Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength.  Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today. Drill them into your children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead. Write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates (Deut. 6:4-9).

The recitation of the second and third paragraph of the Shema  generally fails to inspire the same kind of enthusiasm. Here is the passage in question:

“If, then, you truly heed my commandments which I enjoin on you today, loving and serving the LORD, your God, with all your heart and all your soul, I will give the seasonal rain to your land, the early rain and the late rain, that you may have your grain, wine and oil to gather in; and I will bring forth grass in your fields for your animals. Thus you may eat your fill. But be careful lest your heart be so lured away that you serve other gods and worship them. For then the wrath of the LORD will flare up against you and he will close up the heavens, so that no rain will fall, and the soil will not yield its crops, and you will soon perish from the good land he is giving you. “Therefore, take these words of mine into your heart and soul. Bind them at your wrist as a sign, and let them be a pendant on your forehead. Teach them to your children, speaking of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. And write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates, so that, as long as the heavens are above the earth, you and your children may live on in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers he would give them” (Deut. 11:13-21).

Simply put, actions matter. Actions have consequences. Moderns might feel uncomfortable with the carrot-and-stick approach of Deuteronomy, but its message is still nevertheless compelling.

Our scientific age is certainly far more sophisticated than anything the ancients might have imagined, yet the meaning of the second paragraph of the Shema conveys an idea that is surprisingly modern and contemporary.

An ecological appreciation of the world reveals that all life forms are interconnected. The old paradigm of Newtonian and Cartesian physics conceived of the world through the metaphor of the clock. The universe was once seen as  a set of simple systems that resembled a steady ticking pendulum. These systems, if disturbed, bore minor consequences for their behavior is correspondingly slight. Their movements seemed predictable and manageable in its very nature.

Now we have discovered that there are in a manner of speaking, clocks within clocks—exponentially . The inner workings of our world are so exquisitely sensitive to circumstance that even the smallest disturbance produces large and ever-growing changes in their behavior that are difficult to fully calculate.

The meteorologist Ed Lorenz observed while studying  the earth’s weather systems that the smallest variation in the input to his equations produced exponentially large deviations in the behavior of his solutions.  He referred to this cascade of changes as the “butterfly effect.”  Thus, a butterfly stirring the air with its wings in the African jungle today will generate consequences for the storm systems affecting Boston within three weeks. Since our knowledge about African butterflies is limited, detailed long-term weather forecasting will prove to be difficult to anticipate–but the effects are nevertheless in a perpetual state of causality. (By the way, this same kind movement can also be applied with respect to economics, as seen this past year’s gyrations of the stock market.)

Actions matter–and what applies to the realm of natural events especially applies to the moral events we as individuals make. With the recent BP oil spill disaster, we can see an ecological impact that effects not just the Gulf region, but ultimately the life-forms of the entire planet based on the principle of the butterfly-effect.

The Gulf of Mexico has been the home for tons of marine and aquatic life forms that are going to be drastically affected. According to one article,  the North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, whales, dolphins, pelicans, oysters, shrimp, and blue crab. The Bluefin Tuna, which are famous for sushi, spawn in the Gulf of Mexico around mid-April to mid-June. Since the oil has been spewing into the waters where they hatch all throughout this time, they are now in danger of becoming extinct.

Marine animals like whales and dolphins not only live in the water, but need to surface to breathe. Therefore, the oil within the water is not the only threat to them. As they surface above the water to breathe the fresh air, the toxins that the oil gives off are inhaled.

The Brown Pelican recently came off the endangered species list in 2009 and is in grave danger yet again. Their breeding season is in the spring, during the spill, and their eggs are now incubating. The oil is posing a significant threat to this tropical bird.

When nature is injured and harmed by human greed, it will exert an economic impact on millions of people, whose livelihoods depend upon the ethical and mindful stewardship of their environment. The sea-food industry, for example, produces vast assortments of oysters, shrimp, and crab.

Residual effects of the oil and hydrocarbons will prove to be toxic to oysters for decades because hydrocarbons can be retained in coastal sediments for months or even years. Estimates so far indicate there will be a loss of $13 billion alone in tourism, and $11 billion in oil.  Florida and the entire Gulf region depends upon the revenue generated by these important industries.

Who knows how much damage will result from BP’s arrogance and greed? When a corporation worries about its profits more than the ethical operation of its operations, disasters such as the BP oil spill will impact humans and non-human life forms for generations to come.

