Internet service was down at work last week so YR (my Reform co-worker) and I took a long lunch. We were schmoozing about my "being a frum" [sic] while not "believing in god" situation. He asked how it was going. I said it's been OK but that I haven't talked with wifey about it in a while. I told him that she has noticed that I haven't been practicing much and that I want to have a discussion with her about where I'm currently at.
YR gave me a look and asked me what my best-case-scenario is. I've thought about this. I told him that in my best-case-scenario she would join me and we wouldn't be frum. But, I added, because of her family she will never cross over. Her family is really tight and very involved in each others lives. The stress of a family member going OTD would probably be enough pressure to keep her on the path. But, even if she was willing to cross over we would still keep a kosher kitchen so they could eat at our house. So, ideally, I would keep a kosher kitchen at home, but eat-out, and Shabbos would be like Sunday.
"And realistically?" he asked "Because you know she's not going to change."
"Realistically? I guess I would do what I'm doing now but that she'd be OK with it."
"So for all practical purposes you're living your best-case-scenario?" (He said it more as a statement than as a question).
"I guess... I'm just a little concerned that the other shoe is waiting to drop."
Despite what I said in my mangled metaphor (the thing about the shoe with a sense of timing) I think she's getting used to the idea.
More on that to come.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
It's not written in stone
[Another guest post from your friendly neighborhood CandyMan. -LNM]
You'd think that the Ten Commandments should stand forever, unchanged, perhaps even be displayed prominently in a Montgomery, Alabama public courthouse in the year 2003. But when you take a look at what the commandments actually say, you notice some interesting peculiarities. Take the second one (Ex. 20:4, emphasis mine):
Despite all this, generational punishment was never a very popular concept among the Israelites. Deut. 24:16 explicitly forbids human courts from executing sons for their fathers' sins, which at least some kings took to heart (II Kings 14:6). Before long, the Israelites began to question whether generational punishment made any sense at all. Widely acknowledged as the dry wits of the ancient near east, they came up with a classic pithy saying to summarize the doctrine (Jer 31:29-30, Ezek. 18:1-5):
During the shit-times in ancient Israel, this tongue-in-cheek pithy became insanely popular (TV had not been invented yet). The Israelites believed in generational punishment, and were using it as an explanation for current events. Who is to blame for the crappy harvest and the invading Babylonians? Of course, it must be our lousy parents' fault! God is so unfair.
The problem was, this little doctrine of generational punishment was beginning to annoy prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for obvious reasons. You see, they liked to blame the nation's misfortunes on the current generation's wanton ways, not the previous one's. So... the prophets thought about it a little, and realized (or prophesied?) that generational punishment no longer applied! Heck, it never really made any sense anyways, right? So Jeremiah and Ezekiel proclaimed, definitively, that a person is punished only for his own misdeeds (see above passages). You reap what you sow. No more excuses, baby!
Without exception, the prophets of the Hebrew Bible were revolutionaries. They didn't sit there working within the system, changing things one shaitel (woman's wig) hair at a time like our current Jewish leaders. No, they saw a screwed-up system and they turned it on its head. They confronted the corrupt politicians, the false prophets, the dirty high priests, and most of all the greedy, immoral populous. They risked their lives to tell the people the stuff that they didn't want to hear. They rethought Judaism, challenged the old ideas, identified the stuff that wasn't working and reworked it from the ground up. It doesn't add up with the Ten Commandments? Well, God was sending them a different message!
Today, of course, we take it for granted that children are not punished for their parents' sins (or vice-versa). But it's important to realize that early Jews did not. The revelation at Sinai was not perfect, and it wasn't written in stone. These ideas were a development, just like the idea of life after death. And Judaism is still growing. The last 200 years have been huge for Judaism, and a new generation of revolutionaries has now come and gone.
What will we take for granted two generations from now? Marriage equality, certainly. The death penalty will be a distant memory. In four generations, there will be more agnostics and atheists in America than Christians. Racial check-boxes will be a thing of the past. Identities will be forged based on our common humanity, realizing the vision of this country's Constitution. In ten generations, if human beings are still around, they will look down on all of us 21st century yokels as straight up fools and greedy savages. Well, except for the occasional Ezekiel, of course.
