::: readings

Robyn Shifrin. Interview. Conducted 16 October 2008 in Provo, Utah.

Conducting an interview with Robyn Shifrin who moved to Provo, Utah about four months ago and is a practicing Jew was a very positive experience. Talking with her about her experiences here, where she is very much alone, isolated from her family and from a community of fellow beleivers, I learned a lot about what role community plays in supporting one’s religious practicies. She talked about her history, about what life was like growing up in Clevland, going to Hebrew school in the afternoons, holidays and the Sabbath. She also talked about the religious significance of her Bat Mitzvah as a pivitol moment of religious self-realization, followed by a subsequent departure from this during her teenage years and eventual re-awakening in her early 20s. Her vocation (teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language) has taken her all around the world, including Prague in the Czek Republic. She also lived in Israel for some time and would have loved to stay but with escalating conflict her parents told her that she should come home.

Since moving out here, Robyn has learned a lot about Mormons and has found the family of believers here to be very similar to the one she enjoyed in the days of her youth. She commented that, if one has to be completley separated from all others of their religious faith, perhaps it is best to be surrounded by those who are strong adherants to their own (but who do not seek to enforce that sincerity upon others). She has found Provo to be a great place, and sees many parallels between the interactions of Mormon culture and doctrine and the interactions of Jewish culture and doctrine.

Ruth R. Wisse. Jews and Power. Schocken Books (2007).

Wisse, in Jews and Power, gives a brief overview of the history of the Jews, highlighting their relationship with the power structures of the countries in which they have lived since the beginnings of the Diaspora in the 1st Century. Hers is mostly a history of the ways in which Jews maintained their own identity while struggling to perserve themselves without the sustaining and protective influence of a nation-state. She discusses the emergence of Yiddish and the importance of language, including the revival of Hebrew. She also discusses the difficulties of the Arab-Jewish relationship, stating explicitly that: “Common opposition to Usrael remains to the present day the strongest univying political element among Arab and muslim countries that otherwise compete with one another” (138).

Theodor Herzl. Old New Land (Altneuland). Filiquarian Publishing (2007).

Orthodoxy

Herzl’s work is very fascinating, and caught me at a very particular moment as I imagine it did society in Europe and elsewhere when it was published just over 100 years ago. Herzl’s ideals and visions are most definitely dreamlike and border on fairy-tale-like representations of an ideal, but that is exactly what has the power to move a people to action. As he himself puts it in the book’s epilogue: “… But, if you do no wish it, all this that I have related to you is and will remain a fable” (329). And perhaps what is most power in something of this nature is the ability that it has to inspire dreams and aspirations in an otherwise downtrodden and depressed (economically as well as socially and emotionally) people.

Presenting images of how things can be and what improvements are possible with hard work and a fortitious break is a powerful way to inspire individuals to act now. The power of an idea and a belief in that idea are not to be underestimated. They can truly “move mountains”. Interestingly enough, this novel has had an undeniable impact on the movement of Zionism, as can be attested by (among other things) the name of Israel’s second largest city, Tel Aviv (which is the Hebrew translation of Altneuland, and is noted as meaning, literalry, “Hill of Spring”, or, new out of the old).

I found it particularly interesting in its discussion on the assimilation of Jews into society, or lack thereof. This point is perhaps made all the more interesting by the fact that Herzl himself was an avowed atheist. He obviously has no issues with the practice of religion and the cultural benefits of so doing, and is rather sympathetic if not encouraging in his treatment of Judaism, Christianity, and (albeit less prominent) Islam.

The discussion of multi-culturism, and the sharing of one’s culture, is a great counter-balance to the prevelent debate of assimilation verses orthodoxy. Herzl is particularly critical of those who, for the sake of society “sold out” and became ashamed of their Jewishness, using it a point of self-depreciating humor and nothing more. Passages about assimilation and/or orthodoxy can be found on the following pages: 7, 8, 9, 40, 54,  57, 79, 82, 90, 95, 213, 223, 278-279, and 320. There is also a very interesting discussion on woman’s roles and rights, found on page 115.

Moses Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed.

Maimonides gives a very interesting perspective on the world that blends (or rather, attempts to reconcile) religion and science. He works off of the fundamental notion that truth discovered by man cannot contradict truth revealed by God.

