Hello everybody.
I want to direct you to my friend's blog. He lives in a relatively insular community and is bothered by issues or situation where people judge others based on their clothing or other exterior factors as opposed to their internal moral compasses. His views should be interesting due to the fact that a) he lives within this community and b) he is, obviously, male. Hence different from me! :)
He's a very nice person, has been kind to me, and has even made me laugh. He's not frightening or scary and deals very well with all kinds of intriguing situations. He writes for The Commentator; you might even have seen his work.
As he's new at this, please give him some time to acclimate to the blogging community. I'm sure with a warm welcome from all of you, he shall.
Oh- and anyone who read DovBear's Monsey post ought to read his follow-up!
Here it is, folks: Deep Thoughts of the Bat-Taz
Please stop by. Thanks so much.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
Moses and Jeremiah: They whom I love
There is a certain kind of fairytale that enthralls me and holds me spellbound, a certain kind of idea that inflames me with desire. This is the idea of the individualist alone, a man who is both doomed but blessed, condemned by his mission but motivated by a greater power or desire. This is the kind of character I envy and admire, the kind of character I wish to be. My favorite books are the ones that describe him, all my ideas are bound up in him. This is the hero character, for he is honored by his mission but damned by all others, and it is he alone to whom I owe allegiance.
This is the character I see described in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest; this is McMurphy, this is Frodo. In those scenarios McMurphy and Frodo volunteer for their missions, which makes them all the more tragic. "I will take the ring," says Frodo, after a period of silence that is profound and vastly disturbing. No one compels him to take it, no one forces him to make that choice. It is his willing decision, his statement- he accepts it upon himself and it becomes his task.
It is the same with McMurphy, initially antagonizing Big Nurse out of blindness and fear but eventually doing it for the people, because of them and for them, so that they might be free. His actions can lead to only one end; it is obvious that he cannot survive them. He knows this and he bursts forth in the end with a high, keening cry, perhaps similar to Samson's cry as the buildings fall upon him. It is McMurphy's choice to do as he does, as much as Chief Bromden says otherwise, he is mistaken. Directions beamed at him by light-mages or not, McMurphy is the one who attacks Big Nurse, who shatters the combine, who breaks her hold upon all the others.
These are the men who chose their fate, even as Howard Roark chooses his, and eventually Dominique chooses hers. But what of the men who do not choose this fate, to whom this is not a doom that is accepted voluntarily but rather thrust upon them, the men who must suffer and live while thus apart, separated from all others because of their purpose, because of their mission, lonely men chafing because of their existence while simulatenously sorrowing for all those to whom they are sent?
Such men are Moses and Jeremiah, and it is they, therefore, who capture my imagination, absorb my interest, provoke my thoughts. Moses and Jeremiah are the most central characters of their generations, pivotal in their strength but also in their missions. They are alone, men who are misunderstood and hated, tormented, forced by God in what seems a cruel duty to serve the people while the people repel them, push them away, and weary them. These men did not choose to accept their burdens; instead they were thrust upon them by God. We see by Moses that he delays, claiming that he is unworthy, that the Children of Israel will not heed him, and finally:
We see, of course, the same interaction between God and Jeremiah:
The duty of prophecy, the burden of carrying the nation, of dealing with their complaints, their cruelties, their angry words...this was thrust upon both Moses and Jeremiah, though they tried to protest. It is yet another example (or perhaps, in Moses' case, the precedent) that one cannot run from God. Jonah physically ran whereas both Moses and Jeremiah verbally sparred, but in the end the will of God cannot be overriden, and in the end both of them are doomed.
Jeremiah and Moses are both persecuted at every corner. Moses must abandon the only family he has ever known, at least according to the literal Torah, that of Bityah and Pharoah, because of his desire to be one with his people. He must lose their love and pit himself against them. He must suffer because of Dasan and Aviram, traitors in Egypt and later in the desert. He must bear the complaints of an unwieldy nation, so fickle that, even after seeing the most wonderous miracles of God they state, "Why did you bring us here to die? Were there not graves in Egypt?" He must suffer on account of the rebelliousness of the nation, their Golden Calf, even what seems to be his brother's betrayal at that moment in time. He is exhausted because he must judge this people, and even with Yisro's plan he is still overburdened. He must travel in frustrating circles, moving forward only to be told to turn round once more. He must suffer the political rebellion of another leader, Korach, who desires to set himself up as head of the people. He prays over and over again for a people who do not seem to deserve his prayers, for they are only a source of trouble to him. He is not to enter the land on their account.
What was Moses if not the lone sufferer? He could not remain close even to his wife, for he was told to remain separate from her so that if God would call, he could respond. He did not merit to see the sons of his body become leaders or men of great stature. Moses was a stricken man, a man who was hurt by God, forced by Him to assume a command that could only frustrate and exasperate him.
And we see it. We hear Moses' cries:
In light of all this, in light of the demands, the complaints, the inconsiderate remarks- there is a Rashi on the words "Ma'asechim" literally "your deeds" in Devarim 1:12 that states that the people would talk- if Moshe was late, they would claim it was because of x, but if he was early they would claim it was because of y- they could never be satisfied- in light of all this, it seems utterly impossible to fault Moshe for exclaiming
According to some, the fact that Moses used the word "rebels" in this sentence is considered his tone, either because the wording was not appropriate or because the tone was inappropriate.
In Devarim 1: 37, Moses explains that:
"For your sakes," Moses states there. It is because of the people that Moses shall not enter the land.
Now, I read a very interesting account of Moses' sin (or lack of it) here. The end result of this analysis seems to suggest that Moses as an individual did not sin at all, but that he failed as a leader, failed to inspire the people. Therefore, says this interpretation, making much of the word "lead," Moshe cannot lead the people into the land but he still requests to see the land and does, atop the mountain.
The problem with this approach, I think, is that if it is true it seems completely unfair. God appoints Moses against Moses' express wishes, God is the one who claims that Moses is capable of being a leader and must be a leader. If Moses' leadership capabilities are in question, doesn't that reflect on God? More importantly, what does this approach make of the word "tavo" in the earlier statement, that Moses cannot "come" to the land because of the Jews? There the idea isn't the word "lead" at all!
For the moment, then, let us consider that Moses is punished for his use of the word "mordim," rebels. In light of everything that has been done to him, it seems completely justified and more. Moses has suffered. His entire mission, his entire career as a leader has been stressful, problematic. There have been attempted usurpers, battles, the ever-present guerilla attacker Amalek, and what is more, the divisiveness inside the camp of Dasan, Aviram and Korach.
Now let us considere Jeremiah, also appointed leader by God, also dealing with a task that has been thrust upon him, that is not of his choosing.
Jeremiah laments his status and his life consistently throughout the Book of Jeremiah. He begs God for vengeance, where in an act of extreme self-control he refrains from taking it himself. In all his prayers he turns to God and reminds him, even, dare I say it, accuses Him- showing God all that it has cost him to be this leader:
Jeremiah has suffered, he has been persecuted, for God's sake. He has been an outcast, both because of his words but also because of his incomprehension of how people can want to destroy themselves. God's anger has become his anger. But in the face of that he desires revenge, he wants those who tried to kill him to suffer as well. Even then, he knows, he will not be released from his task. His pain is perpetual, his wound incurable, there is now release for him...there is nothing for him, except pain and in the future, death.
But it is more than just physical suffering, more than the mocking people and their taunts. Jeremiah suffers over what he has become, over who he is. He states:
"
י אוֹי-לִי אִמִּי--כִּי יְלִדְתִּנִי אִישׁ רִיב וְאִישׁ מָדוֹן, לְכָל-הָאָרֶץ; לֹא-נָשִׁיתִי וְלֹא-נָשׁוּ-בִי, כֻּלֹּה מְקַלְלַוְנִי. {ס}
10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have not lent, neither have men lent to me; yet every one of them doth curse me. {S} "
Jeremiah mourns his creation, this creation of the "man of strife and a man of contention." He does not want to be this man, this lonely creature set apart against his people, this man who must condemn them, accuse them, this man who brings strife and misfortune in his wake. He does not want to see them suffer. He is a man of compassion but simultaneously of righteousness and indignation; he upholds God's law but weeps at the price he must pay for it.
How can we remain silent when we see how he speaks?
God has prevailed, Jeremiah says. God has chosen and Jeremiah cannot escape. Jeremiah is a laughing-stock, he is set apart from his people, hated, hurt, victim of all kinds of offenses, but he cannot choose to refrain from prophecy, he cannot set down his burden. Jeremiah bears it and must continue to bear it; his only refuge is God. The same God who appointed him this leader! This same God, who has chosen him to bear all this; this is the God to whom he pours out his anguish, his pain, the only one whom he can trust. This is God transcendent, God who is both Judge and Father, God whom Jeremiah loves and must, then, simultaneously try to disobey. Because, remarkably, against all odds, Jeremiah loves his people, too.
In Jeremiah 20: 9 we see what this is like, as Jeremiah demonstrates his exhaustion and weariness:
"And if I say: 'I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name', then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I weary myself to hold it in, but cannot. "
There is no choice in what Jeremiah does, in what Moses did. They are born to their fates, born to their duties, born to be the greatest leaders who lived and simultaneously to suffer the most. But what is chilling, what is fascinating, what is the greatest characterization of either of them is that despite all this, despite this cruelty and awful behavior, despite the torture, being thrown into pits and jail cells, despite being denied and hurt over and over again by their people, they continue-
because they love their people.
What is this love? How can we understand it? This love for people who do not deserve it, who are absolutely undeserving, people who have done all in their power to kill or hurt these two men. How many times do we see Moshe praying to God, praying for the forgiveness of the Jews? And how many times does Jeremiah implore the people to listen, does God tell Jeremiah that he should try to save them no longer? We see Moshe stand up to God, stand up to Him and tell him that his name should be erased from the Torah if the Jewish people die. We see the same in Jeremiah's laments, in Eicha; we see his mourning over the people and the city, the grandeur that is lost.
We see this...and we stand astonished.
For how can these men, these men who must be weary, exhausted, unhappy, leading solitary, lonely lives, detached from their families...how can they convey such a depth of feeling, so much emotion...and on behalf of whom? On behalf of the very people that disowns them, that is cruel to them! It is something that is incredible, something astounding, something strange and frightening...something terribly, terribly beautiful.
Jeremiah confides in God his deepest, darkest, most terrible moments whereas Moses speaks to him as a friend and almost-equal, his voice sharp and strong. But even he, Moses the advocate of the people has times where he must despair, where he must feel the awfulness of the task that has been set before him.
Admire them, o' Israel, and face them with a terrible awe, these men who tried to save you even though you did everything to push them away. Admire them and weep! Pity their pain, Israel, and your share in causing it. For they loved you though you did not deserve their love, and it was this love that made them continue despite their misfortune. God commanded, this is true, and it was forced upon them, but even then they could have, had they truly desired, chosen death, and they did not.
So tell me, how many of these men must we have? Were not Jeremiah and Moses enough? Must God appoint more, must there be more of us forced to serve, feeling a great love for the Jews, a simultaneous hatred of their wickedness, and feeling torn between the two? Wanting revenge upon those who wronged us but simultaenously, blindly hoping that we can fix it, forestall it, fix the problem, change those who judge us wrongly, who make us sit alone, who are cruel, cruel...and yet our people?
It is a terrible thing, a blessing and a curse, to feel such empathy and compassion for the people, to be chosen by God. When we are children we are taught of Moses the leader, Moses the savior. People dream of being Moses. Dream! And for what? To understand Moses, we must understand suffering, for Moses and Jeremiah are alike in that as in many other ways. This Moses, whom we now speak of happily at our Sabbath tables for our divrei Torah, this Moses whom we blithely talk about as merrily leading the Jews out of Egypt, this exciting, action-figure Moses...did not exist.
And to truly understand the one who did exist, the one whose joys and sorrows must necessarily have been bound up with the fate of the people, the one who could not ignore his people but must try to change them and persuade them to serve God as they ought; the kind of prophet who, like Jeremiah had a "fire burning in his bones- the word of God" and who could not hold it back even though he did not desire to accuse, the kind of man who grieved over his being the cause of strife, over what he had become- this man, this man, this man, I tell you, is our ideal. This man deserves our kindness, our respect, our thanks, our most devout thanks.
I cannot think about Moses and Jeremiah without awe, without feeling close to them. They have held my hands, as it were, when I have been alone, because they know what it is to be alone. Jeremiah confided in God, and from there I learned that it was proper to confide in God, that God could know my every thought, my every word, all that was written in my heart, be it good or bad. And from them I also learned that we cannot ignore what is happening, but it must press upon us, it must hurt us, it is the fire in our bones, and that our love for our people is what motivates us, even when they push us away, or mock us, or claim that we are the false prophets, the liars, the evildoers.
From Moses and Jeremiah I have learned about leadership, I have learned the toll it takes upon a person and the kind of man who can be a leader. From Moses and Jeremiah I have learned also about love and hatred, about all emotions, and most of all about God...who does not always make our mission voluntary, but may thrust it upon us so that we have no choice. And though we may rebel, God will prevail. Such, then, is our doom.
But such is also our greatest triumph.
This is the character I see described in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest; this is McMurphy, this is Frodo. In those scenarios McMurphy and Frodo volunteer for their missions, which makes them all the more tragic. "I will take the ring," says Frodo, after a period of silence that is profound and vastly disturbing. No one compels him to take it, no one forces him to make that choice. It is his willing decision, his statement- he accepts it upon himself and it becomes his task.
It is the same with McMurphy, initially antagonizing Big Nurse out of blindness and fear but eventually doing it for the people, because of them and for them, so that they might be free. His actions can lead to only one end; it is obvious that he cannot survive them. He knows this and he bursts forth in the end with a high, keening cry, perhaps similar to Samson's cry as the buildings fall upon him. It is McMurphy's choice to do as he does, as much as Chief Bromden says otherwise, he is mistaken. Directions beamed at him by light-mages or not, McMurphy is the one who attacks Big Nurse, who shatters the combine, who breaks her hold upon all the others.
These are the men who chose their fate, even as Howard Roark chooses his, and eventually Dominique chooses hers. But what of the men who do not choose this fate, to whom this is not a doom that is accepted voluntarily but rather thrust upon them, the men who must suffer and live while thus apart, separated from all others because of their purpose, because of their mission, lonely men chafing because of their existence while simulatenously sorrowing for all those to whom they are sent?
Such men are Moses and Jeremiah, and it is they, therefore, who capture my imagination, absorb my interest, provoke my thoughts. Moses and Jeremiah are the most central characters of their generations, pivotal in their strength but also in their missions. They are alone, men who are misunderstood and hated, tormented, forced by God in what seems a cruel duty to serve the people while the people repel them, push them away, and weary them. These men did not choose to accept their burdens; instead they were thrust upon them by God. We see by Moses that he delays, claiming that he is unworthy, that the Children of Israel will not heed him, and finally:
י וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, בִּי אֲדֹנָי, לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי גַּם מִתְּמוֹל גַּם מִשִּׁלְשֹׁם, גַּם מֵאָז דַּבֶּרְךָ אֶל-עַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי כְבַד-פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן, אָנֹכִי.
10 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'Oh Lord, I am not a man of words, neither heretofore, nor since Thou hast spoken unto Thy servant; for I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.'
יא וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלָיו, מִי שָׂם פֶּה לָאָדָם, אוֹ מִי-יָשׂוּם אִלֵּם, אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ פִקֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר--הֲלֹא אָנֹכִי, יְהוָה.
11 And the LORD said unto him: 'Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? is it not I the LORD?
יב וְעַתָּה, לֵךְ; וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם-פִּיךָ, וְהוֹרֵיתִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר.
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt speak.'
יג וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי אֲדֹנָי; שְׁלַח-נָא, בְּיַד-תִּשְׁלָח.
