Nitzavim-Vayelech: literacy

 

Nitzavim-Vayelech: literacy

This week, I saw a video clip of my eldest grandson, Theodore Irwin Goldberg (whom I call Srulik) learning to read.  He sounded out S A M  S A T. A significant beginning. The next generation is inducted into the written world.

These parshioth are about the establishment of a legacy for the contract between Gd an Israel. The parsha ends with Moshe completing the written document

וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּכַלּ֣וֹת מֹשֶׁ֗ה לִכְתֹּ֛ב אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֥י הַתּוֹרָֽה־הַזֹּ֖את עַל־סֵ֑פֶר עַ֖ד תֻּמָּֽם׃

When Moses had put down in writing the words of this Teaching to the very end.

The parsha begins by describing the great assembly receiving Moshe’s parting words. It includes the nobles and the lowliest servants and it goes on to include “וְאֵ֨ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵינֶ֛נּוּ פֹּ֖ה עִמָּ֥נוּ הַיּֽוֹם׃”  those who are not with us here this day.

Rashi comments:  וְאַף עִם דּוֹרוֹת הָעֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת:  which Sefaria renders: i.e. with the generations that will be in future. The standard Medieval commentators all say that this statement comes to include future generations. This is to be a tradition and the text is its testimony. Reading is the access.

The written word has an undulating history. Socrates was not in favor of writing. In the dialogues of Plato, Socrates ( presented as Thamus) argues that writing will actually lead to forgetfulness because people will rely on written texts instead of their own memory. Socrates believed that true knowledge comes from direct, interactive dialogue, where ideas can be questioned and examined in real-time.

The Mishna and the Talmud are called the oral law. Initially, these ideas were  transmitted by memorization, outside the written world. To an extent the ban on writing the Oral Law may have shared some of the principles attributed to Socrates. Writing the Mishna before its time would have compromised it. In practice, we can see how the absence of a fixed text allowed the circumstances of the time to adapt the law .  The unwritten is more malleable.

Reading opens a world that, until recently, had  been controlled by the owners of printing presses. They printed what they considered valuable or profitable. The publisher could manipulate the perception of truth and value; the publishers could suppress what they considered seditious.

The development of the mimeograph (1874)  allowed individuals and groups, with sufficient will, to publicize views to a limited audience. It broke the publisher’s monopoly on truth and value.  The internet opened information transfer to the full range of possibilities. Anyone, no matter how competent, no matter how careful, no matter how mentally ill, could relatively easily broadcast an opinion or a truth. The written lost its official backing.

In the world of science, a structure of authority was preserved (to an extent) by attributing reliability to peer review and preserving the stature of print journals when they went online. However, the emergence of industry sponsored journals and articles that are really advertisements has made me more skeptical, regardless of the purported editorial policy of the publication.

The ability to slant the truth is blatantly expressed in American “News” Wounding terrorist operatives, identified by pagers assigned only to them, is called a war crime.  They are identified as people, presumably civilians. They are not; and the New York Times knows it.  But the Times controls a very large and powerful press. To me, their power is greatly diminished by their word choice.

Ultimately, I have a small amount of ambivalence about my grandson learning to read. I do not think society has ever properly adapted to the written word. Its origin as an expensive (parchment, scribe, ink)  and exclusive skill gave it a gravity that lasted into the future, to those who are not with us here this day. The strictness of interpretation may have violated its intention. Is the law meant to preserve the original intention or should it be read to maximize the benefit for all. What was the second amendment to the US constitution really about?

I like the Jewish tradition of a written law, an immutable law ( at least some of it written in stone); and an oral law of interpretation, opinion and limited flexibility.  One who enters the sea of words needs a life raft.

 

 

 

Ki Thavo: the myth

 

Ki Thavo: the myth

The  bulk of this parsha is a prophecy of horror; the consequence of disobedience. It predicts a series of misfortunes. The detailed description is introduced:

אֶת־הַמְּאֵרָ֤ה אֶת־הַמְּהוּמָה֙ וְאֶת־הַמִּגְעֶ֔רֶת

The curse, the confusion and the ….

הַמִּגְעֶ֔רֶת ( Hamigereth) is a unique word that appears only once in the canon text. A hapax legomenon.

Rashi translates

המארה  (hama’eyrah) means PAUCITY and המהומה   (hamihumah) A TERRIFYING SOUND.

Rashi does not translate הַמִּגְעֶ֔רֶת. (Hamigereth)

Targum translates the word: מְזוֹפִיתָא  (mizofitha): frustration, vexation.  Perhaps this is a reflexive translation, relating to the frustration of translating a word that appears only once.

In context, this ambiguity of the word begins to convey the horror. After a curse and confusion, there is something bad, probably worse coming and what it is: is unclear. Obscurity and uncertainty add to the dread. Trepidation is possibly the worst emotion I have felt. When I imagine my parents experience in the holocaust, it is the confusion and panic that frightens and saddens me most.

