Behar - Leviticus 25:1-26:2

There is a classic commentary on the word "Behar", or "At Mt. [Sinai]", which proceeds the Biblical laws of shmitta, or "a Sabbath rest for the land".

"Were not all the commandments given at Mt. Sinai?"

And that comment has a number of implications. The first is that "Mt. Sinai" only appears in the book of Leviticus 4 times. The first time is 7:38 at the end of the chapter when it talks about the offerings to bring before Yahweh. Then this verse (25:1) which mentions Shmitta, Then as a conclusion term in chapter 26 (26:46) to encompass all the laws there. Then at the very end of the book (27:34) to encompass all the laws of the book.

So in all other places in Leviticus, when "at Sinai" was used, it was an expression to say all that came before were given there.

But not here. In this case, it precedes the rules, and it is this difference that is worth noting because there is something else that is unique about the rules associated with this use of "at Mt. Sinai". The commentary continues:

But just as shmitta, it's general rules and its specifics were stated at Sinai, so too were all [of the others], their general rules and specifics were stated at Sinai, or so it was taught in [the Midrashic collection] Torat Kohanim. Abd it appears to me that this is its explanation: since we do not find shmitta of lands which was repeated at the Plains of Moab.

What does it mean by the "Plains of Moab"?

That is the Book of Deuteronomy.

That's right, the laws in this chapter only appear here and do not appear in the recap of the laws in the Book of Deuteronomy.

Furthermore, the law of releasing one from debt every seven years does not appear in the Book of Leviticus, but only in the Book of Deuteronomy.

It is as if the authors of this collection (Leviticus) were aware of a special releasing of obligation, but only knew of it relating to the land, while the Book of Deuteronomy was also aware of a special releasing obligation every seven years, but only knew of it relating to debts.

Given that Deuteronomy is a much later text, is it possible that shmitta was no longer being practiced by the time that book was compiled, and so the authors had not need to insert it, or was the idea of releasing one from his debt a foreign idea to the authors of Leviticus, and it was something added later?

There is also this term "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai", the law of Moses [that he received] from/at Sinai. This is also called the "Oral Law", and in the Talmud, if there is a debate, if one of the Rabbis plays the "halaca l'Moshe m'Sinai" card, he automatically wins. There is no debating that.

Now if you look at the rules of shmitta, they are pretty simple and straight-forward. However, Rabbinical Judaism has added so may layers of rules on top of those rules, it has become a monstrosity, akin to the "don't cook a kid in his mother's milk" rule.

So, to summarize:

The term "at Mt. Sinai" is used different here, in that it is not expressing a summary of rules that were given at Sinai, but are being presented as though this entire text was being dictated at Mt. Sinai.

The rules that follow were unknown to the author(s) of Deuteronomy, just as some of the rules in Deuteronomy were unknown to the author(s) of Leviticus.

The simple rule "don't plant anything, but you can live off of what has grown" has been mired in rules by the micromanaging Sages of ancient times, as well as currently.

Emor (Part 3) - Leviticus 21:1-24:23

You'd think that being a priest would be a great gig.

You get free food, you get a place to live, you work, maybe, 4 or 5 times in your life, and people come bring you portions of their crops and cash for their firstborn.

And if someone wants to be pure so that he or she can get close to God (or so she can have relations with her husband), then you are the person to go to.

Ah, the life of a priest!

In this week's parashah, you read about a small downside if you happened to be born female. As a priest's daughter, rather than being paid 100 shekels (the going price for a virgin bride), the father is paid TWO-HUNDRED shekels. Apparently, a priest's daughter was highly in demand, and so the price was doubled.

Ah, the life of a priest!

I never really understood that pricing structure, actually. After all, what does the non-priest husband get out of it? He can't eat the food, or the holy portions of the priest. He can't get a job in the Temple. I suppose it could be a status thing, and it might open a few doors if people want a priestly favor.

Now, under normal circumstances, if you are married or engaged to a woman who is not a kohain, and if she has relations with a different man at either point, then that woman and the lover are to be stoned to death.

Understand that when a woman is paid for, and erusin (engaged) is completed, he is the mans property, even though he has not taken possession of her yet. That is why she is to be stoned if she takes on a lover, since it is adultery, whether or not  nisuin (marriage) is completed or not. 

Here's the text:

"If the daughter of a man who is a kohain profanes through harlotry (zonot) she has defiled her father - she will be burned with fire."

Now from this verse it does not appear that it is speaking of a married or engaged woman, but any daughter of a kohain who acts in the way of a harlot, unattached or not.

The Sages (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 51b) declared that this cannot hold true for a girl who has not been purchased, but they did argue whether or not it would hold if she was simply engaged and not acquired.

Rashi parrots their statements.

This is an example of how the Sages reinterpreted the text in a lenient way, lest there be a mass burning of daughters of kohain who are discovered to be non-virgins.

This is also an example of what people will call "the Oral Torah", meaning, "Without the words of the Sages, you would not have understood what it really meant!"

We actually don't know if the text reflects the view of the Sages, or if the simple view was the intent of the narrator. The fact that we don't like the simple view does not make it more or less valid.

It is interesting that she would be burned, while others would be stoned to death. According to the sages, burning is less painful than stoning. How they came to that conclusion is unclear.

There is also an argument as to how this burning occurs. They believed that the verse indicates that the burning should take place from the inside-out. Therefore, burning metal (molten?) would be forced down the throat until the person would eventually die.

Or, that is how they interpreted it. Remember, none of these sages had ever witnessed these types of executions, and were discussing them as they believed they were done.

And so long as there is no Temple, all of the daughters of a kohain are safe from being burned to death!

Emor (Part 2) - Leviticus 21:1-24:23

Is "Conversion" Biblical?

