Interpreting Away

Compare the following two statements:

Statement I: The biblical prohibition against eating pork (Leviticus 11:8 and Deuteronomy 14:8) doesn’t apply in modern times since it was primarily intended to prevent parasitic diseases, such as trichinosis, that can contracted by eating pigs. At most, the injunction should be considered a “good suggestion.”

Statement II: The biblical prohibition against touching a pig carcass (Leviticus 11:8 and Deuteronomy 14:8) doesn’t apply in modern times since it was only intended to prevent ritual contamination ("tumah" in biblical terminology) during pilgrimage festivals when one would visit the sanctuary, which was prohibited to someone in a state of tumah (eg. Leviticus 15:31, Numbers 5:3). At most, the injunction should be considered a “good suggestion.”

[See the end of the post for additional context]

Individuals making statement I in the presence of certain Orthodox Jews should do so only if prepared for a vigorous debate. The assertion that some Biblical commandment is “obsolete” due to changing circumstances directly contradicts a major religious tenet - that G-d’s laws are immutable and transcend the rationalizations of mere mortals to explain away. Ritual law, they will say, is just as imperative now as when Moses transcribed it directly from heaven. By the end of the conversation, one would likely run a serious risk of being labeled a heretic or worse, “Reform."

Statement II, in contrast, represents the normative traditional interpretation (Rashi commentary quoting the Babylonian Talmud Rosh HaShanah 16b. See also Rashbam and Ramban) even though it is logically the same as Statement I, just applied to the second half of the same verse!

This is not merely an academic discussion. Pig consumption is one of the most powerful and pervasive taboos in Judaism. There are many disaffected Jews that, while observing no other kosher stricture, will still avoid eating any pork. However, there are plenty of completely observant Jews who would never dream of eating anything even suspected of being unkosher but would willingly touch a piece of leather made from pigskin, reasoning that everyone is considered to be in a state of ritual contamination in modern times anyway.

The importance of interpretation highlighted here is one of the reasons I am so skeptical of people who use Biblical quotes in lieu of rational arguments to prove a point, expecting others to be awed into agreement by "G-d's incontrovertible Word." Besides the whole issue of whether listeners should automatically accept the divine origin and/or inerrancy of any particular scripture (which is, ultimately, always just book that people told you was important without any actual proof), by appealing to the authority of an ambiguous and often contradictory book, one is really arguing for one's own interpretation to have the same weight as if divinely proclaimed. This is a very common issue in the debate over Gay marriage. For a Cristian to assert that since the Bible calls homosexual intercourse an "abomination" means that Gay marriage is out of the question is not sufficient, since there are many, many things that the Old Testament forbids (eating shellfish, wearing garments made of both wool and linen, etc) that Christians have no problem with. The example with Jews touching but not eating pork shows how easily even a deeply ingrained taboo can to modified just by applying a particular interpretation.

REFERENCED TEXTS:

Deuteronomy 14:3-8

3 Do not eat any detestable thing.
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

Leviticus 11:1-8

1 God spoke to Moses and Aaron, telling them
2 to speak to the Israelites, and convey the following to them: Of all the animals in the world, these are the ones that you may eat:
3 Among mammals, you may eat [any one] that has true hooves that are cloven and that brings up its cud.
4 However, among the cud-chewing, hoofed animals, these are the ones that you may not eat: The camel shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a true hoof.
5 The hyrax shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a true hoof.
6 The hare shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a true hoof.
7 The pig shall be unclean to you although it has a true hoof which is cloven, since it does not chew its cud.
8 Do not eat the flesh of any of these animals. Do not touch their carcasses, since they are unclean to you.

Rosh HaShanah 16b

Rashi ibid.

(*NOTE* The discussion in the Talmud about touching a carcass from an unkosher animal should not be so obscure, as it immediately proceeds what is probably the most quoted passage in High Holiday Sermons: The "Three Books opened on Rosh HaShana." )

Ctrl+Alt+Del Comic

Happy Independence Day!

The 4th of July is a great holiday, with special meaning for empiricists. Today we celebrate the anniversary of the day a group of Deists signed a document that claimed independence based on the philosophy of The Enlightenment. Far from creating a "Cristian Nation," the signatories of the Declaration of Independence envisioned a country based on the principles of liberalism, personal freedom, and government by "the consent of the governed." Freedom of thought and belief are some of the most valuable and enduring legacies of our Founding Fathers.

