The Hiding of the Face

Hirsch and Kabbala II

2011-07-03T23:00:00.001+02:00

Introduction

This is the follow-up to my post which- perhaps misleadingly- was called R' Hirsch against Kabbalah.

Here I quoted from The Nineteen Letters Rav Hirsch’s view that, through misconception, Jewish observances had become “magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds”. Seeing the concept of mitzvot as affecting “extra-mundane dream worlds” had led the mitzvot to be seen as mechanical devices for affecting the spiritual world

In contrast, one should view mitzvot as making man better able to fulfill a this-worldly mission. The following is part of an interesting correspondence based on that post.

Adam

From all I've experienced of 'current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism' the entire kabalistic view of Jewish life and purpose is no different than the very non-kabalistic. Both hold the the point of life is to utilise this world for the sake of achieving something higher than this world. Both hold the way to do this is through indentifying the which decisions are the right decisions, conquering 'self' and consistently making the right choice not the easy choice.

Both hold this is done (only) in the realm of the physical, the ritual [although I am of the opinion that there is no act that is considered purely ritual in Judaism - every act has personal meaning and is performed to enhance the actor's relationship with Hashem - and not (only) in some lofty spiritual way, but in very 'real' (as if the other , isn't!) intellectual and emotional terms], the emotional and above all the day-to-day.

To suggest otherwise for either on behalf of one betrays a lack of knowledge of the other. (Not that I claim to have expertise in either, but just the opposite. It's clear to anyone who has had a little education in either that the above is true)

Also, I would suggest that the comments from R.Hirsch above are talking about those throughout history who pervert Kabalah by turning it into a pseudo-religion or who use it for personal benefit. who the past and current 'Chassidic and Charedi world' also disown. Obviously having not seen the text inside, this may be incorrect. Quotes in context will prove one way or the other.

Neil Clarke

You are both right and wrong here, Adam. The first point to reiterate is that, as I said in post, the issue is not with Kabbalah itself, whatever that actually means. The issue is with the beliefs that people (Orthodox Jews) teach as 'kabbalistic beliefs'.

How else can I use the word? What else shall we call the mystic teachings which he is rejecting?

The area, therefore, in which you are absolutely right, and I made the same point myself, is that there is nothing wrong with the 'sources' of Kabbalah and that mode of learning. You are further right that Hirsch bemoans the misunderstanding of those sources. He says that they "are an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud, which has unfortunately been misunderstood".

The question then is what the misunderstanding consists in, and this is where we will disagree. Hirsch is not saying that people have misinterpreted these other worlds, or been taught by the Kabbalah Centre! The misinterpretation lies in taking them to be·
talking about other worlds in the first place.

In their 'aggadic context' they are invaluable in helping us understand the world and leading to the purification and betterment of man. As such, a lot of the symbolism discussed in the Horeb is based on Zoharic explanations. But (just as he makes clear with regard to aggada generally) ones we take them as 'literal' we have misunderstood them.

Now you must admit that when elements of the chassidic and charedi worlds talk about 'other worlds' and utilise mystical explanations they take this, in some sense, literally. Now when I say 'literally' I'm not accusing anyone of crude anthropomorphism [or whatever the word is which builds those worlds in terms of our own] . This is why I said 'in some sense' they are 'real' worlds.

The real question is that does he think people have misunderstood the nature of these real worlds or does the misunderstanding consist in taking the kabbalistic sources to be talking about other worlds in the first place? I take it from your comments that you agree with the first, whereas I suggest the second.

When he comments on the Korbanot saying "they are neither a transitory concession to a generation still steeped in heathen views, nor do they form a chapter of kabbalistic, magical mysteries.... Their meaning and purpose is teaching the way to keep the ideals of the Torah". Here he first takes issue with Rambam (as he does often) and then with a kabbalistic view talking about the mysteries of the universe. If he accepts the Zoharic explanations but says they don't talk about mysteries of universe, then he is saying that to do so is a misunderstanding.

Both sides to the above question have been held. The first position, that whilst he didn't USE mystical teachings, he was in no way against them was held by Dayan Grunfeld and Rabbi Elias.

However, R' Danziger says the following:

"A non-apologetic reading Of Rav Hirsch’s words will indicate he is referring to two opposing, rather than complementary, approaches. He is not complaining that the ethical does not complement the extramundane. No amount of apologetics can get around the hard fact that Rav Hirsch calls the extramundane worlds of (what is in his opinion) “misconstrued” kabbalah “external DREAM-worlds”"

Also R' Aryeh Carmell on why he follows R' Hirsch in using the Zohar despite omitting mystical references:

"This too is not surprising when it is remembered that Kabbala itself is essentially an exploration of the internal world of the unconscious mind and especially of the non-ego layers of the human psyche." [hence why acceptable]

Misunderstanding in Good Faith

2011-07-03T22:33:00.001+02:00

Here is a draft of an essay I have written about Rav Soloveitchik entitled: “Misunderstanding in Good Faith: Confronting Rav Soloveitchik’s Position on Interfaith Dialogue”:

Soloveitchik Interfaith.docx

This essay is being written for Degel which is the academic journal of the Alei Tzion community in Hendon.

It is currently quite long and unedited. However, any suggestions more than welcome which you can send to onlynameleftever[at]gmail.com.

Happy (and possibly confusing) reading!

Pesach Thought 2: Immigrants and Strangers

2011-04-17T03:04:00.001+02:00

[See Pesach Thought 1: Hesed and the Prisoners Dilemma]

There are certain ideas, fears, sayings, criticisms and dangers that arise in every generation. For example, when do you think the following was written?

The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence [respect] for their parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint; They talk as if they alone know everything and what passes for wisdom in us foolishness in them. As for the girls, they are foolish and immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress

Yes, that’s right- Peter the Hermit in the 8th Century! You can find similar quotes from Hesiod (8th C BCE), Socrates (4th C BCE) and Seneca (1st C CE). Another thing that rears its ugly head every generation is the fear of the immigrant and the stranger. They’ll become too mighty! They’ll take our jobs! Their loyalty lies elsewhere! We’ll be overrun!

This was exactly the attitude of Pharoah towards the Ivrim who, as the name connotes, were a landless people and a tribe of nomads. He believed that they would “become even more numerous… [and] join our enemies”. However, this wasn’t anti-semitism or anything against our group in particular, but from a general attitude. One text of theirs says, “strangers from outside have come into Egypt… Foreigners have become people everywhere.” The Egyptians used the name Habiru to any group of nomads and their records show that they used other groups in their construction projects.

It is our treatment at the hands of the Egyptians that informs much of the Torah’s approach to morality. Time and time again we get statements such as: “You shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, having been strangers in the land of Egypt.” Having been immigrants in another land, we are implored to act towards immigrants in a more humane way than we experienced. The Torah, of course, is not a liberal document and there is debate about which injunctions to love the stranger apply to converts, which to non-Jews who agree to follow the Noachide Laws (a Ger Toshav) and which to just anyone who lives amongst you. If someone, at least meets the middle category, then we must treat them “with the consideration and deeds of loving-kindness due to a Jew, for we are commanded to sustain them…” (Maimonides)

Whatever the precise halakhic ramifications, the spirit is clear, as elaborated by Rav Hirsch:

Whether a country is to be considered just depends less on what rights it accords its citizen, who are in any case secure and well-represented, and more on what rights it confers upon defenceless strangers. In Jewish law, the complete equality before the law of the stranger and the indigenous citizen is axiomatic. It is not nationality which entitles a man to right, but the acknowledgement of human rights which grants nationality.

Pesach is the ultimate re-living of history, showing us that the fears and (potential) events of history are destined to be repeated in every generation. As such, our past experience must inform our present attitudes. Per R. Hirsch, our experience teaches that “Harshness and cruelty follow[] automatically, as they always do and will, once the basic concept of human rights and justice is perverted”.

Not that this proves I’m not racist.

Not Racist

2011-04-15T01:08:00.001+02:00

I don’t know much about immigration policy, and have no more than vague feelings about numbers of immigrants we should let in. Personally, I’d feel uncomfortable with a fixed and potentially arbitrary quota. Surely the focus should just be on what they are here to contribute. Nonetheless, I approach the issue with an open mind.

One thing, however, David Cameron is certainly right about is that we should feel free to discuss such issues without the threat of being labelled “racist”. If “cultural sensitivities” prevent discussion in polite society, it leaves it to the extremists to make a meal of what are genuine concerns.

Here is Cameron addressing one such concern:

But as well as abuse of the system, there are other problems with the family route. We know, for instance, that some marriages take place when the spouse is very young, and has little or no grasp of English. Again we cannot allow cultural sensitivity to stop us from acting. That's why last November we introduced a requirement for all those applying for a marriage visa to demonstrate a minimum standard of English

Language is an important enabler for integration into wider society and entry into a culture. It allows for access to education and the workplace. Through the media, it allows the free-flow of information, opinion and analysis. It allows for joint projects and projects and identities amongst different groups of people.

And yes, dare I say it, it is about being British and feeling a sense of belonging and loyalty to this country. The country isn’t merely a hotel that provides services. Rather than residing in self-segregated cultural ghettos, people should contribute to projects wider than their own group.

Obviously, this has nothing specifically to do with Britain or Britishness. Anglos often do the same forming isolated communities in France, Spain or Israel. It is equally wrong there, and it constitutes a certain arrogance if English speakers refuse to learn the language of their host country.

Of course, having a national identity doesn’t mean any group turning the back on their own individual identities. The aim is what the Chief Rabbi calls “integration without assimilation”. If you disagree, feel free to call me a racist, but perhaps I could just be plain-vanilla wrong.

The Pursuit of Happyness

2011-03-09T00:35:00.001+01:00

Yesterday I watched The Pursuit of Happyness for the second time on DVD, and it got me wondering. It’s a brilliant movie based on the true story of struggling salesman Chris Gardner who managed, against all the odds, to land a top stock-broking job for which he had no experience. This despite the fact that while he was trying his wife left him, he had to raise his son by himself with no money and suffered prolonged periods of homelessness. He fulfilled the “American Dream” and managed to create a better life for himself and his son. A feel good movie, right?

Well, it is a clear case of where a Hollywood movie promotes values which some may see as completely wrong. The main character is turned onto his dream job after noticing stockbrokers in their fancy cars and observing that they are all happy! After he lands the job, the voiceover announces “This is the part of my life called happiness”, before it flashes up on the screen that he went onto become a multi-millionaire. Whilst I don’t think money will make you happy, I personally have no problem with people making money, working in finance or with capitalism more generally. After all, that is where I am working! Yet, many socialists, for instance would disagree. I wonder what they are thinking whilst watching the film. Do they notice the messages? Are they writhing in their seats? Are they being convinced? Or is it seen as harmless entertainment?

If they do disagree, I wonder how they express exactly what in the film they disagree with. Equally, I wonder how their criticisms are taken by most of their friends- the unthinking consumers of the product who just went and enjoyed the film without analysing it. It would appear mad to start criticising the character for his actions. After all, it is surely undeniable that he was happier having money which enables him to properly provide for his child, and should be congratulated for following his dream and doing so by honest hard graft and labour. You start criticising the film, and go off on one about the film’s morality, you’d just appear really mean-spirited.

Yet, one may feel that this is just because the film is engineered to mean you must come to this conclusion. In this very specific instance, with the two very stark options, with the limited context we see, with the motivations the writer has implanted in the characters- then, yes, we must agree with the outcome. However, one may feel the moral of the story is insidious and is detrimental to the common good.

This is how I feel about a lot of films, but unable to articulate it without seeming to have a massive bee in my bonnet. But Pursuit of Happyness is one where others (not myself) would have the same feeling.

The (Inexpressible) Faith of a Child

2011-02-28T23:57:00.001+01:00

A Sub-section of my essay: “Misunderstanding in Good Faith: Confronting Rav Soloveitchik’s Position on Interfaith Dialogue”

According to Soloveitchik, the God-man relationship expresses itself in the triad of private experience, objective norms and judgements, and concrete acts in the external world. Although all aspects of our religious life are correlated with one another, it is the subjective relationship with God that is the essence of faith, and our desire to interpret the world in light of that relationship. Our childlike emotional connection is in many ways an aboriginal response to spiritual reality. Commenting on Likkutei Torah’s approach to the symbolism of Matzah, representing the boundless and unqualified trust bnei Yisrael put in G-d on the night of redemption, he says approvingly:

“It is the naive approach of the child, a commitment based not on a rationally explicable reason, but on an inner, intuitive, emotional, inexpressible experience” (FF 63)

This pre-rational faith defies objective analysis, is inseparable from our experience of the world and will give rise to experiencing various contradictory states (e.g. G-d’s remoteness and immanence). Nonetheless, for Soloveitchik, it is this experience that forms the existential background of all religion.

This is hardly what we might expect of Halakhic Man who prides himself on his exoteric and adult religion! Indeed, in the drash above, hametz represents the fully grown individual who interprets his experience within the categories of a sensitive intellect. Yet, whilst these show “homo theoreticus in his full glory and majesty”, they “can never bring man into the presence of G-d” (FF 65.) The religious person, unlike the scientist, cannot ignore the qualitative aspects of reality and work wholly in concepts and abstractions. The reason is that the norms and concrete acts- the very things halakha conceptualises- result from the spirit trying to objectify itself in the outside world. As a result, for the religious mind, “the world he knows is identical to the world he experiences”. It is through entering into the ideal world of Halakha that a Jew can claim full flourishing of his cognitive, creative personality but it cannot lose its connection to the experience that gives it living content.

Soloveitchik perceived his inability to communicate to his students the link between halakha and subjective religiosity, to be his greatest failing:

They lack the experiential component of religion, and simply substitute obscurantism for it.... How can I convey experiences to my students? I simply do not know how... My students are my products as far as lomdus is concerned. They follow my method of learning... However, when it comes to my philosophical experiential viewpoint, I am somehow persona non grata. My ideas are too radical for them.

Evidently, the lack he felt in his own students, was one that he felt in culture at large and amongst those of all faith communities. A certain loneliness, and inability to communicate religious experience, comes from the nature of faith itself. Yet, contemporary man exacerbates this problem by “searching not for a faith in its singularity and otherness”. They are committed members of religious communities but deny as superfluous, the defeat, withdrawal and sacrifice involved in genuine faith. They don’t appreciate that one can never fully translate it into terms that those not of their faith can understand:

Each faith community is engaged in a singular normative gesture reflecting the numinous nature of the act of faith itself, and it is futile to try to find common denominators

To deny this feature, in the terms of Confrontation, is to eschew the ‘double confrontation’ in favour of a ‘single confrontation’. Unless we say that our faiths are singular, we diminish the grandeur of both.

Why I Could Not be an Academic

2011-01-04T03:40:00.001+01:00

It’s the first time that I am trying to write an academic essay in two years, and I realise why I am no good at it. My housemate has asked me to write an article for Degel which is an academic journal published by the Alei Tzion community. It is about Rav Soloveitchik’s approach to interfaith dialogue- a much misunderstood topic and one that I already know quite a lot about. Moreover, I have read and re-read his works until they are coming out my nose.

I should be able to just sit down and write it! Yet three things prevent me. Firstly, no matter how clear, sublime and radical the thoughts are in my head, they never translate when I try and write them down where they appear dull and repetitive. The sparkle and fizzle of my chaotic brain count for nothing so long as I can’t find the right structure to place them in or where the exact formulation remains on the tip of my tongue. As R'. Soloveitchik himself says:

Feelings, emotions, thoughts and ideas become clear, and are grasped only after they are expressed in sentences bearing a logical and grammatical structure. As long as one’s thoughts remain repressed, as long one has not bought them out into the open, no matter how sublime and exalted they may be, they are not truly yours; they are foreign and elusive.

Secondly, I end up deleting as many (if not more) words than I write. At work, I write a lot of documents very quickly. I act with complete professionalism and yet I care less about them. As such, I can churn them out to a high quality as I know that my thoughts will be good enough even if the words don’t express what I want to say 100%. Yet with a philosophy essay, I’m never quite happy with the formulation and see the objection to the statement even before I get the chance to write it. This makes for a slow process!

Thirdly, and this isn’t necessarily a bad quality, I am never completely sure of my position. So much has been written about Rav Soloveitchik, and so many conflicting opinions, that every time I read something new, I begin to unnecessarily doubt all that I thought. It certainly doesn’t help that the Rav was not entirely consistent in his terminology, application of his opinions or typologies of Genesis! Whilst the general trend is consistent, he certainly provides others with enough material to prove me wrong!

So there we have it. Only time will tell if I manage to write this essay.

Poem: A Dream of Freedom

2010-12-15T00:47:00.001+01:00

A dream of freedom
A mountain over our heads
The bitter morass, the child doth wail
It looms, the mountain
It looms

Curiously it’s still
Just hanging, right there
Above it’s still, just falling, right there
And the shadow it casts
Just black

The false prophet, he cries:
“The mountain its yours.
There’s nothing beyond, only rock
One place for you, accept it”
Your lot

A shout once stifled
Into many whispers, much louder
Receptive to words, words of the ancestors
A light remembered, the light…
It beckons

Cracks in rock, though small
Through perseverance and dynamite
Widen and widen, minds narrow and narrow
Only one goal, no matter how
AVALANCHE

With structure now
gone and boundaries now
gone, And light it
seeps in; and happiness, it wells up; and joy, it overfl
ows. The prophet, yes, he wails: “Will it! Do it!”
Take your chance, he urges...

And the media urge: use, destroy with it; bathe, run in it; focus, diffuse it; harness, flow with it; whisper, shout about it…
And the people shout: FLY
For the people heard what they want;
and with structure now gone, and boundaries now gone
they did what they want

The sun, it doth burn
The fair skin into charred.
Some heavenward fly, greedy hands grab
Power from flight weary, gasping,
On ground

New masters, same work
Face our toil, without shade
The people cry, oh why, can’t we just
Have a mountain that’s over
Our head?

Annals of history are such
Yet hope, of freedom, still remains
Where shade, not from a mountain extends
But from a ‘canopy of peace’
Amen.

Confronted Man - Tragic Philosophy: Part 1

2010-12-08T02:02:00.001+01:00

I fear that philosophy- taken to its proper conclusions- is a necessarily tragic ethic that rightly belongs with the rest of Greek culture. It starts with the individual self who doubts and questions; and ends, at best, with knowledge and facts. If a man confronts the world as something-to-be-known, he is making it into something of an entirely different order than himself: The subjective will of man over and against the objective and lifeless order of the world.

As R’ Soloveitchik says:

Even the most abandoned voluptuary becomes disillusioned like the king of Ecclesiastes and finds himself encountering something wholly other than his own self, an outside that defies and challenges him… He discovers an awesome and mysterious domain of things and events which is independent of and disobedient to him

Why should we be disillusioned? Surely, man can end up as much with victory, as defeat. He can end up conquering the world with his superior intellect and knowing everything there is to be known. Quite so, but as Wittgenstein states, “We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered [and thus know all true facts about the world], the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are no questions left…”

What the person really wants to find is precisely what he can’t; there are no more questions to ask and reality has no more to yield. In fact, it is precisely this cognition that brings into sharp relief our inability to find meaning in the world: “The facts all contribute to setting the problem, not to its solution” (Wittgenstein). The absurdity of existence lies in us witnessing fact after random fact without being able to give answer to the question of “Why?” Facts are clearly stated but it is the lack of a language- our lack of grip- on questions of meaning that lead us to the philosophical conundrum that Albert Camus once pondered.

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy

This then is philosophy; by standing external to all events and things as the impartial judge, you will only ever become acquainted with things (like scientific facts) that can be known externally and impartially. You will never be able to reach out to that which is beyond your intellectual grasp. You will never become acquainted with the interiority of the other. The intimate- knowing- relationship with the world, other people and G-d that fill life with meaning will be missing.

This can be seen most forcefully with Maimonides whose highest goal was to know G-d and yet where this was the one thing (necessarily, according to his philosophy) that completely evaded him. To know something was for it to be demonstratively true; where impartial logic would demand it be so. Here, Aristotle was King knowing every true statement under the sun. What Aristotle missed, however, was that you can know all this and it not bear on the most important problem of life. To declare anything in the world as G-d would be to cheapen the concept and yet, that is all we can know in a demonstrative fashion. Moses, according to Maimonides, achieved his perfection by knowing the whole world and knowing that it was not G-d. Thus, the highest level of man consists of being aware that there is nothing he can know of G-d, nothing he can say about Him and continually being reminded of the distance between them.

This realisation could lead to breakdown:

Man may despair, succumb to the overpowering pressure of the objective outside and end in mute resignation, failing to discharge his duty as an intellectual being, and thus dissolving an intelligent existence into an absurd nightmare. (Soloveitchik)

Yet, the alternative route of carrying out your intellectual duty is, as we have seen, no less tragic. One is left, as Wittgenstein points out, at a place where solipsism, idealism and realism meet. Solipsism, because “The world is my world” where yours is the only subjective self that you meet. Idealism, because only what is possible to be ‘thought’ can be the case, and G-d and ethics are outside that. Realism, because “The world is all that is the case” independent of my will. Here the philosopher left with a lonely, detached individual facing a cold, hard, objective world.

Maimonides, Soloveitchik and Wittgenstein all bide us to fulfil our duty as intellectual beings and advance in the scientific world. Yet, solving these problems “shows how little is achieved when these problems are solved”. How can a philosophical ethic be achieved on this basis? How can we go on without knowing the interiority of the other? Why not just commit suicide?

Help, that isn’t

2010-11-30T00:23:00.001+01:00

Trying to help people isn’t all it’s cracked up to be!

I spend half my life holding the door open for people. After all, isn’t that the polite, even gentlemanly, thing to do? Yet unless you judge it just right, it ends up being more of an inconvenience than a help. If they are just that bit too far away, then there are only two possible options. Either they start quick-stepping to the door so that they can get through without making you wait. Or, they walk at the pace they would have done anyway and you end up standing there like a lemon. The former is making them unnecessarily rush and expecting them to show gratitude for it! The latter means that you both end up feeling uncomfortable with the situation and yet, unable to change what you are doing.

Another example is on the London Underground where the ‘right’ thing to do is to give up your seat to the elderly or those less able to stand. You see someone on a busy, rush-hour train out of the corner of their eye and a surge of compassion comes over you. You gesture for them to take your place, whilst you are prepared to stand in the sweaty abyss. What a knight in shining armour! What princely valour! Except, of course, when the corner of your eye misjudges someone’s age. If you actually ask a middle-aged woman to sit, you are basically saying that they look elderly and worthy of special treatment, despite the multitude of middle-aged women there! They laugh or give a half-smile, feeling acutely embarrassed that they were asked and say “no, you’re alright”; and you sit there embarrassed watching the floor so you don’t feel compelled to be nice again.

There are just so many examples. I’m certainly careful before trying to be a peacemaker, when often the two people would rather have a good spat and don’t want my patronising nonsense. What’s the moral of the story? I don’t know.

Facetious Insignificance

2010-11-20T20:55:00.001+01:00

A large part of what I like about halacha and Judaism is that things matter and nothing is to be treated lightly. Our actions and deeds, the world and all its objects have meaning for us. This is not necessarily to say that there is meaning out there to be discovered, as maybe we construct much of it for ourselves. It is, however, a statement that everything should evoke a rational, ethical and emotional response from human beings. More than anything, it a moral imperative to be serious and engaged with the world in such a way that befits our human dignity.

Any serious response involves making distinctions, putting things into categories and deciding priorities. In the Jewish setting, this is embodied in commandments and custom but the ethical dimension may well evoke a less formal response in other cultures. It is no less true than in any academic discipline where information is sorted, categorised and interpreted.

Yet, too many people leave their rationality at the laboratory door, at work or in the academy, and take a ‘live and let live’ attitude to their lives outside. It is the scientific categories and distinctions, for example, that really matter and everything else is plain vanilla by comparison. And just like its corresponding ice cream flavour- why make a fuss about it? With a twinkle in the eye and a shrug of the shoulder, any life-affecting obligation can be shook off:

‘Who cares what lifestyle I choose so long as I don’t harm anyone? Morality is culturally relative and people can live as they please. Why distinguish or categorise people or actions as that just excludes!’

This is not to say that no argument exists for relativism, libertarianism or excluding regulation from certain areas of your life. It’s the way some people say with a look that tells you that it doesn’t matter a darn bit how you answer them. The people for whom rationality is pointless because any distinction just doesn’t matter- to them. Care-free people for whom any action is equal and every distinction irrelevant if it simply doesn’t bother them!

This attitude in extremis- a failure to draw distinctions or let them impinge on you in any way- is a denial of one’s humanity. It reminds me of a case in Oliver Sack’s The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat about a patient who had a brain tumour and underwent a personality change, becoming complete superficial and uncaring:

Testing left-right discrimination was oddly difficult , because she said left or right indifferently…

‘Left/right. Right/left. Why the fuss? What’s the difference?’

‘Is there a difference?’ I asked

‘Of course,’ she said, with a chemists precision. ‘You could call the enanitiomorphs of each other. But they mean nothing to me. They’re no different for me. Hands… Doctors… Sisters…’ she added, seeing my puzzlement. ‘Don’t you understand? They mean nothing – nothing to me. Nothing means anything… at least to me.’

‘And this meaning nothing…’ I hesitated, afraid to go on. ‘This meaningless… does this bother you? Does this mean anything to you?’

‘Nothing at all,’ she said promptly, with a bright smile, in the tone of one who makes a joke, wins an argument, wins at poker…. Nothing any longer felt “real” (or “unreal”). Everything was now “equivalent” or “equal”- the whole world reduced to a facetious insignificance

I’m not saying that those who don’t agree with examining the small things in life has a neurological disease but perhaps they are not fulfilling their true potentiality as a rational being. Of course, what I like about Judaism may be what another hates. This is what someone said was the best thing about leaving the religious-Jewish fold (http://daashedyot.blogspot.com/2010/08/better-know-kofer-sam.html):

The best thing... hmmm... maybe that you don't have to take everything so seriously. Every choice and action isn't considered such a major issue that you always need to be absolutely confident is the exact right thing to do

Now, whilst I certainly don’t believe in being confident that my actions are the exact right thing to do (in fact, I think halacha is about doing things even without that certainty), I certainly think my actions should be considered. Whilst prohibitions or commands may be highly annoying, I’m not one for a care-free disposition and no-one can accuse me of treating things with a facetious insignificance.

Pro-Israel, Pro-Freedom of Speech

2010-11-19T16:44:00.001+01:00

Dear UJIA,

I would just like to pass on my support and encouragement to UJIA Chairman Mick Davis, after the so-called 'shockwaves' that have been sent through the Jewish community.

I have both donated to and benefited from UJIA-funded activities and am now encouraged to do more so in future.

As a Zionist, I support your activities. As an advocate of Israel, I realise the potential for public criticism being mis-used and the need to be careful. But as a critical human being, I am pleased to hear people speak their mind.

One may agree or disagree with particular views expressed. However, it is absolutely right that the oft-used phrase "just because we support Israel, doesn't mean we support all government policies" isn't merely theoretical or vacuous. And certainly the view of another Jewish leader that "diaspora Jews should never criticise Israel" is absurd and immoral.

As with everything else in life, Zionists have a plurality of opinions. It is good for Mick to express his. I'm glad UJIA is showing itself as a "big tent" for all Zionists

Shabbat Shalom.

Neil Clarke

A Toast to Cashing-In

2010-11-18T00:40:00.001+01:00

In honour of iTunes now being able to makes lots of money off The Beatles, I thought I would offer an un-reasoned, but absolutely correct opinion as to their best album. And the winner is….

Rubber Soul

It may not have the stand-out songs of Let It Be, and it may not have the musical influence of Sergeant Peppers or The White Album, but it is the best taken as an album in totality. There isn’t a duff/embarrassing song on there and most stand the test of time. You can just sit back and listen to this fast-paced album right from beginning to end. The band seems completely at ease with their song-writing with all original songs and no pseudo-spirituality- just a band doing what it does best.

And that’s the final word.

Do non-Jewish actions count for anything?

2010-10-28T00:04:00.001+02:00

Sometimes Facebook status messages and subsequent comments deserve more attention, and greater longevity, than they would get if hidden away on someone’s ‘Wall’ beneath hundreds of other messages. This is one such status message. Someone who has “Unofficial Jewish tendencies” and greatly attracted to Chassidut and Kabbalah became disheartened on hearing their views of non-Jews. I believe the discussion bears on important issues.

Please note: I have edited the discussion, changing names apart from my own and taken out the numerous personal comments. It is not about the person involved but the issues involved.

----

Jane Jackson learnt today that my deeds "do not add or subtract from the state of creation, nor do they cause Gd to reveal itself or withdraw. All they can do is bring about their own gain or loss..." and is feeling more than a little disheartened.

Neil Clarke On the other hand, Rambam says "With a single good deed he will tip the scales for himself, and for the entire world, to the side of good."

Jim Bowen Bye, bye Chassidus

Jane Jackson Is Rambam referring to Jews perchance?

Jim Bowen This week Ramban calls Rambam a heretic. Judaism can descend into racism pretty quickly when you make an ontological commitment to certain chassidic ideas.

Jane Jackson Are you saying from a NON chassidic viewpoint that my deeds do effect a change in the spiritual realm? Or that there is no connecton between physical deeds and changes in the spiritual realm at all? Hmmm?

Neil Clarke As to your earlier question, Rambam does say "all men", as opposed to "all Israel" when talking about our customs during ten days of repentance. Plus, Rambam never makes an absolute distinction between Jews and Gentiles. We will find it easier because of the Torah but everyone has the same potential. He believes non-Jews have the same capacity for prophecy.

Neil Clarke As to your question about "spiritual realms" a non-kabbalist (let us leave chassidim out of it, because you can have non-chassidic kabbalists) wouldn't talk about 'spiritual realms' in the same way. But they would definitely say our actions have an effect in a) this world b) our soul c) G-d's accounting of us. Rav Hirsch, for example, thinks it makes mitzvot 'amulets' if you want them to effect (what he calls) 'dream worlds'. The Torah allows us to make spirituality a living reality

Jane Jackson So are you saying (or Rambam saying...) that non-Jews have a neshama with the same potential as a Jewish neshama in terms of spiritual growth and attainment (ie. in olam haba)? And would a non-kabblist say that a non-Jew's actions have the same effects in this world/our souls/Gd's accounting of us? Or lesser?

Jim Bowen Bilam is the key Torah example of a non-Jewish capacity for prophecy. Regarding your last question, the latter option is the more likely, owing to a fundamental disagreement in the nature of the spiritual realm. To clarify, I thought your... original quote was non-chassidic, referring to everyone. Neil, I refer to chassidus because it incorporates the kind of ideology which I'm assuming Jane is being exposed to here; I could be wrong. A non-chassidic kabbalist worth looking at if you want another take would be Rav Yitzchak Kook; I don't know if he would say something similar to what you've heard here, but somehow I suspect not. Where did this come from? A more level playing field is created by dispelling the notion of the divine spark within a Jew (something inherently present) and considering instead the divine potential of a human to become like Gd through their actions (which emulation we would say is possible through study of the Torah as an instruction manual to guide decisions).

