A View From The Bridge

Is Christopher Hitchen a Sadducee?

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:00:00 +0000

I am on the whole a big fan of Christopher Hitchens and enjoy his writings even when I disagree with them. However, his recent essay 'Staking a Life' includes an extremely annoying misrepresentation of Scripture, unless of course he is a Sadducee. Now I know this post title may qualify for one of John Rentoul's 'Questions To Which The Answer Is No' series, but it may raise a more important point.

Hitchen's questions why America is alone as a western democracy that still embraces capital punishment, and concludes that it boils down to America's religiosity. In his own words:

"The reason why the United States is alone among comparable countries in its commitment to doing this is that it is the most religious of those countries."

On this point I could even agree with him, however, he then goes on to to justify a religious belief in capital punishment since it is prescribed in Scripture. In his own words:

"Once we clear away the brush, then, we can see the crystalline purity of the lex talionis and the principle of an eye for an eye. (You might wish to look up the chapter of Exodus in which that stipulation occurs: it is as close to sheer insane ranting and wicked babble as might well be wished, and features the famous ox-goring and witch-burning code on which, one sometimes fears, too much of humanity has been staked.)"

His logic seems to be that since Scripture is crazy, ergo, religious people will uphold that craziness. However, his basis for labelling scripture crazy is based on a rather strange and literal reading, a reading that would satisfy any self respecting Sadducee. He fails to recognise that the Rabbinical tradition has an entirely different interpretation of the passage that underscores the importance of human life and not the opposite. In the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Kama 83b) the reciprocal punishment is intended to mean financial compensation and does not involve retaliation of a physical kind.

For an interesting interpretation of these verses I recommend a short piece by Emmanuel Levinas under the title 'An Eye for an Eye' in Difficult Judaism. Also, I have recently been reading the writings of a little known 20th century thinker Rabbi Avraham Chen who has an even more original approach than Levinas to this idea which I hope to write about in a future post.

Hitchen's is often correct in his portrayal of religiosity, however, his opposition to religion will always be flawed if he only engages with the interpretation of the Sadducees. I am strongly opposed to capital punishment not in spite of my religion but because of it.

Pure Oil

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:22:00 +0000

Although we celebrate with full gusto the miracle of the Chanukah oil every year and mark the spectacular victory of the Maccabean army over the Greeks, we would be foolish to think that the battle of the Jews against the Greeks is an ancient tale that has no bearing on our present day lives. In fact, I would argue that the Chanukah story is the defining struggle of our times.

Indeed, Leo Strauss, the great 20th century political philosopher, suggests that the tension between Biblical theology and Greek philosophy is the essence of western civilisation. In a thought provoking article entitled The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy Strauss argues that Biblical theology and Greek philosophy are in conflict with each other and that no one can be both a theologian and a philosopher or be beyond that conflict or somehow effect a synthesis of both. Since for a philosopher, 'there can never be an absolute sacredness of a particular or contingent event'.

In fact, the chronicling of the story of Chanukah in the traditional texts makes the very same point, albeit in a more subtle way.

The Talmud states: "When the Assyrian Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oil that was to be found there. And when the royal Hasmonean House overcame and defeated them, they searched [for oil] but found only one flask that was imprinted with the seal of the High Priest."

It begs the question, why did the Greeks 'defile' the oil and not just destroy it? it seems that their intention was to specifically blemish the oil and render it impure. However, if they were so nuanced in their understanding of Jewish ritual laws they would have surely known that in a circumstance of pervasive impurity even impure oil may be used in the Temple.

The Talmudic account of the Chanukah story contains within it the backdrop of a seemingly eternal conflict that has yet to be resolved.

In both Talmudic and Kabbalistic texts oil is symbolic of wisdom and intellect, which in our context would be the wisdom of the Torah. The need for pure oil in the Temple service means, homiletically speaking, that the Torah must be kept pure. Pure Torah signifies a Torah and Mitzvot that can be fulfilled with intellectual and emotional participation and at the same time with the knowledge that its is G-d's Torah and it is only His command and His will that serve as the basis for the fulfilment of it.

The Greeks were willing to allow the Jews to light the menorah but they wanted a menorah that would burn with the light of man. They accepted that the Torah was a book of profound, enriching, ideas. What they objected to was pure oil, they found reprehensible the idea that the Torah is G-d's Torah whose real essence defies understanding. They could not respect nor tolerate the concept of supra-rational commandments such as purity and impurity, or in the words of Strauss, for there to be an "absolute sacredness."

