Titzaveh: Oracle

In this week's parsha we are introduced to the Urim and Tumim  A few weeks ago, my friend Paul asked me (and a few other people)  what those words mean. Paul went to Yale. The Yale seal contains those words (written in Hebrew) אוּרִים֙ and תֻּמִּ֔ים , each word on its own tablet, surrounded by the Latin: Lux et Veritas, a possible translation of the words. Urim  comes from Ohr, which means light (lux). Tumim, which comes from "complete," is used as "whole hearted" and is thus related to truth (veritas) 

Onkelos, the official translation of the Torah into Aramaic does not translate these words. Rashi, the preserver of tradition, says that the Urim and Tumim were 

 הוּא כְּתָב שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ

he wrote the shem hamaforash. 

The shem hamophorash translates as :The Name, explicitly". This refers to a (lost) noun, a Name [of Gd?] that  had powers. The legends of  the great Rabbis (like the Baal Shem Tov [master of the good name]) often  say that they used the magic of this word to perform miracles. The Shem Hamephorash is one of the most powerful entities in Jewish folklore

Rashi goes on to relate the the Shem Hamephorash to the roots of Urim and Tumim by quoting the Talmud

שֶׁעַל יָדוֹ הוּא מֵאִיר דְּבָרָיו וּמְתַמֵּם אֶת דְּבָרָיו

 through which it (the breast-plate) made its statements clear (lit., illuminated its words; מאיר from אור, light, this being an allusion to the אורים) and its promises true (מתמם from the root תמם, an allusion to תמים) (Yoma 73b)

The quoted  Talmud  explicates a story in the book of Samuel: 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר דָּוִ֗ד אֶל־אֶבְיָתָ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ בֶּן־אֲחִימֶ֔לֶךְ הַגִּֽישָׁה־נָּ֥א לִ֖י הָאֵפ֑וֹד

David said to the priest Abiathar son of Ahimelech, “Bring the ephod up to me.” 

David inquired of GD, “Shall I pursue those raiders? Will I overtake them?” The reply came, “Pursue, for you shall overtake and you shall rescue.”

This story in the book of Samuel establishes the role of the ephod, the container of the Urim and Tumim. It was an oracle. It gave faultless Divine advice. The Talmud discusses restrictions on who could pose the questions and the proper  format for the questions. Violation of these restrictions excuse the episodes  when the advice seems to have been erroneous.  By admitting that the answers (if the  questions are improperly stated)  may seem incorrect, the Talmud is making the oracle unreliable. Rashi  immediately makes the oracle unavailable by pointing out that Urim and Tumim were  unavailable in the second Temple and beyond. 

The oracle is very problematic. It is a source of clear visions of future events. The oracle is a bigger problem than miracles. Miracles are extremely unlikely events that occur at opportune times and generate tales. The oracle selects among the many paths that constitute all possible futures and conveys that choice to the questioner. The miracle, in its retelling, shows the favor of Gd.  The oracle imparts the power of knowledge to those who have access. 

Omniscience, knowing everything, would be a rational basis for an oracle. This is Laplace's demon: an entity that has all current information and the laws of causality at its deposal would be able to accurately predict the future.   Oracle®, the database company, works on the basis of selling access to a vast store of information, trying to be that demon. The training sets of large language models, that work by predicting the next word, use as much stored information as possible. Massive data alone fails as a predictor. Leplace's demon is not a Deus ex machina. Accumulated information, as we presently have it, does not predict the future in a useful way; although it does a great job of predicting the next word ( if you want to write like everybody else). 

The data sets that are used by AI don't work because they are based upon what people say. This is the world of should, it describes the world as it should be according to its human authors. It is interesting to note that many words that have an internal silent "L" share a characteristic.  They are true, but not necessarily factual. The world should be fair, it could be fair, it would be fair if only things were different... but they are not.  These are words of wishing; and wishing is not truth. 

Other standard medieval commentators, like Ramban and Ibn Ezra reinforce the Shem Hamephorash [magic word?] aspect of the  Urim and Tumim .The idea that the utterance of a word can have the power to clarify the future has new meaning in the era of generative AI.  The right prompt will get you much closer to the truth and the wrong prompt can lead to a rabbit hole of misdirection. 

