Tuesday, November 24, 2009

If the Bet HaMikdash/Holy Temple were rebuilt . . .

. . . this would be the result.

Is that really what we want?

40 Comments:

Anonymous jdub said...

Yes. Every day. Unless God tells us to change.

Wed Nov 25, 08:12:00 AM 2009  
Anonymous jdub said...

(BTW, the "every day" refers to my hopes, not the numbers of animals to be sacrificed.)

Wed Nov 25, 08:12:00 AM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

JDub, I have no objection to the rebuilding of the Bet HaMikdash. But I object to the sacrificial system as the manner of worship. Yes, my brother, when he was Orthodox, argued that, as long as we (non-vegetarians) are eating meat anyway, we might as well have animal sacrifices. But the whole idea that an innocent animal should be sacrificed *because of my sins* is repugnant to me. I'm not big on vicarious atonement, especially when it's at the expense of some poor creature's life. I prefer to offer the words of my lips, to paraphrase the words of the prophet Hoshea/Hosea (chapter 14, verse 3).

Wed Nov 25, 08:41:00 AM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shira,
Animal sacrifices aren't just for sins. Some sacrifices are for giving thanks. And some are just because God commanded us too. If the Torah is very clear that there is a commandment to offer sacrifices, how can we tell God we prefer something else?
I'd prefer eating treif, but God told me otherwise. It isn't up to us.
The statement of the prophets about offering the words of our lips meant that the words of our lips are preferable to offering sacrifices by rote, without thinking or caring about the fact that we are fulfilling God's command. The prophet never dared suggest that we can annul the command of God.

Wed Nov 25, 11:23:00 AM 2009  
Blogger AC said...

Anonymous,
The point is not the "why" of sacrifice, but the "what". Sacrifice is only sacrifice if you're giving up something of value to you.

Remember the culture and history in which Torah was written; the Israelites were primarily herders (see http://www.hearingshofar.com/Book3.htm for some interesting research on that topic), so giving "the best of your herd" was significant.

Today, very few of us are herders; going out and buying a goat so we can kill it is not significant. It's cruelty disguised as piety. It's substituting money for meaning. It's the form of the commandment, but hollowed instead of hallowed.

Shira, I'm becoming a huge fan of your blog, btw.

Wed Nov 25, 01:09:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Animal sacrifices aren't just for sins. Some sacrifices are for giving thanks." And that makes any difference to the animal? The poor beast is still being killed for something that's of no relevance to an animal.

"The prophet never dared suggest that we can annul the command of God." Anon, maybe the prophets never dared, but I do--which is one of the reasons why I'm not Orthodox. I pray for the restoration of the sacrificial system out of respect for my ancestors and my more traditional co-religionists. But I do not wish to see it restored. Keeping kosher is different--one can chose when, or whether, to eat meat. If the sacrificial system were reinstituted, would it even be halachically permissible to have a vegetarian seder?

"Sacrifice is only sacrifice if you're giving up something of value to you." For me, sacrificing a lamb wouldn't mean a thing, but giving up blogging and reading blogs for a week would be a sacrifice.

Wed Nov 25, 02:26:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Shira, I'm becoming a huge fan of your blog, btw." Thanks, AC! All compliments cheerfully accepted.

Wed Nov 25, 02:34:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Tevel said...

Help me with my math: It occurred to me that we've existed religiously at this point longer without the sacrificial system than we did with it. Correct?

Wed Nov 25, 07:44:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Tevel, a quick Internet search yields the date of the destruction of the second Bet HaMikdash as 70 CE (Common Era). If that's correct, we've survived without the sacrificial system for roughly 1,939 years. I suspect that that's considerably longer than both the first and the second Bet HaMikdash combined ever functioned.

Wed Nov 25, 08:20:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Miami Al said...

The sacrificial system predates the Temple. It was consolidated in the Temple during the reign of Solomon (no doubt redirecting some tithes to the monarch in the process), but the sacrificial system dates back to the giving of the Torah, and given how many other Biblical-era rituals have origins in Egyptian practice (adopted to serve Hashem instead of Ra and friends), some variation was no doubt practice by in Mitzrayim.

I mean, you have Levite cities throughout Israel and Judea, and 10% of your crop went to them, and 10% of that went to the Kohanim, presumably they did something for that tithe.

I would assume that you had an alter in each Levite city, and possibly one where ever the Prince of the Tribe kept their seat of power.

