Tu B'Shevat Reflections: Can Judaism and Environmentalism Co-Exist?

Introduction


Under normal circumstances, I would consider the effort by liberal Jews to shove Judaism into secular environmentalism to be intellectually dishonest. In the words of Norman Podhoretz, they believe in the “Torah of liberalism” rather than the Torah of Judaism. Their feeble effort to distort the truth by cherry-picking few texts [usually out of context] is mendacious at best, and at worst, is a morally repugnant form of presenting one’s views. However, one has to seriously take King Solomon’s advice (Proverbs 3:6) when he says that you shall “acknowledge Him in all your ways, and He will smooth your paths.” What exactly does that mean? According to Metzudos, “In all that you do [own emphasis added], know HaShem. Create a ‘mindset’ that the purpose of whatever you do is the fulfillment of G-d’s will. Then He will direct your path and you will succeed.” I can direct this in general terms towards Orthodox Jews and non-Orthodox Jews alike. For the Orthodox, this means that living in His ways is not excluded to ritual, i.e., the only indicators of a good Jew are if you keep kosher or Shabbos. For the non-Orthodox, this means that your private life is not severed from your public life, i.e., what I do in synagogue stays in synagogue. Everything you do, from what you eat or wear to how you conduct business or interpersonal relations, is for His will. As we will discover shortly, environmentalism is no exception.

Man’s Nature

Approaching this from a secular approach, in my view, is a poor idea. As the saying goes, “business is business.” Torah recognizes that man has a tendency to give into its yetzer hara (Genesis 8:22), although man has the ability to overcome it (ibid. 4:7). As Adam Smith postulates in his book A Wealth of Nations, we are greatly persuaded by our self-interest, which means that in this scenario that the only way one can succeed at being environmentally sound is to infuse it with the incentive that the “invisible hand” provides in the free market. If you need any proof of that theory, look no further than the last Copenhagen conference about the supposed global warming issue. Notice how China and India, the two nations that are emitting more carbon than any other nations because of economic growth, are choosing economic development over environmental concerns. In its present state, choosing the environment over the economy is irrational. The top priority in the secular world is that self-interest, and an impetus for responsibility for one’s fellow man is, at best, secondary. In order to find any sense of personal responsibility towards others, one needs to take a more G-dly look at it.

Going back to the Garden of Eden, we see two seemingly contradictory sides of man. First, we are told in Genesis 1:28 to “be fruitful and multiply, and subdue it [the land].” G-d commands us that we have dominion of the earth. On the other hand, He tells us to “till and keep it,” denoting stewardship of the planet. We are simultaneously told to domineer and protect the land. Rather than view these two divine mandates as dichotomous, we should view them as a duality. “For my sake was the world made (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5).” Being created in His image, the universe was created for man. Man is meant to use the natural resources that G-d has provided. It does not mean that we exploit those resources to the point where we are left with nothing. This was the realization that Adam made in Genesis 2. As R. Soloveitchik, z”tl, pointed out in The Lonely Man of Faith, “He encounters the universe in all its colorfulness, splendor, and grandeur, and studies it with the naïveté, awe, and admiration of the child who seeks the unusual and wonderful in every ordinary thing and event.”  In order to figure out how these two aspects of man's nature become attuned with one another, one first has to look at Jewish law and how it handles the interaction with nature, with specific regard to the prohibition of b'al tashchit, or wanton destruction. 

Jewish Law and Environmentalism

For taking place in a nomadic, agricultural society, it amazes me that amongst other values that Judaism purports, one of those messages happens to be environmental.  As week look at these concepts, we need to keep in mind what the Midrash has to say about our responsibility to the environment:

“When God created the first human beings, God led them around the Garden of Eden and said: “Look at my works! See how beautiful they are—how excellent! For your sake I created them all. See to it that you do not spoil and destroy My world; for if you do, there will be no one else to repair it.”

 -Midrash Kohelet Rabbah, 1 on Ecclesiastes 7:13

The Torah tells us to create green belts around cities (Numbers 35:4).  Leviticus 19:19 prohibits grafting diverse seeds and cross-breeding animals, thereby showing respect for biodiversity.  Deuteronomy 23:12 deals with issues of waste disposal, i.e., public sanitation issues.  Although the Baba Batra primarily deals with property rights, it still has thourough discussions on air, water, and noise pollution.  In terms of strict exploitation, we are even supposed to give animals, as well as the land, a rest during Shabbos. Speaking of giving the land a rest, we have laws of shemita, which is when a Jew gives the land a year’s rest once every seven years.  This translates into "thou shall not cause soil erosion." 

