Conference taveng::bagels

    There are a few ways to approach this; I'm not sure what you are
    looking for.  For instance, if you you are interested in the textual
    representation of the divine in the Tanakh (Torah->Teaching, Neviim->
    Prophets, Ketuvim->Writings), you might find it worthwhile to read
    Richard Elliott Friedman's _Who Wrote the Bible?_, which is a good
    popular summary of Biblical document analysis over the last few hundred
    years.  In essence, there are a number of different stories about God
    that come from different sources; to understand them you have to
    analyze the source.
    
    If you are interested in how Jews have interpreted the representation
    of God in the Bible, then you need to read some other materials as
    well.  I'd suggest starting with the first paragraph of the Amidah in
    the Siddur.  It starts with reference to the God of Abraham, the God of
    Isaac, and the God of Jacob (*), which comes directly from Exodus 3:15.
    The rabbis of a later age asked why this passage was stated this way,
    since it could be interpreted as referring to three different gods. 
    The answer was that we each have a different understanding of God (and
    that understanding may change over time).  Each generation has to find
    its own definition and relation with the divine.
    
    Does this help?
    
    Aaron
    
    (* Many congregations, mine included, now add the Matriarchs, Sarah,
    Rebecca, Leah and Rachel as well)
    

    I am moved by the way my siddur's amidah refers to the God of the
    Matriarchs, and then ends that prayer with the protector of Sarah.  I
    find it moving.  The ending reference to the protector of Abraham I
    always took as generic for humanity, both male and female.  But the
    reference to Sarah makes it very personal and immediate to me as a
    woman.  I find myself praying, "Protect me from rape, abduction and
    harassment."   It makes a space in Judaism for the particular fears in
    life that go with being a female.
    
    btw, I'd appreciate an explication of the Hebrew words used.  Sorry, I
    don't have a siddur with me and can't supply these Hebrew words.  
    
    Laura

Shalom Daniel,

I'd like to share my opinion on your questions for whatever this is worth.

As to whether G-d is arbitrary - I'd have to say no because He not only 
chastens Pharaoh but His own segulot as well (not that non-Jews aren't 
precious to G-d also, since G-d *is* the Creator of the Universe, but you know 
what I'm saying I think...).  Notice that Moses, the prophet G-d used when 
He brought His people out of Egypt with an outstretched arm, was himself 
not allowed to enter the Promised Land after travelling through the 
wilderness.  Pharaoh was chastised and Moses was chastised.  No unfair 
treatment on His part.

If G-d were arbitray, I would suggest that Moses, who by human standards 
certainly had an "in" with G-d that Pharaoh didn't, would have continued to 
lead the children of Israel straight into the Promised Land.  As it was, 
G-d chose to use Joshua for that purpose.

As to whether G-d is cruel - I'd also have to say no because in spite of 
Pharaoh's lack of seeking G-d's favor and mercy, G-d didn't choose to 
simply "wipe him out of existence" on the spot.

It seems to me that it's very important to recognize that only G-d knows 
each person's heart and that G-d must deal with each of us as individuals 
(He created us as individuals) right where we are.

Look ahead to Genesis 20 where almost the *exact* same thing happens as did
with Pharaoh - only this time, with Avimelech.  G-d comes to Avimelech in a
dream essentially saying - what you've done deserves death!  And Avimelech
replies (perhaps knowing G-d is absolutely right, but also trusting G-d to
not to be cruel!) by saying that whatever he did (or didn't do, to be
accurate) he did with a clean heart and clean hands.  To which G-d replies,
"I know - that's why I didn't let you sin against me.  But now, return his
wife to him - he's a prophet.  He'll pray for you and you will live.  But
if you *don't* return her to him, you will surely die." 

Here G-d is shown to *keep* Avimelech from stumbling!  Is that cruel?

Now - why Avimelech and not Pharaoh?  Could G-d actually be arbitrary?

Or is it possible that G-d knows that Pharaoh, who considers himself to be
"a god", will neither humble himself before G-d, seek, nor be swayed by
G-d's offer of mercy, whereas Avimelech recognizes that though he indeed
deserves death, he can reason together with the L-rd, seek, and then
receive G-d's mercy (see Jeremiah 3)? 

