A. Good question. Until now, I never really researched the significance of Freemasonry, but I must confess that my father was a Mason and so were many of his Jewish friends. Even more remarkable is the existence of an Orthodox Synagogue in Winchester named Rosh Pina, whose membership consists of Jewish masons. Masonic lodges tended to help support the local businesses, and this was probably one of the main reasons these fraternities were so popular.  The name Rosh Pina is based on the biblical verse, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Psalms 118:22).

Despite the popularity of this international fraternity, there is no official or formal definition regarding what is a Freemason. Much of its history is shrouded in legend and ambiguity. Many of its members trace back its symbolism to the original builders of the Egyptian pyramids or for that matter, Solomon’s Temple. According to Masonic legend, King Hiram I of the Phoenician city of Tyre (980-947 B.C.E.) the master-builder of Solomon’s Temple, was murdered because he would not reveal the secrets of his Masonic group. Needless to say, there is no historicity supporting this folk story, but it does reveal something about the medieval groups that kept their own traditions secretive. According to historians, the Freemasonry lodge did not begin in ancient Judea, or in Egypt, but in England sometime in the 14^th century! [1]

At any rate, Masonic traditions are pretty benign. The working tools of the Masons became a system of symbols for personal morality and initiation.

Most folks know the Masons are a charitable organization which has secret rites and symbols. In religious terms, their behavior and traditions strikes one as an American civil religion. The fraternity believes in rendering homage to the Creator, which they regard as the duty of each of its members. Although Freemasonry only began as an institution in the seventeenth century, it has generated a mythology, or legendary history, according to which its followers claims dates back to  the biblical reign of Solomon and the building of the Temple.

Many of this country’s founding fathers were Masons. In this country and in Europe,  Freemasonry was linked to various programs of political and religious reform, programs that emphasized freedom of thought, worship, association, and the press and contributed considerably to the French and American revolutions.

Some Masonic lodges found it hard to give up their old prejudices with respect to the Jews. In Germany and Austria, Masonic lodges barred Jews from belonging. There is also another dark history to masonry. In the 19^th century, American Freemasons, along with others of like mind, created the Know‑Nothing party in the 1850s, the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War and again from 1915 onward, and the American Protective Association in the latter 1880s and early 1890s. All were even more anti‑Catholic than they were antiblack or xenophobic, in addition to being anti-Semitic. In defense of the Masonic movement, these splinter groups did not reflect the values of the Masonic philosophy.

At any rate, Jews found the Masonic lodges to be open in a time when discrimination was rampant in Western society. The Masonic constitution held that any good or honest person, regardless of his denomination or persuasion, was admitted. The constitution obliged the member only to hold “to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves,” a declaration of religious tolerance based on the current Deist trend, which postulated a Supreme Being who could be conceived of by any rational being. It remains a mystery whether Jews may have influenced the wording of the Masonic constitution, but its liberal doctrines made it easy for Jews to belong.  A Jewish lodge, the Lodge of Israel, was established in London in 1793, and the Knights of Aphesis to this day, is a Jewish lodge in the Masonic movement. Indeed, I am told that there are many Jewish Masonic lodges all around the world. One gets the impression that the religious ideation of the lodge will vary from community to community.

Concerning Masonic lodges in the land of Israel had as many as 64 lodges with over 3500 active members consisting of  Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Druze. The activities of the Grand Lodge and its several lodges include: a mutual insurance fund; the Masonic old age home at Nahariyyah; Masonic temples all over the country; and a museum and library (Encyclopedia Judaica) . Israeli Masonic Lodges show the kind of healing power Freemasonry can produce in a society that is religiously divided.

With respect to the rest of your questions, I would like to briefly examine some of the Masonic  teachings and rituals.

Curiously, many of its rituals and symbolism draw its roots from the Kabbalah.  In the Kabbalah, the interest in a knowledge of sounds, written letters, and words was intensified. Each sign was given a magical value that had a religious meaning and a numerical relationship. For example, the Hebrew letter alef became the symbol of mankind and the abstract principle of material objects.

