Two Jews Three Opinions

National revelation and national redemption

2008-11-25T20:28:00.000-08:00

I realized something the other day. The Jewish view on the messianic age, heaven, the world to come, whatever you want to call it is based on national redemption. I was talking about this with some students recently. A big difference between Judaism and Christianity is the notion of heaven. For Christians, heaven exists. It's a place to which you have to gain admittance. But, it's an individual place. If a Christian has faith that Jesus died for his or her sins and acts upon that faith, he or she will have a place in heaven regardless of what is happening in the rest of the world.

But Jews are different. Our view of heaven is not that it is a place that exists but rather a place that we must create. It's what we pray for in the Aleinu. More importantly, we can't get there alone. Regardless of the life I lead as an individual, the reward of "heaven" or the perfect world only can happen if everyone gets there together. That's a really important difference.

Then it occurred to me that on the other end of the spectrum, revelation, the difference between individualism and nationalism also is what differentiates the Jews. Judaism is one of the only (perhaps the only) religion based on national revelation. God didn't appear to an individual. God revealed the overall plan to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai.

I guess that's why we need a minyan to pray. It's why we hear the sound "nu" in so many of our prayers ("nu" is the possessive pronoun "our").

We got the vision as a people and we can only achieve it as a people. We are all connected. It doesn't matter how good we are as individuals. I can be a good person yet, that's not enough to create heaven. That really changes the stakes, doesn't it?

Why wasn't Moses allowed in to the promised land?

2008-08-19T20:49:00.000-07:00

Poor Moses. After all he did. Forty years of putting up with the Israelites kvetching and of having to go, kipa in hand, before God to ask him to give them a break and what does he get in return? He doesn't get to go into the Promised Land. It's like at the end of Vacation when the Griswald's finally make it to Wally World after enduring nearly every travel nightmare imaginable and find it closed. Now, Moses is a clearly a more ethical and sophisticated character than Clark Griswald and seems to accept his fate (as opposed to Clark who buys a BB gun and abducts a security guard). But, what an odd ending to the Torah. After all, the Torah is all about the rules and responsibilities we have to repair the world, and yet the one guy who is the ultimate symbol of those very things doesn't get the prize. Seems like a tough way to market your program.

So, what's the story? I've heard different explanations as to why Moses does not get to go into the promised land. Here are the two that come up the most. First the old stand-by, "We are incapable of understanding everything that God does". While true, I always find this to be a cop out. It's the "Because I said so" of theology. The second one ties back to the book of Numbers. The Israelites are complaining (as usual) to Moses that they would have been better off in Egypt. They are unable to find water and believe that they and their animals will die of thirst. Moses and Aaron take this issue up with God, the rest is history:

8“You and your brother Aaron take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. Thus you shall produce water for them from the rock and provide drink for the congregation and their beasts.” 9Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He had commanded him. 10Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock; and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” 11And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came copious water, and the community and their beasts drank. 12But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them." (Numbers 20:8-12)

Well, OK. I guess that is pretty black and white. If God tells you to speak to a rock, you probably should follow directions. Duh. But, c'mon, it's not like he built a golden calf or something. And, who wouldn't whack a rock after having to deal all those years with those snively little Israelites in the desert. Sheesh. Give the guy a break. On Yom Kipur God forgives us for all of the sins we've committed against him/her/it. So, why hold a grudge for smacking the rock?

Well, maybe there is something to that. I've also read that it wasn't actually hitting the rock that was the issue. The issue was that God didn't want the Israelites to confuse Moses as being their redeemer. By striking the rock, it would appear that Moses caused the water to come forth and thus was the one who produced it. Now, I can sort of buy this although I think it gives the Israelites much more credit than they deserve. If Moses spoke instead of hitting the rock, I still think they'd believe that he had something to do with it. But, the idea of Moses not being seen as the redeemer is an interesting idea.

Moses led them out of Egypt. If he took them into the promise land, he would be their redeemer. By stopping him short, it set up the possibility that it was something beyond Moses that was actually delivering them.

That could work. I've also heard that one of the reasons that no one knew of Moses burial place was that so it wouldn't become a shrine or a holy place. Moses served a purpose, albeit an important one. But he was the messenger and channel for the redeemer, he wasn't the redeemer. He was an important player, but he was one of many. He wasn't divine.

So, that's one thought.

