Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar and the 42-Letter Name of God

Today's Torah content has been brought to you by the generosity of my Patrons on Patreon.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version (which, if I may say, I am particularly proud of in this case).

Artwork: Granite Gargoyle, by Christopher Rush. I would have used the actual artwork from Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar, but some would consider it to be non-tzanua. Those who are in the know will understand why I used the art from Granite Gargoyle.

Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar and the 42-Letter Name of God

On June 18, 2021, Wizards of the Coast released Modern Horizons 2 as an expansion set for the Magic: the Gathering trading card game. Printed in the set was a card representing the female wizard named Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar. On August 28, 2021, content creator Rhystic Studies (PhD) made a video about Magic: the Gathering card names with a focus on Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar. As I watched the video, my mind kept coming back to one thing: the 42-letter name of Hashem.

The Rambam (Moreh ha’Nevuchim 1:62) explains what we mean by a 42-letter name:

Now it is known to everyone capable of mental representation that it is in no way possible for 42 letters to form one word; these were certainly several words, the number of the letters of which amounted to 42 … These words that had numerous letters were called a “name” only because of their being indicative of a single concept … and these words were numerous only in order to make the concept in question understood.

The Rambam cites a passage in the Talmud which details the qualifications for being taught this name:

The name having 42 letters is holy and sanctified and is only transmitted to one who is discreet, has reached the middle of his life, is not prone to anger or to drunkenness, does not arouse criticism by his way of life, and speaks agreeably with people. And he who knows it is heedful thereof, and observes it in purity, is beloved on high and popular below. He is feared by the people, his learning is preserved by him, and he inherits the two worlds: this world and the next. (Talmud Bavli: Kiddushin 71a, Pines translation)

The Rambam then goes on to decry the ways in which these Talmudic teachings were misconstrued:

How very remote is the way in which this [Talmudic] statement is usually understood from the [true] intention of the speaker. For most people think that it deals solely with the pronunciation of the letters, and it is not taken into consideration that these letters have a meaning, so that great things may be merited through them and that for this reason there is needed the moral preparation and the forming of many dispositions that were mentioned … When wicked and ignorant people found these texts, they had an ample basis for lying statements in that they would put together any letters they liked and would say: this is a shem (divine name) that has efficacy and power to operate if it is written down or uttered in a particular way. Thereupon these lies invented by the first wicked and ignorant man were written down, and these writings transmitted to decent, weak-minded, and foolish men who lack the scales and means by which they could know the true from the false. These people accordingly made a secret of these writings, and the latter were found in the belongings left behind them, so that they were thought to be true. To sum it up: “a fool believes everything” (Mishlei 14:15).

Watching the video about Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar gave me a new insight into this Rambam. As a student of Torah who was “raised” in the rationalist school of thought, I am not prone to belief in the occult. When I read about kabbalistic divine names with magical properties, I am not moved – except to feel sorry for those who have fallen into such views.

And yet, I find myself absolutely enamored with the name Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar on purely aural and somatic grounds. By that, I mean that I love hearing it said and the feeling of my mouth saying it. This helped me realize that beneath the magical aura of these so-called divine names is an underlying aesthetic appeal – associated with their appearance, spelling, and pronunciation – which enhances their mystique in an intrinsic way. To my mind, this is another example of how (at least, according to the Rambam) idolatry appeals not only to our minds and imaginations, but to our most basic physicality.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Sitting Bull’s Ghost Dance and Moshiach

Today’s Torah content is sponsored by Naomi Mann, in honor of Yeshiva Bnei Torah's 50th year. May Hashem grant YBT continued success!

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Sitting Bull (1831-1890)

Sitting Bull's Ghost Dance and Moshiach

The final section of Jonathan Lear’s Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation examines how Plenty Coups, the last chief of the Crow Nation, saved his people by adapting to the new world after the devastation of the world of the Crow. Although his leadership decisions were influenced by dream-visions, Lear argues that Plenty Coups possessed “imaginative excellence” which allowed him to “facilitate a creative and appropriate response to the world’s challenges” in a pragmatic, non-mystical manner.

Lear contrasts Plenty Coups’s success in this regard with the failure of Sitting Bull, chief of the Sioux. In 1889, rumors arose of a messianic figure who would arise and save the Sioux. It was claimed “he would wipe out all whites in a catastrophe, bring back their ancestors from the dead, restore all the buffalo.”

The messiah was teaching that the current task of the Indian was to perform a Ghost Dance, which would help usher in the apocalypse. The dance spread like wildfire across the reservation, but nowhere did it take greater hold than at Sitting Bull's camp at Standing Rock. The dance was ecstatic: participants would dance into a frenzy and continue until they dropped of exhaustion; they wore ghost shirts that would protect them from bullets; they abandoned all other activities in order to bring about this cataclysm … The dance continued through October and November and into December, when it was forcibly ended. As is well documented, U.S. authorities were greatly disturbed by the Ghost Dance – they were concerned it might lead to an uprising or, at least, the breakdown of civil order – and they sought to suppress it.

Lear writes: “There is no evidence that Sitting Bull actually participated in the Ghost Dance, but he did support it.” The following is Lear’s analysis of Sitting Bull’s fatal error:

Sitting Bull used a dream-vision to short-circuit reality rather than to engage with it … It is a hallmark of the wishful that the world will be magically transformed – into conformity with how one would like it to be – without having to take any realistic practical steps to bring it about. The only activity in which one is enjoined to partake in is a ritual, in this case a dance. But when the ritual comes to take over one’s entire life, as it did for the Sioux of Standing Rock in the fall of 1890, this is a case of what Freud called “turning away from reality.” Symbolic rituals take over life – whether in an individual’s private life or in the group activity of a culture – and they become a way of avoiding the real-life demands that confront one in the every day. And it led to a disaster for the Sioux.

The Rambam, in his Letter on Astrology, blames the destruction of the Second Temple on such a mistake:

This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this, for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with the matters of the star gazers, which are the root of idolatry ... they erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them. Therefore, the prophets called them "foolish children" (Yirmiyahu 4:22) – and truly fools they were, for "they followed after that which does not benefit" (ibid. 2:8).

We, too, believe in the coming of a moshiach (messiah). However, our messianic era will involve no changes in the natural order (see Hilchos Tehsuvah 9:2, and Hilchos Melachim u’Milchamos 12:1). The process of bringing about the messianic era is eminently practical and political, and neither supernatural nor miraculous (ibid. Ch11). What remains to be seen is whether the “imaginative excellence” of the Jewish nation and its leaders at the critical junctures in the future will follow the model of Plenty Coups, enabling us to courageously engage with reality, or whether we will follow the model of Sitting Bull, to our peril.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2)

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Drown in Sorrow, by Noah Bradley

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction

There seems to be a fairly prevalent belief that the month of Av is an "unlucky time." People rearrange their plans, pushing off certain "risky" endeavors until after the month of Av (or, at least, until after Tisha b'Av). They avoid things like traveling, surgery, and business ventures because they feel that undertaking these activities during the month of Av is dangerous and ill-fated. I have seen a number of English articles which refer to the month of Av as an "inauspicious" (read: "unlucky") time of the year for Jews. 

