Gaza

The usual tripe is coming forth from the woodwork: Israel is massacaring the Palestinians; Israel has a right to defend itself; the U.N. only complains when Israel fights back, not when Hamas serves the first volley; the occupation is a crime against humanity. Etc., etc., etc.

This disdainful excersize only proves what we all already knew: political discussion is not about rational argument, it's about partisan tribalism. Whenever the lines were drawn, the camps seem clear: Israel can do no wrong, Israel can do no right; the Palestinians can do no wrong, the Palestinians can do no right. But these are reflexive reactionary stances, not positions held consciously. Lip service is high on the agenda for the partisan supporter of each 'cause.' Judging by the actual implications of each position, however, it is opaque that these reservations are nothing more than window-dressing; shrift attempts to placate the great god of pc public opinion.

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (anti-Arabism?) are not the motivations of such narrow opinions, but often are the result. Naivite deludes us into casting motivation in the mold of result. But that simply distracts from the actual issues at stake. Screaming anti-Semitism and Islamophobia when we aren't dealing with intentional anti-Semites or Islamophobes is not only pointless, it is self-defeating. There is no quicker way to make sure that your opinions are discounted as nothing more than over-exuberant red herrings than to consistently miss the point. Where malicious intent is not present, accusation thereof are heard as nothing more than white noise.

But let's not confuse the argument for rational dialouge. Rationality may play a significant part in the dialectic. It helps the natives get from point A to B to B1, B2, and B3. But it doesn't give the support for point A. Obviously this is a stickfigure drawing of how positions and preferences progress. There are mulitple point 'A's in any person's thought that lead the procession. But the gist is rationality is not the name of the game. It's not surprising, then, that rational argument doesn't lead to dissuasion.

This skepticism sounds odd, however. Moral reletavism is just a dangerous as extremist certitude. Moral reletavism buys into certain aspects of the extremist mentality in that it is totalizing and meaning imposing, even if only in negative senses. Extremism says that only one option is viable- it denies your choice. Relativism says that no options are viable- it denies your choice.

In our case, particularly, reletavism seems to offer no help. Saying that the Palestinians and Israelis are equal is meaningless and impractical. Meaningless as it illicts the question why one would bother offering an opinon at all; impractical as moral reletavism never seems to lead to a neutral opinion. If it ever does, the opinion then becomes meaningless. This is not to mention all the absurd vacilation that doubt leads to.

The remaining option, then, is to pick a side and understand why that side was chosen. Not to merely soldier on. Nor to ignore the humanity of the other side. Not to forget the reasons for acting in the first place, but to judge the actions constantly and vigilantly.

Hamas is a terrorist group. That doesn't make everything it does irrational. Israel has the right to defend itself. That doesn't make everything it does permissable.

This is not an opinion. This is the merely the frame. Where the pieces fall is another story.

This is not a call to abandon your post, to throw down arms and to forget brethren. It is not a choice between the extremes of everything being equal, and forgetting the other. It is a choice between totalizing blindness, and guarded reserve. It is a call for rational prudence.

Offensive titles n' such

I find this yahoo! article title extremely curious. As clearly stated within the article, it is Arab diplomats who have presented the jewlery to Miss Rice. A title claiming that 'Arab' are the ones lavishing the gifts seems to imply that either some random Arabs off the streets are ponying up or that there is some diplomatic entity known as Arabia. To the best of my knowledge, the Arab League enjoys no such international consideration.

Palin's teen daughter is pregnant.

No, I don't really care about a teenage girl's indiscretions. She can do what she wants, well, as long as nobody gets hurt. However, I wonder how this will frame the issues in the upcoming elections. As I mentioned in a previous post, John McCain's appointment of Sarah Palin for VP is not about substance per se, but about manipulating the debate. Rather than the media focusing on the fact that Obama isn't well, white, the media can now focus on the fact that Palin isn't well, male. Although these facts could cancel each other out, and leave only substantive issues in their wake, the likelihood is that Palin's being a woman will be a prime topic.

The news that her daughter is pregnant likewise has the power to tune debate. The possible smears against the family are obvious, but an issue driven backlash is also likely. From the Democratic side, Bristol Palin will literally be the poster girl for the failed moral applicability of Republican sentiments. It doesn't take talking about sex for kids to want to have sex- they want, and are going, to have it either way.

But, the news was leaked by the Republicans, and for a reason: abortion. Much larger than the issues of the pill, sex-ed and the distribution of condoms, abortion looms as one of the most contentious issues in the country. Much as the Democrats can spin Bristol as the poster girl for sex-ed, the Republican party can use her as the poster girl for anti- abortion sentiment, if not legislation. A teenage pregnancy is one the more easily justifiable types of abortion, and yet abortion is out of bounds for the Palin family.

Expect this, like previous presidential elections, to be about flash, and not substance.

Republican Jewish Coalition kvetches about Palin's nomination.

Say this in a New York Jewish accent:

"Senator Lieberman and Representative Cantor would also have been excellent choices," said RJC spokeswoman Suzanne Kurtz, but McCain's nominee was just as good.

My, what Jewish humor does to any quote.

McCain ensures that American voters are either.....

In a stunningly weird move John McCain has ensured that this campaign won't be about the issues, and will be about whether one is a racist or a sexist. In choosing the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, McCain has shown that it is fluff and not policy or credentials that make the most importance to his campaign. Part of Obama's strength (and weakness) is in his 'novelty' of being black. What better a PR move for the McCain campaign than to ensure his campaign is also the focus of novelty- although a chihuahua might have been more original, as Geraldine Ferraro already ran on the Dukakis ticket back when I was born- rather than substance.

The question, simply put, is who is Palin? She's a novice, so her appointment clearly has nothing to do with augmenting McCain's stand, diversifying his stance on issues, or moving him more towards the center. And unlike the benefit of newcomer status to the Obama campaign, a political newbie taking on the VP will be seen as inherently subordinate to the President- especially one with longstanding credentials such as John McCain has. Fresh blood isn't what McCain wants to bring into his campaign, just a fresh pair of stockings.

