L'haim Discussion

Organ Donation is a Relgious Obligation! It's a Mitzva!

2009-01-09T11:33:00.000-08:00

Organ Donation is a Relgious Obligation! It's a Mitzva!

Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 5:37am | Edit Note | Delete

December 17, 2008 the NY Times reported “[f]or the first time, the number of Americans waiting for an organ transplant has surpassed 100,000, and…more than 6,000 can be expected to die next year.”

I never understood the religious opposition to organ donation. You would think that someone who professes to be religious and value saving life over all else (pikuach nefesh) would see the act of giving up an organ upon death as the most liberating religious expression. What greater way to affirm your commitment to life then by saving someone in your death!

What is the Jewish view on organ donation? There are several competing interests at stake when it comes to organ donation. The prohibition against the needless mutilation of a body (nivul hames), and the determination of when someone is dead in terms of Jewish law, are issue that are discussed and debated. On the other side we have the paramount interests of (pikuach nefesh) that requires extraordinary actions to preserve or save life.

According to the majority viewpoint organ donations is a Mitzva (good deed) and should be encouraged. Misconceptions still persists and many in the religious world continue to fear and reject post-mortem organ donation. What is the reason for the misconceptions about organ donation? Why are so many fearful of it? We could be saving more lives….Any thoughts? Are you an organ donor? Why yes or why no?

Check out The Halachic Organ Donor Society (www.hods.org) historic seminar on brain-stem death, organ donation and Halacha (Jewish law.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV46q0TvDxs

Updated last Sunday - Add Comment - 60 Comments

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 5:40am January 4

I am not an organ donor because my mom would be upset, and also because I guess I'm a little selfish in that way and want my body intact.

Eli Federman at 5:46am January 4

Thanks for your candor Izzy...Why would you rather have your body intact when it will decompose anyway rather than save a life in your death? To me there is nothing more life affirming and religious than having the ability to save someone in my death!

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 5:47am January 4

I thought about that soon after I posted it, and then watched the video. I must say, you are changing my mind on the subject. It is a rather noble thing.

Eli Federman at 5:52am January 4

It seems like such a common sense issue that if a person is able to save a life they should; yet the myths of post-mortem "body integrity" being more important than saving a life still persist in some religious circles. It means allot to me that I'm influencing you for the positive on this subject. Thank you!

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 5:56am January 4

Well, it does make a lot of sense, especially in the Jewish tradition, which regards providing funerary services as the ultimate altruism, because the deceased cannot reward the doer. So to, organ donation would seem to be the ultimate act of kindness, because the donor could never benefit.

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:03am January 4

now what the hell would you need your organs for once you are dead? take it all

Eli Federman at 7:10am January 4

hmm great point on the Jewish law connection! Not only is organ donation life affirming but it is also the ultimate act of altruism as the donee will not return the favor to the donor (with post-mortem donation).

I fully agree Levi-Shiksa. We need to glorify saving lives (Torah Chayim) instead of glorifying preservation of deceased bodies (Egyptian culture).

Cassandra LaMar at 11:45am January 4

I work in an ER and it is really brutal; the organ procurement process. After they are done harvesting, IOPO (Indiana Organ Procurement Organization) just leaves the mangled body laying open and bloody for our ER nurses to clean up before the funeral home comes to get it. Ugh...

Now I know that once death has happened, that a person is not aware that this is going on, but it still freaks me out.

I am still a donor regardless... But I have learned to never ever walk into trauma room 1 after IOPO has been there, let the nurse tag the body... lol.

Choni Teitelbaum at 12:05pm January 4

From what I understand about Halachic opinion on this matter (without having explored the subject myself) I'm pretty sure the vast majority don't allow it. I'll have to agree with you that I don't get it and it doesn't make sense to me either. It also comes across as selfish that someone would gladly accept and organ donation but wouldn't be willing to reciprocate. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject will reevaluate the sources and come up with a different conclusion.

Eli Federman at 1:33pm January 4

Hi Choni I'm by no means an expert on this but I did some research and asked authorities in Jewish law.
Live organ donation is fine by virtually every authority! The controversy lies in post-mortem donation and answering the question whether life ends at brain cessation or heart cessation. Organs are often harvested after brain death but before the heart stops so according to some authorities the individual is still Halachacially alive when the organ is harvested and the persons death is hastened by the transplant and therefore forbidden. However, many authorities including Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the chief Sephardic rabbi Tzfat (and I believe Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rabbi Yosef Dov Solevitchik) accepted brain-stem death as halakhic death. Accordingly, death occurs when the brain stem stops functioning and under that analysis virtually all forms of post-mortem organ donation would be permissible.

Eli Federman at 1:35pm January 4

Cassandra thanks for sharing that and congrats on not letting that stop you! Those doctors need to be more sensitive when it comes to preserving body parts for burial and respecting the dead and we need to be more sensitive to the living by becoming organ donors.

Meir Lax at 2:41pm January 4

From what I understand, one of the problems of becoming an organ donor is that there is no way of knowing who will get your organ. And, although i know people will get mad at me for saying this, the pikuach nefesh thing only applies to other jews, therefore it is halachicly questionable whether a jewish body can be desecrated to save the life of a non-jew.

Eli Federman at 2:53pm January 4

Meir thank you for the comment BUT
1) some authorities say that becuase every person is created in G-ds image pikuach nefesh extends to all people
2) Also the Rabbis uniformly apply pikuach nefesh to non-Jews as not doing so has and will cause antagonism against Jews (this is uniformly accepted)
3) Also Wikipedia makes a good point that "...by putting yourself on an organ list there is a possibility that a Jew on the list will be bumped up if a non-Jew is given your organ."
4) Lastly, many interpret gentile to be an ancient Canaanite pagan worshipers to which there is no modern day equivalent and therefore pekuach nefesh would apply to all people today....

Eli Federman at 2:58pm January 4

Meir, in short virtually every authority would recognize that today pekuach nefesh does apply to all people.

Meir Lax at 3:08pm January 4

I concede the point

Meir Lax at 3:09pm January 4

But it still explains why ppl may not want to do it.

Eli Federman at 3:11pm January 4

Thank you for your intellectual honesty Meir!
Now, are you an organ donor yet? Have you conceded that far? j/k....

Meir Lax at 3:13pm January 4

No. The issue of organ donation and pikuach nefesh is a little oversimplified in this note. there are many more details to it that prob. wont fit on this page.

Meir Lax at 3:16pm January 4

e.g. "Pikuach nefesh has limitations. The individual whose life is to be saved must be a specific, identifiable individual, rather than an abstract or potential beneficiary."

Eli Federman at 3:21pm January 4

True it does have limitations but there are ways to work around those limits and safeguards. The idea that the person needs to be identifiable is a policy to insure that the organs are used for actual implantation as opposed to research or display....

With that said, the concept of saving a life in a persons death is one of the most profoundly religious concept I have come across....

Meir Lax at 3:24pm January 4

i disagree, first of all there are many issues with this, i was just giving one example. Also, the reason a person has to be indentifiable has nothing to do with research, the fact is that the halacha only applies to actual real cases that exist and nothing else.

Eli Federman at 3:27pm January 4

Here is more info on the subject
http://www.hods.org/index.shtml

I was merely using research as an example of when organs might not be used in actual cases......

There are ways for organ donors to insure that their organs are being used in real cases......

Meir Lax at 3:27pm January 4

Another issue, by donating my organ to a non-jew, i am Guaranteeing that another jew will not receive it. And if that is not a halachic problem, it is definitely a problem that many people will personally have. If a way can be found to try every possibility to mathch my organ to a fellow jew first, ppl might be more inclined to do so.

Meir Lax at 3:29pm January 4

the issue of, if 2 lives were in danger and i can only save one, i must try to save the jewish person first.

Eli Federman at 3:40pm January 4

It might be a personal prejudice that people have but as you imply it has no basis in Jewish law and is only a product of peoples prejudices.

The Talmud Tractate Yoma clearly states that when it comes to saving lives we must save lives no matter whose lives are being saved. This means that even if the majority of the 100,000 Americans waiting for organs are non-Jews, we don’t assume a chazaka, that the recipient is a non-Jew. Even if there is a fraction of one percent of a chance that you can save a (Jewish) life that is enough to warrant violating nivul hames, and you know that saving lives is a good thing no matter whose life is being saved!

Eli Federman at 3:41pm January 4

Meir thank you for shedding light on some of the reasons/misconceptions why religious people are fearful of organ donation......

Igor Kravchenko at 3:43pm January 4

I am perplexed that I am the first to mention this point, but the reason organ donation is against Jewish law is because those organs are not our to donate... just like skin is now ours to decorate.

Would any of you have the gall to donate you parent's fine china? What about your uncle's Lexus? Just because you have no use for it...?

The bottom line is that we were lent these organs and it is not up to you or me to decide where they go. If goyim want to hand them out like fliers at a rock concert that is fine, God's laws apply to Jews differently that to everyone else.

Meir Lax at 3:44pm January 4

agreed, but i am not advocatig not giving the organ at all. What i am saying is that if there is an alternate way to absolutely ensure that the organ goes to a fellow jew, that may be preferred.

Eli Federman at 3:50pm January 4

Igor I have to correct you. You are completely mistaken on this issue. Jewish law itself allows one to desecrate what is not yours for the purpose of pekuach nefesh (saving a life)..You have competing interests (i.e., one being the preservation of the body since it is not yours and the other being the obligation to save others) and the interest of Pekuach Nefesh outweighs the interest you raise...

Most Rabbis agree that Pikuach Nefesh, saving a life, is more important than the prohibition of Nivul Hamet. Organ transplant saves lives.
See http://www.hods.org/index.shtml for more info....

Thanks for the comment and shedding light on yet another misconception that makes people fearful of organ donation.

Eli Federman at 3:50pm January 4

You are right Meir and I think the system should be set up in a way to minimize the fears that you raise and encourage more organ donors...

Eli Federman at 3:53pm January 4

And Igor your analogy of the lexus reminds me of the quote "Don’t take your organs to heaven - Heaven knows we need them here!"

Meir Lax at 3:59pm January 4

I wouldnt just call them fear, i would call them legitimate issues, because if such a system can be set up, it is questionable whether anything else would be permissible.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:21pm January 4

Besides after the amount of drinking I dd last night, only Charles Manson would want my liver.

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:58pm January 4

Hey Meir: I'm deeply offended, my life is worth less to you than that of the sheketz that will eat your body when you die?

Meir Lax at 6:06pm January 4

No, and i warned before that i dont mean to offend people. I was talking from the viewpoint of jewish law, not my personal views. In addition, I conceded the point to Eli that Jewish Law considers saving any life as very important.
The only thing that i have said that makes a distinction between jews and non-jews is when it comes to a choice between whose life must be saved, on that the law is clear that a jewish life takes precedence.

Shmuel Kessler at 9:00pm January 4

This is one thing about Judaism that has deeply bothered me. I've always felt that organ donation as a means of saving or prolonging life would be of paramount importance and permissible. Though I've listened to (only) a few lectures on the subject, I've yet to accept this principle.

David Ostrow at 9:28pm January 4

From what i gathered from R. Fink is that a person does NOT need to be identifiable, and that even organs/bodies can be used for research... because of the potential to save many more people.
Today though, we have advanced in research to the point that there are rarely ever novel findings (from dissection, ect), therefore there is not sufficient justification.
One would have to make sure that the organ collectors know you are only willing to donate organs to those who need it, which should be possible.

Eli Federman at 11:28pm January 4

David, thank you for pointing out that even potentially saving a life is enough justification to allow for organ donation. Shmuel organ donation is permissible and is a mitzva in most cases.

Mendel Markel at 4:43pm January 5

I just want to point out here that there are alot of severely complex halachik issues involved. More complex than most of the Chief Rabbis and great Poskim posting on this note are admitting it to be. So 2 points regarding the subject:
1 - The Halacha doesn't care if it fits into our personal, political-correctness-based ideas of morals. Halacha isn't based on who will be offended by the psak, nor by anyone's feelings or wishes.

So if (theoretically) donation were against Halacha, and let's say it were (again just theoretically) because of Pikuach Nefesh not applying to a non-Jew, then despite Shiksa'a hurt feelings, I could not donate my organs - because Halacha does not take Shiksa's hurt feeling into account on such a matter nor does it take into account that Shmuel K. is bothered (nothing personal here guys - I love you both but I'm just trying to make a point here about how Halacha can be impersonal which can be tough when wer'e talking about people) - point 2 to follow

Mendel Markel at 4:45pm January 5

2- I think the question might be better asked differently. When we ask the question "does Judaism oppose organ donation?" we are dooming ourselves to the quest for an answer none of us is qualified to offer. The more answerable question then might be "why are the Halachik authorities of today skirting this issue and not adequately clarifying it for the Halacha following masses?" - or better yet to pose a question that we can answer and hold ourselves accountable for on a peronal level - "why are we, the masses, not demanding distinct clarification on this super-important issue from our Halachik authorities?

Eli Federman at 4:53pm January 5

Indeed Mendel but it happens to be that Halacha does fall in line with our sensibilities on this one !!! What issue is being "skirted" ?

Mendel Markel at 5:26pm January 5

Rather your choice of which Halachik authority to follow falls in line with your sensibilities. Differently put, your choice of which Halachik authority to follow is directly biased by those sensibilities. The HODS only presents those findings which suit it's purpose and agenda (as noble as the agenda is that is not the issue here). Their presentation (as well as yours) implies unanimous agreement by all or most current Halachik authorities, which falls short of the true scope of things.

Make no mistake, I completely share your moral sensibilities here, but I am also keenly aware that there are unpresented complexities. For example, many Poskim don't share those views (notice for example the lack of Hassidic Halachik authorities on that web-page). In addition many who do agree in principle fall short of actually giving an all-encompasing green light to signing an organ donors card and would rather cite the need for a case-by-case Rabbinical consultation. continued...

Mendel Markel at 5:34pm January 5

I'm sure you know fully well how many lives this "need for Rabbinical consultation" has cost...or rather you don't know, because it's probably many more that you and I are even aware of. Suffice it to say the resulting death toll has been tragic, and even worse - unnecessary.

The sad fact is that regardless of the real "ultimate" Psak agreeable by all of Orthodox Judaism (which of course is non-existent), most Rabbonim (i.e. the communal Rav) would rather stay in the clear on this controversial issue and defer to recommending an endless chain call (usually resulting in a missed opportunity to save a life) than give their unquestionable clearance.

My main gripe though is that one way or the other, rabbonim across the world should be addressing this in their regular sermons so that people know. Or if they can't educate adequately, import someone who can to do communal seminars. Unfortunately the fact is that most communities are in the dark as to the true facts and Halachos ..cont

Mendel Markel at 5:39pm January 5

Something of this nature should certainly take precedence over some of the much more petty things one might hear expounded on in the average sermon across the globe. There seems to be a tendency to stick with "light inspirational words" instead of discussing important - if more controversial - topics that might draw fire. anyway...my fingers tire, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say here.

