B'har/B'chukotai
Leviticus 25:1-27:34
Précis: B’har begins with a description of the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee (Yovel) Year. In the 50th (Jubilee) Year, we are to “proclaim liberty throughout the land” and property will be restored to the original owners. The parasha continues with the prohibition against unlimited slavery, as well as the rules for the treatment of those who are slaves.
B'chukotai begins with a statement promising blessings if the People follow in Adonai’s ways. The blessings are discussed in detail. But if the People disobey, terrible punishments will be visited upon them, and these, too, are listed in agonizing detail. The Book of Leviticus then concludes (as it opened) with regulations regarding the upkeep of the Sanctuary, from voluntary tithes, land gifts, firstborn redemption, and the tithes of flocks.
Leviticus 26:36 “As for those of you who survive, I will cast a faintness into their hearts in the land of their enemies. The sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight. Fleeing as though from the sword, they shall fall though none pursues.”
As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg is a novelization of one of the most intriguing figures of Mishnaic times, Elisha ben Abuyah, sometimes called “Acher” (“The Other”) . Rabbi Elisha struggled to reconcile Jewish tradition with Greek philosophy and knowledge of the "real" world. Ultimately, he was branded an apostate by his fellow scholars. Nevertheless, several of his quotations and stories about him remain in the Talmud, from which Steinberg draws the core material for this masterwork, a work which itself is a wonderful examination of how one might go about trying to reconcile the way things ought to be with the way things are.
The book comes to mind when one reads this particular verses. The phrase “driven leaf” (aleh nidaf) appears only twice in the Bible: here and in the Book of Job (13:25: "Why do you hide Your face . . . ? Will You harass a driven leaf?" Job asks God). In both verses, the phrase shows the terror of human loneliness when we have lost a connection to God. In Leviticus 26, the Israelites are told that if they abandon God’s law, they will be so terrorized that the mere sound of a “driven leaf” will cause panic. Job is saying that to be cut off from God is to be denied the possibility of comfort, even from well-intentioned friends.
In life, the awful punishments we read about in this parasha cannot always be prevented; like Job, even the innocent may suffer. But the parasha and Job both make clear that the covenant remains. We may be estranged and as anxious as the driven leaf, but the opportunity for a reconciliation between tradition and life, between ourselves and God, remains open to us.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Eye for an Eye, Measure for Measure
Emor
Leviticus 21:1 - 24:23
Précis: This parasha is divided into four sections. First, it reviews rituals for the Priests to use to remain ritually pure. Second, it outlines the festival and holiday calendar. Third, it explains the use of the olive oil and display bread on Shabbat. Finally, there is a brief narrative about a blasphemer who is condemned to death.
Leviticus 24: 19-21 “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.”
Our text states the idea clearly: anyone who maims another is maimed in return. This is one of three biblical locations for the biblical phrase, “ayin tachat ayin” (eye for eye); similar language appears in Exodus 21:23-25 and Deuteronomy 19:21.
This expression was troubling to the sages of Israel, as can be learned from an examination of Mishnah, which takes it for granted that the phrase means that we are to pay monetary damages equal to the loss suffered. The Talmudic explanation offers a host of reasons why the Torah’s injunction should not and cannot be meant literally, based on other proof texts. For example, since “one law” applies to all, how could we take the eye of a blind person?
The Rabbis of the Talmudic era also offer a parallel concept called “midah k'neged midah” (measure for measure) which is also referred to as the idea of “correspondence.” In other words, one gets what one deserves. Proof texts deal with the punishments for Pharaoh, Amalek, and Haman as examples of those whose punishment corresponded to their evil acts. Other textual citations refer to Joseph, Moses, and the Israelites who are blessed with rewards corresponding to the mitzvot they performed.
This concept, however, runs smack into the reality of the unfairness of life; could we really believe that the victims of the Holocaust were punished because of their sins? Reality tells us that, at least sometimes, the wicked do prosper, and that the good do suffer.
We can “resolve” this problem by accepting the idea that in olam habah, the world to come, the scales of justice will be righted. But we live in this world. Perhaps we can find our way through the inevitable disparities of outcomes in human events by following the core messages of Leviticus: seek holiness, and seek justice.
Leviticus 21:1 - 24:23
Précis: This parasha is divided into four sections. First, it reviews rituals for the Priests to use to remain ritually pure. Second, it outlines the festival and holiday calendar. Third, it explains the use of the olive oil and display bread on Shabbat. Finally, there is a brief narrative about a blasphemer who is condemned to death.
Leviticus 24: 19-21 “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.”
Our text states the idea clearly: anyone who maims another is maimed in return. This is one of three biblical locations for the biblical phrase, “ayin tachat ayin” (eye for eye); similar language appears in Exodus 21:23-25 and Deuteronomy 19:21.
This expression was troubling to the sages of Israel, as can be learned from an examination of Mishnah, which takes it for granted that the phrase means that we are to pay monetary damages equal to the loss suffered. The Talmudic explanation offers a host of reasons why the Torah’s injunction should not and cannot be meant literally, based on other proof texts. For example, since “one law” applies to all, how could we take the eye of a blind person?
The Rabbis of the Talmudic era also offer a parallel concept called “midah k'neged midah” (measure for measure) which is also referred to as the idea of “correspondence.” In other words, one gets what one deserves. Proof texts deal with the punishments for Pharaoh, Amalek, and Haman as examples of those whose punishment corresponded to their evil acts. Other textual citations refer to Joseph, Moses, and the Israelites who are blessed with rewards corresponding to the mitzvot they performed.
This concept, however, runs smack into the reality of the unfairness of life; could we really believe that the victims of the Holocaust were punished because of their sins? Reality tells us that, at least sometimes, the wicked do prosper, and that the good do suffer.
We can “resolve” this problem by accepting the idea that in olam habah, the world to come, the scales of justice will be righted. But we live in this world. Perhaps we can find our way through the inevitable disparities of outcomes in human events by following the core messages of Leviticus: seek holiness, and seek justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)