We Owe the Jews

What follows is an edited version of a speech delivered by historian Andrew Roberts to the Friends of Israel Initiative in the British House of Commons on July 19, published in the National Post · Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010

From Morocco to Afghanistan, from the Caspian Sea to Aden, the 5.25 million square miles of territory belonging to members of the Arab League is home to over 330 million people, whereas Israel covers only 8,000 square miles, and is home to seven million citizens, one-fifth of whom are Arabs. The Jews of the Holy Land are thus surrounded by hostile states 650 times their size in territory and 60 times their population; yet their last, best hope of ending two millennia of international persecution -- the State of Israel -- has somehow survived. When during the Second World War, the island of Malta came through three terrible years of bombardment and destruction, it was rightly awarded the George Medal for bravery. Today Israel should be awarded a similar decoration for defending democracy, tolerance and Western values against a murderous onslaught that has lasted 20 times as long.

Jerusalem is the site of the Temple of Solomon and Herod. The stones of a palace erected by King David himself are even now being unearthed just outside the walls of Jerusalem. Everything that makes a nation state legitimate -- blood shed, soil tilled, international agreements -- argues for Israel's right to exist, yet that is still denied by the Arab League. For many of their governments, which are rich enough to have economically solved the Palestinian refugee problem decades ago, it is useful to have Israel as a scapegoat to divert attention from the tyranny, failure and corruption of their own regimes.

The tragic truth is that it suits Arab states very well to have the Palestinians endure permanent refugee status; whenever Israel puts forward workable solutions they are stymied by those whose interests put the destruction of Israel before the genuine well-being of the Palestinians. Both King Abdullah I of Jordan and Anwar Sadat of Egypt were assassinated when they attempted to come to some kind of accommodation with a country that most sane people now accept is not going away.

"We owe to the Jews," wrote Winston Churchill in 1920, "a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all wisdom and learning put together." Although they make up less than half of 1% of the world's population, between 1901 and 1950 Jews won 14% of all the Nobel Prizes awarded for literature and science, and between 1951 and 2000 Jews won 32% of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32% for physics, 39% for economics and 29% for science. This, despite so many of their greatest intellects dying in the gas chambers. Yet we tend to treat Israel like a leper on the international scene, threatening her with academic boycotts if she builds a separation wall that has so far reduced suicide bombings by 95% over three years.

Her Majesty the Queen has been on the throne for 57 years and in that time has undertaken 250 official visits to 129 countries, yet has not yet set foot in Israel. She has visited 14 Arab countries, so it cannot have been that she wasn't in the region.

After the Holocaust, the Jewish people recognized that they must have their own state, a homeland where they could forever be safe from a repetition of such horrors. Since then, Israel has had to fight five major wars for her existence. Radical Islam is never going to accept the concept of an Israeli State, so the struggle is likely to continue for another 60 years, but the Jews know that that is less dangerous than entrusting their security to anyone else.

I recently visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. Walking along a line of huts and the railway siding, where their forebears had been worked and starved and beaten and frozen and gassed to death, were a group of Jewish schoolchildren, one of whom was carrying over his shoulder the Israeli flag. It was a moving sight, for it was the sovereign independence represented by that flag which guarantees that the obscenity of genocide will never again befall the Jewish people.

No people in history have needed the right to self-defence and legitimacy more than the Jews of Israel, and that is what we in the Friends of Israel Initiative demand here today.

G-d In search of Man

Over the many years I have worked online I have made the 'virtual acquaintance' of many people from many different beliefs. One of these correspondents is a devout Christian with whom I once agreed to agree to disagree and have maintained a loose connection with since our business dealings ended. Recently I received an interesting email from her which I have responded to in the following post. If you have anything to add, please post a comment to our open discussion.

Yoel, I hope you don't mind me emailing you and I hope you remember who I am. Anyway,I have some hard questions and as I thought them over, I realized that you're the only person I know who could answer them, if you will, please? I am very sincere in wanting to hear your answers, but I will understand if you don't answer at all.

