On Being "Aished"

So someone Emailed me this essay he wrote about Kiruv Organizations. Scroll down for the article - but first a few words from me: 

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I hate Aish HaTorah, Ohr Samayach, Project Chazon and all sorts of Kiruv organizations.

I don't object to kiruv perse - people have the right to peddle their religion and for some people Orthodoxy may just be the right thing. Different things work for different people and I think it's more than legitimate to invite irreligious people to Shul or your Shabbat meal and give them a taste of what Orthodoxy is.

But I can't abide manipulation and I can't abide lying. Presenting Orthodox Judaism as "scientific" fact is a lie.

And that's exactly what the organized Kiruv organizations do. Rabbi Slifkin has been recently posting about the use of the Talmudic "four animal proof" which is such a blatant lie that I can't imagine that the kiruv workers using it don't know that they're bending the truth.

I can't abide the Kuzari proof which is logically unsound in countless ways. I recently sat and forced myself to listen to a Lawrence Kelleman lecture about the Kuzari proof. The way he bent facts, cleverly used logical fallacies, and used "scientific" terminology was actually sickening. I hope to God that he is just severely naive and is not doing it on purpose.

I can't stand sugar coating the truths of Orthodoxy. Yes Orthodoxy is sexist, yes the Talmud did not have a high opinion of gentiles, yes certain sects of Orthodoxy are anti-scientific. But the Kiruv organizations will never tell it's "victims" any of these things 'till they're deep in the system. And because people who are being "mekareved" have almost no knowledge about Judaism -  they have no idea that Kiruv workers are carefully leaving out the less savory bits of Orthodoxy in their presentations...

Do these organizations have no integrity? Do they believe that the ends justify the means? Or are these types of Kiruv workers just as naive as their targets?

Anyways here's  article:
On Being Aished

Jewish History as "Proof" of God

We’ve all heard the familiar refrain “Believe in Judaism because of the miraculous history of the Jews! How could such an oppressed and pursued nation have survived the tribulations of the exile if not through some sort of miracle?”

Like most attempts to base Judaism on some sort of “proof” – this one IMHO fails. At best our history can inspire but it can’t prove and can’t even point or hint to some sort of divine agent who protects Israel.

How does one go about destroying the Jewish people/religion once they’ve become a relatively large religious movement spread all over the world? Are there really so many people plotting the destruction of world Jewry? And is such a scenario even a possibility were God to leave us to the vicissitudes of the world?

The most straightforward way to rid the world of Jews is to kill them. And indeed over the years many Jews have been killed because of their religion or “race”. However, it is important to remember that despite what we say in our Passover liturgy - no government or power (AFAIK) until Hitler ever made an attempt to physically destroy the Jewish People in its entirety. (With the exception of the story of Megillat Ester which is of dubious historicity) The uniqueness of the Holocaust in the long history of anti-Semitism is that it was meant to be a “Final Solution.” Progroms, crusades, and blood libels were  not meant as a “final solution” to a “Jewish problem”. The reason that Jews physically survived the exile is actually quite simple – no one until the Holocaust ever tried to exterminate them completely.

The above is equally true when it comes to converting Jews. Although in a few cases entire countries tried to convert their Jewish populations (many times in Spain) we must keep in mind that both Christianity and Islam officially believe that forced conversions are not valid.

It is not a miracle that we survived if nobody was actually plotting to annihilate us, physically or spiritually, in the first place.

Another important factor worth considering is the dispersion of Jews. Jews are and were found in almost every corner of the Earth. Jews have lived in Europe, the Middle East, Russia, Buchara, Georgia, Britain, and even the New World and the Far East. With so many Jews living in so many places and under so many different religions and governments - it is literally impossible to convert or exterminate every last Jew in the world. The amount of organization that would be required is mind boggling and would require the most outrageous conspiracy to implement. Even if one or two anti-Semitic nations decided that a world with no Jews would be a better place, one or two nations simply do not have the power to kill/convert all the Jews spread out all over the world. It would take a veritable pandemic of universal, murderous anti-semitism for such a terrible thing to be even vaguely possible.

I think the better question to ask about Jewish History is “How couldn’t the Jews survive the Exile?” And I have to admit that I don’t find it too miraculous that we managed to survive when the entirety of our “nation” was never really in jeopardy.

