I just got through several busy months at work. I should be blogging a little more regularly from now on.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
A New Name for 'Conservative Judaism': My Worst Idea Ever
From time to time, someone suggests renaming "Conservative Judaism." The name is technically accurate. In this context, "conservative" refers to "conserving" or "preserving". The movement was a reaction against the more extreme move away from tradition that late 19th Century Reform Judaism was advocating. However, when people hear the name, they typically think of "conservative" as meaning "not liberal", and thus think of the movement as some sort of right-wing version of Judaism, which it is not.
To solve this problem, people have offered suggestions for a new name. R. David Wolpe has advocated changing the name to "Covenantal Judaism." Daniel J. Elazar and Rela Mintz Geffen in "The Conservative Movement in Judaism" have suggested renaming it "Masorti Judaism", which means "traditional" and is the name of the movement in Israel. (I think this is a bad idea --- most Americans will have no idea what this means.)
I do not have better suggestion, but I have a much worse suggestion. In fact, this might be the worst name conceivable. Obviously, one could pick a simple derogatory name, and it would be bad. But this one is quite accurate, as well as absolutely terrible.
One important theme in Conservative Judaism is balancing between tradition and change. And if viewed in this light, all versions of Judaism are forms of Conservative Judaism; they just strike the balance at different points. Thus, Conservative Judaism is actually universal. With this and Solomon Schechter in mind, my super-accurate and terribly misleading new name for Conservative Judaism is "Catholic Judaism." I don't think it can be more confusing than that.
(Just to clarify. Schechter argued that the ultimate authority for halacha did not rest in the Talmud but instead in the Jewish people as a whole, or k'lal Yisrael. He referred to this in English as "Catholic Israel", where "catholic" means universal or comprehensive. Needless to say, the label never really caught on.)
If anyone has an accurately descriptive but much worse name for Conservative Judaism --- or for Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism --- leave a comment. Needless to say (but I'll say it), don't be crude or insulting.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Rhythm and Sometimes Lack of Rhythm of the Calendar.
Most of the time, there is a nice rhythm to the Jewish calendar. The stories in the Torah unfold chronologically, from creation at the beginning of Genesis to Moses's death at the end of Deuteronomy. Each week, we move forward a little in the story.
And most of the holidays fit in nicely, or at least do not clash, with this rhythm. During the long narratives of Genesis in the fall and early winter, there are no holidays. Tu B'shvat comes in the middle of the Exodus story, but celebrates trees, not a historical event. We finish reading about the Exodus from Egypt, and move to the slow legislation of Leviticus when Passover rolls around. And the numerous major holidays in the fall --- Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot --- all occur during the final weeks of Deuteronomy, where there is no real narrative, only a final speech by Moses.
But things are a little more dissonant this time of the year. The Torah parshot over the past few weeks covered the story of Joseph, his brothers, and the movement of the whole family to Egypt. This is a prelude to slavery and the exodus. We just finished celebrating Chanukah, celebrating the defeat of the Syrian-Greeks and the rededication the Second Temple around 165 BCE. Today is the 10th of Tevet, which commemorates the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's attack on the First Temple in 588 BCE. So in the past two weeks or so, we have focused on three very different stories in three very different periods.
I guess when both history and Torah readings are coiled around an annual calendar, it is not surprising that disparate things sometimes end up next to each other.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Possible Reasons for the Gaza Invastion
Jewish Atheist has a post making an intelligent case against Israel's actions. Essentially, he argues that while Israel has the right to defend itself, this military action is not likely to accomplish its objections and stop Hamas rockets (which can be easily made). So this action is likely to kill lots of Palestinians and not accomplish much.
JA's challenge is a reasonable one. Obviously, Israel cannot simply "defeat" Hamas and end the problem. But I think there are three strategic objectives that Israel has and that it could accomplish that might meet JA's objection.
1. By killing Hamas fighters and destroying a lot of Hamas's resources, it simply makes it more difficult for Hamas to fire rockets. It won't stop it, but it will reduce it. If the numbers go from (say) 200 rockets per day to 195 rockets per day, the Israeli attack might not be worth it. But if it goes from 200 rockets per day to 30 rockets per day, it might be worth it.
2. The "international community" (if that is even a coherent term) has been ignoring Hamas's rocket attacks. If they put pressure on Israel to agree to a cease-fire, there is a reasonable chance that the cease-fire agreement will include some provisions for monitoring Hamas rocket attacks, tunnels, arms, etc. And that would be a step forward.
