The Scroll and the Scribe

Welcome!

2009-03-05T22:15:00.000-08:00

This blog is primarily about reading and interpreting the Torah. The posts will roughly follow the order of scripture portions studied at home and read in the synagogue each week. The Torah is the heritage (collective memory) of Israel, and study of the Torah has always been central to Judaism. Psalm 119:18 says, "Open my eyes, that I may see wonders from your Torah."

Enter with me into the living waters of rabbinical Judaism.

Props of Mercy

2006-05-17T22:40:00.000-07:00

Lev. 14:1-7
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, This shall be the Torah of the leper in the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and if the disease of leprosy has been healed in the leper, then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds, and cedar wood, and red yarn, and hyssop.
The priest shall command that one of the birds be slaughtered in a clay bowl over running water (lit., living waters). As for the live bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the red yarn, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the running water.
Then he shall sprinkle upon him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall release the live bird into the open field.

Two rituals from Leviticus have fascinated me for a long time, at least since the 1980’s when, as a Christian, I first studied them in any detail. The first ritual is the cleansing of the leper with props that appear to work some sort of magic, except that: (a) the disease is not really leprosy, (b) the person has already been healed of the disease before the priest performs the ritual, so (c) no magic actually occurs. The cleansing is merely a formal recognition by the priest that the person is healed and ready to return to the community. The props—a cedar stick, red yarn, hyssop, a clay bowl, “living” water, and two clean birds—may have once boasted magical power to heal disease. However, here their symbolic meaning is largely lost. And rather than props of magic, here they are simply props of mercy. Beyond this, nothing can be said for certain about their significance. Interpretations abound, but often our interpretations only reflect what we want the ritual and its symbols to mean. I note in passing that the live bird released into the open surely carries as much significance as the bird that is slaughtered for its blood.

The second ritual is found in Leviticus chapter 16. On the Day of Atonement, two goats are brought to the priest. One is slaughtered as a purification offering* to purge the sanctuary which has been defiled by the sins of the community. The other goat carries all the sins, transgressions and iniquities of the community into the wilderness, where it is released.

There is an obvious similarity between the two birds and the two goats in their respective rituals. In each ritual the final step is release of a live animal: the bird signifies cleansing of disease, the goat signifies forgiveness of sins. Together they represent the unmatched mercy of the God of Israel.

Sin and impurity

The relationship between sin and impurity is not reciprocal. Impurity does not necessarily imply sin, but sin causes impurity. Sin causes impurity both to the sanctuary of our outward forms of worship and to the sanctuary of our soul. In figurative language, there is the stain of sin and the stench of sin. To atone for sin is to purify the person who sinned (Lev. 16:30). The writer of Psalm 51 draws on the ritual imagery of cleansing physical impurity when he asks for forgiveness of his sin:

Psalm 51:4, 9 MT
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin…. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

He writes in the context of the ritual detailed in Lev. 14. He does not seek another way of atonement, but exemplifies the teaching of Lev. 16: “humble your souls” and “you shall be clean from all your sins before the Lord.” (vv. 29, 30)

Psalm 51:19 MT
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and crushed heart, O God, you will not despise.

A broken spirit, a crushed heart: these too are props of mercy.

*Purification offering: Usually translated sin offering, but this is misleading, especially since the offering is brought in situations where no sin is involved. For the technical argument, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible.

The Kosher Grasshopper

2006-05-01T23:40:00.000-07:00

Lev. 11:44a, 47
For I am the Lord your God; you shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for I am holy…. [This is the Torah] to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which may not be eaten.

A concise version of Leviticus chapter 11: Pig is out, grasshopper in. I can see I've been missing out on some fine selections for the dinner menu!

On a more serious note, compare Lev. 10:10 with 11:47. Every culture makes judgments about what may appear on the menu, and these "eating rules" are fairly rigid even in our free country. Horse? No way (for most of us). Ditto dog, cat and grasshopper. Whatever conclusion one comes to about observing kashrut, the system of kashrut serves to promote the value of holiness and the importance of discernment even in practical matters, such as food.

We also forget that kashrut in its historical origin was a matter of law for a nation governed by laws, just as we have statutes which make distinctions about what is clean (acceptable) and unclean (prohibited). I believe spotted owls are unclean today, due to a different cultural value: for the preservation of every species except one.

To keep or not to keep kosher…

Reform Judaism began, in the mid-1800s, as an attempt to make Judaism relevant to modern society, and to focus on the central message of Judaism which was said to be “ethical monotheism”: the belief in one God who revealed moral precepts to mankind. As a consequence, Reform Judaism’s view of the Torah made a distinction between the moral laws which continued to be relevant, and the ceremonial and social laws which served a purpose in the history of Israel as a nation but which no longer made sense to follow. Among these in the latter group were dietary laws known as kashrut, i.e., keeping kosher.

Kashrut is considered binding in both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, although these two branches of Judaism vary somewhat in their interpretation of the laws of kashrut. In general terms, pork and shellfish are prohibited, other meat must be slaughtered and prepared according to certain standards, meat and milk are not consumed together, etc. The purpose of kashrut, as well as other observances, is sanctification, not salvation. By following the dietary laws, a Jew recognizes the presence and significance of God even in the food eaten, and so sanctifies the act of eating as if doing so before God. What does God care whether or not one eats pork? Perhaps God doesn’t, but in the tradition of Israel and the teaching of the Torah (both of which are ascribed to God), it is prohibited. And in both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, kashrut represents the commandment of God given through Moses at Sinai.

Reform Judaism in its “classical” form dispensed with all of this, except that pork was generally not consumed out of deference to the broader community of Judaism.

In the past several decades Reform Judaism has moved toward more traditional observance of ceremonial and social laws, especially in such areas as prayer services, celebration of the Sabbath and festivals, and to a somewhat lesser degree kashrut. The move has been made partly in response to the existence of the state of Israel, and partly in response to the impact of the Holocaust: nothing like a catastrophe to remind one of one’s roots, ethnic and spiritual. Even so, “personal autonomy” remains a central idea in Reform Judaism, so that observance is not based on arguments from “authority.” As another movement in Judaism puts it, tradition gets a vote but not a veto.

… and what do I think about it

My own view is a bit different. I don’t find a large place for “personal autonomy” in the Torah, rather “personal autonomy” is more a practical adjustment to modern free society than an ideal to be pursued. The ideal is community governed by a covenant with God. So while I may not personally see the sense of the specific dietary laws that make up kashrut, the purpose of kashrut — sanctifying daily life before God — does make sense. Beyond that, the covenant is not between me as an individual and God, but between Israel and God. So as one who aspires to association with Israel as the covenant community of God, kashrut is important.

My interpretation of kashrut is not as restrictive as tradition has made it. The culture-bound nature of the dietary laws can be easily understood by comparison with the strange tastes (and distastes) of other cultures, also ascribed to God. So while I do not find the distinction between the moral laws and the social/ceremonial laws all that helpful (e.g., the Sabbath falls in the latter category, but what would Israel be without it?), I do consider the historical and cultural context of the laws important in any attempt to apply them to modern life.

All that said, my standard remains: when in doubt, observe. Observe for the sake of community, observe out of a humble attitude toward my own personal opinions, observe for the purpose of sanctification. In short, as A.J. Heschel said, “God is everywhere save in arrogance.” I do not arrogantly stand in judgment of the Torah, rather I allow the Torah to judge me and so teach me.

Aaron's beard, Zion's dew

2006-04-20T22:50:00.000-07:00

Leviticus 8:10, 12
And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and sanctified them…. And he poured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Psalm 133:1-2
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that runs down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that runs down to the hem of his garments.

The Talmud makes the connection between these two passages (cf. Horayot 12a, Keritot 5b). Psalm 133 is heaven’s response to the actions of Moses and Aaron as they fulfilled their roles as servants of God. Moses and Aaron were brothers who stood together as one before God, especially as Moses anointed his brother Aaron for the service of the tabernacle, and together they blessed the people (cf. Lev. 9:23).

Peace and unity between brothers is not a given. The stories of brothers in Genesis do not assume that they “dwell together in unity.” Nevertheless, reconciliation between brothers is clearly a value emphasized by these same stories: Isaac and Ishmael come together to bury their father, Esau greets Jacob in peace, and Joseph forgives his brothers. We miss the point of all the conflict if we do not see the resolution.

Moses and Aaron are something of an exception to the usual painful process leading to peace. In spite of their long separation as children and young adults, they come together through God’s purpose to build the community of Israel even as they build the tabernacle. They walk together “in the light of the Lord.”

Moses anointed the tabernacle and all of its contents by sprinkling the oil on them (Lev. 8:11). But when he came to Aaron his brother a sprinkle of oil was not prescribed (cf. Exod. 29:7). Instead he poured the anointing oil on Aaron’s head, as if to demonstrate the abundance of God’s light and peace and mercy which the tabernacle service would bring to Israel. Psalm 133 responds in poetic language to say that so much oil was poured on Aaron’s head that it ran down his beard and over his garments!

Lev. 9:22a
And Aaron lifted his hands toward the people, and blessed them.

Psalm 133:3
Like the dew of Hermon descending upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord has commanded the blessing, life for evermore.

Jacob Milgrom* says of the phrase, “Aaron lifted his hands,” that this is a posture of prayer, and that in fact Aaron lifted his hands toward heaven, to the Lord, as in Exod. 9:33. But the verse here does not say anything of the sort, and the priestly blessing is not a prayer to heaven. Instead, “Aaron lifts his hands toward the people,” because the blessing flows from heaven through the priest to the people. Some blessings are prayers: “Blessed are you, O Lord our God….” But the priestly blessing is commanded by God for the benefit of Zion, that they might enjoy the favor of God and dwell together in unity forever.

*Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible, pp. 586-587.

From Pauper to Prince

2006-04-12T15:51:00.000-07:00

Psalm 113:5-8 MT
Who is like the Lord our God, who sits enthroned on high,
yet deigns to look on heaven and on the earth!
He raises up the poor from the dust, and lifts the needy from the ash heaps, to set them with princes, with the princes of his people.

Lev. 5:11-13
But if he is not able to bring (lit., his hand does not reach) two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he shall bring as his offering for what he has sinned the tenth part of an ephah of semolina for a purification offering; he shall not put oil on it, nor shall he place frankincense on it; for it is a purification offering.
Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as a token portion, and burn it on the altar, with the offerings made by fire (or, food gifts) to the Lord; it is a purification offering.
And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin he committed…, and it shall be forgiven him; and [the rest] shall belong to the priest, as the cereal offering.

The Torah makes provision for the poor and needy in various ways, some explicitly stated in commandments such as leaving the corners of your field for the needy and the stranger (Lev. 19:9-10), others implicitly understood such as extending the Sabbath rest to the servant in your household and the stranger within your gates (Exod. 20:10). On the Sabbath even the pauper is a prince!

The voluntary and mandatory offerings also reflect this consideration. As in the passage from Leviticus quoted above, the benefits of participation in bringing offerings to the Lord were not limited to those who could afford a bull or a sheep. Here in Leviticus chapter 5 this is made explicit: those who could not afford a lamb could bring two domesticated birds, and if this was still too much then a cereal offering would be acceptable. But that is not all.

Jacob Milgrom’s excellent commentary* on Leviticus identifies several aspects of the offerings that have as their purpose to encourage the poor and needy:
(1) The very manner in which the bird is placed on the fire of the altar, by tearing and therefore spreading its wings (1:17), would “increase its size and give the appearance of a more substantial gift.” (p. 172)
(2) The cereal offering (Leviticus chapter 2) is essentially “the offering of the poor” (p.179) in place of the more expensive burnt offering.
(3) Even among the different forms of the cereal offering there is a gradation which allows the poor more access. The cooked cereal offerings are presented without frankincense. “The omission of the frankincense requirement may be regarded as a deliberate concession to the poor. That is, if they cannot afford it… they have the option of bringing a cooked cereal offering….” (p. 183)

What is God that he should show regard for paltry offerings, for our pitiful attempts to honor him? Yet, the God who reigns over heaven and earth deigns to look on our forms of worship and accept them, and shows special attention to the poor and needy. Even the pauper is a prince in the courtyard of the tabernacle, when he brings his heart and his offering before the Lord.

Mishnah Menachot 13:11 (adapted from Soncino edition)
It is said of the burnt offerings of cattle, an offering made by fire of a sweet savor (Lev. 1:9), and of the burnt offerings of birds, an offering made by fire of a sweet savor (Lev. 1:17), and of the cereal offering, an offering made by fire of a sweet savor (Lev. 2:2), to teach you that it is the same whether a man offers much or little, so long as he directs his heart to heaven.

*Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible, 1991.

As the Lord commanded

2006-04-03T23:12:00.000-07:00

Pure and Holy

Exodus 39:30
And they made the plate of the holy rim of pure gold, and wrote on it a writing, like the engravings of a signet, Holy to the Lord.

In this verse two descriptive words appear that are closely related though not synonymous: pure (tahor) and holy (qodesh).

There are 24 references to pure gold (zahav tahor) in the chapters of Exodus describing the design and construction of the tabernacle. The other 3 references in the Hebrew Bible have to do with the temple.

Compare the words of the psalmist about the ordinances of the Lord:

Psalm 19:10b-12 MT (cf. Psalm 119:127)
The ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
They are more to be desired than gold, even very fine gold;
sweeter also than honey and [the drippings of] the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward.

The ordinances of the Lord, which include the instructions for the tabernacle service, are seen as pure as the gold worn on the priest’s forehead.

The second word, holy, can be defined negatively and positively.

Negatively it can mean “unapproachable” or “withdrawn from common use” (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, vol.3, The Anchor Bible, 1991, pp. 730-731). The unapproachable aspect of holy may also carry a sense of terror and a threat of death. Things that are withdrawn from common use or their former use are called holy.

Positively it can mean set apart to the service of the Lord, as in “holy to the Lord.” In this sense the Sabbath is holy (Exod. 16:23, 31:15), the people of Israel are called to be holy (Deut, 26:19), and the service of the priests is holy (Ezra 8:28).

Together the words pure (tahor) and holy (qodesh) summarize the service of the priests in the tabernacle, and point forward to a major theme of the book of Leviticus:

Leviticus 10:10 (cf. 11:47, 20:25)
Distinguish between the holy (qodesh) and the common (chol) and the impure (tamei) and the pure (tahor).

Ezekiel’s complaint about the corruption of the priests is worded in these same categories:

Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests violate my law and profane my holy things. They do not distinguish between holy and common, and they do not teach [the difference] between the impure and the pure. And they shut their eyes to my Sabbaths so I am profaned among them.

