Names, names, and more names

Va’era

Exodus 6:2 - 9:35

Précis: God reiterates His intention to free the Israelites from bondage and to create a covenant with them. Moses goes back to Pharaoh to seek release of the Israelites. Pharaoh refuses and we see the first seven of the fabled plagues: blood, frogs, fleas, beetles, cattle disease, boils, and hail. Pharaoh relents after each plague begins, deciding to let the people go, but then God “hardens Pharaoh’s heart” and he refuses to allow them to leave.

Ex. 6:2-3 “God also said to Moses, ‘I am The Eternal.  I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name YHVH I did not make Myself known to them...’”

               I recently had an extended discussion with a congregant couple about baby names. They wanted to know if it was “permitted” to have a different Hebrew name than the English name they planned for their child. I explained that customs vary significantly, and that while many try to use the same name as an ancestor for the Hebrew name, there seems to be a much more relaxed custom when it comes to English names, with many parents selecting names with little or no relation to the Hebrew name. The congregants with whom I spoke were not satisfied with my answer, wanting  something more definitive. When it comes to names, many of us want to get it “right.” [For a fascinating recent article on the origin of Jewish last names, see http://jewishcurrents.org/the-origins-and-meanings-of-ashkenazic-last-names-12849.]

               This week’s Torah reading again brings the matter of “names” to the fore. In this verse, God tells Moses that He is to be known by a name previously not known to the Patriarchs. But the statement that they “did not know” the name YHVH is contradicted by the text itself. Abraham knew it (Gen. 15:7) when his covenant with God was made. Jacob knew it as well (Gen. 28:13) as we see in the story of his ladder dream. Nahama Leibowitz explains: “From this it emerges that the text is a pointer not to God’s name but to God’s essence” (Studies in Shemot p.133). This seems to mean that while the name may have been “known” to the Patriarchs, its “meaning” was being newly revealed to Moses.

          These first chapters of Exodus spend a great deal of time on God’s name. Only last week, we had the revelation of God’s name as “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh” [I will be what I will be (Ex. 3:13–14)]. Laura Geller has suggested (Reform Voices of Torah 1/11/10) that if “ehyeh” is the future tense of the verb “to be” than YHVH may be the present tense of the same verb: “is.” Someone famously once said that it’s important to know what the definition of “is” is. So it would seem here, since that definition defines the Creator.

               The Hebrew title of this Book in Hebrew is Shemot (Names). In the first parasha, we learned the names of Jacob’s descendants who “went down” into Egypt, and we learned the future tense name of God. In this second parasha, we learn the Name which “is.” Names are always important!

"A bridegroom of blood" - What's THAT supposed to mean?

Shemot

Exodus 1:1 - 6:1

Précis: With this parasha, we begin the second book of the Bible, Exodus. In Hebrew, the title for this book is “Shemot” (names) because the first verses begin with a listing of “names” of the Israelites who came down to Egypt with Jacob, to dwell in Goshen in response to Joseph’s and Pharaoh’s offer.  A new Pharaoh has arisen who “does not remember Joseph.” He enslaves the Israelites and orders the killing of all male children. A Levite male child is born, is hidden by his parents, and is sent down the river in a reed basket where he is saved by Pharaoh’s daughter. He is subsequently identified as Moses.

               Nothing appears in the text about Moses’ childhood, other than that he is raised in the house of Pharaoh. As an adult, Moses witnesses a taskmaster beating a Hebrew and slays the taskmaster. Next, he witnesses a fight between two Hebrews. When he attempts to intervene, one Hebrew mentions Moses’ killing of the Egyptian. Fearing disclosure, Moses flees to the desert.
               There, Moses becomes a shepherd in the camp of Jethro, a Midianite “priest.” He encounters the burning bush and learns God’s “name.” Moses receives his charge to free the Israelites and is provided with signs to authenticate his mission. Before leaving Jethro, Moses marries Zipporah and they have a child. Moses and his brother Aaron go before Pharaoh and ask that the people be freed to worship God in the desert. They are refused, and the burdens are increased on the slaves, who become angry with Moses for his interference. The parasha ends with God telling Moses, “You now will see what I will do to Pharaoh.”

Ex. 4:21-26 “And God said to Moses, ‘When you return to Egypt, perform before Pharaoh the marvels I have placed in your power. I will stiffen his heart so that he will not let the people go. Then you will say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says God: Israel is my first-born son. I have said to you ‘Let My son go, that he may worship Me,’ yet you refuse to let him go. Now I will slay your first-born.’ At a night encampment on the way, God encountered him and sought to kill him. So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying ‘You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me.’ And when He let him alone, she added, ‘A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.’”
               We have here two seemingly unconnected story segments. In the first several verses, God tells Moses to remind Pharaoh that Israel is His “first-born” son, that Pharaoh will not let the Israelites go, and that God will slay the first-born of Egypt. (Moses probably realizes at this moment that his assignment will be a much more difficult than previously he might have imagined!).
               The second story segment deals with a mysterious and ambiguous situation. The Hebrew is unclear, and to whom the pronouns refer is complicated. It is not clear whether God is seeking to kill Moses or Moses’ son; furthermore, it is not clear whose legs are touched with the bloody foreskin (again, it might be Moses or his son), and it is not at all clear what the statement regarding “ a bridegroom of blood” is intended to mean. The traditional interpretation has been that God sought to slay Moses (why?), and was prevented from doing so by the action of Zipporah to circumcise their son and to place the bloody foreskin against Moses’ legs. (Is this some sort of “magical” action which is used to prevent God from acting? This story seems to be so “un-Jewish”!)
               Even if the traditional understanding is correct, we are left with the question of why these two circumstances are juxtaposed. Former Chancellor Schorsch of JTS has suggested an alternative reading of these verses (Chancellor’s Weekly Parasha 1/15/94). He explains that the target of God’s nighttime visit was really Moses’ first-born son, Gershom. Schorsch believes that Moses had been “traumatized” when he was informed by God that He planned on slaying the first-born of Egypt. Because of this trauma, he again became reluctant to proceed. God in turn attacks Moses' own first-born son, perhaps to demonstrate His power. Zipporah’s intervention saves the son, while Moses looks on, unwilling or unable to intervene. Her act of circumcising Gershom saves him. Moses’ is “let alone” (by God) and proceeds with the mission.

               The juxtaposition of these story segments is an invitation to think about how the Bible can be interpreted and how we are heirs to a text we do not fully comprehend, despite 2,500 years of commentary and analysis. I am not disturbed by the fact that parts of the text remain so uncertain and unclear. Rather, I feel fortunate that we can continue to participate in this tradition of learning and study.