Maimonides on Isaiah 60:22

Someone made a search on what Maimonides says on Isaiah 60:22, and I thought I’d see what I can find. I am no expert on Jewish eschatology, and I certainly don’t know all the prophetic texts – but this text I know – it speaks about The Mashiach, so I found the piece in Mishne Torah that deals with this Topic.

“The smallest shall become a thousand and the least a mighty nation; I am the Lord, in its time I will hasten it.”

Rashi: “in its time I will hasten it” If they are worthy, I will hasten it; if they are not worthy, it will be in its time.

Summary of Maimonides:

“…is based on Maimonides’ Mishne Torah, wherein he develops his two stage recognition process for the messiah. This condenses and summarizes rabbinic considerations of the matter. According to Maimonides, a candidate must be considered the messiah “if he is a king who arises from the house of David, meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments in accordance with the oral and written Torah, and prevails on all Jews to do so and fights the battles of God.” If he succeeds at all this, and if he is seen to be prepared to rebuild the temple on its site and to regather the dispersed Jews, he is assuredly the messiah.”

What the Mishne Torah states

The Laws Concerning Moshiach

Chapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam

Published by: Sichos In English

PUBLISHER’S FOREWORD

Since the time of the Rambam (1135-1204), it has been impossible to discuss the subject of Moshiach and the Era of the Redemption without direct reference to the last two chapters of his monumental halachic code, the Mishneh Torah. For example, it is these two chapters that form the basis of the whole of the next publication of Sichos In English – I Await His Coming Every Day: Studies by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (shlita) on the Rambam’s Conception of Moshiach and the Ultimate Redemption.

These chapters conclude the final section (Hilchos Melachim – “The Laws Concerning Kings”) of the final book (Sefer Shoftim – “The Book of Judges”) of the Mishneh Torah, and are sometimes referred to separately as Hilchos Melech HaMoshiach – “The Laws Concerning King Moshiach.”

The translation of this classic text which Sichos In English presents herewith is not only new, but – unlike almost all of the extant printed editions, even in the Hebrew original – unexpurgated. All the passages suppressed by various medieval Christian censors have been translated in full. They appear here in the footnotes that are keyed to the exact positions from which they were deleted.

It is hoped that this publication will give more and more readers access to one of the major primary sources on the subject of the coming of Moshiach.

- Sichos In English
24 Sivan, 5751 [June 6, 1991]

CHAPTER ELEVEN

1. In future time, the King Moshiach [1] will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will rebuild the [Beis Ha]Mikdash and gather in the dispersed remnant of Israel. Then, in his days, all the statutes will be reinstituted as in former times. We will offer sacrifices and observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars set forth in the Torah.

Whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements of] the other prophets, but also [those of] the Torah and of Moshe, our teacher, for the Torah attests to his coming, stating: [Devarim 30:3-5]

And the Lord your G-d will bring back your captivity and have compassion upon you. He will return and gather you [from among all the nations]…. Even if your dispersed ones are in the furthest reaches of the heavens, [from there will G-d gather you in]…. G-d will bring you [to the land]….

These explicit words of the Torah include all that was said [on the subject] by all the prophets.

There is also a reference [to Moshiach] in the passage concerning Bilaam, who prophesies about the two anointed [kings]: the first anointed [king] [2], David, who saved Israel from her oppressors, and the final anointed [king] who will arise from among his descendants and save Israel [at the End of Days] [3]. The following [quoted] phrases are from that passage: [Bamidbar 24:17-18]

“I see it, but not now” – This refers to David; “I perceive it, but not in the near future” – This refers to King Moshiach.

“A star shall go forth from Yaakov” – This refers to David; “and a staff shall arise in Israel” – This refers to King Moshiach.

“He shall crush all of Moab’s princes” – This refers to David, (as it is written [II Shmuel 8:2], “He smote Moab and measured them with a line”); “he shall break down all of Seth’s descendants” – This refers to King Moshiach, (about whom it is written [Zechariah 9:10], “He will rule from sea to sea”).

“Edom will be demolished” – This refers to David, (as it is written [Cf. II Shmuel 8:6 and 8:14], “Edom became the servants of David”); “his enemy, Seir, will be destroyed” – This refers to Moshiach, (as it is written [Ovadiah 1:21], “Saviors will ascend Mount Zion [to judge the mountain of Esau....]“).

2. Similarly, in regard to the cities of refuge, it is stated [Devarim 19:8-9], “When G-d will expand your borders… you shall add three more cities.” This command has never been fulfilled. [Surely,] G-d did not give this command in vain, [and thus the intent was that it be fulfilled after the coming of Moshiach]. There is no need to cite prooftexts on the concept [of the Moshiach] from the words of the prophets, for all [their] books are filled with it.

3. One should not entertain the notion that the King Moshiach must work miracles and wonders, bring about new phenomena within the world, resurrect the dead, or perform other similar deeds. This is [definitely] not true.

[A proof can be brought from the fact that] that Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest Sages of the Mishnah, was one of the supporters of King Ben Koziva, and would describe him as the King Moshiach. He and all the Sages of his generation considered him to be the King Moshiach until he was killed because of [his] sins. Once he was killed, they realized that he was not [the Moshiach]. The Sages did not ask him for any signs or wonders.

[Rather,] this is the main thrust of the matter: This Torah, with its statutes and laws, is everlasting. We may neither add to them nor detract from them. [4]

4. If a king will arise from the House of David who delves deeply into the study of the Torah and, like David his ancestor, observes its mitzvos as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law; if he will compel all of Israel to walk in [the way of the Torah] and repair the breaches [in its observance]; and if he will fight the wars of G-d; – we may, with assurance, consider him Moshiach.

If he succeeds in the above, builds the [Beis Ha]Mikdash on its site, and gathers in the dispersed remnant of Israel, he is definitely the Moshiach. [5]

He will then perfect the entire world, [motivating all the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written [Zephaniah, 3:9], “I will make the peoples pure of speech so that they will all call upon the Name of G-d and serve Him with one purpose.”

CHAPTER TWELVE

1. One should not entertain the notion that in the Era of Moshiach any element of the natural order will be nullified, or that there will be any innovation in the work of creation. Rather, the world will continue according to its pattern.

Although Yeshayahu [Yeshayahu 11:6] states, “The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat,” these [words] are an allegory and a riddle. They mean that Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked gentiles who are likened to wolves and leopards, as in the verse [Yirmeyahu 5:6], “A wolf of the deserts despoils them, a leopard watches over their cities.” [In this era, all nations] will return to the true faith and no longer plunder or destroy. Instead, at peace with Israel, they will eat that which is permitted, as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:7], “The lion shall eat straw like the ox.”

Similarly, other prophecies of this nature concerning Moshiach are analogies. In the Era of the King Moshiach, everyone will realize what was implied by these metaphors and allusions.

2. Our Sages taught: [Berachos 34b] “There will be no difference between the current age and the Era of Moshiach except [our emancipation from] subjugation to the [gentile] kingdoms.”

The simple meaning of the words of the prophets appears to imply that the war of Gog and Magog [Yechezkal ch. 38] will take place at the beginning of the Messianic age. Before the war of Gog and Magog, a prophet will arise to rectify Israel’s conduct and prepare their hearts [for the Redemption], as it is written: [Malachi 3:23] “Behold, I am sending you Eliyah(u) [6] [before the advent of the great and awesome Day of G-d].”

He will not come [in order] to declare the pure, impure, nor to declare the impure, pure; nor [will he come in order] to disqualify the lineage of those presumed to be of flawless descent, nor to validate lineage which is presumed to be blemished. Rather, [he will come in order] to establish peace in the world; as [the above prophecy] continues [Malachi 3:24], “He will bring back the hearts of the fathers to the children.”

Some of the Sages say that Eliyahu will appear [immediately] before the coming of Moshiach.

