Reason + Peace = Holiness

GUEST POST BY The CandyMan

“. . .and so would Moses say: Let the law pierce the mountain! But Aaron would love peace and pursue it, making peace between man and his neighbor.”

(B. Talmud, Sanhedrin 6a)

This week’s Torah reading features an interesting argument. Following the death of Aaron’s two sons in a priestly disaster, Moses discovers that a community sin-offering has been wholly burnt, rather than partially eaten by the priests. Furious at this breach of protocol, he demands an explanation. Aaron, who silently accepted Moses' earlier criticisms (Num. 10:3), this time refuses to back down. The mourning priest replies,

הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת-חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת-עֹלָתָם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי, כָּאֵלֶּה; וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה

See, just today these have brought their sin-offering and burnt-offering before G-d, and such [misfortune] has befallen me; were I to eat a sin-offering today, would that be pleasing in the eyes of the Lord? (Lev. 10:19)

Note that Aaron's argument is not based on the letter of the law. That was decidedly on Moses' side. Instead, Aaron is arguing with logic. Having been so punished earlier, having suffered so terribly himself, how could he now eat the sin-offering for the community? Would that be right? Would that be pleasing in the eyes of the Lord? Aaron is asking, What would God want? It's not me reading this into the verse; it's explicit in the Bible. Moses realizes that Aaron is correct and lets him be, without consulting heaven (v. 20).

Who is carrying on Aaron's legacy today? In the Biblical era, it was the priests, prophets, and Nazirites. In the Rabbinic era, it was the Pharisees, who took vows of abstention (Hebrew PRSH) to eat only within certain table fellowships. In the modern era, it is the Orthodox and Conservative Jews. All of these groups followed within the tradition of Aaron, attempting to make their lives "holy" and in that way come closer to the ineffable God. Intriguingly, both Rabbinic and Biblical sources associate this priestly way of life with peace.

Our greatest challenge as Jews is to make peace with the Arab peoples. There is a role here for the priests in both religions that I believe remains to be fully realized. Islam is the most important religion in the Arab world, and it has much in common with Judaism at the level of ritual. Why not use this common religious heritage as a basis for mutual respect and understanding? Two modern-day Aarons are leading the way:

1. Joe Regenstein is a Cornell prof who is working on a Halal/Kosher co-certification. How cool is that?

2. It is hard to imagine the grief and anger that Judea Perl must have felt when his son was killed by terrorists simply for being a Jew. But like the Biblical Aaron, Judea's response has been one of reason. Along with Professor Akbar S. Ahmed, he started the Daniel Perl Dialogue for Muslim-Jewish Understanding. If Judea Perl can find it within his heart to reach out to Arab world, surely you can find it within yours as well.

Two New Skeptic Blogs

Check out these two new Jewish skeptic blogs.

Frum Heretic
Musings from a modern orthopraxic, frum, scientifically-minded yid. Yeah, I'm a bundle-full of contradictions.
http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/


Notes on Nothing
Teetering between Jewish Orthodoxy and Atheism...
http://jewishsceptic.blogspot.com/

Frum Heretic took a few stabs at Purim last week (and even twisted the knife a little). Jewish Sceptic lives across the pond and has been writing about his on-going journey away from Orthodoxy.

Both good reads.

Our Secret Identities

GUEST POST BY The Candy Man

Secret identities are at the heart of two Biblical stories: Esther, and Joseph. In both stories, the protagonist finds her/himself in a position of power in a foreign, non-Jewish world. The character's Jewish identity is unknown. When her past comes back to haunt her, the protagonist must then make a choice to reveal her identity. The "secret identity" theme in both stories makes for great drama. It also challenges us to think about who we are, and who we are willing to tell about it.

Identity is a mixture of nurture and nature. We are each born with genetic propensities towards certain modes of thought, likes and dislikes, emotional and personality traits. This is the "nature" side of our identity. In addition, everyone has his own cultural and philosophical heritage. This heritage is often thrust upon us by our teachers and parents. In this sense, our cultural heritage may be much more nurture than nature.

