Ki Tisa (Part 2) - Exodus 30:11-34:35

Gold!

It should be noted that ancient Egypt was the place to go to if you wanted gold. While it was not used as a currency until about 2,500 years ago, it was the metal of royalty. It was associated with the God Ra, and so, it was the metal of kings and queens.

Of course, the favorites of the courts would also receive golden gifts from their royal leaders, and the leaders of other countries came to expect gold as presents from the Egyptian court. In one famed correspondence, King Tushratta complained to the Egyptian queen that he his gift, a statue of gold, was not pure gold as others had gotten, but a wooden statue covered in gold sheeting. The horrors!

Besides wearing gold and using it to represent a Divinity, the Egyptians also did one other thing with gold.

They ingested it!

Because Gold never tarnished, it was seen as pure, and it's purity was seen as extending to the physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of others.It has been reported that Queen Nefertiti would sleep with a mask of gold over her face for the benefits that it would provide. And others would grind gold down with mortar and pestle, and mix it with honey and oil (or some other suspending solution), and drink it as a way to purify the body and the soul.

Properties of Gold

Before I get into the parashah, I need to explain something about gold that many of the commentators seem to have been unaware of, which is that gold is a noble element. This means that is doesn't mix with other elements. For example, since gold does not combine with oxygen, it will not oxidize. Not only will it not rust, but when burned, it will not turn into ash. It will liquefy, and if heated beyond the melting point it will become a gas, but it will not become an ash.

Because it is a noble element, you can suspend it in a material, such as honey or oil for a short time, but it will not mix with hydrogen and oxygen (water) to become a combined solution. When mixed, think of putting dirt in a jar of water and shaking it up. It will become a dark mixture, but after a short time, the dirt will sink to the bottom of the water, leaving the water clear while the sediment remains below.

And gold is a very heavy element.

The Story of Gold-Eating

Let's look at chapter 32, shall we?

1. And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves unto Aaron and said to him, "Get up! Make for us an Elohim who will go before us, because this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we don't know what has become of him."

It appears that since YHVH was to lead them with Moses, the people were fed up with waiting and wanted an Elohim that was ready to lead them and move along.

So what does Aaron do? Does he tell them to wait? Does he tell them that it's a bad idea? Nope.

2. And Aaron said to them, "Disassemble (break apart) the rings of gold, those that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring [the gold] to me."

3. And all the people broke apart the rings of gold, which were in their ears and brought them to Aaron.

Apologists will interpret this verse to mean that since verse 2 has Aaron speaking to the men, and since verse 3 says "their ears", that it means that only the men participated, and reducing "all the people" to mean "all the males in verses 1-2.

4. And [Aaron] received [the gold] from their hand, and he formed it with forming-tool (חרט) and he made it, a calf of molten-metal. And they said, "This is your Elohim, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."

Now, it doesn't say how long Aaron took to make this calf of molten metal. Nor does it say how large it was. Given that there were 600,000 able-bodied men who could fight in battle, that result in a lot of earrings! But the text doesn't really say.

Now, let's skip ahead to Moses returning:

20. And [Moses] took the calf that they had made, and burned it with fire, and he ground it into a powder, and he tossed-scattered it upon the water, and he made the Children of Israel drink it.

It is interesting that the Hebrew verb here used is seref, as in to burn or scorch, and not namas, the word for "melt" as was used earlier (Exodus 16:21) when the sun melted the manna.

You cannot burn gold and make ash (some apologists claim that you can). But then, the verse doesn't say that, it says that he burned it and then pulverized it. The burning was apparently to destroy the idol, and the pulverizing was to make the people consume it.

Besides being a noble element, gold is also hydrophobic. This means that gold powder would float upon the surface tension of the water. It won't mix with the water, and would be difficult to make a drinkable mixture.

But let's put that aside for a moment and ask the question that should be on everyone's mind:

Why did Moses force the Israelites to consume gold powder?!

Was this a punishment? The verse says that "the Children of Israel" drank it. This means everyone (although, one could infer that this excluded Moses, since he is often referred to as speaking to "the Children of Israel").

Was it a method of purification of the soul, akin to the Egyptian rites?

The truth is, we don't know. Sure, a lot of classical commentators have their opinions about this, and even the so-called "rationalists" have some supernatural ideas about what the gold did to them, but the thing is, Scripture is silent on the matter.

So let me add my two-shekels concerning why they were forced to eat gold.

It has to do with all of the toilet humor that you will find in the Tanach.

I'll end this post by giving you a few examples to think about:

Ki Tisa - Exodus 30:11-34:35

Let's Talk About Aaron

In the first dozen chapters of Exodus, Aaron is introduced as a spokesperson for Moses, only repeating what he was told by Moses and/or God. He is never quoted as saying anything on his own, and is, in effect, an extension of Moses, with no individuality of his own.

Aaron is so identified with his brother that when the people murmur against Moses, they also murmur against Aaron as well. 

And Aaron never complains, but goes along with things.

Moses was a theocratic king, but without the title. He chose his brother and nephews to lead the people in service to Yahweh, neither Aaron nor his sons respond. They simply go along and do what they are told.

And later, in the Book of Leviticus, when Yahweh sends forth a fire to burn to death the two eldest sons of Aaron, either as punishment, or as a sacrifice, Aaron again, will say nothing.

Aaron simply does what he is told, and doesn't rock the boat.

This personality trait, if you want to call it that, is so pronounced, that the Jewish sages wrote of Aaron that he was "A man of peace" and "One who considered shalom bayit (peace in the home) to be the most important thing", even more important than personal dignity. They tell of a story where a husband was yelling at his wife, and that Aaron let the man spit in his face in order to reduce the friction in the home.

This is, of course, reading into the text, to make Aaron's lack of character as being a positive trait.

In this week's parasha, Moses (whom Aaron refers to as "my lord") is away, talking with Yahweh on His Mountain, and the people come to Aaron and want him to make for them a golden calf to worship.

While, in a later post, I may address (1) who were those people, (2) why a calf, and (3) whose fault was this, I want to bring up a few interesting points.

The first is: Why Aaron? Why not have one of the artisans who were making up all of the religious items with gold to also make the calf?

