Drash on Torah portion Tetzaveh

A drash (an exploration, an essay) on the parashah Tetzaveh to be delivered at Congregation Shirat HaNefesh, 2/20/2016; 11 Adar 1, 5776.

But before I start, for those who are not familiar with Jewish practice, Jews divide the Torah into portions, known in Hebrew as sidrot (singular: sidrah). They are also known as parshiot (singular parashah). The two terms are interchangeable. There are 54 sidrot, and they are read sequentially thru the year, one every week. We begin with the creation story on the holiday of Simchat Torah, and parashah by parashah, complete Deuteronomy one year later.

Let’s begin with a thought experiment.
Imagine you are Moshe (Moses) and God has just instructed you to write the Torah. Naturally, the first thing you do is go to the local stationary store down near Sinai to buy a notebook to start recording things. Once you’ve got your  notebook, what do you do?

If I can give you a little direction on what I’m thinking about here, and naturally, there are other ways to address this problem, but what I’m thinking about is this: what kind of information does Moshe need to write this book? Or, if you prefer, what information did the later writers and editors need? (My question isn’t, ‘who wrote the Book?’ My question is, ‘what information were they interested in reporting?’)  I’m asking you to address the problem of “what are the pieces of this book?” What kinds of texts have been compiled into it? Torah isn’t just laws and mitzvot dictated by God or God’s agents here. It’s a lot more than that. What kinds of documents and oral histories does Moshe need to collect, and where does he get them?
{To the reader; at the end of this drash you can find a partial answer, much of which was compiled in a former drash I wrote on sidrah VaYekhel}

Well, we can see this is a multi-textual document, but I don’t think anyone would argue that Torah is primarily a cookbook or a text on dream interpretation or a map of Canaan and Sinai. What is Torah primarily?
{your thoughts?}
I would call it a marriage contract between us and God, but such a summary doesn’t do justice to the multi-textual nature of the contract.

If we can’t really agree on what Torah PRIMARILY is, can we at least agree on what the most important narrative/story is?
{your thoughts?}

How about this to try to hone in on some DEFINABLE measure of importance: what is the most important narrative based on the number of verses or pages devoted to it in Torah? What do you think that would be?
{your thoughts?}

Well, this is a bit crude, but based on the Kaplan Living Torah, the narrative that gets the most pages is... Here’s the breakdown:
Abraham story: .................................... 48pp; Lekh Lekha, VaYera, Khiya Sarah
Joseph story: ....................................... 46 pp; VaYishlakh, Miketz, VaYegash (less Tamar story)
Exodus story: ....................................... 72 pp; Shmot, VaEra, Bo, Beshallakh
Giving of the Law: .................................. 26 pp; Yitro, Mishpatim
Kinds of sacrifices/rituals: ....................... 30+ pp; ViYikra
Building the Mishkan and its parts: ............. 85pp; Terumah, Tetzaveh, Ki Tissa, VaYakhel

The building of the Mishkan and the making of all its sacred components gets decidedly more parchment real estate than any of the others. Surprising, eh? Why isn’t this obvious, and common knowledge?

Part of the reason is that the human mind is a narrative-creating engine. It’s what we do; it’s how we think; it’s how we organize and remember. We like stories and we need stories: Adam and Eve, Abraham and the 3 visitors, Eliezer and Laban, Dinah and Shkhem, Joseph in Egypt, Moses and the plagues, the golden calf. The building of the Mishkan, however, is not what we commonly call a narrative. It’s more like one of those indecipherable and aggravating booklets you get with a piece of furniture from Ikea. Or you can think of it as a set of blueprints; or as an art history lesson.

So tell me, why is the most extensive narrative unit in the Torah an art history lesson, and why is it almost always ignored?
{your thoughts?}

Last week everyone sitting in this synagogue agreed that this art history lesson gave clear instructions on how to create the Mishkan and it’s sacred objects. You said the instructions were clear so we didn’t have to worry about process, so that we could dive in and get to work. It was a brilliant interpretation. But, with all due respect, I totally disagree. The instructions are confusing; the materials are often inappropriate for their use; and there is hardly a single description of what the end products actually looked like. We have no idea what the keruvim looked like, or whether the designs in the woven walls looked like an oriental rug, an art deco pattern, a starry sky, a landscape, or a flat field of color, stripes, or polka dots.  Indeed, even Aaron’s robe, with its bells and pomegranates is argued about in the Talmud. Do the bells and pomegranates alternate around the fringe, or do they hang together as a unit. And we hear Moshe complain in frustration, “show me the candelabra; Your description is incomprehensible!”

All we have is an incomplete blueprint; a set of vague instructions. And we NEVER hear what the Mishkan ultimately looked like. Dare I suggest that THAT wasn’t what the authors (or the Author) was concerned with. I would postulate that the concern was not about end products, but to inspire a people to go out and build; go out and create; go out and take a chance and see what happens! That’s the direct opposite of what we commonly think Torah is trying to do. We commonly think it’s trying to direct us, constrain us, set a clear path for us to walk. Here we’re being told: it’s on you. Go figure it out yourselves.

