How Do We Know That There is an Oral Law?

Logically speaking, there has to be. In the Torah there is a commandment that mentions what is done with a habitually goring bull; it is put to death. The presence of this commandment in the Torah leads to a proof that G-d gave the Oral Law to Moses along with the Written Torah. The question that naturally comes from this commandment is, "What constitutes a habitually goring bull?" The importance of this question cannot be underplayed; if a society is a product of its laws, then a society needs to have good and coherent laws. If my bull continuously gores other bulls, it would be in the best interest of bull-owners as to what exactly constitutes a habitually goring bull. The inability to define this particular status of bull would lead the bull to continue damaging peoples' property and would create an element of strife and even hatred in the society. Therefore, peace rides upon the ability to define just what exactly a "habitually goring bull" is.

The Talmud explains that a bull which has gored three times constitutes a habitually goring bull. We know this because it is written in the physical Talmud, which the holy Sages of the Sanhedrin wrote down in a codified form during the destruction of the Second Temple during the Roman occupation. They considered that the events taking place after this destruction, namely dispersal, would also decompose the Jewish society and so they felt it an obligation to codify which had not been codified since its deliverance to Moses along with the Written Law. The Oral Law was meticulously written down as Jews now took to studying it on their terms with Rabbi's and most likely amongst themselves, and later as printing became a possible industry, it appeared in printed form in mass quantities. Now every Jew (and person) has access to the Talmud

There are some people whom seek to prove the invalidity of the Oral Law, or rather its supposedly corrupting rigorous approach to Law, in order to validate their own beliefs. It is these people, namely a certain "brand" of Christians (and most likely all of them), whom seek to show the universal role of Jesus in the Second Temple time by playing him against the assumedly dead routine of the Law and the corruption of which it is charged (there are also Muslims whom seek to show the universality of Muhammad in a similar fashion). Therefore, these Christians argue that the Oral Law was not Divinely authored, unlike the (Written) Torah, which they believe was, and therefore must logically conclude that the Sages invented it in the Second Temple time. Make no mistake, to be under "Divine influence" is not the same thing as receiving something from G-d, as did Moses, and therefore even if the Sages were inspired by (what they thought was) the Will of G-d, the Oral Law would be useless and even dangerous.

Fortunately reality saves the day. There is a problem with the view that the Sages invented the Oral Law upon its codification in the year 70 C.E.; how did the Jews of Moses' time understand the commandment to put to death a bull which had habitually gored? If we ask the question "What constitutes a habitually goring bull," then we can assume that the recipients of the Torah, the Jews whom G-d liberated from Egypt and were wandering in the desert, also had that question. Can it be possible that the question only became relevant in the 1st Century and therefore the Jewish Sages only codified the Oral Law in that time? Absolutely not! However, this is what we must conclude if we go by the view of the people whom state that the Sages invented the Oral Law. Rather, that the Talmud elucidates an answer, which is not found anywhere in the Written Torah, is a proof that there was both a question and an answer, and since they were not originally in written form, they must have been in oral form. It is not only silly to say that the Sages invented an arbitrary answer to the question, it also does not hold water due to the fact that if there is no Oral Law, G-d has given the Jews a useless commandment (a habitually goring bull...), and if we believe in G-d we are not free to assume that. If we do assume this, however, then we also assume that the entire Torah is useless since we cannot decipher it. What bigger tragedy would there be than an incomprehensible Torah? Yet that is what people assume the Torah is when they say that there is no Oral Law. It also makes room for people to enter their interpretations into the Torah. The existence of an Oral Law does not allow for that to occur.

But if logic is not your cup of tea, then perhaps you would enjoy a proof that is found in the text of the Torah itself. In Exodus18:13-26, Moses has the sole responsibility of providing conclusions to legal matters that the Jews bring to him. His father-in-law, Jethro, seeing that this task is daunting for Moses, says to him,

"You shall caution them regarding the decrees and the teachings, and you shall make known to them the path in which they should go and the deeds that they should do. And you shall discern from among the entire people, men of accomplishment, G-d-fearing people, men of truth, people who despise money, and you shall appoint them leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. They shall judge the people at all times, and they shall bring every major matter to you, and every minor matter they shall judge, and it will be eased for you, and they shall bear with you. If you do this thing - and G-d shall command you - then you will be able to endure, and this entire people, as well, shall arrive at its destination in peace." (Exodus 18, 20-23)

Just a second here; "Leaders of thousands? "They shall judge the people at all times?" "Every major matter... every minor matter?" Why so many judges, why at all times, and there were so many cases that there was actually a difference between minor and major cases? Sounds like a huge group of people had a massive amount of questions for Moses, a case factory. Could it be that they, just like us, were puzzled by the nature of many of their legal disputes? From where exactly was Moses retrieving this information that he was giving them in order to resolve their disputes? Did he make up the answers as he went along? The answer is that G-d gave to him the Oral Law on Mt. Sinai to accompany the Written Law. Remember, Moses made several trips up and down Mt. Sinai, only receiving the first Ten Commandments during his first forty-day period ascent.

How Do We Know that Isaac (and not Ishmael) Inherited all of Abraham's Property?

Logically speaking, since Ishmael was the G-d-chosen progenitor of Abraham according to Islam, which says that Isaac's being the Torah's chosen one of Abraham was a Jewish cover-up of the true record of history, there should be a written historical record of the descendants of Ishmael in the same way that there is a written historical record of Isaac's descendants, whom are the Jews. We know that this is not true, first, because there is no historical record in writing of the events of Ishmael's descendants. Secondly, all of the major events in the Torah happened to the descendants of Isaac, such as the 400-year slavery in Egypt, which culminated in their deliverance of the Torah and their being brought into the Land that G-d promised Abraham's descendants (Isaac or Ishmael?). How do Muslims explain that the descendants of Isaac were given the Torah and brought, under Joshua, to possess the Land that G-d promised Abraham? The descendants of Ishmael, whom appear infrequently in the Tanakh, are referred to as "Ishmaelites" and are not central to any of the themes other than being the ones to whom Joseph's brothers sold him. Near the end of the Tanakh (I am not sure where) appears the word "Arabs."

Thirdly, the formation of the religion of Islam in the 6th Century, with the Qur'an as its text, is the first time to make mention of any sort of history preceding it, and guess what, the entire Biblical history encapsulated in the Qur'an is the history of the Jews! If Ishmael's descendants recorded their history in the manner that did the descendants of Isaac, the new Muslims should have made reference to that as their religion's history, but they did not! Why not!? Why did they have to use the history of Isaac's descendants? The answer is that there was no other recorded Biblical history! We have to face it, after the Torah's final mention of the person Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18) he is no longer mentioned; what becomes of him seems to be unknown. Suddenly in the 6th Century (more than 3,000 years later) a religion arises with its founder claiming to be the descendant of Ishmael coming to claim his rightful inherited legacy of Abraham; why had none of Ishmael's descendants taken it upon themselves to rectify this historical injustice and discrepancy earlier? Where were they, who they they, and what were they doing this whole time (more than 3,000 years)? That Muhammad brought the message of Islam to a civilization of Arabs whom were polytheists alludes that somewhere along the line the descendants of Ishmael became polytheists, i.e., veered from the monotheism of their fathers Ishmael and Abraham and their mother Hagar. Their history is nowhere to be found, and even if it was, it would all be rife with polytheism and so Islam has nothing (no historical monotheism) on which to stand. Grappling with this reality, the founder of Islam claims that all of the Biblical figures (including Jesus) are the progenitors of Islam, and they were all Jews!

Further, even though Islam claims that Ishmael is the heir to Abraham's legacy, which would suggest a blood, and therefore "genetic" association with being a Muslim, it makes an interesting contradiction; Islam claims itself to be a pure religion having nothing to do with genetics, ethnicity, or bloodline, i.e., to be strictly about faith. If this is true then why does the Muslim tradition emphasize that the true legacy of Abraham comes from the lineage of a specific son? If bloodline is irrelevant, why does it matter that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, why does one have to be a descendant of any particular son if Islam is based purely on faith and has no blood, ethnic, or genetic component? I would advise not to rack your brain trying to find an answer because there is is no answer, but don't take my word for it, ask a Muslim. Islam has dealt with this discrepancy relatively well, but not well enough, by saying that both Ishmael and Isaac are the inheritors of Abraham's legacy, but just that Ishmael inherited the larger and better portion of that legacy. How is this an acceptable view to Muslims when the Torah's view, which says that Isaac inherited the larger and better section of Abraham's legacy, is what they find unacceptable? Simultaneously, the Muslim tradition insists on the equality of Ishmael and Isaac and states that Ishmael received the larger portion, yet only one could be true.

