In my first post, a commentator, Felix, posed a most interesting challenge, a challenge often heard in Kiruv and Orthodox circles: What is the origin and basis of mortality? Is it derived only from the literal commandment of G-d, or are there other sources? If one maintains that Torah based morality is false or immoral, is this akin to asserting “there is no absolute morality”, i.e. moral relativism? Lastly, is it reasonable to maintain that modern man made morality, in particular America’s western morality, is superior to Torah morality - - which ostensibly is based on the mandate of G,d?
In order to address the issue I will present several hypothetical examples and questions that illustrate the contrast between life under a Torah regime, where Halacha is the only source and basis of morality, and life under a Modern American Regime, where the source and basis of morality are enlightenment values. I ask my readers to think seriously and deeply about the examples I provide and apply their common sense as much as their faculty of reason. I also ask that the reader bear in mind that the perennial issue of the basis of morality is very complex and has a long historical context in the history of humankind outside of torah.
That said, I would like to ask Felix, and those of like mind, a few questions:
How do you feel about the Western concept of equality before the law? What do you think this concept is based on? Is it based on Jewish ideals? Or, is it based on enlightenment ideals?
Do you agree that it is moral that in our society, I, as a Jew am accorded the same dignity and rights as any other human being? If you agree, as I’m sure you do, I want to know why you think this is just or moral. I also want to know how you would feel if laws were different in America, if the laws were more like South Africa’s apartheid laws; or worse, like Germany’s Nuremberg Laws** with its many unconscionable and odious decrees, like, for example, the September 30, 1938 edict requiring "Aryan" doctors to only treat "Aryan" patients.
Imagine if in America the legal system required the execution of Jews for the negligent or accidental killing of a gentile, whereas a non --Jew would only pay damages. Does such a law seem moral or just?
What about a law that prohibited a Non---Jew from saving the life of a Jew? What if that same law also made it a crime, subject to the death penalty, for a person to save the life of a Jew, unless he could prove in court that not saving the Jew could result in a loss of American gentile life due to Jewish animosity. Would this be moral? Would this be just?
Let’s illustrate this moral dilemma with an example: Imagine, an old Jewish man on a cold sub zero night in the middle of what happens to be an almost all non------Jewish city. The old man slips on the ice, breaks his hip, and cracks his head. He lay there for hours, blood seeping from his cracked skull, shivering in the frigid cold, in pain, and deeply afraid. The suffering continues another 6 hours, until dawn, when the man finally dies. During this entire time, dozens of people walk by and ignore his desperate pleas for help. Could you do this? Would your heart bleed for the poor old man? If yes, where does this kind of feeling and sensitivity come from? Does it come from any set of laws external to yourself or does it come from something innate within you, something hardwired into your own humanity?
How do think, from a cross-cultural perspective, human beings throughout the world would view such cold, cruel and heartless laws. Myself, having lived in more then a dozen countries and having worked with people in every major continent in the world, would feel comfortable saying that universally most people would find that these laws shock the conscience. It would deeply offend their innate and hard-wired moral sense. What do you think?
Let’s discuss another scenario. Lets say that a murderous and truly evil non - - -Jew was about to kill a nice Jewish women for no reason other then for the thrill. Let us say a witness, in this case, another non - - - Jew, follows his conscious and kills the pursuer. Now, would it be just if American law would execute the good Samaritan non - - - Jew for murder. After all, the law says that one cannot kill a fellow gentile to save the life of a Jew, even when the gentile has no valid reason to engage in such an act (e.g. self-defense). Would this be just? Would this be moral?
Now let’s take this hypothetical one step further and pretend that this imaginary society considers the nature of the Jew to be of a completely different species - -one really akin to an animal, and that this attitude has its roots in an ancient and sacred tradition, a tradition with many venerated and holy sages. One such sage, Mr. Ra'avad, when discussing the nature of the Jew writes:
"for the Jews are like animals…and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist." Another sage writes, “'You (Non- - - Jews) are called men and the Jews are not called men.” A third sage, named Mr. Abe Issac Kook, writes: "The difference between the Non Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Jews, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal.”
What would you think of such a society? Does it sound sort of the Nazi literature that dehumanized Jews?**
It should be evident from the above hypotheticals that the basic notions of good and evil that we all have are, for the most part, common and universal. Anthropologist Solomon Asch makes this very point when he notes, “Anthropological evidence does not furnish proof of relativism. We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue."- Asch, Solomon, Social Psychology, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 378-79.
