Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

•  The just man knows the soul of his beast, but the heart of the wicked is merciless.                                            

—Proverbs 12:10

The author of Proverbs stresses an important ethical lesson: a humane person considers the needs of his animals and acts kindly towards them.^[1] The world of Creation is full of sentient beings, which also experience many of the joys and blessings that people commonly enjoy: like humankind, these creatures also experience pain. Suffering is a common language that links humanity with other species of animal life. Therefore, Jewish ethics take sharp issue with French philosopher Rene Descartes (ca. 1596–1650), who compares animals to machines that service people, stating that their suffering “means nothing more than the creaking of a wheel.”[2] In physiological terms, according to Descartes, what human beings and animals share is that their bodies function by the laws of mechanics. One might respond: How then do human beings differ from animals? Descartes argues that the Creator endows human beings with a divine soul and a moral conscience—qualities that are lacking in animals. In addition, unlike animals, human beings possess the ability to conceptualize and verbalize ideas. Most importantly, only human beings are capable of conscious and rational thought since they are uniquely endowed with the ability to be self-reflective. Only a human being is capable of exclaiming, “Cogito ergo sum.”

Philo of Alexandria explains that the Mosaic proscription prohibiting the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk aims to teach Israel that mercy and self-restraint should govern people’s relations with animals no less than with each other.[3] According to biblical law, a person may not satisfy his or her appetite disregarding the feelings of animals, especially where mothers and their young are concerned. A worshipper in ancient times, for example, is barred from sacrificing a newborn animal until it is at least eight days old (Exod. 22:28–29; Lev 22:27). “Nothing could be more brutal,” writes Philo, “than to add to the mother’s birth pangs the pain of being separated from her young immediately after giving birth, for it is at this time that her maternal instincts are strongest.” In other respects, too, the Law calls for self-restraint. Thus, it would be an act of unnatural excess, Philo argues, to cook a young animal in the very substance with which nature intended it to be sustained. In a similar vein, the Law prohibits one from sacrificing an animal together with its young (Lev 22:28), since this would again involve an unnatural combination of that which gives life and that which receives it.[4]

Pursuing a similar approach found in Philo, Maimonides comments on a number of biblical precepts dealing with preventing cruelty towards animals in his Guide:

• It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), the reason being, is so that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in plain sight of the mother; the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There can be no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other sentient beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but is a matter determined by instinct and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognizes her young. . . . If the Torah provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellow human beings![5]

According to Maimonides, an animal’s ability to feel emotional pain gives it moral standing; it is for this reason that the Torah prohibits these acts. Not all Jewish thinkers concur with Maimonides. Ramban claims that the prohibitions against cruelty to animals are not so much for the animal’s benefit, but for the sole moral development of humankind. Cruelty towards animals is desensitizing (commenting on Deuteronomy 22:6 and Leviticus 22:28), which will eventually produce brutality and insensitivity to the pain and suffering of others.

• The ruling on the mother bird is not predicated upon the Almighty’s “pity” for the animal. Otherwise, God would have forbidden their slaughter altogether! The reason, however, for the prohibition is to instill within us compassion and the avoidance of cruelty; butchers and slaughterers often become insensitive to the suffering on account of their occupation. Therefore, to avoid engendering these negative traits, the Torah proscribed precepts that a person should not slaughter the mother and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28) and sending away the mother bird (Deut. 22:6). Such laws are not inspired by feelings of consideration for their suffering but are decrees to inculcate humanity in us. [6]

The belief in the Evil Eye (in Hebrew, it is known as the Ayin Hara) has existed since time immemorial in cultures all around the world. Ancients believed that the world was suffused with invisible powers that could be utilized as a supernatural weapon against one’s foes. In magic, the squinting of the eye as well as its gaze, could magically affect the image “captured” by the eye and it is for this reason, the belief in the Evil Eye in all primal societies is linked to witchcraft or demonology. Before there was Madison Avenue, ancients developed a unique appreciation for the power of the image. They believed that if you could control the image, you could enslave your foe, or perhaps even entrance someone you wish to attract! (Strange as it may sound, many of our modern perceptions of the image have not changed that much!)

