Israeli Hodgepodge for December 28

Apparently, there are some newsworthy items coming from Israel, so here they are:

First of all, the Israeli Defense Forces predict that Iran can build a nuclear bomb by 2011.  I truly wish that Obama would show some resolve on this issue rather than focusing on something as futile as Afghanistan. 

Second, Israel is continuing its settlement expansion by building 700 apartments.  Israelis love it, but as if it were a surprise, the Obama administration is not happy with it.  It makes no sense to chide a longtime ally while you are not dealing with the antagonism coming from east of Jerusalem. Again, the Obama administration lacks a sense of priority in foreign policy.

On a lighter note,  Israel is seeing a rising percentage of those making aliyah the first time this decade.  This particularly positive bit of news, particularly during a global recession, is a more positive note, something which will, G-d willing, hearld the Messiah soon. 

A Jew Reflecting on Jesus' Birth and the Oneness of G-d

[DISCLAIMER: I began writing this on Christmas Day and was unable to finish until after Shabbos due to the complex nature of this topic.]

Some people are reading this right now and are saying to themselves: "Steve has gone absolutely daft.  Why would he reflect about Christmas?"  As my faithful Christians friends remind me, it's not about the presents or Santa Claus.  How the overt materialism of this time of year annoys me to no avail is immaterial.  What is being discussed is what my Evangelical Christians friends say Christmas is about--the birth of Jesus. 

Birth of Jesus.  The notion of it all makes one stop and pause.  Ultimately, it makes me come up with the following question: Can a deity, particularly an infinite one, be born?  Taking a look into Christian theology, the Christians believe in what is called a triune deity, or what is known as a "three-in-one." The concept of a triune deity leads one to another question: Having a triune nature, is Jesus an infinite or finite being?  This question plays an important role in the debate because monotheism, by definition, is the belief in one g-d. Although my Christian friends remind me constantly that Catholicism is not Protestantism, I am nevertheless going to quote the Catholic Church's catechism for the answer:

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true G-d, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.

This is not only a view of the Catholics; it's also taken on by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and the Greek Orthodox.  I clearly protest their concept of infinity, so what we need at this stage is a working definition of infinite.  After consulting the American Heritage and Webster dictionaries, infinite means "having no boundaries or end, limitless."  Infinity is beyond things (i.e., does not exist within such things) such as space, time, form, matter, physical boundaries, you get the idea.  The antonym, finite, comes from the Latin finire, which means to limit. 

G-d, which essentially is a name that denotes "the Infinite One," cannot be described.  But you might point out that G-d can be described as infinite, independent, and unlimited.  What one has to keep in mind here is the Maimonidean concept of negative theology, which states that we humans, as finite beings, can only describe G-d in negative attributes.  That is to say that because of G-d's nature (i.e., infinite, boundless, unlimited), we can only describe what G-d is not, not what He is.  To rephrase this concept, G-d is not limited, not finite, and whose existence is not dependent on any other being.  You might tell me that G-d is "omniscient or omnipresent," thereby being positive descriptions.  What needs to be realized is that any seemingly positive description that you have come up with is merely the extension of the definition of infinity.

Infinity is, in short, unimaginable, and consequently indescribable. Thus, if we can describe Jesus, we have an intellectual quandary of gargantuan proportions. So let's try it, shall we? Jesus was a man.  Jesus was a Jew.  Jesus had a beard.  Jesus has been portrayed by many as fair-skinned. What we just did was apply attributes to Jesus, thereby limiting him.  Even the fact I use the past tense to describe Jesus, i.e., Jesus was born, proves that Jesus existed within time rather than beyond it.  Christians will retort that Jesus was simultaneously man and g-d.  This response is problematic because an entity cannot, by definition, be finite and infinite at the same time.  Having your cake and eating it, too, does not work in this argument.  That set aside, what we have done is establish that Jesus had limitations, which means that Jesus cannot be considered an infinite being.

For those of you who are not convinced by this logic, we'll delve further into Christian theology, but before we do that, we need a better understanding of the [Christian] notion of a "triune deity," that being the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as three persons) in one g-dhead.  Essentially, a triune deity is based on the mathematics of 1+1+1=1. Although an outsider perceives this as faulty math [and rightly so], Christians still attempt to make sense of it.  Going back to the definition provided to us by the Catholic Church's catechism, the Christians definition of G-d is three persons in one essence.  This is not to say that these are three separate names for G-d, but rather they are three separate entities (own emphasis added), which I will illustrate right now.  The best analogy I have heard of this concept was given to me by a Catholic friend when she told me that Jesus is like H2O.  You can have water in three forms: water, ice, and steam.  In essence, it's all H2O, but the forms are different.  The problem with the analogy is that ice has different (and, by extension, limited) uses than water or steam.  I wouldn't use ice for a functioning sauna or steam for a hockey rink.  The same goes for the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, which brings us to the question of whether "three persons" can all be called infinite.  Since the Christians already state that there are three distinct entities, we need to take on that view, as well.  This following is an insight that I came across on an online course analyzing the Ramchal's  דרך הי:

Let's call these entities G-d #1 (the Father), G-d #2 (the Son), and G-d #3 (the Holy Spirit).  For two seconds, I would like to entertain the thought of having three infinite beings, meaning they are defined as "infinite, unlimited, formless, independent, and perfect."  If all three are perfect, it seems self-evident that G-d #1 can't have anything that G-d #2 or #3 have, or else #2 and #3 would be lacking and therefore not perfect and unlimited.  So that begs the following question: what makes the trinity three?  I like the tennis ball analogy because it works so well.  Let's say that you have three tennis balls that are "identical."  The truth of the matter is that they are fundamentally not identical at all.  Tennis ball #1 might look identical to the other two tennis balls, but not only are they composed of completely different molecules, but they occupy two separate areas of space, thereby making them distinguishable. 

Let's apply this to the concept of a triune deity.  If you are like many Christians and opine that the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from the Son or the Father, you have a problem.  As soon as you say something distinguishes #1 from #2 and #3, and so on, you are forced to admit that each one cannot be infinitely perfect. You cannot have more than one completely infinite, boundless, limitless, completely independent being that co-exists with the other two.  If the three parts of the triune deity can limit each other, each entity is finite because of the limits imposed by the other.  If they are not able to limit one another, they are already limited because they cannot limit the other two. 

In case that description that I just gave was really, really confusing, I will give you the much shorter version:

1. An infinite being is one that is not limited, whether that be by time, space, matter, energy, shape, or form.  The reason why the Infinite One is infinite is because He is boundless, making Him beyond such things.
2. Jesus was limited because he was a Jewish man (limited by form) who was born and ultimately died (bound by time).  An infinite being would not be subject to such limitations, but Jesus was.  This makes Jesus a finite being. 
3. The notion of a triune deity is incongruous with monotheism.  Christianity believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct entities within one essence.  These three entities cannot simultaneously exist and be infinite because their ability (or even inability) to limit one another makes them limited, thereby making each of them finite.

Conclusion: Two things have been proven today.  The first is that Jesus is not infinite, and the second is that the expression of the Trinity as Infinite Oneness is intellectually unsound.  The best part about this is that I didn't have to even use Scripture--just good 'ole fashion intuition.  For me, this was an intellectual exercise in theological discourse.  For you, the reader, I hope that we developed an accord on this topic, and if even if you don't want to, I hope that at the very least, this entry has been intellectually stimulating.

Addendum on December 21st Post

Looks like I was right!  The merger is going to be a bit of a challenge, and the fact that people commented on the merger issue shortly after the Senate version of the bill passed further proves it.  All I can say is look at these posts by Associated Press and U.S. News & World Report and then tell me it will be a piece of cake.

Carter Apologizes to the Jews?!

This bit of news caught my eyes--Carter apologizes to the Jewish community for his unfair critique of Israel, most notably in his book Peace Not Apartheid. Abraham Foxman, president of the ADL, stated that "If it turns out that President Carter's love for his grandson brought about an epiphany in his relationship with the Jewish people, that's fine."  Foxman's opinion comes in light of the possibility that Carter is doing this to help his grandson, Jason Carter, win the Senate seat in 2010. 

Whether ex-president Carter is doing this to help his grandson court the evangelical vote in Georgia or not will remain to be seen.  All I can say is that if we are to "give him the benefit of the doubt," in spite of all of the horribles things the man has said about Israel, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.  A mere declaration dubbed as an "Al Chet" doesn't cut it.  He should start by publicly repudiating his aforementioned book.  He should continue by advocating for Israel with the fervor he bad-mouthed it all these years.  In Judaism, sincere repentance comes from vowing never to commit the transgression and reversing the damage [if applicable].  This very well could be the beginning of a new Jimmy Carter, which would be nice, but in the same breath, I won't be at all surprised if it is merely a charade to land his grandson in office.

It Ain't Over 'Til the Fat Lady Sings

Sen. Bob Nelson didn't exactly make my day when he threw in his support for the health care bill. He became the sixtieth Senator in support for this, thereby preventing a filibuster. Although I wonder how he sleeps at night, I'm not really as worried as you'd think. Even if the bill passes, there is still one HUGE hurdle remaining--the merging of the House and Senate bills. The Democratic Senates are already warning the House not to meddle with the compromise reached in the Senate.

I don't think that Nancy Pelosi is going to take too kindly to that. Her version of the bill passed with a public option, whereas that was one of the many provisions stripped out of the Senate version. The discrepencies will undoubetdly cause delay, if not a downright scrapping of the bill. It is true that when it comes to politics, Americans have exceptionally short attention spans. However, the 2010 election is coming up very quickly. If this drags out much further, the Democratic Congressmen will have to contend with the freshness of screwing over the American people, which will still be within voters' attention spans. And believe me when I say that Republicans vying for Democratic incumbents' seats will use that to their advantage. Although conservative pundits are giving us "the sky is falling" spiel, we still have to wait for the fat lady to sing.

