A Comment on How Difficult it is to FIGURE THINGS OUT

In the field of Jewish ethics, Reb Simha Bunum suggests a way for the human being to balance humility and self worth:

“Rabbi Bunum said to his disciples: “Everyone must have two pockets, so he can reach into the one or the other, according to his needs. In his right pocket are to the words:’For my sake was the world created,’ and in his left:’ I am earth and ashes.”

Anochi Afar va-efer  (from Gen. 18:27)

and

Bishvili nivra ha-olam (from Sanhedrin 37a)

[from Volume 2 of Buber’s Tales of the Hasidim, p. 249]

The comic strip “Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal,” by Zach Weiner has a slightly more complicated take on the same basic idea:

Bodies Revealed … But Should They Be?

Plastination, the process of removing the fluids from a body and replacing them with liquid polymer, was invented by a 64-year-old German medical pathologist named Gunther von Hagens.  Later this month, the Grand Rapids Public Museum is presenting an exhibit of Plastinated bodies called “Bodies Revealed.”
Von Hagens created the process to preserve cadavers for medical schools, but he soon found it more lucrative to exhibit the bodies and charge admission.  To bring in crowds, he skinned, sliced and posed the corpses, billing them as art. Among his displays was a man carrying his own skin over his shoulder; another featured a man kneeling in prayer, his heart literally in his hands.  His show, “Body Worlds,” created using donated cadavers, has attracted more than 26 million people over the past decade and has taken in over $200 million.
I, like many others, was fascinated by the reality of the the Artprize entry entitled Grandfather Monk Luan, a super realistic fiberglass resin sculture of the 87 year old model by artist Sunti Pichetchaiyakul.  It was so lifelike that had he stood up and walked away, those gazing at it might have been momentarily startled, but would not have been surprised.  We were impressed at the detailed artistry involved in creating such a lifelike sculpture.  However, had Grandfather Monk been a plastinated human body instead of a constructed piece of art, most people would have been horrified that a human being had been turned into an Artprize entry.
Along similar lines, if somebody plastinated a deceased spouse and kept him or her in the living room  or at the kitchen table or in the bedroom, I imagine that virtually no one would find this to be acceptable.
Ethical problems abound in the Bodies Revealed exhibition produced by Premier Exhibitions. Premier is paying $5 million per year to rent the bodies and organs it is exhibiting. Premier says that the bodies come from China’s Dalian Medical University.  Their web site explains:The full body specimens are persons who lived in China and died from natural causes. After the bodies were unclaimed at death, pursuant to Chinese law, they were ultimately delivered to a medical school for education and research. Where known, information about the identities, medical histories and causes of death is kept strictly confidential.
In August, 2006, David Barboza, a New York Times reporter, learned that officials at Dalian had no record of Premier’s supplier obtaining the bodies there.  In addition, Premier’s own web site indicates that they do not know the identities of the subjects.
In May, 2008, following a Congressional hearing and a settlement with the State of New York, Premier is now required to disclose “that it is not able to confirm that the bodies and parts being displayed were not, or did not belong to, Chinese prisoners who may have been victims of torture and execution” on its web site.  I could not find this statement on their web site.
However, even if the bodies have been properly obtained, there are other reasons that reducing a human being to an object on display is distasteful.
Biblical tradition teaches that  “You are dust and unto dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). Deuteronomy 21:23 indicates that even a criminal who has been executed must be given a burial the same day and not lie unburied overnight, “for that is an affront to God.”  Biblical tradition teaches that a human being is created in the image of God.  Jewish tradition teaches that desecrating a corpse is the equivalent of desecrating an image of God.  Jewish tradition also teaches that benefiting from a corpse is prohibited.  There is of course an exception when the benefit from the desecration directly leads to saving a life.  The Body Worlds and Bodies Revealed exhibitions argue that they will ultimately lead people to take better care of their own bodies.  This might be the case with a display of healthy lungs alongside lungs destroyed by tobacco; a healthy liver alongside a liver destroyed by alcohol abuse; or a healthy heart alongside one clogged with cholesterol plaque.  It is less clear that bodies opened up and posed in various ways serves an educational, rather than a voyeuristic, purpose. It is clear that the organizer and the museum will benefit financially from the use of these human corpses.  The show is a major commercial enterprise, directly benefiting from the human beings who did not give consent to be put on display.  To preserve their bodies for an indefinite period of time for our entertainment rather than lay them to rest in a dignified manner is to turn death into a carnival side show.
I, like most other people, feel a compulsion to look at an accident on the side of the road to catch a glimpse of somebody else’s tragedy.  I understand the nature of the impulse. A glimpse of the unfortunate person killed or injured is an opportunity to celebrate the fact that I am alive and breathing and healthy. I resist that impulse, at least when I am driving.  Although part of me is fascinated by the similarly voyeuristic opportunity to see the internal plastinated anatomy of a real human body, I will not be going, and I urge you to refrain as well.