To understand the meaning of the Evil Eye, a brief word about magic is important. Freud in his “Totem and Taboo” wrote that the attitude that is fundamental to all magic is that the belief that thought is omnipotent. Such beliefs are found in many of the primal religions of humanity. He adds that even the cannibals believe that eating their enemies enables them to absorb their strengths and abilities.[1]

Jung, in contrast, took issue with Freud and believed that thought somehow mysteriously participates in an unseen order in the world. Jung’s concept of synchronicity, or “purposeful coincidence,” is based upon the assumption that there exists a psychical connection between a physical event and the psychic condition that appears in juxtaposition with it. Freud, of course, regarded Jung’s concept of synchronicity as an example of animistic thinking.

Yet, even Freud would admit that the power of belief in magic and superstition can affect the behavior of its believers. Maimonides himself was not overly critical of Jews  utilizing amulets whenever someone was dangerously ill. As a physician, Maimonides understood the importance of placebo in helping people recover from illness—but he cautioned: amulets have no efficacy whatsoever.[2]

One would think that human civilization would have abandoned its infantile beliefs in the Evil Eye and amulets centuries ago. Yet, beneath the veneer of civility, there exist certain strata of our psyche that has not evolved much over the millennia. This part of the psyche continues to manifest itself in a variety of seemingly “civilized,” ways.

For example: Have you ever been in a New York or LA traffic jam? Have you ever observed how people behave when it’s the middle of rush hour, or when somebody cuts ahead of you? How do they react? It is usually accompanied with certain finger gestures and verbal incantations designed to wreck havoc upon the life of the other driver. Though we normally don’t think of this type of reaction as being particularly superstitious, it is. Verbal curses and hand movements galore are part of the tradition associated with the Evil Eye. If you have ever engaged in such discourteous behavior, you have participated in primal religion!

Given the nature of medieval life and the constant dangers people experienced from day to day, it was only natural folks would develop preventive and curative measures and gestures (e.g., hand signs), as well as spoken formulas to ward off the Evil Eye. Among Yiddish speaking Jews, for example, we often hear of the famous expression Kennahora ‑‑ an abbreviation for the Hebrew “let there be no Evil Eye.”], fumigations, the use of fire, salt, horn, metal, the wearing of amulets (often hand‑shaped e.g, the Hamsan), tattoo marks, jewels (e.g., commonly seen by ladies who wear the “Chai”], the application of blue color, the symbols of the number five, and so forth.

Despite the rational faith we have inherited from Maimonides and other Jewish rationalists, Jewish customs and laws have long been influenced by its neighboring folk religious traditions. Many of the Talmudic beliefs regarding the ubiquitous presence of demons and magical beings that are contained in the Talmud specifically derive from ancient Babylonian religion! By the way, Kabbalists–medieval and modern–treat these teachings quite seriously.

The Talmud, for an example, suggests that if one wishes to immunize himself against the Evil Eye, he should hold his right thumb in his left hand and take his left thumb and place it in his right hand, and say, “I, so‑and‑so, am a descendant of Joseph, over whom the Evil Eye has no power over.”  If he is afraid of his own Evil Eye, he should look at the side of his left nostril.”[3] The custom of spitting three times when mentioning something good about a person was believed to chase away the Evil Eye.  The practice actually goes back to ancient Greece, where the Greeks use to spit three times in the fold of their garments to avoid the Evil Eye. In ancient Rome, spitting on one’s children was believed to magically ward off the influence of the Evil Eye. Since the earliest stages of human history, spitting was believed to contain magical powers—capable of creating life itself (see my blog articles on spitting).

The Talmud provides numerous anecdotes about the power of the Evil Eye. In one passage, some rabbis of Late Antiquity claimed that for every 100 people who die, 99 people die because of the Evil Eye. Some sages had the power to reduce to human beings into heaps of bones just with the power of their gaze. This ancient teaching would explain where we get the famous English expression, “If looks could kill . . .” Isn’t amazing how modern society has unconsciously passed down many of these ancient folk beliefs?  Ancient historians of Babylonian religion acknowledge a huge debt of gratitude to the rabbis of the Talmud, who—more than anyone else—preserved the superstitious beliefs and rituals of the ancient Babylonians.[4]

Back to the Present

I am certain the roots of superstition and magic were wedded to capitalism long ago. One can only imagine the ancient business of selling talismans (not to be confused with the tallis) and amulets. It was probably a profitable business—perhaps, even a family business!