Jane Jackson Non Jews do not have a divine spark then? I was reading Derech Hashem....

Jim Bowen I've always had a problem with the racist undertones when I've been told that non-Jews are fundamentally different and in some way 'spiritually' inferior to Jews. Don't have the sources to counter it to my satisfaction though I'm afraid; maybe Neil does. :)

Jim Bowen The question is not whether non-Jews have a divine spark, but whether such a thing as a piece of Gd exists in people at all. Rather, do we not all have potential to fulfil Gd's will? The non-Jew has fewer obligations, making it easier I suppose, but the more mitzvot required of a person the more difficult it is to do what Gd wants of you, thus the more praiseworthy it is to do it. I think. Does that make sense?

Neil Clarke I can't speak on behalf of all non-kabbalists! For Rambam, yes- a non-Jew has the same potential. Only Jews have a "divine nation" where all these things are written into our everyday laws and lives, and so we will be more likely to be successful. But 'the righteous of all nations have a place in Olam Haba'

Plus, 'neshama' may be a slightly different concept for non-Kabbalists. Kabbalists have it that a neshama is literally part of G-d. Adam Kadmon was an entirely spiritual being, and when he sinned the 'vessels shattered' into millions of pieces and got caught in the sitra achra- our bodies. 'Knesset Yisrael' is the totality of all these divine sparks trapped inside a Jew's body. Therefore: Jews souls = Knesset Yisrael = Adam Kadmon = Shechina.

In this picture, a non-Jew only has an animal soul because, whilst he can be as good as a Jew, he doesn't have part of that original divine spark.

A non-kabbalist wouldn't take that view of a neshama. The neshama is our purpose, that which animates our body and gives it 'the breath of life'. Non-Jews can elevate the physical as much as anyone else, as they also have a divine purpose. For a kabbalist, the physical is the sitra achra- "the dark side". For a non-kabbalist, the physical is neutral: we can either live an unredeemed animal existence, or use the physical in a spiritual G-d given way.See More

Neil Clarke Although, Jim in bringing up Rav Kook- yes, he was clearly a kabbalist. And he definately believed in "divine sparks".
He does write that he saw a Rembrandt painting, and thought that when the vessels shattered, he gave some of that light to Rembrandt to put in his paintings.

Also: Through dispersion among gentiles, [Judaism] gathers and incorporates the fragments of truth wherever it finds them scattered- Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (1823-1900)

Neil Clarke Also, as for Bilaam the Sifrei says:

"There has arisen no prophet in Israel like unto Moses" but in the Gentile world there has arisen[such a prophet]. And who? Balaam the son of Beor

So, he had the potential, but he blew it!

Jim Bowen See Derech Hashem as a good representation of a kabbalistic world view, but not the be all and end all of orthodox Jewish thought; it's one version of Judaism, but is not the whole. Ramchal's writing is rooted in a kabbalistic and chassidic tradition which you are under no obligation to adopt or accept.

Jane Jackson Yes, that goes make sense, non-kabbalists see it as though there isn't necessarily a divine spark in Jews or anyone... and that anyone - Jew or non-Jew - has the potential to realise Gd and elevate the physical and use it for it's spiritual purpose? But it's harder for a Jew as they have more 'rules'. Ok. I like kabblistic thought but at this time... it's quite hard for me to feel so pointless...

Neil Clarke I just want to end on a positive- sometimes when one spends their time arguing against something, they end up sounding negative...

As such, I certainly do believe in a 'divine spark' within us. It is t...hat spiritual element G-d has given us (whatever that might be) which allows us to be more than just an animal, and allows us- through our actions- to resemble the divine.

As it says in Tanach, in the Book of Kings/Melachim:

"I call heaven and earth to witness, BE A MAN A JEW OR A NON-JEW, man or woman, manservant or maidservant, only according to their actions will the spirit of G-d rest upon them"

Working Life…

2010-10-12T20:33:00.000+02:00

Working life certainly takes some getting used to!

The earliest I’ll finish work is 5.30- and only because I have just started the job. This is followed by an hour and a quarter squashed commute back on the underground. Then, after I have done a few sits up and had a shower, gobbled down some delicious pasta topped with ketchup in 5 minutes flat and gone to synagogue for evening prayers, it is already 8 in the evening!

I then, depressingly, only have two hours to myself to do something. One thing. I have the choice of watching Star Trek or doing some reading or see a friend for an hour or playing an instrument or writing something interesting or do some learning. But only if I’m decisive. If I just mill around for a bit- say, half an hour- I find its already getting too late to do anything. The instrument will disturb the neighbours, it will be pointless seeing the friend for such a short time, I’ll be too tired to learn and I’ll miss the beginning of Star Trek.

Of course, if I am sociable and go straight out for a few pints after work with my colleagues, then it is literally back to bed slightly woozy without even doing any exercise, going to synagogue or having a shower.

Today I wrote this. Better luck tomorrow.

Delivering Value

2010-10-12T00:18:00.001+02:00

“Adding Value” is one of those potentially vacuous pieces of business talk that one has to grow accustomed to. We need to focus- so the jargon goes- on the “Value Zone” and deliver our resources there. My development goals will be around how I can “deliver value” for the company. The steps from procurement through to sales is a “physical value chain” which can be modelled by a “virtual value chain”

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the idea, as such. It’s just about the competitive edge that comes from adding something that will deliver great benefits for little costs. It is the extra feature that makes something greater than the sum of its parts. Basically, add a lick of paint to the walls of your house and you’ll get a much better price for it!

However, when I see a Royal Mail van with “Delivering Value” emblazoned on its side, I tend to think that it would be much better if they could just “Value Delivery” instead!

10 Books to Buy….

2010-09-02T23:17:00.001+02:00

…if I had the money and time.

1. My Journey- Tony Blair

2. Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations- Abraham Joshua Heschel

3. Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism by Moses Mendelssohn

4. On Certainty- Ludwig Wittgenstein

5. The Complete Novels of Kafka- Franz Kafka

6. Essays (Penguin Modern Classics) - George Orwell

7. A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny

8. Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne

9. The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness by Simon Wiesenthal

10. Awakenings by Oliver Sacks

Who Reads the Papers?

2010-08-31T23:14:00.001+02:00

Once true, always true.

Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"

Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

Over 1500 Days Without a Visit

2010-08-27T14:21:00.001+02:00

This Saturday is Gilad Shalit's 24th birthday, has been in captivity for four years and has been living without basic humanitarian rights. The Red Cross, who are meant to ensure such rights, have yet to visit him. Here is a letter that a cousin of mine who works for the Jewish Agency in Israel has written. She suggests that it can be adjusted to your personal feelings and send it to one of the addresses at the bottom.

---

I cannot express too strongly my disappointment at the clearly feeble and half-hearted attempts made by the ICRC to visit Gilad Shalit.

To claim on your web-site that you are still “working just as hard” to visit Gilad when you first failed 4 years ago only means that you have not increased the pressure nor have you shown- for years- any creative initiative. For one small soldier the effort is apparently not worthwhile.

You have clearly never countered Hamas’ refusals by trying to “upgrade” your own efforts but have just carried on as before, knowing that you will continue to fail. When asked “What exactly have you asked Hamas to do?” you simply ignore your own interviewer’s question and give no real detail whatsoever, just the same old generalisations and platitutdes. The conclusion must be that there is no detail to give.

To admit on your website that “there is only so much that we can do for them” is a total abandonment of your creed. You no longer have true belief in your mission, and your double duties as messenger to one Israeli soldier and as protector of the poor and hungry in Gaza have led you into the worst ways of expediency, well on the road that leads to total defeat. You have lost your own self-esteem and, I am convinced of it, that of many thousands of others.

It took you four years of failure before you even realised that “working behind the scenes” is a pointless, hopeless way of dealing with Hamas. FOUR YEARS!! Against this background, you could never persuade any reasonable man that you have been really trying at all.

Please think of these things…

----

Suggested addresses:

For Near & Middle East: dkrimitsas@icrc.org (Dorothea Krimitsas- Media Relations Officer)

Jerusalem: jerusalem.jer@icrc.org (Ms. Barbara Amstad)

International Office: Review@gva@icrc.org

Scary Thought

2010-08-26T15:14:00.003+02:00

A soldier cannot absolve himself of an immoral act because he was only following orders. Equally, bystanders bear some responsibility if they know some evil is going on and yet do not protest. After all, “all it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing”. Yet, would I be one such bystander? How can I even declare a mild confidence as to what I would do?

Most people would like to flatter themselves and think they would protest evil. They are horrified by accounts of atrocities, aim to do good in their own lives and will sincerely rattle off the same platitudes that I did in my first three sentences. “Of course I would do something”. Yet I feel this is just an example of the “above average effect”. If you ask someone to rate how good they are at driving, the vast majority of people will rate themselves as “above average”. Statistically improbable indeed! Equally, most people believe that they will stand above the crowd and act on principle, whilst I contend that most people are the crowd.

Of course, people won’t do something bad if told to do so out-of-the-blue but they can be influenced step-by-step in that direction. Consider the famous “Milgram Experiment”. Could anyone be induced, straight out, to administer a potentially lethal 450 volt shock to an unwilling participant for getting a question wrong? Of course not. How about a harmless 15 volt shock to a willing participant in a learning experiment? Yes. Starting from that point, Milgram wanted to see if, by raising the voltage in increments of 15, people could be induced through verbal pressure alone, to give the possibly lethal shock. A staggering 65% gave the full shock; a result confirmed in repeated examples of the test in different times and places. You don’t need to be below average in morality to be capable of unbelievable evil.

What is more scary is that I could see myself being influenced in some way by extremist literature. People will see Mein Kampf for the drivel it is, and will wonder how people could believe such things. Academics inter that, even from a literary point of view, it is dreadfully written. Whilst this is absolutely true, I, for one, found it incredibly compelling [something can be absolute drivel and compelling at the same time- cf. Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code]. Even I found myself hating Jews after reading it! My critical thinking kicks in quickly and any such thoughts are banished. However, how about in abnormal circumstances where it confirms a prejudice I have, emotional thinking is encouraged, it conforms to what everyone else thinks and I’m going through hard times? Even though I wouldn’t agree with the excesses, would I concede that “he has a point” [much the same reaction people often have on reading Dawkin’s “The G-d Delusion”]? What effect would that have on me?

Perhaps the very fact that I am a reflective person, as evinced by me having these thoughts, would prevent me from falling into this abyss. However, this is fallacious. Some of the most reflective people- scientists, philosophers, religious men- were prominent members of the NAZI party. Most members of the committee who proposed the ‘Final Solution’ were Doctors, and one even insisted on being called Dr. Dr. because of his two PhDs. On the other hand, one of the ‘righteous gentiles’ I learnt about in Yad Vashem was a common thief. How we act in normal times is not a good indicator of our behaviour in the abnormal times.

No doubt, my potential to be evil may seem to myself and others as counter-intuitive. Yet, what is my record like in contemporary times? There is constant and unacceptable de-legitimisation of the State of Israel, but how much do I speak up in defence? On the other hand, an Israeli soldier gloats about her Palestinian prisoners on Facebook, yet how much are these abuses non-apologetically acknowledged in our community? Moreover, what about situations like that in Darfur? I’ve signed a petition and attended a meeting or two. Yet, to be honest, I can’t even really remember anything about it- apart from the word “Janjaweed”. Nor could I say what happened in Rwanda or Bosnia/Serbia. I have read some things about them, but “living your own life” usually cancels out fighting evil. So, what would happen if evil was transferred to my doorstep? I don’t know.

Fact of the Day

2010-07-22T17:41:00.002+02:00

There are certain facts that stick in your memory, and a trillion times that amount that do not. Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything is such a well-written book that I will practically forget everything he writes. If a book is too easy to read, then the content will be enjoyable but there is nothing to make it stick in your brain- “as is the effort, so is the reward”. There is definitely one fact that, thanks to Bill, will stay lodged in memory because he provided such a good analogy.

Basically, it’s all about the structure of atoms that had, at one point, thought to be a dense and solid object and shaped like a cube or a currant bun. In fact, an atom is now conceived to be mainly empty space. The neutrons which account for the majority of its mass, as well as the protons, are in a nucleus that constitute a millionth of a billionth of the atom, whilst the electrons spin round the outside. This fact, as stated so far, is one that I was probably taught when I was 15 at school and just like I forgot it then, I’d forget it now. I mean, what the hell does a ‘millionth of a billionth’ mean? However, a good image is all it takes…

Imagine that the atom was the size of a cathedral. If so, the nucleus would only be the size of a fly- but a fly that is many thousands of times heavier than the cathedral.

The Role of a Posek

2010-07-21T17:10:00.004+02:00

The Torah Temimah, Rabbi Baruch haLevi Epstein, said the following:

"One does not need to be a great talmid chochom... to give a severe psak.... But it takes unusual talent, abundant wisdom and understanding, and a great spirit for someone to give a psak lekulah.”

Here he is outlining what a key characteristic of a halachic decisor is, according to his father- the author of the Aruch haShulchan. These words are not an unusual thing to hear in and of itself- in fact, I've heard religious people say it a lot as a general principle. However, I usually hear it in the context of forbidding something! "Yes, it is probably halachically permissible but it takes a great rabbi to be lenient- so you can't do it". Often we hear the false modesty that no rabbi in this generation is great enough to do so. In other words, it is used as an excuse not to toil in Torah to make a Jew's life easier, not an imperative to do so!

Nothing could be further from the way of the Aruch haShulchan! He was specifically diverted from producing chiddushim in Torah to being a posek by a talmid of the Vilna Gaon, in order to save Jewish people anguish and monetary loss. Here is the Torah Temimah's recollections of his father:

Words cannot describe the exhaustive, almost painful effort my father expended in order to find some heter for any she'ala that came before him. Unless it was specifically stated in the Talmud or poskim that one must be stringent, he would try to find a lenient psak for even the most serious question. Where a loss of money was involved.. or hospitality to guests was involved, he would increase his efforts tenfold, leaving no stone unturned to find some way to permit the she'ala.

While we are at it, who would give the answer R' Chaim Soloveitchik did as to the role of a rabbi?:

to address the grievances of those who are abandoned and alone, to protect the dignity of the poor, and to save the oppressed from the hands of his oppressor

Blood, Platelets & Begrudging Morality

2010-06-08T15:40:00.001+02:00

Now I, as I’m sure a lot of people, do their best to do the right thing. For some it comes easier than others. Personally, I’m quite a begrudging sort of guy and it doesn’t ‘warm the cockles of my heart’ to help others. The overriding emotion once I have ‘discharged my duty’ is probably relief. Dissonance between what I should do and my natural resistance is a nuisance I am happy to be (temporarily) rid of.

One can understand how, for someone like me, it was the best of both worlds to get a letter from The National Blood Service saying that I couldn’t donate platelets. Now I do give blood now and again and whilst it causes no great anguish, I am a bit squeamish. It is not that it hurts but I don’t like the thought of a needle in me, am a bit scared in case I move, and finds the continual hand-pumping action a little uncomfortable. However, it only takes 10 minutes and the second it is over, I feel no ill effect. After my compulsory hot chocolate, I am on my way.

Last time I was in to give blood, the nurse asked whether I had considered giving platelets. Is something I might like to do? Would I like to be tested for? Of course, this isn’t something that I generally think about at great length. Equally, it isn’t at the top of my ‘like’ list. The key point here is that you cannot be a blood donor and a platelet donor at the same time. As such, I would be (as I found out) swapping a 10 minute donation for 1 and a half hour donation, going in 8 - 10 times a year rather than 4, and have a machine strapped to me and not just a bag!

Not wanting to base my moral decision on what I feel like, I asked for information and also which would be the most useful thing to do. After a few niceties about how both were incredibly valuable (which they are), I found out that it would probably be better to give platelets if I could. Fewer people are able to donate them, not many people can commit that amount of time; and unlike blood, they cannot be stored as they only last a short time. As such, I agreed to take test and if possible, become a platelet donor.

Recently, I got a letter from the National Blood Service with the results. I was told that: “you have more than enough [platelets] for yourself, however not a sufficient amount extra to provide an adequate donation”. I’d done the right thing- so to speak- and yet got out of having to take any further action. Phew! But is this the right way to feel? This all depends on whether you subscribe to Aristotle’s view of ethics or Kant’s.

For Aristotle, ‘doing the right thing’ does not make you a moral person or the action a specifically moral one. It is the role of the politicians to introduce legislation that encourage rational actions promoting the welfare of people and state, and early education to indoctrinate you into performing them. However, the main role of education is to develop your character such that- like the rest of nature- you always follow the middle path. You will, for example, develop compassion so that you will want to help people. An action may be rational but it is only moral if it is a natural expression of a person’s virtuous character.

Kant, on the other hand, disagrees and thinks emotions (or ‘how you feel’ about an action) are not a good guide to morality. They are transient and will mean different choices on different occasions. Also, dependant as they are on external circumstances, they are heteronomous and so, not a good guide to character. Instead, actions must be based on categorical reason, which is the only thing that is truly autonomous. As such, if someone who doesn’t want to something with every fibre of his being, yet does it because it is rational, it is a truly moral action. This is because it is based on the moral will alone.

It would therefore be very convenient if I Kant was absolutely right, as it would vindicate me. However, he is not! I agree that our actions can only be rationally justified. Equally, I’m very distrustful of those who do what they happen (due to historical accident) to consider the most ‘loving’ thing to do. Nonetheless, we can only be a truly moral person if we develop our character so that we will naturally follow the dictates of reason. A begrudging person cannot be truly virtuous! Oh well.

My Magic-Box, or Phylacteries

2010-06-04T18:33:00.001+02:00

After accusing my brother of being responsible for much ‘internecine’ conflict, we got on to discussing whether a word can be part of language if no-one (or nearly no-one) knows what it means. Clearly, yes.

Whenever someone asks what ‘tefillin’ are, someone always helpfully responds that they are ‘phylacteries’. Given that neither the person giving the explanation, nor the person receiving it, know what phylacteries mean, it is a bit of a conversation stopper. The person who originally asked is too embarrassed to question any further. There is the implicit assumption that as it is a translation, or explanation, they should now have a good idea what it is.

It is quite clear that ‘phylacteries’ is part of the language- even if (now) only as a synonym for tefillin. Presumably phylacteries did have some wider meaning in English such that, rather than being a translation, it compared it to a class of things that an English speaker would already be familiar with. I assumed it would be something like “ritual clothing” or “strapped boxes” or some other category of which tefillin was one member.

Out of curiosity, I looked it up. The first definition was just a description of tefillin. The second however, was “amulet” which means: “an ornament often inscribed with a magic incantation or symbol to aid the wearer or protect against evil”. This is a bastardization of the practice and is, unfortunately, indicative of the superstitions that have entered Jewish consciousness. No doubt this is what Rav Hirsch complains about when he says:

institutions which were designed and ordained for the internal and external purification and betterment of man as mechanical, dynamical, or magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds, and . . . thus the observances meant for the education of the spirit to a nobler life were but too frequently degraded into mere amuletic or talismanic performances

Even today Chassidic groups will be put tefillin on people even when there is no kavannah (intention) or meaningful experience of any kind. It is not done as a mitzvah, or done for the symbolism (e.g. to dedicate emotions and intellect to Hashem), or done as a prayer aid, or pride that you are now Barmitzvah, or as an expression of solidarity with your people. For me, this is worthless. Others will thing that sticking cow to your head will influence ‘upper worlds’.

Judaism doesn’t need magic, but then again, there is no need for internecine conflict.

---

Afterthought:

If you want spiritual improvement, do the mitzvot. If you want to be “protected from evil”, stay away from the miracle workers. You are need of much more sensible advice than wearing tefillin, such as that proffered by the ‘Brisker Rov’, Reb Hayym Soloveitchik (HT: here):

Two women, who came for advice, gave me their story the impression what this interesting man [Brisker Rov] stood for. One of them had an epileptic child. She had had a dream in which a miraculous cure was indicated and wished to know the rabbi’s advice. He remained calm. “You take him to Warsaw,” he said, “and consult a specialist, as I told you before.”

The second woman had a more complicated case. Her husband claimed a commission on a real estate transaction with a Polish noble. The latter refused to pay, and as R. Hayyim afterwards explained to me, properly. The claimant was one of the numerous “Luftmenschen” of the Pale, men without any definite occupation, who had heard of an estate that was for sale, talked about it to the count or to one of his employees and after the deal had been closed demanded a compensation. The count in good old eighteenth century fashion told him, if he should bother him again, he would give him a sound drubbing. R. Hayyim asked: “what do you want me to do?” “The Rabbi shall give my husband a blessing so that he shall find grace in the eyes of the Poriz.” “I can’t give you a blessing,” was the reply. “The Aibishter alone cane give you a blessing, but I advise you to select a representative person who shall talk to the Poriz, perhaps he may obtain a concession”.

Or as (possibly apocryphally) told of his grandson Rav J.B. Soloveitchik:

Talmid: Rebbe, can you bless me?

Soloveitchik: What are you? An apple?

Rambam and Creation

2010-05-25T01:42:00.001+02:00

Below is essay I wrote as part of my undergrad course in philosophy. It stands up pretty well I think. As usual, I put far too much content in too short a space. There are few things that now I have studied philosophy of language (which I hadn’t at the time) make me cringe a lot. But all in all, I think the author is a pretty smart guy! The reason it is reproduced on this blog is two-fold:

1. As with so many of my essays, I didn’t have a copy of the final version on my computer. It was finished at university, and my university account will have long ago been destroyed. It was lucky I found a single final copy on my email. Having it on blog will help to preserve it.

2. I started to think about the essay again after reading an article in the student journal of Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies: Traditions Against Astrology: An Examination of the Curious Role of Tradition in Maimonidean Epistemology by Daniel Loewenstein. It’s a good article but I think he barks up the wrong tree at times, and that the role of tradition is not as curious as he makes out. I remembered I had some relevant info about this towards the end of my essay. I will write about this in my next blog post but wanted my essay online already, so I can reference myself!!!

---------

Did Maimonides believe in the metaphysical doctrine of creation, or was his defence of this doctrine politically motivated?

Introduction

Maimonides, in his philosophical treatise Guide for the Perplexed[1], defends a creation doctrine that states that G-d willed the universe into existence; in opposition to Aristotle’s thesis that the universe is eternal. However, the Guide is a highly esoteric work with Maimonides claiming that certain metaphysical issues must be partly concealed and as such:

“requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of a certain premise, whereas in another place necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of another premise contradicting the first one”[2]

Therefore, many scholars have argued about whether he really did believe in the metaphysical doctrine of creation[3] or whether he esoterically believed that the universe was eternal[4]. There has been a separate debate in the literature as to the place of the creation doctrine in Maimonides’ political philosophy. The arguments centre on the pedagogical value of the creation doctrine in upholding or directing Jewish law, beliefs and practice. Both the metaphysical and political arguments about creation are studied independently as whether he believed creation to be true is potentially independent of why he emphasised its importance. However, most scholars work on the dichotomy in the title that either he believed creation to be metaphysically true or he emphasised the doctrine for purely political reasons. It is this dichotomy which will be shown to be false throughout this essay.

The basis for the metaphysical-political dichotomy

The difference between doctrines held for metaphysical reasons and those held for political reasons has as its basis a distinction made in Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic[5] between theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy. The former contains geometry, astronomy, the natural sciences and metaphysics whilst the latter includes ethics, economics and politics. According to Maimonides politics is “a science imparting to its masters a knowledge of true happiness, showing them the way to obtain it”[6]. Maimonides taught that the Torah has rendered the ‘nomoi’ of bygone nations superfluous. As such Strauss suggests that “the function of the Torah is emphatically political”[7]. Whilst these ‘nomoi’ deal with the ordering of the city and provisions to obtain what is deemed happiness; the Torah also leads people towards true metaphysical opinions. This is important, as for Maimonides, the ultimate perfection is knowledge of the intelligibles and the demonstrative truths of theoretical philosophy.

“It is clear that to this ultimate perfection there do not belong either actions or moral qualities and that it consists only of opinions toward which speculation has led and that investigation has rendered compulsory”[8].

However, Strauss[9] points out that “the Torah gives only summary indications concerning theoretical subjects, whereas regarding the governance of the city, everything has been dome to make it precise in all its details”. Only a non-political rationality can separate out the true opinions from those that are politically useful. This would suggest firstly that knowledge is reducible to Aristotelian reason and those doctrines in the Torah that are not “true” are merely means to an end. Kreisel[10] denies that this makes political opinions subjective; they are made objective by being the most effective means to an end. However, it is still the case that there is no intrinsic knowledge to be gained from accepting political doctrines.

The dichotomy as evident within the political approach to the creation doctrine

Maimonides’ work can be seen as political in the sense that it reorients Mosaic legislation so that it leads people towards the final end whereby they have knowledge of the necessary truths. An example of this can be shown in Kreisel’s[11] approach to creation whereby it is viewed in terms of its effects in reinforcing the monotheistic idea that “there is a First Existent who gives existence to all existents” and combating idolatry that detracts from this true view. Kreisel points out the discrepancy between the teachings that Maimonides attributes to Abraham between the Mishneh Torah which was written earlier than the Guide. In his Mishneh Torah, Abraham is attributed the proof of G-d’s existence based on the permanence of the spheres, having wondered, “How is it possible for the sphere to be continuously ruled without there being a ruler?”[12] However, Maimonides realised that this approach would lead to the view of the Sabians[13] who all “believed in the eternity of the world, since in their opinion heaven is the deity”[14]. The Sabians reasoned that as the heavens are not subject to coming about or passing away, they must be the dwelling place of G-d and his intermediaries. This served as a justification for their idolatrous practice of worshipping the heavens, which led to the later belief that the spheres were in fact the deity. These considerations can help explain why in the Guide Abraham is attributed with the particularisation argument, which as we will see Maimonides uses to support the doctrine that G-d created the universe. This is because nothing created could be the deity and therefore, is more likely to lead to the true view of G-d. From this example of the political approach we can see that eternity or creation are equally acceptable theories just so long as they lead to the conclusion that G-d is beyond the spheres.

Whilst the above may show the importance of teaching creation to the masses, the Guide is not a rhetorical work directed towards the masses, and therefore cannot explain the arguments in the Guide. Maimonides’ says that it is for a person who “being perfect in his religion and character, and having studies the sciences of the philosophers and come to know what they signify.”[15] Such men live within the bounds of Jewish law and yet are perplexed by apparent contradictions. Their philosophical investigations may lead them to proclaim the truth of the eternity of the universe, which would, according to Maimonides, “destroys the Law in its principle, necessarily gives lie to every miracle, and reduces to inanity all the hopes and threats that the Law has held out”[16]. Such a view would lead people to step outside the bounds of the law and away from ultimate happiness. Strauss notes that “there is a disproportion between the intransigent quest for truth and the requirements of society, or that not all truths are harmless”[17]. In order to retain the benefits of the law whilst retaining one’s philosophical autonomy, people must learn to conceal the rational content of their thought underneath the veil of socially conventional speech. The purpose of the guide, therefore, is to teach the methods of such concealment. After having seen through Maimonides’ esotericism, they must learn to write like that themselves. Just like with Kreisel[18], this allows that a person may proclaim they believe in creation despite actually believing in eternity. “Creation” need only be there to safeguard the law and lead to ultimate happiness.

The thesis of this essay

To the extent that the Torah deals with means to an end, I agree that the Torah is political according to Maimonides’ definition. Also, one cannot ignore the political aspects of the Guide and the creation doctrine, in particular. Maimonides says:

“when there is any division of opinion among the sages which does not affect any rule of practice, but is concerned exclusively with establishing an understanding of a point of doctrine, there is no need to decide in accordance with any one of them”.[19]

Only when a doctrine affects one’s behaviour, such as in the case of the creation doctrine, must an official doctrine be decided upon. Furthermore, this essay will argue that he did not believe creation to be true. However, it will be shown that the dichotomy present in the title is not applicable in the case of Maimonides’ creation doctrine. As such, it will be argued that the creation doctrine is not just political and Maimonides’ did not argue for it merely as a means to an end.

In discussing creation, the most useful distinction Maimonides’ makes is not the one we have already encountered in the Treatise on Logic[20] but one found in his Letter on Astrology where he discusses three different types of knowledge:

“The first is a thing for which there is a clear proof deriving from man’s reasoning […] The second is a thing man perceives through one of his five senses […] The third is a thing that man receives from the prophets or from the righteous”[21]

From this we can see that there other forms of knowledge apart from that which reason can show to be true or false. As such, the creation/eternity issue is not one that can be evaluated in terms of truth and falsity. It will be argued that the creation falls under the third category of opinions received from the righteous where the main form of argumentation is dialectical. Therefore, whilst Maimonides did not believe that creation is literally true, he does not believe that Aristotle’s thesis is either. Instead, ‘creation’ falls under a different category of knowledge.

Metaphysical claims made for creation and eternity in the Guide

My claim would be incorrect if Maimonides did put forward positive claims about creation that are evaluable in terms of their truth and falsity. It seems that this is something he does do as he says, “every existent other than G-d, may He be exalted, was brought into existence by G-d after having been purely and absolutely nonexistent”[22]. Secondly he says that “G-d “was” before He created the world- where the word “was” is indicative of time”[23]. Thirdly, G-d freely willed the universe into being. However, in the course of his discussion all three claims are contradicted and intentionally drained of any force. Many[24] take the first claim to mean that Maimonides is arguing for creation ex nihilo. However, if you consider Maimonides’ language this is not meant as a literal claim as to how the universe was formed. Leaman[25] says that when he uses “min adam” this could either mean G-d created from ‘nothing’ or from ‘matter’; and when being explicit about the creation doctrine he uses ‘la min shay’ (not from something).

In relation to the second claim, he cannot say that there was time before creation given his acceptance of Aristotle’s proposition that time cannot be conceived otherwise than in connection to motion[26]. As Rudavsky says, “time and moving things must be created simultaneously, since neither have any ontological status without the other”[27]. Maimonides readily admits that time belongs to those things created. Therefore, when talking about time before the universe it does not refer to the true reality of time but only something analogous.

Thirdly, what it means for G-d to freely will is left meaningless. Maimonides says that G-d is the intellect, the intellectually cognising object and the intellectually cognised object.[28] They are indistinguishable when the intellect is in action and as G-d “is always an intellect in actu, it follows necessarily that He and the thing apprehended are one thing, which is His essence”[29]. Equally, “that which is never brought into existence is, with reference to His knowledge, an absolutely nonexistent thing”[30]. As such it appears that Maimonides is holding a pantheistic position whereby what exists is part of G-d’s essence and that which does not exist is not possible. As such it does not seem that he is claiming that it is literally true that G-d freely willed the universe into existence.

