By Israel Drazin

The following are surprising interpretations of the biblical portion Beha’alotecha (Numbers 8:1-12:16) contained in Midrash Sifrei, Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, Rashi, and Arnold Ehrlich.

1. 8:15      states l’avod ohel moed, which      is an awkward phrase literally meaning “to work the tent of meeting.” Ehrlich      suggests that this is a scribal error: a lost word. The original phrase      was l’avod avodat ohel moed,      “to do the work of the tent of meeting.” This is the usual biblical wording      found in 4:30, 7:15, and 18:21, 23. The truncated version is not found      elsewhere.
2. 8:24      states that Levites serve in the tabernacle from age 25, while 4:23      reports the age as 30. While both use the same terminology, the Babylonian      Talmud, Chullin 27 clarifies that Levites go to the tabernacle at age 25 to      learn their work, a course focusing on a single subject for five years,      longer than our current college courses. A similar discrepancy in numbers      occurs in I Chronicles 23:3, which states that the age is 30, and 23:24,      which has a third age, 20. Unafraid to states that errors crept into the      Torah text and not acknowledging the divine origin of the texts, Ehrlich      supposes that the authors of these divergent numbers did not know which      age is correct.
3. Sifrei to      9:1 reveals that the Israelites only observed the Pascal sacrifice ceremony      once during the forty year trek through the desert from Egypt to Canaan.
4. 9:4 has      the law that a geir offers the      Pascal sacrifice as do Israelites. The term geir means a stranger, a non-citizen. The Torah states that      Israelites were geirim (the      plural of geir) in Egypt. Thus, the verse encourages even non-Israelites      living temporarily in Canaan to join Israelites in celebrating the exodus      from Egypt in a kind of Thanksgiving holiday. Although, there is no      explicit mention of converts in the Hebrew Bible,[1]      the ancient rabbis wanted to emphasize that Jews should treat converts      well, just as they treat Jews who were born Jewish. Since the Torah      mentions that the Israelites should love the geir, stranger, 36 times, they decided to use geir to mean convert: one should      love converts.[2]      Basing its teaching on this midrashic use of geir, Sifrei states that this section teaches that a convert      must observe all the laws of Judaism, just as born Jews. [3]
5. Ehrlich      suggests that Moses’s conversation with his father-in-law in 10:29-37,      where Moses is requests that he, who had lived in the desert, accompany      the Israelites through the desert to show them where to travel, occurred      before the beginning of the forty-year desert journey. Ehrlich agrees with      the sages who say that there is no chronological order to the Torah.[4]      This explains why Moses felt he needed a guide: he did not know at that      time that God would later supply his people with a cloud to lead them      through the desert.
6. The Torah      does not reveal whether Moses’ father-in-law complied with Moses’s request      and accompanied the Israelites. This is one of several biblical episodes      that stop tales before their ending. However Judges 1:16 and 4:11 indicate      that his father-in-law’s descendants lived among the Israelites in Canaan.
7. 10:36      contains an obscure phrase: when the Israelites ceased traveling and rested      at one site for a period of time, they prayed “Return Lord many thousands      of Israel.” Rashi explains that it means “to the many thousands of      Israel.” Ehrlich suggests that “to the” need not be added; “many thousands      of Israel” is a description of God: “Return Lord (the one who is as mighty      as) many thousands of Israel.”
8. What is      the significance of 12:14 where after Moses prays to God to heal his      sister Miriam from leprosy, God tells him that if her father spit in her      eyes she would hide from shame for seven days? Ehrlich explains that the      ancients believed that spit had magic powers. In the Jerusalem Talmud      Sotah 1, Rabbi Meir allows a woman to spit in his eye to cure an eye      ailment. In Mark 8:23 Jesus spit into the eyes of a blind man and cured      him so that he could see.[5]      However, despite its curative power, spitting is disgraceful. Thus God is      saying to Moses: if Miriam’s father would spit on her to cure her of the      leprosy wouldn’t she be embarrassed because of the spit and seclude      herself for seven days to hide her embarrassment? So, as punishment,      Miriam must remain outside the camp for seven days.

                                                                           By Israel Drazin

Rashi (1040-1105) reports a teaching of Rabbi Ishmael (second century CE) contained in Midrash Sifrei Numbers 30 in his commentary on Numbers 6:13. I think that Sifrei may have erred because what it says doesn’t seem logical or consistent with the interpretive methodology of Rabbi Ishmael.

Chapter 6 details the laws of the Nazirite, a person who vowed to abstain from drinking wine or other strong beverages. He must abstain from these drinks, not cut his hair, or come near a dead person for the period of his vow. When the period is completed, 6:13 states, “he must bring oto (a word that could mean ‘it’ or ‘him’) to the door of the tent of meeting and present (certain prescribed) offerings to the Lord.” How do we translate oto here?