But then again I've also read a lot of explanations of why the Israelites spend 40 years wandering the desert which might shed some light on this issue. Of course, the two most common are punch lines:

Moses was a typical man and wouldn't ask for directions
Moses dropped a quarter and couldn't find it

But, there are some others that have resonated with me. In particular, one writer (I think it was Joseph Tellushkin) points to the whininess of the Israelites. He argues that these people were born into slavery and while they could be removed from it physically, they couldn't be removed from it psychologically. That's why despite miracle after miracle they keep telling Moses that they would have been better off in Egypt. Therefore, the Israelites wandered for forty years so that the generation that would be entering Egypt would be a generation born into freedom.

That makes a certain amount of sense. It got me thinking that perhaps this "purging" of the slavery mindset was necessary for the Israelites to become a nation in their new land. Therefore, the last remnant and symbol of that slavery was Moses, the very person who helped deliver them from it. Perhaps it is that that simple.

Of course, it could just be that there are something things that God does that we can't understand like punishing people for hitting a rock.

Wha does it mean to say Kaddish for someone?

2008-08-17T15:09:00.001-07:00

For as long as I can remember, I've always heard the experssion "say kaddish for ..." a person. I had always interpreted the "for" as meaning that the person was the recipient of the action. I thought of it in the same way as you would use "for" in the sentence, "Say a prayer for him".

However, it recently occurred to me that perhaps I've been misinterpreted the meaning of "for". The Kaddish is It's about God's greatness. It is a prayer FOR God. So what does it mean to say Kaddish "for" someone?

I think I finally figured it out (perhaps I'm the last one to do so). When I say Kaddish "for" someone I am saying it on their behalf. I am praising God for them since they no longer can. That makes more sense. It is part of the Mitzvah of keeping someone's name alive. By saying Kaddish for them, you are perpetuating their presence in the world. That's a powerful Jewish idea.

More importantly, taking on that practice will help me think of other ways to keep those people alive. It will remind me of what they stood for, what they cared about, and what they did. Maybe it will even drive me to continue repairing the world on their behalf.

Jewish Law in Business

2008-06-25T07:01:00.000-07:00

I had a wonderful opportunity the other day to meet with Marty Levine, the General Director of the Chicago JCCs. Marty explained that the JCC is aggressively working to ensure that it runs it's business in line with Jewish values. A friend of mine asked what this meant. It got me thinking about some of the issues that a company must deal with if it were to be aligned with Jewish values. Here are a few that struck me:

1. If you receive an invoice with payment terms of NET 30, do you hold it for 27 days or pay it right away? ("in the same day thou shalt give him his hire" - Deuteronomy 24,15). Is "on time" within the terms provided or should we pay sooner? Is holding payment to maximize your cash on hand ok?

2. Is it ok to put off preventitive maintence on equipment? (When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone should fall from it”-Deuteronomy 22:8)

3. Can you foreclose, reposses, or charge late fees to people who owe you money? (“When thou dost lend thy neighbour any manner of loan, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.” - Deuteronomy 24:10, “Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God.” – Deuteronomy 24:13)

4. How much free product or service should an orgnaization provide for the needy? ("When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the sojourner, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be filled.” - Deuteronomy 26:12)

5. How "green" should we be? (“When you besiege a city…you shall not destroy its (fruit) trees. You shall eat of them, do not cut them down; for man’s life depends on the trees of the field” - Deuteronomy 20:19), “When God created Adam, He led him around the Garden of Eden and said to him: ‘Behold my works! See how beautiful they are, how excellent! All that I have created, for your sake did I create it. See t it that you do not spoil and destroy my world; for if you do, there will be no one to repair it after you’” -Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13)

I'm interested in hearing about other business decisions that could be influenced by Jewish law.

The Torah: Is it the perennial winner of "Jewish Idol"

2008-05-24T16:32:00.001-07:00

The Torah service has always intrigued me. It's a major highlight of a prayer service. It also has a very high concentration of rituals. What I find interesting is the way that we demonstrate our reverence to the Torah. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the Torah should be revered, but it seems that some of our rituals walk a fine line between reverence and respect and idolatry.

The Torah is dressed in garments befitting of a king or queen. We march it around in a grand processional where people kiss it. We rise in its presence and even have specific rituals to give it a proper "burial" when it no longer can serve its purpose.

Is this reverence to God's word or has the Torah become an idol? Does the average Joe (or Jacob) like me understand those nuances? Could a normal person explain how all of these rituals when done with a Torah are ok but when done with a statue of the Deity of the day becomes idolatry?

If our rituals do not constitute idolatry, what actions relative to the Torah would? Where do we draw the line? What wouldn't be ok?

Should rabbis perform interfaith marriages?