In this week's parashah we read in 24:10-14 a peculiar story:

10. The son of an Israelite woman went out, and he was [also] the son of an Egyptian man, among the Children of Israel, and they quarreled in the camp, the son of an Israelite woman [against] the son of an Israelite man.

11. The son of the Israelite woman pronounced "the Name" and blasphemed [it]. So they brought [the blasphemer] to Moses. The name of [the blasphemer's] mother was Shelomit, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. 

12. They placed [the blasphemer] under guard [while they waited on Moses] to clarify for them [what was to be done] according to YHVH.

13. YHVH spoke to Moses, saying:

14. "Remove the blasphemer to the outside of the camp, and all those who heard shall lean their hands upon his head. The entire assembly shall stone him."

The story goes on, and they do pelt him with stone. The simple interpretation is that each person pelted with one stone. The Rabbinical interpretation is that they toss him from a cliff, and if he survived, they crush him with one giant stone!

The Rashi on the highlighted portion of verse 10, "among the Children of Israel", says "This teaches us that he converted."

The term he uses "התגיר" ("he converted"), is not Biblical Hebrew, and there is no such concept in Scripture. You won't find that verb anywhere in the Tanach.

Becoming a convert or proselyte was a later concept, one that the House of Hillel embraced, but the House of Shammai rejected (but would eventually be forced to accept). There are several fun legends about people wanting to convert, where one is rejected by Shammai, only to be accepted by Hillel.

Rashi's error on verse 10 is a common one that many commentators make, who assume that the way that Judaism operates in his time is the way that it has always been. The apologist overlays his or her view of Judaism upon the ancient text and then comments on that, not the actual text.

There are a couple of related verses in this week's parashah that go along with this.

In verse 22:11, we are told that the Priest, as the owner of a slave (while not used in that verse, an owner, lord, master, or husband all have the same term: ba'al) that the slave inherits a minor status upgrade, meaning, his position is based upon that of his master, and while not a Priest himself, he can eat the priestly food. If he is sold to a non-Priest, he does not retain that status.

That same verse tells us that this is also true for a woman. If she is the daughter of a Priest, her status is based on that of her father. But if she is acquired by her husband/owner who is not a priest, then her attributes changed and are based solely on those of her husband, and she cannot eat the priestly food.

However, as the next verse (22:13) tells us, if she is no longer owned, and has no master that defines her attributes, than her attributes default back to those of her father, and she can eat the priestly food.

It should be noted that a woman, as property, owns no property of her own except vicariously through her master/husband. She owns nothing, not even her word, for her vow can be cancelled by her male guardian. (The trick that Moses did with the daughters of Zelophehad doesn't actually contradict this, but requires a post of its own, and I'll do that when we get to that story).

As we saw in the Book of Genesis, you would have someone acquiring a woman, but there was no mention of any conversion. The sons of Jacob took women from Canaan, and their offspring, by virtue of the status of the men, became part of that genetic family. Even Judah, who had sex one time with his widowed daughter-in law, who had twins by her, his non-wife, the twins were considered to be part of the same Israeli race, even though the woman was a Canaanite.

And the Canaanite women that Judah's brothers married, or the Egyptian woman whom Joseph married, they were were considered part of the family. It was their inheritance as being the property of the men, and the offspring, sired by these men, were part of the Israeli race.

Coming soon will be  the holiday of Shavuot, where the Book of Ruth is read.

The common fable told is that she was a convert, even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the book (I'll write about that further when that holiday comes). She had a Jewish husband, and so she was Jewish, since that was her inheritance. Because she was childless, her dead husband's brother was required to perform chalitzah (a severing of the obligation to marry her which utilizes a show and a bit of spittle. This is only done between a Jewish man and a JEWISH woman!) The act of chalitzah dismisses any claim that she was a convert.

The idea that she was a convert is just an overlay that has been applied to the legend.

In the Book of Ezra, he not only is unaware of the idea of converts, but he declares that Jewish men must cast away their gentile wives, and the offspring that came from them, defining being a Jew as a racial position - an extreme position that would be undone a few generations later.

What about the geyr?

The geyr (גר or sometimes spelled ger), is sometimes translated as "convert" or "proselyte" in Scripture in some verses, but not all, and by some translations, but not all. The translator who does this is attempting to impose a specific view - that being an Israelite was a group that could be joined.

There is something called a geyr toshav, or an outsider who dwells with the Jews. and sometimes this is abbreviated to simply geyr, an outsider. And in the verse, near the end of the parashah (24:16), when Moses tells the people that anyone who blasphemes his Elohim or the name of YHVH will be stoned to death, he adds that the citizen and the outsider (geyr) will both participate, and in 24:22, that the laws kept by the members of Israel are also to be kept by the geyr.

You see these distinctions so many times throughout scripture, that a geyr can dwell with Israel, but they are not Israel. And as we read about Solomon, he in order to proceed on his mad scheme to build a Temple, immense palaces, stables, and other structures, he forced all of the dwelling-geyr to become permanent slaves (once a non-Jew is made a slave, and since the Torah prohibits freeing gentile slaves, they are slaves forever).

Today, the term geyr refers to a convert. The meaning of the term as it is used today is not how Scripture uses it, and that's an important distinction.

After all, Judaism is no longer a race, but a religion, and without the converts, who knows if it would have survived at all.

Emor - Leviticus 21:1-24:23

If you have a decent copy of the Tanach, one that contains the Hebrew text, you will occasionally see an occasional indicator within or beside the text. At Leviticus 21:5, we see the following:

This is a scan of part of a page of my collection of the Torah with the midrashic and traditional commentary omitted. I have circled in red the special indicator that my text uses, and I also drew squares around the words on either side. No published text will go this far!

What the קרי indicates is: "This word is either misspelled or is a grammatical error. So instead of reading the word in the red-square to the left, read this word to the right in the blue-square instead."

Yes, there are known errors in the Masoretic Text (MT).