Eli Federman at 6:04pm January 5

Mendel, very good point on the need to raise the level of discourse by talking about issues that affect us on a day to day basis.....I think JLI Jewish Learning Institute (and the website jlaw.com) has done a good job with this but we need to make more inroads......

David Ostrow at 7:14am January 6

its important to point out (in case it was not already) that when donating an organ (not from a corpse) the danger to ones life IS taken into consideration.
but in the case of imminent danger to anothers life it would be a great mitzva to save that life, and pay less heed to the risk involved (which is declining).

Mendel Markel at 11:46am January 6

Yes, Eli - undoubtedly there are those who are doing an excellent job of educating and informing on the issues. Like you say though, we need more people to get involved and specifically within the Orthodox communities. And btw, it's not just this issue - I feel the same need for educating and informing regarding other such day-to-day issues that Orthodox communities sometimes feel uncomfortable arounf. These include such issues as bi-polar disorder, chronic depression and suicidal tendencies in teens, postpartum depression, sex addiction, drug addiction, gambling addiction, alcohol addiction of course etc etc etc.

Eli Federman at 1:43pm January 6

Thank you for pointing that out David and that is in fact the reason why live organ donation is virtually always permitted. Also, when it comes to post-mortem donation, the vale of saving a life (even potentially saving) overrides the prohibition of desecrating a dead body (nivul hames).

Mendel thanks for pointing out those issues many of which unfortunately are still taboo in the frum world. I would be more than happy to posts notes on some of the social issues you raised. What do you think would be a good starting point?

Mendel Markel at 2:25pm January 6

Possibly bi-polar. It is alot more common than most people realize. Many people are never diagnosed with it and therefore suffer the effects throughout life. Their families suffer greatly as well as it is often the cause of divorces, abuse, arrests, financal troubles and on and on. To my knowledge there is no real support system within the Orthodox community for people with this disorder and their families. Nor is there adequate education about it. Most people never realize it because they have no clue what to look for. Communities as a whole tend to shun these people and are more likely to respond by putting out protective orders on those that suffer from the disorder than offer any kind of help. That's enough for now though - I'll get more into it in under the comments for the appropriate note.

Noah Silberg at 2:32pm January 6

Mendel, I could not agree with you more.There are too many "taboos" in the frum world and people are scared to speak up about important issues such as mental illness and addictions. There is an irrational fear of being stigmatized, so everything is kept hushed and in the dark and those who are suffering do not get adequate attention and care. If leaders in our communities would start speaking up, it could help many,many people. People need to know that it is okay to have issues and it is respectable to address them and speak out about them. Another related issue that needs to be addressed more is the issue of sexual abuse. I am not saying it is an epidemic, but I feel like it needs immediate attention. Those who have been abused are scared to speak up because they don't want them or their family to be stigmatized(among other reasons). Remaining silent will not help anyone and will only cause the perpetrator to believe he/she can get away with this hideous crime.

Mendel Markel at 2:59pm January 6

You're absolutely right, Noah. I wonder though if part of what has to change is the Orthodox system for Shiduchim. Sounds like I'm coming out of left field, right? But upon closer examination.... Let's say my father were a sex addict or manic-depressive or whatever. Now I'm trying to get a Shidduch (all hypothetical of course as I'm B"H married for over 10 years w/KA"H 4 kids). What do you think the chances are of a Shadchan introducing me to a "good" girl from a "respectable" family?

I think that's a big part of why many tend to fear the stigmatism of which Noah speaks. Do I really want to mess up my kids chances for a good Shidduch by publicizing that I or a family member has XXXXX? Of course this is merely a symptom being that if people wouldn't be stigmatized there would be no Shidduch issue.

Eli Federman at 3:13pm January 6

Mendel and Noah the issues you raise seem more likely social problems of communities not issues of the interplay of Jewish law and contemporary life...Many in the frum world have misconceptions about organ donation and therefore object to it on religious grounds as opposed to the other taboos that seem to be a product of a closed insular social framework as opposed to Jewish law...Or am I mistaken?

Noah Silberg at 3:14pm January 6

I agree that is one of many things people fear. It's funny because either way there are people suffering from these illnesses. Funny how people think that if they cover it up it just disappears. I have no doubt that there are many "good" girls and guys that are suffering and could be getting the help they need if there wasn't such a big fear of being stigmatized. These issues need to be brought to light so everyone who needs it, gets the proper treatment. We need to stop being afraid,face the facts, and address the issues. There can be so many people living a much higher quality of life.

Mendel Markel at 3:43pm January 6

You're right Eli, these are social problems more so than Halachik issues in contemporary life...but at the end of the day, the problems concerning the misconceptions about Organ Donation stem from the same social taboos more so than from the actual Halachik complexities. While the issue of Organ Donation is subject to the vast number of complexities in Jewish Law, it isn't so much the lack of clear Halachik rulings that create the misconceptions but rather the social perceptions associated with educating and informing on the issue that do.

Eli Federman at 7:54pm January 6

That is a very good point Mendel and I will make an extra effort to start addressing these social issues in light of Torah values.

Mendel Markel at 11:44am January 7

Looking forward to it - thanks for posting these notes btw, it's a beautiful thing when people get together (if virtually) for the sake of purposeful, friendly debate "lehagdil torah ulehadir"

Ronen Levi Yitzchak Segal at 2:45pm January 8

If you all feel so passionately about this issue, I would strongly recommend you become regular blood donors. This is something all rabbis agree is permitted. It only take a little while but it saves lives as well. You can also now become a platelet donor - they can extract those from your blood while giving you back your blood. This takes longer, but can be done more regularly and is more important in many cases for cancer patients and burn victims.

Besides which blood letting using to be considered medicine in many cultures and is a healthy habit. Good for you and good for the person in need.

Find out more and start making a difference in people's lives today!

http://www.americasblood.org/go.cfm

This is true chesed and I think should be seen as a mitvah - pikuach nefesh. Thanks for this wonderful topic, though. Video to follow...

Eli Federman at 3:23pm January 8

Good point and thank you for that comment. I think many in the frum world are also fearful of giving blood and that is connected to the fears and misconceptions surroundings organ donation. Looking forward to your video.....

Mendel Markel at 3:46pm January 8

Actually, the blood bank won't let me give blood because I faint and get bad blood pressure and stuff. Great point though and my wife does regularly when she can (like they won't let I think at certain stages of pregnancy and for a certain period after childbirth) which is great because she has a rare blood-type and they have a very hard time finding enough of it. Btw - once my wife gave for a specific person (i.e. as opposed to just the regular anonymous donation) that needed her blood type. She got a call later from that person that the blood she and several others gave allowed her to undergo an emergency procedure that saved her life. So that just gives you a little bit of an idea how blood donation literally saves lives and remember the ultimate chesed is when they don't know who you are and you don't know who they are.

Ronen Levi Yitzchak Segal at 3:49pm January 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTqX5AxqvS8 - great topic, Eli. Kein Yirbu...

Are religious people mindless automatons (robots) ?

2009-01-09T11:28:00.000-08:00

Here is a Facebook note of mine with the comments.....

Are religious people mindless automatons (robots) ?

Today at 3:33am | Edit Note | Delete

Automaton used colloquially refers to a mindless follower or robot. On my Does Jewish law prohibit smoking? Kick the deadly habit already! note two posters got into a heated debate over whether religion fosters robotic behavior (don't ask me what that topic has to do with smoking). Specifically whether religious rituals encourage mindless adherence?

I will post my thoughts later but first I would like to hear what you all have to say? Does religion turn us into mindless robots?
(please keep the discourse civil and if you use Chasidic/Torah terminology define your terms for the uninitiated)

I couldn't resist posting my thoughts early.....In addition to the diatribe between two disgruntled posters on my other note a NY Times article inspired me to raise this topic...

December 29 the NY Times science section had a brilliant article titled "For Good Self-Control, Try Getting Religious About It" in which the author highlighted decades of research demonstrate how religion and piety promote self-control. Having self-control and discipline is the exact opposite of robotic behavior. Robotic behavior is when we just do something out of habit without thinking and without restraint. Self-control is a sign of a free thinker.

Here are some telling excerpts from the article:
"[r]esearchers around the world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally happier. These results have been ascribed to the rules imposed on believers..."

"We simply asked if there was good evidence that people who are more religious have more self-control," Dr. McCullough. "When you add it all up, it turns out there are remarkably consistent findings that religiosity correlates with higher self-control. Devout people were found to be more likely than others to wear seat belts, go to the dentist and take vitamins."

"Brain-scan studies have shown that when people pray or meditate, there's a lot of activity in two parts of brain that are important for self-regulation and control of attention and emotion," he said. "The rituals that religions have been encouraging for thousands of years seem to be a kind of anaerobic workout for self-control."

"In a study published by the University of Maryland in 2003, students who were subliminally exposed to religious words (like G-d, prayer or bible) were slower to recognize words associated with temptations (like drugs or premarital sex). Conversely, when they were primed with the temptation words, they were quicker to recognize the religious words."

"Religious people, he said, are self-controlled not simply because they fear God's wrath, but because they've absorbed the ideals of their religion into their own system of values, and have thereby given their personal goals an aura of sacredness. He suggested that nonbelievers try a secular version of that strategy." END.

The Alter Rebbe, founder of Chabad Chasidism explains in Chapter 17 of Tanya how our personal enslavement (i.e., robotic behavior) comes from the dichotomy of our heart and mind. Using the human body as paradigmatic of the heart / mind division, the Alter Rebbe explains that the neck divides the feeling of our heart from the intellect of our mind. The Alter Rebbe explains that by overcoming the constriction of this division and unifying the heart and the mind we can achieve true liberation. One method of achieving the state of our rational desires guiding our passionate desires, the Alter Rebbe explains, is through habituating ourselves to gain mastery over our emotions by behavioral modification via training our thoughts, speech and actions to act in accordance with our true desires.

Bottom line is that modern research shows and ancient wisdom shows that religion
is meant to help us turn into thinking human beings NOT mindless robots. Agree or disagree?
Keep the discussion going!

Written 10 hours ago - Add Comment - 100 Comments

Igor Kravchenko at 3:53am January 9

If I have to to take a stance on the question of mindless conformity then it is this: The point you have become a brainless drone, an ignorant sheep is when you cannot trace your actions and beliefs to the basic Jewish values of Life, Social Responsibility, Education, Justice, or Family.

Igor Kravchenko at 3:53am January 9

Haha!

Igor Kravchenko at 3:55am January 9

I would argue that, Izzy. For me, Judaism sets up many guidelines and explains what the advantages and disadvantages there are to following that guideline. I make my own choice of whether or not follow it. I think at the end of the day free will is more or less an illusion, but as long as we have some sense of control over our lives, even if it is at an almost subconscious level, then we can catch ourselves before we all drink the poisoned kool-aid.

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 3:55am January 9

I think religion inherently shuns asking questions (say what you will, I grew up Lubavitch), thus promoting roboticism.

Igor Kravchenko at 3:57am January 9

I have never gotten the feeling that Judaism shuns asking questions. All my Jewish experiences have actually encouraged asking questions.

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 4:05am January 9

See, I think of Judaism's encouraging of questions as "You can ask all the questions you want, but keep them inside the Safe Question matrix".

Some questions are less tolerated than others. For example, questioning the order of saying prayers is a good 'safe' question, questioning the oneness of God, or that God is just is not.

As is typical in religion, there is conflicting evidence right and left. On the one hand, Moses and Abraham question God's actions in the Torah, on the other, people are shunned for asking questions in many parts of Jewish history and are accused of heresy.

In most cases, I have found that the "real" questions are the ones they don't want you to ask, like, "How do I know this isn't all bullshit?"

Some sects will approach your question with an uneasy tolerance and shaky explanation, other groups will shun outright.

In any event, people at this day in age have no need for religion in the sense of deistic governance.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:14am January 9

A few points before I respond to the question:

Igor: Exactly what "basic Jewish values" are, is really open to interpretation, as is all of Judaism.

Izzy: different societies have different attitudes, you can't assume that your experience is the same as Igor's

Igor Kravchenko at 4:20am January 9

Izzy: What do yo consider to be the safe Question Matrix? When I studied in Jerusalem in 2007, questioning the oneness of God wasnot only encouraged, but was discussed, and debated. Asking "How do I know it is not bulshit" was also addressed in my studies last year. I feel nothing was taboo, but that was my experience.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:26am January 9

In my experience, religious people have a tendency toward mindless performance of rituals. Most religious people I know are not familiar with the content of the words they mumble for two hours a day, have incorporated the party line for the most obvious questions, and will try to divert unfamiliar questions toward a track answerable by the party line.

Of course, the range of my encounters is not definitive of religious people, and among those I know there are those like Eli who pursue their religious lifestyle in a hyper-conscious manner (as the only way to be conscious as a religious person is to be hyper-conscious, because you have to justify a great deal of wacky behavior).

Nevertheless, being that, to a religious person, the current authoritative version of the code of law is binding whether their conscious processes would affirm or deny their validity, their thoughts cannot dictate their actions, and although perhaps not mindless, they are not free to act on their own thoughts.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:30am January 9

Well, who is? Who is truly free to do what they wish? Are we free to eat pork? Run naken outside? Rob the local gas station? Rape someone down the street? Kill our neighbor for running his lawnmower too loud? Tape cardboard to our backs and pretend we have wings by jumping off a cliff? What exactly is freedom? Is freedom meant to be the freedom to do something or the freedom from something?

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:33am January 9

As a traditional society, which values the arcane over the innovative, there is a denial of the constant innovation that drives religious thought. This denial makes the process of change mostly unconscious, and allows the Rabbinical Elite to keep the layman out.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:34am January 9

how about freedom to hold the tissue with which you wipe your ass with all five fingers?

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:35am January 9

Freedom from old superstitions and prejudices?

Igor Kravchenko at 4:37am January 9

superstitions and prejudices are all relative...

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 4:37am January 9

I agree with Shiksa

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:37am January 9

Or say, free to participate in religious ceremonies, if you are female.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:39am January 9

Relative to what? do you have a few that you would like to relate to the belief that your water may turn into frogs if you don't spill some to test it first?

Izzy Yisrael Moskovits at 4:39am January 9

Organized religion does not flourish on everyone doing their own thing, but rather, everyone doing and believing the same thing.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:39am January 9

Not all things old are arcane. Not all things new are innovative. Change is not always good, it can be in-fact bad. Just because things are not changing to your personal liking, does not mean Big Brother is keeping you under his thumb.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:41am January 9

I do not want to make any hasty generalizations but it seems that people on the Left are so obsessed with doing their own thing and not be construed as conforming to one group or another, that they will do foolish or irrational things, despite the cold hard facts that if people have been doing something for 5700 years, maybe it is because it works.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:43am January 9

change may not always be beneficial, but mindless rigidity is always detrimental

Igor Kravchenko at 4:44am January 9

that is not true. Why are so mindless rigid about eating food at least once a month?? Bring about some change, you might see a benefit?

