Interfaith Ki Teitzei

[dauer]

Week 2! Woooooooooo! I'm excited. It's Deut. 21:10-25:19. Let's start with this piece right here:

Chapter 21

10. If you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord, your God, will deliver him into your hands, and you take his captives, 11. and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take [her] for yourself as a wife. 12. You shall bring her into your home, and she shall shave her head and let her nails grow. 13. And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from upon herself, and stay in your house, and weep for her father and her mother for a full month. After that, you may be intimate with her and possess her, and she will be a wife for you. 14. And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have afflicted her.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/TorahR....asp?AID=36237

[Dondi]

Interesting. I don't think this would go over well today. I'm wondering why G-d would allow a foreigner to become a wife, forcefully or otherwise. Wouldn't this taint the Jewish bloodlines? Wouldn't this risk idol influence, assuming she's from a nation that worships idols? I mean, look at Solomon and his problems with foreign wives drawing him away from G-d. Further, didn't they kill everyone when they fought their enemies? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[dauer]

Those are all excellent questions, Dondi. The only one I can surely answer is to say that, according to the text, the Israelites did not kill everyone. And also that matrilineal descent had not been established at this time, according to a scholarly account and not a traditional one. But the issue of bringing in a person from another nation who worships another god (and also is probably pretty resentful about having had her family killed, her life destroyed, and having been forced to marry an enemy) does seem like it could lead to a corruption of the system being developed.

I actually think the traditional Jewish answer comes pretty close to the reason why this law was included, just as a response to the yetzer hara, the evil inclination. Because it sets rules for her more humane treatment while not actually banning something that might have been natural for a warrior in those times. Seems like a trade off with the avodah zera issue.

Anyone else have thoughts on these questions or anything else in the passage?

Dauer

[Faithfulservant]

My thought on this is that the Jewish bloodlines are carried down through the man. I think Dauer said that but thats just what I am thinking.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

My thought on this is that the Jewish bloodlines are carried down through the man. I think Dauer said that but thats just what I am thinking.

What I meant by Jewish bloodline, and I guess I used the wrong terminology, had to do with intermixing with gentile blood in general. I had the impression that G-d didn't want the Israelites to marry outside of the nation of Israel in order to keep the nation from impurities or ungodly influences. I metioned Solomon as an example of one who got carried away due to the idolness of some of his wives that he married from other nations. They drew he away from G-d.

I guess what dauer is saying is that human nature often overrules and men are going to be attracted to foreign women when they take captives, so G-d make provision for those women to become wives in an honorable manner.

[dauer]

The Isbitzer Rebbe, whose commentary I've been going over, takes this line of thinking a step further. At least, this is what his logic appears to be based on my analysis. First, he seems to be saying (without saying here because it's understood to be true by he and his audience) that the Torah is timeless and so anything in it is relevant to every generation.

A little background on the other interpretation, it comes from the Talmud, in Kiddushin 21b where it says, "The Torah only speaks here according to the yetzer hara."

The Isbitzer points to what happened with Judah and Tamar as an example of a time, somewhere else in the Torah, when someone was so overcome by their yetzer hara that there was only one way they could act. This is a proof text he uses for the concept he's going to introduce, which is to say that a) when it happens like this the action is from God, just like with Judah and Tamar. b) The reason this was included in the Torah is so that if someone acted in such a way, completely overcome by their yetzer hara, they shouldn't be depressed about it. It was the will of God.

His interpretation has major implications for free will, for individual responsibility (although to me it appears like more of a way to comfort someone than an excuse for future behavior, as the struggle against the yetzer hara is a given), and that's about it. I was a little awed to see that interpretation. It's almost a nod to one of my own personal questions.


Dauer

[pohaikawahine]

i way just on my way out the door and i should probably wait until i return to respond .... but couldn't pass up the oppportunity to toss in a word or two ....

i think this has nothing to do with interaction with foreign women or bloodlines .... if one looks at the mystic aspects of the torah it is shrouded (i like that word here) in the mystery of a women who hides behind the veil and is constantly enticing the interest of her lover (this is part of the hidden meaning in the song of songs and is seen in the zohar) ....

"verily the torah lets out a word (sound) and emerges a little from her sheath, and then hides herself again .... but she does this only for those who know and obey her .... for the torah resembles a beutiful and stately damsel, who is hidden in a secluded chamber of her palace and whose secret lover in unknown to all others. for love of her, he keeps passing the gates of her house, looking this way and that in search of her. she knows that her lever haunts the gates of her house .... when he comes to her, she begins to speak words from behind a curtain (the veil) .... slowly in sight comes to him, and this is called 'derasha' (mode of interpretation practiced by talmudists, by which they derived the exoteric and oral doctrine from the words of scripture) .... only when he becomes familiar with her does she reveal herself to him face to face and speaks of all the hidden secrets and all her hidden ways which have been in her heart from the beginning .... such a man is termed the perfect "bridegroom" and is the master of the house to whom she discloses all her secrets, concealing nothing" (Zohar 'radiance' will get the reference to this later .... can't locate it now)

in reading the passage for this weeks discussion, i see many references to this symbolism of the woman and her husband .... gotta go, but i'll get back with more specifics on how i read the text itself .... i just posted how i read the texts (from what perspective)on another thread within this one and this may help explain my views, even if they are not always so clearly stated or necessarily believed by others... aloha nui, pohaikawahine

[dauer]

This is the next section I'm selecting, another doosie, if that's how doosie is spelled...

