Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

Among the subjects explored in the monologues were: coming of age in Israel; Israel as a young woman’s first love; falling in love with Israeli culture, Israeli food and even Israeli cats; a New Yorker’s experience of serving in the Israeli army; being in dialogue with Israel; separating from Israel and how to say goodbye.

Fundamentalist Christians place great importance on the Decalogue, which they call the 10 Commandments (in Hebrew it is 10 utterances). They want to place it in schools and courthouses, to remind everyone, presumably, to keep the Sabbath. What they may not know and certainly don’t mention, is that Jews count the commandments differently. Moreover, the version in Exodus 20 is different from the version in Deuteronomy 5. Which of the four varieties do they want to post?

I have written an article for a friend’s blog which deals with one of these differences. Is Shabbat a day of remembering that God rested on the seventh day of Creation (Exodus), or is it a day to keep holy because we were freed from being slaves in Egypt(Deut.)? In other words, is Shabbat a day to be kept (Shomer Shabbat, Deut.) or remembered (Zokher Shabbat, Ex.)? In separating out the different strands of how the Torah approaches Shabbat, I will attempt to deconfound part of the Azeret haDibrot (10 utterances).

See how I work with the Shomer Shabbat system of Halakha to create a system Zekhirat Shabbat HERE.

A number of years ago I was preparing to read Torah. I noticed a number of different section in this parashah had a different cadence and theme than the rest. At the time, I was trying to learn Yemini cantillation. So, I chanted Dt. 2:10-13, 20-23 in a different trope. Nobody noticed, but I have thought about it since then.

2:10 It was formerly inhabited by the Emim, a people great and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. 11 Like the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim. 12 Similarly, Seir was formerly inhabited by the Horites; but the descendants of Esau dispossessed them, wiping them out and settling in their place, just as Israel did in the land they were to possess, which the Lord had given to them. —

2:20 It, too, is counted as Rephaim country. It was formerly inhabited by Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zamzummim, 21 a people great and numerous and as tall as the Anakites. The Lord wiped them out, so that [the Ammonites] dispossessed them and settled in their place, 22 as He did for the descendants of Esau who live in Seir, when He wiped out the Horites before them, so that they dispossessed them and settled in their place, as is still the case. 23 So, too, with the Avvim who dwelt in villages in the vicinity of Gaza: the Caphtorim, who came from Crete, wiped them out and settled in their place. —

3:9 Sidonians called Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir — 10 all the towns of the Tableland and the whole of Gilead and Bashan as far as Salcah and Edrei, the towns of Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 11 Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim. His bedstead, an iron bedstead, is now in Rabbah of the Ammonites; it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide, by the standard cubit!

(See also Gen 6:1-4 14:5, 15:20, 36:20, Josh 3:13, 13:13, MAP)

In the book of Numbers, we read quotes from the book of Wars of YHWH. In Joshua and other books, we read of the book of Yashar. In the book of Kings, we read of the Chronicles of the Kings. So, it is not uncommon for the Bible to quote other books. Sometimes the poems, such as Exodus 15 or Numbers 21:27-30 are quoted without reference. I believe these two sections in Dt. 2 were copied from another source.

I will not write, now, about textual criticism, however. I will write about the function these sections serve in explaining Israel’s conquering its northern border.

Emim, Refaim, Zamzumim words of fear, more on this later.

Yehi retzono shel manhig haolam lehafkiah einei hasonim vetokfim, leharbot shalvah veshaanan beolam velehafshir hafsharot tovot al kol mahklokot bein shehem lesheim shamayim, o lo lesheim shamayam. Ve she nire shalom veyehesim tovim bimhera beyamenu, amen

May it be the will of the ruler of the world to open the eyes of the haters and attackers, to increase tranquility and repose in the world and to make good compromises whether for the sake of heaven or not for the sake of heaven. and that we should see peace and good relations soon in our days. amen

Chapter 31 begins with God commanding Moses’s last act, to correct (NQM M) what the Midianites did, and to separate out fighters in order to reprove (NQM B) Midian for their sin. These two uses of NQM in parallel teach the intent of the bloodshed that follows, to return the Israelites to God by punishing the Midianites. (note: parallel)

While the story as written is unlikely to be historical, it nonetheless shows a middle stage in the relationship between Israel and the wide-ranging kingdoms of Midian. When Moses was young, he lived among them and married a Midianite priest’s daughter. Her father maintained strong ties to Moses (Exodus 19).

