Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

The third tractate we studied was Sanhedrin. By April 1999 we had reached Sanhedrin 7:4 which contains a list of those offences whose punishment (under appropriate circumstances) is death by stoning. Among the items in that list is copulation between two males. Now the participants in the Rabin Mishnah Study Group are not just passive learners; they ask questions and make comments. On April 16th 1999 I wrote in my daily shiur:

I do not recall a topic discussed on RMSG that has produced so much in my mailbox as our present discussion on homosexuality… I cannot possibly answer all this mail personally, nor can I utilize it all as part of our discussion. Therefore, I shall continue my rather elaborate response to the original question … and I hope that most people will find in my response some of the clarifications they are seeking…

As far as one subscriber was concerned my judgement against personal correspondence was firmly ignored. Via e-mail, David [this is not his real name; he has a right to his privacy] introduced himself to me as a young gay man (he was about 20 at the time). He came from a committed Conservative Jewish family in the USA and was himself religiously observant. He told me that he laid tefillin every day, never rode on Shabbat, never ate anything but kosher outside his home and so forth. He and his sister often read from the Torah in their local synagogue. No one knew of his sexual orientation, not even his close family, and despite my urgent prompting he refused to approach his local rabbi to open this discussion with him.

Out of my e-mail discussions with David (with a few from Jonathan added in for good measure) has grown this paper. David and I have never met and for all I know we never shall. But he has bared his soul to me, and I hope that through the rabbinical “jargon” the anguish of his tortured soul is to be perceived. David was not interested in platitudes and generalities. He wanted to know what classical halakhic Judaism had to say and to what extent a modern Conservative understanding of halakhah could accommodate him, if at all. David was interested in “shas and poskim” rather than re-interpretations of biblical texts. This suits me!

This paper consists of two parts. Part one was written with David (and Chérie) in mind; part two is addressed more to my rabbinical colleagues. Part one is addressed primarily to David (and Chérie) with my rabbinical colleagues reading over their shoulders; part two is addressed to my rabbinical colleagues with Chérie and David reading over their shoulders.

Read the rest!

Those in the Conservative Movement who wish to lighten the restrictions, do not claim, as Yaakov says, that,”…the Holy One, Blessed be He, who created Time, wrote the Torah not knowing that humans could have “monogamous homosexual relationships.” In fact, they make no claims about God, at all.

What they say is that an error was made by those who interpreted His commandment. Those who want change do not say God made a mistake; they say that man made a mistake.

Unfortunately, as the story of Eliezer ben Herkanes teaches, a majority of men are entitled to their mistakes, and neither a Bat Kol nor the Conservative Movement’s law committee has the power to correct them.

And that’s that.

Exodus 38:22 Now Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, had made all that the Lord had commanded Moses; 23 at his side was Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, carver and designer, and embroiderer in blue, purple, and crimson yarns and in fine linen.

For a long time, Biblical criticism cast doubt on the existence of a desert Tabernacle. In particular, this was because of the number of Israelites purported to have left, the sheer raw materials needed, the expert craftsman required, and the many parallels to the Temple built by Solomon. In this week’s parashah, we learn that the Tabernacle משכן was built by a member of the tribe of Judah and by a member of the tribe of Dan. As is well know, Judah is the Davidic and hence Messianic line. It would make sense that just as Solomon, David’s son, built the first Temple, a descendent of Judah built the Tabernacle. But what do we know about the tribe of Dan? Do they have a great part in Israelite history?

First of all, from the Bible, the tribe of Dan seems to be a rebellious or lowly tribe. And there are hints that they intermarried (see 2 Chronicles Chapter 2). In Leviticus Chapter 24, the son of Danite woman and Egyptian father blasphemed the Divine Name in a fight with a full Israelite. The Danite was imprisoned and stoned.

When Joshua allotted the land of Israel to the tribes, every tribe got borders except for Dan. Dan got cities in the central west of the country where the Amorites then Philistines ruled (Joshua Chapter 19, Joshua Chapter 21). This area was never conquered until David. The Amorites forced them from their given cities into the hills (Judges Chapter 1). The Judge Deborah wonders why Dan did not help Barak fight, but rather stayed in ships (Judges Chapter 5). Dan then moved northwards where they settled at the cultic site they named Dan (Judges Chapter 18).

