The World to Come part 1

First, it must be remembered that the Torah is not a book of doctrine, but rather a code of behavior. We look in vain for clear pictures of the meaning of death, the nature and fate of the soul, or the future events awaiting Man or the Jewish people. There are, to be sure, hints; but these can often be understood either literally or allegorically. All of these questions are the province of the Oral Tradition. Even there, however, we find many opinions and interpretations. The ancient Sadducees, who rejected the Oral Torah, denied a hereafter. The views of the afterlife found in other religions that stemmed from Judaism are much more influenced by the Oral Tradition than by Scripture.
Well, let's see what we DO find. The term "Sheol" is frequently used throughout the Tanach. It may, and probably does, simply mean "the grave". Non-traditional scholars, as well as Karaite heresy, interpret it to be like the Greek "Hades", where the souls continue a shadowy, dull existence. According to the Karaites, all are equal there, with no concept of reward or punishment. Many Christian groups understand Sheol to mean Hell. That this is unlikely can be seen from Jacob's statement, after hearing of the supposed death of Joseph, "I will go down in unhappiness to Sheol".Did Jacob believe he was going to Hell? When King David learns of the death of his first son with Bathsheba, he says "He will not return to me, I will go to him". Is he speaking of an afterlife, or merely metaphorically of death? The one case I can think of that strongly implies the continued existence of the soul, is the story of Saul and the Witch of En Dor. G-d has abandoned Saul, and he resorts to going to a Witch (most of whom he has killed) in order to bring up the soul of Samuel, who had anointed him and guided him in the first days of his reign. Samuel "rises from the Earth", and tells Saul of his doom the next day. But did the Witch actually have power? Many of the rabbis interpret this story literally. Many believe that the Witch was powerless, but G-d sent Samuel , much to the Witch's amazement. Still others believe that the entire story is to be interpreted allegorically. King Solomon, in the cynical mood of his last years, questions: "Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?" (Kohelet 3:21). Yet, he also says: "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to G-d who gave it". (Kohelet 12:7) But what does returning to G-d mean? How? Where? These are all questions that are dealt with at length in rabbinic literature, which I will discuss in my next post.
Much clearer than the afterlife, is the idea of bodily resurrection. Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones coming to life would seem to imply resurrection. But it is most probably, from the context, a metaphor for the reestablishment of the exiles in Babylon to the Land of Israel. There are several verses in Isaiah that allude to resurrection, but Daniel has it most clearly: " And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.  And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; they that turn the many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever". (Daniel 12:2-3) Daniel seems to clearly state that the dead will live again. But his words indicate a terrible judgment. That idea is to be found in Talmud and other rabbinic literature. However, RAMBAM, as we shall see, totally rejects the notion of a day of judgment. Moreover, these verses imply an eternal punishment. But the Talmud rejects eternal punishment. Why? And what has been happening to the souls in the time between death and resurrection? The Karaites assume that it has been in a sort of suspended animation, or more correctly, the shadowy existence in Sheol. The rabbis, however, see it as a time of heavenly bliss, with the resurrection finally uniting Heaven and Earth. Interestingly, RAMBAM, in his legal code, deals only briefly with resurrection, and much more with the afterlife. Yet, in his Thirteen Articles of Faith, he lists the resurrection as a bedrock principle, but fails to mention the afterlife at all. The apocryphal Book of Maccabees speaks of the Jews praying for their dead comrades after a battle. Can the dead be "helped"? Many of the Jewish philosophers, including RAMBAM, vigorously reject this notion. Yet, prayers for the dead are a major feature of Jewish worship in nearly all communities. (Interestingly, the quote in Maccabees is probably the reason why Catholics accept, while Protestants reject, that book). Like in many areas, the Tanach contains many treasures and secrets, waiting to be unlocked by the Oral Tradition. I will discuss some of these "keys" in my next installments.

