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