An old former congregant and friend of mine (who happens to be a Cohen) recently lost his father, and he asked me the following question. Is a Jewish Priest’s ritual purity compromised by coming into contact with ashes of a cremated person?

Your question could also be parsed in a philosophical way: Do the ashes of a cremated person retain a residue of a person’s humanity? In practical terms, are we obligated to the ashes, or are do we regard the ashes as being bereft of anything considered “human”?

The Mishnah in Ohalot 2:2 discusses this intriguing question. Here is the text:

The ash of burned people—

A R. Eliezer says, “Its measure is a quarter-qab.” (1 log = 0.506 lit.)

B And the Sages declare the ashes ritually clean.

The commentaries state this only applies if the body is completely cremated; however, if the body is partially cremated, then even the Sages concur the cremated body conveys ritual impurity. The Halacha follows the view of the Sages. Although there is no legal obligation to bury the ashes in a cemetery—in the event someone died in a fire—nevertheless, a number of halachic authorities rule that it is considered meritorious to bury the ashes in a Jewish cemetery (cf. Gesher HaHayim 16:8:5).

R. Isaac Klein rules:

• A great number of authorities forbid the burial of ashes in a Jewish cemetery because this would encourage the practice of cremation (see Dudaei Hasadeh, sec. 16; Mahazeh Avraham, vol. 2, Y.D. 38; and Lerner, Hayyei Olam). Others permit it and even permit a service at the burial (Rules of the Burial Society of the United Synagogue of London, quoted in Rabinowicz, A Guide to Life, p. 29; see also Rabbi Eliyahu ben Amozegh, Ya’aneh Vaeish). The Law Committee of the Rabbinical Assembly has ruled that cremation is not permitted. When it is done by the family in disregard of Jewish practice, a rabbi may officiate only at the service in the funeral parlor; the ashes may be buried in a Jewish cemetery and appropriate prayers may be said, but not by a rabbi, lest his participation be interpreted as approval (Rabbinical Assembly Proceedings, 1939, p. 156; Law Committee Archives). [1]

Not all halachic scholars agree on this issue, and most Orthodox cemeteries will deny the burial of cremated ashes for the reasons mentioned above. Conservative Jewish cemetery boards tend to be more lenient on this issue and this has been my personal position as well.

Over this past week, the question regarding the charred remains of the 9/11 victims came up in the news. According to a new Pentagon report, the government sent the remains of several of the bodies that were gathered from the Shanksville crash to a local bio-medical waste disposal contractor. The contractor later incinerated the remains and used the bodies as landfill. Apparently, this has been the practice of the military for quite some time.

Using people’s bodies for landfill is not much better than what the Nazis did with the Jews in the concentration camps. For example, a woman named Isle Koch was the superintendent of the Nazi concentration camps Buchenwald (from 1937 to 1941) and Majdanek (from 1941 to 1943). As a consummate sadist, Koch took great pride in the lamp shades she made from the skin of Jewish inmates whom she had killed if they had distinctive looking tattoos. In case you did not know, the Nazis also cooked the flesh of Jews in order to separate the fat out and made soap from their bodies. The “Beast of Buchenwald” was one of the first prominent Nazis to be tried by the US military for her crimes against humanity.

According to the Jewish philosopher Emanuel Lévinas and Jacques Derrida, human existence always leaves what’s called a “trace,” of a person. On the one hand, the trace signifies the absence of that person’s presence, but it also paradoxically preserves a residue of the person’s existence that still remains present.

From their philosophical observation, we may deduce an important ethical principle—one which has profound halachic implications. When dealing with the human remains of a cremated person, the little “trace,” of that person’s humanity does not disappear into a state of oblivion. So long as even the smallest fragment of that person remains, one needs to treat that “trace” with ethical sensitivity. Hence, what we have here is what Derrida calls, “the metaphysics of pure presence,” which I would argue, commands us to treat life with value and with respect. In simple terms, the human being can never be reduced to an impersonal object, for even the “trace” bears witness to the invisible transcendence of the Other.

National Public Radio commentators recently discussed a very interesting question: Should President Obama have “apologized” for the accidental burning of the Qur’an? Some argue that the President should have expressed “regret” over the incident, which acknowledges some degree of culpability. Regret does not contain any element of obeisance that an apology would convey. One can apologize without compromising one’s dignity, or without groveling. Tonality often conveys meaning that goes beyond the words. The White House’s tonality was decidedly humble. In a macho part of the world like the Middle East, a show of strength makes a greater impression. Dignity means everything to a society that respects honor. If you wish to command respect, you have to act with authority and with a sober composure.

Some Republican politicians used this incident to score some political points in the upcoming primaries. Of all the candidates who have taken issue with President Obama, Newt Gingrich seemed to make the most persuasive point that many pundits either ignore or discount. According to Gingrich, the President did not hold the Afghan government responsible for the death of the six NATO soldiers who were killed by a men wearing an Afghan army uniform.

Before the Republican critics start blaming President Obama’s apology, they should remember that Obama’s speech is essentially the same kind of apology that President Bush gave to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, back in 2008, soon after an American soldier shot several bullets into a Qur’an. The difference between the two desecrations ought to be obvious. In 2008, the act was deliberate, whereas in 2012, burning the Qur’an was accidental. The person burning the Qur’an did not realize this was considered a breach of religious etiquette because the Qur’an already had secret messages scribbled on its pages.

