Friday, November 22, 2013

Suthanuhs

I received this in an email from a Texas Suthanuh and decided that the best way to handle it was to post it and just send the link to my friends.  :-)

Southerners know the movies that speak to their hearts:
  • Fried Green Tomatoes
  • Driving Miss Daisy
  • Steel Magnolias
  • Gone With The Wind

Southerners know their religions:
  • Bapdiss
  • Methdiss
  • Football

Southerners know their cities dripping with Southern charm:
  • Chawl'stn
  • S'vanah
  • Foat Wuth
  • N'awlins
  • Addlanna

Southerners know their elegant gentlemen:
  • Men in uniform
  • Men in tuxedos
  • Rhett Butler

Only a Southerner knows the difference between a hissie fit and a conniption fit, and that you don't "HAVE" them; you "PITCH" them.

Only a Southerner knows how many fish, collard greens, turnip greens, peas, beans, etc., make up "a mess."

Only a Southerner can show or point out to you the general direction of "yonder."

Only a Southerner knows exactly how long "directly" is, as in: "Going to town, be back directly."

Even Southern babies know that "Gimme some sugar" is not a request for the white, granular, sweet substance that sits in a pretty little bowl in the middle of the table.

All Southerners know exactly when "by and by" is. They might not use the term, but they know the concept well.

Only a Southerner knows instinctively that the best gesture of solace for a neighbor who's got trouble is a plate of hot fried chicken and a big bowl of cold potato salad.  If the neighbor's trouble is a real crisis, they also know to add a large banana  puddin'!

Only Southerners grow up knowing the difference between "right near" and "a right far piece." They also know that"just down the road" can be 1 mile or 20 miles.

Only a Southerner both knows and understands the difference between a redneck, a good ol' boy, and po' white trash.

No true Southerner would ever assume that the car with the flashing turn signal is actually going to make a turn.

A Southerner knows that "fixin" can be used as a noun, a verb, or an adverb.

Only Southerners make friends while standing in lines, ... and when we're "in line,"... we talk to everybody!

Put 100 Southerners in a room and half of them will discover they're related, even if only by marriage.

In the South, “y'all” is singular, “all y'all” is plural.

Southerners know grits come from corn and how to eat them.

Every Southerner knows that tomatoes with eggs, bacon, grits, and coffee are perfectly wonderful; that red eye gravy is also a breakfast food and that fried green tomatoes are not a breakfast food.

When you hear someone say, "Well, I caught myself lookin", you know you are in the presence of a genuine Southerner!

Only true Southerners say "sweet tea" and "sweet milk."  Sweet tea indicates the need for sugar and lots of it -- we do not like our tea unsweetened.  "Sweet milk" means you don't want buttermilk.

And a true Southerner knows you don't scream obscenities at little old ladies who drive 30 MPH on the freeway. You just say, "Bless her sweet little heart"... and go your own way.

To those of you who are still a little embarrassed by your Southernness:  "Take two tent revivals and a dose of sausage gravy and call me in the morning.  Bless your little heart!"

And to those of you who are still having a hard time understanding  all this Southern stuff....bless your hearts, I hear they’re fixin' to have classes on Southernness as a second language!

Southern girls know men may come and go, but friends are

fahevah!

There ain't no magazine named "Northern Living" for good reason. There ain't nobody interested in livin' up north, nobody would buy the magazine!

Now Shugah, send this to someone who was raised in the South or wish they had a’been!  If you're a Northern transplant, bless your little heart, fake it. We know you got here as fast as you could.

Enjoy,
Yaakov

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Gunfight Rules


Gunfight Rules 101

The “unwritten rule” of Gunfight Rules is, of course, always have a gun.  What is locked up and away from you is of no use.  What is unloaded and cannot be loaded in 1 or 2 seconds is of no use in a panic situation.

A: Guns have only three enemies: rust, liberal politicians, and unthinking wives.



B: It is always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.



C: Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.



D: Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm's length



E: Never say, "I've got a gun!", without being prepared to use it.   If you need to use deadly force, the next sound that they hear should be the safety on your gun clicking off.  My Dear Old Dad always taught me, “If you pull the gun you had better be pulling the trigger.  Otherwise do not pull the gun.  Never pull a gun just to threaten someone.  It doesn’t work.”

F: The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second or 1150 fps for a 9mm.

G: The most important rule in a gunfight is: If you absolutely can't avoid it, Always Win!



H: Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. . .  You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it because it'll be empty
.

I: If you are in a gun fight:  If you are not shooting, you should be loading.  If you are not loading, you should be moving, If you are not moving, you're probably dead.



J: In a life and death situation, do something. . .  Liberals may argue, but do something!



K: If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid.  Nonsense!  If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?



L: You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language.



M: You cannot save the planet, but you must do everything you can do to responsibly save yourself and your family.

Shalom, 
Yaakov

Sunday, August 11, 2013

TV Grammar Bloopers 130815

Greetings:

This is a continuing blog and will be re-posted (with previous bloopers) from time to time, just with a new dateline.  It is, mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction observed on TV programs.  If you see (and document) another one please let me know.

2013 08 14 1830 NBC National News: Lester Holt, "We're back in a moment with a question that every parent can relate to."  Better might have been, "We will be back in a moment with a question to which every parent can relate."  or, better,  "We will be back in a moment with a question that every parent has heard before."  The first version definitely was wrong.

2013 08 11 1422: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Jim Nantz said, "Today's championship winners; where do you think they're coming from?"  Better construction would have been, "Where do you think we are going to get today's championship winners?"  Or something along those lines.  After all, Nantz is neither English nor Irish so ending a sentence with an uplifting "from" just does not sound quite right, does it?

2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there."  More correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have gotten there."

2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled with."  Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that with which he's struggled."

 2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working for your whole life."  Actually would be better as, "This is for what you have been working your whole life."  Really awkward so a good writer would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!"

Points to Ponder 130811

Shalom:

This is another of those continuing blogs wherein we will consider various points of scripture from time to time whose title will vary only on date.  The main point will be to give us some things to think about that, possibly, we might not have considered before.  Hopefully we will come back and re-publish should we get enough comments and have to re-write the blog.  Anyway, today's blog concerns "The New Jerusalem" as described in both TaNaKh (what Christians call 'The Old Testament' - it isn't old at all) and the New Testament.  Let us begin with some scripture references to this and then move on to a discussion:


Zechariah 2:5-9 I looked up, and I saw a man holding a measuring line. 6”Where are you going?” I asked.  “To measure Jerusalem,’ he replied, “to see how long and wide it is to be.” 7But the angel who talked with me came forward, and another angel came forward to meet him.  8The former said to him, “Run to that young man and tell him: “Jerusalem shall be peopled as a city without walls, so many shall be the men and cattle it contains.  9And I Myself – declares HaShem – will be a wall of fire all around it, and I will be a glory inside it.”