The Temple consolidated the Kohanim in one place, conveniently next to the Citadel and military command of the Monarch, no doubt a completely convenient political strength that was a happy coincidence when Solomon was inspired/commanded to build the Holy Temple in an extremely militarily defensible location with no natural resources.

Wed Nov 25, 08:51:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Miami Al said...

Besides, unless we let our extremely impractical Rabbeim make the call (which we would), the meat is eaten... so in reality, you're basically setting up a big Slaughterhouse that doubles as a Temple. Nobody would enforce you bringing a personal sacrifice, and the cost of the "general" ones is pretty small compared to the costs of supporting the Yeshiva-for-life system, which would seem less relevant in a world of Temple sacrifices instead of learning about Temple sacrifices.

It would also provide a boost to tourism, I believe that gentiles can bring a sacrifice... the Evangelicals would eat that up... especially if you combined it with nice table service where they could consume their sacrifice with a nice bottle of wine and a side of potatoes.

Wed Nov 25, 08:57:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Tevel said...

Right, that's what I was thinking, too, Shira and Al: almost 2000 years without the sacrificial system.

Wed Nov 25, 09:45:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"you have Levite cities throughout Israel and Judea, and 10% of your crop went to them, and 10% of that went to the Kohanim, presumably they did something for that tithe.

I would assume that you had an alter in each Levite city, and possibly one where ever the Prince of the Tribe kept their seat of power."

Miami Al, my husband (a Levi, for the record) and I agree that your assumption makes sense. What the "out-of-town" Leviim and Cohanim, who were "laid off" after the Bet HaMikdash was built in Yerushalayim/Jerusalem and all sacrifices limited to that location, did for a living is an interesting question. How did they continue to justify taking tithes?

" . . . a big Slaughterhouse that doubles as a Temple . . . would . . . provide a boost to tourism . . ." Just what I always wanted. Not. :( Somehow, this reminds me of the folks who only come to synagogue to say kaddish on a yahrzeit (anniversary of a death) or to recite Yizkor (the Memorial Prayers). They only pray for the dead, not for the living (in this case, themselves). Animal sacrifices would, again, bring people into a house of worship because of a death (in this case, an animal's). Personally, I would prefer to maintain a Judaism that celebrates life.

Thu Nov 26, 03:46:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Miami Al said...

In all likelihood, the Leviim, with their cities and relatively cushy lifestyle collecting tithes, formed the backbone of the Judean army. Conceivably they collected tithes at the point of the sword.

I realize that the Rabbeim suggest that the Levite cities looked like a modern day Yeshiva of Torah learning, but the suggestion that 3500 years ago there was any scholarship is absurd.

The Levite cities were no doubt feudal in some way, with the Leviim exercising some control over the nearby populace from which they extracted tithes. The sacrificial system no doubt provided a mystical cover (bring me a sacrifice or experience the wrath of the Gd of Israel), but ultimately there must have been someway for the Leviim to maintain control.

We here about a lot of rebellions and areas where the Israelites disobeyed their leaders. Levite tithes aren't one of them.

Thu Nov 26, 11:46:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"In all likelihood, the Leviim, with their cities and relatively cushy lifestyle collecting tithes, formed the backbone of the Judean army. Conceivably they collected tithes at the point of the sword."

So your theory is that my Levi husband's ancestors were mercenaries. Not the best yichis/pedigree. :( But it does make sense.

"I realize that the Rabbeim suggest that the Levite cities looked like a modern day Yeshiva of Torah learning, but the suggestion that 3500 years ago there was any scholarship is absurd."

Personally, I've always found the tales of Noach's/Noah's sons Shem and Ever running a Torah academy astounding. Given that the man deemed to be the first Jew (Avraham) would not be born for several more generations and that the giving of the Torah on Sinai would not take place until centuries after Avraham, how could they possibly have known about the Torah, and what could they possibly have taught? Just to make trouble :), I could suggest that the notion that Shem and Ever ran a Torah academy is evidence that the rabbis, too, believed in the Documentary Hypothesis, the idea that the Torah was handed down orally as a number of different traditions that were eventually written down and combined into the one Written Torah/Pentateuch. How else could Shem and Ever have been teaching a Torah that, according to the Sinai tradition, hadn't been given yet?

