Ah, what the hell! I have a song from a certain Mormon American (of Sweedish decent) from Alaska in my mind, and I just saw a girl put down fun song lyrics in her blog, so I said...what the hell!
"If I could tell the world just one thing, It would be that "we're all ok". And "not to worry, because worry is wasteful, and useless in times like these". I will not be made useless! I won't be idled with despair! I will gather myself around my faith for light does the darkness most fear! My hands are small, I know, but they're not yours they are my own, and I am never broken!
Poverty stole your golden shoes, but it didn't steal your laughter. And heartache came to visit me, but I knew it wasn't ever after. We will fight, not out of spite. For someone must stand up for what's right, 'cause where there's a man who has no voice, there ours shall go singing!
In the end only kindness matters.
I will get down on my knees and I will pray.
My hands are small, I know, but they're not yours they are my own, and I am never broken! We are never broken!
We are God's eyes, God's hands, God's mind.
We are God's eyes, God's hands, God's mind.
We are God's eyes, God's hands, God's heart.
We are God's hands. We are God's hands!"
Jewel Kilcher
עבד
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Monday, December 31, 2007
Holiday shopping
OK, news! I plan to force myself to put in, every week an at least 'semi'-scholarly Talmudic piece, just to keep up my learning a bit. The first will be the least scholarly though : (well, here goes;
[Now, I would write in Hebrew, but then definitely no body would read it but myself, so..].
The Tosafot:
The Mishna states “it is prohibited to have any monetary transactions with someone who subscribes to what we consider to be pagan, from three days before their festivals”.
Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes (1040-1105) suggests the reason for this to be that any successful monetary transaction might inspire verbal (pagan) religious appreciation to their god(s). His premise is that it is written Exodus 23:13 “Take heed to all that I have said to you; and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let such be heard out of your mouth”, and he seems to suppose that perhaps causing others to recite the names of, and worship other gods is also forbidden.
The Tosafot use this as a basis for their ever so famous query; “why is it then, that we see so many Torah observant Jews do business dealings with non-Jews on their holidays in our times (i.e. 12th century France)?”(supposing, obviously, that Christians are full fledged pagans). Is there any Talmudic backing for their actions?
They first point out an inference from Tractate Hullin (13b) discussing the ritual slaughtering of animals performed by non-Jews. The Talmud there has a probing discussion about the inner intent, and the level of religious devotion of the peoples in whose provinces the Jews (who authored the Talmud) resided (mainly between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, (modern day Iraq) which was part of the Persian Sassanid empire then, the state religion being the basically monotheistic Zoroastrian faith. Though there were many full fledged pagan residents as well) and concludes that “most people who adhere to pagan religions lack an emotional/intellectual attachment to it, but do it rather to ‘follow the ancient ways’ (pure paganism was in deep decline in the Mediterranean and Indo-Europe by that time). So too, add the Tosafot the people whom we live amongst are also not fully adherent pagans (Christians).The Tosafot discard that reasoning though, bringing a disproving text from our own Tractate (7b) stating that “now the law is different; only on the holiday is it prohibited”; it does recognize that the pagans of their time have a different status, and therefore halakhah, but it still explicitly prohibits trade with them on their holidays.
The Tosafot then attempt to conclude that ‘the reason we are lenient today is because of the principle of ‘refraining from actions which may cause enmity’ among our neighbors, the natives of every land, which is actually used by Rabbi Judah the prince (6b) as reason for accepting a gift from a Jew with differing religious views from his own on his holiday. But they admit that this is far from a full proof being that they are greatly limiting themselves on one possible understanding of the text there. There can also be doubts, they add, to the logic of this reasoning being that one would not necessarily be causing enmity by refraining from business dealings for a day.
Therefore they finally conclude using another Talmudic principle “we know that the people we live amongst, in essence, are not pagan” (65a). A reasoning used both by Rabbi Yehuda, and by Raba for their sending gifts on behalf of the Jews to Shapur II (Sassanid Monarch at the time) on a Zoroastrian holiday.
The Tosafot mention that one can also rely on a stipulation of the Jerusalem Talmud (), which clearly states that the Mishna only discusses a person one knows, but one would be permitted to do business with a pagan stranger on their festivals.
The Tosafot then record the opinion of Rabbi Jacob ben Meir ‘Tam’ (1100-1171), that; the Mishna is only discussing something that can be used as a sacrifice, but not general buying and selling. (The editor mentions that in Rabbi Tam’s opinion “buying and selling” in the Mishna (lit. “picking up and giving”) means not to ‘buy and sell’, but to ‘take and give’, i.e. ‘take the money, and give something that can be used as a sacrifice. He also has a fascinatingly novel approach to the text on 6b in accordance with his opinion
They conclude that even in Rabbi Tam’s opinion even if Christians were to be viewed as pagans, there would be no problem, because they don’t use sacrifices.
