Terumah: Truth meets Beauty

 

This week’s parsha describes the construction of the Mishkan, the portable Temple. It is described in geometric detail, and the Cherub leitmotif is mentioned, but the text lacks the details needed to visualize the structure. With the structure now long gone, it beauty is left to the imagination. Leaving the details vague allows the structure and the tapestries to remain ever beautiful, even as esthetic  ideas change.

  "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all 
                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

These lines at the end of “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by John Keats shout at this parsha? What is the relationship between truth and beauty?

The construction of the Mishkan starts with the ark, the container (coffin?) for the tablets.  These are the stone slabs that Moses brought from Mount Sinai; the indelible communication from Gd. The order of construction informs the purpose of the structure. The Temple is a container for the great artifact, the testament of Gd’s direct communication with humans. A set of laws -commandments- are the  treasured gift that is locked away forever in a gold plated acacia wood vault.  There is no need to access the original, the fulfillment of the law is the real gift.

The tabernacle consists of a tent which contains the ark, the table with the showbread ( it was Matzah), the candelabra (menorah), and the incense altar. Within the tent of meeting, the ark was separated from the other objects by a curtain, a tapestry of cherubim. The tent of meeting could be entered by a curtain that separated it from the courtyard.  The courtyard contained the altar, in addition to the mishkan. The ark was the special place in the tent, the tent was the special place in the courtyard, the complex was the special place in the camp. The tablets are sealed in the ark in their own section of the tent; the tent is surrounded by a courtyard and the complex is at the center of the camp protected by all the tribal armies.

The ark is covered by a golden kaporeth. The elaborate sculpture of the cherubim, facing each other with their wings sheltering the lid, is hammered out of the kaporeth cover. The space between the cherubim will be the location for Gd meeting with the people

 

וְנוֹעַדְתִּ֣י לְךָ֮ שָׁם֒ וְדִבַּרְתִּ֨י אִתְּךָ֜ מֵעַ֣ל הַכַּפֹּ֗רֶת מִבֵּין֙ שְׁנֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־אֲר֣וֹן הָעֵדֻ֑ת אֵ֣ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֧ר אֲצַוֶּ֛ה אוֹתְךָ֖ אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ {פ}

 

There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you—from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact—all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people.

 

I imagine the ark cover , the kaporeth, to have been a very beautiful object and I attribute the quality of truth to the tablets that it covers. This is a familiar relationship. Beauty covers truth. Beauty adorns and attracts.  The separation of beauty from truth implies that truth may not be beautiful; and beauty may be an illusion.

 

That an  image  is beaten out of the kaporeth is  shocking, since this lies atop the commandment not to make a graven image. The scene reminds me that the law cannot be understood on a superficial level.  This image does not fall under the category that is forbidden.

 

לֹֽ֣א־תַֽעֲשֶׂ֨ה־לְךָ֥֣ פֶ֣֙סֶל֙ ׀ וְכׇל־תְּמוּנָ֔֡ה אֲשֶׁ֤֣ר בַּשָּׁמַ֣֙יִם֙ ׀ מִמַּ֔֡עַל וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר֩ בָּאָ֖֨רֶץ מִתָּ֑͏ַ֜חַת וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר בַּמַּ֖֣יִם ׀ מִתַּ֥֣חַת לָאָֽ֗רֶץ׃

 

You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth.

 

These Cherubim may not fall into these catagories.

Cherubim are related to the guardians of Eden, where, with a flaming sword, they  blocks re-entry into Eden and access to the Tree of Life

 

וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן֩ מִקֶּ֨דֶם לְגַן־עֵ֜דֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִ֗ים וְאֵ֨ת לַ֤הַט הַחֶ֙רֶב֙ הַמִּתְהַפֶּ֔כֶת לִשְׁמֹ֕ר אֶת־דֶּ֖רֶךְ עֵ֥ץ הַֽחַיִּֽים׃ {ס}  

  

     So He drove out the man; and He placed the keruvim at the east of the garden of ῾Eden, and the bright blade of a revolving sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

In the mishkan, the image of those cherubim in tapestry separate, they block the entrance to, the tablets. We call the law our tree of life.  The cherubim over the ark are the meeting venue for Gd and man, they guard the negotiation.