He states that there are different types of knowledge and varying degrees of ability, and he is seeking for the fourth kind, the “attainment of rational virtues” (170).

I was impressed by his systematic and authoritative approach. Much of what I have read recently is substantially more timid in its assertions on things related to life and living. While they may make historical progress in our understandings, they differ from this in that Maimonides is much more final in his assertions. I wonder if we have become more timid as a result of the development of relativism.

Quotes from the Text:

You will find in the course of this treatise the complete demonstration of the falsity of the anthropomorphism and the arguments for the true unity of God, which makes no sense without rejection of anthropomorphism” (153).

“Since man is distinguished by a very remarkable function, which does not exist in anything else beneath the sphere of the moon, namely intellectual perception, which is not exercised by any of the senses or out limbs or inner organs, this is compared with divine perception, which needs no tool… Because of this function, the divine intellect bestowed upon him, it is said of man that he is in the image and likeness of God, not because God is a body and therefore posses a shape” (153).

“Everyone knows that there are differences with regard to powers of perception and other physical faculties between individuals of the same species… This goes so far that one person may understand a matter by turning it over in his mind while another one never understands it; even if it is explained to him in every possible manner and with every possible illustration for any length of time, his mind does not grasp it at all, but is too dull to understand it” (154).

"According to Alexander of Aphrodisias, the causes of difference of opinion are three. one is the lust for authority and power that turns man from perceived the truth as it is; the second is the subtlety and profundity of the subject to be apprehended and the difficulty in apprehending it; the third is the ignorance of the apprehender and his inability to apprehend things that are given to perception. So far Alexander. In our own times there is a fourth cause which he fails to mention because it did not exist with his contemporaries–namely, habit and education. Men have an ingrained love for the things to which they are accustomed…" (154).

“For five reasons one should not begin instruction with metaphysics, nor even direct attention to any matters requiring attention, let along divulge such matters to the vulgar crowd.”

1. “The first reason is the inherent difficulty of the subject, its subtlety and profundity…”
2. “The second reason is that all beginners’ minds are lacking in capability…”
3. “The third reason is the need for a long period of preparatory studies…”
4. “The fourth reason lies in the diversity of natural disposition. It is clear , and proved by evidence, that moral virtues are a prerequisite of intellectual virtues,. The attainment of true intellectual values, that is perfect intellectual ideas, is impossible except for a man whose moral character is properly trained and who possesses dignity and balance…”

“[Some] would certainly be shocked if you told [them] that there is something which needs many preparatory studies and long investigations…. One who strives for human perfection must therefore train himself first in logic, then in the mathematical disciplines in their proper order, then in the natural sciences, and finally in metaphysics” (156)

“The reader of this work must be quite clear in his mind that belief does not mean any formula of faith one utters but the notions one has in one’s mind, and the convictions that reality corresponds to those particular notions" (156).

“It must be clearly understood that, when one does not understand the language of a person whom one hears talk, one is indeed aware that he is talking but does not understand what he means” (161).

“The opinions of men about prophecy are like their opinions about the eternity–or otherwise–of the world”

• “The first view is that of the ignorant mass, as far as they believe in prophecy. Some of the common people of our own faith also believe in this view, which that God chooses any man He wants, turns him into a prophet and sends him forth…. They make it, however, a prerequisite that he should also possess a certain degree of goodness and righteousness of character, for so far people have never said that god might make a prophet out of a wicked man, unless He first makes him good, in accordance with this view"
• The second view is that of the philosophers. It says that prophecy is a kind of perfection in human nature. This perfection cannot be attained by a person except after training which brings the potential faculties of the species into actuality…. According to this view, it is impossible for an ignorant person to become a prophet. Also, a man cannot go to bed as an ordinary person and wake up as prophet, as if he had found something, but the process takes place [over time]"

Account of those in a city traveling in various directions at various points (168-169).

“Ancient and modern philosophers have shown that four types of perfection are attainable for man.

