The Torah Must Have Been Written After the Times of King Saul (Unless You Want to Argue with an Explicit Verse in Samuel I )

Shmuel (Samuel) 9:9

ט לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כֹּה-אָמַר הָאִישׁ בְּלֶכְתּוֹ לִדְרוֹשׁ אֱלֹהִים, לְכוּ וְנֵלְכָה, עַד-הָרֹאֶה: כִּי לַנָּבִיא הַיּוֹם, יִקָּרֵא לְפָנִים הָרֹאֶה
.
Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said: 'Come and let us go to the seer'; for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer.--

What is this verse telling us? Read it again let it sink in. The Tanach is giving us a short lesson in philology. It is telling us that the word נביא Navi - prophet was not the original Hebrew word for a man of God. Rather the earlier word for a man of God was a רואה Roeh - a seer.

Fine so in the good ole days of Biblical times the word Roeh was used. Later on the word Navi was used. Why should you care?

Here's why:

Why is the Tanakh telling us this. Simply because a few verses later the Book of Samuel quotes Saul and his lad using this obscure term - Roeh.

יא הֵמָּה, עֹלִים בְּמַעֲלֵה הָעִיר, וְהֵמָּה מָצְאוּ נְעָרוֹת, יֹצְאוֹת לִשְׁאֹב מָיִם; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶן, הֲיֵשׁ בָּזֶה הָרֹאֶה.

As they went up the ascent to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them: 'Is the seer here?'

Apparently this word Roeh was obscure enough to the audience of Samuel that an explanation was required. We learn that in Shaul's time the word Navi had not yet become prevalent. Any use of the word Navi in the book of Samuel is the due to the language of a later writer who wrote in an era when the word Navi had already become the norm.

Now wait just one second..... the Pentateuch talks about prophets quite a lot right? Now what word does the Torah use to describe prophets? Hmmm?

תורה » ספר בראשית » פרק כ » פסוק ז

"וְעַתָּה הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת הָאִישׁ כִּי נָבִיא הוּא וְיִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְךָ וֶחְיֵה וְאִם אֵינְךָ מֵשִׁיב דַּע כִּי מוֹת תָּמוּת אַתָּה וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ."

---

תורה » ספר דברים » פרק יג » פסוק ב

"כִּי יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת."

---

תורה » ספר דברים » פרק יח » פסוק טו

"נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי יָקִים לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלָיו תִּשְׁמָעוּן."

---

תורה » ספר דברים » פרק יח » פסוק יח

"נָבִיא אָקִים לָהֶם מִקֶּרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם כָּמוֹךָ וְנָתַתִּי דְבָרַי בְּפִיו וְדִבֶּר אֲלֵיהֶם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּנּוּ."

---

תורה » ספר דברים » פרק לד » פסוק י

"וְלֹא קָם נָבִיא עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר יְדָעוֹ יְהוָה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים."

...to name a few

Uh oh....

The Torah always uses the word Navi to describe a prophet

זה הכלל:

THE WORD ROEH IS NEVER USED IN THE PENTATEUCH TO REFER TO A PROPHET

THIS MEANS, IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THE BOOK OF SHMUEL, THAT THE PENTATEUCH WAS AUTHORED AT LEAST AFTER THE ERA OF SHAUL

I fear that this is a another pretty big challenge Orthodox belief and traditional TMS. The beauty of it is that you have to argue not with Wellhausen not with Kugel but with the Biblical author of Sefer Shmuel to get around this slight problem.

Is there a way out of this dilemma while still maintaining the pashut peshat of the verse in Sefer Shmuel? Am I making too much of this verse? Am I misunderstanding something?

I doubt that there is an easy solution to this but I would love to hear anyone's take on it.

The Orthoprax Rabbi and Some Responses From the Orthodox

Yes there is a putative Orthoprax Rabbi out there

Two things interest me

1. The moral dilemma: Is it right to be an atheist Rabbi?

Is it considered deception since your congregation would surely be rid of you if you "came out".

OR

Is it not really deception because you believe that the difference between a believing Rabbi and a non-believing Rabbi is nil.

I had a similar (though admittedly much smaller) dilemma once when a frum friend of mine was about to eat milk after meat (oy vey!) Do I remind her? Or do I I just shut up let her enjoy the milchig ice cream because I know it makes no difference?

What would you do?


2. The comments on Emes V'emuna continue to piss me off to no end here are some tidbits:

Charlie Hall

I think that a partial answer is a little humility.

As a scientific researcher I face problems on a regular basis for which I don't have a solution. Does that mean that I give up on science? No! It means that the problem will have to wait someone with more creativity or imagination or diligence or knowledge to address it. And the same applies to Torah, and its apparent contradiction with science. Many of those apparent contradictions have in fact been resolved and I'm not going to give up either Torah or science while I wait for the other resolutions.

SH: Oh sure let's just sit back and assume someone somewhere has an answer. After all Judaism only has some minor issues.



Guest

"That he happened to be MO is irrelevant. He could just as easily have been Charedi."

I strongly disagree with that. Yes, it could technically happen anywhere but is more likely to happen among MO because the nature of the hashkafos taught so that nothing is sacred and all parts of emunah are subject to challenge. What is even more obvious is your bias in when your connect the dotted lines between a cause and effect and when you don't. -Chareidi

Well he's Chareidi so what do you expect. Who are these MO's he's talking about? I'd love to meet them!

Aaron Fein
Dear Orthoprax Rabbi,

I understand you have a family to support and find it difficult to come out of the closet. But please assure me that in your last will and testament, you will declare that you are indeed an atheist. The Jewish community would like to bury you with non Jews and not in the Jewish cemetery. I can't imagine why you would mind.

This just takes the cake! Oh its cool that you're Orthoprax but please please please don't impurify the bodies of other ehrliche Yidden by being buried in the same cemetry! THAT would be the end of the world!

The Yezter Hara of Orthopraxy

There isn't one. Period.

First of all (for those living under a rock) by Orthopraxy I mean conforming to Orthodox practice and not to Orthodox belief.

Okay this comment got me a little annoyed:

what?!? said:

How seriously have these Orthopraxers sought answers to their questions? How much time do they invest into finding solutions? I guess it's just easier to watch TV and surf the web, rather than doing the homework. They're suffering from the same yetzer hara as everybody else; it just manifests itself differently.

This was my response:

Yezter Hara for what? A bifurcated lifestyle? A heart wrenching inner conflict? the feeling that you're living a lie? Oh yeah real appealing lifestyle! What a yetzer hara! Orthoprax is atheism without the benefits.

That basically sums it up.

I know this is obvious and I'm just repeating things that people have been saying for years but I'm gonna say it anyway:

Orthopraxy gets you no benefits. Let me explain: Orthopraxy has some benefits according to some over a completely secular lifestyle however compared to Orthodoxy what do you gain from not being "dox" We still have to basically keep everything to maintain our reputation of being "Orthodox" so what are our "yetzer haras" whispering to us. What do I or any Orthopraxer out there gain from lack of belief. It's not like we're "liberated" due to our new beliefs because by definition we are still conforming to Orthodox practice (most of the time) I guess we don't have to cry and klap al chet because we ripped the toilet paper on Shabbat but is that our "reward". Is that what "makes it all worth it"?

Is it possible to be a believer and still realize that Orthopraxers are not "making excuses" for ulterior motives?