It should also be evident that the modern history of America and other Westernized nations is a march of progress in eliminating hateful discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and gender. This, in contrast to Fundamental Torah Judaism’s unconscionable, demeaning and discriminatory laws against non (yehudim) Jews. If the shoe were on the other foot and Jews were subject in America to laws similar to those promulgated by Chazal, and to which, I might add, the Orthodox world pays homage, the Jewish population would be outraged. From a humanistic, universal and most importantly, from a common sense point of view, do you think it correct, as the commenter Felix asserts, that, it has not been substantiated that our “new, modern, clearly man made morality is superior” when Fundamental Judaism persists in believing that gentiles have souls that are inferior and have precepts that inhumanely discriminate against them?
Modern western civilization, with all its current faults (and I wont go into them in this forum), has developed and continues to develop a system or morality that is vastly superior to Orthodox Jewish Morality. Think about it.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Modern Western Morality vs Orthodox Jewish Morality
Ancient World Morality vs. Talmudic (Orthodox Jewish) World Morality: Attitudes and Laws toward the *OTHER*
5th century bce Perisa under Cyrus: Laws and attitudes toward the *OTHER*
1000 years before Chazal, there was precedent for the concept of equal rights for all ethic groups. See Human Rights in 5th century bce. Perisa under Cyrus “The Achaemenid Persian Empire of ancient Iran established unprecedented principles of human rights in the 6th century BC under Cyrus the Great. After his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the king issued the Cyrus cylinder..... The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery,....... These two reforms were reflected in the biblical books of Chronicles and Ezra, which state that Cyrus released the followers of Judaism from slavery and allowed them to migrate back to their land. ...[Most significant] In the Persian Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were also given the same rights, while women had the same rights as men.”
3rd century bce. India: Laws and attitudes toward the *OTHER*
3rd century bce. India, 700 years before Chazal, provides another interesting contrast to Talmudic morality and laws See Human Rights in 3rd century bce. India “The Maurya Empire of ancient India established unprecedented principles of civil rights in the 3rd century BC under Ashoka the Great. During his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the protection of human rights, as his chief concern was the happiness of his subjects. The unnecessary slaughter or mutilation of animals was immediately abolished, such as sport hunting and branding. Ashoka ……. offered common citizens free education at universities. He treated his subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics or caste, and constructed free hospitals for both humans and animals. Ashoka defined the main principles of nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for teachers and priests, being liberal towards friends, humane treatment of servants, and generosity towards all. These reforms are described in the Edicts of Ashoka.
In the Maurya Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups also had rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war was also condemned by Ashoka. Slavery was also non-existent in ancient India.”
5th Century Talmudic (Orthodox Jewish) Laws toward the *OTHER*
For a complete exposition of all the relevant sources and halachas see here
1.Killing a gentile (even an idolater, without a court hearing) in peaceful times
is forbidden. However, a Jew who murders a gentile (even in peaceful times and even intentionally) is not punishable by death in the human courts (under normal circumstances). According to some opinions he is not punishable at all (under normal circumstances) by the human courts. But a gentile who kills a Jew, even purely by accident and unintentionally, must be put to death. This applies to a ger toshav as well. There is a single opinion according to which a ger toshav who killed a Jew by accident is not put to death, but only goes into exile (like a Jew who killed by accident).
Sources:
Mishna, Tractate Makkot 2:3, Sanhedrin 9:2, Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 57a, Avodah Zarah 13b
Maimonides, Laws of Murder and the Saving of Lives 1:1, chapter 2, 5:4, 10
Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry chapter 10
2.It is forbidden to save a gentile who is in mortal danger or cure him from a fatal condition, even for payment, unless there is a danger that a failure to do so will cause animosity towards Jews. According to one opinion it is permissible to save a gentile in mortal danger, but one doesn't have an obligation to do so. This law doesn't apply to a ger toshav, whom Jews have an obligation to sustain.
Sources:
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Avodah Zarah 26a, 64b; Pesachim 21b, Rashi on Pesachim 21b
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Avodah Zarah 64b
Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry chapter 10
Tur Yoreh Deah 158, Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah 158, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 158:a, Shach Yoreh Deah 158
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 425:5
3.It is forbidden to desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a gentile, unless there is a danger that a failure to do so will cause animosity. There are different opinions whether this law applies to a ger toshav.
