Category Archives: Commentary

October 5, 2011 Study Session

Posted on by
Study with Penina Announcement

                                

1 Samuel Chapters 3-5
                                 
Wednesday, October 5, 7:30pm to 9pm.  Eitz Chayim library. 
Bring your tanach, snacks, wine.
 
No prior study or knowledge of text study or Hebrew is required! 
Books provided if you don’t have your own.

Throughout the year we will meet each 1st and 3rd Wednesday evening to study the book of Samuel.

YHWH said to Shemu’el:
Here, I am about to do a thing in Israel
such that all who hear of it – their two ears will ring!
—1 Sam 3:11 (Fox translation)

I will do such things,–
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.
—King Lear

Leaders fail in Samuel, “and it is in confronting their failures that the reader is empowered to ponder the meaning of responsibility and leadership for our own time.  The narratives…unfold in a way that cautions human beings about the exercise of power and takes offenders to task.”
—Everett Fox

“Women play a larger role in the books of Samuel than in most of the rest of the Bible… It has, in fact, been suggested that one of the major themes of the stories of David and his family is precisely the unavoidable link between public and private life within a ruling family.”
—Jo Ann Hacket

Notes from Class 9/7/11 – Deeper look at Nefesh and “After she/they ate”

Posted on by
Nefesh – Beth related Hannah’s bitter nefesh to Creation –
The actual language in Gen 1:7 is that God breathes into the nostrils of the adam the breath of life: nishmat chayyim. This life force that comes from God is not so different from nefesh perhaps, so the idea that Beth expressed, that Hannah’s bitter nefesh comes from feeling she is without God’s lifegiving force is still an informative connection.
1 Samuel 1:9: 
וַתָּקָם חַנָּה, אַחֲרֵי אָכְלָה בְשִׁלֹה וְאַחֲרֵי שָׁתֹה
This verse is translated in several ways:
Robert Alter The David Story
And Hannah arose after the eating in Shiloh and after the drinking.

Alter says (The Art of Biblical Narrative, note on page 83): “I vocalize ‘eating’ differently than does the Masoretic text, which seems to make Hannah the subject, something contraindicated by the indication that she is breaking a fast in verse 18.”
Everett Fox Give us a King (no annotation)
Hannah arose after eating at Shiloh and after drinking.
JPS Tanakh (no annotation)
After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah arose
Artscroll Tanach (no annotation)
Hannah arose after eating in Shiloh and after drinking.
Etz Hayim (note: “Literally, ‘After she had eaten (akh’lah),’ namely Hannah”)
After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah arose
אַחֲרֵי אָכְלָה : Acherei ach’lah – this is the Hebrew in our text and is a simple feminine past tense in Modern Hebrew.  We would think it should be translated “after she ate.”  However, all of our translators read either “after eating” or “after they ate.” 
According to P.Kyle McCarter in 1 Samuel (Anchor Bible), the Septuagint reads “after eating. ”
This is the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, also called LLX, from about 300 BCE to 100 CE, which is thought in some cases to reflect an older Hebrew text than the Masoretic Text, or MT, from about 7th to 10th centuries CE.
 וְאַחֲרֵי שָׁתְתָה: After she drank – Acherei shat’tah – this is the simple Hebrew past but it is NOT the Hebrew in our text. 
The Hebrew in our text is
וְאַחֲרֵי שָׁתֹה.  V’acharei shatoh. This is known as the infinitive absolute form of the verb, but is used in a peculiar way. 
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, in reference to this verse, states that
וְאַחֲרֵי שָׁתֹה” is impossible Hebrew, and as the LXX shows, a late addition.”  In other words, it is violating all the rules of grammar.
I would conclude that our translations, do not say “After she ate and after she drank” for the following reasons:
·         There is an immediate textual problem because one verb is in past tense and one verb is in a verb form which is “impossible in Hebrew.”   Therefore, one cannot simply give both verbs as “She ate and she drank.”
·         According to LLX, “after eating” is the original form of ach’lah.
·         According to verse 18, Hannah eats after her prayer is completed and after Eli has given her his peace blessing.
·         It would appear that in order to make sense of verse 18, and in order to make sense of some impossible Hebrew, and in keeping with the LLX translation, our modern translators have chosen to translate either “they ate and drank” or “after eating and drinking.”  The latter translation, chosen by Alter, Fox and Artscroll preserves the ambiguity of the text, because it does not state clearly who ate and drank.  The JPS and Etz Hayim translations, “After they had eaten and drunk” do not give you the flavor of the ambiguity.

