Religion deepens the problems

I read this quote of Rav Soloveitchik overhere and found it very inspiring:

The error of modern representatives of religion is that they promise their congregants the solution to all the problems of life − an expectation which religion does not fulfill. Religion, on the contrary, deepens the problems but never intends to solve them. The grandeur of religion lies in its mysterium tremendum its magnitude and its ultimate incomprehensibility. To cite one example, we may adduce the problem of theodicy, the justification of evil in the world, that has tantalized the inquiring mind from time immemorial till this last tragic decade. The acuteness of this problem has grown for the religious person in essence and dimensions. When a minister, rabbi, or priest attempts to solve the ancient question of Job’s suffering through as sermon or lecture, he does not promote religious ends, but, on the contrary, does them a disservice. The beauty of religion with its grandiose vistas reveals itself to men, not in solutions but in problems, not in harmony but in the constant conflict of diversified forces and trends.

The beauty of God is experienced as holiness, as the mysterium magnum, ineffable and unattainable, awesome and holy (nora ve-kadosh), as something that transcends everything comprehensible and speakable, which makes one tremble and experience bliss. Beauty and paradox merge—He is both remote and so near; awesome and lovely, fascinating and daunting, majestic and tender, comforting and frightening, familiar and alien, the beyond of creation and its very essence.

Purim

Last night was my first Purim and it was a great success I arrived to the synagogue a bit earlier than the Megillah reading so I could learn a bit but the synagogue was already full with people around the Rabbi who was explaining some things from the book of Esther. It was quite fun to see it, the group was very diverse, some people that were taking it very seriously while others would make random remarks like: “is the statue of Nebuchadnezzar for sale?” or “was the food at Achashverosh’s  place mehadrin?” After having read this post, I was less impressed by the timetable presented and the insistence of this having taken place historically, but of course I didnt ask “why doesnt the book of Ezra mention it” or any other difficult questions.

When the Megillah reading started a lot of people poured in with their costumes and I received a mask as well. The reading was quite long and I tried to decide whether it would be improper to learn something else at the same time but not being sure I just sat out the ride. After the service finished the whole synagogue left for a bar and I, of course, joined. After the entrance fee there was unlimited drinks so Im sure alot of people took a good shot at fulfilling the mitzvah of drinking until you dont know the difference between ‘blessed is Mordechai’ and ‘accursed is Haman’. I personally didnt manage as I had a fairly long trip home and at the same time I dont like to ruin the next day by drinking too much. The music they played was Chassidic with a strong beat and lest anyone be concerned there were curtains on the dancefloor separating men and women.

Before going to the synagogue I wasnt sure whether I would go to the party because I can go to a party anytime but Im glad I went. And by now I have made some friends so its quite nice to be welcomed when I come.

So this was my first holiday in synagogue and I wonder what holiday will be able to beat it:)

Revenge

I just finished watching the second season of 24 which ended in an interesting way. Someone who was betrayed by many people got back into the position where he was in control and could take revenge, which is also what they expected, but instead of that, he forgave them and gave them a second chance. It was quite unexpected and I at least was hoping he would strike back at them.

I found the following passage which illustrates a similar sentiment:

“If you want to avenge yourself of your foe, add to your virtues and walk in the ways of the just. This will give you vengeance over your foe, for he will be grieved by your good trait and your good name and he will mourn when he hears a good report of you. But if you do ugly deeds, your foe will rejoice in your dishonor and shame, and he will be taking revenge on you.” The Ways of the Righteous, p. 161

Its beautiful and certainly something I hope I would learn to keep in mind when feelings of revenge enter but I wonder whether this type of approach is suitable for all cases. What exceptions would be… perhaps there are cases where its naive to think that the person will be tormented because his victim is offering the other cheek and will just hit him again.

Thoughts?

Interesting blog

A friend put up a new blog titled: ‘The Metaphrast’. His thoughts are generally quite interesting and well-worth a visit, especially his last post on his journey in the land of the religious so far.

