Coming to your shul soon — Megillat Esther…
Don't miss this popular story of life in the Persian Court of Shushan in the fourth (or fifth) century BCE!
Ponder the deeper meaning of this satirical tale filled with greed, emotion, irony, comedy and tragedy. It's a story as relevant today as it was when it happened.
Read what some critics have to say:
A satirical work "laced with allusions to the fact that Am Yisroel does not answer the Divine call during the Persian time period" to return to their Homeland after the 70 year exile predicted by the prophet Jeremiah and the resultant Divine punishment for their apathy."
--Rabbi Menachem Leibtag
"As desperate as the situation is for Esther, Mordechai and the Jews of their generation, the story always closes again with a happy ending."
--Robin Treistman
"...Megilla reveals its profundity as well as many practical ramifications. As humorous as some of its images may be, the latent messages are rich in meaning and significance. "
--Rabbi David Nativ
Come to the MEGILLAH ESTHER readings for excitement, noise and fun. An event voted by Jews 'round the world as the place to be on Purim eve and Purim morn.
Meet the cast of characters as they come to life:
• KING ACHASHVEROSH (“IT’S GOOD TO BE KING") the seemingly foolish ruler of Persia who in fact is an anti-Semite. Fearing the Jews, their G-d and public opinion (how would it look for the King to order the murder of a significant portion of his citizens?), his Royal Majesty devises a clever strategy that employs Haman to execute (pun intended) his dastardly plot. And, of course, it is ultimately Haman the Evil One that is hanged (alongside his 10 sons) and the King who comes out looking like the Good Guy.
• HAMAN of Amalek (he wasn't even Persian but still went to the top) — the man who had it all but still wanted more! He was Chief Advisor to the King. He had wealth, honor, a good job and nachas from his ten kindah. But was that enough? Noooooo. He couldn't take it that one Jew (Mordechai) refused to bow down to, or even acknowledge, his presence. And, in the tradition of all anti-Semites, he decided on a punishment that "fit the crime" — killing every Jew because of his irritation with the one.
• VASHTI the queen reputed to be of royal blood (unlike her husband the King who possibly was not) who both strikes a blow for Women's Rights and manages to embarrass the King when she refuses the King's request to appear at the Royal Palace stag party wearing her crown (and nothing else). Her independence backfires, she pays for it with her life and the King issues a Royal Proclamation making every Husband the King of his home.
• MORDECHAI a really good human being ("Ish Yehudi") who was also pious, scholarly and a member of the Sanhedrin (High Court). Though a man of few words, he finds the right ones to catalyze Queen Esther into action to save the Jews.
• ESTHER the unassuming Jewish maiden destined to become Queen of an essentially pagan empire. In a dangerous and stressful situation (remember what happened to the King's first wife who spoke up?) she still manages to rise to the occasion and parties her way to save the Jews.
• CHARVONA is the opportunistic leech who just happens to be present at Esther's party when the King finds Haman sprawled on Esther's bed and just happens to remind the King of an Hanging Tree that was originally meant for Mordechai that just happens to be available.
• HASHEM appears nowhere but in fact is "Here, There, and Everywhere" (in the famous words of Uncle Moishy) as alluded to by the word Hamelech at the beginning of each column in the Megillah scroll.
Perspectives on the Megillah
Many scholars maintain that the King Achashverosh in the Megillah is King Xerxes I of Persia and that the Purim story occurred in about 474 BCE. (For historical perspective, the Second Temple was built about 516 BCE, some 42 years earlier.) Other scholars suggest that Achashverosh ruled immediately after King Koresh (Cyrus The Great) who allowed and encouraged the Jews of Persia to return to Yerushalayim and rebuild the Second Temple. This view1 places events in the Megillah in or about 519 BCE.
When the Megillah was written, and who the author is, are equally uncertain. Some maintain that Mordechai and Esther are the authors. Others maintain that the Megillah was written well after the actual events occurred, at a time when the holiday of Purim already was widely observed. The author certainly was someone familiar with the language, culture and court intrigue of Persia. Although a Braisa in the Talmud states that the Megillah was written by the Anshei Knesset HaG'dolah (supreme council during he Second Temple ), their influence lasted for many years, making it difficult to pinpoint an exact time.
