The Future Society

2012-02-09T02:45:00.003-05:00

There are several myths about Orthodox Judaism in America that I’d like to debunk in this composition. Most are posited and propagated by the Orthodox themselves; alas, however, nobody seems to bother to challenge those presuppositions – perhaps for lack of expertise in the subject—so, here I go:

Myth 1: Orthodox Judaism is the oldest of the major Jewish denominations in America.

Truth: Between organized Jewish socio-philosophical movements others are older. For example, the reform movement in America began in 1824 with the foundation of the Reform Society of Israelites in Charleston, South Carolina. Other reform-minded congregations later united under the guidance and leadership of Isaac Mayer Wise and subsequently established Hebrew Union College (HUC) for the training of a new generation of American rabbis in 1875.

When at a gala event non-kosher food was flagrantly served, some participants grumbled and eventually seceded to found Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) as a more traditional alternative to Reform.

When Solomon Schechter took over the helm of leadership of JTS and officially coined the term Conservative to define the movement as more traditional than Reform but not quite bound by halakha, those who sought to preserve rabbinical Judaism completely unaltered were prompted to once again secede from JTS and establish the “Jewish Jews”, which took the name Orthodoxy after its umbrella organization the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, also known as the “Orthodox Union”.
In short Orthodoxy was the last to organize itself in America and it did so reactively because it was unsatisfied with the state of affairs in the other, more progressive denominations.

Myth 2: Orthodox people observe halakha exactly as specified by the accepted middle-ages authorities such as R. Joseph Cairo, author of the shulhan arukh, without any modifications or negligence.

Fact: None of the factions within contemporary Orthodoxy stick to halakha 100%.

Hasidim, for example, habitually pray minha after sunset and frequently miss the deadline for reciting the morning shema and/or the morning amidah prayer. Other commonly violated laws are the proscriptions on slander (lashon hara) and gossip (rekhiluth).

Modern Orthodox folks – on the other hand—have their own divergences from halakha. For example, they often engage in unacceptable physical contact with women. The Early Orthodox folks of the interwar years – such as Young Israel – even organized co-ed dances in order to encourage social and conjugal interaction within the community. Another questionable practice highly prevalent among the MO is the clean-shaving of the beard, which is prima facie unacceptable.

Myth 3: Orthodox Judaism is the only authentic Judaism available; other denominations being tainted by their eagerness to adapt to their surrounding and thus open to compromise with traditional belief and practice.

Fact: “Traditional” Judaism has not been static over the years. It’s only traditional at a given point in time and space, relative to others who wish to modernize. Ultimately, however, any serious student of Jewish history knows that even the most fundamentalist of contemporary Orthodoxy has learned to adapt in many ways to its particular milieu.

For example:

1) In old Europe there was no such thing as kashrut certification. While this may seem a humra (stringency), it also constitutes permission to eat from commercial establishments who are bound by the laws of the open market to be honest and diligent in its practice of kashrut, as opposed to exhibiting genuine integrity.

2) Eruv in America. The Eruv in America in large cities is clearly not kosher due to the “600,000 people traversing the road” rule; the Talmud and Halakha make it very clear that such does not qualify for Eruv. Accordingly, no eruv would be valid anywhere within a city such as New York.

3) Beth din. The beth din system in America is a travesty. It commands no respect from members of the Orthodox community. The law forbidding adjudication of disputes in secular courts (arkaut) is habitually violated by the most devout Jews.

4) Among many Hasidic sects, adherents’ blind attachment and fanatic dedication to their leaders surpasses halakhic bounds. Adherents often commit acts of aggression and harm in the name of their Rebbe. Even in their personal life, their Rebbe’s advice trumps the strict rule of Halakha and moral responsibility.

Myth 4: Orthodox Judaism will continue indefinitely. All other Jewish movements fizzle out in the end. Strict adherence to tradition is the only permanent safeguard against dissolution of the Jewish faith.

Fact: As explained earlier Orthodoxy itself is a relatively recent, reactionary movement, and so there is no a priori expectation for its continuation any longer into the future than, say, Reform Judaism.
In fact, if history can teach us something in this regard it is precisely the contrary. The Sadducee movement vanished because it was TOO conservative. Because it concentrated all its focus on temple worship, it was unsustainable once the temple was destroyed in 70 c.e. whereas the Pharisee movement with its “reformist” and populist approach to Judaism --enabling commoners to partake of the cult through the studying of Torah and meticulous observance of commandments—thereby laid a solid foundation for the continuity of Judaism through the Middle Ages.

How did Judaism Survive whereas all its Contemporaries Failed?

2012-01-09T06:11:00.004-05:00

Why was the Hellenistic threat to the survival of Judaism so great, and why was Judaism's ability to resist Hellenism such a pivotal event in world history?

Most historians don't take the events in Judaea in the years 332-76 BCE seriously. Specifically I am referring --for one-- to the Hellenization trend that lasted from Alexander's conquest until Antiochus Epiphanes' reign and religiously-repressive edicts of 175 BCE; and --secondly-- the triumph of the Hasmoneans over Greek acculturation increasing momentum from 164 BCE until the rule of Alexander Jannaeus in the 1st century BCE.

So Judaism survived. Who cares?

We all care! Our modern culture leans on dual pillars: the "western" rational, scientific, humanistic one based on the Greek worldview and philosophy and the "eastern" religious one based on morality, restraint, and god.

Our deistic pillar is a direct descendant of Jewish traditions. Both Christian and Muslim religions have merely latched on to the Jewish heritage, modified it a bit to suit a particular temporal and geographical need and disseminated it far and wide to their respective people. They did not invent anything from scratch.

But neither did Judea -- you retort. Jews, after all didn't really innovate a all that much. Their Israelite predecessors were merely a small cog in the Egyptian-Mesopotamian civilizations of the Ancient Near East.

And you are indeed very right! For the most part, the Jewish religion, as it started evolving in earnest during and immediately after the exile in the sixth and fifth century BCE wasn't all that unique. It was just the "last man standing" after most of the numerous other petty kingdoms from the Iron Age vanished over time in response to conquest (esp. by Assyria!) and pressure to adapt to prevailing sociopolitical realities which tended to be assimilationist.

And so what it all boils down to is not whether the Jews are important and what the value of their contribution to posterity is. As I said the proof of their enduring contribution and the value it bestows to our society is beyond reproach. The question rather is. Why "them"? Why wasn't is the Aramaeans or the Edomites or the Ammonites -- all of which shared a substantial socio-religious platform with the Israelites of the late second temple period. For that matter: why not the Babylonians or Persians themselves -- the people who were the ultimate lords over the Jews of the exile and beyond. Wouldn't it be more logical that a lord's culture would be superior to that of a vassal state and jostle its way to the forefront in the battle for survival?

And so our investigation will center on why the Jews? Why did their version of Semitic heritage survive and adapt to Hellenistic life while all other cultures have very few discernible traces in our society.

Over the course of much study and examination of this question I have identified several unique characteristics about second temple Judaism, as follows:

1) Emphasis on universalism. "yahweh" was originally a local deity. We now know that a locale in the vicinity of the the Negev and southern Transjordan (what was then inhabited by proto-Edomites) was called "yehu" and the Jewish tradition points to that locale in the story of Moses' revelation at the burning bush on Mt. Sinai (according to the J source -- which is the originator of the tradition via the Levites who emerged out of Egyptian slavery in the LBA).

However, over the years Judaism conceived of a wonderful and novel idea: religious syncretism. A sort of mix 'n match of the best features of both the world civilizations it straddled: Egypt to the West and Mesopotamia in the East. This keen capacity to absorb tidbits from multiple cultures and process them to become relevant in an increasingly cosmopolitan world where global commerce calls for cross-cultural diffusion -- was uniquely Jewish. And this is not surprising since the Jews were the ones inhabiting the buffer zone between the two elemental mega-civilizations and so would have been exposed to both continually.

2) Predisposition to Greek culture. Ironically, while we tend to think of Hellenistic culture as the arch nemesis of Judaism, quite the reverse is likely the case from a broad ideological standpoint. For example, the willingness to endure pain for a noble cause finds its rationale in the Greek school of Stoicism. The Jews didn't necessarily borrow this idea from the Greeks. But they certainly would have found fertile ground with at least some Greeks for a basic understanding of why it is virtuous to die rather than commit a grave sin (such as violation of Sabbath or circumcision) that abrogates Jews' covenant with God and thus renders life worthless. This is a radical notion; generally novel in its time, yet the Greeks were readily receptive to it.

3) Greek receptivity to Jewish religion and culture. The basis for a cosmopolitan, universalistic outlook on life was even stronger among the Greeks. Recall that the Greeks were primarily a seafaring nation. s such they peddled not just merchandise from port to port bu also ideas. The notion that there is no such thing as a local deity --whose power terminated at its nations' borders-- would have sat very well with them. They may have even conceived of it on their own. Regardless, this sort of universal God, is more enduring, more rational, less corporeal and less capricious. All of these were qualities that the Greeks were eminently known for.

4) Religious persecution. At the time the Seleucid religious persecution began in 167 BCE, the Jews had come a very long way in adapting and developing their new religion. They were at this stage ideologically unbeatable. As the saying goes: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

This is exactly what happened with the Jews for two reasons: 1) Their ability to withstand the mighty Seleucid regime gave them a tremendous psychological and moral boost and triggered an even greater conviction that their god and His covenant with the Jews is alive and kicking. 2) In the process of "defeating" the Greeks, the Hasmoneans learned to adopt various useful elements from Greek culture such as language, military tactics and government structure (note the titles of Hasmonean rulers "ethnarch", "basileios", "strategos" and their names: Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, Alexander,). This capacity to absorb a great deal from your enemy's cultural repertoire while remaining firmly loyal to the covenant actually strengthened the covenant by bringing it up to date with the contemporary political milieu.

5) Trade vs. Agriculture. As hinted to earlier, the Greeks stood for maritime trade -- that was their specialty, their unique contribution to mankind. The long-established Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations in the East, on the other hand, stood for more traditional means of subsistence, in particular agriculture.

It is possible that the Seleucid attempt to abolish the Jewish Sabbath and the three annual agriculture-revolving festivals was seen as a declaration of war not just against a religion but against an economy as well. The Sabbath would have naturally had little relevance to a Greek sailor, who is not tilling land for six days to justify rest on the seventh.

As such, it is possible that the Jews met with sympathy from a much wider Eastern population far beyond their narrow borders. This would also explain the easy with which the Hasmoneans later successfully embarked on various military conquests and territorial annexations and conversions. The Hasmoneans would have been hailed as liberators and promoters of traditional economic practices.

2011-08-18T20:24:00.002-04:00

At a private conference yesterday on the topic of inadequate secular education in haredi (Jewish Ultra-Orthodox) schools, some really shocking trends in haredi education were revealed by a group of graduates from such institutions.

The most appalling of all institutions turned out to be --somewhat surprisingly-- Chabad/Lubavitch. Graduates from Chabad schools testified that there was absolutely no secular education provided in their schools, not even elementary education, which is generally normative among haredi schools. It's interesting to note that Chabad pupils --unlike most other haredi counterparts-- speak English among themselves. This fact may explain somewhat the perceived lack of necessity to teach their pupils secular studies; administrators believe that Chabad pupils receive an adequate dosage of exposure to American ways by virtue of their native English speaking (as opposed to Yiddish -- normative at other haredi institutions).

Some other immensely disturbing conditions were revealed by other participants in the conference:

Most institutions offer only elementary secular education. After Bar Mitzvah, upon entering yeshiva qetanah, institutions such as Satmar, Krasna, Papa, Belz, Vizhnitz and other satellite community institutions offer no secular education to its pupils. It is also worth noting that the religious topics curriculum fills significantly more than a typical public school schedule: 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. is quite common (which is partly why many Yeshiva's offer dormitories to save commuting time). Some yeshiva's provide an option to its pupils in the afternoon hours to either enroll in secular courses or to study a religious topic -- typically shulkhan arukh, a work by Rabbi Joseph Caro that is commonly considered the basis for modern Jewish law. The caveat about this "choice", however, is that that secular route is shunned by administrators and pupils alike. Those who do choose such route are often perceived as morally weak or of inferior religious scholarship capacity. For others it is done out of "necessity", in order to be able to find employment at later stages in life or because parents are compelling them to.

I personally wonder whether administrators offer secular studies in high school merely to qualify for state and federal aid which is then collected on behalf of all pupils (including those that are not enrolled in secular courses) and partially diverted toward religious studies budgets. Another practice discovered in the meeting was the collection of federal Pell grants by some institutions on behalf of their pupils, often unbeknownst to them. They sometimes only discover this much later when applying for college funding and being told that their government aid availability has already been exhausted.

The Problem

Some people will invariably ask: okay, so what? if it works for them, let it be; why interfere with their autonomy if the haredi population is okay with a nonexistent or inadequate secular education?

There are several problems with this phenomenon. Chief among them is related to another development in haredi life. In the last decade hundreds of youngsters have defected from the grip of haredi communities, having chosen to pursue college and other employment unacceptable to haredim. They are often lured by the promise of a more libertarian lifestyle, where they can think and express heretical ideas freely and abandon some or all religious practices in favor of a more adaptive 21st century lifestyle.

Those defectors find themselves in an immense quandary. They feel that the haredi community does not speak to them any longer; they are eager to assimilate into the mainstream American culture. However, no one in the outside world seems prepared or able to deal with their overwhelming handicap in education and culture. For those who seek to enter college, the question is posed: no high school diploma and no GED? what do you mean? we need a letter from the last school you attended before you "dropped out"? Of course, they never were in any real school in the first place and even if they were, they would likely find them uncooperative since college is unacceptable to the Ultra-Orthodox.

One of the revelations brought to light in the conference was that many former haredim who decide to pursue college, require intense remediate courses and private tutoring to even reach a minimum level of knowledge necessary for entrance into college. Those who manage without formal courses are either lucky enough to somehow have had some exposure to secular studies in their schools or elsewhere in their haredi upbringing or they have a tremendous drive and tenacity to overcome the obstacles and pursue self-study methods to bring themselves up to par with college entry requirements.

Moreover, even those who do not pursue the college route, face tremendous difficulties adjusting to a more mainstream lifestyle. Satmar-williamsuburg graduates can barely write English and their speaking proficiency is bare-bones, not sufficient for conversational English. Math proficiency is also so rudimentary as to likely interfere with even blue-collar careers. One participant recounted how he did not know what a fraction was when he first left the haredi community.

According to a lawyer familiar with this problem and is considering tackling this in court, it's not abut attempting to enforce the state's or other people's standards on the haredi community. Clearly, the haredim are entitled to freedom of religion and --broadly speaking-- to customize the education of their children according to their religious mores and values, so that if a pupil is like most other pupils they would as adults be satisfied and appreciative with the haredi unique approach to education. The problem is that for those who decide to burst out of the restrictive haredi bubble, their education is so basic as to significantly impede their ability to make the choices they so desperately want to make. Essentially, the haredim are erecting such huge barriers to the outside world that even those who are absolutely determined to make it out are incapacitated by their lack of a basic education.

One participant recounted how he had always wanted to be a mathematics professor. Upon entering high school, he was told after taking an admittance test that he lacks sufficient mastery of the subject to be admitted to the high school math course. When he went to his religious studies principle (known in Yiddish as the menahel) to discuss his dilemma his menahel reacted with glee: "ah, that's great; this way you won't ever become a professor" evidently treating his pupil's desire to become a math professor as an undesirable temptation; now that his proficiency is inadequate those il-conceived aspirations can be finally laid to rest. Of course -- the principle overplayed his hand. In response, the pupil decided to drop out of the Yeshiva altogether and pursue his own curriculum that initially included both traditional Talmudic studies and math but he eventually left the folds of haredi life altogether.

Possible Remedial Action

What can be done to remedy this ill? Several possible solutions were raised and I shall throw my own ideas into the mix:

* Pressure government executive departments (such as the New York State Board of Education) to get off their butts and fulfill their obligations according to State law. State law requires a minimum of secular studies through 12th grade. haredi institutions overwhelmingly do not meet those minimum criteria.
* Sue the state in federal court, perhaps claiming a violation of civil rights by not providing its citizens a basic "civil capacity" to function as an informed, educated citizen.
* Change the law to allow the haredim to develop secular courses that do not conflict with their creationist beliefs and their aversion to sex study before marriage.
* Raise awareness among political electees and activists that this breach in execution of the law is happening before our eyes and is negatively impacting an increasingly larger slice of the haredi population. The goal should be to put an end to the cozy relationship between haredi institutions and their representative assemblymen and councilmen. If the assemblyman fears for his office in the upcoming election he may be more readily spurred into the otherwise uncomfortable action against parts of his constituency.

Hasidism as a way of Preserving Tradition

2011-07-09T21:39:00.004-04:00

The Hasidic movement started through the activities of a particular person in a well-defined place and time. The founder of the movement, Rabbi Israel Ball Shem Tov ("Besht") lived in Eastern Europe in the 18th century. He died in 1760 and his disciples then disseminated his teachings far and wide.

Other contemporary prominent Jewish leaders include Rabbi Eliyahu from Vilna (the "Gaon") and Moses Mendelssohn. Both passed away before the turn of the century (though they were younger than the Besht). In some way, those aforementioned Jewish leaders still have their respective following to this very day. Mendelssohn represents the "rational" school of Judaism as exemplified by its Reform and Conservative segments. The Gaon represents the Litvish/Yeshivish world and the Besht represents the Hasidic world.

Nobody, however, sees any connection between those movements beyond the coincidence that they originated in the 18th century, which begs the question: is it really a mere coincidence that all the major modern Jewish segments have their origin in the cultural milieu of 18th centruy Europe? What really transpired in 18th century Europe that can perhaps shed some light on the essential impetus for the launching and development of those movements?

Historians, of course, know the answer. It's the Enlightenment. Two very important events occurred in the 18th century. The American Revolution and the French Revolution. Both these events had a tremendous impact on the future direction of Western Civilization. At the turn of the 18th century people everywhere were grappling with situations and questions with which they had never come face to face before. Is the monarch sanctioned by God? Does the clergy have a monopoly on Godly matters? What if God's word as expounded by the priest does not make sense to me? Am I allowed to interpret the word as I see fit? Is government a holy institution that one may not impugn or all hell will break loose, or is it possible -- just possible-- that government is merely a social contract of "live and let live" (first propounded by Thomas Hobbes)?

I think that a historical anchor exists in the 18th century and its people, perplexed and shaken to the core by those very profound questions, to many of the modern social and religious movements, especially Hasidism.

You see, most people tend to think that Hasidism is a populist and regressive movement. Folks who were brutish and uneducated, who toiled hard and saw little reward, who sought to liven up God and tailor God to their needs: a God who appreciated song, dance and prayer just as much as he does scholarship, erudition and punctilious observance of Mitzvot. But this view is now brought into question since Hasidism has now matured far beyond its incipient age of dance and music and is now de rigueur in the Haredi world. There is hardly any Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) person in our society that is not directly or indirectly inspired by Hasidism. Of course, we all know that modern Hasidism is more nuanced and complex than that of 18th century Europe. But ultimately the question beckons: what legitimates this movement? What's the secret to its enduring appeal and why is it so important in the survival of Haredi Judaism?

So let's go back and re-interpret 18th century events in the light of our time. As pointed out earlier, the 18th century was an era of upheaval; not just militarily or politically but also culturally and religiously. There were essentially two categories of answers offered in response. One was conservative and God-centered and the other was progressive and humanistic. The wealthier and educated world, often characterized by inhabiting Western Europe, often chose the latter, whereas the people of lesser means, intellectually and materially often chose the former.

Why? Re-evaluating one's morals is a very difficult task. It is often easier to effect impressive technological breakthrough, than redesign one's moral framework. It's just too depressing, too wrenching, too discouraging -- to propose that the guardian angel, once thought to accompany the human on every step of their lives through divine providence, is in fact just an illusion. The enlightenment suggested that there is no magic bullet. There is no God who is there for you for your every need and want listening and granting your prayer and who will not hang you out to dry. The enlightenment suggested that humans are running the show and humans need to assume responsibility for their own lives. Again, assuming responsibility and the uncertainty that such an attitude towards life encompasses, is gut-wrenching. It could be highly distressing unless the individual has the capacity and willingness to grab the bull by the horn and make tough, independent, fateful decisions. It is so much easier to hang on to "God" and "know" that God will be there for you no matter what.

This concept constitutes the watershed between the original Hasidic camp and the Mendelssohn camp. Hasidim sought to avoid learning, discovering and rebuilding from scratch and so they latched on to God. The Mendelssohn folks asked the tough questions and therefore ultimately found themselves in a secular world. It's not that the Mendelssohn disciples made a conscious decision to abandon their faith or to disavow their God. The original Mendelssohnians were in fact very pious Jews. What defined them is one thing: the capacity and desire to learn, to absorb and to process information. The Hasidim, in contrast, expressly denounced scholarship and elected retrenchment as their modus operandi to deal with the enlightenment crisis.

The reason that modern ultra-orthodoxy is so closely affiliated with Hasidism is that to this very day one must shut out the inquisitive and investigative process in order to preserve one's faith. Hasidim were the ones who provided the archetypal paradigm for all future generations to follow in this regard. This explains the strange and ironic phenomenon that at the time Hasidim were seen as dangerous to tradition since they often did not rigorously observe halakha, whereas nowadays they are seen as the stalwarts of faith, observance and piety. It's not about halakha; it's about asking questions. The original Hasidim lived in a setting where they were incapable of asking questions, much less answer them in a satisfactory manner; so they developed song and dance and psalm-recitation as wonderful emotional panacea to the intellectual turbulence of the time. The modern Hasid likewise shuts out the rational process but since he is a bit more sophisticated, he manifests a greater adherence to halakha and declares a stronger commitment to scholarship. Ultimately, however, his "scholarship" is spurious since he only entertains the kind of questions that are consistent with his faith and preconcieved religious notions.

Hasidism is thus NOT simply a regressive movement; a movement that is bound to vanish in due time, as progress inevitably triumphs over regress. It is, rather, a unique school of thought; a different way of coping with the socio-religious upheaval of the time. It's the "don't-ask-questions" mode of coping. It's the emphasis of emotional aspects of Judaism over intellectual ones. Hasidism survives in modern society insomuch as this blind, uncritical, unquestioning reliance on tradition is so critically important to modern Ultra-Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy desperately needs blind faith like a fish needs water.

In contrast, those who did not restrict their thought processes, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR THEIR FAITH (Mendelssohn and his followers), eventually found themselves reforming and rationalizing their way out of the system altogether.

2011-04-11T00:32:00.000-04:00

I am currently listening to "1. Fast Cars And Freedom (Remastered Version) - Rascal Flatts"

Some ideas for Neo-Reform Judaism

2010-12-22T06:36:00.001-05:00

Neo-Reform Judaism

I think It's high time to take some time out from our hectic technology-driven lives and plunge back into 19th century Jewish America. Let us re-examine the movement that has revolutionized the definition of a Jew in the 21st century. I will never forget that moment as a young, impressionable 8-year old when my older sister told me that “frumme” jews comprise a mere 10% of American Jews. I was startled: could it be that so many people have lost their grip on the truth and have veered off the correct path? How lucky then am I --I thought-- that I was born into an observant family! As I grew older, I grew into my skin and became comfortable with the knowledge that there is a different, “corrupted”, kind of Judaism out there, although the exact parameters of it were never quite known to me until much later. I knew that the Ultra-orthodox were on the defensive, they did not constitute the normative American Jews. What I never bothered investigating back then is what actually is Reform Judaism, who started it and why? Does it have any merits? And if so, for whom?

After a thorough re-examination of the premises upon which the pillars of my faith rested in 1998, I realized that there were some serious flaws in my religious worldview edifice. I took it apart brick by brick, hoping to reconstruct it bigger, grander and stronger; but, alas, that never happened. First Ultra-orthodoxy and then Judaism altogether failed to stand up to the scrutiny leveled against it by scientific and academic sources I was increasingly devouring voraciously. Frustrated and feeling betrayed by my sheltered upbringing, I set out on a lonely path toward assimilating into the mainstream and re-establishing myself as an “American”.

Now, 13 years later, I have had a chance to look at my transformation from many different angles. I am no longer restricted to seeing Judaism or even Orthodox Judaism as a mere nuisance; I now see the big picture. I see how charedi Judaism, like other conservative movements, could satisfy the need for communities for a status-quo, a cushion of stability; the comfort of knowing that what happened yesterday will repeat tomorrow reliably and consistently, whatever the cost in lost productivity and irrationality such conservatism may bear.

There is, however, an additional notion that has been crystallizing in my mind over the past few years: that change in the charedi world is ultimately inevitable. Some of the other articles on this blog deal with this theme. But I'd like to lay out here some practical steps which I think are very pragmatic and practicable. They are sensible, even for someone who is used to Jewish orthodoxy and is not comfortable with sudden, intensive and radical change in their modes of living.

The reason why we have seen little organized, piecemeal reform of traditional Judaism in recent years is multifold. The primary reason, of course, is that we (that is, the entire Western world) currently live in an age of nationalism and civil rights. The fashionable thing in this day and age is to cultivate one's own identity, race, and faith regardless of its merits. It is very much politically incorrect to try to impose the upper-class elitist views on the rest of society. We seem to even celebrate the outmodish, outlandish idiosyncrasies of various nationalities and subcultures in our country and we even pride ourselves that we possess such diversity and plurality of ideas in our midst. To cite one example: bilingualism. This is something that would have never been entertained a hundred or so years ago. In our present age, however, it is common operating procedure. The Mexican immigrant who wishes to retain his native language after relocating to this country has the “right” to do so and we are very comfortable in government to provide the means for the perpetuation of this trend (e.g. we supply them with voting literature in Spanish, etc...). Charedi Jews therefore naturally found ripe fruit for the picking in recent decades, thus giving them a chance to rebuild their shattered European “old world” communities on American soil, a true miracle – it seemed to them. The upper echelons of our society are practically telling them: “hey you're an idiot, but you “enrich” our culture, so please go ahead and practice your insanely ridiculous version of extreme Jewish observance such as dietary laws, arcane clothing sabbath observance etc... When it's time to erect a museum of Charedi life in 21st century America, we will be uniquely positioned to provide that, given our magnanimous generosity toward Charedi life in the realm of having granted them the liberty and comfortable conditions under which to behave as they please and thus preserve their “special” heritage.

The secondary reason for the resurgence of Ultra-orthodoxy in the past 50 years is that there is a certain powerful argument that is being directed against Jewish reformers. Take Moses Mendelssohn, critics say. He was very well educated in secular studies and immersed in the dominant German culture of the time, although he remained an observant Jew. Yet, five of his seven children renounced their faith and adopted Christianity instead. The other two children's offspring eventually converted as well. The official reform movements that sprang up in Germany and America in the aftermath of his “paving the ground for reform” did not fare much batter. It is now common knowledge that many Reform Jews intermarry with gentiles, have little or no mastery of Hebrew or any knowledge about Judaism beyond the what they learn during the bar/bat mitzvah preparation course. So there you have it, the orthodox argue: you open up one secular book, you institute one minor reform in the liturgy and it's a slippery slope all the way down the hill from there to utter abandonment of Judaism.

This second point is what I would like to repudiate here. We should not be afraid of change. There are many subtleties and nuances within Judaism and we don't need to label them “reform” if we don't like to (since this term has assumed a stigma in our age of enhanced faith). In fact, the very first “Reform society of Israelites” (yeah, “Jew” was considered a stigma back then, so they chose to refer to themselves as Israelites or Hebrews) of Charleston, South Carolina of the 1820's wasn't anything revolutionary really. They made only minor changes in the ritual such as the introduction of an organ, a sermon in English and perhaps the omission of certain portions of the traditional Sabbath prayers. The Pittsburgh platform that officially formulated Reform Jewish doctrine did not emerge until many decades later and even that is merely a descriptive document stating what is already the case, not prescribing what direction the Reform movement “ought” to take. My point is that we do not need to think of black and white when it comes to introducing reforms or “modifications” (maybe this term sounds more benign) into the synagogue and Jewish normative behavior.

Here are some ideas I'd like to propose:

Dietary laws. Stop with the hashgachah (food preparation supervision) thingy. Even rabbinical Judaism acknowledges the “cancellation” of small amounts of forbidden food mixed in a large quantity of kosher food. The FDA now requires all ingredients to be listed and so we get a pretty accurate picture of how kosher a product is without the need to create an entirely independent kosher food industry, which has the effect of limiting the social interactions of observant Jews.

Abolish the second-day holiday festival known as the “exilic” holiday. We are indeed in exile; but let's face it: those who originally practiced it, did so because they in fact did not know which one was the official holiday as ordained by the sanhedrin in the land of Israel. For many centuries now we follow a fixed calendar and so there's no need for this nonsense any longer. All Orthodox people know that the the three-day observance when a holiday falls on Thursday is a major drag. By the time sabbath comes around many people would rather welcome a fast day than a feast day of two required full-course meals (I know I'm not alone here; c'mon people, back me up here). I want to see some brave talmide hakhamim who have the guts and courage and nerve to stick their neck out and proclaim that the secondary exilic holiday is not quite as holy as the first one! (to say the least).

Give me a break from all those mindless recitals of long scriptural passages every day. Are you kidding me? Nobody gives any thought to what they are saying? I remember I had a melamed (teacher) in kittah teth (lit. ninth grade) –I swear to god this is true-- he would put on his rabenu tam tephilin and he would say viyehi noam adonoy elohenu alenu umaase yadenu konenu alenu umaase yadenu konenu alenu umaase yadenu konenehu. He repeated those four words twice, an obvious homoteleuton error. I suggest they start the davening with barekhu eth hashem hemevorakh. Cut to the chase, which is essentially recital of shema and the amidah 18-blessing prayer. Again, I'm not talking for myself here. I'm talking for folks who strongly cherish their cult and believe in what they practice. Isn't is better – consistent with their own ideals and priorities -- to devote the time for more Torah study in lieu of the babbling of a mind-numbing hodu every day?

I've got a lot more that I want to share with my readers on this topic, but I'll leave it for later.

Future Trends in UOJ (Ultra Orthodox Judaism)

2010-11-23T06:59:00.003-05:00

Predictions of the Future.

This blog is supposed to be about future predictions. While I have diverged from this topic often since the blog's foundation, I think it's time to return home. And so, I hope to do a series of monologues on predictions of various sorts.

Let's start with the Ultra Orthodox Jewish (UOJ) sector. I call it a sector as opposed to a “community” because there is hardly any consensus within this highly diverse consortium of ragtag groups, which is serious problem for its long-term survival, a point which I shall return to at a later time.

One observation that I must make as a prelude to predicting future trends in the UOJ sector, is its past. It never ceases to impress me how the world seems to have forgotten how persecuted, isolated and cornered Jewish Orthodoxy was (let alone Ultra-orthodoxy) until quite recently. Of course, I don't personally have any recollection of those envious days. But as a student of history, I can't help take notice that Jewish history pages are vociferous and unequivocal on this matter. For approximately 150 years --since the early nineteenth century until after world war II-- traditional Judaism was under siege. The forces of change were overwhelming. It wasn't just for ignoble “conform to the prevailing winds and be acceptable to gentiles” reasons that reformers sought to eliminate or modify centuries-old laws and practices. There were, moreover, idealistic motives for change: the system just wasn't very logical. Not playing music on the day of rest, for example, runs diametrically against the very spirit of the day of rest. So does the prohibition against travel, which is something uniquely suited for a day of rest and recreation.

A quick survey of the field demonstrates that the core of Judaism was radically reshaped in those years. Judaism went from a religion where the normative behavior is shulkhan-aruch-bound to one in which the normative behavior is rooted in tradition but democratically determined through systematic reevaluation of all its tenets and practices. This was very true in Europe where the majority of Jews had adopted some level of reform by the mid nineteenth century. But it is even more pronounced in America where Orthodoxy barely even existed before WWII. Jewish immigrants to America in those years were extremely eager to shed their outlandish European customs and adopt the American way of life and fulfill the American dream.

Have we completely forgotten those good old days? I continually long for those times when there was all the reason NOT to observe and practically no good reason to observe; whereas at this stage of the game the reverse seems to be the case: there is every reason to be observant and there is hardy any sufficiently good reason to drop out of the system. The wind is blowing in a different direction and so the sail boat boat has been re-routed accordingly.

If I had lived in the 1850's in my ancestors' native land, I would have been a happy camper. I would have been a member of a burgeoning reformed community and my liberal views and and hash criticism of accepted dogma would have been welcome like water in the desert. Now I live in an environment where my thoughts and words fall on deaf ears. The contemporary right-leaning Jewish community craves for spirituality and is just not interested in any intellectual reasoning about the basis of their religion. The left-leaning Jewish world, on the other hand, is so far ahead of me in the game of integration and assimilation into the American mainstream that I am as alien to them as a newly arrived immigrant. They clearly have more in common with a typical catholic Italian than with me. They don't speak my language, both literally (my native tongue is Yiddish) and figuratively (they are not sensitive to the non-American idiosyncrasies of the Hasidic world, such as bluntness when making requests).

So where do I stand?

Well, from the previous depiction of events, the future seems bleak. However, I've got an ace up my sleeve! There is some great news. The “gospel” (=good news) is that there is a very bright future laying ahead of the me and the OTD community in general. I have been predicting massive defections from orthodoxy for many years now but I am now finally seeing concrete data that corroborate this reversal of the magnetic pole. The “Footsteps” movement did not exist when I first executed the “Great Rebellion” in January 1999 (Yeah, I know, it's not the softest of terms for this event but remember: I am an erstwhile hasid, so I'm not quite used to sugar-coating; so yeah, it's also a “transition” but rebellion is more like it). I had zero friends with whom I could find common ground in this unbearably challenging journey to American-hood. I truly felt like an immigrant in a foreign land; only that most immigrants have the benefit of the support of co-immigrants during their early, trying times whereas I did not have this benefit. By now, Footsteps is a thriving organization and community and I have every reason to believe that this trend will only multiply and intensify in the years to come.

I'd like to articulate several factors which I believe will be influential in bringing to bear my prediction of massive defections from Orthodoxy:

1) Internet Information. We live in the “information age”. During the technology age (from which we recently emerged), ideology was obviously not important. It was an age of applied science, technology and industry. This is no longer the case. Anyone who is abreast of the latest news knows that the big names in the American Economy are now Google and Facebook, which have trumped the economic stalwarts of old, such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and --later during the consumer age-- retailers and service providers such as Mcdonalds, Macy's, Walmart etc... In this “information age” it is inevitable that information that indicts and ultimately incriminates Orthodoxy will come to light, since the Orthodox world thrives on misinformation and concealment of certain knowledge which it deems heretic or dangerous. The Ortho world knows it cannot confront this information head on for it will lose at trial. Its defense strategy is the American legacy one of “plead the fifth”: let's hope the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and if they do let's buy some time through extensive deliberations and appeal of the verdict.

2) Extravagance. Unlike my parents' and grandparents' generation, which constituted the progeny of Holocaust survivors and Holocaust survivors, respectively, the new generation is not bothered by the sense of attack felt by the previous generations. They don't perceive a threat to their very existence and so they can afford to divert their attention to other topics. They don't harbor the gut feeling which equates losing one's religion with losing one's very identity and unique existence. They don't feel the need to establish a "status-quo" environment in America before any questions of reform can be addressed. Needless to say there is still a giant mountain of prejudices and biases, which must be scaled laboriously before the other side may be reached. But there is just one less obstacle in the way in the current generation: there is no sense of an attack, physical or spiritual. Naturally then, curiosity will set in and those who are talented enough will inevitably encounter a great deal of damaging evidence to the Ortho system and will seek to take action as a logical result by proposing changes or --barring that-- dropping out.

