Leon Kass Exodus Ch 18
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
ShareI. THE NER TAMID
Kass p. 477 lighting the perpetual flame is the first task of the priests
Kass p. 477 lighting the perpetual flame is the first task of the priests
From Torah.org:
This miraculous permanent flame is a further symbol of God’s eternal presence amongst Israel...
The kohanim were responsible for the maintenance of the eternal fire. Today, we are all responsible for the preservation of that eternal flame within our families, communities and the Jewish people as a whole. There is no doubt that we are aided in this task by the Divine Will that has always fueled that eternal flame. But Heaven’s aid in no way diminishes our responsibility towards the preservation of that flame.
This miraculous permanent flame is a further symbol of God’s eternal presence amongst Israel...
The kohanim were responsible for the maintenance of the eternal fire. Today, we are all responsible for the preservation of that eternal flame within our families, communities and the Jewish people as a whole. There is no doubt that we are aided in this task by the Divine Will that has always fueled that eternal flame. But Heaven’s aid in no way diminishes our responsibility towards the preservation of that flame.
II. PRIESTLY GARMENTS
Kass 481. Priestly garments bring glory and splendor to their wearers & to the Lord they serve. Uniform of office. Carry signs & symbols of Israel's mission and history. Risk if trappings become ends in themselves.
Kass 481. Priestly garments bring glory and splendor to their wearers & to the Lord they serve. Uniform of office. Carry signs & symbols of Israel's mission and history. Risk if trappings become ends in themselves.
Jonathan Sacks, "The Ethic of Holiness."
Tetzaveh is concerned with holiness...In the Sanctuary people sensed they were in the presence of the King (because of the aesthetics and priestly attire).
Reverence gives power to ritual, ceremony, social conventions, and civilities. It helps transform autonomous individuals into a collectively responsible group. You cannot sustain a national identity or even a marriage without loyalty. You cannot socialise successive generations without respect for figures of authority. You cannot defend the non-negotiable value of human dignity without a sense of the sacred. That is why the prophetic ethic of justice and compassion, had to be supplemented with the priestly ethic of holiness.
Tetzaveh is concerned with holiness...In the Sanctuary people sensed they were in the presence of the King (because of the aesthetics and priestly attire).
Reverence gives power to ritual, ceremony, social conventions, and civilities. It helps transform autonomous individuals into a collectively responsible group. You cannot sustain a national identity or even a marriage without loyalty. You cannot socialise successive generations without respect for figures of authority. You cannot defend the non-negotiable value of human dignity without a sense of the sacred. That is why the prophetic ethic of justice and compassion, had to be supplemented with the priestly ethic of holiness.
R. Jonathan Sacks, "Dressing to Impress." Tetzaveh, with its elaborate description of the “sacred vestments” which the Priests and the High Priest wore “for glory and for splendour,” seems to run counter to some fundamental values of Judaism.
...Clothes have to do with surface, not depth; with the outward, not the inward; with appearance rather than reality. All the more strange, therefore, that they should form a key element of the service of the Priests, given the fact that “People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Equally odd is the fact that for the first time we encounter the concept of a uniform, that is, a standardised form of dress worn not because of the individual wearing them but because of the office he holds, as Cohen or Cohen Gadol. In general, Judaism focuses on the person, not the office.....Why was it that specifically in relation to the Tabernacle and Temple, the visual prevailed?
The answer is deeply connected to the Golden Calf. What that sin showed is that the people could not fully relate to a God who gave them no permanent and visible sign of His presence and who could only be communicated with by the greatest of Prophets. The Torah was given to ordinary human beings, not angels or unique individuals like Moshe. It is hard to believe in a God of everywhere-in-general-but-nowhere-in-particular. It is hard to sustain a relationship with God who is only evident in miracles and unique events but not in everyday life. It is hard to relate to God when He only manifests Himself as overwhelming power.
So the Mishkan became the visible sign of God’s continual presence in the midst of the people.