* Who’s Right?

Whereas in the past, I have taken issue with President Obama on many issues, despite his tonality, I believe that he did the right thing by apologizing. Whether a person expresses “regret,” or “apologizes,” the difference between these two terms seems minor; taking the moral high road is not a bad course of action. Therefore, given the religious fanaticism of our times, apologizing seems to be the best approach in de-hostilizing an already tense environment. Obviously, the apology won’t convince the Muslim radicals, but it could detoxify the Muslim moderates. As a chess move, Obama’s apology could tactically change the direction of the political game.

While Newt did not discount the importance of Obama’s apology, he insisted upon reciprocity. Newt felt that the Afghani government also should have apologized, “If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing, then we should say, ‘Goodbye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.’”

Newt makes a good point.

What are some of the lessons we might learn from this experience?

Many.

Well, for one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more economic damage to our own country, as well as the other countries that have participated. The mighty Roman Empire disappeared as a super-power once it overextended itself and spent considerable monies on wars it could not afford. The United States would be wise to apply this knowledge of ancient history and apply its lessons to our current war with the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home.

As mentioned in an earlier posting, some Muslim scholars have argued in past centuries that burning a Qur’an ought to be performed reverently and preferably on sacred ground, like a the outside of a mosque. Accidental burning of a disposable holy text, while it is a monumental testament to human thoughtlessness, certainly should not be viewed as an act of blasphemy. Once again, if rational Muslim leaders spoke out and condemned the violence, maybe somebody would listen. No religion can afford to tacitly approve psychotic behavior in the name of God. Now that’s true blasphemy—the willful misuse of God’s Name to perpetuate violence toward others. I am curious why scribbling terrorist messages in the pages of the Qur’an is not condemned as a sacrilege by Muslim scholars or leaders? Not even the Haredi would dare disrespect a Torah scroll or a Pentateuch with scribbling thoughts about the sinfulness of the non-Haredi! Continue Reading

The accidental burning of the Quran in Afghanistan raises some important questions: How does one dispose of religious literature?

The 18^th century Muslim scholar Allamah Haskafi, author jurisprudence text Durr-Mukhtar, wrote of the disposal of the no-longer wanted Qurans: “If one decides to get rid of religious literature, the right thing would be to bury them by wrapping them in something pure first, in a place where people would rarely traffic. Similarly, it would be permitted to tie the books and papers with something heavy and cast them into a flowing river. You may also burn [texts other than the Quran], but in this case, only after erasing the names of Allah, his Angels and his Messengers…”

Religious traditions vary considerably—even within a given faith. Some Muslim traditions require that the Quran be wrapped in a linen cloth, to protect it from the impure soil. Some scholars recommend that the Muslims place the book in a niche dug along the side of a grave, pointing in the direction of Mecca.

Historically, some early Muslim scholars recommended burning the Quran—but only as a last resort to prevent the book from being defiled. Afterwards, the ashes should be buried or scattered over water. The place where the Quran is burnt is also important and should be ritually performed over the property of a mosque. One Muslim scholar informed me that burning individual Quranic verses represents a type of symbolic sacrifice.

Among the oriental faiths, Hindus immerse their holy writings in clean water, burial or burning, according to the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, a Hindu book of rituals and conduct. If still usable, the items can be sent to the next of kin or cremated with a deceased owner. Buddhist ritual is less defined. However, normally a Buddhist should recite a Buddhist scripture in front of the items to be disposed of, if such a person is present. The material can then be burned and its ashes buried. It is permitted to place the text in a bag and leave it for recycling.[1]

Medieval Christian history regarded the disposal of the Bible as a serious sin. Only recently have Christians adopted the Jewish and Muslim tradition of burying the Bible and other sacred writings, while others recommend one ought to simply fix the Bible so that it will be reusable. According to the Wikihow.com, Christian scholars recommend:

• Consider the intent of your disposal method. If you respect the Holy Bible as a sacred text, you should choose a method which is not deliberately defiling or irreverent. Burying or burning, would not mix the pages of your Bible with common household refuse and cause it to be subjected to objectionably gross conditions. Burying the Bible. Wrapping the Bible in a clean, plain white cloth, or building a small wooden casket would give the Holy Book a reverent final resting place. The Jews have a tradition of burying defiled or damaged copies of their sacred texts in a cemetery, usually with a body, after performing liturgical rites over them.

• Burning the Bible. This should be done in a reverent, somber fashion. Building a small bonfire and placing the Book in the flames to ensure that it burns completely, and nature will scatter the ashes. Show respect due, in accordance to your faith, the book which you are disposing of. Think of its history, value, and enduring quality. If you feel compelled, during the process of disposal, say a prayer, or repeat a selected verse or passage from the Book.[2]

Jewish tradition traditionally buries their holy books at the local Jewish cemetery. Unlike the Muslim faith, it is forbidden to erase or burn God’s Name to facilitate its burial. Burning siddurim or old Torah scrolls is expressly forbidden—probably because of the violent abuse Jewish communities experienced in Christian and Muslim lands. [3]Unfortunately, not every religion shows its respect toward the faith of the Other. I would add that all religions are guilty of this type of sacrilege to a greater or lesser degree.

