Rabbi Sacks on The Righteous Mind

Well, judging by last week's TOI article, it seems that Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is also a fan of Jonathan Haidt's excellent book "The Righteous Mind".  In the article, Rabbi Sacks points out our innate tribalism and the resulting tendency to hate "the stranger". He also points out the Torah's repeated injunction to overcome this instinct.

You must not mistreat or oppress the stranger in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Ex. 22: 21)

You must not oppress strangers. You know what it feels like to be a stranger, for you yourselves were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Ex. 23: 9)

It's a good point and it's interesting that the Torah's means of fighting this impulse is by appealing to our very same tribalism, telling us to identify with the stranger because we are alike. I'll just add that the Torah also makes use of our tribalistic instinct in other, more active ways.

As Haidt says "Morality Binds and Blinds", blinding us towards outsiders while binding us to our own group or caste. There are many mitzvot that build on this binding impulse, all the mitzvot that apply to אחיך. For example:

• The obligation to redeem him if he becomes a slave
• The obligation to redeem his land if he is forced to sell it
• The prohibition on hating him

The picture that emerges is that the Torah rejects our tendency to treat strangers unjustly, while at the same time building on our natural tendency to go beyond mere justice with our fellow Jew.

Two Understandings of Tumat Met

A corpse is one of the Torah's Avot Hatuma, and the tumah it creates, Tumat Met, has its own special status. Tumat Met is generated by a complete corpse, but in many cases it can also come from incomplete parts. Rav Wolf opens his chapter on טומאת מת וקבר in מנחה טהורה, with a general distinction about the status of parts of a corpse that cause Tumat Met:

• Part of a Corpse: the part creates tumah because it is part of a corpse. In this case we require a quantitative measure for it to be a significant enough part to be a source of Tumat Met.
• Represents the Entire Corpse: the part represents a whole corpse. Here, conditions for the part to be a source of Tumah are qualitative in nature.

General Nafka Minot

Rav Wolf brings two general cases from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein(שיעורי הרא"ל טהרות) as to how this distinction may play out halachically:

1. Combination

For one, there is the issue of combining. If we’re dealing with part of a corpse and thus a quantitative measure, then two parts, individually considered too small, can combine to create a larger one that does produce Tumah. If, however, we’re concerned with a part that qualitatively represents a whole corpse, then insignificant parts can’t combine into a significant one.

2. Nothing Significant Left

There are cases where no significant portion of the corpse is left and yet, what is left carries tumat met. These cases must be understood as qualitatively representing the entire corpse, rather than being a quantitative part of the corpse.

Specific Cases

Rav Wolf applies this distinction to many different cases. Here's the abbreviated version:

• כזית בשר מן המת- a qualitative or quantitative measure?
• רביעית דם- a qualitative or quantitative measure?
• מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת- apparently qualitative according to Hachamim
• דם קטן שיצא כולו- R. Akiva that says it’s tamei must consider it qualitative
• מלוא טרוד רקב(rotted remains)- apparently qualitative
• חרב כחלל- apparently qualitative if Nazir must shave for touching it

Cyberpunk Shemot

So, I’d like to offer a(somewhat longwinded) metaphor for how to understand Sefer Shmot and its relationship to Sefer Bereshit(be assured that the fact that I'm once again connecting Genre Fiction to the Parsha is purely incidental). Anyway, here goes...

The 1990 novel “The Difference Engine” is a collaboration between authors William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, of considerable influence. The novel depicts an alternative history, set in the Victorian Era, where the success of Charles Babbage's "Difference Engine" ushers in a new techonological age, with numerous social and political ramifications. The computer, the automobile, and many other modern innovations have come before their time, all of them running on a liberal dose of steam-power and clockwork.

All this is readily apparent to the uninitiated reader, who needs only read the plain meaning of the text. And yet, to a reader familiar with Gibson and Sterling’s other work, there is another layer to the novel, a subtext of a different nature entirely.

