Nature Boy
Mottel stands at the Milky kitchen sink and Ruchi at the Meaty one. Sleeves rolled up, both scrubbing pots, their lids and other paraphernalia. Each investing elbow grease to glean a sparkling utensil. The cheerful rivalry between them would have been apparent, if only there were an observer. But there is none. The children are engrossed, quietly and contentedly in eating their light and late supper. The Motzei Shabbos cleanup is an operation in full swing.
Soon the kitchen will be perfectly tidy, spotless, a testament to combined effort and team spirit. The little ones will be tucked up and asleep in no time, no doubt.
There was a boy, a very strange enchanted boy; they say he wandered very far, very far, over land and sea….
His guitar case open on his bed, Cody sits at his desk, a pen in hand. A spotlight hangs from above. He puts the pen down, lifts his instrument, and strums a chord or two. He feels inspired, in creative mode, something good will spring forth, he knows instinctively.
A little shy, and sad of eye, but very wise was he…
It was five years ago, that he had left, left the circle. Land that he knew, people that he had loved, and they had loved him too. But it was ideologically untrue he had felt, and so, he had since wandered very far, very far.
He pens a word it becomes a sentence. No one disturbs him. No one at all. There is no one. She has not found him yet. Perhaps because he isn’t really the outgoing type.
The children are asleep; Ruchi presents Motel with a coffee and some cake, fancy pastry, all home produce, beautifully arranged on a small and simple dish. They discuss this year’s Purim theme. Mexican dancers the kids will be, with maroon hats and outfits. Ruchi shows him some matching gift bags, that really are just perfect.
And then one day, one magic day he passed my way…
“Volcanic Ash, Molten Rock, Lava flow…” he writes. Not quite right, he thinks. It hits Cody like a thunder bolt, Mottel! Mottel! How was Mottel?
Cody and Motel were soul mates, best of friends in days gone by. Cody had left before Motel had married. Such a kind and genuine soul Motel was, a kindered spirit, Cody thought. The only one that had not disowned him after he had left, who had not judged him for leaving.
Cody knew that in Motel’s heart there was doubt. He too doubted the way. But Motel was not the type to uproot; to leave behind wanton pain and desolation.
Sifting through his meagre few belongings that had faithfully come along on this epic journey, he finds his blue book. His heart pounds, as he dials Motel’s number.
While we spoke of many things fools and kings….
Motel tells Cody. He tells him of Freidi, Chaim, Suri and Zishe. How Freidi has pale blonde hair, and has the sweetest face, the deepest eyes. “She is a bright kid,” he says.
Ruchi leaves Mottel to it. She plants a silent peck on Mottel’s cheek, and leaves for bed.
Cody learns how Zishe, Motel’s youngest, had started school this term. Motel learns that Cody is a musician and a singer. He has a small gig here and there, nothing steady and nothing big though.
“There are no girls at the moment,” Cody says.
Cody asks about the system, whether things are still the same. He asks if the Dayan still was at the Yeshiva on Thursdays. The Dayan had enjoyed their inquiring innovations and they had had a reciprocative soft spot for him too. Motel says he doesn’t know, and that he hardly sees the Dayan now.
Cody asks if Meir still aimlessly wanders the streets muttering profusely. They both laugh. They used to accompany Meir together on his pointless patrols, Chesky and Motel back in the day. Motel tells him that Meir still asks how and where, the other guy, “Der Andere chevreman”, is. Motel says that by that he means Cody, Chesky.
“Your wife, Ruchi, isn’t it?” “Yes” says Motel. “How is she?” Motel tells Cody how they had just skilfully and efficiently done battle and won over the Motzei Shabbos chaos; that the kids were now sound asleep in bed.
“Do you and Ruchi, love each other” Cody blurts out in an upfront and darting interjection. Cody knows the system well, and is unapologetic about having asked such a question as he waits for an answer.
Motel sighs, he does not know what to say.
Cody lifts his guitar and tells Motel to listen up. A gentle strum becomes a furious burst and Cody emits a heaven piercing cry:
“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love, and be loved in return…”
With that they end the catch-up call, and they both hang up.
The lyrics and Cody’s raw and authentic voice still resonate strongly, “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return…”
Motel walks into the boys room, he watches Zishe asleep. He kisses Zishe with laden eyes. He walks into Freidi’s room, he stands there for a while. He kisses Freidi who stirs in her sleep, “… Just to love and be loved in return…”
He makes his way towards the master bedroom, Did he love Ruchi? Did he love Ruchi? What a complex question. He often wonders that. He paces the length of the hallway, back and forth, endlessly.
Ruchi is fast asleep. He gazes at her. Her chest rises and falls with every breath, “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return.”
Far away, Cody finishes his verse, and packs the guitar in its carry case. At 1 am, he locks the door and gets into bed, alone.
Motel makes his way into Ruchi’s bed. Gently he caresses her forehead as a verse regurgitates itself in his head in seamless repetition: “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return.”
Ruchi is awake. She wipes Motel’s tears with her thumb, “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return…” They embrace as one.
Printable Version
Beautiful. Quite moving. Perhaps b/c I can relate.
Like this comment?
2
Motel did that?
Like this comment?
1
Nice touching post…
Like this comment?
2
they had sex with the lights on for the forst time..
Like this comment?
1
Well at least she cares for him.. That’s more than many chassidish/arranged marriges have!
Like this comment?
1
Thank you,
How do you work that one out, Chanyok?
Like this comment?
1
Lovely piece, poignant, honest. A home lost that cannot be regained. Dedication to quest despite the loneliness.
Some of your sentences tell so much with so few words:
“He pens a word it becomes a sentence. No one disturbs him. No one at all. There is no one. She has not found him yet.”
(Trifles: You might consider changing the name Motel for fear that the average English reader will associate Motel with roadside hotel. Also, in the opening image, I don’t think you need the word “their” before “lids,” and perhaps name the particular “paraphernalia” since a precise detail will probably be more evocative.)
Again, lovely piece. Thanks for sharing.
Like this comment?
1
Excellent song, gracefully applied to real life.
Like this comment?
1
He is Motel, forbidden, what am I to do. You are right about the rest.
Meagan, Cody likes the David Bowie, Moulin Rouge soundtrack version.
Like this comment?
1
How about Mottel?
Like this comment?
1
Is there a *hidden meaning* to Cody Motel?
Like this comment?
1
I think the point is that Cody changed his name but Motel didn’t.
בשביל שלשה דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם ואת מלבושם
or
בשביל שלשה דברים לא נגאלו ישראל מעולם החרדי שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם ואת מלבושם
Like this comment?
2
Lovely post. I think the love is there, if not in a mind blowing romantic way, but in a private, reliable giving and protective way.
The question is, is that enough? or is Cody right to give that up, even if he may never find a girl in another world?
Like this comment?
2
Forbidden there is no hidden meaning in that. I think the average English speaker who visits these pages might have come across the name Motel…
If it was ok for Norman Jewson and the likes, I am happy with it too
Like this comment?
1
Right Fluffy those are the questions, the love Motel has, is of the same kind that he has for his kids, it would seem, and as a reader pointed out to me, he visits them first.
You think Cody might never find a girl?
Like this comment?
1
neo-maskil, freedom from *fear and trembling* indeed seems to begin with seizing the right to name….
Pen Tivokeish, I fear that most of us who leave, leave deeply wounded; it is a terrible struggle, this struggle with self, with mother, father, siblings…. When I think of those of us who survive the trauma, I think of a passage in Banville: “open to the world like a wound.” In my experience, once one learns to tame the wound, companionship and love become more attainable–and one does learn, to tame this wound, one learns to assuage it and live with it, one does….