Not a slob like you

The God who designed the tabernacle service and saw it through to completion paid attention to detail, meticulous detail. Not only does he plan the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle, but then the entire process is described again as it is done, with the refrain “as the Lord commanded Moses” after each part is finished. This God is not a slob like you. His personality type revealed in this section of Exodus is that of a Felix Unger, not an Oscar Madison. Attention to every detail: that’s the God of Israel.

I say the God who designed the tabernacle service in a loose way, because I do not actually see the tabernacle as literally designed by God in every detail, but by the community of Israel in their attempt to approach God in appropriate forms of worship. In that light we do not have to defend each detail of the tabernacle service and the sacrifices, but we can still appreciate how these particular forms reflect their understanding of God and what was thought appropriate to worship him in purity and holiness.

The Sabbath, the Tabernacle, and Creation

2006-03-24T16:01:00.000-08:00

Exodus 31:12-17 (abridged)
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel, saying, Surely you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.
You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you; the one who defiles it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off….
Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord….
Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant.
It is a sign between me and the people of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he ceased and rested.

Here, at the completion of the plans for building and furnishing the tabernacle, a reminder of the Sabbath commandment has been inserted. Likewise, at the beginning of the section which describes the actual construction of the tabernacle, another reference to the Sabbath commandment occurs:

Exodus 35:1-3
And Moses gathered all the congregation of the people of Israel together, and said to them, These are the things that the Lord has commanded, that you should do them.
Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whoever does work on it shall be put to death.
You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.

The creative aspect of work

Is the juxtaposition of these passages coincidental, or did the author intend for a connection to be made between the work (m’lachah, Exod. 36:7) performed in the construction of the tabernacle and the command not to perform any work (m’lachah, Exod. 31:14, 35:2) on the Sabbath? The term work, which means more precisely craftsmanship, occurs most often in these two contexts, the tabernacle and the Sabbaths (including certain festival days). It is the creative aspect of work which finds expression in this term: not only the creativity of a skilled craftsman, but the way that all work alters the available materials to make them more useful and therefore more valuable, from the manual labor of the “woodcutter and waterdrawer” (Deut. 29:9) to the specialized artistry of the “engraver and designer and embroiderer.” (Exod. 35:35)

Add to this another connection: the same hand that wrote about the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle also wrote the opening section of Genesis concerning the creation and furnishing of the world (1:1-2:3), which just happens to conclude with an allusion to the Sabbath. Other parallels between these passages have also been noted, such as the term Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2, Exod. 31:3, 35:31), the name Betsalel (in the image of God) and various words related to work and creation.

Since the Torah prohibited work on the Sabbath, how was that term to be defined and delimited? If a community is to observe any set of rules, the terminology must be made concrete. The Sabbath is not observed in the abstract, but in practical life. The rabbis' solution of using the work on the construction of the tabernacle as their model was reasonably based on Exodus 35-36 where that term is repeated many times in the process of describing how the tabernacle was built. The tabernacle model allowed them to i) avoid ad hoc decisions on the matter and ii) appeal to the Torah as their constitutional authority.

The result? Thirty-nine categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath, as enumerated in the Mishnah:

Sowing, Plowing, Reaping
Binding sheaves, Threshing, Winnowing
Selecting, Grinding, Sifting
Kneading, Baking
Shearing wool, Washing wool, Beating wool, Dyeing wool
Spinning, Weaving
Making two loops, Weaving two threads, Separating two threads
Tying, Untying, Sewing two stitches, Tearing
Trapping, Slaughtering, Flaying, Salting meat
Curing hide, Scraping hide, Cutting hide up
Writing two letters, Erasing two letters
Building, Tearing a building down
Extinguishing a fire, Kindling a fire
Hitting with a hammer
Taking an object from the private domain to the public, or transporting an object in the public domain.
(Mishnah Shabbat, 7:2)

The Sabbath and Doing Good

These activities are not prohibited on the Sabbath because they are bad things to do; they are good things to do. Those men and women (35:25) who participated in preparing the Tabernacle for the service of God were doing good and very skillful work, and their contribution was highly valued and highly praised. But on the Sabbath even that good work has to cease.

In the Christian’s New Testament there is an account of Jesus choosing to heal a man on the Sabbath, and the justification for his act is given: “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:12b) What curious terminology for a son of Israel to use regarding the Sabbath–even more curious when compared with the LXX of the creation account in Genesis. The key words are do (poien) and good (kalos).

On six days God performed the work of creation, on the seventh day God rested. Comparing Greek with Greek, we find that:

a. On the first day, after creating light, Gen. 1:4a, “And God saw that the light was good (LXX, kalon).”

b. On the third day, after forming the land and the seas, Gen. 1:10b, “And God saw that it was good.”

c. Again on the third day, after bringing forth plants and trees from the land, Gen. 1:12b, “And God saw that it was good.”

d. On the fourth day, after placing lights in the sky to mark hours and days and seasons, Gen. 1:18b, “And God saw that it was good.”

e. On the fifth day, after making creatures to fill the sea and sky, Gen. 1:21b, “And God saw that it was good.”

f. On the sixth day, after making creatures to move on land, Gen. 1:25b, “And God saw that it was good.”

g. Again on the sixth day, after making man, Gen. 1:31a, “And God saw all that he made, and, behold it was very good.”

From these verses we can see that God was engaged in doing good on the six days of creation–specifically he was doing the kind of creative work which is forbidden Israel on the Sabbath. As the text continues:

Genesis 2:2, based on LXX: And God completed on the sixth day his work* which he had been doing (epoiesen), and he ceased on the seventh day from all his work* which he had been doing (epoiesen).

Genesis 2:3, based on LXX: And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because on it he ceased from all his work* of creating which God had done (poiesai).

So when the account has Jesus argue that doing good is lawful on the Sabbath, I must argue to the contrary: It is precisely doing good that is forbidden. Even ‘doing the work of the Lord’ must cease!

*his work, Heb., m'lach'to (same term as found in Exodus in the contexts of the Sabbath and the tabernacle)

Addendum

A. The Laws of the Sabbath in the Torah (aside from “keep” and “remember”)

Positive
1. Rest (Exod. 23:12; cf. 34:21)
2. Sanctify (Exod. 20:8; cf. Deut. 5:12), by implication at its onset and termination

Negative
1. Not to work (Exod. 20:10; cf. Deut. 5:14)
2. Not to go (travel) beyond permitted limits (Exod. 16:29)
3. Not to kindle a fire (Exod. 35:3)

B. The Torah as the source (authority) for additional Sabbath legislation:

Gen. 2:1-3 Not to pursue any "creative" activity (e.g., writing)
Exod. 16:22-30 Food for the Sabbath to be prepared on Friday
Lev. 23:3 Assemble for worship (miqra-qodesh=sacred assembly?)
Exod. 35:1 Assemble for instruction
Num. 28:9-10 Sabbath offerings
Exod. 35:4ff The categories of work defined by analogy to construction of the tabernacle

C. The Laws of the Sabbath honored elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible

Isa. 56: 2, 6 The Sabbath proclaimed as one of the essential practices that define Israel
Isa. 58:13-14 The Sabbath to be honored by not pursuing our business affairs, etc. (cf. Amos 8:5)
Jer. 17:21-24 Not to carry a load or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath
Neh. 13:15-22 Various prohibited activities listed; gates of Jerusalem to be shut on the Sabbath

Actually the two passages from Isaiah, along with Exod. 31:12-17 (which, among other things, declares the Sabbath to be an everlasting covenant), are what make the Sabbath indispensable in my opinion.

Sacred Vestments

2006-03-16T16:28:00.000-08:00

Sacred Vestments

You shall make sacred vestments for Aaron your brother, for glory and splendor…. These are the vestments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a woven tunic, a turban, and a sash. They shall make sacred vestments for Aaron your brother and his sons so that they will serve as priests to Me. (Exod. 28:2, 4)

Add to this list a linen undergarment (Exod. 28:42) and a headplate (Exod. 28:36).

What significance do the sacred vestments carry for the service of Aaron and his sons as priests? Both the ephod and the breastpiece bear the names of the twelve tribes who together constitute Israel, so obviously their significance has something to do with representation of the nation before God. But for the other garments there appears to be little importance apart from their ornamental purpose to give those who wear them "glory and splendor." (Exod. 28:3, 40) “Blessed is he who crowns Israel with splendor.” (Berakhot 60b)

Not so fast. In Talmud tractate Zevachim, a rabbi by the name of Inyani bar Sason asks why the topics of vestments and offerings are set side by side in Leviticus chapters 7-8? The answer: just as the offerings atone, so do the vestments! The explanation that follows is fascinating, albeit something of a stretch. Each of the vestments has a particular sin that they atone for, especially as they apply to the priest’s service before God. We may also learn from the text what sins were considered among the most grevious by the sages of the Talmud.

Zevachim 88a (cf. Arachin 16a)
The tunic atones for the shedding of blood, as it says, And they slaughtered a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood. (Gen. 37:31)

Joseph's special tunic becomes the model for the tunic worn by Aaron and his sons. Just as Joseph's brothers used the goat's blood to represent (though falsely) that Joseph had become the victim of bloodshed, so the tunic of a later age would atone for bloodshed.

The undergarment atones for sexual immorality [lit., exposing nakedness], as it says, And you shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. (Exod. 28:42)

Sexual immorality defiles us and corrupts a priest’s service to God. Leviticus chapter 18 defines this sin in more detail.

The turban atones for an arrogant spirit. How? R. Hanina said: Let an article which is high come and atone for haughtiness.

“God is everywhere save in arrogance.” (A.J. Heschel) A priest who is arrogant will find God absent from his worship. “Whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart, him I will not endure.” (Psalm 101:5b) Perhaps arrogance was behind the “strange fire” for which Nadab and Abihu were put to death. As another passage from the Talmud teaches: “R. Joseph said: Man should always learn from the character of his Creator, because the Holy One, blessed be he, left behind all the mountains and heights and caused his Presence to abide on Mt. Sinai, and he left behind all the beautiful trees and caused his Presence to abide in a bush.” (Sotah 5a)

The sash atones for the thoughts of the heart, because of where it is worn.

The sash was worn over the heart (cf. Josephus, Antiquities III, 7:2). Some sins are done in public, some in private, and some only in the thoughts of our heart. The thoughts of our heart only God knows: “You search all the secret chambers of man’s inner being and examine his feelings and his heart. No matter is hidden from you and nothing is concealed from your sight.” (Afternoon service, Erev Yom Kippur)

The breastpiece atones for ordinances [or, legal decisions], as it is written, And you shall make a breastpiece of decision. (Exod. 28:15)

Even laws require atonement, perhaps because they are interpreted and administered by fallible judges, or simply because they address fallible people and institutions.

The ephod atones for idolatry, as it says, And without ephod or teraphim. (Hosea 3:4, interpreted as, Without ephod there are teraphim, i.e., idols).

This sin is particularly relevant to the priest’s service: what forms and symbols of worship are acceptable to God. Idolatry has a deceptive way of replacing the One who alone is worthy of worship. We replace the infinite, invisible God with a finite image, whether a god of stone or a god of flesh or a god of our imagination (i.e., a mental image). Or we replace the majestic Name with names that are invoked as magic formulas.

The robe atones for slander [lashon hara, evil speech]. How? R. Hanina said: Let an article of sound (cf. Exod. 28:33) come and atone for evil sound.

“Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him I will silence…” (Psalm 101:5a) Judging from the wording of the commandment against slander found in Lev. 19:16, this sin was considered almost equivalent to bloodshed: “You shall not go about spreading slander among your people; you shall not stand over the blood of your neighbor, for I am the Lord.”

The headplate atones for a brazen face, for of the headplate it is written, And it shall be on Aaron's forehead (Exod. 28:38), while of a brazen face it is written, Yet you have a harlot's forehead! (Jer. 3:3)

A brazen face describes insolent behavior: doing what is wrong openly and without shame, as Jer. 3:3 continues, “you refused to be ashamed.” Likewise Isa. 3:9, “The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.” The headplate was made of pure gold, engraved with the words “Holy to the Lord” and attached to the turban so that it rested on the forehead. What an awesome sign of purity and sanctity to offer in atonement for insolence.

Interesting to note: In Arachin 16a this discussion is preceded by a list of seven sins for which "leprosy" is incurred, and among these seven are slander, bloodshed, sexual immorality, and arrogance. The afternoon service on the eve of Yom Kippur also makes mention of several of these same sins: sexual immorality, thoughts of the heart, slander, haughty eyes, and a brazen face.

So the sacred vestments contribute to atonement alongside the offerings. But that is not all. The passage continues:

R. Joshua b. Levi said: For two things we find no atonement through offerings, but find atonement for them through something else, namely bloodshed and slander: bloodshed by the heifer whose neck is broken (Deut. 21:1-9), and slander by incense. R. Hanina said: How do we know that incense atones? Because it is written, And he presented the incense, and atoned for the people. (Num. 17:12 MT) And the school of R. Ishmael taught: For what does incense atone? For slander: let that which is done in secret (the offering of incense on the altar) come and atone for that which is done in secret (how slander begins).

What then follows is an attempt to reconcile the apparent conflict between the sacred vestments (in making atonement for bloodshed and slander) and these other avenues of atonement. But the main point is that atonement is made in these specific instances without sacrificial offerings of any kind.

The tabernacle and the beauty of holiness

2006-03-02T18:21:00.000-08:00

Text: Exodus 25-27

The description of the tabernacle's materials and furnishings--from the fine detail of the lampstand to the brightly colored curtains to the tremendous expense of gold--brings to mind the expression found several places in the Writings, "Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." (Psalm 29:2, 96:9; I Chron. 16:29; cf. II Chron. 20:21) The word translated beauty (had'rat, from hadar) carries the meaning of decorous and ornate splendor. The combination of beauty and holiness found in the tabernacle was an appropriate form for worship of the Lord, as the writer of Psalm 27 put it: "One thing I ask of the Lord, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all my days, to gaze upon the beauty (no'am) of the Lord and to seek him in his temple." (v. 4; cf. the use of tabernacle in vv. 5 and 6) The physical structure became both a tabernacle/mishkan for God's presence and a sanctuary/mikdash to exhibit God's holiness, a place to seek him with both joy and awe.

Read Exod. 25:8, "And let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell (cf. tabernacle) among them," with Psalm 96:6, "Grandeur and splendor (hadar) are before him, strength and beauty (tiferet) are in his sanctuary."

So far we have seen three words translated beauty: hadar (splendor, decoration), no'am (delight, favor), and tiferet (ornament), all of them descriptive of the tabernacle and of the One whose gift of his presence made the tabernacle a sanctuary.