Indeed, Yahoo! already has news items up asking whether Palin will cause Clinton supporters to go to McCain. McCain was already well entrenched within the bitter masses of the Clinton wing, so what is it that will sway voters on account of Palin? He already has the 'issues' people, now he's going to get everyone who was going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Because, guess what, now you get to be either a sexist or a racist.

Zimbabwe's hyperinflation.

Yahoo! equivocation at its finest. The ecomonic crisis in Zimbabwe is not related to the U.S.'s financial woes, but if you just looked at the headlines you wouldn't realize that there was at best only a tangential relation. Mind you, it is important to note that while Americans are paying more than ever for gas, they are still doing it with about 4 dollars, and 100 billion dollar bills...

Who let the dorks out?

Who? Who?

Translations

I love your accent:
(where appropriate) You're foreign, let's sleep together
(where the previous one was not) Wow, you conform to all my stereotypes about your country. If you don't, you do.

You know, I don't hate (insert race/religion/ethnicity/gender) but...:
You know, I really f***ing hate (said race/religion/ethnicity/gender) but I've been told that people don't listen to racists anymore.

My Black/Jewish/Arab/Asian/Muslim/Christian friend told me....:
I have no friends, except this minority dude cause all the whities realize that racism is outdated. F*** them.

Fast Food:
Fat Food

Hello:
Let's make out
or
Hello. (but probably the first one....)

G-d Bless America:
'Cause, like, we need him to pick up our slack....

Why bother being Philosemetic...

if all it means is to be against antisemitism?

If the state of the Jews is so paltry that even a lover of Jews has nothing positive to say about them, then surely we need to take back what's ours. Introducing my new blog: Pioneering a New Judaism.

Links: http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/
http://anewjudaism.blogspot.com/

From Simply Jews:

Being unaware of the existence of Jews, the ancient Maya ascribed all their misfortunes to the dark forces of nature.

Government can always be trusted

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080413-red-light-camera-monkey-business-may-be-a-national-trend.html

Homer attacks!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_nuclear_napping_dc

" 'Two Israelis die' on Gaza border"

That's the headline of the BBC. How did they die? Did they have heart attacks? Or the Ebola virus? Is there an outbreak of Ebola in Israel- otherwise why is this news?

Oh wait....this was part of a terrorist attack by Palestinians on Jews, and that's why its news. So, tell me again why it doesn't say 'killed'? Are terrorist attacks on Jews now considered natural causes?

As for the those murdered, BD'H.

Update: Yes, they've changed it now. I need to learn how to screen shot, etc.

Update: See HonestReporting for some more background. Heh, you thought I was just making it up, didn't you?

May his name be sanctified

יתגדל ויתקדש שמיה רבה

שוכן ממרום עלה ונתעלה

פושט יד לאביונום ונותן להם התקווה

ומקים את עמך אשר בם בחרת

ושרתי עוד ישמע בערי יהודה

וראיתי כל העם צהלה ושמחה

אבל רוצה לשאול איכה

May His name be magnified and sanctified

He dwells upon high, higher and higher

He extends his hand to the destitute and gives to them 'The Hope'

And He establishes his nation that in them He has chosen

And I've sung 'May it be heard in the cities of Judah'

And I saw the whole nation 'Cheerful and Happy'

But I would like to ask, however, 'Where are you?'

I'm not gonna take it, King Koopa!

Finally, my feet are planted.

פסיעות רגלי

סוף סוף מגעיים ארצי

אולי יתמו נדודי

סוף סוף אל השמים אשא כפי

כי עד כאן ניטעו רגלי

ואהלל את אדוני

כי שלם את אשר נשבע לאבותי

The steps of my feet

Are finally reaching my land

Perhaps my wanderings will finish

Finally towards the heavens I will lift my hands

For until now my feet were not planted

And I will praise the Lord

For he has fulfilled what he swore to my fathers

G-d why have you?

אלי אלי למה עזבתני

האם נטרח בעולה תמימה ושכחתני

ענית אבותי ולא עניתני

האם גם כן הלכת

כי איפה השבוע שנשבעת

אוכל נרדם אולי מספר

הרבה ארבה את זרעכם עד לא יסופר

בימי הצורך יגעתי ולא נמצאת

בקשתי אלי נא ענה ושקטת

אולי אמתין עוד מעט ותלמידני

כי חשבתי שחשקתני

כי עכשיו נראה רק שכזבתני

My G-d, my G-d, why have you forsaken me?

Are you too busy with your perfect offering, that you’ve forgotten me?

You answered my fathers, but you did not answer me

Have you also went-

For where is the promise that you made-

Are you eating, sleeping, perhaps talking?

‘I will surely increase your offspring until they cannot be counted’

In the days of need, I strained, but you were not to be found

I pleaded ‘My G-d, please answer me,’ but you were silent

Perhaps I should wait a little more and then you will teach me

For I thought that you want me

Because right now it seems only that you lied to me.

Quick Purim sound bytes, for Purim Party '08

1) Our sages say that when the Messiah comes all holidays will become irrelevant, but Purim will not. Purim is the day of complete ecstatic joy, the only holiday fitting to be retained in the days of joy that the Messiah will bring.

2) The story of Esther, on which this holiday is based, is crouched in confusion, contradiction and mystery. Esther hides her identity, G-d hides himself from the story, and Haman’s plan to defeat us turns on its head. Thus, Purim becomes a day where everything is backwards, the day where we hide ourselves in costume, and where

3) Our sages ask a question: if the Jews had been exiled from their land, did they have any obligation towards G-d? Does a wife have any obligation to a husband that has divorced her? On Purim we realized that though G-d hides his face from us, He has not abandoned us. His hand in history is subtle, but present.