Joke

I heard the following joke in a lecture online:

There was a famous Rabbi in an Italian town who was approached by a highranking churchman who wanted to convert him because that would significantly impact other Jews in town.

Churchman: convert to Christianity and we’ll make you bishop

Rabbi: Not interested

Churchman: how about this, we’ll make you cardinal?

Rabbi: No

Churchman: Pope?

Rabbi: Still not interested

Churchman: whats your problem?! Do you want to become God himself?

Rabbi: yes, one of our boys also did it

Quote

“I could scarcely think that he who leads men to virtue in this life can be damned in the next.”

-Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786)

I read this quote in a letter from Moses Mendelssohn to Johann Caspar Lavater. In it he responds to the challenge that was posed to him of refuting the claims of the book the latter translated and if unable to convert to Christianity. Its very interesting to read his response.

Bible minus Interpretations and Assumptions

I have just finished reading James Kugel‘s book titled The Bible as it was which is focused on detailing ancient interpretation of the Bible. In his afterword he makes a few observations on the trends of modern scholarship and I found a remark worth sharing:

“The spindly sapling of texts that began to sprout even before the first millenium B.C.E. was only enabled to grow into the great date palm of Scripture thanks to the nourishing presence of the ancient interpretations, and interpretive assumptions, that soon enveloped and strengthened its roots. This vital soil, in itself endowed with all the nutrients of human piety, fortified with the heaven-sent, engendering liqueurs of rain and dew, and, let it be said, no stranger to the benefits of an occasional admixture of natural fertilizing agents — this soil was what allowed the tree to take root and flourish. The mission upon which modern bibilical scholarship set out, then, without quite understanding it, was to uproot Scripture from that soil the better to study the whole plant and the plant alone. The result, from such a perspective, was altogether predictable, unavoidable even.” (559)

BR: Tongue of the Prophets

Tongue of the Prophets

Author: Robert St. John

Publisher: Barnabas, 2010 (Dutch version)

Pages: 320

It takes quite a bit to make me read fiction even if based on historical events but after scanning the first page of this book I couldnt stop reading.

Short summary:

In short this book covers the life of Eliezer ben Yehuda, who is the founder of Modern Hebrew. It details his journey from his family’s house through Poland, France and eventually the land of Israel. The way he built up his vision and how he worked tirelessly to implement it. His victories and losses. It is mainly based on the biography that his wife authored with her daughter and in that sense provides very unique insights into his and their life.

My thoughts:

The book greatly inspired me. It was beautiful to see a man pursue his vision with such a strong dedication and without swerving to the right or the left. What stunned me was that this all took place before the second world war, that even before that time, people were building the land of Israel and that his efforts paid off so well.

Grade:

9 out of 10

Obstacles

Ever since the time I started this blog I have been contemplating conversion to Judaism, sometimes more serious than other times but in general the thought has remained with me for the last 2 years or more. The main argument against it used to be that I believed Jesus to be the awaited Messiah. So I wouldnt in good conscience be able to take the step that involved public denial of his position. Ever since that belief has been waning however it doesnt pose such an obstacle anymore. Interestingly, while I used to think that there was little else that would be an obstacle I now find other obstacles that before I did not really consider. The major obstacle at the moment is that my family would certainly be deeply hurt if I were to deny Jesus as the Messiah and undertake conversion to Judaism. This obstacle is in itself large enough but besides that there are a few other things that I find difficult:

-Keeping kosher: its not that Im unwilling to commit myself to such a lifestyle (which in some ways I already do) but the fact that it limits having meals with friends at their place or even at restaurants. This is something very basic and something I cherish. Whats more, some of my family members would be deeply offended if I would refuse eating from their plates.

-Career: keeping Shabbat is something that is not taken for granted by many people and I think especially in the beginning of starting a job it might limit your possibilities if you have to leave early on fridays every week and are not able to work in the weekend. It depends of course on the type of job but still it is a limiting factor. In Israel or the US this might be less of a problem but in Europe there is really noone who takes this into account.

