Month: January 2010

Job as Scapegoat: Renée Girard’s Deconstruction of Job

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

It is interesting to compare Rashi’s interpretive approach (see my earlier posting) with that of French literary critic Renée Girard, who also looks at Job’s suffering from within the context of his community. In both of their expositions of the Jobian narrative, it is the community around him that exacerbates Job’s suffering.

However, Girard goes far beyond Rashi and suggests that Job’s friends intend to transform Job into a community scapegoat. According to Girard, ancient and primitive societies learned to redirect their penchant for violence by choosing a surrogate victim, who will bear the brunt of the gods’ violence through the community acting as the gods’ agent of retribution.

This mechanism would serve to explain why sacrifice is practically universal in all societies and times because it serves to create order out of chaos, civility out of social unrest; thus, religion itself seems to be largely based on certain violent origins that its members attempted to sublimate.  Once the scapegoat is removed, the social order is restored as it was in the beginning; the people become content once more until the cycle begins again.

In the case of Job, Girard argues that his friends insisted that he accept his role as the community scapegoat. From this perspective, Job’s suffering invites comparison to Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, where Oedipus, like Job, goes from being the most blessed of gods and mortals to being the most accursed by them as well. But unlike Oedipus who accepts the criticism and judgment of his peers, Job refuses  to be the victim; he defends his personal integrity and stands up against the vox populi that claims to also be the vox Dei (Psa. 31:11-13).

According to the Greek myth, Oedipus was truly guilty for killing his father and marrying his mother; ergo, he was really worthy of being banished and shunned. In Job’s case, his friends make many accusations about him, but it is the voice of Job that has the last word. Ultimately, Oedipus is a “successful scapegoat,” while Job is an example of a “failed scapegoat,” because he stands up for his integrity whenever he confronts the mob mentality of his community.

Mouthing the clichés of faith: “The LORD has given, the LORD has taken—blessed be the LORD forever and ever!” (Job 1:21)

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

One cannot help but suspect the anger and pain stewing inside Job when he piously proclaims, “The LORD has given, the LORD has taken—blessed be the LORD forever and ever!” We wonder, could it be that Job said those words out of fear that if Job didn’t—God would strike him with even more pain? Still and all, Job suppresses his pain, and continues to offer the platitudes and clichés that one would expect a pious man like Job to say. However, inside Job was imploding with silent rage. Job’s glib response reflects the colloquial way people speak of God and faith is often superficial. Shortly afterward, Job lost all his children, all his livestock, and he was stricken with ulcers.

His initial silence was perceived by his friends as a humble submission. The book of Job may have been written around the time of another popular work, the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, which offers practical advice to those who grieve.

Do not give your heart to grief;

drive it away, and remember your own end.

Do not forget, there is no coming back;

do the dead no good, and you injure yourself.

Remember his fate, for yours is like it;

Yesterday it was his, and today it is yours.

When the dead is at rest, let his remembrance rest too,

and be comforted for him when his spirit has departed.

Ben Sira 38: 17-20

The ancient Jewish philosopher Sirach (a.k.a. as “Ben Sira,” ca. 200 BCE) expresses the perennial wisdom of his day. For those who grieve over the death of loved ones, it is prudent to avoid dealing with their feelings of anger, abandonment, and pain. While there is a place for grief in the initial mourning period, even grief itself becomes inappropriate and is considered impolite when one talks excessively about it to others. How much more was it inappropriate to question God on these matters! The friends of Job expected him to behave as was expected of a man of his stature. Job’s community supposed that he would swallow his grief in stoic silence.

However, the writers of Job wished to turn the more conventional wisdom of Ben Sira on top of its head! It is when Job struggles to ask, “Why?” Soon after he raises his unthinkable complaint to God, his friends, one after the other, begin chastising him. On some level, each friend of Job feels threatened by the tonality of Job’s religious “apostasy.” As Job continues to articulate his pain, he discovers that the conventional wisdom he once believed in no longer satisfied his mind, heart, and soul.  Perhaps the friends’ were not so secure with their own faith for they too, could end up like Job.

