Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

Ami et al,

Slavery:

"Historically, many societies had slavery... which means that it was more beneficial for them to have it than not to have it."
Is there no such thing as a bad social institution then? Many modern societies have, for example, drug cartels, yet I would argue that we'd be better off without them. Drug cartels, or slavery, are economically beneficial to a small influential minority, which thus can keep them going as long as the (large) opposition is not well-organized, but harmful to the society as a whole.

"In America, the North switched to industry because it became more profitable."
No. The north never had significant numbers of slaves, even when it had virtually no industry whatsoever.

"the South would eventually leave slavery behind anyway, because eventually, industry became more profitable than slavery"
Really? I give money to the American Anti-Slavery Group ( http://www.iabolish.com/ ) which is trying to reduce slavery in various parts of the world, including the USA. Could you give them a timeframe for when the wonders of industrialization will make their efforts superfluous? Slavery is an extreme form of exploiting people's labor, which is still just as profitable *if you can get away with it* as it ever was. There are many millions of slaves in the world today (e.g. http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0112/055.html ), probably as many as there ever were (although a lower percentage of the total population). If this is the situation in a world where slavery is universally seen as immoral and forbidden by international treaty, imagine how many slaves there would be in your ideal biblically-inspired society where slavery is seen as divinely sanctioned as long as it's beneficial (to who? and who decides?) and slaves have their divinely-given "rights". Going by your arguments, of course, such an expansion of slavery is not a bad thing. I disagree.

I agree with the premise that the Tora has some instructions concerning slaves that are humanitarian *for their time and place*. My point is that it is our right and duty to continue to adapt our practices so to continue the Jewish quest for a good personal and communal life and for a better society, even where this conflicts with following the Tora's instructions literally. And I'm proud of the abolitionist Jews of the past couple centuries regardless of whether they were following the literal meaning of the Tora or directly conflicting with it.

Sacrifices:
I don't think there's anything morally wrong with animal sacrifices, just that a system similar to the Tora's is only appropriate for a very particular culture and that contemporary Jews, for example, should practice rituals that fulfill the same functions but not necessarily have the same form. You seem to disagree and take the Orthodox (and Karaite?) position.

An example of a morally questionable ritual:
Bamidbar 5.11ff

"just as long as those new rituals are not mandated"
I'm not mandating anything. All I can say is that I observe some non-Biblical Jewish rituals and, if asked, would say that that are (some) non-Biblical rituals that are likely to contribute to what I consider to be a good Jewish life as much as or more than (some) Biblical rituals.

Finally, back to slavery. None of you quoted the Tora's most systematic instructions on the subject, which occur as a clarification to instructions on shmita and yovel release (Vayyikra 25):
If your brother becomes destitute and is sold to you [still a common way of people becoming slaves, incidentally] - do not work him like a slave is worked; he is to be like a hired worker or a temporary resident [who's something like a modern "guest worker", perhaps], and work for you (only) until the yovel year, and leave you, he and his children [contradicting Shemot 21.4], and return to his ancestral holding; for they are My slaves, whom I have released from Egypt - they may not be sold (permanently) like slaves. Do not oppress him harshly [befarekh, echoing the same word in the description of the Israelites' oppression in Egypt], but fear your God.
But the slaves you are to have: from among the surrounding nations you may buy slaves, and also from among the sons of the temporary residents who reside among you and among their kin whom they bore in your land. They shall be your holding, and you are to bequeath them to your sons after you, who inherit the holding; you are to work them forever.
But with your brothers the Israelites, do not oppress harshly each his brother.

Sorry, I meant "...even a *slave*, who is at the bottom rung of society, would beneft greatly from life within a Torah-based community." in my conclusion.

Shalom LeKol,
Ya'aqov

For those who are unhappy with the Torah's endorsement of Slavery...

Just so you all really see the difference between "slave" in the vernacular usage versus "slave" in the Torah's usage, consider the following summary:

Much indeed like contract of ownership, should the slave find his predicament unwanted for any reason, get this:

"You shall not hand over to his master a slave that has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you, among you, in the place which he chooses inside one of your gates, wherever it is good to him. You shall not oppress him." Deut 23:15-16

-> He is allowed to run away from his master
-> He can live with you in a place of *his* liking, where it will benefit *him* the most (despite his former status as a "mere" slave)
-> And to top it all off, he is to be respected as a man, and free from oppression or restrictions on his rights (no 'Jim Crow' laws, segregation, or racism allowed.)

Just a simple as, "don't like being a slave? leave! by *law* you'll be respected and taken care of!" - absolutely remarkable.

All of the above would totally shatter the "slave trade" as we know it in its modern sense, and also aptly summarizes that the slave (convert or not) *really would* "have it good" if he were in the society laid out in the Torah.

May that Age come.

-Ya'aqov

On Slavery:
The arguments against that sanctity and enternality of the Torah based on Christian abuse of its endorsement of "slavery" is much like the argument that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" caused society a great amount of fear uncertanty and doubt -- when you just read a translation and interplate your society's current definition, you fail to truly understand what the Torah is saying.

For example, watching a History Channel documentary last night on the Salem Witchcraft phenomenon, I noticed that the Puritans simply pulled a prooftext out of Parashath Mishpatim - and then sought to define witch according to 17th century european folklore: from an mentally ill girl to a mean an reclusive hermitess, each definition would fail miserably when held up to the definitions provided in the Tanakh for what a "witch" is.

Same thing with slavery. This is particulary close to home, as I am of African-American lineage (though a spiritual member of 'Am Yisrael): "slavery" in the modern use of the word evokes people who are stolen from their native lands, beaten horribly and rapedwith no compassion, facing torture or even death if they try to escape their horrid situation, and if released, most likely a permanent underclass never allowed to be respected as a full human.

However, while the Torah essentially points out that the slave is working without pay, notice the differences (being at work, I'll leave the verse-finding to the readers)

"Slave Bill of Rights" (compiled from Torath Mosheh)

-> A slave can convert and become a full Israelite at any time, allowing them to participate in Pesach and bring offers, etc. (The US constitution originally declared a slave only 3/5ths of a human.)

