Terumah: Language and Translation

“And they shall make [v’asu (third person plural)] an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and cubit and a half high. Overlay [v’tzipita (second person masc. singular)]…Cast [v’yazkakta (second person masc. singular)] four gold rings… Make [v’asita (second person masc. singular)]…” — Exodus/Shemot 25:10-13

Why is the third person plural — “they shall make” — employed in verse ten while all the other verbs in making the Tabernacle and its accoutrements are second person masculine singular, as in “[you, male individual] make”?

Contemporary Translation

I don’t know of a commentary directly noting that use of the third person plural here has the effect, grammatically, of including males and females in construction of the all-important ark — and, by extension, Torah study and Torah implementation* — while the second person verb forms generally used in the tabernacle instructions, as throughout Exodus/Shemot, address a masculine singular “you.”

However, this week’s portion begins with “Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts: you shall accept gifts for Me from every person [kol ish] whose heart is so moved” (Exodus 25:2). The Torah: A Women’s Commentary (TWC) ** notes here that later verses — Exodus/Shemot 35:22, 35:29 and 36:6 — explicitly include men and women, thus arguing for the translation as “every person,” rather than as the more usual “every man.”

In her “Post-Biblical Interpretations” in the same volume, Ruth Gais (rabbi of Chavurat Lamdeinu) also references comments from Ramban (aka Nachmanides, 13th Century CE) — see section below — on the involvement of “all Israel” in the work (see TWC, p. 468). In addition, however, Ramban comments on Exodus/Shemot 35:22 that the women actually went first, in the bringing of the gifts for the Tabernacle.

Ramban’s reading of the women’s precedence is based on another grammatical point. The text reads: “And they came [va’yabo-u], the men [ha-anashim] with/because of the women [al-nashim], all whose hearts moved them….”

Varieties of Traditional Readings

In her essay, “The ark and its poles,” (in New Studies in Exodus/Shemot), Nechama Leibowitz** explores the third-person-plural vs. second-person-singular topic. While she quotes her usual range of traditional and contemporary commentators, she minces no words in outlining her view of some:

As we have noted the slaving adherence to the literal wording of the text can often blind one to its real inner meaning. This, for instance, is what Ibn Ezra has to observe on the text:

Since the text originally stated: “they shall make Me a sanctuary,” it begins here with the wording; they shall make an ark”

Cassuto similarly observes in his commentary to Exodus (p. 328):

The reversion to the third person plural instead of the 2nd person singular is meant here to link up with the phrase: “the children of Israel shall make Me a sanctuary,” and, first of all, they shall make an ark.

We may justifiably wonder at these literalists…Does not the very faithfullest interpretation of the text, the plainest sense in its profoundest connotation, imply that here we have the singling out of the ark for a special role, the enlisting, in contrast to all the other appurtenances, of all Israel in its making? Must we not admit that the Midrash has plumbed the depths of the text’s plainest and literal sense?

Leibowitz quotes three midrashic sources:

1) R. Judah said in the name of R. Shalom: “Let all come and occupy themselves with the ark so that they should all qualify for the Torah.

2) Ramban (Nachmanides) explained that “all the Israelites should participate in the construction of the ark because of its supremely sacred role in housing the tablets of the Law,” through donation, direct help or “directing their minds to it.”

3) Or Ha-chayyim (Chayyim Ibn Atar, 18th Century CE) stresses that all Israel is required to complete the ark, just as no one Israelite alone can implement the whole Torah: Some laws pertain only to priests or Levites, for example, while a priest would not redeem his own firstborn.

In an endnote to the essay (not included in the on-line version), Leibowitz also quotes Midrash Tanchuma (early medieval commentary):

We find that when the Holy One Blessed be He instructed Moses to build the Tabernacle He used the expression ve-‘asita “thou shalt make” but with regard to [the ark] He said: ve-‘asu “they shall make.” Why? The Holy One Blessed be He wished to stress that the command applied to each and every Israelite alike. No one should have the excuse to say to his fellow: I contributed more to the ark. Therefore I study more and have a greater stake in it than you! (continued below*)

*Bonus Midrashic Note

Proving that the best stuff is often in the footnotes, the quote from Midrash Tanchuma continues:

