Did Jesus believe in Original Sin?

Q. I know that Christians and Jews share many religious beliefs and are very close to each other in spiritual brotherhood. But Christians basically believe that they are created sinful and unclean and, therefore, need a Redeemer, Jesus, to take the sins of believers on Himself so that they may come to God’s Kingdom when they pass over. Since Jews do not have this Redeemer, how do they become pure enough to enter God’s Kingdom? I realize there is the Law, but human beings, being who and what they are, cannot keep these laws sufficiently to reach purity and freedom from sin. Christians also believe that they are able to receive the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit directs their lives and brings them to true belief in God through Christ. How does Judaism look at the Holy Spirit and is the Holy Spirit considered to be active in bringing Jews to true belief? I can answer this question myself, from a Christian point of view, but that would be a one sided answer. I would very much appreciate learning what Judaism teaches in this matter. Thank you very much.

Answer: You are correct in assuming that most Christians believe in Original Sin, to a greater or lesser degree. As to whether Jesus himself really believed in Original Sin or not, I have serious doubts. In one of the Gospels, we read about how Jesus’ disciples once asked Jesus, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’” (John 1:1). However, Jesus gives one of the most profound rabbinical answers imaginable, “Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him” (John 9:2-3).

As a Jew reading the Gospel narrative, it seems to me that Jesus explicitly disapproved of any idea that man suffers from an inherited sin. By extension, every human fault we are born with serves a spiritual purpose so that we may glorify the Creator despite our natural shortcomings. Nowhere does Jesus ever speak of anything resembling the idea of a prenatal sin. Continue reading “Did Jesus believe in Original Sin?”

The Meaning of PaRDeS: The Four Levels of Scriptural Interpretation

One of the most important hermeneutical paradigms introduced by the early and medieval rabbis is a belief that the Scriptures contain more than one layer of exegetical meaning. This intertextual approach came to be known during the medieval era by the acronym  פַּרְדֵּס”PaRDeS,” standing for “Peshat,” “Remaz,” “Derash,” and “Sod.” Briefly defined, peshat is based on the literal and factual meaning of a verse[1] and roughly corresponds to the medieval concept of sensus literalis as developed by the medieval Christian scholars Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Lyra: “that which the author intends.”[2] It is also helpful to remember that the early rabbinic approach of peshat serves to define the practical character of a community.[3] Remez (allusions) refers to the subtle types of word games and puns that are embedded in the text (cf. Gen. 1:31; 2:23; 6:8). Sometimes this may take the form of Gematria (numerology) Temurah (anagrams) and Notarikon (acrostics). Continue reading “The Meaning of PaRDeS: The Four Levels of Scriptural Interpretation”

Augustine and the “Mark of Cain”

What is the significance of the “mark of Cain” (Gen. 4:15)?

The text does not identify exactly what the sign was. Historically, this passage has often served as a scriptural support for Christian persecution of the Jews. For Cain, this was a mark of God’s special loving care and protection. For Jerome’s contemporary, Augustine, this idea proved to be a fertile concept for his comparison of Cain to the Jews. Curiously, Augustine, said nothing about this mark serving as a protective device; instead, he (and his contemporary, Jerome) subverted what was originally an act of grace and mercy into a fiendish excuse to treat the Jews with cruelty. In his “Reply to Flaustus the Manichean,”Augustine employed one of the most anti-Semitic tirades in his allegorical interpretation of Cain and Abel. Augustine wrote:

—Abel, the younger brother was killed by the elder; so too Jesus, head of the younger people, is killed by the elder people—the Jews.

—Just as Abel’s blood cursed Cain, so too does  the blood of Jesus accuses the Jews.

—As Cain was cursed from by the earth, so too unbelieving Jews are cursed from the Holy Church.

—As Cain was punished to be a mourner and an abject on the earth, so too are the Jews.
In one lurid passage Augustine wrote:

Then God says to Cain: “Thou art cursed from the earth, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother’s blood at thy hand. For thou shalt till the earth, and it shall no longer yield unto thee its strength. A mourner and an abject wanderer shalt thou be on the earth.” It is not, “Cursed is the earth,” but, “Cursed art thou from the earth, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother’s blood at thy hand. So the unbelieving people of the Jews is cursed from the earth, that is, from the Church, which in the confession of sins has opened its mouth to receive the blood shed for the remission of sins by the hand of the people that would not be under grace, but under the law. And this murderer is cursed by the Church; that is, the Church admits and avows the curse pronounced by the apostle: ‘Whoever are of the works of the law are under the curse of the law.’ Then, after saying, Cursed art thou from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive thy brother’s  blood at thy hand, what follows is not, For thou shalt till it, but, Thou shalt till the earth, and it shall not yield to thee its strength. . .”

