Berakhot 47
You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever.”
The discussion on deference in today’s reading is analyzed through the measure of a doorway: whether one shows deference for another when before a doorway with a mezuzah or a doorway that is worthy of a mezuzah but doesn’t have one. And the whole issue of whether one is worthy of being shown deference in other circumstances is not really discussed. I understand that the Shema reminds us to praise God for everything we have given him and a mezuzah, which contains the Shema, fulfills a mitzvah to write this praise on “the doorposts of your houses and your gates.” But why wouldn’t we want to show deference to those more learned or wiser than we are wherever we encounter them? Why wouldn’t we show deference on a road or bridge if we came upon someone who we respected?
We are introduced to Rav Safra who contradicts everything we learned earlier about adding a little extra something to our prayers in order to say them with intention and in order to guard against a repetitive recitation. Rav Safra teaches that “one must say what he was taught in the precise language employed by his teacher without altering a single detail.” Today’s reading is a reminder that it is all about the discourse and discussion, which can be winding and inconsistent at times.
And how superstitious are the Rabbis in today’s reading? One is reminded to not recite an amen after a blessing that is inaudible, not properly annunciated, truncated or orphaned “in which the respondent is unaware of the blessing to which he is responding.” (The theme of saying a prayer with intention returns.) Ben Azzi states that one who recites an orphaned amen will have orphaned children (does that mean he will die?) and one who says an abbreviated amen will see his days abbreviated and incomplete (will he die prematurely?) and one who recites a truncated amen may also die with his days on the earth truncated. It seems like a harsh outcome for saying a mindless “amen.” There is no sense of proportionality.
I like the inclusiveness of the waiter in a meal: “the Mishna teaches us that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.” I assume women, however, continue to be excluded. And we are reminded that the spirit of inclusion is not extended to Samaritans who are not included in the zimmum.
More deeply troubling is the discussion of freeing a slave in order to have the right number for zimmum which is contrary to performing a mitzvah: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever.” However, it is alright to free a slave if it is for the greater good and serves the benefit of the many, such as filling out the requisite quorum of ten men, but not for the higher ideal that all men are created equal. I know the concept of equality came much later (too late in the history of the United States), but still, how could these religious men of God accept the concept that slaves are in bondage forever and destined to be passed as possessions to one’s children? The Jews themselves were enslaved for hundreds of years in Egypt, which serves as a lesson of the importance of each person’s dignity, even when in captivity. And I am wondering if even in the scenario we are presented with today, a slave may have been freed momentarily to complete a zimmum and then placed back in bondage once his liberation was no longer a matter of convenience.
I find it troubling that some of commentary out there, does not address head-on the troubling parts of the text, such as wiping one’s hand on the head of a slave, or considering a slave a possession for life, or advising against wearing perfume because it might suggest one is a homosexual, or putting women to death who have had children out of wedlock, or forcing women who engage in extramarital affairs to drink toxic water to prove their innocence, or comparing women with minors and slaves, or comparing 100 women to 2 men. There are lots of good lessons to be learned from the daily readings and I am learning a lot, but still, how can an analysis be complete without considering the troubling sections as well?
The repeated mentions of Samaritans piqued my curiosity, because I had not heard of them before, except in the context of a “good Samaritan.” Their treatment by the Rabbis seems antagonistic. I did some research and discovered that the religion is recognized today in Israel, although the number of its followers is very small. Samaritans appear to be closely related to Jews, but the text in the Talmud appears to not consider them completely Jewish (they can’t join a zimmum). Here is an article on Samaritans from the BCC travel section:
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180828-the-last-of-the-good-samaritans