Christianity

I'm about to do something I said would not be tolerated here. If someone wants to boot me...
I made a policy of not discussing other religions. But I see that there is much misunderstanding, and much resentment on this topic.
First of all, what is a Jew? Our Tradition recognizes one as a Jew who was either born into that Nation that made a Covenant with G-d at Sinai, or who had duly joined that Covenant by means of conversion. "Feeling Jewish" is not a criterion, any more than my deciding that I like your family, and am therefore your brother.
Once Jewish, one cannot be made non-Jewish, even if they should sacrifice to Zeus every day. They are, however, violating the covenant. A covenant is a contract. One party not keeping the terms of a contract does not mean that the Contract is null and void. They will, however, face consequences. I have a close friend (of 40 years standing) who is a Wiccan Priestess. She worships many gods and goddesses. But she is born Jewish, and darn proud of that. If you tell her she is not Jewish, you had better duck...fast! She has two children, who are, according to halachah, Jewish. No Orthodox rabbi would ever say differently.
Now, we must talk about Jesus. Some question if he even existed. There is only one contemporary mention of him, and that is likely a forgery. He could very well be a composite figure. Many of the events, in both Jewish and Christian sources, do not jive chronologically. The name "Yeshua" was the second most common male Jewish name at that time, after Simeon. Confusion between figures is certainly possible. I will go here by the assumption that the stories in the Gospels are substantially historical, albeit written from a non-objective stance. Let's start at the beginning. Mary was "Betrothed" to Joseph, who had not yet "taken her". See my series about Jewish marriage. That means that she had had "kiddushin", the part of the ceremony when she becomes forbidden to any other man, but is not yet permitted to her husband, but not "Nissuin", which permits her to him. We know from Jewish sources that the custom in Judea was to separate these ceremonies by 12 months. (Today, we do both together, separated only by the reading of the Ketubah). According to Torah law, that made Jesus a "Mamzer", a bastard born of adultery. It would invalidate him from ever marrying, or holding any official position. He would be an outcast, a pariah. (I do not wish to discuss now the morality of this rule). Now, when we look at what Jesus is alleged to have taught, we see a great deal of frustration and anger against what he perceives to be injustice. This could very well be a reflection on his personal situation. Beyond that, about 90% of what he said is completely consistent with Jewish law and tradition. In many ways, he can be seen as a continuation of Hillel, who lived a centurt earlier, who put Man and human dignity first. However, there is nothing new in these teachings, only a different emphasis. As to the other 10%, there are denials of basic Jewish concepts (It has been said unto you...but I say...), violation of Shabbat in non life threatening situations, and at least broad hints of both Messiahship and Divinity. (Although these statements can be otherwise interpreted). There is little doubt that he would have been seen as a heretic, although there are contradicting stories in the Gospels about his relationship with the rabbis. The upper classes (the ruling class and the Priesthood) were vassals of Rome, and feared any talk of a King of the Jews. (Crucified criminals had a sign over their cross indicating their crime. Hence, the sign "King of the Jews" over Jesus' cross.) His followers were common people and the disenfranchised. There is no indication that he had a following among the learned or devout. In terms of the Jews, he is a footnote on one page of Jewish history. As a Messiah, he had failed miserably. He was just another pretender to that role, one of scores. Then comes Paul. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh; only in vision. Paul rarely quotes Jesus, or makes reference to the events in his life. Paul's message is overwhelmingly about Jesus' death. Paul is a Hellenize Jew. The Greeks believed that the gods sometimes came to Earth, born as humans. (You will recognize this idea from its Hindu version; the Avatar). This form of the gods is called "Soter" in Greek, meaning Savior. Paul made a Jewish heretic into a Greek god!. Among early Christians, there were both Jews and non-Jews. Paul posited that all believers were grafted on to the original covenant (Romans 9 and 11), which no longer requires observance of the laws "If there is salvation under the law, Christ died in vain" (Galatians 2:21). (Salvation itself was a Pauline concept, but let's leave that for anther day). The Jews were henceforth flooded with non-Jews, claiming to be Jews "grafted by faith". The rabbis saw this as a grave danger to Jewish identity, and composed an anti-Christian "blessing" that was inserted into the amidah prayer. (For the last thousand years, it has been changed to a curse upon "evil doers and slanderers".) This forced Christianity to go its own way. Nearly all Christianity after this point is antisemitic. Fortunately, the most virulent groups were thrown out at the Council of Nicaea, in CE, albeit not becasue of their antisemitism. Persecution of Jews continued from that time until today, in various guises (NOT only Catholics). More Jews have been killed in Jesus' name than any other cause. It is no wonder that for most Jews, the name "Jesus" is emotionally on a par with Hitler. Christian missionaries had very little success with Jews, until "Moshe Rosen" (ordained and funded by the Southern Baptist Church) founded Jews for Jesus in the 1960s, which presented the option of being Jewish and following Jesus. Before the 1967 Six day War, most Evangelicals were anti-Israel, but switched to a supportive position as it seemed that Israel was fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. Thus was born the "Messianic" movement.
Jews today take different stances concerning Jesus. Some see him as an evil, almost demonic, figure. Medieval legends and superstitions have been melded into a kind of paranoia. At one time, Jews in Christian Europe were not allowed out in the streets on Christmas Eve, so as not to pollute the "Holy Night". Christmas, in Italian, is Natale. Jews could not go to synagogue or study halls. Today, many Ashkenazi Jews do not study Torah on the first half of Christmas Eve. The reason has been forgotten. The belief has become that if we study, we are giving Jesus "energy" (chiyut). I know many who are "strict" to avoid study on Roman, Greek and Russian Christmases! Others, including yours truly, see this as ludicrous. On the other hand, most Reform, and many Conservative rabbis, are perfectly willing to give Jesus "billing" as a Jewish thinker, minus Messiahship, Divinity...or Paul. For many others (including me), he is simply irrelevant, an "also ran". But, as I have shown elsewhere, most rabbis regard Christianity as acceptable for non-Jews. As such, it has brought them to G-d, and we await their coming closer. I freely and sincerely wish my Christian friends a "Merry Christmas", as they greet me for my festivals. (I usually get unfriended by a few people every year for this). So, I have little regard for Jesus, or for Christianity. We have suffered immensely becasue of him. But over a billion people acknowledge the G-d of Israel through that faith. I see it, as RAMBAM states, as a necessary stage in the development of Man's quest for G-d. I look forward to human progress in that area.

