Ends do not justify the means

It is an often repeated warning. Clearly most Machiavellians will take issue with this characterization, but most decent modern people would agree to a certain extent.

But this is not just a passing reminder or secondary moral guideline. So important is this concept that the Torah uncharacteristically repeats itself in presenting the verse Devarim 16:20:

צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף

(Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue . . . )

The repetition clearly puzzled all of the commentators. The early 1800s Hasidic master Rav Bunam of Peshis'cha interpreted this phrase as meaning that "one should pursue righteousness [only through] righteousness."[1]

This verse comes from the parashas Shoftim (last week's Aug. 28 - Sept. 3) , which deals with topics ranging from the installation of courts, the method for establishing a monarchy in Israel and how the Israelites should conduct themselves during war. Later in the parashah, we note that the legal procedure for instituting the death penalty is given (Deut. 17:1-7).

These portions are used in an interesting parable about Reb Chaim Brisker and his defense of an imprisoned anarchist found at the bottom of Rav Frand's shpiel on Shoftim.

[1] See the note for Devarim 16:20 on page 1025 in Artscroll's The Chumash: The Stone Edition.

Why I Am Not a Christian

The great mathematician/philsopher Bertrand Russell used secularism as a foundation for his similarly entitled essay. I am certainly not going to argue on the basis of secularism, as I find it more dangerous and damaging than Christianity.

Rather, though still attempting to "cold logic", I will base my argument against Christianity from the textual basis it espouses as its own foundation. It is remarkable to me that Mr. Russell whose work in the logical foundations of arithmetic and axiomatic theory was unable to find the inconsistency inherent in the Christian system.

I understand that Christianity takes the position that the "Old Testament" is useful mainly as a moral guide and a "fire and brimstone" counterpart to Jesus's messages of love and mercy. The Ten Commandments and patriarchal narratives are OK, but kashrus laws and circumcision practices are no longer necessary. As odd as this "pick-and-choose" basis of a religion is, Christianity still incorporates the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) as the Word of G-d.

The smoking guns is found in this week's parashah, Re'eh. The first gun, as it were, is found at the end of the second aliya where the general principle of Jewish observance is recounted:

Safeguard and hearken to all these words that I command you, in order that it be well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the eyes of HASHEM, your G-d. (Deut. 12:28)

While a modern Protestant might point to the last phrase "do what is good and right" as the ethical imperative to live "a good, Christian life" regardless of observance of the laws, Rashi puts the emphasis on the first two phrases. The first phrase, says Rashi, implies that one has to safeguard what one knows by reviewing it and committing it to understanding; thereupon one can then hearken to the commandment by performing it correctly. The next phrase "all these words that I command you" says Rashi teach that all of the mitzvos, whether obviously important or seemingly minor, should be treated equally (cf. Pirke Avos 2:1), blatantly refuting Christianity's customized choice of "applicable" laws.

In the next aliya, the Torah goes on to declare its own completeness. Here, we are not referring to mathematical or logical completeness of Russell or Gödel. Clearly, there are certain situations in life which are not specifically touched upon in the written Torah or even legislated by the Rabbis in the Talmud. Rather, Moshe exhorts the Israelites:

Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. (Deut. 13:1)

The aliya then goes on to speak about the dangers of and punishments for a false prophet. The Sages relate in Sanhedrin 89a that anyone, even one that was previously confirmed to be a true prophet of G-d, is automatically discredited if he claims that any commandment of the Torah should be permanently repealed. Clearly even without the Talmudic extension, Christianity paradoxically acknowledges that Deut. 12:28 and 13:1 were at one point valid but somehow, despite their textual warnings, have been superseded and abrogated by the words of some new prophet.

I cannot vouch for others' justifications for not being Christian, but for me it lies in these contradictions. Of course I can understand that ex post facto, if I were a Christian, these contradictions may be easier to stomach. But that makes a rather flimsy basis for leaving the Jewish faith.

A little review

Well hello again, it has certainly been a while since we've caught up. Reading the sixth aliyah of this week's parashah, Eikev (Deut. 7:12-11:25), I was finally compelled to start posting again. In the sixth aliyah, which is found in Deut. 11:10-21, we find the second paragraph of the Shema, a three paragraph prayer said twice daily by Jews worldwide. Had I been more diligent, I would've talked about the first, most famous paragraph (Deut. 6:4-9) last week when it is read as the sixth aliyah of parshas Va'eschanan, but so it goes.

The Shema prayer declares HASHEM's unity and sovereignty over the universe. The first paragraph then commands each individual Jew to devote his entire heart, soul and resources to loving HASHEM. The second paragraph then switches tense and addresses the Jewish community as a whole in the plural and again commands the community to love HASHEM through performance of His commandments.

