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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BNP and that het’rogenous thing

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well… one step at a time!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis does not talk about evolution. Period

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

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

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

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

II

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

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

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

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

III

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

-------

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

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

Modern Orthodoxy, elitism and pseudo-intellectualism

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

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

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

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

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

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

So THIS is loshon Horah?

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.

Pesach Thought 1: Hesed and the Prisoners Dilemma

I

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

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

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

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

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

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

II

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

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

Here is an example table of points for different combinations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III

How does this bear on the lechem oni?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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