Ask JewishAmerica Archives
1997 - Volume III

7/16/97
Being A Citizen Of Israel

>You say that anyone can become a Citizen of Israel. Is this really true?
>Can even a Gentile become a Citzen? If so how/where does one go to do this?
> I would love to have my body where my heart is!

Israel has many fine Christian and Arab citizens. I suggest that you contact the office of the Israeli consulate in your area for additional information.

There is a difference between being an Israeli citizen and being Jewish. One is related to politics, the other is related to religion.

The State of Israel is a political entity which was declared some forty-nine years ago. It is a fine secular-oriented state which seeks to insure that Jewish people have a homeland. It has great regard for the Jewish religion and its character is significantly more Jewish than that of any other country. Jewish holidays are legal holidays and it has a lot of Jewish-oriented programs. However, to a great extent the State of Israel is not bound by the guidelines of Judaism. In fact, most of its legal system is based on British and Turkish law.

The Jewish people received the Torah from G-d over thirty-three centuries ago. We have been practicing Judaism since then.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

7/16/97
Judaism And Decision Making

>I'm wondering if you have any suggestions about sources I should be
>searching to help build an essay on the topic of Judaism and decision making.
>
>Perhaps a way of getting into the question would be to consult modern
>authors who have written on questions of moral and other dilemmas from a
>Jewish perspective, for example, prolonging life, responding to conflicting
>interests in management, disputes between rival claimants to property, etc.
>I would hope that these writers in turn refer to Talmudic and other sources
>for the principles and line of argument they follow.
>
>As a student of decision making I believe some of the most important
>concepts are commitment, regret and reversal, accepting responsibility,
>weighing alternatives and consequences, devising decision rules to assist
>difficult choices (e.g. majority rule, turn-taking, satisfy the greatest
>number of interested stakeholders, etc). Of course there must also be a
>moral dimension...although that is more difficult to capture.

I am not familiar with the English-based sources. I can't say that my familiarity with Hebrew sources is much better.

From the Torah/Traditional perspective, the focus of decision making is not what a person should do, but what did G-d tell a person to do.

Much of the decision-making activity centers around determining the Torah's guidelines and this is mostly based upon detective work which uses written source material. When an issue comes up and it's not clear cut, our scholars look for clues in the Written and Oral Torahs.

Decision science is a science. Unlike the Torah, it's not based upon a transmission of information whose source is the Creator.

I once subscribed to a Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society. I don't know if they are still publishing. The last issue I have is from 1993. The Journal is from the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, Staten Island NY 10306. Point of contact for subscription/information is Mrs. Claire Friedman, (212) 334-9285.

You may find their work quite interesting.

The human factors for decision making that you listed may be all-inclusive, or there may be more. They all describe human behavior.

From what I know, science is split on whether they are can be predicted and whether one can get a handle on their interrelationship.

Skinner and the like would say yes. To them, man is basically a robot. Science is currently preocupied with figuring out the computer program which determines human behavior.

Other people like Rogers, recognize an element of creativity in mankind. Our essence can be quite unpredictable.

So, your list may need a grain of salt from the scientific perspective.

From the Torah/Traditional perspective, it's clearly only part of the story.

The concepts for decision making that you listed are all human oriented.

G-d makes decisions, too. We can't make Him bound to concepts of human decision making.

A key question is, when you make a decision, who really made it, G-d or you?

Say it pops into your head to buy stock in XYZ corporation and you buy it. Did this happen independently of G-d? From my understanding, Torah/Judaism says no.

G-d wanted you to get the stock. If it goes up, He wanted you to have money and this was the way He got it to you. If it goes down, you deserved to lose money and this is the way he got you to loose it.

Take two other people. One decides to do a Mitzvah (fulfill G-d's commandment), the other decides to do an Aveira (sin). Did these decisions happen independently of G-d? From my understanding, Torah/Judaism says yes.

We are here on this world to go through life's tests. The decision criteria are all documented in the Torah. We are to be rewarded for the good that we do and we are to suffer (G-d forbid) for the bad that we do. This implies responsibility. Responsibility implies control. G-d, who is in absolute control has willed that people are to be in control of decisions which involve good and evil.

I believe that your community has a Yeshiva or a Kollel. They are a great resource. I recommend that you look them up! Give a call to the Orthodox community Rabbi.

