Haredim and archaeologists in the Holy Land have never been especially fond of each other. Traditionally, they are a little bit like meat and milk. By themselves, each is fine. However, when they get together, they create a combustive chemistry. Whenever an archeological excavation takes place, they chime in unison:

• May God erase their names . . .The heads of the Antiquities Authority and the chief archaeologists are sub-human, may their hands be cut off, for committing this terrible crime. In broad daylight they remove graves, disturbing the eternal rest of the dead and remove the bones of our ancestors from their graves…They are responsible for desecrating the graves of our forefathers throughout the Holy Land. Please call them and disturb them, at all hours of the day.”

Yes, the Haredi rhetoric has been intensely vitriolic at times. Therefore, when the head of the Karlin-Stolin Hassidic dynasty went on a museum tour of the Israel Museum, shock-waves were felt all over Israel.

The Karlin-Stolin Rebbe, Rabbi Baruch Shochat, made history that day. He is the first ultra-Orthodox leader to visit the Israel Museum.

Most Hassidic rebbes are not known for their love of art and culture, but Rabbi Shochat is a patron of the arts. In fact, he even encourages his followers to take an interest in the arts–-and especially archaeology. The tour-guide made it a point to show him the Shrine of the Book, where the famous Dead Sea Scrolls are kept along with other significant archaeological findings.

Some Haredi leaders are finally starting to show some interest in a field of study, which for many decades had been off-limits.

Several months ago, the First Haredi conference on “Torah archaeology” held in Jerusalem on September 9th, 2o11 and the event drew a packed audience. The sponsors of the event wanted to demonstrate how archaeology can provide answers to longstanding rabbinical debates that have never been resolved for hundreds of years.

Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutsch runs a museum that displays artifacts dating back to the time of the Mishnah. Among the items he had recently obtained, was a scale. He poses a question, “How much did the litra (a Talmudic measure) actually weigh? The answer: 354 grams—just as Rashi claimed, but contrary to Maimonides!” That figure comes to about 12.5 ounces.

Metrology has never been my field of expertise, so I decided to check out Rabbi Deutch’s claim that the litra weighed only 354 grams. Actually, there is some debate as how much a litra weighs. Some archaeologists think it weighed 340 grams—contrary to Rashi’s opinion. This figure is based on Josephus’ calculation. [1] Other scholars contend that the Greek λίτρα (lítra) represents both a unit of weight and a unit of capacity equivalent to about 0.5, which correspond to 11.5 oz. or 326 or 327.45 grams (cf. John 12:3).

R. Isadore Epstein, who writes in his notes to the Soncino Talmud that the litra is identical with the Roman libra, which weighed one pound.[2] Steinzaltz in his notes to the Talmud writes that the litra weighed 327 grams. The Artscroll commentary abstains from providing any information; it says a litra is “a measure” and adds no further comment. Upon further research I found that the Alexandrian litra weighed about 363.83g, which actually exceeds Rashi’s figure![3]

This is the main problem of the Haredi attitude regarding archaeological research. All the speakers at this event agree “using ancient artifacts to shed light on religious texts – as long as they don’t undermine the traditional reading of the texts, of course.” Such a reaction only begs the real issue: What if archaeology contradicts the Talmud? What then? Judging by the archeological evidence, Rashi’s position is still questionable. Does this mean Rashi is not infallible?

No, dear reader, no rabbi is infallible–not even Rashi or Maimonides.

It is wonderful to see a change in attitude taking place among certain Haredi groups. When I look back, I think about a famous Hassidic rabbi who refused to accept archeological evidence in solving a classical halachic dispute. Once someone asked the Lubavitcher Rebbe about the shape of the menorah, which existed in the Temple. The man thought that based upon the ancient pictures of the menorah seen in Israel–the menorah should be depicted as U-shaped. “Not so, not so,” insisted the Rebbe. To the surprise of everyone in the room, the Rebbe dismissed the archaeological sources that indicated the menorah was round. Instead, he followed Maimonides’ view who taught the menorah was angular in shape.

Even if Maimonides personally subscribed to such a peculiar view of the menorah, there is no archeological support from the last 2300 years that would even indicate that the Temple menorah ever had a V-shaped geometrical design. All the numerous artifacts unearthed from the time of the Maccabees (e.g., gravestones, coins, amulets etc.) suggests that the branches were U-shaped rather than V-shaped. In one recent archaeological discovery, an ancient synagogue dating back to the Second Temple (50-100 B.C.E.), the walls of the synagogue show  pictures of a seven-branched menorah.

Incidentally, the famous Arch of Titus portrays the menorah as being U-shaped.

Some people do not wish to be confused with the facts. But again, Rabbi Schnersohn was the only rabbinic authority of the modern era who believed that the sun still revolves around the earth—contra Copernicus![4] Rabbi Schnersohn is hardly alone on the matter of science vs. the wisdom of the Torah  Sages. There are still many Haredi rabbis who reject Darwin’s theory of evolution. By the same token, many of these Haredi and Hassidic rabbis believe God actually created the world in six literal days, despite the physical evidence that refutes this antiquated notion.

One of the recent event’s main sponsors, Rabbi Eliahu Soloveitchik, offered some positive words strongly suggest that the Haredi community is gradually moving toward a new orientation regarding the use of science and archaeology in the study of Judaism. When asked what he and his colleagues would do with findings that appear to contradict the Torah, R. Soloveitchik said, “If there are findings that contradict my fundamental beliefs, we’ll let the experts resolve it. The message is that we aren’t afraid of science and can digest it.” R. Soloveitchik is also the founder of Matmonei Eretz, an organization that promotes Haredi study of archaeology and history.

Rabbi Soloveitchik’s approach is commendable. We can only hope that more Haredi Jews and their rabbis will learn to see science and archaeology as an ally instead of a foe.

——-

Notes:

[1] Josephus (Ant 3.6.7 §144 on Exod 25:39) translates Heb kkr as “100 minas” and adds “kinchares is the Hebrew word that means talanton in Greek,” where he is probably thinking about the Roman centarius of 100 “pounds,” but elsewhere (Ant 14.7.1 §106) he relates that Crassus took a bar of gold “of three hundred minas,” noting that “our mina is two and a half litrai.” This litra, usually interpreted as a Roman pound, is probably the “mina” of 100 denarii (≈ 340 g), and 125 such “minas” would be the mass of a Tyrian talent (≈ 42.5 kg), suggesting that the Tyrian talent may have been divided in Josephus’ time into 50 “minas” (340 g × 2.5 × 50 = 42.5 kg). Thus, the “shekel” of NT times probably refers to the Tyrian tetradrachma (so Ben-David 1966). This seems to be based on a “mina” of 100 denarii (100 × 3.4 g), corresponding to the Roman pound plus 4 denarii, divided into 24 parts, yielding a “shekel” of ca. 14.1666 g and a 3,000-shekel talent of ca. 42.5 kg. Thus, Josephus was probably speaking only in approximate terms in identifying the “shekel” with 4 drachmai-denarii (Ant 3.8.2 §195, 18.9.1 §312, JW 7.6.6 §218; likewise Matt 17:24). Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 6, (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 907.

[2] BT Nedarim 57b.

[3] Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, Volume 12 p. 190. Others think it ranged from 322.3 g,-323g.

[4] R. Menachem Mendel Schnersohn, advocated just such a position. Here is an extraordinary letter the Rebbe wrote (September 16, 1968):

• I am in receipt of your letter of September 10th, in which you touch upon the question of whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, in view of the fact that you heard from a college student that the truth is that the earth revolves around the sun. It greatly surprises me that, according to your letter, the student declared that science has resolved that the earth revolves around the sun. The surprising thing is that a person making such a declaration would be about one half century behind the times insofar as the position of modern science is concerned. This belief is completely refuted by the theory of Relativity, which has been accepted by all scientists as the basis for all the branches of science. One of the basic elements of this theory is that when two bodies in space are in motion relative to one another (actually the theory was initiated on the basis of the movements of stars, planets, the earth, etc.), science declares with absolute certainty that from the scientific point of view both possibilities are equally valid, namely that the earth revolves around the sun, or the sun revolves around the earth. Herman Branover, Joseph Ginsburg, and Menachem Mendel Schnersohn (trans. Arnie Gotfryd) Mind over Matter: The Lubavitcher Rebbe on Science, Technology and Medicine (Jerusalem: Shamir 2003),

One might wonder: Why did the Israelites worship a Golden Calf? Why does the Torah forbid the making of graven images in the Ten Commandments? For one thing, our ancestors believed graven images of a person or a god gave them power over deities and mortals alike. It seems that the Torah wished to stress that God cannot be controlled–despite the human attempt to make God cater to one’s personal needs. No graven image can hope to contain, control, and manipulate God.

Many ancient peoples had a different perception of idols from what most of us imagine. Among the more sophisticated forms of polytheism, the image meant more than a simple representation – the idols housed the deities `life-force,’ and élan vital much like the body houses the soul. Among the ancient Egyptians, the sculptor would symbolically “animate” the image by breathing into the mouth of the vessel, thereby infusing it with the deity’s life force and being. Potters still carry out this ritual create a vessel by breathing into the vessel to animate it. In a mystical sense, the idol’s image magically participates in the divinity’s existence and reality.

In some Eastern religions, many regard the image as an embodiment of the deity.  In the Hindu tradition, there is ceremony called pratishta (a term used for dedicating an newly made idol for the deity it represents) where the maker or the owner of the idol consecrates the image by inviting the deity to take up residence in the image. This idol then serves the worshiper as a locus of the deity, the focal point of his or her devotion. For others, the embodiment lasts only for the duration of the ritual, while others regard the image as a focal points for meditation on the god’s personal traits. I suspect that the Golden Calf probably served much in the same capacity for our ancestors; they wanted a visible symbol that God was dwelling among them–and that they were not alone.

The deity’s image was treated as the god himself would be treated if he were actually there in person. The Egyptian and the Mesopotamian cultists  used to awaken their deities in the morning, open the mouth, eyes, and ears,  groom them by washing or ritually purifying them, and clothe them, provide meals  and furnish sleeping arrangements.  On happy occasions, the worshipers would parade around carrying the idols with cheer, who added a sacred presence to the festivities. In ancient Egypt, Sarna notes “the statues of the monarchs are elevated to the status of independent deities and the ultimate absurdity is reached when the king is depicted worshiping his own statue.”

Modern Forms of Idolatry

In an age such as ours, our idols tend to be much more subtle, e.g., the worship of the self, material success, pleasure, status, wealth, consumerism, and so on. To paraphrase Paul Tillich, we need to focus on what religion really means, otherwise we risk turning even the wellspring of faith into an idolatrous cult.

The image continues to shape and control our individual and group imagination. Images of success, e.g., the beautiful woman wearing high-heels next to a sports-car, suggest that you–the consumer–will find greater fulfillment and sexual happiness if you purchase “our product.” Consumerism has become a religion in and of itself.

We believe in a world where everything can be fixed and made right through human resourcefulness; every predicament or human anxiety can be solved—whether scientifically or politically. Bombarded by countless images through the media, we find ourselves dazzled by the bling-bling culture of success. We live in a society that presents the world as a sea of endless resources that are available to us, with no regard to our neighbor’s needs. However, consumerism alone cannot make us “happy,” nor can its images bring us peace of mind and fulfillment.

Parodied Religion is an Idol

In the culture of consumerism, we often unconsciously bring its values to the synagogue. We find ourselves affected by its seductive values.  In modern societies, we often view prayer as a means of manipulating God to do our bidding, rather than the other way around. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich dubbed this kind of attitude as, “God, the Cosmic Bellboy.” Oftentimes, even modern people resort to magical spells as a means of controlling the deity; this is one of the reasons why I personally remain critical of Kabbalists who resort to “white magic,” e.g., arcane and bizarre Kabbalistic mumbo-jumbo as a means of getting what they want from God.

It is embarrassing–even scandalous–that religious people tend to be among the most idolatrous and superstitious of societies across the continental divide.

Who would imagine that in the 21^st century, one can find advertisements for purchasing prayer notes, which are later placed in-between the stones of the Western Wall? Whatever happened to the old saying, “Dialing direct is always cheaper?”  Lubavitcher Hasidic Jews encourage people to send their prayer requests that are later read at the Rebbe’s tomb. A picture of the Rebbe is believed to save one from evil. The Kabbalah Center loves promoting the Kabbalistic Red strings, which purportedly will protect the wearer from the Evil Eye.  By the way, this product is available on Amazon.com. “Holy Rabbis” claiming mystical powers believe they can even exorcize evil spirits through Skype on the Internet. (See my other blog articles on this topic)

How does one make sense about this insanity? The ancients lived in what the astronomer Carl Sagan describes as a “demon-haunted world.” They still do. Maimonides experienced the same kind of behavior in his time as well.

Fortunately for us, God is not so easily duped.

Idolatrous Conceptions of God

Maimonides believed that distorted concepts of God could transform even a monotheistic God into a pagan idol. Francis Bacon wrote back in the 17th century, ” It were better to have no opinion of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy of him. For the one is unbelief, the other is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity.” Once again, I can imagine Maimonides nodding his head in perfect agreement.

How true.

Just look at the Muslim Jihadists who joyfully destroy themselves and their enemies in the Name of God–what can possibly be more idolatrous than that kind of wretched behavior? Who would imagine that we would see child-sacrifice reborn in the modern age? The Jewish community also has its own share of fanatics. Sometimes the worship of rabbinical authority can be equally dangerous. The Ultra-Orthodox (known as Haredim) cynical use of politics and theocratic religion can almost flatten and dispirit an entire nation’s belief in a moral and ethical God. Just because someone  “worships God,” doesn’t mean he worships an ethical God, Who demands that he too, behave ethically. Ethical monotheism is infinitely more important than radical monotheism, which often transforms good people into monsters waiting to do God’s violent bidding.

Yes, as Maimonides noted, the forms of idolatry can be subtle and dangerous. Like a biblical prophet, Carl Sagan warns us, “I worry that, especially as the millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.” Continue Reading

ts

Liam Neeson has always been one of my favorite actors in Hollywood. His films have often been stimulating, entertaining, and often contemplative. His latest film, “The Grey,” disturbs me for many reasons. It is surprising to see Hollywood produce a movie that portrays animals in their natural habitat as the villain.

“The Grey” is not the kind of film anyone who loves animals and nature would want to see. In an age where we are finally starting to understand the importance of stewardship, movies like “The Grey” are a retrogressive trend that threatens one of nature’s magnificent creatures.  One is reminded of some wonderful wisdom our Sages taught centuries ago,

• When the Holy Blessed One created the first man, He took him and led him round all the trees of the Garden of Eden, and said to him, “Look at my handiwork, see how beautiful and excellent they are! Everything I have created, I created for you!  Be careful that you don’t corrupt and destroy My world, for if you corrupt it there is no one to repair it after you.[1]

Imagine a world without the elephant or the rhino, [2] or the grey wolf . . .

Here is the main reason why “The Grey” is an irresponsible film. Given the ecological attitude that we have seen in numerous films coming from Hollywood, warning us about the dangers of global warming, and other sundry ecological hazards, it is shocking to see Hollywood produce a film depicting an endangered species such as the Grey Wolf as the enemy!

With this thought in mind, let us examine briefly summarize the film’s plot.   A group of men suddenly find themselves stranded in the Alaskan wilderness following a plane crash. Soon, as they attempt to find their way back to civilization, they run into a pack of wolves, which gleefully look upon the stranded group as their next happy meal.

Neeson plays a protagonist named John Ottway, whose occupation as a marksman and leadership skills makes him a formidable foe to the wolves.  Feeling depressed because of his estranged wife, Ottway feels as though he has lost his will to live; he contemplates suicide. Then suddenly, his plane goes down. He and six other men survive, but they are literally in the middle of nowhere. He assumes a leadership role and finds himself combating God, the elements, and a pack of hungry man-eating wolves.

One by one, each of the characters falls prey to a well-orchestrated wolverine assault. In one scene, one of the survivors named Diaz, captures and decapitates an attacking wolf. They eat the wolf’s carcass for dinner, and later throw the head of the wolf back at the wolf pack. Undeterred, the wolves continue picking each of the survivors until an angry Ottway confronts the alpha wolf with a knife in his hand, and broken beer bottles tied to his hand. In his final assault, the movie comes to an abrupt ending. The outcome remains a mystery. However, after the credits are shown, a short clip reveals a badly wounded alpha wolf, near death. Did Ottway survive? The movie leaves that question to the viewer’s imagination to answer.

Based on what I have read about the storyline behind the film, the actors did not actually eat wolf-meat during the filming, but ate lamb instead. However, the producer Joe Carnahan did purchase some wolf-meat, which he had the actors eat off the set so that they might really use the experience to help them play their roles more effectively.

How dangerous are the Grey Wolves? Consider this tidbit of wisdom. The Wolf Conservation Center states that you have a better chance of “being hit by lightning, dying of a bee sting or being killed in a vehicle collision with a deer” than being attacked by a wolf. So what do you do if you meet a hungry Grey Wolf? Look threatening and scary, throw a baseball or a rock at it—but don’t run because animals know when you are afraid. Actually, they are more afraid of you than you are of them.

As the trapper Carter Niemeyer noted, “They’re not exactly advocating for animal rights, but hunters are howling over The Grey’s bloodthirsty wolves, too.  “Wolves have never been aggressive toward me in the 25 years I’ve worked with them close up!” exclaims a retired professional trapper and author of The Wolfer. “From my experience, they’re curious, they’re cautious, they’re aloof, and they really don’t want anything to do with you.” Still, he doesn’t advise camping out in their den, let alone cooking up a wolf carcass and feasting on the meat on their turf, as Ottway and the rig workers do in one stomach-turning scene. [3]

It is a pity that the film’s appearance came at a time when the grey wolf had just been removed from the Endangered Species lists in several western states. Hunting wolves just became legal again, and it was the propagation of horror stories and myths (along with some tempting bounties) that caused the near eradication of the grey wolf in North America in the first place.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): wolves throughout the Lower 48 United States are listed as endangered except in Montana, Idaho and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah where they have been delisted through congressional action. Currently, the delisting of wolves in Wyoming has been approved in principle by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

January 9^th, 2009, on his first day in office, Obama put a freeze on a number of federal regulations adopted by the Bush administration in its final days, including the delisting of grey wolves under the Endangered Species Act. This gave the wolves a temporary reprieve, and gave animal advocates hope. Obama’s choice of legislation seems to stem more from his animus toward Bush, rather than for his concern for the Grey Wolf. Just weeks after giving hope to animal advocates, the Obama administration delisted wolves under the Endangered Species Act in the Northern Rockies. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, a hunter and rancher himself, permitted individual states to begin killing wolves in order to protect animal agribusiness interests.

People interested in defending and protecting the Grey Wolf in North America must let your Congressmen know that the wolves are an integral part of an ecosystem as a top tier predator. The Midrashic wisdom cited above ought to serve as a practical and grim reminder that other ways must be explored to protect natures’ beautiful creations.

Postscript:

The animal world has a remarkable array of characteristics and social habits that impressed human societies since the beginning of time. People have looked at the wolf with awe, wonder, fear and respect. Notwithstanding its reputation as a savage predator, the wolf’s parental instincts are exceptionally refined and well developed in the animal world.  As a dedicated parent, relatives of the wolf share in the caring of the young; they also help older and weaker members of its group.  Each member of the wolf-clan has a special place in terms of its social standing among the clan. The wolf’s survival skills have enabled the wolf to thrive in some of the most inhospitable places of the earth.  Wolves often demonstrate deep affection for their family and may even sacrifice themselves to protect the family unit. Ancient legend teaches how the infants Romulus and Remus, the mythic builders of Rome, were discovered by a she-wolf, who instead of killing them, protected them and fed them with her milk. As animals, wolves were sacred to the Roman worship of Mars. Apollo was said to appear from time to time in the form of a wolf.

Yet, despite the Western fear of wolves, native peoples of history often regarded the wolf as a protective spirit. Native American Indians venerated the wolf and prayed to the gods that the wolf’s hunting skills and courage would be instilled in their tribal warriors. Warriors often hoped that their tribe happened to be descendants of the wolf spirit.

The history  of civilization reveals how respected and beloved the wolf has been since the beginning of the human species. All dogs are descendants of the wolf. If you love your dog, do not disrespect your dog’s ancestors! Hollywood movie producers ought to be making films explaining why the preservation of the wolf is important for all of us who share the same planet together. There are plenty of villains to invent, but making the Grey Wolf into a villain should not be one of them.

Continue Reading

For Jewish Values Online:

Are Haredim changing the face of Traditional Judaism? Is the divide between the ultra-Orthodox and other denominations (Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) too great to promote a better understanding and respect between each other?

According to Jewish tradition, God’s Presence in the phenomenal world is calibrated to our actions. Indeed, actions speak louder than words, and are especially more effective than espousing the typical platitudes of faith that we are so bored hearing in the media, or for that matter—at the synagogue! With the holiday of Tisha B’Av, we read in the Talmud why God withdrew His Divine Presence from the world. The warning for future generations is all too clear: We must choose to manifest healthy images of God that bring healing to ourselves and our world.

History has shown us time and time again how God-images impact the way a religious culture treats its female members. Cultures ruled by a misogynistic conception of the Divine cannot help but treat its women in a barbarous manner. Indeed, a society that hates its women is incapable of loving anything else. Conversely, a religious culture that respects the maternal aspects of the Divine Feminine produces a community of believers where life becomes sacred and holy. The reverence for life—across the ideological spectrum—becomes the basis for all societal evolution and development. Contrary to the fundamentalist way of seeing the world, maleness is not the closest thing to godliness.

In Jewish tradition, the metaphor of this aspect of the Divine Feminine is better known as the שְׁכִינָה, (“Shekhinah), signifying, “that which dwells,” deriving from the verb [שָׁכֵן, shakhen], or [שָׁכַן, shakhan], “to dwell,” “reside” see Isaiah 60:2).

