Living Through History

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

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.

Some Yom Kippur Sources

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

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?

I

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.

II

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

A few thoughts on creationism inspired by Wittgenstein's philosophy

I

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.

II

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

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!

I

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”.

II

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.