is it not clear that judaism is true?

[bananabrain]

in the end, one ends up with the question, how could such a claim be started?

i think you're kind of flying in the face of the way the Oral Law works. remember, when you look at a piece of mishnah and then a piece of gemara, the sages are trying to establish not what the halakhah is, but why it is the way it is, by examining the reasoning of the sages in whose name the teachings are given and by analysing their consistency and integrity to a minute degree. you'll have a mishnah which appears to be contradicted by a baraita which appears to describe the same situation, so the gemara will spend its time trying to establish if they contradict each other or not or if they are actually describing subtly different cases, in order to conclude that the baraita or mishnah concerned contain no redundancy.

the argument I'm pointing to here is by the force not of the claims themselves, but of historical logic of how claims get started and what kinds of outrageous claims are allowed by humanity to get started and persist without even direct contradiction.

the point is that nobody is questioning what is *assumed axiomatically* to be true - ie, that moshe received Torah at sinai and passed it on to joshua, etc all the way down to the zugot and tannaim. by the time it is written down, the original claim is in fact *mythic* - which is not to say untrue, but not subjectable to verification by historical means. there is no such thing as an "outrageous" claim in the context of religious myth, because each thing is as outrageous as the next. in other words, it is pointless arguing about whether it is impossible or not for something to get started or not because actually, the examination fails if you can't even verify the chain of tradition, which, in fact, is precisely what the sages are struggling with when they're trying to work out whether it was rabbi meir or resh lakish who made a particular anonymous ruling by comparing it to other rulings which are agreed to be by those persons and assuming moreover that there is consistency throughout unless there is some reason to suppose that the rulings refer to different situations.

you'd be far better to ask yourself why, if the texts are supposedly later than the exodus, they take the trouble to record the conditions of a nomadic camp in such detail when these conditions would not have been applicable for a thousand years by the time the rules were supposedly written. you might also ask why it is we assume that one "person" could not have written all of this based on apparent stylistic differences, when lord macaulay verifiably wrote not only poetry but the indian penal code.

then there seem to be 2 reasons to repudiate polytheism:
1) accepting the claim of sinaitic revelation, there may be no good reason to doubt the validity of the bible as the legacy of that revelation and its status as the word of god. in the bible it says that god is the one god above and below (I could find chapter and verse if you want).

but that is also a classic "argument from authority" based upon the fact that you have to be able to accept that the Torah wasn't lying in the first place, G!D Forbid.

2) accepting the claims, there was a revelation of a supernatural power at the time of the exodus to mankind. the quality of miracles during the exodus period paint a picture of a power that is in charge of many aspects of nature (such as water, animals, lice, precipitation, sunlight, human life). if there is evidence of one supernatural power, who seems to be in charge of quite a lot of what's in nature, if not all of it, and no evidence of any other such power, why would one believe in another such power.

if that is true, then what is your reaction to the book of job and the problem of theodicy - when bad things happen to good people? is that not "evidence" of two powers?

if one believes in a single ultimate truth and believes that the variety of belief systems are truly at odds, then it means that it doesn't make sense to believe based on what's in the heart alone, if one is interested that his beliefs correspond to what is absolutely true.

but philosophically, it cannot be established that *anything* corresponds to absolute "truth" that does not rely on axiomatic beliefs. you sound like a mediaeval rationalist insisting that there have to be demonstrable proofs for everything. i suggest that you get a copy of rambam's "guide for the perplexed". in fact, while we're on the subject, have a look at his 13 principles of faith and you'll see a precise and comprehensive list of the things that are necessarily based on pure faith alone and cannot be demonstrated logically. everything else in Torah follows on from them. even rambam, considered (erroneously in my opinion) as an arch-rationalist exclusivist, conceded that some stuff just *can't* be proven.

is there a critical objection to the argument, are there arguments for other belief systems of equal or superior compelling nature, or something else.

the critical objection is that the same level of proof based on the claims of the Torah itself can be adduced to show that almost any belief system is true if it itself says that it is. furthermore, the internal experience of other texts and belief systems can be reliably shown to produce comparable feelings of 'absolute truth' when applied to the Qur'an, for example - the quality of the arabic is said to be of a supernatural nature by those who are familiar with the language.

to sum up, historical logic proceeds in all cases from *axioms*, whether religious, scientific, aesthetic or otherwise. to deny the existence of such axioms and their philosophical function puts you in disagreement with some of the most rational sages in the history of judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB,

excellent post.

