Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

How did our ancestors regard the spoken word? What does the Torah say about the word and its power as well as its possibilities?

Biblical writers regarded the Divine Word as a cosmic force reverberating throughout the created order. According to Psalms 33:6, the Word of God animates the cosmos: בִּדְבַר יְהוָה שָׁמַיִם נַעֲשׂוּ “By the Word of the LORD the heavens were made.” To the Hebraic (as well as the Semitic) imagination, words are powerful—it is the stuff reality is made of. In Biblical Hebrew, among its various nuances, דָּבַר(dabhar) connotes a “thing” (Exod. 35:1); or a “promise” (Deut. 15:6); and a “decree” (Jer. 51:12) or “affair” or “history” (1 Kgs. 14:12). [1] In each of these examples, the term connotes something substantive and real. Everything that exists in the world is viewed as a manifestation of the Word of God that animates it.

The intuitions of primal cultures never cease to fascinate and intrigue me. The spoken word was often used as a supernatural weapon; the curse of a soothsayer was believed to be powerful enough to invoke the forces of death itself. One of the most well known biblical stories found, the book of Numbers relates how King Balak of Moab, hires the mighty soothsayer Balaam to curse the approaching Israelite people (Num. 22:6). From a modern perspective, one could describe Balaam as a motivational speaker; he is skilled in the art of inflaming the masses. Anti-Semites in the Middle East perform television documentaries on how Jews use Muslim and Christian blood to make their Passover matzas (see Memri.org for hundreds of examples).

Despite our modernity, in many ways we fail to appreciate the impact that words have on our lives, as well as on the lives of others. As a result, the word in contemporary society tends to be devalued, yet their impact on peoples’ lives has not diminished to the least. There are many practical reasons for this phenomenon. Since the invention of the printing press, the world has become more literate than at any other time of recorded history. Along with the proliferation of literacy, the word has become increasingly more secularized due to advances made in human technology. The telegraph, telephone, television, radio, email, the Internet, and other forms of electronic digital media and telecommunication devices have inundated modern humans with a continuous stream of words—wherever they go—twenty-four hours a day.

Since words tend to be all the more diminished in light of the Internet, people will often rush through their written communications without giving much attention to what they are saying, or for that matter, how they are saying something. The imagination, when left unchecked, can often take two people or more to a unexpected places that create anger, resentment, not to mention—humiliation especially if the email has been sent to multiple receivers, many of whom the original writers do not even know. A reputation of a person can be destroyed with a single keystroke. With complete unanimity, an angry or spiteful posting can be effortlessly circulated for countless of other lurkers to read. Continue Reading

The Reconstructionist theologian Mordechai Kaplan tried very hard to dismiss the notion of “Chosen people” because he felt it was an antiquated idea thatis “morally untenable”, because anyone who has such beliefs “implies the superiority of the elect community and the rejection of others” (Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot, newsletter, Sept. 1986, pages D, E. ).

1. Kaplan and I have never seen eye to eye on any theological issue-except for his concept of the right for a Jewish community to define its own ideation and philosophy-which could even paradoxically include the Haredi, and their right to define the rules for being a member of their community (hardly something he would ever have imagined).

Yet, “chosenness” need not be defined in such a narrow bandwidth; Jung explains that “chosenness” in terms of individuation, i.e., the process of each us realizing our own unique potential; practically every people who has ever inhabited the planet believes that they are “special” or “chosen” or “destined” for something great (e.g., the Chinese, the Japanese, the American concept of Manifest Destiny, Marxian view of Utopia, the Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu views of salvation). Unfortunately, mean religious systems around the world view “chosenness” in terms of racial superiority and even some foolish rabbis in the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community sometimes think in those terms.

Could “chosenness” also pertain to Christianity or Islam from a Judaic perspective? Certainly according to Maimonides; less so according to Franz Rosensweig, whose “Star of Redemption,” i.e., the Magen David symbol represents the special relationship between Judaism and Christianity; at the center of the star is Judaism, while the rays represent the teachings of Christianity that spread out throughout the world. This is a novel interpretation, one that I actually like and use when working with members of the Christian community. Both Judaism and Christianity stress the importance of ethical monotheism, whereas in my opinion, Islam only stresses the importance of absolute monotheism. Muslims will obviously call this an oversimplification, but the lack of democratic rights and respect for the rights of the individual reveals a religious philosophy that is essentially totalitarian in nature.

