Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Dorothy Sayers observes, “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair… the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”

(More to come on Tuesday)

Yesterday, I began teaching a new miniseries at St. Ambrose College on the Seven Deadly Sins. With thirty + students in the class, we had some great discussions. One of the assignments I gave the students was to think about composing a more modern list of the Seven Deadly Sins. Well, I started composing my own list and at the chief of the list today, I would have to say misogyny probably is one of the most serious sins of our age–and who could deny its ubiquitous effects?

In Turkey today, the Turkish police discovered a grizzly sight.  They discovered the body of a young 16 year old girl who was buried alive by her relatives in the city of Adiyaman, southeastern Turkey. Her name for the moment remains for now, anonymous. The police found her body in a  sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta. Police believe it was an honor killing because she “shamed” her family by talking to teenage boys. So far, the father and and grandfather  have been arrested and held in custody pending trial.  The girl’s mother was arrested but was later released. An autopsy shows that she was alive and conscious as she was being buried. Even more shocking is the fact that 200 such honor killings take place in Turkey a year. According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000, however even these statistics may not reveal the actual number of cases since most families who commit these crimes do not  exactlyvolunteer information to the local census Bureau.

When I discussed the incident with my good friend named Gloria, who lives in San Fransisco, she made several some poignant remarks relevant to our story.

“ What punishment was given to the boys who she supposedly consorted with? Probably nothing…fits right in with what I was saying about how men feel they have to control women at any cost…even to destroy one’s own child if she gives any appearance of impropriety. No issue is as important to men as that of controlling the sexuality or what passes for the sexuality of women…I got that message loud and clear when the orthodox rabbi once told me to stop singing…you probably remember how that ended up…I told the imperialistic rabbi at a boy’s hair cutting event I attended once (I also recall how he likened the boy’s hair to the first fruits. Really? Since when is hair a fruit?!) to wear ear plugs or to leave if he could not stand how he was aroused by the sound of my voice. It is always the men who want to control the women. As far as charm goes, these men have nothing to worry about, for it is highly unlikely any women will find these men the least bit appealing. ”

My friend Gloria also thinks one of the reasons why men hate women so much in these cultures is because men are wholly dependent upon women for their lives. Without a mother, they could not exist; they depend upon a mother’s care for the most vulnerable part of their lives. In addition, a woman’s sexual ability far exceeds a male, making these men feel inferior in so many other ways. So, they commit themselves to controlling the feminine because they resent their dependency on women. The image of God as “Father,” may indirectly contribute the exploitation of women, according to some scholars.

Carl G. Jung writes that every man has a feminine aspect to his personality that is in touch with the  inner feminine side of a man he refers to as the “anima,”that is always present in the unconscious of the male. The “anima,” stands in contrast to the animus, which represents masculine characteristics. Assertive women, according to Jung, are generally more in touch with the masculine aspect of their hidden personalities.

In fundamentalist societies like we see with so many of the world religions, gender barriers tend to be reified and rigid. Men are men, and women are women; a psychological integration of the genders is considered taboo because it is so threatening to the  diminished male ego.  Consequently, when we observe the conflicts in Israel between the Haredi, Hassidic communities and the secular world, in almost every instance we find men attempting to control the women of their lives; weak people with puny egos will always try to exert power over people they perceive to be “weaker” than themselves.

As of late, I have taken interest in reading the British Jewish news. After perusing through a number of articles, I came across a fascinating new-story. It isn’t every day a synagogue bans a classical Jewish book, but in one of Britain’s largest synagogues, that’s exactly what happened.  Several students at an adult education class took offense to a mystical tract on self-improvement, better known as the “Tanya,” because of “racist” comments found in its early chapters.  For newcomers, the Tanya is the Bible of the Lubavitcher movement. This book was composed toward the last half of the 18^th century, at a time when Russian Jews struggled mightily against the czarist governments who showed little love or tolerance when it came to the Jews. Despite the questionable passages we are about to read, it was one of the 18th century’s first self-help books and most of its teachings are for the most part fairly appealing.