Yesterday, I came across an amazing advertisement that suggests the ancient craft of selling amulets has not disappeared altogether from history.

Perhaps in honor of Black Friday and Cyber Monday, rabbis in Brooklyn made the following advertisement:

• Evil Eye Removal $50, Credit Cards Accepted Continue Reading

Thanks to the Kabbalah Center, the study of Kabbalah has become very well-known throughout much of the Americana landscape. Kabbalah represents the esoteric part of Judaism that tries to understand and articulate the great chain of being (to quote Arthur Lovejoy).

Please don’t get me wrong. I think the Kabbalah Center’s marketing is brilliant; I also think Rabbi Berg and his sons have done a fine job distilling Kabbalah to a general audience—up to a point. On the other hand, the Kabbalah center is run like a business, and its leaders know how to schnorer money—large sums in fact—from its glassy eyed followers.

To the Kabbalah Center’s credit, they have done a masterful job in drawing some of the largest crowds in all of Los Angeles to their weekly services—certainly no small feat. Surprisingly, they stream their services for a live broadcast for people all over the world who are interested in participating in the weekly services. A good friend of mine, is one of many who participate at this electronic minyan.

That being said, one of disturbing things about the popularization of the Kabbalah in general (without casting stones at any one organization), is the tendency for many pseudo-scholars of Kabbalah to merchandize the Kabbalah for personal profit and fame. One Israeli Kabbalist, Rabbi Yosef Pinto charged the basketball star Lebron James a six-figure sum for his Kabbalistic advice. Give me a break. James may be a fantastic basketball player, but he is getting ripped off by one of many Kabbalistic shysters who have perpetuated this myth that they are privy to a secret esoteric wisdom that all the other poor demented fools of the world are not privy to.

As a congregational rabbi, I have seen these types of phonies come and go; they love to pontificate about the wonders of Kabbalah—or should I say, “McMysticism.” For those of you unfamiliar with my term, here is a short definition:  You would never confuse the fast-food world of McDonalds with a real restaurant or bistro known for its fine dining.

The same can and ought to be said about the Kabbalah.

Most of the Kabbalah handbooks and guides written about the Kabbalah by people who do not even know how to read an original Kabbalistic text, much less know how to translate it properly into lucid English prose.  Or take for example, Rabbi David Batzri: Here’s a tech-savvy exorcist who recently attempted the world’s first exorcism via Skype.  [See my earlier piece on this telephonic Kabbalist) His father, R. Yitzchak Batzri and his host of other rabbis, decided to fly over Israel and say some prayers designed to prevent the spread of swine Flu from spreading in Israel.

On the other hand, there are some Kabbalists like Abraham Isaac Kook, whose words are so beautiful and lyrical; one can easily see that Jewish mysticism can be uplifting and personally transforming.  The same may be said of the 20^th century Jewish moralist, R. Eliyahu Dessler, who often makes use of Kabbalistic motifs that have practical significance.  Martin Buber’s genius can be seen in how he simplifies the Hassidic message in a way that is both  transpersonal and inspiring.

How can you tell a real Kabbalist from a pretender?

• For one thing, a true Kabbalist will not perpetuate the myth that he is a Jewish guru and that you are nothing more than one of his mindless drones.

• A real Kabbalist will help you get in touch with your own inner truth through the imagery of Jewish mysticism.

• A real Kabbalist does not live for the photo-op, nor does he perpetuate infomercials about his methodology in the name of God and capitalism.
• A real Kabbalist could care less about the celebrities he hangs out with.

In sum, Kabbalistic wisdom  is a lot like Mother Goose’s nursery rhyme about “The Girl with the Curl.”

There was a little girl who had a little curl

Right in the middle of her forehead;

When she was good, she was very, very good,

And when she was bad she was horrid.

