Isaiah 63:11-12.

[dybmh]

That appearance of God, which is recognized as very peculiar in the narrative, hinges on the nature of tiferet as the appearance of God that allows God to transgress his relationship with nature herself.

Does it actually use the word tiferet?

What does the midrash actually say?

What are you adding to it?

---

You're probably correct in your observation, but you're using the wrong Hebrew word to describe it.

This is to validate a theory you have about the choshen?

Professor Daniel Boyarin points out even more pointedly, is the extreme problem

Professor Daniel Boyarin the religious outcast who is not welcome to participate, religiously, with his community.

I'm pointing this out, because name dropping him, Professor Daniel Boyarin, does not produce credibility. It's no different than digging through a trash heap, looking for scraps of paper that were discarded, imagining that these are the holy words of sages, not garbage that was thrown away.

Professor Daniel Boyarin points out even more pointedly, is the extreme problem (so far as Judaism is concerned)

So far as Judaism is concerned, Daniel Boyarin does not speak for us. He is an outcast, a rebel. That needs to be stated clearly.

Outcast. Does not represent Judaism.

---

the fact that God tells Moses to lift the rod and part the sea, but then the text says God himself parts the sea? Did Moses or God part the sea? Did God use Moses? Did he need Moses? Did Moses' hand part the sea (through God's power) or did the rod part the sea?

The answer to your question is in Exo14:13-14. I'll show you. I think you'll like this. Very much.

Let's go back to the beginning of the thread?

In Isaiah 63:12, the arm of the Lord (spoken of earlier in 53:1, i.e., to whom will it be revealed) is, ironically, revealed to be in Moses' right hand. Which is not quite as peculiar as it seems if we exegete Exodus 4:16 properly. There (Exodus 4:16) God implies that, archetypically speaking, Aaron will be to Moses, as Moses was originally to be to God, God's mouthpiece. When Moses wigs out on God (4:13), God makes Moses represent God, and Aaron represent the mouthpiece God originally wanted Moses to be. Moses becomes the avatar of God, while Aaron is, ironically, an avatar of Moses.

14:13

​

ויאמר משה אל־העם אל־תיראו התיצבו וראו את־ישועת יהוה אשר־יעשה לכם היום כי אשר ראיתם את־מצרים היום לא תספו לראתם עוד עד־עולם׃​

​

And Moses said to the people, Do not fear, stand still, and see "את־ישועת יהוה", which he will show to you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you shall never see them again.​

14:14

​

יהוה ילחם לכם ואתם תחרשון׃​

​

יהוה shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.​

And that is the power of the Hebrew Torah

There's no need to do kabalistic back-flips.

 

[dybmh]

the text says God himself parts the sea? Did Moses or God part the sea? Did God use Moses? Did he need Moses? Did Moses' hand part the sea (through God's power) or did the rod part the sea?

maybe it's not an "or". ?? אלו ואלו ??

Judaism teaches everything is connected.

Moses is certainly needed. If he wasn't he wouldn't exist in that time and in that place. But what you're looking for is earlier in the story. I'll go fetch the Rabbi. Hold please.

 

[dybmh]

On Exodus 12:8, Rabbi Hirsch writes: ( spoiler and brackets are mine )​

On this night of freedom, they will be given back the lives they offered up, however, they must eat the lamb that symbolizes their offering in the following manner: צלי אש ומצות על מררים

roasted directly over the fire,
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

The meaning of מצות and מורים is clear. When the Children of Israel left Egypt, their oppressors did not give them sufficient time to wait for their dough to rise, and so they had to take it with them as מצות. Throughout their enslavement, too, they were never given time to let their dough leaven; driven by the taskmaster's whip and the breathless rush of unremitting toil, they could bake their bread only in utmost haste. Thus, is the bread of slavery, and we still refer to it as "the bread of dependence, which our forefathers ate in Egypt." Hence, it clearly symbolizes עבדות
It is obviוus, too, that refers to ( וימררו את חייהם ) above 1:14

Spoiler: 1:14

וימררו את־חייהם בעבדה קשה בחמר ובלבנים ובכל־עבדה בשדה את כל־עבדתם אשר־עבדו בהם בפרך׃​

​

And they made their lives bitter with hard slavery, in mortar, and in brick, and in all kinds of service in the field; all their service, which they made them serve, was with rigor.​

Thus, they symbolize עינוי, the affliction with which the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers.

Now, if מצה and מרור symbolize two of the three aspects of the Egyptian גלות [ redemption ], it does not seem far-fetched to suggest that צלי אש symbolizes the third element, that of גרות. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath its feet, suspended in midair --- not צלי קדר, roasted in pot, but תלי בשפוד, suspended on a spit ( Pesachim 41a and 74a ) - this is the manner in which the קרבן פסח must be prepared, until it is fit to eat. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath one's feet --- this is a fitting description of the state of גרות in which this people, now rising to freedom and independence, was to mature for it's destiny.

...

Thus, at the moment of freedom regained, צלי אש ומצות על מדים symbolized the three primary aspects of Egyptian oppression, גרות עבדו שינוי, to make them aware that, even at the moment of their deliverance, the oppression still lay heavily upon them. They were still slaves under Egyptian domination, and it was God, and God alone, Who could and did grant them their freedom.