In this story all Midianite men and female non-virgins are killed (while the virgins may be married). By the time of Ezra and Nehemia, any intermarriage with the surrounding nations was prohibited. (Deuteronomy lays out different conditions for taking women in war).

That being said, if the sin in this story is related to Bilaam and Baal Peor (an idol), then why the later complete prohibition of marriage with other nations under Ezra and Nehemia. In the story of Dinah and Schechem (Gen 34:21), for example, intermarriage is seen as a exemplary of a peaceful relationship, just as Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai later intermarried (Eruvin 13b?) in Deut 7:3

3 You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. 4 For they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the Lord’s anger will blaze forth against you and He will promptly wipe you out. 5 Instead, this is what you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire.
6 For you are a people

Only the Moabites and Moabites are completely forbidden to intermarry, for a historical sin Yevamot 76b (except Ruth and Orpah 4:13). The Bible seems to have a mixed message on intermarriage. Joseph married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen 41:45), so presumably, idol worship wasn’t a forbidden trait in wives then.

Going back to the parashah, what had the Midanites done to deserve a virtual genocide? If the crime was sexual licentiousness on the part of Midianite women and Israelite men, why are the Midianite men killed? Is the tradition correct that Bilaam asked the Midianite women to engage in cultic sex with the Israelite men at Baal Peor (San. 106a; Yer. ib. x. 28d; Num. R. l.c.) ? Shouldn’t the punishment then be to anyone involved in the act, not just the non-virgins? Isn’t collective punishment, especially collective near genocide something to be frowned upon? How could God command this as Moses’s last act?

It is strange, by comparison, that everyone who worshipped the Golden Calf was killed, but not all Israelite men who cohabited with Midianite women were killed.

Looking at the quasi-historicity of the text, it appears that later events, perhaps in the time of Judges (21:10-12) recast the story to tell the contemporary audience of the importance of monotheism, of worshipping YHWH— not as even later texts would consider it as a matter of intermarriage.

To summarize, the writers of the early Bible (Torah, Neviim), saw deviance from strict monotheistic worship as a captial offense. Anything that diluted the Godly purity of the Israelite people would be punished. Foreign worship (עבודה זרה, עכו”ם) not only led away from God, it made you a bad person. Since Israel became a nation, the writers of the Bible were concerned with not just a loss of belief in God, but a loss of the moral system that such a belief necessitates (Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.) Viewed in that light, where the Torah sees foreign worship as immoral for Israelites (Deut 4:19), we begin to understand the severity of the crime.

In today’s terms, though breaking with the Jewish people should not be considered a capital offense, we can perhaps use the metaphor that moral behavior is Jewish behavior (note, this emphasize has shifted to legalism in some communities). It is therefore our job to revive those dead to Jewish values (i.e. moralism) through an understanding of the moral demands of being Jewish. Above all, we must do so diplomatically, and not as our forefathers did.

Dvar Peor

See Balak, women whoring with men, Pinhas ended it.

Parallel Command

Bemidbar 25:17-18 TzRR

יז צָר֖וֹר אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים וְהִכִּיתֶ֖ם אוֹתָֽם׃ יח כִּ֣י צֹֽרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶ֛ם אֲשֶׁר־נִכְּל֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם עַל־דְּבַר־פְּע֑וֹר וְעַל־דְּבַ֞ר כָּזְבִּ֨י בַת־נְשִׂ֤יא מִדְיָן֙ אֲחֹתָ֔ם הַמֻּכָּ֥ה בְיוֹם־הַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה עַל־דְּבַר־פְּעֽוֹר׃

Unlikely To Be Historical

Some debate as to the historicity of the story p.178 based on utter destruction, numbers, booty, no injuries

Marry Midianites

31:15 Moses said to them, “You have spared every female! 16 Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the Lord’s community was struck by the plague. 17 Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally; 18 but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man.