The position taken in this article is that the month of Av is not unlucky, but merely misunderstood. Although we will start with the halacha as codified in the Shulchan Aruch, this article is intended to be theoretical - not normative. In other words, always consult your rabbi before making any changes to your halachic practice. 

Why the Misconception is a Misconception

Even before we look at any of the relevant sources, let us first establish why it is halachically inadvisable for the month of Av to be treated as "unlucky." 

One of the 613 mitzvos is a lo taaseh (Biblical prohibition) called "meonein." Since there's no adequate English translation of the term "meonein," we'll stick with the Hebrew. The Sefer Ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah #250) provides the following definition of meonein, based on the words of the Sages: 

The explanation of this subject is as it was given in the Midrash Sifra: [the Hebrew verb, te'oneinu, denotes] the sense of onah, a designated time - i.e. that we should not determine set times, to say that this hour is "good" for doing that activity in it, and whoever does it at that time will succeed, and whoever does it at this other time will not succeed - as the deluding masters of sorcery say. 

The Rambam, in the Mishneh Torah (Laws of Idolatry and the Statutes of the Gentiles 11:9), elaborates on this prohibition of "designating times," and mentions additional examples: one who says that a specific day is a "good" or "bad" day for doing a particular activity, or a particular year, or a particular month. 

In other words, meonein is the prohibition to designate a period of time as "good" or "bad" (i.e. auspicious or inauspicious, lucky or unlucky, blessed or cursed) for certain activities. According to Torah law, a person who does an action in accordance such a designation is liable for the penalty of whiplashes. For example, if a person were to believe that Friday the 13th is unlucky and decided not to take his driver's test on that day, believing that he'd fail, or if a person thought that his birthday was lucky and decided to buy a lottery ticket on that day, believing that he'd win, then he would be in violation of the Torah prohibition of meonein. 

The most well-known form of meonein is astrology. One who consults horoscopes or astrologers and acts on the basis of their counsel transgresses the Torah prohibition of meonein. According to the Sefer Ha’Chinuch’s definition, not only astrology but any designation of a time period as "good" or "bad" for a certain activity for any reason falls within the scope of this prohibition.

Thus, the problem with the popular belief about Av is is clear. If a Jew believes that the month of Av is an “unlucky time,” thinking that this is what the Gemara meant, and avoids certain activities based on this belief, then there are grounds to say that he would be in violation of the Biblical prohibition of meonein according to the Sefer ha'Chinuch and the Rambam.  

Thus, whatever sources we encounter in the course of our investigation, we cannot understand them to be indicating that a certain time period is auspicious or inauspicious. 

The Source of the Misconception

My guess is that the most common source of this widespread misconception is a pair of halachos that are brought down in the Shulchan Aruch: Orach Chayim Siman 551. One of these halachos pertains to the month of Av as a whole, and the other pertains to the period of time known as "the Three Weeks," though the two are often conflated:

551:1 - From the beginning of Av we diminish rejoicing, and a Jew who has a court appointment with a non-Jew should avoid it [during this time], because its mazal is bad.  

551:18 - One must be careful from the 17th of Tammuz until the 9th of Av to not walk alone from four [halachic] hours until nine [halachic] hours - Rema: because Ketev Meriri is prevalent - and they should not strike students during these days. 

It is easy to see how a superficial glance at these halachos might seem to support the popular belief. Why else would we be cautioned to avoid non-Jewish courts during the month of Av if not for the fact that Av is an bad time for the Jews? Even more significant is the explanation "its mazal is bad,” which seems to indicate that the month of Av is "unlucky." The second halacha goes even further, cautioning us to avoid certain dangerous activities during the Three Weeks on account of the Ketev Meriri - which, as we'll see later, is the name of a havoc-wreaking demon.

But as is often the case, things are not so simple when we examine them closely and critically. First of all, "its mazal is bad" cannot mean that the month of Av is unlucky, as we have explained based on the prohibition of meonein. Secondly, these two halachos do not caution us against all hazardous activities. Indeed, there are only three activities mentioned in these halachos, and all of them have specific parameters: (1) all Jews should avoid court appointments with non-Jews during the month of Av, (2) all people should avoid walking alone between the halachic hours of 4 and 9 during the Three Weeks, and (3) teachers should avoid striking their students during the Three Weeks.

In other words, based on the halachos - according to the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema, at least - there is absolutely no basis for avoiding anything during these time periods except for these three specific activities. There are no other activities we are cautioned to avoid for similar reasons as these.

The Original Source of the Misconception About Av

We will begin by looking up the original source of the first halacha cited in the Shulchan Aruch above, leaving aside the second one for later. The mishnah on Taanis 26b states: "at the onset of the month of Av, we diminish our rejoicing." The Gemara (Taanis 29a-b) explains:

At the onset of the month of Av, we diminish our rejoicing: Just as we diminish rejoicing at the onset of the month of Av, so too, at the onset of the month of Adar (Rashi: which were days of miracles for Israel, Purim and Pesach) we increase rejoicing. 

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, a Jew who has a court appointment at a non-Jewish court should try to avoid it during the month of Av because it has a bad mazal, but he should be present in court during the month of Adar because it has a good mazal.

The key term here is: "therefore a Jew who has a court appointment etc." In other words, the Gemara is not saying:"since the month of Av has bad mazal, therefore we diminish rejoicing and avoid court appointments with non-Jews," which is the intuitive way to conceive of this cause-and-effect relationship. Rather, the Gemara is saying: "since we are obligated to diminish rejoicing during the month of Av, therefore we should avoid court appointments with non-Jews during the month of Av, on account of its bad mazal." Stated differently, the month of Av generates a halachic obligation to diminish rejoicing, and it is on account of this obligation that we avoid court appointments with non-Jews.

Questions to Be Answered

There are several basic questions on the Gemara here:

1. What is special about the month of Av, such that we diminish rejoicing? Yes, we know that the first and second Beis ha'Mikdash were destroyed, and a number of other tragedies happened, but is this why we diminish joy? 
2. Why does this requirement to diminish joy express itself in an obligation to avoid court cases with non-Jews? This seems awfully specific, and not directly related to any of the tragedies that happened during the month of Av?
3. What does the Gemara mean when it says that the month of Av has "bad mazal"?
4. How would we answer these same questions with regards to the obligation to increase joy at the onset of the month of Adar? The fact that there isn't a corresponding superstition which regards the month of Adar as "lucky" is telling. Clearly, symmetry of this Av / Adar halacha isn't as intuitive as the Gemara seems to take it. What is the reasoning behind the parallel halacha regarding the onset of the month of Av?

This seems like a good place to end this blog post. Next time we'll attempt to answer these questions, and shed some light on the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 551:18 regarding our cautionary conduct during the Three Weeks.

