Parshat B'reishit: Fun with the DH :) (and more)

First, a little good news.

Now, on with the show.

DovBear published an interesting post on Parshat B'reishit, pointing out, among other things, that the order of creation differs in the two creation stories. (Said DB, "This, it must be noted, does not rule out the possibility of a divine author . . . ") The presenter of this week's d'var Torah (word/discussion of Torah/Bible) seconded DB's opinion about the nature of HaShem in the two creation stories, pointing out that HaShem quite literally muddied his hands to create Adam in the second story.

Those of you who are not yet acquainted with the Documentary Hypothesis would be advised to read a bit of the linked explanation before continuing.

The two different creation stories in Parshat B'reishit are found in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 through chapter 2, verse 4, and chapter 2, verse 5 through the end of chapter 2, respectively. That second section actually runs past the creation story, per se, through the end of chapter 4, including the birth of Shet/Seth. In the first story, G-d is called Elokim. whereas, in the second, G-d is called by a name that starts with a yod in Hebrew (and a J in English), a name for which Jews often use the respectful substitute name HaShem (to avoid pronouncing or writing such a sacred name). In the first story, Elokim starts from scratch and ends with the creation of the male and female Adam, created in G-d's image. In the second, HaShem creates a male Adam first, then forms a female from his rib last.

I found it most interesting that, after the entire second creation story is finished, right through the birth of Shet/Seth at the end of chapter 4, the story reverts, in Genesis, chapter 5, to the creation by Elokim of the androgynous Adam, of the first creation story, before embarking on one of the Bible's infamously long-winded genealogies.

Another point of interest to me is that, in Genesis, chapter 6, verse 1, the "sons of god" were sporting with "the daughters of the human," "Sons of god"--I call "pagan influence" on that phrase. As for the human women, where did they come from, all of a sudden? Or did our ancestors just not bother to mention any daughters in that long list of "begats?" And the Nefilim of verse 4? Same as the "sons of god," or not?

You might also be interested in this post in which my husband compared Parshat B'reishit with Parshat Sh'mot, pointing out that both parshiot/weekly readings pack a lot of story into one parsha.

5:40 PM update:

Here are views of Parshat B'reishit from GoldaLeah, Rabbi Gil Student, and the ex-Gadol Hador, or whatever he's calling himself, these days.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 update:

I completely forgot to link to some previous posts of my own re Parshat B'reishit. Here's a post about the "visible seams" in the composition of the Torah, and one about Adam and Eve as a coming-of-age story. Wow, Steg, you've been commenting on my blog since 2004?! Thanks!

Thanks also go to our son for his contribution to this discussion.

Links to my Parshat B'reishit&ParshatNoach posts

Sorry I forgot to link to my previous posts. It's not as if I've never written about these parshiot before. :)

Two for the price of one: For a connection between Parshat B'reishit and Parshat Noach, see Uppity Humans.

Parshat B'reishit

• I think you can find a link to many of my previous B'reishit posts at the beginning of Bothered and bewildered by B'reishit. Follow the links and enjoy.
• See also the last two paragraphs of My mixed reaction to the book "Yentl's Revenge."
  

Parshat Noach

• Parshat Noach: Another fine mess
• Best explanation of why building the Tower of Babel was a sin that I've ever heard Ever wonder why G-d thought it was such a terrible thing that the people were all speaking one language? Rabbi Jonathan Sacks gives a perfectly logical explanation.
• Here's the one that I just posted, Parshat Noach: "Clean" and Unclean" animals?!
  

Parshat Noach: Another fine mess

(Here's the first fine mess.)

Might as well start with DovBear's post. I'm linking to his Parshat Noach post through mine just because I'm too lazy to set up that link explaining the word Parsha again.

Okay, here are the problems that I see.

• B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 6: Noach/Noah doesn't protest when HaShem, er, Elokim, says He's going to destroy all living creatures. HaShem, Elokim, oh, man, do I have to scrounge up that link to the Documentary Hypothesis again to explain the different names of G-d? Sigh. Here it is.
  
• Why doesn't HaShem, er, Elokim choose some species-specific plague to wipe out the human race only? What did the animals do to deserve to be wiped out? For the record, I think I swiped this thought from GoldaLeah's B'reishit Noach post, which you should definitely read.
  
• B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 7, verse 2: HaShem--yes, HaShem, not Elokim--tells Noach to take seven of every clean beast (male and female), and two, male and female, of every unclean beast. Nu, exactly how is Noach supposed to know which animals are "clean" and which are "unclean" when that list isn't mentioned in the Torah for at least another book and a half?
• Poor explanation: "Therefore was the name of that place called Babel (Bavel), because there HaShem confounded--balal--the language of all the earth . . . (B'reishet, Genesis chapter 11, verse 9.) Bavel comes from balal?? Wrong consonant, sorry--not even in the transition from Ashkenazi to S'fardi, or from S'fardi to B'nei Edot HaMizrach (Children of the Communities of the East, e.g., Syrian, Iraqi, Yemenite) pronunciation, where they've been known to say "tob" rather than "tov"and "panav" for "fanav," can one substitute the letter bet for the letter lamed. Close, but no cigar.

On the plus side, at least the "begats" specify "sons and daughters."