Relying on Sifrei, Rashi states “He shall bring himself. This is one of three (instances) of (variations of the word) et where Rabbi Ishmael explains (the text) in this way, as in Leviticus 22:16, ‘And they will bring upon otom (themselves) the guilt’; and as in Deuteronomy 34:6, ‘And he buried oto in the valley,’ meaning he (Moses) buried himself.”[1]

Rabbi Ishmael taught “the Torah speaks in human language” and emphasized that we should read what the Torah text states and not search it for meaning not contained in the plain reading of the text. Yet here and in the two other instances, Sifrei states Rabbi Ishmael rejected the simple meaning of the verse.

Rashi’s grandson Rashbam, who followed the methodology of Rabbi Ishmael and not the midrashic manner of his grandfather and Sifrei, offers the verse’s simple meaning: he should bring the offering that is stated in the next verse. This interpretation is consistent with verse 10 where the same Hebrew word yavi, “he shall bring,” appears and is followed by the offering: “he shall bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting.” Additionally, the word yavi, “he shall bring,” means that he is coming with something and there is no need to say “he shall bring himself.” Thus it seems unreasonable to suppose that Rabbi Ishmael would deviate from his usual interpretive methodology and suggest what Sifrei attributes to him.

Similarly, Leviticus 22 speaks about a man in the singular who eats holy food (food designated for priests) by mistake. He is penalized by having to pay priests the value of the consumed food with an added fifth. Verse 16 continues: “And so otom (‘they’ in the plural) shall bear the guilt for eating the holy (foods).” Sifrei states that the plural otom refers to the people who ate the food.[2] The plain meaning of the verse is that the payment of the cost of the food and the added penalty of a fifth discharge the guilt. The chapter is not speaking of many men, but only a single man, so the plural otom cannot refer to this man.

Again, Deuteronomy 34:6 describes the death and burial of Moses, “and he buried oto in the valley in the land of Moab.” Rashi recognizes the verse’s plain meaning here and states that God buried Moses, because a dead person cannot bury himself; although Rashi mentions Sifrei’s view of Rabbi Ishmael that Moses buried himself.[3]

Thus because of consistency with Rabbi Ishmael’s methodology and the clear meaning of the texts, it seems that Sifrei erred.

However, there is another possibility. Perhaps it was not Sifrei that erred but the person who copied the text. It may be that the original text did not have Rabbi Ishmael but an abbreviation RI. Ancient scribes abbreviated words and names to save space, which was costly. A famous case is TY, which was understood to be Targum Yonatan, but which scholars later pointed out was meant to stand for Targum Yerushalmi. RI was understood as Rabbi Ishmael in Leviticus Rabba 9:104, but we know from other sources that it stood for Rabbi Yehuda.

                                                                                 By Israel Drazin

The semi-holiday[1] Lag B’omer is based on an unsubstantiated and unlikely tradition. Lag B’omer means the “thirty-third day [since bringing the barley harvest] omer [to the tabernacle and later temples to thank God for the barley harvest].” An omer is a certain weight of the grain such as an ounce or pound. The Torah states in Leviticus 23:15 that the sheaf of barley was brought to the tabernacle “after Shabbat” and the rabbis interpreted this to mean “on the day after the first day of Passover.”[2] The thirty-third day therefore occurs on the eighteenth day of the Jewish month Iyar, which was April 28 in 2013.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, volume 10, states that the day has been “celebrated as a semi holiday since the time of the geonim.”[3] A practice had existed of engaging in mourning during the period after Passover until the holiday of Shavuot, although different communities began and ended the grieving at different times. Jews who observed the practices during the seven weeks did not cut their hair and beards, celebrate marriages, or listen to music. The mourning practice may have begun some time before the Talmudic period but, as previously mentioned, was modified during the gaonic period when Lag B’omer began to be observed.[4]

What is the source for this period of grief?

Midrash Genesis Rabbah 61:3, edited around 400 CE, reports: “Rabbi Akiva [who died around 135 CE] had twelve thousand disciples, from Gabbath to Antipatris,[5] and all of them died during the same time. Why [did they die]? Because they differed with each other.” The Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 62b, edited around 600 CE, tells the story somewhat differently.[6] “Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of disciples, from Gabbath to Antipatris, and all of them died during the same time because they didn’t treat each other with respect.” Neither source mentions the mourning practices. Because the Talmud was copied in the early days by hand, there are some minor variations in the different copies. One copy of the Talmud adds that they died during the same period “until close to Shavuot.” Jews interpreted this addition as meaning the deaths stopped on the thirty-third day after Passover, Lag B’omer, the thirty third day after the omer was brought.