Historically, Christianity subscribed to a doctrine known as supersessionism, which believes that Christian believers have replaced physical Israelites as God’s chosen people. The Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, according to this view, has resulted in God’s “rejection” of the Jewish people’s chosen status. Fortunately, many liberal Christian thinkers and even evangelical theologians recognize that Christian “chosenness” means to be “grafted” to the people of Israel and their destiny. Organizations like Bridges for Peace and other evangelical communities I personally know of certainly feel this way.

Personally, I think that in biblical terms, Israel is called to witness the just and ethical God to the world-a point that I think is still relevant even today-could you imagine the British sending food staples to the Nazis during WWII, yet, Israel provides the people of Gaza with so many of their needs, despite the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel. If you want to know what “chosenness” means try thinking about that for a moment!

Maybe, too many of us are like Kafka’s story about the messenger who forgot the message; nevertheless, the best way to envision “chosenness” is to see in as noblese obligese, not unlike the kind of behavior the knights of the medieval era who were expected to uphold and live by the highest values of moral decency and nobility, which is in keeping with the prophetic message of Second Isaiah, who describes the spiritual vocation of Israel as, “a light unto the nations” (Isa. 49:6).

An interesting but poignant incident took place last week on one of my favorite websites where the participants were discussing the new Orthodox Siddur (prayer book) that the Chief Rabbi of Britain recently wrote. The participants made comparisons to the Artscroll prayer book and the discussions suddenly took an unexpected turn—one that was surprising and tragic.

One of the forum’s participants named Mordechai wrote the following message about a conversation he had with a well-known Chabad rabbi in Florida.

My soul-mate and dear wife of more than thirty years passed away last Thursday after a brutal eight year fight with cancer. This has been devastating.

I approached a Chabad Rabbi just a few hours ago with the following question: “What Jewish prayers do you recommend for my wife; she was not Jewish.” To which he replied: “There are no Jewish prayers for her. Don’t do it again!”

These words sliced through me like a finely honed Samurai Sword. Momentarily a vision of a dead rabbi appeared before me. But with restraint, I said: “Rabbi thank you for your thoughts and have a good Pesach and left.”

So it goes. Well is it so then that our grand religion has no prayers for the non-Jewish deceased spouse?

As I read this heart rendering message, I thought about Martin Buber’s incredible little book entitled, “Meetings,” a book where Buber tells tales about serendipitous conversations with ordinary people that proved to be spiritual messages from God. According to Buber’s concept of the “I and Thou,” God is always triangulated in every human relationship. How we relate to the Other person we unexpectedly meet ultimately says something about our relationship with God. Although the topic of the original thread was an important and fascinating, I felt a voice inside me commanding me to offer words of consolation that might possibly soothe a grieving soul who was crying out for help. Technology has a great potential for holiness, provided it is used in a constructive and compassionate way. Mordechai’s experience is visceral reminder that one cannot ignore the pain of the Other, and conduct business as usual. After he thanked me for my words of condolence, I wrote back:

Thank you Mordechai for your kind words; your original posting about your wife’s death is a reminder that there are issues that are so much more important than the usual politics of cyberspace conversation. Yet, for all of its shortcomings, I believe cyberspace can create a community of friends who look out for one another and offer support, howbeit small it might be, to those of us who go through hard times.

When I read your story, in a moment of clarity, I realized that nothing else really mattered. Although many of us have never met one another, we feel a kinship with you, as I am sure many others here at website would all agree.

I hope others here will give you the love and support that you need at this time. Angels don’t have to be spiritual beings, as Wooly once said (I think), we are here for you-you are not alone. Please hold on those thoughts and heartfelt prayers, because many of us have crossed this bridge before, much like you are crossing it this moment in time.

As to the specific prayers that could be said, well, my favorite prayer for such an occasion is the El Maley Rachamim prayer, which reads:

God full of mercy who dwells on high
Grant perfect rest on the wings of Your Divine Presence
In the lofty heights of the holy and pure
who shine as the brightness of the heavens
to the soul of (mention the name of your beloved wife) __________
who has gone to her eternal rest
as all her family and friends
pray for the spiritual elevation of her soul.

May her resting place shall be in the Garden of Eden.

May the Master of mercy will care for her under the protection of His wings for all eternity. And bind her soul in the bond of everlasting life.

