Did Moshe Have a Sense of Humor? Plus some nitpicking on parshat Ekev
עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן אֵ֤ת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְשָׁמַר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֜יךָ לְךָ֗ אֶֽת־הַבְּרִית֙ וְאֶת־הַחֶ֔סֶד אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַאֲבֹתֶֽיךָ׃
And if you do obey these rules and observe them carefully, your God יהוה will maintain faithfully for you the covenant made on oath with your fathers:
Devarim/Deuteronomy 7:12
The above translation of the opening verse of Parshat Ekev is borrowed from Sefaria. I take issue with their translating עקב as “if”. The word עקב does not mean “if”, it means ‘because’ or ‘as a consequence of’, I.e. Because you will obey etc, or As a consequence of your obeying...
However, I do agree with the implication of the Sefaria translation insofar as this verse makes God’s upholding of his covenant with Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov conditional.
All too often, conditional love is the coup de grace to a relationship between a parent and a child. A fortiori if such conditionality abrogates an ironclad covenant made repeatedly with the patriarchs of the Israelite nation.
Hence, even if the Israelites are disobedient, stiff necked, rebellious, or worse – as Moshe repeatedly reminds them – this should in no way merit the abrogating of a covenant. After all, a covenant is not conditional unless so stipulated. A covenant is a promise made in perpetuity. We maintain our end through ברית מילה – full stop. The dangling of a perpetual sword of Damocles hardly augurs for filial love, whether from children to their human father or, even more so, from children to their Heavenly one.
Are idols proscribed because they are disgusting,
or are they disgusting because they are proscribed?
פְּסִילֵ֥י אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֖ם תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֑שׁ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹד֩ כֶּ֨סֶף וְזָהָ֤ב עֲלֵיהֶם֙ וְלָקַחְתָּ֣ לָ֔ךְ פֶּ֚ן תִּוָּקֵ֣שׁ בּ֔וֹ כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ הֽוּא׃
You shall consign the images of their gods to the fire; you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared thereby; for that is abhorrent to your God יהוה.
וְלֹא־תָבִ֤יא תֽוֹעֵבָה֙ אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיִ֥יתָ חֵ֖רֶם כָּמֹ֑הוּ שַׁקֵּ֧ץ ׀ תְּשַׁקְּצֶ֛נּוּ וְתַעֵ֥ב ׀ תְּֽתַעֲבֶ֖נּוּ כִּי־חֵ֥רֶם הֽוּא
You must not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be proscribed like it; you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent, because it is proscribed.
Devarim/Deuteronomy 7:25-26
I find these two consecutive verses confusing. In verse 25 we are given two reasons to shun any material benefit from idols; 1. because they are a trap and 2. because they disgust God. It would seem either reason should be sufficient. Except that the Torah does not explain what this entrapment is all about. It is unlikely that this refers to any possibility of being attracted to idolatry. After all, the Torah is talking about salvaged gold and silver following an idol’s dismemberment.
Hence, I would suggest that the Torah is talking about God’s revulsion at excessive material acquisition. Human nature may crave gold and silver. But if the lust for these precious metals extends to hunting down idols for recycling purposes, that would be taking lust beyond the limits of acceptable greed. It would mean that one is actively pursuing pagan artifacts and making them their source of enrichment, and therefor grateful for the existence of idols. The Torah says “no” – God is disgusted by idols even if we may not be, and that becomes a trap.
Verse 26 seems redundant. In the preceding verse we were just told that idols must be burned as they disgust God, and that recycling their precious metals is a trap. Now we are told not to bring abhorrent things, presumably idols, into our homes and that WE should find them repulsive BECAUSE they are חֵ֥רֶם, proscribed.
If we would find idols disgusting, we would need no commandment to exclude theme from our domiciles. One doesn’t come across many people purposely decorating their homes with things that disgust them (not that one cannot be disgusted by someone else’s taste in décor). Furthermore, the verse says that these things should disgust us because they are חרם – proscribed.
If God declares that something is חרם it should make no difference whether or not we are disgusted by it. And if we are disgusted by it, there is no need to add a חרם. Hence I find the addition of the word כי. – because – total superfluous. The verse would make more sense as:
וְלֹא־תָבִ֤יא תֽוֹעֵבָה֙ אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיִ֥יתָ חֵ֖רֶם כָּמֹ֑הוּ שַׁקֵּ֧ץ ׀ תְּשַׁקְּצֶ֛נּוּ וְתַעֵ֥ב ׀ תְּֽתַעֲבֶ֖נּוּ חֵ֥רֶם הֽוּא׃
You must not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be proscribed like it; you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent, it is proscribed.
If anyone out there can explain the inclusion of the word כִּי, I would be most obliged.
And finally, proof that Moshe had a sense of humor
שִׂמְלָ֨תְךָ֜ לֹ֤א בָֽלְתָה֙ … זֶ֖ה אַרְבָּעִ֥ים שָׁנָֽה
The clothes upon you did not wear out …these forty years|
Devarim/Deuteronomy 8:4
Either the דור המדבר the generation of the desert – the women especially – were cut from a very different cloth than we are, or else Moshe had a keen wit. For in this verse he tells the Israelites how lucky they were to have needed no change of clothing during their forty year sojourn in the wilderness.
One can just picture the ecstasy of the womenfolk over not having had to use their credit cards for four long decades. Not to mention the myriad men who were in the shmatta business, or who owned the department stores. Ralph Lauren (nee Lifschutz) would have remained a pauper. Ditto, Calvin Klein, Marc Jacobs, Diane von Fursternberg, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and the list goes on. If the Messiah would arrive today and declare “From now on there will no longer be any need to buy new clothing”, he would be in big trouble.
***
For my previous posting on Parshat Ekev: “Why Poor Jews Never Have Christmas Trees”,please click here:
