Truth and Peace

Pregnant Phoenician goddess, c. 7th C BCE This week's Torah portion opens with laws concerning childbirth and the ensuing status of impurity ( tum'a ) for the mother. One feature of these rules that begs explanation is why it should be that the duration of the mother's impurity should be twice as long following the birth of a girl (14 days, followed by an additional 66, for a total of 80 days) as for a boy (7 days, followed by 33, for a total of 40 days). Really, there are several questions here: 1. Why should childbirth render the mother impure? 2. Why should the birth of a girl double the duration of impurity? Which is all related to the meta-question: 3. What is the rationale for biblical impurity? If we can answer the third question, perhaps we can understand the logic behind the first two. The causes of biblical impurity In order to explore the rationale, we first need to know the cases. What does the Torah view as imparting tum'a ? Biblical ...

It's so gratifying to find an author who speaks your language, who addresses the topics you want addressed and poses the questions you want asked. That's been my experience reading Jacob Milgrom's commentary on Leviticus. And his section on pure/impure animals is no exception. Non-kosher animals and food taboos A line of thought occurred to me about the "kosher signs" - e.g. split hooves and rumination for quadrupeds - that maybe these signs were chosen after the fact. Perhaps there was a long-standing tradition about what animals the early Israelites would eat, and which ones they found detestable, i.e. had a taboo against. (Sheep, goat and bovine domestication, after all, go back roughly 10,000 years, and pig domestication nearly 13,000 years.) And only later did the Priestly school devise a rule to fit the existing taboo, in effect painting a target around a set of previously shot arrows. My sense is that our drive to offer "explanations" oft...

The Maggid portion of the Haggadah opens with a statement in Aramaic, which doesn't appear in the Talmud but dates back at least as far as the Geonic period. It appears in the Seder of Rabbi Amram (9th C. head of the Sura academy in Babylonia). Here's the text, followed by two questions and reflections. הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא דִּי אֲכָלוּ אַבְהָתָנָא בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם כָּל דִּכְפִין יֵיתֵי וְיֵיכוֹל כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח הָשַׁתָּא הָכָא, לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בְּאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָשַׁתָּא עַבְדֵּי, לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בְּנֵי חוֹרִין This is the bread of poverty that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Whoever is hungry, let him come and eat. Whoever is in need, let him come and partake in Passover. This year [we are] here; next year in the land of Israel. This year [we are] slaves; next year, free people. What matzah are we talking about here? When the Torah refers to matzah, it's talking about what the Israelites ate while leaving Egypt...

Sacrificial altar, Tel Be'er Sheva, 8th C. B.C.E. The question in the title seems like a reasonable line of inquiry. But in fact it's misleadingly simplistic. Here's why: 1. There are different categories of "reasons." a) The theoretical/historical "reason behind" something. b) The reason people typically cite when asked. c) People's actual internal motivations for doing it. Sacrifices aren't like say, lightbulbs. With the lightbub, the reason for inventing it, the reason people give for using it, and the actual motivation for turning it on, are all one and the same - being able to see in the dark without a candle. When it comes to sacrifices however, the theoretical or historical reason they exist (e.g. the belief that success requires sacrifice to the god) might have little to do with what the offerer in Temple times might give as the reason (e.g. the desire to serve God), and what the person "says" may not really express ...