The Rabbis on Hannah as an example of prayer

Posted on by

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth 
(31a) R. Hamnuna said: How many most important laws can be learnt from these verses relating to Hannah! [I Sam. I, 10ff]   Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart🙁עַל-לִבָּהּ) from this we learn that one who prays must direct his heart. Only her lips moved: from this we learn that he who prays must frame the words distinctly with his lips. But her voice could not be heard: from this, it is forbidden to raise one’s voice in the Tefillah. Therefore Eli thought she had been drunken: from this, that a drunken person is forbidden to say the Tefillah.

Hannah – Marat Nefesh (bitter soul) and Ani (affliction)

Posted on by
I Samuel 1:10-11 says of Hannah (my translation and emphasis)
10 With a bitter soul she prayed to [against, upon] the Lord and wept copiously.
11She vowed a vow, saying: Lord of Hosts, if seeing, You will see the affliction of Your handmaid, and remember my request and not forget Your handmaid, and You will grant to your handmaid male seed, I will give him to YHVH all the days of this life, and a razor will not go on his head.
Bitter soul in the Hebrew is marat nafesh.  Marat  is a form of the word mar, meaning bitter, and nafesh  is translated sometimes as soul, spirit, or life-source.
The word translated as affliction is ani. 
In “Reading Ruth” Aviva Zornberg discusses the uses of the word mar (bitterness) and ana ( a form of ani – affliction) in relationship to Naomi.  Zornberg’s interpretations can help us to understand Hannah. 
We start by listening to Naomi say Hashem ana vi, which may be translated as “God afflicted me.”  Zornberg discusses what this means. 
What exactly does “afflict” mean?  Rashi says, “He testified against me, that I had been guilty in his presence.”  I had been guilty of something.  He testified against me, that I am incriminated of some unknown crime.  Then Rashi quotes another reading.  Ana vi: midat hadin, God’s faculty of judgment has afflicted me.  God in his role as judge, as punisher, has come out and afflicted me.  So ana vi can mean to afflict, to impose pain on me, or it can mean to testify against me. (pg 68).
Naomi’s bitterness comes both from suffering the losses of her husband and the sons she has borne and raised, and from feeling humiliated that God is afflicting her.  Zornberg goes on to say
Naomi assumes that all who witness her suffering know she must be guilty.  In interpreting Hashem ana vi– God has born witness against me – Ibn Ezra supports this translation by reference to a verse in Job.  [He] refers us to Job 10:17: techadesh edekha negdi – you are constantly sending new witnesses against me.  The chapter of bitter complaint in which Job says this begins by his saying, adabra bemar nafshi, let me speak in the bitterness (mar) of my spirit. 
[JPS translation of Job 10:1 is I am disgusted with my life;  I will give rein to my complain, t Speak in the bitterness of my soul]
The word mar, of course, echoes one of the words Naomi uses regarding herself several times.  What does Job say in the bitterness of his spirit?  “I say to my God, don’t condemn me.  Let me know why you quarrel with me” (Job 10:2).  Let me know why You have it in for me.  I feel there is a mystery in the destiny You have imposed upon me.  I must be guilty – I assume I must be guilty – but I am not clear why.  At least tell me exactly what it is that justifies this terrible suffering.  “If I am wicked, woe to me.  But if I am righteous, yet I still can’t lift up my head: (Job 10:15).  In the next phrase, listen carefully to the Hebrew: Seva kalon u-reeh onyi – because I am filled with shame, and look upon my affliction.  Onyi – from the same root as ana in Naomi’s ana vi.  I’m filled with shame as I look on my affliction knowing that the affliction must mean guilt.  (pg 69-70)
How does this help us to understand Hanna’s bitter sprit and her affliction?
Naomi calls herself mara, bitter.  Job refers to speaking bemar nafshi, out of the bitterness of his sprit.  And Hannah is in marat nafesh, bitterness of spirit.  The midrash interprets that the use of a common word in different verses suggests a common meaning.  Naomi and Job both find themselves feeling that God is witnessing (testifying) against them.  The are both afflicted (ana or onyi) and their bitterness arises out of their affliction.  Right after Hannah mentions her marat nafesh she asks God to “look upon her affliction (oni)”  We have learned from Ruth and Naomi that the affliction is related to feeling that God is punishing them for something;  although neither of them may know why, they do feel the weight of the punishment.  Hannah, in her “affliction” feels punished by God as well.  God has sealed up her womb.  Hannah does not know why.  Her bitterness of spirit may come, therefore, not from being childless per se, but from feeling that God has punished her for some unknown reason by sealing up her womb.