You'd think that the Ten Commandments should stand forever, unchanged, perhaps even be displayed prominently in a Montgomery, Alabama public courthouse in the year 2003. But when you take a look at what the commandments actually say, you notice some interesting peculiarities. Take the second one (Ex. 20:4, emphasis mine):
So, at least according to his top ten list, God punishes children for the sins of their parents. Some apologetics interpret "them that hate me" as referring to the children being punished, but the simplest reading is that it refers to the offending parents. Indeed, the phrase is completely absent in Ex. 34:6-7, where the Bible seems to defend generational punishment as a way for God to spread out his jealous wrath (Hebrew "נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן") over several generations instead of wiping out the parents in a moment of anger. (For an example of generational punishment in action, check out Jer. 29:32.)לֹא-תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם, וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם: כִּי אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֵל קַנָּא--פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל-בָּנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים, לְשֹׂנְאָי
Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me.
Despite all this, generational punishment was never a very popular concept among the Israelites. Deut. 24:16 explicitly forbids human courts from executing sons for their fathers' sins, which at least some kings took to heart (II Kings 14:6). Before long, the Israelites began to question whether generational punishment made any sense at all. Widely acknowledged as the dry wits of the ancient near east, they came up with a classic pithy saying to summarize the doctrine (Jer 31:29-30, Ezek. 18:1-5):
אָבוֹת אָכְלוּ בֹסֶר; וְשִׁנֵּי בָנִים, תִּקְהֶינָה
The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
During the shit-times in ancient Israel, this tongue-in-cheek pithy became insanely popular (TV had not been invented yet). The Israelites believed in generational punishment, and were using it as an explanation for current events. Who is to blame for the crappy harvest and the invading Babylonians? Of course, it must be our lousy parents' fault! God is so unfair.The problem was, this little doctrine of generational punishment was beginning to annoy prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for obvious reasons. You see, they liked to blame the nation's misfortunes on the current generation's wanton ways, not the previous one's. So... the prophets thought about it a little, and realized (or prophesied?) that generational punishment no longer applied! Heck, it never really made any sense anyways, right? So Jeremiah and Ezekiel proclaimed, definitively, that a person is punished only for his own misdeeds (see above passages). You reap what you sow. No more excuses, baby!
Without exception, the prophets of the Hebrew Bible were revolutionaries. They didn't sit there working within the system, changing things one shaitel (woman's wig) hair at a time like our current Jewish leaders. No, they saw a screwed-up system and they turned it on its head. They confronted the corrupt politicians, the false prophets, the dirty high priests, and most of all the greedy, immoral populous. They risked their lives to tell the people the stuff that they didn't want to hear. They rethought Judaism, challenged the old ideas, identified the stuff that wasn't working and reworked it from the ground up. It doesn't add up with the Ten Commandments? Well, God was sending them a different message!
Today, of course, we take it for granted that children are not punished for their parents' sins (or vice-versa). But it's important to realize that early Jews did not. The revelation at Sinai was not perfect, and it wasn't written in stone. These ideas were a development, just like the idea of life after death. And Judaism is still growing. The last 200 years have been huge for Judaism, and a new generation of revolutionaries has now come and gone.
What will we take for granted two generations from now? Marriage equality, certainly. The death penalty will be a distant memory. In four generations, there will be more agnostics and atheists in America than Christians. Racial check-boxes will be a thing of the past. Identities will be forged based on our common humanity, realizing the vision of this country's Constitution. In ten generations, if human beings are still around, they will look down on all of us 21st century yokels as straight up fools and greedy savages. Well, except for the occasional Ezekiel, of course.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Will Jews and Gentiles Ever Be Able to Join Hands?
Havdalah bothers me. When I pray alone or in synagogue I try not to say things I don't believe. For example: Aleinu. At home, despite my lack of faith, I still perform all the (typically) male religious ceremonies. When I do one of these services for my wife I recite the words aloud and unedited. As I already mentioned, the one that really bugs me is havdalah. The final stanza is what gets under my skin:
My post last week about non-Jewish relatives provoked a bunch of responses where people tried to reconcile the idea of a "chosen people" with modern liberal thought. But the havdalah service makes it clear which side you should want to be on. On one side you have sacred/light/Israel/Sabbath/and lollipops. And on the other side you have secular/darkness/nations/six days of labor/and a lump of coal. Here is a list of opposites, avoid the bad ones if you can. At best havdalah is saying non-Jews are a necessary evil but ideally they should be avoided.