3) Rabbis are losing control. It used to be that information was centralized, both in the secular and the religious world. Now with the prevalence and immediacy of the Internet, the community leader is likely to be bypassed or overriden. Religious claims can easily and quickly be vetted on the Internet and alternative theories and ideas --stemming from lay individuals, peers of the information-seeker-- may be consulted. This significantly weakens the Rabbi's leadership and hegemony over his community.

4) Structural changes in the community. Williamsburg no longer resembles an Eastern European Shtetl. Many shops and stores there have been recently renovated and many more will likely follow suit as old, arcane business models fail to compete against modern ones. As the Williamsburg small business owner is confronted with the need to deal with modern computer systems, for example, they are also drawn into other fields which suck them out of the ghetto walls and into the “unprotected” world. They may, for example, develop an interest in learning how to use Microsoft office or how to make money in the stock market. This quest for acquisition of more competitive survival methods will ultimately lead to serious clashes with the mainstream world and those clashes will have to be resolved one way or another. If, for example, the stock market book mentions a movie and the reader is now intrigued by the movie and after watching it becomes impressed with the actor and learns that the actor is Christian and then learns the actor's biography and discovers that the actor is a nice guy after all, this chain of events poses an ideological dilemma for a religiously observant person. After all, both lifestyles cannot be valid simultaneously. If the UOJ is the true representative of the “chosen nation” and is loved by god who has a monopoly of all that is good and true, then how does this Christian actor or actress fit into the picture? Are they not loved by god? They sure seem like nice and decent individuals and they sure got the money to back up this appearance (“money talks”).

About the Merits of Ex-Hasidic Community Cohesion

2010-07-02T07:16:00.003-04:00

About the Merits of Ex-Hasidic community cohesion

I just finished reading Samuel Katz's post on this topic at unpious.com (sorry, copy and paste for the URL didn't work). I would like to provide my opinion on this matter, which differs somewhat from his.

While reading the article I mostly identified with his thesis and I definitely agree that he's got a point. However, in the end of the article it was pointed out that he does not personally consider himself a member of the "ex-orthodox" community. That's something that I highly question, as well as some of the general corollaries to his article.

It is known (as Jacob Stein pointed out) that the Eastern-European Jews who made their was into Ellis Island by the millions starting in the 1880's struggled similarly to us, ex-hasidim. Despite the fact that numbers were on their side, back in those days the country was not very accomodating to subcultures. The pressures to conform were immense; the desire to conform was also intense. The Jews WANTED to adopt much of American culture, while at the same time they also wanted to preserve many elements of their heritage, namely those that they felt were compatible with a Western, American lifestyle.

The descendants of those Jews are now, as we all know, heading towards assimilation and many Jews (mostly those on the right) now invoke this phenomenon as a repudiation of Conservative and Reform Judaism. What they don't realize and what Reform Jews will usually be loathe to admit (or perhaps not even aware of it consciously) is that the entire institution of Reform Judaism is now, iglai milta lemafre'a (the matter is retroactively revealed - a Talmudic expression), merely a transitional vehicle from Eastern European Jewish Ghetto provincialism into the mainstream structure of Western society. The Jewish assimilative process is not a condemnation of Reform Judiasm; that would only be the case if the overarching goal of the original immigrants were preservation of their faith and identity. It wasn't! Their goal was oriented in an entirely different direction: material success! They wanted money, better standards of living, educational opportunities and even the adoption and participation in many of the entertainment and behavioral norms of Western society (their opportunities were more limited in Europe due to lingering stereotypes). At worst, loss of identity could be considered "collateral damage". However, I would argue that even though the first Jewish immigrants didn't know it at the time and they couldn't have seen this far into the future, they were heading in the assimilative direction all along and assimilation actually WAS their ultimate goal (subconsciously).

Why am I mentioning all this? Because the Jewish community in the United States has managed to create a highly intricate social and political structure on their path to assimilation. It seems that their self-identity never was a contradiction to their rabid appetite for everything American. In fact, it could be argued that those identity enhancement institutions (including such organizations as AIPAC, The Jewish Federations, etc...) paradoxically sped up their integration into mainstream, by giving them the power and efficiency of a group as opposed to an individual.

I don't see any reason why our Neo-reform movement should be structured any differently. As they say "if ain't broke, don't fix it". The system our progenitors used worked just fine for them. Why do we not appropriate those very same tools to achieve the very same goals. We can and should identify as ex-orthodox Jews, while at the same time voraciously devour the all-so-sweet delicacies of our profligate country, the United States of America, God bless it. There are so many opportunities available to each and every one of us, occupational-wise, community-wise, politics-wise, career-wise. Yet there's no need to behave Judas Iscariot-like and deny our fellowship in the ex-orthodox community.

Having said all this, I should also add that if getting stuck in the intermediate transitional stage were a serious issue, then I agree that we may have to seek other transitional models. However, I am quite confident that at this stage of the OTD movement there isn't any real possibility of cozying up along the way. There simply aren't enough of us yet to form a strong all-encompassing, comforting ex-hasidic haven, and the diversity among us is wide while resources are scarce. Ex-hasidics can thus tremendously benefit from support groups such as Footsteps, Cholent etc... while at the same time knowing that such groups merely provide temporary reprieve from the real battle ahead of them: cracking into mainstream America.

Edited 6/29/2011

ITC Volenuteer serves as Substitute Teacher

2009-11-06T01:49:00.006-05:00

Yest. at the Amal school at which I volunteer to help out students with English in small groups through the Otzma ITC program, I was suddenly notified that two teachers didn't show up that day and I was asked to attend the class of "Sari" (10th grade). I was very excited and honored at this request. After all, one of the core reasons for me being on this program, is the availability to polish up on my teaching skills, especially in classroom settings, in preparation for a possible future job as a teacher. Unfortunately, I hadn't expected this and so I didn't really have a prepared lesson plan. I did have my usual repertoire of ideas and exercises which I had been using to teach my students in the usual small-group setting. The really unknown variable was: will I be able to control the class? Will the students listen to me? Will they find my tone and style engaging?

The control issue was addressed through the presence of a substitute "discipline" teacher whose duty it was to keep the class in order. She was apparently not qualified to teach English and so she just made sure that the students were well-behaved and paying attention to my class. The first half of the class went wonderfully. I had a long list of English nouns, verbs and adjectives written on small color-coded papers with their Hebrew translation on the reverse side. I put that to good use in the class, reviewing those vocabulary words with them. I made extensive use of the whiteboard, marking English words and their Hebrew translations on board and often illustrating with a sample sentence.

I also found that many Israeli students tended to confuse similar-sounding English words such as "wait" with "white", "angry" with "hungry" and so on. So whenever I asked the class for the meaning of an English word and it became apparent to me that they were confusing the word with another one, I immediately wrote both words on the board; I "modeled" the difference in pronunciation, if any, and I also pointed out the difference in spelling and meaning.

Later I moved on to some other topics. I reviewed the spectrum of colors in English, in which activity they fully participated. When it came to prepositions, pronouns and the proper auxiliary verb used with pronouns (am/are/is) I had a more difficult time maintaining their full attention but there were always some who did pay attention. In fact, there was one student who kept shushing the others and directing them back to me whenever they sought to start their own little conversations in class. It works amazingly well when a student, rather than a teacher, does shushing.

Finally, the students insisted they wanted "galgal hamazalot" (wheel of fortune). I wasn't quite sure how to conduct this game. So I had a student administer the game in front of the class using Hebrew words and I then proceeded to do the same in English. I was citing famous American actors such as Brad Pitt, Jim Carey, Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio. I also noted on board the names of major movies they starred in. This was a pretty popular activity.

It was all a milestone for me since this was the first time I ever taught in a traditional high school class setting. I am --somewhat surprisingly-- quite satisfied with my confidence level. For a first-timer I think I did great. In the future however, I hope to be coming a bit better prepared and I will do my utmost to make the material as entertaining and enjoyable as possible.

Over the past two months here in the Qiryat Malakhi school system, I noticed that all students essentially do want to learn. The question really is: at what level and through what methods? the challenge for me is to figure out how to tailor-fit a lesson to the needs and preferences of the class at hand, so as to maximize their participation and learning experience.

Overall, the ITC program here is making a huge difference. Most of the students at my school know me by now, even though I still sometimes wonder how, not remembering most of their names. The small student group setting has been extremely effective at getting through to students who feel that big classes are too cold and impersonal. When I teach in small groups I make sure that everyone understands the text we are reviewing and the newly acquired vocabulary. I very often have students tell me that they want to be with me more often and that this experience works so much better for them.

Also yest. I had a student who was so happy and excited about studying English in my class that she said (in Hebrew) "with your help I will be able to do well on the Bagrut exams. I want to be with you every time (instead of the regular class)". Towards the end of the class she insisted that we finish the text in its entirety before we adjourn. I felt that she experienced a newly kindled hope and confidence in her ability to succeed in English after that class. I should point out that, ironically, this very same girl was a bit reluctant to join my group at first, claiming that she wouldn't understand me in English. The teacher assured her that I can explain things in Hebrew and that is of course precisely what I did, in order to make the text accessible and fun for her to read and understand.

Otzma ITC Experience

2009-11-04T09:02:00.002-05:00

The Otzma ITC Experience in the Qiryat Malakhi School System. Today was a very special day for me in my journey towards becoming a school teacher: I was sitting in front of a full class of 12th graders and interviewed them as a preparation for their oral 5-point bagrut (=matriculation) exam. The kids were 16-18 years old and it was very evident that they invested a great deal of effort to reach the stage they were at in English proficiency. Some of them were almost as fluent as native speakers which most impressed me.

written Nov 4 2009

rain water in Israel, good or bad?

2009-10-30T07:44:00.003-04:00

Today was the first time it rained in Israel in the current winter season. In Israel rain is precious. Unlike in the states, today is an unofficial holiday; everyone is happy that rain has finally come. At the town in which I reside, Qiryat Malakhi, there is lots of parched earth and dust but little grass or even weeds. Folks cannot overcome this challenge by irrigating their yards since there is a shortage of water. Natural rain water is the only practical way of generating plants and greenery as well as supply water for human consumption.

As I was pondering the benefit of rain, as contrasted with its nuisance status in the states, The verse in Deut. 11:11 came to mind:

For the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like the land of Egypt from which you came, where you used to sow your seed and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year.

God contrasts The land of Israel with the land of Egypt, the former being irrigated by the Nile and the latter relying on rainwater. At first glance we are bothered: why mention this? According to historical and scientific data, we know that rivers are a better source of water for agriculture than rain; the very first "civilizations" sprang up along the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates rivers as a result of society's ability to produce excess agricultural produce in such fertile regions. Why would God point out a negative aspect of the land of Israel?

So we must be misreading the text. Gos is pointing out this contrast in order to show a positive aspect of the land of Israel, namely, that its residents must turn to God for help with their agriculture; they cannot rely on the natural, assured course of events. Or, more precisely, that God shows a "special interest" in this land by actively bringing rain upon when needed, as opposed to abandoning its fate to the natural course of events as is the case in Egypt.

It's like a teacher who is giving special attention to a weak student in the class and then makes a point of it, saying: You are "special". Unlike the other students (who are smart enough not to require extra help) you get my undivided special attention at times, so that you will understand what is being taught in class.

But is this really a compliment? I suppose that in our culture the above-cited example is more likely to be taken as an insult than as a compliment, and rightfully so, it seems. But the Biblical author, in his naivete, genuinely thought that God's "special attention" is more valuable than the superior natural environment in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

My question is: Is there any truth to such an idea? Note: that the existence of God and his ability to favorably single out one nation from the rest does not have to be established in order to investigate this matter. My question is: In the minds of the biblical authors of Deut (seventh cent. BCE), who evidently operated on such assumptions, does this positive idea regarding their "special status" have any rational basis?

Surprisingly, the answer is yes! Let me sashay into Greek culture for a moment in order to illustrate this. While the Ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians and early Persians were the masters of the civilized world, the Greeks were not on the map yet. They were barley managing to survive in the tough climate of their native hilly mountains of Attica and Peloponessus. What happened? What propelled them onto center stage? Well, it was necessity! They had no choice! In order to survive, they couldn't rely on the accepted practice of agriculture and were forced to seek out an alternative. They thus became shipbuilders and seafarers, merchants and tradesmen. For the first time in world history, there was a people who found themselves in a unique position to absorb a wide array of cultural information from the various people they encountered in their travels and to redistribute that information and culture in an improved form. In other words: they initially set out to trade material goods but what turned out to be far more important is the much more "profitable" trading of ideas that their adventures enabled them to accomplish. Democracy, Philosophy, Mythology and Logic are just a few of the Greek inventions that were so influential in catapulting them into stardom. It is precisely the humble origins of the Greeks that guaranteed them center stage in the future.

We all know that the Ancient Israelites have likewise left an indelible and most valuable legacy to world civilization: religion. All contemporary western religions have their origin in the ideas that circulated in seventh century Judea. So, we must ask, what was so special of them after all?

The answer seems to lie, as the case is with the Greeks, in their adversity, not their material successes. The Judeans, were FORCED, unlike inhabitants of the major civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia, to constantly be on the alert: will there be the Early rain (yoreh, in the month of heshvon) to break up the ground for ploughing? Will there be late rain (malqosh, in kislev) to provide nourishment to the seedlings? They were forced to conceive of elaborate cause and effect relationships concerning a universal all-powerful God who is creditable and responsible for their successes and failures. Unlike Egyptians and Mesopotamians who "couldn't fail" (their crops grew reliably year after year), Judeans were forced to ponder the question during years of famine: why has our God forsaken us? What did we do wrong? How can we improve going forward? This self-critical modus operandi proved to be invaluable to the world!

Remember this rule: success generates failure and failure generates success. The USA, the strongest country in the decades following WWII, is now doomed to swap positions with China, the weakest major power in the world. I am concerned about the future of the the West (including the USA) and if history is a reliable guide, there is, alas, nothing we can do to reverse the long but inevitable process in which the USA and China reverse roles.

edited 6/29/2011

The Underpinnings of Israeli Society are Starting to Piss me Off

2009-10-02T10:49:00.000-04:00

Hello from celcom: on evenings strating from 8 pm until 7 am and on weekends from 2 pm on Friday until 8 am Sunday morning our service representatives will provide service in the event of lost or stolen phones. For all other matters we will be happy to assist you starting on Sunday 8 am.

This is the message I just received on my phone when trying to make an outgoing call. This, after being notified that my phone had been marked as lost or stolen! I repeatedly get this message in Hebrew and English alternately whenever I try making any call, including the customer service phone number designated specifically for lost and stolen phones. So, what’s wrong here?

According to the message, they will provide service in my case; yet nobody is answering the phone!

But let’s analyze this message a little more closely. Note that the message is quite cryptic and very difficult to comprehend for several reasons:

• The message does not clarify that the time I am calling falls within the range of “afterhours”.
• It starts with an introductory clause –a complicated linguistic mechanism—for no reason. The emphasis should be on the task the listener wants to perform, not on the hours celcom is available to help. The introductory clause totally distracts my attention since it doesn’t seem to address the issue I am concerned with.
• Assuming that the customer is calling to seek routine customer service and it is therefore unavailable at that time insofar as it is afterhours, the message actually fails to drive that point home. The listener is still left wondering whether celcom is willing to help him during afterhours. At best, the message seems to imply that they don’t “happily” provide service during afterhours, but it is far from clear that service is not available at all during afterhours for non-phone theft matters.
• “we will be happy to assist you starting on Sunday….” What about the ending? Once again the announcer makes an unwarranted assumption that the listener still remembers that Friday afternoon at 1pm is when “afterhours” kick in. Besides, it’s never been mentioned that any particular service becomes unavailable on Friday at 1pm.
• The message could be construed as stating that phone theft support is only available during afterhours.
• The announcement illogically first deals with the unusual case of phone theft support and only later mentions the available hours for regular support. This is a very bad practice since the listener is likely to hang up the phone –be in intentional or not-- before he gets to hear the part of the message that is relevant to him.

All this sows who Israeli society is not logically organized and there is no real commitment to customer service in this country despite the great strides they seem to have made in the overall adoption of western mores. And what’s up with all these holidays? Am I not expected to be on the phone on a holiday? What, then, do people do on holidays and weekends? If having a functional celphone is not important on a weekend, then what is? In the country I come from (USA) there is fierce competition for the sale of goods and services to consumers. If the consumer wants or needs something, the consumers gets it, because if they don’t, they will find another company to provide it for them or a company will happily spring into existence in order to fill a void in consumer demand that can and should be filled. What
is wrong with this country?

Judeo-christianity vs. Greco-persian culture

2009-08-03T18:24:00.004-04:00

Between the years 400 BCE and 100 AD the four corners of Ancient Civilization combined in inexplicably intricate ways to form our modern "Western Civilization". I have recently spent hours upon hours attempting to untie the Gordian Knot but I am still struggling. What is the true relationship between these four elements? Which is cause and which is effect? Which is the winner and which one is the loser? Are there any other elements that should be part of the equation and if so, assuming what role?

Let's start by classifying a movement as either political or religious. We know that Judaism and Christianity were mostly religious movements during this period. We also know that Greece and Persia vied for political control of Asia and Europe, so they can viewed as political rivals. However, viewing Judaism vs. Christianity as rival groups, implying that they both carried more or less equal weight and competed within the same domain, is probably incorrect. This is part of the reason why it's so difficult to figure out the true nature of the relationship between those various forces.

So what really is Judaism all about and when was the religion born?

Judaism was largely born in response to the Assyrian attack against Judea in 701 BCE. This particular campaign, in my opinion, holds pivotal significance in the inception of Judaism. There is, in fact, no evidence of any "Judaic practices" before this date. 2Chron 29 recounts how Hezekiah revitalized temple sacrifices. 2Kings 18:5 tells us that no Davidic king before or after him (Hezekiah) was like him in piety and greatness. It seems sensible to connect his great political and military maneuvering with his religious reforms in the temple. The Yahwistic cult that he established was designed to unite the nation politically against Assyria. Hence, when the bible describes how he removed the "high places", it promptly also tells us that "Yahweh was with him; wherever he went out (in war) he was successful, and he rebelled in the king of Assyria (Sennacherib) and he did not serve him". The suggestion is that removing the high places enabled him to be more successful against Assyria. (Of course, for the late Biblical author, Hezekiah's success was seen as a supernatural reward for his piety, but we need not conform to such interpretation. We can explain it through the natural, rational connection between national/religious/political unity and military success in parrying off a foreign invader.)

Historians do not know exactly why and how Jerusalem was spared against the Assyrian onslaught. The bible tells us that an angel smote the Assyrians encamped against Jerusalem whereas Sennacherib wants us to believe that Hezekiah paid a heavy tribute and the Assyrians then left voluntarily having been satisfied. In the "Taylor Prism", Sennacherib states that he had shut up Hezekiah the Judahite within Jerusalem, his own royal city, "like a caged bird".

Regardless, this event is extremely significant both for Assyrian and Jewish History. For Assyrians it's important because it's the only city that was not actually conquered and exiled by the Assyrians (albeit perhaps at a significant monetary cost to the Judahites). For Jews it's even more important because if Jerusalem had been conquered by Assyria at that time (and it was just a split hair away from such a fate), the Judahites (from whence "Jews" is derived) would --in all probability-- have been exiled and assimilated just like their northern brethren two decades earlier. There would have been no Judaism and no Christianity, as we know them.

So why indeed were the Jews spared? Were the Assyrians really incapable of subduing Judea? That's quite unlikely! I think the answer is a combination of the Judaean unique position in the Ancient Near East and some good luck to boot. The good luck element is that Sennacherib was informed of a coup back in his capital at Nineveh and so had to care of more important business first. The rational explanation for Judea's political survival relies on several factors:

Judaea --unlike the northern Israelite territory-- did not contain any natural resources, which would make them a prime target for would-be conquerors. Judaea is pretty much situated in the midst of a desert and is the capital of a land of poor peasants who barely subsist off the land and are forced into pastoral nomadism or migration during rough times. Judea, did not hold any material importance to the Assyrians in the same way as the Philistine (Gaza) or Phoenician (Tyre and Sidon) coastal cities did. Judaea's importance lay solely in its role as a linking station between the two great ancient civilizations: Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Earlier times (late Bronze age), when Egyptians were stronger, the buffer zone between the two powers was situated far to the north, as evidenced by the famous battle of Kadesh in the early 13th century between the Hittites (who were a ruling caste in Mesopotamia at that time) and the Egyptians. Incidentally that battle also likely ended up in stalemate despite both sides claiming victory, which is also precisely what's happening in 701 BCE with respect to the Assyrian vs. Judaean-Egyptian campaign. Thus, the ONLY reason the Assyrians lay siege to Jerusalem was to accomplish the goal that our modern Pres. Bush articulated in the Iraq war of 2003 "let's fight them abroad, so that we don't have to fight them at home". The Assyrians sought to check Egyptian ambitions by pushing the border farther south and thereby consolidating more securely important territories that lay within their empire.

Viewed under this light, the 701 BCE battle over Judaea is both the least and most important of all the Assyrian campaigns through their two centuries in power. It's insignificant because there really wasn't anything material to be reaped from the region. But it's also of critical importance to Assyrians, if they are to establish a secure border with Egypt. From history we know that 701 BCE also roughly marked a military turning point for the Assyrians. Even though they continued to hold power in Asia for most of the seventh century, their power was by then on the decline. A new kid on the block, the Babylonians, were the rising stars. This meant that the Judaeans were safe from a second attempt at conquest on the part of the Assyrians. The Assyrians had reached their peak in 701 BCE by expanding their empire all the way from Nineveh to Samaria, but that was as far as they would go. It was all down hill from there and that fact is what saved Judea from Assyrian conquest, UNLIKE any other city-state situated more closer to Assyrian lands.

What I am proposing here is that Judea up until the times of Hezekiah was just like any other ancient near-eastern state. Their laws, customs, rituals, temples and henotheistic religion were all essentially indistinguishable from other ANE city-states. The thing that set them apart from the rest going forward was their geographic location and the fact that they were saved from Assyrian political conquest due to that.

After 701 BCE there was no doubt great celebration within Judea on occasion of their ability to maintain their independence: no other city-state had been able to do so. As was typical in those ANE cultures, military success was ascribed to the superior ability of the victor's national deity. Thus, I could imagine that Judaeans were then convinced more than ever that their god --whom they now called Yahweh-- was tremendously mighty and worship-worthy. This in turn initiated a very vigorous movement to centralize and standardize their religious practices and temple rituals. At the very same time that this was occurring in Judea, other conquered peoples in Asia were being assimilated into the Assyrian empire.

In 612 BCE, the Babylonians took over the helm of leadership but that had no overall effect on the empire. Then, in 537 BCE the Persians and Medes came to power and as "liberators" they sought to reverse the processes of the Assyrian and Babylonian regimes by respecting and even aiding provincial religions. However, at this point (200 years after the Assyrian campaign across the Levant) there wasn't much left to resurrect of ANE cults since they had been mostly subsumed by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. In other words, once again Judaeans were in a unique position to benefit from Persian religious toleration, since other peoples were already too assimilated within the Assyro-Babylonian melting pot to be helped by Cyrus' Edict of Toleration.

For the next 200 years, until the Hellenic age commenced with the Alexandrian conquests 333-321 BCE, Judea developed in a very special way. Unlike other Persian provinces, the Jews were more "religiously conservative" as a result of their past history (as described previously). Also, during this period Judea's "buffer zone" status had disappeared. It was no longer a battleground state. The Persians ruled Egypt as well and so Judea held absolutely no political or material significance to the Persians. The Persians were perfectly fine with the Judaeans not worshipping Persian gods as long as they behaved themselves and paid the reasonable taxes demanded of them, which they did.

By the time of the Greek conquest of the Levant in 331 BCE, Judea once again was a meaningless province. Judea is NOT EVEN MENTIONED by Greek historians. The Tyrian siege and the Gazan conquest are vividly described by historians but there's no mention of Judea. Why? The Greeks completely overlooked this worthless Persian province. They couldn't care less what went on culturally and religiously within Judea. Judea was a way station to them -- a stopover on their way to Egypt and the great new city of Alexandria that the Greeks founded there. Needless to say Judea wasn't in any position to resist the Greek forces passing through the region; but neither were the Greeks interested in occupying Jerusalem since there was no material wealth to be had from it.

first written on Aug 3 2009

-to be continued-

Why be "rational" and anti-huddling

2009-06-17T01:33:00.002-04:00

Kisarita asks the following questions:

From whence the assumption that ALL rational people should agree with me?

Why the certainty in my lifestyle is the best, and yours are destructive?

Why are artificially "rationally" created "like minded" communities better than emotional tribal ones?

By what possible reasonable criteria do you define who is superior and who is inferior?

Bkitzur, why do so may ex-frum sound like born-again religious converts in their devotion to secularism?

Me thinks there is something very suprarational about that.

end quote.

It would also be useful for readers to read Kisarita's post "In defense of Emotions" at http://kisarita.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-defense-of-emotions.html .

My friend. Let me explain my position on this with an illustration ("men ken es farshtein mit a mashal" we can understand it with an analogy).

Judge Sotomayor was recently nominated for a Supreme Justice of the United States of America. As the procedure is with such high-impact life-time appointments by the President, The U.S. Senate questions the candidate about her judicial and even general socio-political beliefs. So the questions arises: why are we asking her what she thinks about Roe. v. Wade? Why should the actual opinion matter, as long as she is actually qualified for the position (experience-wise)? Would a Senator dare ask her how many times she brushes her teeth each day or her sexual intercourse frequency? Of course not! Would any politician inquire as to my judicial or political position? Of course not.

The difference here is that I am not a candidate for office of U.S. supreme court justice. In other words: I have not put myself out there in a position where my opinion should be relevant. If, for example, Judge Sotomayor were to be a dentist and she was nominated for administrator of the (theoretical) dentistry division of the Health Dep. then yes, it would matter somewhat whether how many times she brushes her teeth. If she is presenting herself as an expert on such matters and she is going to advise citizens on how frequently to brush their teeth, then --yes-- senators do have the right and responsibility to ascertain whether she indeed practices what she preaches. If she doesn't, there would be justified suspicion that she wouldn't be executing her job well.

How does all this relate to us?

Well, I did in fact grow up in a highly restrictive environment physically, emotionally and intellectually. If I am going to truly move on in life, then these issues do matter. It's not okay to shove them under the rug and say "let me live and let live". Clearly, if I have been told for 20 years that God created the world in six days, that Noah is the only one who survived the flood and that Moses received a revealed law code from God, it IS MY BUSINESS to set the record straight.

I totally denounce the non-judgemental-ism approach that many OTD's insist on. The Haredi movement is extremely judgemental. Why then, should I stand on the sideline and allow them to preach and advise their youth according to a system which I see as corrupt, incoherent, and illogical. If I am unable to engage successfully in a polemic on such topics, then my lifestyle and my offspring's are in jeopardy. I will never be able to gain the elusive stability that I am so wistfully yearning for. Therefore, I WILL judge my ex-community and say that their lifestyles are silly and I WILL explain why that is so.

This does not mean that I advocate forceful adherence to a code of law as they do. This is where the core American ideal of liberty creates a wide golf between us. I believe that reason should be engaged in and let the person then make an informed, wise decision on how to live. The Orthodox mostly adopt a Freudian defense mechanism of completely suppressing the "dangerous thoughts", denouncing them as heresy and shutting off any possibility of its members being able to extract themselves from their midst in a reasonable manner.

Life is a game of poker. The cards have been dealt and my hand sucks. What's worse is that the information so desperately needed to play this weak hand properly is being suppressed. Why should I be contain my sense of exasperation over how bad my hand is. I will speak up about it and tell the world how bad the cards are in Borough Park and how best to play the seven-deuce. By the way, for those who don't know, the best way to play 'em is to fold! But it's important to fold with style and that's where I come in. I am not imposing my beliefs on others. I am not saying that one "must" live in a particular way or believe or "not believe" any particular thing. I am simply getting a conversation off the ground. I am simply eager to discuss topics that were off-limits in my ex-community. I am eager to use research tools that were totally unheard of in the entire Ortho world from A to Z. In my biblical research I am suddenly encountering German, Christian scholars who have centuries ago employed sophisticated scientifically sound historical and linguistic tools to see the Hebrew Bible in a new light. This info has been completely withheld from me. I want to study it now. I want people to know it's out there.

If you still insist that a life devoid of education and truthful information is perhaps meaningful and advisable, then surely you should stop reading this post and I have nothing further to say in my defense. However, you've read til hear, so it seems to me that --consciously or not-- your instinct impels you to seek the truth and set the record straight.

I hope I explained my self well and good luck to everyone.

The short and Long Route: Difference between the Jewish Denominations

2009-06-14T09:23:00.003-04:00

We all know there are three Jewish denominations: Orthodox, Reform and Conservative. But, do we understand the doctrinal differences between them? I think that many people --even those whom you'd expect to know more on this issue, such as OTD's-- don't.

I recently had a conversation with an OTD (off the derech) who made the remark that "reform Judaism is just a different form of religion. They are in theory just as dogmatic and religious as their ortho counterparts". I was appalled. It really irked me to hear this. Of course, in the heat of our conversation I had little success in debunking such a flawed understanding. So let me discuss this here.

It's important to understand that every religious movement and denomination thereof, has a certain real-life setting it feels most comfortable with. Each individual member, however, could do whatever they want and could claim that their behavioral systems are perfectly compatible with the founder's vision. While I usually cannot scientifically prove them wrong, studying the movement's history usually reveals its philosophical underpinning and that is a tremendous indicator as to what the movement stands for, its values, its direction and outlook on life. Do not get sidetracked by individual members claiming "there's absolutely no problem with dosing so and so in a given denomination". I'll give several examples to illustrate what I mean.

1) If you are having a polemic with an enlightened Orthodox Jew about the world being created in seven days (according to the Torah), they will likely admit that the world is older and make the common apologetic argument that the bible is referring to "god days" which are longer. Thus, they will say, the bible and the Orthodox religion are generally consistent with the secular chronology of human history. Wrong! they can believe whatever they want but the Orthodox premise specifically is NOT to interpret the bible allegorically. The importance of observing all the modern minutiae of Jewish law hinges on the belief that God intended the law to be eternal and immutable, precisely as it is presented in the book. Orthodox religion, by its very nature, doesn't allow "longer god days" wiggle room. In other words, while this "enlightened" yeshiva bachur can say and/or do whatever he wants, he's really missing a very essential point here: that the founders of the movement that he follows vociferously rejected any compromise with science. The general spirit of the movement does not allow such an interpretation of the Torah. His approach, rather, would be more fitting to the Reformed or Conservative view of religion.

2) If you've met a karlbach adherent, you may have noticed their intense passion for Judaic rituals such as prayer, dance and hymns. Traditional haredim dismiss them as not authentically religious. Actually, they are precisely what the early hasidim of the late 18th cent. were. The early hasidim were --contrary to modern hasidic practice-- not distinguished by dress, adherence to Jewish law or such. They disregarded Jewish law and scholastic pursuits in favor of a more emotional approach to religion. The karlbach's are as "hasidic" as they get. Don't let the looks fool you. If an satmar hasid ever tells you nishtakkecha torath habbal shem (the teaching of the baal shem had been forgotten), tell him "the karlbach's know what it is, let's go ask them". In contrast, modern "hasidic" practice has evolved so heavily from what its original founders had in mind that it is a misnomer to call it "hasidism"; it conjures up the wrong images. This is true even among the sects who maintain more of the hasidic veneer by emphasizing tischen (firday night table ceremony) and such. Those hasidim are cult-oriented in the sense that they gather round a charismatic figure and venerate him. That's not what true hasidism (as shown by historical fact) is all about.

Let me illustrate the difference between the dominant Jewish denominations through the biblical case law for theft. If one steels an ox or lamb and is caught, he must make restitution and also pay a 100% penalty (he must give back two lambs). Sounds pretty reasonable. However, if he has sold or slaughtered the ox or lamb, then the court forces him to pay a 3x and 4x penalty, respectively. Why the greater penalty? Why even ask this question?

The highly-traditional Eastern European answer is just that: The laws of the Torah are from God and we don't know why they are so and we have no right or reason to question them. The German Orthodox school (represented by Rabbi S.R. Hirsch), however, would acknowledge that there is some rational reason behind this: consumption of stolen property is viewed as consummating the crime; hence, the greater penalty. What the Hirsch school will not do is allow one to extrapolate from this law. To Hirsch, God knows what's good for us and instructs us to behave accordingly for our own benefit. If a computer laptop is involved instead of an ox or lamb there would no "dalet wahe" (4x or 5x penalty) if the thief resold the laptop. That's because God decides how to apply his rules; we are not to reason beyond what is provided by the law.

The Conservative school (represented by Solomn Schechter) would, in principle, allow extrapolation from the theft law. If we understand why the penalty for consumption or resale is greater than mere theft, we can --and should-- further extend this model to apply to other stolen items as well. The Torah only speaks of lambs and oxen because in Biblical times that was the only steal-able property. (Note that in this regard, a "progressive" movement is stricter in the application of ancient law, than a conservative movement -- a source of confusion to neophytes in theology and religious matters). The conservative school believes in the primacy of Halacha but they believe that it should be updated in accordance with modern culture and lifestyle.

The Reform movement, on the other end of the spectrum has the most liberal take on this. Reform scholars are Deists. In matters of conflict between science and religion they essentially side with science. They also advocate enlightenment, the power of reason and a complete revision of Biblical law so as to discard everything that is inconsistent with modern thought or practice. All they see in the theft law is a philosophical precept, which is in fact accounted for in modern Common Law or Civil Law through the imposition of a penalty in addition to restitution in aggravated cases of theft and deception. In other words, what's the point of sticking to the ancient law if-and-when it conflicts with what we would have said in its absence? All the ancient law says, according to reform jurisprudence, is that the ancients saw it best for their society to apply the law thus. Those very ancients themselves would have agreed that as social and economic conditions evolve the law should be updated accordingly. To the Reformer, then, Biblical law has very little significance beyond its moral or didactic element.

Returning to the original topic of this post, on the question of whether there is a fundamental difference between the religion practiced by Reform and Ortho Judaism, I must decisively say: yes, there is an enormous difference between the two. Of course, you could walk in to any Reform synagogue and see the Rabbi donning an unsightly talith and tefilin and preaching to the community on the importance of studying Hebrew and religious materials. You can also walk in to a charedi shul and hear the Rabbi talk about hos the tsiyyon we crave for in the amidah (shemonah esreh) is an allegory representing also the yearning for general salvation from our troubles such as making a living, family relations, morality etc... In both cases we have Rabbis who are preaching or acting in a manner that is more typical of a different denomination; they are "crossing over" (a Gregor Mendelian term?). Don't become obfuscated by such atypical rhetoric and make flawed inferences as to the general character of the movement, and the lifestyle those respective denominations advocate.

I view the various branches of Judaism in through a prism. The branches can --and should-- all be pegged steadfastly within the spectrum of the rainbow, one more conservative than the other. It is a mistake to suppose that one can remain attached to a hasidic lifestyle but be liberal in mind, or that the reform-affiliated congregant who goes to synagogue every Sabbath and says all his blessings constantly is somehow more religious than some Ortho Jews and so there's no point in distinguishing between the two.

The way I see it is that the route from religion to secularism is fixed and is longer than it seems. For ultra-orthodox Jews that route involves a liberal form of Judaism which should be studied and embraced on their noble route out of the shtetel and into 21st-century Western society. Without making this critical stopover in the journey to secularism, there is a high risk of relapse. It's what the Mishnah calls derekh qetsarah vaarukhah: the short route that is (=turns out to be) long.