God's furniture

Doesn’t this formal beauty constitute idolatry?

First, the use of forms in worship does not equal idolatry unless the forms themselves become objects of veneration in place of God.

Second, Solomon prays, "But will God really dwell on the earth? Behold! The heavens and the heavens of the heavens cannot contain you, how much less indeed this House that I have built." (I Kings 8:27) Nevertheless, Solomon builds a temple far more extravagant than the tabernacle described in Exodus, even redundant cherubim where, other scriptures tell us, God "sits enthroned."

Third, Ezekiel decries idolatry more often than any other prophet, with at least 39 references to idols, even idols in the temple (8:10), yet he promotes restoration of the temple service with all its intricate forms.

Today we enter worship through prayers and blessings intentionally patterned after the sacrificial service of the tabernacle and the temple. The purpose now is the same as the purpose then: to draw near to God and stand in awe of his presence, to see his beauty in the recited words and formal rites of the community of Israel.

Psalm 61:5 MT
Let me dwell in your tent forever; let me take refuge in the shelter of your wings.

Psalm 141:2
May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.

Beyond the Ten Commandments

2006-03-02T18:03:00.000-08:00

Exod. 21:1
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them….

Psalm 119:7
I will give thanks to you with an upright heart when I study your righteous ordinances.

The Ten Commandments hold a rightful place of honor in the religious traditions of both Jews and Christians. They are recorded almost verbatim twice, in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5, and are usually assumed to be the content of the stone tablets Moses brought from his stay atop Sinai (cf. Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13, 10:4). I have often heard people suggest that the Ten Commandments are the basis of true religion and government. Of course, most of these people have no idea what they are talking about: they do not observe the Sabbath and they seldom understand what it means to take the name of God in vain. (See discussion below.) It is also worth noting, from a source-critical perspective, that the Ten Commandments in their present form are later than some other sets of commandments, such as those beginning in Exodus chapter 21.

In Exodus 21:1-23:13 numerous “ordinances” (mishpatim) are listed which range from the proper treatment of slaves to various laws concerning the humble ox. In this section alone we will find well over forty commandments: according to Maimonides, at least 23 positive and 24 negative commandments.

The commandments of the Torah, often called the Law, are sometimes supposed to consist of a severe form of justice, an eye for an eye. In fact, the Torah has as much to do with mercy as with justice. The Torah is a covenant between God and Israel, which binds them together in several aspects: righteousness (tsedeq), justice (mishpat), kindness (chesed), compassion (rachamim), and faithfulness (emunah).

Hosea 2:21-22 MT
And I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and justice and kindness and compassion. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness, and you will know the Lord.

1. Righteousness: Exod. 22:15-16 MT If a man has sexual relations with a virgin who is not engaged to someone else, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife, whether or not the father gives his consent for them to marry. Paying the dowry is a matter of doing the right thing by the person he has wronged, not retribution. He is certainly not striking a bargain with the father, who may still refuse to give her to him. Incidentally, Deut. 22:29 adds an additional requirement: he may never divorce her!

An aside: Not only does this ordinance force the man to do the right thing after the fact, it may also serve as an effective deterrent against male promiscuity. That is likely the real issue of social concern, not so much to prevent premarital sex as to discourage casual sex and sexual promiscuity.

2. Justice: Exod. 23:1-3, 6-8 Juridicial rules are given to safeguard against mere vengeance and to ensure a just verdict.a. Do not accept a false (or illegal) report (v. 1). This may apply to hearsay testimony as well as to an accusation made without the accused present.
b. Do not agree with a wicked person to corrupt your testimony (v. 1), and so cause harm to any side in a dispute. Neither commit perjury nor suborn perjury.
c. Do not allow others to influence your testimony or verdict by the force of their numbers (v. 2), as opposed to the force of their arguments. Majority rule may be sanctioned by this ordinance but a warning is issued against its abuse.
d. Do not show favoritism to any side in a dispute (vv. 3, 6).
e. Do not convict a person based on inadequate (possibly circumstantial) evidence (v. 7). It is better to let the guilty go free than to wrong the innocent.
f. Do not accept bribes (v. 8).

3. Kindness: Exod. 23:4-5 We have social obligations that extend even to our worst enemy. We may not refuse to help an enemy in distress, e.g., to unload his fallen donkey. See the Addendum below.

4. Compassion: Exod. 22:24-26 MT Lend to the poor without interest, and if they are unable to pay do not demand payment. If they need what was pledged for the loan, return it to them without delay. In other words, be gracious to the poor, for God is gracious (chanun).

5. Faithfulness: Exod. 23:13 The commandments require faithfulness toward people (cf. Exod. 21:10-11) as well as faithfulness toward God. In this verse the latter responsibility is made clear: faithfully keep all my instructions, and do not invoke the name of any other god, rather swear by my name, bless in my name, and speak in my name, my name alone. “I am the Lord; that is my name; and I will not give my glory to another, or my praise to idols.” (Isa. 42:8)

Even so, the Lord’s name is not to be used as the names of other gods, as a magic formula to obtain desired ends. Nor are we to take the Lord’s name in vain (Exod. 20:7). This does not refer to the use of profanity, though such careless speech should be avoided simply because it dishonors the God we claim to love. A more literal translation of the commandment may help: "Do not lift up the name of the Lord your God to the vain...” That is to say, do not use the Lord’s name in the worship of an idol (as in Jer. 18:15, "my people burn incense to the vain"). Psalm 24:4 makes an obvious allusion to this commandment, only obscured by inconsistent translation of the two passages. Together they refer to either: (a) as above, worship of worthless idols; or (b) taking (swearing) an oath "in vain." I prefer the former, but the latter is supported in traditional Jewish commentaries, and both the JPS and NJPS translations.

Through observance of the commandments Israel will come to “know the Lord.” This assertion is even supported by Jeremiah’s utopian vision of a new covenant (Jer. 31:33-34), for it is the Torah which will be written on their heart, and though it will no longer need to be taught, the result will be the same: through the Torah they will “know the Lord.”

“Law gives principles concrete application and reality.” (Elliot Dorff, Knowing God)

Addendum: Your Enemy’s Ox

Exodus 23:4-5 (cf. Deut. 22:1-4)
When you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey straying, you shall surely return it to him.
When you see the donkey of someone who hates you lying under its load, and would refrain from restoring* it to him, you shall surely restore* it with him [i.e., to help him raise it up, or, to help him unload it].

The phrase “you shall surely…” reflects the Hebrew form of an infinitive absolute followed by an imperfect of the same root, which if translated literally would be “to return you shall return” and “to restore you shall restore.” The Talmud interprets the use of this form here to mean “in all circumstances.” (Baba Metsia 31a) In other words, don’t look too hard for excuses to disregard the commandment.

On the other hand, even the clearest commandment may be impractical to obey without some interpretation. For example, does the word “enemy” intend only a person within Israel or only among the nations or both? Are we only obligated to help unload the animal or does the commandment expect us to help reload the animal as well? Do we have to provide our assistance without compensation? Are we to understand the commandment to apply solely to the specific animals mentioned or are the animals representative of a broader categories?

In order for the commandments to be applied in practice to real life situations, not just admired as wise and compassionate but abstract principles, they require further interpretation and elaboration. Critics may call this legalism; those who take the commandments seriously call this observance. The following passage illustrates the role of rabbinical writings (Oral Torah) in clarifying and delimiting obligations imposed by the commandments:

Baba Metsia 32a:
[Mishnah] If one unloads and loads, unloads and loads, even four or five times, he is still obligated, as it says, You shall surely restore. (Exod. 23:5) If [the owner] went, sat down and said, “since the commandment rests on you, if you desire to unload, unload:” he is exempt, as it says, with him; but if [the owner] was old or sick, he is still obligated. There is a commandment from the Torah to unload, but not to load. R. Simeon said: Also to load. R. Jose the Galilean said: If [the animal] bore more than its proper load, he has no obligation to [its owner], as it says, under its load, which means, a load under which it can stand.

The majority of the rabbis held that unloading should be without pay, but loading for pay. Again R. Simeon dissented: Both without payment. (Baba Metsia 32a)

They also debated a rationale for the commandment: is it to relieve the suffering of the animal?

Baba Metsia 32b:
Now, should you think that [relieving] the suffering of animals is a Scriptural ordinance, what difference does it make whether the owner joins him or not? Certainly [relieving] the suffering of animals is a Scriptural ordinance, for do you think that exempt means entirely exempt? Perhaps he is exempt without payment, but he is obligated with payment, according to this rule: When the owner joins him, he must serve him for no pay; when the owner does not join him, he must serve him for payment; yet after all [relieving] the suffering of animals is a Scriptural ordinance.

So the rationale is not necessarily to love your enemy. Such love may be a fine aspiration, but it is not commanded. To love your fellow-man, even to love the stranger, these are commanded. No, the enemy is not the issue here, the unfortunate animal is. The enemy is mentioned only to broaden the scope of the commandment, so that whether the animal belongs to friend or foe, you must help, for the sake of the animal.

An additional reason is offered for helping the enemy as well as the brother: to allay his enmity toward you. (Baba Metsia 32b)

Finally, to define the minimum and maximum obligation of a commandment is important.

Baba Metsia 33a:
Our Rabbis taught: When you see. One might think: even from a distance. So it is taught: When you meet… One might think: meet is to be taken literally. So it is taught: When you see…. A Tanna: And he must go with him as far as a parsang* [in case the animal should fall again]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: But he receives payment.

Notes

All quotations from the Talmud are adapted from the Soncino edition.

Restore: An unusual sense of a Hebrew word which generally means to leave or forsake, and sometimes to release, but here appears in a context which suggests help provided to either upright or unload an animal; cf. Neh. 3:8, restore or repair. Also see the parallel Deut. 22:4, “you shall surely raise it with him.”

Parsang: As a rough approximation, a few miles.

According to Maimonides, Exod. 23:4-5 can be broken down into three commandments: help unload, help load, and, conversely, do not refuse to help.

Father-in-law, father-in-law

2006-02-16T21:31:00.000-08:00

Exod. 18:1
Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt.

A man of too many names

Moses’ father-in-law is something of a curiosity in the Bible. He is called by more than one name, which makes him even more curious and mysterious. He is first introduced as the priest of Midian (Exod. 2:16), then named Reuel (Exod. 2:18), then several verses later, and without explanation, he is called Jethro, the priest of Midian (Exod. 3:1). He next appears with a variant spelling, as Jether (Exod. 4:18), then later in the same verse as Jethro again. But wait, we aren’t finished: after appearing with the name Jethro throughout Exodus chapter 18, in Num. 10:29 a certain “Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses” enters the picture, only to re-appear in Judges 4:11 as himself the father-in-law of Moses! For the sake of clarity, I will stick with the name Jethro.

Another curiosity are the Kenites, who are mentioned several times in the Bible and have odd relationships to Israel and other peoples. And what do you know, they, Moses’ father-in-law and the Kenites, are related! (cf. Judges 1:16, 4:11)

Idolater or proselyte?

The rabbis of the Talmud aren’t sure what to do with Jethro; they offer different opinions about him, some positive but others not. They as much as call him an idolater, for he “fattened calves for idol worship.” (Sotah 43a; Baba Batra 109b) They say he was motivated by self-interest, for “he drew near to Moses for his own honor.” (Berakhot 63b) On the other hand, he was worthy enough that his descendants the Kenites would come to sit as scribes in the Temple, in the meeting-place of the Sanhedrin! (Sotah 11a; Sanhedrin 106a; cf. I Chron. 2:55)

What status does Jethro have with respect to Israel? A possible answer is suggested by the rabbis in the following passage:

Zevachim 116a (adapted from Soncino edition)
This is a controversy of Tannaim: Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, heard (Exod. 18:1): what news did he hear that he came and turned a proselyte? R. Joshua said: He heard of the battle with the Amalekites, since this is immediately preceded by, And Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword (Exod. 17:13). R. Eleazar of Modim said: He heard of the giving of the Torah and came.… R. Eleazar said: He heard about the dividing of the Red Sea, and came…

Two things stand out: (1) Jethro was considered a proselyte, a convert to the religion of Israel, and (2) He may have come to Israel because he heard about the defeat of Amalek, i.e., his tribe may have had some connection to the Amalekites.

Both of these conjectures are supported in the Bible references to the Kenites, who are said to be descendants of Jethro (aka Hobab aka Reuel):

(1) A proselyte?

Judges 1:16
And the descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palm trees with the sons of Judah, to the wilderness of Judah, which lies in the south of Arad; and they went and lived among the people.

In other words, the Kenites lived among the people of Israel? More likely, they lived among the unnamed people of the area described. The text is not clear, and it has been argued that the word translated people (am) may be corrupted from the original Amalekite. So this verse by itself does not prove that either Jethro or his descendants joined the community of Israel.

Nevertheless, the Kenites remained in close connection to Israel. The heroic story of “Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite” (Judges 4:17ff, 5:24ff) points to a high regard for the Kenites. Some of the Kenites were later included among the scribes of Israel (I Chron. 2:55) and one of them, Jehonadab the son of Rechab, professed his “zeal for the Lord.” (II Kings 10:15-16)

But what about Jethro himself? Are the rabbis correct when they say he became a proselyte? No, I really don’t think so. For at the end of Exodus chapter 18, after his last known encounter with Moses and Israel, he returned to his own land, which implies that he returned to his own people and for all we know his own religion. He no doubt took some knowledge of the God of Israel with him (cf. Exod. 18:11), but he chose to continue in his own way, apart from Israel. Similarly, when Hobab the son of Reuel declined to go with Israel to the land of promise, he said, “I will not go [with you], rather I will go to my land and to my people.” (Num. 10:29-30) It is true that Moses asked him again to continue on as their guide and share in their success, but we are not told whether Hobab agreed to this or not. (Num. 10:31-32)

So perhaps Jethro occupies that middle space, neither idolater (at least not any longer) nor proselyte, i.e., in the full sense of attaching himself to Israel in his worship of God. He may be compared to Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18f). Both of these men are presented in a favorable light; in fact nothing bad is said about them in the Bible. But they do not become part of Israel.

(2) An Amalek connection?

