October 01, 2004
Names of God
Languages have words for things that are important to their speakers. I, for one, am always astounded by the numerous words English has for articles of clothing (I also have only vague notions about what differentiates a lot of them from each other – sweater, jumper, pullover, for example, only the first of which is a word I would use). Surely this is a measure of the importance of clothing in our society. In spite of the myth of Eskimo words for snow (debunked here), I think this is generally true. In Hebrew, there are a lot of words for God.
However, there are only a few basic words for God – the others are words or phrases that are used to describe God, like “the Almighty” in English. The most common word for God is Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) which looks like a plural form of Eloha (אֱלֹהַּ) another word for God, but isn’t – it is always used with singular verbs when it refers to God. (Elohim can also mean gods, as in Elohim aherim – other gods, in which case it is used with a plural verb.) These words are clearly both from the root ’-l-h, as is Arabic: Allah. In fact, eloha is a cognate of Arabic: ilah, God. In addition, there is a word from a related root: El (אֵל). There is also the mysterious word: shaday (שַׁדָּי), not often used, and frequently found together with El: El Shaday. And then there is the name of God.
Up till now, we have been talking about words for God, but Hebrew also has a name for God, which is a proper noun. But before I start talking about it, I have to give some background about a related topic. Judaism prohibits erasing, or otherwise destroying the name of God. For that reason, you will not see it written in contexts where it is not meant to be long-lasting, such as newspapers, nor will people write it casually on a piece of paper. Documents which contain the name of God cannot be thrown away, instead, when they must be retired, they are put in a g’niza (root: g-n-z – hidden). A particularly famous g’niza was discovered about 100 years ago in Cairo, which contained an enormous number of important documents written between 1000 and 1250. In addition, there is a prohibition on speaking the name of God, which was consequently forgotten before Hebrew vowels were invented, we can therefore only guess at its pronunciation. As a result, the Hebrew name of God is read as “my Lords” – and this too has been proscribed in usage: it can only be spoken when praying, saying a blessing, or quoting a passage from the Bible in its entirety. Instead, in everyday usage, people usually say: Hashem, which means “the Name”. I presume that this originally referred to the name itself, but it has come to be used as God’s name. English translations of the Bible reflect the Hebrew usage, the name of God is translated as: the Lord, while the words for God are translated as: God.
Now, though closing a window on a computer screen is not considered erasing, it is the custom not to display God’s name online in contexts in which it would not appear if it were a printed document. I will abide by that custom. There are several ways in which people get around the rule: replace one of the letters with a dash, change one of the letters to a different letter, or separate the letters with a dash. I will use the latter strategy, so in reading what follows, ignore any dashes you see.
The name of God is Y-H-V-H (י-ה-ו-ה). This is clearly from the root: h-v-h (also called h-w-h, h-w-y, h-y-y depending on the root-naming scheme that you’re using) which means something like: being. It looks to me like a passive verbal noun, which would mean something like: is being. This relationship is explicitly acknowledged in the Bible (Exodus 3:14) when God tells Moses to call him: Ehye asher Ehye – I am that I am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה).
Now, since pronouncing the tetragrammaton (the four-letter name of God, usually called in Hebrew: shem Hashem) is forbidden, and in any case has been forgotten, we say a-donay instead (אֲ-דֹנָי), which literally means: my lords. Lord in Hebrew is: adon, the plural of which is adonim, and to say: my, in this case you replace the –im with –ay. But remember: use this pronunciation only when praying, blessing, or saying a Biblical passage in its entirety! Otherwise use: Hashem.
When writing a passage that contains the tetragrammaton, in a non-permanent context, the most common transcription is: 'ה. That is the transcription that I usually use.