Gooduser,

I suggest you also have a look at As A Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. It's a novel that uses figures from the Talmud to examine contemporary issues. The main focus is on Elisha ben Abuyah who is driven in a search for truth that can be known without any axiomatic assumptions at all.

Dauer

 

[bananabrain]

ooh, yes, good recommendation. in fact, everyone should read it!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[gooduser07]

You're ignoring an important point I made, which is that just because we consider myth a certain way does not mean our ancestors conceived of it the same way.

​

in what respect would they not conceive of myth the same way? to take on unfalsifiable legends is one thing (and even then, not necessarily to the extent that they would stake their lives on the veracity of such stories). but to take on falsifiable ones that actually have strong logic against them is quite a different thing, and it seems difficult to propose that they would have bought this type as well. (eg. imagine a situation of someone introducing a claim of 2 million jews having witnessed a divine revelation, but that the nation has no writings or stories of such things). the claims here weren't made in any allegorical terms, and there is heavy stress in the bible of the nation having witnessed it with their own eyes, so it's difficult to say that people would have accepted such a story as anything but a claim of literal history.​

I can understand the need to unite the people. We're talking about taking the religion of nomadic shepherds and the religion of an earth-centered agrarian society and fusing them together into something somewhat cohesive.

​

the fact that one could come up with other benefits that the introduction of such a history could offer, such as uniting a nation, doesn't mean that people would adopt claims that seem patently false just to accomplish this. again, an unfalsifiable legend with no holes in it, maybe. a claim of literal history with a gaping hole in it, doubtful.​

is it that you think that acceptance even of the second class of claims was possible back then ​

I have no doubt that some of the myths came from earlier sources, for example the parallels between the Torah and the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as other local sources

​

similarity of storyline doesn't dictate plagiarism, and especially not if we're dealing w/ the possibility that the torah is divine. I agree that such a similarity should be noted, but it seems the much more important factor to weigh is some kind of more direct indication of whether the revelation occurred, like the argument from massive claim. ie, if this argument is credited, there is no problem at all with the similarity between literatures, and in fact may just be an indication of the truth of the event.​

If they really did look at the world that way then they were wrong on many accounts, such as a seven-day creation, a solid firmament upon which sits the throne of G!d.

​

I'm not sure why you say the seven days couldn't be literal (cf gerald schroeder's book, genesis and the big bang), or which part you're referring to in the throne of g?, etc, but I think that in any event, there's a clear distinction between everything in the genesis story and the events of the exodus. the genesis story is a few chapters of words to describe the mysteries of creation. the exodus story is given, and heavily emphasized in the text itself, as an historical account that was witnessed by people, and that should be remembered.​

I suggest you also have a look at As A Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. It's a novel that uses figures from the Talmud to examine contemporary issues. The main focus is on Elisha ben Abuyah who is driven in a search for truth that can be known without any axiomatic assumptions at all.

​

indeed, that does sound interesting. thank you for the reference.​

abie​

 

[gooduser07]

impqueen and bb, I really did want to respond tonight, but it's gotten dreadfully late here (israeli time).
I hope to reply another time.
all the best,
abie

 

[gooduser07]

in the meanwhile,
I haven't heard yet from the buddhists, hindus and wiccans on this forum why they believe what they believe. can I invite?

abie

 

[gooduser07]

ok, I started a new thread for the above question, "why do you believe what you believe".

abie

 

[dauer]

in what respect would they not conceive of myth the same way?