Click here for Part 2:

My Grandfather and the Volcano Goddess

Disclaimer: As you can see by its label, this blog post is in the "musings" category, and is different from most of what I write. As a ger (convert), I sometimes have moments when I think about the different direction my life could have gone had I not encountered the Jewish teachers I met at the critical points in my development. This post started off as one of those musings, and I decided to see what would happen if I articulated these thoughts in writing.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

photo of a volcanic eruption at Mt. Kilauea,
claimed by some to be a photo of Pele, the goddess of volcanoes

My Grandfather and the Volcano Goddess

Introduction

Hawaii has a special place in my heart. I was born in Hawaii. My mom was born in Hawaii. My grandparents on my mom's side of the family were born in Hawaii. Even my great-grandfather was born in Hawaii. I grew up there. My mom's whole side of the family lives there. I've visited my grandmother there almost every year since I was a teenager. 

On Thursday, May 3, I received an emergency notification on my phone: "Mt. Kilauea is erupting." The volcano had been showing increased activity since 1983, but this last round seems to have gotten more news coverage than others in recent memory. Although my grandmother lives on Oahu, and will not likely be affected by the volcanic events on the Big Island, the news of the eruption still felt close to home.

Kilauea is not the only fiery mountain that has been on my mind for the past few weeks. There is another, which is even closer to home: Har Sinai. 

The connection between these two mountains in my mind has less to do with their fire and more to do with their association to the divine within their respective nations. For Jews, Sinai's significance lies in the singular revelation of Hashem and the giving of His Torah. Lehavdil, the ancient Hawaiians viewed every volcanic eruption as a manifestation of Pele, the volcano goddess.

(Halachic reminder: it is prohibited to verbalize the name of an avodah zarah deity. I have decided to use the name of this Hawaiian deity in writing, but if you plan on talking about it, the recommended course of action is to either avoid saying the name, or to come up with a derogatory nickname, like "Poopy" - which is probably what Eliyahu ha'Navi would have called her, given his track record of mocking false gods using bathroom humor.) 

According to Wikipedia: "In the Hawaiian religion, Pele, the Fire Goddess, is the goddess of fire, lightning, wind and volcanoes and the creator of the Hawaiian Islands." Pele came up in an article I read this week about how the current volcanic activity on Kilauea is viewed by some Hawaiians even today. The article reports: 

As threats from the latest Kilauea eruptions continue in Puna, many speak of the dramatic lava flows as the work of Pele, the goddess of fire and volcanoes. 

These Native Hawaiians and other Hawaii residents accept the volcanic activity that has consumed 36 structures and displaced hundreds of residents as demonstrations of Pele’s power and beauty. And there is no way to stop her. 

Pelehonuamea, or Pele of the sacred earth, is also known as “ka wahine ai honua,” woman who devours the land. She is also called Madame Pele or Tutu Pele. 

“I usually use Tutu Pele because she’s an ancestor to me and one of our family aumakua, or family guardian, so we have great respect for her,” said Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa, a professor at the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies on the University of Hawaii’s Manoa campus. “We have a personal relationship with Pele” ... 

Kame‘eleihiwa said those who feel they have a relationship to Pele may put markers at the boundaries of their property hoping she will spare it. Others may clean out their homes and leave hookupu, or gifts, for her ... 

Kame‘eleihiwa was on her way to Tahiti this weekend to visit the birthplace of Pele, where she planned to offer a prayer and a gift of Hawaiian salt.

My mind kept on returning to this article throughout the week leading up to Shavuos. I started musing on various themes which overlapped the Hawaiian belief in Pele's revelation at Kilauea, and our conviction in Hashem's revelation at Sinai (the term "lehavdil" should be inserted throughout this blog post).

I decided to write a blog post about three of these musings. 

Fear of Hashem vs. Fear of Pele

Unlike many of my Jewish and non-Jewish friends, I was not raised with any superstitious beliefs. Neither of my parents are superstitious, and neither were their parents - at least, not that I know of. Judging by the stories I hear from my friends about their upbringings, I really dodged the bullet on this one.

There are only two incidents in my memory of any of my close family members exhibiting superstitious beliefs, and both of them stemmed from the same superstition: Pele's Curse. According to Wikipedia:

Pele's Curse is the belief that anything natively Hawaiian, such as sand, rock, or pumice, will effect bad luck on whoever takes it away from Hawaii. The myth has caught on, told as if it were an original Hawaiian taboo, and every year countless tourists send these back in order to escape the awful luck that Pele has caused them.

I first heard about this when I was a kid, when I traveled to the Big Island with my grandfather. We went on a couple of hikes around the crater at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and when we were about to leave I showed him a cool volcanic rock I found, that I planned on taking home as a souvenir. "Leave that here" he said, "or Pele will bring bad luck." I don't remember the dialogue exactly, but I probably asked him who Pele was, and he probably told me that she is the volcano goddess, and that she doesn't let people remove rocks from her mountain.

But my grandfather didn't stop there. He proceeded to tell me a story about a friend of his who tried taking volcanic rock back home with him after a hike near a volcano. He was on his way back to his car but was stopped by none other than Pele's daemonic white dog, who blocked the path and wouldn't let him pass. Lo and behold, when he emptied his pockets of the rocks, the dog left him alone. 

Although I was not a superstitious child, and didn't believe my grandfather's tale, he definitely did (since he was eager to believe things like this), and because of this, he made me leave the rocks behind. 

Fast-forward 15-20 years later. My family visited the Big Island and went to that same national park. This time I noticed something that was probably there when I was a kid, but escaped my attention: food offerings to Pele (which I now know are called "hookupu"), placed near the crater. I have no idea who brought these offerings, and whether they did so out of custom, out of religious belief, or out of some mixture of the two. 

When we were about to leave, I picked up a volcanic rock to take home as a souvenir. My mom said something to the effect of, "You can't take that home. It's bad luck." I was shocked. This was the first time I had ever heard my mom utter anything even remotely superstitious. Since this was years after we had all converted to Judaism, and since my mom was well aware of the Torah's stance on avodah zarah and superstition, I called her out on it, asking if she really believed in what she said. As though shaking off a sorcerer's spell, she immediately realized the stupidity in what she had said, and then proceeded to give me a different rationale for leaving the rock behind - namely, that it's illegal to take rocks from a U.S. national park. 

I think it's safe to say that neither my mom nor my grandfather actually believed in Pele. My mom certainly didn't harbor this belief, and even my grandfather - a quasi-lapsed Catholic - probably wouldn't admit to harboring such a belief, if asked directly. And yet, both of them had an instinctive fear at the prospect of violating this Hawaiian taboo. In my grandfather's case this fear had melded with his own quirky view of the way the world works: everyone needs to visit Hawaii, everyone should start their own business, everything in Reader's Digest is 100%, bee honey cures every type of malady, and if you take volcanic rocks home, Pele will bring bad luck, or send her daemon dog to stop you. In my mom's case, the fear manifested as the vestige of a taboo that was probably inculcated into her by my grandfather when she was just a child. 