Let's take a step back for a second. We are currently three parshiyos into the book of Devarim (meaning "words"). Christians and other English speakers might know it better as Deuteronomy, which is from the Greek for "second law" (deutero- + nomos). In many ways this is true. Moshe is standing above the eastern bank of the Jordan River giving his final spiel to the people Israel. There is a second recitation of the Ten Sayings (or Ten Commandments, as you may know them). The entire story of the wanderings in the desert are retold. This is Moshe's time to review and make sure everyone is on the same page with the mitzvos before entering the Land.

The Hebrew wording of the first line of the second paragraph of the Shema (v. 13) is a bit curious: אִם-שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ

Literally, "if hearken you will hearken" (notice the repeated shoresh ש-מ-ע, meaning "to hear" or "to listen"). While a little repetition is good every once in a while, like say the bulk of Devarim, this back to back repetition clearly strikes us as a bit odd since the Torah will sometimes not even address significant characters by name.

So what gives? Rashi indicates that the double form of the verb implies the maxim "If you forsake me [i.e.,Torah study] for one day, I will forsake you for two days." That is, if you neglect your studies, you'll forget what you learned earlier in addition to not adding more knowledge. Conversely, if [you] hearken [to the things you've already learned by reviewing them, then] you will hearken [to new insights as you study them anew]. A little review is essential to complete understanding.

I wish you all a wonderful, safe, happy, meaningful Shabbos. I'll drop some parshas Re'eh knowledge on you next week.

A little post-bar real estate law tidbit

For those of you who need a breather after the bar exams, firstly, congrats on making it through that ordeal! Secondly, I thought I'd open up with a little Q & A:

Question: Where can I find a (very) early example of a deed's metes and bounds?

Answer: That's crazy! Why would you even want to know that? What's wrong with you?

Question: No, but really, where?

Answer: Okay, fine weirdo, I might not be able to give you metes, but you can actually find bounds in this week's parashah, Masei (Num. 33:1-36:13). The boundaries of "the Land of Israel" are enumerated (Num. 34:3-12): Starting in the southeast corner of the Dead Sea and running westerly to the Brook of Egypt (a now non-existent eastern branch of the Nile) via Ma'ale Akravim, Tzin, Kadesh-barnea, Hazar-addar and Atzmon in the Negev; thence northerly up the coast of the ("Great") Mediterranean Sea up to Mount Hor; thence easterly to Hazar-enan via Hamas, Tzedad, Zifron; thence southerly to the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) via Shefam and Rivlah, thence further south to the Dead Sea via the Jordan River.

It has the run-on sentence narration of many modern deeds, but is missing the distances that make of the meat of the metes and bounds sections. It's a shame, too! Since without the metes there is tremendous controversy over where these now long-gone settlements were. This is complicated by the fact that there were at least two Kadesh-barneas, several places that could have been Mount Hor.

Other parts of the parashah contain the granting clause (Num. 33:51-53) as well as some deed restrictions (Num. 33:54-56), where quiet enjoyment is only conditionally granted. But, needless to say, I think the Israelites needed to have a better real estate attorney to review this deed, as there has been a bit of a historical cloud on title.

Oslo and Utøya

I apologize for the rash thoughts of Friday. I too am a bigot, it seems. I had totally pegged the Oslo and Utøya attacks as the result of some liberal anti-religious Norwegian drawing an incendiary anti-Islamic cartoon to which the radical Islamists retorted with an incendiary of their own. I never would have guessed Norway had the wherewithal to breed and harbor such an hate-filled extremist. Spain? Sure. There's plenty of historical anger there. Germany? Duh. France? Definitely. There's plenty of current events that would bring about violent anti-Islamic feelings. But the frigidly placid Kingdom of Norway? Are there even that many Muslims to be mad about in Norway? (Evidently about 100,000 or about 2% of the population, answers Wikipedia.)

In the end, it is this general extremism that is most troubling. It is unconscionable to open fire on children at a summer camp, no matter what their political bent. Railing against the government's policies is best done by voice and votes rather than guns and bombs. I could understand, somewhat, if Norway were the last bastion of totalitarianism (which evidently the deluded Mr. Breivik may indeed have thought), and the summer camp were some sort of paramilitary Hitler Youth-esque training facility. But allowing this loophole opens the door to nutjobs like Mr. Breivik and their distorted reality.

It is attacks like these that keep me up at night. As a member of a marginal group comprising less than 2% of the population of the United States, I always feel but one armed person's delusion away from harm and terror.