I an suggesting that they chose Aaron, because he was the one person who never argued. He would go along with it.

And what was Aaron's reaction when they told him to do this?

"Sure. Bring me the gold, and I'll do it". Not only that, but Aaron becomes the most talkative he had ever been, not only making a calf, but an altar as well, and telling them that a feast for Yahweh was the following day, and people were all excited and prepared for a big party.

When Moses comes down, he sees the celebration, gets upset, breaks the two tablets, and did an odd ritual (32:20).

Moses then turns to his brother and goes, "WTF?!" Aaron tries to appease Moses by telling him that the people were set on doing evil, the people told him to do it, so he asked them for gold, tossed it in the fire, and out came a calf.

In other words, he couldn't say "no".

There is a Midrash that expands upon this story, since Aaron was not a craftsman; magic was used by him to cause the molten gold to turn into a golden calf that leaped out of the fire.

And after all of this, Moses tells everyone who is to be with him, to stand with him.

And, of course, Aaron stands with his brother.

After all, that's what Aaron does. He does what he thinks people want him to do.

And Aaron is never punished.

Those who participated in the idolatry were punished with death.

Except the brother of Moses and his sons.

It is something worth thinking about.

Perhaps this is the message of the priestly text: the priesthood is to be held to a different standard, and can only be judged by God.

It's hard to say.

Tetzaveh (Part 3) - Exodus 27:20-30:10

The Magical Worm

In verses 28:9-21 we are told in great detail about the special breastplate of the High Priest, and the many gems that were to be set within it.

As to where the Israelites got these gems and all that gold, it is possible that they took them (or "borrowed") when they left Egypt. But one thing that they didn't have with them were engraving tools, 3500 years ago, that could engrave letters on some of the very hard gemstones.

So how did they do it?

There was this magical worm called a shamir, which, although not mentioned in Scripture, had the power to cut stones and carve gems, either with a glance, or from a secretion. It was barely a centimeter long, and was carried in a lead box with wool and barely-corn, the only substances impervious to its abilities (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 48b).

Because the Torah also forbade the use of iron tools when cutting the stones (during the Bronze Age), legend has it that King Solomon used the shamir to hew the stones for the building of the Temple.

It has been argued if these worms still exist. The Tosafost in Gittin 68a notes that it existed during his time, although later authorities disputed that, saying that they all died out after the destruction of the Second Temple, since its use was no longer required.

So does this mean that there won't be a Third Temple? Believe it or not, there are those who are concerned over this lack of a magical worm.

Now, even though the Rambam and Rashi held that the shamir was a worm, later writers determined that maybe it was a sort of mineral, or maybe a snail, or maybe...

Believers in the shamir who are modernists as well, believe that it used laser beams or sonic waves to cut through stone and gems, rather than secreting a substance that could slice a stone a meter thick within moments. Some suggest that, because it was carried in a lead box, that it was radioactive. This is an example of a legend that has grown and grown about something so tiny that was invented by the writers to explain how primitives in the desert could craft gemstones with names upon them.

It should be noted that when the Sages invented some outlandish scenarios, it is often to address a problem to which they have no answer, and it is worth looking at what they are addressing: how did people 3,500 years ago engrave harden gems with names?

So when you read the details of the breastplate of the High Priest, and it tells you that they engraved the gemstones with certain names upon them, remember...

...the shamir!

Tetzaveh (Part 2) - Exodus 27:20-30:10

Anthropomorphisms

The Book of Exodus is replete with descriptions of YHVH and verb-forms associated with Him that make Him quite human. And as is the custom with such things that contradict ideology ("God has no form"), apologetics need to address such things. In the case of the Torah, we have Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic re-imagining of Scripture, who made more than 10,000 changes to the text to have it align with Rabbinical Judaism. These interpretations (not translations) were considered so important, that it was taught that one should not study Torah without them.(BT Berachot 8a). "Shnayim mikra v'echad targum".

The Targumist would remove any problems that the Rabbis had with the text, and so, I thought that it would be fun to point a few of these out.

After going through a long an (literally) bloody description of the process to ready the priesthood for their service, the last 11 verses have promises of YHVH dwelling with, hanging out with, being counted among, and leading the Children of Israel. YHVH is their King and the priesthood is His leadership body.

Keep in mind that the person speaking in these verses is YHVH, even though He speaks in the third person at one point.

29:42 - As a continuous burnt offering for your generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (ohel mo'ed), before YHVH where I will meet-with you, speak to you there.

This is where the aron, the golden cupboard, the ark, will be kept, and from there where YHVH dwells or sits, He will speak from between the golden cherubs from the inside of the tent, to Moses, who is the subject of the "I will meet/speak". The Hebrew word, אועד, indicates a meeting where two or more people are gathered together for a common purpose. It contains the same root as that for "witnessing". The Targumist changes this to:

29:42 - A regular burnt offering throughout your generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before YHVH where I will have My memra meet with you, to speak to you there.

The use of "memra" is the typical way to try to make it all better, by saying that God made a supernatural entity who will represent Him in person, in His place.

It actually doesn't make it better.

29:43 - And I will meet-with the Children of Israel there, and it will be sanctified through My Glory.

The "it" in the verse speaks of the tent and all of it's contents, because YHVH dwells within, and so all of it is made holy by the presence of His glory. Now, to use the memra here, we need some additional tweaking:

29:43 - My memra will meet with the Children of Israel there, and I will be sanctified by My glory.

Of course, this doesn't make as much sense as the original text. And if you read verse 30:6, we see the same use of memra and "meet-with" being used there. You can look for yourself.

I want to end with just one more verse, a sort of double-memra, if you will::

29:45 - And I will reside among the Children of Israel, and I will be their Elohim.

The Hebrew word (שכן) means to dwell, reside, be located or housed. Some translations will use "rest" to lessen the human-like quality, albeit unsuccessfully.

29:45 - And my Shechinah  will reside among the Children of Israel, and I will be their Eloah.

Whenever possible, the Targumist will try to eliminate the term "Elohim" and replace it with "YHVH". For example, the first chapter of Genesis will use YHVH in his version, as opposed to Elohim in the original version. Since that can't be done here, the Targumist chose to use the singular form rather than the form that could be read in the plural.

