I kept reading Shemot 34:10 looking for inspiration regarding the "covenant" that H' would make with Am Yisrael after the golden calf and during Moshe's second ascent up Har Sinai. I had thought about the comparison between the individual covenant G-d had made with Avraham and the prior, worldwide covenant He had made with Noach after the Flood. Perhaps this most recent covenant was more like the one He had made with Noach than the one he had made with Avraham - a simple promise not to destroy. Or perhaps it was more like the covenant He had made with Avraham than the one He made with Noach - the promise of a heritage and land. Or perhaps it was a combination of both - a forgiveness and ultimate decision never to destroy again but also to give the people the land and heritage that had been promised so many generations prior. But as I kept reading the verses, I was struck with an idea that I had never considered - the juxtaposition of what kind of covenant one should make (with G-d) and what kind of covenant one should not make (with an enemy or opposing force, spiritual or physical.)
In fact, the very first "warning" G-d gives after stating that another covenant will be made is not to make a covenant "with an inhabitant of the land that you are coming to, lest they be a snare in your midst."
There are surely thousands of different interpretations of what this one verse could be - don't make an agreement with a sworn enemy, don't adopt the ways of those with whom who live in close proximity, don't give up everything in an effort to try and achieve peace at all costs. All of these are highly reasonable and likely interpretations given that G-d had just referenced the seven nations currently inhabiting HaAretz.
All of that would make sense, except for the second half of the verse, which warns Bnei Yisrael that doing so will cause "the inhabitants of the land" to become "a snare in your midst." If H' wanted to only reference the current inhabitants, he might have just said not to covenant with them, and then continue on to what would happen if a covenant did occur. The addition of "a snare in your midst" seem to be additional language that did not quite fit in with the most simplistic reading.
Instead, I am drawn to what may appear to be a more mystical interpretation of these verses - that as we live our lives, we should not try and make peace with the world as it currently is - that doing so will impede our spiritual growth and true purpose of living out our divine mission and growing closer to G-d. That when we come upon a situation that is negative, the goal is not to come to terms with that situation but instead to aggressively and utterly drive it out. And that if we simply accept the world as it is, in a misguided attempt to make "peace" with it, we will only achieve a malaise and complacency which will eventually trap and - G-d forbid - kill us, again, both physically and spiritually.
Is this the most simplistic translation? Surely not. But perhaps the larger idea is that however we interpret it - whether in relation to a people or to situations or to the ever-present obsession with the physical as opposed to the spiritual - we should not make a covenant with anyone but G-d. And that if we think we can replace this Holy Covenant with another, more worldly one - we will surely and quickly be caught in our snare of our own making that we ourselves have placed in our midst.
Comments
Post a Comment