2008-05-13T20:55:00.000-07:00

I was married by a judge. Although we were a Reform congregation, our rabbi wouldn't perform interfaith marriages. There were a few mercenary rabbis who would but my mother, in her wise ways said, "At this point, you're going to be married by a stranger, why do you care whether that stranger is a rabbi?" Here comes the judge!

It never sat well with me though. How could the rabbi say he welcomed us to the congregation yet he wouldn't marry us? Was it really just our dues money that he welcomed? (I really thought that!)

I don't think that anymore. I don't think that rabbis should perform interfaith marriages if they don't want to. If the two people haven't fully committed to being Jewish what's the point of having a rabbi? What is it symbolizing? What does it mean? Doesn't the rabbi just become a prop like flowers?

I'm all for interfaith marriage. Frankly, with all of the problems that people have with marriages, we should embrace any two people who love each other and want to make a commitment. But, I don't think that it is reasonable to expect to have a symbol of "Judaism" when you haven't made the commitment.

So, I think my rabbi did the right thing. He didn't want to be a prop, but he accepted us and our choices and welcomed us to the community. I don't think that I could really have asked for more.

To kneel or not to kneel that is the question

2008-05-04T06:27:00.000-07:00

Today I am going to my niece's first communion. I've only been to a Catholic Church four or five times in my life. It always seems a bit strange although I'm sure no more so than a synagogue might feel for a non-Jew. Each time I've gone, I've had to confront a set of decisions - in which rituals do I participate and which ones should I pass on.

Some are easy. Certainly I wouldn't take communion and I'm pretty certain they wouldn't want me to. It would be like a non-Jew being called for an Aliyah. Some things are only appropriate for those within the faith. Also, I obviously won't cross myself.

But there are some that are a bit more grey, at least in my mind. In particular, should I kneel? My first reaction is, "No way, Jews don't kneel. Mordechai would roll over in his grave if I were to do such a thing." But, then I thought about it some more. In our congregation we certainly expect people to rise during the Barchu, the Amida, and the Aleinu. So why not kneel?

I don't view it as a religious issue. I don't think that non-Jews who rise during our prayers are doing so in a religious way. I think they are doing it to respect out traditions. So is kneeling the same. Certainly while I am kneeling I won't be praying to Jesus or asking for salvation. I'll probably just quietly contemplate my own thoughts or more likely will space out (which is probably what people at our congregation do during the Aleinu).

Some people argue that asking people to rise or encouraging them to wear a kipah (which is also something done at my congregation) is different because it's not religious its about respect. Maybe, but I doubt the person being asked knows that. Can we think of kneeling the same way or is there something more? How would you explain to a non-Jew that doing Jewish rituals are ok because they aren't religious but doing the rituals of their faith are not ok because they are?

I probably won't decide until the first opportunity comes up. I'll keep you posted.

Do you believe in ghosts?

2008-04-24T12:37:00.000-07:00

A friend recently asked me this question. My answer surprised him. I said that I do. He asked how this squared with Judaism's beliefs regarding the afterlife. He had a point. Through most of my life and through most of his, we'd always heard that Jews don't really talk too much about the afterlife. It's not clear what happens when you die. Some argue that we lie dormant until the Messianic age when we are all resurrected. Some believe that we move to Sheol for a bit and then move on to heaven or hell. Many believe that heaven and hell are internal rather than external constructs and that our belonging to either is a state of mind...take this famous rabbinic story:

In the afterlife people cannot bend at the elbow. For those that can feed others, this is heaven, for those that cannot feed themselves, it is hell.

My own views on this are too convoluted to even attempt to write in this blog nor are they appropriate for it. I'm just tossing out the questions.

So where does that leave us? The afterlife is clearly a bit of a mystery in Judaism. So, why then would I Samuel 28:8-19 have a story about King Saul talking to the ghost of Samuel. I Judaism doesn't believe in an afterlife, where the heck has Sammuel been hiding?

More importantly, how can the afterlife be such a mystery when the Hebrew bible itself talks about it. In his book, Does the Soul Survive, Elie Kaplan Spiz argues (and provides examples) that Judaism actually has a pretty robust view of the afterlife.

I have no idea, but I think it's interesting that so many Jews are certain that Judaism really isn't that into the afterlife, despite one of its most important books talking about it.

Kashrut in Narina

2008-04-21T07:49:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine just sent me this fantastic link.

http://www.jeffvandermeer.com.nyud.net:8080/2008/04/17/evil-monkey%e2%80%99s-guide-to-kosher-imaginary-animals/

It provides opinions (non-rabbinic) on the kashrut status of the various animals (creatures) found in fantasy stories such as Chronicles of Narinia, Lord of the Rings, etc.