Here are the controversial passages that have created the controversy this past October.

In the Tanya.  the author attempts to explain why the souls of Jews are different from the gentiles: “The explanation of this matter is according to what the Rabbi Chaim Vital OBM wrote … Every Jew, whether righteous or wicked, has two souls, as it says, ‘And the souls I have made’ — that is, two souls: one soul deriving from the side of the kelipa and the side that is antithetical to holiness… also naturally good character traits that are found in every Jew, such as mercifulness and charitable deeds, stem from it, for in a Jew, the soul of this kelipa derives from kelipat noga which also contains good…But it is not the case concerning Gentile souls, for they stem from other impure kelipot which contain no good…and the second soul of the Jew is surely part of G-d on high…” [1]

And shortly afterward, the author adds, “The kelipot are divided into two levels…the lower level consists of three impure and completely evil kelipot which contain no good whatsoever … from there the souls of the Gentiles are influenced and drawn, as are the bodies and the souls of all impure animals which are forbidden to eat…However, the vital animalistic soul in the Jews, which stems from the kelipa…and the souls of pure animals, beasts, birds, and fish which are permitted to eat…are influenced and drawn from the second level of the klipot…which is called kelipat noga…and the majority of it is evil, combined with a slight amount of good…”[2]

As I have pointed out in earlier posts, it is the nature of oppressed peoples to bolster their self-esteem and image by putting down the Other. While this is certainly not the kind of behavior any moral person ought to endorse, it helps to see this passage from the writer’s perspective. Often, tragic circumstances distort the way one spiritually looks at the world. Continue Reading

Like Maimonides, the 20th century Reconstructionist theologian Mordechai Kaplan believes that we should stop identifying God as a “personal” or “loving” Presence. Simply put:  God does not possesses sentience. Kaplan contends that anthropomorphism is on par with “animistic fetishism.”

Kaplan explains:

“We cannot conceive of God any more as a sort of invisible superman, displaying the same psychological traits as man, but on a greater scale. We cannot think of Him as loving, pitying, rewarding, punishing, etc. Many have therefore abandoned altogether the conception of a personal God, and prefer to think of ultimate reality in terms of force, energy and similar concepts…[1]

… Modern man is able to conceive the godhead only as immanent in the world; man is incapable of entering into a relationship with the supernatural” (emphasis added).[2]

Note the cognitive metaphors Kaplan uses in making his point: conceive, psychological, think. According to Kaplan, there is no Divine Mysterium, nor is there any intimation whatsoever about a God Who is always present when human beings turn to Him in moments of prayer or crisis. In Kaplan’s model of faith, religion always serves the dictates of reason and logic.

We might wonder: Why is this (allegedly) so?

Mystery is annoying to rationalists who insist on neat solutions, precision, and exactitude. Uncertainty, shades of gray, paradoxes all tend to unsettle and beguile a rational mind. Aspects of faith that embrace the symbolic, the intuitive, and the transpersonal are completely excluded from Kaplan’s spiritual world view. There is no joy, humor, no irony, no sense of wonder, or mystery. Nor is there a cadence of poetry; nor is there any kind of radical amazement in Kaplan’s metaphysical system.

Despite his disdain of anthropomorphism, Kaplan does not hesitate using them when describing God as the source of all positive human affections. With a touch of irony, one critic dubbed Kaplan’s theology as “pan-anthropomorphic.”[3] According to Kaplan, God is an amalgam of human virtues— in effect, he has deified “certain aspects of the human personality.”[4] Despite eschewing anthropomorphism, Kaplan feels compelled to utilize familiar religious metaphors when it comes to explaining why God is necessary for human salvation. Kaplan defines the belief in God “as the power that makes for salvation.”

But how does Kaplan define salvation? Salvation is another way of describing how people grow toward their fullest potential. What Kaplan and his followers fail to notice is that any depiction of God as the source of human values is no less anthropomorphic than the traditionalists Kaplan criticized.

