HEY JEWS

"HEY JEWS, why do bad things happen to good people?"

Thanks! Sorry to adding to the confusion, I agree let's take it to the atheist thread. I am genuinely interested in a Jewish take on the Bible partly because Protestant doctrine has long been very dogmatic and church-controlled and there are not many Protestant commentaries on the Bible that are not subsumed in that viewpoint.

The issue is not with evil, in fact evil is easily argued for theologically, I see it's place in the OT as not confusing at all. Again though, you are simply avoiding the issue.

The issue is not with "evil in the world", no one said it was, the issue presented was God of the Torah doing and encouraging the evil.

L-R: Raccoon, Mordy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DORN50y8Cbw

You've convinced me, raccoon. Congratulations on yr victory.

Just please at least engage with the debate on how you square your modern personal morality with the horrific teachings in the Torah? If you don't want to do that, I'll drop it.

how do you square your horrible posts with your continuing to make posts

Yeah I'm just not interested in having that conversation with you. If you're interested in learning about it, I developed many of my theological beliefs, particularly re the infallibility/divinity of the Torah, from Abraham Joshua Heschel's masterwork Torah Min Shamayim. It is available in translation and will also teach you about the Talmud. If you are motivated enough to read it, I will be motivated enough to discuss it with you. xp

I respect another man's beliefs, and have no interest in convincing you. It is a shame we could not have this debate. I am not an atheist, incidentally.

Arctic you must realize personal morality is not dictated by text referral it is through actions.

Hm, strange comment as of course most religious people do profess to derive their morality from holy scripture, hence their common refrains towards atheists on the subject of morality.

guys I'm a Jew and an ethical anti-realist, what does the old testament say about me

yer going in a whale

Yeah I'm just not interested in having that conversation with you. If you're interested in learning about it, I developed many of my theological beliefs, particularly re the infallibility/divinity of the Torah, from Abraham Joshua Heschel's masterwork Torah Min Shamayim. It is available in translation and will also teach you about the Talmud. If you are motivated enough to read it, I will be motivated enough to discuss it with you. xp

― Mordy

veering dangerously close to #notyourgoogle here but obv its understandable

Ok, so here's the deal with the Talmud. While the Torah (by which I mean the Chumash - the 5 books of Moses, the Old Testament, etc) was being developed in Ancient Judea there was an Oral tradition that was in development alongside it. The oral tradition had a similar kind of authority to the written, it was also considered to be "handed down at Sinai." This is understandable bc a lot of the Old Testament is literally incomprehensible w/out an oral tradition of interpretation to accompany it. For example, in the Torah it says that you should wear tefillin every day. It doesn't say anything about how the tefillin should be constructed, designed, what should be in them, how many bayitim, etc. For that you need the accompanying oral tradition. The oral tradition was also a legal coda - very frequently involving complex interpretative rules to divine particular traditional laws from texts that were often very hard to translate. To give you a sense of how this oral tradition relates to the Torah, the Torah is called the Torah sh'bichsav (the written Torah) and the oral tradition is called the Torah sh'ba'al peh (the oral Torah).

Anyway, this eventually turned into the MIshnah. Reb Yehudah HaNasi redacted a bunch of mostly legal opinions that ran the gamut from how to celebrate Rosh Hashana to how to bring an olah offering in the Temple to tort + contract law. Acc to the Talmud this was bc there was persecution of the Jews and there was a concern that the oral tradition would be broken so it needed to be written down in order to preserve it. This is like around 200 CE. These are essentially the legal perspectives and opinions of the Pharisees of the Second Temple w/ the weight of a traditional system that could supposedly be traced back to Sinai.