The same can be said about the Kabbalah: Continue Reading

[Note that due to the limitations of WordPress, I used bullets to indicate indentations]

In Greek philosophical thought, the term γένεσις (genesis) connotes more the idea of origin and beginning. Perhaps the Sages of Alexandria consciously named this book Genesis in order to stress the idea of becoming. In theological terms, Genesis points to a process of creation that is ongoing, flowing, and continuous—each of these nuances is conveyed in the Greek word genesis.

Ancient teachers of Israel perceive the stories of Genesis as parabolic lessons that continue to unfold in the lives of future generations.[1] Genesis, as its Greek name implies, denotes an inner movement toward the highest possible degree of being that finds its decisive realization in God.

The personalities of Genesis undergo radical transformation and ultimately evolve morally and spiritually—despite their initial reluctance. Genesis stresses the idea that God and humankind co-create human evolution and spiritual growth. An analogy from the book of Jeremiah best captures the imagery of how God partners with mortals, shaping them much like a potter who struggles with second-rate clay.

• The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him. Then the word of the LORD came to me: “Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done?” says the LORD. “Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:1-6

The potter metaphor is also reminiscent of the Genesis narratives (2:7) where God forms (וַיִּיצֶר = wayyîcer) humankind out of the dried mud and clay of the earth. In a homiletical sense (in the spirit of Hassidic parables), this may suggest that the formation of Adam is never something that is ever truly “complete.” In a manner of speaking, God’s participation in Adam’s spiritual development continues throughout his life. As is the case with Adam, it is no less the case with humanity.

The brilliant Christian thinker, Irenaeus (ca. 180 C.E.), arrives at one of the most important intuitions of Western spirituality, capturing the essence of this point by distinguishing between the “image” and the “likeness” of God in the creation of humanity. The term “image” denotes the raw substance which has the spiritual potential that can enable each human being to transform him/herself into a “likeness” of the Divine. Hopefully, each of us embarks on a life journey where we will ideally develop from being mere “creatures of God” to becoming true “children of God.”[2]

Jung refers to this moral evolutionary development leading to the wholeness of the psyche as “individuation.”[3] Spiritual growth is a lifelong process that seeks to bring about a whole and integrated personality. At the core of self-realization is the religious paradox of struggle and surrender to the Spirit of God that shapes us from within. Our souls inevitably surrender to the darkness and ambiguity of God who is portrayed as prodding the process of human individuation. This theme is very visible in every story of Genesis. In fact, all of these figures ultimately become something radically different from what they were at the start of their personal narrative. When we first meet Rachel, her best feature described is her beauty, but as a result of the struggles with her sister Leah, Jacob, and ultimately with God, she comes to a spiritual realization about her own quest for love and acceptance. Throughout every story in Genesis, birth and rebirth occur time and time again as each protagonist undergoes radical character transformation.

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

If you like this sampling, you may want to consider purchasing my new commentary on Genesis entitled, “Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Genesis 1-3, which is available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Rebirth-through-Genesis-Conversation/dp/1456301713/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309652244&sr=1-2.

Notes:

[1] Cf. Ibn Ezra on Gen. 9:18; Ramban on Gen. 12ff. and Beth HaLevy on Gen. 26:29; Torah Temimah  Gen. 22, note 26. Zohar 1:82a; 3:52a.

[2] Irenaeus writes in his tract: Against the Heresies 5.6.1:

For if anyone takes away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understands that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God’s] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect. Thus also, if any one takes away the image and sets aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man. For that flesh which has been molded is not a perfect man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man.

[3] Jung uses the term individuation to denote “the process by which a person becomes a psychological ‘in-dividual,’ that is, a separate indivisible unity of ‘whole’” (Consciousness, Unconscious, and Individuation [CW 9i. par. 489]). Individuation involves a lifelong process that seeks to bring about a whole, integrated human personality. The essence of this process is the establishment of a living relationship between the ego, as the center of the conscious personality, and the “Self,” i.e., the God-centered presence (Imago Dei–the “Image of God”) that is at the epicenter of the human personality. Jung states that God is responsible for prodding the “Self” to actualize one’s own greatest potential in the quest for meaning and purpose, as each person meets and overcomes the various challenges that s/he faces in a lifetime. This new appreciation of the reality and wholeness of the psyche, which in turn makes possible a new paradigm of unity, can however, only be achieved by one individual at a time. This is the process, referred to by Jung as individuation. Development of the individual to maturity and fulfillment is marked by the progress of the ego when it becomes increasingly aware of its origin out of the larger, archetypal psyche (the Self) and the nature of its relationship to that phenomenon.

