One argument for Judaism that we all have grown up with is that Jewish Survival over 2,000 years of golus, leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel, is so amazingly unique (and predicted by the Torah), that it is in itself a very strong argument for Judaism being true.
This needs to be analyzed very carefully.
There are at least 3 seperate arguments here:
1) That the survival in itself is proof
2) That the prophecies coming true are proof
3) That the establishment of Israel is proof
Clearly 2 and 3 wouldn't work for Satmar as proof of anything, so I guess these arguments only work for MO and Zionistic Chareidim. Anyways, lets address each in turn, and we'll include 2 and 3 too for the benefit of my Zionistic readers (assuming I still have any left after my 'Gaza invasion is immoral' posts).
1. Survival.
It's true we survived. However our numbers are not too impressive. Remember that Christianity started with 1 inconsequential guy at the end of Bayis Sheni, and now they have 1 billion adherents. Meanwhile we're at 12 million (yes, of course I know the reasons for that), and of that the only people who are even practicing 'authentic' Judaism are about 1 million. So you'll say, 'Ho Gufoh!', the fact that we have been so persecuted, and so small, and so scattered, and yet STILL we survived reasonably intact proves something. But what does it prove? That religious fundamentalists are a very tenacious lot, who do a good job at brainwashing their kids? Hard to say it proves much more than that.
2. Prophecies
I'm quite impressed by some of the prophecies, especially the one in Dvarim which says we will be a 'wonder' or talking point across the nations of the world. Some prophecies seem to have come true, and even if the Churban Prophecies of the Neviim were actually written post-facto, you still have the general prophecy of Kibutz Goliyot (ingathering of the exiles) seemingly coming true with Israel. However, you could counter argue that it's a 'self fulfiling prophecy'. The Zionists who established Israel were motivated by the 2,000 year old dream. God had nothing to do with it. Also the UN were motivated by the tragedy of the Holocaust to vote for the state. See! says the believer, it's all part of 'THE PLAN'. Could be. And then again, it might not be.
3. Israel
The Messianic fervor which emanted from the 67 victory is entirely understandable. But things have faded since then. The situation in Israel is no better, and in fact may become worse. You need a lot of faith to think we are at 'reishis tzmichas geulosaynu'. By the way, one of my (MO) Rabbis always stresses the 'reishis' and 'tzmichas' i.e. we're nowhere near Moshiach yet, so don't go getting too crazy about it. (He's anti Lubavitch AND anti the crazy tzioni settler types). Fact is, Israel might become as much of a liability to the Jewish people as a safe haven. Nobody can pedict the future, and it's certainly no proof of anything. Except maybe that the Secular Zionists were the only people in the past 2,000 years who actually achieved anything worthwhile, and we should all become secular.
Bottom line: No proof, and probably not even a very strong argument.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
You gotta have faith, faith, faith
Moshe writes:
Wow. Powerful and uplifting! Or a load of bs? Let's see!
I am unaware of a better (IMHO) proven explanation of our existence and purpose. Science is unable to tell us how existence began, and it doesn't even aspire to tell us how to live our lives morally.
Huh? True, there's no proven explanation of how the Universe began. But that doesn't mean you should go and believe any unproven theory! And true, Science has no relevance to how to be moral, but so what? That doesn't mean you just invent some moral God out of thin air.
Valid because human beings rely everyday on conclusions reached by intuition that they cannot prove. As I wrote on another thread, none of us can "prove" that our consciousness is not just part of a dream from which we will some day wake up from.
Here we go again. You can't prove you exist, so I can believe in God / Jesus / Mohamed / Little Green Aliens / Fairies without having to prove that either. Do people really think this nonsensical argument has legs?
Valid because of the martyrs who have endured fire and water to uphold that faith.
Valid because, if 150 years ago, I would have told a logical positivist of my conviction that God would restore our people to our ancient land, he would have taken out his ruler and mocked that idea as unprovable, unreasonable and delusional.
Eh. Silly.
Valid because, when I see a random act of kindness, devoid of self interest, I know I see the image of God in the person performing it.
Valid because of the sense of awe one feels, or should feel, at the fact that we exist at all, and at our very consciousness of that fact.
Atheists always go on about having awe at the universe. Read 'The Sacred Fire'.
Valid because we live ultimately neither by the sword nor by the scientist, but by the spirit.
My faith in the God of Israel is valid for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I am unaware of a better (IMHO) proven explanation of our existence and purpose. Science is unable to tell us how existence began, and it doesn't even aspire to tell us how to live our lives morally.
Valid because human beings rely everyday on conclusions reached by intuition that they cannot prove. As I wrote on another thread, none of us can "prove" that our consciousness is not just part of a dream from which we will some day wake up from.