Around 500 CE after basically 3 centuries of trading legal opinions between the diaspora and Israel and collating this extreme repository of legal sources, the Talmudic Academies in the diaspora developed the Talmud Bavli - the Babylonian Talmud - which is a compendium of mostly legal thought about a huge range of topics - the ones mentioned above plus esoteric ones like nazirite vows, laws of marriage, divorce, kesubah, laws for damages, laws of festivals, etc, etc. (As the name suggests, there is another Talmud besides the Talmud Bavil and that's the Talmud Yerushalmi which was created a little earlier in Israel.) The authors of the Talmud (known as Amoraim, to be contrasted w/ the authors of Mishnah era texts known as Tannaim) basically spend all their time trying to reconcile differing Tannaic passages. One Rabbi says X, another Rabbi says Y, what are the ramifications for A, B, C, who argues w/ who, which texts are legitimate, whose opinions can withstand scrutiny, etc. Also exegetic work demonstrating how various laws are derived from the written Torah. The exegetic laws are sometimes logical (for example there's something called a hekesh which means that if two concepts are mentioned together then we're supposed to learn similar laws from one to the other) and sometimes unique (a gezarah shava finds two words that are the same in two totally different parts of the Old Testament and uses that to learn a principle from one to the other).

For a vast amount of this corpus these are purely theoretical questions. This year I'm learning the tractate dealing with Yoma offerings (aka Yom Kippur Temple offerings) with my father -- these very difficult, elaborate arguments about how the blood must be sprinkled, how the sacrifice must be brought. One sugya (that's the name for a particular thematic passage) that we just completed deals with the question of whether the Kohan Gadol (the high priest) must be tahor (pure), or only should be when he brings the sacrifices on Yom Kippur. If he must be pure then if he becomes impure (like touching a dead thing), we absolutely must locate a replacement. If it's only should be, then we would ideally prefer that we use someone pure but if the impure kohan brings the sacrifice it still counts. this in turn has ramifications for whether he needs to dip in the mikvah every day that he's in seclusion before yom kippur or only twice.

Also there are a number of other pieces of Jewish folklore, stories, historical anecdotes and just weird stories that make no sense unless you understand them as elaborate metaphors for esoteric concepts. These are called aggadah. Legal discussions make up about 90% of the Talmud, the aggadah are the last 10%. All these aggadah passages were all collected in a book called Ein Yaakov which has a few different translations.

tldr it's mostly legal arguments in Aramaic about a few centuries of oral law that needed to be codified. also i should mention no one derives Jewish law from the Talmud at this time. Maimonidies, or the Shulchan Aruch (r yosef karo), or a variety of other compendiums are more recent and much easier to read since it isn't a bunch of rabbis arguing with each other but just a list of canonical laws.

deems, it's not like I brought it up tho! i should have the right to participate in the conversation i wanted to - about what the talmud is - and not the conversation raccoon wanted to - about how to reconcile passages in the OT w/ contemporary standards of morality. he did a bait + switch.

but i will say that he asks a good question. it's such a good question that it has been asked many times before and has many, many answers + apologetics. maybe the OT text is metaphorical (some parts obv are), or maybe theoretical (many ppl don't believe a person was ever executed for adultery in the Jewish legal system - that the laws were essentially made to be subverted), or that there is a historical revelation that occurs over time and changes, or whatever I mean there are a billion explanations. the Heschel book I recommended gives one that resonates strongly for me (he writes about the lacuna between the heavenly Torah that exists beyond human language - there's a famous medrash that in the Torah b'Shamayim there are no spaces between the words - and the actual Torah the desert-dwelling tribe "received"). or maybe you think the Torah is just a transmission of Jewish mythologies and you can take what works for you and ignore what doesn't like any other historical text. for most ppl none of this is an issue bc ppl don't generally worry too much about reconciling various beliefs and we all probably hold paradoxical ideas. but in the enormous jewish corpus you can trust that ppl have grappled w/ raccoon's important question. find one that works for you, or find none and do what you want. wtf do i care about what a raccoon believes.

