Either/Orthodoxy

Wally Right on May 15, 2012 at 8:45 am (Reply)

Very interesting, because most of the concepts broached here are discussed in the Brit Hadasha, a very Jewish polemical book mostly unknown within the observant world. The problem with the Torah is not the written Torah: There is much evidence--historical, archaeological, linguistic--that it is a divinely inspired whole. But the oral torah is clearly only partially inspired--that is, it is a compendium of passed-down traditions, but not every jot or tittle (to use the Brit Hadasha expression) is inspired as the written Torah is. And there is no warrant for saying the Humash is more inspired than the Prophets or the Writings, so let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

YY on May 15, 2012 at 11:53 am (Reply)

The author's belief that the Oral Torah was invented by rabbis, rather than deriving from Mt. Sinai, is based on speculation. You can't prove a negative. History and the social sciences are not exact sciences -- they are quite fuzzy and political. As someone with a Ph.D. in social science, I can tell you that much, perhaps most research is driven by politics and ideology, and virtually no one I know would publish results that contradicted their political or theological views.

Ancient history is not such an exact science that it justifies throwing out the basic underlying belief of rabbinic Judaism -- that the whole Torah was passed down from generation to generation, starting at Sinai. (Anyway, if non-observant Jews are not qualified to serve as judges, then why should they be qualified to change our belief system?) If individuals want to quietly look into these matters and adopt heterodox beliefs while remaining observant, OK, but this should be an esoteric and discouraged endeavor rather than something for the masses.

The Conservative movement made historical skepticism its official ideology, and the result was that no one is motivated to become completely observant. The author is advocating that Orthodox Jews do the same thing, but he ignores the fact that it would probably have the same result.

That said, it would be useful for someone to explain in a compelling way why a person who doesn't believe in oral-Torah-from-Sinai should still be completely observant (by Orthodox standards). I'm not sure it can be done well, but it does fill a need, for those who already find it hard to believe the traditional narrative. A certain proportion of committed Orthodox Jews probably do hold heterodox views, and either come up with their own personal theology to justify it ("if the rabbis made it up, gamzu l'tovah;" "It works, and has kept the Jewish people going over the millenia, so it must be G-d's will") or just keep practicing without knowing exactly why they should.

If I understand Rothstein correctly (and I haven't read the book) he argues not that we shouldn't think of Judaism as requiring numerous mitzvot, but that we should think of it as that PLUS a generalized duty to serve Hashem with our own individual spirituality and actions beyond mitzvah observance (the general duty to engage in acts of kindness or to pursue justice, for example). This is compatible with Judaism as we know it -- it just pushes people to be braver, more individualistic, and more focused on the inner life. Some people are already doing this, and Rothstein's book might stimulate more to do so.

abarafi on May 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm (Reply)

Irrespective of the veracity of Torah or Talmud the reason observant Judaism persists is because it brings external structure to life and living. More liberal philosophies that provide so many more choices also create a lot more confusion. Ask yourself if the continuing attempts to make our sexual identities irrelevant leads to increased happiness? Now that more and more of our jobs have virtually nothing to do with whether we are male or female, we are more and more divorced from how our maleness or femaleness relates to our lives. Every other mammal on the planet viscerally 'knows' its role. There are clear distinctions between what they do and whether they are male or female. As humanity progresses, that clarity abates. In its place we have confusion, unhappiness, and a feeling of purposeless. Reform and conservative Judaism do nothing to change that. Only observant Judaism gives us structure.

real Jew on May 15, 2012 at 3:06 pm (Reply)

Wally Right is clearly a Jew for Jesus: hence, his usage of the term BRIT HADASHA, which is Hebrew for NEW TESTAMENT. And that explains his put-down of the "oral torah"- which is the 'tradition of the elders' that the NT denigrates. And, of course, he is completely wrong about the HUMASH, which is special because, unlike the Prophets and Writings, it is the only authoritative source for Jewish law.

Chelm Wiseman on May 15, 2012 at 7:54 pm (Reply)

I am in the middle of reading Torah from Heaven and am interested in this debate.

My background... Generally non-observant upbringing - Liberal Jew - descended from liberal jews - strong natural inclination to study Judaism.

About 5 years ago I started studying some with Aish Hatorah and some with Chabad. I remain a liberal Jew, but with a much broader understanding of Judaism and more observance and learning than an average reform Jew.