3. Israel's attacks might raise the cost to Palestinians of voting for Hamas over Fatah. I've got to think that an ordinary Palestinian citizen in Gaza is quite conflicted now. On the one hand, he or she hates Israel, blames Israel for the killings, and wants revenge. This action risks further radicalizing Gaza (assuming that this is even possible). On the other hand, the average Palestinian in Gaza is probably thinking that the West Bank looks like a much nicer place to be right around now (not to mention Egypt or Jordan). And the average Palestinian certainly realizes that Hamas's rocket attacks are a but-for cause of the Israeli military attacks, regardless of whether the attacks are justified or not.
The next time there is an election, the Palestinians must sort out these conflicting thoughts and decide whether to vote for Hamas or Fatah. This attack might push at least some Palestinians towards Fatah.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Interesting Posts Elsewhere and Scheduling Note
I have been swamped at work and have not had time to post much lately. I expect this situation will continue for another month or so. I will try to get a post in here or there, but I do not expect to do too much posting until February.
In the meantime, here are a few very interesting posts from elsewhere.
Ben Z at Mah Rabu has a thorough and exhaustive post on the Conservative Movement and one-day versus two-day yom tovs. He links to his earlier two-part post on the Reform Movement and the same topic. The post is quite thoughtful.
Also, the Natan Slifkin, the "Zoo Rabbi," has written a defense of his opponents here. (Hat tip to Gil at Hirhurim).
(If you don't know about the controversy, check out the "Controversy" section at Slifkin's website here: http://www.zootorah.com/. This whole controversy arises out of a terrible collision between traditional Judaims and science. It is both fascinating and sad.)
Essentially, Slifkin argues in defense of his opponents that the charedi world has the right to reject a rationalistic approach to Judaism like his, and thus the ban against his works is justified in those communities. These communities promote other values well, and adopting a critical view of certain scientific beliefs of chazal would undermine that, even though rationality would support such a critical view.
Slifkin's argument raises a great issue at to whether truth is an instrumental value that should serve other values, or whether it is a separate value and such trade-offs are unwarranted. Unfortunately, I don't have time to analyze this now.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Reflections on an Orthodox Bar-Mitzvah
I attended an Orthodox bar-mitzvah on Saturday. As expected (or at least as I expected), the bar-mitzvah boy did a spectacular job. Last week's parsha (vayetzei) is one of the longest is the Torah, and his leining was great. And his speech was smart, mature, and insightful.
Most bar-mitzvot I have attended have been Reform or Conservative, and I was struck in good way by the "tone" of the service. It was pretty serious as a service. Like any bar mitzvah service, there was some focus on the bar mitzvah boy: the rabbi talked about him, he gave a dvar Torah, etc. And it certainly was a happy occasion. He was happy, his family was proud (and rightfully so), and the day was his.
But the service did not revolve around him. It was not gushy or silly or showy. The focus during the davening was on the davening and the focus during the leining was on the leining. This was not a tribute ceremony or a show. This was shabbat morning service. The sense I got from the room was that this was important business for grown-ups. We do it every week, someone has to be the leader, the kid is now old enough and knowledgeable enough, and so he's in charge. Welcome to the big leagues, kid.
The result was a real rite of passage. The bar-mitzvah boy did an adult thing in an adult way and did it well. And since focus of everyone was on doing the adult thing, the experience was genuine.
In too many Reform or Conservative synagogues, the bar- or bat-mitzvah is run as a performance. The kid memorizes a small part of the parsha, says a few blessings, and the parents give a speech about how the kid is the best person in the world. The adults are not there to daven or learn Torah; they are there solely to fawn over the kid. While this is objectionable by itself, it also results in gutting the meaning of the ritual. The kid is not doing an adult thing since the adults in his or her life don't regularly do these things. The kid is performing a show, and the performance itself is the coming-of-age ritual.
This is not a blanket criticism of liberal Jewish bar- and bat-mitzvot. Many are closer to the Orthodox model, and many are genuine, meaningful, and haimish. But many are not. We Conservative and Reform Jews might not copy everything from our Orthodox friends, but we certainly could learn a bit about how to do a bar-mitzvah.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Numbers
Here is a table showing all the verses in Numbers and which source they are from. Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.
Here's information about the table.
F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.
Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other
Here's the table. Documentary Hypothesis
Chapter
Friedman
Driver
Difference?