The Lord is her inheritance; may she know only eternal peace, in a realm where we are never any less than what we are at our best, blessed with the fullness of being, surrounded by God’s love now and forever and let us say Amen.

At every Yahrzeit minyan we conduct, I always conclude with the El Maley Prayer; I will say it even if we do not have a minyan, since this is a prayer that does not require a minyan. More importantly, unlike the Kaddish that is a generic prayer, the El Maley Rachameem Prayer is person specific, which in my view, makes it vastly superior to the Kaddish Prayer for that particular reason.

In my subsequent communications with Mordechai, I added:

I would also add that a Kaddish can certainly be said for a righteous gentile or a gentile parent (cf. Responsa of Yahavah Da’at 6:60; Leket Hakdama HaHadash c. 46-87, p. 316)), or one of the truly good and pious people of the world. Incidentally, the Halacha is very clear that a Jewish person may say Kaddish for a righteous and decent non-Jewish person; many Jews have done so especially for those fine and decent people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. Sanctifying God’s Name is not limited to only Jews; the morally decent people of all faiths have a share in the world to come and are worthy of being remembered through the recitation of the Kaddish Prayer. More specifically, since this non-Jewish spouse supported her husband’s willingness to observe the Jewish faith, this too makes her worthy of being remembered through the Kaddish Prayer. Over the years I have personally seen many non-Jewish parents display remarkable sensitivity and commitment in raising their children with a strong Jewish education, while supporting the father’s desire to convert his children to Judaism.

Shortly after writing my initial response, I spoke to a leading Chabad rabbi I have known since my teen years in New York; he too was shocked by the rabbi’s utter lack of humanity. What the Florida Chabad rabbi said was heartless and goes against the ethics and ethos of our faith. I will keep you and your wife in my prayers; holidays are always difficult whenever someone has lost a loved one. I hope that you will stay with some friends over the Pesach holiday, so you will not have to be alone. A good friend is worth more than all the gold in the world.

May God fill you with solace and comfort during these difficult days ahead. May God grant you comfort among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Q. I’m confused about who wrestled with Jacob the night before he was to meet with his brother Esau. My NIV bible states it was GOD himself. My Chumash (Sages commentary) states it may have been Satan that wrestled with Jacob. If it was Satan why did he give Jacob the name Israel and why would Jacob ask Satan to bless him? If it was GOD, what was the purpose for the confrontation?

A. Good question.

Without a doubt, this section is indeed one of the most difficult to understand in the Bible.

The identity of Jacob’s assailant has been the subject of over 2000 years of speculation. Jacob didn’t know who ambushed him. He assumed it was a man; from Jacob’s view, his assailant could have been anyone — maybe even Esau himself! As the wrestling match continued, Jacob finally realized that he was fighting with an angel. The Midrash identifies the mysterious assailant as the guardian spirit of Esau.

The battle between Jacob and the angel represents the archetypal struggle between good and evil. Some of the Hellenistic Judaic thinkers suggest this entire episode reflected an inner struggle within Jacob’s own soul, and may have even occurred in a dream or vision. Given the surreal nature of the narrative I think this clearly was the case. Jacob’s struggle with the angel in has the qualities of a visionary experience.

God wanted Jacob to know that Esau was not his real enemy, rather, Jacob’s himself! The angelic being Jacob wrestled was really a symbolization of himself. Once he learned to resolve his inner conflict, dealing with Esau would prove quite easy.

When the Sages described the mysterious assailant as Satan, they wished to convey an important symbolic lesson. In the Tanakh, Satan is not an enemy of God, nor is he a “fallen angel” — such a notion is a Christian myth. God uses Satan to test the moral caliber of a man, and in this case,

Again, let me reiterate that God uses Satan to help Jacob realize that his real enemy is none other than himself!

Sun Tzu (6th–5th century BCE.) may have expressed this idea best in his Art of War, (ch. 3, Axiom:):

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel

From Amazon.com

You can buy this book for practically pennies of the original price!!

Challenging, spiritually healing work!,

By	loves life (NC

Using the shepherd imagery of Psalm 23, Michael Samuel powerfully depicts God as a shepherd who constantly cares for His sheep. The Lord Is My Shepherd: The Theology of A Caring God awoke in me afresh the truth that God is for me and with me always-both in the pits and the peaks of life-leading, guarding, guiding, providing and nurturing me through my journey on this earth. That reminder has invigorated my spiritual life and inspired me to consciously relate to others as God relates to me. This work is a must read for all who question, struggle and who seek guidance in our challenging times.