The Megillah plays out like the plot of a comic opera. Parties and partying take up much of the story line—and are both the cause of, and resolution of, the Jewish crisis. Coincidences abound. Characters make their entry on cue. The author seems to go out of his way to mock the King, his royal court and their declaration of national policy immediately after a drunken stupor. Legislating male kingship over one's home is deemed a pressing issue, necessitating immediate action. Even clearly identified secondary characters in the drama have their role to play.
"Ish Yehudi haya b'Shushan habira u'shmo Mordechai..."
("In the capital city of Shushan, there was a Jewish man whose name was Mordechai..."). What kind of name is Mordechai for a good Jewish boy in Persia? Would any self-respecting Jew name a child after a Babylonian deity, Marduk? Also, the word Habira is interesting: it is mentioned in only one other place in Tanach and there it refers to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem!
The Megillah provides interesting detail on life in the Royal Palace. Materials described and vessels used in the Royal Hall -- where the King threw his wild parties --sound remarkably similar to those that existed in the First Holy Temple. The layout of the Palace and its environs closely resemble the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. The King's Palace consisted of different sections:
• Chatzar P'nimit, the inner chamber -- similar to the Kodesh Kedoshim (Holy of Holies) in the Holy Temple
• Chatzer Chitzona, the waiting area outside the inner chamber — Kodesh (holy) in the Holy Temple
• Sha'ar Bait HaMelech, where citizens congregate sounds like the Azara
• Rechov Ha'ir Shushan, the city streets in Shushan are similar to the streets of Jerusalem
Partly drawing on these observations, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag suggests that the Megillah was written as a critical satire on the behavior of the Jewish people during this most important time in their history. The Jewish people were offered the fulfillment of the promise to be redeemed from their 70 years in Exile and to return and rebuild their Homeland. But relatively few went. Instead, Jewish people in Persia made Shushan into their own "Bira" (= Holy Temple);preferred the Holy Temple- substitute (the Royal Palace) to the real thing in Jerusalem; preferred the partying (service) of King Achashverosh in his Royal Palace (=Temple) to the true worship of Hashem in Jerusalem. The near-destruction of our people at the hands of evil Haman as portrayed in the Megillah may be understood as a planned Divine punishment for the sin of Jewish apathy toward their Homeland. Jews became too comfortable in their surroundings in Persia. Perhaps it took the existence of the anti-Semites to get us to achieve our true destiny.
Sounding familiar?
Rabbi H.L. Berenholz (March 2003)
Sources:
The Megillah
"Daat Mikrah" commentary on the Megillah
"Psychobabble: An Analysis of the Megilla Characters"
by Robin Treistman
Yeshivat Har Etzion Virtual Beit Midrash
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Musings on Parshat Terumah
Overview
Voluntary contributions to be brought to build the Mishkan (Tabernacle)…The Ark…The Kaporet and the Keruvim atop the Ark…The Table…The Menorah… Hanging tapestries and coverings…Interlocking beams (made from acacia wood) and sockets (silver) form the walls that enclose the Holy (20 x 10 amos, about 40’x 20’) and Holy of Holies (10 x10 amos, about four hundred square feet)…Copper altar…Courtyard of the Mishkan
When?
Some maintain that since the Torah does not always report events chronologically (but thematically) the edict to build the Mishkan occurred after the sin of the Golden Calf. Let the golden objects in the Mishkan be a reminder of and catalyst for forgiveness for that egregious sin that utilized gold. Thematically associating the Mishkan with the previous topic of Hebrews’ acceptance of G-d and his Torah is of greater importance than chronological accuracy.
Those who insist that the Torah reports things in a chronological order maintain that this in another instance of “G-d providing the remedy before the problem occurs”.
Why?
Man needs concrete reminders. Abravanel’s view is that the Mishkan serves to negate the view that G-d abandoned the world soon after He created it. Seeing the Mishkan is a reminder of His ongoing presence and involvement .Ramban maintains that the Mishkan was a mobile Mt. Sinai that offered the opportunity for its viewer to remember and re-experience that awesome, nation-defining event (fiery center, altar, offerings, the surrounding nation encamped from a distance).
The ancients built homes for their deities that included bedrooms. The Mishkan contains altars, menorah, table (for breads) but no bedrooms in order to avoid the sexual, licentious behavior that was part of many pagan cult rituals.
The very act of building the Mishkan so that G-d could “dwell” in the hearts and minds of the Israelites provided a unifying and creative effort that would also have an inspiring, positive impact on the nation. According to the Or Hachaim every person had a role to play-- underscoring how the Torah (Judaism) can only be fulfilled when each and every one of us joins in to unify the nation.