Consider also Genesis chapter 15, where G-d is making his covenant with 
Abram.  Here, He not only credits Abram with being righteous (a tzadik) in 
His eyes because of Abram's faith, but also seals the promise Himself, not 
allowing Abram to walk through the pieces of the sacrifice (indicating that 
the covenent rests with the One who makes it, not on Abram's efforts!).  
Now notice that He tells Abram something very fascinating - He tells him 
how his descendants will spend 400 years in a country not their 
own...because the sin of the Amorites isn't yet full.

In other words - He is essentially telling Abram (soon to be Abraham) that 
He is giving the Amorites another 400 years to repent!  Is that the action 
of a cruel G-d or a patient and merciful G-d?

Were G-d arbitrary, I would expect Pharaoh's sin to be punished immediately 
by death and Moses' anger to be overlooked (for starters).  I would expect 
that the sin of the Amorites (or of Pharaoh, or of you and me for that 
matter) wouldn't even be a concern for G-d were He arbitrary.  But instead, 
we see a G-d who cares for and is involved in His creation, and He is just 
and righteous in all His judgements (will not the G-d of heaven do right?).

Were G-d cruel, I would expect G-d would NOT have given the Amorites ANY 
more time to repent!  400 years?  We humans have a hard time giving one 
another 4 minutes to recognize a wrong and seek restitution....but 400 
years?  ;-)  Were G-d cruel, Avimelech would have had no chance to reason 
with G-d about his circumstances.

I am convinced, Daniel, that G-d is neither arbitrary nor cruel.  The 
Tanakh is *full* of evidence to the contrary!  The Tanakh speaks of G-d as 
being slow to anger and abounding in mercy!  The Tanakh speaks of G-d as 
desiring mankind to *reason* together with Him, knowing that He will *not* 
be angry forever; should we only admit our guilt - He promises that though 
our sins be as scarlet, He will make them white as snow!  The Tanakh speaks 
of G-d as one who brings down the haughty and the oppressors, but raises up 
the widows and the poor!!  The Tanakh speaks of a G-d who is our Shepherd, 
loving us, feeding us, caring for us, protecting us, leaving us wanting for 
nothing, giving us shalom!  The Tanakh speaks of Adonai as our light and 
our salvation!

Of G-d, may we say as David did:

	"You (Adonai) are my Hiding Place.  You protect me from
	trouble and surround me with songs of Salvation!  The L-rd's
	*unfailing* love surrounds the one who puts his trust in Him."

	(quotes from Psalm 32)

Hope this helps.

Shalom,


Steve

I think a part of the explaination is that that is the way life is. Life can
be cruel and arbitrary. Some nice people get cancer and die at a young age.
Some bad people seem to go on forever. The poor choices a person makes (child
abuse for instance) can affect his/her family down to the fourth generation.
I'm not saying that G-d is just a metaphor for life or nature. I am saying
that this metaphor is one component of G-d's attributes and the depiction
in the Torah is very realistic.

The strange business of a man claiming to be his wife's brother occurs 3
times; Abraham does it with Pharaoh and with Abimelech, and Isaac does it
with Abimelech. I've been told that this scene is a literary device called a
"type scene". The story is supposed to be familiar to us and the ending in
the Torah has a twist that makes a point by contrast with the expected ending.
However, the original story is lost so we don't understand these passages fully.

I have never been happy with Pharaoh's hardened heart. I think the point
being made was that it was nothing less than a miracle that the Jews were
permitted to leave Egypt. Acting on his own free will, Pharaoh would never
let his slaves go anyway. All G-d did was give Pharaoh a little "support".

I'm not certain about the Moabite - are you referring to Balaam and his
talking ass? I think we don't understand this passage because we are not
familiar with Oriental manners. At first Balaam says he can only speak as
G-d tells him. The king offers more and more inducements to come and curse
the Jews. Finally, Balaam gets on his ass without repeating the statement
that he cannot curse the Jews unless G-d permits it. There is something
happening here that we don't fully understand, but I suspect Oriental
customs would not permit Balaam to go along silently like that unless
he intended to do what the king wished. In the end, Balaam cannot curse
the Jews but blesses instead. There is another aspect of this story:
consider that Balaam, a non_jew, speaks with G-d and all that that implies.

Contrary to the impression given in Hebrew school, the Torah isn't at all just
a collection of stories for children.

Dave

    .3 .4
    
    Hi Steve, Hi Dave,
    
    Some interesting points..actually I wouldn't deny that the God I was
    taught about in Hebrew School is "just and merciful."  That God is,
    however, based upon our more *modern* rabbinic understandings and
    concepts of God.
    
