramount not because of the specific sexual relationships it deems unclean, but because it reminds us how powerful sexual relationships can be.

I. Connection between parasha (discussing Yom Kippur) and the Passover ritual – At least two connections: 1. Passover challenges us to cleanse our homes and our hearts, claiming sacred time and place for our communal celebration. The High Priest’s Yom Kippur ritual of sanctification mirrors this preparation, insuring the sanctity of the holy places. 2. The similarity in the roles of the Seder participants (who are charged to see ourselves “as if we ourselves came out of Egypt”) and the Yom Kippur High Priest (who enters into the sacred story by presenting his own sacrifice) suggest that each individual, as well as the space each of us inhabits, is transformed through ritual attending both Yom Kippur and Passover.

J. Closeness to God v. holiness – How are these states of being distinguished from each other? Dependent on personal definitions so not an issue?

K. Getting closer to God - What actions bring us closer to God? Is it the action or the motivation/intent that brings us closer?

L. Feeling/being holy – Similarly, what actions make us holy? Is it the action or the motivation/intent that makes us holy?

M. Power of ritual and tradition – Constancy of ritual creates tradition which ties us to our ancestors. As we short-cut ritual, do we make it more difficult to get closer to God?

N. Passover v. Yom Kippur - 1) Similarities: a) Both represent new beginnings (Passover marks newly found freedom from slavery and Yom Kippur marks new year). b) Both focus on ritual which purifies and protects in eyes of God (Passover marks saving of Israelite first born from tenth plague and Yom Kippur marks sacrificial purification of Tabernacle, priests and Israelites). c) Both focus on recovery from something “bad” (Passover looks at redemption from slavery and Yom Kippur looks at atonement for sins) d) Other similarities? 2) Differences: a) God takes initiative re: Passover (God bringing Israelites out of slavery) whereas people take initiative re: Yom Kippur (seeking to atone for sins). b) Passover in Spring (when everything outside coming to life) whereas Yom Kippur in Fall (when everything outside beginning decline towards winter begins). c) Others?

III. Summary of K’doshim

A. K’doshim = (You shall be ) “holy” (for I, the Eternal your God, am) “holy”

B. God issues a broad variety of commandments (including ritual, ethical and interpersonal mandates as well as approximation of Decalogue), instructing the Israelites on how to be a holy people. (19:1-37)

C. Various other offenses (Molech-worship at 20:2-6, death for insulting parent at 20:9 and sex offenses at 20:10-21) are presented.

IV. Commentary on K’doshim (Plaut, various websites and prior Hevreh discussion)

A. Ten Commandments – Some note that Lev 19 sets out priestly version of Decalogue albeit in different order than Exodus 20 (though unlikely since 1) no explanation for missing commandments and 2) six scattered parallels outweighed by remainder of Ch. 19 which does not resemble Decalogue at all).

B. Chronological age v. wisdom – “You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old” (Leviticus 19:32) means that any aged person (“the aged”) needs to be respected as well as any person who portrays wisdom (“the old” as in an old soul).

C. Good v. bad rebuke - "You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account". (Leviticus 19:17) - Judaism requires us to rebuke others for their sins (pro-active side of Lashon H’ara). If not, we become responsible for the sins of those others; however, offering effective rebuke requires skill and sensitivity. Examples of poor rebuke = Korach accusing Moses and Aaron of placing themselves above the people, Aaron and Miriam try to reprove their brother Moses, by disparaging his wife. Korach, Miriam and Aaron are punished (inferno, skin ailment witnessing skin ailment). Example of good rebuke: five daughters of Zelophehad use reproof effectively (Numbers 27) to obtain inheritance from their father. They are rewarded, as their reproof is done with sensitivity and reverence.

D. Golden rule - "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am Adonai." Lev 19:18 Unlike the Golden Rule, which directs our actions, verse 18 seems to direct our feelings ... this verse might better be translated as caring - a hybrid of emotion and action in which our concern for ourselves is displaced by our concern for another.

E. Holiness – Biblical holiness does not refer to superior moral qualities. Nor is it defined by outward signs of piety, engaging in ritual practice or personal attitude. Holiness can be found only in our relationships with other people. It is revealed when we are just and compassionate. It is manifest when we are respectful of others and ethical in our behavior.