Supplemental Texts – more detailed:

BITTER  mar –  Hannah’s bitter soul
1 Sam 1:10 With a bitter soul
v’hee marat nafesh
 וְהִיא, מָרַת נָפֶשׁ
On my part, I will not speak with restraint;
I will give voice to the anguish of my spirit;
I will complain in the bitterness of my soul. (במר נפשי) (b’mar nafshi)
Job 7:11
I am disgusted with life;
I will give rein to my complaint,
Speak in the bitterness of my soul. (במר נפשי) (b’mar nafshi)
I say to God, “Do not condemn me;
Let me know what you charge me with.”
Job 10:1-2
“Do not call me Naomi,” she replied.  “Call me Mara, for Shaddai has made my lot very bitter.  I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty.  How can you call me Naomi, when the Lord has dealt harshly with me (ו’הוה ענה ב’) (Adonai ana vi), when Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me!”
Ruth 1: 20-21
Oh, no, my daughters!  My lot is far more bitter than yours מר-ל’ מאד)) (mar li meod), for the hand of the Lord has struck out against me.
Ruth 1:13
AFFLICTION   ani   – Hannah’s affliction
1 Sam 1:11 You will see the affliction of Your handmaid
tirah ba’oni amateyha
תִרְאֶה בָּעֳנִי אֲמָתֶךָ
Aviva Zornberg talks about affliction in relationship to Naomi and Job (in Kates, Judith A. and Twersky Reimer, Gail, eds.  Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story.  New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.).
Naomi uses this strange expression: Hashem ana vi, God afflicted me.  What exactly does “afflict” mean?  Rashi says, “He testified against me, that I had been guilty in his presence.” I had been guilty of something.  He testified against me, that I am incriminated of some unknown crime.  Then Rashi quotes another reading.  Ana vi: midat hadin, God’s faculty of judgement has afflicted me.  God in his role as judge, as punisher, has come out and afflicted me.  So ana vi can mean to afflict, to produce pain, to impose pain upon me, or it can mean to testify against me.    Zornberg, pg 68
In interpreting Hashem ana vi – God has borne witness against me – Ibn Ezra…refers us to Job 10:17: techadesh edekha negdi – you are constantly sending new witnesses against me.   Zornberg, pg 69
So sated am I with shame,
And drenched in my misery. (עניי) (anyi)
Job 10:15
You keep sending fresh witnesses against me.
Job 10:17

Ruth Chapters 2.16 to 3.18

Posted on by
Supplement to discussion in class July 6, 2011
Chapter 2
  • As a reminder, in verse one of  chapter 2, we are introduced to Boaz, who is identified in as kin to Naomi and as ish gibor chayil, a mighty man of valor.   When he finds that Ruth is gleaning in his field, he offers her extra gleanings and food, and protection from the young men who might otherwise humiliate her.   He offers this paltry help, even though he states that he has heard about how she has followed Naomi to this land and taken care of her.  We should ponder what is wrong with this picture?
  • Ruth gleans in Boaz’s field and takes food to Naomi.  Because of Ruth’s generous loving-kindness towards her mother-in-law, Naomi’s spirit is revived.  She blesses the man who took notice of Ruth.  How did she know it was a man?  Ruth did not say so.
  • The key to Chapter 2 is the revitalization of Naomi.  Naomi is brought out of her bitterness and despair through Ruth’s acts of loving-kindness, although she does not yet take action.  
  • 2:20 – Naomi offers up a blessing when she discovers that it is Boaz who owns the field where Ruth was gleaning.     “Blessed be he of the Lord, who has not failed in his kindness to the living or to the dead!”  The text is a bit ambiguous (is Naomi blessing Boaz or God?), but certainly Naomi understands that Ruth has been fortunate to light upon the field of her kinsman, Boaz.  While Boaz has not offered much help, he has at least protected Ruth in the field and provided her with extra gleanings.
o   Tikva Frymer-Kensky has pointed out that this may be a formulaic blessing of God, as it is very similar to the words of Abraham’s steward (Reading the Women of the Bible, p 246), who said in Gen 24:27: “Blessed be YHWH the God of my lord Abraham who has not left off his acting benevolently (hesed) and faithfully with my master.”   Note that this episode begins with the steward asking for a micreh – Gen 24.12.  See blog commentary on Ruth 2.3.
Chapter 3
  • 3:2-4 Naomi takes action because Ruth’s hesed has redeemed her. She instructs Naomi how to attract Boaz.  The scheme is not without risk.
  • 3:7 –  Ruth comes “stealthily” = ba’lat בלט=  This causes us remember Lot  לוט  – and to think about whether Ruth’s actions in attracting Boaz are similar to or different  from  the actions of Lot’s daughters.  They tricked their father into sleeping with them (to save humanity).   (Judith Kates, oral teaching).  Ruth is descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter.   See “Line of Descent” in list of documents on this blog.
  • 3:11  –  Boaz recognizes and blesses Ruth.  He calls her ishat  chayil, sometimes translated as woman of valor.  In the JPS Tanach it is misleadingly translated as “fine woman.”  Remember that in v 2.1.  Boaz is called ish gibor chayil, a mighty man of valor.    Boaz would appear to think Ruth is a very strong woman.
o   BDB definition of chayil – strength, efficiency, wealth, army;  when used of men = mighty man of valor or hero of strength.
o   To understand more about what Boaz may mean in calling Ruth ishat chayil,  look at Proverbs 31:10-31.  The wife in Proverbs, the ishat chayil,  labors by her own command and owns the fruits of her labor.  She oversees the management of the household, distributes charity, weaves linens and is a merchant for her goods.  With the profits she acquires land and plants a vineyard.   (See Miriam Peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies, for further discussion of these verses from Proverbs.)
  • When Ruth returns from visiting Boaz, Naomi is uncertain about what might have occurred between them.  She asks, “Who are you?”  mi at?  She then tells Ruth to wait and see what Boaz will do.  Naomi seems to display significant wisdom, as well as confidence that Boaz will now fulfill his duties.

