Fictional conversion?

Pinocchio and friends converted to Islam

I've seen books manually "edited" by the UO to tzniusify clothes and tone down language (shut up be quiet), but this is classic.

Dear hubby

Below is part of a comment I wrote in response to a post on Orthoprax. Here's what I wrote:

... Firstly, while it's nice that "traditional" Judaism values family, I believe it's really just apologetics to equate that with valuing women. Judaism, based on the traditional sources, does not value women. They are treated as chattel in Tanach: a man can divorce a woman for any reason; irreparably shame her if he merely suspects that she's cheating; cut off her hand if she crushes a man's testicles while trying to defend her husband.

They are also treated like crap throughout the Mishna and Talmud. Later commentaries (Ibn Ezra, from memory, but I could be mistaken) say that they are actually not obligated in Torah at all. In other words, Judaism is a religion for men, not women. Any attempt that a woman makes to take some kind of ownership of "her" religion is considered worthless. Conveniently, keeping mitzvot that you're actually commanded to do is "worth" more than ones you keep voluntarily (contrary to my logic, at least), so with that line of reasoning, women's attempts to connect to God are meaningless.

Having said that, when I compare myself to some women I know I've been very lucky with how men have responded to me and my opinions. Some men (my husband, my father, various rabbis that have taught me over the years) go way beyond the apologetics. Jewish morality, despite mainstream belief, does change over time and I'm optimistic about "women's issues". Sure, we're 50 years behind the rest of the world in this but we are in everything.

More than anything I'm encouraged by my husband, who made me (well, gently suggested in such reasonable terms that I couldn't refuse) take turns making kiddush and saying the bracha on the challa with him. I can't do it in front of most of our friends or they'd freak out, but it means a lot to me. He also told me about a guy who'd confessed to pretending not to be able to do housework -- hubby said he was an idiot. He did everything around the house while I was researching and writing my thesis. And he came home from a shalom zachar complaining about how the rabbi was going on about how wonderful it was to have a boy (I was pregnant with my daughter at the time; we knew we were having a girl). My husband the feminist.

Because he's so great I'd like to invite him to share my blog with me. As soon as he signs up with Blogger, he'll be in charge of funny stuff on this blog, so the humor levels should rise pretty soon. He may or may not talk. That's up to him.

Note to self:

Must email DovBear to say thanks for the new sidebar. It enabled me to find this post from last year about the eighth principle of faith. Here's the bit I like:

... let's recall that we're dealing here with a two-tiered verity, ie: the truth of fact, or reality, and the truth of law.

Often reality is set aside in favor of law. If a piece of pork, for example, were to fall into a very large vat of kosher meat, it becomes kosher according to the laws of bitul. The law says that under these conditions, the pork is kosher; though the facts haven't changed: it's still pig meat.

There was an intense tussle in the comments about his philosophy. Personally I'm not sure if I agree 100% but I like it anyway. It's an interesting way of looking at things and it does fit with the Talmudic examples he gives.

I also think it answers Simon's question about the multiple scrolls.

Definitely some food for thought. I was intending to give Rambam a bit of a break and start dissing some other Rabbi I like (makes lots of sense, I know) but maybe I'll have to stick with him for a while. I can always tackle Rav JB Soloveitchik's views on women's tefilla groups later...

Seven out of 13 ain't bad...

As promised, here are my thoughts on Rambam's 13 principles of faith.

1-6
I'm pretty much fine with the first six, but my issues just get bigger going down the list.

7-8
I'm not really sure about the whole prophecy thing. It's complicated and I don't know what I think. So I'll leave numbers six and seven for now.

8-9
Number eight (and nine, they're so closely related) is where it all gets really tricky. To my mind, a best-case (but unlikely) scenario is where there was a revelation, but minor parts of the Torah were altered. It's hard to deny that things were changed when there is historical evidence of it. The rabbis even discuss it: who wrote the last few words (after Moses died); whether Moses wrote Deuteronomy in his own words; etc.

At worst, the whole thing is written by humans. I'm not sure about the documentary hypothesis for a few reasons. Firstly, if it's true, whoever canonised the Torah was an idiot (OK, a bad editor). I mean, we're talking about some glaring holes in the plot (eg, Elohim vs YHVH). Secondly, why bother with all the obscure rules that seem to have nothing to do with either worship of God or running society?

