Godol Hador February '05

Friday, February 25, 2005

Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated

Rabosai,
The Koton Hador has passed, its true. He will be sadly missed and fondly remembered. But the Godol is still alive and kicking. AddeRabbi has a eulogy for me, and Rashi's Daughter now has a link to the Godol Hador z"l. I am alive ! Don't write me off just yet.

I installed the page hit counter last Friday, and today it is showing close to 5,000. Next week I shall be hosting a special "Koton Hador Study Week", lzecher haKoton oloveshalom. I shall take the counter score at the end of the week, and then we will have a statistically reliable measure of how many people prefer letzonus to Torah.

I would hate for letzonus to win out, so please: visit often and invite your friends too (with a seperate browser).

Please do not disappoint !
Good Shabbos.

| posted by XGH @ 2:33 PM

The Myth-Moshol Theory

In contrast to the Nes-Nisayon Theory (NNT), stands the Myth-Moshol Theory (MMT). Whereas NNT assumes that all Torah must be read as literal truth, MMT posits that often the Torah contains allegorical passages. The supporters of NNT tend to believe that the Torah must not be allegorized, whereas the supporters of MMT tend to believe in the scientific evidence, and are uncomfortable with the ideas of nes and the fake 'old' earth that NNT requires. MMT is widely held in more broad minded orthodox institutions, but quite likely would be regarded as heresy in more fundamentalist environs. Orthodox Jews of limited exposure tend to be quite ignorant of MMT, and its widespread acceptance in the more broad minded areas of Orthodoxy.

For example, MMT would say that the stories in the beginning of Breishis are clearly mythological, desgined to counteract the prevailing Babylonian / Summerian mythologies of their day. The theory is explained by Nahum Sarna in his book 'Understanding Genesis', and Umberto Cassutto in his books 'From Adam to Noah' and 'From Noah to Abraham'. Cassutto brings a particularly detailed explanation, showing pasuk by pasuk how prevailing Summerian notions were dismised by the Torah, and replaced with monotheistic ones. It is probable that Sarna got this theory from Cassutto, though its also clearly written in the popular Soncino Hertz Chumash, in the notes section at the end of the book of Genesis, which dates back to the 1930's. (Its likely that Rabbi Hertz got this from elsewhere too, maybe Christian bible scholars. More research is required here).

There is also a parallel to this in the Rambam, with the Rambams well known views on the Korbanos. The Rambam holds that the korbanos were only created to wean away the Israelites from their own idolatrous practices, and was but a temporary phenomenon. Similarly, the stories in Breishis could have the same purpose.

Although both Sarna and Cassutto seem to imply human authorship of the Torah, from a religious perspective, their theories need not be dismissed out of hand. It is possible to say that ancient Israelite scrolls were passed down to Sinai, at which point, with a few edits and changes, they were incorporated into the Torah under G-ds direct command. A more liberal reading of the Rambam ikkarim would still fit. There is even some midrashic support for this latter view, see this article by Rabbi Gil Student. However, in order to reconcile Science completely, it clearly would not be feasible to say that Noah or Adam actually wrote these scrolls, since according to NNT it is highly unlikely that these characters actually existed (at least in the form that we imagine). More likely they written by others, perhaps with some level of divine inspiration.

A more orthodox twist to this theory is one that I call 'moshology' as opposed to 'mythology'. According to this version, the stories in Breishis were not designed just to give the Israelites their own monotheistic mythology in contrast to the polytheistic mythologies of the day, but in fact (or also) contained deep eternal truths about G-d and the universe, and G-ds relation to man. In this view, these stories were absolutely 'written' directly by G-d, but still need not be literally true. This would be similar to the Zohar's view, which says that the Torah is just a shell, and only fools do not delve behind the external form. Its probable though that the Zohar did not mean to imply that the basic simple peshat of the pasuk was wrong, just that there were additional deeper peshatim. However according to MMT, the simple peshat would be quite wrong. Either way, it seems that many of these deep secrets have been lost, or at least are not accessible to the average man.