There is no rational reason for selecting the thirty third day rather than any other day since the text states “until close to Shavuot” but doesn’t give a date. However, some rabbis supposed that the manna began to fall in the desert during the days of Moses on this day. This may account for the selection of this day; the rabbis liked to say that several events occurred on each special day.[7] Additionally, Kabbalists imagine that the second century Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, who they say composed the thirteenth century CE book Zohar, died on this day, and these mystics usually celebrate the anniversary of deaths as a joyful occasion. It is possible, but unlikely, that the tradition of bar Yohai’s death existed before Lag B’omer was selected as the day the disciples ceased dying.

The truth behind the myth

Rabbi Akiva was convinced that Bar Kokhba, the leader of the revolt against Rome during the war in Israel between 132 and 135, was the messiah who would defeat Rome who, under the generalship of Pompey in 63 BCE, annexed Judea to Rome. Rabbi Akiva was certain that Bar Kokhba would restore Jewish sovereignty to Israel and was very vocal about his support of Bar Kokhba.

Scholars believe that when the Midrash and Talmud talk about disciples they are referring to the men who enlisted into Bar Kokhba’s army because of this “teaching” of Rabbi Akiva. Ancient wars were frequently fought in the spring after the rainy season, when the ground was firm, after Passover.

Bar Kokhba lost the war and thousands of his soldiers died.[8] This is the meaning of the death of twelve or twenty four thousand. Bar Kokhba’s final battle was at the fortified city Beitar and many scholars believe that some Judeans informed the Romans how they could breach the fortifications. This is hinted in the words “because they differed with each other” and “because they didn’t treat each other with respect.”

Why, then is Lag B’omer celebrated as a semi-holiday? It is a custom developed by Jews based upon the defeat of the Judeans by Rome in 135 and the cessation of hostilities, but virtually all Jews forgot the real reason. Instead, they substituted a myth to explain its origin, a day when scholars stopped dying from a plague.[9]

                                                                                 By Israel Drazin

No Jewish holiday is practiced today as the Bible mandates. Shavuot, called Pentecost in English, is a good example. The current observance of the holiday has no relationship to its biblical ancestor and doesn’t even occur at the same time.[1] Very few people know the truth about this day. Most Jews think Shavuot recalls the day the Torah was revealed to the Israelites during the days of Moses. This is not true. This significance was given to the holiday in the middle ages when the holiday had lost one of its original purposes; the sacrifice prescribed for the day was discontinued when the second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Additionally, the Bible states that only the Decalogue, called the Ten Commandments even though it contains more than ten commandments,[2] was revealed on a specific day. The Bible states that the rest of the Torah was given during different times during the next thirty-eight years.

The Hebrew name “Shavuot” means “weeks,” and the Latin name “Pentecost” means the “fiftieth.” Both refer to the commands in Exodus 34:22; Deuteronomy 16:9, 10, and 16; and Leviticus 23:15 and 16, where the Bible tells the Israelites to count seven full weeks after the Sabbath and states that the fiftieth day is Shavuot, when a prescribed sacrifice was to be brought. What, then, is the purpose of Shavuot? Why was this special day instituted? Why were the Israelites commanded to count seven weeks of seven days?

The Bible says in Exodus: “You should observe the holiday of Shavuot, as well as the first-fruits of wheat harvest (Passover), and the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year (Sukkot).” This verse does not explain what Shavuot is. Deuteronomy writes: “You should count seven weeks, begin to count from the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn.” Deuteronomy focuses on “weeks,” that the counting should be of seven weeks. It prescribes that a freewill offering should be brought on Shavuot and it should be a time of rejoicing. It does not tell why the weeks are counted and why the holiday was instituted. Leviticus is more specific: “You should count from the morrow of the Shabbat from the day that you brought the sheaf of the waiving; seven full weeks; count fifty days until the morrow after the seventh Shabbat; then present a new meal offering unto the Lord.”

A controversy arose between the ancient Sadducees, Pharisees, and Christians regarding the meaning of the twice-mentioned “Shabbat” in the verse and the concept of “seven full weeks.” The Sadducees, a word meaning “the righteous ones,” people who upheld the ancient literal understanding of biblical verses, maintained that Shabbat means the weekly seventh day. Thus, since the “sheaf of waiving” occurred on the first day of Passover, the count began on the day following the next Shabbat, on Sunday. The counting ended on the morrow after the seventh Shabbat of the counting, again on a Sunday. According to them, this is the plain meaning of “seven full weeks,” for a week begins on a Sunday and ends on the Shabbat. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the Bible requires the counting of weeks, for a week begins on a Sunday. Thus, the Sadducees were convinced that Shavuot always fell on a Sunday, but because in ancient times months began when witnesses saw the first sliver of the moon, and this date varied, the exact date of Shavuot is impossible to predict; it could be the any of several days in what was called the month of Sivan when the month received this name around 550 BCE, during the Babylonian exile.

