Living Up To The Truth

Is religion, or in our case historical Traditional Judaism, relevant? Yes, of course it is. Historical Traditional Judaism is relevant because, given the concerns that people typically have, the Torah has a very good track record of producing results.

...

Everyone wants to live with as little crime as possible. Again, Jewish Tradition is very proud that within Torah communities, crime, violent crime in particular, is almost unknown. Imagine interviewing the presiding police officer in a precinct in Williamsburg, Borough Park, Flatbush, Monsey, Monroe, or any place where you have large concentrations of Traditional Jews. Ask him how many times he is called out on a murder charge, rape, assault and battery, mugging, child abuse, etc. The incidence of these sort of crimes in Orthodox communities is very low.

It is fortunate that Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb limited his list of crimes to violent ones. That way he doesn't have to worry about removing money-laundering, tax evasion, organ trafficking, child labor violations, identity theft, bank fraud, immigration violations, etc., from the next edition of his booklet "Living Up To The Truth" (although he probably should delete child abuse from the list of "almost unknown" crimes.)

(As readers of my sporadic blog may know, Gottlieb's writings generally rank very high on the bogometer, as described more fully in God is a Mafia Boss. But if you are ready for some more Gottlieb-style logic that allows him to conclude his thesis with "Therefore, Judaism is the only justified way to live.", you may view the booklet in its entirety here.)

Chabad - Moon Landing Shows That Mortal Intellect is Worthless

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing - July 20, 1969. I found this fascinating Chabad perspective that dates back to the landing.

Spiritual "spaceship danger"

This year marked an extraordinary event, the landing on the moon.

We can perceive two ideas from the moon landing: There formerly was scientific proof that it is not possible to land on the moon, since it was thought that it was impossible to achieve the necessary takeoff velocity without breaking or burning up the rocket, and the like. From this we see that mortal intellect is worthless and unreliable, given that whatever man thinks today may very well be proved erroneous tomorrow.

So one of the greatest intellectual achievements in history - the landing on the moon - actually proves that humankind's intellect is "worthless and unreliable"! What a skewed (not to mention logically nonsensical) perspective!

The article is not attributed, but its attitude - which essentially denigrates scientific discovery and achievement - is certainly in keeping with other positions of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, including his beliefs in geocentricity and young earth creationism.

Losing One's Share in The World to Come

• The Sages say that for three transgressions one forfeits his portion in the World to Come: murder, adultery, and idol worship, and that lashon hara is equivalent to all three. (B. Erchin 15b)

• The following have no portion therein: he who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, the Torah was not divinely revealed,and an epikoros. R. Akiva added: one who reads non-canonical books. Rav and R. Hanina both taught that an epikorus is one who insults a scholar. R. Yochanan and R. Joshua b. Levi maintained that it is one who insults his neighbor in the presence of a scholar. A Tanna explains that when R. Akiva says "non-canonical books", he is speaking about books of the Sadducees. R. Yosef says that it is also forbidden to read the book of Ben Sira. (Sanhedrin 90a)

• One who talks during the repetition of the amidah is called "a sinner whose sin is too great to be forgiven. (Mishnah Berurah 124:27.)

• One who converses during Krias ha-Torah is called "a sinner whose sin is too great to be forgiven." (Bieur Halachah 146:2)

• R. Eleazar of Modin said: One who profanes things sacred, and one who slights the festivals, and one who embarrasses his fellow-man in public, and one who nullifies the covenant of our father Abraham, and one who exhibits impudence towards the Torah contrary to halacha, even though he has to his credit Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come. (Avot 3:11 or 3:15)

• Among those who lose their share in the World to Come are those who treat Chol Hamoed disrespectfully, as any other weekday (Rashi to above mishna in Avot.)

• Hillel used to say: He who makes worldly use of the crown of the Torah shall perish. Thus you may infer that any one who exploits the words of the Torah removes himself from the world of life. (Avot 4:7)

• Anybody who undertakes to learn Torah all the time, not work, and support himself from charity is desecrating God's Name, disgracing the Torah, extinguishes his Jewish spark, causes bad to befall him and destroys his life in the World To Come, for it is forbidden to benefit from Torah matters in this world. (Rambam Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10; see also his laundry list in Hilchot Teshuvah.)