Hebrew also has numerous words and phrases, which refer to God. I will list some of them off the top of my head:
Adon `Olam – Lord of the Universe
Ribon `Olam – Master of the Universe
Ribono shel `Olam – Master of the Universe
Haqadosh barukh hu – The Holy One blessed be He
Eyn Sof – The Infinite
Hamaqom – The Omnipresent
Avinu shebashamayim – Our father in heaven
Sur `Olamim – Rock of Universes
UPDATE: I forgot two names of God, yah and yahu. For more go here.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48029
Comment:
David, that is so beautiful that I will have to write something about it, in tribute. :)
Posted by: jinnderella at October 2, 2004 04:23 PM Permalink
One should Write "Tsur Olamim", and not "Sur olamin" (I'm Israeli and my mother tongue is hebrew)
Posted by: Roy, Israel at December 17, 2004 04:08 PM Permalink
An American in Jordan
Just discovered a really interesting blog (via Winds of Change). It’s by an American student in Jordan. Excerpt:
Israel is a problem.When I say “problem,” I do not mean that I am opposed to the Israeli state or its people. But you cannot possibly understand the magnitude of Arab hate for Israel unless you are here daily. The hate for Israel muddles every aspect of politics. You can be on the subject of politics in China and somehow, someway Israel is at fault. This is a problem.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48052
October 02, 2004
Names with God
I forgot two important names of God, two posts down: Yah (יָהּ) and Yahu (יָהוּ). These are clearly related to each other, and possibly to the Tetragrammaton. The former is known to English speakers from the word: hallelujah (הַלְלוּיָהּ – hal’luyah). Usually, in Hebrew a final –h indicates a final vowel (usually –a), but in this case it is meant to be pronounced. In fully pointed Hebrew, this is indicated by a dot in the –h, called a mapiq (if you have the font, you should be able to see it in the examples above). Hal’luyah is composed of two Hebrew words: hal’lu, the plural form of halel, which is the command: praise, and yah: “the Lord”. So the whole word means: Praise the Lord!
These two names, along with the word: El, are frequently found as components of names. Since Hebrew doesn’t normally have compound words, there is some dispute about how to translate them. For example, does Nathaniel (N’tan’el) mean God gives, or gift of God? In the following examples I use whatever seems best to me: Daniel (Dani’el: God judges), Rafael (R’fa’el: God heals), Gabriel (Gavri’el: God overcomes), Ariel (Ari’el: Lion of God), Israel (Yisra’el: Strives with God, explained in Genesis 32:29) Isaiah (Y’sha`yahu: God saves – saves as in salvation), Elijah (Eliyahu: Yahu is God), Zechariah (Z’kharyah: God remembers).
You might think that people would have a problem speaking or writing these names, but they don’t. Which reminds me of a joke (remember that people sometimes deliberately distort names and words for God when speaking them, usually by substituting “k” for some other letter):
A young, single man meets a very attractive young woman, and asks her her name. She replies, “Batkah [daughter of God], and what’s your name?” He answers, “Kelikaku.”
UPDATE: Amritas contributes some Chinese names of God. He reminds me of a common attempt at vocalizing the Tetragrammaton: Jehovah. This word has an interesting history: it is based on the vocalization commonly found in Jewish sources. But this vocalization has a different purpose entirely: it is meant only to remind the reader to say A-donay! It does so by pointing the Tetragrammaton with its vowels. Why then, you may ask, is the yud pointed with a shva’? Because, according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, a yud cannot be pointed with a hataf-patah – this vowel occurs only with the letters alef, he, het, and `ayin as a result of the fact that they cannot be followed by the vowel: shva’ na`.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48236
October 03, 2004
Shlomo Bar
There’s a concert going on down the street from me. It’s a time of celebration – Sukot. I walked over with my kids, to tire them out before putting them to sleep, and was just about to leave when to my great surprise and delight, the bandleader invited Shlomo Bar onto the stage.
Shlomo Bar is one of the pioneers of Israeli East-West fusion. It’s really a very interesting fusion of western popular music and Middle Eastern music. The closest thing to it is Greek music, which is also an East-West fusion, but to my ears it sounds very different. Shlomo Bar is a musician’s musician, and a more popular fusion is now the most popular style of music in Israel today.
Here’s his website. Try listening to אהבתה של תרזה די מון (The love of Theresa Dimon), or ריצתו של העולה דנינו (The run of the immigrant Danino), or את אצבעותיך (Your fingers), and see if you can hear the hets and `ayins. (The first words of the last song are: et esb`otekha et yadeykha et paneykha et `eyneykha – your fingers, your hands, your face, your eyes. The word: et is an object marker.)
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48331
Even famous Israeli musicians barely make middle class, so if you like the music, buy the CD, here or here!
