Acharei MoΘ -Kedoshim: Taboos

 

The death by worship of Nadav and Avihu introduces the parsha.   We are reminded that the inner sanctum is a conduit and a repository of a power that is potentially lethal.

וְאַל־יָבֹ֤א בְכׇל־עֵת֙ אֶל־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ מִבֵּ֖ית לַפָּרֹ֑כֶת אֶל־פְּנֵ֨י הַכַּפֹּ֜רֶת אֲשֶׁ֤ר עַל־הָאָרֹן֙ וְלֹ֣א יָמ֔וּת כִּ֚י בֶּֽעָנָ֔ן אֵרָאֶ֖ה עַל־הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת׃

 

he is not to come at will into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die; for I appear in the cloud over the cover.

 

This lethal, kodesh ( holy)  force  is not one familiar to us.  It is not scientific. There is no attempt to make it understandable. The death of the sons of Aaron by this strange force is the radioactive biohazard sign.  Now it is set up for all the commandments that follow.

It  serves to validate the  deviant Day of Atonement. A pair of identical goats are displayed.  Lots are cast; random is invoked. One goat will be sacrificed in the ordinary manner and its sacred blood (all blood is sacred) will be cast toward the inner sanctum. The other goat is sent to Azazel.  What the hell is Azazel? (Gd damn Molech[Allen Ginsberg]).  Rashi and ibn Ezra evade the problem of the clandestine  ceremony by identifying Azazel geographically. They can then assume that the one Gd is appeased by adherence to script. Rabbi Eliezer (quoted in Ramban) raises the appeasement of Satan as an element in this strange service.  For me, the message is that the entire ritual, including the more usual parts, are not intelligible. It is like the Pythagorean theorem:  You just get used to it.

The theme of command without comprehension is continued throughout the reading for this week. It is a dizzying soup of “It feels right” and “ugh” in  Kedoshim, the second parsha read on this Shabbath. The title sentence sets the tone:

קְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י

 

You shall be holy for I am holy.

The Israelites are enrolled into a new contract. We are instructed to emulate an entity that cannot be seen or understood. The commentators ( Rashi, Ramban) understand this to be an approach of abstinence. That is a safe interpretation. But kodesh, the holy, also means this dangerous, tempting thing that can be approached only on a special occasion, by a special person, in a special way. It has its own erotica.

The second parsha is a barrage of ambivalence.

אִ֣ישׁ אִמּ֤וֹ וְאָבִיו֙ תִּירָ֔אוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רו

`

You shall each revere your mother and your father, and keep My sabbaths:

  There can be a conflict between reverence for parents and keeping the Sabbath. Parents, the source of recognition that the rules of the Shabbath (might) apply, may want things that require violation of the rules.  Parents may have come to compromise on the strict rules of Shabbath observance. How does one resolve the conflict?

Shabbath is the first labor law. It mandates a day of rest, regardless of the importance of the project. The Shabbath confers kindness upon the most abused.  The slave, the beast, rests on the Shabbath. It is a very appealing law conceptually.

Practically, it constrains activity and limits options.  Many fun things are not options to the strict Shabbath observer. Without the restrictions, Shabbath would be a different thing. If left up to the individual, it would be more fun; but the lack of structure would let it fade away.

Reverence for parents is a very widely held value. It is an important part of the cooperativity that has made our species successful. It strengthens the bond that prolongs the care of offspring and preserves the sources of tradition. Left to the individual, this reverence is driven largely by emotion, something that can change with (or without) circumstances.

Making actions that feel right into commandments, making their violation taboo, reveals their tenuous nature. On a deep level, we really do not know why we do things- whether we do them because they feel right or because they are commanded. This is demonstrated by the outcomes of elections that have been manipulated by [social ( and anti-social)] media. The profitability of advertising confirms that our impulses are not [exclusively] our own.

Knowledge is too slow for ordinary decisions, and it usually does not exist beyond the superficial. When motives or phenomena are contemplated in depth, the shallowness of reason is revealed.

Wisdom from my mother

Once, I said to my mother, “I do not understand my wife.”

She told me, “You don’t need to understand your wife, you just need to love her.”

I wonder if she heard that on television?

 

Tazriah-Metzorah:Epidemiology

Tazriah-Metzorah: Epidemiology

Late in the parsha, the reason is given.

וְהִזַּרְתֶּ֥ם אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִטֻּמְאָתָ֑ם וְלֹ֤א יָמֻ֙תוּ֙ בְּטֻמְאָתָ֔ם בְּטַמְּאָ֥ם אֶת־מִשְׁכָּנִ֖י אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּתוֹכָֽם׃

 

You shall put the Israelites on guard against their impurity, lest they die through their impurity by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them.

 

The preceding chapters described and discussed tzoras, the affliction of humans, cloth, and homes, the entity the King James committee interpreted as leprosy. That discussion was followed by the rules for isolation, contamination and re-entry pertaining to genital discharges.

There is a recognition of contagion, the disease can be spread by contact and by shared space. The causative agent is invisible, but often hides in the affected person or object and reappears with time.  This recurrent property is translated by the Jewish Publication Society as “malignant”

כִּֽי־צָרַ֤עַת מַמְאֶ֙רֶת֙ הִ֔וא

for it is a malignant eruption;

 

The Ramban renders the word as prickly and discusses the abhorrence of such a thing.

