Cohen's Blessings

Bless you! We say when someone sneezes. My Facebook feed was overflowing the other day with Eid blessings, Eid Mubarak - literally blessed festival - between Muslim and non-Muslim friends. The Torah contains a blessing ritual (1), which would normally have been performed as part of the recent Shavuot festival (at the end of May). With the gradual reopening in Australia, these blessings would have been my community’s first gathering since March. Unfortunately, the opening of Synagogues in Sydney was postponed after a child in the community tested positive to COVID-19. However, the following Saturday our community did indeed hold the blessing ceremony for the first time ever (in our community) on an ordinary Saturday that was not a festival.

Blessings are a curious thing. On one hand, the notion that ‘we tell the universe what it is that we want, and we will get it’, makes little sense to me. Yet, I think there is something mysterious and perhaps event potent about the energy of blessings and curses. The Talmud advises that the blessing of an ordinary person should not be taken lightly as they can be fulfilled (2).

The idea of an “evil eye” is the opposite of a blessing. If someone sees a neighbour’s good fortune and is envious and resentful, there is an implicit desire that the blessing should be reversed, and the object of envy lost or destroyed. In fact, the need to counter the evil eye is one explanation for the introduction of the ritual of blessing in the first place (3). The Torah appears to take other curses seriously too, as we can see from the Jews being reminded that God transformed Balaam’s intended “curses to blessings because he loved you” (4).

For religious people, the idea that humans could wield such power can appear to infringe on the power of an omnipotent God (5). Despite such concerns, such a ritual is not just tolerated but required in certain contexts as an everyday ritual (6). It is suggested that this concern is addressed by the ritual being highly formulaic, rendering the priests as mere functionaries. Those performing the blessings were instructed to do it exactly “like this” (7). The procedure for the blessings is that the cantor (the person leading the prayers) leads the blessing reciting each word, one word at a time, and that word is repeated one word at a time as prompted.  The implication is clear, the priest has no magical powers and is merely a messenger from God to deliver a blessing (8).

If we assume the priest is unimportant in the operation of blessings, it would follow that that the quality of the priest – even if there are rumours circulating about him being a murderer – is irrelevant as it is God who blesses the people rather than the priest (9).

I am drawn to the opposite approach that sees humans engaged in blessings using a power handed over to them by God (10). This would fit with the requirements that the blessings be done with full intention and heart - not quickly or rushed (11). A mystical teaching explains that while the blessings ultimately come from God, these blessings can sometimes be delayed by divine judgement of human failings. The power of the priests was to accelerate the delivery of the blessings to arrive with great speed, like “rushing water too powerful to be slowed by a watermill” (12).   

One beautiful explanation of the blessings is that the intention of blessings is to provide a loving God with the pleasure of acting on His benevolent nature. This approach points to the peculiar way that hands are displayed during the Cohen’s blessing ritual. It is different to the familiar prayer pose which is to have ones’ hands extended out, palms flat and facing heaven symbolising supplication and seeking a handout from God. During the blessings, the hands are held in the opposite position with the back of the hand toward heaven. This suggests that rather than asking for something from God, we are providing an opportunity for Him to enjoy giving (13).

The business of blessings can get quite sensitive. In fact, the translation of the text of the blessings was withheld from the ignorant masses who did not understand Hebrew (14). The controversy relates to an apparent contradiction between the blessing that God “will turn his face to you” signifying forgiveness (15), and the contradictory verse that states that God will not turn his face to show favouritism - and forgive sins - nor accept bribes (16).  There are complex resolutions of this apparent contradiction such as forgiveness being applied when we sin in ritual matters but withheld when harming other people (17). Unfortunately, it was assumed that the common man would find this confusing. I am pleased that modern translations of the Torah do not censor the blessings and appear to trust the masses with, rather than shield the masses from, the complexity.  

This year on Shavuot, a 3000-year-old tradition of the blessing ceremony was interrupted for many Jewish communities. Perhaps there is a dual message to consider. On the one hand, some humans are not feeling very blessed at this difficult time, as they struggle with loss of loved ones or livelihoods, or their sense of security and social connection. On the other hand, for those of us who have our health and our needs met and our loved one around us - in my case all of my six children have been together under the same roof for over two months - let us redouble our awareness of the blessings we have been granted. Perhaps that was the purpose of the blessing ritual in the first place, to assist us in being grateful for the blessings we have been granted (18).  