There are other laws highlighted here, but I really want to focus on Ba’al taschit, not committing wanton destruction, because it is the impetus most cited by Jewish environmentalists.  It is based on Deuteronomy 20:19-20 that states that one is to be so careful as to not destroy an enemy’s fruit tree during a time of war. The Sefer Ha Chaniuch (529) expounds on this concept, and says that a righteous person would not even consider destroying a mustard seed because such destruction is considered wicked.  If we are supposed to show such attentiveness to something as tiny as a mustard seed, we should have a similar awareness towards the rest of limited resources.  But that still doesn't give us a clear heading as to how we should view our role with nature and how we go about using natural resources.  The Chatam Sofer, upon analyzing Bava Kamma 92a, is trying to figure out whether it is halachically acceptable to fell a tree in order to build a house.  In the larger scheme of things, this is what he conlcudes:

As long as he is not certain that the gain from cutting down the tree is greater than the value of the fruit it bears he is forbidden to cut it down and there is a danger as well, even in a case which is there is a doubt as to the value. This is my opinion. But if he stands to profit, even if only to build houses, which, in our time and place is a more important need than date palms, there is no doubt that it is permitted; however, if the tree can be uprooted with some soil and replanted at another site it is forbidden to cut down the tree. This is my humble opinion.

Quoting Sviva Israel, this is what has to be conluded about the nature of B'al Taschit: The prohibition of Bal Tashchit is not based on the idea that it is forbidden for me to waste resources; rather on the idea that every object in the world has a fundamental right to continue to exist as it is. God created nature, and, in principle, He wishes for it to remain as it was created, without being destroyed or moved, and it is this idea that implies that destruction of natural resources is prohibited without ample justification. When is such destruction justified? When it is done for a useful purpose. In other words, it is not the case that nature is a resource available to me, and if I destroy it I am wasting one of my resources, and therefore I am not allowed to destroy these resources without adequate reason. Instead the idea is that I am permitted to use natural resources, just like I am permitted to use animals for food and clothing. However, fundamentally nature should remain in its pristine state. The use of any natural resource must take into account the entire balance of rights - man’s needs and nature’s rights [own emphasis added]."

What This Means for Us in the Twenty-First Century

As stated above, we are meant to balance our needs with the right of nature to exist in its original state of being.  This means that environmentalism has to fit within Judaism, not the other way around.  One of the purposes of Shabbat, as stated by R. Samuel Dresner in his work The Sabbath, is to be at peace [and rest] with nature.  If Shabbat has been considered by the Sages to be a "taste of the World to Come," surely we must consider our ideal relationship with nature not to be strictly exploitative, but rather harmonious.

As Rabbi Yossi Ives states, Jews need to be at the forefront of this issue.  If we are supposed to be אור לגוים (a light unto nations), then we should act like it.  As Rabbi Ives states, he is dismayed that G-d-fearing Jews are not discussing the issues at hand.  This is not something that should be left for the Left because they will complain how we really shouldn't use any resources and how we should consider ourselves "just another species of animal."  They will bring neither balance nor moderation to the issue, which is why I respect the Jewish response precisely because it does.  The Torah teaches us to create social harmony by being servants of Hashem, which I have outlined in regards to environmentalism. 

In short, we have an imperative to be environemntally conscious.  Although COEJL is not a bad source, I would highly recommend Canfei Nesharim primarily for the reason that it deals with environmental issues from the lens of Torah, rather than secular thought.  Whether it is over-consumption, water contamination, or energy shortages, I hope that we all can find well-balanced solutions to environmental issues.

Democrats Pressure Israel and the State of Anti-Semitism

I came across this bit of news late this past week.  According to Haaretz, there are 54 lawmakers that are urging Obama to put pressure on Netanyahu--pressure to let up on Gazan border controls.  These Congressmen gripe because "we're punishing the collective [i.e., the Gazans] because of the few [i.e., Hamas]."  What these Congressmen forget is that Gaza voted for Hamas, and that just about everybody over there is, at the very least, an anti-Semite, and at the most, a Hamas supporter.  Knowing that Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, has a bias towards the Left, I noticed that they forgot one important fact about this news: all 54 Congressmen are Democrats!