4) On Purim we are told that all who extend their hand- we give to them. Under the King’s decree not only were our lives at risk, but so was our belongings. Faced with the realization that wealth and means are fleeting, we heartily offer our bounty to those who have less

5) The gallows that Haman makes for Mordechai are the very same ones that he is hung upon himself. In his vicious quest for vengeance against Mordechai, Haman failed to realize that his malicious plans had the potential for turning against him. Indeed, Haman’s demise catapults Mordechai political career. What was once evil, is now good- showing us that we don’t really know the story until the end.

6) The name Purim comes from the word Pur, lots. These are the lots that Haman cast to determine his date for his killing-spree. When we get drunk we throw our fate in the wind again. Hopefully it won’t take us too far away from the bar.....

Wonder what the difference is?

There are two 'provactions' going on between the West Bank Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. They lead to different results in world opinion. I wonder why?

Israel has continued its wretched building the West Bank, with homes approved 8 years ago (and you thought English bureaucracy was bad) but that is sabotaging the peace process.

But, when a Jerusalem Arab kills 8 students (7 of them 18 or under) everyone declares how the peace process must continue.

Which is the bigger provocation?

Forgetting who is right and wrong in this issue (and for now it is important to) why is building housing in already existing settlements (actually more like cities; settlements makes you think of the wild west) worse than violating territorial sovereignty and murdering 8 students within land that is completely undisputed?

Nozick's Knowledge and Skepticism

Nozick’s paper, Knowledge and Skepticism is divided between those two areas:

Section 1, Knowledge:

In Nozick’s account, knowledge is still

1) p

2) Bp

However, the simplest form of the truth tracking replaces Jp with 2 clauses:

3) ¬pà ¬Bp. Where à is subjunctive as opposed to material. Material conditional is satisfied if right now when ¬p then ¬Bp, à is satisfied only if both right now, and in other possible situations ¬p then ¬Bp. This clause is a way of formalizing a casual connection between facts and belief. It shows stipulates that knowledge varies according to the facts.

4) pà(Bp&¬B¬p) (the extra clause to take care of where there are contradictory beliefs) This clause also shows that connection: it shows that knowledge adheres to the facts.

Clause 3) takes care of the Gettier counterexamples, but why 4)?

-Brain in Vat, whose knowledge of BiV is induced by scientist.

-news of dictator’s death by assassination suppressed.

[Would this cover a case of belief instilled by a god? (see next section, but how does it relates to Brain in Vat case as excluded above?)]

However, this is not Nozick’s final formula:

2) Bp via M(ethod), or BMp

3) (¬p & BM’p’)à ¬BMp. Where ‘p’ indicates whether or not p

4) (p&BM’p’)à BMp

The new clauses are to clarify cases where had you not used M you would not have believed P, such as where he only gets information via a book or the grandmother case.

However, what do we do in the case that something is a) over-determined b)situational multiple methods (i.e. p->BM₁p _, ¬p->BM₂p).......?

Section 2, Skepticism:

This section is not aimed at refuting the skeptic, rather showing that knowledge is possible even given what he says. But, he divides the sceptical issue into 4 sections:

A. Denying condition 3

This is the normal sceptical issue: how are we justified in believing p if we may be BiV. Put in Nozick’s terms there is a world in which even if p were not true, I would still believe it. But he objects that we needn’t rule out all possible worlds.

Nozick claims that the skeptic’s aim to say that we do not meet condition 3 (maybe it’s just to deny p?), because even if someone was a BiV they still might believe that they were not. To this Nozick retorts that 3 need not be true in every case that p is false, rather just in the closest cases (again, as all condition 3 needs to do is to show that there is a connection between p’s being true or false, and your believing it)

B. Denying p

But, this is not the skeptic’s only problem: What if we truly don’t know that we are not BiV, then surely we don’t know p either because K(p->q) [closure principle]

Nozick’s answer here is straightforward in content, but tricky in terms of explanation. He denies the closure principle. Why? Because knowledge varies according to facts, and the closure principle does not. When p is in the question the issue is not only if one does believe p, but also if one would believe p. However, we are not asking if one would believe q (i.e.¬BiV) and we are therefore willing to separate knowledge of q from p. This is the case because condition 3 for knowledge is not closed, thereby making knowledge in general unable to be closed.

Shouldn’t the closure principle serve as sort of a litmus test for knowledge at all? But if so, then we are adding another condition to knowledge, and this is exactly Nozick’s objection- that the conditions of K vary according to P..... and closure does not....

C. Denying condition 4

Nozick offers another issue: what if the skeptic’s arguments could sway you at any time? Then surely you don’t fulfil condition 4, as your knowledge ought to be of sterner stuff. Nozick concedes the point that if a person were able to be convinced by such arguments, then right now he does not have K.

D. Questioning the method

How do you know that your method is good? Suppose you want to use a certain method to question that method. You couldn’t do so where trying to fulfil condition 3, as you can’t use a method to know what would happen if you weren’t using that method. As Nozick clarifies, however, this would happen (probably) only with a very broad M. Otherwise, one could simply use another specific m to verify.

Isn’t this problematic though- if we need to verify that we are using M, then surely this triggers another infinite regress...? Why not just say we Know p via M even where we do not ‘know’ in the strong sense that M.

Is the Torah true- if not why be Jewish?

When talking about whether the ‘Torah is true’ we need to realize that this question consists of a few subquestions:

1) Did the events happen the way the Torah describes them? i.e., is the text reliable

2) Did G-d, in any sense, give the Torah to us?

2) What is the reason, if there is any, that I should follow the Torah?

Obviously, some of these questions overlap- if G-d gave us the Torah, that would be a reason to keep it. However, question 2 seems like the most pointed question, and also the most elusive. Attempting to ‘prove that G-d did x’ is almost as hard as proving that ‘because of x, therefore G-d.’

Why almost, and not just? Because Judaism would presuppose that G-d exists. If he does, then he already becomes a materially possible explanation for events, rather than simply a logically possible explanation. However, to assume that an event was caused by G-d one needs more than just the possibility, one needs proof, or at least reference to the best explanation.