    I cannot, however, reconcile that vision of divinity with the Yahweh I
    read about in Torah.  From my own perspective, it provides a rather
    interesting evolution is Jewish thinking between the time the Biblical
    texts were edited and their interpretation in Talmud.
    
    Laura,
    
    Do you remember what edition/publishing house made your Siddur? I'd
    love to see a copy.
    
    Daniel

    Dipping into the Christian perspective notes file now and then, I
    notice that some of them really believe in the devil based on highly
    simplistic, dualistic thinking.  To me such thinking is as ridiculous
    as believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.  I've had the
    discretion not to criticize folks' beliefs in that notes file.  Several
    other writers have done so on this topic.
    
    I don't think most Jews believe in the devil.  There is a Satan in the
    Torah, but he is like the angels, not a figure in daily life, more a
    literary character.
    
    I've never tried to persuade a Christian that the devil doesn't exist. 
    I'm sorely tempted with some wacko friends-of-friends.  If you were to
    make a theological argument against the devil, how would you do so?
    
    Is G-d all good?  If so, then where does evil come from?
    
    Laura

Re: Pharaoh's hardened heart.  It would have been too easy if the Jews
had been allowed to leave the first time Moses asked.  For their own
sake, G-d made them wait, perhaps until She felt they had learned from
the experience and had earned the right to leave.

Andy

    re: 1324.3,.4,.5

    Well, of course, these are all correct.  We are talking about a
    collection that was put together over at least half a millenium and
    possibly more.  The earliest strata of the Bible is in passages such as
    the Shirat Ha-Yam (Song of the Sea) that we read on the seventh day of
    Passover--beautiful poetry but, by modern standards a somewhat
    primitive depiction of God.  Although dating it exactly is difficult,
    it probably predates the monarchy (i.e. older than 1000 BCE).  Daniel,
    on the other hand, is widely accepted as the most recent, possibly
    written early in the Hasmonean revolt/civil war (~150-200 BCE).  It
    would be surprising if one did not find evidence of widely varying
    concepts of God in such a collection.

    Aaron

>   I'm sorely tempted with some wacko friends-of-friends.  If you were to
>   make a theological argument against the devil, how would you do so?

I recall that Jem, in this file way back somewhere, entered the idea
that a religion which holds that the devil is independant of G-d's will
is not monotheistic. I agree.

>   Is G-d all good?  If so, then where does evil come from?

The standard answer is that evil is the absence of G-d. 

Dave

re .9 and others

Does Judaism teach that the angels are spiritual beings created by God?

Isn't there a Jewish prayer that goes something like "Michael go before
me, Gabriel go beside me, and the Shekinah of God encompass me"?

Does Judaism teach free will, and do angels have free will?

It's my understanding that post-biblical Judaism teaches (cf Rabbi Akiva),
just as Christianity does, that "the devil" is an angel who has chosen by
his own free will to rebel against God and to tempt men to also reject God.

/john

    That would ne news to me.  My understanding is that the Talmud refers
    to "Satan" sometimes as the Angel of Death and other times as an
    attribute of the Evil Yeyzer, which is not specifically a personality.
    
    My studies indicate that Talmudic Judasim has a rather vague angeology
    and no singular concept of a devil figure.
    
    The prayer you quote may be of popular origin (Eastern European shtetl
    communities tended to have more belief in angels and demons than
    rabbinic interpretation -- that's from popular literature of those
    communities and superstitions).
    
    Daniel

>Does Judaism teach free will, and do angels have free will?
    
    Judaism teaches that man has free will. This is what makes man 
    different to Angels and enables him to reach a higher level. 
    
    I'm sure there is a midrash that says the Angels were not allowed 
    to rejoice at the parting of the Red Sea as the Egyptians were killed.
    This was connected to them NOT having a free will.
    
    Malcolm 

    RE:  .10
    
    My rabbi taught that Satan is an angel in the court of G-d.  That Satan
    acts as a sort of celestial prosecutor by G-d's appointment.  Hence the
    expression, "devil's advocate".  
    
    I have never heard a Jew refer to the devil tempting people.  My
    understanding is that this is a purely Christian concept.   Some Jews
    in Eastern Europe picked up Christian folk beliefs from their
    neighbors, but these beliefs are no longer prevalant.
    
