National revelation and national redemption

I realized something the other day. The Jewish view on the messianic age, heaven, the world to come, whatever you want to call it is based on national redemption. I was talking about this with some students recently. A big difference between Judaism and Christianity is the notion of heaven. For Christians, heaven exists. It's a place to which you have to gain admittance. But, it's an individual place. If a Christian has faith that Jesus died for his or her sins and acts upon that faith, he or she will have a place in heaven regardless of what is happening in the rest of the world.

But Jews are different. Our view of heaven is not that it is a place that exists but rather a place that we must create. It's what we pray for in the Aleinu. More importantly, we can't get there alone. Regardless of the life I lead as an individual, the reward of "heaven" or the perfect world only can happen if everyone gets there together. That's a really important difference.

Then it occurred to me that on the other end of the spectrum, revelation, the difference between individualism and nationalism also is what differentiates the Jews. Judaism is one of the only (perhaps the only) religion based on national revelation. God didn't appear to an individual. God revealed the overall plan to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai.

I guess that's why we need a minyan to pray. It's why we hear the sound "nu" in so many of our prayers ("nu" is the possessive pronoun "our").

We got the vision as a people and we can only achieve it as a people. We are all connected. It doesn't matter how good we are as individuals. I can be a good person yet, that's not enough to create heaven. That really changes the stakes, doesn't it?

Why wasn't Moses allowed in to the promised land?

Poor Moses. After all he did. Forty years of putting up with the Israelites kvetching and of having to go, kipa in hand, before God to ask him to give them a break and what does he get in return? He doesn't get to go into the Promised Land. It's like at the end of Vacation when the Griswald's finally make it to Wally World after enduring nearly every travel nightmare imaginable and find it closed. Now, Moses is a clearly a more ethical and sophisticated character than Clark Griswald and seems to accept his fate (as opposed to Clark who buys a BB gun and abducts a security guard). But, what an odd ending to the Torah. After all, the Torah is all about the rules and responsibilities we have to repair the world, and yet the one guy who is the ultimate symbol of those very things doesn't get the prize. Seems like a tough way to market your program.

So, what's the story? I've heard different explanations as to why Moses does not get to go into the promised land. Here are the two that come up the most. First the old stand-by, "We are incapable of understanding everything that God does". While true, I always find this to be a cop out. It's the "Because I said so" of theology. The second one ties back to the book of Numbers. The Israelites are complaining (as usual) to Moses that they would have been better off in Egypt. They are unable to find water and believe that they and their animals will die of thirst. Moses and Aaron take this issue up with God, the rest is history:

8“You and your brother Aaron take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. Thus you shall produce water for them from the rock and provide drink for the congregation and their beasts.” 9Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He had commanded him. 10Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock; and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” 11And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came copious water, and the community and their beasts drank. 12But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them." (Numbers 20:8-12)

Well, OK. I guess that is pretty black and white. If God tells you to speak to a rock, you probably should follow directions. Duh. But, c'mon, it's not like he built a golden calf or something. And, who wouldn't whack a rock after having to deal all those years with those snively little Israelites in the desert. Sheesh. Give the guy a break. On Yom Kipur God forgives us for all of the sins we've committed against him/her/it. So, why hold a grudge for smacking the rock?

Well, maybe there is something to that. I've also read that it wasn't actually hitting the rock that was the issue. The issue was that God didn't want the Israelites to confuse Moses as being their redeemer. By striking the rock, it would appear that Moses caused the water to come forth and thus was the one who produced it. Now, I can sort of buy this although I think it gives the Israelites much more credit than they deserve. If Moses spoke instead of hitting the rock, I still think they'd believe that he had something to do with it. But, the idea of Moses not being seen as the redeemer is an interesting idea.

Moses led them out of Egypt. If he took them into the promise land, he would be their redeemer. By stopping him short, it set up the possibility that it was something beyond Moses that was actually delivering them.

That could work. I've also heard that one of the reasons that no one knew of Moses burial place was that so it wouldn't become a shrine or a holy place. Moses served a purpose, albeit an important one. But he was the messenger and channel for the redeemer, he wasn't the redeemer. He was an important player, but he was one of many. He wasn't divine.

So, that's one thought.

But then again I've also read a lot of explanations of why the Israelites spend 40 years wandering the desert which might shed some light on this issue. Of course, the two most common are punch lines:

Moses was a typical man and wouldn't ask for directions

Moses dropped a quarter and couldn't find it

But, there are some others that have resonated with me. In particular, one writer (I think it was Joseph Tellushkin) points to the whininess of the Israelites. He argues that these people were born into slavery and while they could be removed from it physically, they couldn't be removed from it psychologically. That's why despite miracle after miracle they keep telling Moses that they would have been better off in Egypt. Therefore, the Israelites wandered for forty years so that the generation that would be entering Egypt would be a generation born into freedom.