When a person experiences loss, the sufferer must find a way to express and identify his suffering. If the sufferer cannot talk about his affliction, he will be destroyed by it, or else he will be consumed by apathy. To become speechless is to be totally without relationship; death is a state of silence (cf. Psa. 115:17). The deeper the relationship we share with parents, friends, pets—the deeper the pain is felt when we experiences loss. Job’s losses left him in immense pain. He had to experience a catharsis, for his stress was consuming him. Alone and silent, Job begins to verbalize his pain. From this moment on, Job’s life changes and is never the same again. A new Job is born. For centuries people have been told that suffering should be carried alone in isolation.

More to come…

What exactly is a “spiritual text” ?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

To mystical imagination, the Word of God not only creates the world we experience, but more importantly, it also mediates God’s Presence through the Torah—the cosmic blueprint of Creation. As a cosmic text, the ancients never perceived God’s Word as something static or monolithic, but rather dynamic, pulsating, communicative and transforming.

However, for a modern era such as ours, the Word has become diminished; the “word” has become one of many words, in an ocean of sound largely because of the impact that the printed and electronic world has had in our lives.  As the Zohar mentioned above says, “Woe to person who says that Torah presents mere stories and ordinary words!  . . . . Ah, but all the words of Torah are sublime words, sublime secrets! So this story of Torah is the garment of Torah. Whosoever thinks that the garment is the real Torah and not something else—may his spirit deflate! . . .”

In Late Antiquity, Philo of Alexandria and the Origen (a notable 2nd century Christian scholar)  often interpreted the stories of the Bible as allegories of the soul. Since Talmudic times and before, the ancient rabbis reflected upon the words of Scriptures and experienced them as a living reality that could shed light and insight upon any immediate problem requiring a momentous decision. Every life experience and situation found expression in the words of Scripture. Ben Bag-Bag described the Torah as a spiritual looking-glass: “Turn it over and over because everything is in it, and all of you is in it and reflect upon it and grow old and worn in it and do not leave it, for you have no better lot than that” (Avot 5:19).

We’ll Be Watching You–Big Brother and the Haredi Rabbis

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

“The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.”

Allan Bloom – The Closing of the American Mind

As I have mentioned in previous articles I have posted, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe raised the issue of “Who is a Jew?” and made it one of the most explosive issues affecting Israeli politics. The spillover effect galvanized the Haredi world, who have created new walls separating Jews of all denominations from one another. In the past, it was only Conservative and Reform converts who were rejected by the Haredi Israeli rabbinate–but this has all changed. Now Orthodox converts are affected.

In today’s Israeli news, Rav Nachum Eisenstein, a leading Haredi leader in Israel, is challenging the Israeli courts who insist on recognizing the Orthodox conversions of candidates who have already gone through the process in Israel, while under Orthodox auspices. The Haredi leadership in Israel insists upon a total separation between the Haredi rabbis and the State of Israel. Eisenstein went so far as to say that the majority of converts today—including those converting through the IDF—are not ‘converts’ in accordance with Halacha, and many do not accept living a lifestyle of kiyum Torah and mitzvos, invalidating the process.”

Of course, this position is totally outlandish and reflects the civil war that is taking place between the Haredi and the Modern Orthodox communities. In some respects, it is difficult to feel sorry for the Modern Orthodox, who repeatedly supported the Haredi and the Habad communities’ attempt to isolate and delegitimize the Conservative and Reform converts. Now that their ox is being gored, suddenly the Modern Orthodox are yelling, “Gevalt! (Unfair!), how can they do this to our converts?”

By supporting draconian policies championed by some of the most retrograde forces of contemporary Judaism, they are now experiencing the same kind of rejection “Jews by Choice” have experienced for decades. I would add that when a Chabad institute or a Haredi yeshiva solicit  Reform, Conservative–and now Modern Orthodox–“Jews by Choice,” no person with a conscience ought to give a nickle to underwrite these institutions’ exclusionary positions regarding, “Who is a Jew?” Money talks, so make your money talk by just saying, “No!” to Judaic discrimination.

Let us examine the substance of the Haredi concern. What if an Orthodox  “Jew by choice” chooses to not follow Orthodoxy down the road, does Jewish law give any rabbi the right to retroactively revert such a person to his former non-Jewish status? Of course not! Such behavior has never been historically done–even during the most oppressive periods of Jewish history.