Dear Pat,

I'm always interested in "hard questions". Perhaps that is why you thought of me? There is a very good reason for that. As one of Judaism's many sages once asserted, the essence of Judaism is the question - not the answers. In fact he went so far as to demonstrate that so many aspects of Judaism are linked with the "Commemoration of the Leaving of Egypt" (The Exodus). Fascinatingly, when we explore the heart of the ritual which is focused exclusively on this event, Pesach (Passover) we discover that the heart of this annual celebration is - the four questions. Jewish parents are proud of their children, not when they can repeat some Jewish version of the catechism by heart, but when their precious child raises a question that challenges their teacher's ability to explain! So yes, bring on the questions, maybe together we will learn something.

To set the scene, the Creator of the New Testament that we Christians read, seems to be different from that of the Old Testament.

Okay, before we continue you must understand that although Christianity apparently respects the so-called 'Old Testament', Judaism (and by extension myself) see the so-called 'new Testament' as a collection of documents written by men driven by religious polemics. It is at best an attempt to provide a basis for a religion based not upon divinely revealed truths, but a religion of accommodation which on one hand borrowed truths from other religions (like Judaism) but attempted to mold and present these truths in a fashion most likely to attract believers of other believers of other religions. I think you call this proselytizing. In short I will respond to questions directed toward so-called 'Old Testament' issues only, we call this the Tanach (first letters of Torah, Navim & Ketuvim) but have absolutely nothing to say about the other text.

Anyway, there are many instances where the Lord seems harsh and even subject to human emotions like a quick anger (against the Israelites when they were tired of manna, for instance). Some of His actions seem extreme in the light of... something. The love taught in the New Testament or humanism, maybe, I don't know.

One of our sages summarized his understanding of scripture by saying: "Torah speaks in the language of men!" What he appears to be saying is that in order for men to understand G-d's message, that message had to be communicated in terms and in a fashion that men could understand. Let me go further. The Rambam explained that Moshe Rabbenu merited a level of prophecy similar to the level of a man speaking face-to-face with his neighbour. Later prophets merited a more distant prophetic experience, akin more to visions requiring interpretation and finally toward the end of the prophetic period (scripture), the level of prophetic inspiration was described as "ruach hakodesh" - the breeze of holiness.

In a sense you might described this evolution of prophetic experience as a form of education. The initial reality of taking a people out of bondage and molding them into a nation capable of receiving G-d's instructions for living required an over whelming face-to-face experience - like that experienced by the Jewish People at Mount Sinai. As the message gradually absorbed, over generations, the reminders and amplifications provided were more subtle, less over powering. HaShem doesn't want man to do the right thing because he is afraid of not doing it, but because he desires to do the right thing. Man's role in the world requires that he exercise his free will. Again, I am not relating to how so call Christian scriptures supposedly portray G-d, but definitely in Tanach there is a gradual transformation of how HaShem's message is delivered and perceived, all reinforcing the idea that man's great gift is his ability to choose.

More over, the prophets included in 'scripture' are only those our sages understood were necessary for future generations. There were many many more prophets than those included in the 24 books of the Tanach. And those prophets prophesied many more times than the few prophecies recorded and transmitted in our tradition.

The law contains extreme consequences for behaviors, like stoning a rebellious son. Today, this wouldn't even be heard of.

Jewish sages had a difficult time with this one. The consensus opinion is that some laws, such as this one, were not given in order that they might be enforced, but more that the learning and debate surrounding the law might have an educational effect on the people. If you were looking for what would be today considered an "unjust" law, you could have chosen the law of Mamzarut. A child conceived by a married woman from a man not her husband is considered a mamzer (I'm not certain that this is the equivalent of a bastard). Such a child cannot marry a Jew.

Why does Torah punish the child? It was the parents who sinned! Yet the Torah in the case of mamzer, in the same way as the rebellious son, sees not the direct cause and effect of the actions as the determinant but looks beyond the current situation to the far reaching effects of these actions in subsequent decades and generations. I call these kind of laws "drawing the line". If you do not "draw the line" here, the very essence of the purity and holiness of the union between and man and a woman become debased. HaShem made the value judgment that if there is a man and a woman so lust full and egocentric as to ignore the possible consequences of their actions to their own offspring, these must be an end to this before it corrupts the rest of the Jewish People.