A Critique of Artscroll Press

I am often critical of the theology of Artscroll publications, and suggest that those who use anything produced by Artscroll need to understand that the theology behind their books is deeply embedded in their translations of text and commentary.

A great example of what I am talking about is found here:
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-in-world-is-robinson-crusoe-on.html

I encourage you to read the article. The author, Fred MacDowell, describes how a mid 20th century Torah commentator, Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin, made reference to Daniel Dafoe’s Robinson Crusoe as an example of a person living in utter loneliness. The author even reproduces the page from the original Hebrew text, where one can very clearly read the paragraph mentioning Robinson Crusoe.

We also see a scan of the text of the Artscroll “translation,” which without comment or footnote omits that paragraph.

The author gives a number of guesses as to why Artscroll has emended the text of Rabbi Sorotzkin’s commentary:

  • It doesn’t seem natural or proper that an authentic Lithuanian rosh yeshiva of the previous generation, the pride of the great Telzer yeshiva, would have even read Robinson Crusoe much less included a reference to it in his Torah commentary.
  • Even if it was not written by himself, but based on oral talks, it doesn’t seem right that he should have referenced Robinson Crusoe in an oral talk on the Torah.
  • While not explicitly doing so, he almost seems to recommend reading it.
  • It appears strangely close to the much-maligned Torah U-Madda approach. [RK – The approach of the Modern Orthodox]
  • This is farfetched, but it is interesting that one of Orthodoxy’s favorite arch-heretics, the hebraist Eliezer Ben Yehuda, many times cited his having read כור עוני, Yitzhak Romesh’s Hebrew translation of Robinson Crusoe, which was secretly shown to Ben Yehuda by his half-maskil rebbe, R. Joseph Blucker (?). See, for example, his autobiographical החלום ושברו. Reading the fine prose of this book helped kindle a love for the Hebrew language within him.

So once more I caution you – Artscroll publications might seem to make Torah, the Siddur, the Talmud,  and other Hebrew works accessible to the non-Hebrew reader; but be aware that the original text and the version of the text that you are learning might not be the same.  If Artscroll believes that Rashi, Ramban, Rambam, the Siddur, the Talmud, the Torah, or a commentary on any of the above departs from their very narrow theology, they will take the very ‘modern’ approach of emending the text!

A Walker Among Those Who Stand

Leviticus 18:4 teaches:  “You shall observe my rules, and keep my laws, to walk in them, I am YHVH [your God].”

Our job, according to Leviticus 18:4 is to walk in God’s rules and laws.  We are supposed to be walkers and movers, as in Zachariah 3:7:

Thus said YHVH of Hosts: If you walk in My paths and keep My charge, you in turn will rule My House and guard My courts, and I will make you walkers among those standing there.

There are many people who are just “standing there;” who live their lives inside a narrow box, always doing the same things, eating the same foods, watching the same types of movies and television program, reading the same kinds of books.  You know the type – they are the kind of people who run away from change.  When they have the chance to do something different, they avoid it at all costs.  They like the way things are right now – change, by definition, is negative and to be avoided.  Is this such a bad thing?  Halakha doesn’t change, does it?  Keeping kosher, reciting the Shema, praying regularly, wearing tefillin and giving tzedakah every day (except Shabbat) – all of this is a routine mandated by God’s laws and rules.  Standing firm on God’s laws without compromise is a good thing, right?

