This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://jeremyrosenparshah.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://jeremyrosenparshah.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Ki Tisa

Moshe is up the mountain receiving the tablets of stone. Yehoshua is halfway up attending on Moshe, and Aharon and Chur are down below. When Moshe delays returning, panic sets in and "the people" come to Aharon and ask for an idol to represent God.

The delay could surely not have been in itself the cause of the need to create a golden calf. The need for images must have been very deeply ingrained. Hardly surprising, given the many animal gods of Egypt, and the Middle East in general. There must have been a current of discontent running through the camp long before. And of course we know how fractious the people had been even within days of crossing the Red Sea.

And what happened to Chur? He is never mentioned again. The Midrash suggests that he tried to stop the protesters and was murdered. That was why Aharon was so compliant.

When Moshe hears what is going on, he immediately appeals to God to suspend judgment. He gets nearer and sees the calf and smashes the tablets in anger. In anger? Or because the covenant with God had been broken, anyway, by the calf worshippers. He then conducts his enquiry. Decides it was a minority inspired deviation. Restores order and returns to God.

Normality is soon restored. The people in general are not punished. Why is it, therefore, that later on when the ten spies come back with a frightened report on the Land of Israel, and the people are terrified, they are punished as a nation altogether and made to wander for forty years until the fainthearted are all dead?

It seems that having problems understanding the nature of God is not as problematic as actually refusing to follow God and trusting. The Golden Calf people just didn't understand the nature of God. They said, "These are the gods who took you out of Egypt." Sure, they knew they had just made it themselves. In the final, analysis behavior counts. It is not so much what you think, as what you do.

Tetzaveh

This week’s reading goes in detail into the special clothes the priests and the High Priests wore, which actually form the basis of Christian clerical ceremonial dress to this day. In practice, the priesthood did not quite work out in Jewish history the way it was intended to. Moshe appointed his brother, Aharon, to be the High Priest responsible for performing the Tabernacle rituals, who in turn appointed his sons. The other families of priests were all related. Aharon was also responsible for heading the judiciary and for being the keeper of the tradition.

But the priesthood was always a dangerous role. Aharon’s two sons were burned to death. By Samuel’s time the priesthood was being abused; throughout the reigns of the kings of Judah, some were noble and acted for the good of Judaism, but others were political. The prophets became the main standard bearers of Jewish life. When Ezra arrived in Israel after the return from Babylon he found a discredited priesthood that had largely married out.

We have managed with priests only being symbolic for two thousand years. What values can we learn from them? We all need examples to look up to. After all, the Jewish people were expected to live a really spiritual life to show it was possible to follow God and yet still play an important role in everyday life. The priests were supposed to be similar examples within Judaism.

There are lots of situations in the Torah where high standards are set, even though it seems almost inevitable that people will fail. But understanding failure does not mean we shouldn’t aim high. The priesthood is a reminder that humans are different, have different roles, and yet still are subject to one moral code, even if there are different ritual functions according to sex or birth.

Terumah

The chapters we read this week are all about building the Tabernacle. Why were so many chapters devoted to what was, after all, a rather magnificent collapsible community center?

Even if we say that the Tabernacle was the temporary "House of God" before people would get a chance to build a permanent Temple, why did God need a house or a physical base, altogether? Isn’t God everywhere?

Any community needs to have a center, either in the form of a person or in the form of a location, and usually both. The tabernacle was the focal point, the meeting place, the law courts. It was the market square as well as the center for worship. But it was also the seat of leadership.

There can be strong, charismatic leadership. One might have thought that Moses was such a person, and yet we are constantly reminded of his inability to express himself. We see several times how frustrated he gets, how he needs Aaron and, more frequently, God. So the Tabernacle became the symbol that it was God who was the real leader, rather than Moses.

This is all the more significant because the commentators argue as to when the Tabernacle was built. Some say it was designed and ordered before the Golden Calf incident, because this is the sequence of events as written down in the Torah. Others see it as a response that came after. If it was built after, it could be seen as an antidote, as a concession to the people's need to have a physical presence to symbolize God's leadership. If it was built beforehand, then its significance becomes functional. It was designed primarily as the community center and only incidentally did God choose to signify His presence with the pillars of cloud and fire.