Erasing God’s Name is a complicated issue in Halachic literature. Many Orthodox Jews will write God’s Name as “G-d” to get around the issue. By doing so, since God’s Name is not really being written down, newspapers or articles with G-d’s Name may be discarded. This is somewhat of a legal fiction that probably makes little algebraic sense. Nowadays even our currency reads “In God we trust,” and some Halachic scholars would argue that one should not count money while in a bathroom, since God's Name needs to be associated with a clean place. On the other hand, one may justifiably wonder: How appropriate is it to have God's Name embossed on money in the first place? Some critics occasionally muse, "Does 'In God we trust' signify a faith in God? Or does it signify a faith in the god of mammon?" These are valid theological and practical questions that we might explore at a future time.

Several medieval rabbinic scholars contend that if the Divine Name was not meant for holy usage, it may be erased and discarded.[4] Other rabbinical scholars contend that the Hebrew Name only has holiness in Hebrew and that all secular names for God have no holiness whatsoever.[5]

The only exception to destroying God’s Name is when it involves the ritual of the Sotah (a woman accused of adultery). According to the Torah, the name of God had to be erased and used for a special ceremony (Numbers 5:11-31). The ritual involved seven steps performed by the priest: 1) putting sacral water into an earthen vessel; 2) throwing some earth from the floor of the Sanctuary into the water; 3) standing the woman on trial before the Lord, baring her head and placing her meal offering upon her hands; 4) adjuring the woman by solemn oath to which she answers, "Amen, amen"; 5) putting this oath down (which contained God’s Name) in writing and rubbing off the ink in the water that is in the earthenware bowl; 6) elevating the meal offering, presenting it on the altar, and turning a token part of it into smoke on the altar; 7) making the woman drink the spell-inducing water of bitterness.

Burning God’s Name was considered one of the worse acts of sacrilege. According to the Talmud, Apostomos, captain of the occupation forces, publicly burned the Torah - both acts considered open blasphemy and desecration and became one of the principle reasons why the Sages created a Jewish fast day for the 17^th of Tammuz. [6]

In many synagogues, old Siddurim (prayer books), Torah mantels, teffilon (phylacteries), tallit, and mezuzoth, are placed in the synagogue genizah (hidden places). Traditionally, such places were often situated under the bimah (where the Torah is read), behind the ark in a small adjacent room, or in a cellar—as was the case with the Bokhara synagogue in Tehran. When the geniza became full, they would take the items to be buried at the synagogue once every ten years. The burial was believed to help induce a healthy rainy season. The manner in which this was carried out was with solemnity, followed afterward by a special banquet.

As you can see, the religious faiths of the world share many attitudes and customs regarding their sacred literature. In short, I think all religions can and ought to learn some practical lessons from one another. Let such a venture mark the beginning of our collective and personal spiritual healing.

Continue Reading

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/rick-santorum-quran-burning_n_1302219.html

The German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) once wrote, “Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.” Heine’s admonition certainly became a prophetic portend in the days of the Holocaust. However, his words are no less an admonition for the future we are now—once again—creating.

More than 30 people have been killed after American soldiers accidentally burned copies of the Quran along with other religious materials had been thrown into a fire pit used to burn garbage at Bagram Air Field, a large U.S. base north of Kabul. The incident prompted apologies from the Secretary of State, a leading brigadier general, and an American President—all who expressed sadness about the act of sacrilege.

Adding more fuel to the fire (pardon the pun), Rick Santorum criticized Obama for having dared to apologize to the Muslim international community for burning their sacred literature. Santorum would be wise to follow the advice of Ecclesiastes, “A time for silence and a time for speaking” (Eccl. 3:7). This is clearly not the time to politicize the loss of human life for pecuniary political gain in the polls. Despite apologies from the President and other U.S. officials for what they said was a mistake, their regrets have not quelled the anger of Afghans, who viewed the Quran burnings as an illustration of what they perceive as foreign disrespect for their culture and religion. One would think after ten years of fighting, the military would have decided to error on the side of caution with respect to this issue.

The loss of life and animus that the Afghanis are exhibiting make it clear that our past policy of waging war to achieve our goals was—and still—is a misguided policy. It is this writer’s opinion that the United States needs to think more cautiously in the future about fighting ground wars in countries, whose culture and religion it does not really understand. War is not always the best or only solution to global conflicts.

In short, human tragedy and error can cause considerable trouble. Although the Muslim reaction is understandable, it is important for all religious leaders of all faiths to acknowledge that showing disrespect toward any religious faith is inappropriate behavior.

With this thought in mind, it is important for all of us to be introspective and reflective about our own religions. Have we honored the finest teachings of our faith? Muslims cannot ignore the importance and relevance of this question either. Let’s be honest and candid. Muslims are not the only “victims,” not by a long shot. The Islamic international community did not complain much when the Afghani Taliban government destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha on March 1, 2001.