The tradition is replete with references to Dan being in the north, even though that was not their allotted territory. Dan is described as a lion’s whelp in the north, in Bashan, even in Deuteronomy, ostensibly before Joshua divided the land and the Amorites pushed them out (Deuteronomy Chapter 33). Also in Deuteronomy, Moses looks at the land of Israel and sees as far north as Dan, Naphtali, and Ephraim, all in the North (Deuteronomy Chapter 34). Abram also went to Dan (probably in the north) when saving Lot (Genesis Chapter 14). And Dan is seen as being the northern pole across from Beer Sheva in the south (Judges Chapter 20, 1 Samuel Chapter 3, 2 Samuel Chapter 3, 2 Samuel Chapter 17, 2 Samuel Chapter 24, 1 Kings Chapter 15, 1 Kings Chapter 5, Ezekiel Chapter 48, Amos Chapter 8, 1 Chronicles Chapter 21, 2 Chronicles Chapter 30). Jeremiah sees the North as a source of wickedness (Jeremiah Chapter 4) and in a state of unrest (Jeremiah Chapter 8). Dan is one of the two places where the “rebellious” Israelite King Jeroboam places the golden calves. The calves are placed in the north of Israel (Dan) and the south (Beth El). This would make it an important cultic site in the “wayward” northern kingdom of Israel and possibly the source of the Exodus story or an eerie coincidence (1 Kings Chapter 12, 2 Kings Chapter 10).

Dan was the rearward of all the camps in the desert wanderings (Numbers Chapter 10). Dan was the son of Rachel’s handmaiden Bilhah, making him a “second-class” son (Genesis Chapter 35) and was kept near his brother Naphtali (Exodus Chapter 1, 2 Chronicles Chapter 16).

When Dan was born, Rachel said “God hath judged me and heard my voice”(Genesis Chapter 30). The judgment may have been that Dan is a punishment of Rachel for her being barren. In Jacob’s blessing, we learn that Dan shall judge, and be a serpent biting the horse’s heels, then concludes “I wait for thy salvation, O LORD” (Genesis Chapter 49). What does it mean that Dan shall judge? Could this be a reference to Samson, a story from when Dan still lived in its tribal cities (Judges Chapter 13)? Perhaps that is the serpent biting at the horse’s heels. However even Samson was corrupted and broke his Nazirite vows because of his vanity. The salvation of Samson’s corruption may be the meaning of the end of the blessing.

On the other hand, a Danite was a captain in David’s army (1 Chronicles Chapter 27), which means Dan must have been a respected tribe. Dan (a representative of the post-Solomon northern kingdom) must have been as important as Judah (a representative of the post-Solomon southern Kingdom) because they have chief roles in building the Tabernacle (Exodus Chapter 31, Exodus Chapter 35, Exodus Chapter 38). Interestingly, the tribe of Dan was also involved in building Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles Chapter 2).

The question is then, where do the two traditions come from of Dan as rebellious and as important? I began thinking about this Dvar Torah because of a lesson I had learned from my teacher Esther Israel, about how some Biblical scholars suggest Dan may be a reconstructed tribe of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter. I remember at the time feeling entirely uneasy with the idea that the Bible could so extensively cover up the origin of one of the twelve tribes. Without having read that essay, I still decline to rearrange the Biblical genealogy so drastically. However, given what I have written so far, one must admit that something systematically strange is going on.

This Dvar Torah is more of an exploration of a theme than a sermon. I can’t really answer the question of whether the tribe of Dan was good or bad, real or not. What I can say is, that we see here how deep some of the Bible’s mysteries can be, even something as simple as where a tribe lived. Because the Bible is our only primary source for many of these stories and because the Bible was not written as a history book, we will likely never know. But we must never cease asking the questions.

32:15 Thereupon Moses turned and went down from the mountain bearing the two tablets of the Pact, tablets inscribed on both their surfaces: they were inscribed on the one side and on the other. 16 The tablets were God’s work, and the writing was God’s writing, incised upon the tablets. 32:19 As soon as Moses came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, he became enraged; and he hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain. 20 He took the calf that they had made and burned it; he ground it to powder and strewed it upon the water and so made the Israelites drink it.

יט וַֽיְהִ֗י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר קָרַב֙ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיַּ֥רְא אֶת־הָעֵ֖גֶל וּמְחֹלֹ֑ת וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֣ף מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיַּשְׁלֵ֤ךְ מִיָּדָו֙ אֶת־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר אֹתָ֖ם תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר׃

The Commandments written on the first tablets were written by God. That covenant, in parashat Mishpatim (21:1-23:33) was broken when Moses shattered the tablets. This is why God offered to destroy Israel and create a nation out of Moses (32:10). In order to make amends, God had Moses write up a new covenant and put them on a second set of tablets. (Exodus 34:10-27, see Exodus 21:1-23:19 for the first one)

The second tablets share with the first covenant the law of the firstborn, the exclusive worship of God, and the festivals. The second covenant doesn’t include any of the slave laws, murder laws, damages laws, poverty and justice laws, and sabbatical year law that was in the first covenant. The additions to the first covenant are in laws in reference to the sin of the Golden Calf, an expansion of the festival law, and laws dealing with covenants and interactions with other nations.