I want to contrast this Jewish service with one of the most famous speeches in American history. Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. We've all heard it. And we all know the punchline:
Now that's a message I can get behind.
---------
In honor of Dr. Martin Luther Kings birthday (observed today) here is his famous speech in full:
Blessed are you, Lord, our God, sovereign of the universe Who separates between sacred and secular, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six days of labor.Between Israel and the nations... Ugh. The whole prayer reads like the analogy section of the SATs. "Light is to Darkness as Israel is to _____ ?"
My post last week about non-Jewish relatives provoked a bunch of responses where people tried to reconcile the idea of a "chosen people" with modern liberal thought. But the havdalah service makes it clear which side you should want to be on. On one side you have sacred/light/Israel/Sabbath/and lollipops. And on the other side you have secular/darkness/nations/six days of labor/and a lump of coal. Here is a list of opposites, avoid the bad ones if you can. At best havdalah is saying non-Jews are a necessary evil but ideally they should be avoided.
I want to contrast this Jewish service with one of the most famous speeches in American history. Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. We've all heard it. And we all know the punchline:
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:As in the havdalah service Dr. King gives a list of perceived opposites. But MLK has a totally different goal in mind. He wants these two sides to join together. He wants Jews and Gentiles to join hands and sing. His desire is for a unification, not a separation.
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Now that's a message I can get behind.
---------
In honor of Dr. Martin Luther Kings birthday (observed today) here is his famous speech in full:
Friday, January 18, 2008
Inspirations
Whenever I do these Candyman posts for LNM, I always feel like starting with a Krusty the Clown Hhhhhhhhhhhi, kids! (Sigh.)
First I wanted to write a piece about how Miriam sang out loud at the Sea of Reeds and inspired everyone. But women's lib is old news.
This week, my inspiration comes not from the past, but from the present. Most of my waking hours, I'm a molecular biologist. I'll be the first to admit, science is *hard*. Modern biology is about trying to see the invisible. We're trying to figure out what's happening in a world so small that it can never be photographed or videoed. 95% of the experiments we do never pan out. The postdocs I know are all depressed and nervous. It takes a couple of years, on average, to produce a single publication. And no matter what you do, people are always finding problems with your work. Talk about wandering in a desert for 40 years!
What keeps us going? Simple. It's the miracles. One of these happened this week, when tissue engineers grew a rat heart from a bunch of stem cells. But this accomplishment didn't happen overnight. It was a development. Scientists first had to learn to grow beating heart cells (decades ago) and fetal stem cells (last decade). Then they had to engineer a proper organ mold for the cells (in this case, a dead, hollow heart) and figure out how to keep that mold oxygenated and happy. The rat heart that succeeded was only one in many hundreds of such attempts that have been tried over the last ten years.
It took a long time, but it was worth it. One day, this technology will be used to provide new, bio-compatible hearts for human beings who would die without them.
The Bible charges humans with mastering the natural world and tending to God's garden. I think scientists take this mission to heart, whether or not they believe in a personal God. It's not easy work, you don't get paid a lot, and there's a lot of delayed gratification. But you get to do cool stuff, and you get to help people. So I am inspired... not only by the miracles of science, but also by the hard working scientists who make it all possible by spending their nights working their butts off in the lab. These miracles are wrought by human beings.
Every once in a while, something so inspiring comes out of science that it makes it all worthwhile. Well, almost.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Non-Jewish Relations
As the child of BTs I have a number of non-Jewish (read: goyish) relatives. I think this is fairly common for anyone with non-frum (read: frei) members of their family. Having such a diverse extended-family makes it harder to swallow some of the Jewish ideas I was taught in school.
For example: My racist, ignorant, chasidic grade school rebbeim made it perfectly clear that goyim are different from Jews. For one, we were taught Jews have both a nefesh elokis (godly soul) and a nefesh habahamis (animal soul). Goys on the other hand only have one of those two souls. Can you guess which one?!?! (HINT: It's not godly one!) The message came through loud and clear: "Gentiles are nothing but god-less animals".