The Jewish tradition has nothing to hide; Isaac received the larger portion of Abraham's legacy by Divine command, while Ishmael received the legacy of monotheism as well but none of Abraham's property. To our modern eyes this can seem politically incorrect, but not according to the social and cultural standards more than 3,000 years ago. It was a commandment but G-d but we have no reason to ignore the sociological element. Further, let us be honest: Muhammad did not establish the religion of Islam in order to correct an age-old injustice for the same reason I stated earlier; why wasn't there a revolutionary Arab whom started Islam at an earlier point in history. The truth is that Muhammad tapped into Biblical history simply because it would give Islam the appearance of antiquity and would afford him the followers whom he desperately needed, and therefore he did was necessary. The reality of Islam is that Muhammad created it because 6th Century pagan Saudi Arabia was in desperate need of monotheism and an entire new political system, which Muslims treat as a validating reason for the establishment of Islam.

Now to those who prefer Biblical proofs over logical ones, Genesis 25:5 says, "Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac." Remember, if the Muslim tradition has no problem with the notion of one son getting more than the other, then it should have no problem with Isaac getting more than Ishmael, which is the truth. Have no fear! Genesis 9 says, "His (Abraham's) sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, facing Mamre." Further, all of the promises that G-d promised would happen with Ishmael to Hagar come true, and even further, the end of this Parsha (Chayei Sarah, the Life of Sarah), ends with the statement, "These were the years of Ishmael's life: a hundred and thirty-seven years, when he expired and died, and was gathered to his people." (Genesis 25:17). This is the same ending that all of the respected figures of the Torah receive, namely Abraham and all the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

Musical Throne

Musical Throne -

My friend here at the yeshiva told me that a Rabbi of his told him that secular music has a higher potential for emotional connection than religious music. He didn't state why, but my impression is that secular music doesn't bother limiting itself in scope as to what it says or how it expresses things, and therefore it is like an unbound animal. Therefore, music of this type speaks to a very active part of the human being, which is the animal side, and the truth is that a larger percentage of humanity does not bother controlling the animal in them and therefore secular music is a popular mode of expression for much of humanity. According to my friend, the Rabbi stated that music of this type is almost barbaric, which I understand him to mean not necessarily barbaric in content but barbaric in that it does not regulate itself.

Music can be aligned with spirituality and with religion, and through the ages human beings have used music in their connection to the spiritual, be they pagan or philosopher or monotheist. But why would religious music offer less of a connection than secular, which might be very, very spiritual? I have a feeling that only people who have managed to tap into what it means to be a religious person have been able to connect to religious music, whose spirituality is deep and rich but concealed in a particular train of thought which is also deeply connected to the way one lives life. Nevertheless, the spirituality in religious music is not inaccessible to the general population. It is almost as if one has to sensitize his/her ear to religious thought before one can comprehend in the inherent spirituality within it, and religious thought is not separable from religious living. The perception for many people, whom do not live religious lifestyles, is that religious music is not as spiritual as secular music, because the latter offers a more readily accessible palatte of sounds and lyrics that speaks to a very base element of humanity. The perception that secular music is more spiritual than religious music is due to the number of people whom have not genuinely found a religious connection in thier lives and therefore it is more difficult for them to see the rich colors present in religious music. There is a giant pot of emotions in secular music, a huge mish-mosh of uncharted emotions and sentiments, and therefore the general populace finds solace in this music because it speaks to everyone. The kind of emotions and sentiments which religious music taps into is more directed and eager to move in a specific direction than is just plainly spiritual music, eager to surround the listener with a particular sense of meaning, which plainly spiritual music does not contain. Spiritual music comes from a lower and baser place in the human soul, the animal spirit, and religious music, which is also spiritual, comes from a higher place in the human soul, the G-dly soul, the piece of the human and humanity which is actually a part of G-d. To find meaning and beauty and spiritual and emotional connection in this type of music, one must work to find a way to bring him/herself into a place of connection to his higher self and only then will that purview be made visible to his eyes.

The Torah says that high levels of spirituality can be reached through unholy things, i.e., things which do not have their source in G-dly spirituality. To use a contemporary type of example, people who are involved in dirty or base endeavours; drugs, permiscuity, crime, etc... are seen to give off an aura of confidence and heightened spirituality and which makes them alluring and charismatic individuals. The same thing is true of people on the opposite side of the spectrum, they reach a level of confidence and heightened spirituality which draws people to them through clean and pure means. In Parshat Balaam, Balaam, who is a prophet of Midian (a polytheistic peoples), reaches high levels of spirituality and even prophecy through engaging in relations with his female donkey, which the Torah specificially mentions is a "she-donkey." This is one of the lowest, basest, and filthiest acts possible, but it elevated Balaam to heights that most likely many "normal" people had not reached. Somehow, through these horrible and filthy acts, Balaam was able to tap into a heightened state of being - he was able to lose himself to the point where he found something outside of himself, but in the process he also ruined himself. G-d made the donkey turn around and speak to him, and the Midrash says that G-d did this in order to make Balaam understand that prophecy comes from Him, not from any form of klippah, a chassidic term for something which separates Man from G-d.
Musical Throne
Many high levels of spirituality can be attained through impure means, but pure means can bring a person much closer to G-d than any of those.

Human Biology -

Humanity is a failure if evolution is our primary force. I mean, biology is sufficient to maintain the survival of animals and plants, and actually they are reliant on it to survive, but this same biology when applied to human beings is the source of our gradual destruction. In other words, if we took it upon ourselves to behave in the same exact way as do plants and animals, which destroy each other in order to maintain their own survival, we would be morally disgusted, G-d willing. If evolution's "survival of the fittest" was made the center of the human paradigm, we would either be dead or completely unhappy. This shows that first there is a difference between humans and animal and plant life, and second that that difference is qualitative in nature, not quantitative; the difference between animal/plant life and human life does not fall on a spectrum, we are essentially different from them. What occurs in the animal kingdom and is required for life to continue, such as when ants invade another colony of ants and kill and dominate that colony, is seen as morally neutral, but when such a thing occurs in the human kingdom, this thing as recognized as one of the dark disasters of human history. Even the evolutionist must hold the view that he is grotesquely disgusted by such historical occurrences, but to hold such a view would go against his view that humans are the products of biology no more and no less than are bacteria. Bacteria wipe out other bacteria every single day, but in human terms this would be called "genocide" and is recorded in the human memory. Bacteria, plants, and animals do not record past events in type of memory bank; when one bacteria wipe out another bacteria, the bacteria kingdom continues on as if nothing occurred - this is because their sole purpose of existence is their own procreation, anything that gets in the way of this is merely a lifeless and valueless (and worthless) obstacle. The difference between humans and other life forms is that we have a built in perception of quality and value, we understand that other humans contain value and that killing them violates that inherent value, and therefore we are agitated by the concept of killing others even if their death is beneficial for the natural order of things. We rather violate the order than violate the value of human life, this is why we try to find ways to feed the whole world rather than to say that the death of some few million people will balance out the economic system of the world. Historical figures whom have enacted systems in which a person kills an entire group of people because he sees them as useless is acting upon a morally reprehensible drive, but if it were applied to the animal, plant, or bacteria kingdom it would completely acceptable and even necessary for the survival of that species. An evolutionist feels this way by the very merit of his being a human being; being a human trumps his being an evolutionist whether or not he opines that evolution is his primary essence. Therefore, human biology does exist, but it is qualitatively different than animal biology; the primary evolutionary force of humanity is to improve the quality of human life, while the primary evolutionary force of animals is to survive. Even apes, whom are the closest animals to human beings in the entire animal kingdom, do not care about improving life, i.e., they do not perceive morality. They perceive kindness and maybe even a primitive version of love, but to say that they perceive an existential understanding of morality that extends to their fellow ape is impossible. They are nothing more than extremely intricate bacteria. One human folly is to attribute human characteristics to animals simply because we have them. The problem with doing is that we do not feel like we have a reason to protect animals unless they are exactly like us, and therefore, in the name of protecting them, we raise them to our level or lower ourselves to theirs, and this is the most disgusting and degrading things that we can do to ourselves - to liken ourselves to the animals, even if our cause is noble, ensures that we will be like them. Rather, we can still protect them regardless of their lower nature than ours, for example, even though children are more primitive than adults, do adults not find it moral to protect children? Clearly they do.