Thinking about this primitive "fear of Pele" - as displayed by my grandfather and my mother in a mild form, and by the native Hawaiians (like Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa of the article) in an extreme form - led me to associate to a different type of fear: the yiras Hashem (fear of God) at Sinai: 

The entire people saw the thunder and the flames, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain; the people saw and trembled and stood from afar. They said to Moshe: "You speak to us and we shall hear; let God not speak to us lest we die."

Moshe said to the people: "Do not fear (אַל תִּירָאוּ), for in order to elevate you has God come; so that the fear of Him shall be upon your faces (וּבַעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם), so that you shall not sin." The people stood from afar and Moshe approached the thick cloud where God was. 

This contradiction is impossible to ignore: first Moshe tells them "do not fear" but then he says that "the fear of Him shall be upon your faces"! 

The answer is clear: there must be two different types of fear: one which Moshe urged Bnei Yisrael not to have, and the other which was one of the very reasons why the entire revelation at Sinai took place. What are these two types of fear?

The first type of fear is a primal, instinctive, animalistic reaction - in this case, Bnei Yisrael's fear that they were going to die. Rationally speaking, this type of fear was misplaced. They knew that Hashem was not planning on killing them, and that as long as they followed His instructions and stayed within the boundaries, they had nothing to be afraid for their lives. Moshe pointed this out to them, saying: "Do not fear, for in order to elevate you has God come." This injunction highlights their mistaken underlying premise. It is as if he said to them: "I understand that you are afraid, but this fear that you are currently experiencing does not reflect the reality of the situation. You might feel that you are in danger, but in actuality, the opposite is true: you are being elevated. But in order for this elevation to take place, you must see through the falsehood of your primal fear."

The second type of fear is the yiras Hashem which the Sinai experience was intended to instill in the nation of Israel. This is the same yiras Hashem which was subsequently given as a commandment in the Torah, which Moshe later says is "the only thing Hashem asks of you." This yiras Hashem is eloquently defined by the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah alongside his definition of ahavas Hashem (love of God):

What is the way of loving and fearing God? When a person contemplates His great and wondrous works and creations and sees from them His infinite and incomparable wisdom, he immediately loves, praises, and extols and is filled with a great desire to know the Great Name, as David said: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God” (Psalms 42:3).  

And when he reflects on these same principles in relation to himself, he immediately recoils back with fear and dread, and knows that he is a small, insignificant, unenlightened creature standing with a frail and puny mind in the presence of Perfect Knowledge, as David said: “[When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that you have set in place, I exclaim,] ‘What is frail man that You should notice him, [and the son of mortal man that You should take note of him?’]” (Psalms 8:4-5).

This is the type of fear that Moshe told Bnei Yisrael to internalize. According to the pesukim cited above, the Sinai experience was not intended solely in order to provide experiential and historical evidence for Mosaic prophecy. It was also intended to create a foundational national experience of yiras Hashem - the awareness of man's status as a frail creature who forms an infinitesimally small part of the universe that Hashem created. This yirah will, in turn, prevent man from sinning. This can happen on three levels:

Level #1 - Fear of Punishment: On the most elementary level, a person will be afraid of Divine punishment - whatever his or her conception of that may be. Having seen, heard, and experienced the awesome and terrifying Revelation of the Shechinah at Sinai, he or she will think twice before violating God's law. Even if the person's grasp of Divine punishment is immature, incomplete, or flawed, it will at least be rooted in the historical reality of the event at Sinai, when Hashem demonstrated His might to the entire people. 

Level #2 - Fear of Consequences: On a more mature level, this type of yiras Hashem - rooted in the awareness that we live in a world governed by rational, lawful principles of cause and effect - will lead to a development of a chochmah-centered approach to decision-making based on anticipation of natural consequences. This is the type of yiras Hashem that Shlomo is referring to when he says: "Fear of Hashem is the discipline of wisdom" (Mishlei 15:33). 

Level #3 - Awe of Hashem: On the highest level, this type of yiras Hashem will lead to the awe of the Creator - as defined by the Rambam in the halacha cited above - which will naturally give way to ahavas Hashem via the continued pursuit of chochmah.

Now, compare the two fears, experienced by my avos (forefathers) on both sides of my family: the fear of Pele as experienced my grandfather, and the fear of Hashem as experienced by my ancestors who stood at Sinai. The fear of Pele is a primitive, superstitious, detrimental fear rooted in childish imaginations and psychological insecurities, whereas the fear of Hashem is a mature, reality-based, developmentally beneficial fear rooted in the intellectual apprehension of the laws of nature, and their Author.

As I thought about these two mountains - Kilauea and Sinai - and the two deities (lehavdil) who were feared and revered by their respective nations, I became filled with a deep gratitude to Hashem for enabling me to join the Jewish people and to embrace a chochmah-centered life governed by the Torah regimen.

And this past Shavuos, "zman matan Toraseinu" ("the time of the giving of our Torah"), I truly meant it when I thanked Hashem "she'hechyeanu, v'kiyemanu, ve'higiyanu la'zman ha'zeh" ("for giving us life, for preserving us, and for enabling us to reach this time").

You Saw No Image

In thinking about Kilauea vs. Sinai, I couldn't help but associate to another phenomenon: the seeing of a "divine image" in the fire of the mountain. Take a look at the picture at the beginning of this article. This photo gained notoriety because people claim to see the likeness of Pele in the eruption. Similarly, Hawaiians believed that "[Pele's] body is the lava and steam that comes from the volcano" (Wikipedia). This article and this video show that Pele sightings are as common today as they were in ancient times. 

Compare this with Moshe Rabbeinu's recap of the Revelation at Sinai to Bnei Yisrael before his passing:

Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest you remove them from your hear all the days of your life, and make them known to your children and your children's children - the day that you stood before Hashem, your God, at Horeb, when Hashem said to me, "Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children." 

So you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the heart of heaven, darkness, cloud, and thick cloud. Hashem spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. 

He told you of His covenant that He commanded you to observe, the Ten Declarations, and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets. Hashem commanded me at that time to teach you decrees and ordinances, that you shall perform them in the Land to which you cross, to possess it. 

But you shall greatly beware for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day Hashem spoke to you at Horeb, from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of any shape; a form of a male or a female; a form of any animal on the earth; a form of any winged bird that flies in the heaven; a form of anything that creeps on the ground, a form of any fish that is in the water under the earth; and lest you raise your eyes to heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars - the entire legion of heaven - and you be drawn away and bow to them and worship them, which Hashem, your God, has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven! But Hashem has taken you and withdrawn you from the iron crucible, from Egypt, to be a nation of heritage for Him, as this very day.

Moshe Rabbeinu knew how difficult it would be for the recently liberated slave nation to relate to a completely non-physical God, especially after having been steeped for two centuries in Egyptian idolatry - with all of its  superstitious beliefs, occult practices, and anthropomorphic deities. This is why, in his parting speech to Bnei Yisrael, he emphasized again and again - as we must believe that he did throughout all the 40 years in the Wilderness - that they and their parents did not see any image or likeness in the conflagration of Sinai. They heard the Divine voice proclaim the Ten Declarations, but they did not see the Divine, because the Divine has no image or likeness.