In this week’s parsha, the wording states   וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם   “They shall make a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell in their midst” (Exod. 25:8). The  verse brilliantly captures the subtle nuances that tend go get glossed over by most translations. The verse actually says, “They shall make a sanctuary for me, that  I shall dwell in them.” The more literal reading of the text  suggests that God dwells not outside the human heart, but within the human heart. This interpretation explains the idea of the “Divine Indwelling,” better known as the “Shekhinah.”

As I prepared the Torah reading today, I decided to spend a few minutes and take poetic license with the Midrash.  The thought occurred to me that I should write about a subject that is dear to my heart—romantic theology, also known as the “theology of love.” The topic today is:  the soulful wanderings of the Shekhinah.

The language you will read is shamelessly anthropomorphic–and from a Maimonidean perspective, what I am writing is probably quite offensive. However, I do believe this interpretive midrash captures the spirit of the text. If nothing else, it is an interesting deconstruction of midrashic thought.

Abraham Joshua Heschel often observed, “God is in search of man.” In other words, our own quest for love and intimacy comes to us quite naturally, for our beloved Creator also has a similar quest. Paradoxically, our love for the Divine gives something to our Maker something that S/he does not possess. In a mystical sense, we make God’s Presence whole in the world through our acts of love and compassion. I hope you enjoy the material as much as I did writing it.

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

I come to my garden, my sister, my bride;

I gather my myrrh with my spice,

I eat my honeycomb with my honey,

I drink my wine with my milk.

Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love.

Song of Songs 1:1

The Midrash views all of Song of Songs as an extended metaphor about God’s love for Israel. The word “my garden” has Edenic overtones and significance.

The term “gani” (“My garden,”) implies not just any “garden,” but specifically to “My garden,” i.e., the bridal chamber where a bride and groom consummate their love for one another. By saying “My bridal chamber,” the text mystically suggests a return to a time when God’s Being was originally present and revealed.

The Midrash teaches that  when Moses built the Tabernacle, the Shekhinah returned to co-inhabit the earth just as She did in the days of Eden before the primal couple’s great fall. In Eden, God could be seen “walking” alongside mortals (Gen 3:8). However, after  the primal couple sinned, the Shekhinah began retreating Her Presence from the earthly realm. Bereft of Her divine intimacy, Adam and his wife hid themselves because they felt alienated from the deepest dimension of their souls.  Adam’s spiritual stature underwent a radical reduction.

However, the Shekhinah’s mystical ascent was far from finished, for when Cain murdered his brother Abel, the Feminine Presence felt disgusted with human violence and retreated unto the second level of Heaven in a panic.

Alas, Her ascent away from the earth still continued for when Enosh forgot his Creator when he worshiped idols, so the Shekhinah retreated to the third level; after watching more of man’s inhumanity to man, a flood occurs, and the saddened Shekhinah retreats because She could not watch Her children perish. With the passage of time, the Shekhinah develops a revulsion for violence. Once again, human cruelty chased Her one more degree away from the earth.

After the Tower Builders announced their designs to conquer the heavens, the Shekhinah retreated yet another degree because she found human arrogance repugnant. The violence of the Sodomites upset Her even more, as she wanted nothing to do with men because of their barbarism and sadism. The Shekhinah’s withdrawal from the world reached Her zenith after the Egyptians mistreated their fellow earthly brothers and sisters, by enslaving the Israelites to a life of suffering and pain. She could not bear to watch. She wondered, “Could the rift with humanity get any worst than this?”

However, the Shekhinah could not remain in a permanent state of estrangement from humanity—despite its errant ways. Abraham was the first to recognize the Shekhinah’s Reality and he sought to make her more intimate with mortals once more. Isaac’s willingness to die for Her, as a show of his love and devotion, made the Shekhinah yearn yet more for intimacy with mortals.

Through his many struggles within himself, Jacob comes to discover the Shekhinah’s luminosity and beauty and finally understands the true meaning of blessing.  In an effort to purge himself from the violence that defiled his life after he and his brother Simeon massacred the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen. 34-31), Levi sought to renew his relationship with Her. The Shekhinah  pitied this pathetic excuse for a human being and granted him a peacefulness of mind. She was determined to make Levi’s descendants do penance for their forefather’s crimes against humanity  by making them serve as priests to their Maker. She mused, “Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future–this applies even to Levi!”

The Shekhinah brought Yochebed and Amram together, and they became the parents of Moses—the liberator of Israel.  Mysteriously, She finds herself drawn back to the earth. With Moses, the Shekhinah found a lover who decided to build a new home for the Divine—The Tabernacle–a place that would permanently restore Her Presence to our world, where She would walk once more with humankind. [1]

(To be continued . . .) Continue Reading

Rabbi Samuel offers wide-ranging religious discussion in ‘Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis’

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation, Vol. 1: Genesis 1-3 by Rabbi Michael L. Samuel, CreateSpace, ISBN-13: 978-1456301712; ©2011 p. 495, including excursuses, bibliography, and index.

By Fred Reiss, Ed.D.

Fred Reiss, Ed.D

WINCHESTER, California – The biblical narrator of the first three chapters of Genesis, whoever he may be: Moses at God’s direction, a divinely inspired priest, or even a scribe recording the most ancient mythology of the Hebrew people, begins with a simple, yet profound sentence, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” But, what does this sentence imply and what does it mean? The implication is that there is a creator, whose name is God, and who worked alone to fashion all that there is. And, when was the beginning? What did God use to build the heavens and earth? Were the heavens and earth created from the same thing? Explanations about the allusions and applications of the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, if the Talmudic sages are to be believed, go back to Mt. Sinai in the form of a God-given oral law. Written comments about the Torah’s meaning began about the time of Philo, in the latter part of the first century BCE. Since then hundreds of thousands of pages have been written to explain what the Torah “really” means.

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis written by Rabbi Michael L. Samuel, a pulpit Rabbi who is descended from a long line of distinguished Rabbis and a graduate of an Orthodox seminary, is not another commentary on the Torah, but rather a meta-analysis of commentaries that offer comprehension and insight on the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis, which cover from creation through the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Judging from Rabbi Samuel’s background, one would expect to read a series of explanations only from main-line orthodoxy, but this is not the case. In Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis’ lengthy introduction, Rabbi Samuel examines the Genesis stories as myth, comparing them to other similar stories found in the Middle East and explores and analyzes the Genesis stories from the perspective of the four-level of interpretation suggested by the rabbinic sages by presenting a wide spectrum of Jewish and non-Jewish sources, covering the earliest interpretations through the modern and post-modern critical approaches of Torah criticism. In the middle section, which examines the passages of Genesis 1-3, Rabbi Samuel draws from his extensive knowledge of biblical commentaries to provide the reader with extensive and comprehensive understandings about these passages. The reader is just as likely to find an interpretation by a Hasidic master as a quote from a Hindu text or a quote from the Zohar or Friedrich Nietzsche. In the final section, an appendix, which he calls, Excursus, Rabbi Samuel provides the reader with additional thought-provoking material, which sometimes offers more interpretations and sometimes asks deep and fundamental questions about the biblical text.

Readers of Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis are treated to a superb variety of interpretations, perspectives, and analyses, all of which shows why the Bible is still the most widely-read, yet among the least comprehended books.

**

Dr. Fred Reiss is a retired public and Hebrew school teacher and administrator. He is the author of The Standard Guide to the Jewish and Civil Calendars;  Ancient Secrets of Creation: Sepher Yetzira, the Book that Started Kabbalah, Revealed; and Reclaiming the Messiah.  He may be contacted at fred.reiss@sdjewishworld.com

Over a year has passed since the terrible Arizona shooting, when a gunman opened fire, killing six people and wounding 13 others.  Gabrielle Giffords, a conservative Democrat representing Arizona’s Eighth District, was among those wounded. She remained in critical condition after she survived a single gunshot to the head fired at point-blank range. Within three days after the shooting, one of her doctors described her chances of survival as “101 percent.” Her neurosurgeon, Dr. Dong Kim, called her progress “almost miraculous.”

We are all blessed with her recovery, but  greater challenges lie ahead for Gabrielle and ourselves as a nation, which sometimes teeters on the edge of insanity.

We wonder: Have we learned anything new from this devastating experience?

One bill that appeared before Congress proposed that the House of Representatives “reduce” the time allowed for criminal background checks. The Senate asked for a three-business day waiting period. The amended Bill in the House proposed a 24 hour waiting period. The reason: gun shows are very popular during the weekends. They argue that there would be no time to conduct a background check on people wishing to purchase arms.

Oh really?!

I think our politicians are living in Chelm, a place in Jewish history reserved for fools who think they are wise. If somebody wishes to purchase firearms at a convention, why don’t the new purchasers take the test one week before the gun show? What is wrong with this picture?

Over the last decade and a half, more and more states are starting to require psychological testing as a condition of hiring any full time police officer. Given the immense stress of the job, this decision makes perfect sense. In fact, schools across the country now require psychological testing for its faculty members. Even Wal-Mart requires psychological testing for its workers—perhaps because they sell firearms at their stores.

Now, it seems to me that the recent Arizona shooting might have been avoided had the state required psychological testing for anyone wishing to own a gun. In fact, if every state required psychological testing, we might be able to cut down the number of accidental shootings, or even willful shootings that seem to occur every year in our great nation.

One cannot expect a family to recognize or, for that matter, even be willing to admit that their son may have deep-rooted psychological problems requiring professional help. In addition, I think the question of machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, assault-rifles, and similar type weapons should be banned except for the military or police. Private individuals do not need to act like Rambo when a vagrant is breaking into their home. [1]

In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deut. 22:8). One precept in particular is especially important, “You shall not curse the deaf; you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, but you will fear your God; I am YHWH ” (Lev. 19:14).

This verse includes two types of prohibitions: (1) placing a stumbling block in front of the blind for sport or entertainment, (2) taking advantage of someone’s ignorance–especially for pecuniary gain. The verse stresses that a God fearing person will not take advantage of anyone for any reason.

By the expression, “God fearing,” this is the biblical way of describing a moral person who acts with a reverence toward life. God-fearing also indicates that Creator and Judge of the world will hold all such offenders accountable for disrespecting human life. Authentic piety is best reflected by acts of compassion and consideration–especially toward individuals who suffer from a serious disability–whether physical, emotional, intellectual, and psychological. [2]

It is also instructive that Maimonides asserts that enabling someone to commit a crime, (e.g., the individual who offers a bribe, or offers to pay interest on a loan) violates the above biblical dictum.[3]

In light of the Arizona shooting—or for that matter, any other well-known shootings that we have seen in recent history, the Columbine or Virginia Tech incidents—the onus of responsibility cannot be placed on someone who is mentally-impaired or schizophrenic, or someone suffering from psychotic-break with reality.