Revelation 22:10-21 the New Jerusalem is square, each wall is 12,000 furlongs (about 1,500 miles), 144 cubits thick (about 65 meters) and with 12 gates, three on each side with the names of the 12 apostles on the 12 gates, each gate made from a single pearl, with streets of pure gold.  The rest of Chapters 22 and 23 finish with the description of the New Jerusalem and its inhabitants.  

There are a couple of Wikipedia passages on the subject, neither of which were obviously written by Jewish authors but are, nevertheless, fairly informative.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology#New_Jerusalem both are fairly well written and, if printed out, might take a few pages.  On the other hand, both also have quite a few links should you have any questions.   What I have found interesting is that TaNaKh teaches that the New Jerusalem will not have walls while most (all?) other sources seem to say that it will have walls of varying lengths and depths.  Being a Jew I follow TaNaKh and I have to wonder why the New Testament would change Zechariah's prophecy and say that there would be a walled city.

Joseph Smith (Mormonism) goes even further and declares that only 144,000 Mormons would be in that city, not the original 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel as stated in The Revelation to John in The New Testament.  This has proven to be a bit of a problem since there are now way more than 144,000 Mormons in the world and all of them want in the New Jerusalem.  So they have had to come up with an explanation that says something like the founders and the most holy Mormons would be there and that "some" of the newbies would be there if they give enough money and live a righteous life and all of that.  After all, there has to be some kind of bait to get new fish on the hook.

OK, enough smarm and back to the topic.  Why did John the Apostle change the original prophecy in the first place?  Truth?  I have no idea and can only guess and that would not even be and educated guess.  But, on the surface, it would be that almost everyone else did the same thing; a city with walls was the accepted thought process.  If you have any ideas, let me know.

Shalom,
Yaakov

Saturday, August 10, 2013

TV Grammer Bloopers 130810

Greetings:

This will be a continuing blog and will be re-posted from time to time, just with a new dateline.  It will be, mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction observed on TV programs.  If you see (and document) another one please let me know.

2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working for your whole life."  Actually would be better as, "This is for what you have been working your whole life."  Really awkward so a good writer would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!"

2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled with."  Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that with which he's struggled."

2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there."  More correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have gotten there."

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Musings on Maimonides: 130727, 13 Principles

Musings on Maimonides: 27 July 2013
13 Principles of Faith

Every week we close Friday Erev Shabbos with the Short Amidah of 13 Principles of Faith.  In English these are

1. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is the Creator and Ruler of all things. He alone has made, does make, and will make all things. 

2. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is One. There is no unity that is in any way like His. He alone is our G-d He was, He is, and He will be. 

3. I believe with perfect faith that G-d does not have a body. physical concepts do not apply to Him. There is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at all. 

4. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is first and last. 

5. I believe with perfect faith that it is only proper to pray to G-d. One may not pray to anyone or anything else. 

6. I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true. 

7. I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses is absolutely true. He was the chief of all prophets, both before and after Him. 

8. I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moses. 

9. I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another given by G-d. 

10. I believe with perfect faith that G-d knows all of man's deeds and thoughts. It is thus written (Psalm 33:15), "He has molded every heart together, He understands what each one does." 

11. I believe with perfect faith that G-d rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress Him.

12. I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How long it takes, I will await His coming every day. 

13. I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when G-d wills it to happen.

Having been accepted into Judaism in a Reform Shul (Synagogue) I have often wondered whether Reform Judaism accepts these principles, especially the ones concerning Torah, Messiah and resurrection.  (Those in bold are the ones with which Reform Judaism has problems.)  Some of these are covered at http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/18-04-19.html and, while Rabbi Mecklenburger may or may not agree with the link, I do not agree.  I tend to agree with RaMBaM and the 13 Principles as stated.  Fortunately, Reform Judaism accepts me as I am and will not kick me out for my non-Reform thoughts. 

Mainly, Reform and Conservative Judism has changed, or modified, some of the principles and Amidah to be "Politically Correct" and "get along" with the rest of the modern world.  In particular, with the world stance on individual groups, wherein Judaism is a separated people, chosen by G-d to be a particular people, beloved of G-d above all others.  If we maintain this stance, then we might be seen as "holier than thou" attitude.  Well, so be it.  After all, those are the words of HaShem, not mine.  

The other problems are the world stance on adultery, sexuality and homosexuality.  The world seems to accept adultery, pre-marital sex, abortion and homosexuality as part of today's culture whereas G-d has condemned them.  If G-d has condemned them, then we should as well.  True, we can not carry out his punishment but we should not have fellowship with those who practice those things.

There, it has now been said.  Agree or disagree is not important.  That is between you and HaShem, not you and me.  But it should give you something to think about.  Maimonides laid out these principles many years ago and we repeat them every Erev Shabbos and every Amidah Prayer.  Maybe we should give more thought to the things that we say in prayer and think about them, especially if we are praying in Hebrew, a most holy language.

Shalom
Yaakov On

Sunday, July 21, 2013

GOLF Still is a Four Letter Word

Greetings -

Watching the British Open right now - and my favorite golfer (after Jack) is Phil Mickelson.  He has had a bad year until last week when he won the Scottish Open.  Then this week he came from behind today and shot a 66, 5 under par, and, right now, leads by 3 and nobody can catch him.  He will win the British Open for the first time.  What a guy, what a family guy, what a great person.  He has always put his family first, not second, to golf.  Golf has always been a job (a great job) and a way to provide for his family.

I am sure that a lot of guys would swap places today with him but I am not so sure that they would swap places when he has had to go to bed at 7:00 in the evening or get up at 4:00 in the morning or when he had to drive five hours to get to the next tournament and then practice three hours before he could play that day.  And his wife could not join him that week because he was just starting the tour and finances were short.   Now, today, he has his own plane and he can get there and back to see his daughter graduate and then on to the next tournament and get four hours sleep before the first day of practice.  But it has been a long journey and he has worked hard without sacrificing his family to get there.  And he has been a perfect gentleman doing it.