(re Motel: I like that you stick to the Yiddish name. I admit that in a longer piece, I caved in after native English readers told me they did not know how to pronounce Feygeleh and that it annoyed them; same with the Hebrew Yehiel, where these readers kept stressing the wrong syllable. I opted for more common Biblical names. What jarred me, a little, with Motel was that native American speakers probably stress the wrong syllable. I thought Mottel (with 2 t’s) might help, a little. Still, the transposition of cultures remains a most tiring part of writing about the Hasidic world. In the end, I pick not what works best for my ear and eye, but what I think may work best for the reader(s) I sometimes imagine….)
Like this comment?
1
This is my first comment here on this site. I have found it a few days ago, and I think I’ve read already everything here. Now, I am in crisis mode, and it’s all you guys’ fault!
This post totally ripped me apart, and sums up my confusion pretty well. I am Motel, my wife is Ruchi, and their family is mine. I do not have a friend like Cody, but deep inside me burns a yearning to be Cody. I have a happy life with an amazing wife, and when I hear that my 4 year old was screaming and had a fit because the other kids didn’t leave over any for Totty, oy does my heart swell. On the other hand, my wife will never understand what I am about, and even though she is a good woman and respects that I am unique, I feel like we are on different wavelengths, and I crave for the depth of feeling that I imagine LOVE can bring. Is it just a fantasy which can never really be satisfied for longer than the short time before any couple falls back into the routine which we call life? Because I DO have intense feelings for my wife, and I probably be happy with what I have, but every so often, the restlessness reawakens.
I would like to participate in this great website, and I would love to win some friends from here, but my time is very much limited these days, as I am in graduate school (yes, I am as chassidish as they come…), family obligations and so on… I will try to add my 2 cents whenever I can, and if anyone wants to contact me you may do so at kafhakela@yahoo.com
Like this comment?
1
Welcome Kaf and thank you. I am glad that my piece struck a chord with you.
This site has indeed been a huge success I think so far, and it seems to be growing still. Hope indeed to see you around.
Like this comment?
1
Pen,
I am not chasid but I know many. I was introduced to my wife by a Rabbi and we actually talked on the phone for a month before seeing each other. I got to know her before seeing her. So I knew her goodness was deeper than her appearance. Our marriage is strong and our love is deep. She does not share all of my views and why would I care? Why does she have to be everything? I am not everything. If she makes a good home and raises good children in our partnership, how am I alone? In reading the stories in this site and the petty complaints, I get “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence” feeling from the writers. This is a parable that means that you have to cope with your surroundings–they will not cope with you or in other words, happiness comes from inside you, not the outside. You chassidim have many things that others do not. Maybe if you weren’t set up, you wouldn’t marry at all. Happens a lot in the outside world. Maybe you would be attracted to the wrong person, giving you a life of misery. How can you count G-d’ blessing while davening and not see that they are real around you. Is it a loss of faith or a questioning of faith? I am a scientist, yet I know that you cant get something from nothing. Life cannot just come from nothing. The first building block of atheism has no proof and no logic. The only thing that Man knows is that life comes from life. Atheism requires faith in magic. The theory that life came from a coincidence in a primordial chemical sea is bs. Something that was done by accident should be able to be replicated on purpose. Guess what? We cant make even the smallest form of life. Judaism requires faith in Hashem. What is so bad about Hashem? He gave humans their first day off. Everybody loves a day off. Atheists would never have given a day off. Even other religions didnt give a day off. It is illogical to not work for one day a week if you are able to and it increases your output. For one day a week, Judaism has given the world freedom. Even under the worst despotic regimes, this has been adopted. So the choice is faith in magic, which has given the world nothing. Or faith in Hashem, which has given the world everything. I hope your enlightenment brings you full circle.
I dont understand the losing faith in Hashem.
Like this comment?
1
I personally would refrain from issuing blanket judgemental statements such as those you spout in “petty complaints”, “grass is greener”. You do your cause more harm than good by displaying such lack of sensitivity and propriety.
Atheism requires no faith at all, it is not a belief system, but rather is the lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence.
Regarding synthetic life, I suggest you look at the work that is currently under way by Craig Venter and others. Synthetic life will in all likeliness be reality within the next decade or so.
Like this comment?
1
Comedy at its best, I only hope that you were being serious.
Pen,
I am not chasid but I know many. I was introduced to my wife by a Rabbi and we actually talked on the phone for a month before seeing each other. I got to know her before seeing her. So I knew her goodness was deeper than her appearance.
[Is she that ugly?]
Our marriage is strong and our love is deep. She does not share all of my views and why would I care? Why does she have to be everything? I am not everything.
[you’re not? No kidding!] If she makes a good home and raises good children in our partnership, how am I alone?
[What does raising children and making a good home do to alieviate loneliness? You like her because she is a kid raiser? I thought her goodness was deeper than her appearance]
In reading the stories in this site and the petty complaints, I get “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence” feeling from the writers. This is a parable that means that you have to cope with your surroundings–they will not cope with you or in other words, happiness comes from inside you, not the outside.
[Ahhhhh, that’s what the parable means. I was forever perplexed about the meaning. Many thanks for explaining it to us!!]
You chassidim have many things that others do not. [like?]
Maybe if you weren’t set up, you wouldn’t marry at all.
[That would be very desirable. It would mean the end of this distorted sect, that you only know through friends]
Happens a lot in the outside world. Maybe you would be attracted to the wrong person, giving you a life of misery.
[Are you saying being “set up” is a solution to a problem? Amazingly the chasissish couple deals with the same problems you mentioned despite being “set up”]
How can you count G-d’ blessing while davening and not see that they are real around you.
[that’s why I don’t daven]
Is it a loss of faith or a questioning of faith?
[Deep stuff man, deep]
I am a scientist,
[the bombshell of your rant!! You’re kidding me!! I hope you’re not involved in the project to find a vaccine for cancer, and if you are they should bottle the project quickly]
yet I know that you can’t get something from nothing. Life cannot just come from nothing. The first building block of atheism has no proof and no logic.
[Neither does the first building block of thieism]
The only thing that Man knows is that life comes from life.
[ I know a few other things too]
Atheism requires faith in magic.
[Yeah right, atheists don’t continuously pump their chest about the miracles they perpetuated before the proper means to record them were available. Faith and belief in the supernatural is prime in theism not in atheism.]
The theory that life came from a coincidence in a primordial chemical sea is bs.
[chemical sea? Where did you read that?] Something that was done by accident should be able to be replicated on purpose. Guess what? We cant make even the smallest form of life. Judaism requires faith in Hashem.
[first truism in your rant]
What is so bad about Hashem?
[oh don’t get me started on him]
He gave humans their first day off.
[he also created lollipops, lets praise him] Everybody loves a day off. Atheists would never have given a day off.
[how do you know?]
Even other religions didnt give a day off.[you are painfully misinformed]
It is illogical to not work for one day a week if you are able to and it increases your output.
[“increase output”, you’re an economist too?] For one day a week, Judaism has given the world freedom.
[Uhuuu, it wasn’t those damned French or American patriots, it was us. We also gave the world potato kugel. The world should acknowledge us for that too]
Even under the worst despotic regimes, this has been adopted. So the choice is faith in magic, which has given the world nothing. Or faith in Hashem, which has given the world everything.
[I choose faith in you, you are my master!]
I hope your enlightenment brings you full circle.I dont understand the losing faith in Hashem.
[what do you understand?]
Like this comment?
4
We also gave the world potato kugel.
