This may not seem immediately related to the portion, Shemini, in anyone else’s head. But Louis Armstrong — both voice and trumpet — has always sounded to me like a man who has experienced strange crossings with their share of harrowing times and losses…not unlike what the families of Aaron/Elisheva and Moses/Zipporah — and the Israelites, more generally — have been experiencing. For me, this is most evident on Moon River:
Category: National biography
Vayakhel: A Path to Follow
In this portion, and this portion alone, the women of the children of Israel are identified as a significant group within the larger whole,” writes R. Nancy H. Weiner in her dvar Torah, “Of Women and Mirrors.”
The Torah unequivocally highlights that women are participating in the single most important sacred endeavor of the community of Israel’s collective existence: the building of the mishkan, the place in which God’s presence will dwell among the people and travel with them as they journey toward the Promised Land.
And then the narrative takes a significant turn. The efforts of the entire community become the backdrop for the tasks taken on by the great (male) architects and craftsmen of the mishkan. The portion mentions the contributions of women only once more as it describes the labors of Betzalel, the chief architect of the mishkan. The Torah says, “He made the laver of copper and its stand of copper, with the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (Exod 38:8)…
— Weiner, in The Women’s Torah Commentary
One path to follow is to look at the role of women in the ancient Israelite world. The work of Tikva Frymer-Kensky comes to mind as a starting point.
But Weiner herself suggests another path: “…[Women] are not the only victims of collective amnesia…” Look at less visible Jewish communities of today — Kulanu or Bechol Lashon [In Every Tongue].
The entire piece, “Of Women and Mirrors,” is available at GoogleBooks, The Women’s Torah Commentary.*
* Please see Source Materials for full citations and additional information.
————————————————————–
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.
Ki Tisa: Something to Notice
Sections of this week’s portion figure prominently in Arguing with God: A Jewish Tradition, by Anson Laytner (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1990).
Anson explores rabbinic use of Moses’ arguments (p.49ff). He describes liturgical use of verse 32:12 — “turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent the evil against Your people” — in an 11th Century CE piyut (liturgical poem) recited on Mondays and Thursdays as part of Tachanun [supplication] (p.122ff). In addition, he outlines the “complete law-court argument prayer” which Moses offers immediately after the Golden Calf incident, Exodus/Shemot 32:9-14:
Here is manifest an example of complete law-court argument prayer: an opening address (verse 11), a defense argument (verses 12a, 13), a plea (or petition) (verse 12b), and a divine response (indirect) (verse 14). But the threat of destruction is not ended. Although God relents of His plan (verse 14), He still requires further appeasement…(Exodus 32:30-35)
The second argument should be considered as a continuation of the first, although structurally each can stand alone. First of all, it pursues the same line of argumentation as does the first. Second, it provides the real conclusion to the story (that is God’s actual sentence and its execution [verses 33-35]). Third, Moses’ ultimatum, “erase me,” seems to be a direct response to God’s offer in verse 10 to make of Moses a great nation. Fourth, Moses’ recounting of the event, in Deuteronomy 9:26-29, blends the two arguments of the Exodus story into a single unit. Finally, both arguments are needed to save the people fully.
— Anson, p.10-11
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.
———————————————————————————-
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**
Mishpatim: A Path to Follow
This portion’s many rules/laws [mishpatim] are followed by powerful narrative (chapter 24) which includes the people’s famous utterance — “we will do and we will listen [or hearken/heed/obey]!” — and an episode in which a group of Israelites “beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Exodus/Shemot 24:3, 7, 11).
There is a great deal of commentary on “na’aseh v’nishma,” which is variously translated as “we will do and we will obey” (Stone*) or “we will do and we will hearken/listen,” (Fox*) or “we will do and we will heed” (Alter*). Some of the earliest can be found in Shabbat 88a-b in the Babylonian Talmud*:
R. Eleazar said: When the Israelites gave precedence to ‘we will do’ over “we will hearken,’ a Heavenly Voice went forth and exclaimed to them, Who revealed to My children this secret, which is employed by the Ministering Angels, as it is written, Bless the Lord, ye angels of his. Ye might in strength, that fulfill his word. That hearken unto the voice of his word [Ps. 103:20] first they fulfill and then they hearken?