So are the words of the Shema’s second paragraph relevant for our age? You betcha! We dare not ignore its spiritual message and importance in a postmodern era such as ours. The idols of today are much more subtle than the idols of antiquity. Today’s idols are the symbols of power and money; the love of money creates a society that values material goods over life itself. BP’s justification has been cavalier and disturbing. We can only hope that this tragedy will move nations in the direction of finding practical alternatives that are worthy of consideration.

The Midrash thus teaches: “God took Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and guard it” … If you ruin it, there is nobody to restore it after you (Ecclesiastes Rabba 7:28). We would be wise to remember this wisdom and hold corporations like BP accountable to this timeless truth.

This summer I have been working on a another book, whose title I will not mention at the present; this new book promises that will reflect upon the theme and nature of Judaic wisdom in a manner that is elegant–even simple. Stayed tuned in for more!

=====

Well, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby. Granted, being a male member of the human species prevents me from ever having such an experience, but true creativity derives from the depths of our being. This topic reminds me about a remarkable topic in Jewish philosophy that I will share with my readers regarding the nature of human and Divine creativity. Are they the same? In what ways do they differ? In Part I of this essay, we will examine one way of approaching the issue.

Sheneir Zalman (1745-1812) attempts to differentiate between human versus Divine creation. Here is one passage from the Tanya that I have recently translated that will hopefully clarify this topic.

 Let this point serve as an answer to the deists, who deny God’s creation. . . .  In their error, they foolishly imagine that creation is akin to the work and design of mortals as when a smith completes fashioning a vessel, that vessel no longer requires the smith to ensure its existence. Even when its maker is physically removed from it, the vessel remains intact—just as it was when he fashioned it. By the same token, these thinkers foolishly imagine that since heaven and earth exist, the cosmos no longer depends upon the Creator for its raison d’être.

 However, their eyes are covered for they do not differentiate between Divine and human creativity; the latter consists of improving upon something that is already in existence; that is to say, human creativity can only change an object’s form and appearance. Returning to our original analogy of the smith, he merely takes a silver ingot and transforms it into a vessel. Human creativity always consists of altering the form of some pre-existing matter. . . .  After finishing his handiwork, the smith leaves it alone to its own device. Similarly, the smith knows that once his work is finished, it no longer requires his attentiveness . . .  

 . . . In contrast, God’s creation is different. He literally wills the cosmos into being from a state of utter non-being. In reality, physical existence is a novelty that occurs each moment of its duration. . . . If this creative flow ceases—even for a single moment—everything that exists would instantaneously return to its original state of non-being. From this perspective, one must say that creatio ex nihilo is a far greater miracle than even the Splitting of the Sea of Reeds (Exod. 14:21-22; 15:8). For in this case, God merely drove back the sea through the force of a strong east wind that blew throughout the night. The waters at the Sea of Reeds stood immediately erect as if they   were a wall. Had God withdrawn the wind, the waters would instantly revert to their natural flowing state. . . . The element of novelty was obvious to all who witnessed the miracle, they recognized how the Divine power kept the water’s temporary structure intact. . . . However, after the last of the Israelites finished crossing, the waters of the Sea of Reeds reverted back to its natural state. What is true with regard to a great biblical miracle applies all the more so when comparing it to a miracle like Creation. The entire cosmic reality depends upon its Creator to provide it with being each moment it exists. . . . Ethereal letters expressed by the Divine Word continue animating and renewing Creation for all time. This would explain why the Psalmist proclaims, “Your Word stands in the Heavens. . . .” (Psa. 33:6)

 . . . From the human perspective, the only reason why the universe and all of its entities appear as though they are self-derivative is due to our inability to recognize the Divine Source that is animating the cosmos. We do not comprehend, nor do we see with our corporeal eyes how the Divine power of God and the “breath of His Mouth,” assume the form of Creation. However, if the human eye were able to see and comprehend the life-force and spiritual flow infusing Creation directly, “from the mouth of God” and “His breath,” then physical and tangible world would cease to exist, and all would be exactly as it was before the Six Days of Creation—when all was naught. .  . . We would see reality as it truly is—a manifestation of Godliness.[1]

The issue of artistic freedom runs into a wall of religious opposition over the issue of blasphemy. In fact, the word “blasphemy” has a remarkable history. The English word derives originally from the Greek βλάσφημος, “abusive,” “reproachful speech” blasphemous, slanderous, insulting. Indeed, in the Torah itself, blasphemy carries a death penalty for anyone who blasphemes God’s Holy Name  (cf. Lev. 24:10-16).