Also, consider this - how can the belief in G-d develop as a biological function? What would be the function of belief in G-d, and why has only humanity developed with this specific attribute? If we go by the evolutionary argument, which says that a species with a trait not beneficial to its survival dies out, we must conclude that religion and spirituality are traits that help to keep humanity around because we are still around. This means that human biology is largely spiritual; just like an animal is basically entirely physical, a human is physical and spiritual. We cannot say that G-d's existence is a biological trait taking form as a mental development that exists only in the minds of men as some massive evolutionary placebo, for such a belief indicates that evolution, which evolutionists declare is a mindless process, cannot create a trait which tricks the being which possess it. If we declare that evolution indeed "tricks" beings into doing things which make them survive, we are attributing intelligence to evolution and are left with the striking impression than there is actually an intelligence behind the smoke screen of existence. The other option would be to believe that the human brain itself has this power.

Taking a slightly different path right now, what about prayer? How can evolution create an intelligent and intricate being such as the human being to believe in a G-d that does not exist as a means to survival, and then endow the human being with its ability to develop its own evolutionary processes, such as the invention of prayer, which it uses to communicate with this non-existent Being? Surely in the way that animals affect their physical surroundings, humans affect their spiritual surroundings, but to hold this view is to hold the view that spiritual surroundings exist, just as we must hold that physical surroundings also exist. Also, assuming that prayer works, which many, including myself, works, we have to attribute essentially endless and infinite abilities to the mind.

For example, if I pray for something, and not necessarily to receive something, but a more intricate prayer involving an occurrence or the delay of an occurrence, for example, and that thing occurs, can I attribute it to coincidence? Some say yes, but after prayer has worked successfully time after time, can I still say that several coincidences have occurred in repeated succession? I can offer a rebuttal to this by saying that my own biased perception has allowed me to believe that my prayer has actually been answered, but in reality I am simply manipulating a natural event in my own mind to conform to my biases. But there is still a rebuttal for that, because I can pray for things that have absolutely nothing to do with my preconceived mental biases, such as that praying for a needed thing to occur at a certain time, a thing which lies outside my realm of control, or is based on a person's making a certain decision, also something entirely out of my realm of control. If I pray that a person gets a sum of money that he or she needs soon, and I don't pray specifically how he or she should get that money, and then in a short period of time that person (whom did not know of my prayer) receives that sum of money in some way and THEN informs me, then that prayer has been answered positively.

This has nothing to do with coincidence (which would be an unfathomably low rate of probability) or with mental bias (because the event occurred away from both our knowledge) and it justifies the view that an ever-present Consciousness exists that listens and responds to utterances made to Him. If you don't believe that prayers work, and you are skeptical, then take a step of courage, concentrate, identify something that you really need, and ask G-d for it to be delivered to you, and then go on your normal path. If G-d desired you to have it then you will. If you get it, can you explain biology or the human mentality or the wonders of the space-time continuum to have produced this "coincidence?" Try it because you have everything to gain.

Why would the best sages of the Jewish tradition (and the Christian and the Muslim, etc...) spent valuable effort and time delving into the questions of prayer and other spiritual matters in order to refine their and others' ability to connect with G-d? Why is that spiritually connected people of all ages have sensed a reality outside of themselves and have pursued an active relationship with it? If we add it all up, it is only until recently in human history where atheism became an active paradigm in human thought and it is therefore atheists that hold the world's most marginal viewpoints. So much quality wisdom and illuminating perspectives of human nature have stemmed from the wisdom of the Torah and other monotheist paradigms - what has atheism offered to humanity? Atheism veers away from anything that is of any value to humanity, yet adherents to that paradigm hold that they are trying to bring the world into a new era, but atheism is incapable of bringing anything good to the human race or to anyone/anything.

To assert the point more clearly, we do not live in a vaccuum where nothing outside of ourselves exists - G-d is real.

Week two and a half in Israel -

Week two and a half in Israel and my third (observed) Shabbat here, and the view sure looks good. This Shabbat my yeshiva went up to the Golan Heights up in the north to have a Shabbaton, which is like doing something out of the norm for Shabbat, although there is no such thing as an ordinary Shabbat. Just to give a quick prelude about the Golan Heights, they were not originally part of the State of Israel in 1948, but were part of the Historic Land of Israel. During the Six Day War of 1967 against Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian forces, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria, strategically important for security reasons. The other reason it was important is because it belongs to us. I digress, you see, the Syrians occupied the Golan Heights before 1967 and they were using it to terrorize Israeli kibbutzim in the north (my parents lived on one of the fartherst north kibbutzim in Israel, Kibbutz Kfar Blum). This was possible because the Golan Heights give anyone who occupies it a fascinating and looming standpoint over a huge chunk of the countryside, giving them much military strategery. In 1967 Israel captured this area of land and since the nations have recognized it as "disputed territory." Today, during the day, we stood on a hill facing north, about an half an hour walk up hill from the moshav that took us in, towards Mt. Hermon, Israel's highest mountain and near the border with Syria, and in between the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) and Israel's eastern-most border. The ability to envision, as if a map, exactly where in Israel we were standing was quite astounding.

It was here where our tour guide told us a bit about Eli Cohen, the Israeli spy that managed to infiltrate Syria to the point where he became best friends with its Defense Minister, some twenty years ago. Eli Cohen was born in Egypt, therefore he was an Arabic-speaking Jew, but honed his craft speaking the Syrian dialect of Arabic, which as those who know something about Arabic know that the dialects are rather varied. He also worked on the nuances of the language, which can be said to be as different as southern English and California English. Being on such good terms with the Syrian Defense Minster, Cohen was able to freely enter his office and look over plans, which he photographed and sent to the Israeli government. The Syrians, prior to 1967, had thought of a way to deliver a devastating blow to Israel; the source of the Kinneret, Israel's primary water source, was a river in Syria (which then included the Golan Heights). The plan of the Syrians was to dig a huge trench, about 87 miles long, in order to deflect the natural flow of the river leading into the Kinneret and therefore to choke Israel of its primary water source. Having done that (destroying its own landscape irreparably in order to destroy Israel) its war plans would have been easier. Cohen regularly sent copies of this plan to the Israeli government and when the plan was in action, Israel barraged the area and destroyed it. The Syrians were in utter shock and Cohen basically played a huge role in ensuring Israel's survival.

Cohen's place in the World to Come, G-d willing, was awesome, but his fate in this world wasn't as cheerful; he was caught by the Syrians, whom used a Russian device to track the radio signals of suspected spies, and Cohen was tortured brutally until he was hanged in Syria. His body was never returned. We stood right at the base of the trenches that the Syrian government had built to deflect the flow of the Kinneret. There is book named "Our Man in Damascus" about Eli Cohen, about twenty years old, which I hope to read, and a movie as well.

Another fascinating thing was seeing the two 1,400 year old synagogues, one of which we prayed Mincha in (afternoon services). The second one had no ceiling, since it had fallen thousands of years ago, and therefore we were provided with a view overlooking one of the giant valleys in the Golan Heights. Other than the Basalt walls and grass growing as the floor, one could make out the primary features of the synagogue easily, such as the Bima, the surface on which the Torah is placed and read. To be davining Mincha in this 1,400 year-old synagogue up in the Golan Heights, much more, was simply astounding.

I will post pictures of this trip soon.

The Grand Jew at the Piano

I find myself in Jerusalem and now I try to find myself in Jerusalem. Here are some poems that have been inspired by the last two weeks here in Jerusalem and also by the small show I saw today put on my friend Ariel Elisha, who played Grand Piano, Aaron Catz, whom I know from Tucson and whom played his guitar and sang, and from Yehuda Shuleman, I think his name was, whom played saxophone.

The Creation of the Holy One, Blessed be He

Is like an apple

For the skin He created Beauty

Beauty is thin

Outside the skin is found nothing – Beauty is the most external pathway to further truths

Those who stand outside of Beauty have nothing

And Beauty is nothing compared to Purity

How many a peoples’ hearts have been swayed and stolen by persuasive Beauty?

Claiming their sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thoughts, emotions, connection?

