Vayelech: Documentary Evidence

The agreement between Gd and Israel is contingent upon obedience to the rules.  That is the message of most of Deuteronomy and becomes more explicit as the book moves toward its conclusion.  Vayelech emphasizes the contractual bonds. 

The written contract is conveyed to the responsible keepers of the precious artefacts and the elders ( 31:9)

וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶת־הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּאת֒ וַֽיִּתְּנָ֗הּ אֶל־הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִ֔י הַנֹּ֣שְׂאִ֔ים אֶת־אֲר֖וֹן בְּרִ֣ית יְ  וְאֶל־כׇּל־זִקְנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

Moses wrote down this Teaching and gave it to the priests, sons of Levi, who carried the Ark of Gd's  Covenant, and to all the elders of Israel.

The song is to placed in the ark itself, along with the tablets (31;26)

לָקֹ֗חַ אֵ֣ת סֵ֤פֶר הַתּוֹרָה֙ הַזֶּ֔ה וְשַׂמְתֶּ֣ם אֹת֔וֹ מִצַּ֛ד אֲר֥וֹן בְּרִית־יְ  וְהָיָה־שָׁ֥ם בְּךָ֖ לְעֵֽד׃ 

Take this book of Teaching and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of your Gd  and let it remain there as a witness against you.

The ark is the repository of the physical evidence that an agreement was made between Israel and the Almighty.  Adherence to that agreement allows the continued terraforming of the promised land, the conditions that allow habitation are maintained, life is good. Violation of the contract leads to environmental disasters, foreign conquest and exile. It is all written: in stone ( broken and intact) and  on parchment.  It is stored in a gilded acacia wood box with an ornate gold cover, carried by the Levite keepers. Now... it is nowhere to be found.  

Were the agreement based solely on inscribed record ( stone and ink), questions would arise about the details and its current enforcement would be (even more) problematic. The song preserves the bond. It sustains the bond through association and ambiguity, perhaps intentionally 

For forty years, Moses had been the transmitter, interpreter and, at times, the author of the law. Now Moses was coming to the end of his life. He had to undertake his final adventure:

וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ מֹשֶׁ֑ה

Moses went 

He did not go far.  The going hardly deserves the mention. 

Rashi's comment: 

וילך משה. וגו':  Moses went: et cetera.

Nothing more; Rashi glosses a mystery with a mystery. 

Many commentators make the going literal: Moses went from tribe to tribe ( Ramban), he showed energy to comfort the the people ( Raeinu Bachya) or to show the need to mobilize one's self for repentance (Kli Yakar).  The Abarbanel understands the the vayelech to be an introduction to the next chapter of the Torah, a epilogue. Sforno understands  it as: he was self-propelled. acted of their own initiative. I like this interpretation. It relates Moses not only to his father Amram (Sforno), but also to Abraham ( LechLecha) and Jacob ( וַיֵּצֵ֥א יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ חָרָֽנָה׃ Jacob left Beer-sheba, and set out for Haran.),  Vayelech introduces an Odyssey: a story that becomes a song and transmits a(n ambiguous) message.  Rashi's interpretation stands. 

This past Rosh Hashanah, my son-in-law Judah spoke about how incomplete memory is;  and how it become dependent upon the recall of others, from the generation past. All communication is deficient and the meaning of prayer depends, in part, on this deficiency. It is the mystery of song

 Micha, my other son-in-law, related the Rosh Hashana experience to Kafa's Trial. The entire process is familiar.  Going before the inapproachable, never approachable, judge for offences that are not clearly defined; facing consequences that are dire, but not detailed; receiving advice from people with irrelevant powers.  Kafka directed in his last will that the book be burned, unread  never seen by anyone.  Max Brod did not comply. We have the intact and the incomplete chapters ( the tablets and the broken tablets). Moses entrusted the original written Torah and the tablets ( broken and unbroken) to the Levites and Elders.  All we have are the copies and the song.

Nitzavim: choose life

Nitzavim: choose life

אַתֶּ֨ם נִצָּבִ֤ים הַיּוֹם֙ כֻּלְּכֶ֔ם לִפְנֵ֖י יְ

You stand this day, all of you, before your God 

You are standing before Gd. All of you. No exceptions. Not by class. Not by variation in belief.

Nitzavim: You are standing at attention: stiff and on alert. You are proffered something that stands somewhere  between an offer and an order. You have the skepticism of the buyer and the acceptance of the soldier.