Rabbinic tradition specifies this only pertains to someone who pronounces God’s sacred Name itself [1], which may explain why God’s Name has not been pronounced by rabbinite communities since the 2nd century or so. Karaite Jews, on the other hand, still pronounce the Name YHWH just like their ancestors did in ancient biblical times. Numerous biblical references also attest to individuals who have reviled God’s Name [2].

While Jews have traditionally been champions and advocates of free speech, the issue of blasphemy reveals the difficulties and asymmetrical accommodation that exists between the secular and religious cultures. In Israel today, many conflicts between the Haredim and the secular occur because of the former’s “disrespect,” and “contempt” toward traditional religious values.

Christians are also aware of this problem. Back in 1987 a photographer named Andres Serrano took a picture of a plastic crucifix that was submerged in the artist’s urine, which he referred to as “Piss Christ.”

Truth can be pretty strange at times.  Apparently, Serranos is a professed and practicing Catholic! From his point of view, his artistic work characterizes an Augustinian point of Catholic resistance against Protestant Gnosticism. Still and all, I remember the firestorm of debate heard around the country.

Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire, Serranos won a special award by the  Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition. This event was underwritten by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency. Should government be involved in acts that arguably treat religious icons or figures with contempt? Many congressman made a campaign to punish the NEA, calling it as an abuse of taxpayer dollars.

As a Jew, I wonder what would the Jewish reaction have been if the artist decided to use a Torah Scroll instead of crucifix? What would the government have said had the artist depicted a “Piss Mohammed” image instead?

Now, get a load of this: In the United States, many states still have blasphemy laws on the books, but the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it likely that any blasphemy prosecution would now be regarded as an impermissible establishment of religion.

While such acts of revulsion offend a faith community’s spiritual values, there may be a far greater danger to religion if government decides to squelch all questionable anti-religious expressions, or decides to arbitrate  what kinds of “blasphemous” expressions against the great religions of the world are tolerable and which ones are not. As you can see, this is a slippery slope that free governments ought to avoid. Government has no right to micromanage politically or religiously incorrect expressions in my opinion.

In 2005, shortly after the incident of the Koran getting flushed down the toilet, Michigan Senator John Conyers (D) proposed a law that:

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and:

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.” [3]

The question here that needs to be asked is simple: Should government tolerate the abuse of one religion over another? As much as we may not agree with the artistic expressions of our neighbor, this is one issue that the Government would be wise to stay away from and simply allow for the issue not to be resolved. Over time, the offended will have to learn that the 1st Amendment benefits everyone–including men and women of faith. This is the greater good we need to keep in mind. Halacha or Sharia or Canonic Law must respect its place in a country that champions free speech.

Shortly before her death, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci (one of my favorite writers) was ordered to stand trial in the northern Italian city of Bergamo,  on charges that she defamed Islam in a recent book.

Free speech is necessary–even when we find it ideologically offensive.

One last note deserves mentioning. One of my teachers once said that the sin of blasphemy is still relevant in a free society. The essence of blasphemy aims to make what is beautiful and pristine into something ugly and detestable. While acts of disrespect deserve to be publicly criticized, using violence against secular-minded people may constitute an infinitely worst crime in the eyes of God, who prefers that we treat people with compassion and respect–even those individuals whose philosophy we may find quite wrong.

======

Notes:

[1] Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5.

[2] Cf. 1 Sam 17:26; 2 Sam. 12:14; Pss. 44:16; 74:10, 18; 2 Kings 19:3, 6, 22; Ezek. 35:12–13.

[3] http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000103.htm

Apologists for religion often contend that a belief in God is necessary in order for people to act morally, but an examination of rabbinic texts suggest that the early rabbinic teachers acknowledged that had the Torah never been given to Israel–or by extension, to human kind–primitive man would have had to learn morality from the animal world.

The Sages appear to have understood this truth as well, for they candidly said, “If the Torah had not been given we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the cock who first coaxes and then mates”(BT Eruvin 100b).

While the Talmud delineates the positive traits humankind could have learned from nature, it goes without saying that our ancestors could just as easily have learned many negative character traits from nature, e.g., from the ant we would have derived the principles of totalitarianism; from the cat we would have developed certain predatory traits showing no mercy toward the weak and defenseless such as a male lion’s tendency to destroy his offspring; from the chicken, our ancestors might have learned how to be scavengers who prefer to live in filthy habitats, and so on.