Moses Married a Midianite

Moses Exodus 2:21, Bemidbar 12:1

Ezra Nehemia on Intermarriage

Forbidden Ezra Nehemia 10:2-3,44, Nehemiah 10:31

Deut on Taking Women in War

Okay Devarim 21:10-14

Deut 21:10 When you take the field against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your power and you take some of them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife, 12 you shall bring her into your house, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, 13 and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your house lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her.

There are two transmissions in parashat pinhas, the transmission of authority to Joshua before Moses is “gathered unto his people”(27:13), and the apportioning of the land of Canaan to the males living at that time.

There are two traditions regarding how the torah was given. Reish Lakish says at Sinai all at once (תורה חתומה ניתנה), whereas R’ Yohanan says it was given scroll by scroll (מגילה מגילה ניתנה) (Gitin 60a). This parashah strongly supports the latter theory as not only does Moses not know the answer to whether fatherless, brotherless daughters should inherit their ancestral land (27:1-11), but that this divine decision is later challenged and changed at the end of the book (31:1-13). The Revelation at Sinai clearly was not enough to rule in this case.

The word used for Moses to transmit his authority is SMK סמכ, meaning to lean. The words normal usage in this sense is that the an animal to be offered was leaned upon to display the selection of the animal and, in some cases, the transmission of sins to the animal.

Now, the word for inheriting land that is used for males is YRSh/ירש or NTN/נתנ, both the more common usage. The word used in this parashah for daughters inheriting land is ‘BR/העברה, passing or transmission of the land. The distinction being made is that men rightfully inherit land that is theirs, whereas women are “passed the land”אין לך מעביר במנכלה אלא בת: מפני שבנה ובעלה יורשים אותה” (Sifri beMidbar 134). “It is passed from the appropriate, to the not appropriate.ממי שראוי אל מי שאינו ראוי (ibn Ezra, Olam haTanakh p.169)” Moreover, only the fatherless, brotherless daughters can be passed the ancestral land. Mothers, Aunts, Sisters, etc. cannot.

In other words, the triumph of the women in this story is very clearly within an established patriarchy, where even the language belies that women are only passed the land so that it stays within the (patriarchical) tribe.

Both the language of transmitting authority and inheriting land denote a direct interaction between the giver and the receiver. The Torah is essentially allowing women a passive role in transmitting land from male to male.

The story, therefore, teaches us two things. One, that the revelation is open to challenge and to rewriting. And two, that even the revisions may be revised. The Torah may have been progressive in its time, but in our time, we must used its own principles to judge its conclusions.

The Torah teaches what’s known as kashrut/The Dietary Laws in three texts:

• The Prohibition of Seething a Kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19, 34:26, Deut 14:21)
• The Types of animals permitted or forbidden to eat (Lev 11:1-47, Deut 14:3-21).
• The prohibition of eating blood (Deut 12:13-25, Lev 17:10-14, this parshah). It includes that the animals must be killed at the neck (Schehitah שחיטה)to be kosher.
• • Calf must stay seven days with mother and can’t be killed on same day as its parent.(Lev 22:26-28)
  • Send away a mother bird from the nest (Deut. 22:6)

Now, for some background.

Biblical Scholars recognize that the book of Leviticus is composed of two distinct layers– the majority of it (P source) and the Holiness Code (H source). The Holiness Code runs from chapters 17-26, and possibly chapter 11. Besides its linguistic differences from the rest of the book, thematically, it includes a broader focus on how non-priests can be closer to God. Specifically, in the early chapters of Leviticus, קדש QDSh/Holiness means a separation, a removal or dedication of something to God.

קדש QDSh/Holiness

In the Holiness code (H), קדש/QaDoSh can mean something like Godliness. “You shall be holy, for Holy am I, YHWH, your God” (19:1). Since God cannot be holy under the first definition, the second one must be employed here. It is because of the inclusion of the (very popular to discuss) the ethical laws in this section that many people are not aware of the changing shades of meaning of “Holiness”.

How does the blood talked about in the Holiness code relate to the second definition of “holiness”?

In this week’s double portion, I will follow the meaning of “blood” from the theme of expiation, to food, to offerings, to life, avarice, to menstruation, to not imitating foreign practices, and to not worshiping other gods. I will focus on how this applies to the Dietary Laws.