I teach Jewish history in my congregation and I was very pleased to find Rabbi Solomon's book. In a liberal congregation, you simply cannot ignore the problems presented by a critical reading of the text. It is also no guarantee that any one congregant believes in God at all. (Though most do) Rabbi Solomon helps to find a middle ground between complete skepticism and complete lack of skepticism. I think his work will be very important... less so in the Orthodox world and more in the liberal Jewish world. I hope more liberal Jews read it, so we (reform Jews) can get past the reflexive undermining of the traditional historical narrative and deal with more important issues.

CJ Srullowitz on May 16, 2012 at 12:15 am (Reply)

Professor Solomon makes a bald declaration in stating that Orthodoxy's core belief "cannot be upheld by the serious historian, scientist, or philosopher." Presumably all those historians, scientists, and philosophers who do, in fact, believe in the Divinity of Torah are, ipso facto, not serious students of their fields.

How convenient for him.

Yeshayahu Hollander on May 16, 2012 at 6:10 am (Reply)

Orthodox Jewry is NOT an ideology, a theology, or a thought system. Worlds of difference of beliefs separate some orthodox rationalists from some mystical hassidic groups, but we nevertheless will eat from one another, daven with one another, and [more rarely, admitted] marry one another. In a community in which I lived in Jerusalem, we did not study aggadeta, certainly not mysticism, but we did regularly study Shulhan Arukh, and definitely tried to observe it.
Intellectual criticism of the 13 "Foundations of Faith" of the Rambam are not really of practical interest to normal orthodox Jews. This is NOT ortopraxy, devoid of belief. This is recognition that our human understanding of the Almighty Creator and Ruler is very limited, and the more we learn of our own halakhic sources the more we know how little we really know. We prefer to concentrate on our very important function: serving Him as we understand - based upon our tradition - that we should. We are here to serve, not to debate. To serve in happiness, Simha.
It is this ignoring of intellectual differences and emphasizing practical observances which enables us to have so many different, conflicting ideas - and nevertheless to stay unified. Our way is one of Unity, not of intellectual conformity.

Philobiblia on May 19, 2012 at 10:05 am (Reply)

Much work has taken place in the 50+ years since Cassuto's death. He proposed that the Pentateuch was written down as a single, entirely coherent and unified text in the 10th century BC. This is refuted - and the diversity of sources demonstrated- by the presence of Aramaicisms throughout the Pentateuch,
especially in Leviticus, which would date it as post-exilic, and from the Persian period.

Philobiblia II on May 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm (Reply)

Cassuto was not a "secular academic"; Moshe David Cassuto served as chief rabbi of Florence, Italy from 1914 to 1925.

Ben Tzur on May 22, 2012 at 5:01 am (Reply)

Whether or not Cassuto got a rabbinic ordination in his early years has no relevance to his later academic work, which was indeed secular academic. The Hebrew University is not a rabbinic seminary, but a secular university with the same high secular-academic standards as leading universities around the world. Not even chief rabbis get any special claim to lectureships there, rather the reverse it is likely to be seen as a drawback, and next to no such figures have positions there. Cassuto got his post therefore not for anything related to his semichah (rabbinic ordination), but for his many publications and universally acknowledged scholarship in secular Semitic and ancient Near Eastern studies. Specifically, his book on The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch was entirely in secular academic terms. It did not appeal to Rabbinic authorities or sources to confirm its points, and did not push an Orthodox view of the history of the Pentateuch, far from it. He did not assert that the Torah as a whole was revealed at Mt. Sinai, which is the usual Orthodox position (although even in the medieval period there were some highly respected authorities who excepted certain passages and questioned others -- all this is perfectly legitimate in traditional/Orthodox Judaism, which has been much more rationally oriented and multi-perspectival about scriptural exegesis than Christianity has tended to be). Historical issues, in any case, are not his topic in the book. He does make some historical suppositions merely in passing in his book, in some throw-away sentences, but these are in fact contrary to Orthodox views. His analysis focuses instead on devastatingly effective demonstations of the illogic and ignorance behind the "Documentary Hypothesis." As it happens, none of his substantive arguments about the Documentary Hypothesis have been rendered redundant by subsequent research. The refusal to address Cassuto's actual points, precisely because they are irrefutable, began with the publication of his book; the present silence merely continues that and is no more justified.

Jerry Blaz on May 22, 2012 at 6:55 pm (Reply)

Cassuto is renowned for his denial of the documentary theory as an academic scholar. Using Cassuto as one's justification of denial of the validity of any non-Orthodox exegesis of the Scriptures is the problem. However, during Cassuto's tenure, there were exegetes who could not teach in the Bible faculty of the Hebrew University such as the late Naftali Torczyner (Tur-Sinai) because their views of Scripture were "too free."He worked in Semitic linguistics in the Hebrew department of the Hebrew University and his contributions to Scriptural exegesis as an academic study is at least equal to Cassuto without my denying one iota of accomplishment from Cassuto.