Gibson and Sterling are arguably the two biggest names in Cyberpunk literature. Their most famous stories take place in the near future, anticipating deeper levels of integration of technology in our lives and exploring the effects of such integration on the Human experience. Readers familiar with this literature, will find “The Difference Engine” is a text packed full of references to the authors’ earlier Cyberpunk work. In fact, while the undiscerning reader will consider this a rather humorless novel, written completely straight, the Cyberpunk aficionado realizes it’s actually a comedy, hearing the echoes of the authors workroom laughter tinkling in the background with every new joke: “hey look, this is what data-theft looks like in the Victorian Era!” or “instead of Hackers they’re called Clackers because of the sound their punch-cards make!” or even “Hey, remember the decadent Lady 3Jane? In this world Ada Lovelace would be her parallel!” And so, by presenting us with the same classic Cyberpunk tropes, but in vastly different circumstances, the authors present us with a rich subtext, entirely different from the basic text of the story.

Shemot and Bereshit

The same can be said for Sefer Shemot. On the surface, we have a straightforward story of the Jews’ slavery in Egypt and the miraculous redemption and exodus that Hashem brings about. And yet, there is another layer, a subtext in which Shemot is packed full of references to its predecessor. Some examples are the exile/redeption arc as well as Moshe's personal history leading up to his mission as redeemer:

Shemot	Bereshit
Yaakov descends from Canaan to Egypt with his 70 family members because of famine	Abraham descends from Canaan to Egypt with his wife because of famine
Pharoh wants to kill the male Israelites and spare the females. His plans are thwarted by the midwives who fear God and those Israelites who hide their children away.	Abraham is worried that the Egyptians will kill him and take his wife. He is spared by his claim that Sarah is his sister, and she is saved by Hashem’s direct intervention with Pharaoh.
Hashem afflicts the Egyptians with 10 plagues.	Hashem afflicts Pharoh and his house with sickness.
Am Yisrael go up from Egypt with great wealth that they took from the Egyptians.	Pharaoh gives Avraham great wealth and sends him out of Egypt.
Moshe risks all and kills the Egyptian to save his “brothers”.	Abraham risks all and makes War on the 5 kings to save his kinsman Lot.
Moshe flees for his life from the Egyptians across the Jordan to Midyan.	Yaakov flees for his life from Eisav across the Jordan to Haran.
Moshe arrives at a well, saves Yitro’s daughters from the other shephards, and ends up dwelling with their father and marrying one of them.	Yaakov arrives at a well, helps Rachel water the sheep by rolling away the stone. He ends up dwelling with her father and marrying her and her sister.
Moshe returns from his exile at God’s command. "God" tries to kill him but he is saved by the circumcision of his son. His brother Aaron meets him.	Yaakov returns from exile at God’s command. A mysterious man attacks him in the night and wrestles with him but Yaakov overcomes him. His brother Eisav meets him.

So here we see that, as with “The Difference Engine”, Shemot is full of references to a previous work. That said, while Gibson and Sterling provided their subtext for the entertainment of their fans, the question remains: What purpose does the subtext of Shemot serve?

This is a big question, that begs a detailed and thorough analysis of much of the text of Bereshit and Shemot. This blog post is not the place for such an analysis. That said, I would like to briefly offer one rather broad, sweeping, (overambitious?) answer.

To a large degree, Sefer Bereshit is the story of what worked and didn’t work in how Hashem relates to Humanity:

1. At first Man is placed in a wondrous garden with all his needs provided. He immediately uses his freedom to rebel.
2. Then Man is made to work for his sustenance. Mankind becomes so corrupted by theft that Hashem is forced to wipe everyone out and start over with Noach.
3. Noach and his sons are given a more rigid structure of commandments. Humanity embraces idolatry.
4. Finally, Avraham comes along with approach that he must uplift his fellow Man. Hashem chooses to support him and his descendants and in this way guide Humanity slowly to moral perfection.