Most importantly, Freemasonry taught that  they are building a spiritual temple in heaven. Each member regardless of his religion must fashion himself into a perfect living stone to fit into the spiritual temple of God. Indeed, this idea bears considerable similarity to the Tikkun Olam “Repairing the world” which the Kabbalists stress, is every human being’s duty. This concept is referred to as the “Common Gavel.” The common gavel serves as a metaphor for the breaking off the rough and superfluous parts of the stone, so as to be fit for the Supreme Architect’s use.  Accepted Masons, are taught to make use of it for the more noble and glorious purpose of divesting their hearts and consciences of all the vices and superfluities of life: thereby fitting the Mason’s  minds as living stones for that spiritual building. The Mason thus, makes himself fit for heaven by bettering himself through eliminating unwanted qualities. This spiritual lesson holds true for any Mason, regardless of his god or religious persuasion. The Kabbalists also refer to this same process as “etcafiyah” – bending the material impulses to the service of the Divine.

Another one of the building instruments Masons use involves a trowel, which they use to spread cement. Here too, the symbolism represents spreading  the cement of brotherly love and affection; that cement which unites people into one sacred band or society of friends and brothers, among whom no contention should exist, so that all people may work and exist in perfect harmony.

None of the rituals that I have seen violates any tenet of Judaism, and in fact reflects values that are healthy for any sane society. Since some of the lodges reflect more  the religious tenets of that given faith, I would encourage you to join a Jewish lodge to avoid any possible Halachic problems pertaining to the role of Jesus, the incarnation etc.

Let me conclude with the following passage from the Talmud:

“R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of the wise increase peace in the world, as it says, All your children shall be taught by the Lord,and great shall be the prosperity of your children (Isa. 54:11). Read not banayik [your children] but bonayik [your builders]. Great peace have they that love Your Torah, and there is no stumbling for them. (Psa. 119:65).” [2]

=======

Notes:

[1] J.M. Roberts, The Mythology of the Secret Societies (London: Watkins Publishing, 2008), 32-62.

[2] BT Berachot 64a.

Hanson’s disease is a chronic disease of man caused by the Mycobacterium leprae bacillus, a bacterium similar to the tuberculosis bacillus and is characterized by skin lesions and adversely affects the nerves’ ability to sense pain and leads to the loss of sensation. Combined with the loss of sensation, over time, the body experiences progressive tissue degeneration, resulting in the extremities of the body becoming deformed, eroded, and often falling off.  This dreaded disease, according to modern studies is poised to make a comeback within the next hundred years or more particularly in the third-world countries.

Modern historians note that there is no hard evidence that the  phenomena of clinical leprosy existed in the ancient Near East, until 332 B.C.E. and it is believed to have been introduced Alexander the Great’s soldiers after they returned from India.² There are several other reasons why the biblical disease was something other than leprosy:

*  None of the most prominent characteristics of Hansen’s disease are listed in the text, and the symptoms that are listed argue against a relationship to Hansen’s disease.

* Nowhere does the  Biblical depiction suggest that this condition was ever seen as contagious. Nor does the Torah describes this condition as affecting houses and clothes, Hanson’s disease only affects the body and nothing else.

* Leprosy is a slow developing disease takes many years to occur. The Biblical disease of  צָרָעַת  (tsra`at) appears to occur must more quickly and can disspate after a quarantine periods of seven days. ^[3] None of this  fits the modus operandi of leprosy.

*  Leprosy cannot be cured without medical treatment and drugs. The צָרָעַת indicate that a person may recover from the ailment without this kind of treatment.

*  Leprosy is a disease which attacks the nervous system, affecting the ability of the body to sense pain, this condition is nowhere intimated in Lev. 13-14, nor does the text address the physical disfigurement which  is associated with the advanced stages of leprosy.

* The white hairs listed in the biblical verses do not match the characteristics of modern leprosy. A white patch of skin is not characteristic of leprosy, nor is the scalp ordinarily affected.

Despite the limitations of the term “leprosy” most English translations use it in the broader sense to include a whole spectrum of infectious skin disorders,  e.g., psoriasis, eczema, seborrhea, or ringworm and type of skin cancer. ^[4] Based on what the Torah says regarding infected garments and houses, it appear that  צָרָעַת appears to have really been a scaly fungal disease. The most severest form of tum’ah affects not only people, but also clothing, bedding, tents, and even the stones of a house. With respect to this short piece, I will use the term  צָרָעַת in place of “leprosy.”