Valid because of the effect it has had on the world. Before Judaism, for example, there was no belief that we could improve the human condition. (See Cahill's "The Gifts of The Jews").
Valid because from it emerged the idea of the equal worth of all human beings.
Valid because of the martyrs who have endured fire and water to uphold that faith.
Valid because, if 150 years ago, I would have told a logical positivist of my conviction that God would restore our people to our ancient land, he would have taken out his ruler and mocked that idea as unprovable, unreasonable and delusional.
Valid because if I told a logical positivist in 1980 that my faith told me that the Iron Curtain would topple,and the Jews behind it freed, because no nation could forever suppress its people's spiritual yearning and survive, he would similarly have discounted my faith. (Note in this regard that the former Soviet Union did not lack for scientists).
Valid because if we eliminate God's providence as a reason, the chances of our people still being here would be infinitesimally small.
Valid because, when I see a random act of kindness, devoid of self interest, I know I see the image of God in the person performing it.
Valid because of the sense of awe one feels, or should feel, at the fact that we exist at all, and at our very consciousness of that fact.
Because, as a noted theologian once penned, "To have faith is not to capitulate, but to rise to a higher plane of thinking. To have faith is not to defy human reason, but rather to share Divine Wisdom".
Valid because faith is the last best hope we have. No city that endured was ever built on mockery, cynicism and scorn.
Valid because we live ultimately neither by the sword nor by the scientist, but by the spirit.
Wow. Powerful and uplifting! Or a load of bs? Let's see!
I am unaware of a better (IMHO) proven explanation of our existence and purpose. Science is unable to tell us how existence began, and it doesn't even aspire to tell us how to live our lives morally.
Huh? True, there's no proven explanation of how the Universe began. But that doesn't mean you should go and believe any unproven theory! And true, Science has no relevance to how to be moral, but so what? That doesn't mean you just invent some moral God out of thin air.
Valid because human beings rely everyday on conclusions reached by intuition that they cannot prove. As I wrote on another thread, none of us can "prove" that our consciousness is not just part of a dream from which we will some day wake up from.
Here we go again. You can't prove you exist, so I can believe in God / Jesus / Mohamed / Little Green Aliens / Fairies without having to prove that either. Do people really think this nonsensical argument has legs?
Valid because of the effect it has had on the world. Before Judaism, for example, there was no belief that we could improve the human condition. (See Cahill's "The Gifts of The Jews").
a) I doubt that's true, and b) argument from consequences and hence invalid.
a) I doubt that's true, and b) argument from consequences and hence invalid.
Valid because from it emerged the idea of the equal worth of all human beings.
Yeah, and also the idea that if you don't believe in the one true God, you DIE you infidel scum.
Valid because of the martyrs who have endured fire and water to uphold that faith.
Terrible argument. People have martyred themselves for every crackpot religion. Japanese suicide bombers martyred themselves for Japan and by extension Nazi Germany.
Valid because, if 150 years ago, I would have told a logical positivist of my conviction that God would restore our people to our ancient land, he would have taken out his ruler and mocked that idea as unprovable, unreasonable and delusional.
Eh. Silly.
Valid because if I told a logical positivist in 1980 that my faith told me that the Iron Curtain would topple,and the Jews behind it freed, because no nation could forever suppress its people's spiritual yearning and survive, he would similarly have discounted my faith. (Note in this regard that the former Soviet Union did not lack for scientists).
Stupid.
Valid because if we eliminate God's providence as a reason, the chances of our people still being here would be infinitesimally small.
Rubbish.
Valid because, when I see a random act of kindness, devoid of self interest, I know I see the image of God in the person performing it.
Or the image of evolutionary altruism.
Valid because of the sense of awe one feels, or should feel, at the fact that we exist at all, and at our very consciousness of that fact.
Atheists always go on about having awe at the universe. Read 'The Sacred Fire'.
Because, as a noted theologian once penned, "To have faith is not to capitulate, but to rise to a higher plane of thinking. To have faith is not to defy human reason, but rather to share Divine Wisdom".
So we should believe in God because a 'noted theologian' wrote that Faith is sharing Divine Wisdom?! You have reached new levels of bullsh*t my faithful friend.
So we should believe in God because a 'noted theologian' wrote that Faith is sharing Divine Wisdom?! You have reached new levels of bullsh*t my faithful friend.
Valid because faith is the last best hope we have. No city that endured was ever built on mockery, cynicism and scorn.
True, assuming that when you say 'faith' you really mean 'optimisim and hope'.
Valid because we live ultimately neither by the sword nor by the scientist, but by the spirit.
Err, what's that got to do with faith in God?