Mishkan and Creation
Martin Buber notes that the Hebrew words asay or laasos appear in both stories but many more times in the Mishkan construction. G-d rested on the seventh day of creation. Here Moshe was called up to G-d on the seventh day after he went up to Mt. Sinai. The phrasing for completion of the Creation is “Va’yechulu hashmayim v’haaretz”- “the heavens and earth were completed”. The same root word is found here, “V’atechel…”
Perhaps the Torah is emphasizing that the nation of Israel was starting a New World, a new beginning. Reference to the Creation underscores the need for Man to be a partner with G-d in building and creating. And the lesson of Life, as Ramban points out, is that Man needs to be creative in his lifetime, to mirror the Creativity of G-d in His creation of the world.
The Ark
This is the first of the Mishkan’s contents and the longest to be described. It was made of acacia wood then coated inside and out with pure gold and had a gold-rimmed edge all around. Its dimensions were 5’x 3’x 3’ (assuming an amah =2 feet).There were four golden rings, one for each corner. The Torah, or the tablets of the Asseres Hadibros, was placed in the Ark.
Poles made of gold-plated acacia wood were to remain permanently in the gold rings. Sefer Hachinuch theorizes that the need for the staves to be permanently attached is to avoid the Ark slipping in the event of a hasty departure. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch thinks that the message here is that we must always be ready to leave our surroundings at a moment’s notice and take the Torah (literally and conceptually) with us wherever we go.
Kaporet and Keruvim
The Kaporet, a lid for the Ark, was made of pure gold and measured 5’x 3’. Two Keruvim, winged forms molded from the same piece of gold, were hammered out at each end of the Kaporet. The wings were spread upwards, sheltering the Kaporet, as if they were ready to take off; they faced one another yet were tilted downward towards the Kaporet.
The Torah gives no information on the size or characteristics of the Keruvim. It is left to the Sages and the commentaries to flesh out this very sketchy description. The Talmud, based on an etymological analysis of the word Keruvim, concludes that Keruvim had the faces of children. The Zohar adds that there was one of each sex.
Some scholars think Keruvim were bird-like creatures with wings and with faces of human infants. Rabbi Günter Plaut notes the Egyptian influence. Egyptian Keruvim-like figures of animals with a human head were used to mediate between Man and his deity and to guard holy places. As an example, the Egyptian Sphinx had the body of a lion and a human face. The Pharaohs of Egypt insisted on being buried in gold, which they believed was the "flesh of the gods."
Rabbi Plaut theorizes that the Keruvim were images that reflected an unshakable ancient mythological tradition. They were purposely hidden away in a totally inaccessible place (Holy of Holies) so that the danger of their being worshipped was minimized. Though the existence of the Keruvim appears to run counter to the Torah’s prohibition of worshiping images, in fact there was never a time in Jewish history that the Keruvim were worshiped as deities. Rambam observes that they faced each other so that they would not be mistaken for a god.
Rav Hirsch sees the upward spread of the wings towards G-d hinting at the protective aspects of first five of the Ten Commandments that focus on Man’s relationship with G-d while the downward facial tilt points to the earthly rules between Man and Man embodied in the last five Commandments. Some argue that the wings covering the entire Kaporet and downward- looking faces are about averting one’s eyes from viewing the Divine. Others see the concept of T’shuva here, wherein a person has the opportunity deriving from G-d to change his ways and become “innocent as a new born babe”.
It is noteworthy that the first time the Keruvim appear in the Torah is when G-d installed “…the Keruvim and the twirling fiery sword to protect the way (or show the way) to Eytz Hachayim”. The Garden of Eden story describes a time when there was an ideal love-filled, close relationship between Man and G-d. Perhaps like their predecessors, the Keruvim in the Mishkan were meant to “show us the way” to rebuild relationships with G-d and with one another.
The winged Keruvim imagery merges the divine (upward sloping wings) with the earthly (cherubic infants or bird with a human face).The kaporet / keruvim, a separate and distinct vessel from the Ark, is like a computer interface that enables two totally different and incompatible operating systems to communicate with one another. This Divine venue permits interaction and communication between polar opposites (incomprehensible G-d and mundane Man--or Man and Woman).The Keruvim’s wings reach up to hear from above (they resemble animal ears) and their downward pointing faces draw up from below. The sound of G-d’s speech is heard from between the Keruvim.