 All are entering into the contract enforced by blessing for adherence and curse for deviation. Do not think that there are exceptions, detours around the stipulations, viable alternative paths.

וְהָיָה֩ כִֽי־יָבֹ֨אוּ עָלֶ֜יךָ כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה הַבְּרָכָה֙ וְהַקְּלָלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לְפָנֶ֑יךָ

When all these things befall you—the blessing and the curse that I have set before you 

After all the curses have been exhausted. That is the I was born into. The greatest act of Divine wrath, the Holocaust had been perpetrated on my immediate ancestors. All of my grandparents, uncles and aunts had been murdered; my parents tortured by starvation, homelessness  and criminalization. I am the heir to their resignature on this agreement; the beneficiary of the redirection of Gd's wrath.

Today is the yahrzeit (anniversary of the death) of my father.  His life was an affirmation of the covenant. How could it be that he was not bitter? - he was not bitter.  How could he continue his commitment to  this Gd?  He did. The odds had no power over him.  He rose in all circumstances. 

Yesterday, my newest grandchild, Eden Raphaela, had her simchat bat, the celebration of her birth. She was introduced into the covenant.  How long will Gd's good will last?  When will the anger be rekindled? Will the violation of a rule that seems venal to me spark another severe retribution?

The parsha ends with a seduction:

הַעִדֹ֨תִי בָכֶ֣ם הַיּוֹם֮ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֒רֶץ֒ הַחַיִּ֤ים וְהַמָּ֙וֶת֙ נָתַ֣תִּי לְפָנֶ֔יךָ הַבְּרָכָ֖ה וְהַקְּלָלָ֑ה וּבָֽחַרְתָּ֙ בַּחַיִּ֔ים לְמַ֥עַן תִּֽחְיֶ֖ה אַתָּ֥ה וְזַרְעֶֽךָ׃ 

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life—if you and your offspring would live—

The implied meaning is that choosing obedience is choosing life.  I cannot resists taking the instruction out of context

וּבָֽחַרְתָּ֙ בַּחַיִּ֔ים    choose life

That is what my father did...all his life .  That, in all its complexity,  becomes his legacy. That is what Eden, and those who brought her to this place have done. This is a good instruction.  

Ki Thavo: Promises

 The parsha opens with the fulfillment of the dream: 

וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ

When you enter the land 

Finally, the Promised land. Of course, there is a tax that is  an offering of  gratitude for the blessings. There is an obligatory pilgrimage to the capitol ( site to be determined in the text; Jerusalem by later tradition)  A declaration is prescribed : 

אֲרַמִּי֙ אֹבֵ֣ד אָבִ֔י

Arami Oved Avi, a formula repeated annually at the Passover seder. 

The Jewish Publication Society translates this: 

My father was a fugitive Aramean.

Koren translates it similarly.

In the Haggadah, the phrase is used to represent the evil intentions of Lavan, patriarch Jacob's Aramian uncle and father in law. The Haggadah says that Lavan was worse than Pharaoh. He wanted to destroy the entire nation

Onkelos is aligned with the Haggadah. He translates the Torah passage: 

לָבָן אֲרַמָּאָה בָּעָא לְאוֹבָדָא יָת אַבָּא

Lavan the Arami wanted to destroy my forefather. 

Two things are clear: this is an origin story and the (fore)father is an Arami. He is not a Canaanite.  We are not the indigenous people returning to the homeland of our origin.  The founder, whether he is Abraham ( who was born in Aram) or Jacob ( who returned from Aram, escaping from Lavan) [or some later Hebrew or Jew] is an invader. The promised land has ethical difficulties from day one. 

The (fore)father is escaping, a victim of persecution. He was forced to migrate under a threat of death. Does that justify the invasion? It does not guarantee a welcome. The locals shout: "send them back to where they came from." The exiles cannot go back, they have been banished; there is no longer a "place they came from." This is a foundational story of desperation

The parsha assumes a time  of peaceful settlement after the conquest.  There will be prosperity and peace if the laws are kept. The blessings will be overwhelming. The tale soon takes a disturbing turn. The bulk of the parsha is the litany of horrors that will ensue if the people violate the rules and thereby distort their values. It is almost as bad as the holocaust. 