Sources:
Mishnah, Tractate Yoma 8:7
Maimonides, Laws of the Sabbath, chapter 2
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 329:2
Nishmat Avraham (Abraham S. Abraham) part 4, Orach Chayim 330:2
4.If a Jew is chasing a gentile in order to murder him, it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the gentile, even if there is no other way to save the gentile's life. A person who kills the Jewish pursuer in order to save the gentile's life must be put to death. But if a gentile (or a Jew) is chasing a Jew in order to murder him, one must kill the pursuer in order to save the pursued person (if there is no other way to save his life). This law applies to a ger toshav as well.
Sources:
Minchat Chinuch commandment 600
5. In a case where someone orders a Jew to kill some innocent person or else he will himself be killed: If the person he is ordered to kill is a Jew then he must not kill him,__even if it will result in his own death. If the person he is ordered to kill is a gentile, then it is permissible to kill him to save the life of the Jew (in this situation).It appears that this law applies even if the person whom the Jew is ordered to kill is a ger toshav.
Sources:
Palestinian Talmud Tractate Shabbat chapter 14 14d, Maimonides, Laws of Torah Fundamentals 5:7
Rashi on Sanhedrin 74a, Amud HaYemini (R' Shaul Yisraeli) 16:8-9
Safra on Behar, parasha 5, HaTorah V'HaMitzvah (Malbim) on Safra on Behar parasha 5
6.A gentile, as opposed to a Jew, can be easily sentenced to death in a court of
law. This can be done by a single judge, based on the testimony of a single witness or on the defendant’s own addmission, with no prior warning, even if the witness is a relative [of either the judge or the victim]. This applies to a ger toshav as well.
Sources:
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 57b, Maimonides, Laws of Kings 9:14
7.The death penalty may be imposed on one (Jew or gentile) who abducts a Jew,
but not on a Jew who abducts a gentile. Sources: Sifrei Devarim piska 273, Maimonides, Laws of Theft chapter 9
Sample:(Orthodox Jewish) attitudes toward the *OTHER*
Rabbi Abraham Issac HaCohen Kook
In the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156), Rabbi Kook wrote: "The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality."
Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin
In the book "Poked Akarim" page 19, column 3, he wrote: "Concerning what is explained in Yevamot, 'You are called men,' and not the other nations, [the meaning is] that the Gentiles were deprived of the title 'men' only where Israel were called 'men,' because in comparison to Israel, who are the primary form of man in the Divine Chariot, it is irrelevant to call any of the Gentiles 'men'; at most, they are like animals in the form of men. Taken as themselves, however, all the children of Noah are considered men…and when the Messiah comes…they too will recognize and admit that there are none called 'man' except Israel…anyway, in comparison to Israel even now they are in the category of animals…"
The Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital
On the difference between souls of the Jews and Gentiles it is written in the book "Etz Chaim" (Heichal Abi'a, Sha'ar HaKlipot, chapter 2): "So we find that Israel possesses the three levels of soul (nefesh, ruach, neshama) from holiness… The Gentiles, however, possess only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the klipot…for the souls of the nations, which come from the klipot, are called 'evil' and not 'good,' are created without the da'at [knowledge], and therefore they also lack the ruach and neshama."
In Sha'ar Klipat Noga, chapter 3, it is written: "Now you will understand what the animalistic soul of man is; it is the good and evil inclination in man. The soul of the Gentiles comes from the three klipot: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So is the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds. However, the animalistic soul of Israel and the animalistic soul of pure animals, beasts, and birds all come from [klipat] noga."
Gadol Hador Archives
The following are links to the archives of a well-known and now closed blog. It covers just about every conceivable issue that an inquiring BT or FFB would think to ask. If the pursuit of truth and intellectual honesty are important to you, I would read this entire archive. I think you will enjoy what this blogger has to offer - - informative, intelligent, fascinating and witty commentary, all with brutal intellectual honesty. I recommend starting from the beginning. I would also save the html pages because the archive could be removed at any time.