Lee Westwood led going into today's round.  He would have been the first Englishman in many a year to have won the British Open and, after Andy Murray (the first Scotsman EVER to win Wimbledon, BTW) won the British Tennis Open, it would have been nice for England if he had won, all of the USA is celebrating for Phil.  If Zach Johnson had won, well, that would have been great for the USA as well but Zach had already won the Masters earlier this year so I was really pulling for Mick.  Sorry Lee, but, after all, Mick is one of ours.  Maybe next year. 

So, congratulations Phil Mickelson for a job well done!

<updated Wednesday, 23 July 2013>

Just re-read USA Today from Monday, page 3C: "Victory thrilling, fulfilling" - "With skill and class, Mickelson wins one for the good guys"  Christine Brennan wrote up an article on Phil that pointed that while other golfers (who are not named here but were named there) cursed openly when making bad shots, Phil not only maintained his cool but blamed only himself for poor shots.  Even on the 16th par-3 when his shot hit the green and rolled back down and off the green several feet (about 15 or 20 feet to be exact) onto the fairway and he said, "Wow!  That's as good as I got!"  Meaning that he had hit everything that he had in the shot and it still did not go far enough.  But he did not swear nor blame anyone else.  And he still made par on the hole.  And went on to make birdie on the 17th and again on the 18th.  Then he tearfully fell into the arms of his wife and three children.  Even his big old 6'6" caddie was crying.  Shoot!  Lots of folks were crying for joy with him.  I know I was!  Phil had won Number Five!!  And I was there to see it. 

Maybe I will be there next year for the U.S. Open when he wins Number Six and does the real "Number Six":  The sixth golfer to win all four major golf events; the Masters, the U.S. Open, the British Open and the PGA.   Only Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Gary Player, Gene Sarazen and Ben Hogan have done it so far.  Right now only 19 players have EVER won five or more major championships so that in itself is pretty rare company.  Tiger has 14 majors and ranks number two in the category.  Jack has the all-time record at 18 but he has retired so that record is set in concrete and is not going anywhere.  Only Tiger or Phil would have a chance at Jack's record and Phil is 43.  But Tiger is getting on up in years as well - he is 37 now so he has to hurry if he is going to catch Jack.  Jack won his 15th major at 38 so Tiger is right on track if he wins one this year or next. 

Shalom,
Yaakov On

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Musings on Maimonides: 130720 - Chapter I - III of GftP

Musings on Maimonides - 20 July 2013
The Guide for the Perplexed - GftP

"Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepth the truth may enter in." [Isiah 36:2]  Such is the introduction to Part I of GftP.

[Chapter I] Gen 1:26 says, "Let Us make man in Our zelem" where zelem is translated as image.  Men have for millennium translated zelem as meaning that G-d looked like a man and some even took that to mean that G-d had a corporeal body like man.  They went so far at to say that G-d looked like man except that He excelled in greatness and splendor and that He was not flesh and blood and bone.  WHAT, exactly, He was or is has not been said.

This chapter also explains that G-d is not corporeal at all by explaining the true meaning of zelem and demut.  The ordinary shape and form of a thing can be toÃ¥r (Gen 30:6, Sam 28:14, Judges 8:18).  This term is not applicable to G-d.  The term zelem, according to RaMBaM, however, does apply to G-D.  Gen 1:27, "In the zelem of G-d He created him." 

Demut comes from the term "he is like unto...".  This denotes a general abstract term that means in agreement with something as regards an abstract relationship.  For example, "I am like a pelican in the wilderness."  (Ps 102;7)  David does not mean that he has feathers, claws and a beak but rather that he is sad like a pelican that is lost without the rivers and lakes to the point of sadness.

[Chapter II] RaMBaM points out the Elohim (mighty ones, lords, angels, judges, rulers, etc.) is the plural form of ElohaElohim also is the singular form of G-d Almighty.  This was properly pointed out by Onkelos the Proselyte where he explained that Gen 3:5 "And ye shall be like Elohim " is properly translated as "Ye shall be like princes " or "Ye shall be like kings " rather than "Ye shall be like G-d ".  The rest of Chapter II deals with explaining that mankind should study and not just read the TaNaKh (the Bible) now and then.  It is only by deep insight that we can understand the simple words that G-d has llaid out before us.

The words of emet and sheker,  of true and false, of morally right and wrong, the tov and ra' - distinctions that are applied to all arguments.  Also, RaMBaM covers the passage in Psalms 8:6, "Thou has made him (man) a little lower than the angels."

<-- Begin Commentary -->
Personally, because of the right of any Jew to interpret TaNaKh according to what he sees fit so long as it does not conflict with the TaNaKh itself, I have always seen this as passage as, "Thou has made him a little lower than God." where Elohim is interpreted as G-d.  That would put mankind above the angles but lower than G-d.  Now, back to Maimonides.
<-- End Commentary -->

After Adam transgressed in the Garden of Eden and he fully understood what he had lost he understood the passage, "ye shall be like elohim knowing good and evil " but not in the sense of discerning the true and false.  It was then that the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened and they both knew that they were naked.  After that, Adam had to sweat to make the Earth produce her fruit and bread and thorns and thistles grew where pleasant foods had grown before.

[Chapter III]  This chapter deals with the Hebrew Homonym words words temunah and tabnit that many think are the same, but they are not.  Tabnit  is derived from banah, meaning "he built" and signifies to build or construct a thing.  Compare this with the tabnit of the Tabernacle and the tabnit or pattern of its vessels (Ex 35:40).    On the other hand, temunah is used in three different senses.
  • the outlines of things are perceived by our bodily senses, their shape or form.  "And ye make an image the form (temunat) of some likeness " (Dt 4:16)
  • the forms of our imagination, or the impressions retained in our imagination when the objects no longer affect our senses.  For example, "in thoughts from the visions of the night" in Job 4:13, which concludes "it remained but I could not recognize its sight, only an image (temunah) was before my eyes, "
  • the true form of an object that is perceived only by the intellect.  it is this term that is applied to G-d.  The words "And the similitude of the HaShem shall he behold" (Num 12:8) means "he shall comprehend the true essence of HaShem."
Next week I shall try and cover another three chapters or so.   Hang around, comment if you like.  If you can find a way to put Hebrew letters into a blog like this let me know and I will do it.  I really hate having to transliterate into English.

Shalom
Yaakov On

Sunday, July 14, 2013

What's The Rush Already ??

Shalom:

I have been to a few Friday evening services where the Rabbi seemed to try and get through the passages extremely quickly, as though there were a fire behind the altar and he (or she, as the case may be) were trying to get through quickly and get the congregation out of the building before it spread any further.  Another analogy?  OK, she is going so fast it is as though she has a cake in the oven that is burning.  Enough already!  We get the point. 