As something literal. There isn't even a level of interpretation in present day Judaism that translates as literal. We have pshat and sometimes that can be literal, but not always. It's the plain meaning.

to take on unfalsifiable legends is one thing (and even then, not necessarily to the extent that they would stake their lives on the veracity of such stories). but to take on falsifiable ones that actually have strong logic against them is quite a different thing, and it seems difficult to propose that they would have bought this type as well.

I think you're projection your own rationalist, empirical worldview too strongly on the ancient israelites. What about the pragmatic and symbolic motivations? I'm not suggesting they were originally taken to be literally true. Stories told around the campfire grow and evolve, become the stories of a people. Implausibility is hardly evidence.

. imagine a situation of someone introducing a claim of 2 million jews having witnessed a divine revelation, but that the nation has no writings or stories of such things

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I don't agree. And it's not about how you or I might understand it were we there. We come after the introduction and dissemination of the predominant rationalist approach to the world around us.

the claims here weren't made in any allegorical terms

What about it isn't allegory? The whole thing can be seen as a propagandic argument for the Divine authority of the leadership, and that the common folk should stay out of that role as well as, given Deuteronomy, an argument for why a people just coming out of exile should come together and re-establish order, spoken in the format of a vassal treaty they would have been familiar with.

the fact that one could come up with other benefits that the introduction of such a history could offer, such as uniting a nation, doesn't mean that people would adopt claims that seem patently false just to accomplish this. again, an unfalsifiable legend with no holes in it, maybe. a claim of literal history with a gaping hole in it, doubtful.

But who's saying that it was originally taken as literal history? That's what happens with canon over time as the people involved are removed from the source. The arguments you're making could be argued for most any myth. I don't see anything more implausible about revelation to a whole people than that a man is born to a virgin as the literal son of G!d.

And while pragmatic reasons don't automatically mean they would, I'm not suggesting that as Truth. However Occam's razor would tell us that it's more likely than your metaphysical suggestion because it's a less complicated answer that doesn't involve the supernatural.

similarity of storyline doesn't dictate plagiarism, and especially not if we're dealing w/ the possibility that the torah is divine

I'm not assuming axiomatically that the Torah is Divine. I wouldn't make that type of assumption. If you want to dialogue on this then you can't expect everyone you're speaking with to accept your assumptions. And while I can't establish a causal relationship I'm not suggesting it's Truth, but only that it's a far more reasonable explanation, especially when Occam's razor is applied. You can't write off all of my arguments because they don't support your assumptions and expect me to take your arguments seriously.

like the argument from massive claim. ie, if this argument is credited, there is no problem at all with the similarity between literatures, and in fact may just be an indication of the truth of the event.

But the problem is that we haven't established any validity at all to the claim for mass revelation. It's only you insisting that it must be more true than the rest because it's so implausible, thus involving the supernatural in something that could otherwise be answered using much more reasonable evidence. I think you'll find if you do the research that the argument has never been objectively credited. There are defenses of it just as there are defenses of other world myths, but they they don't serve to convince anyone. They're comfort for some of those who hold to the belief and those looking for an excuse to hold belief in order to convince themselves. I have some questions for you too.

Do you feel like in order for it to be worthwhile it must be literally true?

Are you trying to convince everyone else? To convince yourself? To find answers about something you're uncertain of?

I'm not sure why you say the seven days couldn't be literal (cf gerald schroeder's book, genesis and the big bang)

Genesis and the Big Bang is drash, not pshat. And it's not something arrived at by looking at science and trying to see if Torah fits. It's just like Rambam did with Aristotle, taking science and making it fit to the text. I haven't read it but generally books like this follow the familiar pattern in religious interpretation of finding what doesn't agree according to the interpreter's understanding of the world and showing how it can. Like saying for example that a day can be longer because this is the first place the word yom is used and therefore could indicate any length of time. Or that the light on the first day isn't light as we know it but some type of spiritual light, even though the text never states that. Judaism doesn't read this literally. It accepts it as a mystical text, with good reason.