F. Pais, beards and tattoos - Lev 19:27-28 (“shall not round side growth of head or destroy side growth of beard” … don’t “incise any marks on yourselves”) = basis of prohibition against tattoos and orthodox requirements of beards and pais.

G. Sha’atnez – Wool and linen are woven together in priestly garments and tzitzit, i.e. taboo for mundane but not for sacred garments. Consider as part of more general set of separateness rules, e.g. not sowing field with two kinds of seeds (20:19), not breeding two kinds of animals (20:19). Setting apart pure beast from impure (20:25). Suggests we should not “create” anything other than what God had created?

H. Personal responsibility – You in “you” shall be holy” (19:2) suggests personal responsibility of every individual to be holy.

I. Prohibited v. encouraged imitations of God - Plaut notes that Lev 19 “remarkably” summons Israelites to imitate God and so become holy. Contra, prohibition of getting too close to God or attempting to become God-like.

J. Degrees of holiness? – Distinguish holiness as an emotional and religious experience from acting “appropriately”. Does acting ethically make one (more) holy? Does compliance with rituals make one (more) holy?

K. Basis of organization of rules – Parasha seems to set out rules for virtually all types of behavior rules. Is this simply a catch-all function with message that God impacts all aspects of our lives? Is there a basis for distinguishing this parasha from previous and subsequent parasha?

L. False idols – Worshiping false God/spirit via giving offspring (sacrifice) to Molech (Lev 20:1) punishable by death. Why limited to Molech? As an example only, i.e. is this verse about Molech only or false idols and improper sacrifice generally?

M. Set apart – “I … set you apart from other people”. (Lev 20:24) – Concept of separateness runs throughout Torah … beginning from creation’s separation of water from land (Gen 1:6) and day from night (Gen 1:14). Distinguish separateness (“chosenness”) to requirement to love each stranger “as yourself” (Lev 19:33) … everyday fairness (end to itself) v. holy behavior (end = closeness to God)?

(Revised 5/4/08)

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Leviticus Tazria & M'tzora (Double Portion)

Tazria and M’tzora (Double Portion)
Leviticus 12:1 – 13:59
Leviticus 14:1 – 15:33

I. Summary of Tazria

A. Tazria = (when a woman at) “childbirth” (bears a male)

B. Parasha defines priest’s role in identifying and purifying (but not treating) physical conditions that result in ritual impurities.

C. God describes the rituals of purification for a woman after childbirth (new mother cannot enter Tabernacle). (12:1-8)

D. God sets forth the methods for diagnosing and purifying a variety of skin diseases, including tzara-at (a leprous “affection”), as well as methods for purifying affections of clothing. Persons declared by priests to have tzara-at separated from community. (13:1-59)

II. Commentary on Tazria (Plaut, various websites and prior Hevreh discussions)

A. Black or white v. gray - Parasha takes an "either/or" approach to tzara-at, i.e. entirely normal skin and entirely discolored skin indicate clean, but patchy discoloration indicates unclean; however, this either/or, black-or-white mind-set may prevent us from seeing important nuances—call them "shades of gray".

B. Separation from community - Lev. 13:46 ("Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp") assumes that a problem with one individual affects the whole community. When we send someone “outside of the community”, are we doing it to protect ourselves or to protect the individual? This raises two important ethical teachings: 1) do not separate yourself from the community and 2) all Israel is responsible one for the other.

C. Excerpt from Rabbi Debbie Zecher’s on-line D’var Torah (1998) – Circumstances of the times perhaps justified concepts we find difficult to accept today … uncleanness following childbirth, blood purification, different time periods based on the birth of a boy or a girl, and sin offerings after the birth of a child. Long ago, the physical stresses of childbirth and the care needed by a newborn demanded total attention and time away from the activities and needs of the rest of the community. It was not a state of uncleanness (as we might interpret the word today) but a state of inaccessibility to what was considered sacred by the community as a whole.

D. Restricted activity on occasion of birth of a boy v. girl - Since all births were regarded as frightening, the birth of a female who will also be capable of giving birth (in the future) was considered doubly frightening. This implies that there is something unique and powerful about bringing only women together … whether it be at birth or as adults. Also, the boy must be circumcised on the eighth day. As a result, the boy leaves the community of women and, through a distinctly male ritual, enters into the community of men. All this indicates that time must be allowed for both male and female "bonding."

