AI and the future of robo-rabbinics

I must admit that I’ve never been a great one for sci-fi and the anxious talk of civilisation-ending supercomputers overtaking and enslaving humanity. Aside from my pocket chess computer defeating me with irritating regularity, the computers in my life have generally maintained an unthreatening distance and respected my personal space. 

If my Facebook feed is to be believed, however, my idyllic ignorance is soon to be shattered by the AI robots and their resounding march of progress. Some of them appear to be already signalling their hostile intentions through Chap GPT, leading learned friends and scholars (and some random people who the Facebook automatons have placed on my feed) to question what sort of future if any lies in store for rabbinics, halachic rulings and Torah study

So how much does Judaism value the intellectual input of robots and algorithms into the study hall of halachic deliberation? Will Robo-Rabbi kill the Yeshiva World star?

Very often, responses to this question will focus on the apparent “accuracy” of rabbinic responses, and whether these can be bettered by a computer chip. This though may be a red herring. While it is true that some halachic questions tend towards more technical, algorithm answers, even apparently-clearcut and rigid rules like kashrut can sometimes vary depending on subjective assessments such as shaat hadechak (extreme necessity), hefsed or hefsed meruba (loss or significant monetary loss).

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the irreplaceable human dimension and empathy within psak. A rabbi who has a profound understanding of his community, will sometimes give non-identical answers to the same question when asked by different congregants – because halachic rulings often require insight into the nature of the questioner. For this reason, objections have been raised in the past to the posthumous publishing of halachic rulings issued by great rabbis to specific individuals.

Even more crucially, though, we need to recognise the role within Jewish study of the process of establishing halacha. As I examine in my upcoming book, determining halacha and analysis of the related Talmudic passages was traditionally a single process. Talmudic analysis was largely centred around more practical questions, and halachic determination was a matter of directly analysing the relevant Talmudic sources rather than summaries made by later sages.

The gradual shift towards a codification of halacha, which went hand-in-hand with a Talmudic focus on hyper-analytical pilpul in European yeshivot, was heavily criticised by some of the leading rabbis of the time. One sage who was particularly vocal in his opposition was the Maharal, who considered that:

The sage has only that which his intellect provides him and allows him to learn from within the Talmud. And when his understanding and wisdom lead him to err, he is nonetheless beloved by God so long as he is issuing instructions based on the dictates of his reason…and this person is preferable to one who determines halacha from within one book, knowing not the reason for the matter, walking like a blind person along the way. (Netiv HaTorah, 16)

Crucial, according to the Maharal, is the process of engagement with the halachic analysis - of poring over Talmudic passages to compare, contrast and identify their conclusions. This process itself is more important than actually reaching any “objectively correct” conclusion. The implications for those who propose using AI to produce halachic rulings are clear.

Why is this process of halachic engagement deemed so critical?

Writing in Halakhic Man, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik develops the theory that Torah study is not focused simply on the question of how to establish practical Jewish law. Rather the student is involved with understanding the Torah and the world on the level of the abstract ideal. Drawing upon sources as diverse as Rambam and the Ba’al HaTanya, Rav Soloveitchik proposes that through immersing oneself in the world of Talmudic analysis, a person can absorb its wisdom and internalise its analyses to the extent that they can come to look at the entire world differently – from a more divine perspective. (My upcoming book will also analyse and develop this theory further).

It is hard to imagine that delegating one’s Torah study to a robot can begin to achieve any of these benefits.

In a related question, I was recently asked for my thoughts on the much-heralded advent of a computer chip which could plug into our brains and thus instantly provide us with all Torah knowledge when studying. This second question could perhaps be looked at differently – just having “neurological access” to an entire treasure trove of Torah could be seen as bolstering and enhancing rather than replacing the project of Torah study. In a similar vein, the wonderful array of online Torah resources – and Mesivta compilations of Talmud commentaries – have revolutionised the ease with which one can prepare a shiur.

While such benefits are certainly substantial, they are not without significant drawbacks. I have often found, for example, that the greater the quantity of information available, the less well it has been understood and internalised. Talmudic students confronted with compilations containing a mass of information and commentaries find it increasingly challenging to read and analyse the simple meaning of the biblical or talmudic text in its own right, without reaching for additional sources. Lacking a sensitivity to the nuances and challenges presented by the text, these students then fail to gain a real appreciation of what the commentaries are saying. My fear is that a computer chip which imported a mass of information into the brains of Yeshiva students would exacerbate rather than address this problem.

On a personal note, I find that I can quickly identify shiurim which based on are little more than compiling a mass of collated sources on a subject with scant analysis – which are typically very dull. What I really search for in a shiur, book or commentary is an original angle or insight. A new theory or piece of analysis which sheds light on the passage being studied and suggest broader principles which can be applied elsewhere. In order to produce such a shiur, a person must first have fully internalised and understood the meaning of the relevant source.