All the best from JewishAmerica

Continuation

>If instead of a decision to buy stock the decision was to gamble on a
>lottery or in a casino would it also be G-d's will? It seems to me that
>there is room for ambiguity in the realm of risk taking and financial
>benefit, especially when my winnings or losses are related to outcomes for
>others.
>
>The case of mitzva versus aveira is clear cut and you relate it well to
G-d's purpose and man's reason for being.
>
>One of the factors I think is important in Judaism is constructive
>conflict/controversy in order to come to an understanding of G-d's will and
>Man's way of responding and behaving. I think of the disputes involving
>Hillel and Shammai and the point that no one has sole purchase on the "one
>right way". I'm trying to search whether there is a concept of majority rule
>in resolving disputes ...and the implication of that ...because the majority
>view or opinion is not always right!
>
>My research is also leading to some ideas about:
>
>Conditions that obviate commitment .e.g Moses' indication to Reuben and Gad
>that if they come across the Jordan and fight they can keep the land on the
>East.
>
>Circumstances for dividing property between rival claimants e.g. Baba Metzia
>
>Breaking up partnerships and who then has the first choice to the divided
>parts.
>
>Counsel for wise decision making in Pirkei Avot...e.g.Who is considered a
>wise man...the one who sees that which is to be born i.e. considers future
>consequences.
>
>Useful rules for choosing between people.. e.g. Gideon's rule for selecting
>dedicated and loyal soldiers...those who dont bend the knee. Solomon's test
>for determining the real mother of the two claimants to the baby.
>
>Dilemmas involving when to share and when not. e.g responsibility to share
>water or to keep it for self when two are in the desert and neither will
>survive if shared.

I would venture to say that many types of decision situations consist of a set of sub-decisions and some may be related to good/evil (free-will) while others may not.

With regards to gambling, if it is illegal/unethical for a person to be gambling and the sub-decision is whether to gamble or not, then the person owns the decision.

Once the person has decided to gamble, he may not own the decision to bet on red 20 or black 8. In this case, since the decision is not related to free-will then it is my understanding that G-d owns it. If it impacts more than one person, then G-d would take this into account.

Majority rule is a decision mechanism when it comes to Halacha determinations. It is my understanding that there are some caveats, such as domain, integrity, and competence.

Majority rule within halacha is relevant only when there is a doubt. Thus, even though Judaism is in the minority, since we have no doubt as to its validity (especially with respect to other religions), we are not compelled because of this rule to convert into a majority religion.

Majority rule in halacha is relevant only when the decision criteria are that which were transmitted to Moshe our teacher from G-d. For example, personal convenience is a factor, but it has limitations. A majority can not vote to overlook a law of Shabbos just because its practice is inconvenient.

A majority can not rule to suspend a negative commandment. However, we have instances when the majority ruled to suspend a positive commandment and we therefore do not blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashana when it occurs on Shabbos. Again, the decision criteria are restricted. The Shofar is not blown on Shabbos because we are afraid that an unlearned person may violate the Shabbos and carry the Shofar to someone for him to blow. In this case it was deemed appropriate to suspend the Mitzva of Shofar during Shabbos in order to protect the Mitzva of Shabbos.

Understandibly, those who vote must be competent Halacha authorities.

The Torah commands us to follow Sages carefully and not to 'turn right or left.' See Dt 17:8-11.

Rashi points out there that we are to follow them even if they tell us that right is left and left is right.

If they follow the decision guidelines, then we do not have the privilege to decide on our own that they were wrong.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that their determination can go beyond mere clarification. They are mandated to clarify that which Moshe transmitted. However, since they are merely human, they could be wrong. The Torah therefore gives their decision (again, if done within the guidelines) in certain cases, the power of definition even if they are wrong! That is, in certain cases their decision becomes VALID HALACHA for as long as they maintain the position. In some cases, if/when they determine that they made a mistake, they must bring a sacrifice, in others they do not bring a sacrifice for the error.

This is how I understand the teaching that 'In this world (pre-Messianic) the Halacha is like Hillel but in the next world the Halacha will be like Shamai.' Following Hillel is valid Halacha for now. The time will come when valid Halacha will be to follow Shamai. At that time more scholars will be around who understand Shamai than those who understand Hillel.