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at October 4, 2004 02:17 PM Permalink
October 04, 2004
Presidential Election Markets
I’ve been checking these every day, so I thought I’d post the links:
Between the two, I trust Tradesports more. It’s bigger and more professional.
(Is anybody else annoyed that they don’t mark the 50% level? After all, that’s what counts in the end.)
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48335
October 05, 2004
Neighborhood Sukot
I went for a short walk around the neighborhood, and took some pictures of the sukot I saw.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48570
Culture of Intellectual Poverty
I sometimes use the term: culture of poverty. When I say this, I am not referring to a particular culture, rather to cultural characteristics that tend to lead to poverty. I am of the opinion that this, rather than circumstances of birth, chance, or oppression, is the leading cause of poverty worldwide. For example, if your culture does not value and encourage hard work, planning for the future, or education, you are very likely to be poor, but if your culture values and encourages all three, it considerably less likely.
But there are many kinds of poverty, material poverty being only one of them. Many years ago, being single and spending very little time at home, I decided to rent an apartment in a poor suburb of Tel Aviv. The people who lived there were indeed weak in the values mentioned above. Nevertheless, they led spiritually rich lives – they just had fewer things. The typical home was made of cinderblocks, and had a tin roof. Of course, there was no central heating, and the furniture was ragged and worn. But life was good. People were open and honest, and had friends nearby whom they cared about. Families were tight. While probably over 95% were below the US poverty line, I think they led better lives than the average American. One of the things that confuses Americans about the nature of poverty, is that in the US material and spiritual poverty are almost invariably seen together. Being poor in the US really is horrible, not because of material want, but because being poor means living in a crime-ridden drug-infested neighborhood, and the only way to get out is to have money.
I’ve been thinking lately about intellectuals, wondering how so many smart people can be so wrong. Bunker Mulligan has been thinking about it too. I really do believe that the IQ of the average intellectual is way above average, why then is their WQ (wisdom quotient) usually so much lower than average? It occurs to me that they must be handicapped by a culture of intellectual poverty. What are the characteristics of this culture? Here’s my first attempt:
1. Fear of failure (lack of courage)
2. Belief that life is a zero-sum game (one person’s gain is another’s loss)
3. Belief that they can learn nothing from their “inferiors”
4. Unwillingness to empirically test their hypotheses
5. Unwillingness to intellectually confront their detractors
6. Willingness to lie for a “good reason”
7. Belief that ultimately, life is meaningless
UPDATE: John Ray writes, "I think it's simpler than that: Success leads to arrogance and it takes a strong character to resist that."
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48578
IMHO, that is why the Jews are so envied. They are always spiritually rich.
Posted by: jinnderella at October 5, 2004 08:31 PM Permalink
Oh! I should have said "culturally rich"! Or are they the same thing?
Posted by: jinnderella at October 5, 2004 08:34 PM Permalink
My neighborhood in Beersheva is similar to the one you describe in Tel Aviv. From what I've seen, religion and family seem to be the major factors at work here. Definately the Sephardi brand of Judaism practiced here is the major uniting force in the community, and contributes greatly to the general tranquility.
Posted by: benjamin at October 6, 2004 09:38 AM Permalink
When a simple man has simple ideas, they are usually obviously right or wrong, or it can be easily shown.
Posted by: RonG at October 9, 2004 01:42 AM Permalink
But an intelligent man likes to think he has complex ideas, which are built of many simple ideas. In science and physics these collections of simple ideas are rigourously tested, so that generally we can be more certain of the validity of the complex chain of ideas.
In the social sciences, however, the chain of ideas is not so rigourously tested. If each idea in a chain of ten has an 80 percent liklyhood of being valid, nevertheless the conlusion is likely to be false. Thus the conlusions of the educated are more often incorrect than the conlusions of average men.
First Presidential Debate
I belatedly watched the first presidential debate. (Click to view the debate online.) I must say, after reading many analyses, I was quite surprised. I thought it was a clear win for Kerry. Not that anything he said made sense. Does anyone think he could have gotten France and Germany into the war on terror? Does anyone think that giving Saddam more time would convince him of anything? And if Saddam refused for a 19th time (or whatever) would it then be the right war at the right time in the right place? And why doesn’t it make sense to “outsource” the war in Afghanistan to locals? Etc. (I’m sure I’m missing a few things.)