There are plenty of sources in the Rishonim for taking Breishis allegorically, not least of which is the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim in his famous passage on the creation story. The Rambam says that he would have explained Breishis as not meaning that the creation was at a point in time, but only refrained from doing so because he did not believe the eternal universe theory (prevalent in his time) was accurate. Fundamentalists would however reject this approach, and consider this line of reasoning to be foreign to our (current) mesorah.

| posted by XGH @ 11:03 AM

The Koton's Demise

Top 10 incorrect explanations for the Koton's demise.

1. His guilt
2. His change of heart
3. His conscience
4. His health
5. His job
6. His wife
7. His mother
8. His rabbi
9. Mean comments from Kishke
10. Nishtaneh hatevah.

| posted by XGH @ 8:07 AM

Thursday, February 24, 2005

The Koton Hador RIP 2005-2005

I regret to inform the olam that The Koton Hador passed away this morning. His talmudic doctor, Doctor Babba Kamma, tried an emergency infusion of spontaneously generated lice, but even this could not save him. Doctor BK suspects an overdose of letzonus is to blame. Koton had become increasingly agitated in recent days, and was seen wandering about the neighborhood, desperately trying to get his point across the only way he knew how. He will be missed. His blog, and all his letzonus from this site have been buried together with him. Please pay your condolences here.
Thanks.

| posted by XGH @ 3:52 PM

Charedim, who they are and what they think

Here is a brief, semi satirical but still quite true take on the charedi viewpoint.

Here is how I define the orthodox world. Of course any categorization is always open to criticism, its a continuum with many shades of gray. However we need to have some terms to discuss.

Charedi / Ultra Orthodox

I would split into 3 camps

1. Left wing / more modern Charedim
Includes Ner Israel, maybe Chaim Berlin and possibly some small number of RW YU types, though I am not sure about them. Also includes people who identify with Charedim but are out there in the world e.g. Many doctors, lawyers etc.

2. Centrist Charedim
Main body of Lakewood, Philly, Telz etc. Identify with the Gedolim, though due to American upbringing are not completely closed minded.

3. Right Wing Charedim
Extreme RW members of lakewood, most of Gateshead, Boro Park, Stamford Hill, Ponovitz, Bnei Brak etc. Includes Chasidim, though maybe not Lubavitchers. Actually Lubobs have to be categorized under alternate religions anyway.

Likewise, I would categorize MO into 3 camps

1. Right Wing MO
Shtark YU types. Maybe Mercaz Haravniks too, though they can be a little unique. Charedi Dat Leumi - Chardalniks.

2. Centrist MO
Mainstream baal ha batish Teaneck.

3. Left Wing MO
Very liberal MO, the ones who are nominally orthodox but don't care all that much. Also the ones who really push the borders. Blu Greenberg etc. Actually these are very 2 different groups. One is disinterested. The other very intensely interested, Really not fair to lump them together at all. Sorry.

The Slifkin Ban

RW Charedi viewpoint

1. The Gedolim know best.
2. See 1.

Centrist charedi viewpoint

1. The Gedolim know best.
2. The Gedolim seem to be a bit wrong here.
3. I guess the Gedolim know best though.

LW Charedi viewpoint

1. The Gedolim know best.
2. The Gedolim are clearly wrong here
3. Aaaargh. Conflict ! System breakdown.

Right Wing MO viewpoint
1. I will prove Slifkin correct from all these rishonim and acahronim. Then the gedolim will change their mind when they see my superior lamdonus.

Centrist MO viewpoint
1. Those Gedolim are being ridiculous again.
2. More proof why MO is better.

LW MO Viewpoint
1. Who cares. These people are not Gedolim anyway.

| posted by XGH @ 10:38 AM

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Different Worlds

Its amazing to me how frum people these days inhabit entirely different worlds without even realizing it.

Here are two conversations I had recently, both with seemingly similar frum people. Both had beards, wives with sheitels, learn regularly, and would be fairly indistinguishable from each other in general. The main difference was that one had a YU type of background and one had a Yeshivish background. Both were reasonably intelligent. Lets call me A, the YU guy B and the chareidi guy C. I am paraphrasing both conversations extensively, but they actually did happen like this.

Conversation with YU guy
A: So you heard about the latest ban ?
B: (Surprised) No, what was banned ?
A: Books which said the world was millions of years old.
B: (In all seriousness) Whats wrong with that ? Of course it is.
A: Well the fundamentalists take Breishis literally you know.
B: (Astonished) But what about dinosaurs and things like that ?
A: Well thats all fake, you know that peshat. (proceeds to explain Gosse)
B: (Astonished and shocked) What ?! Are you nuts ?

