Do non-Jewish actions count for anything?

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"

It Just Don’t Sound Frum: 1

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…..

Who ‘really’ believes in the Chanukah miracle?

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!

Daily Dose of (Nebach) Heresy

I

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?

II

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.]

IV

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.

So THIS is loshon Horah?

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

The irrelevance of the "revelation argument"

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.

Do you sense that Orthodox Jewish life is...

Do you sense that Orthodox Jewish life is:

• narrowing its intellectual horizons?
• adopting ever more extreme halakhic positions?
• encouraging undue conformity in dress, behavior and thought?
• fostering an authoritarian system that restricts creative and independent thinking?
• growing more insulated from non-Orthodox Jews and from society in general?

Do you think that Orthodox Jewish life should be:

• intellectually alive, creative, inclusive?
• open to responsible discussion and diverse opinions?
• active in the general Jewish community, and in society as a whole?
• engaged in serious and sophisticated Jewish education for children and adults?
• committed to addressing the halakhic and philosophic problems of our times, drawing on the wisdom and experience of diverse Jewish communities throughout history?

------

The latter is the aim of http://www.jewishideas.org/- a website and journal set up by Rabbi Marc D. Angel. Rabbi Angel is an ex-president of Rabbinical Council America; the largest group of Orthodox rabbis in the States. Thanks to Zak for pointing this out to me as this website is full of interesting articles.

I wouldn't agree with many of the people who write articles for this website. Most of them are part of the 'YCT' crowd. YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) is a very crusading Modern Orthodox yeshiva, which is to the 'left' of Yeshiva University (YU- the flagship Modern Orthodox institution). The perception is that over the years YU has undergone a 'slide to the right' and becoming ever-more chareidi. Halakha has got far more stringent with historically unfounded and unwarranted stringencies becoming the norm. Intellectual thought has been stifled with the 'Artscroll revolution' taking hold there and censoring a whole part of our mesorah. In other words, Modern Orthodoxy is dying and they are there to reinstate it. Whilst I agree in principle, many of their halachic innovations are very radical and avant-garde!

However, a lot of what they say makes sense- especially stuff on conversion. Where conversions (e.g. done by religious zionist, R' Haim Druckman) are being retroactively annuled causing many more violations of halacha than they solve; where in England you have to live in London or Manchester otherwise you are not allowed to convert even if you are going to be fully observant elsewhere; where in America, new Rabbinical Council of America unnecessarily strict guidelines have come out which tie you to a particular routine (nothing to do with halacha itself) for years with the fear that if you don't, your conversion won't count..... a sea-change needs to happen.

Modern Orthodox Jews are being pulled into the model of the 'saved' and the 'damned' with halacha being paskened in such a way that it only applies to a small sect--- with you only being able to convert if you join this sect. And all this on a false view about the halachot of conversion and what it is for a convert to 'accept upon himself the mitzvot'.

But I'll let you read all about that!