Notes

1) Numbers 6:23-27

2) Talmud, Megilah 15a

3) Bamidbar Rabba 12:4, p. 99

4) Deuteronomy 23:6

5) Chido, p.25, 34

6) Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 376

7) Numbers 6:23

8) Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary on Numbers 6:23-27

9) Jerusalem Talmud, Gitin, 5:8

10) Midrash Rabba 11:b
11) Rashi on 6:23

12) Derech Mitzvoteacha, Mitzva Birchas Cohanim, p. 112

13) Kedushas Levi, Naso, p.277

14) Talmud, Megila 25a & b

15) Rashi

16) Deuteronomy 10:17

17) Talmud Rosh Hashana 17b

18) Rothstien, G. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/five-rashis-naso-birchat-kohanim/

Cohen forbidden to marry a divorcee - Emor

The Torah forbids a Cohen, or a “priest” (1) to marry a divorcee (2). The explanation of this prohibition is that the role of the Cohen in worship requires him to be holy.  

This law disturbs me. I'm concerned that something negative is implied about divorced women. The assumption seems to be that, if a Cohen marries a divorcee, this would detract from his holiness. I will not “solve” this riddle in this blog. As a Jew, the discussion itself and questions, in general, have value irrespective of the answers.  

I posted a question about this issue on Facebook. More than 120 comments were posted in response. One Jewish woman asked why “no responsibility for the breakdown of a marriage is placed on the man”? And if there was an equivalent law about divorced men? A Muslim woman agreed. She wrote that “in many cultures ...we have this issue of the blame being on the woman too and divorce being such a taboo topic...that people are forced to stay together to not bring shame on the family”.

There are several approaches to explaining this law, written several centuries ago.

1. Blame: "...a woman, being divorced, will already show that a matter of disgrace was found in her, [so] it is not fitting that a Cohen should marry someone who was not fitting to be a wife [for her first husband], because he [the Cohen] is holy to his God” (3). The assumption is that “the husband did not divorce her out of the wickedness of his heart…” (4). So, it must be that the divorce was in response to a significant moral failure on her part (5).

This 14th and 15th century approach does not take into account the reality, we all know today, that divorce is often not the result of a woman’s shortcomings. Although circumstances were different at that time in terms of male dominance, Judaism has long recognised other valid grounds for divorce. One example given is “if she burned his cooking” (6). This trivial example makes the point that the specifics of the complaints couples have about each other, are unimportant. According to the Torah, the main reason for divorce is because there is hatred between the couple (7). Another valid reason given for divorce is if a wife finds her husband repulsive (8). Abuse and various other failings on the part of the husband are also grounds for divorce (9). Based on both factual and textual evidence, the blame approach is problematic.

2. Blemish: Another approach sees the marriage partner’s virginity as important for the Cohen. Just as the Torah forbids a Cohen with physical imperfections to serve in the temple, it seeks “perfection” in his spouse (10). Needless to say, this approach does not sit well with the modern reader, including the writer of this blog. Surely, a woman’s worth is determined by her personal qualities far more than her virginity! And a man’s “completeness” surely relates more to his own spiritual achievements and shortcomings than the qualities of “his woman”.  

There is also a textual problem with this approach. The Torah states that only the chief Cohen, the Cohen Gadol, is forbidden to marry a widow, but places no such requirement on an ordinary Cohen (11). Jewish law also allows a Cohen to marry a woman who engaged in sex, despite not being married (12).  Clearly, marrying a virgin is not a precondition to serving as a Cohen.

3. Bedroom thoughts: A third approach centres on thoughts during sexual intimacy. Jewish tradition strongly disapproves of a couple being physically intimate with each other while their thoughts are about other people or sexual partners (13). This concern is part of a broader insistence of a union of hearts and souls during intercourse (14). Jewish law recommends that sex is to be “with the desire of both partners and their joy” (15). Overall, the physical sexual experience is deemed worthy and positive if there is a corresponding strong and pure spiritual union.   