Ben Tzur on May 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm (Reply)

By the way, Cassuto is not the only person who has presented convincing arguments against the Documentary Hypothesis, although his is the most systematic, thorough-going and well-grounded in knowledge of Hebrew as well as ancient Semitic literatures. Actually, scepticism about the DH (Documentary Hypothesis) is very widespread in "Higher Biblical Criticism," the self-lauding title given by its members to Christian seminary and secular academic Biblical analysis, and is used only for lack of anything else by many Biblical critics. One of the most persuasive disproofs, as it happens, comes from Otto Eissfeldt, one of its chief advocates, for he, in trying to support the thesis of multiple authorship of the Pentateuch, showed that application of the standard criteria for these documents ended up fragmenting the "Elohist," "Yahwist," "Priestly" and "Deuteronomist" documents into as many as ten "documents" behind each, producing despite Eissfeldt's claims a comical kind of reductio ad absurdum to the whole DH as such. This reductio ad absurdum has been widely recognized by "Biblical Critics" as a big problem, even if one that they would rather not deal with. (E.g., see the discussion in Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch [1992], pp. 14ff.)

Another by-the-way: I notice that my own writing style differs depending on whether I am writing an scholarly article, a letter to my relatives, a work of dramatic narrative, a brief historical account, or a shopping list. In other words, the content strongly shapes style. This is also true in the Torah. See Cassuto for more on this. But if "Higher Biblical Critics" got hold of my life work, in which in addition my style has changed over time, they would without any doubt conclude that the literature proves that I am fifteen different people, Q.E.D.

maven on May 23, 2012 at 11:26 am (Reply)

re: "Ask Rabbi Louis Jacobs if someone who doesn't believe the Torah was given at Sinai is accepted as Orthodox." This statement is contradicted by the Torah itself, which notes that NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY were both given post-Sinai: the former in the second month of the second year in the wilderness, and the latter in the eleventh month of the last year ibn the wilderness. So the "Orthodox" view of revelation is heretical/treif, according to the explicit language of the Torah itself!
Secondly, what is the historical documentation for B-Tz's view that "Aramaic, in any case, was spoken in the ancient Near East from early times"?

YM on May 23, 2012 at 4:04 pm (Reply)

Maven, an Orthodox Jew by definition believes that the Torah was authored by G-d. Whether the entire text of the chumash was given on Har Sinai or just the ten commandments is discussed in the Gemara, I believe; there is not a single opinion.

YM on May 23, 2012 at 4:42 pm (Reply)

Jerry, one cannot be one of "Orthodoxy's internal critics, attacking its theology", if one isn't Orthodox. Thats all. The validity or lack of validity in his viewpoint isn't the issue, but rather whether the viewpoint is Orthodox or not. In this case, not.

Ben Tzur on May 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm (Reply)

Let me reassure anxious posters that I am not a committee nor even a person suffering from split personalities "J," "E," "P," and "D," but thanks for your concern!

As for the antiquity of Aramaic, see any standard encyclopaedia article on Aramaic, its history and literature. It goes back beyond the tenth century BCE, and really just emerged as a dialect of previous western Semitic spoken and written in the region. E.g., it shows strong affinities with the language of the Ebla texts, which are from ca. 2,400 to 1,800 BCE, as does Hebrew itself.

Ben Tzur on May 24, 2012 at 1:12 am (Reply)

It occurs to me to add a further ironical observation: the very presence of those extremely few possible Aramaicisms in the Pentateuch, even if we accept that they are that, actually proves the opposite of what posters above claim, that the Pentateuch was written in or after the Babylonian Exile. For if the Pentateuch were written in an Aramaic-speaking environment, would we not find very many Aramaicisms in it? Even if there were a conscious effort to produce a Hebrew text for the allegedly fictional prophets, historical books, psalms, etc., and the Pentateuch itself, it is obvious that numerous echoes of and slip-ups into the Aramaic tongue spoken in daily life in Babylonia would have occurred. And if we suppose that all these fictional works were produced at the time of the Babylonian Exile and after it, the texts would not at first have had the status of scripture and unalterability, so after the first generation or so further editorial additions, scribal glosses in Aramaic that would end up in the novel text itself, and so would have inevitably have produced in a few generations a mixed result throughout. However, that there is only one probable Aramaicism in the entire Pentateuch, a translation of a Hebrew place name, and two other more dubious but possible ones, shows that the text as we have it was already in the Babylonian period a sacred text, known too well to have words easily changed by scribal errors, and it also shows that the text was preserved for a further millenium or so in an Aramaic-speaking environment without any significant alterations. This also implies that very many of its readers knew the text word for word, and copying of manuscripts was very carefully done even as it still is done, so that any inadvertent changes, in early as well as later centuries, would be noted and corrected. It appears that when all is said and one, only one such minor error escaped their attention. So we must conclude that the Pentateuch was already known widely as divine revelation from Sinai in the sixth century BCE and in the following centuries despite the Aramaic environment, and that strong measures were taken already back then to preserve it unalterably .