Some other places to explore paths leading from this verse are: Schwartz’s Tree of Souls,* Reform Judaism magazine’s piece on “Healing the World,” R. Jill Jacobs’ article “Do First, Understand Later” on My Jewish Learning.
For another path, consider a contemporary midrash with many notes on the “lunch with God” episode, Exodus/Shemot 24:9-11, see “One Woman’s Conclusion.”
* For complete citations and more details on Torah commentaries and other works — including a link to the Babylonian Talmud in PDF — please see Source Materials.
————–
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.
One Woman’s Conclusion (Ex. 24)
One Woman’s Conclusion (a Haftorah)
for Exodus 24:1-11
I’m sure I’ve mentioned before how glad I often was that I was not destined to fully join my husband’s prophetic family. I, for one, was perfectly content as one of the ones who stayed far off [1]. I already knew I couldn’t — and wouldn’t care to — go a step closer.
But, there I was, among the seventy [2]. For the record, which is not always clear, there were five women among the atzelai [3]: Shifra and Puah by virtue of their standing in the community [4]; Miriam, because she usually managed to be everywhere that concerned her brother [5]; Serakh, because of her status as an elder — yes, I agree that “elder” is something of an understatement for the daughter of Asher ben Jacob [6], but that’s another story — and, you’re right, even 500 years weren’t enough for her to be considered an “Elder” with a capitol `E,’ but we’d better leave that for another day, too. And me? I don’t know exactly how I ended up there.
Anyway, there we were, the seventy of us plus Moses, sharing an experience… Or, at least we agreed about the bricks. Well, maybe `agree’ isn’t quite the word:
Abihu saw a pattern of complex crystals [7]; Nadav, fired brick [8]. Aaron saw the foundation stones of the Covenant [9]. Someone said the pyramid bricks had been transformed into gemstones [10]. Shifra saw glistening birthing stones and even wondered aloud if we’d be inundated when the waters really broke [11]. Puah said no, labor must be further along, given all the quaking and thunder [12]. The rest of us knew better than to get into that one.
And, there was never much hope of agreement on the color. Some had clearly seen blue [13]; others insisted on white [14]. A few suggested that the surface merely reflected what was above it [15].
All told, there must be more than 70 different accounts, and each one will no doubt become the basis for many more tales [16]. So, let me stick to mine.
When we first arrived at the place, we were engulfed in ground-fog. Nadav and Abihu were already trying to climb higher, but Miriam reached out to pull them back. In the end, she had no more success with her nephews [17] than I had with her brother, but that morning, the young men followed her lead.
Miriam began a dance. Abihu, Nadav, and the rest of us fell right into step with her, all of us whirling through the mist, around those bricks and their many meanings, immersed in the dance and the Presence. Maybe it was the natural way Miriam responded, or the community gathered around us. I’m not sure. But I do know that this couldn’t have been more different from that night at the lodging place [18]…
Later, when the sun’s rays were just beginning to find us, the veil of morning mist was suddenly torn from the mountain [18] bathing us in a light so bright and so blue that it took my breath away [19, 20].
“It’s not true, you know,” Serakh began, “that we can’t see God” [21]. There were a lot of worried looks then, but she continued in her calm, storyteller’s voice. “My great-great-grandfather’s second wife was forced to leave the family [22], but before she left, Hagar touched us in many ways and shared with us her name for God: God of Vision, God of my seeing, who sees me” [23]. I looked out at the faces around the circle, at Serakh’s ancient, furrowed brow; at Abihu’s eager, young eyes; at Aaron’s peacemaking smile and Puah’s determined chin. Serakh was right, of course. We can see God and live to tell of it. We do it all the time [24].