"The first and lowest is the one for which the inhabitants of the earth destroy each other–i.e., the perfections of wealth. It comprises the property, clothes, instruments, slaves, lands and suchlike which a man owns. If a man is a powerful king, this also falls into this lass. This a perfection which has no real connection of any kind with that person, but only a relation. The pleasure derived from it is in any even for the most part purely imaginary–i.e., the pleasure of saying: this is my house, or this is my slave, or this property is mine, or this is my army. If he were ot look at himself he would discover that all this is outside is own self and that every single one of these possessions exists on account of itself. Therefore, as soon as the relation ceases, that individual who was a powerful king, may one bright morning find that there is no difference between him and the lowliest of mankind, though no change has occurred in any one of those things that had stood in a relation to him. The philosophers show that he who devotes his energy and efforts to the acquisition of this kind of perfections strives for something purely imaginary, for it is a thing which has no permanence. Even if the wealth remains in his possession throughout his life, no perfection in his own self will ever result from it."

"The second kind of perfection is more closely connected with man’s own self. this is the perfection of physique and appearance, as when a man’s constitution is perfectly balanced and his limbs and organs are in proper proportion and of the requisite strength…."

"The third kind of perfection affects the substance of the person more deeply than the second. It is the perfection of ethical virtues, when a man’s character is of its most virtuous constitution. Most religious prescriptions are designed for the attainment of this kind of perfection. This kind of perfection is, however, merely a prerequisite to something else, not a purpose in itself, because all ethical qualities refer to relations between a person and others. In a way , this perfection in his ethical qualities is nothing but a prerequisite for the benefit of society…"

"The fourth kind is the true human perfection; that is the attainment of rational virtues. By this I mean, of course, the conception of ideas which lead to correct opinions on metaphysical matters. This is the true ultimate purpose, and this is the one which bestows upon man true perfection, being peculiar to him alone…" (170)

the third view is that of our faith, in fact a principle of our religion. This exactly the same as the philosophical view, except in one respect: we believe that a person who is fit for prophecy and has prepared himself for it may yet not become a prophet. That depends on the divine will, and is in my opinion like all other miracles and run according to their pattern….  nothing can be done without training and perfection" (163-164).

“The fifth reason is the occupation with the needs of the body…”

I found this depiction of the Christian-Muslim conflict over the Holy Lands to be very facinating, especially in that no where did it mention or discuss Jews. This seems to have been a result of the methood of presentation, that is, in telling history through the stories of two individuals (King Richard and Saladin) and their opposition to one another. As a result of no comparable single figure among the Jews and their nationless status (i.e. they had not monarch, no military leader, no military at all, and no cities to defend or attack) there was apparently no place for a discussion of their role in this film.

They most certainly were both in Muslim countries and Christian ones as well, and there is no reason not to discuss them during this period, only the filmmakers of this specific piece were not interested for (probably) reasons of time contraints and the lack of a single major figure through whom the story could be told.

Selections From the Qur’an

The basic underlying idea presented in the Qur’an that I gleaned from my reading is that both Jews and Christians have misunderstood and misintepreted the holy writings. In one place, it is written:

“O beleivers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take you religion in mockery and as a sport… they are a people who have no understanding” (130)

and again, elswhere:

“The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ that is the utterances of their mouths, conforming with the unbeleivers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!” (131).

Similarly, the Qur’an writes that “Never will the Jews be satisfied with thee, neither the Christians, not till thou followest thier religion” (126).

The Qur’an also puts forth a alternative intepretation to tradition stories, such as the statement that “Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one pure of faith” (127).

In short, while the Jews were often more tolerated in Muslim countries, they were not viewed as religious equals but as inferior in their beleifs, practices, and understanding of the Book.

Quotes from the Text:

“And when we tookcompact with the Children of Israel: ‘You shall not serve any save God; and to be good to parents, and the near kinsmann, and to orphans, and to the needy; and speak good to men, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms.’ then you turned away, all but a few of you, swerving aside.”

“O beleivers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. god guides not the people of the evildoers. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickeness vying…” (130).

“O beleivers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book beofre you, and the uebelivers, who take you religion in mockery and as a sport” (130).

“O beleivers, many of the rabbis and monks indeed soncumer the goods o the people in vanity and bar from God’s way” (132).

“The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the Son of God.’ that is the utterances of their mouths, conforming with the unbeleivers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted!” (131).

John Chrysostom (347-407). “First Sermon Against Judaizers.”