Both the nurture and the nature become ingrained in one's sense of self. It is hard to shake either one. For instance, I was raised an Orthodox Jew, and Judaism has always been very close to my heart. Yet over time I became convinced that Orthodox Judaism was not for me. Besides all the Biblical criticism, OJ simply wasn't progressive enough for the "nature" side of my personality. So I left Orthodoxy. But you cannot run from who you are and how you were raised. I believe this is part of what Obama was getting at when he said he could not denounce his pastor or his grandmother, despite their racist points of view, because they were part of him -- and part of this country which he loves. So I do not hate Orthodoxy, or Judaism. Instead, I find in it the parts that resonated most, and use them as my focus. I try to move Judaism forward, keep it relevant, make it stronger and more sustainable.

Unlike Esther, I choose not to hide my cultural heritage from my non-Jewish colleagues. I don't exactly rub my Judaism in their face, but I don't back down from discussing religion or middle east politics. I generally enjoy my role as a token Jew in the workplace. Interacting with people of different backgrounds has been a tremendous experience, and I highly recommend it. We are at our core social animals, and it is only by social interaction and experiences that our minds can truly learn and change. By making close friends with non-Jews, by breaking bread with them, I become less guarded; I begin to leave behind my subconscious "us/them" mentality. The trade-off is that, like Joseph, there is a growing side of my life which I hide from my loved ones, who are Orthodox Jews that I do not wish to offend.

LNM has a secret identity: he blogs anonymously. He does this to protect his marriage. It is not for the commentors of blogs to suggest that an anonymous blogger reveal his/her identity. You cannot know what LNM's reasons are. To say, as one commentor recently did, that "I don't have any secrets, honest people generally don't" is a cheap shot, and disrespectful. As the Rabbis say, Do not judge another person until you have stood in his place (Mishna Avot 2:5). I know LNM, and I know his penchant for truth and honesty. He is proud of who he is, and he would love to tell you all his identity. But LNM is not an island. Revealing his identity on this blog would deeply hurt the person he cares about most, and that person is machriya et kulam -- outweighs everyone else. Even Superman needs to keep his true identity a secret, for the sake of the ones he loves.

Nowhere is the issue of secret identity felt as palpably as it is within the gay community. Being gay is not something a person can control. It is not a choice. It is largely nature. If there is a nurture component, it occurs during childhood, when our earliest notions of sexuality are being burned into our brains. Our American society is in flux with respect to the gay issue, it is on a journey. Hopefully, that journey will someday end in tolerance, acceptance, and peace. But as the comments to my last post indicated, we are not there yet. For now, many homosexuals must keep their true selves a secret, even from their closest friends. If Passover is the holiday for womens' lib, then Purim must be the holiday for gay pride -- a holiday in which the protagonist comes out of the closet. But as in blogging, "outing" another person is a violation of his or her privacy. It is up to that person to decide when, where, and who to come out to.

As we celebrate this holiday of identity, we might remember that identity cannot be delegated, nor can it be shunned. It is both internal and external, a mixture that is based on the past but changing all the time. Let us strive to make it easier for people to share their identities with us. Let us strive to make them comfortable with who they are. If they are more or less religious, let us reaffirm to them our understanding that it takes different strokes. If we have children, may we provide them with a broad and tolerant framework, a framework of unconditional love, within which they feel comfortable to find themselves. As the rabbis said,

Any love which depends on a specific thing,
when the thing goes away, so does the love.
But any love that is independent of anything else
lasts forever.

(Mishna Avot 5:19)

Oy. I've gone and written a whole megilla!

Cursed is Haman AND Cursed is Mordecai?!

I was searching for Purim costumes on the Interweb and found that Party City (The Discount Party Super Store®) has a section devoted to Purim. How nice!

But then I read their "About Purim" page:

Purim is a Jewish holiday following the biblical story of Esther. It is a celebration of the freedom the Jews gained from King Ahasuerus and the judgment of conspirators Mordecai and Haman. [emphasis added] (Link to page)

DOH!

At least they didn't blur out the face (link) of "Queen Girl Child Costume".