Sefer Shemot constantly reinforces the thesis that Hashem has chosen to relate to Humanity in the way he related to the Avot. These scenes of the partriarchs, repeated time and again, form and reform until, at last, a pattern emerges. The stories of the Avot are not merely history, but archetypes for all that comes after. It is then that it dawns on us that the Creation story did not end with the first chapters of Genesis. After the physical creation was related, the Torah continued with the spiritual formation of the world as we know it. Why were the Jewish people chosen? Why was this nation of slaves takes out of Egypt and given over to the slavery of the service of God? Genesis tells us how the spiritual framework of this world was formed and reformed until at last the travails of one man and his descendants would set the stage for all that would come after.

Safek Tumah Birshut Harabim

Rav Wolf’s chapter on ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים וברשות היחיד in מנחה טהורה begins with the question of source. I remember, while I was in Rav Noam Vershner’s shiur, he would often begin a sugiya with an investigation of the source source of a Halacha, before getting into the lomdus. I found this methodology helpful. Knowing where a din comes from is an important key in attempting to understand it.

Related to the question of source, one of the most basic chakirot is whether a din is deoraita or derabanan(see “The Conceptual Approach to Torah Learning”, Lichtenstein). This distinction alone has a big effect on what sort of svarot we’re willing to consider. Also, if a halacha is derived from another din, then this gives us further conceptual fodder, assuming the comparison is a fundamental one.

Reshut Harabim

Source

So there’s a general rule in Taharot about dealing with sfeikot. If the safek occurred in a public space then we’re lenient, but if it occurred in a private space then we’re machmir. Rav Wolf cites four possible sources for this rule:

1. Tosafot in Chullin(ט: ד"ה התם הלכתא) learns both sides of this rule(reshut hayachid/reshut harabim) from Sotah, whose potential tumah occurred in a private space and who is therefore forbidden to her husband.
2. Tosafot in Sotah(כח: ד"ה מכאן), on the other hand, says that there is always a chezkat tahara. Only the chumra in reshut hayachid is derived from Sotah
3. The Tosefta(טהרות ו:יז) and Yerushalmi also learn reshut hayachid from Sotah, however they learn reshut harabim from a kal vachomer from the din that the korban Pesach can be brought betumah if most of the nation are tmeiim
4. The Rambam(שאר אבות הטומאה טז:א) also learns the kulah of reshut harabim from Pesach, but he argues that this is the default option for Taharot. He says, the chumra in reshut hayachid is derabanan.

Why is there a difference?

Rav Wolf then moves on to his main chakira for this chapter: whether the difference between reshut hayachid and reshut harabim is due to a difference in the level of safek or due to some difference in how we relate to tumah in particular:

• Raglayim Ladavar- Reshut Hayachid is an enclosed space so ‘raglayim ladavar’. Therefore our doubt is weighted towards suspicion of tumah, like Sotah.
• Becoming Tamei in Reshut Rarabim is Less Severe
• Knas- should have been more careful in Reshut Hayachid, since it's easy to do so.
• Social Neccessity- it's not practical to be machmir in Reshut Harabim.

Mapping Sources to Svarot

So how do these explanations match up with the sources we suggested earlier?

Raglayim Ladavar- This explanation works with the first three derivations, which all learn Reshut Hayachid from Sotah. It’s clearly incompatible with the Ramabam, however, who thinks the comparison with Sotah is not fundamental

Knas- This sounds much like the Rambam who says that the chumra birshut hayachid is derabanan.

Social Neccessity- This sounds most like the Tosefta/Yerushalmi, who compare reshut harabim to the Korban Pesach. In Pesach too, the leniency with regard to tumah sounds more like a practical necessity than an ideal.

Challenge of Creation Parts 1 and 2

So I'm through the first 2 of 3 parts of Rabbi Natan Slifkin's "The Challange of Creation", so I'd like to collect my thoughts on the book so far. The first two parts are, respectively,  an introduction to the topic of reconciling science and parshanut and a look at how this plays out with regard to Cosmology. The third section, which I haven't read yet, looks at Evolution.

