Sunday, November 12, 2006
Vayera Blogging
Some notes from my sermon:
If Jonah were read as the Haftorah, rather than two miracles wrought by Elisha, I would have compared and contrasted Abraham, who bargained with God not to destroy the Cities in the Plain, with Jonah, who tried to run away from God and later defended his actions by pointing out that God wanted to forgive Ninevah rather than giving them a good smiting. Of course, while Abraham also participates in wars, as a capable military tactician, Jonah doesn't even want to smite Ninevah himself. Jonah is a chickenhawk!
Vayera has two major thematic elements: the imporance of hospitality and the degree to which the good old days were not so good especially as concerned the treatment of women and children as property (we see in this parsha, with the drama of the Akedah at the end, the stirrings of a new, more egalitarian morality ... even before then, we have Abraham commanded to listen to his wife!).
Comparative religion lesson (inspired by hearing both stories being read at a mass once, although the contrasts were not discussed in the homily or anything): Abraham:Sarah::Mary:Martha ... but in the story of Mary and Martha, Mary is rewarded for being the "hostest with the mostest" whereas Martha, in the kitchen, is chastized. OTOH, it is really Sarah who is rewarded with Isaac, as Abraham already has his heir -- and Abraham was the host while Sarah was doing the work. This says something about faith vs. works and their relative importance in Christianity and Judaism, nu?
The real sin of Sodom certainly wasn't "Sodomy": but it wasn't just a lack of hospitality either. Note that the Sodomites a xenophobes who accuse Lot of improperly judging them by not allowing them to rape his guests. I.e. the Sodomites claimed that Lot was interfering with their liberty by exercizing his freedom of conscience. Selfishness and a fetishistic attitude toward free market capitalism (some of the Rabbis claimed the "average" attitude of "what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine" was actually that of Sodom), a tendancy to complain that those, whose culture is different than theirs, are "forcing their values" on them merely by exercizing certain liberties and demanding some degree of equal rights? Hmmm ... sounds familiar, nu?
I guess, in the typical irony of such things ("it figures" -- Morissette), it's those who complain the most about Sodomites are themselves the real Sodomites ... right down to the xenophobia (linked with lack of hospitality and even a fetish regarding the good old days, which certainly were not good), free market fetishism and moral relativism mascerading as moral absolutism, etc.
A final thought based on the commentary in the Eitz Chaim to the verse "lift the boy up and take him by the hand" -- just as Sodom was destroyed by a lack of reaching out, sometimes we gain strength by reaching out to others and helping them: we gain the strength to help them and ourselves.
If Jonah were read as the Haftorah, rather than two miracles wrought by Elisha, I would have compared and contrasted Abraham, who bargained with God not to destroy the Cities in the Plain, with Jonah, who tried to run away from God and later defended his actions by pointing out that God wanted to forgive Ninevah rather than giving them a good smiting. Of course, while Abraham also participates in wars, as a capable military tactician, Jonah doesn't even want to smite Ninevah himself. Jonah is a chickenhawk!
Vayera has two major thematic elements: the imporance of hospitality and the degree to which the good old days were not so good especially as concerned the treatment of women and children as property (we see in this parsha, with the drama of the Akedah at the end, the stirrings of a new, more egalitarian morality ... even before then, we have Abraham commanded to listen to his wife!).
Comparative religion lesson (inspired by hearing both stories being read at a mass once, although the contrasts were not discussed in the homily or anything): Abraham:Sarah::Mary:Martha ... but in the story of Mary and Martha, Mary is rewarded for being the "hostest with the mostest" whereas Martha, in the kitchen, is chastized. OTOH, it is really Sarah who is rewarded with Isaac, as Abraham already has his heir -- and Abraham was the host while Sarah was doing the work. This says something about faith vs. works and their relative importance in Christianity and Judaism, nu?
The real sin of Sodom certainly wasn't "Sodomy": but it wasn't just a lack of hospitality either. Note that the Sodomites a xenophobes who accuse Lot of improperly judging them by not allowing them to rape his guests. I.e. the Sodomites claimed that Lot was interfering with their liberty by exercizing his freedom of conscience. Selfishness and a fetishistic attitude toward free market capitalism (some of the Rabbis claimed the "average" attitude of "what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine" was actually that of Sodom), a tendancy to complain that those, whose culture is different than theirs, are "forcing their values" on them merely by exercizing certain liberties and demanding some degree of equal rights? Hmmm ... sounds familiar, nu?