But the Tosafot do stipulate that in the situation that a (Catholic) Christian were to approach you, asking for a loan for ‘religious purposes’ (Jews were money lenders), giving it would also be permitted, being that anyway it would not be used as a sacrifice, but at that time would have probably have been used for ‘indulgences’.
Christianity:
My interest here though, is to examine the first conclusive resolution of the Tosafot, namely “we know the people we live amongst are not pagan”. Now, I am not interested in the halachic aspect of this discussion (the Maimonides- Tosafot argument), but rather a more philosophical/theological approach (whether the brand of Zoroastrianism popular then could be considered pagan is also quite an important discussion, but due to the reigning relevance of the former for us, will unfortunately have to be left for another time.
The point I wish to discuss is whether or not Christianity is objectively pagan in the Jewish view. Now, one does not have to look far and wide in the New Testament to know that it’s authors and those who subscribe to it were “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great G-d, and [whom they believe to be] our (no one’s) Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13), or that they all felt that “without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: G-d was [again, in their humble opinion] manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit” (I Timothy 3:16). And no one needs go any further than Christian (mostly Catholic) shrines to see something which seems unmistakably pagan to any Jew. But, to put it shortly, my personal feeling is that the reason we consider them pagan is not because G-d ‘couldn’t’ or even "wouldn’t" make himself manifest in human flesh (G-d can do anything), it’s that we believe it’s much more logical to say that G-d "didn’t" manifest himself in human form. But again, if he did, and it was proven, we would believe it, and it wouldn’t be going against any previously established Biblical principles about the unity of G-d.Tosafot seemed to equate Amoraic statements about Zoroastrianism to Christianity; I don’t see that comparison as inconsequential, or out of convenience. There are many comparisons between the religions, but I wish to focus on the idea that Tosafot seem to understand from the Talmud a rule for approaching semi-monotheistic religions (or, more accurately; religions, which the purity of their monotheism may be brought to question) i.e. both religions have what is called in rabbinic literature “a partnership” with the one G-d (good and evil in Zoroastrianism, and the father and the son in Christianity). Many Jewish scholars of the past few centuries suggest that “the nations were never commanded not to have ‘a partnership’ in their monotheism (i.e. as long as they believe in one G-d its ok). We find this benign view about Christian theology in the writings of Rabbi Mosses Isserles (1520-1572) and Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697-1776) to name just two.
Happy holidays!
עבד
Thursday, December 27, 2007
לכפות בטוב
Background; Basically this is a response to a comment on my ‘דמים’ post:
To be honest though, this blog was initially intended for me to jot down little thoughts of mine on the Internet, which might otherwise become forgotten to me. But I nonetheless am always exited by new opinions, new thoughts, and new ideas.
Now, I admit; it is true- We, the philosophers, the priests, the monks, the theological students, all people devoted to thought and religion are the parasites of the world. We feed off the production of men, but do not ourselves produce. Yet, in turn, have we not produced what no man outside of us hath produced? Morals? Thought? I am reminded of a statement of David Hume that (to paraphrase) "all other sciences are sciences, and they have real world affects. But the science we are engaged in is an utter waste of time, an utter waste of life, we expound on things that are improvable, make no real difference, and of which many consider to be rubbish and pure fancifulness". But then again, where would the world be without religion, where would the world be without philosophy? I know, John Lennon would tell you “paradise”, but I highly doubt that (I obviously side with theologians). Now, I know you, as well as most Jews, are at least subconsciously affected by writers like Marx and Hegel in your approach toward the Jewish religion and its institutions, but just remember, they themselves are products of historical and sociological forces, which are no longer as apparent. (Truth is though, I can’t call myself a n enemy of Marx, for is one of the great heroes of rationalists of our time, and I do agree with him on most of his economical opinions. I feel that he was capable of such charisma only because
Although it is true what you say, that the working world is not as lowly as I make them out to be, being that they are the ones sponsoring the building of yeshivas, and not yeshiva people. True, it is a real show of these people’s religious and truly altruistic natures (I know I personally rarely ever give ma’aser or even tzedaka unfortunately, so who am I to talk about being lowly!). But it is also just a manifestation of their being addicted to opium. They help build those religious institutions because they themselves need them; they’re addicted to religion! And their religion is one of emotional and cultural and communal need, not one of conviction. I see them as more the ‘Religious-Man’ discussed by Rabbi Joseph b. Soloveichik in Halakhic Man, and not as that more profound Halakhic-Man.