The Mishna in Rosh Hashana (2:8-9) clearly states that determinations regarding the new moon are final and binding even if the High Court was wrong or the judges were duped.

Thus, Raban Gamliel was able to compel Rabbi Yehoshua to travel to him and carry a purse and walking stick on the day that Rabbi Yehoshua determined to be Yom Kippur.

There is right and wrong, and there is win and lose.

If you follow the Torah guidelines than you win, even if you are wrong. If you don't follow the Torah guidelines than you lose, even if you are right.

Even if Raban Gamlien was wrong, the guidelines say to follow his determination. Thus, Rabbi Yehoshua was a winner by violating the day he determined to be Yom Kippur.

G-d wants us to play to win, even if we are wrong.

I don't understand what you mean when you write,
>Conditions that obviate commitment .e.g Moses' indication to Reuben and Gad
>that if they come across the Jordan and fight they can keep the land on the
>East.

Guidelines for for dividing property between rival claimants and breaking up partnerships are delineated in the Torah. If the circumstances and their applicability to the guidelines are clear cut, then the determination is more like following a cookbook than making decisions.

Gideon's rules for choosing people were not his own. They were mandated by G-d. You can see this for yourself in the Bible.

At first glance, Solomon's decision was astonishing. Superficially it appears to have been fool hardy. What if the lady would have reacted differently? Would he have been commited to kill an innocent infant in order to protect his image. Sounds despotic. Furthermore, if you look it up, you see that the people were amazed at his wisdom, not his bravery or boldness.

Rabbi Milevsky explained that it was based on wisdom. He was so wise that he was able to figure out the psycological make-up of the lady from the brief exchange, and it was so clear to him that there was no risk.

The dilemma involving sharing water to keep it for self when two are in the desert and neither will survive if shared is discussed in the Talmud and Halacha. The sources I know are in Hebrew. The Kollel/Yeshiva should be of great help.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

---

7/16/97
Explaining Bamidbar

>I am writing to ask you about Bamidbar 10:35-36, the verses we say
>when we remove the Torah from the Ark, and when we return it. I
>understand that Yehuda Ha-Nasi considers these two verses to be
>an entire book of the Torah, and I would like to know how he
>arrives at this conclusion. Mainly, however,I would like an
>explanation of the two upside-down Nuns that bracket these
>verses. What do they mean? What do they signify? Are there other
>instances where letters are bracketed by Nuns or other letters?
>I have discovered some interesting insights about the Nuns
>so far - that Nun is Aramaic for "fish",and that Yaakov blessed
>his children with " vayidgu larov "etc.,that the Jewish people
>are therefore required to swim against the tide (of the
>prevailing culture,and of their primal animal impulses), that Nun
>is 50, and the Jordan is fifty cubits wide,- but I feel there must
>be more, and that somewhere there must be strong and coherent
>commentary on this matter, which seems to me to be very important,
>given the role these verses play in our Services.

I am sure that Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi made his statement based on a teaching which he received from his teacher and that this chain traces back to Moshe Rabbeinu. I would be very surprised if came to this conclusion solely on his powers of reasoning.

I had some time to see whether the commentaries provide any insight on the reversed Nuns. I found several references to other books, most of which I do not have.

In addition to the significance that you proposed, Rabeinu Bechaya makes a reference to the fifty years of Yovel.

This is certainly a fertile area of research. At this point I do not have the resources to delve into the matter to give it justice. It seems to be an area of mystery and is not my field. (I don't know of anyone reputable around who is in this field, either.)

I do not know of any other instance of such letters in the Torah.

We believe that the arrangement of letters in the Torah reflect the world, the human body, human history, a lot of things. I'm sure that you have heard of the work on the Bible Codes. I'm sure that a person could spend several lifetimes on these Nuns and not even scratch the surface of their meanings and significance.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