We were also taught that when Moshiach (the messiah) comes the goyims will be our servants. When I was much younger this would bring to mind images of my non-Jewish relatives bringing me lemonade on a platter. Now that I'm older it makes me sick to think I was taught such drivel.
On some level I think having non-Jewish relatives made me question some of the basic ideas of Judaism. For example the idea that Jews are "God's Chosen People". If I'm "Chosen" then what does that make my cousin? Chopped liver?! [adjusts tie]
Non-Jews are often vilified as "Them" in Divrei Torah, speeches, and jokes told in the Jewish community. But, when "They" are your loved ones you can't help but question which side you want to be on.
-----
Update: The comments made me think to link to this older post of mine:
Why Should God Need a Chosen People?
For example: My racist, ignorant, chasidic grade school rebbeim made it perfectly clear that goyim are different from Jews. For one, we were taught Jews have both a nefesh elokis (godly soul) and a nefesh habahamis (animal soul). Goys on the other hand only have one of those two souls. Can you guess which one?!?! (HINT: It's not godly one!) The message came through loud and clear: "Gentiles are nothing but god-less animals".
We were also taught that when Moshiach (the messiah) comes the goyims will be our servants. When I was much younger this would bring to mind images of my non-Jewish relatives bringing me lemonade on a platter. Now that I'm older it makes me sick to think I was taught such drivel.
On some level I think having non-Jewish relatives made me question some of the basic ideas of Judaism. For example the idea that Jews are "God's Chosen People". If I'm "Chosen" then what does that make my cousin? Chopped liver?! [adjusts tie]
Non-Jews are often vilified as "Them" in Divrei Torah, speeches, and jokes told in the Jewish community. But, when "They" are your loved ones you can't help but question which side you want to be on.
-----
Update: The comments made me think to link to this older post of mine:
Why Should God Need a Chosen People?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
God Lies, Pharaoh Dies?
Whether we admit it or not, most of us take our cues about the Exodus from the classic film The Ten Commandments. We picture Charlton Heston wearing a ragged, red tallit and demanding from Pharaoh, Let my people go! And Pharaoh thunders, No, I will not let them go! Eventually, under the pressure of the plagues, Pharaoh relents and frees the Israelites. But he changes his mind and tries to get his slaves back, leading to his downfall at the Sea of Reeds.And that all makes perfect sense, except it's not what the Bible actually says.
In the Bible's version, Moses never actually asks for Israelite freedom. He asks for a vacation for a few days to worship the Israelite God in the desert. Pharaoh allows this after a couple of plagues, but insists the Israelites leave behind some people or animals as security. He wants to make sure they don't make a run for it. Moses, whose intentions are not clear, argues that the Israelites need all the people and all the animals for worship purposes. When Pharaoh does eventually relent after the plague of the firstborn, he does not free the Israelites from slavery. He gives them only what they've been asking for: a vacation to worship God, with no qualifications (Ex. 12:31-32, emphasis mine):
"Bless me also" is a reference to the promised worship service. Note that Pharaoh does not change his mind this time. He lets the people go to worship. Only when he sees that the Israelites have tricked him and made a run for it (Hebrew root BRH) does he give chase (Ex. 13:17, 14:5).וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי--גַּם-אַתֶּם, גַּם-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּלְכוּ עִבְדוּ אֶת-יְהוָה, כְּדַבֶּרְכֶם גַּם-צֹאנְכֶם גַּם-בְּקַרְכֶם קְחוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם, וָלֵכוּ; וּבֵרַכְתֶּם, גַּם-אֹתִיAnd [Pharaoh] called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: 'Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as ye have said. Take both your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.' (JPS 1917 translation)
Now, if the Israelites wanted freedom, why did Moses/God have to lie to Pharaoh to get it? Given the harshness of the Egyptian bondage, a demand for total freedom seems very appropriate. Why the trickery? Is God so weak that he can't bring the Israelites out of Egypt without resorting to subterfuge? Also, it's somewhat astounding that God himself is lying to Pharaoh's face here. Worse, God commands the Israelites to outright trick the Egyptians out of their riches (Ex. 11:12). They borrow gold and silver vessels from the Egyptians just before taking off for their little "holiday." Of course, none of it ever gets returned. Did God/Israel really have to trick Egypt to get her valuables?