I Samuel 15:6
And Saul said to the Kenites, Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up from Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

In other words, the Kenites had a close connection to the Amalekites in the time of Saul, so R. Joshua wasn’t engaging in baseless speculation when he related Jethro’s decision to come to Moses with news of the defeat of Amalek. The juxtaposition of the two accounts (Exod. 17:8-16 and 18:1-27) may be intentional, as Martin Buber writes: “[The redactor] wishes to show here, immediately after the battle with the Amalekites, how clear a distinction has to be drawn historically between the Amalekites and the Kenites, in view of the fact that this tribe or part of it afterwards united temporarily with the former.” (Moses, p. 94) Buber’s point is a bit different than the teaching of the Talmud given above. R. Joshua suggested a historical-causal relation between the events of the two accounts. Buber is saying that in the time of Jethro the Kenites did not have any alliance with the Amalekites, but since they did at a later time the compiler of the Torah put these passages side-by-side to clear their name. For if the Kenites had been allied or united with the Amalekites then, the cordial reunion in Exodus chapter 18 wouldn’t have happened. The two accounts have a thematic relation, but the one did not necessarily follow the other in chronology or causality.

True Wisdom

In Jethro we have the third father-in-law to play a significant role in Biblical narrative. Before him Laban traded tricks with Jacob (Gen. 29-31), and Judah paid for treating Tamar unfairly (Gen. 38). Neither Laban nor Judah demonstrated that quality known as wisdom.

But Jethro proved to be different. He offered sound advice to Moses for leading, teaching and judging Israel, and Moses “listened to the voice of his father-in-law, and did all that he said.” (Exod. 18:24) This speaks well of Moses who at the age of 80 was still willing to learn from his father-in-law. As for Jethro, his wise counsel was of sufficient importance to be reiterated later as Moses’ own instruction! (cf. Deut. 1:9-17)

The advice Jethro gave included a set of high standards for the persons Moses would choose as leaders: “Men of valor who fear God, men of truth who hate dishonest gain.” (Exod. 18:21) These stated qualifications reflect back on Jethro, if not his own integrity, then at least the values and aspirations he held. Wisdom surely consists of more than intellect: one may be an intellectual genius but a moral idiot. Jethro was a wise man in both practical imagination and moral judgment.

Regarding those names

No satisfactory explanation has, to my knowledge, been offered for the different names attached to this person I have called Jethro. It would seem obvious that the different names come from different sources, just as the names of God are thought to vary according to the sources. For those of us who accept some form of the documentary hypothesis, the J source is thought responsible for the references to Reuel and to Hobab the son of Reuel, while the E source uses Jethro and the (probably accidental) variant Jether. That leaves Judges 4:11 which does not fit with either of these sources.

Commentators are often driven to harmonize such contradictory materials, as if the truth of their religious beliefs depended on it. My view of sound Biblical criticism may be summed up as follows: Harmonize where there appears to be harmony; suspend judgment when the evidence is lacking for a reasonable conclusion; admit the possibility of error when the weight of the evidence suggests error; above all, give up the overriding principle of inerrancy.

I have never understood the need for inerrancy in Scripture. What ultimately matters is the truth of our understanding of God’s ways, not even whether we have all the truth, but simply whether we are looking in the right direction. For Scripture to serve this purpose trivial matters such as the name of Moses’ father-in-law cannot possibly be important enough to confirm or deny our faith.

Baruch Spinoza wrote in 1670:
The commentators who attempt to harmonize these evident contradictions draw on their imagination, each to the best of his ability; and while professing adoration for each letter and word of Scripture, only succeed in holding up the sacred writers to ridicule, as though they knew not how to write or relate a plain narrative. Such persons effect nothing but to render the clearness of Scripture obscure. (A Theological-Political Treatise, translated by R.H.M. Elwes, ch. 10, p. 153)

Another took his place

2006-02-10T15:34:00.000-08:00

Exod. 14:31
When Israel saw the great power that the Lord used against Egypt, the people feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord and in Moses his servant.

In regard to Moses, this verse answers the question he asked God in Exod. 4:1, "What if they don't believe in me and won't listen to my voice, but say, 'The Lord didn't appear to you.'" At least at this point, the people accept Moses as the Lord's chosen servant and so "believe" in him.

Moses is called the servant of the Lord, a title given to him more often than any other person in the Hebrew Bible, at least 18 times in the book of Joshua alone. Excluding its use as an expression of courtesy when a person refers to himself as "your servant," the title appears only once previously, Gen. 26:24, when the Lord refers to Abraham as his servant. Many other instances could be noted, but the most common are with David (almost as often as with Moses, if my count is correct, 32 versus 33) and with Jacob/Israel (especially in the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but also see Psalm 136:22 and I Chron. 16:13). Finally, when God says "my servant" the meaning appears to be the same as "my chosen" (see, for example, Isaiah 41:8-9 and Psalm 89:4 MT).

As important as Moses, David, and other heroes of the Hebrew Bible may be in the history of Israel, they are not cult figures in the same sense or to the same degree as one finds in other religions, notably Muhammad in Islam and Jesus in Christianity. If Moses was viewed like Muhammad, the Shema might include an extra clause "and Moses is his servant (or prophet)," and much of the oral Torah might consist of additional remembered sayings (hadith) and observed conduct (sainunnah) of the servant of the Lord. If Moses was viewed like Jesus, Judaism's message might be, "Believe in Moses and you will be saved," his name might be exalted and adored theoretically on the same level but for all practical purposes on a higher level than God's name, the miracles ascribed to Moses might be claimed as proof of his divinity, and WWMD (What would Moses do?) might be a popular acronym!

The Bible singles Moses out as the preeminent prophet in the history of Israel (Num. 12:6-8, Deut. 34:10-12); to Moses the Lord “made known his ways.” (Psa. 103:7) The Torah is often identified with his name (e.g., Deut. 33:4, Malachi 3:22, Ezra 7:6). However, for all his greatness and goodness, he was yet mortal, he sinned like any mortal, and after his death another took his place. He was neither the founder nor the final prophet of Israel, i.e., of what became Judaism. And while he was God’s instrument of deliverance on the occasion of the exodus from Egypt, it is God and not Moses who remains the only Savior and Redeemer of Israel (Isa. 49:26).

What's new?

2006-02-02T19:45:00.000-08:00

Exod. 10:3
And Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and said to him, Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me.

This year's reading through Exodus has brought to my attention, more than before, how much is new in Exodus when compared to Genesis. Not only does God introduce himself by a new name, the Name (Exod. 3:15, 6:2), but much else that is easily taken for granted is introduced here for the first time.

What’s new in Exodus?

Here for the first time we find a fully formed community, a people ('am), an "ethnic group" formed of the descendants of Jacob's family, identified by two different names, the sons of Israel and the Hebrews.

But even here they are more than another "ethnic group" identified only by a common genealogy; they are a religious community devoted to God and blessed abundantly by him (Exod. 1:7, 20) in spite of their circumstances. This God is a particular God, the God of their ancestors, as we are reminded in chapters 2 and 3. They are a community in exile, reduced to cruel servitude by the decrees of Pharaoh, yet they do not worship the God of Pharaoh: they are called to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and follow his decrees. They cry out to this God for deliverance, and God remembers his covenant with their ancestors (Exod. 2:23-25).

At the same time they are more than a religious community; they are in the process of forming a new nation with laws and customs that reflect their historical experience as well as as their understanding of God's heart. For example, their very experience of oppression as "strangers in the land of Egypt" will be incorporated in decrees and laws protecting the rights of strangers who reside with them in the land of Israel (see Exod. 22:20 MT, 23:9; Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 10:19). I am especially struck by Exod. 23:9, where the people of Israel are reminded that they know the soul (nefesh) of the stranger -- knowledge gained only by experience.

What’s new in Exodus?

Service to God: Does this concept occur before Exodus, where it becomes a theme of the redemption from Egypt? Only once, and then only as a title for an individual, when God calls Abraham “my servant” (Gen. 26:24).

Service to man is found often in Genesis (e.g., one brother serves another), also at the beginning of Exodus (Exod. 1:13, 14; 5:9, 11, 18), and again after Israel departs from Egypt (Exod. 14:5, 12). Compare also the first half of the Sabbath commandment, "six days you shall serve" (Exod. 20:9; Deut. 5:13), i.e., serve human masters and ends.

But the full notion of service to God (as far as I can tell) first appears at Exod. 3:12 and then is repeated at least 12 times in the chapters that follow:

3:12 "…you will serve God on this mountain"
4:23 "[Thus says the Lord], 'Let my son go, so he may serve me'"
7:16 "The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, [says], 'Let my people go, so they may serve me in the desert'"
7:26 MT [8:1] "Thus says the Lord, 'Let my people go, so they may serve me'"
9:1 "Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, 'Let my people go, so they may serve me'"
10:3 "Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so they may serve me'"
10:7 "Let the people go so they may serve the Lord their God"
10:8 "Go! Serve the Lord your God"
10:11 "…the men go and serve the Lord"
10:24 "Go! Serve the Lord"
10:26 "…we must use [our livestock] to serve the Lord our God, and we will not know with what we must serve the Lord until we get there"
12:31 "Go! Serve the Lord"

To define Israel's relationship to God as service (avodah): this was a radically new concept, just as new as the Name revealed to Moses, and just as new as the "people" then in formation.

Deut. 11:13 instructs us to serve God with all our heart and soul. Another familiar passage emphasizes this aspect of our relationship to God, and warns against serving other gods:

Josh. 24:14-15
Now fear the Lord and serve him wholly and faithfully, and throw away the gods your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if it is undesirable in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve....But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

That the word translated "serve" can also mean "worship" is seen in the parallel references to holding a feast (Exod. 5:1, 10:9) and to "sacrifices and burnt offerings" (Exod. 10:25; cf. 5:3, 8:25-28). Nevertheless, this word goes beyond formal worship; the obvious analogy is their service to Pharaoh in Egypt, in the "house of servitude" (Exod. 13:3, 14; 20:2).

Isa. 44:21
Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I have formed you, you are my servant, O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.

If Israel is the servant, then God is the master. So the cipher traditionally used in place of God’s new name, Adonai or Lord, seems very appropriate.

The attitude of the servant toward his master: what is expected of the servant?
1. That he will humble himself before the master. [Cf. Exod. 10:3..."How long will you (Pharaoh) refuse to humble yourself before me?"] Arrogance does not become a servant.
2. That he will fear (demonstrate reverence for) the master.
3. That he will obey the master's instructions [torah].
4. That he will be faithful to the bond he shares with the master [covenant].

And the attitude of the master toward his servant? That is where the analogy may break down, for God is no ordinary master. The conclusion of the haftarah (prophets) reading illustrates this point well:

Jer. 46:27-28
But as for you, do not fear, O Jacob my servant, and do not be dismayed, O Israel. For, behold, I will save you from far away, and your seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and have rest and quiet, with no one to trouble him.
As for you, do not fear, my servant Jacob, says the Lord, for I am with you. For I will make a full end of all the nations where I have driven you, yet I will not make a full end of you. But I will correct you in due measure, and by no means leave you unpunished.

The God of Israel is not a harsh master like Pharaoh, who treated his Hebrew slaves "ruthlessly" (b'farekh, Exod. 1:13, 14), without concern for their welfare or even their lives. God promises to his servant to provide “rest and quiet” from toil and trouble (contrast Pharaoh’s attitude, Exod. 5:5-9), and while correcting him, to use “due measure.”

Solomon Schechter’s words concerning the rabbinic understanding of God’s relationship to Israel show what a different sort of master we have in God:

For God suffers with them in their suffering and is with them in their distress. Their subjection implies his subjection, and his presence accompanies them through their various captivities among the Gentiles. Therefore their redemption is his redemption, their joy is his joy, their salvation his salvation, and their light his light. (Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 50)

Draw us near, our King, to your service.

The new name

2006-01-25T15:43:00.000-08:00

Tonight I sat down to study the Torah portion (Exodus 6:2-9:35), then began to draw comparisons between Abram (aka Abraham), Jacob and Moses in their respective experiences of God's calling, promise and blessing, covenant, testing, signs, etc. All three were 'Jews by choice', that is, by their choice to accept the covenant terms and by God's choice to call them into his service. For example, in Genesis 18:19 God says of Abraham, "I have known him," which others have translated "singled him out" (new JPS) or "chosen him" (RSV) or "embraced him" (Robert Alter).

But only Abram and Jacob received new names as part of their 'conversion' or encounter with God's covenant promise and blessing. At first my question was: Why wasn't Moses, bearer of an Egyptian name, given a new name?

This brings us to Exodus 6:2-3 (along with 3:13-15). Moses receives the revelation of a "new" name for the God of his fathers: "I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by my name, the Lord, “ which is "my Name forever."

Now my question is: what is the significance of this reversal of the naming ceremony in the case of Moses?

In the case of Abram and Jacob, the naming formula was: "you shall no longer be called .... but your name shall be...." In the case of Moses, God in effect says, "I shall no longer be known only as .... but my name shall be ....forever!"

One response to my question focuses on the difference between El Shaddai and the Lord as names of God. The first name, El Shaddai, defines and delimits God as a certain sort of God, prone to act in certain ways toward his creatures. The new name introduces a entirely different approach to God, as Abraham Joshua Heschel explains: "Definitions take the name of God in vain. We have neither an image nor a definition of God. We have only His name. And the name is ineffable." (Man Is Not Alone, p. 97) The new name is open-ended and limitless, as in the interpretation “I will be who I will be.” (Exod. 3:14)

The God whose name defies definition nevertheless chooses to align himself with certain interests and principles. For while “the Lord does whatever he pleases“ (Psa. 135:6) yet “the Lord has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel for his own possession.” (Psa. 135:4) To his people Israel he brings deliverance and freedom, redemption and well-being (Exod. 6:6-8). But this God is not only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he is also the God of the stranger, the orphan, and the widow (Deut. 10:18). Such are his interests, as understood and taught by Israel.

As to his principles, they are revealed to Moses when God “proclaims in the name of the Lord” that he is a God of compassion and grace, kindness and truth, who extends forgiveness yet requires accountability (Exod. 34:5-6 MT). Likewise we read: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne, kindness and truth go before you.” (Psa. 89:15 MT) Such are his principles, as understood and taught by Israel.

A final thought: Does the new name taken on by God in Exodus imply a new relationship with his people? When both Abram and Jacob were given new names there was an implied new relationship, a covenant relationship, with God. Perhaps the reverse is true here, as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob reveals his intention to redeem his people with the announcement that he will be known henceforth by a new name.

Addendum
The phrase “I am the Lord” (ani hashem) is found 199 times in the Hebrew Bible, but of this total 177 occur in just 4 books: Exodus (17), Leviticus (52), Isaiah (22), and Ezekiel (86!).

My son, my firstborn

2006-01-25T15:32:00.000-08:00

Exodus 4:22
And you will say to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn.”

Israel’s relationship to God is explained by various metaphors in the Bible: servant (Isa. 41:8, 44:1-2, 21, 49:3; I Chron. 16:13), flock (Ezek. 34:11ff, Psa. 23:1-4, 95:7, 100:3, etc.), and son, to name just a few of the more prominent ones.