Continue reading “Augustine and the “Mark of Cain””

The Halitzah Ceremony– And Its Modern Ethical Challenges

As mentioned earlier the levirate marriage takes place between a widow who’s husband died childless and his brother (known as the levir); halitzah (“removal”) is a ceremony that releases the woman from the obligation of Levirate marriage, allowing her to marry someone else.

Although Levirate marriage itself no longer is practiced, traditional Jews still require halitzah, formally releasing the widow from the biblically required union with her brother-in-law. The widow appears before a tribunal of five people–three of whom happen to be rabbis. After some initial questioning as to what the widow and levir intend to do, the court gives instructions that each must carry out.

Each participant must pronounce in certain phrases in Hebrew; the woman also is instructed to fast until the ceremony. The next day, a special shoe is removed from the levir’s foot. The woman approaches him and proclaims in Hebrew, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me,” to which he replies, “I do not want to take her.” The widow then removes the shoe from his foot, tosses it away, and spits on the floor in front of him, saying, “So shall it be done unto the man that does not build up his brother’s house, and his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that had his shoe loosened.” All present respond three times in unison, “he that had his shoe loosened.” Concluding prayers are read by the judges, and often a certificate that the widow is free to remarry is drawn up.

Even as late as the medieval era, rabbinic leaders like Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg, ruled that nowadays, no woman would ever consent to marrying her brother-in-law, and the practice of halitzah was no longer necessary. However, in the State of Israel today, the ultra-Orthodox rabbis (known as Haredim [= “Tremblers”], a.k.a.  “Jewish Quakers”) refuse scores of women from remarrying without undergoing the traditional biblical ceremony—despite the humiliation this causes both the woman and her family.

In Israel, a most perplexing problem occurred that revealed the awkwardness of the halitzah ceremony as a viable religious practice. An elderly lady—about 60—wanted to register her marriage with the rabbinate after being widowed for four years and divorced from her second marriage. A clerk in the office observed that she never obtained halitzah from the brother of her first husband. Nevertheless, the rabbis ruled that she had to obtain permission from her former brother-in-law.

But here’s the catch. Continue reading “The Halitzah Ceremony– And Its Modern Ethical Challenges”

Early Jewish and Christian Views on Abortion: A Comparison for Discussion

The question regarding abortion in our modern era continues to be one of the most important topics of our age; given the complexity about questions pertaining to the beginning of life, along with the technological advances that are constantly being made, no one religious tradition can be reduced to a particular perspective. Christians and Jews alike each struggle with this matter. Rather than arbitrating the issue concerning abortion, I would much rather present the texts and let the readers along with their friends debate the topic with passion. As with any intellectual discussion, it is always important to be respectful of the Other’s position. We can disagree without being disagreeable. That being said, one of the questions that ought to be raised is, “How does an individual’s personal theology affect the way s/he views abortion?” Context is everything! Another question readers might want to argue is, “What are the points of convergence and divergence among the ancients regarding abortion?”

* Judaic Sources on Abortion

Philo says: “But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape (Exod. 21:22) in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, the man who injures the pregnant woman shall die; for such a creature as that is still considered a human being, whom he [the assailant) has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world” (Special Laws 3:108:3).

Josephus says, “The Law orders all of the offspring to be brought up and forbids women either to abort or to do away with a fetus, but if she is convicted, she is viewed an infanticide because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race” (Against Apion, 2.202).

On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: A heathen is executed even for the murder of an embryo (Sanhedrin 57b).

If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life [nefesh] for that of another (Mishnah Ohalot 7:6).[1]

“When a pregnant woman is about to be executed, one does not wait for her until she gives birth; but if she has already sat on the birth stool, one waits for her until she gives birth… Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: If a woman is about to be executed one strikes her against her belly so that the child might die first, to avoid her being disgraced” (T.B. Arachin 7a-b).[2]