Why We Fight

As the sun sets this evening, we acknowledge the coming of the 17th of Tammuz. Historically, this day has seen several calamities including the destruction of the first set of stone tablets of the Ten Commandments and the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The 17th of Tammuz kicks off the "Three Weeks" mourning period which culminates in the most calamitous day of the Jewish calendar Tisha B'Av (9th of Av). Religious Jews throughout the world will be holding a sunrise to sunset fast tomorrow and accept onto themselves the mourning restrictions of the Three Weeks period, including for abstaining from haircuts, shaving, listening to music, and conducting marriages or any other joyous events. Additionally, since the Three Weeks are seen as a time of great danger for the Jewish people, medical operations, travel either to dangerous places or by a dangerous mode (e.g., via airplane) are avoided during this period. The Three Weeks are also sometimes called Bein HaMetzarim ("between the straits") after the verse from Lamentations: all [Zion's] pursuers overtook her within the straits (בֵּין הַמְּצָרִים). (Lam. 1:3)

On this day, July 18th, we must also acknowledge that back in 1290, King Edward I of England issued the Edict of Expulsion, expelling Jews from England and recently conquered Wales for over 350 years. (In the Jewish calendar, this event was actually on Tisha B'Av and it is listed as one in a long list of great calamities in Jewish history to coincide on that date.) It is this troubled history that bears witness that our national fortunes can change at a moment's notice that keeps me on guard. It forces me to speak up, to be strong and resolute (חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ), and to never forget! May we all navigate the Straits in peace, safety and health!

Does Father know best?

Have you ever wondered where the much bandied about "silence is consent under the law" maxim came from? Well if you guessed, this week's parashah, Matos, then you probably don't need this refresher. But if you guessed that Pope Boniface VIII and/or Sir Thomas More's speech in his own self-defense, then you're probably historically much closer.

After ending last week's parshas Pinchas with reviewing the various offerings that are brought for Shabbos and the holidays, the Torah then moves to the subject of nedarim, shevuos, and issarim, which roughly translate, though not well, into vows, oaths and bonds.

A neder becomes a personal (or household-level) change to the general halakhah. For instance, the Nazirite "vow" to abstain from cutting ones hair and to abstain from wine is a neder; though it is perfectly acceptable for the general public to get a haircut and drink wine, a Nazirite that does so is subject to punishment. Most Jews are more familiar with nedarim from the annual annulment of them comprised of the Kol Nidrei prayer on Erev Yom Kippur. Shevuos are oaths taken while bearing witness in a legal proceeding, while issarim are also less restrictive bonds to abstain from something. (Shevuos and issarim, by the way, are also annulled each year as part of the Kol Nidrei ( Kol nidrei, va'issarei, . . . u'shevuos . . . ), so no worries there.)

In the end, Judaism has mixed feelings about nedarim. Wise King Shlomo said in Koheles: Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. (Eccl. 5:4) In fact, the Nazirite neder requires that a sin offering be brought upon fulfilling the vow. This is an interesting review of some of the dichotomous feelings about nedarim and asceticism in general.

This is all well and good, but can you get to the old guy in a powdered wig? Verily, I shall, my dear reader. You see, for all the promise of gender equality from last week's portion and Tzelophehad's daughters, this week's opener starts off with a patriarchal smackdown on women's rights.

While in verse 30:3, if a man makes a vow, oath or bond, it is binding - no questions asked (except for a rescission by a Beis Din - Rabbinical court). But the next thirteen verses (vv. 4-16), concern what happens when a woman makes a vow or bond (tacitly stating that a woman would not be able to testify in court with an oath). There are several cases that are considered:

1) If a girl "in her youth" living "in her father's house" (Num. 30:4-6)

2) If a girl living "in her father's house" who is "married" (Num. 30:7-9)

3) A widow or divorcee (Num. 30:10)

4) A married woman "in her husband's house" (Num. 30:11-16)

The only case in which all vows and bonds are legally binding is in that of a widow or divorcee, that is, whenever there is not a man around to potentially overrule her. In each of the other three cases, her father (case 1) or her husband (cases 2 & 4) can annul the vow within a specified time-period (24 hours for cases 1 & 2; or until sundown for case 4). But, if the father (or husband) "is silent to her" (וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ) about the vow, then the vow is valid and can never be annulled (outside of a Beis Din ruling as with a man's neder).

In reality there is a fifth unstated case, which is a girl who is living in her father's house but is no longer "in her youth" (which the Rabbis concluded only encompassed the ages between 11 years and 1 day and 12 years and 1 day). In this case, since by 12 years, the girl would be bas mitzvah and legally responsible for her own actions, her father has no ability to remove a vow or bond. Upon marriage, however, the annulment powers transfer to the husband, albeit with a shorter rescission period (until sundown, rather than 24 hours).

Further, it must be understood that according to Judaism, while men are subject to all 613 mitzvos, time-specific commandments are not mandatory for women. The intent is certainly to prevent a woman from voluntarily taking on too many mitzvos at the expense of child-rearing, family raising, etc. So while if a woman voluntarily attempts to follow all of the time-specific commandments, there is no repercussion for falling short here-or-there. However, this is no longer the case if, for instance, the woman made a neder to follow these optional mitzvos. Clearly, this justification is no less gender-biased or replete with "Father knows best"-ism than the text itself, but it is important to note that there is no imperative for a father or husband to strike the would-be nedarim.

While our parashah's verse is used as a means of limiting the misogynistic power of fathers and husbands, the macro-lesson here is clear (though no longer specifically socially acceptable in the case of nullifying female vows): If you do not like what you hear, speak up! That's part of the impetus for this blog. Speak out! Get active! Remove yourself from the silent (consenting) majority!