Shapiro's Limits of Orthodox Theology = Jacobs' Principles of the Jewish Faith?

Is it just me, or is Marc Shapiro's The Limits of Orthodox Theology essentially a rehashing of Louis Jacobs' Principles of the Jewish Faith: An Analytical Study?

They have essentially the same goal, namely a discussion of what a modern Jew can believe, and go about it in the same method, by reviewing Rambam's ikkarim and demonstrating that there have been different authoritative views throughout history. Shapiro credits Jacobs with inspiring his work, but it seems a bit sketchy to me... whatever.

Kaplan the Bible Critic

From Mordecai Kaplan's Communings of the Spirit, entry from Sunday, April 21, 1929, 12:30PM.

Is it possible that I have made a discovery? I have a hunch that the writings of the "false" prophets have been incorporated into the Bible. I can never find a satisfactory background for Isaiah 13 and 14. Does it not seem plausible to assign these chapters to the so-called "false" prophets whom Jeremiah denounced (Jer. 29, 8)? May this not be the reason for the anonymity of these prophecies? If it should turn out that the "false" prophets were the authors of the anti-Babylonian prophecies, they would have to be credited with the new consolatory trend that we find in Biblical prophecy. It does not seem plausible to ascribe such lofty style and diction to any but the survivors of the great prophetic movement who had been carried captive into Babylon.

Orthodoxy and Pluralism

Is a pluralistic Orthodoxy possible, or do you think any attempts at real pluralism will lead to further denominationalism, with "pluralistic orthodoxy" joining the ranks of Open Orthodoxy, Centrist Orthodoxy, Ultra-Orthodoxy, Agudah Orthodoxy, Yeshivish Orthodoxy, Hasidic Orthodoxy, Chabad Orthodoxy, Zionistic Orthodoxy, Messianic Orthodoxy (Kahanism/Gush Emunim type - not J4J), and the billion other Orthodox groups.

Yikes. I didn't even realize we were that splintered. Perhaps we need intra-Orthodox pluralism before Jewish pluralism? And given the results of the Eternal Jewish Family conference, we're certainly not going in that direction. So, what's your take? Can Orthodoxy be pluralistic, or would such an effort be totally counterproductive and devolve into another branch of Orthodoxy?

Pet Peeve From An Argument I Had Today

Annoying logic: The existence of multiple opinions implies the existence of multiple truths.

(Related newsflash: Skeptodox is not a post-modernist.)

Does the Biblical View of God Bother You?

James Kugel makes a pretty compelling argument that ancient readers of the Bible viewed God in a completely different manner than we do now. We tend to view God as universal, omnipresent, omniscient, and remote, while early Biblical texts view God as close to this world and to humanity. In Tanach God reveals himself, people literally hear and see God (almost invariably after a “moment of confusion”), and he certainly doesn’t appear to be omniscient or omnipresent. (None of that "daber torah bilshon bnei adam" apologetics, please.)

Kugel suggests that “early is not necessarily better than late” and that perhaps the God of the Bible needs to be revisited in today’s theology. But it kind of bothers me that my religious ancestors believed in a very different deity - forgetting about our early polytheistic history.

Does the idea that we haven’t always viewed God in the same way bother you, particularly when it’s his book that’s describing him in the unconventional way?

Why I Like the Etiological Approach to Tanach

Hermann Gunkel was a German Protestant OT scholar in the late 19th and early 20th century. One of his key contributions to the study of the Torah was his analysis of Biblical stories as etiological tales. That is, as tales concerning origins. He argued that many if not most Biblical stories, particularly in Breishit, were composed in order to explain present day realities at the time of composition. They were merely reverse projections of the present.

Examples: Israel and Edom had a close connection, so we come up with a story of common ancestry. Beit El is a holy city, so we come up with a story of how Yaakov started it all. We perform infant circumcision, so we have a story of a covenant with Avraham. Various tribes are being unified, but maintaining northern and southern blocs, so we have another story of common ancestry, just this time with separate mothers based on geography. Etc, etc., etc.

What I like about this approach is that it implies that ancient Israelites didn't necessarily believe the stories when they were composed. I can imagine my ancestors sitting around a fire and inventing these tales, just like the Dybbuk or the Tooth Fairy. They become part of tradition, but as you grow up and realize they are not true you continue passing them on because they also provide meaning and a message and a national history to explain our way of life.

Fealty to Gedolim

I've been listening to a lot of kiruv "how-to" lectures during my commute, and the kiruv pros' lack of logic and sheer ga'avah goes far beyond what I could have ever expected.

I don't have unwavering respect for and belief in the utterances of scientists, but I know well enough that I don't have the knowledge or tools to address complicated (and at times, not complicated) scientific issues. The rabbis who I have been listening to all have the same approach: Here is what science says, and I am going to tell you why they are wrong! No credentials, no background, nothing. They are (in this instance) "just" rabbis. In most cases it seems as though they read a few Christian apologist websites and the conclusions from some Kitchen or Cassutto books, and voila - they are experts! Even worse is the shameful logic these clowns try to pass of as error-proof and convincing.

In these lectures I really see what "fealty to gedolim" means. Kiruv pros are the gedolim of the "Jewish approach to science" field, and their audiences - believers in the lectures I'm listening to - eat up every word they say, no matter how nonsensical their musings. Some of the questions I hear asked in the mp3s clearly come from intelligent people, but they are so off the mark. They don't challenge or question - ever. And that is where the problem lays.

Musing on Halachic Separatism

A few days ago my wife and I ate (kosher) lunch with the family of a close Muslim friend. Throughout the meal I couldn't stop thinking to myself that the express purpose of so many halachot is to prevent such meetings. Religion is a funny beast.

A Heretical Dvar Torah On the Canaanite Origins of Beit-El

A Dvar Torah courtesy of James Kugel, abridged:

It is clear from archaeological evidence that Beit-El was a city of Canaanite religious significance. In fact, the word 'el is a reference to the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon. How does this connect with the story of Jacob's ladder at Beit-El? Simple: the purpose of the story is to sever the connection between Beit-El and Canaanite practice, thereby justifying the construction of a temple at that site during the time of Yerovam. (Edit: The connection between this episode and Yerovam isn't strong, but the episode of Yaakov at Beit-El explains how a city which apparently had a long career as a sacred site and ended up being chosen for one of two royal temples at the time of Yerovam, first came to be considered holy.)

The story does so in four ways:

1. Yaakov just chances upon the site. In the story, Beit-El is insignificant. The only reason Yaakov stops there is because the sun was setting. He just chanced upon it. It wasn't a bustling Canaanite religious center!

2. The site had no religious significance until Yaakov got there. Only after his weird dream did he realize that God was there (v'lo yadati!). Yaakov's dream converted the site from ordinary to sacred.

3. Matzevot are associated with Canaanite worship. Just about everywhere else in Tanach, matzevot are looked down upon. One of the first things we had to do when we got to Israel was destroy the matzevot that were there. But Yaakov built one! Why? Well, if some pillar was still at Beit-El at the time of the story's composition, it's clearly because Yaakov built it! Canaanites had nothing to do with it.

4. Why is the city called Beit-El? No, stupid! It's not named after the head of the Canaanite pantheon! It was called Luz until Yaakov got there are called it Beit Elohim!