The rabbis have a tradition that "there's no 'earlier' or 'later' in the Torah (mukdam u-m'uchar?)," that is, that chronological time doesn't apply to the Torah. They justify what seem to me to be the most illogical ideas with this tradition.

"The Levite cities were no doubt feudal in some way, with the Leviim exercising some control over the nearby populace from which they extracted tithes. The sacrificial system no doubt provided a mystical cover (bring me a sacrifice or experience the wrath of the Gd of Israel), but ultimately there must have been someway for the Leviim to maintain control."

Logical and radical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: One of the reasons why I don't think I could become an Orthodox Jew is that the way I think and speak on the subject of Jewish tradition seems to put me outside the pale of what's deemed acceptable in (at least much of) the Orthodox world. Miami Al, given the way you think, how do you get away with belonging to the Orthodox community?

Sun Nov 29, 07:45:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Egg-on-face retraction: Apparently, Shem and Ever were supposedly teaching the *Noachide* laws, not the Torah laws (which hadn't been given yet). That's what I get for not reading carefully enough. :(

Still, on the subject of Al's comment about the alleged Levitical yeshivot, I do wonder how far back in Jewish history anything remotely resembling a yeshiva actually existed.

Sun Nov 29, 09:12:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Miami Al said...

Shira, I find history fascinating, and trying to understand the biblical period requires understanding near eastern culture. The childish understanding of Tanakh and Torah that surrounds us in the "accepted" interpretation is simply sad, but oh well. The idea that the Jews actually followed the laws of the Torah, at ANY POINT, is revisionist history that ignores the fact that every document, including Tanakh, chastises the people for not following it.

Ancient Judaism was a practical religion, the Torah was read publicly on Mondays/Thursdays, because those were the market days. You couldn't expect people to come to a synagogue and listen, so you brought the Torah to them.

I mean, the Torah connects the Leviim to Moshe and Aaron, who led the Jewish people.

The Israelites fought the surrounding tribes. They were led by Moshe, a Levite. They went into battle following a Levite, and prayers to the Gd of Israel would no doubt proceed battle (just as the Moabites would pray to the Gd of Moab before battle), let by Aaron, a Levite. The Leviim were the original aristocracy, complete with cities in an agrarian society. In an agrarian society, the cities need to be fed from the surrounding farms/herds. In every other society, the quid pro quo is protection, not "religion."

How do I remain in the Orthodox community? I live in a community with an Eruv, attend an Orthodox Shul, my kids play in the park on Shabbat with the other Orthodox kids, we entertain other families in our home, Shabbat and otherwise. In what way to my musing and thought on the political and real politics of the 12 tribes of Israel play any role in that. If I'm in a conversation with someone, and we're exploring a thought on something like this, and someone pops in with their Yeshiva memorization, they tend to be ignored, and at worst, they are able to disrupt the conversation for 10-15 minutes.

I'm Orthodox, I'm defined by my practice. Thoughts, and ideology, meh, those are for the heterodox Jews that have "theology" like "de goyim." :) As for Heresy and Gd? We threw him out of Judaism when we replaced sacrifice with prayer and tzedakah... :) Given a nearly 2000 year exile, only ended when Jews denying his authority reclaimed the land... the split appears to be mutual. :)

Mon Nov 30, 12:52:00 AM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't have to leave orthodoxy to hope for a rebuilt temple without animal sacrifices. Maimonides in his Guide states that they were of necessity at a primitive stage in religious development and will not be reinstated. Famous Orthodox vegetarian R. AY Kook in his Olat Reiyah (sv V'Arvah LaHashem Minchat...) asserts that there will be only Mincha (vegetable-origin) offerings in the rebuilt third Temple, not animal sacrifices.

Mon Nov 30, 11:57:00 AM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The same R. Kook sees the traditions regarding Yeshivat Shem V'Ever as a compelling reason to study assyriology, that it makes good sense that some truths crystallized in the Torah were already revealed to the ancient world. See Eder HaYakar, p. 84.

Mon Nov 30, 12:01:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally, the biggest flaw in Miami Al's assertion regarding the Levites is that they are explicitly denied land ownership. In ancient civilization, this rendered them quite dependent, not a classical aristocracy. Compare to the landed priestly caste that Joseph sponsors in Egypt. Also, it is counterintuitive that Moses would not have established a bloodline monarchy if there is a Levite power-grab at play.