St. Patrick (and everyone else)'s Day

Today is St. Patrick's Day. There's an old saying that goes "Everyone wants to be Irish on St. Patrick's Day." On the radio this morning I heard an Irish person update the line to "We want everyone to be Irish for a day." However you put it the Irish have embraced the idea of sharing what is essentially "Irish Day" with all the people of the world. What a great concept. Make the celebration of your identity a chance for others to embrace it as well. (Granted, many use St. Patrick's Day as an excuse to vomit green all over the sidewalk but this is no more the point of the holiday than vomiting is the point of Purim).

Many Jewish holidays (and fast days) seem to be obsessed with underscoring the story of US vs THEM. Most Many Jewish holidays can be summed up with the line "THEY tried to kill US, We survived, Let's eat!" (Our fast days are of course "They tried to kill us, We (just) survived, I can't bear to eat a thing.") But, where does it say we are only allowed to share our culture through one liners, and television scripts? What if we opened up a Jewish holiday to the world as a chance to share our heritage?

Imagine if Lag Ba'omer was a day for the world to celebrate being Jewish? The President would have a bonfire on the White House lawn, there would be (more) Lag Ba'omer parades throughout the country, and ERs would be flooded with arrow injuries.

A boy can dream...

Eliot Mess

Guest Post by: The CandyMan

[The CandyMan says this post is rated PG-13! He also says you should be over bar or bat mitzva, or get your parents' permission before reading. --LNM]

According to Jewish Law, did Eliot Spitzer commit a crime? Certainly, he is not guilty of adultery. Adultery, according to the Hebrew Bible, is sex with a married woman, whereas Spitzer's lovely singer-songwriter mistress prefers to remain, shall we say, "on the market." What about prostitution? Well, the Bible does tell us not to whore out our daughters (Lev. 19:29). But Spitzer, a big-shot lawyer (sic), might argue that his mistress arrangement with young Ashley is more akin to a discreet relationship between consenting adults. In that case, he's not guilty of anything serious -- if z'nut (sex out of wedlock) was any kind of Biblical prohibition, I think the Israelites would have said "No thanks" at Sinai and moved along. After all, what's Judaism without the t'fillin dates?

Girls, on the other hand, get a raw deal from the rabbis. If Silda Spitzer had been the one getting a little on the side, she might be executed in a Rabbinic court. Even suspicion of female infidelity is grounds for public humiliation and testing via the waters of the sota (wayward woman). According to some extreme Biblical traditions, even premarital sex by a single girl (!) is grounds for stoning (Deut. 22:20-21). The Talmud's rabbis took pains to improve the welfare of married women, but never reversed this double standard. Even the Conservative movement only started ordaining women in 1985.

Why the double standard? Well, marriage in classic Jewish law is basically a kinyan/purchase. The man buys the woman, but she doesn't buy him. This was standard custom in the ancient near east, as was having multiple wives. Today, in many cultures, polygamy is still the preferred way of life, enjoyed by rich men the world over. Perhaps it's a throwback to our days as silverbacks -- many mammalian species feature a dominant male and his female harem. Or perhaps it arose as a cultural device to support unempowered women. In any case, male-dominated polygamy is probably here to stay, although it's become increasingly unpopular over time (e.g. the acceptance by Ahkenazi Jews of Rabbeinu Gershom's ban, which btw should be expiring pretty soon... right?).

The funny thing is, part of me wonders whether the Bible got it right about polygamy. After all, it's clearly a struggle for many men to stay faithful to one woman (especially if the man is rich and powerful). Statistics suggest that this is true for women, as well. This poses a serious challenge for the secular ethicist. In the absence of any religious tradition, should marital infidelity be outlawed? Is it even wrong? And what about prostitution? Legalized prostitution (as seen on TV) doesn't seem that bad... the girls make money, and they seem to be enjoying themselves quite a bit. Slate tells us of one Tier 3 sex worker who's earning $10,000/mo. for three monthly meetings. Heck, for $10,000/mo., I'd do a lot more than that!

So far, this country has made a mess of secular ethics. Our President uses family values as an excuse to deprive homosexuals of their Constitutional right to marriage equality. Well, shouldn't he be more concerned about the adulterers in our midst? Or the wife beaters? There's a lot more of those than there are homosexuals, and they pose a far greater threat to family stability. Yet there is practically zero national discussion about such issues. Perhaps the Spitzer fiasco will spark some discussion about real family values. Secular ethics offer us a way out of outdated double standards and cultural norms. But in reinventing society, how do we strike a balance between what is good for the family and what is good for the individual? When it comes to sex, what can we realistically expect from human society? After all, if Eliot Spitzer couldn't resist, what makes you think you can?