Exile from the promised land is an important element of the chastisement. Foreign status strips the migrant of the protections granted to the citizen. The disenfranchised alien is the easiest victim of abuse. The refugee is willing to endure some additional degradation as part of the price of survival. But even this will be denied. 

וֶהֱשִֽׁיבְךָ֨ יְ׀ מִצְרַ֘יִם֮ בׇּאֳנִיּוֹת֒ בַּדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָמַ֣רְתִּֽי לְךָ֔ לֹא־תֹסִ֥יף ע֖וֹד לִרְאֹתָ֑הּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּ֨ם שָׁ֧ם לְאֹיְבֶ֛יךָ לַעֲבָדִ֥ים וְלִשְׁפָח֖וֹת וְאֵ֥ין קֹנֶֽה׃ {ס}        

Gd will send you back to Egypt in galleys, by a route which I told you you should not see again. There you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but none will buy.

Gd's promise is not irrevocable. There is an ongoing agreement. The guarantees apply only if the beneficiary abides by all the conditions in the contract...and the contract has (at least) 613 clauses with innumerable ( and changing) details.  Gd made us permanent refugees.  The only return is to the earth from which we were created. 

This week, my daughter, Elisheva, gave birth to a baby. That baby, in order to live, invades the home of Shmuel and Chava and Elisheva and Judah. The mixture of joy and travail of this new arrival will be worked over many years; it will probably come to a set of favorable resolutions.  We are all born immigrants. 

 

 Ki Theitzei: Calculus

This parsha feels like a rain of blows. Short passages prescribe behavior in a wide variety of circumstances.  The opening set of passages are interpreted  in the Midrash Tanchuma ( alluded to by Rashi)  in a causal manner.  Referring to the irresistible captive:

 אִם נְשָׂאָהּ סוֹפוֹ לִהְיוֹת שׂוֹנְאָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַחֲרָיו "כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ וְגוֹ'", וְסוֹפוֹ לְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, לְכָךְ נִסְמְכוּ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הַלָּלוּ

if he does marry her, in the end he will hate her, for Scripture writes immediately afterwards, (v. 15) “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, etc.” and ultimately he will beget a refractory and rebellious son by her (v. 18). It is for this reason that these sections are put in juxtaposition (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1) 

The Midrash relates that Avshalom, the son of David who attempted a coup [ and was caught by his hair ( an echo of the hair that the captive woman must shave off)] was the son of Maacah,  whom David had taken as a wife as a spoil of war. Was Absalom's rebellion a  defense of his mother's honor? [ He named his daughter Maacah]

 I imagine that the conquering soldier is the most overbearing possible person. This soldier has risked life to achieve victory, and has demonstrated the willingness to take the lives of the vanquished people. What power he imagines he wields over them. She can take whatever she wants. The Torah, here, draws a limit to that power.  The vanquished people cannot be treated as chattel, they cannot be sold as slaves. Even though they were mortal enemies yesterday, now they may be your spouse... for better or worse.  And they must be treated like others to whom you have commitments and attachments. 

The theme of power, and the attempt to control its abuse, runs through the parsha.  The worker must be paid in a timely manner; the debtor cannot be made destitute by compound interest, the pawn shop client deserves dignity.  Power over others leads to consequences, and the human  lord is not omniscient, the unexpected will happen. 

Adherence to the rules set forth can avoid the downfall. The rules are inconvenient, they can be expensive, they can be obscure. Do the rational edicts, the ones that seem kind and respectful, justify the commandments that seem out of date?

The parsha contains the commandment prohibiting the mixture of wool and linen in clothing. Chizkuni explains that it is a reminder of the conflict between Cain ( tiller of the soil, who may have offered flax as  an oblation to Gd) and Abel (who tended sheep, the source of wool). There are too many explanations for this law, which is stated without explanation It is stated  in the context of other prohibited mixtures: grapes and wheat, donkey and ox. In another worldview, even the prohibition of mixed species may have  an element of controlling domination: the greedier vine cannot suck nutrition from the grain, the wool cannot shame the linen with its superior warming.  

The exercise of power effects change, sometimes progress.  One person becomes richer, more powerful, than another. The entitlement that results from this difference in wealth is not intentional. It is taken as a reward by the winner  and the provider of the reward was not a party to the contract.  The assumption that domination can be valid reveals a system whereby the grace granted by Gd creates victims: a competitive world.  Can there be progress without reward? Does the reward need to be domination? 