Therefore, I wouldn’t praise religion too much, especially not Judaism, especially not Orthodox Judaism, and especially not the backward lifestyle that I had the misfortune of being exposed to, of the Eastern European Traditionalist Jews, and their descendants in today’s ‘global north’. For I feel we are all, in essence, misunderstanding the main points of the Bible, and especially ‘the five books of mosses’. Unfortunately, religion is not the outcome of only sound minded people’s interpretations of life and of the texts, but it is mostly a sociological evolution, and takes turns, sometimes for the worse, for needs of historical and sociological necessity, again, especially in regards us; the unfortunate religious minority in every country. It’s true, that yeshiva system is waaay out of whack. One of the only truly commendable books I’ve seen in the last few centuries, by an Orthodox Jewish author is Horeb, by Rav Hirsch. There, you don’t find a mindless stress on ritual (אורח חיים), but an equal amount of stress on the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible (חושן משפט ואבן העזר), which so many Jews today seem to neglect, and then get arrested for money laundering, even though they’re the head of a well known Hassidic sect.
To be honest though, this blog was initially intended for me to jot down little thoughts of mine on the Internet, which might otherwise become forgotten to me. But I nonetheless am always exited by new opinions, new thoughts, and new ideas.
Now, I admit; it is true- We, the philosophers, the priests, the monks, the theological students, all people devoted to thought and religion are the parasites of the world. We feed off the production of men, but do not ourselves produce. Yet, in turn, have we not produced what no man outside of us hath produced? Morals? Thought? I am reminded of a statement of David Hume that (to paraphrase) "all other sciences are sciences, and they have real world affects. But the science we are engaged in is an utter waste of time, an utter waste of life, we expound on things that are improvable, make no real difference, and of which many consider to be rubbish and pure fancifulness". But then again, where would the world be without religion, where would the world be without philosophy? I know, John Lennon would tell you “paradise”, but I highly doubt that (I obviously side with theologians). Now, I know you, as well as most Jews, are at least subconsciously affected by writers like Marx and Hegel in your approach toward the Jewish religion and its institutions, but just remember, they themselves are products of historical and sociological forces, which are no longer as apparent. (Truth is though, I can’t call myself a n enemy of Marx, for is one of the great heroes of rationalists of our time, and I do agree with him on most of his economical opinions. I feel that he was capable of such charisma only because
Although it is true what you say, that the working world is not as lowly as I make them out to be, being that they are the ones sponsoring the building of yeshivas, and not yeshiva people. True, it is a real show of these people’s religious and truly altruistic natures (I know I personally rarely ever give ma’aser or even tzedaka unfortunately, so who am I to talk about being lowly!). But it is also just a manifestation of their being addicted to opium. They help build those religious institutions because they themselves need them; they’re addicted to religion! And their religion is one of emotional and cultural and communal need, not one of conviction. I see them as more the ‘Religious-Man’ discussed by Rabbi Joseph b. Soloveichik in Halakhic Man, and not as that more profound Halakhic-Man.Therefore, I wouldn’t praise religion too much, especially not Judaism, especially not Orthodox Judaism, and especially not the backward lifestyle that I had the misfortune of being exposed to, of the Eastern European Traditionalist Jews, and their descendants in today’s ‘global north’. For I feel we are all, in essence, misunderstanding the main points of the Bible, and especially ‘the five books of mosses’. Unfortunately, religion is not the outcome of only sound minded people’s interpretations of life and of the texts, but it is mostly a sociological evolution, and takes turns, sometimes for the worse, for needs of historical and sociological necessity, again, especially in regards us; the unfortunate religious minority in every country. It’s true, that yeshiva system is waaay out of whack. One of the only truly commendable books I’ve seen in the last few centuries, by an Orthodox Jewish author is Horeb, by Rav Hirsch. There, you don’t find a mindless stress on ritual (אורח חיים), but an equal amount of stress on the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible (חושן משפט ואבן העזר), which so many Jews today seem to neglect, and then get arrested for money laundering, even though they’re the head of a well known Hassidic sect.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Plastico
Hey, and check out this site by the way; the true health problems with plastic, and some healthy alternatives! .
I was just telling my brother that "there is no concrete scientific evidence that plastic may be harmful to one's health- even in the long run". Then I looked it up (what did people do before the Internet again?), well, plastic consumption is very negative, though almost invertible. In one century, it seems we've managed to cover everything in plastic
.
.
דמים
Man, everything I think of is forgotten by the time I want to post! Well, from what I can scrape back together...