Notes
Numbers
1:1 - 2:34
P
P
3:1
R
P
*
3:2 - 9:14
P
P
9:15-23
R
P
*
10:1-12
P
P
10:13
R
P
*
10:14 - 27
P
P
10:28
R
P
*
10:29 - 33
J
JE
*
10:34
J
P
*
10:35-36
J
JE
*
11:1-11
E
JE
*
12:1-15
E
E
13:1-16
P
P
13:17a
R
P
*
13:17b-20
J
JE
*
13:21
J
P
*
13:22-24
J
JE
*
13:25-26a
P
P
to "Paran"
13:26b
P
JE
*
13:27-31
J
JE
*
13:32a
P
P
13:32b
P
JE
*
13:33
J
JE
*
14:1-2
P
P
14:3
P
JE
*
14:4
J
JE
*
14:5-7
P
P
14:8-9
P
JE
*
14:10
P
P
14:11-25
J
JE
*
14:26-30
P
P
14:31-33
P
JE
*
14:34-38
P
P
14:39-45
J
JE
*
15:1-31
R
P
*
15:32-41
P
P
16:1a
P
P
to "son of Levi"
16:1b-2a
J
JE
*
to "in front of Moses"
16:2b-11
P
P
16:12-14
J
JE
*
16:15
P
JE
*
16:16-24a
P
P
16:24b
R
P
*
"Dathan and Abiram"
16:25-26
J
JE
*
16:27a
P
P
16:27b
R
P
*
"Dathan and Abiram"
16:27c-32a
J
JE
*
to "and their households"
16:32b
P
P
16:33-34
J
JE
*
16:35
P
P
17:1-27
P
P
Note: Jewish 17:1-15 are numbered in Christian bibles as 16:36-50. Jewish 17:16-28 are numbered in Christian Bibles as 17:1-13
18, 19
P
P
20:1a
R
P
*
to "in Kadesh"
20:1b
P
JE
*
20:2
P
P
20:3a
P
JE
*
20:3b-4
P
P
20:5
P
JE
*
20:6-13
P
P
20:14-21
J
JE
*
20:22
R
P
*
20:23-29
P
P
21:1-3
J
JE
*
21:4a
R
P
*
F: to "Edom"; D: to "Mt Hor"
21:4b-9
E
JE
*
21:10-11
R
P
*
21:12-35
J
JE
*
22:1
R
P
*
22:2
J
E
*
22:3-21
E
E
F: except for 4 "to the elders of Midian" (R), 5 "and he sent messengers" (J), 7 "and Midian's elders" (R), 15 "And Balak went on again" (J)
22:22-35a
E
J
*
F: except for 26 "to turn right or left" (J)
22:35b-41
E
E
23, 24
E
JE
*
25:1-5
J
JE
*
25:6-19
P
P
26:1-7
P
P
26:8-11
R
P
*
26:12-65
P
P
27
P
P
28,29
R
P
*
30:1
R
P
*
30:2-17
P
P
31
P
P
32:1
J
JE
*
32:2
P
P
D: part may be JE
32:3
J
JE
*
32:4
P
P
D: part may be JE
32:5
J
JE
*
F&D: except for "let this land be given to your servants for a possession" (P)
32:6
P
JE
*
32:7-12
J
JE
*
F & D: except for 12 "and Joshua son of Nun" (R); D: except for 11 "from 20 years old and upward" (P)
32:13-24
P
JE/P
*
D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:25-27
J
JE
*
32:28-32
P
JE/P
*
D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:33-42
J
JE
*
33:1a
O
P
*
F: list of travels that R used to organize the wilderness episodes chronologically
33:1-2
R
P
*
33:3-49
O
P
*
33:50-56
P
P
34, 35, 36
P
P
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Children and the Torah Service
I have been thinking about the problem of smaller children and the Torah service. The basic problem is that children can easily get bored and be disruptive at a Saturday morning service. There seems to be several ways of handling this problem, and I was wondering what other synagogues did.
1. Synagogues can let children attend, expect a certain amount of disruption, and simply try to minimize it or live with it.
2. Synagogues can provide some kind of age-appropriate activities for children: day care, singing, children's services, Saturday religious school, etc. Smaller children simply go to their activity, and the adults go to the service. This had the advantage (especially important in more liberal synagogues) of having younger children see adults go to services, even when there is no bar- or bat-mitzvah.
3. Synagogues can provide "family services" that the whole family can attend. The advantage is that this allows the family to attend services together. But the disadvantage, as a friend of mine noted, it that there really is no such thing as "family services." There are only "children's services." Adults get very little out of them (other than watching their children), and children get the subtextual message that Judaism is geared for children. This is an especially bad problem if the only services the parents attend are "family services."
4. Synagogues can provide "family services" at times other than Saturday morning that are less lengthy. They can provide a family service Friday evening or a family havdalah service Saturday evening. Children are better able to sit through a shorter service. However, this still leaves the adults with a problem for Saturday morning services.
5. Synagogues can not allow children (or at least not tolerate occasional interruptions well) and not provide activities at the synagogue for the children. This leaves the parents with several options.