The Third Place and Chabad Houses

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:22:00 +0000

A concept popularised by Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, is 'The Third Place'. (For a general overview check out this wikipedia entry here.) Basically, it is assumed that the first place is a persons home, the second place is where they spend most of their time (i.e. work) and the third place is an informal meeting place that is intended to fostor a sense of community and generate creative interaction. Starbucks likes to model itself as the third place. Pubs seem to serve a similar role.

This theme has been picked up by some Chabad Houses, using it to describe the informal and user generated nature of many Chabad House settings. They attempt to serve as a welcoming and non judgemental social setting for Jews of all backgrounds providing a Jewish third place in addition to the Jewish Home and the Synagogue. See here for an example.

As you may be aware, I am involved in a Levinas reading group that discusses his Nine Talmudic Readings. This week we intend to discuss the fifth reading 'Judasim and Revolution' which has a very direct attack on the concept of the cafe. Please read with an open mind and comment on how this affects your understanding of the third place as well as its implications for the Chabad House comparison.

'The tavern, or the cafe, has become an integral and essential part of modern life, which perhaps is an "open life," especially becasue of this aspect! An unknown city in which we arrive and which has no cafes seems closed to us. The cafe holds open hours, at street level. It is a place of casual social intercourse, without mutual responsibility. One goes in without needing to. One sits down without being tired. One drinks without being thirsty. All because one does not want to stay in one's room. You know that all evil occurs as a result of our incapacity to stay alone in our room. The cafe is not a place. It is a non-place for a non-society, for a society without solidarity, without tomorrow, without commitment, without common interests, a game society. The cafe, house of games, is the point through which game penetrates life and dissolves it. Society without yesterday or tomorrow, without responsibility, without seriousness-distraction, dissolution.

At the movies, a common theme is presented on the screen, in the theatre, a common theme is presented on stage. In the cafe, there are no themes. Here you are, each at your own little table with your cup or glass. You relax completely to the point of not being obligated to anyone or anything; and it is because it is possible to go and relax in a cafe that one tolerates the horrors and injustices of a world without a soul.The world as a game from which everyone can pull out and exist only for himself, a place of forgetfulness-of the forgetfulness of the other-that is the cafe."

Question Time Reaction II

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:36:00 +0000

Here is a very mature contribution to the debate by Will J, left in the comments of this Spectator post:

So we all agree (or most of us do anyway) that Britishness is not defined by ethnicity. And that is surely true, since no nation has ever been racially pure, least of all ours. What I'm interested in, though, is what role people think ethnicity should play in national identity. The very idea of a nation is of course birth related (root: natal), and even immigrants seem to think that those who have been here for longer and were born here have more rights over the country's resources than those who just managed to stow themselves away on a lorry.

So while we're generally agreed that British citizenship should not have any narrowly ethnic meaning, does this mean we no longer believe that the resident and historic population (of whatever racial mixture) does not in some sense own its country? If so, doesn't that cause big problems for the whole idea of statehood, since by what right then do those of us here keep out those who are not? And why do we generally recognise the historic rights of indigenous peoples in former colonies? While the BNP's political philosophy of ethnicity is clearly wrong, our own seems very confused at present. Would we not be in a better position to oppose them if we had a clear (and popular) alternative?

Question Time Reaction

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:13:00 +0000

OK, I watched Question Time this evening and there are a few things I need to get off my chest.

1. Griffin didn't come across particularly well, he looked nervous throughout, however, I thought Jack Straw looked equally terrified and stumbled all through his first answer.

2. The way the whole show was about the BNP was a huge mistake in my opinion, why was he given that amount of attention?

3. The general tone of the programme was how outraged most of the people were at the BNP's views, especially the panel. I fail to see how that can be called debate or a constructive attempt to understand why one million people voted BNP.

4. Why is no one willing to accept that the one million BNP voters are racist? maybe they are, I would guess that there are far more than one million people in Britain who hold racist views. If you believe in the values of a multi cultural Britain you need to argue your case with the people who matter, not the educated political elites and ethnic minority audiences in a BBC studio.

5. Which leads me to my final point. Many people hold racist views and for a variety of reasons, there is no point demonising those people since that won't change anything, there needs to first be a willingness to accept that racism exists and to calmly try and reduce it. I think Question Time provided further evidence that most people are still in denial and therefore the problem will continue to grow. In which case, a victory for Nick Griffin.

Implications of Creation

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:59:00 +0000

Preparing some thoughts on the implication of creation. All contributions welcome.

