Certain Doubt

What do we do with a Get after it has been delivered?

What tribal status does a child have if his mother was raped by an unknown assailant?

What is the status of meat found in an unmarked package found along the street?

How we answer these questions will depend on how we pursue certainty. In many areas of life we use the tools of scientific analysis, or at least a rough approximation. Perhaps we should archive the get, put it on microfiche and make it searchable online. Since tribal status follows the father, a quick paternity test or at least run the DNA test to see if the child is a cohen. And even if we might not want to eat street meat, we could perform various tests to see what animal the meat came from, if it still contains blood etc.

Halakhah, Jewish law, rejects this method. It wasn’t just the limitations of the ancient world; there is no end to the questions through measurement only increasing degrees of confidence. There will always be some who doubt the get’s correctness, others who wonder is the DNA was truly accurate and many more who would be suspicious of the meat no matter what.

So Judaism says simply, the get is never seen by anyone ever again so it cannot be challenged. The child follows the status of the majority of men in the area. The meat is kosher is the majority of the neighborhood is Jewish.

Science seeks to remove doubt in order to control the world. Thank God, our intelligible world has let us find ways to reduce human suffering in almost every part of life. Torah, however, seeks to remove doubt to allow us to function within the world. Of course we still try to mold and shape the world into a better place, but ultimately, we have to acknowledge not just the limits of our ability to control events. We have to accept that perfect control is a theoretical impossibility – one of quantum mechanics great insights.

So we spend more energy viewing the world as it should be or needs to be in order to be a meaningful and sacred place. We describe it in ways that make living more meaningful and beautiful. This is a different, but complimentary agenda from science. Together we improve what we can and know how to make certain our doubts in order to reach beyond our limits.

 

Aid Without Arrogance

As we talked about this last Shabbat, Avraham was willing to let Lot choose first, to make his own decision. In our personal and national efforts at helping others, this is something we should remember. Rather than telling them what to do, we should help them build their own lives. Two organizations that work this way are Kiva and Heifer International. Both supply resources to help those in impoverished conditions build a foundation that will help them and their neighbors.

Kiva works through micro-loans, small loans to help entrepeneurs develop the small-scale businesses in markets and villages necessary for sustained income and growth.

Heifer International works by supplying animals and training to create sustainable solutions to economic and nutritional problems.

If there are other organizations you have worked with please let us know in the comments section.

If you’d like to share your views on aid programs in general, chime in as well.

 

Instant Library

Well almost instant, you still need to wait for delivery.

Thanks to those who have shown so much interest I have put together a short list on Amazon of books you might enjoy. Everything from core texts like the Torah and Tanach to a little history and philosophy to a few things a bit further afield. I will add to it in the future to include any other books I mention in sermons and classes. Use the comments below to make your own recomendations or to discuss the books I have selected.

Amazon Book List

(Update: if the link is not working, here is the full version of it.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/R25M2V5BRRUFS7/ref=cm_sw_su_l

Museum Piece (Rosh HaShanah 1)

Every year archeologist are uncovering new examples of ancient texts. From the well-known code of Hammurabi to Egyptians hieroglyphs to Akkadian and Ugaritic tablets we now have examples from all over the ancient Middle East of how they organized their communities. Funny enough though, no one is running to buy the compilations and begin living their lives according to them. Baal, Set, Chemosh, Molech, Marduk and all the rest seem to still be buried and done; their influence over the world is limited to a few scholars and hobbyists.

Torah, on the other hand, is still going strong. Unlike its neighbors or any other ancient way of life, Torah continues to influence millions of Jews and, by proxy, billions of others. But why? If we roll back the tape of history, there is no objective reason Torah or Judaism did any better than the others. Certainly Egypt and Mesopotamia had larger populations, more advanced “civilizations” and broader regional influence in their day. Other deities and pantheons spanned multiple tribes and cultures which should have made them outlast any one nation. Why is it that their national treasures are being dug up from the sand and placed in museums while ours are being scrupulously recopied and placed in the Aron HaKodesh (Holy Ark)?

Historians can point to a certain amount of luck and large sample size. With hundreds of small tribes and nations coming and going, one surviving to modernity is not surprising. Despite what the movie Unbreakable implied, the one person who survives the train crash does not necessarily have super powers. This is a nice theory, but ignores the fact that Judaism has not only survived but thrived and influenced the course of history in ways disproportionate to its size.

Others may point to the heavens above and say we are still here because God wills it. I agree, but I think God expects us to do more than acknowledge the fact of our existence; we must understand it.