Now, you might expect that this indicator would happen more than it does. As I pointed out in another post, there are a large number of spelling errors in the text, and even areas were complete words or verses are missing. But these don't warrant a note in most cases. For example, 1Chronicles 1:6 has the name "Difat" and Genesis 10:3 has "Rifat" (the scribe obviously didn't see any difference between a ד and a ר and swapped them), but there is no note on either verse. After all, how do you tell which is the right one?

So apparently, this minor use of the indicator is only for those words in Scripture that, when heard, seems to violate some grammatical rule.

Now, one would think that, since there is a tradition that these words are incorrect, then calling Scripture a perfect Word of God seems to be a problem. After all, you have Rabbi Akiva who claimed that not a single word, nor even a single letter, is out of place or superfluous. Although, those who cite that ignore that Rabbi Ishmael disagreed, saying that Rabbi Akiva was reading more into the text than there was, and some superfluous or defective uses were stylistic, and not God giving a secret message.

And even though one may see this, if one is ideologically directed, then it doesn't matter that the person sees a קרי in the text. To that person, it's the perfect word of God, and it must have some meaning to it, even though one cannot grasp it, and so a word provided by the Rabbis, which is equally holy, is used in its place, but never to replace it.

In The Beginning

Once upon a time, long ago, the Jews had a collection of oral folklore (since they were, for the most part, an illiterate people) that they would tell one another. Depending upon their location and societal class, they would embellish these stories to reflect their positions. The Jews of the north would demonize those of the south, and visa-versa. The lower class would mock the upper class, and all would make fun of the Gods of the other nations.

Eventually, these would be put down into writing, by elitists who wrote them for other elitists who had the money and the education to appreciate them.

Each of these scrolls contained only one story, and some were longer than others. The Book of Job was on one scroll, and the Book of Deuteronomy was by itself on another scroll. And there were those who copied these, improved upon them, and acquired them. As we saw in Qumran, the more interesting the book, the more likely an elite would have acquired it. The boring ones, such as Nechemiah, was rarely collected at all.

And nobody had a "Tanach", since that concept didn't even exist. And some of the more interesting books, like the Book of Enoch, which has been found in Qumran, was excluded for ideological purposes.

And it didn't matter that a book had differences when compared to another version of the same book. People weren't collecting history, as you and I see it today, but were collecting Biblical Folklore that connected to their nationalistic vision.

Eventually, the leadership came to a conclusion: these stories need to be consistent, meaning, if you have a scroll of Genesis, then every scroll of Genesis has to have the exact same letters and words.

So how did they choose which scroll of Genesis was the "true" text?

Most likely, they decided by committee. There seems to be a long standing tradition that the "majority wins" in Rabbinical Judaism, and there is no reason why this is any different than the rest of history.

Of course, like any software product that gets released as the real "production" version, there are going to be some bugs. 

But there is a rule that one is forbidden to add or delete or change a word in Scripture.

So what do you do?

You create an external list of updates! And for centuries, these were taught to students who were to learn the Torah, where "this word says this, but you will say that". And after the invention of the printing press, and collections of the Tanach that now included commentaries and translations on the same page were produced, these updates were included on the same page.

So, What is the TRUE version?

I will write more of this elsewhere, but here's a few important notes to consider:

1. The MT (see above)
2. The LXX that later followed is not a word-for-word translation of the MT, and is more of a "similar look and feel" type of text. While there are multiple legends how it got created, the truth is we aren't 100% certain. There may be a bit of truth in each legend. In any case, it is not better than the MT, just different.
3. The Targum (Aramaic translation) of the text is basically a Rabbinical rewrite. The big problem with Scripture is that it does not have a monotheistic root, and they needed to invent one, and so the Aramaic translation have more than 10,000 changed to the MT, including the insertion of midrashic stories. 
4. The Vulgate (Latin translation) - this is a Christian rewrite of the text, that seems to use a bit of the MT here, a bit of the LX there, and then just makes changes there it was ideologically suitable, such as putting "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, where it never existed before, or giving "unicorns" to the Bible!
5. The KJV (English translation) - this is a Christian rewrite of the Christian rewrite of the text.

The answer is that no TRUE version exists. There may never have been a TRUE version. And to use the word "TRUE" ignores the actual problem.

You see, Biblical folklore began with some stories told around the fire in the evenings. Writing these down does not make the eventual versions of these stories more true than the older versions, just different. Remember, they were telling folktales, not history.

The MT is a collection that was considered by the people who told these stories to be the definitive version, and made it static.

Eventually, the elite educated Hebrews who were interested in these stories got smaller and smaller, and the regular Jews were speaking Greek and/or Aramaic, and so the LXX was, most likely, created to satisfy the need to provide a version that the less educated would understand (just as the "vulgate" was created by the Christians for those who did not read classical Greek).

Is the LXX less true? Well it is certainly different, but it is based on the MT which is also not the TRUE version, so that answer is no.

As for the Targum, it is like comparing the "Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure" to "Doctor Who". Both are fun and interesting, but one is not really representing the other.

So Why the Argument?

When a Christian claims that "Jesus fulfilled a prophecy in [book_chapter_verse]" and you point out, "it doesn't say that in the MT", they can respond with, "it says it in the LXX". And if you look and say "it doesn't say that in the LXX", they can respond with, "It's in Targum Onkelos". And if you see that it's a midrash, a metaphorical rewrite of the MT, and say, "You cannot fulfill a midrash. A midrash is not a prophecy", they can respond with, "Apparently you can!"

This is not just with Christians, but Jews do it as well when it comes to forcing Biblical Folklore to fit their own ideology.

You can go up and down that chain of texts (there are a few others, such as the Samaritan version), and the apologists will always be able to claim that their view is the true view.

And in the end, what they ignore is that there is no true view, because there is no TRUE version from which all of this comes from.