Life

Expiation From Sin

In any case, 1) the blood signifies the life force (nefesh) of the creature and 2) it belongs to God. Since God created the life, the pouring the blood on the altar or sprinkling it on the cover are necessary parts of offering the animal to God and lead to the expiation of sins and the purging of uncleanliness from the Sanctuary (16:14-16).

Niddah / Menstruation

Pagan Practices of Surrounding Nations

Eating Meat

Application

So, what is the נפקא מינא/relevance of this blood taboo on eating meat? The Torah connects eating blood with disrespecting the Source of Life. Leviticus 11:1-47 talks about what animals can be eaten; here we learn how to eat them. (Leviticus (P/H) lacks the law of seething a kid in its mother’s milk, Exodus 23:19, 34:26, Deut 14:21). Specifically, last week I rejected the niddah laws outright. However, I reject them because their values are oposed to mine. I see the Torah menstrual blood taboo as irrelevant and hurtful.

The difference between how I see a law as irrelevant and how the many secularists before me saw it, is that I would like to keep the spirit of the law, an aspect of its historical development, and as much of its traditional practice as possible. In addition, I keep materials in my home that allow someone more strict or traditional to eat, even if its not on my usual dishes.

I see that the principle of taking a life in spilling blood. Since that life doesn’t belong to us, it was historically given to God on the Altar or covered by earth. Today, it is enough to refrain from eating bloody meat to recognize that eating meat involves the taking of a life. (Note: Halakhically, fish blood doesn’t count as blood)

Implication

I take the risk of making value judgement on Torah commandments because I want to observe them, but they conflict with my worldview (weltanschauung).

The laws regarding menstrual impurity belie a view of blood flow as dirty, unclean, impure, and possibly dangerous. I cannot accept that. I can, however, accept that we must make concessions in killing an animal for food.

In Leviticus 11 we learned that only the “clean” animals are permitted to eat. In this parasha, we learn that the price for eating meat is not eating the blood, because that is the life of the animal, and its life belongs to God.

Conclusion

I, therefore, accept the Jewish tradition of preparing meat to be as bloodless as possible as it shows deference to the Source of Life. However, I keep the spirit of the law by, for example, deciding when to eat dairy after meat by when the taste of the meat is gone, so that I do not mix the tastes of dairy (life) and meat (death).

This understanding of “not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk” causes difficulty because it would, by extension, prohibit eating eggs with chicken or caviar with fish. According to Halakha, fish blood is considered pareve (should you want to eat it)! I resolve this by saying bal Tosif, tzarikh sof ladavar (M Pisha 1:7), this is a place where I must lay my boundary and maintain community. My principles are ancient and my practice respectful. How do you respect life when eating?

Notes

Live By Them:

Gerim:

Saul and Eating Blood:

Hunting: An interesting note is that though hunting animals is permitted, the form of hunting is Tsayid, meaning trapping. Because even wild animals must be slaughtered (שחט) at the neck and not mortally wounded, the wild animals must be trapped rather than shot at. In later Jewish Law, hunting especially for sport is forbidden as it causes unnecessary pain to the animal (tzaar baale hayim צער בעלי חיים).

Risk: A slippery slope risks that can lead to secularism or apostasy

• One, is that this is probably not what the Torah meant, since it’s redundant. However, as the original meaning of the text was not paramount to the Rabbis, I can let it slide.
• Two, BZ learns from the categories of the list that the topic is incestuous or adulterous relationships. However, the list also includes bestiality, sex with a menstruant, and leaves out the man’s daughter, nieces, and wife of his mother’s brother.
• In context, the verse is bookended by prohibitions of being like the following nations 18:1-4 and 20:22-26. I would need to be convinced that the Torah approved of non-incestuous same-sex relationships. Whether this impacts on his midrash I have not yet decided.

In any case, bravo on a brilliant understanding of the text using classical methods.
Mah Rabu:

Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 (by way of the kelal ufrat uchlal that we have explained above) constructs the prototype that mishkevei ishah refers specifically the incestuous and adulterous relationships of the sort listed in Leviticus 18, so that Leviticus 20:13 can also be understood to refer only to these categories of same-sex relationships.