But how many people are listening that closely? The impression that I came away with is that Kerry sounded confident and presidential, while Bush sounded tired and defensive. And I think that’s what counts.
Not that I think it will be enough to turn the election, thank heavens!
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48585
I agree with your assessment of the first debate. I watched it and although Bush was definitely not in his best form, Kerry contradicted himself all over the place. There wasn't much substance from Kerry -- and nothing that I could really get behind.
Tonight is the VP debate from my hometown. I'll be watching for sure.
Posted by: Stacey at October 5, 2004 05:17 PM Permalink
I agree with you, David. The rightblogs seemed pretty unanimous in declaring the debate an unequivocal Bush victory. I don't see it. I'm reminded of something from gui (graphical user interface) design--
Posted by: jinnderella at October 5, 2004 08:30 PM Permalink
Appearance is all-- substance doesn't sell. :)
October 06, 2004
The four humors
I got a laugh out of this comment from Amritas, in response to a comparison of European and “indigenous” education:
Is European education inhuman? Isn't it ... 'indigenous' to Europe?
It reminds me of a bone to pick that I have with the proponents of traditional medicine: the traditional medicine of Europe seems to be ignored, though exceedingly logical. It is based on the theory of the four humors: blood, phlegm, black bile, yellow bile. Disease is a result of them becoming imbalanced, so when you're sick, steps are taken to rebalance them. Since the cause of many diseases is an excess of blood, the cure for many diseases is bleeding.
Why is the traditional medicine of Europe ignored? Surely it is unnatural to treat Europeans with foreign traditional medicine!
Propoents of traditional medicine will surely say I'm simplifying things, so here's an account of how it was practiced on George Washington.
Dr. Craik arrived shortly after nine o'clock and hurried to his friend's bedside. He diagnosed Washington's illness as "inflammatory quinsy," an infection of the throat. He applied a blister of cantharides externally to the throat, hoping to draw the inflammation to the surface, and he performed a second bleeding. Washington inhaled a steaming mixture of vinegar and water, but he could not gargle the potion of vinegar and sage tea offered him. By this time, he was unable even to cough effectively, although encouraged to do so by Dr. Craik. Upon seeing no improvement in Washington's condition, Craik bled him for a third time.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48784
Simhat Tora
Tonight is Simhat Tora, also called Shmini `Aseret. Outside of Israel, these holidays are celebrated separately. This is the day when Jews leave their Sukot, and “return in joy to their homes”. It is the last holiday of the season, and it marks the end of summer – it is the day when we start praying for rain. It is also the day when we finish reading the Tora (the Pentateuch) and start over from the beginning. (Every week of the year has its own Tora portion, which is read on the Sabbath, such that the whole Tora is read every year.)
The synagogue service for this day is the longest of the year, except for Yom Kipur. There are two reasons for that. First, there are seven haqafot (dancing with the Tora scrolls), then there are `aliyot to the Tora. On Sabbaths and holidays, when the Tora is read, several people are honored with the task of reading from the Tora, seven on the Sabbath, and five on holidays. But on Simhat Tora, everyone gets an `aliya (ascent to the Tora), which can take a very long time. At one time, people who were called up to read, read their own portions. This custom is still observed in the Yemenite community, but in all other communities a different person is appointed to be the ba`al qore (master of reading) to do the task for him, even if he knows how to read for himself. This is done so as not to embarrass those who don’t know how to read. The result is that the `ole (one who ascends) says the blessings before and after reading, while the actual reading is done by the ba`al qore.
I have to end here, preparations for the holiday are calling. For more, go here.
Shana Tova to all – Happy new year!
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/48789
Trackback from Willow Tree, Oh Why Don't I Like Me?:
My own blog wouldn't talk to me. I tried to access her and she kept telling me she wasn't there. Liar! I knew she wsa home and just hiding behind the sofa. Maybe she knew my brain was blank; at...
October 08, 2004
Terror in Sinai
I woke up this morning to the news of a terrible terror attack in Sinai. The attacks were aimed at areas that cater to Israeli tourists. Clearly, the international terror groups are targeting Jews outside of Israel (think Kenya, Argentina) because they are having trouble attacking in Israel. Jews in Arab countries must make particularly easy targets.
A word of advice: If you must be a tourist in an Arab country, avoid places which cater to Jews.