Here is a famous ‘proof’

1. The Torah claims that there were 600,000 men between 20-60 at Sinai, so about 2 million people total.

2. We are their direct descendants

3. If 1 happened, then our ancestors would tell us

4. If someone told us 1, and our ancestors had not told us, we would not believe them

5. Therefore, since we do believe it (i.e. it’s at least in the Torah) it could not be made up, because no one would have accepted it.

Coupled with this proof is the assertion that Judaism is the only religion to ever claim mass revelation

1) Other unique claims:

a. Jesus as god- what about Krishna? ( Are we sure he lived?) is it significant that he was an avatar, not ‘god’? what about the pharaohs?

b. Is it significant that we are talking about revelation?

2) Counterexamples:

a. Mahabarata- epic battle with 4 million people fighting. However, only ‘7 survive.’

b. Aztec- their god tells them to call themselves the Mexicana, related to founding of Mexico City, the Aztec capital. Not a founding of religion, also not clear how massive the revelation

But, even if these objections fail, the proof seems to as well:

1) The 600,000/2 mil. claim seems very dubious: world population was only 38 million in 1500 BCE. Population figures in Canaan seem to bear this out: 100,000 people lived there in 1000.

2) 4 seems dubious as well:

a. The myth could have evolved gradually

b. The rest of the Hebrew Bible records many times where Jews ‘forgot’ the religion, and later came back to it.

c. Scrolls were found by Josiah, and by Nehemiah

So, 2 is a difficult question to answer. What about question 1: did things happen the way the Torah claims they did; is it a reliable document?

Within this category there are a few issues:

1) Is the text we have now the original?(lower criticism)

2) Is there any evidence for any of these events independent of the text?

3) Higher criticism: was the Torah even composed by one author?

‘1’ is the least likely to be true, but also the least important. ‘2’ is up for open dispute. However, as we saw a few weeks ago, the story of the exodus is ‘plausible.’ What archeology can mainly do here is give context, not concrete answers. For ‘3’ let’s look in the texts: Genesis 1 and 2.

(see work by mordechai breuer, and by umberto cassuto. also, see the art of biblica narrative by robert altar)

So we see that answering 1 is problematic, but not impossible. Textual criticism, though interesting, seems a bit wrong sided.

But what we need to do now is to understand what exactly the Torah is meant to be, and what it is not meant to be.

What the Torah definitely is: a recording of the religious experience of people of the biblical era. This may be a nice idea, but it does not relate to us. But is it more than that?

The Torah, at the end of the day, is a ‘revolutionary’ document that smashes the idea of idolatry. As such, it is best understood (in ascending order) as a) a polemic against idolatry b) a lesson c) plan for living.

‘A’ is the background theme of the entire Torah. Understanding Genesis by Nachum Sarna is a good start about the way in which the Torah clearly understands pagan culture, yet offers ‘devastating’ critiques.

‘B’ is the way in which the Torah is written. It is written to elicit responses to the text. This relates to Joel’s class on personal revelation: the Torah’s text itself lets you learn from it.

But ‘c’ is the most important point, as Judaism’s ‘take’ on the world isn’t so much about ‘history’ or ‘theology’ or ‘philosophy’ but an integrated worldview based on a foundation of action.

So is Judaism’s take on the world good or not?

What is revelation of the Torah, some quick sources

What is the nature of the revelation of the Torah? What changes about the world after the Torah is given? As we will see, this question will pose very interesting ramifications for the nature of the Torah, and what it means to be a Jew.

Background

"I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky, and grant them all these lands... Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My decrees, and My laws." [Gen. 26:4-5]

The Talmud (Yoma 28a) interprets this as saying that Abraham kept all of the Torah, and even Rabbinic injunctions. But, how could Abraham keep all the Torah, let alone know anything about it, if it hadn’t been given yet?

The midrash adds to this conundrum:

Had the Torah not been given to us, we would have been obligated to learn proper midot from the observation of nature. For example, we would have been obligated to learn property rights and the prohibition of theft from the observation of ants. (If an ant has left a piece of grain, no other ant will take it.) We would have been obligated to learn fidelity from the observation of doves, who are monogamous.

This midrash really needs clarification- is it saying that without the giving of the Torah we would be able to keep the equivalent thereof or that the ethical aspects of the Torah would be fulfilled if we made these proper observations?

We have to clarify, if we are to understand this question as well, what the purpose of the Torah is in the first place?

We discussed one reason last week, namely the relational covenant between G-d and Israel. This is embodied in the Talmudic statement: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to benefit Israel, therefore he [gave to them] a multitude of mitzvot. It seems that G-d wanted

But there is another reason: The Torah was given to refine our character and give us the ethical life. (Vayikra Rabba 13:3) If the entire content of the Torah is sui genres ‘ethics,’ then we (seemingly) cannot make a distinction between parts of the Torah. (These two reasons are not necessarily divorced, the most enjoyable life may be the most ethical one)

If so, how do we interpret Abraham’s prescience?

The Zohar states that G-d looked into the Torah and created the world. Thus, the design of the world corresponds to that of the Torah. Abraham was able to understand the Torah, just by looking into the world, and therefore kept the mitzvot. As well, we could learn at least the equivalent of the Torah just by looking at the world.

What about after the Torah was given?

Now it gets a bit trickier: if the entirety of the Torah can be achieved through looking at the world, then precisely what is the purpose of revelation? Isn’t revelation extraneous?

We say then [that] the All-Wise knew that the conclusions reached by means of the art of speculation could be attained only in the course of a certain measure of time....But many a one of us might never complete the process because of some flaw in his reasoning...That is why G-d... afforded us a quick relief...by letting us see with our own eyes the signs and the proofs supporting them about which no doubt could prevail and which we could not possibly reject.