First of all, why should Israel have to let up on border control?  You have a group people who call for the extermination of the Jewish people.  These border controls are a form of self-defense.  Any other nation defending their borders as such is a necessary precaution.  When Israel does it, it's apartheid!  Maybe "Palestine" should get some sovereignty so they wouldn't have to be so dependent on Israel "closing its borders."  Maybe they should vote in a new party.  [Side note--that won't work, it's only an electoral democracy, not a liberal one.  For those of you who don't know, a liberal democracy is an electoral democracy that happens to protect civil rights]  Maybe they should stop hating their Jewish neighbors.  This article, entitled Middle East needs bridges, not walls, shows the poor mentality of those on the Left.  "Bibi builds walls.  Israel isn't for peace."  You know how much land Israel has tried to give to appease these jihadists?!  That's a matter of picking up a history book, something I know that the pro-Palestinian factions have not done, nor will ever do, just because Israel would have to be presented in a positive light.  Historically speaking, Israel has tried again and again to appease Arabs by offering them a state.  They don't want to hear any of it because it's easier to have a scapegoat than to fix your own problems. 

This brings me to my second point, which is that all fifty-four of the Congressmen were Democrats!  One would think that the "Religious Right" in this country would be the ones with the issue becuase "Jews have forsaken Jesus."  Wrong!  You can describe right-winged Christians with other adjectives, but anti-Semitic isn't one of them.  The truth is that anti-Semitism in the West comes overwhelmingly from the Left.  If you don't count just about every single Muslim (I give the Sufis a pass, as well as a few Sunnis and Shi'ites) in the West, it would essentially be a Leftist phenomenon.  KKK and neo-Nazis, you might say.  Well, there are only about 50,000 in America, so they can be ignored.  And if you are Jewish and worried, buy a gun!  We Jews outnumber them more than 100 to 1.  That might be problematic for many Jews because they're exceptionally liberal.  If you actually wanted to learn from Nazi Germany, you would buy a gun because that is one of the first rights they took away.  The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is just a great example of how a couple hundred rag-tag Jews with some basic weaponry can hold off the Nazi army, one of the most advanced at the time, for nearly a month.  But I digress.  It is amazing how much anti-Semitism has shifted from a right-winged to left-winged phenomenon.  Universities, being the bastions for liberalism that they are, teach their students how to be "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionist," being careful not to explicitly say they hate the Jewish people.  The academics in their ivory tower are the ones constantly calling for boycotts of Israel.  To the Left, Israel represents the establishment, which is why they view Zionism as a form of colonialism.  Israel being compared to Nazi in Leftist circles is no longer something done behind closed doors--it is something that has become mainstream.  As Chief Sir Rabbi Jonathan Sacks points out, the reason why Israel has become a cause célèbre [for the Left] is because it is presented as the fight for human rights, whereas Israel represents [for those on the Left] racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide and crimes against humanity, all of which are clearly fallacious charges.  Another theory I have come across is that Israel represents the success of capitalism, whereas the "Palestinians" represent the proletariat who need "social justice" (i.e., land re-distriubtion on an international level.....Leftists taking something that isn't theirs and distributing it to somebody else....I sense a theme here) delivered by punishing Israel and returning the land to the Palestinians, although they have no real claim to the land.  In short, Israel is a global personification that which the Left despises--earning what you have worked for, entrepreneurship, a growing capitalist economy, nationalism, free speech, self-defense, take your pick! 

This sort of behavior cannot be accepted.  As for the fifty-four Congressmen, if they happen to be your Congressmen, give them a call and tell them to back off of Israel.  Although this is a step in the right direction, fighting anti-Semitism won't be that simple.  Going back to the Sacks article, we are truly dealing with the most irrational and widely-spread negative sentiment.  It will take both the Jewish people continuing to present a positive image, as well as allies who sympathize with Israel's predicament.  By putting up the fight to eradicate this needless hatred, we help usher in an age in which peace, rather than hatred, dominates.

