Titzaveh: Clothes

 

Much if this week’s parsha describes the Kohanic garb, the costume of the high ( and not so high) priests. The high priest wore eight items specified in the parsha. This uniform was required to perform the service. The emphasis on the sartorial leads to the question: what are the meanings of clothes?

The first act of  Adam and Eve after ingesting the mind altering fruit of daath (knowledge? Opinion?) is to make clothing. The first humans had gotten by without covering themselves, but when their eyes were opened, the first thing they noticed was their nakedness… and the need to cover it.  The first sentence after consuming the forbidden fruit:

 וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃

Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

The first function of clothing was to cover nakedness, to keep  secret aspects of appearance, to provide privacy and mystery.

When Gd confronts the first couple after they had violated the only commandment they had, the Human reveals the transgression by declaring that nakedness is  the reason he is hiding. (By the sequence of the text, he is no longer physically naked). The answer prompts Gd to ask

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מִ֚י הִגִּ֣יד לְךָ֔ כִּ֥י עֵירֹ֖ם אָ֑תָּה הֲמִן־הָעֵ֗ץ אֲשֶׁ֧ר צִוִּיתִ֛יךָ לְבִלְתִּ֥י אֲכׇל־מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אָכָֽלְתָּ׃

“Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?”

The idea of clothing is revealing. The concern about nakedness uncovers the crime. The scene closes, after the pronouncements that curse the man, the woman and the serpent,  with an ironic and appropriate act of kindness.

וַיַּ֩עַשׂ֩ יְ לְאָדָ֧ם וּלְאִשְׁתּ֛וֹ כׇּתְנ֥וֹת ע֖וֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵֽׁם׃ {פ}

And the L-rd G-d made for the man and his wife skin-vestments and He clothed them.

Gd clothed the naked people in one of the eight priestly vestments, the one that covers the entire body, the tunic.

 

Jacob/Israel borrowed his older brother, Esau’s, clothes as part of the ruse to obtain father Isaac’s blessing. In that story the aroma of the clothes helped deceive blind Isaac that the son before him was Esau. There is an implication that these garments were used in the ceremony of service.

The kitoneth כְּתֹ֥נֶת reappears in the story of Joseph.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכָּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ וְעָ֥שָׂה ל֖וֹ כְּתֹ֥נֶת פַּסִּֽים׃

Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons—he was his “child of old age”; and he had made him an ornamented tunic.

This tunic clearly had relational significance. It conferred specialness to Joseph, perhaps primogeniture, the rights of the first born ( of his mother Rachel), perhaps a regal designation.

It is in our parsha that clothes reappear. This is an example of “clothes make the man.”  The costume was a requirement for the service. The high priest had to demonstrate by this raiment that he represented the diversity of the tribes of Israel when he performed the service

וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֙ אֶֽת־אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֖ת בִּגְדֵ֣י הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֥ אֹת֛וֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹת֖וֹ וְכִהֵ֥ן לִֽי׃

Put the sacral vestments on Aaron, and anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve Me as priest.

 

When the anointing oil was unavailable, in the second temple. the High Priest was inaugurated into his office by dressing in the holy garments. This fashion statement not only impressed those who saw, it encouraged and elevated the man who wore it

 

 These clothes were the stuff of Alexander the Great's dream. 

 

Baraita in Yoma, 69a (identical with Megillat Ta'anit, iii.):

"When the Samaritans had obtained permission from Alexander to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, the high priest Simon the Just, arrayed in his pontifical garments and followed by a number of distinguished Jews, went out to meet the conqueror, and joined him at Antipatris, on the northern frontier. At sight of Simon, Alexander fell prostrate at his feet, and explained to his astonished companions that the image of the Jewish high priest was always with him in battle, fighting for him and leading him to victory. Simon took the opportunity to justify the attitude of his countrymen, declaring that, far from being rebels, they offered prayers in the Temple for the welfare of the king and his dominions. So impressed was Alexander that he delivered up all the Samaritans in his train into the hands of the Jews,

Clothes contain an element of the dream. They attempt to provoke the dream of the viewer and, thus, betray the intention of the wearer.  The self-awareness of Adam and Eve necessitated clothing, Joseph coat of many colors came from dreams shared with his father Jacob, and the envy it generated was intentional.  The sartorial splendor of the High priest embodies the dream of a unified, glorious, pure and holy people.