So, revelation according to Saadya Gaon is simply a shortcut to the best possible life. It isn’t even as simple as Saadya described, of course, as many of the Torah laws are (again, seemingly) obviously irrational. But let’s grant that eventually we’d get there: what does this say about what it means to be a Jew?

Is it possible that being a Jew isn’t something inherent, but rather a level of belief attained? What about converts- should there even be a need to convert, as long as you achieve a sufficient level of revelation?

Maimonides here is revolutionary! See Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People for fuller details but:

For Maimonides, being Jewish is a ‘belief that.’ Indeed, in the Messianic age all non-Jews will become Jewish, or at least like just as like Jews as possible.

23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria; and the Egyptians shall worship with the Assyrians. {S} 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth; 25 for that the LORD of hosts hath blessed him, saying: 'Blessed be Egypt My people and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance.'

A Parallel Account

The more obvious account, or at least the least complicated one, is to simply say that revelation cannot be achieved through reason- anti-rationalists like the Kuzari have held this position. More recently, Spinoza held this position: he viewed the Bible as moral messages, and not philosophical truths. Commentators of this ilk are likely to divide the commandments between the rational and the irrational, and further subcategories.

Then what about Abraham? And what about our Midrash?

Abraham seems the easiest to solve: maybe he had a separate revelation. Indeed, the simply meaning of the verse quoted above refers to circumcision- which was commanded by G-d! The Midrash never implies that is the only reason that the Torah is given. The Torah is sufficient for ethics, but ethics is not sufficient for the Torah.

This may affect our understanding of what it means to be a Jew, part of Israel, etc.

More importantly, the previous schema had a major advantage: all of the Torah is rational, so it makes sense to keep all of it. However, according to this interpretation, why should we keep the Torah? Divine Fiat?

Unpublished Article about the Archbishop

Here's an article I submitted to the Epigram, where I tried to say as much as possible while saying as little as possible. I wonder why it didn't get printed, sarcasm off:

Introducing religion into a debate on politics or society is always a bad idea. It runs the nearly sure-fire risk of turning an honest and contemplative debate into a slew of visceral reactions for the hot-headed and bemused head scratching for the sceptical. Such was the predictable result from Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams’ controversial request to introduce some aspects of Sharia into the English law code.

Though Williams made clear that he only meant certain aspects of Sharia, the backlash was swift and severe: denunciation of Britain’s ‘lax’ attitude towards social integration (read: assimilation) of immigrants, as well as calls for Williams’ resignation were popular responses. As well, many utterly repudiated any introduction of Sharia, echoing the European Court of Human Rights’ declaration that ‘sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.’ But more to our point, the apparent double-standard through which Williams favoured those ‘ornery’ Muslims, was lambasted: why not talk about including Hindu law, or Sikh law?

However, visceral reactions aside, as well as to benefit those poor bemused head scratchers, it would be keen to clarify what Williams actually meant. Since English Sharia courts already operate for many matters, the Archbishop’s comment seem either redundant, or indeed like a breech on equality before the law. But those who bothered to pause from their busy daily routine to actually listen to what Williams’ said may have noticed something peculiar: the aim of his comments were not to further fragment society, but rather ‘to achieve social cohesion.’

The underlying message of Williams’ interview was a call for the introduction of a civic republicanism to English society, a call started by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Sacks’ astute observation that technological innovation makes previously relied upon methods of social integration obsolete, is the foundation of his latest book, A Home We Build Together. This proposed home is based on a strong sense of community underlying the basis of society.

Such societies already exist. The United States, though thoroughly an immigrant country, is bound, however abstractly, by the America dream, and a history of that much maligned patriotism. France is bound by ardent secularism as well as a robust national character. But England is neither America nor France, and should not adopt their models. Rugged individualism, a sense of earnest pride in queen and country and possibly repressive measures against freedom of conscience are anathematic to England.

English society can no longer be bound by a half-hearted disbelief in the Church of England, nor nostalgic musings on the glorious days of the British Empire. As immigration increases, the national spirit must necessarily be divorced from an unshared past. What then will bind English society together?

Within this context the Archbishop’s comments are explicable. His first suggestion is to break down that initial barrier between society at large and any segment therein. By actively respecting the latent culture of newcomers, England can hope to avoid their ghettoisation. Being fully Muslim should not be an impediment to being fully English. However, if the only space that society grants for religious expression is the private sphere, then a retreat into that sphere by the religious would be wholly unsurprising.

Williams’ suggestion is hardly limited to Sharia: he calls for English law to countenance the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality vis a vi the adoption controversy. His call is for that already ensconced right of conscientious objection to be uniformly respected by the law. Far from calling for multiple sets of law, Williams is calling for the law to be sympathetic to multiple sets of people.

By being able to fully realize one’s self as a Muslim, a Hindu or a Catholic, resistance to being British will break down. All one can do is hope that we will determine what that is.

Meaning of the Exodus

What was the purpose of our sojourning in Egypt- what did it accomplish, and what changed when we left? These seem like simple questions, but it is important to realize that the Exodus is one of the biggest themes in the Bible. In fact, as we will see it is the first half of the defining aspect of Judaism- it is the difference between Judaism and other religions. (‘other’ used rather loosely)

The first of the Ten Commandments reads: ‘I am the L-rd your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slavery.’ Nachmanidies asks the obvious question here: Why because of Egypt, and not because of G-d’s creation of the world? Surely the latter is the reason we listen to G-d?

Further compounding this question is the statement a few verses back:

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying: 'Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine; 6 and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'

It is practically explicit here that despite the entire earth belonging to G-d, G-d singles out one nation, because of what He did for them in Egypt, to keep his Torah. There is a midrash that is strangely explicit about this casual link. Pharaoh says to the Children of Israel upon freeing them ‘Behold you are free, behold you are the slaves of G-d.’ Whatever the specific meaning behind the children of Israel now being the slaves of G-d, the point is clears- because G-d freed us, therefore we are obliged in the commandments.