All these and similar matters cannot be [clearly] known by man until they occur, for they are undefined in the words of the prophets. Even the Sages have no established tradition regarding these matters, beyond what is implied by the verses; hence there is a divergence of opinion among them.

In any case, neither the sequence of these events nor their precise details are among the fundamental principles of the faith. One should not occupy himself at length with the aggadot and midrashim that deal with these and similar matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they bring one to neither the awe nor the love [of G-d].

Similarly, one should not try to calculate the appointed time [for the coming of Moshiach]. Our Sages declared: [Sanhedrin 97b] “May the spirits of those who attempt to calculate the final time [of Mashiach's coming] expire!” Rather, one should await [his coming] and believe in the general conception of the matter, as we have explained.

3. During the Era of the King Moshiach, once his kingdom has been established and all of Israel has gathered around him, the entire [nation's] line of descent will be established on the basis of his words, through the prophetic spirit which will rest upon him. As it is written [Loc. cit., v. 3], “He shall sit as a refiner and purifier.”

He will purify the lineage of the Levites first, stating that “This one is a priest of defined lineage” and “This one is a Levite of defined lineage.” Those whose lineage he does not recognize will be relegated to the status of Israelites. This is implied by the following verse: [Ezra 2:63] “The governor said to them, ‘[They shall not eat of the most holy things] until a priest arises [who will wear] the Urim and Tumim.’” From this verse one can infer that the genealogy of those presumed to be of unquestioned [priestly and levitical] lineage will be traced by means of the prophetic spirit, and those found to be of such lineage will be made known.

He will define the lineage of the Israelites according to their tribe alone; i.e., he will make known each person’s tribal origin, stating that “This one is from this tribe” and “This one is from another tribe.” However, concerning a person who is presumed to be of unblemished lineage, he will not state that “He is illegitimate,” or “He is of slave lineage,” for the law rules that once a family has become intermingled [within the entire Jewish people], they may remain intermingled.

4. The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that [the Jewish people] be free to involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom, without anyone to oppress or disturb them, and thus be found worthy of life in the World to Come, as we explained in Hilchos Teshuvah.

5. In that Era there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor competition, for good things will flow in abundance and all the delights will be as freely available as dust. The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know G-d. The Jews will therefore be great sages and know the hidden matters, and will attain an understanding of their Creator to the [full] extent of human potential; as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:9], “For the world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”

FOOTNOTES

1. In the original Hebrew, HaMelech HaMoshiach (lit., “the anointed king”); i.e., the Messianic King.]
2. In the original Hebrew, the word here translated “anointed [king]” is simply HaMoshiach (lit. “the anointed one”); i.e., the Messiah. It is used interchangeably with the earlier phrase.]
3. At this point, before being censored by medieval Christian authorities, the Rambam’s original text continued: “…and save Israel from the hand’s of Esav’s descendants. This and two other such deletions have been copied verbatim in these footnotes from the celebrated Yemenite manuscript in the hands of Chacham Yosef Kapach of Jerusalem. (See footnotes 4 and 5, below.)]
4. At this point, the uncensored original text continued as follows: “Whoever adds to [the mitzvoth] or detracts from them, or misinterprets the the Torah, implying that the mitzvos are not intended to be understood literally, is surely a wicked imposter and a heretic.”
5. The whole of the following passage was deleted from most of the editions published since the Venice edition of 1574.”If he did not succeed to this degree or he was killed, he surely is not [the redeemer] promised by the Torah. [Rather,] he should be considered as all the other proper and legitimate kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. G-d only caused him to arise in order to test the multitude. As it is written [Daniel 11:35], “Some of the wise men will stumble, to purge, to refine, and to clarify, until the appointed time, for it is yet to come.”"Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Moshiach and was executed by the court was also spoken of in Daniel’s prophecies [Daniel 11:14], “The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”"Can there be a greater stumbling block than [Christianity]? All the prophets spoke of Moshiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior, who would gather their dispersed ones and strengthen their [observance of] the mitzvos. In contrast [the founder of Christianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humiliated, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”"Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for [to paraphrase Yeshayahu 55:8] His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts. [Ultimately,] all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite [i.e. Mohammed] who arose after him will only serve to pave the way for the coming of Moshiach and for the improvement of the entire world, [motivating the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written [Zephaniah 3:9], “I will make the peoples pure of speech so that they will all call upon the Name of G-d and serve Him with one purpose.”

   “How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with talk of [the supposed] Messiah, as well as of the Torah and the mitzvos. These matters have been spread among many spiritually insensitive nations, who discuss these matters as well as the mitzvos of the Torah. Some of them [i.e. the Christians] say: “These commandments were true, but are not in force in the present age; they are not applicable for all time.” Others [i.e. the Moslems] say: “Implied in the commandments are hidden concepts that cannot be understood simply; the Messiah has already come and revealed them.”

   “When the true Messiah king will arise and prove successful, his [position becoming] exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage; their prophets and ancestors cause them to err.”

6. The name of the prophet is occasionally spelled, as in this verse, without the final letter vav.

Parasha Ki Tavo – Deuteronomy 26:1 – 29:8

Blessings and Curses – the course of Action and Consequences

Focal Point: Devarim 26:12; 27:26; 28:2-6

“When you have set aside in full the tenth part of your yield — in the third year, the year of the tithe — and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat their fill in your settlements…

Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them. — And all the people shall say, Amen.

All these blessings shall come upon you and take effect, if you will but heed the word of the Lord your God:

Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the issue of your womb, the produce of your soil, and the offspring of your cattle, the calving of your herd and the lambing of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be in your comings and blessed shall you be in your goings.”

I am going to continue on the idea of the not so obvious matters. This Parasha starts with the command to offer First Fruits, and then it moves on to Tithing. Tithing in Torah is a simple Tax collection system that is supposed to guarantee that the entire People have what they need for their daily lives, regardless of what they can or cannot accomplish within the Community.

This Parasha seems to be almost a continuation directly from Parasha Re’eh. In Devarim 15 Torah states some rather contradictory things about the poor and needy – Devarim 15:4, 7, 11:

“There shall be no needy among you — since the Lord your God will bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a hereditary portion”

“If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kinsmen in any of your settlements in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kinsman.”

“For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land.”

How’s this possible? The answer lies in the conditional nature of Blessings and Curses, Action and Consequences.

Devarim 15:4 is the Ideal – it is based on the condition that The People of Israel indeed do Observe Torah to a tee.

Devarim 15:7 acknowledges the possibility that the Ideal is not going to be prevalent, and commands the proper attitude in the face of the “less than ideal”. If we fail at the provisions in Devarim 15:4, it can still be amended, through an attitude adjustment.

Devarim 15:11 accepts the fact that we are going to “miss the target” and commands the proper action in the face of this reality. If the attitude adjustment fails – then we need to take direct action and act regardless of the attitude.

It is this reality that Parasha Ki Tavo picks up and makes provisions for – The Tithe.

Another point here, before I move on to the less obvious matters, is within Devarim 15:11 – Torah tells us to be prepared for the reality of different people being in need of assistance at different times, and that those in need will not always be in the same kind of need. It also taps into the idea that a Society needs to take into account the cost of being a Society – we need to be financially responsible as a Society and make provisions for the needs of Society as such. There will always be a need for Societal finances.

But what about those of us who do not generate financial means that can be tithed? Well, I sort of think that Tithing doesn’t just cover our money. I think it covers ALL our resources, all that we are. So I need to give a tenth of my time, a tenth of my attention, a tenth of all my resources, a tenth of that which is not material, just like Parasha Ki Teitzei commands me to return anything lost to its proper owner, including a Lost Faith. We so often think in material terms, and disregard the power of immaterial things, love, attention, faith, care, art, music, unique skills, teaching etc as something there might be a need for.

