Presence

Movie Trailer: Defiance

"In WWII Russia, Jewish refugees band together into a brigade that hides in the forest, ambushes Germans and survives until war’s end, eventually 1200 strong."

Starring Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell. Directed by Ed Zwick. More information at IMDB.

Presence Poll: I Believe that the Universe...

Note: Unlike comments on this blog, I have no way of seeing your answer and correlating that to any kind of identifiable information. In other words, I can't see who is voting for what.

Survival of the Wittiest

Newsweek, March 19, 2007: Beyond Stones & Bones, page 4:

The realization that early humans were the hunted and not hunters has upended traditional ideas about what it takes for a species to thrive. For decades the reigning view had been that hunting prowess and the ability to vanquish competitors was the key to our ancestors' evolutionary success (an idea fostered, critics now say, by the male domination of anthropology during most of the 20th century). But prey species do not owe their survival to anything of the sort, argues Sussman. Instead, they rely on their wits and, especially, social skills to survive. Being hunted brought evolutionary pressure on our ancestors to cooperate and live in cohesive groups. That, more than aggression and warfare, is our evolutionary legacy.

Both genetics and paleoneurology back that up. A hormone called oxytocin, best-known for inducing labor and lactation in women, also operates in the brain (of both sexes). There, it promotes trust during interactions with other people, and thus the cooperative behavior that lets groups of people live together for the common good. By comparing the chimp genome with the human, scientists infer that oxytocin existed in the ancestor of both. But it has undergone changes since then, perhaps in how strongly the brain responds to it and in how much is produced. The research is still underway, but one possibility is that the changes occurred around the time our ancestors settled into a system based on enduring bonds between men and women, about 1.7 million years ago.

Protect our Cultural Treasures (and, Free Hat!)

South Park Ep. 609 Free Hat

Somehow I missed this episode of South Park. I'm glad to see Matt and Trey agree with me.

On the Nature of Holidays

ת"ר לפי שראה אדם הראשון יום שמתמעט והולך אמר אוי לי שמא בשביל שסרחתי עולם חשוך בעדי וחוזר לתוהו ובוהו וזו היא מיתה שנקנסה עלי מן השמים עמד וישב ח' ימים בתענית [ובתפלה] כיון שראה תקופת טבת וראה יום שמאריך והולך אמר מנהגו של עולם הוא הלך ועשה שמונה ימים טובים לשנה האחרת עשאן לאלו ולאלו ימים טובים הוא קבעם לשם שמים והם קבעום לשם <עבודת כוכבים> {עבודה זרה}

Our Rabbis taught: When primitive Adam saw the day getting gradually shorter, he said, 'Woe is me, perhaps because I have sinned, the world around me is being darkened and returning to its state of chaos and confusion; this then is the kind of death to which I have been sentenced from Heaven!' So he began keeping an eight days' fast [and prayer vigil - GJG]. But as he observed the winter equinox and noted the day getting increasingly longer, he said, 'This is the world's course', and he set forth to keep an eight days' festivity. In the following year he appointed both as festivals. Now, he fixed them for the sake of Heaven, but the [heathens] appointed them for the sake of idolatry.

The obvious question from this passage (Avodah Zarah 8A) is: if Adam realized that such was the nature of the world, that the shortening of the days was not due to his sin, but instead simply the natural way in which the world operates, why did he feel the need to make a holiday to God? If his motivations would have been idolatrous, it would be understandable, but it is specifically stated that Adam acted "for the sake of Heaven." Why make a holiday simply because one mistook a natural event for an act of God?

Perhaps this helps explain why these holidays, in the end, became associated with idolatry. The fact that their institution was not really in direct correlation to an act of God, but instead in celebration of the natural order of the world, caused later generations to lose sight of their original intent. To Adam, it seemed rational to celebrate those days, since he feared Divine retribution for his sins, and felt he had been given a reprieve, even if in actuality, he had not. But future generations, who did not have this fear, took the holidays as simply a celebration of the natural order, and perverted their original intent to idolatry.

It is interesting to note that whenever we make holidays or special occasions, it is always in confluence with a directly perceived act of God. All major festivals, even those related to the seasons of the year, are associated with some Divine act or revelation. Hallel is recited only on occasions where Divine influence is noticeable (and not when it isn't, i.e. Purim). The reasoning would seem to be so that future generations do not misrepresent the nature of the occasion and turn it towards idolatry (or away from God).

Documentary on the Resurgence of Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century

Last night (edit: Monday night), PBS aired a documentary entitled "Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century: The Resurgence." It was quite an interesting show; despite my familiarity with most of the major incidents, such as various prime ministers making public anti-semitic statements, the overall affect of their presentation in documentary form was quite disconcerting and shocking. The NY Times has a review of the program.