In 1993, the Oslo Accords put Joseph’s Tomb under Israeli jurisdiction, but on Oct. 7, 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered a unilateral retreat, based on a Palestinian agreement to protect the site. Well, this proved to be a terrible mistake when the Palestinians stormed into the Joseph’s Tomb and destroyed the site believed to be the burial place of the biblical patriarch Joseph––the son of Jacob––who was sold by his brothers into slavery and later became the viceroy of Egypt. Joseph is a hero who is enshrined in Muslim literature. How could they allow the desecration of a hero’s memory who was loved by their own scriptural tradition? The international Muslim community not only refused to condemn the violence, but in many places, they actually applauded and celebrated the desecration.

How many times have we seen Muslim Sunnis blow up the holy places of Muslim Shi’ites, or Sufi shrines? What about all the Qurans and other sacred items that one has destroyed-all in the name of Allah? What about last week’s news about how Assad of Syria defiled a mosque and used it as a military barracks? Why are we not hearing any fatwas from world respected Muslim leaders on the BBC or on Al-Jazeera, or the American news stations directed against those members of the Muslim community who endorse and perpetuate a relentless philosophy of violence directed at the Other?

When I hear Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders take this matter seriously, then I will know we are taking a meaningful step forward. Unfortunately, when violence turns against the “insider” of a given faith, it is inevitable the rage of violence will turn to the Outsider as well.

Respect is a two-way street. Before there can be any hope of peace, religious leaders of all faiths need to make the respect of all faiths a nonnegotiable item and prerequisite. People who live in glass homes should not throw stones. There must be no double-standard when it comes to the religious desecration of any faith. Continue Reading

Our opening line of the story almost begins like a joke . . .

Last Halloween, two atheists decided to poke some adolescent fun at the expense of Catholicism and Islam. One person dressed up as Zombie Pope, and the other dressed up as “Zombie Mohammed.” Their behavior was outrageous. This is what happened afterwards. A Muslim man, named Talaag Elbayomy, felt so insulted by the parody that he decided to take action: he assaulted “Zombie Mohammed,” whose real identity is Ernest Perce, the President of the Pennsylvanian Atheist Society.

According to the officer who responded to the incident, Elbayomy admitted he had physically assaulted and choked Perce. Logically, this should have been a shut and closed case. Furthermore, the incident was also caught on camera.

Not necessarily. This is where the story took a rather bizarre turn.

Judge Mark Martin, who happens to be a practicing Muslim, was presiding over the case. The Judge decided to chastise Perce for his ignorance of Islam, and his disrespect of Muslim culture.

More seriously, Judge Martin refused to allow the video into evidence; he likewise refused to listen to the Police Officer’s testimony that substantiated Perce’s position. Judge Martin claimed that the officer did not give an accurate account; therefore, he would not give any weight to his testimony.

The crime of assault, in this instance, pales in comparison to the misuse of judicial power on the part of Judge Martin and his willingness to curtail freedom of speech. One of the most important dissidents from the Muslim world is a man named Ibn Warraq. Shortly after the famous (or “infamous”) cartoons of Muhammed appeared in the Danish newspaper back in 2005, Warraq wrote a brilliant article entitled, “Democracy in a Cartoon.” [1] In the interest of brevity, I will quote only a few of the relevant points he makes in his thought-provoking essay. Much of what he wrote applies to our Pennsylvanian case as well.

• The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

• A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

• Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize . . .

• How can we expect immigrants to integrate into western society when they are at the same time being taught that the west is decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised? Why should they, in the words of the African-American writer James Baldwin, want to integrate into a sinking ship? Why do they all want to immigrate to the west and not Saudi Arabia? They should be taught about the centuries of struggle that resulted in the freedoms that they and everyone else for that matter, cherish, enjoy, and avail themselves of; of the individuals and groups who fought for these freedoms and who are despised and forgotten today; the freedoms that the much of the rest of world envies, admires and tries to emulate." When the Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square (in 1989) , they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty."

• Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

On the one hand, it seems to me that the Judge had every right to criticize the behavior of Perce and his friend for disrespecting religion in an inappropriate way in front of impressionable young children. However, I think he missed an incredible opportunity to explain why this country is so unique in the annals of history because it espouses the unique concept of freedom of speech. Judge Martin could have done much to promote better Muslim-Christian relations by reminding the defendant that he is in a new country. Unlike other countries, the United States protects every person’s civil liberties. Freedom of speech ultimately helps to ensure and guarantee all of our civil liberties.

The noted atheist Christopher Hitchens felt even more strongly than Ibn Warraq. According to him, religion deserves to be parodied when it denies the freedom of its people and others. [2]

The Judge might have criticized Elbyomy and tell him that he modeled poor behavior, and taught his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. The Judge’s lesson about how other Muslim countries deal with religious dissent or apostasy is completely irrelevant. In this country, the Bill of Rights has long tolerated people’s rights to “piss off other people and their cultures.” The fact that the Judge also felt insulted by Perce’s behavior is all the more reason why he should have recused himself from the case. In this country, the Constitution and the protection of its ordinances are of primary value. Whether it be Catholic Canonical Law, or Halacha, or Sharia Law, these systems of law must remain legally subservient to a legal tradition that has made this country great.