There is a derogatory concept in rabbinic literature of “Chamor Nosei Seforim” (donkey loaded with books) which refers to a putative Torah scholar who has merely memorised numerous sources without having properly understood or internalised their meaning. What we can hope for is that the advent of AI makes information so ubiquitous that Torah rote-learning becomes unnecessary. If this occurs, it could allow for a shift of focus to analysis of more profound principles and thereby provide a valuable service to the world of Torah.

Posted to Facebook 26 February 2023, here.

National survival or excusing genocide?

One of the essays which ultimately did not make the final cut of Judaism Reclaimed related to a troubling biblical instruction that first appears in the portion we read yesterday. Upon entering the land, the Jewish people were under no circumstances to “form a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land into which you are coming, lest it become a snare in your midst” (34:12-15). 

As the Torah will make clear, God requires the Jewish people to annihilate the indigenous peoples of Canaan; instructions which the book of Joshua describes in detail as having been carried out in many Canaanite cities and population centres. In his book Joshua – The Challenge of the Promised Land, Michael Hattin presents a sweeping defence against the allegation that the Jewish military campaign against Canaan constituted an immoral act of genocide. 

The first stage of Hattin’s attempt to rebut these allegations cites a series of biblical verses which paint a vivid picture of the dangers posed by allowing the Canaanite nations to remain in the land on their own terms. In each instance, the command to destroy the Canaanite population is accompanied by a strong warning that any attempt to make a pact or covenant with them and their gods would lead inexorably to intermarriage and the adoption by the Jews of Canaanite pagan practices.

As I quoted in a recent post, the prevalent pagan culture of the Canaanites was far more powerful than mere religious ritual. Historian William F. Albright describes how: 

"Polytheism had a popular appeal in many ways like that of the dominant secularism of our own age. The wealth, science and aesthetic culture were lined up on the side of Canaanite religion. All the sinister fascination of the elaborate proto-sciences of magic and divination was marshaled in defense of polytheism...".

Having established the Torah’s motivation for its commands to destroy the Canaanite population, Hattin thus presents the battle and need to uproot the indigenous culture as a matter of self-preservation rather than a xenophobic genocide. The moral and religious revolution of the Torah as well as the precious opportunity it offered to mankind are discussed at length in Judaism Reclaimed (as well as Joshua Berman’s Created Equal) where we consider how the Torah’s value system differed radically from anything which preceded it. If this code, which was to liberate humanity from the moral decadence of Canaanite paganism characterised by child sacrifice and immoral rituals, was to take hold and spread to enlighten humanity, it must first be allowed to develop securely in the Land of Israel free from pagan influence. For this to succeed, Canaanite culture needed to be uncompromisingly uprooted from the Land.

No-one can deny the tragedy of war and its cruelty but, argues Hattin, this must not blind us to the truth that some wars are nevertheless justified and even obligatory. God’s instruction to the bearers of His Torah to destroy the Canaanite culture of immorality and child sacrifice in order to establish and spread His teaching can be said to represent a clear moral advancement for the future of humanity.

Two further and arguably stronger points are presented by Hattin in order to argue that the battle with Canaan and the associated commands to destroy the seven nations revolved primarily around a moral and ideological gulf between the two nations, rather than racial or xenophobic distinctions. The Gemara – as understood by Rambam and Ramban – views the command to kill the Canaanite nations as conditional upon their willingness to persevere with their evil ways. If the Canaanites had been prepared to abandon their idolatry and associated moral deficiencies and accept the Noachide laws they could continue to dwell in the land unharmed. Since these Noachide laws represent the basic tenets of civilised behaviour, concludes Hattin: 

“the war against the Canaanites was not a war against a race or a people, but rather a war against a noxious moral system that refused to embrace even the most elementary expressions of humane conduct and civilised behaviour.” 

This latter point is reinforced by the fact that the Torah levels similar threats towards the Jewish people in the event that they themselves do not maintain and live up to their moral calling. In a passage that lists the prohibitions against the most severe forms of sexual immorality as well as child sacrifice, the Torah concludes:

“Do not defile yourselves by all of these practices, for all of the nations that I drive out from before you became defiled through them … and the land spewed forth its inhabitants … Let not the land spew you forth for defiling it just as it spewed forth the nation before you …” (Vayikra 18:24-30)

The clear message is that the Jewish people will be held to a parallel standard and suffer a similar fate should they adopt the morally decadent practices of their predecessors. The practical application of this threat to the Jewish people can be found in the laws of the ir hanidachat, the wayward Israelite city which becomes corrupted by idolatry. The Torah’s uncompromising instruction to smite the city by “the edge of the sword”, to destroy it, and burn it with fire contains remarkably similar language to that used in the commands to wipe out the idolatrous Canaanite nations.