13 And he said: 'Oh Lord, send, I pray Thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send.'
יד וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה בְּמֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר הֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הַלֵּוִי--יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-דַבֵּר יְדַבֵּר הוּא; וְגַם הִנֵּה-הוּא יֹצֵא לִקְרָאתֶךָ, וְרָאֲךָ וְשָׂמַח בְּלִבּוֹ.
14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and He said: 'Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
Exodus 4:10
We see, of course, the same interaction between God and Jeremiah:
ד וַיְהִי דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.
4 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
ה בְּטֶרֶם אצורך (אֶצָּרְךָ) בַבֶּטֶן יְדַעְתִּיךָ, וּבְטֶרֶם תֵּצֵא מֵרֶחֶם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּיךָ: נָבִיא לַגּוֹיִם, נְתַתִּיךָ.
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
ו וָאֹמַר, אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, הִנֵּה לֹא-יָדַעְתִּי, דַּבֵּר: כִּי-נַעַר, אָנֹכִי. {ס}
6 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak; for I am a child.' {S}
ז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי, אַל-תֹּאמַר נַעַר אָנֹכִי: כִּי עַל-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁלָחֲךָ, תֵּלֵךְ, וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוְּךָ, תְּדַבֵּר.
7 But the LORD said unto me: say not: I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak.
Jeremiah 1:4
The duty of prophecy, the burden of carrying the nation, of dealing with their complaints, their cruelties, their angry words...this was thrust upon both Moses and Jeremiah, though they tried to protest. It is yet another example (or perhaps, in Moses' case, the precedent) that one cannot run from God. Jonah physically ran whereas both Moses and Jeremiah verbally sparred, but in the end the will of God cannot be overriden, and in the end both of them are doomed.
Jeremiah and Moses are both persecuted at every corner. Moses must abandon the only family he has ever known, at least according to the literal Torah, that of Bityah and Pharoah, because of his desire to be one with his people. He must lose their love and pit himself against them. He must suffer because of Dasan and Aviram, traitors in Egypt and later in the desert. He must bear the complaints of an unwieldy nation, so fickle that, even after seeing the most wonderous miracles of God they state, "Why did you bring us here to die? Were there not graves in Egypt?" He must suffer on account of the rebelliousness of the nation, their Golden Calf, even what seems to be his brother's betrayal at that moment in time. He is exhausted because he must judge this people, and even with Yisro's plan he is still overburdened. He must travel in frustrating circles, moving forward only to be told to turn round once more. He must suffer the political rebellion of another leader, Korach, who desires to set himself up as head of the people. He prays over and over again for a people who do not seem to deserve his prayers, for they are only a source of trouble to him. He is not to enter the land on their account.
What was Moses if not the lone sufferer? He could not remain close even to his wife, for he was told to remain separate from her so that if God would call, he could respond. He did not merit to see the sons of his body become leaders or men of great stature. Moses was a stricken man, a man who was hurt by God, forced by Him to assume a command that could only frustrate and exasperate him.
And we see it. We hear Moses' cries:
יא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ, וְלָמָּה לֹא-מָצָתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ: לָשׂוּם, אֶת-מַשָּׂא כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--עָלָי.
11 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'Wherefore hast Thou dealt ill with Thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in Thy sight, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?
יב הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי, אֵת כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--אִם-אָנֹכִי, יְלִדְתִּיהוּ: כִּי-תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת-הַיֹּנֵק, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָיו.
12 Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers?
יג מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר, לָתֵת לְכָל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי-יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה.
13 Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they trouble me with their weeping, saying: Give us flesh, that we may eat.
יד לֹא-אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי כָבֵד, מִמֶּנִּי.
14 I am not able to bear all this people myself alone, because it is too heavy for me.
טו וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וְאַל-אֶרְאֶה, בְּרָעָתִי. {פ}
15 And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in Thy sight; and let me not look upon my wretchedness.' {P}
Numbers 11:11
In light of all this, in light of the demands, the complaints, the inconsiderate remarks- there is a Rashi on the words "Ma'asechim" literally "your deeds" in Devarim 1:12 that states that the people would talk- if Moshe was late, they would claim it was because of x, but if he was early they would claim it was because of y- they could never be satisfied- in light of all this, it seems utterly impossible to fault Moshe for exclaiming
- "
י וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַקָּהָל--אֶל-פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים--הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה, נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם.
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: 'Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?'"
According to some, the fact that Moses used the word "rebels" in this sentence is considered his tone, either because the wording was not appropriate or because the tone was inappropriate.
In Devarim 1: 37, Moses explains that:
- "
לז גַּם-בִּי הִתְאַנַּף יְהוָה, בִּגְלַלְכֶם לֵאמֹר: גַּם-אַתָּה, לֹא-תָבֹא שָׁם.
37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying: Thou also shalt not go in thither;"
"For your sakes," Moses states there. It is because of the people that Moses shall not enter the land.
Now, I read a very interesting account of Moses' sin (or lack of it) here. The end result of this analysis seems to suggest that Moses as an individual did not sin at all, but that he failed as a leader, failed to inspire the people. Therefore, says this interpretation, making much of the word "lead," Moshe cannot lead the people into the land but he still requests to see the land and does, atop the mountain.
The problem with this approach, I think, is that if it is true it seems completely unfair. God appoints Moses against Moses' express wishes, God is the one who claims that Moses is capable of being a leader and must be a leader. If Moses' leadership capabilities are in question, doesn't that reflect on God? More importantly, what does this approach make of the word "tavo" in the earlier statement, that Moses cannot "come" to the land because of the Jews? There the idea isn't the word "lead" at all!
For the moment, then, let us consider that Moses is punished for his use of the word "mordim," rebels. In light of everything that has been done to him, it seems completely justified and more. Moses has suffered. His entire mission, his entire career as a leader has been stressful, problematic. There have been attempted usurpers, battles, the ever-present guerilla attacker Amalek, and what is more, the divisiveness inside the camp of Dasan, Aviram and Korach.
Now let us considere Jeremiah, also appointed leader by God, also dealing with a task that has been thrust upon him, that is not of his choosing.
Jeremiah laments his status and his life consistently throughout the Book of Jeremiah. He begs God for vengeance, where in an act of extreme self-control he refrains from taking it himself. In all his prayers he turns to God and reminds him, even, dare I say it, accuses Him- showing God all that it has cost him to be this leader:
- "
טו אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ יְהוָה, זָכְרֵנִי וּפָקְדֵנִי וְהִנָּקֶם לִי מֵרֹדְפַי--אַל-לְאֶרֶךְ אַפְּךָ, תִּקָּחֵנִי; דַּע, שְׂאֵתִי עָלֶיךָ חֶרְפָּה.
15 Thou, O LORD, knowest; remember me, and think of me, and avenge me of my persecutors; take me not away because of Thy long-suffering; know that for Thy sake I have suffered taunts.
טז נִמְצְאוּ דְבָרֶיךָ, וָאֹכְלֵם, וַיְהִי דבריך (דְבָרְךָ) לִי, לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחַת לְבָבִי: כִּי-נִקְרָא שִׁמְךָ עָלַי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת. {ס}
16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy words were unto me a joy and the rejoicing of my heart; because Thy name was called on me, O LORD God of hosts. {S}
יז לֹא-יָשַׁבְתִּי בְסוֹד-מְשַׂחֲקִים, וָאֶעְלֹז: מִפְּנֵי יָדְךָ בָּדָד יָשַׁבְתִּי, כִּי-זַעַם מִלֵּאתָנִי.
17 I sat not in the assembly of them that make merry, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of Thy hand; for Thou hast filled me with indignation.
יח לָמָּה הָיָה כְאֵבִי נֶצַח, וּמַכָּתִי אֲנוּשָׁה; מֵאֲנָה, הֵרָפֵא--הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לִי כְּמוֹ אַכְזָב, מַיִם לֹא נֶאֱמָנוּ. {ס}
18 Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, so that it refuseth to be healed? Wilt Thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook, as waters that fail? {S}"
Jeremiah 15: 15
Jeremiah has suffered, he has been persecuted, for God's sake. He has been an outcast, both because of his words but also because of his incomprehension of how people can want to destroy themselves. God's anger has become his anger. But in the face of that he desires revenge, he wants those who tried to kill him to suffer as well. Even then, he knows, he will not be released from his task. His pain is perpetual, his wound incurable, there is now release for him...there is nothing for him, except pain and in the future, death.
But it is more than just physical suffering, more than the mocking people and their taunts. Jeremiah suffers over what he has become, over who he is. He states:
"
י אוֹי-לִי אִמִּי--כִּי יְלִדְתִּנִי אִישׁ רִיב וְאִישׁ מָדוֹן, לְכָל-הָאָרֶץ; לֹא-נָשִׁיתִי וְלֹא-נָשׁוּ-בִי, כֻּלֹּה מְקַלְלַוְנִי. {ס}
10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have not lent, neither have men lent to me; yet every one of them doth curse me. {S} "
Jeremiah mourns his creation, this creation of the "man of strife and a man of contention." He does not want to be this man, this lonely creature set apart against his people, this man who must condemn them, accuse them, this man who brings strife and misfortune in his wake. He does not want to see them suffer. He is a man of compassion but simultaneously of righteousness and indignation; he upholds God's law but weeps at the price he must pay for it.
How can we remain silent when we see how he speaks?
ז פִּתִּיתַנִי יְהוָה וָאֶפָּת, חֲזַקְתַּנִי וַתּוּכָל; הָיִיתִי לִשְׂחוֹק כָּל-הַיּוֹם, כֻּלֹּה לֹעֵג לִי.
7 O LORD, Thou hast enticed me, and I was enticed, Thou hast overcome me, and hast prevailed; I am become a laughing-stock all the day, every one mocketh me.
ח כִּי-מִדֵּי אֲדַבֵּר אֶזְעָק, חָמָס וָשֹׁד אֶקְרָא: כִּי-הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה לִי לְחֶרְפָּה וּלְקֶלֶס, כָּל-הַיּוֹם.
8 For as often as I speak, I cry out, I cry: 'Violence and spoil'; because the word of the LORD is made a reproach unto me, and a derision, all the day.
ט וְאָמַרְתִּי לֹא-אֶזְכְּרֶנּוּ, וְלֹא-אֲדַבֵּר עוֹד בִּשְׁמוֹ, וְהָיָה בְלִבִּי כְּאֵשׁ בֹּעֶרֶת, עָצֻר בְּעַצְמֹתָי; וְנִלְאֵיתִי כַּלְכֵל, וְלֹא אוּכָל.
9 And if I say: 'I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name', then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I weary myself to hold it in, but cannot.
י כִּי שָׁמַעְתִּי דִּבַּת רַבִּים, מָגוֹר מִסָּבִיב, הַגִּידוּ וְנַגִּידֶנּוּ, כֹּל אֱנוֹשׁ שְׁלֹמִי שֹׁמְרֵי צַלְעִי; אוּלַי יְפֻתֶּה וְנוּכְלָה לוֹ, וְנִקְחָה נִקְמָתֵנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ.
10 For I have heard the whispering of many, terror on every side: 'Denounce, and we will denounce him'; even of all my familiar friends, them that watch for my halting: 'Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him.'
יא וַיהוָה אוֹתִי כְּגִבּוֹר עָרִיץ, עַל-כֵּן רֹדְפַי יִכָּשְׁלוּ וְלֹא יֻכָלוּ; בֹּשׁוּ מְאֹד כִּי-לֹא הִשְׂכִּילוּ, כְּלִמַּת עוֹלָם לֹא תִשָּׁכֵחַ.
11 But the LORD is with me as a mighty warrior; therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail; they shall be greatly ashamed, because they have not prospered, even with an everlasting confusion which shall never be forgotten.
יב וַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת בֹּחֵן צַדִּיק, רֹאֶה כְלָיוֹת וָלֵב; אֶרְאֶה נִקְמָתְךָ מֵהֶם, כִּי אֵלֶיךָ גִּלִּיתִי אֶת-רִיבִי. {ס}
12 But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, that seest the reins and the heart, let me see Thy vengeance on them; for unto Thee have I revealed my cause. {S}
יג שִׁירוּ, לַיהוָה--הַלְלוּ, אֶת-יְהוָה: כִּי הִצִּיל אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ אֶבְיוֹן, מִיַּד מְרֵעִים. {ס}
13 Sing unto the LORD, praise ye the LORD; for He hath delivered the soul of the needy from the hand of evil-doers. {S}
יד אָרוּר הַיּוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יֻלַּדְתִּי בּוֹ: יוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יְלָדַתְנִי אִמִּי, אַל-יְהִי בָרוּךְ.
14 Cursed be the day wherein I was born; the day wherein my mother bore me, let it not be blessed.
טו אָרוּר הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר בִּשַּׂר אֶת-אָבִי לֵאמֹר, יֻלַּד-לְךָ, בֵּן זָכָר--שַׂמֵּחַ, שִׂמְּחָהוּ.
15 Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying: 'A man-child is born unto thee'; making him very glad.
טז וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, כֶּעָרִים אֲשֶׁר-הָפַךְ יְהוָה וְלֹא נִחָם; וְשָׁמַע זְעָקָה בַּבֹּקֶר, וּתְרוּעָה בְּעֵת צָהֳרָיִם.
16 And let that man be as the cities which the LORD overthrew, and repented not; and let him hear a cry in the morning, and an alarm at noontide;
יז אֲשֶׁר לֹא-מוֹתְתַנִי, מֵרָחֶם; וַתְּהִי-לִי אִמִּי קִבְרִי, וְרַחְמָה הֲרַת עוֹלָם.
17 Because He slew me not from the womb; and so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb always great.
יח לָמָּה זֶּה מֵרֶחֶם יָצָאתִי, לִרְאוֹת עָמָל וְיָגוֹן; וַיִּכְלוּ בְּבֹשֶׁת, יָמָי. {פ}
18 Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed in shame? {P}
Jeremiah 20
God has prevailed, Jeremiah says. God has chosen and Jeremiah cannot escape. Jeremiah is a laughing-stock, he is set apart from his people, hated, hurt, victim of all kinds of offenses, but he cannot choose to refrain from prophecy, he cannot set down his burden. Jeremiah bears it and must continue to bear it; his only refuge is God. The same God who appointed him this leader! This same God, who has chosen him to bear all this; this is the God to whom he pours out his anguish, his pain, the only one whom he can trust. This is God transcendent, God who is both Judge and Father, God whom Jeremiah loves and must, then, simultaneously try to disobey. Because, remarkably, against all odds, Jeremiah loves his people, too.
In Jeremiah 20: 9 we see what this is like, as Jeremiah demonstrates his exhaustion and weariness:
"And if I say: 'I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name', then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I weary myself to hold it in, but cannot. "
There is no choice in what Jeremiah does, in what Moses did. They are born to their fates, born to their duties, born to be the greatest leaders who lived and simultaneously to suffer the most. But what is chilling, what is fascinating, what is the greatest characterization of either of them is that despite all this, despite this cruelty and awful behavior, despite the torture, being thrown into pits and jail cells, despite being denied and hurt over and over again by their people, they continue-
because they love their people.
What is this love? How can we understand it? This love for people who do not deserve it, who are absolutely undeserving, people who have done all in their power to kill or hurt these two men. How many times do we see Moshe praying to God, praying for the forgiveness of the Jews? And how many times does Jeremiah implore the people to listen, does God tell Jeremiah that he should try to save them no longer? We see Moshe stand up to God, stand up to Him and tell him that his name should be erased from the Torah if the Jewish people die. We see the same in Jeremiah's laments, in Eicha; we see his mourning over the people and the city, the grandeur that is lost.
We see this...and we stand astonished.
For how can these men, these men who must be weary, exhausted, unhappy, leading solitary, lonely lives, detached from their families...how can they convey such a depth of feeling, so much emotion...and on behalf of whom? On behalf of the very people that disowns them, that is cruel to them! It is something that is incredible, something astounding, something strange and frightening...something terribly, terribly beautiful.
