Larchmont Temple Chevra Torah

Questioning faith in the parsha

Yitro through the lens of other religions

Editor’s note: Raja first posted this as a comment, but I have turned it into a post to give it wider exposure. Thank you, Raja, for adding this.

1. “I am a very Jealous G-d”
Thank you for selecting this verse because it was this verse that initially drew my attention towards Judaism when I first read King James Version (KJV) of Old Testament (OT). It looked odd to me that a G-d that could bring plagues, part seas, provide food (Manna and quail) all this to show his mercy towards “Israel” would use/choose “jealous” as a word while speaking to the “people”. It is quite a derogative word that is outright wrong given the majestic nature of G-d or as Quran says “Be and it was”(3:59). We are talking about a being that is the creator (Brahma in Hinduism) and the destroyer (Shiva in Hinduism) or “I am the alpha and the omega” (Rev 22:13) or Isaiah (41:4). Islam too defines the two extremes, but none of the religions use such a harsh word as jealous (it diminishes such a divine being).

Now while Ramban agrees with Maimonides over the word “jealous” I find it strange that Ramban who was somewhat influenced by Islamic Mysticism (Sufism) would settle on that word and not pick on “99” other attributes associated with G-d especially given the fact that we are talking Sufism which is all about love of g-d for. In my humble opinion and I don’t understand Hebrew yet, but I believe the word if it were to be translated would be “impassioned” and not “Jealous”.

Initially when I came across this verse I was shocked, my g-d could not be a jealous g-d, he is a loving g-d so I went web searching using Google for more information because as I mentioned I found “jealous g-d” to be quite odd… in my Google searches, I came across a site or two which capitalized on this verse and added why Jesus was necessary to save the “stiff necked” people (Implying Jews). In Islamic literature (or what I looked at) I did not find a mention of a “jealous g-d”. I even went to the extent of asking this question on a Jewish forum ( and to my satisfaction the answer was “impassioned” or as the lady in the Chevra Torah mentioned “Tiger Mom”. Explanation I got was in an example of a bird that gets angry at her kids when they do silly things and one of the chicks fall out of the nest meaning not being safe, so the mom yells at the chicks for doing that, however the love of that bird towards the chicks is still there and the bird will pick the chicks and bring them back to the nest…. It’s kind of like parents that correct their kids; kids may not like that correction however it is necessary for the well-being of the child.

The birds analogy provided yet blew my mind because it was the birds and their unique songs and sounds (yes I am a nut) that initially caught my attention towards divinity and not the big bang theory. I will share more on that topic that some other day.

2. You will have no other g-ds
This verse itself is pretty unique, dynamic and also simple. It is unique because here you have a monotheistic g-d speaking to “people & Israel” not one person (like when g-d speaks to Moses or let’s say Muhammad) but to a collection of “people”….it is dynamic because this g-d is not refuting possibility of other g-ds, plus this g-d is not interested in these other g-d either, because this g-d is the supreme and any other “god” is inferior to him/it/her. Other g-ds are either a man-made contraption or some Persons ego trip (like pharaoh).

Another point is as simple as what we call in the corporate world as “Engagement Models or Operating Principles’”. For example there is not one bank (financial institution) but many banks, and every bank has its own unique Operating model. So if I work for a bank I must adhere to that banks agenda and not others. Thou shalt not serve other g-ds just like I must not serve other banks or their interests.

3. Auslander’s Foreskin Laments
While his writing is humorous, it was sad to see him so pissed off or angry at g-d. I did not understand his anger at G-d. I use myself as an example, I lost my father at age 7 in a car accident and saw my paraplegic Mother from age 7 till age 18, she was not able to walk, talk or move normally. I fed my mom with spoon, I picked her up and made her sit, I would pick her up and take her to the TV lounge so she could watch TV, she too passed away in 1994, but NEVER in my life was I pissed off or angry at G-d for doing this to me, for taking my father away and then my mother, rather It was, and it has always been “Dear Allah please keep my father and my mom in your safety and thank you for providing me with everything”.

With that in mind I was quite perplexed that a normal person would rebel so feverishly but re-reading the portion yesterday and looking from his perspective it was basically how he was raised and the environment he grew up in. It was reverence/irreverence as you mentioned. I can see now why he and some Orthodox Jews get turned off by Judaism….which is sad, but it also proves a point that anything done in excess is not good. This too took me back to the mysterious book of Job and his love of g-d while Eliphaz and his buddies try to talk him out… but more on that some other time.

4. When G-d Spoke to “People” or “Israel”
You asked the congregation of how one would feel if they heard g-d and the responses were quite interesting and mildly shocking (  ). It took me back to Ramban, per Ramban there were two groups, Israelites and people, which were further divided into four (at time of parting of the sea) however his idea is Israelites (righteous or Light) and people (ordinary or Dark). “And g-d saw light and it was good and he called it day” Genesis. Ramban has already played with this concept and labels manna as a light substance and quail as dark earlier before coming to the subject of g-d speaking to people, here too he plays with the fact that only Israelites or righteous heard g-d but not all… so when you asked this yesterday and some of whom that said “skeptical” was amusing to me.

What interests me is that this is the only time g-d spoke to a collection of people and didn’t not use prophets to send new directions or spin off a new religion, it was a collective people that heard and saw not one.

5. Thou shalt have no graven images
A gentleman in the congregation mentioned about allowing images of g-d for art and creative purposes, this came about after the discussion about Jesus on the cross in churches and your friend rabbi dis-agreeing with you.

In my opinion your friend rabbi is incorrect in stating about worship in a church. I believe the prayer should be meant from heart and one should have an “intent” of saying the prayer not just go through the motions of it, with that in mind one’s surrounding is pointless and it is funny in a way to prove my point because the book Jewish tapestry of time on page 45 has a story of two girls lighting candles in a concentration camp in a bathroom.

But on to graven images, I think it is very bad idea to allow creating images of Jewish g-d. Once an image is created it is only a matter of time that it will become g-d to people or something that always existed. It is very similar to brining in change (place, form, process) once its implemented everyone assumes it was always there and changing it becomes a nightmare. I believe that is why g-d simply said no graven images…..As I type this Joseph settling Israelites in Goshen comes to mind that maybe it was simply to safe guard Israelites to not worship city g-ds to keep them away from getting assimilated in city g-d culture and getting into Egyptian worship.

I hope you enjoyed my nutty ramblings.


One response to “Yitro through the lens of other religions

  1. mifinity January 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm


    I agree more with Emily that “indifferent” best describes God who, though present in all things – and perhaps nowhere more than in trees and birds and birdsong (I too share Raja’s “nuttiness” in that respect) – is absent from the unfoldings of human destiny. Elyeh, I-will-be-who-I-will-be, looks out indifferently from beyond the creator God (corresponding I suppose to “Be and it was” (?)) who intervenes in the pages of the Torah. If some prefer “jealous” to “impassioned:, it is perhaps because of the recurrent note of exclusiveness tressed in the relationship between Adonai and Israel, which while having its historical justification now calls for several grains of salt…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: