Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

For Jewish Values Online

Question: My wife and I are thinking about how our children should dispose of our bodies once we have passed. Having no love for the traditional methods, we went in search of alternatives. We discovered a thing called a body farm. In this method the bodies are staked out (often) in the open on a protected plot of land so that they might be studied concerning natural decay, then the information gathered is used for forensic studies and training concerning murder investigations, and other such things. We like the idea of this for two reasons; first it helps to assist the living, and second it returns the bodies to the earth in the quickest way possible. We will not go any further in this plan without guidance. Can you help?

Answer: In all honesty, forensics is not my area of expertise. However, I am familiar with some other issues pertaining to the treatment of the corpse according to the Halacha. With that thought in mind, I will try to present a well-thought-out answer to your question.

There is an important aspect about the body farm concept that you may not properly understand. You wrote, “Secondly, it returns the bodies to the earth in the quickest way possible.” Actually, that is not really the case. The body is exhumed and sampled many times over a period of weeks and months. Your body will not remain undisturbed. If that is a concern to you, then you may wish to consider other alternatives.

• What does Jewish Law have to say about this process?

In Jewish law, it is traditional to compare one type of case study with possible antecedents that share similar properties.  Two other areas of Halachic inquiry immediately come to mind that could shed some light on this topic: autopsies and donating one’s body for science.

• Autopsies

Ordinarily autopsies are forbidden because they disfigure the body. In addition, any part of the body that is not properly buried after the organ has been removed is a violation of Jewish tradition.

However there are some important exceptions to this rule. Autopsies are not only permitted, but sometimes required—especially if it helps doctors and the police discover relevant information about the cause of death. With respect to a mysterious contagion, autopsies can help the physician determine the causes of a disease, so as to prevent the deaths of others. An autopsy is especially helpful in diagnosing a hereditary disease, which could save the lives of surviving kin as well as their children, by determining an appropriate medical intervention strategy for dealing with the disease. [1]

Are body farms in some ways analogous, in that both forensic discipline aims to ascertain certain information about the possible causes of death? On the surface, they do serve a common goal and purpose.

Body farms do not (as I understand) prevent the loss of human life. Nevertheless, they help assist in murder investigations. Forensic studies can sometimes prove the innocence of an accused murderer (much like DNA testing has proven the innocence of people accused of murder). On the basis of this comparison, the body farm is permitted—provided the body is eventually interned after the studies have been completed in a Jewish cemetery. This same principle applies no less to autopsies, which require that all the organs be properly buried with the body.

• Donating One’s Body to Science

Your original question may be parsed in a different way: Is donating one’s corpse to a body farm any worse than donating a body to a medical school, for the purposes of anatomical study? This issue has also been discussed in much of the relevant Halachic literature.

Donating one’s body to science for anatomical studies is permitted according to a number of  Halachic authorities. For example: The Chief Sephardic Ashkenazi Ben Tsion Uziel of Israel ruled one might make one’s body available to first-year medical students to study anatomy provided that (a) the body parts are subsequently buried according to Jewish law (b) and provided that one does not sell one’s body for money.[2]  However, among contemporary Halachic authorities, R. Ovadia Yosef ruled that, “He who donates his body to science, to have his organs dissected, even though his intention is to advance scientific research, he is committing a serious offense, and might be relinquishing the chance of resurrection of his soul and body. Therefore, we must not mourn his death.”  [3]

Although there is considerable debate within Jewish thought as to what exactly constitutes “resurrection,” (some Orthodox rabbis believe in a physical resurrection; others believe in a spiritual resurrection that occurs after death). Clearly R. Ovadia Yosef, like other rabbis before him, believes in physical resurrection. Of the two approaches, I personally follow the view of Rav Uziel, as well as Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog, who permits donating one’s body for the scientific study of anatomy.