...Maimonides understood the emotive power of the visual.... “The multitude does not estimate man by his true form,” he writes, and instead judges by appearances. This may be wrong but it was a fact that could not be ignored in the Sanctuary whose entire purpose was to bring the experience of God down to earth in a physical structure with regular routines performed by ordinary human beings. Its purpose was to make people sense the invisible Divine presence in visible phenomena.
Thus there is a place for aesthetics and the visual in the life of the spirit. ...The great difference between ancient Israel and ancient Greece is that the Greeks believed in the holiness of beauty whereas Judaism spoke of hadrat kodesh, the beauty of holiness.
...Clothes have to do with surface, not depth; with the outward, not the inward; with appearance rather than reality. All the more strange, therefore, that they should form a key element of the service of the Priests, given the fact that “People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Equally odd is the fact that for the first time we encounter the concept of a uniform, that is, a standardised form of dress worn not because of the individual wearing them but because of the office he holds, as Cohen or Cohen Gadol. In general, Judaism focuses on the person, not the office.....Why was it that specifically in relation to the Tabernacle and Temple, the visual prevailed?
The answer is deeply connected to the Golden Calf. What that sin showed is that the people could not fully relate to a God who gave them no permanent and visible sign of His presence and who could only be communicated with by the greatest of Prophets. The Torah was given to ordinary human beings, not angels or unique individuals like Moshe. It is hard to believe in a God of everywhere-in-general-but-nowhere-in-particular. It is hard to sustain a relationship with God who is only evident in miracles and unique events but not in everyday life. It is hard to relate to God when He only manifests Himself as overwhelming power.
So the Mishkan became the visible sign of God’s continual presence in the midst of the people.
...Maimonides understood the emotive power of the visual.... “The multitude does not estimate man by his true form,” he writes, and instead judges by appearances. This may be wrong but it was a fact that could not be ignored in the Sanctuary whose entire purpose was to bring the experience of God down to earth in a physical structure with regular routines performed by ordinary human beings. Its purpose was to make people sense the invisible Divine presence in visible phenomena.
Thus there is a place for aesthetics and the visual in the life of the spirit. ...The great difference between ancient Israel and ancient Greece is that the Greeks believed in the holiness of beauty whereas Judaism spoke of hadrat kodesh, the beauty of holiness.
QUESTION: Are descriptions of beauty in the Mishkan merely relics today? Do they have any relevance to us? Do aesthetics promote holiness? How can the Mishkan and priestly garments lead to glory? Should we be wary of our response to beauty? Do the priestly trappings have anything to do with morality?
II. MOSES AND AARON
Kass 477. Aaron and his sons are closer to the people than Moses - part of what qualifies them to be priests. Must mediate between people and the Lord, & must serve the Lord on behalf of the people in ways that make sense to the people (visible and physical)
Kass 479 Whereas before Aaron played spokesman to the people for godlike Moses, now Aaron is to minister to the Lord on behalf of the people on a pathway from which Moses is excluded...and (while) Moses is receiving these instructions...brother Aaron is down below, facilitating iniquitous acts...involving a golden calf....
Kass 477. Aaron and his sons are closer to the people than Moses - part of what qualifies them to be priests. Must mediate between people and the Lord, & must serve the Lord on behalf of the people in ways that make sense to the people (visible and physical)
Kass 479 Whereas before Aaron played spokesman to the people for godlike Moses, now Aaron is to minister to the Lord on behalf of the people on a pathway from which Moses is excluded...and (while) Moses is receiving these instructions...brother Aaron is down below, facilitating iniquitous acts...involving a golden calf....
Kass 480. Moses does not rebuke Aaron for the golden calf, but Nadab & Abihu will be killed for offering strange fire; 3,000 Levite men are killed though Aaron is spared; Aaron dies for Moses' sin (smiting the rock)
Jonathan Sacks "Brothers: A Drama in Five Acts"
The Talmud records a debate about the lasting consequences of that moment [at the burning bush] when Moses, as it were, refused one time too many. To decline a leadership challenge once or twice is a sign of humility. To continue to do so when it is God Himself issuing the challenge risks provoking Divine anger, as happened here. The Talmud comments:
“Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses” – Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha said: Every instance of [Divine] anger in the Torah leaves a lasting effect, except in this instance. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: Here too it left a lasting effect, for it goes on to say, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite?” Surely Aaron was a Priest [not just a Levite]. Rather, what God meant was: I originally intended that you [Moses] would be a Priest and he [Aaron] would merely be a Levite. But now [because of your refusal], he will eventually become a Priest and you will only be a Levite.