It's a pretty good assessment although the bad news is that it would be tough for a Jew to find something to eat (so what else is new).

I generally agreed with her except for one:

Aigi Kampoi (fish-tailed goat) - A: “Yes, that would be kosher because it has cloven hoofs, chews its cud, and has fins and scales. Although, it would still be considered a meat meal, even though it’s partially fish. So you can’t eat dairy with it.”

I'm not sure about this one. She seemed to use the specific requirements around hoofs, cud, scale, fins. I think there is a more meta-level requirement that would deem this one not Kosher. From my understanding, many of the laws in the Torah including those of Kashrut are based on separation. Jews like to keep things separate, that's even the basis for the Kashrut laws - to separate the holy from the unholy. Judaism typically comes down on playing it safe when it comes to separation. If it's not clear what category something falls within we don't take our chances. That's why the hare, pig, and camel are all mentioned specifically in the Kashrut laws. Each meets on requirement but not the other.

So, because the Aigi Kampoi is not clearly a fish or a goat, I think the rabbi's would play it safe and make it trief. It's the same reason (in my opinion) that things that don't have scales but live in the water are trief. It's too hard to tell if they are a fish or something else.

So, that's my $.02. Of course, that leaves us with even less to eat if we someday venture through a mystical portal and find ourselves face-to-face with an Amikiri.

Brisket Smackdown

2008-04-18T16:04:00.000-07:00

Today on NPR there was a feature story talking about brisket. The reporter was expressing her woes and anxiety over having to prepare brisket for Passover.

The story featured a taste test between the reporter's brisket and that of a famous Chicago chef. The judge was a local rabbi. Ultimately the rabbi, in true rabbinic form, found both briskets to be good and satisfying thus eliminating any potential shame on the part of either contestant.

But, here's my issue. The rabbi's criteria included firmness. He said brisket should be tender but firm going as far to say that brisket that falls apart is just not worthy.

I have to respectfully disagree...if you want firmness on Passover eat Matzah for heaven's sake! Brisket should fall apart with a fork and melt in your mouth. This isn't just my opinion either - you can find it in the bible.

"As soon as Moses came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing he became
enraged; and he hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot
of the mountain. He took the calf that they had made and burned it; he ground it to powder and strewed it upon the water and so made the Israelites drink it." Exodus 32:19-20.

I believe it was Rashi who explained how this ties to the preparation of brisket:

"He took the calf that they had made and burned it" - a good braising to lock in flavor
"He ground it to powder" - Ground up! Pulverized! Falling apart! It doesn't say that he sliced it into firm pieces.
"Strewed it upon the water" - perhaps a nice brining process or a long marinade to break down all of the sinew and fibers.
"Made the Israelites drink it" - melts in your mouth- like butta!

So, which is it firm or flimsy? How do you like your brisket?

Who is the best candidate for the Jews?

2008-04-17T13:45:00.000-07:00

I have no idea. Is the best candidate for the Jews necessarily the best candidate for Israel (or vice versa). Should we bundle those two issues or separate them. Who is most likely to eat at the Carnegie Deli?

I really don't have an overall opinion on this one.

I think McCain would be best for Israel
Obama best for the environment
Clinton best for healthcare

Are any of them likely to repair the world? Probably not, but I'm hopeful that they'll at least stop damaging it.

Should stock photo libraries tag pictures of crosses or Jesus with the category "Judaism"

2008-04-17T13:29:00.001-07:00

I was just browsing my favorite stock photo library iStock photo to find pictures of Jewish people talking (for the logo of this blog). I typed "Jewish people" into the search. There were some nice pictures but then, there he was, Jesus. Not just a high school portrait of Jesus with big hair and a funky t-shirt mind you. Jesus up on the cross. I figured it was mislabelled. I continued further and found at least 20 other pictures of Jesus, crosses, or Jesus on the cross. Of course the pictures have a lot of different tags including Christianity and Faith but I was surprised to see that they were tagged with "Jewish" or "Judaism".

One could argue that Jesus was in fact a Jew. Some might even argue that aside from Slash, Gene Simmons, and Lenny Kravitz he is the most popular and well known Jew ever. And, since we should expect our heavy metal friends to be labelled as MOTs why not Jesus. Well, ok, I can think of about a bazillion reasons. But, in a twisted way, I can see how someone might do it.

But, a cross? I have no idea what that's all about. I suppose that if Jesus was Jewish and Jesus was killed on a cross, then by the transitive law crosses are Jewish. Hmmmm.