What's With the Black Robes?: A Jewish Look at Modesty and Clothing

I was reading a Chabad article on this very topic: Why do they wear black robes?  One of the answers is to be inner-directed rather than being directed by "external norms."  I find that to be hypocritical because it is the same exact thing when people of the Goth subculture say they're non-conformist, but at the same time are conforming within their own niche.  The author states that they are not worried about the dictates of fashion, but within the Haredi community, wearing black robes is the dictate of fashion.  The minhag (custom) of wearing black is relatively new because I can tell you right now that Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses) was not walking around in the desert for forty years with a black robe on.  This custom actually comes from an edict from 18th-century Ashkenazi rabbis because if they were wearing a "plain color" such as black, it wouldn't arouse envy amongst their non-Jewish neighbors.  It's that simple--it was a practical measure in attempts to mitigate the anti-Semitism they were facing.  Needless to say, the notion that wearing black robes is the ultimate Jewish expression took on a life of its own.

What is modest dress for a Jewish man?  For starters, a man needs to wear tzitzit on the corners of his garment (Numbers 15:38).  A man cannot wear women's clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5), and vice versa.  This is merely a matter of what is written in the first five books of Moses.  Wearing a kippah, although one of the most famous of Jewish practices, ironically enough has the least amount of halachic backing.  As a matter of fact, a man such as the Vilna Gaon takes issue with calling it a requirement.  Many, however, see the kippah as a universal minhag of a binding nature.  Aside from head covering, we have to look at other texts to see what is considered "modest."  Orach Chaim (2:3) states that you must be dressed in a dignified manner.  We have to keep in mind since we are created in His image, we should dress with that sort of dignity.  The Talmud (Berachot 62b) states that when King David showed the slightest irreverence for King Saul's clothing, he was punished.  Dress, like everything else, should be conducted in a distinguished manner because we are, after all, doing everything for His sake.

For a man, dressing modestly seems easy.  Wear tzitzit, don't wear shatnez, wear man's clothing (as opposed to women's clothing), keep your head covered, and wear clothing with dignity.  Wearing different colors are not an issue because our ancestors wore different colors (Hint, hint, Joseph wore a "technicolor dream coat").  As long as you're not wearing it to imitate your non-Jewish neighbor (See discussion on Thanskgiving and imitating non-Jews), it is acceptable to wear anything you buy at your local department store.  There is one area of clothing that we have not discussed yet, and this is whether it is acceptable for a man to wear shorts and short-sleeved shirts.  For those of you who have not noticed, Haredim do not wear shorts, and very few will be wearing short-sleeved shirts.  Natrually, they will state that any man who does is dressing immodestly.  But is he?  Let's take a look at a Jewish text.  The Mishnah Beruah (75:2) states that the minimum standard for a female to be modestly dressed is to have the upper arm covered and to be covered from the knee downward.  In the Orthodox community, tzniut (modesty) is much more emphasized with the women because the belief is that women are more likely to tempt men.  Just look at the fact that the concept of kol isha exists, yet there is no prohibition of a woman listening to a man's voice.  As a result, the Orthodox community is more strict with how women dress than how men dress.  There is a halachic inference that can be made.  In the name of R. Ishmael, the principle of מקל וחמר applies.  Essentially, מקל וחמר states that an inference can be made from a lenient law to strict law, and vice versa.  For example, your child's bedtime during the week is 9:30 because "it's a school night."  On the weekend, one can infer that the child can stay up a little later, such as 10:30 or 11:30, because "it's the weekend."  Although clothing has nothing to do with bedtime, the principle still applies.  If a women's modesty is considered more strict and worth guarding than that of a man's, surely a man's minimum requirements cannot exceed that of a woman's.  In short, if a woman's minimum requirement is to have the upper arm covered, as well as be covered from the knee downward, the man's halachic expectation cannot go beyond her's.  Therefore, it is permissible for a man to wear shorts and short-sleeved shirts.

Conclusion: From a minimalist perspective, there is nothing wrong with wearing shorts or short-sleeved shirts.  If you like wearing a black robe all the time, that is your perogative.  It certainly does not constitute as immodest dress.  However, do not tell me that my dress is immodest because halachically speaking, it isn't.  During the normal week, I choose to dress modestly.  For Shabbos and Yom Tov, I elevate my dress to a nice suit and a tie because I want to be able to elevate as much as possible for a chag, thereby showing reverence for a special occassion.  This is a preferential approach that is, as I already stated, within the dictates of proper attire.  As long as one keeps modest attire as a part of their self-presentation, what you wear beyond that is your choice, and I'll respect it.