So what it seems to be is that G-d goes out of his way to take us out of Egypt and therefore we have to keep the Torah. But something seems funny here: Isn’t it the other way around? Didn’t we choose, via Abraham, G-d? Further, G-d promised to Abraham to take us out anyway, so why do we have to keep the Torah? He isn’t liberating us to give us the Torah, rather he is liberating us to keep his promise.

An earlier passage seems to bear this out further: (6:2-8)

2 And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: 'I am the LORD; 3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name YHWH I made Me not known to them. 4 And I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. 5 And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered My covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel: I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments; 7 and I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning which I lifted up My hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am the LORD.'

So G-d is clearly aware that the reason he is doing this is because he made his promise to the forefathers to do so.

What is quite peculiar here is the end of verse 3 and the end of verse 7. What is this special name of YHWH? Implicit seems to be that this name is the name that relates to the deliverance from Egypt. This question is brought to the front by an interesting comment Rashi makes on the verse ‘Who is YHWH that I should listen to his voice?’- that Pharaoh had a big list of gods, and Elo-him was one of them, but YHWH was not. The implicit is, of course, that had Pharaoh recognized who YHWH was he would have obviously listen to Moses’ request for the Jews to leave. Why?

We can see the outline of the answer here: There is some casual relation to G-d delivering us from Egypt that has to do with the name YHWH, and that once rescued, because it was with YHWH, we establish a covenant with G-d. Let’s fill in the gaps.

The first time we see the name YHWH is in the second accounting of the creation story. The first story uses the name Elo-him and goes into much detail about the actual creation. G-d only relation to man (aside from creating him) is to give him free reign, but leaves him to his own devices. In the second creation narrative, everything is andocentric. Further, G-d places Adam in the garden to ‘work it and to guard it.’ In addition it is in this narrative that he gives the command to Adam not to eat the fruit.

What we see from here is that G-d merely as a creator has no relationship with man, and therefore is not worthy of being worshipped. He cannot command and he does not entrust. This is G-d as Elo-him. This is the G-d of the philosophers. Perhaps this is a nice idea of G-d to have- the ultimate power, the prime mover, the first cause, etc., but it is in no way relevant to our lives. Interestingly cognates of Elo-him are found throughout ancient literature. They seem to just mean god in a very vague and general sense.

However, G-d as YHWH is the G-d who interacts with the world and has an active relationship with man. He is the G-d who can create a world for man and He is the G-d who would rescue Israel from Egypt. Yes, He did rescue them because promised so to Abraham, but that wasn’t simply a promise: it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Torah is covenantal: it’s about our relationship with G-d, specifically a G-d worthy of having a relationship with.

Thus natural theology has NO place in Judaism. The mitzvos of the Torah are not about how the world is, but only about our relationship to ourselves, G-d, and fellow man. It is almost irrelevant whether the traditional narrative of creation is an accurate portrayal of history, for creation plays very little into the actual theology of Judaism. (except as a criticism of paganism and polytheism)

Justice as Fairness

Justice as Fairness

John Rawls (1928-2002) was an American philosopher who taught mainly at Harvard University. His theory of 'Justice as Fairness' was the main, but hardly only, focus of his scholarly work- aside from the initial paper, his 'A Theory of Justice,' as well as 'Justice as Fairness: A Restatement' deal with the subject. His work is generally regarded as having re-invigorated the seemingly dead English-speaking Political Philosophy.

Outline:

1. Rawls was concerned to devise the general principles of justice whereby social institutions could operate.
2. Rawls conceived of 'fairness' as being the fundamental principle of justice.
3. But, how do we determine what is fair to everyone?
4. Firstly, Rawls's project is to construct a 'contractual' conception of fairness, in order to guarantee that justice is indeed considers everyone. In this conception everyone (generally) looks out for their own interests. Each person, or their agent, will voice their general principles for determining justice. In other words, justice is fair to each person, because it is what each person would choose. However, since personal interests inevitably compete, there has to be a method of determining which interests to listen to and when.
5. In Rawls' essay, the strategy devised for this is to 'imagine yourself in the other's shoes.' Rawls develops this to the Original Position in which the contract takes place. This Original Position necessarily involves no irrelevant variables, through the Veil of Ignorance. This veil eliminates all particulars that would distract from, and bias, decision making: age, gender, 'race,' ethnicity, religion, social and economic status, psychological disposition, etc. In other words, it leaves room for a rational and unbiased decision to be made.
6. What are the advantages of a Veil of Ignorance? Firstly, as above, it would guarantee impartiality. Secondly, it does not necessitate 'goodness' in order to reach a fair outcome. Further, Rawls contends that it would be easier to achieve unanimity.
7. What principles would people devise from the Original Position?

1. The Liberty Principle- each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

2. The Difference and Opportunity Principles- Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that

a) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This is not just a meritocracy, as individuals must be provided the ability to acquire the needed skill sets.

b) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.

8. The Liberty Principle has lexical priority. Rawls claims that, as society progresses, the advantage of material gain to one's station becomes less meaningful. But this only shows that economic advantages are less desired, why is liberty desired? Either, because of Freedom of Conscience, or because of self-respect. Practically, liberty's lexical priority entails:

1. Only once issues relevant to the basic liberties are determined can issues pertaining to the Difference and Opportunity Principles be addressed.

2. A claim of items that are not basic liberties can never trump basic liberties.

9. In addition to the basic liberties, Rawls thinks that a minimum amount of wealth must be guaranteed as providing the 'worth' of these liberties (204)
10. How do we sort through conflicting interests? By the means of reflective equilibrium, whereby one 'liberty' is diminished for another. This can only occur where the 'greater liberty' is increased. Three types of cases are available: conflicting liberties, 'vacuous' liberties, and, liberties where the lesser party will benefit by a specific curtailment. (203-204)
11. The decision that a Rawlsian man would make in the Original Position highlights the difference between 'Justice as Fairness' and Utility. Whereas Utility would allow that certain individual rights be mitigated for the sake of the greater good, 'Justice as Fairness' never would. This corresponds to our notion of inviolable evil of slavery.