The Talmud records a debate about the lasting consequences of that moment [at the burning bush] when Moses, as it were, refused one time too many. To decline a leadership challenge once or twice is a sign of humility. To continue to do so when it is God Himself issuing the challenge risks provoking Divine anger, as happened here. The Talmud comments:
“Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses” – Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha said: Every instance of [Divine] anger in the Torah leaves a lasting effect, except in this instance. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: Here too it left a lasting effect, for it goes on to say, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite?” Surely Aaron was a Priest [not just a Levite]. Rather, what God meant was: I originally intended that you [Moses] would be a Priest and he [Aaron] would merely be a Levite. But now [because of your refusal], he will eventually become a Priest and you will only be a Levite.
QUESTION: Moses is absent from the parsha Tetzaveh -- although God speaks to him. Why is Moses sidelined? Why are Aaron's descendants to be intermediaries between God and humanity?
Kass 487. The breastplate leaves out Joseph's name -- recalls fratricide.
Sacks, "Brothers op. cit."
One of the recurring themes of Genesis is sibling rivalry, hostility between brothers. Genesis is telling us a story of great consequence. Fraternity – one of the key words of the French revolution – is not simple or straightforward. It is often fraught with conflict and contention. Yet slowly, brothers can learn that there is another way. On this note Genesis ends. But it is not the end of the story.
The drama has a fifth act: the relationship between Moses and Aaron. Here, for the first time, there is no hint of sibling rivalry. The brothers work together from the very outset of the mission to lead the Israelites to freedom. They address the people together. They stand together when confronting Pharaoh. They perform signs and wonders together. They share leadership of the people in the wilderness together. For the first time, brothers function as a team, with different gifts, different talents, different roles, but without hostility, each complementing the other.
Their partnership is a constant feature of the narrative. But there are certain moments where it is highlighted. The first occurs in the passage already cited above. God tells Moses that Aaron “is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you.” How different this is from the tense encounters between brothers in Genesis!
One of the recurring themes of Genesis is sibling rivalry, hostility between brothers. Genesis is telling us a story of great consequence. Fraternity – one of the key words of the French revolution – is not simple or straightforward. It is often fraught with conflict and contention. Yet slowly, brothers can learn that there is another way. On this note Genesis ends. But it is not the end of the story.
The drama has a fifth act: the relationship between Moses and Aaron. Here, for the first time, there is no hint of sibling rivalry. The brothers work together from the very outset of the mission to lead the Israelites to freedom. They address the people together. They stand together when confronting Pharaoh. They perform signs and wonders together. They share leadership of the people in the wilderness together. For the first time, brothers function as a team, with different gifts, different talents, different roles, but without hostility, each complementing the other.
Their partnership is a constant feature of the narrative. But there are certain moments where it is highlighted. The first occurs in the passage already cited above. God tells Moses that Aaron “is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you.” How different this is from the tense encounters between brothers in Genesis!
QUESTION: Do you agree that the relationship between Moses & Aaron echoes the fraternal toxicity of Genesis? Or is it something of a Tikkun, as Sacks suggests? Anything to learn here?
III. SACRIFICE and INIQUITY
Kass 489. Is there something perverse in the impulse to sacrifice itself? Primal, ecstatic, associated with orgiastic bloody sacrifice. Express pride and presumption - that what pleases a person pleases God--masquerading as submission. God orders a way to contain and control iniquity. (Priests must wear britches-- implicit concern that act of animal sacrifice would release inhibitions and arouse primal sexual passions.) Yet God must accommodate these needs.
Kass 489. Is there something perverse in the impulse to sacrifice itself? Primal, ecstatic, associated with orgiastic bloody sacrifice. Express pride and presumption - that what pleases a person pleases God--masquerading as submission. God orders a way to contain and control iniquity. (Priests must wear britches-- implicit concern that act of animal sacrifice would release inhibitions and arouse primal sexual passions.) Yet God must accommodate these needs.