7/16/97
G-d's Essence

>Recall that place in the Torah, where Moshe Rabeinu asks the Almighty to show
>him His Face and gets a reply: "You cannot see My Face and remain among the
>living." Sorry, this is not an exact quotation, this is - more or less - a
>rendering from my memory. Also, this is in English, and any translation is
>lame and gives only some idea of the original.
>
>Now, an easy explanation that comes to one's mind is that - in human
>psyche - G-d may be connected with powerful and spectacular natural events
>(e.g., thunder, Voice from which the Earth trembles, etc.), and thus the
>above "quotation" may be explained simply: a human facing G-d may die from
>fear, awe, etc., and so the Almighty's concern was to protect Moshe from that.
>
>However, there may be another - less shallow, and at the same time more
>straightforward explanation. G-d does not exist in time and space, He is not a
>physical body, He does not have a spatial form or a physical shape. Our
>senses are parts of our physical bodies. We see a narrow part of electro-
>magnetic waves emitted or reflected by other physical objects. We may try to
>imagine some attributes of G-d using our reasoning and what He told us, we
>may be right or wrong, but we cannot _see_ Him because we can see physical
>objects only. For this reason Moshe could not see His Face. As to "remain
>among the living," that may be an indication that living creatures cannot
>see Him for the above reason, but also that may be an indication that "seeing"
>Him may not be impossible for "non-living" - that is, after a person dies,
>or maybe before he is born. Thus, this part of the Torah may be another
>warning against one form of idolatry (imagining G-d as a physical, "seeable,"
>or maybe even "touchable" object, something like a "graven image") and also
>some indication on "seeing" Him.

I believe that you are saying that G-d's essence is of no relevance to the experience of sight. I've had similar thoughts, although I have not come across this in my studies.

Futhermore, it seems to me that one can only see physical things that have edges, limits, ends.

One can stand back several miles from the Empire State Building and see a tall, slender structure. However, if is standing besides it and his face is up forward against the wall, while he can see a part of it, he can't see its shape, how big it is, etc.

It would follow that if G-d can be physically seen, then He would have to have physical limits, which we believe to be false. There is no place where G-d is not.

I don't know how it works in the non-physical world.

I have not come across this in my studies, either.

My teachers have stressed to me the need to focus on what G-d wants us to do and also how we can better ourselves and our environment by taking lesson from what He has done.

I'd like you to go back to the Bible and look at the question which Moshe Rabeinu asked to which G-d gave this response.

You will note that Moshe Rabeinu did NOT actually ask to see G-d. He did not say, "Let me see you." Instead he said, "Let me see your Glory."

Read carefully the response, also. There is an entire verse prior to the statement, "Man can not see Me and live." !!!!

It is also fascinating how the Yalkut Shimoei (Klei Yakar) learns Moshe Rabeinu's request. Moshe Rabeinu was asking to see the reward for the righteous in the next world.

G-d's response is that, "Man can not see Me and live."

Imagine getting a bonus from your boss. You open the envelope and see a check with a one followed by three zeros.

WOW. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

Now imagine a check with five zeros. This can't be real, you tell him. A joke?

But it has a valid signature and he has the money in the bank and you call the bank and they say that it's legit.

You are floored. You can't speak.

How many zeros would it take to make you pass out from the shock?

The Talmud (I don't remember where) says that not only will G-d provide our reward, he will also give us the ability to really enjoy it, too.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

8/5/97
Resources On Ben Gurion

>Hi, I have a Jewish student in my class who would like to complete a study
>of Ben-Gurion. The resources on him in our school library are non-existant
>(I guess we [New Zealand] are about as far away from Israel as it is possible to get).
>I promised her I would look on the Net for her..... nothing as far as I can
>see... can you possibly help?

Try http://www.wzo.org.il/blueprint/bio/p118.htm

Have the student find a synagogue or Jewish organization that has a set of the Encyclopedia Judaica. It should have plenty of information.

All the best from JewishAmerica

---

8/5/97
Resources On The First And Second Temple

>I live in Florida and have been studying the
>Tabernacle for the last 5 years. I have a few 35mm slides of models and I am
>constructing my own model. I am looking for books, slides and videos on
>Solomons temple. I teach the tabernacle and its significance. I am trying to
>find materials so I can begin teaching the first and second temple. Can you
>help me. Thank You.

Check out ShemaYisrael's HyperMIKDASH - Jerusalem's Second Temple in Words and Pictures. They are at http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/

All the best from JewishAmerica

---

8/17/97
39 Things Forbidden During Shabbat

>I need the list of the 39 forbidden things for Shabbat.

There are thirty-nine 'melachos' which are forbidden to be done on Shabbos.

A 'melacha' is a creative act which was done to construct the sanctuary.

The architecture and components of the sanctuary conceptually represent the universe.