And, of course, the "Shechinah" is a variant of the memra, God's "dwelling presence", since, as all modern people with a sophisticated view of God, He has no form, right?

Conclusion

The dictum to study the Targum with the text, or to prohibit learning the text on its own merit, is a classical view from Rabbinical Judaism which was promoting monotheism toward a formless God, while using a text that didn't support that narrative so well.

As we saw in last week's parashah, YHVH want a golden seat, table, plates, lamp, and other amenities that were exceptionally human. And this week, He confirms that he was going to live among them, but only Moses could come close until the priesthood cult was initiated with blood.

That's not the narrative that traditionalists are comfortable with.

And hence the need for apologetics and Targums.

Tetzaveh - Exodus 27:20-30:10

The Chicken or the Egg?

There's an old riddle that asks the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" With the advent of the Theory of Evolution, we now have a good answer: it was the egg.

And that brings me to this week's parashah. This week, there are 100 verses, of which at least 85 describe the clothing of the priesthood and the process of sanctifying them. The other 15 have to do with the Temple objects or the relationship between the priesthood and God.

This is definitely a priestly text.

But here's a question to ponder:

Was the Temple and the priesthood and how it all functioned a result of the Torah, or was the Torah's description of all of this a result of the existing priesthood?

Hold that thought for a moment, and let's look over the other books of the prophets as part of the overall issue.

Who Wrote it, and When?

We don't really know who wrote most of the prophetic texts. The Jewish sages debated this, trying to assign them to prophets who survived the exile, giving Zechariah the lion's share of the writings.

The problem with having Zachariah or any of the prophets being part of the Men of the Great Assembly has to do with an impossibly long lifespan:

The books of the prophets were written centuries after the events had long since passed. One possible exception to this is Daniel, which has a number of failed prophecies, and so it is relegated to the collection called "Writings".

One problem is when a prophet, who supposedly wrote the text, dies in the book before it is done! Samuel and Isaiah are examples of such texts.

Some of the stories in those books were written from a more modern viewpoint, inserting communities who would not have been around at the time, or demeaning certain groups who would be giving problems to the Jews at a later period.

The Torah Position

The Torah also speaks of things that are obviously much later in the future, be it of King Og, having a large iron bed, which, while it is an important status symbol, it would not have existed in the Bronze Age. Nor would Abraham and Rebecca be riding camels. And some of the nations mentioned also make it a problem, as well as using phrases like this one:

And, of course, Moses is never mentioned in the Book of Genesis, and he dies before the end of the Book of Deuteronomy.

If you summarize all of these points, you get the same problems as you do with all of the other prophets, in that the stories may have been part of a long oral tradition, but they were written much later and with views of their times being imposed upon the text itself.

The Priestly Cult

In this week's parashah you have God, before He gives the Decalogue, establishing a special family, one that will lead the Jews forever. Nowhere in the Book of Exodus does God use the Tribe of Judah for anything but part of a census. This priestly writing is only concerned with elevating the priests, as we read in Exodus 19:6 - "You shall be a kingdom of priests..."

Some of the details of the priesthood smack of Babylonian influence, such as providing fresh bread daily to their Gods, and they could only eat it while pure. The term "Lechem" is akin to the Assyrian term akal, and their special breads for the Gods were "akal panu", while the Torah version uses "lechem panim". And both were offering these breads in multiples of a dozen.

So this begs the question:

Did the priestly cult and all of its trappings and their power and prosperity, as well as the opulence required for their workplace, did that come from the Torah?

Or, more likely, was the priestly portions of the texts written with a justification of the existence of the priestly cult and operations? 

Remember, few priests were required for the day-to-day operations of the Temple, and this meant that a typical priest would only work in the temple once every few years, if that.

I am suggesting that this week's portion was authored by the priestly authors, and was done so specifically as part of a power-play.

Ask yourselves the question: Does a God really need so much golden furniture and eating utensils and fancy gems for His priesthood? And isn't demanding that the High Priest wear a crown that says "Holy to YHVH" (Ex. 28:36) a bit over the top for a God?

It should make one think.

Terumah (Part 4) - Exodus 25:1-27:19

Even a God Needs to Eat

In last week's parasha, we read the following in Exodus 24:10-11:

"[Moses, Aroon, Nadav, Avihu, and the 70 elders] saw the God (Elohim) of Israel and under His feet was that which was like a sapphire form [footstool], and it was like the appearance of the heavens (shamayimj) in purity. 

And to the nobles of the children of Israel, He did not send forth His hand, and they viewed the God (Elohim) and they ate and drank."

Who is "they"?

Was it referring to a few of the humans, all of the humans, or was God having a party and "they" includes Him?

"Face" Bread?

Which brings me to lechem panim - "face bread", or  "show-breads" as it is traditionally translated.

"Face" (panim - which only has a plural form) can mean "surface" as well as the "presence" or "place of being" and since this Being is YHVH, it is a holy presence. And so, you will have for verse 25:30 which has God demanding to always have His bread available at all times:

So the "face bread", since "face" refers to YHVH, is his holy bread, to be before Him always, on a special golden table that will be not too far from the ark, upon which He will sit/dwell.

So I will refer to this as His holy bread.

Just Imagine...

Now imagine for a moment that your Rabbi or other religious leader told you that God spoke to him and God wants to travel in and speak from a cabinet of gold, inside and out, with a golden cover and golden cherubs on either side...

...and God also wants a table of gold, which will be close to where His cabinet will be, and a lamp of gold, and staves to carry these incredibly heavy things will also be covered in gold.

Yes, God wants your gold, and lots of it!

And not only that, but God demands fresh bread every day, continuously, and as we will read later, He wants meat as well. Of course, He will be needing plates of gold, and golden utensils, and gold cylinders (which I assume are for drinking out of).

Wouldn't you think that it was strange that God wanted to have more golden furniture than the most narcissistic leader could ever dream of? After all, if God wanted gold, why not make Him a wooden table and "ZAP!" He turns it into gold? Or better yet, "ZAP!" and he caused a golden cabinet to manifest from nothing.

Why would a God want so much golden furniture and eating utensils?

It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where a being claims to be God, but Spock and Kirk are suspicious because He needs a space ship to leave a planet.