Torah vs. Gilgamesh: What's The Big Deal? (*Answer Included)

I've never been able to figure out what the big deal was with the Epic of Gilgamesh and other non-Biblical flood stories. Until today, as far as I was concerned they simply corroborated the Biblical account. Well, today James Kugel treated me to a hearty dose of kefirah and explained the issue:

The similarities between the Torah account and Gilgamesh are striking, but the similarities go beyond the events described. Rather, it appears as though the two stories share a literary connection as well. They didn't only agree on what generally happened, but also on how the events should be retold, including things that could not be figured out by historical observation. The example Kugel uses is the phrase "God smelled the pleasing odor." This corresponds to the last three lines in Gilgamesh, which include the phrase, "The Gods smelled the sweet savor." Why should the Torah have mentioned that? Why not just that god "was pleased" with the sacrifice or nothing at all? How could any on-site observer of the flood or its aftermath know that God/the Gods smelled anything at all? This was the authors assertion, the very same expression, and it appears in both texts. This suggests that the texts either depended on each other or on an earlier source. But here's the problem: the earliest Gilgamesh fragments date from early in the 2nd millennium BCE, long before the Torah was given at Sinai with its flood story.

And there you have it, the reason that Gilgamesh is a problem.

R' Dovid Orlofsky: Skeptic Bloggers Are Make-Believe

Recently I've spent some time listening to kiruv lectures and finding some great gems that I'll share at a later time, but for now, the knowledge that we are all make-believe should tide you over.

Here is the quote, transcribed straight from a kiruv seminar at Ohr Sameach led by R' Dovid Orlofsky:

"People become frum, in my experience, because of people. They meet people, they are impressed by people. It’s people. It’s not the questions. People ask questions, but nine our of ten times they don’t care about the questions. I wish I could tell you that you are going to meet the apikores. You know. And he’s going to start shooting at you Rambams and you know, this and that. Those people don’t actually exist. They are make believe people on blogs. Don’t worry, You’ll never meet them. You know what I mean? Who are sitting here making up sources and bringing all these things. You don’t have to really worry about it too much. Most of the time most people are going to be impressed by you."

Forgetting about my existence (let me assure you, I do exist), his other point, which he and others stress throughout their lectures, is that people aren't attracted to Orthodoxy for intellectual reasons. Goes pretty well with Faranak Margolese's Off The Derech suggestion that almost all drop-outs from Orthodoxy leave because of bad experiences. You and I are evidence that this isn't the case, and the world is just beginning to realize that people have legitimate struggles with religion on intellectual grounds. But it doesn't matter, because I don't exist. Neither do you. Unsubscribe to XGH, OffTheDerech, DovBear, LubabNoMore, etc., save yourself some time - THEY ARE ALL MAKE BELIEVE.

R' Dovid Orlofsky: Evil Rosho Bloggers ______

You will never guess what R' Dovid Orlofsky said about us skeptic bloggers! Stay tuned for hilarity. (Don't hold your breath, but come back Sunday night when I'm back in town.)

Weird Post Over at Cross Currents

Eytan Kobre posted this today:

"I’ve been thinking of posting a piece or two on Jewish media bias and I still hope to do so. In the interim (which, in my case can last months . . .), however, I can’t resist posting the below item from today’s JTA News Bulletin, without comment.

No comment because even a thousand-word post couldn’t possibly make as clear as this item does just how profoundly out-of-touch JTA and other secular Jewish media outlets (who also get much of their material from JTA) are about the realities of Orthodox Jewish life. Unless, perhaps, using its telepathic powers or other forms of divination, it knows things about us that we don’t.

I only wish there was some way to convey to these media folks how embarrassing their publicly displayed ignorance of things Orthodox and, oftentimes of Jewish tradition, history and texts, is (assuming, that is, that they care.)

Rabbinic emissary to pray for rain

A thousand Orthodox rabbis are sending an emissary to Atlanta to pray for rain.

Rabbi [name omitted – EK] will perform an ancient prayer ritual Wednesday seeking divine help to end the drought in the South, the Christian Newswire reported. [The rabbi] reportedly performed the ritual in 1986, after which there was four days of rain.

“Orthodox Jews wish to show solidarity with those suffering from the drought and other natural disasters,” said [the rabbi]. “We want to kick off a nationwide movement of prayer. Furthermore, we wish to announce a program which we believe could curtail much of the disaster our country has been experiencing.”


What doesn't Eytan Kobre like here? Where's the ignorance of Orthodoxy? So what if the article makes the "ancient prayer ritual" sound completely wacko? Doesn't seem like the article says anything out of touch with mainstream Orthodox Judaism.

Guess Who!

In the spirit of Mississippi Fred MacDowell, give this one your best shot:

Who Is a Jew?

I find it hilarious (and somewhat distasteful) that most Orthodox Jews are perfectly comfortable sitting around a Shabbat table and chatting about who is Jewish and who is not. It doesn't matter if their subject's family converted to Christianity four generations ago, only to become lapsed. It's still, "Did you know that Priscilla is Jewsh? She doesn't know, but her great-great-great-great grandmother lit shabbos candles! Her kids will be Jewish!" Forget about the practicing reform Jew down the block whose father is Jewish but mother isn't. He's just faking.

Punishing The Modern Day M'Koshesh Etzim

From a really long time ago:

"Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses." (Bamidbar 15:32-36)

From the publication announcing the Anti-Sabbath Convention of 1848 - Not so long ago

"The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience is inherent, inalienable, self-evident. Yet it is notorious , that in all the States, excepting Louisiana, there are laws enforcing the religious observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and punishing as criminals such as attempt to pursue their usual avocations on that day, avocations which even Sabbatarians recognize as innocent and laudable on all other days.... should they vanture to labor even for bread on that day, or be guilty of what is called 'Sabbath desecration,' they are liable either to fine or imprisonment."

Should I Put Together a Book List?

A friend who is in the process of conversion to Orthodox Judaism has asked me to put together a reading list for her. Gently refuse? Give her a good dose of apologetics? Torah stories? Slifkin? Davies? Finkelstein? Shapiro? Aish HaTorah? Talk Reason? Yikes!

History vs. Memory vs. Falsehood

Ok, so Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi wrote a book about Jewish "memory," (Zakhor) which argues that Jews recorded and related to history in a way that was meaningful to them.

Let's get real. What this really means is that Jews recorded a fake history. What they wrote down wasn't "memory," their history may have reflected a kernel of reality, but it simply wasn't true! Just say it, sheesh!

Lesson In Biblical Hebrew

Something I just learned: In biblical Hebrew, sepher refers to the copy itself, the particular scroll on which the work was inscribed. It is not the designation of or the work itself, as a thing separate from its scroll.

Shimshon, Magic Hair, and Greek Mythology

The riddle form and the concept that unshorn magical hair confers on its wearer superhuman strength isn't Canaanite:

1. Nisus, king of Megara was invincible as long as his magic locks were intact. When his daughter Scylla, who was in love with his enemy King Minos, cut them while he slept, his powers vanished and he was captured by King Minos.

2. Pterelaos, king of Teleboea and a grandson of Poseidon, was made immortal by his magic locks. His daughter Comaeto, in love with his enemy King Amphitryon, shaved his locks and thereby caused his downfall. Legend has it that, while Amphitryon was thus preoccupied, Zeus spent a night of love with the queen, extending it by stopping the sun and moon in their course, which resulted in the bith of Heracles.

3. Apollo's Greek titles mean "golden-haired" and "never shorn."

There's more where those came from.

The idea behind Shimshon isn't Canaanite or West-Semitic, but is rather Minoan-Mycenean. Coincidence that Dan had Philistine neighbors?

PS - It seems as though Dan got the whole idea of the riddle from the Greeks (via the Philistines) as well. Oh, well. Cool story anyway.

*From "Samson's Riddle and Samson's Magic Locks," by Othniel Margalith. Vetus Testamentum XXXVI, 2 (1986).

Orthoprax Paradox

Orthopraxy is difficult to defend intellectually, but it usually arises out of intellectual problems with Orthodoxy.