Basically, by refraining from creative acts that were done to construct the sanctuary, we demonstrate our belief that G-d is the creator of the universe.

The thirty-nine melachos represent thirty-nine categories of creative acts. There are actually hundreds, if not thousands of creative acts which fall under these categories and are forbidden.

Furthermore, the Torah charged our leaders to make safeguards to insure that our behavior is consistent Torah standards.

The thirty-nine melachos are what the Torah expressly forbids. There are hundreds, if not thousands of things that we do or don't do, whose source is by Rabbinic decree.

Finally, you can't know what to do and not to do from just listing. For example, cutting is a melacha. Does this mean that you can't cut up your Shabbos Kugle?

You really need a guide and/or a teacher to know what to do.

So, while the list consists of thirty-nine items, you really need to know a lot more in order to do Shabbos right.

However, they are a good starting point for the beginning student.

Given this introduction, the thirty-nine melachos are as follows:

Plowing, sowing, reaping, sheaf-making, threshing, winnowing, selecting, sifting, grinding, kneading, baking.

Shearing, bleaching, combing, dyeing, spinning, three weaving operations, unweaving, tying, untying, sewing, tearing.

Trapping, slaughtering, skinning, tanning, scraping, marking out, cutting.

Writing, erasing, building, demolishing, making a fire, extinguishing, finnishing something off, carrying.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

8/31/97
Cities Of Refuge

>I'm hoping you can help me with several questions I have on the Cities of
>refuge.
>
>Was a protected person truly safe if he left the City after the High
>Priest died? If not, do you know if he would have been allowed to stay?
>Can you explain this rule? What is the connection between the High Priest
>dying and a person's safety away from the City?
>
>When were the Cities of Refuge no longer cities of refuge? Was it with
>the arrival of the Romans? Can you give me a time line for this? Who was
>King and who was Emperor?

My understanding is that the real mechanism of protection is our system of justice.

We don't murder because it is wrong to murder. In addition to being wrong, if a person murders then he can get punished.

Prior to the death of the High Priest, if the accidental murderer is found outside his city of refuge and he is killed by the relative of the victim, that person will not be punished. Also, the Torah removed the 'wrongness' of the relative's killing him. In fact, it may even be a mitzvah for the relative to kill him if he leaves. (According to Rav Yosef Hagalili it is a mitzva and according to Rabbi Akiva it is not a mitzvah. Talmud Makos 11b) Thus, if the accidental murderer leaves the city of refuge then the Torah offers him no protection from being killed.

Once the High Priest dies it is forbidden for anyone to kill the murderer.

He becomes protected by our system of justice like everyone else.

I don't know whether he must leave the city when the High Priest dies. I would imagine that he would be asked to leave if he was taking up space that was needed by someone else. I would also imagine that he would not receive any more support for staying there and I guess that he would have to pay rent.

I see lessons and benefits from the law which allows the murder to leave after the death of the High Priest. I can't give reasons for laws, because the source for this and every other commandment is G-d's will and reason, which is beyond us all.

Our sages say that the High Priest is 'held responsible' for the accidental murder and therefore the murderer needs to be exiled until he dies. The High Priest was 'responsible' because he should have prayed to G-d that a tragedy of accidental murder should not have happened during his lifetime.

This is one of many ways in which the Torah sets a very high ethical standard for both the Torah society and the Torah leaders.

Just imagine how our society would be today if we made such a fuss for an accidental murder. Now imagine how our society would have turned out had we made such a fuss from the beginning of its formation.

Put in these terms, it may be difficult for us to relate to these standards. We may need to grow into them. If it's in the Torah then it can be done.

The Chinuch (410) says that the laws of exile were in effect as long as the Jewish people were on their land and the Supreme Court of 71 Elders was established in their official Jerusalem location, which is within the Temple Area.

40 years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, 28 Common Era, the Supreme Court ceased to function in their designated location. This was due to considerations which were internal to the Jewish people. It was not directly related to the arrival of the Romans.

Our king during that time was Agripus Ben Aristoblus.

The Roman Empire began their eastward expansion toward Judea in 112 BCE and Pompeius entered Jerusalem in 60 BCE and decided in favor of Hyrcanus II.

All the best from JewishAmerica

---

Additional Questions Based On Our Response

---

>Wasn't the 2nd Temple destroyed in 70 CE, meaning the Supreme Court
>would have ceased to function in their designated location in 30 CE
>(not 28 CE)?