Hanukah

I have been asked to speak about Hanukah. I originally wasn't going to, as this group is about community. Then I realized that Hanukah is, essentially, about community and its meaning. When the Judeans returned from the Babylonian Exile (c. 400 bce), they were vassals of Persia. We actually know less about that period than any other time in our history. Persia fell to Greece, in the time of Alexander the Great. Alexander died at the age of 33, in 323 bce. His empire was then divided among his generals. Judea was in a tug-of-war between Egyptian-Greek rule and Syrian-Greek rule. The Syrians eventually prevailed. The policy of the Alexandrian Hellenistic Empire was to conquer the known world (they came pretty close!) and to establish that culture on all subject peoples, while making allowances for local nuances. The majority of the Jews welcomed the opportunity to become "citizens of the world". The Temple of Jerusalem was converted into a Temple of Zeus. A small band of zealots, led by a Priestly family, rebelled. This was not, however, as usually pictured, a fight against foreign oppression and domination, but primarily a civil war between the more numerous Hellenists, and the smaller group of those loyal to Torah and Judaism. (Syrian Greek troops aided the Hellenists) The war lasted for seven years. Two years into the fighting, the Temple Mount was liberated, even though most of Jerusalem, as well as most of the country, were still in Hellenist hands. The Temple was cleansed, and the Divine Service was restored. If not for this event, Judaism would likely have ended at this juncture in history. At the end of the seven year struggle, a Maccabeean State arose. This was the only independence that Judea knew in the Second Temple period. As I wrote in my piece about Thanksgiving, the heroes of this story can be criticized for many things. Firstly, we are speaking about a bloody civil war. Secondly, the surviving Maccabees usurped the Throne, rather than re-instituting the Davidic Kingdom. After a few generations, they became oppressive to Judaism itself, and murdered hundreds of rabbis. Along the way, they forcibly converted the Iddumeans to Judaism, eventually resulting in one, Herod, seizing the throne and murdering the remaining Maccabees. Two Maccabeean brothers struggled for power, and one INVITED IN THE ROMANS! (Herod was their puppet). Hanukah gets one quarter of a page in the Talmud, while Purim gets an entire tractate. In fact, we have no Jewish source for the word "Maccabee". (There are two possible explanations for the word, and two possible spellings). So why do we celebrate Hanukah? For the rededication of not only the Temple, but the people to G-d, and the rebirth of Judaism. Hanukah means dedication. The story of the cruise of oil, and the Menorah burning for eight days, is unknown in our literature until three centuries after the event. (The Books of Maccabees are to be found in Catholic Bibles, not ours. They do not mention this event. Neither does the "al hanissim prayer which we recite during Hanukah). Many consider it a mere legend. In my opinion, it was a real event that was known only to the few. The historian, Josephus, writing in the first century, after completing the historical details, writes "it is also called the festival of lights, but I don't know why". It seems to me that there was a vague memory, which had been largely forgotten by all but a few. In any case, the miracle of the oil is secondary to the rededication, and rebirth, of Judaism. The Maccabees aren't even secondary. They are almost incidental. We ceelbrate the miracles of G-d, and His workings through history. The rabbis instituted the command of Hanukah candles, and put great emphasis on it. It is one of the few commands that we must sell our shoes, if necessary, in order to fulfill. That is becasue it is "pirsuma nisa", making the miracle known, recognizing that G-d is the G-d of history. Customs arose in Jewsih communities to eat fried foods, in memeory of the oil of the Menorah, as well as dairy foods, since one of the Greek generals was killed by a Jewish woman named Judith, who gave him dairy foods, causing him to sleep (This, too, is in the Catholic Bible, but is also preserved in a Midrash).. Once asleep, she killed him. (This is very similar to the story of Yael in the Tanach). Happy Hanukah!