The answer to all this is actually obvious. Can you see it yet?
-The Candy Man
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Bringing Home Bacon
Like many parents of newborns I've been spending a lot of time at Babies R' Us. There always seems to be more stuff the baby needs that we don't yet have. It's almost as if this kid keeps growing and changing from week to week.On our most recent visit we were picking up some feeding bibs. Wife picked this one out (see picture) and asked me what I thought. The first thing that came to my mind was: PIGS! PIIIIIIIGS!!! IT HAS PIGS!!! Aooogah, aooogah! Red Alert! Clang, Clang, Clang!!!
I kid you not. If I was in a Tex Avery cartoon my eyes would have bugged out and I would have shot up about three feet in the air while my socks and shoes stayed in place.
Why did I have such a strong reaction? Well, as you may or may not know the Lubavitcher Rebbe told Chabadniks that they shouldn't let their children play with toys of non-kosher animals. "Whaaa???" you say? Here is an excerpt from AskMoses.com:
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, therefore, strongly suggested that children not be surrounded by animals the Torah calls impure (the Torah does not use the terms Kosher and un-kosher – meaning “fit” or “unfit”, rather tahor and tamei – meaning [spiritually] “pure” or “impure”), due to their negative energies and their often violent natures. In fact, The Rebbe was so concerned about this that he even discouraged surrounding a child with pictures and images of such animals.I remember when this idea first reached my Mom. One day Bugs and
Source: http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=157&o=2028472
"So, what do you think?" she said.
"It's perfect. Let's get out of here."
Monday, January 7, 2008
New Skeptic Blog: "It ain't me" by Nimrod
Long time commenter/lurker Nimrod has throw his hat in the ring with his new blog "It ain't me". Nimrod is an orthoprax skeptic and his blog is off to an interesting start. Here's a sample:
I was a fortunate son, with many years of being frum, learning, yeshiva etc. I was was the fortunate son, who had all the answers and any question in life was easily solved by opening a sefer, speaking to a Rav, and you know what, it worked. My, how it worked.Go check it out!
It took a few years but now I am totally indifferent to shul or davening for that matter. I dont do either, and absolutely nothing is missing from my life.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Why Don't Rational Lubavitchers Renounce Mishichists?
Over at Emes Ve-Emunah I've been arguing with people that not all Lubavitchers believe The Rebbe is moshiach. The debate seems to have prompted Harry Maryles to write a post called
Lubavitch: The Problem and the Solution. Below is Harry's punchline.
Ok, if a Lubavitch leader made such a statement... then what? This won't change the minds of the thousands of mishachists. I think these people are going to believe what they believe no matter what (I wrote a post about this subject: http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2007/11/mishichistim-can-they-be-changed.html ). Further, the groups that didn't like/accept Chabad before won't suddenly like/accept them now. Rav Shach was very critical of Chabad when The Rebbe was alive and many sects of Judaism shun Chabad for reasons that have nothing to do with mishichists. What does Chabad have to gain by making such a statement?
On the flip side Chabad has everything to lose by making such a proclamation. If "Chabad leadership" (another issue I'll get to in a minute) were to release a statement saying "The Rebbe died and is not Moshiach" they would risk irrevocably splitting the movement. My impression is Chabad is more than happy to fight this battle within the movement and is willing to let the rest of the world think whatever they want to think.
The issue of Lubavitch leadership is another question entirely. There is no one leader or group of leaders that can speak for all of Chabad so any statement made simply won't be authoritative. (I fault The Rebbe for this. See this post: http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-blame-rebbe.html) Further, there are many non-mishichist who don't see the mishichits as outside of halacha and therefore see no reason to draw a distinction with them.
The Rebbe built Chabad into an organization based on one leader who made authoritative decisions for the whole group. That leader is gone and there is no replacement. What Chabad is doing now is reinventing how they operate as a group. Without one person, or group, to make a ruling on this issue I think it will be a long time before this issue is resolved. Perhaps the next generation of Chabad, which will not have grown up knowing The Rebbe, will resolve this issue.