[you are painfully misinformed].
Like this comment?
1
Ok Pen, but overnight kugel is definetley our thing.
Like this comment?
2
Pen, I will not even reply to the lunatic above. Craig Venter deals in sequencing DNA, not creating life. He is working on recombinant DNA which is splicing genes into existing microbes that are already alive. So this is not creating life, it is more like breeding plants with each other to produce different characteristics. Sorry to pop your balloon. So we are back to magic. Anyways, the reason even pagan philosophers believe in G-d, is that we are more than the sum of our parts. The “life” ingredient is not just a biocomputer. The other paradox is creativity. You can have a 13 story computer and it cannot invent a thing. Garbage in garbage out. Maybe this is how we are “in G-d’s image”. We too can create. Create ideas. The foundation of faith in G-d has been tested by time. The laws of the torah, the ten commandments have no meaning under atheism. They are only relative if there is no G-d. Like most atheists, you have to believe that there is no evil in the world. Look around, it is almost not restrained. A true atheist is devoid of ammunition and succumbs to personal attacks (see above)
Like this comment?
1
Moishe, you say that you’re a scientist, but your posts, (in reality, rants) do not have any logical continuity or one step deduced from the previous one. There are huge gaps in your arguments, so I find it hard to believe that you’re really what you proclaim to be. You do not speak the language of your proffession.
I myself am a “believer”, albeit with doubts, and I was ashamed at what you wrote….
So my doubts: although I believe that Rabbinic Judaism makes a lot of sense, “judaism”, not the sick society we live in, (be’er hagolah of the maharal relly does a great job explaining and answered may of my questions), I don’t think there is any way to either really prove or disprove the existence of god and the truth of judaism. So currently, I am in the process of redifining belief and emunah…..so that in the end I will find myself in the category of “BELIEVERS”… kinda like painting the rings on the tree around the arrow…I know….
On another note, today is chof alef adar, so l’chaim, in huts gepoilt ales gits!
One more thing, I have a great idea for an article, but I have neither the time nor skills to write it, so if you are interested in the idea, and you understand the emotional undercurrents of a true chinyok that sins occasionally…contact me, either here or at kafhakela@yahoo.com.
Like this comment?
1
Pen, I will not even reply to the lunatic above.
[Ancient strategy. I thought a scientist might employ better strategy]
Craig Venter deals in sequencing DNA, not creating life. He is working on recombinant DNA which is splicing genes into existing microbes that are already alive. So this is not creating life, it is more like breeding plants with each other to produce different characteristics.
[Unlike you, I won’t pretend to be a scientist and I definitely don’t regress to copy-pasting from Wikipedia]
Sorry to pop your balloon. So we are back to magic. Anyways
[Is “Anyways” supposed to imply that you have dealt a decisive blow in your argumentation? You are going soft on Pen? I hardly see it as such]
the reason even pagan philosophers believe in G-d, is that we are more than the sum of our parts. The “life” ingredient is not just a biocomputer. The other paradox is creativity. You can have a 13 story computer and it cannot invent a thing. Garbage in garbage out.
[I must give you this though, it seems that you have really hearkened and internalized Amnon Yitzchak style dogma; you can be the next big pedagogue on the return to God scene, I give my approval.]
Maybe this is how we are “in G-d’s image”. We too can create. Create ideas. The foundation of faith in G-d has been tested by time.[Tested how? Tested where? By time? Through time? In time? In which lab? You do that sort of testing in your lab? You have reduced God to a chemical soluble? I want some of it!!] The laws of the torah, the ten commandments have no meaning under atheism.
[Duhh]
They are only relative if there is no G-d. Like most atheists, you have to believe that there is no evil in the world.
[You have not only championed theology and religion, you are also an expert on atheism. You are a truly desirable and exquisite individual. I would love to meet up]
Look around, it is almost not restrained. A true atheist is devoid of ammunition and succumbs to personal attacks (see above)
[Did you just characterize me as a true atheist? Well Im not, but I’ll take the compliment regardless, thanks!]
Like this comment?
1
I think I “get” what Moishe is doing. He is gonna save us. And you know how? By the sheer logic, eloquence and beauty of his arguments, we will just sit here with mouths agape…reminds me of “hachorosh vehamasger”.
The funny thing is, that as I said above, I lean towards belief (in judaism, not the “system”), but arguments such as Moishe’s make it seem to be not more than hogwash and stupidity.
Like this comment?
1
Moishe, is the logic of your argument that:
1) Pagan philosophers believed in God, therefore there must be a God!
2) We can create other things like God,
therefore there must be a God!
3) Torah laws has no meaning under atheism, therefore there must be a God!
4) There is evil in the world! But atheists believe that there is no evil,
therefore there must be a God!
5) Atheists succumb to personal attacks,
therefore there must be a God!
Atheism, in the true sense, isn’t a belief, an argument or a line of logic, it is simply the absence of belief in something which cannot be defined and is self-contradictory.
The first thing I would ask you, is to simply define what exactly God is? Because whenever someone tries to explain it, it always ends up with “he is beyond our understanding” Whilst that might be the case, anything and everything is beyond our understanding, so in what way is God unique? If he is beyond our understanding, why is it relevant?
Like this comment?
2
The whole idea of atheism comes from logic, and now you despise the logic that creates it. If atheism is a truth then explain to me how it produces something from nothing. How does it produce life? The answer is that life was created by something supernatural. So we have the Torah as evidence for Hashem. What do we have as evidence for magic? That is why there is no such thing as atheism (except as a tool for socialism to malign morality).
Like this comment?
1
Moishe, you’re quite something. I like you, you know. In a, “Oh, he’s so sweet and naively illogical, it’s cute” kind of way.
“The answer is that life was created by something supernatural.”
So, anything we don’t understand we conveniently attribute it to “something supernatural,” is that it? I do hope you don’t conduct your “scientific experiments” that way. Science would break down if that is the answer to all we don’t understand.
“So we have the Torah as evidence for Hashem.”
The Torah is evidence for an ancient people with a vivid imagination. No more, no less.
“What do we have as evidence for magic?”
Nothing. Which is why no sane person should believe in it. Remind me again how magic entered this discussion…?
“That is why there is no such thing as atheism.”
Your deductions are so delightfully absurd, but this one takes the cake. Just one little problem: there is such a thing as atheism. You know, the idea that if we have no evidence for God we shouldn’t believe in it. I know, it’s a nutty proposition. But hey, some people just like to have evidence before they believe in something. Kinda weird, huh?
“except as a tool for socialism to malign morality…”
Man, you keep getting better and better. Although, pray tell, what do you have against socialism? I know many fine folks who buy it all the time. Comes cheap at my corner deli. So scrumptious, especially that crunchy inside. You can bake it, cook it, broil it, or even have it pickled. But it’s comes best deep fried, with a side of onion rings.
(Wait… maybe I don’t know what socialism is… But then again, do you?)
Like this comment?
1
R&C: “Comedy at its best, I only hope that you were being serious.”
I only hope that he wasn’t.
Like this comment?
1
Maybe you are right, Moshe! I can also make a very logical argument “Flying seapods in the sky, don’t exist because I have no idea what seapods are and there is no evidence for it”
That is a very logical argument!
Atheism doesn’t claim that it how it produces something from nothing, much like the notion of God doesn’t explain it (who created God?)
You are trying to come with an answer to a question which you fabricated based on how you perceive the world.
“How does it produce life?”
The reasoning that “there is no creation without a creator” only seems like a question because of the way you perceive things around you, once you make yourself understand things in the supernatural form, what does creation even mean? Maybe you are right and there is a supernatural sphere, but if it is beyond our understanding, it is not even worth pondering about, let alone lead an entire lifestyle based on it.