For this reason the Torah is compared to water, as it is stated: “Ho, whoever is thirsty come to the water” (Isaiah 51:1). Just as no one is ashamed to ask his fellow to give him a drink so no one should be ashamed to ask his junior to teach him Torah. No one should be able to say: I am a Torah scholar and the Torah is my hereditary privilege because my ancestors too were scholars whereas you and your forbears were not scholars but were proselytes. That is why it is written (Deut. 33:4): “An inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.” Whoever is part of the congregation of Jacob including even proselytes who devote themselves to Torah — they are just as important as the High Priest (i.e., they acquire hereditary right by being included in the congregation.” — Leibowitz, New Studies in Exodus/Shemot, p.495

** Please see Source Material for complete translation and commentary citations.

————————————————————–
The “Opening the Book” series was originally presented in cooperation with the independent, cross-community Jewish Study Center and with Kol Isha, an open group that for many years pursued spirituality from a woman’s perspective at Temple Micah (Reform). “A Song Every Day” is an independent blog, however, and all views, mistakes, etc. are the author’s.
———————————————————————————-

Continue reading Terumah: Language and Translation

Mishpatim: Great Source(s)

“When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him.” — Exodus 23:4

One of the important features found in Mishpatim regarding the regulating of behavior in the public sphere is when it deals with those situations wherein there is a breakdown within the normal and expected realities that generally govern this sphere. Such a breakdown undermines peaceful coexistence between society’s members….

…the Torah is attempting to create men who, in their interactions with others, are governed by a sense of responsibility to act not in accordance with their own interests, but rather in accordance with the needs, hopes, and aspirations of the other. If Hillel (Talmud, Shabbat 31a) states that the fundamental principle governing our moral interactions is “what is hateful to you, do not do to others,” the laws of lost property dictate and teach us that you are not the sole barometer of what is right and what is necessary, but, rather, the other person who is in need of your assistance. It is your responsibility to truly see the other — to be senstive to their needs and desires and then to respond with moral activism. — Hartman, p.117, 121

This quote is taken from R. Donniel Hartman’s essay, “A Man in Public,” IN The Modern Men’s Torah Commentary.* The entire essay can be read at http://books.google.com. The brief article discusses some of the related issues in Jewish law, such as how to determine when an article is “ownerless.”

Shemot/Exodus 23:4 is frequently referenced in explorations of Jewish values generally and, more specifically, with regard to “hakem takem imo” — lifting up/aiding those in distress. It is cited, along with other verses from this week’s portion, in Hershey H. Friedman’s “Creating a Company Code of Ethics: Using the bible as a guide.” (Also see Talmud as a Business Guide at Academia.edu)See also, Nechama Leibowitz,* “Two Acts of Help.”

* Please see Source Materials for complete citations and more details.

——————
The “Opening the Book” series was originally presented in cooperation with the independent, cross-community Jewish Study Center and with Kol Isha, an open group that for many years pursued spirituality from a woman’s perspective at Temple Micah (Reform). “A Song Every Day” is an independent blog, however, and all views, mistakes, etc. are the author’s.

Mishpatim: Language and Translation

In Exodus/Shemot 22:20-23, God commands the people not to “wrong* or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Plaut/Stern translation**), adding a note about also caring for widows and orphans and concluding with one of those dire warnings that is apparently so unspeakable, the text breaks off, causing some translators to resort to ellipsis, before presenting a very specific threat:

Oh, if you afflict, afflict them…
For (then) they will cry, cry out to me,
and I will hearken, hearken to their cry,
my anger will flare up
and I will kill you with the sword,
so that your wives become widows, and your children, orphans!– Fox**

If you [dare to] cause him pain…! for if he shall cry out to Me, I shall surely hear his outcry. My wrath shall blaze and I shall kill you by the sword, and your wives will be widows and your children orphans. — Stone**

Continue reading Mishpatim: Language and Translation

Vayechi: A Path to Follow

In one of her studies of Vayechi, “Jacob’s Testament,” Nechama Leibowitz* discusses Joseph’s reluctance to swear to Jacob’s burial wish:

The Midrash aptly explains the difference between Joseph’s behavior and that of Abraham’s servant [when asked to swear, regarding finding a wife for Isaac]:

Said Rabbi Isaac: The servant acted servilely and the freeman as a free agent. The servant acted servilely, as it is said: “And the servant put his hand…” Whilst the freeman acted as a free agent: “And he said, I will do as thou hast said.” (Bereshit Rabbah* 96)

A servant has to do the behest of others….A free agent however is only bound by his conscience, and chooses his own actions in accordance with his own freely arrived-at decisions.