By the way, people talk about Sinai as if it were part of Egypt from ancient times. However, the Bedouins who live there are not Egyptian, and in fact are no different from the Bedouins who live in Israel. Sinai is only part of Egypt because it was captured from the Turks by the British in World War I, and incorporated into Egypt – an act widely condemned in the Arab world at the time.
UPDATE: Just two weeks ago Rinat was in Ra’s al Shaitan (Satan’s Head, one of the targets of the attack). Today, this is what she has to say.
UPDATE: If you want to see what Ra’s al Shaitan looks like go here. (It is written Ra’s a-Shaitan in Hebrew because the “l” assimilates into the “sh”.)
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49097
And wasn't Taba built by Israel when it had control of the Sinai?
I read about this just before I went to bed. Needless to say my night was full of odd and discordent dreams.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at October 8, 2004 07:18 AM Permalink
Hi David,
I am glad you are ok.I have a question (of course)-- why are suicide bombers seemingly restricted to arab ethnicities? I am not counting kamikazes, they were soldiers attacking other soldiers. If I lost a loved one in a suicide attack, I would want revenge, badly. A homicide or suicide bombing would net the biggest pay-off, taking many for one. The highest possible kill ratio of the adversary tribe.
Posted by: jinnderella at October 8, 2004 04:45 PM Permalink
October 09, 2004
Six days of Creation
Today was Shabat B’reshit (שבת בראשית) – the Sabbath of “In the Beginning”. Every week Jews read a Tora (Pentateuch) portion, such that over the course of a year, we read the entire Tora. Today, the first Shabat after Simhat Tora, is when we start over. The Tora portion of B’reshit covers the entire creation story, from “In the beginning”, through the story of Adam and Eve, and up to the story of Noah, which we will read next week.
I talked about the story of Adam and Eve not too long ago. I should point out, that the story I told is not a radical reading – it is the normative Jewish reading, at least in its major features. Here’s some more support for the two-in-one theory of Adam:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ
בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם
Vayivra’ elohim et ha’adam b’salmo
B’selem elohim bara’ oto
Zakhar unqeva bara’ otam
And God created the Adam in his image
In the image of God he created him
Male and female he created them
At the time of his creation, Adam is referred to as both singular and plural, male and female.
Getting back to this post, the Bible (of which the Tora is the first five books) begins with the epic description of the six days of creation, supposedly laying out the case for what is known today as creationism. Now, while this idea may be critically important in some other Bible-based religions, it is irrelevant to Judaism. In the 11th century, long before the idea of six days of creation was a problem from a scientific point of view, Rashi, probably the most normative of Jewish scholars said about the story of creation, “Scripture did not [intend to] teach anything of the earlier or later sequence [of creation]”.
If the purpose of this story is not to each about the sequence of creation, what then is its purpose? I don’t have a clear answer to that question, though if pressed, I could suggest some. But it is important to understand that the Bible is not meant to be a history book – it is meant to teach us how to live. Not only that, the way a 21st century American reads the Bible is definitely not necessarily the way it is intended to be read. How do we know how it was intended to be read? Well, we can start with a tradition that is as old as the Bible itself. But that is a subject for another post.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49302
I have always found this perspective to be more interesting than a literal translation. So much has happened since the writing that it has seemed necessary to me for there to be some kind of outlet for interpretation.
The bible as a manual just works for me. Not profound, but thought that I'd add my 2 cents. Sooner or later I'll come up with something that is worth a nickel. ;)
Posted by: Jack at October 10, 2004 08:34 AM Permalink
Jack is right! The purpose is a manual. But not just for right action of the individual, a manual for preserving the tribe. :)
Posted by: jinnderella at October 12, 2004 07:30 AM Permalink
October 10, 2004
Representations of Thought
It seems that Steven Den Beste has become the Elvis of the blogosphere. Rumor has it that he has passed on to a better blogosphere (some say it’s a mythical paradise called, “Chisumatic”), but sightings of him in this blogosphere still seem common. I, for one, believe them to be real! Some philanthropic blogger should do us a favor, and start a blog of Steven Den Beste sightings, perhaps calling it: Den Beste Lives!
My most recent sighting is at Amaravati (my first sighting was on Daily Pundit), where he graced us with his thoughts about thought, and language. No doubt wisdom from the next blogosphere.