That makes a certain amount of sense. It got me thinking that perhaps this "purging" of the slavery mindset was necessary for the Israelites to become a nation in their new land. Therefore, the last remnant and symbol of that slavery was Moses, the very person who helped deliver them from it. Perhaps it is that that simple.

Of course, it could just be that there are something things that God does that we can't understand like punishing people for hitting a rock.

Wha does it mean to say Kaddish for someone?

For as long as I can remember, I've always heard the experssion "say kaddish for ..." a person. I had always interpreted the "for" as meaning that the person was the recipient of the action. I thought of it in the same way as you would use "for" in the sentence, "Say a prayer for him".

However, it recently occurred to me that perhaps I've been misinterpreted the meaning of "for". The Kaddish is It's about God's greatness. It is a prayer FOR God. So what does it mean to say Kaddish "for" someone?

I think I finally figured it out (perhaps I'm the last one to do so). When I say Kaddish "for" someone I am saying it on their behalf. I am praising God for them since they no longer can. That makes more sense. It is part of the Mitzvah of keeping someone's name alive. By saying Kaddish for them, you are perpetuating their presence in the world. That's a powerful Jewish idea.

More importantly, taking on that practice will help me think of other ways to keep those people alive. It will remind me of what they stood for, what they cared about, and what they did. Maybe it will even drive me to continue repairing the world on their behalf.

Jewish Law in Business

I had a wonderful opportunity the other day to meet with Marty Levine, the General Director of the Chicago JCCs. Marty explained that the JCC is aggressively working to ensure that it runs it's business in line with Jewish values. A friend of mine asked what this meant. It got me thinking about some of the issues that a company must deal with if it were to be aligned with Jewish values. Here are a few that struck me:

1. If you receive an invoice with payment terms of NET 30, do you hold it for 27 days or pay it right away? ("in the same day thou shalt give him his hire" - Deuteronomy 24,15). Is "on time" within the terms provided or should we pay sooner? Is holding payment to maximize your cash on hand ok?

2. Is it ok to put off preventitive maintence on equipment? (When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone should fall from it”-Deuteronomy 22:8)

3. Can you foreclose, reposses, or charge late fees to people who owe you money? (“When thou dost lend thy neighbour any manner of loan, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.” - Deuteronomy 24:10, “Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God.” – Deuteronomy 24:13)

4. How much free product or service should an orgnaization provide for the needy? ("When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the sojourner, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be filled.” - Deuteronomy 26:12)

5. How "green" should we be? (“When you besiege a city…you shall not destroy its (fruit) trees. You shall eat of them, do not cut them down; for man’s life depends on the trees of the field” - Deuteronomy 20:19), “When God created Adam, He led him around the Garden of Eden and said to him: ‘Behold my works! See how beautiful they are, how excellent! All that I have created, for your sake did I create it. See t it that you do not spoil and destroy my world; for if you do, there will be no one to repair it after you’” -Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13)

I'm interested in hearing about other business decisions that could be influenced by Jewish law.

The Torah: Is it the perennial winner of "Jewish Idol"

The Torah service has always intrigued me. It's a major highlight of a prayer service. It also has a very high concentration of rituals. What I find interesting is the way that we demonstrate our reverence to the Torah. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the Torah should be revered, but it seems that some of our rituals walk a fine line between reverence and respect and idolatry.

The Torah is dressed in garments befitting of a king or queen. We march it around in a grand processional where people kiss it. We rise in its presence and even have specific rituals to give it a proper "burial" when it no longer can serve its purpose.

Is this reverence to God's word or has the Torah become an idol? Does the average Joe (or Jacob) like me understand those nuances? Could a normal person explain how all of these rituals when done with a Torah are ok but when done with a statue of the Deity of the day becomes idolatry?

If our rituals do not constitute idolatry, what actions relative to the Torah would? Where do we draw the line? What wouldn't be ok?

Should rabbis perform interfaith marriages?

I was married by a judge. Although we were a Reform congregation, our rabbi wouldn't perform interfaith marriages. There were a few mercenary rabbis who would but my mother, in her wise ways said, "At this point, you're going to be married by a stranger, why do you care whether that stranger is a rabbi?" Here comes the judge!

It never sat well with me though. How could the rabbi say he welcomed us to the congregation yet he wouldn't marry us? Was it really just our dues money that he welcomed? (I really thought that!)