Michalmacdonald.gif

very interesting, thank you mordy

agree that behind apparent trollishness/ cluelessness there’s a not well articulated good question, but imo (speaking with very superficial knowledge of judaism) the “problems” are deeply and productively grappled with by jewish tradition & hermeneutics

i.e. some of what he sees as scriptural defects or outrages may well be part key, perhaps essential, to that scripture’s sacred, creative, philosophical, hermeneutic, ethical, even psychoanalytical depth & potential, over centuries of human history

thinking in terms of another tradition and perhaps relevant analogies, procyon lotor might consider distinction between mythos and logos (where “myth” does NOT mean “untrue” but different relation to truth) and e.g. work of ancient Greek myth and tragedy

but this topic prob more relevant to another thread

well let me ask, then, a diff question (of course you don't have to answer if you don't want). I've read (largely from Bart Ehrman, but also some experts in the Torah) that the reason that the Jewish faith largely rejects Christ as the Messiah is because the Messiah in the Old Testament largely described the Messiah as a great military leader that restored Israel to its chosen people, one that would not die prior to his mission being completed, and one that would be human and not a God or supernatural being. Also that he was to be descended from David. And Jesus largely met, well, none of this criteria.

What are your thoughts on this? I've always felt that Christians claiming the prophecies put forth in the OT was a case of post facto goalpost moving and fudging of details, but I've also heard that modern scholars also indicate that some of these prophecies came about in later Judaism and wasn't there from the beginning. Just find it an interesting concept.

i think that's pretty accurate. the only things i'd add is that the messiah also has to build the third temple, bring peace to the world, and teach the entire world about monotheism. jesus comes closest to the last of the three considering the vast numbers of ppl worldwide christianity taught some form of monotheism too. i've mentioned this elsewhere but maimonidies in the mishnah torah says that you can visit a mosque but not a church bc the former is a /true/ monotheistic religion and the latter is not. (nb some of this stuff i haven't seen in a long time so i'm not 100% sure it's in mishnah torah-- however I did find this really interesting bit:

A Muslim historian, Ibn al-Qifti (1172-1248) reports nothing less than that the Rambam himself, on numerous occasions, voluntarily went to mosques to pray [1], under no compulsion and seeing no contradiction with his Judaism. Ibn al-Qifti notes that this was towards the end of Maimonides’ life and was not an event of his youth, under fear of the Al-Mohades who had invaded Al-Andalus in his youth.[1] Kenneth Seeskin writes, in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, “although Ibn al-Qifti’s book has come down to us in a later recension, and contains some errors, we have no reason to doubt the information on Maimonides.”[2]

Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef witnessed prominent rabbis who prayed in the Mosque at the Cave of Machpelah. He then determines decisively that in Mosques it is permitted to pray and learn there. [3]

[1] Tarikh al-Hukama, p. 318, trans. Kraemer in Fine, 2001. 424.
[2] Kenneth Seeskin, The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, (Cambridge University Press: 2005)
[3] Responsa Yabiah Omer 7, Yoreh De'ah 12, paragraph 4.

I would like to interrupt this program to remind you all that I will soon perform my annual posting of the matzoh song. You are welcome.

Hey Jews I wrote a little passover ditty, sung to the chorus of "Eye of the Tiger":

It's the
Bread of affliction
It's the bread of the Jews
Risen bread--it's not kosher during Pe-sach
And my boss--says "be careful! It is con-sti-pa-ting"
I-don't-care-I-just-ate-sev-en sheeeeeeeeeets
Of the mat-zah

― quincie, Sunday, April 12, 2009 9:44 PM (5 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

KUDOS

Next year I'll make some modifications. Current boss is Episcopalian. Thus far I have only had two sheets of matzah but that will change, especially after I make matzah crack.