It would seem that Kaplan’s opinion is indebted to his older contemporary, John Dewey, who like Kaplan, attempted “to reconstruct” and redefine the meaning of God for his time.[5] One of the criticisms made against Dewey could be applied to Kaplan:

Is not Mr. Dewey, in effect, attempting to exploit the traditional prestige of words that he has emptied of nearly all their traditional meaning? Certainly his religiousness will strike the orthodox as something extremely attenuated, the extract of an extract, having the same relation to old-fashioned religion as beef bouillon poured through a filter has no beef.[6]

Who can forget the brilliant 1984 commercial spearheaded by Wendy’s hamburger restaurants, where actress Clara Pellar looked at a competitor’s hamburger called, “Fluffy Bun,” that consisted of a massive bun with almost no meat. Peller angrily demands, “Where’s the beef?” Well, this catch-phrase has come to signify our disbelief about the substance of an idea, event, or product–or in this case, theology!

The bland analogy of “diluted beef bouillon extract” is more perceptive than Dewey’s critic could have imagined, for the Tanakh characterizes the spiritual life by flavor: טַעֲמוּ וּרְאוּ כִּי־טוֹב יְהוָה “O taste (טַעֲמו = ta`ámû) and see that The LORD is good” (Psa. 34:8). The Hebrew word טָעַם (tä’am) may connote reason, discernment, understanding or flavor.

According to the laws of kashrut, the flavor is typically (but not always) the defining factor whenever there is a questionable substance.[7] If the flavor is excessively diluted, radically altered, or destroyed, the character of a forbidden substance is considered changed. In terms of prohibited food stuffs, the flavor must be intact in order to be considered asur (forbidden.)

As a spiritual metaphor, once faith is purged of all of its taste and sensuality, whatever remains is of negligible value. Faith really has much more of a “noetic” quality, i.e., an “inner knowing,” a kind of intuitive consciousness—direct and immediate access to knowledge beyond what is available to our sensory perception of the world. Where discursive thought ends, that is when the journey of faith begins–and now you know, the rest of the story . . .

[1] Mordechai Kaplan, The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion (New York: Jewish Reconstruction Press, 1962), 87-88.

[2] Ibid., 26.

[3] Eliezer Berkowitz, Major Themes in Modern Philosophies of Judaism (New York: Ktav, 1974), 182‑184.

[4] E. Berkowitz, Major Themes in Modern Philosophies of Judaism, op. cit., 182.

[5] According to Dewey, the definition of God should be redefined to stand for all forces in society that bring about an ethical transformation of humanity. “It is this active relation between ideal and actual which I would give the name ‘God.’ I would not insist that the name must be given. There are those who hold that the association of the term with the supernatural are so numerous and close that any use of the word ‘God’ is sure to give rise to misconception and be taken as a concession to traditional ideas” (John Dewey, A Common Faith Later Writings 1925‑1953 edited by Jo Ann Boydston, [Carbondale: IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990], 79‑80). In the same manner, Kaplan attempts a definition of God that can accommodate even the most agnostic point of view.

[6] Cited in James Campbell’s, Understanding Dewey (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1995), 278, n. 20.

[7] See TB Hullin 97a, Shivii’t 7:7, Terumot 10:1, MT Hilchot Ma’acalot Arusot 15:1, Tur Yoreh Deah 81: 1, Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 368; Hullin 8:30 and Shach Y.D. 95:4.

In the last thread we observed how the Haredim are initiating ways to keep the sexes apart–separate streets! Many years ago, when I was in Jerusalem, I remember going to a pizza shop where I saw Haredi boys and girls playing video games together. Haredi community leaders did their best to put an immediate end to that kind of familiar but healthy socialization. I speculated that the Haredim are afraid that young men and women might start dancing in the supermarket aisles and streets.

Bear in mind the women already dress pretty modestly in that community. Married women are so strict, they will wear a scarf on the top of their wigs.