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:45am January 9

who has been doing what for 5700 years? go back and read what I wrote again. I said that things keep changing, even if conservatives prefer the illusion that they don't.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:46am January 9

Things do not change. Things never change. People do.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:46am January 9

That is the truth that the Left refuses to admit.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:47am January 9

by things. I mean culture, particularly Jewish religious culture. and you're gonna have to edit what you said at 4:44, because it makes no sense.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:48am January 9

And what's this have to do with right and left, I wasn't talking about politics

Igor Kravchenko at 4:49am January 9

'' Why are so mindless rigid about eating food at least once a month?? Bring about some change, you might see a benefit?''

You obvious eat more often than once a month. I assume you take in food a few times a day. Tell me why you are so mindlessly rigid about such an arcane habit, when change could bring benefit.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:50am January 9

When I mean right and left, I am describing people, not politics. People that are Leftist have certain beliefs. Same goes for rightists.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:51am January 9

I actually put a lot of thought into what I eat, and adjust my eating habits as my knowledge of biology and health grows.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:51am January 9

You did not answer my question.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:53am January 9

Try a change: Eat one time every 3 months. By your logic sticking with an ancient tradition of eating 3 times a day is always bad. Change might be good. Do you see my point.

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:53am January 9

What are these Leftist beliefs?

Eli Federman at 4:54am January 9

See above for my thoughts on the subject and I look forward to your responses.....

Shiksa Neshoma at 4:55am January 9

Why do you assume I eat three times a day? I actually eat five small meals every day, I'ts much healthier for me.

Igor Kravchenko at 4:55am January 9

''Things do not change. Things never change. People do. That is the truth that the Left refuses to admit.''

Igor Kravchenko at 4:56am January 9

You miss my point once again. Okay you eat five small meals a day. Why not try eating once a year? Change might be good and mindless tradition always bad right???

Igor Kravchenko at 4:57am January 9

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:01am January 9

Igor, you're trying to make a rhetorical point in the silliest and most obnoxious fashion ever: you are saying that not always is it good to change what you are doing, I never disagreed, but I think that often it is beneficial to change something, and when you do change you should do it consciously after weighing the pros and cons of all your options. Furthermore, on a cultural level, things are always changing, the world is a dynamic place, and it would be beneficial to any society to pursue that change in a conscious manner - or if there is an aspect of culture that is valued and you wish to preserve, that too should be done deliberately

Avigdor Ben David at 5:01am January 9

I'm not sure which ceremonies you're talking about. Circumcision? Is that really something you're interested in, as a female? You're not, you say. Well, then it's not about equality; you want to pick and choose the ceremonies that provide you with affirmation and comfort of some sort. Is that the primary role of religious service - to feel good?

The trend line in the conversation so far, as I see it, is how yiddishkeit should not be imposing on your life, preferences and principles, or how to limit or reform its influence in this regard. Perhaps you guys are on a higher level than me. As someone who struggles with basic observance, I wish I could perform certain mitzvos with simple devotion, without intellectualizing every aspect.

My animal soul tells me to do crazy things all the time. Sometimes it even prevails and goes off on cruise control for a while. That's the imposition on my life I am more worried about.

Avigdor Ben David at 5:01am January 9

If we're concerned with NOT being automatons, then it seems to me Torah and mitzvos are the answer, not the problem.

Eli Federman at 5:03am January 9

Avigdor I agree and the research and ancient wisdom reflect your sentiment - see note above as I just posted my thoughts.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:06am January 9

I agree with you Avigdor. Shiksa, the point I made which I will reiterate again, is that thing never change. Situations do not change, times do not change, the world does not change. People do. As a rule, any place in the world devoid of people tends to remain at a delicate equilibrium.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:07am January 9

Look at the places in the world with the most change. They are also the places with the most people.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:09am January 9

And my method for making the point was not meant to be obnoxious, I just chose something that you could not logically and reasonably disagree with, thus securing my victory in that mini-debate.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:10am January 9

It is a commonly used tactic in debating.

Avigdor Ben David at 5:17am January 9

Not to be disagreeable, but as I always say, people don't change, they just get more complicated. The basic emotional and even intellectual patterns that are seen in early childhood, in my experience of seeing children grow, remain the same. New wrinkles of complexity intrude, but the foundation remains.

I'm not sure where this conversation is going, however. Igor, I share some of your frustrations about liberal moonbats, but people like you and I need to recognize that we alienate others by adopting this language, even though it may be cathartic. As yidden, we all come from the same source; we should try to see past these surface concerns and individual experiences and focus on what's important.

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:19am January 9

For example in the 18th century people Europeans began noticing that they are burying many people alive so physicians recommended holding the body for a while to make sure that the deceased was actually dead, Rabbis insisted on same day burial. Enlightened Jews fought the Rabbis on this.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:20am January 9

Well, in that case this whole note could be considered a distraction.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:21am January 9

Enlightened Jews should learn basics of medicine. No pulse, no breathing, no brain activity: Dead. Or a modern liberal.

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:25am January 9

In the 18th century, people had no way of measuring brain activity, and heartbeat and breathing cessation do not equate with medical death.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:26am January 9

Okay, but do you really plan to argue that breathing is not a necesity to remain alive?

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:27am January 9

and how many times do I have to repeat that I'm talking about cultural change: the current MO ideal of Tora umada was anathema to the orthodoxy of the 19th century

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:28am January 9

Sorry, MO = Modern Orthodox, tora Umada = torah and science

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:28am January 9

In the long term, yes. In the short term, No.

Igor Kravchenko at 5:29am January 9

I was wondering what Modus Operandi had to do with all this... lol

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:29am January 9

This is was a historical reality, I'm not about to debate this with you.

Avigdor Ben David at 5:33am January 9

"heartbeat and breathing cessation do not equate with medical death"

You've seen too much TV :)
Wouldn't you say they're pretty damn good indicators?

"The mean duration of the observed EEG activity [after brain death] was 36.6 hours (range, two to 168 hours)."
http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/9/948

I think we're way off topic.

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:35am January 9

"These results have been ascribed to" not a nec. correlation, unlike the one in the following paragraph.

Obviously religion is beneficial to humanity, otherwise it wouldn't have stayed around so long (I'm basing this on theories of cultural evolution), but the evolution of religious culture is not a conscious activity, although one can argue, as some do, that no cultural evolution is conscious.

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:36am January 9

They are, read up on the history of the wake.

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:39am January 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:47am January 9

If you are actually performing these rituals on the basis of your own cognition, then tell me what exactly do you mean by "vekhol haminim vekhol hazedim karega yovedu" - "all sectarians and all apostates shall be immediately destroyed"

IE. if you do use your own cognition, and arrive at a conclusion different then mine, i hope you die?

Shiksa Neshoma at 5:48am January 9

I am assuming here that you repeat the "18" benedictions three times a day in the Habad fashion

Avigdor Ben David at 6:41am January 9

"IE. if you do use your own cognition, and arrive at a conclusion different then mine, i hope you die?"

The Chabad Siddur translation is: "may all the heretics and all the wicked instantly perish".

I'm not an Rabbinical authority on the issue, but there are less... violent was of reading this. We should recognize that in our time there can be no true heretic or apostate among the Jewish people. For that, you would need to learn the Torah at a level that isn't done in our generation. As I understand, this lack of heresy in our time is a generally agreed upon principle.

Second, there are numerous references to the Jewish people as all righteous, and not wicked.

Furthermore, there again is your emphasis on personal preference - if you're not with my beliefs, you're against them - when in reality we are not making judgements about who is a heretic or wicked. Whoever G-d considers a heretic and wicked, may they perish. We're not out there with pitchforks burning witches

Shiksa Neshoma at 6:53am January 9

"I'm not a Rabbinical authority" so i don't know what it means, but i repeat it mindlessly three times a day

Shiksa Neshoma at 6:56am January 9

Also this was written in reference to several groups contemporary to it's establishment, one of which may have been early Christianity and/or it's forerunner. Malshinim are a reference to tax collectors, and malchus harisha is rome

Shiksa Neshoma at 6:57am January 9

Malshinim* and other collaborators

Moishe Feiglin at 7:07am January 9

I agree with the bottom line.Ii think Hollywood and society is transforming us into robots and religion as helping us free us.
"No man is free aside from those occupied in the study of Torah" chapter of our fathers.

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:12am January 9

Society is too loosely defined in the above comment to have any real meaning. Are you referring to your Habad society or the collective world society.

Avigdor Ben David at 7:13am January 9

You're right, I take it at its literal interpretation - that we wish for the heretics and wicked to perish. What I meant is that I am not an authority on the mystical facet of prayer. Someone who is may give you an entire kabbalistic exposition on this verse. However, just because I don't know, doesn't mean I shouldn't do. That's not "mindlessness", that's admission that I don't know, though in time I hope to learn. I wasn't born a talmud chochem, and if you were, I differ to your genius.

We just came off Chanukah, where this precise way of thinking - that only those mitzvahs which we understand and make sense, we should do - was rejected. The Jewish people fought a war specifically to preserve our ability to perform mitzvahs that make no rational sense, except that we were instructed to perform them.

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:16am January 9

The Maccabees were like Mujaheddin fighting the communists, they were also radical Taliban. And it seems you are too, if you make a point of proclaiming your desire for the destruction of those who disagree with you.

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:17am January 9

According to the legend, Elazar started the revolt by stabbing a Jew who dared to participate in a pagan rite.

Avigdor Ben David at 7:17am January 9

Who said anything about destruction of those who disagree with me?

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:25am January 9

Also, there is a certain investment in keeping people from accessing information not approved by the Rabbinical Elite:

see for example, in Sanhedrin, the omitted half of the Mishna, the first half of which you recite each morning,

Of course you can find contrasting views on this depending on what you wish to find you can consult the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim for a pro-inquisitive view or the reaction of Yechezkel Landau of Prague, and Rabbi Tevele to Divrei Shalom Va'emet and the later writings of R' Yaakov Emden for an anti-knowledge stance

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:26am January 9

You did: "You're right, I take it at its literal interpretation - that we wish for the heretics and wicked to perish"

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:29am January 9

Also see the Lubavitcher Rebbe's talk on "Ka'noim Pogi'im bo", which is used to justify the assassination of Rabin

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:30am January 9

I don't get it, did you not go to Yeshiva?

Avigdor Ben David at 7:31am January 9

You're taking what I said out of context. I clearly qualified that statement in my earlier remarks. Are we having a conversation based on intellectual honesty? It's up to you. I, Mr. Taliban, will be waiting for your response.

Shiksa Neshoma at 7:34am January 9

or the Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin vs. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Habad traditionally leans toward Naftali Berlin on this one, although with the modern proselytizing branch of Habad tends to lean toward a modern orthodox position on education

Avigdor Ben David at 7:37am January 9

No, I haven't been to Yeshiva. Bring it down for us lay people.

Shiksa Neshoma at 8:00am January 9

sectarian |sekˈte(ə)rēən|
noun
a member of a sect

sect |sekt|
noun
a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

but of course, one is not meant to take this line literally. here is a "kabbalistic exposition on this verse"

MINIM (150) is gematria YeSOD (80) YaYiN (70), The foundation of wine in Olam HaAtziluth is in the Middah of Hesed, which draws from the Arich Anpin of En sof. What we are saying in this prayer is that the Middah should be Mevatel itself in favor of Gevurah, leaving the way open for Malchus of Asiya, that is, the coming of Mashiach Tzidkenu Bimhaira veyamainu amen selah

Shiksa Neshoma at 9:06am January 9

"by behavioral modification via training our thoughts, speech and actions to act in accordance with our true desires."

IE. brainwashing; let me tell you what you actually desire

Avigdor Ben David at 9:43am January 9

I know what I desire. It's just difficult for me to do what I know I should do. Listen, you clearly don't have issues with your yetzer hora. You're a tzaddik (or is it tzaddika? which is too close for comfort, Eli ;) inside joke, pay no attention). However, you should realize that many of us plebes spend our entire day fighting ourselves to perform a simple mitzvah, or to observe a prohibition. I thought you yeshiva scholars all learned Tanya? So what's the problem?

Perhaps we're coming at this from different angles. I, having enjoyed unadulterated freedom for much of my life, am more than willing to limit that freedom in pursuit of what I desire. A little brainwashing would do me some good. And you... well, you can fill in your own story.

Caesar Vargas at 10:08am January 9

During this conflict, I asked myself? What are people fighting for? And what are they fighting for? My first answer that I deduced was that Israel alleged right to the "Israel" is based on religious right. Israel is claiming that they have the right solely because their "god" had established them millenia ago. Should I occupy your house because the great shiskayanna(not real, but notice how easy it is to create a god) goddess told me. The answer is NO! Sure, Israel does have a right granted by the accord in 1947, but again it was originally founded upon a nonsensical religious belief. This is not say that Hamas or any other group is entitled to this land. Why? Because they are all claiming it as they religious right. Which is without substance because it easy to claim something for another as an excuse. Furthermore, this politics has exacerbated the conflict, because each religious leaders is maliciously and cunningly inciting the people's hatred for each religious view.

Caesar Vargas at 10:16am January 9

Then further aggravated by a flurry of nationalism, but the leaders rather rely on their religion for it brainwashes people much rapidly than does nationalism.

I am for no side because they are fighting a senseless war, as if i was fighting my neighbor over whether Santa Clause existed or not. War always brings death and suffering, and I actually feel great contrite for those losing their life over this pity nonsense.

Are people so alone, so fearful, so insecure, that they forget that they are great creations, that they are capable of great things only if they QUESTION and THINK. Religion is good for some since they cannot think, but religion only serves as a crutch to help you understand this world. One can believe in god and be spiritual, one does not need first to be religious to believe in god.

Choni Teitelbaum at 10:30am January 9

Eli, you really have a talent for getting intense coversations going....

Ronen Levi Yitzchak Segal at 10:31am January 9

Shiksa - you wrote - Also see the Lubavitcher Rebbe's talk on "Ka'noim Pogi'im bo", which is used to justify the assassination of Rabin.

This is perhaps the most disturbing post I've ever seen in my life. If you had any conception of who the Rebbe is and how dearly he cherished human life, your hands would have trembled before allowing you to post such a nonsensical thought.

Please consider you are slandering next time. You don't want to step in the ring with the Rebbe. Trust me. That's a fight no one ever wins.

May G-d bless us all with true love and fear of His righteous. Eli - sorry for going off topic but sometimes silence is a sin.

I agree with your sentiments on this 100%. Great research links, by the way.