Keats’ Grecian urn was an artifact of an idealized civilization.  It evoked  a world that had been rediscovered in the centuries that preceded the poem. They laid the  foundations of literature and science and  are worthy of praise.  It is interesting to note that Plato was suspicious of poetry.  According to Plato, poetry has no place in education (especially the education of guardians) because it is deceptive and harmful.

 

Beauty is seductive. The appreciation of truth requires discernment.  I am suspicious of the advice: that is…” all ye need to know."

 

Mishpatim

Is civil law rational? Could an honest and intelligent person  derive rules governing human interactions  on a purely logical basis? It feels like it could be done , but I do not think this is true.  Even with the deepest self evaluation, prejudices would taint the product.

Mishpatim sets out civil law as a confrontation. 

וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם׃

These are the rules that you shall set before them:

 

These laws are decided cases. They are in the people’s face.

Starting with the predetermined seven year term of service for the Hebrew slave,

כִּ֤י תִקְנֶה֙ עֶ֣בֶד עִבְרִ֔י שֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים יַעֲבֹ֑ד וּבַ֨שְּׁבִעִ֔ת יֵצֵ֥א לַֽחׇפְשִׁ֖י חִנָּֽם׃

When you acquire a Hebrew slave, that person shall serve six years—and shall go free in the seventh year, without payment.

 

the Torah challenges the reader by validating the institution of slavery. In the context of the modern world this seems atavistic, accepting an institution that is anathema and the cause of multigeneration harm.

People continue to indenture themselves, agree to surrender their ability to make (certain) choices to a person or institution that agrees to provide support.  This is a contract. This is a wage-slave. I do not see a future in which these institutions, and the hierarchy of dominance that they represent, disappears. The relationship between bosses and workers needs boundaries. Denying the fact of one human dominating another does not make it disappear; rather, the evils of supremacy flourish in their negation from consciousness.

The imposition of slavery is made a capital offence:

וְגֹנֵ֨ב אִ֧ישׁ וּמְכָר֛וֹ וְנִמְצָ֥א בְיָד֖וֹ מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ {ס}        

One who kidnaps another party—whether having sold or still holding the victim—shall be put to death.

But the institution, as an economic entity is limited.

When I (under contract) read these passages, I re-evaluate my own position.

The most famous part of the code attributed to Hammurabi is in this parsha,

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ …

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,etc

 

The commentators  are quick to point out that “for” means the money equivalent of the damage. The statement is taken (semi)figuratively.  How far does this interpretive license extend? A code of law that is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative, is challenging to navigate. But delivering the broad message requires that. Every case described un the parsha is a model to be interpreted.

 

The instructions to judge impartially begin with the admonition to follow the law instead of a personal sense of justice

 

לֹ֥א תַטֶּ֛ה מִשְׁפַּ֥ט אֶבְיֹנְךָ֖ בְּרִיבֽוֹ׃ לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס׃

You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness:

לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרֵֽי־רַבִּ֖ים לְרָעֹ֑ת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶ֣ה עַל־רִ֗ב לִנְטֹ֛ת אַחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטֹּֽת׃

You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong—you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty—

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

You shall not subvert the rights of your needy in their disputes.

מִדְּבַר־שֶׁ֖קֶר תִּרְחָ֑ק וְנָקִ֤י וְצַדִּיק֙ אַֽל־תַּהֲרֹ֔ג כִּ֥י לֹא־אַצְדִּ֖יק רָשָֽׁע׃

Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer.