Moreover, as the books of prophets teach, the Jewish people eventually did succumb to the temptations of the Canaanite culture which they failed to eradicate as commanded. As predicted by the verses quoted above, God’s holy land did not tolerate this defilement and spewed them forth into exile. Although Israel as a whole had abrogated its mandate and was therefore exiled from the land, the ideas that the nation had come to represent were by that time irreversibly established. Like the people of Israel, they will endure, eventually to be accepted by all of humanity.

Hattin’s book represented the best defence I had seen for the morality of the Jews’ campaign to conquer Canaan. Ultimately, however, I still felt somewhat uneasy and was concerned that it would be a distraction from the main arguments in my chapter on Torah and universal morality.

First posted on Facebook 20 February 2022, here.

How accurate are biblical predictions for the Jewish people?

By Daniel Abraham and Shmuli Phillips

When it comes to assessing the veracity of revealed religions, the accuracy of any prophetic predictions and statements are likely to feature pretty high on one’s checklist. It is most surprising therefore how distinguished biblical commentators, such as Malbim in his introduction to the book of Chaggai, openly note and grapple with the problem of apparently unfulfilled or incorrect prophecies. Judaism Reclaimed explores this subject in detail, noting the approaches of various rabbinic thinkers as well as identifying distinct categories of prophecy.

One prominent prophetic theme, however, which features regularly throughout both the Torah and other prophetic books, is astoundingly historically accurate: the unique status of the Jewish people.

We read yesterday of Bila’am foretelling that “it is a nation that will dwell alone, and will not be reckoned among the nations”. Furthermore, we are to anticipate that the unique standing of our nation will be beneficial to humanity as a whole since Avraham was told at the start of Lech Lecha: “and all families of the world will be blessed through you”. Perhaps most astonishingly, the Jewish people do not achieve their accomplishments from a position of strength. Rather, as the Torah repeatedly predicts, they will go into exile for their sins and be scattered and weak among the nations. Yet they will survive and continue to contribute to and elevate humanity. And ultimately, as we have been privileged to witness only in the last century, they will be returned to nationhood and flourish back in their homeland.

It is worth sitting back and taking stock of Jewish accomplishments – foretold thousands of years ago:

You have a small tribe around 3000 years ago. They are going to go on to:

1. Give the world its all-time best selling book.

2. Survive not just those ancient times up until modern times, outliving literally thousands of other groups, tribes and nations that will die out over the ages. They will do this under some of the most horrendous circumstances imaginable. This by itself is not inexplicable, but it is truly remarkable.

3. The teachings in their holy book will revolutionize much of the world’s understanding and practice of morality. A point noted darkly by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.

4. These people in their exile will end up establishing communities across the entire world among all the nations in a way that no other people on earth has accomplished. This is predicted in detail in the Torah – (Devarim 28:64 “And God shall scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other…” and many later biblical prophecies).

5. This people will not only survive as a people, but will also maintain their cultural and religious identity, again in very hostile environments that would grant them many benefits if they would only convert.

6. While this people is exiled from their land, the land will remain largely empty and desolate, with only a handful of cities maintaining any significant population. The land will become a barren wasteland. This is predicted by the Torah in a number of places. This fact is rather strange given the importance of Israel as a land bridge between Asia Africa and Europe, as well as its importance to Christianity and Islam. The fact remains that there were only three times Israel was a sovereign nation. Israel before the Babylonians, Israel after the Babylonians, and Israel in 1948

7. This tiny ancient tribe will become one of the most persecuted groups on earth. Their very name “Jew!” will become a bad word. They will face more attempted genocides than arguably almost any other group on earth. The hatred of them will unite neo-Nazis and radical Islamists. Every generation someone will try to destroy them. And even up until modern times this theme will continue.

8. This small group will continue revolutionizing the world with their accomplishments. They will achieve more per capita than any other group on earth. Though they are a mere .2% of the world’s population they will receive 22% of Nobel Prizes, 51% of Pulitzer Prizes. They will be the founders of all Hollywood studios. Three of the greatest four thinkers of the 20th century it will turn out are Jews – Freud, Marx, and Einstein. Jews will be in the leadership of almost every major “ism” to arise in the 20th century. The Communists, Anarchists, Feminists, Hippie movement, civil rights movements, and Jews were also in all socialist movements, whether revolutionary or reformist, universalist or nationalist, etc. Jewish accomplishments, inventions, innovations, are simply off the chart for this tiny people.