Last night I went to see a movie that I thought was very interesting, “In Time,” a futuristic film about how people use time as a currency. Imagine an alternative world where nobody ever ages beyond age 25 and the only way anyone can ever extend a lifetime is by earning time through work, barter, stealing, or if you’re lucky—inheriting time from someone.

Everyone is hardwired into some massive computer system that reveals through a florescent bar-code, the amount time each person has in the course of a day.

The hero, a guy named Will Salas, is a factory worker who cares for others. His empathic personality is endearing; when he sees a stranger who was about to get robbed of his precious time, he saves his life. Little did he realize that the man he saved happens to be someone who is loaded with time to spare; however, the tycoon is bored with life and would prefer to die like other less fortunate mortals of his age. While Salas is asleep, he gives him virtually a century’s worth of time. The tycoon greets dawn for the last time and dies–despite Salas’ attempt to save him. All of this is captured on camera, and anyone watching this might think that Salas robbed and killed the tycoon. Forced to run for his life, Salas leaves the ghetto.

A futuristic time keeper (the equivalent to a policeman) starts pursuing the protagonist, who in the meantime, is visiting the zones where only the rich and powerful live. While living it up, he goes to a fancy casino and meets one of the wealthiest time bankers, a man named Weiss, who has a lovely daughter named Sylvia. He discovers that the wealthy have the ability to live virtually forever and this thought troubles Salas. Together with Weiss’s daughter, they decide to bring down the system, which they believe profits off of the backs of the poor.

Acting more like Robin Hood rather than Bonnie and Clyde, the couple decides to steal from the rich and give to the poor. As they run away from the Timekeeper is on their heels—I must confess I never knew any woman could run so fast with six inch high heels!

Will is unjustly accused of murdering Henry and he’s forced to go on the run…He steals a car and heads for the rich side of town…New Greenwich. Far from the ghetto, the wealthy leisurely stroll down the street, covering their bar codes with elbow length gloves and spends their days gambling and looking bored.

To make a rather long story short, the couple decides to bankrupt the system and extend everyone’s longevity.

The movie never explains how their dystopian society originated; maybe a prequel would be interesting. I thought the movie made use of certain stereotypes that reminded me of some of the anti-Semitic rhetoric we have heard from the Occupy Wall Street movement—the Jews control all the banks. Well, in the movie it is a Jew (Weiss) who controls all the time; frankly, I thought the movie depicts Jews as parasites feeding off of the poor working class. The theme of class warfare is especially dangerous for today’s times, for even if the wealthiest people (like Obama’s best friend, George Sorros) gave ALL their money to the State—it still would not solve our country’s economic problems. Continue Reading

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

I recently received an interesting email from Arnie Eisen, the Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary that was addressed to many people on the Conservative list-serve.  His comments and concerns regarding prayer and the Conservative Jew reflect, in my opinion, a problem that is legion among many modern Jews—regardless of synagogue affiliation.

He notes how this debate surfaced many times between Abraham Joshua Heschel–arguably Conservative Judaism’s greatest theological thinker—and Mordechai Kaplan, who paradoxically prayed to a God who was too great to listen to his prayer. Both men would engage in thoughtful dialogue and then take a break to davin Minchah!

At this point in time, I will not address all the sundry issues Eisen brings up. Suffice it to say that it is my opinion that any kind of prayerful relationship with God is largely dependent upon the belief in a God who not only creates the world out of absolute nothingness, He also enters into relationship with the universe and produces a life-form that is capable of asking the ultimate questions regarding its ontology and purpose. When we affirm that God is the Creator, we are also affirming that God has entered into a personal relationship with something Other than Himself! [1]

For this reason, I believe that God is aware of our prayers for we exist as a figment of the Divine Mind. Of course, being human we are forced to utilize anthropomorphic imagery and language whenever conveying this wondrous Divine reality both to ourselves and to our fellow spiritual pilgrims.