The climax, the penultimate verse emphasizes dread:

בַּבֹּ֤קֶר תֹּאמַר֙ מִֽי־יִתֵּ֣ן עֶ֔רֶב וּבָעֶ֥רֶב תֹּאמַ֖ר מִֽי־יִתֵּ֣ן בֹּ֑קֶר מִפַּ֤חַד לְבָֽבְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּפְחָ֔ד וּמִמַּרְאֵ֥ה עֵינֶ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תִּרְאֶֽה׃

In the morning you shall say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening you shall say, “If only it were morning!”—because of what your heart shall dread and your eyes shall see.

The curse is presented as a progression. It starts with natural disasters – drought and disease  - and  progresses to defeat , exile and subjugation. The atrocities described evoke the holocaust. It is distressing that this ancient text, describing the most repulsive scenes Moshe can imagine,  does not quite equal the reality of Poland in 1942.

How did this text prepare the Jews in the Eastren European exile?  When the persecution came, did they see it as the expected fulfillment of the prophecy? Did the passage, heard (by many) innumerable  times since childhood, add a sense of familiarity to the persecution? Was there some comfort in the prediction? Did it make the nation more cooperative and thus help the evil enemy?

My Jewish consciousness is tied inexorably to the Holocaust. My parents were sole survivors of their large families and went through many/most/all the horrors described in the parsha. My personal relationship to the myth of survival from persecution is distorted, but I think that this theme is a most fundamental element of the Jewish collective mythology, the glue of the nation.

Zionism, and the founding of the state of Israel, did not remove this concept. The persecution became a motivation for the assertion of power and independence. There are many brands of Zionism, the (magical) redemption aspects vary across them – from denial to manifest. All are infused with the theme of reaction to persecution.

Perhaps the quality the unites the largest number of Jews is watchfulness. Euphemisms like anti-Zionism and antisemitism cloud the perception of the both the hater and the hated. We all have the prophecy in our hearts:

וְהָיִ֣יתָ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה לְמָשָׁ֖ל וְלִשְׁנִינָ֑ה בְּכֹל֙ הָֽעַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־יְנַהֶגְךָ֥ יְ

You shall be a consternation, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples to which the LORD will drive you.

The chapter closes with an undoing of the opening. The chapter starts with a celebration of the miracle of the Exodus from Egypt, the liberation from slavery

וַיּוֹצִאֵ֤נוּ יְ

מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם בְּיָ֤ד חֲזָקָה֙ וּבִזְרֹ֣עַ נְטוּיָ֔ה וּבְמֹרָ֖א גָּדֹ֑ל וּבְאֹת֖וֹת וּבְמֹפְתִֽים׃

The LORD freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents.

 

It ends with a return to Egypt and status inferior to slavery.

וֶהֱשִֽׁיבְךָ֨ יְ

 

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

The LORD 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.

Is it an endless recursion?  The perception of victimhood is more than a self-perpetuation. Outside forces keep it going. Can we ever be good enough?

 

 

Ki Theitze: domination

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  a measure of dignity.  Power over others leads to consequences, and the human lord is not omniscient. Every act has thousands of consequences. Some of them must be considered; and their unfathomable number should be appreciated

This is a parsha of obligations. People perform  acts and situations arise   and here are instructions for handling them.  Some obligations devolve from previous decisions: marriage, hiring workers, etc. Others devolve from circumstances: lost objects, disease. Many of these duties are consequences of previous decisions.

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 taken as a ( Divine)  reward by the winner.   The proximate providers of the reward, the people who enriched the entrepreneur, were not a party to the contract. They deserve consideration.

Can there be progress without reward? Does the reward need to include domination? These questions are not addressed here . Does that mean that the answer is assumed?

Sometimes, the power position seems accidental

לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־שׁ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ֙ נִדָּחִ֔ים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֵ֖ם לְאָחִֽיךָ׃

If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your peer.

The extra  וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם  [do not] ignore it;  evokes the possibility of simply not getting involved. The stray animal was lost before, why change its status? Maybe one should treat this situation like the seductress [ whose capture in war opens the parsha] best to ignore it. The Torah says otherwise. Do not overlook doing the right thing: attempt to return the stray. The correct reaction is hidden in confusion and conflicting tasks and interests. This sentence is training for making the best choice.

The right choice can be buried in a mass of conflicting interests. The details of the law identifies lost objects that can be kept, andcircumstances in which it is best to leave things as they are.

Are the rational laws seducing us  into the belief that the following laws, like shatnez (the prohibition of wearing wool and linen together) also contain a hidden core of rectitude. Maybe. Many of the rules in the parsha are reasonable and kind. Others are not. Certain mixtures are prohibited: grapes and grain, donkeys and oxen, wool and linen. Do the rational edicts, the ones that seem kind and respectful, justify adherence to the commandments that seem bizarre? Perhaps the irrational rules are training for following rules and asking questions later… and not, necessarily expecting an answer.

