Key to this portion, unlike any one before it in Torah is the mitzvot which comprise the majority of the portion. Much, but not all of this is civil law. For example there is this bit of liability law:
28. If an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29. But if the ox was wont to gore with its horn in times past, and its owner had been warned, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.[23:28-9] … 33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls in it; 34. The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to its owner; and the dead beast shall be his. [23:33-4]
Then there is this piece in the next chapter:
4. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. 5. If fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that the stacks of grain, or the standing grain, or the field, be consumed with it; he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. [22:4-5]
Last week I mentioned the thinking of Halakah, but did not dwell on it too deep. Using the parable of painting, I described this as one of the primary colors on a painter’s palette. In my painting class last week my teacher said something rather wise about my painting style that is also true of Torah. As I am color blind, and as such I can not go by the appearance of a color when it comes to colors, I must use a more analytical approach. As a watercolor painter I generally need to understand all of my colors in order to use any of them. So too with the three ‘colors’ I mentioned last week, Halakah, Aggadah, and Everyday Torah.
On a very basic concept, what defines a Jew as a Jew is acceptance of Halakah on some level. For some it is as deep and completely involved as I described last week. Whether one can sit on a hammock attached to tree on Shabbat is an important, serious matter to some, and for them it should be. Others treat Halakah far more lightly, as though it is some anachronism. Yet Halakah was still there. Even Classical Reform of the late 19th century which seemingly rejected Halakah for a while still had the Shema in the Union Prayerbook. Classical Reform found verses, both in this week’s mitzvot and the prophets who later quote them, important enough to make social action an important religious doctrine.
To continue the painting analogy, on my palette Alarizin Crimson and Cadmium Red Light are both red, but very different reds. To understand the color red I need to understand something about all the reds. Halakah is similar, there are ones that are simple civil law like ox case above and then there are ones we can never completely understand, like the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. Like Maimonides, we can make assumptions and guesses, but sufficient archaeological evidence does not exist to confirm his idea that mixing of milk and meat had to do with pagan rites. We can however come up with new rules to make sure, whatever its intent, we don’t break the rule.
My point is that Halakah can be really subtle at times. It is not just the doing but the understanding of where it comes from and what one can do with it. A large amount of the civil law tractates in the Talmud is nothing but an exposition on this week’s portion. A lot of things were derived from these few verses. The Mishnah to Baba Kama for example begins:
The principal categories of damage are four: the ox, the pit, the ‘spoliator’ [mab'eh] and the fire.
The rabbis categorized all forms of damages in terms of these four, all based on verses in Mishpatim. A majority of Baba Kama, hundreds of pages of debate, is an exposition of those few lines above. The ox goring, damage caused by falling into an open pit, uncontrolled fires, and the ‘spoilator, ’ which the rabbis get into a large discussion trying to define, becomes the basis of liability law in the Talmud. Understanding that there are subcategories of these, how those subcategories work, what is an accidental case and what is a non-accidental case is all there. A lush forest of laws and rules all derived from a few words as its seed.
For most Jews today, and for many non-Jews this seems a deep, impenetrable forest. For those who enter it is a beautiful tropical rainforest of wonder. There is the halakah of religious commandments and the halakah of civil, ethical rules. For those who enter this lavish beautiful jungle, it’s hard to tell the difference. Is this theology or civil law?
Man is always mu'ad whether [he acts] inadvertently or willfully, whether awake or asleep. If he blinded his neighbor’s eye or broke his articles, full compensation must [therefore] be made. [B.K. 26a]
Humanity is considered Mu’ad, but what is Mu’ad?
What is tam, and what is mu'ad? — [cattle become] mu'ad after [the owner has] been warned for three days [regarding the acts of goring], but [return to the state of] tam after refraining from goring for three days; these are the words of R.
Mu’ad is based on Exodus 21:29 above, that an animal with a record of warnings is considered dangerous. For cattle, there is a possibility to return to a state of simple and safe. R. Judah believe a safe ox is one whose track record is not to do anything wrong for three days. R. Meir believes only an ox which can be repeatedly taunted by children without incident is safe. To call the nature of man as though a man is always in the dangerous state, as though we are always a mad bull, is quite a remarkable statement. We are always and in all circumstances responsible for our actions even when asleep, and thus deserve the full penalty. As I asked before, is this a religious or civil statement?
The beauty and joy of reading and understanding Halakah is not just in its observance. It is in asking questions about the Mitzvot, where it comes from, and why others made the decisions they did, creating the practiced Halakah. To understand when a preventative measure, a fence around Torah is necessary in an ambiguous case is just as important as seeing there are exceptions to those stringencies. Even with the idea of full responsibility, the rabbis did make exemptions for simple accidents beyond human control. It all really does make some sense if you understand the thinking.
Sadly, very few do. There is a time commitment to study of course, one few have. Starting next month that will be me as well. I’m going to have to give up group Talmud study in order to make a living. It’s a very hard, sad decision for me, but one that was unfortunately necessary. I understand the time issues. Then there is the other issue, the one of not knowing what to do with a Talmud page. The education to do so in most Jews across the spectrum of observance, from Renewal to Reform to Even Orthodox Baalei T’Shuva is sorely lacking. I still have a dream to change that: to make knowledge of Talmud accessible to all. Again out of necessity that dream is sidelined, though I desperately pray not forever.
Talmud is one of the most beautiful things in my world; I’d like it to be in yours too. Teaching it and Learning from it is a source of life, unfortunately it doesn’t seem to pay the rent or grocery bills unless you have an R. for Rabbi in front of your name. I’ve wondered over the last few weeks at the dearth of opportunities for a guy like me whether my last five years of grad school was a waste of time and money. I sometimes doubt I picked the right life path. But then I remember: Halakah gives us a way to do things and a basis to make good decisions that Torah does not explicitly state. Yet Halakhah does not soothe the heart. It is times like this that aggadah paints its colors on the canvas. We also read this week:
20. Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you on the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21. Take heed of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him. 22. But if you shall indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and an adversary to your adversaries. 23. For my Angel shall go before you, and bring you in to the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24. You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works; but you shall completely overthrow them, and break down their images in pieces. 25. And you shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless your bread, and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.
I do not read this just in its literal sense. I read it in another, to keep the faith in what I am doing, to keep up with the journey. It is to believe in not stopping nor ending what I have started. The other peoples in the land are not real people, but metaphors for my own stumbling blocks on the way to my living in the
Someday people will support me for Torah knowledge, and I can spread such knowledge with true holy joy and total devotion to Torah. But for now this might be a far longer journey than I thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment