In July of 1969, a team headed by of anthropologist Edmund Carpenter, went to study a primitive Stone Age tribe in a remote part of New Guinea off the Sepik River. These anthropologists were eager to study how the natives would react to the gadgetry of the Western world. Loaded with various paraphernalia from the West, e.g. mirrors, instant cameras, and video equipment, the native villagers were at first surprised, bewildered and fearful of the foreigners’ Western technology. Eventually, they became enamored by the culture of the West.

When Carpenter returned with his crew, three months later, they were shocked by what they had seen:  “At first I thought I had made a mistake and come to the wrong place. It had changed completely. Houses had been rebuilt in a new style. The men wore European clothes, carried themselves differently, acted differently. They had left a village after our visit and, for the first time, traveled outside the world they had previously know . . . . Suddenly the cohesive village had become a collection of separate, private individuals. Like the hero of Matthew Arnold’s poem, they wandered “between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born.”[1]

Carpenter discerned that everything the tribe had regarded as sacred became commercialized and de-scaralized. Modern society violated the world of an archaic civilization. Shocked by what his seemingly innocent experiment had caused, Carpenter and his crew realized they had inadvertently done was nothing less than cultural murder.

Psychologist Carl G. Jung observed that once a primitive tribe’s spiritual values are exposed to the impact of modern civilization, its people will lose the meaning of their lives; the social order disintegrates; the people themselves morally decay. In this condition, man is out of touch with himself, and can no longer make sense and meaning out of his life. To the person who experiences “loss of soul” society’s myths, rituals, symbols, images and traditions cease to have any relevance.

What does this mean in a practical sense?

Whenever “soul loss” occurs, the world of religious tradition no longer holds sway over the conscious psyche. Religious dogma and its symbols become diminished, along with the individual’s sensitivity for its cultural values. In effect, the individual has already assimilated to the dominant culture’s values. This is an important point for the Jewish community in particular because it really doesn’t matter whether one calls oneself “Conservative,” “Reform,” or even “Orthodox.”

Whenever a society or individual experiences soul loss, life seems to have no purpose or consequence. People lose not only their sense of past, but their sense of future as well. It is for this reason, Jung regarded the loss of soul is also one of the primary causes of the social discord and spiritual chaos of our times.

Antecedents of soul loss to a certain degree, could be seen when the Industrial Age began producing rippling changes throughout the world. Before that time, people everywhere from Europe to Africa, experienced the meaning of their lives in the context of the tribal and religious customs of the community. Whole tribes were completely displaced from their ancestral roots. The old standards were irrevocably changed and severely shaken by technology and the forces of capitalism. The power of money became the yardstick that measured the value and utility of the person. (Indeed, the same cultural phenomenon can be seen in today’s “outsourcing” of American jobs to third-world countries that can produce the same goods for a much cheaper cost to the manufacturer and the consumer, people in our own country suddenly feel completely displaced in many parts of our country where jobs are no longer existent.)

As families scattered to the cities looking for work, the bonds that had integrated families and communities started to disintegrate. The social order began to unravel. Without his faith, the individual was left unprotected. Isolated, and cut off from his spiritual roots, the modern technological man was left to fend for himself in his attempt to make life meaningful.

Modernity produced what sociologist Peter Berger describes as the “heretical imperative.” The English word heresy comes from the Greek verb hairein, which means “to choose.”[2] Values were no longer eternally given or defined by God — man became the creator and chooser of value, the pre-modern society was a world of religious certainty; deviation was the exception rather than the norm. By contrast, the modern situation is a world of religious uncertainty; the boundaries differentiating the religious world are hazily defined. Religious affirmation must be consciously affirmed rather than assumed. Once the choice for self-definition  was made, the pre-modern societies began to unravel and disperse. Modernity helped  shattered the historical consciousness of traditional religious societies.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, describes the modern age as “protean” named after Proteus, the Greek sea-god of many forms. He asserts that the protean age is one of great historical changes, and is characterized by great social upheavals that have dramatically impacted community and individual life alike. The social institutions that have traditionally anchored human lives have become ineffectual.The modern man/woman is a historically fragmented creature and has adopted change (proteanism) as a way of overcoming homelessness. 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

Available Now!

Well, the time has come for me to start promoting my new book: Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Part 1: Genesis 1-3.

You can purchase the book at a nice discount at Amazon.com

You can also get it at Barnes and Nobles. For me, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby–for we create from the depths of our own being and essence. Creativity offers a remarkable pathway to discovering how God speaks and inspires our soul.

**PURIM SPECIAL ** Buy it now, you can get it for $20.70 at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Rebirth-through-Genesis-Conversation/dp/1456301713/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323359269&sr=8-2

Reviews:

“. . . all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. . . .”—Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith“

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

“ 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

“ [Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation] 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.

“. . . span[s] 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.”
—Paul Borgman, author of David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story

“Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis . . . adroitly moderates a virtual conver-sation 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

Get your copy today!

What is piety? Orthodox folks of various persuasions tend to think of it in terms of “looking Frum,” and displaying “Holier-than-thou” kind of behavior. It’s a lot easier to be fussy about lettuce and bugs than it is to be truly reflective and introspective with one’s soul, isn’t it? Whenever people riot in the name of religion, I think we are witnessing atheistic behavior in its purest form, for God demands that we treat life with reverence and with respect. The failure to do so can only mean that one does not truly recognize the Image of God in others.

One of the great Italian mystics of the 18th century was Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzato, who is widely regarded as one of Judaism’s greatest moralists and mystics. In his famous moral tract, “Path of the Just,” Rabbi Moshe delineates the purpose of his book. The modern reader cannot help but notice the humility and purity of spirit this man exuded.

The writer says: I have written this work not to teach people what they do not know, but to remind them of what they already know and is very evident to them, for you will find in most of my words only things which most people know, and concerning which they entertain no doubts. However, to the extent that they are well known and their truths revealed to all, so is forgetfulness in relation to them extremely prevalent. It follows, then, that the benefit to be obtained from this work is not derived from a single reading; for it is possible that the reader will find that he has learned little after having read it that he did not know before. Its benefit is to be derived, rather, through review and persistent study, by which one is reminded of those things which, by nature, he is prone to forget and through which he is caused to take to heart the duty that he tends to overlook. A consideration of the general state of affairs will reveal that the majority of men of quick intelligence and keen mentality devote most of their thought and speculation to the subtleties of wisdom and the profundities of analysis, each according to the inclination of his intelligence and his natural bent.

There are some who expend a great deal of effort in studying the creation and nature. Others devote all of their thought to astronomy and mathematics, and others to the arts. By the same token there are those who go more deeply into sacred studies, into the study of the holy Torah, some occupying themselves with Halachic discussions, others with Midrash and others with legal decisions. There are few, however, who devote thought and study to perfection of Divine o love, fear, communion and all of the other aspects of saintliness. It iservice – ts not that they consider this knowledge unessential; if questioned each one will maintain that it is of paramount importance and that one who is not clearly versed in it cannot be deemed truly wise.

Their failure to devote more attention to it stems rather from its being so manifest and so obvious to them that they see no need for spending much time upon it. Consequently, this study and the reading of works of this kind have been left to those of a not too sensitive, almost dull intelligence. These you will see immersed in the study of saintliness, not stirring from it. It has reached the stage that when one sees another engaging in saintly conduct, he cannot help but suspect him of dull-wittedness. This state of affairs results in evil consequences both for those who possess wisdom and for those who do not, causing both classes to lack true saintliness, and rendering it extremely rare.

The wise lack it because of their limited consideration of it and the unwise because of their limited grasp. The result is that saintliness is construed by most to consist in the recitation of many Psalms, very long confessions, difficult fasts, and ablutions in ice and snow – all of which are incompatible with intellect and which reason refuses to accept.”

Postscript:

R. Moshe Hayim reminds us that personal piety should not be a pursuit limited to the “pious,” but every person needs to work on the improvement of one’s character and behavior. Unfortunately, many folks still think that saintliness is for the exceptional person. In Biblical Hebrew, the term צַדִּיק means more than “righteous,” it derives from the root word צֶדֶק “just,” or, “honest,” i.e., someone who acts with complete equity. The BDB Lexicon adds:

Continue Reading

Contrary to popular opinion, the prohibition against the pig as a food animal for Jews is probably rooted in religious prohibitions against animals sacred to other peoples. The modern fear of a trichinosis infection, a parasitic and often lethal disease transmitted to humans by consumption of insufficiently cooked pork, is valid but unlikely to be the original reason for regarding swine as ritually impure (Isa. 65:4; 66:3).

As we noted in another posting,  part of the misunderstanding lies in the translation of the Hebrew word “tame” which really means “impure,” but is translated as “unclean” which implies that hygiene is at the heart of the observance. This doesn’t mean that hygiene is not important, for if one observes the kosher laws, it will enhance personal hygiene  but this is a residual effect and not the primary motivation behind the kosher laws. In the medieval age during the height of the Black Plague, Jews were frequently attacked because their hygiene was superior,  for the Jews always washed their hands. On the other hand, the Hebrew word shketz (which is used to describe non-kosher fish) definitely has a pejorative connotation denoting filth or anything that is disgusting (cf. Nah. 3:6, Eze. 5:11).

Among the various reasons that have been given for these laws. The traditional and most obvious reason is the religious or spiritual, “You shall be men consecrated to me”  (Exod. 22:31). A holy people needs to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. The celebrated “Letter of Aristeas,” a Judaic philosophical work that was originally written in Greek (100 B.C.E.), contains some of the oldest explanations found anywhere regarding the dietary laws. In his letter, Aristeas taught that the purpose of the kosher laws served as a hedge differentiating the Jewish people from other nations. He also stated that these laws were given to the Jews to inculcate in them the spirit of justice, to awaken pious reflections, and, by their means, to help form the character of the individual. To prove his contention, he pointed to the fact that in kashrut, birds of prey are forbidden as food so the Jew might recall the first principle of social justice:  one must never prey on others. Continue Reading

Sometimes even the most obvious biblical passages can be perplexing. One interesting verse is a case in point:

“Therefore, do not say, ‘What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we do not then sow or reap our crop?’ I will bestow such blessings on you in the sixth year that there will then be crop enough for three years. When you sow in the eighth year, you will continue to eat from the old crop; and even into the ninth year, when the crop comes in, you will still have the old to eat from” (Lev. 25:20-22).

It is difficult to determine how seriously the ancient Jews observed the שמיטה‎  “Sabbatical Year” (literally “release”). The fact that people attempted to keep it at all, given the hard economic realities, is  remarkable.  The inhabitants of Jerusalem in the 5th cent. B.C.E. swore to let the ground remain fallow during the seventh year (Neh. 10:31). During the Maccabean revolution, the Syrian army led by general Lysias, took over the fortress of Beth-zur because food was in short supply during the sabbatical year when the attack was made. Its people “evacuated the city, because they had no provisions there to withstand a siege, since it was a sabbatical year for the land” (1 Maccabees 6:49, cf. vv. 53-54).

Josephus records that both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar remitted Israel’s taxes during the Sabbatical years.^[1] Tactius also attests to the Jewish observance of the Sabbatical year but attributed the custom to “indolence.”^[2]

Given the animosity between Judea and Rome, the Romans demanded that the Jewish remnant of Judea continue paying the crop tax. No exceptions were made whatsoever for the struggling Jewish population of the land.

In the aftermath of the failed Bar Kochba revolution, the rabbis modified the law regarding the Sabbatical year during the Roman period to allow for food to be grown in order so that the people should survive, and be able to pay its taxes to a hostile Roman government.

What makes this an intriguing passage is the fact that the Sabbatical year continued to be observed even in a post-exilic era and most Halachic authorities ruled that the Sabbatical year was still a rabbinic obligation.  The only reason the Sages exempted the farmers was because the imminent danger they faced should they have disobeyed. Other authorities insisted that it was biblically required, while others still maintained it was a nothing more than a pious custom.^[3] Continue Reading

The origin of idolatry is a fascinating study in and of itself. Maimonides traced the origin of idolatry to  the pre-Diluvial era of Enosh. Maimonides writes:

During the days of Enosh, humankind made a serious mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave foolish advise. Enosh himself was one of those who erred. Here is what developed: They said for as much that God created the stars and the celestial planets with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. Therefore, it is only fitting to praise and glorify them and to accord them with honor. The ancients perceived this to be the will of the Blessed Holy One, that they aggrandize  and give homage to those whom He magnified and honored. Just as a king desires to be honored by the servants  who stand before him. Indeed by doing so, they thought they were in fact honoring the King.  After considering this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars and offered sacrifices to them. The ancients would praise and glorify the heavenly hosts with words while prostrating themselves before them, because by doing so, they thought they would be fulfilling God’s will. This was the essence of idolatry, and the  justification given by  those who worshiped them.  Originally, the ancients did not say there is any other god except for this star. . . .[1]

Maimonides contends that  the ancients eventually forgot about the one true God. It was far easier for them to believe in what was visible rather someone or something that was invisible.  They assumed that all the celestial powers were vested in whatever representation they chose to worship.

Some theories dating back to the ancient Greeks proposed an equally intriguing theory about the origin of religion. The founder of atomism,  Democritus (ca. 460?-370? BCE), was among the first thinkers to suggest that the gods were nothing more than physical phenomena that appear to mankind, and only  “appeared” to speak. This belief arouse from early man’s terror of the solar eclipse, thunder, and so on.  The belief in these “deities” made it necessary for the ignorant, ethically stunted to refrain from wrongdoing only through the fear of punishment, and not because they regarded morality as essential for their happiness.

In some of Plato’s writings, the famed philosopher felt that the belief in gods were necessary, in order to curb human wickedness and corruption. The belief in gods presupposed there is an order to the universe, and if there were indeed no gods, then the order of the heavens must be an accident. [2]  Several other Greek and Roman thinkers saw a kinship between superstition and religion. In its earliest Latin literary usage by Plautus and Ennius, superstitio was already a negative term describing divination, magic, and “bad religion” in general. Cicero gives a concrete example, explaining that “those who spent whole days in prayer and offered sacrifices, that their children might outlive them, are called superstitious” [3].

For classical Roman observers like Seneca, Lucretius, and Cicero, and Livy superstition meant erroneous, false, or excessive religious behaviors stemming from ignorance of philosophical and scientific truths about the laws of nature.  Such ignorance was associated with the common people (vulgus) and with the countryside (pagus), so that superstitious behavior as practiced by simple old men and women.

In Cicero’s On Divination, the philosopher concludes that religion was useful because it helped to control human behavior and could be used as a tool for public policy; and in this context divination could be useful too (as when an unwise political decision was prevented by the announcement that the omens were unfavorable). To many of these thinkers, the ancients “invented” the belief in gods as “a noble lie,” a necessary crutch (or as an “illusion” as formulated by Freud) or simple and ignorant people to believe that these deities have the means for securing blessing and avoiding disaster. Continue Reading

I have often felt that misogyny has been one of the oldest sins since Adam and Eve.  The woman’s liberation movement has some remarkable antecedents in American history. It is remarkable how much the 20th century fight for gender rights have completely overturned thousands of years of  male hegemony.  It is no wonder why traditional religious societies across the globe fear it–change is necessary as it is inevitable.

Seducing By Scents

I came across an interesting article from House and Garden Magazine that illustrates just how much we have changed as a society over the last 300 years. It reads, “Legislation proposed in England in the 1700s: All women of whatever age, rank, profession, or degree, whether virgin, maid or widow, that shall impose upon, seduce and betray into matrimony any of His Majesty’s subjects, by scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high‑heeled shoes or bolstered hips shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and the like misdemeanors and that marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void.” —- Act of Parliament, 1670

Incidentally, one of our readers (see comments) points out that this story was originally a joke that appeared in the magazine. That is an interesting thought, but who really knows for sure?