Spoiler: Rabbi Hirsch, Hirsch Chumash, commenting on Exo 12:8

 

[GoodAttention]

On Exodus 12:8, Rabbi Hirsch writes: ( spoiler and brackets are mine )​

On this night of freedom, they will be given back the lives they offered up, however, they must eat the lamb that symbolizes their offering in the following manner: צלי אש ומצות על מררים

roasted directly over the fire,
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

The meaning of מצות and מורים is clear. When the Children of Israel left Egypt, their oppressors did not give them sufficient time to wait for their dough to rise, and so they had to take it with them as מצות. Throughout their enslavement, too, they were never given time to let their dough leaven; driven by the taskmaster's whip and the breathless rush of unremitting toil, they could bake their bread only in utmost haste. Thus, is the bread of slavery, and we still refer to it as "the bread of dependence, which our forefathers ate in Egypt." Hence, it clearly symbolizes עבדות
It is obviוus, too, that refers to ( וימררו את חייהם ) above 1:14

Spoiler: 1:14

וימררו את־חייהם בעבדה קשה בחמר ובלבנים ובכל־עבדה בשדה את כל־עבדתם אשר־עבדו בהם בפרך׃​

​

And they made their lives bitter with hard slavery, in mortar, and in brick, and in all kinds of service in the field; all their service, which they made them serve, was with rigor.​

Thus, they symbolize עינוי, the affliction with which the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers.

Now, if מצה and מרור symbolize two of the three aspects of the Egyptian גלות [ redemption ], it does not seem far-fetched to suggest that צלי אש symbolizes the third element, that of גרות. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath its feet, suspended in midair --- not צלי קדר, roasted in pot, but תלי בשפוד, suspended on a spit ( Pesachim 41a and 74a ) - this is the manner in which the קרבן פסח must be prepared, until it is fit to eat. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath one's feet --- this is a fitting description of the state of גרות in which this people, now rising to freedom and independence, was to mature for it's destiny.

...

Thus, at the moment of freedom regained, צלי אש ומצות על מדים symbolized the three primary aspects of Egyptian oppression, גרות עבדו שינוי, to make them aware that, even at the moment of their deliverance, the oppression still lay heavily upon them. They were still slaves under Egyptian domination, and it was God, and God alone, Who could and did grant them their freedom.

Spoiler: Rabbi Hirsch, Hirsch Chumash, commenting on Exo 12:8

View attachment 100289

Very interesting discussion, much appreciated.

The leavening of bread I believe would vary from month to month depending on how warm or cold it would get, particularly at night. I find it fascinating that we are talking specifically about hours, say 3-12, that the Israelites were “bound” by when in Egypt.

I personally find it interesting that, in Jerusalem, the winters are colder than along the Nile, and as such I believe the leavening time would be longer.

I see this as how God binds his people to him even greater than Egypt ever could.

 

[dybmh]

What a rag-tag representation of the triune Godhead

The 3, in this case, are God, Moses, and the Assembly.

1) If you're looking for what the Assembly is doing, to gain their freedom, look in chapter 12, listen to Rabbi Hirsch if you are inclined to do so. Take note of the linguistic feature embedded there: גלות requires גרות. Lamed requires reish.

2) If you're looking for what Moses is doing, chapter 14: precision is key. John, ask yourself, "how would Rabbi Hirsch read these verses?" Answer: "very carefully".

14:16 - God is directing Moses:
ואתה הרם את־מטך ונטה את־ידך על־הים ובקעהו ויבאו בני־ישראל בתוך הים ביבשה׃

הרם - not קום, not ישא
את־מטך - not המטך
נטה - not שלח
את־ידך על־הים
ובקעהו - not בדל

14:21 - This is what Moses is doing:
... ויט משה את־ידו על־הים

The secret, if there is one, is below:

? only יט ?
? where is הרם ?
? where is בקע ?

3) As mentioned previously, if you're looking for what God is doing continue reading verse 21:

14:21 (cont.)
ויולך יהוה את־הים ברוח קדים עזה ...׃ ...

In relation to what Moses is doing...

Moses: יט God: ילך

הרם and בקע are included in ברוח קדים עזה

---

Those are the basic elements, the building blocks, the pieces of the puzzle which answer the questions you're asking.

 

[dybmh]

Do you see the problem?

I think so, yes.

Because it's pointless to provide a possible solution unless the problem is understood

My vote? Take it or leave it. That problem is already solved. The solution doesn't need to be repeated. It doesn't need to be understood that deeply.

However, each and every detail you've mentioned are fascinating points of entry, glimmers, into how ancient people, of my heritage, understood their relationship with divinity. And that can certainly be useful for a Christian reading their scripture.

 

[dybmh]

Haaretz

I avoid Ha'aretz like the plague.

 

[John D. Brey]

I avoid Ha'aretz like the plague.

Ah . . . you're a MAGA man.




John

 

[dybmh]

Ah . . . you're a MAGA man.

Until there's IRV, I vote with the Democrats. And I could never vote for Trump regardless of affiliation.

 

[dybmh]

What do you think about how the article in Haaretz deals with the issue?

I'll go find it.

ETA: it's behind a paywall, and it isn't archived anywhere obvious.