A minor correction to something I say at 5:35: "It's not to say that I believe the Torah is a 'Republican'"; I meant to say, "It's not to say that I believe the Torah is a 'Democrat.'" I apologize for any confusion! Enjoy! - RJEB
See also this article, to which I refer.
It was first brought to my attention in the World Jewish Digest out of Chicago (and not The Jewish Week out of New York City, as I mistakenly spoke).
Happy Studying!
Rabbi Blake
Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteYour commentary on this weeks Torah portion is certainly one that can lead us into a controversial discussion. I had the incredible experience of living in a kibbutz society during my volunteer years. This did start out as a Utopian experiment in pure socialism. No one owned any property, everyone was the same. The big fly in the ointment, as I saw it, was that some people worked and produced and others slid by doing the minimum. The grand experiment lasted for many years but now has no resemblance to the original model. Certainly in our society there are those who work harder than others and are thus rewarded. Redistribution of wealth is not a concept that most of us have lived with and or would accept. I look forward to a lively discussion tomorrow since this does touch upon modern day society and thus has relevance. Shabbat Shalom and see you all tomorrow.
Is God a Democrat or a Republican? Is Torah representative of Democratic or Republican ideology?
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to these questions is discomfort. I guess as an Independent voter, I am quite skeptical about our two major political parties. Party politicians rank somewhere below jailed used car salesmen, although slightly above tattooed skinheads, in my (admittedly warped) view of things, with the Democrats giving the Republicans a really good run for the money (no pun intended) as to which party is more corrupt and which party can squeeze more money out of our pockets for the well being of the party. As for party platforms, they sadly have seemed to be more relevant to election rhetoric than to actual governance.
God and Torah seem so far removed from the perpetrators of dirty tricks that I have difficulty putting them into the same paragraph.
But, before you write me off as a total cynic or even lunatic, let us get a little more specific. And, in doing so it might be an interesting exercise to ask ourselves why God or the authors of the end of Leviticus felt it necessary to prescribe the laws in Behar. What was it about our people and their society that made these laws necessary? I will pull some material from a presentation I made back in 2005, employing historical works by Baron and Seltzer.
The great Jewish historian Salo Baron (to whom DanF directed me several years ago) explained the social condition that provided the context for these Torah laws as being heavily driven by usury. Usury created social inequality and gave rise to Hebrew slavery/serfdom (i.e., from excessive indebtedness). Expropriation of the land of destitute peasants was viewed by Baron as the greatest social evil of the age. This is important to understanding the origins of these laws.
Behar introduces two new constructs into our Biblical code: (1) the Sabbatical Year (Lev.25: 1-7), and (2) the Jubilee Year (Lev.25: 8-55). According to Columbia historian Robert Seltzer, these are unique in Near Eastern civilization. They prescribe a form of social “equality” unlike the social architectures of Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hittite cultures. These two constructs redefine land ownership/tenure and social structure through the institution of serfdom. Ancient Near Eastern law codes were not enforced legal codes in our modern sense. They simply demonstrated ancient rulers’ concerns for justice, fame, etc. They had 3 major elements: (1) Lex Talionis (“life for life, eye for eye…”) or a limitation on the right of vengeance, (2) protecting the defenseless, and (3) protecting the dignity and purity of the family. According to Seltzer, Torah codes included case law, fused civil and criminal law with cultic law, and added the 2 new Israelite constructs above.
Land Ownership: “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.” (Lev.25: 23) Underlying the laws in this chapter is a new theory of land tenure, “the God of Israel, to whom all land ultimately belongs, has granted the land of Israel to His people, Israel, as an everlasting ‘holding’”. The chapter spells out when land may be redeemed (i.e., it may not be permanently conveyed) and whether it is released in the Jubilee Year. The 3 types of land considered here are: (1) open country/tribal territory, (2) Levitical cities, and (3) walled cities.
Social Structure: “For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants; they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt, I the Lord your God.” (Lev.25: 55) Israelites are not to be subjected to the treatment of a serf/slave. Israelites are to be allowed to live by one’s side. Serfs/slaves are to be taken from nations around you or from the children of resident aliens. Moreover, serfs may be redeemed and are to be released in the Jubilee Year. There are interesting distinctions between Deuteronomic and Levitical codes here. Whereas Leviticus (25:42) proclaims that an Israelite should never be enslaved, Deuteronomy spells out seemingly half-hearted regulations providing for the liberation of serfs/slaves after 6-year terms and forbidding the return of fugitive serfs/slaves.
So, is God a Democrat or a Republican? Is this part of the Torah Code representative of Democratic or Republican ideology?
I guess I see these laws as an interesting blend of Israelite tribal preservation and social justice. Perhaps these laws appear more “Democratic”; but, they don’t articulate a democratic vision for society.
I am more interested in what accounts for the differences between the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes. If you believe these were the products of authors, then it is generally assumed these sections of the Torah were written by "P". How do we explain Hilkiah’s (Josiah’s priest) less strict social framework than the one we read about in Behar also written by priests? Why is it that walled cities get a partial exclusion from the laws of redemption and Jubilee release?
When we look at this in the context of Drs. Meyers’ recent lectures on the nature of early Israelite towns, it seems that the Torah is written heavily bearing in mind the plight of the laborer or the indentured serf who lived on the lower fringes of Israelite hill towns and society. Add to this the prophetic calls for social justice we have encountered in Rabbi Blake’s course on the Prophets and we seem to have a text seeking to right a society skewed toward the rich and powerful.
Perhaps it was relegated to the landless priests to advocate for the rights of the powerless? Perhaps it was a clever way for national entities—priesthood and/or monarchy—to wrest control away from local powers?
Extra fodder for our Shabbat discussion...as if we ever need extra fodder... :)