Personally, I would told the atheist that every action--even those which are done out of jest--has unforeseen consequences across the globe. Deliberately inciting a Muslim fanatic might result in the death of innocents, as we have seen today in the news regarding the accidental burning of the Koran. Perhaps this knowledge would have had zero impact on Perce and his atheist buddies. I also think the Judge should have sentenced the assailant to 30 days of community service at a charitable organization. Bad deeds, even well-intended, can have terrible consequences. The issue of whether Martin is a Muslim or not is unimportant. What really matters is that the law of free speech be upheld.

It is unusual to see Christians and atheists on the side of a legal issue. It is even stranger to see liberals who have long championed the separation of Church and State fight to dissolve this distinction over the peculiar ruling of an American Muslim judge, who probably should never have gotten involved in such a case that threatens the historical integrity of our Constitution.

I suspect we have not heard the last word on this fascinating case, but I pray we listen to the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, in his famous work, On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

*

Notes:

[1] Ibn Warraq, "Democracy in a Cartoon" Spiegel Online International 02/03/2006

[2] Christopher Hitchens, "Cartoon Debate: The case for mocking religion" Slate, 02/04/2006 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html

Hitchens goes on to say:

• The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
• Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun . . . The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight." Continue Reading

ts

Liam Neeson has always been one of my favorite actors in Hollywood. His films have often been stimulating, entertaining, and often contemplative. His latest film, “The Grey,” disturbs me for many reasons. It is surprising to see Hollywood produce a movie that portrays animals in their natural habitat as the villain.

“The Grey” is not the kind of film anyone who loves animals and nature would want to see. In an age where we are finally starting to understand the importance of stewardship, movies like “The Grey” are a retrogressive trend that threatens one of nature’s magnificent creatures. One is reminded of some wonderful wisdom our Sages taught centuries ago,

• When the Holy Blessed One created the first man, He took him and led him round all the trees of the Garden of Eden, and said to him, “Look at my handiwork, see how beautiful and excellent they are! Everything I have created, I created for you! Be careful that you don’t corrupt and destroy My world, for if you corrupt it there is no one to repair it after you.[1]

Imagine a world without the elephant or the rhino, [2] or the grey wolf . . .

Here is the main reason why “The Grey” is an irresponsible film. Given the ecological attitude that we have seen in numerous films coming from Hollywood, warning us about the dangers of global warming, and other sundry ecological hazards, it is shocking to see Hollywood produce a film depicting an endangered species such as the Grey Wolf as the enemy!

With this thought in mind, let us examine briefly summarize the film’s plot. A group of men suddenly find themselves stranded in the Alaskan wilderness following a plane crash. Soon, as they attempt to find their way back to civilization, they run into a pack of wolves, which gleefully look upon the stranded group as their next happy meal.

Neeson plays a protagonist named John Ottway, whose occupation as a marksman and leadership skills makes him a formidable foe to the wolves. Feeling depressed because of his estranged wife, Ottway feels as though he has lost his will to live; he contemplates suicide. Then suddenly, his plane goes down. He and six other men survive, but they are literally in the middle of nowhere. He assumes a leadership role and finds himself combating God, the elements, and a pack of hungry man-eating wolves.

One by one, each of the characters falls prey to a well-orchestrated wolverine assault. In one scene, one of the survivors named Diaz, captures and decapitates an attacking wolf. They eat the wolf’s carcass for dinner, and later throw the head of the wolf back at the wolf pack. Undeterred, the wolves continue picking each of the survivors until an angry Ottway confronts the alpha wolf with a knife in his hand, and broken beer bottles tied to his hand. In his final assault, the movie comes to an abrupt ending. The outcome remains a mystery. However, after the credits are shown, a short clip reveals a badly wounded alpha wolf, near death. Did Ottway survive? The movie leaves that question to the viewer’s imagination to answer.

Based on what I have read about the storyline behind the film, the actors did not actually eat wolf-meat during the filming, but ate lamb instead. However, the producer Joe Carnahan did purchase some wolf-meat, which he had the actors eat off the set so that they might really use the experience to help them play their roles more effectively.

How dangerous are the Grey Wolves? Consider this tidbit of wisdom. The Wolf Conservation Center states that you have a better chance of “being hit by lightning, dying of a bee sting or being killed in a vehicle collision with a deer” than being attacked by a wolf. So what do you do if you meet a hungry Grey Wolf? Look threatening and scary, throw a baseball or a rock at it—but don’t run because animals know when you are afraid. Actually, they are more afraid of you than you are of them.

