Reaffirmation

 Ki Tavo

Deut. 26:1-29:8

 

Précis: The parasha contains numerous religious mandates regarding the formation of a civil and moral community (including tithes of first fruits and tithes to support the Levites). The People are promised that if they follow God’s instructions, they will be transformed into a “holy people.” They are further instructed that they have a choice of their own destiny: there are blessings and curses (the “Admonition”), and they must choose between the two, and take the consequences. The parasha ends with Moses reminding the People about all that God had done for them in bringing them from Egypt, providing sustenance, defeating their foes, and giving them the Land.

 

Deut. 28:69 “These are the terms of the covenant which the Eternal commanded Moses to conclude with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant which He had made with them at Horeb.”

As noted by Rabbi Rachel Sabath Beit-Halachmi (Ten Minutes of Torah, 8/27/18), relationships—even sacred relationships—are not static. People change, and the best relationships evolve. 

            The verse cited above includes a demand by Moses to establish a Covenant. Having been at Sinai, why was a new Covenant needed? Beit-Halachmi notes that the Talmud sages (Shabbat 88a) saw that the Sinai Covenant was executed under extreme circumstances, including one commentator who suggested that God held Mount Sinai over the People’s heads, and threatened to drop it unless they agreed! Other commentators offer less extreme circumstances, but continue to note that the scene at Sinai was not one in which consent could be freely given: thunder, lighting, smoke, etc.

            In this week’s parasha, the people are split between two mountains, and Moses reminds them to observe the Covenant. Their acceptance (by uttering “Amen”) can be viewed as a new acceptance of the mutual accountability between God and Israel.

            But more importantly, this acceptance demands that they and we be mindful of each other.  We are not only individuals, and our future depends on our ability to live together. Peoplehood may have begun with the Exodus and was reframed at Sinai, but it was only upon the entrance into the Land that the future of the Israelites clearly called for mutual dependability.  

            Here is a reminder to the Jews of Israel and of the Diaspora: the Covenant between us must be continually reexamined, reconstituted, and reaffirmed.

Sex and Gender

 Ki Tetze

Deut. 21:10 - 25:19

 

Précis:  The parasha might be subtitled “entering society” because it describes the creation of a just and moral social network. It begins with the phrase “when you go forth” (ki tetze) to battle. This parasha, according to Maimonides, contains 72 mitzvot and cover a wide variety of topics, from family life, human kindness, respect for property and animals, the safety of others, sexual relationships, escaped slaves, financial loans and charging interest, keeping promises, and remembering to blot out the name of one of Israel’s greatest enemies. This assortment of commands included requirements that there be sex-distinct clothing; that mother birds not be separated from their eggs; that roof-tops have parapets; that seeds not be mixed in a field, and that “tzitzit” (fringes) be worn on garments.

 

Deut. 22:5 “A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.”

 

Erica Brown (writing in Weekly Jewish Wisdom 2/12/15) foresaw a debate regarding “gender identity” well before it became the “culture war” issue that it has become today.

She notes that scientists had started to believe that gender was more of a spectrum than a binary matter. She offers the important distinction between “sex” (a biological formation of chromosomes, hormones, reproductive capacity, and anatomy) and “gender” (the way one feels about one's personal sense of masculinity or femininity).

She adds that this is not a new conversation, noting that the Talmud discusses several legal cases involving those with both sexual organs and those with unclear biological gender features. However, these issues are not about “gender” but rather about whether the individual would be considered a “man” or a “woman” for purposes of religious obligations. The verse here is more about “gender” because it goes about external coverings and behaviors apart from biological destiny.

            She notes that medieval commentators differ in their understanding of what is prohibited when it comes to cross-dressing. Most believe that the problem is not in wearing clothing of the opposite sex but rather in doing so one can disguise oneself for the purpose of sexual commingling or promiscuity. As she states, “The problem is the lie and the behaviors that follow from this lie. It's not the clothes.” Other commentators argue that the verse points to behavior associated with pagan rites, magic or sexual deviance.

            Brown, a Modern Orthodox woman, observes that there is “a pretty slippery slope here because as we know, over time, men stopped wearing earrings (and then started again) and long tunics and women started wearing business suits. Fashions change.”  So how can we explain the judgmental and harsh language of the verse? She suggests that the best way to interpret this verse is that God is asking us to make a choice, and to affirm that choice in dress and behavior. When one is unsure of one's self, it can be painful to create relationships with others, or even with God.

            She acknowledges that “maybe it's too generous a reading, but I think what God detests is our failure to name ourselves. It can lead to self-hate and hate of others.”

            This interpretation may be too modern for some, and insufficiently modern for others, but it is a call for a conversation on religion and gender identity, and a demand to make that conversation a serious one.