In short, here we have a small pact focused on the covenantal relationship between Israel and God. It is either extremely xenophobic or exclusive of God-worship and cultural adoption depending on your point of view. It’s omissions show that it was not meant to be a law code, but rather a pact assuring that Israel worship only God, YHWH. (Some scholars say the Book of the Covenant is from the Elohistic source[E] while this is from the Yahwistic source[J].) In any event, we see the covenant reaffirmed with God by pledging allegiance to worship Him exclusively and regularly.

This raises questions about how American Jews assimilate. I know this is a touchy subject, but I think that the sin of the Golden Calf raises serious issues about the extent to which Jews can adopt non-Jewish practices. See how Moses tests the people’s allegiance to God below:

32:26 Moses stood up in the gate of the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come here!” And all the Levites rallied to him. 27 He said to them, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Each of you put sword on thigh, go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay brother, neighbor, and kin.” 28 The Levites did as Moses had bidden; and some three thousand of the people fell that day. 29 And Moses said, “Dedicate yourselves to the Lord this day–for each of you has been against son and brother–that He may bestow a blessing upon you today.”

For Moses, even worshipping an idol and calling it God was deserving of death. Today, the majority of American Jews are non-practicing or minimally practicing. Is there a line they have crossed where we can call, “Come back wayward children!”(Jeremiah 3:14) Or is there a point of no return?(Hagiga 15a) And this is far less severe than Moses making people decide between God and death!(I Kings 18:21-22)

So, what are we to do with the unbroken covenant the Israelites made with God at Sinai to which we are beholden? I believe that just like allowing women to assume traditional male roles and the movement to allow homosexuals full-participation in Jewish ritual life, we have made a decision that the Bible was wrong on how it made a blanket prohibition of foreign practices.

That being said, the Jewish adoption of materialism, I think, is a bad thing. The Jewish adoption of reliance on single authorities for religious wisdom and direction rather than constant learning is a bad thing. The Jewish dismissal of religious practices as inconvenient or quaint is a bad thing.

I believe that American Jews have adopted a non-Jewish/Christian mindset towards God, Religion, and Practice. For Christians, God is everything. For Jews, God is personal. We have no creed, as long as you practice and respect the precepts, you’re good (ma’ase rav). Christians tend to understand the Bible literally. Jews understand it through homily, interpretation, and tradition. For example, biblically speaking, creation of the world is a minor theme and has not been understood by Jews as a fundamental belief. Lastly, Jews have a civilization of practices. Some are rooted in the Biblical times, some in Rabbinic, medieval, and modern. These practices fill our days and our lives with meaning, and sometimes challenge us with their dissonance.

I believe that the future of Judaism can be found in redefining the covenant as in this portion. When Jews are no longer defined by their separation from non-Jewish culture, we will find our Jewishness in social action, text study, communal gatherings, and life cycle events.

We will bring honesty to our practices. Bnei Mitzvah for children who do not believe in an obligation to Jewish practice (mitzvot) should be confirmed instead (as belonging to a faith community). Prayers should be printed and widely distributed for people who do not believe in God. Prayers should be in Hebrew and the local language. Hebrew should become the language of the Jews, once again.

In short, Jews will able to universally understand each other’s practices, will respect differences of opinion out of understanding (pluralism), and we will find a way of respecting differences in serious matters such as who is a Jew, marriage and divorce, trustworthiness of kashrut, and possibly accessibility of prayer services.

My point here is, that we have broken the second tablets. We need to reconstruct them. It is very exciting to live today, in the times when our covenant with God, with the Jewish people, is being rewritten before our very eyes(Hosea 2:20-25, Jeremiah 31:30-33, Ezekiel 36: 24-2). Send me your comments! (See comments below)

Hosea 2:20 In that day, I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; I will also banish bow, sword, and war from the land. Thus I will let them lie down in safety.

21 And I will espouse you forever:
I will espouse you with righteousness and justice,
And with goodness and mercy,
22 And I will espouse you with faithfulness;
Then you shall be devoted to the Lord.

Jeremiah 31:30-33
“Behold, days are coming”, says YHWH, “And I will cut with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah a new covenant. Not like the covenant which I cut with their fathers on the day I by strength of hand brought them out of Egypt which they broke my covenant and I owned them,” said YHWH. “For this is the covenant which I will cut with the House of Israel after the those days,” said YHWH. “And I will put my teachings (Torah) in their midst and on their hearts I will write them. And I will be to them God and they will be to me as a People. And they will not teach any more a man to his fellow or a man to his brother saying “Know YHWH” because everyone will know Me from the smallest of them to the greatest of them,” said YHWH. “For I will forgive their iniquities; and their sins I will not remember further”

Sefer haBrit haKatan- The Small Book of the Covenant

With comments

34:10 He said: I hereby make a covenant.