As the trapper Carter Niemeyer noted, “They’re not exactly advocating for animal rights, but hunters are howling over The Grey’s bloodthirsty wolves, too. “Wolves have never been aggressive toward me in the 25 years I’ve worked with them close up!” exclaims a retired professional trapper and author of The Wolfer. “From my experience, they’re curious, they’re cautious, they’re aloof, and they really don’t want anything to do with you.” Still, he doesn’t advise camping out in their den, let alone cooking up a wolf carcass and feasting on the meat on their turf, as Ottway and the rig workers do in one stomach-turning scene. [3]

It is a pity that the film’s appearance came at a time when the grey wolf had just been removed from the Endangered Species lists in several western states. Hunting wolves just became legal again, and it was the propagation of horror stories and myths (along with some tempting bounties) that caused the near eradication of the grey wolf in North America in the first place.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): wolves throughout the Lower 48 United States are listed as endangered except in Montana, Idaho and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah where they have been delisted through congressional action. Currently, the delisting of wolves in Wyoming has been approved in principle by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

January 9^th, 2009, on his first day in office, Obama put a freeze on a number of federal regulations adopted by the Bush administration in its final days, including the delisting of grey wolves under the Endangered Species Act. This gave the wolves a temporary reprieve, and gave animal advocates hope. Obama’s choice of legislation seems to stem more from his animus toward Bush, rather than for his concern for the Grey Wolf. Just weeks after giving hope to animal advocates, the Obama administration delisted wolves under the Endangered Species Act in the Northern Rockies. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, a hunter and rancher himself, permitted individual states to begin killing wolves in order to protect animal agribusiness interests.

People interested in defending and protecting the Grey Wolf in North America must let your Congressmen know that the wolves are an integral part of an ecosystem as a top tier predator. The Midrashic wisdom cited above ought to serve as a practical and grim reminder that other ways must be explored to protect natures’ beautiful creations.

Postscript:

The animal world has a remarkable array of characteristics and social habits that impressed human societies since the beginning of time. People have looked at the wolf with awe, wonder, fear and respect. Notwithstanding its reputation as a savage predator, the wolf’s parental instincts are exceptionally refined and well developed in the animal world. As a dedicated parent, relatives of the wolf share in the caring of the young; they also help older and weaker members of its group. Each member of the wolf-clan has a special place in terms of its social standing among the clan. The wolf’s survival skills have enabled the wolf to thrive in some of the most inhospitable places of the earth. Wolves often demonstrate deep affection for their family and may even sacrifice themselves to protect the family unit. Ancient legend teaches how the infants Romulus and Remus, the mythic builders of Rome, were discovered by a she-wolf, who instead of killing them, protected them and fed them with her milk. As animals, wolves were sacred to the Roman worship of Mars. Apollo was said to appear from time to time in the form of a wolf.

Yet, despite the Western fear of wolves, native peoples of history often regarded the wolf as a protective spirit. Native American Indians venerated the wolf and prayed to the gods that the wolf’s hunting skills and courage would be instilled in their tribal warriors. Warriors often hoped that their tribe happened to be descendants of the wolf spirit.

The history of civilization reveals how respected and beloved the wolf has been since the beginning of the human species. All dogs are descendants of the wolf. If you love your dog, do not disrespect your dog’s ancestors! Hollywood movie producers ought to be making films explaining why the preservation of the wolf is important for all of us who share the same planet together. There are plenty of villains to invent, but making the Grey Wolf into a villain should not be one of them.

Continue Reading

Shepherding is inextricably related to the wilderness. In its broadest sense, the wilderness represents a realm of chaos that threatens human civilization and consciousness. In psychological terms, the wilderness may be found in the depths of the unconscious; it is a region that leaves one feeling helpless, alone, and out of control, which threatens all orderly existence. This pattern occurs again and again throughout the Tanakh. Yet, despite the dangers one faces in the wilderness, it is always the place of revelation and transformation. As a result, the wilderness frequently functions as a vehicle for conversion.

Since wilderness imagery figures prominently in the narratives of the Israelites found in the Pentateuch and later in the life experiences of King David, it is important to examine why the wilderness metaphor became one of the enduring root metaphors of ancient Israel, as well as in numerous prophetical passages. One might further assert that wilderness and shepherding connote a spiritual and psychological nexus that is often ignored by biblical theologians. Five general themes emerge out the wilderness imagery: abandonment, revelation, covenant, miraculous provision, and judgment.

To begin with, the Hebrew word מִדְבַּר (midbar) is usually rendered as either “wilderness”[1] or “desert.” Several translations render מִדְבַּר as “wilderness,” while other translations prefer “desert.”[2] Although both terms are similar, there are some distinctive connotative differences. Among the definitions of the word “wilderness,” the American Heritage Dictionary states:

1. An unsettled, uncultivated region left in its natural condition, especially:

a. A large wild tract of land covered with dense vegetation or forests.

b. An extensive area, such as a desert or ocean that is barren or empty; a waste.

c. A piece of land set aside to grow wild.

2. Something characterized by bewildering vastness, perilousness, or unchecked profusion: the wilderness of the city; the wilderness of counterespionage; a wilderness of voices.

In contrast, “desert” means:

1. A barren or desolate area, especially:

a. A dry, often sandy region of little rainfall, extreme temperatures, and sparse vegetation.

b. A region of permanent cold that is largely or entirely devoid of life.

c. An apparently lifeless area of water.

2. An empty or forsaken place; a wasteland: a cultural desert.

3. Archaic A wild, uncultivated, and uninhabited region.

[ME , OFr. < LL. desertum, neut. p. part of deserete, to desert.

In Hebrew, the noun מִדְבַּר includes both definitions. According to a number of modern scholars, the Sinai technically is not a desert. Professor Jacob Milgrom notes, “Although its scant rainfall cannot support cultivation, it can provide adequate pasturage for the flock.”[3] While the term מִדְבַּר can mean a wilderness, uninhabited land[4], pastureland[5], and sometimes it can denote a desert. When used as a geographical term, the מִדְבַּר is the opposite of the settled life characterized by urban or semi-urban existence.