Compare this to a statement from a local Hawaiian: "Pele is very real to us ... She is a living god. You can see her, you can feel her, you can taste her, you can smell her." This is a far cry from what we mean when we describe Hashem as "a living God," which we intend as an allegory, emphasizing again and again that Hashem is not physical, has no physical qualities, and is not comparable in any way to anything physical. The Rambam codifies this in the Mishneh Torah:

It is explicitly stated in the Torah and in the Prophets that the Holy One, Blessed is He, is neither a body nor a corporeal form, as it is stated, “For Hashem, your God, is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below” (Devarim 4:39), and a body cannot be in two places. It is also stated, “For you did not see any image” (Devarim 4:15), and it is stated, “To whom can you compare Me that I should be equal?” (Yishaya 40:25), and if He were a body, He would be comparable to other bodies ... 

Once it has been clearly demonstrated that He is not a body or a material form, it is also clear that He is not subject to bodily occurrences: neither combination nor separation, neither place nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, neither right nor left, neither front nor back, neither sitting nor standing. And He doesn’t exist in time, such that He would have a beginning, an end, or an age. And He does not change, for there is nothing that can cause Him to change. 

And He has neither death nor life like the life of a physical being, neither foolishness nor wisdom like the wisdom of a wise man, neither sleep nor waking up, neither anger nor jesting, neither happiness nor sadness, neither silence nor speech like human speech. Thus, the Sages declared: On High there is neither sitting nor standing, neither separation nor connection. 

Since this is so, all such [descriptions] and the like that are stated in the Torah and in the words of the prophets – all of these are metaphor and allegory. For example, “He who sits in heavens shall laugh” (Tehilim 2:4), “They angered Me with their emptiness” (Devarim 33:21), and “Hashem rejoiced” (ibid. 28:63) and the like – concerning all of these statements, the Sages said: The Torah speaks in the language of man. This is the meaning of [the rhetorical statement], “Am I the One whom they have angered?” (Yirmiyahu 7:19). Behold, it is stated: “I am Hashem, I have not changed” (Malachi 3:16). If He were sometimes angry and sometimes happy, He would change. All of these things only occur in dark and lowly bodies, those who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is dust. But He, Blessed is He, is exalted above all of this.

Moshe also emphasized how quickly such misapprehensions can spiral out of control. The mistake of thinking one has perceived a Divine likeness leads to the practice of making representations of the Divine, which will ultimately result in worshiping the physical. So powerful is man's need to "concretize the metaphysical" (as I wrote about in my post entitled Ayn Rand, Art, and Avodah Zarah) that what begins as an innocent misperception can quickly devolve into primitive paganism, and the loss of the abstract and tenuous concept of a totally non-physical Creator.

We live in a scientific era, in which even the most unsophisticated people are at least aware of the scientific paradigm - that the universe operates in a manner of rational, lawful principles cause and effect, which can be studied, understood, and even harnessed. But imagine a time before science and think about how this phenomenon of "Pele sightings" precludes the emergence of a scientific worldview. Allow me to paint a picture of the two paradigms:

When an ancient Jew would witness a volcanic eruption, he would say: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who does the work of creation (oseh maaseh bereishis)" This berachah would stem from and reinforce the recognition that nature isn't God, but is a melachah ("craft" or "product of design") created by God, which operates in accordance with the wondrous lawfulness of the "King (i.e. law giver and law enforcer) of the universe." The character of this recognition was expressed by David ha'Melech exclamation: "How great are Your works, Hashem! With wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creations" (Tehilim 104:24). This orientation towards nature is conducive to the development of a scientific, chochmah-seeking worldview.

In contrast, when an ancient Hawaiian would witness a volcanic eruption, what would he say? "Look! It's Pele's hair!" "Oh no! I can see Pele's angry face!" "The lava flowing towards my land is Pele reaching out for me. Quick! I need to give her an offering to consume so that she doesn't destroy my home!" No chochmah, no lawfulness, no seeking of the underlying unity of causality in nature. Nothing but imagination and fantasy, fueled by fear and insecurity.

Divine Revelation

The last musing I had led me to think about what a "divine revelation" would mean to a religious Hawaiian vs. a religious Jew.

The Jewish view of revelation is expressed in the text of the Shofros berachah on Rosh ha'Shanah:

You were revealed in Your cloud of glory to Your  holy people to speak with them. From the heavens You made them hear your voice and revealed Yourself to them in thick clouds of purity. Moreover, the entire universe shuddered before You and the creatures of creation trembled before You during Your revelation, our King, on Mount Sinai, to teach Your people Torah and mitzvos. 

For us, revelation is the means by which the Creator of the universe gave us (to quote the Ralbag's introduction to Torah) "a regimen that brings those who practice it properly to true success (i.e. knowledge of Hashem to the extent that this is humanly possible)." Hashem's revelation at Sinai provided the Jewish people, and mankind as a whole, with a system of laws, ethical guidelines, and ideas which enable us to create a society governed by the principles of chesed (kindness), tzedakah (righteousness), and mishpat (justice), devoted to the pursuit of knowledge and human perfection.

For the ancient Hawaiian, a revelation of Pele has nothing to do with chesed, tzedakah, mishpat, knowledge, or human perfection. Pele's revelation was nothing but an uncertain glimpse into the whims of a capricious deity.

Conclusion

When I am called up to the Torah, they call me up as "_____ ben Avraham Avinu." As the Rambam explains in his letter to Ovadiah ha'Ger, all converts are described as "the children of Avraham Avinu" not because Avraham was our biological ancestor, but because he is our ideological progenitor.

When I think about my non-Jewish grandfather and his cultural heritage and compare that to my Jewish "father" of Avraham Avinu and his cultural heritage, am moved to say: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who chose us from among the peoples, and gave us His Torah. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who gives the Torah."

Parashas Korach: Clinton, Trump, and Korach's Followers

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Parashas Korach: Clinton, Trump, and Korach's Followers

Clinton and Trump are both liars, but in different ways. Clinton lies like a duplicitous and conniving rasha (evildoer). Trump lies like an eveel (fool), or a petulant toddler. Both are willing to lie in the face of the evidence, but whereas Clinton uses cunning and smokescreens in an attempt to mask her corruption, Trump openly denies his lies by crafting and pushing audacious alternative narrative. 

As we witness these politicians repeatedly lie and get caught again and again, the question arises: "How did they possibly think they would get away with this?" It is for this question that we turn to our parashah for an answer.

Moshe Rabbeinu responds to Korach's rebellion by proposing a test:

He spoke to Korach and to his entire assembly, saying, "In the morning Hashem will make known to the one who is His own and the holy one, and He will draw him close to Himself, and whomever He will choose, He will draw close to Himself. Do this: Take for yourselves fire-pans - Korach and his entire assembly - and put fire in them and place incense upon them before Hashem tomorrow. Then the man whom Hashem will choose - he is the holy one" (Bamidbar 16:5-7).