E. Disease of superficiality - Jews in ancient times were afraid of skin disease and had an elaborate system to deal with it. So, too, we should be afraid of the skin-deep disease that is the lure of superficiality.

F. The “magic” of ritual - The ritual of declaring a person to be "clean" again was more than just an announcement by the priests that the “patient” was now disease-free (though priests only declared “disease” present or absent … they never treated disease). It had the power to reinstate the despised, the rejected, and the outcast as a full community member. By means of the priestly ritual, an outsider's social status was transformed. The ritual made something happen by declaring it to be so.

G. Characteristics of impurities – 1) Ritual impurities are distinct from their causes. They come from those conditions whereunder the forces of life escape from the body. 2) Conditions causing impurities have no moral significance … it is simply a fact of nature. 3) It is not a sin to become impure; however, it is a sin not to dispose of impurity (via purification from priest) thereby allowing impurity to spread (too much impurity in community will drive away God).

H. Lashon harah – Viewing tzara-at as punishment for a sin grows from midrash which recast the word metzora (“leper” and name of next parasha) into motzi shem ra, one who spreads evil words. Contra, difficulty in viewing physical ailment as punishment.

I. Anthropological view of disease leading to determination of uncleanness - If you are afflicted by certain diseases, it is because you are infected with impurity, not possessed by demons. Disease or barrenness is not the fault of the victim. It was the work of the later commentators to read good and bad into the divisions between pure and impure.

J. Purpose of purification rituals – Protect community (re-integration)? Protect individual (opportunity to repent)? Carry out mandate of God?

K. Why the priests? - Could lay people have carried out same rituals, i.e. was there anything inherent in priests’ knowledge and/or position that said only priests could carry out rituals? Just as prayer replaced sacrifice (and most of priestly role folded into responsibilities of all as a nation of priests), did priests’ ability to purify evolve into an individual’s obligation for teshuvah and mitzvot?

L. Priests’ decisions - Were judgments of priests at all subjective? Were their judgments = judgments from God? Priestly judgments carried responsibility of being “correct.” Did priests carry out these rituals because Israelites not yet ready for such responsibilities?

M. Uncleanness – In Torah, being unclean is not necessarily being germ-laden, unhygienic, etc. but rather simply not pure. Segues into impurity of today’s immoral behavior as apt analogy. In turn, leads to today’s obligation of individual (as part of nation of priests, inheritor of priestly responsibility to purify uncleanness) to purify “unclean” behavior, e.g. lashon harah requires one to take active steps to stop another from engaging in malicious gossip/slander.

N. Separation from community OK for “just” purposes – Can/should standards for determining if a separation is just vary with circumstances, e.g. “norms” acceptable at the moment and/or higher purposes? Applying it to today, what about rendition of mere suspects (“unclean” by today’s standards?) in light of fight against terrorism? Should separation be justified by opinion (what about differing opinions?), motive (what about conflicting priorities?) or fact (what about differing perceptions of what actually exists?)

O. Intentionally v. unintentionally created conditions – Should it make a difference (re: separation) whether an impurity is or is not a result of something within an individual’s control?

III. Summary of M’tzora

A. M’tzora = leper

B. Describes three-stage ritual to cure tzara-at when it afflicts humans (priest’s announcement of completed cure, cleaning of individual on 7th day and sacrifice on 8th day including priest putting blood on ear, thumb and toe). (14:1-32)

C. Describes rituals to rid dwelling places of tzara-at (questionable whether it ever occurred). (14:33-57)

D. Denotes male impurities resulting from a penile discharge or seminal emission. (15:1-18)

E. Concludes with accounts of female impurities caused by a discharge of blood. (15:19-33)

IV. Commentary on M’tzora (Plaut, various websites and prior Hevreh discussions)

A. Equal v. proportionate acts - M'tzora distinguishes among the kinds of sacrifice to be brought by “leper”, based on the leper's economic position. Suggests that there are obligations that fall on every member of society that ought to be apportioned on a sliding scale and in ways that are fair to everyone v. sliding scale doesn’t prevent perception of lesser giving so Exodus 30:15 required every person to give exactly a half-shekel of silver when census is taken, (shows that all people, by virtue of their humanity, share a basic equality).