Torah and Judaism have done so well because they work and have remained alive and relevant. Generations have seen the positive affects. Judaism’s rituals and form gives meaning to a chaotic world. Judaism’s drive for company is an excellent antidote for loneliness. Judaism’s ethics and morality have created societies that have progressively improved the lives of everyone through justice, compassion and greater equality.

Research has shown (that wonderful phrase that has replaced “As it is written” as the ultimate appeal to Truth) that all three, meaning, belonging and civil society, are essential to any meaningful measure of human happiness and success.

But all religions at one point or another seem to meet these criteria. If they didn’t they never would have attracted enough adherents to make it beyond private club stage. Even Molech must have made sense to some at the time. As time goes on though, it made less and less sense. One of Judaism’s essential features is its applicability across time and space. This is something we learned in the Exodus as Torah was given outside the land of Israel. We relearned it during our Exile in Babylon. As new challenges and opportunities arose, such as long distance travel and international commerce, moving to different climates, exposure to new cultures and more, we carefully applied Judaism to each situation.

Judaism has combined enough flexibility to adapt when needed but enough consistency to preserve its wisdom and guidance in a chaotic world. As the pace of change has accelerated, we, as individuals and a community, must struggle harder to keep up. In that struggle we cannot forget or ignore our faith. If we relegate Judaism lower and lower on our list of priorities as we cope with the world not only will we lose its benefits, but we will end up burying it beneath silence and turning our synagogues into museums.

613 + 2000 = 1

I’m not a mathematician but I am pretty sure those numbers don’t look right. Yet as a Rabbi I know that they are true, at least in one sense.

We are drawing to the end of the Torah and before we start it again, I want to take stock of what we have covered. In addition to the narrative, there are a whole lot of mitzvot, commandments. According to the traditional count, 613. There are different enumerations by different scholars of that magic number, but the number doesn’t change. Except when it does.

As we discussed on Shabbat, only about 300 of those commandments are still in operation. We can no longer perform sacrifices. We no longer have a king or an institutionalized priesthood. The number is even lower if we subtract those parts of Jewish civil and criminal law that cannot be adjudicated while under foreign rule. They’re not removed from the count because we are still expected to obey them, i.e., we must still return lost property, refrain from injuring others etc, even if we lived in a country which permitted them.

300 seems like a more manageable number than 613 until we started thinking of mitzvot that are not included in that tally. Lighting candles on Shabbat and Hannukah, waiting between meat and milk, offering a blessing before eating and thousands of others are all mitzvot instituted by the Sages. We’ll talk later about how d’Rabbanan (Rabbinic) and d’Oraita (Torah) mitzvot work together. It seems like there is no end to the mitzvot we are obligated to perform.

But that is the wrong way to look at it. Our committment to the mitzvot, our obligation, flows from our relationship with God, not the other way around. True, the mitzvot deepen, reinforce and celebrate that relationship, but ultimately there is only 1 mitzvah at the center of it all. “I am the Lord your God.”

When a couple stands under the chuppah to get married, they are undertaking a similar, singular commitment to each other. The details of the obligation, the 613 or 2000 other acts they will have to perform to make the relationship work are not spelled out, cannot be spelled out in advance. When I married Penelope, I had no way of knowing that down the road I would be obligated to turn my socks right-side-out when I took them off. Nevertheless, that obligation was implicit and embedded in my obligation to her.

If we focus on repairing our connection to God, we will find that the mountain of mitzvot can become a pleasant path.

Shanah Tovah

Elementary My Dear Watson

Humans have a remarkable gift for thinking. We can be less dependent on instinct and unexamined emotion, but it does take effort. When trying to reason things through, there are two categories of thought, deductive and inductive. Sherlock Holmes may have claimed to be engaged in deduction, but he was actually using induction and the difference is important for detective work and applying Torah to our lives. In deductive reasoning, if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion must be true as well. The classic example in philosophy goes like this: All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
If we agree with the first two statements, the last one is inescapable.

In inductive reasoning, the premises may be true, but the conclusion can be false or at least open to different, rational opinions.
Most Greeks like fish.
Socrates is Greek.
Therefore, Socrates likes fish.
The first premises could be true (I haven’t done the statistical research personally) but we can all see that the conclusion is not as certain as in the deductive example.

When discussing controversial topics in particular, it is important to bear this in mind because we can rarely make a deductive argument.
Inductive arguments permit rational disagreement.
The question of whether to build a Mosque/Center 2 blocks from Ground Zero is an inductive argument.
Therefore, rational disagreement is permitted (and expected).