Interaction leads to interdependence, awe, and absorption of positive attributes, closeness and love. This model of deep involvement is suitable for both Man/G-d and Man/Woman relationships. This deepest, holiest of truths is appropriately domiciled in the Holy of Holies and is visited by the Holy High Priest only once a year, on the Holy day of Yom Kippur.
Rabbi H. L. Berenholz
Voluntary contributions to be brought to build the Mishkan (Tabernacle)…The Ark…The Kaporet and the Keruvim atop the Ark…The Table…The Menorah… Hanging tapestries and coverings…Interlocking beams (made from acacia wood) and sockets (silver) form the walls that enclose the Holy (20 x 10 amos, about 40’x 20’) and Holy of Holies (10 x10 amos, about four hundred square feet)…Copper altar…Courtyard of the Mishkan
When?
Some maintain that since the Torah does not always report events chronologically (but thematically) the edict to build the Mishkan occurred after the sin of the Golden Calf. Let the golden objects in the Mishkan be a reminder of and catalyst for forgiveness for that egregious sin that utilized gold. Thematically associating the Mishkan with the previous topic of Hebrews’ acceptance of G-d and his Torah is of greater importance than chronological accuracy.
Those who insist that the Torah reports things in a chronological order maintain that this in another instance of “G-d providing the remedy before the problem occurs”.
Why?
Man needs concrete reminders. Abravanel’s view is that the Mishkan serves to negate the view that G-d abandoned the world soon after He created it. Seeing the Mishkan is a reminder of His ongoing presence and involvement .Ramban maintains that the Mishkan was a mobile Mt. Sinai that offered the opportunity for its viewer to remember and re-experience that awesome, nation-defining event (fiery center, altar, offerings, the surrounding nation encamped from a distance).
The ancients built homes for their deities that included bedrooms. The Mishkan contains altars, menorah, table (for breads) but no bedrooms in order to avoid the sexual, licentious behavior that was part of many pagan cult rituals.
The very act of building the Mishkan so that G-d could “dwell” in the hearts and minds of the Israelites provided a unifying and creative effort that would also have an inspiring, positive impact on the nation. According to the Or Hachaim every person had a role to play-- underscoring how the Torah (Judaism) can only be fulfilled when each and every one of us joins in to unify the nation.
Mishkan and Creation
Martin Buber notes that the Hebrew words asay or laasos appear in both stories but many more times in the Mishkan construction. G-d rested on the seventh day of creation. Here Moshe was called up to G-d on the seventh day after he went up to Mt. Sinai. The phrasing for completion of the Creation is “Va’yechulu hashmayim v’haaretz”- “the heavens and earth were completed”. The same root word is found here, “V’atechel…”
Perhaps the Torah is emphasizing that the nation of Israel was starting a New World, a new beginning. Reference to the Creation underscores the need for Man to be a partner with G-d in building and creating. And the lesson of Life, as Ramban points out, is that Man needs to be creative in his lifetime, to mirror the Creativity of G-d in His creation of the world.
The Ark
This is the first of the Mishkan’s contents and the longest to be described. It was made of acacia wood then coated inside and out with pure gold and had a gold-rimmed edge all around. Its dimensions were 5’x 3’x 3’ (assuming an amah =2 feet).There were four golden rings, one for each corner. The Torah, or the tablets of the Asseres Hadibros, was placed in the Ark.
Poles made of gold-plated acacia wood were to remain permanently in the gold rings. Sefer Hachinuch theorizes that the need for the staves to be permanently attached is to avoid the Ark slipping in the event of a hasty departure. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch thinks that the message here is that we must always be ready to leave our surroundings at a moment’s notice and take the Torah (literally and conceptually) with us wherever we go.
Kaporet and Keruvim
The Kaporet, a lid for the Ark, was made of pure gold and measured 5’x 3’. Two Keruvim, winged forms molded from the same piece of gold, were hammered out at each end of the Kaporet. The wings were spread upwards, sheltering the Kaporet, as if they were ready to take off; they faced one another yet were tilted downward towards the Kaporet.
The Torah gives no information on the size or characteristics of the Keruvim. It is left to the Sages and the commentaries to flesh out this very sketchy description. The Talmud, based on an etymological analysis of the word Keruvim, concludes that Keruvim had the faces of children. The Zohar adds that there was one of each sex.
