onionsoupmix ([info]onionsoupmix) wrote,
@ 2009-06-10 18:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:book review, hashkafa, parshah

The Year of Living Biblically

Here's the book review part: This book is great. Funny, sad, clever, all you could ask for in a book about religion.

Here's the discussion part: The author, like me, does not understand why the Torah speaks in code. For example, he finds a halacha (Devarim 25:11-12) in which a woman who protects her husband from a beating (by grabbing the assailant by his balls) is punished by having her hand chopped off. He finds out that this is not meant to be taken literally and is just a rule against embarrassing people and the wife's hand is not actually chopped off, she just has to pay a fine. So the author is perplexed. Why does the Torah speak in code and couldn't have just said Rule #387: Don't embarrass people ? He searches and searches and the best he gets is an answer from Aish, from Noah Weinberg. Ready? Here's the answer: Life is a jigsaw puzzle. The joy and the challenge of life -and the Bible- is figuring things out. if a jigsaw puzzle came numbered, you'd return it to the store. 

Agh. Rabbi Weinberg.  
How many things are wrong with this argument? Let us count.

1. Is the Torah a jigsaw puzzle or an instruction manual? Let's get the analogies straight.  

If you are postulating that a Being created the world with a goal in mind and provided the world with an instruction manual as to how to achieve that goal, it is counterintuitive to accept that the Being is going to write the manual in code, which you are not going to understand without additional supplements. An instruction manual is written clearly and simply, so that an average person can understand and follow the directions. It is not written in code. In contrast, a jigsaw puzzle is for play, a hobby. It is not something to base your life on. People do not live their lives by jigsaw puzzles.

2. Writing that the woman gets her hand chopped off directly contradicts the assertion that she just has to pay a fine. If I bought a jigsaw puzzle where the numbers were opposite from what they were supposed to be to complete the puzzle, I would, um, return the puzzle and file a complaint.

3. There are so many things spelled out in great detail in the Chumash. Things that were relevant for only a tiny portion of Jewish history, such as rules about korbanos and tumah/tahara. Things that were never relevant to begin with, such as Eisav's genealogy or that each leader of each tribe brought the same exact offering for the mishkan. Why waste so much space on this and somehow miss out on writing important rules that everyone could potentially use?

4. Why does it seem again that everywhere I look,  the Frum God is trying to trick me? I look to scientists and they tell me the world is billions of year old and the dinosaurs died out ages ago, but this is a trick because the world is not even 6,000 years old and there never were any dinosaurs, Hashem just planted the bones in the ground to confuse the scientists. I look to chumash devarim where every other pasuk lists another death penalty crime, but that's also a trick, the sanhedrin very rarely condemned anyone to death because the laws regarding witnesses and evidence were so strict. Moreover, some of these crimes were just theoretical and there was never any case of a rebellious son for example. Now again. The chumash says her hand will be cut off, but really it just means she has to pay a fine.

Why should I assume God means anything that He says? He couldn't manage to dictate his word accurately, why shouldn't I believe all of halacha is just a game of broken telephone?

Thanks for playing Rabbi Weinberg. Please come again.

P.S. What is with this weird halacha? Ladies, if your husband/son is in a physical fight with someone, say an intruder, you wouldn't grab the assailant by whatever necessary? Is it better if I just shoot him?




(61 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]ymarkov
2009-06-10 11:31 pm UTC (link)
The Tora is no more in code than the Constitution is in code. (BTW, "don't embarrass people" is also code, by this standard. "Don't embarrass" how? What constitutes embarrassment? Under which circumstances may it be allowed?) Nothing is communicated in great detail, certainly not tuma and tahara. (Hah! Seder Toharot is the largest in the Mishna!)

And its point is not the fun of assembling a puzzle (thanks for nothing, R' Weinberg). It's being a partner with God in figuring out how to turn the Tora into actual law. It's quite possible that at some point both the hand-cutting and eye for an eye, etc. were understood literally. R' Yohanan insisted that, yes, totally there were a few executions of rebellious sons. Etc.