Conclusion
So was it uplifting or bs?
I would say, about 98% BS, with 2% uplifting. And that's being generous.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Two Approaches to Orthopraxy
I've been mulling over the following two approaches for a while now.
Approach 1: Beliefless
In this approach I clear my mind of all beliefs. Beliefs per se do not exist. After all, what is a belief anyway? Mimah Nafshach, if the available evidence supports the belief, then it is not a belief at all, but rather it is a piece of knowledge. And if the available evidence does not support the belief, then of what value is the belief? In such a case, the belief would seem to be wishful thinking, or maybe brainwashing.
So for example, I was a guest at a Shabbat meal two weeks ago, and someone at the table asked me directly (and loudly) - 'Do you believe God wrote the Torah?'. But I didn't answer directly yes or no, rather I reframed the question and said 'The available evidence does't make that appear likely'. In other words, those are the facts of the matter.
When believers and skeptics are arguing over TMS, what exactly are they arguing about? I see two possibilities:
Option 1
Both sides agree on what the evidenec shows. However the Believers say 'Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, I still believe', while the Skeptics say 'We don't believe, since our beliefs are always based on evidence (i.e. we don't hold beliefs, only knowledge), and the evidence isn't there'.
Option 2
The arguments is exactly on the evidence. The Believers hold the evidence shows TMS, while the Skeptics hold it doesn't.
Now, most people (on either side) I think would say that Option 2 is what's happening, in most cases. True, you'll sometimes meet someone who will say 'I believe no matter what the evidence', (and that might be emotionally true for a lot more people though they won't admit it), but most of the time it seems to me that most people attempt to (appear to) be rational.
So, if Option 2 is really what's going on here, then the argument is really about the available evidence, and what it shows. Again, though, where is belief playing a part here? It seems both sides are very rational and evidence based (or at least are pretending to be).
Now, you might truy and get past this by saying beliefs are involved because one side 'believes the evidence proves TMS' while the other side 'believes that the evidence disproves (or doesn't prove) TMS'. But that's just playing with the word 'believe'. In reality, each side (according to Option 2) is saying the evidence points to X. It's a purely rational discussion with no appeal to belief.
So according to this analysis, beliefs don't have anythign to do with it. It's all about evidence, and if someone asks me 'do I believe', I will instead redirect the conversation to evidence.
Approach 2: Metaphor
Judaism is very comfortable with metaphor. Especially according to the Modern Orthodox with their 'Breishis Metaphors', but certainly even according to the Chareidim, the concept of metpahor is not alien to Orthodoxy, at least not since the Rambam. The Torah might say 'God's arm', but this is just a metaphor for the masses. Likewise according to Kabalah, the entire text of the Torah is a metaphor for deeper esoteric meanings.
So given this metaphorical approach, when people ask 'Do you believe in TMS', an Orthopraxer can of course answer 'Yes', since metaphorically what TMS really means is that 'Torah' (i.e. the entire corpus of Jewish Literature) is 'Min Hashamayim', i.e. Divinely Inspired i.e. Inspired by the (idea of) the Divine. As one wag once wrote: 'It's not that the Torah is Min Hashamyim but it's written in the 'loshon Bnai Odom'. Rather, the Torah is Min Bnai Odom but it's written in the loshon Shamayim'.
And actually I know a Jewish Academic who does exactly this - he tells people that he affirms the ikkarim, but really he's totally Orthoprax and means his affirmation in a very metaphorical way. Hey, if the Torah can do it, then why can't he?!
Approach 1: Beliefless
In this approach I clear my mind of all beliefs. Beliefs per se do not exist. After all, what is a belief anyway? Mimah Nafshach, if the available evidence supports the belief, then it is not a belief at all, but rather it is a piece of knowledge. And if the available evidence does not support the belief, then of what value is the belief? In such a case, the belief would seem to be wishful thinking, or maybe brainwashing.
So for example, I was a guest at a Shabbat meal two weeks ago, and someone at the table asked me directly (and loudly) - 'Do you believe God wrote the Torah?'. But I didn't answer directly yes or no, rather I reframed the question and said 'The available evidence does't make that appear likely'. In other words, those are the facts of the matter.
When believers and skeptics are arguing over TMS, what exactly are they arguing about? I see two possibilities:
Option 1
Both sides agree on what the evidenec shows. However the Believers say 'Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, I still believe', while the Skeptics say 'We don't believe, since our beliefs are always based on evidence (i.e. we don't hold beliefs, only knowledge), and the evidence isn't there'.
Option 2
The arguments is exactly on the evidence. The Believers hold the evidence shows TMS, while the Skeptics hold it doesn't.