Money. So benign. So necessary. So good. Yet so evil. The more I try to think about this the more mind boggling it is; we don't view paper money (especially the ''dollar'') in the same way we would view things bartered (obviously), or even fine metals and such. The dollar we see so often here in America (or it's electric equivalent) is really a pretty abstract idea. We know that with this paper is the potential for anything physical. But that's it- potential, and not actual physicality and earthiness which subconsciously blinds the explicit evil that could be viewed in items and services. But it is! Is money not the essence of 'גשמיות' itself?And yet, so many of our dear flock, give all their time and attention to this one thing, without a second thought. Perhaps that is why I was in yeshiva for so long? A pure scorn of the low interests of the mindless -and therefore thoughtless- un-spiritual majority.
But again, of course, I have no negativity towards the idea of making an ample living -for one's family! Again, this kind of thing we cannot take for granted. All the yeshiva people and monks and priests don't live like they do for nothing. Money is very dangerous. And it takes intense intent and judgment to know how to approach it in a spiritually healthy way. Especially Jews! (Perhaps we will speak more about that over-ambitious lot another time).
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Past
OK, I wanted to write this a little while ago; but here goes;
[Disclaimer- Those involved in psychology and addiction recovery, as well as Jewish scholars of all time agree that it's a good idea to treat a persons inclination towards evil in 'human' terms.]
There is a little person, around all the time- הוא השטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות. Always trying to make us sin. One big way he does that -especially to me- recently, is trying to make one concentrate on one's past, especially the negative aspects thereof. For me; how I wasted my life for four years in Yeshiva. It eats at me all the time. 23-24 starting college?! Maybe try for a Masters. So I'll be eligible for marriage at 30?! But again, first of all, going to yeshiva is a very good thing for many, many reasons (even though they probably learn more in monasteries, madrases and Buddhist temples). Secondly; it's of UTMOST importance to remember that you can't change what happened in the past now, all you can change is what happens in the future.
So there Satan!
[Disclaimer- Those involved in psychology and addiction recovery, as well as Jewish scholars of all time agree that it's a good idea to treat a persons inclination towards evil in 'human' terms.]
There is a little person, around all the time- הוא השטן הוא יצר הרע הוא מלאך המות. Always trying to make us sin. One big way he does that -especially to me- recently, is trying to make one concentrate on one's past, especially the negative aspects thereof. For me; how I wasted my life for four years in Yeshiva. It eats at me all the time. 23-24 starting college?! Maybe try for a Masters. So I'll be eligible for marriage at 30?! But again, first of all, going to yeshiva is a very good thing for many, many reasons (even though they probably learn more in monasteries, madrases and Buddhist temples). Secondly; it's of UTMOST importance to remember that you can't change what happened in the past now, all you can change is what happens in the future.
So there Satan!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Bindng Issac, Crossing the Red Sea
YO!
Ugh! Tonight is similar to so many nights, I had so many interesting thoughts, but can't get around to recording them. So; here goes, some main points; Genesis 22: G-d tells Avraham to kill his son? Murder? That kind of murder? What was Avraham thinking? -Probably that "G-d told me I'll have many children etc., I'm sure G-d knows what He's doing and will get things together right. Maybe Yitzchak is like "זרע פסול", like Yishmael (sending out to dessert also sort of like killing). What G-d said back to Avraham in response to his acquiescing was basically 'well now I see you fully -trust- me (made a lot more sense while I was walking!)
But that's a similar idea to the yam suf. What? We're all going to die now, just like that? But G-d told us He'll take us to Israel (they were still on the right level, Moshe was with them). Now, it could be they all trusted G-d, but only one person -not Moshe!- decided to walk -not swim- straight into the water because "G-d said we should go, let's go, and nothing can get in our way!" Now, it could be G-d would have made a different miracle if circumstance demanded, but He also wanted to sort of test the people to see what direction they would take -after all, He put them in that situation-. And all G-d wanted to see was people who could transfer the logical into the emotional and physical, and say; "if G-d said to keep going, we"ll keep going and He'll protect us!". To fully trust in G-d.
And so too in our lives; Chanukah is a good time for teshuvah. How do you do teshuvah? Above all else- determination! You have to be determined that this is what you must do no matter what. And if you have that determination, you will trust that G-d could help you change your own reality, and run a counter-culture, and let logical healthy living overcome natural-instinctive living -Amen!
Ugh! Tonight is similar to so many nights, I had so many interesting thoughts, but can't get around to recording them. So; here goes, some main points; Genesis 22: G-d tells Avraham to kill his son? Murder? That kind of murder? What was Avraham thinking? -Probably that "G-d told me I'll have many children etc., I'm sure G-d knows what He's doing and will get things together right. Maybe Yitzchak is like "זרע פסול", like Yishmael (sending out to dessert also sort of like killing). What G-d said back to Avraham in response to his acquiescing was basically 'well now I see you fully -trust- me (made a lot more sense while I was walking!)