Anyway, my goal isn't to start a boycott of iStock photo. Heaven forbid I go to Getty images and pay full price for an image. I'm just curious as to what people think about Jesus being tagged with "Judaism".

Do you have an orange on your Seder plate?

2008-04-17T12:58:00.001-07:00

This is one of those questions that you either get or you don't get.

For those of you who didn't get it, here's the story: Sushana Heschel was giving a lecture on Judaism and equality for women. An old crusty male rabbi gets up and says, "We need a woman on the bima like we need an orange on a Seder plate." Since then, in a show of solidarity, Jewish feminists place an orange on their Seder plate.

OK, cute story...BUT...is it true?

It seems that perhaps this tradition has more substance to it than just being a response to some long lost nameless man. In fact, the real reason for this tradition says more to me about Judaism and some key messages of feminist theory than the story. See what you think:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/17990/edition_id/359/format/html/displaystory.html

http://www.ritualwell.org/holidays/passover/onthesedertable/primaryobject.2005-07-08.9776011383

http://www.well.com/user/ari/writing/orange_on_sederplate2001.pdf

So which is it?

An eye for an eye: Tort reform or barbarism?

2008-04-17T12:45:00.000-07:00

The infamous "eye for an eye" quote is often used by some to point out how mean and vengeful the Hebrew bible can be. But is it? Here is the full passage: Deuteronomy 19:21 “. . . Thus you will sweep out evil form your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”

It sounds pretty vengeful..don't show pity, others will hear and be afraid. Yikes! No wonder people welcomed the whole idea of turning the other cheek.

On the other hand, I've read some other perspectives on this. Clearly the bible calls for justice as it often does. But justice and vengeance aren't the same thing. In fact, some people argue that this was actually an attempt to reduce vengeance. One idea I've heard was that this was an attempt to actually equalize punishment and damages and it was meant to be an allegory. That is, if a person loses an eye, you are to compensate them for the loss of that eye, no less, no more. Same for a hand or a foot.

Sound crazy? Look at your disability insurance policy. They general have a payment schedule organized by body part as to how much they'll pay. Thumbs are worth less than hands, hands less than eyes. Of course, typically losing the second of something pays off more than the first (e.g., loss of the second eye is compensated at a higher rate than loss of the first eye).

Someone once pointed out to me that an eye for an eye was a pretty good deal in ancient times. Usually if you injured someone (who was stronger than you) the response was to kill you, your family, and anyone they could find who was even remotely associated with you. Knock over someone's fence (or kill their mule) and splat - your kids are dead. Now that seems like vengeance.

What do you think?

If Catholics shouldn't pray for Jews to find Jesus, should we stop saying the Aleinu?

2008-04-17T09:56:00.000-07:00

Is anyone following the recent story about the rift between Catholicsand Jews over bringing back a prayer that includes a line aboutconverting Jews? It's a bit hard to make sense of the story. From what I can tell,last year the Pope had recommended/allowed some old Latin prayers toreturn to the Catholic Mass. One of these prayers is a unique onesaid on Good Friday. In the prayer there are references to the "blindness of Jews"regarding Christ and some other remarks that Jewish leaders have found anti-Semitic. The biggest controversy, however, seems to be a reference calling upon Jews to find Christ and convert. It seems like the Catholic Church was willing to revise some ofthe "offensive" language but kept the part about conversion.This is at least what I've been able to figure out after reading somestories - I'm sure it's not completely accurate. If anyoneunderstand the issue better please help!!!!!

Anyway, here is my question...should we get that upset at other religions who pray for us to find their savior? I know that sounds like a crazy question at first, but hear me out. In the Aleinu don't we pray that the entire world recognize God's greatness and "all creatures of flesh call on your name that to you each knee must bend, each tongue swear oath...let all of them take upon themselves your rule." Pragmatically, I understand that calls to convert Jews or help them find their way to Jesus have been used to justify pretty horrific events and actions. So, perhaps that is why there is the concern.But in the grand scheme, is our call in the Aleinu that different? There are some passages in the bible that talk about dealing with non-Jews in equally barbaric ways.

How would we justify those statements to a non-Jew? One article quotes Rabbi Jacob Neusner making a similar point, "But the Pope received support from a prominent Jewish scholar on Saturday. Rabbi Jacob Neusner of New York wrote in the German Catholic daily Die Tagespost: "Israel prays for non-Jews, so the other monotheists - including the Catholic Church - should have the same right without anyone feeling hurt."

Does anyone have thoughts, clarifications or perspectives on this?I'm trying to make sense of it