I guess, in the typical irony of such things ("it figures" -- Morissette), it's those who complain the most about Sodomites are themselves the real Sodomites ... right down to the xenophobia (linked with lack of hospitality and even a fetish regarding the good old days, which certainly were not good), free market fetishism and moral relativism mascerading as moral absolutism, etc.
A final thought based on the commentary in the Eitz Chaim to the verse "lift the boy up and take him by the hand" -- just as Sodom was destroyed by a lack of reaching out, sometimes we gain strength by reaching out to others and helping them: we gain the strength to help them and ourselves.
# posted by alberich @ 6:18 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Alberich wrote:
...it is really Sarah who is rewarded with Isaac, as Abraham already has his heir -- and Abraham was the host while Sarah was doing the work. This says something about faith vs. works and their relative importance in Christianity and Judaism, nu?
But doesn't the Lord indicate his testiness at Sarah's lack of faith in his promise that she will have a child? Can't we assume the maidservant Hagar was the harder worker of the two; Hagar and Sarah? Isn't "I am the Lord your God..." the most important commandment and tied into a demonstration of faith not works? Don't you show respect for the Lord by making the Sabbath a day of rest?
It just seems that you can really tease any meaning you want out of any of these stories.
(Albeit before the Covenant, the Lord dealt with the hard working Cain rather capriciously.)
...it is really Sarah who is rewarded with Isaac, as Abraham already has his heir -- and Abraham was the host while Sarah was doing the work. This says something about faith vs. works and their relative importance in Christianity and Judaism, nu?
But doesn't the Lord indicate his testiness at Sarah's lack of faith in his promise that she will have a child? Can't we assume the maidservant Hagar was the harder worker of the two; Hagar and Sarah? Isn't "I am the Lord your God..." the most important commandment and tied into a demonstration of faith not works? Don't you show respect for the Lord by making the Sabbath a day of rest?
It just seems that you can really tease any meaning you want out of any of these stories.
(Albeit before the Covenant, the Lord dealt with the hard working Cain rather capriciously.)
It just seems that you can really tease any meaning you want out of any of these stories.
(Albeit before the Covenant, the Lord dealt with the hard working Cain rather capriciously.) - cmike
Indeed, one can. That's the beauty part ;)
And speaking of teasing meaning, one interpretation is that Cain, like your typical "self-reliant, up-from-the-bootstraps" attributed all his success to his own hard work -- and while he did work hard, obviously there are always externalities. But when one ignores externalities and takes all the credit for one's own success (and blames those who are un-successful for their own lack of success, ignoring external factors that played a role, and thus, e.g., wants to cut government services, etc. because "people should help themselves"), one gets to a point where one can become quite violent: economic conservatives sure do bear the mark of Cain.
Interestingly, although the Cain and Abel story is often read as a "farmers vs. cowboys" story (which is still being played out in the Middle East with Palestinian farmers being victimized by both Zionist and non-Palestinian Arab "cowboys": in large part the plight of the Palestinians is not because of Israel per se, but because the cowboys -- most Arabs -- could not be friends with the farmers -- Palestinians: the Arab world is Oklahoma! writ large with deadly seriousness), the real story is perhaps that of Cain vs. Seth: the lineage of Cain and the lineage of Seth are parallel and represent two slightly different versions of the same story. Historically, there was a group on the fringes of Hebrew society (which eventually became integrated with the larger society and who also contributed much technological and legal -- Jethro may have been a Kenite -- knowledge to Hebrew society) called the "Kenites". Presumably the mark of Cain is some sort of caste mark and the whole story about Cain relates to how the Kenites got to be who they are.
I've not read much about this, but the tribes of Levy and Simeon seem to have been similar outcasts ... the Levites were distributed across ancient Israel, but the Simeonites were around the same location as the Kenites and were similarly absorbed into the tribe of Judah. I wonder if there is some connection between Simeonites and Kenites? Perhaps the story of Simeon and the story of Cain are two different versions of a similar tradition about the origins of a group of outcast artisans in Judea that were eventually re-absorbed into the larger society?
I'll presumably, as the Torah portions focus on "tribal" issues, get a little bit more into the meanings of the "geneologies" of Genesis, in future posts.
But you are right, I would agree, about Hagar ... but she got her kid even before Sarah got hers! As to the issue of the most important commandment -- a Jewish commentator would say "yes, that is important, but you fulfil that commandment not by faith but by showing your love for God by loving your fellow man (cf. Hillel)".