One modern Biblical Hebrew lexicon explains, “The wilderness is often described negatively as without grapes, fountains, pools of water, rivers, pleasant places—or as in a notable statement: ‘Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?’” (Ps 78:19).[6] Regardless which definition one prefers, the wilderness, as its English etymology indicates, is a place of bewilderment, peril, isolation, detachment, wandering, desolation, and homelessness. In the מִדְבַּר we feel cut off from the world; it is a place of loneliness and desertion. For the Israelites the wilderness is the place where they discover God’s capacity to support and sustain amidst harsh living conditions. For the Israelites, foraging through the wilderness involved making a journey into the unknown.

Elsewhere in the Tanakh, the wilderness metaphor is sometimes used to connote the realm of chaos and nothingness (cf. Deut. 32:10, Job 6:18). Understandably, the ancients regarded it as a place of demons, confusion, and wild creatures that prey on its helpless victims.

For the unwary traveler, danger lurked whenever one may passage through the wilderness—especially since there are no short-cuts and ready-made paths. Earlier, one of the definitions for wilderness was “profusion,” since it was commonly feared that the wilderness might invade and threaten their ancestral land.

No wonder it was regarded as a symbol of chaos and disorder! It is easy to lose a sense of time in the wilderness. Yet, in terms of shepherding, shepherding is inseparably related to the wilderness. In a spiritual and metaphorical sense, the wilderness represents the feeling of homelessness and confusion.

Throughout the Tanakh, the Torah narratives dealing with the wilderness are often contrasted with the memories of life in Egypt. Surprisingly, the members of the Israelite nation often preferred the fleshpots, the free fish, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic to the manna of the wilderness. Being a slave in meant that Egypt would guarantee the Israelite three meals a day but only at the cost of their human dignity and their spiritual well-being.

For many, security—even if it meant living a life of bondage— seemed more preferable to the insecurity of freedom. Confronted with a choice, the Israelites could either accept their special destiny as God’s people, or bravely face whatever challenges this would entail, or else they could forfeit their spiritual destiny by submitting to a totalitarian regime that guarantees food.

The wilderness experience serves as a paradigm for all subsequent experiences dealing with the trauma of destruction and exile. The imagery of the Exodus served as a symbol that out of the ashes of destruction, God will orchestrate a new future that would restore the Jewish people back to their ancestral home—despite the prevailing political conditions and realities.

Over three thousand years later, the images of the wilderness still remain vivid and real. In today’s terms, the wilderness can serve as a metaphor for those who have experience loss, sickness, homelessness, loneliness, divorce, transition, substance abuse, and especially of life of meaninglessness.

Viktor Frankl, the founder of logotherapy, believes that the central human need, more basic than the drive for pleasure, food, or power, is the need for meaning. Human beings require a pattern and purpose that will make sense of our experiences and of the world around us. Meaninglessness threatens not only the inner world of the individual, but also threatens the identity of a society.

For Jewish Values Online:

Are Haredim changing the face of Traditional Judaism? Is the divide between the ultra-Orthodox and other denominations (Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) too great to promote a better understanding and respect between each other?

According to Jewish tradition, God’s Presence in the phenomenal world is calibrated to our actions. Indeed, actions speak louder than words, and are especially more effective than espousing the typical platitudes of faith that we are so bored hearing in the media, or for that matter—at the synagogue! With the holiday of Tisha B’Av, we read in the Talmud why God withdrew His Divine Presence from the world. The warning for future generations is all too clear: We must choose to manifest healthy images of God that bring healing to ourselves and our world.

History has shown us time and time again how God-images impact the way a religious culture treats its female members. Cultures ruled by a misogynistic conception of the Divine cannot help but treat its women in a barbarous manner. Indeed, a society that hates its women is incapable of loving anything else. Conversely, a religious culture that respects the maternal aspects of the Divine Feminine produces a community of believers where life becomes sacred and holy. The reverence for life—across the ideological spectrum—becomes the basis for all societal evolution and development. Contrary to the fundamentalist way of seeing the world, maleness is not the closest thing to godliness.

In Jewish tradition, the metaphor of this aspect of the Divine Feminine is better known as the שְׁכִינָה, (“Shekhinah), signifying, “that which dwells,” deriving from the verb [שָׁכֵן, shakhen], or [שָׁכַן, shakhan], “to dwell,” “reside” see Isaiah 60:2).

In this week’s parsha, the wording states וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם “They shall make a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell in their midst” (Exod. 25:8). The verse brilliantly captures the subtle nuances that tend go get glossed over by most translations. The verse actually says, “They shall make a sanctuary for me, that I shall dwell in them.” The more literal reading of the text suggests that God dwells not outside the human heart, but within the human heart. This interpretation explains the idea of the “Divine Indwelling,” better known as the “Shekhinah.”

As I prepared the Torah reading today, I decided to spend a few minutes and take poetic license with the Midrash. The thought occurred to me that I should write about a subject that is dear to my heart—romantic theology, also known as the “theology of love.” The topic today is: the soulful wanderings of the Shekhinah.