Curt Levey on May 24, 2012 at 10:01 am (Reply)

The comment "As for the antiquity of Aramaic, see any standard encyclopaedia article on Aramaic, its history and literature" is an unsourced pontification, like numerous other assertions by its poster.
The Unitary (=anti-Documentary) Hypothesis about the Pentateuch is to the (Orthodox) Yeshiva hashkafa as Intelligent Design is to (Protestant Christian) fundamentalist Creationism: namely, a duplicitous attempt to fob off religious dogma as independent ("secular academic")truth. In both cases, perpetrated in the jingoistic service of ideological triumphalism.
If nothing else, the Unitary doctrine is contradicted by the fact that Deuteronomy- unlike the other four books of the Chumash- presents itself NOT as the Word of God (= divine), but as the valedictory musings of Moses, the words of Moses (= human, however divinely-influenced). This fact, among other things, helps explain the difference in certain details of content between Deut and Exodus, such as the difference in wording regarding the commandment to observe the Sabbath.

Ben Tzur on May 24, 2012 at 9:15 pm (Reply)

By the way, the highly abusive references by Curt Levey to my well-resourced and directly relevant comments as "unsourced pontification" and, far worse, to traditional Jewish and contemporary Orthodox teachings regarding Torah revelation as a "duplicitous attempt to fob off religious dogma" may have escaped the moderator's eye, but I would like an apology from him. Such attacks do not belong in this forum.

Poseq on May 25, 2012 at 1:47 pm (Reply)

It is no refutation of Levey to claim that "the unitary nature and antiquity of the other books of the Chumash, which is what Cassuto focussed on, not Deuteronomy, remains." The Documentary Hypothesis spoke of four (4)- J, E D and P- sources, not three (3) !

Secondly, contrary to YM, the criterion for what constitutes Jewish- as opposed to Christian- "Orthodoxy" is HALACHIC practice, NOT AGGADIC belief.
If you do your best to observe the 613 commandments, that makes you observant Orthodox. Whether you do so because you thought God spoke to the Jewish people through Moses in the wilderness, or, over time, through four helpers known as J, E, D and P, is beside the point.
Rabbinic Judaism never sought to define itself via creedal statements until Rambam was driven to do so because of circumstances- and, according to leading Maimonides scholar Menahem Kellner, Rambam himself did not "believe" in some of the 13 Ekarim he outlined!
Alternately, one of Maimonides' 13 principles declares God's utter incorporality. According to Rabbi Slifkin's research, Rashi believed that God had a body. So, by Rambam's standards, Rashi was not only not Orthodox, but a heretic! So much for the folly of defining "Orthodoxy" and/or Judaism in non-praxis terms.

Dina on May 26, 2012 at 8:44 am (Reply)

Mr. Ben-Tzur sets up a straw man in his post: what Mr. Levey (correctly) criticized was not "traditional Jewish and contemporary Orthodox teachings regarding Torah revelation" AS SUCH, but the stealth effort to parade those pre-fabricated doctrines as anything but! Genuine learning is about the independent pursuit and DISCOVERY of truth, not the RECOVERY and indoctrination of communal nostrums.
As the Christian fundamentalist Bible thumpers at the Discovery Institute have been doing in promoting Intelligent Design as "creation SCIENCE". In siding with such efforts, Mr. Ben-Tzur, alas, has tipped his hand to his real agenda.

Jerry Blaz on May 28, 2012 at 3:54 am (Reply)

The assumption of certitude can only be based on faith, not research of either a Cassuto or a Devers. Faith, in Orthodoxy, means accepting the that the Torah comes from Hashem. However, there are Jews who comes is all sizes of belief, disbelief, and unbelief. If one Biblical researcher says that the first four Books are written by Hashem and the fifth by Moses, what happens to the faith of an Orthodox who makes that claim. I certainly don't claim to know because I am not bound by the authority of Orthodoxy, though I certainly respect their rights to claim whatever makes any person professing to be Orthodox to believe his beliefs. The article makes the claim that both Solomon and Rothstein are equally Orthodox, and, I suppose, that means they will sit down and eat together. However, their approach to faith must be different one from the other. So there is pluralism in Orthodoxy, and if there is pluralism in Orthodoxy, there apparently are those who resist it, because they fear allowing pluralism get a foot in the door of Judaism.