And only the modern-day ultra-right insist that the world is under 6,000 years old.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 01:58 pm UTC (link)
The Tora is no more in code than the Constitution is in code

See, give me some examples in which the pshat of the constitution is interpreted in exactly opposite of the way the way it is written and then I might agree with you. As far as I see it, the constitution is deliberately vague and people interpret it differently through the years. So "due process" is a vague term that is interpreted very differently now than before, just like "don't embarrass" would be. But "her hand will be cut off, your eye should have no mercy" is pretty specific and we don't follow it.
It's quite possible that at some point both the hand-cutting and eye for an eye, etc. were understood literally So you're saying it changed? How so? And if that halacha then became obsolete with a fine to substitute, why can't the same be done with the others?

And only the modern-day ultra-right insist that the world is under 6,000 years old. You say "only" like they are a tiny minority of frum people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sethg_prime
2009-06-11 06:38 pm UTC (link)
See, give me some examples in which the pshat of the constitution is interpreted in exactly opposite of the way the way it is written and then I might agree with you.

The closest thing I can think of offhand is the issue of sovereign immunity, which was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but which generations of judges have just assumed to exist anyway, because, well, how could it not?

Thus: The Eleventh Amendment prevents Federal courts from having jurisdiction in lawsuits against a state by non-citizens or by citizens of another state. In Hans v. Louisiana the Supereme Court made a kal vachomer argument that you're also not allowed to sue your own state in Federal court, either. A chain of cases starting with Seminole Tribe v. Florida restricted Congress's ability to abrogate the sovereign immunity of states; in his opinion there, Chief Justice Rehnquist said "Although the text of the Amendment would appear to restrict only the Article III diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, 'we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition . . . which it confirms."

See here for more comments on that issue.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 09:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-11 09:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 10:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-11 10:20 pm UTC

[info]llennhoff
2009-06-16 02:40 pm UTC (link)
How about the Supreme Court interpreting the commerce clause (the right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce) to say that congress had a right to pass laws such that a farmer could not plant wheat on his own land for himself to eat because the wheat he otherwise would have bought might have come from another state?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-16 03:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]llennhoff, 2009-06-16 03:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-16 03:59 pm UTC

[info]aunt_becca
2009-06-10 11:48 pm UTC (link)
was there an actual interview with R' Weinberg? Or are the answers excerpts from other interviews and articles?
It's a head-scratcher.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 02:45 pm UTC (link)
He just wrote about how he asked around and this was the best answer he got. He apparently posted on this blog, so you could ask him:D

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]antidos
2009-06-11 12:09 am UTC (link)
That's a halachah I have never known before !

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 01:51 pm UTC (link)
what, they don't go over this in yeshiva?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]antidos
2009-06-11 02:11 pm UTC (link)
No, don't really remember it :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]antidos
2009-06-11 12:15 am UTC (link)
Ladies, if your husband/son is in a physical fight with someone, say an intruder, you wouldn't grab the assailant by whatever necessary? Is it better if I just shoot him?


private parts
Testicles (Ibn Ezra). The same is true if she does any act that might endanger the man's life. ( Living Torah )

(Reply to this)


[info]sethg_prime
2009-06-11 02:56 am UTC (link)
I didn't think much of the book.

Setting aside any question of whether or not the Oral Torah really comes from God, I don't think it's possible to "follow the Bible literally". The Kera`ites don't do it--they just substitute the literal text for the oral tradition when the oral tradition seemed to contradict the literal text. (Thus they put the head-tefillin davka between their eyes but followed the mainstream opinion of what tefillin were.) Protestant Christians who make a big deal about the Christian Bible being "the literal word of God" don't do it--they devour books purporting to describe how WE ARE LIVING IN THE END TIMES that interpret Biblical prophecies in, shall we say, a highly metaphorical fashion. There is just no intellectually honest way to approach the Bible (or really, any Bible-scale text) as a book devoid of context that you can just pick up and read and look for all the rules you need to live your life, the way you can look up the official rules of chess or baseball.

So the whole "living Biblically" experiment is, from the git-go, a celebration of deliberate ignorance--a guy reads the Bible in an idiotic fashion, does idiotic things, and then writes a book saying tee-hee, look at all this idiotic stuff in the Bible.