Fathom that for fathoms beneath the Beauty is the pulp of the apple

And the pulp is Purity

Purity is better than Beauty

Inside the core of the apple are the seeds

And the seeds are Holiness

Purity separates Holiness from Beauty

And Holiness is better than Purity

The Holy One, Blessed is He, will pour out honey on the apple

And we can all celebrate the New Year

Then He will turn the honey into wine

Then He will eliminate spiritual drunkenness when He turns

The wine into water, reversing all evil

Of water into wine

And He will thrust the apple against the wall with violence

And the apple will explode into pieces that will fall to the ground

And the water on the apple will fertilize the seeds

Which will grow into trees

I gravitate and polarize around the Source in the middle

Like a holy mesquito I fly around the Place

Just yearning to poke my straw into the center

Like a pendulum I swing back and forth around Hashem

My body pushes my soul away, my body resists my soul’s yearning to cleave

Like a planet I revolve around the sun, I cannot get closer

How can I penetrate this gravitational force

That at once keeps me near but keeps me away?

G-d, show me the way and bring me closer

Drops of light fall from the sky

Drops of light form into puddles on the sidewalks of Jerusalem

Puddles of light form into seas than flow down the streets of Jerusalem

A sea of light flows through the Land, dimming the sun above

People swim and float joyously on the ocean of light

So bright that the sun’s reflection is invisible inside it

Like a match to a fire

Let me absorb water of Torah like a grass and let me grow strong and tall

Not honey and not wine, but water

Has no color for the colored ones

The humans whose skin is like skittles

They try to taste the rainbow but close their mouth to the water

But the water gives life and honey and wine taste fine

But water gives life

In the end it is the water that will be confirmed sweet

Seeping into the hearts of men

In the end it is the water that will arouse the senses

Making joyous the hearts of men

In the end it is not water, but honey and wine that will drown the evil

It is possible to find the right place the wrong way

In a world of streets, sidewalks, foreign buildings, and signs

One can find the right destination by following the wrong signs

But he must walk back and forth like aimlessly

Passing locations several times over

Asking for directions until he finds the right place

Shame will cover his face and fear will fill his heart when

He realizes that he is lost among them

They will all look ugly; the streets, sidewalks, foreign buildings, and signs

And the people too, they will look the ugliest

And he will feel the ugliness inside him swelling and consuming, numbing

Until he arrives at his destination

What signs can a man follow?

What signs can he be sure will arrive him at his destination?

He must go for the signs that have always been there.

But how does he know which of the signs posted in the streets are those signs?

He must ask his fathers and mothers

For far back enough some of them have witnessed the posting

My eyes have become super-sensitized to the beauty of holy women

A beautiful woman is one whose body is invisible and whose heart is not shared

With everyone, her emotions are rarities for those who deserve them

And whose soul belongs to G-d

A beautiful woman rejects the stallions of conformity and emptiness;

Whom toil in their muscles, remove all hair from their body, apply sweet smells,

And train their words like grotesque dogs

She seeks fine grain and yearns to mill it, and she will have it

The Chazan stands at the front of the Synagogue singing out

He is covered in His Talit

I look to the ground, I cannot see Him, but

I can hear His voice filling the Synagogue

He sings to us and we respond to Him and

We sing with Him

My ears respond but my eyes cannot

Although He opens my eyes and I yearn to look at Him

Please G-d, Whom I cannot see and cannot see and live

Please enable these eyes to hold in more of You

Many times I find myself getting nearer to You

I begin to see the fibers of this world wave away and become stripped away, torn

I become afraid that if I leave this world too much and enter into Yours

That I will have to abandon the systems of conformity of this world completely

Having seen You and unable to reject Your Truth, with what would I be left

Other than pursuing with a full heart the urgencies of Your Words?

This fills me with fear and I choose to cover myself in small amounts of Klippah

Just enough to stay connected but not forced to sprint after You as if nothing else

Existed, but nothing else exists and nothing else matters, so please G-d let me be

Strong to run after You, for the dictates of my body and soul, alone, will not withstand

The pressure of nearing You and the world will corrupt my soul irreparably without You – so the journey of

Nearing You is more preferable than the death of the wwways of the wwworld, for how can death be better than

Life?

The Ishmaelite Prophecies of Lech Lecha -----------

Parashat Lech Lecha discusses, among many things, the birth of Isaac and Ishmael. I find the Torah's treatment of both of Abraham's sons, the first through Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian maidservant, and the second through Sarah, Abraham's wife, very interesting. The Torah tradition says that the Torah has seventy levels of insight, so what I am about to say in this blog might be found in one of those seventy levels, but as far as I know this is just one of my own observations.

The Torah speaks of the birth of Ishmael, Abraham's first son. I think that there are many key elements and descriptions in this parsha referring to Ishmael which give us insight into his character. The first set of experiences that made Ishmael the man that he was have to do with the conflict between Sarah and Hagar, her handmaiden. In Bereshit 16:1, we read, "Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said to Abram, 'See, now, Hashem has restrained me from bearing; consort , now, with my maidservant, perhaps I will be built up through her.' And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai." A bit later in verse four it says, "He consorted with Hagar and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was lowered in her esteem. So Sarai said to Abram, 'The outrage against me is due to you! It was I who gave my maidservant into your bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived, I became lowered in her esteem. Let Hashem judge between me and you!'"

We see here that after Hagar had given birth, she (maidservant) looked down on Sarai (mistress, the feminine of 'master,' 'gever,' 'gvirta' in Hebrew). It was acceptable for Hagar to be happy for having a child, but for her to give Sarah "bad eyes" because she had not yet given birth and even worse because Sarah was barren, was by all means a hostile and conceited action. To jest a woman who cannot give birth is a very low way to act towards another person, and Sarah being incredibly wounded by this act expelled Hagar from the household.

The next set of events which befell Hagar are what gave Ishmael his specific attributes holiness, characteristics, and spiritual energy. After Hagar was expelled, she fled to a desert which the Torah says was "in between Kadesh and Bered." (Bereshit 16:14) In verses seven through fourteen we see, "An angel of Hashem found her by the spring of the water in the desert, at the spring on the road to Shur. And he said, 'Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?' And she said, 'I am running away from Sarai my mistress.' And an angel of Hashem said to her, 'Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her domination.' And an angel of Hashem said to her, 'I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance.' And an angel of Hashem said to her, 'Behold, you will conceive, and give birth to a son; you shall name him Ishmael, for Hashem has heard your prayer. And he shall be a wild-ass of a man: his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell.' And she called the Name of Hashem Who spoke to her 'You are the G-d of Vision," for she said, 'Could I have seen ever here after having seen?' Therefore, the well was called 'The Well of the Living One Appearing to Me.' It was between Kadesh and Bered.'"

There are a few very interesting things going on here. First of all, according to Rashi, the reason that the angel used the term "mistress" with Hagar was to show her that Sarai was still in charge of her; my own observance is that we see in the verses that Hagar immediately reflected the angel's utilization of that word showing that she had a certain depth of faith, which can even be said to be deep, and understood that it was G-d's will for her to be under the "domination" of Sarai. Indeed she did return to the household and lived as Sarai's maidservant. Genesis 16 says that Abram was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born.

The second very interesting thing was that, "And an angel of Hashem said to her, 'I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance,'" - Hagar would give birth to a multitude of people but that they would not be counted for abundance, which can be read that their huge numbers will not yield power. Thousands of years later, the Arab peoples, whom claim to be the descendents of Ishmael, are extremely numerous (and so are the Muslim peoples, whom claim to be the spiritual descendents of Ishmael) but they, despite their abundance, have not, thank G-d, overcome the Jews, whom are but a tiny fraction of the total Arab population.

But let's try to topple this argument before moving on. If we employ the argument that it is silly to assume that this verse refers to our own day's reality, we can assume that it refers to a time more contemporary to the timeline of this verse, namely, sometime after a group of peoples known as "Arabs" came into being shortly after the time of Ishmael's and Isaac's lives. G-d gives the blessing to Hagar at a time of conflict between her and Sarai, and so that they will not be counted for abundance is relevant only in light of that conflict. Now, we cannot be sure that such a conflict existed at the time shortly after Ishmael's and Isaac's lives, so this would lead us to assume that the verse is making a reference to a (much) later time when there actually was some such conflict in between people claiming to be Isaac's descendants (the Jews) and people claiming to be Ishmael's descendants (the Arabs and Muslims). We could, however, try to topple this argument by saying that a time did indeed exist in which Jews and Muslims were in conflict before our own day. Such a time could have been at any time that the Arab peoples had already come a discernible group, but we know through history that there was nothing inherently conflicting between Arabs and Jews (before Islam) because the Arabs were just another pagan culture on the Earth. It was only after the advent of Islam that any such conflict, that is, specifically and uniquely between Arabs and Jews could have come into play, because it was only until Islam that Arabs (by way of Muhammad's teachings) claimed to be the descendants of Ishmael. We could, however, insist that the Arabs, even before Islam, claimed to be the descendants of Ishmael, but that is highly unlikely because they knew that Ishmael was a monotheist and all of the Arabs until Islam were polytheists. Therefore, their connection to Ishmael was "discovered" only with the advent of Islam in the 7th century. Therefore, we get the astonishing realization that the verse is meaningless if it does not refer to some time in which a situation like our own exists. We could try, however, to say that such a conflict existed in earlier times (sometime after the lives of Ishmael and Isaac) to which this verse is actually referring, but history records no such thing. The conclusion is that it was a prophecy referring to today's time (from the 7th century until today, actually).