Inefficacies of Government Spending

The numbers are in for the government’s 2009 fiscal year, and it’s not a pretty picture. The 2009 deficit was $1,417,121, which is nearly $1T more than last year’s deficit! Although 3.5 of those months were technically still part of the Bush administration, a great bulk of that spending can easily be attributed to the Obama administration. This is important to realize, especially considering that yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the stimulus package. Ron Paul wrote an article highlighting that classic Reagan quote of “Government is not the solution; it’s the problem.” I wholeheartedly agree with Congressman Paul when he says that we have a loose monetary policy, and the Obama administration is living proof of that. Stimulus packages, company bailouts, Cash for Clunkers--these are all programs that have directly caused this rising debt, sluggish economic recovery, as well as unemployment rates that would make Europeans blush. 

The argument that there is some form of utopian governmental power structure that works more efficiently than the private sector is a myth.  You hear this from Communist apologists all the time.  "Well, Mao's Great Leap Forward was a bit off, but if he did it in such and such a way, it would have been a paradise."  I have news for proponents of Big Government--anything can work in theory because when scenarios are put in theoretical situations, factors can be manipulated to make the ideology work.  The biggest obstacle for those enamored with Big Government is reality.  People think that government can have a multiplier effect that is greater than one are severely misguided because history proves the contrary.  When we give our money to the government, the multiplier effect is always considerably less than one.  Social Security is a fine example because solvency issues arise.  The Social Security Administration already predicted the collapse of Social Security by 2042 if nothing is done.  The only active options the government would have are raise taxes or lower benefits, neither of which would be viable, especially if you're a politician worrying about votes.  Giving Americans the choice to put it in low-risk bonds, which would provide approximately a 5.5% rate of return, is much better than what the government offers.  Let's say someone came up to you and said they had two investment options.  The first one would most likely give you a negative rate of return, although there's a slight chance that the rate of return would be 0%.  The second option is low-risk, "play it safe," but it still provides you with a solid 5.5% rate of return.  Anyone who is sane enough to choose the retirement nest egg that would provide with more money would choose the second one [i.e., private investment].  The reason why we don't do that is because government coerces us to choose the less viable option. 

Government and environmentalism is no better.  Although I don't give into global warming hysteria, let's say for argument's sake that they are right.  When government interferes with a carbon tax, it provides two cents of social benefit, which is just another way of saying that the government has a multiplier effect of 0.2!  I can go on and on with example of government inefficiencies, but it's safe to say that they exist.  The only way that government can come even close to competing with the private sector is to either enact such ridiculous legislation where the private sector cannot do its job or take so much taxpayer dollars to fallaciously inflate their success rate.  Why is it that every time you go to the DMV, the person you deal with at the counter is a miserable human being?  Because they have no incentive to provide good service.  For starters, in many sectors, such as the DMV, government has a monopoly.  Monopolies have no incentive to improve their businesses because there is no competition.  A lack of competition stifles innovation and progress.  That is why from a greater historical perspective, government creates problems rather than solves them.  This was something that our Founding Fathers realized over two centuries ago.  If a bunch of "ignorant, slave-holding, racists WASP's" [notice the sarcasm!] can figure out this simple principle, I think we can do it as well.

"Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that"

I'm aware that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was a week ago, but this is just how far I am on my blogging.  I still found it important to blog on this topic, which is why I finished this posting.

This Martin Luther King quote was the inspiration for my alma mater's MLK celebration when they decided to bring Rev. Wanda Washington from the United Church of Christ to speak and elaborate on it.  [FYI: In the Christian world, UCC is about as far to the Left as one can go, which is why it's not all that big of a surprise that she would be the only kind, i.e. of the liberal liberal variety, of clergy that Lawrence would ever sponsor]  The topic of the speech was "hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."  This was an MLK quote, and she spoke about how to go about that.  I will avoid elaborating on her usage of social justice, which is just another way of saying "Big Government, socialist policies that only exacerbate the very problems they try to solve."  If you want to read how the Left has perverted the very notion of "social justice" by invoking His name for Leftist, anti-Biblical ideas, just read this article by Michael Novak. What I really would like to focus on is the quote itself and Rev. Washington's interpretation of it.

There are two points of her speech I would like to focus on.  The first is, as best expressed by the Beatles, "All you need is love."  The second point I would like to bring up is "accept people just the way they are." 