-> A slave who converts is to be treated as a native-born brother or sister Israelite, never to be taunted

-> Regardless of conversion, neither slaves or beasts of burden are allowed to work on Shabbath on any Holy Day or any Sabbatical year... thus giving them regular time off and perhaps showing them the spiritual side of Torah-observance ("...so that your male slave and your female slave may rest just like you." Deut 5:14 "And you shall rejoice before YHWH your God, you and your sons, and your daughters, and your *male slaves*, and your *female slaves*..." Deut 12:12)

-> A slave is to be granted full freedom if their master seriously abuses them (even knocking out a tooth is grounds for such actions)

-> A master whose slave dies due to his harsh treatment is guilty of murder and the slave's death is to be avenged (unheard of during the African slave trade, where up to 20% died on the brutal trip to America alone)

-> "You shall not hand over to his master a slave that has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you, among you, in the place which he chooses inside one of your gates, wherever it is good to him. You shall not oppress him." Deut 23:15-16 (The Underground Railroad only was needed because the US "Fugitive Slave Act" made the *Torah's* provisions *absolutely illegal*)

-> Oh yeah, and about those slave captors: "And he that steals a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, dying he shall die." Exodus 21:16 (Which, by the way, was the *backbone* of nearly any slave trade... this would make kidnapping people in the first place a crime worthy of *death*)

So where would slaves come from? Either they're captives from warfare, criminals under a sentence, volunteers (which, seeing how you get "free" food clothing and shelter, plus respct and civil rights would be totally realistic) or people who are inherited from one of the above.

So, what have we learned? The Way of YHWH, which the Scriptures summarize with the twin priniciples of "Tzedeq" (righteousness) and "Mishpat" (justice), once again how shown to be beyond natural human authorship, as the Torah shows great wisdom and compassion in its precepts.

Which is why I see the urge to "update" the Torah (or neglect it, whichever) as totally uneccessary, and an insult to the belief in an all-Knowing Personal God who recorded the foundations of the ideal society thousands of years ago, and commited a Holy People to demonstrate it's wisdom.

"Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as YHWH my God has commanded me, to do them, in the midst of the land where you are going in, to possess it, and you shall keep and do them, for it shall be your *wisdom* and your *perceptiveness* before the eyes of the peoples who hear all these statutes. And they shall say, 'This great nation is a people *wise* and *perceptive'. " (Deut. 4:5-6)

My exact impression upon concluding this entry on the Torah treatment of "slave's rights"

Shalom,
Ya'aqov

“He who acquires a slave, acquires a Master.”

There is no reason to assume that Jewish society was as dependent upon slavery as was Rome. Ancient Israel, for all its 'milk & honey' was never as affluent as was Greece or Rome, and therefore slavery, a luxury that costs a great deal, would not be as prevalent or have the same effects were that institution completely removed from them.

Humans were to the slavers seen as commodities to be sold and traded. The purchaser would be calculating along the same lines of profit/labor. A poor man would love a have a slave, but how could he afford the upkeep? The economic benefit would not have existed for a poorer agrarian society. It is still cheaper for the farmer/shepherd to have his own family do the job, without bringing in another mouth to feed or back to clothe.

Those rules for who kept slaves, and the conditions under which one is enslaved, from the Torah perspective, are enlightened and advanced for that time. Whereas Egyptian or Roman law allowed for the killing and mutilation of slaves, along with an early form of ‘Dred Scott’, the Torah forbade indiscriminate punishment of slaves and offered those fleeing slavery a refuge. That kind of concern for their humanity would have made the widespread practice economically unsuitable in terms of turning a profit. Cultures with little or no concern for their slaves welfare would buy, sell, abuse, and discard them at will. The Torah restricted such callous disregard, thus making the care and welfare of slaves the responsibility and cost of the owner.

One condition of ancient slavery is being mimicked today in the Corrections system here in the US. The idea of monetary restitution through labor is a Biblical idea. The forced labor that exists within our penal system is a form of slavery.

SL

Nir,

1. Slavery. My position is that at some point(s) in a society's political / economical / technological development, slavery is benefitial to the society.

Historically, many societies had slavery. You say that they could have survived without it. Proof? We know that they had it, which means that it was more benefitial for them to have it than not to have it.

Is slavery evil? Not if it is governed by the laws of the Tanakh. Again, my initial position is that Tanakh defines "good" and "evil" in a way that maximizes a society's fitness. Unless this initial position is shown to be wrong, I don't see why it should be dropped.

Tanakh neither forbids slavery nor requires it. This means that, if it is benefitial for a society to have it, it should, and if it's not benefitial, it shouldn't. In other words, the benefits of slavery change with time. But, according to my hypothesis, Tanakh only mandates and forbids things the benefit of which is timeless.

***"I do not see how an ancient society could have survived without slavery"
I don't see why not. Slaves in the Tanakh are essentially a luxury, and people would still farm, herd, weave, smelt, and otherwise produce everything needed for a Bronze Age society if slavery were strictly taboo.***

But in the end, they did have slavery, which means that it put them at an advantage. Slavery is not mandated in the Torah. So why did they choose to have it?

You could also say that our society could survive without industry. Maybe, but it would be much weaker. Plus, a lack of industry would put a society at a comparative disadvantage with all other societies that have it.

***Europeans abolished slavery in the 19th century not because it was suddenly less profitable - for plantation owners in the American south, slaves were an *extremely* profitable captive labor force - but because societal norms changed so that classifying people as property was frowned upon, in part reflecting the *further development* of concepts expressed in the Tora in different form (as well as Enlightenment Greek-inspired ideas).***

Sorry. With Industrialization, slavery was becoming less profitable than industry, starting with the colder climates.

In America, the North switched to industry because it became more profitable. This created a divide: the Industrial North and the slave-holding South had two different sets of interests. Two different sets of interests but one country with one federal government. The South wanted to secede. This led to the Civil War.

Were there strong moral objectors to slavery long before the Civil War? Absolutely. But their morality, not supported by economics or a strong political force, led nowhere.

Even if there was no Civil War, the South would eventually leave slavery behind anyway, because eventually, industry became more profitable than slavery.

2. Sacrifices.
***I agree, but are sacrifices always the best *way* in which to deal with these psychological issues***

Show me that they aren't.

***Thus, if a ritual as traditionally practice has elements in it that we find morally troubling, we *should* change or reinterpret it.***

OK. Could you provide a specific example. (How) does this relate to sacrifices?

***though we should also think about whether the ritual is about something important which in fact should be in our culture, in which case we should try to change the culture instead of the ritual***

Exactly.

***If there are important times in people's lives for which no suitable traditional ritual is available, we should adapt old rituals or create new ones for the occasion.***

That's fine. Just as long as those new rituals are not mandated, of course. :)

***If the change which prompted the creation of a new ritual turns out to be long-lasting, then within a generation or two the new ritual will also seem quite traditionally Jewish to all.***

I don't see this as being a good thing. The Torah requirements and the new additions should be kept clearly separate so that the people would know that the new additions are not required and can be changed at any time.

