Portion 16 Be-Shallah Exodus 13:17-17:16
13:17 An E tradition. YHWH will lead the Israelites into an ambush at the sea of Reeds in 14:1-4.
13:18 How willing we are to place weapons into the hands of the Israelites. Plaut mentions Rashi’s alternative explanation that the word the NJPS translates as “armed” means “one-fifth,” four fifths having died during the plague of darkness. This is consistent with the interpretation of that plague in which some of the people voluntarily choose to identify themselves with the oppressed as Israelites and some not, regardless of biological ancestry. Plaut mentions several traditions where only 1/50 or 1/500 went out. Plaut also suggests that since the word translated as “armed” is related to the words for five and fifty that it refers to “troops of five” or “troops of fifty.” In this case the implication could be the very opposite of that given in the NJPS. The Israelites leave Egypt as a non-violent army, disciplined in marching formation, but with God as their only warrior.
14:1-4 Despite the E tradition of God avoiding war in 13:17, YHWH leads the Israelites backwards into an ambush so that they will see war. Is there a midrash that explains this change of plans? Could there be two traditions that have been combined, one as in Psalm 105 where there are plagues but no Sea of Reeds, and one as in Psalm 106 where there is the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Sea of Reeds but no plagues? The idea that God is The Warrior, the only legitimate purveyor of violence, is so difficult for us to accept that we must be taught it over and over again in different ways.
14:8 Is some of the stiffness of Pharaoh’s heart due to Israelis upraised hands (NJPS “defiantly” which Plaut suggests we should read as “with upraised fists” as in many student and black power posters of 60’s)? Would a more reconciliatory attitude have avoided the violence to come?
14:11 An understandable complaint since YHWH in 14:2 intentionally maneuvered Israel into this vulnerable position.
14:13-14 See final comment for 14:1-4 above.
14:20 God prevents both sides from fighting each other.
15:1a Given the Song of Deborah in the Haftara for this portion, I wonder if at one point the Song at the Sea was attributed to Miriam.
15:1b Horses and chariots were the weapons of mass destruction of that time.
15:3 YHWH is the [only] warrior. For a human to use violence is to transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth.
15:11 In the Babylonian creation myth the god Marduk creates humanity out of the blood of the dead god he conquered. Likewise, Israel’s creation occurred as a consequence of the death of the Egyptians. In the Babylonian myth, violence is an essential part of humanity. But in the Torah, humanity is not created to be violent and Israel is created out of violence as a result of Israel’s failure to reconcile with the Egyptians. Israel is henceforth called to redeem itself by living justly and mercifully.
15:14-16 An insertion? 15:13 and 15:17 seem to refer to Mount Sinai, while 15:14-16 transpose this to Canaan. Perhaps Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan are to be interpreted as those idolatrous aspects of ourselves that find salvation only in domination and weapons of war. We must conquer these aspects of ourselves if we are to let God reign supreme in our lives as a people.
15:20-21 The women dance but the men do not. That aspect of male self-identity as “warrior” has been defeated too. Men have not yet learned that this is a victory and still deny that it has happened. Perhaps male circumcision is a reminder of this too.
15:26 First indication that the manna episode is about Egypt. God tests the Israelites not to be like Pharaoh and Joseph, who stole food from the people and sold it back to them in exchange for their freedom.
16:3 Second indication that the manna episode is to teach the Israelites to be different than Pharaoh in Egypt.
16:20 They are to take only what they need.
16:27 They are to respect the Sabbath.
17:8 Does this verse unambiguously imply that Amalek was the instigator or does it leave room for ambiguity as to who started the fight?
17:9 The preparations between Moses and Joshua could be interpreted to imply that Israel acted first. In Deuteronomy 25:17-19, Moses says, 40 years later, and to a new generation, that Amalek was the unambiguous instigator and Israel was blameless. Also, in the exodus account, Moses uses the rod of God without permission in an attempt to claim God’s support for this war. He neglects to mention this in his retelling. Likewise, my daughter’s 2nd grade history textbook has many things to say about how awful the British were without giving any accounts of non-violent alternatives available to the colonists, such as how Canada achieved independence. Perhaps the Torah is telling us to be mindful of the way history demonizes our past enemies to justify our past actions.
17:13 How could Joshua have fought with the sword if the Israelites left Egypt unarmed? Plaut says that tradition places chapter 17 later in the book when Israel was already at Sinai-Horeb (note that 16:34 mentions the Pact). Perhaps the Israelites constructed swords out of plowshares when they made the golden calf. What does tradition say is the reason for recounting the Amalek episode before Sinai?
17:14 God reminds Moses and Joshua that YHWH is the only warrior.
17:15 There are a few indications that there is an association between the stories of Shechem and Amalek. Moses constructs an alter, just as Jacob did in Genesis 35:1-7 after Simeon and Levi led Jacob’s family to kill the people of Shechem. In Chronicles 4:42-43 the Simeonites “destroyed the last surviving Amelikites, and they live there to this day.”
17:16 We are to occupy our hands with worship to God, through nonviolent acts of justice and mercy, not with the sword. After their murder of the people of Shechem, Jacob ordered his family to get rid of its foreign gods, to purify themselves, and to change their clothing. Jacob understood that relying on violence for salvation was idolatry. Whenever we use violence to conquer a foe, war and violence are gloried and strengthened as idols. This is what Israel’s war with Amalek represents and it is what YHWH is constantly at war with. God’s way of vengeance for murder is to send the perpetrator into the wilderness. This is what happened to Cain when he killed Abel and to Moses when he killed the Egyptian. Perhaps Israel’s war with Amalek is why God sends the Israelites into the wilderness for forty years.
