The sea of faith

The sea of faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

From Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold

It's all downhill from here, folks

Well, I think I just got on the slippery slope.

I was out with some non-Jewish friends (I suppose some would say I was already on the slippery slope by having them) this week and I had a glass of wine.

It was not "kosher" wine. It was damn good, I might add. Either boiling white wine really does ruin it, or kosher wine of that quality is out of my price range.

Why wasn't it "kosher"? It didn't contain meat and milk mixed together, permissible animals slaughtered incorrectly, or even non-permissible animals. Wine, essentially, is just fruit juice, only more fun. (Especially when it has bubbles in it.) The wine I so sinfully drank was not kosher because it was made by "akum", which is a Hebrew acronym standing for avdei kochavim u'mazalot, or worshippers of stars and omens (ie, idol worshippers; ie, non-Jews or non-religious Jews ). Because of this, it is assumed to be made for the purpose of idol worship. This is despite the fact that this wine was made, bottled and sold for commercial use. I have always found this halacha to be irrelevant and tedious, particularly since I don't drink beer. Like chalav Yisrael (milk that has been milked with Orthodox Jewish supervision) and pat Yisrael (bread that has been baked with the assistance of a Jew), which are no longer universally followed amongst the Orthodox, I don't feel that this law still applies. I find its racism offensive and tiresome.

According to the Wikipedia article linked above, that puts me in the Conservative camp. Not that that bothers me.

Anyway, I don't usually find slippery slope argument valid. And I don't think I will now start eating treif. But I felt no guilt whatsoever drinking that wine, and it definitely made me feel like I wouldn't feel at all bad eating things that are "really" not kosher. So, we'll see what happens.

Time and energy

I've finally worked out why most Orthodox people aren't skeptics.

They don't have the time or the energy.

The past few weeks, between my baby, the chagim and some extra hours at work, I've barely had time to think about my plans for tomorrow, let alone my evolving world view I feel like a zombie who's only just starting to wake up.

Life is always hectic though, and I seriously do wonder if that's a reason (obviously it wouldn't be the only one) why people stick with the status quo. The just don't have the time or the energy to imagine anything different. Life just keeps throwing the punches and if you don't roll with them, you'll get overwhelmed.

It makes me think of one of my late relatives who used to read trashy novels to relax. She liked a particular author whose name I can't remember, but they weren't exactly romance novels. They were sort of intertwined stories about different people and how they affected each other. That's not a great description, but never mind. She loved those novels but her main criticism was that they weren't true to life because the characters had so much "get up and go". They decided what they wanted, and if they wanted to change their lives, they just went ahead and did it and smoothed it over with their families easily.

Real life just isn't like that. There are repercussions to our actions, and it's so easy to be dishonest with yourself. You can go through the motions in Judaism surprisingly easily, considering how demanding a religion it is. And there are many things that, until recently, I simply never thought about. It's easy not to think. And that's why, when you do, it's such a rude awakening. Because you realize that it was all there in front of you and you just never noticed.

Wake me slowly next time, that's all I ask.


Related

Davening

I can't express how glad I am that this round of chagim are over. Why do they have to be bunched together like that? And this was a good year... I didn't have to take any leave from work.

But I did notice something interesting. The more skeptical I get, the more I enjoy davening. I used to daven three times a day but with my baby taking up so much of my life, I'm lucky if I squeeze in Shacharit on Shabbat morning these days. By Simchat Torah I never wanted to eat again, but I was still grateful when a friend held my daughter so that I could daven unimpeded.

I've been trying to work out why I like davening so much now. I'm well aware that guys who "have" to daven three times a day might not feel the same...

Firstly I think it's a more intellectual process. Because I'm not talking to God so much, I actually have time to read the words. And boy, are some of them fascinating. Especially some of the ones that don't come up that often, like the prayer for rain. And some of it, like Hallel, is just beautiful. Lines of simple, stark beauty like
" לֹֽא אָמ֥וּת כִּי־אֶֽחְיֶ֑ה וַ֝אֲסַפֵּ֗ר מַֽעֲשֵׂ֥י יָֽהּ׃"
"I will not die for I will live, and tell the works of God" (118:17)

just get me every time.

The other thing I really like about davening is that now that I don't have to feel guilty about my lack of kavana, I can just enjoy the meditative time to myself. It's quite nice really.

How to treat a skeptic

Over the chagim I've had some extra time on my hands, which of course I spent reading. I read some chapters of Leaves of Faith by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein and also some of Jewish Values in a Changing World by Rav Yehuda Amital. I'm much more of a Rav Lichteinstein fan than a Rav Amital fan, but my husband recommended Chapter 16, entitled "How to relate to one who has lost his faith" (or her faith, I presume).

He doesn't provide any magic answers, but that's no surprise. I'm pretty sure that if there was a magic answer I'd have heard it by now. But he does provide an interesting perspective on skeptics.

