assorted thoughts on Parshat Yitro (relevalation at Sinai)
Yes, Shavu'ot was a couple weeks ago, but between LJ outages and
general busy-ness I haven't written about it before now.
My rabbi's tikkun leil Shavu'ot (late-night torah study for the holiday) always begins with a study of Exodus 19-20. This year I noticed, or had pointed out, things I had not previously noticed.
The first is in 19:1, which begins to set the scene. The text refers to a specific day, but instead of saying "bayom hahu" (on that day) it says "bayom hazeh", on this day. (My rabbi pointed this out.) There is a midrashic tradition that all the Jewish people, including (mystically) those not yet born, stood at Sinai; I wonder if this is related. Or, I wonder if it's part of the proof-text for the idea that revelation is ongoing. Or, maybe it's just a typo. :-)
A few verses later there's a bit of poetic repetition that I understand to be stylistic for biblical Hebrew -- God says "thus shall you say to the house of Ya'akov and tell the people of Israel". The house of Ya'akov and the people of Israel are, of course, one and the same. Saying and telling are similar; I wonder if there is nuance there or it's just part of the poetry. But something else struck me: the noun phrases there are "beit Ya'akov" and "b'nei Yisrael" (so "people" of Israel is a mistranslation; it says "sons of"). Is repetition just repetition, or does it try to hint at something? When you talk about your "house" you're looking backwards, to your ancestry; when you talk about your "sons" (or children) you're looking to the future. Maybe the torah is tellins us that both are important; this new enterprise isn't a clean slate (don't ignore your past) but it is a new opportunity (you can change going forward).
(Aside: I am growing to intensely dislike the translation "children of Israel". Too many people read it as "young children" and write divrei torah about how they needed to be taught as if newborns, couldn't be expected to think for themselves, etc. While they did need to be taught, that line of reasoning lets them off the hook for the things they did wrong, like the various rebellions. When someone becomes "bar mitzvah" ("bar" = "ben"; it's Araamic versus Hebrew) we say he's an adult. B'nei Yisrael were, likewise, adults. If we need a gender-neutral word, how about "descendants of Israel"?)
Another small thing: God says (to the people, via Moshe) "you have seen...how I carried you on eagles' wings". In talking about the exodus we talk a lot about divine might (including in the part of that verse I elided), but might alone, while impressive, probably wouldn't evoke buy-in from the people. Thus far they've seen a divine slug-fest; they might reasonably think that they're just trading one uncaring master for another. I think this might be the first indication to the people that it's (at least partly) about them and not just our God fighting it out with Egypt's false gods. The people probably needed that in order to be able to accept torah willingly instead of under duress. (Did they accept it willingly? That's another issue.)
The first and last of the ten commandments given directly to the people ("I am your God" and "don't covet") aren't about actions so much as intentions or belief. You can refrain from stealing or adultery, but refraining from the coveting that would lead you to steal or adulter seems a little less under your control. Judaism focuses more on action than belief, but you need both and maybe this bracketing of the active commandments is meant to indicate this.
Originally posted here: http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/cellio/1158.html
My rabbi's tikkun leil Shavu'ot (late-night torah study for the holiday) always begins with a study of Exodus 19-20. This year I noticed, or had pointed out, things I had not previously noticed.
The first is in 19:1, which begins to set the scene. The text refers to a specific day, but instead of saying "bayom hahu" (on that day) it says "bayom hazeh", on this day. (My rabbi pointed this out.) There is a midrashic tradition that all the Jewish people, including (mystically) those not yet born, stood at Sinai; I wonder if this is related. Or, I wonder if it's part of the proof-text for the idea that revelation is ongoing. Or, maybe it's just a typo. :-)
A few verses later there's a bit of poetic repetition that I understand to be stylistic for biblical Hebrew -- God says "thus shall you say to the house of Ya'akov and tell the people of Israel". The house of Ya'akov and the people of Israel are, of course, one and the same. Saying and telling are similar; I wonder if there is nuance there or it's just part of the poetry. But something else struck me: the noun phrases there are "beit Ya'akov" and "b'nei Yisrael" (so "people" of Israel is a mistranslation; it says "sons of"). Is repetition just repetition, or does it try to hint at something? When you talk about your "house" you're looking backwards, to your ancestry; when you talk about your "sons" (or children) you're looking to the future. Maybe the torah is tellins us that both are important; this new enterprise isn't a clean slate (don't ignore your past) but it is a new opportunity (you can change going forward).
(Aside: I am growing to intensely dislike the translation "children of Israel". Too many people read it as "young children" and write divrei torah about how they needed to be taught as if newborns, couldn't be expected to think for themselves, etc. While they did need to be taught, that line of reasoning lets them off the hook for the things they did wrong, like the various rebellions. When someone becomes "bar mitzvah" ("bar" = "ben"; it's Araamic versus Hebrew) we say he's an adult. B'nei Yisrael were, likewise, adults. If we need a gender-neutral word, how about "descendants of Israel"?)
Another small thing: God says (to the people, via Moshe) "you have seen...how I carried you on eagles' wings". In talking about the exodus we talk a lot about divine might (including in the part of that verse I elided), but might alone, while impressive, probably wouldn't evoke buy-in from the people. Thus far they've seen a divine slug-fest; they might reasonably think that they're just trading one uncaring master for another. I think this might be the first indication to the people that it's (at least partly) about them and not just our God fighting it out with Egypt's false gods. The people probably needed that in order to be able to accept torah willingly instead of under duress. (Did they accept it willingly? That's another issue.)
The first and last of the ten commandments given directly to the people ("I am your God" and "don't covet") aren't about actions so much as intentions or belief. You can refrain from stealing or adultery, but refraining from the coveting that would lead you to steal or adulter seems a little less under your control. Judaism focuses more on action than belief, but you need both and maybe this bracketing of the active commandments is meant to indicate this.
Originally posted here: http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/cellio/1158.html