(Hap tip: Noah Feldman)

Orthopraxy Abounds at the Shabbos Table or Orthopraxy and Jewish Continuity

My wife and I were invited out for Shabbat lunch this past weekend, and I found myself arguing at the Shabbat table against the probability that any specific religion is exclusively true. The kefirah was pretty subdued, as my argument was in the context of a discussion about proofs for OJ, but it was nevertheless enjoyable to publicly present some of my thoughts. (My response touched on most religions and sects finding their proofs to be perfect and everyone elses proofs to be wanting.)

I also met a new type of Orthoprax Jew at the meal. (I know, what a productive Shabbos!) She feels a strong connection to Judaism and began Orthodox practice as a teenager after accepting "an intellectual argument for OJ." The argument that convinced her was that Orthodoxy has the highest success rate at imparting beliefs and practices to children. When pressed (lightly) on whether she would kill an Amalekite baby, she responded that such practices are irrelevant today. I dubbed her Orthoprax (in my mind) as soon as she agreed that she was subscribing to a system of practices rather than a system of beliefs. Fun conversation overall.

But her situation brings me to a difficult question, although it's one that certainly has answers:

How can Orthoprax Jews impart their Jewish practice to their children?

Any suggestions?

Proof That Moshe Was a Satmar Chosid

(Hat tip to Avakesh via Voice of Iyov)

Bible Codes

Let's assume that you're an agnostic statistician who is one day convinced that the Bible codes exist and are true.

Does it necessarily follow that you will become a theist?

Exodus Population Revisited

In a previous post on the word eleph in the Exodus story, a commenter noted that reinterpreting the word eleph as "clan," "troop," or "family unit" would not fit with the final census numbers. In an article on the topic, George E. Mendenhall solves this issues by arguing the possibility that later scribes, unfamiliar with the terminology of ancient Israel's military organization, misunderstood the term eleph to mean "thousand," and consequently wrongly calculated the totals in Num. i 46 and xxvi 51.

Jacob Milgrom thinks this is a load of crap, arguing that recording practices in the ancient near east precluded such an error, as sums of each item were traditionally given separately and again as totals (as in Exodus xxxviii 24-30 and Num vii 84-88). Personally, I don't think Mendenhall's idea is so farfetched.

On a related note, E.W. Davies has an interesting theory on the Exodus population numbers. He argues that it is most likely that the numbers were just invented, possibly by P himself. Davies argues that P didn't care much about historical reality anyway (as in Num i, Ephraim and Menashe, the strongest tribes of the northern kingdon, are among the smallest numerically, while the small tribe of Shimon is represented as the third largest of all the Israelite tribes). To Davies, P was observing a recognized literary convention, common in Tanach and in the ancient Near East. Davies cites theological reasons for the number inflation in either direction enhancing the magnitude of Israel's victories or indicating the invincible power of God's people. In the case of the Exodus, Davies believes that the number inflation also emphasized that God's promise of innumerable descendants to the patriarchs was already being fulfilled.

On Matrilineal Descent, Kilayim, and Roman Law

Shaye J.D. Cohen's conclusion in AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1985), pp. 19-53. Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law:

In the biblical period a mixed marriage between an Israelite and a non-Israelite produced offspring which was usually judged patrilineally. If an Israelite woman was married to a non-Israelite man, she would join his clan and bear children who were not Israelite. If he joined her clan through matrilocal marriage, the children apparently were considered Israelite. A matrilocal marriage could even legitimate the children of an Israelite mother and a slave father (1 Chron. 2:34-35). In the Mishnah, however, the children of an Israelite mother and a gentile father (either slave or free) are mamzerim, Jews of impaired status. The Talmudim declare these children to be not mamzerim but full and legitimate Jews. Both decisions, at least in cases of patrilocal marriage, contradict the Bible. In biblical times many Israelite men married foreign women, and there was never any doubt that the children were Israelite. The offspring of a slave mother and an Israelite father did, apparently, suffer from some disabilities, but no one questioned its Israelite status. The Mishnah, however, explicitly states that such offspring follow the mother, and this ruling is not disputed in the Talmudim. As far as I have been able to determine, the transition from biblical patriliny to mishnaic matriliny cannot be dated before the period of the Mishnah itself. There is no evidence that Ezra attempted to introduce the matrilineal principle, and even if he did, there is abundant evidence that it was still unknown in the first century of our era. Why did the Yavnean rabbis depart from biblical practice?

There are two good explanations, one internal, the other external. The matrilineal principle accords nicely with the mishnaic laws regarding the mixture of diverse kinds (kilayim). The union of a Jew with a gentile is akin to the forbidden union of a horse with a donkey. In both cases the Mishnah judges the resulting offspring matrilineally. Even more striking is the parallel afforded by the Roman law of status. The terminology, ideas, and conclusions of M. Kiddushin 3:12 are thoroughly Roman: if one parent does not possess the capacity to contract a legal marriage (conubium in Latin, kiddushin in Hebrew), the offspring follows the mother. The rabbis, like the Romans, departed from this principle in order to penalize a citizen woman who married a noncitizen or a slave: the Romans declared that the offspring follows the parent of lower status (in this case, the father), the rabbis declared that the offspring is a mamzer. I am unable to decide between these two explanations. Perhaps they are both true, the rabbinic notions of kilayim facilitating the influx of the Roman law.

Another factor is relevant too. The idea of conversion to Judaism is a creation of the exilic period. At first it was an option only for men; its ritual was circumcision. A gentile woman "converted" to Judaism through marriage with a Jewish husband, a procedure presumed by the Bible and still presumed by Josephus. Gradually, however, conversion for women was introduced; its ritual was immersion (a practice which also became part of the conversion ritual for men). This facilitated the rise of half of the matrilineal principle, since the gentile woman was now a person whose Jewishness could be determined without reference to her Jewish husband. If she converts to Judaism, the children she bears to her husband are Jewish; if she does not, they are gentile, in spite of the Jewishness of her husband. This new ideology mandated the reinterpretation of the biblical narratives which glibly admitted that the heroes of ancient Israel married foreign women. These developments are obscure, but they certainly form part of the ideological background to the emergence of the matrilineal principle.

All of these suggestions are exercises in intellectual history. Did social history too play a role in the creation of the matrilineal principle? Numerous practitioners of Jewish Wissenschaft have argued that rabbinic law was determined, at least in part, by the social and economic needs of contemporary Jewry. The matrilineal principle has had enormous social consequences for modern Jews, and it is easy to believe that the rabbis must have been compelled by some societal need to institute it. But there is little evidence to support this belief. Intermarriage was not a severe problem in rabbinic society, and even if it was, the logical response would have been the institution of a bilateral system (either a gentile father or a gentile mother renders the offspring a gentile). Perhaps in regard to other matters the rabbis were legislators listening attentively to the demands of their constituency. In their statement of the matrilineal principle, however, the rabbis were philosophers, and, like most philosophers, they did not always live in the real world.



So wait... all of our "Who is a Jew?" problems stem from rabbinic philosophy and not from Divine lineage rules? Oh, man...

Heschel & Biblical Criticism

In case anyone hasn't noticed, recently I've been reading through back issues of Bible studies/Jewish studies journals. I just finished an interesting article by Jon D. Levenson in AJS Review, Vol. 25, No 1. (2000- 2001), pp. 25-44, entitled Religious Affirmation and Historical Criticism in Heschel's Biblical Interpretation.

Levenson makes an interesting argument that Heschel's involvement with critical Bible studies was minimal and only served to insulate him from the charge of uncritical traditionalism. Levenson argues that Biblical criticism didn't enlighten Heschel with theological insights or compel him to deal with "difficult" passages. What makes Levenson's piece even more biting is his accusation that Heschel not only failed to unite the ancient and modern ways of approaching Tanach, but that he ignored obvious tensions between the two worlds.

Conservative Judaism is beginning to sound to be like semi-rational, but still intellectually dishonest Modern Orthodoxy. The Tanach is our ancient text, Biblical criticism is on the money. Kashya? What kashya? Of course we still need to follow halacha.... ::mumbles about divine inspiration::....

Who Was Regina Jonas?

Regina Jonas: The First Woman Rabbi in the World

Regina Jonas was born on August 3, 1902 in Berlin. Her father died when she was very young. She became a teacher like many women at that time, however Regina Jonas was not content with simply being a teacher. In Berlin, she enrolled at the Hochschule fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums, the Academy for the Science of Judaism, a seminary for liberal rabbis and educators. There she graduated as an "Academic Teacher of Religion."

Still that did not satisfy her. Regina Jonas wanted to become a rabbi. She wrote a thesis that would have been an ordination requirement. Her topic was: "Can a Woman Be a Rabbi According to Halachic Sources?" Her conclusion, based on biblical, Talmudic, and rabbinical sources, was: Yes.. And thus, she should have been ordained.

The Talmud professor responsible for ordinations refused to ordain her. Regina applied to Rabbi Leo Baeck, spiritual leader of German Jewry, who had taught her at the seminary. He also refused, maybe because her ordination would have caused massive intra-Jewish communal problems with the Orthodox rabbinate in Germany.

On December 27, 1935 Regina Jonas was ordained by the liberal Rabbi Max Dienemann in Offenbach who was the head of the Liberal Rabbis’ Association. Being ordained was one thing, but finding a pulpit was another. Regina Jonas found work as a chaplain in various Jewish social institutions.

Because of Nazi persecution many rabbis emigrated and so many small communities were without rabbinical support. How ironic: Nazi persecution made it possible for her to be a rabbi and to preach in a synagogue, but not for a long period. She was soon ordered - like all Jews - into forced labor in a factory. Despite this, she continued her rabbinical work, i.e. she continued to teach and to preach.

On November 3, 1942, Regina Jonas had to fill out a declaration form. That declaration form listed her property — including her books. Two days later, all her property was confiscated "for the benefit of the German Reich." The next day, Gestapo arrested her. It was November 6, 1942. She was deported to Theresienstadt. Even there her rabbinate did not end. Viktor Frankl, the well-known psychologist, asked her for help. He wanted to built up a crisis intervention service to improve the possibility of surviving. . Her particular job was to meet the trains at the station. There she helped people cope with shock and disorientation.

A hand-written list of 24 of her lectures entitled "Lectures of the One and Only Woman Rabbi, Regina Jonas," still exists and can still be found in the archives of Theresienstadt. Five lectures are about the history of Jewish women,. five deal with Talmudic topics, two deal with Biblical themes,. three with pastoral issues, and nine offer general introductions to Jewish beliefs, ethics, and the festivals.

Regina Jonas worked tirelessly in Theresienstadt for two years. Finally, she was deported to Auschwitz. We even know on which day she was murdered. It was December 12, 1944. She was 42 years old .

In 1972 the reform and reconstructionist movement in the USA began to ordain women rabbis. In 1995 Bea Wyler, who had studied at the JTS in New York, became the first woman rabbi in post war Germany at the Jewish community of Oldenburg.

From here.

Also see here for an interesting article on pay disparities between male and female rabbis in the Conservative movement.

Oh, the confusion!

"It is simply an invented history with only a few referents to things that really happened or existed. From an historian’s point of view, ancient Israel is a monstrous creature. It is something sprung out of the fantasy of biblical historiographers and their modern paraphrasers...."

On The Problems of Reconstructing Pre-Hellenistic Israelite (Palestinian) History, by Niels Peter Lemche

vs.

"Science reveals the astounding truth behind the mysteries and miracles of the Bible! A confirmation of the Book of Books!"

The Bible as History, by Werner Keller

Yeshiva Education: The (Somewhat Unhelpful) Results

The following are some of the results of a recent study on the effects of Jewish day-school on (Jewish) college students:

Academic Preparation in High School
Jewish high school alumni from a non-Orthodox background are the most positive about the level of intellectual challenge and engagement fostered by teachers in classes. This group’s ratings of its preparation in the areas of history, writing, and study skills are on par with the ratings of alumni from private high schools and significantly higher than those of either Orthodox raised alumni of Jewish high schools or alumni of public schools. However, in math, science, and computer literacy, Jewish high school alumni from both Orthodox and non-Orthodox backgrounds perceive that they were significantly less well prepared as compared with both public and private high school peers.

Academic Performance in College
There are no significant differences in the self-reported GPAs of those who attended public, private, or day schools. Students from non-Orthodox backgrounds with six or more years of day school demonstrate the highest academic self-confidence. While day school students from an Orthodox background experience lower math confidence, they like other students who attended day schools, do not appear to experience any skill deficits that limit their willingness to select major fields of study that are dependent on skills related to math and science. Nor are they any more likely than other students to feel the need for tutoring or remedial work in math or science.

Response to Individual Learning Needs
Jewish high school alumni from non-Orthodox backgrounds are the most positive about the encouragement and support received from teachers, and are second only to private high school peers when it comes to their evaluations of the availability of extra help or attention to individual learning needs. By contrast, Jewish high school alumni from Orthodox backgrounds are consistently the least positive in their evaluations of their school’s response to their individual learning needs and the availability of supplementary help. At both ends of the spectrum of ability, day schools appear to be less able to serve the needs of diverse learners, both those who are academically gifted and those who need additional or specialized educational supports.

Integration into College Life
Like other undergraduates, students who attended day schools participate in all aspects of undergraduate life and are well represented in the ranks of student leaders. Even as they maintain strong connections to their day school friends, the social networks of Jewish high school alumni are overwhelmingly comprised of new friends they have met in their dorms, in classes, and through the clubs and organizations in which they participate. At the same time, former day school students, especially those with extensive day school experience, have shown themselves to be more resistant than their public school peers to social pressures for the type of heavy drinking that leads to other risky situations and behaviors. The most striking feature of the social networks of those who attended day schools is the density of their connections with Jewish peers. Those with extensive day school experience are also more likely to restrict their dating to Jewish peers.

Jewish Campus Involvement
Whether the criterion is involvement in formal Jewish learning, enrollment in Jewish studies courses, observance of holidays, programs on the Holocaust, Israel and Jewish culture, opportunities to do community service sponsored by a Jewish organization, knowledge or Israel or informal celebrations of Jewish holidays with friends, those who have attended day schools are more involved compared with those who did not attend. In terms of most aspects of Jewish campus life and ritual observance, former day school attendees from Orthodox homes are far and away the most involved. But perhaps even more striking is the demonstrated power of day schools to build strong Jewish identities and connections among students who come from non-Orthodox backgrounds.

Civic Responsibility
Day schools, especially those that attract students from non-Orthodox backgrounds, succeed at imparting an orientation of civic and social responsibility to their students. Former day school students express a stronger sense of responsibility towards addressing the needs of the larger society by influencing social values, helping those in need, volunteering their time to social change efforts, and finding careers that allow them to be of service to the larger community as compared with their public and private school peers. Students with day school experience, especially those from Orthodox backgrounds, also express a greater commitment to the Jewish community, as reflected in their intent to pursue Jewish communal careers.

This is some interesting stuff that should be examined by all Yeshivot. It's time for some introspection - and not the kind that we do on Yom Kippur. I'm not sure how accurate the data are, especially because the survey was conducted online and I think the researchers didn't drill down far enough into the general category "orthodox," yet I'm sure the data can be helpful for future planning in Yeshivot.

2nd Temple Quarry Found

Apparently I'm on a Biblical archaeology stint here. The Jerusalem Post reports the supposed discovery of an ancient quarry where King Herod's workers chiseled huge high-quality limestones for the construction of the Second Temple, including the Western Wall.