B. Lashon Hara - Midrash recasts the word metzora to mean motzi shem ra, one who spreads evil words. Spreading of lashon hara is viewed as identical to the spilling of blood. Tzara-at is punishment of the soul for committing sin of lashon hara (in Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron publicly chastised Moses for some unmentioned aspect of his relationship with a Cushite woman and, as a result of that public rebuke, Miriam broke out in tzara-at).

C. Cause v. symptom - Discussions of M’tzora generally revolve around one of two topics: 1) the horrendous disease of leprosy (onset of tzara-at indicates that God has departed from sufferer) as the punishment for l'shon harah, harmful language, and 2) the "otherness" of both the outcast lepers and even the kohanim in their roles as health inspectors-healers. However, efforts to purify must address underlying cause rather than just the symptoms.

D. Re-entering community - The ritual requiring the purified individual to remain outside his dwelling for seven days after his separation reminds us that it takes time to reenter the world following the isolation of illness. It takes time to adjust to a new identity. This ritual serves to publicly introduce the individual to his community: He is welcomed as a "new" person. There is a need to “re-embrace” those who have recovered from illness and injury.

E. "House" = community - Many communities need repair and attention for them to be safely inhabitable again and become centers of life instead of centers of blight. Our responsibility as Jews requires us to purge our own homes of the plagues that might affect them, to assume responsibility for the guilt we may carry into our houses, and to repair and restore all the dwelling places in our own communities.

F. Blood on ear, thumb and toe - Priest putting blood on ear, thumb and toe in tazar-at purification ritual is same ritual as consecration of priest. Ear = words are judged by hearing. Thumb = hand is the symbol of action. Toe = foot is the pilgrimage of life”. Alternative = ear thumb and toe is symbolic of covering entire body without submersion.

G. Body and soul as one - Viewing the body and soul as one suggests that tzara-at is a malady of the soul as well as the body. Accordingly, purification and cure needs to address body and soul.

H. What looks bad can be good - When a person breaks out in a rash or a fever, although things look bad, it's actually a sign that the body is eliminating toxins, and going through a cleansing process. We can apply this idea to our own lives. Sometimes it seems like we're burdened by difficulties and confusion. In one sense, this a positive sign - the toxins are all rising to the surface, as a precursor to purification.

I. Mary Douglas (Leviticus as Literature) - Leviticus reveals itself as modern religion, legislating for justice between people, God and animals. The body of the worshipper is made analogous to the sanctuary and the altar: whatever will render the altar impure will do the same for the Israelite’s body (justifies Tzara-at as punishment for sin).

J. Where is the impurity? - Male and female maladies involve release of bodily fluids. Is impurity in the fluid itself (given that blood historically seen as life force, cleansing oneself of impurity is a physical process rather than a spiritual process)? in the underlying condition (v. physical malady = punishment for being impure)? in the person (with the malady simply being a flag that the person is impure)?

K. Alternative to priestly purification rituals - Could individual expel impurity without priestly ritual? Is simply changing behavior not enough? Was direct appeal to God feasible?

L. Process v. end result – Specificity of required rituals suggests that the process is more important than the purification objective (which seems to be improper priority).

M. Distinctiveness of lashon hara - Why is lashon hara the only improper behavior specifically discussed as attached to tzara-at (especially since the linkage is built on midrashic interpretation of word root of metzora … a stretch). Does this give lashon hara some special significance, i.e. is lashon hara a particularly bad thing?

N. Tzara-at ritual as a mandate to repent - Given that commentators note that tzara-at rarely, if ever, showed up on dwelling, can entire tzara-at purification ritual simply be a mandate to seek forgivance from God for sin? Suggests that while sinning is not good, it is repentance (teshuva) that really counts.
(Revised 4/21/08)

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Lev 3 Sh'mini

Sh’mini
Leviticus 9:1 – 11:47

I. Summary

A. Sh’mini = (On the) “eighth” (day, Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel).

B. On the last day of the eight day ceremony to dedicate the Tabernacle, Moses instructs Aaron and Aaron’s sons to assume their priestly duties by making three offerings: a sin offering for himself (Aaron), a burnt offering for the people and a peace offering. God appears and a miraculous flame consumes the sacrifice on the altar. (9:1-24)