So!  What's the rush?  Last Erev Shabbos I was privileged to attend my very first Erev Shabbos in the home of one of the members' home.  It was a pot-luck supper before services but, even then, the gentleman who led services (it was at his home) seemed in a hurry to get through.  It seemed that everyone wanted to get home early that evening for something or the other.

Way back in my youth I remember that there was an old black Christian pastor who used to remark about the white Christian churches who started at 11:00 sharp and quit at 12:00 dull, "You know, those folks don't realize that sometimes the Holy Spirit don't get there until 2 or 3 O'clock in the afternoon."  Maybe we could take a hint from that old gentleman.  Reading in TaNaKh I remember that some of the celebrations of the High Holy Days went on at the Temple for days, some of the regular Shabbos services lasted from Friday evening until Saturday evening, not for an hour or so but for 24 hours straight.  Those folks knew how to just praise G-d.  To them, HaShem was not just a name in a book, a word that one said during a prayer.  He was a living G-D, The Living G-D of Israel, a very personal G-d, a Personal G-d who cared about Israel, a G-d who cared about everyone in Israel and Judah, right down the the smallest baby.  If only we could get back to that rapport with Him.

So, when we say our prayers to G-d, why not emphasize the words as though they came from the heart every time?  When we say, "Magnified and Glorified", why not mean it?  When we say, "Holy G-d", why not mean it and emphasize the "Holy" as though even the word itself was holy?

Just a thought...

Shalom.

Yaakov On

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Musings on Maimonides: 130713 - Introduction to GftP

Shalom:

Musings on Maimonides
6 Av 5773 [13 July 2013]
Introduction to Guide for the Perplexed

During the introduction in Guide for the Perplexed RaMBaM (Maimonides) gets off into two subjects; prophecy and how to teach.  RaMBaM feels, as did his mentors, that teachers should never give the truth of the scriptures to more than one person without cloaking it the obscurity of metaphors and allegories, much like the Christ taught the masses with examples (called parables in the New Testament) while he taught his disciples more directly.  It comes from the adage, "The Ma'aseh Bereshith must not be expounded in the presence of two."

The other principle that he covers is also covered later in a chapters on prophesy.  RaMBaM feels that prophesy is a gift from HaShem BUT that HaShem gives true prophesy only to those who have studied hard and long and have proven themselves worthy of the gift.  RaMBaM says that prophesy comes in several forms, all of which may be akin to flashes of lightning that light up the darkness of our lives.  That person is able to see through the veil of darkness for a moment much as person is able to see in a moonless night when lightning flashes across the plains of Jericho.  But, to each prophet is given only what that person needs as a prophet.  RaMBaM describes it as follows :
  • A flash of lightning where a person gives a prophesy once and never gives another. (Num 11:25)
  • Many flashes of lighting so that a long vision is seen or a few really long flashes separated by many years wherein the prophet is given many visions over the years.  This is similar to the prophets of old, like Isiah or Jeremiah or Daniel.
  • For some, such as Moshe, the lightening is continuous and night seems like day.  Indeed, the skin of his face shone during the day.  (Ex 34:29)
  • For others it flickers as the light of a rotating sword in candle light.  Just now and then as a candle in the wind.
 But, even for these, HaShem does not give anything unless that person is prepared.  And even if prepared, that person may never see through the night in a single prophesy.  Indeed, many aspiring prophets during the days of Samuel prepared diligently but never received the gift of prophesy.

Now, you might ask, why would the sages not want to divluge the truths of scripture plainly and openly rather than cloaking them in riddles and allegories?  Why did the Christ do this?  Simple.  Because we have been taught from the scripture to do this:
  • Hosea 12:10 - "I hae also spoken in similies by the Prophets."
  • Ezekiel 17:2 - "Put forth a riddle and speak a parable."
  • Ezekiel 21:5 - "Does He (meaning HaShem) not speak parables?"
  • Proverbs 1:6 - "To understand a proverb and figurative speech, the words of the wise and their dark sayings..."
  • Midrash, Shir ha-shirim Rabba; "To what were the words of the Law to be compared before the time of Solomon?  To a well the waters of which are at a great depth, and though cool and fresh, yet no man could drink of them.  A clever man joined cord with  cord, and roope with rope, and drew up and drank.  so Solomon went from figure to figure, and from subject to subject, till he obtained the true sense of the Law."
There is a parable of the Sages:  "If a man loses in his house a sela, or a pearl, he can find it by lighting a taper worth only one issar.  Thus the parables in themselves are of no great value, but through them the words of the holy Law are rendered intelligible."  This is the way of Maimonides and the Sages of the past.  But RaMBaM chose to break with tradition and write some books wherein he disclosed some of the truth to the world; not all of it but just a glimmer of the truth.  A crack in the Temple Wall but he leaves it up the reader to dig out the rest of the truth.  For example, he may give the meaning of a word, but he leaves it up the reader to disclose the truth of the meaning of the word.

An example this is given:  Solomon once said, "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in vessels of silver."  (Proverbs 25:11)  The word maskiyoth, the Hebrew equivalent for "vessels," denotes "filigree network" , meaning things in which there are very small apertures, such as are frequently wrought by silversmiths.  These are called in Hebrew maskiyyoth, or literally, "transpicuous", from the verb sakah, meaning "he saw",  a root word which occurs also in the Targum of Onkelos, Genesis 36:8, because the eye penetrates through them.  Thus Solomon might be interpreted to say, "Just as apples of gold in silver filigree with small apertures, so is a word fitly spoken."  Not quite word-for-word from RaMBaM but close.

<Begin my personal commentary.  Skip if you like.>

In the Targum and other writings you will note that scripture interpretation sometimes takes off into wild and unruly directions that often seem conflict with the original meanings.  Personally, I hold that ANY interpretation given by anyone should NEVER conflict with the plain meaning that is given.  When HaShem says, "Do NOT commit adultery." then no interpretation can ever be given that would permit adultery under any circumstances.  Period.  End of discussion.  HaShem has said that neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your wife, nor your man servant, nor your female servant, nor any of your slaves, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor stranger within your gates shall do any work on the Shabbos.  So, in my house, we do no work on the Shabbos.  Nothing.  We do not go to movies, we do not eat out at restaurants, we do not go to ball games, we buy nothing, we do no commercial business whatsoever.  But, we might go to the rifle range since it is a club and is supported totally by dues of the members and there are no paid employees - none.  We go to Shabbos services on Friday evening or Saturday morning or both.  We enjoy meals together that are Kosher.  We enjoy movies and snacks and the company of friends and family.  My son might even go play music with his friends.  But no work whatsoever.  No studies for school, no studies for work, reading only of TaNaKh or reading books and/or magazines for pleasure.  TV is permitted but usually we watch movies or TCM just to be on the "safe side" and not so that we are the cause of others having to work.