Ami,

I'm confused. You say that "Torah deals with fundamentals and therefore endures forever" but at the same time that the Torah's laws on slavery refer to an institution that's "completely inappropriate in our current society". Could you clarify?

"I do not see how an ancient society could have survived without slavery"
I don't see why not. Slaves in the Tanakh are essentially a luxury, and people would still farm, herd, weave, smelt, and otherwise produce everything needed for a Bronze Age society if slavery were strictly taboo. I would say that slavery was part of the culture (though there was no fundamental necessity for it to be) and that the Tora is reflecting the specificities of Israelite culture.

Europeans abolished slavery in the 19th century not because it was suddenly less profitable - for plantation owners in the American south, slaves were an *extremely* profitable captive labor force - but because societal norms changed so that classifying people as property was frowned upon, in part reflecting the *further development* of concepts expressed in the Tora in different form (as well as Enlightenment Greek-inspired ideas).

"sacrifices deal with important psychological issues which endure as long as we are human"
I agree, but are sacrifices always the best *way* in which to deal with these psychological issues (the typical Orthodox position: not offering sacrifices is seen as regrettable, and in a perfect world exactly the same sacrifices as detailed in the Tora [with some Rabbinic modification] would be offered), or are people in different societies expected to consider whether sacrifices are still the best rituals that serve these functions? My view is the latter.

ritual law:
Indeed, the ritual vs. moral dichotomy is stupid. Ritual is a very important component of human culture. All societies have lots of it. Old Jewish rituals (both ones specified in the Tora, such as the Pesah seder [almost always observed today with very many Rabbinic elements, however], and ones not, such as lighting shabbat candles and tikkun lel Shavu'ot) are for a Jewish community preferable to other practices which may serve similar ritual functions. Some reasons are that old rituals connect the community to Jewish tradition, that they already have extensive lore that provides insight into the array of meanings they may have, and that they provide unifying symbols for Jews worldwide and (as you write) easy identification of Jews and reminders of the mission of Judaism.

Precisely because ritual and morality are inseparable, I believe that our ritual practice must support moral conduct. Thus, if a ritual as traditionally practice has elements in it that we find morally troubling, we *should* change or reinterpret it. If a ritual seems senseless to most people in the community (which is probably because it doesn't fit with their cultural context), we should reinterpret or modify or replace it so that it makes sense (though we should also think about whether the ritual is about something important which in fact should be in our culture, in which case we should try to change the culture instead of the ritual). If there are important times in people's lives for which no suitable traditional ritual is available, we should adapt old rituals or create new ones for the occasion. If the change which prompted the creation of a new ritual turns out to be long-lasting, then within a generation or two the new ritual will also seem quite traditionally Jewish to all. Bar mitsva is a good example of such an invented ritual (starting out in late Medieval times and blossoming in the 20th century into a questionable extravaganza that in any case is seen as very Jewish).

Again, in my view the Tora provides a starting point. A Jewish community should follow Tora rituals that it is comfortable with, seek to understand those it is uncomfortable with, and devise new rituals if called for - keeping Judaism's overall mission constantly in mind.

Nir,

***priests and sacrifices***

1. All people have spiritual needs. Not only the spiritual or religious. Spiritual feelings, emotional conflicts, etc, are a part of who we are.

The job of the priests is to take care of these things.

One of the most basic loci for spiritual / emotional problems is food. As long as we remain human, this locus of food exists. Even today, even in the most civilized countries, so many people have problems with food. Not only that, people who *don't* have any problems have forgotten where food comes from, which distorts their perception of and relationship to the world.

Sacrifices do (or might) help here.

2. This ties back into "moral" versus "ritual" law. Many people think that ritual law is not need any more. "Any more"? Why was it needed in the first place? And if it was needed then, what has changed?

The basic approach here is as follows. We face moral dilemas relatively rarely. So if the Law only dealt with morality, and we learned it, we would not internalize it from disuse. Then, when a situation arose that needed a moral decision, since the Law was not interlalized, we would be in danger of making wrong decisions. Ritual, on the other hand, is repeated fairly often. In this way, Law is internalized. Also see
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/07/a_dialog_with_a_skeptic_or_why_jews_dont_eat_pork.html

3. ***why, judging by the amount of space devoted to them, the details of how to perform sacrifices are so much more important than for example the basic form of the government, which you say the Tora leaves unspecified.***

The commandment against murder doesn't take that much space. All it says is "do not murder". Does that mean that it's not important? I don't think so.

The Covenant does not include sacrifices. This tells you that, though a lot of space is devoted to them, sacrifices are not the most important thing.

4. Form of government.

Because different forms of government are appropriate for different eras and levels of intellectual and technological development. In other words, form of government is not a fundamental. 3000 years ago, a democratic country might not have survived. In fact we know that the Greek democratic (by their standards) city-states didn't survive. It's not conclusive evidence, but an indication.

5. ***the Tora contains much instruction on the acquisition and treatment of slaves. if, for an ideal society, "property rights are defined in the Torah", do explain how a society whose definition of property includes slaves is more fit than one that does not.***

Sure. Once again, while slavery is completely inappropriate in our current society, it was appropriate in ancient times. I do not see how an ancient society could have survived without slavery.

By the same token, modern societies don't forbid slavery because they have, all of a sudden, become enlightened. Rather, it is no longer economically and politically benefitial.

6. ***I would argue that large chunks of the culture, such as the priestly and sacrificial systems (which were a feature of all Near Eastern societies at the time, but not a feature of all "agrarian" societies), were extras in the sense that they could be replaced by simpler social institutions that meet the same needs.***

Maybe, maybe not. As I already mentioned (and should probably try to explain in a separate post), sacrifices deal with important psychological issues which endure as long as we are human.

7. ***The social purpose of Judaism is to make a sustained effort toward a better society.***

True.

***The Tora offers instructions in that direction, but subsequent generations should develop and amplify them, as well as figure out what to do differently in the present society with its particular challenges to keep moving toward the goal.***

I never said that we should do things the same, in the sense that we have to live in the bronze age. As I mentioned above, it's perfectly fine not to have slavery today.

But in my opinion, the null hypothesis should be that Torah deals with fundamentals and therefore endures forever. Unless there is decisive evidence that this is false, I'd say stick with the hypothesis.

***this is something like a Conservative view, and one close in some ways to Rabbinic Judaism though also quite different. ***

Yes. It is very similar, but very different at the same time. :)

Ashirah,

Welcome.