The Next Step

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:11:00 +0000

I had great pleasure studying Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe in preparation for Pesach and have decided to set myself a challenge to research the life and works of R' Saadia Gaon over the next seven weeks with specific focus on his Book of Beliefs & Opinions, one of the first Jewish philosophical works.

In addition I will be studying the tractate of Sotah from the Babylonian Talmud as is customary between Pesach and Shavuot.

I hope to bring some insights and tidbits as my studies progress.

An interesting point from todays Sotah (3b): A woman's infidelity has a more corrosive effect on the family than that of a mans.

In a book titled 'Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics' it argues that since women can always be sure that their children are genetically theirs whereas men do not have that certainty without testing, fathers invest more time and effort in their children when they are certain of paternity.

This would imply that even the prospect of female infidelity can destabilise a family, how much more so in a case of actual adultary.

The Fifth Question?

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:51:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

The Maharal asks why there is not a fifth question to the Mah Nishtana, why do we drink four cups of wine?

One of his answers is that it is not strange to drink that much wine at the dinner table.

Bread of Poverty

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:04:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

From the Maharal:

Q: Why is the Matza pointedly described by the Torah and quoted at the very start of the Seder as “Lechem oni, the bread of poverty”?

A: Various commentaries have suggested a number of reasons for the name “Lechem oni”. One explanation is that Matza does not rise like regular bread and therefore symbolizes poverty, much as a pauper feels lowly when contrasted with a rich person who feels pride or fulfillment (having ‘risen’ in society). A further answer is that since Matza is slow to digest, it made excellent slave-food for the Egyptians to feed their Jewish slaves.

However, we are forced to dismiss these explanations. They cannot carry the true meaning to the Mazta’s description, “Lechem oni”, for after all, we are gathered tonight to celebrate our freedom which is our greatest wealth. There is certainly no room for the bread of poverty! Quite the contrary, the reason given by the Torah for our obligation to consume Mazta, as well as for the description of “Lechem oni” is: “You shall not consume any leaven; seven days you shall eat Mazta, Lechem Oni; - for you left Egypt in haste” (Devarim 16:3). Matza, in other words, is a physical reflection of our Freedom.

There must be a deeper explanation! Just as a pauper has nothing but himself, no money, property, etc., likewise this bread has no added ingredients, such as yeast, honey, oil, or other liquids etc. added – just ‘itself’, flour and water. True, the Matza is not ‘rich’ in flavors, yet since it is itself, not joined and dependant on external things, it is essentially free! All one tastes in Matza is the essential Matza itself, for it is ‘free from added flavors’.

We can eat regular bread and challah made with eggs, poppy seeds, etc. Yet when it comes to the festival of freedom, when we accept the spiritual force of redemption, we specifically eat the ‘bread of poverty’, - true freedom. For it was on this night that we were redeemed through a Divine intervention that stemmed from a lofty level of pure (and therefore uncomplicated, ‘simple’) level of divinity.

England v Ukraine

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:05:00 +0000

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

One of the frustrating aspects of following the England team is the collective denial of the commentariat of how incompetent we are as a team.

Even though we managed to scrape a victory tonight which reflects a significant improvement from the McClaren era when we probably would have only got a draw, nevertheless, it is obvious that we are incapable of challenging beyond a quarter final place in a competition.

We just beat a team that had no attacking ambition and hardly troubled our defence.

I didn't notice Lampard was playing and Gerard was absent the whole second half. Rooney was the most industrious player but showed huge lack of vision to not play in Crouch on one occasion and not to pull it back for Lampard on another.

In the end we had to rely on a Beckham free kick to get us out of trouble. Some things never change.

Tomorrow's papers will probably be full of praise and then wonder why we will fail at the first real hurdle in South Africa.

http://reuvenleigh.blogspot.com

It's the action that counts

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:02:00 +0000

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

As I was driving my kids into school this morning I heard a phone in on Radio 5Live about Madonna's attempt to adopt another child from Malawi. A large proportion of those who called in were dismissive of her actions and complained that she was doing it for her ego and not for altruistic reasons.

I wanted to scream: Who cares? what does it matter what her motives are, she is performing an act of charity which should be applauded and I don't care why she is doing it.

In Chassidic philosophy it explains that in the realm of good and evil it doesn't matter what your intentions are, what matters are your actions. If you do a good thing for the wrong reasons it is still a good thing and if you do a wrong thing for the right reasons it is still wrong. It is only in the realm of neutral things that are neither good or evil that our intentions can influence whether our actions are good or not.