I must respectfully build on this wisdom. I think he’s half right, in that he gets all the right concepts down, but I think he doesn’t correctly specify their relationship to each other. He correctly points out that it is a fallacy that people necessarily think in words:
There are a number of problems with that. For one thing, there is a substantial minority of people for whom the subjective experience of thought is fundamentally visual and image oriented, rather than word oriented.
I would like to propose a different organization. I propose to divide up the concept of thinking into two very different acts, which for lack of better terms I will call: imagination and analysis. Imagination is the process of coming up with new thoughts, while analysis is the process of verifying their truth or utility. Thus words and pictures are both tools for analysis. And indeed, the right vocabulary, whether verbal or pictorial, does help in this process. I very much agree with the aphorism, attributed to Socrates, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” So often, a poorly defined terminology leads to muddled thought. Just look at what passes for political analysis today. How did I begin this paragraph? By defining my terms!
Imagination, on the other hand, is neither verbal nor pictorial. Indeed, it is inexpressible. How can we express a thought before it is thought? And after it is thought, it can no longer be imagined, only analyzed. Imagination is the most remarkable thing in the world. Though my profession demands it on a daily basis, I have never ceased to be amazed at it. Where do these thoughts come from? Surely they are not random; in fact I myself have had some success at directing them. But I have only a vague idea how I do it.
One thing I do know: A clear expression of the problem, whether in words or in pictures, is one of the keys to imagining its solution.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49343
LOL, I asked razib if anime could be a religion, for his poll! Den Beste has progressed to a more rarefied plane of understanding--
Posted by: jinnderella at October 11, 2004 07:01 PM Permalink
David, anime is fiercely visual! :)
Oh, and here are my Den Beste sighting contributions-- two hattips at LGF, and a correction to Joe Katzman at Winds on where some of his work had been published.
Posted by: jinnderella at October 11, 2004 07:05 PM Permalink
Thought and Language
In my last post I talked about two ways of representing thought: words and pictures. There are others, among them what are usually called formal languages. While you might think that formal languages are artificial, or maybe highly structured, languages which are nonetheless languages much like natural languages, I challenge you with this observation: Formal languages cannot be spoken (and understood) in more than a trivial sense. They can only be understood to any degree of complexity when written down – so maybe they are pictures! (Since we are talking about thought, the way human beings understand them is critical to my definition of what they are.) I hope you agree with me that it is absurd to call mathematical notation and computer languages kinds of pictures! Nevertheless, they do help us think.
One of the remarkable things about natural languages, the point, I think, that Amritas was making here and here, is that though they differ incredibly, they all seem to be equally capable of expressing thought. As I understand it, there have been quite a few attempts to find cases where language influences thought, without success. (If I am not mistaken, this is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.) The only area where languages differ in a way that is relevant to thought is vocabulary, and this is easily remedied.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49345
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Unknown
Posted by: johnson and johnson Acuvue at November 24, 2004 04:53 PM Permalink
An Eye for an Eye
A couple of posts down I made the following comment: “Not only that, the way a 21st century American reads the Bible is definitely not necessarily the way it is intended to be read. How do we know how it was intended to be read? Well, we can start with a tradition that is as old as the Bible itself. But that is a subject for another post.”
I didn’t particularly mean that to be a teaser, only that that subject merited its own post. And since I’ve talked about it before (one example here), I didn’t think the answer would be a mystery. But I’ve gotten responses by comment, blog, and email asking for me to elaborate. So here it goes.
The answer is the Talmud (root: l-m-d – learning, teaching), also referred to as the Oral Tora. The Oral Tora (תורה שבעל פה) was given alongside the Written Tora (תורה שבכתב), but around the time of the Roman conquest of Israel, when there was genuine and willful cultural imperialism by the Romans against the Jews, it began to be written down. The oldest part of the Talmud is called the Mishna, the later part the Gemara. Here is a translation of Suka – the portion of the Talmud that discusses the building of a Suka. Here is what the same page actually looks like in the original. (Hint: If you are having trouble following the meanderings of the discussion, try reading it out loud. Remember, this is an oral discussion written down, and the traditional way to study it is to read it out loud.)