וְשֹׁ֖חַד לֹ֣א תִקָּ֑ח כִּ֤י הַשֹּׁ֙חַד֙ יְעַוֵּ֣ר פִּקְחִ֔ים וִֽיסַלֵּ֖ף דִּבְרֵ֥י צַדִּיקִֽים׃

Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right.

 

The parsha ends with the mystical experience s of Moshe .  It emphasizes the source of these civil and religious laws. They come from Gd, a source we can never understand. The interpretation is left to us

 

 

 

Yithro: Believe (in)

            The ten commandments, the most widely accepted section of the Bible, the core of the legalistic aspect of the Abrahamic religions, is in this parsha. To me, this parsha is about how and why I believe in them.

Believing in is obviously different from believing without the “in.” To believe “in” means that invocation is a solution. If there is conflict between people, their mutual belief in a code of law directs the solution that will be deemed just. [ It is talk like this that creates anti-liberals].  Believing in Gd means that there is hope in reaching out.  The second half of the parsha describes events that brought the Hebrews to believe in the power of Gd and Moshe’s messenger role.  It was these beliefs that sealed the acceptance of the commandments. The retelling of the events allows the consideration of future generations, up to and beyond my own.

Are the events described credible? Yes, but the interpretation that is proffered is open to (modern) skepticism.  I have no trouble believing that a volcanic mountain in the Sinai wilderness erupted, generating sound and light.  I can believe that Moses ascended the erupting mountain. The attribution of these events to a visitation by the Deity  is something I believe, but in a different way. It is a choice to forgo the skepticism I (usually) apply to interpretations. This belief is much more tentative scientifically; much deeper and firmer in my soul. I recognize this belief as an act of will. It is how I know that I possess the power to choose.

The parsha opens with Jethro returning to Moshe. Jethro has established himself as a paradigm of righteous kindness. He is the model for the Stycz family that hid my parents from the Nazis. Jethro’s daughter told their father that an Egyptian stranger had helped them complete their work by confronting the bullies who were barring their access to water. Jethro insisted on housing this man. The man was a person without a home. He was in exile, hence probably criminal. He was a (hot headed) killer.  Moses marries Jethro’s daughter. Given these qualities, Jethro might have suspected that Moses would leave one day, probably to die trying to liberate his people. Moses did leave, and he left Jethro with his (abandoned) wife and sons. When grandparents raise children, there is something awry in the family.

Jethro’s intelligence is unparalleled. He sees that a system of justice based upon a singular judge is not viable. He makes suggestions that are so strong… even Gd accepts the advice.

אִ֣ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַזֶּה֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְצִוְּךָ֣ אֱ

If you do this—and Gd so commands you

 

Sometimes it takes an outsider to see the flaws.

Jethro’s system has two parts. A hierarchy of judges, with Moshe, the judge that almost everyone trusts and the person who has access to Divine power, at the top.  The second suggestion is to provide  an instruction set: tell the people how they are to behave. In the timeline of the text, the ten commandments seem to be  an attempt to  serve this purpose .  These are rules that are independent of circumstance, stronger than an appeal to reason. Jethro does not write these ten commandments; he merely suggests that their existence would be a good idea.

The parsha then moves to the presentation of the ten commandments. Moses orders three days of preparation, clean clothes. The people’s involvement in the process reinforces its significance.  The holy Presence has caused the mountain to exceeds the sanctity tolerance of every human being except Moses, it is lethal to touch. The sound makes the people (and the earth beneath them) quake. It is all terrifying.  That is the point. The awe was created to inspire adherence, to give something to believe “in.”

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֣ה אֶל־הָעָם֮ אַל־תִּירָ֒אוּ֒ כִּ֗י לְבַֽעֲבוּר֙ נַסּ֣וֹת אֶתְכֶ֔ם בָּ֖א הָאֱ  וּבַעֲב֗וּר תִּהְיֶ֧ה יִרְאָת֛וֹ עַל־פְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְבִלְתִּ֥י תֶחֱטָֽאוּ׃

Moses answered the people, “Be not afraid; for God has come only in order to test you, and in order that the fear of God may be ever with you, so that you do not go astray.”