A twig snapped somewhere, and the moment was gone. Suddenly, as if we’d planned it — or all realized our hunger at once — we all began scurrying for our provisions. Aaron suggested looking for Moses, who’d disappeared by then [25], but Miriam and I agreed — a rare event in our acquaintance…and about something concerning her brother, at that! — to let Moses pursue his experience as we pursued ours. So, we saw God, and we ate and drank [26, 27].
And what happened to Moses? Well, I long ago gave up trying to explain what it was like being co-wife to the Shekhinah [28], and I never tried to interpret Moses’ experiences. But, I will tell you this: Everyone else will tell you that Moses had already disappeared by the time we started to dance that morning at the bricks. But I know what I know, and I know that Moses and I were joined for a few moments in that dance, not as husband and wife, but as two within the Presence. The weight he’d been carrying seemed to have become pure energy; he was light and free and burning again with the bush’s fire. And when we danced, Moses handed me a gift I’ve needed many times in these last 40 years — the certainty that the Presence would never crush him and that, because of the weight he willingly bore, we all dance on firmer ground.
End notes:
1. “Atzelai,” Ex 24:11. At Ex 24:1, Ex 24:9, and elsewhere, ziknei, elders, are summoned. Here, the term often translated as “elders,” “great men,” or “nobles” is a different, rarely used expression: atzelai. In Clark’s Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (based on Samuel Raphael Hirsch’s etymology), atzelai is translated as the “ones who stayed at far off.”
2. See Exodus/Shemot 24:1.
3. Buber says the term “Atzelai,” means either “corner pillars” or “joints” (Moses: Revelation and the Covenant, p.118). Another reading (Ramban) is based on the verb “to emanate,” because “the spirit of G-d emanated upon them. Similarly, `I have called thee mei-atzilehah‘ from those upon whom his spirit has emanated (Isaiah 41:9).”
4. See Exodus/Shemot 1:21, “And it was because the midwives feared God that He made them houses.”
5. Miriam is closely connected with her brother’s life, even before it begins: In midrash, she is responsible for insisting, at age 6, that the Hebrew couples (including her parents) who had separated during Pharaoh’s decree, remarry and produce children among whom is Moses (Sotah 12a). She follows her brother’s passage down the Nile, is there to offer a wet-nurse to Pharaoh’s daughter (Ex 2:4-7)….
6. See Numbers/Bamidbar 26:40 and associated midrash. Serakh bat Asher ben Jacob, who would have been born five centuries before the Exodus, is listed when the census is taken in Numbers; midrash links this apparent longevity to the grandchild’s role in announcing Joseph’s whereabouts to Jacob. See, e.g., p.85 in Frankel’s The Five Books of Miriam.*
7. Ex 24:10: “Ha-sappir.” See p.175 in Clark’s Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, “precious stone composed of many crystals.”
8. Ex 24:10: “Livnat.” Fired brick.
9. Hertz Soncino on Ex 24:10.
10. Rashi on Ex 24:10.
11. Based very loosely on a remark in Lifecycles,* vol. 1, p.8 about “a feminized Baruch She’amar” yielding “Blessed is the One who wombs (whose waters break over) the world.”
12. Alicia Ostriker* (Nakedness of the Fathers, p.127) refers to Revelation as God breaking through “heaven’s membrane, from being beyond time to being within time.”
*I’m pretty sure I’ve read a midrash more directly making Sinai a birth-event, but I can’t remember where: If you know of such a text, please tell me; if not, you read it here first!
13. Another reading of ha-sappir is “sapphire,” though not apparently the corundum-based gem but lapis lazuli which was known to the ancient Near East (heavily featured, for example, in items from the Tombs of Ur, recently [recently in 2000, when this was written] on exhibit at the Sackler Gallery).
There is also a tradition that the tablets given to Moses were made of this blue stone (my daughter, Tracy Spatz O’Brien [then age 9], found this in her The Little Midrash Says for Shemot, with sources listed as Zohar 37a and Sifsai Kohen.) So, maybe what the atzelai saw were the bits chipped off as God carved the first tablets.
