Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis — at 55% off!

Available Now!

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

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

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

**HOLIDAY SPECIAL ** Buy it now, you can get it for $19.00 at the following link:

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

CLICK HERE TO BUY IT NOW!

Reviews:

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

A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”
—Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought],The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“ The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.”
—Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness

“ [Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation] is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.”
—Rabbi Dr. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

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

“. . . span[s] the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia. . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.”
—Paul Borgman, author of David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis . . . adroitly moderates a virtual conver-sation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.”
—Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

Get your copy today!

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

Incident at Beth Shemesh: Late Hanukkah Reflections . . . (Updated 12-30-11)

As we mentioned above, the Jewish vision of Alexandria was original and unique, until early Christianity co-opted this vision and made it their own.

If you look at Judaic history, you will find that Judaism actually tried to make Judaism more spiritually appealing to the non-Jewish world. One of the first attempts at making Judaism more universal occurred when the Jews of Alexandria first translated the Bible into Greek. The end-product of this venture was a literary masterpiece known as the “Septuagint,” deriving from the Greek word “seventy,” named after the seventy elders who helped articulate Moses’ message to the people after the revelation at Mt. Sinai.

From the view of its original team of translators, these Alexandrian Jewish scholars believed that the translation of the Bible would serve to not only make the Bible more understandable to predominantly Greek speaking Jewish audience, it would also serve to make Judaism more intelligible and respectable to the gentile community.

But there may have been a more subtle goal. More than anything else the Alexandrian Jewish leaders wanted to promote an image of Judaism that did not suffer from parochialism. These men possessed a global-minded vision of Judaism as an international faith that could attract the best minds of the Hellenistic and pagan worlds. They believed that as a universal faith, Judaism could unite all the families of humankind. In fact, many Greeks came to embrace Judaism as their new faith. If you examine many of the rabbinic names in the first century C.E., there are quite a number of Greek sounding names, e.g., Antigonous, Alexander, Dosa, and Onkelos–attesting to the fact that Judaism expanded its population growth in the days of Late Antiquity by welcoming proselytes.

Philo of Alexandria, Judaism’s greatest Jewish philosopher of the first century (an older contemporary of Jesus), used the Septuagint to expound the message of ethical monotheism that is the foundation of Jewish ethics and theology.

Just imagine what a curious non-Jew must have thought when he heard Philo expound these famous words in his short but poignant work, “Nobility.” In this pericope, Philo stresses the importance of equal treatment of the outsider who comes to embrace the Judaic faith; the mark of the pious man is not “good birth,” but rather the individual’s virtue. Anyone familiar with the biblical narratives knows that even some of the greatest men of antiquity often sired sons like Cain, Ham, Esau, and others. In short, if Abraham could become a convert to the monotheistic belief in an ethical God, then surely other people could also make that same decision. In his closing paragraph, Philo adds:

  • We should, therefore, blame those who spuriously appropriate as their own merit what they derive from others, good birth; and they should justly be regarded as enemies not only of the Jewish race, but of all mankind; of the Jewish race, because they engender indifference in their brethren, so that they despise the righteous life in their reliance upon their ancestors’ virtue; and of the Gentiles, because they would not allow them their need of reward even  though they attain to the highest excellence of conduct, simply because they have not commendable ancestors. I know not if there could be a more pernicious doctrine than this: that there is no punishment for the wicked offspring of good parents, and no reward for the good offspring of evil parents. The law judges each man upon his own merit, and does not assign praise or blame according to the virtues of the forefathers.[1]

There can be no doubt that Philo envisioned a day when Judaism would win the hearts of humankind, and would eventually prove to truly become a light unto the nations of the world, as Isaiah foretold (Isaiah 49:6).

The NT bears witness to the phenomena of Jewish proselytizing and one can easily see how early Christianity incorporated much of first century’s Jewish activity, making it a part of their own modus operandi. The Gospels attest that the Pharisees “compass sea and land to make one proselyte” (Matt. 23:15). Most Christian scholars see this passage as a rhetorical exaggeration,[2] but one must seriously wonder whether this observation is indeed correct. Josephus himself observes that Judaism in his day appealed to Greek and barbarian cities alike.

Historians observe the even in the centuries that followed the great destruction of the Temple, Roman still found the message of Judaism appealing; 10% of the Roman population was Jewish—an astounding statistic! Based on the number of Jewish catacombs found in Rome, there were about 100,000 Jews who had either settled or converted to Judaism in the early centuries both before and after the Common Era.