There was no Moses, no giving of a single version of the book to a national of avid readers who kept it perfect for 1,500 years.

What we have are ideologues who use the text to prove that their view is the TRUE view.

For which they have no evidence.

The Bible: It can be whatever you want it to be...apparently!

Kedoshim - Leviticus 19:1-20:27

What is Kodesh?

This weeks portion is called Kodeshim because of the sentence near the beginning, "You will be kodeshim because I, your Yahweh-Elohim, am kodesh.

But what does that even mean?

The word kodesh (קודש or the defective קדש) and the plural form, kodeshim (קודשים or the defective קדשים) is normally translated as "holy", and the noun-form kedusha is normally translated as "holiness".

Except that the word "holy" has a lot of baggage that goes along with it, as in this definition from the Merriam-Webster web site:

But this is not what the Torah means by kodesh in that it is not about divinity. The definition from Webster's is based on common usage. which is based on how people view such phrases as "it is holy to God".

Which is why I am using kodesh in this post, because it lacks that same baggage, for the most part.

First of all, kodesh is missing from the entire Book of Genesis, which should strike one as being amazing, given that it is called a "holy book". The first time that kodesh appears in the Torah is in the Book of Exodus when Yahweh tells Moses that the ground that he is stepping on is kodesh.

But what does a ground that is kodesh mean?

If you look at the pattern of how kodesh is used throughout the Tanach, you will get a feel for what it is actually expressing, which may or may not have anything to do with God directly.

Rashi, the 11th century commentator on Leviticus 19:2 on "you will be kedoshim" wrote, 

"You will be separated/removed from arayot (serious sins of sexual immorality) and sin, for wherever you find a restriction of sexual immorality, you find kadosh [near it]."

While this is not 100% true, concerning sexuality, it is true that kodesh is an expression of being removed or separated and is often found next to prohibitions that demand separations.

Kodesh means to make something separate, putting it aside due to its specialness.

For example, when Yahweh is telling Moses that the ground is kodesh, He is saying that this place is special, unique, and is not to be treated like any other place, because it is His place. (At the time, Yahweh was dwelling on "Elohim's Mountain".)

When Yahweh says that He is kodesh, He is saying that He is unique and apart from the Other Gods, and that His people, by virtue of obeying Him and only following Him, they too will be a separate people. Because a worshiping people are defined by their God, and so long as they remain separate from others and bind to Him (which is done by following the rules), they are kodesh.

The effect of this, of course, is tribalism, where a people have this odd view that those who have the right God are kodesh, and the people who serve the wrong God are viewed as not being kodesh because they are worshiping nothing.

But that doesn't seem to be 100% true, at least in Scripture.

Here we see two examples of kadoshim being used. The one in Leviticus (our current verse), is speaking of the followers of Yahweh as being kadoshim because He is kadosh.

And we also see in 2-Kings, the exact same term being used for the worshipers of the Goddess Asherah. They were separate, dwelling in an area of the Temple of Yahweh and making kedusha items for their Goddess, and emulating Her.

The only problem, is that, from the monotheistic view, they were associated and emulating the wrong God, and so the same word is translated as "sodomites" (or other variations) and not "holy". In other words, it is not treated as "holy", but as an expression of sexual immorality. As an aside, this connection with sexual immorality to worshiping the wrong God is peppered throughout Scripture.

So it appears that the translators could not bring themselves to use "holy ones"!

(Note: The idea that kodesh implies a separateness is not unique. It is the view contained in the Sifra, an ancient midrashic anthology that focuses on the book of Leviticus).

According to the Sforno (15th-16th century Italian commentator), kodesh means to act in a way that God expects of you. His expression, "kodesh means to be like God" doesn't mean to kill someone who offends you just because He did, but to be obedient to His word. And it in this obedience to that "true God", one becomes separate from those who worship other (or no) Gods, or even from those who claim to worship the same God, but to whom He has given different demands in His differen "holy" books - books of being separate.

In short, to embrace being kodesh, one also needs to embrace tribalism.

So, to summarize, kadosh, which is translated as "holy", simply means to be put aside or to be made special. As in a religious Jew saying kiddush on a Friday night, making the day special and unique, putting it apart from the normal week, and doing this because Yahwah said that is what he wants.

So when you see "holy", try replacing it with one of the other meanings and see if it makes better sense to you.

Acharei Mot (Part 2) - Leviticus 16:1-18:30

When a Goat isn't a Goat!

There is a Hebrew word use for "goat" which is an aiz (עז). But for a hairy male goat, often the Hebrew word sa'ir (שעיר) or even a combination, sa'ir-aiz. The plural is sa'irim (שעירים)

In Leviticus 17:7, after the chapter about the Yom Kippur service, where one goat is sent to Azazel, and the other to Yahweh as a guilt offering, we get the rules about sacrificing on your own, where you live.

Apparently, God didn't like that and wanted the priesthood to be involved. After all, the priesthood cult had a monopoly on sacrifices and it wouldn't do fo just anyone to give an offering to the Lord, would it?

But God has a different reason for this, which is not only odd, but cannot be verified anywhere prior to this verse in the Torah.

"[The Israelites] shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the sa'irim after whom they are prostituting (zonim) [themselves]. This is an eternal law (chok) for them and their generations."

First of all, it says that they are doing such things, in the present tense. And yet, this is the first time that we have heard of such things. Second, many of the prophets use "prostitute" as an expression of worshiping the wrong God.  Yahweeh is your lord (ba'al), which can also be rendered as "husband", and to stray to another lord is often spoken of as if it were adultery or prostitution. (See Hosea, chapter 1, for example).

Now, it is clear, in the context, that that are not slaughtering sacrifices to hairy male goats. And we find in other texts that this term can also be rendered as a supernatural Being. In some translations, "satyr" is used, such as the KJV version of Isaiah 13:21 which also has sa'ir.