Avigdor Ben David at 10:40am January 9

Caesar, that "religion is the opium of the masses" crap won't fly with me. Nine years of indoctrination in the Soviet Union was sufficient a vaccine to last a lifetime. I'm not sure what you mean by "religious" or "spiritual". Can you define those terms?

Let's stay on point. We're not discussing the Balfour Declaration here.

Caesar Vargas at 11:03am January 9

What do you mean indoctrination or vaccine?

Correct, sorry, it is for those who cant seem to recognize the ability of humanity to seek to understand their life, their world on their own rational accord independently and rationally. The masses including many "educated" individuals reflexively rely on another's interpretation of their "sacred book" whatever religion it is. You say that relying on the intellect and reason leads to a bitter end, implying that healthy uncertainty should be sacrificed to commitment to other's convictions? Would you not doubt that which you believe the most to ascertain whether it is true or not? Succumb to the message without questioning? People have choices, to choose to live in this uncertainty that may trouble others, and surely others are stronger than others, so it seems that it depends how one can sustain the uncertainty and isolation that true understanding brings.

Caesar Vargas at 11:06am January 9

Religious by its root means to bind. And this is what I mean, it binds people to stick together for SURVIVAL. Leaders knows this great power of religion. Spiritual means independent belief in something that to tell you the truth i cannot really explain, but the belief of something that human beings respect, aspire like Goodness, justice, truth. Rather than binding to the message of something.

Note, this is not a personal attack on the Israeli people, but rather an invitation to argue, to reason, what religion really accomplishes, and that calls out on every religion.

Mendel Markel at 11:35am January 9

I'm gonna skip the whole political thing going on here and just answer the original question posed by Eli. My answer in short is yes and no.

Religion is not, or is not supposed to be, by it's very nature robotic behavior. In other words it is a tool that can be used either way. Just as a hammer can be used to build a jail or a home, so too is religion. Used appropriately it can be of assistance in attaining the greatest level of personal freedom. Used inappropriately it can be used to incarcerate the human spirit in the most horrific way.

Using Orthodox Judaism as a specific example: There are those who practice out of habit, family & communal pressure and/or fear...in other words, they are afraid of the consequences of doing otherwise. What would they do? Where would they go? What kind of work can they hope to get out there? It's a scary world for them outside of their natural habitat. These people are merely prisoners of religion. continued...

Mendel Markel at 11:42am January 9

Then there are those who practice out of fear - not of man and community but of G-D. Not because they fear consequences but because they fear being far from the G-D that they so love. These people do the Mitzvos because they feel closer to Him by doing them and they don't transgress them because they would feel further from Him by transgressing them. They are not scared of the world because they fear G-D alone. Just the opposite, they trancend the world in the sense that they can be completely happy without the materialism in the world. These people are not incarcerated by religion but rather liberated by it.

Let's compare the 2:
The former listens to the Rabbis because he fears that not doing so will result in consequences. The latter listens to the Rabbis because he feels they help him become close to G-D. The former is afraid that leaving religion would cause him to suffer materially. The latter doesn't care about materialism. continued...

Mendel Markel at 11:50am January 9

They look the same, they act the same, they live the same way in the same neighborhood, the same community, maybe the same apartment building. They pray in the same shul, eat in the same restaurants...maybe even have the same name. Yet one of them is confined by this lifestyle and the other attains true freedom through it. So the real answer to whether religion imprisons or confines is another question. "Why are you religious"?

I think it would be well for every religious person to ask himslef that question and proper for every religious leader to ask himself "am I gonna use my post as a leader to uplift and liberate the people in my influence or to imprison, suppress and suffocate them"?

For in the end it's not about the practice of religion but what you with those practices and why that determines the wellbeing of your spirit.

Ronen Levi Yitzchak Segal at 12:48pm January 9

Video response - keep the hot topics coming - but also make videos, Eli. This is the best practice to be a lawyer. Your writing skills are already far past sufficient - your oration needs work, with all due respect. When you tape yourself and later go back and critque - you will make progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgHFebeZX7I

Eli Federman at 1:52pm January 9

Very insightful comments everyone!

Mendel I especially like your comment about how religion can be used as a repressive tool or a liberating tool. Many religious leaders were steadfastly behind the anti-slavery abolitionist movement and yet others tried to use (misuse) religion to justify slavery. We have the same paradigm in our everyday lives....You also raise a good point that an action may be robotic for one person (who is doing the ritual becuase they are brainwashed) and liberating for another who is doing it becuase they understand it, want to do it etc.....

Eli Federman at 1:53pm January 9

Interesting perspective Ronen and yes I agree that if someone does the right thing robotically that is positive but ultimately we want to do the right thing becuase our free thinking minds lead us to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do not becuase we programmed ourselves. (also thanks for the compliments and chiding me to make videos but remember that 95% of what 95% of lawyers do consists of writing motions and briefs not oral advocacy)

Eli Federman at 2:01pm January 9

Avigdor good tzadikka quip....Shiksa you appear to be cherry picking from a vast 3000 year old tradition. Anyone can find perceived or sometimes actual faults with any different specific religious rituals or biblical passage...I think it is important to look at the big picture in these discussion but I appreciate the alternative perspective you are bringing to the table......

Mendel Markel at 2:02pm January 9

I agree that doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not necessarily bad. It's the "mitoch shelo lishma ba lishma" concept. Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason? I'm not sure, but if -like you say Eli- it leads to doing the right thing for the right reason, then neither one would be a complete waste and was worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.

Mendel Markel at 2:07pm January 9

People tend to easily accept the Hollywood-created stereotype of the quick-thinking fast-talking charm-schooled Lawyer in his daily glitz (and of course custom suit) putting on the visual oratory show of the century for a jury and courtroom packed with media and onlookers. The truth of the matter is that most of most lawyers' work is fairly drab and happens by office computers and in various record libraries and the like. I know quite a few successful lawyers who are far from glamorous and are not great speakers or outstandingly charming or interesting as people.

Ronen Levi Yitzchak Segal at 2:19pm January 9

It depends on what kind of law you want to practice. A criminal trial lawyer (which is what I thought you wrote on your facebook page) has to be a powerful orator.

Why was the Torah given in a barren wilderness !?!

2007-05-14T04:07:00.000-07:00

This weeks Torah portion is Bamidbar.

In the year 1313 BCE the Jewish people as a collective nation witnessed a national revelation of G-d in the Sinai Peninsula. The 603,000 Jewish individuals present all witnessed the same revelation simultaneously thereby leaving no doubt as to what transpired.

Why was the Torah given in a desert? Why wasn’t the Torah given in a burgeoning metropolis? A civilization? Why a barren wilderness?

1) One of the reasons is because desert is ownerless and accessible to everyone. So too, no one has a monopoly on the Torah and the Torah is accessible to everyone. It does not belong to any specific individual, just as a desert does not belong to anyone. It is an equal inheritance to the entire Jewish nation.

1a) To prevent us from assuming (as many bible critics mistakenly hypothesize) that the Torah is a product of any given culture or milieu of its time, it was given in a desolate desert, miles from any culture or civilization. This teaches us that the Torah is not a societal construct, mythology, literature, or product of a certain time period, rather it is the living eternal word of truth for all time and all places.

2) Another reason is that a desert is vast and symbolically infinite, just as the Torah contains infinite levels of wisdom.

3) The Torah, without active personalization will not produce. It is something that needs to be cultivated within us, just as a desert needs to be cultivated in order for it to produce.

4) Another reason is to recognize that our whole Jewish existence is dependent on the Torah, just as we can’t survive in a desert without the bare necessities. The wilderness is a place where we are forced to recognize our dependence on G-d and Mother Nature. So too the Torah was given in a wilderness to teach us that ultimately, as history proves, our very existence is dependent on G-d and the Torah.

5) The Torah gives us true independence. The wilderness symbolizes independence, being self sufficient, not being dependent on civilization. So too we have to be spiritually independent and self-sufficient. We shouldn’t have to rely on “organized religion” or an established Jewish community, in order for us to follow the guidance of the Torah.

6) Figuratively, we were placed in a personal and global wilderness (i.e., this world). When we find ourselves in precarious and challenging situations we should not get demoralized, the Torah teaches, rather we should use those challenges as an opportunity to elevate the world and those around us. The Torah was given in a desert so as not to delude us into thinking that life is all ‘honky dory happy as a clam.’ American rapper Talib Kweli encapsulates this in his album titles, “Life is a beautiful struggle.” The Torah teaches us how to use that struggle to transform a desert into an oasis.

7) The ultimate reason is that the Torah is relevant in all places, even places seemingly devoid of spirituality. Even spiritual or physical deserts. You don’t have to live in a Jewish community to live a Torah observant life. The Torah is relevant and applicable even in, and especially in places seemingly bereft of spirituality.

Can you think of any other lessons we can learn from the fact that the Torah was given in a desert/wilderness environment?

Inner meaning behind the Jewish holiday of Lag BaOmer

2007-05-01T12:49:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

We celebrate the 33^rd day of the Omer, this year May 23, 2008, as Lag BaOmer. This day commemorates the passing of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (author of the Zohar) and commemorates the cessation of the plague which decimated 24,000 students of Rabbi Akiva’s (ca. 50–ca. 135 CE) academy.

R. Akiva was the greatest Jewish leader of his time. He had a flourishing academy of 24,000 prodigious students. Talmudic scripture explains that a divinely orchestrated plague killed his students (another opinion is that they died fighting in the Bar Kochba rebellion) because of their lack of respect for each other. They died for a period of 33 days between Pesach and Shavuous. Lag Baomer commemorates the end of the plague.

Why did their lack of respect for each other warrant their death? This seems like an excessive punishment.

Rabbi Akiva’s principle teaching was the famous golden rule maxim of loving your fellow as yourself. It is strange that his students would be guilty of violating this basic teaching? The answer is that precisely because they were the students of Akiva they felt the need to impose their interpretation of the truth on their fellow student. This intellectual narrow-mindedness, or academic elitism, was their error.

When we examine the nature of their disrespect, their error seems minor. They were spiritually arrogant but at least they were acting out of love, albeit displaced, for their fellow. After all they were trying to help each other, so why did such a seemingly minor failing warrant death ?

The simple explanation is that Kabalistically their population of 24,000 numerically represents judgment and also G-d expects more from those on a higher spiritual level. What might be a minor sin for the simple person, is a grievous transgression for the righteous. For instance a stain on jeans is not as bad as a stain on silk. R. Akiva’s students were on a higher level compared to ordinary people, so they were judged more harshly.

The deeper answer is that ‘ayin hara’ (lit. “the evil eye” i.e, negative energy from negative perceptions of others) caused the death of R. Akiva’s students.

How does ‘ayin hara’ work? It sounds like an archaic superstition, but it really isn’t. ‘Ayin hora’ is inflicted on someone when they are ungrateful, and as a result others become jealous of them. When someone is jealous of another’s good blessings and fortune they cast negative energy. This earthly accusation by people could trigger a heavenly accusation against the beneficiaries of those blessings. We want to avoid this heavenly scrutiny. Obviously, the protection against ‘ayin hora’ is acknowledging our blessings come from G-d.

R. Akiva’s students lacked this humility. Rather than see their intellectual talent as G-ds gift, they saw it as solely their own achievement, so this gift was taken away from them. They were intellectually arrogant and elitist. Their attitude was “my way is the right way and because I love you to pieces I’m going to compel you to think like me.” They could not see the other persons path because they were consumed with their perception. As a result of this they were prime targets for ‘ayin hara.’ This spiritual arrogance/elitist academy caused an outcry from the Jewish nation. This jealous outcry in turn caused the heavenly courts to judge Akiva’s students harshly.

One of the students of R. Akiva was Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (or Rashbi). R. Shimon represents an ideal that is the antithesis of the students that were afflicted by the plague. His behavior rectified the misdeeds of the spiritually arrogant students.

R. Shimon lived under Roman rule after the destruction of the second temple (70 CE). Talmud Shabbas 33b recounts how R. Shimon and his colleagues R. Yehuda and R. Yossi were discussing Roman politics. R. Yehuda remarked, complimenting what he saw as the Roman contribution to civilization, “How fine are the works of this people [the Romans]! They have made streets, built bridges, and erected bathhouses.” R. Yossi remained silent and R. Shimon retorted, “All that they made, they made for their own benefit. They built streets to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls.”

When the Roman Government heard about this dialogue they decreed: “Yehuda, who exalted us, shall be exalted, Yossi, who was silent, shall be exiled to Sepphoris; Shimon, who censured, shall be executed.”

R. Shimon and his son Elazer hid in the house of study. When the Roman manhunt starting tightening the noose on them, they hid in a cave and miraculously survived on water and carob. After twelve years of dwelling in the cave, Elijah the prophet informed them that the Roman emperor Hadrian was dead and they were free to go.

Hearing this information, they emerged from the cave after 12 years of intense prayer and study revealing the inner secrets of the Torah. Seeing men plowing in a field they exclaimed “they forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!” Through their spiritual intensity, scripture has it, that they burned everything they cast their eyes on. A heavenly voice than reprimanded them and instructed them to return to the cave for twelve more months.

After twelve months (total of 13 years) R. Shimon and his son remerged into the world. This time R. Shimon began acting as a civil servant for the community, cleaning streets from impurity, and on one notable instance setting up boundaries for a cemetery so that Cohanim (priests) would not have to inconvenience themselves. He was endearing himself to the people in a truly humble way.

Why did R. Shimon and his son emerge differently the second time? Kabalistic texts explain the significance of thirteen years. Thirteen represents unity and harmony with both the spiritual and physical world. The word Echod (oneness) is numerically equivalent to thirteen when one adds the Hebrew letters of the word. (Aleph = 1 namely 1 G-d, Ches = 8 namely 7 heavens plus 1 earth, and Daled = 4, namely 4 directions). Echod represents the fusion of both the physical and spiritual worlds. The oneness in creation.

This civil servant mentality in helping others, and the fusion of both the material and spiritual world was what R. Shimon Bar Yochya typified. This ideal was the opposite of Akiva’s 24,000 elitist students who were arrogant and as a result aloof from the world. R. Shimon authored the deepest Kabalistic book (the Zohar) expressing the hidden secrets of the Torah. The mission is to use these spiritual ideals and express them in the nitty gritty of the material world. This is what Lag BaOmer represents.

Jewish Counterculturalism

2007-01-25T16:05:00.000-08:00

In the Torah section of BO, when the nascent Jewish nation was still enslaved under Egyptian rule, G-d instructs the Jewish people to keep a lamb in their homes to roast as an offering on the 14th day of Nissan (Exodus 10:1 - 13:16). The lamb was considered a sacred deity to the Egyptians. It was worshipped for its mythological powers in controlling fertility and the agricultural cycles.

