Welcome to Torah Thoughts from Adas Israel the Jewish Congregation of Northern Iowa and based in Mason City. This week we study Parsha Emor (Lev. 21 - 24) and our study is from my brother Yonatan ben Dovid ha-Levi. Enjoy!
I stood before my wall of books, attempting to decide which references I would use for this week’s midrash; Emor (Leviticus 21:1-22:33 “Say…”). My eyes landed on my late wife’s (z”l) Chumash “The Torah A Women’s Commentary”. It had been a gift from a much-loved family friend who taught a women’s Torah study group at the Reform Temple. It would be perfect for my foundation reference. Emor is another parsha that seems to bounce around. It begins with matters regulations for priests (Kohenim) and their families, weaves through rules for sacred foods, talks about disqualified priests, deals with the question of blemished sacrificial animals, delineates the major festivals, and concludes with a bit of crime drama. It is a nine-course meal that I will serve up as fast food. Let’s get started.
Who Buries the Priest’s Wife? (Lev. 21:1-4)
Because members of the priestly class are charged with the most sacred rites, they must remain un-defiled. Here, we are most concerned with defilement through contact with a corpse. Now while any Israelite may become defiled through such contact, the ritual purification for priests get much more detailed and involved…and time consuming.
Remember, the priests were always on a deadline within the sacrificial cult. How would the sacred rites by completed if the priest was nowhere to be found because he was carrying out back-to-back purification rituals for himself?
Torah gives limited permissions for the priest to bury only certain blood relatives…his mother, his father, his daughter, his brother, and a virgin sister. What about his wife? The priest is prohibited from touching her corpse, but he may (clarified in later verses) observe her burial from a specified distance.
Secular documents from the 14th century B.C.E. support that marriage did not create blood ties between the husband and wife. Therefore, the wife had outsider status in her husband’s family. Therefore, the priestly exceptions for dealing with corpses are for blood relatives, and they are clearly not for wives. This leads to natural questions about the kohen’s dead wife.
Torah gives us no direct instruction here. We may recall that Abraham buried Sarah and that Jacob buried Rachel. But those are not priestly examples. Perhaps a son could perform the duties? A son of the priestly line may bury his mother (see above). But what if there is no son?
This is turning into a bit of a brain-teaser, no?
The answer is that burial tasks would fall to the female members of the priest’s household, or to members of the wife’s original family provided, of course, none of the males are priests themselves; again, leading to women taking on the tasks.
The riddle is solved, let’s make a jump!
A Clear Violation of the “Hebrews with Disabilities Act” (Lev. 21:16-24)
Some people may be disturbed that priests having certain physical impairments (from birth or acquired in life) are prohibited from approaching the altar and making sacrifices. But we need to remember the precept that Torah is a compilation of statutes fostering kindness.
The list of physical impairment disqualifiers for priests is quite long, especially when we consider the living conditions of the time. Finding someone who did not have some infirmity would have been rare indeed. For example: a priest cannot: be blind or lame (that’s pretty generic), have one limb too short or too long, have (even a healed) fracture of the arm or leg, be a hunchback or dwarf (sic), have an
abnormal growth in his eye (or a boil scar), have scurvy, or crushed testes.
Again, remember the period in which these people lived. Life was harsh. Medicine was often limited to “bite this stick”. “Crushed testes” are mentioned several times elsewhere, leading the reader to conclude this was not a rare malady.
So, doesn’t all of this appear…well…unkind?
Well, yes, according to the commentary in the Women’s Torah and Commentary. And, perhaps that is the proper interpretation. But let’s take a moment to go to the standard (male-authored) commentary: Recall the duties of the priests. Their rituals were complex and demanding. The instructions for carrying them out were not suggestions. The rituals were to be carried out in only the approved manner.
(Remember what happened to two well-meaning sons of Aaron when they lit an unnecessary fire intended to praise G-d?)
Now imagine trying to carry out those complex ritual duties while compensating for a limb length discrepancy! How could an unsighted person carry out the rituals as specified? Can you imagine the turmoil it would cause for even a willing, but physically impaired, priest?
The prohibitions are not discriminatory exclusions. They free the disabled priests from some very exacting obligations…a kindness.
Two lenses and two possible interpretations. How interesting, no?