Elsewhere in the Talmud, we find a remarkable conversation that is purported to have taken place between the Roman Emperor Antoninus (believed to be the famous Roman philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius, who once visited the Holy Land in 175 CE, not long after the failed Bar Kochba revolt)[3] and Rabbi Judah HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishnah. The question posed is especially fascinating: When does the soul enter the human body? Is it from the moment of conception, or is it from the time the embryo is formed? At first Rabbi Judah argued for the latter, but Antoninus offers an ingenious counter argument:  He objected: ‘Can a piece of unsalted meat go for three days without becoming putrid?’ (i.e., Likewise, if the sperm-cell is not immediately endowed with a soul, it would become putrid, and then could not fertilize the ovum.) Rather, one must say that life begins from the moment of conception.’ Rabbi Judah conceded this point and even cited a scriptural reference supporting Antoninus’ point of view  (T.B. Sanhedrin 91b). It is a pity that Rabbi Judah did not cite a more explicit verse from the book of Jeremiah 1:4-5:

The word of the Lord came to me [Jeremiah]:

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you;
Before you were born, I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet concerning the
nations.

I would just like to add that unlike Christianity or even Islam, Judaism is much more comfortable with the ambiguity of a biblical text’s meaning. Interpretation is never something that is black and white. With respect to the abortion question, one can find a liberal view permitting abortion; one can find restrictive views that condemn it. Much depends upon the specific context of what a rabbi is dealing with–there are no clear cut answers. As is often the case, the interpretation is very subjective and in the eyes of the beholder.

Continue reading “Early Jewish and Christian Views on Abortion: A Comparison for Discussion”

A First Century Rabbinical Controversy: Preserving Human Life and Its Ethical Implications

 Another one of the most interesting questions found in the Talmud dealing with the matter of human survival in a hostile environment where the possibilities of survival remain limited. [1]

Two are walking on the road. In the hand of one of them is a canteen of water. If they both drink-both will die. If only one drinks—he will reach his destination alive. Ben Petura contends that it is better that both drink and they both die, rather than one see the death of his fellow. This was the accepted teaching until Rabbi Akiba came and interpreted the verse from “That thy brother may live with thee,” (Leviticus 25:36), i.e., “your life precedes the life of your fellow.” [2]

There is an interesting parallel to the Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiba debate that may be found in the Stoic writings of Cicero, who cites the Stoic Hecataeus, regarding two equally wise men who survived a shipwreck and were holding to the same wooden spar that was capable of supporting one of them. The question posed was this: Should one relinquish his hold and to save the other, and if so, which one? The Stoic thinkers reasoned that the decision had to be made based on the individual’s utility to society. The person whose objective value is less to the republic, has the duty to sacrifice himself for the more “valuable” citizen. Continue reading “A First Century Rabbinical Controversy: Preserving Human Life and Its Ethical Implications”

Pop Kabbalah and the other forms of McMysticism

Q. I recently started reading about other religions to find one that suits me and came upon Kabbalah. I started reading about it (through the most accessible books to find by Yehuda Berg) and started digging the whole thing he was selling. I liked the theories presented in his books and I agreed with the fact that the Bible was never meant to be something lived by so literally. Not to mention many of the other things talked about in his books. I knew that Kabbalah had something to do with Judaism (which I love my culture), but he never really mentioned that in the books.

So, I tried to find out more information on the internet and found out that Kabbalah is like a completely Jewish sect, and it is strictly based on the Torah. I found out that the ‘teachings’ of Berg are shunned by the Jewish community and they are not close to what Kabbalah actually is.

I am wondering, what is true Kabbalah and what is what I have started calling the ‘pop kabbalah’. I am intrigued by the things Berg says in his books, but now I am trying to figure out what exactly Kabbalah is.

I know that a rabbi was talking about how upset he was about Madonna being into Kabbalah because she was so openly pro‑gay, and apparently Kabbalah is anti gay. But maybe like how there are orthodox, conservative and reform Jews, the same goes for Kabbalah? And where can I find a book that will explain this stuff. Please tell me about “pop kabbalah.”

A. Rabbi Philip Berg (known by his followers as “the Rav”) is a colorful personality who quirks have angered many folks. In the past he was known to threaten critics with lawsuits, and needless to say, this type of behavior did not enhance his public image. Given the jealousy scholars have, I am not surprised to see people take pot-shots at knocking him down. Our society’s predisposition toward gossip is dangerous, and perhaps some of his critics deserved to be sued. To his immense credit, Rabbi Berg did what no other rabbi of his era could achieve: he made the Kabbalah accessible to many people who are (for whatever the reason) far removed from Judaism. I believe he serves a positive purpose in that regard, and if his works inspire you, by all means, continue reading them. While Rabbi Philip Berg’s organization may have suffered from some unusual quirks in the past, I have been most impressed with the Rav’s successful outreach program.