Biologist Lyall Watson sees a mutual affinity between human and animal behavior. Watson once observed a group of young penguins standing on the edge of an ice floe, learning how to swim. Fearful that there might be a leopard seal lurking in the murky waters, the penguins stood their ground and refused to go into the water. As thousands of penguins crowded on the floe, some pushing occurred from the back of the ranks until one of the penguins slipped into the water. After the lone penguin entered the water, a leopard-seal suddenly appeared and ate the small creature.

Reticent, the other penguins backed off until eventually, the group pushed another one of its members into the water. Sure enough, the leopard-seal reappeared and swallowed the second penguin as well. The same process occurred again, and by the fourth time, apparently, the leopard-seal had eaten enough and the fourth penguin was left safe and sound. Afterwards, the entire penguin group jumped in and enjoyed the swimming as if they hadn’t a care in the world. From this incident, Watson deduced that selfishness and cowardice are not just human traits; there are many other species of animals that share these qualities as well.

Yes, nature seems to have a sense of morality that is not much different from our own, but unlike the other denizens of nature, human beings have the ability to reprogram their mental and spiritual orientation toward the existence of other beings. Religion can facilitate this process of ethical transformation, but it is not necessarily a given. Living the religious lifestyle does not guarantee moral development.

Derech Eretz and Morality

On the other hand, the Sages also advocated a different attitude that is worth considering: “Derech eretz comes before Torah” (Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 9:3), which suggests that human decency is a precondition to the Israelites receiving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai. Without this type of natural morality, for which the Golden Rule is based upon–no morality is possible. As Levinas as pointed out many times, God never commanded Cain not to commit murder against his brother; the moral law is engraved upon the human soul and does not have to derive from a standard of morality that is outside of humankind.

When we observe the moral breakdown in religious-based societies, one can only conclude that religion does not magically transform people; but the love of virtue and goodness can achieve such a goal.

(More to come)

One of the most succinct descriptions of the purpose of the Satan that reflects the Jewish attitude is  found in the writings of Goethe, who wrote in his classic “Faust”

Of all the spirits of negation
The rogue is least of burdens to be borne.
Man’s efforts sink below his proper level,
And since he seeks for unconditioned ease,
I send this fellow, who must goad and tease And to serve creation, through a devil.[1]

Similar to our citation of Goethe is a passage from the Zohar, which speaks of a parable concerning the role of Satan that should  clarify the purpose and role of Satan in Jewish tradition–as understood by the rabbis of antiquity.

Let us assume for a moment that the rabbis and the allegorical school are correct in identifying the serpent as a metaphor for the evil inclination. But why did God create the impulse for evil? Would humankind have been better off not having to deal with such an urge? The Zohar raises this question, and offers the reader a most intriguing thought-provoking response with respect to the phenomena of moral evil.

Should it be asked, “How can a man love Him with the evil inclination? Is not the evil inclination the seducer, preventing man from approaching the Blessed Holy One to serve him? How, then, can man use the evil inclination as an instrument of love for God?” The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination” by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learned how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Holy One. Here is a mystery entrusted to the masters of esoteric lore. All that the Holy One has made, both above and below, is for the purpose of manifesting His Glory and to make all things serve Him. Now, would a master permit his servant to work against him, and to continually lay plans to counteract his will? It is the will of the Holy One that men should worship Him and walk in the way of truth that they may be rewarded with many benefits. How, then, can an evil servant come and counteract the will of his Master by tempting man to walk in an evil way, seducing him from the good way and causing him to disobey the will of his Lord? But, indeed, the “evil inclination” also does through this the will of its Lord.

It is as if a king had an only son whom he dearly loved, and just for that cause he warned him not to be enticed by bad women, saying that anyone defiled might not enter his palace. The son promised his father to do his will in love. Outside the palace, however, there lived a beautiful harlot. After a while the King thought: “I will see how far my son is devoted to me.” So he sent to the woman and commanded her, saying: “Entice my son, for I wish to test his obedience to my will.” So she used every trick in her book to lure him into her embraces. But the son, being good, obeyed the commandment of his father. He refused her allurements and thrust her from him. Then did the father rejoice exceedingly, and, bringing him in to the innermost chamber of the palace, bestowed upon him gifts from his best treasures, and showed him every honor. And who was the cause of all this joy? The harlot! Is she to be praised or blamed for it? To be praised, surely, on all accounts, for on the one hand she fulfilled the king’s command and carried out his plans for him, and on the other hand she caused the son to receive all the good gifts and deepened the king’s love to his son. [2]