How do we make sense of this plague of antiquity? The brilliant 13th century rabbinic scholar and scientist, Levi Gersonides, correctly diagnosed this disease as scaly fungal disease. Although the terminology used in Lev. 13-14 is difficult to linguistically decipher with pure accuracy, nonetheless, biblical scholars by and large do have a general consensus as to what the skin lesions probably are.  E.V. Hulse has convincing argued that צָרָעַת a long-standing, patchy skin condition associated with peeling or flakiness (desquamation) with underlying redness of the skin.  If the acute skin conditions dissipated within seven days, they were not regarded as צָרָעַת are, therefore, left with chronic, patchy, and scaly conditions which are typical of psoriasis, fungal infections, seborrheic dermatitis

Notes:

^[1] This error was also perpetrated by the BDB Lexicon.

^[2] Hansen’s Disease was named after the physician Gerhard Henrik Armauer Hansen of Norway, who  identified the bacteria that cause leprosy in 1869. Consequently, medicine began referring to the condition as “Hansen’s disease” instead of “leprosy.”

^[3] “The disease seems to have been endemic in Egypt from at least the Old Kingdom period 2700–2400 B.C.E.  and if the term ukhedu in the Ebers Papyrus indicates a form of clinical leprosy, then the ailment would have been familiar to the Egyptians before 1500 B.C.E.” (ISBIE, s.v. Leprosy)

^[4] Lev 13:4, 5, 21, 26, 31, 33.

As most of our readers probably know, in order for an animal to be considered “clean,” it must either (1) chew its cud, or (2) have split hooves. Inevitably, anyone reading the Bible will find the classification of the hare in particular to be problematical. Before going into further detail, let us for the moment forensically examine the terminology of the Torah and compare it to the Septuagint’s translation. Why the Septuagint? Possibly because this work reflects some of the oldest traditions we have of the biblical animals. Of course, the Septuagint is not beyond making errors in its translation–but that is certainly not the case here!

The Septuagint renders אַרְנֶ֗בֶת (‘arnebet) χοιρογρύλλιον (chiorogryllios = “hare”).  But is the biblical classification indeed zoologically correct? Neither the hyrax or hare possess four stomachs; nor do they ruminate. Sensing the difficulties in maintaining such an untenable position, Israeli botanist Prof. Yehuda Felix explains:

Several years ago in Tradition, an author proposed that the word shafan in the Torah referred to various types of llamas; and that the arnevet should be identified with the Baletrian (two-humped) camel. However, such identifications have no philological foundation, excepting the fact that these animals do not chew their cud or have split hoofs. The author of the article claims that Moses was told by God that thousands of years after receiving the Torah there would be Jews living on the South American continent and so he warned them not to eat the llama.

Felix went on to say that such conjectures were not only unreasonable, they lacked a philological basis that is  acceptable to scientific identification. Prof. Felix  is certainly accurate, for many of the cognate languages of the ancient NE, all refer to the hare. The אַרְנֶ֗בֶת corresponds to the Arabic Karnab and the Old Southern Arabic Krnb as well as the Akkadian arnabu and annabu. In each of these languages, there is no doubt that the Torah is speaking of the hare.

Felix further adds, it is clear that the biblical text was referring to animals native to the Land of Israel and known in Bible times. However, all this still makes our original question more potent: How does one answer the problem posed by modern zoology? Prof. Felix contends that the Torah is merely speaking in terms of how human beings commonly perceive the hare when observing its eating habits. He further writes:

“The hare is not a ruminant. There have been attempts to explain the Torah’s definition of the arnevet as a cud-chewer due to the similarity in its chewing movements to those of ruminants (this explanation was given about the shafan as well). This is an oversimplified explanation. A better one may be as follows: in our generation we have learned that the local hares of the genus called lepus are accustomed to eating a large amount of greens each morning. These are only partially digested and the remnants are excreted in the form of balls on a flat, open surface lacking vegetation. These balls are left for a time on the open surface and later the hare returns to chew them, after these greens have undergone a process of chemical breakdown caused by bacteria.” [1]

Anyone who sees a hare chewing food in a place where no vegetation exists might think that the hare is chewing its cud. Remember: “The Torah speaks in the language of man,” i.e., from the perspective of an ancient Israelite who had no scientific concept of taxonomy.

What is striking about the above species, it seems that although the hare and the rock badger do not zoologically possess even one “clean” sign, it is sufficient that it merely appear to have a clean sign in order to be considered as having one of the two “clean” criteria.

======

Notes:

[1] “Hare” Encyclopedia of Judaica (electronic ed.).

