dream said:
Not sure if I understood the idea of intertext, but I believe these students with their questions were dialoging with the Tanach in analogy to how the Rabbis writing the Amidah were.
The idea is, if the text of the amidah is sourced from the tanach (and it often is) then one way of interpreting the text of the amidah is by looking at the context in which certain phrases appear and considering why the rabbis chose those particular passages. That requires looking back at those passages and then looking at how the rabbis understood those passages. He's not presenting it as the only way to interpret the amidah but as an alternative way that might make it theologically more accessible, rather than requiring excising lots of the text out.
Around minute 38 in the audio, the instructor talks about the failure of adjectives to describe G!d, and this might relate to reverence as the removal of Moses shoes. Rather than just being forbidden to go closer, the removal of the shoes could be a recognition of an inability to do so.
I think that's a really interesting idea, and makes me think of something else which is that they sourced this at the beginning of the Amidah. One thing that the lesson didn't touch so thoroughly is the idea of the Amidah as approaching God. It did deal with the bowing that happens here, how the knees are bent at baruch, bow at atah, raise at Adonai, and how that's different from moses who hides his face. But there's also the idea that the bowing and all of that is to mirror the way one would approach a king because during the amidah that's essentially what's going on. And I think there's a sense that the taking off of shoes, the ritual that shapes sacred space, that says this place is holy, is going on here as well. It mirrors Balaam's blessing where it says how beautiful are your ohalim, your tents, and then that becomes your mishkanot, your dwelling places for the Divine just as Yaakov becomes Yisrael. There's a transformation going on that gets reemphasized here of the space where the prayers happen.
I really had thought this was generational not personal
In Judaism teshuva is a personal process of making mistakes and growing from them but there is also an additional notion of shared accountability. Also, interestingly and referring back to an earlier passage, where it says Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak etc, there's a hasidic interpretation that says it does so because each had a very different relationship with God, and so too, we should all find our own personal relationships which may very well vary from those of our ancestors. But at the same, God is still the God of our ancestors. It is only the nature of our personal relationship that is different on account of the fact that we are different.
Do you think Avraham's doubts were about whether he would be provided for? I thought it would be about whether what he was doing was right. I'm sure people must have questioned his motives.
It seems to me somewhat explicit in the text that they're about being provided for. After he makes sure his men are provided for, God reassures him that He will be a shield. And then we have Avram complaining that he might die with no offspring, and his heir will be his servant. I don't think that's worry about disapproval, but about God providing for him. Then we have God's response saying, you'll be provided for. You'll have an heir. Then we have even more questioning where he's asking, "How am I gonna even know that I'm to take the land?" So he's doubting God's promises again and again. And when you think about it, a bit later with Sedom, he's challenging God. A little different but there's this tension for him.
-- Dauer
. I agreed with the comments about G-d's lovingkindness. Also the comment about G-d in the high places. Some nice critical analysis.