The concern for human life is the basis for many cadaver donor transplants. The prohibition from deriving benefit from the dead does not apply to donating organs that can improve the quality of human life.[4]  A transplanted organ is considered to still be “alive” when it is functioning in a living person. By the same token, transplanting an organ is not considered to be a desecration of the dead. There is no greater mitzvah than bringing life to the living, whether it is the gift of an eye, skin, or other tissues that enhance the process of healing. In the final analysis, every organ—sooner or later—will be interned with the demise of the beneficiary. Consent from the living is, however, a requirement.[5]

As mentioned above, the body still needs to be properly interned after the examinations have been completed. By the same token, one is not allowed to sell one’s body to the medical college. From this perspective, the same principle ought to apply to the body-farm concept as well.

• Other Alternatives

Rabbinical decisions often consider contrarian perspectives. While this may seem rather confusing to someone who is unfamiliar with this type of reasoning process, it serves to give the individual ample space to make a personal decision. As a rabbi, it is my duty to present both sides of an argument. Ultimately, each person must decide for him/herself. Bearing this thought in mind, let us examine this issue from a different point of view.

Anatomists often debate this issue among themselves. One school of thought argues that dissection is necessary to learn medical gross anatomy, while the contrarian perspective argues that dissection is not necessary to learn medical gross anatomy. Within this next decade, the development of holographic technology may make the traditional use of the cadaver a thing of the past.

Due the availability of cadavers, time limitations of the classes, and economic factors, it is important to note that not all medical schools offer courses in dissection. Computer-assisted programs such as Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages are becoming increasingly more sophisticated, which offer an alternative to dissection.[6] With the explosion of medical technology and informational sciences that now exists, some medical schools superimpose  3D images of the human body upon the flesh of the student to demonstrate the relationship, size, and position of the various body parts. In addition, anatomy databases provide a much faster panoramic view and information about the human body than any cadaver can possibly provide. One can trace the images of a healthy person at age 20, and with the imaging software, one can literally follow the aging process from birth to death.

However, it is generally agreed that the CAL can never fully replace the intellectual, educational and emotional experience afforded to medical students by cadaver dissection provides.

In light of this, the forensic sciences also use the same kind of imaging software detailing how a body can decompose in a variety of different ways. The 3D imaging provides pictures of what a body might look like underwater, or if the body was burnt beyond recognition, diseased, and so on. Similar technological advances are also being used with animals, where vivisection is rapidly becoming passé.[7] Ergo, donating one’s body to science may not necessarily be a matter of pikuach nefesh (saving a life), as some scholars once thought–largely because of the new medical technology.

In light of the above, I would say that the CAL medical technology may already make the body farm concept unnecessary based upon the medical databases dealing with decomposition that are available on international databases. This knowledge may give you another reason to reconsider decision.

A Jewish cemetery provides an important place for your children and friends to come and visit you. The soil of the grave is considered sacred ground in nearly all civilizations around the world—and for good reason—it is a place where you can honor your loved ones; it is ultimately the place where others will someday hopefully honor and remember you. Some of the ancients believe that the greatest immortality one can receive is when others remember you for the person you were. Continue Reading

People often ask: Why do Jews not practice cremation? Why did the ancient Israelites not cremate the remains like other cultures in the ancient world?

Cremation is mentioned as one of four forms of capital punishment for a variety of religious and social offenses, e.g., Gen. 19:24; Lev. 20:14, 21:9; Num. 16:35; cf. Josh. 7:15, 25. There is an interesting passage in 2 Chronicles 16:13-14 that reads:

• Then in the forty-first year of his reign Asa died and rested with his fathers. They buried him in the tomb that he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier covered with spices and various blended perfumes, and they made a huge fire in his honor.

This passage does not refer to cremation, because cremation was reserved only for villainous people, but it was customary to make a large bonfire in honor of the ancient kings of Israel. There is no indication that corpses were cremated in ancient Israel, except in days long before the Israelites’ arrival to Canaan, or among groups of foreigners; the Israelites never practiced it. [1]

In the spirit of speculation, cremation might have been frowned upon because of its association with Molech-worship. The book of Deuteronomy refers to, “passing a son or a daughter pass through the fire” (Deut. 12:31). Scholars since the time of Abraham Geiger (1810–1874), argue that some ancient Israelites clans believed YHWH worship involved some form of human sacrifice (cf. Isa. 30:33).[2] The prophets condemned the practice (cf. Gen. 22:1–14; Exod. 13:2, 12–13, 15; Mic. 6:6–7) precisely because of the syncretism between paganism and the worship of YHWH.

Some theorists take a different position because the lack of archaeological evidence suggests that the Canaanites of Phoenicia did not practice human sacrifice.  It has been argued that the Deuteronomy passages represent a rhetorical polemic intended to “Canaanize” what was originally an Israelite practice of human sacrifice.

It is interesting to note that the Phoenicians introduced cremation to the ANE (Ancient Near East). The Israelites, much like the other indigenous peoples of the ANE, e.g., the Amorites, Egyptians, and Assyrians, buried their dead in caves, or in bench tombs. One might wonder whether the Canaanite practice of cremation gave rise to the biblical polemic that the Canaanites cremated their children as a funerary rite. In other words, the Canaanites cremated their children—but only after they were already dead!

One could reply, “Not necessarily!” As with any scholarly debate within the archaeological community, there are counter-arguments. For example, in the ancient Phoenician city of Carthage, thousands of urns have been found that bear witness to the ubiquity of child sacrifice. Cremated bones of young children ranging between 2 and 12 show how common this pagan rite once was. Other Phoenician sanctuaries or sacrificial precincts discovered on Sicily and Sardinia also bear witness to this practice.[3]

In any event, the practice probably horrified Israelites so intensely, they decided to not to have anything to do with even the appearance of this dreadful pagan custom. In his commentary to Jeremiah 7:31, Rashi describes what he believed the resembled the ancient Molech ritual. Although his perspective may be somewhat Midrashic in tone, he captures the essence of the ritual, “Tophet is Moloch, was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his outstretched hands were made red hot. The priests would place the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests loudly beat a drum, that his father might not hear his son’s cries, and so that  his heart might not be moved . . .” Incidentally, Rashi’s exposition comes indirectly from ancient Greek traditions.

In the Punic city of Carthage, a Phoenician colony, Cleitarchus, Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch all mention burning of children as an offering to Cronus or Saturn, known also as Ba‘al Hammon, the chief god of Carthage. However, a number of scholars think the Romans demonized the people of Carthrage, and exaggerated cruel and barbaric customs. Paul G. Mosca, for example, in his thesis described below, translates Cleitarchus’ paraphrase of a scholium to Plato’s Republic as:

• There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.

• Diodorus Siculus (20.14) wrote: “There was in their city a bronze image of Kronos extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.”[5]

* Back to the Present

The crematoria of the Nazis has left a similar feeling of disgust among most traditional Jews, and for this reason, cremation has still never found acceptance among Jews as a burial rite. In a sardonic sense, the Nazis were much like Molech worshipers of old in their contempt of human life–much like the Islamic suicide bombers epitomize the Molech archetype today.

To this day, most Orthodox rabbis refuse to bury the ashes of someone who opted for cremation; moreover, anyone who has his body cremated is not mourned for by the next of kin. According to The Compendium on Medical Ethics, summarizes the Jewish view of procedures after death:

• The inviolate right of a person to life, which differentiates mankind from all other animal species, extends an aura of holiness over the body even after the Divine soul leaves it. The body, like the soul, is the property of the One who created it. It is therefore not permitted to injure or mutilate the body except when overriding consideration for the preservation of life and health make such action necessary…. Reverent treatment of the body and speedy interment are biblically-ordained precepts. Cremation, freeze-storage of the body, and above-ground burial crypts, are all in violation of Jewish law and practice. The duty to bury in the ground applies to all parts of the body and is the obligation of the next of kin. Even where testamentary direction to be cremated has been given, Jewish law requires that it be ignored as an unwarranted desecration of the body.[4]

However, Chief Rabbi Marcus Nathan Adler of Britain, though opposed to cremation, permitted the ashes of a person who had been cremated to be interred in a Jewish cemetery in 1887. The decision was sustained by his successor, Herman Adler (1891), who quoted the authority of Rabbi Isaac Elhanan Spector. It was also the attitude of Chief Rabbi Zadoc Kahn of France. (EJ 2010 ed.). Conservative and Reform rabbis generally take a more lenient position on this issue.

* One Famous Cremation in the Bible

Yet, there is one well-known biblical exception to this rule–King Saul. After the citizens of Jabesh-gilead retrieved the bodies Saul and Jonathan, we read that “they cremated their remains” (1 Sam. 31:12). Why was it practiced with respect to Saul? Among the Aegean and Anatolians, cremations were used especially to honor fallen warriors and royalty ( reminiscent of Mel Gibson’s film, Braveheart). It seems that the townsfolk wanted to show respect to the first king in a comparable like manner. It is also possible the townspeople feared that the more powerful Philistine townspeople would return and look to further inflict further desecration.

Some scholars think that the burning of the bodies of Saul and his sons by the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam. 31:12-13) may have been to prevent further desecration by the Philistines. On the other hand, this practice occurred when the bodies were in a mutilated state.

It is interesting to note that in Israel and Judah, it was the custom to light a large bonfire as a tribute to a dead king (cf. 2 Chron. 16:14; 21:19). This fire does not refer to cremation because Israel and Judah buried dead bodies rather than cremating them. Talmudic tradition says that the kings of Israel used to have their bed and other personal items burnt together with them (BT Avodah Zara 11a).

* Comparative Religious Perspectives

When one examines the Judaic view of cremation, it is interesting to contrast it with other perspectives, particularly with the Hindu tradition, which takes an altogether different approach to cremation.

For example, in ancient India, Hindu and Buddhist faiths thought that cremation provided the transition to immortality. The earthly fire symbolizes the celestial fire, which purges the earthly shell of the body, releasing the soul to achieve an immortal existence, conferring upon it a celestial identity. The sacred fire sublimates and extracts the soul, leaving it as a distilled spiritual essence, ready for the next incarnation into this world at some future time.

However, in Hindu and Buddhist cultures, ascetics and quite often—widows—will subject their bodies to the fire to achieve a higher incarnation in the next life time. Muslim suicide bombers likewise regard their deaths as a symbolic sacrifice to Allah, who will in turn grant them seventy virgins in Paradise.

On account of Judaism’s belief in the inherent sanctity of life, our ancestors rejected cremation as a Judaic form of mourning. Into your hands I entrust my spirit; you will redeem me, LORD,  faithful God” (Psa. 31:6).

While rabbis across the world may wonder, “Who Is a Jew?”—on this night of Halloween, I am going to pose the question: “Who Is a Zombie?” Are zombies “human,” or are they something “Other” than human? The question has profound implications not just in the sphere of science-fiction, philosophy, religion—but also in the area of medical ethics.

The 17^th century philosopher Rene Descartes viewed animals as machine-like creatures, bereft of a soul. Every aspect of the animal could be explained in terms of its physical “mechanical” movements. Descartes even entertained the idea of a mechanical person what we could call today, a robotic being. How would one differentiate such a creature from the “real deal”? For one thing, the machine would never be able to spontaneously formulate sentences; its non-verbal behavior would also be limited. (Bear in mind that the rabbis arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the artificial being known as the “golem,” for it too was incapable of human speech.)

“So what is it that defines our humanity?” asks Descartes—it is the presence of the immaterial mind, the soul, which interacts between the brain and the other organs of the body.

But this raises an important question regarding the nature of “personhood,” (to use the more modern terminology). At what point does a human being, cease being “human”? If we apply Cartesian philosophy to our question, it might very well be when our brain ceases to function adequately.

Could this apply to zombies as well? (Not that they care very much about our deep philosophical deliberations!)

Of course this begs the question: Do zombies really exist? Or, are they merely mythical creatures created out from Hollywood?

In general, many mythic stories of primitive peoples have some sort of basis in fact. This principle would apply to zombies as well.

Ever since I watched that great movie, “The Serpent and the Rainbow,” I have been fascinated with this question. Harvard botanist, E. Wade Davis and Dr. Lamarque Douyon, Canadian-trained head of the Psychiatric Center in Port-au-Prince, have been trying to establish the basis for zombies, and according to them—they do exist![2] By the way, the book is much better than the film!

Haiti is a remarkable country; much of the contemporary folklore concerning zombies originates in Haiti—but there are legends about zombies that really go back to ancient history. Davis narrates the following story:

On a brilliant day in the spring of 1980, a stranger arrived at L’Estère marketplace in Haiti’s fertile Artibonite Valley. The man’s gait was heavy, his eyes vacant. The peasants watched fearfully as he approached a local woman named Angelina Narcisse. She listened as he introduced himself, then screamed in horror—and recognition. The man had given the boyhood nickname of her deceased brother Clairvius Narcisse, a name that was known only to family members and had not been used since his funeral in 1962. This incident was witnessed by more than 200 people!!

Well, it looks like the zombie can speak—and respond to human questions!!

You might wonder, “What could possibly turn a person into a zombie?” I have other questions as well, like—where did this man eat for the past 18 years, McDonald’s take out?

Well, in both the movie and in real life, there is a coma-inducing toxin that comes from the voodoo priest (known as “bocors”), which slows the human metabolism. The sources for this toxin “textrodotoxin,” come from: New World Toad (Bufo marinus), and the Japanese “Puffer Fish,” which is considered to be a delicacy in Japan—after the toxin has been removed.  The chemicals of  these ingredients can affect both the heart and the nervous system. In Japan, thousands of miles from Haiti, those people who have accidentally consumed the puffer fish toxin behave—well, a lot like zombies—Japanese zombies, I might add.

Godzilla, move over!!

Experiments on rats have proven that the drug can induce a trancelike state as well. So, what does this all mean?

For one thing, zombies do not have an appetite for eating human brains. But there is some scientific evidence that certain drugs can induce the famous zombie-like state. So, would a person be guilty if he killed a zombie, according to Jewish law? Based upon the evidence these two scientists have shown, a “zombie” still remains within the category of a human being.

BEYOND THE QUESTION ABOUT ZOMBIES . . .

However, there is one lingering question regarding the nature of a “person” that is still a difficult to ascertain. Would a person  still  be considered “human,” even if s/he is in a chronic vegetative state? The case of Terry Schiavo is an excellent example of someone whom the State declared as “clinically dead,” while the family who loved her claimed that she was still “alive,” and even allegedly, “responsive.”

About six months after her life-support was turned off, and while she was also starved by order of the court, Discover Magazine produced a  fascinating article that made special mention about people like Terry Schiavo, who suffer from the chronic vegetative condition.

Here is one part of the Discover Magazine article that I thought was especially interesting.

• In the 1970s, when intensive care dramatically improved the survival of brain-injured patients, doctors found that if the body can be kept alive, the brain usually shakes off a coma—a totally unresponsive, eyes-closed state—within two to four weeks. At that point some people simply wake up, although they may be delirious and impaired. Others graduate to an in-between zone that New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center neurologist Fred Plum labeled the “persistent vegetative state” in 1972. At the time, among these patients, it seemed as if only “vegetative” brain functions like breathing, waking, and blinking were working. The higher functions commonly associated with consciousness seemed to be lost.

• The first vegetative patient Schiff saw, the victim of a stroke, had no sign of consciousness. But when he ran into her three years later at a rehab center, he was shocked to find her awake and capable of talking to him.

• The patients, doctors found, usually had widespread brain damage, but two injured areas were especially noteworthy: the thin outer rind, called the cortex, and the thalamus, a pair of walnut-size lumps in the brain’s central core, along with the neural fibers that connect these regions. The two areas are normally in constant cross talk, filtering and analyzing sensory data and making continual adjustments to attention and alertness. Lacking this chatter, someone in a vegetative state seems to be awake but not aware. They might moan and shift around, but they do not look toward a loud hand clap or pull away from a pinch. Given a feeding tube and basic medical care, someone might stay in this condition from days to decades, potentially until death. [3]

Well, as science progresses, it is only a matter of time before it can finally resolve this ethical question regarding the chronic vegetative state that we have heard so much about. Questions regarding the quality of life–even if such person should be revived from the chronic vegetative state–needs to be ethically weighed and considered by the family.  If the patient has no quality of life, it is possible that reviving such a person may only cause indefinite suffering. Would this be something desirable? There is a season for everything under the heavens . . . sometimes we need to let go of the people we love. The dignity of the patient is something we must also take into consideration.