The Problem with Small Tight-knit Communities

2009-05-25T11:18:00.004-04:00

Ultra-orthodox Judaism has been enduring "spiritual persecution" for 250 years now. Ironically, America --traditionally the most free country in the world-- is also the country in which spiritual persecution of Orthodox Judaism has been most pronounced. Unlike Eastern European countries of the 19th cent. and the former half of the 20th cent., America just wasn't a suitable environment for Orthodoxy. For the record (for those who don't know), Eastern European Jews flocked in the millions to America in the late 19th and early 20th cent. (1880-1924). Those Jews were very traditional --the equivalent of what we call orthodox. (They didn't identify themselves as "orthodox" since in most cases there was no teilung in their Russian communities). Yet, to everyone's surprise, the second generation so lovingly adopted their new culture that there was practically nothing left of their former religion. They went to public schools, mingled with the Italians and the Irish and graduated as goyyim gemurim (utter gentiles). No Yiddish, no dress code, no kosher, no family purity, no intra-faith marriages, no nothing! Only after the second world war, with the new Holocaust-survivor immigrants, did the Orthodox movement take root in this country.

And so, the question arises: why? How come Jews in Eastern Europe had no problem holding on to their traditions by the millions despite centuries of physical oppression and how come American Jews couldn't pass their traditions on to even one generation, despite the tremendous religious-practice liberty that greeted them here? What a paradox!

The answer is very profound and teaches us an extraordinary lesson in our evolutionary quest for survival.

The Jews of Europe had for many centuries been a minority, persecuted, beleaguered ethnic group. They had learned to survive by employing what I call the "huddle effect". They huddled together in their synagogues, leaned on each other's shoulder, looked out for each other in times of physical need and comforted each other in times of emotional trauma. These behaviors are typical of ongoing, small, persecuted minorities throughout the world and throughout all ages. This kind of community bestows an immense survival edge --it seems-- upon its members through its social services and commitment not to let any of its members fail. There's a caveat, though. The Jews of Eastern Europe NEVER had a chance to break out of the mundane, depressing, dreary Eastern-European peasant and lower-class lifestyle. They were guaranteed survival through mutual protection services but the stakes of the game were also low; they couldn't win much. Their life was as boring as watching paint dry. From the beginning to the end it was almost as predictable as the sunrise and sunset.

The Jews who decided to make the journey to America had one thing in common in addition to their "failure to communicate" their religion to the next generation. They all stepped up to the plate and swung the bat. It was a very difficult pitch; they knew that if they swung and missed or fouled, they were out! BUT, they also knew that if they came through all the way with a home run, then the reward was infinitely huge! Horatio Algiers stories (rags-to-riches) was what this country was associated with and rightfully so. In the pure capitalist spirit, in America a Jew who worked really hard, was able to rise above the rest and reach new, hitherto-unheard-of heights of social and economic success for Jews. They also knew that --just like the rest of the folks-- if they failed to make it, they would starve homelessly to death without anyone blinking an eye at them. What distinguished the Jews who made the immigration from those who didn't was that the immigrants were not afraid of the challenge; they welcomed the risk; they voluntarily discarded the "huddling" services provided by their existing communities and bravely declared, individually: I prefer to risk my life and take the precarious journey on my own, rather than live a safe but limited life in the comfort of the huddled Jewish communities.

How does all this relate to religion? Well, one of the major impetuses for the continuance of the Jewish religion through the middle ages, it seems to me, was the very Christian persecution that was meant to coax them into converting to Christianity. Persecution prompted the huddle effect, which in turn dictated that regardless of whether there was merit in the Christian religion, Jews should protect and shore themselves up against persecution by turning inwards and rejecting foreign influence. Those Jews who came to America had a completely different attitude. They said: enough with all these mutual-protection assurances. Let's be chivalrous and fight for survival like we're supposed to. Let's go out there and meet the enemy head-on. Jewish immigrants didn't justify their religious status-quo through a desire for the huddle-effect. As a result, once their religion was stripped of "immunity", laid bare and forced to compete against the Christian-inspired Capitalism of the USA, it invariably lost battle after battle to the tone of nearly a 100% casualty rate among the 1880-1924 second-generation immigrants.

American social and religious freedom is precisely the component of its culture that turned out to be the most lethal weapon against orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism cannot compete in the open-capitalist market. Rather, Orthodox Judaism thrives on its assurances of a safety net to all its members in exchange of unquestioning adherence to its now archaic, irrational teachings.

What stirred me to discover and elaborate this profound insight into the American Jewry OTD (off the derech) phenomenon of the 19th century?

It was a curious encounter that I had today with a 36-year-old man named Joseph. I met him early in the morning at Times Square in Manhattan. We were both seated at the red chairs and tables in one of the Square's traffic islands. He looked just like any other Manhattanite, well-groomed, fashionable and happy. Once we struck up a conversation I realized something was amiss. He was just too glib for a New-yorker, too accessible! Okay, I discover, he's not from NY, he's from PA. He's not married, he's divorced, he's not employed, he's jobless. Oh, and he's also a writer, so maybe that explains his willingness to pour his heart out to a stranger --also a writer-- he just met.

But it turns out that his story is far more intricate and puzzling. His dad died when he was 21 and his mom is loony. He never attended college because he decided to spend his time caring for his dad before he died. Yet, somehow, he's quite educated. He's lived in four different states, including Hawaii where he was given a free condo and job by his father-in-law, only to be kicked out after he insulted his wife's stepmom. He's had numerous concussions from playing football and thus developed migraines which went untreated until one nice day a doctor allegedly twisted his neck the wrong way and caused neck injury which he couldn't prove in court since there were no before and after x-rays. As a result, his wife divorced him after having two children and miscarrying four and being caught cheating on him. His ex-wife then filed for welfare benefits even though her parents were filthy-rich and her new boyfriends were buying her luxury cars. The state then billed him 9k for the welfare costs and issued an arrest warrant after he stopped making payments.

About a month ago he decided to move to NYC since he didn't have a car and couldn't work in PA for fear of being arrested. With little money in his pocket he wanders out all alone and finds his way into a $25 per night hostel in the city, living in dormitory-style 12-bed bunks. Finally his money ran out and so he couldn't afford to stay in the hostel any longer. So, I'm up 6:00 in the morning because I can't sleep at night; he's up because he doesn't have where to sleep but he refuses to consider himself "homeless" and so he won't sleep on the street. In addition he had no money for cigarettes and so he was picking up burnt-out cigarettes strewn on the sidewalk and taking 2-3 hits of each before discarding them and picking up more continually as we walked and talked. He has a collection of books in PA which is about to be shipped over to him so that he can sell them on NY streets and make an estimated 3k which will keep him going until he can get his teeth straightened out and get a job as a bartender. At one point he was scratching nickels and dimes from his backpack until he found enough money to buy himself a bottle of water, while regretting the delay of his book-collection delivery due to the memorial weekend Holiday --where his prospective income is tied up.

Towards the end of our conversation, he told the following story: he once responded to a woman acquaintance's request for help moving out of the house of her abusive boyfriend. The woman was petrified of her BF who was reluctant to let her leave. He tried to make sure the door remained open at all times, so that he can keep an eye on her and "protect" her. Suddenly, the BF shut and locked the front door and there was yelling and screaming "he's killing me, help!!". In his 21-year-old naivete he decided to break down the door in order to "save the girl's life". After several tries --hurting his shoulders in the process-- the door finally caved only to be nearly killed by a knife the BF swung towards him as soon as he entered the house. He quickly ran out and got hold of his father's gun. He then forced the BF to cooperate at gunpoint until the woman got her self packed up and moved out. Reminiscing about this event he described his motives for this violent childish behavior: maybe to impress the girl.

Why am I saying all this about this Pennsylvania stranger from Times Square?

Because his story struck me as highly unusual, but very credible. The movies frequently portray both the kind of poverty and precarious existence that he's experiencing and the violent, macho fights over women. I always dismissed such features as hyperbole and relegated them to the realm of movies, not real life. After hearing his story, I suddenly took a second look into myself and the --highly-contrasting-- super-secure family I grew up in. My parents are the kind of folk who would make 10oK per year through employment (as opposed to entrepreneurship, at which my dad failed repeatedly), "save" 80K of the 100 and live off the 20K. There are no vacations, no remodeling the 30-year old house, no new $99 G&G suits for dad unless the old one is threadbare, no 79 cents/pound bananas for mom if she could get 69/pound bananas several blocks further down 13th Ave. The word that comes to mind constantly is: scrimp, scrimp, scrimp, save, save, save, frugal, frugal, frugal. It's an uncanny how they will deny themselves the most basic comforts of life and convince themselves psychologically that they're perfectly happy, all the while accumulating a fortune that they cannot and will not ever consume --they do all this for the sake of security.

While I am aware that my parents' particular behavior in this regard is not necessarily idiosyncratic of Jews as an ethnic group, I do find such an association valid at some level. Their frugality is related to the huddling behavior mentioned earlier. It's all about the need for assurances that nothing will possibly go wrong and the aversion to take a risk and venture into unknown physical and mental (i.e. religious) territories.

Unlike Joseph, in the Ultradox community no Yeshiva boy would EVER think about fighting to impress a woman. The entire concept of men having to fight and "earn" a mate --as it is in nature throughout the Animal Kingdom-- is completely lacking in traditional Jewish culture. The huddle mentality had supplanted all need for individuals to do any fighting on their own behalf.

I would also like to go on a limb here and explain the Jewish-communist relationship in the same vein. THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL difference between communism and capitalism is that in the former the "state" assumes the risk (and reward) for major communal initiatives and in the latter the individual assumes the risk. Jewish fervent historical embrace of communism stems from this very same huddle-prone culture that they had cultivated for over a millennium; the culture that shuns risk-taking regardless of the potential reward.

That's the real definition between a Jew and a gentile: When gentiles talk derisively about the Jewish insatiable craving for money, they're really talking about the Jewish craving for an ultra-secure form of existence, supported by a single-minded, pernicious pursuit of money and the meticulous saving of every penny earned or acquired.

No Triplets, Just Twins!

2009-05-22T15:29:00.000-04:00

Today, on my bus commute from the train station home, I was somewhat surprised that after an unusually long wait for the MTA city bus, only two consecutive buses showed up. Usually the longer the delay, the greater the number of buses piling up behind the lead bus. God forbid a trailing bus driver should pass an occupied lead bus and start picking up passengers instead of driving around vacant after the oversized crowd crams into the lead bus!

The MTA transit is probably one of the most wasteful and inefficiently-run organizations in the world! I know that I'm somewhat narrow-minded in this assessment since I haven't really gotten a close-hand look at every --or even close to every-- organization in the world. Yet, an educated guess, based on the circumstances that typically contribute to bureaucracy syndrome and the resultant inefficiency, leads to me to believe that this is the case. There are several factors that serve to promote laziness, wastefulness, incompetence and indifference in the MTA.

1) It's based in NYC. NYC is one of the biggest cities in the world and so its mass transit system and the apparatus overseeing it is also one of the biggest. This means that there is more hierarchy, less accountability and personal responsibility by employees for its daily operations. With big organizations, things kind-of run themselves. Each individual presumes that someone else will take charge and no one steps forward to do the right thing, solve a problem or propose a solution or suggestion for a smoother, more efficient operation.

2) Outdated transportation networks. Unlike other European and Asian bis cities that had been crippled in the World War II or which transportation systems only appeared recently, New York is a very old city and its Subway had never been abruptly disabled at any one point in over a century of its existence. This also applies to the public city bus network which operates on roads that were originally designed for the horse and buggy and had mostly never been widened subsequently to accommodate the needs of the exploding car traffic. In a place like Brooklyn, the most populated county in this country! and one of the most crowded, there are only two limited access highways for the entire population: BQE and the Belt. It never occurred to anyone, for some reason, that this is grossly inadequate and the longer they wait to build a major thoroughfare the harder and more expensive it becomes to execute such a project. Buses are therefore competing with hordes of personal automobiles vying for the limited space available on public roads. "kal de'alim gebhar" (whoever is strongest, rules!) applies in NYC driving; being a gentleman is not going to get a NYC driver anywhere!

3) The MTA, being such a massive employer is also unionized-workers employer. Unions best operate under big employers. Unions also tend to discourage employers from demanding industry, creativity and shrewdness on the part of their employees. Unions demand that employers pay much for little and so we have an environment where employees feel a sense of entitlement and job security and are discouraged from deviating from using their discretion to deviate from the rulebook in order accommodate a customer or solve a problem. For example, last week I witnessed a driver getting into a nasty argument with a woman who hauled her cart onto the bus and --against regulations-- left it loaded with contents and unfolded on the bus. The rulebook advises the driver to ask the passenger to fold the cart or somehow get it out of the isle in order to make room for other passengers. Sounds good! Problem is... the bus was quite empty at the time and there was no need nor practical way of getting the cart out of the isle. The driver could have used his discretion to let go but chose to follow the letter of rulebook and be confrontational for no reason.

4) I find that MTA employees are just plain dumb! Unlike smaller suburban towns where there is no large uneducated, poor segment within the population, in NYC there is plenty of it. And for some reason, bureaucracy attracts precisely those people! In droves they line up for those city jobs that require very little creativity and responsibility for relatively good pay. All they have to do is fill out tons of paperwork and "qualify" for the job. The city never uses subjective criteria --such as evaluating an applicants temperament and attitude towards work. Oh no! that would be considered --god forbid-- "discriminatory". Just fill out the paperwork, meet the eligibility guidelines, go on a waiting list several years long and then when an opening occurs, accept the job and then you simply cruise on auto-pilot to retirement after 20 years and live happily ever after!! How sweet! Only in America!

Oh MTA! When will you wake up and realize that the economic problems this country is enduring right now are, in part, symptomatic of the kind of blithe, apathetic indifference they exhibit towards the welfare of their customer base!!? When will you start to seriously read, be concerned and motivated to act in response to customer complaints, instead of "launching an investigation" and concluding after half a year that the driver "just followed procedures"?

2009-05-21T01:28:00.003-04:00

This is a response to a comment left by Sarah to my "Jewish antisemite" blog entry.

"the jewish religion sprouted to keep the people together": you are confusing the raison d'etre for Judaism and its ancillary features. Anyone who studies history knows that Judaism --no different from other cultures, religions and nationalities-- originally was steeped in the overarching culture of the Ancient Near East and that's how it evolved as a religion. Biblical laws are mere modifications of centuries-old legal codes --such as the code of Hammurabi. Jewish sense of a unique identity evolved later, as a result of Seleucid persecution in the early second century BCE. Ever since then, Jews have --to some extent-- felt persecuted and subordinate to greater powers and hence the strong "huddling together" aspect of Judaism.

You should note, however, that during the first three centuries of the first Millenium, it was Christianity that was the officially persecuted religion and that exhibited as much of this huddling-together practice as the Jews later exhibited. The Jews back then actually were a "protected religion" under the Romans. The Romans only suppressed Judaea's political ambitions; they never had any agenda against its religious aspects; on the contrary, they were very friendly and receptive to Jewish religious and philosophical ideas (note the famous friendship, for example, between antoninus and R. Judah ha-nasi).

Bottom line is that huddling together does not justify the religion as a way of life. As modern humans we can find common ground on a much more rational basis and form a community around such principles. It doesn't make sense to go to synagogue and pray three times per day year after year --wasting two hours every day-- in order to gain the social comfort of meeting like-minded (???) individuals and getting to identify with them "against" the rest of the world (which is assumed, without proper basis, to be evil and diabolic).

Question: Why introduce race, if it's religion I object to?

Answer: I object to both! I'm saying that Jews as a racial or ethnic group (depending on how one characterizes them) are inferior to Christians! It's self-deprecating and it takes a great deal of courage to admit it but I'm being honest with myself and honesty ultimately leads to greater happiness than the immediate but facile comfort of self-pleasing defensive constructs. However, I don't object to Jews racially in the sense that I advocate Nazi-like discrimination or persecution against them! I believe in the American solution to "inferior-race" problems, namely: assimilation. In our case, I am advocating disavowing the Jewish religion as long-term goal to be espoused by all rational Jews. It's a process, not an act. It cannot be completed in one generation but we know empirically that it could be achieved through multiple generations. A step in the right direction is what I am advocating.

Question: What's there to admire about the colonialism and racism of Victorian Europe?

Answer: Did I hear "colonialism"? What's wrong with that? It may seem to artificial students of history and observers of current events that colonialism is not being practiced anymore but it actually is. The American war in Iraq is a very good example. All intelligent analysts know that it's not being fought for our security. It's being fought for oil. In that regard it's no different from colonialism which was the domination of foreign lands and its peoples for the purpose of cheap and easy access to its natural resources. Furthermore, even though Bush would never admit that that's the real purpose of the war, such denial is simply prudent from a PR standpoint. It's one of those things that we know but don't discuss. In more subtle ways, through the UN, foreign monetary aid and political angling, the US is exerting colonial-like pressure over friend and foe alike, to ensure that it has continual access to the resources it needs in order to maintain the high standard of living and wealth in this country. Hence, I have nothing but thumbs-up approval of the American bully posture. I'm a bully also when it comes to satisfying my needs and desires for survival and pleasure.

Statement: Cultural continuity is good for people; cultural continuity does not preclude change.

My response: For once, I agree with you. Cultural continuity does indeed not preclude change, although I would have worded it inversely (with the addition of a modifier): Change does not preclude some cultural continuity! I'm not advocating revolutionary changes in lifestyle or identity. It's a slow, gradual journey. But we need to hustle up, pack up and get on the way!

Reaction to Movie: Capturing the Friedman's

2009-05-20T23:50:00.003-04:00

This movie made a very deep impression on me. I often watch the same movie twice back-to-back, as I am sometimes am overwhelmed by unfamiliar material or situations which the second viewing elucidates. This time, however, my second viewing was from a diametrically opposed standpoint from the first, an unheard of phenomenon. During my first viewing, I submitted to the subtle implications of the featured interviews and footage suggesting the Friedman's were innocent. In my second viewing, I revisited every single piece of evidence and interpreted from the newly-held guilty-verdict perspective.

My position now is that the essential charges filed against the Friedman's are valid. Both father and so are guilty on at least some accounts of sodomy committed in Great Neck (as opposed to the admitted guilt by Arnie of two sodomy incidents in the 50's during a beach resort vacation). To me, the most convincing evidence that Jesse is guilty is his own admission to his lawyer, Peter Panaro, that he was sexually abused by his father and in an attempt to endear himself to his father he participated in some of the sexual abuse incidents that (allegedly) took place in these computer classes. This admission, according to his lawyer, was accompanied by emotional tears of guilt and was done voluntarily by Jesse after he decided against taking the case to trial. Panaro even refused initially to plea-bargain the case claiming that he doesn't make deals when his client is innocent. Jesse insisted that he "can honestly admit to the 14 counts of sodomy" and that's when they agreed to the plea bargain. Jesse also broke down in tears during his sentencing and essentially repeated this statement to the full court in front of the video cameras. In his Geralso Rivera interview while in prison he also fully admitted his guilt. Thus, his backtracking on his admission during and after the production of the film claiming that he was forced to agree to the plea-bargain because he "ran out of options" and his lawyer pressured him to do so, is --in my opinion-- untrustworthy.

Also, the fact that the film completely omits the Geraldo Rivera interview is evidence that the director was not even-handed and objective in his presentation of the case. As Judge Boklan said in the post-screening discussion, Jarecki distorted the facts in order to create "theatrics" and a riveting movie.

Some other striking points follow:

David (Jesse's brother), who naturally had no first-hand knowledge of the atrocities committed by his dad and brother, succumbed to his emotion. Instead of facing the truth he perniciously assumed a state-of-denial approach to this scandal. To a lesser extent, this was also the approach of Arnie's brother Howie, but Howie never makes the claim that the charges are false. He just is incredulous about them and severely traumatized by the shock of such revelations. In some of the home movie scenes we see hos David is repeatedly being his dad's spokesman and claiming on his behalf that his dad never committed those crimes and he should therefore plead not-guilty, contrary to the advice of his mom, Elaine. In all this time, Arnie never backs up his son; he remains aloof of all the name-calling and back-and-forth accusations between the children and their mom. If he was really innocent, why didn't he speak up during those occasions?

It all started with the exposure of kiddy porn magazines delivered to Arnie. During the first search of his house, nothing else was known or being charged against him. However, it rightly prompted the cops to interview the children who attended Arnie's computer classes. I don't believe that the cops had a prior agenda against him at this stage. Why would they? He was a very well-respected member of the community! There would have been absolutely no motive for the cops to basically put those vivid descriptions of sodomy into the mouths of the children through cuing, as the defense claims. There must have been --at some point-- (seemingly the first children interviewed on the class list), children who freely volunteered information against Arnie when asked whether Arnie did anything inappropriate to them (and remember, there was probably cause for such questioning based on the porn magazines).

Having said this, I should also point out that from what I gather, it seems that the cops employed shoddy interviewing techniques by leading the children on through inappropriate forms of questioning like: isn't it true that Arnie did so-and-so to you? If I were a judge I would seriously consider not admitting such evidence in court. The cops should have operated more prudently. There is a possibility/likelihood that some of the sodomy accounts were simply made under pressure in order to satisfy the demands of the cops from the children. But on the essential question of whether Arnie committed some acts of sodomy against at least some children some of the time, I have to say that the answer is "yes, beyond a reasonable doubt". Under the circumstances, it is actually quite normal for kids not to report such incidents and for there not to be any physical evidence. Lack of discovery of the photographs and videos allegedly taken of the sexual acts is also not an indication of innocence. It is reasonable that the detectives would not discover such photos/videos during the first search or that he discretely hid them somewhere where they couldn't be found or that they had been destroyed/disposed by then. In this case I must say that discovery of this material would definitely strengthen the prosecution's case but lack of discovery is not evidence against it.

How to Tackle the Big Three: Energy, Health Care and Education

2009-05-17T01:18:00.002-04:00

Today in the news it was pointed out that the Democrats are now divided amongst themselves on whether they should go after the Bush administration and attempt to prosecute and/or embarrass those responsible for designing and executing policies that are now popularly denounced (such as "torture"), or not. See the article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090516/ap_on_an/us_democrats_security_analysis .

Some are critical of Obama for backtracking on his initial policy to release pictures of tortured detainee and associated memos. Lately Obama has decided not to pursue those issues and focus instead on domestic policies related to the Economy and the Big Three.

What's my position on this matter?

I am firmly behind Obama's current position not to pursue any action against the Bush administration and not to release any documents that would denigrate them or could compromise national security.

Philosophically, such a course of action (as advocated by the liberal wing in the Democratic party) is a grave error. I'll explain why.

Whenever one evaluates the merits of any activity, the first and foremost question one must ask is: how does the activity under question provide a direct benefit to its practitioner? The less "direct" the benefit is, the less the virtual points assigned to such activity should be, compared to other more "directly beneficial" activities. What's a directly beneficial activity? Working in the Agriculture is a great example of a "directly beneficial" occupation. Food is one of the most vital and fundamental of human resources. Activities that generate such a resource are thus directly beneficial. By contrast, "gambling" is a good example of one of the least "directly beneficial" activities out there. Casino gambling is formulated so as to provide a monetary losing expectation to players. In the long run, the games are virtually guaranteed to devour the gambler's money. Thus the only benefit provided to the gambler is "psychological"; essentially, it's the mind that is somehow being "erroneously" satisfied (by believing that this will be the gambler's lucky day) through the pursuit of a gambling lifestyle. The benefit thus provided to the gambler is extremely "indirect". Gambling is one of the only activities that does not generate any material wealth at all; it's completely in the mind and erroneously so. Other common hobbies and occupations are somewhere in between the spectrum of "directly- vs. indirectly-beneficial pursuits.

Revenge is sweet and retaliatory activities are sometimes necessary philosophically. But they have an innate and fundamental problem: they don't provide any direct benefit to the person taking revenge. At best, it satisfies emotional needs but nothing more. Think about the blood feud, for example. Say, you are a member of a respectable clan and a member of a rival clan kills a senior member of your clan. Your clan is outraged and seek revenge and so they murder a member of the opposing clan. Does this bring the senior member of your clan back to life? No! What's worse is that now there's reason for the opposing clan to murder another member of your clan which will, no doubt, prompt your clan to seek revenge once again by murdering a member of their clan and the vicious cycle never stops. There have been entire towns and regions decimated by the blood feud. In our modern society, in contrast, we know better. When murder occurs, even if the offending party is absolutely guilty, we will not usually impose exacting revenge on the murderer by taking his life. The reason for that is that society is not being helped by eliminating another life. We seek to "rehabilitate" the murderer, rather than punish him.

How is all this relevant to us?

As much as I hate Bush personally, his administration, their policies and the Republican platform in general -- the best revenge we can take now that we are in power is to actually reverse the detrimental policies instituted and upheld during his term in office. By going after those who are deemed responsible for the alleged "illegal activities" of his administration we are not accomplishing anything of direct value to us. As a consequence, we are more likely to be punishing ourselves in the process, by diverting our attention from the critical issues that are truly important to us. every word this congress speaks against Bush and Cheney, Torture and legal memo's authorising torture -- is a word not spoken in support of the Big Three: Health Care reform, Education and Energy.

Those three issues are extremely difficult to resolve and we need to concentrate our full attention to tackle them properly.

Health Care: The problem here is that this country's health care system is moving farther and farther away from preventing and curing diseases and instead we are now merely treating symptoms. If you go to a doctor to complain about a rash, for example, he'll charge you for the visit, prescribe you a medication and ask to see you again in a month. But he will not ask you lifestyle questions designed to determine why your body is reacting that way. He won't tell you to lose weight or exercise more or start eating more fruits and veggies. He's not treating the root of the problem; he's treating the symptom only. Why? For two reasons. One: they are lazy. It takes less time and effort, in the short term, to treat symptoms than to treat the root cause of the disease. It's also much easier to charge for such a service since the result is immediate and well-defined. Two: they are not sincerely motivated in many cases to really help you get rid of the ailment. If you are cured once and for all, they lose business. Another problem with the health care industry is the paperwork. There are so many forms that patients and doctors fill out, often for a visit that lasts 2-3 minutes. Often, doctors needlessly administer "routine exams" or repeat flu shots that have already been taken. It's all part of a medical culture that has ceased to be efficient and has become instead a lumbering, plodding, inefficient bureaucracy.

Energy: It's amazing how we have completely forgotten about the spike in Energy costs last year. No one seems to be making the obvious association (to some extent, at least) between the rise in energy costs and our current recession. It's plain to see that the two are intricately related. With the burgeoning energy costs, business and individuals alike saw themselves spending more resources to provide or acquire the same level of goods and services as before. Thus, they were forced to cut back on spending and lo and behold: an economic recession.

Ironically, the ONLY reason energy costs have since subsided is that the very high cost of energy brought on a recession and thus decreased demand for energy. Hence, the problem has become the solution; the arsonist is rushing to extinguish the fire. How misleading! How phony! Energy is our enemy; never forget what it did to us last year! It is lurking on the sidelines now that we're in a recession and will pounce again when given a chance. If we don't do anything about energy reform, we may be in such bad shape that energy will never get the chance to hurt us again because we will never be able to truly recover from this recession.

1) People need to start throwing away those hummers and SUV's and start driving smaller cars.

2) Stop driving motor vehicles altogether! Isn't there an obesity problem in this country, as of the last time I checked? Aren't we all just a tad too sedentary? Why don't people start cycling more? Why don't they walk more?

3) Use public transportation! Public transportation is far more efficient than private transportation and there are additional hidden benefits as well, such as the possibility of meeting some interesting new people. Also, there's no need to mindlessly and monotonously pay attention to the road.

4) Stop transporting goods from India and China. Stop shipping food from California to New York when there are farms nearby in New Jersey! This whole transport system is just operating very inefficiently right now. We got used to this mindlessness as a result of cheap oil; but it's not cheap anymore. Now we need to learn how to route goods in the most direct and efficient manner available.

5) Stop fighting the seasons! When it's 60 outside, there's no need for the temperature to be 80 inside. When it's 80 outside, there's no need for the temperature to be 60 inside. We seem to be "over-correcting" our thermostats. How silly! Learn to enjoy the seasons. When it's hot outside, open all the windows and let the fresh summer air circulate. If that's not enough, install some fans. If you're still hot, take your clothes off; we were born naked after all. If that still doesn't help, drink lots of water and enjoy the sweat; it is truly healthy!

Education: I'll discuss this some other time.

The Jewish Antisemite

2009-05-01T16:31:00.002-04:00

The "Jewish Anti-semite" is a commonly invoked pejorative appelative these days. It seems like on oxymoron: If you're Jewish, why criticize yourself? Doesn't make any sense! Come to think of it, though, I just realized that --along with all the other long-despised and utterly-shunned appelatives such as "kopher", "apikoros", "upgafurune yid, nebech", I am probably also a Jewish Antisemite.

Let me explain.

Antisemitism --the hatred of Jews-- has existed ever since the fall of the Roman Empire in the fourth century (recall that the Romans actually granted the Jews special privileges such as not having to worship Roman Gods), when Christianity was burgeoning and it resented the stubbornness of its parent-sect, Judaism, in rejecting the message of one of its own. However, the prototype for what can be called "modern antisemitism" is the movement in Western Europe in the late 19th century.

At that time, the Jews of Western and Central Europe had been "emancipated" for nearly a century and were generally given equal opportunity to Christians to engage in whatever trade they chose and live wherever they wished. This indeed led to a precipitous drop in the level of Jewish observance, appearance and culture. However, Reform Jews of the late nineteenth century still identified with their faith and attended synagogue periodically and sought to provide their children with a distinctively Jewish education, in addition to their regular education. Some Christians, however, felt that the Jews hadn't come far enough. Considering their own culture and religion superior to that of the Jews, they pondered the implication of Jews still living a lifestyle that they deemed "inferior". Is it that they are genetically incapable of anything "better"? Thus was born the movement of "racial antisemitism". It is the rejection of the Jew based on deeply-rooted, immutable racial grounds, not because of their actual practiced religion. This ideology is associated with the Eugenics movement and is also the force behind the Nazi hatred of Jews.

Now I am not devoid of any emotional drives. I do find comfort and support in the Jewish community. I often feel that Jews understand me better than non-Jews; I have an easier time communicating with people who speak Yiddish, for example, and have been raised with customs identical to mine. But I have also made it my modus vivendi to analyze, criticise and dissect every argument I come across. When I was told in Yeshiva: this is how you do it because the Shulkhan Arukh says so, I asked: But why does the Shulkhan Arukh say so? When I found the source in the Rambam, Rosh or Riph (the big three) I did not content myself but followed the trail to the Talmud and from there I eventually hopped on the bandwagon taking me all the way back to plain and simple "miqra": reading the Torah and seeking to understand it as it was originally meant to be understood. What did the author have in mind in penning those words? I would ask.

After a long, exhausting, tortuous investigation I made some shocking discoveries. It turned out that the Jewish culture, with all the laws and customs it entails, were all originally meant to aid us in establishing an optimally functioning society, nothing more. Its the tremendously powerful force of "status quo" that did the rest in shaping the Jewish religion and culture. Through the Roman-Mishnaic era, the Middle ages, and --for some Jews-- the Modern Era, the Jews simply refused to allow any modification of this long-antiquated legal and theological system. They held on tenaciously to their hand-me-downs. That, and only that is the ultimate rationale behind Judaism as a distinct religion from Christianity. Think about it: Jesus from Nazareth preached to the Jews 2,000! years ago. He urged them: Stop being silly! Sabbath was meant to be a day of relaxation and pleasure. Surely healing someone on the Sabbath accords very well with such a noble day; why should the medical practice be prohibited on the Sabbath? He also said: Cut out the bullshit! God doesn't need your "sacrifice". Do you really think that an all-powerful omnipresent God needs the fats and blood of an animal for propitiation in order to grant a worshipper his wishes? What God really wants is compassion, kindness towards the poor and upright behavior! He also said: Instead of focusing on the ritual hand-washing before meals, why not invest our energies to avoid what really defiles a man: lies, and deceit!

Book of Matthew. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Take note also of the following passage in Matthew:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

From this last passage we see that Jesus presented himself as a reformer. He sought to eliminate the elements of Judaism that were no longer serving a useful purpose and instead highlight those elements that did serve a purpose. He sought to augment the existing law and the essential spirit behind it by getting rid of those laws that had become detrimental to the spirit of the original law.

Accordingly, it is firm rational affirmation that Christianity is indeed a "superior" religion to Judaism. Take special note of my wording: I'm, using the comparative here. I'm not saying that in absolute terms Christianity is a valid way of life. I'm saying that despite all the problems Christianity has exhibited through the ages, it's the full package that needs to be evaluated. I know that Jews were generally more educated than Christians. I know that the Christians made up "blood libels" and ignorantly blamed the Jews for their daily woes without having any basis whatsoever (such as the plague of 1333). But remember: two wrongs don't make a right. The essential message of Christianity is in fact more valid than Judaism, from a rational perspective (considering how the religion has an observable beneficial effect on society). Negating the value of Christianity simply by invoking those millions of poor, ignorant peasants who desperately sought a scape-goat for their troubles and found the Jew as the perfectly suitable candidate -- is utterly missing the point here. The messenger does not matter; the message is what counts.

I strongly admire the courage and persistence demonstrated by the French revolutionaries in the Late 18th century. There's no question that the result of all that chaos -- the Napoleonic regime-- was a major boon for Europe. It opened up the eyes of millions of Europeans and showed them what freedom was like. It empowered the majority "third estate" (commoners) through Europe,regardless of nationality. It emphasized equal opportunity over right-of-birth --the same ideal that we have come to admire so strongly in America and what has made this country so great. But let's not forget that there is effort to be made in order to achieve success. There was no silver bullet in the Napoleonic message. Those emancipated peasants would have to work really hard to overcome centuries of prejudice in order to trump their erstwhile superiors.

Jews had been emancipated by Napoleon as well and they were expected to make the same backbreaking effort for success, just like the rest of the emancipated. Did they pass the test? Well, it depends on how you look it it! Is the glass half full or half empty? Apparently, the Christian critics of the late 19th century who advocated Racial Antisemitism believed that the Jews had failed; they hadn't done enough to utilize their liberty in order to achieve true equality in rights as well as culture. If I were to score the test I would definitely not have failed them, especially the German Jews who made monumental progress and showed great bravery in reasoning their way out of a flawed, outdated and worthless system.

Regardless of the correctness of the ideas swirling in the mind of the 19th century advocate of Racial Antisemitism, as a Jew I would have greatly welcomed such criticism. Educated people know that being criticized is a good thing. It prompts them to reevaluate their positions and refine their behavior and stance on the issues under discussion. It's like the aphorism that goes: stay close to your friend but be even closer to your enemy. It's the enemy that makes a person great. It's the immunities and defenses that one develops against an enemy that ultimately distinguishes the winner from the loser in the game of life. Someone who only has friends is the real loser. If I was living in 1880's Germany or Austria or France I would be very appreciative and receptive to criticism, regardless of whether it's well-intentioned or not. As a result, I would have learned to accelerate my pace towards assimilation and I would have theoretically avoided the all-out catastrophe that ensued a half-century later.

So, to repeat the question: is the Jew (who identifies as such) as a racial being inferior to the "Nordic" race? Yes! Do I hate myself? No! Do I self-criticize myself and acknowledge the painful truth that I was not born into the greatest race in the world? Yes! Does this motivate me to do something about it? Absolutely! Do I have negative feelings about my self-worth? Not at all! It is folks who refuse to acknowledge the problem who should have negative feelings about themselves! I am just playing out my hand as best as I could.

Some players are dealt pocket aces, some pocket jacks, some ace-king and some seven-deuce. I sure wish I was the one holding the aces but I'm not. I'm on a draw! It's a long shot. With some luck and gritty determination I may get there or bluff my way into winning the pot but at least I have the clarity of mind to read my own hand: It's not an AK, I need help, fast!