I think it is. The least and I repeat the least believers could do is say that we got "misguided" in our pursuit of truth. I'm not expecting them to think we have any truth to our arguments (because then they wouldn't be believers would they?) All I'm asking for is a realization that we reached our conclusions from intellectual reasons and NOT as some sort of excuse to be porek ol.

One last thing. Just because someone goes Off the Derech and proceeds to "live it up" does not necessarily mean that that was why he/she went OTD. There are many OTD'ers who have intelectual objections to Judaism and only then decide to leave it all.

So another message to believers: at least admit that we seek the truth just as much as you even though you feel that we have erred. And that some of us have no ulterior motives.

The Rambam Forbids Women Leadership but Is That All He Forbids....

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the whole woman rabbi subject. In more recent news Young Israel, apparently, does not deem women worthy to be presidents of shuls.

I am not getting into a long discussion about the whole topic (though I hope to one day) but I just want to point out one thing. Hirhurim has just posted a link to an article describing the Rav's views on women in leadership roles. One of the main sources referred to is the ever famous Rambam that says that women cannot be given serara - leadership.

The Rambam can be found in Hilchot Melakhim 1:5

ו [ה] אין מעמידין אישה במלכות--שנאמר "מלך" (דברים יז,טו), ולא מלכה; וכן כל משימות שבישראל, אין ממנים בהם אלא איש

We do not appoint a women to the kingship because it says "king" not "queen" and so too all the jobs (leadership roles) in Israel we only appoint to them a man

Now if you insist on taking the Rambam as an immutable code which never changes nor sways in the face of modernity then I suggest you keep reading the Rambam. Remember the Rambam is written in stone! Don't let your liberal/Western ideas tempt you to deviate from him right or left!

ט ... אלא כל השררות וכל המינויין שבישראל--ירושה לבנו ולבן בנו עד עולם: והוא שיהיה הבן ממלא מקום אבותיו בחכמה, וביראה. היה ממלא ביראה--אף על פי שאינו ממלא בחכמה--מעמידין אותו במקום אביו, ומלמדין אותו;

... rather all the leadership and appointments in Israel are an inheritance from father to son. And that is as long as the son is as good as his father in wisdom and and fear (of heaven) If he was equal to his father in fear, even if he is not equal to him in wisdom, we appoint him in his father's place and teach him.

The Chassidishe Rebbes must have had to learn this Rambam by heart. But there you have it. most of the frum world is deviating from the Rambam by not consistently giving preference to the son of the last shul president/Rabbi etc. Yes the Rambam adds that little caveat about "as long as he is equal to his father" but still how many shuls do you know where as soon as the Rabbi leaves/dies they call up his son first for the job interview. Yes it happens sometimes but does anyone actually take this Rambam seriously (besides Chassidim of course). Is anyone careful to always insure that the son of the former Rabbi/president gets a chance to interview for the post before anyone else?

But let's not stop there let's go back in this Rambam a bit. Did you know if you're a convert you cannot be in a leadership role?

אין מעמידין מלך מקהל גרים

We do not appoint a king from the "congregation" of converts

Now the Rambam also says in regards to a king:

אפילו אחר כמה דורות--עד שתהיה אימו מישראל

Even after many generation until his mother is from Israel

He then proceeds to say:

ולא למלכות בלבד, אלא לכל שררות שבישראל

And not just for monarchy but also for all leadership in Israel

Now I'm not sure if the last bit about "until his mother is from Israel" is meant to apply soley to a king or also to "all leadership in Israel" also. If the latter then I'm sorry that last one has got to be the most disregarded "halacha" of the Rambam. Does anyone get disqualified from being a Rabbi or a shul president nowadays because his mother was a convert! I think not.

Even if the "mother from Israel thing" is only discussing kings does anyone demand that the shul president be a born Jew? What if his parents converted when he was 3 years old or something making him also a convert. Are you telling me that someone who has been Jewish since he was 3 cannot be shul president?

Is it consistent to pick and choose which Rambams to consider immutable halacha and which ones not? The whole "no leadership for women thing" is in a chapter dedicated to many other antiquated social rules many of which have long ago been recognized as obsolete by the frum community. So why does the "no leadership for women" get special immutability vis a vis the other leadership rules of the Rambam. Just like those rules are obsolete so too "no leadership for women" is obsolete.

Am I missing something? Does the Shulkhan Aruch add something that I'm forgetting?

Feel free to point out my error.

Edit: I might have had just a little too much faith in the modernity of Young Israel I assumed that no Young Israel shul would bar a convert from being shul president. Apparently its not so clear:

Hat tip: Anonymous

From here

Young Israel officials were not only exercised by the new rabbinic screening policy; the NCYI's recent decision to bar females and converts from being a Young Israel synagogue president was heavily criticized as well.

Dr. Jay Cinnamon, past president of the Young Israel of Toco Hills, Atlanta, who spoke as a private citizen, said he was "disappointed but not shocked" that the NCYI chose to ban women from holding a synagogue presidency. But he found the ban on converts "repugnant." He explained that in Atlanta and many other cities, there is "a small but significant number of converts, many of whom are true gerei tezedek and extraordinarily devoted to the community and halacha." Many of them, he said, are "as pious as any other Jew." Dr. Cinnamon said that to categorically deny converts synagogue presidencies removes productive members from consideration, and possibly more injurious, sends a "profound and distasteful message" that converts are not fully equal Jews.

Other Young Israel officials shared his sentiments. 58% of Young Israel leaders said that they strongly felt that their president should be male. But 67% strongly believed that a convert should be able to serve as president. In practice, it seems that several Young Israels have had females serving as de facto presidents, though at times they used different titles.

The NCYI gave no defense for their restrictions on synagogue presidential candidates in their memorandum. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a leading scholar of the last generation, wrote responsa addressing the scope of the prohibition against converts or females serving in a position of coercive authority over other Jews. Medieval scholars dispute whether women can hold such positions, and Rabbi Feinstein decides strictly, mentioning in passing that women shouldn't be shul presidents. While he also upholds the prohibition on giving converts a position of major authority, he does advocate using maximum possible leniency on this issue to be sensitive to converts, and he explicitly permitted a convert to become a rosh yeshiva. He did not say whether a convert was prohibited from becoming president.

Maybe Young Israel is more consistent in their backwardness then I thought.

More About the Jews and Pets

A week or two ago I was wondering where the Orthodox Jewish aversion to pets comes from in my post "Do Frum Jews Hate Pets?"

Here is an article which discusses the East European, Jewish aversion to dogs.

Shabbat Shalom!

Doubt

Even if someone gave me some reasonable arguments in favor of TMS and Orthodox Judaism it probably wouldn't help.

When I was a kid the truth of Judaism was as obvious to me as the existence of the president of the United States. I have lost that childhood naivety. Even if the scales were somehow tipped in favor of Judaism I am now stuck, forever, with that lingering doubt. All those years I looked for answers I was missing the point. It was (and still is) impossible for me to return to that state of naivete which was what I really desired.

The very fact that there are so many religions PROVES that religion just cannot be as obvious as the existence of say New York city. Even the things that conspiracy theorists deny (holocaust, moon landing) are only disputed by a relatively small amount of people with little credibility, while the vast majority of people in the world have ONE unanimous (and totally "doubtless") belief about the subject.

I don't think there is one Jewish apologist out there who will say "I'm 100% sure of the truth of Judaism" at best the apologist will say it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can one truly be a really devout Jew without absolute faith? Don't you really need 100% NO DOUBT WHAT SO EVER  to be a really good Jew.