I remember being in first or second grade, learning about the  North American colonies. I was learning how to read, but there was also an intention to form some identification with the colonists who later came to found the US. We learned that their clothes were made from linsey woolsey, wool and linen woven together. The fabric forbidden in the parsha. The realization that they wore clothes that are forbidden to me broke some of that identification. I could never be a true, dyed in the wool (and linen) American. That was an early introduction into the reality of my relationship with the dominant culture. Shatnez had served a function.

Our actions and temptations are too complex to understand. The Torah offers guidelines. Thinking about them is not simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shoftim: tradition(alism)

This week’s parsha demands the establishment of several systems of authority. Judges are the agents of impartiality. Priests maintain the religious practices. Kings protect the nation and work for its advancement. Prophets guide the nation to maintain unity and purpose as conditions change. Did the system ever work?  Is any part of it applicable now?

The description of each of these systems comes with admonitions. The judges must pursue righteousness: צֶ֥דֶק, Tzedek. The priests and Levites are to be landless. The king must write a copy of the Divine law and read it daily. The prophet must pronounce all that he receives and never confabulate.

On top of these admonitions, there is a repeated call for the removal of deviant positions with prejudice. The elder who does not accede to the majority position and seeds protests has committed a capital offence. Idolatry, including resurrection of the local cults, by an individual or community is to be destroyed and its perpetrators killed.

Inside all of these rules about rules, there is the prohibition of superstition and magic.

לֹֽא־יִמָּצֵ֣א בְךָ֔ מַעֲבִ֥יר בְּנֽוֹ־וּבִתּ֖וֹ בָּאֵ֑שׁ קֹסֵ֣ם קְסָמִ֔ים מְעוֹנֵ֥ן וּמְנַחֵ֖שׁ וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף׃

Let no one be found among you who consigns a son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer,

These prohibitions belong in a chapter that establishes a system to maintain the creed and prohibits competing frameworks.

It is easy for us to dismiss the augur (who examined the entrails of birds for signs), the soothsayer and the sorcerer as purveyors of nonsense. Perhaps the introduction, consigning children to fire, generated disgust, even in earlier generations, that carried over to the other less violent superstitions.

 

To the people of the time, these activities were science: the most accurate predictors of the future and methods to influence events in nature, available. The Israelite was rejecting the molecular biology of the time.

This brings into focus the interaction between traditions and scientific progress. In medicine (probably the oldest alloy of science, tradition and superstition), this battle is clear to the practitioner. New approaches require the approval of governmental agencies and, absent that, are illegal and subject to penalty. Payers (insurance) often requires a more rigorous level of proof (the new treatment is usually much more expensive) and rigorous adherence to recipes used in published studies is mandated. This rigor has been manipulated by pharma so that medications that have the same mechanism of action cannot be substituted for each other. A drug that enhances the immune system to fight lung cancer cannot be used for the same purpose in Hodgkin’s disease.  The Hodgkins immunostimulant must be used.  Since a clinical trial, to see if the lung drug works in Hodgkins ( as it should, and actually does) would cost millions of dollars, drug companies can safely divide the territory and need not fear competition. The empirical has triumphed over the rational.

Traditional approaches are often vague. Diagnoses based upon the microscopic appearance of tissue include criteria that may be aberrant in the specimen, yet the diagnosis remains. Diagnoses need not  answer to the  requirement for response to therapy; and which criteria can be elided while maintaining the same expectations for outcome is not clear.

Traditional approaches are like language. A word can mean several different things, yet we cleave to it.  Language, which has evolved in its own unsupervised way, is  not likely to become more precise. The recognition of its imprecision is, perhaps, the best we can do. Will large language models impact this issue positively or negatively? For now it seems to perpetuate and broadcast a worldview of “should”: what people say they believe, not what is real. It all ends happily ever after.

How does the Torah instruct the believer to think about our, contemporary science? Is it sorcery?  Our epidemiologists look at entrails to follow microbes (tiny, invisible spirits) that cause disease.  We are poked with needles that contain RNA that protects us from last month’s ( no longer prevalent) Covid strain. There are no storehouses of water in the sky.

I can weasel my way out of heresy by opening the words of Torah to a broader interpretation. Alternative, scientific, explanations and models do not violate the prohibitions because they work. I need not “believe” in them, they are simply useful. [Consumers of sorcery probably felt the same]. Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions made things easier by pointing out that today’s science becomes tomorrows superstition. It also becomes tomorrows tradition, blocking advances ( and error).

 

Mainstream Judaism has fondly adopted the evolution of science and produced a disproportionate number of its leaders. The subtlety of language allows contradiction to flourish.