The Zoharic passage illustrates a remarkable concept that exists in many of the primal religions of the world, the notion of the coincidentia oppositorum, also known as “the reunion of opposites.” As Eliade has already noted, the lost memory of this unitive existence with reality emanates from a part of humanity that yearns to overcome the duality and opposites we now experience in a post-Fallen world. He adds that “on the level of presystematic thought, the mystery of totality embodies man’s endeavor to reach a perspective in which the contraries are abolished, the Spirit of Evil reveals itself as a stimulant for the Good . . .” [3]

Sheneir Zalman of Liadi writes in his Tanya, “The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Blessed Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learns how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Blessed Holy One.[4]

Hassidic tradition looks at Satan as a force of good. Indeed, to some, Satan even provides lessons in piety. According to Hassidic tradition, Satan is never lazy in carrying out his responsibilities; the Satan is always out there testing our moral resolve — even when we are performing good deeds! Here is a Hassidic anecdote to illustrate:

Once Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev (18th century) was once asked to lead the congregation in prayer on Simchat Torah. As he ascended the pulpit, he stood in silence for a moment, and then he returned to his seat without reciting a word. His father-in-law wanted to know the reason for such a peculiar action. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev explained:

When I was ready to begin my prayers, I suddenly felt the Evil Impulse, the Satan, wished to recite them with me. Therefore I asked him: ‘Who are you to dare recite these important prayers before the whole congregation?” ‘And who are you?” was his reply. ‘I am a man learned in the Torah, I answered. So am I, and when you studied, I kept you company,’ answered Satan. But I am also a Hasid of the Mezeritzcher Maggid,’ I rejoined. ‘So am I; I kept you company then as well,’ he said. ‘Since this is so,’ I replied, ‘if you are both a ‘scholar’ and a ‘Hasid,’ go and say the prayers yourself.’ And I descended from the Bimah.”

Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed argued that Satan is only a metaphor for the evil inclination (yetzser hara) and is not a supernatural being. This has some basis in the Talmud (cf. BT Bava Batra 16a) but many of the Talmudic rabbis did regard Satan as a supernatural being who serves God by testing humanity’s moral character. If nothing else, the Satanic archetype is a grim reminder that we are not necessarily as righteous as we would like to imagine ourselves to be; beneath the exterior of our conscious minds is the awareness that we are indeed, petty little beings–hardly even worthy of a Creator’s attention. Satan, thus serves to purge us of our hubris and sense of accomplishment. The simple truth is, we have a long way yet to go in matters of spiritual growth and honesty.

======

Notes:

[1] Faust, Part 1‎ – page 42.

[2] Zohar 2:162b–163a (Soncino translation)

[3] Mircea Eliade, The Two and the One (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 123.

[4] Tanya, chapter 27; cf. Zohar 2:128.

As a verb, שָׂטַן (śāṭan), means to “be hostile,” or “accuse,” deriving from the root śṭn, whose basic meaning can be rendered “to be hostile to, oppose.” Generally, it implies someone who verbally accuses another. [1] Only in Job 1-2; Zechariah 3:2; and 1 Chronicles 21:1 the same term is translated as a proper name and designates the angel that acts as the  “Public Prosecutor.”  It is interesting to note that the passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1  is based upon the parallel story in 2 Samuel 24:1, but it is God who entices David to count his people and not Satan! The Satanic angel who serves as Public Prosecutor is not an apostate nor is it a fallen being, an idea that is nowhere suggested in the Hebrew Bible.

On the other hand, early Judaic writings in the apocryphal books of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls describes  Satan  as Beliyal (“the Baseless One”), i.e., the preeminent Adversary of God. [2] It is plain and clear that the apocryphal literature later influenced the early Christian Bible.  In John (16:1) for instance, Satan appears with a capital “S.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly accept and teach a doctrine of a personal Satan and called the Satanic agents “fallen angels” or “demons” (Mark 3:22).  Sometimes referred to as Lucifer, Christian legends teach that Satan vaingloriously sought to overturn the regime in heaven and waged war against God’s loyalists.

Defeated by the Archangel Michael, the angel who had ambition to be God was cast into his inferno, to brood in the darkness, “hatching vain empires.” Satan did not go unescorted, along with him went about a third of the heavenly host, a horde of fallen angels. According to Christian doctrine, angels were created separately and were given free will, just as humans were. Their fallenness had to do with a denial and distortion of angelic life just as human fallenness has to do with the denial and distortion of goodness and truth.