Judging from the Latin literature of that era, one may surmise that the Roman population probably found the Jews to be an interesting ethnic group to encounter. The Romans, much like Americans today, probably found the Shabbat discussions on the Torah to be interesting and provocative.  The Jewish community proved to be cordial and hospitable with their Latin and Greek speaking guests. The intellectual ambiance evidently attracted many new converts to the faith. The early Christian church once had some real competition from the Jewish community—of all people!

Roman philosophers, writers, and politicians often complained about how the conquered people of Judea behaved more like the conquerors! According to the Roman historian Tacitus, he was very disturbed at the proselytizing efforts made by Jews which he regarded as a threat to the Empire. One Roman Empress, Poppaea Augusta Sabina (the second wife of Emperor Nero)  was a close friend of Josephus and she is credited with building a synagogue; in addition, contrary to Roman custom, she was buried instead of cremated—more in line with Jewish tradition.[3]

The Roman satirist Juvenal (60-130 C.E.), likewise expresses outrage at the spread of Jewish families among the aristocracy of Rome. He regarded Judaism as a mystery religion, and believed the Jews worshiped the clouds on the Sabbath.  The Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca and adviser to Emperor Nero was hardly any better and noted, “ The customs of this accursed race have gained such influence that they are now received throughout the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors.”[4] Some Roman thinkers considered Judaism on par with atheism since the God of Judaism is not visible.

As mentioned before in the “Groucho Marx Syndrome” posting, the time has come for modern rabbis to let go of the traumatized memories of Late Antiquity. In an open society, Judaism can greatly benefit from the energy, passion, and love of Judaism that so many of today’s Jews by Choice possess. In my Shul, over 40% are dedicated Jews by Choice. Anyone interested in learning about Judaism, feel free to contact me by sending me an email at this website.

For every Jew-by-Choice I welcome, I feel as a rabbi I am recovering lost souls taken away from us by Hitler and his eternal legion of Hitler-wannabees.

Notes:

[1] Philo, “On Nobility,” Virtues 206-222.

[2] S. McKnight, “A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period” (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

[3] Menachem Sten, “Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 2″ (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1980), 5.

[4] Cited from Louis H. Feldman, “Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World” (Princeton: Princeton, 1993), 491, n. 40.

The Sardonic Hermeneutic of “The Brick Bible: A New Spin on the Old Testament”

For many years, I have found the study of atheism and skepticism rather fascinating. Whether it is Christopher Hitchen’s intriguing polemic, “God Is NOT Great,” or Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith,” or Richard Dawkin’s attacks on traditional theism, I have always found the questions they pose to be relevant for discussion.

Freud himself often said that the greatest skeptics of religion are not necessarily the atheists, but rather it is the true believer who feels the compulsion to prove the Existence of God. One can easily invert Freud’s position as well: Skeptics, who kvetch about the non-existence of God, are probably closet theists!

I love my atheistic friends; they often speak about God as much as the theists do! This morning, I came across a remarkable story about a new illustrated Bible that was pulled off the shelves of Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart—”The Brick Bible: A New Spin on the Old Testament by Brendan Powell Smith” (http://www.bricktestament.com).

Smith makes no pretense about his atheism and sardonic wit when it comes to interpreting biblical narratives. Smith uses LEGOs to depict pretty explicit images stressing the more violent and vulgar parts of the biblical narratives. Even if you don’t like Smith’s message, you admit his artwork is irreverently funny. But is his violent depictions of God’s wrath that much different from the great French artist, Gustav Dore (1832 –1883) depiction of the Flood? Actually, Smith’s portrayal is tame by comparison.

In fairness to Smith’s book, the biblical commentators, along with Christian and Jewish clergy tend to ignore the more ethically challenging passages of the Bible that deal with violence. Smith’s theological grasp of the Bible is extremely childish. He illustrates the problem of adults who never outgrow their childish images of God and religion.

Is this the kind of book that you would want to buy for your children as a Christmas or a Bar Mitzvah present? Hardly. Personally, I would not spend a nickle on it. His website pretty much says it all. The book is meant to generate disrespect for the Bible and especially its believers. I think he’s trying to say that the Bible is much too graphic and violent for young people. Is Smith being sarcastic? You betcha!

Whenever I read a book—whether it is written by a theologian or a skeptic—I generally ask myself: what is the scholar or writer trying to say? What kind of world-view is s/he coming from? If I came from a similar cultural background, how would I see or experience the world? I suspect that Smith would probably agree with this statement: Religious people don’t have much of a sense of humor. Guess what? Smith is probably more correct than not. The inability to laugh at some of the more problematic passages of the Bible suggests a seriousness that many of the biblical writers themselves did not share!

