Torah...for the Nations? part 3

The issue of whether or not we should be teaching Torah to our non-Jewish neighbors was a moot point in Medieval Europe. Jews were frequently murdered en masse. The worst perpetrators of all were the English. It was they who started the blood libel; the calumny that Jews use Christian blood in our religious ceremonies, especially on Passover, and Jews are born blind, until Christian blood was poured in their eyes. Entire communities were wiped out as a result. Often, the Jews were herded into the synagogue, which was set on fire, or thrown off a cliff. The Jews of England suffered great massacres in 1190, with the final annihilation of English Jewry in 1290. Jews were only readmitted to England three and a half centuries later. The blood libel spread rapidly through Europe, and still crops up from time to time, even in the Unites States. To this day, German Jews are careful to have at least one cup of white wine among the four cups at the Passover Seder, in order to demonstrate that we are not drinking blood. The Crusades saw massacres of Jews all over Europe and the Middle East, as enthusiastic Christian soldiers "practiced" on Jews, while on their way to kill Muslims. Fully one-third of the Jewish people was killed, proportionally identical to the Holocaust. One would think that the way to deal with the hate was to talk. But a series of disputations between Jewish and Christian clergy from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries proved not only fruitless, but actually disastrous. In most of these cases, an apostate Jew would level charges against Judaism with the civil authorities, often the King himself. A public debate would take place. Usually, the rules stated that the Jews could defend Judaism, but not criticize Christianity. Nearly always, the Jews won these debates, which generally brought about further persecution and expulsion. In the few cases where the Jews lost, they were often forcibly Baptized afterward. Perhaps the most famous of these disputations was that at Barcelona, in 1263, between RAMBAN and the apostate, Pablo Chistiani. Unlike other such debates, King James of Aragon gave RAMBAN full permission to make counter-arguments against Christianity. The debate was what we would today call a "knockout". (One can find a dramatization of this debate on YouTube, under the title "The Disputation"). However, RAMBAN was, despite royal assurances, forced to flee Spain because of his "blasphemy". Historians believe that these debates lead directly to the Inquisition. Yes, talking to the outside world about Torah, brought death and destruction upon our people. It was seen as far better to keep quiet...and even to maintain secrecy. In fact, I worry about all the ubiquitous rhetoric of online rabbis against Christianity. The arguments have changed little since the thirteenth century. I fear that these videos will bring an antisemitic backlash. In my opinion, a better approach is to teach Judaism, rather than attack others. In the mid Twentieth century, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the horizon for true dialogue, with the Jewish people free to tell our story to the world. But it lasted less than a decade. Next time.

Torah...for the Nations? part 2

In 1988, a famous Hasidic Rebbe had lost his wife. Among those paying condolences, was a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva. This particular Rosh Yeshiva was world renowned for his penetrating analyses of RAMBAM, both in halachah and philosophy. As could be expected, the conversation turned to topics of Torah. The Rebbe, in the course of their discussion, quoted a halachah in the name of RAMBAM. The Rosh Yeshiva stated emphatically "There is no such statement of RAMBAM". The Rebbe corrected him, pointing out that the statement is not found in RAMBAM's legal code, but rather in his commentary on the Mishnah. He went on to point out the numerous authorities who quoted that statement in their writings. The Rosh Yeshiva was humiliated. He was THE expert; or so he thought. This was like catching an error in Einstein's arithmetic. He left, visibly shaken. The Rebbe immediately sent some of his followers to ask the Rosh Yeshiva for forgiveness. They were rebuffed. (I have heard this story from followers of both men.) The point of this story is that the writings of RAMBAM are both subtle and complex. Issues raised and explained in one of his works, are often taken up again elsewhere, and given a different explanation. This "elsewhere" may be in a different book, or several paragraphs later in the same work. (This is one of my pet peeves about many online rabbis, who build an entire philosophy on a statement of RAMBAM, which is contradicted three paragraphs later.) A great deal of Jewish religious literature consists of works reconciling these differences. The same holds true of RAMBAM's uncharacteristic quote of the homiletic interpretation of "meorasa" (betrothed) for "morasha" (inheritance), apparently forbidding any transmission of Torah knowledge to non-Jews. This reticence is reinforced in his laws of conversion, where only bits and pieces of Jewish concepts and practices are told to the conversion candidate, and that only moments before his actual conversion ceremony. But we also find in RAMBAM that he considers both Jesus and Mohammed to be false prophets, he nevertheless sees them as tools for G-d, enabling even those living on "distant islands" where Jews never go, to learn of the G-d of Israel. But from here, we could infer that our spreading the Torah should be passive. We shouldn't teach. We"ll let G-d and history take care of that for us. But in another passage, he says that we should not teach Scripture to Muslims. Since they say that we have deliberately altered and distorted the Scriptures, in order to remove prophecies concerning Mohammed, our efforts to teach them Torah would only be met with derision. But since Christians do accept our Scriptures, it is a mitzvah to teach them, so as to show them their true meaning. Therefore, his approach is NOT to keep our Torah secret. On the contrary, we WANT them to come to Torah. We do not want to give them further ammunition for derision. Historically, however, this approach was also seen as a threat to other faiths. Very real, physical dangers, up to and including torture and death, manifested themselves in the attempt to elucidate verses in Scripture. We are about to enter a discussion of the Age of Disputations. The events that I shall describe, have largely brought about Jewish self-censorship, and, in my opinion, a reticence concerning the Prophets' charge to be a Light unto the Nations