This is the introduction of where the second covenant or pact begins.

Before all your people I will work such wonders as have not been wrought on all the earth or in any nation; and all the people who are with you shall see how awesome are the Lord’s deeds which I will perform for you. 11 Mark well what I command you this day.

This is the prologue where God explains why we should accept his Covenant.

I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

God promises territorial dominance of the tribes in Canaan. The Covenant is reassured.

12 Beware of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land against which you are advancing, lest they be a snare in your midst.

We are only to be bound by our Covenant to God. Nothing else must come in the way. Some xenophobia.

13 No, you must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred posts; 14 for you must not worship any other god, because the Lord, whose name is Impassioned, is an impassioned God.

Destroy the natives’ religion and religious shrines. There can be no other religion with no other god, especially the Golden Calf.

Repeat with emphasis not to share food with the polytheists. This is another reference to the exclusiveness of God, e.g. not the Golden Calf.

16 And when you take wives from among their daughters for your sons, their daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust after their gods.

Do not intermarry with them. They will corrupt you. More xenophobia.

17 You shall not make molten gods for yourselves.

Do not make images. God has no image. No Golden Calf.

Festival: The Canaanite month Aviv corresponds to the Torah’s first month, now call Nisan. This is Passover.

God has high standards. Donkeys are not fit to be offered as they are dirty animals and are not kosher. Because God saved the firstborn in Egypt, they belong to him. However, because the Levites fulfill the maintenance tasks in the Temple, the firstborn are redeemed with money which is sent to the Temple.

Festival: On the festivals, you must be a gift. Everyone is blessed enough to bring something.

Festival: Shabbat is preeminent. No matter what is happening, even when time is of the essence, you must cease from labor on the seventh day.

Festival: Shavuot, Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks is the second major pilgrimage festival. Sukkot, Tabernacles, the Feast of Ingathering is the third major pilgrimage festival. Pesach, Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (above) is the first major pilgrimage festival. The male Hebrews are told they must go to the Shrine and that their land will not only be safe while they are gone, it will expand, a miracle.

Festival: On Passover, leaving is prohibited at the Shrine. Leaven is a symbol of evil ferment. The offering should be eating when offered, otherwise it is an affront to God.

Festival: On Shavuot, in the summer, bring the harvest to the Shrine.

Festival: On Sukkot (by extension), when the ewes are birthing, do not follow the pagan custom of boiling the newly born lambs in their mother’s milk, it is a perversion of nature that the milk meant to nurture the young should cook it. This delicacy is immoral to make as are most pagan practices. It is no surprise that the sentiment here of the disgustingness of the practice later expanded to a general prohibition against deriving benefit from mixtures of milk and meat. One would think to add not mixing eggs with chicken or caviar with fish, but that hasn’t been done to the best of my knowledge. Did you know you can drink fish blood in milk according to the Halakhah? See Milgrom on a synopsis of ethics and kashrut.

27 And the Lord said to Moses: Write down these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel.

The Covenant is formally ended.

Comments

BZ, I wrote this dvar Torah and while I don’t want to solve all the problems of modern Judaism in a few paragraphs, I would like to fairly outline the conflict. Please read this and let me know if you think it’s fair, and if not, how I can rewrite it. Thanks

In short, Jews will able to universally understand each other’s practices, will respect differences of opinion out of understanding (pluralism), and those who wish to break from the Jewish practices of peoplehood will become sects. I can’t see any other way to acknowledge that some Jewish practices now fundamentally conflict in serious ways.

The Reform or Conservative observance of Shabbat does not impinge on the Orthodox observance, i.e they can reasonably coexist. However, Reform patrilineal descent is problematic for the Orthodox or Conservative because Reform people over time with have more and more non-Jewish status according to halakhah. At some point, they would be required to convert if they want their children to have Jewish status in the Conservative/Orthodox sect. Controversial, yes, a shame, most definitely, but necessary reality, quite possibly.

This is also a problem in the area of marriage and divorce, where many liberal Jews will have Jewish weddings but not obtain gets, making any future children with other people mamzerim (unless the Orthodox and some Conservative decide that civil divorce is sufficient, an unlikely scenario).