Ok, on to the Blessings and Curses. We usually think of the Blessings as the norm, which is why we mention the Blessings first in common interactions. We never ask people to count their curses, though we might benefit from doing that too, to get an idea of just how much we are off target, as a way to take stock of ourselves on a regular basis. Torah has it the other way around. Torah assumes that we will fail at living up to it’s demands, and warns against it by mentioning the Curses first. In a way Torah thinks of the Curses as the norm. Why warn against something it assumes we will do anyway? To get our attention. To shake us up and make us mindful of our own actions, so we don’t go about life unaware of the impact we have on ourselves and others. Torah wants to make sure that we realize that we are not islands, isolated from each other or indeed ourselves.

Parasha Ki Tavo is a tough Parasha. But I rather like to think of it in terms of “for every action there is an equal re-action” – what I do has consequences. Good and Bad. It’s the Spiritual equivalent of Newton’s Third Law: All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Cool, isn’t it – Torah applied the Laws of Physics… long before they were common knowledge

Torah consider action and re-action to be a natural law – do we?

Shabbat Shalom!

This article, including artworks and photos in this Blog is Copyright © Henric C. Jensen aka Shadow Bear/Silly Old Bear and are NOT public domain – unless otherwise specified.

Spiritual Self Determination

I remember when I was 15 I was getting a ride to Yeshivah with a family friend who had just become frum. He was asking me different questions about what Yeshiva is like because he was thinking about going to a BT Yeshiva. I will never forget that gleam in his eye. When he talked about his spirituality and how he wanted to learn more and become more, there was just something in his eyes. It was like he just “knew” what he wanted. He just “felt it” on a level that I feared I would never experience.

In some ways I guess the experience of the Baal Teshuvah and the convert is very much similar. I remember the blank stare I got from my JBB friends when I wanted to discuss Torah or had some amazing discovery to share, with what I thought were spiritually attuned people, after all they were Jews, weren’t they?

I remember the disapointment over the fact that Pesach and Channukah, Weekly Parasha study simply didn’t resonate with my Modern Orthodox/Conservative friends the same way it did with me. I also remember how lonely I felt. I had all this new and wonderful knowledge, understanding, and no-one to share it with on a more regular basis.

It’s still there, the yearning, the wonderment, but I have learned to hide it, because sharing it hurts. In one way it’s nice that I am homebound, because that way I don’t have to face the blank stares or the incomprehension of my enthusiasm, spiritual vigor and joy straight on. I can just be Jewish to my hearts content where I am.

The Lost and Found of Torah

Parashat Ki Teitzei – Torah Portion: Deuteronomy 21:10 – 25:19 Haftarah: Isaiah 54:1 – 54:10

Focal Point: Devarim 22:1-3

¹ If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow. ² If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him. ³ You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent.

My friend Yael commented on another Blog Entry:

“But, the ones who lose what was always a part of their identity sometimes have a pretty rough time moving on with life. I wouldn’t be bragging about doing that to anyone.[...]In my interactions with people I always try to encourage Christians to live by the teachings of Jesus the best they can; if they are Jewish to live by the teachings of Torah as best they can; whatever religion they are, use it to be a truly good person.”

If we connect those two statements it becomes clear that Faith is something you can lose. What to do if you find a fellow’s lost Faith by the way-side? You keep it for him until he can come and claim it, and then you give it back to him! Ok, I admit, I am stretching the text here, but I still think the thought has merits After all, we can ask forgiveness on account of those who cannot, will not or do not know that forgiveness is possible – we do it every year on Yom Kippur, so why not hold on to my fellow human’s lost Faith?

After all it’s something he lost, he probably misses it, and even if he doesn’t miss it, doesn’t know he needs it or doesn’t want it, what’s the harm? Will it cost me anything to hold his lost faith in trust until he can claim it for himself? No. On the contrary, it will help me grow a person?

So how do I return someone’s lost Faith to them? One thing’s for certain, unless they are actively looking for it, there’s no way it will be fruitful to try and dump it on them like a sack of potatoes, that’s just mean, pushy and arrogant.

Faith’s little Sister is Hope. Hope incites Faith.

What is hope? “…the desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible…”

Most of the time hope is kindled by the simple act of being present for someone who is in any kind of need. By simply being human, compassionate, honest and attentive towards another I can show that the out-look of life is not at all that bleak. I cannot be sure that this will succeed, but for the sake of the commandment to return anything lost back to the one who lost it, I have to try. Like I stand with The People on Yom Kippur and ask forgiveness on account of those who cannot do it for themselves, so I can hold Faith in trust for those who cannot do it for themselves.

We have a Tradition that teaches us that Mitzvot can be performed in honor of others. So why not hold Faith, perform Mitzvot for the sake of those who cannot do it for themselves, whatever the reason. So when you get up in the morning, instead of berating those you think are lax in their Observance, put on your Tallit and Tefillin for the sake of those who cannot, put an extra coin in your Tzedakah box, do an extra run through the Weekly Parasha when you study and Hold Faith for them who have lost it, until they can claim it for themselves.

Shabbat Shalom!

This article, including artworks and photos are © Henric C. Jensen aka Shadow Bear/Silly Old Bear and are NOT public domain.

The Lost and Found of Torah

Parashat Ki Teitzei – Torah Portion: Deuteronomy 21:10 – 25:19 Haftarah: Isaiah 54:1 – 54:10

Focal Point: Devarim 22:1-3

¹ If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow. ² If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him. ³ You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent.

My friend Yael commented on another Blog Entry:

 

“But, the ones who lose what was always a part of their identity sometimes have a pretty rough time moving on with life. I wouldn’t be bragging about doing that to anyone.[...]In my interactions with people I always try to encourage Christians to live by the teachings of Jesus the best they can; if they are Jewish to live by the teachings of Torah as best they can; whatever religion they are, use it to be a truly good person.”

If we connect those two statements it becomes clear that Faith is something you can lose. What to do if you find a fellow’s lost Faith by the way-side? You keep it for him until he can come and claim it, and then you give it back to him!

Ok, I admit, I am stretching the text here, but I still think the thought has merits After all, we can ask forgiveness on account of those who cannot, will not or do not know that forgiveness is possible – we do it every year on Yom Kippur, so why not hold on to my fellow human’s lost Faith? After all it’s something he lost, he probably misses it, and even if he doesn’t miss it, doesn’t know he needs it or doesn’t want it, what’s the harm? Will it cost me anything to hold his lost faith in trust until he can claim it for himself? No. On the contrary, it will help me grow a person?

So how do I return someone’s lost Faith to them? One thing’s for certain, unless they are actively looking for it, there’s no way it will be fruitful to try and dump it on them like a sack of potatoes, that’s just mean, pushy and arrogant.

Faith’s little Sister is Hope. Hope incites Faith.

What is hope? “…the desire and search for a future good, difficult but not impossible…”

Most of the time hope is kindled by the simple act of being present for someone who is in any kind of need. By simply being human, compassionate, honest and attentive towards another I can show that the out-look of life is not at all that bleak.

I cannot be sure that this will succeed, but for the sake of the commandment to return anything lost back to the one who lost it, I have to try. Like I stand with The People on Yom Kippur and ask forgiveness on account of those who cannot do it for themselves, so I can hold Faith in trust for those who cannot do it for themselves. We have a Tradition that teaches us that Mitzvot can be performed in honor of others. So why not hold Faith, perform Mitzvot for the sake of those who cannot do it for themselves, whatever the reason.

So when you get up in the morning, instead of berating those you think are lax in their Observance, put on your Tallit and Tefillin for the sake of those who cannot, put an extra coin in your Tzedakah box, do an extra run through the Weekly Parasha when you study and Hold Faith for them who have lost it, until they can claim it for themselves.

Shabbat Shalom!