The Messiah part 12

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was adored by many, but also hated by many. The heads of the Lithuanian Yeshivot, traditionally opposed to Hasidism in general, had made their peace with it for the most part. But Chabad had, in a relatively short time, made a profound impact not only on American Jewry, but worldwide. That spelled danger for the Lithuanian Yeshiva approach. Tones of Messianism had been present in Chabad for at least a century. As soon as Rabbi Shneerson assumed his position, one Rosh Yeshiva, who had long been an opponent of Chabad, stated "That crazy man from Lubavitch thinks he is Mashiach". As the years went by, the most prominent representative of the Lithuanian approach, Rabbi M. Shach (of Bnai Brak, Israel), made a point of opposing everything the Rebbe did and said. Even when the Rebbe instituted a daily study session in RAMBAM's legal code, Rav Shach was opposed."If it is such a good idea, why didn't the Chafetz Chaim come up with it, WHOSE HEART WAS CERTAINLY MORE OPEN!". He decried the Rebbe's statements as being things that "should not be thought, let alone said". When the Rebbe passed away, and Meshichist Chabad essentially took over the movement in Israel, the floodgates were open. In the U.S., the cudgel was taken up by Rabbi David Berger, one of the deans of the Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University. He wrote a book in 2001, called "The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference". He argued that the Chabad concept of Mashiach contradicts traditional theology (which I pointed out in a previous post had only become "standard" after the Shabbetai Tzvi debacle). As such, they are no longer to be considered Orthodox Jews. He chastised those Orthodox Jewish groups that cooperated with them, and paints Chabad as modern-day Hebrew Christians, only with a different Messiah. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate has largely accepted that view, and will not convert non-Jews who believe that the Rebbe is the Messiah. Rabbi Berger's attacks continue to this day. There was a popular blog "FailedMessaih.com" that was founded especially against Chabad Messianism but later dealt with all types of scandals in the Orthodox community. In 2015, it was bought out...and closed down. A rather unlikely defender of Chabad appeared in the form of Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, a long-time Rosh Yeshiva in Chicago, and a scion of one of the main streams of Lithuanian Jewry. Although he certainly didn't regard the Rebbe as Mashiach, he pointed out that there were many conflicting views on the subject (as I have shown in part 2 of this series). Even the possibility of a dead Mashiach finds advocates in the Talmud, and therefore people espousing that view cannot be considered beyond the Pale. Ironically, his statements were immediately celebrated by Jews for Jesus, as being a vindication of Christianity. They dubbed him "The Tzaddik from Chicago".This served to further alienate many Jews from the Chabad approach. Although I in no way support the idea of the Meshichsts, I agree that Jewish thought is not as rigid as we have been led to believe by those who accepted Maimonist philosophy as the sole definition of Judaism. (Ironically, Chabad are big fans of RAMBAM's philosophy, albeit heavily reinterpreted). There is a wide spectrum in Judaism for varying outlooks, and we should not be quick to rule anything out, as long as it accepts the basic concepts of Torah and halachah. The entire topic of Mashiach, as we have seen, although a central theme, is only marginally defined. Disputes over it have brought us a very great deal of suffering. When Mashiach comes, we will know it. When I lived in Israel, I had a neighbor who tried to convince me that Yitzchak Shamir (then Prime Minister of Israel) was Mashiach. I laughed. I didn't try to stone him. I didn't even consider him a heretic; just silly. When the Exiles are gathered in, the Temple rebuilt, and Peace will reign, we will know that Mashiach has arrived. Speculation is, in my opinion, silly. May HaShem send His righteous redeemer soon.