9. The Jewish people will also find a small opportunity in which to return to their rather desolate land and try to make it into a state. This will be done largely by secular Jews who do not believe that the prophecies of the bible are from God, nor do they believe there is any divine connection between the Jews and the land of Israel. This entire founding of the state will require the confluence of so many unlikely factors, each of which will have to happen or the entire enterprise could collapse and lead to total slaughter:

a) It just so happens that the land is open for large scale immigration, and the Jews have the ability to leave their lands.

b) their numbers are small and they are facing a hostile Arab population some of whose influential leaders are plotting the eventual genocide of the Jews, such as the mufti of Jerusalem.

c) at just this time, the antisemitism of the Nazis rears its head followed by the holocaust which will lead to the necessary emigration of large numbers of people who would otherwise had stayed in Europe. These numbers will be an indispensable factor in winning the 1948 war.

d) The Jews will win the 1948 war with minimal forces and weapons. The Jews had just lost 1/3 of their numbers and now they have a state. Losing this war would likely have ended in a second holocaust.

e) There is a very brief window in which the US, Soviet Union, and other nations supported the founding of the state. Within just a couple of years the Soviets had completely changed their mind. Abba Eban has pointed out that without the arms given to Israel by the Soviets, and without the Soviet vote in favor of partition (along with the votes of four satellite nations) “we couldn’t have made it, either diplomatically or militarily.””

f) The Arabs forcibly evict around 1 million Jews, most of whom move to Israel. These numbers are once again indispensable to the country and to the future engagement in 1967. In an almost miraculous fashion, factors in a very short span of time lead to hundreds of thousands of Jews being practically forced to move to Israel from so many from European and Moslem lands.

g) The 1967 saw predictions of total destruction of Israel by Russian intelligence estimates, as well as predictions of very high casualties from US estimates. This could have been it. Yet Israel achieved one of the most stunning victories they could have imagined. How do the Jews in Israel get lucky every single time?

h) The 1973 war also could have easily lead to destruction. After the counter attack of June 8th failed, reports say Moshe Dayan was depressed and truly feared this would be the first and last war that Israel would lose. The major battle fought in Valley of Tears is about as close to a miracle as you can get.

10) The Torah predicts very clearly that once the Jewish people return to their land, the nations of the world will join together and try to destroy the state of Israel. It is interesting that in today’s world, there is no other country on earth whose very existence is called into question by groups and nations from across the globe. People may hate North Korea’s leadership or the Iranian ayatollahs, but they don’t want to destroy these nations and/or exile their people. Israel is the one country on earth that receives this distinction. Israel is arguably one of the most hated countries on earth, and polls and public protests have consistently shown that.

Taking a step back it is astounding to note the numerous pages of Jewish and human history which appear to attest to the predictions of Bila’am and his fellow biblical prophets concerning the fate of the people of Israel. While a one-off prophecy or prediction concerning an individual may be considered a fluke, this becomes highly unlikely when the predictions pertain to an entire nation over the course of its national history.

First posted to Facebook 2 July 2023, here.

Moshe: consistently supreme or a varying visionary?

One of the first pieces of feedback I received from a Judaism Reclaimed reader noted that I’d kept the most controversial content for its final chapter. Unexpectedly for many, this content did not originate with Ralbag, Yeshayahu Leibowitz or even Rambam – it was based upon an interpretation of Rashi’s commentary to yesterday’s Torah reading and advanced by none other than the Maharal.

Writing in his Gur Aryeh super-commentary of Rashi, the Maharal interprets a fascinating statement of Rashi to mean that the Torah was not received by Moshe in an entirely uniform fashion. Rashi teaches that Moshe prophesied on two distinct levels: the exclusive "peh el peh" type mentioned above, as well as the more general "koh amar Hashem" prophecy – the level at which other prophets received their transmissions from God. Thus, while Moshe received the passages of the Torah which contained the permanent mitzvot in the unique, unparalleled manner of “peh el peh”, other parts of the Torah – those which contained narratives or specific one-time-only instructions —were transmitted through the standard form of prophecy.

The Maharal offers a possible explanation for the discrepancy that exists between the levels of prophecy granted by God to Moshe in order to transmit different parts of the Torah. He suggests that in order for a commandment from God to become eternal law, irrespective of the context of the time and place in which it was taught, it must be clearly and unambiguously identified as being God's explicit and exact word. The permanent mitzvot in the Torah, which were delivered through the precision and accuracy of the “pel el peh” process, can thereby withstand the force of claims that the applicability of those mitzvot was limited to ancient times or subject to adjustment when framed within the context of disparate social, political or cultural settings.

All this stands in stark contrast to Rambam’s more naturalistic understanding of Moshe’s prophecy, which places it on an unwaveringly supreme level of intellectual perception of God’s will. In Rambam’s theory, this heightened form of prophecy was not simply a divine gift that was to be turned on and off based on necessity – rather it was a natural result of Moshe having achieved the highest level of human refinement, both of his mind and character traits. This may be reflected in Rambam’s assertion as part of his Principles of Faith that there is no distinction whatsoever between the holiness, divinity and clarity of the Torah’s most fundamental commandments on the one hand, and its apparently mundane narratives on the other. It was all relayed with precise clarity by Moshe “as a scribe taking down a dictation”.