If you'd like to question HaShem's perspective, He has already answered you in Isaiah 55:8 : "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says HaShem"

Another time ... the man (don't remember his name) were killed immediately because he steadied the Ark of the Covenant?

What I found interesting in this comment was that you ignored the next verse. It says that David was distressed that HaShem had "lashed out" at Uzza and called the location of that incident "Peretz Uzza" from that day forward. In David's understanding of the incident, HaShem's "lashing out" was apparently not justified. It disturbed or distressed him. Yet there can be no question that an all-knowing deity must have known something David didn't know. This is an important point. Our relationship with HaShem is relative. How we perceive HaShem's actions is a function of who we are and what we understand and believe. There is no indication that David stopped believing in HaShem after the incident with Uzza, yet it is very clearly expressed in scripture that he was "disturbed" (or "distressed") by the event. These things are not contradictory. Torah deals with real life and real living people. People are complex and often times contradictory.

As I thought about these things, I remembered David, who, while he was apparently chastised for his affair with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, yet lived a long life as King of Israel - no bolts of lightening for him. Other times that don't add up: Abraham lying about Sarah being his wife, yet the sin was with the man who wanted her unknowing of the lie, not with Abraham.

Our sages say that the entire story of David & Batsheva was written as a lesson we can all learn - the repentance of an individual over mistakes can be accepted if they are truly contrite. Yet at the same time you must see Torah as dealing with the real world! A world where sometimes the righteous are persecuted and the evil have the upper hand. Avraham by-the-way didn't completely lie about Sarah being his sister. We learn from him when he explained to the King of Gerrar (Genesis 20:12) that Sarah was his half-sister, but in the verse before he explains why the deception was necessary: "Because there was no fear of G-d in this place". Finally I suggest that sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of others, not only from their successes?

Part of my question is this: How much of the scriptures can we take literally, and how much of them are told for the sake of the lesson? I have read that the story of Jonah and the great fish was just a story.

I don't know about being swallowed by a whale (or whatever it was), but it is my firm belief that truth is true. Scripture cannot teach you a truth using a falsehood as the vehicle. If Joshua actually led the People of Israel into the Land of Israel, then Jericho actually exists and the city was destroyed. Having said that, you must understand that scripture (read Tanach) is neither a history book nor some sort of physics primer. The narrative has one objective, to teach us how to live our lives. The stories, incidents and teachings that support and assist in achieving that objective are the one's included in the text. The endless minutiae of life are ignored. A classic point in case is the trip Elezar, Avraham's servant took from Canaan to Aram Haharaim. It was easily a six week trip by camel, yet the Biblical Narrative compresses these six weeks or arduous travel through probably dangerous territory into one short phrase (Genesis 24:10). Another aspect of this same story is that the narrative totally ignores all the people that probably assisted Elezar in his journey with ten camels laden with the precious gifts his master sent with him. As my teacher once said, if they didn't have legs ( see Genesis 24:32) we wouldn't know they existed.

Having made my point, don't confuse the vehicle for the message. Some of our understandings of what is spoken of are based upon very terse and obscure terms. Whether we truly understand them correctly or not is often secondary importance, rather is moral or ethical lesson they communicate is none-the-less understood.

Do you see my confusion? If you could shed some light on it and help me understand the nature of this Creator, I would be so very much grateful.

Yes I see your confusion. Do you understand my response? You ask about understanding the nature of the 'creator' and I spend my entire essay trying to help you understand the nature of man. HaShem is unknowable, except in a kind of after-the-fact kind of way. HaShem's message is "dressed" in clothing that make it possible for flesh and blood creators to grasp, relate to and identify with. If sometimes that "clothing" comes across in your appreciation as crude or even brutish, that has far more to do with the nature of the people the message was directed at than the source of the message itself.

There is so much more I could add, but unfortunately time is not something I have a lot of. If you'd like to respond to this, ask for greater clarification or bring up another point please feel free to do so. I'll try to find the time to write you a reply.