Sources, Wonderful Sources!

Over the years, I've read two other books on the topic of reconciling Torah and Science: Professor Gerald Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang" and Professor Nathan Aviezer's "In the Beginning". Both of those works were essentially monographs, each presenting its author's approach to reconciling the Torah and Scientific narratives, without much reference to other secondary sources.

Not so, "The Challenge of Creation", which is almost textbook on the topic. As Slifkin build's his own approach, he brings the opinions of numerous Rabbinic figures throughout the ages on this and similar problems. As such, even if the reader finds himself disagreeing with Slifkin's own approach, he has still learned a great deal about the different approaches Judaism has taken traditionally.
 
 In fact, with regard to his own approach, Slifkin is somewhat vague and noncommittal. He doesn't go too far into the nitty-gritty details, choosing to focusing on the sources and suggesting how they apply to this very Modern issue.

Departing from Literalism

That said, Slifkin's own approach does emerge through the second half of Part Two of the book. If I may paraphrase, he says that, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence and a good deal of Rabbinic precedent, we should interpret the seven days of creation non-literally. Certainly it is true that God created the Universe, but the Torah takes a good deal of artistic license in describing the details. Rabbi Slifkin brings sources that suggest that the Hashem was compelled to author the torah thus so that people in every age could relate to it's message. He also brings a number of approaches that imply that the seven days of creation are meant to teach us Theological, rather than Historical, lessons.

Ultimately, I think he makes a strong argument, and I think his approach is much stronger than that of "Genesis and the Big Bang" or "In the Beginning". Actually, Slifkin mentions these books in chapter 13, grouping them together as Concordism i.e. approaches that try and show concordance between the biblical and scientific narrative(Presumably, he borrowed the term from one of the sources he brings in the footnotes: "Is there science in the Bible? An Assessment of Biblical Concordism" by David Shatz).

The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax

Ultimately, I think The Challenge of Creation may be Slifkin's Magnum Opus. His other books, like "Mysterious Creatures" and "The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax" are interesting, fun reads. That said, "Challenge" takes on one of the tough issues of our time and deals with it masterfully. (Interestingly enough, Rav Slifkin cites "Camel" when discussing non-literal interpretations of scripture, so apparently that book helped form the basis for this one.)

More on Tuma by Hagdara

The third chapter of Rav Wolf’s מנחה טהורה discusses tuma and tahara of נבלת עוף טהור as well as the possibly related cases of פרה אדומה, שעיר המשתלח, ופרים ושעירים הנשרפים. The main chakira in this chapter is whether these are cases of tuma by העברה or הגדרה.

Rav Wolf first shows that the Rambam holds that Nivlat Of Tahor is metamei by Haavara, while Seirim and Parim are all Hagdara. For example, he brings the Rambam on Tumat Ochlin. The Rambam distinguishes between Nivlat Of Tahor which needs no hechsher(סופו לטמא טומאה חמורה—אינו צריך הכשר), while Seirim and Parim need הכשר שרץ. This is apparently because Nivlat Of Tahor is an av hatuma which creates its own inherent tumah, while Seirim and Parim don’t actually possess their own tumat haguf.

רמבם שאר אבות הטומאה פרק ג

ה חישב עליה לאכילה, הרי זו מיטמאה טומאת אוכלין; והרי היא כאוכל ראשון לטומאה--אף על פי שלא נגעה בה טומאה אחרת, אינה צריכה הכשר.

ו [ג] פרה אדומה ושעירים הנשרפים אינן כן, אף על פי שהן מטמאין המתעסק בהן: אם חישב עליהן לאכילה--צריכין שתיגע בהן הטומאה, ואחר כך ייטמאו טומאת אוכלין.