Ben Tzur on May 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm (Reply)

On Kellner, while there is much in his thesis with which I agree, and much with which I disagree, it would be incorrect to suppose that he is arguing that there is no firm belief structure in Judaism and that it is only centered on practice. He does not say that. On the contrary, he argues in his Must A Jew Believe Anything? (2nd edition, 2006) against unrestrained "religious pluralism" (by which he means religious and cultural relativism), that all views are equally true and therefore equally untrue (a view that refutes itself, by the way). He writes, in his concluding paragraphs (p. 146), "The claim that all forms of Judaism are equally true and valid ... trivializes the decision to remain Jewish. ... I have much greater respect for a Reform Jew convinced that her interpretation of Torah is superior to mine and fervently committed to it that I have for someone whose understanding of Judaism has no truth component. With the first person, I can agree to disagree (the position staked out in this book); with the second, I have very little to discuss concerning matters of Jewish religious importance. ... For thousands of years Jews have martyred themselves for their faith; to adopt a pluralist view of religious truth is to make a mockery of those sacrifices. It further implies that any Jew who makes such a sacrifice in the future is misguided." Kellner does not consider the Torah Judaism view of reality untrue or ungrounded, or such sacrifices for it misguided, and he does not argue for a philosophical view that justifies valueless cynicism.

Ben Tzur on May 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm (Reply)

Maven thinks Eitan and his unsourced suppositions are vindicated because the article I cited came from the first edition of the Ency. Jud. (I do not have the second edition), representing the results of the best Semitic language scholarship of that generation and summarizing many centuries of study and research. Apparently Maven thinks that ancient Aramaic is no longer the same language as it was up to 1973, and ancient Hebrew too has suddenly changed, so that the best scholarship in the 70s no longer applies even to basic language knowledge of either Hebrew or Aramaic. This is not the case, and even though I do not have the second edition of the Ency. Jud. before me, I notice that Maven cannot claim that it has actually changed the information already present in the articles concerning Aramaicisms in the Pentateuch, which I cited, and Maven cannot claim it does. So Eitan is not vindicated.

Ben Tzur on May 30, 2012 at 8:07 pm (Reply)

If the First Commandment is merely following ancient suzerainty treaties, why is it a Commandment? Does it not affirm that without acknowledging God, there can be no covenant? Thus it is indeed a statement of belief and faith, that there is in fact a Commander.

medaqdaq on May 31, 2012 at 10:32 am (Reply)

The pshat wording of the alleged "first commandment" contains no verb in the imperative; that makes it, at best, descriptive, NOT prescriptive. If people choose to 'spin' it otherwise to fit a pre-set dogmatic agenda, that is their problem, but such is a clear distortion of the plain intended meaning of the text.
Nowhere in the Bible does God command belief, just obedience.

J. Spiegel on May 31, 2012 at 1:38 pm (Reply)

I showed the May 30 Nachmanides quote to a friend of mine, who has yadin, yadin (advanced) Orthodox ordination, and did a post-doc in medieval Jewish thought. This was their pithy assessment: "this is reading Rambam into Ramban. dishonest apologetics."

Ben Tzur on June 1, 2012 at 2:50 am (Reply)

One further clarification since various posters seem to want to exaggerate my assertions into some sort of straw-man Christianized Jewish equation of Jewishness with a dogmatic "catechism." I am not trying to argue that a Jew ceases to be a Jew if he or she disagrees with any doctrine at all. Even an atheistic Jew who rejects all the teachings of the Torah, abandons his/her people, and commits every kind of abomination forbidden in the Torah still remains a Jew according to halakhic definitions -- just a very poor Jew if the deviations are merely doctrinal, maybe even an evil one if the deviations extend to the ethical mitzvot and/or militant antisemitism. Nachmanides did not compile a dogmatic theology and was adverse to doing so, criticising Maimonides for his deference to Greek/Aristotelian thought and differing on specific interpretations of Biblical passages (as he did even with Rashi and Ibn Ezra at times), but he was not of the anti-Maimunist party of his generation, sought to reconcile the Maimunist and anti-Maimunist camps, and did not condemn as such either the Mishneh Torah nor even the Guide for the Perplexed. For he largely agreed with Maimonides that there were essential beliefs taught in the Torah and in the Talmudic, mystical and other later writings, even if their lists differed in some respects. He wrote explicitly about such things in his works, as I have shown in relation to the First Commandment; such passages could be duplicated many times over from his writings.