Contrapuntalism Explained

1. Each man lines up in your gap.

2. 8 people will show rush.

3. A call will tell who will drop for fakes.

Example: “ Pressure Kick 29”.....this call lets us know that #2 & #9 will drop for fakes. Everyone else rush!

“ Pressure Kick 47”.....this call lets us know that #4 & #7 will drop for fakes. Everyone else rush!

“ All-out Pressure Kick”......this call alerts us that everyone will rush the punter.




Did I mention that I hate academic snobbery?

Deciphering Academic Snobbery or A Rant Against Contrapuntalism

Does it ever bother you when someone does perfectly good research, writes a good sized book, and in order to sound "academic" attaches fancy (dumb) names to otherwise obvious categories or divisions?

Example: Samuel C. Heilman wrote a great book on American Orthodoxy entitled Sliding to the Right: The Contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy. In it he calls Haredim "enclavists" and Modern Orthodox Jews "contrapuntalists".

The "Social Scientist Writing a Book" Thought Process Deciphered:

1. MOs straddle the religious and secular world
2. Everyone knows this
3. I'm an academic
3. A fancy word that captures the idea of holding apparently opposing views at the same time is contrapuntalism
4. Therefore, MOs are contrapuntalists
5. Hey, everyone! I've made a great discovery! MOs are contrapuntalists! (Of course you never knew that!)

(Obviously "contrapuntalism" is not the point of Heilman's otherwise excellent book, but the thought process outlined above - particularly step 5 - is all too present in social science research and makes a definite appearance in Heilman's latest work.)

My Latest Skeptic Bookshelf Acquisition

Not as rare as some of my other titles, but it definitely makes a nice addition to my collection. Beautiful and tight binding.

Madonna Is Our Newest Ambassador!

Madonna "Like a Virgin" Louise Ciccone Ritchie just declared herself the latest "ambassador for Judaism". Ohr lagoyim... right.

The Samson Nazerite Vow in the 16th Century

So what's the difference between a Samson Nazerite and a Standard Nazerite?

1. A Samson Nazerite can become tamei met. A Standard Nazerite can't.
2. A Samson Nazerite can never cut his hair. A Standard Nazerite can do so when his hair becomes too heavy.

The BIG difference, however, is that the Samson Nazerite vow can never be abrogated. Hatarat nedarim won't do it. I can say, "I swear that I will be a nazir and I swear that I won't do hatarat nedarim and undo my previous swear... or this one... or this one...," but they can all be "unwound".

So in the 16th century we begin to find evidence of the Samson Nazerite vow being used to ensure fulfillment of a commitment. It's not clear why the vow's usage in this form only popped up then, but what is pretty evident is that some people were forced to keep their commitment - however much the rabbis tried to release them from their vows. Abu Zimri and Samuel de Medina are examples of rabbis who ruled strictly and held swearers to their words. It's less clear whether the rabbinic rulings were ever observed. (There is only a little evidence of Standard Nazerites really existing. See for example, Moses Trani writing in Shu"t Mabit.)

Interesting usage of the Samson Nazerite vow: There are a number of recorded instances where husbands used the Samson Nazerite vow to pressure their wives into allowing them to take second wives by vowing to become Samson Nazerites unless they consented.

Samuel Morell gives this topic an excellent treatment in his 1989 article in AJS Review, Volume 14, No. 2. Autumn, pp. 223-262. He does a fantastic job of addressing the legal hoops rabbis tripped through in their attempts to release would-be Samson Nazerites from their vows.

Sanity at Cross-Currents

A recent post by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein at Cross Currents remarks that the Bible Codes are "probably without merit, and possibly dangerous."

Bravo!

Preview

As a preview to my next post, does anyone know what the difference is between a standard nazir (nazerite) and a nazir shimson (samson nazerite)?

No cheating!

Ancient Escape Tunnel Found

In a nod to the fundies, archaeologists recently discovered an underground drainage tunnel that was used as an escape route for Jerusalemites 2,000 years ago when they were attacked by the Romans. I like this extrabiblical stuff.

Check out the AP news story here.

What can we believe about Yetziat Mitzraim?

Putting aside the creation story, the most historically difficult event in Tanach is The Exodus. The historicity of The Exodus has been debated into the ground, and I don't intend to go into anything but a cursory explanation of my beliefs (and only if necessary), but yesterday I became curious as to what - from a traditional point of view - we are permitted to believe about Yetziat Mitzraim.

So I did what any reasonable person would do, which is ask Daniel, an intelligent and frum student in my existential philosophy class. (Daniel also happens to teach in a yeshiva).

Simply put, the biggest problem with the Exodus - ignoring the miracles - is the number of people involved. Whether directly or indirectly, the claim of 2+ million Jews leaving Egypt en masse, hanging out in the desert for 40 years, and then settling Canaan is not historically possible.

Many Bible scholars have commented on the word eleph, commonly translated as "thousand," arguing that the word really means something like "troop," "family unit," or "clan." Other scholars have pointed to a historical trend toward (very) systematic number inflation.

So my question to David yesterday was whether a traditional perspective allows for the belief that yetziat mitzraim occurred, but the word eleph has been consistently misinterpreted and only ~20,000 Jews left Egypt.

I'm not sure if Daniel really thought through what reinterpreting eleph would do to countless maamarei chazal (or whether he was just giving me a kiruvy response), but he said that as long as the "motivation" behind the reinterpretation is good, there is no problem. In a followup question Daniel confirmed that reconciling the Biblical narrative with "scientific" history was a fine motivation.

What kefira! Or is it?

Thoughts?

Where Does the Kefirah Go?

I have a very large book collection, recently got married and moved, and am in the process of organizing a couple of bookshelves in my living room and some others in my bedroom. Like most Jews, I plan on keeping a good amount of seforim in my living room, but now I have to figure out what to do with my books on biblical criticism, non-Orthodox Jewish movements, atheism (recall that for the record I am not an atheist), "radical" Jewish thought etc.

Do I put the kefirah-lite books out front and keep the rest in the back? (i.e. Marc Shapiro and Abraham Joshua Heschel go out front and Davies, Lemche, Finkelstein, etc. go in the back.) Should I keep all of the heresy in the back? All out front?

On the one hand I want intelligent guests to have a hint as to where I stand (arrogantly assuming that unintelligent guests won't care about my bookshelf), while on the other hand I want to remain a part of the community and not have people question my hashkafic (and food!) kashrut.

So that's today's big question: Where does the kefirah go?

("In the garbage!" is not an answer.)

Pluralism in Israel

Ha'aretz reports: "In contradiction to recommendations adopted by the Education Ministry in 1994, nearly all the organizations teaching classes on Judaism and Jewish identity at secular schools are doing so in an Orthodox spirit and not a pluralist one."

I find it fascinating that CJ & RJ have had such a tough time making inroads in Israel. Possible reasons why:

1. Israelis think that OJ is awesome (riiiight....)
2. Israelis care about tradition
3. Israelis don't come from a Western tradition of separation and classification

I (obviously) lean toward 2 & 3. Any other suggestions?

Dvar Torah: Moshe's Ego Trip

Can anyone tell me what Moshe was thinking when he called himself God in this week's parshah?

(Ok, fine. I have to be misinterpreting this, but I'm not sure how. It seems to be the poshut pshat that Moshe is speaking in the first person, referring to himself as "Hashem Elokeichem".)

וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם: אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה לְעֵינֵיכֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל-עֲבָדָיו, וּלְכָל-אַרְצוֹ. הַמַּסּוֹת, הַגְּדֹלֹת, אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ, עֵינֶיךָ--הָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים הַגְּדֹלִים, הָהֵם. וְלֹא-נָתַן יְהוָה לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת, וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאָזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. וָאוֹלֵךְ אֶתְכֶם אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, בַּמִּדְבָּר; לֹא-בָלוּ שַׂלְמֹתֵיכֶם מֵעֲלֵיכֶם, וְנַעַלְךָ לֹא-בָלְתָה מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ. לֶחֶם לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם, וְיַיִן וְשֵׁכָר לֹא שְׁתִיתֶם--לְמַעַן, תֵּדְעוּ, כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם

(1) And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; (2) the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs and those great wonders; (3) but the LORD hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. (4) And I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. (5) Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.

The Lighter Side of Bans

The NY Times reports that a Colorado school has banned tag on its playground, as "It causes a lot of conflict on the playground."

Maybe Slifkin won't feel so bad after he finds out...

Modern Orthodoxy and Free Thought

Modern Orthodox Judaism constantly claims that it encourages questioning and free inquiry, confident that it can confront and surmount any intellectual challenges. This sounds great, but it is simply not true. A recent article in Stern College's Observer inadvertently touches on this issue. Check out the following quotes:

"....Posnick also recalled Mrs. Sapirstein labeling certain courses taught by individual teachers as 'apikorsus (blasphemy).'"

"....we were told to stay away from science classes that teach evolution because it’s problematic."

These quotes are by seminary students in reference to classes taught at Stern College for Women, an Orthodox institution!

Briefly, Modern Orthodox Judaism encourages questioning and free inquiry, but only within the pre-limited halachic framework.

Prophecy Apologetics

Woodrow guest posts at DovBear about yeridat hadorot, the decline of the generations. He writes:

"If you just assume that the generational average declines a little every few decades, we still have a problem. During the time of the Judges, Jews were massacring each other in a civil war (Judges 19-21). The Tanach leaves the impression that idol worship was quite common during the First Temple period (or at least near its end). Are either of these generations really better in any way then the generations of pious Jews following them?"

Two comments:

1. Argh. I was going to post about this a few days ago but never got around to it!
2. The upside is that I was going to take a different approach, which follows in brief.

Given the evidence against yeridat hadorot, it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that prophecy ended because of it. We were pretty low at times back when prophecy is supposed to have existed.

*Begrudging hat-tip to Woodrow :-)

Did Amalek Really Exist?

The title of this post is self-explanatory. I don't think that there is any extra-Biblical evidence for Amalek. Do you know of any? (Arab traditions cite Amalek as an extremely powerful group, but I'm thinking more of archaeology than other people's mesorahs.)

Possibilities:

1. Amalek existed as described in Tanach
2. Amalek existed, but was nothing like what the Torah describes
3. Amalek never existed

Ideas:

In Ages in Chaos, Immanuel Velikovsky identified the Amalekites with the Hyksos. If this is true it royally screws with those who believe that Hyksos = Jews in Egypt.

Apologetic view: The Jews followed God's commandment, wiping out Amalek and leavinging behind no evidence that they ever existed.

If anyone here reads and understands German, I found this reference which possibly addresses this question: "Nöldeke, Ueber die Amalekiter und einige andere Nachbarvölker der Israeliten, Göttingen, 1864."

So two questions: Did Amalek actually exist? Do you have any extra-Biblical evidence to back up the contention that they did?

Stay Up Learning All Night Long!

R. Hezekiah de Silva in Pri Chadash to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim 89:3, writes that in Egypt "one cannot attain presence of mind without the aid of coffee."

R. Avraham ben Mordechai haLevi of Cairo also notes that it was an everyday practice at sizable meals that after drinking a glass of wine at the conclusion of bentching, "another beverage called coffee" would be brought in order to restore one's presence of mind.

Is it just me, or does haLevi sounds like he's describing a wine/caffeine speedball?

The Skeptic Ideology

XGH recently wrote about Michael Shermer's idea that "anti-anything" movements can never succed unless they offer something positive. In response to this idea - which, incidentally, I somewhat agree with - XGH posted a skeptic ideology which includes:

-There is no real goal or purpose to the Universe, and by extension to anything in it.
-There is no afterlife. When you die, you die.

Littlefoxling commented: "I agree that what skepticism offers is no match for what religion offers. On the other hand, what skepticism offers, it really does offer. What religion offers is just pretend."

1. What does intellectual honesty gain us? (Aside, perhaps, from existential angst.)
2. In my experience, most humans need a real purpose to life and crave for the idea of an afterlife, however fanciful these beliefs may be.

XGH also wrote:

"Free Will and Consciousness are really illusions of the mind, they don’t actually exist."

I really don't understand what it means to say that consciousness is an illusion of the mind. Does this mean that I'm not *really* experiencing reality? That I'm not more aware of my surroundings than a rock? Unless you venture into silly definitions of reality, consciousness exists. The argument that there is no "consciousness organ" and therefore no evidence for consciousness is, as far as I'm concerned, elegantly rebutted with Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum".

PS - For those of you who are curious, the wedding was awesome and married life rocks.

Leave of Absence

I'll be taking a few days off from blogging to get married, but never fear, Safkanut will return! Probably on Tuesday!

-Skeptodox O'Dox, Bachelor

Non-Biblical Evidence for Nebuchadnezzar

From here.

"Aug. 16, 2007 — Non-biblical evidence for individuals named in the Bible is rare, particularly for people who were not royals. But an ancient Babylonian tablet provides further proof that a king and his servant — both named in the Book of Jeremiah — existed in the 6th century B.C.

According to an announcement by Assyriologist Michael Jursa and the British Museum, the small clay tablet from the museum's collections bears the name of Babylonian officer Nebo-Sarsekim. In chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, this individual is described as being with King Nebuchadnezzar II at the siege of Jerusalem in the year 587 B.C.

Jursa, a visiting associate professor from the University of Vienna, discovered the find while analyzing the tablet's cuneiform script, which was produced by pressing a wedge-shaped instrument — probably a cut reed — into moist clay. The tablet turns out to be a 595 B.C. bill of receipt acknowledging Nebo-Sarsekim's payment of over 1.6 pounds of gold to a Babylonian temple."

I think Balaam still counts as the oldest Biblical character referenced in a non-Biblical source, but this is still cool.

Science & Religion

Yaakov Stern, excerpt from a letter posted at Hirhurim:

"I am no prophet, but I can predict with certainty that within twenty years most of what the scientific community presently believes will be relegated to the dustbin of history."

Fantastic. Now can you explain why OJs and other religious fundamentalists are so concerned with reconciling science and Tanach? For the sake of those who are content with their current apologetics, I hope you are wrong.

(Although I'm sure Schroeder, Aviezer, and their fellow "scientists" won't mind earning some extra cash on new books.)

All the Biblical Hebrew You Learned in Yeshiva is Wrong

Ok, fine. Maybe just three words.

Ian M. Young, writing in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 48, Fasc. 2. (Apr., 1998), pp. 239-253, examines the evidence for literacy in ancient Israel. I'll save his conclusions for another time*, but here are three interesting linguistic points that Young makes:

1. The Biblical verb "to write" (ktb) can also bear the sense of "to have someone write for one". It therefore follows that not all who are said in the Bible to write (or are commanded to write) are themselves literate.

2. The Biblical verb "to read" (qra) can also mean "to have something read to one". Similar conclusion as in point #1.

3. The word na'ar describes someone of high-born status and can at times mean "scribe".

*Brief plot spoiler: Ancient Israel was far from being a literate group, but were pretty darn good compared to other groups from the time.

Switch to Haloscan

Littlefoxling and others who prefer Haloscan, you're in luck.