C. Two of Aaron's four sons, Nadab and Abihu, offer "alien fire" to God. God punishes these two priests by killing them immediately. In response, Aaron is silent (Hebrew can also be translated as “still”). (10:1-3)

D. Moses orders two cousins of Aaron’s deceased sons to carry their dead cousins out of the camp. Moses (on behalf of God?) forbids Aaron and Aaron’s surviving two sons (Eleazar and Ithamar) from mourning but commands the rest of the people to do so. (10:4-7)

E. God commands Aaron and his sons not to drink alcohol before entering the sacred Tabernacle asking them to distinguish between sacred and profane. (10:8-11)

F. Moses further instructs Aaron and Aaron’s surviving sons on minchah (meal) and sh’lamim (well-being) offerings. Moses gets angry with Aaron and Aaron’s sons when they do not eat the entire sin purgation offering (as they were instructed to do by Moses) because they were in mourning. Aaron points out to Moses that God would not want mourners to fully partake in the sacrifice. Moses agrees with Aaron. (10:12-20)

G. God sets out rules for which creatures may and may not be eaten. God distinguish between pure and impure (inedible) animals, birds, fish, and insects. (11:1-23)

H. God describes to Moses and Aaron the rules of impurity (things that are inherently impure, how someone or something becomes impure and how impurity ends). (11:24-47)

II. Commentary (Plaut, URJ website, Jewish Study Bible and prior Hevreh discussions)

A. Why God killed Nadab and Abihu – A number of possibilities: 1) In arrogantly doing something not prescribed by God (igniting altar fire) and which possibly was intended to be done by God, they were trespassing on authority of God. 2) They got too close to God which resulted in instantaneous death (affirming sanctity is ultimately about maintaining limits and boundaries … a reason why religious fanaticism is almost always held suspect). 3) They entered the sanctuary drunk (hence God’s specific instruction to Aaron in 10:9 after death of Aaron’s sons not to drink when entering Tabernacle). 4) They refused to marry and have children because they felt that no woman was good enough for them. 5) In refusing to ask for advice from their elders or each other, they displayed unforgivable haughtiness. 6) They became so spiritually close to the Divine that they physically ascended to be with God (only positive spin). Different approach that does not require a specific reason for their death is that their death was not God’s punishment but rather it simply happened when the sons lit the fire.

B. Aaron’s silence at death of sons –Was Aaron’s silence in the face of his sons’ wrongful acts (and resulting deaths) also wrong? Contra, Aaron’s silence was 1) his personal struggle to come to terms with tragedy of his sons’ death and/or 2) indication of Aaron’s evolution as a priest in that Aaron had to separate his priestly duties from his personal issues. Alternative translation of Hebrew = “still”. This suggests possibility that Aaron was shell-shocked into immobility (and silence?) by death of his sons. Further suggests that 1) Aaron may not have been silent and 2) issue of why Aaron was silent was moot.

C. Emotional make-up of Aaron and Moses - Moses appears estranged from his sons, who have no role in his life. Aaron has four sons who will inherit his mantle, two of whom have just been killed in front of him. There seems to be no acknowledgement of these facts, only a focus on ritual behavior. Did their leadership (and closeness to God) insulate them from harsh day-to-day realities of their personal lives?

D. Cloven hoof requirement - The parted hoof represents the duality of life. Judaism celebrates duality: land/heavens, light/darkness, humanity/God, holy/profane, Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Rachel/Leah, Joseph/his brothers, Moses/Aaron, Shabbat/the workday week. The parted hoof is the symbol of our sense of life.

E. Cud chewing requirement - Cud chewing repeats the theme of division because it calls to mind the bifurcated stomach. Compare to student chewing over newly received knowledge ... such repetition is necessary for student to understand and internalize significance of such knowledge.

F. Rationales for prohibition against not eating pork – 1) The hygienic argument that pig is a “filthy animal.” 2) The “pork is pagan” argument that the aboriginal Canaanites offered pig as a sacrifice in idolatrous worship. 3) The anthropological argument that the early Israelite community was attempting to distinguish itself from other populations by virtue of its dietary and eating habits. 4) The historical argument that Jews frequently gave their lives in circumstances which included pigs or pig references, e.g. i) ancestors tortured and forced to eat pig, ii) armies of Antiochus slaughtered pigs in the Jerusalem Temple in order to desecrate Temple and iii) Spanish Jews were called Marranos, “pigs” because they did not eat pig.

