The Sages

(This post is kind of a follow on from my previous post)

The only way to really understand Gemara is to understand the people and places in it. There are several books on the Sages.

In Hebrew you have Shem HaGedolim of the Chida and Seder HaDorot in 3 volumes (vol 1; vol 2; vol 3). There are also Dorot HaRishonim in 7 volumes (vol 1; vol 2; vol 3; vol 4; vol 5; vol 6; vol 7) which was written partly as a refutation of Graetz (also in multiple volumes: vol 1; vol 2; vol 3; vol 4; vol 5; vol 6).

There is also Encyclopedia le-Chochmei HaTalmud by Reuven Margoliot (which is not available online as far as I know)
And Daat has a very good online resource of people from the Talmud.

The most recent (and possibly best) book on the subject is by Benyamin Lau (nephew of the former Chief Rabbi). It is 5 volumes in Hebrew, the first 2 of which have been translated into English: The Sages: The Second Temple Period; Character, Context & Creativity (Sages: Character, Context & Creativty) and The Sages, Vol.II: From Yavne to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. I hope that the rest of the series will also be translated. For those of you who live in Israel, I believe he gives a shiur on the Sages during the summer months somewhere in Katamon.

There used to be a very good book called Who's Who in the Talmud by Shulamis Frieman. Unfortunately when Aaronson publishers went bust the book went out of print. As far as I know it has not been reprinted - which is a real shame. If anyone knows if there are plans to reprint it - perhaps as an e-book please let me know.

There are a few other books of Jewish history, but those are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head. Please feel free to add others in the comments.

Rabbi Abahu and Rambam's 3rd Ikkar

I came across three interesting statements for Rabbi Abahu this week, which seem to point to the fact that he does not agree with Rambam's third principle - that we must deny any kind of physicality from G-d.

I was learning the (Israeli) parshat hashavua which speaks about the service of the Cohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. One of the fundamental disputes between the Sadducees and the Rabbis was whether to first place the incense on the coals and then enter the Holy of Holies, or whether to first enter and then place the incense. There is a well known story in both the Bavli (Yoma 19b) and Yerushamli (Yoma 1:5) about a Sadducee who did it 'his' way, and died shortly thereafter. He was found with a hoofprint on his forehead, because he was killed by an angel, and angels have a single foot with a calf's hoof. In the Yerushalmi the students asked Rabbi Abahu how an angel was permited to be inside the Holy of Holies, since they learnt from the verse "No man will be with him when he enters..." that even angels are not permitted inside. He answered that this only applies when the service is done properly, but not when it is done incorrectly.

That is fine. But if we look a bit further in the Yerushalmi (5:2 27a) it tells the well-known story of Shimon HaTzadik, who knew when he was going to die:

ארבעים שנה שימש שמעון הצדיק את ישראל בכהונה גדולה ובשנה האחרונה אמר להן בשנה הזאת אני מת אמרו לו מאיכן אתה יודע אמר להן כל שנה ושנה שהייתי נכנס לבית קודש הקדשים היה זקן אחד לבוש לבנים ועטוף לבנים נכנס עמי ויוצא עמי ובשנה הזו נכנס עמי ולא יצא עמי. בעון קומי ר' אבהו והא כתיב (ויקרא טז) וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד בבאו לכפר בקדש עד צאתו אפי' אותן שכתוב בהן (יחזקאל א) ודמות פניהם פני אדם לא יהיו באהל מועד אמר לון מה אמר לי דהוה בר נש אני אומר הקב"ה היה:

For forty years Shimon HaTzadik served as the High Priest. In his final year he said to the people 'In this year I will die'. Htye asked him 'how do you know?' He replied, 'Every year when i would enter the Holy of Holies an old man dressed in white and wrapped in white would enter with me and leave with me. THis year he entered with me, but did not leave with me.'
They asked Rabbi Abahu, 'does it not say that "not man will be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters... even those who are called 'man' (angels)...?" He replied to them, 'Did I say it was a man (or an angel)? I say it was the Holy One, blessed is He!'