And the Sabbath is certainly not a celebration of faith but is all about work (and taking a break from which thereof ;) ) -- ever prepare a Sabbath meal for a crowd? ;)
(Albeit before the Covenant, the Lord dealt with the hard working Cain rather capriciously.) - cmike
Indeed, one can. That's the beauty part ;)
And speaking of teasing meaning, one interpretation is that Cain, like your typical "self-reliant, up-from-the-bootstraps" attributed all his success to his own hard work -- and while he did work hard, obviously there are always externalities. But when one ignores externalities and takes all the credit for one's own success (and blames those who are un-successful for their own lack of success, ignoring external factors that played a role, and thus, e.g., wants to cut government services, etc. because "people should help themselves"), one gets to a point where one can become quite violent: economic conservatives sure do bear the mark of Cain.
Interestingly, although the Cain and Abel story is often read as a "farmers vs. cowboys" story (which is still being played out in the Middle East with Palestinian farmers being victimized by both Zionist and non-Palestinian Arab "cowboys": in large part the plight of the Palestinians is not because of Israel per se, but because the cowboys -- most Arabs -- could not be friends with the farmers -- Palestinians: the Arab world is Oklahoma! writ large with deadly seriousness), the real story is perhaps that of Cain vs. Seth: the lineage of Cain and the lineage of Seth are parallel and represent two slightly different versions of the same story. Historically, there was a group on the fringes of Hebrew society (which eventually became integrated with the larger society and who also contributed much technological and legal -- Jethro may have been a Kenite -- knowledge to Hebrew society) called the "Kenites". Presumably the mark of Cain is some sort of caste mark and the whole story about Cain relates to how the Kenites got to be who they are.
I've not read much about this, but the tribes of Levy and Simeon seem to have been similar outcasts ... the Levites were distributed across ancient Israel, but the Simeonites were around the same location as the Kenites and were similarly absorbed into the tribe of Judah. I wonder if there is some connection between Simeonites and Kenites? Perhaps the story of Simeon and the story of Cain are two different versions of a similar tradition about the origins of a group of outcast artisans in Judea that were eventually re-absorbed into the larger society?
I'll presumably, as the Torah portions focus on "tribal" issues, get a little bit more into the meanings of the "geneologies" of Genesis, in future posts.
But you are right, I would agree, about Hagar ... but she got her kid even before Sarah got hers! As to the issue of the most important commandment -- a Jewish commentator would say "yes, that is important, but you fulfil that commandment not by faith but by showing your love for God by loving your fellow man (cf. Hillel)".
And the Sabbath is certainly not a celebration of faith but is all about work (and taking a break from which thereof ;) ) -- ever prepare a Sabbath meal for a crowd? ;)
As I guess you understand, my point was that it would seem to non-Muslims that the hard working Hagar saw her son lose his birthright when Sarah had her male child.
Speaking of farmers and continuing to dwell in pre-Covenant times here's an interesting link to assigned reading that Brad DeLong posted for his Econ 210a class. (Don't think this means I'm trying to put off your promised discussion of genealogy - that sounds like it will be, er, fascinating.) Did you mean to say that most Arabs -or Semites- were Bedouins by the time of Moses - literally more nomads than farmers?
(P.S. your comment counter on the main page seems to be broken, at least for this thread.)
Speaking of farmers and continuing to dwell in pre-Covenant times here's an interesting link to assigned reading that Brad DeLong posted for his Econ 210a class. (Don't think this means I'm trying to put off your promised discussion of genealogy - that sounds like it will be, er, fascinating.) Did you mean to say that most Arabs -or Semites- were Bedouins by the time of Moses - literally more nomads than farmers?
(P.S. your comment counter on the main page seems to be broken, at least for this thread.)
Perhaps there is a theological answer to this question that you might know. Is it believed that climate change over the centuries has left the land of milk and honey so inhospitable or that human populations have caused an environmental blight there? Perhaps it is as it always was.
Did you mean to say that most Arabs -or Semites- were Bedouins by the time of Moses - literally more nomads than farmers? - cmike
I was referring to the present situation (farmers vs. cowboys): it seems the Arab world always had some of each.
that human populations have caused an environmental blight there?
The theological answer would be that human populations sinned and led God to cause the blight: the land is promised to the people of Israel but was promised only so long as we properly follow God's sacred obligations ... by not following these obligations (the big ones relate largely to sustainable farming practices, so it is indeed a matter of humans wrecking environmental havock) ... the people of Israel had two chances and blew it both times, so now, until the Messiah comes, we really are not supposed to be settled there en masse (which is why some ultra-Orthodox Jews still reject Zionism).
It is indeed a myth of Zionism that "the Jews made the land bloom" (i.e. by following appropriate farming practices). In practice the Palestinians who settled there did quite well with agriculture. Doubtless, global climate change has made the fertile crescent less fertile than it once was, but it's hardly a place inhospitable to agriculture.