The Difference Between A Mekubal and a Researcher

The title of this post could equally be called the difference between a Yeshiva Rabbi and a Talmud Researcher


I The Mekubal

I would say (at least one of) the major cornerstone of traditional Orthodox "scholarship"whether it be in the study of the Bible, the Talmud or Kabbalah is the concept of a Mesora. The idea of a Mesora in this context is as follows: People who write things down are (usually) not expressing their own views but rather are merely penning a timeless tradition which ultimately stems from Sinai. This idea is called in the Talmud the Torah She B'al Peh. While there are obvious problems with taking this approach to it's extreme, and I doubt even the most extreme Chareidim accept this completely, it nevertheless has a huge affect on how Jewish texts were/are learned traditionally.

Take for example the Arizal (15th century Kabbalist of Tzfat who first expressed what is called "Lurianic Kabbalah") Reasons the traditional scholar, "The Arizal did not make up his philosophy from nowhere it MUST be based on a tradition." (Or perhaps in the case of the Arizal a visit from Eliyahu Hanavi) If this is true then we can explain and understand things from before the 15th century with the aid of the Arizal's teachings.... because of the Arizal we know that when the Gemara says such and such it means ABC and D and when the Zohar says such and such it means EFG and H . The thing about a mesora is that all the "gedolim" between Moshe and Arizal should know about it. Therefore it is utterly sensible to interpret things from the 13th century according to doctrines only written down in the 15th century. Because before these things were written down they were surely known word of mouth as oral traditions....


II The Researcher

The researcher follows this approach: One looks at every text independently AND contextually. That is to say that the way the Arizal interpreted the Zohar is not necessarily how other people interpreted it in the past, and is perhaps not how the author of the Zohar intended. Similarly the way the Talmud interprets a verse is not necessarily how the Mishna interprets a verse or what the verse was intended to mean in the first place. The researcher essentially ignores or disregards the possibility of oral traditions. Additionally there is the concept of context. The researcher instead of seeing the message of a given work as something timeless sees it as a something influenced by the circumstances, surroundings and influences of the author. So the Zohar is best understood in it's Spanish context and the Talmud Bavli in it's Babylonian context etc.

To understand the Zohar based on the Arizal or the Mishna based on the Talmud can sometimes be  anachronistic... Sometimes the Talmud is mechaven to what we would call the original intent of the Mishna at other times the Talmud's interpretation of the Mishna reflects the world and ideas of the Talmud more than those of the Mishna....

Flipping Out

It occurs to me that "flip-outs" and off the deep-end, black hat BT's make the following mistake.

For whatever reason these idividuals have decided to dedicate their lives to Judaism. However they often decide that a form of Chareidism is the best way to do this. Now it is possible that these individuals actually identify with the extreme anti-historical anti-critical attitude to Judaism (as opposed to regular Orthodoxy which only mildly anti-historical) however I sometimes find that these people simply don't know enough about the difference in ideology between Chareidism and Modern Orthodoxy.

IMHO, though I can't say I've actually heard anyone admit this or anything, these people mistake Chareidism as a difference in degree rather than a difference in ideology. Reasons the enthusiastic BT/flip out: "I want to dedicate my life to Judaism, and Chareidim are the people who are the strictest about Judaism therefore I'll don the black hat and grow out my peos"

Now it is true that Chareidim are the strictest about Judaism but this is an ideological issue. Chareidim are stricter because they believe that the best way to be Jewish IS to be strict. However a more Modern Orthodox person would perhaps argue that strictness is not always the best way to go.

Also the strictness of Chareidism often stems from literalism and inability to perceive that times have changed (again even Modern Orthodoxy suffers from similar problems but to a lesser degree.)

So our BT or flip-out has perhaps not realized that stricter does not necessarily mean BETTER and that Chareidism stems not so much from a higher degree of dedication to the Jewish faith but rather from a different ideology.

In which case our BT must ask him/herself if s/he REALLY agrees with this ideology and whether this ideology is really better than Modern Orthodoxy....


That's what I figure but what do y'all think am I totally off the mark here?

Deifying Rabbis

Humans are selfish and when it comes down to it they won't do anything unless they perceive some sort of reward. (Of course the definition of a "reward" can be quite fluid)

Why follow halacha? What practical benefits will halacha bring to my life?
A. It will keep God happy and failure to keep halacha will make him mad
B. It will make my life better. After all God knows what actions lead to a good life.
C. God said so and he's really smart. Presumably he had a good reason.