14. Clark’s Etymological Dictionary links livnat with “white,” “purifying” and “bright moon” as well as with “fired brick.”
15. Rabbi Meir’s teaching about the deeply blue dye tekhelet used for tzitzit (Talmud Menachoth 23b), links tekhelet with the color of the sea, the color of the sky, and the Throne of Glory. But, thanks to a drash of [former] Fabrangen member [now active at Adas Israel and with the Jewish Study Center] Sheldon Kimmel (personal communication), we also know that the substance which produces tekhelet is colorless until exposed to light; similarly, water is only blue in reflecting the sky, while the sky is not really blue either, but the way we perceive its light.
16. See notes on Psalm 19 (p.184-187 in Kol Haneshamah). Ha-sappir is related in Clark’s etymology to: `telling, reciting past event’ (Genesis 40:9), `declaring’ (Ps 22:23), `scribe’ (Jr 36:32), `book, collection of ideas’ (Genesis 5:1); and to the concept of “unifying.”
Marc-Alain Ouaknin argues, in Mysteries of the Alphabet, that Sinai was the birth of the alphabet, freeing written symbols from concrete symbolism perhaps even explaining why the Israelites “saw voices.” See also Yitro: Something to Notice.
17. Nadab and Abihu die “offering alien fire” before the Lord (Lev 10:1ff).
18. Exodus 4:24-26: On the journey from Midian to Egypt, Moses is attacked by God, and Zipporah saves him by circumcising their son (or possibly Moses himself, in variant readings). See also my midrash, “Drawing Back: Zipporah’s View.”
19. God tells Moses, “Come up to the mountain, and be there.” Buber says this shows we have to “be there” before the text, i.e., ready to receive it.
If you’re one of those for whom the phrase “be here now” immediately calls to mind Baba Ram Dass, suppose for a moment that after he turned on, instead of traveling to India, Richard Alpert had visited a shul on Shabbat Mishpatim: What kind of book would Rabbi Alpert (Rabbi Ram Dass?) have written?
20. Buber, Moses, pp.117: “…the representatives of Israel come to see Him on the heights of Sinai. They have presumably wandered through clinging, hanging mist before dawn; and at the very moment they reach their goal, the swaying darkness tears asunder (as I myself happened to witness once) and dissolves except for one cloud already transparent with the hue of the still unrisen sun. The sapphire proximity of the heavens overwhelms the aged shepherds of the Delta, who have never before tasted, who have never been given the slightest idea, of what is shown in the play of early light over the summits of the mountains. And this precisely is perceived by the representatives of the liberated tribes as that which lies under the feet of their enthroned Melek.”
21. Compare, e.g., Exodus 33:20.
22. Genesis 21:9-21. Hagar and Ishmael are sent into the desert by Sarah and Abraham.
23. Genesis 16:13. Hagar, pregnant with Ishmael, runs way from Sarah’s cruelty, meets an angel in the desert, and names God.
24. Consider, for example: Although the portion ends with ha-elohim meaning “God” — under whose feet the Israelites see bricks, blue, and one another — ha-elohim in the opening of this portion (Ex 21:6) means “judges,” earthly representatives of God.
25. Ex 24:11.
26. Set these ordinances before the people — as a table laid for a meal (Rashi).
27. For those who know that all the really good stuff is in the footnotes anyway: if there are tiles under God’s feet and blue above, maybe the atzelai were invited to join God in the mikveh (the gathering of waters designed to immerse us wholly in a moment, between past and future) or to join God as mikveh (“Hope of Israel,” past, present and future). Thus, the three immersions (fog, movement, and light). And/or, if the bricks are made from the same substance as the Torah (see notes 13 and 16 above), maybe the atzelai are immersed in Torah. And/or…
28. Moses enjoyed an unprecedented, face-to-face relationship with God. Moses is sometimes said to have wed the Shekhinah, the presence of God amongst the people, one of the feminine aspects of God, according to mystical (kabbalistic) teachings.