Now, most people (on either side) I think would say that Option 2 is what's happening, in most cases. True, you'll sometimes meet someone who will say 'I believe no matter what the evidence', (and that might be emotionally true for a lot more people though they won't admit it), but most of the time it seems to me that most people attempt to (appear to) be rational.
So, if Option 2 is really what's going on here, then the argument is really about the available evidence, and what it shows. Again, though, where is belief playing a part here? It seems both sides are very rational and evidence based (or at least are pretending to be).
Now, you might truy and get past this by saying beliefs are involved because one side 'believes the evidence proves TMS' while the other side 'believes that the evidence disproves (or doesn't prove) TMS'. But that's just playing with the word 'believe'. In reality, each side (according to Option 2) is saying the evidence points to X. It's a purely rational discussion with no appeal to belief.
So according to this analysis, beliefs don't have anythign to do with it. It's all about evidence, and if someone asks me 'do I believe', I will instead redirect the conversation to evidence.
Approach 2: Metaphor
Judaism is very comfortable with metaphor. Especially according to the Modern Orthodox with their 'Breishis Metaphors', but certainly even according to the Chareidim, the concept of metpahor is not alien to Orthodoxy, at least not since the Rambam. The Torah might say 'God's arm', but this is just a metaphor for the masses. Likewise according to Kabalah, the entire text of the Torah is a metaphor for deeper esoteric meanings.
So given this metaphorical approach, when people ask 'Do you believe in TMS', an Orthopraxer can of course answer 'Yes', since metaphorically what TMS really means is that 'Torah' (i.e. the entire corpus of Jewish Literature) is 'Min Hashamayim', i.e. Divinely Inspired i.e. Inspired by the (idea of) the Divine. As one wag once wrote: 'It's not that the Torah is Min Hashamyim but it's written in the 'loshon Bnai Odom'. Rather, the Torah is Min Bnai Odom but it's written in the loshon Shamayim'.
And actually I know a Jewish Academic who does exactly this - he tells people that he affirms the ikkarim, but really he's totally Orthoprax and means his affirmation in a very metaphorical way. Hey, if the Torah can do it, then why can't he?!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The original meaning of 'Shemah Yisrael'?
The various meforshim have long puzzled over the meaning of the iconic phrase 'Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeynu, Hashem Echad'. Most people translate it simply as follows:
'Hear Oh Israel, the Lord is (our) God, the Lord is one'
i.e. As the quintessential proclamation that there is one God, and Hashem is Him. The problem is that the hebrew is a little awkward. Some people like to translate 'Echad' as 'A unity', which is a bit more Rambam like.
I recently read another theory which sounds truer, and also fits better with the Asseres Hadibros. According to this theory, Shemah is really saying the following:
'Hear oh Israel, Hashem is OUR God (as opposed to the other Gods in the pantheon who are not OUR Gods), Hashem Alone (is our God, and none of the other Gods).
Similarly, the first of the ten commandments reads as follows:
'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; You shall have no other gods before me.'
Which really means to say:
'I am the Lord YOUR God (and none of the other Gods are YOUR God), and I brought you out of Egypt and Slavery (and that's why I'm YOUR God because of what I did for you) and that's why you shouldn't be worshipping any of those other Gods.'
All very clearly Henotheistic.
But, if you really want to kvetch, you could possibly say that this is like korbanos. Bnei Yisrael were not ready for Monotheism, nobody was back then, so the only way Hashem could make it work was to first make Judaism appear to be Henotheistc, and overtime wean the Bnai Yisrael away from Polytheism, via Henotheism to straight up Monotheism. And Monotheism itself had to evolve from an anthropomorphic Monotheism where God had a body, to the abstract Deity of the Rambam.
You could also take this one step further, and say that Hashem's ultimate plan is for man to realize that an abstract Deity also isn't a real or true concept, and that eventually we should all become ignostic. I actually believe that theory.
'Hear Oh Israel, the Lord is (our) God, the Lord is one'
i.e. As the quintessential proclamation that there is one God, and Hashem is Him. The problem is that the hebrew is a little awkward. Some people like to translate 'Echad' as 'A unity', which is a bit more Rambam like.
I recently read another theory which sounds truer, and also fits better with the Asseres Hadibros. According to this theory, Shemah is really saying the following:
'Hear oh Israel, Hashem is OUR God (as opposed to the other Gods in the pantheon who are not OUR Gods), Hashem Alone (is our God, and none of the other Gods).
Similarly, the first of the ten commandments reads as follows:
'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; You shall have no other gods before me.'
Which really means to say:
'I am the Lord YOUR God (and none of the other Gods are YOUR God), and I brought you out of Egypt and Slavery (and that's why I'm YOUR God because of what I did for you) and that's why you shouldn't be worshipping any of those other Gods.'