Eddie,

1. The "numbers" argument has some merit from an evolutionary point of view. But I have to emphasize the word *some*. There have to be other merits as well. As it is, the Orthodox sometimes use it to just silence all opposition.

Not only that, the argument, when given by the Orthodox, is patently ridiculous. Jews are a small minority of the world population and the Orthodox are a small minority of the Jewish population. What numbers?? Yet, they keep talking about numbers and that creates an appearance of substance.

2. ***On the other hand, most jews associate orthodxy with the most authentic form of Judaism. So, when secualr Jews get religious feelings, they usually turn to orthodoxy, as oppsoed ot being a conservative or reform bal teshuva.***

Exactly. All this is due to a very successful propaganda compaign on the part of the Orthodox. They keep repeating the same thing, that they are the original and the authentic. As a result most of the seculars, who don't know (and don't care!) much about religion, believe them.

***And that is probably because their great grandparents were themselves orthodox, so they are returning to the tradition of their fathers.***

Yes and no. Their great grandparents were *forced* to be Orthodox. Not exactly forced. They were born into it. But under the ghetto system, they could be severely punished, both financially and physically, for disobeying Orthodox rules. Besides, life in the ghetto was shit, and so the common people just followed the rules and tried to survive.

They weren't Orthodox by choice, they just tried to live their lives. As soon as Emancipation came, most left Orthodoxy. What does that tell you?

3. ***One thing i have realised - no amount of logic can change an orthodox belief.***

Heh. The dialog with Avi has been enlightening. I can now see how some of my earlier arguments can be geared more to his mindset.

One thing that I did notice. He didn't seem to be reading the other posts that he was referred to. And whenever one of his claims was refuted, he just went on to the next one. I'm sure he doesn't do it on purpose (what does he have to gain?). It's just the mindset. I read somewhere, maybe Jews for Judaism, that J4J pull that kind of shit too. Makes you think... :))

4. ***Mayeb after several generations of blindness, there will be a small change, eg the gradual aceptance of the State of Israel by the Haredim. But that is a turn to the Orthodox centre.***

You bring up an interesting topic. Prior to Independence, *all* Orthodox were opposed to it. (IIUC.) Then, many of them accepted Independence simply to gain political power. And so an Orthodox belief was changed overnight. Give people the right incentives, and... :))

***So, ultimately, even if prophecy was to return to Israel, (assuming the prophets didn't accept the oral law!!), it would be of no use in convincing the Orthodox of anything.***

Heh. I'd like to see that. :))

Eddie,

Excellent point re:rabbis taking over the authority of prophets (and the profits, too.)

I wonder though how the RamBam draws his conclusion, since Parshat Shoftim describes the Prophet as Oracle, and the truth of his word is determined by its becoming a reality. There is no mention of a Prophet being able to circumvent the Law or ask others to do so.

SL

Interesting conversation here - i have been primarily responding to Avi on the Textual proof post.

Numbers do not always equal truth - and it's possible for the Karaite movement to disappear, as it almost has done, and as the sadducees did.

On the other hand, most jews associate orthodxy with the most authentic form of Judaism. So, when secualr Jews get religious feelings, they usually turn to orthodoxy, as oppsoed ot being a conservative or reform bal teshuva. And that is probably because their great grandparents were themselves orthodox, so they are returning to the tradition of their fathers.

One thing i have realised - no amount of logic can change an orthodox belief. Mayeb after several generations of blindness, there will be a small change, eg the gradual aceptance of the State of Israel by the Haredim. But that is a turn to the Orthodox centre.

Ther is an interesting comment of Rambam, regarding the authenticity of a Prophet. If a prophet tells us to commit any transgression, apart form Idolatry, we must follow him. However, if he says that a haalcha is different from what the Oral LAw teaches, that prophet must be killed.

So, ultimately, even if prophecy was to return to Israel, (assuming the prophets didn't accept the oral law!!), it would be of no use in convincing the Orthodox of anything.

shabbat shalom

eddie

"While many things do change, the fundamentals stay the same. Human nature and human biology do not change. "

Ami,
I completely agree. But to build upon that, I think one of the main things that drive people away from the Torah is that while human nature in itself is unchanging, technology and what is accepted as true in society (more specifically, Western society), changes and will always change.

Ya'aqov illustrated this point with his reference to the acceptance of pagan influences in western society. It's as if anything even remotely endorsed by the Torah can be taken out of context, twisted to someone's own devices and justified with passages that are taken out of their true context. That's the problem with building too much upon the fundementals- things are universal (the Torah) are distorted and changed by man, who is always changing.

And as this is my first response here, I'd like to introduce myself as the girlfriend that Ya'aqov has spoken of a few times.

A peaceful and blessed Shabbath to you all,
-Ashirah

Food for thought:
In the early 90s the foremost living symbol of Judaism as perceived by Gentiles was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the strictest of strict Chabad Lubavitch movement (World HQ'd in Brooklyn), and their Black-Hatted Chassidic disciples - now it's Kabbalah Centre , "Ester" (you know, the inventor and sustainer of "Porn Rock" and other such blessings) Britney Spears (the woman in the song for "Toxic", where she wears a see-through catsuit and cavorts with a man in an aeroplane toilet cubicle - too hot for MTV, even, since they decided to push it's debut to late night so as not to incur the FCC wrath), and Demi Moore (one word. "Striptease".) - and yes, their Berg-buying, red-string wearing fans who understand more about the culture those three sell than the Torah that is allegedly taught by the Centre.

My point? With each passing year, people's views on the world - even spirituality - grow more and more similar to pure paganism. Advocating restraint and iscipline is not perceived as teaching maturity or responsibility, rather, as "bigotry" or "closemindedness". The animalistic "go with your gut feeling" is now quickly being re-packaged as one's "civil [or even human] right to *insert sexually related activity here (be queer, have an abortion, etc)"*.

*Note, I said these things _not_ to defame character, but to illustrate something*

So you understand the position of people such as myself, the basic approach to Torah observance in the West is as follows:
<>
"My son, do not forget my Torah, but let your heart keep my Mitzwoth, for they shall add length of days and long life and peace to you.

Mercy and truth will not forsake you, tie them on your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart, and you shall find favor and good understanding in the sight of Elohim and man.

Trust in YHWH with all your heart, and do not lean to your own understanding.

In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.

Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear YHWH and depart from evil."
(Proverbs 3:1-7)
<>

It's not the easy way out - we strive to use the Torah as the foundation of our lives, and not shirk when someone who denies the supernatural complains that something doesn't make sense or sounds like it was stolen from paganism. We do not rush to denounce any part of the Torah that sounds too "relgious", "miraculous", or otherwise too "Jewish" in the ears of a secular humanist gentile society.

The main problem people such myself have with modern forms of Rabbinic Judaism is - interestingly enough, like Othodoxy - their putting trust in human wisdom and fiat as more important than simply believing in the wholehearted and prayerful observance of the written Torah, as they decide that philosophical assimilation is a much better alternative that to have faith in the God of Avraham, Yitzhaq and Ya'aqov to communicate His will through Moses and the Prophets to modern 'Am Yisrael.

With this said, I've studied modern (read: Gentile) biblical criticism. It fails - horribly - its "Documentary Hypothesis" being classic 19th century German pseudo-science, the result of reading the Torah with all the depth and perception of a 2nd grader, who whines whenever advanced literary nuance is presented in the text of the Torah... claiming this is "proof" of multiple later writers authoring the Torah. In fact, at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, where my girlfriend attends, the very class she takes on the subject (taught by a very proud German-born professor who takes every possible opportunity during lectures to criticize YHWH and His People and to exalt the "superiority" of atheist German theorists) admitted to the erroneous logic of modern critical techniques, but because "no better theory exists" it's still taught.

Understandable for atheist. Unacceptable for the Jew, who is called to "Trust in YHWH with all your heart, and do not lean to your own understanding..." and to "not be wise in your own eyes; fear YHWH and depart from evil".

That is the philosophy behind this new Chumash, and while I've ranted on for much too long here, I have plenty of examples how a different approach to Science and the Bible (and no, not traditional forms of 'Creation Science' neccessarily) can enlighten and enhance one's appreciation for our Creator, and His perfect Torah.

A most holy and educational Shabbath to you all,

Ya'aqov.

Ya'aqov,

sure, happy to contribute.

regarding primodial longevity, I fear I'm among the "scoffers" your creation scientist refers to. his statistical treatment is most unconvincing.

Nir,
Thanks! I'm working to ge my site updaed to explain in detail the "design philosophy" of his Chumash. Although we disagree on some points, i doesn' mean you couldn't contribute - your expertise in Environmental Science may be called upon for "appendix" materials...

For example, could you give me your review of his information on longevity after the Flood? I found it incredibly interesting how such "dry"portions of he Torah were used to compile these graphs.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/longpatr.html

The author teaches Chem @ Texas A&M University, and is a creaion scientist.

On the Temple, it's really an interesting study once you go beyond the surface-level misconceptions of "appeasing the gods"-style BBQ... I've gotta run to meet with a potential client, so I'll just await your feedback.

Shalom,
Ya'aqov

Ya'aqov - I do environmental science, and I'm fond of agrarian life myself, at least part-time, but despite the best efforts of Labor Zionists, at the moment peasant Jews are a very small minority.

as an open-source advocate, I love your Tanakh plans - let us know if we can help :-)

Ami -
priests and sacrifices: just how these laws would contribute to the fitness of a contemporary society? I just don't see (1) how sacrifices would make the world a better place and (2) why, judging by the amount of space devoted to them, the details of how to perform sacrifices are so much more important than for example the basic form of the government, which you say the Tora leaves unspecified. perhaps you can elaborate.

re. property: the Tora contains much instruction on the acquisition and treatment of slaves. if, for an ideal society, "property rights are defined in the Torah", do explain how a society whose definition of property includes slaves is more fit than one that does not.

"The society in which Torah was written did not [have a lot of impremanent extras]." I do disagree. Any human society has a complex culture, which can be replaced by any other culture that satisfies the same basic needs (i.e. most any other human culture) without imperiling the society's viability (as long as the change is not fast enough to be jarring). The society in which the Tora was written was just such a complex culture, not necessarily simpler or better than average. I would argue that large chunks of the culture, such as the priestly and sacrificial systems (which were a feature of all Near Eastern societies at the time, but not a feature of all "agrarian" societies), were extras in the sense that they could be replaced by simpler social institutions that meet the same needs.

My view on the Tora: Cultures always change, but usually there's no trend toward better societies, meaning (roughly) those that consider providing for all their members to be a top priority and where developing spiritual awareness is an important focus. The social purpose of Judaism is to make a sustained effort toward a better society. The Tora offers instructions in that direction, but subsequent generations should develop and amplify them, as well as figure out what to do differently in the present society with its particular challenges to keep moving toward the goal. as you mention, this is something like a Conservative view, and one close in some ways to Rabbinic Judaism though also quite different.

Todah rabbah for the information...
Well, like I said, the WEB is the only modern english translation that's public domain, so I think I'll stick with it, but that's a good idea for me to make only neccessary alterations for now. And the I've already downloaded the Hebrew texts from mechon-mamre, so I'm a bit ahead of you there.

But yes, I appreciate the input and contact information... and if you could, make a post perhaps on what people would want in the "Chumash of their Dreams"? You could include quotes from me if needed.

I'd greatly appreciate it,
-Ya'aqov

Ya'aqov,

It is a very ambitious project. Josiah recently also had the idea to (re)translate the Tanakh. You can contact him at
http://1.ancient-paths.net/index.php

I'm gonna tell you what I told him. Translating the Tanakh might not be as easy as it seems. Consider the new JPS: it took professional linguists many years to make the translation. Perhaps you can start the project with a free Jewish translation that is already available? Such as the old JPS.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

If there are aspects of the translation that you really want to change, you will be able to do so. But at least you'll have a starting base to work from.

As for the other parts of the project, cross references and commentaries, I do like them. Let me know how that goes.

You might want to consider organizing it using a Wiki. A la Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You can even download their software:
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/

That way, it will be easy for people to contribute, make corrections, etc.

Though I'm not sure how to link all the articles (especially the cross references) to the text. It could be done by hand, but there has to be a better way.

Sorry, The first Hebrew-English *Chumash* to contain all these things, that is. (A complete Tanakh will likely be the *next* step after thing project publishes in its first edition :D)

btw, I'm translating this work; a fresh, literal, yet modern sounding version that I've been greenlit by the folks behind World English Bible to base loosely off their public domain text. (http://www.ebible.org/web/Genesis.htm)

It's basically going to be easier to only translate key phrases within each verse, rather than start totally from scratch... and hey, it's already in 21st century American English :P

-Ya'aqov

Ami,
I'm glad I've found your site - it's a pleasure to contribute...