Picture God’s revelation to Abraham and Sarah, where God sends three angels to announce that a 99 year old man and a 90 year old mother are going to have a child named, “Isaac,” a name that is associated with wild laughter! God is portrayed by the biblical narrator as a trickster, someone who introduces paradox into the rather incredulous lives of Abraham and Isaac. Granted this kind of humor might not make Saturday Night Live, but the Bible often makes puns to introduce the element of surprise into a narrative. One could almost interpret the binding of Isaac much the same way.

In fact, Woody Allen did exactly that in one of his most profound biblical reflections. After going through the traditional story, Woody Allen’s conclusion is especially worth mentioning:

  • And so he took Isaac to a certain place and prepared to sacrifice him but at the last minute the Lord stayed Abraham’s hand and said, “How could thou doest such a thing?”And Abraham said, “But thou said —” “Never mind what I said,” the Lord spake. “Doth thou listen to every crazy idea that comes thy way?” And Abraham grew ashamed. “Er – not really … no.”
  • “I jokingly suggest thou sacrifice Isaac and thou immediately runs out to do it.” And Abraham fell to his knees, “See, I never know when you’re kidding.” And the Lord thundered, “No sense of humor. I can’t believe it.”“But doth this not prove I love thee, that I was willing to donate mine only son on thy whim?” And the Lord said, “It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice.” And with that, the Lord bid Abraham get some rest and check with him tomorrow.

It would seem that Woody Allen is the first Jewish interpreter to add a humorous hermeneutic to the story that probably escaped the watchful eye of the early rabbis and Church Fathers. But here’s the real question readers ought to ask themselves: Can the biblical text tolerate a humorous hermeneutic? Consider the following statement: “The Torah speaks in the language of humanity.”[1] What is language without humor and tonality? I would argue that to read a biblical text with a stoic perspective seems to miss the whole point of human language, which is full of paradoxical nuances, inflections–and humor!

Woody Allen is not the only comedian to utilize biblical motifs in a humorous fashion. Bill Cosby did one of the most brilliant parodies on the lives of our Edenic ancestors I have ever seen:

Years ago, comedian Bill Cosby offered a brilliant interpretation explaining the straightforward meaning of the text in a way that is clearer  than most rabbinic and non-rabbinic commentaries:

  • Whenever your kids are out of control, you can take comfort from the thought that even God’s omnipotence did not extend to God’s kids. After creating heaven and earth, God created Adam and Eve. And the first thing he said was, “Don’t.” “Don’t what?” Adam replied. “Don’t eat the forbidden fruit,” God said.  “Forbidden fruit?  We got forbidden fruit? Hey, Eve…we got forbidden fruit!” “No way!” “Don’t eat that fruit!” said God. “Why?” “Because I am your Father and I said so!” said God (wondering why he hadn’t stopped after making the elephants). A few minutes later God saw his kids having an apple break and was angry. “Didn’t I tell you not to eat the fruit?” God asked. “Uh huh,” Adam replied. “Then why did you?” “I dunno” Eve answered. “She started it!” Adam said. “Did not!” “Did too!”At least he didn’t say, “No problem.” At least he didn’t say, “No problem.” All right then, “Get out of here! Go forth and be fruitful and multiply.”Having had it with the two of them, God’s punishment was that Adam and Eve should have children of their own.  [2]

With respect to many of Smith’s depictions, I frankly found many of them comical. Some of the more sexual passages like Smith’s interpretation of bestiality depicts a man trying to hump a bear—which is pretty stupid and dangerous! The sexual depictions should have been left out by Smith, because they are really unsuitable for children, teenagers, young adults, older adults, etc . . . but I suspect he wanted to say that there are a lot of R rated stories in the Bible. Well, in an age where religious communities censor literature because of its sexual content, perhaps all of us would be wise to remember that the Bible contains not only R rated material, but some X rated sections as well (cf. Song of Songs). As one pundit wrote, “The Good Book has never been particularly prudish about sex, covering rape, marital relations, incest, prostitution and endless begetting. However, Smith may be the only one who has illustrated them with LEGOs.” Say what you want about Smith–he knows how to sell books!!

More to the point, would Smith’s book be so outrageously sacrilegious when we compare it to comedians on prime time television (especially in Israel) doing biblical skits with irreverent humor? No, I don’t think so. Sometimes religious people really lack a sense of humor. Perhaps our tendency towards being overly serious could well be one of the reasons why so many people become skeptics in the first place. Continue Reading

A Demoness Scorned: Lilith–Adam’s “First Wife”

  • “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”

Yes, men can cite this poetic verse by heart. Although many attribute the famous quote to William Shakespeare, it actually comes from a play called the “The Mourning Bride” (1697) by William Congreve.