You are right, there is no such thing as atheism towards God, much like there is such a thing as Atheism towards seapods. The reason why some people do define themselves as atheists, is to overcome the many people who believe in something which even they claim is beyond their understanding.
btw, I am certainly not socialist, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Don’t people like yourself always claim “don’t judge a belief by its believers”
Like this comment?
1
I think that guy is just playing devil’s advocate
Like this comment?
1
It is nice that you comment on this site, and even you such a believer, I wonder why you find the articles here so interesting. Do you think it is possible that you believe in G-d out of convenience? Because you find it difficult to understand the world around you, the belief in G-d is a satisfying answer? What if there is another answer, which you have not yet discovered? Can both be right? I heard Amnon Yitzchak once argue that even if you except that it is only 50/50 if there is a G-d or not, is it worth the risk not living by his rules, given that he might exist? Is that your strategy in life? Well, maybe there are multiple G-ds and you need to satisfy them all, then again they are all mutually exclusive. If you support the wrong team, you might end up in gehenom (chas v’sholem), if your choice is successful “Bingo” you go to gan eden, otherwise “Thou shall be damned”. This is quite a dilemma, maybe you can daven for a different G-d every day and hope that you at least get some Gan Eden, although you won’t get all the bonus scores that a true believer would. But your argument is very strong, the worse thing is to be an atheist, because then you are certainly not pleasing any G-d and will definitely be damned forever.
Like this comment?
1
HR I don’t know if you don’t understand or don’t want to understand the foundations of your new faith, “Atheism”. You have invested so much in this that I know it is hard to let go. Your life will be meaningless without it and, if you truly understand it, meaningless with it. If, as all atheists say, religion is the answer to Man’s question of how and why we are here, then how does atheism answer that question? Atheism answers questions and makes you feel superior to those who believe in Hashem, only if you dont understand atheism. Atheists say science describes the origin of life. This is a completely false premise. It does not. The only important question that leads to everything else is not answered by atheism. Yeah as you can see in this thread, everybody makes jokes and demeans me even though I am talking in the language of a good atheist, logic. On the outside you joke but on the inside, perhaps I have awakened a sleeping giant. I feel nothing but sorrow when reading the vexations of perfectly good chassidic individuals that question their faith. What a terrible place to be. Especially if the logic that brought you there is false. Conversely, if talking on just an emotional level, what is that goal that we all try to achieve? Is it happiness? Joy? In free societies like the USA we have in the constitution “the right to pursue happiness”. How will that goal be attained with atheism? Atheism has to lead to corruption because it takes away the premise for morality. If you go down that road it leads to the loss of security, the second most important need for happiness (the first being sustenance). Since all other needs for happiness follow these, how are you comforted?
Like this comment?
1
Behayme
I dont believe in hell. I think believing in hell is a poor negative reason for religion in general and Judaism specifically. I believe hell is here on earth, in your own mind, or in your own life, if you wish it. It is not described in the written Torah. This negates my “fear” but leads me to question yours. Is that what lead you to religion in the first place or is that what lead you out? There are so many positive attributes to Judaism, so what made you look for the negatives, even where they don’t exist or are not emphasized? There may not be empirical answers here but there are a lot of internalized questions and struggles. I write here, not because I care for your souls, but because I care for your lives, and those you affect. I was led here by a story written about Pen, where I detected hesitation and an internal conflict. Reading about him helped me to understand his views. There are many here who may not share his story and so I don’t know who I am replying to.
Like this comment?
1
moishe
how do you define “meaning” in life? Do you think that meanin inevitably means “religion”? Who says life needs a meaning at all? And maybe meaning means having a real good time here? Please put aside your pre defined ideas about judaisim and try to see if your arguments are rationalized or you simply bark facts which are programmed into a religious person since childhood.
Like this comment?
1
You read a story about Pen? Can you give me the link? Pen, maybe you’d like to give me the link….I am interested!
Like this comment?
1
Moishe
you state that we have the torah as evidence for hashem, do you know that even according to torah sources the Torah was only written, edited, and combined into a text document by Ezra Hasofer a THOUSAND years later? Till then it was only handed down orally, now imagine a news gossip today which starts on any given day at one end of town and by the time it reaches the other end, the story has taken a whole new dimension, it’s twisted and turned, a whole new story, that’s a week, now imagine a story travelling a “thousand years”?? How’s that for “logic”?
Like this comment?
1
Insider, I’m wondering about your facts. The final redactor(s), who was possibly Ezra, is/are believed to be from the Priestly school, somewhere around the 5th century bce. Since the Sinai event allegedly occurred in the 13th century bce or thereabouts, how do you get the 1000 years number?
Like this comment?
1
brenda, Ezra Hasofer was from the first group of the “Oleh Bavel” the babilonian pilgrimes and started with the building of the second temple, that was one thousand years after the Sinai event
Like this comment?
1
Moishe, Pen is absolutely right about Venter.
Mycoplasma laboratorium, is a bacteria that Venter and his team intend to synthesize using ALL synthetic DNA. Whilst they base the new bacteria on Mycoplasma genitalium, by removing genes until there was a minimal amount of genes, they do however synthesize the DNA for the new Mycoplasma laboratorium in vitro, and you have the audacity to say that this is merely like cross breeding plants?
Another scientist a Dr George Church has already built a functional synthetic ribosome using enzymes in vitro.
Whilst at the moment we do need other pre-existing life forms to process the artificial DNA, we already have synthetic DNA and synthetic ribosome’s, the two most vital components required for synthetic life.
Indeed as a result Church and others have said that they expect a fully synthetic microbial to be reality within five to ten years.
Like this comment?
1
Insider, I am no scholar of biblical history, but I’m quite certain your facts are off. For one thing, the Bible wasn’t written in a single generation or by a single writer. And while Ezra may possibly have written part of it or been its final redactor, large chunks of the Bible were written earlier. Besides, the thousand years number doesn’t add up, if I recall the dates correctly. At most, I think there may be 800 or 850 years between the Sinai event and Ezra’s writing. Any scholars here who can confirm or refute this?
Like this comment?
1
What is more important about the torah, is that it was written by four different authors.
Like this comment?
1
Well, 4 or 5 (there’s a possible H — for Holiness — group who wrote the second half of Leviticus) *groups* of authors, not single authors.
Like this comment?
1
Martin,
They need a living cell and then they just exchange parts, some of them, like the DNA can be synthesized in known sequences. The living process cannot be started artificially. It has to already be there. Venter himself does not say he can create life.
Like this comment?
1
Let’s see:
40 years in the desert
480 until the first beis hamikdosh
410 years the first temple
70 years in Bavel
is a total of exactly 1000! wow
insider, can you show me mekoros that the Torah wasn’t written until Ezra? The gemara in Gittin talks about megilla megilla nitna, but that was until the Torah was finished.
I would like to know if you have a source for it, from Chazal, not from secular sources.
Like this comment?
1
For kafhakela:
http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/28970/the-chasidic-blogger-who-doesnt-believe-god
Like this comment?
1
Of course Moishe, that is what I said, they are not there yet but are pretty darn close. A decade was the claim not NOW.
Like this comment?