In contrast, Judaism teaches that only humanity was  endowed with freedom of choice. Angles are often described as omdim (beings who occupy a stationary position cf. Isaiah 6:2, Eze. 1:21-25, 10:3-6) while human beings are described as mehalchim (movers) for only human beings are capable of transcending their baser natures. Angels are sometimes compared to animals (cf. Eze.1:5) because the character of angels is instinctive much like an animals’ instinct. Angels cannot help but be what God intended for them to be.

For poets like John Milton, Satan was the archetypal antihero, the rebel waging  eternal guerrilla warfare against his Creator. He is best known for his statement, “ “To reign is worth  ambition though in hell: “Better to reign in hell than serve in heav’n” (Paradise Lost, Book 1:263).

=========

Notes:

[1] This is especially the case with respect to the Psalms, cf. Psa. 38:21; 71:13; 109:4, 20, 29.

[2] See Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumram — Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Fortress Press, N.Y., 1963, later reprinted by Crossroad in 1995).

It is interesting to contrast the word inspiration with the word “revelation,” which comes from the Latin revelation, signifying “to removing the veil.” The experience of revelation heightens our capacity to embrace life with greater self-awareness, passion, freedom and integration. Yet as Heschel notes in his writings, revelation is never merely a personal affair of a mystical kind; it aims to transform the societal world into an ethical domain where the rights of all are respected.

When defined from this perspective, revelation and inspiration are two sides of the same coin. In the classic biblical sense of the word, revelation opens our imagination to endless new possibilities of meaning. Indicative of this is the blessing we recite every day: “Blessed are You Adonoy, the Giver of the Torah.” Rabbinic wisdom conveys a timeless truth about revelation—Sinai wasn’t a onetime event; the spirit of Sinai continues to unfold newer meanings and insights that expands and transforms human consciousness even in our present era.

Inspiration has the power to produce a revelatory experience. To a listener, or to a reader of a sacred text, inspiration can bring about a profound life change that summons the person to a embrace a radical new understanding of the Self and God,  which affects the way s/he relates to the world. The Mishnah reflects such an understanding:

“Turn it over and over because everything is in it and reflect upon it and grow old and worn in it and do not leave it, for you have no better lot than that” (Avot 5:22). Barry Levy further points out that there are other variant readings that have a direct bearing on Ben Bag-bag’s statement:הפוך בה והפוך בה דכולה בה דכולך בה  (hafok bah we-happek bah de-kola bah wekolak bah), “ . . . because everything is in it, and all of you is in it . . .” This reading suggests, every personal life experience and situation finds expression in the words of Scripture. Yes, the Tanakh has the ability to awaken the psyche and transform the soul–provided one is spiritually awake and receptive.

Sometimes revelation in the Bible occurs in an altered state of consciousness such as in a dream or a visionary experience. Maimonides felt convinced that whenever an angel appears in the Bible, it is always in the context of a dream because the human senses cannot perceive angels. [2] In contrast, inspiration usually occurs while the individual is in a wakeful state of mind.

Although the concept of inspiration is nowhere specifically addressed in the Tanakh, it is obvious  that the prophets, mystics and pious folk of our faith were profoundly inspired by the Spirit of God that engulfed them.

=============

Notes:

[1] Guide to the Perplexed, 2:42.

[2] See also  Ramban’s commentary  on Gen 18: 1, where he disagrees with Maimonides on this matter.

=======================

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis. . . adroitly moderates a virtual conversation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between  biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.

Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

“A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the  insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”

Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought], The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ,

===========

I believe that all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. A study of the text and commentary of Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: The Timeless Theological Commentary will contribute greatly to an understanding of the rich and diverse fabric of biblical narrative and provide an appreciation for its creative application to the problems of the modern world . . . Birth and Rebirth through Genesis is a book for Jews and Christians.

Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith

===========

The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.

Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness.

===========

Rabbi Michael Samuel’s Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation frees the reader from the confines of the theological spin of particular interpretations . . . . this work is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.

Rabbi Dr Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

==========

While this is a book written by a rabbi well-versed in the rabbinic tradition, one cannot read more than a few pages to discover that his research, his interests, and his appreciation of critical thought span the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.

Allan C. Emery III, PhD, Senior Editor of Hendrickson Publishers.