Jeremiah confides in God his deepest, darkest, most terrible moments whereas Moses speaks to him as a friend and almost-equal, his voice sharp and strong. But even he, Moses the advocate of the people has times where he must despair, where he must feel the awfulness of the task that has been set before him.
Admire them, o' Israel, and face them with a terrible awe, these men who tried to save you even though you did everything to push them away. Admire them and weep! Pity their pain, Israel, and your share in causing it. For they loved you though you did not deserve their love, and it was this love that made them continue despite their misfortune. God commanded, this is true, and it was forced upon them, but even then they could have, had they truly desired, chosen death, and they did not.
So tell me, how many of these men must we have? Were not Jeremiah and Moses enough? Must God appoint more, must there be more of us forced to serve, feeling a great love for the Jews, a simultaneous hatred of their wickedness, and feeling torn between the two? Wanting revenge upon those who wronged us but simultaenously, blindly hoping that we can fix it, forestall it, fix the problem, change those who judge us wrongly, who make us sit alone, who are cruel, cruel...and yet our people?
It is a terrible thing, a blessing and a curse, to feel such empathy and compassion for the people, to be chosen by God. When we are children we are taught of Moses the leader, Moses the savior. People dream of being Moses. Dream! And for what? To understand Moses, we must understand suffering, for Moses and Jeremiah are alike in that as in many other ways. This Moses, whom we now speak of happily at our Sabbath tables for our divrei Torah, this Moses whom we blithely talk about as merrily leading the Jews out of Egypt, this exciting, action-figure Moses...did not exist.
And to truly understand the one who did exist, the one whose joys and sorrows must necessarily have been bound up with the fate of the people, the one who could not ignore his people but must try to change them and persuade them to serve God as they ought; the kind of prophet who, like Jeremiah had a "fire burning in his bones- the word of God" and who could not hold it back even though he did not desire to accuse, the kind of man who grieved over his being the cause of strife, over what he had become- this man, this man, this man, I tell you, is our ideal. This man deserves our kindness, our respect, our thanks, our most devout thanks.
I cannot think about Moses and Jeremiah without awe, without feeling close to them. They have held my hands, as it were, when I have been alone, because they know what it is to be alone. Jeremiah confided in God, and from there I learned that it was proper to confide in God, that God could know my every thought, my every word, all that was written in my heart, be it good or bad. And from them I also learned that we cannot ignore what is happening, but it must press upon us, it must hurt us, it is the fire in our bones, and that our love for our people is what motivates us, even when they push us away, or mock us, or claim that we are the false prophets, the liars, the evildoers.
From Moses and Jeremiah I have learned about leadership, I have learned the toll it takes upon a person and the kind of man who can be a leader. From Moses and Jeremiah I have learned also about love and hatred, about all emotions, and most of all about God...who does not always make our mission voluntary, but may thrust it upon us so that we have no choice. And though we may rebel, God will prevail. Such, then, is our doom.
But such is also our greatest triumph.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
on why I am now in posession of a broken umbrella
Well, I had heard things. Probably you have all heard things. We all hear things about Shabbat at Stern.
What do we hear? Well, about the stigma that is associated with it, how it is boring/ unhappy/ frightening, and so on and so forth. In other words, there are many variations on the theme that if you are an out-of-towner, you are doomed to failure and complete misery.
It is understandable, then, that I entered said Shabbos with a healthy bit of confused apprehension.
Now, here's the fun part-after the meal (which wasn't such a sketchy meal; it actually appeared edible and even appetizing) we all (this means the girls and also the guys from YU who come up to make a minyan) went back to the girl's dorms. The guys sleep at a hotel, but there's a lounge, Oneg Shabbos as it is called, games and conversation.
I wanted to play Apples to Apples. It's possibly my favorite game ever. One girl claimed she would play with me, but as she disappeared into oblivion, and I saw a few other people in possession of a box, I invited myself over and inquired as to whether I could join. These being nice people, I was indeed allowed to join, and even began a winning streak (until my magical mind connection with another girl in the group led me to pick her every single time I was the judge.)
In case you don't know how Apples to Apples works, it's a game where one person puts down a card upon which is written an adjective, and you (each member of the group) hold seven cards with nouns. These nouns can be anything and everything from "Adolf Hitler" to "Hangnails." You each submit a card with a noun on it facedown to the judge, who will then decide. Based on this person's sense of humor, you shall win or lose. Officially, the first person with seven (or twenty-one, or any number, as you like) cards, wins.
During this game we engaged in good-natured rivalry and amused conversation, after which I somehow ended up relating the extremely complicated and, for some reason amusing (maybe it only works if you're telling this over at one AM) anecdotes and stories that occurred within the four walls of my Jewish highschool (before I switched.) This was intercepted by statements from the other people about their own highschools, or yeshivot, or what it had been like in Israel, and so on and so forth...
Fast forward to Shabbos morning. I went to shul, while most other people appeared to have gone to the YU minyan in the cafeteria. As I came back early from shul, I decided to help the waitresses (and discovered the extremely unsanitary chopping-boards we have...they are only rinsed with water, no soap or anything else.) The amusing part was when these girls came up to me with expressions of awe (and dare I say fear?) in their eyes, inquiring as to "why" I was helping them. "I've never seen anyone do this," one said, "you're not even getting paid!"
I suppose one cannot put ice-buckets on tables unless one is paid to do it...
The meal was good fun, especially as I was able to continue my conversation with the three people who had so amused me the night before...
After the meal we returned to the lounge once again. Here I must describe the weather in New York. Some would call it miserable. Others might call it wet. I'll say it was raining, and there was a breeze as well, so the combination wasn't the most suitable for outdoor excursions. However I wanted to take a walk. It seemed cruel to insist upon another human being coming alongside me due to the weather, so I decided to take said walk alone. Not a good plan, as I soon found out.
Important note to self- never take walks alone in New York when you are dressed in Shabbos clothing.
I hugged my green Gap belted jacket closer to myself as I strode determinedly down Fifth Avenue. I was dazzled by the shops, the stores, the colors, the lights...everything appeared fabulous and exciting. I was humming refrains and snatches of popular songs to myself. I goodnaturedly said hello to people, and was pleasantly surprised when a few of them even said "hello" back.
Now to my attire. This is the important part of the story. As it was Shabbos, I was dressed in a red and black turtleneck and a short black skirt. This black skirt has silk fringes and a small silk bow. As it's cold, black tights and lace-up calf-length boots complete the look. A green Gap jacket, as previously mentioned, is worn over the turtleneck.
I walk with a sense of purpose, curiously glancing at stores, but more often, at people. There are so many different types of people, homeless or otherwise. After wandering for a while, the rain misting my hair and the breeze dancing around me, I decide to make my way back to the dorm.
I walk back down Fifth Avenue, though in the opposite direction. I am waiting for the walk sign at an intersection, and I have a stone in my boot. I look down at my boot as I move my foot, trying to move the pebble so it does not chafe against my foot.
"Nice boots," says a voice beside me.
I look up. There's a man, significantly taller than me in his late twenties or early thirties. He's wearing a leather jacket, black jeans, and some type of polo shirt. He has black or simply dark hair. He's a sturdy-looking person. He's also waiting for the Walk sign.
"Thanks," I say.
"I like the skirt, too," he says, and gives me a meaningful smile. "So...do you know some place around here we could go?" He accompanies this with a hand gesture, expansively taking it the whole of Fifth Avenue.
(I'm thinking to myself- how old does he think I am? He wants to take me to a bar!)
"No place I know," I say airily, and smile.
"Oh," he answers. "I'm from LA. That's why I'm asking."
"I'm from Chicago," I volunteer. "I'm walking."
That's when the Walk sign came on, and I walked swiftly (though not too swiftly, lest I attract more attention) away. That's also when I began to smile, and finally to laugh softly to myself. Nobody has ever attempted to pick me up before. It's just not done in Chicago. And people are certainly more subtle about it...
I return to the dorm and sleep.
Shalashudos goes well, after which is Havdala and then a movie ('Proof,' filmed on the University of Chicago campus so I recognized everything!) at another dorm. There was an ice cream cake from Baskin Robbins as well, and that was possibly the best part. I don't like how open-ended the movie is. 'A Beautiful Mind' is much, much better.)
When the movie was concluded, I was invited out by the three (well, actually two, as the third had disappeared but would soon return) people who had amused me throughout Shabbos. As this is a long weekend (which meant I had nothing else to worry about, homework-wise) I accepted. This meant walking in the rain, wandering around Broadway, and pizza and drinks at J2!
Huzzah J2. It was good pizza ;) Plus I learned some interesting things about various Yeshivot.
Now, to the broken umbrella. Enter our aforementioned third party to the restaraunt, complete with iPod, cap and backpack. He is carrying this odd-looking black and red umbrella. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see old ladies carry, or perhaps women who are very garishly made-up. He closes it and explains that he "found it on the street." This doesn't make sense to me, as I do not comprehend the strange ways of New York.
Does anyone else find it amusing that the guys opted for Diet Coke when I went with regular? I was once again amused.
At some point we have to return, of course, as the guys need to take the shuttle back to Uptown. The last shuttle is at 1:15 in the morning, so we're walking back from J2, dancing along the streets (at one point three of us were listening to iPods, and arranged it so we even had the same songs going on at the same time...the logic in that I don't know, but it was fabulous) as the rain fell upon us.
Soon I understood what our third party had meant when he stated he had found the umbrella "on the street," as it were. We passed two more abandoned umbrellas, each of which one member of the group alternatively picked up. I had a blue broken Six-Flags one for a few moments.
There's really something about passing by lots of shuttered stores in the middle of the night (or in the early morning) while it is raining, there are bright lights everywhere, you're in good company and marooned umbrellas invade the sidewalks.
Then back to the dorm, goodbyes and farewells, and twas the end of the night...except that the original broken umbrella (red and black) was bequeathed unto me until another time when it shall be needed and/or our people come back to pick it up.
The best part is that all of these people are in-towners. So ha. See? Sometimes in-towners do stay for Shabbat.
Huzzah everybody! It was a wonderful Shabbos.
What do we hear? Well, about the stigma that is associated with it, how it is boring/ unhappy/ frightening, and so on and so forth. In other words, there are many variations on the theme that if you are an out-of-towner, you are doomed to failure and complete misery.
It is understandable, then, that I entered said Shabbos with a healthy bit of confused apprehension.
Now, here's the fun part-after the meal (which wasn't such a sketchy meal; it actually appeared edible and even appetizing) we all (this means the girls and also the guys from YU who come up to make a minyan) went back to the girl's dorms. The guys sleep at a hotel, but there's a lounge, Oneg Shabbos as it is called, games and conversation.
I wanted to play Apples to Apples. It's possibly my favorite game ever. One girl claimed she would play with me, but as she disappeared into oblivion, and I saw a few other people in possession of a box, I invited myself over and inquired as to whether I could join. These being nice people, I was indeed allowed to join, and even began a winning streak (until my magical mind connection with another girl in the group led me to pick her every single time I was the judge.)
In case you don't know how Apples to Apples works, it's a game where one person puts down a card upon which is written an adjective, and you (each member of the group) hold seven cards with nouns. These nouns can be anything and everything from "Adolf Hitler" to "Hangnails." You each submit a card with a noun on it facedown to the judge, who will then decide. Based on this person's sense of humor, you shall win or lose. Officially, the first person with seven (or twenty-one, or any number, as you like) cards, wins.
During this game we engaged in good-natured rivalry and amused conversation, after which I somehow ended up relating the extremely complicated and, for some reason amusing (maybe it only works if you're telling this over at one AM) anecdotes and stories that occurred within the four walls of my Jewish highschool (before I switched.) This was intercepted by statements from the other people about their own highschools, or yeshivot, or what it had been like in Israel, and so on and so forth...
Fast forward to Shabbos morning. I went to shul, while most other people appeared to have gone to the YU minyan in the cafeteria. As I came back early from shul, I decided to help the waitresses (and discovered the extremely unsanitary chopping-boards we have...they are only rinsed with water, no soap or anything else.) The amusing part was when these girls came up to me with expressions of awe (and dare I say fear?) in their eyes, inquiring as to "why" I was helping them. "I've never seen anyone do this," one said, "you're not even getting paid!"
I suppose one cannot put ice-buckets on tables unless one is paid to do it...
The meal was good fun, especially as I was able to continue my conversation with the three people who had so amused me the night before...
After the meal we returned to the lounge once again. Here I must describe the weather in New York. Some would call it miserable. Others might call it wet. I'll say it was raining, and there was a breeze as well, so the combination wasn't the most suitable for outdoor excursions. However I wanted to take a walk. It seemed cruel to insist upon another human being coming alongside me due to the weather, so I decided to take said walk alone. Not a good plan, as I soon found out.
Important note to self- never take walks alone in New York when you are dressed in Shabbos clothing.
I hugged my green Gap belted jacket closer to myself as I strode determinedly down Fifth Avenue. I was dazzled by the shops, the stores, the colors, the lights...everything appeared fabulous and exciting. I was humming refrains and snatches of popular songs to myself. I goodnaturedly said hello to people, and was pleasantly surprised when a few of them even said "hello" back.
Now to my attire. This is the important part of the story. As it was Shabbos, I was dressed in a red and black turtleneck and a short black skirt. This black skirt has silk fringes and a small silk bow. As it's cold, black tights and lace-up calf-length boots complete the look. A green Gap jacket, as previously mentioned, is worn over the turtleneck.
I walk with a sense of purpose, curiously glancing at stores, but more often, at people. There are so many different types of people, homeless or otherwise. After wandering for a while, the rain misting my hair and the breeze dancing around me, I decide to make my way back to the dorm.
I walk back down Fifth Avenue, though in the opposite direction. I am waiting for the walk sign at an intersection, and I have a stone in my boot. I look down at my boot as I move my foot, trying to move the pebble so it does not chafe against my foot.
"Nice boots," says a voice beside me.
I look up. There's a man, significantly taller than me in his late twenties or early thirties. He's wearing a leather jacket, black jeans, and some type of polo shirt. He has black or simply dark hair. He's a sturdy-looking person. He's also waiting for the Walk sign.
"Thanks," I say.
"I like the skirt, too," he says, and gives me a meaningful smile. "So...do you know some place around here we could go?" He accompanies this with a hand gesture, expansively taking it the whole of Fifth Avenue.
(I'm thinking to myself- how old does he think I am? He wants to take me to a bar!)
"No place I know," I say airily, and smile.
"Oh," he answers. "I'm from LA. That's why I'm asking."
"I'm from Chicago," I volunteer. "I'm walking."
That's when the Walk sign came on, and I walked swiftly (though not too swiftly, lest I attract more attention) away. That's also when I began to smile, and finally to laugh softly to myself. Nobody has ever attempted to pick me up before. It's just not done in Chicago. And people are certainly more subtle about it...
I return to the dorm and sleep.
Shalashudos goes well, after which is Havdala and then a movie ('Proof,' filmed on the University of Chicago campus so I recognized everything!) at another dorm. There was an ice cream cake from Baskin Robbins as well, and that was possibly the best part. I don't like how open-ended the movie is. 'A Beautiful Mind' is much, much better.)
When the movie was concluded, I was invited out by the three (well, actually two, as the third had disappeared but would soon return) people who had amused me throughout Shabbos. As this is a long weekend (which meant I had nothing else to worry about, homework-wise) I accepted. This meant walking in the rain, wandering around Broadway, and pizza and drinks at J2!
Huzzah J2. It was good pizza ;) Plus I learned some interesting things about various Yeshivot.
Now, to the broken umbrella. Enter our aforementioned third party to the restaraunt, complete with iPod, cap and backpack. He is carrying this odd-looking black and red umbrella. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see old ladies carry, or perhaps women who are very garishly made-up. He closes it and explains that he "found it on the street." This doesn't make sense to me, as I do not comprehend the strange ways of New York.
Does anyone else find it amusing that the guys opted for Diet Coke when I went with regular? I was once again amused.