Ruth Chapters 1.1 to 2.16

Posted on by
Supplement to discussion in class June 13, 2011
Overview of Chapters 1.1 to 2.16

For those who want to go in depth,  following  the overview is a detailed verse by verse exegesis, with many helpful quotes from other sources. 
Chapter 1
  • Naomi is bereft of husband and children and feels the hand of God has been lifted against her.    Much like Job, she does not understand why her misfortunes have befallen her, but she is clear that God has emptied her out and made her lot a bitter one.  When she returns to her village of origin, her (presumably decrepit) appearance sets the village women in a panic.  The question to be pondered is why does Naomi appear to be abandoned, even afflicted , by God?
  • Ruth clings to Naomi and will follow her through thick and thin.  The chapter does not state why, but as the book progresses, we will see the importance of Ruth’s hesed (loving-kindness) in restoring her mother-in-law’s spirit and in obtaining the help from Boaz which he should have offered immediately.
Chapter 2.1 – 2.16
  • We are introduced to Boaz, who is identified in verse 1 as kin to Naomi and as a gibor chayil, a mighty man of valor.   When he finds that Ruth is gleaning in his field, he offers her extra gleanings and food, and protection from the young men who might otherwise humiliate her.   He offers this paltry help, even though he states that he has heard about how she has followed Naomi to this land and taken care of her.  We should ponder what is wrong with this picture?
  • We are reminded more than once that Ruth is a Moabite, a foreigner.
Detailed Commentary