Sh'mot notes, 5769--my husband's thoughts

I was hoping that my husband, who came home from shul yesterday with lots of interesting thoughts about the connections between Parshat B'reishit & Parshat Sh'mot, would write another d'var Torah (word of Torah/commentary on the Bible). (See his recent d'var Torah concerning the story of Yosef/Joseph, & an earlier 1 concerning sinat chinam [baseless hatred].) But he's in the midst of grading finals & doesn't have the time. So here's the Hillel version (standing on one foot):

• Parshat B'reishit (the very beginning of the Bible) and Parshat Sh'mot (the beginning of the book of Exodus) are similar in that they squeeze quite a lot into one weekly reading. In Parshat B'reishit, we go from the creation of the world to the expulsion of Adam & Eve from Gan Eden to the murder of Havel/Abel by Kayin/Cain to HaShem's decision to send a flood. In Parshat Sh'mot, we begin with a list of the names of the sons (yes, sons--whatever happened to Dinah, anyway?) of Jacob who went down to Egypt, are introduced to the infamous "Pharoah who knew not Joseph," read of the enslavement of the Hebrews & the attempt to kill all the newborn males, and see Moshe/Moses born & rescued, fleeing to Midian after killing the taskmaster, marrying Tzipporah & spending years as a shepherd, being called to service by HaShem, returning to Egypt with Aharon/Aaron, meeting with the Hebrew elders & going before Pharoah with a petition for the 1st time, & enduring the complaints of the Hebrew slaves that he'd just made matters worse.
• Just as Adam & Chava (Eve) were expelled from Gan Eden, so, too, the Hebrews will be expelled from Egypt, but, this time, with the intention of returning them to the nearest approximation of Gan Eden, namely, a land flowing with milk & honey.
• HaShem hears the cries of the Hebrew slaves just as He'd heard the cry of Havel's blood, &, in both cases, takes action to avenge an evil.

See also Sh'mot notes, 5769.

Parshat Chayei Sarah

You can read the basics here.

Here's my 2010 post on Chayei Sarah (with links). Here's my 2004 version.

And here's a thought from my Parshat Vayera: Something old, something new:

" why does Sarah disappear from the text? Where is her reward for having ensured the perpetuation of Avraham's lineage by offering her handmaid as a surrogate mother? Where is her reward for having waited over a decade after the birth of her handmaid's son to have a son of her own? Where is her reward for having saved Avraham's life twice--and enriched him in the process--by allowing herself to be passed off as only his sister and not his wife? Her reward is to have G-d, with her husband's cooperation, threaten the life of her only child? My own midrash: No wonder she dies in the next parshah--if this is her reward, why live?"

Some new thoughts:

• I don't remember where I heard or read this, but someone commented that Avraham showed more respect for Sarah after her death than he'd shown for her while she was alive. Sadly, I think one could make a case (see B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 23) for that.
• In B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 24, verse 16, Rachel (Sat., Nov. 10, 2012 post-Shabbat correction--Rivkah) is described as "b'tulah, v'ish lo y'daah," a virgin, and no man had "known" her. Is this just an example of what's sometimes called "biblical parallelism" (and might less poetically be known as the Bible's tendency to repeat itself?), or is it true, as I've heard, that "b'tulah" really means simply a woman who's never been married?
• Why did Rachel fall (va-tipol) off of her camel when she saw Yitzchak/Isaac (see 24:64)? Was he really that good-lookin'? :)

Update, Saturday, November 19, 2011, 9:13 PM

• Rachel (Sat., Nov. 10, 2012 post-Shabbat correction--Rivkah) fell off her camel before she inquired as to the identity of the man whom she saw in the field. Was it customary in the ancient Near East for a woman to dismount from her "ride" in the presence of a man of her own social class?
• Interestingly, much of the story of Rachel's (Sat., Nov. 10, 2012 post-Shabbat correction--Rivkah) encounter with Avraham's servant would be, for all practical purposes, impossible in current Chareidi (fervently Orthodox) society, in which, especially for an unmarried person, speaking to just about any person of the opposite gender other than one's parent is considered scandalous behavior.

Parshat Sh'mot/Shemot (whatever)

You can read the basics here.

Here are some oldies of mine, which I tried to line up in chronological order/order of posting. Some of them also include references to future parshiot (parashot?), but I'm posting them here, lest I forget. I'm going to be a bit busy for the next few days.

• Sh'mot notes 

[Jan. 6, 2013 update--I recommend that you read the whole post, which has too much interesting info in it, comments included, to summarize in a short highlight.]

Highlight:

"Haftarat Sh’mot
. . . For Ashkenazim: I said this years ago in a d’var Torah ("word of Torah," Torah discussion) and I’ll say it again—“For with stammering lips and a strange tongue shall it be spoken to this people” describes the speech of a person with a speech impediment. This may be the sort of thing that’s more likely to catch the eye of the mother of a hard-of-hearing child who spent sixteen years in speech therapy."

• Sh'mot notes, 5769

Highlight:
"Call me a faithless coward, but if someone, or even The One, told me to grab a snake by the tail . . ."

• Sh'mot notes, 5769--my husband's thoughts

Highlight:
"Parshat B'reishit (the very beginning of the Bible) and Parshat Sh'mot (the beginning of the book of Exodus) are similar in that they squeeze quite a lot into one weekly reading. In Parshat B'reishit, we go from the creation of the world to . .. HaShem's decision to send a flood. In Parshat Sh'mot, we begin with a list of the names of the sons (yes, sons--whatever happened to Dinah, anyway?) of Jacob who went down to Egypt, . . . [and end with Moshe] enduring the complaints of the Hebrew slaves that he'd just made matters worse."