I am centrist Orthodox, and I haven't found that asking the "big questions" that you do places me outside the pale. To the contrary, that's the only way true learning takes place (e.g., see the posted Tanakh Yom Iyun recordings on the YCTorah website, which ask many of the same questions). The only difference is that I don't "die from a Kasha" -- meaning, if something appears incompatible with the 13 Maimonidean principles that are more or less the accepted Orthodox dogma (Marc Shapiro notwithstanding), I explore it to the best of my ability and say "Teiku" if I can't crack it at this point, rather than to hinge my subscription to the Orthodox Jewish enterprise on whether or not I can resolve this particular issue.

Perhaps this is because I've had enough experience in finding satisfactory answers, or I find the overwhelming majority of the message quite intellectually satisfying and even astounding (e.g., read Thomas Cahill's gifts of the Jews for a fresh perspective on how truly radical the Torah's messages are, in context) -- I give benefit of the doubt. Of course, I can't demand that from those raised in other religious contexts.

Mon Nov 30, 12:11:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Too many Anonymi--please pick names.

"You don't have to leave orthodoxy to hope for a rebuilt temple without animal sacrifices. Maimonides in his Guide states that they were of necessity at a primitive stage in religious development. . . "

I agree.

" . . . and will not be reinstated." I certainly hope he's right.

"Famous Orthodox vegetarian R. AY Kook in his Olat Reiyah (sv V'Arvah LaHashem Minchat...) asserts that there will be only Mincha (vegetable-origin) offerings in the rebuilt third Temple, not animal sacrifices."

Amen to that! Vegetarian offerings would be fine with me.

" . . . it makes good sense that some truths crystallized in the Torah were already revealed to the ancient world."

I'm not big on the "revealed" part, but leaving that detail aside, I've never been convinced that we Heebs were/are the only humans with brains and/or common sense.

"the biggest flaw in Miami Al's assertion regarding the Levites is that they are explicitly denied land ownership. In ancient civilization, this rendered them quite dependent, not a classical aristocracy. Compare to the landed priestly caste that Joseph sponsors in Egypt. Also, it is counterintuitive that Moses would not have established a bloodline monarchy if there is a Levite power-grab at play."

Hmm, those are interesting points--the Leviim were landless, and the monarchy was handed down within the tribe of Yehudah/Judah, not within the tribe of Levi. Al, any comments?

"I am centrist Orthodox, and I haven't found that asking the "big questions" that you do places me outside the pale. . . . The only difference is that I don't . . . hinge my subscription to the Orthodox Jewish enterprise on whether or not I can resolve this particular issue."

"Perhaps this is because I've had enough experience in finding satisfactory answers, or I find the overwhelming majority of the message quite intellectually satisfying . . ."

I guess that part of my problem is a lack of education and, frankly, my laziness in not obtaining one. I took a Talmud class once, and I'm sorry to say that I found it boring. (Cut to the chase, guys--don't spend three pages debating when one should say the morning Sh'ma, just bottom-line it and tell me when to say it.) Perhaps I need to try studying something that's more suitable to my pragmatic and sceptical, and slightly ADD, personality.

Mon Nov 30, 01:15:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Miami Al said...

Regarding the Monarchy... We have close to 1000 years between Moshe establishing the Israelite "nation" of wandering tribes and city dwelling Leviim and Kohanim, and a member of the tribe of Benjamin grabbing the reigns of a unified monarchy.

We find the tribe of Judah grabbing the reigns in a rapid consolidation of power, albeit with a flowery religious context, but prior to the consolidation of power under the Warrior King David, the tribes appeared to be much more autonomous. The Leviim weren't in one place under David's reign, despite his impressive accomplishments, his son consolidated power.

Prior to Shlomo Hamelech and building the Temple, power was clearly decentralized.

Here is a map of ancient Canaan, this isn't a modern "border demarcation" but a general idea of who held what.

The tribes of Israel hold what today is the most valuable land, by far. Judah held what amounts to the trash that modern Israel still hasn't been able to build much useful out of.

The northern tribes of Israel were conquored, Judah held. Judah's warriors were powerful enough that they were either unconquerable, or conquering them wasn't worth the effort, which comparing the land of the Negev to the more lucrative coasts, Jordan Valley, and Galillee region, doesn't require much.

Prior to Judah's power grab, the Leviim extracted tithes. Further, if guilty of manslaughter, one could flee to the safety of the Levite city... clearly they had SOME ability to keep the other tribes at bay... remember, this was a tribal middle eastern society, look at the clan structure in the Arab world, that's the level of "honor" that you're talking about.