Some clarifications:

l Rawls' concept, 'Justice as Fairness,' is a political and not metaphysical one. This seems to answer certain possible objections about moral relativity, subjective morality, etc. As well, it is on this point that it differs significantly from, for example, utility. Utility is a universally applicable ethic, whereas Justice as Fairness is only applicable is the public realm, and even there, it is not the only value applicable.

l Rawls is pragmatic, not because realism is wrong, rather because it is disputed.

l Rawls is NOT proposing that fairness mandates compromise between each party in disputes.

l One of the major advantages to Rawls's theory is its plausibility. Disregarding the particular principles, Rawls seems to be correct that society's conception of justice is continually being revised, and specifically by claimants of unfair treatment.

l Though as such, there is also no idealized conception of justice. Rather, it roughly correlates to the concept already latent within society.

l Basic Liberties include:political freedom, free speech, assembly, conscience, thought and the (consistently applied) rule of law.

Hannukah class

The Story of Hanukkah:

$ Hanukkah starts in the time of Alexander, when he entered Israel (called Judea) and gained control. He was actually welcomed by the Jews, who, as an honor to him, named all boys born that year ‘Alexander.’

$ His empire was divided into three parts: the Antigonid Empire, the Seleucid Empire, and the Ptolemaic Empire.

$ The Seleucids were based in Syria, and the Ptolemies in Egypt. Judea, being in between the two, was a strategic position. The Hanukkah story begins when the Seleucids gained control from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C.E.

$ Atiouchus IV, or Epiphanes, takes the throne in 175. In order to consolidate his control over Judea, Atiouchus outlaws 3 commandments in Judaism: Shabbat, Brit, and the Sanctifying of the New Moon. As well, general observance of the Torah was discouraged.

$ As well, he erected a statue to Zeus in the Temple, and tried to forced Jews to sacrifice to idols, both inside, and outside, the Temple. Many Jews had already been Helenized, and assented.

$ In Modin, an old priest, Mattathias, was ordered to sacrifice a pig. (sacrifices were eaten by the communities) He refused, and slew the attending officer. He shouted out the famous phrase ‘Whoever is for G-d, to [follow] me.’ He and his sons, with a few other Zealots, fled to the mountains and started a guerilla campaign, relying on their superior knowledge of the land.

$ As the campaign was met with success, more and more Jews joined the cause. When the Seleucid soldiers would search the mountains for pious Jews, they Jews were pretend that they were gambling, instead of learning Torah (or whatever else they may have been doing). This is where the tradition of dreidel, called sivvivon in Hebrew, comes from.

$ The leaders of this rebellion were Mattathias and his sons: Judah, Eleazar, Simon, and Jonathan. They were named the Maccabi, which means ‘hammer’(Aramaic) and is an acronym for Mi Kamocha Belim Adonai- ‘Who among the mighty is like you, G-d?’- indicative of their piety.

$ When Mattathias died, Judah became the leader of the rebellion. He won victory after victory, against the much larger armies of the Seleucids.

$ On 25^th of Kislev, 164 B.C.E., Judah and his ragtag ffollowers liberated the Temple. They purified it from iidolatry, and sought to rededicate it to G-d. Hence the name HHanukkah, which means (re)dedication.

$ According to Talmudic legend, they Maccabees found a small jug of extra virgin olive oil, sealed with the High Priest’s seal. This proved that it had not been defiled. However, it was only enough to last one night. Despite this, it lasted 8 days and nights, as a testament to the Maccabees victory.

$ Despite Judah’s military success, Judea was not completely liberated until 20 years later, when Judah’s brother, Simon, declared Judah an independent state in 141 B.C.E.

$ The Hashomean ruled Judea from then until 37 B.C.E., until it became a vassal state of Rome.

The Mitzvot of Hanukkah?!

Unlike most Jewish holidays, which either restrict certain activities, or have a lot of stuff to do, Hanukkah has only one! mitzvah: lighting the Menorah. We take an 8 pronged candelabra and light one candle on the first night, adding another candle every night, so that on the eighth night there are 8 candles. On many of these candelabra, properly called ‘Chanukiyah’ or ‘Menorat Chanukah’ there is space for an additional candle, known as the Shamash, or servant. Since the other lights should only be used for the mitzvah, we set aside an additional light in order to show that we don’t want to derive benefit from the (other) candles. To distinguish this candle, we set it apart from the row of the others; it may be places higher, or on the side, or to the back.

When we go to light the candles, we place the candles on the right side of the Chanukiyah. Each night, we add a candle to the left of it. When light the candles with the Shamash, we light the newest (leftmost) one first. The candelabra should be placed where it is visible to those passing by in the street, so that they can see the lights.

Although this is the only mitzvah of Hanukkah doesn’t mean we skimp on the food!. Latkes, Sufganiot (Israeli Doughnuts) and other greasy food remind us of the miracle of the oil.

Some Background Facts and Interesting Points

Although Hanukkah does a text, the Books of Macabee (1 and 2), that text is not included in our Bible. It is part of the Apocrypha, and thus included in some versions of the Christian Bible. The Rabbis who canonized the Bible did not include it for a few possible reasons:

1) The didn’t like what the Hashmonean did. They established a non-Davidic dynasty.

2) The story happened after canonization.

3)The Rabbis felt that the Second Temple period was should not belong in the Bible.

The primary sources that we have for Hanukkah are (in no particular order): Macabees 1 and 2, the Megilat Ta’anit, Josephus, and the Talmud, Tractate Shabbat (21b-approx. 26a)

If the miracle of the oil was that it lasted 8 days instead of one, shouldn’t we celebrate 7 days (as only 7 of the days were miraculous)?

Some answers:

1)Each day, the Menorah of the Temple was filled to an eighth, but still burned, making all eight days a miracle.