• Biblical near-death experiences G-d threatens to kill first Yitzchak/Isaac, then Moshe/Moses, and later, Bil'am.
• Moshe's first act of disobedience "HaShem specifically tells Moshe (Moses) to tell Par'oh (Pharaoh) that HaShem intends to slay Par'oh's firstborn."
• G-d lied He told Moshe that his brother Aharon/Aaron would be his spokeperson before Pharaoh, but that never happened. 
• Parsha catch-up: Vayechi and Sh'mot

"My husband was puzzled. If, as some theorize, Y’tziat Mitzrayim/the Exodus from Egypt took place at the time of the massive eruption on Thera/Santorini, then Moshe Rabbeinu/Moses our Teacher couldn’t have picked up the idea of a sole god from Akhenaten, since the Exodus would have taken place prior to his reign. So where did he get it from? “Why are you looking at Akhenaten when Moshe spent at least enough time with a Midianite priest (Reuel, Yithro/Jethro?) to father a child?,” I asked. Unfortunately, my husband was not able to unearth much information about Midianite religion. But he did point out that Moshe’s time as a shepherd would prove mighty handy when he had to lead the people in the escape from Egypt and help them survive in the wilderness for forty years."

Uppity humans

First, they decide that they want to know the difference between good and evil.* Then, they decide that they’re going to build a stairway to heaven.**

Sigh. Well, I made them that way, and I guess I can’t just keep wiping them out in floods. So I suppose I’ll simply have to put up with them. But really, how arrogant of them, to think that they can defy Me and encroach on My turf with impunity.


*See Parshat B’reishit here.
**See Parshat Noach here and an explanation of the ziggurat theory here.

See also my post Parshat B'reishit: Fun with the DH :) (and more)

Bothered and bewildered by B'reishit

Here's last year's discussion, complete with links (including one to our son's interpretation of the Adam and Eve story).

A couple of new thoughts that I had this time around:

• If HaShem created light and darkness, day and night on the first day, what exactly did G-d use, since G-d didn't create the sun, moon, and stars until the fourth day (see same link)? I wonder whether, originally, the story of the creation of the heavenly bodies may have been two separate stories, combined rather sloppily in Parshat B'reishit. (See my "visible seams" post.)
• It's not really clear why G-d accepted Havel/Abel's sacrifice but not Kayin/Cain's. Personally, I think HaShem played favorites. Tsk, tsk.

Update--I forget to mention this beauty, from chapter 4:

כג וַיֹּאמֶר לֶמֶךְ לְנָשָׁיו, עָדָה וְצִלָּה שְׁמַעַן קוֹלִי--נְשֵׁי לֶמֶךְ, הַאְזֵנָּה אִמְרָתִי: כִּי אִישׁ הָרַגְתִּי לְפִצְעִי, וְיֶלֶד לְחַבֻּרָתִי.	23 And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech; for I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me;
כד כִּי שִׁבְעָתַיִם, יֻקַּם-קָיִן; וְלֶמֶךְ, שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה.	24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Who's he threatening? Is this guy just bragging, or is this one of the earliest recorded cases of wife abuse?

Parshat Vayetz: A baby-making competition

You can read the details here.

Here's last year's version, with links to two other posts of mine and one by DovBear.

I can only comment that much of B'reishit/Genesis seems to illustrate what can transpire when a woman's worth is calculated almost exclusively based on the number of babies that she births or "adopts"--you end up with a barren woman telling her husband that, if she doesn't have a baby, she might as well be dead (B'reishit/Genesis chapter 30, verse 1). Personally, I find Rachel's story quite sad.

Parshat Noach: "Clean" and "unclean" animals?!

Here's my latest thought regarding this question that I posed in Parshat Noach: Another fine mess:

"B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 7, verse 2: HaShem--yes, HaShem, not Elokim--tells Noach [Noah] to take seven of every clean beast (male and female), and two, male and female, of every unclean beast. Nu, exactly how is Noach supposed to know which animals are "clean" and which are "unclean" when that list isn't mentioned in the Torah for at least another book and a half?"

My theory: The concept of "clean" and "unclean" animals was widespread in ancient times, and preceded the laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws).

The concept of "clean" and "unclean" animals is widespread in contemporary times, as well. Not only do Muslims follow some of the laws of kashrut by not eating pig meat, but Hindus avoid cow meat and are vegetarian, and Seventh Day Adventists are also vegetarian.

My favorite "kashrut" story, though, involves my stay in France while I was studying for a B.A. in French. I always thought that the hamburgers in the university's cafeterias tasted odd, but I could never figure out why. It didn't occur to me until long after I'd returned to the U.S. that the hamburgers had probably been made of horse meat. Noch besser (better yet), the reason why that bothered me was not that Jews don't eat horse meat, which isn't kosher--I wasn't keeping even a remote semblance of kosher at the time--but because Americans don't eat horse meat! (We also don't eat dog meat, and generally don't eat snake or alligator meat, either.) Food traditions persist to this day, and they don't always have anything to do with religion.

• Links to (some, most, all ?of) my previous Parshat B'reishit and Parshat Noach posts
• In other news . . .

Parshat B’reishit: On the visible seams in the Torah

Many of us non-Orthodox Jews accept the theory that the Torah is a combination of four ancient traditions edited by scribes—most say under divine influence—into one text. What astounds me is that the scribes who did the redacting/editing seem to have made no effort whatsoever to cover their tracks. Instead, they appear to have treated the redaction process like a quilting bee, piecing together patches of text from the different traditions and leaving the seams between the patches just as visible as the seams in a Torah scroll.