The men do as they are told. And guess what happens? "A flame came forth from Hashem and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense" (ibid. 16:36). Aharon ha'Kohen is proven to be the chosen one.

The Abravanel [1] raises a glaring question:

How did Korach and his assembly agree to the test of the incense? Did they not remember the wonders that they had seen? Didn't they know that Nadav and Avihu were burned when they brought incense (Vayikra 10:2)? How did [these men] not fear for their lives? 

He then provides the following answer:

Without a doubt, if Moshe had explained to them the reality of this test, and how it would be - namely, that the chosen one would live and the incense would be accepted from him, and the others would die and be burned - perhaps they wouldn't have agreed to the matter. But he didn't explain to them the outcome of being chosen or not being chosen. Also, they - in their foolishness - didn't ask him about it. They thought that the fire would come down from the heavens onto the chosen incense, and they would all stand very close together, so that each one of them could say that the fire descended upon his [offering]. 

This is similar to what happened to the priests of Baal with Eliyahu. When Eliyahu proclaimed to them the test of the fire, they responded: "The proposal is good!" (Melachim I 18:24) because they thought that they would make their altars and their sacrifices together with the altar of Eliyahu. [They reasoned that] inevitably, either the fire would neither descend upon his nor upon theirs, and they would all be equal, or else the fire would descend, and they would say, "The fire descended for us!" and Eliyahu would say, "It descended for me!" and the matter would remain in doubt [in the eyes of the people] and Eliyahu's words would not be verified. 

Eliyahu saw that this was their plan. After they had agreed and accepted upon themselves this test, he said to them, "Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are the many" (ibid. 18:25). In other words, [he told them] that they would not be doing all of their offerings together, but the prophets of Baal would do it first. Through this, their evil was exposed, for the fire did not descend upon their offering. And that is what happened. Afterwards, Eliyahu did [his offering] and the fire descended upon his altar. 

The same exact thing happened to Moshe Rabbeinu with Korach and his assembly.

The Abravanel answers his question by explaining that the men of Korach's assembly knew that Hashem would not accept their incense, just as the prophets of Baal knew that their offerings would not be miraculously consumed. So why did both parties agree to the test? Because they relied on the prospect of manipulating the results of the test in their favor. 

But as Shlomo ha'Melech said, "Pride goeth before the fall" (cf. Mishlei 16:18). They were so confident in their ability to trick the populace that they walked right into the trap of letting their "opponents" (i.e. Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu ha'Navi) set up the terms and conditions of the test, thereby precluding the possibility of their devious schemes. 

One of the more amusing examples of this mistake is The Amazing Randi's debunking of famous "psychics" and practitioners of the occult. Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge promises $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers under predetermined scientific criteria.

According to Wikipedia, over a thousand people have applied for this challenge, but no one has succeeded. Some of the applicants have gone so far as to be "tested" by Randi on live TV. For example, James Hydrick claimed to be able to move everyday objects (e.g. a pencil, and the pages of a telephone book) using only the power of his mind. Here is the clip of him demonstrating his "powers" without Randi's conditions, followed by a second attempt under Randi's conditions. Note that this is back when the challenge was only worth $10,000:

For those who skipped the video: Randi theorized that Hydrick was moving the objects by clandestinely blowing on them. To test this theory, Randi sprinkled foam packaging peanuts around the telephone book and asked Hydrick to repeat the demonstration of his powers. Under these conditions, Hydrick would be unable to move the objects without also revealing that he was blowing the peanuts.

Surprise surprise, Hydrick couldn't do it. In fact, he tried for an hour and a half (!) but didn't succeed. At the time, he blamed his failure on static electricity generated by the foam and the lights. But this excuse didn't fool anyone. He was exposed as a fraud, and his career as a psychic came to an abrupt end. Randi similarly debunked the even more famous psychic Uri Geller on The Today Show in 1973.

To the clear-thinking observer, it seems like a ludicrous move for Hydrick and Geller to submit themselves to a test with the conditions set by a professional skeptic. And yet, they agreed, and put their careers on the line. Why? Because they were seduced by their pride into believing that they could hoodwink the observers with their trickery, and they believed they were immune to failure.

The same is true of Korach's followers and the prophets of Baal. They knew that their claims were bogus, and they knew that Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu ha'Navi were the real deal. But they still managed to delude themselves into believing that they could pull a fast one, and spin the test results in their favor.

It appears that the same is true for Clinton and Trump. The only difference is that they haven't yet gotten themselves into a big enough "test" situation. But if Shlomo ha'Melech's profiles of the rasha and the fool are correct, then it is only a matter of time before they do this, and destroy themselves with their lies.

Let us hope that this happens at a time when the damage done to America is minimal, and there is someone who is better qualified to take the place of the fallen Queen or King.

[1] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 18:6

My Near Encounter with Ancestor Worship

This is a blog post I wrote during a trip to Hawaii way back in January 2007. Since I'm in Hawaii now, I decided this would be a good time to post it on this blog - especially since I had a similar experience this past Friday.

My Near Encounter with Ancestor Worship

Every year since 1957 the United Chinese Society of Hawaii has bestowed “Model Parent” awards to a Chinese father and mother. This year the USC wished to honor the 100 model parents of the last fifty years. In addition, the UCS wanted to recognize the great-grandchildren of these model parents - "the future of the worldwide Chinese community.” 

My great-grandfather, Koon Keong Kam (1897-1984), was chosen as the Model Father of 1966. My grandmother was asked to receive the honor on his behalf. My brother and I, the great-grandchildren of K.K. Kam, were also invited to be recognized at the gala event. We had no desire to attend, but we knew it would make our grandmother happy. Plus, we would get to hear a concert by the Royal Hawaiian Band and see a traditional Chinese lion dance. 

After about 45 minutes of introductions and greetings, swimming through the chaotic sea of 1,100 Chinese honorees and their descendants, the preparations for the lion dance commenced. The bright colors, the exotic percussion instruments, and the elaborate costumes piqued my excitement, and I was looking forward to seeing a real Chinese lion dance. But as the lion dance was about to begin I noticed something curious: the lion-dancers were burning sticks of incense and arranging a platter of fruit in the middle of the stage. At that moment, the question hit me like a sack of won ton: Is the lion dance a form of entertainment or a religious ceremony?

I turned around and asked one UCS officials, “Excuse me, but is the lion dance a religious ceremony?” “Well,” she said, “in a sense ... yes.” I tried to be more direct, “I was wondering why they are burning incense.” She responded and gestured toward the seated living honorees and the representatives of the deceased, “Well, they are making offerings to the revered ancestors.” In other words, they weren't merely honoring my great-grandfather – they were worshipping him! Just to double-check, my brother asked one of the lion dancers if this was a religious ceremony, and he responded, “Of course!” [1]

That did it. We immediately escaped so as not to violate the prohibition of deriving benefit from the idolatrous ceremony and offerings. Later in the evening we had to make yet another escape when they had a ceremony to "re-summon" the “lion spirit” to come and bestow "blessings of fortune" on the honorees.