In Friendship,
Yoel Ben-Avraham
Shilo, Benyamin

After the publication of the above another Christian correspondent of mine, a student of theology from Canada jumped into the fray to share his insights into the above discussion. You can find Jeremiah's response in its entirety on his blog The Evolution of Jeremiah.

Artificial Intelligence and Love

For the longest time I’ve had a collection of thoughts associated with Spielberg’s movie A.I. rolling around in the back of my mind. I thought I’d take a moment to try and sort them out in print and see if they make sense.

There are certain producers, like Spielberg, for whom motion picture creation is not just a way of making a living, earning a fortune or acquiring fame. It is my personal belief that they use their movies to explore some basic human issue, framing it in the Wild West, the distance future or occasionally in the contemporary present. When I view a movie like A.I. I ask myself: What was the producer trying to accomplish beyond the obvious entertainment goals.

In my humble opinion, in the movie A.I. Spielberg wanted to explore one of life’s most fundamental mysteries – the meaning of love? The situation where a bereaved mother finds solace in loving an artificial (robotic) but life-like child and remarkably an artificial child is somehow “programmed” to love his adopting parent, sets the scene for a multifaceted investigation into the essence of love.

Very early in the movie it is made clear that by “love” the protagonists did not mean the imitation of love but the inner feelings of attachment.
In addition to the experience of learning to love her adopted robotic child, the mother faces a dilemma when her previously catatonic son is revived and returned healed to his family. The natural child’s return sparks a struggle, the ultimate question of sibling rivalry, of two children competing for a parent’s love. Inherent in this struggle is the sense that the ‘competitor’ can possibly replace you. Of course in the movie A.I. that is what the robotic child did in essence. He replaced the natural child while he lay catatonic in some form of cybernetic suspension.

As in any fable, the “test” is where the true nature of the protagonists is discovered. In Spielberg’s movie the first ‘test’ is the mother’s decision to return her robotic child back to the factory when the sibling rivalry between him and her natural son spirals out of control. Unable to face the irrevocable destruction of the ‘child’, she instead releases him out in the wilds.

For me the question of what this woman feels for a robotic child brings into question the love of a mother for any child. Perhaps it can be said that more than the child yearns for his mother’s love, a mother has a need to love her child. In the movie, the mother, even when faced with the obvious artificialness of her ‘adopted child’ still feels a need to-be-there for him, and comfort him. In Jewish thought there is a concept that “the hearts follow the actions”. Perhaps in this case, the “love” of the mother for her “adopted child” could be explained, as the emotions fostered through the actions of “mothering”, coupled with her own innate need to have a child to love. In a similar fashion I keep thinking of Stephen Covey’s statement that the word “love” is a verb! Love is a process, an action not a state of mind, or at least a state of mind created as a result of the actions of loving another.

What truly captured my fascination was the artificial child’s struggle to cope with his beloved mother’s rejection, and his search to rectify the imperfection that keeps them apart. Spielberg shamelessly rewrites a Pinocchio of the 22nd century.

The critical aspect of the child’s sense of feeling loved was connected to his perception of himself as special or unique. When he comes face-to-face with other copies of his model in the robot factory, his sense of self is obviously threatened and the premise that he is loved because he is ‘himself’ and cannot be replaced is clearly challenged.

Another aspect of the child’s love of his mother (note the father is not an object of affection for the robotic child) is that it is transcendent. True, every child has a deep inherent need to feel loved, and perhaps also need to love in return. None-the-less there was something almost magical (something that transcends reason and experience) in the attachment the robotic child felt for his lost parent. This attachment, due to the nature of robots, also transcended the lifetime of his mother and probably all and any descendents she might have had.

What do we mean when we say we love someone? What does it mean to feel loved by someone? In some small way I felt that A.I. hinted at possible answers.
When we love someone, we revere the characteristics about him or her that make them who they are! We love those aspects of their personality that make them special. When we feel loved by another, that feeling is generally accompanied by a sense of feeling special. Our loved ones make us feel appreciated for who we are and in that sense, irreplaceable.