Charity is a good thing - so do it regardless of your intentions
Murder is a bad thing - so don't do it whatever your intentions
Eating is a neutral thing - so do it for the right reasons - to have the energy to serve G-d.

http://reuvenleigh.blogspot.com

News Speak

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:24:00 +0000

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Check out this story from the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7972231.stm

It details the arrest of five people for what it calls "alleged terrorism in connection with the G20 summit".

What is peculiar are the denials that it has anything to do with Muslims. For example:

"A police spokesman stressed that the investigation was "in no way" linked to any religious group. He added the inquiry was centered on political activity involving British nationals."

And

"Police carried out a search of the man's address and the weapons and "material relating to political ideology" were seized."

I get a sense that they are trying to hard to play down a Muslim connection which leads me to think there is a connection. I mean, it is still technically true that whilst being British nationals and possessing material relating to political ideology they could still be Muslims and the suggestion that it is in no way linked to a religious group seems to be a rather hasty assumption.

Anyway, it is probably just a cover for the Home Secretary.

The Big Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:19:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

I spent the morning participating as an audience member on the BBC programme The Big Questions. Here are a few observations:

Nicky Campbell is taller in real life than I expected.

The panel were poor except for the Catholic priest.

There was a really annoying Catholic lady who wouldn't shut up.

There was a really annoying atheist lady who wouldn't shut up.

The discussion on second homes was extremely boring and was a poor choice of topic by the producers.

The programme format doesn't lend itself to informed and intelligent debate and discussion.

You can watch the programme here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jkcr8/The_Big_Questions_Series_2_Episode_14

Prime Time Abortions

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:27:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

I have been asked to participate in the BBC1 programme The Big Questions that airs this Sunday morning at 10AM.

The topic they wish me to contribute on is this weeks review by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee on Advertising Practice (BCAP) that would allow pregnancy advisory services - including abortion information - to be advertised on TV and radio as part of plans aimed at reducing high UK rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual infections.

I find the whole discussion somewhat bizarre in the first place since TV and radio are the prime villains when it comes to the sexualisation of children in society today. To now try and deal with the inevitable consequences of promoting sex and promiscuity by providing a few get out clauses seems to me to miss the more important point.

I'm not going to get into the whole pro/anti abortion debate but rather intend to focus on the wider impact of abortion awareness on children. I wonder whether if we present ourselves as a society that is comfortable with promoting abortion to children we will be sending a message to children that children can be a burden and are best terminated if inconvenient.

Take this condom ad for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7965916.stm

I think it is important that we make every effort to reinforce a child's sense of worth, value and purpose and I think these emasure may undermine that.

Why Marry Non-Jewish?

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:21:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

The Maharal asks why did Moses marry a non-Jew who converted? He came from a prestigious family and should have married someone from a family with high pedigree.

He explains the Moses was a unique individual who was fundamentally separate and distinct from the rest of the Jewish people. He describes as the epitome of tzurah (from) that is totally detached from chomer (matter). As such he was unable to form a bond of marriage with any of the members of the Jewish people. Therefore, it was appropriate for him to marry a convert, since a convert is also distinct from Jewish people (they were not counted in the 600,000).

He concludes, that is the superiority the non-Jews have over the Jews, they can produce converts.

Maharal Musings

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

I'm currently reading through Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, the Maharal of Prague. The book travels through the exodus story beginning with Abraham, I am currently up to Moses growing up in Pharoah's palace.

As I go along I plan to note some of the points that jump out at me.

In chapter 16 he explains that Yocheved, the mother of Moses, did not experience pain during childbirth since the righteous were not included in the curse of Chava (Eve). He explains that in general the righteous do not suffer pain since pain only exists on the level of chomer (matter) and not on the level of tzurah (form).

This thought totally shifts the way we experience life, pain and suffering are not objective realities but rather subjective experiences, and if we wish to rid ourselves of pain and suffering we need to transcend our attachment to chomer and embrace tzurah.

In chapter 18 he explains the reason for the name Moses, as it says in the Torah, because he was drawn from the water, i.e. he is removed and detached from the water. Water is the very opposite of Moses, water completely lacks a fixed tzurah (form) and that is why in Hebrew it is always in the plural tense because it lacks any singularity. Moses on the other hand is the epitome of tzurah and therefore his name describes his seperation from the water (chomer).