One of the most obvious examples of this approach is the two stories of creation that appear in Parshat B’reishit. In the first, “ . . . G-d created the human in His image, in the image of G-d He created him, male and female He created them.” (Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27.) In the second, HaShem put Adam under anesthesia, performed a rib-ectomy on him, and used the rib to create Eve. (Genesis, chapter 2, verses 21-22.) Perhaps one should give the traditionalists credit for their creativity in trying to prove that there’s only one creation story despite the evidence to the contrary.

Parshat Vayechi, 5773/2012 thoughts

Basics here.

I guess the thing that struck me on reading this parshah this time was Yaakov's/Jacob's flat-out statement that he's describing his sons' future to them.  (See B'reshit/Genesis, chapter 49.)  It seems to me that one has only two choices--either one can assume that Yaakov had the gift of prophecy, or one can assume, as I do, that this text was written after the fact.  (See Documentary Hypothesis.)

I'm guessing that the traditional of sitting shiva originated with B'reshit/Genesis, chapter 50, verse 10.

Haftarat Vayechi is 1 Kings 2:1–12, a nasty piece of work--even in death, David took his revenge (via his son Shlomo/Solomon).

My oldies:

• Lest you think that I’m a *complete* cynic, here’s my balanced look at B’nai Yaakov/the Sons of Jacob (Sunday, December 26, 2004)  Too long for a Hillel (standing-on-one-foot) version :), but not bad.
• The Cunning of Politico-Economics (d'var Torah by my husband) (Wednesday, December 31, 2008)  Okay, so I'm partial :), but I think you'll find this interesting reading.
• i don't think yosef or yaakov did t'shuvah (repented) (Saturday, January 10, 2009)

"i don't remember where i read this, but some1 suggested that yosef/joseph never took any responsibility for the arrogant behavior that led his brothers 2 hate him. as 4 yaakov/jacob, he was so oblivious 2 his part in his son's disappearance that he perpetuated the crime of favoritism right down 2 the next generation, choosing the younger efrayim/ephraim over the older menashe/manasseh."

• Yosef/Joseph: Lording well is the best revenge (Sunday, January 11, 2009)

"Much has been made of the fact that Yosef never took revenge on his brothers for having sold him into slavery. I'm not impressed. I think that it was quite sufficient revenge for him to know that his brothers owed him their lives and would spend the rest of their days at his mercy."

• My opinion: Yaakov never knew (Monday, January 04, 2010)

"I don't recollect having seen any evidence whatsoever in the Torah sheh-BiCh'tav (Written Pentateuch) that Yosef (Joseph) ever told his father Yaakov (Jacob) the truth about his "disappearance," nor can I imagine any possible reason why his brothers would have done so. Yosef could always have said that he hadn't contacted his father because he was first enslaved, then imprisoned, then preoccupied with running Pharaoh's kingdom, all but the last statement having been true. Granted, Yaakov was a smart enough cookie that he may have figured out that there was more to the story, but he may also have been smart enough to conclude that there might be some details that he'd rather not know. As for his brothers' claim, after their father's death, that Yaakov had asked Yosef to forgive them, I think that story was as much of a fabrication as the brothers' initial presentation of Yosef's bloodied cloak."

• Parshat Vayigash (Thursday, December 09, 2010)

"Sarah favors her own son, Yitzchak (Isaac) over Hagar's son, Yishmael (Ishmael). Rivka (Rebecca) and Yitzchak play favorites between their sons, with Rivka favoring Yaakov (Jacob), and Yitzchak favoring Esav (Esau). Yaakov favors Yosef (Joseph). Yosef showers his full brother, Binyamin (Benjamin) with more goodies than his half-brothers. Yaakov favors Yosef's younger son, Efraim (Ephraim) over Yosef's older son Menasheh (Mennases). These people never learn. They seem to be oblivious to the generations of envy, and, often, emnity, inpired by all this favoritism."

• Parsha catch-up: Vayechi and Sh’mot (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)

"My husband and I both noticed that, throughout the book of B’reishit/Genesis, the lion’s share of the attention is paid to the sons (yes, sons) of Léah and Rachel, with short shrift given to the sons of the concubines and the only daughter. This holds true for Yaakov’s deathbed blessings, as well. The “minor players” get mostly one-liners, and Dinah, the only daughter, gets not even a mention."

• Conservadox blogs on the great prophecy-vs.-written-after-the-events divide.

Parashat B'reshit, 5774/2013 edition

Basics here.

Here's a link to a previous Parashat/Parshat B'reshit/B'reishit/Bereshit (whichever) post of mine, with links to previous ones by me and other folks.