At some point we have to return, of course, as the guys need to take the shuttle back to Uptown. The last shuttle is at 1:15 in the morning, so we're walking back from J2, dancing along the streets (at one point three of us were listening to iPods, and arranged it so we even had the same songs going on at the same time...the logic in that I don't know, but it was fabulous) as the rain fell upon us.
Soon I understood what our third party had meant when he stated he had found the umbrella "on the street," as it were. We passed two more abandoned umbrellas, each of which one member of the group alternatively picked up. I had a blue broken Six-Flags one for a few moments.
There's really something about passing by lots of shuttered stores in the middle of the night (or in the early morning) while it is raining, there are bright lights everywhere, you're in good company and marooned umbrellas invade the sidewalks.
Then back to the dorm, goodbyes and farewells, and twas the end of the night...except that the original broken umbrella (red and black) was bequeathed unto me until another time when it shall be needed and/or our people come back to pick it up.
The best part is that all of these people are in-towners. So ha. See? Sometimes in-towners do stay for Shabbat.
Huzzah everybody! It was a wonderful Shabbos.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Blog Warning Meme- I'm asking the readers
I stole this Meme from At the Back of the Hill.
And I want YOU to tell me your suggestions for my blog! They can be humorous or serious, as you like.
1. What warning would you have on your blog for the unsuspecting?
2. Why do you think they need to be warned?
3. What does that say about them?
4. And who else should put up a warning?
And I want YOU to tell me your suggestions for my blog! They can be humorous or serious, as you like.
1. What warning would you have on your blog for the unsuspecting?
2. Why do you think they need to be warned?
3. What does that say about them?
4. And who else should put up a warning?
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Heresy of Intelligent Design by Rabbi Natan Slifkin
THESE NOTES ARE UNAPPROVED AND UNOFFICIAL SO IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE OR I'VE MISATTRIBUTED, PLEASE ASSUME I MADE THE MISTAKE
Rabbi Slifkin arrived at Stern College for Women after the supposed session of "Meet and Greet" the students, but still before 7:00 PM, the official time for the start of the speech. He therefore had nine minutes in which to speak, and he commenced with a prelude to evolution, as evolution is (was) the main topic of the speech.
The prelude to evolution concerns the age of the universe. We have about 14 billions years to account for in the next nine minutes.
There are several mainstream approaches to the idea of the age of the universe. First, we have the Tiferet Yisrael, who talks about the previous worlds that God created and then destroyed. That's why we have fossils- because these are the creatures that were destroyed along with the previous worlds. However, this does not resolve contradictions, because these previous worlds take place BEFORE the six days of creation.
Therefore, the widespread approach is that the six days of creation may not be days as we know them. R' David Zvi Hoffman says it could have been billions of years- aeons- and this is a well-accepted approach, or at least it was until 2 years ago. R' Hoffman was willing to reconcile the Torah to that fact.
However, we still have the sequence of events that is described during the 6 days of creation which does NOT correlate to the sequence of events described by science.
For example, fossils show us that first there were fish, then land animals and then birds, but the Torah doesn't work in the same way. (He then asked us questions as to what, according to the Torah, was created when, and of course it's a different order- for example, birds before land animals.) So people try to reinterpret the Torah and psukim and suggest, for example that "rudimentary genetic matter was created in outer space" rather than grass/ plants when it says grass/plants in the Torah. The problem of course is we see no evidence for "rudimentary genetic matter" in the Torah. Some others will state, "No, of course the Torah doesn't mean birds- they mean flying INSECTS!" The problem is that the Torah has a specific word for flying insects (he might have said sheretz here) and these are not the same as the word for birds.
For those of us who accept science, the real issue to be dealt with is....the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim says that "ma'aseh Beraishis" is not all to be taken literally. There are 2 important points to be made here- 1. Ma'aseh Beraishis is not literal 2. The Rambam had a hard time selling that to people
The 6 days of Beraishis are not really time periods- they are a conceptual hierarchy of how God makes the world. Beraishis is teaching theology NOT science; teaching theological truths. The Torah has to be understood on many different levels, by the simplest audience and by the most sophisticated audience. If you're writing a book about Barney, it's meant for four-year-olds. If you're writing Harry Potter, you aim for a twenty-five year old audience. (*laughs*) The books you are writing depend upon your target audience. The Torah has a tremendously broad audience- so there are different layers of meaning, from simplest one to apply to the least sophisitcated audience to more difficult ones (remez, sod, etc)
R' Dessler states that the 6 days of creation refer to the Sefiros.
The Torah contains theological truths, spiritual truths. From a spiritual standpoint, the existence of dinosaurs is irrelevant. R' Kook goes even further to state that the point of the Torah is that it is addressed to man, and hence man must be made to feel significant. If the Torah HAD spoken about billions of years, man would have seen himself as a being who was completely insignificant in the scheme of things. Therefore the Torah actually had to DOWNPLAY this so man would feel himself to be significant.
This thing about "everything being in the Torah"- the commentary of the Seforno on Pirkei Avos on a verse which states that we are to "Turn it over and over again because everything is in it,"- the Seforno says that all theology/ philosophy is in the Torah as OPPOSED to things like medicine which is NOT in the Torah. People tend to have a very simplistic approach when understanding this kind of statement (referencing the verse from Pirkei Avos), however.
True, there are others- I think it's the Ramban who says everything is there but it's not of much practical use if we cannot extract it; even Shlomo HaMelech couldn't extract it.
Question was if this (what Rabbi Slifkin is saying) is Rambam, how can people fight against it so strongly?
1. It's in Moreh Nevuchim- not a yeshiva curriculum piece; most people, even the greatest Rabbanim, have not read it
2. Even if you HAVE read Moreh Nevuchim, you have to read the COMMENTARIES on Moreh Nevuchim. The Akeidas Yitzchak and the Abarbanel and others concur that this is what the Rambam is saying-they disagree/ don't understand, but they all concur that this is what he is saying.
3. They burnt the Rambam's books, after all
It's not an EASY approach to Torah; it's hard to grasp- many people personally object to this being taught/ or they oppose it strongly on behalf of others and how they think it will affect other people.
Now, on to the main topic of this speech- EVOLUTION.
I have called this speech "The Heresty of Intelligent Design." Now, the title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Certainly I am not the one to accuse people of spouting heresy. However, to explain...people are defensive when they are trying to reconcile evolution to the Torah. Defending evolution, you have science on your side but are seen as being in a theologically shaky position. In truth, however, it's the other way around- to argue AGAINST evolution is theologically shaky.
The first point I want to make is we need to clarify what is meant by evolution. The word "evolution" has several different meanings.
1. Are different creatures related in one big family tree? In other words, is everything somehow related? This is not HOW did the species change into one another, but IS there a common ancestor for all life forms?
To this, I would say that there is a lot of evidence for that. (He now compares different animals) For example, the skeleton of a bat- it has wings like a bird but 5 fingers with grossly enlarged digits. General anatomical structure of animals suggests that they are descended from a common ancestor. We can tell this from residual parts that don't seem to make sense. An emu, for example, has short stumpy little wings that are of no use to it. However, that makes sense if it evolved from a bird that DOES have a use for wings. Or blind animals with tiny useless eyes- that makes sense if they evolved from animals WITH eyes.
The fossil record is also important. So some will say there are missing links. True, but the fact that it even exists, that there even ARE links should be recognized!
Whales evolved from land animals- this is suggestive by the fossil sequence. We DO have a sequence. We say that whales DID evovle from land animals, otherwise you are saying that God was constantly zapping more whalelike creatures that differed slightly from one another in the same general geographic area into existence. If common ancestry isn't true, God is certainly trying to fool us into thinking it's true!
2. So HOW did it happen?
The popular explanation is natural selection. (he gives an example here with a deer-like animal, natural selection, and evolving into a giraffe- grossly oversimplified, he says)
Does this suffice to explain how complex organs arise- eyes, for example? There is lots of scientific debate.
Now, when 2 people are arguing over evolution they are often using different meanings of the fact/ term "evolution." One of them is saying that it absolutely isn't true and is quoting scientific articles- he's talking about the MECHANISMS of evolution, the HOW it happened. The one who is saying it absolutely IS true is generally talking about the idea of common ancestry.
People will quote scientists completely out of context to try to prove evolution isn't true; when people are really arguing about the mechanisms involved.
Now, for the theological aspects of evolution:
Common Ancestry- The evidence is strongly in favor of that. It does seem to conflict with the literal meaning of Beraishis, but the Rambam deals with that, so that doesn't need to bother us. In fact, R' Kook says that the literal meaning of Beraishis is the LEAST we have to worry about- Beraishis is an esoteric book and should be understood as souch.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: So, ideally this means that one sees a creator in nature. In practice, it means that there are certain aspects of biological organisms that cannot be accounted for by scientific explanation- therefore, some supernatural being, whether a weird green alien or God, must be involved. In a book called Darwin's Black Box it states that two things can absolutely not be explained by science and hence prove God is involved in the universe.
1. Bacterium Flagellum
2. Human Blood Clotting System
These systems exhibit irreduceable complexity- and there is not scientific explanation for how they could have evolved; that is what the Intelligent Designers claim. Therefore it must be, they hold, that they were designed.
Now, the MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC ANSWER to this:
1. Yes, we do have explanations
2. We will find good explanations- that is what science is all about; looking for answers
Now, this debate is often portrayed as being the religious intelligent design community versus the atheist evolutionists. So for nice frum Jews, intelligent design seems to be the way to go!
Now, there was a book published a few years ago about Torah and science that was supposed to give convincing evidence for a creator- for example, the author talked about bird migration, and he pokes fun at all kind of scientific explanations for it. For example, one scientific explanation suggested that birds use stars to find their way. So the author of this book made fun, saying, "How could this bird-brain" know how to use sophisticated techniquest to get there- the Little Dipper, the Big Dipper, etc...
First of all, the scientific explanations are pretty good (maybe this author didn't understand them, but...) but second of all, what you are saying here is that God can get a bird to hatch from an egg, but He's somehow incapable of giving a bird the ability to be guided by the stars!?
Do we see God in nature or only, merely in the things that science is unable to explain? The Intelligent Design camp is usually for all the things that "science is unable to explain." In Judaism, there's a train of thought, especially utilized by the Rishonim, that we can see God WITHIN nature. We try to minimize the miraculous- to ascribe greater intelligence to God.
What's wrong with a miracle? This is like comparing Microsoft to Apple. Microsoft is always coming up with new patches and updates, while Apple doesn't do that so much. The reason Microsoft has to do this is because it didn't design as good an operating system to begin with!
A miracle means the laws of nature are not accomplishing God's objectives, so He has to interfere in order to make them accomplish his objectives.
A miracle detracts from God- even the most famous miracles in the Torah are therefore presented in a naturalistic way. For example, the splitting of the Red Sea- we see that it says, "A wind blew all night." God can perform miracles THROUGH the laws of nature, still.
Now, paganism saw miracles everywhere. It is actually RELIGION that brings science into play! When Avraham uses monotheism/ science began WITH Judaism and monotheism. If there is a process to the world, to the laws of nature, then we must ask- where do they come from? Who makes the laws of science- who decrees them?
They are very fortutious laws. In order to have matter formed out of energy, they have to be very complex. The laws of nature themselves are incredible testimony to God- R' Hirsch has some beautiful quotes about this.
In order to understand the concept of spiritual laws, you need to start with/ understand physical laws. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- this is Midah K'Neged Midah- that's not God's idea of a sense of humor! The laws of nature are testimony to God.
I used to be as anti-evolution as everyone else. In some of my earliest books, ten years ago, I was very against evolution. How did that change?
1. The Sefer Da'as Chachma U'Mussar saw this applied to animals/ natural law/ and based on what the sefarim teach, I realized that if evolution is NOT true then God was simply spending his time zapping creatures who were very similar to one another and deviated slightly into existence every few moments! And who is the better engineer- the engineer who makes 10 different robots, or the engineer who creates a PROGRAM (i.e. the laws of nature) to make the robots?
R' Hirsch actually says that if evolution is ever proven to be true it will attest to the creative wisdom of God.
Intelligent design says scientific explanations are not good enough. The implicit message of intelligent design is that you CANNOT see God in things that science CAN explain. Therefore, the Neviim (prophets) who spoke of seeing God in the majesty of the cosmos- they got it all wrong because science can explain that! Nope, instead, you need to look for God in the bacterium flagellum- this is theologically absurd! It is theologically absurd to be painting God into such a small corner.
They're so sure there's no scientific explanation for this- you think that God's incapable of creating laws to monitor the bacterium flagellum? That for some reason this is beyond God's power, so for this specific creatures He has to oversee and monitor and do it because the laws of nature- which He created- can't do it???!
Really, it's trivializing God- this movement that many people think is a friend of Jewish/ religious people. I find it theologically offensive.
We understand the science of metereology, astronomy- and yet we still see God's work in the cosmos, in the stars. We say 'Barchi Nafshi" every day- we have scientific explanations for thse things. Where is the source that differentiates biology from every other science? Why can't we see God in biology, too?
Some dislike evolution for its "randomness." We don't believed the world is random, they say. Well, hello, what about Purim- it seems like random fortuitous events, but in the end we see it's God behind the scenes! Or what about the idea of lottery in the Torah? The land of Israel is divided by a lottery, but God is in charge at the end- God works through SEEMINGLY random processes.
Evolution is not a contradiction to Judaism, but intelligent design and the claims of its members is.
Secular evolutionists also deserve blame, however. Stephen J. Gould tries to draw anti-religious statements/ conclusions from evolution. This doesn't make sense; everything depends on one's perspective. It's like history. To those who are religious, history demonstrates the will of God; to those who are not it may seem completely against religion.
Anti-theological conclusions drawn from evolution are wrong as well. It's no wonder that people feel strongly against evolution with secular evolutionists drawing these wrong conclusion sout there!
People have a tremendous desire to see everything in the Torah...it's comforting but what about dinosaurs? you don't see dinosaurs in the Torah.
---
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
(I'm providing answers, not always the questions)
1. What about men coming from monkeys?
Okay, so say we disregard the literal problems with the literal account of creation. What do we dislike about men coming from monkeys? The idea that there is not much difference between us and them. We find it demeaning, degrading. What about evolving from toads, dogs? Also degrading? What about evolving from dirt? (Laughter) Why is it degrading to come from toads but not from dirt?
In truth, the problem is with saying we came from monkeys, is the idea that there isn't much difference between us and them. So what makes us different from monkeys?
1. Communication- our language skills
2. Freedom of choice, not instinctual responses
Rambam and Seforno say we were first created as humanoids WITHOUT a neshama (soul) and were no different from animals! In fact, why was man created on the same day as animals? Abarbanel says that it's to show that if you DON'T make free choices/ overcome your natural instincts, you are no different from an animal.
Rabbi Soloveitchik's "The Emergence of Ethical Man" is fundamentallyl based on evolution.
The popular conception is that Ramban says that everything is mystical miracles all the time. This is not true. Dr. David Berger writes about this. I'm trying to get this put up on my website- trying to get permission.
EVOLUTION- INTERESTING THEOLOGICAL QUESTION
The idea of wastefulness seems to be a problem. However, we already have the idea of wastefulness in the idea that God created worlds and then destroyed them!
In fact, when evolution was first proposed, theologians of non-Jewish world saw it as solving problems, for example, of wisdom teeth or lower back pain. If jaws evolved into smaller teeth, that's why there are wisdom teeth- this makes the negative features of the world explainable. The negative features are the world are inevitable in this context- it's because of the system God used (Rambam.)
(Trying to illustrate his ideas) But it's the point that matters- say you go to Legoland and you see the Statue of Liberty made out of legos. So you might say it's not as smooth or as pretty- but the point is, it was made out of LEGOS and that's the genius of it! Similar with God- the genius of God is making and running the world out of natural laws.