Today, in almost every major city around the globe, the Kabbalah Center has done more to bring people across the denominational divide to authentic Jewish spirituality than any other Orthodox movement—even Chabad. Rabbi Michael Berg, the Rav’s son is especially talented and is an excellent writer of Jewish mystical themes. In fact, on occasion, I have used some of his texts on the Zohar in my own Kabbalah classes.

Fortunately, Rabbi Berg and others demonstrate a lucid grasp of original texts.

What I dislike about the Kabbalah movement in general is its lack of historical objectivity when it comes to the actual formation of the Kabbalah. Contrary to Chabad, Kabbalah Center, or Aish HaTorah, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai had nothing whatsoever to do with the Zohar, but Rabbi Moshe de Leon (1250-1305) certainly did—at least according to his rich widow who revealed that her husband was just simply trying to make a profitable living—and attributing this work to a famous third century Sage would give it the mystique that would make him into a wealthy man!

Maybe one of the most important lessons of the Kabbala is for us to remember that the Torah is essentially a spiritual text and guide to holy living. To understand the meaning of the Torah, one must read in between the lines. To the Kabbalist, the Torah is a cosmic text that is full of spiritual metaphors. In an age where bible scholars often examine the Torah text as if it were a cadaver, I personally feel enriched with the Kabbalah’s approach. Yet, in all fairness to critical studies, the Torah must be studied on numerous and concurrent levels.

I for one, would encourage you to read other books on the Kabbalah that offer a far clearer and psychologically deep grasp of the Kabbalah; I think we need to be careful of shysters who scalp the public for a buck. See Adin Steinzaltz’s Thirteen Petalled Rose, Dr. Ed Hoffman’s The Way of Splendor as well as anything written by Daniel Matt, e.g., The Essential Kabbalah. Those are two excellent primers for a start, and you may want to read other books they have written as well.

I wish you well,

Yours,

Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel

Questions with regard to the afterlife.

Q My cousin said to me that when we pass away, we automatically go to heaven. I have searched the Talmud and cannot seem to find anything like that at all. Would you please tell me where I can find this or any reference to us going to heaven?

A It seems to me your grandfather was referring to a famous Mishnah found in the beginning of the 10th chapter of Sanhedrin, which states:

Continue reading “Questions with regard to the afterlife.”

Please explain the difference between Tanya and Zohar?

Q. Please explain the difference between Tanya and Zohar?

A. The Zohar (The Book of Splendor) is the central book in the literature of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah). It is attributed to Shimon bar Yoh’ai, a second century Tanna, but modern scholarship has concluded beyond any shade of doubt, that the Zohar was compiled in Spain during thirteenth-century.

Citations from the Zohar first appeared in Kabbalistic writings after 1280, and analysis of the book’s terminology and prose style shows that its real author is Mosheh de León (1240-1305), a Castilian Kabbalist. It was not unusual for scholars in those days to attribute works to long famous dead sages as a means of selling manuscripts for a hefty profit! People have been doing this since the beginning of recorded history; even today, it is not uncommon to see a new book that purports to be written by a famous person who lived in the days of antiquity.

New Testament scholars are especially well aware of this kind of shtick. In Late Antiquity, there is an entire literature  scholars now refer to as the “Pseudepigrapha.” Works like “The Life of Adam and Eve” and the “Apocalypse of Moses” are really examples of proto-midrashic writing and the Zohar is another example of that genre of literature.

To add to the mystique of the Zohar, the author  creates the existence of a secret organized group of “companions” (havrayya), who kept the secret of the Zohar to themselves. What is ironic, and is certainly a dead giveaway to the real author of the Zohar, are the stories the Zohar weaves from the Talmud pertaining to dead Amoraim who lived centuries after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The Zohar’s language is written in artificial Aramaic that is replete with numerous grammatical incongruities and Spanish words with numerous citations from other medieval works. Despite the grandiose claim about its purported author, R Mosheh de León proved to be an exceptional promoter. Say what you will about the author, the Zohar is a really a gold mine of mystical insights and treasures.

All and all, the Zohar is essentially a mystical and allegorical commentary on the various books of the Bible. It’s language is shamelessly evocative and uses very human-like similes. Sexual imagery abounds as the author attempted to express the nature and power of God’s erotic love toward Israel. Its work is truly one of the great mystical works of the last 1000 years, and it has inspired countless Jewish mystical texts ever since its first publication. Continue reading “Please explain the difference between Tanya and Zohar?”