And as we will read in later chapters, God also wants meat, and lots of it, every day along with incense and a cozy place where He can be among His people.

Conclusion

The God of the Exodus authors is not an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Being who lives outside of tie and space. The primitive authors saw God as just another being who had needs and would demand to have only the best given to Him, and that would mean the best cuts of meat and the freshest of bread. (Read the Rambam's lengthy rules about these breads, and how they had to be very, very, special.)

For those people who have a sophisticated view of a God, the God of Exodus is an embarrassment, and the only way around these problems is to treat everything that shows an anthropomorphic and narcissistic God as treated as a metaphor.

I happen to love literature, and I love reading the texts.

And for those people who claim that I "hate the Bible", my response is, "No, I happen to love the stories as they are. YOU don't. So it is you who either hates the Bible, or you are embarrassed by it."

Peace!

Terumah (Part 3) - Exodus 25:1-27:19

Cherubs (Part 2)

In a previous post, I explained how Cherubs relate to this week's parashah. Since I try to keep all posts to under 1,000 words, I decided to make a second part to expand upon and provide additional details.

The Name

We don't really know where the name comes from, although there are several guesses, some of which are better than others.

Naftali Herz Tur-Sinai wrote that is is a Babylonian word meaning "to plow", and justified that with Ezekiel 1:10 speaks of the the four creatures, one of which had the face of an ox, and verse 10:14, where the ox is missing, but the cherub is mentioned instead. And oxen plow and will transport, and the cherubs transport YHVH.

And so we have the Assyro-Babylonian shedu that is presented as the source for the cherubs.

But some are not convinced of that one, either.

Others hold that keruv (or kerub) is an Akkadian word, derived from karabu, which means "to bless". It is interesting that "bless" (BRCh) and keruv (ChRB) have the same Hebrew letters, but one is a mirror image of the other. The idea behind that selection is that the cherub was an intermediary to whom one accept the prayers of the people and deliver them to its Master.

And still, not everyone is convinced. Just because a cherub has wings does not give it an automatic connection to other winged supernatural beings. 

For example, many of the Gods in Egypt are depicted with wings, and there was a pair of winged guardians engraved upon the container that held King Tut.

But according to Israel Drazin, the Jews copied the cherubs from the Egyptians and makes a strong case for that. Winged protectors have also been found on pottery excavated from Megiddo, shown to be on either side of King Hiram of Byblos, and looks very Egyptian.

But others remain skeptical. 

Josephus wrote that nobody had a clue, by the 1st century, what these creatures looked like, and cherubs are listed as one of the things that were in the first Temple, but were excluded from the second (Yoma 21a). Either because there was no first temple, or everyone who had an idea had long since died.

Form

There is little description of the form of the cherub in the Torah, other than it having wings. Ezekiel add other details, the faces, the feet, the hands, and the ability to not be harmed by fire.

Rashi commentary to the Talmud (Sukkah 5b) says that they had the faces of children and were a type of angel. Saadiah Gaon agreed (See Genesis 3:24), even though other sources (Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 26:8) indicates that they were not in the category of angels. The child's face is derived from the first letter meaning "like", and the remaining being close to the Aramaic word "rabia", which means "a child".

According to Ezekiel, they either had one foot (written in the singular), two, or four feet, and either one, two, or four faces, and either two or four wings.

The Ark

King Solomon was apparently so enamored by the cherubs on the ark, that he had two very large ones made and placed in the Holy of Holies along with them. Unlike the ones on the ark, his were not solid gold, but made of wood, and then gilded.

Exodus 25:20 tells us that the cherubs faced on an other, and yet, 1 Chronicles 3:13 tells us that they faced away, toward the inside of the Temple. To resolve this problem, the sages claimed (Bava Batra 98a) that the cherubs would move one way when Israel was good, but would turn away when Israel was bad. Although, given that nobody could see these cherubs, and nobody seems to know what they looked like, it's an apologetic and nothing more.

The Ark itself seems to be designed to be a form of a seat (Ex. 25:19), where you have a flat area with two cherubs on either side, and God would continually be referred to as He "who sits/dwells between the cherubs", and "between the cherubs, above the cover."

See below for a list of verses of YHVH sitting on the ark between the cherubs.

As the ark was carried, God was with them, going into battle, riding between the cherubs.

Finally, as an aside for those who like to look at such things, chapter 25 of Exodus and 26 are repeats. For example, both chapters tell the builder to make poles to carry the ark.

Permissability

Now THAT is a conundrum. At the core of Jewish monotheism is the idea that you do NOT pray to intermediaries, and that you create a relationship ONLY with God and no other.

So having these graven images on the ark cover, and one the 10 curtains that would be around it as a logo for God is, well, problematic. And while there are a lot of apologetics to try to get around this, they are all very weak.

The other issue is the visual of YHVH sitting on His throne, with cherubs on either side, and travelling among the Jewish people also is a problem that most simply ignore or "tweak" to make it more acceptable.

In fact, other than Ezekiel's vision and that incident in the garden of Eden, all cherubs are but the images on the cover and the curtains.

Passages

Exodus 25:22 - "... I [YHVH] will talk with you from above the cover, from between the two cherubs which are upon the ark..."

Numbers 7:89 - "... [Moses] heard the voice of One speaking to him from the covering that was upon the ark of Testimony, from between the two cherubs; and He spoke to him."

1 Samuel 4:4 - "...the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts (YHVH Zta'vaot), Who dwells between the cherubs...".

2 Samuel 6:2 - "...the ark of Elohim, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who dwells between the cherubs."

2 Kings 19:15 - "And Hezekiah prayed before YHVH, and said, O YHVH, Elohim of Israel, who dwells between the cherubs..."

Isaiah 37:16 - "O Lord of hosts, Elohim of Israel, You who sit between the cherubs..."

Psalm 99:1 - "YHVH reigns; let the peoples tremble; He sits between the cherubs...".

Terumah (Part 2) - Exodus 25:1-27:19

Cherubs

What are Cherubs?

In Hebrew, the word is "keruvim" (כרובים) in the plural form, or "keruv" (כרוב) in the singular form.

This is not to be confused with the post-Biblical word "keruvit", which means "cauliflower", even though there are those who try to force some sort of connection.