Was Moses speaking  metaphorically? Or was he being quite literal? Rashbam chose the former possibility: The Torah exhorts that your devotion to God should be so ever constant, it should be as though your love were literally inscribed upon your hand:“Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm” (Song 8:6) [1]  One 19th century exegete observed:

“Is not this an allusion to an ancient and general custom observed in almost every part of the world? When a person wishes to remember a thing of importance, and is afraid to trust to the common operations of memory, he ties a knot on some part of his clothes, or a cord on his hand or finger, or places something out of its usual order, and in view, that his memory may be whetted to recollection, and his eye affect his heart. God, who knows how slow of heart we are to understand, graciously orders us to make use of every help, and through the means of things sensible, to rise to things spiritual.”

Commenting on Exodus 13:9, Ibn Ezra takes umbrage with the a view found among the Karaite expositors (as well as Rashbam) who also interpreted that “Bind them as a sign on your hand” is meant metaphorically and is similar to “Bind them upon your heart always; tie them around your neck.” (Prov. 6:21). By the same token, “fix them as an emblem on your forehead,“ is similar to “Let faithful love and constancy never leave you: tie them round your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart” (Prov. 3:3).  Strangely, Ibn Ezra seemed to think that metaphor plays a primary role in the Book of Proverbs, but plays virtually no role in this particular passage! History records how Ibn Ezra actually met Rashbam, and, evidently, they did not get along. Rashbam loved metaphor interpretations more than he did literal ones.

Like Ibn Ezra, most rabbinic commentaries view this verse quite literally, and argue that it refers to the tradition better known as tephillin (“phylacteries”). Tephillin consists of two little squared leather boxes that are tied to the forearms and forehead which are faithfully warn by traditional Jews every day barring the Sabbath and the biblical holidays.

There are  four Scriptural passages that  signify three basic themes: (1) the importance of accepting God as the only Deity—to the exclusion of all other deities (Deut. 6:5-9) (2) remembering the Exodus (Exod. 13:1-10; 13:11-16); (3) the acceptance of yoke of God’s commandments (Deut. 11:13-21). Among the Jews of Qumran, their tephillin included the Ten Commandments.

The term “phylacteries” has a fascinating history that describes the evolution of the daily practice of “donning tephillin” which traditional Jews still observe to this day. Originally, the pagans of antiquity wore a special head band made of leather which had special inscriptions on their heads. This headband served as an amulet. Approximately 2100 years ago, Jews adopted this practice but altered the design and purpose of the amulet to serve as a means of conveying monotheism.  This has always been the genius of Judaism–its ability to redefine the traditions it encountered, e.g., the mezuzah. However, the Sages of the Septuagint still preserved the name which reflected this humble origin.

Sometimes we wish our children were more respectful and compliant, or at least, “mind their place” at the Seder table and not misbehave or draw undue attention to themselves. As any Woody Allen fan certainly knows, passionate family discussions always have been a part of Jewish life since ancient times. Unanimity never has been the goal of any kind of discussion wherever you have two or more Jews together engaged in dialogue.

Passover is no exception to this rule.

During Passover, this thought finds expression in the question of the “Rasha” (better known to most of us as the “wicked child”). Without his presence and participation, the entire Seder would be a dull experience. Here is a literal translation of the controversial passage we read in the Passover Hagadah:

“The wicked child, what does that he say? ‘What is this service to you?’ Note the Torah says, to you, but not to him; because he has excluded himself from the community. He has denied a basic teaching of the faith. Therefore you shall smack his teeth and tell him, It is because of this that God wrought for me in my going out of Egypt (Exod. 13:8). . . . ‘For me--but not him. Had he been there, he would not have been redeemed.”

As a parent, I often have wondered how anyone could call their child “wicked.” The glaring meaning of “Rasha” is arguably offensive. If we are to choose a less offensive title, let us describe him or her as a “Wayward Child,” or perhaps more accurately a “Rebellious Child.”At any rate, our “Rasha” is a person who is a young person who stands perilously close to the edge of his/her Judaism. Without a proper pedagogical response, the “Rasha” may grow up  to disaffiliate as a Jew. So we wonder: Why does the “Rasha” strike such a visceral note? The anger of the father deserves special attention. Why does he get so upset? How could a simple question push a parent to act so violently at the family Seder? Clearly, the “Rasha” has touched a raw nerve in his father.

If my conjecture is correct, the “Rasha’s” question now begins to make more sense, for she/he may be a child who is dissatisfied with superficial answers. The father may love tradition, but he lacks the ability to articulate to his rebellious adolescent child what it means to be a Jew, especially in a modern age. Of all the children who are present at the Seder table, the “Rasha” is asking the best question of them all.