Torah...for the Nations? part 1

The Talmud, along with several other ancient sources, both Jewish and non Jewish, records the following story:

King Ptolemy (of Egypt) once gathered 72 (others say 70) Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". G-d put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

Although many historians question the details of this narrative, there is no question that in the Third Century BCE, Jewish scholars translated the five books of Moses into Koine Greek, the language of the Hellenistic empire. Over the next century or two, the other Biblical books were also translated, along with material that is not in our Tanach. This is known as the Septuagint, the "Translation of the Seventy", which became standard Scripture in the assimilated communities of the Empire, especially in Egypt, and later became accepted Scripture for early Christians, from Paul on. (Earlier quotes from Tanach are direct translations from he Hebrew). To this day, the Septuagint is the only version of Tanach recognized as authoritative in the Greek Orthodox Church. The Talmud records that some deliberate changes were introduced by the translating rabbis, in places where a literal translation would be misleading. In some places, especially in the Book of Isaiah, the "translation" is little more than a paraphrase. By the Third Century CE, Jews had abandoned the Septuagint. Torah was studied and read in Hebrew. In those parts of the Eastern Roman Empire (whose language was Koine Greek, rather than Latin) where the Jews did not remember Hebrew, the far more literal translation of Aquila was substituted. Only fragments of the latter survive. We would expect the Septuagint to have been greatly celebrated by the rabbis. HaShem's Torah was, for the first time, made known to the Nations. But, on the contrary, this magnum opus was seen as a cause for mourning. "When the Torah was translated into Greek, three days of darkness fell on the world" (Talmud Megillah). A fast was instituted, which later was incorporated, together with other tragedies, into the fast of the Tenth of Tevet. But why? We had "made it"; Judaism was now "on the map". Several reasons were offered. One is that each word of the Hebrew original is pregnant with meaning. A translation...any translation... could, at best, convey only one of these meanings. The Italians have a saying "A Translator is a Traitor". Also, with Scripture in non Jewish hands, it could be easily distorted. The Book of Esther, in the Septuagint, is practically a different book! Haman is no longer an Agagite, but a Greek, seeking to undermine the Persian Kingdom in order to enable a Greek conquest. Worse still, the word "hanged" (applied to Haman and his sons), is the same word as "crucified" (σταυρώνω staurono), which infuriated Greek speaking Christians, who felt they were being mocked. This caused much antisemitism, and even violence, each year when Purim was celebrated. But beyond these reasons, many of the rabbis saw a more fundamental problem with a translation. We read in Deuteronomy 33:4 "Moses commanded us the Torah, The inheritance of the congregation of Jacob". The Torah was our gift from G-d! It was sacrilege to give it to others! The rabbis went on to homiletically say "Do not read "Morashah" (an inheritance), but "meorasah" (betrothed Bride). We are surrendering our Betrothed to every passerby. The latter homiletic interpretation converts the sharing of our heritage, into an act of depravity. Surprisingly, RAMBAM quoted this Drash as halachah. Or DOES HE? Next time.