Moshe Rabbenu created a defacto monarchy under the Kohanim that lasted until Benjamin and Judah's conquest down the road. After a relatively brief period of the unified monarchy under the House of David, the longest time of government was the Hasmonian Dynasty, when the Leviim/Kohanim reestablished social dominance.

The Levites controlled things for longer than Judah did, how does that not jive with my suggestion that they were warrior priests and not Yeshiva Priests?

Mon Nov 30, 01:40:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Miami Al, that seems to be reading a lot in that's just not there. There do not seem to be major leadership figures from Levi after Moshe. Read of the book of Shoftim (Judges) shows abortive attempts at monarchy by Manassites (Gideon, Avimelech) with no record of Levitic flexing of muscle. The only figures of prominence from Levi in the 400-something? year-span (if we trust the 480-year date given in Kings II is not thematic) are 'Eli and Samuel, neither of whom are portrayed as particularly involved in waging battle, and Samuel explicitly declines the mantle of kingship, which he could have arrogated for himself. In Judges, the tabernacle in Shilo (the ostensible seat of Levitic power) is so neglected that directions are provided to the reader at one point. Finally, back to the Pentateuch, Moses hands over the reigns to Joshua from Ephraim. And again, explicitly, the Torah declares Levi landless in an agrarian civilization.

You can reconstruct history as you wish and neglect the written record of the Biblical texts, kinda like the minimalist school of archaeology does, I suppose. But I'm not at all convinced. Just because that's how it was done elsewhere in the ancient NE doesn't mean that's how we did it. Maybe there's a reason Judaism endured, after all- because we weren't about mere caste advantage, but invented the idea that "all men are created equal" (I think "men and women" even in classical Orthodox Judaism, but that's for another thread).

I recommend Joshua Berman's "Created Equal," (which I admit I've only skimmed but seems quite good) which deals specifically with the contributions of Judaism in the realm of egalitarianism.

Mon Nov 30, 02:14:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, Miami Al, the idea that the Levites were the prime warrior class really raises questions as to why they are not counted among "those who go out to war" in the census in Numbers.

Mon Nov 30, 02:15:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I guess that part of my problem is a lack of education and, frankly, my laziness in not obtaining one. I took a Talmud class once, and I'm sorry to say that I found it boring. (Cut to the chase, guys--don't spend three pages debating when one should say the morning Sh'ma, just bottom-line it and tell me when to say it.) Perhaps I need to try studying something that's more suitable to my pragmatic and sceptical, and slightly ADD, personality."

I happen to enjoy Talmud, but it's absolutely not for everyone. In every legal system, details are critical so that all cases are covered, and logic must naturally be taken to the extreme to define principles -- but that level of precision is only important to those who are engaged by that sort of brain-sharpening, and those who need to render decisions on its basis. As an aside, I think it is remarkable that Jewish Law is such an open book. Even my Muslim colleagues admit that they have little to no access to rationales behind the laws of the rituals they practice.

If you're looking, I highly recommend the New orthodox school of study of Tanach, in Israel by R. Yoel Bin Nun, Elchanan Samet, Yaakov Medan, et al, and in the US, by people like Menachem Leibtag, Yitzchak Etshalom, Aryeh (Robert Klapper) and the various and sundry who lecture at the Chovevei Torah Yom Iyun. They tackle the "big issues" with no compunctions and the material is, frankly, fascinating, and intellectually stimulating even to those who glaze over in Talmud class.

Mon Nov 30, 02:25:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Also, Miami Al, the idea that the Levites were the prime warrior class really raises questions as to why they are not counted among "those who go out to war" in the census in Numbers."

Anon. has a point, Al.

Anon., what's this "New orthodox school of study of Tanach"? Can you describe it Hillel-style (standing on one foot)?

Hmm, perhaps I should spend some time at the Yeshiva Chovevei Torah rabbinical school website and check out some of those MP3s and texts. It might help if I had an MP3 player, but I could listen at home.