Every time a Jew is faced with a test can he consistently stop himself from giving in to his desires when he has that little voice (the little kefira yetzer hara) whispering in his ear "Don't forget, you're not totally positive that Judaism is true. And you KNOW for sure that this <insert illicit activity> will make you happy now but you don't know FOR SURE that Judaism is true." (Wait for a certain blogger to say "AHA! You sex crazed maniac! THAT is why you are skeptical because you want to do <insert illicit activity>")

Perhaps a mere tipping of the scales towards being "pretty sure" of Judaism will convince you to be frum. Hell, it doesn't take too much motivation to do the motions of "being frum" But if your motivation is "that it's beyond a reasonable doubt" could you be more than that? Will you actually be able to truly dedicate your life to Judaism? Would you really be able to give up your life for Judaism.

Are the only tzadikim (righteous) in Judaism those who just happen to be so completely brainwashed that they actually equate belief in a religion with belief in an undisputed fact? Could someone who thinks that there is say a 10% chance that Judaism is NOT true motivate himself to be a righteous Jew?

Even if you believe in Judaism, belief in Judaism (or any religion) is just not equal to belief in a fact. Period. Yet those we venerate (tzadikim, martyrs) treated it that way. Is the "frum ideal" a goal that only somewhat delusional people can obtain?

Can a frum person motivated by "beyond a reasonable doubt" really make a big sacrifice for his religion when he has that nagging that "you don't know it's for SURE true."

Why Rambam Would Have a Short Career at a Jewish Day School

Rambam:Okay Kids let's talk a bit about olam haba! Who here is the smartest kid in the class.

[everyone looks at the nerdy kid with the glasses]

Rambam: Okay if he works really hard to do Torah and Mitzvot and THEN sits and studies philosophy for a long long time, then maybe, just maybe he will generate enough active intellect to gain immortality

Dumb Kid: But what about the rest of us?

Rambam: You guys are around so he won't be too lonely

Dumb Kid: But what happens after WE die

Rambam: Hmmm you'll probably be gone forever.


(The Rambam claimed to believe in the Resurrection of the Dead so maybe not FOREVER)

Some Rants and Raves

[Note: If anyone is having trouble viewing my blog on their internet browser. Please Email me.  Thank you.]

Edit: Just so its clear this is not an attack on anyone. I'm not saying this blogger is bad or this blogger is good. All I'm doing is expressing my thoughts about two Weltanschauungs coming into conflict and the ensuing frustration. I have no interest in starting any ad hominem debates. That said prepare for some whining.

A certain Fictional Fantasy Character (henceforth known as FFC) called me irrelevant on his blog. Interestingly enough a Rabbi once called me the same thing. In both instances I had to wonder "irrelevant to what"?

Why does FFC bother me so much? Apparently I bother him enough to warrant a shout out on his blog. What bothers me is his confident dismissal of skepticism. He just sort of casually says things like "There are no issues with TMS all of Bible scholarship is just complete rubbish!" and "You skeptics are just a bunch of whining babies"

Imagine you go to an astronaut and say "being an astronaut is nothing! It's probably the easiest thing to do in the world!" How do you think the astronaut will feel? This man probably spent years and years training and retraining to prepare to go into space and some schmuck just comes up and thinks it's not a big deal!

I didn't wake up one day, stretch my arms, and say triumphantly "I don't really believe in Orthodox Judaism!" I went through years of emotional turmoil trying to find answers to my questions. Searching for something, anything to alleviate my doubts and bring me back to emuna peshuta (simple belief).

After a while I gave up. Not because I was lazy or arrogant but because after a while I realized that I knew enough to know that there was nothing that could help me go back to my childhood naivety.

When FFC just cavalierly strides into the blogosphere and says "You don't have any big questions! These are stupid, unimportant issues. I can answer all your questions!" It just makes my blood boil over. Does he not realize that I've gone through this already? Does he not get how much I tried to believe but in the end just couldn't.

Truth be told, I guess I understand where FFC is coming from. I guess all people are arrogantly sure that they are right about certain things. I guess my arrogance against TMS sort of annoys FFC. Who do I think I am just throwing out TMS like that!? Everyone is arrogant and sure of themselves in certain fields. When two people are sure of opposite things a natural conflict ensues. 


I really shouldn't get so annoyed but at the end of the day I just read FFC's comments and I can't help getting mad. I really need to remind myself that I once like him also.

Another thing: On the the comments of FFC's blog someone basically said "Why do all these skeptic bloggers have to keep whining just leave frumkeit and shut up already"

Okay, first things first, leaving frumkeit ain't a walk in the park. Some people have done it. Good for them. Others haven't. Personally I don't have, excuse the obscenity, the balls to do it. I really should but I have enough problems on my plate without having to declare myself OTD.

Second thing why am I blogging? Good question! Main reason: Because I like to. I like getting my thoughts organized and spelling them  out. I also like ranting and raving with fellow skeptics. I think the best way to deal with one's issues is by self expression. Just getting everything out there! A blog is a great way of doing that.

I have a few topics I discuss on my humble little blog:

1. Charedi bashing

I'm not saying Charedism is bad so Judaism is bad. Not at all. I happen to think Modern Orthodoxy is infinitely better than Chareidism. But since I spent a lot of time in Chareidi yeshivot I like to rant and rave about how stupid certain elements of Chareidism are.

2. Skepticism

I like discussing my doubts about Judaism in general. I'm not trying to proselytize anyone. Don't read any posts that pose emuna threats to you. When I argue with believers I'm not trying to win them over. I just like arguing. Ze Hu! And another thing! I only comment on "believer blogs" when

A. I'm not saying anything "kefiradick"
B. That blogger comments on MY blog thus showing they're not afraid of my "kefira"
C. They ask me to comment on their blog (which one blogger did)

If you don't want me commenting on your blog just say so.

3. Judaism

I like discussing Judaism once in a while from a less skeptical vantage point. These posts I hope even believers can enjoy. 

Please! If my blog offends you feel free to not read it! I'm not out to convert believers to disbelief. I'm not on any sort of mission. I just want to muse, criticize, and argue because I like doing it.

How Yeshivot Learn Gemara (Short Answer: Badly)

As usual forgive me for generalizing different yeshivot have different approaches but this is the approach I'm familiar with:

The basic assumptions underlying yeshiva Gemara learning are:

1. The Gemara is basically a homogeneous work. Most contradictions between different sugyot can and should be explained away logically.

SH: The Gemara is as heterogeneous as a text can be. It is an amalgam of hundreds of different opinions from hundreds of years all smushed together.

2. The Gemara's interpretation of the Mishna is THE interpretation of the Mishna

SH: One needs but look at a Kehati to see this approach. It is clear that the Gemara changes the Mishna's simple meaning. (There is supposedly a Gr'a somewhere that admits to this. Does anybody know where it is?)

3. The Gemara's Hava Amina (Initial Thoughts on a subject which it later rejects) is completely valid except for the one point that the Gemara brings to reject that point

SH: The Hava Amina's in the Gemara often suffer from many flaws. The Rishonim were the ones who began to look at the the Hava Amina as perfect minus one thing. A huge amount of literature is written based on what I think is a faulty assumption.