Judaism Reclaimed then highlights that one early Jewish thinker may benefit from Maharal’s insights. Avraham Ibn Ezra is often placed in the camp of controversial rabbinic thinkers for his apparent willingness to accept that certain passages of the Torah were added or amended after Moshe’s death.

Looking at Ibn Ezra’s introduction to his Torah commentary, a clear distinction already seems evident between the prophetic style of the legal and narrative passages. Towards the end of the introduction to his Torah commentary, he distinguishes between the methodologies for interpreting verses with legal content, which bear a single specific and immutable meaning transmitted to us via the oral law, and the narrative passages of the Torah which are capable of bearing multiple understandings — "shivim panim latorah". These "shivim panim" may be the result of God's choice to transmit these more educational narrative sections of the Torah through the standard mode of prophecy, the flexibility of which enables the Torah to guide and educate people from different societies and eras, steering them towards a common goal of human perfection.

Putting all of this together, Ibn Ezra writes that the final 12 verses of the Torah were a prophecy received and recorded by Yehoshua. Elsewhere in his commentary, Ibn Ezra cites other verses which are troubling, in that they permit the suggestion that they are the product of later, non-Mosaic, authorship. Referring to the “secret of the 12” – a phrase which is widely understood to refer to Yehoshua’s authorship of the final 12 verses of the Torah — Ibn Ezra mysteriously informs his reader that one who understands these verses will “recognise the truth”.

Manuscripts which appear to contain Torah commentary of distinguished earlier commentators such as R’ Yehudah HaChasid make similar suggestions regarding later prophetic authorship of certain verses in the Torah.

We can maintain on the basis of our analysis that, even if they do involve the suggestion that certain verses were added through the medium of a later prophecy, we can distinguish these verses, which all pertain solely to the Torah’s narrative, from verses which impart permanent mitzvot. Following Maharal’s suggestion that narrative portions of the Torah’s text were transmitted by means of regular prophecy, it may be possible for another prophet to have contributed to them, particularly if instructed to do so in a subsequent prophecy (a Tannaic opinion suggests that this was the case for the Torah’s final verses). The Torah’s permanent mitzvot, however, were transmitted through Moshe’s unique prophecy of “peh el peh”, making them immune to any form of supplementing or interference– even by a later prophet.

First posted on Facebook 16 July 2023, here.

Does the Book of Devarim have its own unique agenda?

The unique style and content of the book of Devarim, a lengthy account of Moshe’s departing discourse to the Jewish people, has exercised the minds of scholars for many years. Judaism Reclaimed draws upon a wide range of sources in examining the extent to which Jewish tradition recognises Devarim as a distinct prophetic work, with its own particular agenda. In the process it addresses many of the arguments raised by academic critics, such as Richard Elliot Friedman, who suggest that these distinctive features are indicative of different authorship. This post will focus on one aspect of this question – its (re)telling of mitzvot and narratives.

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch explains that the book of Devarim has a specific function: to teach or review all of the mitzvot and guidance most necessary for the Jewish nation’s imminent entry into the land and establishment of civil society. The presentation of the laws of the festivals in the book of Devarim, which differs significantly from that of the earlier books of the Torah, is examined in detail by R’ Hirsch and serves as a basis from which he develops his theory.

R’ Hirsch highlights how this review of the festivals only includes Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot – the three whose meaning and application would be significantly altered by the nation’s entry into Israel. Unlike the other four festivals not repeated in the book of Devarim, the meaning of which derive entirely from the relationship between the Jewish people and God, the festivals chosen for review contain an additional dimension that specifically relates to the land and its seasonal cycle. In addition, Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot include the commandment for the whole nation to make a pilgrimage to the Mikdash in Jerusalem. It was therefore specifically these three festivals which were selected for review by Moshe on the Plains of Moav in preparation for entry to the land.

The parshiyot in the middle of Devarim deal with the establishment of institutions which would be necessary in order to govern the land effectively. R’ Hirsch further suggests that the emphasis on tithes and providing for the poor, which also features heavily in the book of Devarim, would take on particular significance with entry to the land. Until that point, the miraculous sustenance of the Jewish people in the desert had made provision for the poor unnecessary. In his commentary on the book of Devarim, Abarbanel consistently seeks to show how each apparently new commandment is merely an extension of a primary mitzvah previously recorded in the first four books — an extension intended specifically to relate to the new challenge of entering and settling Israel. Entire bodies of law such as torts and sacrificial law, which were to remain largely unchanged after entering the Land, do not feature in Devarim.