The third thing, related closely to the second, is this verse - "and he shall be a wild-ass of a man: his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell." This verse has to be referring to the same exact time as the previous verse because it is related to this conflict. However, the verse does not make mention only of the conflict between the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Isaac, rather, it makes reference to "everyone," (his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him) i.e., he will have a conflict with everyone. We see today, and this is magnificently politically incorrect, that the Arab nations, and by some measure, the Muslim nations, are growingly at war with the majority of the world, maybe even the rest of the world. One who studies the "latest" sociological phenomenon of political Islam and Muslim terrorist groups will see that they are motivated by an ideology that is set against the entire world and seeks for it to accept Islam. The way I read "wild-ass" is that he will be constantly kicking and fighting in the stubborn manner as does an ass (donkey), and this can be overlaid to the behavior of not per se the Arab or Muslim world, but to the factions operating within it that acts the most "expressively." The verse also reads, "and over all his brothers shall he dwell," clearly Arab nations rule over Arab nations today, if we read "brothers" as meaning "other Arabs," but if we read "brothers" to mean "other people," because we are all brothers, then the verse means that Arabs will dwell (ishkon), i.e., he will be in their midst. This can be read in many ways, but I read in the way that his sheer numbers will place him all over the world, dwelling over his brothers. All in all, the Arab nation will be a nation of an incredibly powerful faith in G-d, as was Hagar, but they will be violent, as was her son, and they will be everywhere. If we take into account human history, it is hard to read this verse as referring to anything else.

Nevertheless, Hagar returns to Sarai and fourteen years later (or it could be thirteen), Sarai gives birth to Isaac. Approximately one year before G-d told Abraham that Sarai would give birth to a son (Isaac), He told him, "And as for you, you shall keep My covenant - you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep between Me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of the foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. At the age of eight days every male among you shall be circumcised..." (Bereshit 17:9). Islam has the tradition of circumcising their sons at the age of thirteen years in order to keep in line with the age of Ishmael at the time of his circumcision. A Muslim site about circumcision reads, "Often, Muslim boys pass through their major status change - circumcision (khitan) - when they have recited the entire Qur'an [Koran] once through. In Malaysia and other regions where this procedure is followed, the boy undergoes the operation at from ten to twelve years of age. It is thus a real puberty rite, separating the boy from childhood and introducing him to a new status. There is much anxious anticipation of circumcision at the age of puberty, because the initiand is increasingly aware of his own sexuality and needs also to demonstrate his bravery and honor. The adults talk a lot about the fearsomness of the circumciser and make frightening remarks right up to the time of the event, which in some causes is semi-public, although it is more and more often performed in a clinic or hospital. In any event, there is much festivity, with music, special foods, and many guests. While the actual event is taking place, one may hear praise of God, partly, as some observers have suggested, to drown out the boy's cries. But the procedure is relatively safe, and those whom perform it are usually trained and experienced." (http://www.circlist.com/rites/moslem.html) This has further meaning, it is much easier to be circumcised at the age of eight days then it is to be at the age of thirteen years; for a boy to be circumcised at an age of consciousness means in the Muslim tradition that he is more steadfast and dedicated to G-d, largely because he really has no choice but more because the goal is to follow in the footsteps of Ishmael. Therefore, in Islam, it is a noble religious value to carry out one's faith to extraordinary levels of self sacrifice. *When a Canaanite neighbor of Jacob and his sons raped his daughter Dinah, he said that he would let the matter go if the man married her and if the whole town circumcised themselves, an act delineating conversion - his intent was to have real peace with them. On the day after the circumcision when the pain is at its most severe level, Shimon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons, murdered all the men in the town. The point here is that we see that circumcision is an undeniable act of complete obedience if done at an age of consciousness.

In Bereshit 21:9, when Hagar had been back for already thirteen or fourteen years and after Isaac had been born, "Sarah son the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. So she said to Abraham, 'Drive out this slavewoman with her son, for the son of that slavewoman will not inherit with my son, with Isaac!' The matter greatly distressed Abraham regarding his son," but he did as G-d had told him, "Be not distressed over the youth or your slavewoman: Whatever Sarah tells you, heed her voice, since through Isaac will offspring be considered yours. But the son of the slavewoman as well will I mate into a nation for he is your offspring."

Here's the fascinating thing about this set of verses. First of all, Ishmael was thirteen when Isaac was born and he had since, in the last thirteen years, probably become well-versed in the conflict existing between his mother and Isaac's and he inherited his mother's bias, which is natural. When Isaac was born, Ishmael mocked in a similar manner to Hagar's mocking Sarah when she was barren. When Sarah saw this, probably stirred by the memory of that mocking, and probably also looking for a reason to expel Hagar, said the previous statement to Abraham. Now the interesting thing about Ishmael is that he was likely what one would call a "tough kid," he was circumcised at the age of thirteen and was probably weaned on stories from his mother that she gave birth to him after being driven out by Sarah. He likely had not the most positive view of Sarah, whom had carried out such a grievance against his mother, who could have died, and further knew very well about Hagar's extraordinary vision from G-d in the desert, which had saved his life. Ishmael probably had a serious faith in G-d, via his mother and then on his own, and had an aggressive streak. It would also be in the realm of sense to say that he had somewhat of a painful spot with his father, Abraham, whom allowed Sarah to expel his mother, and he might have had a rebellious spirit in him towards his father. The commandment to honor the father and mother is related to the commandment to honor G-d since the parents are one generation closer to the revelation at Mt. Sinai. If it is true that Ishmael had a sore spot towards his father, Abraham, he might have also had then a sore spot towards G-d Himself. Nevertheless, he definitely inherited the monotheistic and yes, compassionate legacy of his father, combined with the aggressive and mocking attributes of his mother, whom disliked Sarah and most likely resented Isaac as well.

We must also focus on Hagar's mocking behavior of Sarah, which then re-expressed itself as Ishmael's mocking of the infant Isaac. We know that Hagar looked down on Sarah for being barren and felt herself above her mistress for this reason. The irony is grand; she who was supposed to have children with Abraham, his wife, had to concede the right to Hagar with the hope that she might be a blessing for her. Hagar was of a different mindset regarding this and she began to see Sarah as a pathetic who had to raise her handmaiden above her due to the miserable curse that had befallen her, allowing her "access" to her husband in order to procreate. It is no wonder that the child of this union between Hagar and Abraham would seem to Hagar to be the living expression of her superiority due to her fertility versus Sarah's barrenness, forever.

When Sarah expelled Hagar (the second time), she again had a powerful spiritual experience in which an angel of G-d visited her. The set of verse reads, "So Abraham awoke early in the morning, took bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them on her shoulder along with the boy (who was thirteen), and sent her off. She departed, and strayed in the desert of Beer-sheba. When the water of the skin was consumed, she cast off the boy beneath one of the trees. She went and sat herself at a distance, some bowshots away, for she said, "Let me not see the death of the child." And she sat at a distance, lifted her voice, and wept. G-d heard the cry of the youth, and an angel of G-d called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for G-d has heeded the cry of the youth in his present state. Arise, lift up the youth and grasp your hand upon him, for I will make a great nation of him.' Then G-d opened her eyes and she perceived a well of water; she went and filled the skin with water and gave the youth to drink. G-d was with the youth and he grew up; he dwelt in the desert and became an accomplished archer. He lived in the desert of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt." (Bereshit 21:9-21)

Many fascinating realizations can be gleaned from these verses. First of all, Abraham loved Ishmael and probably felt a high degree of compassion for Hagar, even though he was aware of her behavior and conflict with Sarah regarding Ishmael; all Torah sources say that Abraham was an extremely compassionate and sensitive man. I imagine him to be a righteous, holy, "pushover" when it came to acts of kindness, morality, and those that he loved.