Kass 487. Aaron shall wear a crown marked "Holy to the Lord", and shall "bear the iniquity of the holy things that the Children of Israel shall hallow, even in all their holy gifts."
Does this mean protecting the people from perversity or to carry it with himself?
Traditional commentators: Aaron will carry iniquity with him, and then atone for the people's transgressions (connected to the ritual itself.)
But 'avon' is a serious act of perversity, whether intended or not. Connection between iniquity and idolotry.
Does this mean protecting the people from perversity or to carry it with himself?
Traditional commentators: Aaron will carry iniquity with him, and then atone for the people's transgressions (connected to the ritual itself.)
But 'avon' is a serious act of perversity, whether intended or not. Connection between iniquity and idolotry.
Kass 494. Ritual required for installation of priests includes a sacrifice for their own expiation. Moses is shown how to sprinkle blood, connecting priest and altar (representing God) without risk of Dionysian excess (earlier throwing of blood in the camp).
Teaching about eating corrects the picnic of the elders after their ecstatic vision of God.
Teaching about eating corrects the picnic of the elders after their ecstatic vision of God.
Kass 498. Altar must also be purified and is in need of atonement. One must atone for the iniquity of animal sacrifice itself and for the violent and chaotic impulses it entails and stimulates-- and one must atone with another sacrifice.
QUESTION: How can the Altar be in need of expiation? Do you agree that the Act of sacrificing animals to atone for sin creates sin. Should we then pray for the resumption of sacrifices? Do we become vegetarians? Or is this symbolic acknowledgement that living in the world must create iniquity that we must always expiate?
Kass 499. Why does God require these daily sacrifices? To remind us of what we owe for our existence? soul-changing gratitude? Expiation? Discipline -- good for the soul and indispensable for the community? "Are not gratitude and contrition the only truthful responses to the existence of life in an ordered world and to the harm that life necessarily does in pursuit of its own ends?
God says 'I will meet with you and speak unto you there." If there are no sacrifices, there can be no meeting. The Lord will go into eclipse, unknown & unacknowledged." God depends on us to "be what he will be."
God says 'I will meet with you and speak unto you there." If there are no sacrifices, there can be no meeting. The Lord will go into eclipse, unknown & unacknowledged." God depends on us to "be what he will be."
QUESTION: Kass argues that detailed, fixed rituals are the way God channels and contains human needs. The price of doing your own thing, including zealotry, is death. Are specific and formal rituals important to our connection with God? Are they a matter of life and death? In a Jewish context, is there value to our personal feelings about spiritual expression?
IV. DWELLING AMONG THEM
Kass 501. When God meets with the Israelites in the Tabernacle, the place will be sanctified by His glory. Ultimate purpose: that "I may dwell among them."
God's "intention" is to be known by His human creatures in "the right way", not only as a power or lawgiver but also as a Presence. For God's sake as well as ours.
Dwelling implies transience, implies that God is near (not remote), not indifferent to humans, is or can be everywhere.
God is neither material nor pure spirit.
In re God's glory filled the Tabernacle: "I am becoming comfortable with the idea that I am not supposed to know what this means."
Kass 501. When God meets with the Israelites in the Tabernacle, the place will be sanctified by His glory. Ultimate purpose: that "I may dwell among them."
God's "intention" is to be known by His human creatures in "the right way", not only as a power or lawgiver but also as a Presence. For God's sake as well as ours.
Dwelling implies transience, implies that God is near (not remote), not indifferent to humans, is or can be everywhere.
God is neither material nor pure spirit.
In re God's glory filled the Tabernacle: "I am becoming comfortable with the idea that I am not supposed to know what this means."
QUESTION: How do concrete rituals enable God to "dwell among them"? What does that mean? Can we experience the Divine Presence with no Mishkan?
What does it mean that God's glory filled the Mishkan? Does it matter?
What does it mean that God's glory filled the Mishkan? Does it matter?