Kaplan had serious reservations about the use of anthropomorphic language, as did Maimonides before him. However, even Maimonides admitted that God’s ethical attributes are the template for all human ethical interactions—a point even Kaplan must admit.

Therefore, I for one believe that human-esque language is vital for the prayerful enterprise, after all, the God of the biblical tradition is a compelling Presence who enters dialogue with mortal beings.

Stripping faith bare of all its anthropomorphic language has created some serious logistical problems in other areas of devotional life and observance especially with regard to prayer.  Whether one wishes to admit it or not, the act of prayer is, in effect, a way of doing theology. Our theological beliefs all come out in the wash with prayer. Many modern Jews wrestle with the liturgy, for it speaks of a God who is “compassionate,” “merciful,” “angry,” and “forgiving,” but again, wrestling with the prayer book is not necessarily something that should be avoided. On the contrary: such prayerful reflection ought to incorporate serious and thoughtful reflection.

It is no linguistic accident that the one of the generic Hebrew terms for prayer is תְּפִלָּה (tefillâ) “prayer” in the reflexive state means to “judge oneself” and is related to פְּלִילִים  (pelîlîm =  judges) Some grammarians suggest it means to “estimate,” “make assessment” to hitpall¢l  “to seek assessment, consideration, to pray.” Hence, to pray is to engage in self-reflectivity. When engaged in prayer, we need to constantly ask ourselves: What is this passage saying to me? According to Jewish tradition, prayer is an invitation for us to examine our beliefs, our attitudes, and character. Prayer is, in a manner of speaking, the language of the heart that wishes to approach God. Since we have no other means of expressing our thoughts, words, dreams, and hopes except in human terms, prayer teaches us to recognize the limitations of our own humanity. We cannot help but speak to God in human terms.

Liturgy contains a kaleidoscope of anthropomorphic depictions. If prayer is to be personally meaningful, we must see through its words and allow ourselves to hear and experience its spiritual message. Prayer forces us to examine our deepest primal beliefs in a Supreme Being. The act of praying says something immeasurably important about who we are and what our spiritual vocation and destiny may be. Its spiritual implications are too profound, too weighty, to challenging to ignore and it is this subject we will address next. Fr. W.W. Meissner summarizes the importance of prayer: 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

Part 2 of my original article will focus on the recent forest fire that took place in Mt. Carmel. When bad things happen to good people, inevitably the question of theodicy comes up for discussion.

The Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef is no stranger to  controversy. The aged patriarch of the Shas Council of Torah Sages, exclaimed that the devastating Carmel fire was a result of insufficient Shabbat observance in the area. Yosef says, “Fires only happen in a place where Shabbat is desecrated . . . ” As a proof-text for his position, R. Yosef quoted from the Babylonian Talmud Shabbat tractate “entire neighborhoods are wiped out, and it is not arbitrary. It is all divine providence. . . We must repent, keep Shabbat appropriately. When the People of Israel repent, God safeguards them with a wall of fire, but not of the incinerating type,” Yosef added.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s position is consistent with other opinions he has offered before from time to time. On August 27, 2007 Rabbi Yosef also proclaimed that the reason why Israelis die in battle is because they have failed to live an Orthodox lifestyle. He notes: “It is no wonder that soldiers are killed in war; they don’t observe Shabbat, don’t observe the Torah, don’t pray every day, don’t lay phylacteries on a daily basis – so is it any wonder that they are killed? No, it’s not . . . God have mercy on them (soldiers) and make them become newly religious – then they will all live a good life in peace . . . When soldiers believe and pray, God helps them during the war, these soldiers don’t get killed.”… [2]

Earlier this past year on the Eve of Tisha B’Av, a holiday that marks the destruction of the first and second Temple in Jerusalem, R. Yosef said, “Those murdered in the Holocaust were a reincarnation of sinners from past generations . . . All those poor people in the Holocaust…we wonder why it was done. There were righteous people among them. Still, they were punished because of sins of past generations.” [3]