We Get What We Deserve

Recently posted over at XGH:

"I'm sick and tired of the disrespect shown to skeptics by believers. Phrases like 'skeptics spewing their stuff' and similar. When a believer says a dvar Torah, do we talk about believers 'spewing their stuff'? No we don't.

And as for skeptics 'venting' - well wouldn't you vent if you were forced to believe in the unbelievable, and forced to do the most ridiculous things? Damn right you would vent, I know that for a fact. And, this is all the believers fault anyway for making it almost impossible for a skeptic to believe what he wants and do what he wants.

It's easy for cowardly, intellectually dishonest skeptics to live in their delusional bubble along with the rest of their co-delusionists. But it takes courage for someone to be intellectually honest and face the truth (as they see it). And for that they deserve your respect. You may be too weak willed and cowardly to face up the to the truth yourself, but at least show some respect for those who value truth more than their own personal comfort."

To be fair, we skeptics talk about "fundies spewing their stuff" and "kiruv clowns" on a daily basis. Like we show believers respect? Most of us think that we are above everyone else and that we hold the keys to the truth. We talk about "delusional" and "intellectually dishonest" ma'aminim. We "face the truth" (as we see it), and then we act condescendingly toward everyone who believes otherwise. That's one of our problems. That's one of the reasons why we aren't convincing. We get what we give, and we give what we get. We don't give respect, deserve respect, and don't get respect.

The Latest Addition To My Bookshelf

My most recent acquisition. It is a first edition Hebrew Tanakh from 1720 and was the first attempt at a critical edition. (The critical notes are in Latin.) The editor - Johann Heinrich Michaelis - used five manuscripts and 19 printed editions besides consulting others, and adopted as the basis of his text the Berlin edition of 1699 (by D. E. Jablonski). He was assisted by his nephew C. B. Michaelis, and J. J. Rambach.

Why Orthodox Jews Should Think

I was recently chatting with an Orthodox friend who argued that "there is nothing to lose" from being an Orthodox Jew. I respectfully disagreed. I think that there is a lot to gain, but also a ton to (potentially) lose. There are many reasons for an Orthodox Jew to critically consider their beliefs. Here's why:

1. Orthodox Jews spend well over an entire month each year abstaining from productive work (and depending on one's ideas of fun, that too)
2. Persecution
3. Inaccess to food and services can severely restrict travel options
4. Potentially wasting one's time praying to a wrong or nonexistent God, learning wrong or meaningless books
5. Being an Orthodox Jew can cost a ton of money
6. Restricted marriage options

I think that this list could go on, but the point is made. There are a crapload of reasons for Orthodox Jews to think critically about their beliefs. It's absolutely not a "nothing to lose" situation.

Jewish Wedding Customs

I recently read Customs and Folkways of Jewish Life by Theodor H. Gaster, a book that will hopefully be the source of a number of interesting future posts. I'm getting married in the not-too-distant future, so I'll share with you some excerpts that are on topic:

1. The Hebrew word kallah primarily means "one who is shut in, secluded," referring to postnuptial seclusion that used to take place in ancient cultures.
2. The Hebrew word chatan primarily means "one who is circumcised." In ancient cultures, the groom's father typically would circumcise the groom before the wedding as a means of correcting any sexual condition (real or otherwise) that may prevent reproduction.
3. Sometimes, wedding garb was used to render the bridge and groom unrecognizable by malicious spirits. In the 15th century it was customary for Jewish grooms to wear clothes of mourning and to strew ashes on his head. This was a means of disguising oneself from demons.
4. Ancient Greeks had a chuppah (thalamos) at their weddings, as did other cultures. Much of the reason behind the chuppah has to do with screening the bride and groom from "assaults of demons and from the evil eye."
5. The custom of smashing a glass is "by no means exclusively Jewish not, indeed, is it mentioned in the earlier Jewish sources." Evidently it's something we picked up from our neighbors way back when. Once again - you guessed it - demons! The rite symbolically smashed the powers of the demons and all ill-wishers.

Interesting. Anyway, I'm still excited for the ceremony!

Hiter HQ Had Jewish Music

Or so says the San Jose Mercury News.

"A collection of recordings taken from Adolf Hitler's headquarters at the end of World War II includes performances by Jewish musicians and works by Russian composers, according to a German magazine report."

Mincha Minyan Destroys the Kuzari Argument!

Ok, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little. But hey, I got your attention.

I recently received a call asking for my help in making a mincha minyan. I trotted over to shul, but was in no mood to pray and picked up the nearest sefer: Melachim.

Melachim Bet, Perek Kaf Bet contains one of the more interesting stories in Nach:

8. Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9. Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: "Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple." 10. Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. 11. When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 13. "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us."

So What?

For now I’m going to stay away from the usual arguments over these verses (i.e. “Oh, so that’s where Devarim came from!”). Instead I’ll try and take what I think is a fresh approach to the passage:

These verses from Tanakh directly contradict the Kuzari argument.

1. The Book of the Law (later referred to as the Book of the Covenant) is found by a single person

2. The king and the nation were not familiar with the book

3. The nation was worshipping idols and had installed pagan priests. The verses in Kings 23 demonstrate that the Jews were only really “Jewish” as a people, not as a religion. The previous generation hadn’t followed (known?) the contents of the new book, which included Pesach, a holiday that commemorates the exodus from Egypt

4. Nevertheless, the king, and therefore EVERYONE else, accepts this book. The king rids the nation of all idolatry. Poof! Judaism! (Again?)

People simply weren’t that skeptical.

Is the supernatural really supernatural?

A good post from Skeptic Rant:

"The term "supernatural" is a misnomer. It has no meaning. For if ghosts, goblins, gods, or little green men exist, then they are all of this world. There is no "other". Even if other dimensions, baby universes, higher planes, or whatever, exist, they are all part of the same all encompassing reality. Therefore, "supernatural", or "above nature" is a meaningless statement. However, a practical usage of the term would be to say that there is natural, and there is "supernatural", wherein "supernatural" refers to any belief that is beyond belief or proof, and therefore not part of this, or any other, reality."

Skeptodox:

What do we mean when we say that something is "supernatural"? I lean toward a naturalist approach. Naturalism does not distinguish the supernatural from nature. It does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. (Definition thanks to Wikipedia.)

What exactly do you refer to when you use the word "supernatural"?

Blog Reading Trends

I use Google Reader as my blog reading tool. Yesterday I noticed a "trends" link, which I clicked and got this:

- I subscribe to 26 blog feeds

- Over the last 30 days I read 617 items

- I read most of them at 8am (that's going to change as I head back to school and don't have to be at work at ungodly hours)

- Dov Bear has the highest blogging frequency, at 2.7 posts per day. Failed Messiah comes in second with 2.1 and XGH is third with 1.9

- The only trend that was surprising is that I read the vast majority of posts on Mondays and the number steadily declines throughout the week


In coming episodes: The sources you never knew behind some Jewish customs! Belief vs. practice in orthodoxy! Vanna White gives away $2000!

Is Orthodox Judaism a Cult?

The following consists of excerpts from article arguing that Judaism is not a cult. My comments are included.

According to exit counselors (experts who help people trying to leave cults), someone who has joined a cult will usually show at least some of the following symptoms: a loss of free will; a loss of spontaneity; the loss of his sense of humor; an inability to form intimate relationships outside the cult; physical deterioration and/or signs of abuse; psychological deteriorations, sometimes including hallucinations; anxiety; paranoia; disorientation; disassociation; a development of dependancy and a return to childlike behavior. These are some of the standard effects seen in individuals involved in destructive cults. Do not, however, expect a cult member to show all those symptoms.

Ok, I’m entirely unconvinced so far. Judaism certainly restricts free will, spontaneity, and relationships with non-Jews.