Regarding Hagar, it is incredibly interesting that the language the Torah uses to describe Hagar's distance from her son was "some bowshots away," using a weapon's (her son's later weapon of choice) reach to explain distance. We see that Ishmael, who had a series of difficult experiences, became an accomplished archer. The Torah also seems to explore Hagar's attributes; twice now (as far as we know) Sarah had expelled her from her household due to some infraction related either to her or to her son, and each of those times Hagar never stopped to wonder if perhaps she had done something wrong. Instead, in a dramatic episode she drew on her powerful faith and prayed to G-d to save her, never praying to G-d to forgive her for her hurtful infractions against Sarah (and to an extent, Abraham); she was able to pray to G-d amidst her resentment of Sarah and never once stopped to think that maybe her actions had landed her in this predicament. But G-d being Merciful and "hearing all those who truly call," is moved to Compassion by the sound of Ishmael's cries, not hers, for as it says, "G-d heard the cry of the youth," and revealed a spring of water to her, in effect, also saving her.

Another incredibly amazing thing is that the core of Ishmael's relationship with G-d was formed when he was nearest to death, and therefore through being near death Ishmael's forged his internalized venues of connection with G-d. The religion of Islam expresses this value explicitly as a lack of fear, almost a desire to die in the worship of G-d. This is not just a reference to terroristic suicide bombing, which some had said is a perversion of true Islam, but rather to a stream of thought that exists in Islam itself, which sets the foundation for suicide bombing to take place but does not necessitate it. The point is that unbending dedication to G-d to the brink of self-sacrifice is an existent value in the religion of Islam and is directly associated with the experiences that caused Ishmael to be who he was. There is something comforting and liberating about being able to tell yourself that you will do anything for G-d, a sense of invincibility, but the freedom is a freedom from conscious and the invincibility is an illusion, both in this world and in the World to Come. The combination of Hagar's, Abraham's, and Ishmael's attributes seem to interestingly enough accurately describe the spiritual energy emanating forth from the religion of Islam. The best way I can describe it is "aggressive, holy, monotheists."

Most interesting are the parallels between Ishmael's prophecied character attributes and the Israeli-Arab conflict and more specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The events surrounding this and the characteristics of those involved play themselves out in today's modern scenario. If Abraham, the husband, can serve literarily as the prophetic metaphor for G-d, then Sarah and Hagar respectively serve as metaphors for the Jewish and Muslim people. Therefore, just in the same way that Hagar looked down upon Sarah for her travails, the Muslims would look down on the Jews for their miserable situation, and just as Hagar "had access" to Abraham, Sarah's husband, so would the Muslims have access to the special relationship that the Jews have with G-d. Just as their would be a numerous and powerful child of this union, the product of the Muslims' claim to the G-dly tradition would also be numerous and powerful. Just as Ishmael's offspring would not be counted for abundance, the sheer number of Arabs would not overpower the Jews. Just as Abraham allowed Sarah to expel Hagar, so would G-d allow the Jews to expel the Muslims. Just as the Hagar, wandering in the desert, cried out to G-d for her own salvation but never once wondered if she had harmed Sarah or prayed for forgivness, the Muslims would not once stop to seriously think if perhaps they were needlessly ruthless with the Jews. Just as Hagar never once considered that her consequences had befallen her due to her unrighteous treatment of Sarah, the Muslims don't stop to consider that the plight of the Palestinians could have been avoided had they been a little more fair with the Jews. Just as Hagar "strayed in the desert" rather than going to someone else's house, perhaps preferring her nomadic status than to serve under Sarah, the Palestinian national cause is marked by the preference to live as non-citizens everywhere than to submit to a Jewish sovereign state. Just as Hagar heeded G-d's words and submitted to Sarah her mistress, so will the Muslims submit to Jewish sovereignty. Just as Hagar and Ishmael had a deep relationship with G-d, so do the Muslims. Just as Ishmael grew up to be an aggressive man, so is the Muslim religion. Just as Isaac and Ishmael came together to bury their father, so will the Jews and Muslims ultimately come to grips with each other for the sake of G-dliness.

Another element of Islam is its apparent drive, through its religious practices, to “out-perform” Jewish religious practices in terms of dedication. For example, Jews pray three times a day, Muslims pray five times a day. Jews have two full-day fasts during the year (Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur) and Muslims have a whole month of half-day fasts (Ramadan). Jews, since the time of the destruction of the second Temple have ceased to pray in full prostration. Instead, we now pray in full prostration during only two holidays during the year, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, while Muslims pray in full prostration five times a day – two years have passed before Jews have prostrated five times! Jews were already prostrating twice annually when Islam had formed so Muslims would have known this. Even the Akeidah, which Islam claims was with Ishmael and not Isaac, exemplifies this attitude; the “Jewish version” is that Abraham was just about to sacrifice Isaac when the angel of G-d told him not to. In the “Muslim version” Abraham actually slits Ishmael’s throat but just as he is doing this the angel places a metal (or some other material) sheet on Ishmael’s throat and he slices that instead. The point is that in the “Jewish version,” the Muslim tradition claims, we can never be fully sure that Abraham would have actually gone through with it, while in the “Muslim version” we are left with no room for doubt. The Muslim tradition claims that the original story has been falsified but in reality it doubts Abraham's dedication, not the veracity of the Jewish tradition.

The spiritual and psychological effect of this alteration in the telling of the story, despite that it switched the figure and location, is to establish absolute unwavering and wild obedience as the hallmark of religious experience. Not only that, this is another instance in Muslim thought where an experience placing Ishmael near death is identified with the climax of religious experience – we would see this tendency repeated in the nature of Muslim warfare, not excluding suicide bombing. In this logical schema, the “Jewish version” apparently doesn’t convey a fully devotional enough story for Islam’s taste and so Islam simply makes up its own Akeidah. Carrying this to the logical conclusion we would have to say Muslims believe Abraham and Isaac to be liars whom altered the historical record, but rather they get around having to do this by simply dumping the guilt on corrupted Jewish compilers and editors. The funny thing is that the Muslim tradition never identifies these anonymous Jewish editors, never states at which point in time they edited the text, for what reason, and where they lived; all in all, the Muslim claim that “these Jews” corrupted the text is 100% arbitrary and invented. The truth is that “these Jews” never existed and the record actually occurred as is written in the pages of the Torah, and the claim that the Jews corrupted history is in fact a corruption of history on its own terms.

Ultimately, the Muslim (and Christian) tradition relies on the veracity of certian key parts of the Jewish tradition as told in the Torah. For example, Islam has to believe that G-d gave the Torah to the Jews on Mount Sinai for two main reasons, the first one being that it was the first massive revelation to a group of people. Related to this, the Torah is the basis of G-d's Law, and since Islam believes that the Jews' straying from this Law necessitated the Qur'an, Muslims have to believe in the veracity of this specific event in the Torah. Second, Muslims also believe that Isaac inherited a part of Abraham's legacy, and indeed, Isaac's descendants (the Jews) received the Torah. At any era in history did G-d deliver such revelation to the descendants of Ishmael (Muhammad's revelation was private). If Islam rejects the veracity of this event, Islam cannot exist.

However, Islam is able to get around rejecting many of the Torah's records, such as the ones that it finds irrelevant as being either true or false and therefore leaves them alone. There are only a few specific records that Islam must proclaim to be false (have been falsified) if Islam is to make any sense, and those are the ones pertaining to Ishmael. Muhammad had to be very careful in deciding which events were true and which events were false; if too many events were true, then why should people follow the Qur'an and not the Torah? If too few events were true, then why should people believe that Islam, following on the Torah tradition, is true in and of itself? By only touching on the parts that Islam needed to, Muhammad was able to choose how to make people understand his new religion. By being indifferent on parts that neither confirmed nor challenged the veracity of this new religion, he was able to avoid bringing attention to those details and therefore solidified Islam as a believable tradition. A fair share of militarism was also necessary for this tradition to catch sway, and the banning of books and ideas (either legally or by way of norm) that challenged Islam, such as an independent reading of the Torah (or the Christian Bible). The details of the Torah might have challenged the veracity of the Qur'an and so Muhammad made no mention of them, skipping around them and retelling the stories. If a Muslim, or a potential Muslim in the 6th century had been allowed to independently read the Torah in its entirety, he or she might decide that it was the truth and become a Jew - this is not too different from today, where reading the Torah is probably taboo or maybe even banned by Muslim Law.