 

 

The first two statements are a continuation of the theme of establishing an entity to believe in.  Anochi (translated I) establishes the  Gd who is the source of the law (and the terrifying scene that introduces it) as an entity to which the people can relate. Gd has a pronoun that is related to the ordinary I ( ani), only more so (anochi).  There is no shying away from remoteness, but, perhaps, sometimes, the distance can be breached.

The jealousy of Gd has an outward element of irony. The tenth commandment forbids envy! There is an important difference.  The envy that is forbidden by the tenth commandment involves entities that do not belong to the covetous person.The prohibited action in the tenth commandment, thachmod, invokes the emotional complex that is desire. Gd’s jealousy is a reaction to being robbed of the attribution that is deserved.

 

We all believe in some things. The Grateful Dead sing:

Some folks trust to reason
Others trust to might
I don't trust to nothing
But I know it come out right

There is great merit in choosing carefully. There are wrong answers.

 

 

Bishalach: Seduction 

This year, reading Bishalach, I have a new understanding of the Song of the Sea ( Oz Yashir).  This biblical poem, which has become part of the Orthodox morning prayer service, is clearly special.  When it is read from the Torah on Shabbath, the congregation stands in respect and sympathy with the ancestors that sang it after they had crossed the sea of Reeds. The ancients then saw the Egyptian chariot army drowned attempting the same crossing. 

How did the Israelites feel?  There must have been great relief.  They had escaped unscathed from the most powerful military force on earth; the enforcement arm of the state that had enslaved them for 210 years was gone. And then they thought again. Now, they could not return to Egypt the way they had come. There had never been a bridge; there was no reason to think that the miraculous splitting of the sea would recur. They were trapped. They could follow the cloud or be on their own in a desolate wilderness that offered almost no food or water or shelter. 

The song begins

כִּֽי־גָאֹ֣ה גָּאָ֔ה 

 

I shall sing to the L-rd for He is exalted [over all the] exalted

 

Onkelos (officially) translates this as

 

אֲרֵי אִתְגָאֵי עַל גֵוְתָנַיָא וְגֵאוּתָא דִילֵהּ הִיא

He is most high [exalted Himself above those who are exalted, and exaltation is His],

 

When the exalted are vanquished, their arrogance is exposed. The Egyptian army arrogated for themselves passing through the parted waters.  Gd had provided a route for the Israelites to escape. Once the path was open, the Egyptians thought they could follow the same passage. The heavy chariots crushed the coral that formed the terra firma for the unencumbered Israelites on foot. The chariots were stuck when the water returned to its nature. The Egyptians were seduced by the combination of opportunity and a sense of entitlement. It was the archetype of a trap.

The parsha opens with Gd’s plan to dupe the Israelites:

And it was, when Pharaoh sent out the people, that G-d did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, for it was near. For G-d said: Lest the people bethink themselves  when they see war and they return to Egypt.

 

For fear of a rebellion, a circuitous route was chosen; a route that came into existence only by miracle ( the splitting of the sea) and led to arid desolation, requiring wonders for the provision of food and water. Gd had a plot of enticement. It was a path to dependence, or perhaps the more acute awareness of the human condition of dependence. The road back was gone.

To close the loop, the parsha ends with the (eternal) war against the paradigm of enemies – Amalek. Once the Israelites are trapped, Gd need not fear that they will easily return to Egypt. The Hebrews are introduced to war. The Israelites do not easily win this battle, their advance depends upon the raised hands of Moses.  He must maintain the pose beyond his own capabilities. His arms are supported by Aaron and Hur. Moses is not the repository of power; he is a conduit. Victory is never assured.

Our decisions are snares. Without them there is no way forward. Even a well-traveled road may not be safe…especially for a pursuer.