>Also, does this mean that the Cities of Refuge existed during the occupation
>of the Romans? This of course brings up several questions. After their arrival
>(the Romans), to which court was the accused brought (while under the protection
>of the High Priest)? If it was the (Jewish) Supreme Court, would they have had the
>authority to condemn someone to death (for other than a religious violation)?
>It seems as though the Supreme Court would have had a very difficult time abiding to
>their scriptural instructions.

>And would the family member who successfuly avenged a death, not then himself be
>liable to prosecution under ROMAN law?

There are sources that put the destruction at 68 CE. Our Tour of Jewish and World History is based on the chronology of the book, Toldot Am Olam by Rabbi Shlomo Rottenberg. This book strives to present a chronology that is fully consistent with traditional Jewish sources.

Off-hand I do not know how the Roman occupation was phased in. I do not know whether and the extent to which the Romans meddled into our internal affairs.

We would not have brought any court cases to the Romans unless we would have been forced to.

Under the Romans, we ALL had a very difficult time abiding to our scriptural instructions, especially once they destroyed our Temple.

A danger to life does NOT supersede the fulfillment of this commandment.

If the Romans insisted on controlling these laws, then the family member who successfully avenged a death would have been liable for prosecution under Roman law. Assuming that they would kill him, the family member should therefore not have avenged the death in the first place!

9/10/97
Chosen Aryians

>I'm a curious man looking for good books on the tribes of Israel.
>I see alot of the tribalistic behaviour displayed by Aryan nations, and
>I wonder about the prehistory of the Jewish faith. Why do the Aryans
>think they're the chosen people? Who are the chosen people? Why do
>different branches of Judaism not get along? Why do the palestinians
>hate the Israelites and vice versa?

I have no idea what Aryans are referring to when they say that they are the chosen people.

Do they claim that Moses took their ancestors out from Egypt, that they accepted the Torah on Mount Sinai, and that they wandered through the desert for forty years?

The Bible says that people who meet this description were chosen by G-d. It says so in several places such as Deut. 7:6 and 14:2.

Do they claim that they are Jewish? If so, please give them a hearty Shalom Aleichem for me.

Jewish people are one big family. Do you have any brothers or sisters? Do you always get along with them?

If we disagree it does not mean that we are not also friends.

Israeli VS Palestinian is a political problem, not a family problem.

Not every Palestinian hates Israelis and not every Israeli hates Palestinians.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

9/10/97
Faith In The Midst Of Tragedy

(This person received e-mail from a religious person who was very close
to losing his life in the Ben-Yehuda triple bombing. The e-mail contained
his thanks to G-d for sparing his life. This person, the recipient of the e-mail,
is not religious. He appears to question this reaction.)

>You say that your staying alive is a divine miracle, perpetrated by G-d.
>I wonder, why is it that every time a religious (and sometime
>non-religious) person is involved in an accident, or an incident such as
>yours, they say it is a miracle that they came out alive? According to a
>religious interpretation of the world, it was G-d that put you in this
>place to begin with. So he put you in the bomb area and then saved you? Do
>you see this as a kind of trial? I find it hard to swallow, especially
>when innocent people are hurt, and then they thank G-d for not hurting
>them more. In my book it is equivalent to thanking Hamas (Yimach Shmam
>Vezichram) for not killing forty, but only four.
>
>Another comment: The evil people who committed this horrible crime
>were very "religious" people. They believed, going to their death, that
>they are doing Allah's commandments by going to their death together with
>these innocent kids. They believed that they are going to be paid, in
>heaven, for their noble deed. This shows to us all how dangerous and
>misleading a belief can lead people. Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir were
>no different. The people who laid today, in the name of G-D a pig's head
>on the tomb of the evil sheikh Az adin al kassam, were no different, and I
>am afraid that we will all pay the price for this.

You observed that people who were saved in an unexpected manner from tragedy term it a miracle.

I would venture to say that this is due to human nature.

Events like this shake people to the core. They quickly come to face their fragility.

I believe that you can statistically prove that there are less athiests in fox holes than there are out of them.

The athiest/agnostic person would interpret this to be a human flaw, to be eventually purged out of humanity by process of evolution.