All of this is well-known and is described in all scholarly histories of the Maimunist controversy, so citations should not be necessary.

practitioner of Torat Emet on June 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm (Reply)

Unbelievable! Now the poster claims infallibility, insisting that he is beyond criticism! (June 1, 2:50 posting). At the same time, in another JID blog thread (on Shavuot), he has no problem accusing a critic of his of storing Yahrzeit candles in a liquor cabinet - is this not a case of double standards?

Edmund Breitbart on June 2, 2012 at 10:09 am (Reply)

The Nachmanides quote he cites is from a book put out by Mesorah Publications. In other words, NOT first-rate peer-reviewed scholarship.
This publishing company focuses on ideology-driven promotional tracts which are then passed off as independent scholarship. The texts it handles are processed through this prism; and if they do not yield the desired outcome, brackets (as in the Nachmanides excerpt) are then employed to "massage" the material in the intended direction. Caveat emptor.

Ben Tzur on June 4, 2012 at 12:29 am (Reply)

Edmund Breitbart, the translation is the translation, and is accurate and even authoritative, and is even far more careful to indicate translation bridges and underlying meanings and to distinguish them from the literal words than others are (for all translations bridge words and interpret meanings, but few indicate this). If you object to the translation, it is up to you to provide a better one from a source that is acceptably learned and secular-anti-Orthodox enough for your taste, but do not a priori rubbish what you do not know.

Chaldean Periphrast, if you do not believe the doctrine that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, you obviously cannot accept as true in any sense even the first chapters of the Torah or anything later in it either. If you think it fantasizes or even lies, then, quite clearly, it is not your Scriptural revelation and the religion and world view it teaches are not your own. Belief and acceptance of doctrines is therefore fundamental to the reading and believing acceptance of the Torah from the first sentences onwards. That is just elementary logic.

As for where does it say in the Chumash "thou shalt believe (fill in the blank)"? -- how about the Shema itself? It was of course the central affirmation of faith of ancient and later Judaism. It is to be the first thing taught to children, and the last words recited before death. It is repeated every day in daily prayers as the central doctrinal affirmation of Judaism, and is chanted by the chazan and the entire congregation when the Torah scrolls are removed from the Ark. It is commanded in Deut. 6:4-9 (also elaborated on in 11:13-21 and Num. 15:37-41). Keep in mind that in Biblical Hebrew the "heart" was thought to be the place where consciousness itself lodged. Thus it was the place where beliefs were held. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your might. And these words, which I command you this day, shall remain upon your heart, and you must teach them diligently to your children and speak of them when you are at home, when you are travelling on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. Bind them as a sign upon your hand, and let them be as frontlets between your eyes. And write them upon the doorposts of your houses and gates."

Again the reference to Prof. Nadler's put-down. I would have preferred to leave it in silence, since I am sure that he himself is ashamed of what he wrote there (and it is obvious that he ceased all participation in the discussion immediately afterward), since it would in effect be a negation not just of Judaism and Jewish civilization but even of his own role as rabbi and teacher of Jewish religion and civilization. No still-Orthodox rabbi would insist in anger that there is no reason to be proud of traditional Judaism or the Torah, or its gifts to all humanity, and that real scholarship could not support that. That is what Nadler seems to be saying, although possibly I have misunderstood him and I hope I have. In any case, I strongly differ with the seeming meaning of his comments against a positive view of Torah, Judaism and their impact on wider humanity.

Shneur Zalman on June 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm (Reply)

Yasher Koach, Mr. Stiles. You are one of the few people knowledgeable enough to know that the Shema is NOT a prayer (as rabbinically defined).
Ben-Tzur is “sure that Prof. Nadler himself is ashamed of what he wrote there since it would in effect be a negation not just of Judaism and Jewish civilization but even of his own role as rabbi and teacher of Jewish religion and civilization. No still-Orthodox rabbi would insist in anger that there is no reason to be proud of traditional Judaism or the Torah…”
Pride in one’s heritage is one thing; misrepresenting it is quite another, even in the name of so-called Orthodoxy – which Ben-Tzur defines as his own views and practices.
You don’t build a good religion on bad data. The basis of Judaism is what Jacob Neusner has dubbed the “Dual Torah”: Written and Oral Law, Tanach and Talmud. Not midrash, and certainly the gnostic tract known as the Zohar. Notice the virtual non-existence of Talmudic references in the body of Ben-Tzur’s postings. Why? Perhaps because that material focuses on conduct, not adjudication of vagaries of doctrine/belief. Doctrine will matter in Judaism when- and only- when a duly constituted Sanhedrin will vote and vet it as such.