On a deeper level, the question, “What does this service mean to YOU?” Put in different terms, the child asks, “If the Seder has no deeper meaning for YOU, why should it have any special meaning for ME? How can I make this Seder a self-authenticating experience if the Seder is nothing more than a mechanical exercise? Until I find out the answer, I will not be subject to you or any tradition until I know for sure what it really means, assuming that it means anything at all.”

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, children have a way of discerning a parent’s Achilles’ heel.  A child knows when parents are just breezing through the motions of religious life. Maybe the rebellious child has a good reason to rebel, for she/he instinctively knows when a parent is real or unreal. The “Rasha” may well see something hollow about his “religious” father.

As parents, Passover reminds us that we need to constantly reexamine what it means to celebrate freedom. If the story of Passover has personal meaning for us, then we will better be able to articulate a response to the most difficult question of the Seder: “What does this service mean to you?”

Rabbi Michael Samuel serves at the Tri City Jewish Center, in Rock Island, and is among a group of rotating faith&value columnists

Another friend writes from New York, “The concern I will share today is most definitely not a new one, but it is an issue that comes up every year, and we have yet to find an answer to this dilemma. Why in the world is Pesach food so expensive? The prices of Pesach food products are outrageous. These kosher-for-Passover items, from ketchup, to mayonnaise, to cakes, candies and dairy products are all so much more expensive than these foodstuffs are during the year. Is there any good reason that a box of a handful of chocolate leaves costs the kosher consumer over 7 dollars? Is there a good reason why a bottle of kosher l’Pesach ketchup cost over a dollar more than it does during the year? Why do I have to pay close to ten dollars for a box of sorry tasting kosher l’Pesach sponge cake? Why do we continue to allow food companies to fleece us – yes, fleece us – every year Pesach time?”

Oh, I could add to the stories from the Chicago area. A small package of cream cheese costs $6, a three pound kosher brisket 20% more, Houston, I think we have a problem here. Kosher slaughter houses are kosher for Passover all year round; they are not four star restaurants one could order a prime rib at. When the kosher companies like Streits, Manishegetz, and others charge such exorbitant sums, one must wonder for when kashrut businesses steal from the public, ask yourself an important but obvious question: Why should I rely upon their hechser (Kosher approval), if they are so darn unethical? Dear friends, the Kosher Emperor has no clothes. Another good friend of mine in New York told me that her family once spent $15,000 a week at a Passover certified hotel–where the food was rotten! I went to a once formerly 5 star restaurant where the food was fit for a Doggie Diner.

Frankly, I think Jews should boycott all the companies that sell kosher and use some common sense instead and try to observe Passover the best way they know how. Heresy? Not really. We offer contrarian wisdom here, but I believe if Ashkenazi Jews could get over their halachic hangup with rice and beans, they could probably teach a most valuable lesson to the rabbinic supervisors and their companies that they would never forget.

A year ago in the heart of Harediville, New York, an edict signed by 30 prominent rabbis, declared, “One must be extra careful in circumstances where a monetary loss will be incurred. . . . Now before Passover, especially when the economy is so bad, we are reminding people of the Jewish law concerning monopolies . . .  particularly at Passover when there is so much need.” Yet, this year, we hear nothing at all. Once again the rabbis are asleep at the wheel.

When I read about the endless tales in the news about rabbinic corruption in the American Kashrut industry, I wonder whether these culprits realize they are reinforcing every negative caricature about Jews in the proverbial anti-Semitic book. Don’t they care?

This kind of price gouging truly undermines the holiday of Pesach–by virtue of impoverishing those who care to seriously observe it. How can anyone look forward to this holiday knowing they are about to get ripped off? “Tradition!” you say? What a pity. We must do better.

For the greater part of early rabbinic history, rice and legumes used to be considered staple foods for Passover, but when did the change occur? More importantly, why did so many Ashkenazi communities give up on eating rice and legumes? Granted, this may not be the most interesting topic. True, many people could care less about the pedantic discussions regarding the Passover status of rice and legumes.

Nevertheless, the history of this old rabbinic controversy reveals something interesting about the psychology of the forbidding mind that continues to shape the attitudes of many observant Jews who are unaware of this custom’s history and controversy. From a psychoanalytical perspective, the human compulsion to forbid the permitted is what really fascinates me. Understanding the evolution of a community’s mindset can be as exciting as reading a good Sherlock Holmes mystery.