ASKED ABOUT HIS TEXTUAL SUPPORT- RAMBAM/ RISHONIM
It's nice to try to find as much support as possible, but I do try not to force meforshim to my approach.
ASKED ABOUT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE YEAR 5766
So what I used to say is that's when Hashem put a neshama into man. But that's problematic...so I'll tell you what Rav Gedalia Nadel the foremost disciple of the Chazon Ish, says. When God says, "Let us make man," does he mean man the individual or mankind? Mankind. Tehrefore, the year 5766 refers to the original evolution of homosapiens, the making of mankind. From then onward, Adam refers to that particular individual.
The Rambam also says that many sequences of events- for exmaple, the creation- is allegorical.
ASKED ABOUT MIRACLES BY EXODUS- IF THEY ARE REALLY TRIVIALIZING GOD, WHY THERE?
There are 2 approaches.
1. Just at this specific point in time in history, there had to be miracles and God had to break the laws to establish His mastery over them (from R' Yerucham Levovitz)
2. R' Soloveitchik says that even the miracles of the Exodus were performed in a naturalistic fashion- nature itself is a function of God, works to see God within nature
-
CONCLUDES
Not everything is "bashert." Rishonim say that. Quantum physics seems to open a way for God to interact with nature without having to break the laws of nature, or perhaps it is beyond our comprehension how God interacts with nature.
Rabbi Slifkin arrived at Stern College for Women after the supposed session of "Meet and Greet" the students, but still before 7:00 PM, the official time for the start of the speech. He therefore had nine minutes in which to speak, and he commenced with a prelude to evolution, as evolution is (was) the main topic of the speech.
The prelude to evolution concerns the age of the universe. We have about 14 billions years to account for in the next nine minutes.
There are several mainstream approaches to the idea of the age of the universe. First, we have the Tiferet Yisrael, who talks about the previous worlds that God created and then destroyed. That's why we have fossils- because these are the creatures that were destroyed along with the previous worlds. However, this does not resolve contradictions, because these previous worlds take place BEFORE the six days of creation.
Therefore, the widespread approach is that the six days of creation may not be days as we know them. R' David Zvi Hoffman says it could have been billions of years- aeons- and this is a well-accepted approach, or at least it was until 2 years ago. R' Hoffman was willing to reconcile the Torah to that fact.
However, we still have the sequence of events that is described during the 6 days of creation which does NOT correlate to the sequence of events described by science.
For example, fossils show us that first there were fish, then land animals and then birds, but the Torah doesn't work in the same way. (He then asked us questions as to what, according to the Torah, was created when, and of course it's a different order- for example, birds before land animals.) So people try to reinterpret the Torah and psukim and suggest, for example that "rudimentary genetic matter was created in outer space" rather than grass/ plants when it says grass/plants in the Torah. The problem of course is we see no evidence for "rudimentary genetic matter" in the Torah. Some others will state, "No, of course the Torah doesn't mean birds- they mean flying INSECTS!" The problem is that the Torah has a specific word for flying insects (he might have said sheretz here) and these are not the same as the word for birds.
For those of us who accept science, the real issue to be dealt with is....the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim says that "ma'aseh Beraishis" is not all to be taken literally. There are 2 important points to be made here- 1. Ma'aseh Beraishis is not literal 2. The Rambam had a hard time selling that to people
The 6 days of Beraishis are not really time periods- they are a conceptual hierarchy of how God makes the world. Beraishis is teaching theology NOT science; teaching theological truths. The Torah has to be understood on many different levels, by the simplest audience and by the most sophisticated audience. If you're writing a book about Barney, it's meant for four-year-olds. If you're writing Harry Potter, you aim for a twenty-five year old audience. (*laughs*) The books you are writing depend upon your target audience. The Torah has a tremendously broad audience- so there are different layers of meaning, from simplest one to apply to the least sophisitcated audience to more difficult ones (remez, sod, etc)
R' Dessler states that the 6 days of creation refer to the Sefiros.
The Torah contains theological truths, spiritual truths. From a spiritual standpoint, the existence of dinosaurs is irrelevant. R' Kook goes even further to state that the point of the Torah is that it is addressed to man, and hence man must be made to feel significant. If the Torah HAD spoken about billions of years, man would have seen himself as a being who was completely insignificant in the scheme of things. Therefore the Torah actually had to DOWNPLAY this so man would feel himself to be significant.
This thing about "everything being in the Torah"- the commentary of the Seforno on Pirkei Avos on a verse which states that we are to "Turn it over and over again because everything is in it,"- the Seforno says that all theology/ philosophy is in the Torah as OPPOSED to things like medicine which is NOT in the Torah. People tend to have a very simplistic approach when understanding this kind of statement (referencing the verse from Pirkei Avos), however.
True, there are others- I think it's the Ramban who says everything is there but it's not of much practical use if we cannot extract it; even Shlomo HaMelech couldn't extract it.
Question was if this (what Rabbi Slifkin is saying) is Rambam, how can people fight against it so strongly?
1. It's in Moreh Nevuchim- not a yeshiva curriculum piece; most people, even the greatest Rabbanim, have not read it
2. Even if you HAVE read Moreh Nevuchim, you have to read the COMMENTARIES on Moreh Nevuchim. The Akeidas Yitzchak and the Abarbanel and others concur that this is what the Rambam is saying-they disagree/ don't understand, but they all concur that this is what he is saying.
3. They burnt the Rambam's books, after all
It's not an EASY approach to Torah; it's hard to grasp- many people personally object to this being taught/ or they oppose it strongly on behalf of others and how they think it will affect other people.
Now, on to the main topic of this speech- EVOLUTION.
I have called this speech "The Heresty of Intelligent Design." Now, the title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Certainly I am not the one to accuse people of spouting heresy. However, to explain...people are defensive when they are trying to reconcile evolution to the Torah. Defending evolution, you have science on your side but are seen as being in a theologically shaky position. In truth, however, it's the other way around- to argue AGAINST evolution is theologically shaky.
The first point I want to make is we need to clarify what is meant by evolution. The word "evolution" has several different meanings.
1. Are different creatures related in one big family tree? In other words, is everything somehow related? This is not HOW did the species change into one another, but IS there a common ancestor for all life forms?
To this, I would say that there is a lot of evidence for that. (He now compares different animals) For example, the skeleton of a bat- it has wings like a bird but 5 fingers with grossly enlarged digits. General anatomical structure of animals suggests that they are descended from a common ancestor. We can tell this from residual parts that don't seem to make sense. An emu, for example, has short stumpy little wings that are of no use to it. However, that makes sense if it evolved from a bird that DOES have a use for wings. Or blind animals with tiny useless eyes- that makes sense if they evolved from animals WITH eyes.
The fossil record is also important. So some will say there are missing links. True, but the fact that it even exists, that there even ARE links should be recognized!
Whales evolved from land animals- this is suggestive by the fossil sequence. We DO have a sequence. We say that whales DID evovle from land animals, otherwise you are saying that God was constantly zapping more whalelike creatures that differed slightly from one another in the same general geographic area into existence. If common ancestry isn't true, God is certainly trying to fool us into thinking it's true!
2. So HOW did it happen?
The popular explanation is natural selection. (he gives an example here with a deer-like animal, natural selection, and evolving into a giraffe- grossly oversimplified, he says)
Does this suffice to explain how complex organs arise- eyes, for example? There is lots of scientific debate.
Now, when 2 people are arguing over evolution they are often using different meanings of the fact/ term "evolution." One of them is saying that it absolutely isn't true and is quoting scientific articles- he's talking about the MECHANISMS of evolution, the HOW it happened. The one who is saying it absolutely IS true is generally talking about the idea of common ancestry.
People will quote scientists completely out of context to try to prove evolution isn't true; when people are really arguing about the mechanisms involved.
Now, for the theological aspects of evolution:
Common Ancestry- The evidence is strongly in favor of that. It does seem to conflict with the literal meaning of Beraishis, but the Rambam deals with that, so that doesn't need to bother us. In fact, R' Kook says that the literal meaning of Beraishis is the LEAST we have to worry about- Beraishis is an esoteric book and should be understood as souch.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: So, ideally this means that one sees a creator in nature. In practice, it means that there are certain aspects of biological organisms that cannot be accounted for by scientific explanation- therefore, some supernatural being, whether a weird green alien or God, must be involved. In a book called Darwin's Black Box it states that two things can absolutely not be explained by science and hence prove God is involved in the universe.
1. Bacterium Flagellum
2. Human Blood Clotting System
These systems exhibit irreduceable complexity- and there is not scientific explanation for how they could have evolved; that is what the Intelligent Designers claim. Therefore it must be, they hold, that they were designed.
Now, the MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC ANSWER to this:
1. Yes, we do have explanations
2. We will find good explanations- that is what science is all about; looking for answers
Now, this debate is often portrayed as being the religious intelligent design community versus the atheist evolutionists. So for nice frum Jews, intelligent design seems to be the way to go!
Now, there was a book published a few years ago about Torah and science that was supposed to give convincing evidence for a creator- for example, the author talked about bird migration, and he pokes fun at all kind of scientific explanations for it. For example, one scientific explanation suggested that birds use stars to find their way. So the author of this book made fun, saying, "How could this bird-brain" know how to use sophisticated techniquest to get there- the Little Dipper, the Big Dipper, etc...
First of all, the scientific explanations are pretty good (maybe this author didn't understand them, but...) but second of all, what you are saying here is that God can get a bird to hatch from an egg, but He's somehow incapable of giving a bird the ability to be guided by the stars!?
Do we see God in nature or only, merely in the things that science is unable to explain? The Intelligent Design camp is usually for all the things that "science is unable to explain." In Judaism, there's a train of thought, especially utilized by the Rishonim, that we can see God WITHIN nature. We try to minimize the miraculous- to ascribe greater intelligence to God.
What's wrong with a miracle? This is like comparing Microsoft to Apple. Microsoft is always coming up with new patches and updates, while Apple doesn't do that so much. The reason Microsoft has to do this is because it didn't design as good an operating system to begin with!
A miracle means the laws of nature are not accomplishing God's objectives, so He has to interfere in order to make them accomplish his objectives.
A miracle detracts from God- even the most famous miracles in the Torah are therefore presented in a naturalistic way. For example, the splitting of the Red Sea- we see that it says, "A wind blew all night." God can perform miracles THROUGH the laws of nature, still.
Now, paganism saw miracles everywhere. It is actually RELIGION that brings science into play! When Avraham uses monotheism/ science began WITH Judaism and monotheism. If there is a process to the world, to the laws of nature, then we must ask- where do they come from? Who makes the laws of science- who decrees them?
They are very fortutious laws. In order to have matter formed out of energy, they have to be very complex. The laws of nature themselves are incredible testimony to God- R' Hirsch has some beautiful quotes about this.
In order to understand the concept of spiritual laws, you need to start with/ understand physical laws. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- this is Midah K'Neged Midah- that's not God's idea of a sense of humor! The laws of nature are testimony to God.
I used to be as anti-evolution as everyone else. In some of my earliest books, ten years ago, I was very against evolution. How did that change?
1. The Sefer Da'as Chachma U'Mussar saw this applied to animals/ natural law/ and based on what the sefarim teach, I realized that if evolution is NOT true then God was simply spending his time zapping creatures who were very similar to one another and deviated slightly into existence every few moments! And who is the better engineer- the engineer who makes 10 different robots, or the engineer who creates a PROGRAM (i.e. the laws of nature) to make the robots?
R' Hirsch actually says that if evolution is ever proven to be true it will attest to the creative wisdom of God.
Intelligent design says scientific explanations are not good enough. The implicit message of intelligent design is that you CANNOT see God in things that science CAN explain. Therefore, the Neviim (prophets) who spoke of seeing God in the majesty of the cosmos- they got it all wrong because science can explain that! Nope, instead, you need to look for God in the bacterium flagellum- this is theologically absurd! It is theologically absurd to be painting God into such a small corner.
They're so sure there's no scientific explanation for this- you think that God's incapable of creating laws to monitor the bacterium flagellum? That for some reason this is beyond God's power, so for this specific creatures He has to oversee and monitor and do it because the laws of nature- which He created- can't do it???!
Really, it's trivializing God- this movement that many people think is a friend of Jewish/ religious people. I find it theologically offensive.
We understand the science of metereology, astronomy- and yet we still see God's work in the cosmos, in the stars. We say 'Barchi Nafshi" every day- we have scientific explanations for thse things. Where is the source that differentiates biology from every other science? Why can't we see God in biology, too?
Some dislike evolution for its "randomness." We don't believed the world is random, they say. Well, hello, what about Purim- it seems like random fortuitous events, but in the end we see it's God behind the scenes! Or what about the idea of lottery in the Torah? The land of Israel is divided by a lottery, but God is in charge at the end- God works through SEEMINGLY random processes.
Evolution is not a contradiction to Judaism, but intelligent design and the claims of its members is.
Secular evolutionists also deserve blame, however. Stephen J. Gould tries to draw anti-religious statements/ conclusions from evolution. This doesn't make sense; everything depends on one's perspective. It's like history. To those who are religious, history demonstrates the will of God; to those who are not it may seem completely against religion.
Anti-theological conclusions drawn from evolution are wrong as well. It's no wonder that people feel strongly against evolution with secular evolutionists drawing these wrong conclusion sout there!
People have a tremendous desire to see everything in the Torah...it's comforting but what about dinosaurs? you don't see dinosaurs in the Torah.
---
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
(I'm providing answers, not always the questions)
1. What about men coming from monkeys?
Okay, so say we disregard the literal problems with the literal account of creation. What do we dislike about men coming from monkeys? The idea that there is not much difference between us and them. We find it demeaning, degrading. What about evolving from toads, dogs? Also degrading? What about evolving from dirt? (Laughter) Why is it degrading to come from toads but not from dirt?
In truth, the problem is with saying we came from monkeys, is the idea that there isn't much difference between us and them. So what makes us different from monkeys?
1. Communication- our language skills
2. Freedom of choice, not instinctual responses
Rambam and Seforno say we were first created as humanoids WITHOUT a neshama (soul) and were no different from animals! In fact, why was man created on the same day as animals? Abarbanel says that it's to show that if you DON'T make free choices/ overcome your natural instincts, you are no different from an animal.
Rabbi Soloveitchik's "The Emergence of Ethical Man" is fundamentallyl based on evolution.
The popular conception is that Ramban says that everything is mystical miracles all the time. This is not true. Dr. David Berger writes about this. I'm trying to get this put up on my website- trying to get permission.
EVOLUTION- INTERESTING THEOLOGICAL QUESTION
The idea of wastefulness seems to be a problem. However, we already have the idea of wastefulness in the idea that God created worlds and then destroyed them!
In fact, when evolution was first proposed, theologians of non-Jewish world saw it as solving problems, for example, of wisdom teeth or lower back pain. If jaws evolved into smaller teeth, that's why there are wisdom teeth- this makes the negative features of the world explainable. The negative features are the world are inevitable in this context- it's because of the system God used (Rambam.)
(Trying to illustrate his ideas) But it's the point that matters- say you go to Legoland and you see the Statue of Liberty made out of legos. So you might say it's not as smooth or as pretty- but the point is, it was made out of LEGOS and that's the genius of it! Similar with God- the genius of God is making and running the world out of natural laws.
ASKED ABOUT HIS TEXTUAL SUPPORT- RAMBAM/ RISHONIM
It's nice to try to find as much support as possible, but I do try not to force meforshim to my approach.
ASKED ABOUT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE YEAR 5766
So what I used to say is that's when Hashem put a neshama into man. But that's problematic...so I'll tell you what Rav Gedalia Nadel the foremost disciple of the Chazon Ish, says. When God says, "Let us make man," does he mean man the individual or mankind? Mankind. Tehrefore, the year 5766 refers to the original evolution of homosapiens, the making of mankind. From then onward, Adam refers to that particular individual.
The Rambam also says that many sequences of events- for exmaple, the creation- is allegorical.