Concern is expressed that a divorced woman is at risk of thinking about her past partner during intimacy with her current partner. This concern does not take into account the degree of probability that this will occur. (16). This thinking is linked to the law forbidding the marriage between a divorcee and a Cohen, who is meant to strive for perfection17).

This explanation might be more plausible if it applied equally to a divorced male Cohen and his possible thoughts about a former partner. I also feel uncomfortable with this explanation because it suggests that only divorced partners have this type of thought; yet our tradition acknowledges that anyone might have their thoughts wander during sex to think about someone they “saw on the road” (18).

4. Perception: For me, a more palatable approach is to locate the problem not within the divorced woman, but in the assumed perceptions of the community (19). With this approach, there is concern that people might respect the Cohen less because his wife has been divorced. A similar explanation is used for not allowing a Cohen with a physical “blemish” to serve in the temple (20). In fact, based on the problem being one of perception, a dispensation is given in the following circumstances: if the community is familiar with a particular Cohen who is blind in one eye, their familiarity with this Cohen would permit him to perform the priestly blessings because they are unlikely to be distracted by his condition (21). If we apply this “perception” approach here, we eliminate any disparaging implications about divorcees and explain this law as a practical concession to flawed superficial human perspectives.

Regardless of the approach one takes, the burden of all this holiness falls on women rather than men. This imbalance is partly corrected by the prophet Malachi’s scathing critique (22) of male Cohanim (plural of Cohen) who opportunistically abandoned their first wives in favour of the perhaps more exotic, idol-worshipping women they encountered.

The prophet thunders thus:

“And now, O priests, this charge is for you...The Torah of truth was in his mouth, And he turned many away from sin… But you have turned away from that course...And I, in turn, have made you despicable and vile in the eyes of all the people… and this second thing you have done, You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, weeping, and moaning... But you ask, “Because of what?” Because the Lord is a witness between you and the wife of your youth with whom you have broken faith, though she is your partner and covenanted spouse...let no one break faith with the wife of his youth. ...For I detest divorce—said the LORD,...do not act treacherously.

Perhaps more interesting than all the text is the lived experienced of a modern day Cohen, let’s call him Abe, who is married to a wonderful woman, who had been divorced prior to their marriage.

Abe told me that he and his now-wife “were faced with a moral dilemma: he could continue to remain unmarried in the new relationship, which would not impact on his standing as a Cohen; or he could remarry, thereby honouring the relationship and those closest to them who believed in the sanctity of marriage. If he proceeded to marry her, Abe faced losing Cohen privileges. He had particularly enjoyed blessing the community as a Cohen.  

After consultations with various Rabbis, they decided to remarry. Unable to do so through an Orthodox ceremony, they did so through Reform.

Nevertheless, Abe has continued to be an active member of the Orthodox Synagogue. Although he disobeyed the commandment not to marry a divorcee, he feels accepted and comfortable over there. Looking back, though, he clearly misses not being able to “bless the people of Israel with love” during the ”Blessing of the Priests” ceremony. At the same time, he feels grateful for his loving, married relationship and thriving, blended family.

  

Abe does not feel resentful. He accepts that the dignity of the office of the Cohen needs to be preserved, even though he personally has chosen to prioritise the dignity of his wife and family.   

Abe’s choice is not condoned by the law. Sadly, he is paying a price for his choice, and I am sure this was not easy for his wife, either. In the end, I am left with the question: why does it need to be so?  

Notes

1.   The word Cohen is often translated as a priest. A Cohen is a descendant of Aaron, the brother of Moses. In the times that the temple stood in Jerusalem, they had a key role in offering sacrifices. Today, the main role of the Cohen is to bless the community.

2.   Leviticus 21:7

3.   Ralbag (1288-1344, France) on Leviticus 21:7, כבר יורה היותה גרושה שנמצא בה דבר גנות ואין ראוי שיקח הכהן לאשה מי שלא היתה ראויה לאשה: כי קדוש הוא לאלהיו. ולזה אין ראוי שיקח אלו הנשים אשר הם בזה האופן מהגנות:  See Gittin 90b which would seem to support the Ralbag’s approach.

4.   Abarbanel (1437-1580) on Leviticus 21:7, he creatively suggests that the phrase “he is holy to his God” can be applied to the ex-husband, who (for some unexplained reason) is assumed to have been holy and motivated in his decision to divorce his wife by religious puritanism because of her immoral conduct.    