1
Insider,
Sources “in” the Torah say that it was written, and brought down from Mt Sinai. Whether it was lost or not, we will never know. It is interesting that the Parsha this week included story of the Israelites worshiping a Golden Cow after waiting for Moses for 40 days. This story, which negatively portrays the Jewish people would probably have been removed by an editor who just wanted to frame a religion. But it was not. This could be because the truth had to be conveyed, good or bad. Anyways, the discussion is not about atheism any more. I am glad that we solved that atheism is just another religion, more like idol worship believing in magic. That atheism does not have an answer for how life began or that answer is that it was created by something unknown, like G-d. Its actually been a great discussion. Insider also says that the meaning of life is just “feeling good”. Without the laws of the Torah or the laws that they propagated on earth, “feeling good” might mean raping or stealing from your neighbor. You cant rely on codes or morals you don’t believe in. Formed from false religions. The Golden Rule wont save you from an altered eye that alters all.
Like this comment?
1
Martin,
That is just conjecture. It is a process, not a thing. And if you knew more about it you would know it cannot be done… Except in a Frankenstein movie.
Like this comment?
1
Whilst I have given a breakdown of how the process actually works what they have achieved and how, so that you and other like you can actually understand these processes, the best you can do is ad-hominems and childish plant pot comparisons.
Remember that you claimed that Venter was only involved in Recombinant DNA (an old process which you might have come across in your high school lab if you studied restriction enzymes) and in DNA sequencing.
This is extreme intellectual dishonesty, it really is, shame sir shame.
Like this comment?
1
Martin,
You’re the one that claimed they would create life within 10 years. You are just making this up as you go along. Who has claimed they can create life? As far as I know, only you. Making parts of an organism and creating life are two different things, not related at all. Except in your sentences. You should stand behind your remarks, not distance yourself from them. I hardly know where you stand.
Like this comment?
1
At most, I think there may be 800 or 850 years between the Sinai event and Ezra’s writing.
Quite right Brenda, quite right. You highlight the the imperfection of our Mesorah and its missing years.
Like this comment?
1
I don’t know why I bother:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.100-second-genesis-life-but-not-as-we-know-it.html
Like this comment?
1
Thanx Esther.
For Pen;
I read the article, and I myself am in a similar situation, as I am sure many others are. I definitely do see the beauty in a lot of what Judaism has to offer, and I enjoy it. Maybe it has nothing to do with religion, but the family life and culture isn’t too bad. I would probably living in some dirty bachelor pad in a seedy area if not for the constraints of religion……..long story. The point I do want to make, is that they quote you as saying that you worry for your kids, with them being part of the problem economically. That part is not caused so much by religion as it is by the repressive society we live in, and I find that people have a lot more liberty to educate themselves and do something with their life, a lot more than you would think. Remember the parable of the Bal Shem, about the walls aroung the king’s palace which were constructed of paper, and as soon as you breached them you realized that they were nothing. I myself am in graduate school, and my kids love learning and knowledge. They learn well in cheder, and with my prodding they have learned to enjoy their learning, and on the same note I make sure they have an abundance of science and history books available to them. And surprisingly, I do not find much resistance to any of it. I actually did have a discussion with my father about it, after my mother went on a wild rant for an hour that I am “making kalye” (is there a translation for that, lol) my generations, so I explained to my father what I am doing, and even though he wasn’t fully satisfied, all he said was that I am in uncharted territory. I suspect, and this is what I told him, that the uncharted territory where I am headed might be the future, and I would like that to happen. Even a true believer in Judaism has to admit that that is probably the only way to save Judaism from the piles of garbage and balogne that it finds itself in nowadays and return in to some purer form. Only the future will tell.
Sorry for this disjointed rant, the earlier discussion with moishe was boring me already. Maybe I just do not have the mental capacity to understand what Moishe is saying, but it is waaaaaaaaaaaay over my head!
Like this comment?
1
Martin,
From your article: “David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has been saying that scientists would create synthetic life in “five or 10 years” for three decades” doesn’t instill a lot of confidence. Craig Venter says in this article “I keep trying to make it clear – we’re not creating life from scratch,” I guess he doesn’t agree with you either. The article is hardly scientific, more like a science fiction. They go from alien life forms of a second genesis (unproved) to a part of RNA virus (not really life) and the rest is just a bunch of fluff. It reminds me of articles in the 1950′s saying we would all have flying cars like the Jetsons. The difference is that we really could have flying cars. We just cant create life. The scientists in this article even admit the part they make cannot survive without their supplying all the other life processes. This is more akin to keeping an organ alive than creating a living organism. I bother responding to you because it is your sort of nonsense that gives credit to atheism that it does not earn or deserve.
Like this comment?
1
I disputed what you said namely “Craig Venter deals in sequencing DNA, not creating life. He is working on recombinant DNA which is splicing genes into existing microbes that are already alive.”
No he does not, and Pen is right that he and others are part of the synthetic life project. He has the DNA part under his belt
I made it abundantly clear however that: “Whilst at the moment we do need other pre-existing life forms to process the artificial DNA, we already have synthetic DNA and synthetic ribosomes, the two most vital components required for synthetic life.”
I said that: “Church and others have said that they expect a fully synthetic microbial to be reality within five to ten years.” Not that Venter says that.
Venter is a scientist AND an investor and says that HE is not interested in proving people like you wrong.
Others like Church do say that though.
“The finishing line could be in sight after geneticists Professor George Church and Dr Michael Jewett, of Harvard Medical School, told a synthetic biology conference in Hong Kong that they had synthetically created part of a cell, called a ribosome.
The breakthrough offers hope that they could create an entire cell; something Prof Church believes would be a relatively minor challenge.
He said: “There’s nothing you’d expect to go wrong – the way we expected things to go wrong with the assembly.” And his detractor in the article:
However, according to Dr Anthony Forster, of Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, who is also creating a synthetic living cell in a test tube with Prof Church, “until you actually try this you won’t know”.
“Having said that we know cells can do it so we should be able to do it sooner or later.”
So by all accounts it is is question of when, not if.
I guess if we can create life, then the primordial soup becomes real and God no longer exists. So there is a potential A-theist within you yet.
Like this comment?
1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4974917/Artificial-life-could-be-created-within-five-years.html
Like this comment?
1
I am unconvinced. Even they are cautious about what they say (lest they be labeled crackpots). Deamer has been wrong for 30 years. But it doesn’t take much to convince you. Your proof is wishful thinking?
Like this comment?
1
Brenda, Insider, and Kaf –Sorry for responding so late, I was hampered down by other stuff, so here is my 2 sense on the subject discussed up-thread.
Bible Criticism is a very complicated field of study. Sadly I don’t know enough about it to comment on it, but following I have some Jewish sources on Ezra’s role and involvement in the authorship, redaction, and editing of the written torah.
The Rambam’s position is that every word of the Pentateuch was written by the lord and handed over to mosses at Sinai and whoever doesn’t believe that is an apostate, but there is strong evidence within the Holy Scriptures itself and in latter rabbinical text to the contrary.
First there is a sublime passage from Kings 2, chapter 22 where it’s quite apparent that the torah wasn’t around, and it suddenly appeared. I am not an expert on hermeneutics, but I don’t think it’s needed to interpret this chapter; the passage talks for itself. The question that arises after a careful reading should be: Was the torah just hidden and rediscovered or was it a newly authored or collected book revealed to the masses under the pretence of the discovery of a long lost treasure?