When HaShem says, "You shall not light a fire on Shabbos." that means that you shall not light a fire on the Shabbos.  Period.  End of discussion.  Now, some have said that turning on a light switch causes a fire in light bulb.  Others say that the bulb does not burn and is not consumed and is, therefore, not a fire.  That is between them and HaShem.  Personally, I hold to the second opinion that the bulb glows but is not consumed, that throwing the switch is not work, that since the bulb is "ignited" from another glowing source that the fire has not been "lighted" but ignited from anther source and therefore scripture has not been broken.  However, there are times when I do not turn on lights because I feel that if I do that it might be breaking the commandments.  Maybe...  But if and when I do turn on the switch, I never feel guilty afterwards since I do not think that turning on the switch is a sin.  Strange, huh?  I have learned to live it.

All of the last two paragraphs to say this:  RaMBaM had to rationalize in his day just as we have to rationalize in our day.  The commandments of HaShem were give to LIVE BY and so we shall.  We shall follow all of the ones that are humanly possible.  Those which we cannot follow, such as stoning those who commit adultery or who use the name of HaShem in vain, we will leave for HaShem to punish.  But we do not have to fellowship with those persons in the synagogue, our version of the Temple of HaShem today, until those person repent of their sins and return to the commandments of HaShem, blessed be His Name.

<And, so ends my personal commentary.>

Maimonides felt that there are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions that have to be met an any literary work.  These are listed here:
  1. The author collects opinions from various sources but does not give credit to those various sources nor mention the names of the other authors.  Because of this, various conflicting opinions may be stated but the reader does not know which author said which.
  2. The author holds first one opinion and then another that conflicts with the first.  
  3. Some passages should be taken literally and some figuratively but the author is never really clear which is which.  This leads to seemingly conflicting statements that, while not meant that way, might seem that way to the normal reader.
  4. The premises are not fully stated in conflicting statements leading to apparent contradictions that are not really contradictions but only contradictions in appearance.
  5. The teacher assumes that the student understands a theorem or clause that is given in a class but does not fully explain that theorem  or clause.  If the teacher does not go back and explain then the student is left in a confused state of mind.
  6. The contradiction is not immediately evident but only becomes evident over time and with a series of premises and through later studies.  The larger the number of premises the larger the  probability that this will happen.
  7. The author, or teacher, has to introduce metaphysical problems that can be disclosed only partly at the time.  Later these are discussed more fully and may seem, to the student or reader, contradictory but, in reality, are complementary.  The author, or teacher, must endeavor, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the seeming contradiction.
RaMBaM says that, "Inconsistencies occuring in the Mishnah and Boraitot are traceable to the first caue.  You meet frequently in the Gemara with passages like the following:- 'Does not the beginning of the passage contradict the end? No; the beginning is the dictum of a certain Rabbi; the end that of another' ; or, "Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Nasi) approved of the opinion of a certain rabbi in one case and gave it therefore anonymously, and having acceptated that of another rabbi in that of another in the other case he introduced that view without naming the authority.' ; or 'Who is he author of this anonymous dictum?  Rabbi A.' 'Who is the author of that aragraph in the Mishnah? Rabbi B.'  Instances of this kind are innumerable."  [Note: I did not obtain permission for this quote but I am sure that the original author, RaMBaM, would not mind.]  There are many more instances of seemingly apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in Talmud and Gemara but you need to read these for yourself.

Next week we shall begin with Part I and hopefully get through the first few chapters.  I went over the page hits and, so far, nobody is looking so I do not have much to worry about on screaming comments.  I seem to be writing for self-edification.  But, that is good too.  :-)

Shalom
Yaakov On


Saturday, July 6, 2013

Musings on Maimonides: 130607 - Analysis of Guide for the Perplexed

Musings on Maimonides, 6 July 2013
Analysis of the Guide for the Perplexed

This part of the blog deals with the introduction of "Guide to the Perplexed" - or GttP - as given by RaMBaM himself and as explained by the author.  Part I of the book deals with the exposition of the esoteric ideas contained in the books of the Prophets, part II with a treatment of certain metaphysical problems and part III with an examination of the system and methods of Islam, or the Kalam, as he calls them.  It has been said that RaMBaM was a zealous disciple of Aristotle which might explain many of his strange ideas with regard to trying to reconcile G-d with the universe.  Aristotle proposed the theory of the eternity of the universe which is contrary to the teaching of the scriptures.  The scriptures teach that only G-d is eternal and that He created the universe from nothing.  This is the same trap of many modern-day so-called scholars who try to reconcile the scriptures with modern science theories and the Big Bang Theory.  I have asked several of them what existed before the Big Bang and most answer that they either do not know or that the question is a nonsense question.  So much for "modern science."  Unfortunately you can believe one or the other but not both at the same time.  Supposedly Maimonides does expose the fundamental weaknesses of the Kalam with regards to their theories of the universe.  Please note that I do not capitalize Universe as Maimonides but use the more modern version of universe.

Maimonides goes to great lengths to show that G-d is not a corporeal being and that references to His hands, His ears and mouth etc do not refer to a corporeal being but to attributes so that we can understand him.  He also deals with
  • The existence of Evil
  • Omniscience and Providence of G-d
  • Temptations
  • Design in Nature, in the Law and in the Biblical Narratives
  • True Worship of G-d
Any one of these subjects would be an excellent topic for any Friday evening or Saturday morning sermon or lecture for a Rabbi.  Or for a Christian pastor, for that matter.  They could preach for a month on any one of those topics and not cover the subject.  Maimonides also dealt with the conflict between science and religion, something with which we still struggle today.  His take on this seemed to be that we misinterpret the anthropomorphisms in the Holy Writ.

Prior to the time of Maimonides Jewish writers had taken the position that the Torah (the first five books of the TaNaKh, the Bible) spoke in the language of man.  Maimonides thought that all of TaNaKh was written for the more educated persons to explain to the less educated persons, or, in other words, a riddle that, on the surface, seemed simple but contained a much deeper explanation that could be understood only by those sufficiently trained over the years in the mysteries of the language and science.  For now we will deal with GftP as RaMBaM dealt with them.  Indeed, Maimonides pleads with the reader not to be hasty with criticism since he has carefully considered every sentence and every word before it was written down.  Often he closes a thought with the admonition to consider carefully what has been said and go and think about it.  Much like some of the passages of scripture end with the expression of "Selah." meaning, "Pause and meditate."