    What bothers me about such harping on the devil and temptation, is that
    I feel people who indulge in such repetitive talk are actually focusing
    their mental energies on "sin" (as the Christians understand it) rather
    than on the more positive aspects of life.  I believe this creates an
    inner tension and increases guilt.  It becomes a circular process. 
    
    A further discomfort is the historical remembrance of Christians
    accusing Jews of being in league with the devil.  I heard a child
    repeat something another child told him on the school bus, "The Jews
    are bad because they do not believe in Christ."  This actually happened
    two years ago in New Hampshire.  The 6 year old boy who repeated this
    to me didn't even connect these terrible Jews with me, an old friend
    and a Jew.  When I told the child's mother, a friend of mine, she never
    addressed the problem, which has alienated me from her quite a bit.
    
    As for my rabbi's teaching, its purpose was not the conventional
    Christian purpose, fear of Hell, but rather to illustrate a point about
    some dynamics within our community.  His purpose was not to make us
    fear, or even believe, in Satan.  We understand Satan (and the angels) 
    a sort of literary figure.
    
    Laura 

> Does Judaism teach that the angels are spiritual beings created by God?

Yes.

> Isn't there a Jewish prayer that goes something like "Michael go before
> me, Gabriel go beside me, and the Shekinah of God encompass me"?

From the Krias Shema al haMita (Bedtime Shema):

In the name of Hashem, G-d of Israel: may Michael be at my right, Gabriel
at my left, Uriel before me, and Raphael behind me; and above my head the
Presence of G-d.

> Does Judaism teach free will, and do angels have free will?

Yes, and (usually) no.  Angels are generally considered not to have free
will, but they're sometimes depicted as disagreeing with G-d.

>> Does Judaism teach free will, and do angels have free will?
>
>Yes, and (usually) no.  Angels are generally considered not to have free
>will, but they're sometimes depicted as disagreeing with G-d.

Christianity thinks this Dark Power was created by God, was good when he
was created, but disagreed with God and, because of pride, went wrong.
Christianity thinks that there is a rebellion led by this fallen angel, and
that we are in enemy-occupied territory.  "When you go to church [or shul]
you are really listening in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is
why the enemy is anxious to prevent us from going.  He does it by playing
on our laziness and conceit and intellectual snobbery."  -- C.S. Lewis

Laura, although the concept of the angels in the TaNaKh is not the same as
the concept that developed later in both Judaism (Rabbi Akiva claims to have
been tempted by one) and Christianity, I don't know whether Judaism would
actually say they are merely a literary device.  That certainly doesn't seem
to be what Gerald is saying, and I don't think the Bedtime Shema makes them
out to be a literary device.  To me, "a literary device" sounds like the
slippery slope of what C.S. Lewis calls intellectual snobbery and which leads
to the ultimate rejection of too much of the Torah and even of God as also
being just a literary device.

But that's probably enough on this rathole; my main purpose was to answer
Laura's statement that the Christian concept of the devil was dualism: it's
not, because, unlike dualism, there are not two uncreated forces in combat;
instead, part of God's creation is in open disagreement with Him.

/john

    I think you need to make distinctions between Eastern European folklore
    and Talmud.  The entire concept of "Satan" is just not well defined in
    the talmudic tradition.  Evil Yezer can exist everywhere, is not
    identified with a single personality and is often protrayed as an
    essential element in the universe -- not as an angel who rebelled. 
    Evil Yezer as the Angel of Death is even portrayed as God's tool.
    
    Daniel

re:.13
I have heard a different explanation of the term "devil's advocate".
I think it comes from Catholic practice.  In the process of canonizing
someone as a saint, they investigate the claims of miracles and hold
sort of a judicial proceeding.  Somebody has to try to refute the
claims, and that person is the Devil's Advocate.

Sort of reminds me of my title, Resident Curmudgeon.

re .16:

If by "Evil Yezer" you mean "yetzer hara," I think you misunderstand the
concept.  The "yetzer hara" (evil influence) is the part of the human psyche
that causes us to do bad things.  Although it's sometimes anthropomorphized,
it's definitely not considered an entity that's outside us.

    Gerald, I know it isn't anthropomorphized.  I was saying that Talmudic
    literature has linked its few references to "satan" to "evil yezer" at
    some instances, to the angel of death at others.
    