1.1  Naomi and her husband Elimelech travel from Beth Lechem, to escape famine,  to the land of Moab, initially to sojourn [the root is ger], not as permanent residents.
  • stranger = ger = sojourner or newcomer or temporary dweller – one without original rights
  • Gen 15:13 [God] said to Abraham, “Know now that your descendents shall be strangers [ger] in a land not theirs.”  [lo lahem]  (parashat lech l’cha)
1.2-4  Elimelech dies and Naomi is left with her two sons, who marry Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. 
1.5 Then her sons also die and “the woman was left.”   Naomi is bereft of personhood – she becomes “a woman” with no name or personality.  She without yeladeyha.  This word for children means those whom she bore in childbearing.  So she is left empty wombed and truly empty (from a teaching by Judith Kates)
1.6-7  Naomi sets out to return to Beth Lechem because she hears the famine is over – her daughters-in-law set out with her.
1.8-12 Naomi urges the daughters-in-law to return – each to her mother’s house.
  • Naomi urges both daughters in law to return to live their normal/normative lives in Moab – don’t be strange/queer – stay with your own kind.
  • “The appearance of ‘mothers’ house’ is striking in view of the overriding importance of ‘father’s house’ (bet ‘ab) as the biblical term for the family household…”  pg 179 (Discovering Eve, Carol Myers).   Apart from Ruth 1.8 it is found only here:
o   Gen 24:28 “The maiden [Rebekah] ran and told all this to her mother’s household.”
o   Song 3:4 “I held him fast, I would not let him go/ Till I brought him to my mother’s house”
o   Song 8:2: “I would lead you, I would bring you / To the house of my mother, / Of her who taught me
1.13 Here Naomi  begins to appear to us as a character very much like Job.
  • She is embittered and feels that the hand of God has gone against her.    “My lot is far more bitter than yours (mar li meod), for the hand of YHWH has struck out against me.”
1.14 Ruth clung to Naomi (davkah). 
  • davkah – emphasizes the permanence of the attachment (Judith Kates teaches that in modern Hebrew  davaq is the word for glue, also used to describe how scales cling to crocodile;   in Bible how Israel clings to God.)  Other instances in Bible
o   Adam shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife (Gen 2:24) (JK – oral = denotes leaving parental and becoming mature)
o   Israel to God (Deut 4:4 et al; Ps 63:9)
o   God for Israel (Jer 13:11)
o   Shechem to Dinah (Gen 34:3-5)
1.13-17 – Orpah returns home.  Ruth follows Naomi.
1.18 – When Naomi sees that Ruth is strongly determined to follow her, she leaves off speaking to her.
  • What causes the speechlessness?  Is Naomi overwhelmed by Ruth’s kindness, or is she so enveloped in bitterness and depression that she cannot take it in?
1.19 – Upon Naomi’s return, the village women are all astir, murmuring,  maybe in a panic (tehom). 
  • The women ask “Is this Naomi?”  It appears they do not recognize her.  Ruth is invisible at this moment.  Perhaps Naomi herself is too depressed to acknowledge Ruth at her side.
  • The community does  not take them in, offer them food or shelter.  No kinsman steps up.
1.20-22
  • Even God seems to have abandoned them – having left Naomi bereft of husband and two sons and Ruth without a husband or family.
  • “Do not call me Naomi,” she replied.  “Call me Mara, for Shaddai has made my lot very bitter.  I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty.  How can you call me Naomi, when the Lord has dealt harshly with me (Adonai ana vi), when Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me?”
o   “With excruciating irony she used the divine name, Shaddai, associated throughout Genesis with God’s promises of fertility, progeny, prosperity, to refer to a God who has deprived her, turned her fullness into emptiness.”  (Reading Ruth, Judith Kates, pg 193)
o   “Naomi uses this strange expression: Hashem ana vi, God afflicted me.  What exactly does ‘afflict’ mean?  Rashi says, ‘He testified against me, that I had been guilty in his presence.’   I had been guilty of something.  He testified against me, that I am incriminated of some unknown crime.  Then Rashi quotes another reading.  Ana vi: midat hadin, God’s faculty of judgment has afflicted me.  God in his role as judge, as punisher, has come out and afflicted me.  So ana vi can mean to afflict, to produce pain, to impose pain upon me, or it can mean to testify against me.”  (Reading Ruth, Aviva Zornberg, pg 68.
  • Again we see the connection drawn between Naomi and Job.
o   “Shaddai has embittered my life”  (v’shadei heymar nafshi)  (Job 27:2)
o   “Naomi’s rhythmic lament reverberates with Jobian echoes, and her plight is endowed with a colossal significance.”  “This woman’s personal complaint against a wrathful God places her in the biblical tradition of men challenging God for great undeserved suffering.”  (Reading Ruth,  Aschkenasy,  pg 114)
o   Job, through God’s agency, loses his animals, his dwelling, and his children, and his skin is inflamed from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.  Narrator is explicit that Job is afflicted by God, and Job challenges God on God’s treatment of him.  Job calls out to God in the bitterness of his soul.  Naomi feels  that she is afflicted, although the narrator does not specifically state that it is so.  Naomi does not directly confront God with her agony, but she proclaims it in her speeches to other women.  
Judith Kates asks (oral communication): Where is God for Naomi?
2.1 – Boaz is introduced as a gibor chayil, (we will see the significance of this in 3.11) but does not offer to help when his kin return, nor does anyone else.
2.1-2 – Ruth goes to glean
  • See Lev 23:22 for the law regarding gleaning
2.3 – By coincidence, when Ruth goes to glean, she happens on the field of Boaz.  vayiker mikreyah.
  • Note: Abraham’s steward prayed for a mikreh when he asked that the girl who would give his camels water would be the one destined for Abraham’s son.  This turned  out to be Rivka.  Gen 24:12
  • Some interpret this as showing the finger or hand of God at work.
2.4-5 – Boaz asks “Whose damsel is this?” – not who is she, but whose is she?
2.6-9 – Boaz permits Ruth to glean, having found out she is a maiden who came back with Naomi
  • Boaz offers her his protection, telling her the young men shall not touch her
  • a woman adrift in this society is in a place of danger with no protector
2.10 – Ruth points out that she is a nakriyah
  • foreign/er from nkr  = pay attention to, regard, recognize
  • As in something intently regarded (BDB Hebrew dictionary), a foreign object.  As if she is someone to stare at for her foreignness. This is a reminder that she is always a Moabite.  
  • Perhaps Ruth teaches acceptance of the foreign, of the nonnormative, into the very folds of Judaism.  Or perhaps it teaches that the foreignness never quite disappears. 
  • We will come back to this in 4.11.
2.11-12 – Boaz offers Ruth extra gleanings and a place to sit and eat.
  • Boaz explains that he does so because of what he has heard regarding her taking care of Naomi and following Naomi to this foreign land.
2:13 – Ruth notes that Boaz has spoken to her heart.
  • speak to the heart – dibber ‘el libbeh – appears only 8 times in the bible – one speaking their heart is always in superior position.  “The superior offers loving assurance to his upset, insecure or alienated partner that he will rectify the other’s insecure or alienated status.  Eight times, the passages imply that ‘speaking to the heart’ is successful;  the positive response of the other party is not even recorded.” (Reading the Women of the Bible, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, p188-189)
o   Joseph as ruler to brothers (Gen 50:21)
o   Shechem to Dinah (Gen 34:3-5)
o   Levite to concubine (Judg. 19:3)
o   Boaz to Ruth (Ruth 2:13)
o   God the husband to Israel as wife (Hos 2:16)
o   kings to their people (2 Sam and Chron)
o   people to Jerusalem (Isa 40:2)
2:14-16 – Boaz offers Ruth food to eat on the field and a place to sit and eat without being humiliated/put to shame.
  • Boaz does not offer to do very much – only gleanings.  Given that in 2.1 we learned that Boaz is kin to Naomi’s husband, and a gibor chayil, this is pretty paltry.  This gets to the heart of what is wrong in Beth Lechem.  Ruth had to be extremely full of hesed, as well as clever, to get Boaz to fulfill his obligations.  The village is out of whack.