I shall, before each section of the GftP, attempt to give an overview before jumping into the deep end.  I have found each section more exciting than the section before.  However, before jumping into GftP I would like to discuss the Thirteen Principles as an overview.  Most are pretty simple if you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.  If not, they might not appear so simple but I shall explain anyway.

So, for now, let us leave off with what I have done and next week I shall go on to the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides that we say every Friday evening as the Yigdal.   Then on to a brief weekly discussion of "Guide for the Perplexed."

Shalom,
Yaakov On





Musings on Maimonides: 130706, Intro

Musings on Maimonides, 7 July 2013, Introduction

This is, what I hope to be, the beginnings of a series of a group of writings, or musings, if you will, on one of the greatest writers in Jewish history, maybe of the world, Rabbi Mosheh Ben Maimon, , or RaMBaM for short, who is often called Moses Maimonides in English.  He lived from Passover Eve (erev Passover) in 1135 until 12 December 1204.  In Arabic he was known as Musa Ibn Ben Maimon.  He was the most preeminent medieval Spanish Jewish philosopher, medical doctor, astronomer and scientist of his time.  It has been said in Judaism that, "From Moses to Moses there has never been another like Moses."  Meaning, of course, that only Maimonides was anything like the original Moses, the first prophet, law-giver and brother of Aaron the High Priest.  Born in Corboda (present-day Spain) he rose to be head of the Jewish community in Egypt and his writings were met with acclaim as far off a Yemen and Israel.  His fourteen-volumn Mishneh Torah is still the foundation of Jewish thought and became the cornerstone of the Talmud, considered the "Oral Torah" for most of Judaism.  His Thirteen Principles of faith are the foundation of the Yigdal for final part of erev Shabbos services every Friday evening services in most Synagogues.

Most in Judaism already know all of that and the first paragraph was intended for everyone else.  So what I have to say now is for everyone including my fellow Jews.  :-)  Too often we talk of Moshe without reading his works.  His most famous work is "The Guide for the Perplexed", a work that can be found in paperback from almost any bookstore, even Amazon or B&N.  The one that I have is the 2nd edition and was translated from the original Arabic text by Dr. M. Friedlander back in 1956 so it is not a very modern book at all - but quite good.  The first edition was in three volumes and contained many more notes and Hebrew words and translations which would have been far more helpful.  The second edition is more concise and maybe more readable to the casual reader.

The first book that I read from Maimonides was "Guide for the Perplexed" and it took quite a while to absorb everything.  It is dedicated to one of his students, Joseph, the son of Jehudah Ibn Aknin, a diciple of Maimonides, and it is addressed to him as an example of this kind of student.  It is "for him and for those like him."  RaMBaM assumed that those who would read - and understand - his work would be those who had already studied sufficiently to comprehend scientific thought, mathematical concepts and philosophical treatises.   He never considered that anyone else was worthy of reading his works.  To say that Maimonides was conceited would be a bit of an understatement but, all things considered, he did not want the uneducated to read his works and comment on them.    The book is divided into three parts:  Part I has 76 short chapters, rarely exceeding a page or so in length, dealing mostly with word definitions and explanations but also dealing with divine names, terms, emotions, heaven and earth, and the the twelve propositions of the Kalam.  Part II has 47 chapters dealing with the 26 propositions employed by the philosophers to prove the existence of G-d among other things and true prophesy.  Part III has 49 chapters that deal with his introduction and apology for publishing, contrary to the teaching of the Mishnah, an interpretation of Ezekiel.  Since that covers, by my count, 172 chapters - I will not take an entire post for each chapter but will try and deal with several chapters with each post or I might even skip a few chapters along the way - with an explanation, of course.

So!  On to Introduction to MoM 101: A Guide for the Perplexed for the Curious...

Maimonides, the son of Maimon, started his first work at the age of 23 in Spain under the tyranny of King Ibn Tamurt who proclaimed that anyone who did not accept Islam, called Muslemim by the Jews of those days, would be put to death.  The Jews did everything that they could to dissuade the King but to no avail.  Some died, some converted for show, some fled.  Pappa Maimon chose to flee with his family to Egypt where he settled to his son's future fame and fortune.  King Ibn Tamurt died within a month after the proclamation but Pappa Maimon had already fled.  Moses went on board his ship on on the 4th of Iyyar, 4925 (1165) and arrived in Acco on the 3rd of Sivan and was thus rescued from apostasy.  On Tuesday, the 4th of Marheshvan, 4926, he left Acco and arrived at Yirushalayim (my transliterative) spelling of Jerusalem) shortly thereafter.  On the 9th he visited the cave of Machpelah in Hebron.  From those accounts we know that he and his family did not seek to protect their lives nor property by abandoning their their faith.  His brother David carried on the trade in precious stones while Moses occupied himself with is studies in Medicine, philosophy, mathematics and worked in the community with the other Jews.

Unfortunately, when reading Maimonides, I am reminded somewhat of the Sheldon character on the TV series, "Big Bang Theory."  He is right 99% of the time but terribly conceited and unconscionably condescending to everyone else.  For the purposes of these MoM blogs I shall NOT consider his scientific writings that are so terribly wrong and so terribly misguided.  Neither shall I consider his writings on astronomy which, while possibly correct at the time, and I am not an authority but I do know that there are more than five or six planets to consider these days, even with the degrading of Pluto from a planet to something less.  His views on Medicine are those of the 12th and 13th century so these also shall be dis regarded for this blog.  However, his view on religion is far more attuned to being closer to the original Moses than anyone of today so I would like to follow those and comment on those.  So, dear reader, please bear with me and we shall, in the following weeks and months, discover what RaMBaM has laid out for us in the following centuries.  I think that we shall discover many wonderful things together.

Here are the questions that we shall attempt to answer as RaMBaM answered them:
  • Who is G-d? 
  • Who are we with respect to G-d?
  • What does G-d expect from us?
  • What did G-d tell us to do?
Next posting:  Analysis of "Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimondes...

Shalom,
Yaakov On




Wednesday, June 12, 2013

California Dreaming

[Note:  This was originally written way back in 2007 or so]

Did you ever have a dream where you know that you're in a dream. Not bad at first. I'm working with Jack Nicholson who is my sales manager, who is a fighter for anything and everything. What a guy! (I had watched the movie "Hoffa" just before going to bed.")