On the Matter of Belief in G-d

My very good friend Dale Husband commented on “The G-d Delusion Part 1” on my other Blog:

“if you rely only on scientific methods for knowledge, without any input from any religious dogmas, then the idea of a Supreme Creator might occur to you as a hypothesis, but an untested, unfalsified, and therefore unscientific hypothesis is all that it would ever be.”

Which gave me reason to say:

“Correct. Which is why it’s both bad science and bad religion to mix them with each other. But it is equally bad science and bad religion to claim either redundant.

To me this is where Philosophy enters the scene – it is apparently possible to arrive at the hypothesis of a Prime Cause through experience, as well as it is to arrive at the hypothesis of a Non-Prime Cause through experience – but both are dependent on further elaboration of the experiential evidence from a personal stand point to have any meaning. From a philosophical point of view both are equally valid.
It is when we elevate unfalsified hypothesis’ to doctrine that we enter the realm of bad theology and bad science.”

I then had the idea that:

“One of these days I am going to give the justifications behind my personal beliefs, *lol* I seem to be running into the issue a lot these days.”

So I’ll have a go at it…:-)

I agree that there is no scientific evidence either to prove or disprove the existence of G-d, and in fact such evidence is not needed. Why is that? Because when we enter the realm of theology we also enter the realm of Belief, where there is nothing to guide the human mind but circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is defined as ‘evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute’. Basically what it means is that there is no hard, physical – scientific – evidence for the hypothesis of G-d being a reality in the Universe, but that it is possible to understand experiential evidence in such a manner. Circumstantial evidence is a weak form of evidence, but it is nevertheless a valid form of evidence. In matters of Law and Science it needs physical evidence to back it up, but for the purpose of personal meaning it works just fine.

When the Author of Tehillim/Psalm 8 says:

“When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You have established, 5. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him? 6. Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty. 7. You give him dominion over the work of Your hands; You have placed everything beneath his feet. 8. Flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field; 9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, he traverses the ways of the seas. 10. O L-rd, our Master, how mighty is Your name in all the earth!”

he is looking at the Universe and all the wonders it holds and from this experiential evidence he concludes that SomeOne is ultimately responsible for this abundance of wonders. That is my personal position. To me the existence of all those wonders, from the microscopic one-celled organism to the Planet Itself and the Space beyond it is inference enough to spark a Belief in G-d as the Ultimate Cause of it all.

I find it difficult to accept the idea that the Universe as it appears to me on a daily basis is the result of chemical and physical laws, without any form of Ultimate Source.

Carl Sagan wrote:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’

I feel that he was mistaken on one point – what the Hebrew Scriptures actually convey in terms of the Magnificence of our Universe and its Creator and what we are told it means are not the same thing. What is the basic dogma of a religion and what is what its Scriptures actually say is rather divergent matters. The seeming limits of experiences in the times when those Scriptures were presented to the world are just that SEEMING. We assume that because there is no detectable preserved Scientific understanding of the Universe among the authors of the Hebrew Bible that such Scientific understanding didn’t exist. The arrogance of such assumptions is staggering, in my opinion.

I would also like to disagree with the assertion he makes about what people of Faith say about G-d. I disagree simply because as one of those People of Faith I do not describe my G-d as little, nor do I disregard what Science says about the Universe and it’s intricate and magnificent mechanisms and laws, on the contrary I accept Science’s assertions of these matters, and in my mind it only increases the Magnificence of what I believe to be the Ultimate Source.

As I have said in other posts:

Many years ago I resolved the seeming conflict between Science and Religion by looking at what questions they answer respectively on the matter. I think perhaps I intuitively knew that the conflict lies not between the two Disciplines, but between the Disciples of both, because the answer to the conundrum of Science vs Religion I found looks as follows:

Torah/The Bible/Religion answers the Questions “Who and Why?“
Science/Evolutionary Theory answers the Questions “How, When and Where?“

in my opinion Science as such doesn’t give MEANING to human existence. It provides us with a basic idea of what we are in terms of biological, chemical and physical set-up, but it doesn’t explain the ontological aspects of human existence. It doesn’t explain why we, as a cultural species seem to be on the constant look-out for something beyond ourselves. It doesn’t answer the existential questions of human reality.

Correctly or incorrectly, Faith does explain and answer these queries to an extent that to most people seems satifactory, or at least enough to keep us looking.

Belief or non-belief in an Ultimate Source is a matter of personal preferences.

Ultimately I believe in G-d because I want to, because I need to and because I have found no reason not to. Belief in G-d as a statement is extremely personal and while the theological workings of such belief can be questioned and should be, ultimately it all boils down to very personal and very fundamental reasons, that cannot be questioned other than by the individual.

The G-d Delusion Part 1

The First Chapter of The God Delusion:

Also available here at NYTimes.com

“The boy lay prone in the grass, his chin resting on his hands. He suddenly found himself overwhelmed by a heightened awareness of the tangled stems and roots, a forest in microcosm, a transfigured world of ants and beetles and even – though he wouldn’t have known the details at the time – of soil bacteria by the billions, silently and invisibly shoring up the economy of the micro-world. Suddenly the micro-forest of the turf seemed to swell and become one with the universe, and with the rapt mind of the boy contemplating it. He interpreted the experience in religious terms and it led him eventually to the priesthood. He was ordained an Anglican priest and became a chaplain at my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat.

In another time and place, that boy could have been me under the stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and trumpet flowers in an African garden. Why the same emotion should have led my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to answer. A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief. In his boyhood at least, my chaplain was presumably not aware (nor was I) of the closing lines of The Origin of Species – the famous ‘entangled bank’ passage, ‘with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth’. Had he been, he would certainly have identified with it and, instead of the priesthood, might have been led to Darwin’s view that all was ‘produced by laws acting around us’:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”

Dawkins draws some weird conclusions about Einstein and his faith later on in the Chapter – I will get to those as I go. Initially (in the quoted section above) he makes the same mistake that many other Religionists do – he assumes that if the experience is similar, the out-come must necessarily be the same. That is actually a logical fallacy, common, but one would expect a scientist like Dawkins not to make it.

He equates “similar” with “same”, when he relates the stories of the two boys and questions why the Anglican Priest didn’t become an Atheist Scientist, like himself.

Similar= Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

Same= Identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned.

From Dictionary.com

No two people experience their surroundings identically. That is simply not possible. But the same Aurora Borealis can very well evoke completely contradictory responses. To argue that similar experiences by necessity should lead to the same response in two different people only shows the Dawkins in his quest for proof that he is right, rather than a scientific exploration of the evidence – which at best would lead him down an agnostic path, is very much employing presuppositions about the nature of empirical data arrived through non-scientific means. Or in short – Dawkins assumes that the interpretation of the experience of the Anglican Priest, which lead him to belief in G-d is wrong, simply because it lead to something Dawkins cannot accept.

Dawkins prejudice against religion, and thus, I guess, his need to disprove it becomes very visible in the first paragraphs: “It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat.”

That smacks of dishonesty, and makes me wonder if Dawkins isn’t in all actuality re-acting to exactly the kind of force-feeding that he claims he was not exposed to. He equates religion with force – despite the fact that he also claims that the Anglican Priest he starts his first chapter with has not represented any such force.

Employing Giants like Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein (I’ll get to him later ), and twist them to fit his own agenda, is not only dishonest – it’s immoral.

Carl Sagan’s ideas is very clearly reflected in Psalm 8:4-10:

“When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You have established, 5. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him? 6. Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty. 7. You give him dominion over the work of Your hands; You have placed everything beneath his feet. 8. Flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field; 9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, he traverses the ways of the seas. 10. O Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your name in all the earth!”

It seems to me that the author of Psalm 8, Carl Sagan, the Anglican Priest and Richard Dawkins are all describing similar experiences!