From Chapt 21:

18. If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, 19. his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place. 20. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a guzzler." 21. And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear.
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/TorahR....asp?AID=36237


Dauer

[pohaikawahine]

Originally Posted by dauer

This is the next section I'm selecting, another doosie, if that's how doosie is spelled...

From Chapt 21:

18. If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, 19. his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place. 20. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a guzzler." 21. And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear.
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/TorahR....asp?AID=36237


Dauer

this exercise is really stretching my mind to seek possible interpretations .... but what i see here is first the reference to the role of father and son .... in abraham's spiritual journey he moves toward the holy land where he reaches the level of illumination called wisdom .... on this path he leaves a sphere along the way, each having part of himself that is left behind until he is sufficiently empty to be filled by wisdom .... "in imitation of abraham, says rabbi simeon, the kabbalist must prepare himself to traverse the spheres by stablizing the physical elements within himself ... only the perfectly tempered man could survive the symbolic tests of faith endured by abraham ... where the first patriarch abraham stood for wisdom, his son isaac came to embody judgement, and jacob was the symbol of beauty... in the same manner, each patriarchal sphere could be conteplated as a specific limb of the cosmic body, a letter or sound of the holy name ...." etc. (from kaballistic by perle epstein)

while i'm not suggesting anyone believe or not believe this concept of kabbalah, it does offer a possible way of looking at the above text from deut 21 .... judgement for a rebellous son is handed out by the elders when a practioner or follow of the path of the kaballah does not have everything in order and pefectly tempered .... he/she is not sufficiently empty to be filled by wisdom .... there is a saying that we must die to our old ways and be reborn to the new in order to reach enlightnment .... so the elders (which i refer to as the circle of twelve .... sometimes symbolized as twelve stones) begin to pelt the rebellous part of the cosmic body with stones so that it will die and can be reborn on the path to wisdom .......

sometimes even i think i've gone off the deep end in an interpretation and this is one of those .... and sometimes the words just come and i keep typing .... when i look at this anew, it has possibilities .... lol .... poh (i'm shortening my name to poh, it has a nice ring .... mahalo dauer)

[dauer]

Okay, you've inspired me. I'm going to get drashy. Read "son" as "creation." It is something that we invest in and put our time into. It is an idea in the mind that has been circling in the mind. It eventually gets out of our control. "Father", this is when we try and brute it out, to make it submit, and "mother", this is when we try to nurture it more, neither work. It resists father, often kicking and screaming, and mother only seems to feed it. For how does a mother chasten? With a hug and comforting words, words that reinforce its existence.

So this thought is taken to the elder, to the place of inner wisdom, that is at the gate of its place. The wisdom knows what is stirring, and is ready to meet it. But the mind will not stop circling, and it recounts the whole story despite the wisdom that is waiting at the gate. Only now the view of the thought is more negative, and this only reinforces further the existence of the thought.

There is a stirring among the men, the ones who were sons but are now fully grown and matured, these are the ones who were bearing the wisdom at the gate. The understood wisdom quiets the mind and brings it back into focus. The son becomes lost among the men. In this way the thought which stirs up so much evil is cleared away, the God-wrestler can be present to this happening and maintain awe.

That's my drash.

I'm not going into the generic Jewish answer right now because I'm hoping, since there are a few other Jews on the site, that someone else might decide to take part in the conversation, even if that isn't what is wanted to be given as input. But I will say later if nobody else does.

Dauer

[Dondi]

The children are our future. How important is it that we raise them in the values that we ourselves are raised in order to preserve the traditions that we hold dear. Children are an extention of ourselves. A rebellious child will not carry those values to the next generation.

I look onto the history of the Israelites and I see how generational kings lose sight of G-d and the whole nation suffers for the ungodliness of the king. It reminds me of how today in the U.S. we are losing so much because our children are rebelling. Look at the differences in attitude from before the sixties revolution on up to today. How different our country has changed in just some forty years. How things that wouldn't have been tolerated, like are now becoming the norm. The rebel children have children of their own and the whole process steam rolls.

G-d was in the preservation business when it came to His people. As horrible as it must seem to see someone's child stoned to death in that time, it was a necessary evil for the good of the people. Rebellious behavior must be punished. I am appalled that our justice system has so many loopholes for criminals to walk free, or gain reduced sentences in plea barganing, or sentences served concurrently, or sex offenders set free well before their time. It sickens me that we have to wait years on apeals in death penalty cases. How can our system work properly if we relax the laws so easily?