BZ wrote:

I think this argument against Reform recognition of patrilineal descent is always disingenuous. It is the Orthodox who have become a “sect” by recognizing only Orthodox conversions. If the Reform movement were to require conversion for the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, then (assuming this was a Reform conversion) this wouldn’t make one bit of difference as to how that child is viewed by the Orthodox — a Reform convert is a non-Jew in their eyes. And the Reform movement certainly can’t require its adherents to undergo Orthodox conversion, which involves not only going to the mikvah (a trivial requirement when, as you say, Jewish peoplehood is at stake) but committing to an Orthodox lifestyle. (Orthodox batei din require adult converts to send their kids to Orthodox day schools, for example.) So if the Reform recognition or non-recognition of patrilineal descent won’t make a difference one way or the other to whether the people in question are viewed as Jewish by the Orthodox, then the Reform movement might as well keep on making its own decisions rather than striving unsuccessfully for compatibility with other movements.

I responded:I agree with you, but I suppose I wasn’t clear in that patrilineal threat poses a compatibility threat to both Conservative and Orthodox communities. Similarly, A friend of mine couldn’t marry someone because he didn’t consider her mother’s conversion Jewish which would mean she wasn’t Jewish which meant he as a cohen couldn’t marry her. This is a problem in the Jewish community right now, not the dikdukei halakhah, but that Shammai and Hillel are finding it harder and harder to intermarry their children.

BZ responded: I don’t see the problem. If two people want to get married, and X doesn’t consider Y to be Jewish to X’s standards, then Y can always get a conversion that satisfies X’s standards. If Y isn’t willing to do that, and neither X nor Y is willing to reach a mutual solution, then they probably shouldn’t getting married.

I responded: Point taken. And they didn’t get married. And I’m not trying to solve that problem, precisely. I’m trying to frame it. I want to frame our relationship to God or Judaism to make explicit whether we are now one religion with fluid movements or non-fluid sects.

BZ wrote: And I think it’s still fluid, even if we disagree on core principles.

But the majority of Reform Jews probably aren’t ever going to marry someone who doesn’t accept them as Jewish, and therefore they shouldn’t be worrying about that possibility until it actually comes up.And I disagree with your implication that this is a problem for the Orthodox only. At least in theory, Conservative communities have the same problem with respect to Jewishness.

BZ responded: The Conservative movement has no business being on its high horse about this, when they themselves don’t do conversions that are universally accepted. (Ipso facto, they can’t, since the Orthodox don’t accept any conversions performed by non-Orthodox batei in.)

I responded: I agree with the sentiment, but in the ivory seminary tower, Conservative only accepts conversions done correctly, mikvah optional, I think, but not along movement lines. I’m a little fuzzy on this.

BZ wrote: What is the Conservative understanding of kabbalat ol mitzvot?

They’re for it. As to the mikvah issue, I’m checking into it. Obviously, it’s bediavad acceptance if I recall correctly.

Update: Conservative definitely requires immersion in a mikveh, even bediavad (ex post facto). Joel Roth, Akiba Lubow, “A Standard of Rabbinic Practice Regarding Determination of Jewish Identity ” YD 268.1986 [Thanks to Ashira for the link]

The question that I was trying to answer was, if our old covenant with God is that we are to be his exclusively and not intermarry or take on practices with the non-Jews, what will our new covenant look like? How will we now structure our community with so many conflicts that really make the different movements incompatible. How does this change our identity as Jews? Do we now require labels (of the sects we’re in)? I personally don’t like labels, beyond strict and liberal constructionism.

So, I felt myself thinking in terms of how you describe pluralism as I was writing that, though I didn’t really flesh it out. Do you have any ideas on how we can all get along, are do we need to admit that we are incompatible?
BZ responded:

I think in some ways we are incompatible, and I don’t think that being “one people” is the highest value that trumps everything else.

I responded: I agree. Erica made the point that it is customary to accomodate the strictest.

BZ wrote: That means she’s still in Stage 1.

I made the point that it is customary to accomodate the majority, strict or not. We don’t need Orthodox approval. We shouldn’t let them frame the debate. For example, I’m pro-choice and pro-life, but not anti-abortion. Pro-life is a frame that I reject as exclusively the anti-abortion frame.

BZ wrote: I’m anti-coathanger-abortion. Bill Frist is pro-coathanger-abortion.

This really helped me figure out which lines I want to draw and which I don’t.
Do you mind if I post this in the comments on the post?
BZ wrote:

No problem. And i think i’m going to post something about it on my
blog sometime soon.

And here’s BZ’s post on “Patrilineal” Descent

Mah Rabu is proud to announce a March Madness prediction pool for the Israeli election! Enter by predicting the number of seats that each party will receive in the election on March 28. The winner gets to guest-blog here on Mah Rabu for a week!

