Richard Tupper's Dvar on Ki Tissa
"Turn it, turn it," the sage Ben Bag Bag taught concerning the Torah, "you will find everything in it. Scrutinize it, grow old and gray with it, do not depart from it: there is no better portion in life than this." (Pirkei Avot 5.24)
I have been blessed to have been taught to lehn Torah by my sons Ben and Lewie and have benefitted from the incredible patience of Sam Fox who has always tutored me when I was learning a new passage.
However, because I do not possess a natural facility for lehning Torah, I have to practice a passage a hundred times or more to get it down reasonably well. A positive side-effect of my disability is that reading the same passage a hundred times or more often helps you see things you otherwise would easily have glided over.
One of things that caught my eye when I was practicing this passage was verses 13b-17 of chapter 31 in this week's parsha. This passage is the seventh in a series of instructions by HaShem to Moses. The first six passages dealt with the construction the Mishkan; this seventh instruction, fittingly, focuses on observing Shabbat.
Some modern scholars have criticized this passage as "clumsy," repetitive, the product of carelessness and marred by secondary insertions. (See, e.g. Noth, Martin, Exodus, pp. 240-241, translated by J.S. Bowden.) However, as I practiced lehning this passage, I began to see in it a pattern that modern scholars often refer to as "chiasmus" or "inversion." I tried to diagram the structure of this passage and was delighted by what I found. Later, I learned that I was by no means the first to note the chiastic style of this passage, having long been preceded by real Bible scholars, among them an Israeli Biblical scholar named Meir Paran, who in his book, Darkhe ha-Signon ha Kohani ba Torah, focused at length on the chiastic patterns in the Torah. Long before me, he had diagramed and discussed the chiastic pattern in Ex. 31:13b- 17, and I was happy to discover that he and I saw pretty much the same pattern in these verses. The sheets that I've handed out are my diagram of this passage, in Hebrew and English, which somewhat modifies the diagram set out by Paran in his book (Paran, p. 167). As you can see, this passage does not exhibit clumsiness or carelessness. Even from the perspective of modern scholarship, there is no reason to suspect subsequent additions. What this passage reveals is a very sophisticated "architectural" skill in its construction.
Modern scholars call this passage's form "chiasmus," often diagramed as ABXB`A`, where A` repeats an idea in A, and B` repeats an idea in B. Frequently in chiasmus, that which lies at the X connecting the two wings of the chiasmus is what is intended to be stressed. This passage begins with the instruction, "My Shabbats you shall keep." It proceeds from B to H and then repeats in chiastic style from H` to B`. At the heart of the chiasmus lies X, which again is an instruction to keep the Shabbat. At the end of the passage, A` forms a parallel panel with X that links the mitzvah that we keep the Shabbat to HaShem's own observance of Shabbat after creation. If we may extend somewhat the striking anthropomorphism of the last line, one message in this passage is that if we observe Shabbat then we will be "refreshed," "nepheshed," "enlivened," just as HaShem was when He rested from creating the world. Our work during the six days of the week parallels and continues HaShem's work in creation and our observance of Shabbat enlivens us as did HaShem's rest on the 7th day.
The assertion that HaShem was "refreshed" on the 7th day is all the more striking when one considers that this rarely used verb "naphash" appears earlier in connection with Shabbat in Ex. 23:121, but there we are told that we must rest on Shabbat so that our female slave's child and the ger/stranger may be refreshed. Hence we have in the conclusion to this passage in Ex. 31 not only an anthropomorphism, but an anthropomorphism which links HaShem with the lowest rung of Israel's society.
I would also point out that lines F and F` stand in chiastic relationship to line A. Line A puts first "My Shabbats" followed by the verb, "you shall keep." In contrast, lines F and F` reverse this order, putting first the verb, the requirement of keeping, followed by the direct object, the Shabbat. This change in structure reflects a change in focus. Lines A-E and E`-A` focus on the Shabbat, whereas lines F-H and H`-F` focus on the verb and its subject.
F' repeats line F but subtly changes it. When examining a chiastic passage, one cannot help but notice places where the chiastic pattern "breaks down," so to speak. I say "so to speak" because it isn't fair to say that the chiastic pattern "breaks down" when we see differences in the various lines of a chiastic pattern. After all, a perfect chiasmus with no variations could be rather boring. Instead of seeing a discrepancy in the chiastic pattern as a flaw, we should be ready to consider whether the discrepancy is a signal that some important information is being imparted. An obvious difference between F and F` is the subject of the verb. The subject in line F is "you," plural, whereas the subject in line F` is "the children of Israel." One could conclude that the same people are being addressed, just referring to them in different ways, but the text gives us other indications that this is not the case. The second half of the chiasmus in lines D` and B` adds words not appearing in lines B and D of the first half. In line D` we are told that for the generations of the children of Israel the Shabbat is part of an "eternal covenant," and line B` stresses that it is a sign "forever." In effect then, the first half of the chiasmus is addressed to the generation at Sinai, whereas the second half of the chiasmus is addressed to future generations, which of course includes us. Thus as we all know, when HaShem spoke at Sinai, He spoke not only to those living then but to us living today, and to all Jews at all times.