The Pharisees, a word meaning “separatists,” disagreed. They insisted that the first mention of Shabbat is the first day of the holiday of Passover. They said that besides meaning the seventh day “Sabbath,” Shabbat means rest, and the first day of Passover is a day of rest. They said that the second appearance of Shabbat, however, has a different meaning, “weeks.” They also contended that “seven full weeks” does not signify “Sunday to Saturday,” its literal meaning, but seven times seven days.

Why did the Pharisees develop this seemingly forced interpretation of Scripture? I have seen no answer to this question, and suggest the following. They were bothered by the fact that the Bible gives no date for Shavuot and that Shavuot could occur, as previously stated, on one of three possible dates. By starting the count on the day following the first day of Passover,[3] whose date is set as 15 Nissan, and by establishing when the following two months would start, rather than the usual practice of using witnesses for these months, they were able to set the date of Shavuot as 6 Sivan. They then invented the idea that the Torah – and by Torah, they must have meant the Decalogue – was given on this date, even though the Torah itself doesn’t reveal the date for the Sinai revelation. This, then, is the secret origin of today’s Shavuot. It is not a biblical observance. It is the taking of a biblical day, moving it to a desirable place, and giving it a totally new meaning.

Three questions remain: (1) Why did the Bible institute Shavuot? (2) Why did the Torah mandate that the Israelites count seven weeks of seven days? (3) What interesting events occurred that changed the Christian
understanding of Pentecost?

Seven is an important number in Judaism. The Bible begins with the story of creation, that God created the world in six days and ceased creation (rested) on the seventh. Jews are instructed to observe the seventh day as Shabbat. Among other things, Shabbat reminds the Jew of God, that God created the world, and God gave people certain laws. To emphasize this important lesson, the number seven reoccurs many times in Jewish holidays and practices. I gave examples of well over a hundred usages of the number seven in Judaism in my book Maimonides and the Biblical Prophets.

Among the others, I pointed out that seven is used for days (the Sabbath), months (the holiday of Rosh Hashana occurs at the outset of the seventh month), years (the seventh year is the Sabbatical Year), Sabbatical Years (the fiftieth year is the Jubilee Year). What is missing in this constant reminder of the basic teaching is weeks. This was and is the purpose of Shavuot, which is called “weeks” because this is its purpose, the counting of seven weeks recalls the message of seven, that there is a God who created the world and gave commands.

*             *             *

Christian, who were originally Jews who accepted Jesus as a messiah, also observed Shavuot, but gave it its Latin name Pentecost because many of its members did not speak Hebrew. They retained the original Sadducee interpretation that it occurs on a Sunday. But the New Testament Book of Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit descended upon the remaining eleven apostles (after the death the twelfth, Judas) and Pentecost became “the birthday of the church.” This is remarkably close to the modern Jewish view that Shavuot commemorates the revelation of the Decalogue. Christians also call Pentecost Whitsunday (white Sunday) because of a tradition that the apostles were dressed at the time of the revelation in white clothes.

Interestingly, the famed English explorer Captain James Cooke (1728-1779) saw islands off of the eastern part of Australia and, ignoring the aboriginal names and the aboriginal’s right to the islands and claiming that the islands now belonged to England, named them Whitsunday Islands because he was certain that he saw them on Whitsunday, and this name stuck. Actually he was in error. He saw the islands on Monday.

*             *             *

The new Jewish interpretation of Shavuot led to interesting practices. For example, failing to realize the true meaning of “seven full weeks” meaning seven weeks of Sundays to Sundays, many ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah is insisting that Shavuot may not begin until the forty-nine days are completed in full. Since Shavuot occurs in the long summer days, they do not sit down to eat the festive holiday meal until after 9 PM, causing problems for their young children.

Another example is that they are convinced that the Torah emphasizes the counting of days, rather than weeks, although they don’t know why, and they instituted a blessing thanking God for allowing them to observe this command. They say that if a person misses a day’s count, he should continue the count the next day, but may not say the blessing anymore for the counting that year. There are two versions of this blessing; some say one, some say the other, and some, making sure they are doing the right thing, say both.

                                                                        By Israel Drazin

Like all other biblical holidays, Rosh Chodesh is not observed today as required by biblical law. This is because of changed social circumstances and because the principle part of the biblical worship was sacrifices that were discontinued after the Romans destroyed the Jewish second temple in 70 CE.[1]

Numbers 28:11 mandates special sacrifices to be brought on every Chodesh.[2] These consist of a burnt offering of two bullocks and seven he-lambs, a guilt offering of a he-goat, a meal offering, oil, flour, and wine.