However, when talking about a Sumerian demoness named, “Lilith,” one may want to paraphrase Congreve’s verse:

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a demoness scorned.”

I kinda like it, it fits in quite well. Tonight’s blog entry is a short selection from my new Genesis commentary—I hope you like it. Jewish folklore is psychologically nuanced and surprisingly insightful.

—————————–

One of the most interesting personalities listed in rabbinic and non-rabbinic literature is the figure of Lilith, who is said to be Adam’s “first wife” and sometimes referred to as “the first Eve.” The only reference to Lilith may be found in Isaiah 34:14 where the term לִילִית (lîlît) first appears. Older bible translations render לִילִית as “screech owl.”[1] This interpretation is consistent with the previous stanzas that speak about other wild animals or birds. Newer translations seem to prefer “Lilith” because of its strong connections to Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian mythologies. In Sumerian, the word lil “wind” is related to the name; as such, she was also known as a storm-demon. If this definition is correct, then the other creature mentioned in the same verse שָׂעִיר must mean the hairy goat-demon. The fact that Lilith does not appear in any other Scriptural reference is significant—especially given the antiquity of the belief of her existence.[2]

For many years scholars thought that the name “Lilith” was connected to the popular folk etymology לָיְלָה (laylâ = “night”). However, the real origin of the name derives from the Assyrian lilîtu and Akkadian the lilū, lilītu and ardat lilī, who were the three storm deities.[3] In Sumerian, the term líl means either “wind” or “spirit.”  The Jews probably first learned of this feminine demonic being after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was deported to Assyria in 721 B.C.E., and shortly later when the Southern Kingdom was deported to Babylon.[4]

Although the origin of Lilith is not mentioned anywhere in the Talmud, she is mentioned in the popular medieval composition known as The Alphabet of Ben Sira (ca. 8th century). According to medieval Jewish folklore, God created Lilith from the earth just as He created Adam. From the beginning of their relationship, Adam and Lilith immediately begin to fight. One version of the myth, recounts how Adam insists on making love in the missionary position and Lilith agrees—provided she can be in the dominant position instead:

  • After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, “I will not lie below,” and he said, “I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be in the superior one.” Lilith responded, “We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.” But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: “Sovereign of the universe!” he said, “the woman you gave me has run away.” At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels to bring her back.[5]

The quarrel is profoundly psychologically nuanced, similar in many ways to an ordinary day in the battle of the sexes. The myth draws attention to the pattern of dysfunction that affects the complicated world of human relations. It is conjectured that Adam could not endure having an egalitarian relationship and so their conflicts quickly lead to Lilith’s sudden departure—she did not want to be Adam’s underling! Rather than playing the role of marriage counselor, YHWH sends for three angels to bring her back, issuing the following ultimatum. “If she agrees to return, then fine.  If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.” [6] The ancients believed demons were very prolific beings, populating much more quickly than mortals—a view that many of the rabbis uncritically accepted in the Midrash.[7]

After the Lilith prototype proves to be a failure, and to make sure that there would never be a problem regarding who would be the “head of the family,” God—this time—creates a woman out of Adam’s rib to symbolize her subservience to her husband.  Continue Reading

The Tower of Babel and The Twin Towers of 9/11

Towers have long captured the collected imagination of human kind. Whether it was the Tower of Babel in the Bible, or the Eiffel Tower in Paris , or the Chicago Water Tower, or especially the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, towers characterize technology, political power and even sexual potency.

The 2001 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers was not a happenstance assault. The terrorists chose those buildings in particular because these structures were in the heart of the world’s greatest economic center.

In Freudian terms, destroying the towers represented a symbolic castration of the United States in the eyes of the Muslim world. From the terrorist perspective, attacking these centers sent a most auspicious message to the world of Islamic jihadists: The United States’ days of being the No. 1 superpower are finished; the nation has been castrated by the forces of radical Islam; it is only a matter of time before Islam eventually conquers all of the United States and the Western world.

Ten years later, most of our country has barely come to terms with the greater implications of Sept. 11, 2001, and its symbolic significance. As a seminal event, the terrorists revealed just how vulnerable we were (and still are) to those forces poised to strike at her again. As the beacon and vanguard of democracy and liberty in the Western world, radical Islam views the attacks of Sept. 11 as the opening salvo of a new kind of jihad against the United States precisely because it champions freedom, liberty, and the right for self-determination – anathemas that threaten the feudalistic mentality of radical Islam. By attacking the Pentagon, Islamic extremism attempted to once again castrate the United States before the Muslim world.

