Parsha, Chayei Sarah (Genesis/Bereshiet 23:1 through 25:18) is about far more than the “Life of Sarah”. And it has a lot more to teach us even than the fact that it is THE first and most fundamental example of many elements of law, from contracts and “power of attorney” to marriage.
In the Erev Shabbat overview look at the entire section, Mark examines the Torah portion which is probably the most fundamental in the Bible when it comes to understanding the ‘common law’.
The Sabbath Day follow-up begins with a premise that Mark has explored for years: How do America go from a “nation of Law, not of men,” based on the once “self-evident Truth” that there IS a God, and Creator of the Universe, Who made us in His image, and then Wrote instruction for us, to a place where men’s oaths before Him mean nothing.
And that is related to another major element of this parsha, in that Abraham was blessed “in ALL” — even before Yitzak, the son of promise, had a wife. What does that tell us about how we should deal with yet ANOTHER land and time where “lawlessness abounds”?
The combined two-part teaching is here, available for download as well:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
Mark, I agree with you this is not a boring past of the T.P. However I have a point of disagreement. No we will not fight over it but it is for consideration. I respect your teachings. As for Taking his Betrothed into his mothers tent? No he did not consimate the marriage at that moment. Why? Because he took her to his mothers tent where all his mothers maids and servants lived and continued to serve the family. This is the tent where the women could stay when in their cycles, etc. so in effect he maintained her honor and showed self control. Look at the Betrothal process to see an example. They could have waited for a couple days or weeks, or months. They told all the camp and everyone came to witness the final event. Because we did not consider the mothers tent we missed this point. Takes away the “I am Horney so Lets get on with it….and I will suggest this idea fits more with the whole character of scripture.. Mark just food for thought. Steve G
Thanks for the feedback, Steve, but, yes, I do disagree, although I didn’t go too much this week into the background. First, the Hebrew shoresh “L-Q-Ch” (“lakach”, etc) in the context of a man and wife really does mean precisely that. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this parsha includes a several such ‘primary precedents’ for important constructs, from contract, to agency, to marriage, in an unusual and extraordinary level of detail. It’s hard to argue that the point of that detail, in these first cases, is NOT to show us something.
Things we are NOT told are essentially arguments from silence, as well. We are not told that it is the same tent used by others not her, nor that it is the ‘red tent’. Nor are we told what might otherwise seem extraneous, such as, “he took her into his mother’s tent, he TOOK her, but no, not in the sense that otherwise means, and then she became his isha anway, even if the marriage wasn’t consummated.”
The simple, clear meaning of the text is hard to ignore, even if it doesn’t comport with what might once have been called “sunday-school sensibilities”.
Finally, as I hope is clear, she became his wife contractually when she “got on the camel’. It’s not like he’s going to send her back, right? There is no reason I can think of, particularly given what the text simply SAYS, to conclude they would have any reason NOT to do exactly what it says they did.
Blessings,
Mark