Brilliant work!, June 16, 2008 By Theology lover “Samson” (Moscow, NY) - See all my rev was very intellectually stimulated and inspired by this book, and everyone of our club’s readers really enjoyed reading it. If any of you have struggled with faith, this is one book you cannot afford to ignore. Although the book was written twelve years ago, the material found in it is quite excellent and current. Samuel is correct in asserting that dysfunctional images of God are the source of a lot of suffering in the world. Psalm 23 addresses the issues we all have with God’s relationship with the world. One of the best parts of the book is how Samuel explains the Book of Job; equally compelling are the mediatations a number of people did on Psalm 23. This exercise ought to be tried in more congregations. I think you will enjoy “The Lord is My Shepherd: The Theology of the Caring God.” Help other customers find the most helpful reviews Why no voting buttons? We don’t let customers vote on their own reviews, so the voting buttons appear only when you look at reviews submitted by others. Permalink Comment

What does a shepherd do, anyway?, December 28, 2000 By David Willig “rabbidw” (perth amboy, nj USA) - See all my re We live in an urban society and don’t understand the shepherd mataphor. Rabbi Samuel shows us the true caring necessary in the ancient role of shepherd and applies the insights of the Psalm to our view of God. This book is meant for everyone who thinks about, or questions, the idea of a personal God. It is a scholarly work, well researched, with citations covering the historical period from Plato to the present and philosophically from the atheist to the pious believer. But don’t let me scare you. It is written for the laymen, entertaining and at times, witty. If you wrestle with the concept of a caring God in the 21st century, you must read this book

Does a clone have a soul? God creates human who have souls, but when people create people, do they have a soul? Where do they go when they die? If a clone is not considered to possess a soul, would it be permitted to clone a human being for merely its spare parts? Is Cloning permitted according to the Halacha?

A. Some years ago, the Israeli Chief Rabbi Lau offered an opinion on cloning. The Chief Rabbi said that although there is no specific prohibition in Jewish Law to utilize artificial genetics to reproduce a human being, it is entirely against basic Jewish conceptions to do so. “The Torah gave a specific dispensation for doctors to use their knowledge to cure, and even to lengthen life, but the formation of new life goes way beyond that. We have no permission to enter the domain of the Creator on questions of life and death.” He said that he does not know of one rabbi who permits genetic engineering in this manner.

The Chief Rabbi’s comments, although provocative, makes one wonder: Is the Halacha as obvious as the Chief Rabbi thinks? Perhaps the matter is not as simple as Rabbi Lau. Continue Reading

The fact that evil confronts good, gives man the possibility of victory.

— R. YEHIEL MICHAEL OF ZLOTSHOV, Hassidic Aphorism

Let us assume for a moment that the rabbis and the allegorical school are correct in identifying the serpent as a metaphor for the evil inclination. But why did God create the impulse for evil? Would humankind have been better off not having to deal with such an urge? The Zohar raises this question, and offers the reader a most intriguing thought-provoking response with respect to the phenomena of moral evil (for more information regarding the relationship concerning natural evil and God, see my notes on Genesis 1:2 and the excursus at the end of Genesis 6):

• Should it be asked, ‘How can a man love Him with the evil inclination? Is not the evil inclination the seducer, preventing man from approaching the Blessed Holy One to serve him? How, then, can man use the evil inclination as an instrument of love for God?’ The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination” by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learnt how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Holy One. Here is a mystery entrusted to the masters of esoteric lore. All that the Holy One has made, both above and below, is for the purpose of manifesting His Glory and to make all things serve Him. Now, would a master permit his servant to work against him, and to continually lay plans to counteract his will? It is the will of the Holy One that men should worship Him and walk in the way of truth that they may be rewarded with many benefits. How, then, can an evil servant come and counteract the will of his Master by tempting man to walk in an evil way, seducing him from the good way and causing him to disobey the will of his Lord? But, indeed, the “evil inclination” also does through this the will of its Lord. It is as if a king had an only son whom he dearly loved, and just for that cause he warned him not to be enticed by bad women, saying that anyone defiled might not enter his palace. The son promised his father to do his will in love. Outside the palace, however, there lived a beautiful harlot. After a while the King thought: “I will see how far my son is devoted to me.” So he sent to the woman and commanded her, saying: “Entice my son, for I wish to test his obedience to my will.” So she used every trick in her book to lure him into her embraces. But the son, being good, obeyed the commandment of his father. He refused her allurements and thrust her from him. Then did the father rejoice exceedingly, and, bringing him in to the innermost chamber of the palace, bestowed upon him gifts from his best treasures, and showed him every honor. And who was the cause of all this joy? The harlot! Is she to be praised or blamed for it? To be praised, surely, on all accounts, for on the one hand she fulfilled the king’s command and carried out his plans for him, and on the other hand she caused the son to receive all the good gifts and deepened the king’s love to his son.

