>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Select Parsha Highlights:
The death of Nadav and Avihu is revisited with directives to be careful: Do not approach the holy at just any moment - וְאַל־יָבֹ֤א בְכָל־עֵת֙: But at the right times, with the right offering, wearing the right clothes and cap, after רָחַ֥ץ בַּמַּ֛יִם - washing.
The goats and process for Yom Kippur are described.
Rules of sacrifices. The prohibition on eating blood.
The meaning of blood:
יד: כִּי־נֶ֣פֶשׁ כָּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר דָּמ֣וֹ בְנַפְשׁוֹ֘... י
-- Because the soul of all flesh is its blood in its soul [Raf translation]
Prohibitions on doing what Egyptians and Canaanites do. [Self definition via negation. -- R.Z.]
Definition of close family and the prohibition on relations therein. [A definition that evolves to the Jewish concept of "clan?"]
Definition by negation made explicit:
כד: אַל־תִּטַּמְּא֖וּ בְּכָל־אֵ֑לֶּה כִּ֤י בְכָל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ נִטְמְא֣וּ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ מִפְּנֵיכֶֽם
-- You shall not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations, whom I am sending away from before you, have defiled themselves with all these things.
And much more....
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
17:3
ג: אִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁחַ֜ט שׁ֥וֹר אוֹ־כֶ֛שֶׂב אוֹ־עֵ֖ז בַּמַּֽחֲנֶ֑ה א֚וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִשְׁחָ֔ט מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה:
-- Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp,
ד: וְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֘ לֹ֣א הֱבִיאוֹ֒ לְהַקְרִ֤יב קָרְבָּן֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לִפְנֵ֖י מִשְׁכַּ֣ן יְהוָֹ֑ה דָּ֣ם יֵֽחָשֵׁ֞ב לָאִ֤ישׁ הַהוּא֙ דָּ֣ם שָׁפָ֔ךְ וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמּֽוֹ:
-- but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people;
This can be seen as generalizing the precedent of Nadav and Avihu: Sacrifices are to be done the right way... or else. (Dressed specially for the ritual; Body prepared; Time appropriate. Strongly suggesting the right frame of mind.[0])
While the sphere of politics has long had consequences for crossing important lines (treason, sedition, espionage) -- crimes that carry heavy penalties (gulags, imprisonment, execution), the personal sphere is also a place of hard boundaries.
Consider the concept: "Unconditional love."
There are people we love because of station (parent, child), and people we choose to love. (Entering a space with someone/allowing love to happen--also a choice?) Is love ever, really, unconditional?
I was told once that the bond, or feeling, of love may be unconditional, yet the ability (or appropriateness) of staying in relationship is a choice independent of the bond. For example: The "relational package" may be subject to a stressor or crossed line that is not acceptable to one or both.
This parsha presents a few vectors of this kind:
Rashi says we are reminded of Nadav and Avihu because such framing makes the directives relevant. Connecting sacrificial structure to observed history helps us see our actions in the context of a living (ahem) tradition.
Likewise, prohibitions on "being like Egyptions/Canaanites/etc" are connected: Those tribes were. And went. Their practices exited with them and should not exist in their Jewish successors.
On the one hand, that we are still discussing the mistakes of Nadav and Avihu makes me think: How many generations do we spend atoning for the mistakes (aka sins) of our ancestors? Who needs to "do the work" and when?
The Lindy effect comes to mind.[1] Specifically two aspects:
From Taleb's Antifragile[2]:
"If a book has been in print for forty years, I can expect it to be in print for another forty years. But, and that is the main difference, if it survives another decade, then it will be expected to be in print another fifty years. This, simply, as a rule, tells you why things that have been around for a long time are not "aging" like persons, but "aging" in reverse. Every year that passes without extinction doubles the additional life expectancy. This is an indicator of some robustness. The robustness of an item is proportional to its life!"