The parallelism between E and E` is not as tight as the parallelisms in other lines; they share only a similar verb form and sentence structure. Nevertheless, the chiastic structure is telling us that the two lines are related. I would suggest as one interpretation that if we want to know or experience HaShem sanctifying us (E), then we must make the Shabbat (E`). This accords with the rabbinic interpretation of what Israel says at Sinai, "na'aseh v'nishma" - "we will do and we will hear" (Ex. 24:7). In other words, through performing a mitzvah we come to experience HaShem. If we continue to apply this idea that differences can serve as emphasis and we focus only on what I label the "positive statements" (lines A-F, X and F`-A`), we see that line E adds "who makes you holy," not appearing in E`, and F adds "for it is holy to you," not appearing in F`. This emphasis on holiness is picked up again in line X5, "it is holy to HaShem," connecting lines E and F to X5 by the concept of holiness. Indeed, line X5 "it is holy to HaShem," is a clear parallel to line F, "for it is holy to you." Pushing further the passage's anthropomorphism, the Shabbat then is a sanctum which Israel and HaShem share.
Moreover, the idea that HaShem sanctifies us (E) through our making Shabbat (E`) makes an interesting contrast to the statement in Ex. 20:11 and Gen. 2:3 that HaShem sanctified the Shabbat. To phrase differently the message of lines E and E`, the holiness of Israel and Shabbat is maintained by the relationship between HaShem and Israel; to the extent Israel obeys HaShem by keeping the Shabbat, Israel and Shabbat are sanctified; to the extent Israel disobeys HaShem by not keeping the Shabbat, Israel and the Shabbat are profaned.
The parallelism between the two panels X and A` breaks down at line 5. X5 says that the Shabbat is "holy to HaShem," whereas line A`x5 says that Hashem "was nepheshed." As I've said, the idea transmitted here, I think, is that observing Shabbat sanctifies and enlivens us. D` adds "an eternal covenant," not appearing in D, and B` adds "forever," not appearing in B. As I said, these differences signal that HaShem is speaking to all future generations of Jews. Looking back then at the positive statements, obedience is connected to holiness, life and an eternal, perpetual bond with HaShem.
If we turn our attention to what I label the negative statements (G-H and H`-G`), G adds the concept of profanation not appearing in G`, and H adds the concept of the nephesh being karet/excised not appearing in H`. Thus in contrast to the person who, by keeping Shabbat, becomes holy and is nepheshed, the person who doesn't keep Shabbat profanes the holy and his nephesh is cut off.
The idea of a nephesh being karet is not simply another way of expressing the death penalty. (Contra, Noth, ibid.) There are competing theories of what it means for a nephesh to be karet (see Milgrom, Leviticus, pp. 457-460), but some at least agree that the penalty of karet is worse than the death penalty. According to the rabbinic view, the phrase "mot yumat"/"he shall be put to death" signifies execution by human agency. In contrast, the penalty of karet/excision is meted out by HaShem. I won't review the competing theories of what it means for a nephesh to be karet. For myself, however, I think that when HaShem cuts off a nephesh, it may mean that after death a person's nephesh will not be "gathered to his fathers" in the Biblical phrase, but will be cut off from his ancestors. Moreover, the Bible, I think, at least hints at the notion that the living can somehow tend to the souls of the dead. If this is so, a person who is karet will not enjoy this benefit. The nephesh that is karet is totally separated after death from his kin, living and dead, from all Israel and from HaShem for all time.
If we look at the ideas grouped into these positive and negative statements, we see that on the one hand obedience is connected to life, holiness, and an eternal, perpetual bond with HaShem, whereas, on the other hand, disobedience is connected to death, profanation, and karet - eternal excision. This dichotomy between obedience and disobedience is succinctly summarized later in Lev. 18:5, "You shall keep My statutes and My rules, which if one does them, he shall live by means of them. I am HaShem." (See Milgrom, ad loc.)
HaShem has given us life and holiness; it is for us to choose by how we choose to live.
1The verb "naphash" only appears again in 2 Sam. 16:14, where David and those with him take a breather after their flight from Absalom and his supporters