The throne of G!d isn't mentioned here. It's mentioned I think in tehillim, possibly elsewhere in Nach though as it's been a while, where the cosmology is developed further. G!d's throne sits atop the solid firmament. If it's all valid then surely you must take into account other places in Tanach where the cosmology is further developed.

the exodus story is given, and heavily emphasized in the text itself, as an historical account that was witnessed by people, and that should be remembered.

Yeah but you're assuming their sense of history was the same as ours which an analysis of the claims of the text and other mythical texts from that time period of different people suggests isn't true. They were all accepting things that we would find literally implausible. Look at the religion of the natives to Australia. They view the world in a radically different way than most societies do today. Something you might accept as implausible is perfectly valid for them.

I think really Torah is much more theology and ideology than history, but it disguises itself as a history book by riffing on history and legend. Look at how the assumption that exile was a punishment from YHWH instead of another god conquering YHWH transformed Jewish beliefs. Any other people in the area would have been conquered. That would've been it. They'd assimilate. But in that moment god became G!d. It forced the writers of scripture to think in different ways. That's an example of how we begin to interpret the text differently based on historical experiences or the contemporary mindset. And from that the text just flower. It explodes with new meaning to each generation. As the gemara records, R. Akiva's Torah was different than Moses' Torah. R. Akiva said that these things he said were given to Moses, but Moses could not make sense of it. Now here is also another example of something implausible that was accepted. And today we still accept that it's a drash, not meant to be taken literally. But the Torah is much earlier, pre-rabbinic Judaism. And a lot happened, a lot of tohu vavohu. So that flexible nature gets lost to literalism by those who would wish preserve their stories.

Dauer

 

[gooduser07]

dauer,
to answer your question, I am looking for truth. not to convince anyone of any ideas.
basically, I grew up w/ torah, and realized at a certain point that the tradition bears questioning since there are many traditions and belief systems in the world, and many people of high iq's subscribe to many of these. upon an initial questioning of my own traditions, I had seen strong evidence (from a number of angles, but including the mass-revelation argument) for torah. so the question reverses itself, if you get my meaning. why do others not believe in torah? hence, this thread.

if I argued w/ people it was to test the mettle of their ideas. at root, I am trying to understand, not to convince.

not only do I not expect others to take on my assumptions, but I don't make assumptions myself. if you look carefully at the way I phrased things, you may notice this.

to answer your other question, it's hard for me to conceive of following a religion if what they say is true isn't true. for judaism, I think that there are some aggadot that the tradition itself says were only meant allegorically. so if I discovered these things weren't literally true, no problem. but for the things that the tradition says are to be taken literally (which I think is most things, and certainly exodus and sinai), if I discover them to be untrue, then there would be a problem.

having said all this, I must also say that I can see that it may become difficult for me to continue the thread for now. I'm in the process of moving countries, and it may take a while. I do thank you for what you've shared. maybe it can be continued another time.

all the best,
gooduser07

 

[dauer]

Thanks for giving a little background.

Have a safe journey.

Dauer

 

[gooduser07]

thank you,
all the best,
gooduser07.

 

[Raksha]

That's a super interesting take Dauer, I really appreciate that. I most enjoyed the travelogue bits as well. I have a friend who's big into renewal. She turned me on to the book and the Tikkun site.

Chris,

That would be me, of course. I found this thread because it appeared at the bottom of my screen as a "similar topic" to another topic I was looking at. Unfortunately, this topic is almost two years old, and I assume everyone has moved on to all kinds of other issues.