The Zoharic passage just cited illustrates a remarkable concept that exists in many of the primal religions of the world, the notion of the coincidentia oppositorum, also known as “the reunion of opposites.” As Eliade has already noted, the lost memory of this unitive existence with reality emanates from a part of humanity that yearns to overcome the duality and opposites we now experience in a post-Fallen world. Eliade adds that: “On the level of presystematic thought, the mystery of totality embodies man’s endeavor to reach a perspective in which the contraries are abolished, the Spirit of Evil reveals itself as a stimulant for the Good.

Zohar 2:162b–163a (all translations of the Zohar are from the Soncino translation).

What does “rabbi” mean, and when was the title “rabbi” first introduced?

This question is much more complex than most people realize. However, antecedents to the term רַב (rab) has some basis the Tanakh, where it denotes “great,” or chief (2 Kgs 18:17; Isa 36:2). Elsewhere the expression rab māg means “chief of princes” (Jer 39:3, 13), while rab tabbāḥım, is “captain of the guard” (2 Kgs 25:8, etc.). By the time of the 1^st century, the title of “rabbi” probably derived from the term, “Raboni,” meaning, “My Master” and was roughly the equivalent of saying “Sir,” or “My Lord”-especially if one happens to be wealthy or politically powerful!

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 of Jesus eight times (1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; 20:16), Reflecting an older and probably more correct tradition, Luke never refers to Jesus by this title at all, but simply refers to him as Luke uses διδάσκαλος (didaskalos = “teacher,”) 7:40; 8:49; 22:11. 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.[1]

According to the Mishnah, the Sages of the 1st century never used this title at all. The Sages simply went by their ordinary names, e.g., Simon the Just, Jose b. Joezer, Joshua b. Peraiah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah, Shemaiah and Abtalion, Hillel and Shammai never used the title, although sometimes Hillel was referred to as “Rabbi’ but I suspect these citations reflect unconscious tampering with the original names by scribes who may have assumed the name “Rabbi” was already in vogue in the 1st century, when in actuality it wasn’t.

One of the greatest rabbinical scholars of the 10^th century, Rav Sherira’ Gaon of Babylonia, writes that the title “rabbi” was not used before the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. He explains, “The designation rabbi came into use with those who were ordained then after the Temple’s destruction beginning with Rabbi Tsadok and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The practice spread from the disciples of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakk’ai.” Before that time, great sages (like Hillel the Elder) were cited without honorific title. However, sometime during the first century C.E., the title “rabban” (Aram., “our master”) was accorded to the patriarch and other especially distinguished sages. Later on, the epithet “Rav” was later employed in Babylonia as equivalent to rabbi in Palestine.

Rabbinical ordination often claims that “semicha” (ordination) is a tradition holds that derives from the time of Moses; leaders of every generation are thus purported to have been conferred by this unbroken succession of “laying on of hands.” Even Moses is referred to frequently as “our rabbi.” Verily, based on the literature and history we know about ancient times, no such specific ceremony existed—especially during the first century C.E.[2]

[1]The Gospels confirms, there was no class of “rabbis” as we have today, but instead there were classes of scribes (i.e., “Scripture experts,” γραμματεῖς, (grammateis), who functioned as the “undisputed spiritual leaders of the people,” as well as “lawyers” (νομικοί, nomikoi) Matt. 22:35; Luke 7:30; 10:25) or “teachers of the law” (νομοδιδάσκαλοι, nomodidaskaloi, cf. Luke 5:17; Acts 5:34).