I don't for a minute believe that these are anything more than rabbinic hyperbole, but the next time you are accused of being an apikorus destined for Gehinnom, feel free to respond to your accuser with the appropriate passage. (The two "talking" quotes are perfect for your typical Young Israel, and the last quote is ideal as a response to kollel kanoim!)

Chumash Is More Meaningful If The Stories Didn't Happen - Menachem Leibtag

The following is a transcription of Rabbi Menachem Leibtag's closing remarks in a Torah In Motion lecture entitled Interpreting the Bible: The Relationship between Peshat and Derash. This brief lecture discusses a number of textual "problems" found in the Pentateuch (mostly related to its non-chronological order and seeming disorganized structure), but that these are intentional so that one will actively engage in the interpretative process when learning Chumash. By the way, R. Leibtag is a wonderful teacher of Chumash (I highly recommend his weekly parsha shiur), but his speaking style is somewhat stilted at times. So while it may appear that there are typos in my transcription, I have rechecked it against the lecture and it is very accurate.

Taking a story literally or not, when I read a story in Chumash - again, believing everything is coming from God - whether or not that story actually happened has nothing to do with its message. Do you understand my point? If someone believes, it's like the flood story, so there's an argument - it happened or didn't happen - or the story of creation. It's not a question of when you study it, it's not coming to tell you this happened. Chumash is using that story to give you a message. Now it could be the story did happen. But even if it didn't happen, that only makes the story even more meaningful. It's a tricky point, but it's really important. Meaning, if you believe in God, if you believe in nevuah, if you believe this work is coming from God, if God makes up a story to teach you a lesson that doesn't make the story any less meaningful. In fact, it makes it more meaningful...

Do we keep Shabbat because God created in seven days, or does God create a creation story so that we would keep Shabbat in a meaningful way. Do you follow? The second approach is much more meaningful, it makes much more sense. It could be that it did take 7 days, but even if it didn't it wouldn't make any difference. The message you get from Sefer Bereshit, the meaning that you gain from studying the creation story in depth, and looking at schematics and the way it's setup, it's said so beautifully and so much depth to the story and this deep message with man's relationship with God. That message has nothing do with what happened in physics. Big bang, small bang, middle bang. It has nothing to do with it. That message is eternal. And if someone can prove to you that it didn't take six or seven days, so what? It doesn't mean a thing. And if God gives you that story to teach you a message, then it's only more meaningful if it didn't happen. Understand? So therefore that whole argument of whether something happened or not is trivial.

Now, the danger of that approach is where do you draw the line? You get fundamental fundamentalism where maybe that didn't happen, or maybe the avot didn't exist, maybe yetzias mitzrayim didn't happen, maybe I don't exist. Do you follow? You go on and on and you can't draw the line and therefore what usually happens is because I don't know where to draw the line you don't draw it at all. That's also dangerous.

Of course, Rabbi Leibtag starts with the belief that God wrote the Torah in its entirety, so I guess with this a priori assumption his point is valid. But at the same time, it seems to be nothing more than clever stretchin' and kvetchin'. His assertion can be used for apologists when encountering any piece of evidence - no matter how compelling - that the Torah may be a compilation of multiple source documents.

So whaddya think?

Fake Fur Streimels - Coming Soon?

An article in Jewish World discusses recent legislation in Israel that may ultimately affect the importation of fur used for shtreimels.

According to the motion to amend the Cruelty to Animals law, which was submitted by Kadima MK Ronit Tirosh, the importation from East Asia (and mainly China) of fur or textile products made out of the hair of dogs, cats or rabbits will be banned and punishable by a one-year prison sentence.

Tirosh wrote that about 2 million animals are slaughtered each year for the sole purpose of skinning them for their fur and they sometimes get skinned alive. "We as a society must try and prevent this unnecessary murder," the motion stated.

Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon, whose office is in charge of implementing the law, even recommended expanding the bill to include fur of wild and domesticated animals from around the world.