The power of the utterance is an aspect of prayer.  Praying in Hebrew means that the words have an element of the occult. Although the  native, Israeli, Hebrew speaker understands most of the liturgy, the poetry leaves some of it inaccessible. The meanings of words change over time.  Prayer  by default comes with the hope that the master of the universe makes our wishes come true. The words themselves acquire power. 

Saying words can take on an intelligible power. If the words  of prayer bring enlightenment  (urim) through their  music, their sound, their meanings; and that leads to greater self realization and harmony (tumim), then prayer has achieved its purpose. Perhaps it is not the utterance of  a special  word that brings clarity to the vision of the future, it is understanding the truth in that concept. To utter the name of Gd clearly, means to realize that there is one Gd who is supporting everyone and everything in the world and to ask for favoritism is no small thing. If the question is asked with honesties (turim)  the answer is much more enlightening (urim).

 Terumah: Inaccessible

This week's parsha deals with the sacred.  The root within terumah is  רוּם, ROM, meaning high, exalted. Terumah moves an asset from  the mundane to the holy. The  act of giving makes the matter worthy of its lofty recipient. 

Translation becomes more problematic when dealing with issues of sanctity. I do not think that the feelings and concepts of the ancients, along with their tribal variations are preserved in language. The skepticism that is the foundation of modernity is an enemy to the mysteries that explained the world to the ancients. It is an impossible  challenge to understand the world through the chauvinistic eyes of others. What were the Aztecs thinking? 

The sanctuaries in this week's parsha were made from special materials. Dyed fabrics, acacia wood, gold, silver and copper. All of these were expensive, precious, hard to produce. They were economically significant: they could be used as money. Their value was universally appreciated. It is hard for me, living in the industrial age, to appreciate the difficulty involved in making these items and the expense involved in acquiring them. Gifting these items was a significant economic sacrifice. 

The ark of the covenant was the first object described. Arguably, the most central and important object is described first. This gilded box was to be covered by a כַפֹּ֖רֶת , kaporeth. The word means cover, but the word develops a connection to atonement. The day of atonement (the only day of the year that a human [the High Priest] faced the kaporeth covered ark) is called Yom Kippur. I think this is an insight into the "atonement" that is achieved on Yom Kippur. It is an expensive, heavy, ornate [almost] inescapable cover [up] of the transgressions of the past year. It is not an erasure. 

The tablets, the Divine law engraved in stone, delivered to Moses at Sinai were the centerpiece of the Tabernacle complex.  The tablets, both the original shattered tablets and the intact replacements, were placed in and aron. The word, aron in this context, is   usually translated as ark; the word also means coffin.  They were put into a gilded box that was never to be opened again. The tablets, the words from Gd written in stone, cannot be referenced. We need to be satisfied by the tradition that the tablets are contained in the ark

The inaccessibility of the tablets is consistent with their stated purpose. The Sinai experience, for which the tablets are the proof [testament] was intended as a basis for the national faith in the human administered judicial system. The law was to human interpretation, not set in stone. 

The statuary on the kaporeth was in the form of  כְּרוּב, cherubs.  The cherubic form is also found on the tapestry that separates the inner sanctum, home of the ark and its cover, from the remainder of the  Tabernacle.  This curtain is named: perokheth which is an obvious rearrangement of the letters  kaporeth ( in Hebrew) .  

The single earlier appearance of the cherub in the Torah  is in the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden.  The cherub is the guardian of the Tree of Life ,barring human access. A cherub seems to a guard  that bars access to the most sacred.  In the [modern] synagogue, when the Torah is replaced in the  synagogue ark, we sing : עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ : It is a Tree of Life for those that hold fast to it. The Torah, the representative of the Tablets, that contains the content of the tablets, is called the Tree of Life.  The synagogue ark, covered with its perocheth,  guards the Torah from us; and it protects  us from the wrath of  Gd for our neglect of the Torah. 

What does this lack of access accomplish? Reference materials at the library are hard to access to protect the  materials from damage and theft. In the case of the tablets, there is an intentional remoteness. Coming close to Gd is dangerous. A person cannot confront the essence. Some things must remain covered up forever. 

 

 

Mispatim: Slavery

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

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

Mishpatim begins with laws concerning the treatment of an עֶ֣בֶד, eved:  a word is derived from oved, work, commonly translated as slave. That makes sense to me; it fits with the flow of the story.  These Israelites were, until recently slaves. There is nothing closer to them than the treatment of slaves.