וַיֹּאמֶר חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל עַל-שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה
מָצָאתִי בְּבֵית יְהוָה וַיִּתֵּן חִלְקִיָּה אֶת-הַסֵּפֶר אֶל-שָׁפָן וַיִּקְרָאֵהו וַיָּבֹא שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּבָר וַיֹּאמֶר הִתִּיכוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף הַנִּמְצָא בַבַּיִת וַיִּתְּנֻהוּ עַל-יַד עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה הַמֻּפְקָדִים בֵּית יְהוָה. וַיַּגֵּד שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר לַמֶּלֶךְ לֵאמֹר סֵפֶר נָתַן לִי חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ שָׁפָן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-דִּבְרֵי סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה וַיִּקְרַע אֶת-בְּגָדָיו. וַיְצַו הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן וְאֶת-עַכְבּוֹר בֶּן-מִיכָיָה וְאֵת שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר וְאֵת עֲשָׂיָה עֶבֶד-הַמֶּלֶךְ לֵאמֹר. לְכוּ דִרְשׁוּ אֶת-יְהוָה בַּעֲדִי וּבְעַד-הָעָם וּבְעַד כָּל-יְהוּדָה עַל-דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר הַנִּמְצָא הַזֶּה כִּי-גְדוֹלָה חֲמַת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר-הִיא נִצְּתָה בָנוּ עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-שָׁמְעוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ עַל-דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכָל-הַכָּתוּב עָלֵינוּ. וַיֵּלֶךְ חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וַאֲחִיקָם וְעַכְבּוֹר וְשָׁפָן וַעֲשָׂיָה אֶל-חֻלְדָּה הַנְּבִיאָה אֵשֶׁת שַׁלֻּם בֶּן-תִּקְוָה בֶּן-חַרְחַס שֹׁמֵר הַבְּגָדִים וְהִיא יֹשֶׁבֶת בִּירוּשָׁלִַם בַּמִּשְׁנֶה וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלֶיהָ. וַתֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִמְרוּ לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי. כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה הִנְנִי מֵבִיא רָעָה אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וְעַל-יֹשְׁבָיו אֵת כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר אֲשֶׁר קָרָא מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה. תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עֲזָבוּנִי וַיְקַטְּרוּ לֵאלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לְמַעַן הַכְעִיסֵנִי בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵיהֶם וְנִצְּתָה חֲמָתִי בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וְלֹא תִכְבֶּה. וְאֶל-מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה הַשֹּׁלֵחַ אֶתְכֶם לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-יְהוָה כֹּה תֹאמְרוּ אֵלָיו כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁמָעְתָּ. יַעַן רַךְ-לְבָבְךָ וַתִּכָּנַע מִפְּנֵי יְהוָה בְּשָׁמְעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי עַל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וְעַל-יֹשְׁבָיו לִהְיוֹת לְשַׁמָּה וְלִקְלָלָה וַתִּקְרַע אֶת-בְּגָדֶיךָ וַתִּבְכֶּה לְפָנָי וְגַם אָנֹכִי שָׁמַעְתִּי נְאֻם-יְהוָה. לָכֵן הִנְנִי אֹסִפְךָ עַל-אֲבֹתֶיךָ וְנֶאֱסַפְתָּ אֶל-קִבְרֹתֶיךָ בְּשָׁלוֹם וְלֹא-תִרְאֶינָה עֵינֶיךָ בְּכֹל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי מֵבִיא עַל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וַיָּשִׁבוּ אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּבָר.
Here is the King James version:
And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
9: And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD.
10: And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
11: And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
12: And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying,
13: Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.
14: So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
15: And she said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me,
16: Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:
17: Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.
18: But to the king of Judah which sent you to inquire of the LORD, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard;
19: Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the LORD, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the LORD.
20: Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.
Like this comment?
1
Here is another beautiful passage from Nehemia , chapter 8 where it seems that not only were the masses unaware that a sacred book exists, they didn’t practice for generations some of the most basic mitzvoth. They were unaware of the holidays of Succoth and Rosh Hashuneh. Interesting to note that when the holidays are reintroduced to the people by Ezra and his colleagues, there is no mention of Yom Kippur. Could it be a later addition to Jewish law? Who knows.
וַיֵּאָסְפוּ כָל-הָעָם, כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד, אֶל-הָרְחוֹב, אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי שַׁעַר-הַמָּיִם; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לְעֶזְרָא הַסֹּפֵר–לְהָבִיא אֶת-סֵפֶר תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל. וַיָּבִיא עֶזְרָא הַכֹּהֵן אֶת-הַתּוֹרָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּהָל, מֵאִישׁ וְעַד-אִשָּׁה, וְכֹל, מֵבִין לִשְׁמֹעַ–בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי. וַיִּקְרָא-בוֹ לִפְנֵי הָרְחוֹב אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי שַׁעַר-הַמַּיִם, מִן-הָאוֹר עַד-מַחֲצִית הַיּוֹם–נֶגֶד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים, וְהַמְּבִינִים; וְאָזְנֵי כָל-הָעָם, אֶל-סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה. וַיַּעֲמֹד עֶזְרָא הַסֹּפֵר, עַל-מִגְדַּל-עֵץ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לַדָּבָר, וַיַּעֲמֹד אֶצְלוֹ מַתִּתְיָה וְשֶׁמַע וַעֲנָיָה וְאוּרִיָּה וְחִלְקִיָּה וּמַעֲשֵׂיָה, עַל-יְמִינוֹ; וּמִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ, פְּדָיָה וּמִישָׁאֵל וּמַלְכִּיָּה וְחָשֻׁם וְחַשְׁבַּדָּנָה–זְכַרְיָה מְשֻׁלָּם. וַיִּפְתַּח עֶזְרָא הַסֵּפֶר לְעֵינֵי כָל-הָעָם, כִּי-מֵעַל כָּל-הָעָם הָיָה; וּכְפִתְחוֹ, עָמְדוּ כָל-הָעָם. וַיְבָרֶךְ עֶזְרָא, אֶת-יְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים הַגָּדוֹל; וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל-הָעָם אָמֵן אָמֵן, בְּמֹעַל יְדֵיהֶם, וַיִּקְּדוּ וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַיהוָה, אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה.וְיֵשׁוּעַ וּבָנִי וְשֵׁרֵבְיָה יָמִין עַקּוּב שַׁבְּתַי הוֹדִיָּה מַעֲשֵׂיָה קְלִיטָא עֲזַרְיָה יוֹזָבָד חָנָן פְּלָאיָה, וְהַלְוִיִּם–מְבִינִים אֶת-הָעָם, לַתּוֹרָה; וְהָעָם, עַל-עָמְדָם. וַיִּקְרְאוּ בַסֵּפֶר בְּתוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים, מְפֹרָשׁ; וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל, וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא.וַיֹּאמֶר נְחֶמְיָה הוּא הַתִּרְשָׁתָא וְעֶזְרָא הַכֹּהֵן הַסֹּפֵר וְהַלְוִיִּם הַמְּבִינִים אֶת-הָעָם לְכָל-הָעָם, הַיּוֹם קָדֹשׁ-הוּא לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם–אַל-תִּתְאַבְּלוּ, וְאַל-תִּבְכּוּ: כִּי בוֹכִים כָּל-הָעָם, כְּשָׁמְעָם אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה.וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מַשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ מַמְתַקִּים, וְשִׁלְחוּ מָנוֹת לְאֵין נָכוֹן לוֹ–כִּי-קָדוֹשׁ הַיּוֹם, לַאֲדֹנֵינוּ; וְאַל-תֵּעָצֵבוּ, כִּי-חֶדְוַת יְהוָה הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם. וְהַלְוִיִּם מַחְשִׁים לְכָל-הָעָם, לֵאמֹר הַסּוּ–כִּי הַיּוֹם, קָדֹשׁ; וְאַל-תֵּעָצֵבוּ. וַיֵּלְכוּ כָל-הָעָם לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת, וּלְשַׁלַּח מָנוֹת, וְלַעֲשׂוֹת, שִׂמְחָה גְדוֹלָה: כִּי הֵבִינוּ בַּדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר הוֹדִיעוּ לָהֶם. וּבַיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי נֶאֶסְפוּ רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לְכָל-הָעָם, הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם, אֶל-עֶזְרָא, הַסֹּפֵר–וּלְהַשְׂכִּיל, אֶל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה. וַיִּמְצְאוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי. וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ, וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל-עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר–צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת: לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת, כַּכָּתוּב. וַיֵּצְאוּ הָעָם, וַיָּבִיאוּ, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם סֻכּוֹת אִישׁ עַל-גַּגּוֹ וּבְחַצְרֹתֵיהֶם, וּבְחַצְרוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים–וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר אֶפְרָיִם. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָל-הַקָּהָל הַשָּׁבִים מִן-הַשְּׁבִי סֻכּוֹת, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בַסֻּכּוֹת–כִּי לֹא-עָשׂוּ מִימֵי יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן-נוּן כֵּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד הַיּוֹם הַהוּא; וַתְּהִי שִׂמְחָה, גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד. וַיִּקְרָא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים, יוֹם בְּיוֹם–מִן-הַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, עַד הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-חָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת כַּמִּשְׁפָּט.