The Midrash explains: When G-d instructed Moses to Slaughter the lamb, Moses objected, ‘..Do You not know that the lamb is an Egyptian deity?’ (Exodus 7:22). G-d replied “On your life, Israel will not leave here until they slaughter the [false] Egyptians deities before their very eyes, that I may teach them that their deities are really nothing at all” (Exodus Rabbah 16:3).

This weeks Parsha teaches us an important lesson on breaking free from modern day enslavement. Today we no longer believe in ancient deities with mythological powers, but many of us still worship and are enslaved by futile deities of the modern world. Subservience to money, celebrities, pop culture, the internet, and TV shows like American Idol (pun intended) are all forms of modern day idol worship.

The Jews in Egypt proudly proclaimed their heritage, even if it meant renouncing the sacred deities of Egypt. So too we must not be ashamed of being countercultural Jews, even if it means embracing societies taboos and breaking social mores. (After all the success of the civil rights movement was based on breaking free from prevailing societal attitudes that made room for bigotry and intolerance). If modern societal standards tell us it is taboo to wear a Kippa or light shabbas candles, we must stand up to proudly proclaim our identity as Jews – in the wake metaphorically slaughtering the false deities of the world.

What personal message can we take from the Israelites liberation from Egypt?

2007-01-11T09:24:00.000-08:00

Lessons in cognitive therapy from the wisdom of our sages

The Torah demands Jews remember their enslavement and liberation from Egypt – in the years 1428-1392 BCE during the reign of Ramses II. The Torah instructs further that every Jew in every generation view oneself as if they were personally enslaved and liberated from Egypt.

The American abolitionist movement, formed in the 18th and 19th century, used the liberation of the ancient Israelites described in Exodus, to rally support against slavery and segregation laws (Ironically the pro slavery movement misread the Bible’s endorsement of servitude as support for slavery in the western sense of the word). Thanks in part to the anti-slavery message of the Torah, slavery in the ancient sense of people owning each other no longer exist in America and the western world. How are we supposed to view ourselves as personally enslaved and liberated?

The Torah is referred to as the Book of Life and Instruction, since its teachings and instructions are eternally applicable. There must be some personal instruction in this central teaching of our sages. First one must recognize their enslavement, on a national level, by accepting the fact that we are collectively living in a deep bitter exile with unconscionable global human suffering. Read the tabloids if you haven’t come to this recognition.

This exile/enslavement concept is applicable to every individual, regarding their own personal struggles combating depression, substance abuse, violence, negative personality traits, and the list goes on. Through overcoming our personal micro exile we will hasten the overcoming of the global macro exile.

Nachmon of Breslov referred to this personal struggle for liberation as a battle against depression and apathy in the service of Hashem (G-d). He learnt this from the verses which state that the Egyptian taskmasters “embittered” their lives with a great burden. This embitterment paradigmatically alludes to a psychological state of depression in each and every one of us.

Nachmon learns the remedy to this depression by examining the etymological root of the names Shifra (beautiful) and Puah (comforting), the maidservants that rescued Jewish babies after Pharaohs decree to throw them into the Nile, according to Exodus. Shifra is the concept of emphasizing the beauty in everything, including oneself. This positive outlook will help one overcome feelings of depression by increasing their concept of self worth. Puah is the idea of positive reinforcement and compassion. Through recognizing the beauty in life and reinforcing that beauty one will overcome their personal enslavement to depression, according to the Breslov school of thought.

The Alter Rebbe, founder of Chabad Chasidism explains in Chapter 17 of Tanya how our personal enslavement comes from constantly being drawn by our petty pursuits and lowly desires. We tell ourselves that if only we had X amount of money we would be happy, despite all studies confirming that there is no correlation between level of income and happiness. We try to satiate our natural cravings through eating unhealthy foods or staying in unhealthy and sometimes abusive relationships, telling ourselves that this will make us happy.

“Mitzraim,” the Hebrew word for Egypt means constriction. Using the human body as a paradigm, the Alter Rebbe, compares this constriction to the human neck. The neck is what divides the feelings of the heart from the intellect of the mind. The Alter explains that our personal struggles (i.e, enslavement) come from the disconnection of our heart and mind. By unifying our heart and mind we can overcome our personal Egypt and reach personal liberation.

An example of this torturous dichotomy between mind and heart is expressed most starkly in drug addiction or some cases of Battered Person Syndrome, where the heart says one thing and the mind says something else. On a more subtle level, intellectually we understand how unhealthy food is bad for us, yet emotionally we are attached to it. This according to the Alter Rebbe is contemporary enslavement. We break free from this bondage by fusing our heart and mind. We achieve this specifically through steering the heart with the rationale faculty of the mind.

Can you think of any personal examples of this dichotomy of mind and heart or/and fusion of mind and heart in your daily life? Feel free to share

Download the lecture that this Blog post is based on: Rabbi Braun Parshas Shemos - Synergising heart and mind

Spiritual Chanukah experience at an Israeli Army base in the Negev !!!

2006-12-17T17:23:00.000-08:00

I’m not one for spiritual experiences. I find myself more spiritually fulfilled while hiking in the Adirondacks, sleeping under the stars, or listening to a Chasidic Melody past down from times of yore, as opposed to praying in Shul on Yom Kippur, or visiting some of the holiest historical places in the world, such as the Kotel, Rachel’s Tomb, or King David’s well in the ancient city of Caesarea.

Nevertheless, I have been visiting the Kotel, and other historic sites, frequently, during my stay here in Israel. It is irrelevant whether my soul feels it or not, because I’m connecting to my ancestors, learning about my heritage, and following the Torah’s teachings – transmitted from time immemorial. The spiritual experience, however often, is but a side benefit. People often ask me what the point of prayer is if they don’t feel more spiritual or fulfilled by it. To which I respond using medicine as an analogy: do you feel or know exactly how medicine affects your body or your brain chemistry? Whether one feels it or not the affect exists – at least on the subconscious psychospiritual level.

However, there is a phenomenon dubbed the “psychosomatic affect,” where a persons thought, feelings, and mental state, affect his or her physiological condition. Spiritual experiences are important insofar as they contribute, through the psychosomatic principle as well as the subconscious psychospritual affect, to an individuals wellbeing, mental physical and spiritual health. I recently watched a CNN special on Sufi mystics taking this idea to an extreme by using powerful concentration as a way of controlling the pain of puncturing body parts. It works.

Aside from brief fleeting inspirational experiences I have had in the past, nothing has really inspired me like the third night of Chanukah – the night I went to an Israeli army base in the isolated Negev region in Southwestern Israel.

My friends from Mayanot cajoled me into going on a three hour arduous bus ride, through the Negev desert, to visit an isolated army base, for the sole purpose of bringing the spirit of Chanukah to the lives of soldiers – Chabad style. The moment the bus docked, the moment I saw the joyous faces of our selfless brothers and sisters fighting for the safety and security of Israel and the world, I was transmigrated into a state, feeling, and sensation of deep connection to my Jewish soul. I can honestly say that I have never felt such a lucid moment of spiritual clarity.

Where did this feeling come from? It’s hard to articulate spiritual experiences, but I will give it a shot. Chanukah commemorates and relives the Maccabees (166-129 BCE) historic spiritual and physical fight for religious freedom and independence, the ultimate rededication of the Temple, in 164 BCE, from the hands of Antiochus IV and his repressive Hellenistic decrees against the practice of traditional Judaism. The battle was fought and won for the preservation of the body and spirit of the Jewish nation. Watching less-observant and more-observant soldiers, otherwise referred to as Chilonim (secular) and Chareidim (religious), and non affiliates, carrying M16s and Galil rifles slung over their shoulders, proudly singing in unison “Thank G-d for the miracles and wonders done for our forefather,” “we are believers the sons of believers,” “I believe with full faith in the forthcoming redemption,” I then recognized the true miraculous nature of the Chanukah struggle. The scene I witnessed epitomized the necessary physical struggle as well as the vital spiritual struggle – the struggle against the forces of identity loss (assimilation) – that Israel and the Jewish people are founded on.

Jews from different backgrounds, different philosphies, and seemingly opposite lifestyles, joining togather to celebrate the human struggle of freedom over opression, elicited a deep spiritual feeling within me – a feeling that transcended articulation and penetrated the core of my Jewish soul.

Feel free to share your Jewish experiences

Jewish view of death

2006-11-13T03:53:00.000-08:00

Our Torah is described as “Torah Chaim,” the Torah of Life, in stark contrast to Egypt’s bible, titled “The Book of The Dead.” Ancient Egypt glorified the dead. The Pyramids were nothing but tombs; monuments to the dead. Chometz requires fermentation, a process of decay -- symbolizing death and rotting. We eat Matzo, unfermented flat bread, to symbolically reject death and affirm life.

The written torah does not explicitly mention the afterlife, to remind us that our focus should be on improving this world, as temporary as it might be, and not live life for the hereafter. Judaism does believe in a day of judgment in life after death. The oral Torah reassures us that there will be justice in life after death. Christians and Muslims, however, believe that the ultimate reward in life, and purpose of life, is having a place in heaven after death.

Recent polls have shown that staggering numbers of people believe in life after death, yet few believe in the lasting affect of our impact on this world (80% believe in heaven and hell, whereas only 25% believe they will be reincarnated). Life is viewed as obsolescence. This weeks Parasha (Torah portion) is called “Chayai Sara,” the Life of Sarah. The parsha describes the circumstances surrounding the matriarchs Sarah’s death. Why would the Torah portion be called the life of Sarah, when it talks about her death? The Gemera in Tannis 5b states that Jacob never died. How is this possible? The gemera answers “Af zara bchyaim who bchayim,” namely, just as his descendants are alive (descendants is also interpreted as a persons lasting impression they leave on this world), so to he is alive!

Rabbi Yanki Tauber, prolific writer, and esteemed author, explains why Sarah was more alive in her death, than in her life. She lived a life of virtue – embodying eternal ideals.

“Ostensibly, the events of Chayei Sarah emphasize that fact that Sarah is no more. In truth, however, there is no place in the Torah in which Sarah is more alive.

Together with Abraham, Sarah pioneered the Jewish settlement of the Land of Canaan; as described in the opening chapter of Chayei Sarah, her burial in the Cave of Machpeilah achieved the first actual Jewish ownership of a piece of land in the Holy Land. Sarah devoted her life to the creation of the first Jewish family; the story of Rebecca's selection demonstrates how Sarah's successor embodied the ideals upon which Sarah founded the Jewish home. Even the return of Hagar expresses the extent of Sarah's impact on Jewish history: Sarah's banishment of Hagar and Ishmael was to remove their threat to Isaac's integrity as Abraham's heir; the return of Hagar, as described in Chayei Sarah's closing verses, achieved exactly that--it established Isaac as the torchbearer of the legacy of Abraham.

Thus the name Chayei Sarah expresses this Torah section's true import. Indeed, none of the earlier Torah sections that relate the events of Sarah's life before her death can merit the name "The Life of Sarah." These describe what, taken on its own, can be seen as a temporal life--a life with a beginning and an end, a life confined to a particular body and a particular span of time. The true Chayei Sarah comes to light in the events following her death, when the eternity of her life is revealed.”

What is a Jew ?

2006-11-08T19:33:00.000-08:00

Abraham, the father of the Jewish faith lived in the region of Mesopotamia in 1812 BCE. He was a nomadic tribesman, astronomer, philosopher, scientist and humanitarian. He discovered monotheism. Later, Moses, emancipator of these nomads, in conjunction with G-d, consummated a covenant with the Jewish people, establishing an eternal bond between G-d, Torah, and Israel, at the foot of Mount Sinai. Hundreds of thousands were present, establishing the authenticity of this event.

Those that are matrilineal descendants of these historic people, or those that decided to join the covenant at a later stage are all Jews.

Jews are not a race, since “race” denotes a biological distinction. There are Jews of every color and race. Descendants of every conceivable race have joined the Jewish people, becoming integrated and accepted.

Jews are not a “nationality.” Jews have been dispersed around the world for two thousand years, without a homeland, living among different nations, and under different dominions.

Jews are not a “religion” since Jews that don’t adhere to Jewish laws and costumes are nonetheless considered Jewish. Sanhedrin 44a declares that even Jews that sin are still considered Jewish. Moreover, no one can fully observe all the laws, and no one can neglect observing all the laws (by not committing murder you are already following Jewish law), thus no one is fully religion or fully irreligious, so certainly we can’t be defined by “religion.”

The closest analogy to help us understand the concept of Jewishness is the concept of National Citizenship. Anyone can become a National Citizen, provided they go through the necessary steps to prove their allegiance, or they are born in a country that confers citizenship by virtue of birth in the country. Those that are born Jewish are always Jewish even if they don’t identify with being Jewish. Jewish converts are granted the same rights as all Jews, even if they were to renounce their Jewishness, provided they originally went through a valid Halachaic conversion. Similarly, those that oppose the current administrations policies or social and legislative systems here in the U.S. are still accorded constitutional rights granted to all citizens.

This citizenship analogy is incomplete, since in the case of being Jewish ones identity is hardwired into their spiritual DNA, creating a permanent irrevocable familial bond. National Citizenship, however, can be renounced or revoked in many ways, especially with the enforcement of the U.S.A Patriot Act.

Why can’t a Jew renounce his Jewishness? In all other major religions one who does not adhere to church doctrine is no longer considered a member of the religion. In fact, in the case of Christianity and Islam, it is the very adherents to doctrine that defines identity in the faith. You don’t even have to renounce Jesus or Mohammad, but by simple not believing one is, ipso facto, no longer considered a part of the faith.

A Jew denying their Jewishness is akin to someone denying their gender. No matter how many transgender operation one undergoes, they will still have the same male or female DNA they were born with. Likewise, no matter how hard people try repressing their Jewish identities; their spiritual DNA remains the same. Being Jewish is an inherent condition, not one based on some external precondition. It is an inherent condition because of a Jews deep connection to his or her historical past – the revelation at Mount Sinai and our liberation from slavery in Egypt, are all deeply etched into our conscience, whether we feel it or not. Thus, being Jewish is an inherent metaphysical condition based on Truth, and truth, especially historical truth, is non-changing and eternal.

Why is being Jewish determined by the mother?

2006-11-05T18:49:00.000-08:00

Since the concept of a Jew comes from the Torah, we must look to it to establish what constitutes a Jew.

Deuteronomy 7:1-5 in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage , states, “the non-Jewish male spouse will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship others.” Since the verse only mentions a father causing a child to go astray, the sages learn that a Jewish mother will not inevitably cause a child to go astray, and thus the child from a Jewish mother is Jewish, but not the child from a Jewish father.

Furthermore, Leviticus 24:10 implies that the son of a Jewish women and a gentile father is considered Jewish. Thus we learn that the son of a Jewish man is not considered Jewish, but the son of Jewish women is. Lastly, the oral Torah, in Kiddushin, makes is abundantly clear that being Jewish is determined by the mother and the classic commentaries universally accept this precept. In the case of conversion, the convert is considered the spiritual child of the matriarch Sarah, and is thus Jewish.