The metaphor of Israel as God’s firstborn son appears at several places and under different circumstances in the Hebrew Bible. At least three ideas are suggested by a survey of these passages:
1) Israel as God’s chosen people;
2) God’s love for Israel;
3) The permanence of their relationship.

1. Israel as God’s chosen people
Granted, this idea appears more often with the servant passages listed above, but the two metaphors are related. For example, in Psalm 89 David is first introduced as God’s chosen servant (Psa. 89:3) then later identified as his firstborn son (Psa. 89:26-27), which is interpreted there as “the highest of the kings of the earth.” So likewise Israel, as God’s chosen servant and firstborn son, has been set first among the nations, as God’s portion and inheritance:

Deut. 32:6b, 9
Is he not your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you…. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the allotment of his inheritance. (cf. Psa. 135:4)

2. God’s love for Israel
I quoted selectively from Deuteronomy 32; in context the passage is fairly negative toward Israel: A “foolish and unwise people” (v. 6), Israel “abandoned the God who made him” (v.15), and the report only grows worse from there on. The context of the passage quoted below, from Hosea 11, is also hard on the shortcomings of Israel. Even so, God’s love for Israel remains steadfast: “For whom the Lord loves he reproves, even as a father, the son in whom he delights.” (Prov. 3:12) Israel is the son in whom God delights. Even as God reproves Israel, there remains the special love of a father for his child:

Hosea 11:1
When Israel was still a youth I loved him, and called my son from Egypt.
(The new JPS offers an interpretive translation: I fell in love with Israel when he was still a child; and I have called [him] my son ever since Egypt.)

3. The permanence of their relationship
God’s love for Israel is an everlasting love:

Jeremiah 31:3
I have loved you with an everlasting love.

The prophet Jeremiah mixes the metaphors of flock and son, and in doing so places double emphasis on the enduring nature of God’s relationship with Israel:

Jeremiah 31:8-9
They will come with weeping, and with supplications I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, on a straight way where they will not stumble; for I am as a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn…. He who scattered Israel will gather him, and guard him, like a shepherd guards his flock.

Then he completes the thought with assurance of God’s devotion to Israel:

Jeremiah 31:20
Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a delightful child? For whenever I speak against him, I surely remember him still; therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, declares the Lord.

All of this does not make God a tribal deity, for the “nation” Israel has never been limited to an ethnic identity. Theoretically, any person who so chooses may “enter the status of Israel….by accepting God’s rule as set forth in the Torah.” (Jacob Neusner, The Emergence of Judaism, p. 26) Israel the people became Israel the chosen when they chose to accept the terms of the covenant, when, standing at Sinai, they declared, “We will do and we will hear.” (Exod. 24:7) When today observant Jews recite the Shema both morning and evening, they affirm the sovereignty of God and the centrality of his commandments in their lives, and in so doing they show themselves to be Israel.

Addendum
The following passage from the Talmud makes use of Exodus 4:22 in a creative way:

Shabbat 89b
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: What is meant by the Scripture, For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us: you, O Lord, are our father; our redeemer, from everlasting is your name (Isa. 63:16)? In the future the Holy One, blessed be he, will say to Abraham. “Your children have sinned against me.” Abraham will answer before him, “Master of the Universe! Let them be wiped out for the sanctification of your Name.” He will say, “I will tell this to Jacob, who went through the pain of bringing up children: perhaps he will ask for mercy on their behalf.” He will say to him, “Your children have sinned.” Jacob will answer before him, “Master of the Universe! Let them be wiped out for the sanctification of your Name.” …. Then he will say to Isaac, “Your children have sinned against me.” But Isaac will answer him, “Master of the Universe! Are they my children and not your children? When they gave precedence to "we will do" over "we will hear" (cf. Exod. 24:7) before you, you called them, My son, my firstborn (Exod. 4:22). Now are they my children, not your children? Moreover, how much have they sinned? How many are the years of man? Seventy. Subtract twenty, for which you do not punish (Num. 14:29), there remain fifty. Subtract twenty-five that comprise the nights (when they are asleep and do not sin), there remain twenty-five. Subtract twelve and a half for prayer, eating, and using the privy, there remain twelve and a half. If you will bear all of them, good; if not, let half be on me and half on you. And if you say, all of them must be on me, don’t forget I offered myself up before you!’ When they say, ‘For you [i.e., Isaac] are our father,’ then Isaac will say to them, ‘Instead of praising me, praise the Holy One, blessed be he,’ and Isaac will show them the Holy One, blessed be he, with their own eyes. At once they will lift up their eyes on high and exclaim, 'You, O Lord, are our father; our redeemer, from everlasting is your name.'

Champion of Jacob, Stone of Israel

2006-01-11T16:26:00.000-08:00

His bow remained steady, and the arms of his hands were made agile by the hands of the Champion of Jacob, by the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel. (Gen. 49:24)

In Jacob's blessing for Joseph, he uses three wonderful picture words for God: Champion ('aviyr), Shepherd (ro'eh), and Stone ('even). God is the Champion of Jacob, the Shepherd and Stone of Israel.

A. The Stone

Consider the last one: the Stone of Israel. Until recently I have always taken the word to be equivalent with the several references in Psalms to God as a rock (either selah or tsur) with the basic meaning of a high fortress or a cliff for refuge. So do at least four recent translations: RSV, the new JPS, NIV, and, interestingly enough, the translation by Robert Alter. All of them translate the word as rock here, but as stone everywhere else in Genesis. On the other hand, the old JPS (following the KJV) is consistent to say "the stone of Israel."

Why do I think this is important? Well, a stone is not a cliff, and so would not mean (as the translations imply) a stronghold or refuge. Instead, a stone is used for building (cf. Gen. 11:3), or by Jacob for a place to rest his head (Gen. 28:11; cf. Exod. 17:12) and then for a marker in the form of a pillar (Gen. 28: 18, 22; also 31:45 and 35:14) or a mound (Gen. 31:46), and for a cover on the mouth of a well (Gen. 29:2-3, 8, 10; note the relation to gathering and watering the sheep). Also, altars were often built with stone (Exod. 20:25). Finally, a stone could be a precious stone (Gen. 2:12).

So when Jacob declares that God is the Stone of Israel, what does he have in mind? The foundation stone for building the nation? (Isa. 28:16) The stone of revelation? The stone of worship? The stone of identification (Num. 6:27) as in a marker placing God's claim on Israel? The stone protecting the life of the nation as in the well associated with the shepherd and the sheep? Or the stone of highest value?

B. The Champion

God is also the Champion of Jacob. On this term compare Isaiah 49:26, 60:16; Psalm 132:2,5.

I derived the translation “champion” indirectly from a comment by Martin Buber on the title for God that is peculiar to Jacob. He used a more obscure word “paladin.” (The Prophetic Faith, p. 42) I must admit that "paladin" (def., paragon of chivalry, heroic champion) is new to my vocabulary, but what an interesting way of understanding God’s relation to Israel, both the man and the people.

The Isaiah references given above call for knowledge that "I the Lord am your Deliverer, your Redeemer, the Champion of Jacob." Read the context of each, especially Isaiah 60:15-22, and you may agree that champion is an appropriate interpretation of the Hebrew word 'aviyr.

Champion of Jacob. This title suggests so much about the chivalrous regard God has shown to Israel:
*Loved with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3);
*Carried on eagles’ wings (Exod. 19:4);
*Surrounded with songs of deliverance (Ps. 32:7);
*Nourished with honey from the rock (Deut. 32:13);
*Guided in paths of righteousness (Ps. 23:3);
*Chosen (and kept) as a treasured possession (Deut. 7:6).

A traditional Jewish hymn envisions this Champion:

He wears triumph as a helmet on His head,
His power and holiness have stood Him in good stead…
He takes pride in me, the source of His delight;
And He will be my splendor whose praise I will recite…
He beautifies the people He has carried since their birth.
For Him they are precious; He pays honor to their worth.
(Excerpts from Hymn of Glory, translated by Jules Harlow)

Or consider this beautiful song of deliverance:

The Lord your God is with you, He is mighty to save.
He will delight in you with joy, He will quiet you with His love,
He will rejoice over you with singing.
(Zeph. 3:17)

Shepherd of Israel

2006-01-11T15:58:00.000-08:00

Gen. 46:2-4a
And God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob.
And he said, Here I am.
And he said, I am God, the God of your father. Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there. I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will surely bring you up again…

At the beginning of Israel’s journey, when he was known only as Jacob, he received similar assurance from God:

Gen. 28:15
And behold, I am with you, and will guard you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not forsake you until I have done what I have spoken to you.

Israel the man represents Israel the people. What has God has promised here to Israel? To be the Shepherd of Israel (Gen. 48:15, 49:24), and as such to be with his people wherever they go; that is, to go with them, even into exile, even into bondage, and in time to deliver them, to bring them back to their land.

The picture of God as the Shepherd of Israel points forward to the exodus:

Psalm 77:21 MT "You led (guided) your people like a flock in the care of Moses and Aaron."
Psalm 78:52 "He led forth his people like sheep, he drove them like a flock through the wilderness."

A. The Shepherd

Psalm 80:2a MT "Give ear, Shepherd of Israel, who leads (drives) Joseph like a flock!"

As the Shepherd, God relates to Israel in numerous and remarkable ways:

1. Purchases and Owns. The shepherd cares for the sheep because he owns them. He will not abandon the sheep. So God chose and purchased Israel; as owner, God calls Israel by name and delights in his treasured possession. Psalm 74:2 "Remember your congregation, [the people] you purchased long ago, the tribe you redeemed as your inheritance..."

2. Tends and Provides. The shepherd prepares pasture for the sheep. So God provided manna in the wilderness and taught Israel that "man does not live on bread alone, but ... on anything that the Lord decrees" (Deut. 8:3, NJPS).

3. Leads and Guides. The shepherd guides the flock wisely along right paths (Psalm 23:3). So God guides Israel by their daily practice of the commandments. Psalm 119:35 “Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it.”

4. Gathers and Carries (cf. Gen. 46:5). Isaiah 40:11 "Like a shepherd he tends his flock: he gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young." God is a gentle shepherd.

5. Watches and Guards (cf. Gen. 28:15). The shepherd stands guard over the flock by day and by night. So "the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps." (Psalm 121:4) God has covenanted with Israel to be their guardian, to make their concerns and interests his own.

6. Seeks and Returns. Sheep tend to stray and require continual attention from the shepherd. When we like sheep stray, repentance is the path of return. Psalm 119:176 “I have strayed like a lost sheep; seek your servant, for I have not forgotten your commandments.”

7. Stops and Restores. Psalm 23:2-3a “He lays me down in green pastures, he leads me beside tranquil waters, he restores my soul.” As the shepherd provides his flock rest in lush surroundings, so God has given Israel the Sabbath. The prophet Isaiah brings to my mind the Shepherd of Israel when he describes the Sabbath commandment as a “delight” in which we “feast on the inheritance of Jacob” (Isaiah 58:13-14).

What is most remarkable about the metaphor of God as Shepherd? That the lowly, earthy existence of a shepherd wandering about with his flock should be applied to the Awesome One who fills the universe with his glory. Even so, it is by such earth-bound metaphors (so-called anthropomorphisms) that we catch a glimpse, not of God in essence, but of the ways in which God relates to Israel, as understood by Israel.

B. The names Jacob and Israel

Note that in the passage quoted at the beginning, God spoke to Israel but called him by his other name Jacob. This should be surprising, for when the new name Israel was revealed to Jacob, God said (in both versions of the event): “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel.” (Gen. 32:28, 35:10) When Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, the original name was no longer used. But that is not the case with Jacob: both names are used interchangeably, not only in Genesis, but throughout the Hebrew Bible. Both names are used in reference to the man, and both are used, often in parallel, to designate the people.

It is important to recognize that the name Israel is not in essence an ethnic designation. The latter might be true of another name, Hebrew, which is used often in Genesis and Exodus, and also appears in Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Jonah. But even in the narrative of Genesis, the name Israel has to do with a community of nations (q’hal goyim, Gen. 35:11), which is represented by the twelve sons of the one man Israel. The name Israel has an ethnic component, in the transmission of the name from generation to generation, but the name is both broader and deeper than mere ethnicity.

1. Broader. Membership in the community is open to outsiders.

Isaiah 14:1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land; and the stranger will join with them, and they will unite with the house of Jacob.
Isaiah 44:5
This one will say, I am the Lord’s, and another will call [himself] by the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand The Lord’s, and identify himself by the name of Israel.

2. Deeper. Membership is not by birth but by initiation into the covenant (represented by circumcision), and is further defined by a body of teachings collectively known as the Torah, through which Israel knows itself and worships God.

Psalm 78:5-7 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a Torah in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to make them known to their children; in order that the next generation might know them, the children yet to be born. They will rise and tell them to their children, that they should put their confidence in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.

Yahrzeit

2005-12-28T06:25:00.000-08:00

27 Kislev 5766

On this day ten years ago, 27 Kislev 5756, my beloved father died. May his memory be for a blessing.

A Critique of Joseph's Grain Policy

2005-12-27T15:15:00.000-08:00

The Bible presents two views of Joseph's emergency grain policy:

A) According to "E" (Gen. 41:33-57), a brilliant plan and a good thing for one and all!
Key verse: The plan seemed good to Pharaoh and all his officials (Gen. 41:37).

B) According to "J" (Gen. 47:13-26), great for the Pharaoh (centralization of power), but a socioeconomic disaster for the people of Egypt (landless servitude).
Key verse: He removed the people to the cities (Gen. 47:21 MT). An alternative rendering: He reduced the people to servitude (based on an emendation of the Hebrew text by comparison with other sources).

Now I have contrasted "E" and "J" somewhat unfairly (as both seem to present Joseph as a great hero) to make a simple point: that Joseph's grain policy was not unequivocally good for Egypt. In fact, if we combine details from the two versions, the grain policy only looks worse: initially the people are taxed (i.e., one-fifth of their crop is taken, apparently without compensation), then Joseph sells the grain back to the people (and offers it for export to those folks in Canaan!). So Pharaoh has his cake and eats it too! The common people are thus impoverished and disinherited while Pharaoh and the priestly class are beneficiaries of their misfortune. I should add that Jacob's family also receives special (favorable) treatment (see 47:11-12, 27).