Well, anyway, we're in NYC (why not Chicago?) and Jack Nicholson is the Sales Manager for my firm that makes, of all things, zippers. I'm a older guy in the dream, about 40 or 50, who really needs to keep the job so that I can stay in NYC. I didn't think about moving down South; you have to make a lot of money before you leave to go South and be really happy there. You have to make the money in NYC and you have to make it big - maybe a couple of million or more.

My attitude is a lot like like Danny De Vito's attitude in "Hoffa." I love Jack but I finally realized that we're both going to die today. My first assignment is to get the order from Levi Strauss and we think that we are the only ones who can fill it because we're the only ones with a zipper that expands to fit the woman - nobody, and I mean NOBODY, had a zipper like this. This is the zipper of all zippers.

To top it all off, Levi is going to sell a new line of jeans and tight skirts for ladies who are size 5+. (As well as 4+ and 6+ and all of the other pluses in the lineup.) If they are size 5, the jeans fit perfectly. Skin tight and vah-vah-voom! If the lady is size 5+ then the zipper, the tabs, etc. let out automatically so that they still think that they are wearing a size 5 and all of their friends see the tag (like the little red tag on Levi jeans) and believe that they are wearing a size 5. For some reason, nobody can figure out that Levi is lying and pulling the wool over their eyes because they don't WANT to believe it.

But, Levi is beating everyone over the head with a price from an Indian company out of Bombay that is making the stuff cheaper than we can make it or buy it - somehow I lost sight of the fact that we were the only ones who had this particular zipper. And the one from Bombay isn't even an expandable zipper but we aren't supposed to know that part. If we lose this order then we'll lose all of the Levi orders in the future with it and never get another Levi order. So we have to take it, lose our bazongas with it just to keep the line of business from Levi. And you HAVE to keep Levi happy

My snoring is in concert with the buses starting up from the busstop where I'm sitting at a wooden picnic table and wooden bench-style chairs that are cold. Everything is cold. Not snow-blowing cold but just miserable cold with wet rainy days and nights where it isn't raining but it either just rained or is about to rain.

I remember that I'm sitting at a cold, snowy bus stop drinking coffee and waiting for Jack to show up so I can explain it to him - lukewarm (not quite cold) coffee since you can't keep coffee hot in NYC on a March afternoon. Jack shows up and wants to know what happened. I tell him but he doesn't understand that Levi is using the Indian order to beat everyone over the head to get the price down. He wants my pistol (De Vito carried one in "Hoffa") to go inside and shoot somebody but I have to talk him out of that because I know that this will just mess everything up for everyone.

As I begin to wake up, and I know that I'm waking up, but I don't really care, I struggle to get out of the cover. Somehow I know I'm waking up and that this dream means something. I don't know what yet - but I'll figure it out later. So finally I wake up to a darkened room and the sound of a fan slightly blowing. The dream is still there, I'm still wanting the order, Jack is still sitting on the bench but I'm gone and I'll never get back to help him get the order. Strange... What was so important about that order? And why Levi and women's jeans. See? This is why I don't let Freud inside my head.

Now I have a migraine. Maybe that's what woke me up. I need some ice for the back of my neck (which is one of the treatments for migraines that I use) and I can't get out of the chair (which is where I was sleeping) because the sheet is caught up in the corners of the chair and my feet are all warped up in the bottom of the sheet.. Not only that, the back pack is too hot for my back and I know if I just let out a primal scream it will wake up everyone in the house and I'll get committed to the funny farm for old coots who dream strange things at night.

I really hate the business world - I think I'm going to join Jesse Owens (a far-distant-removed cousin from Sweetwater - not the Olympic star from 1938) and go on out west somewhere. Jesse is about 6 foot ten something and just kind of ambles through life. We'll just get the heck away from all of this stress. The ride out there will be half the fun and being there will be the other half. Maybe we'll just sit on the dock of the bay in San Francisco, play guitars, sing soft French ballads about full, moonlit nights, drink Dos XX and watch the sun go down in the Pacific ocean every night. One night, we'll join the Sun and go down with it. Vaya con Dios amigos.

Shalom
jco



Saturday, April 13, 2013

Where Are Our Prophets Today?

Where, Oh Where! Are Our Prophets Today?

I have been told that I read TaNaKh way too literally.  But sometimes I wonder which is the greater sin:  to read TaNaKh too literally or to read it too liberally.  Both are probably wrong.  Somewhere in the middle is maybe the best approach.  But where in the middle?

Anyway, back to the main subject line.  Where are our Prophets TODAY???  When we need them so much!  HaShem told us in His Torah NOT to change his laws.  HaShem told us in His  Torah that if anyone came to us and told us that it was OK to do such a thing that we should take that person outside of the camp or city walls and stone them. (See Deut 13 for a full explanation of both these things.)  His Torah is a holy thing, not something to be explained away and set aside.

Yes, I know that we are not in control of certain things and we cannot control the public laws like murder trials and rape trials etc.  But we CAN control our attitudes about other things.  Today, unfortunately, some of our Rabbis (Rabbim?) have decided that it is OK to allow homosexual members and some congregations have even ordained homosexual Rabbis in some of the more liberal Reformed Synagogues.  At first the Conservative synagogues condemned the Reformed synagogues and refused to have anything to do with them.  Now, some of the Conservative temples have even come over to the Reformed side and are admitting homosexuals.  Some are even posting their "openess" on their web sites.

So?  "What's wrong with that?" you might ask.  Well, Torah has said in Lev 20:13 that if a man sleeps with another man as a man sleeps with a woman, then both men are to be taken out and stoned for such a thing is an abomination.  Maybe we can't actually take folks out and stone them, by civil and criminal law of the land in which we live, but we should NOT condone such terrible acts against the Torah.  Can we?  But we, the Jewish community, not only condone homosexuality but advertise it as a "good thing" and as part of our attempt to integrate ourselves into the "modern community." Shades of Sodom and Gomorrah!  Having been brought up in modern times I probably could not take part in stoning either.  Not today.  Maybe next year.  Or ten years from now after it had gotten to be more common.  Maybe...

Going on up the scale just a bit, what about adultery?  Everyone does it, right?  And, in some cases, as Rabboni pointed out, it might even be OK in certain circumstances.  But not according to HaShem.  One of the Big Ten Commandments says, Thou Shalt NOT commit adultery.  No IFs.  No Ands.  No Butts.  That is a direct commandment.  NOT a suggestion.  There was a time in the USA (yes, here in the good old USA) when adultery was a crime just like any other crime.  Yet, today, in our modern age, we treat adultery as something at which one might wink.  Monty Python style:  "Nudge-nudge.   Wink-wink."  It's OK if no one knows about it and, even if they do know, it's just a bit dirty, eh wot?  Something to be expected after 7 or 10 years of marriage.  Couples who get married and stay married or 40 or 50 years and remain faithful to each other are so rare that they are celebrated within communities with great parties and public demonstrations of joy.  These couples should be the rule, not the exception.