The first is love alone will heal this world.  Anger can never be an acceptable response because "it's too ugly."  Under normal circumstances, I would agree. Anger, particularly when it is uncontrolled and untamed, as well as coupled with hatred, is moshighly destructive.  It's why Cain murdered Abel, and why Simeon and Levi justified murdering Shechem and his entire town (Genesis 34:25-26).  The Sages say that "When one becomes rageful, G-d becomes of no consequence to him (Nedarim 22b)."  Furthermore, love is also an important force within Torah.  We are commanded to love G-d (Deut. 6:5), to love our neighbor (Lev. 19:18), and no less than on thirty-six occasions, we are commanded to love the stranger.  In normal situations, love is the default and anger should be avoided.

However, when the anger is controlled and channelled into something known as moral outrage, it becomes much more justifiable.  Just a few Biblical examples: HaShem gets angry at Balaam for using his gift of prophecy for evil (Number 22:22).  Moses was "angry" at those who spoke slander (Numbers 16:15).  Isaiah was morally outraged at those who mistreated the poor (Isaiah 3:14-15).  HaShem is furious at King Solomon for building idols in Israel (I Kings 11:9).  Rabbi Benjamin Blech briefly explains why anger is sometimes justifiable.  The Torah is about love.  HaShem teaches us to love and focus on that attribute.  If we are truly supposed to love love, and to walk in His ways by showing loving-kindness, we cannot tolerate evil.  As a matter of fact, we are supposed to be such beacons of love and hope that we are supposed to hate evil and injustice because it is so anathematic to Torah.  Why? Such evil cannot be drawn out with love; only an eradication of such evil is the antidote.

The second point I found to be against Jewish teachings is "you're fine just the way you are."  For those of you who think that the Bible is solely about this touchy-feely version of love are sorely misguided.  First of all, Leviticus 19:18 ultimately teaches us that the verse of "love thy neighbor" is about doing acts of loving-kindness.  Second, the verse right before it (i.e., 19:17) teaches us to rebuke our neighbor. Love without rebuke is flabby at best.  This is so hard for many Americans to imagine, let alone actualize, because rebuking is "politically incorrect" because by doing so, you're "intolerant."  Let's say that you have a relative you care about that is partaking in a self-destructive habit, such as gambling or snorting crack.  Would you honestly just sit there and say, "Oh, he's fine just the way he is, and doesn't need to change?"  I don't think so!  If you honestly cared about him, you wouldn't stand idly by his blood (ibid, 19:16).  You would intervene.  You would get him into rehab and make sure he recovers.  The same applies for anybody you care about who is doing something wrong.  Torah teaches that we are meant to overcome our evil inclination (Genesis 4:7) in order to walk in His ways (Deut. 11:22, 28:9).  The fact that we are not automatically inclined to do good (Genesis 8:21) means that we have to improve ourselves through mussar, or character trait development.  Wisdom, kindness, compassion, discipline, and many other traits all need to be cultivated and always can use improvement, even if they are seemingly in "tip-top shape."  G-d wants us to constantly participate in self-improvement as a way of becoming closer to Him. If you think you're fine just the way you are, you never reach the full potential that G-d had intended for you.

Conclusion:  Love is important in Jewish thought, but embracing everybody "as is" is not kosher.  Being able to rebuke is an essential facet of true love, as is knowing where to draw the line with evil.  Without these elements, you have underminded the very love you claim to embrace.  My hope is that people learn about rebuke and intolerance of evil so they may better learn how to love others in life.

Week of January 17 Hodgepodge

-As if Scott Brown taking Ted Kennedy's seat wasn't enough.  The Democrats tried to pass the Senate version through the House this week in attempts to shove something down America's throat, but failed miserably.  Their plans for an ambitious health care overhaul have been officially thwarted, and at this point, I couldn't be happier.

-Air America filed bankruptcy.  I guess Leftist programming only works best when you force it upon the American people in the form of PBS.  Good riddens to bad trash!

-Former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton writes about the latest controversy between Google and China.  I am one for amicable relations in that region in the world, especially considering the fact China is an economic rising power with the world's largest military.  If China wants to promote liberal democracy throughout its lands, then fine, I have no problem with making occasional concessions that don't throw the balance of power out of whack.  However, when you continue in your authoritarian ways to the extent where your economic freedoms have declined even further from last year, issues arise in foreign policy.  But I do thank Google for having a pair.  Maybe the Obama administration can follow suit.    