But that's a similar idea to the yam suf. What? We're all going to die now, just like that? But G-d told us He'll take us to Israel (they were still on the right level, Moshe was with them). Now, it could be they all trusted G-d, but only one person -not Moshe!- decided to walk -not swim- straight into the water because "G-d said we should go, let's go, and nothing can get in our way!" Now, it could be G-d would have made a different miracle if circumstance demanded, but He also wanted to sort of test the people to see what direction they would take -after all, He put them in that situation-. And all G-d wanted to see was people who could transfer the logical into the emotional and physical, and say; "if G-d said to keep going, we"ll keep going and He'll protect us!". To fully trust in G-d.
And so too in our lives; Chanukah is a good time for teshuvah. How do you do teshuvah? Above all else- determination! You have to be determined that this is what you must do no matter what. And if you have that determination, you will trust that G-d could help you change your own reality, and run a counter-culture, and let logical healthy living overcome natural-instinctive living -Amen!
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Future Posting
Well, it's me again! And I plan to be posting a little (only because I (unfortunately) have a little free-er computer access now.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
הערות על ספר אמת מארץ תצמח
בעזרת השם this will be the first post I'm writing in quite a while..
ספר אמת מארץ תצמח, the beginning: I don't know why he has to take inferences from Rashis in on the Torah quoting vague "מדרשי פליאה", and take them as the given religious dogma truth על פי התורה. It could be a lot of it is true that these begging of time things shouldn't be so "מוכרע בעיני הכל", but his opinions also aren't.
ספר אמת מארץ תצמח, the beginning: I don't know why he has to take inferences from Rashis in on the Torah quoting vague "מדרשי פליאה", and take them as the given religious dogma truth על פי התורה. It could be a lot of it is true that these begging of time things shouldn't be so "מוכרע בעיני הכל", but his opinions also aren't.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Thursday, January 4, 2007
First Orlando post: "הודו"
It seems to be very implied in the פרקי תהילים we say for קבלת שבת and for שחרית that one should actually do what the missionaries do, and preach Monotheism to the nations. Why do they and don't we?
Monday, December 18, 2006
Another Interesting Christianity Tidbit
I would say there were a few main influences to non-Jewish Christianity (over and above Jewish Christianity, which was mainly believing that the Messiah had already came, but still adhering to the Law of Moses etc.).
I wrote it in a nice graph, but I can't do that here...
1. General interest in monotheism in the Middle East/Mediterranean area at that time, and their abandonment of Paganism (though they still refused all the "hard laws" of Judaism- Islam did not yet exist and Judaism was much more numerous and influential back then).
2. General Pagan traditions and already established religious institutions, practices and modes of worship (not to mention European Christianity, and it's traditions and stigmas, which are all Pagan European ( which is the only way they know how to represent any religion).
3. "עשרה הרוגי מלכות" and "כפרת עוונות"; i.e. the idea that the suffering of one person can atone for many (at it's core a Jewish idea, but taken to it's far extreme by Christians).
4. Hillel and peace loving. He lived in the time of Jesus, and was the known founder of the concept of emphasising those ideas (Christians use those kinds of ideas to downplay the law (as do many Jews; Tikun Olam).
5. Philo of Alexandria created a written philosophy for the מצוות not being meant to actually do in all generations.
6. The Essenes group (איסיים) tried to be 'super holy', and for example, many of them didn't marry (they lived at the time).
To me these are the main (mostly Jewish) ideas that went into Paul's founding of "non-Jewish Christianity" in the Mediterranean basin.
ממני העבד-
I wrote it in a nice graph, but I can't do that here...
1. General interest in monotheism in the Middle East/Mediterranean area at that time, and their abandonment of Paganism (though they still refused all the "hard laws" of Judaism- Islam did not yet exist and Judaism was much more numerous and influential back then).
2. General Pagan traditions and already established religious institutions, practices and modes of worship (not to mention European Christianity, and it's traditions and stigmas, which are all Pagan European ( which is the only way they know how to represent any religion).
3. "עשרה הרוגי מלכות" and "כפרת עוונות"; i.e. the idea that the suffering of one person can atone for many (at it's core a Jewish idea, but taken to it's far extreme by Christians).
4. Hillel and peace loving. He lived in the time of Jesus, and was the known founder of the concept of emphasising those ideas (Christians use those kinds of ideas to downplay the law (as do many Jews; Tikun Olam).
