Rereading Exodus for Joint Liberation

Continuing focus on who is telling a story and why, beginning with a look at multiple paths INTO Mitzrayim and consideration of an imaginary "Realtors of Pitom."

Chocolate City, Exodus, and erasing and forgetting as part of putting ourselves in history

This episode of Isn't It Time looks at the topic of relationships within the early Exodus narrative and in undoing oppression.

A few more words on " Coming Forth" from the Narrow Place, followed by this episode's main topic: Interactions.

What would it mean for us, collectively, to "come forth from Mitzrayim," the Narrow Place of oppression? Trigger warning: political attacks on human rights, particular those of transgender youth and adults.

This episode looks at the prophetic call, for Purim and other holidays, to act in "truth and peace" and our tendency to decide we've gone "far enough."

Is the point to get out? to get somewhere new? or to journey? This episode looks at Ending Points

Starting points and explaining motivations in the Exodus story and community engagement.

A look at Who We Are NOT in the Exodus and Passover story.

Re-reading Exodus for 2023 continues with a look at Who Are We? in the Exodus and Passover story.

In this week’s portion, we read about an incident involving Potiphar, Potiphar’s wife (never named in the Torah), Joseph, who is enslaved within Potiphar’s house, and other menservants of the household. Nechama Leibowitz points out how Potiphar’s wife uses different language when telling the servants her story and when telling her husband: this reflects an attempt to use servant/noble class consciousness to create common cause, however temporary, Leibowitz argues. This week’s portion is Vayeishev, Genesis 37:1 – 40:23. More about Nechama Leibowitz (1905-1997) at Jewish Women’s Archive.

In this week’s Torah reading, we see that Dinah goes out “to see.” What does it mean for an individual of one culture or community “to see” someone from another? What can and can’t we see? This is episode 8 in Genesis. Vayishlach is Genesis 32:4-36:43. Here is the Hebrew for 34:1 plus translations and commentary — [coming]

A few thoughts on diversity of place names, names for the divine, and ways of calling on, clinging to, and claiming land in this week’s Torah reading. The portion is called Vayeitzei [And he left/went out], Gen 28:10-32:3 Naming land, Naming Ancestors: Genesis Genesis 31:47: Laban named it Yegar-sahadutha, but Jacob named it Gal-ed. Dictionary notes on the two names: Yegar-sahadutha [Aramaic] = “witness heap” the mound of stones raised as witness between Jacob and Laban, called by Jacob in Hebrew ‘Galeed’ Galeed [Hebrew] = “witness heap” the pile of stones heaped up between Jacob and Laban to certify their covenant; located on Mt Gilead The close of Laban’s parting speech, Genesis 31:53: …May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor”—their ancestral deities—“judge between us.” And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. Naming land, Naming ancestors: Washington DC National Park Service brief history of Nacotchtank/Anacostan land Piscataway Conoy tribe site Land Acknowledgement of Hill Havurah, on the west side of the Anacostia River. Land-Acknowledgement-with-map-and-noteDownload Historic Anacostia (DC Cultural Tourism), Go-Go Museum/Cafe in development Anacostia Unmapped: The Nacotchtank And The First Gentrifiers

Episode 6, based on the Torah portion Toldot, Gen 25:19-28:9. Two not thoughts on Esau and Jacob. “The Greatest Threat to Civilization…” by Rabbi Michael Dolgin, citing Pardes Yosef from the Lodz Ghetto. See also Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg. Genesis: The Beginning of Desire (Jewish Publication Society, 1995). Get a copy, if you can — or read some of it on Google Preview.

This is combined episode 4 and 5 of the book of Genesis, focusing on divisions in the narrative — divisions in family, of ideology and of belief systems, and land — as well as some points of (re-)union. This commentary covers both the Torah portion Vayeira, 18:1-22:24, read last week, and this week’, Chayei Sarah, 23:1-25:17. It references these words from MaNishtana. See also, further commentary on Beer Lahai-Roi, where Ishmael and Isaac apparently settle together.

