Leading Idea: Determining Boundaries
The selection of text in this Parashah all have to do with ‘setting boundaries’. Boundaries of what is clean/unclean; what we are responsible for and what we are not; what is part of nature/outside nature; (culturally acceptable) ways to behave / ways not to behave. This discussion plan explores this broader theme of boundaries.
Responsiblity toward nature:
Devarim 22:6-7: Birds and Bird Eggs.
Is the preservation of nature an end in itself (as well as a means to our ends)? This passage speaks about our responsibility toward the environment. We might feel this responsibility for three different reasons.
(i) Out of a responsibility toward our own children: This is to care for the environment so that in the future there will be more eggs to feed us. This is to see our responsibility toward mainaining a balance in nature in human terms. Our life will be extended in the sense that if we don’t take the mother bird then we will have the resources to continue to feed ourselves as the bird lays more eggs (See Abravanel).
(ii) Out of a responsibility toward the environment for its own sake. This is to say that we should not take the mother bird because we have a moral obligation toward nature itself (See Tigay Jeffrey and Sefer Hachinuch). This might be understood on theological or naturalistic grounds. We might feel a moral responsibility for looking after God’s creation, or we might feel a moral responsibility for the diversity and richness of nature in itself. Both might count as reasons for ‘not taking the mother bird with the eggs’, in that to do so would be to jeopardize the continuation of the species.
(iii) Out of compassion for the life of other species. Here we have a moral responsibility to make sure other animals are not stressed or experience pain because of our own needs (See Maimonides),
(iv) Out of recognition of who we are and might become – to realize our own humanity by becoming more fully human ourselves. In this case we might say that showing compassion to animals is important because, in doing so, we develop traits that are important to who we are as human beings (that is, we will become the kind of person who is compassionate by doing compassionate acts). These traits might be compassion (See Nahmanides), or humility and kinship with nature (see Ibn Kaspi)
Moral Responsibility: toward people, and toward the land.
Burying the Dead
In this parshah the explanation for why we should not leave a dead body hung on a pole or tree overnight might take us by surprise. Two reasons are given. The one we might expect is that the human body itself places a moral demand on us, requiring we bury it in a timely manner so that it is not defiled (leaving a human body hanging is an affront to God, as we are ‘formed in God’s image’). Yet we are also given a second reason, one less expected. We are told “you shall not defile (make unclean, טמאה) your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.” that is, it is for the sake of the land that we are required to remove the body and bury it.* This suggests that we have a moral responsibility toward maintaining the environment (keeping it clean), and not just a moral duty toward the human body.
Do we have a moral responsibility to look after the environment out of a responsibility toward the other people with whom we share the environment (so they can play safely and in an aesthetic space), or do we do it out of a moral responsibility toward the environment itself (not to defile the land?). In our own contexts, what does ‘defiling the land’ mean? Are there ways our own actions or inaction leads to the land being made ‘unclean’? (open cut mining? Littering? Destroying rainforestד? polluting rivers?). Are there physical actions in the environment we feel morally responsible to take for the sake of other human beings? Are there physical actions in the environment we feel morally responsible to take for the sake of the environment itself?
* If the body is left hanging animals may come and pull it apart and spread parts of the body on the land – since in Tanach, those things that come in touch with a dead body become unclean, unfit for use, the physical earth would now become unclean, unable to fulfill its purpose. The point here is that is our responsibility to attend to the body so that this does not happen.
Leading Idea: Moral Responsibility: toward people, and toward the land.
Burying the Dead
In this parshah the explanation for why we should not leave a dead body hung on a pole or tree overnight might take us by surprise. Two reasons are given. The one we might expect is that the human body itself places a moral demand on us, requiring we bury it in a timely manner so that it is not defiled (leaving a human body hanging is an affront to God, as we are ‘formed in God’s image’). Yet we are also given a second reason, one less expected. We are told “you shall not defile (make unclean, טמאה) your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.” that is, it is for the sake of the land that we are required to remove the body and bury it.* This suggests that we have a moral responsibility toward maintaining the environment (keeping it clean), and not just a moral duty toward the human body.