Of course, if I don't believe it, I'm in big trouble according to Rambam. But regardless of where it comes from, I think it has value beyond the stories. Timeless? Maybe not quite. But the Torah can definitely teach any discerning reader a lot.

A further point on number 9: If the Torah is complete, how come the rabbis are allowed to add to it? (Of which more will be said in future posts, I'm sure.)

10
I'm not too fussed about this one.

11
Reward and punishment... it's not so much the concept that bothers me. What gets to me is how variable it seems to be. Even the things that are meant to be set aren't really. And how people read into it. Everything bad that happens to you is somehow related to something totally random. You're sick? Better check your mezuzas. Infertile? Must be because you were mean to someone with kids ten years ago. I can't cope with that stuff.

12
I'm fairly cool with the Messianic era. What I really don't like about this one is less what Rambam has to say and more how people have reinterpreted it. In the siddur, suddenly we're meant to be awaiting Mashiach every day. And if you're Lubavitch, you're not just hoping that he'll arrive today. You're expecting him to arrive right this second. I don't find that at all necessary.

13
I do believe that God can raise the dead. I just don't think it's a good idea. It's fraught with problems: population density for one. And what about women who've been married twice? I suppose they'd have to pick a husband. But it just all gets a bit weird when you start thinking of the practicalities.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that this one also has the shakiest source from Torah. The afterlife is really not discussed much in Tanach. I feel that something as major as this should be mentioned, at least in passing. The lack of mention encourages me to think that we can make up our own minds regarding resurrection, reincarnation and life after death in general.


So, am I going to hell???

Moses son of Maimon

Why I like Rambam:
1. He was intelligent and rational. I like his views on science and his opinion on how to approach aggada.
2. He was the 12th century equivalent of Modern Orthodox and a renaissance man too (yes, I know that's an anacronism). What I mean is that I admire his accomplishments in Torah and medicine, for the same reason that I admire Rav JB Soloveitchik's PhD in philosophy and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's in English literature: they are paradigms of MO.
3. He said that superstitious people were stupid. He had other things to say about stupid people which I can't remember right now (or be bothered looking up).

Why I don't like Rambam*:
1. He was a misogynist**.
2. He inadvertently created the dogma of the 13 principles of faith. I feel that the introduction to Perek Helek (Chapter 10 of Tractate Sanherdrin) was not necessarily meant to be taken quite so seriously. It was just, like, his opinion, man. Many other Jewish philosophers had an issue with at least one of Rambam's principles, or with the concept of having principles at all. In particular, the rewording of the 12th principle present in the siddur (the addition of waiting for the Messiah every day) annoys me because it has been reinterpreted by some groups (like Lubavitch) to mean that one should expect his arrival daily. I know that really isn't Rambam's fault, but he started it.

Next up: The principles I have issues with.

---

* I'm really talking about his writings. He shouldn't take it personally.
** Of course things were a little different in those days. But with Orthodoxy as it is now, the things he said then somehow have a profound effect on how religious men treat women.

Evolving ideologies

In response to my previous post, Simon wanted to know why I don't see a contradiction between Genesis and evolution. So, here's an attempt at a coherent answer to that...

I should begin by clarifying a couple of things. Firstly, I should expand evolution to also include the more general scientific view of the origin of the Earth. Secondly, when I say I don't see a contradiction, what I really mean is that I don't see any important (I said major in the last post) contradiction. Obviously they really are two different accounts of how the world came into being, but ultimately I see Genesis as something not to be taken literally. There are a few things that make this obvious.

Until day 4, there's no sun for the Earth to revolve around (or vice versa...) and no moon to orbit the earth. So the first three or four 'days' are obviously not days in the traditional sense of sunrise to sunset. The first couple of days are really weird and seem quite metaphysical. The whole 'let there be light' followed by 'separating the light from the darkness' is odd. I mean, once there's light, there's automatically dark, since dark is just the absence of light.

Plants before the sun is a bit problematic and off the cuff I can't really think of a proper explanation for this. But I think the whole thing is really just vague stuff about the beginning (which can hopefully teach us something). While this does point to a human author of the Bible, I also think that a human author, even whenever BCE, would know that you need the sun first. I always think of biblical criticism in terms of 'if I was writing the Torah, would I have written it like this?' Because if you were writing something to be the basis for a religion, surely you'd be a bit more careful. I know the logic is tenuous but I like it and ultimately, I want to believe it (probably the subject for another post).