Other than this, certain tellings in the Tanakh are taken to be true but "revamped" to make sense in the context of 6th Century Saudi Arabia (such as the alteration in the occurrence of Adam and Eve), in which Christianity was also a popular religion. Fragments of records in the Tanakh are used to confirm Islam, such as Jeremiah's harsh criticism of the corrupted scribes whom he accused of altering the texts. The Muslim tradition explains that Jeremiah was criticising the scribes (sofrim) for altering the original text of the Torah. To sum up, Islam:

1) Confirms certain necessary parts of the Torah (Mt. Sinai)
2) Accuses parts disproving Islam of having been corrupted by Jews (Isaac and Ishmael)
3) Ignores parts:
3a) which are irrelevant to it (nearly everything)
3b) which would cast suspicion on the veracity of the Qur'an if paid attention in detail (Kashrut vs. Halal)
4) Alters known stories to make sense from a 6th Century Saudi Arabian perspective (Adam and Eve)
5) Interprets fragments of the Tanakh to support that "the Jews" corrupted the text (Jeremiah and the Scribes)
*6) Argues that the Talmud is immoral but allows such things to exist in the Hadith (polygamy, just war, centrism)
*7) Fallaciously sets Islam as the opposite of Judaism when they have essential commanalities (monotheism, a way of life, theocracy)

What is so different about Jews and Muslims and Judaism and Islam that obligates Muslims to have more rights to their holy sites than Jews to theirs?

Sixty years ago the Jewish problem was that Jews did not have a place to go and which to call their own. Near the end of 2006, that part of the Jewish problem has been solved, but a new one has arisen; now that we have our own land (back), we are suffering from an identity crisis within it. The source of the Jewish problem, which has now become the Israeli problem, is that our national and social identity is in the dark as to what exactly it should do in order to patch up the Palestinian problem. The problem does not lie within the very fibers of the State of Israel's society or national paradigms, at least several of which, or the policies associated with them, are beneficial to the State and its Jewish inhabitants. There are many beneficial points to the State of Israel's society, and only a morbid person would fail to see all of them. Clearly there are many negative and destructive points as well, which are easily enumerated and demonstrable, but this should not place one in a locale where he is not able to see the benefits of this Jewish state, yes, as is. The decomposition of the State's national, social, and religious paradigms, as well as those related to its self-esteem, are not entirely decomposed. The fact that there is a presence of several positive aspects, also easy enumerable and demonstrable, should give an Israeli hope that the end is not as near as one might think. However, he should not rejoice with glee so quickly; the fact that there is some reason to rejoice should not neutralize him to think that since there is good, the battle to put an end to the bad has concluded. The wrongs of the State, which it acts upon its own population and therefore puts its future in jeopardy, cannot be balanced out like some kind of national, political karma; the goods of the State do not exempt Israeli's from resisting the bad, and the presence of either one does not "break even," as in a poker game.

The illness of the society is tolerated, and this is not unique to Israeli society, as long as the society can still function. It is somewhat like a person who has a nagging toothache in the back of his mouth that gets progressively worst, but since it does not keep him from going on with his day, he finds a way to ignore the throbbing pain. Plus, how can you blame Israeli's? They have succeeded in building an entire social network and fully functioning system and economy and transportation industry; one thing that only Israeli's know is that even though the Palestinian issue is always in the back of their mind, there is a huge element of life and culture in Israel that is not dominated by the Palestinian/Arab rejection of the State of Israel. As long as the problem is kept relatively at bay and away from the eyes of the civilian population, we can allow ourselves to become anesthetized to the problems and pretend that they are not as bad as we fear they might be. Everyonce in a while the pain strikes, in the form of a terrorist attack, kidnapping, Qassam bombing, propaganda television broadcasts, or funnelled money, and the Palestinians bring the threat to the Israelis' front door where it cannot be ignored.

Hashem, Dear G-d
Holy One in His Place
Great Listener
Compassionate Watcher
Gifted Giver
Special Taker
Exile me from exile, imprison me in Redemption
Banish me from banishment, trap me in Salvation
Lock me there and throw away the key into the sea of nothingness
Life imprisonment in Your revelation with no chance of parole
Wall me in Your walls
Let words and teachings of Torah soak into my heart
Like fat drops of cool rain into the parched ground
Let the ground lick its lips with the holy dew honey
Let the congestion be freed, like mint in lungs decomposes the obstructions
Let expressions of Your Truth sprout like buds from my heart
Like orange trees from grassy soil in groves
Rows and rows in groves
Let the tractors of holiness drive through them
Churning the soil freeing it to the Heavens
Let Oxygen enter and reach every nook and cranny of my heart
Let it seep into my soul
Becoming my soul

Israeilte Poem

Some truths cannot be killed

Like the sole existence of our Glorious G-d

This world’s Glorious G-d

And my personally inescapable truth

That I will never be one thing only

For years and years I tried to simplify my existence

Reduce and capture my identity

Trap it in a box, in a corner, so that existence would be easier

But thus was like the lie of the Satan

The expression of man is only as G-d wills

Drops of Israel and a sea of America

Blue, white, and red jumbled onto my heart

One ear was Hebrew and the other English

And yet my earlobe was Arabic, my other will be Aramaic soon

Mixtures of Mishnaic tongue – multicultural, multilingual – oh G-d, what to be?!

Mizrachi Israel, at 22 became religious and picked up my father’s nusach

Tongue stayed Hebrew, prayers Ashkenaz, so many sound waves and frequencies

The only thing that remained, and upon which all these things stood

Like the world that stands on Torah, Avoda, and Gmilut Chassidim

Scratch all falsity with frustrated and determined nails

Teeth clenched, heart determined to remove this silk screen, this smoke screen

Shatter the glass like the vessels

Withdraw the lie like tzim-tzum

Light up my mind like “and He saw that it was good”

Spark up my heart like clashing swords

Lift up my soul like Abraham’s eyes to the mountains on the third day

Climb this Wall, we’ll get to the top and remove all falsity, all false domes

From under the dome of the sky under His Home in the Sky, His Place, the Place

Go to the place that I will show you

There I discovered the only Truth seeping from Mouth of the Kadosh Baruch Hu

Grab His Tzitzis, climb up His Commandments, up the Neck our Father

Behind His Head to the Nape of His Neck, sit on the Knot of His T’fillin

Ride this world out over the seas and landscapes and above the waves

That push us from our destination

G-d fill this land with Your Glory

G-d, Jews, Torah – the only Holy Trinity I know

In my heart I found an Israelite, the remnant of a Hebrew

In my eyes I found the image of a Temple

In my sides I found a soul with a Jew’s expression

I looked north, south, east, and west inside – this is what G-d gave me

G-d, protect us – our enemies meet each other to plan our destiny

But people make plans and You laugh

Laugh at them, G-d

Wipe the evil smiles off their faces, strike them on the cheek and break their teeth

So that they cannot hackle evil laughs

Let them become stuck in the mud between the walls

And we will all run to the Wall

Which will become multiplied into Walls

The smoke will not be from bombs in shops but a smell pleasing to You

I am like a full, rich, steaming glass of coffee

The Arab Inquisition

The Reasons Beyond and Similarities Between Christian and Muslim Criticism of Judaism

The layman interested in worldly religious matters generally believes there to be a distinction between Christianity's and Islam's historical treatment of Jews and Judaism. He might argue, and not altogether illogically, that Islam was a far cry more just to Jews than Christendom ever was, that is to say, that Islam did not produce anything on the level of Inquisition, Crusade, or Concentration Camp. If he were to say this, then in this he would be absolutely correct. In the Muslim lands the Jew was subject to Islam's hierarchical pyramid, on which the Jew was near the bottom, but generally speaking he was relatively safe in his society and which cannot be argued for European Christendom.

But that this is generally true conceals an element of truth regarding Islam's outlook on Jews and Judaism. If we scratch the surface but a little we begin to see a set of similarities between the most negative of Christianity's viewpoints on Judaism and a strong correlative in Islam, especially in its contemporary expressions. We can rationalize then that similar behaviors will be produced forth from both Christianity and Islam owing to their similar ideologies regarding Judaism.

Consider:

"German historians and Bible-critics were motivated by animosity towards our people. For more than a century they labored, in vain, to tear apart our Scriptures and to destroy their authenticity; and they endeavored to belittle our entire past. Their bias against us, augmented by their knowledge that their religious books could not withstand scholarly criticism, caused them to fabricate countless reckless theories (107-124) against our Scriptures. They challenged and ridiculed every statement, they ascribed the latest possible date for their composition and they accused our prophetic writers of forgery and plagiarism."

