![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Shabbat
I led services again on Friday night. Overall it went very well. There were a couple of glitches (what else is new?), including one where the rabbi said "we will now chant Magen Avot" and I'd never heard it before. So I didn't lead that one, but I did a credible job of following. Ok, he has to teach me that one before next time; we've never done it while I was there before. Oops.
And while I know, intellectually, that non-professional lay people praising my voice is kind of akin to my mother thinking I'm a math wizard because I can do simple arithmetic in my head, it's still the case that these folks are permitted to stroke my ego any time they like. :-) Every time I lead services there at least one person mistakes me for a professional cantor, which is kind of cool -- though I always hasten to set the record straight.
Saturday morning the turnout for services was much higher than usual (don't know why), and a lot of people stayed for Torah study afterwards. I guess we now have an answer for those who worried about Leviticus scaring people off from the study group.
Dani had people over to play Twilight Imperium in the afternoon (I didn't play). I let myself get talked into a train game (1830) that was described as "not too long" in the evening, but it ended up taking 7 hours. The person who owns the game implied a higher degree of familiarity with the rules than was warranted; instead of him teaching us the game quickly, we all ended up sort of figuring it out together. I'd probably play the game again, but not under the same circumstances. Yawn.
And while I know, intellectually, that non-professional lay people praising my voice is kind of akin to my mother thinking I'm a math wizard because I can do simple arithmetic in my head, it's still the case that these folks are permitted to stroke my ego any time they like. :-) Every time I lead services there at least one person mistakes me for a professional cantor, which is kind of cool -- though I always hasten to set the record straight.
Saturday morning the turnout for services was much higher than usual (don't know why), and a lot of people stayed for Torah study afterwards. I guess we now have an answer for those who worried about Leviticus scaring people off from the study group.
Dani had people over to play Twilight Imperium in the afternoon (I didn't play). I let myself get talked into a train game (1830) that was described as "not too long" in the evening, but it ended up taking 7 hours. The person who owns the game implied a higher degree of familiarity with the rules than was warranted; instead of him teaching us the game quickly, we all ended up sort of figuring it out together. I'd probably play the game again, but not under the same circumstances. Yawn.
Re: Shabbat
Leviticus 1:3? Yeah, Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting) there; I had assumed that anything in Torah about the Ohel Moed trasferred to the Temple later, though I haven't perused Deuteronomy for changes to the system yet. So I was imprecise when I wrote "Temple"; sorry.
Meat's only eaten if it's "sacrificed".
It seems to come down to the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "sacrifice" in Lev 17:3: "If any member of the family of Israel sacrifices an ox, sheep, or goat, whether in the camp or outside the camp, [17:4] and does not bring it to the Communion Tent to be offered as a sacrifice to God before His sanctuary, that person is considered a murderer". But does that mean he can't slaughter an animal (with no intentions of it being a sin offering or peace offering or...)? Maybe; after all, murder would not be the obvious charge for presumption. (We're not told exactly what crime Nadav and Avihu committed with their unauthorized sacrifice. Not murder obviously, as it wasn't a meat offering.)
But going back to the word "sacrifice" in Lev 17:3, I'm not sure I see slaughter=sacrifice here. It sounds to me like you can eat meat when you want, but you can't call it a sacrifice unless you follow these rules (which include going to the Ohel Moed). What am I reading wrong or missing? Does it all revolve around slaughter=murder?
As further support for my original interpretation, I offer the observation that there are rules about which animals you can sacrifice, and broader rules about what you can eat. We wouldn't need the lists of kosher species (also in Leviticus) at all if we could only eat what was suitable for sacrifice, yes? Don't the sages say that there are no unnecessary words in Torah?
It sounds like Rashi agrees that sacrifices happen only at the designated place, not anywhere. The Ramban agrees with you that slaughter = sacrifice, but my Nth-generation source (Navigating the Bible) doesn't support that statement with a cite.
(My caveat: it's been a year since I took the class, about a year since I last read Leviticus, and about 15 minutes since I decided I was too sleepy to write any more...)
Noted. It's also been about a year for me, except I took a quick skim through the first 17 chapters (in translation, sans commentaries except as noted above) after seeing your comment. And I haven't taken any classes.
Re: Shabbat
OK. So now that I've gotten that out of the way, if you put on modern biblical criticism glasses, Leviticus is almost pure P, or the Priestly voice. (Whereas Deuteronomy was written later and is a reform of the temple system as set forward by P.) You can get an idea of what the pre-deuteronomic system was like both from Leviticus, as well as some of the other books (like first kings and judges) where it is quite clear that levites were doing sacrifices at their own little shrines. In fact in the part of Kings(?) which describe the Josiah reforms that you hear about those shrines being shut down, in accordance with the new scroll of Deuteronomy. (A really cool bit which is often overlooked is that the Prophetess Hulda is asked to verify that Deuteronomy is real. There's a modern midrash about this in Sisters at Sinai, a book of modern Midrash by Jill Hammer.) So, despite the fact that Leviticus does talk about sacrifices in the ohel moed, and that Deuteronomy and the rabbis were into the idea that they should only be done at the temple in Jerusalem, for a significant period of time "on the ground" they were done at a number of shrines, by levites, in general accord with Leviticus. (Even after the temple in Jerusalem was established!)