2)The first day is celebrated for the military victory.

3) Really, we don’t celebrate Hanukkah because of the miracle (if there even was one). Rather, Hanukkah was a make up for Sukkot, which the Maccabees missed because of the fighting. Or, just like Moses’s dedication of the Tabernacle, and Solomon’s dedication of the Temple were 8 days long, our celebration of the Second Temple’s rededication is 8 days long.

But wait, if the miracle did not happen, what’s with the oil, and the candles?

Even if we don’t take the Talmud’s words at face value, oil and fire still have significance for Hanukkah. The pure oil represents the (potential) purity of faith. And the fire represents the fact that even a little bit of light can conquer so much darkness. Fire is particularly poignant, as it can spread quickly. Each of our actions are like fire, it can spread well beyond our imagination and intent. The story of Hanukkah reminds us to keep our intentions pure, so that the flames that spread wide are pure themselves.

T'U B'Shevat Haggadah

Tu Be’Shevat , the 15^th of the Jewish month Shevat, is the New Year for the Trees. The Tu Be’Shevat Seder arose from the mystical town of Safed in the late 16^th century. Although the custom is to read a heavily kabbalah laden text, we have devised our own text for your edification. Since the wine and fruit consumption does correspond to certain kabbalistic levels, we have included these within the Seder, as well as an appendix for those brave few at the end. Tu Be’Shevat is the holiday for the trees and for that reason you may detect a certain theme in the upcoming passages.

1

In the Jewish Creation narrative we are told that man was placed upon this earth to ‘till it and to guard it.’ However, we are previously told that man is to ‘conquer’ nature ‘and subdue’ it. This eternal conflict between the expansion of mankind and the preservation of the Earth is seemingly irreconcilable. The Torah teaches us to respect both and to balance our impulse to conquer with a respect for the world that we have been loaned. Look at your past week, how have you balanced the two?

2

He who plants a tree
Plants a hope.
~Lucy Larcom, from 'Plant a Tree' ~

He that planteth a tree is a servant of God,
he provideth a kindness for many generations,
and faces that he hath not seen shall bless him.
~ Henry Van Dyke ~

3

Read Fact 1.

4

It is time for the first cup of wine or grape juice. This cup should be completely white.

ברוך אתה אדוני אלוהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הגפן- Blessed are you Lord our God, King of the Universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine.

Drink 1^st Cup

For this cup, we eat fruit that have inedible shells on the outside, but are edible on the inside. This corresponds to the level of Assiyah.

Blessing on all tree fruits:

• Baruch atah Adonai, Elohaynu Melech ha-olam, borey pri ha’etz.
• Blessed are you Lord, our God, King of the universe, who creates the fruit of the tree.

Blessing on all fruit and vegetables that grow from an annual plant:

• Baruch atah Adonai, Elohaynu Melech ha-olam, borey pri ha’adama.
• Blessed are you Lord, our God, King of the universe, who creates the fruit of the ground.

(If you are eating a fruit for the first time this season, you get to say another blessing)

Baruch atah Adonai, Elohaynu Melech ha-olam, shehechiyanu, v’kiyamanu, v’higiyanu lah-zman ha-zeh.

Blessed are you, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who has caused us to live, to stand upright and to arrive at this moment.

5

Turn to your neighbour on your left and discuss the following with them. We have learned to appreciate the amenities of life. But, what would happen if we no longer had them? Would we make do? Can we appreciate the flow of nature, right now?

6

Nature does not hurry,
yet everything is accomplished.
~ Lao Tzu ~

"I think God's going to come down and pull civilization over for speeding."

— Steven Wright
7

Read Fact 2.

It is time for the 2^nd cup. Mix a little red into this cup, but keep it mostly white. The fruit for this cup should pits, making it inedible on the inside. This corresponds with the level of Yetzirah.

8

There is a strong current within Judaism for Tikkun Olam, or repairing the world. Many of us Jews take this ethos very seriously, and are active within our communities. But Tu Be’shevat reminds us that it is not just other people who need our help, but the very Earth itself. Turn to the person on your right and ask: What can you do to help the environment?

9

We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.
~ Thomas Fuller
'Gnomologia' 1732 ~

To waste, to destroy our natural resources,
to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness,
will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity
which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.
~Theodore Roosevelt,
7th Annual Message, 3 December 1907 ~

10

Read Fact 3.

Now it is time for the 3^rd cup. This cup should be mainly red with a little white. For this cup, the fruit should be edible inside and out, representing Briah.

11

Concern for the environment is not the simple concern for another. There is a delicate harmony between nature and man, even aside from the simply ‘Circle of Life.’ Nature is a part of us; it inspires us, and helps us to discover who we really are. Ask the person to your left: How have you used nature to discover yourself?

12

"Not to have known, as most men have not, either the mountains or the desert, is not to have known oneself."
- Joseph Wood Krutch

"Now I see the secret of the making of the best persons; it is to grow in the open air and eat and sleep with the Earth"
- Walt Whitman

13

If the sight of the blue skies fills you with joy,
if a blade of grass springing up in the fields has power to move you,
if the simple things of nature have a message that you understand,
rejoice, for your soul is alive.
~ Eleonora Duse ~

14

Read 4^th Fact.

It is now time for the 4^th and final cup, as well as our 4^th set of fruit. This cup should be fully red. For this cup,we do not eat any fruit, for it is the cup of Atzilut, the dimension of Emanation.

15

The purpose of this Seder has been to highlight different aspects of our Earth. Whether your aim is to preserve beauty, to find balance, or simply to enjoy a breath of fresh air, hopefully this Seder has inspired you further.

16

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better, it's not."
-The Lorax, by Dr. Suess

"Increasingly, the world around us looks as if we hated it."
-Alan Watts

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

— Mahatma Gandhi

"In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy."
- John C. Sawhill

חסל סדר ט"ו בשבט כי אין לו הלכתו