-For once, I can say I am impressed with CNN.  Earlier this week, CNN was impressed with the fact that Israel was the only nation to set up a hospital in Haiti. Again, I continue to give Israel kudos for always being the first ones on the scene when humanitarian aid in moments of crisis is needed.

-A great victory for the First Amendment took place this week in the Supreme Court when they struck down the McCain-Feingold law severly limiting campaign contributions.  When a law requires any group of two or more people who raise $5,000 for the purposes of making a political statement to be ambushed by a blizzard of federal regulations subject to fines, you have to wonder what McCain-Feingold was really about.  With this advancement of freedom of speech, particularly during elections, people will be able to freely voice their frustrations against the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress this upcoming November.

Jesus Didn't Die for My Sins

I got into an argument today with a Christian about Jesus this past Sunday, specifically with regards to whether Jesus vicariously atoned for my sins by sacrificing his blood. Obviously, I don’t think he died for my sins, or anyone else’s for that matter. If Jesus did indeed die for my sins, it would negate any need for me to act in a moral and virtuous manner because if I’m forgiven, why bother being nice to people? That moralistic qualm set aside, there is no way that Jesus could have died for anybody’s sin, and here's why.

1) When there was a Temple, sacrificing blood only applied to unintentional sin (Numbers 15:27, Leviticus 4:27, 5:14, 5:17).

2) If Jesus did indeed replace the sacrificial system by way of spilling his blood, any offering I find described in the Torah should have a blood sacrifice.  But look, how wrong can a man be? Any animal sacrifice, whether it's an elevation offering or peace offering (that sounds ironic--a peace offering with sacrificing an animal, but I digress) has to have the blood completely drained because blood consumption is forbidden (Lev. 7:26-27, 17:10-14). In cases of theft, fraud, or lying to someone about a loan, they are required to fully compensate plus add a fifth to the principal (Lev. 5:21-26).  Anyone who intentionally commits idolatry is cut off from the people Israel (Numbers 15:30-31) and cannot repent.  Poor people were able to make flour offerings (Lev. 5:12-13) in cases of denying testimony (5:1), contaminating holy things (5:2-3), and false or unkept oaths (5:4).  Aaron made atonement with incense (Numbers 17:11-13).  Jewelry was used as a sacrifice (Numbers 31:50).  Even Isaiah (6:6-7) took a live coal to himself to atone! The fact that not all sins in the sacrificial system require blood sacrifice means that blood sacrifice was not the only way to atone.

3) In all reality, whether or not the sin was intentional is a moot point.  In the sacrificial system, any flesh-based sacrifice was done with animals only.  Human sacrifice is abhorent in Jewish practice.  The most notable story of this abhorrence is the Akeidah, or the binding of Isaac.  At the end, a ram was replaced (Genesis 22:13) with Isaac.  In Deuteronomy 12:30-31, HaShem states how He finds human sacrifice abhorrent, and He re-iterates this point in Jeremiah 19:4-6 and Psalm 106:37-38.  If HaShem clearly states that human sacrifice is wrong, why would it all of a sudden be acceptable?

4) As Maimonides points out in Guide for the Perplexed (III, xxxii), animal sacrifice was a severly limited practice that the Israelites from which they were meant to be weaned.  As we already laid out, animal sacrifice, and more specifically blood sacrifice, was limited in context.  The practice is also limited in place, i.e., it can only be practiced at Beit Mikdash (Deut. 12:13, 26) in Jerusalem.  It is also limiting in the sense that only Kohanim (High Priests) were allowed to officiate as priests for the sacrifices.  Prayer and repentance, on the other hand, can be done by anbody at anytime, anywhere (well, almost anywhere....filthy places or houses of idol worship, for instance, are no-nos).  I would like to point something out with regards to the limitation of place.  Leviticus 17:11 states that any blood sacrifice would need to be done on the altar [in Beit Mikdash].  Since Jesus' blood was never sprinkled on the altar, Jesus' death could not have been an act of universal atonement.

5) I'm sure this Biblical reference is going to shock some people, but according to Jeremiah (7:22-23), who was a prophet (i.e., G-d spoke through him), He never commanded us to perform sacrifices:

כִּי לֹא-דִבַּרְתִּי אֶת-אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם, וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים, בְּיוֹם הוציא (הוֹצִיאִי) אוֹתָם, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם--עַל-דִּבְרֵי עוֹלָה, וָזָבַח. כִּי אִם-אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם לֵאמֹר, שִׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי--וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים, וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ-לִי לְעָם; וַהֲלַכְתֶּם, בְּכָל-הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, לְמַעַן, יִיטַב לָכֶם.