In this week’s episode we look at how Abraham “begins to wander in his mind.” What Abraham needs to set out on this unprecedented journey with so much uncertainty, according to Avivah Zornberg, is “radical ‘folly’ of those who abandon safe structures and fare forth on unmapped roads.” We will need something like this “radical folly” for the week ahead, as we head into the election and whatever will come beyond, and as we face the aftermath of police killings in Philly and DC. We need to let go of old ways of thinking — truly acknowledge and begin to dismantle our country’s racist foundations — and really roam into something new. The phrase “hitchil l’shoteit b’dato [he began to roam in his mind],” is used in two midrashic discussions around the beginning of this week’s Torah portion: Lekh Lekha, Genesis 12:1-17:27. “Hitchil l’shoteit b’dato” — began to roam in his mind Midrash can be understood as a kind of story about stories in the bible, used to fill in holes in the actual text. In this case, Abraham is called, with so little backstory, to leave everything and start a new covenant with God — why? who was he? what made God think he was a good choice? There is a great deal of discussion on “why Abraham?” over the centuries and many stories about his youth as part of that. Zornberg cites two versions of stories about Abraham as a toddler: One from Maimonides (c. 1135-1204) and one from Midrash Hagadol (14th Century CE), both based on far older tales. She also cites Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here is one particularly pertinent paragraph from Zornberg’s discussion: …the evocative expression… — “the roaming of his mind” — is used to very different effect [iin thn Midrash Hagadol vs. Mishneh Torah]. Here, Abraham bears the whole world with him in his personal anguished search. Le-shotet — To roam, implies full exposure to the hazards of experience. The resonance of shoteh — “fool” — lingers on: the radical “folly” of those who abandon safe structures and fare forth on unmapped roads. In terms of the “normal science” of his world, his is a non-paradigm problem and is therefore viewed as a “distraction” — irrelevant, even crazed. He is armed with no alternative paradigm but only with a pressing sense of anomaly that may find no resolution at all. His question can never be solved within the puzzle-framework of “normal science”; the question he asks is a different, a larger one; and in seeking to “enter into” the castle [a famous midrash about Abraham’s search for meaning], he intuits an experience that is latent, not manifest in the material world. Zornberg. Genesis: Beginning of Desire, p.85 One way to “begin to wander in mind,” in a way that speaks to our current situation, is offered in The Inner Work of Racial Justice: Healing Ourselves and Transforming Our Communities through Mindfulness by Rhonda V. Magee. (Penguin 2019). Lekh Lekha — go for yourself, to yourself, your own way Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg. Genesis: The Beginning of Desire (Jewish Publication Society, 1995). Get a copy, if you can — or read some of it on Google Preview. Maimonides. Mishneh Torah (late 12th Century CE). English and Hebrew at Sefaria

This episode is based on a commentary by Carol Ochs, from the Women of Reform Judaism website. (See Contemporary Reflection on Parashat Noach.) In this commentary, Ochs sites “miscegenation: interbreeding between the sons of God and the daughters of humankind” as a, possibly the, reason God regrets creating people and is ready to destroy Creation. (“Sons of God” = bnei elohim and “daughters of mankind” = bnot ha-adam] — see Gen 6:1-4. No footnotes in Ochs’ commentary, and no additional reference about this claim.) She goes on to discuss Noah’s silence for much of the narrative, until after the Flood when the first words he utters are to curse Canaan (Gen 9:24-25). She writes: So Noah’s first words neither praise God, nor express gratitude, nor ask for help, nor proclaim justice. Instead, he uses language to curse and to set up the differentiated love that will plague all the offspring of Genesis – from Ishmael and Isaac to Esau and Jacob and to Joseph and his brothers. By “differentiated love” I mean love that is given to one person and withheld from another. Carol Ochs, Contemporary Reflection on Parashat Noach In her book, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, Isabel Wilkerson speaks of both endogamy and a desire to preserve “purity” as pillars of caste. The idea that miscegenation is the sin that causes God to regret humanity seems related to Wilkerson’s discussion of caste. And this concept of “differentiated love” seems similarly related. See also “Covid and Caste,” which discusses caste as it relates to DC.