But does that mean he can't slaughter an animal (with no intentions of it being a sin offering or peace offering or...)? Deuteronomy would say: no, of course not, go ahead (as long as you pour out the blood). Leviticus (or, perhaps I should say "P") would say yes, exactly.
I feel bad that I don' t have sources to quote. I think that the JPS Commentaries on Leviticus (ya know, the big volumes with commentary by, uh, Sarna, Milgrom, et. al) talk about this a bit... but I don't have those here.
(comment continues...)
Re: Shabbat
Thanks. And please let me clarify that I did not mean to sound confrontational and put you on the defensive. I'm struggling with the text, same as you, except I'm not as far along in my education yet. So sometimes I ask questions or say things that a more experienced person would not ask or say because it would be "obvious".
Somehow I had gotten the impression that Conservative didn't really do documentary hypothesis, so I wasn't thinking in those terms when reading your comments. Your explanation clarifies a lot for me.
In some cases, biblical theory can give very interesting insights into difficult texts... and I think Leviticus is a case where one needs all the tools available to the modern mind.
I'm with you there. And I expect I'll see a lot of this on our group's slow, thorough path through Leviticus.
So, despite the fact that Leviticus does talk about sacrifices in the ohel moed, and that Deuteronomy and the rabbis were into the idea that they should only be done at the temple in Jerusalem, for a significant period of time "on the ground" they were done at a number of shrines, by levites, in general accord with Leviticus.
Thanks for pointing this out! I should have thought to look for evidence in Prophets and Writings and not just rely on Torah.
Re: Shabbat
Oops, didn't mean to sound defensive. Nor did I find you confrontational. Hope I didn't come across as too pedantic.
I really absolutely must go to sleep now or I'd write more. Yesterday I slept through my alarm clock, not good...
Re: Shabbat, Documentary Hypothesis, etc.
This is a very natural impression. The truth is that the Conservative movement's torn on this issue like many others. At JTS, the Conservative Rabbinical School (well, the east coast one, at least, but that's another thread...), they teach the Documentary Hypothesis. (Dr. Sharon, who I was quoting, teaches there.) However, for the last, um, 70 years, the primary Pentateuch used in the Conservative Movement has been the Hertz. Hertz completed his commentary in the 1930s, and had many things on his mind. One of them was the need to "prove" that the Documentary Hypothesis was utterly wrong. Even though no serious scholars take the arguments of Hertz seriously, many people in the Conservative movement, having grown up on Hertz, don't believe the Documentary Hypothesis is true. (The new Pentateuch put out by the Conservative Movement, the Eitz Chayim, does acknowledge the Documentary Hypothesis...)
I think I should clarify myself a bit. I think it's legitimate to say "I don't believe in the Documentary Hypothesis". This puts it into the realm of faith, and I won't argue with it. However, what Hertz tries to do is argue from a scientific standpoint that the D.H. is false, and that's a fight which has been lost for 70 years or more. If you're gonna try to be scientific, you gotta play by the rules.
It's also quite reasonable for you not to have expected me to bring in the Documentary Hypothesis, as I don't normally bring that in to my discussions of Tanakh.
I should have thought to look for evidence in Prophets and Writings and not just rely on Torah.
Well, the more you read Tanakh, the more connections you make... but I really have to give credit to my teachers, because I didn't notice all these things myself...
(Note: it is odd that I'm using "Pentateuch" for the 5 books of Moses and "Tanakh" for the entire Jewish bible. I have no particular reason for mixing greek and hebrew, other than the fact that I like the word "Pentateuch" (say it aloud a few times. Penta took. Pen ta too k. mmm...)
Re: Shabbat, Documentary Hypothesis, etc.
Maybe you can help me understand the Conservative position better. (Yeah, I should probably ask a rabbi, but you're here and I probably won't see a C rabbi until next week.) I am under the impression that Conservative teaches/believes most of the same things as Orthodox does, except that C says halacha is still open to change in ways that O rejects. C is still a halachic movement. My understanding is that C shares the O belief that Torah was written by God and transmitted in an unbroken line.
So how would the Documentary Hypothesis fit into that? Of course individual C Jews can believe whatever they like; I'm talking about the "official platform", so to speak. Doesn't Torah mi Sinai automatically conflict with DH?
(Note: it is odd that I'm using "Pentateuch" for the 5 books of Moses and "Tanakh" for the entire Jewish bible. I have no particular reason for mixing greek and hebrew, other than the fact that I like the word "Pentateuch" (say it aloud a few times. Penta took. Pen ta too k. mmm...)