Because of Joseph's policy of requiring payment for the grain (perhaps necessary from an administrative point of view to effectively ration the grain, nevertheless unfair as the grain belonged to the people to begin with), the people of Egypt exchanged, successively, their:
1) Money (kesef, silver, as a medium of exchange, though not yet in the form of coinage)
2) Livestock (to include horses, sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys; cf. Exod. 9:3 camels)
3) Farmland (adamah, arable land; sometimes synonymous with erets, as in 47:20)
4) Persons (expressed dramatically as geviyah, dead bodies, 47:18)

The people became slaves of Pharaoh, and as such entirely dependent on his caprice for their livelihoods. Perhaps Joseph was also responsible for exempting his friends in the priestly class (which he had married into, after all). No wonder "the plan seemed good to Pharaoh and all his officials" (41:37).

Was there another way out of the famine? Certainly. Pharaoh could have emptied his own coffers to buy up the surplus grain during the years of abundance, both to provide a service (storing the grain) and to keep the price of grain stable for the farmers. Then during the years of famine he could have offered the grain for sale (with an added fee for administrative costs) to the people of Egypt. Perhaps foreigners should have been charged a premium to keep the price lower for the domestic population (incidentally, by this "price discrimination" Pharaoh would have not only benefited his own people but also increased total revenues to his government).

All in all, Joseph was a genius as a "civil engineer" (his plan worked in the limited sense that the people didn't starve and Pharaoh was kept fat and happy) but a little thought to economic and social concerns for the future might have been in order.

The lessons for us:

1) Beware of dreamers and those who think their good intentions are enough! Probably Joseph was sincere in the beginning: he really thought that what he planned would work for the best, both for Pharaoh and the people. If so, he was wrong!

2) Whether in private behavior or public policy, there are unintended consequences of the actions we take and the words we speak.

------------------------------------------

Appendix: A review of the terminology:

A. The plan (41:34-36)

41:34 Let Pharaoh do this: appoint commissioners (peqidim, overseers) over the land and *tax a fifth* (*chimeish*) of the land of Egypt in the seven years of plenty (sava, full).
41:35 They will collect (qavats) all the food of these good years that are coming; they will gather/store (tsavar, aggregate) grain under the authority of Pharaoh to keep (shamar) food in the cities.
41:36 This food will be held in reserve (feqadon, deposit, cf. peqidim) for the land for the seven years of famine that are coming on the land of Egypt, so the land will not perish (kareit, be cut off) in the famine.

B. The process (41:48-49, 56-57)

41:48 He collected (qavats) all the food of the seven years that they produced in the land of Egypt and he put the food in the cities, the food of the field that surrounded [each city] he put within it.
41:49 Joseph gathered/stored (tsavar) grain like the sand of the sea, so much that he stopped measuring for it was not measurable.
41:56 When the famine was over all the surface of the land then Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold (shavar, deal in grain) to the Egyptians, for the famine grew harsh (chazaq, strong) in the land of Egypt.
41:57 All the land came to Egypt to buy (shavar) from Joseph, for the famine had grown harsh (chazaq) in all the land.

C. The outcome (47:13-26)

47:13 There was no bread (lechem) in all the land, for the famine was very severe (kaveid, heavy), and the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished because of the famine.
47:14 Joseph collected (laqeit, gleaned) all the money that was to be found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan [in payment] for the grain that they were buying, and Joseph brought the money to Pharaoh's palace.
47:15 When the money from the land of Egypt and from the land of Canaan was spent (tamam, complete), then all of Egypt came to Joseph to say, "Give us bread! Why should we die in your presence? For the money is gone."
47:16 Joseph said, "Bring me your livestock and I will give you [grain] for your livestock since [your] money is gone."
47:17 They brought their livestock to Joseph and Joseph gave them bread for the horses, the flocks, the herds, and the donkeys. He provided with them bread for all their livestock that year.
47:18 When that year was over (tamam), they came to him in the second year and said to him, "We cannot hide from my lord that since the money is spent (tamam) and the stocks of animals [belong] to my lord, nothing is left for my lord except our bodies (geviyah) and our farmland.
47:19 "Why should we die before your eyes? Both we and our farmland, buy (qanah) us and our farmland for bread and we will be, we and our farmland, slaves to Pharaoh. Also give us seed that we may live and not die, and the farmland may not turn to desert."
47:20 Joseph took all the farmland of Egypt for Pharaoh, for each Egyptian sold his field, for the famine had grown harsh (chazaq) for them. The land became Pharaoh's.
47:21 He removed the people to the cities, from one end of Egypt’s border to the other.

--------------------------------------------

A final question: Was the tithe introduced as a more lenient alternative to the 1/5 tax that Israel remembered from Egypt? Compare Gen. 47:24, 26 to Lev. 27:30.

The Meaning of Dreams

2005-12-27T13:49:00.000-08:00

Gen. 40:5-8
5. And both of them dreamed a dream, each his own dream in one night, each according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker to the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison house.
6. And Joseph came to them in the morning and saw them, and, behold, they were dejected.
7. So he asked Pharaoh’s officers who were with him in the custody of his lord’s house, saying, Why do you look so sad today?
8. And they said to him, We dreamed a dream, but there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said to them, Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell it to me, please.

As the story continues we discover that Joseph holds a particular view of dreams: each dream has one interpretation known only to God and, perhaps, his wise diviners, and bad dreams portend bad outcomes in real life. I call this the fatalistic view of dreams. The fate of the dreamer is determined by his dream.

On the whole, the sages of the Talmud hold a more opportunistic view of dreams. If a person is troubled by a bad dream or even a dream of uncertain meaning, he should turn his dream into something positive. The first step is to pray, as in these words:

Berakhot 55b (adapted from the Soncino edition)
Sovereign of the Universe, I am yours and my dreams are yours. I have dreamed a dream and I do not know what it is. Whether I have dreamed about myself… or I have dreamed about others, if they are good dreams, confirm them and reinforce them like the dreams of Joseph, and if they need a healing, heal them, as the waters of Marah [were healed] by the hand of Moses…. As you turned the curse of the wicked Balaam into a blessing, so turn all my dreams into what is good for me.

Actually the Talmud offers a variety of opinions about the nature and importance of dreams. For example, in one lengthy passage a host of dreams are listed by their subject matter and interpretations (usually positive) are offered for them (Berakhot 56b-57b). On the other hand, R. Meir is quoted to say that dreams are of no consequence, neither raising nor lowering one’s state in life (Horayot 13b; cf. Gittin 52a). Likewise, a bad dream does not mean that the person who dreams it is bad; in fact, according to R. Huna just the opposite is true (Berakhot 55b). Dreams are never completely fulfilled, and all dreams are partly nonsense (Berakhot 55a). A welcome touch of realism.

Rather than seek an interpretation as such for every dream, a person should look for a beneficial response to his dream. Often Scripture verses are suggested to this end, as demonstrated by another passage:

Berakhot 56b (adapted from the Soncino edition)
R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one sees a river in his dreams, he should rise early and say: Behold I will extend peace to her like a river (Isa. 66:12), before another verse occurs to him, For he will come in like a narrow river (Isa. 59:19). If one dreams of a bird he should rise early and say: As hovering birds, so the Lord of Hosts will shield (Isa. 31:5), before another verse occurs to him, As a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man that wanders from his place (Prov. 27:8)…. If one sees grapes in his dream, he should rise early and say: I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness (Hos. 9:10), before another verse occurs to him, Their grapes are grapes of poison (Deut. 32:32). If one dreams of a mountain, he should rise early and say: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good news (Isa. 52:7), before another verse occurs to him, For the mountains I will lift up weeping and wailing (Jer. 9:9 MT). If one dreams of a horn he should rise early and say: And it shall come about in that day that a great horn shall be blown (Isa. 27:13, heralding return from exile), before another verse occurs to him, Blow the horn in Gibeah (Hos. 5:8, warning of destruction). If one sees a dog in his dream, he should rise early and say: But against any of the people of Israel a dog shall not sharpen its tongue (Exod. 11:7), before another verse occurs to him, And the dogs are greedy (Isa. 56:11)…. If one dreams of shaving, he should rise early and say: And Joseph shaved himself and changed his garment (Gen. 41:14), before another verse occurs to him, If I am shaved, then my strength will leave me (Judg. 16:17). If one sees a well in his dream, he should rise early and say: A well of living waters (Song of Songs 4:15), before another verse occurs to him, As a well keeps fresh its waters, so she keeps fresh her wickedness (Jer. 6:7). If one sees a reed, he should rise early and say, A bruised reed he will not break (Isa. 42:3), before another verse occurs to him, Behold, you rely on the staff of this bruised reed (Isa.36:6).

In other words, every dream has more than one interpretation, so we are free to choose the most positive. Dreams do not portend our fates; they merely disturb the restfulness of our nights without obvious cause or purpose, human or divine. The best we can do is respond to them in a way that will offset the frustration or fear or guilt they often bring us.

Above all, it is important to know and accept that we are not responsible for the content of our dreams. Even dreams that pretend to relate to something in our life, whether family or work or travel, rarely portray accurate situations. Dreams are largely divorced from reality, and that is where they should stay.

Neither are we able to control in advance the content of our dreams. We may wish for sweet dreams, but some of us would prefer to have no dreams at all. Dream on.

Deborah, Rebekah's Nurse

2005-12-19T22:32:00.000-08:00

Genesis 35:8
And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Beth-El under an oak; and the name of it was called Allon-Bachuth.

This is a very puzzling reference:

1. We are never told when or where Rebekah herself died, but her nurse is singled out for special mention without any obvious connection to what came before or after in the sequence of events.
2. Just how did Rebekah’s nurse come to be part of this company? She is mentioned once before, also a surprising incidental reference, when she leaves with Rebekah from Mesopotamia (Gen. 24:59). Possibly:
a. After the unmentioned death of Rebekah (sometime after Gen. 27:46) Deborah returned to Laban’s household, and then left again with Jacob and company?
b. Rebekah sent her to be with Jacob’s wives at some point before Rebekah's own death?

In either case, Deborah may have been looked on with affection and honor, a sort of surrogate grandmother, by Jacob’s family. This might explain the name given to the oak tree where she was buried: “oak of weeping.”

Beginning with Genesis chapter 12, only seven other individuals receive similar honor (in mention of their deaths) through all of the rest of Genesis: Sarah (23:2), Abraham (25:8), Ishmael (25:17), Rachel (35:19), Isaac (35:29), Jacob (49:33), and Joseph (50:26). And Deborah?

Robert Alter comments: “Beyond the narrative etiology of a place-name, there is not enough evidence to explain what this lonely obituary notice is doing here.” (Genesis: Translation and Commentary, p. 197) However, this oak tree does not become a place-name of note, except here as the burial site of Deborah.

Genesis is a prophetic work, not simply a chronicle of events; that is to say, its stories teach us something about the God of Israel and about the values that his people hold. Perhaps the point of Deborah’s honorable mention among the great patriarchs and matriarchs of Genesis is along the lines of this remarkable passage:

Psalm 113:7-8
He [the God of Israel] raises up the poor from the dust, and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to seat them with princes, with the princes of his people.

So Deborah received “an everlasting name” (Isa. 56:5) in the annals of God’s people.

Brothers: Conflict and Rapprochement

2005-12-19T22:19:00.000-08:00

Gen. 33:1a
Then Jacob lifted his eyes and saw… Esau coming, and with him four hundred men….

The relationships between "brothers" plays an important role throughout Genesis, beginning with the conflict between Cain and Abel that resulted in Abel's violent death and Cain's banishment. While conflict continues to define these relationships, we also find another element later in Genesis: reconciliation or rapprochement.

For example, Isaac and Ishmael come together to bury their father (25:9), even though Ishmael's descendants, according to one translation, "lived in hostility toward all their brothers" (25:18, NIV); cf. Robert Alter's translation, "in defiance of all his brothers he went down." A passage in the Talmud indirectly credits Ishmael for their reconciliation: "Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is written, And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him.... That the text places Isaac first shows that Ishmael made way for him, and from the fact that he made way for him we infer that he repented in Abraham's lifetime." (Baba Batra 16b, adapted from the Soncino edition)

Likewise, both conflict and rapprochement occur in the accounts of Abram and Lot ("brothers" in a loose sense, see Gen. 13:8), Jacob and Esau (27:41 and 33:4), and, most dramatically, Joseph and his brothers (37:18-20, 45:15, and 50:14f). Thus, amid the realism of Genesis (conflict happens and recurs) there is an element of optimism, a message of hope for peace to be restored between brothers.

Jacob and Esau provide an example worth further examination. After years of living in exile, estranged from Esau, Jacob sends a message to his brother as he returns to Canaan. The messengers return with news of Esau coming to meet him with a large force. Jacob’s first reaction is fear. His second reaction is to seek atonement through lavish gifts. But when their meeting takes place, what happens next must have taken Jacob by surprise.

Gen. 33:4
And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept.

As straightforward as this show of affection and acceptance may seem, the question remains: how sincere and how complete was this reunion of brothers? Jacob was greeted by Laban in a very similar way: “he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him…” (Gen. 29:13) Yet their relationship was far from brotherly love. They barely managed to part in peace, with a covenant between them. But perhaps Esau should be compared to Joseph when he greeted his father: “he fell on his neck and wept…” (Gen. 46:29)

The apparent reconciliation of Jacob and Esau reflects an ambiguous relationship between the nations they represent. If “Esau is Edom” as Gen. 36:8 says, then Jacob is Israel, as his name change (Gen. 35:10) illustrates. They are brothers, and so the story of their seemingly happy reunion paves the way for the remarkable openness of Deut. 23:7-8 to Edomites: “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother…. The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.” That is, the descendants of an Edomite who resided in Israel (as a ger toshav) could be admitted into full citizenship (and intermarry) by the third generation. On the other hand, Edom stubbornly refused passage through their territory to Israel (Num. 20:14-21; cf. Judges 11:17-18), which was one of the grounds used to exclude any Ammonite or Moabite from “the assembly of the Lord.” (Deut. 23:3-4a) Why the distinction?

The distinction may reflect a difference between Lot, who represents Ammon and Moab, and Esau, who represents Edom:

1. Even though Lot was a “brother” (i.e., kin) to Abraham, he did not remain in Abraham’s household or, we may suppose, partake in the covenant of circumcision. Esau, on the other hand, could claim Abraham and Isaac as his forbears, and like Ishmael, remain within the covenant boundaries set by circumcision, even though he forfeited the promised land to his brother.
2. As Esau was the twin brother of Jacob, so Edom held a closer relationship to Israel than any other nation.

In later Jewish tradition Edom came to be identified with another “brother” of Israel, a rival claimant to the inheritance of Abraham, namely Christian Rome. Jacob Neusner describes this surprising interpretation of history, and I will conclude with his words at some length:

“Rabbinic Judaism lays heavy emphasis on a metaphor of genealogy, involving family and marriage…. Specifically, by claiming that Israel constituted the actual, living, present family of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah and Rachel, the sages met head-on the Christian claim that there was—or could ever be—some other Israel…. Using the metaphor of a family beginning with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Israel could best sort out its relationship with the nations, meaning Christian Rome in particular, by drawing into the [extended] family other social entities with which it found it had to relate. So [Christian] Rome became a brother…. The metaphor of the family dealt with the facts of the situation: Christian Rome shared with Israel the common patrimony of Scripture—and said so….