Obviously, the border separating consciousness from death are questions worthy of a Solomon to answer. In one of the symposiums I organized and participated in, I argued that ultimately—we may know a lot about the human body, but we still know very little about the nature of consciousness–where it begins and where it truly ends. Continue Reading

As someone who is proud to be an Independent, I must say that the freedom of being an Independent affords me the ability to be critical of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. While I have been critical of the Democratic Middle East policies, which I believe are incredibly myopic, today I will take aim at the Republican Party.

This past week, the Republicans voted to defund Planned Parenthood—an organization that has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any other organization in the country—is a move that will only cause more problems.

Who are the victims?

As usual, it is women–and poor women at that.

Parental notification laws are fine and good when there is a healthy relationship between girls and their parents. However, if the parent and child relationship is dysfunctional, e.g., the parent of a teenager may throw the child out of the house, because the child did not meet the parent’s moral standards. Or, a pregnancy may have occurred from within the home (often from incest)—confidentiality is very important in such cases.  Terminating an unwanted pregnancy under such circumstances could be the most responsible thing a young woman can do given these circumstances. Ultimately, this is a privacy issue and the Republican leaders of Congress would be wise to keep their political noses out of decisions that impact a young woman’s life.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) recently introduced an amendment to eliminate to all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that the Hyde Amendment barred the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions has been in effect since 1976. As it stands, defunding the program will affect cancer screenings, birth control, Pap smears, counseling, STD treatments—are vital services that impact the lives of the poor and middle class.

This should not be viewed as a partisan issue; defunding Planned Parenthood is a very bad idea that will only cause more heartache—not to mention—a greater burden on our already struggling hospital system, which will inevitably have to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, we will all pay for the mushrooming medical costs with higher premiums.

Yes, as Benjamin Franklin correctly observed, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” While the advocates for defunding Planned Parenthood claim they are concerned with cutting our national and state debt, the tonality of the conservative politicians I have listened to on the news are clearly concerned with preventing abortions any way they can–regardless of the many non-abortion services Planned Parenthood provides.

Men since the beginning of historical and mythical memory (as seen in Genesis 3) have been blaming women for the problems of the world. Sexism is arguably the Original Sin of Western civilization, and the modern permutations continue to haunt our country even today. Jewish tradition wisely teaches that women are not obligated to become pregnant since pregnancy poses many health risks that men do not have to face–but women do.  In addition, there are other important ethical concerns such as not placing a “stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14). Young women who are forced because of economic reasons, will find that their lives could be dramatically effected if they are forced to bear unwanted children. Preventing pregnancy in the first place–without having to resort to abortions–via providing birth control is sensible and wise.

Many years ago, I recall when there was a debate in San Francisco about providing needles and syringes to drug users. Cities that have aggressively provided its drug users with these instruments have helped stop the spread of HIV and AIDS related infections. As of 2010, about one-fifth of the more than 36,000 AIDS cases in New York have involved intravenous drugs. An accurate estimate is probably double that, since many addicts’ deaths from tuberculosis, pneumonia and other illnesses are now being recognized as AIDS-related.

Many lives have been saved despite the fact that the city enabled some very bad behavior. Yet, when considering the greater social problems posed by a society that ignores how this disease is spread, distributing needles works.

Providing young women with the means to prevent getting pregnant is analogous in some ways to the example mentioned above because young people since the time of the sexual revolution–if not earlier–are going to continue exploring their sexuality whether parents or clergy approve or not. Teaching them how to take responsibility benefits all of society, and it could prevent much greater problems down the road.

