Ve'ethchanan: Don't Look - Listen

Ve'ethchanan: Don't Look - Listen

The parsha repeatedly instructs us, the Children of Israel, to listen to the instructions. To pay heed to the laws and rules that Moses transmitted, To neither add to them nor detract from them. This instruction, to listen,  is often accompanied by an admonition: remember that you have never seen (an image of) Gd.  Gd is not the subject of visual (mis)representation,illusions, or imagination. Gd is the source of instruction. 

Hearing, like seeing,  and unlike touching or tasting, is a remote sense. These senses give information about events over  great distances. ( In our times,  we can hear about events over the whole world. ) Visual data feels self evident, despite the physiology that makes  the final, brain interpreted information  highly processed, hence distorted.  Auditory data is always an invitation to interpretation. Is the rustling of leaves on the ground an innocuous animal? an enemy? a friend? 

When constructed into spoken language, hearing affords a combination of definition and ambiguity.  The precision of the law keeps it as an ongoing entity. The ability to consciously interpret the transmitted language is required for it to last over millennia.  As the meaning of words changes over time, understanding the law becomes more problematic. As invention changes the circumstances of our lives, the relationship between the law, as stated, and the issues it is addressing becomes open to question. 

The opening of the parsha is an example of the  interpretation of the spoken sentence.   Moses knew that he had been barred from entering the Promised Land.  Gd insisted that this verdict  not be violated.  This is the first ( and only) time, since his ascendancy to leadership , that Moshe's request is denied.  Because of the simultaneous exactness and  ambiguity of speech, Moshe's request  to see the Promised Land is granted - although he is barred from entry. The assertion of the power of the law over the individual's request for reprieve  is  reassuring. The irony is comforting. 

The crux of this week's parsha is a sentence we refer to as the Shema.  It the call to allegiance.  The usual translation:  Hear, O Israel! The LRD is our Gd, the LRD  is one. cannot do it justice. The Talmud begins with: מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בְּעַרְבִית : From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening?  assuming that there is an obligation to recite an entity called the Shema, which we traditionally understand to be something that certainly includes this bewildering declaration.  Uttering this phrase is so fundamental, the obligation itself needs not be addressed,  the only question is when. The meaning is left open

One (?) possible meaning: There are two entities, Lrd and Gd,  that seem to be the same, and we are hearing (shema) that they may be the same, or, more exactly: the Lrd has the properties of Gd.  Gd (E) is the external power,  the power outside of the actions driven by our self-perceived will,   involved in making things happen.  That (single, unified, lone) power rests in the Lrd (J).  

Part of the untranslatable property of this sentence is that we do not say the name of the Lrd (J) as it is written.  We consider that name ineffable, forbidden to expression. Calling the Lord (J) by name imparts too much definition.  We refrain from speaking The Name, in part, because naming implies a  level of understanding that we can not have.  The fully expressed  property of the Lrd (J) is unknowability.  Thus, we are declaring that events in the world are endorsed by a (single, unified, lone) entity that we can never understand. 

Twice daily, we declare and listen to reality. 

Devarim: Doing the Impossible

Devarim: Doing the Impossible

The parsha begins and ends with the conquest of Sichon and Og.  These were powerful kings that seemed insurmountable.  When all the other surrounding territory had been vanquished by the Edomites and Amonites and Moabites, these dynasties remained.  They were too strong to take on; winning a battle against  them was impossible. 

The parsha transitions from the decline of the Hebrews who were liberated from the most advanced society in the world  = Egypt;  to the ascent of the tribes of Israel who defeat the most powerful kings in the world. The descent comes from the perception of the enormity of the task.  Moshe  says, as the journey to the Promised Land begins:  לֹא־אוּכַ֥ל לְבַדִּ֖י שְׂאֵ֥ת אֶתְכֶֽם, I cannot bear the burden of you by myself .  Here, in the beginning of Dvarim he  is quoting what he said in  Bamidbar in  reaction to the people's request for meat in the wilderness.  Moshe, in Behothechah, said that is an impossible request. 