Uncovering Biblical Myths

Posted on by
Join us during the summer at Congregation Eitz Chayim, 136 Magazine Street in Cambridge,  for evening Torah classes, every 1st and 3rd Wednesday from 7:30pm to 9:00pm.
Penina Weinberg, biblical scholor with a Master of Jewish Liberal Studies from Hebrew College and 6 years teaching Torah to adult Jewish learners,  will lead us on an exploration of the truth behind many commonly held biblical notions. Through a close reading of selected biblical texts, we will study, discuss, argue – in short, learn to interpret for ourselves.
The first class on June 15, will study the Book of Ruth.  A common view is that the Book is an enchanting, sweet pastoral idyll (The Five Megilloth, Soncino Press).  While the Book does not contain the bloodshed and violence depicted in the Book of Judges, (it takes place in the time that “the judges judged”), it nevertheless poses hard questions about the relationship between humanity and God, and between one human and another.  Like Job, Naomi agonizes over being abandoned by God, even afflicted by God.  How can this be?  What does it mean that God can afflict human beings?  Why should it be so? 
Subsequent classes (exact order of study TBD) will explore other commonly held assumptions about the biblical text, including:
  • What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)?  The common answer is homosexuality.  But how do you know that?  Did someone interpret that for you, or did you study the text yourself?  Along with Genesis 19, we will study texts from Joshua and Judges (the stories of Rahav and the Levite’s concubine) to help get to the root of the sin of Sodom.
  • If humanity is made in the image of God, what can we learn from the story of Creation (Genesis 1-3) about the gender of God and the gender of the first human?   Is God a He, a She, an androgyne?  Is the question relevant?  The concept of a gendered God is integral to many interpretations of the bible, and the concept of God as a He has troubled many modern religious people, but what does the text actually say? 

Bring your tanachs, a snack, a bottle of wine, your independent thinking.   All study will be in English.  No prior bible study is required, but our study will challenge even the knowledgeable.    Our close reading will include getting to the root of the meaning of key Hebrew words (pun intended).  Texts will be available for those who cannot bring their own.

