This week's reading inaugurates the Book of Leviticus -- a book that is widely misunderstood, and which is often criticized as a symbol of Judaism itself as overly legalistic and concerned with priestly rituals.
In fact, while some details are tough to digest, Leviticus contains some of the most profound meditations on holiness in the Bible. The focus on animal sacrifices reflects the Jewish idea of approaching God through the physical world as well as the spiritual one.
The first portion addresses several different types of sacrifices, brought for different reasons -- a topic of extensive discussion in the Talmud, not just because of interest in the ritual, but because each aspect of the ceremony illuminates a different esoteric insight.
The additional reading, from Isaiah (43:21 - 44:23), mentions the sin of idolatry -- the polar opposite of the holy rituals of Leviticus.
The Talmud -- compiled 1500 years ago, when there were still some pagan societies on earth -- struggles to understand idolatry and what motivated it. In some ways, it is likened to lust -- but worse.
I recently had what felt like an insight. As a creative person, I am constantly coming up with ideas. Sometimes, these ideas seem to take on a life of their own, and become totally compelling.
This can happen even when the ideas themselves are not actually that good. The act of creating them sometimes gives them a sense of inevitability that blinds you to their true nature, or consequences.
I imagine that pagan society must have felt the same about idols. Of course a statue cannot see, hear, or speak, much less create anything in the world, or answer prayers that are addressed to it.
Yet once a human being has created it, an idol may appear to have its own power. It is an illusion: the power is really just the artisan's idea or fantasy. But it can become a compelling, confusing force.
the Bible does not outlaw art or artisanship. But it does try to set some limits, saying that certain things -- like images of God -- should be off limits. Not because anyone would actually intend that such an image or sculpture be a substitute for God, but because once something like that is created, it may acquire its own force, like a fantasy that seems to be real -- until, suddenly, it is not.
The rituals in Leviticus are sacrifices of animals -- living creatures, made by God and not by human hands. They mean to keep us within the bounds of the creative force with which He has endowed us.
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=2492708&p=complete&jewish=Vayikra#lt=primary
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 ...
