12-28-2024, 03:18 AM
Hello, and welcome to my next post on Exodus, this time covering Exodus 13. I have to say, Exodus 13 is very confusing. I get the general plot elements--it introduces the reader to how the Israelites embarked on their journey through the wilderness and set the stage for some rituals and practices to commemorate this day. But it's the details of these rituals and practices and their symbolic significance that eludes me. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on these matters than I will clarify their meaning.
Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9874
What on Earth does this mean???
Perhaps this might shed some light on it:
First, the theme of unleavened cakes comes up again, and Exodus 13:9 hints at the symbolism: "...in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth...". So the unleavened cakes represent the law of the Lord being in the mouths of those who follow this practice. But still, why unleavened cakes? Why is that the symbolism of choice?
Second, Exodus 13:12 suggests that "opening the womb" literally means opening the womb--as in a C-section--and the mentioning of "miscarriage" implies opening the womb in order to remove a dead fetus. The Lord seems to be saying that such miscarriaged fetuses belong to Him (but only the males).
Still, I fail to see the connections between the unleavened cakes (symbolizing the law of the Lord) and miscarriaged fetuses belonging to the Lord. And why just the males?
Exopdus:13-15 sheds a bit more light on this:
So Exodus 13:13 suggests that every firstborn donkey can be redeemed by the sacrifice of a lamb. And if not, decapitating the donkey will do the trick. In the latter case, is the sacrifice of the donkey a fitting redemption for the first sons of the Israelites? And it is saying that a miscarriage can substitute for the donkey? I notice the phrasing is "all males that open the womb". So was it a tradition that if the woman needed to be opened because of a miscarriage, it would be the firstborn son who performed the operation? And is the passage saying that because he performs the operation, the miscarriaged fetus counts as a sacrifice which redeems him? This is particularly confusing to me because Exodus 13:15 says "I slaughter all males that open the womb," which doesn't sound like a redemption to me. Is it saying that since the miscarriaged fetus is already dead, it can substitute for the slaughtering of he who opens the womb? Sort of being symbolically slaughtered? And what of firstborn males who open the womb but the fetus isn't dead? And what of males who aren't the firstborn but open the womb? Do they get slaughtered literally (not symbolically)?
Going back to Exodus 13:12, it reads "that you shall give over to the Lord whatever opens the womb, and every miscarriage that opens the womb of an animal which will be yours, the males belong to the Lord." This sounds like it needn't be a person that opens the womb (let alone the firstborn son), and even that the miscarriage itself can open the womb (at least in the case of animals). Maybe "opening" the womb doesn't mean to literally cut open the womb but simply to pass a miscarriaged fetus through the birth canal.
Despite my confusion, it seems clear that the purpose of this practice is to "redeem" the firstborn sons of Israel (and donkeys) from the tragedy of deaths of the firstborns of the Egyptians. It seems like God is trying to be fair, to balance things out--for every Egyptian firstborn who died on Passover, so too shall an Israelite firstborn die. But because sacrifices can be performed en lieu of an actual Israelite firstborn (or miscarriaged fetuses), God offers an alternative to literal sacrifice of Israelite firstborns.
Well, this touches on the other two symbols from Exodus 13:9--the hand and between the eyes--linking at least the hand with the Lord's "mighty hand" which took the Israelites out of Egypt.
This leaves (at least for me) the mystery of what "between the eyes" signifies. Exodus 13:16 speaks of "ornaments" between the eyes, and Exodus 13:9 refers to a "remembrance" (as in, remembering the day they were brought out of Egypt). Linking these two, and linking all three symbols to the unleavened cakes, would clear up this mystery.
I assume passages like this are to be taken literally. That is, God literally took the form of a cloud pillar by day and that of a fire at night. But I can't help feeling that there must be some symbolic significance to these forms in addition to their physical manifestation--as though God were trying to communicate something in these forms. Is there any thought among Jewish scholars about why Good chose these forms (other than to give the Israelites light at night)?
FOOTNOTE: I struggle with the most appropriate terminology here. I'm trying to avoid the term "abortion" since an abortion is to "abort" the process of bring a new life into the world, whereas a miscarriage is the accidental disposing of an already dead fetus. I also want to avoid the term "C-section" for "opening the womb" since a C-section is a uniquely specific 20th century procedure, and I have no idea how (or if) the Israelite removed fetuses or babies from the womb.
Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9874
Exodus 13:2 Wrote:"Sanctify to Me every firstborn, every one that opens the womb among the children of Israel among man and among animals; it is Mine."
What on Earth does this mean???
Perhaps this might shed some light on it:
Exodus 13:6-12 Wrote:6 For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, and on the seventh day, there is a festival for the Lord. 7 Unleavened cakes shall be eaten during the seven days, and no leaven shall be seen of yours [in your possession], and no leavening shall be seen of yours throughout all of your borders. 8 And you shall tell your son on that day, saying, "Because of this, the Lord did [this] for me when I went out of Egypt." 9 And it shall be to you as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes, in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth, for with a mighty hand the Lord took you out of Egypt. 10 And you shall keep this statute at its appointed time, from year to year. 11 And it will come to pass when the Lord will bring you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and to your forefathers, and He has given it to you, 12 that you shall give over to the Lord whatever opens the womb, and every miscarriage that opens the womb of an animal which will be yours, the males belong to the Lord.