I don't think that anymore. I don't think that rabbis should perform interfaith marriages if they don't want to. If the two people haven't fully committed to being Jewish what's the point of having a rabbi? What is it symbolizing? What does it mean? Doesn't the rabbi just become a prop like flowers?

I'm all for interfaith marriage. Frankly, with all of the problems that people have with marriages, we should embrace any two people who love each other and want to make a commitment. But, I don't think that it is reasonable to expect to have a symbol of "Judaism" when you haven't made the commitment.

So, I think my rabbi did the right thing. He didn't want to be a prop, but he accepted us and our choices and welcomed us to the community. I don't think that I could really have asked for more.

To kneel or not to kneel that is the question

Today I am going to my niece's first communion. I've only been to a Catholic Church four or five times in my life. It always seems a bit strange although I'm sure no more so than a synagogue might feel for a non-Jew. Each time I've gone, I've had to confront a set of decisions - in which rituals do I participate and which ones should I pass on.

Some are easy. Certainly I wouldn't take communion and I'm pretty certain they wouldn't want me to. It would be like a non-Jew being called for an Aliyah. Some things are only appropriate for those within the faith. Also, I obviously won't cross myself.

But there are some that are a bit more grey, at least in my mind. In particular, should I kneel? My first reaction is, "No way, Jews don't kneel. Mordechai would roll over in his grave if I were to do such a thing." But, then I thought about it some more. In our congregation we certainly expect people to rise during the Barchu, the Amida, and the Aleinu. So why not kneel?

I don't view it as a religious issue. I don't think that non-Jews who rise during our prayers are doing so in a religious way. I think they are doing it to respect out traditions. So is kneeling the same. Certainly while I am kneeling I won't be praying to Jesus or asking for salvation. I'll probably just quietly contemplate my own thoughts or more likely will space out (which is probably what people at our congregation do during the Aleinu).

Some people argue that asking people to rise or encouraging them to wear a kipah (which is also something done at my congregation) is different because it's not religious its about respect. Maybe, but I doubt the person being asked knows that. Can we think of kneeling the same way or is there something more? How would you explain to a non-Jew that doing Jewish rituals are ok because they aren't religious but doing the rituals of their faith are not ok because they are?

I probably won't decide until the first opportunity comes up. I'll keep you posted.

Do you believe in ghosts?

A friend recently asked me this question. My answer surprised him. I said that I do. He asked how this squared with Judaism's beliefs regarding the afterlife. He had a point. Through most of my life and through most of his, we'd always heard that Jews don't really talk too much about the afterlife. It's not clear what happens when you die. Some argue that we lie dormant until the Messianic age when we are all resurrected. Some believe that we move to Sheol for a bit and then move on to heaven or hell. Many believe that heaven and hell are internal rather than external constructs and that our belonging to either is a state of mind...take this famous rabbinic story:

In the afterlife people cannot bend at the elbow. For those that can feed others, this is heaven, for those that cannot feed themselves, it is hell.

My own views on this are too convoluted to even attempt to write in this blog nor are they appropriate for it. I'm just tossing out the questions.

So where does that leave us? The afterlife is clearly a bit of a mystery in Judaism. So, why then would I Samuel 28:8-19 have a story about King Saul talking to the ghost of Samuel. I Judaism doesn't believe in an afterlife, where the heck has Sammuel been hiding?

More importantly, how can the afterlife be such a mystery when the Hebrew bible itself talks about it. In his book, Does the Soul Survive, Elie Kaplan Spiz argues (and provides examples) that Judaism actually has a pretty robust view of the afterlife.

I have no idea, but I think it's interesting that so many Jews are certain that Judaism really isn't that into the afterlife, despite one of its most important books talking about it.

Kashrut in Narina

A friend of mine just sent me this fantastic link.

http://www.jeffvandermeer.com.nyud.net:8080/2008/04/17/evil-monkey%e2%80%99s-guide-to-kosher-imaginary-animals/

It provides opinions (non-rabbinic) on the kashrut status of the various animals (creatures) found in fantasy stories such as Chronicles of Narinia, Lord of the Rings, etc.

It's a pretty good assessment although the bad news is that it would be tough for a Jew to find something to eat (so what else is new).

I generally agreed with her except for one:

Aigi Kampoi (fish-tailed goat) - A: “Yes, that would be kosher because it has cloven hoofs, chews its cud, and has fins and scales. Although, it would still be considered a meat meal, even though it’s partially fish. So you can’t eat dairy with it.”