Yeah, but you can spell better than I can. Pentate... pentatu... um, Torah!
Re: Shabbat, Documentary Hypothesis, etc.
What's more, I can't even say that I grew up in the Conservative Movement. I didn't. I grew up in an independant shul. There weren't enough Jews in town to have both a Conservative and a Reform synegogue, so they founded something sorta inbetween, with a 1/4 time Rabbi who was ordained Reform but had C. leanings... My parents didn't come from Conservative homes either. In college I joined the Reform group on Campus. What with one thing and another, when I left college I found myself regularly going to Conservative shuls, and becoming friends with Conservative Rabbis, Rabbinical students, etc. So I feel comitted to the movement, but I didn't grow up in it. But enough about me.
You said: My understanding is that C shares the O belief that Torah was written by God and transmitted in an unbroken line.
I don't know how to answer this. I think that the C movement hasn't really articulated a clear notion of how they feel. On the one hand, JTS has had philosophers such as Heschel and Kaplan teaching Rabbinical students, neither one of which would agree with your statement. (Currently on the faculty is Rabbi Gillman, who I believe would also have a problem with that statement.) Also, modern biblical scholarship is taught there. But if torah from sinai is rejected, how can you accept halacha? I think that's something we'll cover in the Halacha for Heretics class. Is there an official statement of principles? I don't know. Nobody gave me a form to sign when I joined my C. Shul...
But, wait. Maybe there is something similar. I think I can quote a bit from the introduction to the new pentateuch from the Conservative Movement. (Etz Hayim, ISBN 0-8276-0712-1)
So it's saying essentially that while Torah is sacred, it wasn't given complete as we have it on Mount Sinai. This is a fine line that the movement is walking; note the way that the quote could be seen as saying either "Torah was given to Moses at Sinai, but of course there were some minor changes until the masoritic text was codified in the 6th/5th century" or "Torah was given in a process which started in ancient times and continued, by way of multiple authors, sources, and redactors, until it reached its final form in the 6th/5th century".
Doesn't Torah mi Sinai automatically conflict with DH?
Yep, it does, and that's why the DH has gotten so many people upset. The evidence for the DH, however, is out there: you have to try really hard to come up with alternate explanations for the evidence, and good old Occam's Razor says that if you need a really convoluted explanation to, say, reconcile Deuteronomy and Leviticus while DH gives a simple explanation, well...
(Re: Pentateuch)
Yeah, but you can spell better than I can
Well, I figure if I spell one word right, then people will think the rest is just typos. (Sorta like a towel, in that way.)
Re: Shabbat, Documentary Hypothesis, etc.
But if torah from sinai is rejected, how can you accept halacha?
Right. That's why when I try to explain the various movements to outsiders, I end up stressing that it's not really about observance. It's about what you believe about the Torah and Sinai. Everything else follows from that. (I did my own personal take on this in my journal a couple weeks ago.) Clearly at some level Conservative accepts Torah as truth, else the rest of the halachic system makes no sense for that movement. The devil (as they say) is in the details.
Is there an official statement of principles? I don't know. Nobody gave me a form to sign when I joined my C. Shul...
(Cynical comment about signing a check instead deleted. :-) )
You know, that's a good question. I guess I assumed that JTS or the Rabbinical Assembly had one, but now that you mention it I've never actually seen one. By the way, while browsing the USCJ web site just now looking for one (unsuccessfully), I came across this description of the ideal Conservative Jew. Enjoy. :-)
Quote from Etz Chayim: fascinating! Yes, that does leave quite a few doors open. Which I expect matches the beliefs of many of the active, influential Conservative Jews out there; I'm just a little fuzzy on how the movement goes about making decisions like these in practice. It's a delicate balancing act.
Re: Shabbat, Documentary Hypothesis, etc.
Call me Ishmael. No, wait, that's taken... :-)
You can call me Goljerp. It's an official alias of mine.
I think I'm going to respond to the rest of your comments in a new post in my journal, because we're getting to the point where the amount of whitespace equals the amount of text on my poor little 15 inch monitor!
Re: Shabbat, Documentary Hypothesis, etc.
Re: Shabbat
We're not told exactly what crime Nadav and Avihu committed with their unauthorized sacrifice.
Well, you could argue that you said it all: unauthorized sacrifice. It's also a story about how Gd is really scary and unpredictable. Some rabbis say they zotted because they were drunk (because it talks right afterwards about not taking strong drink). But it's a difficult passage, and the drunk thing sounds too much like blaming the victim to me.
As further support for my original interpretation, I offer the observation that there are rules about which animals you can sacrifice, and broader rules about what you can eat.
This is a good point. I'm not sure what the answer is. One might be that the rules go into things like grasshoppers, which you can eat without sacrifice. But I'm not sure.
Re: Shabbat
Re: Shabbat