Moshe’s retelling of Jewish history from the previous 40 years, which occupy the first eleven chapters of the book of Devarim, can also be seen to conform to this theme. The desert years, in R’ Hirsch’s understanding, were designed as a crash course in order to train the Jewish people to maintain faith in God in matters of both national security and sustenance. This theme features strongly in the narratives of the opening parshiyot of Devarim, which emphasise how faith in God is an indispensable requirement for achieving military success, while the miraculous provision of mannah is also recounted. Crucially, these chapters are not solely concerned with recalling the events of the past 40 years, but are interspersed with didactic messages to be drawn from these recent experiences, and how such messages should be applied when entering the land.

Similarly, the lengthy accounts of the Jews’ military encounters in the desert are punctuated regularly by criticism of the Jews’ lack of faith, and God delivering military success as promised. In chapter 11, Moshe concludes this narrative section by stating that his audience, as witnesses of God’s miraculous demonstrations, bear particular responsibility to maintain loyalty to God; loyalty and obedience which will promote success in the land for generations to come.

Reading the opening narratives of Devarim in this context may also address a number of discrepancies between the way in which the first four books of the Torah describe various events which took place in the desert and how they are subsequently related in the book of Devarim. These inconsistencies, such as the apparent shifting of blame to the nation for initiating the episode of the spies and for their culpability in Moshe being denied entry into Israel, are not simply to be explained by the fact that the events are being retold from Moshe’s subjective perspective. Rather they fulfil a didactic role by highlighting the underlying shortcomings and lack of faith within the nation which contributed to the sins of the spies and set the stage for Moshe’s sin of hitting the rock for which he was prevented from entering the Land.

First posted on Facebook 23 July 2023, here.

Loving others -- only when they are like yourself?

As Tisha Be’Av fast approaches we can brace ourselves for the usual traditional messages about why the Temple was destroyed. The baseless hatred that afflicted ancient Israel and how we must look to love one another more in order to merit redemption. Writing from my neighbourhood in “protest-land” near the Knesset – it seems that Tisha Be’Avs come and go, the messages get repeated, yet we as a nation grow ever further apart.

Over the past year I’ve witnessed first-hand the hatred and poisonous rhetoric which all-too-easily spills over into violence (one of our kids recently chose a bad time to walk down the street…). Even Tishe Be’av itself has seen rival groups scuffling over religious/political matters.

What is particularly striking from speaking to such people is they are typically adamant that achdut (unity) and interpersonal mitzvot are of utmost importance. Shockingly, many compatriots and co-religionists are so single-mindedly stuck in the echo chamber of their communal bubble that they define concepts such as “unity” and “love for the other” only within their own narrow ideological circle. How else can one explain the absurd TV interview from one of this week’s protests in which a woman claimed that “the whole nation is united in opposition to this reform”? (And yes, I have heard parallel absurdities being voiced by proponents of the reform too). Communities, schools and even kids’ summer camps are strictly screened to ensure that, God forbid, one’s children shouldn’t have to mix or converse with people who hold an opposing point of view.

The result is a nation made up of a series of distinct social, political and religious groupings, each of which is becoming increasingly separated and insulated from the others. One speaks to those who identify with religiously observant sectors who are unable to fathom how their secular counterparts might view them and their representatives as indulging in hypocritically pious externalities along with grubby and sometimes even corrupt political machinations. Meanwhile the outright hostility we received initially from some secular Israeli neighbours aghast at the thought of a religious family moving into their building (until we were able to get to know and eventually befriend them) was tragically eye-opening.

An early chapter of Judaism Reclaimed examines rabbinic sources which emphasise how national providence is primarily determined by national unity – to an even greater extent than it is affected by the committal of the three cardinal sins. Yet a prior step before we even discuss “unity” is the recognition that we are part of the same wider group to begin with – that we are all in the same boat even as we may try to steer it in different directions.

Instead of letting Tisha Be’Av become a caricature of the continuing crisis – sitting on the floor among likeminded lamenters sadly shaking our heads at “others” who practice baseless hatred – let it motivate us instead to make a firm commitment. To reach out beyond our comfort zone. To embrace and seek to understand the Other whenever they might cross our path.

Rather than lazily categorising and defining people based upon their political or religious affiliation we can attempt to see them first and foremost as fellow human beings and Jews – albeit ones who possess beliefs with which we may deeply disagree. Rather than thinking (or even shouting) “traitors” “parasites” “fascists” or making disparaging comments about “stupid …ists”, we can strive to see the humanity within people different from ourselves – people who on the whole are devoted friends, loving family members yet who hold a contrasting set of beliefs about how our little country and nation can be improved.

If we are able to collectively succeed in this realignment then we can look forward to a very different 9th of Av experience in years to come. Until such a time we can continue to mourn the destructive divisiveness of the past, safe in the knowledge that we are emulating our ancestors’ faults and repeating their deadly disunity and critical errors in our own modern era.

