Clergy Sermons

Ki Teitze – The Power of Interpretation and Evolution

When Phoebe and I were studying this portion, there were some laws that we came across that did not seem to be holy, meaningful or moral. Amidst a portion with soaring moral ethical inspiration: don’t be indifferent; care for the stranger, widow, orphan; create a society of trust by returning lost object; preventing accidents because life is precious, care for animals – we also have to wrestle with the laws that don’t make sense or seem immoral.

Let’s begin by asserting that we are not biblical Jews. The Bible was written at a particular historic time and reflects those times. For me, it reflects how people at that time understood God. Our understandings change and grow and the way that has happened over the generations is that we embrace being part of a people who has constantly interpreted and re-interpreted. As we read each word carefully, narrow or broaden laws. Sometimes we sit with multiple interpretations which contrast one another – that allows us to find our own meanings. We compare to other places where a similar law is mentioned and realize the book is commenting on itself – sometimes offering new approaches in different places. As we interpret, re-interpret, compare, contrast, debate and wrestle - sometimes turning a law on its head – meaning emerges. Refusing to read something literally is not a dodge - it is how we find meanings that touch our souls, keep morality alive and allow our understanding of God to evolve and speak to this moment. Let me share some two examples.

Take a look at 24:16 (p. 1131) – “Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his/her/their own crime.” The law seems to make perfect sense – but it contradicts the law in Exodus 20:5 (p. 443) connected to the Ten Commandments: “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of those who reject me.” Which is it? Are children and parents responsible or not responsible for the behavior of one another? How would we interpret this seeming contradiction?

Maybe it isn’t a contradiction – but different aspect of an issue. Maybe we do suffer from decisions our parents and children make – the generational accountability is true. We are shaped by decisions others make – we need to remember and acknowledge that. And at the same time, we are morally responsible only for our own behavior. Another interpretation (Etz Chayim bottom of page) looks closely at the language and suggests a different interpretation (p. 444 bottom): The word for remember is poked – which literally means God takes note of. This interpretation says God takes note of the wrongs that parents inflict on their children and deals leniently with the children. The interpretations reconciling these verses creates understanding for who we are as humans: Others’ decisions do impact us. We do have our own moral agency, responsibility and consequences. There is compassion in understanding and judging one who acts in response to hurt imposed by others. These are truths I need to hold on to.

There is another interpretation that deeply moves me. A Midrash – a story told in response to the text - teaches that Moses responded to God decreeing that children will suffer from the wrongdoings of parents for 4 generations: “That is not fair! There are lots of children who had morally terrible parents, and they were righteous.” And then Moses gave examples with the implication that they do not deserve to be punished. The Midrash has God responding, “You are have taught me something Moses. I shall cancel my words and affirm yours.” and God changes the Divine law. Thus the verse in Deuteronomy we read in this morning’s portion and is Moses’ retelling the law with the change God accepted. This Midrash teaches that we humans must challenge laws that seem immoral, that God wants this and responds to it! The human voice of conscience must challenge God! A tradition of challenging, interpreting, revising, correcting allows law to evolve, change and religion to stay relevant is who we are.

Let’s look at another problematic example in our portion. Deuteronomy 23:3,4 (p. 1122) “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of the Lord, because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt, and because they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim to curse you.” And moving forward to vs. 7: “You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live.” How disturbing! Isn’t this creating broad generalizations about everyone of this nationality, when a particular individual might not fit the characterization? Doesn’t it create a dynamic where we see people as enemies and Other because of the wrongs of their nationality and ancestors?

What do we do with this? First we try to interpret: Perhaps it uses strong language to prove a point - there are hurts imposed upon you in the past that still impact – impact of hatred ripples throughout generations. Another way to read laws and stories in the Torah that are problematic is to see them as warnings for different behaviors we exhibit. Maybe this law is cautionary – be aware of how easy it is to respond to hurt with vengeance - and that cultivates more vengeance.

Another response is to look in tradition for other stories that deal with this rule and come to different conclusions. Do you know the story of Ruth? Put away the Etz Chayim and take out the prayer book and turn to page 418. The whole book of Ruth, 4 chapters can be read in 10 minutes. I urge you to do so. We learn that Israelites - Naomi and Elimelech, and their sons Machlon and Chilyon went to Moab because of a famine in Israel, and stayed there. The young men married Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. Sadly, the men die and when Naomi decides to return home, Ruth insists on staying with her. She recites the famous line: “For wherever you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die and there I will be buried.” Ruth the Moabite, who we are not supposed to associate with for 10 generations according to the Torah – and there were not 10 generations between the Torah and the time of Ruth - isn’t the hurtful person which characterizes Moabites in Deuteronomy. She is known for her loyalty, love and devotion. The book of Ruth is a beautiful story of the power of kindness and connection which allows grief to be overcome. It becomes the basis of loving and accepting converts. It rejects the law to not allow Moabites into our community. This subversive sequel asks to embrace new ways to view those we perceive of as enemy, to reject discrimination and exclusion of those we would consider Other. We judge people by their character and see kindness, loyalty and love. These lessons speak so powerfully to this moment in history.

And how did Ruth’s history play out? Go to the end of the book (p. 422). Ruth and Boaz had a child named Obed, who had a child named Jesse, who had a child name David. David – the most famous King in our history, from whom tradition teaches the Messiah will descend from descended from a Moabite woman? There is no greater subversion of previously held belief than that fact.

Embrace and struggle with that which needs to be subverted. Allow new stories which see people in all their humanity to reject old stories which hurt, and bring healing by turning us to one another. I have been holding in my heart the story Fania Oz-Salzverger wrote about her student Shada Khatib earlier this summer. Shada was a smart, accomplished Palestinian-Israeli who was Fania’s student at the University of Haifa, at the legal clinic for human rights. Shada died when her home was hit by one of the Iranian missiles shot at Israel on June 13 that got through Israeli defenses following the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites. She humanizes Palestinians and writes beautifully of Shada’s smile, tenderness and courage to participate in discussions despite all the challenges Palestinian students in Israeli universities face. At the clinic for human rights, Shada joined in the fights for cases pursuing equity in housing right, asylum seekers’ right to education and other rights for underprivileged populations. She sought to make a difference in Israeli society. Fania wants us to see and esteem the Arab citizens contributing to a shared society based on justice. At a time when we too frequently don’t see it, there are Israelis and Palestinians devoted to common future and destiny.

The stories we tell and re-tell, revisit and revise shape who we are, who we are supposed to be and that there is a way forward. May we allow these stories to penetrate our hearts.