That's unfortunate, because Dauer mentioned an understanding of ritual impurity in the post above yours that is very similar to a realization I had a couple of days ago while reading The New Earth by Eckhard Tolle. Not being from a Jewish background, Tolle of course doesn't think in terms of ritual impurity. I made that connection myself, because what he calls "the pain-body" (an aspect of the ego, and also part of the person's aura) is the first thing I've read that actually makes sense out of the concept of ritual impurity.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

There's something Reb Zalman said in the name of Reb Shlomo Carlebach that I'm not sure is ever mentioned in the book. Reb Shlomo taught, from a teaching in the Mei HaShiloach (it's from last week's parsha and I've been reading along a bit in the mei hashiloah and am not sure quite the way it relates, but I've read from the author of my translation in an interview that the way Reb Shlomo would drash on the mei hashiloach, it wasn't always clear the connection) that with the Holocaust the Jewish people had come into contact with death which rendered them tamei. There had been a huge spiritual death. The only way to remove that degree of tumah is with the ashes of a red heifer which must be done by a kohein who hasn't been rendered tamei. And it's done outside the camp. So some of the Jewish people (a nation of priests) went out of the camp to other kohanim (that is the spiritual sages of other traditions) to have the tumah removed.

Dauer,

Here's the post I was referring to in my note to Chris. I know I've read the basic idea before, although I'm not sure where I read it. It could have been in The Jew in the Lotus but then again it could have been in some other book. I didn't know the idea originated with Reb Shlomo Carlebach until I read your post. But the line rings in my memory: "Since the Holocaust, we are all defiled by reason of the dead."

The part about going "outside the camp" to the sages of other traditions in order to have the tumah removed is a new one on me, but it definitely rings true. Too bad I'm responding to a post that is already almost two years old. As I just told Chris, I brought it back to the top because this concept of being "defiled by reason of the dead" has become newly relevant to me--predictably, because of something I read outside of the Jewish tradition.

--Linda

 

[dauer]

I don't know if your attempt to make sense of tumah is in any way related to taharat hamishpachah, but there are other alternative takes on the meaning that may be of interest to you, eg the one found in Lakme Batya Elior's essay, Tumah and Taharah Reexamined that was included in Way of the Boundary Crosser by Gershon Winkler:

The Way of the Boundary Crosser: An ... - Google Book Search

Google books unfortunately doesn't have the full essay.

 

[17th Angel]

Faith isn't something that comes from logical arguments and reasoning (at least, that's what I think about faith) it is about things you just know or feel to be true. You strongly feel Judaism is true, that's great, but not all of us feel that. Arguments based on sacred texts won't work on those who don't believe the texts are the word of God.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Ugh, I am loving Twain right now... lol

 

[Raksha]

I don't know if your attempt to make sense of tumah is in any way related to taharat hamishpachah, but there are other alternative takes on the meaning that may be of interest to you, eg the one found in Lakme Batya Elior's essay, Tumah and Taharah Reexamined that was included in Way of the Boundary Crosser by Gershon Winkler:

The Way of the Boundary Crosser: An ... - Google Book Search

Google books unfortunately doesn't have the full essay.

Dauer,

Thanks for the link, and I'll definitely take a look at it. To answer your question, though...no, at the moment my interest in tumah doesn't have a whole lot to do with taharat hamishpachach.

I still have MAJOR issues with the traditional patriarchal interpretation of taharat mamishpachach. While I'm aware that this isn't the only possible interpretation, it really turns me off in a big way. In fact, if that were my only understanding of it, I'd be every bit as hostile to the subject as I was before.

Whatever modification or softening of my attitude exists now has been by way of my Jewitch daughter, a member of Starhawk's Reclaiming organization and a priestess in training. It could never have come about through any Jewish male whatsoever...not BB and not even you. Not even Jonathan Omer-Man, who I practically worship (even though I know he doesn't want to be worshipped). It doesn't matter who you are or how pure your intentions. If you're a Jewish male, I'd always tend to suspect you of sugar-coated sexism and write off anything you had to say on the subject.

For the past few days, I've been thinking mostly about the kind of tumah that comes about through trauma or grief. Very often it involves death, but not always. It can also come about through rape or any other kind of trauma. I'm thinking that tumah is closely connected (or maybe identical) with PTSD, and specifically with the changes that come about in the person's energy field as a result of trauma.