Maimonidean Approach on Ethical Kashrut

In the last blog, I was discussing how kashrut was created to cultivate man. I ended with the beginning of a "discussion" between Nachmanides and Maimonides. I didn't let Rambam get his say in on the matter, so I will do so now:

"For in general the eggs which the bird has sat and the young that need their mother are not fit to be eaten. If then the mother is let go, she will not be pained by seeing that the young are taken away. In most cases, this will lead people to leave everything alone, for what may be taken in most cases is not fit to be eaten. If the law takes into consideration these pains [in the case of beasts and birds], what will be the case in regard to the individuals of the human species." -Guide for the Perplexed, ch. III, part xlviii

Rambam also mentions that when we perform shechita, we should make sure that the knife is as sharp as possible so as to minimize the pain to the animal (ibid, part xxvi). The Rambam's view on treatment of animals can be summarized with the following (ibid, part xlviii):

"For in these cases, animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty which is found in most animals just as it is found in man."

To summarize Rambam's argument in a nice, little sound byte: Animals are sentient beings!

Because of this realization, we are faced with a an ethical quandry. If animals are sentient beings, and Proverbs (12:10) is indeed correct in asserting that a righteous man regards the life of an animal, how do we comprehend the notion of meat-eating in Judaism? If we are to "abhor" bloodshed and show compassion, even towards animals, how does Judaism come to terms with eating meat? An even better question: with all of this in mind, can Judaism come to terms with being omnivorous?

My final entry in this kashrut series will deal with Judaism and vegetarianism.

Kashrut as a Moral Cultivator

"The Torah's commandments were not given to humankind for any purpose other than to refine people." -Genesis Rabbah 44:1

According to the Midrash, the mitzvot were created to make us into better human beings. If that's true, then kashrut has to bring us some sort of insight, realization, or mechanism that elevates our overall relationship with HaShem.  Just a few that come to mind......

1) Self-discipline.  This in inherent in any ritual, whether it be Buddhist meditation, the quotidian Kantian walk, or the seven sacraments of Catholicism. Self-discipline teaches you not to automatically give into your impulses. It gives you free will. It gives you awareness. And ultimately, it gives you a sense of self-control.  It should be no surprise that Judaism enables such self-control, even with something as seemingly mundane as eating.  The existential angst in Judaism, at least from a Kabbalistic perspective, is the inner struggle between the animal and G-dly souls.  Your animal soul just wants to eat.  You have a full stomach, it needs to be filled, so eat!  That's what animals do, after all.  But in Judaism, you go beyond that.  You think before you eat.  You are aware of what you eat. You channel those impulses and that awareness to serve HaShem.

2) Less prone to violence.  Dennis Prager makes a good point about the prohibition of consuming blood.  "It [the prohibition] produced an extraordinary antipathy to blood among Jews.  One example, in addition to the uniquely low incidence of violence among Jews, has been the vitrual nonexistence of hunting among Jews."  Judaism is an exceptionally life-affirming religion, and because of that, Jewish law abhors violence and supports the usage of it only when absoultely necessary.  The prohibition of blood consumption reinforces our commitment to eliminate violence, as well as violent tendencies from our daily lives.

3) Greater sense of compassion.  I would opine that this point is the apex of how kashrut cultivates man. R. Abraham Heschel explained that "these laws were designed to ennoble his feelings and make him sensitive to the plight of every creature. Disregard for the suffering of non-human creatures may result in insensitivity to the agony of human beings. The boy who, in crude joy, finds delight in the convulsions of an injured beetle or the anxiety of suffering animals will soon be dumb toward human pain." For Heschel, the spillover effect would not only affect treatement of animals--it would contiminate intrapersonal relations with fellow human beings, as well. Considering that Jewish people are supposed to possess the character trait of compassion (Yevamot 79a), it wouldn't bode well if we forgot the moralistic lessons of kashrut.

The agrument for compassion is best laid out in the debate of what the mitzvah of shooing the mother bird from her nest (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). Nachmanides argues that one should think of cultivating man's middot when keeping this mitzvah in mind. "The reason for the prohibition of slaying the mother and the young on the same day as well as the ordinance of sending the mother is to eriadicate cruelty and pitilessness from man's heart...not that G-d had pity on the mother bird or the mother of the young. Were that the case, G-d would have completely forbidden shechita. But the real reason is to cultivate in us the quality of mercy...since cruelty is a contagious, as is well known from the example of professional animal killers who become hardened to human suffering. These precepts regarding bird and beast are not motivated by pity for the beast but are decrees of the Almighty to cultivate good moral qualities in man."

Maimonides disagrees with Nachmanides, and believes it's about caring about the bird itself, but that is a discussion I leave for my next blog.