And so you know, I've had the same idea about getting the (W)ord out there (pun intended) about follow the faith our fathers, which in the scriptures is simpl called Derekh YHWH - and as such started the site about a year ago called http://www.HaDerekh.org/ (although I'm only recently picking develpoment back up) with the mission being clearly stated on the main page.

Besides my girlfriend, you'd be the first person to know that I've recently begun work on the first hebrew-english tanakh to be 1)compiled by people who base their life on whole-hearted application of the Tanakh [ie., non-rabbanites], 2)include reams references to places elsewhere in the tanakh as the *primary* source of commentary (ie, instead of a prominence of rabbinic citations) [ex: Gen 1:2 would have a wealth of references to where the reader could learn more about the circumstances surrounding creation within the Tanakh, along with a human opinion or wo to guide people on their way], 3)a chumash "LeShem HaAm uMeeth HaAm" (for the people and by the people) - volunteers will help put this together, and thanks to the modern technology of cheap on-demand publishing, the chumash could possibly given out for little or nothing (much like the "gideon" NT's that you find in any hotel) and posted online *for free* in PDF format, and 4)designed to educate the Torah-observant *as well as* inform the secular, with Hertz Pentateuch-styled apologetic essays on topics such as creationism, science in the Torah, the Rabbinic issue, etc... as well as the *VERY* powerful tool of charting thematic information found in the Torah as beautifully demonstrated by one of the most Karaite-sounding Rabbi's you'll meet (Menachem Leibtag) at http://www.tanach.org/ (look at one of his "Virtual Classroom" shiurim and you'll see what I mean) - and all with another innovation: links to online references for more information.

Oh, and I'd like a significant part of the proceeds to go towards a *Torani* charity - like in the Torah, where the needy can find funds for groceries, etc. and where the more fortunate can help fulfill the commandment to be charitable without indirectly funding xtian missionary activity.

Big plans, I know, but Be'Ezrath YHWH, this generation will have a rebirth in knowledge and understanding of the Torah.

I plan on updating my site to share information on how to sign up to be a volunteer, explaning the need and the vision for this chumash (which remains unnamed), and PDF updates on what's happening so far with it's progress.

Curious about your reaction, and ask around to find out what your colleagues would think of suc an idea.

Todah, and sorry for the info overload there...
Ya'aqov (feel free to email me)

Ya'aqov,

Thanks. You expressed it better than I did.

Nir,

1. Priests and diversity of opinion.

To clarify, the Tanakhic system does not guarantee intellectual freedom. But the Rabbinic system precludes it.

2. sacrifices

I know a lot of people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to sacrifices. I don't know why. If you do, you will have to tell me more.

3. ***the instructions sound pretty agricultural to me***

Right. As long as we eat food, holidays related to agriculture make sense.

4. ***read any complete chapter of the Tora. Now imagine that the Tora had been written today - or in a society three thousand years ago that was fortuitously very similar to today's. Wouldn't it sound very different?***

My point was that today's society has a lot of impermanent extras. The society in which Torah was written did not (or did it? make your case). As such, the laws are based on permanent aspects, not transitory ones.

5. ***You should keep in mind how much moral codes depend on societal norms. Even "do not steal",***

Excellent point.

Ideally, Torah Law is meant to be applied on a societal level. Today, no society lives under this Law. But as individuals, we can go by it as closely as possible given our circumstances.

"Do not steal" fully applies within the framework of property rights established in the Torah. It is true, those property rights were somewhat different from ours. For example, in many cases, land could not be permanently sold. But we, as individuals, can still follow the commandment reasonably well. If and when a society is established that follows the Law, we will be able to follow the commandment more fully.

6. ***make no sense at all in a society with very weak concept of property rights***

Right. But the definition of property rights is part and parcel of the Law.

7. ***So I would argue that "do not steal" is not a background rule but a surface expression of something like "do not deprive another of something they legitimately expect to enjoy", where "legitimately" very much depends on the situation. ***

But then, by changing the definition of what is "legitimate", you can change the commandment to mean anything you want.

Going back to the evolutionary fitness argument. Some forms of property rights are conducive to a happy, stable, thriving, prosperous society, others are not. A society should have property rights that promote stability, etc. Those property rights are defined in the Torah, they are not arbitrary as you imply. "Do not steal" means "obey those property rights".

Eddie,

1. Continue writing.

2. You are absolutely right in what you say. The Orthodox argument is flawed, but many people still buy it.

It is true that Orthodoxy has been the dominant force for many centuries. But as I write in another comment here, for all this time, it stayed in power through coercion. Today, when coercion can no longer be applied, Orthodoxy is on a decline. Plus, from an evolutionary fitness point of view, which is what I have been arguing, it matters both how long a group has been around and under how many different circumstances. Orthodox Judaism has only been dominant under one circumstance: when it can coerse people. Therefore, I would say, it is not evolutionarily fit. And again, this single circumstance in which it was successful is not likely to recur in the near future, as people like their freedom.

Orthodox Judaism uses the fact that it has been around for so long, taken out of context, to imply that it is somehow superior; and it uses its history in its outreach efforts by misleading Jews into believing that it is the only valid or authentic form of Judaism. The claim is false. But you are right, it is working.

Solution? It's all public relations. We have to start saying that Biblical Judaism is the authentic form. And why not? Especially when it's the truth.

***propagating the species***

Again, you are right.

I believe that Biblical Judaism can become an important or even a dominant movement in the near future. Consider the figures: 50% of all Jews are secular. Many Reform mainly concentrate on studying the Tanakh. And there is a move among Reform to becoming more "traditional".

I believe Biblical Judaism offers what a lot of these people are looking for. In many respects it is "secular" (no superstitions, no (emphasis on) afterlife, etc.) But it also provides a solid moral code and a set of relatively easy religious observances.

The main problem right now is that most people don't even realize that such a thing as Biblical Judaism even exists. Everyone, including the Reform and the secular, have fallen for the Orthodox propaganda that Rabbinical "interpretation" is absolutely necessary and that the system described in the Tanakh is severely lacking.

We should explain to people that this is not so. This website is a start. People will read it, tell their friends, etc, etc. Eventually, most people will at least know the idea (whether they agree with it or not) that Biblical Judaism is possible. At that point, I believe, many people will in fact choose to follow it.

Ami, i know you think you have exhausted the topic, but i dotn think u ever wrote abotu the dispute over Shavuot, and when to start counting from...

very iteresting subject

I mean c'mon... whether it's cheating my neighbor out of owning his ox, or manipulating millions of my neighbors' shares of beef commodities through underhanded business dealings driving the price high, it's not difficult to see that the Torah is still clear that both are unacceptable behavior - no oral law or concession to humanism required.