Many of the clips shown during the documentary were from MEMRI.org and MEMRITV.org. Search MEMRITV.org for al shatat, the name of a documentary in which a dying Baron Rothchild discusses the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and Hasidim kidnap and slaughter a Christian child in order to obtain blood for their matzah. Or read this transcript from an Iranian TV special on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or, for giggles, read this transcript of an Iranian TV show that claims Tom and Jerry (yes, the cat and mouse) was created to bolster sympathy for Jews:

The Jews were degraded and termed "dirty mice." Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice. One of terms used was "dirty mice"...Tom and Jerry was made in order to display the exact opposite image. If you happen to watch this cartoon tomorrow, bear in mind the points I have just raised, and watch it from this perspective. The mouse is very clever and smart. Everything he does is so cute. He kicks the poor cat's ass. Yet this cruelty does not make you despise the mouse. He looks so nice, and he is so clever... This is exactly why some say it was meant to erase this image of mice from the minds of European children, and to show that the mouse is not dirty and has these traits.

It's amazing, unbelievable and terrifying.

MEMRITV is an amazing site; in my opinion, they should be uploading their videos to YouTube to increase public awareness.

In case you missed it, the documentary will be airing again tonight (Thursday night/Friday morning) at 2AM (if you have a TiVO...) on WETA 26 (in Baltimore) and on Sunday on WHUT 19 at 11PM.

Against Scientific Interpretations of Genesis

From Understanding Genesis, by Nahum Sarna:

It should be obvious that by the nature of things, none of [the creation] stories can possibly be the product of human memory, nor in any modern sense of the word scientific accounts of the origin and nature of the physical world.

Biblical man, despite his undoubted intellectual and spiritual endowments, did not base his views of the universe and its laws on the critical use of empirical data. He had not, as yet, discovered the principles and methods of disciplined inquiry, critical observation or analytical experimentation. Rather, his thinking was imaginative, and his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and poetic. Hence, it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science. Any correspondence which can be discovered or ingeniously established between the two must surely be nothing more than mere coincidence. Even more serious than the inherent fundamental misconception of the psychology of biblical man is the unwholesome effect upon the understanding of the Bible itself. For the net result is self-defeating. The literalistic approach serves to direct attention to those aspects of the narrative that reflect the time and place of its composition, while it tends to obscure the elements that are meaningful and enduring, thus distorting the biblical message and destroying its relevancy.

See also my previous thoughts, somewhat similar but much less eloquently articulated.

Reconciling Torah and Science

The preferred approach by most quasi-rational Orthodox Jews to reconcilling Genesis with a scientific account of the age of the universe seems to be what I call a Schroederian approach (named for Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a quantum physisct who authored several works attempting to reconcile modern science with the Biblical text). Typical of this type of approach is an acceptance that the Biblical narrative does not literally correspond to the actual truth of the creation of the universe, but, when properly interpreted metaphorically, the cosmogony presented by the Bible is in congruence with the accepted scientific theory. The most basic example of this, as Dr. Schroeder explicates in his book, is the non-literal interpretation of the word "yom" (day), allowing it instead to signify a stage of universal development , which may or may encompass a significantly longer period of time (such as millions or billions of years) than a single day. By interpreting the text of the Torah as metaphoric, while at the same time aligning the interpretation with modern science, the conflict between reason and belief in the Biblical text is done away with.

I have a serious problem with this approach. As I will demonstrate, I believe that taking a Schroederian approach to interpreting the Genesis narrative requires one to affirm one of two positions, both of which I believe to be untenable for anyone with an honest intellect and a serious sense of religion.

When taking a Schroderian approach, one must affirm one of the two following assertions. Either that the text of the Torah, when given, was incomprehensible to all previous generations that did not have knowledge of modern science, and that only now, in our time, do we have the means to properly understand the true meaning of the text; or that the Torah, being divinely composed, was written in such a way that the science of each generation would be able to be read into the text. So, in the times of Artistotle, Genesis would be reconcilled with Artistotle; when Newtonian physics became the dominant theory, the interpretation would be revised to match the current understanding. The same would apply to quantum physics, and any other theory that should arise in the future.

My objections to the first approach should be obvious: to affirm that all previous generations had an incorrect understanding of Genesis is, to me, an unacceptable position to take. In addition, the nature of science is that, while we have a workable system today, as time goes on, revisions and adjustments will be made to that system, and, quite possibly, an entirely new paragidm will become accepted. Science is a moving target, to assert that the Torah was given and that our current understanding is the correct understanding is both arrogant and illogical.

Regarding the second approach: I find the idea that God composed a text with such exquisite nuance that it could encompass any past, present or future scientific explanation to be a bit unreasonable; if, however, we are accepting the concept of an omnipotent deity, I suppose it is possible. But still, if we take this approach, what we are saying is that knowledge of the universe comes not from the Torah, but from a combination of our reason and experience. Only once we have come up with a system using science as our guide do we go back and read it into the Torah. The Torah, from this perspective, becomes irrelavent in teaching us anything about the universe; rather, it is just an outline into which we place the fruits of our own reason. For this reason, I find this position as well to be untenable.