My new thoughts for this year:

• Given the knowledge available to the ancient author(s)--I'm speaking from a non-traditional perspective--they were actually surprisingly accurate in describing the creation of the world.  The creation story that appears first in this parashah (weekly Torah reading) says that both water creatures and birds preceded humans.  Those of us who accept the theory of evolution assert that all life on earth started in the oceans, and also, that birds are the only direct living descendants of the dinosaurs.
• I've changed my mind about Adam having been intersex (androgynous/having both male and female sex organs):  Once HaShem creates Adam as both male and female, everything HaShem says to them is in the plural.  Adam is not one intersex being, but, rather, the (first male and female of the) human race.
• The creation story that appears second in this parashah (beginning with chapter 2, verse 4) which is, according to my husband, actually an older story derived from Babylonian mythology, is completely human-centric and not particularly concerned about the rest of creation.  It is an attempt to explain why females have painful childbirth, why, after the fact in an already-patriarchal society, women are subservient to men, why men have to work for a living, and, in passing, why the snake is one of the few land animals that has no legs.  In addition, it presents the descendants of Kayin/Cain as archetypes:  Yaval as the father of cattle herders, Yuval the father of musicians; Tuval-Kayin the father of metal smiths.  Also noteworthy is not only the fact that the now-male Adam and his wife Chavah/Eve don't become aware of their sexuality until after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, but also the fact that they first show signs of human ingenuity thereafter, manipulating the material available to them--fig leaves--to create something original--clothing--for the first time.
• An attempt is made at the end of the story that appears second to knit both stories together:  Shet/Seth is born and is described as a replacement for the murdered Hevel/Abel.  However, with the continuation, beginning with chapter 5, of the interrupted "evolution" story, the birth of Shet is mentioned again, but the story of Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden), the snake, and Kayin and Hevel simply vanish from Parashat B'reshit, never to reappear.

Conservadox chimes in regarding the seemingly-impossibly-long lifespans of Adam's and Eve's early descendants.

Rabbi Yehuda Hausman presents an imaginative d'var Torah.

Parshat Vayera,5773/2012thoughts:Grammar gaffes?

You can read the basics here.

Below are links to some previous Vayera posts of mine, along with some new thoughts about them.

But first, some new thoughts from this year's reading.

In the first verse of this parshah, HaShem appears to Avraham/Abraham; in the second, Avraham looks up and sees three men (yes, men, not angels--the text says "anashim," not "mal'achim") and runs to greet them;  in the third verse, he speaks in the singular, asking his guest not to leave him; in the fourth and fifth verses, he speaks in the plural, asking his guests to wash their feet, rest under the tree, and have a bite to eat.  (One wiseguy at our synagogue's weekly Torah discussion during Seudah Shlishit commented that it was as if Avraham put G-d on hold while he talked with someone else on Call Waiting.:) )  It's no wonder the rabbis comment that G-d waited patiently while Avraham showed hospitality to the guests whom Avraham thought were human, thus teaching us the importance of welcoming strangers.

Also, check out B'reshit/Genesis, chapter 11, verse 2:  Within a single verse, Lot address his guests as--depending on your point of view--my lord or my Lord (again, ignore the incorrect English translation), then switches from the singular to the plural.

Judging by the inconsistent grammar, it would appear that two or more stories were cobbled together to create this parshah/weekly Torah reading.

Here's another goodie to consider:  What, exactly does B'reshit/Genesis, chapter 21, verse 6 mean?  In this case, I don't think that the grammar is garbled, but rather, that  the Hebrew is deliberately ambiguous.  After all, G-d has already rebuked Sarah for having had the supposed chutzpah/gall to laugh when she was told she'd have a child at her ridiculously-advanced age.  (See chapter 18, verse 13.)  I don't think she would have dared to say, straight out, "G-d has made a laughing stock of me, everyone who hears will laugh at me."  But, if, as some theorize, Yitzchak was intellect-challenged, and particularly if he had the visible difference in appearance that's common in those with Down's Syndrome, Sarah may, indeed, have thought that someone who'd waited well over a decade to have a child only to bear a baby with an obvious disability would be a victim of communal mockery.

As promised, here are links to some previous Vayera posts of mine, along with some new thoughts:

• "Would you take your only son . . .?" (Thursday, September 29, 2005)
• Yishmael--disowned by Hashem (Wednesday, November 23, 2005) 
• Lech L'cha/Vayera smackdown, or G-d's a sexist (November 01, 2009) "I've complained before that G-d isn't very fair to Sarah. For openers, if G-d's already planning on Sarah getting pregnant, why doesn't G-d bother telling anyone before Sarah gives Hagar to Avraham as a surrogate mother? For closers, why is that the only time G-d ever speaks directly to Sarah, it's to yell at her?
• Parshat Vayera:  Something old, something new (Monday, November 09, 2009)  New title:   "Sarah, abused by men and G-d"  "why does Sarah disappear from the text? Where is her reward for having ensured the perpetuation of Avraham's lineage by offering her handmaid as a surrogate mother? Where is her reward for having waited over a decade after the birth of her handmaid's son to have a son of her own? [why is that the only time G-d ever speaks directly to Sarah, it's to yell at her?]  Where is her reward for having saved Avraham's life twice--and enriched him in the process--by allowing herself to be passed off as only his sister and not his wife?  Her reward is to have G-d, with her husband's cooperation, threaten the life of her only child? My own midrash: No wonder she dies in the next parshah--if this is her reward, why live?"
• Vayera round-up, and this year's thoughts (Monday, October 25, 2010)

• "What's the big deal about Avraham having served his guests dairy and meat in the same meal? The laws of kashrut couldn't possibly have been binding then because the Torah hadn't been given yet! (In my opinion, the rabbis created unnecessary problems for themselves by articulating the idea that there's no early or late [ein mukdam u-meuchar?] in the Torah.)
• Sarah did not lie when she told G-d that she had not laughed--the text says quite clearly that she laughed "b'kirbah," "within herself," which is not the same as laughing out loud."
  
  
  
  
  This year's thought:  Look carefully at the Hebrew of B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 18, verse 10.  Never mind that the English translation uses an upper-case H--the Hebrew says that "he" said that Sarah would have a son.  The Hebrew does not indicate that it was G-d who was speaking.  How could she have known that G-d would read her mind? 
  