5. Philo of Alexandria created a written philosophy for the מצוות not being meant to actually do in all generations.
6. The Essenes group (איסיים) tried to be 'super holy', and for example, many of them didn't marry (they lived at the time).
To me these are the main (mostly Jewish) ideas that went into Paul's founding of "non-Jewish Christianity" in the Mediterranean basin.
ממני העבד-
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Another Interesting Site
The Site.
"Mixes" Bible critisizm with New Testament critisizm. Bible- Da' ma shetashiv.
New- The historical truth about the subject (a lot of misconceptions out there!)
"What is interesting about the Jesus Movements as the source of Christianity and the Jesus myth, is that they were the source of Gnosticism, which for many decades, was considered by scholars to be a Christian heresy which arose in the second century. Scholars had presumed this mostly as a result of the comments made in the screeds of Iraeneus, who railed against this widespread and threatening "heresy" endlessly. But it is now widely accepted that Gnosticism was widespread by the time Jesus is supposed to have lived, and now, having the Nag Hammadi library as a treasure trove of new information, we now know that its mythology was Jewish, not Christian, its metaphysics was Neo-Platonic and Neo-Stoic, and it shared ideas from Egyptian, Greek, Jewish and "Hermetic" mystery religions, and was an outgrowth of the Jesus Movements.
Yet, when one reads the Nag Hammadi gospels we have today, we also read constant references to Jesus, including such stories as the Last Supper and the Crucifixion - evidence that the Gnostic gospels themselves borrowed from later Christian sources. But the Jesus myth's widespread popularity among the Gnostics by the first third of the first century leads to the suggestion that, unless a wholesale and dramatic conversion took place (for which there is no evidence whatever), the Jesus myth was already widespread among the Gnostics by the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and died, and he died a long time ago. He wasn't a contemporary divine Messiah-figure. At least not yet."
"Mixes" Bible critisizm with New Testament critisizm. Bible- Da' ma shetashiv.
New- The historical truth about the subject (a lot of misconceptions out there!)
"What is interesting about the Jesus Movements as the source of Christianity and the Jesus myth, is that they were the source of Gnosticism, which for many decades, was considered by scholars to be a Christian heresy which arose in the second century. Scholars had presumed this mostly as a result of the comments made in the screeds of Iraeneus, who railed against this widespread and threatening "heresy" endlessly. But it is now widely accepted that Gnosticism was widespread by the time Jesus is supposed to have lived, and now, having the Nag Hammadi library as a treasure trove of new information, we now know that its mythology was Jewish, not Christian, its metaphysics was Neo-Platonic and Neo-Stoic, and it shared ideas from Egyptian, Greek, Jewish and "Hermetic" mystery religions, and was an outgrowth of the Jesus Movements.
Yet, when one reads the Nag Hammadi gospels we have today, we also read constant references to Jesus, including such stories as the Last Supper and the Crucifixion - evidence that the Gnostic gospels themselves borrowed from later Christian sources. But the Jesus myth's widespread popularity among the Gnostics by the first third of the first century leads to the suggestion that, unless a wholesale and dramatic conversion took place (for which there is no evidence whatever), the Jesus myth was already widespread among the Gnostics by the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and died, and he died a long time ago. He wasn't a contemporary divine Messiah-figure. At least not yet."
Interesting Site About Christianity
The Site.
"The POCM web site introduces you to the mainstream modern scholarship about Christianity's origins in ancient Pagan religion.
You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the traditional mid-winter and spring timing of the two holidays was Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here.
What you'll discover here is that Christianity inherited everything from the Pagans. The core of Christianity -- the worship of a dying Godman who is resurrected, ascends into heaven and brings salvation to mankind -- was also the core of a number of ancient Pagan religions that began in the Near East two thousand years before Jesus. Christian theology borrowed more than the archaic myth of the dying-resurrected Godman. Initiation by baptism, communion with the God through a holy meal that represented the flesh of the dead God, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, and immortality of the soul were all core beliefs of many ancient faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture.
Christianity also borrowed elements of Jesus' mythology: the virgin birth, the miracles (including turning water into wine, walking on water, and especially healing the sick) were all common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. And they had them centuries before Christianity was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye."
"The POCM web site introduces you to the mainstream modern scholarship about Christianity's origins in ancient Pagan religion.
You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the traditional mid-winter and spring timing of the two holidays was Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here.
What you'll discover here is that Christianity inherited everything from the Pagans. The core of Christianity -- the worship of a dying Godman who is resurrected, ascends into heaven and brings salvation to mankind -- was also the core of a number of ancient Pagan religions that began in the Near East two thousand years before Jesus. Christian theology borrowed more than the archaic myth of the dying-resurrected Godman. Initiation by baptism, communion with the God through a holy meal that represented the flesh of the dead God, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, and immortality of the soul were all core beliefs of many ancient faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture.