I suppose that the portion of Carl Sagan’s work “The Blue Dot” that I linked to above, didn’t fit Dawkins ideas – but the portion that he quotes in his book, certainly doesn’t reflect the entirety of Carl Sagan’s Scope. It is also worth to note that two Giants Richard Dawkins choose to quote are both Jewish, and had a Jewish up-bringing. This does put their statements about G-d and the Universe in a slightly other light.

Judaism has the existence of G-d, or a Prime Cause, as an axiom. This is never questioned in Judaism – not in modern Judaism, and definitely in the Judaism brought to Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan lived an died a skeptic, an agnostic and a freethinker, but nowhere does he deny the existence of G-d. The manner of thinking, unique to Judaism and thus to its adherents is exactly the attitude of questioning and analyzing everything from a point of view of finding the truth of things and align those thoughts along lines of logic. It is very unlikely that someone Jewish would look at the Universe and come to the conclusion that there is nothing out there – it would be intellectually dishonest and a logical fallacy in and of itself, something Carl Sagan wouldn’t be guilty of, I am sure.

The thinking Dawkins ascribes to Carl Sagan (and later Albert Einstein) comes from an ignorance of the inner workings of intellectual Judaism and the manner in which Jews of Sagan’s and Einstein’s generations were trained from an early age to deal with intellectual problems, it is further driven by his need to prove the truth of Atheism.

Dawkins is a Religious Atheist – a Fundamentalist Atheist – which means he will be making the same logical mistakes Fundamentalists, whatever their Creed (and don’t be fooled – Atheism is a Creed to Dawkins) make and he is Preaching his Creed as well as ever any Evangelical Fundamentalist.

It was put very nicely in one of the Big Morning Papers here in Sweden on Saturday: “G-d doesn’t exist and Dawkins is His Prophet.”

It doesn’t mean that his message shouldn’t be taken seriously, or that Atheism as such is bad, but one need to realize that this is a man with an ego larger than his logic. He even has a page he calls “Converts Corner” with testimonial letters from readers who have converted to Atheism as a result of reading his books. In the end he is the one who comes across as delusional – not because he denies the veracity of Religion, but because he doesn’t draw the LOGICAL conclusions from the scientific evidence he is supposed be so well acquainted with. It shouldn’t land him in Fundamentalist Atheism, it should by all logic land him in Agnosticism.

I will come back and deal with the rest of the first chapter of Richard Dawkins’ book.

Man Seeking G-d or G-d Seeking Man?

If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? (Pirkei Avot 1:14)

“It is particularly in the so called wisdom literature, such as the books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, as well as the Book of Psalms, that the spontaneity of the Biblical man found its expression.

The concern for God continued throughout the ages, and in order to understand Judaism we must inquire about the way and the spirit of that concern in post-Biblical Jewish history as well. Two sources of religious thinking are given us: memory (tradition) and personal insight. We must rely on our memory and we must strive for fresh insight. We hear from tradition, we also understand through our own seeking. The prophets appeal to the spiritual power in man: “Know, therefore, this day, and day it to your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4 :39). The psalmist calls on us “O taste and see that the Lord is good” (34:9) How does one know? How does one taste?
An allusion to the need for every man’s own quest for God was seen homiletically in the Song of the Red Sea:

“This is my God, and I will glorify Him;
The God of my father, and I will exalt Him.” (Exodus 15:2)

Out of his own insight a person must first arrive at the understanding: This is my God, and l will glorify Rim, and subsequently he will attain the realization that He is the God of my father, and l will exalt Him.

Burnt offerings, sacrifices are an important part of Biblical piety. And yet, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, understanding (knowledge) of God, rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6). There is away that leads to understanding. “Ye will seek the Lord thy God, and thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and all thy soul” (Deuteronomy 4:29; Jeremiah 29:13).
“If a man says to you, l have laboured and not found, do not believe him. If he says, l have not labored but still have found, do not believe him. If he says, l have laboured and found, you may believe him.” It is true that in seeking Him we are assisted by Him.
But the initiative and intensity of our seeking are within our power. “If thou call for understanding, and lift up thy voice for discernment; if thou seek her as silver and search for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the awe and fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.” “Everything is within the power of heaven except the awe and fear of heaven.”

The Bible has several words for the act of seeking God (darash, bakkesh, shahar). In some passages these words are used in the sense of inquiring after His will and precepts (Psalms 119:45, 94, 155).

“And I will walk at ease, for I have sought Thy precepts;”
“I am Thine, save me; for I have sought Thy precepts.”
“Salvation is far from the wicked; for they seek not Thy statutes.”

Yet, in other passages these words mean more than the act of asking a question, the aim of which is to elicit information. It means addressing oneself directly to God with the aim of getting close to Him; it involves a desire for experience rather than a search for information. Seeking Him includes the fact of keeping His commandments, but it goes beyond it. “Seek ye the Lord and His strength, seek His face continually” (Psalms 105:4). Indeed, to pray does not only mean to seek help, it also means to seek Him.
However, the same words cannot be said in regard to God. The commandment “is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it”(Deuteronomy 30:11-14). “Am I a God near at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?” (Jeremiah 23:23). Indeed, there are moments when He is near and may be found, and there are moments when He is far and hiding Himself from man. “Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6).* Not all of the people of the Bible are satisfied with awareness of God’s power and presence. There are those “that seek Him, that seek Thy face O God of Jacob” (Psalms 24:6). “One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may abide in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord” (Psalms 27:4). “As for me, the nearness of God is my good” (Psalms 73:28) At Sinai, according to legend, Israel was not content to receive the divine words “through an intermediary. They said to Moses, “We want to hear the words of our King from Himself. . . We want to see our King.”

The craving for God has never subsided in the Jewish soul. Despite the warning, “Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live” (Exodus 32:20), there were many who persisted in a yearning, to which Jehuda Halevi gave unforgettable utterance. “To see the face of my King is my sole desire. I fear none but Him; I revere only Him. Would that I might see Him in a dream! I would continue to sleep for all eternity. Would that I might behold His face within my heart! Mine eyes would never ask to look at anything else.”
“As a hart yearns for the streams of water, so does my soul yearn for Thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, the living God, when shall I come and see the face of the Lord?” (Psalms 42:2f)
Like Moses who pleaded, “Show me, I pray, Thy glory” (Exodus 33:18), the Psalmist prays:
“O God, Thou art my God, earnestly will I seek Thee. My soul thirsteth for Thee, my flesh longeth for Thee, In a dry and weary land, where no water is.
So have I looked for Thee in the sanctuary, To see Thy strength and Thy glory.” (Psalms 63:2-3)
“With my soul have I desired Thee in the night; Yea with my spirit within me have I sought Thee earnestly.” (Isaiah 26:9)

“In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, The children of Israel shall come, They and the children of Judah together; They shall go on their way weeping And shall seek the Lord their God.” (Jeremiah 50:4)

God is waiting for man to seek Him. “The Lord looked forth from heaven upon the children of man, to see if there were any man of understanding that sought Him” (Psalms 14 :2). “In Thy behalf my heart hath said: ‘Seek ye My face’” (Psalms 27:8). And on the Days of Awe we recall in humility: “Until the day of man’s death Thou waitest for him” to return.

On the other hand, one is always faced with the possibility of failure, with the danger of being trapped in lofts without light, without motion. There are those “whose doings will not suffer them to return unto their God. . . . With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek Him, but they shall not find Him; He hath withdrawn Himself from them” (Hosea 5:4, 6).
We must go on trying to return, to care for Him, to seek Him. It is an exceptional act of divine grace that those who do not care for Him should suddenly discover that they are near Him. “I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said: ‘Here am I, here am I,’ unto a nation that did riot call on My name” (Isaiah 65:1).
In his last words, David warned his son Solomon: “If thou seek Him, He will be found of thee; but if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off for ever” (I Chronicles 28:9). From Abraham Joshua Heschel’s “God in Search of Man”

My Friend Yael inadvertently pointed me to Abraham Joshua Heschel, which I remembered I had a book by in my growing Jewish Library. Now, I have a feeling that “Heavenly Torah” is a little more exiting than “God in Search of Man” – but I still like the chapter quoted above (well it’s part of a chapter…) because it shows the other side of Judaism – the individual connection between G-d and Man, while another favorite of mine, Leibowitz, deals exclusively with the practical halachaic side of G-d – Man.