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

6) Vicarious atonement does not exist in Judaism.  Moses tried this after the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32:32-35), and HaShem said that each person is responsible for their own sin.  Upon reading Ezekiel 18, it is quite clear that each individual is responsible for his own transgressions, as it is said, "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon them and the wickedness of the wicked person shall be upon them (ver. 20)."  Jeremiah (31:30) said that each man will die for his own iniquity.  Isaiah (55:7) and Ezekiel (18:21-23), both prophets, argued in the same vain.  Plus, if you read II Chronicles 7:14, you will see that it says, "[I]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."  Notice how there is nothing about needing to make a sacrifice--teshuva more than suffices!

7) Atonement was not solely obtained through sacrifices, whether that would be blood, animals, or other objects.  Prayer and repentance have very much have been a part of Jewish practice since Biblical times.  We learn this from the Golden Calf incident, as well as from the Books of Jonah (3:10) and Esther (9:3). When we look at the story of King David and Batsheva, Nathan points out (2 Samuel 12:13) that as soon as David made his statement of repentance, HaShem forgave him.  What these examples illustrate is that atonement was acquired without a drop of blood.

8) When the Jews are in exile, we cannot rely on sacrifices for two reasons.  The first is because, like I previously explained, the only place that one can perform a sacrifice is in the Temple.  We have not had one for nearly two millennia.  The second reason comes from Hosea (3:4-5) when he prophesied that the Jews would be in exile for quite some time before the Messianic era, they would be without the sacrificial system.  Furthermore, passages such as I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14 inform us that without a Temple, our prayers take the place of sacrifices.  Hosea 14:3 is also a verse that illustrates that prayer replaced sacrifices, but I want to reflect on this one momentarily because there is an important grammatical nuance that Christians mistranslate:

קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם דְּבָרִים, וְשׁוּבוּ אֶל-יְהוָה; אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו, כָּל-תִּשָּׂא עָו‍ֹן וְקַח-טוֹב, וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים, שְׂפָתֵינוּ.

Take words with you and return to HaShem; say to Him, 'May You forgive all iniquity and accept good [intentions], and let our lips substitute for bulls [own emphasis added]."

That phrase I emphasized, "let our lips substitute for bulls," is important because when Christians translate it, they mistranslate it as "that we may offer the fruit of our lips."  The reason why this is important is that פרי (fruit) is very similar to פר (bull).  The problem is that the plural for פרי refers to fruit, is פריות, not פָרִים because פרי is a feminine word, whereas פר is masculine. [For those of you who don't know, the Hebrew nouns have two plural endings: ות- is for feminine nouns, and ים- for masculine nouns]  The grammatical rules dictate that the proper translation of פָרִים is indeed "bulls."  Plus, from a contextual standpoint, the only time that [the first] fruit was sacrificed was during Sukkot, which is a holiday of thanksgiving, not one of atonement.  Although this grammatical nuance seems insignificant, Christians actually have a stake in this mistranslation.  When  mistranslated as "fruit," it hides the fact the real meaning of the text, which is that prayer substitutes sacrifice during the exile period.  What this means is that Jesus' supposed vicarious atonement cannot cover all of our sins because HaShem already stated that prayer and repentance are the path of atonement during this specific time period (i.e., the exile of the Jewish people, also known as 70 C.E. to present).

Conclusion: Based on Biblical analysis what the Tanach tells us about atonement, there is no way that Jesus could have possibly died for anybody's sins.  Christians will go to their "New" Testament to find a citation, but you cannot use that to find this supposed fulfillment because the claim of Christianity is that Jesus' blood sacrifice fulfilled the Tanach. The fact that no such criterion exists in the Tanach already dismisses Christian claims.  Plus, this claim goes against everything that the Tanach teaches us about repentance, forgiveness, and personal responsibility.  Judaism is highly democratic in the sense that everybody has the ability to ask for His forgiveness and return to His ways.  The ability to ask forgiveness for one's iniquities and make a resolute effort not to transgress again is very much engrained in Tanach.  May people realize the wonder of teshuva so we can herald the coming of Moshiach!