Conversation with Charedi Guy
A: So you agree with the ban ?
C: (Surprised) Of course, all the Gedolim signed it
A: So you believe the world is really 6,000 years old
C: (Shocked) Of course I do. Doesn't everyone ?
A: Not really, the scientific evidence is overwhelming for many people.
C: (Very Shocked) Science ! But the Torah says its 6,000 years old !
A: Well, many people don't take that literally.
C: (Astonished and shocked) What ?! Are you nuts ?

Of course people have different opinions, there is nothing suprising about that.

However what struck me was the genuine astonishment and shock of B that anyone in their right mind could possibly hold that the world wasn't billions of years old, and the equal and genuine shock and astonishment of C that anyone frum could possibly hold that it was.

| posted by XGH @ 10:33 PM

Mis-Nagid February '05

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Scrolls and Stones

My first (and thus far only) quiz was one of the most popular posts I've ever done. So, here's a small challenge to my readers:

Who is the earliest person mentioned in the Tanakh who is also mentioned in an archaeological source?

Points will be awarded to readers who can name anyone, even if not the earliest. Bonus points for expounding on the significance of any of the finds.

The points can be traded in at the end of the contest for precisely nothing. What, you were expecting a grand prize?

email me: [mis-nagid_AT_hush_DOT_com]

posted by Mis-nagid @ Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Cozy or Critical to Converts?

In today's New York Times Theater section there's an article about Rachel Factor, a convert to Orthodox Judaism. It's written by Sarah Bronson, she of the blog Chayyei Sarah. It's a decent piece, but it's mostly fluff. There's not one tough question raised in it, and the unpleasant bits are couched in soft terms.

Why is the article so forgiving of open displays of sexism? It uncritically allows that her "audiences [are] filled exclusively with women, as her strict faith demands." Would the editors have been so breezily non-judgemental if her strict faith had required her to perform only for white people? Since when is brazen sexism so accommodable?

The article makes a big deal out of the fact that Ms. Factor is successful in her new guise, contrary to her expectations. Why is this such a surprise? She's playing for an audience without access to the wider world of entertainment. Sure, she does well -- in an artificially constrained environment, with significantly less competition. I'm not saying she has a bad show, after all, I've never seen it (I'm a guy, remember?). But where's the great trick? Sarah makes it seem like Ms. Factor was a big star who gave it all up, but the high point of her career on the open market was being a Rockette. At least fundamentalist Muslims have Cat Stevens, and Scientologists have Tom Cruise.

The audience she gets is not evidence that her act is a cut above, and Sarah tacitly admits as much: "[...]tickets sold quickly, particularly to American expatriate Orthodox women who felt validated by the story of a glamorous dancer who had chosen to join their community." That's a bit like how fundamentalists flock to hear the one or two "scientists" who explain how evolution is false. Gerald Schroeder never gives the keynote at a cosmology conference, but he fills up every Agudah he books. His lectures are not the actual consensus of science, but it validates what his audiences want to believe. So too, glamorous dancers do not want to enter a cult. One minor one did, but that doesn't make Orthodox life glamorous. One minor scientist thinks Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang, too.

Sarah quotes Michelle Luwish to explain Ms. Factor's allure. "For someone who had been on Broadway to give up singing in front of men, to give up the seemingly glamorous aspects of life to take on a seemingly restrictive lifestyle in such a joyous way," she said, "it's inspiring to anyone who is on a spiritual path."

Seemingly restrictive? What a lame equivocation. It's telling in contrast with her turn of words at the end of the sentence. It's not inspiring to people on a spiritual path, but to those who are in what she euphemistically called a "seemingly" restrictive lifestyle. There's no necessary connection between being on a spiritual path and living the extraordinarily constrained life of an Orthodox woman, any more than a burkah is required. She'd like it to vindicate the restrictive lifestyle she's living, but it says nothing about a spiritual life. It's a phony sentence that Sarah just lets pass.

