#telushkin

[shewantstobe]

The Third Commandment also has not fared well in English. Lo tissa et shem Ha-Shem Eloheikha la-shav is usually translated as "You shall not take the Lord your God's name in vain." Many people think that this means that you have to write God as G-D, or that it is blasphemous to say words such as "goddamn." Even if these assumptions are correct, it's still hard to figure out what makes this offense so heinous that it's included in the document that forbids murdering, stealing, idolatry, and adultery. However, the Hebrew, Lo tissa, literally means "You shall not carry [God's name in vain]"; in other words, don't use God as your justification in selfish causes. The Third Commandment is the only one concerning which God says, ""for the Lord God will not forgive him who carries His name in vain" (Exodus 20:6-7). The reason now seems to be clear. When a person commits an evil act, he discredits himself. But when a religious person commits an evil act in the name of God, he or she discredit God as well. And since God relies on religious people to bring knowledge of Him into the world, He pronounces this sin unpardonable.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy

[somanytribes-blog]

Back to the text...

My assignment is to complete the Jewish literacy book by the end of June. I am on schedule and will be at the quarter complete mark by the end of the day, which is all of Part One and a bit into Part Two.  We have Shabbat services on Saturday morning because we share our Rabbi with another synogogue. 

So far, my favorite biblical moment is when Deborah tells Barak his friends will call him a wuss for relying on a woman in battle. I see Deborah as not just a wise and just leader, but a wise-cracking cynic.

Telushkin says the passage is her commentary on the sexism of the society in which they live. More than that, I think it is a realistic view of the way that men attempt to wield a subtle psychological influence over other men and keep the power structure patriarchical. This reflects the systemic undermining of the influence and leadership of women and is consistent with how other female leaders in the biblical literature are portrayed as either motivated solely to preserve familial ties or to protect, preserve and promote the influence of masculine kin or are acting under the specific direction of a wiser, stronger and most definitely male leader. Other heroine stories most definitely exist, but were not included in the acknowledged history of our people. Why was Deborah's line allowed to remain intact? Perhaps it is because her words, suggesting that if success and cultural accomplishments are lead by the efforts of a woman it will somehow diminish the reputation of any male followers, were read by humorlous patriarchs who, believing this to be the case, took them at face value or believed others would take it that way. Kind of like the way a Fox News viewer perceives the commentary of their alleged pundit, Bill O'Reilly, in the year 2013 C.E.