  
  
  
• "It appears that HaShem wasn't so thrilled with the fact that Avraham went along with the Akeidah without protest--afterward, HaShem never spoke to Avraham again. (I don't think that this observation originated with either of us, but I can't remember where I read it.)
• Last but not least comes my big gripe of the year: Why is Avraham nicer to strangers than to his own family? He argues repeatedly with G-d not to destroy S'dom and Amorah (Sodom and Gemorah), but says not a word when G-d tells him to sacrifice his son Yitzchak. He shows hospitality to total strangers, yet sends his son Yishmael packing with nothing but bread and water. All HaShem said was "Sh'ma b'kolah," listen to her (Sarah's) voice. HaShem never suggested that Yishmael and his mother Hagar should be sent off into the desert with limited means of short-term survival and no means of long-term support. Judging by the text, Yishmael had to have been over 14 years old at the time of his expulsion. Avraham could have given him a parting gift of, for example, a small flock of goats. Why didn't he?"
  
  
  
  This year's thoughts:
  
  I'm not terribly impressed with either Avinu sheh-ba-Shamayim (Our Heavenly Father) or Avraham Avinu (Abraham Our Father) as role models for  fatherhood.  Yishmael/Ishmael was expelled with no means of survival; Yitzchak/Isaac nearly had his throat slit.  Is either "father" serious about creating and preserving the lives of children? Both G-d and Avraham treat both boys as toys, born only to make a point.  Let's call a spade a spade, folks--in our day, this kind of treatment would be called child abuse, child endangerment, child abandonment, and/or attempted murder.
  
  
  Nor am I impressed with either G-d's or Avraham's callous indifference to the suffering of Sarah, who seems to be present only to help Avraham acquire greater wealth and to prove that G-d can perform a miracle and enable a barren woman to become pregnant at any age--if and when G-d jolly well feels like it.
    
• Parshat Vayera:  Tons to write about (Thursday, November 10, 2011) Yep, more goodies not mentioned above, including this thought:
• "So let me get this straight--HaShem orders Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak/Isaac, but an angel tells him not to?!!! (See chapter 22, verses 1-3 and 11-12.) I'm not impressed with either HaShem's command or Avraham's willingness to go along with it. For openers, "Why on earth (or in heaven) would HaShem want to stoop to the level of a pagan god and demand child sacrifice?"

Better-late-than-never update, Friday, November 9, 2012:  Conservadox blogs about the Akeidah.

Ki Tetze vs. perpetual punishment?

Here's a quote from this week's Torah reading,  Parshat Ki Tetze (Ki Teitzei, Ki Tétzé, Ki Tétsé. . whatever):

Deuteronomy 24:

טז  לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וּבָנִים לֹא-יוּמְתוּ עַל-אָבוֹת:  אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ, יוּמָתוּ.  {ס}	16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. {S}

And here's a quote from Parashat B'reshit (Breshit, B'reishit, Breishit, Bereshit, Beresheet . . . whatever):

Genesis 3:

טז  אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ--בְּעֶצֶב, תֵּלְדִי בָנִים; וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ, וְהוּא, יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ.  {ס}	16 Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' {S}
יז  וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, וַתֹּאכַל מִן-הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ--אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה, בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ.	17 And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
יח  וְקוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר, תַּצְמִיחַ לָךְ; וְאָכַלְתָּ, אֶת-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה.	18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.
יט  בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ, תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם, עַד שׁוּבְךָ אֶל-הָאֲדָמָה, כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ:  כִּי-עָפָר אַתָּה, וְאֶל-עָפָר תָּשׁוּב.	19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.'

In my opinion, the passage from D'varim/Deuteronomy contradicts the passage from B'reshit/Genesis.  If one cannot put someone to death for the crime of either his/her parent or her/his child, wouldn't the same also be true in the case of a less severe punishment?

Why are there those who still hold half the human race--namely, all females--guilty because of the sin of one ancestor over 5,000 years ago?

And why do some speak of "the curse of Eve," while I've never heard the phrase "the curse of Adam?"

Just to be fair to women, maybe someone should explain to those men who spend their entire lives in kollel that the Torah requires them to work for a living.

Parshat Vayera: Tons to write about

. . . but not much time.

Here's a link to the basics.

Speaking of links, I've written plenty of posts about Parshat Vayera, since there's not much missing from it. :)

Quick notes:

I read somewhere that Lot's daughters must have known that they were not the only survivors because they were able to procure wine somewhere. On one hand, I think they might have carried it with them when they fled from Tz'dom/Sodom (Sodom). On the other hand, they'd been to Tzoar/Zoar, and surely must have known that there were other survivors. Methinks they were more afraid of getting stuck with their father in the mountains until he died and/or they were too old to have children.

Also, welcoming guests/travelers seems to have been of paramount importance to our ancestors.

I'm outta here--Shabbat Shalom!

Update, 9:29 PM, Sat., Nov. 12, 2011:

• I never noticed before that HaShem never actually told Avraham/Abraham that He was planning to destroy Tz'dom and Amorah/Sodom and Gomorrah). (See B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 18, verses 16-21.)
• I also never noticed before that Lot had four daughters, namely two unmarried ones and two married ones. Otherwise, he couldn't have (a) offered the townsmen two virgins and (b) spoken to his sons-in-law. (See chapter 19, verses 8 and 14 here.)
• While we're on the subject of Tz'dom, I think the real sin of Tz'dom was not homosexual behavior (for which HaShem had not yet stated any prohibition), but attempted gang rape (see chapter 19, verse 5).
  