 

When people wear uniforms,  they are soldiers. If they kill in their street clothes they are murderers. When the judge sits in robes, she is justice. Take them off and the opinion becomes a theory.

When my father was running away from the uniformed German soldiers, he saved himself by trading his Soviet uniform for the clothes of a scarecrow. Even the birds recognize the dangerous humans by their clothes.

 

 

Terumah: details

Terumah, this week’s parsha, conveys details of the construction of the mishkan, the tabernacle, the portable temple that housed the tablets  in the golden, cherub covered ark. The most sacred object (ever) was housed in this regal tent until Shlomo directed the construction of the temple of stone ( the subject of the haftorah). These are stories of sanctification. Acacia wood, gold, silver, fine fabrics and furs are the raw materials in the mishkan. Stones and labor create the Temple in Jerusalem.

Both accounts list details. Dimensions and geometry are specified. The engineering is clear and reproducible. The visual experience, the beauty, cannot be conveyed in words.  It is left to the imagination. No one has seen the actual objects for thousands of years.

The preservation of detail is a critical theme in religious practice. Deviations from the prescribed destabilize the entire structure, alterations are intrinsically wrong and destructive. Following the instructions, exactly, is the only sure way to please the Divine architect. This is the birth of manufacturing. This is the birth of Art Scroll Judaism.

Describing the aesthetic experience, or the experiences that evoke it, surpasses my powers of expression. It would require that the words evoke a kindred state. The Google resorts to physiology and quotes a scientific journal article in Iperception before going to the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The internet is telling me how I should think about this experience. AI produces images that should be beautiful.

Emphasis on adherence to details does not seem consistent with the fluid nature of the beauty experience. But the communication of artistry, I am told, requires adherence to technique. This is much of the substance of art history. Technical developments like perspective and the development of pigments have moved visual art forward.  Leonardo da Vinci’s anatomic studies advanced both art and science. Accuracy can be beautiful, especially if you know how to draw it.

The art of Trumah and the accompanying haftorah serve the function of connecting the reader to the Divine.  The actual ark, the centerpiece of the enterprise, was seen by almost no one.  Even when the high priest entered the inner sanctum on Yom Kippur, the space was filled with smoke. The ark was always an object for the imagination, not the eye.

Given the detailed instructions for the creation of the sacred space in Terumah, how could Solomon ( and later temple builders) deviate and design  sanctuaries that were larger and constructed from different materials? The haftorah tells us that Gd spoke to Shlomo. Gd permitted this novelty, this redefinition of the sacred space. The instructions in Terumah were not the only way. Perhaps the mishkan of the parsha was the best sacred space for its time and for the circumstances.  The Temple in Solomon’s Jerusalem was what developments had dictated. And that temple and the space it occupied, has been dictating circumstances ever since.  

The ark is surrounded by apology.  The cover, the kaporeth, כַפֹּ֖רֶת, is related to the the kpr, כַפֹּ֖רֶ of Yom Kippur.  Like most of my  Yom Kippurs,  it is a cover (up) more than an atonement.  The transgressions are not erased, they are covered, in part, by apology. Beauty does not make everything alright, but it can facilitate forgiveness.  Atonement is a nice word: Getting back in tune with the Universe; abandoning our tone-deafness.  We need a moment to cover our errors.

Notice, the letters כַפֹּ֖רֶת, CaPoReth are rearranged to make פָרֹ֗כֶת,PaRoCheth.  This was the curtain that separated the ark and its kaporeth covering from the remainder of the sacred space. The parocheth defined the inner sanctum.  The parocheth also covered the ark when it was moved.  Both the kaporeth and parocheth  are adorned by כְּרֻבִֽים, CheRuBim. 