Ten years later, the mastermind of the plot, Osama bin Ladin is now dead; yet as Iran inches closer toward its goal of constructing nuclear weapons, you can be sure that their henchmen–the Al Qaeda–will be doing everything in their power to destroy our country. Al-Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs have been working very closely together in their effort to diminish American power and influence in the Middle East and world. Like the mythical hydra, no sooner is one head of the beast cut off, another rises up in its place. Americans feel uneasy for very good reason, and we would be wise to stay vigilant and continue to strengthen our military. I wish we could banish the reticence to use the phrase, “Islamo-fascism” because that’s exactly what the world is facing.

Ten years later, we give pause to the horrendous attack on the Twin Towers in Manhattan.  As a country, it seems that we often lack the foresight to anticipate such attacks, even though there the dots have not been connected.

In February 1993, Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. Fortunately for our nation at that time, the terrorists killed only six, but wounded a thousand. Master terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman and his cohorts, had plans to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other important New York landmarks.

At the time, our country thought the mere idea of destroying the towers seemed unlikely; how could terrorists achieve such a thing?


The 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamist extremists had given plenty of warning that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers. Although Osama Bin Ladin himself would not emerge as a signal threat until the late 1990s, the threat of Islamist terrorism grew over the decade.

In February 1993, a group led by Ramzi Yousef tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. They killed six and wounded a thousand. Plans by Omar Abdel Rahman and others to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and other New York City landmarks were frustrated when the plotters were arrested.

In early 1995, police in Manila uncovered a plot by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners while they were flying over the Pacific. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded outside the office of the U.S. program manager for the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh, killing five Americans and two others. In June 1996, a truck bomb demolished the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds. The attack was carried out primarily by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received help from the government of Iran. Iran has been supporting every terrorist organization and attack in the Western world. As one study shows:

“While in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad [bin Attash, a high-level Al-Qaeda operative has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi "muscle" operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001 . . . "

"In October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved. Also in October 2000, two future muscle hijackers, Mohand al Shehri and Hamza al Ghamdi, flew from Iran to Kuwait. In November, Ahmed al Ghamdi apparently flew to Beirut, traveling—perhaps by coincidence—on the same flight as a senior Hezbollah operative. Also, in November, Salem al Hazmi apparently flew from Saudi Arabia to Beirut.

In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers, Wail al Shehri, Waleed al Shehri, and Ahmed al Nami, all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah."

Later in November, two future muscle hijackers, Satam al Suqami and Majed Moqed, flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border."[1]

Continue Reading

Defeating a Chess Program is Seldom Easy …

This particular computer program plays at a strong 2750 Grandmaster strength, and is probably capable of defeating a player like Bobby Fischer.

[Date "2011.08.25"]

[White " Michael Samuel]
[Black "Arasan 11.1"]
[Result 1-0]
[ECO ""]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. cxd3 e6 6. Nc3 Nd7 7. Be3
Bb4 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Ne7 10. Qd2 O-O 11. Ne2 h6 12. f4 b5 13. O-O
a5 14. g4 Nc8 15. f5 exf5 16. gxf5 Qh4 17. Rf2 f6 18. e6 Ndb6
19. Raf1 Ra7 20. Rg2 Qh5 21. Bxh6 Nd6 22. Ng3 Qh3 23. Bf4 Nbc8
24. Be3 Ne7 25. Rgf2 a4 26. Rf3 Qh7 27. Qf2 Ra6 28. Ne2 Re8 29. Qg2
Ndxf5 30. Rh3 Nxe3 31. Rxe3 Rf8 32. Rh3 Qg6 33. Rg3 Qh7 34. Nf4 Raa8
35. Rh3 Qf5 36. Rg3 Qh7 37. Rh3 Qf5 38. Rh5 g5 39. h4 Ng6 40. hxg5
Ra7 41. gxf6 Qxf6 42. Nxg6 Qxf1+ 43. Qxf1 Rxf1+ 44. Kxf1 Rb7 45. e7
Kf7 46. Ne5+ Kxe7 47. Rh7+ Ke6 48. Rxb7 Kd6 49. Rh7 c5 50. Nf7+ Kc6, Resigns

Texting, Adolescent Rebellion and the Sabbath

The frum world (a.k.a., the Orthodox world) is experiencing a healthy dose of adolescent rebellion. More and more frum kids are observing what’s called, “Half-Shabbos” Evidently, teens love text-messaging one another–even if it happens to be the Sabbath!! Parents be careful how you deal with this problem. If you come down hard, I can promise you your kids will rebel in other religious areas, e.g., dining out, free love–you name it. Follow the path of Hillel instead of Shammai and offer unconditional love–or suffer the consequences.