    The point was to note that rabbinic Judaism just doesn't have as
    complex an angeology or as developed a concept of a "devil" figure as
    Christianity.  The opposing camps of God and Lucifer are not a Talmudic
    concept (to the best of my studies)
    
    Daniel

Re:  .12

  >Judaism teaches that man has free will. This is what makes man 
  >different to Angels and enables him to reach a higher level. 
    
I was surprised to read this is I'm familiar with only one reference
to the "ranking" of humans and angels - which puts angels over
humans:

  "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that
  you care for him?
  You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [angels]
  and crowned him with glory and honor"  Psalm 8:4-5

Collis

    I remember a Yom Kippur sermon by my shul's rabbi --
    
    He said Yom Kippur was the one day a year we have to immitate the
    angles:  angles don't eat, don't sleep, don't worry about their
    personal appearance, don't have sex, etc....they just flit around all
    day declaring how wonderful God is...
    
    The human condition is a *wee* bit more complicated than that.
    
    Professor Rabbi Arthur Hertzburg PhD summed it up quite nicely for me
    in class one day:
    
    "If God had wanted to make us angels, he should have."
    
    Meaning, we aren't perfect.  No kidding.  We aren't expected to be
    perfect, just to try our darnest to be mensh's.
    
    Daniel

    
> >Judaism teaches that man has free will. This is what makes man 
> >different to Angels and enables him to reach a higher level. 
>    
>I was surprised to read this is I'm familiar with only one reference
>to the "ranking" of humans and angels - which puts angels over
>humans:

    I spoke to a friend and a Lubavitch Rabbi who visited Reading (England)
    last weekend about angels. The Lubavitch Rabbi said that Rambam speaks
    about Angels in his Yad Chazakah (Mishne Torah - otherwise known as
    "the Rambam"),  in the very first book.
    
    Some ideas mentioned are that:
    
    - angels are messengers of G-d 
      an example of this are the 3 visitors of Abraham in his tent 
      that were sent by G-d. 
     
    - interestingly, the question is asked why 3 angels were sent to
      Abraham and not one? The answer is that an angel can only perform a
      single task (Mitzvah) at once. Unlike man, angels cannot multitask. 
    
    - Rambam says that angels are closer to G-d ordinarily. But, they can
      only do Mitzvot (commandmants of G-d) and have no evil inclination.
      For this reason when Man does Mitzvot he achieves a higher level than 
      an Angel, as he has a choice of doing Mitzvot, or not. 

    - there are not 'fallen Angels' in Judaism. For example the Angel of
      Death is not doing Evil, but doing G-ds commandment. 

    - Angels do not have free will. So there can be no concept of good and evil
      angels.
    
    - regarding the devil? Well, there is a belief that parallel to G-d 
      an evil force exists. This evil force is not the "horned, fork-tailed 
      creature with red skin, holding a trident" but is the impulse that 
      tries to dissuade Man from performing the mitzvot.  
    
      The Rabbis' example is when a person is given an order.  That is why
      one who is  commanded and does a Mitzvah (metzuveh ve'oseh) receives a
      greater reward than one who isn't commanded (eino metzuveh ve'oseh).

      Judaism doesn't believe in a parallel force.  This evil inclination,
      or "Devil", was *created by G-d* near the beginning of time, in order  
      to give man challenges to overcome.  If there wasn't that evil 
      inclination, there would be no free will, and Man would become on 
      a plane with angels.


    More from my Friend: 
    
    Does Judaism have a concept of Angels as winged type creatures? 

    There is the idea of winged creatures in Judaism.  The Keruvim
    (cherubs) that were placed on top of the Ark had wings that were spread
    out.  The  Keruvim faced each other, and the wing tips touched. 
    However, the Keruvim to my knowledge were not images of angels.

    There is an indication (somewhere) of the appearance of angels.  They
    have only one 'foot', which is why we are supposed to keep our feet
    together  during the Kedushah (which is the angels' prayer), in order
    to emulate the angels.  There are other bits, but I can't remember what
    they are, or where this information originated.

    Malcolm

>   There is an indication (somewhere) of the appearance of angels.  They
>   have only one 'foot', which is why we are supposed to keep our feet
>   together  during the Kedushah (which is the angels' prayer), in order
>   to emulate the angels.  There are other bits, but I can't remember what
>   they are, or where this information originated.

  See Yechezkiel [Ezekiel] chapter 1.

  -- Bill B.