From The Velveteen Rabbi:

The master key is the broken heart

Once the Baal Shem Tov commanded Rabbi Zev Kitzes to learn the secret meanings behind the blasts of the ram’s-horn, because Rabbi Zev was to be his caller on Rosh Ha-Shanah. So Rabbi Zev learned the secret meanings and wrote them down on a slip of paper to look at during the service, and laid the slip of paper in his bosom. When the time came for the blowing of the ram’s-horn, he began to search everywhere for the slip of paper, but it was gone; and he did not know on what meanings to concentrate. He was greatly saddened. Broken-hearted, he wept bitter tears, and called the blasts of the ram’s-horn without concentrating on the secret meanings behind them.

Afterward, the Baal Shem Tov said to him: “Lo, in the habitation of the king are to be found many rooms and apartments, and there are different keys for every lock, but the master key of all is the axe, whith which it is possible to open all the locks on all the gates. So it is with the ram’s-horn: the secret meanings are the keys; every gate has another meaning, but the master key is the broken heart. When a man truthfully breaks his heart before God, he can enter into all the gates of the apartments of the King above all Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.”     (– Or Yesharim)

My wife reminded me today, that instead of being obssessed with saying the correct blessings and doing the tallit and tefillin thingy with the right concentration in the right way etc, so I miss connecting with G-d and what I am doing, I need to remember that to G-d the Aleph-Bet from a willing heart is just as good as all the details in place.

Introduction Part 3

Religion and morality

“…not claiming that a religious person cannot be a moral agent. At no point does he maintain that religious demands upon the person or the community are total in the sense of all-inclusive. On many matters the Halakhah is silent. At such points, moral considerations may very well come into play and ought to govern one’s actions. The immorality of a religious person under such circumstances may even reflect upon his religiosity and constitute what is called Hillul Hashem~ desecration of God’s name.

It is interesting that Leibowitz so clearly distinguishes between morals and religion. Not because he is not right doing so – he is – but because it’s an unusual position to take. It makes it possible, even self-evident that the non-religious person can have morals and ethics, something that is frequently questioned by religious people.

Another point where it’s refreshing to read this book, is on the matter of what Halakhah is and is not there to govern, and if in fact it can govern ALL aspects. I am more specifically thinking of all those instances where Halakhah assumes adherence to principles of human decency, and we fail to live up to them, and Halakhah doesn’t take this into consideration.

The agunot, land expropriation, the rights of non-Jews etc. where Halakhah rather than Written Torah assumes that there either is no need for such consideration or has, over the years, been adjusted away from the idea of Written Torah.

One such very specific area is the matter of the Ger. Written Torah is very specific – he/she is just a non-Jewish person living with the People – but the Sages, undoubtedly as a result of the Exile, adjusted the meaning to designate a convert and the original meaning of Ger was “lost”.

Another is the matter of the Agunot. Halakhah clearly assumes that marriage is all peachy, unless there’s a matter of infidelity. It clearly also assumes that a wife-beater will adjust his ways if softly spoken to by the Elders of the community – it does not accept the possibility that Halakhah is not at the forefront of a wife-beater’s mind, or that one aspect of domestic violence is DENIAL, which no soft-speaking will penetrate. Nor does Halakhah contemplate the idea that the whereabouts of an eloped husband cannot be determined at all times. Halakhah is clearly not made out to deal with a global community.

Leibowitz does insist that a person acting as a moral agent cannot be acting as a religious agent and that a religious action cannot be simultaneously a moral action. This is a corollary of his view that human actions, as contrasted with natural events, can only be identified in terms of the agents intention. The morality of an action is determined not by its consequences (though these enter into moral deliberation) but by the agents intention to perform his duty. The religious character of an action is determined by the motive of worshipful service of God. The same external act may on one occasion be moral and on another religious, depending upon the agents motivation. The idea of a religious duty to act morally when this seems to be required would not be a contradiction of Leibowitz’s basic position, even if it may not be consonant with some of his formulations. A moral act done out of respect for religious duty would be a religious act. The person’s proximate motive would be moral, but his ultimate motive religious. The intrinsic ultimacy of the religious motive is the point Leibowitz is trying to bring out.

I am having problems with Leibowitz view on action and intention. It doesn’t ring true that the morality of one’s actions should be determined by one’s intentions. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. So let’s say I kill someone, if I didn’t intend to, is that person less dead? Or is the killing less “killing”. It seems to me that Leibowitz has put the horse before the cart here. While intentions surely has a bearing on the moral consequences of our actions – the act in itself must be the determent.

Tefillin Meditation

As a child of maybe seven, while exploring the basement of our suburban home, I found a curious item, a velvet bag containing little boxes with long black leather straps attached to them. Hauling them upstairs I asked my father if I could use the straps for a craft project.

 

He took the package from my hands and drew the objects out tenderly. “I have not used these since the beginning of the war,” is what I recall him to have said. He continued: “I used to keep kosher, say the Shema every night, and pray with these every morning.” I regarded this latter statement with surprise. We went to Friday night synagogue together occasionally, lit candles, had a chanukkah menorah and a seder, not much else.

 

“These are called tefillin,” he explained. “They contain hand-written scrolls with verses from the Torah about love. During my term of service in World War II I lost my sense of a loving God. I stopped keeping kosher, praying and using these.” He was in the Signal Corps, I later learned. He helped lay communications lines which found him given leave to the nearest town, which was the just liberated site of Auschwitz. He was gravely injured, evacuated and spent six years in the hospital, wounded for life, leg crushed, marrow infected. His continuing survival remains a modern miracle.

 

My father wandered off with the tefillin. We did not discuss them again.

 

A year later my yiddish-speaking Grandfather Benjamin came for an extended visit. Every morning he would go to the dining room and mumble for an hour, putting on a similar set of boxes and straps (his boxes are much tinier than my father’s) and a tallit prayer shawl. My mother says at first I would watch him intently and after some weeks she found me beside him everyday, with a ribbon wrapped around my arm and a towel over my shoulders.

 

One day “Pop Pop” turned to me for the first time in the midst of his prayer, took off his tefillin and wound them properly onto me, uttering urgently in to me incomprehensible Yiddish. He went home the next day and enter a “rest home” not long thereafter. Often I’ve wondered, given my pixie hair cut in those times, did he think I was a little boy? Or sensing his mortality and knowing I was the only family member drawn to Judaism religiously, had he made a strategic decision?

 

Pop Pop’s tefillin became my own. One day they even returned to the Ukraine with me, their and his place of origin. The spiral of spirit continues.

 

At an Ohalah Conference (Association of rabbis and cantors dedicated to cultivating Jewish spirituality) my friend and roommate, Rabbi Shefa Gold, taught me how to meditate on sacred relationships while putting on tefillin. Here is my version of that remarkable idea:

 

One of the most powerful of the tefillin prayers is from the prophet Hosea and the same prayer often used as a commitment statement at Jewish weddings.

 

V’eirastikh li l’olam
I betroth you to me forever.
[We are in this together]

 

V’eirastikh li b’tzedek
I will betroth you to me equitably.
[We will share the challenges]

 

U’v’mishpat
and with impeccability
[I will stay with you to get it right]

 

U’v’khessed
and with lovingkindness
[I will care for you]

 

U’v’rakhamim
and with compassion
[I want to hear your pain, your joy
to strive to understand]

 

v’eirastikh li b’emunah
I will betroth you to me in faith
[I will be there for you]

 

v’yahdaht et Adonai.
So that you will know God.
[So that you will experience what is only possible through relationship.]