The Talmud mentions how Rav Pappi once gave permission to the Resh Galuta’s bakers to thicken a pot with flour made from hasissi (“oven-dried grain”—Rashi). Tosfot  considers Rashi’s insight to be a no-brainer and suggests that hasissi refers to lentil flour; ordinarily, this kind of flour does not become chametz—leavened. [1]. But even this interpretation is unclear. Why was lentil flour forbidden? Tosfot does not really offer a logical explanation. Could the appearance of anything that rises–even if it derives from vegetable flour be the reason for the custom to avoid  eating legumes during Passover?

One of the subsequent Tosfot scholars named Rabbi Yitschak of Corbeil (13th century) offers an explanation in his SeMaK (Sefer Mitzvot Katan). He claims that the prohibition was by no means a “new custom,” but had already existed for many generations. The rabbis of early medieval times feared that the grains of rice or legumes might get commingled with wheat, millet, barley, rye, and spelt. “Supposedly,” argued R. Yitzchak, “people used to place their grains in any sack container that was available for storage.” Perhaps the lentil flower became commingled with a bit of wheat flour. A person might easily think he was eating lentil bread, not realizing that some of the forbidden grains might also be a part of the bread. [2]

R. Yosef Caro (author of the Code of Jewish Law) writes in his Beit Yosef commentary to the Tur, that some scholars felt that the average person might not be able to distinguish between the unripened kernels of grain and legumes since they resemble one another.[3] In practice, R. Yosef Caro (in his Beit Yosef) disregards this fear, whereas the Ashkenazi Jews follow the more stringent view and abstain from eating rice and legumes during Passover. Once canonized as “tradition,” people tend to think this is the way it has always been, but it ain’t so! Early Ashkenazi rabbis objected to this stringency for many reasons.

Some rabbinic scholars considered the special Passover proscription as a “mistaken custom,” while R. Yerucham brusquely called  it a “foolish  custom.”  One might wonder, “Why perpetuate a custom that is logically absurd?” Evidently, the champions of common sense ran into a proverbial brick wall. We may derive solace knowing that not all the medieval Ashkenazi rabbis blindly followed this custom. The real reason why beans became forbidden was because beans were the standard food of mourners, and mourning is forbidden during the holidays! The medieval rabbis had forgotten this simple truth, hence the confusion.

There are other reasons why rice and legumes ought to be used for Passover:

• There are not a lot of Passover foods to choose from.

• Rabbinic certification traditionally charges exorbitant prices for their “kosher” supervision. Once again, the public gets taken advantage by the shepherds who are supposed to be concerned with their welfare (cf. Eze. 34ff).

• Halachic stringency sometimes creates a “Holier-than-Thou” type of mentality that trivializes the holiday’s spiritual importance.
• Food affects mood. Eating rice and legumes are healthier for a more balanced diet, and are also arguably preferable to the heavy animal proteins people imbibe during the holiday. A healthier diet makes one feel lighter and less weighed down–perfect metaphors for the spiritual lightness we ought to feel during this special time of the year. Complex carbohydrates are good for mind and energizing for the body!

In the end, religious compulsiveness and neurotic anxieties triumphed over rabbinic common sense; and we have seen this kind of  obsessive compulsive thinking exponentially get worst over the centuries. Caught in a recurring time loop, the will of the naysayers continues to dominate the more flexidox religious communities, who would gladly eat legumes and rice if only their rabbis would prefer to adopt a “live and let live” kind of Halachic attitude.

The spirit of Passover celebrates freedom and not asceticism. Clearly, the Sages in their wisdom delineated enough prohibitions for the holiday. Must we add an endless list of more dietary taboos that nobody since the 13th century never heard of? Rabbinic wisdom teaches, “If the Nazirite, who only denied himself the single pleasure of drinking wine, is considered a sinner, how much more is this true about a person who denies himself pleasure in general and chooses to live a life of asceticism?” (BT Nazir 19a). Passover is a holiday to celebrate freedom; it is not a holiday to enslave ourselves to unnecessary restrictions that diminish the joy of the holiday.

=========

Notes:

[1] BT Pesachim 40b. Note that it never occurs to Tosfot that maybe the Talmud might have have written this anecdote out of chronological order–at a time when maybe it wasn’t so obvious.

[2] Cf. Mordechai’s gloss on BT Pesachim Chapter 2, 588, who cites the SeMak. This was also the view of the Tur (O.H. 453).

