Celebrating July 4 -- Through Torah Study

While there was lots of celebrating back in the USA, July 4 was another day of Torah study at Hartman, with several interesting sets of ideas to think about.

The previous evening, Tzippi Livni presented her thoughts about the peace process.  No great revelations, but I did not know that she had actually grown up as a Beitarnik, a follower of Jabotinsky.  her reading of Jabotinsky was that Israel would be a Jewish state that accorded full and equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens.  She now believes, clearly that both of these things can't be true without a two-state solution.

The next morning featured Israel Knoll speaking about the historical development of covenant.  He sees three stages:

1.  The earliest developments, coming from Hittite sources, feature a brit of mutual benefit -- like a business deal.  Israel adopted this approach in conceiving a similar relationship with God, in which the Israelites pledged loyalty, and God would take care of them.

2.  The priestly sources use a model of "edut," which is more one sided.  There is a promise of fealty, but not necessarily rewards that come with it.  This has Assyrian roots -- the Assyrians were a much stronger power, and their treaties rewarded loyalty by not destroying the vassal, and a parallel approach is adopted in the priestly literature.

3.  FInally, Jeremiah and Ezekiel develop a "new covenant," reflecting the failure of fealty by Israel.  Their hoped-for future covenant would be one in which laws and expectations - morality - would be written "directly" onto the hearts of the people.  This would eliminate the need for free will -- and hence ensure loyalty.  

David Hartman notes that this third type of covenant did not come to pass -- a source of consternation and disappointment to Ezra and Nehemiah, who, instead, affirm the older form of covenant (especially the mutual one).  David Hartman found this move significant, an affirmation of the importance of free will, and that "the aspiration for total victory of the inclination to sin is shown to be an illusion.

FInally, later in the afternoon we had our first study session with Donniel Hartman, together with RLI 4.  We explored a text from Avot deRabbi Natan about Moses breaking the Ten Commandments.  There are two versions of the text, each developing its own tradition of Moses' ability to decide to destroy the tablets.  One version (nusah Bet) sees the giving of a second set of tablets as showing God's approval for Moses' decision.  HOwever, Moses is required to take radical action to save the people -- destroying the tablets -- because otherwise there is a harsh judgment ready for them.

In the second text (nusah Alef), God sends a sign that Moses should not give the tablets by making the letters disappear.  But there is more of an ongoing relationship in this text -- in the analogy of bridegroom and bride, there is a pre-existing "pre-betrothal" -- an ongoing relationship, and Moses saves the people so they can "become better" and fulfill the relationship down the road via teshuvah.  Hartman  sees this, BTW, as a rejection of Christianity's notion that sin causes rupture in the relationship, whereas God asserts an affirmation of relationship even through disappointment -- much like Adam and Eve are not killed after they eat from the apple.  

This version has Moses making a less radical decision about having to break the tablets, but is more affirming about the permanence of the relationship between Israel and God.