Christianity also borrowed elements of Jesus' mythology: the virgin birth, the miracles (including turning water into wine, walking on water, and especially healing the sick) were all common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. And they had them centuries before Christianity was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye."
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Jason Weiner on Black Hats
.
I was recently reading through the first volume of "מילין חביבין", Yeshivat Chovevei Torah's new Torah journal, and found one of the articles to be more than a bit misguided in my opinion. Jason Weiner's article (on page 127) was nice and written well, but honestly a little absurd.
First of all, in half the Jewish world, in Arabic, Islamic, and Balkan countries, Sefaradic Jews did not wear Western clothing at all, and certainly not those types of hats! They would only view the "black hat phenomenon" as Europeanism, or perhaps even a form of embracing liberal Westernism (exactly the opposite of how the Haredim view it. i.e. for the very reason Haredim wear it, Sefaradim shouldn't; to be "protected" from "over Westernisation").
Halakhicly: there are always two main aspects of halakhah, the actual halakhah and "מעשה רב" (minhag and the historical development and practice of Jewish law). From the "legal" perspective one cannot say that being without a hat or other head covering is ever “inappropriate” (long story halakhicly, but see שו"ת קציני אר"ץ and שו"ת יביע אומר on the subject).
From a historical perspective it is known that our ancestors in ancient Israel (for example) did not cover their heads. The only reason people started wearing skullcaps in the first place is because that’s what the general population in Europe wore, only in order to keep their heads warm! There never has been any "Jewish" mode of dress, and we are not permitted to create one now, not halachically and not ideologically. Historically Jews dressed exactly as the non-Jews, based totally on the standards of that time and place, unless forced to wear particularly “Jewish” clothing by the non-Jews (which were only decidedly “Jewish” by the non-Jews) and when they moved from those countries they usually changed their garb again to fit the new standards. ..The very fact that so many religious Jews do not wear black hats and suits for religious reasons would nesitate the idea that wearing it would be an attempt at separating oneself from "כלל ישראל" (everyone agrees that to suggest that it would be more proper if all religious Jews around the world wear black hats is both completely bogus and impossible).
Judaism is obviously not about the clothing people wear, if one were to make it out to be that, they are only minimising the realm of halakhah. Judaism is a religion, which we are not to add to.
Suits are also an aspect of modern standards of dress just as T-shirts are, only one is more casual and the other is more formal. Yet not everyone has a mitzvah to dress formal 24/7! Suits are obviously not meant to be worn consistently according to contemporary standards. Maybe Rabbinic scholars and their students should dress like that, but not every guy who attended a yeshiva is an aspiring Rabbinic scholar. Yeshiva today in the Orthodox world is just a parallel to college just as the "Cheider" (or "Talmud Torah") were parallel to non-Jewish grade school at any given era or locale. It's just that the standards have gotten higher. There is still a separation, though, between young men who attend yeshivas and actual or aspiring Rabbis. I still wouldn't say that particularly European dress is necessary for Rabbis, I don’t even know that a suit is necessary.
Another point he failed to consider in his article is that black hats and such may be the way Hasidim in south-eastern Europe dressed, but it is not how the yeshivas in north-eastern Europe or western Europe dressed. In a way it seems they were both just mimicking local fashions; Lithuanian and German Jews were copying western European styles, and Polish and south-eastern European Jews were copying an older style of the local dress itself. The opinion of most Chasidic Rabbis was to remain with (what was considered to be) traditional Jewish dress, especially during a time when the world was quickly modernizing.
Therefore even though the yeshivas today call themselves "Lithuanian-style", most of the actual student body are usually the descendants of Chasidic south-eastern European holocaust survivors, and follow in their (Chasidic) ways. In a way, their wearing of suits and hats is a moderate diversion from the modern modes of dress, whereas the Chasidic styles in Europe were also a moderate diversion from the dress of their place and time. We see then that, in essence it’s not about "black hats" or "Chasidic dress", it’s about the age-old question of preservation of the "old ways" in the face of modernity and change. So to reiterate, it might at times be beneficial to preserve some old cultures and traditions, but generally it was not the "Jewish way" to preserve the standards of dress from country to country! ומעשה רב עיקר!
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Re: רמב"ם- תלמיד חכם
Just wanted to mention that the רמב"ם uses the term 'תלמיד החכמים'- i.e. 'was' (and is) the student of wise. Now he himself is a 'חכם' (who also officiates as a 'master' (רב) to students).
