This week's Torah portion features the final episode in the departure from Egypt: the crossing of the Red Sea. It also includes the many fascinating stories that follow -- the manna from Heaven, for example, and the people's first war.
The additional reading, from the Book of Prophets, tells the story of Deborah, the judge and prophetess who ruled Israel for a time in the period before the monarchy was established. The connection: Miriam leads the people in song at the Red Sea, and Deborah leads the people into battle against evil Sisera.
Sisera, in turn, meets his end at the hands of Yael, who tempts him into her tent and kills him while he is asleep. The Bible hints that she actually seduced him.
The Talmud wrestles with this episode. Several years ago, I wrote to a friend:
"The relevant passage is from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Horayot (Horayos), page 10b.
"The Talmud engages in a lengthy digression, which occurs in the midst of a discussion about the appropriate sacrifice to be offered by a leader of the nation to atone for certain kinds of sins. After wrestling with the fact that some righteous people suffer ill fortune and some wicked people enjoy good fortune, the Talmud eventually turns to the question of sins that are performed for noble purposes (i.e. the ends seem to justify the means).
"'Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: A transgression committed for the sake [of Heaven] is of greater merit than a mitzvah performed for ulterior motives.'
"The example they consider is that of Yael, whose story is told in Judges 4:17-22. According to the Biblical text, she entices the wicked general Sisera by offering him milk, then kills him while he is sleeping. But the Talmud suggests that Yael goes much further than that, suggesting that she has sex with Sisera seven times. The Talmud says that her transgression -- adultery -- is for the sake of Heaven and had a good result, and therefore is permissible. As to the question of whether she derives pleasure from her transgression, the Talmud decides that any pleasure she enjoys is incidental and not related to her actual motive. The Talmud concludes, carefully, that people should prefer doing good deeds even for ulterior motives; because eventually their motives will be correct. But it does excuse the rare example of Yael, among others."
An interesting thought contemplate -- though not, perhaps, to emulate!
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