Shalom :D,
Ya'aqov

Another important thing to keep in mind here is, we are debating these issues on the Internet - all of us from Western nations, where the majority of us have never so much as planted a serious vegetable garden or gutted a fish for ourselves, much less lived the agrarian life that billions of people *still* thrive in.

This is a key thing about the "fundamentals" position: had the Torah been given today, talking about how to build a good website, or the intricacies of incorporation would be of little or no meaning to all but a tiny percentage of the global population - and even then, it would be beyond the reach of lower classes. It *still* would make sense to talk in terms of a "lower common denominator" - agrarian life... tribal life. That way, no matter how small the village, or how large the city, *everybody* can take advantage of the information contained in the Text.

Remember, the Torah's commandments are targeted to a shift between nomadic life and farming... both of which are at the core of human society (if you eat it, then somebody had to harvest it).

Even anthropolgy agrees that very little about the human mind has changed outside of enviromental factors, and that when you strip away the most modern of industries, agrarian life is still at its core.

Watch me:
I'm a Strategic IT Consultant... so let's go from there.

1)*MODERN LEVEL* providing businesses with technology-based solutions to improve access and use of information

2)businesses use this to further their trade (marketing, insurance, banking, etc.)

3)each of these service-based trades use their money to purchase physical goods (computers, furniture, meals, etc.)

4)manufacturers need raw materials to assemble (or cook) their products

5)*AGRARIAN LEVEL* Woodcutters, miners, and farmers use physical labor to bring about those raw materials

So you see, if the Torah discusses ethical business practice (say, not stealing... or paying people on time) from level 5 (above), with minimal interpretation, a business professional such as myself am able to sucessfully apply it in *my* life and work.

It's not as hard as people make it out to be to stick to the text of the Torah as-is and live a fruitful and spiritually-content life on the cutting edge of business and technology in the West (as opposed to, say, a shtetl in Ukraine, or a kibbutz in Israel [even though I'd *love* to move to Eretz Yisrael one day :D]).

One more quick example... contamination. Modern medicine is *based* on sanitation, and the reason why so much more development has happened in that field in the last 150 years than man had devised in thousands of years is because "germ theory" was only discovered so many years ago. Before then, doctors would not wash after touching the ill/deceased and would in effect *spread* contamination further.

The Plague which killed 1/4-1/3 of Europe was stemmed from dumping waste in the streets... an action prohibited by the Torah. And quaranting (as is prescribed in the Scripture) - which would have been practiced by our people - was the best way to stem it's spread... I don't think it's coincidential that Jews were accused of "poisoning" Christians.

My point, again, as with business, Man could have followed the *fundamentals* contained in the Torah, and you could easily imagine how far ahead medicine would be today had that been the case.

Hope this is of help,
Ya'aqov

Ami,

I absolutely agree with your critique of Orthodoxy, and that Judaism should be non-coercive, intellectually defensible, and broadly appealing.

Re. priests: the Tora says very little about how priests are to enhance diversity in a multiparty sanhedrin. It says a lot about how priests should perform sacrifices and diagnose impurities.

Festivals: "Have a festival of booths for seven days when you gather from your threshing floor and from your grape press" (Dvarim 16) - the instructions sound pretty agricultural to me.

More generally, certainly it's possible to extract from the Tora the laws that seem applicable and to say that the other details are merely illustrative and not part of the basic commandment. A better way perhaps of making clear how I see the Tora as the product of a particular period is: read any complete chapter of the Tora. Now imagine that the Tora had been written today - or in a society three thousand years ago that was fortuitously very similar to today's. Wouldn't it sound very different? All the parts that you would imagine as being different are surface aspects of the Tora.

You should keep in mind how much moral codes depend on societal norms. Even "do not steal", fairly fundamental as commandments go, presupposes a certain conception of property rights (specified more clearly a couple commandments later as the right to own houses, male and female slaves, oxen and donkeys) and would imply different things in a different society and make no sense at all in a society with very weak concept of property rights. So I would argue that "do not steal" is not a background rule but a surface expression of something like "do not deprive another of something they legitimately expect to enjoy", where "legitimately" very much depends on the situation.

Nir,

More about the fitness of Orthodox Judaism. It has been dominant for a large chunk of Jewish history, which might lead one to incorrectly conclude that it is the right way to go.

But remember that it was only dominant when it was imposed on Jews by the powers that be! Non-Rabbinical movements came to an end when Rabbis secured the office of the Exilarch. Immediately after Emancipation, a large number of Jews left Orthodox Judaism and the Reform movement was born. Today, only about 10% of Jews are Orthodox; the percentage is higher in Israel, where they are supported by the government.

Orthodox Judaism thrived only when Rabbis had physical power over other Jews. A truly fit system can thrive in a variety of conditions. A system that can only function as a dictatorship is unfit -- freedom has a much higher degree of fitness than not; and as soon as the people become free, the system declines.

Today, about 50% of all Jews are secular / non-religious. Plus, many of those who affiliate Reform are not that religious either. Draw your own conclusions...

Ya'aqov,

Thanks!

Nir,

1. ***hereditary priesthood***

Absolutely, I am all for hereditary Priesthood. We tend to think of hereditary anything as bad. But remember that Priests are not rulers -- their power is limited.

The story that's usually told is that Rabbis / scholars replacing Priests was a good thing. After all, Priests could be ignorant, or not pious enough, etc, whereas Rabbis are (or should be) by definition knowledgeable.

Before Rabbis took over, they were *one* political party in the Sanhedrin -- one voice among many. Once they did take over, it became a "one party system". Yes, they are scholars in a sense. But if you disagree with them on certain issues, even if you too are a scholar, you are excluded. Thus, they are not scholars in the modern sense of the word.

With hereditary Priesthood, *any* Priest, **regardless of his religio-political views** has a voice. A Priest can also be a Rabbi, but there can be Priests who are non-Rabbinical: a plurality of voices.

3. ***festival calendar ... surely would and should be celebrated differently in an urban congregation than in a farming village***

God does not command regarding every waking moment of your life. The belief that He does is an Orthodox invention. On the issues that He does not command, we can do anything we want. In this way, the system is both eternal and adaptable. It is eternal on the fundamentals, and adaptable on the surface issues.

Yes, urban and farming congregations can celebrate the holidays differently, in those aspects that were not commanded. You will be surprised, but there are not that many requirements for holiday celebrations.