Yiddishkeit can be seen to be a living example of the Lindy Effect[3]
And, I observe, this observation strongly endorses both: The utility of sacrifices and Temple as abstract ideas (as opposed to practices); and some of Yeshayahu Leibowitz's ideas (including: His emphasis on Jewish Humanism; Excluding the State from the domain of the sacred; and, Concerns about both rabbinic corruption via state involvement and general moral corruption ensuing from Occupation).[4]
The word in Hebrew for Revolution is מַהְפֵּכָה it is from the root הפכ as in לְהִתְהַפֵּך -- to turn over, to flip.
We know from history that there are, at least, two kinds of revolutions: The American kind, which was "a change in high level oversight" that left existing structures of ownership in place; And the Soviet kind: Radical restructuring at all levels. The American approach has been, materially (and even culturally) extremely successful. The Soviet system devolved to a dynasty of Party (which today closely resembles Tzarist Russia, though lacking an heir to the throne).
The Parsha gives a process that transcends generations. The tools and procedures of atonement start in the hands of Aaron. But they are assigned to a role, to a title. Succession to the title flows to a clan. History removed the altar and sacrifices from the Temple and parked them in Tanakh, Mishnah and Gemarra. Their virtual history exceeds their physical history by such magnitude that an עם הארץ -- am haaretz[5] -- can see what works over time.
At a Yom Haatzmut party two days ago, the music was playing. Dancing was beginning. A man stood to the side. Forlorn. "Why are you sad?" he was asked. "When I woke up, I felt the joy and the pain of the day. At the moment, joy does not exceed the pain."
Where are our limits, our lines, our borders? Spiritually, interpersonally, nationally?
Limits, lines, are always there.
---
[0] For many years, in my work life, whenever I went to sell (e.g. traveled to a big corporate office to give a presentation), I wore a shirt and tie. At no other time did I wear a tie in those years. But when I was going to stand up and talk, I wore a tie. To remind myself: You are on. On arrival, in the parking lot, I turned off my phone. Reviewed my notes. I found a bathroom so my body was prepared to be on stage from the moment I walked in the lobby. And then I was on.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile_(book)
[3] https://tinyurl.com/lindyeffectnyt aka https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/style/lindy.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am_ha%27aretz
----------------
(Poetry Caveat: Yes, I use poems that I have used before. Dvars come at a faster pace than new poetry. I find support for this pattern in, of all places, Taleb [who could have guessed], where I read just yesterday:
“Learning is rooted in repetition and convexity, meaning that the reading of a single text twice is more profitable than reading two different things once.”)
Булат Окуджава: Песенка о московском муравье -- 1957
Bulat Okudzava: Song about a Moscow Ant
(Raf translation, 2021, 2023)
To pray over someone, That is my need
Imagine, a simple ant
Suddenly wanted to fold up his legs [to be more human like?]
Believing in his own charm.
The ant was left without peace
Everything was now flat and boring
So the ant made himself a goddess
In his own image and spirit
On the seventh day in a magic moment
She arose from the night fire
Without anything, without a sign from heaven
Her coat floating lightly on her arm
He forgot everything. All joy and sorrow
The door to his house threw open
He kissed her dry hands
And her old shoes.
In the quiet shadows of the doorstep they spoke
A wordless conversation they had
Beautiful and wise, as gods
And sad, like residents of earth.
--------
Мне нужно на кого-нибудь молиться.
Подумайте, простому муравью
вдруг захотелось в ноженьки валиться,
поверить в очарованность свою!
И муравья тогда покой покинул,
все показалось будничным ему,
и муравей создал себе богиню
по образу и духу своему.
И в день седьмой, в какое-то мгновенье,
она возникла из ночных огней
без всякого небесного знаменья...
Пальтишко было легкое на ней.
Все позабыв - и радости и муки,
он двери распахнул в свое жилье
и целовал обветренные руки
и старенькие туфельки ее.
И тени их качались на пороге.
Безмолвный разговор они вели,
красивые и мудрые, как боги,
и грустные, как жители земли.
----------------
--end--