- One of the parents can watch the children at home, and the other can go to services. This tends to work in Orthodox or more traditional synagogues where families and synagogues have adopted more traditional gender roles. It also works in more liberal or moderate synagogues where one spouse (regardless of gender) is interested in attending services and the other is not. But this results in separating one spouse from the other spouse and kids.
- The parents can hire a babysitter. This is costly and results in separating the parents from the children.
- Both parents can simply stay home. This keeps the family together, but also keeps them out of the synagogue on Saturdays.
How does your synagogue handle this problem, what do you and others do, and how is it working?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Avot Prayer and Barack Obama's Speech
Barack Obama invoked a powerful image in his victory speech in Chicago. He mentioned 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, who "was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin." He then summarized the great progress that had occurred in her lifetime, and mentioned several historical events, culminating with the following: "And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change."
After tracing progress through the last century, Obama looked forward to the next. "So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? [¶] This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment."
Obama presented a powerful way of thinking about history and the importance of the present moment. He remembered the great achievements of the past, and looked forward --- with his own children specifically in mind --- to even better improvements in the future.
This is exactly how I think about the first prayer of the Amidah, the Avot.
After praising the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob for loving kindness, the last sentence (from the Conservative Siddur Sim Shalom) is "You remember the pious deeds of our ancestors and will send a redeemer to their children's children because of Your loving nature."
In other words, we start the prayer by recalling the Patriarchs of the distant past and their pious deeds. We then think forward from their time, noting how God will redeem "their children's children" (livnei v'neihem) because of his loving nature. The referent of "their" is of course the Patriarchs, and so their children's children include all of our ancestors, us, and our children.
During prayer, I do not find it helpful to think about God as an active supernatural force that magically changes the world while I sit passively on the sidelines. Instead, I primarily think of prayers like the Amidah as a reminder to me of specific aspects of godliness that I should be helping to bring into the world. With all this in mind, I tend to conflate the different parts of the Avot: acts of loving kindness, our ancestor's pious deeds, redemption, and a loving nature. After all, my children and future descendants will hopefully think of my acts as part of their ancestors' pious deeds. And so one key question that I think about when I say the Avot (or at least try to think about - it's too easy to get distracted) is what can I do to help "their children's children": my immediate family, my extended family, and others in my community.
And so --- like Barack Obama --- I look backward to the past, think of great deeds of loving kindness and pious ancestors, and then focus on what I can do along the same lines for the next generations. This places the present solidly between the past and the future, not only in time, but along a continuum of progress and good deeds. Not a bad way to start the day.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Amusing Posts on the Flood
The attempts to reconcile science and a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis (the creation stories, Noah's flood, Tower of Babel) are quite silly. When I was in my teens and early 20s, I was intrigued by this debate. But now in my 40s, I am now amazed that this debate even occurs, especially by otherwise intelligent and serious people.
I understand why young people might be interested in this problem. Just out of childhood, they face the conflict between a childish literal view of these stories and some newfound knowledge about science. They thrash about a bit trying to resolve this conflict, and derive some silly theories along the way: maybe if this verse is read that way, and there was only a small miracle here, and days don't mean literal days, and some of the animals on the ark were in some sort of suspended animation, and dinosaurs were more dense than mammals and sunk faster, and ....
What I don't understand is why serious grown-ups would take on this issue. Dr. Harvey Babich (who appears to be a serious grown up - a professor of biology at Stern College with some impressive credentials) wrote a silly piece along these line, entitled How Many Animals Were There On The Ark?. In short, he argues that perhaps Noah simply took a set of each "kind" of animal, rather than a set of each species. These "kinds" then rapidly diversified after the flood and --- dare I say --- evolved into all the species were see today. Voila! This solves the problem of how Noah fit so many animals into a too-small ark.
My reaction is simply to roll my eyes. There are lots of problems with this specific argument, and this general approach, none of which I particularly want to discuss. Some other bloggers have already taken a whack at those. See XGH (in his most recent incarnation): YU on the Mabul with Hagaos Hagodol and Frum Heretic: Dang, He Busted My Mabul Crapometer! My questions is why would a serious biologist write such a piece?
The only thing I can think of is a slippery-slope problem. If people believe the creation stories and the flood are not literally true, the argument goes, then maybe they will believe the revelation at Sinai is not literally true either. So we need to draw the line at the former.
The tactical problem is that this argument is likely to backfire. If people start to think that Orthodox Judaism believes that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a global flood that killed everyone in the world except 8 people on a boat in 2300 BCE, they are more likely, not less likely, to conclude that the revelation at Sinai did not occur.
If anyone else has any thought on why otherwise serious people take these positions, leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Feed (RSS)
Posts