13:17 An E tradition. YHWH will lead the Israelites into an ambush at the sea of Reeds in 14:1-4.
13:18 How willing we are to place weapons into the hands of the Israelites. Plaut mentions Rashi’s alternative explanation that the word the NJPS translates as “armed” means “one-fifth,” four fifths having died during the plague of darkness. This is consistent with the interpretation of that plague in which some of the people voluntarily choose to identify themselves with the oppressed as Israelites and some not, regardless of biological ancestry. Plaut mentions several traditions where only 1/50 or 1/500 went out. Plaut also suggests that since the word translated as “armed” is related to the words for five and fifty that it refers to “troops of five” or “troops of fifty.” In this case the implication could be the very opposite of that given in the NJPS. The Israelites leave Egypt as a non-violent army, disciplined in marching formation, but with God as their only warrior.
14:1-4 Despite the E tradition of God avoiding war in 13:17, YHWH leads the Israelites backwards into an ambush so that they will see war. Is there a midrash that explains this change of plans? Could there be two traditions that have been combined, one as in Psalm 105 where there are plagues but no Sea of Reeds, and one as in Psalm 106 where there is the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Sea of Reeds but no plagues? The idea that God is The Warrior, the only legitimate purveyor of violence, is so difficult for us to accept that we must be taught it over and over again in different ways.
14:8 Is some of the stiffness of Pharaoh’s heart due to Israelis upraised hands (NJPS “defiantly” which Plaut suggests we should read as “with upraised fists” as in many student and black power posters of 60’s)? Would a more reconciliatory attitude have avoided the violence to come?
14:11 An understandable complaint since YHWH in 14:2 intentionally maneuvered Israel into this vulnerable position.
14:13-14 See final comment for 14:1-4 above.
14:20 God prevents both sides from fighting each other.
15:1a Given the Song of Deborah in the Haftara for this portion, I wonder if at one point the Song at the Sea was attributed to Miriam.
15:1b Horses and chariots were the weapons of mass destruction of that time.
15:3 YHWH is the [only] warrior. For a human to use violence is to transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth.
15:11 In the Babylonian creation myth the god Marduk creates humanity out of the blood of the dead god he conquered. Likewise, Israel’s creation occurred as a consequence of the death of the Egyptians. In the Babylonian myth, violence is an essential part of humanity. But in the Torah, humanity is not created to be violent and Israel is created out of violence as a result of Israel’s failure to reconcile with the Egyptians. Israel is henceforth called to redeem itself by living justly and mercifully.
15:14-16 An insertion? 15:13 and 15:17 seem to refer to Mount Sinai, while 15:14-16 transpose this to Canaan. Perhaps Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan are to be interpreted as those idolatrous aspects of ourselves that find salvation only in domination and weapons of war. We must conquer these aspects of ourselves if we are to let God reign supreme in our lives as a people.
15:20-21 The women dance but the men do not. That aspect of male self-identity as “warrior” has been defeated too. Men have not yet learned that this is a victory and still deny that it has happened. Perhaps male circumcision is a reminder of this too.
15:26 First indication that the manna episode is about Egypt. God tests the Israelites not to be like Pharaoh and Joseph, who stole food from the people and sold it back to them in exchange for their freedom.
16:3 Second indication that the manna episode is to teach the Israelites to be different than Pharaoh in Egypt.
16:20 They are to take only what they need.
16:27 They are to respect the Sabbath.
17:8 Does this verse unambiguously imply that Amalek was the instigator or does it leave room for ambiguity as to who started the fight?
17:9 The preparations between Moses and Joshua could be interpreted to imply that Israel acted first. In Deuteronomy 25:17-19, Moses says, 40 years later, and to a new generation, that Amalek was the unambiguous instigator and Israel was blameless. Also, in the exodus account, Moses uses the rod of God without permission in an attempt to claim God’s support for this war. He neglects to mention this in his retelling. Likewise, my daughter’s 2nd grade history textbook has many things to say about how awful the British were without giving any accounts of non-violent alternatives available to the colonists, such as how Canada achieved independence. Perhaps the Torah is telling us to be mindful of the way history demonizes our past enemies to justify our past actions.
17:13 How could Joshua have fought with the sword if the Israelites left Egypt unarmed? Plaut says that tradition places chapter 17 later in the book when Israel was already at Sinai-Horeb (note that 16:34 mentions the Pact). Perhaps the Israelites constructed swords out of plowshares when they made the golden calf. What does tradition say is the reason for recounting the Amalek episode before Sinai?
17:14 God reminds Moses and Joshua that YHWH is the only warrior.
17:15 There are a few indications that there is an association between the stories of Shechem and Amalek. Moses constructs an alter, just as Jacob did in Genesis 35:1-7 after Simeon and Levi led Jacob’s family to kill the people of Shechem. In Chronicles 4:42-43 the Simeonites “destroyed the last surviving Amelikites, and they live there to this day.”
17:16 We are to occupy our hands with worship to God, through nonviolent acts of justice and mercy, not with the sword. After their murder of the people of Shechem, Jacob ordered his family to get rid of its foreign gods, to purify themselves, and to change their clothing. Jacob understood that relying on violence for salvation was idolatry. Whenever we use violence to conquer a foe, war and violence are gloried and strengthened as idols. This is what Israel’s war with Amalek represents and it is what YHWH is constantly at war with. God’s way of vengeance for murder is to send the perpetrator into the wilderness. This is what happened to Cain when he killed Abel and to Moses when he killed the Egyptian. Perhaps Israel’s war with Amalek is why God sends the Israelites into the wilderness for forty years.
posted by ross at 2:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home