At first glance, this week's portion seems a rather dry, jumbled together list of laws that have little in common with each other: the rules for taking a captive to wife, a rebellious son, finding a mother bird and chicks... In fact, of all 613 laws of the Torah, I think 74 are found in is portion!
The portion is called Ki Teitzei and means "When you go out"
Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19
Isaiah 54:1-10
Matthew 5:27-30
1 Corinthians 5:1-5
In reading the Deuteronomy section, I wondered how could these laws be related? After reading again.... slower... A pattern did begin to emerge. I saw that this portion seemed to relate to family, specifically, Jacob's family.
I'll only write about the first and last parts of the Deuteronomy portion.
The Beautiful Captive is found in Deuteronomy 21:11 and, as I understand it, Strong's might have it wrong here.
The word Stong's uses is ידדות Yediduth (H3033) "beloved," but when I attempt to read this portion in a Hebrew Torah, the word is actually יפת תאר Y'fat To'ar, and is the exact word used to describe Rachel back in Genesis 29:17. It means "of beautiful form." I do not understand why Strong's would use such a different word as the original Torah but using "beloved" does make me remember Rachel. According to a few different websites, Rachel is the only woman in the Torah described as Y'fat To'ar, although I haven't checked this out.
******Edited! I have found our hard copy of Strong's uses the correct translated Hebrew word, Y'fat To'ar. It is our electronic version of Strong's and our hard copy of Green's Interliner Bible that uses the incorrect word, Yediduth To'ar, very likely a "fat-finger" mistake since the correct word is H3303 and the mistake is H3033. This just shows me to be even more diligent in Bible study*******
Rachel was from a somewhat pagan family and she stole her father's idols as she was fleeing with Jacob, presumbly to secretely continue the pagan practices, or at least to hold on to that part of her past. The Portion says for the Captive, the Y'fat To'ar, to promise to follow the Torah. Perhaps it was because Jacob didn't have her sware to follow the right rulings of the Almighty that Rachel struggled during the birth of her second child, named him "Ben-oni" or "Son of My Sorrow" and died.
A few verses later in the portion are the laws regarding the Hated Wife, the Rebellous Son, and the rejection of the firstborn. This also seems to point back to Jacob and how he did what the Torah prohibits: He took the first-born rights away from Reuben, his firstborn son of the"hated" wife, Leah, and gave them to Joseph the first-born son of the beloved wife, Rachel. Reuben WAS a rebellious son. Remember what he did with Jacob's concubine?
I have wondered why the Biblical Patriarchs often didn't follow the ideals of the Torah. I realize Moses hadn't yet been given the Torah when many of these stories took place but the Torah's ethics were in place since Creation.
Here is a quote from a Jewish website that shows this dilemma:
This brings up an issue which is quite beyond the scope of this shiur (but will be addressed in the shiurim on B'resheetGenesis later this year) - namely, how we regard those actions of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs which seem to contradict Toraic norms or ethics. We may note, however, that S'forno does address this problem in our Parashah and notes that if a firstborn son is not worthy of that inheritance (which includes a double portion and a position of power in the estate), it may be withdrawn from him and granted to another brother. This is why, as S'forno points out, the verse in Divrei HaYamim notes that Re'uven's sin (Reuben) with Ya'akov's (Jacob) concubine, Bilhah, was the cause of his losing the B'khorah, (right of the firstborn).
~
The portion ends with a command to keep just weights and measures; to be fair in business dealings and reminds Israel to remember how they were treated by Amalek. Once Israel had rest, the commandment to blot out the rememberance of Amalek and not forget to do so is to be followed!
Even though Israel has yet to enter into rest from her enemies, I learned this week that in a small way, observant Jews are already following this command. When a Sofer, a scribe, is testing a Sofer quill for writing Torah pages, he will write out the name "Amalek" and then cross through the name and then blot it out.
But how does this Amalek section relate to the Torah Portion? Here again, is a quote from a Jewish website:
Much of our Parashah is devoted to inclusion and exclusion - who may marry into the Jewish people and who is excluded. One of the properties of exclusion is that it defines inclusion; i.e. by clarifying who may not enter, we begin to understand the unique qualities of those who may enter.
As we read in the genealogy of Esav (Esau), Amalek is a direct descendant of Ya'akov's brother. (B'resheet 36:12). Much as we maintain a powerful connection with family - even when they err (e.g. Onan), our lines are drawn around us and we can also define who is "not family". Although Amalek might be considered a "cousin", the Divine selection which firmly placed Ya'akov on the inside track - also pushed Esav out. His seed, though they may be genealogically related to us, are not our family.
This exclusion, as mentioned above, helps define the inclusion which is the undercurrent of the Parashah. Even if the sons and grandsons of Ya'akov sinned - even if we need to question grandfather Ya'akov's behavior - we are all still family with each other and we bear the responsibility that comes with that relationship.
The strong and uncompromising exclusion of Amalek helps to define the notion of Jewish inclusion for those who are truly of the family of B'nei Yisra'el (Sons of Israel) and Beit Ya'akov (house of Jacob).
This message runs underneath the explicit laws of family which form the basis of our Parashah and help us further understand our responsibilities towards each other - expanding on the second theme of Parashah R'eh
~
So how do the commandments to not take a mother bird or to put railing around your roof fit in? These commandments do show kindness, and tradition says that these are the least of the commandments. Was this what the Messiah was talking about in Matthew 5:19?
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I think perhaps the Messiah was referring this portion of Ki Teiztei and he was saying ALL of the Torah is important and to be kept, even the "least of the commandments."
Much, much more study is needed on my part...
k'tiva v'chatima tova!
~wow~