These contradictions have often led scholars to believe that he agreed with the Aristotelian position that “this being as a whole [the universe], such as it is, has never ceased to be and will never do so”[31]. For example, Rudavsky claims that “an Aristotelian theory of time lends credence to the eternity theory of the universe”[32]. Yet there is much evidence to suggest that this is not the case. Whilst neither motion nor time has ontological status without the other, time “is an accident concomitant with motion, the latter being an accident in that which is moved”[33]. You can only claim that it is necessarily true that the universe has existed eternally if you know it to be necessarily true that motion must exist. As such, “to show the impossibility for the world being having been created in time, not by starting from the nature of being, but by starting from the judgement of the intellect with regard the deity”[34]. Therefore, the battleground between Maimonides and Aristotle is not about ‘time’ but with its corollary; necessity.

Is this not what exactly follow from the arguments in the previous paragraph? Firstly, given Maimonides’ negative theology it would be just as inappropriate to attribute determinism to his essence as it would be to attribute ‘will’. Whilst G-d’s ‘will’ may be used rhetorically to support the law[35], G-d’s determinism is used to show that G-d does nothing that is arbitrary or capricious[36]. Secondly, we can see that he did not think the world was necessary when Maimonides discusses the neo-Aristotelians who hold that G-d willed the universe into existence but did not happen at a particular time[37]. He contends that they abandoned the term “necessary result” but retained the theory of it. Had Maimonides merely wanted to couch the eternity theory in socially acceptable speech he would not have been so vehemently against this. Instead he believes the universe was designed by which “we wish to signify by the term that it- I mean the world- does not necessarily proceed from Him.”[38] Here again we can see there is no literal claim for creation only an argument against necessity.

Maimonides’ arguments for creation

My thesis that neither theory is literally true must be examined within the context of the arguments that Maimonides’ uses for the probability of creation. He uses a two-fold strategy; first, he shows that neither theory is demonstrable and secondly, that there are better reasons for accepting the creation of the world by G-d. The first argument tries to show that you cannot argue from the state of the world as it is now to how it was in production. Maimonides gives the example of a boy who has been brought up by his father on a lonely island and who has never seen a female before[39]. Would this boy be able to believe that a baby could live inside its mother’s tummy without eating through its mouth or breathing their nose? Presumably the boy would not believe this as people die after a very short time being deprived of breath or deprived of food. This reasoning would suggest that babies do not develop in the manner described, but they do! The argument shows that you cannot argue from the state of a fully developed person to how they developed. In the same way we cannot argue from how the world is once created, to how it was in production. Fox[40] explains that inductive arguments are based on analogy; you note that one state of affairs resembles another in a number of ways and conclude that it will also do so in other respects. However, there is no sound analogy that can be drawn to a pre-creation world, as there are no literal claims that we could make about it. As such the current state of the world tells us neither that creation nor eternity are true.

Maimonides then uses his particularity argument[41] to convince us to accept that the world was created. In this argument he wonders why some spheres move from East to West whilst others move in the opposite direction and also why they have different velocities. Also, why is it the case that there is a sphere for each of seven planets but that the upper sphere contains numerous stars? If they are all of a common substance, why are they pre-disposed to assume different forms? He says that these worries are easily alleviated within the theory of creation, as it is a being that wills the direction and velocity of the spheres. He says that Aristotle has tried but failed to give a consistent naturalistic explanation whereby the directions and velocities of the planets follow from the laws of nature. According to him, Aristotle tries to give an explanation in terms of their position in relation to the uppermost sphere. However, in one case a sphere with a higher velocity is above one with a lower velocity; in a second case, the reverse and in a third case, they have equal velocities. It is easy to argue against the specifics of this argument “[b]ecause they are tied to an outdated astronomy, [and as such] the particularity arguments are no longer valid”[42]. Firstly, it is false that the universe is made up of spheres which orbit around the Earth. Secondly, in this era of space travel, we do not face Maimonides’ epistemological difficulties about what space is like. However, according to Goldin, “it is not clear that Maimonides’ argument rests on a confusion between what we cannot know to be the case with what cannot be the case”[43]. Even if everything that happened in the universe was known, we could still ask why it was like that and in virtue of what. Maimonides is saying that, just as there is an explanation for the sublunar sphere, there should be one for the universe as a whole.

The import and effectiveness of Maimonides’ arguments

What is most interesting from our point of view is what import these arguments are supposed to have. What precisely does it mean that neither creation nor eternity are demonstrative? Given that neither are demonstrative, what would further argumentation show about the status of the theories? My argument is that that the fact that neither creation nor eternity are demonstrative theses, indicates to Maimonides that neither are metaphysically true. As such his further arguments are dialectical arguments that tell us which we should accept for reasons, including among others, political ones. However, a more intuitive answer is just that, epistemologically speaking, we cannot know which is true through demonstrative argumentation and that further arguments can tell us which are probably or inductively true. It will be shown that if this second view is taken, Maimonides’ particularity argument has no force.

Maimonides and Aristotle both believe in relation to the spheres that immaterial intellects or unmoved movers are responsible for their movement. As we have seen, Maimonides seems to demand that the spheres and particularly the outermost sphere, which is responsible for the universe as a whole, require an explanation. Does Aristotle believe that there is a similar requirement? In terms of ontology, Aristotle examines what can be said to be and how they relate to each other[44]. Theology, for Aristotle, constitutes determining the role played by immaterial substances and determination that they are intellects. In neither field of study is there room to posit anything responsible for these essences; they are fundamental. For Aristotle, Maimonides’ demand for an explanation is misplaced as they have the features they do, because they have the natures they have. When we see a rabbit we not only say that rabbits are but that there are such things as rabbits. Is this just empty and tautological? Just as the basic kinds that science discovered are posited as first principles, the fact that there are such things as basic kinds is an existence assumption. Therefore, according to Goldwin, “Aristotle himself would have found in Maimonides’ arguments no compelling considerations for admitting temporal creation”[45].

If indeed one theory is true, it has been shown that the particularisation argument has no effect. As there is no reason why it must have an explanation, you would not have to believe that creation is more probably true. However, Maimonides does not deny the fact that these first principles or intelligences must be posited to exist and agrees that they do not compel you to accept creation. The point is that it does not compel you to accept either theory, as neither theory is “true”. As we encountered earlier truth is that to which investigation has rendered compulsory and he also says, “Know that truth refers to the rational virtues of the intellect, since they are the unchanging truths”[46]. Demonstration is not an indicator of truth but is constitutive of it. In other words, something is a truth if and only if it is demonstrative/ necessary. The questions then is “is there a necessary fact that says ‘the universe is eternal’ or ‘the universe was created’?” Maimonides unequivocally answers this by saying that neither theory is demonstrative (given the equivalence between necessity, demonstration and truth). Whilst he believes that the sublunar realm is necessitated by the supra lunar realm, the existence of the supralunar realm is not itself necessary.

Demonstrative and non-demonstrative knowledge within Maimonides’ philosophy of science

The view that a lower realm can be necessary without a higher realm being so can be clarified by looking at his views on astronomy and science. One may call Maimonides a realist about (Aristotelian) science in that everything science declares to exist does really exist. The standard of a true science is that it is demonstrative, not only of the fact that something is as it is but also the reason why. The “why” is to give a cause (in the Aristotelian sense) of why it exists in the way it does. Elements in the sublunar realm conform to this as they exist as in the way they do, due to their position between the encompassing sphere and the centre of the Earth. However, astronomy does not for Maimonides live up to this standard of science. Freudenthal[47] says this is both methodological in that mathematical astronomy does not proceed from facts better known than themselves and substantial, in that it disagrees with Aristotelian science. For example Ptolemy introduced epicycles and eccentrics which conflict with the Aristotelian position that the Earth is at the centre of the universe and the spheres move around it. For example, the eccentric circles do move around a centre but one that is not Earth. However, this does not mean that we should reject astronomy, as among other things their calculations are “not at fault by even a minute”[48]. Instead, Maimonides takes an instrumentalist position where the astronomer’s “purpose is not to tell us in which way the spheres truly are, but to posit an astronomical system […] to correspond to what is apprehended through sight”[49]. As we mentioned in relation to particularity, Maimonides’ argument is to an extent epistemological and Maimonides himself admits there may be an improvement in the science of astronomy. Even so, there would not be causal explanations all the way up and at some point, there will be a mere statement of facts.

Two important points arise from his philosophy of science. Firstly, something is only demonstrative because you can give it a causal explanation and not from the mere fact that it is the way it is. Everything is necessary in relation to the outermost sphere, the Active Intellect, but the outermost sphere itself is left unexplained. Maimonides does not deny that it seems to exist continuously but there is no explanation why it exists continuously. Botwinick says that if you take endlessness seriously:

“one has to envisage the prospect that later entries in the series of statements describing the physical behavio[u]r of the universe will exhibit characteristics and properties that directly contravene those shown by earlier members in the series”[50].

Therefore, that there are a series of facts about the world at the moment does not show that they are necessarily the case. However, if it is not necessarily the case, it need not be eternal! Secondly, the fact that astronomy is not demonstrative is not a reason to reject it and he does not call for it to be reformed. According to Leaman, “[o]n Maimonides’ argument it is a mistake to think of a conflict arising between two competing theories.”[51] Only a demonstrative science can tell you what is necessary and true, but this does not mean other forms of knowledge are not valid. It just means that the knowledge is of a different kind and as such, has a different standard of evidence. For astronomy, the purpose is to make a mathematical system to predict what happens in space and the standard of evidence is whether it matches what is empirically the case. If creation were correct, it would be even more unknowable than astronomy as there is not even a fact in the world that we can empirically verify. However, can this not just be a third competing theory with a different standard of evidence?

Logical and Metaphysical Necessity

As we have seen, Maimonides tries to maintain that the sublunar realm is governed by necessity but the world as a whole is not. However, if we say that G-d ‘freely willed’ the universe into being, is it not possible that G-d could not recreate the universe at each time as in the theory of the Mutakillimun[52]? If this is the case, G-d is the proximal cause of everything and the causal order completely collapses. At this point we need to make a distinction between logical necessity and metaphysical necessity. It is logical necessity, which can either be a priori or a posteriori, that determines what is true. It is the case, a posteriori, that the sublunar realm is logically necessitated given principles known better in themselves, such as the outermost sphere. Maimonides argues against the Mutakillimun as “that which can be imagined is according to them something possible, whether something existent corresponds to it or not”.[53] He argues along Kripkean[54] lines, that whilst it is conceivable that G-d acts as a divine puppeteer, it is not possible. It is this type of necessity which my previous arguments have shown do not apply to the supralunar realm (they are not logically necessitated). However, metaphysical necessity states that the universe is a fundamental fact not in need of explanation. It is absolute necessity which could not have been otherwise. It is this that is possible but which Maimonides argues against with his creation doctrine.

First Principles are never demonstrated

The point that Goldin[55] made that there is no logical reason to compel you to suppose that there needs to be an explanation is correct. However, whilst he saw it as a failure of Maimonides’ particularity argument, it is actually understood and implicit in Maimonides’ assertion that neither theory is demonstrative. There is, as Botwinick says “an underdetermination of theory by fact”[56]. The only way one can avoid an infinite regress of explanation (for any ‘that’ we can always ask another ‘why’) is to embrace circularity and assume the necessity of these first principles. Therefore, according to Maimonides,

Aristotle “thinks [or rather, assumes] furthermore that this whole higher and lower order cannot be corrupted and abolished, that no innovation can take place that is not according to its nature, and that no occurrence that deviates from what is analogous to it can happen in any way”[57]

Given that demonstration is known through principles better known than themselves, the above cannot be a demonstration. Aristotle himself recognises this in his Posterior Analytics[58], where he says that circular demonstration is impossible, as different things cannot be known both prior and posterior to each other. In order that the circularity above is of a less vicious variety, the first principles of any argument must be independent of demonstration. Maimonides employs a similar tactic when he says that the ultimate explanation of the universe is G-d’s will. The literal content of both Aristotle and Maimonides’ theories are the same (i.e. the necessity of the sublunar realm) and is true regardless of whichever metaphysical theory you take to be the case. As such, he cannot suggest that G-d freely willed it unless he already accepts it as a premise. Therefore, both philosophers who assume something in relation to the world as whole can only do so metaphorically. We saw earlier how Maimonides does this in relation to ‘will’, ‘time’ and ‘out of nothing’ but Aristotle does the same with ‘essential nature’.

Dialectical Arguments

The key question then is, which set of premises or first principles should we privilege? Should we assume that the outermost sphere is metaphysically necessary or that it was willed into existence by G-d? As we have seen, this is not a matter of valid reasoning leading to scientific knowledge. Instead, it is of a dialectical, rhetorical or poetical nature which, according to Kraemer, “leads only to consensus, persuasion and evocation”[59]. In Topics[60], Aristotle defines a dialectical problem as an inquiry that can lead either to choice or avoidance or to truth and knowledge. Arsitotle says one would use a dialectical inquiry in regard to issues “to which we have no argument because they are so vast, and we find it difficult to give our reasons, e.g. the question whether the universe is eternal or no”[61]. Equally, a dialectical proposition is a proposition that is accepted by all men, most men or by the most notable of them. One example of a proposition that Aristotle gives that is not demonstrable but that is commonly accepted is that one ought to do good to one’s friends. This fits with Maimonides’ philosophy given the third type of knowledge which we encountered in his Letter on Astrology which was something a “man receives from the prophets or from the righteous.”[62] As such you accepted that ‘the world was created’ as a dialectical proposition deriving from the notable people.

This can help to shed light on what Kreisel[63] said about the political aspects of the creation doctrine. In many ways he is right that the argument used was the one that best to lead people to the demonstrative truth that there is a G-d beyond the spheres and the avoidance of idolatry. However, there are a few points that must be mentioned. Firstly, it is not based on the false assumption that there is the further question “Did he really believe in the eternity theory of the universe?” The whole issue of eternity versus creation is by nature a dialectical argument. Secondly, there is a rational, metaphysical, element in both the accounts given in the Mishneh Torah and Guide that is partly constitutive of the monotheistic idea. Namely, both argue that the spheres are not (logically) necessary hence leading to the speculation that there is a G-d beyond the spheres. This means that not only is there a G-d but the world is not G-d. Thirdly, he is probably right that there is nothing intrinsic to the “creation” doctrine that means we have to accept it over ‘eternity’. Indeed, the fact that you cannot argue from within the world to the world as a whole can be illustrated without creation and is open to all philosophers. However, as we saw at the beginning, this argument does not show its position in the Guide and therefore, does not provide the dialectical argument why we should accept creation. Indeed, it is correct that the Guide allows the ‘perplexed’ to agree with Aristotelian science and yet follow the law. Yet I disagree that someone could believe in eternity as a metaphysical doctrine about the absolute necessity of the universe, whilst professing creation. Instead, creation is a dialectical argument that makes room for both Aristotelian science and the law.

Creation as a dialectical argument showing ‘purpose’ in the world

To see how the dialectical argument proceeds, it is important to note that part of Aristotle’s definition of a cause, and of necessity, is the “final cause”. A material explanation is alone insufficient but must be seen as working for a teleological principle. In On the Heavens Aristotle says, “G-d and nature produce nothing that does not fulfil a purpose.”[64] This is a sentiment that Maimonides shares when he says, “with reference to natural beings, that every one of these has a certain final end, some of them existing for the sake of others”[65]. This necessity or cause is brought about by the spheres, which Aristotle thought were “intelligences”, consciously choosing in accordance with their purpose. The Active Intellect is perfect just thinking about thinking, whilst the other spheres move as they desire to be like it[66]. However, according to Maimonides, “purpose can only be conceived with reference to the production in time of something so produced”[67]. If explanation stops with a fundamental and therefore, inexplicable Active Intellect, we end up with no real explanation at all. Everything is reduced to a mere mechanism deriving from the Active Intellect and as such necessity and chance become indistinguishable. In the language I used earlier, all we can say is that something is the case but not why. As Goodman says, “Causes and effects become mere givens; every event, a pure positivity, with no principle of explanation”[68]. Equally, if the choices of the intelligences derive from absolute necessity they do not even face a modal choice. Nothing is gained by saying they have a choice: they just have to do, what they in fact do, do.

The particularity argument is very much part of this dialectical argument showing that supralunar sphere also has a purpose or final cause. He tries to induce the perspective that the spheres cannot just be explained by trying to approach the outermost sphere or the “perfection”. For if a formulation of their motions could be given in terms of trying to get closer to the Active Intellect, why are some faster than the ones below and on other occasions the opposite? Why do some move to the West and others to East? I will not further explore the argument as Maimonides is involved in dialectic but I am not. It is important to note that whilst Maimonides is giving an argument from design to get us to accept the creation of the universe, he states “I do not deceive myself by designating methods productive of errors as demonstrations”[69]. Instead, unlike the Mutakillimun, he realises that it falls under the auspices of dialectical argumentation. It is therefore better to just accept it as an axiom or first principle. What is it an axiom for?

It allows there to be purpose in the whole universe but one that is not completely knowable through natural science. This opens up the possibility that ‘prophets’ or righteous men could know this purpose. Moreover, it allows a completely naturalistic explanation that Aristotle himself cannot provide. In relation to Moses’ prophecy, he saw all existing things and he “apprehend[ed] their nature and the way they are mutually connected so that he will know how he governs them in general and in detail.”[70] Creation is also an axiom that allows for there to be free will for people to act in accordance with their nature. The spheres do confront real choices but are necessitated because they always act in accordance with their nature. As such, not only is there purpose in nature but also we have real choice to fulfil our purpose or not. This, as we have said, is merely a matter of perspective and does not constitute a theoretical truth. However, according to Leaman:

“the objectivity of the presupposition lies in the relationship between the presupposition and that which it makes possible. As long as we know that the proposition in the presupposition is possible, we are justified in acting upon it”[71]

Conclusion

In this essay, it has been shown that Maimonides did not believe that a metaphysical doctrine of creation was literally true and secondly, it is political in that the doctrine needs to be accepted in order to make the law valid. However, it has been shown that the he did not consider creation as merely a means to an end or that it could be proclaimed whilst believing that the world was eternal. Instead, it is a dialectical argument that is in itself a form of knowledge. Of course, the argument has not actually shown that you should accept creation over eternity. That depends on whether Maimonides’ can successfully explicate how prophets come to know that there is teleology in the world and how this is revealed in the reasons for the commandments. Both of these discussions occur after that of creation in the Guide. However, both the arguments in the Guide and in this essay can be seen as making a space for prophecy. Both in terms of Maimonides’ negative theology and the non-demonstrative nature of the world as a whole “metaphysics recedes on metaphysical grounds to make room for tradition.”[72]

[1] Maimonides (1963 Pines trans). From here on: Guide in the text, GP in the footnotes.

[2] GP, Introduction, p.18

[3] for example, Seeskin (2005)

[4] for example, Rudavsky (2000)

[5] Efros (trans. 1938)

[6] ibid. p.64

[7] Strauss (1973). P.159

[8] GP III:27 p.511

[9] Strauss (1973) p. 157

[10] Kreisel (1999)

[11] Kreisel (1999)

[12] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatory I:3 as cited in Kreisel (1999), p.42

[13] Maimonides found a book Nabatean Culture which outlined the practices of the Sabians which was the religion of Babylonia which Abraham rebelled against. Maimonides uses them to represent paganism in general. See Pines (1963) p .cxxiii

[14] GP III:29 p. 515

[15] GP Introduction p.5

[16] GP II:25 p.328

[17] Strauss (1963) p. 26

[18] Kreisel (1999)

[19] Sanhedrin 10:3 as cited in Fox (1990), p.45

[20] Efros (1938)

[21] Lerner (1963) as cited in Freudenthal (2005), p.136

[22] GP II:13 p. 281

[23] ibid

[24] Seeskin (2005)

[25] Leaman (1990)

[26] GP. Introduction to II. Proposition 15.

[27] Rudavsky (2000) p.36

[28] GP I:68

[29] GP I:68 p.165

[30] III:20 p. 481

[31]GP II:13 p.284

[32] Rudavsky (2000) p.38

[33] GP II:13 p. 282

[34] GP II:17 p. 298

[35] Botwinick (1997)

[36] Fox (1990)

[37] GP II:21

[38] GP II:21 p.315

[39]GP II:17

[40] Fox (1990)

[41] GP II:19

[42] Seeskin (2000), p.83

[43] Goldin (1992) p.197

[44] information in this paragraph from Goldin (1992)

[45] ibid, p. 202

[46] Eight Chapters: 4 as cited in Kreisel (1999) p. 103

[47] Freudenthal (2003)

[48] GP II:24 p.326

[49] ibid

[50] Botwinick (1997), p.92

[51] Leaman (1990), p. 74

[52] Philosophers such as Al-Ghazali who wrote the book “Incoherence of the Philosophers” in order to refute philosophy and defend religion. See Pines (1963) page cxxiv

[53] GP I:73 p.207

[54] Kripke (1981)

[55] Goldin (1992)

[56] Botwinick (1997), p.90

[57]GP II:13 p.284

[58] Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (1941 trans, 2001 ed.), I:3

[59] Kraemer (2000), p.117

[60] Aristotle, Topics, (1941 trans, 2001 ed.)

[61] ibid. I:11 p.197

[62] Lerner (1963) as cited in Freudenthal (2005), p.136

[63] Kreisel (1999)

[64] as cited in Altmann (2000), p.6

[65]GP III:13 p.449

[66] Aristotle, Metaphysics. (1941 trans, 2001 ed.), XII:9

[67] ibid

[68] Goodman (2000), p.70

[69]GP II:16 p.293

[70] GP I:54 p.124

[71] Leaman (1990), p.81

[72] Botwinick (1997) p.44

Cool/ Uncool

2010-05-23T18:31:00.001+02:00

Just some thoughts on the ‘coolness’ rating I’d give to a couple of my experiences in the Lake District where I spent a week…

Cool

Being all alone for hours with no-one in sight and no disruptions. No paths to guide me round and the choice to go whichever way I wanted. A new experience and out of my ordinary comfort zone.

Kayaking on the serene Derwentwater Lake on a calm and sunny day, with beautiful views of the mountains all around. The lake pretty much to myself with only 3 ferries and one rowing boat the whole time I was out there. My choice to paddle furiously or take it slow, to turn sharply or just sit still:- choices affecting nobody but the ducks. Having the opportunity to ‘land’ where I like and to get out and explore the islands. Beautiful.

Uncool

Being all alone for hours with no-one in sight and no disruptions. No paths to guide me round and the choice to go whichever way I wanted. A new experience and out of my ordinary comfort zone.

Up Robinson- a 750 metre / 2500 foot mountain- having already been up 3 mountains and walked for 7 hours. Thinking I’m nearly at the end but the trodden path suddenly disappearing from all view. Can’t remember the last person I saw. Phone battery low and signal barely existent. Every side down gets too steep and I climb back to top. Eventually clambering down steep waterfall- this last mile and a quarter taking hours more. Scary.

Jewish Bastard

2010-05-09T01:16:00.001+02:00

It seems that anti-Semitism comes in regional varieties. In Leeds, the favourite was “a-Jew” pretending to sneeze. In Reading, “Jewish Bastard” seems to be the way to go- we are a more direct bunch down here in the sticks.

I was called a “Jewish Bastard” about two weeks ago where someone went to the effort to wind down the car window to shout at me. Today, on the way to synagogue, there was an entire chorus of youths shouting it from the house. I’ve been called it many times here before. It makes you wonder where people agree these things. Maybe, if Jews control the national and international media, the anti-Semites control the Reading Chronicle where they use a secret code.

The worst part was that I was walking with my mum. It was just plain embarrassing! I didn’t know where to look. I didn’t want to look at people doing it and I didn’t want to see my mum’s reaction. This is especially as my mum was so anti me wearing my kippa in public in the early days for this very reason. Also, I felt bad for bringing attention onto her which she wouldn’t have otherwise received.

I settled for a staring straight ahead and trying to pull off a bemused yet slightly amused face, with just a hint of resoluteness. And no, I didn’t get any information for CST. Too busy working out which face to pull.

My Religious Journey

2010-05-07T14:05:00.001+02:00

Here is an essay that I had to write when applying to yeshiva. Given the context, you can take some parts of it with a pinch of salt, and other parts are more restrained than they otherwise would be. However, it is a reasonable account of my take on Judaism and how I got there.

-----

Understanding my background and the development of my Jewish views will help you to understand my inspirations and my reasons for applying to the Shappells Summer program. I come from a traditional, involved but largely non-observant Jewish family. Nevertheless, the fact that I was raised in a small, provincial community was a blessing that meant I was far more involved than my peers from larger communities. In a community like ours, everybody got involved with the synagogue and Cheder, sent their children to Jewish youth movements, and learnt basic skills such as leining and the ability to lead a service.

My road to observance was, and is, a slow and gradual one that has been going on throughout my life. For example, I first remember saying no to a pork sausage when on holiday at 11 years old. Continual development saw me refuse to eat both rump steak and ice cream in the same meal at 14 (!), first voluntarily wear tefillin on a Hanoar Hatzioni camp at about 15 and start to be Shomer Shabbat on the very day I started university. There have been numerous milestones since, but there is no rush to observance. Judaism isn’t a race to the finish line but one where one must “gird up strength like a lion... for the service of his Creator” every day.

The reasons for increased observance at such a young age were largely either non-cognitive or due to general intellectual virtue, rather than grand notions about the ‘truth’ of Judaism. For example, I was moved by the rabbi who taught me from barmitzvah who insisted I was ‘religious’ when I was adamant I wasn’t, and taught Judaism in such a sincere and candid way. Equally, I was upset at a hypocrisy that said I couldn’t go to a friend’s party because it was Shabbat but where we instead stayed in and watched television. An example of intellectual virtue was when thinking about the so-called ‘small things’ such as how we dress. Should I base my actions on the fad of the moment or the results of thousands of years of discussion?

My first experience of Jewish hashkafa- when I was old enough to appreciate it- was through various outreach organisations on campus. One thinker who stood out was Rav Dessler whose writings were both clear and resonant. His position on issues such as ‘free will’ influenced my thinking. Most impressive, however, was the effect that his work had on the people who read it. This internalisation of thought and translation into practice is perhaps the most impressive feature of Chareidi Judaism in general and mussar in particular.

Despite this, the first work that inspired me and gave me a Jewish world-view that I could call my own was Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed. “Philosophy...” in the words of Wittgenstein “...is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language”. Through his analysis of homonymous, hybrid and metaphorical words, Rambam shows how misunderstanding our language results in “false notions and perverse methods”. Through untangling the knots of our thought, and understanding its limits, we assume the correct position before G-d. His work showed me the value and uniqueness of Judaism, firstly because the errors of thinking Judaism warn us against and the philosophical pretentions he identifies are much in evidence today. Secondly, the battle against this type of thinking is encoded in our entire way of life. This, for Rambam, is the essence of us having a ‘divine law’ as opposed to the ‘conventional law’ of other nations. All our actions are directed at destroying the idolatry of false thought from the world.

Since then, I have accepted some of the criticisms of Rambam’s philosophy by people such as Rav Hirsch, Shadal and Rav Soloveitchik; particularly with regard to areas such as ta’amei mitzvoth and biblical exegesis. Judaism has a constructive, as well as destructive, element. Rav Hirsch contends that Judaism’s world-view should “develop creatively from within [its received tradition]” and as “a science from itself” rather than be focused on external philosophy. For Rav Soloveitchik this specifically means a “philosophy of halacha”. Thus, two books of his that have inspired me are The Halakhic Mind which details how such a philosophy may be achieved and The Emergence of Ethical Man which is the best example I know of its application. Personally, I follow Rav Hirsch who has wider conception of the sources from which ‘the way’ or mission of Judaism is to be derived. Equally, he has a more practical focus indicating, through his conception of Torah Im Derech Eretz, the way Judaism, l’chatchila, should be enacted in the world.

As such, my philosophy is based on these ‘modern’ elements of Orthodoxy, although they are rooted in the tradition of the Kuzari. However, I’m also cognisant that the need to develop a philosophy at all is a symptom of galut. We still have the Fast of Tevet to mourn the loss of the First Temple where we could see the Urim v’Tumim and so, the tangible presence of G-d in the world. I think Chassidic interpretations of Tanach, such as those of the Izbicer Rebbe, can give a ‘taste’ or ‘feel’ of that world. We learn how through being ‘authentic’, we can realign G-d, ourselves and the world. In other words, they show us the redemptive qualities of our choices and actions.

Other inspirations include Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. They have done so much to clearly and intelligently articulate the vision of Judaism to a wider audience, as well as having done so much within our faith. It makes me so proud to be a Jew, for example, when Rabbi Sacks preaches to the House of Lords or European Union. He helps to fulfil the Torah verse that the “nations, which will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’”

As you can see from this, most of my Jewish learning has centred around hashkafa, or learning other Jewish subjects from English-language books. The next part of my Jewish development is to progress my textual skills so that I can learn the Sifrei Kodesh in the original. I have tried to learn some Mishneh Torah with friends and could, with difficulty, learn it independently. Equally, I have spent a year learning gemara on WebYeshiva, giving myself an introduction in ‘how to learn’ and the style of argumentation employed. I try to learn from the Aramaic with a chevruta but need many aids to get anywhere. My lack of ability in these areas is a major motivation in deciding to attend yeshiva. It will provide the focused environment and the expert teachers I need and will hopefully serve as a springboard for future learning. The summer program at Shapell’s provides ‘intense skills-oriented Torah learning’ and its general focus on developing textual and analytical skills mean that it is the perfect yeshiva to further my goals.

Equally, you will have seen from my development that I have drawn inspiration from different strands of Judaism: Chareidi Judaism for its transformative effect and Avodat Hashem, Modern Orthodoxy for drawing its philosophy directly from the sources, Chassidut for giving an insight into the redemptive quality of the mitzvoth and Torah Im Derech Eretz for providing the communal organisation that is best suited to furthering the Jewish mission. As such, I feel I espouse Shapell’s derech that all the Torah’s ways are pleasant. The yeshiva will provide many role models that I can learn from and be inspired by. Whilst, textual learning is the main aim, you will provide a nurturing environment in which to do it.

Live Election Debates

2010-04-15T17:56:00.001+02:00

Without sounding premature- and with the risk of looking stupid after tonight- I have two objections to ‘presidential style debates’ between party leaders. They are both linked but separate.

The first one is just coming from the perspective of being a pedantic purist. Unlike in America, we are not voting for head of state or even a head of government. We are voting for a local candidate to represent the interests of their constituency. Of course, they will usually (but not always) subscribe to a broad programme of action that will link them with other candidates as a ‘party’. The party with the largest amount of candidates will have the strongest mandate to rule, and will be prudent for the Queen to ask the leader of that party to form a government.