Curiously, all of these factors would have to be set aside when it comes to Christianity, Jesus, reportedly said:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”

Strong as these words are they also offer the person comfort in that he knows he is making the right decision. In the case of Islam it is probably the same way, theres no exception, everyone needs to convert to Islam. The case of Judaism however presents the interesting case that non-Jews dont need to become Jews but are acceptable to God in their non-Jewish state (given their observance of the 7 laws of Noah).

So conversion isnt a matter of life or death, its simply a choice to take on the yoke of a people set apart for a particular purpose. Its not like your reward (or punishment) depends on the decision. This then makes these obstacles of a different nature, you can no longer argue that you are forced into this position because of your new beliefs, indeed the only one who is forcing you is yourself…

At the same time it seems these obstacles should be part of the deal, for if it doesnt cost you anything, how valuable can it be?

BR: Exploring Exodus

Exploring Exodus

Author: Nahum  M. Sarna

Publisher: Schocken, 1986

Pages: 277

This book is essentially a commentary on Exodus but framed in such a way that it can be read without having the text constantly in front of you. The main sources for the commentary are the results of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern scholarship which he uses to place the narrative in its context and supplement on what is found therein.

He admits at the outset that “the Torah is not a book of history but one that makes use of history for didactic purposes” (xi) and tries to show by means of this background material what these purposes were.

In 9 chapters he does this and very succesfully. His suggestions based on similarities (or differences) between other ancient material are at the very least fascinating and in many cases quite persuasive.  His approach is critical but not overly so, he is careful in his suggestions and generally engages the primary sources without making sweeping generalizations. Especially the chapter that compares laws from the Torah with that of other cultures I found very interesting.

I would recommend the book to people interested in looking at parts of the narrative from the perspective of the Ancient Near East. Both the similarities and differences yield a very interesting picture.

Grade:

8 out of 10

Having Mercy on Heretics

A few years ago I had a friend who was very dedicated to God; he would be spend hours studying the Bible and could recite verse after verse with even the correct verse numbers. He started out as an atheist and became a Christian after certain events took place and some soul-searching. We learned much together and motivated each other to increase more and more in dedication (with hindsight: to extremes). One day however he confessed that he no longer subscribed to fundamental dogma’s in Christianity and had come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah.

The minute I heard it I was so upset that I felt like leaving on the spot and never talking to him again. I didnt leave him right away but did make it very clear that after that day we would no longer be friends. It didnt come to him as a surprise, in fact he himself told me the verse that seems to point to such an action. It was very hard for me but at the time I felt in addition to the Biblical injunction a need to protect myself from his ideas.

Interestingly, about 4 years later when recalling this episode I find myself being reminded of the exhortation not to judge your neighbour until you have stood in his place. I cant say my situation is exactly the same but in some ways I would classify as a person who has heretical opinions (of course depending on who you ask). And all of a sudden this seems a lot less evil than the way I saw my friend. For one, it doesnt feel like a conscious choice to default but really part of a journey that led me to certain places, some which were deemed profitable from the perspective of the Christian Orthodoxy, and other places that were judged to be less so. I cant say that I havent played any part in this journey, surely I made all these choices myself, but mostly they were small steps and not a full plan to end up at this place.

This is also one of the reasons why I have come to think that beliefs and opinions should not be tied to reward or punishment because they cannot be forced; you either believe in a certain idea/view/proposition or you dont. I realize this runs counter to what many hold; that certain affirmations are required for eternal salvation, such as belief in the Incarnation/Trinity, atonement, and more. But I find it very difficult to understand some of these concepts even after having spent quite some time on Christology. It doesnt seem right then that failure to comprehend would equal eternal damnation.

Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) wrote in a letter about belief the following words which ring very true to me:

Moses did not dictate articles of faith, because God does not command belief, that is, He does not command that which cannot be commanded. He assigns grave punishments for many religious transgressions, but He never makes mention of the sin of disbelief, nor does He condemn antireligious speech, except for seduction to idolatry (since it leads to material acts condemned by the law) and blasphemy, or cursing aimed against the nation’s God, which was thus an act of lese-majeste [an offense against the Sovereign]. (link, p. 231)

These are strong words but I think the distinction he draws between beliefs and acts is very important; thoughts can simply not be coerced, however when it comes to acts a person is able to refrain from engaging in a particular act. Hence it makes sense to hold a person responsible for that which he is capable of directly influencing. Needless to say a person is to some extent responsible for the thoughts he has. In the sense that he is responsible for choosing what to receive as input, which books to read, which people to talk to. But then, these are acts, the way his mind develops affinity for certain ideas however is a track that is very hard to manipulate and so I think the distinction is important to maintain.