but i will say that he asks a good question. it's such a good question that it has been asked many times before and has many, many answers + apologetics. maybe the OT text is metaphorical (some parts obv are), or maybe theoretical (many ppl don't believe a person was ever executed for adultery in the Jewish legal system - that the laws were essentially made to be subverted), or that there is a historical revelation that occurs over time and changes, or whatever I mean there are a billion explanations. the Heschel book I recommended gives one that resonates strongly for me (he writes about the lacuna between the heavenly Torah that exists beyond human language - there's a famous medrash that in the Torah b'Shamayim there are no spaces between the words - and the actual Torah the desert-dwelling tribe "received"). or maybe you think the Torah is just a transmission of Jewish mythologies and you can take what works for you and ignore what doesn't like any other historical text. for most ppl none of this is an issue bc ppl don't generally worry too much about reconciling various beliefs and we all probably hold paradoxical ideas. but in the enormous jewish corpus you can trust that ppl have grappled w/ raccoon's important question. find one that works for you, or find none and do what you want. wtf do i care about what a raccoon believes.

― Mordy,

A shame you have repeatedly decided not to be civil with me as I have with you, frequently resorting to insults simply b/c someone has a different view to your own. Is that part of your teachings?

Anyway, it is clear you have avoided the question again on morality in the Torah.

As you don't want to talk about morality, you should know of course that the Torah and OT is a book of well-worn Sumerian mythologies. The story of Moses is a retelling of Sargon of Akkad, for example. This retelling of Sumerian myths continued right through to the Gospels and Jesus. So your claim in the divinity of the words of the Torah is equally questionable. Your claim the hebrew bible is the inerrent "word of god" is simply outdated belief in modern historical theology, we know now the bible is a huge amalgamation of previous stories and legends.

Oh no.

Aw look, he's eating garbage

damn raccoon you gotta learn how to read

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/873/260/a5b.png

Thank you for that crash-course Mordy!

i do sincerely think raccoon's questions have merit and are worth discussing, i just don't think he's sincere about asking them. anyway, this is an interesting article from last week in Tablet about outdated morality in the Torah + Talmud. i quoted the most relevant bit but the context of the article is about the requirement to stone at the door of her father's house a woman who was discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding night. i think the author (adam kirsch) does a good job of explaining how remediation of Torah morality was already in process during the Talmudic era. i hadn't heard that bit from the Rambam before about many laws not being inherently moral but that seems relevant to me, esp since Maimonides is probably the most canonical legal scholar in the Jewish world:

Second, however, is that it seems to me the tendency of the Talmud is usually in the direction of more gender equality and more fairness, rather than less. It’s crucial to remember that the rabbis of the Talmud are not legislators; they are interpreters, bound to a legal code that in their time was more than a thousand years old. And the iron-age morality of Deuteronomy was already, for the late-Roman rabbis, something of an embarrassment. That is why, for instance, they define a na’arah very narrowly, so that the biblical restrictions and punishments applying to a “maiden” are in force for only six months out of a woman’s life. It is why they loosen the requirements for declaring an absent spouse dead, so that a widow won’t be left in a legal limbo. It is why they turn the custom of levirate marriage on its head, so that chalitza, the refusal to wed a dead brother’s wife, becomes more meritorious than going through with the marriage. It is why, finally, the death penalties that the Bible speaks of—such as stoning a licentious young woman—were actually null and void in Talmudic times, their enforcement left up to God and fate.

What this suggests is that Jewish law, far from being a dead hand, is an ongoing process of negotiation between the needs of the present and the authority of the past. And of course, this negotiation continued long after the Talmud was completed. The Talmud, for instance, takes plural marriage for granted. But around the year 1000, Rabbi Gershom, the “Light of the Exile,” made monogamy binding on Ashkenazi Jews, motivated perhaps by a desire to fit in with the Christian culture surrounding them.

Still, there is a difference between negotiating with the past and simply disagreeing with it—which is, perhaps, the difference between Orthodox and Conservative or Reform Jews. The problem of the agunah, the “chained” woman unable to get a divorce from her husband, arises in Orthodoxy because it is unwilling to abrogate the basic patriarchal law that only a man can grant a divorce. Other Jews abandon it happily, along with other unjust and obnoxious laws such as the prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus.