In this piece, Chrysostom gives a terrible anti-Judaic sermon, brazing “miserable Jews” as a “disease”. He specifically is preaching against the obervation of Jewish holidays and feasts among Christians, saying that his goal was to “drive this pervers custom from the Church right now” (112). His text is full of reasons why the Jews should be hated and viewed as nothing more than “pitable,” but foremost among them is the fact that Jews rejected and killed Christ. He even writes that “although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing,” and that “the synagoguye is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts” (113-114).

In comparing paganism and Judaism, he writes:

“So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men” (118).

All of the anti-Judaic writing is repulsive and a terribly sad representation of one man’s misunderstanding of the bible and using it for his own perverse purposes. He forgets that Christ was a Jew as well as Peter, James, John, and the other apostles and early church members.

Understanding what early Christian writers thought, however, is important to developing a complete understanding of the history of the Jews.

Quotes from the text:

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I do not agree with the following quotations and am including them rather as a reminder of all of the bigotry that has been veiled under a thin layer twisted and perverted Christianity.

“And so I wanted again today to engage in that contest. For if the enemies of the truth never have enough of blaspheming our Benefactor, we must be all the more tireless in praising the god of all. But what am I to do? Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailen out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers.

“What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession… Some [of the Church] are going to watch the festivals, and other will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now…” (112)

“But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of this error. They were the branched of that holy root. but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied…. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs” (113)

“Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked” (113).

“Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is an obstinate and stubborn calf.” Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter” (113).

“Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. this is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. “You had a harlot’s brow; you became shameless before all.” Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it is a den of robbers and a lodging of wild beasts” (114).

“They [Jews] live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is no better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony” (115).

“There were twelve apostles and they drew the whole world to themselves. The greater portion of the city is Christian, yet some are still sick with the Judaizing disease” (115).

“So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men” (118).

“What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? The whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things” (119).

Mishnah and Talmud.

The Tractate Berakhot.

• TALMUD
  • Jewish Litergy
    • Shema
    • Shemoneh
    • Tefillah
    • Berakhot

The Talmud is something I had never read before, but had heard a lot about. It is interesting how most of it seems to be put in a question-answer format and is clear to indicate which rabbi taught which principle. It is very closely tied to the TORAH, and really is just an explanation of it.

Quotes from Text:

The Tractate Berakhot

“The petitionary prayers voice our basic needs: knowledge; reconciliation with God; forgiveness of sin’ redemption from oppression; healing; a bountiful harvest; the dispersed Jewish people’s restoration in the Holy Land; righteous judges; an end to arrogant empire; the vindication of those who trust in God ;the rebirth of Jerusalem to her ancient glory; the dawn of the messianic age of universal deliverance ;God’s acceptance of our prayers; the restoration of the Temple in Zion as the central sanctuary in Judaism; the renewal of Zion as a center of God’s presence; and climaxing all these, peace” (86).

“The commandment concerning the Sabbath is so important that it is the equivalent of all commandments of the Torah…” (87).

What is meant by a ‘fixed routine’ [in one's prayers]? Said R. Jacob b. Idi in the name of R. Oshaya, It means a person to whom the prayer seems burdensome. The Sages say: It means a peson who does not recite his prayer with devotion. Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: It means a person who cannot add anything new in his prayer.

“One should not begin to recide his prayer unless one is in a reverent frame of mind. The pious men of old used to wait [meditation] an hour before beginning to pray in order to be able to focus their thoughts on their Heavenly Father” [MISHNA 5:1] (87).

The Tractate Baba Mezia

“While the focus is on civil law, we are reminded that a person must not be content with staying within the law but must go beyond it, to embrace principles of equity and general moral sensitivity” (99).

“As one may be guilty of wrongdoing in buying and selling, so may one be guilty of wrongdoing in words” (101)

The Tractate Avot

“Moses received the Torah at Sinai. He conveyed it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets transmitted it to the men of the Great Assembly. The latter emphasized three principles: Be deliberate in judgement; raise up many disciples’ and make a fence to safeguard the Torah” (104).

“R. Judah ha-Nasi said: Which is the right course for a person to pursue in life? That which is honorable in his own eyes, and which will bring him honor from his fellow-man. Be careful with the observance of a seemingly minor commandment as with a major one, for you do not know the true merit of each commandment, learn to balance the loss incurring in the performance of a commandment against the reward thereof, and the gain by a transgression against the loss thereof. Contemplate three facts and you will be spared from the power of sin: Know what is above you–an Eye that sees, an Ear that hears, and a Book in which all your deeds are entered” (105).