Perhaps then the response to a heretic should vary according to the type of person you are dealing with, a person who is intentionally engaging in transgressions out of spite or rebellion could indeed be distanced from but I do not think the same strong stance needs to be taken towards a person who happens to develop his beliefs in a different way.

Informers

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 58b says:

עובד כוכבים ששבת חייב מיתה שנא’ ויום ולילה לא ישבותו

A non-Jew that keeps Shabbat is liable to the death penalty as it is written “day and night he shall not rest”.

This seems quite radical and I think its good to remind oneself that when saying death penalty its likely to be an exaggerated form of speech, its not like they had the power to carry out such sentences.

Nonetheless it remains surprising, what is so bad about a non-Jew keeping Shabbat?

A Midrash has this Gemara in a slightly different fashion:

עובד כוכבים ששמר את השבת עד שלא קבל עליו את המילה חייב מיתה

A non-Jew that keeps the Shabbat is liable to the death penalty until the point that he accepts circumcision.

The addition is quite significant though, does this mean they should be converted first? The continuation of the Midrash however implies that this is not referring to conversion because it asks: “Why? They arent commanded on it?”

Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg read a very interesting explanation of this midrash which he relates in his piece titled: “Whether its permissable to give a lecture on the judgements (laws) of Israel in front of a non-Jewish audience”.

He says:

ראיתי  לפני שלשים שנה ויותר בספר אחד שכתב בשם חכם אחד כי המאמרים בסנהדרין על עכו”ם ששבת ועל העוסק בתורה נאמרו נגד כת הנוצרים הראשונים שפרקו מעליהם ברית מילה אבל קיימו את השבת וגם עסקו בתורה והיו מזדווגן לבנ”י בשבת ומועד ושמעו כל דבריהם ואח”כ הלכו והלשינו עליהם בפני הרשות

More than 30 years ago I saw in a book written by a certain Rabbi that what they say in Sanhedrin on a non-Jew that keeps Shabbat and engages in Torah (that he is liable to the death penalty) was said regarding a sect of early Christians who cast off from themselves [the commandment] of circumcision, but fulfilled the Shabbat and also engaged in Torah, and they joined together with the Jews on Shabbat and holidays and they heard all of their words and afterwards went and tattled/informed on them with the government.

So according to this author the Gemara was reacting towards a particular series of events that took place in synagogue(s). This group of early Christians that were to some extent observing Torah were joining them – perhaps every once in a while or continually – on Shabbat and some day told the government about what the Jews were discussing, presumably phrased in ways that the government would be less pleased with.

Thats why the Midrash adds “until the point that he accepts circumcision” because that ensures the Gemara’s statement is restricted to that sect of early Christians and not to all non-Jews that desire to keep Shabbat. The obstacle is however quite significant, which ensures at the same time that it is accessible only to those that are very dedicated or those that are lucky to be circumcized by their parents already (though Im not sure this was common in the time of the Gemara like it is today).

I seem to recall this also the other way around, where the Jews were at a certain point in time distancing themselves from the early Christians before the government which was not appreciated by the early Christians. Perhaps someone recalls the event Im referring to. I think this is a rather interesting example also of the relatively late parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. Im not sure whether it can be imagined that (dedicated) Jews were attending the meetings of early Christians (in whatever fashion these took place) but the other way around seems certainly to have been the case even if it ended in this particular instance in a negative way.

Belief in Belief

I just watched a short presentation by Daniel Dennet on YouTube titled ‘Belief in Belief’ (i, ii, iii). He essentially argues that most people that say they believe in God actually believe in belief but not in God (according to him only the really ‘immature’  do so). He furthermore states several reasons why they do this and dont just give up and join the blessed camp of atheists, such as fear of punishment, social pressure, habit, etc.