UPDATE:
I wrote the following follow up post at HM's blog.
----
There seems to be a misunderstanding about Rabbi Weinberg's suggestion. Some here think that what R' Weinberg said leaves room for interpretation or that it falls short of declaring The Rebbe not-Moshiach. However, to a Lubavitcher his call to find an 8th Rebbe is _by definition_ a declaration that The 7th Rebbe is not Moshiach. I often heard Lubavitchers cite Sanhedrin as a source that you should believe your Rebbe to be Moshiach.
Lubavitch: The Problem and the Solution. Below is Harry's punchline.
What is needed is more than just a statement by Lubavitch that the Rebbe is no longer alive and that we need to move on. While that is true, it is not enough. They have to say the following: The Rebbe, ZTL, died (or was Nifter - if you prefer) and is not Moshiach - Period. I’m sure there are more than a few Lubavitchers who would say this. But I believe they are a very small minority. The key is for the leadership to say it. To the best of my knowledge, no Lubavitch leader has ever said those words.Here is my response:
Ok, if a Lubavitch leader made such a statement... then what? This won't change the minds of the thousands of mishachists. I think these people are going to believe what they believe no matter what (I wrote a post about this subject: http://lubabnomore.blogspot
On the flip side Chabad has everything to lose by making such a proclamation. If "Chabad leadership" (another issue I'll get to in a minute) were to release a statement saying "The Rebbe died and is not Moshiach" they would risk irrevocably splitting the movement. My impression is Chabad is more than happy to fight this battle within the movement and is willing to let the rest of the world think whatever they want to think.
The issue of Lubavitch leadership is another question entirely. There is no one leader or group of leaders that can speak for all of Chabad so any statement made simply won't be authoritative. (I fault The Rebbe for this. See this post: http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-blame-rebbe.html) Further, there are many non-mishichist who don't see the mishichits as outside of halacha and therefore see no reason to draw a distinction with them.
The Rebbe built Chabad into an organization based on one leader who made authoritative decisions for the whole group. That leader is gone and there is no replacement. What Chabad is doing now is reinventing how they operate as a group. Without one person, or group, to make a ruling on this issue I think it will be a long time before this issue is resolved. Perhaps the next generation of Chabad, which will not have grown up knowing The Rebbe, will resolve this issue.
UPDATE:
I wrote the following follow up post at HM's blog.
----
There seems to be a misunderstanding about Rabbi Weinberg's suggestion. Some here think that what R' Weinberg said leaves room for interpretation or that it falls short of declaring The Rebbe not-Moshiach. However, to a Lubavitcher his call to find an 8th Rebbe is _by definition_ a declaration that The 7th Rebbe is not Moshiach. I often heard Lubavitchers cite Sanhedrin as a source that you should believe your Rebbe to be Moshiach.
"If Moshiach will come from the living, it will be Rabeinu HaKadosh (i.e.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi), if he comes from the dead, it will be Daniel (the Prophet)..."Suggesting Lubavitch should find a new leader is equivalent to saying The Rebbe is not Moshiach. Within the Chabad community Rabbi Weinberg's position leaves no room for interpretation.
Sanhedrin 98:B
Friday, January 4, 2008
Tradition or time-trap?
[A peek at what Passover's like in Candyland--LNM]
Hey guys, it's the Candyman, and wait till you hear about this latest candy I discovered! They're these shrink-wrapped, dried savory mushrooms a friend brought from me in China. Last night I woke up around 4 a.m. with the munchies and started snacking on some of these. You gotta try 'em! Not hechshered/certified of course, but probably kosher. Anyways, I'm snacking in bed, lying on my side, and what should pop into my mind but the Passover seder. 'Cuz we recline, of course! In my house, we do it the way it was meant to be done, in true Greek style: everyone gets a couch, lies down on her left side, and props her head up with her left arm, leaving the right arm free to handle the food. None of this leaning-to-the-left-in-your-chair phony baloney.
So lying on my side last night, snacking on this Chinese mushroom stuff, well it brought to my mind some questions about traditions and culture. I mean, on the one hand, we've got this interesting snack coming out of the Chinese culinary tradition. On the other hand, my Jewish tradition has come up with a very strange custom of lying on one side during the Passover meal. The Chinese tradition is all about enjoying a nice, convenient piece of food. The Jewish one is kinda strict, and is only one drop in a sea of rituals that make up the Passover meal.