Raison d'etre of Biblical Commandments

2009-04-27T17:40:00.002-04:00

I had a debate with my older brother last night on this topic. I already knew approximately his stance on this but I sought to define it better and put myself in his shoes trying to perceive religion the way he does. In this article I'd like to break down the purpose of Biblical commandments and injunctions according to the various schools of thought, some of which have existed for Millenia.

1) my position. My view is that biblical jurisprudence is the natural man-made outcome of historical conditions in the Ancient Near East. Some case laws in the Covenant Code (parashath mishpatim), for example, are found almost verbatim in the Hammurabi code, which was codified long before the bible, indisputably. No modern religious adherent would posit that the Hammurabi code was inspired by God; all evidence points that Hammurabi and his lieutenants invented and compiled the code for the benefit of the people; it's a thoroughly natural process. Likewise, the Bible, bearing great resemblance to the Hammurabi code as well as Egyptian laws and customs and others, is the offshoot of human endeavor.

Every single law had a 100% "rational" explanation when it was first codified. For example, in modern times, the FDA forbids the use of red # 2 (Amaranth) as food coloring as it is a suspected carcinogen based on the results of surveys or experiments. This is a "rational law" because the action it forbids can be associated with an undesirable consequence using our reasoning faculties. The law says, you must not pass a red light; another example of rational law.

Likewise, when the bible says "do not eat blood", it is because it was thought to cause bodily harm, possibly due to its attraction of bacteria and pathogens in the absence of refrigeration. When the Bible says "do eat matsah and maror on Pesach" it's because matsah is the more genteel, classy food as opposed to the vulgar, fermented hamets. Maror, also, as a vegetable only affordable by the wealthy is an appropriate item to include on the menu of a meal which celebrates liberation from slavery. Perfectly rational.

Many laws of the Torah have --over the centuries-- ceased to serve the purpose they were originally meant to serve, which created a major conundrum. Do we continue to observe them or do we modify and revise them to make them accommodating to an evolving culture? Over the years, that have been many groups within Judaism who have chosen one path or the other, conservatism or reform. Christianity is an example of a Jewish movement that chose to cross out from the text those laws that no longer seemed relevant. Jesus denigrated the Sabbath (by healing a person on it, how ironic that such an activity came to be viewed as "unsuitable for a relaxation day"), ate without washing his hand first and his disciples even had the chutspah to declare circumcision unnecessary. The Pharisees, from which Rabbinic Judaism is derived, were situated on the other end of the spectrum. They insisted that everything in the bible is 100% valid, no matter how unreasonable the laws seem to us. They, moreover, concocted intricate bylaws designed to bolster the antiquated biblical law and they then claimed that this "oral law" is just as important as the "written law".

2) Symbolism. This is my brother's opinion and is purportedly advanced by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the German, Orthodox Rabbi of the nineteenth century. According to this school, the Torah teaches us what kind of behavior is good and what is bad. The Torah tells us what the formula of life is. We must have faith that God knows what's best for us, just like we have faith in our doctors when they prescribe medicine or advise us to "sacrifice" immediate pleasures for the sake of long-term health. We don't kill other people because God has willed that such an activity be immoral. We sit in a Sukkah on Sukkoth for the same reason: God sees this activity as symbolic of "good" and thus its observance is required for us to remain God's good, chosen people.

According to this theory, associating Biblical material directly with physical welfare is "apikorsus" (heresy). We must NOT look for rationalistic explanations because there truly are none. The benefit to society of its members not murdering each other is only secondary to the primary benefit of it being a manifestation of god's will. He views a such a society as perfect and THAT is why we don't kill each other. It's a formula that we cannot understand and must not try to understand. God reveals to us in the Torah what the formula is and it's up to us to follow it without question.

3) Kabbalistic explanations. This school, advanced, by the Zohar and Arizal, posits the existence of "olamoth" (worlds) beyond our physical perceptions that are affected by our actions. The Torah instructs us to behave in a manner that will achieve "tiqqun olam" (correction of the world).

4) We observe the Torah because god said so. Why did god say so? It does not matter! We must follow God's will and command.

This fourth school is the one adopted by most contemporary Orthodox observants. They put absolutely no thought at all into Orthodox practices. To them, it's a very simple construct: God tell us to do so and we must listen because God is almighty and all-powerful.

It's important to note the difference between the second, symbolic school and this last one. The symbolic school does not advise adherents that we do things simply because it's god's will. It acknowledges that god's will is tied to other, temporal as well atemporal events and practices. According to the symbolic school, it may be sensible to investigate the meaning of mitsvoth; however, this is done in order to discover the symbolic meaning of the commandments, in other words: how do these commandments provide a lesson or edification for us? If we don't find any edification in the mitsvoth, that's fine too, since the validity of the formula is still there. What should not be done, however, is attribute the mitsvoth to man-made codes of law designed to institute order within civilization.

The Reform movement as well as modern Christian scholars of the Old testament overwhelmingly espouse my school of thought, the first one.

Puritanical Orthodox observants espouse the second school, as per the advocacy of Rabbi Hirsch. Keep in mind that R, Hirsch is the ONLY Orthodox Jewish scholar who had thoroughly investigated the matters at hand and methodically and laboriously deflected all the missiles hurled at him from the liberal-minded elements who sought to trash orthodox observance. In other words: Rabbi Hirsch is all the Orthodox faith has to rely on, there is nothing else.

Thus, as irrational and closed-minded as the symbolic school seems to me and to many others, it's essential to comprehend it properly because ultimately it is the ONLY rational justification of continued observance of the Old Testament. It's the only conservative holdout that actually makes sense. If I had a polemic with my brother on this topic, there's no way I can defeat him using logic. The Symbolic school is logically unbreakable. There is one premise that I don't make and so I cannot draw the Orthodox conclusion: that God has created an immutable formula for "proper living". This is a very bold and pervasive claim that I find no evidence to establish (even if we premise the existence of God). Once this premise is established, though, one can logically and rationally proceed to infer the validity of modern Orthodox law.

2009-04-15T23:32:00.002-04:00

Why does God Hate Me?

That's the question I was asked today by a member of the local library's chess club. He is a despondent fellow, single, overweight and unkempt. On our way out of the library, he seemed quite serious when he posed the question, adding "why have so many innocent Jews died at the Holocaust? It wasn't rhetorical; he pinned me and demanded and answer. I said "maybe they weren't so innocent; and maybe God has a long-term plan that we cannot see as of yet".

It's a rather succinct and seemingly straightforward answer but it's quite profound:

1) When we witness calamity befalling some people and not others, we immediately ask the question "why were they singled out?" However, what we consistently neglect to take into account is that life brims with challenges and we are "supposed" to be able to meet them wisely and bravely. Natural Selection, we know, schedules such calamitous events at sporadic intervals and we are given plenty of time to prepare for such eventualities. In fact, living in a modern civilization, as we currently do, we have an abundance of time at our disposal for engaging in all kinds of speculative activities and long-term highly-sophisticated projects.

One way of gauging the amount of available resources for such seemingly "discretionary" pursuits is by looking at the American average income. The average family middle-class family spends only a small fraction of their income on essentials: food, clothing and shelter. Keep in mind that mortgage payments are NOT essential for the satisfaction of the basic need for housing. If renting were not available, that would have been true. As it is, however, purchasing a home is more than securing a roof over one's head: it's an investment, it's the acquisition of equity ("capital") and is thus not an essential condition for survival.

An average middle-class family could, in theory rent a simple two-bedroom apartment somewhere within commuting distance of their job and spend as little as one thousand dollars per month for housing, gas and electric. Food would require a mere two hundred dollars per month expenditure, if the family scrimped at the supermarket. And clothing would be the cheapest of all, demanding as little as several hundreds dollars per year if the family economized its spending in an average family of four. Incredibly, such a lifestyle could be maintained quite consistently through economic boom periods and recessions, and political power shifts between the major parties. In the meantime, both parents could hold down jobs paying on average a minimum of fifty grand for a combined income of one hundred thousand dollars per year. Where is the eighty thousand dollars of disposable income being diverted?

* Capital investments. That is, the family wants to generate more money so that it may serve as a cushion for "security".
* Brand name purchases. The family desires not just any piece of clothing or living in just any neighborhood. They choose the kinds of clothing and live in the kind of neighborhoods that project them in the best possible light to society at large. They need to acquire that elusive, all-too-expensive "image" of success, in addition to acquiring success in actuality.
* Travel, adventure, and entertainment. The family loves to explore other modes of living and cultural practices to see whether those can be adopted and serve to facilitate or enhance their living conditions.

And with all this hubbub of spending, there is still a nice chunk of grub left over. What's even more disposable is the incredibly vast amounts of time available to the family. They engage in hobbies, religious practices, trifle with friends and family and watch TV. It's all discretionary. The question is: are people choosing to ration their spare time and resources wisely or are they being careless? If you think about it carefully, you'll discover that education, for instance, could take one very far. With a proper education, one can hope to anticipate natural disasters, shifts int he economy and the like. How much spare time do people devote for education? Very little! Why, then, do they cry foul when Hurricane Katrina does at long last strike of when Berney Madoff's Ponzi scheme does at long last crumble to pieces? No doubt, nature should be punished and Madoff should rot in prison. But, is that going to get your house renovated or your investment money back? I don't think so! Ultimately, it's not useful to blame external factors for one's shortcomings. Introspection serves the purpose much better, such as asking oneself: was I asleep at the wheel? Was I sleepwalking through life? Why wasn't I scrutinizing the mechanisms Madoff used to generate such high returns on investment and then discovered that it's all a hoax and bound to blow up in short order?

We have plenty of time and resources available to us to guard against "unforeseen" eventualities. This is, in fact, "the" defining distinction between us and most other members of the animal kingdom. We have intelligence and can employ it to predict the future and thus provide for necessary adaptations to it. It is thus inexcusable to moan and groan about how God has malignantly singled one out from the rest. Retuning to the aforementioned Holocaust question: why did God allow the Holocaust to happen?, I'd like to underscore how callous those victims were.

* Nazi Germany came to power in 1933. The Germans never concealed their profound hatred of Jews or their desire to generate lebensraum for Germany by conquering weak, "inferior", adjacent territories, Poland being on the short list.
* The Holocaust Jews failed to aggressively seek emigration from countries within German occupation borders, or likely to fall under German hands.
* They naively refused to believe continual reports of the horror and atrocities of the Nazi regime, even after those acts were in full swing.
* They focused excessively on protecting their properties, to the point of neglecting the vital task of looking out for their very survival. Many of the Holocaust victims had numerous chances on their path to Auschwitz to buy their freedom. As they neared their doomed destination, those opportunities became harder and harder to come by. In the end, all the wealth they preserved so tenaciously was seized by the very party they hated the most: the German Nazi government.

Can you see here a string of gross misjudgements on the victims' part? Can you see here how a better education and a more lucid vision towards reality --as opposed to wishful thinking-- could have very reasonably saved their lives? Don't blame God! You had a minimum of six years to prepare for the Nazi regime and its violent program. What have you been doing? Where was all your disposable time and money spent?

2) Now let me elaborate on the second part of my answer: the long-term vision of God. It's amazing how the more ignorant people are, the more they insist that they know everything and the more educated they are, the more they realize that they are merely studying the tip of the iceberg. There's also another remarkable quality inherent in intelligent study and analysis of nature: insistence on seeing the big picture, knowing that a stumble and fall isn't necessarily bad and striking gold isn't necessarily good. If the person who falls survives and thus develops future "immunity" against falls, as nature typically does, and if the person who strikes gold becomes callous and indifferent to the need of hard work for survival and thus neglects to take appropriate steps to ensure long-term survival, then who is the real loser here and who is the winner?

Even though we can't see it, the collective benefit of Jews as an ethnic group, may have actually been enhanced by eliminating the weeds, members of the group who were weak and unworthy of survival. Also, the Holocaust may have had a strong beneficial impact on the future religious and cultural direction the Jewish movement has taken and will continue to take. Who is to say: now is the time to release the verdict on whether the Holocaust is "justifiable"? Perhaps we wait a little longer! Perhaps our vision will clear up as we proceed with history and we recede from the arena of this cataclysmic event; as we become less emotionally attached to the Holocaust.

If serial murderers are kept for decades on death row, just to make sure that they're absolutely guilty without a shadow of doubt, can't we grant God the same privilege of the "benefit of the doubt"? More often than not, we will ourselves be able to prove him innocent if we do our homework properly.

Know your Ideal Dimensions

2009-04-08T18:37:00.002-04:00

I consider myself special. I was born into a parochial ultra-orthodox community and gainst all odds have made the daring decision to liberate myself from its irrational rigors and strive towards the fulfillment of the American Dream: upward soci0-economic mobility. But, has my effort yielded unequivocal success? Far from it! Not only have I not achieved the reult or anything close to it but an argument can be made that I am currently living an evevn less desirable life, with considerable isolation, insecurity and instability due to my wavering position between the two ends, having left one community and not having been admitted to the other.

However, it's important to stay focused on the ultimate goals. Life is not about what one accomplishes but about what one strives to accomplish. It's about direction. Where am I heading? What am I running away from, or "walking" for that matter, and what am I running or walking towards? It's essential to be able to definitively and resolutely distinguish between progress and regress. This does not mean that one may never engage in regressive activites once they have been identified as such. Sometimes, conservatism is the way to go for the sake of establishing the peace-of-mind and stability associated with continuity. However, one should never lose sight of the grand vision of progress and should engage in it whenever possible.

For example, right now I am getting ready to attend a seder (passover-night ceremonial meal). I do find some satisfaction in this meal. It conjures up feelings of belonging to a group and the ideas that this particular ceremony symbolizes, i.e. liberation from tyranny and injustice. However, ideally I have already firmly established intellectually that I would have been better off celebrating Easter (the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Passover) in a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) community than Passover in a Jewish community. Sadly, the Easter ideal is one that I will probably never attain in my lifetime and so it remain just a that: a theoretical concept, relegated to the blogosphere, barred from being invoked in Jewish circles, no matter how "enlightened they may be.

Other ideal goals that are largely unattainable by myself but to which I adore are:

More ideal height: I am 5"8 but it turns out to be a sub-optimal level. The optimal height is 5"10 or higher. The American white average, for instance, is 5"10 and so is the English. The German avergae is even higher. Those are some of the most successful cultures in recent History.

Ideal habitation: despite the seeming enviability of the densely habitated cities of the East Coase and the New York metro region in particular, those are "old school" success paradigms, at best. The wealth and success of New York city today is generated by the financial sector, which is a rather sub-par occupation due to the lack of any underliying lasting achievement resulting from today's fiancial activity. These days it's greed and unrealistic expectations that generates money to investors, bankers and traders, not any true wisdom or erudition. I am glad that this bubble is finally bursting, especially in response to the AIG bonuses scandal. Regardless, it truns out that ideal habitation is in California, particularly the famous "Silicon Valley" where the true producers of American Wealth are concentrated. The East has essentially lost out to the West Coast which is more desirable from an idealisting standpoint; that's where the true action is.

Occupation. Information Technology is definitely at the very forefront of occupational success. Recently, that has been best exemplified by companies like "google", concentrating not merely on building computers (IBM) or assembling code (Microsoft) but on interpreting information and on picking out the good from a vast sea of useless guff.

On the flip side, I should note, that retail positions are one of the least desirable in the occupation hierarchy since --like the financial industry-- it encourages deception and presentation over honesty and content. In the retail industry, the truth is almost never in the best interest of the retailer; they prefer whatever information ("popaganda") is most conducive to increased sales.

Vision. Unfortunately I use prescription eyeglasses to aid my vision. I have tried in the past to correct that through eye exercise activities and surgery but have reached unsurmountable roadblocks in this journey. There's no question that something has gone wrong here, either genetically or environmentally or both. One should not require the aid of artificial devices in order to perform essential life activities. I still don't know for sure what precisely is responsible for this handicap of mine.

Future prediction: China will supplant the US of A in the near future

2009-04-03T21:15:00.002-04:00

As much as I would love to convince myself that I am a successful individual living in prosperous country, I must be honest with myself: the future for Americans looks bleak and from my careful study of history and the latest trends in the American jurisprudence, it seems highly likely that China will overtake us economically within decades and in the distant future they might supplant us intellectually as well.

What do I mean by historical suggestion? Well, within the past two Millenia many mighty kingdoms arose and flourished for a while. They often seemed unstoppable, but --against all odds-- they mysteriously and seemingly inexplicably declined, sometimes precipitously. To name a few:

Sumar and Akkad: the rise of the Semites. They ran a great empire under Sargon of Akkad in 2350 BCE and then the Amorite nomads shredded them to pieces after 2100 BCE.

Anceint Babylon: Under Hammurabi, things looked awfully rosy but that didn't last long.

Assyrians: the first relatively modern empire-building machine. After 911 BCE they resurfaced after several centuries in decline and ran over the entire Ancient Near East, nearly all of known civilization sans Egypt. But they couldn't hold. By 612 BCE it was all over and the Persians took control of the helm.

Persia and Media: they reigned briefly until the Greeks finally got their act together and defeated the mighty Persian Empire in what could be compared to the later Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucid empire, as recounted in the Jewish prayer book: many were defeated by few, defiled ones by clean ones, wicked by the righteous, the mighty by the feeble.

The Greeks under Alexander the Great reached the pinnacle of power in 330 BCE but the empire didn't survive him. It was torn asunder by unscrupulous generals immediately following his death.

The Romans gradually rose to the top and by 160 BCE had superseded the Greeks and the famous "Pax Romana" commenced. Incredibly, the Germanic "barbarians" --who had hitherto been utterly absent from the world civilization map-- gradually infiltrated the Roman Empire and it finally dismantled the Empire in the fifth century.

More recently (after the Renaissance) there's been a succession of Great Powers, as follows:

Spain and Portugal ruled the seas and took a leading role in the early colonial system until the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Power then shifted to the English, after gradually nibbling away at the Spanish colonies. This established the English language as the international lingua franca. Finally in the 20th century, the English offshoot "United States of America" emerged as the undisputed superpower after world war II. The US demonstrated its goodwill and generosity to the teetering European nations in the Marshall plan and has been the greatest power ever since.

...but for how long? As you can see, it will likely not last for too much longer. The same problems that have plagued all these other kingdoms, empires and republics of the past, are likely to confront the US just as well.

It is sometimes difficult to ascertain exactly what is the single contributing cause to the downfall of a Great Power. It is mostly a combination of many factors that are mysteriously intertwined and come cascading down one after the other once the first domino is tripped.

In my analysis, there's one overarching character that fits the profile of all those great powers. It's arrogance; it's a sense of entitlement; it's ostentatious extravagance, inefficiency and wastefulness.

Most strikingly, moreover, it's not up to these powers to make a conscious decision effecting the aforementioned characteristics. Prosperity seems to inevitably breed eventual failure; there are no two ways about it. And this is a frightening, sobering realization akin to the experience of death. Every living person knows that no matter how healthy they live, their bodies will eventually fail and perish.

Ever since the 80's there's been a trend of wasteful living patterns in the United States (and to a lesser degree, in other Western countries) while the Chinese are doing just the opposite: exercising thrift and working really hard to "prove themselves". Finally, their efforts are starting to bear fruits and the tables have turned. They are now exporting more than importing and we owe them money instead of them owing us. We, as a nation, are sinking deeper and deeper in debt while we never cease to entertain the notion of taking the short-cut to wealth by playing the stock market, lotteries and games of chance, accumulating credit card debt and taking on "zero percent down" mortgages. We seem to think that the world can somehow run on autopilot and all our needs can be met without us performing any real, productive work.

Take the stock market, for example. For years, people have become accustomed to the idea that investing in the "right" company at the right time will yield tremendous, self-sustaining wealth. And so an entire industry sprung up where folks are paid the highest salaries (including bonuses) in our economy in hopes that they can prove themselves more prescient than others and generate paper wealth from thin air, where others fail. It's a competition: who can extract the most money of this lazy-money system before this hollow Ponzi Tower --with nothing but air in it-- comes crumbling down?

Instead of emphasizing responsibility it's about freebies. The ads are flooding TV sets, as we speak about all those products available to try out "at no cost to you". "call for a free estimate", call for a free brochure", "if you are not completely satisfied, just send it back to us and get a %100 refund, no questions asked", "the scooter store: if medicare denies your claim, we will give the scooter absolutely free... so what have you got to lose"? Again and again, products are being marketed deceptively, so as to downplay their true price. Has anyone paused and given thought to the fact that the scooter is actually paid for by the customer's very own taxes or insurance premiums? Is anyone even thinking whether they need the scooter. The ad encourages TV watchers to acquire the scooter for "free" and so there's no need to think about whether one really needs it. Hell, it's free, who cares? Additionally, it should be noted, the price of the scooter ad is completely unjustified. The ad appears in prime-time on demographically unsuitable channels. I'm 30 and I'm not even remotely considering a scooter and neither does 95% of other viewers. The scooter store must be ripping off our federal government with those claims so egregiously that Uncle Sam pays not just for the useless scooter but also for the ten-thousand dollar ad every time it airs. Product after product and service after service are being marketed in this manner. All this will come back to haunt us and will ultimately be our undoing.

Litigation is another prominent area of waste. How many times have you seen the ad inviting folks to file medical malpractice lawsuits. The majority of those suits are unfounded or highly exaggerated. Yet, the idiot judge thinks: I'm gonna be a hero and stand up for the little guy who was "grievously injured by the willful neglect" of the wealthy doctor. What the judge is really doing is punishing all health care consumers by the resulting skyrocketing insurance premiums, to the point that we are on track to be spending one-quarter of our GDP on health care within a decade or so. It's outrageous! someone put a stop to his, please! This is why, I cannot afford insurance or health care. This same process duplicates itself within the auto industry because judges are overzealous in awarding damages to those filing frivolous or fraudulent liability insurance claims.

In the meantime, the MTA in New York loves wasting money and then seeking help from the city and state. If it were a private property, they would have undoubtedly been the wealthiest corporation on the east coast. They are still running on essentially the same infrastructure that was built 100 years ago. The only real upgrades they've done over the century is to the cars. But that is not essential and could easily pay itself off and show a profit in a 20-year car lifetime, from the millions (maybe billions) of riders using it. The MTA should not be a labor-intensive entity, given the two-man crew operating a several-thousand-people filled train during rush hours. Instead, it's all dominated by unionized waste and renovation projects that take forever and run over-budget though deliberate mismanagement by contractors so as to extract the maximum from an agency that simply doesn't give a shit about taxpayer and fare-payers money. City bus dispatchers have decided, apparently, that the best way to waste their resources is to dispatch four consecutive B68 buses, none of them on schedule, and then not send out any for the next 40 minutes. Then, of course, the rider complains and they go to the state and say "see, I told you, not enough funding!". Several weeks ago I watched a contractor installing buffer posts at the Port Authority bus terminal at 42nd Street. They are working at night (more pay...) even though the work area is closed off during the day just as well. One $38-per-hour-plus-benefits union-guy operates a clumsy little tractor to dig out that bit of dirt in the hole that can probably be done manually. The other 5 guys are watching. One has shovel in hand "just in case it's needed", one is probably a foreman, one inspector makes sure everything is done right and another makes sure that the first does his job. Common denominator: they're all raking in thousands for doing nothing while other workers in the city who actually do something for a living are struggling with unlivably low wages in the range of 7-10 per hour, no benefits.

This kind of intentional-waste culture is unheard-of in the Orient. And as long as our inefficiency and inequality continues, we will be sliding down the slippery slope into a socioeconomic abyss. What's even more dreadful and unnerving is that there's nothing we, as a society can do about it. I know that no one of political power or will to tackle these issues will be reading this blog entry or anyone else's that addresses this most-vexing and pervasive problem. My prediction is gloomy in the highest. We may be able to retard our regression, but I don't see any way out. American culture is decaying from within and will, likely within a century, implode from within -- just as the mighty Roman Empire was brought down: from the lack of true patriotism on the part of its citizens. Germanic tribes were increasingly filling the ranks of mercenary Roman armies enabling the Romans to be free "to enjoy the Pax Romana". One day they woke up and realized that they no longer lived in a Roman civilization but in a fractured, uncivilized Germanic one.

2009-03-31T14:15:00.002-04:00

Is this sign telling residents to keep out? Also, isn't "reserved for residents only" redundant? If it's reserved, that means only the party holding the reservation can make use of it.

Stupid Signs etc...

2009-03-31T14:09:00.002-04:00

Does it say "fuck" on that right canister, or am I imagining things. Maybe the guy produing the label had a bad day and was stamping the label with what was on his mind? Any other explanation? See for yourself! The canister is still standing there in lower manhattan. What are these things for anyway?

Banks Must Start Consolidating in order to dig ourselves out of this Depression.

2009-03-31T11:04:00.006-04:00

Take a look at this stitched picture!

Within a few yards in lower Manhattan, you run across so many different banks, it makes your head spin! From left to right:

Citibank
Chase
TD Bank
Bank of America
Emigrant Savings Bank
HSBC

The problem with all this is that these banks do not offer the consumer any unique product or service not already offered by their competitors. Their raison d'etre (purpose of existence) is solely to take business away from the neighbor next door -- self-enrichment. This is precisely the Wall Street culture that has brought on the current financial crisis, as articulated by President Obama in his recently numerous speeches on the matter.

For too long these banks have thrived on cut-throat competition, not on providing a meaningful service to the consumer. Each tries to convince the consumer that they're offering the highest interest-rate, the most savings, "free checking" with "no hidden fees". Consumers love it -- they love being told "switch to us and save a bundle". What they don't realize is that every "saving" comes at a cost and the overall package they're getting with the bank they're considering switching to is probably no better than their current one. What's worse is that by countenancing this wasteful competition between the banks, they're not saving but costing themselves money in the long run.

Look at all those banks lined up in this stretch of super expensive real estate and tell me it wouldn't be far more effective and cost-efficient to build a single large bank on the premises instead? Consumers would get much better service, they'd be so much less confused about banking practices (so that they can apply their mental resources where it's really needed -- in energy and education) and, did I mention, they'd save a ton of money! The superbank won't be wasting billions of dollars on cut-throat deceptive advertising as they currently do and the savings will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of lower banking fees and interest rates.

What do you think?

Abortion

2009-03-25T21:39:00.002-04:00

Apr 15 2005

Why abortion should be legal?

Abortion is a controversial issue these days. I know that our society is about evenly divided between abortion protagonists and antagonists. However, I think that people generally do not understand what is at stake here. People think it’s just a matter of belief as to when exactly a fetus assumes it’s own individual rights and thus the right to life. That is certainly part of the question but there’s much more than this.

I don’t see any Catholics supporting a law which requires people to attend Mass or perform any other catholic ritual. I don’t see any Jewish politicians supporting a law requiring people to circumcise. We, as Americans, know better. We know that freedom of religion is a fundamental freedom of every American citizen. And this means that not only is one entitled to believe in his own god and perform the rituals which he believes are right or none at all, but one is also entitled to his or her own opinion on just about anything. I am allowed to believe that Hitler was a hero and he was “right” in all the atrocities that he committed and society cannot force me to relinquish this belief. Is there any merit in such belief? Not really! But does it harm anyone else? No! And that’s why it is legal and it is protected by the first amendment.

But let’s go a step further. In the Jewish religion there is a mitzvah (commandment), which -by the way- is theoretically binding on Christians too since they believe in the old testament as well, to annihilate the entire nation of Amalek. This is stated openly in the bible and it is counted as one of the 613 mitzvohs by the Rabbis. Now what happens if a modern Jew is able to prove that a specific person is descendant from Amalek and he is thus convinced that his religion requires him to kill the Amaleki? There is no question that the courts will not allow such thing despite the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Why not? Because when we talk about the bill of rights we talk about acts that benefit us AND don’t harm any other people. Freedom of speech does not allow one to yell “fire” in the theater because it does not benefit the person who is exercising his right of free speech but it will potentially harm others.

And this brings us to a general rule to guide us when it comes to society enacting laws that limit people’s freedoms and rights and when it comes to protecting individuals from encroachment by society of their individual freedoms and rights: an individual can do anything and everything as long as it does not significantly interfere with other people’s rights. And there is therefore a very fine balance between a “right” and a violation of someone else’s right. In the previous example of yelling fire in the theater, that act could be perceived as an individual right but the public watching the performance also have a right to watch the performance peacefully. Interrupting the performance by an irresponsible yell of “fire” is a violation of the public’s right. And the public’s right to watch the performance outweighs the individual’s right to yell fire NOT because it’s public versus individual (which by the way is an important consideration too) but because the individual yell of fire interferes with others interests too greatly while not benefiting the perpetrator. Even if there were only two people in the theater and it was simply a matter of inconvenience to the person watching the performance, it would still be unacceptable for the other person to say anything loudly which interferes with watching the performance unless there is a very good reason to do so.

So here’s how it works: every person is born with numerous “natural rights”. A natural right is the right do things that we naturally are inclined to do. Some of these rights have been enumerated by John Locke: Life, liberty and ownership of property. But if these rights interfere too much with the public interest or with anybody else’s rights, then the natural right is no longer guaranteed. Now we have to weigh the benefit to the individual versus the benefit to the public or the other individual. Acts that do not interfere with anybody else’s rights or interests are legal and guaranteed by the bill of rights EVEN if they run contrary to some body else’s belief or even the public’s belief, such as abortion. Since aborting one’s own baby bears no harm at all to anybody else in society except for the baby, we as a society cannot outlaw such act. The only party who can “request” protection of their right versus the act of abortion is the fetus itself and since the fetus is not capable of asking society for such protection, it is therefore forced to fight for itself and we cannot and should not fight for it. Obviously, the fetus is incapable of winning such a fight and it will not survive, but that’s not Society’s problem because it poses no harm to society.

During world war II, the US maintained its independence even though it strongly disliked Nazi Germany and had SOME interest in Germany’s defeat. They maintained independence because the US knew that they only ought to actively counter Germany if it significantly interfered with US interests and since that was not the case until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, the US correctly stayed out of the war, even though it “disagreed” with Germany, because mere disagreement does NOT justify war. As a Jew it saddens me to say this but it’s the truth and so I will: The US CORRECTLY did not bomb the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz where millions of Jews were exterminated, even after they knew what was going on in Auschwitz and they knew that thousands of innocent people were dying every day. Why is it correct for the US not to bomb the railroad? The answer is: we must ask the questions the opposite way: Why is it correct for the US to bomb the railroad? The US had no interest at all in whether these people remained alive or not. The Jews of Eastern Europe were not US citizens and they were thus not protected by US law or civil rights. The US opposed Nazi Germany for economic and political reasons but not for their “final solution about the Jews” program which had no bearing on US interest. The Jews of Eastern Europe are therefore just like the unborn fetus. We really feel for you but since your issue has no bearing on us, we cannot interfere with a sovereign nation on your behalf.

Oskar Schindler

2009-03-25T21:38:00.001-04:00

3/24/2009

Question: is Oskar Schindler a hero?

Answer: even though he was of major help to the Jewish community in the Plaszow concentration camp, his intentions were not as noble as they seem.

He started out as an opportunist. He came to Krakow soon after it was conquered by the Germans and was looking to profit from the war effort. Specifically, he was looking to purchase a Jewish business fir a bargain since Jews were prohibited from owning businesses. Sure enough, he found what he was looking for in a pot and pan business which he bought from the owners at a bargain price. He then hired Jewish laborers because they were much cheaper than poles. Jewish labor was supplied by the Germans and their wages were paid to the German state. So far his actions are typical of what any Nazi industrial opportunist would do given the chance to profit from the war.

What distinguished him is what happened next. The Nazi party generally treated Jews like chattel. They maximized exploitation of their labor as long as it was readily available and then “disposed” of them if and when they were no longer capable of labor. Schindler, however, who interacted with his employees on a daily basis, naturally developed feelings towards them. When it came the time do dispose of them he insisted that they were “his” employees and the state cannot take them away from him. He often claimed that they were “skilled workers” and crucial to the war effort but that was obviously not true. His major insistence was that “his” employees remain with him and that he not be forced to accept a new work force periodically. This insistence was, ironically, counterproductive to the war effort since it retained workers who were not as productive as those that could have been selected from new arrivals.

In other words, he wasn’t saving “Jews” per se; he was saving “his” Jews. The Jews that he saved certainly are indebted to him for their life but if he hadn’t saved them, other Jews likely would have been saved instead. As far as collective Jewry is concerned, then, he did not save “Jews”. In fact, while he did save a few thousand of them, that was an unintentional upshot of his desire to exploit them.

Lebensraum in Nazi Germany

2009-03-25T21:30:00.002-04:00

3/25/2009

Question: Was Hitler right in claiming that the German race was superior to other races and that it was entitled to lebensraum by conquering inferior-race territories?

Answer: He was partly right and partly wrong. He was right in his premise that the German race is historically superior to most other eastern European races. This is amply supported by history. The Pollack’s, for example, are generally not as sophisticated culturally and economically as the Germans. His big mistake was rather the conclusion that he drew from this premise. History has shown that whenever that is a dichotomy within civilization between have’s and have-not’s, as such dichotomy becomes more acute, conflict and “restructuring” invariably results and the have-not’s ultimately come out ahead when the dust of war settles. Hence, it is in the best interest of the have’s not to press their edge too strongly. In order for them to remain in power they must continually make concessions to the have-not's in proportion to their prosperity. Another manifestation of this phenomenon can be observed in the current (2008-?) recession and the Great Depression. Many economists believe that these recessions are ultimately caused by the polarization between the wealthy and the poor. As more and more of the “poker chips” wind up in the stacks of a select few, there are fewer and fewer chips left for the losing players and the game comes to an end. Thus, as long as there exists a socio-economic relationship among several classes within society, the gap between the rich and poor must be kept to a minimum in order to prevent an insurgency and revolution on the part of the disadvantaged.

Hitler’s objective was to excessively acuminate the edge of the German race over others to the point of intolerance even by nations that were socioeconomically on a par with Germany (namely France, England and the United States) and had themselves embarked on a similar course in the form of amassing colonies abroad. Another big mistake he made was to be blunt about his intentions and race superiority claims. Those matters generally should not be pronounced by the ruling class if they are looking to sustain their position of power. It’s a matter of political discreetness. Like my dad always says in the name of his Rebbe “you shall not lie; but you don’t have to always tell the truth either”.

2009-02-02T05:46:00.004-05:00

Why did Adolf Hitler hate Jews?

Unfortunately the correct answer to this requires several paragraphs, so bear with me:

In the 19th cent., industry developed rapidly with overwhelming force in the developed Western countries, especially England and the US. Germany was a bit late to join the crowd, not starting its industrialization until the latter half of the century but by the end of the century it too was almost on par with its English cousins. However, one prominent (or, soon-to-be-prominent) nation was not invited to the party: Russia. Russia did not begin industrialization until the 20th century and consequently was at a significant disadvantage which is manifested by its lack of capturing any colonies. Another factor working to its detriment was that it was culturally a more backward country. It only established nationhood in the late middle ages and so it did not have the same cultural, artistic, legal and religious experience as its western neighbors.

This dichotomy between the "east" (Russia) and the "west" (France, England, Germany, US, etc...) wasn't very evident at first but when Bismarck's moderate policies were thrown out the window in favor of assertion of German nationalism, things escalated precipitously into world war I pretty fast. World war I was fought primarily between the Germans and the Russians; in other words, between the west and the east.

Why was Germany so irate at Russia?

The Russians, as discussed earlier, did not have strong industry established. Consequently, Communism was much more appealing to them as a nation than it was to Germans as a nation. Furthermore, in order to fully reap the benefits of communism the weak Russian state had to convince other states to join the fray and establish an international society of workers where no nationality would be recognized. Such a system definitely would benefit the have-not Russians by diverting the benefits of capital in the west to the "soviet workers" in the east. Thus it is clear that the Russians would ethnically come out ahead if Europe was just one big communist state whereas Germany would come out ahead by resisting the transfer of its capitalist wealth to the workers in the east. This is essentially the underpinning of world war I.