• Alas, poor Yishmael/Ishmael. He turned out better than one might expect, for a kid who was tossed out of his father's house at the age of roughly 15 with nothing but a day's lunch. (See chapter 9-14.) As I said last year, "He [Avraham] shows hospitality to total strangers, yet sends his son Yishmael packing with nothing but bread and water. All HaShem said was "Sh'ma b'kolah," listen to her (Sarah's) voice. HaShem never suggested that Yishmael and his mother Hagar should be sent off into the desert with limited means of short-term survival and no means of long-term support. Judging by the text, Yishmael had to have been over 14 years old at the time of his expulsion. Avraham could have given him a parting gift of, for example, a small flock of goats. Why didn't he?"
• So let me get this straight--HaShem orders Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak/Isaac, but an angel tells him not to?!!! (See chapter 22, verses 1-3 and 11-12.) I'm not impressed with either HaShem's command or Avraham's willingness to go along with it. For openers, "Why on earth (or in heaven) would HaShem want to stoop to the level of a pagan god and demand child sacrifice?" For closers, as I said last year, "Why is Avraham nicer to strangers than to his own family? He argues repeatedly with G-d not to destroy S'dom and Amorah (Sodom and Gemorah), but says not a word when G-d tells him to sacrifice his son Yitzchak."
  

Double-Parsha Vayakhel-P'kudei, 5775/2015

Link to some previous P'kudei posts of mine.  And to Vayakhel alone.


Parshat P'kudei:

כא  אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת, אֲשֶׁר פֻּקַּד עַל-פִּי מֹשֶׁה:  עֲבֹדַת, הַלְוִיִּם, בְּיַד אִיתָמָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן.

21 These are the accounts of the tabernacle, even the tabernacle of the testimony, as they were rendered according to the commandment of Moses, through the service of the Levites, by the hand of Ithamar, the son of Aaron the priest.--

Is this the Torah's first use of the term HaLeviyim, the Levites, as opposed to B'nei or Shevet Levi, the Children or Tribe of Levi?  This would seem to indicate that the Leviim had a distinct function of serving in the place of worship even before they were officially given that role--which, to me, seems to indicate that the reason given for the Leviim having that role was a justification after the fact.

Thursday, March 12, 2015 update
The grammar is the tip-off.  Do we call the descendants of Reuven Reuvenim, or the descendants of Benjamin Binyaminim?  (In Megillat [the Book of] Esther, Mordechai, a Benjaminite,  is described as "Ish Y'mini.")  I may be wrong, but it seems to me that only the descendants of Levi get a pluralized name, Leviim.

There's also the fact that the word Kohen (priest) is not of Jewish origin:  In the Tanach/Bible itself, pagan priests are also described as Kohanim--see B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 14:

יח  וּמַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן; וְהוּא כֹהֵן, לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן.	18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest [kohen] of God the Most High.

So are pre-Levitical Israelite priests.

I  began to wonder whether the term Leviim might also be pagan in origin.

Curious, I did an Internet search, "does the name levi have pre-biblical origins," and this is what I got:

"Etymology of the name Levi
There is some controversy about the etymology of the name Levi. BDB Theological Dictionary suggests that the name Levi was derived from the word Levite, in stead of vice versa, and that the word Levite has to do with a Minaean word for priest."

So, naturally, I did another Internet search for "Minaean word for priest," and this is what I found, courtesy of Wikipedia:

"according to some Jewish scholars, Levite was originally just a job title, deriving from the Minaean word lawi'u meaning priest, rather than having been the name of a tribe.<sup>[4"

Makes sense to me.


See also DovBear's Did only Levites leave Egypt?</sup>

Parshat Toldot thoughts for 5773/2012

Basics here.

I can't think of anything new (yet), except that it seems to me that another, different reason for the city of Beersheva's name (see B'reshit/Genesis 26:33) had already been given in a previous parshah.  Of course, I can't find the quote.  :)

Oldies:

• Toldot: Yaakov the ganiff (Jacob the thief) (Monday, November 15, 2004)
• Parshat Toldot:Aftermath of 1st recorded shidduch crisis (Wednesday, November 18, 2009)
• Parshat Toldot:Callous indifference,or senile dementia? (Monday, November 23, 2009)
• DovBear defends Esav (November 05, 2010)
• Parshat Toldot & Haftarat Machar Chodesh (Monday, November 08, 2010) (Yes, I know that we'll be chanting the regular haftarah instead of  Haftarat Machar Chodesh this year.)

•Parshat Toldot


Genesis Chapter 26

5 because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.'
[ ¶ ]
What commandments, statutes, and laws? As best I recollect, the only laws that had already been given were "p'ru u-r'vu, be fruitful and multiply," and the law of circumcision.
[ ¶ ]
I'm guessing that it's from this verse that the rabbis derived the highly-anachronistic notion that the Avot and Imahot (Patriarchs and Matriarchs) knew of and obeyed all of Jewish law, even thought it wouldn't be given until after the Exodus."

• Parshat Toldot: Disabled persons on our family tree? (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)

"Here's a new thought: Was Esau/Eisav/Esav learning disabled? He couldn't actually name the pottage/stew, calling it "that red red stuff" (ha-adom ha-adom ha-zeh), and didn't seem to have understood the value of a birthright (until later, after he'd sold it). (See B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 25, verses 30-32).