In our flowing discussion, we were rarely able to tie things up in neat syllogisms but the following seem to be the main ones involved.

Same People
Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center
This Center is being built by Muslims
Therefore, this Center is being built by the people who destroyed the WTC

Victims Feelings
The feelings of the victims of tragedies should be respected and honored
The victims feel this Center is an insult and should not be built
Therefore, this Center should not be built in order to honor and respect their feelings

Jihadi Invasion
9/11 was an attack on American ideals meant to spread Islamic Fundamentalism globally
This Center will teach and support Islam in America
Therefore, this Center is an attack similar to 9/11

Hallowed Ground
Ground Zero is hallowed ground
Hallowed ground should not be used for profane purposes (profane or unholy is the natural opposite of hallowed)
Therefore, this Center should not be built using this hallowed ground

No Muslims
All Muslims and Muslim institutions promote or perpetuate violence and destructive theology
This is a Muslim institution
Therefore, it must be stopped before it can promote violence or destructive theology

On the other side we have the following arguments

Religious Freedom
The Constitution protects our right to practice our religions without government intrusion
The Center is a means to practice a religion
Therefore, the government cannot oppose it

American Ideals
The terrorists attacked America because they hate our message of freedom which threatens their vision of theocratic domination
The Center could only be built in a country that believes in freedom strongly enough to allow visible dissent
Therefore the Center is a symbol of the freedom the terrorist wished to attack
OR some argue
Therefore, those who oppose the Center are fighting freedom just as the terrorists did

Burden of Proof
We should only oppose people or projects when they are proven to be illegal or dangerous
No proof has been brought in this case
Therefore, in the absence of proof the project should not be opposed

Since it is rare outside of mathematics to have perfect information, induction is extremely useful, but it is also inherently unstable. All of the above arguments can be challenged on one or both of their stated premises, on their many unstated premises and the link between the premises and conclusion.

Rather than go through each argument point by point here like we tried to do on Shabbat, let me recommend a series of thought exercises to help us tease out our own explicit and implicit reasoning on this topic.

Does it matter who is funding the building? Would it equally matter who funded non-Muslim buildings?
Does it matter where it is? Would it matter less if only 100 people had died at the WTC? Or 1? Would it matter less if it were 3 blocks away? 10?

Would it matter if the specific Muslims had publicly stated their support for the attack on 9/11? Would it matter if they had publicly condemned 9/11? Or is being the same faith enough? What if they were Sunni and the attackers Shiite?

Would it matter how many of the victims were opposed to the building? If it was just a handful but they felt very strongly? If the Center had met with them for months but been unable to reach a compromise? What if the victims opposed secular construction 2 blocks away? What if some, like many conspiracy theorists claim, believed Israel was behind the attack, should they block a synagogue?

How would we feel to other religions building on or near sites important to victims of other tragedies? The Crusades, the Inquisition, Wounded Knee, Salem Witch Trials, and others? What about secular tragedies? Should the Germans or Poles be allowed to manage the Concentration camps or conduct ceremonies there even if they are seeking absolution if the victims are hurt by their very presence? Is there a time limit for such grief? Only those immediately affected? Their children? We began saying Yizkor after the Crusades and have continued to mourn for 1000 years. We have mourned for Israel for almost 2000 years.

More Muslims have been killed by Western democracies than Westerns have been killed by Muslims. Does that grief, and it is grief even if most of those attacks were either in self-defense or otherwise necessary, grant the right to prohibit Christian, Jewish or secular institutions in their country?

At the end of our discussion I was asked what my personal opinion was. With the current information available, I think blocking the construction of this center sets a precedent for blocking free expression of religion that is unethical and unwise for the Jewish community. For 2000 years we have mostly been told where we can live, how big our synagogues can be and what jobs we can pursue. We have had our books censored and burned and our religion derided for a host of reasons. Should the builders of the center be more open to discussion and dialogue? Absolutely. Should we oppose the construction if they are not? No.

Texting

Not the kind with your phone, though I’ll cover that later sometime, but the kind with books.

I mention a lot of different sources from our tradition. From time to time I’ll mention different works and where to find them online. Nevertheless, there is no substitute for building your own Jewish library. Even if Hebrew remains elusive, more books have been translated than ever before.

Two of my most common sources are of course Torah and Talmud. Here’s where you can find them online.