All very clearly Henotheistic.
But, if you really want to kvetch, you could possibly say that this is like korbanos. Bnei Yisrael were not ready for Monotheism, nobody was back then, so the only way Hashem could make it work was to first make Judaism appear to be Henotheistc, and overtime wean the Bnai Yisrael away from Polytheism, via Henotheism to straight up Monotheism. And Monotheism itself had to evolve from an anthropomorphic Monotheism where God had a body, to the abstract Deity of the Rambam.
You could also take this one step further, and say that Hashem's ultimate plan is for man to realize that an abstract Deity also isn't a real or true concept, and that eventually we should all become ignostic. I actually believe that theory.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Does Devarim prove TMS false?
One of the problems in discussing the DH is that no matter how clear the contradictions, duplications and textual divisions in the text might be, you can be sure that some highly imaginative Rishon, Acharon or latter day Parshan has created a beautiful peshat which ties it all together, and also highlites various common themes, word plays and all sorts of things. I remember Hirhurim doing this with Parshat Noach, showing how certain words were repeated a certain number of times, even though according to the DH we have two different texts spliced together. So how to we address this? I see a few possible approaches:
1. Admit that as much as the DH methodology provides good argument for multiple authorship, this 'Parshanut' methodology provides good arguments in the opposite direction.
2. Assume that the Redactor was a genius at splicing things together to create these kind of wordplays, lessons, common themes or whatever. This then begs the question of why would he do that, and leave so many contradictions still in the text.
3. Say that this Parshanut is all nonsense, and that anyone could take any sufficiently complex text and produce all sorts of wonderful drush on it. And even more than that, the fact that the Torah is a bunch of spliced together documents actually makes it easier to produce drushim, because it's such a mess. Jacques Berlinerbrau advances this theory.
So what do I think? Rationally, I think 3 is probably true, but I must admit that when someone does produce a particularly good drush, it makes me think twice. Could it really all be such a co-incidence?
Anyways, david a says the following:
One does not need a complex DH to conclude multiple authorship. Any reasonable objective person would come to the realization that there is no way Devarim was authored by the same person as the rest of the wilderness portion of the Torah.
Aside from the obvious difference in language, style and terminologies, the author of Devarim had different hashkofot (eg. His views on the relation to God, reward & punishment, Kapporah, political views, attitude to the kehuna, and other ideas) and he promulgated many laws completely different from the those expounded by the rest of chumash (eg. yom tov, maaser, matnas kehuna, bechor, shmittah, he likely didn’t know about yom kippur, and maybe his view of shabbos was less strict, etc,.) Also, his icons were different. No ohel mo-ed and no adulation of the kehuna, particularly aaron). In addition, every single one of the retold narratives in Deut 1-11 has enough differences and contradictions to the corresponding incident to make a compelling argument that the “moshe” of Devarim could not have been the same “moshe” of the rest of chumash.
I constantly tell people if you really want to appreciate this for yourself, do the exercise..compare the literal text in terms of the narratives, the laws and hashkofot with the rest of chumash. It’s a long exercise but to me it was a clincher.
OK, so let's do it. We'll go thru Devarim and see what the differences to the rest of the Torah are. Then we'll look at all the droshos and parshanut on these differences, and weigh up each against the other to reach a conclusion.
And then all the skeptics will say 'See!', and all the believers will say 'See!', and no progress will be made. Oh well.
Course none of this says anything about whether God wrote the Torah. I just assume He didn't, since we have no evidence of God writing any books, or even existing, so it's a no brainer really.
1. Admit that as much as the DH methodology provides good argument for multiple authorship, this 'Parshanut' methodology provides good arguments in the opposite direction.
2. Assume that the Redactor was a genius at splicing things together to create these kind of wordplays, lessons, common themes or whatever. This then begs the question of why would he do that, and leave so many contradictions still in the text.
3. Say that this Parshanut is all nonsense, and that anyone could take any sufficiently complex text and produce all sorts of wonderful drush on it. And even more than that, the fact that the Torah is a bunch of spliced together documents actually makes it easier to produce drushim, because it's such a mess. Jacques Berlinerbrau advances this theory.
So what do I think? Rationally, I think 3 is probably true, but I must admit that when someone does produce a particularly good drush, it makes me think twice. Could it really all be such a co-incidence?
Anyways, david a says the following:
One does not need a complex DH to conclude multiple authorship. Any reasonable objective person would come to the realization that there is no way Devarim was authored by the same person as the rest of the wilderness portion of the Torah.