[3] O.H. 453:1

Indeed, Sir James Frazer in his The Golden Bough, c. 21) describes other priestly castes and their unique dietary habits and tabooed foods.  The Jews were neither the first or the last people to develop such a dietary regiment.  Similar theories can be found in W. Robertson Smith (“The Religion of the Semites,” 270) who observes, “In view of the fact that almost every primitive tribe holds certain animals to be tabooed, the contention is that the forbidden or tabooed animal was originally regarded and worshiped as the totem of the clan; but the facts adduced do not sufficiently support the theory, especially in regard to the Semites, to allow it to be more than an ingenious conjecture. . . If the scriptural data are allowed their normal force, the spiritual and hygienic explanations are the correct ones.”

The Babylonian code, The Laws of Manu, also carried a prohibition against the eating of birds of prey, and the Babylonians permitted all animals (with the exception of the camel) that chewed the cud to be eaten because they were ritually “clean.” Likewise, in Egypt, the priests were enjoined against “defiling” themselves by eating fish devouring birds.

The hygienic approach was championed by none other than Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages in Spain. The argument, now supported by modern research, was that scaleless fish and the swine tend to produce diseases. Fish with scales and fins are generally better capable of swimming in cleaner waters. By the way, some kosher fish are bottom feeders like carp and perch.

Mary Douglas’s Approach

The term “clean” and “unclean” are simply figures of speech used to describe what is considered to be an acceptable type of sacrifice for the altar.

In historical terms, since the ancient Israelites were a pastoral people, it was only natural they would use various flock animals as their offerings. That, in my honest opinion, seems to be the simplest explanation, but there are certain wild animals that are “clean” in so far as they may be eaten, but are, nevertheless, not to be brought to the altar for ritual sacrifice. The wild ox or the giraffe are obvious and well-known examples. Some commentaries point out the reason for these animals are not to be brought to the altar was due to practical considerations; these creatures are not easily found like the flock animals are.

According to the anthropologist Mary Douglas, the terms “unclean” and “clean” are not to be construed as an indictment against their essential character as God’s creation. Quite the opposite: “Unclean is not a term of psychological horror and disgust, it is a technical term for the cult, as commentators have often pointed out. To import feelings into the translation falsifies, and creates more puzzles. The technique of delayed completion postpones the meanings until chapter 17.

At that point Leviticus commands the people not to eat blood, not to eat an animal that has died an unconsecrated death, i.e.,  an animal that has died of itself, or an animal torn by beasts, presumably with its blood still in it (Lev 17:8-16; see also Deut 14:21). The dietary laws thus support the law against unconsecrated killing. The Leviticus writer’s reverential attitude to life, animal and human, explains the animal corpse pollution rules. ‘Thou shalt not stand upon [profit from] another’s blood’ (Lev. 19:16). The case of the animal’s blood and the case of the human’s blood are parallel. Ritual impurity imposes God’s order on his creation.”

To the modern mindset, the mentality that believed in animal sacrifices must seem very strange. Even Maimonides viewed sacrifice as a form of retrogressive religion, tolerated in the Torah only because of the unsophisticated spiritual maturity of the Israelites.

Ironically enough, in Israel, today many students are studying Maimonides’ Laws of Sacrifice on the hope and expectation that Jews will at some point rebuild the Temple and offer the animal sacrifices just like their ancestors did in ancient times. Right . . .

I can just imagine Maimonides turning over in his grave. Maimonides would have undoubtedly have been surprised to see that we have evolved so little over the past 800+ years.

If you think the money changers made a killing when Jesus created a ruckus that chased them out (obviously, many other pilgrims must have felt the same way), just imagine what today’s Haredi rabbis would do today if he had a new Temple, replete with animal sacrifices.

No thanks, but no thanks.

An anthropological approach demands that we view a society’s customs through the eyes of those individuals who practiced animal sacrifice. There is a symbolism and significance that moderns can learn and may even apply in their own spiritual formation and development.

An analogy from human behavior might serve to answer this question. The giving of a gift, even between human beings, is not a purely external transaction but at the same time establishes a personal relation between giver and recipient. This would explain why bribery is morally offensive; by accepting a bribe  the judge becomes, at the very least, psychologically beholden to the litigant  (cf. Gen.32:14-19).

Many scholars in the field of anthropology note that archaic man often offered sacrifices as a bribe to the gods for personal enrichment; or to placate the gods from harming the worshiper. Think of it as a form of divine “protection money.” Personally, I think that in the story of Noah, Noah offers the olah shortly after the ark rests upon dry land. He brings the olah as bribe because he is uncertain whether God might change His mind and will eventually bring a new flood on Noah’s descendants.