The Humble Beginnings of Women’s Liberation

Now move the clock ahead about 100 years later . . . Abagail Adams penned one of the most famous letters of her era, demanding that the new Declaration of Independence respect the rights of its female citizens, which she unabashedly says:

“I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws, which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of the husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy, willingly give tip the harsh title of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend. Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?” [1]

—-Abigail (Smith) Adams (1744-1818), Letter to John Adams, [March 31, 1776]

John Adam’s Fear of “Petticoat Despotism”

Her husband John Adams replied:

I cannot but laugh…We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bands of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their masters. But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out. Depend on it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and in practice you know we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight. [2]

Back to the Future: The early 2oth Century  Debate Concerning Women’s Suffrage

It is remarkable that the world has changed so much over the last 250 years. Some of you might be surprised to know that back in the 1915 many Orthodox rabbis opposed the right for women to vote. Woman’s suffrage proved to be a very divisive issue among American Orthodox Jews. Some rabbis felt that a women’s place is in the home. The rabbis feared that society will become corrupt should women invade the institutions of political power.

Chief Sephardic Rabbi Ben Tzion Uziel pointed out that there was nothing in the Torah to forbid women voting.  However, other rabbis argued, it’s against tradition—a woman’s place is in her home. Let the men worry about the politics!

Rabbi Uziel replied that in the olden days, men used to live in tents, in the desert, should we all go back to living in the wilderness just like our ancestors did? Ah, but the rabbis replied. If we give women equal rights to vote, they will want more freedom tomorrow, and who knows where that will lead to?

And That was Only the Beginning . . .

In a way, those early 20^th century Orthodox rabbis were right.

An interesting debate has been developing in the Orthodox Jewish community. And that is the issue of Women’s “Prayer Groups.” Some have taken offense to women having “Minyanim” because only men can have Minyans.

Outraged by the growth of Ortho-feminism, a Queens-Long Island council of Modern Orthodox rabbis, the event symbolized a larger, possibly dangerous trend – the growing acceptance of women’s prayer groups.

Its action this month to ban groups such as the one in Hillcrest that hosted the bat mitzvah has shocked hundreds of observant women worldwide and a number of Orthodox leaders, elicited at least two letters urging reconsideration, and caused one leader of the rabbinical council to resign. Continue Reading

In the beginning of Exodus 30:12-13, God commands Moses not conduct a head count of the Israelites before they go into battle against future adversaries:

“When you take a census of the Israelites who are to be registered, each one, as he is enrolled, shall give the LORD a forfeit for his life, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered. Everyone who enters the registered group must pay a half-shekel, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. This payment of a half-shekel is a contribution to the LORD . . . ”

Interesting passage, isn’t it? Why not conduct an actual head count? The biblical writer may also  indirectly be alluding to a census that King David carried out toward the end of his reign, which produced disastrous consequences (2 Sam 24ff.).

The answer to this question has a lot to do with the ancient’s fascination with numbers and the process of counting. Here’s the background information: Numbers play a very important part in our everyday lives. Life constantly demands that we measure and count. Numbers have always played a role in all civilizations from mathematics to astrology. Numbers also play an important symbolic role in much of the Bible, e.g.,  one, two, three, four, five, seven, twelve, forty, fifty, seventy, hundred and thousand. This is not the place to examine the significance of each of these numbers, but they often have symbolic and rhetorical significance.

The famous anthropologist Sr. James Frazer notes that certain African tribes were afraid to count children for fear that the evil spirits might hear. They also believed that cattle should not be counted because it might impede the increase of the herd. [1]  In Denmark, there was a tradition not to count hatched chickens lest some be lost. In German cultures it is believed that the more you count your money, the more likely you will decrease it. [2] Continue Reading