Shmuely on June 7, 2012 at 10:46 am (Reply)

Rabbinic definition of prayer as blessing means you include a "Blessed art thou" and end with an appropriate chatima. The Shema does neither.

Ben-Tzur pulls a fast one by conflating the single verse of the Shema itself with the sentences which follow it- which is what Stiles and Zalman are talking about, in the context of dictating belief, which was the original topic.

The sentences which follow - va-ahavta, etc- prescribe action, but "Hear o' Israel" per se, in the Bible itself, simply serves as a "call to order" and little else - i.e, "listen up people, I have something to say," To read more into it, is false.

Tabor Goldberg on June 9, 2012 at 10:39 am (Reply)

The last time I looked, truth was non-denominational- i.e., not tied to one dogmatic persuasion. The claim that "If you can present any pre-modern traditional or contemporary Orthodox authority that agrees with you about the Shema .... Otherwise your objections fall flat." Amazing: there is - there can be- no truth, ever, ever, outside of Orthodox Judaism (as defined by Ben-Tzur)!
Biblical scholarship (look it up in JBL) has demonstrated that “ahava” has a distinctive meaning in Deuteronomy: fidelity, loyalty, faithful obedience. Which is action-based. This, when you think about it, makes more sense, since the Tanakh is about conduct, not about policing thought or belief.
After all, it is a set of commandments which were given at Sinai, not a set of creedal affirmations.

The assertion that "The universally given translation of "to love" is the correct one" is silly. "Love" is the English translation- influenced by Christian/New Testament culture; and all translations are approximations. And, anyway, the universal argument- everyone does it- is not a Jewish one. Paganism was universally practiced until Abraham -was he wrong?

Then there is the matter of Ben-Tzur's ciruclar logic, and frequent invocation of the "valid" or "accepted" or "settled" or "universal" (and, especially, "doctrinally"). Quite obviously there is no answer to this kind of statement, and when it occurs in a discussion then, according to that person, the discussion is over.

Ben Tzur on June 11, 2012 at 11:49 pm (Reply)

The Shema says explicitly, after the belief statement "The Lord (is) your God, the Lord (is) One, -- and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart (mind, consciousness, dispositions, also including emotions), with all your soul (nefesh, that is, your life force, primal urges), and with all your might (oz, energy, strength, intensity, but also according to traditional commentaries through dedicating all that you possess to this devotion). And these words, which I COMMAND you this day, shall be upon your heart ... " So, first of all, this is a commandment, immediately declared to be such. And secondly, "love" in Deut. 6:5 is stated to denote here something that involves your whole consciousness, including your emotions, and even your entire life force and urges, your nefesh. That fits the English meaning of "love" very well. But it does not fit a merely legal formal declaration of loyalty and obedience. Rather, such formal declarations are subsidiary, and draw their force from the wider general meaning of "love," here as in all other languages. As is said, in Deut. 10:12: "And now, Israel, what does God want of you? Only that you remain in awe of (leyirah) God your Lord, so that you will follow all His paths and love Him, serving God your Lord will all your heart and with all your soul." Awe, yirah, is an experiential state just as love is. It stirs the whole person. Naturally, then, you wish to keep close to the One who commands this, and to do His will gladly. It is not enough after all to do his will formally, as sovereignty treaties require. It is not a merely outward thing, nor a formality. You want to do this with "all your heart and with all your soul."

I take it from Tabor Goldberg's comments that he knows of no pre-modern traditional, nor contemporary Orthodox, interpretation of the Shema and the First Commandment that accords with his views. He certainly gives none, but ignores the whole reference to pre-modern traditional commentaries, subsuming it in contemporary Orthodox Judaism which apparently in his eyes is simply invalid as such, and adds a gratuitous attribution to me of the idea that "there is - there can be - no truth, ever, ever, outside of Orthodox Judaism (as defined by Ben-Tzur)!" But I did not say that. It is a straw man. He then declares that "Biblical scholarship" (no sources given by Goldberg but obviously this by his definition excludes all traditional Jewish and contemporary Orthodox Biblical scholarship) regarding the term "love" in the Book of Deuteronomy says it merely relates to fidelity, loyalty, faithful obedience, all just action-based and therefore, he seems to be implying, not experiential, emotive or feelings-related at all. But this is demonstrably incorrect, and not just for the Shema which explicitly contradicts it. For example, see the appeal of Deut. 10:19: "You shall also love (ve-ahavtem) foreigners/strangers/converts who dwell in the land," and Levit. 19:18: "You shall love (ve-ahavta) your neighbour as yourself," and verse 34, now specifically again in regard to strangers and converts, "You shall love him (ve-ahavta) as yourself" -- there can be no talk of loyalty oaths, relations with sovereigns, nor obedience pledges, in these verses: the whole stress in fact is on equality, indeed warm mutuality and felt devotion and care. Such love of others is even explicitly equated with self-love. But self-love is far from being a matter of sovereignty treaties, mere formal obedience to a master, or any politicized allegiances. It manifestly relates to the most intimate and personal feelings and passions.