[dauer]

Traditional answer: it only applies to one specific offense. Even at this point, there are still many ways to get out of it. Amar Rav Bananabrain it was just a sort of boogie man to scare children into behaving. Next piece:

From 22

6. If a bird's nest chances before you on the road, on any tree, or on the ground, and [it contains] fledglings or eggs, if the mother is sitting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother upon the young. 7. You shall send away the mother, and [then] you may take the young for yourself, in order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days.

[pohaikawahine]

Originally Posted by dauer

Traditional answer: it only applies to one specific offense. Even at this point, there are still many ways to get out of it. Amar Rav Bananabrain it was just a sort of boogie man to scare children into behaving. Next piece:

From 22

6. If a bird's nest chances before you on the road, on any tree, or on the ground, and [it contains] fledglings or eggs, if the mother is sitting upon the fledglings or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother upon the young. 7. You shall send away the mother, and [then] you may take the young for yourself, in order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days.

two parts here: the "boogie men" are everywhere and have a role in the spiritual path .... in a posting that i just received from "the master course of himalayan academy by satguru sivaya subramuniyaswami" he states "who is Chellappan? Chellappaswami was an ardent sage, ablaze with God conscousness, immersed in divine soliloquy. Chellappaswami, initiated at age nineteen, lived alone in the teradi at Nallur temple. Absored in the inner Self, recognizing no duality, he uttered advaitic axioms in constant refrain: 'There is no intrinsic evil. It was all finished long ago. All that is, is Truth. We know not!' The Natchintanai says, "Laughing, Chellappan roams in Nallur's precincts. Appearing like a man possessed, he scorns all outward show. Dark is his body; his only garment, rags. Now all my sins have gone, for he has burnt them up! Always repeating something softly to himself he will impart the blessing of true life to anyone who ventures to come near him. And he has made a temple of my mind." Aum Namah Sivaya

now back to the bird's nest: in the pacific culture we use to be trained as young children to protect our resources in order to survive .... this was the basis for much of the "kapu" (taboo) restrictions .... certain times of the year, some areas were "kapu" in order to allow the regeneration of life .... many proverbs have as their basis this concept .... when one dives for the giant clams, one may take the babies but must leave the mother to regenerate life .... when one looks for herbs that are used for medicine, one takes the plant standing alone and leaves the colony of plants (to regenerate) .... this part of the text sounds like the process of regeneration to me .... take the baby and leave the mother to lengthen your days .... he hawai'i au, poh

[dauer]

That's insightful. I'm going to bring along a piece of the text that's more "in your face" in a quiet, I wonder what that's about way...

Chapt 22

9. You shall not sow your vineyard [together with] a mixed variety of species, lest the increase, even the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard [both] become forbidden. 10. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11. You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together.

Dauer

[pohaikawahine]

Originally Posted by dauer

Chapt 22

9. You shall not sow your vineyard [together with] a mixed variety of species, lest the increase, even the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard [both] become forbidden. 10. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11. You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together.

Dauer

the copy of deuteronomy that i have is worded a little different?
9. You shall not plant your vineyard with mixed seeds, lest the ripe crop be proscribed - the seed that you plant and the yield of the vineyard. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. You shall not wear sha'atnez, wool and linen together.

the commentary on this section says
9. lest the ripe crop be proscribed. This phrase, and any rationale for the law other than the separation of distinct categories, are equally obscure. The meaning of melei'ah, "ripe crop" (from the word that means 'full) is in dispute. "Proscribed" is literally "sanctified," but to be sanctified, or set aside, can also mean to be taboo, as Rashi notes with several biblical instances. In any case, no one has offered an entirely satisfactory explanation of why the crop of mixed seeds should be sanctified or proscribed.

10. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. In this case, the separation of the two kinds of beasts has a clear humanitarian motive, for the smaller animal would suffer in this yoking.

11. sha'atnez. The term seems to be a foreign loanword, perhaps from the Egyptian, and so, lest its sense be obscure, the rest of the verse is a gloss on its meaning. Minglings of wool and linen were worn by the priests and used in the sanctuary trappings, so the separation of categories here may be intended to draw a line between the profane and the holy.

now the next piece 22:12 is also interesting because it says "You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself." and the commentary says "tassels. the Hebrew word gedilim differs from 'fringe," tsitsit, used in Numbers 15:38-41, and here no mention is made that the tassel is a mnemonic device for the believing Israelites.

in the south pacific "knots" were used as a mnemonic device.. don't know if there is a connection or not, but it strikes me as interesting ....

I have a sense that the prohibition of using an ox and a donkey together to plow is something more than humanitarian .... but i can't put my finger on it yet .... I have to give more thought to this whole piece .... me ke aloha pumehana, poh