Right, except it seems to be better to be a walker than a stander.  So who are the walkers?  What do they do?  The Hasidic Rabbi Moshe Chaim Efrayim, author of the Degel Mahaneh Ephraim, taught:

All that we do – in Torah study, in prayer, in keeping the mitzvot and doing good deeds – is directed toward raising up the Shekhinah to unite her with Her Husband.

A person is called a “walker (holekh),” for people are constantly moving from one spiritual stage to another, either diminishing in capacity, or increasing in awareness each day upward and upward. This is the intent of our verse, “You shall observe my rules, and keep my laws, to walk in them” from stage to stage (level to level), all with the focus of “I am YHVH.”

Walkers are also people who devote themselves to Jewish practices, to mitzvot, just like standers.  The walkers, however, are open to learning to do things differently.  Not abandoning traditional practices necessarily, but finding new and meaningful ways to enhance those practices.

Kashrut, for example, is all about eating kosher food — but it could also be about eating healthy food, grown in sustainable, cruielty-free ways?   It could also be about the ethics of food production.

Walkers occasionally stumble.  Not every movement is going to be up the spiritual ladder towards increasing awareness.  Some movements are going to be downward, spiritually deflating.  But in order to reach the highest possible elevation, we need to risk the occasional falls.  Rabbi Moshe Chaim Ephraim concludes his lesson in good mystical fashion:

That is, we are to join and unite “I (ani)” – another name for the Shekhinah (the Divine Presence) – with “YHVH.” This is the combination of HVY”H (that is, YHW”H) and ADN”Y, the unification of the blessed Holy One and His Shekhinah.

Rather than focus solely on the mechanics of a mitzvah, the mystical tradition encourages us to focus on the goal of the mitzvah — to unite God’s presence down here on earth with the Infinite and unknowable mysterious Holy One, of Blessing.  He encourages us to be open to new paths towards the recognition and enactment of God’s unity.  He asks us to use God’s rules and laws, to direct all of our Torah study, prayers, mitzvot, and good deeds towards the union of the Shekhinah and the Kadosh Barukh Hu.

R. Moshe Chaim Efrayim of Sudylkov is the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism.  He was born in 1742 or 1748 and died in 1800, on the eve of Lag Ba’omer (this year, his yahrtzeit will be the coming Shabbat).

Tattooing and Body Piercing

I have been teaching my 7th grade class about Jewish ideas of body and soul for the past month.  I entitled the class “Our Body and Our Selves:  Owning vs. Renting.”

One of the most interesting places that this idea plays itself out is in the arena of body art — tattooing and body piercing.

If we own our bodies, we should be able to do with it what we want:  color the skin,and pierce the skin and hang decorations wherever we want.  When we own a house, we are permitted to make whatever renovations we want without any restrictions.

However, if we are only “rentors,” temporary inhabitants of our bodies, it would make sense that the LandLord wouldn’t want us to paint the walls crazy colors.  It would also make sense that we shouldn’t be allowed to put nails in the walls and hang pictures all over the place in haphazard ways.

I’m sure most parents would be happy if it were in fact the case that they could tell their children that the Torah forbids tattooing and piercing.  However, that turns out not to be the case.  The prohibition against tattoos is reasonably explicit (Leviticus 19:28), but equally explicit verses about piercings in the ear and nose (Exodus 21:6, Genesis 24:47, Exodus 32:2) as well as Rabbinic references to women and men with pierced ears make it clear that body piecing is permitted!  Further, there is no compelling argument to permit ear and nose piercing while prohibiting eyebrow, belly button, or other skin piercing.

Rabbi Alan Lucas has written a fascinating teshuvah on the topic, which I will be teaching at an adult education series beginning April 18.  In the meantime, feel free to read Rabbi Lucas’ teshuvah here.