The idea that Jewish law can be unjust, that we have evolved a moral sense more complex and advanced than biblical codes can contain, is not at all a modern invention. Two thousand years ago, Philo of Alexandria was already reading the Exodus story as a philosophical allegory of individual spiritual liberation. Eight hundred years ago, Maimonides theorized that many Jewish laws were instituted solely to distinguish Judaism from paganism, not because they were inherently moral. Yet Philo and Maimonides were equally quick to insist that their revisionist explanations of Jewish law did not compromise the authority of that law: Whatever the reasons for the law, it had to be obeyed to the letter. What is modern is the idea that we have the right to legislate for ourselves. Secure in that freedom, I think it is possible to read the Talmud with the necessary combination of respect and distance.

i was wondering when the sea lion strip was gonna show up

interesting summaries Mordy, thx. much better than your interlocutor deserved.

Otm I now know more about the Talmud than I ever did before probably.

Morty I read the article, and it seems the author merely acknowledged the morality question, but did not answer it. The fact is, this is the end of the religion, it simply has no place in today's modern people, and you will see that it will fade. In fact you can see that it has faded, in the government and politicans of Israel itself, it's simply just morphed into nationalism. Which is perhaps more dangerous.

ok

Merry pesach, Jews! All matzah, no trolls.

Moshe Oysher singing Chad Gadya:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr4LSdALxpI

Morty I read the article, and it seems the author merely acknowledged the morality question, but did not answer it.

If it was anyone else I'd assume 'Morty' was a mistake...

The divine compassion is evidenced by extreme eagerness to save man from condemnation. "Though nine hundred and ninety-nine angels attest for a man's conviction and only one angel attests for his defence, the Holy One, blessed be He, inclines the scales in his favour". When, however, He is compelled by justice to exact punishment from evil-doers, He does so with regret and pain. Noble expression is given to this thought in the legend that at the overthrow of the Egyptians by the Red Sea, the ministering angels wished to offer a song of triumph to God; but He checked them, saying: "The work of My hands is drowned in the sea, and you would offer Me a song!"
Everyman's Talmud, Abraham Cohen, p. 19

Love the Talmud so far! Thought this was a great passage. Happy Pesach!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/04/03/397255528/bitter-herbs-and-collard-greens-an-african-american-seder-plate-for-passover

this is pretty fantastic:
http://rokhl.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-isn-thing.html

v interesting piece; was completely ignorant re complicated ashkenazi/ sephardic dynamic

cool how her critique of the ashkenormativity article in a way takes the form of a derridean move (though not deconstructive but historical): opposition between two terms (one privileged)--> opposition within one (the ostensibly privileged) term---> which constructs its privilege upon identification with the original ostensibly 'other' term

or something like that

she gets at something that bugs me a lot which is that a lot of these political discursive moves require a tremendous flattening of historical/cultural context to make them work. i'm not a big fan of any construct that reduces complexity/nuance.

i completely agree

coincidentally (before reading yr post) was considering adding a ps noting that my schematic was simplistically "flattening" her argument

was going to try to write something in this post re how postpoststructuralist critique (or whatever we're getting now) often seems ironically in its way as formulaic, simplistic, illusionary as the politico-metaphysica schemas that postructuralism worked to unravel/ complicate

but it turned to mush

anyway key here is not structure but history (with its complexities, contingencies, particularities, shades, etc)

btw just starting the heschel book (will be slow going because catching up with old testament too); will let you know thoughts/ questions (in some corner of ilx)

last night at dinner my daughter asked me "what the story is with hell" - that led to an interesting discussion (mostly predicated along the lines of Catholicism is weird and crazy and Judaism doesn't concern itself much with the afterlife, when we die Jews go to hang out with God)

I may have oversold that last bit given how little it's actually addressed in the tanakh

i like the idea of "what is the story with hell" being something a kid ad-libs at a seder to freak out gramma