The Italian exegete, philosopher, and physician Obadiah Sforno notes that while the only biblical observance for the new moon was the sacrifices, I Samuel 20 makes it clear that the Israelites added other customs to enhance the celebrations. I Samuel 20:19 indicates that the day prior to the New Moon was called “the day of work,” thereby indicating that on Chodesh people did not work.[3] Additionally, I Samuel relates that Saul and his court were celebrating the new moon with a feast, and David states that he was attending a family feast. The feast may have been what all Israelites did at that time to celebrate Chodesh.[4]

Arnold B. Ehrlich noted additional ways that Chodesh was celebrated by ancient Jewry in his commentary on Numbers 1:1 in his book Mikra Ki-Pheshuto (The Bible According to its Literal Meaning). He sees that Numbers 1:1 begins by stating that God spoke to Moses on the first day of the second month. He suggests that the Torah is reflecting the ancient idea that Chodesh was a day of learning. It was the day that God communicated his message to Moses and Moses, in turn, gathered the Israelites, who were celebrating Chodesh as a semi-holiday in which they did not work, and Moses taught them what he heard from God. Ehrlich’s view is supported by Deuteronomy 1:3 which also reports that Moses informed the Israelites on the first day of the eleventh month what he heard from God. Also the prophet Ezekiel spoke to the people on four occasions on Chodesh: 26:1, 29:17, 31:1, and 32:1. Also in II Kings 4:23 we read that the Israelites traveled to prophets on Chodesh to hear God’s words.

Ehrlich notes other significant religious matters done on Chodesh. The tabernacle was constructed on the first day of the first month (Exodus 40:17). The Levites began to sanctify the temple during the reign of King Hezekiah according to II Chronicles 29:17 on Chodesh. God told Ezekiel in II Chronicles 45:18 to sanctify the temple on Chodesh. Ezra began the return from the Babylonian exile on Chodesh of the first month (Ezra 7:9) and arrived in Jerusalem on Chodesh of the fifth month. He may have timed the entry to occur on Chodesh because of the significance of the day.

Thus the name of the day was changed from the biblical Chodesh to Rosh Chodesh, sacrifices and a festive meal, were discontinued, as well as using the day as a day of learning or involvement in religious events, as noted by Ehrlich. Today Rosh Chodesh is observed by Orthodox and Conservative Jews by saying Hallel, composed primarily with Psalms, and certain prayers. Additionally, many Jewish women consider the new moon as a day for women and arrange learning sessions for women on or around this day. They apparently latched on to the day of the new moon because the new moon cycle resembles the menstrual cycle in some ways. However, it may be that the women’s learning is a recollection of the ancient practice when all Jews used the day to study, a recollection passed on from mother to daughter.

                                                                                        By Israel Drazin

The following are some thoughts on the biblical portion Bemidbar, Numbers 1:1 to 4:20. Each shows problems with traditions.

This fourth biblical book is named after the first significant word in the first chapter, Bemidbar. However most people call the book Bamidbar, which is a corruption of the true name. The use of Bamidbar most likely began when rabbis who taught in yeshivot, higher schools of learning, used this incorrect name. This is not a unique situation, these rabbis also improperly called midrash “medrish.” They also incorrectly used the phrase “the medrish says” even though there is no single version of the midrash, there are many different midrashim, and usually every midrash differs with others even when they address the same law or story. Thus when a congregation hears its rabbi saying “the medrish says,” they should realize that the rabbi is focusing on only one of perhaps many different versions, and the other versions may not support his view.

Why were the Levites selected to serve in the tabernacle in place of first-born Israelites (3:41)? The traditional view, which is in the commentary of Rashi, is that originally first-born males represented the people and offered sacrifices. However, they were involved in worshiping the golden calf and were punished by losing their religious role, which was transferred to the Levites who didn’t participate in the worship. There are many problems with this answer. There is no indication in the Torah that first-borns ever had this role. It is inconceivable that every first-born worshipped the calf. It is equally inconceivable that no Levite joined the worship. Furthermore, assuming first-borns had the religious function, why should future first-borns be excluded from the service because first-born of a particular generation worshipped an idol? The book Judges (chapter 17) tells the tale of a Levite who worshipped an idol and this didn’t cause other Levites to lose the religious function.

Every letter of the Hebrew word for “and Aaron” in verse 3:39 has a dot placed over it by the Masorites who functioned during the second half of the first millennium CE. They commented on the Torah text by doing various things. Why did they place dots over the letters of “and Aaron”? There are two answers. Those who feel that the Torah was miraculously error free even though it had been copied by hand many times over a millennium feel that every letter in the Torah is exactly what God revealed to Moses. They say that the Masorites placed dots over words to highlight that the word contains an important lesson, but we no longer know what this lesson is. Others recognized that errors crept into the Torah because of human fallibility while scribes copied the text. They say Masorites placed dots over words when they felt there was a mistake. They did not want to tamper with Torah wording and correct it, but felt an obligation to indicate the error. In this case, God had instructed Moses, and only Moses to count the people, as indicated in 3:16. Thus when 3:39 states “whom Moses and Aaron numbered [the Israelites] at the command of the Lord,” it appears that “and Aaron” is a scribal error.