Malbim** makes a similar distinction…It was better for him to do it out of his own free will, rather than be bound by oath. In the latter instance, he could not take the credit for fulfilling his obligations freely.

This explanation may help us understand Biblical and Rabbinic disapproval of vows. Man should rather conduct himself as a free agent rather than be bound by external bonds…

The topic of vows is a complex one in Judaism and offers an interesting path to follow. Here are two basic articles on vows, vowing and oaths: one from R. Louis Jacobs at My Jewish Learning and one from the Encyclopedia of Judaism.
Continue reading Vayechi: A Path to Follow

Vayeitzei: Something to Notice

UPDATED: November 24, 2019

In this portion, Bilhah, maid to Rachel, bears Dan and Naphtali, while Zilpah, maid to Leah, bears Gad and Asher. As when Sarah arranged for Abraham to father a child with her maid Hagar (Genesis/Breishit 16:2), the product of such a union was considered a child of the master-woman/wife rather than of the maid who conceived, carried, bore and nursed the baby.

In recent decades, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah have been added, in a number of non-Orthodox prayerbooks, to the first blessing of the Amidah — the central prayer of the Jewish liturgy — after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Bilhah and Zilpah did not join the list of “Matriarchs,” however, in the official prayerooks of the Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist movements.

Jews continue to question the place of Bilhah and Zilpah in this list. Not including them gives “tacit approval to the idea that woman is property,” goes one argument. Recognizing these women as Matriachs, according to others, would do honor to the many couples — including gays and lesbians — for whom full-status marriage has not been an option. On the other hand, it is argued that it is inappropriate to include women who were not active partners with in the covenant and prophets in their own right in “the ancestors” blessing of the Amidah.

Here, for example, is question and response on this topic from the CCAR (Central Conference of American Rabbis) as the Union for Reform Judaism was preparing its 2007 Mishkan T’fillah prayerbook. Similar issues were discussed as the Reform movement in the United Kingdom prepared its 2008 Seder Ha-T’fillot prayerbook (link no longer available).

Mishkan T’fillah was eventually published without Bilhah and Zilpah; I believe this is also the case with Seder Ha-T’fillot, but I have not seen the latter myself. On the other hand, Siddur B’chol L’vav’cha, which arrived earlier [in 2009], does include these mothers (congregational and ordering information). Siddur Sha’ar Zahav also provides more alternatives for the Amidah “ancestors” blessing.

The Jewish Women’s Archive includes an article on the maids’ place in Jewish prayer.

2019 Additions:
See also Torat Bilhah: The Torah of a Disposable Woman by Wil Gafney, who argues for including Hagar as well.

The website “Evolve: Groundbreaking Jewish Conversations” includes thoughts from David Mosenkis on “Why I include Bilhah and Zilpah in the Imahot.” After reading earlier this year (2019), I added my own comment:

For several years, I included Bilhah and Zilpah as imahot for the reasons described above. Eventually, though, I worried that I was, in my attempt at inclusion, erasing them in the same way that decades of attempts at “color-blind” society effectively erased the differences in realities around color in this country. The attempt at equalizing Bilhah and Zilpah, by including them along with Sarah and Rachel and Leah in the Amidah, can have the effect of flattening out the women’s experiences, so that the subservience of the two is discounted. Now, in the individual Amidah, I pause and leave a space for acknowledging a wider, more varied group of ancestors, who contributed in some way to my standing before God at that moment. Have not really figured out how to succinctly express this when leading….Cantor Sue Roemer, z”l, used to hum a blank, so to speak, after listing the seven: “Elohei hmm-hmm, Elohei hmm-hmm.”

For more on “innovation” in recently published [as in 2007-2009ish] prayerbooks, see “When the Ground Breaks” and “Groundbreaking Part 2” here.