19:4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Me. 5 Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is Mine, 6 but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

ד אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִׂ֖יתִי לְמִצְרָ֑יִם וָֽאֶשָּׂ֤א אֶתְכֶם֙ עַל־כַּנְפֵ֣י נְשָׁרִ֔ים וָֽאָבִ֥א אֶתְכֶ֖ם אֵלָֽי׃ ה וְעַתָּ֗ה אִם־שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ בְּקֹלִ֔י וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֑י וִֽהְיִ֨יתֶם לִ֤י סְגֻלָּה֙ מִכָּל־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים כִּי־לִ֖י כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ ו וְאַתֶּ֧ם תִּֽהְיוּ־לִ֛י מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּֽהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ

This week’s parashah deals with the special garments for the priests(28:2-43), the consecration of the priests(29:1-45), and the altar of incense(30:1-10). I began with the quote from Parashat Yitro above because I believe we gain insight into how Jews are to be a kingdom of priests from how the Torah describes the Israelite priesthood in part in this parashah.

So much of the Torah deals with the sacrificial cult (פולחן), but a point that is often missed is that God wants all of us to be His priests. The priest in this parashah is someone who wears special, beautiful garments and is inducted with great pomp. From here and elsewhere in the Torah it is clear that priests are separated (מוקדשים) from the regular people and held to a higher standard of dress, food, physical perfection, and ritual purity.

I believe these methods of separation teach us about how Jews are meant to be a kingdom of priests in the secular world. Some support for this is that priests in the Ancient Near East often had dietary laws akin to kashrut (Tigay). The idea behind it is, if you are serving God, you should be the very best. And though, for example, pig meat or shrimp may be nutritious, they are unseemly animals that the elite of society should stay away from. We are created in God’s image. Whatever kinds of animals we see fit to offer God, we should limit to ourselves as well.

One of the meanings of KaDoSh קדוש, holy, is separated for a higher purpose (cf. Leviticus Kedoshim Tihyu=Prushim Tihyu in Sifra). Traditionally, a man at marriage says to his bride “Harei at Mekudeshet Li, Behold, you are sanctified/separated to me”, she is made especially to him. Thus part of being Jewish according to the Torah is limiting oneself to aesthetic and spiritual goods such as food (all the time), dress (at least at services), and of course social action, which is a theme of the Torah (Deuteronomy 15:11)

יא כִּ֛י לֹֽא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן מִקֶּ֣רֶב הָאָ֑רֶץ עַל־כֵּ֞ן אָֽנֹכִ֤י מְצַוְּךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר פָּ֠תֹחַ תִּפְתַּ֨ח אֶת־יָֽדְךָ֜ לְאָחִ֧יךָ לַֽעֲנִיֶּ֛ךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹֽנְךָ֖ בְּאַרְצֶֽךָ׃

.

This parashah begins with the lighting of the lamp (menorah) in the Holy of the Tabernacle (27:20-21). But for whom is the light?

27:21 21 Aaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain which is over [the Ark of] the Pact, [to burn] from evening to morning before the Lord. It shall be a due from the Israelites for all time, throughout the ages.

כא בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֩ מִח֨וּץ לַפָּרֹ֜כֶת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הָֽעֵדֻ֗ת יַֽעֲרֹךְ֩ אֹת֨וֹ אַֽהֲרֹ֧ן וּבָנָ֛יו מֵעֶ֥רֶב עַד־בֹּ֖קֶר לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חֻקַּ֤ת עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹ֣רֹתָ֔ם מֵאֵ֖ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

The light is before the Lord, not for Him. Even though the Torah commands us to be holy, to be like God, it is we who derive the benefits by living more sanctified lives filled with radical amazement and wonder.

Parashah

28:2 Make sacral vestments for your brother Aaron, for dignity and adornment. 3 Next you shall instruct all who are skillful, whom I have endowed with the gift of skill, to make Aaron’s vestments, for consecrating him to serve Me as priest. 42 You shall also make for them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; they shall extend from the hips to the thighs. 43 They shall be worn by Aaron and his sons when they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar to officiate in the sanctuary, so that they do not incur punishment and die. It shall be a law for all time for him and for his offspring to come.

29:1 This is what you shall do to them in consecrating them to serve Me as priests: 42 a regular burnt offering throughout the generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before the Lord.

For there I will meet with you, and there I will speak with you, 43 and there I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My Presence. 44 I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and I will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve Me as priests. 45 I will abide among the Israelites, and I will be their God. 46 And they shall know that I the Lord am their God, who brought them out from the land of Egypt that I might abide among them, I the Lord their God.

30:1 You shall make an altar for burning incense; make it of acacia wood.