Normally, a drash concludes in such a way that the congregation thinks, ‘aaah, of course, that’s how God wants me to behave’; or, ‘oooh, so that’s the meaning of that indecipherable word or that grammatically strange construction’; or, ‘hmmm, so that’s why bad things happen to good people’. Etc. Well, I don’t have a nice wrap-up to this drash. It’s more like one of those really aggravating TV shows that ends with the 3 contemptible words, “to be continued”. I’m much less concerned with having you come to neat, clear conclusions than in having you realize that this section, so often introduced as being boring, perhaps isn’t so boring, especially if you’re an artist, an art historian, or someone who values arts and crafts. Or someone who values creativity in general.

I urge you to re-read this series of sidrot with an understanding that this is perhaps as crucial and valuable a section of Torah as the giving of laws, or the telling of remarkable sagas, or the careful execution of sacred rituals. I want you to think about these parshiot and elevate them to their actual importance, an importance that the Torah makes clear by devoting so much time to them. This is not just some instruction manual from Ikea, l’havdil. Creative endeavors are one of the most essential defining features of being human, and not just being human, but being a spiritually and morally elevated human being. Creative endeavors are perhaps the most direct route from earth to God, from Babylon to Jerusalem, from our common, selfish, morally ambiguous state to a place of compassion, openness, and wisdom.

Shabbat Shalom.

Some answers to Question 1, above:

Question 1. What kinds of texts are compiled in this book?
cosmogony, cosmic origins
phylogeny, human origins
mythology of the origin of nations
genealogy
saga and history (inextricably intertwined)
contracts (eg purch of Machpelah)
poetry
dreams
blessings (Balaam)
mystical experiences
basic corporate (Bezelel) and judicial (Yitro) management trees
descriptions of sacrificial and other rites
legal rulings and precedents
census
job descriptions (most of Viyikra)
architectural blueprints
templates for furniture, weaving, cast and beaten metal objects
menus (Abe and 3 angels; Pesakh meal)
recipes (incense and anointing oil)
want-ad (for inspired craftsmen)
mapping, geography
geological surveys
field guides of flora and fauna
etc...}

From my drash on VaYakhel:
I believe Torah was consciously composed as a multi-document text.  It was not intended to have the traditional kind of singularity of perspective and subject found in most other sacred or literary texts. Torah was revolutionary in this way, along with its other revolutionary features:
1. its understanding of God's unity,
2. its ethical code that shattered all cultural norms of the day;
3. its establishment of a whole people as a priesthood;  and
4. its conception of history as having a direction and a purpose.
Torah casts its net over every detail of life and brings it into the sacred realm. Aside from encyclopedias, the only other document that I'm aware of with equal breadth, is... the Talmud, a worthy successor in the Jewish canon.

Genesis/Beraysheet: an analysis

The Torah is read weekly in synagogues around the world. Indeed every synagogue reads the exact same portion each week. To this end, the Torah is divided into sections, parshiot (singular: parashah), each of similar length. Now after the holiday of Sukkot (tabernacles) ending in Simchat Torah ("rejoicing in the Torah"), we begin again, as we do each year, at the beginning of the Torah, with the parashah named Beraysheet (common spelling: Bereshit), pronounced ba-RAY-sheet. It is probably one of the best known parshiot (sections), the story of creation, including Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, Cain's killing of Abel, and then the next ten generations of humankind.

The following is a kind of structural analysis of Beraysheet, ala Levi-Strauss. It is my preferred way of giving a first reading to a Torah text. I break the text into its component sub-documents, based on perspective, information content, grammar-structure, and questions the text appears to be addressing. I also try to make sure that I look at the text both from the point of view (pov) of an author writing the text (what am I trying to tell my readers?), and as a reader, asking why does the author think this is important.

So here is a structural analysis of Beraysheet, Genesis 1:1 to 6:8.