Here, party rule and the recognition of a prime minister are outgrowths of the process and not its object. This is why (so i believe) a candidate may change party mid-term. It is also why there didn’t need to be an election when Tony Blair stood down as leader of the Labour party. People complained that Gordon Brown hadn’t been given a mandate by the British people. HE didn’t need one- he had the support of the largest amount of candidates that we had supported.

From this perspective, there is a risk in these debates that we vote on which person we want to decide the laws of the country. However, most decisions will not be made by that person (alone) but by 646 people we vote for. And there is, at least in theory, a distinction between the people we vote for and the party they belong to.

The second reason is linked but from a more practical perspective. The idea of the debates, I suppose, is to open up a wider audience to the ideas and policies of the different parties. However, the head-to-head format is such that it will focus us on the personalities and not the policies:

It will create an adversarial atmosphere and they will not be able to reflect on past-mistakes or the trade-offs inherent in their policies without the other candidates just using it as a weapon to rubbish them with.
To score points, they will immediately have to debate which policies are better, without having the time to say what the policies actually are (beyond a punch-line).
It encourages scrutiny of body-language, confidence and presentation- everything apart from substance.
They won’t (can’t) dignify one another’s points by debating specific points, but just as a springboard to make a speech about their own policies in that area.
They will need to find that 'key quote or slogan’ which will appear on the news.

Both criticisms are this: what is important is what the candidates we vote for want to do and not who it is that does them. We don’t need to vote for someone to head up the country or embody the country. We have that already. The Queen. As her (and because we vote for them: our) loyal servants, the M.Ps are the people to carry out her (and because we vote on it: our) program. There should be no importance to a PM other than in that regard. Their personality is, therefore, irrelevant and so the debate is misleading if it suggest otherwise.

Make Sure You’re Registered!!

2010-04-13T19:46:00.001+02:00

Yes, general election time and no doubt, there will be an awfully poor turnout as is the norm. Make sure that you don’t contribute to this trend.

The first step is to make sure you are actually on the electoral roll. This is probably that should have been done as far back as last year. However, in my case I was too lazy to register in Leeds and mistakenly thought I was already registered back in Reading. Realising that I wasn’t registered last week, I thought it would be too late but there was enough time… just! My local constituency had the deadline of the 20th April. It may be different town to town but time is definitely running out. For more information or to download a form see here: www.aboutmyvote.co.uk.

People not voting is a sign of the decadence of our culture. We enjoy our freedom but don’t really believe in it enough to take an active part. Not caring about democracy is the attitude that leads so many in our country to support tyrants (left and right) abroad. Who are we to say that our society or form of governance is better than theirs? Well, tell that to the Iraqis who risk bomb and bullet to be able to vote. Whilst I hold no truck with imposing democracy on other people, the least we can do is to uphold our own. Voting is not a right, it is a duty!

Things that slightly annoy me: 2

2010-03-19T00:54:00.001+01:00

Continued from: here

People who “say it how it is” slightly annoy me. There is no indication that what they say actually is, is “how it is”; or if it is: there is no indication that is how it should be. Does Alan Sugar really put the best people through The Apprentice or are they sometimes rash, ill-considered opinions? Does Simon Cowell really know what makes a successful singer or does he simply know how to get a Christmas number one?

In real life, it is surprising how ‘telling it like it is’ correlates with the person who has the loudest mouth, is the most sarcastic, or who judges others far more than themselves. Also, the person’s opinion always seems to be describable by a mix of the following adjectives: certain, unambiguous, radical, exciting, controversial, ill-nuanced, unmitigated. We live in a funny world where the opinion adjudged to be the closest to reality never happens to be one that is ‘matter-of-fact’ or recognises complexity.

It is precisely seen as a virtue, and not a vice, of an opinion that it is unmitigated and unambiguous. Gone are the social conventions that prevent you telling the truth. No longer are minor issues allowed to obfuscate major ones. False or pernicious ideas are no longer protected because other people believe them. However, the above virtues only hold if the opinions are true or at least, well-considered. Too often we should agree with Peter Ustinov, “Her virtue was that she said what she thought, her vice that what she thought didn't amount to much.”

Valuing people who ‘say how it is’ is generally a licence for people to say whatever crass, prejudiced and foolish things ‘come to mind’. Now, opinions stated with utter conviction are more likely to come across as true. Equally, an opinion that comes to their mind will also come to other people's’ minds and so believed. However, this is no guarantee that the opinion is any good. Often what comes to my mind in response to a situation is “F**k, Sh**, B*^&!”ks, W^%k”- yet there is a good reason why those of us without Tourette’s Syndrome inhibit those responses. A little silence, contemplation and good old-fashioned British Civillity go a long way. They allow us to take on-board additional information, see things from a different perspective and come to an appropriate response.

As the Talmud says: “If silence be good for the wise, how much better for fools”

It Just Don’t Sound Frum: 1

2010-02-25T19:00:00.000+01:00

There are many things that those Yeshivish types do and believe based on how “frum” it sounds/looks/feels. This is so even if there are alternative, more convincing, viewpoints within the Jewish tradition or even if it put them directly at odds with the established halacha. Some beliefs even have been magic-ed up from thin air or 16th Century Christianity.

These infractions can be saved until later posts as no doubt there could be counterarguments. Instead, here is an example where there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Chareidim do, but is a clear case where you just can’t imagine them doing the opposite. That is, they celebrate their Hebrew Birthdays and encourage Ba’al Teshuvot to do likewise. A person’s ‘secular’ birthday- or ‘solar’ to be more neutral- is religiously meaningless.

Now, there is a view expressed by some of our sages that the opposite is the case. For example, Ibn Ezra says:

[T]he beginning of each individual's year is from the moment he was born, and when the sun returns to the same point at which it was earlier, the person completes one full year

And as Saadya Gaon says:

A person's life is numbered according to solar years, as is the life of any growing thing, for example, trees and the like

This may be a minority view- I don’t know- and so is not something I advocate one way or another. Rav Yaakov Emdem says G-d “holds” by both birthdays. However, it “just don’t sound frum” to have a birthday according to a secular/non-Jewish/goyishe calendar. It just seems to be a dilution of Yiddishkeit and assimilation into the surrounding culture. As such, it is something to be avoided wherever possible.

Even were one to be convinced by Ibn Ezra, it just wouldn’t help you look frummer than other people to celebrate one’s solar birthday. Here it doesn’t matter, but there are examples where what is frum collides with what Judaism teaches…..

Things that slightly annoy me 1

2010-02-24T02:58:00.001+01:00

This ‘slight annoyance’ is something that has happened many times to me, including the other day. Imagine the scene: There is a Big Issue seller who is asking passer-by after passer-by to buy the magazine off them and they just get ignored. As such, you resolve to buy one off them, get your money ready and approach them. After handing your money across, they reveal a single magazine in a ripped plastic bag and ask, “Do you want the magazine?… It’s just that it is my last one…”

Do I want a magazine? I have no idea whether I want a magazine but I paid for one. Firstly, for them to keep it is explicitly against the Big Issue rules which are written inside. As such, I’m perfectly within my rights to take it. Secondly, it is entirely against the spirit of the enterprise. They are meant to be “working, not begging”- selling you an item you want and earning the proceeds, and not guilt tripping you into giving them money. Whilst most people do get it just for charity and not to read, a transaction should at least take place.

Of course, however, you can’t in reality take the magazine. Doing it after they have taken your money puts you in an awkward position. I would like to say that I “don’t have the heart” to take it, and that I don’t want to be responsible for them to be without food for the day. In reality, however, I think they are being a tad dishonest but am concerned with appearing to be a stingy Jew. This really is something that to a large extent, really very “slightly annoys” me.

Leeds Jewish Welfare Board

2010-02-15T19:00:00.002+01:00

Either you all are, or will be, sick to death about me going on about my marathon. Nevertheless, there is a shockingly long way to go towards reaching my fundraising target of £2000. As such, I thought I’d give a little information below about the charity I am supporting. If you wish to sponsor me, please go to http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/NeilClarke

Leeds Jewish Welfare Board are responsible for financing some of the most important work in the Jewish community of North Leeds. They ensure that every community member is looked after, regardless of their situation in life. Many of their services are also open to the wider non-Jewish community.

Here are some of their services:

Older People's Services- activities and transport for those who are no longer able to cope with their normal activities of daily living or feel that they may need some support
Manny Cussins Family Project- a range of activities and support to children, families and adults.
The Rainbow Project- supports those with learning and physical disabilities through a wide range of residential, community support and day services.
Moorcare-provide an accessible, personal and confidential home care service for adults living in their own homes. This covers the whole of the North East Leeds area irrespective of age, gender, race, colour, religion, disability and sexuality.
Leeds Jewish Blind Society- offers social care support and advice for people who are struggling with visual problems together with access to helpful equipment. Now incorporates services for the hearing impaired

The Leeds Jewish Welfare Board are also responsible for running the Marjorie and Arnold Ziff Community Centre and setting up the Holocaust Survivors Friendship Association

Visit http://www.ljwb.co.uk for more information.

Good things about running

2010-01-31T09:58:00.000+01:00

So, I’m running the marathon and the pretext is that I am running to raise money for the Leeds Jewish Welfare Board http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/NeilClarke). When they emailed me saying that there were reserved places left for them, I jumped at the chance. Now, they are a worthwhile charity and I would have been too guilty to a marathon without raising at least a little money for someone. But really, I have been saying for a few years that one day I’d do a marathon, and regardless I wanted to get back running again. This was a great opportunity to do both!

It got me thinking about why running was good for me:

It suits my physical skills- I don’t have any physical skills! All I have to is just keep on going.
Fresh air- gets me out the house and means that I spend at least some of each day outside.
Rosy cheeks- I don’t know why but it’s cute.
Improves my skin- oils and toxins are released from your pores when you sweat. So long as you wash yourself straight after the run, your skin improves.
Helps me live longer- some people run marathons into their 80s. I won’t. But keeping body, mind and soul active is important to continued health.
Helps drive away the yetzer hara- to be all wishy washy, my “energies” go towards a constructive purpose rather than idle thoughts. Some of the same hormones are released as when, for example, you eat chocolate…
Gives me a purpose- In a rudderless life like mine- this gives me an aim, one that is achievable and one that is largely in my control.
Time management- in order to fit a long run in, I actually have to think in advance about what to do with my evening. I probably do more in that shorter amount of time
I feel less lethargic- activity breeds activity, while laziness only breeds more laziness.
Washed Clothes- running means there is no wearing the same underwear or T-shirts two days in a row! So, I wash everything regularly and thee are less piles in my house.
Makes me ‘fit’- fit as in “yes you’re fit but don’t you know it” (oh, and the other kind). Toned muscles and slender stomach will make me irresistible(-ish). All I will then have to work on is having a personality.

and many more…

Leeches Suck and ECT is Shocking

2010-01-10T19:54:00.002+01:00

New Scientist had an intriguing article about Leeches and their use in modern medicine. Apparently, they are very helpful in preventing problems when limbs are reattached. They help remove excess blood that could be life-threatening, and also inject a chemical that prevent blood-clotting. Who would have thunk it?

These poor leeches, however, have a very disreputable reputation, and probably through no fault of their own. It is not as if leeches deliberately prey on human beings, hide in your cornflakes or wait on street corners for an unsuspecting vein to walk past. Who can blame a leech for not looking a gift horse in the mouth and gorging itself on blood until it is six or seven times its normal size? After all, humans in our decadent West gorge themselves on cupcakes until they are six or seven times their normal size!

Yet, one cannot blame someone who would be weary of the use of leeches as part of their medical treatment. For almost 2000 years they were used as a catch-all treatment by ‘doctors’ who may have killed more patients than they cured. This is nicely summed up from a scene from Blackadder:

Edmund: Never had anything you doctors didn't try to cure with leeches. A leech on my ear for ear ache, a leech on my bottom for constipation.
Doctor: They're marvellous, aren't they?
Edmund: Well, the bottom one wasn't. I just sat there and squashed it.
Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority?
Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn't it?
Doctor: That's right, the great Hoffmann.
Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm of Europe.
Doctor: Yes. Well, I cannot spend all day gossiping. I'm a busy man. As far as this case is concerned I have now had time to think it over and I can strongly recommend a [in chorus] course of leeches.
Edmund: Yes. I'll pop a couple down my codpiece before I go to bed ?

For much of the time, this proliferate use of leeches was based on the belief that our body was composed of four basic substances or humours (blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile) that corresponded to the four Greek elements (fire, earth, air and water). Disease was caused by an imbalance of these humours and significant blood-letting could redress the balance.

Now that, post 19th Century, we do not believe in this theory, how come we still have leeches being used in medicine? Sure, it is not done on the basis of a discredited theory and it would be wrong to discard something just because of a chequered past, but is anachronistic nonetheless. After all, surgeons have great trouble preventing the leeches from straying and there is no guarantee that they will latch on and suck. Equally, if they know the combination of chemicals that stop blood-clotting why don’t they administer it in a different way? And if they don’t, why are we comfortable administering something we don’t have an understanding of?

The same goes for ECT (Electro-convulsive therapy), a commonly used technique in the 1940s and 50s, that passes an electric current through a patient and produces a seizure in the patient. It was used to ‘cure’ a large range of mental illnesses, often without the consent of the patient and sometimes was administered as a form of abuse. Yet, this is still in use today!

There are far more controls to its use, is limited to fewer illnesses, and is more monitored. Interestingly enough, in my psychology course, I learnt that the research shows that ECT is (slightly) more effective in treating schizophrenia than any of drugs currently available. Schizophrenia has a mainly biological rather than psychological cause, and passing current through the brain ‘does something’ to temporarily reset the brain. However, the ‘does something’ is not very well understood. Are we really happy to administer this when we don’t really understand it or its long-term effects just because it seems to work? Couldn’t scientific and medical funding be better directed elsewhere?

This is where the chequered past of a medical method comes in. After all, which modern scientist would a priori think of leeches or electricity as a great way to solve illness based on what we know? We only use it because of a direct link to a past where medicine was more barbaric. After all, the farm that breeds the leeches has been in operation from 1845, when the theory of humours was still believed. Given that it is the only licensed farm, Blackadder’s criticism of Dr. Hoffman of Stuttgart is prescient.

Of course, it’d be all worth it if we could make it up to leeches as a reparation for a history where we have abused their talents! Their life starts well being fed on sheep blood served in a sheep-gut condom. Yum! Alas, as soon as they are used, the surgeon drops the leech into a tub of alcohol and thrown into “Medical Waste”. Neither the leeches or the humans are being given the chance they properly deserve!

G-d’s response to the Israeli Settlers

2010-01-03T23:38:00.003+01:00

Finally, leaders of pro-Israel countries such as America are taking on the settlers. If only were it the case that a) more countries were strongly pro-Israel and b) countries that are, take a stand against the settlers. Thankfully Netanyahu, if only for reasons of self-interest, is playing along to a certain extent. As a result of this, Gush Emunim are revealing their true colours as some of the great anti-Zionists of our time. Not only are they intent on pursuing a course of action that can only lead to the destruction of Israel in the long-term, they are now advocating soldiers refuse to obey Israeli orders.

R’ Eliezer Melamed, a leading (and I use the words reservedly:) ‘Religious-Zionist’ rabbi has incited soldiers not to follow IDF orders to remove people from illegally constructed houses or settlements in West Bank. Due to this, his Har Bracha Yeshiva has been quite rightly removed from the Hesder Yeshivot programme that allows participants to spend part of their time studying and part of their time serving. People like this only support or see value in the State of Israel so long as it does what they want and serves their particular interests. They don’t support Israel; they only want Israel to support them.

His excuse is that the army is there to protect against its enemies and not against their own countrymen. Surely he cannot mean that the army can never be used against Jews. What if powerful Jewish drug barons started to run a well-armed drug empire from there neighbourhood? He can only mean the army cannot be used against Jewish interests and in this case, expelling Jews from their homes. Well, it is not their homes to start with! The ban is only applicable to new houses that are set up without permission. They are most definitely illegal according to the Israeli government and according to international law. Even (or especially) from the point of view of halacha, it is highly doubtful that Jews should be there in the first place.*

Maybe they would say (and I have heard many people say) that as Jews they say that the land is our natural inheritance given to us by G-d. ‘Greater Israel’ is our possession regardless of Israeli or international law; no-one else should have any of it; and no-one has the right to remove us. Well, fortunately G-d got his response in early (through the mouth of Ezekiel):

Then the word of G-d came to me saying, Son of man, They that inhabit these waste places of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one man and yet he inherited the land, but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Therefore we say to them, thus says the L-rd G-d: You eat with the blood and lift up your eyes towards your idols, and shed blood: and shall you possess the land? You stand upon your sword, you carry out disgusting deeds, and you defile every man his neighbour’s wife; and you shall possess the land?

The land is unequivocally not ours to do what we want with. We may say along with Leibowitz that: “To speak of the divine promise to Abraham and his issue as a gratuitous gift, to ignore the condition of the promise, and to disregard the obligations it confers on the receivers is a degradation and desecration of the religious faith”.

The settlers have an attitude that “it’s ours, not yours, so get out”. Yet G-d’s response is that if you do not conduct yourself with morality, you the ‘land will spit you out’. This shown by the first Rashi which Religious Zionists often use, but which says the opposite of what they want it to say. No human and no Jews has a ‘right’ to any the land- it is G-d’s land and plays by his rules. That is, it is only for those who are Yashar be’einei Hashem- straight in the eyes of the L-rd. According to Rashi, He can take it away from the Canaanites (due to their lack of morality) and give it to the Jews. However, he can take it away from them and given it to the Romans or Ottomans when the Jews weren’t moral.

In summation, let us quote the Netziv who talks about just this eventuality in the time of the Second Temple:

Regarding this came the justification of the divine judgment, because the Holy One, blessed be He, is a yashar, and He cannot tolerate righteous people like this unless they also function with decency in their dealings with the world

Apart from all the political reasons for being against the settlers, and the universal moral ones, let us say it is an affront to G-d.

------

* A Milchemet Reshut, such as a war of conquest, could only be sanctioned by a Sanhedrin, which we don’t have. Thus, when the six day war turned from a defensive war (Milchemet Mitzvah) into one of conquest, the government (and rabbis who supported it) broke Jewish law.

Who ‘really’ believes in the Chanukah miracle?

2009-12-18T01:27:00.001+01:00

Or more specifically, which miracle do you believe in? And who cares if it didn’t happen? And what is really the message behind Chanukah?

I- Why celebrate the miracle of the oil?

We all know the old nutcracker about the oil that was meant to last for one day but ended up lasting for eight; allowing more pure oil to be made. This, of course, provides a neat (if fictional) explanation of why Chanukah is eight days long. Equally, I assumed that this was indeed the miracle that we are thanking HaShem for. This, to my surprise wrong as explained in this post on the Hirhurim blog. For example, Rav Shlomo Auerbach says:

"The primary purpose for lighting the Chanukah candles is in order to praise the Holy One Blessed Be He for the great miracles which He performed for our forefathers in the military victory. Therefore, when lighting the candles one is to concentrate on thanking God for the military victory."

It is the military victory that we thank HaShem for in Al Hanisim, Haneirot Hallelu and She-ashe Nissim blessing.

Yet it is entirely understandable how the military victory has got played down in Chanukah folklore for several reasons. Firstly, the Maccabbees/ Hasmoneans (the military heroes) became Sadduccees who opposed rabbinic authority. Equally, it was political infighting between the Hasmonean rulers that let the Romans in and led to the ultimate exile of the Jewish people. It may be the zealots and ‘patriots’ who are the most vociferous in demanding action against and fighting our enemies. [The Maccabbees certainly weren’t fighting for ‘religious freedom’ that some liberals claim Chanukah is all about]. Yet, religious or military zealots can never run or maintain a society.

As such, whilst the rabbis certainly appreciated what they did for us, were not so keen on glorifying the Maccabees per se. We can hardly be simply celebrating the political freedom they helped us achieve when, for millenia, we did not have it. It would be hard to be sincere about the military victory in exile, when it was they who helped cause the exile! This can also help us understand why the books of the Maccabees- pretty much the only source for the Chanukah story- were never incorporated into Tanach and remained part of the apocrypha.

Instead, the rabbis wanted to emphasise something spiritual instead. They wanted a timeless message of eternal value, rather than a time-bound and ephemeral one. This was found in the re-dedication of the temple. After destruction by an enemy power and enemy ideology, we picked ourselves up and re-dedicated ourselves to G-d. What’s not to celebrate?!?!?!?

And they happened to celebrate it by telling a cute story about oil…

II- But who believes in miracles nowadays?

With the advent of Zionism, the military victory has again risen in provenance. After all, this was the action of humanity- how humanity fought for themselves and not sat back in the passivity of exile. Whereas the pious wait for miracles and allow themselves to be oppressed, the new and strong breed of Jew takes his destiny in his own hands. And who believes in these fairy stories in the age of enlightenment anyway? The precise problem with Chanukah is its miraculous nature and needs to be adapted. Or so the narrative goes.

But honestly, when you closely assess it, does anyone really believe in this miracle of Chanukah? Are religious people- or at least the more rational sort- hypocrites in talking about this stuff when it is not something they would be comfortable defending? And by rational sort, I don’t mean any particular denomination (I include vast majority of Chareidim). Nor am I talking about heretical types. I’m talking about G-d-fearing Jews who believe that the world and its happenings show signs of G-d’s involvement. Nevertheless, they would find it hard to sincerely believe in something that their everyday experience tells them is ‘impossible’. G-d directs things but doesn’t do so by performing cheap conjuring tricks. Sure, they will come in different sorts of rationalisation about how we must believe the words of Chazal or how G-d can do anything. But will this be anything more than an abstract principle?

There has been a fierce debate about this on comment posts to blogs. Comments range from “I can't find anyone in my MO shul that really believes in the miracle. The most I could get was people who thought that it maybe happened” to “Don't be ridiculous. Maybe a few academic types might not believe in it but the vast majority in the MO world do.” Some say that even secular people believe it whilst others think they treat it like Father Christmas.

My own personal opinion is that most people have not put that much thought into it! They don’t really disbelieve it or really believe it either. They don’t self-consciously treat it like Father Christmas or a fairy tale, nor viscerally feel the miracle as ‘reality’. Nor do they care. The story is told and the message is derived from it. Religious Jews quite sensibly ask “What can I learn from this?” and “What were they trying to teach?” and find the more philosophical or historical questions relatively unimportant. If pressed, there would be a variety of different responses but people will gladly get back to giving a dvar Torah. Their other answer will be, at most, a hurdle to be cleared and a conundrum to be solved and have no real bearing on their practice or their emunah.

I include myself in the above category. Whether it is historically accurate is not something I have put a great deal of thought into. There is no reason to deny that it happened but if it didn’t happen: Nu? A Kasha! Time to tell the story!

But what’s the good of a story that is not (necessarily) true…

III- The Oil Miracle? Nope, never heard of that!

Funnily enough, this particular miracles has no particular Jewish provenance. It is one story amongst many as why we light the candles and celebrate for eight days- and a late one at that! It is mentioned in the Talmud but there is no mention of it in earlier sources. It is not in the book of the Maccabees nor is it talked about in early Rabbinic works.

As for the question as to why we light the candles, we have an earlier explanation that has got nothing to do with the miracle of the oil. For example in Pesikti Rabbati it says:

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them."

And in Megillat Ta’anit:

"Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days."

The reason in common with the oil story is that it is all about the rededication of the temple and the re-establishment of our religious service in opposition to the will of the Greeks. This motive is also readily apparent for the reasons given why Chanukah is eight days long. A reason given in the books of the Maccabees themselves is that it is a direct imitation of Sukkot (+ Shemini Atzeret) which the Greeks had very recently stopped them celebrating. Everything the Greeks had tried to quash was re-established and through human endeavour and dedication!

Believing is a particular miracle of course or events does not touch on the truth of Chanukah…

IV- The Miracle and the Message

This is why we technically only celebrate the miracle of the military victory. It was miraculous because it was not the Maccabees but the right hand and outstretched arms of Hashem that won the war. This might, wrath, and violence is- and rightly so- only the domain of Hashem. We do not celebrate the violence itself but lies in what the miracle allowed us to do. Only through the miracles of a military victory could the Jews complete their mission but this was not itself physical or military, but spiritual. It was not in G-d’s hand but in ours, so that we could dedicate ourselves to Hashem.

Even in the miracle of the oil, we rationed out the oil over the 8 days. There was no passive waiting around for a miracle but instead, we made contingency plans. We put our effort in and G-d miraculously rewarded us by keeping them alight the whole day. So even here where there IS a miracle, we don’t thank Hashem for it. We thank him for the miracle (victory) that allowed us to sanctify his Name.

Yet, I feel the point is even more special with the non-miraculous stories. It is not a miraculous intervention to return us to the same point we left off at. No, everything that was bad was turned around and used by us as a renewed opportunity to do good. Yes, the menorah was completely destroyed but the they dedicated the spears to be used as a menorah. Yes, they couldn’t celebrate Sukkot that year but they used it as an opportunity to dedicate 'even ‘secular time’ to G-d.

This message even comes through in the time of year and how long Chanukah is. It happens around the Winter Solstice, about which the Talmud says:

R. Hanan b. Rabba said: [The festival of] the Kalends [Roman New Year] is observed on the eight days following the [Winter] Solstice; [the festival of] Saturnalia on the eight days preceding the Solstice. As a mnemonic, use "From the back and the front you have afflicted me", etc. (Tehillim 139:5).

The Romans and the Greeks celebrated eight day festivals and ‘established them for idolatry’, whilst the Jews came along and established a Winter Solstice festival and ‘dedicated it for the sake of heaven’.

I think this is the supreme highlight of Judaism. We could take the form of the Roman “symposium” and turn it into a Seder night, and take the “Afikoman” (after dinner debauchery) and turn it into a praise of G-d (hallel). Where our enemies see the physical world as detached from the service of G-d, we use as a dediation. So who cares whether oil lasted for eight days or not? At Chanukah we thank G-d for the miracle, but it is we who light the lights!

Living Through History

2009-11-09T23:39:00.001+01:00

Today is the 20th Anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. On this day in 1989, a tile in the “iron curtain” separating Eastern and Western Europe came down. More than just a physical separation, it represented two different visions of what post-NAZI life should be like. After the fall of the old older in Word War I, the organisation of state and values of society were very much up for grabs. Whilst to a large extent they still are, this remarkable event effectively saw the end of one era in this debate- the end of the “Cold War”.

That is the end of my analysis of the event itself or its historical implications. Whilst I could do some historical research (which I haven’t) and come to an informed opinion, I could not reliably relate its relevance to those who personally witnessed it. I do not, therefore, want use specific details of it to make specific (and possibly gerrymandered) philosophical or political points. It will have meant different things, but no less dramatic, to people who do not share my political views. It is best to leave interpretation to the primary sources (its witnesses) which are still being formed and recorded. To do any different would take away from the event’s human element.

Nevertheless, it is safe to say that, for good or ill, history decided against the Soviet style state. Whatever the relative merits of the new situation compared to old, or socialist state compared to a free market one, there is no doubting it was a turning point. Yet, to think that this is something that has happened in my life time is truly mind-blowing! As a four year old I wasn’t aware of it and even if I had, I wouldn’t understood the significance of it. It is nonetheless difficult to conceive of something so ‘out of the natural order’ happening with in my natural life. Seemingly world-altering or apocalyptic moments seem the stuff of history and distant memory. They are just too discordant with my experience of the world to process.

Part of the reason is that we pick out “historical events” that are discontinuous but experience our live as continuous. We do not experience events as sudden jolts that can alter the fabric of existence but as transitions between what comes before and what comes after. History is digital but we are analogue. Due to this, we (or maybe just I) are not left breathless by events such Crusades, because everything about their life seems different to us now. It doesn’t seem odd that an event can change history when neither its predecessor or successor seem normal or inevitable to us. It is the discontinuity amidst continuity that leaves me speechless. How can one event be so life-changing when everything else is the same?

To illustrate: It is hard to believe that the Holocaust was only 70 years ago! It is hard to believe that [many of] the eldest generation of Jews are survivors and [many of] the eldest generation of Germans are perpetrators! Why? Because Germans life then is just so similar to our life now. They listened to Beethoven as we do, attend university as we do, drive cars as we do, read a lot of the same novels and philosophy as we do and had many of our concerns. How could they, who are so similar to us, have supported a NAZI state? How could this 90 year old man, who is almost exactly like other 90 year old men, be guilty of war crimes?

It is just too hard to put into words those differences that are at once so slight and yet so massive. It happened in my lifetime and yet is so other-worldly. It is not yet something I can understand as history but not something that I can understand through my experience. I can only be silent in front of a Holocaust survivor or someone who was at the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Each person who gives an account may have divergent interpretations of experiences then and radically different political views now. Yet one cannot argue with any person who was there about their interpretation (of course one can correct facts) of their experiences. I can only be witness to what they have to say- people who in their very hearts and their very bones felt change. They are the primary sources in the making. Whilst I can only [and not yet] analyse history, they lived through history.

Daily Dose of (Nebach) Heresy

2009-10-16T05:58:00.001+02:00

I’m in the middle of writing what is turning into a rather lengthy blog post about the relationship of the Written Torah to the Oral Torah. It seeks to expand that on the statement by Dayan Grunfeld that "It is not the Oral Law which has to seek the guarantee of its authenticity in the Written Law; on the contrary, it is the Written Law which has to look for its warrant in the Oral Tradition.” The post examines why, if the Oral Torah and its explanations are primary, it gives warrant to an unchanging text that seemingly conflicts with those explanations. It further examines what this implies about the dangers of translating the Torah in accordance with the meaning given to it by the Oral Law.

This post picks up a point that follows from the primacy of the Oral Torah and its ability to give warrant to the written Torah, but would be tangential if discussed there. Whilst that discussion looks at why there is a need for an unchanging text at all, there is the implication that the oral law also plays a determinative role in what that unchanging text is. Now, there is plenty of evidence that this so, but might make one wonder how this fits with Maimonides’ principle of faith that the Torah is from Sinai?

There is a midrash that is repeated in the Jerusalem Talmud about Ezra’s use of the eser nekudot as part of a little wager-my term! These are the little dots that you find above words in the Torah in ten separate places. Ezra used these to indicate that he didn’t know whether these words should be included or not. The midrash relates him reasoning that if Elijah were to tell him that the words shouldn’t be there, he can tell him that he already indicated that with the dots. On the other hand, if Elijah tells him that the words are correct, he will quickly rub the dots out!

Questions surrounding what the text should be where the meaning is affected were all decided at this early stage in Jewish history. The return from the Babylonian exile where everybody had forgotten Torah but were now thirsty for it, made this a necessity. Where the Temple Scrolls contradicted each other, the a decision had to be made as to which should be accepted as normative [the Talmud simply says that it went with the majority]. Where the text of the Pentateuch (ktiv) had got out of sync with the text according to the Oral Law (kri), a decision had to be made as to what to do. Where the text of the Torah would be insulting to, or give the wrong impression about G-d, were the tikkunei Soferim required or not?