“It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it” (107).

“There are seven characteristics of an uncultured man, and seven of a wise man. A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom; he does not interrupt another man’s speech; he is not hasty to answer; his answers are on the subject of the discussion, and his replies are to the point of the inquiry; he deals with first things first and last things last; he acknowledges what he does not know; and he affirms the truth. The opposite of these are the characteristics of the uncultured man” (107).

Josephus (d. c100). from The Jewish War.

Josephus is an interesting example of the pressures of assimilation and the desire to nevertheless remain a Jew. His story is only known to us because of his assimilation. Had he not made decisions to support the Romans, and more specifically, Vespesian, than he would not have lived beyond the battle of Jotapata. Instead, however, after prophesying Vespesian’s rise to power he is subsequently spared and even manages to rise to power with the general’s rise to emperor, becoming “histor” and recorder of history and under the reign of Titus he goes to Rome and writes The Jewish War, reconciling his loyalty to the emperor with his Jewishness by highlighting the Jews as a very strong foe (or, in the cases of exaggeration, making it out to be so).

One point of intrigue in the account of the final moments of the battle over Jotapata, is the fact that (not wanting to fall victim to Roman ridicule and slavery) the remaining 40 Jews commit “suicide”, i.e. they each kill each other, rather than to submit to the Romans. Because they could not, according to Jewish laws, kill themselves, this meant that one of them would have to remain alive. They cast lots to see who that would be and, not surprisingly, it was their leader Josephus. He wrote about his initial attempts to dissuade the others from the determination to commit suicide this way:

“Fearing an assault and believing that it would be a betrayal of God’s commands if he died before imparting his message, Josephus in this critical situation proceeded to philosophize: “What, comrades, ” he said, “is this thirst for our own destruction?… If I am shrinking from the sword of the Romans, I should fully deserve to die by my own hand; but if they want to spare an enemy, are we not more justified in sparing ourselves? It would be folly to inflict on ourselves the treatment which we want to prevent by our quarrel with them!” (65).

(It goes on to recount the drawing of lots and then Josephus’ prophecy to Vespasian of his eventual rise to power).

But this all highlights the difficulties and Josephus’ attempt to preserve his pride about being a Jew while maintaining his position in the Roman court.

Quotes from Text:

“Fearing an assault and believing that it would be a betrayal of God’s commands if he died before imparting his message, Josephus in this critical situation proceeded to philosophize: “What, comrades, ” he said, “is this thirst for our own destruction?… If I am shrinking from the sword of theR omans, I should fully deserve to die by my own hand; but if they want to spare an enemy, are we not more justified in sparing ourselves? It would be folly to inflict on ourselves the treatment which we want to prevent by our quarrel with them!

“By these and many similar arguments Josephus tried to deter his companions from suicide…

“But in this predicament, his resourcefulness did not forsake him. Trusting to God’s protections, he hazarded his life on one last throw, saying: “As we are resolved to die, come, let us draw lots and decide the order in which we are to kill each other in turn… He, however–should we way by fortune or by divine providence–was left with one other man; and, anxious neither to be condemned by the lot, nor, if he were left as the last, stain his hand with the blood of a fellow countryman, her persuaded this man also, under a pact, to remain alive.

“Having thus survived both a war with the Romans and with how own companions, Josephus was brought by Nacanor before Vespasian. The Romans all rushed to see him…. However, Vespasian ordered him to be guarded with every precaution, since he intended to send him shortly to Nero.

“Hearing this, Josephus asked for a private interview with him. Vespasian ordered everyone except his son Titus and two friends to withdraw, and Josephus thus addressed him: “You suppose, Vespasian that in the person of Josephus you have taken a mere prisoner; but I come to you as a messenger of a greater destiny. Had I not been sent on this errand by God, I knew the Jewish law and how it becomes a general to die. Are you sending me to Nero? Why then? Will Nero and those who follow him before your accession remain long on the throne? You, Vespasian, will be Caesar and emperor, you and your son here. So bind me then more securely in chains and keep more for yourself…” While he did not release Josephus from imprisonment or chains, he presented him with clothing and other valuable gifts and continued to treat him with kindness and consideration.” (65-66)