The teaching that someones Jewishness is conferred by the mother, has nothing to do with the fact that it is easier to identity maternity, since Judaism only looks at the mother in order to establish someones inherent Jewishness, not someones tribal affiliation . If the central issue was the fact that it is easier to establish paternal identity, we would expect to see the matrilineal criterion for the question of tribal affiliation, however, tribal affiliation is determined by the father. Also, Yevamot 97a-98b, states that “if an unmarried woman is pregnant and declares who the father of her child is, she is to be believed.” The mothers’ testimony establishes the father not the lineage or the fact that it is easier to identify the mother.

Thus, to understand the concept of matrilineal descent being determinative of Jewish identity, we must look beyond historical and sociological factors, and into the Jewish view on motherhood.

Being Jewish is analogous to being in a family. Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod notes that “the foundation of Judaism is the family identity of the Jewish people as the descendants of Abraham.” Thus it is a faith founded on familial bonds, be it spiritual, as in the case of converts, or biological. It is compared to a family, because one cannot choose their family. Halacha (Jewish law), for this reason, regard someone born from a Jewish mother as always Jewish irrespective of whether that person considers themselves Jewish.

Why would G-d choose a family, rather then elected adherents? Why would kinship form the basis for spiritual responsibility? In short, family is representative of the natural physical aspects of life. Through choosing a family model relationship G-d demonstrates that our natural instincts and birthright are good and should be the foundation of our spiritual existence. It is for the same reason that Judaism does not seek converts. Judaism recognizes that every person, both Jew and non-Jew, plays a vital role in this world and can live a meangful life based on where they came from (i.e, their family).

Most would agree that a person’s strongest familial bond come from the mother (nine months of gestation, birth, perhaps nursing). A mother usually has a deep connection to a child, based on the biological fact that the child was literally part of her. In addition Judaism places motherhood on an exalted status, that is unique and separate from fatherhood.

Thus, it is the Jewish women—and her archetypical status as the foundation of a family—be it spiritual or biological, that serve as the foundation of the familial faith of Judaism.

Why the Sukkah ?

2006-10-05T20:24:00.000-07:00

Why do Jews live in primitive huts this time of year?

The “festival of booths,” Sukkot, described as a joyous occasion, on the Jewish calendar, commemorates Israel’s historic wilderness sojourn, and liberation from slavery. Leviticus 23: 42-43, states, "dwell in booths for seven days….so your generation will know that I, G-d, brought them out of Egypt." The Talmud, in Tractate Sukkah 11B, debates whether the ancient Sukkahs were “clouds of glory” or more conventional tents. Regardless, we are instructed to build these makeshift dwellings.

Why would any sane person see meaning in celebrating this historic event by building shanties? Why can’t we just retell the stories, or celebrate it by eating a turkey dinner, the way millions of Americans do with Thanksgiving every year? (On a side note, historians have argued that Thanksgiving has its origins in the Biblical Sukkot.)

The Sukkah symbolizes equality, since everyone, whether rich or poor, is obligated to construct booths with evergreen or bamboo covering. It is a way to actualize and become cognizant of how similar we all are. Sukkot also teaches us that "Our homes do not define us, we get our greatest joy from our family…not the shell of our home,"Rabbi Mendel Bluming of Chabad in Potomac, stated to the NY Times.

The Sukkah reminds us how reliant we are on G-d, and how reliant we were in the past. A Sukkah is a flimsy temporary shack reminding us of the fragility of life. We reside in our fortified permanent homes all year, lulling us into a false sense of security, and sense of total self-reliance. We are often painfully reminded, through natural and man made disasters, how temporary our permanent homes really are. The Talmud emphasizes that the main requirement of a sukkah is its impermanence, to teach us to rely on eternal truths not transient corporeality.

Paradoxically, “even if we are wanderers or if we are settled... we will make our homes, and we will live in them,” Ms. Sagacious pointed out alluding to the temporary, yet permanent, nature of the Sukkah. We recognize the importance of building a dwelling, creating a G-dly world—even in exile, no matter how temporary it might be.

Taking a sociological perspective, Maimonides, in Guide to The Perplexed Part 3 Chapter 43, maintains that Sukkot reminds us of our transition from slaves to free nomadic agrarians. In Egypt we were forced into living an uncivilized life of servitude. After our liberation we were a free independent nation. The Sukkah, hut structure, signifies our freedom to move at will, under the protection of G-d alone. (Yet, we remain mindful toward "the wretched inhabitants of deserts and wastelands," by dwelling in huts.)

Lastly, Sukkah dwelling is the only precept involving the entire body. "Every other mitzvah is associated with a particular limb of the person who performs it. The mitzvah of tefillin, for example, is done with the head and hand, while in Torah study, the brain and mouth are used. Sitting in a sukkah is the only mitzvah performed with one's entire body, encompassing all one's limbs from head to foot."This all encompassing affect of the Sukkah, synthesises our intelect, emotions, and actions, to work towards a consistent goal.

Let your fellow Jew die? Part 1

2006-09-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

Moral dilemma challenge: Part 1

“What if two people are stranded with only enough water to keep one alive?” the Talmud asks in Bava Metzia 62a. In such a predicament, according to Ben Patura, “love your neighbor as yourself” means sharing the canteen and dying together in the desert. If each person wants to survive and yet loves the other as himself, then each should want to give the water to the other, resulting in sharing the canteen of water, thereby dying together. Another principle is evoked: "One life may not be given priority over another" (M. Ohalot 7:6, Rambam, Hilkhot Rotzeah 1:9 and Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah 5:5, 5:7).

In contrast, Rebi Akiva, argues, based on the principle, in Bava Metzia, that the person most likely to survive should drink the water even if his friend will perish as a result, because this way at least someone lives on. Also, Rebi Akiva, the one who taught us that, although, "loving one’s neighbor as oneself" is a great Torah principle, explains in this case that: “since the canteen belongs to one of the two people a different principle of Torah takes precedent: to not die as a result of performing a mitzvah” (Vayikra 25:36). The Talmud rules in favor of Rebi Akiva. Do you agree with the Talmud’s conclusion, and why?

“What if the besiegers of a city ask the people in the city to give over one life to save the entire village—is it worth sacrificing one life for the benefit of the many?” asks the Talmud in (Terumot 7:20). Excluding a situation where a specific individual is asked for, who was convicted of capitol punishment (II Sam. 20:14-22), the Talmud states that you can’t even give up a single life to save an entire city. How can the Talmud on the one hand tell us that we are allowed to let our friend perish if there isn’t enough water to keep us alive, and then come around in, Terumot 7:20, and tell us that we can’t give up a single life to spare an entire city?

You might be thinking how is all this relevant to contemporary time where one life takes precedence? For the first case look no further than ethical dilemmas in rationing health care, deciding which baby lives, or if both live, in the case of Conjoined twins. We can find very relevant application in contemporary society, Bioethics. In the second similar case, we need not look further than the recent Israel fight to attempt to rescue its captured soldiers at the cost of killing many more lives. It’s the converse of the situation of the city, but this time it’s a situation where many are unintentionally killed for the sake of the few innocents.

Stay tuned to read the Torah’s opinion on this matter. Do you agree or disagree with the Talmuds rationale for its ruling in the first and second cases? Why yes or why no? How would you reconcile the two seemingly contradictory approaches in the case of a city, and case of only enough water to keep one alive?

Why waste time developing a relationship with an abstract G-d, when we can better utilize our time developing interpersonal relationships?

2006-09-27T08:11:00.000-07:00

Is our relationship to G-d more important than our interpersonal relationships?

By Eli Federman

Why do we waste all this time cultivating a relationship with an obtuse G-d, through prayer, meditation, rituals? Shouldn’t we focus on cultivating relationships with each other? Granted many of the rituals, especially Shabbat meals, communal prayer, according to BBC on Judaism, force us to bond as family and friends. Nonetheless, we still spend a great deal of time focusing on developing an intellectual, emotional, spiritual connection to a G-d.

The purpose of cultivating a relationship with G-d is in order to reinforce our interpersonal relationships with each other, and our relationship to the environment. HaYom Yom, daily aphorisms, elucidates this: “The Maggid of Mezeritch said: the Rebbe the Baal Shem Tov frequently observed that love of Israel is love of G-d,” [for the Torah states in Deut. 14:1] "You are children of the L-rd your G-d," [and] one who loves the father loves the children.” The goals of cultivating interpersonal relationships with G-d and community are integral to one another, in the Jewish tradition. Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute explains, “Jewish ritual, commonly associated with our relationship to G-d invariably connects us to other humans and in fact is the pathway to Torah ethicism.”

Genesis 11 discusses the Tower of Babel story as one where humankind sinned against G-d by constructing a tower to storm the heavens, in an attempt at usurping G-d’s power. The sin was enabled by a united humanity marshaling all its resources in a concerted effort against G-d. Since the sin was enabled as a result of humankinds unity, G-d’s chosen rectification for this sin was de-unifying humankind into many language and cultures.

In other words the people’s collective unity, conformity, is what brought them to sin. The rectification, thus, was diversity, which forces one to reinforce interpersonal relationships and develop truly harmonious relationships based on mutual understanding of one another, G-d/spirituality, not just blind unity.

Why would G-d instruct Abraham to murder his son?

2006-09-26T15:33:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman
One of the reasons we blow the Shofar is to commemorate the historical event of the Akeda.

Deciphering the enigmatic episode of the binding of Isaac

The book of Genesis recounts a monumental event known as the “Akeda” or, literally, “binding” of Isaac. The bible describes this Akeda: “After these things G-d tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." The story continues, “Please, take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show” (Genesis 22:1, 2). Moments before Abraham sacrifices his son an angel intercedes on their behalf and instructs Abraham not to proceed and to instead offer up a ram for a sacrificial offering. Subsequently, Abraham and Isaac recognize that this ordeal was merely a test of their faith in G-d (22:12,13).

In "Ethics of Our Fathers," the sages state clearly how Abraham was given ten tests all of which he passed (Avos 5: 3). Rashi, the foremost commentator of the bible (1040 –1105 CE), elaborates on the importance of the tenth test (Isaac’s binding), “G-d pleaded with Abraham to withstand this test, because otherwise people would say that his earlier trials were without substance.”

What was so unique about this event, after all, haven’t countless Jews throughout history gone to the point of literally giving up their lives for the sanctification of G-d’s name? Moreover, in other instances people weren’t instructed directly from G-d, as was Abraham, but gave up their lives out of their own volition without being so commanded. Shouldn’t that be considered greater than Abraham’s feat? What was so unique about this particular event?

Furthermore, we see time and again people of other faiths who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their strong held beliefs. Why was this event different? Taking this a step further a person could reason why is this occurrence any different than the occasional delusional false prophet “martyrs” who claim G-d spoke to them and who then give up their lives for what they believe to be a just cause? And lastly, why would G-d need to test Abraham or anyone for that matter? Shouldn’t He already know what’s in our heart without testing us?

In the Torah Anthology Rabbi Yaakov Culi (1689-1732) one of the greatest Sephardic sages of the 1700’s explains the uniqueness of the Akeda, “Abraham could have argued that G-d was contradicting his earlier promise, ‘Through Isaac you will be said to have offspring’. Abraham could have said, ‘This son is supposed to father an important line. You promised it. How can you now ask me to sacrifice him?” Thus, the great test was not that he was willing to kill his son – it was that he was able to register two conflicting statements of G-d without being shaken in his faith.

Abraham came from a family of idol worshippers, but through his logical, rational way of thinking he came to the conclusion that there was a G-d that governed the universe. Through philosophical axioms, based on empirical evidence, such as “nothing can generate its own existence” and there must be a “Master of all,” he was compelled to conclude that there was an omnipotent being to which all praise is due (Mishna Torah). Thus, since his faith was built on an outgrowth of intellect one might figure that an incongruity in logic could undo his whole commitment and reverse his previous conclusion. Hence, the very fact that Abraham was instructed by G-d to do this seemingly baseless act tells us that it took greater inner fortitude because it contradicted previous statements made by G-d and because of Abraham’s logical nature.

Rabbi Menachem M. Scheneerson,(1902-1994) the seventh leader of the global Chabad-Lubavitch movement explained that the uniqueness in Abrahams sacrifice lay in the fact that Abraham was the first true pioneer of self-sacrifice. And the first true account of self sacrifice in all of history was the binding of Isaac. This set precedence for other future acts of self sacrifice. The Alter Rebbe, (1745-1812) articulates this in his mystical teachings, "the fact that we see Abraham’s descendents were able to give up their lives without being spoken to by G-d is because they were empowered by their ancestor with this simple conviction."

Furthermore, Rabbi Schneerson explains a different point and that is that Abraham’s personal nature tended on the side of kindness and that this act was an act of the ultimate severity, quashing his filial love. "Abraham's nature was characterized by love and kindness. These feelings dominated his character; as indicated by the great kindness which he showed wayfarers and travelers. Therefore, for him to perform an act that required him to overcome these feelings of love was doubly difficult. Nevertheless, despite these natural tendencies, he was willing to sacrifice his son."

What was the difference between Abraham’s self sacrifice in comparison to the self-proclaimed prophet phonies that have appeared and who give up their lives for what they believe to be a “just” cause? (granted Abraham never actually sacrificed Isaac) Yanki Tauber, prolific writer on chassidic teachings, and well known columnist for popular Jewish weekly publications, explains that Abraham and Isaac were willing to sacrifice themselves not just their corporeal lives. In the case of a loony, self-styled martyr, he is sacrificing his physical life for his own sake. Essentially this is an act that is motivated by inherently selfish reasons, but, with Abraham he was willing to utterly subjugate his personal rational way of thinking by his willingness to carry out this completely inconceivable act. Even though Abraham was instructed by G-d to offer up Isaac, the whole notion of these practices were contrary to Abraham’s entire life goal of debunking mindless paganism.

Abraham was a man who spent most of his life disproving pagan beliefs, dispelling myths about idolatry, but most importantly he actively sought to put an end to the sacrificing of people to venerated false deities. Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald, founder of National Jewish Outreach (NJOP) explains, "The primary purpose of the Akeida, is to demonstrate to Abraham and his descendants after him that G-d abhorred human sacrifice with an infinite abhorrence. It was spiritual surrender that G-d wanted, not physical sacrifice."

The act of child sacrifice was so predominant and accepted during those times this could be one of the reasons why G-d chose to have Abraham attempt (intervening to prevent) to sacrifice Isaac. In order to show His (G-d’s) disdain and dislike for the abhorrent nature of this practice. Later the Torah specifically condemns and prohibits child sacrifice (Levitcus 18:21; 20:2-5).