Aside from the obvious difference in language, style and terminologies, the author of Devarim had different hashkofot (eg. His views on the relation to God, reward & punishment, Kapporah, political views, attitude to the kehuna, and other ideas) and he promulgated many laws completely different from the those expounded by the rest of chumash (eg. yom tov, maaser, matnas kehuna, bechor, shmittah, he likely didn’t know about yom kippur, and maybe his view of shabbos was less strict, etc,.) Also, his icons were different. No ohel mo-ed and no adulation of the kehuna, particularly aaron). In addition, every single one of the retold narratives in Deut 1-11 has enough differences and contradictions to the corresponding incident to make a compelling argument that the “moshe” of Devarim could not have been the same “moshe” of the rest of chumash.
I constantly tell people if you really want to appreciate this for yourself, do the exercise..compare the literal text in terms of the narratives, the laws and hashkofot with the rest of chumash. It’s a long exercise but to me it was a clincher.
OK, so let's do it. We'll go thru Devarim and see what the differences to the rest of the Torah are. Then we'll look at all the droshos and parshanut on these differences, and weigh up each against the other to reach a conclusion.
And then all the skeptics will say 'See!', and all the believers will say 'See!', and no progress will be made. Oh well.
Course none of this says anything about whether God wrote the Torah. I just assume He didn't, since we have no evidence of God writing any books, or even existing, so it's a no brainer really.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Manna
Guest Post by Rabbi J.B. Sillyboychik
In Bamidbar, we read about the Manna as being Wafers baked in Oil. Whereas in Shemos, we read that the Manna is Cake baked in Honey. How can this be? The answer is that we have here two archetypes for Manna, and for ontological religio-politico-socialogico-spritualo-modernorthodoxo life as a whole. Let's call them Manna 1 and Manna 2.
Manna 1 is about Honey. Honey is natual, sweet tasting and is good for you. Manna 2 is about Oil. Oil is natural, but is not a renewable resource. Unless we are talking about vegetable oil I guess. Oil is useful, but is it good for you?
Clearly, there are many differences between Honey and Oil. I bet I could write an entire book on it! And once I do, you will no longer need to worry about the textual differences between Manna 1 and Manna 2.
And this book shall of course be titled -'The Lonely Manna of Faith'.
[OK, so it was a lame post with an obvious punchline. So sue me]
In Bamidbar, we read about the Manna as being Wafers baked in Oil. Whereas in Shemos, we read that the Manna is Cake baked in Honey. How can this be? The answer is that we have here two archetypes for Manna, and for ontological religio-politico-socialogico-spritualo-modernorthodoxo life as a whole. Let's call them Manna 1 and Manna 2.
Manna 1 is about Honey. Honey is natual, sweet tasting and is good for you. Manna 2 is about Oil. Oil is natural, but is not a renewable resource. Unless we are talking about vegetable oil I guess. Oil is useful, but is it good for you?
Clearly, there are many differences between Honey and Oil. I bet I could write an entire book on it! And once I do, you will no longer need to worry about the textual differences between Manna 1 and Manna 2.
And this book shall of course be titled -'The Lonely Manna of Faith'.
[OK, so it was a lame post with an obvious punchline. So sue me]
Monday, June 15, 2009
Behaaloschah proves that the Torah was written by Men
So last weeks parshah was a real mess. Anybody notice?
Then Moshe complains to God, and there's some back and forth, and God decides to send so much quail that it will come out of their noses, and they will be totally sick of it. In the middle of this is a weird and out of place interlude with Eldad & Medad. Anyway back to the story, so the quail comes, and you might think that's the end of the story, but no! Apparently God is no longer satisfied with just making the people sick to death of quail, so he sends another plague, and lots more people die. For complaining. How sad.
So we have two stories with quails and manna. One story before Sinai, one after Sinai, so it can't really be the same story (at least not without kvetching). In one story, the quail is a one time event and a terrible punishment. In the other story, it doesn't seem to be much of a punishment, more like a nice fleishik dinner. And it also implies it happened every day. Also the taste of the manna is different. In Shemos its Honey Cakes, in Bamidbar its Oil Cakes. Could oil cakes and honey cakes taste the same? Sure, but why change the description?
Let's look at Chapter 11.
Chapter 11 starts off with the people complaining, and God 'burns them'. So now it's the death penalty for complaining? That's not very nice. Then they continue to complain, but didn't they just get burned bad for complaining? I guess they didn't learn their lesson. They say that they miss the 'fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic'. Err, weren't they poor downtrodden slaves in Egypt?? Guess not.
Anyway, then we are told that the Manna tasted like 'cake baked with oil' וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ, כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן, remember this for later.