So like the word Elohim, which can have a half-dozen different meanings, sa'ir can also have multiple meanings, depending on the use.

In Leviticus 17:7, the KJV chose not to use the word "satyr" as it did in Isaiah, but "devils". And many other translations use "demons" or "goat demons", since a "demon" is a stronger term than "satyr", as being a force of evil.

Although one person's God is another person's demon!

Compare this to Deuteronomy 32:17, where it says "and they made sacrifices to shaydim, not to [the] Eloah of the Elohim..." (another bizarre verse for monotheists to mull over!).

This is another term that has been translated as "demon", but seems to have more in common with "shaddai", or a protecting/fertility Deity. Granted, in the plural, like Elohim, it refers to competing fertility deities, newcomers that Yahweh was annoyed with.

And it is from this verse, which is often translated as "demons", that people connect to Leviticus 17:7 to turn sa'ir into a demon, which, in actuality, while not goats, they are certainly not evil. They are just supernatural entities that were in competition with Yahweh.

I suggest that this verse indicates a much later period when the Jews were certainly serving other Gods, which was upsetting the Yahwists, and is telling us, in the present tense, that not only is it happening, but Yahweh has decided that the priesthood monopoly for sacrifices is now and forever in effect.

Lucky them!

Acharei Mot - Leviticus 16:1-18:30

A Quick Recap

Six chapters ago, the sons of Aaron brought a fire offering to the appointed place for YHVH, and He cast forth a special fire to consume them. Moses consoled his brother and then warned the other relatives not to move, lest YHVH do the same to them.

All of that took place in just seven verses, and the text then went on for a long lime concerning the do's and don'ts of priesthood, including how to diagnose a couple of versions of a supernatural disease, taz'arat.

And now, verse 16:1 comes to tell us that it takes place right after 10:7, hence the name "After the death of [Nadav and Avihu]".

In other words, it is as though an unrelated chunk of text dropped right into the middle of a story where the sons are killed, and now YHVH is telling Moses what to tell Aaron in order to avoid the same fate, emphasizing that you cannot come to YHVH when you feel like it, but only at the appointed times (the ones that He has defined).

And that appears to be why they died. Not because they brought the wrong kind of offering, but because they had not been called yet to bring it. The text here tells us that they were killed for drawing near, meaning, at the wrong time. The Targum changes that to "when they brought a strange fire" to indicate that they brought the wrong offering, and, at the very least, to avoid the view that they were killed as offerings themselves, as at least one midrash suggests.

Who the hell is Azazel?

I use "hell" purposefully.

In His instructions to Aaron (via Moses), YHVH talks about the Yom Kippur ritual with the sending of the two goats.

Lots will be chosen for these two identical goats. One will be "for YHVH" (the Targum changes it to "For the name of YHVH"), and on the other "for Azazel" (the Targumist leaves this unchanged).

There is no universal agreement as to whom or what Azazel is. The three typical interpretations are that it is a type of goat, the name of a mountain, or a supernatural entity. We find that the "for YHVH" goat it sacrificed as a guilt offering (16:15), but sending the other goat to Azazel, well, Scripture is silent and if you are a true monotheist, the very notion is a bit perplexing.

According to Tractate Yoma (67b), the name may contain the word "strength", but that requires a bit of tweaking to get to that position, swapping the ayain for an aleph to make עזאז into אזאז. Of course the first two letters עז are "goat", and hence the view that perhaps it is speaking of a goat of great strength, which might bring to mind something like a satyr, especially since verse 17:7 uses another word for goat as a euphemism for a goat-like God (most translations render this God as a "demon").

As I already noted, some see "Azazel" as the name of a place, a destination toward where the goat will be driven. Of course, being paired with one that has "for/towards YHVH" anthropomorphizes  YHVH a bit more than people are comfortable with.

Others consider that this is a contraction of two (or maybe one) angelic names to bribe them to not bother the Hebrews while they are trying to atone. Although that ends up equally having it be a bribe to a demon for the same purpose. In the Talmud (Yoma, as noted above), the Sages considered that the angels Uza and Uzazel were created to entice humans to be sexually active! Of course, there are no names of angels anywhere in the Torah, and these are later creations that the Jews borrowed from other cultures.

Rashi, commenting on Yoma 67b, using this view of Uza, saw this sacrifice as one to atone for sexual sins.

The Ramban, equating the prohibition to sacrificing to the goat demon in 17:7, to the action permitted in 16:8, wrote that Azazel is an exception to the rule. God not only "gave the Jews permission to bribe Samael" [sic] but commanded them to do so in chapter 16.

Ibn Ezra is uncomfortable with all of these ideas and just proclaims that we have no idea what "for/to Azazel" means, and all of these ideas are simply speculation.

Finally

In his Guid of the Perplexed (3:46), the Rambam wrote that this form of sacrifice was to remind the people of their ancestors' transgression, when they worshiped the golden calf. Goats were used for guilt offerings because the masses generally thought of goats as demons, and "most of the transgressions and sins of the Israelites were sacrifices to demons" in goat form. 

This was contrary to the non-rational view of the Ramban who wrote that the "for/to Azazel" goat used in the Yom Kippur service was sent as a bribe to the demon to divert him from his usual damaging behavior and to secure his aid in obtaining a favorable decision from God for the forthcoming year.

So like the Ibn Ezra, all we can say is, "I don't know, and those who claim that they do are just making it all up."

But it's still fun to ponder the possibilities!

Metzora - Leviticus 14:1-15:33

Typically, this portion is read in combination with the previous parashah, and it ends up being one very long tale about tza'arat, and one who has it is a metzora.