The halacha regarding electronic writing is quite fascinating. It is debatable whether electronic writing on the Sabbath is even forbidden. Consider the following illustration. Ask yourself according to Halacha, is erasing God’s Name permitted or forbidden to do on a computer screen? You would be surprised to know that erasing God’s Name is not considered a crime. In fact, my Bar Ilan Torah database allows me to remove God’s Name from the text!! To use another analogy, is writing on a steam-covered mirror considered writing? Not really, because the act of writing must be permanent to be considered writing. Now, in the case of a computer, once the writing is printed–then it is a different matter…

In one conversation I had with some congregants about this subject, I mentioned that the Orthodox ought to consider following the approach of the Amish, who allow their young people to experiment with the world before making a formal commitment to become a member of their community. Oddly enough, most return to that lifestyle. I do think that the more we put pressure to religiously conform, the more we are encouraging our kids to leave their faith. Take my Uncle Sam (no relation to the picture above), who was the son of Orthodox immigrants.  As a young boy he loved playing baseball, but his parents were so frum and told him that he was forbidden to play. Well, after he became an adult, he never went back to a synagogue for the next 60+ years. When my students tell me they wish to do something on the Shabbat, e.g., playing ball, or date–I always tell them to have a great time. Judaism–regardless of the denomination–must never become a straight-jacket.

In Freudian terms, the adolescent (this applies even to the pre-adolescent) looks at the parent and realizes, “I am not my parent, I am ME.” This  budding awareness of self-realization marks the beginning of a life-long journey toward individuation, and becoming a whole person. The more parents try to force their kids to become “Mini-Me’s,” to quote the movie hero, Austin Powers, the more frustrated parents will become. A very large percentage of the Orthodox world is made up of ba’ale teshuva--”born-again-Jews” to Orthodoxy. Just as most of them rebelled against their parents form of Judaism, it is quite possible the next generation will rebel against their parents’ religiosity, which they may feel is either too austere, or too hypocritical.

The early 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed that all language is really a game. Like a game, language has rules, e.g.. syntax, and a goal: to communicate ideas in a free and unfettered way. Truthfully, the entire Halachic enterprise is also a language game–however, the players can often change the rules of the game. In fact, that’s what adults do all the time. Whenever I play Scrabble, I love to modify the rules a little bit with my partners–just to make the game a bit more interesting. Why can’t we do the same with Halachic discourse? The mechanism is there, and much of the Responsa literature proves that Halachah is seldom ever fixed.

Permit me to illustrate this last point with the following example: I would argue that electricity resembles water more than it does fire. Turning on an electrical switch is not much different from turning on a water faucet. Liberalization of Halacha would make everyone’s life much easier and less neurotic.

Can we do better? With a loving heart and broad-minded attitude, you might be surprised.

The articles I read on the subject neglected to mention something important–most single Orthodox people I know not only text, they also bend the Shabbat rules in other ways too. Continue Reading

Publicly Shaming a Fellow Chabad Rabbi . . .

Most of our readers probably remember the terrible Mumbai attack in the Chabad House, where 190 Jews–including a Chabad Rabbi and his wife–were killed in cold blood. Before every Israeli Independence Day, there is always a observance of Israel’s Memorial Day (Yom HaZikaron), which always occurs the night before, as Israelis commemorate the memory of those who have given their lives so the State of Israel can exist today.

Well, this past week,  something very peculiar occurred in Israel that nobody anticipated. Israeli officials decided to invite  Rabbi Shimon Rosenberg, whose daughter was the Chabad rebbitzen killed in the Mumbai massacre in 2008.  Rosenberg was  to light one of twelve torches Monday evening at the Mount Herzl military cemetery. Rosenberg currently resides in Israel, where he is raising his grandson, Moishe, who survived the Mumbai attack. Rabbi Rosenberg felt very proud and exclaimed, “This whole event is very exciting. To light the torch on such an auspicious day, especially this year, when the theme uniting the torch-bearers is ‘all Jews are responsible for one another.’ For me, this is a special Shlichus [mission]. The fact that they chose me is not a simple thing. I am not representing myself, rather, all the Shluchim [emissaries] of the Rebbe in Israel and the Diaspora.”