It is not realistic to expect psychotics like Jared Lee Loughner to behave like normal citizens. I expect the judge will send him to a special hospital for the criminally insane. Local courts and governments have a duty to make it as difficult as possible in determining who can and ought to own a gun. Certain individuals should never own a gun of any kind. The duty to protect citizens is the government’s responsibility.

I would argue that we apply the same standards that exist for other professionals in our country also be applied to anyone wishing to own a gun. The time has come for the gun-lobby to start leading the campaign to protect the country from individuals who endanger public welfare. Ultimately, such a responsible move will not diminish the constitutional rights of owning a gun–but such sensible legislation will enable all of us to breathe easier.

=========== Continue Reading

There can be no doubt rabbinic tradition took a dim view of capital punishment. Mishnahic law required that those accused be warned by witnesses immediately before they commit the offense, and that they acknowledge such warning—a clear indication of the rabbinic distaste for capital punishment, explicitly found elsewhere.[1] Life imprisonment did exist for cases that could not technically be legally prosecuted, even though the evidence left no room for doubt[2]; such a person had to subsist on sparse diet of barley bread and water, and the Talmud indicates the criminal usually died from starvation. There may be a Scriptural allusion to this practice: the prisoner was condemned to eat “the bread of misfortune and the water of distress” (Isa. 30:20). Other rabbinic statements express even greater ambivalence:

• R. Yose says, “Under no circumstances is one put to death unless both witnesses against him have given warning to him,” as it is said, ‘At the testimony of two witnesses’ (Deut. 7:6).”[3] He whose trial ended and who fled and was brought back before the same court—they do not reverse the judgment concerning him and retry him. He whose trial ended and who fled and was brought back before the same court—they do not reverse the judgment concerning him and retry him . . . A Sanhedrin which imposes the death penalty once in seven years is called murderous. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “Once in seventy years.” R. Tarfon and R. Akiba say, “If we were on a Sanhedrin, no one would ever be put to death.”[4] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “So these Sages would multiply the number of murderers in Israel.”[5]

Moreover, the defendant may not be put to death unless two (or in some cases three) eyewitnesses testify against him or her.  Each witness must be so certain of his testimony that he personally would be willing to carry out the execution.  A passage from Deuteronomy 19:13-21 asserts that a plotting witness is subject to the same punishment as the defendant—including, presumably, death. Although the Torah prescribes the death penalty in the case of adolescent rebellion (i.e., “the rebellious son” of Deut. 21:18-21), the Sages admit, “Such a case never occurred, and it never will happen.” The entire passage is heuristic, so, “That you may study [the Torah for its own sake] and receive reward.”[6] The rabbinic angst and reticence to implement the death penalty, and its alternative system of imprisonment is of great relevance for modern biblical scholars and laity.

Rabbinic law is pretty straightforward about such cases. Maimonides writes, “The following rules apply when two groups of witnesses offer conflicting testimonies. If one witness from one group came together with one witness from the other group and they both delivered testimony concerning another matter, the testimony is of no consequence for it is obvious that one of them lied, but we cannot ascertain which one.”[7]Likewise Maimonides also notes, “Should a court err with regard to a case involving capital punishment and convict an innocent person, ruling that he is guilty, and they discover a rationale that would require that the ruling be nullified and he be vindicated, they nullify the ruling and retry the case. If the Court erroneously ruled and acquitted a person liable to be executed, then the judgment is not nullified and the case is not retried.”[8]

The story of Noah disturbs me for many reasons . . .

For now, I will focus on the passage,  “I will never again curse the ground for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth. . .” (Gen. 8:21).

Is evil something innate to the human condition? Theologians have been debating this for over 1700 years.  After everything has been said and done, one may still wonder: Was Augustine’s cynical view of human nature accurate? Are the traits of ruthlessness, selfishness, and cruelty an inherited condition? The history of genocide in the 20^th century alone might give one pause to wonder whether Pelagius and Kant might have been overly optimistic about the human condition.  The verse would seem to intimate, that to some degree, it is. Are we to assume that children are prenatally programmed with some of these less-than-desirable traits?  What about God’s role in a world that suffers from evil? Is God also responsible to some degree?

As the biologist Lyall Watson strikes at the heart of our problem:

• I am conscious at this delicate point of circumventing all the long arguments of theodicy in a somewhat cavalier way.  Saint Augustine, Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons, and more recently the theologian John Hick, have all labored to produce a standard Christian answer to the existence of evil in a universe designed and presided over by a good God.  Their musings, to my mind, have been superseded by  events in Nazi Germany, Chile, Cambodia, Uganda, Vietnam, Serbia, and Rwanda, to mention but a few: which makes it clear that we, and we alone, bear the blame.  History, even in this century, has confronted us squarely with our own demonic capacities. We have, like Faust finally coming face to face with Mephistopheles, been forced to concede that the mask he wears bears features very much like our own. He is us, and neither evil nor can we be redeemed. We just are; and we clearly are the products, for good and evil, of our biological evolution.[1][1]

While these ignoble traits are what our species began with, this does not necessarily mean that human beings cannot learn to transcend their natural tendencies for mere biological survival. The Torah itself will later attest to a profound theological and psychological truth that has withstood the test of time: “[O]ne does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. 8:3). If a man was nothing more than an animal, the product of blind and relentless evolutionary forces that are beyond his control, bread would satisfy his fundamental needs, but this is not the case.