Do we have a moral responsibility to look after the environment out of a responsibility toward the other people with whom we share the environment (so they can play safely and in an aesthetic space), or do we do it out of a moral responsibility toward the environment itself (not to defile the land?). In our own contexts, what does ‘defiling the land’ mean? Are there ways our own actions or inaction leads to the land being made ‘unclean’? (open cut mining? Littering? Destroying rainforestד? polluting rivers?). Are there physical actions in the environment we feel morally responsible to take for the sake of other human beings? Are there physical actions in the environment we feel morally responsible to take for the sake of the environment itself?
Another line of interpretation is found in Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch’s commentary that interprets ‘land’ as the ‘human ground’. What does ‘human ground mean? One way to read this is to see the human ground as the physical and social space in which humans act out their lives.. It is the inhabited ground, in which our moral sensibility and free-will find expression. For example, the choices we make in the way we conduct ourselves in the shopping mall, the way we treat animals, the way we conduct ourselves socially) Here Hirsch is not just talking about any expression of our free-will, but free-will is given to us to given full expression to our moral purpose as human beings.It is within this constructed space of the ‘activities of persons’ that we (created in God’s image) have the responsibility to express our moral purpose. For Hirsch this enables us to give full expression to our worth as human beings. It is for the sake of this ‘human ground’ that we have a moral responsibility to bury the dead who have lost this capacity (as, in death, the body of human beings becomes merely a body – it is no longer expressive of our free-will. In death, the body is governed instead by the un-free-will necessity of decomposition). This recognition of our responsibility toward burying the dead together with our responsiblity toward preserving the quality of ‘the inhabited space of society’ brings both these dimensions of responsibility (toward people and toward the environment) together. The last paragraph raises interesting ideas about the human response to death – what makes a person’s death challenging and the ways in which it might disturb us.
* If the body is left hanging animals may come and pull it apart and spread parts of the body on the land – since in Tanach, those things that come in touch with a dead body become unclean, unfit for use, the physical earth would now become unclean, unable to fulfill its purpose. The point here is that is our responsibility to attend to the body so that this does not happen.
Leading idea: Stating it plainly
What does writing ‘very plainly’, or ‘very clearly’, mean? It might mean writing on the plaster with clear lettering, in a way that can be read from afar – or it might mean ‘clearly’ in the sense of ‘easily understood’ in uncomplicated, plain language. Writing law in a public space for everyone to say could mean either or both of these meanings of ‘plainly’.
Laws are often written in complicate language – this is as true for our own legal system as it might have been for Moses. Do we have a responsiblity to communicate laws guiding our society in language that everyone can understand? The instructions given here state that the law is to be written clearly and plainly. The Rabbinic tradition interpreted this to mean that it should be translated into the spoken language of the people hearing the text.
The discussion plan ‘Knowing how to act’ explores where in the children’s own world civic norms and rules are posted ‘plainly’ and asks how such public behaviors are meant to be learnt – who has the responibility for making sure people know how to follow them? whose authority lies behind them?
Very Plainly: The Talmud notes ‘Very Plainly’ So that the words of the Law could be easily read and understood ‘In 70 languages’. Translation enabled the words to be understood by those unable to read the Hebrew original. The words ‘baer hetev’, demanding that the words on the stones be lucidly explained, gave rise to the school of Sopherim, the Scribes, whose office it was to read Torah distinctly, giving the sense, causing the people to understood the reading (Nehamiah VIII, 8). In time this activity resulted in the various Targumim [translations into other languages]. Rabbi J.H. Hertz Commentary
“And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people… and when he opened it all the people stood up. And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered Amen,Amen lifting up their hands. They bowed their heads and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Yeshua and Bani [and others and the Levites] explained the Teaching to the people, while the people stood in their places. They read from the scroll of the Teaching of God, translating it and giving the sense, so they understood the reading”. Nehemiah 8:6-8
Leading Idea: Capturing the meaning of things in how we construct them:
How are form and meaning connected? In this passage we are told of two purposively built objects in which the ‘how’ of their construction seems to be connected to the ‘what’. There is the alter for peace-offereings that is to be made of unhewn stone on which no iron has been used, and ‘great stones’ that are to be erected at Mount Ebal, they are to be plastered and then have the words of law written ‘plainly’ on them.