In summary...

He discusses the various types of heretics and focuses on four different categories.
1. One who doesn't believe in some principles of faith because of "erroneous reasoning". Rav Amital holds that such a person is considered to be coerced by his logic and not held accountable.
2. He discusses the reason that is traditionally held as the reason of all skeptics: the yetzer hara (evil inclination). Apparently it is this type of heretic that should be "thrown in the pit". Rav Amital says: "Many people come to a secular outlook not in order to satisfy their desires, but rather because of their dedication to ideals that may, at times, even demand great sacrifice. It is difficult to pin all disbelief on following one's desires."
3. Real, certain denial of God. It's rare because most atheists will concede that they can't prove for certain that there's no God. He doesn't give a clear conclusion about what he thinks of those who do deny God with absolute certainty.
4. The classic tinok shenishba (captured infant). People not raised in OJ are considered blameless.

He cites the Chazon Ish about the "thrusting in the pit" halacha. Basically, according to the Chazon Ish this law would only apply when God's presence was clear in the world. Now that it's not, "'thrusting down' does not serve to fill the breach, but rather it adds to it".

And he talks about the shift in anti-Semitism from hatred of people who keep Jewish practises (in medieval times, etc, when conversion was a way to escape persecution), to hatred of Jews because they are Jews ("In Auchwitz, they did not check people's tzitit before sending them to the gas chambers.")

He also says that ahavat Yisrael is needed to run the State of Israel, and that a positive attitude will have more of an effect in bringing people back to Judaism than a negative one.

Now, obviously his agenda is quite different from mine, but I found this worthwhile reading for a few reasons.

1. It provided recognition that we're not all skeptics because we can't be bothered keeping the Torah.
2. I agree 100% that a harsh attitude only serves to push people away. It's certainly the case for me. I don't think anything will de-skeptic me but overall I have a positive attitude to Judaism as a culture and I'd like to retain that. Some people don't make it easy.
3. I agree with his comments about the Holocaust. Anyone that was Jewish enough for Hitler should be Jewish enough for other Jews.
4. The bolded quote above. That's me. The ideal I'm dedicated to is intellectual honesty.

TMS

Simon Holloway said...
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts concerning Torah min HaShamayim. That's something that interests me a great deal. Do you think that the Rabbis genuinely meant that the whole Torah was divine? Or did they use it in the same way that they suggested that anything an advanced pupil comes up with was Halakhah leMoshe miSinay (ie: as an expression indicative of the statement's validity, but nontheless cognizant of its own necessary untruth)?

I haven't really finished forming my ideas about TMS, but it's definitely an interesting topic.

I also wonder what the Rabbis really thought. There are the arguments in the Talmud (I think it's the Talmud) about who wrote the final verses, and which version of the Torah is the correct one. But these are minor things compared to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch. I think the arguments about the minor points indicates that they did believe that it was of divine origin, but that it was corrupted by human involvement, at least in some small way.

At the moment I have two main theories. One is human authorship entirely. I haven't studied documentary hypothesis enough to know if I really find it plausible, but I certainly don't think it's impossible that the Pentateuch had a single author. I think

The other theory I have, which in a way is far more disturbing, is that there was some kind of revelation on Sinai, but that the Torah was corrupted far more than Orthodox Judaism would like to believe. There were several opportunities for this to happen (Josiah, Ezra). It would be so tempting, with the masses ignorant, to change the text that they believed was divine. To fix a name that no longer made sense. To make it more relevant. I think it's likely that at some point, perhaps not until after the second Temple time, there was some kind of shift of power.

To me the reapplication of the phrase "לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא" ("It is not in heaven", Deut 30:12*) is pivotal. Taken in context, this verse is about the law being approachable and doable (it is?). Rabbi Yehoshua reapplies it to mean that halachic decisions will be made by the Rabbis, rendering Rabbi Eliezer's proofs from heaven invalid. If the Rabbis were meant to have this much power, I believe it should have been in the Torah. In fact we see the opposite:

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם לַעֲשֹׂ֔ות כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּ֛ה יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֖ם אֶתְכֶ֑ם לֹ֥א תָסֻ֖רוּ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל

Be careful to do as YHVH your God commanded you; do not turn left or right. (Deut 5:32*)

And:

לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֹת֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of YHVH your God that I give you. (Deut 4:2*)

Yet somehow, the idea of the Oral Law allows the Rabbis to add (OK, not so much subtract) and change the meaning of verses ("לֹ֥א בַשָּׁמַ֖יִם הִ֑וא" is a prime example).

I'm not sure if I believe this or not, but it does worry me. I need to study a lot more before I can form a final opinion, but this is what's floating around my head right now.

---

* Of course, it's interesting that these verses are all from Deuteronomy, which is meant to be the book that Josiah found. Oh, and all translations are my own.