As I said: with the breakdown of oral transmission that the exile entailed, they needed to decide textual issues in accordance with Torat Moshe. However, up to about about the 10th Century, a group of scholars called the Masoretes (hence ‘Masoretic Text/s’) were working to produce an accurate and canonical version of the Written Law. How exactly should the songs and sections be laid out? What are the correct spellings etc? [According to Ibn Ezra, for instance, the ‘defective and plene’ spellings were not given on Sinai.] What is the correct cantillation should the words be sung to? These, whilst not directly affecting meaning, transmit the interpretations that the Oral Law is trying to convey.

III

Was Rambam, when constructing his principles, unaware of these Midrashim and Talmudic statements? Or did he know about them but disagree; and assert that our Torah text is immaculate nonetheless? Neither seem plausible as Rambam himself paskens that one version of the text (from the Aleppo Codex) was better than the one Saadiah Gaon used. The Torah text we use today is (apart from nine words) the one he decided upon!

According to Rav Yaakov Weinberg (Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael), this is no contradiction to his principle. The following was written in “Fundamentals and Faith” and is repeated on the Aish website:

Rambam knew very well that these variations existed when he defined his Principles. The words of Ani Ma’amin and the words of the Rambam, ‘the entire Torah in our possession today’, must not be taken literally, implying that all the letters of the present Torah are the exact letters given to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, it should be understood in a general sense that the Torah we learn and live by is for all intents and purposes the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu.

The facts above do not contradict his principle because he didn’t intend to take it literally. Rabbonim throughout the ages have been comfortable that our Torah is not letter-for-letter the same as Moshe’s. The Vilna Gaon was once asked what we would do if we beheld Moshe’s Torah written with Black Fire on White Fire? His answer was that Moshe’s Torah would be considered passul and would have to be ‘corrected’ to be used in Synagogue!

On the one hand, the issue is transformed from a historical question into an halachic one. On the other, it still has be “for all intents and purposes the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu.” In fact, both are linked. That the Torah text is directly from G-d (through Moshe) means that it has such sanctity that it cannot be tampered with. So much so, that one cannot even change the ‘deviations’ back to the ‘original’. One has to hand it on exactly as one received it. [Even though the ketiv had deviated from the keri, the Torah text retained these deviations.]

I’ll leave this on a note of personal dissatisfaction. Let us formulate my original question in reverse. Surely Maimonides was aware at the halachic input to the text of the Torah, so why did he formulate his principle of faith in the way he does? Whilst I am perfectly happy to say that not every letter is from Sinai, why is that an accurate description of what Rambam believes? He talks about the entire Torah in our possession. What is the point of this emphasis if he doesn’t take it literally?

Maybe the answer is simply that he was engaged in a polemic against Islam who claim the Torah is a forgery, that Ezra wrote a lot of it and edited out the bits about Ishmael. As such, he denies the possibility of any decision making so as to forestall this criticism. Only in this way can people be convinced of the truth (which he, as I, sincerely believe) that the Torah is a direct result of G-d’s wisdom and not human motives.

However, I believe for a variety of reasons that we should take Rambam at his word. If so, every single tit and jottle of the Torah in our possession is attributable to Moshe. We have to reconcile therefore i) his awareness not every letter is what Moshe actually got but ii) every single letter is a direct expression of the G-'d’s will as received at Sinai. In other words, whilst what R’ Yaakov Weinberg says is correct, it is not enough. It gives the negative account of what he doesn’t believe without giving the positive account of why even the changes have the status they do.

It must have something to do with the primacy of the Oral Law over the Written Law. The Oral Law is something that not only decide practical questions but is the main repository of G-d’s will. I have a few suggestions as to how this links but not worked out. For another time.

Some Yom Kippur Sources

2009-09-27T12:39:00.001+02:00

I Rabbi Israel of Rizhyn raised the question: Why do Jews recite on Yom Kippur the blessing: “The King who pardons and forgives our sins”? Conceivably the Almighty not forgive our sins, and if so we will have pronounced a blessing in vain, which is forbidden.

Then he continued: This is comparable to a clever child who wants the luscious apple in his father’s hand and quickly recites the blessing for fruit which obligates him to eat it. The father will certainly not know attempt to withhold the apple, for then his son will have pronounced a benediction in vain.

So it is when we recite the benediction “The King who pardons and forgives our sins,” the Almighty will not cause us to recite a blessing in vain.

II Satan comes on the Day of Atonement to accuse Israel and he specifies the iniquities of Israel... But the Holy One, blessed be He, specifies the just deed of Israel. Then what does He do? He suspends the beam of the scales and looks to see what the balance or imbalance is between the iniquities and the just deeds. And as they are weighed.. the two pans of the scale balance exactly. Thereupon Satan goes out to fetch more iniquities... Even while Satan is going about seeking iniquities, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the iniquities out of the pan and hides them under His royal purple. Then Satan comes and finds no iniquity on the scale Pesikta Rabbati 45

III Who is like G-d, a teacher of sinners that they may repent? They asked Wisdom, what shall be the punishment of the sinner? Wisdom answered: Evil pursueth sinners (Proverbs 13.21). They asked Prophecy. It replied: The soul that sinned shall die (Ezekiel 18.4). They asked the Law. It replied: Let him bring a sacrifice (Leviticus 1.4). They asked G-d and He replied: Let him repent and obtain his atonement. My children, what do I ask of you? Seek Me and live. Pesikta Kahanna 158b

IV If one says, “I shall sin and then repent,” he is given no opportunity to repent. If one says, “I shall sin and the Day of Atonement will atone,” then the Day of Atonement” does not atone. If one says, “I shall sin and the day of death will purge me of sin,” the day of death does not purge him of sin Avot d’ Rabbi Natan 40

V The Kelemer maggid asked: Why is the Day of Atonement called in Hebrew Yom ki-Purim (a day like Purim)?

And he gave this answer: The similarity between the two days is based on the fact that on both days it is customary to masquerade. On Purim Jews masquerade and don the costumes of no-Jews. On the Day of Atonement, they masquerade as pious Jews.

VI The confession table seems almost to be a mask to keep a man’s wrongdoings a final secret between himself and his Maker... The wording throughout is plural... A man can acknowledge his own sins in his heart when he speaks the words that do describe things that he has done; but he utters no testimony against himself to any ear on earth on earth. The whole autonomy rests with the individual conscience.

But in a sweeping paradox, this same confession that seals the individual in his privacy with G-d, draws him into an ancient communal bond.. all Israel.. stands in relation to G-d as a single immortal individual. Herman Wouk- This is my G-d

VII Resh Lakish (1): “Great is repentance that causes premeditated sins to be accounted as errors”

Resh Lakish (2): “repentance is so great that premeditated sins are accounted as though they were merits” Yoma 86b

VIII Kapparah means: forgiveness or withdrawal of claim. This is a legal concept, borrowed from the laws of property. Just as one may release his fellow man of a debt owed to him, so may God absolve one of penalty to which he is liable due to sin. Kapparah removes the need for punishment.... That is to say, a barrier is set up through which punishment may not pass. R’ Soloveitchik

IX This is the first way or repentance but, there is another way – not by annihilating evil but by rectifying and elevating it. This repentance does not entail making a clean break with the past or obliterating memories. It allows man, at one and the same time, to continue to identify with the past and still to return to G-d in repentance... This way of repentance does not transform the penitent into “another”. Here there is no clean break between “this person” of yesterday and the “he” of today. It is not necessary to blot out and erase the past. The future can be built upon the foundations of the past. How so? By elevating and exalting evil. R’ Soloveitchik

X The attainment of kapparah will not be as complete or perfect now as it was when the cult worship acts of the high priest brought man into contact with a transcendent and incomprehensible divinity. But we Jews have brought another message of teshuva to man, that of tahara. There is nothing transcendent, miraculous or nonrational about tahara R’ Soloveitchik

XI Thus, the significance of any previous act remains continuously dependent on how we relate to that act... Each human life resembles a book in which the meaning of each chapter only becomes clear with the reading of the final chapter. R’ Blau

XII Is such the fast that I have chosen? The day for man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, And to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen?: To loose the fetters of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to deal your bread to the hungry, and that you bring that are cast out to your house?... The glory of the Lord shall be your reward, then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say: “Here I am” Isaiah chp 58

New York: 3 good, 3 bad

2009-08-13T01:45:00.001+02:00

I went to NY on holiday and only ‘cos I don’t want to go to bed yet, I thought I’d write three positive and negative things about the place.

Positive

1. I think NY people (as London people) sometimes get a bad press, as not being particularly helpful or friendly. I don’t think this was true at all. Everyone I asked for directions or help, seemed only to happy to help out. I only saw two moody New Yorkers and they looked almost identical (and yet coincidentaly not identical). One in the hospital who tried to discharge herself, despite the fact she could barely walk, because she wasn’t being seen quickly enough. The other didn’t like the fact that the subway train was too busy for her liking. All in all, however, there was refreshing kindness from random people.

2. The subways are darn cheap (comparatively). A 7-day pass where you can use as much as you like is only $28 which is like £18 or something. Compare this to “The Tube” which (sans Oyster) is £5 for a single. Yes, the subway annoyingly didn’t have many maps; and yes, more adverts in Spanish than English (which is why I subway it); and yes, through no fault of the subways, I went in the wrong direction. Notwithstanding these points, total value for money.

3. It resides in a country which has the “Orthodox Union” which is a largely Modern Orthodox institution that doesn’t go out of its way to make it hard to be kosher. They don’t want to force you into a ghetto where you can only keep kosher by buying Snowcrest. No, they actively look to make everyday products suitable for use- “Philadelphia”, for instance (KLBD PLEASE?!?!?!?) Now I’m not so naive as to think it is purely altruistic motives- it makes them a lot of money and the scope is much bigger there than here. But still- ideology plays its part.

Negative

1. Bloody Bags. If anything will lead to believe in Richard Dawkins and “meme theory”, it is America’s attitude to bags. An idea virus has infected shopkeepers with the idea that it is essential to spread your shopping out over as many bags as possible. Even if you just buy a Chocolate bar, they try and put it in a bag. I had to actively persuade them not to give me bags. The sheer wastefulness (environmental and otherwise) is unbelievable and seems embedded in the NY psyche.

2. “Honkety Honkety Honk” could be the soundtrack song to the New York experience. It is not a very rhythmic song but is a loud one. Usually honking means “hello” or “stop being a bloody nutter”. One of the two. But the honking seemed to be utterly inexplicable. Sometimes I watched cars to see what the underlying rationale could be but discovered none. What’s more is the amount of money local government must have spent on empty threats. That is to say- all the signs that say people will get a $350 fine for honking- AS IF.

3. Too many Jews! Not that I’m a self-hating Jew (only occasionally so) but because there is nothing special about it. A) When I feel that I have done something wrong the previous day, I won’t wear my kippah the next day because I don’t feel I’m good enough to represent the Jewish people. In NY: saints and sinners, machas and child molesters, the sane and the mad, those with derech eretz and uncontrollable kids, all wear kippot. It’s the done thing with no thought to the moral worth it implies or the Chillul Hashem it may cause B) In a small community, you see another Jew on Shabbat and you greet him. Even if you don’t know him, it’s a sign of community, friendliness and something you automatically have in common. I tried wishing people “Shabbos” in Brooklyn and got the most dirty looks imaginable. There it is nothing to see another Jew and so they must have been thinking “Who the hell is this stranger talking to us?”

Undecided

Q. New York Skyline- beautiful or ugly as sin?

Assertive M/m/odern Orthodoxy?

2009-08-06T23:12:00.001+02:00

I like Rabbonim like our Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks and Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo. The most appealing thing is that they have a “let’s just get on with it” Judaism that is neither toes a party line nor is overly radical.

There are certain topics you just cannot talk to a Chareidi/Modern Orthodox/ Masorti/ Reform Jews about. There is no point talking to them about those matters of dogma that define their identity as a member of that group. All discussions on these areas will invariably be heavily biased, defensive, intransigent and fall back on some stock catchphrases. There can never be joint intelligent investigation as the only option is to fully accept/reject what they say. In discussing these things, the groups have a clear agenda to convert- or mekarev- the other party. This wouldn’t bother me if I accepted the dogmas of Chareidi/Modern Orthodox/ Masorti/ Reform Judaism- but I don’t!

Sacks and Cardozo (etc) are not bound to a particular institutional banner, movement, Gadol or the like. They don’t have to reject evolution because the Rebbe said so; nor is it a condition of belonging to the community to believe that the messiah coming depends on conquering the occupied territories; nor do they have to parrot that “halacha changes” to distinguish the enlightened from the fundamentalist Orthodox.

Instead, in terms of actions they are traditionalists who neither agitate for halachic innovations, nor seek to chumra-dik Judaism to the point of making it a cultish sect. That is, they act within consensus of Mainstream Orthodoxy (as it happens to stand today). They shy away from specific controversies and try to keep the status quo. In terms of beliefs their apple [their beliefs] does not stray too far from the tree [the consensus positions of the mesorah]. That is, they are original thinkers but informed by the Jewish tradition. They can disagree with others without having to phrase them so as to cause a rift between different elements of Orthodoxy or between Orthodoxy and other denominations.

I like this kind of Judaism!

Within the broad constraints I laid out, they can just get on with living a Jewish life and get on with espousing and presenting Jewish beliefs. They do not have to exactly match the actions/ views of a particular sub-sect of Judaism, because they do not present themselves as only representatives of that one group. As they are not ‘adjectival Jews’ (this kind of Jew; that kind of Jew) they do not have to pursue the agenda of that ‘adjectival Judaism’. They can get on with just being a Jew- living wisely and presenting Jewish issues in an intelligent way.

Of course, this ‘getting on’ within the status quo is just what most people hate the Chief Rabbi for. Modern Orthodox Jews hate that he doesn’t have the backbone to take a stand on women’s issues and has ceded halacha to his chareidi bet din. Chareidi Jews don’t like the fact that people aren’t Chareidi and that the Chief doesn’t toe their party line. Reform and Masorti Jews want him to publicly proclaim the validity and legitimacy of their movements rather than just quietly de facto recognising religious pluralism as now.

I don’t- as a matter of instinct- like these arguments. Not only do I not ideologically share their agendas, but there is not much point to what they say. The Chief Rabbi cannot be all things to all people. If he publicly endorses any one of these, he pits himself against the others. Any or all of these are divisive and will pull Jewry apart. Some people wouldn’t care and say like it or lump it to whichever group they were against. However, I do. The Anglo-Orthodox establishment has kept a status quo that is ‘just about bearable, but not really acceptable’ to the vast majority of people.

Whilst this is not a flattering statement, it means that it is a wide tent that allows for a greater sense of Jewish unity than anywhere else in the Ashkenazi world. Just as the Chief can get on with Judaism, Reform and Chareidi Jews can get on with whatever it is that they do. So long as people’s actions don’t fall too far outside the mainstream, people have a wide freedom of thought and action.

III

I have come to revise my thoughts slightly on ANglo Jewry’s lack of assertiveness. This is not because I no longer believe in a ‘mainstream Orthodoxy’ or in having a wide tent- because I do. It’s not that I suddenly believe in Modern Orthodox dogmas- I don’t. Nor is it that I now call for divisiveness or radicalisation’. It is just the realisation that status quos do not maintain themselves. Doing nothing and not taking a stand of any description can lead to the very disintegration of mainstream Orthodoxy that I wish to avoid.

It is unfortunate but gone are the days where people would get on with their Judaism within the pragmatic situation they were dealt. Instead, people have to believe in an ideology which posits that situation as the ideal. Without a M/modern Orthodox ideology that preaches ‘traditionalism with inclusiveness’, mainstream Orthodoxy has fallen by 1/3 between 1990 and 2006. In the same period Masorti have gained by 63.3 per cent on the left and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations by 51.4 per cent on the right. This is not to have a go at those two groups but it shows that without a middle ground, Judaism has become more polarised.

As Rabbi Jeffrey Cohen says:

[The Chief Rabbinate] steered clear of articulating the case for modern Orthodoxy to their own constituency. Indeed, the present incumbent allowed right-wing influences to engineer the demise of the one rabbinical institution, Jews' College, which was set up to further that synthesis of Orthodoxy and modernity and to train congregational rabbis who reflected it. This may well have facilitated the progress of the Masorti movement in Britain. The absence of a dynamic middle-ground also meant that committed youth had to choose either between religious extremes or between commitment and defection.

So maybe it is time for the Chief Rabbi be more assertive in pressing a modern but Orthodox Agenda. This is not to say that it should match whatever goes by the name ‘Modern Orthodoxy’ today. Nor does it mean that I would agree with the ideology, whatever it is. But some variant of it may be the necessary move to produce a mainstream movement that can help Britain remain a home for most Jews.

It will necessarily disaffect more people than the current status quo. Hardcore progressive Jews and hardcore Chareidi Jews won’t like it one bit. It won’t even be ‘just about bearable’ and they will completely break away from the mainstream. However, it may be best placed to be most inclusive Judaism possible and the most accepting of those outside it. In our agenda driven way, it might be closest we can come to allowing for most people to get on with it- live wisely and discuss intelligently.

Creationism, Cucumbers and Chairs

2009-07-09T03:11:00.002+02:00

A few thoughts on creationism inspired by Wittgenstein's philosophy

Creationist Jews say that “G-d planted the fossils” and so really the world is only 5769 years old. They were put there as a test to see whether we would believe in the Torah’s account of creation. Religious Jews who believe in evolution will often give the feeble reply that “I don’t believe in a G-d who would deceive us”. Why, so the thought goes, would G-d give us such detailed and reliable evidence about the natural history of the world if it was false? He would be intentionally leading us the garden path and reneging on his promise that we can know him through studying creation.

Now, I have no business second-guessing G-d. “I don’t believe in a G-d who would prefer 20-20 cricket over test match cricket” but he might. I’m not sure how ascribing psychological motivations to G-d can lead us to have an opinion about the age of the world. Would he test us? Would he deceive us? G-d knows!

Let’s not say he wouldn’t deceive us. Instead, let us say that there is no such thing as deceiving us in this case.

Let’s not say that they are saying something false. Let us say, that they are saying nothing.

Consider chairs- and cucumbers. If I point to a chair and say “This is a cucumber”, it is clear that it is not a true assertion. But is it an assertion at all? Am I really making a claim about the object I am pointing to? What am I saying about it?

Let us say that a red-green colour blind man is a long way away from a red chair and has forgotten his glasses. Let us say that he is seeing its profile and is partially obscured and so can only see one of the prongs on the back of the chair. Let us say that next to the chair is a prize-winning, enormous tomato. If I then pointed to the chair and asked him what the object was, he might say “It a long, thin green thing that is part of a fruit collection- must be a cucumber”. This is a false assertion but an assertion nonetheless.

How about he situation where a normal sighted man is standing right by the chair and says “This is a cucumber”? I tell him that it is surely a chair. He replies:

It looks like a chair. It feels like a chair. It has the function of a chair. We bought it from a chair shop and we were told by the shop assistant that it was a chair. The label on the barcode says ‘chair’. But really it is a cucumber.

‘Really it’s a cucumber?’

Yes, the cucumber is disguised as a chair. It’s appearance, role and function are deceptive and hide its essence. I am most upset that the judges of the cucumber competition wouldn’t let me enter it. I can at least console myself that I am more in tune with reality than them.

How would we react to such a man? It surely wouldn’t be correct, unlike with the colour blind man, to try and prove him wrong. I could bring the colour-blind man closer to the chair, fetch his glasses, gather other people’s opinions and show him the chair in a fruit-free setting. But what of the second man? His perceptive organs are fully functioning and has been appraised of all the relevant definitions and facts. Any evidence you show him he can take in his stride. “Yes, it is indicative of it being a chair, something with those features is usually a chair, it would logically be a chair; BUT in this case it is not one.” As there is no pretence to the ‘claim’ being based on criteria, you cannot show the claim to be false by comparing it to any.

How then should we relate to the utterance? Well, I suppose it depends on the context. Maybe it is a joke (“freaked you out there mate”). Maybe it is art (“I’m trying to get you to consider things from another perspective, man”). Maybe it is an assertion of authority (“I can say what the hell I want. If I say a chair is a cucumber, you must agree”). Maybe it is part of nonsense poetry or prose (“I’m the new Lewis Carroll”). Or maybe it is just madness or mental illness (“I am the Sith Lord, King of Hooplah”).

Whatever it is- good or bad- they are not asserting a fact. It sounds like an assertion. In certain situations (like the one I contrived above) those very same words could be an assertion. But to point to a nearby chair and say “this is a cucumber”, is not to say anything about the object- true or false.

III

Now transpose this to the creation case. We are fooled into trying to argue against “The world is 5769 years old” because it sounds like a bona fide assertion about the age of the world. In the past, in the mouths of scientists, religious leaders and laymen alike, it could be such an assertion- albeit one that turned out to be false. This could also be the case -in certain circumstances- today. If someone is brought up in complete ignorance to the fossil record, he may be able to make that claim. Maybe a child can make the claim. But what of someone who is aware of the fossils and says that G-d planted them? This isn’t false- it’s nonsense. The same words are used- but they don’t have the same meaning.

If you bulk against this, just consider your reaction to someone who said “G-d created the world for the first time five minutes ago”. You might initially take this seriously and 1. tell them of your memories from 10 minutes ago 2. CCTV footage of what you did yesterday 3. testimony from your friends that you grew up together etc etc etc. But then this person insists that G-d planted these memories and the CCTV footage and all the other evidence. These memories are not “real”- only the last five minutes are “real”.

Your reaction wouldn’t be to continue to prove him wrong, would it? Much less would it be to say “G-d wouldn’t do that- he wouldn’t deceive us” or engage in theological psychology. Instead, you’d say “You what?” or “Stop kidding around” or “What you up to?” or “you need a good lie down” or “okaaayyyy…” or “whatever you say mate, let’s go down to starbucks” or “Idiot” or “Who you been speaking to?” or just give a comforting tap on the shoulder.

The reason for any of those reactions is that you are trying to figure out what the person is doing with those words. What function are they performing? One thing you are damn sure about is that they can’t – just can’t- be to say something true or false about the world- describing a state of affairs. It is just too wacky for that. The last resort is to say that they are not using them for any rational function and is clinically mad- there maybe a psychological function for the utterance.

So too with the world being 5769 years old. Jewish creationist are not mad and say it for a rational and admirable (although not conscious) reason. Once freed of philosophical and ethical irrelevance of evolution, they can start to think about what the Torah is trying to teach us with the creation story. Ignore the “Just-So” stories that evolution sometimes dreams up (especially in areas like psychology) and instead analyse the commentaries for the theological, ethical and philosophical lessons, just as we have always done.

However, don’t mistake an admirable reason for a real claim about the age of the world. You can physically observe from different geological strata that the age of world is older than that. There is no need for any detailed scientific training. It’s obvious. Standing in front of that and claiming a “new earth” is like standing in front of the chair and saying it’s a cucumber.

A Pedagogical Dilemma: Hashgacha Peratit

2009-06-24T00:30:00.002+02:00

Every other week, I lead a group of 11-14 year olds at one of the synagogues in Leeds. I take them out after Kriat haTorah and do a little bit of tefillah and run a little discussion. Last week there were very few people there because there was a big barmitzvah in one of the other synagogues. In one way, this is negative because there are less people benefitting and thus, reduces the atmosphere. In another way, it is positive because the discussion can be a bit more “in depth”. This, however, carries its own challenges!

The problem is- in short- that my ‘Orthodox’ credentials are not impeccable. Or at least, I do not subscribe to currently fashionable Orthodox beliefs. Now this leads to a pedagogical dilemma. I have a responsibility to the synagogue to teach them in a way consistent with Orthodox ideology. I would not be doing my job if I was leading them to believe something that was inconsistent with what the rabbi may believe. However, I also have a duty of emet- not to teach them something that isn’t true.

This dilemma is particularly perspicuous in the case of hashgacha peratit where the ‘Orthodox view’ does not seem to be the view of many Rishonim. That is, most Orthodox people would say that everything is due to hashgacha peratit, and that G-d directly intervenes directly to adjust occurrences due to an individual’s actions. However, Ramban says that (both explicit and hidden) miracles are only performed the completely righteous or completely wicked; Rambam says individual providence is only for the intelligent (and not for wicked/stupid at all); and Ralbag believes there is no real hashgacha peratit at all. So what should one say when the issue comes up?

It came up in this group, last week. One of the kids said that the perfectly perceptive point that not everything beautiful that G-d created is necessarily positive/ good. He furnished this with the example of Noach’s rainbow. Whilst a rainbow is beautiful, one of the clergy told him that rainbow only appears [is caused?] when G-d is angry at the actions of humanity. That is, a rainbow is a direct result of ill-doing. In contradistinction to this explanation, I believe a rainbow is one of the “acts of creation” and is a result of other natural causes. As such, a rainbow is not in itself bad and is perfectly appropriate to admire its beauty.

The way out [cop out?] of this dilemma is to ‘hedge your bets’. You have to give a completely true explanation but in a way that doesn’t directly contradict what the rabbi says. Thus, one leads them to the truth without consciously setting up the two views as opposing. They probably wouldn’t even realise there are two views. So, in this case, I said something like, “Well yes, when there is a rainbow we have to remember the story of Noach and consider humanity’s actions. We may be acting in a way that merits G-d destroying us, and this reminds us to correct this”.

The view I said is a Jewish view, if not a commonly Orthodox one. Below is a quote from Ramban, where he accepts that a rainbow is part of the “regular order of the world” and not due to a specific act of hashgacha peratit- even for Noach himself!

"This is the sign of the covenant that I give" - It would seem from this sign that the rainbow which appears in the clouds is not part of the acts of creation, and only now did God create something new, to make a rainbow appear in the sky on a cloudy day… But we are compelled to believe the words of the Greeks, that the rainbow is a result of the sun's rays passing through moist air, for in any container of water that is placed before the sun, there can be seen something that resembles a rainbow.

It would be nice- on first reading- that G-d specifically made the rainbow anew for the specific purpose of warning humanity. However, we are ‘compelled’ to accept that rainbows are part of “creation” that happen regularly when sun rays pass through moist air.

This doesn’t mean that Ramban thought that rainbows were natural or independent of G-d’s control. Ramban didn’t believe- at least in hyperbole- that there was such a thing as ‘nature’ at all. Everything that happens is directly caused by G-d. It is in this sense that “everything is a miracle”. However, in the instance when he says that miracles only happen for completely righteous or wicked, he uses “miracle” to mean a deviation from the regular order. Whilst in terms of mechanism G-d specifically causes the rainbow, the reason is not due to specific happenings here on earth. The rainbow is part of the “regular order” and so not due to hasgacha peratit.

The rainbow does have symbolic meaning, as I explained to the kids, in leading us to teshuva. May humanity live up to G-d’s plan.

David Cameron, Charles I and the Demon Barber of Downing Street

2009-05-28T01:16:00.002+02:00

The knives are out. “Off with their heads” screams the Queen of Hearts. “Slash their necks” cantors Sweeney Todd. “You won’t even have a constituency home if you are not careful” says David Cameron with a wry smile.

That’s right. Julie Kirkbride M.P. has to answer to his “scrutiny panel”. It sounds as if I could make this into a sexual innuendo, but I have no idea what it would be. As it is, it conjures up a picture of the Spanish Inquisition. A confession will be scrutinised out of her - “if only you would admit your sin of embarrassing your Lord and Saviour”- and once she admits humiliating Davey, she’ll have to pay the King’s Ransom. Or death; political death. It will be- as my Pythonesque imagination envisions- a foregone conclusion and a show trial. No real consideration for the case on its individual merits, but a chance for a public hanging of a former favourite.

Now I don’t know the law but it seems she, like most M.P.’s didn’t break any- unlike the few that committed outright fraud. Nor do I know what the “spirit” of expenses are meant to be. For my job, I have a small amount of personal expenses, but I can’t possibly think what I need to use them for. And on what basis do I judge if I have used them in the right spirit? From a glance her excuses don’t seem so bad. She is ‘accused’ of letting her brother stay rent-free in her second home. Julie’s response: he looks after my son so I can do my constituency work. Fair enough.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not “fair enough”. Maybe this was an abuse of this ineffable spirit. However, the point is that all the town cryer (read: Daily Telegraph) has to do is to spread a rumour of witchcraft and the poor witch is automatically condemned. Not only that, but the Grand Inquisitor is the very Bishop that gave her ordination. Yes, David Cameron has to be seen to be doing the Lord’s work or otherwise it will be he that is condemned as witch-man. Not only that but the whole Church would tumble down besides him.

David Cameron has learned from the mistakes of Charles I. Unlike his father (James VI) who would make any concession to save his popularity and to oil the wheels of parliament, Charles was too principled. He was too well intentioned and we all now where that ended! He was literally beheaded for his sins against the G-dly.

Charles would not do, for example, what kings of England had done since the days of Edward III and the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376 and jettisoned a royal favourite for the sake of an improved working relationship between Crown and parliament. Cynicism and disloyalty shocked him deeply. Instead, Charles insisted on looking at the individual merits of the case. This was a terrible mistake. You will not find any chapters in constitutional histories devoted to the rituals of therapeutic disgrace, but creative scapegoating had, none the less, long been an integral element of English politics. Concentrating odium for unpopular policies on the head of a politician… preserved the fiction that the ‘king could do no wrong’.

Charles refused to scapegoat one of his advisors and so consequently, the blame had nowhere to go but to him. If the King stood by the minister, then he was saying that he was personally responsible for unpopular policy. His honesty led to his unpopularity!

So David Cameron has learnt well. Find some scapegoats for the unpopular policy and…. Slash Slash Slash. Maybe this is a necessary move. Charles’ refusal to act led to civil war and revolution; and maybe Cameron’s policies will help prevent too much of a revolution in our democracy. However, despite its political pragmatism, it doesn’t feel right!

The BNP and that het’rogenous thing

2009-05-25T18:19:00.001+02:00

As the poem highlights below, that het’rogenous thing is none other than an Englishman. Daniel Defoe, as early as 1701, provides a beautiful rebuttal of that most favourite of concepts among BNP supporters- “the indigenous of Britain”. People of ‘other nationalities’, so they claim, are flooding the country, to the disadvantage of those who are true-born British.

But who exactly, so the poem asks, is one of those?

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogenous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke theirs heifers to the Roman Plough;
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane…
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.

“Britain”, so the Chief Rabbi asserts “had been for so long a mix of races and cultural influences that it had never developed a narrow ethnic nationalism”. The BNP seems to argue in favour of just such an ethnic nationalism. Sure, the rate of immigration is far faster and the ethnic diversity of Britain is far greater than before. However, there is nothing essentially new about our situation, and there is nothing historically, genetically or socially pure about British people.