To reiterate; when the רמב"ם (for example) speaks about how 'תלמידי חכמים' should or shouldn't present themselves, he's talking about both 'צורבא מרבנן' (rabbinic students) and 'חכמים עצמם' (and their teachers).
זאת אומרת למד אצל רבו, שהוא חכם- ונהיה תלמיד של חכם (או תלמיד "חכמים"- מסורת התורה). ועכשיו גם הוא חכם, ורב לתלמידים
To reiterate; when the רמב"ם (for example) speaks about how 'תלמידי חכמים' should or shouldn't present themselves, he's talking about both 'צורבא מרבנן' (rabbinic students) and 'חכמים עצמם' (and their teachers).
זאת אומרת למד אצל רבו, שהוא חכם- ונהיה תלמיד של חכם (או תלמיד "חכמים"- מסורת התורה). ועכשיו גם הוא חכם, ורב לתלמידים
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Philosophers by race
Now, I'm not going to go on about this, because I can't, I don't know (nor can I remember) enough about the subject, but: I saw a new (good) Jewish book on the חגים in stores, in which the back cover quoted a Greek philosopher as saying that the Jews were "philosophers by race". I liked that line so much I was thinking about making it the title of this blog! Because while it's true that, for example, in בית שני times there was a lot of קריאה, שינון, and לימוד going on, but without a doubt the Jews were also very much preoccupied with philosophical thought, analysis and criticism.
In general I personally feel that philosophy and logic shouldn't just be the basis of religious thought, but of all thought. It doesn't matter where you're coming from in the spectrum of intellectual thought; of first and foremost importance is always using the tools of logic, and of philosophical thought, analysis and criticism, and applying them to every idea new and old to you.
(As an aside I think it's very worth while looking into the writings of the European enlightenment writers (1600's to 1900's) on the ideas of logic and philosophy, because there cannot be a proper exchange of human ideas without them!)
ממני העבד-
Hebrew defenitions: חכם, ותלמיד חכם
I saw a gentleman on the bus (who didn't look Jewish) find a book next to him on the bus, and take it with him (with what looked like the intention to read it). I suspected him of being both non-Jewish, and not a תלמיד חכם obviously. I don't think that was right of me. It could be he was Jewish, and just didn't see any (halachic) point in wearing a head covering. It could also be he was somewhat of a תלמיד חכם because he knew the law that he was allowed to take it, etc.)
I think the definition of "תלמיד חכם" means someone who learned well from their "רב" (Master). It does denote being a "good student", but more than that, a disciple of a "חכם". In Hebrew חכמה denotes knowing a certain amount of information, so it would mean; "someone who keeps the information that they were taught and that they reviewed (ששינן) by the חכם". The חכם himself was and is also still a "תלמיד חכם", but now he's less of a student and more of a conduit of knowledge.
(Latter addition: The Rambam says a talmid chacham should cover his head; could be that's where the idea that everyone should (halachicly) cover their heads came from).
ממני ס"ט
I think the definition of "תלמיד חכם" means someone who learned well from their "רב" (Master). It does denote being a "good student", but more than that, a disciple of a "חכם". In Hebrew חכמה denotes knowing a certain amount of information, so it would mean; "someone who keeps the information that they were taught and that they reviewed (ששינן) by the חכם". The חכם himself was and is also still a "תלמיד חכם", but now he's less of a student and more of a conduit of knowledge.
(Latter addition: The Rambam says a talmid chacham should cover his head; could be that's where the idea that everyone should (halachicly) cover their heads came from).
ממני ס"ט
Sunday, December 3, 2006
אושפיזין
I watched the film "Ushpizin" last night (my mother wanted me to!) and learned a few things from it:
1. An idea which I recently made concise; "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" in regards to our actions and their consequences (punishment). Non-Jews have a harder time with this concept. (The guy attached everything that happened to him to things he did wrong).
2. כח התפילה. Thoughtful prayer could change reality.
3. גיבור על היצר. The guy in the movie was a good example of forcing ones self not to take the easy road, and to force ones self to do something they don't want to do.
4. It also connecting with the 'סוגיא' I was looking into that evening about parnasa v.s. Talmud-Torah. The 'Yalkut Yosef' says it's "better to learn, and suffice with the kollel stipend". We see from the movie, that he was in kollel, but because of his poverty his mind wasn't "open to to concentrate on perfecting his G-dly service".בית נאה...מרחיבין דעתו של אדם וכו
5. From one of the previews I learned about how much we should appreciate and take advantage of life in the way we're living it.
6. And I suppose I (to a very small extent) also thought about slightly rethinking my position about films and theater (could be 'מותר לשיעורין'- in order to think about topics you otherwise wouldn't, to help in G-dly service.
ממני הצעיר-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)