 

While putting tefillin on, one does seven windings on the arm (see omer and other parts of this site describing the sephirot).Three of the windings are on the wedding ring finger. And all together the windings on the hand actually shape the Hebrew letter “shin”, for Shadai, a name for God as Nurturer (shadaiim are breasts or hills). This tefillin practice turns out to be a powerful ritual of commitment.

 

With or without the actual tefillin, you might try this:

 

1) Do your tefillin hand windings and address each part of the verse set above to God.
2) Do the verse set again, checking each of the statements in regard to your relationship with your committed partner, friend, parent or child.
3) Do the verse set again, do it about your relationship to yourself.
4) Repeat the verse set and again address each part to your relationship with God.

 

What do you notice having done this?
What changes for you with each step?
If a friend, partner or relative of yours lays tefillin also, try putting on your tefillin and doing this spiritual experiment together!

Weekly Parasha: Shoftim, Devarim 16:18-21:9

Weekly Parasha (Torah Reading) Shoftim Devarim 16:18-21:9 – Haftarah Isaiah 51:12 – 52:12

Focal Point Devarim 17:14-20

14. When you come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein, and you say, “I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me,”
15. you shall set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother.
16. Only, he may not acquire many horses for himself, so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, for the Lord said to you, “You shall not return that way any more.”
17. And he shall not take many wives for himself, and his heart must not turn away, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself.
18. And it will be, when he sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself two copies of this Torah on a scroll from [that Torah which is] before the Levitic kohanim.
19. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them,
20. so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel.

This text is about Leadership – the Leadership of Israel, and what G-d expects of it. Earlier in this Parasha we find Dev 16:20 “Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” which clearly envisions what is the basis for the existence of the inheritance. Justice.

To get a king is not formulated as a command – it’s a prediction – there will come a time when the People of Israel will say “I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me…” when the People will want what the rest of the world wants, and that is a rejection of G-d.

1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel: ‘Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them.

The People is supposed to be ruled by G-d, through Elders/Judges who expound on Torah and apply it to every day life. That’s the IDEAL.

In reality it is quite different. G-d takes into account that the People will want a King, and then states what this King is to be like. Those statements are commands:

He may not be a foreigner, he may not acquire means to bring the People back into slavery, he may not have many wives or hoard riches, and above all, he must write a Torah scroll and read it every day of his life, so he can keep it.

I have been scourging the State of Israel in my Divrei Torot lately, and I suppose this isn’t going to be any different.

Civil Government is not ideal for the People of Israel – in fact it’s supposed to be governed by G-d and Torah, not by elected officials. Elected Officials will always pose a risk and a possibility for corruption, but G-d has made provision for this eventuality in Torah. Commands that very clearly stipulates under what conditions those elected officials are to rule. Above all they need to keep Torah. They need to be so well acquainted with Torah that they have in fact written an entire scroll for themselves, so that they can keep it with them at all times.

I doubt the current Leaders of Israel have done that, or are anywhere near such close proximity of Torah. In fact, one only has to look at the recent additions to the Legislation of the State of Israel to realize that they are in fact very far from what G-d states is the obligation of a Just Leadership:

A Racist Jewish State

On a more local level – how do we exercise Leadership? Do we accept Community Leaders that do not know Torah, that discriminate against converts, bnai teshuvah, that honor the rich and the “powerful” for aliyah? How about Leaders that accept and encourage prejudice and violence against those that do not belong to their specific Community? Does your community hide rabbis that abuse their position to violate children sexually, beat their wives. Are your Leaders on the forefront when it comes to safe-guarding civil and human rights in Society?

If they are – congratulations! If they are not, you need to do something about it.

Shabbat Shalom!

Parasha Shoftim – Just Leadership

Weekly Parasha (Torah Reading) Shoftim Devarim 16:18-21:9 – Haftarah Isaiah 51:12 – 52:12

Focal Point Devarim 17:14-20

14. When you come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein, and you say, “I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me,”
15. you shall set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother.
16. Only, he may not acquire many horses for himself, so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, for the Lord said to you, “You shall not return that way any more.”
17. And he shall not take many wives for himself, and his heart must not turn away, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself.
18. And it will be, when he sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself two copies of this Torah on a scroll from [that Torah which is] before the Levitic kohanim.
19. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them,
20. so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel.

This text is about Leadership – the Leadership of Israel, and what G-d expects of it. Earlier in this Parasha we find Dev 16:20 “Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” which clearly envisions what is the basis for the existence of the inheritance. Justice.

To get a king is not formulated as a command – it’s a prediction – there will come a time when the People of Israel will say “I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me…” when the People will want what the rest of the world wants, and that is a rejection of G-d.

1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel: ‘Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them.

The People is supposed to be ruled by G-d, through Elders/Judges who expound on Torah and apply it to every day life. That’s the IDEAL.

In reality it is quite different. G-d takes into account that the People will want a King, and then states what this King is to be like. Those statements are commands:

He may not be a foreigner, he may not acquire means to bring the People back into slavery, he may not have many wives or hoard riches, and above all, he must write a Torah scroll and read it every day of his life, so he can keep it.

I have been scourging the State of Israel in my Divrei Torot lately, and I suppose this isn’t going to be any different.

Civil Government is not ideal for the People of Israel – in fact it’s supposed to be governed by G-d and Torah, not by elected officials. Elected Officials will always pose a risk and a possibility for corruption, but G-d has made provision for this eventuality in Torah. Commands that very clearly stipulates under what conditions those elected officials are to rule. Above all they need to keep Torah. They need to be so well acquainted with Torah that they have in fact written an entire scroll for themselves, so that they can keep it with them at all times.

I doubt the current Leaders of Israel have done that, or are anywhere near such close proximity of Torah. In fact, one only has to look at the recent additions to the Legislation of the State of Israel to realize that they are in fact very far from what G-d states is the obligation of a Just Leadership:

A Racist Jewish State

On a more local level – how do we exercise Leadership? Do we accept Community Leaders that do not know Torah, that discriminate against converts, bnai teshuvah, that honor the rich and the “powerful” for aliyah? How about Leaders that accept and encourage prejudice and violence against those that do not belong to their specific Community? Does your community hide rabbis that abuse their position to violate children sexually, beat their wives. Are your Leaders on the forefront when it comes to safe-guarding civil and human rights in Society?

If they are – congratulations! If they are not, you need to do something about it.

Shabbat Shalom!

Science vs Religion or Scientists vs Religionists?

“…Dawkins replies “What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?”

“Neo-Darwinism, with its random mutations and lack of any goal, “cannot be reconciled” with the theological teachings of the Torah.“

“…this “need” among theologians and scientists to “reconcile” evolution with theology, or in some cases prove that they are the very opposition of each other, raises another question: Why this almost obssessive urge from either side, position in this?”

The quotes in Green and Red above represent an Atheistic and a Theistic approach to the issue of Science and Religion on the Topic of the Origins of Life, the Universe and Everything.

The quote in blue is me looking at the brawl from the out-side.

Many years ago I resolved the seeming conflict between Science and Religion by looking at what questions they answer respectively on the matter. I think perhaps I intuitively knew that the conflict lies not between the two Disciplines, but between the Disciples of both, because the answer to the conundrum of Science vs Religion I found looks as follows:

Torah/The Bible/Religion answers the Questions “Who and Why?“

Science/Evolutionary Theory answers the Questions “How, When and Where?“

Put like this there is no conflict, because in this “model” both Science and Religion are doing what they are designed to do. If we let them do that all is well. Because Torah doesn’t say one word about exactly how G-d did it – except alluding to ideas Science has already established (such as man being made from clay, which can very well be the “primordial soup” Science says all life came from) and Science doesn’t say one word about Who did it, though the very study of the mechanism of Evolution can lead individuals to the conclusion that some Prime Cause is behind it all. However neither Science nor Religion/Torah needs the other for verification or validation.