Torah: There are lots of place to look, but if you want the most recent JPS translation that is in our Chumashim, JTS has it but it is easier to get to it through hebcal.com (A great Jewish calendar site worth the visit just for itself). Torah Portions

Talmud: There are no great translation of the Talmud online but the Soncino version is adequate. The trouble with translating the Talmud is that just putting the words in English doesn’t always convey the context or meaning very well. Anti-Semitic websites often exploit this fact.

Stay tuned for more links in the future. If you have specific questions, fire away.

Captivated

How do you stack different scrolls of Sifrei Kodesh (Holy Text)?

How do you take a woman captive during war?

Before Shabbat’s sermon, you had probably never considered either question. Our ancestors had to grapple with both. Long before ebooks, the printing press or even codices (books written on pages and bound with a spine) we had scrolls. If you needed to read from multiple sources, like on Shabbat, that meant either a slot of rolling or multiple scrolls. If you were going to stack different scrolls, say a scroll of Isaiah and a scroll of Genesis, which should go on top? The answer is Genesis since it is part of the Torah. A complete sefer Torah (the full five books) trumps a single book though and goes on top of all.

The problem comes when you have two sifrei Torah; can you put one on top of the other? According to the Talmud, you shouldn’t stack them at all, but since this is unavoidable, we do what we must and stack them anyways. Megilah 27a This, along with other sources in our tradition, goes along with the general theme that the mitzvot must be “livable” and should not be interpreted in a way that makes it impossible to follow them.

As we stood in the sanctuary though, it seemed a little odd to talk about allowing one Torah to be stacked on another. We have lovely furniture that can hold a Torah waiting to be read from very safely and respectfully. The Sages of the Mishnah and Talmud may have thought of this but most people and even most communities would not have been able to afford a truly secure fixture to hold the Torah until later in history. Now that we do have such things though, would it be appropriate to stack a Torah on top of another? Of course not.

The law regarding the captive is very similar:

When you take the field against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your power and you take some of them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife, you shall bring her into your house, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your house lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her. D’varim 21:10-14

Did God or our Sages think was a desirable way for soldiers to behaving? No. The alternatives at the time (and even today in some parts of the world) were considered either worse or impossibly optimistic. A soldier pumped up on adrenaline and having just survived a terrifying fight could easily give in to baser desires and rape any woman he saw. This was the worse case our tradition wanted to avoid. Unfortunately, simply saying, “Don’t do it” would have fallen on deaf ears in the ancient world.

By giving him an option to “take her” without doing immediate violence, the soldier had to begin to consider her as more than an object. Letting her mourn, making her less attractive and delaying consummation further the goal of elevating her until she becomes a wife instead of swag. Even still, we should be uncomfortable with this permission. Like the case of stacking Torahs, we would be appalled if a modern soldier demanded his right to take a woman captive.

The Torah has done its work on our moral compass for 2500 years; what was considered a necessary concession at one time is no longer permissible. In many other areas of social justice, environmentalism, treatment of animals and more we are able to overcome our baser desires and instincts and use the values of Torah to elevate ourselves beyond the minimum the Torah laid down.

All’s Fair in Love and War… not so much

On Shabbat we discussed whether all is fair in love and war. We never go the love part, but discovered that Torah does have some definite things to say about war.

We covered those who are exempt from the draft: Newlyweds, someone who has newly planted a vineyard but not enjoyed the fruit, someone who has built a house but not had a chance to dedicate it and cowards, lest they endanger others.

Even more important that how we were told to muster the army was how they were to wage war.

When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace. Devarim 20: 10

A very powerful limit to the rolling nature of conflict. In fact, even when Saul attacked the Amalekites, he made sure to pause long enough for the non-Amalekites to flee the city before attacking it. 1 Samuel 15:1-35

Even more striking, the Torah commands us that:

When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the axe against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siege works against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced. 20: 19-20

Incidentally, these verses are used by the Sages and later codifiers like Rambam to prohibit needless destruction of anything and form the foundation of modern Jewish environmental efforts. In context, they are even more surprising. The commentators understand this limit on destroying trees as three-fold:

Don’t destroy trees because one day there will be peace and they will be needed.

Don’t destroy them because they are innocent and unable to flee.

Don’t destroy your enemies’ resources to make them suffer.

This last is the most difficult to grasp and follow. Elsewhere in the Talmud we are told, “If someone comes to kill you, get up early in the morning to kill him first.” Berakhot 58a, Yoma 85b & Sanhedrin 72a Judaism has no issue with waging war when necessary and pursuing it with strength, including preemptive strikes. However, in that pursuit, we must remember that the war is still fought against people who, like the trees, deserve as much compassion as we can give while defending ourselves.