Then Moshe complains to God, and there's some back and forth, and God decides to send so much quail that it will come out of their noses, and they will be totally sick of it. In the middle of this is a weird and out of place interlude with Eldad & Medad. Anyway back to the story, so the quail comes, and you might think that's the end of the story, but no! Apparently God is no longer satisfied with just making the people sick to death of quail, so he sends another plague, and lots more people die. For complaining. How sad.
So, a complete mess of a story, and it doesn't portray God very nicely either. [Note: I think God is nice - assuming He exists. It's just whomever wrote down this story was a bit of a sicko. I guess he didn't like people complaining.]
But wait, there's more.
Take a look at Shemos 16. A remarkably similar story. The people complain about the lack of food. God says you shall eat quail in the evening and manna in the morning. The verse actually makes it sound like this was the schedule for every day - a meat dinner, pasty for breakfast. And the people are happy and nobody dies. And what does the manna taste like? Oil Cake? No! Cakes baked with honey (וְטַעְמוֹ, כְּצַפִּיחִת בִּדְבָשׁ)
So we have two stories with quails and manna. One story before Sinai, one after Sinai, so it can't really be the same story (at least not without kvetching). In one story, the quail is a one time event and a terrible punishment. In the other story, it doesn't seem to be much of a punishment, more like a nice fleishik dinner. And it also implies it happened every day. Also the taste of the manna is different. In Shemos its Honey Cakes, in Bamidbar its Oil Cakes. Could oil cakes and honey cakes taste the same? Sure, but why change the description?
What's going on here?
The answer is obvious. Two ancient legends about manna and quails, each retold by two different authors, in two different ways.
Now, these problems are so obvious I'm sure they caught the eye of the meforshim too. I haven't had the chance to review all the meforshim, but I can imagine the game they play. Each one invents an entirely bogus kvetch (or beautiful drash, as the case may be) to 'explain away' all the problems. Sure, these drashot teach meaningful lessons and sound nice at the shabbat table. But are they likely to be true? Hardly.
Isn't all this obvious? (Answer: Sure, as long as you are not blinded by fundie bias).
But Gil, RJM and Y Aharon will have fun kvetching this lot away. And I bet I've only scratched the surface here.
Update! I just noticed another messy bit. In Shemos 16 posuk 8 Moshe tells the people they will eat meat in the evening and manna in the morning) Yet 4 pesukim later, at posuk 12,God tells Moshe to go tell that to the Bnai Yisrael!. Bizarre.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Michael Fishbane is Da Man!
I just started reading Michael Fishbane's new book of Theology, 'Sacred Attunement'. So far, its really great. Has anyone else read this, or any of his other works? He lives in Chicago so maybe ej knows him.
From the intro:
"This work is an attempt to "do" theology in a dark and disorienting time, a time sunk in the mire of modernity. Naivete is out of the question. The mirror of the world reflects back to us our willfull epistemologies, our suspicion of values, and the rank perversities of the human heart. Like Kafka, we prowl aimlessly around the debris of old Sinais, in a wasteland of thought. The tablets of despair are strewn everywhere. Old beginnings do not work; they are a dead end. Is theology even possible in such circumstances? And if possible, can it be done without denying the undeniable?"
Monday, June 1, 2009
The four main problems with Orthopraxy
There's a bunch of problems with OP that people keep mentioning:
1. Why would anyone be motivated if they didn't believe God commanded it?
2. OP will never last more than one or two generations.
3. OP will never be a mass movement.
4. How is this authentic Judaism?
I think I have a good response to all of these except maybe the last one.
1. Motivation
This is the most frequent argument, and also the easiest to counter. Most Frum Skeptics remain with a Charedi mentality that they'll only ever be bothered to do anything (chessed, pay their taxes, get up early on a Sunday) if God directly commanded them to, otherwise there's no point.And of course anyone who goes OTD has no motivation to be moral or good in any way. What these Frum Skeptics fail to realize is that the world is full of people who do stuff because they WANT to, not because they have to. In fact, many people would be moser nefesh (or have been) for all sorts of values and reasons, and nothing at all whatsoever to do with God. I know this is hard for a fundie (or ex fundie) to grasp, but try.
So then the argument goes, OK, people do hobbies and such, but the costs of OJ are just too high. Again this simply isn't true. I know plenty of people who either don't perceive the costs to be too high, or alternatively find that the benefits outweigh the costs. For example community, shabbos, values etc. It's just a cost benefit analysis, like everything else.
2. Longevity
Everyone always brings the example of Conservative Judaism as proof positive that anything less than OJ can't survive and will always fail. But people don't know history. When the ghetto walls went down, OJ 'didn't survive' either, 70% of people went OTD. Nothing survives intact ad infinitum (newsflash - the sun is burning out in 5 billion years). Things change drastically from generation to generation, and it is foolish to be concerned about whether your particular brand of Judaism will survive intact for ever. It won't, no matter what it is.