The events of last night made me think about the prohibition to derive benefit from objects of avodah zarah (idolatry). This prohibition comes from the underlined part of the following pesukim: 

"The carved images of their gods you shall burn in the fire; you shall not covet and take for yourself the silver and gold that is on them, lest you be ensnared by it, for it is an abomination of Hashem, your God. And you shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become banned like it; you shall surely loathe it and you shall surely abominate it, for it is banned" (Devarim 7:25-26). 

The verse implies that by bringing avodah zarah into our homes, or by deriving benefit from it, we will somehow become corrupted by it. 

On the surface, this seems to be a far-fetched concern, especially in this day and age. Does the Torah really mean to say that if I purchase a small statue of a Chinese lion because I like the way it looks, without any idolatrous intentions, I will somehow come to worship avodah zarah?

Sforno [2] provides an answer to this question. He explains:

lest you be ensnared by it - for sometimes it will happen that this gold and silver will bring you success, and you will think that it is because of the power of the avodah zarah that it was on.

In other words, let's say I buy the Chinese ritual lion statue and keep it in my living room. A few days later, I get a raise in salary. Whether consciously or unconsciously, there is a danger that I will attribute my good fortune to the "power" of my recently acquired avodah zarah, thereby bolstering a belief in supernatural powers - a notion that the entire Torah seeks to uproot. The Torah protects us from this danger by prohibiting us to derive any benefit from avodah zarah.

The experience I had at my great-grandfather's award ceremony and the insight that followed gave me new appreciation of Torah's prohibitions against avodah zarah and helped me realize their relevance even in this generation. 

[1] In case you are interested, according to Wikipedia there are two types of lion dance: the northern style and the southern style. The southern style is a religious ceremony, whereas the northern style (pictured above) is purely a form of entertainment. You can tell the difference by the number of performers and the style of lion: the northern style uses two performers and a Pekinese-like lion, whereas the Southern style typically uses seven or more performers and looks more like a lion or a dragon.

[2] Rabbeinu Ovadiah Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Devarim 7:25

Parashas Vaeira: Do You Believe in Magic?

Originally posted in December 2013.

Artwork: Jace the Mind Sculptor, by Jason Chan

Parashas Vaeira: Do You Believe in Magic?

In Parashas Vaeira the Torah recounts the first of the many miracles performed by Moshe in Egypt:

Moshe came with Aharon to Paroh and they did so, as Hashem had commanded; Aharon cast down his staff before Paroh and before his servants, and it became a snake. Paroh, too, summoned his wise men and sorcerers, and they, too - the necromancers of Egypt - did so with their magic. Each one cast down his staff and they became snakes; and the staff of Aharon swallowed their staffs. The heart of Paroh was strong and he did not heed them, as Hashem had spoken. (Shemos 7:10-13)

The question is: Did Paroh's sorcerers do real magic? The answer to this question is a machlokes Rishonim (a disagreement between medieval authorities). 

Some Rishonim, such as the Rambam, Ibn Ezra, and Radak, maintain that there is no such thing as “real magic.” All instances of magic, sorcery, and occult practices mentioned by the Torah were nothing but illusions and trickery, whether by sleight of hand or by sleight of mind. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to this position as “the Rambam’s view,” [1] since he was more vocal about his position on this matter than many of the other Rishonim.

Other Rishonim, such as the Ramban, Sefer ha’Chinuch, and Rashi, maintain that magic – at least, some forms of magic – are real, and involve tremendous chochmah (wisdom). Of course, they do not believe that magic involve powers other than Hashem. Rather, they conceive of magic as a method of manipulating natural phenomena in “unnatural” ways. This may be compared to the act of “hacking” a computer program: the program was designed to be used in a certain way, but the potential for the other uses exists within its code, and if one knows programming language, he can change the program to be used in an “unnatural” manner – that is, in a manner contrary to the intent of the program’s original designer. We will refer to this position as “the Ramban’s view,” since he was one of the most vocal opponents of the Rambam’s view.

Last but not least, there are Rishonim who are in doubt. They acknowledge both sides of the issue, but admit that they don’t know which side is correct. One of these Rishonim is the Ralbag [2], who writes:

I maintain that these “wise men [of Egypt]” were the men who were knowledgeable in the chochmas Mitzrayim (Egyptian wisdom). This chochmah enabled its practitioners to produce acts of sorcery to bring about strange and unnatural phenomena. They either (a) perform illusions which cause people to think they are doing what they are not actually doing; or (b) they devise natural mechanisms to produce strange phenomena that appear to be acts of sorcery; or (c) they did these strange actions by means of actual sorcery – that is, assuming these things are possibly by way of actual sorcery. Today, however, we lack knowledge of the nature and character of this [Egyptian] “sorcery,” and so we have not seen fit to discuss it.

Whenever I present this machlokes between the Rambam and the Ramban to my students, I am inevitably asked two questions: “How do we know which view is correct?” and “What do you believe?”

My answer to the first question is: analyze each of the theories in depth, evaluate their relative strengths and weaknesses, and arrive at a conclusion with your own mind. If you are unable to conduct a full investigation or are unable to arrive at a conclusion, the most intellectually honest position to hold is that of the Ralbag, who said, “I don’t know.” Do not be intellectually irresponsible and adopt whichever belief you find most emotionally pleasing or the most stimulating to your imagination and fantasy.

My answer to the second question, “What do you believe?” is a bit more nuanced than the two basic Rishonic positions outlined above. I will say, without hesitation, that I believe the Rambam’s view to be correct. I do not believe that there is or ever was such a thing as “real magic,” and anything that appears to be real magic is the product of trickery, imagination, and/or ignorance. Not only that, but I maintain that if the Ramban were alive today, he would agree with the Rambam. There would be no machlokes.

In order to understand why this is the case, we need to understand why the Ramban believed in magic in the first place. The answer is not simply “Because the Torah talks about people doing magic, and prohibits magic, so magic must be real!” After all, the Rambam and other Rishonim were also aware of the references to magic in the Torah, and they still maintained that magic is fake.

The Ramban’s clearest statement of his reasons for believing in occult practices (such as magic, astrology, omen-reading, etc.) can be found in his commentary on Devarim 18:9. He writes that we ought to believe in these phenomena because “we cannot deny things [that] have been done publicly in the sight of witnesses” which are based on “empirically verified science” – that is to say, they have been confirmed by observation and experience. Scientists [3] at the time of the Ramban believed in these occult phenomena, and the Ramban relied on their conclusions. To deny magic would be to reject science and sense observation [4], which is the basis of everything – including our acceptance of Torah.