Chaldean Periphrast contradicts himself, since on the one hand he mocks the universally given translation of ahavta as "you shall love," saying the agreement of all translations (including modern ones by the way) does not mean a thing, and then he cites to support himself the comments of Moshe Weinfeld which as it happens also give the translation of ahavta as "love"! So his own source disproves his claim. Weinfeld is cited however as explaining the term as indicating vassal loyalty, but as I have already shown and as is well-known, we cannot pretend that personal devotion and love cannot come into that too -- in any case the fact of the matter is that "love" is also explicitly used in Biblical Hebrew for personal feelings, physical longings, and devotion both sexual and other, and not just in regard to sovereigns, and the usage in loyalty treaties actually derives its force and meaning from this wider application, just as in our own day and age. I've already given some instances. Some further examples of this wider meaning of a-h-v: Gen. 27:4 [Isaac says] "Make it into a tasty dish such as I love (ahavti), and bring it to me to eat." Gen. 29:20: "Jacob worked seven years for Rachel, but it seemed like only a few days because of the love he had for her (beahavato otah)" 29:32: Leah gives birth to Reuven, and says "Now my husband will love me (yeehavani)." Exod. 21:5, regarding a slave who refuses freedom, saying: "I love (ahavti) my master, my wife and my children ... " A further important instance, which directly contradicts Weinfeld, is Deut. 7:7: God is described as having love for the Bnei Yisrael, which following on the Shema indicates the felt mutuality of the love declared there, a love that goes beyond mere sovereign acceptance of loyalty; "love" here certainly cannot mean "vassal loyalty" nor "obedience." Nor is it limited to "actions." Even therefore when Israel breaks the covenant, unlike in sovereignty treaties this does not end God's "love" for Israel, as too many Biblical verses indicate to bother quoting here. God's love, and Israel's love too, is shown to be deeply felt, relating even to their personal identities. It goes far beyond not only actional matters since Israel's actions cannot break it but also in its personal depth beyond mere formal sovereignty treaties, as the Shema itself already explicitly makes crystal-clear to all but the wilfully blind.

Other Biblical passages using a-h-v as "love" precisely in the senses we use for the English word could very easily be added, but the ones given should be sufficient. However, it is evident that those who are wilfully blind cannot be made to see no matter how explicit the proofs. We have seen this every step of the way, from Cassuto to a works-righteousness view of Judaism (following Paul's Epistles and Luther) to a rejection of explicit Biblical quotes. In every case counter-arguments were rejected out of hand with ad hominem attacks and slurs including even accusations of dishonesty. Hardly conducive to debate.

Shneur Zalman on June 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm (Reply)

Stiles, Goldberg and the Periphrast all note the true meaning of ahava/love in Deuteronomy as loyalty/obedience. How it may be used elsewhere within the Bible is not germane, and cetainly no “proof” that loyalty/obedience is incorrect.
Hebrew is not Esperanto; so statements such as “wider general meaning of "love," here as in all other languages..” are rhetorical flourishes without meaning. Does Ben-Tzur claim to know every language on earth? For example, in Greek there are three separate and distinct words for ‘love': agape, eros and philia, all with different shadings that are lost when merged/translated into English as ‘love’ or into Hebrew as ‘a-h-v’
“works-righteousness view of Judaism (following Paul's Epistles and Luther)" ? Such a Christian formulation! You mean: a taryag mitzvot view of Judaism?

shmuely on June 14, 2012 at 2:33 pm (Reply)

Ben-Tzur's apodictic claim that "one of the more forceful examples is precisely the Shema itself when each word is considered in its full literal meaning" demonstrates no such thing. Because it is obedience that is being asked, rather than it be given in rote-form, the text goes out of its way to stress that one should do so whole-heartedly (lvav, nefesh, etc) !

Moreover, Ben-Tzur's declaration that "no further comment is necessary" seems a chutzpah!