5.   This approach is influenced by the first scenario of divorce given in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. “1. When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her, and it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers in her an unseemly [moral] matter, and he writes for her a bill of divorce and places it into her hand, and sends her away from his house, 2. And she leaves his house and goes and marries another man, 3. If the latter husband hates her and writes her a bill of divorce, and places it into her hand and sends her away from his house…”  See various opinions and interpretations in the Talmud Gittin 90a and 90b that emphasise the woman being at fault as being the reason for a divorce.

6.   Talmud Gittin 90a and 90b

7.   Beis Shmuel on Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 119:3, while the language is quite male-centric, the key principle is that strife between the couple is the primary factor in consideration whether divorce is appropriate.

8.   https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/560111/jewish/The-Wifes-Grounds-for-Divorce.htm.

9.   Maimonides Yad Hachazakah, Hilchos Ishut, 14:8

10.                     Zohar, Raya Mehemna, on Emor, p.89b and 90a, on the verse “and he, a virgin”.

11.                     Leviticus 21:7 and 21:14

12.                     Shulchan Aruch Even Ezer 6:8

13.                     Talmud Nedarim 20b, midrash Tanchuma Naso 7

14.                     http://ph.yhb.org.il/plus/14-02-13/

15.                     Maimonides, Yat Hachazaka, Deot, 5:4

16.                     Talmud Pesachim 112a and b, Talmud Moed Katan 23a, Tosafot starting with Ad.

17.                     Radvaz, in Taamei Hamitzvot, כבר ידעת כי המחשבה עיקר גדול בזיווג ואשה גרושה דעתה על אחריםSefer Hachinuch mitzva 272, and 273

18.                     Midrash Tanchuma, Naso 7b.

19.                     Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva?

20.                     Abarbanel on Emor,

21.                     Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, book of Love, Laws of Prayers and Lifting the Hands 15:2, see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 128.

22.                     Malachi 2

Disgraced Cohen's Daughter's Punishment - Emor

As I am finalising my thoughts on this blog, my heart is full of inspiration from yesterday’s Inter-school Program, watching Christian, Jewish and Muslim students come together yesterday culminating in spontaneously making music together. In stark contrast to that, I consider enduring contradictions and divisions that challenge me and others. Experiences, narratives and texts can all alienate us from communities, both similar and different to ourselves.  In this post I explore one of these.

I have been thinking of one passage in the Torah that challenges me not to feel alienated from my own tradition. “The daughter of a Cohen/ priest who will profane herself through whoredom, her father she is desecrating, in fire, she should be burned” (1). After thinking about it for a week, it seemed clear to me that there was nothing I could say that would reconcile this verse with contemporary mores. Over Shabbat (Friday night and Sunday) I was delighted to find a possible, at least partial, way through.

At the start of this discussion I make the following points: A) We need to look at how a religious text is applied today in the lived experience of the adherents of that faith rather than what the words are in the text. This is as true for non-Muslims looking at verses from the Koran as it is for those trying to make sense of Judaism.  B) It is useful to consider how traditions have been interpreted over time.

A Sydney Rabbi who told me that his sermon on the passage of the Cohen’s daughter, interpreted it along mystical lines. He said that it is by God’s design that this law does not apply today (as capital cases are no longer prosecuted since the destruction of the second temple two thousand years ago). Instead, he suggested that burning in fire represents passionate devotion to God to correct the sins of passion (2). Another contemporary approach to this matter took the form of a personal reflection on the responsibility of dads in  positions of religious leadership to be attentive to their children. The writer regrets that some of his religious study years earlier was at the expense of his family. Failure to properly guide children shames the father (3).   

Earlier traditions relating to this law make clear that we are dealing with adultery and a married woman (4). Furthermore, there are very strict laws applying to all cases of capital punishment. The perpetrator must have been warned by two witnesses immediately prior to the act which is then witnessed. This is a highly unlikely scenario. Traditions vary about how rare an event any capital punishment was when it was practiced at all, with one opinion that a Court that killed once every 70 years was a “murderous court”, and another view putting it as once every 7 years (5).