I was referring to the present situation (farmers vs. cowboys): it seems the Arab world always had some of each.
that human populations have caused an environmental blight there?
The theological answer would be that human populations sinned and led God to cause the blight: the land is promised to the people of Israel but was promised only so long as we properly follow God's sacred obligations ... by not following these obligations (the big ones relate largely to sustainable farming practices, so it is indeed a matter of humans wrecking environmental havock) ... the people of Israel had two chances and blew it both times, so now, until the Messiah comes, we really are not supposed to be settled there en masse (which is why some ultra-Orthodox Jews still reject Zionism).
It is indeed a myth of Zionism that "the Jews made the land bloom" (i.e. by following appropriate farming practices). In practice the Palestinians who settled there did quite well with agriculture. Doubtless, global climate change has made the fertile crescent less fertile than it once was, but it's hardly a place inhospitable to agriculture.
As I guess you understand, my point was that it would seem to non-Muslims that the hard working Hagar saw her son lose his birthright when Sarah had her male child. - cmike
That did happen. But it was not un-expected ... one aspect that often gets missed in all of these discussions, btw, is the source of all this infertility: these ur-Hebrews were inbreeding like hillbillies (Sarah was Abraham's half sister) -- so you have Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel somewhat infertile and Leah looks kinda funny. It's not until the children of Jacob start marrying outside their kinship group that fertility gets on the rise (and, FWIW, that the ancient Hebrews actually start speaking Hebrew).
Speaking of farmers and continuing to dwell in pre-Covenant times here's an interesting link to assigned reading that Brad DeLong posted for his Econ 210a class.
Some would say that stories like that of Adam and Eve actually are memories of the upheavals caused by the dawn of farming (eating from the "tree of knowledge"). Perhaps women were largely behind this change (there is the old "women civilized men" chestnut) ... but it really did, as Diamond points out, hurt women. Indeed, comparing, e.g., pastoral vs. farming societies in Nigeria, while one typically does not associate Islam with feminism (although my high school was filled with practicing Muslims who were hard core feminists and almost as hard core Zionists), in the pastoral Muslim groups of the north, birth control is commonly practiced and women do not bear such a huge burdon, at least from child rearing. In the south, however, women are fattened up from a young age and have traditionally been treated as baby-making factories.
Don't think this means I'm trying to put off your promised discussion of genealogy - that sounds like it will be, er, fascinating.
You aren't. That discussion will wait for a later Torah portion: I missed my chances with Bereshis and Noach, so I'll put it off probably until either the story of Dinah or until the final blessings of Jacob, at which time the issues of tribal identity, social position and the representation of tribes as people and tribal roles being attributed to the personal traits and behavior of a mythical founder, will come up.
P.S. your comment counter on the main page seems to be broken, at least for this thread.
This happens often. It's a "feature" of "blogger ... you get what you pay for". Try reloading the page ... usually that causes the numbers to change.
That did happen. But it was not un-expected ... one aspect that often gets missed in all of these discussions, btw, is the source of all this infertility: these ur-Hebrews were inbreeding like hillbillies (Sarah was Abraham's half sister) -- so you have Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel somewhat infertile and Leah looks kinda funny. It's not until the children of Jacob start marrying outside their kinship group that fertility gets on the rise (and, FWIW, that the ancient Hebrews actually start speaking Hebrew).
Speaking of farmers and continuing to dwell in pre-Covenant times here's an interesting link to assigned reading that Brad DeLong posted for his Econ 210a class.
Some would say that stories like that of Adam and Eve actually are memories of the upheavals caused by the dawn of farming (eating from the "tree of knowledge"). Perhaps women were largely behind this change (there is the old "women civilized men" chestnut) ... but it really did, as Diamond points out, hurt women. Indeed, comparing, e.g., pastoral vs. farming societies in Nigeria, while one typically does not associate Islam with feminism (although my high school was filled with practicing Muslims who were hard core feminists and almost as hard core Zionists), in the pastoral Muslim groups of the north, birth control is commonly practiced and women do not bear such a huge burdon, at least from child rearing. In the south, however, women are fattened up from a young age and have traditionally been treated as baby-making factories.
Don't think this means I'm trying to put off your promised discussion of genealogy - that sounds like it will be, er, fascinating.
You aren't. That discussion will wait for a later Torah portion: I missed my chances with Bereshis and Noach, so I'll put it off probably until either the story of Dinah or until the final blessings of Jacob, at which time the issues of tribal identity, social position and the representation of tribes as people and tribal roles being attributed to the personal traits and behavior of a mythical founder, will come up.