I'm not sure about this one. She seemed to use the specific requirements around hoofs, cud, scale, fins. I think there is a more meta-level requirement that would deem this one not Kosher. From my understanding, many of the laws in the Torah including those of Kashrut are based on separation. Jews like to keep things separate, that's even the basis for the Kashrut laws - to separate the holy from the unholy. Judaism typically comes down on playing it safe when it comes to separation. If it's not clear what category something falls within we don't take our chances. That's why the hare, pig, and camel are all mentioned specifically in the Kashrut laws. Each meets on requirement but not the other.

So, because the Aigi Kampoi is not clearly a fish or a goat, I think the rabbi's would play it safe and make it trief. It's the same reason (in my opinion) that things that don't have scales but live in the water are trief. It's too hard to tell if they are a fish or something else.

So, that's my $.02. Of course, that leaves us with even less to eat if we someday venture through a mystical portal and find ourselves face-to-face with an Amikiri.

Brisket Smackdown

Today on NPR there was a feature story talking about brisket. The reporter was expressing her woes and anxiety over having to prepare brisket for Passover.

The story featured a taste test between the reporter's brisket and that of a famous Chicago chef. The judge was a local rabbi. Ultimately the rabbi, in true rabbinic form, found both briskets to be good and satisfying thus eliminating any potential shame on the part of either contestant.

But, here's my issue. The rabbi's criteria included firmness. He said brisket should be tender but firm going as far to say that brisket that falls apart is just not worthy.

I have to respectfully disagree...if you want firmness on Passover eat Matzah for heaven's sake! Brisket should fall apart with a fork and melt in your mouth. This isn't just my opinion either - you can find it in the bible.

"As soon as Moses came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing he became
enraged; and he hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot
of the mountain. He took the calf that they had made and burned it; he ground it to powder and strewed it upon the water and so made the Israelites drink it." Exodus 32:19-20.

I believe it was Rashi who explained how this ties to the preparation of brisket:

1. "He took the calf that they had made and burned it" - a good braising to lock in flavor
2. "He ground it to powder" - Ground up! Pulverized! Falling apart! It doesn't say that he sliced it into firm pieces.
3. "Strewed it upon the water" - perhaps a nice brining process or a long marinade to break down all of the sinew and fibers.
4. "Made the Israelites drink it" - melts in your mouth- like butta!
   

So, which is it firm or flimsy? How do you like your brisket?

Who is the best candidate for the Jews?

I have no idea. Is the best candidate for the Jews necessarily the best candidate for Israel (or vice versa). Should we bundle those two issues or separate them. Who is most likely to eat at the Carnegie Deli?

I really don't have an overall opinion on this one.

I think McCain would be best for Israel
Obama best for the environment
Clinton best for healthcare

Are any of them likely to repair the world? Probably not, but I'm hopeful that they'll at least stop damaging it.

Should stock photo libraries tag pictures of crosses or Jesus with the category "Judaism"

I was just browsing my favorite stock photo library iStock photo to find pictures of Jewish people talking (for the logo of this blog). I typed "Jewish people" into the search. There were some nice pictures but then, there he was, Jesus. Not just a high school portrait of Jesus with big hair and a funky t-shirt mind you. Jesus up on the cross. I figured it was mislabelled. I continued further and found at least 20 other pictures of Jesus, crosses, or Jesus on the cross. Of course the pictures have a lot of different tags including Christianity and Faith but I was surprised to see that they were tagged with "Jewish" or "Judaism".

One could argue that Jesus was in fact a Jew. Some might even argue that aside from Slash, Gene Simmons, and Lenny Kravitz he is the most popular and well known Jew ever. And, since we should expect our heavy metal friends to be labelled as MOTs why not Jesus. Well, ok, I can think of about a bazillion reasons. But, in a twisted way, I can see how someone might do it.

But, a cross? I have no idea what that's all about. I suppose that if Jesus was Jewish and Jesus was killed on a cross, then by the transitive law crosses are Jewish. Hmmmm.

Anyway, my goal isn't to start a boycott of iStock photo. Heaven forbid I go to Getty images and pay full price for an image. I'm just curious as to what people think about Jesus being tagged with "Judaism".

Do you have an orange on your Seder plate?

This is one of those questions that you either get or you don't get.

For those of you who didn't get it, here's the story: Sushana Heschel was giving a lecture on Judaism and equality for women. An old crusty male rabbi gets up and says, "We need a woman on the bima like we need an orange on a Seder plate." Since then, in a show of solidarity, Jewish feminists place an orange on their Seder plate.

OK, cute story...BUT...is it true?