AND...it can be passed down through the generations. There have been many studies done and books written on the children of Holcaust survivors, and I believe even their grandchildren. I haven't read any of the books but I have read a few articles, and it's known that their psychology is very different from the general population.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think tumah is some abstract metaphysical state but a very real condition, not on the physical level exactly but at the next level above that. And that it is both caused by, and also causes, deep emotional pain which can continue for a very long time.

Shalom,
Linda

 

[Avi]

Whatever modification or softening of my attitude exists now has been by way of my Jewitch daughter, a member of Starhawk's Reclaiming organization and a priestess in training.

Hi Linda, can you please explain what does Jewitch mean ?

Thanks. Avi

 

[Raksha]

Avi,

"Jewitch" is a contraction of "Jewish Witch." It refers to a Pagan of Jewish heritage. It's sometimes also written "Jewiccan," but my daughter loathes the words "Wiccan" and "Jewiccan" and won't allow anyone to call her that. Following her teacher Starhawk, she prefers the more in-your-face term "Witch" for a number of reasons, one of them being as a reminder of the persecutions of Witches and women accused of witchcraft by the Inquisition.

The exact ratio of Judaism to Paganism in this particular form of syncretism varies according to the individual. Sometimes it refers strictly to the person's ancestry and background. Some "Pagan Jews" seem to have very little interest in Semitic mythology, traditions or belief systems and may identify more with Celtic traditions, for example. They are similar to some JuBus in that respect.

That usually isn't the case, though. Most retain a strong connection to their Jewish background and can even be quite observant in the traditional sense. Their main interest is in uncovering and reclaiming the roots of pre-patriarchal Judaism. I fit more into this category although I'm not all that observant, but I've met some amazingly committed people who are. Syncretism doesn't necessarily equal superficiality.

--Linda

 

[nativeastral]

Syncretism doesn't necessarily equal superficiality.

--Linda

too true, and arent all the major religions syncretisms, in truth?

 

[Avi]

Avi,

"Jewitch" is a contraction of "Jewish Witch." It refers to a Pagan of Jewish heritage. It's sometimes also written "Jewiccan," but my daughter loathes the words "Wiccan" and "Jewiccan" and won't allow anyone to call her that. Following her teacher Starhawk, she prefers the more in-your-face term "Witch" for a number of reasons, one of them being as a reminder of the persecutions of Witches and women accused of witchcraft by the Inquisition.

The exact ratio of Judaism to Paganism in this particular form of syncretism varies according to the individual. Sometimes it refers strictly to the person's ancestry and background. Some "Pagan Jews" seem to have very little interest in Semitic mythology, traditions or belief systems and may identify more with Celtic traditions, for example. They are similar to some JuBus in that respect.

That usually isn't the case, though. Most retain a strong connection to their Jewish background and can even be quite observant in the traditional sense. Their main interest is in uncovering and reclaiming the roots of pre-patriarchal Judaism. I fit more into this category although I'm not all that observant, but I've met some amazingly committed people who are. Syncretism doesn't necessarily equal superficiality.

--Linda

Linda, thanks for the background, very interesting !!

I found your comments about pre-patriarchial Judaism especially interesting as well as your earlier comment about sexism in Judaism.

I am curious if you are refering to the more traditional movements ? In the Reform movement, you are probably aware that many women Rabbi's are being ordained.

You are right of course that the major early characters in Torah were men. But that was an ancient civilization. Also, wasn't Deborah a famous prophetess ?

I do think you are right to challenge sexism in the Torah though.

With respect to witchcraft, are there connections to Kabbalah ? It seems like both are connected to occult.

I am sure that you are aware that there are Biblical references about witchcraft ? However, I tend to feel that they are a bit conservative . After all, didn't David consult with a "sorcerer" when he wanted information about Saul ?

Oh, and one last question, I assume that you and your daughter are "good" witches , is that the case ?