OK, enough self-righteous exhortations.  Everyone, or most everyone, hates a do-gooder and, for some weird reason, loves a do-badder.  Human nature, I suppose. And, as we get older, we tend to become strange do-gooders or really bad do-badders.  As we age, we tend to leave the namby-pamby middle-of-the-road, liberal, feel-good path and drift either toward being bitter old dry twigs of hatred and disgust or we try to, well, buy our way into heaven.  OK, some stay on their original path but not many.  I would like to think that I am one of the original pathfinders.  But I'm not.  I'm always finding a new path, a new way, a new light.  And I would like to think that this is part of the growth process - that a person can find new thoughts and change.  But NOT to change G-d's laws.  Some things are eternal.  Some things are not.  Our task is to read, study, learn and recognize which things are set in concrete and which things can be changed.  So, go and study.  Learn.  And may G-d be with you.  Always and forever.

Shalom...

Christians and Jews

OK, here goes...  I have been young and now I am old and all my life I have been told certain things about Christians and Jews.  Most of them have been wrong because Jews have told me things about Christians and Christians have told me things about Jews.  So, lets review a few things that Christians have said about Jews and why Christians think that Christ was necessary. 
  • Jews depend on their obedience to the law (Torah) for salvation
  • Jews depend on their good works for salvation
This is really interesting since
  • If any Christian had ever attended a Yom Kippur service they would have understood how Jews feel about repentance.  The words Yom Kippur mean "Day of Repentance."
  • Deut 24:16 teaches that parents shall not be put to death for the sins of their children nor children for the sins of their parents.  Ergo, to teach that one person can be put to death for the sins of all mankind is anathema to a Jew.
  • All of Ezekiel 18 teaches that repentance is part of Judaism.  If anyone repents then HaShem will forgive that person regardless of their past.  The death or life of another person is not mentioned here and neither is the blood of bulls nor goats as is preached in Christianity.
  • The sacrifice of a person's son to ANY god is an abomination to HaShem.  This is stated over and over when HaShem says this in reference to Molech.  See Deut 12:31.
  • HaShem specifically warned Jews in Deut 13:2+ about following prophets or dream-diviners who come to you with signs and wonders, whether these signs and wonders come true or not, and try to get you to follow other gods.  HaShem is testing you.  It goes on to say what you are to do with such people or even with such towns.
  • In Isaiah 42:8, 43:10b and 42:12b HaShem says that He alone is G-d and He does not share His glory with anyone else, not even this Christ person.
 By the way, a Jew should not even mention the name of this Christ person, nor the name of any other false god.  See Ex 23:13b for more on this.  That is why Tevyeh ("Fiddler on the Roof") always said, "... that man..." when referring to "the Christ".

All of that just to say this:  Jews did not need the Christ to redeem them.  They were redeemed from Egypt over three thousand years ago by the mighty hand of G-d himself.  And we can be forgiven from our sins just by asking HaShem for forgiveness.  We don't need the blood of Christ nor anyone else as an intermediary - not Mary, not a saint, not a redeemer.  We need only HaShem as our G-d.

So, what do Jews say about Christians?  That's a subject for another post at a later time when my son gets involved.  Maybe next year.  :-)

Shalom

[BTW, if you leave a comment, all comments are moderated so make it clean and tasteful or they won't be published.  However, all comments that are clean and tasteful and/or thoughtful will be published however contradictory to my own theological leanings.]

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

I'm Confused

Greetings:

OK - I talked with Rabbi M. today.  As some of you may know, I went through the process of "converting" to Judaism some time ago with a Bet Din composed of Rabbi M., Rabbi B. and Cantor R. just before I was to have my Mitzvah (similar to a Christian Baptism).  About five minutes into the interrogation Rabbi B. asked, "Do you believe in the Oral Torah?"  What a question!  How many people coming into Judaism even KNOW what is an Oral Torah??

Anyway, not to play games, I just said, "No." and then told him why.  There are way too many contradictions from various Rabbim about what is kosher and what is not kosher in the Mishnah, Talmud, etc.  In the original Torah, Moses never contradicts himself - he only says what G-d tells him to tell the Jewish people.  And what he says in one place never contradicts what he says in another place.  Is what we have today infallible?  Probably not - but the Massoretic text is about as close as we can get to G-d's original words so I accept it for now.  And the various translations (JPS and KJV) are pretty close to what the original Hebrew says but I use the JPS for my dissertations.

Anyway, back to the problem.  When Rabbi M. says that if the Oral Torah contradicts the written Torah then the Oral Torah is correct, I have a real problem.  (And, yes, I taped the whole thing so I can prove it all.) So, here is my question:  If the Oral Torah says that adultery is OK, does that make it OK with HaShem?  I don't think so.  If the Oral Torah says that homosexuality is OK, does that make it OK   with HaShem?  I don't think so.  But, it seems that since I follow the written Torah as having precedence over the Oral Torah, I cannot convert to Judaism - not with this particular Beth Din.  And, apparently not with any other Beth Din today.

This is really perplexing.  I know many Jews who believe that the TaNaKh (Bible) is nothing more than a codification of campfire tales and not really the Word of G-d.  Others attend just to be part of their heritage.  But, because they were born Jews, they are accepted and no questions are asked.  But, because I am trying to become part of the Jewish faith, I am being questioned and told that I HAVE to believe that the Oral Torah takes precedence over the written Torah.  If something that Rabbi M. says today eventually becomes part of the Oral Torah, and it contradicts written Torah, then I have to believe it if I am to be part of the congregation.  I can't do that.

Yet, other Orthodox congregations tell me that I have to accept Oral Torah as well in order to become a Jew.  I can accept it on the same level as I would accept Christian Commentary, but not on the same level as I accept Torah.  While Torah as we have it today may not be infallible and without question, it would be most difficult to question something in it without some really substantial reasoning.  (If my son is a drunkard and a sluggard should I take him to the elders and have him stoned?)  Anyway, there are things that I can accept and things I cannot accept right now, but to say that Talmud and Mishnah - and even sermons - take precedence over Torah would seem to be way out of line.

I'm confused.

Shalom
Yaakov
(aka, James)