The Ramban’s true position is now clear. Just as he relied on the empirical conclusions of the scientists in his times, so too, if he were alive today, he would embrace the empirical conclusions of modern day scientists. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a belief in magic and the occult. Scientists today hold by the view expressed by the Rambam over 800 years ago:

Anyone who believes in these and similar things and, in his heart, holds that they are true and scientific but forbidden by the Torah, is nothing but a fool with a deficient mind, who belongs to the same class with others whose intellects are immature. Intelligent people, however, whose rationality is intact, know by clear proofs that all these practices which the Torah prohibited have no scientific basis but are senseless and empty; and that only those with deficient minds are attracted by these follies and, for their sake, leave the ways of truth.

In the Ramban’s time, the evidence wasn't so clear. To deny magic was to take a stance on what was regarded as a two-sided scientific dispute. Today, however, there are no two sides. In this day and age, to believe in magic is to reject science and to deny sense observation. That, we can be sure, is a stance that the Ramban would never take, and would never advocate. 

[1] See Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:16; Commentary on the Mishnah, Maseches Avodah Zarah 4:6; Letter to the Rabbis of Montepellier

[2] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Shemos 7:11 (Beur ha’Milos)

[3] There wasn’t any “science” in Ramban’s time. They called it “natural philosophy.” I’m speaking in the vernacular.

[4] This isn't the only instance of the Ramban basing his interpretation of Chumash on empirical evidence. In our dvar Torah on Parashas Noach we saw that the Ramban relied on the explanation of rainbows given by the Greek scientists, even when their words undermined the plain pshat of the pesukim. The Ramban wrote: “We are compelled to believe the words of the Greek [scientists] that rainbows are a natural phenomenon resulting from the sun’s rays passing through moist air, etc.”

Seltzer Theories vs. Jam Theories

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Seltzer Theories vs. Jam Theories

Say what you will about Sigmund Freud, but one thing is clear: he was a thinker. Not only was he a thinker, but he had a particular knack for writing about one of my favorite subjects: methodology. Freud's writings are brimming with methodological insights, which have helped me in all areas of learning.

One of my favorite methodology points can be found in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Lecture #30: Dreams and Occultism. Freud takes up the question as to whether there is any legitimacy to "occult phenomena," such as telepathy, fortune tellers, and prophetic dreams: 

We propose to proceed with these things as we do with any other scientific material: first of all to establish whether such events can really be shown to occur, and then and only then, when their factual nature cannot be doubted, to concern ourselves with their explanation.

But Freud notes that we are confronted by difficulties even before we begin our investigation:

It cannot be denied, however, that even the putting of this decision into action is made hard for us by intellectual, psychological and historical factors. The case is not the same as when we approach other investigations.

He then presents a key methodological insight (the paragraph-breaks are my own):

Let us suppose that the question at issue is the constitution of the interior of the earth. We have, as you are aware, no certain knowledge about it. We suspect that it consists of heavy metals in an incandescent state. Then let us imagine that someone puts forward an assertion that the interior of the earth consists of water saturated with carbonic acid - that is to say, with a kind of soda-water. 

We shall no doubt say that this is most improbable, that it contradicts all our expectations and pays no attention to the known facts which have led us to adopt the metal hypothesis. Nevertheless it is not inconceivable; if someone were to show us a way of testing the soda-water hypothesis we should follow it without objecting. 

But suppose now that someone else comes along and seriously asserts that the core of the earth consists of jam. Our reaction to this will be quite different. We shall tell ourselves that jam does not occur in nature, that it is a product of human cooking, that, moreover, the existence of this material presupposes the presence of fruit-trees and their fruit, and that we cannot see how we can locate vegetation and human cookery in the interior of the earth. 

The result of these intellectual objections will be a switching of our interest: instead of starting upon an investigation of whether the core of the earth really consists of jam, we shall ask ourselves what sort of person this must be who can arrive at such a notion, or at most we shall ask him where he got it from. 

The unlucky inventor of the jam theory will be very much insulted and will complain that we are refusing to make an objective investigation of his assertion on the ground of a pretendedly scientific prejudice. But this will be of no help to him. We perceive that prejudices are not always to be reprobated, but that they are sometimes justified and expedient because they save us useless labor. In fact they are only conclusions based on an analogy with other well-founded judgements. A whole number of occultist assertions have the same sort of effect on us as the jam hypothesis; so that we consider ourselves justified in rejecting them at sight, without further investigation.

There you have Freud's subdivision. In summary, there are three types of theories:

1. Heavy Metal Theory: There are theories which are natural extensions of - or, at least, do not contradict - our current empirical data and our theoretical framework. These are the theories to which we are most willing to devote our time and energy to clarify and develop, and to eventually verify or falsify.
   
2. Seltzer Theory: Then there are theories which strike us as improbable or counter-intuitive. Sometimes this is because these theories would require much more or much different data than we presently have. Sometimes it is because the framework of the proposed theory is so radically different from the current theory that it seems unlikely to be true. We would need a compelling reason to devote our time and energy to researching a seltzer theory (e.g. if the theory were proposed by someone in whom we have emunas chachamim, or if a theory were badly needed for a practical reason and all heavy metal theories had already been tested).
   
3. Jam Theory: Finally, there are the theories which strike us not only as improbable, but impossible, inconceivable, or absurd. Everything we know indicates that this theory can't be true, and therefore, it is not worth our while to devote time and energy into determining its validity.

In my opinion, this subdivision is entirely a matter of practicality. If we had infinite time and resources, we would investigate every theory. However, since our time and resources are limited, we must pick and choose which theories warrant a serious investigation and which do not. This three-fold rubric is a good tool for making such a decision.

Nevertheless, Freud - in his typical intellectual honesty - raises a problem with our rejection of jam theories:

But all the same, the position is not so simple. A comparison like the one I have chosen proves nothing, or proves as little as comparisons in general. It remains doubtful whether it fits the case, and it is clear that its choice was already determined by our attitude of contemptuous rejection. Prejudices are sometimes expedient and justified; but sometimes they are erroneous and detrimental, and one can never tell when they are the one and when the other. 

The history of science itself abounds in instances which are a warning against premature condemnation. For a long time it was regarded as a senseless hypothesis to suppose that the stones, which we now call meteorites, could have reached the earth from outer space or that the rocks forming mountains, in which the remains of shells are embedded, could have once formed the bed of the sea. Incidentally, much the same thing happened to our psycho-analysis when it brought forward its inference of there being an unconscious. 

Thus we analysts have special reason to be careful in using intellectual considerations for rejecting new hypotheses and must admit that they do not relieve us from feelings of antipathy, doubt and uncertainty.

Freud warns us that even jam theories might have merit, and that the theory-sorting rubric outlined above is not infallible. But where does this leave us? The fact remains that the vast majority of jam theories are bogus. How do we know when to research a jam theory and when to reject it at the outset?

The answer, I believe, is that we have no choice but to follow the rubric and reject jam theories at the outset. Even though this might lead us to reject theories which later prove to be valid, Freud's method is still the most rational and consistent approach we can take.

Needless to say, we must never close our minds to a jam theory, and if someone shows us evidence or compelling arguments for such a theory, then we should be intellectually honest enough to retract our decision and change our minds.