The word appears 94 times in the Tanach. 

In the Torah, it appears 19 times, but in only 6 places:

• Genesis 3:24, when God wants to keep man away from the tree of life, he stations the plural form with a single spinning flaming sword.
• Exodus 25 (verses 18-22) explains how God wants a solid gold pair of these are sculpted for the top of the Ark, some basics on the design, and YHVH explains that he will be speaking from above the cover, but between these two keruvim that are facing one another.
• Exodus 26 (verses 1 and 31), tells us that God wants the images of these keruvim woven into the pattern for the dividing curtains.
• Exodus 36 (verses 8 and 35) has the execution of the demands of of Exodus 26.
• Exodus 37 (verses 7-9) has the execution of the demands of Exodus 25.
• Numbers 7:80, has God speaking from above the cover, and between the keruvim.

The Exodus verse, if you draw them out, are pretty balanced: 25-to-37 (6 occurrences vs 7 occurrences), and 26-to-36 (2 occurrences each). And it is something to look at when comparing styles within Scripture - this bracketing on verses occurs quite often and may indicate a common author.

So what do we know about the keruvim as described in the Torah?

Except for Genesis, it is always an object, and they are never referred to as angels. In fact, there's a Midrash (Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 26:8) that, when describing the keruvim of Ezekiel, has an angel speak to a keruv: 

"... the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to the angel and the angel told it to the keruv. The angel said to the keruv: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, has decreed that I should do it, but I have no right to enter your division; do it then for me as an act of charity and give me two live coals of yours, so that I be not scorched [by the coal]."

Since the Torah has God telling the people to weave and hammer images of the keruvim for the 10 dividing curtains and for the ark cover, one would expect that they would know what a keruv looked like. And yet, the Torah is silent, except to say that they have wings and faces. It appears that they have 4 wings each - 2 to stretch forward, and 2 to stretch upward.

These keruvim are not to be confused with the ones mentioned 21 times in the Book of Kings, which were the ones that Solomon made out of olive wood and covered with gold. In fact, of the 94 times, the only places were they are other than statues representing keruvim, are in the Garden of Eden story, the vision of Ezekiel (mostly chapter 10), and Psalm 18:11.

Some important issues

First of all, it is forbidden to make a graven image.

And yet, here we are, with the command to make those images as a logo for YHVH - it goes on His curtains and His golden cover. When you see these things, you are supposed to be thinking, "YHVH is here". Sort of like seeing a logo of a bitten piece of fruit, and you think of Apple Computers.

Next, we have 10 occurrences of the expression of YHVH "who dwells between the keruvim", meaning, He resides between those two images upon the lid. Add to that the Ezekiel image, or that of Psalm 18:11, where YHVH is imagined as descending to earth while riding His keruvim. His travelling upon the lid of the ark is an expression of His travelling from on high with his real keruvim.

It's an odd image.

And what about "faces"?

This expression is in the plural form, and while one can interpret it as one face ("panim", while plural, can refer to one face or several), Ezekiel says that they have hands beneath their wings and may have up to four faces each, and either two or four legs.

They sound pretty monstrous, and their job is to protect that which is YHVH's and to assist in transporting Him. They are also invulnerable to fire.

Summary

These creatures that are supposed to appear on things to cover or transport YHVH have no universal description. And despite the commandment not to make images of the supernatural, they are exempted. Their use should cause one to wonder, and their existence in the Torah is strange for those who confess to the belief that no image should be used to represent God.

Unless they represent something else.

And whatever that is, it's not cauliflower.

Terumah - Exodus 25:1-27:19

Preface

The second verse of this week's parashah can be found in an aggadic tale, a legend in the Talmud. And because of that, I wanted to post that story and explain it in a way that is not, in my experience, taught to yeshiva students, because of some of the Christian views that are part of that story. 

This passage from the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin, near the bottom of page 39a) should not be taken as a bit of literal history. After all, the Talmud rarely presents an accurate and unbiased history. Often times, the rabbinical descriptions of history contradict what we know, historically.

The Talmud is a biased collection of stories and legalistic statement directed at a specific audience. It is also propaganda written to buttress up the rabbinical view of what Judaism should be. Because of that, when you have a debate between a Rabbi and a Jewish convert to Christianity, the Rabbi will always appear composed and wise, and the opposition, well, not so much!

However, the Talmud does often give some fascinating gems when it comes to views of how history was perceived to have been like. In the instance that I will be discussing, the perception was what Christians believed during the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.

There are a few points that you need to be clear about.

First, the Talmud often gets time periods wrong. In Tractate Sanhedrin (chapter 11) the authors have Rabbi Meir speaking to Queen Cleopatra more than a century after she is dead,. It even gets people mixed up, such as Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus are sometimes switched during a scene or used during the wrong period.

Non-Jewish beliefs have almost always been treated as idolatrous and bizarre by the rabbinical authors. They saw pagans tossing pebbles before a statue of the God Mercury, and they would infer that they held these pebbles to be holy to that God, and so a Jew was forbidden from using those pebbles. So while their belief about the pebbles was flawed, their report about this action does confirm some interesting things concerning the view of the God of gambling and luck by the Romans.

Now about Rabbi Abahu...

Rabbi Abahu, died at the beginning of the 4th century (approximately 320 CE). His period of life, therefore, was from the late 3rd century and through the early 4th century. And therefore, the Christians that he is debating with, time and time again, live during that same period.

Perhaps. Or, as in the case of Elisha Ben Abuya, any such debates with minim may have been assigned to him, if such debates took place at all.

We are going to assume that the text that I will be covering represents that period, and that Rabbi Abahu and no other Rabbi from an earlier or later period was the actual person debating. As I have already said, the Talmud is not reliable, so we will be looking at the text out of interest in seeing how the Rabbis perceived Christianity, and not what was the true history of Christianity.

Since Rabbi Abahu died around 320 CE, it is worth remembering that Emperor Constantine took sole power of the Empire shortly after that, and Christianity would become the religion of the Empire, with those who were part of the government being Christians as well. Despite this, the Talmud writes of Rabbi Abahu as being given special privileges by the Christian government, and mentions Christians government officials checking in on him from time to time.

It's a possibility.