So far so good, but the nice rabbi did make some unusual changes to the prayer service that deserves special mentioning:

• He said the dead Rebbe will be the messiah.

• Refused to use the standard declaration said for these torchlightings,  “La Tiferet Medinat Israel” (“For the Glory of the State of Israel”) and instead said “Le Tiferet Medinat Eretz Israel,” (“For the Glory of the State of Land of Israel,”) meaning the ‘state’ of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the biblical Land of Israel, not the modern political state of Israel.

Why did he change the official wording of the ceremony? Also, why did he feel the compulsion to reiterate the Chabad belief that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schnersohn is still the Messiah–even though he is already dead? This is curious indeed! However, most (if not all) Chabad rabbis still believe the deceased Rebbe is coming back as the REAL Messiah. Most Chabad rabbis do not realize just how similar their belief is with Christianity!

The simple truth remains that the Lubavitcher Rebbe never wanted to be seen as identifying with the Zionist movement. ” Hava Nagila” was once a Chabad melody used in the movement’s meditations just before the Rebbe would give over a Hassidic ma’amar (discourse on Jewish mysticism),  but after it became the melody for the new Zionist movement, Chabad dropped immediately  it.

Well, back to our original story about Rabbi Rosenberg. Although he felt proud that he represented Chabad emissaries all over the world, apparently the leading Chabad rabbis of Jerusalem decided to censure his behavior. The local Haredi papers printed the Chabad response: “Let it be known that the participation of a Chabad Chossid (R’ S. R.) at a ceremony which is foreign to the spirit of traditional Judaism, is at his own initiative, and does not represent the Shluchim or Lubavitch Chassidim. The Chabad Beis Din opposes his actions.”

Needless to say, the story has created some very bad press for the Chabad movement.

In fairness to the Chabad, their men do serve in the Israeli Reserves after graduating from rabbinical school. Their devotion to helping Israelis is not because of a belief in Zionism, but because of their love for their “fellow Jews.”  So, as you can see, the Chabad attitude is definitely paradoxical. One of the Chabad Rebbes, Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer of Lubavitch, was one of the charter members of the Neturei Karta, a movement in Israel that is extremely outspoken about their rejection of Zionism and “the Jewish State.”

Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schnersohn wrote a famous epistle on the matter of Zionism, where he notes:

1. Even if the Zionists were G-d fearing Torah true Jews, and even if we had reason to believe that their goal is feasible, we are nevertheless not permitted to join them in bringing our redemption with our own strength. We are not even permitted to force a premature redemption by showering the Almighty with insistent entreaties (As Rashi comments on the Gemara Kesuvos 111A discussing G-d’s adjuring the Jewish people not to force the redemption), and certainly not by means of physical force and devices; We may not end our exile by main force: we will not thereby, achieve the spiritual redemption for which we are waiting. The Zionist notion contradicts our hope and yearning that G-d himself will not bring about our Redemption .

The past redemptions which were wrought by human beings were therefore incomplete. The redemption through Moshe and Aharon after which further exiles followed, and the redemption through Chananyoh, Michoel, and Azaryoh, although they acted in accordance with the prophecy of Yirmeyohu and other prophets are cases in point.

To insure a permanent Redemption from our present exile, we must hope and wait for a deliverance by the Almighty Himself, and not through the hands of one of flesh and blood. Thus only will our redemption be complete.

2. All their plans are built upon fantasies. They will not materialize, for there will never be an agreement to them. And besides our natural characteristics are not suited for it. Their leaders are blinded and bribed by their wish for freedom and power, and the ignorant masses follow them blindly.

3. The main point: The leaders of this project are totally hostile to G-d and His Torah. Their desire and interest is to cast off the yoke of Torah and Mitzvos, substituting nationalism for Judaism. Recently one of their leaders circulated a statement publicly blaspheming Judaism and boldly stating that a Jew is not necessarily someone who observes the Torah and mitzvos, etc. They state that many mitzvos of the Torah are-may their mouth be shut–a disgrace to the Jewish people. They plan to instill these ideas in the young by controlling the school system. Their purpose is to inculcate them with negative attitudes toward G-d given Torah and mitzvos and substitute the banner of nationalism as their guiding force. One of their leaders “reformed” the Torah, omitting those verses, passages and laws that did not please him. He is ready print this “new Torah”, and this is what will be taught in the Zionistic schools. Continue Reading

Enabling Thugocracy

Maimonides raises an important question regarding the nature of repentance:

How does one know whether one has truly changed for the better? Maimonides explains that if the individual can resist the temptation to sin once more when the opportunity presents itself–but doesn’t–then we know that he has truly learned from his past mistakes (Hilchot Teshuvah 2:1).