It seems that perhaps this tradition has more substance to it than just being a response to some long lost nameless man. In fact, the real reason for this tradition says more to me about Judaism and some key messages of feminist theory than the story. See what you think:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/17990/edition_id/359/format/html/displaystory.html

http://www.ritualwell.org/holidays/passover/onthesedertable/primaryobject.2005-07-08.9776011383

http://www.well.com/user/ari/writing/orange_on_sederplate2001.pdf

So which is it?

An eye for an eye: Tort reform or barbarism?

The infamous "eye for an eye" quote is often used by some to point out how mean and vengeful the Hebrew bible can be. But is it? Here is the full passage: Deuteronomy 19:21 “. . . Thus you will sweep out evil form your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”

It sounds pretty vengeful..don't show pity, others will hear and be afraid. Yikes! No wonder people welcomed the whole idea of turning the other cheek.

On the other hand, I've read some other perspectives on this. Clearly the bible calls for justice as it often does. But justice and vengeance aren't the same thing. In fact, some people argue that this was actually an attempt to reduce vengeance. One idea I've heard was that this was an attempt to actually equalize punishment and damages and it was meant to be an allegory. That is, if a person loses an eye, you are to compensate them for the loss of that eye, no less, no more. Same for a hand or a foot.

Sound crazy? Look at your disability insurance policy. They general have a payment schedule organized by body part as to how much they'll pay. Thumbs are worth less than hands, hands less than eyes. Of course, typically losing the second of something pays off more than the first (e.g., loss of the second eye is compensated at a higher rate than loss of the first eye).

Someone once pointed out to me that an eye for an eye was a pretty good deal in ancient times. Usually if you injured someone (who was stronger than you) the response was to kill you, your family, and anyone they could find who was even remotely associated with you. Knock over someone's fence (or kill their mule) and splat - your kids are dead. Now that seems like vengeance.

What do you think?

If Catholics shouldn't pray for Jews to find Jesus, should we stop saying the Aleinu?

Is anyone following the recent story about the rift between Catholicsand Jews over bringing back a prayer that includes a line aboutconverting Jews? It's a bit hard to make sense of the story. From what I can tell,last year the Pope had recommended/allowed some old Latin prayers toreturn to the Catholic Mass. One of these prayers is a unique onesaid on Good Friday. In the prayer there are references to the "blindness of Jews"regarding Christ and some other remarks that Jewish leaders have found anti-Semitic. The biggest controversy, however, seems to be a reference calling upon Jews to find Christ and convert. It seems like the Catholic Church was willing to revise some ofthe "offensive" language but kept the part about conversion.This is at least what I've been able to figure out after reading somestories - I'm sure it's not completely accurate. If anyoneunderstand the issue better please help!!!!!

Anyway, here is my question...should we get that upset at other religions who pray for us to find their savior? I know that sounds like a crazy question at first, but hear me out. In the Aleinu don't we pray that the entire world recognize God's greatness and "all creatures of flesh call on your name that to you each knee must bend, each tongue swear oath...let all of them take upon themselves your rule." Pragmatically, I understand that calls to convert Jews or help them find their way to Jesus have been used to justify pretty horrific events and actions. So, perhaps that is why there is the concern.But in the grand scheme, is our call in the Aleinu that different? There are some passages in the bible that talk about dealing with non-Jews in equally barbaric ways.

How would we justify those statements to a non-Jew? One article quotes Rabbi Jacob Neusner making a similar point, "But the Pope received support from a prominent Jewish scholar on Saturday. Rabbi Jacob Neusner of New York wrote in the German Catholic daily Die Tagespost: "Israel prays for non-Jews, so the other monotheists - including the Catholic Church - should have the same right without anyone feeling hurt."

Does anyone have thoughts, clarifications or perspectives on this?I'm trying to make sense of it

Is there still relevance in the rituals of sacrifice?

"What can we learn from all of the Bible's detailed rituals associated with sacrifices?" This was the question posed recently by a lay-leader of our congregation who was delivering a Dvar Torah on Leviticus.

Leviticus and Numbers are dreaded books of the Torah for Bar and Bat Mitzvah kids. They are full of what seems like arcane laws and facts. How does a thirteen year old kid write a speech about what we can learn from the specific details of how to slaughter a cow?

I never really thought about the meaning of these particular rituals. I was always taught that after the second temple was destroyed, the rabbis decided that prayer was an acceptable alternative to sacrifice thus introducing what to this day is the standard prayer service. So, I never worried bout the sacrifices. I didn't have to understand them because they weren't necessary anymore. Yet, the lessons are still necessary. As I've stated in prior posts, I don't really believe that the words in the Torah are to be taken discrete and literally. They are examples of a broader code.

So, what are they trying to tell us? Well, first, here is a brief example of what they are telling us:

If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall make his offering a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance in his behalf before the Lord. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, in expiation for him. The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (Lev 1:3-6).