What exactly does Jewish law say about a convert who abandons his observance of Jewish law? Consider the Shulchan Aruch:

סעיף יב שולחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות גרים סימן רסח

כג כו] כשיבא הגר להתגייר, בודקים אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה או מפני הפחד בא ליכנס לדת. כז] ואם איש הוא, בודקין אחריו שמא עיניו נתן באשה יהודית. ואם אשה היא, בודקין אחריה שמא עיניה נתנה בבחורי ישראל, ואם לא נמצאת להם עילה מודיעים להם כובד עול התורה וטורח שיש בעשייתה על עמי הארצות, כדי שיפרשו. אם קיבלו ולא פירשו, וראו אותם שחזרו מאהבה, מקבלים אותם. ואם לא בדקו אחריו, (ט) או שלא הודיעוהו שכר המצות ועונשן, ומל וטבל בפני ג’ הדיוטות, ה”ז גר אפי’ נודע שבשביל דבר הוא מתגייר, הואיל ומל וטבל יצא מכלל העובדי כוכבים, וחוששים לו עד שתתברר צדקתו; כח] ואפילו <טז> חזר ועבד עבודת כוכבים, הרי הוא כט] כישראל מומר שקדושיו קדושין. כד (ישראל מומר שעשה תשובה, א”צ לטבול; ל] רק מדרבנן (י) יש לו לטבול לא] ולקבל עליו דברי חבירות בפני ג’) (נ”י פ’ החולץ).

Shulchan Aruch Y.D. Hilchot Gerim 268:12

When a candidate comes to convert, we investigate the matter, for perhaps his motivation is because of pecuniary gain, or he wishes to attain respect within the community, or because he is motivated by fear. If the candidate is male, we investigate whether he might be interested in marrying a Jewish woman; the same applies if it is a female candidate, for perhaps she is converting because she is interested in a Jewish man.

If the court determines that s/he is sincere, the court informs the candidate the weightiness of the yoke of Torah, and the difficulties that are involved in its practice among the peoples of the lands. This is done in order to give the candidate the opportunity to change his (or her) mind and walk away. If, after this disclaimer has been given, he still accepts the precepts and refuses to separate, and the court sees that he  is responding out of love—we accept him wholeheartedly.

In the event the court did not investigate the candidate’s motivation, or alternatively, and they neglected to inform him about  the full gravity of his decision to embrace the faith, and the convert underwent ritual circumcision and immersed himself in the mikveh, in front of three commoners—this candidate is still considered as a full-fledged Jew, even if it is known he had an ulterior motive in wanting to convert.

Once that candidate already underwent  ritual circumcision and immersion, he permanently  loses his gentile status; however, we remain cautious of him [ the person who converted without disclosing his true intent to the court] until his integrity becomes evident. Should such a person revert to paganism, Jewish law still regards him as an Israelite in every respect; even as an “apostate Jew,” his act of betrothal is legitimate [However, even in the case where the convert to a pagan faith, he still has to undergo a ritual immersion–as a rabbinic precaution–Rema] and accept the precepts in front of three commoners. Continue reading “We’ll Be Watching You–Big Brother and the Haredi Rabbis” →

Why Does Job Suffer?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Many medieval commentators—both Christian and Jewish—often attribute Job’s suffering to all sorts of divine, satanic, karmic, and physical causes.[1] Most modern commentaries seldom attribute Job’s suffering to a human origin. However, an examination of his complaints reveal that much of Job’s pain was directed at a public’s failure to express compassion toward him when he needed it the most.[2] Simply put, Job did not have a community; he lived in a city where its citizens practiced a rugged ethic of individualism—every person lived for himself. Job’s community people  measured God’s blessings solely in terms of wealth and property. For them, to be without financial resources rendered a person as marginal–even disposable, for in prosperous societies the wealthy frequently directed their rage towards those who could protect themselves.

While this may sound like a new deconstructive reading of the text, it actually has antecedents in Rashi’s commentary (12th century). Strangely, the entire book seems to be empty of metaphors depicting human or Divine compassion.[3]  This would seem to substantiate Rashi’s view that the entire book is a parable about pastoral care as an antidote to the mind-numbing and senseless suffering people often experience. From a pastoral perspective, Job stresses how empathy and tenderness are essential ingredients in healing the heart of the sufferer. The general attitude espoused by Job’s friends was “Woe to the wicked, and woe to his neighbors!” Or, “Stay away from an evil person; otherwise, you may end up like him.” Job experiences this kind of rejection  firsthand. One might wonder: “Why does Job put up with such friends?” The Talmud notes that human beings need friendship in order to live. Death itself is preferable to not having any friends at all—even if they are happen to be schlemiels, much like the friends  of Job.[4]

More to follow…

[1] According to some rabbinic legends, Job lived during the time the Jews were originally enslaved by the Egyptians. At that time, he served as an advisor to Pharaoh.