The parsha begins with military victory:  instructing a degree of compassion toward the captured enemy.  It ends with the unfinished battle against the embodiment of cruelty. Were it not for the Nazis, I would not have believed in such an agent of insatiable evil; I would not  have believed in Amalek. Were it not for recent events in American and world history, I would not have any concept of how the Nazis came to power.  The trade is not worth it.  Some things are better left a mystery. 

Shoftim: Who is the reader?

This week's parsha, shoftim, deals with the agent of the  collective wielding power over the individual.  It deals with judges and courts of law, kings. prophets, armies and avengers. Situations in which an individual or a small group ( a pair of witnesses) have life and death power assigned to them by the verses.

One purpose of this assignment of authority is to maintain the general peace. It  is a recognition that things will happen; and unfortunate consequences will ensue; and blame will be ascribed; and compensation  and revenge will be sought.  There will be conflicting interests. Evil may arise  from time to time. A mechanism for dealing with these questions - between blood and blood; between judgement and judgement - must  function.  Parties with no interest  in which side prevails will adjudicate the issue.  They are the representatives of Gd, the Just. 

The  qualifications of  showing no favoritism, ignoring fame and infamy, not accepting bribes

לֹא־תַטֶּ֣ה מִשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹ֥א תַכִּ֖יר פָּנִ֑ים וְלֹא־תִקַּ֣ח שֹׁ֔חַד

are both obvious and, in the strictest sense, impossible.  The judge could have  no opinions about justice.  Is the law fixed, without regard to changing circumstances, or does it evolve as the understanding of the world evolves from discovery? Is the purpose of the law to maintain the status quo  or is it to optimize the circumstance of the present and, perhaps, to create a more equitable future. Who deserves fairness? Who should get a break?  Has the bread thief (Jean Valjean) committed a crime that absolutely requires  imprisonment? 

What is nature of this "Just justice: צֶ֥דֶק צֶ֖דֶק תִּרְדֹּ֑ף that is to be pursue? The word צֶ֥דֶק, tzedek can be broken into צֶ֥דֶ tzad. a side  and דֶק dak, extremely fine . The inevitability of having a position, taking a side, is recognized. The requirement for righteousness is to grind the side, to look at the finest points of its basis. One pictographic meaning for ק  quf is the eye of a needle. The judge can stand on one side of the controversy, but the thread of the argument must be fine enough to pass through the eye of a needle; the judge must view the case through a pinhole, an aperture that provides an infinite depth of field; even the furthest idea is brought into sharp focus; one can see the toenails of the elephant. (Pumpiditha) 

There is an instruction to "give yourselves" judges and constables.  There are no instructions on how these people are elected. They just happen. 

In Washington state, judges are elected.  Few people have the time and knowledge to review their qualifications or their past rulings. They are elected by the opinion-manipulation-apparatus: newspapers, community leaders, social media. I battle  with favoring names that suggest a shared ethnicity . Ultimately, I am not sure of what I want. The meaning of fairness has evolved. Is mercy the  selection of the beneficiary (and victim)?

The appointment of a king unifies the tribes, it magnifies the resources, coordinates battles. The first king is elected. Subsequent kings rule because they are not deposed. We are the beneficiaries of the coordination of power. The unification of the United States is a large part of its success, its goodness, and its ability to do evil. The Jewish people are in an eternal battle for unity; and that struggles tears them apart [Whose unity? what should be united?]

The selection of a prophet is the most divisive  process. How does one judge the proclaimer of truth?  Someone is telling you to understand the world differently, do you attend to the eloquence? The existence of  set of rules tells you that you do not understand the world deeply enough.  The prophet comes to interpret the murky  rules. If the deviation from your sense data is too great, if the turn from the past is too revolutionary: reject.  This leaves a lot of room for questionable beliefs. Maybe that is not all bad. 

The parsha ends with the ritual for the unsolved murder.  The most proximate court of law perform a useless animal murder [the slaughter is not kosher and their is no sacrificial part] and literally wash their hands of the responsibility for the human death. The message is purposely ambiguous. The ritual calls out that these judges are responsible, on some level, for every murder in their jurisdiction. It was their duty to neutralize the potential for violence. They should have improved the social situation to make violence unnecessary.  They failed - but it was impossible. 

The parsha is read by people on the outside: not judges, or kings, or prophets. It teaches skepticism, but instructs the installation of these authorities. Choose the best alternative.