What struck me was that this type of thinking is found among believers as well, on more than one occassion I have heard people say that most atheists deep down believe in God and that there are really very few atheists that dont believe in God or some power. The reason however that they dont come out of the closet is because they are afraid how their social environment will react, dont want to give up their immoral lifestyle, etc.

I wonder what stimulates these type of thoughts… Perhaps its caused by the difficulty to label all people who hold opinions other than your own as unreasonable, because given that the ‘truth’ is so obvious to you and your approach is fair, it should follow that any reasonable person, should be able to grasp it as well. And since they are reasonable, they in all likelihood grasp it, so the reason they dont state it must be something else.

Stick to your prayers

Last weekend I picked up a book on the life of the founder of Modern Hebrew, Eliezer ben Yehuda (1858-1922). Already the first page captured me and since that moment I have been reading every spare moment I had. The book is written in the way of a novel which makes it very readable and makes you almost re-live the events described. Ill write a review in another post when I finish but for now I wanted to share what I thought was a very nice anecdote.

———–

Eliezer ben Yehuda’s mission was to revive the Hebrew language and one of the principal ways he chose was his weekly newspaper ‘HaTzvi’, of course in Hebrew. The religious men who were mainly present in Jerusalem were opposed to his idea(s) because they felt that Hebrew was a holy language, not to be used in common conversations. In addition to that he was quite a freethinker making him even more a perceived threat to the traditionalists.

During his time Palestine was under the governance of the Ottoman Empire and they werent very pleased with the inflow of Jews to Palestine so they issued several decrees to frustrate this (immigrant quota’s, prohibition to build houses, etc.) Eliezer ben Yehuda tried to avoid trouble with the rulers and so was careful with what he wrote. One day however his father-in-law wrote a supplement for Channukah which contained a phrase that could be interpreted as calling men to assemble for war but was really meant more in the spirit of a dedication to the building of their society. At any rate, the religious immediately took advantage of it and went to the rulers explaining that Eliezer ben Yehuda had nationalist motives and wanted to assemble men for war against the Ottoman dominance.

The Rabbi’s issued a formal ban (cherem) on Eliezer ben Yehuda and he was put into prison by the rulers. Eliezer’s case was tried but the judges were pre-disposed to the traditionalists and so he was charged guilty. He appealed and it took quite some time before the case would be heard. In the mean time both Eliezer ben Yehuda as well as the Rabbi’s realized that there was one man that was higher than the court (in practice) and that ultimately his opinion would prevail. The wealthy Baron Rothschild, who financed activities of both parties. Up to that point he did not state which side he favoured and so both parties were anxiously awaiting his judgement.

One day the Rabbi’s received a short telegram from Paris saying:

Carry out your prayers. Baron Rothschild

Realizing that he had chosen the side of Eliezer ben Yehuda, the Rabbi’s immediately lifted the ban. Because not doing so would mean cutting off one of their primary sources of income. The Rabbi’s dropped their accusation and Eliezer ben Yehuda was in a later stage acquitted by the court.

—————

I found the response of the Baron to be very apt, and think it remains relevant in many cases. When religious leadership starts to bother itself with politics you often get very bad results. There are of course times when the religious leadership needs to take a strong stance but history is a good record of showing how religious leadership generally takes the wrong stance which not only amplifies the problems but also reflects bad on religion itself.

Any thoughts on the idea of religious leadership to “stick to their prayers” instead of involving themselves in politics?

Religion enlightens the mind

Today the title of this post: “Religion enlightens the mind” got a whole new meaning for me.

The reason for that was something I saw in the Synagogue… it wasnt the prayers, nor the reading of the Torah, nor talk of the Rabbi but what I saw on the tables where the Kiddush would be held:

Bottles of whisky, wodka, etc! And it was only 12 am! I think I now understand why the Rabbi warned me that if I were to come more often I could become more attracted to Judaism:)