Some scholars think Keruvim were bird-like creatures with wings and with faces of human infants. Rabbi Günter Plaut notes the Egyptian influence. Egyptian Keruvim-like figures of animals with a human head were used to mediate between Man and his deity and to guard holy places. As an example, the Egyptian Sphinx had the body of a lion and a human face. The Pharaohs of Egypt insisted on being buried in gold, which they believed was the "flesh of the gods."
Rabbi Plaut theorizes that the Keruvim were images that reflected an unshakable ancient mythological tradition. They were purposely hidden away in a totally inaccessible place (Holy of Holies) so that the danger of their being worshipped was minimized. Though the existence of the Keruvim appears to run counter to the Torah’s prohibition of worshiping images, in fact there was never a time in Jewish history that the Keruvim were worshiped as deities. Rambam observes that they faced each other so that they would not be mistaken for a god.
Rav Hirsch sees the upward spread of the wings towards G-d hinting at the protective aspects of first five of the Ten Commandments that focus on Man’s relationship with G-d while the downward facial tilt points to the earthly rules between Man and Man embodied in the last five Commandments. Some argue that the wings covering the entire Kaporet and downward- looking faces are about averting one’s eyes from viewing the Divine. Others see the concept of T’shuva here, wherein a person has the opportunity deriving from G-d to change his ways and become “innocent as a new born babe”.
It is noteworthy that the first time the Keruvim appear in the Torah is when G-d installed “…the Keruvim and the twirling fiery sword to protect the way (or show the way) to Eytz Hachayim”. The Garden of Eden story describes a time when there was an ideal love-filled, close relationship between Man and G-d. Perhaps like their predecessors, the Keruvim in the Mishkan were meant to “show us the way” to rebuild relationships with G-d and with one another.
The winged Keruvim imagery merges the divine (upward sloping wings) with the earthly (cherubic infants or bird with a human face).The kaporet / keruvim, a separate and distinct vessel from the Ark, is like a computer interface that enables two totally different and incompatible operating systems to communicate with one another. This Divine venue permits interaction and communication between polar opposites (incomprehensible G-d and mundane Man--or Man and Woman).The Keruvim’s wings reach up to hear from above (they resemble animal ears) and their downward pointing faces draw up from below. The sound of G-d’s speech is heard from between the Keruvim.
Interaction leads to interdependence, awe, and absorption of positive attributes, closeness and love. This model of deep involvement is suitable for both Man/G-d and Man/Woman relationships. This deepest, holiest of truths is appropriately domiciled in the Holy of Holies and is visited by the Holy High Priest only once a year, on the Holy day of Yom Kippur.
Rabbi H. L. Berenholz
Friday, February 17, 2012
Musings on Parshat Mishpatim
Overview
Contains 23 positive commandments and 30 prohibitions primarily civil and criminal laws relating to slavery; assault and kidnapping; negligence and theft; illicit and idolatrous behavior; helping widows, and orphans; judicial laws and avoiding favoritism…Shabbos, Yom Tov and Shemitah…Conquering the Land…Avoidance of idolatry…Entering a Covenant with G-d…Moshe ascends Mt. Sinai to stay for forty days.
A Giant Step Forward for Mankind
The impact and progressive nature of the commandments and prohibitions presented can be best understood in the context of society as it existed at that time. Slavery existed throughout antiquity and the newly-freed-from-slavery Israelites were warned to treat slaves as humans, not chattel. In ancient societies the altar was considered a place of refuge for a murderer. The Torah’s view is that there is no asylum for a murderer anywhere. Prohibitions of striking and insulting parents stand in contrast to prevailing societal attitudes about parental treatment. Efforts at building society, limiting revenge and curbing bloodthirsty behavior are manifest in the laws requiring financial restitution for bodily injury; establishment of an honest court system; and aiding even one’s enemy in his times of need. Stealing in all forms is prohibited and fines were developed to compensate victims for their losses .Protection of the weak and vulnerable in society is established as a hallmark of Jewish Ethics. Idolatry and cult worship, rampant in ancient times, are repeatedly outlawed in many obvious and even less obvious rules. Prohibition of working on the Sabbath (a radical, unheard of and often mocked idea) is stressed as a humanitarian effort, a respite for a person, his servants and his livestock.