Mishpatim

The Torah is often accused of being a legalistic document rather than an expression of spirituality. Of course only biased reading could overlook the presence of God dominating every aspect of the Torah.

But it is true that one aspect of the Torah does indeed focus on behavior--after all, this is something that we all do! But the impression created by behavioral guidelines is often one of arid, harsh legalism. Look at this week's parsha--all those "Thou Shall Nots" and all those "Put him to death" bits. It does not make pleasant reading, unless you are prepared to take a much closer look.

So, for example, circumstantial evidence is not acceptable in a Jewish court of law dealing with capital offences. In England people have been hanged for murder after having been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and it was later determined that at least some of those hanged were innocent! Not only does Jewish law require actual witnesses, but it also requires two of them. It also requires evidence that the perpetrator had been officially warned about both the crime and the punishment. In effect, you would have to be a suicidal maniac to get convicted under Jewish law. Indeed, Rabbi Akiva famously said that a Beth Din that put one person to death in seventy years would be a Beth Din with blood on their hands!

And as for "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", this statement cannot possibly be taken at face value. What would a judge have done with a toothless man who had knocked out the tooth of another? There must have been some supplementary code of practical guidance for judges. The Oral Law says that the context in Torah proves that the law is talking about financial compensation.

The traditional position is right. You cannot understand the Written Law without the Oral!

Yitro

The focal point of this sedra is the revelation on Sinai that is called The Ten Commandments. Actually, they are not commandments as such, rather principles, which is why in Hebrew they are called the Ten Statements. Dibrot, not Mitzvot. At one stage they were read in the Temple and were part of the daily service. But the rabbis excluded them because they believed that people had come to think that only these ten were essential and the rest of the Torah was less important. This was also why some objected to standing when this chapter is read from the Torah.

None of the ten can stand by itself as an effective law without a lot of clarification. Does murder include self-defense, or war, or accident? Nevertheless, these principles have remained the essential formulation of basic morality and spirituality, not only for Jews but indeed for the whole world, because no other formulation has superseded them and they have been adopted, more or less as they are, by all the monotheistic religions.

Surprising, therefore, that this sedra is named after a non-Jew: Yitro, the priest of Midian, who also happened to be the father-in-law of Moses. He has heard of the exodus and now feels it safe to bring Moses' wife and two children from the safety of Midian to be reunited. On his visit he sees how overworked Moses is and advises him to delegate. Moses accepts his recommendations. Twelve times the Torah repeats his title as father-in-law of Moses, stressing respect both for the man and his position. Even in the very sedra where the Jewish people are given their specific religious constitution, there is room to remind everyone that we are not the only people on earth. Even with regard to a priest of another religion, we are bound not only to respect the person but also take his advice and opinions with consideration.

Beshalach

The Children of Israel are not just allowed to go out of Egypt, they are ejected. Out of consideration for their morale, they are taken a roundabout route so as to avoid facing armed opposition on the short coastal journey to Israel. Their apparent confusion encourages Pharaoh to recover his arrogance and give chase. The Israelites are trapped with their backs to the sea as the enemy advances. Miraculously, Moses leads them through the Red Sea. The Egyptians are drowned. Safely on the other side, they break into song to celebrate.

You might have thought that having seen what happened to the Egyptians in Egypt, and again at the Red Sea, there would not be one dissenting voice and everyone would be absolutely convinced of the existence and the power of God--yet immediately afterwards the complaints begin.

Three days without water is perhaps reasonable grounds. But why gang up against Moses instead of a reasoned discussion of the problem? Moses sweetens water for them at Marah, and at Eilim there are wells and date palms. But then the moaners start again, complaining about the food. One might have had some sympathy were it not for the fact that they said how wonderful it had been in Egypt. Nevertheless, down comes the manna, and whatever one might think about a daily diet of neutral sesame wafers, at least they were not dying of hunger. Yet once again the complaints start up against Moses over water.

Some apologists want to suggest that the mixed multitude hangers-on who joined the exodus were to blame, but the text implies a much wider groundswell of discontent. Isn't it amazing? They experience the reality of God time after time and they still don't get it. Times haven't changed much for us Jews, have they? We are an ungrateful, moaning bunch of doubters who wouldn't face reality even if it came and tapped us on the shoulder.