|
|
|
UJCL Parashah Commentaries
|
|
KI TISSA 5769 Shemot – Exodus 30:11-34:35 March 14, 2009 – 18 Adar 5769 By Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik,
|
|
How many commandments are there in the Ten Commandments? At first glance, you would think this was a catch question, but the Ten Commandments contain more than 10 commandments or mitzvot.
The confusion arises from a bad translation of the Talmudic expression Aseret Hadivrot (in our parashah, they appear as Aseret Hadevarim, Ex. 34:28) as “Ten Commandments”, when it would have been more appropriate to translate it as “Ten Locutions”. Hence, the term “Decalogue”, from the Greek “deca”, ten, and “logos”, word.
Each one of these ten divine phrases can contain one or more mitzvot. For instance, Sefer Ha-Chinuch (Rabbi Aharon Halevi, Barcelona, 13th century) counts 14 precepts within the Ten Commandments.
On the other hand, commentators discuss whether there is any mitzvah in the first commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex. 20:2).
What is absolutely clear, however, is that the second commandment (Ex.20:3-5) includes at least two very different mitzvot: the prohibition to worship other gods (“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”) and the prohibition to make representations of them (“Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image…”).
The first prohibition, “you shall not have other gods before Me”, seems to refer expressly to idolatry. And although most commentators affirm that the Torah, poses a “monolatry” (the worship of a single God) more than a monotheism (the belief that there is only one God), this does not change the essence of the precept: the cult of another god (whether it exists or not) represents an act of profound betrayal towards the God of Israel.
The second prohibition of the second commandment, “you shall not make graven images for yourself”, may be interpreted not just as idolatry (worship of other gods) but also as the impossibility to make images of the real God, for as the Torah affirms on Sefer Devarim (Deut. 4:!2): “And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of words, but ye saw no form; only a voice.”
We can begin to understand the specific explanation set by the renowned medieval philosopher, Yehuda Halevi (Spain, beginnings of the 12th century), regarding the sin of the golden calf, by identifying the qualitative difference between both prohibitions.
Chapter 32 in the Book of Exodus, interrupts the description of the building of the Tabernacle to bring us the well-known story of the golden calf. During Moses’ absence, while he was receiving the tablets at Mount Sinai, the people clamor for a god that will lead them. Aaron, the High Priest, agrees and casts the statue. When they see it, the people proclaim: “This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” (32:4), and immediately after, start a ritual celebration of worship that arouses God’s wrath.
Most commentators consider the worship of the golden calf as an idolatrous violation. The statue represents a different deity, not the God of Israel, and that constitutes a transgression of the first law of the second commandment (“you shall not have other gods before Me”).
Nevertheless, Yehuda Ha-Levi poses a different viewpoint: the golden calf was not another deity but an (inappropriate) representation of God. Thus he writes on his book “Ha-Kuzari” (1:97):
In a meticulous study of the subject, Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit (both professors at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem) devote an entire chapter of their book “Idolatry” to differentiate between idolatrous belief and idolatrous practice. There, they explain Yehuda Ha-Levi’s viewpoint, to whom the sin of the children of Israel had been to mistake not the worship object (the real God), but rather the worship method (building of images).
The authors state that, with his interpretation, Ha-Levi not only “mellows” the fault committed by the Israelite in the wilderness, but also makes the most of this example using it for apologetic purposes. He charges against the Karaites (Jewish sect that did not accept the rabbinical posture) and the philosophical currents of his age, by attributing to them the same mistake of the calf worshippers: their intentions of worshipping God are acceptable, but their acts are not.
I personally find Yehuda Ha-Levi’s interpretation fascinating. With his particular reading, he is able to lighten the sin of that generation, but what is still more interesting; the story comes to life and turns into something current when he uses it to argue theologically with his contemporaries.
This constant exercise of “renovating” the stories and teachings of the Torah, is what makes it an integral part of our lives, instead of a museum piece. Therein lies its strength: in our ability to read it, interpret it, and renew it. From its words we can learn where we come from and who we are, as well as where we are headed and who we want to be.
Shabbat shalom, Gustavo |
|
This Parashah commentary was done by the Union of Jewish Congregations of Latin America and the Caribbean, and may be reproduced quoting its source.
Forwarded by Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik, from Kol Shearith Israel Congregation, Panama. |
|
Copyright © 2001, 2002 UJCL Design & Hosting by: CaribMedia Operators of: VisitAruba.com Updates by: Inés Baum baumgut@racsa.co.cr Chief Consultant: Daphne Cesareo Lejuez Last updated: June 19, 2009
|