So the question is, do these traditions reflect some deeper truth about Chinese or Jewish cultural values? Are they some kind of manifestation of divine will or human moral value? Or did they just arise like the patterns on the peacock's tail: random noise that caught someone's eye and managed to propagate itself through history? In a parallel universe, are the Jewish traditions the same, and the Chinese food? Or is it completely arbitrary?
This touches upon a sensitive point that arose the last time I posted, about discrimination in Judaism. Most folks seemed to agree that a little outreach building bridges in the non-Jewish world wouldn't hurt our great national cause. But when I dared to suggest, in the comments, that we ditch some of our current Jewish traditions in favor of actually doing said outreach, people balked. They thought this would be too great a sacrifice. They didn't want to lose extant traditions in favor of new ones. I think that attitude explains, in a large way, why Orthodox Jews have *so many* traditions/rules. They don't want to abandon any of them! But might not traditions like lying on your side at the seder have a half-life? I mean, does that still make us feel liberated? And if we aren't being discerning in the traditions we keep, what is their value?
And does anyone have the time to keep *all* these Jewish traditions and also do outreach among non-Jews? I mean, if you work for a living, go to shul/synagogue three times a day, and have a chavruta/study session after maariv/evening prayer, you barely have time to give your wife the face time she needs. And doesn't this blind fidelity to old traditions stifle the development of new ones? Especially given the attitude in Orthodox Judaism that the older the tradition, the more valuable and authoritative.
I'll close with two Passover traditions that deserve special attention. The first is actually eating roasted lamb at the seder. Now I know, I know, we can't bring sacrifices since the Temple isn't standing. But that doesn't stop us from having a delicious lamb barbeque on Passover eve! No, it's a Rabbinical technicality that has forced us to give up this delicious lamb in favor of turkey on Passover night. Well, the rabbis may not have realized they were asking Jews to give up their roasted lamb for a couple of millenia. To me, and hundreds of other yiddin/Jews who crave a little bassar/meat with their dried-out Eastern European matzos, a well-roasted lamb would make the seder a lot more pleasurable. I'd feel a lot more free having lamb than lying on my side. Bring back the lamb!
The second tradition is to put an orange on the seder plate, as a symbol of inclusion for marginalized Jews (such as gays and lesbians, who are still not free, neither in our religion nor in our country). The custom has been associated with a funny anecdote, although in true Rabbinic fashion it's been debated by the woman who came up with it. Anyways, I think it's a good idea.
Giving up old traditions, or old ways of living, doesn't mean they never had any value. Those things may have been necessary to get us where we are today. But don't get caught living in the past. The best thing I can say to you guys is, when it comes to religion, think big. You only live once. You're creative cats. Live inspired. Come up with your own traditions. Go out and change the world.
Hey guys, it's the Candyman, and wait till you hear about this latest candy I discovered! They're these shrink-wrapped, dried savory mushrooms a friend brought from me in China. Last night I woke up around 4 a.m. with the munchies and started snacking on some of these. You gotta try 'em! Not hechshered/certified of course, but probably kosher. Anyways, I'm snacking in bed, lying on my side, and what should pop into my mind but the Passover seder. 'Cuz we recline, of course! In my house, we do it the way it was meant to be done, in true Greek style: everyone gets a couch, lies down on her left side, and props her head up with her left arm, leaving the right arm free to handle the food. None of this leaning-to-the-left-in-your-chair phony baloney.
So lying on my side last night, snacking on this Chinese mushroom stuff, well it brought to my mind some questions about traditions and culture. I mean, on the one hand, we've got this interesting snack coming out of the Chinese culinary tradition. On the other hand, my Jewish tradition has come up with a very strange custom of lying on one side during the Passover meal. The Chinese tradition is all about enjoying a nice, convenient piece of food. The Jewish one is kinda strict, and is only one drop in a sea of rituals that make up the Passover meal.