On insulting one’s parents
If one behaves this way will “he most certainly will die”. The phrase means that one will punished by G-d when the Court cannot as, for example, in crimes committed in private. Relating to the sin of M’kallel aviv v’emo (vilifies, demeans or makes light of his parents) I think there is a punishment imposed even during one’s life. Treating one’s parents in a disrespectful way, considering them “lightweights”, and not coming to grips with one’s feeling/conflicts can lead to a kind of inner death (neurosis/psychosis)—a conflicted emotional state of mind that is the modern day manifestation of Mos Yumas.
On “Ayen tachas ayen” (“an eye for an eye”)
A first read of this statement seems to mean literal retribution; a legal authorization to inflict a punishment that is equal in kind and in degree to the injury. Throughout history, this Biblical rule has been cited to justify cruel retributive behavior was (and still is) used by critics to show the (alleged) barbaric behavior of Jews and of the Torah (in contrast to the Christian ethic of “turning the other cheek”).
But the Rabbis clearly understood this law to mean monetary compensation. The punishment needs to be commensurate with the crime and if the meaning is to literally blind the offender inequitable outcomes could result. For example, if the offender died during the removal of his eye, he would have lost both his eye and his life for poking out only one of the other person’s eyes. An injustice will occur if the offender was already blind in one eye and his good eye is to be removed because he will be left totally blind while the victim still has one good eye. How is one punished when he causes partial loss of eyesight in one eye?
Rabbi Benno Jacob finds the key in the word tachas, since that word’s use in other places in the Torah means approximate, or substitute for. For example, during the Akeda story Avraham offers a ram “tachas b’no” not an identical, not an exact equivalent, but something that is “in place of” or “instead of” his son. Here, too, the word tachas must mean something monetary that is a substitute for (or an approximation of) the value of the eye but absolutely not the eye itself. Under Torah law, retribution for physical damages is monetary compensation, except in the case of intentional homicide.
Rabbi Telushkin notes that “based on the earliest known Jewish records, Jewish courts did not blind those who deprived others of sight”. Robert Alter indicates that monetary compensation for these physical damages was widespread in ancient Near Eastern codes.
Rabbi Gunter Plaut thinks that the intention of this progressive advance in criminal law may be to limit private revenge, particularly in family and tribal feuds. These laws try to blunt the bloodthirsty search for revenge characteristic of primitive family and tribal feuds, in order to build a functioning and civilized modern society.
On Stealing
Unlike any other legal system, the Torah appears less concerned about jail time for the thief than with aiding the victim and discouraging stealing.
The thief is obligated to return the stolen object and then to pay the victim a 100% fine. In the event that an ox or sheep is stolen, the fine is five and six times the value, respectively, reflecting the importance of these animals in an agrarian society.
Rabbi Telushkin cites a later parallel in nineteenth century America when horse thieves were punished more severely than other robbers, because of the greater personal suffering experienced by the victim who was left with no means of transportation.
Stealing a person (kidnapping) with the intent of selling him into slavery is considered a capital crime, punishable by death.
On “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”
This prohibition -- which encompasses cooking, eating and benefiting from-- is the basis of subsequent Rabbinic regulations relating to eating milk and milk products together with meat and meat products. Explanations for this restriction include avoidance of the magical; preservation of the milk-giving ability of the animal; health; humanitarian (to avoid causing an animal pain); prohibition of mixing of different kinds of seeds and material for garments.
Rambam suggests that the prohibition is about avoiding idolatry—an opinion supported by recent archeological findings (cited by Rabbi Günter Plaut) that describe a then-prevailing Canaanite sacrificial rite.
Rabbi H. L. Berenholz
Contains 23 positive commandments and 30 prohibitions primarily civil and criminal laws relating to slavery; assault and kidnapping; negligence and theft; illicit and idolatrous behavior; helping widows, and orphans; judicial laws and avoiding favoritism…Shabbos, Yom Tov and Shemitah…Conquering the Land…Avoidance of idolatry…Entering a Covenant with G-d…Moshe ascends Mt. Sinai to stay for forty days.