Like the foolish Pharisees of our previous thread, the latest fad in Haredi piety is really made for Saturday Night Live comedy.  Jay Leno would definitely have a field-day with this material.

Kudos go to my talented and good friend Yochanan Lavie, who wrote a nice frum version of the song fit for a Broadway musical.

======

Apology to Martha & Vandellas, et al:

Calling out around the world
Are you ready for a freihlich beat
Haredim here and the time is right
For dancing in the streets
Dancing in Uman
Down in Jerusalem
In New York City

All we need is music, sweet music
There’ll be music everywhere
They’ll be shuckling, swaying, klezmer playing,
Dancing in the street, oh

It doesn’t matter what you wear, just as long as black is there
So come on, every guy, grab a bochur, everywhere, don’t be a slacker
They’ll be dancing, dancing in the street

It’s an invitation across the nation, a chance for frum boys to meet
They’ll be davening and singing and music swinging
Dancing in the street. Continue Reading

This story is somewhat dated, but most of the readers probably are unaware of what actually took place in Israel regarding a brave and outspoken Modern Orthodox feminist and famous authoress who dared to stand up to an ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) juggernaut in a bus heading toward Israel.

In American history, every citizen knows how Rosa Parks made history on Dec. 1, 1955. This brave woman got arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a municipal bus to a white man. This incident sparked the famous Montgomery bus boycott. Today, Israeli women wish they had an Orthodox “Rosa Parks” to lead them in their fight for equality in the Haredi Jewish communities.

Well, actually Orthodox novelist Naomi Ragen did exactly that a few years ago not far from Jerusalem.  No, she didn’t deliberately set out to become a Jewish Rosa Parks. She just wanted to get home. An observant, Orthodox Jew, Ragen was on the No. 40 bus line, headed to her house near Jerusalem, when an ultra-Orthodox — or Haredi — man told her to move to the back. She recalls, “I was astonished . . . And I said ‘I’m not bothering anyone. You don’t have to look at me, sit next to me — but as long as this is a public bus, I will sit where I please, thank you very much.’” Ragen says the harassment grew worse at every stop. Soon an even more aggressive, bearded ultra-Orthodox man got on and commanded her to move. He weighed about 300 pounds and hovered over her like a sumo wrestler, she says, his long, black frock and wide hat in her face.

“And he started screaming and yelling,” she said, telling her to “move to the back of the bus — or else.” “My reaction to that was I looked him in the eye and said ‘Look, you show me in the code of Jewish law where it’s written that I’m not allowed to sit in this seat and I’ll move,’” Ragen said. “‘Until then, get out of my face!’”

Pretty gutsy.

Naomi was lucky; other women haven’t been so fortunate.  At one recent incident, five Ultra-Orthodox Jews assaulted a woman and an Israel Defense Forces soldier Sunday for sitting next to each other on a bus bound for Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, the civil rights movement in Israel has yet to really get off the ground. Prominent Israeli politicians are afraid to stand up against the Haredi centers of power. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has failed to grant the necessary changes to ensure equality for all its citizens. In fact, the social trends look bleaker than they did when Naomi Ragan stood up for women everywhere in Israel.

If you think about it, doesn’t it seems that misogyny might be the “Original Sin” that is behind much of the religious fundamentalism of our age?  This concept might bear looking into at another time.  Naomi Ragan represents the kind of Modern Orthodox woman who deserves our respect. I pray that more Modern Orthodox leaders show the courage to speak out against the moral and spiritual hijacking of their faith.

What does it mean to be a “priestly kingdom”  in the Torah?

There was nothing  intrinsic holy about the priest, he was not spiritually superior when compared to ordinary Israelites by the virtue of him being a born into a priestly family. The priests’ vocation was not one of privilege but of obligation and responsibility–noblige oblige.