If this approach, namely re-reading the current scientific cosmongy back into the Genesis narrative, is untenable, what other approaches are there? One could believe that the Torah itself is the literal truth of the creation of the universe (i.e. that things really happened about 6000 years ago, and only took six 24-hour days), but this runs contrary to reason, and so is not a rational position. Another option is to understand Genesis as referring to some other metaphorical type of creation, such as the creation of society or of civilized Man. Yet another approach is to presume that the Genesis narrative reflects the best available information from the time in which it was composed, and to accept that what we know now may very well conflict, even contradict, the biblical text.

Baltimore Jewish History

OnTheMainLine drudged up a search engine for the The Jewish Mueseum of Maryland's collections (hence his post on Baruch Aronson's hat!).

I did a search for Taragin (Peninah's family), and came up with lots of very interesting stuff. Nothing for Mihaly.

I am sure there are hours of interesting stuff here.

A picture of Zaydie Mendel (R. Menachem Mendel Taragin, Peninah's great grandfather).

Ner Israel students, circa 1960. R. Herman Nueberger on the left (is that Jerry Kadden in the back row, center? I may be way off here in terms of chronology...).

The Original Shomrei Emunah, now a hole in the ground.

If you find anything else interesting, post it in the comments.

Today's Sign of the Apocolypse

WND: Al Aqsa official: Jewish temples existed.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that a serious commitment to historical accuracy is a double-edged sword. In other words, you can't have your Temple Mount and eat it too.

(For more, go here; register/log in and vote/shmooze, and let me know what you think).

Historical Fictions

When I read The Da Vinci Code, I was at once intriguied and skeptical; while the theories presented in the book were fascinating, little red lights started going off as well. While I'll admit to being close to ignorant of a lot of the history the book deals with, the small bits of Jewish lore that, as far as I know were incorrect, led me to believe there might be some issues with the rest of the information. Turns out, others think so too.

That is not to say that parts of the book might not be correct; some of it likely is. The greater issue, I think, is the massive amount of people ready and willing to believe, with religious-style leaps-of-faith, anything popular as fact, particularly when the subject matter touches the ever-present and possibly tedious, such as history or Bible studies, where levels of ignorance are at their highest. The general public makes no effort in researching the issues presented, preferring the spoon-feeding of pop-culture. This is so dangerous, it makes me dizzy just thinking about it.

On the other hand, Dan Brown's got a dynamite formula; say what you will about the books' veracity, they are great stories, and Brown does an admirable job of building multi-faceted puzzles and plots. And for those who do take history seriously, the books are excellent starting points for learning about new topics (after reading Angels and Demons, I have a new found appreciation for Roman sculpture - just where are all those statues pointing, anyways?). There's got to be a way to transform my knowledge of Judaism into a best-selling thriller. Perhaps an American Yeshiva bachur visiting Israel teams up with a young, attractive Bar Ilan graduate student to uncover the centuries-old mystery behind the lost volumes of the Babylonian Talmud, which contain the long-lost commentaries on Tractate Demai, which relates the rise to power of the Pharisees and details their often-rumored but never-confirmed fabrication of an "Oral Law," essentially hijacking Judaism from its traditional roots and subjugating the masses of Israel to their will?

History be damned, I want the money.

New HPProgs post

I've got a new post up on Harry Potter Prognostications, dealing with truth in history. Two different approaches are presented; I'm not sure which, if either, I believe. I'm probably leaning more towards the subjective view (I generally don't do well with the correspondence theory of truth). But it does raise the question of how Judaism views history. I haven't the time or the inclination to tackle this one right now, but one source that comes to mind is Parshas Shelach (Num 13-16), the story of the spies, wherein the post-Exodus Israel doubts the historical promise of God to Avraham, et. al., that the Land of Israel will be a great place to live. As such, they appoint a group of spies to scope out the land. To make a long story short, big mistake (huge, in fact), and Israel spends the next thirty-eight years meandering in the Sinai Peninsula, waiting for the doubting generation to die off. The Torah's description of the method of reconnoitering employed by the spies relies heavily on the use of the word "li'roat," to see, and various conjugations thereof.

My basic understanding is that the spies used their "sight" to offer up their interpretation of the quality of the Land, taking advantage of the subjective nature of truth in a community setting. Their description became fact for their generation and turned the people away from the historical truth/promise given them. Of course, we end the parsha with the commandment of Tzitzis (fringes on garments), of which the Torah states, "And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it (u'reitem), and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about ("taturu"; same word as used for spying in the beginning of Num 13, "la'tur") after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray," which seems to be telling us not to fall prey to the subjective historical explanations, and to remember the historical imperative of the Exodus.

So it would seem that history is really important to Judaism. Of course, my predilection for the subjective tells you how well I fit in with traditional Judaism. Hopefully I've quite a few years left to sort it all out ;)

Know of any books, essays, etc., that discuss this? Leave 'em in the comments.