ASKED ABOUT MIRACLES BY EXODUS- IF THEY ARE REALLY TRIVIALIZING GOD, WHY THERE?
There are 2 approaches.
1. Just at this specific point in time in history, there had to be miracles and God had to break the laws to establish His mastery over them (from R' Yerucham Levovitz)
2. R' Soloveitchik says that even the miracles of the Exodus were performed in a naturalistic fashion- nature itself is a function of God, works to see God within nature
-
CONCLUDES
Not everything is "bashert." Rishonim say that. Quantum physics seems to open a way for God to interact with nature without having to break the laws of nature, or perhaps it is beyond our comprehension how God interacts with nature.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
The Looks
It's interesting, being at Stern. There's a mixture of people, and everybody here is here for different reasons. Some people are party girls; others are studious and academic. Some are here (and admit this candidly) to "catch a husband." Whatever the reason, we have a whole mix of people here.
The entertaining part is what I shall call "the looks." You see, due to a complicated set of circumstances, I attended a non-denominational, non-sectarian (in other words, non-Jewish) private school for the last two years of high school. I also opted not to go to seminary. Hence, when people ask which high school you went to, and you tell them, the eyebrows raise, the eyes widen, there is a meaningful look....and an extra look for people who didn't go to seminary...and you immediately feel demoted, or as though someone is looking down upon you.
Well, I take rare pleasure in allowing some of these people to think what they will, but I do explain to other people because I know they are confused more than they are meaning to be insulting. But it has been highly entertaining to be asked, "So how do you know Hebrew?" and the like.
Isn't it sad that even in our supposedly more 'Modern' school there are still labels, categories, sections, divisions? That there is a proper "path" to follow, and those who deviate are problematic? It's ridiculous that I should be looked at for not going to seminary, for example. The non-Jewish school I can maybe understand but the seminary/ non-seminary...what the hell? There are so many reasons I might not have gone. How do you know my parents wouldn't let me? Or maybe I don't have enough money to go?
Now, those are NOT the reasons I opted for Stern over seminary. But what if they were? Who the hell gives YOU the hoity-toity sophomore back-from-Israel student the ability to judge these people? I've already met a couple people who couldn't go for those reasons. And they shouldn't have to feel as though they must immediately explain why they couldn't go to Israel. Who cares? You're here now and that's what matters. Isn't it?
God, but it's exasperating.
So...off to receive more looks! Don't worry, though, I can handle it.
The entertaining part is what I shall call "the looks." You see, due to a complicated set of circumstances, I attended a non-denominational, non-sectarian (in other words, non-Jewish) private school for the last two years of high school. I also opted not to go to seminary. Hence, when people ask which high school you went to, and you tell them, the eyebrows raise, the eyes widen, there is a meaningful look....and an extra look for people who didn't go to seminary...and you immediately feel demoted, or as though someone is looking down upon you.
Well, I take rare pleasure in allowing some of these people to think what they will, but I do explain to other people because I know they are confused more than they are meaning to be insulting. But it has been highly entertaining to be asked, "So how do you know Hebrew?" and the like.
Isn't it sad that even in our supposedly more 'Modern' school there are still labels, categories, sections, divisions? That there is a proper "path" to follow, and those who deviate are problematic? It's ridiculous that I should be looked at for not going to seminary, for example. The non-Jewish school I can maybe understand but the seminary/ non-seminary...what the hell? There are so many reasons I might not have gone. How do you know my parents wouldn't let me? Or maybe I don't have enough money to go?
Now, those are NOT the reasons I opted for Stern over seminary. But what if they were? Who the hell gives YOU the hoity-toity sophomore back-from-Israel student the ability to judge these people? I've already met a couple people who couldn't go for those reasons. And they shouldn't have to feel as though they must immediately explain why they couldn't go to Israel. Who cares? You're here now and that's what matters. Isn't it?
God, but it's exasperating.
So...off to receive more looks! Don't worry, though, I can handle it.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Laughing and laughing again
laughing and laughing again...
I have a schedule!
It should be fabulous.
We have a trial period; I get to try out classes and see how it goes.
Huzzah!
And tonight I go see the Blue Man Group! That's going to be fabulous as well!
I love, I love, I love New York!
And did I mention that my best friend came to see me? And someone else made me feel loved by leaving a note on my door?
Hurrah!
I have a schedule!
It should be fabulous.
We have a trial period; I get to try out classes and see how it goes.
Huzzah!
And tonight I go see the Blue Man Group! That's going to be fabulous as well!
I love, I love, I love New York!
And did I mention that my best friend came to see me? And someone else made me feel loved by leaving a note on my door?
Hurrah!
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Move-In Day
Meet a very stressed, extremely harassed Chana.
Tomorrow's move-in day to Stern, and I hear conflicting information from everybody. Some people tell me to be there at 6:00 in the morning; the book says 8:30 AM. I don't know.
New York, moving large boxes up many flights of stairs, clamoring for the elevator, trying to unpack far too many things in the narrow confines of something that resembles my closet...yes, these are the joys I look forward to tomorrow.
Let's hope it all turns out to be delightful...and that my roommates don't meet a sweaty, dirty me with my hair sticking up in several directions as I bellow across the room, "NO, THAT DOESN'T GO THERE!"
Because that would be slightly frightening for them, and a rather unhappy introduction for me.
Then again...there's no way to make this entirely un-awkward, due to my school's quaintly archaic idea of introducing us to the people we are going to spend an entire year with when school starts as opposed to anytime before. My friends have already corresponded with their people, email, Facebook, the works...I'll be doing it the old-fashioned way. Which is okay, I suppose. As long as she doesn't hate me and I don't hate her. Because that would be bad.
I should go to sleep now, but it's far more interesting to worry about all the things that can possibly go wrong tomorrow.
Huh.
I need a puzzled Calvin and Hobbes comic now. I shall go off in search of one.
Tomorrow's move-in day to Stern, and I hear conflicting information from everybody. Some people tell me to be there at 6:00 in the morning; the book says 8:30 AM. I don't know.
New York, moving large boxes up many flights of stairs, clamoring for the elevator, trying to unpack far too many things in the narrow confines of something that resembles my closet...yes, these are the joys I look forward to tomorrow.
Let's hope it all turns out to be delightful...and that my roommates don't meet a sweaty, dirty me with my hair sticking up in several directions as I bellow across the room, "NO, THAT DOESN'T GO THERE!"
Because that would be slightly frightening for them, and a rather unhappy introduction for me.
Then again...there's no way to make this entirely un-awkward, due to my school's quaintly archaic idea of introducing us to the people we are going to spend an entire year with when school starts as opposed to anytime before. My friends have already corresponded with their people, email, Facebook, the works...I'll be doing it the old-fashioned way. Which is okay, I suppose. As long as she doesn't hate me and I don't hate her. Because that would be bad.
I should go to sleep now, but it's far more interesting to worry about all the things that can possibly go wrong tomorrow.
Huh.
I need a puzzled Calvin and Hobbes comic now. I shall go off in search of one.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Passion
Passion- that's what we want. That's what we're all looking for. Not health, happiness, love, life; none of those alone. What encompasses all of those or makes up for the lack of them is passion.
Passion is about living. Life is fierce, passion for life is a blessing. Every true feeling is inspired by some kind of passion; fierce and furious, the foundation for everything else that is to come.
This doesn't necessarily mean that one is hot-headed and outspoken. There are people who spends their lives quietly passionate, expending their energies in ways that don't attract as much attention. But they care and this is what separates them from the millions of others in the world. It's their love, their devotion, their care, their desire. I love desire. To desire is a gift, as is to be passionate.
When we are young, we are all passionate. Inflamed with passion, believing in our ideas and opinions, our views, our love, whatever it may be. We live simply to express through our being, our lives, all that is us- all our love, all our beauty, whatever flames within us and cuts through to the core. When you meet us, you may leave frustrated or angry, but we will have made an impression. And it's because of our passion.
I think, then, that possibly the worst handicap- the cruelty of all cruelties- is to be robbed of that passion, to sit silent, indifferent, not, in other words, to care. Depression, as it is described, is just this silent apathy; the depressed person is the one who lacks the ability to force himself to desire, to desire to awaken in the morning, to do the things that once made him happy, even to argue, to engage in meaningful and desperate conversation. Depression is a kind of passiveness, or at least that is how it is portrayed, but what is worse is that it is uncontrolled. I cannot "turn off" the passiveness as it were, I can only watch it as though I am disconnected, detached.
A lot of people speak about this- disconnect, detachment, and what it means. They will reference "our generation" above other generations, or suggest all kinds of reasons. I think that any disconnect on our part stems in part from fear. For example, to address Israel. To be passionate and to care about everyone is to be hurt time and time again. And for every one who dies there is a blow, cruel and harsh and heartrending, and there is doubt, and you cry out to God because you don't understand how He could allow the deaths. And for every death there is a person, an actual person who was living and breathing only moment ago, who has now passed away, shattering the lives of others as he did so. To be passionate is to care about these people, and so it is to suffer, empathically, for each one of them and all that he has been robbed of.
Therefore, to be passionate is above all things to feel. To feel every slight, every hurt, every joy and every moment as though it in itself were integral, important above all else. Even the most mundane things- the meal around the table, the spaghetti on the plate- these, too, must be felt, accepted, seen as important and necessary. Life includes everything, not just the exciting or the romantic. We are like children, curious and fascinated and frustrated by our inability to do the things we wish to do, but we haven't given up hope on anything- on the world- on anyone, because we still believe in ourselves.
Children don't doubt themselves. It's adults who instill the doubt. A child will keep on trying to walk even though he's fallen down hundreds of times; he will continue to try to lift something that is too heavy for him because he believes in himself. It's a kind of passion, the passion of belief. And so I think passion is part of religion as well. This can be stretched or pushed in any direction- for example, what is fundamentalism if not a passion for oneself at the expense of others? Many have admired, in a twisted way, the way in which many Palestinians care for the land of Israel- care so much that they will kill themselves and their children in terrorist attacks if they believe they will get it back.
Of course, however, this passion is destructive, as passion can be, terrible and awful, a whirlwind and a storm. Destructive passion can serve a purpose, if it serves to destroy AND to rebuild, but to merely destroy, to take the lives of others- for this one is cursed, for this one is damned.
In the eyes of someone caught within a frail and twisted body you may still see a heady light, something fervent and beautiful- and that is passion. What is the passion for? Passion for learning, or for singing, for dance, for God, for anything and anyone. Constructive passion transforms the person because you have been placed in the role of Creator. One can only create out of passion, out of desire to form new things, to begin anew.
We want to share passion, to transfer it to others, to make it contagious like a strong, heady, wine, glowing in our veins, hard and wiry and ropy in our muscles. This is what makes us live. Take away our cause, our ideals, our ideas, our passion, and we are no longer anything- we are shells, dead, dying. Even victims can be passionate, when they fight against their captors or symbolically rebel. We feel pity for those who lose their passion, but we feel admiration for those who persist.
Do you notice that Holocaust movies play to two types of audiences? There's the kind of Holocaust movie that shows you the victims, dejected, bald, unhappy, tortured, and you feel for them a vast and great sorrow and pity, even fear because you could have been them. But then there's the kind of Holocaust movie that is all about passion- the idea of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, for example, the few fighting against the many, or Schindler saving men while at the same time seemingly destroying himself. Oh, you may not see fire, as it were, in Schindler, but it is a cold fire, a cold resolve to do what he would- because it gave him amusement, or workers, whatever the reason, there is still passion embedded there.
The Passion of the Christ is successful as a movie not because of the mere victimization of Jesus- which is brutal and violent and ugly, as are his oppressors and the cruel, terrible Pharisees portrayed there- but because of the enemy whom Jesus is pitted against, Satan. Satan is terrible and cruel, he taunts Jesus and states that Jesus will never be able to save his people, one man cannot possibly atone for an entire people's sins. Satan walks amongst the Pharisees and spits at Jesus; he torments Judas. It is the fact that Jesus is struggling for his people...that he persists in the face of Satan and all the cruelty that is shown him...that is earth-shattering. This kind of sacrifice is for a cause, an idea, and thus passion is evoked.
All the most dynamic characters in the Bible have been men of passion. Moses, arguing with God, fighting for his people, issuing ultimatums, pleading for his sister. Abraham, destroying his father's idols, leaving his people's way of life, setting out for a new country, lying to Pharoah to save his life. Job, issuing challenges to God, wishing He could hear him speak, facing down those who attempt to console and instead lambaste him. Jeremiah, tormented by his people and by God, seemingly adrift, trying to contain his prophecy but feeling it as fire in his bones, forced to speak and still having the compassion to wail over his city and the very people who hurt him so.
Men of passion, these are the men of our Bible; the men who fascinate us. Some characters are more dynamic than others, some seem more alive, more interesting. "Ka'nai" is applied to Pinchas, a man of passion, a zealot, also to Elijah but Elijah is reprimanded because he, unlike Jeremiah, has difficulty reconciling himself to his people when they do not heed him.
Passion, passion, all is passion....until we die and crumble into dust, we are spurred on, egged on, driven, only through passion.
Passion is about living. Life is fierce, passion for life is a blessing. Every true feeling is inspired by some kind of passion; fierce and furious, the foundation for everything else that is to come.
This doesn't necessarily mean that one is hot-headed and outspoken. There are people who spends their lives quietly passionate, expending their energies in ways that don't attract as much attention. But they care and this is what separates them from the millions of others in the world. It's their love, their devotion, their care, their desire. I love desire. To desire is a gift, as is to be passionate.
When we are young, we are all passionate. Inflamed with passion, believing in our ideas and opinions, our views, our love, whatever it may be. We live simply to express through our being, our lives, all that is us- all our love, all our beauty, whatever flames within us and cuts through to the core. When you meet us, you may leave frustrated or angry, but we will have made an impression. And it's because of our passion.
I think, then, that possibly the worst handicap- the cruelty of all cruelties- is to be robbed of that passion, to sit silent, indifferent, not, in other words, to care. Depression, as it is described, is just this silent apathy; the depressed person is the one who lacks the ability to force himself to desire, to desire to awaken in the morning, to do the things that once made him happy, even to argue, to engage in meaningful and desperate conversation. Depression is a kind of passiveness, or at least that is how it is portrayed, but what is worse is that it is uncontrolled. I cannot "turn off" the passiveness as it were, I can only watch it as though I am disconnected, detached.
A lot of people speak about this- disconnect, detachment, and what it means. They will reference "our generation" above other generations, or suggest all kinds of reasons. I think that any disconnect on our part stems in part from fear. For example, to address Israel. To be passionate and to care about everyone is to be hurt time and time again. And for every one who dies there is a blow, cruel and harsh and heartrending, and there is doubt, and you cry out to God because you don't understand how He could allow the deaths. And for every death there is a person, an actual person who was living and breathing only moment ago, who has now passed away, shattering the lives of others as he did so. To be passionate is to care about these people, and so it is to suffer, empathically, for each one of them and all that he has been robbed of.
Therefore, to be passionate is above all things to feel. To feel every slight, every hurt, every joy and every moment as though it in itself were integral, important above all else. Even the most mundane things- the meal around the table, the spaghetti on the plate- these, too, must be felt, accepted, seen as important and necessary. Life includes everything, not just the exciting or the romantic. We are like children, curious and fascinated and frustrated by our inability to do the things we wish to do, but we haven't given up hope on anything- on the world- on anyone, because we still believe in ourselves.
Children don't doubt themselves. It's adults who instill the doubt. A child will keep on trying to walk even though he's fallen down hundreds of times; he will continue to try to lift something that is too heavy for him because he believes in himself. It's a kind of passion, the passion of belief. And so I think passion is part of religion as well. This can be stretched or pushed in any direction- for example, what is fundamentalism if not a passion for oneself at the expense of others? Many have admired, in a twisted way, the way in which many Palestinians care for the land of Israel- care so much that they will kill themselves and their children in terrorist attacks if they believe they will get it back.