Found Out By a Friend

For the first time (and hopefully the last) a very close friend of mine found this blog.

Let's call my friend "Menachem Mendel", or Mendy for short. Mendy didn't really find the blog so much as he found the user name "lubabnomore". Only because he knows me so well, has known me for so long (dating back to my Lubab days), and because of how the user name "lubabnomore" connected to him (I'll skip that detail) did he even think to ask me if I was LNM. On the one hand the fact that he didn't instantly know it was me makes me feel like I've sufficiently hidden my identity, but then again he still sorta found me.

Mendy emailed the following short message to me last week:

"Are you "lubabnomore"? And what is that?"

I was both freaked and relieved. Mendy and I are close I've wanted to talk with him about all this stuff. But then again, my blog is pretty open and honest and not at all the way I would want to start sharing my thoughts with a close Orthodox friend.

I use this blog as a consequence-free outlet for my thoughts and feelings. Here I let loose with ideas that might be offensive to friends and family. Here I can talk about intimate discussions I've had with Mrs. Lubab. Here I can blow off steam about some part of Judaism that's pissing me off without complicating my "real" life. Here you readers give me feedback, or advice, or criticism that wouldn't be as honest, or as critical (or, in some cases, as sane) as the advice I might get from a meatspace friend. So, the idea of my cyber-personality interacting with one of my offline friends was a little worrisome.

Mendy and I spoke on the phone about the blog on Sunday. Mendy has been reading the blog (and I expect he's reading this too [Hi Mendy!]). Since he knows me, he knows which names have been changed, and who's who, and what's at stake.

Menachem Mendel and I didn't discuss religion too much during Sunday's phone call. We both thought it was too early for that. I certainly didn't want to get into it in that first discussion. My main concern regarding MM being in-the-know is that I don't want this to hurt our friendship. I expect it will modify our relationship, but that's not necessarily bad. When we went to the same school our relationship was modified, and when we stopped going to the same school our relationship was modified again. That's just life. I just want to be thoughtful about how this alters things.

Mendy did have a few thoughts about the blog and in particular the posts about the wifey. Based on what he read he was concerned for my marriage, and rightly so. The thing is, what you get on the blog is just the extremes. You get me when I have the biggest need to vent, scream, cry, (insert strong emotion here). When things with the Mrs. were not very good, I came here to get it out. And I got it out in graphic. dramatic. detail. When things got better I tried to squeeze out a post or two to give you an update, but those posts pale in comparison. I've also found that posting about our marriage can be more painful than cathartic. I hate feedback like "Divorce her now. You're dishonest person who's stringing her along." I should ignore the idiots, but our relationship was fragile, I take my marriage seriously, and more importantly, very personally. Maybe when it comes to my marriage I am unreasonably committed to my wife and completely illogical... in a good way. (I hope that's how I am anyway). :)

Update on the marriage situation:

I have chosen to omit details about the wife that might identify her (or me) and I have also omitted details that might better explain the recovery of our relationship, but for the sake of bringing you up to speed I'll give you an update.

Wife and I are getting along great. The past few weeks have been wonderful. A number of outside issues that were putting us under stress have been resolved. She's happy at work. The babe sleeps like a, well, you know. We don't really talk much about religion. I don't bring it up and neither does she. We've found a comfortable arrangement for now. I think a key part of why my beliefs aren't really an issue is that she sees that I'm not trying to outwardly shake things up. I think she may have been worried about that when this first came to a head. All in all, life right now is pretty good.

Take posts down?:

Another suggestion Mendy had was to think about taking down the posts where I write about the issues me and the wife were having. He was/is concerned about my wife's reaction if she were to ever see them. I certainly see his point but I'm very hesitant to remove them. I acknowledge that there is always the risk she might read them but I think that risk is small. On the other hand I have gotten feedback from a number of people who've told me that they related to my story, or they were going through the same thing and knowing what might happen was helpful, or they hadn't yet talked to their spouse about their beliefs and appreciated hearing about someone else's situation. I saw a similar reaction when I ran the guests posts from Avi. My impression is that my experience is more common than people think. I know I was scouring the blogs for other peoples stories when I was first thinking about talking to her. I certainly appreciated these posts by Baal Habos (post 1, post 2). I hope that reading about my experience might help some other people out.

