"It's hard to do the laws of Leviticus in modern times"
Bailey Leonard-Fritzmeier made these good points on the Leviticus readings in her post of 9/15/05 here:
"This kind of sums up the whole idea that each law may seem really specific but its really telling us a general idea or moral. It seems that the detailed laws that the texts of Genesis and Leviticus share with us are meant to be interpreted by the readers and the general idea of them is meant to be expressed in some way. One can still express the emotions and connections these laws represent without following each one exactly, which would be hard to do in modern times."
Here's my take on what she said. It's as if the interplay between specific laws and general moral principles that you observed in the text sets up a "space" for interpretation. But there are two ways to take your point that these laws would be "hard to do in modern times."
(1) It could be that it's hard today because it's inconvenient or burdensome, or even not quite in keeping with our moral or aesthetic tastes. But even then, ancient Israelites might have found these laws hard to keep for the same reasons.
(2) It could be hard because we no longer have the institutions in which we're supposed to perform the sacrifices - no Temple, no hereditary priesthood that remembers exactly how to perform the sacrifices; these were pretty much destroyed and lost in the wars with the Romans in the 1st-2nd century CE. Yet the rabbis who survived the destruction of Jerusalem and and the exile from there still felt obligated to do the "commandments of God," so they were in quandary. But not all modern Jews feel obligated in that way.
Most modern Jews, confronted with the difficulty of doing these commandments would say (and have said), it's my choice; I don't really have to do them, so I just won't do the ones that seem hard, pointless, or impossible to do.
But others, like the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple, would say, I still have to do them, or God still wants me to do them, so I need to find a to do these commandments in a new, different way that still sticks to the word of God, but takes into account the new situation I'm in, and the fact that I don't have the Temple, priests, and other institutions needed to do them.
In this case, interpretation is not just an option; it's a necessity! That "space" for interpretation between the specific rules and their more general moral/ethical purposes starts to look really good; it becomes increasingly, crucially important.
This is what is later called "midrash" (what we'll be studying next ) - the quintessentially Jewish way of interpreting Torah - both its laws and its narratives. But it seems that this need, this place for midrash (a later historical innovation of the rabbis) was already "built in" to the Biblical text. That's the phenomenon I think you discovered in these Leviticus passages
"This kind of sums up the whole idea that each law may seem really specific but its really telling us a general idea or moral. It seems that the detailed laws that the texts of Genesis and Leviticus share with us are meant to be interpreted by the readers and the general idea of them is meant to be expressed in some way. One can still express the emotions and connections these laws represent without following each one exactly, which would be hard to do in modern times."
Here's my take on what she said. It's as if the interplay between specific laws and general moral principles that you observed in the text sets up a "space" for interpretation. But there are two ways to take your point that these laws would be "hard to do in modern times."
(1) It could be that it's hard today because it's inconvenient or burdensome, or even not quite in keeping with our moral or aesthetic tastes. But even then, ancient Israelites might have found these laws hard to keep for the same reasons.
(2) It could be hard because we no longer have the institutions in which we're supposed to perform the sacrifices - no Temple, no hereditary priesthood that remembers exactly how to perform the sacrifices; these were pretty much destroyed and lost in the wars with the Romans in the 1st-2nd century CE. Yet the rabbis who survived the destruction of Jerusalem and and the exile from there still felt obligated to do the "commandments of God," so they were in quandary. But not all modern Jews feel obligated in that way.
Most modern Jews, confronted with the difficulty of doing these commandments would say (and have said), it's my choice; I don't really have to do them, so I just won't do the ones that seem hard, pointless, or impossible to do.
But others, like the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple, would say, I still have to do them, or God still wants me to do them, so I need to find a to do these commandments in a new, different way that still sticks to the word of God, but takes into account the new situation I'm in, and the fact that I don't have the Temple, priests, and other institutions needed to do them.
In this case, interpretation is not just an option; it's a necessity! That "space" for interpretation between the specific rules and their more general moral/ethical purposes starts to look really good; it becomes increasingly, crucially important.
This is what is later called "midrash" (what we'll be studying next ) - the quintessentially Jewish way of interpreting Torah - both its laws and its narratives. But it seems that this need, this place for midrash (a later historical innovation of the rabbis) was already "built in" to the Biblical text. That's the phenomenon I think you discovered in these Leviticus passages
posted by Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus at 3:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home