G. Rationales for prohibition against not eating predatory creatures – 1) Lest we prey on others. 2) Some of these animals were worshipped as gods and we deny their power by not ingesting them. 3) They once posed health risks. 4) They impose a discipline that separates us from common practices to make sure we retain our own practices since separation is part of what it means to be a holy people. Note similarity to rationales for not eating pork.

H. Connection between purification of the priests and the laws of kashrut – Both sections make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, clean and unclean, pure and impure, holy and the unholy. Our essential duty in life is to make such distinctions and act accordingly.

I. Kashrut as indicator of evolution of Israelite people - When God set out rules of kashrut, God arguably did so because God felt Israelites were then evolved enough to accept adherence to rules as means of getting closer to God.

III. What parasha may mean for us today

A. Being pure on the inside as well as on the outside - If an animal has split hooves (external physical trait) and brings up its own cud (internal physical trait), then it's kosher and can be eaten. A pig has split hooves but does not chew its own cud therefore is not kosher. This suggests that it's not enough for us to only act and appear proper on the outside, but we must also really be that way on the inside too, if we want to be 'kosher' good people.

B. Anger clouds judgment – Moses’ initial anger at Aaron and his sons for mourning followed by Moses’ acknowledgment of the propriety of their mourning (rather than carrying out sacrifice) tells us not to let anger get in the way of our judgment. Also suggests need to accept and deal with the death of a loved one.

C. Wrongful act v. rightful intention – Aaron’s two sons had the best of intentions when they went into the Tabernacle and chose to make an offering to God that they thought would be good to offer even though God, through Moses, had not asked them to do so. Despite their good intentions, the consequences of their actions were quite negative. Even good intentions don't justify doing something improperly.

D. Power of silence and self-control - Aaron remained silent when God killed two of his sons. He was able to control his tongue and accept his situation in dignified silence. We too, can tap into the power of silence, refrain from angrily speaking out when insulted or hurt and thereby reap the rewards that such self-control can bring.

E. Power of moderation - Nadab and Abihu had very specific instructions of just what to offer and how much. But they mistakenly reasoned that if they offered extra things to God it would be even better. While their intentions were good, they went overboard and ended up causing a lot of damage to themselves and to others. This shows the importance and value of moderation. Sometimes too much of a good thing can make things go bad.

F. Kashrut as a continuous reminder – Eating is a significant part of our daily routine. Kashrut therefore serves to continuously remind us to strive for a life of purity.

(Revised 4/19/09)

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Chol HaMo eid Pesach

Chol HaMo-eid Pesach

Exodus 33:12-34:26

Excerpted from Ki Tisa


  1. Summary

    1. Chol HaMo-eid Pesach = intermediate days of Pesach

    2. Moses wins God’s forgiveness and persuades God to personally lead the Israelites, i.e. reversing God’s previous decision not to lead (“I will not go in your midst” … Ex 33:3). Emboldened, Moses asks to see God. (33:12-18)

    3. God agrees to reveal God’s essential nature (“all My goodness”) to Moses but prohibits Moses from seeing God's face. God permits Moses to see only the shadow/back of God. (Ex 33:19-23)

    4. God instructs Moses to carve two tablets so that God can inscribe “the words that were on the first tablets” (though Moses ends up himself writing God’s words on tablets … 34:27). Moses carves the tablets and goes up the mountain again. (34:1-5)

    5. God reveals God's thirteen divine attributes to Moses on Mount Sinai: 1) compassion for a person about to sin, 2) compassion after a person sins and repents, 3) compassion for both Jews and non-Jews, 4) graciousness to those who have merit, 5) graciousness to those without merit, 6) patience with violators in hope they will repent, 7) kindness to those in need of kindness, 8) faithfulness to those who do God’s will, 9) remembering kindness for a thousand generations, 10) forgiving of deliberate wrongdoing, 11) forgiving of malicious rebellion, 12) forgiving of unintentional wrongdoing and 13) willingness to cancel punishment for those who are repentant and for their descendants. (34:6-7)