P.S. your comment counter on the main page seems to be broken, at least for this thread.
This happens often. It's a "feature" of "blogger ... you get what you pay for". Try reloading the page ... usually that causes the numbers to change.
It is indeed a myth of Zionism that "the Jews made the land bloom" (i.e. by following appropriate farming practices). In practice the Palestinians who settled there did quite well with agriculture.
Thanks for that, I guess I've read too much Leon Uris. Guess I should find something written by a pro-Palestianian novelist.
Thanks for that, I guess I've read too much Leon Uris. Guess I should find something written by a pro-Palestianian novelist.
cmike,
Probably a good idea for both of our reading lists you have ...
Just realize that each side has it's agenda. Likely the pro-Palestinian person would have you believe that the Palestinians have inhabited Israel since before the Israelites or something (in which case, one wonders how they came to speak Arabic and became Muslim -- and if people could convert so readily then, and if the Jews have it so good now ... well, you'd think there would be a movement among Palestinians to convert to Judaism: actually the lack of such a movement, however little support it would get from Judaism which doesn't encourage conversion, quite suprises me -- you'd think that if the desire to return to Israel was so strong, that for a few people, their desire would trump all else, and they'd do what it would take to return -- and converting to Judaism would do the trick, nu?) ... yet even Mark Twain/Sam Clemmons, whom I would trust to be a careful observer and, if anything, biased toward native inhabitants and against any possible colonialist movement, reports the Zionist-adopted line about the land being un-populated, etc.
Which makes me suspect that, pardon me for sounding like a media talking head, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Likely a few Palestinian families have lived off the land as farmers for over a thousand years and likely much of the "making the land bloom" was done by Palestinians. But likely most of the period of Palestinian immigration roughly corresponded with that of Jewish immigration as the British, under the influence of those seeking to establish a Jewish state, were trying to develop the land, creating opportunities for Jew and non-Jew alike. Indeed, many of the Hashemites were big-time pro-Zionists, and there are still Zionists among the Arabs today, who see a western-oriented Jewish state as a nucleus for development in the Arab world.
And you don't have to be a paranoid neo-con to realize that much of the anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism being spread around the Arab world was at least first spread (it has since developed a life of its own) as a direct propaganda effort by the powers that be to prevent Israel from being such a nucleus in the popular imagination, which would lead to a situation in which the old Arab elites would end up being deposed. The neo-cons actually generally are right about the problems of the world: they just are wrong with their militaristic solutions (and also they -- often Kissingerian realists in disguise even as they accuse we who oppose them of being "realists" -- are often part of the problem, rather than the solution).
Post a Comment
Probably a good idea for both of our reading lists you have ...
Just realize that each side has it's agenda. Likely the pro-Palestinian person would have you believe that the Palestinians have inhabited Israel since before the Israelites or something (in which case, one wonders how they came to speak Arabic and became Muslim -- and if people could convert so readily then, and if the Jews have it so good now ... well, you'd think there would be a movement among Palestinians to convert to Judaism: actually the lack of such a movement, however little support it would get from Judaism which doesn't encourage conversion, quite suprises me -- you'd think that if the desire to return to Israel was so strong, that for a few people, their desire would trump all else, and they'd do what it would take to return -- and converting to Judaism would do the trick, nu?) ... yet even Mark Twain/Sam Clemmons, whom I would trust to be a careful observer and, if anything, biased toward native inhabitants and against any possible colonialist movement, reports the Zionist-adopted line about the land being un-populated, etc.
Which makes me suspect that, pardon me for sounding like a media talking head, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Likely a few Palestinian families have lived off the land as farmers for over a thousand years and likely much of the "making the land bloom" was done by Palestinians. But likely most of the period of Palestinian immigration roughly corresponded with that of Jewish immigration as the British, under the influence of those seeking to establish a Jewish state, were trying to develop the land, creating opportunities for Jew and non-Jew alike. Indeed, many of the Hashemites were big-time pro-Zionists, and there are still Zionists among the Arabs today, who see a western-oriented Jewish state as a nucleus for development in the Arab world.
And you don't have to be a paranoid neo-con to realize that much of the anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism being spread around the Arab world was at least first spread (it has since developed a life of its own) as a direct propaganda effort by the powers that be to prevent Israel from being such a nucleus in the popular imagination, which would lead to a situation in which the old Arab elites would end up being deposed. The neo-cons actually generally are right about the problems of the world: they just are wrong with their militaristic solutions (and also they -- often Kissingerian realists in disguise even as they accuse we who oppose them of being "realists" -- are often part of the problem, rather than the solution).
<< Home