Despite the restrictions on actually putting a woman to death for this crime, the phrase itself raises concern for me. There are two aspects that bother me. One is the idea that a woman’s status is considered through the perspective of its impact on the honour of her male family members. The second is on the discrepancy between a misbehaving son and daughter (6).

Early traditional commentary is in line with a simple reading of the text: “If he [her father] had been treated as holy (before), he will now be treated as mundane, (if he had been treated with) honor, now he will be treated with disgrace, as they will say cursed be the one who gave birth to this one, who raised this one” (7).

Fortunately this approach is not the only one. I take comfort from the approach of both of the early authoritative translations into Aramaic, neither of which mentions the father’s shame (8). One (9) subtly re frames it as “from the holiness of her father she becomes desecrated”. The meaning of the translation is that she is desecrating herself, and profaning “the holiness that she has as a heritage from her father”. As the daughter of a Cohen/priest she inherited social- spiritual capital that has now been lost (10). It is not about her father but about her.

The discrepancy between a daughter and a son can be considered from a historical and contextual perspective that suggests that the verse is a response to the practice of the “sacred prostitute”. It is argued that the daughters of idol worshipers’ priests would act as prostitutes at their places of worship (11). Evidence is found in a  phrase in the book of Hosea: “they sacrifice with the prostitutes” (12). If we accept this argument then it is reasonable that the warning is directed to females based on the historical-actual problem the passage is seeking to address. While this explanation is attractive to me, I have not yet found any earlier authoritative commentary linking this ancient practice and this verse.

I am conflicted about how to approach these types of texts. I can join my colleagues who try to make it ok. As demonstrated above, there are some plausible approaches to do that, at least partially. I can also simply put them out there for further reflection and study. When my own daughter was born we  chose a biblical name, Shifra, that was not identified as being the wife, daughter or mother of any important man because we want our daughter to know she matters for who she is and who she will become, including but certainly not limited to her roles as a mother, wife or daughter. I take comfort in this view being consistent with some of my traditions about this difficult verse. The discrepancy between the treatment of males and females, however is acknowledged as a matter of concern.

Notes and Sources

1. Leviticus 21:9
2. Conversation at Lag B’Omer event at Bondi with Rabbi Y. 14.05.2017 based on Chasidic sources
3. Buchwald, Rabbi E, Lessons from a Cohen’s Wanton Daughter, https://njop.org/emor-5772-2012/. He wrote….As one who completed the study of an entire cycle of the Talmud about twenty-five years ago, I know how enriching the experience can be… but looking back, it was inevitable that devoting so much time to the study of Torah came, at least in part, at the expense of the family, especially during the children’s critical nurturing years..
4. Talmud Sanhedrin 50b
5. Mishnah, Makkot 1:10
6. Abarbanel, commentary on Emor question 5, p.225
7. Talmud Sanhedrin 52a
8. Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, sees the reference to the father as a clarification of a matter of law, that she had gotten married through Erusin, but lived in her father’s house
9. Unkelus/Onkelus, who lived around c. 35–120 CE, although the Talmud Megillah 3a suggests that this translation is was based on the teachings of the great Tanaaim Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, or even earlier but forgotten by the masses, and rerecorded by Unkelus,
10. Meshech Chochma, Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, 1843-1926
11. Daat Mikra on Leviticus 21:9, Mosad Harav Kook,
12. Hosea 4:14

Process, Personality and Positions combine against Violent Extremism and Prejudice - Tzetzaveh

On the 14th floor of an office building this week, I confronted the fact that I will fail to achieve my purpose if my approach is more of the same. My work has been significantly personality driven. Muslim, Jewish and Christian people, often with charisma and great personal qualities have talked to 100,000 students and some others about how we can respect our differences and be friends. Despite the merit and value of this work to date, to changes things to a further extent requires a holistic approach and the collective impact of many factors.

I rode into the city on a crowded bus on Tuesday morning to attend a two day planning process about resilience and violent extremism. One could be cynical about the whole thing. During the second day it was clear that there wasn’t even a agreement about how to talk about the issue or issues; how on earth could we achieve anything?

For many people the words violent extremism equals Muslims, or even Muslim young men. Even some of the people who think that they should not speak this out loud, still think it is true, but are constrained by “political correctness”. Never mind violent white supremacists. Other people are furious about what they see as a soft approach to what they perceive as a massive threat. These people are become increasingly hostile to everything Muslim.