So whether or not it happened as the Talmud states isn't as important as the fact that it is a tale that was used as anti-Christian propaganda for a Jewish audience. And what the story doesn't say is nearly as important as what it does say.

In other words, as a bit of anti-Christian propaganda, you would expect that the weirdest things about Christianity would be expressed in order to make it look bad. One could, I suppose, say that the weirdest parts were omitted to not offend a Christian government, except that there are many worse things within the text that were kept in.

One final point about the term "min"...

The word means "a species" and is also used to refer to those Jews who departed from normalized Judaism. It sometimes refers to the Sadducees, and other such sects, as well as converts to Christianity. When such a person is debating Rabbi Abahu,, a "min" is always a Christian, and possibly a Jew who converted to that religion. You can tell that based on the topics being discussed.

Now let's look at the text.

The Text

I am prefixing the portions of each statement to make them easier to reference. They do not exist in the actual text.

a) A certain min said to Rabbi Abahu,

b) "Your God is a priest, since it is written, 'and you shall take for me [My] terumah (portion)' [Exodus 25:2]

c) Now, when [God] had buried Moses [Deut. 34:6], where did He bath [to cleanse Himself from being with a corpse]? [See Lev. 22:4-6]

d) And should you reply, 'In water!', is it not written, 'Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?' [Isaiah 40:12].

e) [Rabbi Abahu] replied, "He bathed in fire". For it is written, 'Behold, YHVH will come in fire.' [Isaiah 66:15]

f) [The min asked] "Is fire effective?"

g) [Rabbi Abahu] replied "It is preferred. Immersion should be in fire. For it is written [Num. 31:23], 'Everything that can abide by fire, you shall put through fire...and that which cannot abide the fire, you shall immerse in water."

The Debate by the Numbers

So lets go by the numbers.

a)  A Jewish Rabbi is interacting with an ex-Jew, one who has gone along the path of Christianity during the late 3rd century or early 4th century CE. This is a story being related by late 4th century sages. The min seems to be responding to an idea, stating a rebuttal concerning the question: "Which is superior: a formless God, or one with a form?" 

b) There is a current Christian view that Psalm 110 refers to Jesus and, specifically, 110:4 where they see it as claiming that the Messiah will be a priest of Melchizedek. From this debate, it appears that this is a very old view, and not a recent one. It is such an innocuous point that it could likely be an actual view held by early Christians. (As to who was Melchizedek and why it's an odd argument to make, I'll leave that aside for now).

As many of us are aware of, Christian apologists will often take a single word and force it to have a specific meaning and will take a single verse and reinterpret it without considering the other verses around it. Apparently, this has been going on for at least 1,600 years! The author's use of the term "terumah", was a brilliant choice in presenting this argument.

Now one key phrase here is min saying "YOUR God" as distinct from simply "God". In other words, YHVH is the God of the Jews, and Jesus is the God of the Christians.

While this could be an actual view by a sect of early Christians, it can also be a propaganda piece, stating that "their God is not our God". Either view is equally valid. It should be noted that some early Christian sects did have this view (Marcionism of the 2nd century, for example, and much later, Catharism of the 12th century), and would be later declared heretical by the Church.

But let's continue.

c) The Christian is claiming that YHVH is impure, tainted, and not the level as his God. In other words, the writer is claiming about Christianity: "They hold that their God is better than our God".

d) The Christian is claiming that an infinite YHVH has limits by virtue of His being infinite. It is as if to say that "What you see as a superior attribute, is really an inferior one". This is a point that the Rabbi will apply to the Christian God at the end of the story.

e) The Rabbi responds to an Isaiah text with a different Isaiah text that speaks not only of a perfect sacrifice, a view that Christians have concerning Jesus, although their view is one that will be beaten and crucified rather than burned. It is a likely view of the early Christians that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. And given Christianity's love of Isaiah, it's a nice touch.

f) Can a God be cleansed in fire? Remember, the Christian story has Jesus descend for 3 days into fire, after which he is so pure he warns none to touch him. The point in this story is not that fire destroys or harms, but that it cleanses. This was the view of the Jews with Gehinnom. This also brings up the question, is it possible that early Christianity had the same view of Gehinnom as the Jews, a purgatory for all people, and that it later evolved into an eternal punishment of Hell-fire?

Perhaps. It seems likely.

g) And the Rabbi ends by declaring that a God that is capable to standing fire to purify himself is superior because one in human form cannot. And so it appears that the rabbinical view was that the early Christians held that Jesus was a God, but not the God of the Jews.

Of course, had this been a real debate, Rabbi Abahu would have lost since Jesus eventually descended into that same fire and became a God. This would have stalemated the debate.

The Christian view

So from this, we can see that the view of Christianity, as seen by the 4th century Rabbis, was as follows:

1. Jesus and YHVH were distinct Gods.
2. There was no trinity mentioned, just a God. (Trinitarianism is nowhere to be found except in much later texts).
3. Jews and Christians believed in a cleansing fire. Hell as a place of punishment is not considered.
4. Christians loved the Book of Isaiah and would cherry-pick verses.

The other items, such as the perfect sacrifice, a priest, and immersing in water, are things that Christians view today. But I find these other points to be more interesting.

It could just be propaganda by the Rabbis to keep Jews away from Christianity. But in the Talmud, amidst all of the debates with Christians, there is never a reference to a Trinity, which is very telling.

The other point about the lack of a hell, where sinners are punished for eternity, but a place of fire that is purifying is also interesting. And from what we know, Hell and the Devil evolved with the Church.

Finally, a trinity God(s) would have been the perfect bit of propaganda to mock Christianity with. And yet, nowhere in the Talmud is it mentioned. Of course, that lack of a mention doesn't necessarily mean that it was lacking. But it is an interesting point to consider.

End.

Mishpatim (Part 3) - Exodus 21:1-24:18

In a previous post, I brought up an issue with Exodus 21:22-23, where is speaks of some men who accidentally cause a pregnant women, that they bumped into, to birth prematurely.

Because of the vague language, and the impersonal pronouns implied, it is difficult to tell who was harmed or killed. If you hold according to Jewish tradition, then it was the woman, and if you hold according to Christian tradition, it was the woman or the child.

But what if they are both wrong, and for ideological reasons?!