Apparently Rabbi Abahu believes that G-d can take on human form! None of the commentaries that I have seen so far address this issue at all. I know that Rabbi Abahu doesn't have to agree with Rambam, but is Rambam not a bit embarrassed to disagree with Rabbi Abahu? (I am asking this tongue in cheek - knowing full well that a similar question is one of Abarabanel's many challenges to the 13 principles).

But I didn't have to go as far as the Yerushalmi to find Rabbi Abahu's view on this matter. The Bavli (Sanhedrin 95b) also has a similar statement from him - this time talking about the downfall of Sancherev:

אמר רבי אבהו אלמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאמרו דכתיב (ישעיהו ז) ביום ההוא יגלח ה' בתער השכירה בעברי נהר במלך אשור את הראש ושער הרגלים וגם את הזקן תספה אתא קודשא בריך הוא ואדמי ליה כגברא סבא

R. Abbahu said: Were not the [following] verse written, it would have been impossible to conceive of it: viz., In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by the riverside, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall consume the beard.41 The Holy one, blessed be He, went and appeared before him [Sennacherib] as an old man, and said to him... (Soncino translation)

Even though Yad Rama there explains that it does not mean G-d, but rather a person doing the will of G-d, have a look at Rashi. He says explicitly "The Holy One, blessed is He, Himself".

I looked in Rav Aryeh Kaplan's The Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume 1 where he clearly states (Chapter 2 section 14):

Judaism therefore rejects the possibility that God could have ever assumed human form.

In footnote 17 he brings the source as Yerushalmi Taanit 2:1 (9a). When I looked there I found that once again it is a statement of Rabbi Abahu:

אמר רבי אבהו אם יאמר לך אדם אל אני מכזב הוא בן אדם אני סופו לתהות בו שאני עולה לשמים ההוא אמר ולא יקימנה.

Rabbi Abahu says: If a person says to you "I am god" he is lying. If he says "I am a person (i.e. very righteous and holy - Korban HaEidah) he will eventually me led astray. If he says "I will ascend to heaven" he can say it but he cannot do it.

This does not seem to me to be very compelling. In fact, it seems to me that the only reason Rabbi Abahu call someone who claims to be god a liar is because he entertains that such a thing is possible. Otherwise the person is simply a fool, rather than a liar. Furthermore, these three statements seem to be an attack on Christianity, rather than specifically laying our Jewish dogma.

Rabbi Abahu was a 3rd generation Amora (student of both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish) who was the Rosh Yeshiva in Cesaeria (which I know from other sources, but is also confirmed by Wikipedia) and had frequent dealings with the non-Jewish leadership (as evidenced by his knowledge of Greek). He was known as an expert in aggadata.
Is Rabbi Abahu unique amongst the Rabbis in attributing the possibility of human form to G-d? Do the other Rabbis argue with him anywhere about this? Was it a shared belief amongst Chazal? Does Rambam have any clear statement from Chazal supporting his claim that it is heresy to beleive that G-d can assume human form?
The only statement of Chazal that Rambam brings (in his Introduction to Perek Chelek - he brings no source in Mishne Torah) is from Chagiga 15a which says:

גמירא דלמעלה לא הוי לא ישיבה ולא תחרות ולא עורף ולא עיפוי

This is a statement of Acher (Elisha ben Avuhya) which is that "Above there is no sitting nor competition nor turning the back of the neck, nor tiredness"
I'm not convinced that this is even speaking about G-d (from the context it seems that it is speaking about angels and specifically NOT G-d) and it is far from explicit.

I am open to any other insights that anyone may have.

Shavua Tov

Internet Asifa

Everyone is talking about the Internet Asifa with the backing of the Gedolim. Many different people have pointed out all the many things wrong with the idea from beginning to end.

What hasn't been pointed out (as far as I've seen) is that it seems obvious to me that this is not primarily about the speeches of the Gedolim (whoever they may be - so far no names have been mentioned). Surely the most important thing here for the organisers is the Expo which will take the first 2 hours.

I know that I am very cynical, but based on past history my guess is that the main purpose of this Asifa is to define 'kosher internet' and not kosher internet. Those who spend money to hire a booth at the expo will (for some unexplained reason) get a hechsher for their product. Anyone who purchases any other product will be excluded from the Chareidi community. It will not take long before Beis Yaakov schools require parents to sign that they don't have any other products. There will be special e-mail addresses which will be the only ones acceptable for those who wish to be part of the Chareidi community. etc. etc. etc.