On a personal level I must admit that I connected to the story on a more visceral level. My entire childhood I sought a father’s love from a man who was incapable of expressing the love he obviously felt for his only male child. My entire childhood, and into much of my adulthood, I kept looking for the imperfection I needed to correct in myself in order to earn the open expression of that man’s appreciation and affection. In the end, it was only long after his death that I eventually arrived at an appreciation of the deep love he always felt, and expressed in his own unpretentious manner. In that sense, perhaps love really does transcend the material vehicles of its expression.

The Danger of Reform Conversions

Dearest Chaviva,

I normally shun these public Internet discussions as more often than not someone ends up being offend or hurt by the opinions expressed, to witness your comment:

“To say, in sum, that I am part of a religion that is in no way Judaism.
That I am living in a religion that is, in essence, one big fat sin.”

Out of respect for your willingness to exchange understandings I ‘ll respond to your request for clarification. I prefer to approach the issue indirectly, and not on a personal level. Your personal choices in life are just that. I respect them even if I might personally think you are making a mistake. The real issue is not on the personal level, but the Klal Israel (Collective of the Jewish People) level.

If conversions that do not adhere to the standards and criteria that have been the norm for the Jewish People these past two millennium were to be recognized by the State of Israel, the very fabric of our society here in Israel would disintegrate.

Think about it Chaviva. Up until today the “status quo” in effect in Israel is that we all agree to respect the individual’s choice in their private lives, but in the public life we seek the highest common denominator that will permit everyone to be full members of the Jewish collective. That means all Jews can intermarry. That means that all Jews can serve together side-by-side in the Israeli Defense Forces, eat the same food, observe the same basic standards of public observance, Shabbat, Pesach etc. More importantly tens of thousands of idealistic men are willing to place their lives on the line day-after-day to protect their fellow Jews who are threatened only because they want to live Jewish lives in the Land of Israel.

Introducing America’s pluralistic recognition of everybody’s interpretation of what it means to be a Jew would fragment Israeli society. It would create a situation where Reform Judaism and Torah Observant Judaism would be as valid a ‘definition’ of Judaism as those perversions of Judaism like the ‘Messianic Jews’ or ‘Jewish Jehovah Witnesses’. You have to understand that my children could not marry your children. More over I foresee a day where many idealistic Jews will think twice before they are willing to place their lives on the line to defend the ‘civil rights’ of non-Jews who stand for values and norms antithetical to everything that traditional Judaism stands for. Why bother. These same ‘civil rights’ can be enjoyed elsewhere in the world without having to place your life and the lives of your sons at risk.

As for the remark you made:

“To say, in sum, that I am part of a religion that is in no way Judaism.
That I am living in a religion that is, in essence, one big fat sin.”

If anything, you should direct your anger to those people who convinced you that by ‘converting’ according to their conventions and standards you would become a ‘Jew’ instead of a member of a breakaway schismatic sect that calls itself Judaism. Believe me, I truly identify with your feelings for I too was there once. I originally converted according to the Reform movement and only gradually over years, and much book learning, came to realize that it did not reflect in anyway, except empty form, the concept of Judaism as embodied in two millennium of recorded Jewish learning.

If Judaism originates from some form of divine revelation, then it is a package deal. Succoth with its quaint booths and four-kinds is as integral a part as the prohibition against marrying a mamzar, the fruit of an adulterous union, even though the child did not sin. It isn’t some sort of ala Carte menu of what feels good and makes sense but what doesn’t feel good or is incomprehensible is rejected. Does a cancer patient truly understand the intricacies of treatments developed by hundreds of doctors and scientists over decades of research? Of course not, but at some point he makes a decision to undergo the treatment based upon a faith that they collectively know what they are doing.

Can’t you see the arrogance of deciding whether to lay tefillin each morning or avoid eating milk after meat. Yet the intricacies involved in defining these ‘practices’ if divinely inspired, are far beyond the ability of the human intellect to understand.

Chaviva, please accept my sincerest wishes that you find what you are looking for. It was my never my intention to offend or hurt anyone individually although there was no doubt that my opinion of Reform Judaism would never be desirable to those who travel that path. That is why I tried to help you rise above the individual and see what this direction means to the future of the Jewish People as a collective.