In regard to the stones, there is one tradition that sees the plastering of these ‘great stones’ occurring in multiple layers. This reading is offered because of the seeming repetition of this instruction in the text. Here the text is not seen as a repetition, but rather, as two sets of instructions to be done one after the other. First the stones are plastered and covered with the exact words of law. Then the stones are to be plastered over the first writing, and then the law is written a second time in ‘plain’ words for everyone to see. If we were to see the construction happening this way, what might be the meaning that is being conveyed in this multi-layered construction?
Providing an opportunity to discuss the ways in which meaning and form might be connected in objects in the student’s our own environment may lead students to a richer discussion of the connections between form and meaning in this text.
Thinking about what it means to ‘become a nation or people’ can be deepened by thinking about the different ways society is regulated. At this point the people were not just a nation in some technical sense, but were becoming a society. Hhow were they to live together as a society? How did they learn how to act together in the public sphere? Society is regulated in different ways. Thinking about this leads us to think about the ways norms, rules and habits play out in public life and in our own lives – for instance we can speak of civic norms (moral and cultural), rules and habits and rituals. In this passage several norms are described and laws are written out ‘plainly’ in public view on the hilltop. Rituals take place (the way the alter is built), and norms established (eating together ). This leading idea spells out the differences between norms, rules, rituals and habits – this is picked up in several of the discussion plans.
Moral Norms are those things we do because we think it is somehow ‘right’ to do them they express values that we try to live by (for instance showing respect to others, care, not starting a fight). We might consider ourselves more fully human if we follow them, or we might think they express values that are important to make society (living with others in community) possible.
Cultural Norms are those things we do because acting within these parameters is socially acceptable way to behave. They help society to function smoothly and enable us to ‘fit in’ to the world around us (for instance, how short a dress can be before it is too short to wear in public, whether to shake hands or give a person a hug when you meet them or say goodbye, whether it is ok to yell across a shop when you want to get the attention of a friend on the other side). In the case of cultural norms, we might fit into society better by following them, but this doesn’t say they are right (it might be a social norm to get drunk at a party, and we fit in better if we do it, but this doesn’t make it right). In general you are not breaking any law if you go against one of these norms, but they establish guidelines for our interactions.
Rules are things that are legislated by some authority (this might be government, religion, parents, or even imposed by ourselves on ourselves ( where I am the authority behind the rule) – for instance: “I have a rule that I don’t drink alcohol before 5:00pm”). In some cases, rules don’t have to have any moral purpose behind them, they are simply put in place for the sake of efficiency or convenience. In other cases rules are seen as a way of formally encoding and enforcing norms (the rule ‘don’t steal’ and law that punishes people who do, is because we have a moral norm by which we think taking what is not ours is wrong).In this way, rules guide us to be a virtuous society. Rules can also create norms or values (For some Jews, halakhah is seen to create values in this way. for instance, the laws of Shabbat create the value of sacred time, rather than encoding a pre-existing value). The creation of civic values through rules can also serve political ends. for instance, in the Soviet era, it was the law to inform on your neighbor if you saw them acting in ways that weren’t consistent with communism, and it was a rule that served the authorities, but it also then became a value people internalized – a way of expressing the importance of the State over the importance of individuals. People came to regard informing on others as a moral duty.
Habits are repeated actions – not all habits relate to norms or laws – for instance, I might have the habit of getting out of bed on the left side – it is just something that I have done often enough that it seems natural to continue doing it that way.