Judges Chapter 11, Jephthah’s daughter, April 4, 2011

Posted on by
There are many interesting modern commentaries on Jephthah and his daughter.   I am including the notes from my research here.
Chapter 11
·         11:1-3 –  Jephthah the Gileadite – son of zonah – run out by his half-brothers
o   How did Jephthah end up in his father’s house?
o   What Jephthah lacks to be a good judge is a father, a heritage. (AFC1-J Klein p. 25-5)
o   Jephthah has no patronymic – not a son of Gilead the man, but of the tribe (BOL)
o   In the Jewish-Aramaic of the Targum of the Prophets, the two women who come to Solomon, Samson’s woman in Gaza, and Jephthah’s mother are designated as “innkeeper.”  Called zonot in bible.  Of course innkeepers and prostitutes are not mutually exclusive. Zonah may also designate a low-status, social-legal class comprised of women who live outside of patriarchal social mores and control.  The independent women may become sex professionals, which is not penalized as a crime.  Gen 34.31 – Dinah is a zonah.  (VHH)
·         11:5-8 –  Elders of Gilead ask Jephthah to lead in battle and be their head
o   Are the elders of Gilead and the sons of Jephthah’s father the same people?
o   There is a difference between 11:6 kazir (military leader?) and 11:8 rosh (head?).  In 9:11, the elders ask Jephthah to be both.   Note that Jephthah bargains hard to be offered a higher post.
o   Note that God is relegated to confirming the choice of the elders (BOL)
·         11:9-11 –  Jephthah agrees to
be head if God grants him victory over Ammonites
o   Jephthah wants his election to be ratified by God.   God does not initiate the choosing of Jephthah as leader.   Jephthah’s words in v.11 may be an oath of office.
·         11:10-27 –  Discourse between Jephthah and Ammon over who injured whom.  Note 11:24 Jephthah acknowledges legitimacy of “Chemosh thy god.”
·         11:29 – Spirit of God comes upon Jephthah
o   Even though spirit of YHVH comes upon Jephthah, he makes his vow out of little faith; showing the folly that comes from ambivalent faith. (AFC1-J – Beldstein p. 45-7)
o   Jephthah bargains with God even though the spirit of God comes upon him. (WBC – p.76-7)
·         11:30-31 – Jephthah’s vow
o   Vow is hastily given, in contrast to careful negotiation with elders
o   Vow regards whatever comes through the door, not whoever.
o   Jephthah is not shown as intentionally perpetuating his daughter’s demise. (AFC1-J – Fuchs p. 121)
o   Jephthah is also a victim (to his own wrongheadedness). (AFC1-J – Fuchs p. 124)
o   The narrative focuses on Jephthah and shows it as a tragedy to him – the reader should resist “the tendency in biblical narrative to focus on the father at the daughter’s expense. (AFC1-J – Fuchs p. 130).
o   There is no word from deity to stay Jephthah’s hand. (AFC1-J – Exum p.135)
o   After 11:31 YHVH gives Ammonites into Jephthah’s hand.  “If not a tacit acceptance of Jephthah’s terms, this statement at least implicates the deity.”  (FW p.19)
o   We can’t tell if victory comes because of YHVH’s spirit on Jephthah, or his vow, or both.  (FW p.20)
·         11:34-40 – Jephthah’s daughter
o    “The daughter cannot but submit; within the limits assigned to her, however, she exploits the possibility left open to her.  Using oral history as a cultural means of memorialization, she makes her fellow virgins feel that solidarity between daughters is a task, an urgent one, that alone can save them from total oblivion.” (B-DD p.68)
o   Jud 11:29-40 “resembles the concept in Greek tragedies: heroes are caught up in crisis and calamity not because they have done wrong, but because it has been decreed by higher powers that they can neither control nor understand. (AFC2-J Valler p.48)
o   Midrash gets YHVH off the hook: AFC2-J Valler p.48)
§ Jephthah was not a Torah scholar and did not know how to get out of a vow (which can be done)
§ Jephthah refused to go to a priest to get release from his vow
§  “The reader of the midrash is convinced that Jephthah forced the calamity on himself and on his daughter, electing to slay her.  The whole story begins with a mistaken vow, continues with his obstinate intent to carry it out, and concludes with the daughter’s death, which is entirely Jephthah’s own distorted decision.  God has no hand in the deed, except for presenting the dilemma that forced the choice.  In anger and sorrow, God watched events unfold but did not guide them.”  AFC2-J Valler p.60)
o   Where was Jephthah’s wife?  Where was the community?  (AFC2-J Kramer p89)
o   Where is God (think Isaac;  think Saul not executing Jonathan).  Where are the people?  Is it because Isaac and Jonathan are sons?  (WBC – p.77-8)
o   “Perhaps the writer of Judges is subtly protesting this human sacrifice by never explicitly stating that Jephthah killed his daughter, or that his daughter died.” (WHC – Lieberman, p.188)
o   We are spared the details of the daughter’s end, but Isaac, who is rescued, we see details. (FW p.21)
o   “There is no evidence of such a ritual [the daughter and her friends mourning her virginity] apart from this story.” (FW p.33)
AFC1-J = A Feminist Companion to the Bible, Ser 1, Judges, Athalya Brenner, ed.
AFC2-J = A Feminist Companion to the Bible, Ser 2, Judges, Athalya Brenner, ed.
BDB = Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
B-DD = Death and Dissymmetry. Mieke Bal.
B-MD = Murder and Difference. Mieke Bal
BOL = The Anchor Bible, Judges. Richard Boling
CRHB = Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible.   Chapter 4  Joel S. Kaminsky.
EH = Etz Hayim.
EJ = Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2007
FW = Fragmented Women.  Cheryl Exum.
HCBC = Harper Collins Bible Commentary.  Cheryl Exum: “Judges.”
HTRB = How to Read the Bible.  James Kugel.
J&M – Judges and Methods: Gale Yee, ed.
JPS = JPS Tanakh
JSB = Jewish Study Bible.  Carol Meyers: “Joshua.”  Marc Zvi Brettler:  “Nevi’im” and “Canonization,” Yairah Amit: “Judges.”
VHH = The Vanishing Hebrew Harlot: The Adventures of the Hebrew Stem ZNH.  Irene Riegner.
WBC = Women’s Bible Commentary: Dana Nolan Fewell: “Judges.”
WHC = Women’s Haftarah Commentary
WIS = Women in Scripture: Meyers, Craven, Kraemer
WJD = “In the Bible: A Judge Named Deborah”, Talk by Elie Wiesel Oct 2010
WW = Don Seeman “The Watcher at the Window: Cultural Poetics of a Biblical Motif.”  Prooftexts 24, 1-50, 2004