4. The halacha as laid out in the Gemara has basically stayed the same since the times of Moshe.

SH: Even assuming that the Written Torah has not changed at all, it is clear that certain things were innovations of Rabbinical Judaism (Rabbinical Judaism is not a phrase that exists in the Yeshiva world)

5. The stranger bits of the Gemara are esoteric and contain hidden secrets about some sort of spiritual reality.

SH: This was essentially the life work of the Maharal, to show the deeper meaning of the strange myths in the Gemara. I don't like this approach from the mere fact that if the Maharal had lived in Ancient Greece he could have done the same thing to Greek mythology.

6. The Rishonim were basically always right. When one Rishon points to a flaw in another Rishon that flaw is not really a flaw.

SH: An amusing consequence of this approach is that one gets stuck in endless circle. "Tosfot says Rashi was wrong. But Rashi really meant something else. So why did Tosfot misunderstand Rashi? Because Tosfot really meant something else." and around and around we go.

7. The Rishonim (and the Gemara for that matter) are deeper than they seem. One word or phrase can hint to a complex system of pilpul (halachic dialectic)

SH: Basically the Brisker approach to the Rambam and also pilpul in general. Basically the building edifices on a word or two. Any shiur in Yeshiva which does not use this methodology in analyzing a text is derisively called "Baal Habatish"

8. One learns Gemara not for the acquisition of knowledge but because the very act of learning fundamentally changes you spiritually.

SH: See R Slifkin over here.

As you can see the learning in Yeshiva's is far from academic. Personally I think a "B.A. in Talmudic Law" is one of the biggest scams in the country. This type of "learning" is based on very dubious assumptions and is by no means worthy of accreditation. I'm not trying to offend anyone who loves Yeshiva learning I just don't think its vaguely on par with academic subjects. I guess it depends on what your goal is. Yeshiva Gemara learning has more reverence for the material. Academic Gemara learning is more interested in somewhat less reverent critical analysis.

Can anyone think of any other assumptions Yeshiva learning makes?

What do Maimonides and Nietzsche Have in Common?

Not a lot

But there is this one thing:

As Achad Ha'am puts it in his article Shilton HaSechel (Hey! That's the name of the blog!):

Both of them see the purpose of  the existence of the human species in the creation of the most complete epitome of humanity and both of them make the majority the tool of the minority in whom the highest human epitome takes form. (My Imperfect Translation)

Say what?  The Rambam an elitist? The Rambam believing that the purpose of most men is to serve the better people?

Basically the Rambam believed that the ultimate purpose of man was to engage in philosophical speculation about God. Doing this is a way of turning "potential intellect" into "active intellect"  and thus obtaining immortality of a sort. So the Rambam has a really good question:

תכלית היות האדם לצייר לנפשו המושכלות. ואם כן, מדוע המציא הקדוש ברוך הוא כל האנשים אשר לא יציירו מושכל לנפשם? ואנו רואים שרוב בני אדם ערומים מן העורמה וריקים מן החכמה, מבקשים התאווה, ושהאיש החכם המואס בעולם הוא יחיד בין רבים, לא ימצא אלא אחד בדור מהדורות?!

The purpose of man is to create for himself the "Active Intellect" If so why did God make people who will never create for themselves Active Intellect? We see that most people are empty of wisdom and seek desire and the smart man is one among many and may only be found in one generation out of many.

The Rambam answers that these people (most people) serve two purposes:

1. To do work for the one smart man

2. To give the smart man company

This is somewhat similar to how Nietszche envisions humanity in relation to his ubermensch or the super man. Nietzsche believed that those who cannot become supermen can find solace in the fact that they serve the superman. He glorified those thousands who died for the ubermensch - Napoleon for they had helped him in his goal.

 "Ye lonely ones of today, ye who stand apart, ye shall one day be a people; from you who have chosen yourselves, a chosen people will arise; and from it the superman."

 "Not mankind but the superman is the goal"

Needless to say the Rambam and Nietzsche had completely different views on who the superman was but still the shared elitism is extremely interesting. Try teaching this in the yeshiva world which learns the Rambam's works religiously and claims to revere him but would probably brand this idea of the Rambam as heresy. Don't believe me? The Rambam says all of this in his Introduction to the Mishna over here 

Skeptics' Parshat Hashavua: Parshat Chukat

Bamidbar (Numbers) Chapter 21
יג  מִשָּׁם, נָסָעוּ, וַיַּחֲנוּ מֵעֵבֶר אַרְנוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר, הַיֹּצֵא מִגְּבֻל הָאֱמֹרִי:  כִּי אַרְנוֹן גְּבוּל מוֹאָב, בֵּין מוֹאָב וּבֵין הָאֱמֹרִי.	13 From thence they journeyed, and pitched on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness, that cometh out of the border of the Amorites.--For Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites;
יד  עַל-כֵּן, יֵאָמַר, בְּסֵפֶר, מִלְחֲמֹת יְהוָה:  אֶת-וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה, וְאֶת-הַנְּחָלִים אַרְנוֹן.	14 wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the LORD: Vaheb in Suphah, and the valleys of Arnon,
טו  וְאֶשֶׁד, הַנְּחָלִים, אֲשֶׁר נָטָה, לְשֶׁבֶת עָר; וְנִשְׁעַן, לִגְבוּל מוֹאָב.	15 And the slope of the valleys that inclineth toward the seat of Ar, and leaneth upon the border of Moab.--

This is one of the more puzzling passages in this week's parsha.  Many commentators try to deal with is what exactly is this "Book of the Wars of the Lord" and more importantly what is the BOTWOTL trying to tell us?

There are many explanations for this in the commentaries but the simple meaning of these verses is that the Torah just made a statement that Arnon is the border between the Amorites and Moab. The Torah then cites evidence for this from a passage from another book called "BOTWOTL". (This is basically how the Ramban understands it) This is AFAIK the only place in the entire Pentateuch where another work is explicitly cited.

Now this brings us to a bit of a theological issue. The problem is that this citing of another book is rather un-Godly behavior. Orthodoxy believes that God pretty much wrote the whole Torah. Why is an omniscient God bringing proof to his assertion that Arnon is the border of Moav from an external source? Can't we trust the omniscient God that he knows where the border of the Amorites and Moav lies. Does the textual evidence from the BOTWOL  add anything to God's infallible word? This is roughly equivalent to a 40 year old senior proffesor citing a passage from a high school essay for support.  Even if the BOTWOL is also a book written by God still the question remains why does the omniscient God need to cite any sort of support for anything he says?

I'm sorry to say but this whole passage seems very human to me.

Now for something completely different:

I really enjoyed reading all the comments to my post How I Became Skeptical Part II: My Pandora's Box. If anyone is interested in contributing a sort of "guest post" along the same lines then send it to me a shiltonhasechel@gmail.com. I would be interested to know:

1. What did you used to believe?

2. What do you believe now?

3. What was the exact catalyst that got you to start questioning your former world view.

4. How did that moment make you feel? How did you react? How did thing unfold after that?


It could even be from Chareidism to Modern Orthodox. I just find the concepts of "the one moment that changed everything" or the "sudden lifting of the veil" fascinating. (Apparently the Greeks did too when they made the Pandora's Box story)



  


.

Do Frum Jews Hate Pets?

Is it just me or is there an inverse relationship between frumkeit and pet ownership? How many frummies do you know with pets? Personally I love pets, I always grew up with animals in the house so I find it a little strange that so many frum people I know just don't own animals. In fact if I think back I don't think one person in my high school class besides me had a pet. (Watching the panic my dog could induce in frum people and kol sheken Rabbis was priceless)

I know plenty of MO types (and tons of non-Jews) with animals but what do frummies have against them?

