Weekly Torah from Jeremy Rosen

This blog has moved

2010-03-04T16:23:00.001-08:00

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

2010-03-04T16:20:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-25T18:43:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-18T20:26:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-11T21:26:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-04T13:53:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-28T18:51:00.000-08:00

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.

Bo

2010-01-21T18:34:00.000-08:00

The slow process of getting Pharaoh to change his mind and let the people go continues.

There are two overriding issues. Why does the process take so long, with so many false hopes and miracles that failed to have the desired impact, and why does it take so long for Pharaoh to change his mind?

Every process in the Torah takes time. God may make promises, humans may make resolutions, but the world of human interaction is one where immediate results are rarely achieved. Relationships take time to develop, good ones and bad ones.

God tries different ways of impressing Moses at the Burning Bush--fire, snakes, leprosy, and then rational argument. Similarly, Moses tries a series of ways of trying to persuade the greatest most powerful king on earth that a small, God-inspired nation should be taken seriously. It is a game of trial and error. At first Pharaoh is dismissive; then he begins to wonder. He half relents, but with conditions attached. His advisors wilt first and they try to persuade him to let the Israelites go. The campaign is waged against every level of Egyptian society with the aim of getting them to realize that there is something here to be taken seriously. And then it is too late. This is how we humans function. We think we can cope. We disregard the warning signs. And then wham.

And into this whole story of human reactions to disaster comes the legal instruction to keep the Pesach festival. The details of observance seem out of place. Yet it is through daily behavior that we train ourselves and we sensitize ourselves to be conscious of our actions in the hope that this will make us better people. The lesson to be drawn is that foresight, consideration, would have helped Pharaoh and his people. Similarly, they may help us, today, to lead more effective daily lives.

Vaeira

2010-01-14T23:51:00.000-08:00

The opening sentence of this week's parshah is one of the most interesting, theologically speaking, in the whole of the Torah. God is trying to reassure Moshe after his initial attempt to get Pharaoh's attention fails. He says, "I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, and my name, God, I had not made known to them." What does this mean? We have always assumed that Avraham had the ideal relationship with God. He was supposedly the first monotheist and the one for whom God engaged with mankind in general and the Jewish people specifically. There is no hint that there was something missing in Avraham's relationship.

But here the Torah is saying that hitherto there was something about God that they were not aware of. Traditionally, the explanation is that inherent in God's nature is the fact that he carries out His commitments. He had told Avraham that he would father vast numbers of children and that his children would be enslaved and then let free. But until that process had been completed, there was still an unfinished agenda. Now, says God, the promise would be kept.

However, the wording still implies that Avraham did not fully know God's name. The theological implication is that God is complex, and however close one gets there are still aspects that a human may be unaware of. Similarly, Moshe several times asks God for reassurance and clarification. So the way Avraham understood God was through his own experiences, and Yitzchak through his, Yaakov through his, and Moshe through his. And we through ours. God works through history, and it is through history that we see what happens to the Jewish people, for better or for worse. But parallel with that flow of history is our own personal history and it is this which defines our relationship with God.

Shemot

2010-01-07T14:43:00.000-08:00

It seems strange that a new king came to the throne who was unaware of Yosef. After all, Yosef had been instrumental in saving the nation from disaster, and not only that, but he concentrated power in Pharaoh’s hands and consolidated the monarchy.

One traditional response is that he pretended not to know. Very often we feel embarrassed by the extent of our indebtedness and we try to escape an obligation by "forgetting". Although this is a view expressed in a Midrash that is two thousand years old, it is one of Freud’s important "discoveries" that we often forget that which is uncomfortable to remember.

Another suggestion is that this was indeed a new king. New dynasties often try to obliterate the memory of those who came before, particularly if they achieved power by revolution. Freud was fascinated by Moses; in his book Moses and Monotheism, he suggested that when Ahknaton overthrew the old dynasty he established a new monotheistic regime. Moses got the idea from him, so that when Moses was overthrown and was out of favor with the new regime, he took up with the Jews and became their leader.

Most Egyptologists reject the idea that Ahknaton was a monotheist. And Freud’s theory includes the strange but very Freudian notion that the Jews assassinated Moses (as sons want to remove their fathers so that they can have their mothers to themselves) and then "re-created" a new legend.

But the idea that Ahknaton's coup would explain the negative attitude to Yosef has some supporters. As indeed does the theory that the Hyksos who invaded Egypt were sympathetic to shepherds and thus to the sons of Yaakov, unlike the returning old dynasty who saw the sons of Yaakov as a Fifth Column.

From our point of view, the issue is not the past so much as the future, and oppression of the new regime is the painful catalyst to the emergence of a new nation. The message is relevant today.

Vayechi

2009-12-27T12:19:00.000-08:00

No personality in the Torah seems to have more impact after his death than Yaakov. In his final speech he sets out different roles for each tribe and decides that Judah will be the primary tribe and dispossesses Reuven, the firstborn. He sets the tone for the future of the Jewish people.

But the first act he does in this process, on his deathbed, is to switch the position of Menasheh, the first of Yosef’s sons, and Efraim, the younger. Yosef protests, but Yaakov insists. He changes the position of his hands, putting his right hand, the preferred one, on Efraim, the younger son.

Does Yosef protest because he has experienced the consequences of preferential treatment and does not want them repeated? Is it because, as did Yitzchak, he wants to stand by the firstborn regardless? Either way, Yaakov insists on the idea of merit. Yaakov was not the firstborn, so it is natural that he wants to express his belief that personal qualities should decide, rather than the accident of birth.

On the one hand, we have been given the notion of priesthood, of election, that birth confers automatic responsibility and duty. On the other hand, the prophetic tradition was one that stressed personal qualities that had nothing to do with birth or status. The automatic priesthood failed until Ezra imposed restraints and a sort of constitution. And out of Ezra’s innovations emerged the rabbinic tradition, which has now become the essence of Jewish religious life. It seems that history has supported Yaakov's notion of meritocracy.