In other words, it seems to me that the main purpose of this whole thing is to allow a few individuals to have an exclusive market of several thousand customers.

Is there such a thing as rational Judaism?

Can religion really work with rationalism? There are many good books which try to bridge the gap between them (the 'first and best' of which was Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems, and of course there are the books of Rabbi Slifkin including The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution

But at the end of the day must we come to a point where we give up on the rational? Are there things which we cannot accept rationally but have to accept on faith? And if so, how do we know where to draw the line?

New research seems to suggest that the more rational a person is, the less likely he or she is to be religious. I have no idea whether this actually means anything or not, but I am very sceptical about the methodology used (though I haven't been able to access the full paper, so perhaps it is the summary that is misleading, rather than the research.

For example, one of the ways they decided who is rational and who is intuitive was through the following question:

For example, students were asked this question: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The intuitive answer — 10 cents — would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.

After answering three of these questions, the students were asked to rate a series of statements on belief, including, "In my life I feel the presence of the Divine," and "I just don't understand religion." Students who answered the three questions correctly — and presumably did a better job of engaging their analytical skills — were more likely to score lower on the belief scales.

So based on three questions like that, and vague answers to questions about "I feel the presence of the Divine..." they make a generalisation that intuitive people are more religious, but intellectual people are less religious. I'm not convinced (I know that was only a small part of the study, but to my mind that is completely meaningless, and doesn't make sense in a study like this at all).

On the other hand, (and quite ironically), intuitively it seems to me that someone who is less rational is more likely to be religious. On the other hand, rationally, it doesn't really make sense to me.

Were Rambam, Saadiah, Ralbag or Yitzchak Yisraeli not religious? When Rambam rejects the philosophy of Kalam because it contradicts Aristotle, is that not purely rational?

But looking at the world today, it does seem to me that Kiruv has got rid of most of the intellectual, rational potential baalei teshuva. It seems that today faith has to be based on dodgy fake science and cholent. No rational person will accept that for very long.

Multiple Authors

It is not only Moshe Rabbeinu's authorship of the Torah that is challenged by 'experts'. Even Shakespeare's works contain multiple authors according to new research.

Prof Maguire says that a majority of plays written in this era had more than one writer - but the iconic status of Shakespeare has meant a reluctance to consider his work in this way.

She says she is "very confident" that there is "a second hand" in the authorship of the play.

The research by Prof Maguire and Dr Emma Smith, from Oxford University's English faculty, suggests that the playwright Thomas Middleton, a contemporary of Shakespeare's, appears to be the likely candidate.

Of course there have always been people who thought that Shakespeare didn't write his own works (and they have been attributed to many of his contemporaries, though the best take on it by far is in the Thursday Next series (beginning with The Eyre Affair: A Thursday Next Novel).

The question of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays has been a continued source of speculation and conspiracy.

Prof Maguire says that there is no serious scholarship which challenges the idea that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him.

At the same time there are those who thought that Shakespeare wrote the (King James) Bible.

There is not much records of Shakespeare´s personal life. Rumors arise from time to time that he did not write his plays, but the real author was Christopher Marlowe, or Queen Elizabeth or Edward De Vere (1550-1604), whom T.J. Looney identified in 1920 as the author of Shakespeare's plays. A large body of 'Oxfordians' have since built on this claim and the reluctance to believe that a man of humble origins could could create such magnificent works. According to some numerologists, Shakespeare wrote The King James Version of the Bible at the age of 46. Their "evidence": Shake is the 46th word of the 46th Psalm, Spear is the 46th word from the end in the 46th Psalm.

Well now it is all about multiple authors. Instead of E,J,P and D there are S (Shakespeare) and M (for Thomas Middleton).

Well, I suppose unless we borrow the Doctor's Tardis we will never know for sure. And at least it keeps some academics in business to come up with these theories. It in not way diminishes the brilliance of the plays themselves. And just like the Torah itself, logic and scientific study are not the important thing, but belief in the beauty and meaning of the words, and how they have changed the world.