Those of us who work in “the field” know the vast number of young Muslims who have shown no sign of violent extremism. The real risk posed by violent extremism is not denied and is taken seriously because even a small amount of terrorism is too much. Still, we have concerns about the way that innocent people are being demonized, and we are concerned about feelings of alienation and other problems youth struggle with. There are valid questions about what is an ethical, truthful and practical way to articulate these issues.

However one defines the challenges we face relating to prejudice and violent extremism, there are plenty of quality people doing their bit. Yet, lacking a shared understanding or time  to even understand what others are doing, our efforts are often fragmented rather than coordinated or building on each other's work.

In the two days a group representing community, government, academic and business sectors followed a very effective process for thinking through the issues. We identified processes we will need for collaborating and communicating more effectively and being accountable for the degree to which we are contributing to a collective impact. We also considered the personal qualities of people being involved as well as the ways that roles and positions of leadership can be harnessed. I cannot divulge more because of confidentiality requirements but I am confident that something more holistic will emerge and contribute to better outcomes.  

The journey this week resonated for me in light of the Torah reading this week. It is the only reading relating to the time that Moses was alive in which his name is not mentioned. It would appear to be setting up the people for a time after the passing of the charismatic leader (1).

Three different methods appear to be provided for setting up a group of people, called Cohanim or priests, to function in a holy temple to create an institution to foster Moses’ message. The first is providing them with distinctive clothing (2), offering sacrifices and associated induction processes (3) and God himself making them into Cohanim (4).  

The text implies that the special clothing can transform ordinary men into priests or Cohanim (5).  However, many of the traditional explanations find ways around this interpretation. They suggest the clothing would just bring them into the role, rather than being transformative (6). Alternatively, they focus on how the clothing might symbolise the inner personal and spiritual transformation the ordinary men would be expected to work on as they took on the roles (7). Of course “clothings” and positions or formal roles is not enough. Personal qualities and integrity are vital in the people filling roles if they are to have some impact. Similarly, the induction procedures in the Torah for the Cohanim were extensive and highly symbolic (8). To me this reflects the importance of rituals and process in the quest for transformation.

There is no quick fix to any problem. Yet, I am confident that our efforts, following on from the two days this week, will yield even greater fruit as we start to see a new approach to facilitating and brokering collaboration. What will be different is a better mix of the three P’s, personal leadership by people with relevant positive qualities; some of these people will be strategically placed in positions of leadership and following wise, evidence based processes that will be tried, and invariably fail only to be replaced by others. In this, we will see a more cohesive nation with somewhat fewer angry people of any background.

1. http://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5768-tetzaveh-do-clothes-make-the-man/
2. Exodus 28:3, & 29:29
3. Exodus 29:1
4. Exodus 29:44
5. The Hebrew word is  לכהנו which literally means to make him into a Cohen. See Rabbi Avraham Mizrahi (1450 – 1526) who concedes that this is the clear implication of the text before opting for a non-literal meaning, also translation by Kaplan in Living Torah. Our sages (Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima Exdodus, Tetzave, p.157, note 24) state that “for all the time that their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them and their holiness endures in them, (but if) their garments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them (either). R. Yona Ibn Janach (995 – 1050- Andalusia, Spain- In Torah Shlaima p154, note 11) entertains two meanings to the word, either to minister or to made to minister eg. to put the work upon him...like to sanctify.
6. Rashi as interpreted by Sifsei Chachomim, Chizkuni and other suggest we read the word as if it was written without a Vav and means to serve rather than to make into a Cohen.
7. Malbim  (1809-1879, cited in Lebovitz, p 532), Sefer Hachinuch, the Lubavitcher Rebbe
8. Midrash Habiur, cited in Torash Shlaima vol 20, p. 215, 68 explain the ritual of putting blood from a sacrifice on the their ears, thumbs and big toes. The ear that heard, on Mt. Sinai, I am...and you should have no other gods, after 40 days (the same ear) heard/was responsive to the voice of the people who demanded “arise and make for us a god” needs atonement. The legs that up to Mt. Sinai and then ran to make the golden calf need atonement. More specifically, the soft part of the ear is the part to use to block out ‘bad sounds’, the thumb & big toes played key roles…(note 68)