Kindness to Sacrificial Animals (Lev. 22:26-28)
Judaism demands kindness (chesed) to animals. We always ensure that our pets and livestock are fed, watered, and bedded down before we take care of those needs for ourselves. Many Jews disdain hunting because they may doubt that they have sufficient skill to achieve a clean, painless death for their prey. Torah gives us other such lessons on our obligation to be kind to living creatures (see Deuteronomy 22:6-7 and elsewhere).
Okay…Remember how important the sacrificial rites are? Despite their importance and their central role in the sacrificial cult, kindness to the sacrificial animals still took prominence as a duty.
Long before there was any scientific exploration of animal behavior, or even acceptance that animals could be sentient creatures like us, Torah set down rules that indicate understanding that animals care about their young and about each other.
That is quite profound.
In Leviticus 22:26-28, we see concern for the emotional well-being of sacrificial animals. Newborn oxen, sheep, or goats could stay with their mothers for seven days. This is the period when maternal bonding is strongest. And, even though newborn livestock may be sacrificed on the eighth day, there is an additional caveat: “…no animal shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young.” As we can see, every measure is being taken to avoid the animals being taken to the sacrificial altar when the altar may still bear the scent of parent stock or offspring or when either parent or offspring may possibly witness the slaughter of its own “kin”.
Amazing!
“Perry Moishe” and the Case of the Blasphemer (Lev. 24:10-23)
Once again, we come to a place in Torah that is often misinterpreted and has been deliberately mal-interpreted. We will not linger over the eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth precept. Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye aptly observed about retributory justice, “Everyone will be blind and toothless.”
The Sages have long interpreted that the penalty for taking an eye or tooth would be monetary compensation for the eye or tooth (or other loss) and not retributory justice (lex talionis). It is also notable in the Sage discussions that the law applies to citizens and resident aliens.
So, what about that blasphemy?
(I am a Monty Python fanatic. I adore “The Life of Brian”, the Python tale of an unintended and reluctant messiah. In the film there is a fun take on the blasphemy and its stoning penalties…It’s on YouTube…Enjoy!!)
You’re back!
Okay…First, let’s look at a peculiarity in the story of the blasphemer. The offender is not named. But, his mother is. In fact, she is named with a good deal of (unique) precision; “Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, of the Tribe of Dan”.
Why is this significant? Well, first, the blasphemer’s mother is the only named woman in all of Leviticus! And, except for the major female players (determined to be “major players” by their relationship with an important male Torah figure), very few women are named with as much precision as is the mother of the blasphemer.
Torah tells us that the blasphemer is the “son of an Egyptian” and the very narrowly defined “Shelomith”, a Hebrew woman. Now, notice that his mother’s name includes her pedigree, “…daughter of Dibri, of the Tribe of Dan”? One guess by scholars is that Shelomith and her family were machers (“bigwigs”).
Despite his possibly elevated status and class, the blasphemer was made subject to the condemnation ruling G-d would send. It is also significant that the blasphemer’s father was an outsider, underscoring the precept that the law must be applied to citizen and resident alien alike. (Perhaps there was also some push-back for Shelomith, from a prominent Hebrew family, marrying an Egyptian?)
Monty Python aside, “blasphemy” is not “taking the L-rd’s name in vain”…though it is praiseworthy to avoid using even “G-d” fully spelled out in profane (common) use.
The crime of blasphemy has two elements: 1) one must curse G-d, and 2) the curse must use the ineffable tetragrammaton (spelled Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay in the alef-bet) specifically in the curse.
Why is this significant?
It makes it difficult to accidentally become a blasphemer. So, to re-cap…the blasphemer must specifically curse G-d AND the blasphemer must use G-d’s ineffable name in the curse. In other words, blasphemy is a very conscious act and not something one could do
accidentally, like when enthusiastically praising a particularly “good bit of halibut”.
There it is!
We have hit some of the higher points and points of interest within the parsha. My late wife’s Chumash and commentary contains the following profound poem. It is told from the perspective of the wife of a kohen who, as would be expected of any important person in a community, regularly attends funerals of friends and neighbors. It is quite thought-provoking:
The Kohain’s Wife (Shulamith Surnamer)
It is lonely to be
the wife of a kohain
at funeral time
by myself I sit
in the front row
at the funeral chapel
listening to the eulogy
over my nearest flesh and blood
knowing that my husband
and sons
are standing in the parking lot
of the funeral home
listening
to the same eulogy
piped over a loudspeaker
outside
just for them
who may not be in the same room
with death.
Make it a wonderful (just and kind) week! Shabbat Shalom!