The verse continues with similar requirements for sheep and goats, birds, and grains. Some of the details vary (i.e., where you perform certain tasks). What's common among them is that the offering should always be the finest of what you have and without blemish. The "offerer" always has a role in the preparation. That's where the lessons lie and they are quite simple:

1. When you are in the presence of God you are to present the best of what you've got. Given that God is all around us, that means all the time. Our thoughts, decisions, and actions should be the best that we have. We should offer them without blemish. We should be fully invested in what we are doing, we should avoid shortcuts or cutting corners.

2. We all must take responsibility for carrying our actions forward. I believe that holiness is about ensuring that what is taking place in the past, the present, and the future was done properly and in a way that improves the world. You can't abdicate responsibility at the entrance to the tent. It's not enough to bring the bull and hope things work out. You must take part in the preparation of the sacrifice just as you must take part in ensuring that the work you've started continues (even if it is not finished as Pirke Avot reminds us).

3. Do not remove yourself from the messiness of the world. Some people believe that the sacrificial system is antiquated or uncivilized. To our modern sensibilities, slaughtering an animal is cruel, pointless, and even barbaric. Yet, I think that if I actually had to slaughter the animals I ate, I'd probably have a much greater appreciation for them. I'd think a lot more about what the animal has given to me. I certainly wouldn't take it for granted. The life of that animal would become sacred, even if I had to take it. Maybe because I had to take it. That doesn't seem barbaric to me. Isn't it more barbaric to walk into a store and buy a pack of meat with no regard for where it came from? It's a product to me, not a life. It's not more significant than the potato chips or bottle of laundry detergent that sit next to it in the cart? It's messy to be part of the slaughter, but that messiness is what makes us appreciate the value of that which is being slaughtered. I've read that soldiers who engage in hand to hand combat take a very different view of war than do those who drop bombs on radar "targets" from 10,000 feet up. To me, removing oneself from the process of killing is what is barbaric.

But rabbits don't carry trichinosis

Occam's razor, attributed to the English logician and Fransiscan friar Willim of Ockham (see Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam), states that the most simple answer to a problem is usually the best or most correct.

It took me a long time to understand that this applies to Judaism as well. That's not to say that one should ignore the complexities involved in understanding Judaism. It's quite complex. Instead, I think that it applies at a more macro level. That is, all of the complexities in the various texts are driven by a pretty simple set of principles. How those principles get carried out and what they imply are where they complexity comes in. This is where we should focus our energy and studies.

What got me thinking about this was that I've often observed people taking a single discrete law or piece of text and reverse engineering some "practical" purpose for it. It struck me that while one can do that, you wind up with a pretty empty religion. Through this approach Jewish law gets boiled down to a simple set of rules, defined in an overly complex way, to guide your most basic and primitive needs (e.g., not dying from food borne bacteria). I don't think that's what they were going for.

One of the most common examples of this comes from explanations of Kashrut (dietary guidelines). Ask most people on the street why Jews aren't supposed to mix milk and meat. The answer they will generally give will the ability to wash dishes and the ill effects of food-based bacteria. Ask why Jews can't eat pork and you'll hear about pigs and trichinosis.

When I started really thinking more deeply about this, a few things struck me as being odd:

1. The Torah generally seems to focus on how people should interact with one another and with God. There are very few "self-help" or self preservation tips. Why these?

2. There a whole bunch of berries and plants that could probably kill you, why wouldn't those be mentioned?

3. If a dish was covered in bacteria from not being cleaned properly, wouldn't you still get sick if you used that dish whether you used it with milk or meat?

4. In the line that mentions abstaining from eating Pigs, why does it also mention Rabbits and Camels yet no one ever talks about them being carriers of trichinosis.

5. Isn't it short sighted to give a bunch of rules based on a handful of activities or items (pigs, rabbits, etc.). It wouldn't really allow a religion to evolve or adapt to any new circumstances.

There were more things than that. But, this is where my head went.

So, I figured that there must be more to it. The more I read and learned the more it reinforced my belief that there are a few key principles that guide and drive what we read in the Torah. The Torah, like any good teaching tool, applies those principles over and over in varying context so that eventually we can begin to generalize the rules and understand them.

So back to Kashrut. I don't think it's about eating. It talks about eating, but that's really not the point. The word it self comes from the root Kuf-Shin-Resh which means fit, proper, or correct. If they were about eating, Id' think that the laws would be titled "How to eat properly". So, right away, the simple naming of the set of laws implies that it is about something much more than eating.

