This week's portion begins with the physical requirements for the priesthood, as well as the sacrificial animals: both must be free from blemishes. It moves on to basic laws of the Sabbath and holidays.
The portion ens with the laws on dealing with blasphemy, and then the basic civil code of restitution for personal injury damages -- the value of an eye for an eye, the value of a tooth for a tooth, and so on.
It might seem odd that the Torah is so exacting about physical perfection. After all, isn't the role of the priest, and the animal, a spiritual one? Why must both be free of physical deformities?
Furthermore, isn't that unfair? We cannot help it is we are born with imperfections, or suffer accidents. The Torah seems to be excluding people who may have suffered through no fault of their own.
A friend once told me that the essence of the left-wing vision for the world is radical equality -- which leads to tyranny; and that the essence of the right-wing vision is excellence -- which can be cruel.
The Torah rejects the idea of radical equality. It says that some people simply will be born into certain roles, and that some people will be excluded, and that there is nothing we can do about it.
But it also includes the idea that in a different context, we really are all equal. The laws of blasphemy apply to all. The laws of restitution apply to all. We are equal before the law, always.
This week happens to coincide with Pesach Sheni -- the second Passover, when people who were ritually impure the month before can offer up their Passover sacrifices. It is a "make-up" day.
The "cruelty" of exacting standards for the Passover service excluded them. But they still have the same obligations as everyone else -- and they will have an opportunity to worship, too, in their own way.
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=2492749&jewish=Emor-Torah-Reading.htm&p=complete
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 ...