After the completion of the Gemara, later scholars added their traditions. Rashi, for example, didn’t consider himself to be an innovator. He considered himself to be merely recording for posterity his encyclopedic knowledge of tradition.
All this has sometimes surprising (to us) results. Take for example:
עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן
שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן
יָד תַּחַת יָד
רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל
`ayin tahat `ayin
shen tahat shen
yad tahat yad
regel tahat ragel
An eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
A hand for a hand
A leg for a leg
According to the usual reading of this passage, this is paradigmatic example of “Old Testament Justice” – i.e. harsh, barbaric justice that was thankfully superseded by a more merciful, loving faith. All this ignores the fact that there is a tradition, as old as the Bible itself, which tells us how to read it: The value of an eye for an eye, the value of a tooth for a tooth, etc. In other words, one who damages another’s property or person is to pay monetary damages. Do you find this reading implausible? Then imagine reading this three thousand years from now: “If you damage my eye, or my tooth, or my hand, or my leg, you’ll pay for it!”
Try explaining that that DOESN’T mean monetary compensation.
Note: The second appearance of the word “leg” is ragel instead of regel. This is the sof pasuq form of the word. In Biblical Hebrew some words have a different form when occurring before a pause – usually with longer vowels, sometimes preserving older forms of the word whose vowels have been shortened.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49378
The Talmud gives a very reasonable explanation for the the interpretation of monetary compensation. A judicial punishment must be equal and fair in its effects in order to be properly called justice. If a person with two eyes puts out another person's eye, let's say we take out one of his eyes. He can still see. If a one-eyed person commits the same offense and receives the same punishment, he will be blind.
Posted by: Yehoshua Friedman at October 13, 2004 10:25 AM Permalink
October 11, 2004
Religion Genes
Razib of Gene Expression has a very interesting post on religion. He raises a lot of interesting questions, too many for me to summarize here without rewriting the post or boring you with a long laundry list – go read it yourself. I left the following responses in his comments section:
It seems to me that different religions would tend to appeal to different alleles (if religious alleles exist at all). Christianity and Mormonism, for example, are primarily faith-based religions, which require their adherents to believe in a particular theology, eschatology, and/or history. Skepticism about such beliefs would be a serious barrier to any member remaining religious, even if they were attracted to social or other aspects of the religion. Judaism (and I think, Islam), on the other hand, is primarily a lifestyle-based religion, the lifestyle being defined by halakha (Jewish Law, literally: "the way"). It requires only a vague belief in an undefined God (which according to the figures you cite, seems to be compatible with 80-90% of the population). Within Judaism, you find a wide variety of theological, eschatological, and historical beliefs, and a wide variety of social styles, from cold/analytical, to fiery/zealous, to warm/fuzzy - all of which are tolerated as being differences of style, not substance. On the other hand, to be Jewish, you have to be willing to follow halakha. Inability to do that would be a serious barrier to being religious, no matter how much you are attracted to the religion.On the question of whether a religious revival is taking place or not, within Judaism, at least, the evidence is clear. The answer is both. Most Jews are getting less religious, but at the same time the religious community is growing. It used to be that there was a large middle ground: Jews who didn't keep halakha, but nonetheless considered themselves religious. This community is disappearing.
I don't think this is surprising. The modern world of the last 200 years or so has been a major challenge to inter-generation propagation of established religions. Only recently have modern-world-resistant strains of religion become common enough to be noticed. What we are seeing is the simultaneous growth of the modern strains, and the decline of the pre-modern strains. Our picture is muddled because the figures you cite combine both.
As to the pattern of observed religiosity, I think the most important factors are the degree of religious diversity, and the speed of incursion of the modern world. High diversity increases the likelihood of modern-world-resistant strains being present in the population, while a slow rate of incursion of modernity increases the time available for resistant strains to develop. We see the former in the US, and the latter in the Arab world.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49516
David!
Your modesty prevents you from mentioning that this comment has been nominated for the permannent GeneExpression Hall of Comment Fame. :)
Posted by: jinnderella at October 12, 2004 02:40 AM Permalink
October 12, 2004
Last Words
From Mark Steyn:
None of us can know for certain how we would behave in his circumstances, and very few of us will ever face them. But, if I had to choose in advance the very last words I’d utter in this life, “Tony Blair has not done enough for me” would not be high up on the list.