                                                                         By Israel Drazin

Most people listen to a sermon and think, “This is Torah,” and never ask if what they hear is philosophy, theology, or hermeneutics. There is a big difference.

Philosophy is the search for the truth. Ideas are developed from what is sensed by the five senses, proven scientific findings, or logic. A Jewish philosopher first tries to find the truth and then see if the finding is reflected in the Torah. This was Maimonides’ method. He was impressed by Aristotle’s logic and based his thinking upon the logic. Then he showed that the Aristotelian teaching is in the Torah. For example, Aristotle’s basic idea is that what distinguishes humans from animals and inanimate objects is intelligence. He stressed that if people want to be human, they must develop their intelligence, and the best way to do so is through the study of science. After understanding and accepting this basic idea, Maimonides found it reflected in the biblical concept that humans are created in God’s image.[1] Another example is whether God needs sacrifices. Starting from logic, Maimonides reasoned that God is perfect, has all that is needed, and gains nothing from sacrifices. Therefore he taught that God neither needs nor wants sacrifices, but allowed them as a concession to the Israelites who saw other nations offering sacrifices and wanted to use sacrifices to worship God.[2]

Theology takes the opposite approach. Theologians are interested in explaining the Bible or a religious concept. They begin with their understanding of what the Bible is teaching and try to support it or rationalize it by their logic. Thus, they see that the Torah spends pages discussing sacrifices and conclude that God wants them. Sages such as Nachmanides then developed notions of why God “needs” sacrifices.[3] Another example is the general population’s belief that God can appear to people though “His Shekhinah.” This idea is problematical because it smacks of polytheism. It seems to say that there is God and there is a manifestation of God, two separate divine beings. It is also problematical because it assumes that God needs a helper. Saadiah Gaon, a theologian, resolved the problem by saying that the Shekhinah is not a separate being, but a light that God creates and causes to appear to people. Maimonides disliked the theological approach. It answered the first problem but not the second. Maimonides suggested that there is no being called Shekhinah. When the rabbis[4] spoke of the Shekhinah, they meant a “human feeling” of the presence of God. Saadiah developed his theological response because he wanted to explain what he felt was a Jewish concept. Starting instead from logic, Maimonides rejected this notion of the masses.[5]

Hermeneutics is a fancy name for sermonizing. It is the approach of most clergy today, including rabbis. Rather than searching for the truth or trying to explain the plain meaning of scripture, rabbis focus on an idea they think is important, such as modesty or charity, and try to persuade congregants that the concept is important by means of jokes, stories, statements by prominent rabbis, and their understanding of a midrash or verse, an understanding that too-frequently reads meaning in the midrash and verse out of context.[6]

Thus when people hear a sermon or read a book on ethics, they should ask themselves: “Am I learning some true facts about life, the world, and society? Is this only the rabbi’s opinion supported only by the rabbi’s interpretation of scripture or anecdotes? Is what I am hearing the truth or only what the rabbi feels people need to hear?” Am I being entertained or taught?

                                                                  Review by Israel Drazin

Marriage and Divorce in the Jewish State

Israel’s Civil War

By Susan M. Weiss & Netty C. Gross-Horowitz

Brandeis University Press, 2013, 218 pages

In 1953, the Israeli government acquiesced to far right religious elements in the state and enacted the restrictive Rabbinic Courts Jurisdiction Law, a law that did not exist previously in Judaism. Under the law, all persons in Israel must marry and divorce in accordance with religious rules. There are no civil marriages and divorces in Israel. No one, not even atheists, can opt out of this arrangement and follow their conscience. Israeli citizens are treated unequally. Jews can divorce without problems if the couple agrees; otherwise they must litigate their divorce in a rabbinic court. Catholics cannot divorce at all, since canon law does not permit it. Muslim men, but not women, can divorce their wives at will because shariya law allows it.