If you (or others) would like to continue this discussion, please direct your comments to Yoel@Ben-Avraha.info This will be my last public post here, and probably anywhere on this issue. It simply does not seem to be a productive exchange. One should be able to express oneself openly without being perceived as 'attacking' others. You should be able to 'attack' ideas without being misrepresented as attacking the individuals who currently espouse those ideas.

Wishing all of you a Chanukah full of Light, the true light of Torah.

Yoel Ben-Avraham
Shilo, Benyamin, Israel

Unacceptable Conversions

There is an ongoing debate in Israel over the various programs to convert the tens of thousands of non-Jews who moved to Israel over the past decade. The following are some of my thoughts on the issue:

Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate of Kedushim
Chapter 4, Halacha 1

He who converts for love, whether it be a man for a woman or a woman for a man; also converts of the kings table(1) and converts of the lions(2); also the converts of Mordechai and Esther(3): we do not accept them [any of the above]. Rav says, "they are converts and we do not reject them like we reject non-Jews who ask to convert(4), instead we accept them and they need a welcoming face [cause] maybe they converted for the right reasons".

1. This appears to be the kind of utilitarian conversion we see today on the basketball or soccer court.
2. Traditionally these were the non-Jews settled in the Land of Israel in place of the ten tribes. The tradition says that due to fear of the lions of the land these peoples adopted Jewish custom and practice.
3. When the Jews of Persia destroyed their enemies and gained ascendance in the royal court, many people wanted to join "the winners".
4. When a non-Jew approaches a Rabbinic Court and asks to be accepted as a convert, the court does everything to convince the candidate that it really is not advantageous to convert. Traditionally twice the candidate is turned away empty handed, and only if they persist and return a third time are their motives and understandings evaluated and the merits of their request judged.

The problem of accepting converts is whether they want to convert for "the sake of heaven" or for some utilitarian purposes. Chazal seem to be aware that at different times, for different reasons, people could see the adoptation of a "Jewish" lifestyle as an improvement over their original circumstances, either as individuals or as collectives - and not because they see "entering the convenant" as a way of "cleaving to HaShem".

In my mind the issue is similar to the questions of "love". Chazal are willing to accept a convert who is motivated by "love of HaShem". HaShem is something constant, immutable. The love of woman (or man) is not.

Mishna, Order of Nezekim
Tractate of Avot, Chapter 5, Mishna 15

Every love which is dependent upon something, [if] that something ceases to be, the loves ceases to be. Which is a love which is dependent upon something - for instances the love of Amnon and Tamar. [A love] which is independent of something, for instance the love of David and Yohonatan.

A love which is conditional upon some outside or material circumstance is a love which, as demonstrated in Amnon's instance (Shmuel II, Chapter 13), can turn to hate when the circumstances change.

On one hand, how can we accept candidates for conversion who obviously have "ulterior motives" for wanting to convert? But on the other, how can men decide what are the motivations of another man?

Deeds Speak!

In this sense it looks like Rav's very liberal approach accepts the fact that someone who has already undergone a "conversion" process is different than someone who has yet to publicly accepted upon themselves to live as a Jew. Once they have made a commitment we should look upon them as sincere and worthy converts [regardless of why they converted], providing them the acceptance, warmth and support they need to complete the transition of "becoming Jews".

I question whether those non-Jews who have moved to Israel and have made the commitment to live with this People Israel in the Land of Israel aren't any different than the "converts" Rav suggests we accept. Some where in my heart and mind, the decision to serve in the Israeli army, to place their lives on-the-line to protect the People of Israel who live in the Land of Israel, is as firm a commitment to Judaism, if not more, than the full-time scholar "cleaving to HaShem" through his learning of Torah. The former is expressing his decision in a "misirat nefesh" (willingness to self-sacrifice) that places their entire material existence at stake. What greater proof of dedication could be asked of a potential convert?

As a result I think the young men who participate in the conversion process during or after their military service should be viewed as worthy candidates for whom their decision to convert has been "proven" by their willingness to serve.