My first though was that pets are for people with one or two kids (and old cat ladies) not for people with an already burgeoning zoo of 10-11 kids. But I find that even frummies with few kids or old people with no kids also don't have them. Why are there no old cat ladies wearing shaitles!!!

Apparently there is a Gemara somewhere that says you can't own a bad dog (does anyone know where that is) but I kind of don't think that's what its all about.

I found this post on Daat Emet. Someone asked Daat Emet "Why don't Chareidim raise pets, like cats and dogs, in their houses"

Basically DE answers that Chareidim are only concerned with "useful" things. You have twenty kids because its a mitzva. You learn Torah because its a mitzva. You eat, and sleep, and go to the bathroom because its a mitzva. Anything that you don't need to survive or to do a mitzva is basically a waste of time. Enjoying yourself is a waste of time. Since owning animals apparently doesn't get you any mitzva points they fall into the category of other pointless things that waste time.

I can imagine all of that about grumpy Israeli Charedim but American Chareidim are a little more chilled out then that. I mean most American Chareidim will allow you to do things just for a little bit of fun. You're allowed to waste some time reading (as long as it's written by Yair Weinstock) or playing baseball.

Is it a hatred of animals? If you've ever seen what Yeshiva guys in Israel do to the ubiquitous stray cats (skila, sreifa, hereg, v'chenek) you start to wonder if there isn't an open animosity towards animals (not to mention the way animals are treated in shlacht houses.) Maybe frummies don't have pets because they secretly (or not so secretly) hate all animals?

So what's is it? Is it because they have too many kids? Is it because its not a mitzva? Is it because they hate animals?

Anyone have any other ideas?

How I Became Skeptical Part II : My Pandora's Box

I always wonder what I would be like today if my childhood had been just a little different. As I said before in an earlier post How I Became Skeptical, the things that really got me thinking were rather small. It was the mere discovery of the concept of the DH that began to make my little head spin. Just finding out that Karaites still existed and firmly rejected TSBP got me in a tizzy.

Evolution never worried me because I always knew that evolution was true and I also always "knew" that you don't take those parts of the Torah literally. I always "knew" that the Rabbis in the Gemara knew how to learn not how to cure diseases or study biology. Since I had always "known" that these things were not threats to Judaism I never got worried by them.

What if I had grown up knowing about the DH and the human origin of the TSBP? What if I had grown up knowing the apologetics to explain these things away. I would probably have been desensitized to these things and would never have been surprised by their discovery. I would never have received that terrifying jolt of terror, that feeling that "they were hiding this from me!"

Once I found that there were things that my Rabbis had never told me I started thinking and once that started it was all downhill (or uphill depending on your opinions about religion). The faith-panic that I was unable to deal with as a child of 14 totally threw me off balance and broke my conditioning. Maybe if someone had pounced on me as soon as I had a glimmer of doubt, and explained it all away, maybe then I would have turned my brain back off and continued to follow Jewish doctrines like a sheep. Since I let my doubts simmer untreated for years, they began to grow unhindered, like a virus slowly infecting all of my childhood faith with doubt. Maybe once I had my first tiny little doubt no amount of apologetics could "save" me. I feel that those simple little books with with their little seditious suggestions were my Pandora's box. The day I began to wonder if my Rabbis got it wrong, spelled the end of my credulity.

So for anyone out there who wants to brainwash their kids into the Jewish faith (not that I support brainwashing) this is what you should do:

1. Tell your kids about every reason people have had and will have to doubt Judaism

2. Tell them that all the doubters were and will always be wrong

3. Repeat and Reinforce the above constantly

Withholding Bible criticism, philosophy, science or anything from someone can result in "disastrous consequences". The best is to expose them to everything, thus desensitizing them, and then use apologetics to explain that evolution, the DH, and everything else inimical to Judaism are either A. Not true or B. Not threats to Jewish faith.

B. is the best option because A. might collapse later on in life. If you grow up thinking that the DH  is rubbish and then pick up a Kugel's book then you will undoubtedly experience the "belief shock." However if you were raised with B. and you believe that the DH is true but is not a threat to Judaism. You will never be hit by a wave of doubt.   
 
This is a lesson that all faiths should learn before they set up their insular societies and education systems. Sheltering only works to a certain extent.

These passages were my Pandora's Box:

This:

The substance of this Biblical account is history. The reference to the Chaldees is anachronistic since the Chaldeans did not penetrate southern Mesopatamia until towards the end of the second millennium BC... The Chaldeans were inserted to identify UR to readers of the Bible in the first millennium BC.

A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson

If you grow up Orthodox you learn that every word of the Torah is untampered with the existence of an anachronism in the Torah deeply worried me.

And this:

Biblical scholars have conjectured that the Old Testament is composed essentially of four major narratives, the "J", "E", "JE" and "P" documents woven into one.

Jews, God, and History By Max I. Dimont

I had never heard of the DH before reading this. It came as an unwelcome surprise.

Looking back I can't believe how much of an effect these relatively innocuous passages had on my teenage psyche. But I still remember reading these things today. I remember the terror I felt when I read these things, the confusion, the disillusionment. I might be dramatizing a bit (then and now) but I was genuinely afraid that maybe just maybe my Jewish way of life was a lie. I'm sure many people would not have reacted the way I did but nevertheless this is what began to make me "tick."

These tiny meaningless little things were my Pandora's Box.

I would love to hear what your Pandora's Box was.

The End of an Era: The End of Government Sponsored Kollels

No more government funded kollels in Israel!

From Haaretz

Yes, it still early and the Knesset might shoot it down but this makes me very happy.

Now for some pessimism:

If this really happens and the kollel system in Israel collapses then there might be huge changes in the Chareidi community in Israel. My only worry is that this might end the important divide between Chareidim and normal Datiim (religious). I kind of like the way things stand where Charedim are on a different planet than the rest of Israel's Jewry. If this change happens the Chareidim will probably after a while start to look like the rather more moderate American Chareidim and the line between insanity and sanity will begin to blur a bit. The problem with American Chareidim is that they have enough legitimacy to become the leaders of otherwise normal people. Only in America will normal television owning, internet using, literature reading people allow themselves to be led by black hat Rabbis who are at war with modernity. If Israeli Chareidim incorporate into normal society to a certain extent, then this might happen in Israel also. Also if Israeli Chareidim become part of the workforce they might have a larger influence on the government. (They have way too much already!!!) We'll just have to sit back and hope for the best. It's about time that this disgusting mooching off of the government ended and even if there may be some bad consequences this had to be done.

More from:

Failed Messiah


Some thoughts about this exciting new development from:

Emes V'emuna

(Oh btw does anyone like my new Blog format)

YHWH's Ashera: Consort or Cult Object

I decided to post about this topic after the comments thread from the last post. Hat tip to Tamir for giving me a link to an extremely ineresting article arguing against the YHWH consort theory and a thanks to Shalmo for bringing up the topic in the first place.

Many know by now the assertion that in Ancient Israel the Hebrew God YHWH had a consort Ashera. This view is expressed in these two books:

The Hebrew Goddess by historian and anthropologist Raphael Patai

Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel Syro-Palestinian archaeologist and biblical scholar William G. Dever

Already in the early twentieth century many Bible scholars asserted that the Israelite monotheism had evolved from some form of polytheism. They based this on the very significant fact that the Tanach describes a people who had very little fidelity for monotheism. The Biblical account, of course, describes the whole thing as an aberration from the true worship of YHWH. However, many believe that this is projection onto the past.