If this were all it takes to defeat the BNP- a small history lesson- then we should feel mightily satisfied with ourselves, followed by a quick pat on the back. But it doesn’t. I very much doubt anyone is having a narrow argument about genetics or social geography. A BNP supporter could perfectly well accept that there are many different ingredients makes up the recipe of being British. Yet, it would not affect one iota their belief that some people do not have those ingredients! The above arguments alone do not touch on the psychological, philosophical or historical roots of their belief.

Oh well… one step at a time!

"Top 10 Reasons Why Stern Girls Won't Date Me” I mean, “date him”.

2009-05-25T18:15:00.002+02:00

From the latest edition of Yeshiva University’s Student Magazine. I like [in Borat voice]. Stern, by the way, is the female campus of YU.

As any honest single Jew can tell you, the shidduch scene today is nothing less than absurd, whether it's the silly questions during the initial screening process, the abnormal interaction between guys and girls, or the analysis of every single detail of a date. All of these areas can be discussed and critiqued at great length; however, the area I'd like to focus on is the excuses I've been given as to why various Stern girls won't go out with me. Keep in mind that I've been rejected by quite a few Sternies, so I'd just like to pick my ten favorite/most frequently heard rejections:

1) "She hasn't started dating yet" - What the heck does this even mean? When girls come back from seminary do they have a letter from their rabbi with an exact date they can declare themselves eligible? And since when did a single date become such a big deal? We aren't chassidish! I have no intention of proposing after the second date. In fact, there is a good chance that the only thing that the meidel will talk about is the summers she spent working at HASC, which will put me to sleep and there won't even be a second date. Give it a go! Declare yourself eligible…it’s only a date!

2) "She wants to make Aliyah" - That's cool. Maybe I do too. Maybe I want to move to LA. Maybe I want to move to Brunei or perhaps move to Africa and join the Dinka tribe. But that is something that can be discussed over a first date. One should look to marry a person, not a piece of land. Granted, Israel is an important piece of land, but believe it or not the Torah is portable and one can build a home with Torah values anywhere in the world, just like Jews have been doing for centuries. The most important thing is who you build your life with, not where.

3) "You wear jeans" - Yes I do. Some Sundays if I have nothing too important planned, I get a little rebellious and break out my jeans! Ohhhhhhh God! Not jeans! NOT JEANS! HE'S A SHAYGITZ! C'mon. Jeans are tznius and no less stylish than a nice pair of khakis.

4) An irrelevant third party just "doesn't see it" - This excuse is the #1 cause of the shidduch crisis. You want to be set up with a certain individual and you ask someone you thought was your friend to mention it to the person and they reply "Yeah...I don't see it." Of course you don't see it! I know you’re not a prophet. That's why I asked you to mention it to the person that I want to take out, not to make a prediction if we will be married. If someone asks you to set them up with someone, mention it to the person and let them make the decision.

5) "I'm in the middle of something" (i.e. went on one date with someone else) - Let's clarify something: going on one date with someone isn't being in the middle of something. Going out for a couple months is "in the middle." Going on one date barely qualifies as "the beginning" because nothing of substance has even started yet. And, for the record, it is completely muttar to go on a first date with multiple people at the same time...just ask your parents or anyone from the previous generation.

6) "She's actually applying to medical school now" - So? That's like me saying "Yeah, I'd love to go out today, but I'm actually planning on filling up on gas....kinda takes a lot out of me." Obviously, I am not equating the difficulty of applying to medical school to filling up on gas (unless, like myself, you are from NJ and don't know how to pump your own gas), but come on! If you were taking the MCATs in a week than that's a different ball game. Applying to medical school shouldn't consume your whole life. If it does consume your entire existence, than I feel bad for you, your family, your future husband, and may God have mercy on your soul...

7) "I want someone who learns X-teen hours a day" - No you don't. Who do you think you're fooling? Let me tell you what you, and all Stern girls, want: You want to live in a suburb of NYC (i.e. Teaneck), you want to go to Israel for Succos and Arizona for Pesach, you want to send your kids to a modern Orthodox yeshiva and modern Orthodox summer camps, and you want to have tons of shiny jewelry. Unless you have someone sponsoring your marriage (i.e. your parents or in-laws) and your husband is a kollelnic with zero responsibilities, try to be more realistic. If you find a buchur who makes a legitimate effort to go to minyan three times a day and schedules in time to learn daily, in addition to having a steady income, than you have found yourself a quality buchur and you should be quite satisfied! [For the meidels who have just returned from Israel: Save this and read it again in a year when you get more in tune with reality. Right now you're probably just assuming that I'm off the derech and practice avoda zarah.]

8) "I don't date guys who go to the movies" - I rarely watch TV, and only go to movies on occasion. But if you're judgmental enough to not go on a date with someone because you found out that they have attended or plan on attending the occasional film, without looking at a single other aspect of their personality, then you aren't mature enough to be dating and I’m sorry that I spent more than five seconds looking into you.

9) "Does he want to take off time to learn in Israel?" - Actually I did that already...it was called shana aleph and it took place after high school. As beautiful as it sounds to move to Israel for a year after marriage to "learn and grow together," some people need to get a job and don't have the luxury of parents or in-laws who want to sponsor their marriage until the newlyweds decide to get their act together.

10) "He has too many friends" - I kid you not! Someone said they weren't interested in dating me because I have too many friends! I never realized that having friends would hurt me. Social awkwardness and being boring seem to be the two most appealing things on Sternies' shidduch wish list.

To conclude: I feel the overall themes of these rejections were the lack of honesty and the inability to be in tune with reality. If you aren't into my look because I wear jeans or work out, just say so. If you don't like the fact that I'm driven enough to get a job and make a parnasa, I'm cool with that. If thrice-daily minyan and an evening chevrusa just don't cut it then please just be honest – you are looking to marry a Bnai Brak kollenic, not a YU graduate! If the fact that I am in tune with reality bothers you, then maybe you need to be honest with yourself and hold off on dating until you come back to the real world. In the meantime, the only valid excuse that I have ever heard consists of two words: "I'm married!"

Genesis does not talk about evolution. Period

2009-05-08T16:03:00.001+02:00

“Those who claim that the Torah gives an account of evolution, are incorrectly insinuating that the sages didn't understand Genesis.”

This is a claim I made in my ‘lashon hora’ post and this my clarification.

The meaning of the text is what is given by, and through, the mefarshim. End of. If the sages didn’t interpret it as giving a scientific account of evolution by natural selection, that is not what the text means.

Of course, one can read into a text what one likes, but on what basis should we take that as the lesson of the text? Why choose one interpretation over the other? The Protestant line that Jesus speaks to us through our personal reading of the gospels, with the value of the interpretation being its transformative effect on me, is unparalleled in Judaism. The written Torah has no meaning when placed outside its interpretative tradition- the Oral Torah.

FIRST- there is no objective meaning in the text itself. We cannot say “that’s a nice explanation, but really the author intended this” and do so simply by pointing to something in the text. One can only do this if we take a text as a more-or-less complete representation of what was going on in the author’s mind when they wrote it. “This sentence structure, this word and that metaphor is evidence that he meant x. Explanation Y is a nice moral you can get from the story, but that’s not what he thought when he wrote it”.

However, you can’t do that with the Torah as it is a finite representation of the will of an infinite Author. We cannot ‘pin down’ G-d’s motivation with the text. To do so, would be like saying “If I wrote this sentence, at that time, I would have meant x”. However, as G-d says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts”. *

SECOND- just the meaning isn’t what is OBJECTIVELY “out there” in the mind of G-d; it isn’t simply SUBJECTIVELY what I take it to mean “in here”. The fault is the same as above- it takes ‘meaning’ to be atomic and to be fully contained in what a single human can think or feel. However, the meaning of a Jewish text is inter-personal and inter-generational. It is not fully contained by any one individual or any one generation. It exists outside ourselves in the writings, actions, debates and decisions of a million (unfortunately only male) voices.

The key question is how did people understand the text in a way that made sense of their life as a carrier of a Divine Law? Thus, the meaning is revealed in how G-d’s will has played out in the history of the Jewish nation. As such, the Jewish meaning of the text cannot be divorced from the exegesis (and also halachic decisions) of Chazal, the Rishonim and Acharonim etc.

III

To claim that evolution is the meaning of Genesis is to make one of two claims. Either you are saying this what the text really means, or you are saying that is what the text means to me. If the former, you are claiming you have the objective meaning whereas Chazal were completely wrong. If the latter, you may concoct a wonderfully consistent explanation, but give us no reason to accept it. This is because, whilst all well and good, it divorces the meaning of the text from any lesson as to how live as a bearer of tradition. Here Chazal aren’t wrong but are irrelevant to the meaning of the text. I take both claims to be insulting. ** Maybe you can read the texts in this way, maybe you can mind-read, and maybe personal salvation or gratification are important. But this isn’t the Jewish way.

-------

*As part of an interpretive tradition, the level of pshat is very important; and with all levels of interpretation, arguments about sentence structure (etc.) are important. However, their importance lies not in coming to know what G-d really meant; but in understanding, how WE should understand it, and integrate it into our lives. What part does it play in the lives of the interpreters?

**This doesn’t mean that we cannot add to the interpretation of Chazal. Nor does it mean we can’t understand it in a different way. Nor does it mean that our understanding can’t build on their understanding. Nor even challenge them where necessary. In fact, if I’m arguing that the meaning is revealed through Jewish history, and is the bearer of many generations, it follows that we are no less able to be a distinctive voice (women as well as men) in that process. However, it has to be chiddush- new from old as part of a tradition- and not creation ex nihilo- a free and spontaneous product of our minds.

Modern Orthodoxy, elitism and pseudo-intellectualism

2009-05-08T15:57:00.001+02:00

Modern Orthodoxy- and not the “I’m middle of the road Orthodox so I don’t keep Shabbat” type, but the “I believe in Modern Orthodoxy” type- is an elitist movement. Only very few people understand what it believes or the direction its taking. A key part of any religious movement is that it can “speak in the language of man”. Whilst it should be able to sustain complicated analysis for those suited to it, it should also provide ‘food for the soul’ for everyone.

There is something wrong if its beliefs cannot be simplified in such a way that the layman can understand. Sure, if you simplify something you will lose its nuance and its implications, and will not understand it fully. However, they will get the kernel of truth that will correctly shape their world-view and lead to their moral, spiritual and intellectual development. It’s just like if you explain something to a child- it is your belief you are teaching them but you wouldn’t explain it to them in a way that you’d explain it to another adult. First, you’d only teach them the ‘important’ part- strip away complications until you are left with the moral of the story. Secondly, you’d make it ‘relevant’ to their world and where they are in life. Eventually, you hope, they’ll grasp its full implications.

So there are two elements- the ‘emunah peshuta’ which is the simple belief and the more intellectual working out of the idea. When you engage in an intellectual endeavour, you don’t replace the simple belief, but build on it. It remains there at its foundation- if you reject it as false, what’s the point of further discussion about it? So that is intellectual condition number 1- there is something to talk about! The second condition is that there is real debate when you get there. “Is THIS the implication of the belief or THAT?” Through intellectual discussion you come to hold one side rather than the other.

Now I hold Modern Orthodoxy guilty of often failing both conditions- but I’ll just discuss the first. If it can’t put its belief ‘in the language of man’ and can’t identify the kernel of truth, one begins to wonder if there is any truth there to begin with. Is it not like those old (Christian) Scholastic philosophers who argued about how many angels you can fit on a pinhead? Or (certain) art critics who discuss a work with other using long words no-one has heard of, and can only be translated with other long words no-one has heard of? They may be fun games to play- a pursuit for the brainy or cultured- but what is the relevance or importance to the lives of those who don’t already play the game? If there is no emuna peshuta- there is no real issue that they are addressing. In religious terms, it is hard to discern the specific relevance of certain Modern Orthodox discussions to the issue of how man relates to G-d or his mission in life. As such, unlike when we teach a belief to a child, it cannot lead to our moral or spiritual betterment.

Now the above is an extreme scenario and is usually more nuanced. I’ll explain in relation to a series of Modern Orthodox books called the “Orthodox Forum” series. They are absolutely fantastic in one way and in this way, are better than most Kiruv books put together. That is they are actually about something (and thus, do not fall into the extreme example above). They are not there to waffle about spiritual levels but to take an issue such as “war and peace” or “suffering”, and debate what the Jewish view is. However, they are sometimes written in such a pretentious way that I am left at a loss as to how I would explain the view using simpler language and what relevance it has for my relationship with G-d.

I’m not saying there is no relevance or that there is no issue or there is no kernel of truth. However, it does stand in the way of emunah peshuta, is elitist and struggles to translate these arguments into the lives of its followers. As such I have grave doubts about its sustainability as a religious movement.

So THIS is loshon Horah?

2009-04-28T15:31:00.007+02:00

I made a list and I want to know which of these items are lahon horah then?

As far as I see some are facts (e.g. Rav Hutner liking opera), some are impressions (e.g. ones derived my encounter with Masorti Jews), some are good sociological trends (e.g. neither reform nor Orthodoxy dying out), some are interpretations (e.g. that Rambam's Principles were for the masses whilst the Guide was for those seeking truth- the view of Abarbanel), some are philosophical qualms (e.g. Kiruv groups use of dualism), some are pragmatic evaluations (e.g. inability of Reconstructionist Judaism to be attractive), moral principles (e.g. fighting racism no matter which big rabbi said it) etc etc

Yet they are all things that I would like to say. They are all things that I think are important to say. They are all things that are of concern if we don't want Judaism to be corrupt, elitist, boring, unsatisfying, false, intellectually dishonest, split apart, violent, self-interested or hypocritical. Now some of the points will be inconvenient, distressing, or just plain chutzpadik. I can perfectly well understand why a reform person is upset that I don't view their practice as authentically Jewish, or a chareidi person if I say they are insecure. But, get over it or hate me, argue back or ignore me, act differently to how you used to be or show you behaved that way all along, share some different experiences and show the beauty of your point of view but.... don't stop me having opinions.

If “not having an opinion” or at least “not saying it” is what is required to keep the your interpretation of laws of lashon horah, then I will not be cowed away for standing up for truth and morality as I perceive it. Especially when what I am being asked to suppress are the philosophical viewpoints of the Chazal or the Rishonim themselves. I do not, and will not, belong to a Catholic Israel where conformity overrides emet. And yes, I'm poor, stupid and spiritually low. And your point is? Is someone who is spiritual and clever make their opinion right? What I say is probably wrong- but that is the miracle of dialogue- you can tell me.

But yes, if there is a genuine grievance about the ill effects that my utterance will have, I will change it or at least clarify what I meant. I have done in the past and will do again. But first, note there is no attempt at character assasination. Secondly, I stand by the points I make (unless proved wrong) but will seek to mitigate harmful effects on people. Third, PLEASE, PLEASE read what I say carefully.

Don't put words in my mouth. For example I never claimor have claimed that child molestation is more frequent in Chareidi enclaves than elsewhere; just that they don't speak out against the cases that are there. Nor do I calim that Reform Jews or Reform Judaism are stupid, incoherent, irrational and I don't know they are wrong either; just that from an Orthodox perspective I can't see them as legitimate.
A generalisation is just that. No pretensions are made that all Anglo Jews are emotionally stullified, all Masorti are dogmatic, or all Orthodox members of the Knesset out for themselves. But there is a trend I have noticed, and is important to say, and one which I'm waiting you to tell me is incorrect.
Don't take a disagreement of opinion for a criticism. No I don't think gedolim are necessary experts in certain Jewish philosophers but neither would I expect them to be. Yes, Orthodox feminists fit their Orthodoxy into their feminism but doesn't mean I think they are insincere. Yes, reform Judaism is a break from tradition but that doesn't mean that doesn't lead to any positive benefits.
Don't take a true theoretical statement for a practical cause of action. That Israel is wrong to remain in the West Bank doesn't mean it's prudent to get out tomorrow.

So yeh...

Liberal Judaism plays the pluralist card but are quite happy to de-legitimate Orthodox Judaism.
The Reform movement is a radical departure in Jewish tradition.
When reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain says that the Reform Beth Din has solved the 'agunah' problem by saying “G-d wouldn't allow something immoral”, he has merely ignored the problem and not solved it.
There is only so much you can do to make Leviticus read “it's okay to have male homosexual sex”.
How does it serve anyone by calling Orthodox Judaism “medieval”?
Orthodoxy need to learn a drive for social action from Reform Jews
Progressive Judaism is one of the most 'supernatural' strands of Judaism because they can tell us what G-d wants without any method for finding out.
Reform Judaism has to accept it is not legitimate in the eyes of the Orthodox.
Only Progressive Jews and Lubavitch are prepared to go to where the Jews are.
Conservative Judaism understands halacha in a non-traditional way. 'Halacha has always changed' is ill-defined and cannot be used to justify anything.
Louis Jacob's “liberal supernaturalism” is just a little too liberal and a little too supernatural.
Louis Jacobs was clearly a mensch, a scholar and a devout orthoprax Jew, and a shame on Orthodoxy for scapegoating him
Masorti Judaism has moved a long way from Rabbi Louis Jacobs and for all intents and purposes, deny Torah min Hashamayim altogether.
In a supposed synthesis between traditional and modern values, Conservative Jews rarely spell out the traditional values.
Conservative Jews take a very dogmatic line about 'Bible Criticism' despite having any convincing evidence for their point of view.
It is clear that Masorti Judaism fills a need which many intelligent, observant Jews have and Orthodoxy needs to take its head out of the sand.
Only Chareidi Judaism spells out what it is, whilst everyone else can focus on what they are not: Not-Chareidim.
There is a disconcerting habit of Masorti people I have met to paint themselves as the heir to a “Non-Fundamentalist Orthodoxy” and call people who disagree with them “Fundamentalists”
Orthodoxy isn't dying any time soon, and so non-Orthodox Judaism will have to shut up and deal with it.
Reconstructionist Judaism is just wrong when it thinks that changing Judaism's doctrines will make it attractive to modern Jews.
Neither Modern Hebrew nor Ashkenazi are 'more authentic' or 'more original' (If any is, Yemenite Hebrew is probably closer).
I am sceptical of Rabbi Berkovit's attempts to intuit the values of Judaism.
When people label themselves “Modern Orthodox”, it usually means they are lax about halacha.
Rashi is sometimes wrong and does not always give the pshat.
Centrist Orthodox Jews are scared to pasken Halacha.
Modern Orthodox Jews, unlike Conservative Jews can be intellectually daring without being needlessly controversial.
A large proportion of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance would rather fit their Orthodoxy into their feminism, than their feminism into their Orthodoxy.
Hirschian Jewry such as that in England has led to a tepid, heartless Judaism.
Just because a Modern Orthodox shul allowed something 40 years ago doesn't make it halachically acceptable.
A lot of Modern Orthodox is pseudo-intellectual and pretentious and distracts from emunah peshuta.
Modern Orthodoxy's inability to go anywhere but London shows their inability to live up to their ideals.
Messianic Religious Zionism can lead to a dangerous religious violence.
Settlers often put “the land” higher than G-d
When rabbis (acknowledged gedolim even) make racist remarks, they deserve to be vocally criticised.
It is odd and frankly unnecessary to justify “Madda”; so stop it and get on with studying it.
The Israeli government are harming the future of existence of a Jewish state by remaining in the West Bank.
Rav Hutner enjoyed the opera and studied at the University of Berlin.
There is more to midrash than “The Midrash Says....”
Ralbag didn't believe in hasgacha peratit
If a particular Jewish philosopher's thought is not something the Gedolim knows much about, it doesn't show negligence on their part, nor does it make them any less of a Gadol, but means they should defer to those philosophers' who do know more about it than they.
The Chareidi world censors massive parts of the mesorah and the views of many Rishonim would not count as 'Orthodox today'.
Religious members of the knesset harm the religious cause by trying to impose religious legislation on people.
Rambam wrote his Principles for the religious masses but the Guide for those who are seeking the truth.
Artscroll's translation of Shir haSharim ruins the metaphor it's trying to make.
Hagiographies do not inspire 'yirat shamayim' in a way that the Gedolim who they are writing about would approve.
Kiruv groups teach an outdated Christian, philosophical idea called “Dualism”.
Those who say the world is 5769 years old, in the sense the laymen understands a “year” is false.
Those who claim that the Torah gives an account of evolution, are incorrectly insinuating that the sages didn't understand Genesis.
Only Chareidi Judaism seems to put real effort into prayer.
Reform Judaism isn't dying any time soon, and the Orthodox will have to learn to live with it.
I've heard too many Orthodox rabbis speak 'lashon horah” about the Chief Rabbi.
It's not for a few Roshei Yeshiva who have an alien world-view to me, to pasken for me.
Rav Eliyashiv was wrong to ban Rabbi Slifkin's works on evolution.
It is a sign of insecurity when Chareidim do things such as ban 2/4 beat music, go through books like “Ethics from Sinai” to purge all non-Jewish references; and reinterpret people like Rav Hirsch to say one can only study for parnassa.
There are a lack Chareidi rabbis denouncing cases of massive fraud against the government, or speaking out to protect victims of Child Molestation, for fear of mesirah and lashon horah.
Judaism hasn't got out the ghetto, halacha is failing to adapt to national life and is irrelevant for most Israelis.
Ibn Ezra learnt a biblical interpretation from a Karaite; and Abarbanel from the Christians.

Pesach Thought 1: Hesed and the Prisoners Dilemma

2009-04-08T18:50:00.002+02:00

We read at the seder- "Let all who are hungry enter and eat; let all who are in need come and celebrate the Passover"

Why the repetition? They actually refer to different things. The second (Kol Ditzrich) means all who are in need but not all who are in need of bread. The person may indeed be a millionaire who who doesn't go wanting. They may have plenty of food but no home or family. The invitation for this person is not to come and eat but to spend and celebrate Pesach in the company of others.

It sounds very nice to reach out to people who might be lonely. However, if you think about the invitation, it is a prima facie absurd act. What are you asking the millionaire to come share with you? What are you going to give him? Maybe you should provide the company but ask him to bring the finest champagne and Pesach food. But no! We invite him so he can partake of the lechem oni- The bread of affliction! A bit of matzah!

Maybe an answer can come with an understanding on the nature of hesed- where, on the seder night, we showing loving-kindness to others. Here is how R' Soloveitchik describes Hesed:

Hesed denotes, in practical terms, the vastness of kindness, contributing more than one's capacity, giving away more than one had a chance to store, accommodating more than one's narrowly bounded existential area will permit. In short, hesed means compulsive kindness, spontaneous sympathy... Hesed does not depend on the actual size of one's possessions, upon numbers and figures. It is rather, a spiritual attitude...

We give away more than our capacity! We take a paltry piece of Matzah that hardly nourishes myselfand yet I break it in half to give the rich man! Surely this is irrational. How can we understand this?

A nice way to look at this is with the help of the iterated prisoner's dilemma! There are lots of nice ways to dress this experiment up to link it with real life situations and make it realistic, but let's just illustrate it using a simple points version.

People on computers in two rooms have the chance to press 'co-operate' or 'defect', and they don't know what the other person has pressed until the experiment is over. There are various points you can earn depending on what you choose compared to what they choose. The aim of the game is to have as many points as you can- and points mean prizes!

Here is an example table of points for different combinations:

Player 1 Player 2->	Cooperate	Defect
Cooperate	3, 3	0,5
Defect	5, 0	1,1

So what is the rational move to make in the game? One should defect because:

1. You have more opportunities of scoring if you defect. There is only one combination out of four where co-operating wins points.

2. If you defect, you will at least get a point whatever happens.

3. The top prize for defecting is more than the top prize for co-operating.

4. By co-operating you have no means of getting more than your opponent.

This can be seen clearly if the table looks like this:

Player 1 Player 2->	Cooperate	Defect
Cooperate	win-win	lose much-win much
Defect	win much-lose much	lose-lose

When you look at an individual's benefit in an individual situation, the best thing to do is to look out for number one. That is the bog-standard Prisoner's Dilemma and is indisputable. What then about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma? As the name suggests, it is the same experiment repeated many times with the same people, where the points are cumulative. What's the rational thing to do there?

I'm no mathematician but it still seems to be to defect. All other things being equal, it is better to defect. As an individual over many cases, you have more chance in the long term of getting points by defecting. However, experiments show that this is not the case. Individuals get more points by co-operating with each other. I don't just mean that there is a more even distribution of points (more people with more points than before). I don't mean that on average individuals get more points by co-operating (but with some making the biggest profit by defecting). No- it is to the benefit of each and every individual to co-operate despite the math saying otherwise.

Why? What the mathematics doesn't take account of is the human issue of 'trust'. Where you suspect your opponent of going to defect, you will yourself defect. Where there are scant points available, and you think you are going to miss out on them, you will do everything to get each and every point you can. You think you are going to lose everything! Some may co-operate because they think it is the right thing to do (at least in a real-life version rather than points version). Most, for good reason, won't; and you end up in a situation where everyone defects and you only get 1 point each time.

What happens if you do trust the opponent? Remember that you have never met the person, don't know their temperament and have no assurance that they will co-operate. And vice versa. But what if you do? You are more likely to co-operate yourself and then they will begin to trust you and so, reciprocate. In this way, you will get 3 points each time and end up, individually and collectively, with more. People think acting for the 'common good' means being 'charitable' and giving up on individual benefit. Yes, if you are focusing on each act as an isolated act. Overall though, the common good is your individual good.

III

How does this bear on the lechem oni?

Slaves don't share! Where you are worried about where your next meal is going to come from, you will grab what you can and when you can. If there are very limited resources available, you want to make sure that you get your fill. You don't have the wherewithall to think about others because the only way to survive is to eat what you have been given. It makes no sense to give away your bread.

The slave is certainly 'hard done by' and has been forced into a situation which was no fault of their own. Yet... they have a defective personality! They are not just a slave by situation but have a slave personality. If you just look after yourself (although perfectly rational to do so), you cannot contribute to wider society. They are disqualified from being witnesses, are unable to marry and are freed from time-bound mitzvot. Slaves are excluded from anything that involves a true relationship or where one has to rely on them for the good of the whole.

Conversely, what of those who do well in a society of competition? The overall rationale is to get more resources than other people and to stay ahead of the game. That is how they got to where they are. Of course, they may sometimes be 'charitable'. They may sometimes give up some their wealth and choose to 'co-operate'. However, the master-slave relationship continues unabated.

The giver is doing something self-consciously 'generous', out of the normal order, and expects to be thanked. The receiver simply gobbles up the food knowing that it may not happen again. They remain 'dependant' on the whims of the more powerful or rich person. If it's not something they can expect, they may as well take the opportunity to 'defect' and take full advantage of the rich person's rare 'co-operation'. There can be no free relationship between these people. The powerful person is lonely and can't have any relationships- everything is about the goods he gets or generously gives. It is not hesed.

Where then can there be hesed? You will find it where there is the biggest sacrifice. The mark of someone who goes from slavery to freedom is their sharing their insufficient amount of bread- their bread of affliction! They "contribut[e] more than one's capacity, giving away more than one had a chance to store". It's an irrational move on their part if one considers the individual act and or even many individual acts over time. They gamble their survival, where there is no expectation that the master will reciprocate. The master may just stamp home his/her advantage and dominate more. It is a risk but only through "compulsive kindness, spontaneous sympathy" can you be free.

"Why you being so hard on the poor slave? Why is all the burden and responsibility on them? Why you being so easy on the big, fat, oppressor?" Let's first make it clear that the richer or more powerful person has to reciprocate and 'give back' to the poorer or weaker person. If not, the process is dead. They have to accept restrictions on their liberty in order to enhance the liberty of others. They can't just think about what is rational for them now but what is good for everyone always. In fact, they have to make the first move. Remember the first line of our text was "Let all who are hungry enter and eat".

However, whilst it is not the fault of the slave that he is under external conditions of oppression, it is only the slave who can lead the way to true freedom. The important point to bear in mind here is that it is the oppressor who is most "in need". It is essential that the poor's physical needs are met and so - let him come eat. But the powerful- despite their wealth or power- has the debilitating spiritual condition of loneliness. Nothing they can do, as I said above, can lead to a true relationship because even giving money away cements the power relationship.

Only through the absurd gesture of the slave sharing his bread of affliction can those "in need" be redeemed from solitude. Only from something as genuine as this can you have a chance of forming free relationships. The restrictions both parties accept upon themselves are not simply altruistic but good for everyone materially and spiritually. Maybe there will be equality after all.

Only through telling a story so absurd and seemingly irrational as the Jews exodus from Egypt, can we learn about a free society. Only through recounting an event so grounded in faith and trust do we have a chance of creating freedom for everyone, everywhere.

(B"H) A Little Gratitude

2009-04-06T01:12:00.002+02:00

It never hurts to thank people when they deserve thanking and to show gratitude if you have been the recipient of a person's good traits. This is what I intend to do!!!!

(I must admit, however, that the impetus to write this was not completely altruistic. I had sinned, was feeling very guilty and wondered how I could achieve kappara. I felt too guilty for confession (vidui) at that moment, as I couldn't vouch for my genuineness as to whether I would do it again or not. Giving money to charity was an appropriate response but felt that was too much like bribing G-d to remove the evil decree. As for repentance (teshuva) we'll have to wait and see! So I thought to myself, "What good can come from this that wouldn't otherwise happen?"- this is my insufficient response)

So here goes...

Dan l'kaf zechut- benefit of the doubt

The greatest example of this fine trait is my elderly neighbour- Betty- who lives in one of the flats downstairs . What is great is that she doesn't even know she is doing it. Often, she is there ready to intercept me (or any passer-by) in order to have someone to talk to. She'll often ask, of a morning, if I'm on my way to work. Now it has been known for me to sometimes oversleep. Okay- maybe slightly more than that. Now once I overslept till 11 and yet, when I go downstairs Betty casually asks if I'm on my way to work. There's not the slightest hint in her voice or manner that she takes this to be an unconventional time to go to work! If that is the time I'm going, then there is no assumption that it should be otherwise or that I'm doing wrong.

A shining example to us all!

Free Books

Below are three books that for altruistic reasons have been given to me. Admittedly, issue-based novels, works of practical halacha and books about the intersection of Darwin and Judaism would not be my first choice. But maybe that it what is so special about these gifts- I read things that I otherwise wouldn't!

The Fixer

Dan (one of my old housemates) and I were in a taxi on the way back to LA airport and the Russian driver noticed we were Jewish. He was clearly so himself and started up a conversation. Dan did most of the talking with him, as I didn't like many of the views that he was expressing and could only manage nods and grunts. However, as we arrived at the airport, he took out a book from the compartment in the car door, and gave it to me as a present.

The book was clearly one of his favourites that he had read and re-read tens of times. The book is decades old (cost 95 cents at the time), pages are worn and grubby, the front cover is torn in various places, the spine is slowly pealing off, the corners are bent and every time I touch it, something falls off! He obviously liked it enough to keep in his car.

Why he decided to give it to me I'm not sure! The novel was about a blood libel against a Russian Jew, and I'm sure anti-semitism came into our conversation. But I'm sure he would have had Jewish passengers in LA before and he would of talked to them about anti-semitism too! Also, why did he specifically give it to ME, as opposed to Dan? I'm not sure but THANK YOU- it's a good novel!

Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism

Geoffrey Cantor was my supervisor on my undergrad philosophy dissertation on Maimonides. He is also an expert historian on how both Jews and Quakers interacted with and viewed science over time. The year following my dissertation, I found a free copy of a new book he had helped edit, with a little note, in my philosophy pigeon hole. He wasn't generally giving them out and was touched that he thought of me!

Pirchei Shoshanim's "Making the Shabbos Kitchen"

I have filled in a couple of times for Rabbi Yechiel Conway and leined in Harrogate. This is because of an accident he has had. Anyway, when collecting the keys for the Harrogate shul flat, he had this book ready to give me which he had helped edit. Again, very kind. But I won't attempt proper gratitude myself but quote the gratitude of the books author to him, in the preface:

"I must acknowledge the inspiration, lively email discussions spanning over 2,200 in number, and the considerable clarity brought to the text by the editorial revisions he provided. R' Yechiel is a remarkable person, with a brilliant mind. The friendship that emerged from working together is the highlight of my participation in this project."

My Boss

I like him- what more do I need to say! Well there is the fancy MP3 player he gave me for Chanukah (NB: That's not the reason I like him). I intentionally didn't tell him of my birthday, just in case he got me another unnecessarily large present. In hindsight, maybe that was a bad move as no friends got me anything (cough... only gratitude from here on in). However, I don't think my conscience would allow me to take anything more from him.

I could list a few more nice things but then my "I like him- what more do I need to say! " would seem incredibly strained, so I won't.

Shabbat Meals

A few thank yous to those North Leodensians that have been so kind as to offer me Shabbat meals. I have literally relied on these people!!! :-)

Nicole & Simon Myerson

Valerie and Ivor Baum

Susan and Neville Cohen

Dabrushie and Eli Pink

Ettie and Yehuda Refson

Ruth and Chaim Bell

... and Shalom Kupperman

Eleanor and Allan Taylor

Elise and Jason Kleiman

Denise and Stanley Surr

Valerie and Jonathan Bodansky

Leonie and David Apfel

Naomi and Daniel Levy

Jonathan Sumroy and parents

Also, thanks goes to a few people who have wanted to have me but for certain reasons, I could not eat there.

And...

My parents, agents and publicist; without whom, I wouldn't be where I am today.

Oh! And... Of Course....

....Baruch Hashem

(B- shows promise but could do better)

Giving 'spirituality' a bad name

2009-03-29T00:57:00.001+01:00

Summary of post: We should all be more spiritual

Post: When I talk about halacha (and thus, Judaism) being essentially 'this-worldly', the false dichotomy brigade come out in full force. The view that Judaism addresses man as a physical creature in the world, is contrasted with the so-called 'spiritual' explanations. I am thus accused of seeing the commandments as "this is what G-d says", as opposed to looking for the deeper reasons.

Now, what is so deep about doing gematria, talking about 'essences', discovering the 'auspicious', magical effects of the commandments or dreaming of far-off worlds, I'm not sure. Gematria (etc) may aid us in finding the relevance of a commandment, but certainly does not constitute its relevance. "Wow, this action effects 67.876 dimensions and may help your wife to get pregnant" doesn't cut it and isn't deep.

The equation of the "spiritual" with the "non-natural", gives spirituality a bad name. Where beliefs are, to the proud pronouncements of its adherents, "non rational", why should we hold them? When beliefs cut off from our experience of this world, what exactly are we believing in? Ex Cathedra announcements about auspicious times may be beneficial for some mysterious "soul-stuff" but is not relevant for me. They can lead to irrelevant nonsense but also to outright falsity or a perversion of values. Potentially anything can be said which I wouldn't be allowed to challenge on the grounds that they are not rational. For if I did, I would be denying the 'spiritual' knowledge which is not derived from rationality.

You shouldn't take the above as a defence of my position, but merely as a statement of it. If spirituality requires knowing all about this 'deep' other-worldly stuff, then I want nothing to do with it! However, does that mean I don't think one should be spiritual? If spirituality means any of the points listed below, I am all for spirituality:

Understanding what I say and do, rather than doing it by rote or by habit.
Cultivating more lofty desires, and pursuing higher goals than merely feeding my every whim or desire.
Seeing a meaning and purpose in my life.
Having a theocratic motivation for my actions rather than simply being focused on what worldly benefits I can accrue from them.
Utilising the whole of my spirit to the best of my ability- thought, feeling, physical skills, good sense and judgement, intuition, personality etc. (Study the sources to find all the potentialities included in terms such as "ruach", "nefesh" and "neshama" and act on them.)
Trying to maximise 'peak experiences' rather than merely surviving or getting by.
Having a sense of G-d in my life.
Trying to raise myself above the level of a member of the species homo sapien, and become an singular adam.
Transcend my status as an entirely natural creature created by circumstances external to myself, and choose to act in a way that makes me worthy of being b'tzelem Elokim.

Say what, Mr. Shakespeare?

2009-03-23T18:46:00.001+01:00

Shakespeare is the plague of every child's English lessons. His language makes it so hard for anyone to understand what he is trying to say. He might be the stuff of night-time fantasies for the English teacher but more likely to infest the nightmares of everyone else. The sentiment is heartily expressed in 'Back and Forth' where Blacadder (having gone back in time) punched Shakespeare and said:

This is for every schoolboy and schoolgirl for the next four hundred years. Have you any idea how much suffering you are going to cause. Hours spent at school desks trying to find one joke in A Midsummer Night’s Dream? Years wearing stupid tights in school plays and saying things like ‘What ho, my lord’ and ‘Oh, look, here comes Othello, talking total crap as usual’.

However, it is funny that he should raise 'lack of jokes' as the cause of suffering. There are, for some, too many jokes in Shakespeare. I know an English teacher in a Beis Yaakov school who has to teach Shakespeare as he is on the National Curriculum. She has said how she has been instructed to skip over all the sexual innuendos and hope they don't ask any questions! Here though, is where the terse language is an advantage for the Bais Yaakovs, if not the Edmund Blackadders, of this world.

As for the 'talking total crap as usual' , one might presume this is a result of the language being very old and no longer understandable. Rather like with Bible translations, we are subjected to pathos at the expense of understanding what is being said. However, I very much doubt that there is a direct correlation between a decline in understanding and time passing. I wonder: Did those who paid their penny to stand at the Globe have any idea what was going on or did they just go to leer at men in womens' clothing? Was the theatre a place of high culture or a mere alternative to the bear baiting ring?

It is quite possible that those in Shakespeare's day wouldn't have understood his language. The problem for them wouldn't be the antiquarian nature of his language. In fact, the opposite would be true. They would have been justified had the exclaimed "That guy is just making up words". Words found for the first time in Shakespeare include:

abstemious, antipathy, critical, frugal, dwindle, extract, horrid, vast, hereditary, excellent, eventful, barefaced, assassination, lonely, leapfrog, distinguishable, well-read, zany, countless

This is not to mention all the words he made up by being the first person to add un- in front of words, such like unlock, untie and unveil (unsufflicate?). Given that many of these are common words, I could (and will) exaggerate and say the only words they would have understood are the one we don't understand today!

As David Crystal (Shakespeare scholar in Bill Bryson book) says, "Most modern authors, I imagine, would be delighted if they contributed even one lexeme to the future of the language". Shakespeare, however, was prolific. One thing we can take comfort in, however, is that we can actually spell our name, whilst Shakespeare was a little more unsure. In six extant signatures of his that we have, no two are spelt the same and none how we spell it!

The Death Penalty

2009-03-18T23:44:00.002+01:00

Today, amazingly, a man was released from prison after 27 years incarceration for a crime he never committed. Sean Hodgson was convicted of rape and murder but DNA testing of the sperm at the scene has revealed that it was not his. Possibly, and this is a matter for an inquiry, the court should not have accepted the confession of a 'pathological liar'. However, they cannot be faulted for overlooking forensic evidence, as DNA testing didn't exist then (or at least not in the way it is now). As such, it may be that locking him up was the just thing to do, on the basis of what was known at the time.

One thing that it does confirm in my mind is the unacceptability of the death penalty and my relief and being under English rule where it no longer exists. Had the death penalty been in effect, an innocent man would have been put to death and a subsequent 'clearing of his name' wouldn't have been unable to undo this. Of course, far back in English history, the death penalty could be given for something as small as stealing bread. With the advent of the Human Rights Act, however, not even High Treason is punishable in this way.

This is not to say that 'in theory' death is not the appropriate response to particular crimes (not stealing bread though!). If I couldn't reconcile myself, in some way, to the idea of the death penalty, it would most certainly put me at odds with Judaism. Biblical law prescribes death for a large array of different crimes. The Hebrew Bible is a seemingly gruesome book suggesting stoning, strangling, drowning etc. We pray on Yom Kippur, in an inappropriately happy tune, for our sins that deserve these punishments to be commuted.

The logic of the death penalty- at least in the case of murder- is clear. The value of a person's life is the potential to do good deeds and, where one has done wrong, do teshuva (repentance). Repentance in the bible is "eye for an eye": like-for-like reparation is needed to undo the effects of the sin. In certain cases, the perpetrator further needs to experience the wrongdoing themselves. As such, certain forms of stealing require paying double- undo the sin by paying back the money and to then feel what it is like to be without that amount.

Here the law aims not at being punitive but at educating the perpetrator and arousing a sense of sympathy with the victim. They will then be able to go on and live a meaningful life. Bad actions can only be counteracted by good actions, and not by the grace of G-d. Murder, however, is the ultimate crime where the effects of the sin cannot be undone and where the wrong can not be 'righted'. Here, the murderers life is forfeit as there is no potential to do good deeds that can outweigh the evil done. Not even G-d can forgive such a sin.

Despite this "theory", it was never thought to be practically workable proposal for most of those convicted of murder. The Talmud records the following opinions:

"a Sanhedrin [highest law court] that effects an execution once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal." Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah said "once in seventy years." Rabbis Tarfon and Akiba said, "If we were members of a Sanhedrin, nobody would ever be put to death."

The conditions put on the death penalty were so hard that it was virtually impossible to put someone to death this way.

If 2000 years ago they were circumspect about the standard of evidence in murder cases, how much more so should we be? The technological advances we have seen can lead one generations "safe cases" to be overturned in the next. This should not lead to impotence in carrying out justice. As I started by saying, it may have been absolutely the right thing to do, to lock this person up. However, it should lead those who advocate the death penalty to think twice about doing something that cannot be undone.

And which 'Diary of Anne Frank' is that?

2009-03-17T00:22:00.001+01:00

I never knew that the Anne Frank diary we have today is not exactly what Anne Frank herself wrote. Those she shared with were not the Van Daans and there wasn't a Mr. Dussel either! Or, to be more specific, they were made up names.

There is, in fact, an A, B and C edition of the diary and numerous versions in between. A is what she originally wrote as she went along. However, late in the war she heard over the radio that the Dutch government wanted to collect memoirs of war-time experiences. Having heard this she started to edit her diary ready for publishing! She took out items that were too personal, added the now-famous "Dear Kitty" to all the passages, changed everyone's names and revised some of the more harsh entries about her mother. This is version B.

When the war was over, Otto Frank decided to fulfill his daughter's requests to publish her diaries. However, he edited the diary further. He took out anything that wouldn't be "becoming" of a young girl in early 20th Century Britain, as well as the more unflattering remarks about other members of the annexe. He reinstated his families names but left everyone else's pseudonyms. This version- the one to become "A Diary of a Young Girl" - was made up of a mix of A and B and thus, became C.

The interesting question is which one is the most definitive edition or the one we should read today? Is it A because this is Anne's unadulterated thoughts? Alternatively, is it B because this is how Anne wanted it to be read? Or is it C because this is the diary that many generations have come to know, love and draw inspiration from?

The Quality Street of Facebook Quotes

2009-03-12T22:07:00.001+01:00

Most people use their Facebook status message as an emotional cry for help: "I'm feeling abandoned". I must say I have succumbed once or twice but generally resisted temptation. Instead, here is the pick of the quotes, sayings or jokes that I put up instead for people's delectation and/or just to show thoroughly witty, cad and bounder I am. These ain't no Cadbury's Roses.

To me, About me, By me

Mohammed T to me: "you cant just sit around waiting for Moshiach mate, you gotta do shit. Where would the Jewish people be if they were all zombies?"

Neil Clarke is according to Nikk Effingham, "one of those WEIRD atheists who assents to all kinds of theistic sentences"

Me to anyone who couldn't care less: "yore? yore! yadin? yadin! yatir? yatir! yatus? probably not (Red Bull hypothesis fails)"

Just 'ha'

Socrates, "By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."

The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with unsympathetic genitals

Nietzche: "it is not their love for men but the impotence of their love for men which hinders the Christians of today from - burning us."

Religious in-jokes

A Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk "Der mishna berurah iz for yesoimim, ich hob a tattah". (The Mishna Berurah is for orphans, I have a dad)

Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, "What do you get when you cross a yekker with a chabadnik? A Moshiach who arrives on time."

Kotzker Rebbe "What's the difference between a Hasid and a Mitnaged? The Hasid has fear & trepidation before G-d whilst the Mitnaged has fear trepidation before the Shulchan Arukh"

Pure truth

Hitchcock, "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."

Iris Murdoch- "Almost anything that consoles us is a fake"

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife's beautiful and his children smart

From Quality Street to Revels

Y-Love- "Subs constitute an intrusion of secular values? Can one get onions with secular values? How fragile is the community that has to protect itself from sandwiches?"

R' Hirsch-aggadic sayings do not have Sinaitic origin.. someone whose opinion differs from that of our sages in a matter of aggadah shouldn't be deemed a heretic

The Streets "it's hard enough remembering my opinions without remembering my reasons for them"

R' Schneerson "It is not possible to ask a question about a [Rebbe being a] go-between, since this is God Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body"!

Neil Clarke didn't know where to look for all the blood and cleavage (in Sweeney Todd that is...)

A window into my (past) soul: "Dear Rabbi Hodges..."

2009-03-12T01:40:00.001+01:00

"A ghost just walked over my grave" seems like a pithy remark to open a post and whatever its correct context, it feels the appropriate thing to say.

I was just having a look over at random files that I retrieved from my old computer. There was some cringe-worthy lyrics to songs I half-wrote, a rather surprising opinion I expressed on gender differences in a psychology essay, a cracking critique of Louis Jacob's doctrines, an entertaining musical I wrote for a Hanoar program and some interesting sources. Oh yes... and that letter which (for better or worse) remains between me, the recipient and G-d.

However, there was another letter which was never finished off and never sent. It was this letter that is the cause of the aforementioned (hopefully metaphorical) ghost and grave. Apart from giving me an indication of my previous preference of font size, it gave me an eerie look at my past. It is basically a letter I was writing to the then chaplain- Rabbi Hodges- to decide once and for all my thoughts regarding Jewish observance. As I say in the letter I have set myself a modest task: "questions of the divinity of the whole Torah is the main purpose of this letter"!!!

Having articulated that the 'meaning of life' has been a top priority for years, I declare of Judaism: "Either it is right or wrong". I want to know which and want the decisive reason that will tell me so. Reasonable enough, no? Well. Today, I would see that as the wrong question to ask. It is not a particularly Jewish question, is unfruitful and can lead to some fundamentalist conclusions. However, the fact that I asked such questions should lead me to examine my sometimes unintentionally condescending attitude to people who insist on such a straight-out answer.

Apart from personal mussar, the letter helps to understand what prompts such questions and how this affects the type of answer given. What's the purpose of such a "true-false" question?

From what I say, I think I must have written the letter in my second term of my first year at university. By this point I had 'come out' to my parents. Not in relation to my sexuality but as to my shabbat observance. As challenging (and frankly boring) as Shabbat must have been in my first term, it was nothing to having to go through a readjustment with my parents. Only after having spent time at home, could I realise just what a radical step in my life I had taken. I now thought "It is getting to the point where increasing my religiosity any more could cause problems with the family". Whilst up to then I could take on mitzvot on the probability that Judaism is true, now I needed to know that it was true.

The above was possibly my primary motivation but the letter - as far as it goes- is filled with other reasons. The second reason I can empathise with as well. I use the word 'empathise' as it is as if from another person- such a reason would be utterly strange from the philosophical perspective I currently inhabit. Yet, I can understand the emotion behind it:

Without such an assurance I would see no point of even studying the oral law. I occasionally look at English versions of the Talmud and it strikes with irrelevance and of hair picking. For example, 7 pages of commentary/ gemarra on a single mishna which in itself goes into everyone who can have a valuation and who can make a vow. I have no motivation to study this. This is, of course, a fault on my behalf. However, without being sure that this was something that G-d says I can’t forsee making the effort to correct this fault.

Of course, it is certainly a serious issue to ask the relevance of such 'nitpicking'.

The third reason is frightening because of its desperation and because, in many ways, the way it is expressed is morally abhorrent:

As a third reason for needing to be assured of the torah’s divinity, is the need to be able to say “G-d said so”! Many things in the Torah seem unpalatable and are certainly against social norms. For example, stoning someone to death or even animal sacrifices. If I’m in the mindset that “G-d said so”, then this is not a problem. Under the authority of the supreme being then social norms are worthless and anything is justified. Without that mindset which I lack, reading passages like that of stoning can make me feel uncomfortable.

Now I certainly believe that G-d's word overrides social norms and that certain things aren't palatable because they are not the 'done thing' in modern society. However, presumably, animal sacrifices and stoning people weren't bothering me because they were 'social norms' or 'unpalatable' . They would have done so because of concerns they were morally wrong. I felt like I couldn't justify certain religious values without a psychological certainty in their validity. However, no 'mindset' could or should dictate moral standards.

All these reasons seem to demand a theoretical reason for Judaism's truth and do so in relation to real intellectual problems. Under what circumstances does religious authority overcome familial authority? What is the cognitive or spiritual value of law and the text study of it? What is the relationship between eternal values and a particular time? However, the letter shows that the demand for these theoretical reasons were prompted by an emotional or psychological need. I need to be sure.

III

A third interesting thing about the letter is a purely theoretical one. On what grounds did I think that one should be observant of Judaism? What were my beliefs at the time through which I justified my observance?

I just wrote a massively long piece (now deleted) to go into this section about how hard it is for someone like myself to answer that question. That is, someone who started my journey of observance so young but whose development was so gradual. There is no one reason that I can identify as the reason, as I have had to think about the authority of Judaism every step of the way. Nor if I could point to a reason would I be able to express it in anything like the way I would have done at the time.

How could I give authentic voice to my views at the time when anything I now say is so filtered through writers or works that I would never had a clue about at the time? I sometimes need reminding that I never knew anything about Rambam (besides his existence) until the end of my second year, or even heard of Soloveitchik until half way through my third year. Up until that point my entire Jewish diet was Kiruv Judaism. Every lecture, every book, every rabbi; everything! I had a look at my first year philosophy essays and it is Rabbi Dessler that I quote. There is nothing wrong with this but it is an eye-opener.

The problem of giving an authentic voice to my beliefs is less about what they beliefs were, than how I would talk about them. Having only been exposed to kiruv Judaism and secular philosophy, I could only frame my beliefs in terms of things such as 'evidence', 'objectivity' and the like. Now, the very way I would talk about any beliefs- ones I agree or disagree with- is completely transformed.

So there's a dilemma. Either I manage to correctly adduce the content of my past beliefs, but in my new language. However, this wouldn't resemble my thought processes at the time, or how I would have verbally reasoned them out. Or I could try and mimic how I would have talked about Judaism at the time (i.e. about evidence). This, however, is at the great risk of just caricaturing myself and play-acting. What I now mean by 'evidence', would be different to what I was then trying to say using that word.

The piece I wrote argued that only through letters such as these could I get closest to what I actually believed. Only there would there be the best fit between philosophical 'thought' (i.e. what I believed) and the psychological 'thought' (i.e. what went through my head). If this doesn't make sense, don't worry. I deleted the passage and explanation. The reason being is that in the letter I don't really get to any coherent statement of belief. I flail around using words like 'evidence' without being able to express my point of view with them. I intuit that answers to my questions will bring me peace of mind without being able to formulate what kind of answers they would have to be.

Despite not giving me a positive statements of belief, the following are worth noting:

1. It is clear that what is at issue for me is not some 'fact' or other. Even when expressing myself in the way I did in my letter, I do not ask for confirmation of a historical event or some scientific proof. With all the references to "G-d says so", what is at issue when asking about the divinity of the Torah is a reason for its authority. What constitutes me accepting it as G-d's word?

2. Despite my wishes at that moment for absolute assurance, neither my observance before or after was grounded on one. Whilst always concerned about why I should accept it as divine, this didn't rely on first having all the answers.

3. Dropping the letter didn't mean dropping the issues. I had many subsequent discussions with R' Hodges trying to 'get at' what I was trying to say. I remember from these discussions that my concern wasn't in showing that G-d literally spoke the whole oral Torah, for example. In fact, the recourse to such an answer was precisely the wrong approach. Why would the authority of a halacha depend on Moses being literally told that it could be derived thus? Instead, I want to know what is it about halacha itself that means I should accept its particular outputs as divine?

I remember saying to him something like- and I really wish I could remember exactly what I meant by it- "If only you could tell me that particular halachot were a result of what the Rabbis did, and not from G-d, I could accept that they were something I have to do". He replied something like "I know what you are getting at but it is not something that I can say".

I don't think it was 'I know what you are saying, but I think you are bonkers and absolutely wrong'. No, instead he pointed me to a book : "Dynamics of Dispute: The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times" by Zvi Lampel. This shows that one need only accept that certain halachot were there 'potentially' in what Moses heard. The reason it was something R' Hodges "could not say" is because it would be the wrong formulation to say "the rabbis made it up"- I agree. Maybe the Rabbi, who I have tagged on this note, will remember more than me about these conversations.

So, anyway, the letter doesn't clear up all the issues of why and what I believed but does give me some food for thought

The letter, however, has conclusively cleared up one piece of information. I could never remember the number of my room in halls. Whenever I tried to think what it was, I would only ever come up with '613'. I thought this must have been 'wish-fulfillment' but couldn't get that number out of my mind. As it happens, the letter is addressed '609 Charles Morris Hall'.

Close but no cigar!

The Dark Knight

2009-03-03T01:40:00.001+01:00

Whilst wanting to see the latest Batman film, I was dreading it. How could Heath Ledger beat Jack Nicholson? Why does Batman suddenly develop a silly voice when he puts on the Bat Mask? What's with the Karate? And the car! I could go on. However, there was one reason more than all the others, why I thought it was going to be terrible.

That is, it got the unanimous praise for being "gritty and realistic". Usually, that is the death knell for a movie. It could mean one of two things. First, it could be like with the new James Bond films which are "gritty, realistic" and just downright awful. Take away anything interesting or "out of the ordinary" about the character; make the character an out-of-control but quite plain "hard man"; be a bit more graphic than normal; and make a convoluted or confusing plot that no-one understands.

The second way to be "gritty or realistic" is the way of any good drama by the time its gets to its fourth series or so. Like casualty, say. Starts off with interesting self-contained stories but eventually (to be more realistic) start to focus on the characters. We start to learn about their 'private lives', their troubles and the turbulent nature of their existence which has zilch to do with the present story. In other words, it becomes a soap. The main character can't do his job because he slept with his cat's second cousin-in-law and his son is playing truant. I don't care.

Thankfully, however, I did enjoy the film. The very reason I enjoyed the film was because it wasn't realistic in any shape or form. It was utterly unbelievable, very comic book and you couldn't have any characters identical to those in the real world.

It wasn't just entertainment though, as it's unrealism made it myth. It's story-in-a-vacuum (thank G-d) and distinct characters unbogged down by the 'realities' of life (once again, thank G-d), meant you were projecting onto a blank canvas. You only look at just the one element of reality and use this simplified model to ponder the ultimate thought experiments about our very own lives. The film asked "What happens when a person's liberty is absolute, without any control or order restricting it?" "Is it rational to choose to co-operate with a group who you don't trust to co-operate?" And many more. Whilst the 'medium' is unrealistic (as with all myths), the questions are extremely relevant. This is why, by the end, "The Dark Knight" could sound profound.

Of course, it's attempt at exploring such questions got things all wrong. Never mind.

The irrelevance of the "revelation argument"

2009-02-25T23:49:00.003+01:00

My reading over the last couple of days have been mired in troubling matters such as traditional rabbinical views about the relationship of our Torah text to what Moses did or not receive. I was going to blog about why, despite varying Orthodox views about what was written when and by whom, Masorti Judaism has seemed to given up on any relevant notion of "Torah min Hashamayim". In fact, I have meant to write about it since I heard (Masorti) Rabbi Wittenberg talk at Limmud, espousing views so close as to be indistinguishable from Reform. At the time, his views kept me up half the night. However, quite frankly, the rabbinic views themselves are giving me much too much of a headache to think clearly.

As such, I'll stick to much safer ground. Let us assume the whole Torah was dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai at the time he was first given the Ten Commandments. This, despite, being plenty of machloket in the mefarshim in last and this week's sidrot. For example, this week we have the classic disagreement about when Moses was given the commandments about the Mishkan. Do we go like Ramban and say that those instructions were given before the golden calf (i.e. when he got first set of luchot)? Or do we say like Rashi/ Rambam that they were given after the golden calf (i.e. second time around on Yom Kippur)? However, let us ignore that and assume he got the whole Torah at once. Then what?

Let us also assume that the 'revelation argument' the kiruv movements use, does prove one important point. Let us make what I feel to be an uncontroversial point. That is: if 600,000 men claimed to hear G-d's voice and weren't lying, and weren't deluded, then it actually was G-d they heard. Of course, it is the all-important italicised if which I'd usually object they haven't yet shown. However, let us concede the point as I don't have any paracetamol handy. Then what?

Here I want to take a liberty and concede two further points that no-one has actually made. To be more precise, they are ones I suspect that they hold but have been not articulated or argued for. They are: 1) if G-d wills something then it is something we should do and we don't just think he is a tyrant that holds a mountain over our head 2) we know that something is G-d's will if we first establish that we have heard it 'from G-d'. If no-one makes these assumptions, I apologise. However, if you don't, I fail to understand why 600,000 men merely hearing something from G-d, should make the slightest difference to me. But to avoid my head exploding its contents onto my creme sofa, I'll accept the points without argument. Then what?

"Then" so the interlocutor says smugly, "we have shown that the Torah is divine, is true and so we have to follow it". Phew!!! After making all those concessions, we have finally got to what we after. Or have we? The one problem with any of these arguments is the rather inconvenient fact of the Rabbinic tradition. Wouldn't it be so much simpler if we were all Karaites?

A widely-accepted opinion in the oral law that it was, in fact, only the first two commandments that the assembled masses heard from G-d. They couldn't hear the other commandments without dying and so had to learn them from Moses himself. At the time, they only heard the sound of the shofar and the rumblings of thunder etc. So, if the argument is about the testimony of thousands to the word of G-d, then not many of G-d's words got this testimony. In fact, Rambam intimates that Bnei Yisrael were only able to 'hear' these two because they are precisely the kind of commands they didn't need to hear from G-d. The prophet, he says, has no advantage over them in respect of knowing these are Divine commandments.

What then about the rest of Torah? How do I know it is an accurate representation of G-d's will? Why was it authoritative then and why is it so to this day? Why should we walk in G-d's ways and how does this text guide us in that? Not because we 'heard it from G-d' because we didn't. In fact, Rambam says the method of transmission between G-d and prophets is irrelevant anyway. The point we need to believe is that they had access to 'Divine Knowledge' and their writings are not merely their own ideas and conceptions. Point 2 above is backwards. We know something is 'from G-d' by knowing his will So why believe this? To this, the 'revelation argument' is simply irrelevant.

Which brings me back to Masorti. I challenged Rabbi Wittenberg at Limmud with the following point. Kiruv organisations assert that belief x has been proved true ,whilst you stand up and say that evidence has unfortunately proved this false. Yet, you're both so eager to prove a 'fact' about what people did or not hear, that you forget to say anything theologically or philosophically relevant about "Torah min hashamayim". What is the view that you are accepting or rejecting? What did the rabbis mean when they said that the Torah was ('literally') divine: what makes something divine and on what basis did they believe the Torah met this criteria? If you don't address this, you haven't shown anything. (He avoided the question)

I suppose the kiruv groups have one advantage over Masorti. At least they believe in the divinity of the Torah even if they have given me no reason why they should.

The confessions of a "Neo-Chassid": Part 1

2009-02-23T04:41:00.001+01:00

As some of you may know, I have an ambivalence about all things mystical. Maybe, however, this will surprise you as I tend to get a bit type-cast. When I told my old housemate (only half jokingly)that if I were to label myself it would have to be “neo-chassid” he would laugh and basically accuse me to telling fibs.

He: “You know you are not, you don't have a Chassidic bone in your body, you are always making objections”

I: “I only object when they are led to talk nonsense”

He: “But they can’t help but talk nonsense”

I: “Often, perhaps. But necessarily? Maybe. I don’t know but I hope not”

He, as an exceedingly “Modern Orthodox” Jew, can’t necessarily assign any value to such pursuits as mussar, Chassidut or the simple spirituality and faith. Modern Orthodoxy tends to be quite elitist focusing, as it does, on Talmud Torah, the pursuit of philosophy and other rational endeavours. For some, it is very emotionally and intellectually satisfying. However, Modern Orthodoxy doesn’t fare well amongst the masses which, on the whole, leads to one of two outcomes. One is that they will start pursuing a meaningless Orthopraxy simply on the basis “this is how things are done”. The other is that they will find more spiritually satisfying options in the form of Chareidi Judaism, Zen Buddhism or non-Orthodox forms of Judaism.

Whilst I may sociologically be a Modern Orthodox Jew, I cannot on principle share this rationalist vision of Judaism. I couldn't live the ascetic life of a philosopher, such as a Rambam, or a Brisker such as the Solovei(t)chiks (both Chareidi and non-Chareidi versions). I am not the 'disembodied head' that so many ancient and new rabbis call upon you to be. I should live Judaism in the real world, in every act, with all my faculties. Why should I see G-d as completely (and only) transcendent, or see the only form of Devekut as being in text-study, or live wholly inside the a-historical world of the bet midrash? Instead, I should see G-d as intimately involved in my life, become close to Him through performance of the mitzvot and see G-d's redemptive action through history.

The following is a wonderful description, from 'The Wind in the Willows' of the mystical experience, the having of which is the pre-requisite for religion making sense:

“Then suddenly the Mole felt a great Awe fall upon him, an awe that turned his muscles to water, bowed his head, and rooted his feet to the ground. It was no panic terror- indeed he felt wonderfully at peace and happy- but it was an awe that smote him and held him and, without seeing, he knew it could only mean that some August presence was very, very near. With difficulty he turned to look for his friend [Ratty], and saw him at his side cowed, stricken, and trembling violently. And still there was utter silence in the populous bird-haunted branches around them; and still the light grew and grew."