Rituals are one way of translating or encoding norms in actions. Because they communicate underlying meanings and values rituals carry symbolic meaning. Rituals can become habits – something we do without a second thought, in which case sometimes the significance of the action can get lost. They become merely a habit.
Leading Idea: Tzara’at and its implications
Some helpful conceptual distinctions raised by the exercises and secondary sources that are worth keeping in mind when exploring this theme are:
Isolation
This can lead nicely into the text on lashon hara as a spiritual disease, and to also to think about the kind of isolation Miriam ‘s isolation was.
Punishment
Leading Idea: Teaching Challenging Texts
Parshat Tazria-Metzora is a challenging text -as such, it offers us a number of teaching opportunities:
(i) the opportunity to deal with what is usually considered a ‘difficult text’ – its difficulty lies in:
(ii) the opportunity to model a different way in which Jewish tradition interprets Biblical text. This is to see the Torah as if all was simultaneously present – where the meaning of one passage gains its meanings through other passages in which the same issue is dealt with or the same events mentioned. The section on Tzara’at in this parashah is often interpreted in light of Miriam’s Tzara’at as ‘punishment’ for Lashon hara (Bamidbar 12:1-15). Reading Vayikra with this text in mind we might ask why it is the Kohen who examines scally conditions of the skin (why is the spiritual leader rather than someone with medical knowledge?) and why recovery from such a state requires ritual offering (including the intriguing requirement of bringing two birds as offerings – one to be slaughtered and one to be set free). Linking tzara’at with the ‘moral disease’ of lashon hara – speaking evil of others, or gossiping – is one way of responding to these questions. This is reinforced by the third text from Devarim, which links what happened to Miriam back to the role of the Levites in parshat Tazria-Metzora
| Reading all three texts with your students is a lot of reading |
| For Primary school: As a strategy, you might want to read the first text from Vayikra around the circle, then pause to take a few questions, then have the teacher read the next two texts (from Bamidbar and Devarim), or tell the story from Bamidbar in their own words and then read the third, and then raise more questions as a group. |
| For Middle School and High School: As a strategy, you might want to read the first text from Vayikra around the circle, then pause to take a few questions, then either continue to read the next text in the circle (from Bamidbar),or nominate characters (Moses, Aaron, Miriam, God, narrator) and have them read it as a dramatic reading, and then read the final text from Devarim together before turning to raise more questions as a group. |
(iii) Another opportunity presented by this text – or perhaps a challenge – concerns teaching this text in its context. In order that this parashah has meaning for the reader, we need to check that our students understand many of the terms that are mentioned, and of the relationships between the different characters. This will require stopping during the reading and checking that students have the context in which to understand what is going on. This is especially the case when all three texts are used together. For example, the passage in Bamidbar, dealing with Aaron and Miriam’s action, may require narrative context to be given (where and when is this taking place? What is the tent of meeting?). In the case of the short text from Devarim insight can be gained by looking at its immediate textual context which deals with moral behaviors (reinforcing the connection between of tzara’at and moral/spiritual issues).
Induction exercises and openness of inquiry.
The text for this unit is long – but it didn’t make sense to cut up the first account of creation as it constitutes one ‘whole’. Because there are so many interesting points of departure in this unit we suggest that you make a decision before preparing your class about which of these three themes you want to make the focus of the class (creation, God seeing his creation as ‘ good/very good’, and ‘blessing’). Once you have chosen a focus, we suggest starting with an induction piece that begins to orient the student’s minds around the richness of the concept you have chosen. Which piece we think serves this task the best is noted as a suggestion at the end of each leading idea. The danger with induction pieces is that they steer the teacher to then ‘teach to the text’ rather than allowing the students to jump in with their own questions – it is a delicate balance. On one hand, to set up their frame of mind, on the other, not to dictate how to read or interpret. Yet without an induction piece in a text as long and rich as this, the danger is that the questions will span such a wide field that it will be hard to establish a focus in a timely way and likely that the resources provided are not adequate to the range of topics. Ultimately, it is your call.