Yechezkel Kaufman is noted for arguing that the idol worship in the Tanach is not a theological belief in many Gods but merely the acceptance of idols as sort of "lucky charms"

This article sums up his position(derisively) as follows:

1. all Israelites were monotheistic (so much so that one might refer to them as genetically monotheistic),
2. all these monotheistic Israelites had no idea as to what polytheists–who often lived in their midst--really believed,
3. the Israelites worshiped idols without understanding what they signified (thus making them the most symbolically challenged people in human history),
4. there was no social change in ancient Israel insofar as the monotheistic idea was present from the time of Moses to the second temple period,
5. the Hebrew Bible represents the policies and positions of actual official religions in ancient Israel, and,
6. it is an accurate witness to all aspects of Israelite history, except when it refers to the depravity of the Israelite people (which just so happens to be one of its most central themes).

Now this debate remained basically theoretical until archaeologists discovered two very relevant inscriptions

The inscriptions from Qutilat Ajrud:
ב] רכת אתכם ליהוה שמרן ולאשרתה ... ] ליהוה התמן ולאשרתה [ ... ] ברכתך ליהוה תמן ולאשרתה יברך וישמרך ויהי עם אדני [ ...י] תנו ליהוה תימן ולאשרת[ה

Roughly translated (wiki) "I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah" (or perhaps "... by YHVH our guardian and His Asherah", if "Shomron" is to be read "shomrenu")


The inscription from Khirbet el-Kom (near Chevron) reads:

1. ברך אריהו ליהוה נצרי ולאשרתה הושע לה לדניהו
2. ולאשרתה

Translated (wiki): "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!"

Now the question is what is the meaning of "his ashera"

There are basically two possibilities

1. The Ashera refers to a Canaanite goddess Ashera. His Ashera means YHWH's consort Ashera.
2. The ashera refers to some sort of cult object (still considered idol worship to the writers of the Tanach). His ashera means YHWH's "shrine" or something of that sort.

Now lets look into this in detail:

The Tanach usually is discusses the ashera as some sort of object or monument. Such as these verses:
"לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל זבח ה' אלהיך" "You shall not plant an Ashere any tree next to God's altar" ". וישכימו אנשי העיר בבקר והנה נתץ מזבח הבעל והאשרה אשר עליו " "And the men of the city woke up early in the morning and behold he had smashed the altar of Ball and the ashera which was on it"

We almost never find the Tanach referring to "ashera" as a godess in the same way as it refers to Baal as a god.

This is one possible exception:
ויצו המלך את חלקיהו הכהן הגדול ואת כהני המשנה ואת שמרי הסף להוציא מהיכל ה' את כל הכלים העשוים לבעל ולאשרה ולכל צבא השמים וישרפם מחוץ לירושלם בשדמות קדרון... ויצא את האשרה מחוץ לירושלם לנחל קדרון וישרף אתה בנחל קדרון וידק לעפר... ויתץ את בתי הקדשים אשר בבית ה' אשר הנשים אוגרות שם בתים לאשרה" (מל"ב כג, ד-ז 4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron..... 6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder.... 7 And he broke down the houses of the harlots, that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah.

Here we see a reference to Ashera as some sort of goddess. The terminology here used in reference to Baal is also used in reference to Ashera. Based on this many archaeologists identify Ashera with the Ugarit goddess Athirat and the Akkadian goddess Ashratum/Ashratu.

What's important to remember is this verse in Malachim is AFAIK the ONLY reference to Ashera as a goddess. The references to it as some sort of cult object are much more common. Also this article asserts that the verse from Malachim is also not referring to a goddess but rather to a cult object. Basically the Tanach itself makes very little reference to a goddess Ashera.

Another argument against the identification of the inscriptions with a goddess is a grammatical issue. In Biblical Hebrew the "possessive suffix" (the "Hu" in "Ashrathu") is never used with a proper noun. So grammatically it would not make sense to identify the "his ashera" as the name of a goddess but makes more sense as an object. I cannot vouch for all Semitic dialects but I believe Arabic similarly has such a grammatical rule.

An interesting argument for the identification of the ashera as a cult object is the following prayer found in Tractate Sukka:

"When they departed, what did they say? 'Praise to you, O Altar! Praise to you, O Altar!'" (m. Suk. 4:5) According to Rabbi Eliezer b. Jacob, they said "To Yah and to you, O Altar! To Yah and to you, O Altar!" (t. Suk. 3:1 end).

In other words even in Mishnaic times when strict monotheism reigned a prayer was made to God and his altar extremely similar to the prayers we find of "YHWH and his ashera"

In conclusion I'm leaning towards the cult object theory. I have a feeling that archaeologists who already have decided that there was polytheism in Ancient Israel are a little bit too eager to find corroborating evidence. But I definitely need to do a little more research.

Here are some internet sources:

Ashera as goddess:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060916100221/http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/guest/Ancient+Israel/asherah.htm

http://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=7885&str1=%u05D0%u05E9%u05E8%u05D4&find=1


Ashera as cult object:

http://lib.cet.ac.il/Pages/item.asp?item=13226

see here http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/second.htm

Theophoric Semitic Names and YHWH

I'm no Bible scholar but here are some of amateurish musings about Biblical names (as usual I would love your criticism/ supporting details):

The fun part of Semitic names is that they tend to be composite words

Fun fact: Hannibal was a Semitic Carthaginian. His name Khen-Baal means "Grace of Baal". This is similar to the name Yeru-Baal which was what the pissed off Baal worshipers called Gideon.

Now how does this affect us non-Baal worshiping Jews.

Well you see the Tanach is replete with names like this (they're called theophoric names by the way. hat tip: On The Main Line)

Take last week's parsha (Shelach) many of the spies or their fathers had names

Gadi-el

Gami-El

Geu-El

Ami-El (Nation of El)

Micha-El

and the names of the "princes" in parshat Nasso

Netan-El (Gave El)

Eli-Av (My El is Father "Great")

Tzuri-Shaddai (Shaddai is my rock)

Shde-Ur (Shaddai is Light)

All these names consist of either Shaddai which as far as I know was limited to the Hebrew God and the name El which was also the name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon. It might be that the Hebrews originally worshiped the Canaanit El who then became YHWH (Bible Critics) or maybe they always worshiped a distinct God form the Canaanites but adopted Canaanite God-terminology (TMS). We'll probably never know


Fine this is all well and good. What I find interesting is this:

A more common Biblical name type is conspicuously rare (at least I think it's rare) in the Pentateuch i.e. The X-Yah name or the Yeho-X name. These names are combination of YHWH with other words. So for example Eli-Yahu means "my God is YH(WH)" (which is very apt because Elijah wanted to do away with Baal and make the only God YHWH) I have heard that Yosef is a shortened of Yeho-sef (as he indeed appears in Psalms) and Yocheved is a Yeho-Cheved but still it is interesting that the YHWH is very rarely used in Pentateuchal names. Also the suffix YA NEVER appears in the Pentateuch. (I think)

Now one could argue that the name of YHWH was only revealed to Moshe so it took a while to catch on. But still its interesting that it took so long for the name to catch on. Also let's say YHWH was a later invention (say by a J author acc. to Bible critics) then why did J not project his YHWH worship onto the Pentateuchal narrative? It must be (though I'm not sure) that the Pentateuchal history was either

A. Real to a certain extent or
B. Started by people who weren't big YHWH fans(but then whats the deal with YEHO-SEF)
C. I'm misunderstanding the whole theophoric names things.