For reasons we believe to be rooted in the divine ontology and mystery of our being, we hunger for something more fulfilling than bread alone can provide. Our individual and collective capacity for discovering spiritual meaning and purpose beckons us and allows us to re-design our moral nature anew. As Maslow has forcefully argued, human beings require certain “meta-needs” that enable the spirit to thrive and expand. When these spiritual impulses are frustrated, the deprivation of these spiritual needs leads us to developing unhealthy states such as alienation, anguish, apathy, and cynicism.[2]

The psychologist Victor Frankl arrives at the same conclusion based on his experiences in the concentration camps. He discovers that whenever a person fails to find meaning to one’s life, or the purpose to life, “a person will tend to drift aimlessly like a ship without a rudder.” Frankl believes that people need something to live for, something to look forward to, something that transcends themselves to which they can give themselves. Discovering meaning to life must be found in cultivating creative values (such as experiencing the achievement of a task that establishes a person in the world), experiential values (experienced through the appreciation of the good and beautiful in the world and in the loving of another person), and in attitudinal values (experienced through dealing with one’s suffering).

In biblical terms, nature does not have the final say; humankind can rise above its destructive impulses.

The presence of evil may be seen as a deficiency disease. When people fail to instill the values of compassion and respect for life, children can develop into monstrous adults. Thoughtfulness, consideration, empathy are  some of the important  values that enabled  our prehistoric ancestors to survive as a species.  Living with a reverence for life can enable people to rise above any situation. Religion can play an important role in the healing of the human spirit–provided people embrace and emulate a God that loves and respects life.

This may well be the most important message of the Flood story as well.

Rabbinical salaries are a relatively late innovation.

From the year 50 CE, to the early medieval period, rabbis did not receive financial remuneration for their Torah study or teaching. However, elementary teachers were paid. As a whole, the working class people literally combined Torah study with a worldly occupation and the Mishnaic literature makes numerous hints about this arrangement.

Here are some examples:

Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai said, “Do not take credit for the amount of Torah study you have studied, for that is the purpose you were created” (Avoth 2:8). R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “If there is no study of Torah, there is no derech erertz (job).  If there is no derech eretz, there can be no study in Torah” (Avoth 3:17); Rabbi Zadok said, “Every one that makes a profit from words of Torah removes his life from the world.” R. Ishmael, his son, says, “He who learns so as to teach —they give him a chance to learn and to teach.  He who learns so as to carry out his teachings— they give him a chance to learn, to teach, to keep, and to do.”  R. Sadoq says, “Do not make [Torah teachings] a crown with which to glorify yourself or a spade with which to dig.  (So did Hillel say [M. 1:13], “He who uses the crown perishes.”) Thus have you learned, “Whoever derives worldly benefit from teachings of Torah takes his life out of this world”’ (Avoth 4:6).

In his youth, Abaye was a farmer and watered his fields at night so he could study in the day time (BT Gittin 60b). If someone asked a question while he was working, he told the questioner: “Work on this irrigation canal for me, while I ponder your question.” Later he became a wine merchant (BT Berachoth 56b). He was not the only sage to work at a worldly occupation; there were many others rabbis who engaged in ordinary livelihoods to survive.

Maimonides takes a pretty strong position on this question and argues:

• Anyone thinking that he should involve himself in Torah study and not engage work (thus deriving his livelihood from charity), desecrates God’s name, dishonors the Torah, extinguishes the light of faith. He also brings evil upon himself,  and forfeits his chance to enter Paradise. It is forbidden to derive pecuniary benefit from the words of Torah in this world. Our Sages declare: “Whoever who makes profit from the words of Torah forfeits his life in the world.” Also, the Sages further added, “Do not make them a crown to magnify oneself, nor an axe to chop with.” The Sages also prescribed, “Love work and despise the rabbinate.” All Torah that is not accompanied by work will eventually be negated and lead to sin. Ultimately, such a person will steal from others (MT Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10).

If Maimonides were observing the Haredi parties in Israel today receiving State welfare while everyone else is working, what do you think he would say?

Of course, one might also ask, “What would he say about professional rabbis receiving a salary?” This is a fair question, but the job of the rabbinate is much more nuanced than it was in Maimonides’ time. Today, the modern rabbi functions in a variety of capacities. Sometimes (s)he works as a counselor, social worker, works in crisis intervention, public relations, and so forth.

It is safe to presume Maimonides would have been horrified about the Haredim remaining in their yeshivas studying, while the rest of the Israeli youth serve in the army and defend their country from enemies poised to destroy her. 

⁶ But Moses said to the Gadites and to the Reubenites, “Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here? ⁷ Why will you discourage the hearts of the Israelites from going over into the land that the Lord has given them? ⁸ Your fathers did this, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land. ⁹ When they went up to the Wadi Eshcol and saw the land, they discouraged the hearts of the Israelites from going into the land that the Lord had given them. ¹⁰ The Lord’s anger was kindled on that day and he swore, saying, ¹¹ ‘Surely none of the people who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they have not unreservedly followed me— (Num 32:6-11).

In all likelihood, Maimonides probably would regard the Haredi rabbis as thieves who are robbing the public—a view that is shared by most Israelis across the religious divide. Maimonides most likely would be among those condemning the Haredi welfare state in Israel.

In addition, Maimonides’ disdain of the Kabbalah and its anthropomorphic theology was something that troubled him mightily; the idea of a Rebbe standing as an intermediary between God and man probably would have seemed a lot like idolatry. Today’s legions of Kabbalistic psychics and hucksters probably would get an earful from Maimonides, who hated all forms of superstition.

Maimonides would certainly find the internecine battles between Jews very troubling. I think Maimonides would have been very proud to see Jews reclaim and resettle their homeland after nearly 2000 years; he would have heralded 1948 as a great miraculous event in the history of our nation–perhaps on par with King Cyrus’s momentous decision to let the Jews of Persia return to their ancestral and spiritual homeland. Continue Reading