Of course, however, this passion is destructive, as passion can be, terrible and awful, a whirlwind and a storm. Destructive passion can serve a purpose, if it serves to destroy AND to rebuild, but to merely destroy, to take the lives of others- for this one is cursed, for this one is damned.
In the eyes of someone caught within a frail and twisted body you may still see a heady light, something fervent and beautiful- and that is passion. What is the passion for? Passion for learning, or for singing, for dance, for God, for anything and anyone. Constructive passion transforms the person because you have been placed in the role of Creator. One can only create out of passion, out of desire to form new things, to begin anew.
We want to share passion, to transfer it to others, to make it contagious like a strong, heady, wine, glowing in our veins, hard and wiry and ropy in our muscles. This is what makes us live. Take away our cause, our ideals, our ideas, our passion, and we are no longer anything- we are shells, dead, dying. Even victims can be passionate, when they fight against their captors or symbolically rebel. We feel pity for those who lose their passion, but we feel admiration for those who persist.
Do you notice that Holocaust movies play to two types of audiences? There's the kind of Holocaust movie that shows you the victims, dejected, bald, unhappy, tortured, and you feel for them a vast and great sorrow and pity, even fear because you could have been them. But then there's the kind of Holocaust movie that is all about passion- the idea of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, for example, the few fighting against the many, or Schindler saving men while at the same time seemingly destroying himself. Oh, you may not see fire, as it were, in Schindler, but it is a cold fire, a cold resolve to do what he would- because it gave him amusement, or workers, whatever the reason, there is still passion embedded there.
The Passion of the Christ is successful as a movie not because of the mere victimization of Jesus- which is brutal and violent and ugly, as are his oppressors and the cruel, terrible Pharisees portrayed there- but because of the enemy whom Jesus is pitted against, Satan. Satan is terrible and cruel, he taunts Jesus and states that Jesus will never be able to save his people, one man cannot possibly atone for an entire people's sins. Satan walks amongst the Pharisees and spits at Jesus; he torments Judas. It is the fact that Jesus is struggling for his people...that he persists in the face of Satan and all the cruelty that is shown him...that is earth-shattering. This kind of sacrifice is for a cause, an idea, and thus passion is evoked.
All the most dynamic characters in the Bible have been men of passion. Moses, arguing with God, fighting for his people, issuing ultimatums, pleading for his sister. Abraham, destroying his father's idols, leaving his people's way of life, setting out for a new country, lying to Pharoah to save his life. Job, issuing challenges to God, wishing He could hear him speak, facing down those who attempt to console and instead lambaste him. Jeremiah, tormented by his people and by God, seemingly adrift, trying to contain his prophecy but feeling it as fire in his bones, forced to speak and still having the compassion to wail over his city and the very people who hurt him so.
Men of passion, these are the men of our Bible; the men who fascinate us. Some characters are more dynamic than others, some seem more alive, more interesting. "Ka'nai" is applied to Pinchas, a man of passion, a zealot, also to Elijah but Elijah is reprimanded because he, unlike Jeremiah, has difficulty reconciling himself to his people when they do not heed him.
Passion, passion, all is passion....until we die and crumble into dust, we are spurred on, egged on, driven, only through passion.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Tony Blair and Eloquent Brilliance
"And one of the things we've got to stop doing is stop apologizing for our own positions. Muslims in America, as far as I'm aware of, are free to worship.
Muslims in Britain are free to worship. We have plural societies.
You know, it's nonsense. The propaganda is nonsense. And we're not going to defeat this ideology until we in the West go out with sufficient confidence in our position and say, This is wrong. It's not just wrong in its methods; it's wrong in its ideas, it's wrong in its ideology, it's wrong in every single wretched reactionary thing about it.
And it will be a long struggle, I'm afraid. But there's no alternative but to stay the course with it. And we will. "
Tony Blair is my new favorite person.
Muslims in Britain are free to worship. We have plural societies.
You know, it's nonsense. The propaganda is nonsense. And we're not going to defeat this ideology until we in the West go out with sufficient confidence in our position and say, This is wrong. It's not just wrong in its methods; it's wrong in its ideas, it's wrong in its ideology, it's wrong in every single wretched reactionary thing about it.
And it will be a long struggle, I'm afraid. But there's no alternative but to stay the course with it. And we will. "
Tony Blair is my new favorite person.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
O' God, can I not save one from the pitiless wave?
So they killed him.
Eliyahu Asheri is dead.
He's my age. He's one year older than me. He had done nothing to them except exist. But they kidnapped him and they killed him. And now he is dead, at 18, he is dead.
So tell me, God, where is your justice? Where is your mercy? What are you doing? Allow me to divine your thoughts. Show me your face, that is what was once demanded. Shall we demand it again? And to what end?
They are despicable creatures, but they are men, so where is their humanity? How can they deny the pleading mothers, the fathers, and don't their hearts bleed, as ours do? What are they, these men? Are they made of stone?
Of course we blame them, cruel murderers that they are, but how do you allow it? How do you allow them to kill your people?
"Judaism, in contradistinction to mystical quietism, which recommended toleration of pain, wants man to cry out aloud against any kind of pain, to react indignantly to all kinds of injustice or unfairness. For Judaism held that the individual who displays indifference to pain and suffering, who meekly reconciles himself to the ugly, disproportionate and unjust in life, is not capable of appreciating beauty and goodness. Whoever permits his legitimate needs to go unsatisfied will never be sympathetic to the crying needs of others. A human morality based on love and friendship, on sharing in the travail of others, cannot be practiced if the person's own need-awareness is dull and he does not know what suffering is. Hence Judaism rejected models of existence which deny human need, such as the angelic or the monastic. For Judaism, need-awareness constitutes part of the definition of human existence. Need-awareness turns into a passional experience, into a suffering awareness. Dolorem ferre ergo sum- I suffer, therefore I am.- to paraphrase Descartes' cogito ergo sum. While the Cartesian cogito would also apply to an angel or even to the devil, our inference is limited to man: neither angel nor devil know suffering.
Therefore, prayer in Judaism, unlike the prayer of classical mysticism, is bound up with the human needs, wants, drives and urges, which make man suffer. Prayer is the doctrine of human needs. Prayer tells the individual , as well as the community, what his, or its, genuine needs are, what he should, or should not, petition God about........Prayer and tzara are inseperably linked. Who prays? Only the sufferer prays. If man does not find himself in narrow straits, if he is not troubled by anything, if he knows not what tzara is, then he need not pray. Toa happy man, to contented man, the secret of prayer was not revealed. God needs neither thanks nor hymns. He wants to hear the outcry of man, confronted with a ruthless reality. He expects prayer to rise from a suffering world cognizant of its genuine needs. In short, through prayer man finds himself. Prayer enlightens man about his needs. It tells man the story of his hidden hopes and expectations. It teaches him how to behold the vision and how to strive in order to realize this vision, when to be satisfied with what one possesses, when to reach out for more. In a word, man finds his need-awareness, himself, in prayer. Of course, the very instant he finds himself, he becomes a redeemed being."
-Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
Eliyahu Asheri is dead.
He's my age. He's one year older than me. He had done nothing to them except exist. But they kidnapped him and they killed him. And now he is dead, at 18, he is dead.
So tell me, God, where is your justice? Where is your mercy? What are you doing? Allow me to divine your thoughts. Show me your face, that is what was once demanded. Shall we demand it again? And to what end?
They are despicable creatures, but they are men, so where is their humanity? How can they deny the pleading mothers, the fathers, and don't their hearts bleed, as ours do? What are they, these men? Are they made of stone?
Of course we blame them, cruel murderers that they are, but how do you allow it? How do you allow them to kill your people?
"Judaism, in contradistinction to mystical quietism, which recommended toleration of pain, wants man to cry out aloud against any kind of pain, to react indignantly to all kinds of injustice or unfairness. For Judaism held that the individual who displays indifference to pain and suffering, who meekly reconciles himself to the ugly, disproportionate and unjust in life, is not capable of appreciating beauty and goodness. Whoever permits his legitimate needs to go unsatisfied will never be sympathetic to the crying needs of others. A human morality based on love and friendship, on sharing in the travail of others, cannot be practiced if the person's own need-awareness is dull and he does not know what suffering is. Hence Judaism rejected models of existence which deny human need, such as the angelic or the monastic. For Judaism, need-awareness constitutes part of the definition of human existence. Need-awareness turns into a passional experience, into a suffering awareness. Dolorem ferre ergo sum- I suffer, therefore I am.- to paraphrase Descartes' cogito ergo sum. While the Cartesian cogito would also apply to an angel or even to the devil, our inference is limited to man: neither angel nor devil know suffering.
Therefore, prayer in Judaism, unlike the prayer of classical mysticism, is bound up with the human needs, wants, drives and urges, which make man suffer. Prayer is the doctrine of human needs. Prayer tells the individual , as well as the community, what his, or its, genuine needs are, what he should, or should not, petition God about........Prayer and tzara are inseperably linked. Who prays? Only the sufferer prays. If man does not find himself in narrow straits, if he is not troubled by anything, if he knows not what tzara is, then he need not pray. Toa happy man, to contented man, the secret of prayer was not revealed. God needs neither thanks nor hymns. He wants to hear the outcry of man, confronted with a ruthless reality. He expects prayer to rise from a suffering world cognizant of its genuine needs. In short, through prayer man finds himself. Prayer enlightens man about his needs. It tells man the story of his hidden hopes and expectations. It teaches him how to behold the vision and how to strive in order to realize this vision, when to be satisfied with what one possesses, when to reach out for more. In a word, man finds his need-awareness, himself, in prayer. Of course, the very instant he finds himself, he becomes a redeemed being."
-Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Gilad Shalit
Are you thinking about Nachshon Waxman?
I think we all are.
But that's not what I want to think about, because that's not how I want this to end. I want Gilad Shalit to be released, to be freed, to survive. Or I want Israel to rescue him.
And I have to wonder about him. I wonder what he's thinking about. Would they show him the newspapers, sneer at him, laugh in his face by demonstrating how desperate the world is to find him? Or would they keep him in darkness, so that he doesn't know what the Israelis doing or how anyone feels about him?
Is he worried that his country will sacrifice something sacred in return for him? Or is he worried that they will not, and that instead he will die?
What does he think about as he sits or stands wherever he may be? Is it defiance, resistance, that kindles in his heart, or is it despair?
I do not know, and I will not know.
This is my prayer for Gilad Shalit-
Dear Gilad,
Know that you are loved. Know that we are all hoping for you, praying for you, and wishing for you to come out of this alive and well. If you are hurt, we want you to be healed. We hope they are feeding you; we hope you are not hungry. But if you are hungry, we will all give you food.
There must be so many thoughts running through your mind. Everything from anger to despair to hatred to worry about your parents and your family. I hope that all these thoughts come to a peaceful end. I hope, most of all, that they are telling the truth, and that you are still alive.
Gilad, know that there are people all over the world concerned about you. It may not do you much good- you would much prefer a rescue team than all the concern in the world, at this moment in time. But know that we are with you to support you and to hold you up.
I want to pass on to you the holiest blessing in our litany, the blessing that my teachers gave me and that is given to us on our holidays:
"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee; The LORD make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; The LORD lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." Numbers 6, 24-26
May He protect you from harm.
I think we all are.
But that's not what I want to think about, because that's not how I want this to end. I want Gilad Shalit to be released, to be freed, to survive. Or I want Israel to rescue him.
And I have to wonder about him. I wonder what he's thinking about. Would they show him the newspapers, sneer at him, laugh in his face by demonstrating how desperate the world is to find him? Or would they keep him in darkness, so that he doesn't know what the Israelis doing or how anyone feels about him?
Is he worried that his country will sacrifice something sacred in return for him? Or is he worried that they will not, and that instead he will die?
What does he think about as he sits or stands wherever he may be? Is it defiance, resistance, that kindles in his heart, or is it despair?
I do not know, and I will not know.
This is my prayer for Gilad Shalit-
Dear Gilad,
Know that you are loved. Know that we are all hoping for you, praying for you, and wishing for you to come out of this alive and well. If you are hurt, we want you to be healed. We hope they are feeding you; we hope you are not hungry. But if you are hungry, we will all give you food.
There must be so many thoughts running through your mind. Everything from anger to despair to hatred to worry about your parents and your family. I hope that all these thoughts come to a peaceful end. I hope, most of all, that they are telling the truth, and that you are still alive.
Gilad, know that there are people all over the world concerned about you. It may not do you much good- you would much prefer a rescue team than all the concern in the world, at this moment in time. But know that we are with you to support you and to hold you up.
I want to pass on to you the holiest blessing in our litany, the blessing that my teachers gave me and that is given to us on our holidays:
"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee; The LORD make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; The LORD lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." Numbers 6, 24-26
May He protect you from harm.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
May God bless you and keep you
If there were a link to the real version, I'd have put that up, but as it is...it simply is.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Munich
is the most deeply powerful, deeply affecting movie I have ever seen.
I am astounded that Crash received the award for Best Picture.
It makes the Academy Awards into a joke.
Spielberg is absolutely brilliant. The colors in which the movie is shot, the contrasts between the rich colors of the kitchen-store and gourmet meals as opposed to tense situations, the soundtrack, and the acting...astonishing.
Eric Bana...is astounding in this performance.
Avner is one of the most human characters ever relayed to the silver screen. His thoughts, his emotions, his reactions, and the subtlety of his characterization is remarkable. The scenes themselves are so subtle. This is not an over-the-top action movie; it is not high-minded and condescending or patronizing either. This movie asks questions.
I don't see how anyone could be upset that Spielberg compared the Palestinian terrorists to the Israelis. His comparison did not assign blame, unless it was assigned to everyone. It simply raised questions, difficult, disturbing questions. Everyone was human, no one was made into a caricature, an exaggeration, some black-and-white person. Everyone was three-dimensional. This movie is dark in tone, but it is definitely not anti-Israel, anti-Zionism, or pro-Intifada.
The scene that I found most chilling and most compelling was when Avner feels he's being hunted. He checks every room, looks under the bed for a bomb, disassembles his telephone, gouges open his television set, and slits his mattress. Then, still exhausted and soul-weary, he sleeps in the closet. There is a close-up of his face, and his expression is terrifying because he is so weary, his eyes red-rimmed and saddened, pain reflecting from his expression. When will this end?
I don't have the words to explain how much this movie moved me.
is the most deeply powerful, deeply affecting movie I have ever seen.
I am astounded that Crash received the award for Best Picture.
It makes the Academy Awards into a joke.
Spielberg is absolutely brilliant. The colors in which the movie is shot, the contrasts between the rich colors of the kitchen-store and gourmet meals as opposed to tense situations, the soundtrack, and the acting...astonishing.
Eric Bana...is astounding in this performance.
Avner is one of the most human characters ever relayed to the silver screen. His thoughts, his emotions, his reactions, and the subtlety of his characterization is remarkable. The scenes themselves are so subtle. This is not an over-the-top action movie; it is not high-minded and condescending or patronizing either. This movie asks questions.
I don't see how anyone could be upset that Spielberg compared the Palestinian terrorists to the Israelis. His comparison did not assign blame, unless it was assigned to everyone. It simply raised questions, difficult, disturbing questions. Everyone was human, no one was made into a caricature, an exaggeration, some black-and-white person. Everyone was three-dimensional. This movie is dark in tone, but it is definitely not anti-Israel, anti-Zionism, or pro-Intifada.
The scene that I found most chilling and most compelling was when Avner feels he's being hunted. He checks every room, looks under the bed for a bomb, disassembles his telephone, gouges open his television set, and slits his mattress. Then, still exhausted and soul-weary, he sleeps in the closet. There is a close-up of his face, and his expression is terrifying because he is so weary, his eyes red-rimmed and saddened, pain reflecting from his expression. When will this end?
I don't have the words to explain how much this movie moved me.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
I'm done
When this blog starts doing more harm than good, then I'm done.
When this blog starts upsetting people for no good cause, then it's not fulfilling its purpose.