In those moments of inspiration we feel G-d's nearness and meaning pervading creation. We are both at peace and simultaneously trembling. We feel both love of G-d and fear of G-d. We feel like the pinnacle of creation and like a speck of dust in an infinite universe.

We all get these moments of inspiration. I do when I look up at the stars on a summers night. When I do so, I am looking directly into the past and at the creation of the world. I'm seeing the star as it was millions upon millions of years ago, as it has taken the light that long to get here. It may have gone supernova by now and not even exist any more! This fills me with awe and wonder for the universe and makes me want to shout:

"The heavens recount the glory of G-d and the firmament declares the work of His hands... There need be no speech, nor words; their voice is heard without it... where the world of man ends, their words speak, 'He has sent a tent in them for the orb of the sun'"

As I say, everyone has these experiences. Richard Dawkins is right that an atheist can still experience wonder at the universe. It is not, in itself, a cognitive endeavour an so is open to all. However, the key point is how we respond to such an experience. How is that experience translated? What are its consequences? Whilst the above experience of creation is the start of a religion it is not the end. We must bear in mind that:

"He who is walking by the way and studies and breaks off his study and exclaims: 'How beautiful is this tree! 'How fine is that field!' is regarded as he had sinned against his own soul"

I will expound upon that quote in a later post in this series. However, at present it means we must examine the link between the experience of creation and the outcome of revelation. Having experience this awe, are we led to accept that "the ordinances of G-d are truth, they are eternally just" or do we thereafter build a Golden Calf? Will we adequately express it in our prayer, or will we simply interpret the experience how we want? Can we accurately represent it in our philosophy or will we simply talk nonsense?

One response I believe is correct is the one emphasised by chassidut. When we have that experience we feel 'close' to G-d and ultimately, we should experience this 'heavenly fire' the whole time. However, this 'heavenly fire only resides on an altar made from the ground' (so Matisyahu sings). As such, we should elevate both ourselves and the physical world through all our actions. We should see the G-dliness in all things. The whole world should be utilised in G-d's service. This way the experience described above is not just a transitory inspiration but is perpetuated through everything that we do.

III

The chassidic movement started in protest to the elitism of Judaism at the time. The 'few' were learning 24/7 whilst the 'many' were completely disconnected from Judaism. The mitnagdim were incredibly ascetic- such as fasting Monday and Thursdays- which left them out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. The lay folk were liable to be swept along with false messiahs such as Shebbati Zvi and the rabbinic scholars were unable to give political leadership when this dream fell apart.

Against this background, the Chassidim provided a religion that was much more relevant, more meaningful and more accessible through people's everyday lives. One could be ecstatic in prayer and sing, dance and cartwheel. One could find meaning in your work and other 'mundane' activities. One could experience G-d through the world. As the Ba'al Shem Tov said, it is perfectly acceptable to admire the beauty of a woman so long as that 'leads you back to the source'. Amen to that! The popularisation of Judaism was naturally going to import popular superstitions into a pristine Judaism. However, one should easily assent to their overall vision of Judaism.

These days it is almost impossible to tell between the chassidic and chareidi worlds. The chareidi world has imported certain superstitious beliefs of the chassidim, and the chassidim have adopted the ascetic lifestyle of the chareidim. Absolutely, the Vilna Gaon was right to insist that the they should fully keep with halacha and not be 'lax with their prayer times'. I am trebly perplexed as anyone by the concept of an 'aveira lishma'. However, this shouldn't have meant that it is forced to adopt a lifestyle only appropriate for the 'few' than for the 'many'. G-d should be experienced through every aspect of a person's life as was the original intention of chassidut.

The above has partly explained why I view 'Chassidut' as a hashkafa one should hold, as opposed to rationalist Judaism. This may beg the question for some of you as to where I stand vis-a-vis rationalist philosophers such as Rambam and Soloveitchik. As far as you were aware, these were major influences on me and I always quote them. This is absolutely true. You probably inferred from this that I was a rationalist, which may leave you confused now.

The full answer will be forthcoming in future posts. Suffice it to say here that just because I'm not a rationalist, doesn't give any license whatsoever to be irrational. Where one has to philosophise or intellectualise Judaism, one should do so like Rambam and Soloveitchik. Such intellectualisation has to be done in somewhat foreign terms and should at least use people who know how to use these terms! However, intellectualisation isn't the goal of Judaism. We shouldn't become 'disembodied heads' but instead, the end point requires consummation in the world.

Come back to see future posts where I discuss:

How one can talk about a 'mystical experience'
Why certain chassidic or kabbalistic beliefs taught today result in nonsense
The appropriate context for such beliefs.
The difference between rabbinic and pre-rabbinic Judaism (as evidence by the Fast of Tevet) and how this relates to a Chassidic Hashkafa
How the views of Rambam, Soloveitchik and Hirsh relate this hashkafa
Why, in galut, I don't think I could ever accept the haskafa that I strive to accept.

One of the greatest Jewish philosophers of the last century, Franz Rosensweig, used a very simple device in his book "Star of Redemption". On three on the points he laid out three key elements: G-d, man and the world. On the intervening prongs he laid out the relations between them. The relation between G-d and the world is creation; the relation between G-d and man is revelation; and the relation between man and the world is redemption.

I think this is a correct characterisation: redemption is a matter of you and the world being correctly aligned and in harmony. It is one where you have the 'correct vision' with regard to the world and act accordingly; and also where the world is such that this is possible. This relationship is the chassidic-like one I am discussing. Unfortunately, we will see that in a pre-redeemed world, we cannot artificially manufacture this relationship without making errors regarding creation or revelation. Thus, while in a pre-redeemed world I could not be chassidic, it gives the most sublime notion of what redemption itself consists in.

What is Hamas?

2009-02-16T20:47:00.001+01:00

Theft is Hamas. Murder is Hamas. Taking women simply because they are 'fair' is Hamas. Brutality to creatures with inferior strength to your own is Hamas. Eating meat (outside of sacrificial use) is technically Hamas.

Hamas, in a funny turn of events, is a halachic category that encompasses all the sins above:

This going after something which is beyond one's jurisdiction and ontic sphere is called hamas. Hamas is the universal act of interfering with somebody else's right and prerogatives, usurping something that is not mine, the act of overreaching oneself and reaching out to the non-self. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 33)

And what is the biggest act of Hamas?

Murder is hamas, for if I rob another person of his life which was granted to him by G-d... [he] takes illegitimate possession of divine rights. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 43)

Now, names are certainly signs in identifying the spiritual characteristic of the thing named. This leads us to ponder which organisation we know whose acts fall under the sin that is Hamas?

What I hate most about the Credit Crunch

2009-02-13T00:53:00.001+01:00

.....The Bloody Adverts.

It's been going on for months now. It started before people talked the problem into existence.

"Beat the credit crunch"
"Come to our credit crunch supper"
"Credit Crunch Credit Card"
"Buy a bed for £20,000 when usually it'd be £10,000 just to show the credit crunch where it's at".

If I hear just one more credit crunch advert- and if annoying adverts are a justifiable reason to commit suicide- then I may commit suicide. If it were simply done on utility, I'd have to find a method of death less painful than listening to the radio.

And on another note... buzz off Darwin and die. What has this to do with the credit crunch? Nothing, but he is blocking our airwaves.

Please not Bibi, Please no, Please

2009-02-11T00:17:00.002+01:00

The title sounds like it should be read in a mock-baby voice. Whilst not the intention when deciding to write about this, it is indeed an uncontrollable cry. My response, rather than specifically being rational, is at base a simple reaction to the a gross unfairness of a world in which Benjamin Netanyahu could lead our Jewish, democratic state? Maybe having such a leader will, Chas v'Salom, precipitate the end of such a state itself.

It is an unfortunate side effect of 'proportional representation' that in a deeply fragmented society, the winners of a general election are not necessarily the winners of the elections! The leader of the party that wins the most votes will not necessarily be able to form a government. In this case, Livni and Kadima may win the most seats in parliament but will end up in opposition. There are so many parties on so many issues for so many interest groups, that even the main parties will only get 30 or so seats, out of 120 in the Knesset. You only then get into government through coalition with many, many of the smaller parties. There is no guarantee that the main party will, and ample evidence they will not, be able to do this.

These small parties get the deciding vote as to who leads and therefore, proportional representation leads to disproportional influence of these groups. As such, you may doubly end up not getting what you voted for. Firstly, the group that most people want end up in opposition. Secondly, even if those you voted for get into government, you will not be able to recognise them post-election. To get the smaller parties to agree to join them, you basically have to cede your policies to theirs. They often get their votes on the basis of a single issue and this is what the main party will have to cede some ground on. Often this will have benign or amusing effect. Only in Israel could "The Pensioners Party" have such sway over governmental policy!

However, in this case it leads to Bibi being PM!! He is the most able to form a coalition as he the most willing to give up on any principles he has to gain and hold on to power. One thing that this will mean, although I won't go into detail here, is an a major step backwards from the peace process. This isn't do with the fact that he is 'right-wing' as it often only those on the 'right' that can make peace. Nor is it specifically to with his views. If it suited him, he would try make peace by going back on his word about a United Jerusalem in a second. The problem is, is that he will have to go into coalition with the possibly racist Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu. Their minority view- one which hardly anyone accepts or voted for- will have a disproportional influence. It will only serve to amplify Netanyahu's hawkish tendencies.

However, in the short term, his policies will not be all that different from anyone else's. They would all continue the disastrous policy of maintaining the status quo with regards to settlements until such a peace deal is made. Such a policy leads to the slow but sure death of the Zionist dream. Netanyahu may (sadly) put off the surgery but everyone will be dealing with the symptoms of the illness in the same way.

More worryingly about Bibi becoming PM in the short term, is his economic policies. With all the attention on the recent war in Gaza, people have forgotten about social issues. These are things which a) Netanyahu is more principled about (for the worse) and b) where policies will have more immediate effects. Moreover, Netanyahu already has a record in this area and people know (but have forgotten or ignored) what he is capable of. This, more than anything else, puts into doubt the building of a Jewish society.

However, rather than saying anything myself, I will just copy an article by Rabbi Michael Melchior who heads the only religious party in Israel- Meimad. Yes, there are many parties with rabbis in or have the word 'religious' in their title. But they are just one more interest group trying to secure a) money for their yeshivot b) a hawkish foreign policy c) exemption from army service d) control over the institutional Bet Din and Chief Rabbinate etc. Who though is fighting for a Jewish character of society? This is what Meimad, founded by Rav Yehuda Amital, tries to do. Meimad is an acronym for "Jewish State, Democratic State".

Here is what R' Melchior said in 2004 in relation to Bibi's economic policies (originally from Ha'aretz):

"The group of children that gathered around us seemed highly amused. Some of the children held out syringes they had collected n a nearby yard, and demonstrated how to inject drugs "like dults." Others cursed the state and everything to do with it. It is hard to blame them: It is not pleasant seeing a closed community center. Near the gravel road the sewage flowed freely, and the neighbor from the nearby house told us about the complex "ATM" network or selling drugs, which is open for business there from the afternoon to the next morning.

Presumably, the million Israelis that went abroad this summer will not encounter such a scene. It is hiding across the road, two kilometers from Ben-Gurion Airport. During take off and landing it is hard to detect the squalid hovels, the dirt and drugs of the town of Lod, but to its residents it is a painful, depressing everyday reality.

In recent years there have been serious attempts to change the situation and improve the town's image. But just when it seemed that the town was on the right course and had a chance, some of the authorities stopped their activity and now the collapse and destruction loom closer than ever. Israel, which defines itself as "a Jewish Democratic state," has become one of the most immoral states in the Western world.

In one field Israel could win a gold medal, although not in Athens. It is in the income gaps between society's top tier and the lower tiers. These gaps compromise human dignity, and cast grave doubt on our right to be called a Jewish democratic society.

It is not a decree of fate. Only a few years ago Israel was at the top of the education pyramid. The Israeli health system also won a worldwide reputation, even though the economic situation was worse than it is today.

We live in a society in which a million and a quarter people - 40 percent of them working people - are below the poverty line. This is a society that abandons 366,000 of its children-at-risk and throws them into the street; a society that treats its foreign workers like animals; a society that despises its elderly and sends them to rummage through the garbage. It is a society, according to information given the Knesset Committee for Children's Rights, where in the absence of standards, a social worker has to devote an average of two minutes to a family in distress. It is a society among the leaders in the world trafficking in women. Such a society is neither Jewish nor democratic.

The magic solution that the Israeli government has found for this situation is bulimic privatization, taken from the economic school of the finance minister. In recent years Israeli society has been privatizing itself to death. The damages of this dangerous trend are obvious in every direction. Thus, for example, Jewish communities abroad were enlisted to subsidize summer camps for needy children. The days go by, a year passes, and in time fashions change. The amount of money communities gave this year dwindled significantly - the number of children at camps was reduced this summer by two-thirds. By means of the privatization, the government of Israel is washing its hands of its minimal social responsibilities. In the best tradition of the shtetl of the Jewish community in exile, the government leaves education, health and welfare to the mercies f the rich philanthropists.

True, charity has always been the main concern of the Jewish community. But this is not what the State of Israel was meant to be. The Jewish state is supposed to and ought to take care of all its citizens, not only the rich ones, so that they can give their children a good education, and provide all the citizens with health and social services that would preserve their welfare and dignity. Instead of a rule of justice, a rule of charity is being established, based on alms collection and mutual back scratching.

In the beggar state there is no place for single mothers, elderly or handicapped people. The philanthropists prefer to give their money to grandiose marble buildings, or ambulances with their names inscribed on them. In the beggar state the Knesset enacts a "feeding law," which ensures that a small percentage of the school children (who of course are immediately branded with wretched poverty) can have one warm meal a day. A considerable part of this law - hard to believe, but a majority of the Knesset members decided this - will be financed by philanthropists. And what will happen when they prefer to direct their contributions toward other causes?

Beyond the immediate risk of the collapse of the education, health and welfare services, those who need them - the majority of the population - are losing their voice. Where there is privatization, there is no responsible minister, and consequently the children at risk no longer have a mouth at the cabinet table.

Those in the upper class can wait two more years for the tax benefits which the magician Benjamin Netanyahu promised them. Instead of reducing the taxes, the government would have done better to direct those NIS 2.5 billion to the health services, the single mothers and the children at risk. Had it done so, perhaps the old couple who "thanked" Netanyahu before committing suicide due to their economic distress could have thanked him in person. Had it done so, the government could have boasted that it was heading a Jewish, democratic state."

Songs, role-play and some weird Neil-isms

2009-02-05T02:41:00.001+01:00

I'm slightly odd- I know- but I won't play a song that I cannot imagine writing and/or performing. Still in my childish world of role play, I imagine that I'm the greatest, most varied and most musically talented song-writer of all time. G-d forbid, that anyone actually has to hear me sing. Whilst I may have somewhat of a heavenly, angelic quality; this is not something that is manifested in my voice. Even when I role play (and no, not with a hairbrush in front of the mirror), I don't sing out-loud because that would bring me back to reality with a bump!

Imagining to be a popstar is not- I dare say- an unusual thing. However, in my case it rather restricts what music I can listen to. Most people, I imagine, will be able to see themselves singing a song if they happen to like it. However, I have to take into account what my grandma would think were she to see me on TV, whether by singing it I'd be 'keeping it real' and also, whether it'd be consonant with my public image as a kippa-wearing Jew (obv. only performing at a festival where I wouldn't be responsible for mixed dancing).

Given this, you will understand that I was absolutely gutted when a couple of years ago, my housemate told me that Hotel California was an addiction to going to a brothel etc. I just could no longer sing it in good faith. There are some songs, (e.g. by Meatloaf or The Streets), that aren't morally bad per se, and are more akin to storytelling than personal confessions, but where I couldn't personally justify writing those lyrics. In such cases, I can get away with telling the adoring crowd (every time I sing it) that I wrote it before I became religious and should be taken in the right spirit. However, if I judge that the content of a song is actually morally wrong, I could not see it. So no more Hotel California.

As it turns out my friend was wrong about what it meant, or at least he wasn't right.. At some point later I was told that it was actually about a drug rehabilitation centre. Before writing this I wanted to check that this was true, and found this probably wasn't the actual meaning either. It might not have one. When asked Don Henley said the following (two different occasions):

It was really about the excesses of American culture and certain girls we knew. But it was also about the uneasy balance between art and commerce

It's a song about the dark underbelly of the American Dream, and about excess in America which was something we knew about

Okay, so something about excess and art and commerce and something and something else. Weirder interpretations than the brothel one have tied the song down to advocating a particular variety of satanism. The truth is that the individual lyrics probably don't mean a whole lot and if they do, I luckily don't know that meaning.

Of course, there is still one obstacle I need to cross. It does need to mean something for me in order to sing it and this meaning must 'keep it real'. Given the 'death of the author', it doesn't matter what was going though the songwriter's mind at the time. It only mattered above 'what the song was about' because I couldn't then see the song in a different way. The words seemed inevitably to bring a particular thought to mind. When a song is a blank canvas, however, I can then give the song a plausible meaning depending on the words.

There are different ways of doing this, of course. Sometimes it just requires a slash. Take Muse's "A Dying Atheist", change it to "A Dying A/Theist" and then the song can have its pretty obvious pshat. Others require choosing the 'target' of the song such as with The Arctic Monkey's "Perhaps vampire is a bit strong but..." Which group of big-shots who pretend to stand by us but spend their time "thinking about things, but not actually doing those things" do you know?

Sometimes, these changes require a bit of creative storytelling and midrashic interpretation to get the right fit between words and meaning. However, sometimes you, your meaning and the words merge effortlessly into one another. Linkin Park's "Numb" and me are existentially bound together. It was me who was meant to write it. I have considered changing the name of the song to 'Imitatio Dei' and placing those words where they sing "Caught in the Undertow". However, those are mere quibbles. I have spent many a 4 minutes bellowing this at G-d, expressing exactly what I sometimes want to say at him.

So my music collection is of a reasonable size after all

Rabbinic fashion and the art of (davka) (not specifically) looking frum

2009-02-02T03:49:00.001+01:00

"Moses' streimel must have been darn inconvenient in the desert. Anyway, he was very brave to risk it crossing the Reed Sea; a bit of spray and that'd be £4000 down the toilet"

It's this kind of Biblical Criticism that should keep us good Orthodox Jews far away from academia and their heretical ways. You have been warned of the misleading moral axioms, and mocking ways, that underlie a study of the history of Judaism. Even having taken on this criticism, we must be astounded by the none-too-Orthodox ways of the past.

This is so, at least in the manner of dress. Examine old photos of rabbonim and you will not find a Borsalino in sight. You are far more likely to find turbans and ottoman-style shoes than you are to find shtreimals and stockings. Whilst we- today- see a vast uniformity in the frum velt; the old photos show far more individuality and variety than we would ever expect. These days we open the 'rabbi page' of Hamodia and know exactly what to expect- the same as last week (Purim excluded, of course). One could reprint the same pictures, change the captions, change 'bris' to 'chasuna' and one wouldn't notice the difference.

Sure, the Rabonim in the old photos do not look like a shmock like myself in jeans and a T-shirt. They would endeavour to look smart and respectable and thus, distinguish themselves from the general run of men. There is no better of example of this than the picture of the Rebbe below in his pressed Western suits and stylish creme hat! It is certainly the case that were Rambam to time travel to the modern world, he would be far more comfortable speaking to a chareidi person dressed as they are, than to myself in my casual clothes. This is a point ably made in "One above and seven below: a consumer's guide to Orthodox Judaism from the perspective of the Chareidim" of which I read an extract in Hamodia. This indeed is an imperative I should take to dress in a way such that I would be happy to meet the King of Kings.

However, what Yechezkel Hirshman (the author of the aforementioned book) may not have emphasized is that this gives us no reason to dress in a chareidi or chassidic (as opposed to modern) way. There is no need to davka look Jewish. There is no reason dress in a Jewish way- a universal style that transcends culture, country or time. As is often pointed out, this Jewish way is simply the style of Polish noblemen of a few hundred years ago.

The Rabbis of old presumably followed the edict 'do not walk after the ways of the gentiles'- they didn't follow every fashion and especially kept far away from ones with relation to idolatrous practices. However, this didn't mean that they should davka dress differently to the surrounding culture. In fact, they may very well- like Hirsch- have had some derech eretz and intentionally dressed in the (respectable) manner of the time. See Emden's Renaissance clothing; Hirsch and British Chief Rabbi's clergyman clothing, the Rebbe's fashionable French ware and the Sdei Chemed's Ottoman finery.

You will too find- although I haven't reproduced them here- that even when a Rebbe of a particular chassidic group wore what you would expect them to, there Chassidim do not. The chassidim themselves (in the 30s) wore Western clothing. Why then the change? Why, for example, did the Rebbe (although he wasn't Rebbe at the time) go from a guy known to the Seridei Aish as the "well dressed young man at the back of my lectures" to dressing in the manner we know him to have done?

This change is one that has gone hand-in-hand with a change in Judaism itself and its attitude to the outside world. Gone are the glory days when three Gedolei Yisrael- The Rav (Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik), The Rebbe (Rabbi Schneerson) and Rav Hutner- could all be found attending the same lecture at the University of Berlin. Three great rabbis- three great friends- who went on to lead three very different (and sometimes antagonistic) kinds of Judaism, all to be found in the same lecture hall of a secular university!! Who would have thought? Sure, this was pre-Holocaust and a very different kind of world. Plus, no doubt the Rebbe had good reasons for his decisions. Only through securing a strong personal identity could his group have the strength to go out in the world in the way they have done. Still, it's a great shame.

Seperate? Judaism has always been this. Seperatist? Well, there's a question.

---------

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson- The Seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe. Leading the Lubavitch movement in an era when it has become the most inclusive, most extensive and geographically expansice chassidic group ever. He is the living/the temporarily dead/bechezkat/hopefully the/ a false/ a failed/ never claimed to be (delete as appropriate) messiah.

The picture on the left situates him perfectly in early twentieth century France in the "Jardin du Luxembourg". The picture on the right, I think, was taken in Berlin. Very stylish

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch- Gaon of the 19th Century who created a towering commentary on Chumash, tehillim and Siddur; as well as creating a monumental philosophical work on the reasons for the commandments. A critique of both rationalism and Kabbalah, he took a keen interest in both the grammatical and ethical aspects of Judaism.

A proponent of "Torah im derech eretz" and creator of a "Neo-Orthodoxy" he was a Religious Humanist. Interestingly, despite his written testimony to the contrary he only believed in studying secular subjects for 'parnasa' and that 'Torah im derech eretz' was a concession to his time.

He has a striking resemblance to a young athletic Henry VIII. However, his morality and spiritual grandeur was far in excess of any known monarch.

Rabbi Samuel Luzatto (The Shadal)- Expert talmudist, grammatician, and poet of the Nineteenth Century. He wrote aessays, Hebrew Grammar, a commentary of the Targum, a collection of piyyutim, a commentary on the Petntateuch and many of the prophets, as well as many essay on topics such as Kabbalah.

He was a fierce proponent of the style of Biblical and Talmudical Judaism as opposed to the more philosophical understandings of Rambam and Ibn Ezra. He was the first from a traditional perspective to question authorship of Kohelet and The Zohar.

He looks very gentrified!

Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai ("The Chida")- Student of the Ohr ha- Chaim, he was a strict talmudist and kabbalist of the 18th Century. His scholarship encompassed the whole range of Judaism and earned him the right to be emissary of the small Jewish community in the Land of Israel. This meant he was a great Jewish traveller of the day taking him places such as Tunisia, Britain and Amsterdam.

His most famous contribition was his Shem ha-Gedolim, inspired by an interest in the history of Rabbinic literature. The work is a scientific travel guide of his journeys, recording information about all the works and their authors of all the places he visited. There is valuable information that would otherwise be lost.

Shimon Bar Yochai- One of the greatest and most famous talmudic rabbis whose oral tradition was later incorporated in The Zohar in the 13th Century. As such, he is seen as a major torch bearer of kabbalah.

After many years in a cave with his son, he came out and almost destroyed the world due to his insistence that people should be in kollel full-time. G-d sent him back to the cave for another year to mature. After this, he went through some more lessons in order to answer a question that eerily preceeds Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us?" scene.

He is included here, not because the picture is an accurate portrayal of how he looked or what clothes he wore. Instead, it reflects the attitudes to fashion of the artists at the time in which it was drawn.

Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan- info to follow

Rabbi Herman Adler- info to follow

Rabbi Jacob Emden- info to follow

Rabbi Lipschitz (the Tiferet Yisrael)- info to follow

Rabbi Marcus Adler- info to follow

Sdei Chemed- info to follow

David Milliband and I

2009-01-23T16:37:00.001+01:00

Today I hate a private meeting with David Milliband- the foreign secretary. Well, not quite private. My good friend Dave, myself and about 59 other people. He talked about Israel and such like to important communal people!! I was so enamoured with his responses that I can't remember a single word he said. Either that or it was before 9 in the morning and I was a zombie. (It's something to tell the parents at any rate.)

On the whole, the answers which he gave were very politique and thus, friendly and positive about Israel. On the other hand, he was honest and candid. So, for example, he clearly said in response to a question: "I don't think Hamas has been politically weakened by the Israeli incursion, and I don't think Mahmoud Abas has been strengthened".

Example 2: he said that absolutely, allegations of Israeli war crimes should be fully investigated just as Britain are constantly investigated for such crimes in other Afghanistan. That democracies such as Israel and Britain should be held to higher standards than terrorists is a good thing. It is our values- Britain and Israel's values- that make us what we are.

Other than this, I can't remember much. I do remember feeling sorry for the older people in the room. Standing there, all I could think of "oooooh... ain't he young?" He looked very good for his age and not a single gray hair. If I was thinking that, what must everyone else been thinking?

Hannah's Song

2009-01-19T23:50:00.001+01:00

I was searching through my old files and I found the first ever song I composed on my music programme. It is very cheesy, very badly sung and has a boring base line, but quite cool nonetheless. Written for a friend having missed her birthday. Here is the unimaginatively titled "Hannah's Song":

Primark: Too good to be true?

2009-01-13T01:39:00.001+01:00

I don't like ethical decisions. They take me away from the path I admire the most... that of least resistance.

This is a problem given that I shop at Primark a lot. Maybe it's because I'm tight with money or maybe because I'm a man of simple tastes. Whilst it's probably a mix of the two, I hope it is more the latter. What is the point of getting something fancy when you are going to look back in ten years time "Why was I wearing that?". Why go for something that is five times the price just because it has a brand name on it? I suppose an argument can be brought that other shops are better quality. However, just like M & S vegetables, they may be better but not five times better, so don't be a snob. Also, no matter how good the quality is, my trousers will always develop a hole in the crotch. It's natural law.

So Primark it is.... or is it?As the saying goes: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is". If the clothes are that cheap, there must be something wrong.

However, just imagine that you have just had a whole menagerie of Jewish festivals, you are coming up to the last one and you have no shirts that are simultaneously both clean and dry. Never happened, of course, but just imagine. Now whilst in general you don't need a new shirt, you just want to buy something cheaply and quickly to avoid looking like a vagabond and vagrant in synagogue. Here, old adages fly out the window and plenty of reasons come to reassure me:

They probably have automated machines which cut down on costs
Plus... they must buy in bulk which'll make them inexpensive
Reasonable quality clothes are bound to be that cheap if they are part of last year's line and other shops will no longer stock them.
They explicitly state on their website that they ensure all their suppliers are ethical
They are regulated and so wouldn't be able to get away with unethical practices

So go on then. Let's get a nice plain shirt for a few pounds. After all, G-d will probably love me more in a Primark shirt than if I turn up in a "Shit Happens" T-Shirt.

Today however, Primark- again- have been found to source from unethical suppliers.

Once before they were found to have imported clothes made in Indian slums where children laboured in poor conditions. At the time, Primark investigated promptly and decided to stop using these factories once they were aware of the problem. This is exemplary company policy- and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. Companies make mistakes and it would be unfair to accuse them of knowing what is happening. This is especially so if they have done everything they can- such as send out auditors- to find out if the suppliers are kosher. The mark of morality is not that you don't make mistakes but that you say sorry and correct the mistake instantly.

Yet, today BBC news reports in this link about their undercover report into conditions at a TNS Knitwear factory, who make clothes for Primark. The workers get paid as little as £3.50 an hour (a long way below the minimum wage) and for as much as twelve hours a day, seven days a week. All the money gets paid out in cash and there is no paperwork. This is just as well because many of the employees wouldn't be allowed on the books. Amongst the workers are illegal immigrants and people claiming unemployment benefit.

Once again, I'm sure there was no intentional wrongdoing on Primark's part. They are part of the 'Ethical Trading Initiative' and they have a precise code of conduct suppliers should follow. However, it makes one very uneasy that, rather this unethical practice being detected by their procedures, the scandal only emerged after an undercover investigation. It makes one wonder how many other dodgy suppliers they have on their books.

III

I'm not usually one to advocate boycotts of anyone or anything. They are ineffectual, firstly, because unless everyone boycotts them, then your action is merely symbolic. No-one is going to listen to your voice and you won't be able to affect change. Secondly, even if everyone did boycott a particular firm and they went bust, what would that achieve? You will be scapegoating someone without doing anything about the problem. It's like the police arresting an insignificant drug dealer when a) they haven't cut off the supply and b) there are plenty of insignificant drug dealers to take their place.

In this case, the public will have got on their high horse about Primark, thought how wonderfully moral they are, and move on to the next cheap retailer. That is, until they have been caught in an act of indiscretion, at which point you have another scapegoat.

No, given that such retailing isn't on its way out soon, the best thing for regulators to do is help tighten up Primark's procedures and to help them enforce the policies they already have . The right thing for the kind of people that will continue to bargain-shop is: demand that wrongs are righted, and then shop in a place committed to an ethical policy (which Primark seem to be).

However, having said this, I will boycott Primark products and stop buying there. This will be coupled with not buying from similar stores. I realised that this incident hasn't taught me anything about Primark per se, but about this kind of trading in general. When you look for the cheapest mass-produced products from anywhere in the world, you are bound to run into trouble.

To use another drug metaphor, no matter how careful you are, if you are going to buy your ecstasy from a man in the club, you'll eventually end up with a dog pill. No matter how good Primark's procedures are, when dealing with these types of firms, you are going to run into unethical suppliers. While there is still a demand for these clothes, then these scandals will always arise. My boycott then, one which ideally others would follow, is to stop going for financial shortcuts. Go to a shop and pay a bit more money, but where you know the worker's will get a fair deal. Cut off the demand. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Given that I'm in a metaphor mood, let's use one last one to sum up my position...

With certain foods, checking the ingredients and spotting a green 'v' on the packet is no guarantee that the product is kosher. It's not even a guarantee that it's vegetarian! If you want the hescher, you have to pay for the hescher.