 וַיֹּאמֶר֮ מֹשֶׁה֒ שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת אֶ֙לֶף֙ רַגְלִ֔י הָעָ֕ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י בְּקִרְבּ֑וֹ וְאַתָּ֣ה אָמַ֗רְתָּ בָּשָׂר֙ אֶתֵּ֣ן לָהֶ֔ם וְאָכְל֖וּ חֹ֥דֶשׁ יָמִֽים׃

But Moses said, “The people who are with me number six hundred thousand men; yet You say, ‘I will give them enough meat to eat for a whole month.’

הֲצֹ֧אן וּבָקָ֛ר יִשָּׁחֵ֥ט לָהֶ֖ם וּמָצָ֣א לָהֶ֑ם אִ֣ם אֶֽת־כָּל־דְּגֵ֥י הַיָּ֛ם יֵאָסֵ֥ף לָהֶ֖ם וּמָצָ֥א לָהֶֽם׃ (פ)

Could enough flocks and herds be slaughtered to suffice them? Or could all the fish of the sea be gathered for them to suffice them?”

The resources do not suffice for the task.  It is impossible!  But we know that  the quail come and, through a combination of volume and the health consequences of eating this toxic meat, the request is fulfilled. 

Despite witnessing all of these miracles  in Egypt and the desert, the scouts [part of Moshe's experiment with democracy], who return with a report on the Holy Land, convince the people that  conquest of that territory is beyond their capability.  This is an error in perception.  The people's capability has never been the force that makes things happen.  They did not bring the plagues or split the sea. The relationship between human effort and outcomes is not direct. There is an attribution matrix, an array of inputs that generate an array of outputs through their interactions. The outcome is ordained, the human effort is only a necessary component.  Yet all things are possible ( because all things are ordained, the world is ergodic) .  The dance between human will, effort , the unknown and the unknowable generates an infinity. [Mathemeticians before the 17th century consider infinity impossible]

I do the impossible every day. I bicycle up hills that are too steep for me.  I see patients who were not expected to live so long, people who have families despite sterilizing chemotherapy.  My existence stems from the impossible survival of my parents through the holocaust. I measure my life by the miracles. 

The parsha closes after the conquest of  Sichon and Og.   Sichon of Cheshbon. Sefaria renders the translation of cheshbon:  חֶשְׁבּוֹן account, reasoning, reckoning.  Sichon made a reckoning with the world; perhaps he collected tribute from all. Og of  בְּעַשְׁתָּרֹ֖ת בְּאֶדְרֶֽעִי,  : Ashtoreth = "star"  -  who reached the stars   (star wars) The  battle  was so daunting it took 38  years to build the courage to do it.  But it was done. 

Napoleon said: “Impossible est un mot que l’on peut seulement trouver dans le dictionnaire des imbéciles.”

“Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools.” . 

Eliminating the impossible  opens opportunities - sometimes too many. 

Matos-Masei: threads

Matos-Masei: threads

Art forms celebrate the senses.  Music clearly excites hearing, painting appeals to vision. Literature entertains memory. The thrill of the mystery is the recall of the early detail. This device also helps us remember what is told . An important mission of the Torah is to remember

Bamidbar, the fourth of the five books, which we complete this week, is really the end of the saga  of the Torah.  Devorim, the fifth book that we start next week, is a summary and coda. The last two issues are: the cities of refuge and the marriage of the heiress Daughters of Zelophchod.  

The city of refuge was a protective venue, set aside so that the manslaughterer could be tried and, if found to be culpable of an offence that is less than a murder, protected from the otherwise justified blood-avenger. The refuge city did not protect the innocent.  The innocent  do not need exile to protect them; the details need only be explained and they can return to regular life.  It is the questionable killer, the situation that did not need to happen, were the perpetrator more careful, That heedless person  is removed from society ...until the High Priest dies.  He is guilty, but the offense does not warrant capital punishment. It is reminiscent of the guilt for which we beg for expiation from Gd, especially on the High Holidays. We were not so evil, we were careless; and when we did evil, it was not premeditated. 

When Cain, enraged by the favor that Gd showed  Abel, killed his brother, it was not a capital offense. He is sent into exile. He is the model for the case in our parsha. When Cain is banished, one of the first things he does is build a city. The  city is the locus of exile  -with its hierarchy of landlord and tenant,economic "opportunity" for indenture and thinly supported desperation. The city is a place to hide. 