The limit seems to be drawn on inflicting suffering that does not reduce the enemy’s ability to inflict injury on us. Destroying a power station that runs a factory that can produce weapons is appropriate even where it will also cause suffering to civilians. Destroying a sewage plant to cause filth or disease in a city that leads to suffering is much less defensible. As these quotes demonstrate, suffering cannot be a goal in war:

It is prohibited to remove fruit trees so as to induce suffering, famine, and unnecessary waste in the camp of the enemy. Rambam

The removal of all trees is permissible if needed for the building of fortification: it is only when done to deliberately induce suffering that it is prohibited. Ramban

After the service, many people asked me about the context and harsh language of the rest of this section of Torah. It is calling for the wholesale slaughter and/or enslavement of cities and, in certain circumstances, their plunder as well. The full answer is the topic for another entry or sermon, but there are two principles that we should keep in mind:

The Israelites of that time were extremely vulnerable to the temptations of their neighbors. As history would show, we almost died out as a people because of our inability to resist pagan influences.

Also, the commands were only for the Israelites of that period and only against those specific nations. The Talmud states explicitly that those nations are no more and the stringencies regarding them are not to be applied to others even if they inhabit their lands. Berachot 28a

Unfortunately, there are contemporary communities that do not agree with such limits or readings of our tradition. Although there are a few passages written during Roman occupation and persecution that are critical of non-Jews, they have not been used as a source of halakhah l’ma’aseh (applied Jewish law). Until now.

Haaretz Article

This book, and others books and sermons like it, teach that killing non-Jews in any situation where it can help Jews is permissible. “Anywhere where the presence of a non-Jew poses a threat to Israel, it is permissible to kill him, even if it is a righteous gentile who is not responsible for the threatening situation.” “There is justification in harming infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us. Under such circumstances the blow can be directed at them and not only by targeting adults.” “Killing the children of the leader to pressure him is permitted.”

I am proud that Israel brought the author in for questioning and hope that others will use the words of Torah and tradition to find ways to end such strife without abandoning our compassion.

The Ineffable Name

This past Shabbat we read a section of Torah that details the destruction of Canaanite shrines 3000 years ago.

“…and you shall hew down the carvings of their gods, and destroy the name of them out of that place.” Devarim 11:3

Right now we can hold off on the conversation of why this destruction was ordered at that one time in our history. What is interesting to us right now is that the very next verse goes on to say, “This you shall not do to the LORD your God.” From this juxtaposition our Sages explained that we are prohibited from destroying anything with God’s name on it.

A simple enough idea, but what exactly is God’s name? On Shabbat we discussed Rambam’s list (Y’sodei HaTorah 6:2 Hebrew & English) based on the Talmud (Sh’vuot 35a). The important thing to note is that all of these names are in Hebrew; our Sages agreed that although the Torah may not always be clear on which words describe God and which words are God’s names, any name must by definition be in the language chosen for revelation.

There are a few implications of this.

There is no need to hyphenate the English word GOD. The English word is merely a reference pointing us towards God, but has no more sanctity than a pronoun doing the same thing. The same way the Sages state a description such as “The Merciful” is not sacred and therefore can be erased, the English letters G,O,D can also be erased when needed.

Hebrew in and of itself is not sacred; it can be erased or recycled just fine. Which is good for the state of Israel or they would be buried by newspapers.

Jewish law goes beyond the purely mechanistic understanding of God’s name though. After all, one of God’s names, Elohim, is a multipurpose word. Sometimes it means God, sometimes it means the pagan gods of idolaters and in a few cases it refers to human judges and magistrates. How are we to treat it?

It depends. It depends on the intention of the writer or context in Tanach. (Remember that a scribe who makes a mistake needs to know if he can erase those letters or has to start the whole page all over again.) Where it refers to God, Elohim is sacred. Where it refers to idols, it is not.

This led our discussion to an important conclusion: holiness is created by the connection between our intent and action. Just wishing the English word God to be holy does not make it so. On the other hand, just writing some Hebrew words that CAN be God’s name does not make them holy either. Like the rest of our lives, holiness is created when we align our intentions within the borders of action our faith has established.

Please feel free to continue discussing those borders in the comments section.

A reminder that we have a geniza (temporary archive of sacred writing awaiting respectful burial) at the synagogue. Please feel free to drop documents off as needed.