Also, there isn't really enough detail to compare it to the intricacy of Big Bang theory and evolution/natural selection. There are whole phyla, even whole kingdoms of living creatures that are brushed over or not mentioned at all. So I think that comparing in too much detail is a little unfair. I'm not well versed in Big Bang theory because my strong point is definitely biology rather than physics, but the biology that's there is only slightly out of order. In Genesis we have plants, "living creatures", birds, "great sea monsters", creeping things, wild animals, creeping things of the earth, cattle, and then humans. As a biologist I can say that this phylogeny is pretty lacking. There should be bacteria, archaea (sort of like bacteria but different), and then eukarya (organisms with compartmentalised cells). Within eukarya there are a bunch of cool primitive organisms, then plants, then animals (and fungi) branching off the tree (see here for more info). I haven't checked but I think that birds, being related to dinosaurs, are older than mammals, and reptiles should be too. So apart from the plants coming first, it's not too far off. Maybe the plants are first because they grow in the ground rather than because they belong first in an evolutionary sense.

Anyway, this is all getting a little technical and long and boring. I guess the point is really that I see Genesis as a metaphor rather than as dogma. Rav Soloveitchik says it has 'eidetic-noetic' value, which basically means that 'offers immediate imagery that carries with it meaning for its readers' (definition and explanation lifted from here. In Lonely Man of Faith, where the 'eidetic-noetic' phrase is used, he provides an excellent example of his own point: the main focus of the book is an explanation of the two versions of the creation of Adam. He uses the differences between the two accounts to discuss two different roles of humankind, one practical and community oriented, one spiritual and solitary. He doesn't talk about the other parts of the creation story, but I've spent alot of time learning it the traditional way and I've enjoyed teasing out philosophical elements out of it.

So... attack.

Where I'm coming from and where I'm at

A little background about me, mainly because I find it annoying when other people don't have some back story.

I was brought up Lubavitch, although my family is a little unusual. Both my parents are university educated and my father has always encouraged intellectual independence. While I was in high school, he encouraged me to research the laws about memorising Tanach so that I could get out of memorising Shir David. For a while in high school I basically was not religious at all, albeit covertly. I had a boyfriend, wore pants when I got the chance, and ate non-kosher chocolates. I became obsessed wih rock music. Gradually I found my way back to Judaism but I knew that Lubavitch wasn't for me. I was already straddling two worlds, the real world and the religous world, and ultra-Orthodoxy, even a stream as open as Lubavitch, wasn't going to cut it. The whole meshichist thing didn't help.

I fell into the Bnei Akiva crowd and went to a religious Zionist yeshiva. I loved it, especially Talmud, and I still believe that in many ways that year was an intellectual peak for me. I planned to make aliya, but my parents wanted me home for six months first. I started studying science at uni and realised that I wouldn't be able to afford to continue my studies in Israel. Right after I decided to postpone my aliya, I met my future husband, which was wonderful although it did postpone aliya further. I continued studying science, majoring in biotechnology. I had no problems with evolution. I wasn't even compartmentalising; I genuinely didn't (and still don't) see any major contraditions between Genesis and evolution.

I got married and finished my degree, did a masters in communications, and started working for a magazine. I started wearing pants but continued to cover my hair. Somewhere along the way, I started looking at things a little more critically. I couldn't pin it on any one conversation or book I read, but it has quite a bit to do with feminism and biblical criticism. In a nutshell, I believe that Judaism is a religion for men, not women, and I know there are some major innacuracies in our supposedly perfect book.

But somehow I still believe in something. Of the 13 principles of faith (I know I'll be writing about those in more detail) I have issues with at least four (not to mentions issues with the idea of 13 principles, suddenly written at the time they written). My world view still incorporates belief in God and an evolutionary process guided by God (note deliberate avoidance of gender). That's why this blog is really about confusion, because I'm not really sure about a lot of things. I'm not sure if what I'm doing is really only Orthopraxis and not Orthodoxy; it's definitely not cut and dry. But I'm not sure if I only believe because I'm afraid not to.

Anyway, in this blog I'm going to try and explore these issues further, more for myself than anyone else, but I always welcome input.