Have you ever wondered about the beginning of Genesis in the context of the three thousand years of pondering prompted by these seminal three chapters? . . .  This magnificent interdisciplinary work will prompt, will compel, its reader to consider fundamental issues of the dynamic among text, self, and others within the context of cultures and time. . . . and deals superbly with  nothing less than everyone’s journey of “Birth and Rebirth.”

Paul Borgman, Author of Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard

The writers of the Psalms never hesitated utilizing human language whenever depicting the mystery and Presence of the Divine. Beneath the biblical psyche is a realization that the human drama means something to the Heart of the Divine—even despite humankind’s occasional rejection of Him. God is paradoxically bound up to human history—and even limits His freedom in how He interacts with it (cf. Gen. 6:6).

When the ancient psalmists gazed into the heavens, they did not behold an endless abyss of cosmic nothingness; rather, they beheld a God with whom they could audaciously and personally address as “You.” Unabashedly, the spiritual teachers of Judea used a host of personal pronouns and anthropomorphic metaphors to convey something profound about the mystery of God’s Presence and closeness to the world, without which God could not be known. Martin Buber notes that in addition, anthropomorphic language reflects a deeper significance than most of us realize:

Our need to preserve the concrete quality is evidenced in the encounter. . . .It is in the encounter itself that we are confronted with something compellingly anthropomorphic, something demanding reciprocity, a primary Thou. This is true of those moments of our daily life in which we become aware of the reality that is absolutely independent of us, whether it be as power or as glory, no less than of the hours of great revelation of which only a halting record has been handed down to us. [1]

This same idea runs like a current throughout the literature of the Psalms. In keeping with his ancestors’ religious experience, the psalmist never tires of exclaiming how the God Who creates the heavens and the earth, is still very much still accessible to the prayers of the most ordinary human being. Clearly, “God is close to all who call upon Him, all who call upon Him in truth.” Liberation theologian Leonardo Boff cuts through the chase and remarks, “The psalms reveal the consciousness of this divine proximity.” The visceral language of the Psalms accentuates this closeness, “Praise the LORD, my soul all my inmost being, and praise his holy name “(Psa. 103:1). From the innermost depths of our physical being, we  can encounter God’s Presence and Being.

God’s accessibility paradoxically defies the human effort or tendency to localize the Creator within a certain geographic zone. Although the Temple occupied a central place in the life of the ancient Israelites, the psalmist delights in knowing that God’s Presence is not at all limited to just the spatial confines of the Sanctuary. Young King Solomon understood the paradox of God’s Presence and exclaimed:

“Can it indeed be that God dwells among men on earth? If the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple which I have built! ^Look kindly on the prayer and petition of your servant, O LORD, my God, and listen to the cry of supplication which I, your servant, utter before you this day.

1 Kgs. 8:27-28

In prayer and in meditation, we focus on the God-space that exists within the depths of our being. After years of suffering, Job comes to the realization that,^” “And from my flesh I shall see God; my innermost being is consumed with longing” (Job 19:26). Job comes to see God as a more of a Personal Reality–Who is closer to his soul than he is to himself. God is there in every synchronicity we experience, in every human face we encounter.

Biblical faith had nothing to do with creeds, but it has everything to do with the power of deeds. How we behave says more about our deepest sentiments about God, ourselves, and the world around us. Every aspect of Creation has a relationship with God; every blade of grass sings it melody of prayer and thanksgiving to its Maker. By virtue of creating the natural order, God enters into a relationship with a being that is Other than Himself. Just as God creates the space for us, so too, we must create the space within our hearts for God to dwell within us.

One of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s most brilliant philosophical concepts is what he terms as the  Sprachspiel, better known  in English as the “language-game.” Linguistic expression is analogous to the rules of a game,Wittgenstein explains:

“Let us imagine a language. . . .The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones; there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words ‘block’, ‘pillar’, ‘slab’, ‘beam’. A calls them out; –B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. — Conceive of this as a complete primitive language.”[1]

For me, my favorite game is chess. If I point out to my opponent, “Please move your king, it is in check,” the word “king,” or “check” has a specific meaning and relevance to someone who already knows the game. Neither word would make any contextual sense to someone who is unfamiliar with the game’s rules. By the same token, a child will not understand what the word “kitty” means until he or she first experiences seeing or touching a cat. According to Wittgenstein,  One cannot define what a word is, but only how it functions.

Down the “Rabbi” Hole

Rabbinic language–both ancient and modern–also follows a similar kind of formula; how the rabbi interprets or defines a situation, creates a behavioral trajectory leading to certain results.