Rav Wolf then brings the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim which seems to contradict this approach:

ומפני זה היה העוסק בפרה ובשעירים הנשרפים מטמא בגדים, כשעיר המשתלח אשר יאמן בו כי מרוב מה שנשא מן העונות הוא מטמא מי שנגע בו.(מורה נבוכים חלק ג, פרק מ"ז)

Rav Wolf explains that the Rambam sees Seir Hamishtalayach as

מטמא במידה מסויימת, ולא רק היכי תימצי להגדיר את המשלח בזהות של משלח את השעיר.

But he never elaborates how it can be that Seir Hamishtalayach is metamei by Hagdara, but at the same time somewhat Haavara. I’d like to suggest an explanation…

Hagdara and Haavara Revisited

I would suggest that this apparent contradiction in the different writings of the Rambam helps us sharpen our understanding of the difference between Haavara and Hagdara. When the Rambam in the Moreh says that one who deals with the Seir Hamishtalayach becomes Tamei because of the weight of the sins that have been cast upon it, he isn’t saying that the person becomes Tamei via Haavara rather than Hagdara. The scapegoat isn’t tamei with ritual tumah. That said, it does carry a less corporeal form of Tumah, as do all sins, along the lines of טומאת הנפש. I would argue that many, if not all, cases of tumah by Hagdara are like this in that their Tumat Haguf has some, somewhat more ethereal, source.

For example, חרב כחלל, according to the opinion that it only applies to a weapon. Its tumah wasn’t passed on by contact with the dead body, and yet the sword didn’t become tamei by Hagdara from nowhere. It’s the weapon’s association with the lethal act that gave it the high level of Tumah it now carries. The point is that Tumah by hagdara still comes from “somewhere”.

A Speculative Reading of Bereshit

Rav Natan Slifkin's book "The Challenge of Creation" finally arrived, so I've started reading that. I'm quite fond of his writing(although I would prefer a few more footnotes, not to mention Hebrew source texts, rather than translations) and I'm definitely enjoying myself. I'm still in the introductory chapters, but hopefully I'll put up a post or two about the book some time soon.

In any case, I wanted to put into writing a possible reading of Bereshit that I've been pondering for a while. It's pretty non-traditional, so please regard this as more of a thought exercise in parshanut rather than as a serious attempt at a definitive interpretation of the text.

First, let's look at some of the significant questions on the first few chapters of the Torah(some of which we've mentioned before):

1. A simple reading of the account of creation in the Torah is not consistent with the Scientific narrative, mainly in terms of the age of the universe and the evolution of species. How do we reconcile this?
2. The Torah begins with two different accounts of creation which contradict each other on a number of points. How do we explain this?
3. Who did Adam and Eve's offspring marry?
4. People live a long time but their ages slowly decrease. Why?
5. Who were the Bnei Eliohim and the Nefilim? What was their sin and what do they have to do with the limiting of Man's age to 120 years?

Rav Breuer argued, in his classes, that the first story of Creation is the story of a Natural Creation while the second is a miraculous one. The implication was that the truth of what actually happened is somewhere in the middle.

I'd like to suggest the possibility that the two creation stories imply that Hashem made two different, parallel creations. He made a Natural Creation that took place through natural processes over a long time and where Human life evolved. He also made an "artificial" creation, designing and forming Man and Woman miraculously in a well-planned garden with everything they could possibly need.

The story in the Garden is the story of how Adam and Eve sinned and were exiled from the perfect creation into the imperfect one.

Adam and Eve were engineered to perfection and they lived a long time. That said, their offspring married the short-lived, imperfect, Nature-evolved Humans. As such, their descendents lived for shorter and shorter periods.

Ultimately, those most closely descended of Adam and Eve took advantage of their less-able fellows and took a disproportionate number of women for themselves. These were the Bnei-Elohim and the Nefilim(see Malbim for a similar explanation) and their punishment was that Hashem took away their long lifespan.

So there you go. It's a little bit far out there, I'll admit, and maybe I've been reading too much Tolkien. That said, what I do like about this reading is that it doesn't have to resort to saying that the creation story is really Allegorical...