On the other hand, some of the leading rabbis of the Holocaust and Post-Holocaust eras argue that the Holocaust occurred because of the Jewish support for Zionism. This has been the view of the Satmere Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Shach, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn. The latter offers a novel explanation for the Holocaust: “Imagine walking into a gallery overlooking an operating room. There behind the glass are people dressed in white cutting off a man’s leg. You have never seen surgery. You do not even realize there is a medical treatment called surgery. What do you think when you see the ‘horror’ below you? You scream, you try to get the ‘butchers’ to stop mutilating the man. But, in truth, what these men are doing is saving the life of that patient.”[4]

Other Haredi rabbis pursue a similar approach when dealing with the question of theodicy and the Holocaust: Rabbi Moshe Sternbach, one of Jerusalem’s most celebrated dyanim, who heads the Edut Charedut Court in Jerusalem explains: “I asked my rabbi: How were so many righteous men murdered during the Holocaust – because they did not protest . . . Whoever does not protest is confessing with silence . . . The Lord is testing us in this world and wants to see if we protest. If we don’t, there will be disasters. We are alone and they are many, but we are more in quality. They are evil criminals that have no place with the God of Israel.” [6]

Almost a year ago after the earthquake in Haiti, a number of Haredi rabbis proclaimed that God punished the Haitians because  they are:(1) sodomizers, (2) idolaters who engage in witchcraft. Another leading Haredi rabbi, Rabbi Avi Shafran, argued that the earthquake in Haiti is because of the sin of speaking gossip.[6] Rabbi Aaron Twersky, a well known Haredi psychologist argues that God punished the Haitians because they did not observe the Seven Noahide commandments, which are:

Prohibition of idolatry
Prohibition of murder
Prohibition of theft
Prohibition of sexual promiscuity
Prohibition of blasphemy
Prohibition of flesh taken from a live animal
Requirement to have just laws.[7]

The net result: 200,000 dead Haitians were “punished” by God, but were the victims of the reckless behavior of themselves or other people around the world.

In the next section we shall critically examine the theories discussed above and whether or not the classical rabbinical concept underlying what may be justly called retributional theology, “because of our sins,” might still have some limited validity in a contemporary and postmodern society. Of course, as promised, we shall turn many of these ideas upside down on their proverbial heads, so stay tuned in for more! Continue Reading

Some time ago in November of 2009, the Vatican assembled an array of scientists and theologians to discuss the religious implications of extraterrestrial life. The conference was organized by Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. What made this gathering so special is the Vatican’s willingness to specifically discuss the ramifications such a discovery would exert on the faith community.

The Vatican’s conference  is in some ways very ironic.  The brilliant 17^th century thinker and Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting that the universe is truly infinite (much like the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote in his Fragments, and Rabbi Hasdai Crescas later conjectured sometime in the  early16^th century). Among his other “heretical” beliefs included the possibility that the universe possessed other planets that were teeming with life, much like our earth.

The Spanish Inquisition did not care much about his theories. Although his body went up in smoke, his ideas did not. I am surprised the Vatican did not issue an apology to his descendants, but that is another matter.

Still and all, I wonder whether the soul of Bruno is glistening with the knowledge that today’s Vatican has finally received the torch of truth he offered so many centuries ago.  One of the presenters, however, astrophysicist Prof Paul Davies commented on the religious implications of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life: “If you look back at the history of Christian debate on this, it divides into two camps. There are those that believe that it is human destiny to bring salvation to the aliens, and those who believe in multiple incarnations,” Davies pointed out that the multiple incarnations theory, the idea that multiple examples of Jesus Christ would be found in the universe “is a heresy in Catholicism.”

Needless to say the presence of extraterrestrial life raises other questions with respect to Original Sin; would such creatures who never heard of Jesus Christ be exempt from Catholic salvation? Pelagius, Augustine’s greatest nemesis would most certainly scoff at the question since all human beings are as innocent as Adam and Eve were on the day they were born. Continue Reading