In theory, the West should have sided with Germany in this "Great War" (as it was called back then). Indeed, some Americans and English did favor Germany at first or remained neutral. It is the French who got us involved in favor of the Russian side because the French felt very threatened by the expansionist and aggressive tendencies of the newly unified German state. Also, the french were Catholics and so bore some strong resentment against the protestant Germans and vice versa. Somehow, even though the French and English had been fighting non-stop for the past 300 years they decided to put their differences aside here and the French convinced the English that the Germans were a threat to the established political and economic institutions of Europe. (After all, France and England are kind of like sisters ever since the Norman invasion compared to their "cousin" Germany whose culture branched off much earlier and had no direct interaction with Franco-English society after the Norman invasion.) The Germans probably screwed up themselves as well by antagonizing the Americans through sinking their merchant vessels on high seas. This prompted the Americans to side with their English sisters, even though, that meant they were supporting Russia against the "West" (=Germany).

The Germans lost the war, not because its western allies liked Russia any more than Germany but because it momentarily feared German aggression more than Russian communism. Hitler was born into a low-level Austrian (=Prussian) family. He wasn't really "German" and did not belong to the landed aristocracy or to the indsutrialist-capitalist class; his personal education was also a big mess. He became a rebel in High school deciding to be a "hipster artist" (in modern parlance) as opposed to completing a normal education and pursuing a traditional semi-skilled career (such as a customs official -- which is what his father did and what he wanted his son to do). Lack of education lead him to combine two very strange and opposing interests into one. On the one hand he championed worker's solidarity and sought to bolster their interests (which seems to go along well with the Russian trend of global communism) but on the other hand he insisted on "nationalism". He only wanted "Aryans" to participate in this worker's society. In due time the emphasis on workers was minimized and that on the "nation" was maximized. In effect, this poor, uneducated German found himself fighting the cause of Germany's aristocratic nationality in the face of the soviet "poor man's" global society. How bizarre! There's no question that had he been more educated he would never have embraced such a stance.

In order to promote German nationality in face of the communist dogma of globalism, he had to define the term. Instead of defining himself with positives, he --like other ignorant bigots have done throughout history-- defined himself with negatives: what the Germans were not. The Germans are obviously Not Slavs; but who are the Slavs? The Slavs in post WWI Europe were the one people who completely disregarded religion. The Slavs were the ones who did not distinguish between Jew and christian since in their view both religions were crap: just capitalist propaganda. The Russian society was the one in which Jews gained prominent political as well as socio-economic positions as opposed to German society where Jews never had attained political prominence even after the enlightenment. "Okay", Hitler said, "So, to be opposed to the Slavs one had to be opposed to the Jews". There were no Slavs interwoven within German society but the Jews were well connected, especially economically and professionally. Hitler insisted that he "clean home" first. He viewed the Jews as the traitors who "sold out the Germans" by agreeing to most humiliating peace terms in the treaty of Versailles (which settled WWI) even though, Hitler believed, Germany was perfectly capable of continuing and winning the war. He referred to them as the November Criminals (after the month in which the treaty was signed).

Were the Jews really responsible for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles?

In the true sense of the word, of course not! But is there some connection between Germany's defeat in WWI and Jewish triumph? Yes!! Remember that the Jews NEVER had any landed property through the Middle ages. This pretty much ensured their status as "paupers" to which the church had deliberately relegated them. Naturally, then, the Jews as an ethnic group stood to gain tremendously from communism. Indeed, the German communist party at the time consisted entirely of Jews. The only reason this explanation is somewhat puzzling is the fact that Hitler himself hailed from the low class and if he had to excel using a traditional path, he would have never made it given his lack of established money, political connections and noble origin. Thus, theoretically speaking he actually should have had more in common with the Jews than with the typical empowered German. But, like I said: he did not properly comprehend the dynamics at play in the Prussian-German state, which lead him to staunchly identify with "national" interests against "class" interests.

Is Wal-Mart Good for America

2008-12-27T04:32:00.004-05:00

This question keeps creeping up in the news and op-ed articles. People often vehemently argue for or against wal-mart and it is becoming difficult for the average American to understand the economic complexities underpinning this debate. I will therefore share with you here my take on this according to my understanding of the matter.

The Union argument, to put it succinctly, is that Wal-Mart takes away jobs from Americans and shifts them overseas to China and it is therefore bad for America. This is a short-sighted and flawed argument for several reasons.

1 - The very same low-income group of people who are most negatively affected by such job loss also constitute the largest group of the overall Wal-Mart consumer market. In other words, they may be losing jobs but in return they are getting cheap, affordable products, (albeit of somewhat lower quality). How do we determine which is of greater importance, the job loss or the affordable goods gain?

2 - Wal-Mart does hurt the lower working class but how does that equate with what is "bad for America"? Clearly, there are people who make large profits from running a Wal-mart operation and some of those profits are ultimately redistributed to many other people via taxes, legal settlements and such and so what is "good" or "bad" for America is not simply what creates the most jobs; it's more complicated than this. Some American national interests seem to be served better by the mass marketing of cheap Chinese goods despite the cost to American blue-collar workers.

3 - Why are "jobs" so important? If the government were to force many lower-working-class people out of their job but continue to pay them an equivalent wage for doing nothing (as the federal "welfare" program does) wouldn't that be great for those people? They would no doubt be elated! Do nothing and still make money?! Well, that's too good to be true; so let's revise that. How about the government make them do something slightly less tedious and pay them the same amount? Or, how about the government put them to work on a different, but equally tedious job and pay them more? Certainly, such a proposition is sensible, realistic and an offer they can't refuse.

4 - A job's value is not measured by the mere level of work to be done. Rather, the definition of "job" is "purchasing power". By producing something essential to society, one is entitled to a reciprocal right to something of equal value from society. If a company puts people to work continuosly building structures and destroying them without accomplishing any end result, then this company is not providing "work" to those people. Even if it could artificially afford to pay them somehow in the short-term, in ther long run such a business model and such "work" is unsustainable. Thus, the loss of a job is only regrettable if there's a corresponding loss of "accomplishment", a loss of purchasing power.

In the case of Wal-Mart, there certainly would be a loss of purchasing power to Wal-Mart employees if they were to be laid off and did nothing else. But the real reason they are being laid off is to make room for higher-paying jobs in more sophisticated industries. In other words, in the long run we're not taking away their purchasing power. On the contrary, we're increasing it by elevating those employees to a higher employment level.

We should never lose sight of the fact that the reason we prefer Wal-Mart over the Mom and Pop shops is that Wal-Mart has the better business model. It can afford to provide better prices, better selection and better service. It is more efficient, more robust and more sensible. Opposing Wal-Mart is like taking a circuitous route to a destination when a shorter and cheaper route is available. It makes absolutely no sense to pay more and waste more time on the road by taking the circuitous route; even if that would result in profits for a friend of the traveler whereas the shorter route won't. A better alternative would --no doubt-- be to take the cheaper, shorter and more efficient route and then to forward some of the savings to the friend who operates the other route. Heck, if that route really is so circuitous and inefficient for so many people, why don't we pay our good friend to close shop and retrain to do something that society would better appreciate.

In our case, the right solution to the Wal-Mart problem is NOT to prevent Wal-Mart from creating a more efficient retail operation than the mom-and-pop shops. The right solution is also NOT to sit idly by and watch all those jobs being lost and do nothing (as the Bush administration has done for the past 8 years). The correct solution is simple: Forward the savings to our friend and/or pay our friend to close shop. We need to take aside these mom-and-pop people who are losing their business to Wal-Mart and have a talk with them. First and foremost we must assure them that the government won't let them starve. They are and will continue to be fully elligible for unemployment compensation. Secondly, we invest in a better education for them so that they can move on to the next level. We have them do something that society appreciates more and therefore pays more for. Granted, it does take a huge investment of funds to provide for such a retraining program but I don't see any reason why Wal-Mart (or the government coffers that are being stuffed with taxes from Wal-Mart) would be unwilling to invest the huge profits that would result from unfettered operation of Wal-Mart stores, in the task of retraining lower-working-class people. Also, consumers should be willing to foot the retraining bill as well. After all, they are the ones saving so much by shopping at Wal-Mart as opposed to the local, dingy, inefficient mom-and-pop shop.

A practical solution would be for the government to grant Wal-mart the license to set up shop in New York and elsewhere and levy a special "education" tax on them which will be earmarked for the express purpose of providing free or subsidized vocational training for anyone who is either laid off from a retail job, is in the market for a retail job or would have been in the market for a retail job (a criteria which is of course hard to define, but I'll let legislators and attorneys work out the rest). Other sources for the education fund could be a higher sales tax or a redirection of some of the sales tax proceeds towards the education fund. In summary, all the beneficiaries of the Wal-Mart system should participate in allaying the pain of mom-and-pop job losses: Government (higher taxes), Wal-Mart (higher corporate profits) and Consumer (higher savings and better service).

How to Diet

2008-05-27T10:42:00.003-04:00

A successful weight-loss diet is complex. A holistic approach is necessary --in my opinion-- in order to be successful. Let's take a look at some of the components of a successful diet:

Gradual change. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this admonition. Change must be gradual in order to be successful. The human body naturally rejects drastic changes. If it is suddenly denied much of the food it is used to, the body will protest. This will be manifested by a strong feeling of hunger, frailness and a general inability to carry it its daily routines effectively. This is why none of commercial diets that promise quick weight loss are successful in the long run. The body puts up with sudden denial of food for some time but it's only a matter of time until it revolts and snaps back into its old habit with violent and drastic effect. Now, the body is scared that the "famine" from which it is rebounding will repeat and so it shores up some reserves to protect itself; hence the regain of all initial weight, plus some.

The Solution is to make weight loss (if warranted) a way of life. Unless you are seriously overweight, you shouldn't be losing more than 2 pounds per week. Preferably you will lose even less. Unfortunately, most people who feel the motivation to lose weight are encouraged by veritable drastic immediate results. They fell let down by a slow-moving process If they see no effect in the diet and they are much less motivated to continue with it. You must have faith. Believe that the diet works and that over a year or two of correct eating and living habits your excess weight will melt off almost effortlessly. You need not --and should not-- be conscious about the diet; try to make it a permanent way of life. Following are some small steps you can take in the right direction of proper eating:

* cut down on the animal fat in your diet. This includes foodstuff that contains oil, cholesterol, partially hydrogenated oils, milk, fatty meats, butter. The body does have a natural desire for some source of fat but this can and should be satisfied in the form of peanut butter, tahini, nuts etc... Start out by gradually replacing animal fat, which is saturated, with plant fat, which is unsaturated. This step is is extremely effective even if you don't reduce your caloric intake. Your body metabolizes plant matter better than animal matter and so even if the caloric intake is not reduced, you've made encouraging progress. Don't think about quantity; think about the quality of your food. Eat as much as your body desires!

* increase your consumption of fruits vegetables. these are very important components of a healthy well-balanced diet. Many Americans are so used to a diet devoid of fruits and veggies that their bodies stop "asking" for the right nutrition. It feels normal to go on for days and weeks without taking in even a single fresh fruit or vegetable... until they suddenly become extremely ill in the form of heart attack, stroke or the like. My friend, 95% of diseases are directly or indirectly related to nutrition. They are avoidable by eating right. If you slowly but surely train your body to sense the "taste" in fruits and veggies it will start asking for them again and your body will then become re-calibrated and in turn will also start asking for other more nutritious food and it will also better be able to satisfy your appetite so that you don't overeat.

* Cut down on soft drinks. The problem with soft drinks isn't so much that they are inherently bad for you. There's nothing wrong with sugar; sugar is vital to your body. In fact all carbohydrates are broken down into glucose, which is a simple sugar, before being used by the body. The problem is that sugar with nothing else is an empty calorie. To put it a bit different: The body prefers to "work" in order to extract energy from the food it consumes. Think about sexual foreplay as a way to heighten the pleasure of the main activity. You prefer "chasing" your sexual partner and struggling in your attempt to get through. Ready availability is never good for a healthy sexual relationship. Same with food: your body likes to work on the task of extracting energy from food. Sugar is too easy to digest; it has a "high glycemic index". Avoid foods with a high glycemic index. Having said this, I will admit that the body will at times demandingly request a quick fix of sweets and that's okay but it shouldn't generally be more than one or two "sweet" eating sessions per day. If you find yourself noshing too much, your body is probably out of tune (due to other bad eating habits) and/or you are tempting it by presenting it with the pretentious, backstabbing luster of sweets too often. You must "tune" your body and train it to take a liking towards wholesome foods; again this does not change overnight. You need a strong long-term commitment to do this and this is accomplished with small gradual steps.

* drink plenty of water. Water carries nutrients to all parts of your body. By drinking more water your body is able to deliver better nutrition to your cells and carry off cell waste in turn more efficiently. If you don't drink enough, the body erroneously feels the need for more food because the nutrition is not being effectively extracted from already-consumed food. Another way to put it: water "fills you up". But don't think of this as simply a gimmick to "fool" your body into thinking it does not need any more food. Often times you truly do not need any more food. Your body is merely substituting thirst with hunger due to an improper diagnosis. If you try drinking several glasses of water (in those instances) the hunger will suddenly disappear. So whenever you feel hungry, ask yourself: will my hunger vanish after a glass or two of water? If yes, by all means drink! Your boy is probably mistaking thirst for hunger.

* Eat breakfast. Skipping breakfast or skimping on it in an attempt to lose weight is a "huge" mistake. (the only exception is if you overate the day before and you just are slow to regain your appetite the next day -- then you should heed your body's call for a recess and skip a meal). You body will remember your morning abuse for the remainder of the day and punish you severely for it. What may very well wind up happening is that you will make up for the lost breakfast by eating bigger, less healthier and more caloric-laden meals later in the day. You will not only not gain anything but you will wind up having consumed more calories at day's end by skipping breakfast than by eating a "generous" breakfast. Yes, you heard me! Breakfast should be your "most generous meal". If there's any meal in which you must let your appetite rage untamed it should be your first meal after waking up. This allows your body to ascertain that there is no famine and there's no need to stock up on calories. Later in the day the body will naturally not crave for excess food and you will be energetic throughout the day. In contrast, skipping breakfast "kills" your body in its tracks ushering in a sluggish, lethargic day at your "prime time". A person's "prime time" when their physical and mental abilities are strongest is the morning hours, NOT the evening hours as with TV. Cut down (or eliminate) on your meal or snack closest to bed time instead. Trust me, your body does not have that good a memory; it will forgive and forget the following day.

* exercise. Exercise is essential not only in order to use up calories but in order to fine tune your body's strings. Think of it as a musical instrument. If the strings are not tuned properly the notes will be "off-tune". Exercise uses up energy and so the body "knows" that it needs to replenished. If you don't exercise sufficiently, your brain will start wondering why the energy it is supplying to your cells is "backed up". It will erroneously think "oh well, maybe the body needs more food but there's a communication problem and so the request-for-food and receipt-acknowledgement are not coming through". It will stir up an appetite in you just to be on the safe side. (remember that we are living on the heels of millions of evolutionary years during which famine was very common within the human species).

Q and A

2007-05-23T16:15:00.000-04:00

What I think about the impending Union in AC casino's?

Yesterday, Tony Rodeo, Joe Nicosia and Jeff Jamieson and Kevin all held a conference with part time dealers to try to convince them not to join the union. They also pointed out the differences between the conditions in Hilton and Ceasars. They did not, however, manage to change my mind. I still intend to vote yes for the Union.

It is quite clear to me that if management is so adamant about warding off the union, the union must be good for dealers. Management tries to portray the union as a business entity that is merely out there for the member dues. This is actually entirely not true. A union is actually comparable to a "non-for-profit" organization. Note that even NPO's have revenue and expenses. Yet, the NPO is not organized for the purpose of making money. Rather its main goal is to provide a service to the community. Casion's are different. Casino's are just like regular businesses. Unions are a recation to abuse by company management. They are NOT businesses.

It is true that unions, just like other big organizational entities have dulled their mission through their thick bureacratic skin. It is doubtful, for example, if I bring my complaint toward the union, whether they will put that forward to management as they are supposed to. Yet, they are still the legitimate official vehicle for resolving employee grievances. History has shown that individual employees do not have the power to demand fair treatment by management. Management is well aware that the demand for jobs is great and they are therefore abusive towards elpoyess if left to their own devices.

Personally I am greatly slighted by my still on-call status after working there for almost a year. They artificially invented the "part-time" position in order to avoid paying benefits but social standards have caught up with that ploy and once they started providing some benefits to part-timers they had to invent the new on-call in order to absolve themselves from any and all benefit payments. This is the chief reason that I will vote pro-union.

Furthermore, I have said many times that I have notihng to lose. Without any benefits and any promotion and with many other casinos out there there is nothing for me to cherish at Hilton to prod me to be nice towards them. And so I am very much pro union even if I have not heard much of the union side.

2006-05-07T21:30:00.000-04:00

May 7 2006
ספר שופטים פרק ה
ותשר דבורה וברק בן-אבינעם ביום ההוא לאמר:
בפרע פרעות בישראל בהתנדב עם ברכו יהוה:
שמעו מלכים האזינו רזנים
אנכי ליהוה אנכי אשירה אזמר ליהוה אלהי ישראל:
יהוה בצאתך משעיר בצעדך משדה אדום
ארץ רעשה גם-שמים נטפו גם-עבים נטפו מים
הרים נזלו מפני יהוה זה סיני מפני יהוה אלהי ישראל:
בימי שמגר בן-ענת בימי יעל
חדלו ארחות והלכי נתיבות ילכו ארחות עקלקלות:
חדלו פרזון בישראל חדלו עד שקמתי דבורה שקמתי אם בישראל
יבחר אלהים חדשים אז לחם שערים:
מגן אם-יראה ורמח בארבעים אלף בישראל
לבי לחוקקי ישראל:
המתנדבים בעם ברכו יהוה
רכבי אתנות צחרות ישבי על-מדין והלכי על-דרך שיחו מקול מחצצים
בין משאבים שם יתנו צדקות יהוה צדקת פרזון בישראל
אז ירדו לשערים עם-יהוה:
עורי עורי דבורה עורי עורי דברי-שיר
קום ברק ושבה שביך בן-אבינעם
אז ירד שריד לאדירים עם יהוה ירד לי בגבורים:
מני אפרים שרים בעמק אחריך בנימין בעממיך
מני מכיר ירדו מחקקים ומזבולן משכים בשבט ספר
ושרי ביששכר עם-דברה ונפתלי כן ברק בעמק שלח ברגליו:
בפלגות ראובן גדלים חקקי לב
למה ישבת בין המשפתים לשמע שרקות עדרים?
בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב:
גלעד בעבר הירדן שכן ודן למה יגור אניות
אשר ישב לחוף ימים ועל מפרציו ישכון:
זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות ונפתלי על מרומי שדה:
באו מלכים נלחמו אז נלחמו מלכי כנען בתענך על-מי מגדו בצע כסף לא לקחו
מן-שמים נלחמו הכוכבים ממסלותם נלחמו עם-סיסרא:
נחל קישון גרפם נחל קדומים נחל קישון:
תדרכי נפשי עז אז הלמו עקבי-סוס ??מדהרות?? דהרות אביריו:
אורו מרוז אמר מלאך יהוה ארו ארור ישביה
כי לא-באו לעזרת יהוה לעזרת יהוה בגבורים:
תברך מנשים יעל אשת חבר הקיני מנשים באהל תברך
מים שאל חלב נתנה בספל אדירים הקריבה חמאה:
ידה ליתד תשלחנה וימינה להלמות עמלים
והלמה סיסרא מחקה ראשו ומחצה וחלפה רקתו:
בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב בין רגליה כרע נפל
באשר כרע שם נפל שדוד:
בעד החלון נשקפה ותיבב אם סיסרא בעד האשנב
מדוע בשש רכבו לבוא מדוע אחרו פעמי מרכבותיו:
חכמות שרותיה תענינה אף-היא תשיב אמריה לה
הלא ימצאו יחלקו שלל
רחם רחמתים לראש גבר
שלל צבעים לסיסרא שלל צבעים
רקמה צבע רקמתים לצוארי שלל:
כן יאבדו כל-אויביך יהוה ואהביו כצאת השמש בגברתו:
-----------------------------------------------------------
ספר שופטים פרק ה
ותשר דבורה וברק בן-אבינעם ביום ההוא לאמר:
Deb'orah and Barak the son of Abin'o-am sand on that day:

בפרע פרעות בישראל בהתנדב עם ברכו יהוה:
Those who have disheveled their hair (in preparation for war); those who have volunteered among the people, bless Yahweh!

שמעו מלכים האזינו רזנים
אנכי ליהוה אנכי אשירה אזמר ליהוה אלהי ישראל:
Hear, O kings; give ear, O princes.
I sing to Yahweh, I make melody to Yahweh, God of Israel.

יהוה בצאתך משעיר בצעדך משדה אדום
ארץ רעשה גם-שמים נטפו גם-עבים נטפו מים
הרים נזלו מפני יהוה זה סיני מפני יהוה אלהי ישראל:
Yahweh, when you departed from Se'ir, when you marched from the field of Edom,
the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped water.
Mountains quaked before Yahweh; this Sinai (quaked) before Yahweh, God of Israel.

בימי שמגר בן-ענת בימי יעל
חדלו ארחות והלכי נתיבות ילכו ארחות עקלקלות:
In the days of Shamgar, son of Anath, in the days of Ja'el,
caravans ceased and travelers kept to the byways.

חדלו פרזון בישראל חדלו עד שקמתי דבורה שקמתי אם בישראל
יבחר אלהים חדשים אז לחם שערים:
The peasantry ceased in Israel. They ceased until I, Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel.
When he (Israel) chose new leaders, then war was in the gates.

מגן אם-יראה ורמח בארבעים אלף בישראל
לבי לחוקקי ישראל:
Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel,
when my heart was given to the commanders of Israel?

המתנדבים בעם ברכו יהוה
רכבי אתנות צחרות ישבי על-מדין והלכי על-דרך שיחו מקול מחצצים:
You who volunteer among the people, bless Yahweh.Talk of the sound of archers, you who ride on tawny asses, you who sit on rich carpets and you who walk by the way.

בין משאבים שם יתנו צדקות יהוה צדקת פרזנו בישראל
אז ירדו לשערים עם-יהוה:
At the watering places, there they repeated the triumphs of Yahweh, the triumphs of his peasantry in Israel. Then the people of Yahweh went down to the gates, saying:

עורי עורי דבורה עורי עורי דברי-שיר
קום ברק ושבה שביך בן-אבינעם
Awake, awake, Deb'orah! Awake, awake, utter a song! Arise, Barak, lead away your captives, O son of Abin'o-am.

אז ירד שריד לאדירים עם יהוה ירד לי בגבורים:
Then the remnant of the nobles descended; the people of the LORD marched down for me, among the mighty.

מני אפרים שרים בעמק אחריך בנימין בעממיך
From E'phraim princes set out to the valley, following Benjamin among his people.

מני מכיר ירדו מחקקים ומזבולן משכים בשבט ספר
From Machir commanders descended, and from Zeb'ulun those who carry the marshal's staff.

ושרי ביששכר עם-דברה ונפתלי כן ברק בעמק שלח ברגליו:
The princes of Is'sachar came with Deb'orah, and Naphtali followed Barak;
into the valley he (Naphtali) rushed forth at his (Barak) heels.

בפלגות ראובן גדלים חקקי לב
למה ישבת בין המשפתים לשמע שרקות עדרים?
בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב:
Among the clans of Reuben there are great commanders of heart.Why did you tarry among the sheepfolds, to hear the piping for the flocks?
Among the clans of Reuben there are great commanders of heart.

גלעד בעבר הירדן שכן ודן למה יגור אניות
אשר ישב לחוף ימים ועל מפרציו ישכון:
Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan; and Dan, why did he abide with the ships?
Asher sat still at the coast of the sea, settling down by his landings.

זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות ונפתלי על מרומי שדה:
Zeb'ulun is a people that jeoparded their lives to the death; Naph'tali too, from the heights of the field.

באו מלכים נלחמו אז נלחמו מלכי כנען בתענך
על-מי מגדו בצע כסף לא לקחו:
The kings of Canaan came and fought alongside Taanach;
They did not take silver (unjustified) gain for the waters of Megiddo.

מן-שמים נלחמו הכוכבים ממסלותם נלחמו עם-סיסרא
נחל קישון גרפם נחל קדומים נחל קישון:
But the stars from heaven fought; from their courses they fought against Sis'era.
The torrent Kishon swept them away, the onrushing torrent, the torrent Kishon.

תדרכי נפשי עז
אז הלמו עקבי-סוס ??מדהרות?? דהרות אביריו:
My soul, stampeded with might!Then the horses' hoofs were beaten and the galloping steeds were ??stranded??

אורו מרוז אמר מלאך יהוה ארו ארור ישביה
כי לא-באו לעזרת יהוה לעזרת יהוה בגבורים:
Meroz shall be cursed, says the angel of Yahweh; its inhabitants utterly cursed.
Because they dsid not come to the help of Yahweh among the mighty warriors.

תברך מנשים יעל אשת חבר הקיני מנשים באהל תברך
מים שאל חלב נתנה בספל אדירים הקריבה חמאה:
Ja'el, the wife of Heber the Ken'ite, shall be blessed among tent-dwelling women.
He asked water but she gave him milk, she brought him curds in a noble bowl.

ידה ליתד תשלחנה וימינה להלמות עמלים
והלמה סיסרא מחקה ראשו ומחצה וחלפה רקתו:
She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen's mallet.
She struck Sis'era a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple.

בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב בין רגליה כרע נפל
באשר כרע שם נפל שדוד:
He kneed, fell down, and lay still at her feet;
where he kneed, there he fell dead.

בעד החלון נשקפה ותיבב אם סיסרא בעד האשנב
מדוע בשש רכבו לבוא מדוע אחרו פעמי מרכבותיו:
Out of the window she peered; the mother of Sis'era gazed through the lattice:
`Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?'

חכמות שרותיה תענינה אף-היא תשיב אמריה לה
Her wisest ladies make answer, nay, she gives answer to herself:

הלא ימצאו יחלקו שלל
רחם רחמתים לראש גבר
Are they not finding and dividing the spoil,
one womb or two wombs to the head of each mighty warrior?

שלל צבעים לסיסרא שלל צבעים
רקמה צבע רקמתים לצוארי שלל:
spoil of dyed garments for Sis'era,
one or two embroidered dyed garments for my neck as spoil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The previous is an all-new translation based on my extensive research. I should be noted that the "Song of Deborah" is one of the oldest pieces of literature in the Bible, if not the oldest. This is why one must be creative when interpreting this poem. There is the likelihood of terms that do not occur elsewhere in the bible and there's also the likelihood of copyist errors, which further impeded our ability to properly understand the original meaning of the poem.

My English translation is based on the NRSV and I have retained some of its amendations to the Hebrew text. But I have also rejected much of it and I have divided the poem into different stanzas and verses based on a new reading. I will point out some of my findings below:
First I must emphasize that this poem, as we have it, is the word of Deborah (after she and Barak defeated Sisera and the Canaanites). Some scholars have suggested otherwise, seemingly because of the saying "awake Deborah..." which seems to come from someone else. However, as you will see below, Deborah is quoting what the warriors said to her and Barak when preparing for battle. This should be compared with the poem of Chanah in 1samuel, which is also authored by a woman.

The first verse talking about long disheveled hair refers to the practice of growing long hair when preparing for battle. This is known as an ancient Canaanite custom and we also see it with Samson whose strength is sapped as soon as his hair is cut. However, the Hebrew letter "beth" prefixed to "pr'" (those who grow their hair long) and to "hithnadeb be'am" (those who volunteer among the people) does not mean "when"; it does not talk about a timing. Rather, it means "among". Throughout the poem, Deborah is contrasting those who contributed to the Israelite cause in the battle and those who did not; the good guys (Deborah, Barak, Ephraim, Benjamin, Makir, Zebulun, Issachar, Naphtali and Ya'el) and the bad guys (Reuben, Gile'ad, Dan, Asher, Canaanite kings, Sisera and Mother os Sisera). We see that not all Israelite tribes joined the battle, and this is why Deborah emphasizes that only those who grew long hair and volunteered to join the coalition against Sisera, are entitled to "bless yahweh". Presumably, those who did not join the coalition are still under tribute to Sisera and the Canaanites and so have no reason to celebrate.

Verse 4 and 5. The common understanding is that Deborah is recounting history here and is referring to the Covenant Proclamation (Matan Torah) at Sinai some several centuries earlier. But I am reluctant to accept this for several reasons: 1. There is no mention of rain anywhere in J, E, P or D with regard to the Matan Torah episode. Secondly, it simply does not relate to the events at hand. These verses, so understood, seem highly intrusive and impede dthe flow of the text. There is no connection at all between verse five and six. Third, Deborah implies later in the poem that the defeat of Sisera and the Canaanites had something to do with the plain of Jezreel becoming swmaped and thus stranding the Canaanite horses (the Israelites had no horses).
Therefore, I believe, that Deborah is talking about the event at hand. She is saying that Yahweh departed from Se'ir/Edom/Sinai, crossing the Jordan and continuing north to the plain of Jezreel and dropping rain upon the valley thus stranding the Canaanites and facilitating their defeat. Why is there a need for Yahweh to leave Se'ir? Well, in those days, most people believed in "henotheism" (existence of multiple gods, each dominant in his own land). Yahweh was known to be en Edomite god, that is, a god that had power over the southern region only. In attributing Israel's victory to Yahweh, Deborah had to imagine that Yahweh traveled all the way from his home turf at Sinai/Edom to the Jezreel valley in order to help the Israelites. This was a relatively novel concept at the time (the ability of a local deity to help people at a different location) and that's why Deborah had to explain this process in detail.

Wasn't Yahweh already widely worshipped in the North, in Deborah's days?
Not quite! According to our theory, Yahwism originated among the Levites in the south. Gershom the Levite who served in Micah's temple for some time, was later transferred all the way to Dan (in the far north of Israel) and in the process spread the new religion throughout the land. We see that Deborah was a Yahwist but she was, nonetheless, a recent convert to Yahwism and she still thought of Yahweh as a southern god. It took some time for the northerners to adopt Yahweh as their own and perceive him as dwelling in their midst. In fact, the Northerners never quite accomplished this and to the very end of their kingdom they continued to worship local Canaanite deities such as Ba'al and Istarte (ashtoreth) while at the same time maintaining some fealty to Yahweh as well.

Verse 8. "He chose new gods" is the literal meaning of "yibchar elohim chadashim" but such a statement does not seem to make any sense here and so scholars have come up with various interpretations. My interpretation makes use of the fact that we find "elohim" to sometimes mean a leader elsewhere in the Bible. See Ex 7:1 "See I have appointed you a God over Pharaoh". Deborah is bragging about her accomplishments. She is contrasting the state of political affairs before she same to poser and afterwards: When Israel chose new leaders (that is, me, Deborah) then they became ready to wage war upon the gates of their enemy.

As you can see from my translation, the following verse actually contains the same theme. "My heart to the commanders of Israel" means "I have given my heart and courage to the commanders of Israel". Evidence that this is the meaning of phrase can be seen from the term "choqeqei leb" mentioned with regard to Reuben (verse 15). This, in my opinion, could have no other meaning that "commanders of heart" (couragous commanders). Accordingly, here too, Deborah is instilling her heart (courage) in the Israelite commanders (from macir, v. 14). Deborah is pointing out the bravery of the figthers, how they had no iron weapons, whereas the Canaanites did, and yet had the courage to resist their oppression with whatever meager weaponry is available to them.

Verse 10. "mechatsetsim" is an obscure word and scholars are struggling to make sense of it. I think it means "archers" (from the root chts) and that this clause is a parallel to the previous one calling on the volunteers to bless Yahweh. Deborah is calling upon the various Israelite classes; those who ride on asses, those who sit on carpets and those who walk on their feet. She is calling on them to "talk about the sound of the archers", which means praise the archers or praise Yahweh for the archers success. I have some suspicion that the word "qol" may have originally spelled "qal" without a waw which could mean "lightness/agility". Accordingly, Deborah is praising the agility of the archers in pursuing the horseriding Cananites (archers had to be fast runners). Compare this to the "Jonathan Song" in 2Samuel 1. The song talks about the "bow song" or of the necessity to teach Israel how to use the bow and then it mentions how the gazelle of Israel had been slain, (the gazelle being well known for its agility) thus comparing the archer to an agile gazelle. Later in verse 23, the Jonathan poem says openly "they were more agile than eagles" using the Hebrew root "qal" for agility. There is also a possibility that the Hebrew "sichu" (talk) should be "shiru" (sing).

Verse 11. This verse begins at "bein mishabim" (between the water-pumps, outside the village) and returns to the past. While the previous verse talked about blessing Yahweh for the victory, now Deborah is recounting what occurred at the watering pumps outside the Israelite villages where they had assembled for battle. They were talking about the anticipated triumphs of the "villagers" and asking Deborah to sing to them and Barak to lead them in war. It appears that it was an ancient custom to have a female singer entertain warriors preparing for battle with hymns praising the virtues of courage and bravery. Only then did the warriors descend from the village plateau (Mt. Tabor?) to the Canaanite city gates in the valley.

Verse 11, 12, 13 could be rearranged for ease of understanding, as follows:

בין משאבים שם יתנו צדקות יהוה צדקת פרזנו בישראל
עורי עורי דבורה עורי עורי דברי-שיר
קום ברק ושבה שביך בן-אבינעם
אז ירדו לשערים עם-יהוה
אז ירד שריד לאדירים עם יהוה ירד לי בגבורים:

Verse 13. Remnants of the nobles. Apparently, many Israelite nobles have died in past battles or have been subdues and assimilated with the Canaanites. MT has "the people of Yahweh descended for me among the mighty" but "for me" is a bit difficult to understand since they are not doing it for Deborah. Most modern translations agree that it should be "for him" referring to Yahweh.

Verse 14. The MT has "Ephraim has its roots in Amalek". This is almost certainly a currupt text. Not only do we not find Ephraim to have its roots in Amalek but this has no relevance at all to the poem. It seems that Amalek stand for emeq (valley) which word is mentioned again in verse 15. The Hebrew word for "root" is a bit harder to decipher. I believe that it stands for "sarim" (princes) just like the Issachar princes are mentioned in the following verse.

Verse 15. The second Issachar has been amended to Naphtali. This is the PCB (Peake's Bible Commentary) suggestion and I accpet it tentatively. The problem with Issachar is that he is already mentioned as going with Deborah. Indeed, Deborah was from the Issachar tribe and Baraq was from Naphtali and so it seems natural that Naphtali follow on Naptali's heels just as Issachar warriors are following Deborah's leadership.

Verse 16. "among the clans of Reuben there were great searchings of heart" is the NRSV translation. Unfortunately this makes little sense to me. Furthermore, this phrase is mentioned twice and in the first instance it is "choqeqei leb", not "chiqerei leb" and choqeq relates to someone who wields a staff, a militray commander or lawgiver. Indeed, the word "choqeq/mechoqeq" as such is mentioned in both the Blessing of Jacob (...the marshall's staff from between Judah's legs) and the blessing of Moses (there the commander's inheritence is reserved). Accordingly, and in light of our interpretation of the additional occurrence of this root in verse 9, I believe that both phrases shoul read "choqeqei leb" and the meaning is "couragous commanders".

