Where the story should end

I was struck by the story by John Ward on August 22 comparing the late Jack Layton to Moses (A”H). [See it here: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n7842968%5D It is an obvious comparison but I wasn’t expecting it in the popular press.

And, oddly enough, I had just been discussing a few days ago why the Torah ends with Moshe’s death and not with Israel’s entry in to the land. The Greeks would have approved the decision to close the Torah with Moshe’s death on dramatic principles. Aristotle suggested that a well made play should have unity of action–i.e., that it should describe an action, whole and complete, and with a beginning, a middle, and an end. For me, the action that the Torah describes is the formation of the Jewish people under Moshe’s leadership. That is what Moshe, our protagonist, is engaged in for most of his life and, with the completion of that action, the story should end and does end. What is to happen to that newly formed people as they move beyond Moshe’s leadership is, literally, a different story!


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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