    6. Moses asks God to forgive Israelites (for golden calf) and to take back the Israelites “for Your own”.(Exod. 34:7-9)

    7. God agrees and renews the covenant but warns Moses against forming alliances with the inhabitants of the lands against which the Israelites will advance. (34:10-17)

    8. God commands the Israelites concerning the Pilgrimage Festivals (Shavuot, Sukkot, and Pesach). (34:18-26)

  2. Commentary (Plaut, URJ website, Jewish Study Bible and prior Hevreh discussions)

    1. Parasha’s connection to Pesach – 1) Literal reference to Pesach in 34:18. 2) Parasha tells of God’s renewal of covenant which completes delivery of Israelites from Egypt and gives us cause to extend the spirituality of the liberation we celebrate at Pesach to all times afterwards, i.e. increases our awareness of the godlike attributes we can and should portray in our lives. 3) Parasha shows Moses as an evolved, mature leader who led Israelites on their journey out of slavery. Passover recognizes that accomplishment and is our chance to embark on our own personal journeys to search for freedom, growth and deliverance from whatever enslaves us. 4) The experience of God passing by and revealing aspects of the Divine directly to Moses is a model of intimacy that is also appropriate for Pesach in that Pesach celebrates our closeness to God as evidenced by God’s renewing the covenant with the Israelites.

    2. Moses’ seeing shadow of God – Having had his request to see God denied, Moses instead finds himself humbly bowing low in the cleft of a rock. Some say that all Moses really saw was the shadow that falls on our lives when God is no longer there. He was able to distinguish between those actions and situations that are filled with holiness and those that are not. Others say God's presence may be perceived only after the fact, when we look back on the experiences of our lives. These interpretations recognize God’s acknowledgment the legitimacy of our need to be connected more directly to what is godly and to somehow “see” God's presence v. simply believing and having faith in God.

    3. Nature of God – Jewish tradition views Ex. 34:7 as setting out the 13 attributes of God v. Maimonides claims 13 attributes describes actions of God but not the nature of God, i.e. text only shows God was unknowable. “Adon Olam” in Jewish liturgy contains formulation of God’s nature. Further, is God a just God, who administers reward and punishment fairly according to what a person deserves? Or is God endlessly merciful, forgiving even the most heinous transgressors as long as they repent? Both must be true.

    4. Counting of the Omer - On day two of Passover, we begin the counting of the Omer, linking Pesach to Shavuot, revelation at Sinai. As we count for forty-nine days, we follow the path of redemption to the road of revelation, moving from physical freedom to spiritual freedom.

    5. Constancy of faith – Questioning of faith in God by Moses (indicated by his request of God to see God’s face as an expression of their ultimate and intimate relationship?) and by Israelites (in golden calf incident?) suggests that faith is not necessarily constant. Should we regularly test our faith, i.e. does periodic questioning and subsequent recovery of faith strengthen faith?

    6. Tablets as object – Note irony of tablets given by God being tangible object representative of God and covenant (approximates prohibited idol).

    7. Moses on Mount Sinai - Why did Moses need to go up on a mountain and be alone to meet with God? What was so special about all of this that he had to be completely isolated from the Israelites? Was it a purely spiritual journey (up on the mountain all by himself with no food or water but just listening to God)?

  3. What parasha may mean for us today

  1. Extending impact of Pesach - Use Pesach not only to commemorate Israelite redemption from slavery but also as motivation for future personal behavior that reflects qualities of Moses and attributes of God.

  2. Dealing with authority – Moses’ “negotiation” with God suggests we respect authority but also stand up to authority for what we believe is right and just (tempered by 1) need to recognize greater good outweighing personal preference and 2) possibility of poor personal judgment).

  3. Power of prayer - Moses' prayers (his requests of God) allowed the Israelites a second chance and saved them from destruction by God. Similarly, we can improve our lives by tapping into the power of prayer.

  4. Importance of mercy and forgiveness - God giving Israelites a second chance through the second set of tablets and renewal of covenant demonstrates the importance of mercy and forgiveness. God’s behavior tells us 1) we can recover from our mistakes and 2) we should show same merciful and forgiving behavior as God showed to Israelites.

  5. Renewal - Pesach is observed in the spring when nature is renewing itself. We can also renew ourselves by realizing that repentance and forgiveness are available to us during the entire year.


(Revised 4/7/09)