3. Masses
I've got some bad news for you sunshine, OJ isn't a mass movement either. OJ are a tiny percentage of Jewry, which is a tiny percentage of world religions. So OP is even smaller, so what?
Some argue that OP can only survive by mooching of OJ (MO OJ). Even if that's true so what? It's exactly the same argument against MO, they only survive by mooching off the UO. How many MO shochtim are there? Mashgichim? Not that many, if any. So there's a symbiotic or dependant relationship (even one way dependance). So what? I guess we just have to be nice to the MOs, that's all.
4. Authenticity
This is the one genuine 'technical' problem with OP (the rest are more sociological). How can we daven, or say brachos with kavanah when what we are saying isn't true. How far can metaphor be stretched? Can we pretend God just means 'Existence' and still claim to be heirs to Judaism?
So there are a number of counter-arguments to this:
1. Judaism has always evolved. Originally it was Henotheism. Have you even read the Asseres Hadibros?? I am YOUR God because I took YOU out of Egypt, so don't worship OTHER Gods. Thats what it says. It does NOT say 'I'm the ONE and ONLY God'. Then it was God with a body - God walks, he smells (other things). Even many Rishonim (Rashi for example) held that God had some kind of body. Now of course God is just an abstract something. My problem with this argument is that although the concept of what God is has evolved, we still hold He has the same attributes. Of course Halachah has evolved, but to say that TMS is now just 'Metaphorical DI' and that's just a natural evolution seems more of a stretch.
2. A different approach is to claim that Judaism has always been metaphorical. The famous story of Tanur Achinai - did the Rabbis really believe that God laughed? Of course not, it's just medrash. Same with everything else. Hard to say this though, the Torah isn't written as medrash, it seems the people who wrote it (and everyone after that), actually believed it was true. So sure, you can take it all metaphorically NOW, but that's not at all how it was always understood. (The same problem applies to the Metaphorical Genesis crowd).
3. Another approach is to say that there really is no such thing as 'authentic Judaism'. Judaism has always evolved and changed. OJ is the heir of Rabbinic Judaism which was simply the most successful of the many brands of Judaism around the end of the second temple (not counting Xtianity - ha!). Likewise today, despite the claims of Kiruv Clowns, OJ isn't the most 'authentic Judaism', it's not even the largest denomination. It's just one version out of many. So how do you define what is Judaism and what isn't? That's a whole nother question. But however you define it, OP will have no problem being part of that.
I think approach 3 is true, but you still have a problem with davening (and brachos etc). As Rabbi Sacks points out in his intro to his new siddur, the tefillah really encodes the beliefs of OJ. It's hard to get around that. Can you say 'Asher Bochar Bonu' metaphorically? It's tough. I see 3 potential solutions here, none of them great:
1. Don't daven.
2. Mumble and have no kavanah. Just like everyone else.
3. Change davening.
I actually like davening, so 1 doesn't appeal. 2 is too fake, even though when I look round in shul no-one has any kavanah. But OPs are more meaning oriented than most. So 3 is the only option. Maybe I'll embark on a project to create my own davening.
In which XGH learns a lesson on Authorial Intent
So I have always rejected the Post Modern idea that authorial intent is irrelevant, and wasn't too hot on Kugel's approach that no matter what the original Biblical writers meant, what really matters is how the Torah has been interpreted.
However a lesson I learned today may change all that.
I had created a slide deck, but part of it got interpreted differently from how it was meant. This happened a while back, so today I tried to explain how I was the one who wrote the slide and actually it meant something else, but I got raked over the coals, because who cares what was meant originally, the only relevant thing was how it ended up being interpreted.
So I wanted to argue that it was more coherent to understand it the way I meant it, but coherence is in the eye of the beholder, and since everyone was happy with their (mis) interpretation, that was all that mattered, and I should just live with it.
Hmmm. Lesson learned - if you are not 100% clear up front (or even if you are), it doesn't matter. Interpretation (and perception) is everything.
However a lesson I learned today may change all that.
I had created a slide deck, but part of it got interpreted differently from how it was meant. This happened a while back, so today I tried to explain how I was the one who wrote the slide and actually it meant something else, but I got raked over the coals, because who cares what was meant originally, the only relevant thing was how it ended up being interpreted.
So I wanted to argue that it was more coherent to understand it the way I meant it, but coherence is in the eye of the beholder, and since everyone was happy with their (mis) interpretation, that was all that mattered, and I should just live with it.
Hmmm. Lesson learned - if you are not 100% clear up front (or even if you are), it doesn't matter. Interpretation (and perception) is everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