The Cherub first appeared in Genesis as the guardian that blocks the way back to Eden.  The cherub prevents the achievement of the goal of repentance. The cherub makes the attempted return to Eden futile.  The cherub assures the separation between the world we live in and paradise. The cherub is an imagined object, just on the other side of longing.

 ChRuB כְּרֻבִֽ has one letter that is different from כַפֹּ֖רֶת,CaPoReth and PaRoCheth, The beith instead of the Pey.  Look at the Letter Pey: (in some calligraphies)

                                         פ

There is a  ב   inside.

 

 

Mishpatim: bending the law

וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם׃

Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

A set of laws are laid out. These are the Divine rules. Very soon, there are contingencies, questions of exceptions, recognitions of subtlety.  The Jewish lawyer is born.

 

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

 

When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment.

 

The first issue to be dealt with is slavery. From the  predicate, it is clear that there is a translation problem.  This   eved Ivri  is not the same as the Africans that were brought to North America  for eternal, multigenerational servitude.  The eved Ivri had a discrete term of service, six years,  after which he was to be released, without further ransom. The associations with the word eved, slave, are not what we expect.  The root of the word, evd, connotes   labor, work.  I suppose that it is not translated laborer because of the long-term relationship.  The defined term of release tells me that I do not really understand this relationship.  Since the same word is used to describe the status of the Hebrews in Egypt, I am forced to question my understanding of that situation, as well.  Perhaps the conditions portrayed by Cecil B DeMille: teams of scantily clothed men pulling huge, pyramid-bound cut stones and whipped by Egyptian taskmasters, is not exact.

 

The principle of one person dominating another is certainly an issue that the law must address.  The first rule allows for the legality of such a relationship.  The acquisition (or purchase - another possible translation for thikneh) of one person by another is a legal transaction.  The purchaser and the purchased each have rights.  They are both under the jurisdiction of The Law.  The acquisition of services is for a limited time and includes a limited scope, but the buyer has a right to the work and its products. Even some of the children fathered by this man become slaves born to the master.

 

There is a spectrum from volunteer to slave.  Placement along that spectrum is in the consciousness of the participants, and it is often out of sync.  The boss exaggerates expectations, the worker feels underpaid.  A perfect resolution is not possible.  The law feels arbitrary to both.

Immediately following the law of a limited term of service, the text turns to the slave who does not want to be set free.

וְאִם־אָמֹ֤ר יֹאמַר֙ הָעֶ֔בֶד אָהַ֙בְתִּי֙ אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֔י אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֖י וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑י לֹ֥א אֵצֵ֖א חׇפְשִֽׁי׃

But if the slave declares, “I love my master, and my wife and children: I do not wish to go free,”

An exception is recognized. This voluntary eved is brought to the doorpost. He is brought to the place of the lamb’s blood placement in the original Passover story.  He is reminded of the costly liberation of the ancestors from the Egyptian servitude. Is he repeating the sin of descent  into slavery? The organ of listening, the ear, is pierced. All this symbolism; In the end he remains an eved forever.

At the conclusion of the parsha, the Israelites volunteer for servitude to Gd.

 

וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְ   נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע׃

 

Then he took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will faithfully do!”

The people have surrendered to the spectacle and the promise of a better life and a greater justice. There is no demand for understanding.  Where does our illusion of understanding come from, anyway? The law has become what can be interpreted from the text.

 

America is filled with news of legal proceedings. A former president is accused of violating the law that limits his term of service. He tried to interfere with the process that replaced him with the candidate who received more votes. These proceedings are taking months.  Every possible small point is argued. Expensive lawyers find ways to delay and obfuscate. In several off the cuff statements, Mr Trump has been clear about his contempt for the law.  Now he is demonstrating it to the glee of his supporters .  Many of those supporters feel that they have been victims of the law which takes on an arbitrary aspect as soon as it is written and becomes difficult to change; a law that fails to recognize special circumstances.