Tue Dec 01, 01:29:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yitzchak Etshalom just published a book on it called Between the Lines of the Bible. Basically, the approach looks at the Biblical text using the tools of literary analysis; close reading, pattern and structural analysis (use of things like chiastic and parallel structure, leitworts), linguistic/philological analyses (wordplay shedding light on thematic undercurrents), and confronts the "big questions" that you tackle head-on, "Tanach B'Govah Einayim"-style (meaning, treat Biblical characters like real human beings with shortcomings and personality quirks, so that real people can learn from them). It's much more than that, but that's at least some of it. Some of these folks are being featured on OU's Shnayim Mikra podcast project which just got off the ground, (http://www.ouradio.org/shnayim_mikra) and some of it is quite good, though necessarily somewhat superficial due to the time constraints of the format.

Some in the group (like R' Mordechai Breuer, who has since passed on) will accept documentary hypothesis stratification (though maintaining Divine authorship) but demonstrate that apparent repetition or contradiction is actually purposeful, to shed light on a reality that is dialectical, or more complex than can be portrayed from one perspective, sort of like R. Soloveitchik does with Genesis 1 and 2 (Adam I and Adam II) in his Lonely Man of Faith. Still others in this group will show overarching literary structures, often chiasmata (ABCBA) that unite narratives thought to be attributable to multiple authors. But all are current with academic Bible scholarship and archaeology, even while maintaining Divine authorship of the Pentateuch.

Incidentally, one more problem with Miami Al's theory. I missed one Levite from the period of the Judges. At the end of the book of Judges, we find a Levite -- actually, no less than Moses' own grandson, someone readily recognizable to the entire tribe of Dan -- as a starving itinerant so desparate for sustenance that he sells himself out as a priest for the idol of Micah. Doesn't sound so powerful to me.

Tue Dec 01, 03:33:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Yitzchak Etshalom's "Between the Lines of the Bible" sounds interesting. I'm all in favor of an approach to Tanach that treats biblical characters as human beings with good and bad points, rather than as paragons of perfection.

Wed Dec 02, 02:49:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Colleen said...

Your post is very interesting and the comments about the animal sacrifices not being as meaningful today since we are not herders. If the Temple is restored isn't the Sanhedrin also supposed to be restored along with it? I'm concerned about the Sanhedrin being restored because then it would be another all male hierarchal organization.

Wed Dec 02, 10:25:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shalom (or Colleen?), there is a fascinating discussion by R. Robert Klapper of the Harvard Hillel about the psychoaffective aspects of animal sacrifice and its possible relevance even in a non-agrarian society: "What is the Purpose of Animal Sacrifice? - Audio" at http://www.torahleadership.org/lectures.html#hashkafa

About your fears re the reinstatement of the Sanhedrin -- rebuilding of the Temple, according to the consensus of Orthodox decisors, requires, at the very least the King Messiah and a real, tested-and-true prophet to guide the process. God decides whom to appoint as prophet, and according to classical Jewish sources, He's chosen women at least seven times in the past (Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Hulda, Esther). So who knows? Maybe a woman will be calling the shots in the Messianic age. Even if it IS an all-male Sanhedrin, handpicked by a woman, (especially given the breadth of secular knowledge and language expertise that the Talmud requires of the members -- real renaissance people, likely with multiple PhD's by current standards) it might not be all that bad.

Thu Dec 03, 10:39:00 AM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Sorry, Anon., but the "psychoaffective aspects" of animal sacrifice are of no relevance to the animals in question.

"Maybe a woman will be calling the shots in the Messianic age." That would be a nice change of pace, but I share Colleen's concern about yet another males-only decision-making body ruling on manners of halachah/Jewish religious law for the entire Jewish people. In my opinion, that would be a classic case of taxation without representation.

Thu Dec 03, 12:58:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Colleen said...

I'm not really sure why the Sanhedrin "needs" to be all male. It is supposed to be (don't remember the exact amount) of top scholars in Torah, Talmud, and Judaism so why couldn't it have females on the court? After all if the person I took my Hebrew name after Devorah can be a prophetess and judge then why couldn't the Sanhedrin have females on the court?

Thu Dec 03, 01:42:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shira, true- I can't say that the animals are well-served by sacrifice (except literally, to those who partook of them), rather was addressing Colleen's question of the meaningfulness in a non-agrarian setting. The vegetarian issue is separate, and probably the Maimonides/Kook approach is best for those who feel strongly that terminating animal lives is morally reprehensible. If you do enjoy a good steak, it's worth noting that the majority of sacrifices -- including those "for sins" -- HAD to be eaten, and ideally shared, some compulsorily with the priestly/itinerant teacher class; you can't offer a sacrifice that you'll be unable to eat. There's a nice lecture on Torah in Motion (Experiencing Pesach: The Emotions of Aliyah LaRegel in Temple times http://www.torahinmotion.org/store/prod_search.asp?category=All&speaker=79&keywords=&mode=1) about the Todah thanksgiving-offering in particular, and how the time limitation and size of the animal FORCED the offerer to have a huge meal and invite the poor of Jerusalem to partake. Gave me a whole different perspective on the Temple.