To me, there are three key ideas in the laws of Kashrut:

1. Being predatory is not holy
Someone once pointed out to me that land animals that meet the Kashrut guidelines cannot be predators. If an animal's hoof is split and it chews a cud it is not designed to eat other animals. Similarly, birds that have talons are hunters and not kosher. 

In Judaism it is not good to prey on others. We aren't supposed to put a stumbling block before the blind. We are supposed to use accurate weights and measures, we aren't supposed to gossip, etc. 

One of our worst enemies in the Torah, Amalaek was a predator - lingering toward the back of the Jews as they wandered in order to pick off the old and weak.

What's so bad about being a predator? I won't address the obvious reasons. What's bad about being a predator is that it moves us further from repairing the world. If the final state to which we are striving is azilut (existence) we are supposed to be trying to eliminate our physical and material desires. Predators are the embodiment of physical and material desires.

How we conduct ourselves, how we interact with others, and even the animals which we are allowed to eat, all remind us that we want to avoid preying on others.


2. We must learn to separate things and to apply enough rigor and discipline to maintain those separations
Separation is a big deal in Judaism. The first thing that God does in the Torah is create light and then the very next thing is that God separates that light from the darkness. Then God separates the sky from the earth, then separates the water on the earth (by creating land). Then God separates day and night through the sun, moon, and stars. This continue in creation up through the point of creating man, who God separates from all other things on the earth.

Right from the start, the Torah focuses on separation. And, it doesn't end in creation. Throughout the Torah we hear about separation. Abraham separates himself (and his offspring) from the rest of the world through brit milah. Issac and Ishmael are separated from one another as are Jacob and Esau. Joseph is separated from his brothers. For a religion that on the surface seems to have a lot more gray than black and white, Judaism seems fascinated with separation.

And, this continues with how we approach food. Like everything else, as Jews we must learn to separate and distinguish. Not only that, we must learn to separate and distinguish based on principles rather than some subjective desire that can change on a whim. ("I want to be more healthy so I'm swearing off bacon forever....wait, did you just see that Wendy's commercial? Maybe I should just swear off bacon in the morning")

Kashrut gave us laws to help us practice separating and maintaining separation. That's what we need to do in order to make holiness really work (see #3 below).

So, why the mention of rabbits, pigs, and camels? It's simple. The Torah tells us exactly why it mentions them - they are easily confused as each has one of the two traits of a kosher animal:

1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them: 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat. 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. 5 And the rock-badger, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you. 6 And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.(Leviticus 11:1-7)

This is a HUGE point in my mind. We don't get to use the excuse of "Well I didn't know" when we don't properly separate things (e.g., "I am an upfront business man, I didn't know that my supplier was using slave labor in Indonesia"). The rules of Kashrut remind us that we sometimes have to go beyond looks and guesses to make sure that we understand what is what. It comes back again when talking about fish. We aren't allowed to eat anything from the water that does not have find and scales. Why? To give us further practice and rigor at making finer distinctions so we don't jump to incorrect conclusions. (e.g., "It swims so it must be a fish". "She's at a singles bar so she must be looking for a guy")

We see laws of separation appear throughout the Torah. Separation of people, separation of materials for making clothes, separation of the days of the week and sabbath and the holy days from the rest of the year, the priests from the people, etc.

As a people we have to learn to separate and maintain those separations, not because milk and meat when commingled make us sick, but rather because holiness and unholiness when commingled, take us further from repairing the world.

Ironically, I think that while this focus on separation could seem to result in a dogmatic, black and white religion, it has actually had the opposite effect. Because of the additional focus on rigor and subtlety, Jews have had to study, discuss, and debate all of the gray areas in order to determine "what goes where". I think this is why Jewish people tend to question so much. It is through questions that we make sense and discern how things fit together (or not).

3. One of the most important separations is that of holiness. There are things in the world that are holy (good) and things that are not. We must learn the difference and avoid those that are not.
This is really a continuation of the prior point but it is worth pulling out. While the Torah talks a lot about things being separated, the one word that continually comes up is holiness. Things are separated because they are holy (clean) or not. Actions are based on holiness or not. God often uses holiness in making self referential statements. That's the ultimate goal, to separate the holy from the unholy and ultimately eliminate that which is unholy.

I think the most poignant manifestation of this type of separation is through the use of blessings. By stopping to make a blessing, we make a separation. We separate whatever we were doing prior to the blessing with whatever we are doing after. In that moment of separation we create holiness. In moving from automatic, unconscious action, to purposeful intentional action, we become holy. By stopping to reflect upon the world and appreciate it, we become holy. Holiness is the ultimate separation but through holiness we can separate.