The story of Moses contains a homicide followed by a redemptive exile.  Moses' anger at witnessing the abuse of Hebrews ( whom all  True Egyptians consider subhuman) at the hands of a taskmaster drives him to kill the tormentor and, when his crime is revealed,  go into exile.  This exile leads to the burning bush and hence to many great and positive consequences.  It is the paradigm of the redemptive exile, that banishment that leads to good  ( and Gd).  It also contains the model of ending the  confinement  at the death of a significant character ( the Pharaoh, the High Priest).  Liberation has something in common with inheritance

The last narrative is the resolution of the problem of heiresses. Tribal assignment is patrilineal.  Thus a woman's inheritance will pass to her husband's tribe, creating a patchwork territory, a condition that seems undesirable. 

The first  parsha this week is Matos (tribes). It describes the  change in governance that will follow the death of Moshe.  The nation will be divided into 12 landed tribes ( states).  It seems that these tribes have a degree of autonomy and diverge in their political and economic interests. Losing territory to another tribe results in diminution of power.  Hence the (male) leaders of Menashe protest that they will be diminished by the loss of Zelophchod's vast estate.  As a result, the heiresses are restricted to marry "whomever they want"... as long as it is within the tribe.  They agree and peace is restored. When Adam is created he casts about for a fitting helper,   עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ .  It is only when  the woman is made from his own flesh, when the shared DNA is sufficiently strong, that he feels that he has found what he needs.  

The 15th of AV  (August 5 this year) is celebrated as a day of joy.  On that day we celebrate the expiration of the edict that forced the heiress to marry within her tribe, allowing women to marry into any tribe of Israel. The victory of the daughters of Zelophchod is complete. 

May the exile of our people be an expiation like the banishment of Moses.  May we see justice and peace and justice again. 

Pinchas: the meme of inheritance

Pinchas: the meme of inheritance

The issue in Pinchas is succession.  Pinchas, by his bold action has earned elevation to the priesthood. One might have thought that Pinchas' priestly designation came to him though his birth, as the grandson of  Aaron, through Elazar, the current High Priest. Rashi directs us to the talmud's explanation:. Pinchas had been born too early.  The priesthood had been conferred on the named individuals: Aaron and his 4 sons.  The children of those sons had not been named.  They were not anointed,  they were excluded. By virtue of his actions, Pinchas had earned the title of Priest ( many of his progeny were High Priests) for himself and his descendants. 

Earning the title changes the nature of the birthright. It is no longer purely hereditary, there is a way in through merit.  In our worldview, that is a good thing. Nevertheless, it seems to deviate from the intent of the process. 

Inheritance is  possession on the basis of genetic relatedness.  Biologically, this is inevitable, but is is also complex.  The traits that parents transmit to their children may have been hidden, and the emergence of these recessive traits may be viewed as undesirable.  The interactions between the inherited traits is complex and unpredictable, leading to surprising outcomes  (for better or worse).  The  inherited traits may work quite differently in the environment that the children find themselves in. 

Regardless... it is the  inevitable determinant of  99% ( the 1% is mutation) of the biological  material a child has to work with  ... and that works on her. 

The parsha  overtly deals with the inheritance of authority ( Pinchas as priest, Joshua as leader) and property ( the chieftains of the tribes [note: when we talk about the ancient heirs of the land occupied by the US, we call them "tribes"], the daughters of Zelophchod).  It also deals with the ritual celebration of the  annual holiday cycle, our heritage. 

The idea that property should be subject to inheritance has been questioned in the modern world.  The estate is the substance of wealth. Thomas Piketty  ( Capital in the Twenty-First Century )  argues that it should be subject to distribution over the population.  Arguments about the justice of inheritance ( as opposed to reversion to the state) had previously been raised by  Thorstein Veblen  .  The "death tax" is the state claiming "its share" of inherited wealth.  These modern ideas are not in the Torah equation.  The inheritance rules, transmitted from Gd to Moshe (and hence to the people) -  prompted by the question of the inheritance of the  daughters of Zelophchod - affirm the passage of property from decedent  to closest biological relative.  