A digression on malignancy

In my work as a cancer doctor, the word malignant is most important. Is the tumor malignant? is a question that I am often asked. The answer usually comes from a microscopic analysis of a biopsy.  The configuration of cells, identified by the pattern formed when they are stained  with chemicals that demonstrate acidity and alkalinity, is used as the determinant. This technique, which originated in the late 19^th century, is a powerful oracle. Its predictions are as reliable as the  statistics that back them. But this analysis is not identifying the malignant property, it is a surrogate marker, a set of observations that have been correlated with outcomes.

It is the outcomes that are malignant or benign. Malignant means harmful, very harmful. In oncology, a malignant diagnosis justifies deforming and debilitating surgery; it justifies the most dangerous and unpleasant (and expensive)  medications; it justifies exposure to strange and dangerous radiation energies. Malignant, in medicine, means terrifying. It is a word that should be used more carefully, if at all. The meaning is too vague, and it is used to manipulate patients and payers. The alternative is to define the relationship between the findings and the expectations for the future in detail. These are often, appropriately horrifying, but such an approach lets a person know what they are buying for their money and suffering. Many conditions with a low ( but definite) probability of evolving into a harmful process are called malignant (e.g. carcinoma in situ). I am not sure why they are so designated, but the label generates money and dread.

The predictive power of microscopic analysis is not good.  The information from the analysis of the biopsy does not provide a clear picture of the future; it  improves the guess ( and really should be used in that Baysian  manner). Current techniques including gene sequencing, cytokine profiles, and  gene expression patterns improve the prediction…but prognosis remains an occult art.

The translation of tzoras as leprosy; and the identification of whatever set of diseases the medievals called leprosy, generated dread and isolation that was misdirected. The disease we currently identify as leprosy ( Hansen’s disease) is a bacterial infection that is quite long lasting and rarely resolves without appropriate antibiotic treatment. It is a terrible disease.  The stigma, resulting from the word and the Biblical passages is usually much worse.

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

Whatever this malady, tzoras, was, the rules were intended to limit its spread and its associated  mortality, especially when mixed with the sacred. The Tabernacle needed protection from the scourge. If the Temple, the central gathering place for the Israelites, became a source for the spread of these diseases, the epidemic would be horrific. The exclusion of the infected, and potentially contagious, from the sacred is comprehensible.  The sanctum is dangerous enough without the disease.

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

Covid gave us all a little taste of the isolation of the leper. It provide a little help in understanding the ritual of purification: dipping a live bird into water stained with the blood of another bird ( of the same species). The survivor was a captive and some grace limited its trial to facing the death of a brother. The stain can never be erased.

 

 

 

 

Shemini: risk

 

Shemini: Risk

The inauguration of the Tabernacle and the priests is nearly complete. The drama of the debut is near the climax. Aaron and his four sons are close to graduation into their roles as priests of the sacrificial service. Nadav and Avihu , the two eldest sons of Aaron, perform an unsolicited service. They enter the dark sacred space with a fire of their own making. Nadav and Avihu are struck dead.

The haftorah points to the centrality of this story by relating a similar narrative. King David ordered the  tablets from Sinai in the gold plated, Cherub decorated, ark moved to Jerusalem – his new capitol city. The ark had been in the house of Abinanab (since its rescue from the Philistines). Abinadab   had two sons: Uzzah and Achio. These were people more familiar than most with the ark and its power. When the oxen stumbled, Uzzah reached out to the ark and was struck dead for his action. Certainly, Uzzah knew the story of Nadav and Avihu; he knew that unsanctioned interaction with the ark was dangerous – possibly lethal. But Uzzah was just trying to help! He was not trying something new.  David recognizes the risk associated with transporting the ark and lets it reside for a time in the home of Oved Edom ( the servant of Edom [ Esau]) before bringing it to Jerusalem ( to consolidate his new capitol? To invest his rule with the imprimatur of the Sinai covenant?)

The lethal danger associated with the ark is entangled in its sanctity.  The Holy is dangerous and the more holy, the more dangerous [politically as well as physically]. These stories deter the curious from invading the sacred space. They help justify some of the rewards of priesthood as danger pay. The risk adds to the status of the rite.

The health consequences of violating the sacred expand into sanctifying essential, core, activities like eating. The list of permissible and forbidden animals that follows is reinforced by the antecedent story of violation and death. Are there health consequences to eating Kosher? Do you dare test the rules when a violation may kill you?

Adventure has become the spice of life. A near death experience is a story that can be retold. The thrill of roller coasters, skydiving, exploration are commercial ventures because of their wide appeal. The pleasure of novelty is among the most precious.

The interpretation of the text is more altered in the context of our age of explanations. Much has been gained by answering the questions: Why and Why not. In our world a warning based upon authority has a strong element of challenge.  

It has become increasingly difficult to estimate appropriate caution. Marie Curie should have been more careful with radium and X rays [ she died of myelodysplasia that probably resulted from her excessive exposure to these toxic (non-kosher) energies.  Freon is a miraculous propellant and refrigerant that destroys ozone.  It has been sanctified and sanctioned. The  circles of dangerous, rule bound substances and energies expands with the scope of science. Nothing is sacred. 

Sometimes just following the rules is enough. When you explore, be very careful; caution may not be enough. Trying to help may not suffice to justify breaking the rules.