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