Parshat Ki Tetzei
I know that the Fifth Book of Moses, Deuteronomy, is allegedly written by Moses and is not up to the level of writing contained in the first Four Books, and that being said, this week’s parshah really seems to be a rather rambling hodgepodge of what to do.
Seventy-four of the Torah’s 613 commandments (mitzvot) are in the Parshah of Ki Teitzei, but there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to their presentation. Not only that, to me, there seems to be the Moses’ “slant” to what was stated in the First Four Books. While I am at it, I want to revive certain mysteries contained throughout the Torah that seem to bother me when I read them.
Starting with the very beginning of the First Aliyah at Deuteronomy 21:10-11 we read the following:
|
“If you go
out to war against your enemies, and the Lord, your G-d, will deliver him
into your hands, and you take his captives,” |
|||||||
|
“and you see
among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take [her]
for yourself as a wife.” Starting with Abraham and his wife Sara, good looks seem to be a part of what made them special. Here we have a commandment of what to do if you go to war and take captives, and if among those captured there is a “beautiful woman” that you desire, you may take that person as your wife. Forgetting about a comeback of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” what is G-d’s obsession with good looks or those that are not marred in some way having a more important role in being in a position of leadership in the Jewish religion. What do you do with a captured woman that is not good looking, treat her as a slave? Where is the compassion in all of this? There is some redemption for first born sons, despite the proclivity of giving “good looking women” an edge in relationships with Jewish men. In what seems to me to be a direct slap in the face of Jacob and what he did, in Deuteronomy 21:15-17, the following is stated:
|
Dear Mordecai,
The Torah does not present its content systematically, in contrast to the modern manner of organizing and presenting information. The way the topics are organized is associational. For example, the parsha begins with the captive woman who becomes someone’s wife. The following topic is about marriage. This leads to the subject of the disobedient and wayward son, who receives the death penalty. The next passage mentions that someone who is hung must be buried the same day. One topic leads to another by association.
I actually think that the Torah is rather terse in describing the looks of people. Aside from the general “she was beautiful and well-formed,” we don’t have descriptions of men and women’s bodies and faces. As for the captive’s good looks, this is not mentioned because G-d cares but because humans do. Attraction is perhaps the most powerful force in human nature. I was at Target the other day, and a bunch of men were doing construction. A nice looking lady walked by, and all the men turned to look. This is commonplace. The captive woman’s beauty is mentioned since the prospect of landing an attractive woman motivated men to go to war.
I’m glad you mentioned Deuteronomy 21:15-17. I also see this as a repudiation of how Jacob behaved. The affirmation of the rights of the first born may be more connected to the issue of property distribution than anything else.
|
If you had been deceived by Laban and woke up next to
Leah, you probably would have despised her, too – not for her plain looks but
because she was part of your being deceived. |
|
The lack of specificity around garb and what constitutes men’s garb and what constitutes women’s garb is likely intentional since the Torah is written for all time, and, as you point out, fashion is fickle. I would appeal, however, to your common sense. We can often simply tell when we look at clothing what clothing is men’s clothing and what clothing is women’s clothing. Regarding your challenge on the subject of intermarriage,
we know that the Tanakh has a different concept than the Rabbis of how someone’s
descendant gains the status of “Jew.” What you seem to be pushing on is the
prohibition against intermarriage and the promotion of endogamy. Leaving the
issue of halakhic status aside, don’t you think that someone will learn how
to be a better Jew if both of his parents are Jews? The mother and the father
are need to inculcate the values. If only one parent is Jewish, then the
child will also find refuge in that parent’s faith, or lack of faith, too.
For this reason, I also see that the progeny of a Jewish mother being Jewish
creates the possibility of a loophole wherein a Jewish woman can say, “I’ll
marry a non-Jew. After all, my children will still be Jewish.” As we see in
the example of the ben sorer u’moreh, the parents’ united voice is
essential to proper child-rearing. Are you suggesting that the prohibition
against intermarriage is unnecessary? Shalom, Rabbi |
Dear Rabbi,
With all due respect, I do not think your explanations of the questions I posed are correct. While I agree that the first Four Books of the Torah go off at times, in my reading, there is a general theme with an occasional aside. In this week's parshah, there does not seem to be any sort of consistency for the commandments we are told to obey.
I disagree with your explanation of G-d not caring about "beauty" and that it is only a "human" emotion. Again, the mitzvot of what to do if you capture a "beautiful woman" is described not that of any woman. I really don't think a motivation to go to war was the possibility of meeting a beautiful woman. It may be considered among the "spoils" of war. The other part of the same general paragraph deals with those with some form of disfigurement being excluded from religious activity. That was allegedly dictated by the Almighty not a human.
Laban may have tricked Jacob into marrying Leah, but it did not stop him from "jumping" on her when he got the urge. The duplicity of Jacob's actions cannot be adequately defended.
I also think your response to the "clothes" issue does not answer my question. Moses is allegedly speaking to the Israelites and telling them what they can and cannot do. It is supposed to be a repetition of what we learned in the first Four Books. I gave you the reference of a "man shall not lie with another man" but where do clothes come into the picture until the commandment in this week's portion of the Torah?
Getting on to what I will describe as my main topic as it relates to this week's parshah, I am not saying that if one marries out of the faith that it is no big deal. I am asking why, if despite marrying one of another religion, the choice within that family is to raise their children Jewish, that there seems to be a "great divide" as to whether they should be considered Jewish? With all that has befallen the Jewish people as it relates to prejudice, if one wants to consider himself or herself, a member of the "Tribe" why is there all this debate about accepting them into the fold?
Shalom,
Mordecai
I do think that what you might find interesting are Biblically critical explanations of why Ki Tetzei is composed in the way that it is. I am wary of the term “hodgepodge,” and I stand by my assertion that the topics arise associationally rather than systematically. I accept that you do not find this persuasive.
If I accept that the entire Torah was written by man, then I spent a number of years in Hebrew School being fed a myth. On top of that, C.B. DeMille made a movie that had many spectacular effects including the exchange between G-d (as I understand it, Mr. DeMille used his voice as G-d) and Moses (who was Charlton Heston and someone that was not Jewish) when the Ten Commandments were delivered. All my childhood dreams dashed by realty.
My comment as it relates to "man not lying with another man" is what we read in one of the other Four Books, and since Moses is retelling what we were already taught, the woman's clothing reference seems to be the one related to the "man not lying with another man" unless the female clothing remark is yet another "no no" in addition to not taking up with another man.
Comments
Post a Comment