First, let's look a few verses earlier, at 21:13 where it says:

"But one who did not lie in wait and God brought about his/His hand, I shall provide you a place to which he shall flee."

This is echoing Numbers 35:15 where is speaks of someone who unintentionally killed another person (manslaughter), and who will flee to a "city of refuge" for safety. Granted, the Book of Exodus never mentions the "city of refuge", and where one would flee while in the desert/wilderness, it doesn't say, but the intention is the same: if you accidentally kill someone, you are not put to death.

Now let's look at 21:22-23 one more time:

If some men are having a physical-struggle and they [unintentionally] harmed a pregnant woman and her offspring-to-be came out [as a result] but there was no tragedy from it, he [the non-husband] will CERTAINLY (doubled language) be fined, according to [the fine] imposed upon him by the woman's husband, he will give according to the determination [of the judges]. But if following [that incident] there was a tragedy, then a soul will replace a soul.

I translated that last highlighted portion literally so that you can see the difficulty with that verse.

As I also noted, Ibn Ezra and Rashi, quoting the Talmud, held that this meant that the person would pay a fine.

Why?

Because verse 21:13 already says that manslaughter is not punishable by death.

But a nefesh is not another word for "money" in the Torah. Although, it is used, mostly, as a synonym for a "being", sometimes a human (Gen 12:13, 14:21, etc.), and sometimes an animal (Gen. 1:20, 2:19, etc.), and sometimes both (Gen. 9:12, 9:15, etc.)

The Hebrew word that is often badly translated as "for" is "instead of" or "a replacement for". The word "tachat" (תחת) can be found in Genesis 4:25 "for God has appointed me another seed to replace (or "instead of") Abel, for Cain slew him." We also see it in the Genesis 30:2, when Jacob is chastising Rachael "Am I replacing God (or "instead of") who has withheld from you the fruit of your womb!?"

So we are talking about one being replacing another.

Now immediately after saying that, the Torah lists things that you will lose by having them destroyed if you destroy, even unintentionally, those things of another. You destroy one's eye, you lose yours. You destroy one's teeth, you lose yours. You destroy one's hand, you lose yours. You destroy ones foot, you lose yours. You cause one to lose a healthy skin by burning or cutting or bruising, then you will also have your skin ruined as well.

In all cases, tachat, "in place of" is used.

There are many times when the Jewish apologists are very uncomfortable with something in Scripture, and will underscore that by coming up with an outlandish reinterpretation. In this case, calling a soul "money" should be a clue that there is something here that makes the apologists uncomfortable.

The Christian apologists declaring that it speaks of the death penalty for killing an unborn baby, while expected, ideologically, is also a red flag, because a previous verse says that you would not put someone to death for accidentally killing an adult, and therefore, one would certainly not do that for a potential human.

There is a third possibility that nobody speaks about.

What if the verse means, "You destroy or ruin one's child, then yours will be ruined or destroyed"?!

A being that is lost replaces a being that was lost.

Yes, it seems quite barbaric.

But need I list all of the barbarism that the Torah demands or permits?

Based on the language, what I have present is more valid than saying that it refers to the man who caused the mother or the unborn to die to also die, or to say that he merely pays a fine for the death.

I am saying that this verse is sentencing on to losing an offspring to as a punishment for causing the loss of the offspring of another.

And what if there was no death, but the child was born defective, which the word used for "tragedy" can imply?

It is something to ponder.

Mishpatim (Part 2) - Exodus 21:1-24:18

In Exodus 21:22-23 we read the following:

If some men are having a physical-struggle and they [unintentionally] harmed a pregnant woman and her offspring-to-be came out [as a result] but there was no tragedy from it, he [the non-husband] will CERTAINLY (doubled language) be fined, according to [the fine] imposed upon him by the woman's husband (ba'al could be husband or master), he will give according to the determination [of the judges]. But if following [that incident] a tragedy, then you will give a soul in place of a soul ("life for a life").

And the next verse is a direct quote from Hammurabi's Code of laws: "And eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". One could debate which ones were more extreme: in the Torah, a child striking his father (21:15) is put to death, while Hammurabi "only" had the child's hands amputated.

But let's look at this tragedy in 21:22 for a moment.

Because of the way that the Torah is written, the use of inferred unassigned pronouns can cause multiple readings of the same text. One example is "And YHVH called Moses and He/he said to Him/him...". In this case, we need to read through the entire passage to determine who is speaking to whom, and sometimes, even that doesn't provide 100% certainty, and results in a lot of interpretation.

The Targumist Onkelos tried to correct this flaw in the text by adding a few words to the Aramaic interpretation as follows (his changes are in bold type):

"If men fight and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child comes out, but there is no death, there shall surely be collected as much as the woman's husband determines, He should pay it by verdict of the judges. But if a death is involved, then you shall impose [a punishment of] life for life.

This still doesn't make it 100% clear as to what death we are talking about.

Keep in mind that this contradicts the decrees in the Book of Numbers, where an accidental killing, where not intent was involved, would result in the person being able to flee to a "safe place" (aka "city of refuge") and remain there, safe, from the permitted honor killing by the family of the deceased.

In fact, many of the laws change in the various books of the Torah, and so Jewish sages have had to consolidate and adjust their interpretations so that there are no contradictions.

So the Targum Jonathan and the Ibn Ezra correct this further, telling us that "But if a death of the woman occurs..."

And this seems to be the standard Jewish interpretation. Rashi, quoting from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 79a) emphasizes that this is the death of the woman.

It is also important to note that abortion is not considered a sin in Judaism, as it is in Christianity, and this view of the text is the classical demonstration of that difference.

However, if you view the classical Christian commentaries, Albert Barnes, Adam Clark, and others, they tell us that this means the mother or the child. John Gill also holds that view, but at least admits that there is a view within Judaism that it only refers to the mother.

There is also one more point that I want to add before closing.

What is a "tragedy" (ason - אסון)?

We traditionally read this as meaning that someone was killed. But that meaning isn't entirely clear.

In Genesis 42:4 (the only other place in the Tanach where אסון appears), we read that Jacob would NOT send Benjamin along with his brothers to Egypt, lest אסון fall upon him.