I just used Kashrut as an example. However, these principles (I'm sure there are a handful of other key ones that I haven't learned) provide a basis for understanding Judaism and Jewish law. And, they seem to be a more simple answer for "why is that a law".

Of course, this is just my interpretation. But, having these four principles in my mind helps me approach and make sense of Jewish laws.

The Garden of Eden, the World to Come, and self actualization

To me, one of the biggest differentiators between Judaism and Christianity is the nature of the next world. The difference seems to boil down to a simple question: is "heaven" something that exists for which we work to gain access or is it a something that we must create. In my experience, Judaism seems to follow the latter.

So, here's what I think.

The Garden of Eden was the original heaven. Adam and Eve lived in a near divine state (after all they were created in the image of God). In Judaism this define state is aztilut (existence).  Aztilut is the culmination of a journey through assiyah (doing), yetzirah (feeling),  and beriyah (thinking).

Unlike the rest of us, Adam and Eve got to jump right to azilut. Through creation, God took care of all of their other needs. Remember, they weren't even supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge - after all they didn't need it.

However, that was the problem. Adam and Even were created in the image of God but they weren't God. They couldn't just be in a state of aztilut. Only one with the true power of creation can eventually reach that state.

I think that Harold Kushner once explained this dilemma in the following way (I'm not positive about the reference, it was something I read). Suppose a successful, wealthy business person is preparing to retire. The person decides to bestow the business to a son or daughter. The problem is that the son and daughter hasn't worked hard a day in their life. His or her entire success and existence is based on the work of the parent. Now that son or daughter is in charge. Chances are, things are not going to work so well. The child isn't the parent. The child cannot simply absorb all of the parent's wisdom and experience and they will ultimately fail. The parent will never really be able to have a peer relationship since the child is devoid of those key experiences.

I think the Garden of Eden was ultimately the same situation. The "children" weren't ready to live in a state of pure existence without having toiled trough the rest of the layers.

Now, because they were created in the image of God but were not actually God, Adam and Eve couldn't possibly go through the entire act of creating the world from an empty universe. While it would be a pretty self actualizing experience, it wasn't really that feasible.

So, God did what any good parent might do. God broke a small part of the world to give Adam and Eve (and all of their descendants) a chance to fix it and thus become creators. Remember? It wasn't until they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden that Eve bore children. In fact, bearing children and working the earth were both part of the prescribed "punishment" of being kicked out. But I don't think it was a punishment. The real punishment would have been to let them stay there attempting to live in a state of self actualization without the necessary life experiences to feel that way.

I also don't think that creation of offspring was all that God intended. To reach true self-actualization, they had to re-create heaven, the Garden of Eden. God broke a small part of the world and left it for human kind to repair (Tikkun Olam). Once we do that, we will return to the garden and live in that state of aztilut (existence). Heaven, the world to come, the afterlife, is something for us to create. It was God's gift to let us experience creation, even in this infinitely more simple way. Because by getting there, we will return and be ready for aztilut.

Amazingly, Adam and Eve somehow longed for this. After all, what got them in "trouble" was eating from the tree of knowledge. Whether intentional or not, they literally reached out for beriyah (thinking). It was only then that they went one step down to yetzirah (feeling) once they realized they were naked. And, ultimately, by being cast out of the Garden of Eden, they returned (or began) to the level of assiyah (doing) as they now had to tend to their own needs and fend for themselves.

But, that's not the end of the story. In fact, it's quite literally the beginning. Because the rest of the Torah became the owner's manual for fixing this broken world. That's what the 613 mitzvot are for. They bring us closer to holiness, closer to God. They bring us closer to creating that perfect time/place that God started with in Eden.

Of course, fixing a tiny piece of a broken world, while simple for God, has turned out to be monumental for humankind. Obviously it was not just a job for Adam and Eve. It is the job of the Jewish people. That's what chosenness is about.  Jews aren't any better than anyone else.  We were just given a job to do. We have our owner's manual, now we just have to execute - over and over until the work is done.

And, this is where Sabbath comes in. It's already been over 3000 and we haven't fixed things yet. Most people would have given up. But, the Jews have the Sabbath. The Sabbath is like a movie trailer for an upcoming film. It gives us that small taste of what it will be like to live in that perfect world. It is one day a week where, if observed properly, we can jump past the first three levels and experience, albeit briefly, aztilut (existence). We act as though our material needs are met. We refrain from doing, and while we may feel joy, we ultimately are trying to come close to God, to just exist side by side with the divine.

Heaven for the Jews is a place that we must create. It is the ultimate Teshuva, returning. We are putting the world back to perfection, but this time, we will understand how to experience that perfection, because like God, we will have created it.