The concept of inheritance is itself, a heritage - a (meta)meme ala Richard Dawkins  and The Selfish Gene.  It is a self-perpetuating idea that is transmitted through a population. It is a widely accepted idea of how things should be.   It has a life of its own. 

What might motivate this inheritance based system of wealth distribution and sequestration?  The occasional injection of merit  ( as in the case of Pinchas) means that some actions can yield rewards that outlive the actor. Some deeds are so great they can only be rewarded by legacy.  There is also the hope that the great  response of the champion has some heritable qualities, especially values,  that will be transmitted through the generations. These  values seem to mutate very fast and can soon become inappropriate. 

There is a hidden idea in the parsha's  explication of inheritance law.  Divine intervention is going to change.  It will no longer be as explicit.  Moshe will no longer be able to ask Gd a question and return with a (relatively) clear answer.  From now on, the system is on auto-pilot most of the time. Rule will be by committee - the mortal leader and the (interpretable and vague) Urim.  After a time, these will also be gone ( a nod to the Three weeks) and we will rely on our ...heritage and traditions

Chukath- Korach: interpretation of motives. 

The double parsha today transitions from the Exodus to the entry into the Promised Land.  The second of the two chapters, Balak, deals with the attempt by the then-king of Moab to use the secret weapon of the day, the Curse, to give his army an advantage over the powerful Israelites.  He summons the world's greatest prophet: Billam the Midianite.  Only after a second, more noble delegation summons him does he, after a dream consulation with his sources, agree to consult. 

On the way to Moab, his donkey behaves strangely. Billam presumes these acts of straying from the road, sometimes with painful consequences,  are acts of rebellion.  Billam ascribes malice to his dumb animal's behaviors. As one of the last acts of creation , Gd created Billam's talking donkey ( Avoth 5;6), who explains her actions  - she was protecting him from the sword of Satan.  The angel  then appears to Billam and confirms. 

Billam and the talking donkey unlocks an important theme in these parshioth: the attribution of negative motives to the actions of others.  Balak, king of Moab behaves as if it is entirely up to Billam . Billam  has told him that he can only speak what he is told by the divine. but these limitations are not understood by Balak. Is clear that when Balak hired Billam, Balak did not comprehend the limitations. He believed that Billam  controls his output. It looks like Billam  is surprised  but how little control he has. thus, the attribution of motive is entirely misplaced. It is clear that Billam wants to do the will of Balak , he wants to curse the Israelites. This is is outside of his capability/

Going back to the first Parsha, three national confrontations are described. In the first, Moshe ask permission from Edom to traverse their land. He guarantees that the people will stay on the straight and narrow. Ironically, he is guaranteeing what's Billam 's donkey found impossible because of circumstances;he is guaranteeing the actions for which the donkey is smitten.  When his request is rejected, the nation turns away and find another route.

The next confrontation involve Amolek. Amolek undertakes a straightforward attack in which hostages are taken. There is a straightforward counter attack destroying the cities of the enemy. This may be a case where the attribution of motives and limitations do not matter

The third confrontation is with Sihon, king of the Amorites. In this case, the request to traverse the area in peace is greeted with an attack. The Amorites attack Israel. In the ensuing battle, the Amorites are destroyed and their territory taken. it is only after the Amorites attack that the Israelites wage their war of conquest upon a prior aggressor. In this story, one could attribute provocation to the Israelites, but that is not a necessity. It is a story of escalating animosity and an opportunity for misinterpreted motives.

The drama of Moses hitting the rock, a fateful act, contains this complexity of the interpretation of motive. The people have a valid problem. There is no water for them or for their beasts. Why are they concerned about their beasts when they will die of thirst? It could be because they have already been told that their fate is to die in the desert and they are concerned about passing their wealth to their heirs.  Thus, when Moses called them Rebels,he fails to take into account their acceptance of their fate. Moses doesn't realize that their concerns have passed on  from themselves to the Next Generation. 

We can sense the death of that generation, including Moses', is coming since the chapter is introduced by the instructions for the red heifer, the method for purification of survivors from death. the instructions are given to Elazar, not Aaron;  they're given to the son because the father will die. We do not question the motives of the life and death cycle

The aphorism, Hanlon's Razor is :

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", 

Goethe wrote:

Misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At least the latter two are certainly rarer.

 Motives are always a mystery