Judges Chapters 9-10, Gideon and Abimelech, March 21, 2011

Posted on by
Here is a chart comparing Gideon to his son Abimelech
Gideon
Abimelech
Called by YHVH to liberate Israel
Designates self as king
Sacrifices bull on alter to YH
Slays 69 brothers on one stone to honor self
Spirit of YHVH energizes him
YH sends discord around him
YH/Gideon + 300 men – no more needed for battle
YH fought against Abimelech
Refuses kingship
Seizes kingship and worships Baal
40 yrs peace, dies ripe old age
After 3 yrs, killed ignominiously by woman
CHAPTER 9
·         9:1-5 Abimelech is from Shechem, from the land of his father’s pilgesh (second wife or concubine).  This probably reflects the troubled transition from Canaanite stronghold to Israelite city.  Abimelech gathers his mother’s people, the men of Shechem, to kill the 70 sons of Gideon who have gone astray after Baalim.  69 are killed, all but Jotham.
·         9:6 – Abimelech is made king by Shechemites. 
·         9:7-21 – Jotham is the 70th son of Gideon, the one who was not killed by Abimelech.  He calls out to the men of Shechem a prophesy/curse – let fire come between Abimelech and the men he has recruited from Shechem if they have not acted uprightly with Jerubbaal (Gideon).  Remember Chapter 8 ended with the people forgetting to honor Gideon who had fought for them and brought them a long peace.   Jotham says his curse and runs away.
·         9:22-52 – Abimelech is the prince for 3 years.  Then God sends evil spirit – treachery between Abimelech and Shechemites so that all will bear the blood guilt of the 69 slain.  The Shechemites lay an ambush for Abimelech.  Gaal son of Ebed (a Shechemite) takes up arms against Abimelech.  Zebul is a Shechemite who remains loyal to Abimelech.
·         9:53 – A woman breaks Abimelech’s skull
– an ignominy for him, but it stops the war.
·         9:56-57 – God requites the wickedness of Abimelech and brings the curse of Jotham down upon the heads of all the Shechemites.
·         Note that God did not make the curse, nor did God speak through Jotham when Jotham cursed.   God’s action in this chapter is only to sew discord.   The men’s actions can be summed up by Ch 8:34 “And the children of Israel remembered not YHVH their God, who had delivered them out of the hand of all their enemies on every side.”

CHAPTER 10
·         10:1-5 – After Abimelech is killed comes an apparent period of peace.  Toal son of Puah judges (sh-f-t) for 23 years and Jair judges (sh-f-t) for 22 years.   Jair has 30 sons on 30 ass colts.  To our ears this may sound comical or sarcastic.  However, it may mean that Jair presided over a large number of political units, rather than having so many offspring.
·         10:6-14 – Once again, the Israelites do evil and forsake YHVH.  They serve the gods of every possible local tribe but their own.  God gives them over to the Philistines, who will end up ruling them until Saul.  The Israelites cry out to God, saying we have sinned.  God reminds them of covenant and tells them to cry out to the gods which they have chosen.
·         10:15-16 – Israelites again say “we have sinned” and put away their strange gods.  God cannot bear the miseries of Israel.  This is most interesting.  God takes no action.  It is as if God’s hands are tied and God can only grieve.   We have reached a stage where God does not respond to save the people Israel.
·         10:18 – Therefore, the Gileadites look about for a human leader.  Whoever can triumph over the Ammonites will be made the head over all the Gileadites.   The people are looking for human deliverance rather than divine.   Much to think about.  Why does God not respond by sending a deliverer as God has done in the past?