A Place? Without a Place?

T’rumah

Exodus 25:1-27:19

Précis: As the Israelites continue their journey through the wilderness, God tells Moses to ask the people for gifts to build the Tabernacle. “T’rumah” (voluntary donations) of fine metals, yarns, skins, and woods are offered by the People. God gives Moses precise instructions as to the interior and exterior construction of the mishkan (tabernacle). Specific items include an altar for burnt offerings, a curtain (parochet) to separate the main room from an inner sanctum, elaborate candlesticks, incense burners, and other tools. There will be a special Ark to be placed in an area called the Holy of Holies to house the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Precise measures are given for all spaces as well as specific materials designated for the composition of the mishkan.

Ex. 25:1 – “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring Me an offering; of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart you shall take My offering.” 

            What is the Tabernacle, and why is it necessary to build one? These may be obvious questions, but they merit serious thought. As pointed out by Rabbi Moti Bar-Or (Myjewishlearning.com, 2/17/15), of all of the commands in the Bible, this one may be about the most “voluntary” of them all. Donations are not required, but donations should be made willingly. (Aside: think about this when you consider dues systems in our congregations).

            First, what is the Tabernacle? In short, it’s a portable, tent-like structure on the outside, and it seems to have been without a roof. On the inside of the goat-skin walls, we have a series of implements used in connection with ritual sacrifices. The Torah uses around 450 verses to describe the tent and its contents, a rather remarkable fact when one considers the Tabernacle was to be replaced by the Temple.

            Second, why build a Tabernacle? Bar-Or suggests that the Tabernacle should be compared with the Garden of Eden narrative. Both explain (in their own ways) the relationship between God and humanity. But while in the Eden story we have God’s divine act for humans, in the Tabernacle we have human “creativity” to make space for God amongst them (see Ex. 25:8).

            But this is, of course, diametrically opposed to the very concept of a universal God who is everywhere at all time. So why did God want to people to build it? The Sforno, a medieval Italian commentator, suggests the need for the Tabernacle was like an anchor to a concrete place, and perhaps was God’s recognition (after the incident of the Golden Calf) that some physical manifestation of His Presence was needed. Others suggest that God intended to allow Himself to be reduced, and to be able to “inhabit” this world, he needed a place (in Hebrew, “makom.” Indeed, one of the names of God today is “Makom.”

            So, we are left with two diverse ideas of God: one who is “ein-sof” (without a place) and one who is Makom – the place. In addition to the theological disparity, these contrary views carry with them serious political ones as well, not the least of which is the divergence of religious authority points of view in Israel and in the Diaspora.

            In the Jewish history class I teach, we recently discussed the Babylonian Exile, when the Psalmist wrote, “By the waters of Babylon, we sat and wept over thee, Jerusalem…How can we sings songs to the Lord while in a foreign land?” More than 2,500 years ago, the Jewish exiles could not conceive of a way to connect with God when not in Zion. They clearly conceived of God as “Makom.” Yet within a scant few decades, Jeremiah was teaching them to pray for the welfare of the city in which they dwelt (Jer. 29), and indicated that God could hear their prayers from anywhere: God was “ein-sof.”

            How we deal with the poles of opinion is theologically difficult. This parasha, with its emphasis on a Tabernacle suggests God must dwell among us. History teaches the opposite.

The Death Penalty

Mishpatim

Ex. 21:1 - 24:18

Précis: Having received the Ten Commandments (in the previous parasha), Moses now reveals ordinances (mishpatim) needed to implement a comprehensive system of laws. The first group of commandments (mitzvot) relate to the rights of servants (slaves), followed by rules about murder, crimes against parents, personal injury law, offenses against property, and bailment. A list of moral offenses follows, including seduction, witchcraft, sexual perversion, polytheism, and oppression of the “widow, the orphan, and the stranger among you.” The parasha also includes the command to observe a sabbatical year, the Shabbat, and then lists the requirements for the observance of the pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot). The command not to boil a kid in its mothers’ milk (a key proof text for the laws of kashrut) is mentioned, and at the conclusion of the parasha, we find a ceremony where the People, represented by Moses and 70 elders, have an encounter with the Divine Presence and accept the laws and the Covenant.

Ex. 21:12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.”

The viability and use of the death penalty seem to be an issue which has, in recent years, receded in terms of importance. Perhaps it is time to return to a serious consideration of the matter, since this week’s reading literally commands the death penalty.

Rabbi Lewis Warshauer has written (MyJewishLearning.com 2/12/13), about a panel discussion (the 2001 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life) which included Catholic, Jewish, African-American Protestant, and Southern Baptist speakers on behalf of their denominational views on the subject.

The Catholic representative focused on his Church’s gradual movement away from acceptance of the death penalty, citing the catechism of the Church, papal statements, and statements of the US Catholic Bishops. He suggested that the state should not impose the death penalty.  

            The Southern Baptist spokesman stated support for capital punishment because the Bible supports it. He did not cite this particular verse, but made note of Gen. 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

The Protestant African-American spokesman used essentially secular reasons for his group’s opposition to the death penalty, not relying upon Biblical sources.

            The Jewish representative (a member of the Orthodox Movement) quoted rabbinic barriers to the penalty pronounced by the Sages which form the core of Jewish law on the subject. These include including requirements for two witnesses, even-handed and intense judicial inquiry, and the need to warn the actor against his action. He advocated limitation of the death penalty in the United States because of the enormous questions as to its fairness and impartiality as imposed.

What grounds support abolition of the death penalty? There may yet be instances where capital punishment is appropriate (see, e.g., Adolf Eichmann, the only individual who has ever been sentenced to death by an Israeli court).  But as applied in the United States today, it appears that our system is erratic and unfair. 

I take note that the only countries which execute more individuals than the United States (and not on a per capita basis) are China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. In America, the penalty is at times applied to those who most would consider to be children, and at times to those with diminished mental capabilities. Few could dispute that the death sentence is imposed much more often on the poor than on those who can afford excellent legal representation. We should recognize that the Jewish tradition’s demand for truth and fairness is not necessarily the primary goals of the American criminal justice system. This being the case, it is time to re-elevate the debate about the death penalty in our civil discourse.