Maimonides’ insight is psychologically nuanced and relevant today.

During the first Iranian protest, shortly after their most recent elections, President Obama had almost nothing to say to people who risked life and limb to confront the Mullacracy of Iran. In fact, he purposely made it a point to almost say nothing until the media hounded him for a response. The President’s silence was deafening. When he did finally speak out, Obama said he did little to condemn the Iranian government’s suppression of the Internet and cell phones.

This might have been Obama’s defining moment as a political leader; he had the opportunity to condemn Ahmadinejad and his band of fanatics, but instead chose to  say that “the U.S. would not become a political football in a debate happening in Iran.” Had Obama demanded that the Iranian dictator and his mullahs respect democracy, the people might have overthrown the government. Bear in mind, Iran is the number one leader when it comes to promoting international terror. Yet, Obama speaks about the Iranian dictator as if his country is perfectly civilized by Western standards. Yes, the international community knows exactly what Iran is all about. However, our President doesn’t. He thinks that his sophisticated rhetorical skills will persuade the Iranians to see his light of reason. This is a missed opportunity for the President, but I believe he can still call for the overthrow of the Iranian government right now, and strike at the iron while it is hot.

The demonstrators in Iran felt completely demoralized; the demonstrations ended as thousands of people were arrested; business as usual. President Obama missed his great opportunity to possibly end the nuclear madness that threatens to engulf the region in war. It was a perfect opportunity to look real presidential, yet Obama chose the quiescent approach and said almost nothing.

This past month, President Obama took a very different approach with President Mubarak, a man responsible for keeping the peace with Israel for over 30 years. Obama encouraged the people to overthrow the dictator; he told the people that the United States was prepared to cut all aid to Egypt so that Mubarak would leave–and left he did.

Shock-waves throughout the Arab world could be felt; banners saying, “Remember 1979–the year of the Iranian Revolution” were placed everywhere. Jordan, South Yemen–traditional allies of the United States felt uneasy as their populace also called for revolution. Saudi Arabia, suddenly realized that the Iranians had a virtual geographic stranglehold on their country. Fearing for the worst, the pro-Western Arab leaders demanded that Obama tone down his rhetoric or else he would seriously radicalize the Middle East, moving them into the Iranian camp.  On the following day, the President appeared to tone down his criticism.

Then, just a day ago, the President came out of one of his more memorable speeches about the latest uprising in Iran that has broken out with the arrival of the Turkish Prime Minister, “I’m very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognizes that the world is watching,” he said. “How they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and is not.” Remarkably, there has been no media coverage about the Iranian brutality and their contempt of the demonstrators.

The President reacts as if the entire world has never seen the beheadings of homosexuals and heretics in the streets of Tehran; he acts as if women were never stoned for having committed “adultery,” even though most if not all of these cases involved rape. A woman in Iran cannot so much as step outside of her house without the express permission of her husband. Women have NO rights in Iran at all![1] So, Mr. President, what part of the world doesn’t understand what Iran is all about? Bear in mind this same country is threatening the export nuclear technology to the most dangerous thugs in the world. Know that Ahmadinejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and calls for the destruction of the “Great Satan,” envisioning a time when the United States will cease to be country.

This same President made it a point to give the British nuclear secrets to the Russians, a country, that has said it will not support embargoes against Iran (so much for gratitude). Had any American given nuclear secrets to an enemy, that person would be tried for treason. Yet, Mr. Obama gets away with it.

I wonder what the British are thinking now?

Not only hasn’t the President learned from his previous mistakes, he keeps on compounding the ones he is still making. In 1979, Iran posed no threat to the world–now it does, as Iran spreads its influence everywhere in the world, including the Western Hemisphere. Continue Reading

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis is NOW Available!!

Available Now!

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

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

You can also get it at Barnes and Nobles. For me, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby–for we create from the depths of our own being and essence. Creativity offers a remarkable pathway to discovering how God speaks and inspires our soul. Buy it now, you can get it for $39.00 (20% Discount)

CLICK HERE TO BUY IT NOW!

Reviews:

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

A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”
—Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought],The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“ The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.”
—Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness

“ [Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation] is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.”
—Rabbi Dr. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

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

“. . . span[s] the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia. . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.”
—Paul Borgman, author of David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis . . . adroitly moderates a virtual conver-sation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.”
—Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

Get your copy today!