Background: the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is the Conservative movement’s version of the College of Cardinals, but not as transparent. Demonstrating its commitment to halachic innovation, the CJLS has created the new halachic category of “homosexual” out of whole cloth. In the spirit of the rabbis who extended the Torah’s “Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” to prohibit eating, cooking, and deriving benefit from any mixture of meat and milk, the CJLS has taken an opaque biblical verse that chaza”l understood as banning a specific sex act between two men, and extended it to exclude anyone of either sex who identifies as “gay” or “lesbian” (with no actions necessary) from various communal roles. This is the part where Moses shows up to Rabbi Akiva’s classroom and says “What are you thinking???”

Benjamin said…

Stuff like this is why I left the Conservative movement. They lost touch with America in the 80s. You’d think that being considered just as heretical as Reform by the majority opinion of the majority of Orthodox communities would give them the freedom to decide things according to their own ethical standard, la plug.

I’ve read the homosexual majority responsum by R’ Roth and it’s bunk. It addresses wordplay and Freudian psychology but only shallowly wonders why the man on man sex in the Bible is considered with bestiality and idol worship. Perhaps the Torah wasn’t aware of loving monogomous relationships? Just maybe?

In any event, they advocated some pretty groundbreaking stuff in the 50s, talking about uprooting a law from the Torah and quoted those various examples. But now with a great opportunity to show they’re not bigots and they turn to joel roth to tell them gays don’t deserve equal footing in the Jewish community (but eaters of BLT’s, go ahead, Deuteronomy 14:3 )

February 28, 2006 5:18 PM

Benjamin said…

The other reason I left was because their rabbis and shuls don’t respect the law. A local Friday Night Live concert at a large Conservative synagogue involves a band, mixing board, electricity, microphones, electric instruments, and a cantor who can’t lead. Oh, and people dance and clap, which is prohibited in Mishnah Beitza which the Gemara explains as because people might dance and clap and tune their instruments. Go figure. Halakhic pluralism my foot. The shuls are in anarchy and the JTS ivory tower is too conservative, small c. Go read Tradition and Change by Waxman.

February 28, 2006 5:21 PM

Followup article: The New York Times gets framed and Count The Frames

About 7 years ago I tried to get a summer research project with Dr. Jeffrey Tigay, a Middle Eastern Studies scholar at my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. He told me about some research he was doing on the nature of the cherubs on the ark of the covenant.

I looked through books in the Spertus museum, I looked at the collection at Dropsie College, and I looked in the Bible Museum in Jerusalem. I didn’t find much that could help him, but I learned a lot about cherubim.

Cherubim in the Bible

Exodus 25:20 The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, shielding the cover with their wings. They shall confront each other, the faces of the cherubim being turned toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the Ark, after depositing inside the Ark the Pact that I will give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you–from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact–all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people.

כ וְהָי֣וּ הַכְּרֻבִים֩ פֹּֽרְשֵׂ֨י כְנָפַ֜יִם לְמַ֗עְלָה סֹֽכְכִ֤ים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם֙ עַל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת וּפְנֵיהֶ֖ם אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו אֶ֨ל־הַכַּפֹּ֔רֶת יִֽהְי֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הַכְּרֻבִֽים׃ כא וְנָֽתַתָּ֧ אֶת־הַכַּפֹּ֛רֶת עַל־הָֽאָרֹ֖ן מִלְמָ֑עְלָה וְאֶל־הָ֣אָרֹ֔ן תִּתֵּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣עֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֶתֵּ֖ן אֵלֶֽיךָ׃ כב וְנֽוֹעַדְתִּ֣י לְךָ֮ שָׁם֒ וְדִבַּרְתִּ֨י אִתְּךָ֜ מֵעַ֣ל הַכַּפֹּ֗רֶת מִבֵּין֙ שְׁנֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־אֲר֣וֹן הָֽעֵדֻ֑ת אֵ֣ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֧ר אֲצַוֶּ֛ה אֽוֹתְךָ֖ אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

For a long time the common image of a cherub, kruv כרוב in Hebrew, was of a young winged child. One possible support for this is the quote in the Talmud (Sukkah 5b, Hagigah 13b) that a Kruv is K’Ravia כרביא, like a child (Ravia in Aramaic). [An etymological dead-end suggests that Kruv is Hebrew for cabbage.] As to the wings, the Bible specifically says not only that the cherubim have wings, but that God sits and speaks from between them, sometimes traveling on them! Ezekiel describes them in detail.