Another disturbing undertone in the article is the ambivalence to bigotry. Ms. Factor was so affected by bigotry as a child that she felt compelled to try to disguise her eyes with makeup glue and tape. And yet, she "embraces her culture" by...dating Asian men. How about embracing the culture of disdaining dividing people by race? She perpetuates the very thing that wounded her, like a victim of child abuse passing on his lessons to the next generation.

Things don't improve when she leaves that discrimination behind and dates a Caucasian Jew. She just swaps overlooking racial discrimination for overlooking religious discrimination. There's no censure in the article for her husband's insistence that his wife be Jewish. Would someone get a puff piece in the Times for getting eye surgery to marry someone who insisted his wife be Occidental? As before, why is religious discrimination any more acceptable then racial discrimination?

It's bitterly ironic that Ms. Factor includes in her act her pain in face of bigotry, but gets an article in the New York Times for joining a extremist religious sect suffused with bigotry. My readers know it well: the attitude of Orthodox Jews to "goyim" is only a step above the KKK's feelings towards blacks. What Orthodox shul hasn't heard the words "goyishe kup" said with just the right amount of disgust? Every Orthodox person has heard the speech about how the world exists for Jews. The Orwellian attempts to explain how some people are more chosen than others does nothing to dispell the bigotry of a theology that portray some people as more important to God than others. Orthodox Judaism is built on bigotry, the dividing up of people by religion, and the culture reflects and amplifies it.

The article ends with an uplifting quote from an organizer from the Orthodox proselytization group Aish HaTorah. "It's important for people to see that you can be Orthodox and still use your talents in a powerful way." Still? She sounds like a crippled person, talking about how the loss of her legs hasn't slowed her down at all. The question is, why cut off your legs in the first place?

email me: [mis-nagid_AT_hush_DOT_com]

posted by Mis-nagid @ Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Suffrage Succotash!

I lost, but I'm thinking of contesting Ohio. I heard that browsers were tampered with over there.

Thanks to everyone who voted for me.

email me: [mis-nagid_AT_hush_DOT_com]

posted by Mis-nagid @ Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Monday, February 14, 2005

Fabricating Fictions Fathers Further Fraud

There's an old saying that comes in a million and one versions: a lie begets a lie. It's the universal observation that a lie creates a tear in the consistency of the pastiche of claims, and the only way to paper over the breach is with another lie. Needless to say, the patch is no exception to the rule, recursively leading to a patchwork of lies. Nowhere is this clearer than the claims of frumkeit. The lies are piled so high, you'd need an archaeologist to date the layers. The truth has been stretched and sliced so many times that nothing remains but a gruesome mass of scar tissue.

This wreckage had to get started somewhere. What was the first lie, the one that precipitated the avalanche? I'd like to propose thats it was the genre mistake. A genre mistake is commited when someone mistakes what genre something belongs to.

Picture this: It's the year 2437, and archaeologists are digging up our era. Most of our paper has decomposed, so there's great celebration at the discovery of a complete set of Peanuts by Charles Schultz. They pore over the cartoons, taking copious notes. They conclude that in 2005, there were no adults, children had huge, misshapen heads, and life was predominantly melancholy. Clearly, they've not appreciated the sweet simplicity of Mr. Schultz's wry observations.

Why were they so deluded in their characterization of the era Peanuts depicts? Because they confused the genre to which it belong. Peanuts is not a history book, it's a comic strip. When viewing something through the lens of the wrong genre, not only do you get a distorted view, but you utterly fail to appreciate what a work of art you're studying. If someone sends you an email titled "Incredible Work of Art" and you open the JPEG attachment of the Mona Lisa in your MP3 player, you'll be hard-pressed to appreciate Da Vinci's genius in the painful noise emanating from your speakers.

So it is with the Torah. As a composite work of sacred literature, it's extraordinary. That's the genre to which it rightfully belongs, and in that capacity, it's a work of art without parallel. The lie that led to the shambles that is today's Orthodox Judaism is the one that confused sacred literature with revealed divine writ. As soon as that lie was put forth, huge rips appeared in the fabric of the Torah. The Torah became like the yellowing Peanuts of 2437, destroying what meaning it was written to convey. Delusionally mistaking its significance stripped it of its beauty and reduced it to a mere spellbook. The Torah has a meaning, the one its authors imbued it with. The genre mistake robs it of that meaning, and the dignity deserved of a work of art of such high calibre.