Susan M. Weiss and Netty C. Gross-Horowitz, two experts in Israeli rabbinical divorces, describe the “absurd,” “callous,” “discriminatory,” “patriarchal system,” tell detailed stories of six Jewish women and summarize the fates of others who were involved in the rabbinic system. They show many instances where the “Israeli rabbinic courts consistently violates basic human rights and rule of law. The conduct and judgments of these courts infringe on the right to freedom of conscience, the right to equality before the law, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to property, the right to liberty, and, perhaps above all, the right to marry and have a family.” They “hinder rather than enhance the unity of the Jewish people.” The rabbis say they are reducing the number of illegitimate children called mamzerim, children born as a result of an adulterous relationship, but this is not true. By making it difficult and frequently impossible for women to obtain a divorce, “they do not minimize the number of mamzerim (and may even increase it).” The system is out of control and very harmful. “The confusion that reigns in Israeli courts is such that [it is unclear under] what grounds a rabbinic tribunal will order a husband to give a get [divorce decree]” and what proofs are necessary. Rabbis can “order” husbands to give the get, but cannot make him do it, while they frequently force wives to pay husbands tens of thousands of dollars to get a divorce, when husbands demand it.

Men have all the power in the rabbinical courts. They can refuse to grant a divorce. Besides the huge sums, they can insist and get custody of children and the marital home. “More than forty percent of all Israeli women who have been involved in divorce claimed that they had been subject to pressures by their husbands who threatened to withhold the get and nearly seven percent of women who sought divorce have given up hope of ending their failed marriage.” Many of these seven percent must remain unmarried, agunot, chained to their husbands for the rest of their lives. Adultery by a wife is unforgivable and may result in the wife losing money and rights that would accrue under modern marital law, but a husband’s adultery cannot be grounds for divorce by a wife and he loses nothing because of his infidelity. “A woman in Israel can become a fighter pilot but can’t get divorced.” Israel is “ruled by laws that [are] antediluvian.” It is like the “hard-line states, like Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

Rabbinic courts have violated the wife’s right to privacy by publicizing the name of the man with whom she committed adultery. If a husband refuses to grant a divorce, although still married, he can take a second wife, but his first wife remains chained to him, unable to marry. Many rabbis refuse to believe any woman. Women are not allowed to serve as judges in the rabbinical courts. Women are like the blacks “in Jim Crow South in the 1940s … on trial before all-white jury and judge.”

The authors tell about the “Kafkaesque turmoil,” the “lack of clear and accurate protocols,” and the “disregard for the rule of law” in their six true stories. In the first, a husband was able to stymie his wife from obtaining a divorce for eleven years and was able to force her to accept only token child support payments and to agree not to sue to raise the sum, and the rabbis ignored the rights of children. In the second, husband and wife agreed to the divorce, but the rabbinic court refused to grant it because they wanted to hear about her irrelevant adultery. In the third, the court ordered the husband to give the get, but he refused to obey, and was able to persuade the rabbinical court to withhold the divorce while they improperly readdressed marital issues that had already been adjudicated and decided by civil courts. As a result, the wife was forced to relinquish her claim to half of the marital home to gain her freedom by a divorce, and was in the rabbinical court for nineteen years. In the fourth, a wife only married to her husband for three months, had a husband who manipulated the rabbinic court to hold up the divorce for fourteen years. She alleged domestic violence and brought proof that he admitted the violence to several people, but the rabbis dismissed her claim; they insisted that only she “saw” the violence and a woman cannot testify. In the fifth, the rabbinic court improperly addressed issues raised by the husband even though he never filed for the divorce and the court refused the divorce for nine years. The sixth case involved a couple who married in Cyprus and the rabbis compelled these non-religious people to engage in a religious act.

Rabbinic judges refuse to pledge allegiance to the laws of the state of Israel, they “defer, instead to the word of God” and interpret the “word of God” based on their own inconsistent personal views of halakha [Jewish law] “far removed from modern Israel.” They “carve out for themselves a theocratic island within an otherwise democratic state,” above the law and beyond the state.

The only solution to “put an end to these transgressions [is that] the state-backed Orthodox rabbinic court monopoly must be disbanded and replaced by a rich and vibrant mosaic of voluntary rabbinic courts that will stand alongside a transparent, secular, unified, and unabashedly liberal civil system of marriage and divorce that protects the human rights of all citizens.” These voluntary rabbinic courts should not be a parallel divorce regime and should not be supported by the state, and be used only if divorcing couples choose it as an arbitration panel.

To Mourn a Child

Jewish Responses to Neonatal and Childhood Death

Edited by Jeffrey Saks and Joel B. Wolowelsky

Ktav Publishers and OU Press, 2013, 167 pages

Many fathers and mothers are willing to surrender their lives to save their child, and feel a sense of eternal life in the continued lives of their children. They are emotionally wrecked and forever broken when their child dies. I know of women whose pain was so severe that they could never visit the grave of their child.

Rabbi Jeffrey Saks and Dr. Joel B. Wolowelsky collected and present twenty-four frequently emotional, sometimes hard to read poignant and moving essays by psychologists, teachers, scholars, rabbis, and parents that focus on this problem.