The religious person would interpret this as a mechanism that G-d designed and implanted within humanity to give them additional chances for the greatness that He planned for them.

You question why people thank a G-d for saving them from trouble when they believe that He made the problem in the first place.

Momentary suffering can be justified by deep and long-term reward. I have great difficulty presenting this arguement each time I have to take my kid to the dentist.

We believe in Man's eternal existence.

Unlike the dentist problem, we can't see and demonstrate the benefits at this time.

We can thus attempt a credible response to your question, but not an answer.

So, take an innocent person, like a baby that was killed by Pharaoh some thirty-three centuries ago because his father did not make enough bricks.

Pharaoh turned the child in to an object for his terrorist campaign. The baby's life was cut short by some eighty years. Maybe for the few moments it took to die, the baby suffered less than it would have when it would have become time for it to die.

The baby dies as a martyr and earns it's eternal reward.

A believer can become angry at G-d, but the anger can be only be justified if it can be proven that the baby lost more than it gained. It can't be proven. We humbly accept the bad together with the good.

We who believe in Torah standards of behavior work very hard (and happily) to keep up with them.

We acknowledge that we don't always make the grade. So, when tragedy occurs we don't have to look very far to justify it.

There are many reasons why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Purge from sin is one of many. It is not fair to say that if a person suffers then he must be a sinner and if a person benefits then he must be righteous. We certainly don't believe in this.

The Torah teaches that G-d can knock off sins for unjustified suffering. He also can knock off merits for unjustified pleasure.

We are taught that G-d wants good people to pay up for their shortcomings prior to their day of judgement. He also doesn't want any bad people showing up in Heaven and demand their reward.

We are taught that G-d has a very unusual calculator. It's grossly distorted in favor of this world. Since it works both ways, for good and for bad, it's fair for him to use it. It's up to us to make sure that he uses it in a way that is eternally beneficial for us.

I believe that it is impossible to prove that there is such a thing as Divine intervention or that there is not. It takes no less as much faith to say that there is no such thing as to say that it exists.

I agree that extremes are dangerous.

Extremes occur in areas other than religion, also. Do you know people who like soccer?

Abuse and extreme behavior are the fault of the people who commit them, not necessarily the system within which they are committed.

Goldstein and the pig-people were wrong. Let's not blame their religion.

All the best from JewishAmerica

9/17/97
Parent's Bar Mitzvah Prayer

>I am searching for an appropriate parent's prayer to read to my son on his Bar Mitzvah.

I know of no such official prayer.

This is the time for you to think hard about your son's talents, inclinations, and interests. Make up the prayer, yourself. It's kosher to do this. Your prayer will come from the heart and will have great meaning to your son and family.

Mazal Tov!!

All the best from JewishAmerica.

9/21/97
Is The Ark Of The Covenant Needed?

>Is the Ark of the Covenant necessary if Israel is to return to Temple
>worship?

The Ark of the Covenant is NOT necessary if Israel is to return to Temple workship.

The Ark was concealed towards the end of the First Temple and was not in the Temple during the ENTIRE Second Temple Era.

It was and still is sorely missed.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

9/23/97
Where Is The Ark Of The Covenant?

>There are rumors that the Ark of the Covenant was taken by Bathsheba to
>Ethiopia. Do you feel this is an area that deserves further study? I have
>read the book 'The Sign and the Seal'.
>
>I was aware that the Ark of the covenant disappeared before the first temple
>was destroyed, but I am aware of two or three possible places where it could have
>been concealed. Please let me know if there is any validity or traditions
>that talk of these.
>
>First, it was smuggled to Ethopia. Second, it was concealed in a secret
>vault on the Temple Mount. Third, it was concealed in a cave by the jewish
>community when the temple was in danger of distruction.

The Talmud (Yoma 52b) clearly states that the Ark was concealed by King Yoshiyahu (Josiah).

According to tradition, the destruction of the First Temple was foreseen by the King and/or his prophets. They concealed the Ark in a secret vault/cave on the Temple Mount to prevent it from being taken into captivity.

I have yet to see a legitimate reference in the traditional Jewish sources to this Bathsheba-Ethiopian connection. Bathsheba preceeded King Yoshiyahu by several hundred years. It sounds like a wild rumor.

All the best from JewishAmerica.

---

Table Of Contents
For Ask JewishAmerica's Archives