First posted on Facebook 26 July 2023., here

Names of God in Biblical Criticism

Guest post by Daniel Abraham

Previous posts on the subject of Biblical Criticism – like the Judaism Reclaimed book itself – have focused primarily on how Jewish tradition and rabbinic commentaries have addressed phenomena, such as repetition and inconsistencies, which biblical scholars interpret as indications of multiple authorship of the Torah. While Judaism Reclaimed presents broader challenges from scholars such as Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman to theories of multiple authorship, it generally avoids addressing these theories in specific detail.

This week we are delighted to feature a more detailed critique of a central pillar of the Documentary Hypothesis – the claim that the use of multiple names of God in the Torah is indicative of multiple authors (as presented in Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman). Readers interested in how Jewish tradition addresses the subject of multiple names of God can visit our post here.

A CRITIQUE OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: THE NAMES OF GOD AS EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP

Richard Elliot Friedman popularized the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) with his 1987 book Who Wrote the Bible? followed by his 2003 book The Bible with Sources Revealed. Since then, a number of new, competing models have arisen that challenge Friedman's claims. Yet Friedman still holds firm to his JEPD model which claims that each of J, E, P, and D represent a distinct author with the four sources subsequently having been woven together by Redactors.

Background

In his 2017 book Exodus, he repeats the claim that the names of God can be used as evidence for his version of the DH. The theory claims that the name YHWH does not appear in the "E" or "P" source until God reveals His name to Moses in "E" (Ex. 3:15) and in "P" (Ex. 6:3). The theory also claims that the names "Elohim" or "El" do not appear even once in the "J" source. Friedman describes how this fits so neatly with his division of the sources because these three names of God, "occur two thousand times in the Torah, and there are just three exceptions out of the two thousand."

It is crucial to bear in mind that recent years have seen a major collapse in consensus among source critics – Friedman himself concedes the broad range of competing models in the field of source criticism. As Professor David Carr explained, there was an "emergence of a debate surrounding virtually every aspect in it over the last four decades. This debate no longer is confined to questions of the date of 'J' or the existence of 'E'." Obviously, when there is a broad consensus among academics around one model, it gives much more credence to a theory than when academics' opinions are divided among a plethora of contradictory models.

Nonetheless, Friedman believes these new models "do not pay sufficient respect to the evidence and arguments of the models that they are casting off," adding, "The documentary hypothesis once held (and maybe still holds) the agreement of the majority of scholars." However, Professor Joshua Berman recently noted that, "once upon a time, nearly all Biblicists, not just these “specialists,” shared the suppositions and methodology of source criticism. But over the last generation, many have walked away from the table, not merely to pursue other interests but because they became disenchanted with the highly speculative and intuitionist nature of the source-critical enterprise." So with that introduction in mind, I want to take a look at how Friedman's theory divides up the names of God.

An Accounting of God’s Names

Even though Friedman correctly notes that the names of God appear over 2000 times in the Pentateuch, what he fails to explain is that not all of these instances are relevant to his theory. Because the theory allows for the name YHWH to be used in "E" and "P" after the third and sixth chapter of Exodus respectively, one can eliminate from his count the approximately 1,655 times that YHWH appears in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. What's more, Friedman has a peculiar rule that the name "Elohim" and “El” cannot appear in the narrative portions of "J" though it can appear in dialogue. He doesn't explain this rather arbitrary rule that he came up with which eliminates the approximately 135 instances that the name "Elohim" and 59 instances that the name "El" appear in dialogue. So rather than over 2,000 instances of the name of God fitting in his theory, what we are left with is approximately 165 instances of YHWH and 134 instances of Elohim and El in narrative portions that need to be explained.

In Genesis, where YHWH cannot appear in "E" or "P", Friedman happens to assign over half the book--approximately 821 verses--to "J" out of 1,533 total verses in Genesis. On the other hand, the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are 3,360 verses, yet Friedman allots only 189 verses to "J", thus ensuring that "Elohim" does not appear in a narrative portion of "J". It's a very convenient division of the text to ensure God's names appear in the proper sources.

Broader Difficulties with the Documentary Hypothesis

One of the odd features of the DH is that you can make rules as you go along if they're needed to make the verses fit the theory. So, for example, Genesis 2 and 3--which Friedman labels as almost entirely "J"--have 20 instances of the phrase "YHWH Elohim" being used in narration. Yet he simply dismisses the fact that "Elohim" is being used in a narrative portion of a "J" source and says that these instances of God's name simply don't count. He explains that because the phrase "YHWH Elohim" is unique to these chapters, he's justified in making this assumption.