Gadol Hador:January 2005
Gadol Hador:February 2005
Gadol Hador:March 2005
Gadol Hador:April 2005
Gadol Hador:May 2005
Gadol Hador:June 2005
Gadol Hador:July 2005
Gadol Hador:August 2005
Gadol Hador:September 2005
Gadol Hador:October 2005
Gadol Hador:November 2005
Gadol Hador:December 2005
Gadol Hador:January 2006
Gadol Hador:February 2006
Gadol Hador:March 2006
Gadol Hador:April 2006
Godal Hador:May 2006
Gadol Hador:June 2006
Gadol Hador:July 2006
Friday, October 19, 2007
The Pathogizer, The Lonely Man of Faith & The Earnest BT
When fundamentalists confront conflicting views, from the sincere yet doubting seeker to the most hardened skeptic, they often shift the focus to emotional considerations when the intellectual arguments get to difficult for them. Sometimes, there is projection of all kinds of pejorative attributes on to the questioner, with the implication that "there is something wrong" (i.e. personally and emotionally) with the repentant or wavering BT. Pursue the intellectual discussion too far or too deep and you will be villified (implicitly or explicitly) as "too selfish" or "not willing to give of yourself for the sake of G-d", or " you are not strong enough to accept G-d's will", and other such statements that call into question your true commitment.
I call this self-serving and contrived approach to dispensing with challenges “pathogizing”, and it is an essential element of most Orthodox Jewish indoctrination (mostly Cheredi –Ultra Orthodox). In fact it is typical of fundamentalists of all religious persuasions and its ubiquity is evident from even a cursory perusal of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and Muslims,etc literature. This approach allows for the easy dismissal of challenges, thereby allowing the believer to evade responsibility for confronting any challenges, as well as protecting him psychologically from the cognitive dissonance and existential insecurity that emanates from taking these issues seriously.
We observe a classic example of this approach in the commentary of Avrum68 in the last thread. There, Avrum68 invokes the authority of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz “who warned folks about not confusing theology for psychology when dealing with doubt.” Avrum proudly notes “Never have I read wiser words.” Among the many elementary logical flaws - - more of which will be detailed below - - are the fallacy of “appeal to authority”. First, an appeal to Rabbinic authority and second, in an attempt to further buttress his point, an appeal to his very own authority, as a professional with a background which is “ rooted in psychology, particularly the psychodynamic variety.”
Agnostic writer, after reviewing similar rhetoric by
Avrum68 on another forum, perceptively demonstrates the impotence of this line of reasoning.
He writes “Avrum68 not only insists on repeatedly committing the elementary philosophical error of ad hominem, he also commits the elementary psychological and ethical error of jumping to conclusions about the psychological functioning and developmental backgrounds of people he knows next to nothing about. He also commits the naive error of either-or thinking: either a person had an idyllic childhood in their religious family, or any possible objection they have to religious belief is really about emotional or social pain.
A little sophistication, either in philosophy or psychology, would have taught him that very few have idyllic childhoods--whether religious, atheist, or agnostic--so the charge of "It all goes back to your dissatisfaction with childhood (or father, or mother, or social isolation, or penis envy, or unresolved oedipal issues, etc., etc.) is a charge that can be leveled at nearly anyone with whose views one disagrees, and therefore not only proves nothing, but suggests nothing; and a little sophistication in either psychology or philosophy would have taught him, too, that what awakens one to questioning--even in cases where the awakening agent is emotional or social pain--need hold little relation to the level of honesty with which one processes the cacophony of answers, and more questions, one encounters on the path of seeking. One can be raised without so much as a solitary moment of distress, and yet exert little honesty or courage in seeking truth; and one can be tormented by all manner of afflictions from the moment of birth on, and still strive for radical intellectual honesty.
Furthermore, one with even moderate psychological insight--or moderate observational skills--would know that the great majority of people raised Muslim remain Muslim, the great majority of people raised Hindu remain Hindu, and the great majority of people raised Orthodox Jewish remain Orthodox Jewish--and that one can as easily wield the "psychological argument" against religious people, as in, "Regardless of how happy or unhappy your childhood, you're religious not because of the intelligent-sounding explanations you cite, you're religious due to emotional comfort with the familiar, and the unconscious terror of separating from family and tribe and cosmic frame of reference.
Yet Avrum68 does not dismiss religious thinkers from happy or unhappy religious families, only skeptics from (what he insists, without knowing, are) unhappy families. Behold the double standard atop a bad argument--irrationality with a frosting of bias.”
But the most salient point brought out by Agnostic writer and which is really the heart of the matter is that “regardless of why people make certain arguments, their arguments are either accurate and compelling to reason, or not. And discovering whether such arguments are compelling to reason is what the legitimate quest for truth, and a legitimate debate, is about--not the dubious subconscious archaeology of a motive for adopting an argument, but a clear discussion of the merits of the argument."