All these reasons and variations thereof are all great reasons to keep the Torah. However there is the slightly inconvenient issue that most of Rabbinical Judaism is Rabbinical. In other words most of the rituals, blessings, and celebrations we practice did not come straight from God but rather were instituted by Rabbis.

And that brings us to a problem of incentive. It's all well and good to dedicate ones life to GOD's word. Because God knows best. But unfortunately this reason will only suffice to explain a small fraction of the large corpus of mostly Rabbinical halacha. What of the rest? Why keep it?

Well from a legal standpoint we have the famous derasha לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל . This verse, according to the Gemara is a commandment from God to listen to the Rabbis. Their word is His word.

But perhaps that just doesn't cut it. Still Rabbis are humans. Correct? What if they make a mistake? Why would a wise God command us to follow a mistaken pesak, or takana? And why should I follow a halacha made up by a mortal man if I don't agree with that halacha? What makes Rabbi So and So cleverer than me?  

Perhaps it is these "dangerous" questions which led to another doctrine. A doctrine that makes the words of the Rabbis equivalent to God's not just legally but also literally.

Perhaps the Rabbis were more than human. Perhaps they were actually infallible "angels" with a direct line to God. They weren't speaking as humans but rather through Ruach Hakodesh. The Gemara is just as much the word of God as the Torah because the Rabbis were but mouthpieces for the almighty.

It follows that we should take the miraculous stories about them literally. After all people with a direct line to God surely can perform miracles. And it also follows that people with a direct line to God not only knew Torah but also knew all of science, history, and everything. If the Rabbis are but God's proxies on Earth then their word is God's word. And God can't be wrong.

The Chareidi "deification" of Chazal is not just naivete or literalism. It serves a fundamental purpose in religious incentive. We want to follow the dictates of the All-knowing Almighty - not the interpretations of mortal men - no matter how clever they are. Because man can be wrong but God cannot. Therefore a new "species" of men must be invented. Men who are angels is the most literal sense - literal messengers of God. Following these people is analogous to following God himself. 

And then one can sleep safely at night knowing that not only do the Rabbis want you to say Keriat Shma Al Hamitta. But also God בכבודו ובעצמו

The Zohar

There's been some recent talk recently on the blogosphere about how old the Zohar is. Jewish mysticism and the Zohar in particular happen to be personal interests of mine so i thought I'd add some thoughts.

Before one even looks at Isaiah Tishby's impressive array of arguments against Tannaitic authorship of the Zohar (Introduction to Mishnat HaZohar) one has to ask a more basic question. Which is why did a book which was purportedly written in the 2nd century not get quoted directly or even mentioned until the late 13th century?

Unless there was an incredible consensus, on the level of a conspiracy, to keep a well known work out of any written work for hundreds of years, then its fairly safe to assume that no one or almost no one knew about the Zohar until the days of Moshe De Leon.

Which would make sense if it weren't written until his days. 

But no fear. There are various stories about how Moshe De Leon obtained the heretofore forgotten book. And it's even accepted among various mekubalim that the Zohar was "revealed" after a period of being "lost". I forget who said it but it was something to the extent of "How fortunate I am to be born in a generation when the Zohar was revealed"

This is all well and good but one should generally not trust mysterious texts found in caves and delivered by ship to Spain. How did Moshe De Leon know that the text he "revealed" was written by Rashbi? How did anyone know that it was written by Rashbi? Mesora? But we've already pointed out that there was clearly a long period of time when the book was generally not known as attested to by its absence in hundreds of Rabbinic texts over a time span of almost a thousand years. (Again I mean direct quotations, books have been written trying to find "Zoharic" concepts in earlier Rabbinic literature)

Is it possible that the ideas of the Zohar were always around from the times of Rashbi and that it was merely put in writing in the 13th century? Is it possible that a chain of secret mekubalim handed down the Zohar secretly over thousands of years only "revealing" it in the 13th century?

Anything is possible. But I find it quite unlikely.

Perhaps more discussion to follow.....

What to Write?

This blog is getting dusty again.... I kinda get the feeling that the subject of Jewish skepticism is like beating a dead dog - yes we're skeptical - yes we don't believe B'emuna Shlema - not much else to say. I would like to keep the blog alive but need some inspiration - should I just write about Judaism in general? Dunno. Ideas anyone?