And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
2: And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
3: And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.
4: And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
5: And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7: Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8: So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
9: And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.
10: Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.
11: So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved.
12: And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.
13: And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to understand the words of the law.
14: And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
15: And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.
16: So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim.
17: And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.
18: Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.
Like this comment?
1
Here is a passage from Tractate Sanhedrin (21a) that clearly indicates that the written torah went through a process of editing. There was a definite change from Hebrew script to Assyrian script done by Ezra. The question only remains whether he fixed or changed other things too? I would venture to say that once you have evidence for tampering with the supposedly immaculate word of God, nothing can be taken at face value.
Another point that’s quite apparent from this Talmudic text is the equality the Talmud seems to grant to Ezra and Moses regarding the presentation of the torah. One can say that the early Rabbis had some inclination or doubt whether the torah was revealed through Ezra or Mosses. In an effort to offset this seeming quagmire they ascribe equal potency and legitimacy to Ezra and Moses. Read:
אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה תניא רבי יוסי אומר ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל אילמלא קדמו משה במשה הוא אומר (שמות יט) ומשה עלה אל האלהים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז) הוא עזרא עלה מבבל מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה אף עלייה האמור להלן תורה במשה הוא אומר (דברים ד) ואותי צוה ה’ בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז) כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את תורת ה’ ולעשות וללמד בישראל חוק ומשפט ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נשתנה על ידו הכתב שנאמר(עזרא ד) וכתב הנשתוון כתוב ארמית ומתורגם ארמית וכתיב (דנייאל ה) לא כהלין כתבא למיקרא ופשרא להודעא למלכא וכתיב (דברים יז) וכתב את משנה התורה הזאת כתב הראוי להשתנות למה נקרא אשורית שעלה עמהם מאשור תניא רבי אומר בתחלה בכתב זה ניתנה תורה לישראל כיון שחטאו נהפך להן לרועץ כיון שחזרו בהן החזירו להם שנאמר (זכריה ט) שובו לביצרון אסירי התקוה גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב לך למה נקרא שמה אשורית שמאושרת בכתב רשב”א אומר משום ר’ אליעזר בן פרטא שאמר משום רבי אלעזר המודעי כתב זה לא נשתנה כל עיקר שנאמר (שמות כז) ווי העמודים מה עמודים לא נשתנו אף ווים לא נשתנו ואומר (אסתר ח) ואל היהודים ככתבם וכלשונם מה לשונם לא נשתנה אף כתבם לא נשתנה אלא מה אני מקיים את משנה התורה הזאת לשתי תורות אחת שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו ואחת שמונחת לו בבית גנזיו אותה שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו עושה אותה כמין קמיע ותולה בזרועו שנאמר (תהילים טז) שויתי ה’ לנגדי תמיד ואידך האי שויתי מאי דריש ביה ההוא מיבעי ליה כדרב חנה בר ביזנא דאמר רב חנה בר ביזנא אר”ש חסידא המתפלל צריך שיראה עצמו כאילו שכינה כנגדו שנאמר שויתי ה’ לנגדי תמיד לר”ש דאמר כתב זה לא נשתנה מאי לא כהלין כתבא למיקרא אמר רב בגימטריא איכתיב להון יטת יטת אידך פוגחמט מאי פריש להו (דנייאל ה) מנא מנא תקל ופרסין מנא מנא אלהא מלכותך [והשלמה] תקיל תקילתא במאזניא והשתכחת חסיר [פרס] פריסת מלכותך ויהיבת למדי ופרס ושמואל אמר ממתוס ננקפי אאלרן ור’ יוחנן אמר אנם אנם לקת ניסרפו רב אשי אמר נמא נמא קתל פורסין:
Like this comment?
1
Here is a curious passage from Avot D’rebbi Nathan, chapter 34 unit 4.
“הנסתרות לה’ אלוקינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו נקוד על לנו ולבנינו נקוד על לנו ולבנינו ועל ע’ שבעד. למה? אלא כך אמר עזרא אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר לי מפני מה כתבת כך (כלומר והנגלות לנו ולבנינו)? אומר אני לו הלא ניקדתי עליהן ואם אומר לי יפה כתבת אעביר נקודה מעליהן.
Translation: the phrase hanistoros l’hashem elokeynu vehaniglos lunu ulvunenyu has spot marks on some of the words and letters.
Why? This is what Ezra the Scribe said: “If Elijah will appear and question why did you write this, I will reply: I put marks on these words. In the instance he will say “you wrote well” I will remove the marks.”
According to the Avot De’rebbi Nathan, Ezra clearly wrote either parts or the whole, torah. He was uncertain about certain phrases so he demarked them for future consideration and possibile authorization by a mythical figure.
There is also a passage in the Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) that I can’t seem to remember its place where it clearly states that Ezra found different scrolls that had different versions of the written torah, and he redacted with the methodology of 2 against 1. In essence, where he found 2 agreeable versions against one, he used the agreeing versions in his final product. This just shows that Ezra was heavily involoved in the editing of the torah. Again the question begs for resolution, did he only edit previous written scrolls, or did he tamper with the nature of the text itself?
Other sources of note. The gemorah in Bava Basrah where there are conflicting opinions as to who wrote the last 8 verses of the Pentateuch and some of the other canonized books.
The Gemorah in Megilah that someone mentioned already, where it says “Megilah, megilah nitnuh”.
There are many more sources and mekoires, I only brought down what I remember at the moment, which is very little.
Here is a link to an essay by Professor David Wiess-Halivini on Ezra’s role in the redaction of the torah, that might be of interest
.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n2_v47/ai_21042662/?tag=content;col1
Moshe, I strongly suggest you study religion, especially Judaism before you bash atheism. You have properly been defrocked and unmasked as to your outrageous claims of being a scientist by some of the members of this august community. If not science, at least torah! Don’t respond, you have a lot of studying to do. Run to the closest Bais Medrah, open a gemureh and strat studying, The Torah is vast!!
Like this comment?