4. ***any set of rules has to be for a concrete society and as such will need to be modified***

Isn't that an assumption? If a set of rules truly only deals with the fundamentals, and leaves the surface issues up to you, then it is applicable in all times.

5. ***you seem to be engaging in this modification process as you consider how the motivations behind the Tora's political prescriptions might be applied to the much different reality of the contemporary state of Israel.***

During the monarchy period of Israel's history, all the governments were monarchies / dictatorships. But the Torah never commands us that the government has to be a dictatorship. The type of government is not a fundamental, and so Torah doesn't make requirements about it.

So what am I modifying? I am saying, have a modern democratic government, but that is not a modification of any Torah commandment.

6. ***Just because we have more complex technology doesn't mean that what's going on in our minds in any more complex than in the ancient world.***

Exactly. Human nature stays the same. So laws that deal with it can, in fact, be eternal.

7. ***For a long time it was fashionable (maybe still is) for Jewish historians to say that Rabbinic Judaism was necessary for Judaism to survive in exile***

Yes. That's Orthodox / Rabbinical propaganda. :)

***This looks like a variant of your fitness argument***

Yes. But just because we are here (Rabbinical Judaism dominates) does not mean that somewhere else wouldn't have even higher fitness.

8. ***Judaism should be restructured in a comparably radical way***

Right. That's the Reform / Conservative view. My view, at least until proven wrong, is that it's possible to have a Judaism that follows all of the requirements of the Tanakh, and that can live and prosper in the modern world. If this can be done, then, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Who is right? Me or Reform or someone else? We don't know. Only time will tell... (back to the Truth taking care of itself..)

I was actually thinking of writing some extracts from classical Rabbis, who argued against Karaism. However, predictably we would give the usual counterarguments.

The most powerful arguemtn which the Rabbis have is sociological, in that Orthodoxy has been around uninterrupted at least since the 2nd temple period, and has been the mainstream Jewish sect for most of the exile. This is why it attracts many newcomers, since other groups tend have shorter lifecycles. The Karaites were once a mighty rival to Orthodoxy, but have diminished to so small a group, as to become an endangered species. And many Jews turn to religion as a form of propagating the species, and see Orthodoxy as offering the best chances of survival.

Ami,

Indeed, a challanging set of questions! And definitely worth exploring.

For the surface vs. fundamentals part, I wonder if we're actually arguing. Most of the laws of the Tora specify the rites and ceremonies to be carried out by a hereditary priesthood for keeping Israel in a pure and ordered state. Possibly these rules enhanced fitness at some point - do you believe they would do so now? I would say that to us, these laws might give us some ideas for commemorating turning-points in our lives and for organizing society, but it seems absurd to regard them as eternally binding in any close-to-literal sense. Even the festival calendar, as an example of a passage that are still more or less followed in contemporary Judaism, surely would and should be celebrated differently in an urban congregation than in a farming village where the festivals were closely connected with everyday agricultural work.

As to why most of the Tora is not universally applicable, my answer was simply that any set of rules has to be for a concrete society and as such will need to be modified. In some of your previous posts, you seem to be engaging in this modification process as you consider how the motivations behind the Tora's political prescriptions might be applied to the much different reality of the contemporary state of Israel.

"Modern society has many more aspects."
To some extent, but I'd qualify that heavily. The Near East of three-two thousand years ago was anything but a "state of nature". Israel was heir to thousands of years of history and religious lore, and cultural institutions were at least as complex as now and here in the US. Just because we have more complex technology doesn't mean that what's going on in our minds in any more complex than in the ancient world. I view the Tora as analogous to classical Greek philosophy, the sophisticated product of a particular and lengthy cultural development which in turn became the starting point for rich and diverse modifications and expansions.

About the Rabbinic system: For a long time it was fashionable (maybe still is) for Jewish historians to say that Rabbinic Judaism was necessary for Judaism to survive in exile, where the temple-centered literalism of the Saducees was inapplicable. R. Yohanan ben Zakkay and Yavneh are seen as the point when, due to rabbinic flexibility and interpretive license, Judaism transformed itself into a more personal, portable and hardy religion. This looks like a variant of your fitness argument, though one could argue that the rabbis nevertheless were unjustified to claim for themselves the exclusive right to interpret the Tora. Also, one can take this line of argument further and say that in the modern world, Judaism should be restructured in a comparably radical way.

I look forward to seeing other people's thoughts on these issues.

Amein.

Ami, very well said - I've seen something in your post that I hadn't reaally thought of before: in modern Western culture, nearly everybody - religious or not - has been spoonfed (some moreso than others) the concept of Secular Humanism... emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; while rejects religion and the supernatural.

In the religious left (esp. within Judaism), it is all too common a trend to treat ancient precepts - even God - as a pet of sorts: under human control, but kept around for the company it brings. When speaking of in-depth study of these writings, such people will quickly run to recent developments in fads and philosophy to point out that "after all, you don't *really* believe in all that stuf, do ya?" -- these are the new brand of *religious* people, don't forget.

But I'd like these sane people to consider something: rather than establishing your faith upon the shifting sands of public opinion and trying to please those who culd care less about your belief in God, try to see the Torah from *her* perspective... as (literally) guidance & instructions for Man on how to reconnect with God as we once had in Gan Eden.

Now think, and you touched on this, Ami: such an endeavor - that is, writing a manual for all times of existence - would need to be useful for all variations of society, with nomadic/argarian models being the universal commonground. Cities were discussed as early as Genesis, but if the Torah were to use urban life as the lowest common denominator, the majority of its readers could not truly benefit from it. Interestingly, *because* the Text starts off with a basic form of society, the various layers that Man would superimpose upon it could still benefit from the principles of government, judstice, healthcare, education, etc. that the Torah teaches about it.

It's all about perspective. A skeptic can always find "logic errors" in the Tanakh, but an inquirer will try to see if the Truth - even if it may require a bit of faith to start with - can be *supported* by logic... this isn't blind faith, btw: just look at the way Rabbinic thinking is msny times at odds with the Chumash - even when you give them the benefit of the doubt.

Like I say on my site: "If the Creator were to deliver an instruction book to humanity... one would expect it to be much more to explain about life than 'pie-in-the-sky' advice on how to be a moral personal, right? What about ground-up instructions for sanitation and health, or the keys to establishing a due process of law in a society? (The meaning of life and the ultimate plan for mankind would be useful, too) In short, a complete guide to the human experience - *so where is it?*"

It's right in the Torah.
Shavua tov (and sorry for any unclear remarks... typing in bed at 1:48AM),
-Ya'aqov