See Source Materials for full siddur citations.

The “Opening the Book” series was originally presented in cooperation with the independent, cross-community Jewish Study Center and with Kol Isha, an open group that for many years pursued spirituality from a woman’s perspective at Temple Micah (Reform). “A Song Every Day” is an independent blog, however, and all views, mistakes, etc. are the author’s.

Toldot: A Path to Follow

This portion includes an episode (Breishit/Genesis 26:1-11), beginning “Now there was a famine in the land,” which closely mirrors a similar story in Breishit/Genesis 12:10-20. Isaac involves Rebecca in a “say you’re my sister” experience in Gerar which is very akin to the one through which Abraham put Sarah in Egypt.
Continue reading Toldot: A Path to Follow

Chayei Sarah: Great Source(s)

Students of Torah know that the text rarely spends time describing the emotional state of its characters. In fact, this is the only Torah portion that shares details of mourning for a woman. Abraham’s tears for his wife here are quite unexpected, and in order to understand their power, we have to understand their context.

Though I usually resent any broad generalizations that all men behave in a certain manner, it does seem clear that when they suffer a death, a strong majority of men are less comfortable expressing their feelings and more comfortable springing into action. We are good at making the arrangements, at picking people up at the airport. We show our love less by heartfelt expression than by demonstrable deeds. Continue reading Chayei Sarah: Great Source(s)

Va-yera: Great Source(s)

“Let us examine the other figures in [the Akedah], in addition to Abraham and Isaac,” writes Dr. Sander L. Gilman in “The Joy of Waiting.” He suggests turning attention to the servants who also journey to Mount Moriah and wait while Abraham and Isaac climb. ”

These two servants, most probably men, are stock figures…While our eyes follow the central figures in the drama (Abraham and his son Isaac), these two figures recede from our attention (Islamic readings have it that the son is Ishmael rather than Isaac [Qur’an 37:101-13]).”

What is striking when we sit and wait with the servants while Abraham takes Isaac off into the distance, where the silhouette of Mount Moriah looms, is the boredom of every life, the very unmanliness of inaction… (p. 25; p.27 The Modern Men’s Torah Commentary, Jeffrey K. Salkin, ed.*)

In this essay on Va-yera, which is available through the collection’s preview on GoogleBooks, Gilman argues that the ability to wait is part of “a Jewish masculine identity” and “a role to be embraced.”

The act of waiting, for Jews, is not being impotent or passive; it is engaging in meaningful activities of daily life, those so often dismissed as the activities done to pass the time.

…Being Jewish is waiting productively by acting self-consciously in the world, as if we were Abraham’s servants. For remember that Maimonides states in Sefer Ha-mitzvot that the 497th mitzvah is to “help others load their beast” (Deuteronomy 22:4). — p. 29

*See Source Materials, for complete citation and more information. Check out the Gilman essay in the print collection for the endnotes, which include an interesting array of bottom sources — from Joseph Soloveitchik to Woody Allen; the entire collection is worth a look, as well.

————————————————————–
Click on the “WeeklyTorah” tag for more resources on the weekly portion throughout the year, or on a portion name for parashah-specific notes. (The series began with Numbers; posts for Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus are being drafted, week-by-week.) You can also zero-in on particular types of “Opening the Book” posts by clicking Language and Translation, Something to Notice, a Path to Follow, or Great Source in the tag cloud.
Continue reading Va-yera: Great Source(s)

Lekh Lekha: Great Source(s)

Text of Terror

In her book, Texts of Terror,* Phyllis Trible compares the story of Hagar in flight from Sarah (Genesis/Breishit chapter 16) and the later incident — in next week’s portion, Va-yera — of her expulsion, with Ishmael, from Abraham’s household (21:9-21). Trible’s close reading of the text contrasts the first episode’s voluntary flight and hospitable wilderness (where there is water, for instance), with the second’s exile and inhospitable wilderness (leaving mother and child with no water). She also describes how Hagar — “belonging to a narrative that rejects her” — recedes from the tale: the recipient of blessing and revelation, in the first episode, Hagar is un-heard while God responds to Ishmael’s tears in the second.
Continue reading Lekh Lekha: Great Source(s)