Continue Reading

Two Legendary Antecedents

Solomon’s wisdom is well-known. In 1 Kings 3:16-28, two new mothers approach Solomon, bringing with them one dead baby, and one live one. Each mother presents the same story and accusation: She and the other woman live together and have both recently given birth to two baby boys. One night, soon after the birth of their respective infants, the other woman woke to find that she had smothered her own baby in her sleep. In anguish and jealousy, she took her dead son and exchanged it with the other mother’s child. The following morning, the woman discovered the dead baby, and soon realized that it was not her own son, but was the other woman’s instead.

After some deliberation, King Solomon calls for a sword to be brought before him. He declares that there is only one fair solution: the live son must be split in two, each woman receiving half of the child. Upon hearing this terrible verdict, the boy’s true mother cries out, “Please, My Lord, give her the live child—do not kill him!” However, the envious mother exclaims, “It shall be neither mine nor yours—divide it!” The identity of the real mother was obvious. Solomon instantly gives the live baby to the real mother, realizing that the true mother’s instincts were to protect her child, while the liar revealed that she did not truly love the child.[1]

Early rabbinic folklore records that  once there was a two-headed man lived in the time of King Solomon who fathered six normal children. He sired a seventh child who had two heads just like himself. After the father died, the son with two heads came before King Solomon demanding a double share of the inheritance. King Solomon covered one head and poured hot water on the other. and both mouths cried out: “We are dying, we are dying! We are but one, not two.” Solomon decided that the double-headed son was after all only a single being. From this experience, King Solomon proved that two heads are not necessarily better than one with respect to receiving a double inheritance! [2] Continue Reading

Childhood Memories

As a child, I used to love reading the golem stories attributed to Rabbi Judah Lowe, a.k.a., the famous “Maharal of Prague” (1525-1609).  Since my father came from Czechoslovakia, I grew up hearing many family tales about the golem. These stories were especially delightful since my father was a naturally talented storyteller.  The golem was something like a medieval super-hero who protected the Jewish community from pogroms in its time.  It is interesting to note, that despite the numerous tracts Maharal wrote on various philosophical, talmudic, and mystical themes, never once does he ever refer to the golem that is associated with his name.

What is a Golem?

The term gōlem is a “shapeless mass” (Ps. 139:16), but according to Jewish folklore, a golem is a creature that is made from clay, and is animated by magical and mystical means. One of the more apocryphal stories of the Talmud relates how a 4th century scholar named Rava, magically created a man through the Sefer Yetzirah and sent him to Rabbi Zera. The latter tried speaking to him, but the poor golem could not speak. When there was no response, he declared: ‘You must be a  product of our colleague. Return to your dust!’ and so he died (BT Sanhedrin 65b).

Ironically, it is with no precedent in the Bible, except for the creation of Adam–except, now, it is man who is attempting to act as a mini-creator. How could such hubris not fail?

Indeed, in nearly all the golem legends, it appears that anytime mortals attempt to create human life, it is an activity that is fraught with danger. It seems that our ancestors felt suspicious about the full extent of man’s creative powers. In many of the stories, the golem goes out of control, destroying everything in sight.

Adaptations of the Golem in Western Literature and Cinema

The Frankenstein story is a European re-adaptation of the golem legends. In J. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, Hobbit Gollum devolves into a treacherous shape-shifter under the malign influence of the Ring, it seems obvious that the author had these legends in mind.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the character Data personifies  the golem legend. When attempting to integrate the emotional chip, he becomes capable of erratic behavior–even violence. Countless sci-fi films have developed this theme in numerous tales about humanoid-like robots turning against their masters, i.e., like the Terminator series. Even the X-Files had an interesting episode of a betrothed woman who turns her murdered husband into a golem, in order to avenge his death.

According to some medieval tales, the golem is indestructible; if the golem had been created by writing the Hebrew word “אמת” (emet; “truth”) on its forehead, it could be destroyed by erasing the first letter to produce the word “מת” (met; “dead”). If one had created a golem by placing the name of God in its mouth, all that was needed was to remove the parchment. Continue Reading