One grieving parent, for example, described her feeling of alienation, how she looked out of a window while driving in her car and “had a strong physical sensation of being in an aquarium: I could see out, the people could see me (if they chose to pay attention), but we were living and breathing in entirely different environments” [italics in the original].

Joel B. Wolowelsky retells tales of great Talmudic rabbis who were overcome by the death of children, friends, and relatives and how colleagues attempted to console them and failed, how even one of the greatest rabbis died because of grief. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein reveals that his teacher Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner was inconsolable when his wife died. Rabbis came and offered “wise” teachings of consolation. The told him that his wife’s passing was positive. Rabbi Hutner quoted Midrash Leviticus Rabbah to his student, “Any talmid hakham [Torah scholar] who lacks da’at [common sense] is worse than a putrid animal carcass.”

The book includes brief discussions on the laws of mourning and their benefits. It includes the biblical story of King David mourning for the death of his and Bat Sheba’s son and the midrashic tale of Rabbi Meir’s lament when he found his two sons dead, and what his wife said to him.

Rabbi Seth Farber, one of the contributors, offers some suggestions to rabbis in dealing with infant death, ideas that can be used by non-rabbis. The rabbi can provide essential practical information, but should not be afraid to say, “I don’t know” or overstep boundaries; rabbis are not medical professionals or psychologists. The rabbi can also initiate some acts for the mourners and be a coordinator, for mourners have no experience with details surrounding death and burial. The rabbi should not be afraid to cry, but be like God: “Just as God is compassionate, so to should you be compassionate.”

Readers may not agree with all of the two dozen essays which contain many dozens of ideas, but even in disagreement, the ideas presented provoke thought. They may or may not like what Rabbi Meir’s wife told him when he found his two sons dead, that he was returning to God what belongs to Him. They may like or dislike the view of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik who understood God saying to the biblical Job, “These afflictions were intended as a means for mending both your soul and your spirit, Job! when My loving-kindness overflowed toward you.” God, according to Rabbi Soloveitchik, was criticizing Job for his past behavior. “Perhaps now you will be able to mend, in pain and grief, the sinful behavior you indulged in while in your previous state of self satisfaction and pseudo-happiness.”

In his 2013 book The Essence of Religions, Christophor Coppes tells why he is convinced that people are able glimpse heaven in near-death experiences (NDEs) and that they are true events even though people report them differently. He feels that most religions have inklings of NDE truths, but the religious teachings are overloaded with superstitions and false notions that hinder their adherents from knowing the truth. Thus the fundamental truths of religions are in NDEs, but all revelations of NDEs are not in religions.

Coppes reveals what he considers the truths in NDEs and how Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have distorted the truths. Religions are like blind men who try to describe an elephant. Each blind man touches part of the beast and thinks he knows what elephants look like. One touches the trunk and pictures elephants as snake-type creatures, while another rubs its thick legs and imagines it resembles a tree.

NDEs, according to Coppes, reveal that everything on earth is interconnected, important, and indispensible, human consciousness is eternal, the light experienced in NDEs is unconditional love, and “love and compassion are the only things we can take along with us when we die.”

Hinduism failed because its caste system discriminates and mistreats people. Buddhism missed the mark when its adherents killed people on a massive scale despite its otherwise excellent teaching to refrain from harming living creatures. Judaism’s mistake is occupying land on which Arabs are living. Islam is wrong in thinking that suicide murders will please Allah; this and its discrimination against women distort the lessons contained in true morality, the lessons of NDEs.

Christianity, like Buddhism, is responsible for multiple deaths because of its insistence upon converting people to Christianity, its Crusades, its anti-Semitism, and its many “foolish fixations” such as its belief in the devil and witchcraft, its insistence until modern times that the sun rotates around the earth that disrupted the advance of science, its teaching that holy wars are just, its teaching that priests can magically annul sins and absolve people from harm inflicted upon others, its notion that only baptized children go to heaven and that “babies who die before the christening ceremony will go to a place adjacent to hell,” celibacy, and the “worst current foolish fixations, however, are the conservative standpoints on morality…the ban on contraceptives…(and) Augustine’s assertion that sex is only allowed when it is aimed at the reproduction of man.”

As critical as Coppes indictment is, it overly kind. Most adherents of virtually all religions are guilty of many behaviors that religions try to eradicate: mistreating people, animals, and the earth; murder; discrimination; belittlement of women; dissatisfaction with what one has and attempts to conquer and control; fear and hatred of people of other faiths; performing superstitious activities; believing in the involvement of the devil and other incarnate evils in human affairs; relying on faith, accepting as true what is contrary to human senses, science, and logic; trusting on the intervention of God to improve human and worldly problems rather than taking actions; believing in the efficacy of prayer and sacrifice rather than remedial human acts; practicing rituals without understanding their purpose and failing to accomplish their purpose; and not studying the truths of religion and living by its truths.