This slave that opens the parsha is not a slave as we, in America, have come to think of the slaves brought from Africa. Those African slaves, identifiable by their dark skin and physical features, were eternally degraded: They did not have a set release time of 6 years, like this biblical “slave”.  The American slaves would never be released until the wrongs of their institution prompted a war of liberation; until the American Egypt fell. .

Perhaps the translation is misleading. Maybe we should translate eved as "worker." But it is the same word that is applied to the Hebrews in Egypt. A we recite on Passover:

 עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם

 WE WERE SLAVES (avodim)

to Pharaoh in Egypt,

Avodim hayinu: we were Avodim. The slavery in Egypt was not a time limited indenture with rights.  It  was  eternal. As the Hagaddah continues: 

וְאִלּוּ לֹא הוֹצִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם, הֲרֵי אָנוּ וּבָנֵינוּ וּבְנֵי בָנֵינוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם.

And if the Holy One, blessed be He,

had not brought our fathers out of Egypt –

then we, and our children, and the children of our children,

would still be enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt.

I am not sure that the Hagaddah is dealing with my question. The persecution and degradation of the descendants of the African people has  lasted for long after the “emancipation.” This abasement is a continuation of their slavery

A problem with understanding the word "slavery" is the emphasis on its horrors. Recognizing the horrors of chattel slavery is quite appropriate . But that lens doesn’t allow for a clear focus on the lesser slaveries of low wage, unpleasant work. Focusing on the whip makes the persecution that is called racial discrimination harder to call out. It is a view that protects the enslavers in their continuing exploitation of the poor.

Giving the eved who opens the chapter a limited term and some rights allows us to re-establish a depth of field. Yes, a 6 year contract can be enslavement. A slave can have a marriage that is protected from the intrusion of the master and still be a slave. Under the threat of starvation and homelessness, cleaning toilets for minimum wage is a better alternative. 

Looking at the Hebrew slave is cheating. The Hebrew eved has an element of kinship with the (presumed) master. That slave garners some respect from national status. The non-Hebrew slave, referred to as the כְּנַעֲנִי, "Canaanite" did not have a clearly defined term of service. 

The name Canaani, is interesting. It contains the word ani, עֲנִי, meaning "poor, destitute."  There are several words that are translated as poor, but this one conveys a sense of degradation associated with poverty. It is hard for me to separate the sense of debasement from the lack of wealth in this word; I do not know which comes first.  Canaani can also mean merchant: people who often humbles themselves for the sake of a sale. 

The non-Hebrew eved also had rights. If the master caused a lasting injury: loss of an eye or a tooth, that slave went free. Killing a Canaanite slave was murder punishable by death of the master. 

וְכִֽי־יַכֶּה֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּ֜וֹ א֤וֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ֙ בַּשֵּׁ֔בֶט וּמֵ֖ת תַּ֣חַת יָד֑וֹ נָקֹ֖ם יִנָּקֵֽם׃ 

When someone strikes their slave, male or female, with a rod, who dies there and then, this must be avenged.

Slavery is an ambiguous word because it is not clearly comparable across times and cultures. Torah law sanctions long, even intergenerational, labor contracts. I find this offensive, but I must admit that I do not understand the circumstances that prevailed in the  pre-television era.  I recall the story of a Jewish man who volunteered to enter a concentration camp because he was starving. My father always had food and clothing when he was a slave in the Treblinka death camp. He told us that he was fortunate in that regard!

People working for other people, sometimes for many hours, sometimes to the detriment of relationships, is common. It shares aspects with slavery. With the evolving understanding of human will, and how it is manipulated by hidden forces, perhaps this "employment" situation should be called slavery.  The blurred perception that comes from focusing on the whipped and beaten cotton-picker blunts the will for liberation. 

The "Holy One, blessed be He," liberates the slaves by virtue of the transfer of loyalty. 