“While Abraham founded Israel, Isaac and Jacob carried forth the birthright and blessing. This they did through the process of selection, ending in the assignment of the birthright to Jacob alone. The importance of that fact for the definition of Israel hardly requires explication. The lives of the three patriarchs flowed together, each being identified with the other as a single long life. This immediately produced the proposition that the historical life of Israel, the nation, continued the individual lives of the patriarchs. The theory of who is Israel, therefore, is seen once more to have rested on genealogy: Israel is one extended family, all being children of the same fathers and mothers, the patriarchs and matriarchs of Genesis….

“Esau, in the sages’ typology, always stands for [Christian] Rome. Esau is not an outsider… but also not Israel…. Israel and Rome—these two contend for the world…. Rome does have a legitimate claim, and that claim demands recognition—an amazing, if grudging concession on the part of the sages that Christian Rome at least is Esau, different from the gentiles, but also not Israel.” (Jacob Neusner, Children of the Flesh, Children of the Promise: A Rabbi Talks with Paul, pp. 43, 44, 51-52)

Facing Death (Without Illusion)

2005-12-11T22:59:00.000-08:00

Baba Batra 16a, 16b
As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up. (Job 7:9) Raba said: This shows that Job denied the resurrection of the dead….Job speaks without knowledge, and his words are without wisdom. (Job 34:35) Raba said: This shows that a man is not held responsible for what he says when in distress.

Throughout most of the Hebrew Bible man's mortality is assumed. While some verses may point to an afterlife, or be interpreted in that way, with the exception of Daniel 12:2 these verses do not require an expectation of life beyond the grave. Indeed, the normative view is just the opposite. All that is hoped for beyond the grave is the continuation of descendants in future generations. When we die we are gathered to our people, specifically our ancestors with whom we share the common destiny of all the living: the grave.

Facing death with recognition of human mortality is too fearful and hopeless a prospect for many. Instead, we have grasped onto "the hope of heaven." When a loved one dies we characteristically say "they have gone to a better place." We even hold firmly to the belief that someday we will be re-united with our loved ones in that "better place." Philosophically we speak of "the immortality of the soul" as of something self-evident, not to be challenged. For those who follow Daniel "the resurrection of the dead" has become an essential doctrine of faith.
[For Talmudic teaching on the resurrection of the dead, see Sanhedrin 90-92b.]

Let's step back into an earlier view of life and death, a view evident in the opening chapters of Genesis, a view which extends at least down to the time of the Babylonian exile. In this view life is the ultimate good, while the finality of death is accepted soberly as the fate of all mankind. What lies beyond the grave, sometimes identified as Sheol, is never associated with "a better place."

Gen. 25:8-10
Then Abraham expired and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre, the field which Abraham purchased from the Hittites; there Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife. (cf. Gen. 25:17 Ishmael, Gen. 35:29 Isaac, Gen. 49:29-32 Jacob, Num. 20:24-26 Aaron, Num. 27:13 Moses, II Kings 22:20 Josiah)

For the patriarchs, the hope in death was to be “gathered” to their deceased kin. Burial in the family tomb was important but not essential to this hope, as in the case of Moses, whose death and burial took place apart from other family members (Deut. 34:5-6). However, some commentators still look for more. Compare the following view:

“Burial in the family grave served to reconnect the departed one with a society of previously dead ancestors. This society was believed to exist in the tomb itself and perhaps in the surrounding locality. Death itself was not seen as a cessation of existence. On the contrary, to be gathered to one's ancestors implied but a passage to another realm where departed family spirits cohabited and the activities of kith and kin continued within the sacred ancestral society of the family tomb.” (Simcha Paull Raphael, Jewish Views of the Afterlife, p. 45)

If the author had stopped with "another realm" and left out the malarkey about a "sacred ancestral society" I could almost agree with his explanation. The realm beyond death was precisely the unknown, a shadowy existence which was not further described in the Hebrew Bible in pointed contrast to what other cultures taught concerning "the activities of kith and kin" within the grave. That Israelites may have also believed such things does not mean that their superstitions were the Biblical view. On the contrary, the Bible goes to great lengths to supplant such superstitions with a more sober view of death and the grave. It is natural to seek consolation in the death of loved ones; for this purpose all manner of beliefs in an afterlife are introduced; the Bible reduces all of these fanciful beliefs to the simple consolation of being "gathered" through burial to one's deceased kin. Beyond this notion nothing definitive should be read into these scriptures. As the author himself points out later in his book, the Bible specifically condemns the superstitious practice of "feeding the dead" (Deut. 26:14; cf. Hosea 9:4, Jer. 16:6-7, Sirach 30:18), which could be read to imply, if not skepticism toward an afterlife, then at least discouragement of focusing on the afterlife. The Bible also condemns necromancy (consulting the spirits of the dead, Deut. 18:11, Lev. 20:27, II Kings 23:24, Isa. 8:19), another natural response to belief in an afterlife. The Bible does not exclude the possibility that these spirits exist, but it does prohibit any communication with what are popularly believed to be spirits of the dead.

Let's conclude with the example of David.

1. Facing your own death without illusion

I Kings 2:1-3
When the days of David drew near to die, he charged Solomon his son, saying,
I am going the way of all the earth, so be strong and show yourself a man;
And keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, his laws, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn...

I am going the way of all the earth, cf. Joshua 23:14.

What is the way of all the earth? The destiny shared by all forms of life: all life ends in death.

2. Facing the death of a loved one without illusion

2 Samuel 12:19-23
When David saw that his servants were whispering, David realized that the child was dead; therefore David said to his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
Then David rose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his garment, and went to the house of the Lord, and bowed down [worshiped]; then he went to his own house; and when he requested, they set bread before him, and he ate.
Then his servants said to him, Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive you fasted and wept for him; but now that the child is dead, you rise and eat bread.
And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who knows? Maybe God will be gracious to me and the child may live?
But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me.

I am going to him, but he will not return to me.

Does David have in mind a happy reunion beyond the grave? Not at all. He is simply accepting his child’s death without illusion. He cannot bring his child back to life, but he will eventually join his child in death.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

2005-12-11T22:49:00.000-08:00

Berakhot 10b
R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Yose b. Zimra: If a man makes his petition depend on his own merit, heaven makes it depend on the merit of others; and if he makes it depend on the merit of others, heaven makes it depend on his own merit. Moses made his petition depend on the merit of others, as it says, Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants! (Ex. 32:13), and God made it depend on his own merit, as it says, Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood in the breech before him to turn back his wrath from destroying them. (Ps. 106:23) Hezekiah made his petition depend on his own merit, as it is written, Remember now, O Lord, I beseech you, how I have walked before you (Is. 38:3), and God made it depend on the merit of others, as it says, For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for my servant David's sake. (Is. 37:35)

By the end of Genesis 25, we have been introduced to three very important people in the traditions of Judaism. These three are often mentioned together. The triad of names--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—appears at least 25 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, 18 of these in the written Torah, 3 in prayers (Deut. 9:27, I Kings 18:36, I Chron. 29:18).

When I first began learning the daily prayer (Amidah), the phrase chasdei avot translated "the kindnesses of the fathers" was one that I did not understand and frankly found troubling. Following Ezekiel’s view of individual responsibility, I questioned how I would benefit from the merit of another person. “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the iniquity of the father and the father will not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous will be on him and the wickedness of the wicked will be on him.” (Ezek. 18:20) That seems clear-cut enough.

However, after a study of the places where the triad of names is repeated, and others that refer specifically to Abraham, my opinion has changed:

1. Simply the number of times that the triad is repeated suggests the importance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the identity of the God who calls himself by their names—“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3:6)—and claims for himself the singular devotion of Israel (cf. Exod. 34:14).

2. The God of Israel is the God of the covenant. "He remembers his covenant forever...which he made with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant." (Psalm 105: 8-10) Several other instances of the triad occur in declarations of God's concern for Israel because of the covenant. The fathers are bearers of the covenant promises to Israel, and when God "remembers" the covenant, he shows favor and concern to Israel. "The people of Israel sighed because of the bondage and they cried out; and their cry rose up to God because of the bondage. God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God saw the people of Israel, and God regarded them." (Exod. 2: 23b-25a; cf. 6:5) Likewise, "The Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them, and he turned to them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...." (II Kings 13:23a)

3. Deut. 29: 9-12 considers as a unity (a) the covenant which God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with (b) the covenant God commanded Moses to make with Israel at Sinai/Horeb and later at Moab (cf. Deut. 29:1). To be more accurate, the latter is presented as a continuation of the former. "You are standing here today….in order to enter into a covenant with the Lord your God...to confirm you today as his people, that he may be your God as he spoke to you and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Why is this important? Because the very existence of Israel as a covenant people and the Torah as the book of the covenant began, not at Sinai, but with these three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To them was the blessing of God to be a chosen people first pronounced. Through them the promise of a special land was first made. In their lifetimes were the first laws of the covenant given and obeyed (e.g., circumcision), while others were foreshadowed (e.g., tithe). As God declares in Gen. 26:5, "Abraham heard my voice and kept my requirements, my commandments, my statutes and my laws."

4. The righteousness and faithfulness of the fathers, as well as God's favor shown to them, is often implied and sometimes clearly stated in these scriptures. I Chron. 29: 17-19 speaks of the integrity and devotion of the people Israel and their leaders, apparently in relation to that of the fathers before them. Compare Neh. 9:7-8, which refers specifically to Abraham's call by God: "You are the Lord God, who chose Abram.... You found his heart faithful before you and made the covenant with him...." Even more striking are the scriptures which invoke the character of the fathers in contrast to the people Israel. "Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Overlook the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin." (Deut. 9:27) The book of Micah, after praising God for his forgiveness of sins, ends with: “You will give truth to Jacob and kindness to Abraham that you swore to our fathers from days of old.” (Micah 7:20) The people Israel are thus identified with their patriarchs as God shows mercy to them.

A combination of these outlooks is found in the daily prayer. Prior to reading the Akeidah (Gen. 22), we say: “Remember on our behalf, O Lord our God, the love of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servants, the covenant and the kindness and the oath that you swore to Abraham our father on Mount Moriah, and the Akeidah when he bound Isaac his son on the altar…”

Then, at the conclusion of this reading, we say: "Not upon our righteousness do we bring our appeals before you, but upon your abundant mercy. What are we? What is our life? What is our kindness? What is our righteousness? What is our salvation? What is our strength? What is our might? What can we say before You, O Lord our God and God of our fathers?....BUT we are your people, children of your covenant, the children of Abraham your beloved to whom you swore on Mount Moriah; the seed of Isaac, his only son bound on the altar; the community of Jacob, your firstborn son [cf. Exod. 4:22] who, because of the love with which you loved him and the joy with which you rejoiced in him, you called his name Israel and Jeshuran...."

Even more direct is the repetition of the Amidah during the Afternoon service on Yom Kippur: “May his [Abraham’s] righteousness be accounted to us (cf. Gen. 15:6); forgive us in the righteousness of the father.” And later: “You will yet remember for us the love of Abraham our lord, and his son, who was bound…, and the merit of Jacob…”

This perspective became a point of contention between Judaism and early Christianity, as reflected in two New Testament passages (Matt. 3:8-9, John 8:39). It also provided Paul with the basis for his own version: Paul claimed Abraham as “the father of all those who believe.” (Romans 4:11; cf. Galatians 3:7) But in Paul’s argument the faith of Abraham was only a ruse to cover for the real issue dividing Judaism and Christianity, which was and is the person of Jesus Christ.

But how does this perspective square with the plain message of Ezekiel? Tentatively, I would offer two possible answers:

1. It doesn’t. Ezekiel presents one side of God’s justice, while other scriptures and traditions point in another direction, to a more merciful perspective. Ezekiel presents measure-for-measure justice, which is the rule, but does not leave room for mercy, which is available at God’s discretion.

2. The scriptures and traditions which invoke the merit of the patriarchs do not presume upon God’s mercy; they merely (a) petition God in prayer, or (b) explain God’s mercy in this manner. So Ezekiel is correct, but not definitive, concerning God’s ways.

What About Lot?

2005-11-16T16:24:00.000-08:00

What can be said about the moral character of Lot? Was he a good man, or not?

Conflicting traditions: one says Lot was righteous and pious and wise, while another says Lot was, in the words of Philo, "an unsteady and indecisive person," and was further corrupted by his residence in wicked Sodom. For a survey of traditional interpreters on this subject, see James Kugel, The Bible As It Was, pp. 181-185.

How could anyone claim that Lot was a righteous man? For example, the New Testament makes an extravagant claim for Lot: "And [God] rescued righteous Lot, who was distressed by the indecent conduct of the lawless, for by what that righteous man saw and heard while dwelling among them, his righteous soul was tormented day after day by their lawless deeds." (2 Peter 2:7-8) Note the triple reference to Lot as righteous.

I can see at least 4 reasons for this claim:
(1) Abraham's argument focused on the number of righteous in the city of Sodom (Gen. 18:23-32), so if Lot was rescued it may mean he was considered one of the righteous. However, see the Talmud’s view of Lot below.
(2) Lot shows kindness and hospitality to the strangers, in contrast to the inhospitable behavior shown by "all the men" of Sodom.
(3) Lot appealed to his neighbors, "Don't do this wicked thing." (Gen. 19:7)
(4) The story of Lot's rescue may be compared to Noah's ark, so perhaps we are to understand that Lot, like Noah, was a righteous man surrounded by the wicked.

But Lot does not fare so well in the Talmud:

Berakhot 54b
For Lot and his wife two blessings are said. For his wife we say, "Blessed be the true Judge", and for Lot we say, "Blessed be he who remembers the righteous". R. Yohanan said: Even in the hour of his anger the Holy One, blessed be he, remembers the righteous, as it says, “And it came to pass when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow…” (Gen. 19:29)

That is, Lot was rescued on account of Abraham’s righteousness, not his own. The Talmud also squarely blames Lot for the incest with his daughters (Nazir 23a, Horayot 10b). This seems to me a more accurate view of Lot than the New Testament’s concern for “his righteous soul.” When it came time to leave the city of Sodom, Lot “hesitated” so that the angels were obliged to drag him out of the city (Gen. 19:16). Even then he was not willing to seek refuge in the hills, but bargained for a more comfortable solution.