Why was it even necessary for G-d to test Abraham? Why is it necessary for G-d to test anyone? First, we need to recognize that G-d tested Abraham for his own benefit. Maimonides, one of the greatest religious rationalist explains in his book, Guide to The Perplexed, (one of the greatest philosophical statements of Judaism) the reason for G-d testing Abraham even though he new what lay in his heart. “If one raises funds to help the sick or to support religious schools, he causes people to give charity, and his merit is even greater than those who donate. [After the example set by the Akeda] People would emulate Abraham’s acts of faith and ignore the pitfalls of this false world” (Nevukim 3:24).

In other words, Maimonides is saying that any person who faces a challenge is tested for their benefit or and the benefit of others. It’s not so much that G-d needs to test mans loyalty but rather man needs to overcome challenges that are in fact for the greater good hence good that is often non-apparent to us. Furthermore, G-d doesn’t give any one a challenge that he is not able to overcome. As is written in the book of psalms, “G-d tests the righteous.” G-d knew that Abraham had the wherewithal to overcome the challenge of the Akeda. Otherwise, He wouldn’t have subjected him to it. Additonaly, as was the case with Abraham, testing was a way for G-d to bring out the abstract and latent strength of Abraham’s (or anyone else) faith into actual practice.

The Abarbanel, one of the great bible commentators of medieval Spain (1437 - 1508) encapsulates this biblical episode: “This section epitomizes the Jews determination to serve G-d no matter how difficult the circumstances, the very reason for Israel’s existences.” Theologians, philosophers, historians, have found the willingness of Jews to give up their lives in order to retain their faith difficult to understand. This inexplicable phenomenon can be traced back to the Akeda, where Abraham the first Jew enthusiastically went to fulfill G-d’s instructions, despite its irrational basis. Abraham and Isaacs’s act of self sacrifice epitomizes and puts into perspective the inherent inseparable connection the Jewish people have to G-d.

Does Torah oppose the state of Israel ?

2006-09-22T08:43:00.000-07:00

During the Israeli Lebanese conflict, Neil Chavuto, of Fox News, interviewed Israeli Weiss, spokesperson for Neuturi Karta – Jews United Against Zionism. "Blame Israel? Fox News Channel," can be found on you tube.

Neturei Karta(Aramaic: "Guardians of the City") is an extremists Jewish group that advocates for the dismantling of the state of Israel on the basis of a unique unorthodox interpretation of Torah law.

Neturei Karta claim that any “capture” of the state of Israel is a violation of Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot 111, where the oaths “Jews should not rebel against non-Jews,” and “as a group should not mass migrate to Israel before the Messiah,” is imposed by G-d on the Jewish people--after the exile. The Neturei Karta conveniently leave out the provision, in the same tractate passage, that this oath only applies if no nations rise “to exterminate the Jewish people”

Clearly Hitler’s Final Solution,would constitute an attempt at exterminating the Jewish people. Thus, the oaths “Jews should not revolt,” and “should not mass migrate to Israel before the Messiah,” are not to be followed post WWII. Israel was founded two years after WWII on Friday May 14, 1948.

Moreover, the Torah only decrees against establishing a Monarchal Jewish state, as elucidated in Tractate Sanhedrin, not the establishing of sovereign secular statehood by UN proclamation.

Was the Warsaw Uprising a success?

2006-09-20T22:50:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

Anonymous e-mail to me (paraphrased):
I hate it when people claim that Jews were submissive to the Nazis, completely disregarding the fact that psychological manipulation,gun control, abridgment of civil rights, all served as means to ensure the people would not resist…. I was having this conversation with an ignorant jackass at a coffee shop and the book that you were reading came to mind. Who’s the author of that book?

Response to sender:
The book is Treblinka by Jean-Francois Steiner . This books good for shattering claims that the Jews could and should have resisted from the beginning. Read this book, but don't waste your time with latte-sipping douche-bags sitting in judgment from their comfortable armchairs.

To use a very crude analogy (couldn't conjure anything more fitting) for why resistance was not always possible look at the "boiling frog syndrome" that Edelman talked about. "If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it’ll jump out. But if you place a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will boil to death." The warm waters were the early seemingly "innocuous" policies you mentioned.

Its amazing how even with the incredible forethought the Nazis put into stifling insurrection among the Jewish population, we still managed to heroically andsuccessfully resist in the case of Warsaw, Sobibor, Ravensbrück, Birkenau, the last days of Treblinka, and others.

Anonymous e-mail response:
“While the resistance in Warsaw was heroic I wouldn't deem it successful. The resistance ended in the destruction of the ghetto and the Jews held out the Nazis for quite some time, but labeling it successful just doesn't seem right when they were either murdered or sent to Concentration Camps.”

Re: Response to sender:

Here are the following reasons as to why Warsaw’s uprising was a success.

a) The Warsaw uprising SAVED COUNTLESS JEWISH LIVES, since GERMANY HAD TO DIVERT ADISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF RESOURCES and manpower in an effort to stave of the ghetto resistance -- resources and man power that would have otherwise been used in the systematic slaughter of Jews. As we know, the Nazis (yimachshimam) used every resource, every moment, at their disposal. (that's one of the reasons they lost the war to the allied forces) In that literal sense it was a resounding success that saved countless lives.

At the end of the first day more that 200 Nazis were killed. If they hadn't been killed they would have obviously been used in the systematic slaughter of Jews. 2,054 Gestapo, including 821 Waffen SS were used in the resistance. If they weren't busy fighting Jewish resisters, they would have been murdering more Jews.

Diversion of resources in the second resistence (year after Warsaw) by the polish army: German Causalities 10,000 killed, 7,000 missing, 9,000 wounded

b) In addition, the Jewish act of resistance served as a paradigm for emboldening the poles, other Jewish resisters, as well as the founders of the state of Israel.

It also emboldened other Jews and soviets throughout the region. That was another success of the uprising."If not for Warsaw in the General Government, we wouldn't have 4/5 of our current problems on that territory. Warsaw was and will be the centre of chaos and a place from which opposition spreads throughout the rest of the country." Hans Frank Nazi Governor-General of Poland on 14 December 1943, Kraków

The Polish underground also looked on the Jews in a new light. There was widespread interest and admiration for the stand taken. The Communist paper wrote, "The Jews have awoken from apathy in a demonstration of resistance worthy of emulation". It argued for armed struggle in Poland to assist the Soviet Union.There are other links between the events of the first and second uprising.

c) Have you read Mila 18? There were survivors from the ghetto even after the liquidation. 200 recorded survivors after the war. Dozen of resisters escaped through the sewers. In an ultimate act of defiance against Hitler’s attempt at anihilation, a number of survivors went on to found Lohamey ha-Geta'ot, a Kibbutz in Israel.

Man was not created first, and Adam, not Eve, was responsible for the first "sin"

2006-09-19T18:21:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

G-d said, “It’s not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him.” Rashi, the foremost commentator on the Torah quotes Midrash Rabbah, a major work of rabbinic exegesis, to explain the creation of woman in two phases. The first was that of creating Adam, the first modern human created with androgynous characteristics, having both male and female qualities. The second phase entailed the formation of a well-defined unique separate feminine being known as Eve (Gen. 1:27, and Rashi ad. loc. Berachot 61a citing Midrash Rabbah 8:1 and Eruvin.). According to the Midrashic description, Adam was actually created as a single, two-faced body, one side of which was made into Eve. This is expounded from verse 27 where it says, “in the image of G-d he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). The plural pronoun ‘them’ indicates the plurality of Adam still before the formation of Eve. To be sure, scripture states clearly that Eve was taken from Adam’s flesh (Genesis 1:21). But it is the oral tradition that makes clear that, contrary to popular (Christian) misconception, the first modern human being was not a man but rather part feminine and part masculine. Only by separating Eve from Adam did there come about man and woman. This also reconciles the evolutionary account that both man and women evolved from a single common ancestor.

Famed scholar and father of modern orthodoxy, R’ Samson Rafael Hirsch, (1808-1888) sheds light on this intriguing account of Eve’s creation, “Unlike man’s, the women’s body was not taken from the earth. G-d built one side of man into women — so that the single human being became two, thereby demonstrating irrefutably the equality of man and women.”Chana Weisberg, of the Women’s Institute for Advanced Torah Study, learns out the superiority of women as alluded by the manner of their creation. The fact that Eve was formed from a living androgynous being and not from the dust of the earth, is indicative of the elevated intuitive understanding that Jewish mystical tradition ascribes to women over men.

A deeper understanding of gender roles as embodied by the first man and woman also sheds light on another often misunderstood episode of Genesis, the sin of eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Genesis describes this cosmos altering (allegorical according to Maimonides) incident. “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, you must not eat; for on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die;” (Genesis 2:9-3:12). We see that Adam heard the commandment from G-d. He, Adam, was then expected to relay this message to Eve. G-d had merely commanded Adam not to eat of the tree. As Rashi explains, however, and as substantiated by developments in the narrative, Adam intentionally misinformed Eve by telling her that they were forbidden to even touch the tree thinking this to be a safeguard from prohibition. ( Rashi, Gensis 15:3-4). This is where serpent was able to cunningly entice Eve into eating the forbidden fruit.

In many Christian Liturgical interpretations a commonly insinuated misconception is that Eve was to blame for this grave sin in the garden.

The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797), considered to be the greatest Torah scholar of the past two centuries, explains in Aderet Eliyahu, a commentary on the Torah, how Adam misrelated the prohibition of the tree of knowledge to Eve. This ambiguity in Adam’s directive set the stage for this sin.

This theme of Adam misrelating G-d’s instructions becomes starkly evident when G-d gave the torah at Mount Sinai. He told Moses: “Say the following to the House of Jacob,” i.e., as our Sages explain, He had Moses tell the women about receiving the Torah first (Shemos 19:13). Why this order? In Shemos Rabba it’s explained that, G-d desired to prevent a recurrence of what had happened at the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge, when Adam, and not Eve, was the one who heard the command from G-d. This had made the sin possible. (Rabba 28:2). Despite all this, Adam’s intentions were of a protective nature, but they lacked a key element of trusting Eve, and this is why G-d chose to first entrust the women with the Torah.

Again, this illustrates the autonomy women have over men. This explains the verse, “And G-d said: It is not good for man to be alone; I shall make him a helpmate” (Genesis 2:9, 16-18). Hence, for a person to be alone is a form of being self-focused and selfish. The passage states this with regard to a man but not a woman and some explain the rationale behind this is that a woman is considered more complete, independent, and autonomous than a man. That being so, G-d decided not to entrust man with his own independence and instead have him attach to a women in order to complete himself.

Can discontentment lead to happiness?

2006-09-17T18:19:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

Difference between dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

Are dissatisfied people unhappy? Can you be dissatisfied with parts of life, and still be happy?

People mistakenly view unhappiness and dissatisfaction as inextricable linked. People dissatisfied with work, financial situation, marriage, health, are inevitable unhappy, depressed. This is untrue, because everyone has areas in life that they find dissatisfying, yet many still maintain happiness.

Atlantic Monthly published an article titled "Lincoln's Great Depression". The conclusion, Lincoln’s state of melancholic dissatisfaction, according to Historians Douglas Wilson, Rodney Davis, Michael Burlingame, and Allen Guelzo, served as the greatest impetus for extracting happiness and success in his life.

In fact, the Alter Rebbe, in his landmark magnum opus, Tanya, explains that dissatisfaction and discontentment is inextricable connected to maintaining happiness. Why is dissatisfaction an important component to being happy? Because one who is completely satisfied with life, with their knowledge of Torah, of G-d, of the world, will be lulled into a state of depression (Chapter 31 Tanya). At the same time we must be ever mindful of the mandate in, Devorim 28:47, that we serve G-d, perform Mitzvot--good deeds--with joy and happiness, even though we recognize that we will never truly realize all our potential mitzvot.

So in order to maintain happiness one needs to be dissatisfied and strive for more in life – through rigorous questioning and painstaking pursuit of truth. After all if the inventors of the air conditioner (besides for wonder bread, the greatest invention), were satisfied with fans, where would we be today?

I would take this a step further by arguing that hollow happiness, based on fleeting feelings and emotions, will ultimately lead to depression, since we all have an innate need to strive for something deeper and beyond us --- something that will never truly be satisfied. Use these feelings as an impetus to do more good in this world, and you will be rewarded with true happiness.

What say you?

Is G-d a figment of our imagination?

2006-09-14T02:16:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

Is belief in G-d misguided wishful thinking?

Psychoanalyst, "Sigmund Freud", famously purposed that G-d was a figment of our imagination created to make us feel "protected, comforted, fulfilled.” Is G-d, spirituality, simply a product of wishful evolutionarily necessary thinking?

1. Possible objection to Freud’s theory:

Speaking from personal experience, in a world of temptation, can’t it be convenient, at times, to ignore the need to be answerable to a higher authority? So, logically, wouldn't it be easier to just dismiss G-d, in an effort to make life easier? C.S. Lewis referred to this as “willful blindness’.” Modern psychology dub this phenomen "congnitive dissonance." The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting beliefs are a driving force that compels the mind to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of internal conflict.

This objection seems reasonable on the face of it, but when it comes down to it, Freud was right, we still have an inner desire to believe in purpose, even though at times that inner feeling might conflict with our lifestyle. Ultimately, on our death beds, we will truly want to believe that there is a spiritual realty beyond us, namely a G-d. So this objection fails.

2. Possible objection to Freud’s theory:

Freud was correct in saying that we all have an inner drive to believe in G-d, but Freud was wrong in believing the inner drive was a figment of our wishful thinking and imagination.

Acclaimed geneticists, founder of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Hamer, in "The G-d Gene," provides compelling evidence that humans are in fact genetically hardwired, based on the VMAT2 gene, to believe in a transcendent realty. However, Hamer, concedes that it is hard to conclusively establish an association between genes and behavior. But clearly, we recognize, that humankind did, in the ancient past and have in the present a compelling inclination to find spirituality. Any anthropological study of society will confirm, that ever since the dawn of man, civilizations have always had G-d concepts. Even in irreligious communist Russia and Nazi Germany, they invented a similar G-d like concept based on, motherland, pseudoscience, a master race, or/and blind patriotism.

So we established that Freud was right in the existence of an inner drive that leads us to search for transcendent meaning to life. Thus we can agree that we have this inner desire.

3. Dismissal of Freud’s theory that G-d is a made up concept to make us feel better

The fact is that no creature on this planet has a desire unless a satisfaction for that desire exists. A baby feels hunger: guess what, such a thing as food exists. Humans have libidinous drives: guess what, such a thing as sex exists. Ducklings want to swim: guess what, such a thing as water exists.

Cambridge professor C.S Lewis (1898-1963), concluded, extrapolating from this concept, “If I find in myself a desire which no single experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” Since the spiritual desire can never be fully fulfilled in this world, it must have come from a spiritual world. Thus, one must conclude that the spiritual longing within humankind serve as a perfect signpost of a true transcendent, G-dly realty, of this world.