More to come please G-d.

http://reuvenleigh.blogspot.com

Goody vs Richardson

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:23:00 +0000

Toby Young has a post here:

http://www.tobyyoung.co.uk/blog_257/does_jade_deserve_a_bigger_sendoff_than_natasha.html

that in a rather long winded way explores the concept of celebrity and how it has been reflected in the deaths of Jade Goody and Natasha Richardson.

He quotes extensively from Professor Mark Rowlands who has written a book called Fame. It seems that the Professor is not very impressed with the modern day phenomenon of being famous when not having actually achieved anything. Toby argues that this existed in much the same way in the past and cites examples, he also suggests that maybe Britney Spears should be celebrated as a person more than Beethoven since she is obviously not as naturally gifted in music than Ludwig and she has achieved her status through hard graft whereas Ludwig was just lucky to be born with a natural flare for music.

What I think they are both missing is an understanding of why there is such a need for celebrities.

People are more interested in the Goody story than the Richardson story even though Richardson is a more accomplished celebrity. Many people blame the media for the way they have portrayed the Goody story, however, the reason they behave the way they do is because it sells copy, which means many people want this stuff. If you check the google searches over the last week Goody beats Richardson.

Why?

I think the basis for celebrity is the voyeurism of the public and Goody understood that. She took advantage of many peoples deep need to explore other peoples lives, her celebrity was based solely on her celebrity and not any achievement and she exposed the whole system as a way for the public to indulge in their own fantasies.

Tolerating the Intolerable

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:57:00 +0000

Scenario A: There is a very well regarded person, possibly the head of a leading Ivy League university, who happens to express a view that is considered intolerable regarding the superiority of one human being over another. He comes under a barrage of criticism and is forced to leave his position and his career is ruined.

Scenario B: There is a very well regarded person, possibly considered one of Judaism's foremost thinkers in his time, who happens to express views that are currently unpalatable in western society. His contentious views are overlooked and he retains his status and his good name.

Why? why is it that we are unable to tolerate intolerable views in the present and are willing to 'forgive' people who held similar views many years ago. Is it just a condescending world view that if they were as enlightened as we are they wouldn't of held those views?

Image via Wikipedia

I started thinking about this since I was reading Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, the Maharal of Prague, and he says unashamedly that a woman is not as important as a man. Now I can interpret that in a sanitised way and also make reference to what he said in the previous chapter that the exodus from Egypt was in the merit of Miriam, however, the point is that whatever he meant he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt if he was alive today.

It suggests to me that our demonisation of people who hold intolerable views is not neceesarily a reflection of our adherence to a strict moral code but rather a discomfort with being confronted by our own disonance in relation to morality. When the holder of such a view is in the past it is easy to just sweep it under the carpet, however, when he/she are in the here and now we are forced to explain how it is so.

One option is to discredit the person, as is done routinely like in the case of scenario A, but the braver thing to do would be to ask ourselves this question:

Am I totally consistent in my own beliefs and opinions? most of us would probably answer no. Does that mean my negatives negate my positives? not at all. We all tolerate the often intolerable aspects of our minds and hearts, so why can't we tolerate someone elses?

I'm not trying to suggest that certain ideas are tolerable, quite the opposite, they are indeed intolerable, but is it worth destroying the totality of a person becasue of it?

Social Networking Narcissism

noreply@blogger.com (Reuven Leigh) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:20:00 +0000

Image via CrunchBase

As I try to understand why so many people are interested in twitter I think I may have stumbled upon a clue.

I have explained before, that I think twitter has more or less the same functionality as facebook status updates (further accentuated in the new layout) and if the desire is to interact in that format it seems futile to use a different platform. Especially when you have already cultivated a friend list that far exceeds your real social network. So why would anyone try to use a new platform and start the whole friend search game all over again.

Do you remember in the infant days of facebook how your amount of friends was a topic of conversation whereas now it seems irrelevant?

Image via CrunchBase

However, I think I now may understand the added benefit of twitter over facebook A persons facebook friend list has been completely devalued as any sign of social prowess whereas if you can achieve a larger following than followed ratio in twitter it is truly a sign of your celebrity and how much people care about your daily inanities.

This suggests that social networks are not only what they may say on the can, a useful method to connect people, but contain the same insecurities that real social settings possess. Just like in the real world people often crave popularity this is then translated to the internet and since facebook no longer provides that challenge people have now moved on to twitter, and facebook is now used for what it says on the can.

I'm not painting everyone with the same brush but I think there may be some truth lurking here.