And after reading verse after verse about this supernatural disease, how it is a curse from God, and how only a priest can cure the person with a certain sacrifices (a couple of birds, a bit of red wool, some water, and two types of wood, for example), we can sometimes miss that there is a second kind of supernatural curse of tza'arat mentioned in verses 14:34-14:57, the curse against the homes of the Canaanites (and not the people), and that those houses also need atonement.

Here's the gist of it:

The Hebrews are told that they will go into the land of Canaan and take it over. The term "land of Israel" is used after the book of Joshua, so "land of Canaan" is speaking of the same bit of real estate.

After they will take it over, and the land is divided up, and the people take over certain spots, whatever dwellings were left there will belong to the new residents. And it is the responsibility of the new residents to check the walls of the house. If the walls are marked with dark reds and greens in a pattern known as she'ka'arurot (שקערורת), a term that nobody is in agreement upon, (recessed, streaks, hairlines, etc.), they need to empty out that house and call their local priest.

Why empty out the house?

Because if the priest calls the house "infected", then anything in it will also be infected. But if you get the stuff out beforehand, then they won't be included in the "infected" category.

That's because the disease doesn't exist until the priest says that it does.

Now, the diseased house is to be quarantined for a week. If anybody goes in there during that time, then he or she will be temporarily infected, but that will disappear at sunset. And the clothes will apparently retain some of the infection, so they need to be washed.

After a week, the priest returns and looks for a sign known as a mameret (ממארת). This is one of those words in the Torah that is rarely used, and cannot be determined by context (like the word, Shilo). It is used a couple of times in the last parashah (13:51-52), this one (14:44), and in Ezekiel (28:24).

Now, if the priest doesn't see it, the owner can plaster over the markings. The priest will come back again, and if the marks cannot be seen, especially, that horrible mark, then the house is considered "healed of the affliction" (נרפא הנגע) - verse 14:48, but it still needs to atone.

So the same ritual with the two birds, water, two kinds of wood, a bit of red wool is done to the house. And after that, the text says that the priest will provide atonement for that house and it will be purified. (14:53).

A few points

First of all, there are those rational people who will try to say that this was just some sort of nasty mold. Except that the verse specifically says that God cast this curse upon those houses, and only a priest can determine if it is cured or not. If not, and if the priest cannot atone for it, then it needs to be "killed" (taken apart) and put outside of the city. The Biblical description doesn't fit the mold hypothesis.

Verse 14:41 is in the hiphiel form (causative) but is usually translated as though it is in the niphal form (reflexive). The other problem is that all of the other verbs has a plural suffix ("they"), while it is missing from this one, and most translations don't show that either. According to Israel Drazin, "Does this signify an error in our Torah text? Certainly not." Since we have many examples where a letter is dropped due to scribal errors, that may or may not be true.

According to Midrashim, God marked the walls of the houses to show the Israelites where the original residents hid their valuables, because when they would remove the stone or the plaster covering, the booty would be exposed. So it was a curse upon the house, but a blessing for the new owners.

There are those who claim that this never happened. Chazkunee wrote that since it says "land of Canaan", it never happened in Israel. He ignores the fact that the land of Canaan and Israel were one and the same. But this is a similar apologetic as the commandment to kill the disobedient son: "it never happened". So why is it in the text? According to the Tosefta of Negaim 6:1, God had these verses inserted so that those who would study them to understand their ethical teachings would merit a reward in the World to Come.

And like the curse upon the metzora person, a curse that seems to have disappeared, so to has this curse as well (no archaeological digs have encountered any infected walls - but to be fair, they wouldn't recognize what a mameret is!)

Tazria (Part 3) - Leviticus 12:1-13:59

The "Who" and "Why" of Leviticus

There are a few things that you should keep in mind.

First, a long time ago, there was no Torah scroll with all 5 books written upon it. There were eventually 5 scrolls. As part of the changes that became known as "Rabbinical Judaism", these books were eventually combined. But initially, each one was separate.

Next, most Jews during the second Temple period were illiterate. That would eventually change, but the idea of Jews in 50CE learning Torah and having their own copy is applying a modern legend upon what we know of the time.

A scroll of a piece of Scripture was rare, because the people who had such scrolls were wealthy and educated men who could afford them. Not only that, but nobody seems to have had a complete set of the Old Testament stories. These were expensive items, and the books that people had made were the ones that interested them. Based on the collection at Qumran, the story of Esther and of Nehemiah were so uninteresting that not a single copy was found. It doesn't mean that they did not exist, but only that the community that stored their collections there fore safekeeping had no interest.

This brings us to the book of Vayikra/Leviticus.

In this week's parashah, we read how the priesthood were in control of everyone's lives, even down to what happens in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Not only that, but the only way that you could approach the Holy place of God was to be tahor (pure), and only the priesthood could declare that you were tahor, and they could also declare that you were the opposite.

The priesthood were the intermediaries between the worshiper and God.  Repeatedly we read, including this week, that the priest atones for the person. This atonement is nothing like the Christian view, but the verb means "covers over", as in accepting and processing the offering.

The priesthood got the best clothes, food, and everything that they could want from the people, and worked only a handful of days over their entire lifetime. There is a legend that, because they worked so rarely, they had contests, such as a race, to see who would get to be part of the next sacrifice. Apparently they stopped when some contestants would bring knives and stab their opponents in the race.

Now think for a moment - what type of person would want to collect this book, where the priests have power over practically everyone and are to be treated as special?

Most likely, other priests, or people of power and influence.

In Deuteronomy 17:11, we have a verse telling us that, concerning civil cases brought before a court, that the people who did so had to obey the edict of the court, not veering left or right. The Rabbis then reinterpreted it to mean that those who go before ANY authority would have to obey them, even if they say that left is right and right is left.

In other words, those in authority were to be obeyed in all decisions.

At one point, this was the priesthood. But after there was no more Temple, a priesthood became irrelevant, and that power went to the Rabbis.

Which brings me to this week's talk about menstrual blood.