He couldn't manage to dictate his word accurately, why shouldn't I believe all of halacha is just a game of broken telephone?

I think this is where the maxims of "it is not in heaven" and "Yiftach in his generation is like Solomon in his generation" come into play. The halakhic system was built to be interpreted and applied by human beings even though human beings are vulnerable to all kinds of faults.

As for Rabbi Weinberg: he believes that you should be frum because it's THE MOST FUN YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE IN THIS UNIVERSE! No, really. The answer he gave to Mr. Living Biblically is perfectly consistent with that belief. Personally I think that the whole "higher-order pleasure" argument was shaky back when John Stuart Mill used it in a much more restricted context, but then, I'm not a World-Famous Kiruv Rabbi.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]joshuazelinsky
2009-06-11 06:09 am UTC (link)
There's a difference between understanding that the text assumes broader context (like the Tefillin example) and using that as a justification for believing that the text means the exact opposite of what it says. One is reasonable and plausible. The other just doesn't make much sense. Just because other context is assumed doesn't mean that the text can therefore be read in any way that is convenient.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sethg_prime
2009-06-11 01:08 pm UTC (link)
Languages are connected to communities; when you're reading a text, you can only determine "what it says" by reference to its linguistic community.

E.g., "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" seems pretty straightforward and absolute, right? There's not even a weasel-word like "reasonable" in there. But in the American legal tradition, the community that is connected to the language of the Constitution, everyone understands that laws against libel, copyright violation, misappropriation of trade secrets, and revealing classified information are all consistent with "freedom of speech". That doesn't mean that "the text can therefore be read in any way that is convenient"; the same community that permits all these laws also has a pretty good consensus that lots of other things do violate "freedom of speech".

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication", but if you want to understand why US and Canadian free-speech laws differ, you need to look at the contrasting legal traditions, not just the differences in the literal text.

(And if you think that a community is blatantly misreading some text where its interpretation goes against what you see as the literal meaning, why give the community a pass when it is interpreting the more ambiguous parts?)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 03:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-11 03:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]joshuazelinsky, 2009-06-11 11:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-12 01:02 pm UTC

[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 02:56 pm UTC (link)
There is just no intellectually honest way to approach the Bible (or really, any Bible-scale text) as a book devoid of context that you can just pick up and read and look for all the rules you need to live your life, the way you can look up the official rules of chess or baseball

I don't follow your argument at all here. Why should I be able to pick up the shulchan aruch and look at the rules that I need to live my life by, but not the Bible?

The halakhic system was built to be interpreted and applied by human beings even though human beings are vulnerable to all kinds of faults
That doesn't work for me at all. If I wanted a man-made religion, I would follow Deepak Chopra or some other "guru" like that. Most people who are trying to follow a religion are looking for the will of God, not the will of human beings. Also history does not bear you out as there have been plenty of times when the way the bible was interpreted did not coincide with what God wanted and He told them so- think all of neviim, etc. According to your logic, once God gives the book over, He should be happy regardless of what we all do with it, no?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-11 03:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 10:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-12 03:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-12 03:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-12 01:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-06-11 09:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 10:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]llennhoff, 2009-06-16 02:46 pm UTC

[info]bringing_peace
2009-06-12 02:57 am UTC (link)
So the whole "living Biblically" experiment is, from the git-go, a celebration of deliberate ignorance--a guy reads the Bible in an idiotic fashion, does idiotic things, and then writes a book saying tee-hee, look at all this idiotic stuff in the Bible.

I'm curious - did you read the book?

I must disagree with writes a book saying tee-hee, look at all this idiotic stuff in the Bible. The author seems to be very sincere and is sharing some powerful things. His experience with prayer comes to mind.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sethg_prime, 2009-06-12 01:22 pm UTC

[info]bringing_peace
2009-06-11 02:59 am UTC (link)
by the way, I really like this book.
He's pretty honest with himself most of the time.