I've left up the posts that people may find important/ the ones people most commonly search for. I thank you for your kindness and your patience as readers.
I'm not sure what I'll do next. I might read but not comment. I might create a different blog. Who knows? One thing's for sure- this one is done.
When this blog starts upsetting people for no good cause, then it's not fulfilling its purpose.
I've left up the posts that people may find important/ the ones people most commonly search for. I thank you for your kindness and your patience as readers.
I'm not sure what I'll do next. I might read but not comment. I might create a different blog. Who knows? One thing's for sure- this one is done.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Oprah, Rwanda and Clemantine
If you watch Oprah, you may be interested in watching the show on May 24 or 25th.
That's when Oprah will speak to various essay winners.
Including Clemantine Wamariya, who goes to New Trier now but formerly attended my school.
Recently, I mentioned her story in a comment on DovBear's blog.
My transcript of her story (which may contain some inaccuracies) based on a speech she gave to my school last year, is available here. I don't know what she will be speaking about on Oprah's show, but no matter what it may be (I don't know how much time will be devoted to her), I believe it will be worthwhile. Her speech to me- to my school- was extremely powerful.
Below is her story (a reposting from my other blog.)
This is about the Rwanda genocide.
This is about the girl who goes to my school who survived.
---
Her name was Clementine. She was six years old at the time, and lived in Rwanda, where everything was beautiful, was wonderful. She was happy and her family was happy. There was no difference between the Tutsis and the Hutus, or at least, none that she could see. She went to kindergarten with all the other children, and together they played. Her mother always invited these children over to their house; it turned into a day-care center, really, after school. Her mother was the soul of kindness, always desiring to help other people- oh, they don't have salt, go give them salt, etc. Give them this and give them that.
Clementine describes her parents as being beautiful, wonderful parents. This is not a description teenagers often tender about those who care for them. She describes her mother, extremely spiritual, very Christian, a great believer in God.
And then, suddenly, overnight, everything changed.
This didn't happen long ago. This happened in 1994, when we were all alive.
Her mother came to her room, panicking, weeping. She clutched Clementine's hand, and her sister's hand, and said that they had to pray. "But why, mother, why?" Clementine kept on asking. What was going on? Her mother told her the president was being shot and tomorrow they were all going to die. But why?
Simply because they were Tutsis. They lived the Tutsi life, for though her father was of mixed blood, he was a rich man, and since he was rich, he was a Tutsi. Her mother was a Tutsi. And therefore they were Tutsis. They prayed, and that night everything changed. The three housekeepers, people she had trusted, left them that night. Left them because otherwise they would die.
Her father owned a taxicab company, and was very wealthy and well-known. Her mother was the soul of kindness. But everyone turned against them.
They hid for one, no, two, weeks. Hid in the house, eating off the food they had, starving. Then a friend of her father's came over and said he could only take the girls, it would be bad if he took the boys, because then they would kill him, but he could take the girls. Clementine's brother told her to think that everything was a movie; they were in a movie.
Clementine and her sister were sneaked into a car, hiding under piles of luggage. They drove swiftly, and all along was the stench and smell of the dead, even in the car, even though the windows were up, there was the smell of the corpses rotting away in the street. They were going to their grandparents, because they assumed that they wouldn't kill them. How could they kill them? They were too old. They got there, and found the rest of their aunts, uncles, cousins with them. They stayed there for a while.
They played different games, the children, to take their minds off what was happening.
Then one night her grandmother woke Clementine and her sister up. She screamed, "Get out, get out!" They jumped out the window, Clementine still remembers the little pants and sandals she was wearing. They ran, ran to the forest in the dark, and hiding in the dark forest they remained. Her grandparents and everyone else in that house- her aunts, her uncles- were all killed. Then she saw the house burning, and smelled the scorching bodies. She and her sister sat in the forest and watched them burn.
They walked. They walked for two days, these two children, one six and the other perhaps sixteen, at the oldest? There was no food, and no water, they were exhausted and hunted. They had to be quiet lest they attract attention. They finally came to a church and decided they would stop to rest in the church for a little while, because surely nobody would dare defile the church.
They opened the door and there were bodies; it was all piled high with bodies, and the confused six-year-old girl simply looked at the bodies. It was supposed to be a movie, her brother had said, but there were no cameras she could see; it was unreal, why was it happening. She wanted to die, she didn't want to live, she wanted to go back and burn with her grandparents in the house...
They hid in a corner of the church because they heard something; they heard footsteps. A man came into the church and asked whether everyone was dead, whether there was anyone left to finish off. He walked through the church; he looked straight at them. An overwhelming feeling came over Clementine, and she wanted to scream, I don't want to die, I don't want to die. Her sister told her to be quiet, otherwise he would see them. So she prayed...Did he seem them? Did he not? They do not know. He walked away, he walked out of the church, he did not kill them.
They stayed there maybe 20 minutes, how was it he did not kill them? They had to move, they had to leave before they were found, and so they left, and then her sister, after they crawled- walked some more, saw a sign, signifying the river that was the border between Rwanda and another place, where they could be safe. But the river was rushing, and fast, and there was no way they could swim it. Some men were in a boat, and they asked who these kids were, and the older sister had warned Clementine to be quiet and pretend she was deaf, so she answered they were walking to their aunt's house. The men allowed them to get in the boat.
Then...then...when they were in the middle of the river, one of the men lifted Clementine and pushed her into the lake. Pushed her in, a six-year-old, so that she would drown in the lake. She doesn't remember what happened; she only remembers awakening with her sister holding her hand, in the middle of the lake. Somehow, somehow, they were so cold, so cold, but they got to the other side, and walked some more, until they saw mango trees and they began to eat...starving, they fell upon them and tried to gorge themselves on mangoes.
They heard someone coming, and her brother had taught Clementine to climb, so she climbed the mango tree, and so did her sister. They remained there and looked down, where a family was walking. They didn't notice them, but then a little boy saw them and started screaming that there were people in the tree. They came down out of the tree and explained they were refugees to the family, who were living in the middle of nowhere in a little mud-grass-hut. They stayed with those people for a long time, there was no technology, they learned to care for themselves...Clementine remembers cooking over open fires, etc.
They then went to refugee camp, which was the worst experience in her life...being there with Hutus who had killed the Tutsis, being there amidst the death from all different causes, the death from disease or lack of shelter or hunger. Pure death. She shut her mouth and would not talk at all in the refugee camp, for two years she did not talk except to her sister, and then only with anger.
They went to many countries, to the Congo and many other places, and finally there was a kind of sponsorship through an immigration program that allowed her to get to the USA- a church or family needed to sponsor her here, and a church sponsored her, she lives with a member of the church. For a long time she believed she was all alone, had grown up alone, everything, everything had been taken from her.
But then, in the USA, one day they met a woman who knew her aunt, and had her aunt's phonenumber, and they found out her aunt was still alive. And a miracle- her parents, too, were alive, different, torn, having lost everything, leading a very different life, but alive. They had more children, too....they are still in Rwanda. Clementine has not returned to Rwanda, as of yet, she cannot in some ways.
But it was what she said later, when people asked her questions, that made the biggest impression on me. People asked her what made her survive, when she so wanted to die, when she truly hated her life. And she said, and this is her story and her life, not what you ought to do, but simply what she said- it was God. Her mother had taught her prayer and spirituality and God, and she believed in Him. She believes that He has a plan for her, the good and the bad, a master plan that is there for her. And someone asked her how she could believe in God after all she had been through, and she said that it had been very hard, and sometimes she asked herself how it was possible, but that she answered herself by showing her all the miracles- how was it she was alive? How was it the man in the church didn't see her? How did she survive the raging river, the currents that could have killed her in the lake? How did her parents survive? God is with her, He will always be with her...
And then she said that sometimes she hears us Americans says, " I have so much homework, I hate my life." And she said that although she understands what we mean, she wants us to remember that there are some who DO hate their lives, who suffer and feel pain and want to die. There is now a genocide going on in Sudan, and she feels that pain. And she wants, more than anything, simply to obliviate the difference betwen the Hutus and Tutsis and whoever else, because they are all people, and they all suffer, and nothing like this should ever happen...
And then...and then she stated something unbelievable. Not in a tone of confidence or pride, but someone asked her whether she had forgiven. She said it was a hard thing to forgive, you do not see someone kill your grandparents and forgive them. You do not remember corpses and forgive. But she said that she had forgiven, had fought so that she might forgive, and with that forgiveness had freed herself. Before she could not talk about it, but now she can. She can tell us of the spirituality of the good people who helped her, the Churches and her mother and prayer and God. She can tell us of the horror. She can tell us everything.
This is not my story to tell, but since I believe Clementine truly desires to end hatred, I think I can only help by typing this and allowing you, too, to see what she sees, and know what she knows. To see the strength that she had so that she might survive, that she might retain belief in God.
Today I saw a holy person. Perhaps I saw the holiest person I know.
And she is not a Jew.
And that is okay. Because she doesn't need to be a Jew to tell a story of such terrible grace and beauty, such magnified power, as to make me shudder, make me tremble.
Today I saw a holy person.
I pray that you might see her, too.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Next World
Not too long ago, DPChallenge hosted a challenge for digital photographers- the subject being the Afterlife. It was very interesting to see the different takes and views people had, and how they were able to express these beliefs through the medium of photograpy. The picture above won the blue ribbon for the challenge; it was the one that comforted or interested the most people. In some measure, this may just have been because of the technical skill or innovative setup, however, I think that the idea expressed- the reunion of the family unit- is what mainly drew viewers toward the picture.
I started thinking about the afterlife/ Olam HaBa/ the next world after this challenge. What is the Jewish view on the world to come? Do we even really know?
From here, it seems we do not:
- R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: All the prophets prophesied [all the good things] only in respect of the Messianic era; but as for the world to come 'the eye hath not seen, O Lord, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.'18
On the other hand, there are certain themes, motifs and ideas that are repeated and represented in terms of the world to come. I don't profess to understand them, but I thought I would represent them here.
1. Judgement-
- There will be three groups on the Day of Judgment: one of thoroughly righteous people, one of thoroughly wicked people and one of people in between. The first group will be immediately inscribed for everlasting life; the second group will be doomed in Gehinnom [Hell], as it says, "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" [Daniel 12:2], the third will go down to Gehinnom and squeal and rise again, as it says, "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on My name and I will answer them" [Zechariah 13:9]... [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a]
- The school of Hillel suggested a more merciful view, in which the middle group are sent directly to Gan Eden (Heaven) instead of Gehinnom after death. Rabbi Hanina added that all who go down to Gehinnom will go up again, except adulterers, those who put their fellows to shame in public, and those who call their fellows by an obnoxious name [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia 58b]. Source here
Also,
- All the good deeds which Israel does in this world will bear testimony unto them in the world to come, as it is said, Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified; let them hear and say it is truth. Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified — that is Israel; let them hear and say it is truth — these are the idolaters.
And,
- R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan also said: Every good deed that one does in this world precedes him and walks in front of him in the world to come, as it is said: And thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward.5 Likewise, every transgression that one commits clasps him and leads him on the day of judgment, as it is said, They clasp him in the course of their way.6 R. Eleazar said: It is tied on to him like a dog, as it is said, He hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, to be with her;7 [it is to say that] to lie by her in this world, [would mean for him] to be with her in the world to come.
2. Rewards-
A. The Shining Face
- (and I'm certain that the Little Midrash Says brings up an idea, somewhere, stating that one's face shines in accordance to one's learning- the brightest have radiant faces like the sun, the next like the moon, then there are those who glow like the light of the menorah...and hence one can tell one's level of learning from one's face.) I'm not sure if this is the source for that, but...
R. Judah, son of R. Simeon, expounded: He who emaciates25 his face for the sake of the study of the Torah in this world,26 the Holy One, blessed be He, will make his lustre shine in the next, as it is written, His countenance shall be as the Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.27
B. The Leviathan
- Likewise, Leviathan the slant serpent and Leviathan the tortuous serpent he created male and female; and had they mated with one another they would have destroyed the whole world.19 What [then] did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He castrated the male and killed the female preserving it in salt for the righteous in the world to come; for it is written: And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.20
and also stated here,
- Rabbah said in the name of R. Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, will in time to come make a banquet for the righteous from the flesh of Leviathan; for it is said: Companions will make a banquet of it.11 Kerah12 must mean a banquet; for it is said: And he prepared for them a great banquet13 and they ate and drank.14 Companions must mean scholars,15 for it is said: Thou that dwellest in the gardens, the companions hearken for thy voice; cause me to hear it.16 The rest [of Leviathan] will be distributed and sold out in the markets of Jerusalem...
C. The Crowns
- A favourite saying of Rab was: [The future world is not like this world.]19 In the future world there is no eating nor drinking nor propagation nor business nor jealousy nor hatred nor competition, but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads feasting on the brightness of the divine presence, as it says, And they beheld God, and did eat and drink.20
D. Golden Three-Legged Tables
- Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa's wife said to him, "For how much longer are we to continue to suffer so much?" When he asked her what they should do, (she replied), "Pray to God for mercy that He provide us with something."
Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa davened for mercy and something like the palm of a hand miraculously appeared, and he was given one golden leg of a table. He (others have the version she) saw in a dream that in the future world, the righteous people are eating at golden tables that have three legs, whereas Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was eating at a table with only two legs. He said, "Are you content that everyone else is eating at a complete (three-legged) table, while we eat at a defective (missing a leg) table?"
She said to him, "What shall we do?"
"Let us pray for mercy that they should take it back."
He prayed for mercy, and they took it back...
Ta'anit 25a
E. Justice
- R. Abbahu also said: Solomon was asked: Who has a place in the future world? He answered: He to whom are applied the words, and before his elders shall be glory.7 A similar remark was made by Joseph the son of R. Joshua. He had been ill and fell in a trance. [After he recovered], his father said to him: 'What vision did you have?' He replied, 'I saw a world upside down, the upper below and the lower above.'8 He said to him: 'You saw a well regulated world.' [He asked further]: 'In what condition did you see us [students]?' He replied: 'As our esteem is here, so it is there. I also [he continued] heard them saying, Happy he who comes here in full possession of his learning. I also heard them saying, No creature can attain to the place [in heaven] assigned to the martyrs of the [Roman] Government.' Who are these? Shall I say R. Akiba and his comrades?9 Had they no other merit but this? Obviously even without this [they would have attained this rank]. What is meant therefore must be the martyrs of Lud.10
3. Punishments (while there's an entire discussion simply about Gehinnom and its purpose, and about those who have no portion in the world to come, here are some explicit punishments)
A. Titus
- What I decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas.
B. Bilam
- He replied: With boiling hot semen.2
C. Sinners of Israel
- What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement.
All of these are from Gittin 57 (which has the very fascinating story of Onkeles communing with the dead)
4. The Dead and Our World
Are the dead cognizant of humans? There is a an extensive debate about this in Berakoth, beginning in Chapter 3, 18a. It starts with:
- R. Hiyya and R. Jonathan were once walking about in a cemetery, and the blue fringe of R. Jonathan was trailing on the ground. Said R. Hiyya to him: Lift it up, so that they [the dead] should not say: Tomorrow they are coming to join us and now they are insulting us! He said to him: Do they know so much? Is it not written, But the dead know not anything?19
They continue through various dreams (money hidden in forgotten places, children 'forgetting their learning' and wondering how their parents would respond, the story of the two girls, one buried in a shroud of matted reeds, whose discussions help out a pious man until they learn their words are being 'heard" in the world below...) and each "proof" brought is subject to argument, so it cannot conclusively be said the dead are cognizant of the living.
Relating back to the topic that brought on my curiousity about this subject- namely, the DPChallenge pictures- there was another evocative photograph that I personally connected to Ecclesiastes/ Koheles, even though the quote was taken from the New Testament.
"For what is your life? It is even a vapour," by mpeters
The above picture and this picture were my favorites.
What about you? What do you think of the afterlife/ the next world? Which picture do you find compelling?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)