Verse 19. Note how the phrase "on the waters of Megiddo" is a new clause. This is suggested first and foremost by the neat symmetry of Hebrew poetry (the first clause of this verse should be of roughly equal length to the second clause). Secondly, why the expression "over the waters of Megiddo"? It should say simply "the canaanite kings fought alongside Taanach and Megiddo". Thirdly, what is the significance of not taking "betsa'", which means unjustified gain; how and why would unjust gain be expected here? Under our interpretation all this is well understood.
Verse 20. The stars are fighting. This verse seems to say that the stars are fighting against Sisera, not with Sisera, as the Canaanites of the previous verse are doing. However, the question of how the stars contributed to Sisera's defeat beckons. Is it possible that it was thought that the stars produced rain and so the marsh, previously attributed to clouds (verse 4), is now being attributed to the stars? We don't know for sure the meaning of this. As I said, this is an extremely ancient poem and this verse might depend on some ancient belief or common idiom that we have since completely forgotten.

Verse 22. My soul trampled with power. I am convinced that this clause should belong to the following verse. As it stands in most translations the reader is left wondering what its connection with verse 21 is? Its connection with verse 22 is perhaps better understood, thus: after the Qishon riverbed became marshy, the soul of Deborah (representing the sole of Israel as a whole) continued to march on pursuing the Canaanites, thus allowing the Israelites to "catch up" with the speed of the Canaanite horses and then perhaps disable them with arches. It seems that horses and chariots are more severely affected by marshes than foot soldiers. This is also evident in the J "crossing of the red sea" episode (See ex 14:25).

Verse 30. This verse could be divided in two. Note the parallelism between the first caluse and the second. In the first clause, Sisera's mother is imagining how Sisera is appropriating for himself "manly" spoil: one or two girls. In the second clause she is imagining what Sisera will be bringing home for her: one or two dyed and embroidered garments.

2006-05-07T00:15:00.000-04:00

ספר שופטים פרק יז
א וַיְהִי-אִישׁ מֵהַר-אֶפְרָיִם וּשְׁמוֹ מִיכָיְהוּ: ב וַיֹּאמֶר לְאִמּוֹ אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח-לָךְ וְאַתְּי ]וְאַתְּ[ אָלִית וְגַם אָמַרְתְּ בְּאָזְנַי הִנֵּה-הַכֶּסֶף אִתִּי אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו וַתֹּאמֶר אִמּוֹ בָּרוּךְ בְּנִי לַיהֹוָה: ג וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת-אֶלֶף-וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמּוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אִמּוֹ הַקְדֵּשׁ הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף לַיהֹוָה מִיָּדִי לִבְנִי לַעֲשֹוֹת פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ: ד וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמּוֹ וַתִּקַּח אִמּוֹ מָאתַיִם כֶּסֶף וַתִּתְּנֵהוּ לַצּוֹרֵף וַיַּעֲשֵֹהוּ פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וַיְהִי בְּבֵית מִיכָיְהוּ:
ה וְהָאִישׁ מִיכָה לוֹ בֵּית אֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשֹ אֵפוֹד וּתְרָפִים וַיְמַלֵּא אֶת-יַד אַחַד מִבָּנָיו וַיְהִי-לוֹ לְכֹהֵן: ו בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶֹה: ז וַיְהִי-נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וְהוּא לֵוִי וְהוּא גָר-שָׁם: ח וַיֵּלֶךְ הָאִישׁ מֵהָעִיר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא וַיָּבֹא הַר-אֶפְרַיִם עַד-בֵּית מִיכָה לַעֲשֹוֹת דַּרְכּוֹ: ט וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ מִיכָה מֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֵוִי אָנֹכִי מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאָנֹכִי הֹלֵךְ לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר אֶמְצָא: י וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מִיכָה שְׁבָה עִמָּדִי וֶהְיֵה-לִי לְאָב וּלְכֹהֵן וְאָנֹכִי אֶתֶּן-לְךָ עֲשֶֹרֶת כֶּסֶף לַיָּמִים וְעֵרֶךְ בְּגָדִים וּמִחְיָתֶךָ וַיֵּלֶךְ הַלֵּוִי: יא וַיּוֹאֶל הַלֵּוִי לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ וַיְהִי הַנַּעַר לוֹ כְּאַחַד מִבָּנָיו: יב וַיְמַלֵּא מִיכָה אֶת-יַד הַלֵּוִי וַיְהִי-לוֹ הַנַּעַר לְכֹהֵן וַיְהִי בְּבֵית מִיכָה: יג וַיֹּאמֶר מִיכָה עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי-יֵיטִיב יְהֹוָה לִי כִּי הָיָה-לִי הַלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן:
-----------------------------------------------------

ספר שופטים פרק יח
א בַּיָמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל וּבַיָּמִים הָהֵם שֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי מְבַקֶּשׁ-לוֹ נַחֲלָה לָשֶׁבֶת כִּי לֹא-נָפְלָה לּוֹ עַד-הַיּוֹם הַהוּא בְּתוֹךְ-שִׁבְטֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל בְּנַחֲלָה: ב וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ בְנֵי-דָן מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם חֲמִשָּׁה אֲנָשִׁים מִקְצוֹתָם אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי-חַיִל מִצָּרְעָה וּמֵאֶשְׁתָּאֹל לְרַגֵּל אֶת-הָאָרֶץ וּלְחָקְרָהּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם לְכוּ חִקְרוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ וַיָּבֹאוּ הַר-אֶפְרַיִם עַד-בֵּית מִיכָה וַיָּלִינוּ שָׁם: ג הֵמָּה עִם-בֵּית מִיכָה וְהֵמָּה הִכִּירוּ אֶת-קוֹל הַנַּעַר הַלֵּוִי וַיָּסוּרוּ שָׁם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ מִי-הֱבִיאֲךָ הֲלֹם וּמָה-אַתָּה עֹשֶֹה בָּזֶה וּמַה-לְּךָ פֹה: ד וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם כָּזֹה וְכָזֶה עָשָֹה לִי מִיכָה וַיִּשְֹכְּרֵנִי וָאֱהִי-לוֹ לְכֹהֵן: ה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁאַל-נָא בֵאלֹהִים וְנֵדְעָה הֲתַצְלִיחַ דַּרְכֵּנוּ אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ הֹלְכִים עָלֶיהָ: ו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַכֹּהֵן לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם נֹכַח יְהֹוָה דַּרְכְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ-בָהּ: ז וַיֵּלְכוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיָּבֹאוּ לָיְשָׁה וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-בְּקִרְבָּהּ יוֹשֶׁבֶת-לָבֶטַח כְּמִשְׁפַּט צִדֹנִים שֹׁקֵט וּבֹטֵחַ וְאֵין-מַכְלִים דָּבָר בָּאָרֶץ יוֹרֵשׁ עֶצֶר וּרְחֹקִים הֵמָּה מִצִּדֹנִים וְדָבָר אֵין-לָהֶם עִם-אָדָם: ח וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-אֲחֵיהֶם צָרְעָה וְאֶשְׁתָּאֹל וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם אֲחֵיהֶם מָה אַתֶּם: ט וַיֹּאמְרוּ קוּמָה וְנַעֲלֶה עֲלֵיהֶם כִּי רָאִינוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה טוֹבָה מְאֹד וְאַתֶּם מַחְשִׁים אַל-תֵּעָצְלוּ לָלֶכֶת לָבֹא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת-הָאָרֶץ: י כְּבֹאֲכֶם תָּבֹאוּ אֶל-עַם בֹּטֵחַ וְהָאָרֶץ רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם כִּי-נְתָנָהּ אֱלֹהִים בְּיֶדְכֶם מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מַחְסוֹר כָּל-דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ: יא וַיִּסְעוּ מִשָּׁם מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת הַדָּנִי מִצָּרְעָה וּמֵאֶשְׁתָּאֹל שֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת אִישׁ חָגוּר כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה: יב וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּקִרְיַת יְעָרִים בִּיהוּדָה עַל-כֵּן קָרְאוּ לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא מַחֲנֵה-דָן עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הִנֵּה אַחֲרֵי קִרְיַת יְעָרִים: יג וַיַּעַבְרוּ מִשָּׁם הַר-אֶפְרָיִם וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-בֵּית מִיכָה: יד וַיַּעֲנוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַהֹלְכִים לְרַגֵּל אֶת-הָאָרֶץ לַיִשׁ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל-אֲחֵיהֶם הַיְדַעְתֶּם כִּי יֵשׁ בַּבָּתִּים הָאֵלֶּה אֵפוֹד וּתְרָפִים וּפֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וְעַתָּה דְּעוּ מַה-תַּעֲשֹוּ: טו וַיָּסוּרוּ שָׁמָּה וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-בֵּית-הַנַּעַר הַלֵּוִי בֵּית מִיכָה וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ-לוֹ לְשָׁלוֹם: טז וְשֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת אִישׁ חֲגוּרִים כְּלֵי מִלְחַמְתָּם נִצָּבִים פֶּתַח הַשָּׁעַר אֲשֶׁר מִבְּנֵי-דָן: יז וַיַּעֲלוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַהֹלְכִים לְרַגֵּל אֶת-הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ שָׁמָּה לָקְחוּ אֶת-הַפֶּסֶל וְאֶת-הָאֵפוֹד וְאֶת-הַתְּרָפִים וְאֶת-הַמַּסֵּכָה וְהַכֹּהֵן נִצָּב פֶּתַח הַשַּׁעַר וְשֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת הָאִישׁ הֶחָגוּר כְּלֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה: יח וְאֵלֶּה בָּאוּ בֵּית מִיכָה וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת-פֶּסֶל הָאֵפוֹד וְאֶת-הַתְּרָפִים וְאֶת-הַמַּסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם הַכֹּהֵן מָה אַתֶּם עֹשִֹים: יט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ הַחֲרֵשׁ שִֹים-יָדְךָ עַל-פִּיךָ וְלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ וֶהְיֵה-לָנוּ לְאָב וּלְכֹהֵן הֲטוֹב הֱיוֹתְךָ כֹהֵן לְבֵית אִישׁ אֶחָד אוֹ הֱיוֹתְךָ כֹהֵן לְשֵׁבֶט וּלְמִשְׁפָּחָה בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל: כ וַיִּיטַב לֵב הַכֹּהֵן וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הָאֵפוֹד וְאֶת-הַתְּרָפִים וְאֶת-הַפָּסֶל וַיָּבֹא בְּקֶרֶב הָעָם: כא וַיִּפְנוּ וַיֵּלֵכוּ וַיָּשִֹימוּ אֶת-הַטַּף וְאֶת-הַמִּקְנֶה וְאֶת-הַכְּבוּדָּה לִפְנֵיהֶם: כב הֵמָּה הִרְחִיקוּ מִבֵּית מִיכָה וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר עִם-בֵּית מִיכָה נִזְעֲקוּ וַיַּדְבִּיקוּ אֶת-בְּנֵי-דָן: כג וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל-בְּנֵי-דָן וַיַּסֵּבּוּ פְּנֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְמִיכָה מַה-לְּךָ כִּי נִזְעָקְתָּ: כד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶת-אֱלֹהַי אֲשֶׁר-עָשִֹיתִי לְקַחְתֶּם וְאֶת-הַכֹּהֵן וַתֵּלְכוּ וּמַה-לִּי עוֹד וּמַה-זֶּה תֹּאמְרוּ אֵלַי מַה-לָּךְ: כה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו בְּנֵי-דָן אַל-תַּשְׁמַע קוֹלְךָ עִמָּנוּ פֶּן-יִפְגְּעוּ בָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים מָרֵי נֶפֶשׁ וְאָסַפְתָּה נַפְשְׁךָ וְנֶפֶשׁ בֵּיתֶךָ: כו וַיֵּלְכוּ בְנֵי-דָן לְדַרְכָּם וַיַּרְא מִיכָה כִּי-חֲזָקִים הֵמָּה מִמֶּנּוּ וַיִּפֶן וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ: כז וְהֵמָּה לָקְחוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָֹה מִיכָה וְאֶת-הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר הָיָה-לוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל-לַיִשׁ עַל-עַם שֹׁקֵט וּבֹטֵחַ וַיַּכּוּ אוֹתָם לְפִי-חָרֶב וְאֶת-הָעִיר שָֹרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ: כח וְאֵין מַצִּיל כִּי רְחוֹקָה-הִיא מִצִּידוֹן וְדָבָר אֵין-לָהֶם עִם-אָדָם וְהִיא בָּעֵמֶק אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית-רְחוֹב וַיִּבְנוּ אֶת-הָעִיר וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בָהּ: כט וַיִּקְרְאוּ שֵׁם-הָעִיר דָּן בְּשֵׁם דָּן אֲבִיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יוּלַּד לְיִשְֹרָאֵל וְאוּלָם לַיִשׁ שֵׁם-הָעִיר לָרִאשֹׁנָה: ל וַיָּקִימוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי-דָן אֶת-הַפָּסֶל וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן-גֵּרְשֹׁם בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי עַד-יוֹם גְּלוֹת הָאָרֶץ: לא וַיָּשִֹימוּ לָהֶם אֶת-פֶּסֶל מִיכָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָֹה כָּל-יְמֵי הֱיוֹת בֵּית-הָאֱלֹהִים בְּשִׁלֹה:
---------------------------------------------------------

א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי וַיִּקַּח אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי: ב וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי-טוֹב הוּא וַתִּצְפְּנֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יְרָחִים: ג וְלֹא-יָכְלָה עוֹד הַצְּפִינוֹ וַתִּקַּח-לוֹ תֵּבַת גֹּמֶא וַתַּחְמְרָה בַחֵמָר וּבַזָּפֶת וַתָּשֶֹם בָּהּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד וַתָּשֶֹם בַּסּוּף עַל-שְֹפַת הַיְאֹר: ד וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק לְדֵעָה מַה-יֵּעָשֶֹה לוֹ: ה וַתֵּרֶד בַּת-פַּרְעֹה לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ הֹלְכֹת עַל-יַד הַיְאֹר וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-הַתֵּבָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסּוּף וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת-אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ: ו וַתִּפְתַּח וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד וְהִנֵּה-נַעַר בֹּכֶה וַתַּחְמֹל עָלָיו וַתֹּאמֶר מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה: ז וַתֹּאמֶר אֲחֹתוֹ אֶל-בַּת-פַּרְעֹה הַאֵלֵךְ וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת מִן הָעִבְרִיֹּת וְתֵינִק לָךְ אֶת-הַיָּלֶד: ח וַתֹּאמֶר-לָהּ בַּת-פַּרְעֹה לֵכִי וַתֵּלֶךְ הָעַלְמָה וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-אֵם הַיָּלֶד: ט וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ בַּת-פַּרְעֹה הֵילִיכִי אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה וְהֵינִקִהוּ לִי וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן אֶת-שְֹכָרֵךְ וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה הַיֶּלֶד וַתְּנִיקֵהוּ: י וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה וַיְהִי-לָהּ לְבֵן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מֹשֶׁה וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ: ]שלישי[ יא וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל-אֶחָיו וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו: יב וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ בַּחוֹל: יג וַיֵּצֵא בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי וְהִנֵּה שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים עִבְרִים נִצִּים וַיֹּאמֶר לָרָשָׁע לָמָּה תַכֶּה רֵעֶךָ: יד וַיֹּאמֶר מִי שָֹמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַֹר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר הָרַגְתָּ אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּירָא מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר אָכֵן נוֹדַע הַדָּבָר: טו וַיִּשְׁמַע פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וַיְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲרֹג אֶת-מֹשֶׁה וַיִּבְרַח מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי פַרְעֹה וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן וַיֵּשֶׁב עַל-הַבְּאֵר: טז וּלְכֹהֵן מִדְיָן שֶׁבַע בָּנוֹת וַתָּבֹאנָה וַתִּדְלֶנָה וַתְּמַלֶּאנָה אֶת-הָרְהָטִים לְהַשְׁקוֹת צֹאן אֲבִיהֶן: יז וַיָּבֹאוּ הָרֹעִים וַיְגָרֲשׁוּם וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹשִׁעָן וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת-צֹאנָם: יח וַתָּבֹאנָה אֶל-רְעוּאֵל אֲבִיהֶן וַיֹּאמֶר מַדּוּעַ מִהַרְתֶּן בֹּא הַיּוֹם: יט וַתֹּאמַרְן ָ אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ מִיַּד הָרֹעִים וְגַם-דָּלֹה דָלָה לָנוּ וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת-הַצֹּאן: כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-בְּנֹתָיו וְאַיּוֹ לָמָּה זֶּה עֲזַבְתֶּן אֶת-הָאִישׁ קִרְאֶן לוֹ וְיֹאכַל לָחֶם: כא וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה: כב וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ גֵּרְשֹׁם כִּי אָמַר גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה: פ
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ספר שמות פרק יח
]פרשת יתרו[ א וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָֹה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְיִשְֹרָאֵל עַמּוֹ כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָֹה אֶת-יִשְֹרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם: ב וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֶת-צִפֹּרָה אֵשֶׁת מֹשֶׁה אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ: ג וְאֵת שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאֶחָד גֵּרְשֹׁם כִּי אָמַר גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה: ד וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֱלִיעֶזֶר כִּי-אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי וַיַּצִּלֵנִי מֵחֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה: ה וַיָּבֹא יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל-מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הַמִּדְבָּר אֲשֶׁר-הוּא חֹנֶה שָׁם הַר הָאֱלֹהִים: ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-מֹשֶׁה אֲנִי חֹתֶנְךָ יִתְרוֹ בָּא אֵלֶיךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּשְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ: ז וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ לְשָׁלוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֹהֱלָה: ח וַיְסַפֵּר מֹשֶׁה לְחֹתְנוֹ אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָֹה יְהוָֹה לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם עַל אוֹדֹת יִשְֹרָאֵל אֵת כָּל-הַתְּלָאָה אֲשֶׁר מְצָאָתַם בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיַּצִּלֵם יְהוָֹה: ט וַיִּחַדְּ יִתְרוֹ עַל כָּל-הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר-עָשָֹה יְהוָֹה לְיִשְֹרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הִצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרָיִם: י וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם וּמִיַּד פַּרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶת-הָעָם מִתַּחַת יַד-מִצְרָיִם: יא עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי-גָדוֹל יְהוָֹה מִכָּל-הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם: יב וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה עֹלָה וּזְבָחִים לֵאלֹהִים וַיָּבֹא אַהֲרֹן וְכֹל זִקְנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם עִם-חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים: ]שני[ יג וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיֵּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הָעָם וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם עַל-מֹשֶׁה מִן-הַבֹּקֶר עַד-הָעָרֶב: יד וַיַּרְא חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-הוּא עֹשֶֹה לָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מָה-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶֹה לָעָם מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב לְבַדֶּךָ וְכָל-הָעָם נִצָּב עָלֶיךָ מִן-בֹּקֶר עַד-עָרֶב: טו וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה לְחֹתְנוֹ כִּי-יָבֹא אֵלַי הָעָם לִדְרשׁ אֱלֹהִים: טז כִּי-יִהְיֶה לָהֶם דָּבָר בָּא אֵלַי וְשָׁפַטְתִּי בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין רֵעֵהוּ וְהוֹדַעְתִּי אֶת-חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֶת-תּוֹרֹתָיו: יז וַיֹּאמֶר חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵלָיו לֹא-טוֹב הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶֹה: יח נָבֹל תִּבֹּל גַּם-אַתָּה גַּם-הָעָם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עִמָּךְ כִּי-כָבֵד מִמְּךָ הַדָּבָר לֹא-תוּכַל עֲשֹהוּ לְבַדֶּךָ: יט עַתָּה שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי אִיעָצְךָ וִיהִי אֱלֹהִים עִמָּךְ הֱיֵה אַתָּה לָעָם מוּל הָאֱלֹהִים וְהֵבֵאתָ אַתָּה אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים: כ וְהִזְהַרְתָּה אֶתְהֶם אֶת-הַחֻקִּים וְאֶת-הַתּוֹרֹת וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם אֶת-הַדֶּרֶךְ יֵלְכוּ בָהּ וְאֶת-הַמַּעֲשֶֹה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֹוּן: כא וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל-הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת שֹֹנְאֵי בָצַע וְשַֹמְתָּ עֲלֵהֶם שָֹרֵי אֲלָפִים שָֹרֵי מֵאוֹת שָֹרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָֹרֵי עֲשָֹרֹת: כב וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם בְּכָל-עֵת וְהָיָה כָּל-הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפְּטוּ-הֵם וְהָקֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ וְנָשְֹאוּ אִתָּךְ: כג אִם אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה תַּעֲשֶֹה וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹהִים וְיָכָלְתָּ עֲמֹד וְגַם כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה עַל-מְקֹמוֹ יָבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם: ]שלישי[ כד וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה לְקוֹל חֹתְנוֹ וַיַּעַשֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָמָר: כה וַיִּבְחַר מֹשֶׁה אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל מִכָּל-יִשְֹרָאֵל וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם רָאשִׁים עַל-הָעָם שָֹרֵי אֲלָפִים שָֹרֵי מֵאוֹת שָֹרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָֹרֵי עֲשָֹרֹת: כו וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם בְּכָל-עֵת אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם: כז וַיְשַׁלַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-חֹתְנוֹ וַיֵּלֶךְ לוֹ אֶל-אַרְצוֹ: פ
-------------------------------------------------------------------

א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי וַיִּקַּח אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי:
ח וַיֵּלֶךְ הָאִישׁ מֵהָעִיר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה ... וַיֵּלֶךְ הַלֵּוִי:
-----------------------------------------------------------
טז וּלְכֹהֵן מִדְיָן שֶׁבַע בָּנוֹת... יח וַתָּבֹאנָה אֶל-רְעוּאֵל אֲבִיהֶן
ה וְהָאִישׁ מִיכָה לוֹ בֵּית אֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשֹ אֵפוֹד וּתְרָפִים וַיְמַלֵּא אֶת-יַד אַחַד מִבָּנָיו וַיְהִי-לוֹ לְכֹהֵן:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-בְּנֹתָיו וְאַיּוֹ לָמָּה זֶּה עֲזַבְתֶּן אֶת-הָאִישׁ קִרְאֶן לוֹ וְיֹאכַל לָחֶם:
י וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מִיכָה שְׁבָה עִמָּדִי וֶהְיֵה-לִי לְאָב וּלְכֹהֵן וְאָנֹכִי אֶתֶּן-לְךָ עֲשֶֹרֶת כֶּסֶף לַיָּמִים וְעֵרֶךְ בְּגָדִים וּמִחְיָתֶךָ וַיֵּלֶךְ הַלֵּוִי:
------------------------------------
כא וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה:
יא וַיּוֹאֶל הַלֵּוִי לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ וַיְהִי הַנַּעַר לוֹ כְּאַחַד מִבָּנָיו:
-----------------------------------------------------------
י וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ ... עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי-גָדוֹל יְהוָֹה מִכָּל-הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם:
יג וַיֹּאמֶר מִיכָה עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי-יֵיטִיב יְהֹוָה לִי כִּי הָיָה-לִי הַלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
כב וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ גֵּרְשֹׁם כִּי אָמַר גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה: פ
ז וַיְהִי-נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וְהוּא לֵוִי וְהוּא גָר-שָׁם: ... וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן-גֵּרְשֹׁם בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי עַד-יוֹם גְּלוֹת הָאָרֶץ
-------------------------------------------------------
Note the similarities in terminology between the J account of Moses’ encounter with Reuel and his his marriage to Ziporah and the J account of the Levite’s encounter with Micah and his appointment as a priest. Not only are parallel terms used, as pointed out above but the entire story basically has the same outline:

Moses’ father "goes" from "Bethlevi" to find a Levite wife. Gershom (or his son) "goes" from "Bethlehem" to find a dwelling place, a job and a wife. Bethlevi is probably a place name, for if it means a Levite family, then why make a point of the fact that the Levite man took a Levite woman? It was common practice to marry within the tribe and there would be no need to specify that. If Bethlevi is the name of a Levite village in Egypt, then the emphasis is that the man was not necessarily a Levite, which is precisely what the text alludes to in the Judges episode: the man who who founded the priesthood at Micah’s shrine and later at the Danite shrine, was from a Judahite family.

Moses meets a priest in Midian, Reuel. Gershom meets a priest in Mt. Ephraim, Micah. Both do not have any male heirs who are qualified to take over their priestly duties. Reuel does not have any sons; he needs a man to marry his daughter and take over his priestly functions. Micah seems to have had sons (Judges 17:11) but for some reason he prefers Gershom the "Levite" to serve in his temple. The expression that the Levite was treated "as one of his sons" may imply that he gave him one of his daughters (just like Reuel did to Moses) or it may mean that he granted him special inheritance privileges, usually reserved for biological sons.

Place of worship. In the Moses episode, it is "the mountain of God", also called Horeb, (according to E) or Seneh/Sinai (according to J) where Moses experiences a theophany. It is there that a religious revolution is initiated and the "ten articles of the covenant" are issued. According to P, a slew of religious objects are fashioned there: breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a girdle. In J most of these objects are not mentioned but the "ark of the covenant" is prominent and we can assume that there was also an "ephod" (which is mentioned by P) and Teraphim (which are small idols?). It seems that there was some dispute among the Levites whether sculpted (pesel) or molten (masecah) images should be allowed; Moses forbade them while Aaron allowed them. It seems highly likely that the Aaronite clan practice of allowing sculpted and molten images was the norm in the formative years of the Hebrews and if so, the Hebrews departed from Sinai with sculpted idols ("pesel") as well.

In the Gershom episode, it is the "house of micah" where a religious revolution is initiated in the North. The North had never before experienced the ministry of a Levite priest. We know that the Levite’s ministry was a novelty and it was considered more desirable than the Ephraimite native worship practices. We see this from the expression in Judges 17:13 "now I know that Yahweh will do good to me for I have acquired a Levite as priest". Micah, with the aid of his newly acquired Levite priest, creates the same objects that were most probably present in the Moses Sinai episode as well: Pesel, Ephod, and Teraphim.

Reuel invites Moses to "eat bread" and then gives him his daughter. Micah offers Gershom ten silvers per year, clothing and food and "treats him as one of his sons".

Moses is "content to dwell with the man". Likewise, the Levite is "content to dwell with the man". By the way, the expression "he was content (to dwell)" occurs only five times in the HB. This (Moses episode) is the only occurrence in the Pentateuch and these are the only two instances where the full phrase "he was content to dwell with the man" occur.

Jethro (in the E tradition, which is equivalent to Reuel in J) says "now I know that Yahweh..." Micah likewise says "now I know that Yahweh...". In both cases, these people are being first introduced to Yahwism and are favorably impressed.

In the Gershom-Micah episode, the Danites set our from Bethmicah in Mt. Ephraim and embark on a mission of conquest as soon as they adopt the new religion promulgated by the Levite. In the Moses-Sinai episode, Moses sets out from Sinai and prepares the Israelites for battle against the Cananites soon after he promulgates the new religion.

Moses has a son whom he names "Gershom" (this is, BTW, his only son in the J tradition). The Levite who emigrates from Bethlehem to Micah’s temple in Mt. Ephraim is also called Gershom (Judges 17:7). The word does not mean "he sojourned there" for two reasons. First, if the man was from a Judahite family, as stated in verse 7, then he would be a permanent resident in Judahite territory and so he wouldn’t be "sojourning" in Bethlehem (this is true even if you believe that Levi was already a distinct "tribe" by then. The levites were granted permanent villages as told in Deuteronomy and Joshua, so there would be no necessity for them to move about frequently). Secondly, the author puns the name "Gershom" on the fact that the man set out to "sojourn at whatever place he can find". This phrase is mentioned in both verse 7 and verse 9. Accordingly, this act is what caused him to be named so and he wasn’t named so previously. Finally, at the very end of the chapter (Judges 18:30), the verse states openly that Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of Moses, he and his sons, were Danite priests until the exile of the land. This is the only mention of Gershom the son of Moses outside the Pentateuch (and he’s only mentioned twice in the Pentateuch). The connection between this name and the "grshm" mentioned in 17:7 at the beginning of the episode is very suggesting.

The picture of what is going on here now clears up a bit. Apparently, the priest from Bethmicah did quite a bit of wandering before Micah took him in and perhaps afterwards as well. Naturally they called him "Gershom", which name was preserved by the Danites after he was transferred to their temple. He traced his ancestry to the legendary Moses who initiated Yahwism in the south, and he carried the yahwist gospel to the North. Naturally, therefore, the tradition developed that Moses had a son by that name and this tradition is reflected in Exodus 2:22 and Exodus 18:3 which are both ancient sources.

However, the priestly author changed things around. In P, Gershom is a son of Levi and a brother of Qehath who is the ancestor of Moses. Thus, not only is Gershom not a descendant of Moses, but he is not even an ancestor of Moses. Rather, he is Moses’s uncle and the eponym of a rival Levite clan who served in the second temple along with the clan of Qehath and Merrari. "gershom" (not the "gershon" spelling common in the priestly sections of the Pentateuch) as the son of Levi, is mentioned in 1chronicles 6:1 and 6:28, which makes it clear that P is referring to the same legendary figure mentioned in the JE sections in Exodus and Judges.

Why did the priestly author institute this new genealogy? It could be explained as follows:
In Solomon’s temple there were two "levite" priests, Sadoq and Abiathar. Sadoq traced his ancestry to Aaron and Abiathar to Moses. In those days, Moses and Aaron were the only two levite families and so if one were to write a genealogy of the Levi "tribe" it would be simply: Levi had two sons Aaron and Moses etc... When Adonijah feuded with Solomon over the takeover of the Davidic throne, Abiathar sided with Adonijah and Sadoq sided with Solomon. When Solomon won the throne, he banished Abiathar from the temple and Abiathar and his descendants NEVER recovered. This means that whereas the Mushites were a higher-esteemed Levite clan than the Aaronites up until the days of Solomon, by virtue of their descendency from the legendary lawgiver Moses, their superiority was now lost. The Deuteronomist (in the seventh century BCE) attempted to implement a new system that did not distinguish between any Levite clans when it came to temple priestly privileges but this system apparently failed. After the Israelites returned from exile in 537 BCE and the temple rebuilt in 515 BCE, a strict division of labor was established between the regular Levites and those who traced their ancestry from Aaron. Only Aaronites were allowed to perform the core priestly functions in the temple; other Levites were reduced to auxiliary temple work.

In light of all this, the Levite genealogy had to be reworked. If Gershom was the son of Moses, then the Aaronites would not be able prevent such an aristocratic class from serving in the temple! The solution? Separate Gershom from Moses and make him a distinct Levite clan. Furthermore, Even Qehath does not encompass all the Aaronites. Only the sons of Amram the son of Qehath are qualified to serve as priests. Now that Gershom is not descendant from Moses, Moses has left no heir and so there’s no need to accommodate any Levite families other than Aaron, who is the closest relative to Moses. In reality, the Gershomites and possibly the Merrarites and the other Qehathite families (such as Ishar, Hebron and Uziel) may have all considered themselves descendant of Moses before the Priestly revolution at the beginning of the second temple.

What is the connection between Senah and Sinai?

I believe that these two words have a single etymology. The word Seneh occurs five times in the story of the theophany of Moses and his commission by Yahweh (Exodus 3, from the J source). We know that this event took place in the vicinity of Midian, for in both the previous chapter (Ex 2:15) and the following chapter (Ex 4:19) Midian is mentioned. We can also assume that it is not very far from Egypt, since Moses is instructed to return to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews to celebrate a three-day festival for yahweh at that site. Naturally, if the Hebrews need to leave Egypt in order to celebrate the festival (for whatever reason), it would be reasonable for them to do so in the closest proximity to their homes. Thus, it seems that the Seneh of the J account was located somewhere in the northwest section of the Sinai peninsula.

However, recall, that the Seneh was not just the site where Moses received his first theophany and commission. In E, God says to Moses "when you extract the people from Egypt you shall serve God upon this mountain" (Ex 3:12), meaning that this was the very same site where the Israelites later built an altar and offered burnt-sacrifices and peace sacrifices (Ex 24:4-5) and also where the new law code promulgated by Moses (presumably the "covenant code") was introduced (Ex 24:7).

Admittedly. J does not mention any worship of Yahweh or the promulgation of the "ten articles of the covenant" in connection with the Seneh. However, Yahweh says to Moses "the ground you are standing on is holy ground" (Ex 3:5), which implies a permanent holiness, not tied to the presence of Yahweh there at the moment. The very fact that the Seneh burns and does not become consumed indicates the presence of Yahweh at the site, which is precisely what occurs in the J decalog (Ex 19:18). In J, the theophany at Seneh is a small taste of the big theophany Moses is to receive there later while all of Israel is witnessing it. For now, it is an angel of Yahweh (Ex 3:2) who reveals himself to him in the form of a flaming fire. Later, it will be the presence of Yahweh himself and the entire Mt. Sinai will be trembling and smoking like the smoke of a furnce (Ex 19:18) in the eyes of all the people (Ex 19:11).

The traditional translation of "seneh" is a bush. However, this word is only mentioned in the J narrative of Exodus 3 and in the blessing of Moses (deu 33:16). In the blessing of Moses, most scholars agree that it should be amended to "sinai". Note the connection of the verb "shakan" (dwell/rest) with Seneh both in Deuteronomy "the goodwill of he who dwells in Seneh" and with Sinai "the glory of Yahweh dwelled on Mt. Sinai" (Num 24:16). What, then, compells us to consider the Seneh of Ex 3, a bush? It should also be noted that Ex 3:2 does not introduce the Seneh properly; it refers to it as "the Seneh", as if it is already known to the reader.

It seems to me, that the Seneh of Ex 3 (J document) is indistinguishable from the Sinai in other parts of J. The original J text must have read something like this:

א וּמֹשֶׁה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת-צֹאן רעואל חֹתְנוֹ כֹּהֵן מִדְיָן וַיִּנְהַג אֶת-הַצֹּאן אַחַר הַמִּדְבָּר וַיָּבֹא אֶל-הַר סנה/סני:

Note how I changed the name of Moses’ father-in-law to be consistent with the J tradition of "Reuel" and the name of the mountain to follow the J tradition of "Sinai". Apparently, at some point, the spelling of the mountain’s name in some instances was changed from Seneh to Sinai or vice versa and this is the source for all the confusion. In fact, it is even possible that the very original text spelled the mountain with two consonants only: samech, nun. Later generations did not realize the connection between the Ex 3 chapter and other occurrences and for some reason thought the text was talking about a bush or some other object, not a mountain and they started spelling it differently. How does a mountain burn? Well, this question could be asked with regard to the Sinai theophany as well (Ex 19:18). In fact, accordinh to J, Yahweh constantly went before the Israelites with a fiery pillar at night (Ex 13:21-22) and so the question could be asked there as well: how does a pillar of fire burn continously without being consumed? And so we don’t need a "bush" in order to imagine a continuous fire. The original Seneh story held that a flame of fire (lehabath esh) was present at the center of Mt. Sinai (Heb. Mitoch haseneh ex 3:2) but the mountain was not being consumed.

2006-05-04T19:05:00.001-04:00

May 3 2006

Last week I came up with the new theory about the early history of Israel. It occurred to me that Moses and Joshua did not rule over the same people in succession. Rather, they ruled over a different tribe or group of tribes altogether. Moses was a Levite and was associated with the southern "Le’ah tribes" and Joshua was an Ephraimite/Israelite and associated with the northern "Rachel tribes".