Are Jews brainwashed? Brainwashed people would not be expected (or allowed) to ask questions. Cults never allow their members to ask questions. Judaism, on the other hand, thrives on questions. Judaism teaches that if you're not asking questions, you're not learning, and you're not growing. The entire purpose of having Rabbis is so that they can answer our questions. We even have a Seder on Passover whose entire purpose is get people (especially children) to ask questions! Brainwashing relies on keeping the subject ignorant. Judaism heavily stresses study and knowledge.

Judaism loves questions, but only kosher questions. Try asking about the documentary hypothesis, having a debate about archaeology and Tanakh, or arguing about the existence of God in a Yeshiva classroom. Judaism heavily stresses study and knowledge, but only study and knowledge of itself.

Brainwashed people lose their original personality. A major element of Judaism is self-improvement and self-development. A Jew becoming Orthodox should never lose his personality. Changes in personality for the better are a good sign.

So a BT should never lose his personality, only change it for the better. What is that supposed to mean?

Many cults depend on secrecy. They talk about a truth that no one else has.

We definitely talk about a truth that no one else has, although we aren’t very secretive about practices.

Dropout control is another element of most cults. However, Jewish groups are not so coherent or rigidly defined. There are no absolute rules that clearly delineate whether or not you are part of a Jewish group. If you feel at home, you belong. If you don't feel at home, you find another synagogue or another community to be a part of. Among Jewish groups people come and go all the time. People change groups, and sometimes even leave Orthodox Judaism entirely, unfortunately. We exercise no mind control over anyone, and we cannot prevent anyone from doing what they want. Of course, if we know someone is slipping in their observance, we will often try to befriend them and try to help them deal with their difficulties.

And then once they complete their “slippage” and leave Orthodox Judaism entirely we ostracize them. We have hotlines for kids at risk, and programs like Aish and Project Chazon. No, we don’t try and stop people from dropping out. Not a chance.

Because of dropout control, many cults refuse to let their members live at home. Judaism, however, fosters good family relationships, and insists that children respect their parents and the feelings of relatives and friends (well, everyone's feelings, actually). Most people joining Orthodox Judaism continue to live at home, though they often travel to Israel or elsewhere to study for some time in a proper yeshivah.

Right. They study for some time in a yeshiva and then move to an insular Orthodox community. The article is geared toward the parents of a BT. Of course they are leaving home. Home (and likely their whole neighborhood) doesn't fit their lifestyle.

Cults are generally created and/or led by charismatic leaders. These leaders almost always demand absolute fealty and loyalty. They usually have set themselves up as leaders, building a following. These leaders often teach their followers that the leader is divine, and he therefore demands worship. Cults are usually messianic, and consider their leader to be a sort of god-messiah. They follow him blindly, and they often spend most of their lives making money for the leader, who gets rich from their labor. The leader is seldom accountable to anyone for his behavior.

God is a pretty charismatic leader, right? (The Rebbe had one or two followers as well…)

Members of a cult have one primary purpose: to serve the leader or the group. Orthodox Judaism has no such concept.

Forgetting about God again?

Cults almost always teach the infallibility of the leader of the cult. Jews do not believe that Rabbis are infallible, but generally we follow only a Rabbi we believe to be righteous and wise.

So Rabbis lead us, not God. And what about those Jews who hold up every word of the Talmud as true? Are they referring to the Rabbis as infallible or God's word?

Another very common element in many cults is the manipulation by the leader of the bedroom lives of the members (in the interest of holiness, I'm using euphemisms). This does not exist in Judaism, and could not. Our lives are private and our own. They are influenced by Jewish Law, but not by the whims of anyone else at all.

Hilchot niddah? Arayot? Negiah?

Cults practice a severe form of censorship. This could not exist in Judaism. We are free people. We go where we please, we buy what we please, we read what we please.

Ban water! Ban strawberries! Ban books! Ban music! Ban denim skirts!

Cults are said to have an immutable dogma. Most religions have that. Judaism has it too. Judaism, however, is much more flexible than almost any other religious dogma. I often like to say that the answer to almost every question about Judaism is "It depends."

Halakhic questions, maybe. Ikkarim questions, no.

Most cults offer a newly invented doctrine, often a composite of other popular religions. Judaism teaches a way of life that has been a tradition for over three thousand years. If you are Jewish, then the overwhelming likelihood is that your great-grandparents were fully observant Jews, and their parents were, and their parents were, and so on back for many generations. Surely you cannot believe that your own grandparents were members of a cult.

Why not?

Source: http://www.beingjewish.com/family/nocult.html

That said, I'm still not convinced OJ is a cult. Cognitive dissonance?

*Hat-tip to commenter One More for the idea.

Off The Derech

What image comes to mind when you read the following words:

• Rebellion
• Attrition
• Youth exhibiting the most extreme behavior
• At risk
• Hotline
• Socially unacceptable
• Problematic
• Off the derech

Until you reach the last bullet point, the picture painted is one of severe degeneracy or perhaps mental illness. I just read Faranak Margolese’s Off The Derech: Why Observant Jews Leave Judaism & How to Respond to the Challenge. I understand that Off The Derech is geared toward the frum community, but as you might gather, I find offensive some of the language used to describe those who leave Orthodoxy.

Thoughts/Observations:

1. I consider myself a thinker, and I found it a bit disappointing that Margolese plays down any possible role that critical thought might have in people going “off the derech.” Margolese finds (and I wasn't so convinced that her book was scientific) that most who leave Orthodoxy are “pushed out” rather than “pulled in.” I’m curious whom she interviewed, and I wonder whether those who abandon MO Judaism are any different in their reasons from those who abandon Charedi Judaism? (In a sweeping generalization, I would surmise that MOJs are more likely to be "thinking abandoners" and Charedim pulled in by secular society.)

2. “Debbie Greenblatt, former Director of Project YES, notes that she has yet to meet someone who has left observance who does not believe in God.” Who wants to introduce Ms. Greenblatt to Jewish Atheist?

3. Off the Derech supports XGH’s theology: “Educators say that, when you ask most children why they keep the Torah, they give the same resounding response: Because God told us to. But when you ask them how they know this, you get another resounding response: silence. This would not be such a problem if they had other reasons to be observant – if they believed that Judaism fostered happiness and fulfillment, provided meaning, inspiration, etc…” Sounds like Margolese is endorsing XGH's values-driven theology...

Who are you and how did you get here?

Confession: I am happily surprised that people showed up this quickly and have commented. But I'm curious. You're here, and thank you for swinging by. Now how did you come across this blog?

Would we recognize our ancestors' religion?

A question I have pondered recently:

If I were transported back in time to the second temple period would I easily recognize the religion practiced by ancient Israel as Judaism?

I’m tempted to say no. Here’s why:

1. No prayer services
2. Only one religious gathering place
3. Music in the Temple
4. Sacrificial cult
5. Tum’ah and tahara are central to life, red cows
6. Caste hierarchy is important
7. Tribal affiliation is important
8. Nationwide gatherings in Jerusalem three times a year
9. Kingship

Am I missing anything big?

*Edit: We're talking about the first temple period. Thanks, Mike.

Brief Introduction

I’ll intentionally keep things a little fuzzy here. I grew up in a liberal Orthodox community in an observant home. My father is learned and deeply committed, although I’m not sure he knows why, and my mother’s reason for everything is simply “tradition!” Myself, I am an arch-skeptic who practices (at least publicly) some form of Orthodox Judaism. I’m in a similar boat to XGH in that I am in search of a (truthful) theology to justify my practice, although that will not be the focus of this blog, as I’m somewhat skeptical that such a belief system exists. As for my personal beliefs:

God: Not provable, but I have faith here.
TMS: This would be embarrassing to God if it were true.
OJ: Weird, but what I'm used to and somewhat enjoy. Unbeatable networking tool.

-Skeptodox