According to the philosophers Philo of Alexandria (ca. 1st century) and Moses Maimonides (ca. 12th century), birth alone doesn’t guarantee uniqueness.  So too, when classical Judaism speaks of Israel’s election as God’s “Chosen People,” this concept is not due to any sense of  racial superiority, but rather to the fact that we are the nation which lives in accordance with the   ethical and moral lifestyle prescribed by the Torah.  Indeed, any person from any race can become a member of the Israelite people through conversion.

Just as a nation is composed of all types of citizens from various walks of life and backgrounds, so too does every member of the Israelite commonwealth play a vital role in the spiritual life of the nation. Regardless of age, sex, background, or vocation; whether one  be a priest, a seer, a prophet, a sage or a commoner – plays a vital role as a “priest” of the Divine.

The life of a priest is rooted in personal consecration and dedication to the Lord. Priestly consecration demands that the priest consciously separate himself from anything that defiles and diminishes the respect and reverence for human life. As a priestly kingdom,” God requires that Israel guard herself from the forces of death, impurity and corruption that  petrifies its collective  heart and soul. Israel’s corporate vocation is both purely spiritual and socially transformative in that we bear witness to the reality of ethical monotheism.

The main purpose of the priesthood is mediate between the sphere of the divine and the ordinary world. A priest through his ritual conduct  facilitates communication across the ethereal boundary separating the holy from the profane.  Being a priest to the people demands vigilance and mindfulness in how the one carries out the  priestly duties. Every thought, word, and deed requires sublimation and holiness. By way of metaphor,  Israel  too must be conscious of how it acts in the realm of secular realm. Every holy thought, every considerate word, and especially every good deed–when performed with nobility of spirit–reflects sanctity.

Just as the priest conducts himself with grace and with dignity, so too does God’s holy people. Most importantly, just as the priest acts as a conduit for God’s blessing to the general community, Israel also serves as a  medium through which all the nations of the world become blessed (Gen 12:2-3). Israel’s recent involvement in Haiti and other places affected by natural catastrophe derives from her spiritual sense of priestly service and ethical responsibility.

Jewish law teaches that any priest who does not get along with his community is not allowed to bless his congregation with the priestly benediction, since the blessing demands that the priest feel love toward the people he serves. Given the mercurial nature of his community, this is certainly no easy task!

The year: 2010.

Haredi rabbis demand separate buses to ensure the separation of the sexes.  Beyond that, they are now insisting on separate times for men and women whenever they go shopping at the local supermarket. Once again the politicians look the other way rather than deal with the real problem– the ubiquitous threat of religious coercion.

Any gentile or liberal Jew reading this news might smirk: Are they afraid shopping along the aisles or sitting in a bus might lead to mixed dancing? (If you haven’t seen Kevin Bacon’s cult classic, “Footloose,” I recommend you rent this film at the local video-store. Maybe we need a Haredi version of the movie, starring Kevin Kosher!) Bifurcation of the sexes continues to morph into new and even stranger directions. The story is far from over for the  Haredi rabbi’s newest “Halachic” innovation is: separate sidewalks! A few weeks ago or so, some Haredi used megaphones urging that men and women should walk on opposite sides of the road during a busy weekend.

Now that’s taking segregation to the streets!

One wonders: Are burkhas next?!

Anyone who has studied ancient Jewish history probably knows that Haredi piety seems a little bit like déjà vu. As intimated in the last paragraph, the displays of piety we are witnessing today also occurred over 2000 years ago in ancient Judea.

Here are the rabbinic texts that substantiate this observation:

Our Rabbis taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: a fool saint, a subtle knave, a woman Pharisee, and the plagues of Pharisees ruin the world (BT Sotah 20a).

Who is a man of piety that is a fool? He, for example, who if a woman is drowning, says, “It is unseemly for me to look at her, and therefore, I cannot rescue her.’ Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Yochanan says, “He is the man who explains his case to the judge before his opponent arrives.

Who is the pious fool? He who sees a child struggling in the water, and says, ‘When I have taken off my phylacteries, I will go and save him.’ By the time he arrives to rescue him, the child has already expired. Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Huna says, ‘He is the man who behaves leniently toward himself, while teaching others only the strictest rules” (T.J. Sotah 3:4, f. 19a, line 13.)

Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the ostentatious Pharisee[1], the Pharisee who knocks his feet together and walks with exaggerated humility[2].  The third type of Pharisee knocks his face against the wall rather than gaze at a woman[3]. Then again, there is the Pharisee who who feigns religious piety while constantly exclaiming, ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’[4] There are also Pharisees who act out of love, while others act out of fear, i.e., who serve God because of  ulterior motives or conversely—or because they fear retribution.[5] Lastly, there is the Pharisee who wraps himself in his cloak, feigning humility (BT Sotah 22b).

In short, religious piety takes all different kinds of shapes in the world. Whether it’s the Taliban persecuting barbers for shaving men, or imposing the burkha for women–it is a fanatical religion that seeks to totally micromanage the lives of its followers. Israelis also grapple with religious fundamentalism much like their Muslim counterparts. More and more people in Israel are demanding not just freedom of religion, many are now unfortunately clamoring for freedom from religion.

And now you know–the rest of the story.

[1] He behaves like Shechem, who circumcised himself for an unworthy purpose (Gen. 34) The J. Talmud explains: who carries his religious duties upon his shoulder (shekem), i.e., ostentatiously (Ber. 14b).

[2] He walks with exaggerated humility. According to the J. Talmud, he says: ‘Spare me a moment that I may perform a commandment.’ For such a Pharisee, it’s all about “looking good and pious.”

[3] The J. Talmud explains that this is a calculating Pharisee, i.e., he performs a good deed and then a bad deed, setting one off against the other–he behaves a lot like a religious accountant.

[4] He behaves as if he has fulfilled every religious obligation.

[5] This reading follows Rava and Abaye who view the Pharisee as interested in pecuniary gain; or fear the consequences of God’s wrath should they sin against His will.  In J. Ber., however, they are both taken in reference to God — i.e., love of God and fear of Him.

Is the doctrine of “Original Sin” warranted in the Tanakh or in Jewish tradition? The question is more complex than it might seem; obviously, if Christian scholars cannot agree on what constitutes “Original Sin,” why should it matter what Jewish scholars or texts have to say about this question? Here is a short summary to consider:

As a rule, rabbinic tradition did not subscribe to the Christian description of Genesis 3 as the “Fall,”–a term which does not appear at all in this famous story. As well, the Sages rejected the interpretations found in the Pseudepigraphal writings that intimate the cosmic struggle between God and the legions of the Devil.  However, this theme does appear in the Apocryphal writings, e.g., Sirach 25:23, where the ancient philosopher blames the woman for introducing death to the world. A similar intimation appears in Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, “^But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.”[1]

Note that neither of these passages speak of  “Original Sin” as understood in numerous Christian texts.[2] In fact, from the Christian perspective, Eve becomes the prototype for all women because of her acquiescence to the serpent’s seduction.[3] Jewish exegetical tradition has always felt that the Christian reading committed considerable violence to the text.  In fact, psychologist Theodor Reik (1888-1969) made an amazing observation: “Not before Sirach (200-175 B.C.E.) is there any allusion found to a primeval sin and not before the Apocalypse of Baruch (80-150 C.E.) is there any hint of the story of the Fall that brought upon man the liability of future punishment. Jesus refers neither to the Garden of Eden nor to the Fall.”[4]

[1] Some scholars think the passage refers to Cain. Because of the envy he feels toward his brother, he becomes the world’s first murderer. However, in 1 Enoch 69:6, the writer believes that Satan caused Eve to sin. See also 2 Esdr. 3:7-22; 7:118.

[2] See John 1:29; 8:44; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49; Heb. 9:26.

[3] This would explain why Christians consider Mary, in a sense, the “Second Eve,” much like Jesus becomes the “new Adam.”

[4] Theodor Reik, Myth and Guilt: The Crime and Punishment of Mankind (New York: George Braziller Inc., 1957), 60.