(Actually Yeho-Shua is also a YHWH name interesting that Moshe changed it from Hoshea perhaps the point was to give him a new name reflecting the new revealed name of YHWH)




The first "X-YA" name I can think of (as opposed to YEHO-X) in the Tanach offhand is:

וַיִּשְׁלַח בְּיַד נָתָן הַנָּבִיא וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־ שְׁמֹו יְדִידְיָהּ בַּעֲבוּר יְהוָֽה׃ 2Sam 12:25 And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.   

If I'm correct that this is the first name of this variety in the Tanach (and I'm probably wrong) Then it's very interesting that the verse says explicitly that Yedid-Ya (Friend of YHWH) was named after YHWH!


Also check out this On The Main Line post and also this one

 

Why Orthodox Reform Might Only Work In Israel

I was reading this

and this

(if you can read Hebrew read the full articles they are excellent)

The following is pure speculation based on my inadequate knowledge of the subject. Half of what I say may be completely wrong so feel free to criticize (or bring supporting statistics/details)

Three contrasts between Israeli Orthodoxy and American Orthodoxy:
1. In Israel there is hardly any Conservative or Reform presence. As far as I know nobody in the religious world is scared at all by them.

However in America there is a fear of the more left wing elements of Orthdoxy becoming Conservative

2. In Israel the Chareidim are so off the wall that their is a clear divide between Religious (Dati) and Chareidi

In America there is a blur between RWMO and LWUO. Many Modern Orthodox people respect Chareidim, which is why there is such a leakage of Modern Orthodox to Ultra-Orthodox.

In Israel people like Rav Bigman and Elchanan Shiloh are trying to create a certain amount of reform in Orthodoxy. Similar efforts in the United States would fail, if I'm judging correctly, because of the reasons stated above.

1. Too much reform (which in American Orthodoxy is almost any reform) gets branded as "Conservatism". Look at the Orthodox response to the first Orthodox women Rabbi. I believe that much of this fear stems from a fear that the Left Wing of Orthodoxy is slipping into Conservatism.

In Israel however their is no real competing movement to the left to be afraid of.

Now of course their is always right wing criticism of the left, even in Israel but I feel that it is far less than in America where Modern Orthodoxy feels a bit threatened by the Conservative movement.

2. The American Orthodox care to a certain extent what Chareidim think about them.

In Israel religious Jews are not really worried what Chareidim think (especially because Chareidim ditch the army which is a big no no in Religious Zionist circles.)

Maybe a reformed Orthodoxy will work in Israel but I doubt in America.

טובה הארץ מאד מאד
The Land is Very Very Good

This Life vs. Afterlife

Rabbi Yaakov said this world is similar to an antechamber in front of the world to come. Fix yourself in the antechamber so that you can enter the main hall.

As usual forgive me for generalizing:

In my opinion religion oversteps its boundaries when it claims to contain the purpose of life as it does in most fundamentalist denominations. It is very unlikely that we will ever exactly figure out what we are supposed to do here in this world (if anything) but I cannot believe that we are here to score mitzva points to get into heaven. Religion is beneficial in many ways, but when it becomes the entire goal of life then it can "poison everything."

Think of all the Jews who may never truly enjoy life because they belong to religious groups that demand that they spend all their time sitting and learning (unless they love learning). Imagine all of the Christians in history who have denounced worldly pleasures and have lived lives of asceticism. And what about all the young Muslims who have gone and blown themselves up for their share in heaven.

All these extreme forms of religion essentially say that we live in a world of illusion. Our world is merely a preparation for the world to come. All the joys and pleasures of this world are really meaningless because this world is not for our enjoyment but a stop off station before the true happiness in the afterlife.

Yes, Judaism has never developed an ascetic tradition to the extent of Christianity, but nowadays we are seeing more and more Chareidim who tell us that this world is essentially just a distraction or worse a temptation. Just take this "ruling" from Rav Elyashiv and other Rabbis about whether children (children!) can play video games that have no objectionable material:

The gemora (Brochos 28b) teaches us: "Prevent your children from [engaging in] higoyon." Rashi explains this saying of Chazal to mean: "You should not accustom them to study Chumash too much since it appeals to them."

If Chazal instruct us to deter children from studying Hashem's Torah in an easy and appealing way since it prevents them from laboring over Torah study, surely they forbid children's playing various sorts of valueless games that cause them to detach their thoughts from Torah study. Playing such games cause a tremendous decline in the child's level of spirituality...

...Even if the movies do not contain anything that is specifically forbidden to see, it is still forbidden to look at it ...

...What difference is there if he goes to see a movie somewhere or instead he sits at home and looks at it, like those people who waste their time? See the gemora (Avodoh Zorah 18a) that teaches us that the punishment for this is tremendous, that Hashem torments him, and that his livelihood decreases, Rachmono litzlan...

And these are kids! These Rabbis basically say that entertainment is forbidden because it is a "waste of time". Only someone who thinks that this world is "futile and empty" could say something like that.

Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit as to the influence the afterlife has on religion but I can't imagine that a kid who is bored to death by learning would submit to life long internment in a Beit Medrash if his Rabbi said "Oh and by the way just remember this is the only life you got. Just thought you should know." Instead his Rabbi tells him "yes, I know its hard and you want to kill yourself instead of sitting another hour in the Beit Medrash but think of the sechar in shamayim that you;re getting for this!"

The afterlife is a useful doctrine to those who cannot enjoy life. Those who are oppressed look forward to reprieve and repayment for their suffering after death. This is probably why Judaism adopted the doctrine of the afterlife in the first place, to deal with the hardships of the ancient world.

However in our modern Western societies most people have the ability to enjoy this world. When people who are well off coop themselves up in a Beit Medrash all day, not because they enjoy learning Torah but because they are told that this is the only way, they are are being robbed of this life by the afterlife. I can just imagine the torture a young ultra-chareidi must endure when stuck in the Beit Medrash, he occasionally gazes out of the window and sees people playing outside, but quickly suppresses the desire to enjoy the world because he has been taught that salvation can only be attained by eschewing this life. This is simply a tragedy and my heart goes out to every young chassid or ultra-chareidi who is forced to spend his time learning whether or not he actually enjoys it.

I wonder how the current stress in our religion on the world to come (at least by fundies) contrasts with the Biblical conception of divine reward. In the Biblical ideal of "when you follow my laws" man is rewarded with earthly pleasures. "You will eat your bread until you are satisfied" The rewards are all present in this world. I have to assume that the people of the Bible would never consider renouncing the earthly in the name of religion. They probably thought of religion as a kind of deal with God, God gives you the world and all its bounty and in return you do his mitzvot. People with such an ideology surely do not fear enjoying what life has given them.

Don't get me wrong the afterlife is an extremely comforting dogma. After all I'm sure it provides much solace for many people like I said above. But religion must find a healthy balance between focus on this world and belief in the next.

It's also not just the afterlife thats the problem any theocentric ideology (I can't think of any theocentric denominations without an afterlife but let's just say) robs people of their lives. When Rabbis preach that your whole purpose in this life is to serve God then (if you believe and internalize what they say) then you will always feel a little bit guilty about just having fun for the sake of fun because you are not fulfilling your purpose.