So what about Lot? Lot may be compared to the average American today, caught in an immoral, wicked society but not willing to leave its enticements behind. He is pressured (cf. Gen. 19:9b) to tolerate and even sanction the “alternative lifestyles” of his fellow citizens. And he stays close by, in the vicinity of the culture of inclusion. Neither righteous nor wicked, he is just an average guy.

That is why God can take pity (chem’lah) on Lot and his family. (Gen. 19:16) In the Hebrew Scriptures God does not show pity or compassion to the wicked, to those who are outwardly rebellious against him. But he may show pity to those who, like Lot, are not entirely righteous either. “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord on those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he is mindful that we are dust.” (Ps. 103:13-14) “Their heart was not steadfast toward him, and they were not faithful in his covenant. Yet he, compassionate, atoned for iniquity, and did not destroy; and often he restrained his anger, and did not arouse his entire wrath. He remembered that they were flesh, a passing breath that does not return.” (Ps. 78:37-39)

And that is the difference between Noah and Lot. Both found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8, 19:19). But Noah was “a righteous man, blameless in his generation, and he walked with God.” (Gen. 6:9) He also “did according to all that God commanded him.” (Gen. 6:22, 7:5) Lot was just an average fellow, neither righteous nor wicked. He hesitated and hedged, yet he received God’s pity.

Berakhot 61b:
It has been taught: R. Jose the Galilean says, The righteous are judged [or swayed] by their good inclination, as it says, “My heart [i.e., evil inclination] is slain within me.” (Ps. 109:22) The wicked are judged by their evil inclination, as it says, “Transgression speaks to the wicked, within my heart, there is no fear of God before his eyes.” (Ps. 36:2 MT) Average people are judged by both inclinations, as it says, “For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those [i.e., his two inclinations] who judge his soul.” (Ps. 109:31)

[For additional references on the Talmudic use of the intermediate category of average or ordinary, see Shabbat 152b, Yoma 75a-b, Sukkah 28a, and Ta’anit 11a.]

Only One

2005-11-14T22:31:00.000-08:00

I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and I will make your name great and you will be a blessing. (Gen. 12:2)

Nachmanides tell us that we should aspire to be blessed in Abraham's name. As Nachmanides comments on the phrase from Genesis 12:2, "and you will be a blessing": "You will be the blessing by whom people will be blessed, saying, "God make you like Abraham."

The theme of blessing returns in a later passage, Genesis 26:1-5. This passage helps explain (a) how Abraham would be a blessing, and at the same time (b) what it would mean for God to "make you like Abraham." After Abraham's death, God appears to Isaac, significantly in a time of famine: "there was a famine in the land, aside from the earlier famine that was in the days of Abraham." (v. 1) God orders him to remain in the land promised by oath to his father Abraham: "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and I will bless you.... I will increase your offspring as the stars of heaven, and I will give to your offspring all these lands, and in your offspring all the nations of the earth will be blessed, inasmuch as Abraham listened to my voice and kept my requirements, my commandments, my laws, and my teachings." (vv. 3-5)

How would Abraham, through his offspring, come to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth? Inasmuch as, eiqev asher, along with what follows, is one key to understanding Abraham's greatness. Abraham could be a blessing because "Abraham listened to my voice and kept my requirements, my commandments, my laws, and my teachings." And these teachings he passed on to the next generation, "to keep the way of the Lord, to do what is right and just." (Gen. 18:19) That Isaac carries on the blessing of his father Abraham is the central point of Genesis 26:1-5.

In short, Abraham was faithful, as we read elsewhere: "You found his heart faithful before you." (Nehemiah 9:8; cf. Gen. 15:6)

To do what Abraham did took incredible courage and commitment, for at the beginning of his journey, when he left behind his land, his birthplace, and his father's house, he also left behind his family's religion. As Joshua 24:2 tells us, Abraham's father "worshiped other gods." Abraham did not follow tradition, or comfortably conform to his father's religion, but chose to listen to a different voice. That same voice continues to call: "Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the Lord. Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who brought you forth. For he was only one when I called him, but I blessed him and made him many." (Isaiah 51:1-2)

While some look to Abraham (and Sarah) as native-born descendants, others look to Abraham (and Sarah) as converts, who like him, only one, leave behind their family's religion when God calls them out and blesses them with "the law of life, and the love of kindness, righteousness, blessing, mercy, life and peace." [From the Sim Shalom benediction]

Flood Justice

2005-11-05T21:30:00.000-08:00

I read the Hebrew Scriptures as Israel's story, or rather “collected stories.” In this compilation Israel interprets their own origins and later "history" for the purpose of teaching the ways of God to their children: the traditions of Israel passed on to future generations.

Christians have an unfortunate habit of reading the Hebrew Scriptures as if they were intended as a simple rebuke of Israel and as evidence in the case against the terms of the covenant (i.e., the Law a failed experiment, case closed). In response:
1. The “old” covenant was, with the inspiration of God, written by Israel for Israel, in the context of a relationship to God that was seen as everlasting and unchanging. In other words, whatever the form, this record of the covenant was not intended to be read in the third person, as a third party judging Israel’s failure to live up to God’s expectations. What Jews call the Torah is to be read in the first person plural, we Israel.
2. All of the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially Genesis, should be read in the light of the Sinai covenant, not as preceding or following in a literal-historical sense. While the rebellions of Israel in the wilderness (as recounted in Exodus, Numbers, and elsewhere) may be held up as an “object lesson” concerning the covenant relationship of God with Israel, so also should the stories of all the patriarchs from Adam to Joseph, with their realistic (but not necessarily literal-historical) portrayals of both sin and righteousness, disobedience and faithfulness, judgment and redemption. To correctly interpret these stories, moreover, we must read them as if knowledge and experience of the Torah of Moses was used in their composition, which was probably the case. That Genesis precedes Exodus in the order of recorded events does not mean that Genesis was written before Exodus or without knowledge of the covenant recorded therein.

The Hebrew scriptures--especially the Torah, the early Prophets (Joshua-Kings), and the Writings--teach by telling stories, and the stories are so compelling and dramatic that the literalists have supposed they represent history in the same sense as modern texts of history.

The Hebrew Scriptures tell the stories of God and man (particularly Israel) at several levels and from a variety of points of view. By contrast, the Christian New Testament (in it's use of the Hebrew scriptures) flattens and straightens the entire landscape into one long "object lesson" of sin and rebellion leading to the hope of a redeemer who, foretold and pictured throughout the "object lesson", finally comes in the person of Jesus Christ. While teachings of the Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of the Christian New Testament are related enough to justify the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition, I no longer believe "the testaments tell the same story" or that the Hebrew scriptures can be reduced to one story.

The literal meaning of a text is what the author intended it to mean and represent, not what the fundamentalist of today imagines, e.g., Noah’s flood as the factual account of a real event. That the patriarchs belong to the history of Israel, I do not question. That all the events of their lives (down to the conversations recorded) represent historical fact, I do question.

Whether Abraham, Moses and the rest of the patriarchs did and said all that is recorded about them is open to as much doubt as the Gospel accounts of Jesus, but the key difference is that no one has claimed Abraham or Moses were gods or that our salvation derives from some act they performed. In the case of Moses, as important as he is to Judaism, the accounts of his life and death made very clear that:

1. He considered himself unworthy of the task given him;
2. He screwed up from time to time;
3. He died a natural death (old age), and his burial place was kept secret ("to this day no one knows where his grave is" Deut. 34:6) so that pilgrimages of the superstitious would not be made to his grave.

On the other hand, the accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, Job and his philosopher friends, Jonah and the big fish, among others, were not written to be read as history. Some of the obvious clues: Adam represents mankind, Eve is the mother of all living (allegory); Noah alone was righteous and blameless in his generation (hyperbole); Job lived in the land of Uz (about as easy to pinpoint as the Garden of Eden!) and was so blameless and upright that there was no one on earth like him (hyperbole again); and poor Jonah was swallowed by the big fish only to land up in hated Nineveh (irony). The fundamentalists don't know how to read their Bibles and therefore totally miss the beauty of some brilliantly constructed stories.

Back to Noah. I do not consider that the story of Noah is historical, or, more importantly, that it was ever intended to be understood as an historical account. Apart from the absurdity of the ark, three reasons point to this conclusion: a) Allusions within the story to the creation, to burnt offerings, to clean and unclean animals, and other matters that look forward to Sinai, imply a concern beyond historicity of the events; b) The etymology of Noah's name is woven into the story in a creative way to make a point more important than historicity of the events; c) The mythological beginning of the story, with “sons of God” and Nephilim, places the story outside of history; and d) The use of exaggeration--specifically, that only Noah is righteous, everyone else is wicked to the core--suggests that Noah is a typecast of "the righteous man", presented in dramatic contrast to the wickedness around him.

The key to understanding the Flood, as a unique display of God’s overwhelming and indiscriminate destruction, is in the incredible exaggeration found necessary to justify it: apart from Noah, we are told, there wasn’t a single righteous human being, but in fact humankind was so wicked that “EVERY inclination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY evil ALL the time,” (6:5) and the earth was “FILLED with violence.” (6:11) Now really, doesn’t this seem a bit of a stretch? Even on my worst days I have a couple of innocent thoughts!

In addition, we are told “the earth was corrupt” and “all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” (6:11,12) The term corrupt is from the same root (shin-chet-tav) as the term used later when God declares “I am about to destroy them with the earth.” (6:13) In other words, perhaps they brought it on themselves. I’ve heard this line before somewhere.

So why did the author(s) of this account find it necessary to describe the state of humankind in such preposterous terms, as lacking any particle of good? Skip forward a few chapters to Abraham's plea before God: "Will you wipe out the righteous with the wicked?" (Gen. 18:23) Noah doesn’t make such a plea because the answer has already been given: there are not any righteous persons to spare save Noah. Down to the smallest critter, “all flesh” is condemned without qualification. This is the necessary precondition for ‘flood justice’ to be just.

Following the Flood, God makes declarations (Gen. 8:21, 9:15) that would seem to preclude further use of a universal flood (or, shall we say, flood justice), that now God will only use measured justice in His dealings with humankind and all creation.

Isaiah 54:9-10 goes even further, to a realm beyond mere justice in God’s covenant relationship with Israel:
For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for just as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so I have sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from you, nor my covenant of peace be removed, says the Lord who has mercy on you.

So what, you say. So what is an example of flood justice that we can relate to? For me, the story of Noah’s flood relates to my problem with the concept of Hell, especially in the form of unmeasured retribution, or everlasting torment. What a monstrous idea of justice. Who, after all, would qualify for this Hell? A serial killer, a Hitler, perhaps, but who else? Cain committed a heinous act, and paid dearly for his crime, but even he received justice tempered by mercy. Even the worst of our sins are finite (in sphere of influence, in depth of malice). We are “only human” in this sense, not gods capable of unlimited evil.

Let Isaiah 64:7-8 MT make my point:
But now, O Lord, you are our father; we are the clay, and you our potter; and we are all the work of your hand.
Do not be angry beyond measure, O Lord, nor remember iniquity forever; behold, look, we are all your people.

God's Shadow

2005-10-28T07:36:00.000-07:00

Two perspectives on creation are found in the opening chapters of Genesis (1:1-2:3 and 2:4ff). These two accounts of God's creation, with focus on 1:26-27 and 2:7, together give us a picture of humankind that is a balance of extremes.

Before I continue with this thought, let me admit two guiding assumptions in my own perspective on creation:

(1) Human evolution. Surely it is unwise to commit ourselves, God, and the Bible to views in the realm of science which conflict with what fair-minded scientists are saying, whether as fact or theory. One need not be an avid evolutionist to still be open to the findings and theories of scientific research, and to not judge such findings by a particular interpretation of the Bible's story of creation. For myself, both biology and paleontology provide sufficient evidence of human evolution for the latter to be taken seriously.
(2) Human mortality. I take seriously the mortality of the human animal, and happen to find that the main thrust of the Genesis accounts of creation is in the same direction (not to mention other parts of the Hebrew Bible).

Now to begin. On the side of natural history, I note first that "man" (adam) and "ground" (adamah) are closely related words. Further, as God formed the human of dust from the ground so also God formed the animals from the ground ( Gen. 2:19); as the human has the "breath of life" so do the animals (Gen. 7:22); and as the human is described as a "living being" so are the animals (Gen. 1:21). Their common lot in life and death is clearly intended in the often repeated description of them as "flesh" (Gen. 6:3, 12, 13, 17, 19; 7:21). The same expression of human mortality is found in Psalm 78, where man's nature as "flesh" becomes the reason for God's mercy: "For God remembered that they were flesh, a passing breath that does not return." (v. 39; cf. Psalm 103:14-16)

On the one side, we find humankind created on the same day as the other terrestrial animals, they have the same life and breath, the same diet, and (when the story has run its course) the same mortality, from dust to dust (Gen. 3:19; cf. Eccl. 3:19f). The human is a natural being, formed as part of God's creation of the natural world and all living things, not uniquely created.

On the other side, we find humankind created in the image and according to the likeness of God. The human alone represents God on earth, has dominion over the rest of earthly life, and even names the animals. Therein lies the difference.

The human animal is the great surprise of God. He comes out of the natural world, like unto the animals, and is confronted by his Creator, like unto God. Indeed he is unique in certain respects:

(1) Social and familial bonds. Adam and Eve become "one flesh." Also, father to son and brother to brother relationships are the thematic material of Genesis.
(2) Language. One of humankind's first roles is as a giver of names. Our advantage in language may only be a matter of degree, but what a degree!
(3) Creativity and freedom. Perhaps this is the meaning of God's image. By the way, an interesting comparison may be made between Gen. 1:26 and 5:3; the latter has turned the phrase around so that Adam bears Seth "in his likeness, according to his image."
(4) Moral understanding, "the knowledge of good and evil." Only the human animal is aware of sin and aspires to righteousness.
(5) Self-consciousness. In a negative expression of self-consciousness, the acute sense of shame is uniquely human.
(6) Communication with God.

In reading Plaut's Torah commentary*, a footnote caught my attention: On the "image of God" Plaut notes, "The word for "image" (tzelem) is related to the Akkadian salmu, which has the double meaning of image and statue and which applied specifically to divine statues in human guise. The biblical use is, of course, different." (p. 22)

Different, perhaps, but how intriguing! Also, for the "biblical use" of tzelem in the sense of a statue or idol, see Daniel chapters 2 and 3. I also find the term used in a way unflattering to humankind in Psalm 39: "Surely each man's life span is but a breath. Surely as a shadow (b'tzelem) man walks about..." (part of vv. 6-7, MT) A shadow of God, but still a shadow.

*W. Gunther Plaut, ed., The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981.