The Lonely Man of Faith
To be fair, not all fundamentalist or fervently religious will engage in such crude forms of emotional manipulation. The Fundamentalists who do so are unable to compartmentalize their beliefs that are based on faith from their beliefs based on scientific, objective analyses and admit to one or the other or both when they are in conflict. To be able to do so is cognitively dissonant and many Orthodox cannot abide this condition. It takes an individual of extreme courage and independence of will to live in cognitive dissonance and be OK with this state of affairs. It is difficult but not impossible. There are exceptional and thinking people who can do so, but they are rare. The "lonely man of faith" is truly lonely.
What this all means for the BT
Consequently, I admonish the acolyte BT to be wary of this tendency of Fundamentalists in general, and Haredi in particular, when they "pathologize" your motives, feelings, and doubts. By all means examine yourself in this regard, but do not fall prey to self-doubt or self deprecation just because they project their own pathology on you. We all have doubts and act on personal motives. Examine these well before you construe them to be unworthy or unacceptable.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Important: Machon Shlomo, Machon Yaakov, Sinai Retreats, Heritage Retreats
Though there is much in Orthodox Judaism that I find deeply meaningful and appealing, I have come to realize, that, short of simply obliterating my own thoughts and feelings, I can no longer ignore the uncomfortable fact that Orthodoxy fails to corroborate many of its central claims - - historicity of the Flood, Bavel, the Exodus, numerous other historical anachronism, etc. Nor can I assuage my conscience, that is deeply pained by many of the tradition’s laws (cannot save a non jews life on Shabbos, etc) and attitudes (non jews referred to as animals, donkeys, etc) toward non (yehudim) jews.
More significant, I have become increasingly aware of how ubiquitous intellectual dishonesty is in the Kiruv world, how skilled many Kiruv (Jewish Outreach) pros are in deflecting difficult questions regarding the pitfalls of the Orthodox lifestyle, as well as the tradition's many disconfirming realities.
It is my hope that potential BT's, who are considering traveling along this path, can benefit from my experience and research so that they can make a more informed decision about whether or not to become Orthodox. I would have appreciated such. For that reason, I have created this blog, which culls together informative and relevant material from the Web, some of which is scholarly, some not, some based on my own reflections and some based on the musings of others who have also traveled this path.
I, by the way, have no malicious intent here. I'm not an anti-Orthodox crusading ideologue. I have no animus toward Kiruv Professionals, my alma mater Machon Shlomo (Machon Yaakov), it's dedicated Rebbein, or any other kiruv organization. I've nothing to gain personally from this exercise except the pleasure of sharing my personal experience and insights that I think need to be (told) disclosed to old friends and friends yet unknown.
*if you are considering attending any of the following institutions or programs listed below, you should, at a minimum, familiarize yourself with Letter to My Rabbi and Judaic sources on the attitude towards gentiles:
click Kiruv Awareness Network to view posts and links
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Personal Introduction
Though there is much in Orthodox Judaism that I find deeply meaningful and appealing, I have come to realize, that, short of simply obliterating my own thoughts and feelings, I can no longer ignore the uncomfortable fact that Orthodoxy fails to corroborate many of its central claims - - historicity of the Flood, Bavel, the Exodus, numerous other historical anachronism, etc. Nor can I assuage my conscience, that is deeply pained by many of the tradition’s laws (cannot save a non jews life on Shabbos, etc) and attitudes (non jews referred to as animals, donkeys, etc) toward non (yehudim) jews.
More significant, I have become increasingly aware of how ubiquitous intellectual dishonesty is in the Kiruv world, how skilled many Kiruv (Jewish Outreach) pros are in deflecting difficult questions regarding the pitfalls of the Orthodox lifestyle, as well as the tradition's many disconfirming realities.
It is my hope that potential BT's, who are considering traveling along this path, can benefit from my experience and research so that they can make a more informed decision about whether or not to become Orthodox. I would have appreciated such. For that reason, I have created this blog, which culls together informative and relevant material from the Web, some of which is scholarly, some not, some based on my own reflections and some based on the musings of others who have also traveled this path.
I, by the way, have no malicious intent here. I'm not an anti-Orthodox crusading ideologue. I have no animus toward Kiruv Professionals, my alma mater Machon Shlomo (Machon Yaakov), it's dedicated Rebbein, or any other kiruv organization. I've nothing to gain personally from this exercise except the pleasure of sharing my personal experience and insights that I think need to be (told) disclosed to old friends and friends yet unknown.