The language you will read is shamelessly anthropomorphic–and from a Maimonidean perspective, what I am writing is probably quite offensive. However, I do believe this interpretive midrash captures the spirit of the text. If nothing else, it is an interesting deconstruction of midrashic thought.

Abraham Joshua Heschel often observed, “God is in search of man.” In other words, our own quest for love and intimacy comes to us quite naturally, for our beloved Creator also has a similar quest. Paradoxically, our love for the Divine gives something to our Maker something that S/he does not possess. In a mystical sense, we make God’s Presence whole in the world through our acts of love and compassion. I hope you enjoy the material as much as I did writing it.

==================

I come to my garden, my sister, my bride;

I gather my myrrh with my spice,

I eat my honeycomb with my honey,

I drink my wine with my milk.

Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love.

Song of Songs 1:1

The Midrash views all of Song of Songs as an extended metaphor about God’s love for Israel. The word “my garden” has Edenic overtones and significance.

The term “gani” (“My garden,”) implies not just any “garden,” but specifically to “My garden,” i.e., the bridal chamber where a bride and groom consummate their love for one another. By saying “My bridal chamber,” the text mystically suggests a return to a time when God’s Being was originally present and revealed.

The Midrash teaches that when Moses built the Tabernacle, the Shekhinah returned to co-inhabit the earth just as She did in the days of Eden before the primal couple’s great fall. In Eden, God could be seen “walking” alongside mortals (Gen 3:8). However, after the primal couple sinned, the Shekhinah began retreating Her Presence from the earthly realm. Bereft of Her divine intimacy, Adam and his wife hid themselves because they felt alienated from the deepest dimension of their souls. Adam’s spiritual stature underwent a radical reduction.

However, the Shekhinah’s mystical ascent was far from finished, for when Cain murdered his brother Abel, the Feminine Presence felt disgusted with human violence and retreated unto the second level of Heaven in a panic.

Alas, Her ascent away from the earth still continued for when Enosh forgot his Creator when he worshiped idols, so the Shekhinah retreated to the third level; after watching more of man’s inhumanity to man, a flood occurs, and the saddened Shekhinah retreats because She could not watch Her children perish. With the passage of time, the Shekhinah develops a revulsion for violence. Once again, human cruelty chased Her one more degree away from the earth.

After the Tower Builders announced their designs to conquer the heavens, the Shekhinah retreated yet another degree because she found human arrogance repugnant. The violence of the Sodomites upset Her even more, as she wanted nothing to do with men because of their barbarism and sadism. The Shekhinah’s withdrawal from the world reached Her zenith after the Egyptians mistreated their fellow earthly brothers and sisters, by enslaving the Israelites to a life of suffering and pain. She could not bear to watch. She wondered, “Could the rift with humanity get any worst than this?”

However, the Shekhinah could not remain in a permanent state of estrangement from humanity—despite its errant ways. Abraham was the first to recognize the Shekhinah’s Reality and he sought to make her more intimate with mortals once more. Isaac’s willingness to die for Her, as a show of his love and devotion, made the Shekhinah yearn yet more for intimacy with mortals.

Through his many struggles within himself, Jacob comes to discover the Shekhinah’s luminosity and beauty and finally understands the true meaning of blessing. In an effort to purge himself from the violence that defiled his life after he and his brother Simeon massacred the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen. 34-31), Levi sought to renew his relationship with Her. The Shekhinah pitied this pathetic excuse for a human being and granted him a peacefulness of mind. She was determined to make Levi’s descendants do penance for their forefather’s crimes against humanity by making them serve as priests to their Maker. She mused, “Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future–this applies even to Levi!”

The Shekhinah brought Yochebed and Amram together, and they became the parents of Moses—the liberator of Israel. Mysteriously, She finds herself drawn back to the earth. With Moses, the Shekhinah found a lover who decided to build a new home for the Divine—The Tabernacle–a place that would permanently restore Her Presence to our world, where She would walk once more with humankind. [1]

(To be continued . . .) Continue Reading

Available Now!

Well, the time has come for me to start promoting my new book: Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Part 1: Genesis 1-3.

You can purchase the book at a nice discount at Amazon.com

You can also get it at Barnes and Nobles. For me, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby-for we create from the depths of our own being and essence. Creativity offers a remarkable pathway to discovering how God speaks and inspires our soul.

**PURIM SPECIAL ** Buy it now, you can get it for $20.70 at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Rebirth-through-Genesis-Conversation/dp/1456301713/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323359269&sr=8-2

Reviews:

“. . . all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. . . .”—Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith“

A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”
—Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought],The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“ The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.”
—Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness

“ [Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation] is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.”
—Rabbi Dr. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

“While this is a book written by a rabbi well-versed in the rabbinic tradition, one cannot read more than a few pages to discover that his research, his interests, and his appreciation of critical thought span the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia. . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.”
—Allan C. Emery III, PhD, Senior Editor of Hendrickson Publishers.

“. . . span[s] the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia. . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.”
—Paul Borgman, author of David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story

“Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis . . . adroitly moderates a virtual conver-sation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.”
—Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

Get your copy today!