Central to our investigation is the question of the Levites origin. Unlike other tribes, the Levites did not inherit any land according to the Bible. P does make it clear that the Levites were granted 48 cities and even if we discredit this as non-historical or non-reflective of early tribal history, we still know that the Levites had some villages of their own, such as "Nob" the Priestly city (which was destroyed by Saul for supporting his enemy David) and Anathoth (which is where the priest Abiathar was banished by Solomon after he supported Adonijah and is also the birthplace of the prophet Jeremiah three centuries later). However, these were small villages scattered here and there without any strong foothold or political power over the surrounding region. In other words, the Levites did not have their own tribal political organization, their cities were not situated within a single bloc of land, and they did not engage in combat. They were politically and economically dependent upon the more powerful tribes of the region such as Judah and Ephraim. In one area they did hold a monopoly, however, and that was divination and priesthood.

Why do I mention all this? Because the Levites’ obscure origin and lack of a well-defined border in their land inheritance makes them a mysterious and enigmatic people. It is hard for us to really figure out where they came from and how they came to hold a monopoly over the priesthood in later years. In fact it is not even clear that they were a "tribe" in the classical sense. It is entirely possible that any priest was called a Levite in early days and only later was the office of passed on within the blood line and thus confined to existing Levites. This, in fact, is my favorite opinion and there is important evidence for this in the book of Judges (17:7) "Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he sojourned there". How is it possible for a Judahite to be a Levite? (tribal affiliations were always patrimonial, so that a person belonged to the tribe of his father and ONLY to that tribe). Later in Judges 19, in the concubine murder story, it is a Levite from the far end (northern end that is) of Mount Ephraim who takes a concubine from Bethlehem, Judah. What is the Levite doing in the far end of Mt. Ephraim? and why is he going all the way to Bethlehem, Judah to get a concubine?

It seems to me that a "Levite" originally did not denote a tribal affiliation. Rather, it meant simply a person who is proficient at divination, priesthood and communication with God. It designated a profession, not a blood-line. Furthermore, as you see from the Pesel Micah story and the Levite Concubine-Gibeah story, the Levites were somehow associated with the town of Bethlehem (note that these are the only two instances of Levite in the book of Judges) in Judah. This demonstrates that the Levites were in early tribal history very closely connected with the Judahites and according to my theory they were actually Judahites as indicated by the verse in Judges 17:7 above. Their origin can be explained very elegantly and simply: they were a professional class of people within the tribe of Judah who specialized in priestly services. plain and simple.

Naturally, since these people earned their living through payment for priestly services (in the form of food mostly), rather than having to engage in agriculture or herding, they were not tied to the land and were encouraged to emigrate from Judah in search of "clients" elsewhere in the land. This is just like a doctor, lawyer or other professional will often go anywhere his services are needed while a factory or store owner will not. The factory owner is tied to the land; the professional is not only free but encouraged to move about in search of business. Note in the story of Samuel how he would travel around each year through the towns of Ephraim and Benjamin: Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah (1Sam 7:16-17).

The "prototype" story from which we can derive (and induce) all other Levite emigrations out of Judah is actually the Pesel micah story. The verse states that the Levite was looking "to sojourn wherever he can find" (Judges 17:9). This has one and only meaning: he was looking to expand his business and find customers within the northern tribes and he actually found exactly what he was looking for. When Micah saw that a "levite" is passing through the land he hired him on the spot to officiate in his temple. Micah was happy for he acquired a "Levite" (professional priest) for his temple (Judges 17:13) and the Levite was happy for he had found what he was looking for, a job.

But the Pesel Micah story does not merely explain how the Levites came to inhabit the North; the story has much deeper significance. In my opinion this story marked the beginning of the spread of Yahwism to the North, following the Levite’s kidnapping and eventual service in the temple the Danites erected at Laish. This wasn’t just an isolated event. By appointing a Levite to the Dan temple, the Danites signaled their acceptance of Levite religious doctrine, primary of which was the unity of the god "Yahweh" and his characteristics as described in Exodus (34:6-7). Before the Levites arrived, the North probably never even heard of "Yahweh". Now that the Levites arrived, they were told to worship one and only one god and his name was "Yahweh tsebaoth". Furthermore, the entire political connection between the North and South in later generations was precipitated by this Levite migration. Since the North had accepted the religious doctrine of the southern Levites, they now shared a strong cultural bond with the Judahites of the south which allowed for political unity during the early days of Saul and during David’s and Solomon’s reign. If not for the Levite migration and the resultant sharing of a similar faith, the Joseph tribes probably would not have felt any closer to Judah than to Amon Moab and Edom (who were equally "Hebrews") and even Aram and Sidon (Phoenicia). In fact, in later years Israel sometimes aligned itself with Aram against Judah and Judah sometimes aligned itself with Aram against Israel (1kings 15:19).

Which tribes participated in the Exodus?

According to my current tentative theory there were actually two different Exodus’s. One was the Exodus of Judah and the second was that of the Jospeh tribes. These tribes were both in Egypt at some point in history for some time due to drought in Canaan. Then, when Semitic persecution in Egypt reached its peak they escaped or were expelled from there and they returned to the Semitic lands in the Levant. Judah seems to have followed a direct route from Egypt through the Sinai peninsula and to the southern sections of Canaan where it settled, while the Joseph tribes navigated around Edom and Moab and passing through the desert regions east of Edom and Moab finally reaching "Shittim" in the "plains of Moab" and crossing the Jordan from there. It seems to me that Judah experienced the Exodus first, perhaps a century or two before Joseph did.

Why did Judah settle in the south at once while Joseph passed through the transjordan deserts before returning to Canaan?

If it is true that Judah experienced the Exodus first, then it would seem that by the time Joseph emerged the southern sections of Canaan were already "taken" and they could therefore not pass through. Not only were the Judahites there but there were also the Philistines (who may not have been settled there yet when Judah arrived) on the coast, the Amalakites and the Canaanites from Arad. Naturally then the Josephites were forced east to transjordan and then north and they had to travel through desert regions longer than the Judahites before finally finding a "weak spot" in Jericho and thereby gaining access to the desirable land west of the Jordan ("cisjordan").

Who were the Judah core and vassal tribes?

Reuben Simeon Levi and Judah are the core of the "Le’ah tribes". This is reflected by the original J text concerning the birth of these eponyms (Gen 29:31-35) and also by the fact that only these four tribes inhabited the southern sections of the Levant. E or some other editor later attributed Issachar and Zebulun to Le’ah as well and he assigned Gad and Asher to Leah’s maidservant. This tradition seemingly reflects the political situation at the time of David. Issachar and Zebulun were firmly under David’s control and so they were considered regular brothers of Judah while Gad in the transjordan and Asher on the Phoenician coast were tributaries of David and thus considered descendants of Leah’s maidservant.

Who were the Joseph core and vassal tribes?

Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin constituted the core of the Northern tribal federation. These tribes occupied the central highlands of Canaan, what was later called "Mt. Ephraim", and they were extremely powerful. Their economy consisted of barley, wheat, grapevines and olive orchards, which they also traded with Sidon. Dan and Naphtali are seen as descendant from a Rachel maidservant, but it is not clear to me why. Possibly, since they never came under the dominion of David (North Dan that is, South Dan was in Central Canaan) but they did come under the North’s control either before or after David, it seemed more appropriate to classify them as Rachel vassals.

Did the other Le’ah tribes accompany Judah in its descent and later Exodus from Egypt?

No! I am convinced that Issachar, Zebulun, Gad and Asher never experienced the Exodus from Egypt. In addition to the lack of evidence that they did experience the Exodus, there is also a practical reason: these tribes inhabited fertile land that did NOT depend on rainwater as much as the lands of Joseph and Judah. Issachar and Zebulun lived in the Jezreel valley region while Gad inhabited fertile land in the Transjordan that once belonged to Sihon, the Amorite king and Asher was on the coast where rain is plentiful. Thus, if these tribes or the eponyms of these tribes already inhabited those fertile regions before their supposed descent into Egypt, then there would never have been any need to go to Egypt in the first place, for the famine would not affect their land. Also the disjunction of these tribal lands from the Judah bloc of land in southern Canaan is further evidence that those lands were not conquered/populated by Issachar-Zebulun and Judah at the same time.

Reuben, Simeon and Levi are a bit harder to figure out. In the book of Judges we see the tradition that Judah and Simeon formed a military alliance when conquering their lands, but Reuben is not mentioned. On the other hand we know that Reuben was at one point an extremely important tribe in the south superseding Judah and in the Joseph legend in the book of Genesis it is Reuben, not Judah, who comes to the rescue of Joseph and later pledges his son as collateral against Jacob’s son Benjamin, according to one ancient source. Thus, we see that Reuben also held an Egyptian Exodus tradition (assuming that the ancient source above is Reubenite) and they were very possibly the most important tribe within the southern bloc at the time of Judah’s exodus. Recall also the story of Dathan and Abiram the Reubenites, disputing Moses’ leadership. This legend possibly reflects the point in time when the Reubenite political and religious leadership of the southern bloc was replaced by Moses (from the tribe of Levi/Judah) and the Reubenites made a last-ditch effort to regain control but failed. In light of all of this evidence, it seems that all four tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah participated in the Judahite Exodus.

How long were the Judahite tribes in Egypt and how many people participated in the Exodus?

J makes it abundantly clear that the fourth generation returned to Canaan. This is stated openly (Gen 15:16) "the fourth generation will return here". You will ask me immediately "but in verse 13 it says that Abraham’s descendants will spend 400 years in Egypt?"

Some scholars have attempted to reconcile the two traditions saying that each patriarchal generation is 100 years. Indeed, Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac according to P and Jacob was 100 years old or close to it when he had Joseph according to the P claim that Joseph was 30 when he stood before Pharaoh and Jacob was 130 when he stood before Pharaoh (although to be exact, Jacob appeared before Pharaoh at least 9 years after Joseph did, accounting for the seven fat years and two of the seven lean years).

But there are several problems with this. For one, P says openly that Isaac was 60 when he had Jacob, so that’s much less than a full "patriarchal generation". Secondly, J rarely if ever uses precise numbers when dealing with chronology and measurements. 400 years is more of a deuteronomical or priestly expression than a J expression. Third, we know that the deuteronomist considers a generation to be 40 years. Thus, David and Solomon reign for 40 years each and Solomon’s temple is built "480" years after the Exodus, which really means 12 generations. Accordingly, P may be articulating here an entirely different tradition which holds that the Israelites were in Egypt for ten generations, not four. We already know that the priestly writer is fond of ten-generation intervals: ten generations between Adam and Noah and ten generation between Noah and Abraham. Likewise, P is continuing this tradition here and saying that there were ten generations from Abraham until the return of the Israelites to Canaan. For our purposes, however, we will ignore the P tradition and we will stick to the older and more reliable J tradition of four generations.

Why is the four generation tradition so important? Because it changes the entire picture we have of the Exodus. Instead of a major, somewhat-miraculous multiplication of Israelites from 70 to 600,000 persons in the course of several generations, we should picture a modest, natural growth occurring in the course of just four generations among just three or four tribes (depending on whether we count Levi as separate tribe). Note that even if we assume that each of 72 males entering Egypt had 12 children!! (six males and six females) there won’t be more than 15,552 people in the fourth generation. The Bottom line is that according to the J tradition, which makes it very clear that the fourth generation returned to Canaan, there couldn’t have been anything even remotely close to 600,000 people, who left Egypt according to P.

Rather, in the J tradition there were just three hebrew families, Reuben, Simeon and Judah who emerged from Egypt. I can only estimate that each of these families numbered in the hundreds (in the fourth generation), producing a total of less than 1000 people who participated in the Judahite Exodus. This scenario is also much more compatible with the fact that no archaeological remains were found anywhere in the Sinai peninsula from the period of the Israelite Exodus and the fact that there are no Egyptian records whatsoever pertaining to a mass exodus of Hebrew slaves from their country. Levi was possibly not a separate tribe, but rather the title of a priest, so that a Levite is actually also a Reubenite, Judahite, or Simeonite.

Is Moses a historical figure and if so what role did he play within the Judahite tribal alliance?

Moses is surely a historical personage. There is no reason for me to doubt that a person by this name actually existed who headed the Judahite tribal alliance out of Egypt. What is questionable rather is all the details attributed to him; the fact that he was born to a "Levite", the manner in which was hidden from the Egyptians in an ark in the Nile for three months etc.. What is also questionable is how much of the "law" that Judah and Israel later adopted was initiated by him.
In all likelihood, Moses was NOT a lawmaker. His era was too unstable to accommodate lawmaking and law enforcement. It was a tribal-oriented era in which "each man did what was right in his eyes" as was the case in the later era of the Judges according to the Deuteronomist. Nonetheless, if he was indeed a priest and a leader, then by definition he was also involved in some basic level of order-keeping and religious creativity. Certainly, however, not even a fraction of the laws attributed to him in the Pentateuch as currently formulated are really from him. It was a common ancient practice to attribute new laws to "classical leaders" in order to promote their widespread acceptance. Thus the Deuteronomical law code was "found" in the days of Josiah, meaning that it was first "invented" by his court officials who attributed it to an "old document" found in the temple, when in fact it was anything but.

What kind of shrine did the Judahites have in their early tribal days?

Note that even if you don’t believe in by budding theory that Judah entered Canaan from the south and Israel from the East at different times and without any coordination between them, you still must admit that there was a very weak bond between Israel and Judah in early tribal days. This is evident from the various episodes told in the book of Judges in which Judah is completely neglected or treated as a separate entity, when talking about "Israel". (See the story of Deborah and Barak). Thus, in all likelihood, Israel and Judah did not share a shrine and other religious tenets and artifacts. R. E. Friedman notes that the "ark of the covenant" is NEVER mentioned in E while the "tent of meeting" is NEVER mentioned in J. So we know that in Judah the Ark was a revered object but we don’t know where it was kept. I am convinced that before the ark arrived in Shiloh (Ephraimite territory) in the days of Eli and Samuel (c. 1100 BCE) it resided somewhere in Judean territory. In fact it may have even been stationed in one of the five philistine cities: Ashdod, Gazah, Ashkelon Gath, Ekron. These cities were originally under Judahite control and perhaps when the Philistines arrived on the scene (c. 1150 BCE) and started taking over territory from Judah, the Levites (who were the Judahite priests) moved the ark in a Northeast direction, finally setting up the shrine in Shiloh. Recall how the Danites were forced out of their territory due to the invading Philistines which set off the Pesel Micah story told in Judges. Note also how it is said in that story that the Danites "recognized the voice of the Levite", indicating that the Levites were common in the Danite and Judahite coastal regions later vanquished by the Philistines. I should point out that Hebron or Jerusalem were definitely not the original locations of Judahite shrines for those cities were not yet under Judahite control. (In fact, Jerusalem, then called "Jebus", lay in Benjamite territory). Also, Hebron was conquered by a "kenizzite" clan under Caleb’s leadership who only later became integrated into Judah.

Is it possible that there was more than one shrine in Judah in those days?

Not only is it possible but it is almost certain. Judahite territory was quite expansive and it would not be practical to require a Judahite to travel such long distances whenever he wished to offer sacrifices to his God. Any village in Judah mentioned as a "levite city" in the book of Joshua probably contained a shrine as well in early days, for what were the Levites doing there if not offering their priestly services to the public? Nine villages are mentioned: Hebron, Libnah, Jattir, ‘eshtemo`ah, Cholon, Debir, ‘ayin, Jatteh and Beth Shemesh (Joshua 21:13).

What did the Ark of the Covenant contain?

In those early days, writing on papyrus had not been invented yet, at least not among the Judahites. There were two ways of recording things: clay tablets and stone tablets. According to the Bible, the "Ten Articles of the Covenant" were carved into stone and kept in the Ark. Now even though the Ark seems to serve a utilitarian purpose only according to this understanding, it is possible that it gradually took on additional significance. By the time the golden Cherub statues were added to the Ark, the ark had been transformed from a mere "carrying case" to the most holy object in the shrine. There is considerable debate as to what the Cherub’s represented or even what kind of creature it is. R.E. Friedman believes they served as a pedestal for the deity; that is, the deity presumably rested on their wings. But I am somewhat hesitant to accept this because I strongly believe in that all ancient religious objects and ideas were of a concrete nature; no imagination! These people lived very simple and concrete lives anything that could not be felt with the senses did not exist. They were not capable or willing to "imagine" a deity resting upon the cherub’s wings. Rather, the cherubs may have represented angels or messengers sent down from God in heaven to guide and assist the Hebrews in their struggles.

Why is the "tent of meeting" not mentioned in J?

By the time J and E were committed to writing, the monarchy had already been divided. The southern Davidic kingdom possessed a magnificent temple in Jerusalem (or at least it was magnificent according to the biblical claim) while the North had several shrines none of which were very elaborate or permanent. I think that this very basic difference between the North and South is why the North developed or retained the idea of the "tent of meeting" while the South had no need for such tent. Another reason could be advanced in light of the fact that the Israelites, according to our theory, spent much more time wandering in the desert that Judah did. E, therefore, felt compelled to conceive of a tent of meeting as the official national shrine before they entered Canaan while J saw no such need.

2006-04-21T00:07:00.000-04:00

Meaning of the Hebrew root 'pqd'

The Hebrew root ‘pqd’ is grossly misuderstood and mistranslated. The problem with this word is that it is found in the Bible in various contexts prompting the translator to come up with a different meaning in many instances depending on the context. What they don’t realize is that even though CBH (classical Biblical Hebrew) is a relatively poor language with a small vocabulary and the speaker or writer of Hebrew can therefore express himself with a word that can be applied in several ways, yet such words can have one and only one primary meaning.

The secondary meanings of pqd used for translation purposes are: miss, remember, reserve, count.

The primary meaning of pqd as a noun is an item that is temporarily cared for by a person who does not own it. The item is thus a "temporary burden" upon the niphqad (trustee).

The best example of the pqd root used in this way in JE is Gen 41:36 RSV: the food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine... (wehayah ha’akel lepiqqadon le’arets). But the RSV is not even consistent with its translation of this root two verses earlier: let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land... (weyepaqqed piqqedim ‘al ha`arets). In one verse it means overseers and in the next verse it means reserve food? Unlikely!

Rather, Piqqadon here is borrowed from the primary meaning of the word as used in Lev 5:21. Piqqadon is an object that is entrusted to a friend to watch over it and guard it temporarily so that it will be available at a later time to the owner. The piqqadon is thus an object of burden to the trustee. Likewise, the food shall be "carried by the land" or "entrusted to the land" during the seven fat years so that it is available later during the seven lean years. weyepaqqed piqqedim ‘al ha`arets means: Paraoh shall place the food as a temporary burden over the land.
Likewise, whenever the root pqd is used as a verb referring to an army, it means to provide battle equipment to troops, which they are responsible to guard and care for temporarily. When the battle is over they must return the equipment.

י וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּבֹּק%

2006-04-20T13:30:00.001-04:00

Which Hebrew tribes were slaves in Egypt?

Judah seems to be one of those tribes who never was in Egypt. We know for sure that the tribe of Levi and Joseph were in Egypt. Levi we know because Moses and Aharon and the entire concept of Yahwism originated from this tribe during their stay in Egypt. In fact, I strongly suspect that the Levites were in turn influenced by the Egyptian monotheist movement by Akhenaten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten.

According to J theology, why were the Hebrews enslaved in Egypt? The reason for their enslavement is openly stated in J, even though it is commonly misinterpreted. Common sense dictates that J should have something to say about why the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to whom Yahweh promised the land of Canaan, should be enslaved for four generations (Gen 16:16) before inheriting the land.

There are actually two reasons for their enslavement:

One reason is "for the iniquity of the Amorite has not been complete until now" (Gen 16:16). But why should the Hebrews suffer enslavement? Wouldn’t it be sufficient that the Hebrews simply sojourn in Egypt like their forbears did and have the status of "aliens" while waiting for the Amorites to be punished and expelled from Canaan for their sin? It should be noted that the sections of Exodus where the "rigorous labor of the Israel" is described (Exodus 1:13) are not part of J. And so it is possible that J had a different idea of what alien status in a foreign land involved for the Hebrews.

But there is another verse we need to focus in on:

ו וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָֹה עַל-פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָֹה יְהֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת: ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים נֹשֵֹא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים וְעַל-בְּנֵי בָנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים:

Yahweh passed before him and Yahweh proclaimed, "Yahweh is a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in kindness and faithfulness, keeping kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7).

This verse is extremely central to J theology because it essentially summarizes the character of the newly invented deity "Yahweh". Later, when the Hebrews committed the grave "iniquity" of accepting the negative report of the spies and conspiring to rebel against Moses and head back to Egypt, Moses invoked this verse to show that Yahweh is a forgiving God (Numbers 14:17). But what is meant by the statement "visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children..."?

I have a strong suspicion that it refers to the tribal patriarchs iniquity of selling Joseph into slavery. God is saying that he had remembered this iniquity for four generations (i.e. Levi, Qehath, `amram, Moses) but the fourth generation is now being forgiven and he will bring them into the promised land remembering the faithful kindness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to the thousands of Hebrews about to enter Canaan. J emphasizes the fact that only the three patriarchs exhibited kindness towards God. Yet thousands of their descendants will now benefit as a result. J also emphasizes Yahweh’s concern for justice necessitating the punishment of four generations for the Joseph iniquity.

We thus see that the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt according to J is a punishment for the sin of selling Joseph into slavery.

Other proof will be listed below:

In Genesis 42:21-22 (which is not part of J) Jacob’s sons realize that their troubles are a punishment for selling Joseph into slavery: Then they said to one another, "In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us and we would not listen; therefore is this distress come upon us." The meaning of this is a bit deeper that it seems. It’s not just "a" punishment; it’s punishment in kind. They sold Joseph into Egyptian slavery; now they are about to be enslaved to an Egyptian official. They refused to listen to Joseph’s supplications not to harm him; now they are supplicating Joseph to believe them that they are not spies but he refuses to listen to them. Joseph then tests his half-brothers to see whether they are still antagonistic towards the "Rachel brothers" (Benjamin) and when he sees their devotion and concern for Benjamin he forgives them, identifies himself and invites them over to Egypt so that they may survive the famine. However, their iniquity is not quite forgiven by God. A new king emerges who does not "know" Joseph (which has the secondary meaning of that he does not remember that Joseph forgave his brothers) and he enslaves the brothers’ descendants just like their ancestors caused Joseph to be enslaved.

There is also another interesting verse in Genesis which seems somewhat trivial and out of context but is now very well understood:

כד וַיַּרְא יוסב לְאֶפְרַיִם בְּנֵי שִׁלֵּשִׁים גַּם בְּנֵי מָכִיר בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה יֻלְּדוּ עַל-בִּרְכֵּי יוסב:

Joseph saw a third generation to Ephraim. Even the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh gave birth on the knees of Joseph (Genesis 50:23).

The question is: why is this mentioned? and why not talk about the third/fourth generations of the other brothers? But according to our explanation, this verse sits very well. It is pointing out that Joseph’s descendants, up to four generations, were all "seen" by Joseph, that is they were treated well and protected from slavery because of Joseph’s status. This is an important anecdote because it is essential that the punishment of the rest of the Hebrews not involve the Joseph tribe since Joseph is the victim and not the sinner. He’s the reason that the other tribes were enslaved in Egypt in the first place.

Why mention four generations of Joseph? Because after four generations, all of Israel is bound to emerge from Egypt anyway and so there’s no need to point out that the fifth generation and onward were "seen" by Joseph.

In the very next verse Joseph makes his brothers swear that they will bring his bones up from Egypt and bury him with his fathers once Yahweh remembers them on occasion of the Exodus. This passage is now situated well contextually because Joseph is saying: even though my progeny will be well off during those four generations and yours will not, swear to me that after Yahweh brings you up from Egypt you will bring my bones with you (which act symbolizes that the Joseph tribe remains part of Israel and does not become assimilated into Egypt).

Other proof:

"fathers" and "sons" as mentioned in Exodus 34:7 are abstract terms if not for my interpretation. Abstractions are possible in Priestly writings but they are virtually nonexistent in the extremely ancient J source. In J everything is concrete and could be felt by the senses. God himself is a physical entity in J who descends from heaven in order to destroy the tower of Babel and to rescue Israel from Egypt. J is not talking about a theoretical sinner whose four generations must suffer as a result. In fact Deut 24:16 states openly that sons should not be put to death for a sin of their fathers. If our J verse here lays forth a central Yahwist principle (of which we see no application anywhere in the Bible), then the Deuteronomist would have been unable to change that in the seventh century BCE. Rather, Yahweh is saying here what he had already done: he remembered the iniquity of the Jacob brothers for four generations. Now however, Yahweh is saying that he is about to remember the kindness of the patriarchs towards him and in turn visit kindness upon the thousands of their descendants by means of giving them the land of Canaan. But he expects some continuing service on the part of Israel as well and so he goes on making a covenant (Exodus 34:10) in which the duties of both parties are specified:

Yahweh will make "a wonderful act" (niphle’ath) before all the people and all will see that the deed of Yahweh is awesome (Exodus 34:10). This "wonderful act" refers to the the standing "as one heap" of the waters coming down from the Jordan so as to allow the Israelites to pass in dry land (Joshua 3:16). The term "niphla`oth" (wonders) is mentioned in Joshua in this regard (part of the J narrative) and it’s --in all likelihood-- what the verse here is referring to. (the plural "wonders" in Joshua is probably the hands of a late editor; it should read without the waw and the translation is "a wonderful act", not "wonderful acts").

In turn, Israel will observe the "ten articles of the covenant" (diberei haberith `asereth hadebarim Exodus 34:28) involving acts of service to Yahweh such as dedicating firstborn animals and fruits to Yahweh and observing three annual festivals to Yahweh.

2006-04-15T23:45:00.000-04:00

What is the meaning of Pesach?

Pesach is NOT the name of a holiday. It is the name of a certain kind of sacrifice, just like there is an olah (burnt-offering), shelamim (peace) and in other traditions todah (thanksgiving) chatath (sin), asham (guilt) and nedabah (voluntary). These are all different kinds of sacrifices that people were expected to offer to yahweh on different occasions and whose sacrificial procedure typically varied. It seems that the distinguishing characteristic of the Pesach was NOT its connection to the Abib festival (dated to the 14th of the first lunar month in P). Rather the pesach sacrifice was tied to the season of the year. In other words, other sacrifices were contingent upon the commital of transgressions (asham) or upon certain events (todah) or were offered on a regular basis (olah) or were just general peace-offerings offered to yahweh when things were going well (shelam or shelamim). Pesach’s uniqueness was that it was tied to a solar calendar; it was brought on the three key seasons of the solar calendar: the season of ripening (abib), the season of harvest (qatsir) and the season of gathering (asiph).

Ironically, even though it seems that there would be many other occasions when one would bring an animal sacrifice to the Yahweh shrine, there actualy wasn’t. In fact, it seems that in the very beginning of days, people would not even observe three annual festivals but just one. This is apparent from the passage in 1Samuel that describes how Elkanah used to go up to the house of yahweh in Shiloh to sacrifice "miyamim yamimah" (from year to year). But even when three times a year became the norm (perhaps sometime during the divided monarchy after 922 BCE), it was usually ONLY three times a year. Unlike in P where a person is obliged to bring an offering upon various actions and events, as described above, those sacrifices are never mentioned in J or E. In JE we only find three kinds of sacrifices: Olah, Shelam (sometimes called zebach shelam or simply zebach) and Pesach (which is also sometimes called zebach pesach or simply zebach). An olah was offered wholly to yahweh and was not brought by individuals and so we won’t discuss that here. Between Shelamim and Pesach we find no difference in sacrifice ritual or rules. The only difference is that Pesach was tied to a season and the Shelam was not but since people were bringing the Pesach three times a year anyway, the Shelam never gained widespread practice by inviduals (atleast during the first temple).

In essence what I am saying here is that during the first temple there was no clear distinction between Pesach and Shelam. The Pesach was the Shelam (that, is the seasonal offering was actually little more than a peace offering) and the Shelam was the Pesach (that is, the peace offering was tied to annual seasons). Accordingly, when JE talks about a Pesach it is talking about ANY peace offering (although those offerings were typically tied to a season) and the term is synonymous with Zebach which literally means simply "sacrifice".

What is the connection between Pesach and Matsah?

In the JE tradition, although leavened bread tastes better and is easier to digest than unleavened bread, it is considered "impure" and unbecoming for a godly sacrifice. Just like when it comes to animal offerings and grain offerings Yahweh wants the firstborn and the firstfruit, so when it comes to baked goods yahweh prefers matsah. It is really not my point here to go into details as to why and how this tradition developed. What we do know is that this is an extremely old tradtition and it is NOT tied specifically to Pesach. Any grain offering made to Yahweh or eaten along with sacrificial meat offered to Yahweh ought to be unleavened.

The prohibition against chamets in the oldest pentateuchal sources (Exodus 23:18 and 34:25) are very simple and minimal:

Not to eat chamets together with the sacrificial meat of the Pesach, expressed in the archaic form "do not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice over chamets".

There is no command to eat Matsah as in D and P.

The seven-day prohibition is not from JE. According to JE, chamets is only forbidden to be eaten along with the Pesach.

Analysis of the JE texts on the Abib festival

שמות לד יח אֶת־חַג הַמַּצּוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ לְמוֹעֵד חֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִיב כִּי בְּחֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִיב יָצָאתָ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם: יט כָּל־פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם לִי וְכָֽל־מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר פֶּטֶר שׁוֹר וָשֶֽׂה: כ וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְאִם־לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַֽעֲרַפְתּוֹ כֹּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה וְלֹא־יֵֽרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָֽם: כא שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּֽעֲבֹד וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת בֶּֽחָרִישׁ וּבַקָּצִיר תִּשְׁבֹּֽת: כב וְחַג שָֽׁ בֻעֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה לְךָ בִּכּוּרֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים וְחַג הָֽאָסִיף תְּקוּפַת הַשָּׁנָֽה: כג שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵֽרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶת־פְּנֵי הָֽאָדֹן יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל: כד כִּֽי־אוֹרִישׁ גּוֹיִם מִפָּנֶיךָ וְהִרְחַבְתִּי אֶת־גְּבֻלֶךָ וְלֹֽא־יַחְמֹד אִישׁ אֶֽת־אַרְצְךָ בַּֽעֲלֹֽתְךָ לֵֽרָאוֹת אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָֽה: כה לֹֽא־תִשְׁחַט עַל־חָמֵץ דַּם־זִבְחִי וְלֹֽא־יָלִין לַבֹּקֶר זֶבַח חַג הַפָּֽסַח:

שמות כג יד שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים תָּחֹג לִי בַּשָּׁנָֽה: טו אֶת־חַג הַמַּצּוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת כַּֽאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ לְמוֹעֵד חֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִיב כִּי־בוֹ יָצָאתָ מִמִּצְרָיִם וְלֹא־יֵֽרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָֽם: טז וְחַג הַקָּצִיר בִּכּוּרֵי מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה וְחַג הָֽאָסִף בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה בְּאָסְפְּךָ אֶֽת־מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה: יז שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵֽרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶל־פְּנֵי הָֽאָדֹן יְהוָֹֽה: יח לֹֽא־תִזְבַּח עַל־חָמֵץ דַּם־זִבְחִי וְלֹֽא־יָלִין חֵֽלֶב־חַגִּי עַד־בֹּֽקֶר: יט רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּֽחֲלֵב אִמּֽוֹ:
-------------------------------------------------
I have this strong suspicion that the command about eating Matsah for seven days was not originally part of the JE text. Rather the E text should read something like this (and a similar substitution should be made to the J text):

יד שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים תָּחֹג לִי בַּשָּׁנָֽה: טו אֶת־חַג הַאביב תעשה לך בכורי שְעֹרָה: טז וְחַג הַקָּצִיר בִּכּוּרֵי מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה וְחַג הָֽאָסִף בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה בְּאָסְפְּךָ אֶֽת־מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה: יז וְלֹא־יִרְאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָֽם שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יִרְאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶת־פְּנֵי הָֽאָדֹן יְהוָֹֽה: יח לֹֽא־תִזְבַּח עַל־חָמֵץ דַּם־זִבְחִי וְלֹֽא־יָלִין חֵֽלֶב־חַגִּי עַד־בֹּֽקֶר: יט רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּֽחֲלֵב אִמּֽוֹ:

And the translation is as follows (NRSV with my revision):

14 Three times in the year you shall hold a festival for me. 15 You shall observe the Festival of Fresh Ears (of barley) with the first fruits of barley 16 and the Festival of Harvest with the firstfruits of your labor that you sow in the field and the Festival of Ingathering at the year’s end with your labor that you gather from the field. 17 No one shall appear before me empty-handed. Three times in the year, all your males shall see the face of the lord yahweh. 18 You shall not spill the blood of my sacrifice over leavened bread, or let the fat of my festival remain until the morning. 19 The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Yahweh your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

How do I know that the seven-day matsah verse (Ex 23:15 and 34:18) is an insertion by a later D or P editor?

There are several clues!

1. The language used is typical of P. Both the term "moed" and (appointed time) and "tishmor" (you shall guard) are hallmarks of P.

2. "as I have commanded you" is an extremely suspicious phrase and really doesn’t make any sense if it is part of JE. It seems that the author is referring to a widely known law code that the reader is assumed to be familiar with and the author’s intent is just to reiterate it and perhaps elaborate or modify it. Since the JE "book of the covenant" (of which this verse is part) is the the first published law code, such a reference to a past commandment does not make any sense. Where in JE do we previously find the seven-day matsah law? Even if we do find it elsewhere in JE (Ex 13:6-7 if you believe that this particular text is originally JE), why would we assume that the other instance is primal and and this one secondary and why would there be a need to reference it?

3. The other two festivals are named after an aglicultural season. Abib is the ripening of barley ears season Qatsir is the wheat harvest season and Asiph is the ingathering season. Why doesn’t he call it chag h’abib like the other two festivals? Note that in Leviticus 23:6 the P author names the three festivals Matsoth, Bikkurim and Sukkoth, all three names based on practices observed during those festivals rather than on aglicultural seasons and so we see that "festival of the matsoth" is a Priestly terminology.

4. We don’t find anywhere in the Bible or elsewhere that seven-day festivals were actually observed during the first temple, let alone three such festivals per year. (Since the text does not differentiate between the three festivals we are made to assume that they all last for seven days if we assume that the abib festival is seven days). Since the JE text was written during the first temple, they must have been applicable at the time of authorship and this verse can therefore not have been part of the original JE cultic calendar.

5. "for in it you emerged from Egypt" is the reason given for the observance of the Matsoth festival in the Abib season but that is inconsistent with the flow of the JE text. We see that the other festivals are tied to agricultural seasons and ONLY to agricultural seasons. Why would the JE author tie the "matsoth" festival to the historical event of Exodus while completely ignoring the association of the other festivals with any historical event in Israel’s history?

6. The implication of this verse is that Matsah is somehow unique to the abib festival but that seems to be disputed elsewhere in JE: in the cultic calendar all three annual festivals are mentioned and then laws pertaining to those festivals are enumerated and one of those is that the "sacrifice shall not be slaughtered over leavened bread". Clearly, this rule applies to the sacrifices of all three festivals and we thus see that the prohibition of chamets in JE is not peculiar to the Abib festival.

This is why I have come to the conclusion that the clause about eating matsah for seven days in the JE cultic calendar was added in by a later editor, probably from the priestly school. "as I have commanded you" refers to a command contained somewhere in the prestly code (probably Ex 12:15 since the prieslty cultic calendar Leviticus 23 hasn’t been introduced yet). The priestly writer thus deliberately edited the existing JE cultic calendar in order to produce a new and radical change: The festival of Abib is s seven day festival and not just one day and leavened bread is forbidden all seven days. Other major inventions of the priesly writer are:

Seven-day Matsoth and Sukkoth festival but only a one-day Bikkurim festival. (in J all three festivals are one-day).