(Reply to this)

Thanks so much!
(Anonymous)
2009-06-11 01:25 pm UTC (link)
I absolutely loved your analysis. Thanks for posting it and enlightening me.
AJ Jacobs

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Thanks so much!
[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 01:45 pm UTC (link)
Lol, I forgot that part about how you google yourself every day! Well, I'm honored you stopped by, please come again!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thanks so much! - (Anonymous), 2009-06-11 02:12 pm UTC
Re: Thanks so much! - [info]bringing_peace, 2009-06-12 03:01 am UTC
Re: Thanks so much! - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-12 03:03 am UTC
Re: Thanks so much! - [info]bringing_peace, 2009-06-12 03:07 am UTC

(Deleted post)
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d.
[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 04:29 pm UTC (link)
In the continuing dialogue with God, does God ever speak to us? Because it looks like a monologue, to be honest.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-11 04:33 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 04:39 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-11 04:43 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]bringing_peace, 2009-06-12 03:01 am UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-12 02:05 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]bringing_peace, 2009-06-12 02:59 am UTC
It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d.
[info]24816
2009-06-11 04:28 pm UTC (link)
http://machanaim.org/philosof/kook/b2-e.htm#p12
For example, “honor your parents” may mean different things during our lifespan and it does make the mosaic of life more fascinating.
Thus, if your daughter says something inappropriate, you can take away her Internet privileges, but what can I do with my daughter?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d.
[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 04:40 pm UTC (link)
Your example would be more appropriate if there was a commandment to honor your daughter but there isn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-11 04:45 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 10:14 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-11 10:20 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 10:34 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-11 10:44 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]onionsoupmix, 2009-06-11 10:52 pm UTC
Re: It all makes sense in the model of continuing dialog with G-d. - [info]24816, 2009-06-11 10:54 pm UTC
Just shoot him
[info]chanief
2009-06-11 08:15 pm UTC (link)
if you grab the family jewels you will be violating more than one halacha, including possibly causing him to have less than pure thoughts (maybe he's into that sort of thing...)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Just shoot him
[info]onionsoupmix
2009-06-11 09:06 pm UTC (link)
I think that's not the kind of threesome the halacha is referring to, lol.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Muslim Dude
(Anonymous)
2009-06-13 07:47 pm UTC (link)
Onion are you familiar with Occam's Razor; the idea that often enough the simpler explanation is probably the right one

Should we buy the complex apologetics that the rabbis come up with.....that its all a mystery that we have to figure out. That God gave these absurd laws that look only absurd at first glance but have a deeper meaning behind them.

Or should we just accept the obvious explanation; that this stuff was cooked by ancient and primitive mythologists.

If you think women grabbing their husbands' balls is absurd, then try something as ridiculous as Ezekiel 4:1-15

Did God really divide hebrew into the many languages we have today at Babel? Or was this mythology (plagiarized from the Sumerian myth of Enmerker and the tower of arratta) invented to explain where different languages come from?

Did God really punish Eve with childbirth? Or was this mythology invented to explain the pains of childbirth women endure? Not to mention the Genesis writers clearly assumed all mankind would forever be agrarians, hence why men are punished to work the land. And clearly in the 21st century where most men do not work the land, this punishment becomes useless.

There is a reason I brought up the George Tamarin experiment with the Israeli children earlier with you

I'm assuming most Jews would find the queen and horse sex ritual in the Vedas to be ridiculous, and won't be buying any of the defenses hindu apologists make seriously. But imagine if this was in the Torah, because in all seriousness its really no more logical than grabbing someone else's balls, or Yahweh punishing men by having other people have sex with their wives, or ripping apart pregnant women, etc etc etc. If it was in the Torah, how would reaction differ than if its in someone else's literature?

Its interesting because not to long ago I was conversing with a former Chabad lubbavitcher. He recalled a story from his youth where the rebbe got a date wrong on a jewish holiday. It would be a natural mistake for any fallible human. However, the rabbis around him gave him an explanation really no different than what Rabbi Weinberg just said here. That there is something deeper hidden within the words of the rebbe, that if we don't understand him its because our own faith is weak not because the man himself made a mistake, or that there was some significance behind why God made the rebbe say that, and so on.

I have heard similar colorful explanations for why a Jewish man has to get up everyday and say a prayer thanking God for not making him a woman.

Personally I prefer calling a spade a spade!

Peace be with you!

(Reply to this)


(61 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…