First, the theme of unleavened cakes comes up again, and Exodus 13:9 hints at the symbolism: "...in order that the law of the Lord shall be in your mouth...". So the unleavened cakes represent the law of the Lord being in the mouths of those who follow this practice. But still, why unleavened cakes? Why is that the symbolism of choice?
Second, Exodus 13:12 suggests that "opening the womb" literally means opening the womb--as in a C-section--and the mentioning of "miscarriage" implies opening the womb in order to remove a dead fetus. The Lord seems to be saying that such miscarriaged fetuses belong to Him (but only the males).
Still, I fail to see the connections between the unleavened cakes (symbolizing the law of the Lord) and miscarriaged fetuses belonging to the Lord. And why just the males?
Exopdus:13-15 sheds a bit more light on this:
Exodus 10:13-15 Wrote:13 And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem [it], you shall decapitate it, and every firstborn of man among your sons, you shall redeem. 14 And it will come to pass if your son asks you in the future, saying, "What is this?" you shall say to him, "With a mighty hand did the Lord take us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 15 And it came to pass when Pharaoh was too stubborn to let us out, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I slaughter [for a sacrifice] all males that open the womb, and every firstborn of my sons I will redeem.
So Exodus 13:13 suggests that every firstborn donkey can be redeemed by the sacrifice of a lamb. And if not, decapitating the donkey will do the trick. In the latter case, is the sacrifice of the donkey a fitting redemption for the first sons of the Israelites? And it is saying that a miscarriage can substitute for the donkey? I notice the phrasing is "all males that open the womb". So was it a tradition that if the woman needed to be opened because of a miscarriage, it would be the firstborn son who performed the operation? And is the passage saying that because he performs the operation, the miscarriaged fetus counts as a sacrifice which redeems him? This is particularly confusing to me because Exodus 13:15 says "I slaughter all males that open the womb," which doesn't sound like a redemption to me. Is it saying that since the miscarriaged fetus is already dead, it can substitute for the slaughtering of he who opens the womb? Sort of being symbolically slaughtered? And what of firstborn males who open the womb but the fetus isn't dead? And what of males who aren't the firstborn but open the womb? Do they get slaughtered literally (not symbolically)?
Going back to Exodus 13:12, it reads "that you shall give over to the Lord whatever opens the womb, and every miscarriage that opens the womb of an animal which will be yours, the males belong to the Lord." This sounds like it needn't be a person that opens the womb (let alone the firstborn son), and even that the miscarriage itself can open the womb (at least in the case of animals). Maybe "opening" the womb doesn't mean to literally cut open the womb but simply to pass a miscarriaged fetus through the birth canal.
Despite my confusion, it seems clear that the purpose of this practice is to "redeem" the firstborn sons of Israel (and donkeys) from the tragedy of deaths of the firstborns of the Egyptians. It seems like God is trying to be fair, to balance things out--for every Egyptian firstborn who died on Passover, so too shall an Israelite firstborn die. But because sacrifices can be performed en lieu of an actual Israelite firstborn (or miscarriaged fetuses), God offers an alternative to literal sacrifice of Israelite firstborns.
Exodus 13:16 Wrote:And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and for ornaments between your eyes, for with a mighty hand did the Lord take us out of Egypt.
Well, this touches on the other two symbols from Exodus 13:9--the hand and between the eyes--linking at least the hand with the Lord's "mighty hand" which took the Israelites out of Egypt.
This leaves (at least for me) the mystery of what "between the eyes" signifies. Exodus 13:16 speaks of "ornaments" between the eyes, and Exodus 13:9 refers to a "remembrance" (as in, remembering the day they were brought out of Egypt). Linking these two, and linking all three symbols to the unleavened cakes, would clear up this mystery.
Exodus 13:21-22 Wrote:21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to cause it to lead them on the way and at night in a pillar of fire to give them light, [they thus could] travel day and night. 22 He did not move away the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire at night [from] before the people.
I assume passages like this are to be taken literally. That is, God literally took the form of a cloud pillar by day and that of a fire at night. But I can't help feeling that there must be some symbolic significance to these forms in addition to their physical manifestation--as though God were trying to communicate something in these forms. Is there any thought among Jewish scholars about why Good chose these forms (other than to give the Israelites light at night)?
FOOTNOTE: I struggle with the most appropriate terminology here. I'm trying to avoid the term "abortion" since an abortion is to "abort" the process of bring a new life into the world, whereas a miscarriage is the accidental disposing of an already dead fetus. I also want to avoid the term "C-section" for "opening the womb" since a C-section is a uniquely specific 20th century procedure, and I have no idea how (or if) the Israelite removed fetuses or babies from the womb.