So the question is, do these traditions reflect some deeper truth about Chinese or Jewish cultural values? Are they some kind of manifestation of divine will or human moral value? Or did they just arise like the patterns on the peacock's tail: random noise that caught someone's eye and managed to propagate itself through history? In a parallel universe, are the Jewish traditions the same, and the Chinese food? Or is it completely arbitrary?
This touches upon a sensitive point that arose the last time I posted, about discrimination in Judaism. Most folks seemed to agree that a little outreach building bridges in the non-Jewish world wouldn't hurt our great national cause. But when I dared to suggest, in the comments, that we ditch some of our current Jewish traditions in favor of actually doing said outreach, people balked. They thought this would be too great a sacrifice. They didn't want to lose extant traditions in favor of new ones. I think that attitude explains, in a large way, why Orthodox Jews have *so many* traditions/rules. They don't want to abandon any of them! But might not traditions like lying on your side at the seder have a half-life? I mean, does that still make us feel liberated? And if we aren't being discerning in the traditions we keep, what is their value?
And does anyone have the time to keep *all* these Jewish traditions and also do outreach among non-Jews? I mean, if you work for a living, go to shul/synagogue three times a day, and have a chavruta/study session after maariv/evening prayer, you barely have time to give your wife the face time she needs. And doesn't this blind fidelity to old traditions stifle the development of new ones? Especially given the attitude in Orthodox Judaism that the older the tradition, the more valuable and authoritative.
I'll close with two Passover traditions that deserve special attention. The first is actually eating roasted lamb at the seder. Now I know, I know, we can't bring sacrifices since the Temple isn't standing. But that doesn't stop us from having a delicious lamb barbeque on Passover eve! No, it's a Rabbinical technicality that has forced us to give up this delicious lamb in favor of turkey on Passover night. Well, the rabbis may not have realized they were asking Jews to give up their roasted lamb for a couple of millenia. To me, and hundreds of other yiddin/Jews who crave a little bassar/meat with their dried-out Eastern European matzos, a well-roasted lamb would make the seder a lot more pleasurable. I'd feel a lot more free having lamb than lying on my side. Bring back the lamb!
The second tradition is to put an orange on the seder plate, as a symbol of inclusion for marginalized Jews (such as gays and lesbians, who are still not free, neither in our religion nor in our country). The custom has been associated with a funny anecdote, although in true Rabbinic fashion it's been debated by the woman who came up with it. Anyways, I think it's a good idea.
Giving up old traditions, or old ways of living, doesn't mean they never had any value. Those things may have been necessary to get us where we are today. But don't get caught living in the past. The best thing I can say to you guys is, when it comes to religion, think big. You only live once. You're creative cats. Live inspired. Come up with your own traditions. Go out and change the world.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Happy Most Recent Orbit Around the Sun!
Or, Happy New Year! I'm torn between knocking New Years Day and celebrating it. On the one hand I have a hard time getting excited about watching the clock change from 11:59 to 12:00. Seeing the number 2007 change to 2008 doesn't make me any more delirious. I know some people who actually get excited about numbers changing but I think for many people New Years is more about taking stock of where we are in life. Hence, the "New Years Resolution". It's like some kind of worldwide birthday. For that reason I can get behind it. (Another reason for celebrating New Years? I get the day off)!
For a similar reason I'm not anti-religion. Some people simply hate the idea that other people have faith in a make-believe deity in the sky. Personally I could care less, so long as they leave me alone. If some folks get something out of prayer then, gezunte heit. If it works for you, fine, go ahead, just don't bother me with it. (Of course I'm sort of stuck in the middle of religion and can't exactly avoid it at present but that's another story).
So here are my New Years resolutions:
1. Work out at least once a week.
2. Spend at least 1/2 hour a week playing guitar.
How about you? What are your New Years resolutions?
For a similar reason I'm not anti-religion. Some people simply hate the idea that other people have faith in a make-believe deity in the sky. Personally I could care less, so long as they leave me alone. If some folks get something out of prayer then, gezunte heit. If it works for you, fine, go ahead, just don't bother me with it. (Of course I'm sort of stuck in the middle of religion and can't exactly avoid it at present but that's another story).
So here are my New Years resolutions:
1. Work out at least once a week.
2. Spend at least 1/2 hour a week playing guitar.
How about you? What are your New Years resolutions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)