I would never criticize anyone for weakness in the face of death, but I hope that if I were in Kenneth Bigley’s place (which I fervently hope I will never be) I would have the courage to say something like: Don’t give in to terror!
UPDATE: Here's how to handle terrorists: never give in. Here too.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49617
David, Wretchard gets it too!
Posted by: jinnderella at October 12, 2004 06:13 PM Permalink
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/only-lonely-only-way-to-top-roger.html
I would hope that I would not give in to anything they asked of me or told me to say. I hope I would have the courage and the strength to tell them to go to hell and that my faith in G-d was stronger than anything they could do to me. I would hope my family was strong enough to stand firm against any monies being given over or any change of policy being implemented on my behalf.
But I am also loathe to criticize. I haven't been tested so I can't know what I would do only what I hope and pray I would do.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at October 12, 2004 11:24 PM Permalink
October 13, 2004
Election Odds
A very interesting column on election betting, by Donald Luskin (via John Ray):
Here’s the record. From 1884 to 1940 — the heyday of organized election betting — there were thirteen elections. In nine of them, the betting markets strongly favored one candidate by setting the odds at a 60 percent-or-greater probability a month before the election. The favorite won in nine out of ten elections. Also, there were three very close elections, and the betting odds correctly put all three near 50/50. For the remaining election, in 1908, regulatory issues kept the betting markets from functioning until just before Election Day — but the odds did call the winner correctly.
The old Wall Street betting market dried up after 1940 with the advent of stricter anti-gambling regulations and the arrival on the scene of the first public-opinion polls — the same kind we still use today. But thanks to the Internet, election betting is back, and it’s better than ever.
Right now the election betting market makes George W. Bush the favorite to win re-election, with a probability of about 62 percent. This is above the threshold at which — a month out from the election — betting markets have only been wrong once in 116 years.
Today the dominant election betting market is Tradesports.com, a website based in Dublin, Ireland, where you can bet on all manner of sporting, political, and current events. Presidential bets at Tradesports.com take the form of online futures contracts. After the election, the Bush futures will settle at a value of either 100 if he wins or zero if he loses. So the price today is always in-between zero and 100, and indicates the betting market’s estimate of Bush’s probability of winning.
The Bush futures at Tradesports.com trade several thousand contracts a day. They are deep and liquid markets, but small — trading represents a dollar value that is far less than that traded in typical futures markets. Yet similar political futures contracts, traded in even smaller size on the Iowa Electronic Market, a website operated by the business school of the University of Iowa, have correctly predicted every presidential popular-vote winner since 1988. (If you want to track the Bush futures, and a dozen other futures contracts on the election and current events, I’ve set up a feed on my website where they are all together in one convenient place.)
I'll be keeping a eye on Donald's feed.
Trackback URL: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/49782
October 14, 2004
Nihilists and Necrophiliacs
Two nights ago, in a rare act of leisure, my wife and I went out to a movie: Ha’ushpizin (clip here). We enjoyed it very much. It is about Moshe, who has some kind a shady, or not very virtuous past, and his wife Malka, who have become Breslover Hasidim. Just before the holiday of Sukot, the couple have some unexpected guests from Moshe’s past – fugitives who have just escaped from prison, and have nowhere else to go. In Judaism there is a specific commandment to welcome guests (hakhnasat orhim), which is particularly appropriate during the holiday of Sukot. Ushpizin means guests in Hebrew (–in is a dialectical variation of –im), but more specifically refers to the ancestral guests who spiritually share your Suka during the holiday. For those of you who see the movie, unfamiliar with either Israel or Judaism: Know that the Israel and Judaism in this movie are almost as exotic to most Israelis as they are to you.
Moshe’s former friends (or whatever they are) are clearly disreputable, but not entirely inhuman. One of them shows some sign of appreciation of Moshe’s new life. The other, however, is clearly challenged by it. He thinks Moshe is a fake, and repeated tries to provoke him – evidently, Moshe was once known for his temper.
I found this completely believable, though you might expect a fugitive to be careful not to provoke his benefactor. What could motivate a person to do such a thing? What could be more important than his freedom?
The answer is his worldview. Moshe’s new life was a danger to his dog-eat-dog worldview. And since our worldview is our existence, Moshe was an existential threat. He had to prove to himself th