In the DH, there are a number of tools to always ensure the text fits the theory. One can simply cut out a word, a phrase, half a sentence, and whole sentences. Difficulties can be explained as the combination of "J" and "E" or as the hidden work of "R" the redactor who they say made changes to the text, even when there's no evidence backing up the division of the text in this way. And as a final resort, one you can simply say the model's rules are not working, but it must be because something happened in the editing process. Friedman does this with his claim that there are only three instances in which YHWH appears in the wrong source. However, a count reveals five instances that YHWH appears in a "E" and "P" source before Exodus 3 and 6. What's more, there are so many times that a verse with YHWH is simply excised from the middle of a "P" or "E" paragraph in order to make the theory work. The same practice occurs with removing "Elohim" from the middle of a "J" paragraph. In most cases, there's no evident reason within the rules of the theory to justify why these individual verses are removed. It's done simply to make the verses fit the model. This happens with the names of God in Genesis 19:29, 22:16, 28:12, 30:24, 31:3, 43:14, Exodus 3:4, and 19:19. A strong case can also be made against Friedman's excising five instances of YHWH from Genesis 22 as well.

Another issue is in the story of the Deluge, where the name YHWH and Elohim appear in consecutive verses a number of times. One of the prize examples of the DH is the separation of this flood story in a "P" source and a "J" source. At first glance it looks impressive. However. in Joshua Berman's recent book "Ani Maamin," he does a very convincing job showing eight major problems in dividing the story of the flood between "P" and "J" (or as he refers to it "non-P"). There's also the fact that the "J" flood story includes a number of words that are never found anywhere in "J" but which are found all over "P." This is never properly addressed. All this casts further doubt on Friedman's division of God's names into different sources.

Some Specific Challenges and Responses

There is one rather peculiar element of Genesis that provides apparent support for this theory of God's names. Throughout the Pentateuch, almost every single chapter mentions the name YHWH. Yet from Genesis 40 through Exodus 2, there is not a single mention of YHWH save for one reference in Jacob's blessing in Chapter 49. One might think this anomaly could be some sort of indication of multiple authorship of the text. Yet Friedman assigns "J", "E", and "P" sources throughout these chapters with no mention or notice of this glaring omission of the name YHWH. This lack of YHWH in these chapters makes the task of avoiding YHWH in "E" and "P" a lot easier for Friedman, as this means that around one fifth of Genesis omits YHWH.

However, this twelve chapter omission of the name YHWH can help counter another part of Friedman's theory. There is a legitimate question to be asked as to why Moses asks God what His name is, and God answers, "“Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity." According to Friedman, appointing this section to "E" can give a possible explanation as to why God makes this grand declaration that his name is YHWH. Friedman's answer here is that "E" has never mentioned YHWH before, and now God is finally making his name known.

However, I would suggest a different answer. The omission of YHWH for these twelve chapters does not seem to be an accident. Perhaps the Torah is conveying a gradual concealment of the divine presence as the Israelites descended into Egypt and were eventually enslaved. They may have become so enmeshed with idolatry, that the name YHWH becomes all but forgotten amongst much of the population. And this could then explain why God declares to Moses that YHWH is His name.

But then another question arises. God once again declares in Exodus 6, “I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name YHWH. (Ex. 6:2-3)." Why does God once again make this declaration that YHWH is his name? Friedman would answer that this proclamation of the name YHWH is due to the fact that the original "P" source had not yet revealed the name YHWH, and thus a second announcement was necessary.

However, I would suggest a different answer that is supported by the text itself. When God appears to Moses in Exodus 6, the wording in Hebrew is, " וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃"--I did not make my name known to them. What exactly does נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי"I made known" mean in this context? Ezekiel 20:19 answers this question:

"אֲשֶׁ֨ר נוֹדַ֤עְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם֙ לְעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם לְהוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃..." "For it was before their eyes that I had made Myself known to Israel to bring them out of the land of Egypt."

The exact same word "נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי "--"I made known"-- appears in both these verses in conjunction with the Exodus. And what this verse is likely telling us is that the Israelites were made known the meaning of God's name "before their eyes." In other words, it wasn't just hearing and learning about a new name of God. It was a deeper understanding and manifestation of this name of God that the Israelites witnessed unfolding with their very own eyes during their redemption from Egypt. Friedman's attempt to pin the meaning of this verse in Exodus on some "P" source is weak when read in context of this verse from Ezekiel.

In conclusion, Friedman's originally impressive sounding claim loses much of its credibility. Rather than the names fitting neatly into divided sources that require very little editing of the text and few exceptions to the rule, what we instead have is quite the opposite. Instead of Friedman's original claim that 2000 names of God fit his division of the text, we end up with hardly any examples of God's name that can be used to back up his claims.

Daniel Abraham is a writer and editor who has spent the last 15 years researching and answering challenges to Orthodox Judaism.

First posted to Facebook 5 July 2020, here.