1:1 - 1:23      myth; cosmology; early science including origin of species, with evolutionary perspective; source material for this narrative includes texts and concepts from other cultures, and thus is highly layered and multi-cultural; for the relationship of myth to science, see Malinowski, et al.
1:24 - 1:25    classification of species
1:26              hierarchy of life
1:28              a blessing
1:27 - 2:8     continuing with myth-science
2:9                origin of ethics
2:10 - 2:14    geography and mapping; geology
2:15 - 2:17    divine origin of law
2:18 - 2:20    continuing with myth-science
2:21 - 2:22    surgery, medicine, bio-engineering
2:23 - 2:25    continuing with myth-science
3:1- 3:7        origin of deceit
3:8 - 3:11     awakening of self-consciousness; developmental psychology
3:12 - 3:20   first crime and punishment; also origin of dissatisfaction, sorrow, pain
3:21              origin of clothing fabrication
3:22 - 3:23    origin of mortality; strange text - God speaks with other divine/eternal beings
3:23 - 3:24    human exile
4:1                etymology
4:1 - 4:2       origin of occupations/professions;
4:3 - 4:4        first sacrificial offerings described
4:5                God is partial and can appear unfair, for no reason
4:5 - 4:12      psychological analysis; impulse to anger/murder; human social responsibility
4:13 - 4:16    there are other humans!! where did they come from? clearly intimates that the text so far, or at least the Adam/Eve story, is not to be taken as literal, but metaphorical or allegorical
4:17 - 4:26    genealogy
4: 23 - 4:24   embedded poem with definite prosodic and conceptual structure
5:1                first reference of multiple books comprising Torah
5:2 - 6:1        genealogy; origin of nations; one explanation for the impossibly long lives of the people - they are tribal lives, not human lives; another explanation: the myth of human decline
6:2, 6:4         another reference to other divine/eternal/super-human beings
6:3                genetic/inherent limits to longevity
6:5                psychology
6:6 - 6:7       non-linearity of human development; (flood myth is reference to other cultural literary/historical sources)
6:8               God’s partiality; God’s merciful nature; reward of obedience

Versez in a Werld a Kiendness

What follows is an opening vista from one of the tales in “Versez in a Werld a Kiendness,” from my midrashic poem, Pardaes Dokkumen. The Torah identifies 2 somewhat mysterious states of being: tammay (tamai) and tahhor (tahor). They are usually translated as ‘impure’ and ‘pure,’ or ‘unclean’ and ‘clean.’ I would suggest that perhaps a better understanding would be ‘complex’ and ‘simplified,’ or ‘stressed’ and ‘composed.’ Below are the tammay and tahhor versions of this text. You will see what I mean. For those more interested in the poetry than in my analysis of biblical terminology, I have put the tahhor version (edited and refined, simplified, composed, clean version) of the poem first.

Tahor:
A donkee driver wonderd a krouked trael.
Heer he the vareyan korrus ov the lokus,
Draggenfly, krikket, mosketo, bee,
Ov sparo and jay, mokkenberd, ren,
The russellen mertel and rattellee palm;
The smell ov fig iz rotten by the trael,
The supprize ov gwovva, entoxxakkaten vaelz,
Wield orreggenno krusht by hiz weel,
Ukalliptus branch overhaengen the path;
Seez a pachwerk texcher, thikket and krop,
The raw ferro erths, the almond grove,
Feeldz liend with sipress and boogannveya ro,
The ragged hillside in dustee olliv shaedz,
Pasteesh ov rock, chawkee wite tu gray;
The arid woddee and villij enkarvd
In stone and morter, dome and kortyard,
Kut intu the kontor. The land that iz himm.

And the donkee? Wut will he expere?
The grunts ov the man iz the song he heer.
The dust and stone at hiz houf the horize.
Dung in the roed the frangrens he deziyer .
Hiz masterz rod inspiyren hiz gaet.
And brayz he much ov hiz tedeyus way.


Tamai:
A donkee driver wonderd (a wiended)(a krouked)(iz loenlee) trael.
[Heer(z) he the vareyan][He heer(z) the vareed] korrus (ov a)
          lokus(t),
Draggenfly, krikket, mosketo, bee;
Ov sparo and jay, mokkenberd, (and) ren;
(The Ov) shudder(ing leevz)(ov ukallip)(ov mertel) and rattel ov
          palm;
The smell ov fig (rotten on grownz),
The (rare supprize) gwovva (tree), its [hevvenlee (wiffs)]
          [hevven perfume]
          [entoxxakkaten (smell)][entoxxen its smell];
Wield orreggenno (brusht krusht) by hiz weel(z),
Ukalliptus branch(ez) overhaengen (the hiz) (path);
Seez a pachwerk (in) texcher, vinyerd and krop,
The (raw ferro)(unplanten) (erths feeld(z)), the (wienden rokkee)
           trael and path,
Roedz lien(d z) with sipress and boogannveya hej,
The (ragged rugged) hillside in dustee olliv (shaedz greenz),
Pasteesh ov rock, chawkee wite tu gray;
The (dry arid) woddee and villij (all splayd)(enkarvd embedden
           upthrust)
(In Ov) stone and (morter plaster), wall and dome,
Kut intu the (erth lan). Thus the landz (tael himm vois seeng seel).

And the donkee? Wut iz he (expere see)?
The grunts ov the man (the song he heer).
The dust and stone at hiz houf he (reed see).
Dung in the roed the frangrens he (luv kno persu seek follo).
Hiz masterz rod all that he feel.
And (brayz braez) he (much ov)(all)(oft on) (hiz the) (tedeyus) way.