Religion should make life better not worse. If we actually knew for sure that we would receive the main reward of life after death then behavior like this would be justified. (And THAT is the problem with fundamentalists is that they have no doubt that there is an afterlife. I doubt the terrorists who died in 9/11 has one ounce of doubt that they were going to Gan Eden) It bothers me so much when fundamentalists (and I guess Chazal to a certain extent also) take Olam Hazeh away from people by preaching that the sole purpose of life is to serve God and gain browny points for the world to come.

Why I Hate Organized Prayer

In Yeshivish “davening” in addition to its primary meaning also means to recite something automatically, or with little intention. This is because almost nobody can repeat the same thing three times a day every day for their whole life and still gain some meaning from it. I have to assume that the majority of the frum world just chants the words every day with little or no kavanna and then walk away feeling like they have accomplished something.

Even if davening is important (and that’s debatable) surely the only point is if you’re paying attention to what you’re saying. So why do thousand of religious Jews feel that it is their religious duty to mutter words that they often do not understand , and do not pay attention to three times a day. Is that what prayer is supposed to be, automatic mumbling?

Ah, so why don’t people just daven with kavanna? Then they will be accomplishing something! The answer is because it’s virtually impossible. The effort required to concentrate about words that you are so familiar with and that you say so often, is huge! You have to be reeeeeeally motivated to say a long Shemoneh Esrei with all the concentration you’re supposed to have. Most people even very religious people just don’t have that’s sort of motivation. However the law is the law and no one dares question it so most people just chant the words out of rote, however pointless that might be.

Also what bothers me is the accumulation of unnecessary prayers over hundreds of years. We have in our siddur tons of pages of endless added prayers! Why is it all necessary? Most people can barely pay attention for five minutes and now they’re expected to pay attention for an hour. What a complete waste of time!

Also the content of the prayers is basically meaningless to most people. Even if you’re a firm believer, do you really, truly care about the coming of Mashiach? Does it really bother you that you have no Beit Hamikdash? Do you really care that God is holy?! People care about themselves, their families and their friends. That’s what they really want to pray for. But most of davening is dedicated to things that people do not truly care about and so most people cannot stir up enough emotion to make it meaningful.

When I was in Yeshiva the Rabbis used to drag me to davening every morning. I would slap on the tefillin and promptly slouch into my seat in semi-consciousness. I would struggle not to put my head down on the table because as soon as your head went down a Rabbi would walk over and prod you until you woke up. What bothered me more than my desire to go back to bed was the pointlessness of me sitting there doing nothing.

One day I decided enough was enough. I skipped shacharis and when the Rabbis asked me why I said “there is no point!”

“What!”they said baffled, unable to comprehend how someone could say something like that about the holy tefilla.

“I don’t pay attention, I have no kavanna, I’m half asleep! What am I accomplishing!? Is that really what God wants someone half asleep chanting words?”

“But you are still yotze your chiyuv even if you don’t have kavanna.” They said still puzzled.

“Yeah but forget my obligation, the point of davening is to commune with God or something right? So if I am not doing that then what is the point?”

“But you have to daven whether you have kavanna or not!” they exclaimed

At that point I gave up. We were obviously not speaking the same language. These Rabbis just thought in terms of thing you have to do and things you don’t have to do. Their legalistic Gemara drenched minds were not able to grasp the concept of ultimate purpose. The halacha says it you do it! You don’t try to figure out whether you’re accomplishing anything or not. It really had never occurred to them that davening without paying attention was not just discouraged but also pointless. Did they really think that because the halacha books said that you had fulfilled your obligation without paying attention that there was a point to mindlessly muttering the words? Did they think that the words were magical incantations that made God happy? I don’t know but needless to say my appeal to logic failed to exempt me from davening.

Hey I don’t mind praying once in a while. But for God’s sake what were the Rabbis of old thinking when they instituted lengthy prayers three times a day! Did they really think that it would be meaningful? It sure is not and I hate organized prayers! It seems that halacha has taken away much of the beauty of prayer and has managed turned it into another law bereft of meaning or "spirituality".

Note: Some people I know are very devout about davening and I think actually manage to have real kavanna the whole time. I suspect, however that they are an exception to what most people do.

Fish Worms, Kabbalah, and the Rambam

If that title did not get your attention I don't know what will ;)

In case you don’t know the Orthodox world is currently in a fish worm crisis

My gut feeling was “kanaim who just want to make things harder” but that is not really fair because after all eating worms is not allowed according to halacha. (Assuming the fish worms don’t spontaneously generate) Right?

After a bit of thought I realized something. Worst case scenario what happens? You eat a worm something which is probably prohibited by halacha and then...

What are the consequences of eating fish worms that you never find out about? (skeptical answer: same thing as eating a worm on purpose - nothing, but this is a non-kefira post) You never know that you ate a fish worm or a strawberry bug what is going to happen to you?

This is where a bit of theology comes in. What is the purpose of the mitzvot? What “happens” when you break a mitzvah?

[Ignore spell check turning all my mitzvot into mitzvoth]

Put way too simply there are essentially two schools of mitzvah philosophy. I believe that depending on which school of thought you follow can radically change your whole attitude to halacha in general and this case in particular.
The Rambam is the best formulated version of what I call Rationalistic Philosophy of Mitzvot. The Rambam at the end of the Moreh Nevuchim attempts to explain the rational of every mitzvah. His focus is on the social and ethical effects that result from every commandment. Of course the Rambam stresses that the mitzvot are not contingent on his given reasons but still his basic philosophy of mitzvoth is that they have tangible effects on the people who perform them. This basic method is also used by the Sefer Hachinuch, the Ibn Ezra, and R. Hirsch.

Now the other approach is the kabbalistic approach. In kabbala the mitzvot do not always affect man visibly but may affect him spiritually. In other words doing a mitzvah or doing an aveira has a direct effect on man’s soul. In some kabbalistic systems the mitzvot and aveirot even affect the entire ontology of the world! In Lurianic Kabballa the coming of the Mashiach (which to him is the climax of a metaphysical process) is directly dependent on man’s actions and his correct performance of the mitzvoth.

Now take the case of an inadvertently swallowed worm. What happens? According to the Rambam probably nothing. Because the whole purpose of the mitzvoth is to have an effect on our behavior and our self control and things like that. The Rambam explains that the laws of kashrut are a way to learn to control our urges. If you eat something not kosher you have failed to control your urges and have lost out on an important ethical exercise. Swallowing this little worm however did not do anything at all because you did not know about it. Surely things that you didn’t know about will not do anything to you if the basic purpose of mitzvoth is to make you into a better person. Maybe you should take a look at the fish or strawberry in question and quickly check if there is a worm or not but all of this meshugas?

On the other hand in the kabbalistic approach eating the worm has fundamentally changed reality (somewhere in the world of sefirot or in your soul) Just because you did not know about it does not mean that it hasn’t done something. In which case it is extremely important to make sure you don’t swallow any forbidden worms.

I speculate that the kabbalistic philosophy of mitzvoth is sitting somewhere in the back of the minds of people who take this much care to insure that no “sin” gets done. A rabbi of mine in Yeshiva once said that aveirot create evil in the world. Although he was by no means a kabbalist he was obviously influenced by the kabbalsitic legacy in some way.

Either it’s the kabbala or modern day poskim simply don’t even bother to think about what exactly is the ultimate problem with an aveira in which case I think poskim should take more care to consider problematic cases on a more universal/theological level rather than just treating it so legalistically.

I know that virtually all people who compliled philosophies of the mitzvot stressed that the mitzva still stands whether or not the reason is gone, but still in fringe cases like this shouldn't a bit of hashkafa come into play?