A Giant Step Forward for Mankind
The impact and progressive nature of the commandments and prohibitions presented can be best understood in the context of society as it existed at that time. Slavery existed throughout antiquity and the newly-freed-from-slavery Israelites were warned to treat slaves as humans, not chattel. In ancient societies the altar was considered a place of refuge for a murderer. The Torah’s view is that there is no asylum for a murderer anywhere. Prohibitions of striking and insulting parents stand in contrast to prevailing societal attitudes about parental treatment. Efforts at building society, limiting revenge and curbing bloodthirsty behavior are manifest in the laws requiring financial restitution for bodily injury; establishment of an honest court system; and aiding even one’s enemy in his times of need. Stealing in all forms is prohibited and fines were developed to compensate victims for their losses .Protection of the weak and vulnerable in society is established as a hallmark of Jewish Ethics. Idolatry and cult worship, rampant in ancient times, are repeatedly outlawed in many obvious and even less obvious rules. Prohibition of working on the Sabbath (a radical, unheard of and often mocked idea) is stressed as a humanitarian effort, a respite for a person, his servants and his livestock.
On insulting one’s parents
If one behaves this way will “he most certainly will die”. The phrase means that one will punished by G-d when the Court cannot as, for example, in crimes committed in private. Relating to the sin of M’kallel aviv v’emo (vilifies, demeans or makes light of his parents) I think there is a punishment imposed even during one’s life. Treating one’s parents in a disrespectful way, considering them “lightweights”, and not coming to grips with one’s feeling/conflicts can lead to a kind of inner death (neurosis/psychosis)—a conflicted emotional state of mind that is the modern day manifestation of Mos Yumas.
On “Ayen tachas ayen” (“an eye for an eye”)
A first read of this statement seems to mean literal retribution; a legal authorization to inflict a punishment that is equal in kind and in degree to the injury. Throughout history, this Biblical rule has been cited to justify cruel retributive behavior was (and still is) used by critics to show the (alleged) barbaric behavior of Jews and of the Torah (in contrast to the Christian ethic of “turning the other cheek”).
But the Rabbis clearly understood this law to mean monetary compensation. The punishment needs to be commensurate with the crime and if the meaning is to literally blind the offender inequitable outcomes could result. For example, if the offender died during the removal of his eye, he would have lost both his eye and his life for poking out only one of the other person’s eyes. An injustice will occur if the offender was already blind in one eye and his good eye is to be removed because he will be left totally blind while the victim still has one good eye. How is one punished when he causes partial loss of eyesight in one eye?
Rabbi Benno Jacob finds the key in the word tachas, since that word’s use in other places in the Torah means approximate, or substitute for. For example, during the Akeda story Avraham offers a ram “tachas b’no” not an identical, not an exact equivalent, but something that is “in place of” or “instead of” his son. Here, too, the word tachas must mean something monetary that is a substitute for (or an approximation of) the value of the eye but absolutely not the eye itself. Under Torah law, retribution for physical damages is monetary compensation, except in the case of intentional homicide.
Rabbi Telushkin notes that “based on the earliest known Jewish records, Jewish courts did not blind those who deprived others of sight”. Robert Alter indicates that monetary compensation for these physical damages was widespread in ancient Near Eastern codes.
Rabbi Gunter Plaut thinks that the intention of this progressive advance in criminal law may be to limit private revenge, particularly in family and tribal feuds. These laws try to blunt the bloodthirsty search for revenge characteristic of primitive family and tribal feuds, in order to build a functioning and civilized modern society.
On Stealing
Unlike any other legal system, the Torah appears less concerned about jail time for the thief than with aiding the victim and discouraging stealing.
The thief is obligated to return the stolen object and then to pay the victim a 100% fine. In the event that an ox or sheep is stolen, the fine is five and six times the value, respectively, reflecting the importance of these animals in an agrarian society.
Rabbi Telushkin cites a later parallel in nineteenth century America when horse thieves were punished more severely than other robbers, because of the greater personal suffering experienced by the victim who was left with no means of transportation.
Stealing a person (kidnapping) with the intent of selling him into slavery is considered a capital crime, punishable by death.
On “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”
This prohibition -- which encompasses cooking, eating and benefiting from-- is the basis of subsequent Rabbinic regulations relating to eating milk and milk products together with meat and meat products. Explanations for this restriction include avoidance of the magical; preservation of the milk-giving ability of the animal; health; humanitarian (to avoid causing an animal pain); prohibition of mixing of different kinds of seeds and material for garments.
Rambam suggests that the prohibition is about avoiding idolatry—an opinion supported by recent archeological findings (cited by Rabbi Günter Plaut) that describe a then-prevailing Canaanite sacrificial rite.
Rabbi H. L. Berenholz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)