Rereading For Joint Liberation is back. And back at the beginning. The weekly reading cycle of the Jewish calendar begins anew this week, with Genesis 1:1 – 6:8, the portion known as “Breishit” [“In the beginning”]. This is an eventful portion: Creation, from “wild and waste” or “unformed and void” to “heaven and earth were finished,” followed by the first Sabbath (1:1 – 2:4); the Garden of Eden, the Tree and the Serpent, followed by expulsion and then births; the start of the lineage of Eve and Adam, followed by an odd period when divine beings took wives from among the daughters of earthlings and there were Nephilim [Giants?]. In between, we witness the first fratricide (4:3-16): “Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him” (4:8). God asks Cain where his brother is, and Cain and God have the following exchange: Cain: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (4:9). God: “What have you done? Hark, your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground!” — Genesis 4:8-9 (“New” [1999] Jewish Publication Society translation) The story itself and the image of blood crying out from the ground has been the source of much commentary, over the centuries. In addition, Jews often focus on an oddity of the Hebrew for “your brother’s blood [ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ]“: The word for blood here, “d’mei,” is plural [singular: dam]. So, as far back as the Mishnaic period (first two centuries CE), rabbis have made special meaning from that plural “bloods.” Cain and Considering Capital Cases The bloods are brought into the conversation as rabbis discuss the weightiness of trying a capital case. Specifically a witness is warned about offering false testimony: In capital cases, he is responsible for the blood [of the accused] and for the blood of his descendants until the end of time. For this we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: “The bloods of your brother cry out to me.” Not the blood of your brother, but the bloods of your brother, that is his blood and the blood of his potential descendants. (Alternatively: the bloods of your brother teaches that his blood was splattered on the trees and the stones.) — B. Sanhedrin 37a This passage continues with the powerful, and oft-cited, teaching that destroying a single soul is accounted as destroying an entire world, and anyone who saves a single life is accounted as though saving an entire world. Further discussion in this same section details care that must be taken in capital cases. Witnesses and their reports must be carefully evaluated. Opportunities to acquit must be pursued. One procedure involves adjourning for the night before making any final decision: The panel of judges is to drink no wine, to eat in moderation, and to spend the night considering the case before re-assembling in the morning. (B. San 40a) Capital Cases and Police Killings In another section of the Talmud considering capital cases, we read: A Sanhedrin that effects an execution once in seven years is characterized as ‘destructive.’ Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: “Once in seventy years.” — B. Makkot 7a The word here rendered “destructive” (chovlanit [חוֹבְלָנִית]) — is also translated as “tyrannical,” or “one not sparing human life” (Jastrow dictionary); occasionally: “blood-thirsty.” In sum: A government agency is called “destructive” for putting one person to death in seventy years… or even one death in seven years; That agency is warned to carefully examine any witnesses and their reports and to consider acquittal; The same agency is also bound to lengthy, careful, and sober deliberations before taking final steps toward any execution. With this in mind: What do we call an agency that has been involved in multiple killings in seven years? What do we make of police insisting that their young target was known to them and yet they chose to follow a car in which he was riding, based on some social media postings, instead of seeking some kind of careful, sober meeting? Is “destructive” the right word for an agency that allows the fatal shooting of a teenager just a few seconds after encountering him? Is there a word for community members who accept this kind of thing as the cost (to some communities) of policing? …a few questions that cry out to me from this week’s Torah portion and from the case of Deon Kay, just barely 18, shot to death by MPD just seconds after the encountered him on September 2. Some Background Some news about Deon Kay: Washington Informer and Washington City Paper (solid local reporting, with no paywall). Also: Washington City Paper “What Deon Kay’s Mentors Want You to Know…” Statements from DC Police Reform Commission, an official body of the DC Council, and these from ACLU of DC and DC Action for Children. See also information and demands from Stop Police Terror DC and BLM DC. For more on the details of this case, see We Act Radio’s October 7 “Community thru Covid.” Police Reform Legislation in DC: Committee hearing on October 15; testimony due by October 23. If you seek help preparing testimony, check out these workshops — bit.ly/mpdreform For more DC-specific information about police-related issues, visit DC Justice Lab. Black Lives Matter DC joins with Stop Police Terror Project DC in specific demands around the Deon Kay case (see link above), and both — along with DC Justice Lab and others — call for an end to “Stop and Frisk.” DefundMPD. See also Movement for Black Lives. #8toAbolition. Jews and Policing, Related Topics Is Our Blood Redder? on synagogue police contains several links to other pieces. See also “Jews say: Black Lives Matter“