When a religious woman is menstruating, there are certain rules that the Rabbis established, extra restrictions that go beyond Scripture. One of these has to do with waiting 5 days, and the additional requirement of having 7 days of being blood free. If there is any spotting, the woman dabs the area with a gauze, puts it in a plastic bag, and either she or her husband will bring it to a Rabbi to determine if she is impure or pure.

The Rabbi has the power to declare that she can have relations with her husband, or not.

Think of how much power that was given, a power that once belonged to the priesthood.

So while the Book of Leviticus is a book of the Priests, it is also a book of power over those who have none.

Keep that in mind when you read the story of the person with tzaraat, and the tamai women who both needed permission from an elite in order to be included with the pure people again.

Tazria (Part 2) - Leviticus 12:1-13:59

There is this supernatural disease in the Torah called tzaraat.

And like everything supernatural in the Torah, be it giants, angels, or the FIRMament (rakia), there is no evidence that it exists now, or ever did.

Now, that lack of existing has bothered some of the more rational philosophers, such as the Rambam, who ended up declaring that it used to exist, but since its cure required that there be a Temple, God eliminated it to save humanity.

By "Temple", he meant the existence of a functioning priesthood cult that would atone for you on your behalf, accept your offerings, and sprinkle ashes of a red heifer. And since there is also no red heifer, there can't be tzaraat.

Of course, those same actions are required to be performed upon a man who had a "nocturnal emission", and those still occur. They occur a lot. You don't even have to be part of a specific religious upbringing to have that happen.

Does this mean that if the Jews build a Temple, that tzaraat will return?

Is it like Christianity where it not only created Heaven, but you also get Hell?

Or does this mean that tzaraat, like every other supernatural element in the Torah, is simply a literary element and not a historical one?

The Jewish sages claimed that there were two causes for this disease. The first was speaking lashon hara ("bad tongue/speech") against another. Originally, the term meant "slanderous speech", but later (with the help of the Chofetz Chaim) evolved to include even improper compliments.They derived this view from the story of Miriam, the first person in the OT to be afflicted as such by YHVH for dissing her little brother, Moses.

The other cause, which is just as fascinating, is miserliness. Since this disease would also cover the bricks of one's home, they would have to be removed and put outside of the city, and it would expose where the afflicted person was stockpiling wealth that he refused to share, most likely with the priesthood. This is inferred by 2Kings, chapter 5, where Elisha curses his servant with tzaraat because of his greed, who took money from a gentile who was cured of this disease, a disease that no gentile sources seem to be aware of.

And, amazingly enough, during the Second Temple period, there was slanderous speech and miserliness, and people were killing one another over interpretation of laws, and there is no recording of God ever afflicting anyone with tzaraat.

Which brings us to the red heifer.

According to the Talmud (tractate avodah zara), if you put a glass of red wine in front of a cow while she is mating, you can cause a red heifer to be born.

Apparently that hasn't worked.

There are those rationalists who will claim that the red heifer was only a bit red, or reddish, and that the Rabbis made it into something impossible to find, and even the best of breeders have failed to meet the requirements.

But let's be real about this.

We're talking about making a magical powder that is the only cure for a magical disease that needs an animal sacrifice to a supernatural Deity by a priest who will atone for you so that you can no longer be in exile from the place where your God sits.

So who's to say that the heifer isn't as improbable as the rest of it?

If it doesn't exist now, and there's no evidence that it ever did, it probably didn't.

Tazria -Leviticus 12:1-13:59

In this parashah, which is normally combined (but not always) with the next one, we read about menstrual blood, semen, and a supernatural disease that turns the skin white (often badly translated as "leprosy").

The core of this has to do with purity (t'hor), but since the term "pure" has some baggage, it's best that I cover exactly what "pure" and "impure" actually means.

A Quick Overview

In most translations, "tamei" is transformed into "unclean" or "impure". 

But what is the difference between being "clean" and "pure" (t'hor) in the Biblical sense?

Let's say that you take a scalding hot bath, using the strongest lye soap that you can find and scrub your epidermal layer with a loofah sponge, and when you are done, you leap into a pool of the cleanest water that there could be, exiting and grabbing a brand new towel, vigorously drying yourself. You might even have a private pedicurist and manicurist and dental hygienist as well.

If you began this tamei, you are still, after all of this: tamei.

Being t'hor has nothing to do with being clean. In fact, the only way to become tahor (the opposite of tamei) is to have a Kohen (priest) sprinkle ashes from a red heifer on you. He has to be tahor, and as soon as he does it, you are tahor, and now he is tamei. 

That is the Biblical form of going from tamei to tahor. The text is also clear on what things can make you tamei. Dead bodies, wet dreams, and so forth. One of the more interesting forms is if you get the supernatural disease "tza'arah", which is often incorrectly translated as "leprosy". This disease turns your hairs white, then your skin, then your clothes, and then your house - this is certainly not leprosy!

Once you get this supernatural disease, you need to repent (the Talmud infers that there is money involved. It also infers that speaking badly of another would also cause God to curse someone with this, since Miriam is the first person in the Bible to get it, and only after she got Yahweh upset by speaking badly about her brother, Moses.

If you do not repent, then the disease remains and you are tamei, and will have to leave the gates of the city. 

An odd thing about this is that once you are 100% afflicted, you are considered tahor, and you can return, but you have to announce to everyone as you walk among them that you are afflicted. If you repent and the disease begins to recede, then you are tamei again, until it is completely gone, and then you are tahor again.

In that model, tamei, can mean impure, since it indicates not 100%. But it does not work for all models.

If a man has a "nocturnal emission", then he is tamai. Even if he washes himself thoroughly, he remains that way.

If a woman gives birth, then she remains tamei, and that duration will change, depending upon the gender of the child. Once that time limit is over, she immerses herself in a ritual bath, provides a goat as a chatas offering, and after the ashes, she is now tahor. (The goat offering is the result of having sinned while giving birth for probably thinking that you would not want to do this ever again!).