Leavened bread is forbidden during the Matsoth festival, encouraged on the Bikkurim festival (the actual firstfruit grain offering brought on Bikkurim was chamets) and treated neutrally on the Sukkoth festival.

The Pesach animal sacrifice ("chag" or "zebach") is brought on the first day of the seven-day festival. (in JE the Pesach is offered on the seventh day of the Abib and Qatsir month).

The Pesach sacrifice is only offered on the matsoth festival. There is no Pesach sacrifice on other festivals; there are only communal Olah sacrifices. (in JE all three annual festivals are to be celebrated with Pesach animal sacrifices by the individual, if affordable).

The festivals are called Matsoth, Bikkurim and Sukkoth after the ritual actions required on each one of them: Eating of unleavened bread is unique to the Matsoth festival. The offering of firstfruits of the new wheat grain is unique to the Bikkurim festival and the dwelling in booths is unique to the Sukkoth festival. (In J the festivals are named after the agricultural seasons in which they are observed and the actual rituals are the same for all three except that the offerings are made from whatever produce is in season).

Matsoth and Sukkoth are on the fiteenth day of the month. Matsoth is in the first month and Sukkoth is in the seventh month. Bikkurim is an appendage to the matsoth festival just like Atsereth is an appendage to the Sukkoth festival. The only difference is that Bikkurim is celebrated seven weeks after Matsoth and Atsereth is celebrated immediately after Sukkoth. (In J, Qatsir is just as important a festival as Abib and Asiph and is NOT dependent in timing on Abib. Abib and Qatsir are observed on the seventh day after their respective agricultural season commences. Thus the Abib festival was held roughly on the seventh of Iyur and Qatsir on the seventh of Sivan. There does not seem to be a seven-day count towards the Asiph festival and so the Asiph festival was celebrated immediately upon the commence of Ingathering or anytime during the season (which is quite extensive).

individual vs national festival. The priestly festivals are national, that is the entire nation is to observe the festival on the very same day and in the manner prescribed by the Priestly code. In J, festival observance is an individual matter. Each person celebrates the festival when he is engaged in the agricultural activity to which it is attached. Thus, there is no single day during which the entire nation is convened in the central shrine in observance of a national holiday. Furthermore, J does not require the individual to offer anything specific in any given number or quantity. In J, the individual offers to yahweh whatever is seasonal in agriculture and whatever firstborn kosher animal is available for sacrifice as a Pesach.

The Pesach must be a one year old male sheep in P and does not have to be a firstborn whereas in JE the Pesach animal can be any kosher male animal of any age but it must be a firstborn. Furthermore, all firstborn animals must be dedicated to yahweh as Pesach sacrifices.
The Pesach meat is not shared with the priests in P but it is shared with the priests and with God in JE, that is, certain parts of the animal are burned on the altar and certain parts are earmarked for the priests. P does not need to require people to share the Pesach with priests for according to Priestly law firstborn animals are completely committed to them (Num 18:17-18) and so the priests had no need for Pesach meat.

2006-04-07T00:51:00.000-04:00

א כְּרָפְאִי לְיִשְֹרָאֵל וְנִגְלָה עֲוֹן אֶפְרַיִם וְרָעוֹת שֹׁמְרוֹן כִּי פָעֲלוּ שָׁקֶר וְגַנָּב יָבוֹא פָּשַׁט גְּדוּד בַּחוּץ: ב וּבַל-יֹאמְרוּ לִלְבָבָם כָּל-רָעָתָם זָכָרְתִּי עַתָּה סְבָבוּם מַעַלְלֵיהֶם נֶגֶד פָּנַי הָיוּ: ג בְּרָעָתָם יְשַֹמְּחוּ-מֶלֶךְ וּבְכַחֲשֵׁיהֶם שָֹרִים: ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ: ה יוֹם מַלְכֵּנוּ הֶחֱלוּ שָֹרִים חֲמַת מִיָּיִן מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת-לֹצְצִים: ו כִּי-קֵרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּאָרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אֹפֵהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה: ז כֻּלָּם יֵחַמּוּ כַּתַּנּוּר וְאָכְלוּ אֶת-שֹׁפְטֵיהֶם כָּל-מַלְכֵיהֶם נָפָלוּ אֵין-קֹרֵא בָהֶם אֵלָי:

Hosea 7 (NRSV translation)

1 when I would heal Israel,the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,and the wicked deeds of Samaria;for they deal falsely,the thief breaks in,and the bandits raid outside. 2 But they do not considerthat I remember all their wickedness.Now their deeds surround them,they are before my face. 3 By their wickedness they make the king glad,and the officials by their treachery. 4 They are all adulterers;they are like a heated oven,whose baker does not need to stir the fire,from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. 5 On the day of our king the officialsbecame sick with the heat of wine;he stretched out his hand with mockers. 6 For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them;all night their anger smoulders;in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. 7 All of them are hot as an oven,and they devour their rulers.All their kings have fallen;none of them calls upon me.
------------------------------------------------

The preceding verses are somewhat cryptic. It is important to note that Hosea prophesied in the Kingdom of Israel before the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrian king Sargon in 722 BCE. This sets him apart from most other prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekial who were active during the sixth century in the Kingdom of Judah. Now while it is admittedly probable that he did not write down his own prophesies and the book we have now was put to writing many years later, yet even so we can assume that the historical Hosea prophesied somewhere along the lines of the version of the book we have now. Furthermore, the book of Hosea was probably written before most other prophetic books and this explains why the abovementioned verses are so cryptic.

Verse 4

ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:

They are all adulterers; they are like a heated oven, whose baker does not need to stir the fire,from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. (NRSV)

The NRSV does not explain the Hebrew letter "mem" prefix attached to the word baker ("opheh" in Hebrew).

Another problem: The Hebrew word "me`ir" could be translated "stirrer", that is, the person who stirs the fire, or it could be translated "from stirring". The NRSV seems to go with the latter translation but I don’t find any such expression elsewhere in the bible. me`ir as stirrer is found in Isaiah 13:17, Jeremiah 50:9 and Jeremiah 51:1 - in all those instances it denotes the person who stirs (a fire and by secondary meaning strring people up to war and conquest).

Verse 5 requires further investigation. What is meant by "the day od our king". The intent of this verse is that the king and his officials are also involved in corruption. It continues from verse 3 where it states that the king and his officials are happy about the wickedness and treachery of the people, that is, they do not protest those acts and are possibly benefiting directly from such corruption in the form of bribery. I have a strong feeling that the Hebrew word "yom" (translated as day) is an error and it should instead be some verb that is a parallel to thee verb "hechelu" associated with his officials, which presumably has a root meaning sickness.

The overall point of this passage, however, is not very hard to figure out. Hosea is condeming the social iniquities practiced by the powerful. He is comparing them to a fire in the oven that burns quietly all night when it is not being used but in the morning it is stirred up so that it can be used for baking and warming. Likewise, the evildoers of Samaria are acting clandestinely. They pretend to be innocent and benevolent but when the opportunity arises they will burst out of their shell (just like the fire in the oven flares up in the morning) and attack the innocent stealing their property etc... Furthermore, in the rage of their evils they even attack their judges so that no justice can be served upon them. This is the intent of verse 7. The "kings" that are mentioned there do not refer to the corrupt kings talked about earlier who are perticipants in the corruption. Rather, they are the parallel of the "judges", namely those officials who are responsible for enforcing the law and meting out justice.

Now that we understand the overall meaning of these passages and how the wicked are compared to a simmering oven, we can examine verse 4 and 6 more closely.

MT (Masoretic text) reading:
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:

Revised reading (my educated guess):
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בְּעֵרָה מֵאַפָּהּ יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:

And the translation is:

They are all adulterers; a fire comes forth from her nostrils just like the fire that comes forth from an oven, after the stirrer has rested, from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. (italics are added for clarification and not in Hebrew).

In other words, just like the oven remains smoldering quietly while the dough is rising and then when the dough is ready to be baken, the stirrer suddenly flares up the fire, so the evildoers from Samaria pretend to be innocent and quiet and then when ready to attack, they do suddenly and unexpectedly.

The Hebrew word "be’erah" is found in the covenant code with precisely this meaning (Exodus 22:5) "the one who kindled the fire shall make restitution". It is also interesting to note the verse in Numbers 11:1:

א וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנֲנִים רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוָֹה וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָֹה וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ וַתִּבְעַר-בָּם אֵשׁ יְהֹוָה וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה:

When the people complained in the ears of the Lord about their misfortunes, Yahweh heard it His nostrils were steaming and the fire from Yahweh burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. (NRSV trsnlation with my revision)

Thus we see that a fire (be`erah) comes forth from a steaming nostril (‘aph). As you will see, we find another example of this association in verse 6.

Verse 6
ו כִּי-קֵרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּאָרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אֹפֵהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה:

For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them; all night their anger smoulders; in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. (NRSV)

Obviously, the NRSV reads the Hebrew word "be`arbam" (in their lurking/ambush) as "beqirbam" (in their midst/within them). However, it is not clear to me how it reads the first word in the verse "qarebu" which literally means "they came close". The two Hebrew words that could be translated as "they are kindled" are "yaqedu" and "ba`aru", neither of which is close in spelling to the original "qarebu".

I have therefore given it some thought and considered the possibility that be`arbam and qarebu got mixed up. be`arbam should be beqirbam and qarebu should be `arebu:

Revised reading (my educated guess)
ו כִּי-אָרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּקִרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אַפֵּהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה:

For their heart lurks inside them like an oven; their nostril is asleep all night; in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. (NRSV translation with my revision)

In the context of the passage, as explained earlier, this verse makes a lot of sense. Hosea compares the evildoer’s heart to a "lurking oven". Just like the oven lurks in ambush all night and flares up in the morning, so is their mind in ambush, that is, they think of ways to hide their aggressive and corrupt deeds so that their victims are vulnerable and unprepared.

Thus, verse 6 is a slight variation of verse 4. In verse 4, the oven simmers while the dough is rising; here the oven simmers all night. In verse 4, fire bursts forth from their nostrils when they are ready to attack just like the oven does when it is ready to accept the dough; here it is the morning that signals the burning of their nostrils just like the oven is flared up in the morning.

The clear association of `aph (nostril) and bo’er (burns) in verse 6 is strong evidence that in verse 4 it talks about `aph, a nostril and not opheh, a baker.

2006-03-21T03:34:00.000-05:00

Exodus 32

כא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן מֶה-עָשָֹה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי-הֵבֵאתָ עָלָיו חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה: כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אַל-יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת-הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא: כג וַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי עֲשֵֹה-לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ: כד וָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ-לִי וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה: כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם: כו וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהוָֹה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל-בְּנֵי לֵוִי: כז וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל שִֹימוּ אִישׁ-חַרְבּוֹ עַל-יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ-אֶת-אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת-קְרֹבוֹ:
----------------------------------------------------
There are is one verse here which is enigmatic:

כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:

Ex 32:25 When Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies, 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me!’ And all the sons of Levi gathered around him.

This is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) translation of the verse. Presumably the idea here is that the people were reveling wildly and sinfully and Moses therefore instructed his followers to kill all those who were "running wild". Under this translation, "derision of their enemies" is mentioned to illustrate how wildly drunk and light-headed they were: they were deriding their enemies in their lightheadedness.

According to Rashi the Hebrew root being used here pr‘ means "reveal/expose" and the translation of the verse is:

When Moses saw that (the disgrace of) the people had been exposed, for Aaron had exposed them, thus causing derision by their enemies, then Moses stood...

Both of these translations have their difficulties. In particular, according to Rashi, how does the Sin of the Golden Calf cause derision by the Israelite enemies, being that it’s purely a religious matter and it does not affect their enemies at all? Furthermore, what is the connection between this verse and the following verse? How does the Israelites’ expected derision by their enemies necessitate the killing of thousands of people? This is somewhat problematic according to the NRSV’s translation as well: why mention the derision of the Israelite enemies here altogether? It doesn’t seem to play any role in the event and it is not directly the cause for the civil war that follows. Moses is instructing his followers to massacre the calf worshippers because they are wild and sinful, not because they are deriding their enemies.

The very meaning of the Hebrew root pr‘ ought to be investigated better and we also should take into consideration "variants" in the text (different versions of the Hebrew biblical text) as well as similar sounding words in this chapter and elsewhere.

The NRSV seems to confuse pr‘ (peh, resh ayin) with pr’ (peh, resh, aleph). pr’ is known to mean "wild" like it says on Ismael gen 16:12 "he shall be a wild ass of a man" but pr‘ with an ayin never has such a direct meaning. Perhaps the NRSV considers the Masorete version to be a copyist error but I do not have any more information on this and so I will not give the NRSV translation any serious consideration.

Exodus 32:22 (translated by the NRSV): And Aaron said, ‘Do not let the anger of my lord burn hot; you know the people, that they are bent on evil. "on evil" is the three letter word in Hebrew br‘ an extremely similar word to pr‘ since the letter beth and the letter peh sound alike and can be easily confused. The three letter word br‘ is also present earlier in the book of Exodus 5:19 The Israelite supervisors saw that they were in trouble when they were told, ‘You shall not lessen your daily number of bricks.’ These two instances of br‘ essentially convey the same meaning since bad/evil and trouble are closely related. But is there a relation between br‘ and pr‘? Note that in both 5:19 (br‘) and in 32:25 (pr‘), the Hebrew verb for seeing is used in connection with the word. In 5:19 the Israelite supervisors see themselves in trouble and in 32:25 Moses sees that the people are exposed/wild.

וַיִּרְאוּ שֹׁטְרֵי בְנֵי-יִשְֹרָאֵל אֹתָם בְּרָע
וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא

It is therefore very tempting to suggest that pr‘ in 32:25 is a copyist’s error since the pr‘ root is found relatively infrequently in the bible and it just doesn’t seem to make much sense here. This hypothesis is further supported by the instance of the br‘ root earlier in this very chapter (32:22) when describing the very people Moses is describing here (32:25).

According to this hypothesis, the translation of 32:25 would be "when Moses saw that the people were bent on evil..." and we would still need to find some difficult translation for the remainder of the verse. I think that this makes sense as a possibility but it would require too much revision and there are better explanations which don’t require as much revision.

As you know, the LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made in the second century BCE. Since the standardization of the MT (Masoretic text) did not even start until the fifth century or so, the LXX is therefore generally more reliable than the MT.

The LXX (translated into English) reads 32:25: When Moses saw that the people were scattered --for Aaron had scattered them so as to be a rejoicing to their enemies-- then Moses stood...

Obviously, the LXX translates pr‘ to "scatter", unlike Rashi’s translation or the NRSV, but there is another major difference here. "rejoicing" is a translation of the Hebrew root šmx expressed as "lesimcha" in this verse whereas according to the Masoretes the root šmº meaning "derision/defamation" is being used and it is pronounced "leshimtsah". The intent of the verse according to the LXX is not clear but it seems that it is talking about the punishment of exile for the sin of worshipping idols. The ultimate punishment of exile and scatter among the gentiles for the sin of idolatry is a major deuteronomistic theme. Moses looks into the future and sees that the nation will suffer exile and scatter among the nations for the current and future instances of idolatry and he is trying to preclude that by having the primordial sinners executed. Rephrasing the LXX according to this understanding, it would read like this:

32:25: When Moses saw that the people were (to be) scattered --for Aaron had (caused them to be) scattered, thus providing rejoice to their enemies-- then Moses stood...

This translation has its own problems. The root pr‘ occurs infrequently and is somewhat hard to define exactly but it never means "scatter" in the narrow sense. As we will see below, pr‘ almost always relates to disheveled hair or to the conduct of a person with disheveled hair. This just leaves me wondering whether the LXX translator had a different Hebrew word than we do and if so what that might be. (the root npº is what first comes to mind but that bears very little resemblance to pr‘). Besides, the verse seems to be talking about Moses "seeing" (that is analyzing) the current situation, not about something that Moses sees preveniently to be happening in the future. We don’t find the verb "seeing" apply to a prophetic vision by Moses, elsewhere in the HB.

This is why I have come up with my own translation of this verse based on the assumption that "leshimtsah" should be read "lesimchah", which I will explain below. But first I will discuss the background for the Golden Calf episode as detailed by the E author in this chapter and the meaning of the root pr‘ elsewhere in the Bible.

There are several tough questions about the Golden Calf episode.

If "all the sons of Levi" (Ex 32:26) heeded Moses’ call for arms against the idolators, then by killing their "brothers" and "relatives" (32:27) they would essentially be killing co-fighters and that doesn’t sound right. This would be the equivalent of the president of the United States of America calling on his troops to fight other troops within their very own division, which doesn’t make much sense, especially unprovoked as the case is here.

The similarities between the Golden Calf episode and the deeds of the first Israelite king Jeroboam are astounding. Jeroboam had just seceded from the southern Davidic kingdom and was looking to solidify his subjects’ loyalty to him. In an attempt to set up northern centers of worship so that northerners need not go to the Davidic Jerusalem to worship, he introduced the worship of bulls in his kingdom. He set up one shrine at Dan in the north and one at Bethel in the south, he placed golden bulls in them and said "Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." (1kings 12:28) Some years later, Elijah punishes the idolatrous Israelites by taking them down to the river and having them slaughtered there (1kings 18:40) just like Moses did in our episode. Is all this coincidence or there’s something more to this?

What accounts for the two modes of executing the idolators? First, Moses takes the idolators to the river, grinds the golden statue and spreads its dust over the water and then has them drink the water and die. Then he calls the yahwists to arms and has all the idolators massacred.

The golden calf episode is an E document, first put to writing in the northern kingdom in the eighth century BCE by the yahwist party. At the time, the vast majority of the priesthood and did not belong to the yahwist party. In fact, Elijah, Elisha and Hosea are the only known Northern yahwists and the Deuteronomist pictures them as facing overwhelming opposition. Thus we have the idolatrous party, initiated by Jeroboam and his priests who are quite successful and confident in their success and then we have the yahwist party, small, isolated and on the brink of vanishing forever. But then something amazing happens. After Jehu becomes king, all the Baal priests are invited to a solemn assembly ("atsarah") to feast and worship the Baal in Samaria. Jehu makes sure that only Baal priests participate and he then instructs the eighty guards stationed outside the temple complex to come in and kill the Ball priests. In the midst of all the revelry and when they least expected it, the Baal priests were brutally murdered, thus inaugurating a new era for the yahwists. From then on, the yahwists grew stronger and stronger until the destruction of Israel when they migrated south and joined Judah.

In light of these historical events, I see the golden calf episode written by these northern priests shortly after Jehu’s extermination of the Baal priests as simply another "etiological episode". Etiological episodes are not necessarily true in every detail, but rather serve to explain the current socio-political and religious situation. As precedents to current realities they are likely to have occurred in one way or another. However, the details of such events do not reflect the truth. Rather, they are highly idealized to depict what past events are expected to be like, based on the current reality. The parallels between historical events and idealized etiologies are quite clear:

Elijah represents the yahwist flag-bearer after the Northern kingdom had been established. Moses represents the chief yahwist before the Israelites conquered Canaan and he is believed to have first introduced yahwism while the Israelites were slaves in Egypt (borrowing from Ikhnaton perhaps?)

Elijah is having trouble getting people to accept yahwism and almost gets himself killed in the process. Moses likewise is having a hard time introducing monotheism and almost gets himself killed ("a bit more and they will stone me").

Elijah goes 40 days without drinking and then receives a revelation from yahweh in Horeb. Moses goes 40 days without eating or drinking and then receives the tablets of the law at Horeb.

A "civil war" in the time of Jehu catches the idolators by surprise while in the midst a pagan feast. The yahwists prevail and the Baal worshippers are wiped out. A "civil war" in the time of Moses catches the idolators by surprise while attending a special feast for the bull-god and the yahwists among the priests prevail over the non-yahwist priests and massacre them.

Elisha has the idolatrous priests taken to the river Qishon and slaughtered there, after he demonstrates that only yahweh is the true God answering his call for fire and rain. Moses burns the golden calf, grinds it to dust, spreads it over the water (of a local river?) and gives to the idolators to drink and die (Ex 32:20).

I am sure that there are many more parallels but these are enough to make my point: the golden calf episode is a projection back in time and its details were designed to replicate the realities of later stages in Israelite history. It’s as if the yahwist is saying: I am not coming up with anything new; all this has already happened in the past thus providing an iron-clad precedent for the yahwist tradition!

Accordingly, "all the sons of Levi" is either a late revision by a copyist or an illogical attempt by the author to make yahwism seem universal among the priesthood even though he himself contradicts himself (perhaps unintentionally) moments later by saying that some Levite relatives were among the massacred and thus among the idol worshippers. If we search among the historical parallels to the golden calf episode, we never find any point in time when "all the priesthood" was yahwist (and if we did find such a case then there would be no need to massacre any idolators anyway for there cannot be a religious cult without a priesthood).

What really happened here is a civil war. Even though the Bible does not say that those massacred fought back, this is self understood. It is also likely that those people were backed militarily by Aharon in the ensuing battle, even though Aharon is said to be apologetic at one point, saying that "the calf emerged" (without his involvement). There was a religious conflict among the Levites (who, by the way, are likely to have been the only tribe to ever be in Egypt) as to what the proper way of worshipping the deity/deities is. Details of this ancient religious conflict are hard to reconstruct since the entire episode is etiological, that is, it serves to explain the current realities (eighth century BCE in the Northern Kingdom) and so it is by definition heavily slanted to conform with current realities. If the "bad guys" in the eyes of the 8th century BCE Yahwist party are idol worshippers (golden calves at Dan and Bethel) then the bad guys in Moses’ days are also depicted as idol worshippers. Aharon headed the idolatrous party and Moses headed the yahwist party.

Why was Aharon chosen as the villain and Moses as the hero? Simple! The Judahite priesthood descendent from ºadoq traced their ancestry to "Aharon" and only ºadoq descendants were allowed to serve in the Solomonic temple. Abiathar and his descendants who traced their ancestry to Eli the priest from Shiloh and Moses, were ousted from the Judahite priesthood by Solomon because they supported his rival Adonijah. Abiathar and his descendants, naturally ended up settling in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (since they couldn’t serve in the south) even thought they didn’t quite get accepted into the Northern priesthood either. Aharon was therefore the perfect villainous character for the heretic priest in the Golden Calf saga and Moses was the perfect heroic character.

Now lets return to the question of the meaning of pr’ for a moment. As mentioned earlier, this root does not occur often in the earliest biblical documents.

מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם: כו וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר
ex 32:25 When Moses saw that the people were running wild (for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies),
---------------------------------------
רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל-תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא-תִפְרֹמוּ וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה יִקְצֹף
lev 10:6 And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Do not dishevel your hair, and do not tear your vestments,
------------------------------------------------------
אֶת-הַבְּגָדִים אֶת-רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם
lev 21:10 ... shall not dishevel his hair, nor tear his vestments (sign of mourning)
---------------------------------
אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וּפָרַע אֶת-רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה
num 5:18 The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair...
----------------------------------
לַיהוָֹה קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְֹעַר רֹאשׁוֹ:
num 6:5 they shall let the locks of the head grow long.
----------------------------
בָּאָה וְעָשִֹיתִי לֹא-אֶפְרַע וְלֹא-אָחוּס וְלֹא אֶנָּחֵם כִּדְרָכַיִךְ וְכַעֲלִילוֹתַיִךְ שְׁפָטוּךְ נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהֶוִֹה:
ezek 24:14 I the Lord have spoken; the time is coming, I will act. I will not refrain, I will not spare, I will not relent.
-------------------------
וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ כָּסוֹם יִכְסְמוּ אֶת-רָאשֵׁיהֶם:
ezek 44:20 They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long; they shall only trim the hair of their heads.
--------------------------
יח בְּאֵין חָזוֹן יִפָּרַע עָם וְשֹׁמֵר תּוֹרָה אַשְׁרֵהוּ:
prov 29:18 Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint,but happy are those who keep the law.
--------------------------
ב בִּפְרֹעַ פְּרָעוֹת בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל בְּהִתְנַדֵּב עָם בָּרְכוּ יְהֹוָה:
judg 5:2 ‘When locks are long in Israel, when the people offer themselves willingly, bless the Lord!
------------------------------------------
מב אַשְׁכִּיר חִצַּי מִדָּם וְחַרְבִּי תֹּאכַל בָּשָֹר מִדַּם חָלָל וְשִׁבְיָה מֵרֹאשׁ פַּרְעוֹת אוֹיֵב:
deut 32:42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,and my sword shall devour flesh—with the blood of the slain and the captives,from the long-haired enemy.
------------------------------------------------
כה וַתִּפְרְעוּ כָל-עֲצָתִי וְתוֹכַחְתִּי לֹא אֲבִיתֶם:
prov 1:25 and because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
--------------------------------------
יד בְּאֹרַח רְשָׁעִים אַל-תָּבֹא וְאַל-תְּאַשֵּׁר בְּדֶרֶךְ רָעִים: טו פְּרָעֵהוּ אַל-תַּעֲבָר-בּוֹ שְֹטֵה מֵעָלָיו וַעֲבוֹר:
prov 4:15 Avoid it; do not go on it; turn away from it and
----------------------------------
לב וְעַתָּה בָנִים שִׁמְעוּ-לִי וְאַשְׁרֵי דְּרָכַי יִשְׁמֹרוּ: לג שִׁמְעוּ מוּסָר וַחֲכָמוּ וְאַל-תִּפְרָעוּ:
prov 8:33 Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the aforementioned list of pr’ instances, most are post exilic. The following are ancient Hebrew and were most likely first written down before the 587 BCE exile:

ex 32:25
judg 5:2
deut 32:42

Clearly in Leviticus, Numbers and Ezekiel 44:20 pr’ means to dishevel hair. The Priestly writer forbids a priest from disheveling his hair as an act of mourning for the dead, for a priest ought not defile himself by having any engagements with the dead. In other cases pr’ seems to be used in a broader way to indicate actions that a person with disheveled hair does or is expected to do. This seems to be the meaning of pr’ in the three ancient documents mentioned above as well Ezekiel 24:14.

Basically, disheveled hair can indicate one of two things: 1- an act of mourning. The person does not care about anything and has lost interest in living a normal productive life and is demonstrating this state of mind by the unrestrained disheveling of hair (as if there is nothing to worry about and there is no tomorrow), tearing of garments etc... 2 - an act of revelry. The person is showing unbridled lust (party like there’s no tomorrow). If it’s a girl, the act indicates "I am available and lustful, don’t be ashamed to come forward and grab me". This is why Rebecca took a scarf and covered herself once she married Isaac. The priest dishevels the hair of a woman who is suspected of adultery so that everyone sees that she is promiscuous and willing to sleep with anyone who comes along.

In Proverbs pr’ has the connotation of avoid/neglect/ignore but we don’t see such a connotation anywhere else in the bible. In all other cases pr’ as a noun denotes long disheveled locks of hair and as a verb means to expose and dishevel one’s hair. It seems that the use of pr’ in Proverbs as well as Ezekiel 24:14 is in the broader sense of the word, namely to act carelessly / neglect.

Now that we understand the meaning of pr’ in all the other instances we can return to the ancient document at hand. In all three cases pr’ is used in the broad sense of acting in an unbridled/careless way, which is personified by the person who dishevels his hair out of revelry. In Judges, it is talking about Israelites disheveling their long hair out of rejoice in defeating their enemy (Jabin, king of Hazor). In Deuteronomy, the "long-haired enemy" is mentioned because he is confident and unsuspecting and therefore vincible by a surprise attack. Likewise, in Exodus we are talking about Israelites who are partying unrestrainedly in front of their idol and thus easily vincible by their enemies through a surprise attack.

Moses is seeing that Aharon has allowed his people to be "disheveled", that is they have left their guard down in the course of their feasting and so he wisely decides that this is the time to strike at Aharon’s people, the idolators. Remember what we have concluded above: this is a civil war among the levites. Some levites are yahwists and follow Moses (Elijah, Elisha etc...) but most of them follow the idolatrous Aharon (the Baal priests). Under normal circumstances it would be hard for the yahwists to overcome the idolators but now that they are "disheveled" is the perfect time to strike and so he called his followers to arms.

The Masorete reading is ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:

Our reading is ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פְרָעָהוּ אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְחָה בְּקֻמֵיהֶם:
Or it could be ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֹעַ פְרָעָהוּ אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְחָה בְּקֻמֵיהֶם:

And the translation is When Moses saw that Aharon had disheveled the people upon their rise to rejoice, then Moses stood...

"rising to rejoice" is mentioned in an earlier verse (32:6) "the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel".

I prefer my first reading, according to which there is "duplicate phrase" copyist error, the duplicate phrase here being the words "ki pare’ghahu". Such kind of errors are found elsewhere in the bible (I don’t remember where offhand) whereby a scribe simply mistakenly writes down the same phrase twice. According to my alternative reading, the first mention of pr’ is a noun and is made to emphasize the verb. This kind of expression is extremely common in the bible and the intent here is that Moses saw that Aharon’s people were extremely disheveled. In fact, in Judges 5:2 the pr’ verb is written in such "emphasis duplicate" form.

2006-03-04T21:08:00.001-05:00

Acting in Self Defense

It is common sense that when acting in self-defense, one is justified to commit some major violations of other people's rights. In fact, if your very life is being threatened, I think most people will agree that you are entitled to kill another human, if that's what it takes to remove the threat. The question therefore is, where do we draw the line? Are we to carry a pistol and shoot to death anyone who annoys us, however minutely? Or, are we to sit idly by and do nothing while our rights, financial entitlements and sometimes our lives are being threatened, because the law says that we're not supposed to be violent?

Before I proceed, let me make it clear that the law is meaningless when it comes to these matters. Common law is vital for a successful society to exist and someone who has no regard for the law of the land will invariably not be able to survive. But does the law always act in our best interest?

My car was once parked on a Brooklyn street some two years ago on a street-cleaning day and I got a ticket, as occurred countless times prior. But there was one major thing different that day. There was no sign on that entire block posting the street cleaning rules (SCR). The ticket wasn't that much and perhaps it would have been easier for me to pay it off rather than bother fighting it but being as I am -an extremely principled person- I decided to fight it. I took several high-res 8x10 pictures of the ENTIRE block from various angles and I presented them to the judge. Those pictures clearly showed that there was no SCR sign. Yet the judge denied my appeal claiming that the pictures were inadequate.

I was playing 10-20 Holdem in Play Station once and I posted my big blind while a gypsy asshole to my left was raking in the pot. He raked my $10 big blind in together with his pot. When I tried to get my money back, he wouldn't hear it. He was insistent that it was his money and that I never posted the blind. The floorperson ultimately sided with him and I had to post again.

These are just two among many examples where I was clearly wronged. In these two cases, there wasn't much I could do to make things right and so I swallowed the bullet and moved on with life. But the real question here is: am I "supposed" to put up with these just because there is no way I can legally fight them? If there was a way to reverse these wrongs, how far am I justified to go in doing so? The answer might surprise you!

When it comes to personal decisions, "common law" is irrelevant. What matters is how to serve your best interests while imposing the minimal injury or damage upon others. And the reason we try to avoid injuring others if possible is simply because it is not economical to do so. Each and every person on this planet serves and important role in the overall welfare of the global civilization. Evolution has worked extremely hard over Billions of years to create this marvelous creature we call "human" and it is therefore imprudent to "do away" with any human we dislike. In other words: it might be in our own best long-term interest to let the gypsy asshole and the unscrupulous judge --and other people like these-- live. Even if they don't serve my immediate best interest, they might do so in the future or they might be important to people who are important to me, thus indirectly acting out a constructive role in my life. It is also important to note that people are naturally kind and cooperative. If and when they act in a hostile manner it is usually due to a perceived threat. Thus even though the gypsy thief and the inept judge are hurting me, they are not doing so in premeditated, deliberate manner. In other words, they are not going out of their way to rob me or pervert justice. In other aspects of their lives --I am sure-- they serve some very useful roles. They might have loving wives, good children, productive jobs etc... Yet, even these guys only narrowly escape the death sentence if I had to judge and act according to my "personal law" (which is admittedly non-binding).

People who Deserve the Death Sentence

Do not be afraid to mete out the death penalty to your enemies! Remember that the nurse who saved Hitler's life when he was a baby was acting "mercifully" while in fact creating the biggest monster the world had ever seen. That act was not mercy; it was an act of hatred. Mercy would have been to take the baby and smother him to death, thus saving the lives of tens of millions of innocents.

People who continuously engage in behavior that is detrimental to the average person, do not have the license to live. With their "license to live" revoked, they are walking targets and may theoretically be shot to death at the hands of any person suffering under their wicked actions. It's really a question of weighing the person's pros and cons. If he is engaged in too much negative behavior and not enough positive behavior (not just towards you), then they have no right to live.

One example that easily comes to mind are traffic cops. These people often do nothing other than lurking on the side of the road waiting to pounce upon a speeding motorist. They do this on the first of the month, on the 15th and on the 30th, in the morning, afternoon and evening; that's all they ever do. If you get caught speeding or committing any traffic infraction, it does not matter how lenient the circumstances are or whether the intent of the law was for such a particular act to be illegal, they WILL give you a hefty summons (between $180 and $300 on the Garden State Parkway, NJ), no questions asked and no pleas for forgiveness accepted.

Are they providing any benefit to the common people? Absolutely not! Speeding is not the cause of accidents or any other harm to other people (and neither is not wearing a seat belt). These cops are essentially trying to raise money for the local town by unjustly accusing speeding motorists of committing a violation of the common good. There is, in fact, no violation of the common good in speeding; there is just one thing: municipalities and their cop agents lining their pockets by robbing innocent people at gunpoint; that's essentially what it is since if you don't pay the ticket you get your driver's license and registration revoked.

This case is more severe --in my opinion-- than the previous two cases even though these cops seem extremely innocent and are supposedly acting within the framework of the law. The key incriminating factor here is that they do nothing else and they make a deliberate attempt to inflict harm on many innocent people. It's one thing if they helped some people and hurt others or if they stopped drivers who were really out of control. As it is, however, circumstances are irrelevant to them. Their mission is to "trap" speeding motorists by a fluke of the law. If you have a loaded gun in your car when you get pulled over and know that you could avoid State "retribution" for your justified cop murder in self-defense, then the correct thing for you to do is shoot him right in the head and take off. If enough people will do this, then these bandits will eventually learn to leave motorists alone. Palestinians fought Israelis for years and the Israelis finally realized that the best thing is "disengagement"; just leave your enemy alone. Hopefully, those criminal cops will disengage as well.

Some of the other outrageous tickets I received are listed below:

I was waiting in line for a toll booth at the Verrezano Bridge. The car in front of me was stopped at the booth and was not moving for a prolonged time. I noticed this from afar and so I hesitated while approaching him from behind, so as to be able to switch to another lane if he is indeed "stuck" or there is some other problem. The cop pulled me aside and cited me for "obstruction of traffic".

On Feb 12 2006 on a Saturday night while returning to Brigantine, NJ from Brooklyn, NY on a snowy and slippery night, I skidded on the GSP, I mistakenly braked in panic, spun out of control, slammed into a tree and totaled my car. Instead of sympathizing with my plight, the cop cited me for "careless driving" (a 4-point violation) and never asked if I was okay or offered me the warmth of his vehicle while I was waiting for the tow truck (40 minutes) in my cold shattered-rear-window car.

These are the kind of cops who deserve the death penalty, albeit it is unenforceable!