This is our ultimate gift from Gd, from Moses and to humanity: The law, the Torah, the immutable written law, as we have it here… And the oral law, the paradigm of how to bend it.

 

Yithro: How we relate to the Law

This parsha has a definite centerpiece: the Ten Commandments: the most widely accepted (catholic?) text in the Bible. Although there is no universal agreement about how to divide the 12 verses into 10 commandments, there is general agreement  that these most significant laws are contained therein. 

These are the statements/laws that were directly communicated to Moses and Israel and  set in stone. The other heavenly instructions have a more complex provenance.

This parsha marks a transition in style. Up until now, the Torah told a story. A few laws had been  mentioned, but for the most part, it was a saga of origin.   After the flood, seven commandments were delivered to all humanity, presumably to establish a world that would not deserve destruction again. Most of these rules are reiterated here in the ten delivered at Sinai.  The tradition that prohibits the sciatic sinew to the descendants of Israel is mentioned as a reminder of the ongoing battle between us and the forces against us. Shabbath, and some of the restrictions related to it, comes up in relation to the Manna. But until now, the major thrust was the story. Now, the style changes to legalisms and details.

Yithro is a story that sets the stage for that transition. It begins with Yithro, Moses’ gentile father in law approaching Moses and the newly victorious and  liberated people. He comes with the wife and children that Moses had abandoned to advance the story of the Exodus. Yithro had been the righteous father, father-in-law and grandfather. He had sustained the abandoned family. Now he was making peace.  Yithro is identified as righteous and wise. He accurately understands and does what needs to be done. He also comes to recognize and bless the Gd of Israel based upon the story told by Moshe.

Yithro, the outsider, sees the problem that devolves from the single lawgiver. The parties to every conflict want Moses’ opinion. This is not “common” law, Moses does not convey a continuation of the customs that have prevailed until his time; Moses is connected to the Gd that brough the people out of Egypt. The greater power dictates the law.

The law of Moses is a law of liberation. The meanings of justice and fairness are revised. There will be a new hierarchy and new values. All this devolves from the single leader who had confronted Pharoah and the system he represented.

Yithro proposes a novel approach. Announce a set of laws.

וְהִזְהַרְתָּ֣ה אֶתְהֶ֔ם אֶת־הַחֻקִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַתּוֹרֹ֑ת וְהוֹדַעְתָּ֣ לָהֶ֗ם אֶת־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ יֵ֣לְכוּ בָ֔הּ וְאֶת־הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַעֲשֽׂוּן׃

and enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow.

This is a move from intuitive judgment to laws that will be set in stone. Although Yithro’s instincts had directed him toward justice and truth; they had brought him to care for the abandoned family of Moses and to recognize the Gd of the Hebrews – he knew that these feelings were not a reliable guide for all people and , perhaps, they would fail even the nicest of people from time to time. A presented, eventually written, perhaps set in stone, law, seen by all, was a better system. That law would solidify the revolution.

This suggestion for a public code of conduct, which seems to have evolved into the tablets delivered at Mt Sinai, is part one.  Yithro also suggests a judicial hierarchy, a system that diffuses interpretations.

The delivery of the revealed law at Mount Sinai ( the peak of revelation in Thursday’s New York Times crossword) conflates the powerful force that proclaims the law with the sense of fairness that affirms its validity. Ultimately, there is no expectation that the details will be remembered; but the story of the forbidden, erupting mountain climed by Moses will not be forgotten. The power of enforcement has been assigned to an invisible, but all seeing, Gd.

The Ten Commandments are the epitome of editing. They could not contain a detail whose significance would fade with time. This idea is reinforced by the details of altar construction that end the parsha. The subsequent parsha that deals with commercial law requires volumes of Talmud for interpretation.

The Talmud was purposely not written for millennia. The oral nature of the interpretive tradition left it fluid, able to adjust to a changing world. The selectivity of the authorship maintained it true to tradition. Writing the Talmud, printing it, recodifying it, hardened the process. Fluidity became harder. Maybe that is not entirely a bad thing. (Maybe that is not entirely good.)