What I find most curious is how people are so quick to condemn the Chassidic minhag of shtreimels. Both in the Jewish World article and in the recent FailedMessiah post - A Haredi 'History' Lesson - that covered this topic, you can see how many people are opposed to the custom. Now I can understand such a point of view if one is a radical vegan of the Peta-ilk, but otherwise what is really behind the opposition to shtreimels? So what if it's a custom that goes back "only" a few hundred years or so? The only issue that folks should have (again, other than radical animal rights adherents) is whether the animals were killed humanely. You have problems with shtreimels, fur coats, leather shoes, meat-eating? Fine, don't use them or eat meat. And feel free to try and respectfully convince others not to. But the bottom line is that humans have used animals for food and clothing for tens of thousands of years and will continue to do so for a long time to come.

Although I truly believe that Peta is an evil organization cult, they have brought the issue of animal cruelty to the forefront. And that's a good thing. To those folks who want to forbid shtreimels or fur products (one absurd comment on FailedMessiah was from Michael who said "Shtreimels are clearly forbidden d'oraita"), I would first ask "are you a vegan"? If not, you may want to take a close look at the lives of chickens used for meat and (especially) eggs. See where animal suffering occurs on a truly grand scale.

I suspect that most of the opposition to shtreimels does not stem from a specific aversion to the use of fur, but a more visceral contempt for Chassidim because of their rejection of much of the trappings of modernity. Shtreimels, vasa zocken (white socks with knickers), long peyot, etc., are only the most outward signs of this rejection.

Cucumber Craving

And the mixed multitude that was among them cultivated a craving; and the Children of Israel also turned and they wept and said: 'Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we would eat in Egypt free of charge; the cucumbers, and the melons, leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing before our eyes but the manna! - Numbers 11:4-6

What's so great about cucumbers anyway? Well I'll tell you!

The Egyptians made a drink from cucumber. When it was ripe, a hole was cut at the end. Then a small stick was inserted into the hole. After much stirring and squashing, the hole was plugged and the veggie was buried in the ground for a few days. When it was unearthed, the fermented pulp inside made for a powerful cocktail.

(See the cool things that you can learn from Uncle John's All-Purpose Extra-Strength Bathroom Reader?)

Yum! How could a monotonous diet of honey wafers (what manna tasted like) compete with a cheap and easy cucumber buzz? Perhaps the memories of the smashing good times that the Jews had in Egypt eventually led to their pre-eminence in the wine and liquor business?

Anachronistic Prayers Part 1 or The Crow of the Cock

When he hears the cock crowing he should say: 'Blessed is He who has given to the cock understanding to distinguish between day and night'. (Berachot 60b)

The ArtScroll siddur quotes Rabbenu Asher ben Yechiel, the Rosh, who interprets "sekhvi" as "the heart" (see Iyov 8:36), thus making the morning beracha

Blessed is He who has given the heart understanding to distinguish between day and night.

It is clear from the Talmud that this late interpretation has nothing to do with the original intention of the composer of the blessing. In a time when there were no alarm clocks, one would wake up to the crowing of the rooster. Indeed, Tehillat Hashem (the Nusach Ari / Chabad siddur) in its halachic note to the blessing states "if he was awake all night and heard the crow of the rooster after midnight, he may recite the berachah."

The Rosh lived from ca. 1250 to 1328. Wiki mentions an interesting contemporaneous fact in its article on clocks: "Between 1280 and 1320, there is an increase in the number of references to clocks and horologes in church records, and this probably indicates that a new type of clock mechanism had been devised. Existing clock mechanisms that used water power were being adapted to take their driving power from falling weights. This power was controlled by some form of oscillating mechanism, probably derived from existing bell-ringing or alarm devices. This controlled release of power - the escapement - marks the beginning of the true mechanical clock." A speculative thought is that the Rosh's reformulation arose out of his prescient awareness that the need for the rooster alarm clock would soon eliminated.

This blessing was at one time a very practical one. Today, however, it has no meaning to us without the creative rendering of Rabbenu Asher.