Living in the Land of Israel part 6

I would like to go further into the words of my teacher, as well as present my conclusions on the topic as a whole. Rav Kiwak was, as I understand, teaching an important general lesson. There are commandments, both Biblical and Rabbinic, that are non-negotiable. One cannot simply say "well, this Saturday I would really like to go shopping. I'll just skip Shabbat this week". That is simply not an option for someone who takes Torah seriously. On the other hand, even most Torah laws provide for situations where they are to be violated. For instance, a person who is dangerously ill MAY NOT fast on Yom Kippur. Similarly, one who is dangerously ill on Shabbat, MUST violate the Shabbat in the course of medical treatment, This is not a dispensation. This itself is a requirement of the Torah. There is no reward for going beyond this by putting one's self in danger. But there are things that are very valuable, but not actual halachah. The Zohar, as well as many other holy books, puts a tremendous emphasis on the positive effects, both on the microcosm; man, as well as on the macrocosm: the Universe, of arising in the middle of the night to pray and meditate on the themes of alienation from G-d, as well as restoration. In the days when people retired soon after nightfall, this was not difficult. Today, this is a virtual impossibility for most people. Some, nevertheless, do it without fail. Others do it occasionally. For still others, this has gone by the wayside entirely.For example, older editions of the Chabad siddur feature it, newer ones do not. Rav Kiwak's comments about the "stomach ache" mean that one must weigh the risk/benefit ratio of staying in bed or getting up in the middle of the night. As it is not halachah, one may very well say "why bother?". But the tremendous spiritual journey of Tikkun Hatzot is beyond words. On the other hand, if being up at that time will mean being sleepy the next day, unable to pray, unable to study Torah, unable to perform one's duties to one's employer, let alone to G-d, his "merit has been lost in his loss". Some people will do it anyway. Others will think about prioritizing their spiritual life. The same is true when talking about the Land of Israel. There is clearly no requirement, according to most opinions, to live there. But the sanctity of the Land, besides its many holy places where one can be renewed, are beyond belief. Every moment is a treasure; for those who do not feel a "stomach ache". Those who say otherwise, base their statements on aggadah rather than halachah; or, even worse, political ideology, disguising as religion. I will illustrate with an unpleasant experience I had a few years ago. A woman who had been my neighbor in Beit El, found me on Facebook. She told me her tales of woe. Her husband had left her, going back to the States. (Fortunately, he did give her a "get"; a bill of divorce.) She had moved to Jerusalem with their children. Unscrupulous lawyers had convinced her to sue her ex for support and were draining her of the little sustenance she had. I told her that from my knowledge and experience, such international lawsuits rarely bore fruit. But she was convinced that if, in the midst of her poverty, she pursued the legal route, she would soon be rich. She met a man who wanted to marry her. But he had a wife back in the States, whom he did not divorce, and hence the Rabbinate would not allow her to marry this man. A rogue rabbi in Israel suggested she live as his concubine. They now have children together. For months, she wrote to me about her misery; bill collectors, neighbors prejudiced against her because of her living arrangements, government oppression, police oppression, constant anxiety over Israeli government policies. I wrote her many sympathetic emails. Then, about six years ago, she posted a comment about the upcoming American elections. (I do not wish to deal with the question whether her perceptions were correct. It is the attitude I am commenting upon). She wrote "I hope that Trump loses. American Jews would prosper under Trump, and never come on aliyah. But Hillary is an antisemite, and will persecute the Jews. Then they will have no choice but to come to Israel". I was stunned. Despite all of her misery, she wanted the American Jews to come at any cost. Let them be persecuted, rounded up in camps, perhaps with many to die...so long as the bulk came "home" to share in her misery. This attitude gives a whole new meaning to the term "cognitive dissonance". I immediately unfriended her and blocked her. For all those who say that it is a Torah requirement to live in the Land, which is largely fictitious, or who say, after an antisemitic incident "the writing is on the wall.  Time to come home" J'accuse. For those who are capable of focusing on the spirituality inherent in the Land, on the sense of closeness to G-d,  while being oblivious to everything happening around them,  happy are they! I, for one, am not sympathetic to that view.