Now some extremely religious Jews have been known to ride an airplane wrapped in a plastic bag because the flight route will go over a cemetery, and the tumah (the noun) of a corpse will rise vertically to the heavens. For some reason, they believe that this specially made plastic bag (available at a religious-extremist store near you) will stop something that the metal hull of the plane cannot (not it's plastic insulation). 

There is also Rabbinical tamei. Legally, a Torah scroll is tamei, which is one of the reasons you do not touch it. This was enacted because the priests would store Torah scrolls in closets along with their t'rumah (priestly portion), and rats would come and eat the Torah as well as the grain. Since the grain needs to be tahor (and rat eaten grain is still tahor), the priests would keep the Torah scroll in a separate and safer place. 

And a man who had a nocturnal emission should not handle a tamai Torah scroll - one is Biblically tamai, and the other is Rabinically tamai.

Rabbinically, non-Jews can never become tamei, including their corpses, so a dead gentile will not make a live Jew tamei. There are historical reasons for this relating to the fall of Beitar after the Bar Kochba rebellion.

And, of course, a woman who is menstruating cannot be touched, lest you be rendered tamei for even passing her a napkin. According to the Ramban, the blood of a menstruating woman can kill an animal that consumes it, and if she stares at a mirror, even without touching it, droplets of blood can appear.

If this all sounds like a lot of supernaturalism, well, welcome to the world of "pure" and "impure".

One thing about the red heifer.

If there is no red heifer, how does one become tahor again? You cannot. What about those who go to the mikvah (ritual bath)? That is just as a reminder of what we once did. It is only half of a two-part process, and even though we cannot do both, we do one to remind ourselves of our active participation in attempting to become tahor.

In closing, tamei is a spiritual (supernatural) definition, not a physical one.  

So, as you can see, tamei and tahor should never be read as "unclean" and "clean", and if you come across these words in Scripture, mentally change them to tamei and tahor!

A side point:

The washing of the hands before eating bread was enacted Rabbinically. Tradition has it that King Solomon enacted it. One need not do so if not eating bread, and if there is no water, sand and pebbles and other things on the ground are just as good.

So those who claim that the Bible was a great introduction to sanitary habits needs to read it a bit more.

Shemini (Part 2) - Lev. 9:1-11:47

There are a few things that you can take away from this week's parashah. Some of these were only touched upon in the previous blog.

• Don't try to get to close to God.

The word "close" is used after Nadav and Avihu are made dead by a fire from YHVH that he sent forth to consume them. It will also be used in a later parashah (acharei mot) which seems to be positioned right after that story, which reaffirms that getting too close could be deadly.

• Fear God

As soon as Nadav and Avihu are burned to death by God's fire, (God was in His tent at the time), Moses cries out a warning to the family members of the deceased, telling them not to move, nor mourn, lest God cast His fire upon them as well. This is because:

• God is inconsistent on how He rewards and punishes.

As we read in the Book of Exodus, practically every command that God gave to Moses, Moses would improvise and do it differently. "Raise your staff over the rock to bring water" and Moses smacks the rock with his staff to bring water. But later "Speak to the rock to bring water" and Moses again smacks the rock, and he gets punished (according to many interpretations) for not following orders exactly. This is also a view of why Nadav and Avihu were burned to death, because they improvised and brought a fire that God didn't ask for. "I didn't say 'Simon says!'".

• Don't show up before God inebriated.

Right after God burns the sons of Aaron alive, Moses warns Aaron not to show up before God after drinking intoxicating wine, lest God kill him. There is a Midrash that says that this was why Nadav and Avihu were burned to death, even though they got no warning, no instructions, and their father and uncle, who stood near them, didn't have a problem with it. In fact, most of this chapter is all about how God will kill you., as a priest, if you mess up in any way. Apparently, the priestly writers wanted to show how dangerous of a job that they had. This corresponds with the legend that the Talmud relates, that when the Sadducean High Priest would go into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, God would kill him, and this repeated year after year.  While this is likely a polemic, it is also the context that was taught to the people about the priesthood - it was a very dangerous job that served a very unpredictable God.

• Human sacrifice is not always a forbidden thing.

As we read in Judges about Jephthah offering his daughter as an olah (burned offering), and God said nothing, here we have two sons of Aaron burned by the fire of God who were never called "sinners", or having erred. A Midrash tells us that Moses told his brother that he had a prophecy that the two righteous one of Israel would be sacrificed for the sanctification of God's Place, and he had thought that it would be himself and his brother, but after Nadav and Avihu died, he discovered that they were the two who merited such a fate. Again, this is a Midrash to explain why the good had been burned alive by God.

• Don't eat the wrong foods.

Right after all of the killing and burning and the threatening and the warnings of death, we get to the discussions about what animals one can eat, and what cannot be eaten by anyone in Israel. God is apparently deadly serious about this, although the Rabbis understood the inference as one would be whipped and pay a fine rather than be burned to death! But the odd thing is this: we don't know what many of those animals really are! While translations will sometimes use a known name, many of the names have no major consensus. And remember, God is deadly serious about your eating habits! To get around this problem, the Rabbi instituted a rule: if you don't have a family tradition to eat a certain animal (usually this has to do with birds), then you don't eat it. Sometimes for this reason, some Chassidim don't eat turkeys. This is one of the reasons that some people complain, "The Bible says that bats are birds!" Not only does it not say that, there are two animals with different names  that are considered to be flying rodents, and only one of them we call a bat! In reality, we really don't know. Rabbi Slifkin has written several books on this topic, trying to use biology and exegesis to determine what animals are being mentioned (I recommend "The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax").

Imagine what could happen to you if you even unintentionally messed up?

[Shudder]