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

Origin of the Hebrews

This was a class on Israelite origins, if you couldn't figure that out...

Key Questions:

When did the Hebrews/Israelites first emerge as a nation? Where did they come from?

There are a few issues that we need to look at. The first is what can we find independently of the Bible. The second is how much we can ‘rely’ on what the Bible says- in other words, can we establish the traditions as generally accurate or not?

Traditional Narrative:

Abraham migrates from Ur, via Haran, to Canaan (i.e. Israel). Thus, the Hebrews are ‘from the opposite side of the river’ (Euphrates) ‘were you forefathers.’ The word עבר means ‘opposite.’ Biblical Chronology indicates that Abraham lived about 4000 years ago. Abraham had Isaac, who subsequently had Jacob. Jacob then had 12 sons, who became the 12 Tribes of Israel.

So, what we need to confirm is:

1) Do Ancient Israelites come from Mesopotamia?

2) Did they make a pit stop in Haran? (seemingly smaller point)

3) Is the timeframe correct?

Thus far, there has been no psychical evidence of the Patriarchs, but that’s not that surprising. Although the Bible does claim Abraham’s relative importance, he is clearly not within society’s power structure, being at most a distinguished outsider. Thus, it would be unlikely that any Canaanite sources talk about him.

So what do archaeologists try to do here? They try to find background information to make the Biblical story seem likely or unlikely, based on certain markers within the text and within the material and political history of ancient cultures. So what relevant information have they found about the Ancient Near and Middle East?

-lots of other possible migrations- Abraham migrating wasn’t so weird.

-concordance of names: cognates of Abraham and Isaac were common in Mesopotamia about 2000 BCE.

-lots of people migrated also

- Mari (halfway between Haran and Ur) was a normal place for people to go through when traveling; otherwise why didn’t Abraham just go straight to Israel?

-genetics!

Nuzi Tablets

When these were discovered they seemed to give the Bible a lot of context. Many of these interpretations have been disputed.

a) barren wife giving a handmaiden to her husband (i.e. Hagar)

b) bride chosen for the son by the father (i.e. Rebekah)

c) dowry paid to the father-in-law (i.e. Jacob)

d) work done to pay a dowry (i.e. Jacob)

e) the unchanging oral will of a father (i.e. Isaac)

f) father giving his daughter a slave-girl (i.e. Leah, Rachel)

g) sentence of death for stealing a cult gods (i.e. Jacob).

However, many of these practices continued for the next 1500, so even if these interpretations are accurate, maybe all they tell us is that the Bible was written in the Middle East.

Alternative Theories:

Habiru

The relationship between the Habiru and the Hebrews would be quite difficult to prove, but if found accurate they lend some hope. The Habiru were indeed from Mesopotamia/Babylonia, and did invade Canaan. This would discount the Exodous- they went straight from the Middle East to the Near East. As well, it would seemingly discount Abraham as the father of the Israelites.

However, many scholars interpret the Habiru as representative of a socio-economic class, rather than an ethnicity. This doesn’t necessarily dissuade us from claiming the Habiru as the precursors to Israelites, it would simply mean that the Israelites don’t have a common ancestor.

Israelites were Canaanites!? Biblical Minimalists Abound!

So, we don’t have much to confirm the accuracy of the Biblical account, and maybe there are other explanations for Israel’s genesis. Israel Finkelstein concludes that the Israelites were actually Canaanite separatists.

-common material culture between Canaanites and Israelites- however, does this actually prove anything? Maybe the Hebrews were just trying to keep up with the Hurriyas?

-some of the tribal names seem to either predate the Israelites conquest (another contentious matter) and others seem to be based off of Semitic gods. (also descedant from handmaidens, and later added on)

-Dan- may have come from Denyen, one of the Sea Peoples who invaded the Ancient World

What we definitely know

1) That there definitely existed a group identifiable as Israel by 1200 BCE, as indicated by the Merneptah Stele.

2) That these separatist communities likely practised some form of Kashrut, as evidenced by bones found at these sites.

3) They were materially similar to the Canaanites, but a whole lot poorer.

So what do we do with the Biblical Narrative?

Is it all made up? Is it reliable, and archaeologists just haven’t found the evidence yet? How would Finkelstein’s conclusions affect someone who does believe in the authenticity of the Torah?

There are many unquoted sources here. In addition, these were the notes, not the entirety of the class- please take that into consideration...

No I'm not dead...

I'm just busy. So, I'll post some of the things I'm busy with....
I'm debating on whether to post essays. I want to reserve rights for the future, just in case I actually had something worthwhile to say. Doesn't seem likely but....