And here's an old-new thought, something that I've heard for years: Some say that Yitzchak/Isaac was developmentally disabled. . . ."

Speaking of which, see:

• Book review:"Esau's Blessing," by Ora Horn Prouser (Thursday, February 02, 2012)

Friday, November 16, 2012 update:

• Conservadox has some interesting thoughts about Parshat Toldot.

Parshat Vayishlach--old and new thoughts

Sorry I'm late, but Iwas so loaded up with assignments at the office last week that I didn't have time to read the parsha 'til after Kabbalat Shabbat/Maariv.

Here's a link to the basics.

Old thoughts

• Here's an oldie but goodie of mine, Vayishlach: A family of con artists benefits from a rape. Note especially the comment speculating that Dinah's rape may have been "statutory"--we don't really know how old she was, and the commenter speculates that she may actually have been a little girl going out to play.
• I don't blame Esau/Esav for coming with 400 men to meet his brother Jacob/Yaakov--see my Midrash Madness.
  

New thoughts

• Much has been made of the fact that Dinah went out alone, but much of the blame has been placed on Dinah herself. I'd flip that blame on its head: If it was dangerous for a female to go anywhere unescorted, why the heck could none of Dinah's 10 older brothers--or any of Yaakov's servants, if the boys were too young--find a free minute to accompany her? As my husband speculated, did Yaakov and/or his sons expect this poor girl/woman with no sisters to be content never to have any contact with other girls/women of her own age?
  
• In the commentary to the Hertz Chumash, Rabbi Joseph Hertz notes that B'reishit/Genesis chapter 34, verse 7 , " . . . he had wrought a vile deed in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter. . ." is problematic: " in Israel" . . . is strictly an anachronism," because Israel, referring here to the Jewish People, did not exist until after the Exodus from Egypt. Until then, we can talk about B'nei (the Children of) or Bet/Beit/Beth/pick-your-transliteration (the House of) Yisrael (Israel, meaning Jacob), but not about Yisrael/Israel as a people. Hertz fudges over the issue by describing "a vile deed in Israel" as " . . . the reflection of Scripture on the incident . . . " Huh? I call Documentary Hypothesis on this phrase, which, in my opinion, was clearly written later.
  

Liturgy:Egalitarian changes that I do or don't accept

First, my ground rules:

• I never change quotations that come from any book of Tanach/the Bible. We take Tanach as it is--we may argue about the text, but we never change it.
• On the other hand, any prayer written by the rabbanim/rabbis is fair game (in my personal opinion).
• On the third hand (you should pardon the expression :) ), I concluded some years ago (see my post "Hem u-n’sheihem (them and their wives)" . . . : A woman’s place—if any—in the siddur") that, since the Hebrew language does not have a neuter, any word in the masculine can be assumed to include the feminine unless otherwise specified. The most common form of specification is "Avraham, Yitzchak, v'Yaakov (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)," which clearly excludes women.
  

So, what changes do I make?

• I say "Modah ani (I thank you)" using the feminine form of the verb, wherever the text says "Modeh" the masculine form of the verb.
• I go for the positive in the Birkot HaShachar/Morning Blessings, praising HaShem for having made me a Jew (sheh-asani Yisrael), a "bat chorin/free daughter" (it's actually somewhat difficult to say "free 'person'" in Hebrew), and a woman (sheh-asani isha).
• When praying silently, I add the Imahot (Mothers), Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, v'Leah (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah) to the Avot ("Fathers"/Ancestors) section of the Amidah prayer, and, in addition to "Magen Avraham (Shield of Abraham)," I say "u'Fokeid Sarah." (I not sure of the exact tranlation--"the One who keeps His commitment to Sarah"--but it comes from Tanach/Bible, B'reishit/ (Genesis), I think from Parshat Vayera--"HaShem pakad et Sarah kaasher diber," quoth she from memory, having heard her husband lein/chant that Torah reading on Rosh HaShanah, not to mention practice leining it, for many years).
• When praying Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals silently or leading a group in which changes are acceptable, I add "v'al mitzvotecha sheh-chatamtah b'libeinu/for the commandments that you have sealed in our hearts." I swiped this phrase from the birkon/bentcher/Grace after Meals book Shaarei Simcha/Gates of Joy, edited by Adena K. Berkowitz and Rivka Haut. I mean, get real folks, Judaism doesn't believe in "circumcision" for women (thank heaven), so how can we women thank G-d for the covenant sealed in our flesh when it just isn't?
• When praying Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals silently or leading a group in which changes are acceptable, I also add "v'imoteinu Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, v'Leah, heitiv tuvat malei tov/and our Mothers, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah" (um, don't know the exact translation, but it has to do with goodness and is based on biblical quotes--I think a former rabbi [male] taught me this one.)

And what changes don't I make?

• I don't say that "Moses and Miriam and the Children of Israel sang a song to You/Moshe u'Miriam u-v'nei Yisrael l'cha anu shira. . . " because the mention of Miriam occurs a paragraph or two later in the original biblical text, and, to me, it seems somewhat forced to say it here.
• I don't feel entirely comfortable with the Kos Miriam/Miriam's Cup at the Seder table, because, as a former rabbi pointed out, the Haggadah emphasizes our liberation from slavery by HaShem--if even Moshe/Moses barely warrants a mention, why bring in Miriam?