Yithro

This parsha has a definite centerpiece: the Ten Commandments: the most widely accepted (catholic?) text in the Bible. These are the statements/laws that were directly communicated by Gd to Moses and Israel and  set in stone. This parsha marks a transition in style. Up until now, the Torah told a 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. The behavior of Moshe demonstrates the problem of conflicting goals. Moshe  abandoned his wife and children to liberate the Israelites. I can conceive of a law that would make that behavior a crime. The circumstances dictated that the rule that a man support his spouse and family had to  be bent. The problem with rigid law is revealed by the story. 

Now, after the Israelite victory over Egypt, Yithro sees Moshe consumed by the impossible task of judging the nation all day. Yithro recognizes that this situation is not viable. It will kill Moshe and make the people disgusted. 

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. The problem is that laws set in stone are not perfectly sensitive to the situations in which they are applied. The law is not enough. A system  of judges is still needed. But the law assures that everyone works within the same set of rules. The law builds confidence in the hierarchical judicial system that is credited to Yithro

וְאַתָּ֣ה תֶחֱזֶ֣ה מִכׇּל־הָ֠עָ֠ם אַנְשֵׁי־חַ֜יִל יִרְאֵ֧י אֱ

אַנְשֵׁ֥י אֱמֶ֖ת שֹׂ֣נְאֵי בָ֑צַע וְשַׂמְתָּ֣ עֲלֵהֶ֗ם שָׂרֵ֤י אֲלָפִים֙ שָׂרֵ֣י מֵא֔וֹת שָׂרֵ֥י חֲמִשִּׁ֖ים וְשָׂרֵ֥י עֲשָׂרֹֽת׃ 

You shall also seek out, from among all the people, those who are capable and who fear Gd—trustworthy ones who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and  

וְשָׁפְט֣וּ אֶת־הָעָם֮ בְּכׇל־עֵת֒ וְהָיָ֞ה כׇּל־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַגָּדֹל֙ יָבִ֣יאוּ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְכׇל־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַקָּטֹ֖ן יִשְׁפְּטוּ־הֵ֑ם וְהָקֵל֙ מֵֽעָלֶ֔יךָ וְנָשְׂא֖וּ אִתָּֽךְ׃ 

let them judge the people at all times. Have them bring every major dispute to you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the burden with you.

When the Israelites were preparing to receive the Torah, there is a hint that  they wanted to hear it directly from Gd.  The people tell Moshe: We will do everything that Gd says.

כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְ

Rashi's comment on the next sentence: 

את דברי העם וגו'. תְּשׁוּבָה עַל דָּבָר זֶה; שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵהֶם שֶׁרְצוֹנָם לִשְׁמֹעַ מִמְּךָ, אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי שָׁלִיחַ לַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, רְצוֹנֵנוּ לִרְאוֹת אֶת מַלְכֵּנוּ (מכילתא): 

את דברי העם וגו׳ THE WORDS OF THE PEOPLE etc. — He said to Gd: “I have heard from them a reply to this statement — that their desire is to hear the commandments from You and not from me. One who hears from the mouth of a messenger is not the same (in the same position) as one who hears directly from the mouth of the King himself. It is our wish to see our King (cf. Mekhilta).

Ultimately the people are too terrified to continue this process and ask Moshe to bring them the Law in a human way. The law could have undermined the system of judges. The experience at Sinai demonstrates the necessity of human intervention.

This week, daf yomi (Menochoth 29b) tells a story that reflects on another  problem in a law set in stone: times change. 

 מַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלָה מֹשֶׁה לַמָּרוֹם, מְצָאוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְקוֹשֵׁר כְּתָרִים לָאוֹתִיּוֹת, אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי מְעַכֵּב עַל יָדֶךָ? אָמַר לוֹ: אָדָם אֶחָד יֵשׁ שֶׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת בְּסוֹף כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת וַעֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁעָתִיד לִדְרוֹשׁ עַל כׇּל קוֹץ וָקוֹץ תִּילִּין תִּילִּין שֶׁל הֲלָכוֹת. 

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.

When the Almighty was writing the law, Gd attached crowns to the letters, symbols that Moshe would not be able to interpret; but Rabbi Akiva, generations later, would use these thorns to interpret the law, presumably for his time. 

This fascinating Aggadah (Talmud story) goes on to reveal the mysterious and dangerous nature of the Divine plan. The Divine plan was probably the context in which the authors of the Talmud saw the law.

Does justice depend on the circumstances? Some situations call for creative solutions, but the boundaries demand respect.