[2] Rashi explains that the book of Job teaches us two important things: (1) that we may learn from it a response to those who condemn God’s attribute of justice (2)  Job also serves to instruct us that no person ought to be blamed for words that he utters because of personal pain (Rashi’s commentary to TB Bava Batra 15a).

Elsewhere Rashi adds on the verse in Job 42:7, “For you did not comfort me with your ‘verbal defense’ as did my servant, Job.” His only sin consisted of saying ‘He destroys both the innocent with the wicked…’ (Job 9:23). And whatever else Job said came from his suffering which weighed heavily upon him and forced him to speak thusly. But you [the friends], on the other hand, were wrongful to accuse him of being wicked. In the end, it is you who are now silent and defeated before him. Instead of attacking him, you should have comforted him as Elihu did. As if Job didn’t have enough suffering, you added guilt to your sins by angering him.

[3] The absence of human compassion is most conspicuously present in the Jobian tale. For example, the word hesed (loving-kindness) appears only three times in the entire Jobian narrative and only when Job implores his friends for help. Likewise, the Hebrew word for nechama, (“comfort”), appears only seven times in the entire book. Only twice does Job ever receive nechama from his friends–the first occurs at the very beginning of Job 2:11. At this stage, Job’s friends express no verbal criticism of him. The second instance appears at the very end of the Jobian narrative (42:11)—after Job is finally vindicated.

[4] TB Taanit 23a;  TB Bava Batra, 16a.

How was Jacob embalmed?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Byline: January 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Genesis 50:3: they spent forty days in doing this, for that is the time required for embalming. And the Egyptians wept for him seventy days.– This figure does not quite correspond either to Herodotus or to the Roman historian Diodorus (Histories 1:91) Herodotus wrote that the period of embalming took 30 days, while according to the Diodorus, it took 70 days. Perhaps in the case of Jacob, 40 days were all that was necessary for embalming. The 70 days of mourning may have also included the 40 days of embalming while the thirty additional days were necessary to complete the period of mourning  before the journey to Canaan began.

The famous Greek historian Herodotus (II, 86) offers one of the more detailed sources on these matters, mentions three methods of embalming. The first, and most expensive, necessitated extracting the brains by means of an iron hook. The emptied skull was subsequently filled with spices. Next, an incision was made with a sharp “Ethiopic stone” which is believed to be obsidian — a  glassy black volcanic rock that can be flaked to a razor’s edge.

Obsidian can be sharper and thinner than any surgeon’s scalpel.  The first organs to be removed are the upper intestinal tract, and the pancreas. Then comes the spleen, kidneys, bladder, and more of the digestive tract; then comes the colon, stomach and spleen. After the liver comes out the lungs. Only the heart is left in the rib cage because the Egyptians believed that when the deceased approached Osiris, the heart would be weighed.

If it was as light as the feather of Ma’at, the goddess of truth, the person was one step closer to becoming accepted by the gods. All the emptied parts of the body were then cleansed and also filled with spices. Afterwards the body was packed in dry natron for a period of seventy days.

The last stage of embalming by this method consisted of washing the body and wrapping it tightly in cloths soaked in resins. In this state the embalmed body was delivered to the relatives, who would put it in a wooden coffin made in the shape of a human body; this was then placed in an upright position in the burial chamber. The second method, a cheaper one, consisted of dissolving the intestines by infusing cedar oil through the anus.

As with the previous method, the body was packed in dry natron and after seventy days the oil, together with the dissolved intestines, would emerge, so that all that remained of the body were the bones and the skin. The third and cheapest method of embalming involved cleansing the body by means of an enema before packing it in natron for seventy days. The embalmed body was then ready for burial. The secrets of the art of embalming were forgotten early in the Roman period.