Ezekiel 1:5 [At the Chebar Canal] In the center of it were also the figures of four creatures. And this was their appearance: They had the figures of human beings. 6 However, each had four faces, and each of them had four wings; 1:10 Each of them had a human face [at the front]; each of he four had the face of a lion on the right; each of the four had the face of an ox on the left; and each of the four had the face of an eagle [at the back]. 10:14 Each one had four faces: One was a cherub’s face, the second a human face, the third a lion’s face, and the fourth an eagle’s face 15 The Cherubs ascended; those were the creatures that I had seen by the Chebar Canal.

Note above that in one description of the beings, it has the faces of man, eagle, lion, and ox, while the other has faces of man, eagle, lion and cherub. This supports the etymological link between Kruv and the Assyrian “kirubu”=”shedu“, the name of the winged bull (JEncyc).

Cherubim in the Ancient Near East

In the Ancient Near East, we have evidence of cherubs as powerful winged chimera that protect the king or god (see Gen 3:24,34, Ezek 28:14). The imagery of a winged being sitting at the throne of a god or king can be seen in many sources, such as in the throne from Byblos to the right.

Thus, we see that the motif of a griffin (eagle/ox) or sphinx (lion/eagle/man) was common in the Ancient Near East (Phoenicians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Egyptians, etc.). However, this is all well known. What Dr. Tigay asked about was why if the cherubim are guardians or servants of the king, why do they face each other on the Kaporet (lid הכפרת) of the Aron haEdut (Ark of the Covenant ארון העדת). They should be facing away, guarding the throne of God.

Cherubs Facing Each Other

My task was to find an image of two cherubim facing each other. On an ivory tablet from the 8th century BCE from Arslan Tash (Syria) as well as the griffins at the top of this article, we see a theme I have seen in a few places: the cherubim facing a tree, here a palm.

Now, we know that God sits on the cherubim and speaks from them. What does the tree teach us? It is possible that the cherubim served to show where the abstract, idolless God of the Israelites dwelt (Mikranet). Perhaps the tree is the Tree of Life (from the Garden of Eden) and instead of guarding it as Genesis states, they are looking at it as servants worship a master.

We know from Biblical and Post-Biblical sources that the cherubs are not among the ministering angels (Seraphim vaOfanim vaHayot haKodesh). In a part of the Talmud dealing with the Holy of Holies, they said the cherubs looked at each other like a loving couple(Yoma 54a). Perhaps the cherubs were transformed from guardians of God and king to adoring servants of a god who needs no protection.

So, we see it is likely that cherubs are an eagle/bull griffin, that the motif represents all-encompassing power (air and land), and that the Bible uses them less to protect God, but to demonstrate that even the mighty must worship him.

What I like about this interpretation is that it is another example of the Torah’s ability to adopt and transform the surrounding culture. For millennia, Jews have used this skill to make the world a better place. May we take the symbols of power from the world around us and put them to use in creating a Godly world. Ken Yehi Ratzon. So be it, amen.

Wings
Shade Ark of the Covenant: I Kings 6:23-28, 7:27-29, 8:6-7, II Chron 3:10-13,5:7-8, Exodus 25:18-20, 37:7-9, Num 7:89

KRuV RoKheV
God sits on the cherubim I Samuel 4:4, II Sam 6:2, I Chron 8:6, cf. II Kings 19:15, Isa. 37:16, Ps 80:1, 99:1

Ride (RoKheV) on cherubim (KRuV)
Psalm 18:11, II Sam 22:11- Canaanite, Phoenician.
Chair of Cherubim is symbol of King- Canaanite, Phoenician

Ezekiel
Ezekiel’s vision: Eziekel 1:6-10, 1:5-28, 4:3, 10, 11:22, 28:13-16. 41:18-25.

Shedu, The Winged Bull
With the Assyrian “kirubu” = “shedu” (the name of the winged bull).
Connected it with the Assyrian “karubu” (great, mighty);
‘propitious’ (synonym ‘damḳu’).”
The stem of is the Assyrian ‘karâbu’ (= be propitious, bless, anagram for bless),
γρύψ (“gryphus” = the Hindu “Garuda.”)(JEncyc)

No Image for God
Compare Solomon’s Temple to a pagan temple, no statue of God, but Cherub’s point out where he is.(Mikranet) Moreh Nevukim 3:45, cherubim placed in the sanctuary to preserve belief in angels. There were two so people wouldn’t think them the image of God.

Seraphim
Heavenly inhabitants are אופנים ושרפים וחיות הקדש ומלאכי השרת וכסא הכבוד Seraphim vaOfanim vaHayot haKodesh (Serpents and Wheels and Holy Creatures), no cherubim (Hag 12b) (JEncyc)

Couple
Embraced like a loving couple in the temple (Yoma 54a)

See more pictures here