As far as women on the future Sanhedrin, who knows? With the return of prophecy, we'd be in uncharted territory. But the bottom line is, the prophet clause means the future can't happen without Divine intervention, and if God's explicitly guiding things, one presumes they'd be fair and moral.

Thu Dec 03, 02:27:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Colleen, that depends on whether a reconstituted Sanhedrin would function as a political body like the Knesset or as a judicial one like a bet din/Jewish religious court. Unfortunately for us women, Devorah, if I understand correctly, seems to have been treated as an anomaly, her role as judge necessary in her time but never to be repeated by any other female. Rabbinic law forbids women to be witnesses in most circumstances, so how can we be judges? Unless and until Jewish law evolves to the point at which a woman and her testimony are deemed as trustworthy as a man and his testimony--in other words, until halachah stops treating women as airheads whose judgment can't be trusted--no woman will ever be a judge in a bet din.

Thu Dec 03, 03:09:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that the disqualification from testimony means that Judaism sees women as airheads. The same difficult-to-parse Talmudic phraseology famously cited regarding women, דעתן קלות עליהן, is elsewhere used with regard to Jewish kings, who also happen to be ineligible to serve as witnesses, or even judges (with the exception of Davidic monarchs). Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye. Testimony in Judaism isn't an option, it is an obligation (an eligible witness is forbidden to withhold testimony -- ואם לא יגיד ונשא עונו). I could think of other reasons why it might be undesirable to subject all women to an obligation to testify, particularly in an age well before witness protection programs.

Thu Dec 03, 03:23:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Testimony in Judaism isn't an option, it is an obligation (an eligible witness is forbidden to withhold testimony -- ואם לא יגיד ונשא עונו). I could think of other reasons why it might be undesirable to subject all women to an obligation to testify, particularly in an age well before witness protection programs."

You may have a point there. But it's a rather outmoded point. I've heard that US law permits a person to refuse to testify against a spouse, presumably as a precaution against either sympathy or coercion. Let the bet din make the same provision, and the problem is solved, in my opinion.

Thu Dec 03, 03:31:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is, if people can just refuse to testify, in a system that doesn't accept circumstantial evidence, the whole system falls apart. The system here is an adversarial one, which is completely different from Jewish Law. Exempting women certainly worked back then, when women were sometimes vulnerable, and before the invention of baby formula.

As far as outmoded -- interestingly, the problem doesn't really seem to come up much these days in institutions such as Beth Din of America, and with To'anot Beit Din and whatnot in Israel these days, perhaps if Jewish courts came back in vogue, things would change -- within the original formal parameters -- to your satisfaction.

Thu Dec 03, 05:43:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, family members are ineligible to testify against or judge each other, up to two degrees of separation, under Halakhah.

Thu Dec 03, 05:47:00 PM 2009  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Of course, family members are ineligible to testify against or judge each other, up to two degrees of separation, under Halakhah."

Ah, that's what I meant when I said, "Let the bet din make the same provision, and the problem is solved, in my opinion."

I see no need to grant additional exemptions from the obligation to testify. And I also see no reason why a woman can't be a witness in a Jewish court/bet din, which means that I can't see why a woman can't be a judge in a bet din.

Thu Dec 03, 06:39:00 PM 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess what I mean is, in the Beit Din system, it's all or nothing. Either you are OBLIGATED to testify, or you are INELIGIBLE. There's no possibility of an "option" of testimony, because that'd make a testimony-based system unworkable.

Now, as far as Beit Din adopting a model incorporating other forms of evidence, using certain built-in exceptions like "Mishpat HaMelech" to include, say, optional testimony without the binding nature of classical testimony but allowing for decisions based on judicial discretion -- that's another story, and several Orthodox legal minds in Israel have been publishing regarding a workable Halakhic court system for 21st century democracy that can embrace all contingencies.

Fri Dec 04, 11:11:00 AM 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

<< List
Jewish Bloggers
Join >>