* Complete citations and further details can be found in Source Materials

One Woman’s Conclusion (a Haftorah) for Exodus 24:1-11 by Virginia A. Spatz is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Yitro: Great Source(s)
At Sinai, when the Holy One gave the Torah to Israel, He manifested marvels upon marvels for Israel with His voice. How so? As the Holy One spoke, the voice reverberated through the world. At first Israel heard the voice coming to them from the south [1], so they ran to the south to meet the voice there. It shifted to the north, so they ran to the north. Then it shifted to the east, so they ran to the east; but from the east it shifted to the west, so they ran to the west. Next it shifted to heaven. But when they raised their eyes toward heaven, it seemed to rise out of the earth. Hence Israel asked one another, “But wisdom, where shall it be found? And where is the place of understanding?” (Job 28:12)
“And all the people perceived the thunderings” [roim ha-kolot] (Exod. 20:15). Since there was only one voice, why “thunderings” in the plural? Because God’s voice mutated into seven voices, and the seven voices into seventy languages, so that all the nations might hear it. [2]
—Sefer Ha-Aggadah (English trans., p. 81)*
[1] When facing east, the south is on the right side, the side where the Torah was given. Hence the commentator begins with the south.
[2] The Torah is intended for all nations — it is not to remain Israel’s sole prerogative. Exod. R. 5:9; Tanhuma B, Shemot 22.
Sefer Ha-Aggadah contains many more midrashim about the giving of the Torah. Here’s some basic information and opportunity to borrow an a copy for two weeks. another link to more information on this resource. (Used copies run about $50 — you won’t regret the purchase, although this hefty, oversize volume does require some sturdy space.)
See also “Something to Notice,” which includes a link to a related visual midrash.
—-
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.
Beshalach: Language and Translation
There are several significant shifts of number in this week’s portion. One occurs earlier in the portion, when “Egypt” and “the Egyptians” chase the Israelites.
In Shemot/Exodus 14:9, the Egyptians are plural and take a plural verb:
Va-yirdefu Mitzrayim achareihem [The Egyptians set out after them]
In the next verse, however, the Israelites view “Egypt” as a singular entity traveling — nosea [singular] — after them.
Alan Lew writes in Be Still and Get Going:*
Why does the Torah shift number so cavalierly here? According to Rashi, it is because the Torah wishes to emphasize what it was the Israelites saw when they raised their eyes to the horizon. They saw not the Egyptians themselves, in the plural, but the spirit of Egypt, in the singular. They saw their idea of Egypt. They saw the Egypt in which they had cowered as slaves for four hundred years, in which they were abused and outnumbered. In other words, they saw their fear of Egypt. They saw a mental construct, or in Rebbe Nachman’s words, something that they were afraid of but didn’t have to be.
The biblical text takes pains to make the same point. This text is ambiguous about exactly how many chariots there were in the army that had pinned the Israelites down at the sea….
…Why would such a tremendous throng be afraid of 1,800, or even 180,000, charioteers? The answer is that they were not responding to what was really there, nor even to what they saw. Rather they were responding to a phantom. They were responding to a fear-inducing product of their own imagination.
Later, at the Song of the Sea — when Moses and then Miriam sing to the LORD — there is another shift:
Ashira L’YHVH — I will sing to the LORD (Exodus/Shemot 15:1)
Shiru L’YHVH — Sing [plural] to the LORD (15:21)
*For complete citation and other information, please see Source Materials.
—-
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.
Beshalach and Bobby McGee
“Together, Today, with a Desert to Roam”
A Lyrical Commentary on Parashat Beshalach,
to the tune of “Me and Bobby McGee” —
with apologies and thanks to authors Fred Foster and Kris Kristoferson,
and to Janis Joplin on whose rendition this is based.
(c) V. Spatz, 2003.
[composed for the occasion of a Fabrangen bat mitzvah]
Continue reading Beshalach and Bobby McGee