Perhaps the most forceful antecedent to the Israelite practice of the burnt sacrifice is from Isaac’s near sacrifice of Isaac at Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22ff). Illustrating this eternal truth, God beckons Abraham to offer Isaac “as an olah.” More than any other incident in Abraham and Isaac’s life, the Akedah taught both of them how to be wholly given over to the Divine.

Over the centuries, as the worshippers brought their olah offerings to the Temple, the olah rekindled ancestral memories of how Isaac was prepared to give his very life to God. As the body of the animal dissolved into vapor and ascended heavenward, the worshiper inferred that he too must be prepared to subordinate every aspect of his body, mind and soul, not to mention whatever belongs to him, are subject to the authority of God. Indeed, the martyrdom of countless Jews over the last 2000 years bears this truism out.

It was only natural, that the olah offering came be seen as a means of honoring the Divine. Philo of Alexandria regards the burnt offering as rendering honor to God apart from any other motive or self-interest. Philo explains, “Therefore the law has assigned the whole burnt offering as a sacrifice adequate to that honor which is suited to God, and which belongs to God alone, enjoining that what is offered to the all perfect and absolute God must be itself entire and perfect, having no taint of mortal selfishness in it.”^[1]

^[1] Special Laws I, XXX VI, 196.

“Fortifying the Walls of Conversion” ?

Today, at a conference dedicated to “fortifying walls of conversion,”  the Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger expressed moral support for Rabbi Sherman, who annulled thousands of conversions carried out by Rabbi Chaim Druckman, who has been the past acting  director of the National Conversion Authority in Israel.

In the past couple of years or more, Haredi politicians in Israel have on a number of occasions tried to oust the rabbi, most notably under the corrupt leadership of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert , but Rav Druckman refused to go and there was nothing his critics could do to force him to leave. Even after his departure from the directorship, Haredi politicians and rabbis are still trying to overturn all of his conversions, which may affect the status of about 15,000 converts in Israel.

Explaining Why Revoking Conversions is Wrongheaded

The concept of revoking a conversion is a recent innovation in rabbinic law. As we have posted in other places, the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) does not sanction revocation of conversions at all. Should a convert return to his former gentile roots, the halacha still considers him as a “sinful Israelite.” [1]

Children must not be penalized for the sins of the parent, our tradition teaches us. Creating artificial halachic barriers will not solve the problem, it will only compound it–even lead to an exponentiation that will create scandal for everyone.

While I believe the Haredi community has every right to define who they wish to recognize as a bona fide member of their community. However, their Haredi rabbinic leaders do not have the right to legislate for communities outside of its jurisdiction. That has always been the case in the history of Jewish law. Every community is autonomously responsible for its members.

Still and all, within a decade, the Haredi may prove to be an unstoppable political force in Israel; this is definitely bad news for the rest of us Jews!

========

Notes:

[1] What exactly does Jewish law say about a convert who abandons his observance of Jewish law? Consider the Shulchan Aruch YD 268:12 that reads:

סעיף יב שולחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות גרים סימן רסח

כג כו] כשיבא הגר להתגייר, בודקים אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה או מפני הפחד בא ליכנס לדת. כז] ואם איש הוא, בודקין אחריו שמא עיניו נתן באשה יהודית. ואם אשה היא, בודקין אחריה שמא עיניה נתנה בבחורי ישראל, ואם לא נמצאת להם עילה מודיעים להם כובד עול התורה וטורח שיש בעשייתה על עמי הארצות, כדי שיפרשו. אם קיבלו ולא פירשו, וראו אותם שחזרו מאהבה, מקבלים אותם. ואם לא בדקו אחריו, (ט) או שלא הודיעוהו שכר המצות ועונשן, ומל וטבל בפני ג’ הדיוטות, ה”ז גר אפי’ נודע שבשביל דבר הוא מתגייר, הואיל ומל וטבל יצא מכלל העובדי כוכבים, וחוששים לו עד שתתברר צדקתו; כח] ואפילו <טז> חזר ועבד עבודת כוכבים, הרי הוא כט] כישראל מומר שקדושיו קדושין. כד (ישראל מומר שעשה תשובה, א”צ לטבול; ל] רק מדרבנן (י) יש לו לטבול לא] ולקבל עליו דברי חבירות בפני ג’) (נ”י פ’ החולץ).