It could be any type of harm, not just death, which might explain the verse that follows "life for life":

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a cut for a cut, a bruise for a bruise.

It is still not clear about whom this verse is speaking. Judaism holds that it's about the mother while Christianity holds that it also includes the prematurely born child.

But what both sides seem to ignore is that this very decree is invalidated in the Book of Numbers, where a more fair form of judgement is given.

Mishpatim - Exodus 21:1-24:18

The Na'arah Problem

We read in Exodus 22:1 that if someone steals something, then that person needs to return the object or its value, and also pay a fine, which varies depending on what was stolen. The exception is kidnapping, stealing a Jew and selling him, which is punishable by death.

These laws are for all of the people, be it for the man, or woman, or the stranger who is residing among them (Lev. 18:26).

Speaking of Leviticus, you also have verse 19:29 that commands you not to prostitute your daughter.

Now, hold those thoughts for a moment.

An overview of Exodus 21:7-11

In this weeks parashah, we read in Exodus 21:7-11 about a man who will sell his daughter to another Jew. This is not to be confused with a Jewish male paying the father for his daughter to be a wife, but the father selling his daughter into servitude for a period of time.

Not his son, but just his daughter.

Verse 7 goes onto tell us that she should not be freed like the gentile slaves, meaning, through the loss of an eye or a tooth. In fact, she would still remain in servitude if that happened.

Now, if she is a bother, is seen as a bad idea in the eyes of her new master (verse 8), and he has not yet designated her as his (or his son's) woman, then he can get a refund and give her back. He cannot sell her to somebody else just to get rid of this problem.

If he designates her as a woman for himself or his son, then he has to no longer treat her as a servant, but as a proper member of the family (verse 9).

And if he find a nicer woman later on and decides to take that one as well, he cannot diminish the provisions for the prior woman, be it food, clothing, or "time" (a euphemism for sexual relations). (Verse 10).

But if he decides not to provide these three things to her, she shall go free, without charge. (verse 11).

Ancient Apologetics

The Jewish sages had a problem with some of this. The idea of having an unmarried woman living with her master, providing service, and being his property for a period of time seemed too much like prostituting one's daughter, which is forbidden in Leviticus 19:29.

And so, the redefined a few things. But instead of making it better, they actually made things worse.

In Hebrew, a na'ar (or the feminine na'arah) means a "youth". In the first page of Tractate Kiddushin, the sages made "youth" into a "prepubescent youth", meaning, before three pubic hairs have grown. Let's say, pre-teen, to simplify it.

Based on some nuances in the language in Genesis, after the "binding of Isaac" followed by the section talking about his mother, depending on how you read these two adolescent stories, Rebecca would be either three years old, or an adult. And so, from that it was determined that the youngest age of a na'arah is three years old.

Or to be more explicit:

The Sages' idea to have the daughter of the man be a na'arah, prepubescent, in order to make selling her less creepy, actually created the opposite. And by taking naarah in Deuteronomy 22:21 and applying their definition, you end up with the possibility of a man bedding a child. Furthermore, it is apparent that if the man is able to bed a child, then selling a little girl or an adult woman really isn't very different.

Remember when I wrote that a thief who cannot repay for his theft gets sold into servitude in this week's parashah? And that the laws of the Torah are for all Jews and those who reside among them?

What happens to a woman who steals and cannot repay, an orphan with no family. What happens to her?

According to the Talmud...well, the Talmud is silent on this. While it goes into all of the nuances of all types of crimes and people, the idea of a girl or a woman being sold into servitude to pay off her debt, which is similar to her father selling her into servitude, is never discussed. 

Not a word.

Woman versus Conjugal Maid

Earlier I used the term "woman". This is based on the word "isha" And this is typically rendered as "wife". There is another relationship where the woman is not a wife, but a sheficha. A sheficha is a maid who will have relations with her master, produce offspring, and this offspring is vicariously associated as the offspring of the man and his wife, with the sheficha as the tool for doing this.

This is the difference between Jacob and his wives, Rachael and Leah, and his sheficha Bilha and Zilpah. The wives would name them and be the mistress of those who gave birth to them.

So in the family dynamic, you had the husband ("ba'al" means "lord", "master", "owner", and "husband"), and his woman of two possible statuses. You also had slaves who were even below the status of a sheficha. And as we read in this week's parasha (21:4), conjugal slaves were often given to the Hebrew male slaves to increase their workforce, and to entice the male to remain a slave forever.

Modern Apologetics

Why would a man sell his daughter?

The Torah is silent on this. The authors of this chapter of Exodus simply stated that the father has the right to do that, for whatever reason he considers to be valid.

Period.

Modern apologetics, ignoring the roles of a conjugal maid or a conjugal slave, have come up with a long list of why this was a good thing.

Why is selling her into servitude better than selling her into marriage?

If the master isn't pleased, he can send her back for a full refund.

If the master was pleased, and designates her for his own, but finds a better one, and if he just ignores the previous one, she can leave, but she gets nothing. (This verse would seem to imply that the Rabbinical status of an agunah would not apply to such a woman).

I have heard, "If the father was poor, and could not provide a dowry, she would have no future."

Where does the Torah speak of the father paying for the marrying off of his daughter? That was something instituted much later, long after fathers no longer sold their daughters.

Also, "It was another form of marriage". The man could choose, after a few years that he didn't want her. Or, he could give her to his creepy son that nobody wanted anything to do with, as a conjugal maid (sheficha). 

There is a story in the Talmud (Tractate Avodah Zara), about a brutish man who had a sheficha, caused her to miscarry, and tossed the fetus into the pit in the yard for the vermin to eat and dispose of it.

Not all masters were good. And not all breeding maids celebrated their lives.

Conclusion and Intent

Apologetics is all about creating intent, where none was specified, and making that intent appear ethical, when one can imagine opposing scenarios.

In the Torah, daughters are a burden. Fathers have to constantly protect them from thieves and rapists. Selling them as early as possible eliminates this burden. 

The positioning of these verses with those of the master providing a conjugal slave to his other property, and the ending verses with the idea that after he had taken the maid, but he has stopped providing for her, giving her his "time", indicates that this certainly prostituting one's daughter.

So how do you explain the prohibition in Leviticus to what is permitted in Exodus?

They were different authors at different times.