So who created G-d ?

2006-09-12T17:33:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

Every logical thinking person can conclude that every effect has a cause. The universe had to have had an original cause to put the universe into effect. Matter can’t create itself. Every creation has a creator. It would be silly to say something as simple as a wristwatch came into being without a watchmaker, so too, it is silly to say something as complex as the universe came into being without a creator. Obviously there had to have been a first cause that created this world.

I don’t have enough credulous faith to believe that the world went hocus pocus, Harry Potter style, and willed itself, ex nihilo, into existence. Since I don’t have enough faith to believe that, I choose to believe in creationism. Ok so that is established.

If the world had to have had a creator, than why doesn’t the creator have a creator? In other words, if G-d made the world, then who made G-d? This question does nothing to answer our original question of who created the big bang to set the world into existence, but it is an important question in itself.

Even if we could not answer this question the atheist is still left with the first cause question. The question, who created G-d, deflects the original question of where matter came from. Mainstream science has already established that the world has a beginning, so the Aristotelian and pseudoscience theories of an eternal universe are false, thus something originally created this world. But who created that G-d that created the world?

The answer is simple. Only something that is composed of matter has to have a cause, but G-d, is not composed of matter, and thus needs no cause. G-d is immaterial and thus by definition eternal. (interestingly, the Genesis G-d, is the only ancient G-d that is not described as being birthed into existence) The Hebrew name for G-d means “is,” because “is” cannot be defined. When Moses asked G-d to reveal itself at the burning bush G-d said “I am who I am.” In other words, G-d is non-definitional, non-material, and not subject to the laws of nature, because G-d created the laws of nature.

Gospel authors were plagiarists ? (misattributed Jesus teachings)

2006-09-12T02:40:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

For your personal edification:

Attributing the Torah's (Old Testaments) wisdom to Jesus shows an ignorance of scripture.

Please understand that my intention is not to diminish positive teachings that might have been emphasized by Jesus, but it’s important to understand where these "innovative" teachings originated from. Guess what, they originated before Jesus was even born.

Keep in mind that all the Jewish scripture cited, predate Jesus’s birth (The New Testament is replete with plagiarism from the Torah, both oral and written, but I have chosen to select the notable Jesus teachings so as not to bore you with innumerable pages)

Jesus: "love thy neighbor as thyself."
Torah: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18)

Jesus: "man lives not by bread alone."
Torah: "[Man] does not live by bread alone." (Devarim 8:3)

Jesus: “With the measure you measure, it will be measured to you" - Mathew
Mishna: "With the measure that a man uses to measure, they measure to him..." Mishnah, Sota 1:7-8

Jesus said, "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" - Luke 14:11
Rabbi Hillel said, "My humiliation is my exaltation and my exaltation is my humiliation" (Leviticus Rabbah 1:5 [ed. Margulies, p. 17]). Rabbi Hillel lived 70 years before Jesus.

Jesus sad, "Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them" Mathew. 7:12
Rabbi Hillel: "What is hateful to thee, do it not unto thy neighbor. This is the whole Law and the rest is the interpretation thereof (Hillel. b. Sab. 31a)."

Jesus: “Insulting someone is like murder.”- Matthew 5:21-22
Talmud: “He who publicly shames his neighbour is as though he shed blood.” Talmud Bava Mezia 58b (compiled written and codified before Christ)

Jesus: "Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No." - Matthew 5:34-37
Talmud: "A righteous yes is a Yes; a righteous no is No." - Talmud: Bava Batra 49b

I guess my Marquette Theology professor, John Zemler, was serious when he began his lectures caveatting that New Testament scholars, including the authors of the four canonical Gospels, were some of the greatest plagiarists in history!

Tell me what you think about these misattributed teachings? Now you can correct the next person who claims that Jesus was the first person to teach “Love thy neighbor as thy self.”

Whats the point of ritual actions in Judaism ? Isn't Judaism supposed to be a practical religion?

2006-09-11T19:16:00.000-07:00

What’s the point of symbolic ritual actions like lighting shabbas candles, donning teffilin, reciting Kidush, washing hands before bread ? Shouldn’t we spend our time with seemingly more practical good deeds, like charity, visiting the sick, maintaining health, helping others ? We need both and here is why
By Eli Federman

We all remember the pictures of Israel soldiers, fighting on the frontlines, adorned with Tefillin and Prayer Shawls, praying for the peace and security of Israel and the world. This image epitomizes the Teffilins message of maintaining consistency in mind, heart, and action. These soldiers are not just Jews in the synagogue or home; they are Jews in their everyday life. Their spiritual actions translate into physical actions, and vice versa.

The psychospirtual action of Teffilin is intimately bound with the physical action of fighting for survival. In most of our cases, living here in the U.S, Teffilin can be a symbolic action asserting our connection to our ancestral homeland and simply an external physical way of expressing and thereby strengthening our identity as Jews.

A woman once suffered from social apathy, a condition marked by a lack of feeling, and consideration for others – total indifference. After seeking help from psychologists, psychiatrists, and other experts for her social apathy disorder, no treatment or therapy helped. As a last resort she sought advice from the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The Rebbe told her that she should take a break from her privileged lifestyle and spend time volunteering as a waiter, in an effort to externally foster empathy for others. It worked.

Shabbas candles is an external symbolic action, like engaging in volunteerism to changes something internal, representing the illumination of goodness and kindness, in both our personal lives and the world at large, in an often darkened world. We need to perform these seemingly indirect actions in an effort to foster change within ourselves. Like teaching children about math and sciences through using images, we teach ourselves and change ourselves through engaging in practical symbolic actions and rituals.

Philip Card, psychotherapist, author and trainer, encapsulated this point stating: “Symbolic action (the indirect approach to change) is not sleight of mind. It engages our psyches and souls at a deeply intuitive level, fostering change through subconscious learning.” That is why ritual actions are so vitally important in the Jewish tradition.

What say you?

p.s. Check out this recent study, done by Northwestern University, on the association of moral impropriety with physical cleanliness. More proof of the strong connection between symbolic actions and their practical affect on us........
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/health/psychology/12macbeth.html

Has Ali G taken his comedy too far this time? ? ?

2006-09-08T00:09:00.000-07:00

By Eli Federman

"Equal-Opportunity Offender Plays Anti-Semitism for Laughs"

Has Ali G gone too far? Did this Geshmaka Yid cross the line?

Sacha Baron Cohen (a.k.a. Ali G on HBO), was featured in the Arts section of the NY Times for his “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” debut.
Sacha Cohen, Cambridge graduate, considers himself an observant Jew. He shamelessly uses comedy to perpetuate or subvert (depending on your interpretation) negative stereotypes of Jews, gays, lesbians, blacks, and others.
In his new film, one scene depicts Jewish caricatures being savagely beaten, as a comical pastime of Borat’s native country Kazakhstan. Another has Borat convinced that Jewish innkeepers metamorphosed into cockroaches in an attempt to steal his money. Another scene has Borat fearful of flying “in case the Jews repeat their attack of 9/11.”

I must first confess that I found Sacha Baron Cohen’s high-wire HBO series “Da Ali G Show,” absolutely hysterical. But has he gone too far ? It’s one thing to reveal latent anti-Semitism by impersonating a Kazakhstanian at a bar in Tucson, AZ, singing “throw the Jews down the well,” to gleeful cheers from the mostly middle American hick town audience. However, it’s another offense, to satirize Jewish suffering endured through years of pogroms. Does parodying pogroms, as in Sacha Cohen’s new film, trivialize what happened ? Or is it cos I is black, as Ali G might say ? (that last question was a non sequitur)

What say you ?

Guns, Jews, OK, pie eatin, Yarmulka wearin !!!!!

2006-08-20T17:43:00.000-07:00

My Oklahoma Gun Show Experience

We Jews are into multiculturalism -- only when our personal beliefs don’t conflict with other cultures or our own culture! (strangely enough Islam would be the only exception) To illustrate this point take the story of s secularized Jewish woman who meets a bearded man on a public bus. She gives this man dirty looks for being orthodox. When the man tells her he is Amish, she profusely apologizes for her nastiness and tells him how much she appreciates Amish culture. Double standard? I think so. Anyway, as a Jew I realized it would be healthy for me to experience raw American gun culture, and for raw American gun culture to experience a Jew.

Wikipedia explains that “A gun show is a form of exhibition or gathering where guns, gun parts and literature, as well as knives and miscellaneous collectables are displayed, bought, sold and discussed. They include exhibitions related to various types of hunting and the preparation and preservation of wild game for consumption. They also may be used by gun manufacturers to demonstrate new models—or gun enthusiasts to show antique guns.”

As customary I carried my mivtzeim Tefilin with me. “Hey boy what you gots in that baeg,” a burly redneck barked. “Ow just a Jewish thing called phylacteries. It’s from the bible,” I explained, figuring he would understand. “Do whaet know” he quizzically chagrined, exposing visible tooth decay. “I’m Jewish,” I explained. “Are yah really?” he stated as both a declaratory and rhetorical statement. I moved on to other vendors.

People gave me reverential, irreverent, extraterrestrial looks when they notice my Yarmulka and Tzitus. I was delighted, yet surprised, to see a fair number of Asians, Hispanics, Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans (I met an Indian flintknapper), who blended into the environment. I wondered if they reacted to the Nazi regalia booth with the same queasiness as myself.

Just to make sure I wasn’t imagining people were looking at me strange, I decided to wear my Remington hat to see if people would react differently to me. My social experiment yielded expected results.

The first vendor I approached causally smiled saying, “Howdy there, are you lookin for any gun in particular? I got one that matches your cap nice,” he continued jokingly. Again and again, the same reaction. It seemed like I lost my special alien status by merely covering my Yarmulka with a Remington cap. I was one of them. No longer different. I was indistinguishable (besides for my Jewish nose and dangling tzitus). I was totally identityless. I quickly took off my Remington cap and things were back to normal, and I was again reminded of my identity, and able to remind others of my identity. I realized that wearing a Kippa is not only meant as a sign of humility and acknowledgment of G-d, but as a reminder to others and us of who we truly are.

More later…………….

Israel and the War: What can I or you do?

2006-07-23T22:00:00.000-07:00

When people think of the Israeli Defense Forces, particularly in the media, they project an image of the IDF with an aura of invincibility. The best trained, best equipped, best led armed forces in the world, we like to say. Nothing to worry about, right? The IDF can take of anything. In reality, the IDF is built on individuals, like you and me. More like you, 18, 19 and 20 year olds, than me. Nothing separates me and you from them, except a twist of fate. Do you feel invincible? Neither are they. The best technology, the best firepower... Yet, the blood of Jews our age is being spilled in Lebanon. But what are we to do?! The IDF has guns; The IDF has bullets - AIPAC has made sure of that. Do we sit on our hands? No, we can do more.

In this week's parshah, the Jews make war on the Midianites and destroy them. There were several specific reasons for war, the most general being that the Midianites were subverting the souls of the Jewish people. The instruction to go to war comes to Moses directly from G-d. G-d instructs Moses to avenge the Jewish people by destroying the Midianites. Moses relates this to the Jews, saying that they must "take G-d's vengeance on Midian". That's not what G-d told him. G-d said, avenge the Jewish people! Moses said, we need to avenge G-d! Certainly Moses wouldn't make things up, so how do we reconcile these two declarations? It's explained that there is no contradiction. The Jewish people have a direct connection to G-d, the way a child does to a father. If you hit a child, his father will hit you back. And if you hit a father, his child will avenge. You aren't going to say to a father, look, I'm going to hit your child, this has nothing to do with you, go away. The child's problem is the father's problem, and vice versa. We're the chosen people! Who chose us?

G-d is not neutral when Jews are provoked, attacked and killed. But G-d did not create a perfect world. It is up to us to perfect this world through our deeds, and to ask for help when we need it. How do you ask G-d for help? How would you ask your father for help? You would call him, talk to him, connect with him. How do you connect with G-d? How do you bring G-d's essence to the world? Through mitzvot. Through partaking in the physical act of a mitzvah, we draw G-dliness down to the world. We are taught that a mitzvah does not simply have an impact on the person who does it, or even on that person's immediate surroundings, but that a single mitzvah has an effect on the entire world as well.

Israel has many non-Jewish supporters, but none of them are able to connect with G-d the way that you and I can. No one but a Jew has that hotline to G-d, and no one can do our mitzvahs for us. A few days ago Eli emailed around a picture of Jewish soldiers wearing teffillin on the front lines near Lebanon. It is not enough to be proficient with our weapons and technology. With that one extra mitzvah we can reinforce our connection with G-d, infuse G-d's essence into the world. Thank G-d we don't have to put on teffillin, study Torah or light shabbat candles with rockets raining down on our heads. That makes our responsibility to perform these mitzvahs even greater.

For those of you who missed it this morning, Chabad is launching a campaign to distribute free teffillin, mezuzot and shabbat candles (all with instructions and guidance) to all who need them. This is a great opportunity to obtain these items for free and fulfill these important mitzvahs. And if you're able to contribute whatever you can towards the purchase of these items, even better. You'll be hearing more about this in the coming days, as we let the rest of L'Haim's membership know, but I urge you to email Rabbi Taub now at RST@milwaukeechabad.com to get started.

Immigration reform in Judaism?

2006-07-18T02:10:00.000-07:00

I'm moving this discussion from the Lhaim group on facebook to this blog:

Eli Federman wrote on Jul 12, 2006 at 3:56 PM
In Exodus 22:20 we read, "The stranger who sojourns with you shall be as a native from among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Mitzraim."What implications does this injunction have in the current debate surounding immigration ? How do you interpret this verse? What say you

Elyse Scheibengraber (Milwaukee School of Languages) wrote on Jul 13, 2006 at 1:49 PM
We should welcome immigrants as our own... I'm not saying they should be able to just hop the border willy-nilly, but welcome it is.

Erik Zelman (Wisconsin Milwaukee) wrote
It's important to understand also that the Israelites and the "Strangers among us" lived in a kin - based society. In other words, families looked out for one another, and families were the basic means for extracting justice and maintaining peace. A person with no family close by, or a "stranger", was extremely vulnerable to abuse and was effectively at the mercy of those surrounding him or her. This passage is more of a command for hospitality towards those with little means rather than an invatation for open borders. Just my two cents.

You replied to Erik's post
very interesting analysis Erik. I like the historical perspective.

Eli Federman replied
The Torah also requires that these strangers (i.e, migrants) accept moral and civic responsibilities of their new land (Leviticus 25:35 and Exodus 23:33). In other words, immigrants have to be willing to integrate and contribute to society, not just take advantage of the system.

Welcome to the new blog

2006-07-17T12:54:00.000-07:00

This blog will be for discussing L'haim events and discussing anything in Judaism.