As far as the Mrs. finding the blog? She is computer savvy and knows her way around the Google, but she would probably never get caught dead reading a blog. She made my jaw hit the floor the other day when she said she hasn't ever really used Wikipedia. Basically, she doesn't web surf so there is little chance she would find the blog on her own. If she were to find it would be because I did something stupid, like leaving a browser window open on the home computer. This is a risk (I ain't perfect), but I am obsessively paranoid about the LNM stuff. I downloaded a browser that she hates, and I restrict all my blogging and blog-reading to that browser. She probably doesn't even know that it's on the home PC. I've changed the browser settings in that program so it doesn't save any history, cookies, etc. I try to close the browser whenever I leave the computer (even if I'm only stepping away for a second). At this point I think the benefits outweigh the risks. Who knows. Maybe I'll change my mind.

---

Anyhoo, this is one of the longest posts I've ever written. I am definitely a minimalist. On this blog I try to follow the axiom "Less is More", possibly to a fault. Today I've gone way over the "keep it short" line.

Do you have a story about your spouse finding your secret blog? How did it go? Has a friend, or family member figured out you were writing an anonymous blog? (BTW, if you have an interesting story maybe I can have you guest post it). LMK.

New Blog: Holy Hyrax

Holy Hyrax, who frequently comments here on the pages of LNM, has decided to hang a shingle and start his own blog (he's a team member of The Muqata and SerandEz). HH and I have disagreed many times in the past but I have always appreciated his ability to disagree without being disagreeable. (Something I have had trouble with myself).

Go read his blog now:

http://holyhyrax.blogspot.com/

God's Tent

[Your weekly guest post from The Candy Man. - LNM]

What does the term אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד—“tent of meeting”—really mean? In this week's Torah portion (Ex. 40:7, 40:34), the term refers to the Tabernacle. Similarly, verses that describe sacrifice (Lev. 1:3, eg.) often mention the altar in the “tent of meeting”—obviously, the Tabernacle.

Just a few chapters ago, the term אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד was first introduced (33:7). There, it says that after the golden calf, Moses moved “the tent” outside the camp and named it the “tent of meeting.” It’s possible that this refers to moving the Tabernacle (as King James translates there)—if so, we must propose that the Tabernacle was built before the golden calf. This is highly problematic.

A simpler and better explanation of 33:7 is that the term there does not refer to the Tabernacle at all. Rather, it refers to a regular tent, which Moses established as a place to convene with God after the sin. If so, the text uses the term אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד about two separate objects—the Tabernacle, and the tent Moses set up. I think this reflects two different traditions about the nature of God's house.

This debate is still raging today. Does God live in a fancy synagogue, like the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem? Or does he prefer a more intimate space, like a little worn-out shteibel? We can't settle on one place of worship, so as a result there's now a synagogue for every type. While it's nice to have options, these places divide us and cost money to build and run. There are now over twenty synagogues in the little neighborhood where I grew up.

It's not just Jews. Mankind practices this idiocy on a grand scale. If we were united as a race, we would only need one great tent, and we could sing in a chorus of millions. Can you imagine how wonderful and powerful that could be? But because we can't agree or cooperate on anything theological, each separate religion and sect insists on building its own places of worship. As a race, we end up with millions of expensive buildings across the globe, each catering exclusively to a relatively small local population, with the net result of dividing us up into little groups and costing us trillions each year. Ironically, God has left the premises.

The Evolution of Creationism

I forget where I first saw this little comic strip (click to expand) but today I found the blog of it's creator, Lisa Goodlin. (You can buy t-shirts of this strip at rationalitees.com)

---

Clearly, some religious communities have become more accepting over the years. (Look at Modern Orthodoxy). And others are still stuck in panel one. (Look at the Charedi). As humanity expands its understanding of the universe will religious communities become more accepting? Or, is there a point at which all religions will pull back?