It is interesting to note that nowadays, Jewish law rules that embalming is forbidden unless the body is being transported over state lines, in which case it is permitted.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin’s bold acknowlegement of Jesus as a 1st century Sage and “Rabbi”

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin created shock-waves across the Internet by praising Jesus as a sage and even referring to him as “Rabbi Jesus.” For many Modern Orthodox and especially Haredi Jews, this disclosure tarnishes the pristine and almost  iconic status Rabbi Riskin cultivated over the last several decades. To his immense credit, Rabbi Riskin has done more to create a legion of  modern ba’alei tshuva (“returnees”),  who has set a path for aliyah and has emerged as one of the most distinguished disciples of the late  Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik zt”l.

What are the ramifications of Rabbi Riskin’s glowing assessment of Jesus?  Based on what I have read in the Orthodox blogs, many think that Rabbi Riskin has crossed a line, and this statement is the proverbial  “straw that broke the camel’s back” according to many. Many even accuse him of kefira (heresy).

The video begins:

Shalom to all. My name is Shlomo Riskin. I am the Chief rabbi of the City of Efrat…..I am an Orthodox Rabbi…and an Orthodox Rabbi who is very profoundly interested in religion in general, in Christianity, and especially in the persona of Jesus in particular….I was truly fascinated by the personality of Jesus, whom to myself I have always referred to as “Rabbi Jesus”….because I think he is indeed a “model Rabbi” in many counts…and he lived the life of a Jewish Rabbi in Israel in a very critical time in our history…..I have constantly come back to the study of his personality and his teachings which are very strongly rooted in Talmudic teachings…..”

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a number of Talmudic teachings may well be grounded in the teachings of 1st century Judaism, which included the proto-Pharisaic teachings of Jesus.

Is Rabbi Riskin espousing a new concept that Jewish thinkers never heard of before?  Actually, Rabbi Riskin’s position has a strong antecedent in the writings of Rabbi Jacob Emden, whose euphoric admiration of Jesus stresses that we need to differentiate between the metaphysical Christ of Christianity from the “historical Jesus,” a fact that many Orthodox Jews fail to grasp because of their rudimentary grasp of 1st century Judaism. Simply put, if these critics took the time to seriously study the works of Professor David Flusser, they would walk away with a new appreciation of a hasid (Jesus) whose teachings indirectly or directly influenced subsequent rabbinic thought.

Beyond that, there are other 19th century Orthodox scholars who admired Jesus as a first century Sage. I will post more of this material in the days and weeks ahead.

Why is this subject so important? Largely because so much anti-Semitism has developed because Christians denied the essential “Jewishness” of Jesus, while Jews have historically viewed Jesus in negative terms because of the anti-Semitism of Jesus’ followers. In Chagall’s famous painting of Jesus, Chagall sees Jesus’ suffering as epitomizing Jewish suffering. Jesus lived as a pious Jew; he died as a pious Jew ….

Latest word on the newswire as of Jan. 1, 2010:

Rabbi Riskin sheepishly recanted, or at least attempted to give that impression. Being a Chief Rabbi of an Israeli city is too much of responsibility to maintain a perfect equilibrium. Still and all, Rabbi Riskin comes across the original video as being truly genuine. I more or less said the same thing at Gordon College a couple of months ago. But again, I care more for the truth than I do Orthodox barbs, because I consider the source …

In many ways, the entire question whether Jesus was a “rabbi” or not, is a moot point. The author of Mathew in 23:1–3, 8 suggests that “rabbi” might have been used for individuals who engage in public teaching. The gospel of John uses the term rabbi with respect to Jesus eight times.[1]

Reflecting an older and probably more historically correct tradition, Luke never refers to Jesus by this title at all, but simply refers to him as Luke uses διδάσκαλος (didaskalos = “teacher,”)[2] According to this reading, Jesus criticizes this group of scholars for enjoying the public recognition that came with appearing to be “pious” men before the masses. However, there is reason to believe that this particular passage is an example of what is commonly called an interpolation that was added long after the death of Jesus. A similar feature occurs in the Talmud, where Hillel is called, “Rabbi Hillel.” Since the writers of these ancient wrote for a later audience, they took certain poetic licenses with respect to the text. An argument from silence indicates that many, if not all of the 1st century Judaic teachers never preferred such an honorific epithet.

As with all first century scholars, the designation “Rabbi” did not mean or designate a professional class of people like it does today.

========

Notes

[1] John 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; 20:16.

[2] Luke 7:40; 8:49; 22:11.