The problems start when we try to mix them, like Intelligent Design is doing or make them, two inanimate disciplines, responsible for what is really the doing of their animate proponents.

How ridiculous does that look? Two puppets on strings being forced to whack away at each other by Puppet Masters, not seen by the Audience, yelling at the top of their lungs:

- “Your puppet is beating my puppet!” Whack, whack!

- “No, your puppet is beating my puppet!” Whack, Whack!

- “Look what your evil g-dless puppet did, it broke the arm of my puppet!” Whack, slap!

- “Grrrr, that does it! Your brainwashed, fundamentalist puppet is going to Die!” Slap, whack!

Intelligent Design/Creationism doesn’t work, not primarily because it’s not scientifically sound, but because it attempts to create a synthesis of two ideas, substances that are not designed to be mixed, using tools that are alien to one of the substances, Science.

ID/Creationism presupposes a Prime Cause – that is after all why it exists, there would be no need for ID if that was not its prime purpose – but since a Prime Cause cannot be proved or disproved ID/Creationism violates the first premise of any scientific statement – verifiable evidence.

Science cannot answer ontological or theological problems, and Religion cannot answer scientific problems – both can lead towards the understanding of the other, and they do so frequently, but they cannot take over each others’ role in human life and be expected to lead anything anywhere. They work best side by.

“Is Darwin Kosher?”

“Is Darwin Kosher?” Discovery Institute Hosts Orthodox Jew who says “No!”

“According to Rosenblum, Neo-Darwinism, with its random mutations and lack of any goal, “cannot be reconciled” with the theological teachings of the Torah.“

Would you expect a tree to have a goal? Or a salmon to be aware that it’s life is going to end at the very place it was spawned? Of course not! Just as little as I would expect my printer to be aware of the words it prints when printing the weekly parasha for me – does this lack of awareness disqualify the printer for its job? Does it make my understanding of how the printer works less valid? No. Why? Because the printer does the job it was designed to do.

In a way Science is like my printer – it can only do what it is designed for, and Science is not designed to answer theological questions or even cast light on those matters. The question that this “need” among theologians and scientists to “reconcile” evolution with theology, or in some cases prove that they are the very opposition of each other, raises another question: Why this almost obssessive urge from either side, position in this?

One very big reason is tradition – Science has traditionally been maltreated by the Church, and has therefore naturally adopted a skeptic and cautious attitude towards the Church.

Traditionally the Church has been obsessed with proving the truth of its claims and doctrines, one of them the existence of G-d, and since The Evolution Theory doesn’t require the existence of G-d to be accurate or even mentions G-d, it has been at odds with the Church from get go.

What does this have to do with Judaism? Well, in the view of many Evolution theorists Genesis is Genesis, regardless of who is reading it. But the truth is that Judaism has never bothered with such matters as proving the existence of G-d – that has ALWAYS been an axiom in Judaism – nor is Judaism really interested in the literal veracity of Written Torah, since Oral Torah is the basic Guiding light in Judaism. The Sages have always been reading Torah from a more or less loose point, through allusions, anagrams, allegories and general midrashing. Science, and a logical process has always been part of Jewish education, even back when our ancestors were mere farmers and hunters. So for Judaism the question of Science vs Religion is irrelevant.

Rosenblum was adamant that Orthodox Judaism in its reading of the Bible is not driven by a simple literal approach, but he maintained that Neo-Darwinian evolution stretches the theological truths of the Torah beyond their intended meaning.

Now, this is an interesting statement. Again this claim that “theological truths” have any bearing on Evolution or the other way around. Besides, anyone who has been just half awake for the last 10 years knows that it is actually the theologians that are trying to stretch Evolutionary Theory in a manner that was never intended.

 

Rosenblum clearly grasped the scientific issues. His article last year in the Jewish Observer challenged Darwin on the grounds of a lack of transitional fossils and the inability of natural selection to produce complex systems.

“Rosenblum grasps the scientific issues” to a degree where he is able to establish something that is not true – how brilliant! Sorry, I just couldn’t let that one be. “…on the grounds of a lack of transitional fossils”. On the matter of transitional fossils – perhaps the good Rosenblum need to read that?

Instead, Rosenblum, who himself is a graduate of Yale Law School and the University of Chicago, gave a lucid explanation of how Neo-Darwinism survives:

First step: Exclude all non-natural causes as a priori inadmissible. Second step: If Darwinian Evolution were true, it would explain observed taxonomic similarities between different living things. Third step: Since no alternative explanation exists to explain those phenomena, Darwinism must be true. … Fourth step: Since Darwinism is true, all explanations based on non-natural causes are vanquished. Note how that which was a priori excluded at the outset is now deemed to have been somehow disproved. (Jonathan Rosenblum, “The Myth of Scientific Objectivity,” Jewish Observer (May, 2006).)

That last quote is a nice and pretty little logical fallacy:

First statement is false in and of itself, since Evolution Theory does not have any claims whatsoever about non-natural causes – it’s purely agnostic in that realm, and on top of that it is irrelevant to the three following statements – it has no connection to the other parts of the chain. And since his fourth statement is dependent on the first for validity, that falls away too.

Now, how about Statements 2 and 3? Well, the problem is that Evolutionary Theory does explain the taxonomic similarities between different living things, and since Rosenblum stated “If so – then so…” he has disqualified his own reasoning and ends up with no need for alternative explanations, since only his second statement needs verification, and that fails. Simple logic.

The appearance of the idea of “non-natural causes” in this discussion is purely theological and is given power only because theologians have mistaken the aim of Science for the personal opinions of the scientists on theological matters. Rosenblum is no different.

1 Samuel 2:10

Someone did a search: 1 samuel 2:10 tanach, so I looked it up.

1Sa 2:10 “They that strive with the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them will He thunder in heaven; the LORD will judge the ends of the earth; and He will give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed.”

I suspect the problem the searcher is having with this pasuk (verse) is “They that strive with the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them will He thunder in heaven”

Aryeh Kaplan render this pasuk in this manner:

2:10 “God’s foes will be crushed; He will thunder in heaven against them. God will judge the ends of the earth; He will give strength to His king, and exalt the power of His anointed.
Adonay yechatu merivav alav bashamayim yar’em Adonay yadin afsey-arets veyiten-oz lemalko veyarem keren meshicho.”

The root of merivav (foes, they that strive) is rîyb / rûb – and it implies an advesarial position – an argument for arguments sake, an aggressive fight. So this verse speaks about one that takes a hostile position to G-d without due cause.

I looked up Rashi, and he doesn’t say anything about it, which is a good sign – it means that the pshat (the most obvious, clear meaning) is as simple as that.

Unfortunately this is not obvious in most translations, which do render merivav “strive with” or “fight with”, and for many, I think, Yaakov’s struggle with G-d at Jabbok comes to mind as well as a whole lot of rubbish about how we shouldn’t be angry with G-d or question G-d, because then He will break us.

Ya’akov’s struggle with the Angel/G-d at Jabbok doesn’t use the word rîyb/rûb it uses ‘âbaq – which does mean “to wrestle”.

Gen 32:24 “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.”

“Jacob remained alone. A stranger [appeared and] wrestled with him until just before daybreak.
Vayivater Ya’akov levado vaye’avek ish imo ad alot hashachar.“

People rant, rave and question G-d G-d throughout Tanakh – and contrary to being broken, they are considered great G-d people. They do it because they have a bone to pick or an issue with G-d, but they don’t do it for the sake of the argument, or because they hate G-d, and that is what 1 Sam 2:10 speaks about. Not arguing to get to a point of clearness or understanding.