One of the most significant examples of how this process occurs is with the estranged wife who cannot remarry because her husband refuses to grant her a religious divorce. To say that a woman is an “agunah,” means she is in a social sense barred from resuming a normal life until her marital  status is resolved. From the 2nd century onward, the Sages went out of their way to liberate a “chained” woman like this through just about any kind of legal means possible. This has generally been the policy of most medieval rabbis up to the modern era.

In my early twenties, after receiving ordination at age 22, I decided I wanted to become a  rabbinic judge; one of the areas  I was thoroughly tested in was  Chapter 17 of Eben HaEzer that dealt with this topic. Many of the responsa on this topic read like an interesting mystery novel. A reader could not help but discover that the earlier generations of rabbis were problem solvers–not problem makers like we have today.

Since the death of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the Haredi community has become more radicalized because of their hatred and fear of  modernity in general and especially egalitarianism. The agunah’s plight is reminiscent of the famous conversation Alice has with the clever Cheshire Cat:

‘In that direction, the Cat said, waving its right paw around, ‘lives a Hatter: and in that direction’, waving the other paw, ‘lives a March Hare. Visit either you like “ they’re both mad.
`But I don’t want to go among mad people,’ Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: `we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.’
`How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
`You must be,’ said the Cat, `or you wouldn’t have come here.’

Like Alice, the agunah is stuck in an artificial constructed rabbinic reality where the rules of logic and ethics no longer make any coherent sense. This is especially the case in Israel where the Orthodox women in particular find themselves caught in a maze of rabbinic corruption and red tape. Once a woman enters the rabbit hole of the Haredi rabbinate (Sorry, I could not resist the pun!), she is faced with menacing threats from all sides.  Alice in Wonderland is an apt metaphor for the kind of disorientation the agunah experiences in her attempt to extricate herself from her ex-husband and especially the rabbis!

Statistical Sleight of Hand

If an estranged woman could “officially” be denied her status as an agunah, would that mean that the problem does not really exist? It sounds like the Cheshire Cat has been traveling to Me’ah She’arim lately. To the victim, it is like a world gone insane.

In one of Rivkah Lubitch’s newest columns on Ynet News, she discusses this kind of precise case. While examining the data that was recently published by the Rabbinic Court Administration, one would unmistakeably get the impression that in the year 2007, there were only 180 women classified as “agunot,” women who cannot remarry for the reasons mentioned above. However, this number does not jive with the figures produced by the Rabbinic Court Special Task Force, which lists the number as around 292 cases!

Like a good detective, Ms. Lubitch discovers that many cases involving the rabbinic courts involve divorce proceedings often have to begin from square one again since  a member (s) of the original court of rabbis who first heard a case, were subsequently replaced by rabbis who hadn’t heard the case–thus creating a bottleneck in the divorce proceedings. She explains how one case eventually got settled:

“From the court’s perspective: All’s well that ends well. In 2009 the rabbinic court detectives caught the husband, brought him to court, and he agreed to divorce. A success story, no? Not in my mind. A divorce given 10 years after the woman first filed for divorce, seven years after the parties signed a divorce agreement, and five years after written summaries were filed with the rabbinic court can not be considered a success. With all this, the court managed to make itself hated in the eyes of the woman, her children, and all her acquaintances. The court refused to take any action, showing no empathy for the pain of a woman who lived unhappily, miserably and possibly in sin. Moreover, I doubt if L was ever counted as an agunah in the ’scientific’ survey conducted in 2007. How could she counted? After all, in 2007, her case was closed!”[2]

Denial Is Not a River in Egypt

As I mentioned earlier, the rabbis are master contortionists, and their halachic edicts in Israel create a dangerous game that keeps the woman in a state of limbo until the rabbis decide to finally take the measures to effectively end the divorce–but never without scarring the lives of the poor agunot. The Israeli Supreme Court needs to strip the Haredi rabbis of their power over all issues pertaining to personal status. The monopoly of Haredi power must be broken.  As bad as the recalcitrant husband happens to be, the rabbinic system is incomparably worst because it routinely marginalizes and humiliates its society’s female members in the name of Halacha. Is it any small wonder why the Haredi rabbis are so deeply despised in Israel?

These rabbis will someday have to face the Supreme Judge in the world of Truth–before Whom, there is no escape.

=========

Notes:

[1] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, c. 2.

[2] Rivkah Lubitch,The Jewish World, “Who’s counting agunot?” (3/16/2010) — http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3861525,00.html