*I took this quote from Avigdor Miller's book, "Rejoice O Youth!"

One can present many objections to this point, the first one being that the German Bible-critics were atheists whom also attempted to decompose Christian Scripture. But a cursory look at the history of Bible criticism shows that indeed many professed Christians were involved in that intellectual crusade to destroy Judaism. Nowadays we are accustomed to seeing a "different kind of Christian," not one whom believes that the essence of his religion is the destruction of Judaism. However, that some sixty years ago, or less, a Christian was likely not held up by any "liberal" preoccupation with respecting the Jews and it was to him that the end of Judaism was seen partially as a Christian religious duty. This "type" of Christian was very much like today's Jihadist Muslim, and therefore the parallel between Inquisitionist Christian and Jihadist Muslim is almost perfect.

Today, this type of Christian has gone "underground" and a new Christian has emerged, one whom loves and respects the Jewish people and whom sees their text as his own. The underground Christian continues to hate the Jew, but privately, and those who do not have realized the limits of criticizing Jewish Scripture if they are to maintain belief in their own religion. One result is a series of "pro-Jewish" Christian movements, such as "Jews for Jesus" and "Messianic Judaism," and are sugary attempts to accomplish an older Christian goal, albeit in an entirely different manner, of the decomposition of Judaism's parts and their rearrangement as Christianity. It is in Christianity's lifeblood to forever attempt this conversion and it will seek any means to do so; the price of failure is the end of Christianity. It follows that broken Jewish individuals make the best targets, given that the religious duty is to break down and rearrange Judaism into Christianity; a broken Jewish individual is easy to convert into a Christian. A broken Jew is like a mathematical equation, it (the individual) is reduced to its simplest form and converted into another form. If the parallel between the Inquisitive spirit and the Jihadist spirit is valid, then we have entered a time in which a broken Jew is also a sitting duck for conversion to Islam. It is possible that this is not the first time in history in which such a phase was apparent.

But a Muslim would offer a rebuttal against the statement, "They challenged and ridiculed every statement, they ascribed the latest possible date for their composition and they accused our prophetic writers of forgery and plagiarism." Firstly, he would argue, that they do not challenge and ridicule every statement, but only the statements that were falsified by Jews with hidden motives. One basic Muslim belief, and if you think I might be slandering Islam then ask a Muslim, is that there were Jews in history who falsified and corrupted certain texts of the original revelation that they received. The purpose, they continue, was to change documented history in their favor and also to cheat Ishmael and later his descendants out of their proper birthright. The rebuttal against this is that every stated truth in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, which did not serve to confirm Islam was explained away by Islam as having been falsified by Jews. This served the purpose of using "the Jews" to filter out whatever Muslims could not rectify as foundations of their faith, and so they simply proclaimed that those things were corruptions and conveniently ignored them.

Another Muslim rebuttal is that every Prophet in the Tanakh is recognized by Islam as one of their own Prophets, and therefore they would never do something as horrible and dispicable as accusing a Prophetic writer of forgery. They would even argue that for Christians to accuse the Prophets of this was one of the essential reasons that G-d sent the Prophet Muhammad to rectify their corruption. Rather, it was not the Prophets whom were guilty of forgery, but rather the Jews themselves whom saw purpose in altering the words of the Prophets for their own means. Therefore, everything in the Books of the Prophets with which Muslims disagree, they attribute to Jewish corruption and not to the actual text as written down by the Prophets themselves. Therefore, by editing the text of the Jewish Scriptures, Muslims have been able to create a text with which they fully agree and which can culminate perfectly in the Qur'an, but it involves committing the very forgery of which they accuse the Jews. Again, "For more than a century they labored, in vain, to tear apart our Scriptures and to destroy their authenticity; and they endeavored to belittle our entire past," also refers to Muslim treatment of the Tanakh. This is evidenced by the fact that Muslims refer to all Prophets and Forefathers/mothers as "Muslims," which pushes aside their Jewish identity and at the same time negates it.

Islam, and perhaps this is an inherited legacy of Arab culture, places high value on spiritual confidence and unbreakable resolution. (By the way, this is precisely why Arab and Muslim nations resent national foes, such as other countries, whom also exude this unbreakable resolution; it makes them difficult to defeat) Consider, "Their bias against us, augmented by their knowledge that their religious books could not withstand scholarly criticism, caused them to fabricate countless reckless theories (107-124) against our Scriptures." It is the psychologically confirmed behavior that a person whom is insecure in himself tends to lash out against others as a defense mechanism. Therefore, under the veneer of unshakeable spiritual confidence and total dedication to faith, Islam suffers from the secret fear that perhaps the Qur'an does not have a chance in hell of standing up to the authenticity of the Tanakh. It is that fear that inspires Islam to make sweeping proclamations that the Jews (although it never actually identifies which Jews) have corrupted large sections of the Torah - this is nothing more than an attack based in Islam's hidden fear that perhaps the Torah is superior to the Qur'an. Again, the greater the threat, the greater the fear, and the greater the fear, the greater the reaction. Hence, a large portion of the violence by Muslim groups and governments towards "Jewish projects," one of which is the State of Israel, and the other of which is, simply said, the Jewish People, is fear that the Torah is right and that therefore the Jews are doing the right thing. Islam today, like "the Christianity of old," first became accustomed to making literary attacks on Jewish Scripture and then soon moved into the realm of tangibles and began making physical attacks on Jews, not just in Israel but wherever they were. We have entered, and have been in, a Muslim Inquisition of sorts for some time now, given wings by technology and the ability to access and spread information with relative ease, a luxury that the Crusaders did not have. One earmark of danger in this Jihading spirit is the obsession with manipulating or erasing history; the denial of the Holocaust is one way to open up a possibility, G-d forbid, that it can happen again. The Crusades led to the Holocaust and now the Jihadists are denying the reality of that Holocaust but are behaving in the same way as the Crusaders. This should be a yellow light to the world, if it is sensitive. In the end, there is practically, basically, comparitively, and essentially no difference between Christianity and Islam in relation to Judaism.

Another similarity is the almost total absence of the "average Christian" in European Christendom to speak out against the horrors of the Crusades, Inquisitions, and the our own contemporary Holocaust. In almost the exact same way, today Muslims are not speaking out against the horrors being committed by Muslims involved in terrorism and murderous ideologies. They of course do sometimes say, only after being pushed to making such proclamations, that the actions of those Muslims are not it line and even antithetical to Islam, but their "gripe" is limited to words and not to actions. In other words, moderate Muslims (which is not a synonym for "peaceful") have fallen into the intellectual trap of explaining that Muslims whom commit acts of horror in the name of Islam are not really Muslims and therefore there is no reason to criticize them. If that were true, which I am to a degree willing to accept, then the real Muslims need to alienate the false Muslims, but that did not occur, which means that Muslims were not really interested in putting an end to Muslim terrorism, or at least were not able to or felt that they were not able to. This is the nature of terror; not only does it seek to put paralyzing fear into its target population, it also seeks to put fear into the hearts of those whom resist it, from its own people. Therefore, the same fear that acts on Israeli's to bend to the whims of Palestinian terror groups is the same fear that acts on moderate Muslims whom are afraid to speak out against other Muslim terror groups. A core of terror is created which paralyzes everybody and allows anything to happen, and everything that the terror group wishes. Slowly, slowly we see the re-emergence of a situation very similar to that of the pre-Holocaust reality, but in the name of Islam, not Christianity. I have Christian acquaintances whom apologize for the Crusades in the same way by saying that those people were not actually real Christians.

In truth, to a Muslim, there is no such thing as a Jew. Therefore, every Jewish endeavor is also null and void and subject to replacement by Muslim endeavors. There is so much within the Tanakh, Jewish Scriptures, that Muslims have to negate or ignore if their stated claims about the truth of Islam are to be credible. Therefore Islam must attack the authenticity of Jewish Scripture in order to survive, exactly in the same which Christianity had to. I am not here to find a way for Islam to create a way to juxtapose itself with Judaism peacefully; I have found that to be a basically useless endeavour coming from a Jew. Only Islam is able to create such a reality and comes down its will to do so. So, to use the prior quoted statement, Muslim "historians and Bible-critics were motivated by animosity towards our people," and are. This is a phase of not a Spanish, but an Arab Inquisition.