Of course, as prophesied in the saying that began this, a lie begets a lie. Much as the silly people of 2437 must create unending ad-hoc hypotheses to explain how their erroneous view coincides with other bits of historical evidence, the Torah's genre mistake led to ever-increasing absurdities in the futile service of covering inconsistency. For example, the unproductive efforts to reconcile the Torah's dual creation myths with evidential reality stems from the genre mistake. Just as today's children have normal heads, the eras depicted in the Tanakh were not populated by open miracles and flagrant violations of the laws of physics. It's only the genre mistake that makes someone hold of such inanity. Even something as seemingly trivial as explaining how the list of Edomite kings fits with the great lie motivated some people to come up with truly impressive (in a morbid way) new lies.

What's sad is that the genre mistake is relatively new. The Torah never says it was written by God, or that it was handed down on Sinai. Orthodox Jews mindlessly talk about Torah M'Sinai, but even a cursory look into the literature shows that there's no such authentic tradition. Even the traditional commentators argued about when the Torah was given, which some saying that it was given piecemeal, beginning in the midbar. Even though the Sinai legend was a very early addition to the religion, the Torah was not pictured as divine writ until later. It was at that point that the thread that led to Orthodoxy tripped on the lie that snowballed into today's nonsensical creation.

When I first discovered the truth about Judaism, my reaction was harsh. I was deeply hurt that I had been lied to for so long, and so extensively. For all the brave talk about unique access to truth, the set of beliefs that define Orthodox Judaism are incompatible with the evidence, which is why, despite repeated appeals to the contrary, ignorance remains the most popular option, enforced through the heresy taboo. That's why the vast majority of Orthodox Jews remain clueless, believing that the Torah is a spooky mystery, about which nothing is known outside of the holy seforim. When I learned how the truth had been carefully kept from me, I reflexively distanced myself from the object of their lies, the unfairly maligned Torah.

With time, distance allowed me to see it in less emotional terms. I asked myself why I enjoy reading works like the Epic of Gilgamesh. No honest answer I gave could exclude the Torah. I came to realize that my disdain for it was an overreaction. In the careless dismissal of my backlash, I forgot that the Torah can still be meaningfully studied, even if not the way I had been taught it. All that was necessary was to appreciate it for what it is: sacred literature. I forced myself to ask what it would have been like to learn it without the genre mistake. I had to admit that it would probably be great. I can still remember what it was like in 4th grade, when I was too young for the genre mistake to raise troubling questions for me. I enjoyed it immensely and blew my rebbi away with my enthusiasm. Furthermore, I have an unusual advantage in Torah study over my other intellectual pursuits -- I'm fluent in Biblical Hebrew. I can't read the Epic of Gilgamesh in its original form, but no such deficit exists in my study of Chumash. How many world-changing, 2500+ year old opuses of Near-Eastern sacred literature can I say that about?

Today, I enjoy learning Chumash, and the act is actually worthy of the term "learning." I learn with far more enthusiasm now, rather then when I was forced to; I also enjoy it for the first time since 4th grade. Every time I relearn a piece with fresh eyes, I savor the artistry of the founding document of my heritage. Correcting the genre mistake illuminates the Torah, revealing its beauty and superb form. There's no experience to compare with understanding Parshas Noach correctly for the first time, an intellectual orgasm of singular intensity. No person of even moderate intelligence should be forced to learn it as a historical event, missing out on the wizardry displayed by the combination of two tales into one. All the contradictions fall away, and the need for lies that began with the genre mistake disappears, leaving pure scholarship, worthy of the skills displayed by the authors and redactors.

I deeply resent the horrible waste of my childhood on pathetic lies. What would have been so bad if they had told me the truth about the Torah? Ok, I know the answer to that: Orthodox Judaism would wither and die. How long do they think they can keep the facade up? We don't live in the shtetl anymore, and we have easy access to the very information they fear the most. Sure, labeling it heresy, and creating the perception that it doesn't exist will work for some, but it won't work for all, or forever. To add insult to injury, all the time they prop up their damnable lies, they're disgracing the very thing they claim to respect: the Torah. After all, who is showing more respect to Schultz's material?

email me: [mis-nagid_AT_hush_DOT_com]

posted by Mis-nagid @ Monday, February 14, 2005