1
R and C:
The only source that I didn’t know, is the one from Avos Derebbi Nosson. I can add to the list, such as how Divrei Haymim came to be. I do not remember with certainty, but I think the first Rashi in Divrei Hayamim has something interesting to say about it. Also, the gemara about menatzpich tzofim omrim might be pertinent to our discussion. Having said all that, these things don’t necessarily bother me. If you look at these things “from outside in” they might seem troubling, but if you look at them “from the inside”, with a religious view, the answers given for all of these are in my opinion perfectly fine. Especially taking into consideration that many things in chazal are not to be taken literally.
What you mention about Ezra tampering with the ksav, really is not such a problem when you learn hilchos stam in depth, and you realize that the most important element of each letter is that “it should look like that letter”, and that has to do a lot with each generations customs, and that is where shaylas tinok usually comes in, and it would be similar to different dialects in lashon hakodesh.
Like this comment?
1
Kaf, if you know those sources youre almost as big a talmid chuchem as me
I’m aware of that Rashi, I wanted to review it before I posted it. There is also an Ibn Ezra in the beginning of Deuteronomy that is quite relevant to what we are discussing. There is also a comprehensive opinon from the Roaring Lion (Shaggath Aryeh) on the matter. I have to look them all up before I can state them with any sort of definiteness.
If you can get me the mareh mukem for the Yerushalmi I mentioned, I will be thankful to you for eternity.
“Having said all that, these things don’t necessarily bother me. If you look at these things “from outside in” they might seem troubling, but if you look at them “from the inside”, with a religious view, the answers given for all of these are in my opinion perfectly fine.”
Of course you’re right. If the first assumption is that there is one God and his word as written in the bible is true, you can facilitate every incongruity and conflict you encounter to assimilate and fit in to the supreme and primal foundation. But if you want a modicum of intellectual honesty and a subjective review of the facts you must look from the outside in. I don’t think that the sources I brought down are the final word on the subject, but it’s definitely noteworthy.
Oh and you’re dead wrong about Ezra’s tampering with the script. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough; tampering doesn’t do justice to what Ezra perpetrated according to the Talmud with the text. Consider this: he changed the scriptural language of the torah from Ivri (Hebrew) to Assyrian (Ashurith). These are two distinct scripts. It’s a monumental change in the scripture. It’s not a bare and seeming innocent tampering, the likes of changing a few words and correcting some misspellings. Henceforth one may question whether he felt the freedom and if he was compelled to change, rewrite and revise other basic textual inconsistencies and discrepancies. Furthermore, perhaps he saw it fit to remove and add whole paragraphs in his effort to represent the torah as a comprehensive book. I’m not saying anything with certainty, I’m just asking. This much is clear to me: once you see that the text has been “touched” nothing is beyond questionability.
Has Unpious become a virtual Bais Medrash? We need sex talk, emergency, to cool down the Torah fervor!!!
Like this comment?
1
Firstly, I have to correct my earlier maareh makom, it is not the first rashi in Divrei Hayamim, rather it is perek 8 posuk 29, and perek 7 posuk 13.
Secondly, I am a pretty solid tamid chuchum myself, but yerushalmi is not something which I have mastered already.
I want to make a point, that anytime that you have a vast body of information, there will seem to be discrepancies, on face value, and the answers to those questions, for example the difference between A and B, is a true answer, even though we only realized the difference as a way to explain that there is no contradiction. Like the Heilige Chasam Sofer said, “rov dochkum emess”. I think that this is what he meant by that.
Re Ezra changed the script, I am pretty sure that it is not a whole new system of writing, Ezra just substituted one group of letters for a different group, which likely were already being used interchangeably, and in that case my earlier explanation might suffice.
Like this comment?
1
“Has Unpious become a virtual Bais Medrash? We need sex talk, emergency, to cool down the Torah fervor!!!”
You made me laugh. You are probably referring to “eish oichel eish”. Which would work both ways… the converse of “im pogah becha menuval zeh…” , can someone here rework that chazal to the effect of “im pogah becha talmid chacham, moshchehu lemnuval hazeh”?
Like this comment?
1
Assyrian is a whole different system of writing; it’s not interchangeable with Hebrew, and he indeed only changed the lettering, but it’s a significant enough and change that renders the questions I promulgated valid.
I didn’t understand what you meant with the “Hylige” Khatam Sofer and A and B. Care to expound?
You already reworked that holy dictum, kudos!
Like this comment?
1
R and C, I need to think a little about what I said from the Chasam Sofer, I don’t have the yishuv hadaas now, but I hope to elaborate on it. Thanx for your interest.
Like this comment?
1
Go get some yishuv hadaas, come back refreshed and rejuvenated. You have been a pleasant addition to the site. Me like you
Like this comment?
1
R&C, you probably know this, but the secular consensus is that sefer “found” by Hilkiah that was presented to Josiah was Deuteronomy, and not the complete Pentateuch.
There are several reforms within Deuteronomy that match those that Josiah implemented aimed at strengthening his capital and its temple, as he reimposed monotheism after its decline as a result of the Hezekiah’s loss of control and of his rich cites such as Lachish at the hands of Sennacherib.
Like this comment?
1
I am new here, so I am still trying to get the feel of this website and its contributors, while I am still unsure about my own beiefs. Am I the only one around here that considers himself a believer? Also, is there a working assumption here that the secular view of religion is the right one? Or, is it up in the air, and any intelectually honest argument is welcome? What I am trying to ask, is, by me being a believer, am I an outsider here “tolerated” by the chevra, or can I still be part of the group? Weird question, isn’t it?
(R and C, thanx for your compliment. I am very happy to have found this niche, as I was all alone until now. I have spoken about these issues with many people online, but the vast majority of heimishe people online are not at all interested in these discussions, and although I love to discuss sex as much as the next guy, it’s a lot geshmaker discussing it with guys (and especially gals … ) that have some “toichin”. Weren’t we taught that the “keiren” has to have “toichin”?
I have also spoken plenty with some choshive people about these issues as well, and you’d be surprised at the opennes and honesty that I found in them. (Granted, these were people of above average intelligence and who I felt that it is possible to approach them about these topics.) But since I don’t want to be cast out….i need to be careful about what I say, so it can’t compare to what I found here.
Like this comment?
1
Pen:
I was not aware of that, many thanks for the enlightening nugget. I know that Deuteronomy is one of the stronger weapons in the Bible critiques arsenal, with the many conflicting versions of stories mentioned in the previous 4 books and with its seeming repetitiveness. I am not well versed in Bible criticism. It’s on my agenda. Maybe one day I’ll get to it. Who has the time?;(
Kaf :
You have a couple of misconceptions about the site and its inhabitants. First you’re not the only newbie here; everybody is new here. The site has only been operational for a couple of months. Hence the site doesn’t have a feel or a certain character to it yet. It’s you and me and the person next to you who through conversation, storytelling, personal disclosure, writing, argumentation, laughter, the all important sex talk, jokes, narratives, etc, give character to the site. The site doesn’t have a set personality or tone yet. It’s still in its infantile stage; let’s make it a shining city on top of the hill.
Second, why do you think that you’re the only believer here? There are many levels and degrees in belief. You might be the only one in your personalized constructed concept of what it means to believe in God, but I’m quite sure you are not the only one who fundamentally believes in some semblance of a doctrine that has a deity at its apex.
Third, I can only talk for myself, but I think many would agree with me- I could give a rats ass about your personal beliefs as long as you keep to intellectual honesty in your discussions, arguments, and debates. All we are trying to accomplish here is to hammer out some of the issues that are at the forefront of the collective consciousness of the half pious, pious and unpious community. We don’t have to agree always, but we have to stick to the conventional methods of dialectic, logical deduction, and rhetoric.
Like this comment?
2