To commemorate the occasion, I reproduce below some quotes from the author of the DoI. As indicated bu these selections, Tomas Jefferson should be remembered for his strong rationalist beliefs; at one point he literally cut out all the description of miracles from his Bible.

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."

"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

More from The Onion

Skeptic Pitied

Tammuz

A common tactic employed by Jewish educators to help ensure that their young charges are not tempted to leave the faith by Christian missionaries is to point some of the similarities between Jesus and earlier pagan gods that were also worshiped as divine incarnations who were killed but later resurrected in order to provide salvation for their respective followers. This type of deity was so common in the ancient world that it has its own category - the "dying-and-rising" gods. Some notable examples are Mithras, the Egyptian Osiris, and the Greek Attis. The back-story of each is pretty much the same. There is some fight or betrayal that leads to the tragic demise of the deity, followed by a great deal of mourning before the god makes his/her triumphant, supernatural return. The death and rebirth of each deity was supposed to mirror the annual cycle of the earth in which the summer vegetation withers each winter, but is rejuvenated again each spring. On a deeper level, the stories also reflects a very universal human response to our own life-cycle of birth and inevitable mortality, as well as a reaction to loss in general. Followers of these gods usually had elaborate mourning rituals, often at the end of summer, to commemorate the annual "death" of their deity, along with the rest of nature.
The educators could argue that one should identify Christianity as just another adaptation of these earlier pagan belief systems and therefore could not possibly be "true." However, what they didn't tell us is that Judaism may also have some vestiges of this concept.

The very idea of Judaism acquiring religious concepts from outside influences is so beyond the pale for most traditional practitioners that is never even considered. However, some of the tenets of faith considered to be most intrinsic to Judaism are completely absent from its early forms. For example, ask most religious Jews today what their "goal" is in observing the commandments and the most common response will likely be that s/he is working towards earning a premium spot in Olam Haba ("the world to come"), even though this post-life paradise is mentioned exactly zero times in the Old Testiment. The concept of an afterlife where goodness and obedience to the Divine commandments on Earth is rewarded - or in fact, a post life existence more elaborate than the generic Sheol, a state of dreary oblivion that awaits both the righteous and the wicked - is a later transplant picked up during the Babylonian exile.

From the Babylonians we also got - and even your Rabbi will admit to this - the familiar names for the months in the Jewish calendar. In the Pentateuch, the months are referred to simply by number, the first month, the second month, etc. After the start of the first exile, they suddenly have the Babylonian names attached, for example, in the book of Ester:

"In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar." (Ester 3:7)

As sacrilegious as it may sound to use pagan names for our scared calendar, it get worse. Tammuz, the month that started this past Sunday according to the Jewish calendar, is named for a Babylonian deity, one of the dying-and-rising kind. For them, the month named for Tammuz began at the summer solstice, when the daylight hours begin to decline. Each year the Babylonian tradition dictated that there be severe mourning, some of which is even recorded in the Bible:

"Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." (Ezekiel 8:14-15)

This much is not disputed. However, while I realize that what comes next is a bold assertion, I don't think that it is a coincidence that the month of Tammuz, along with the following month of Av, is considered to be a time of mourning in the Jewish annual cycle. Traditionally, Moses broke the Tablets on the 17th day of Tammuz, and Holy Temple was destroyed (twice, by the Babylonians and then the Romans) on the 9th of Av, which becomes the most sober day of the year. Both of these are observed as fast days and the period in between, the "three weeks," are considered to be time of mourning when restrictions on weddings, live music, and haircuts are kept. Jews pray all year for the Temple to be rebuilt, but these prayers take on extra fervor during this time. It may be that, directly or indirectly, this morning process is the Jewish take on "dying and rebirth," but with reference to the Temple instead of a deity. The fact that the destruction of the Temple is said to have occurred at the end of the summer may just be a historical quirk (that's when wars are fought, after all) but I think that the timing, along with the naming of "Tammuz", indicates that there is quite possibly a connection to an ancient mourning for a deceased god.

Evolutionary Psychology

Physics is great for explaining the natural world, but offers little help when it comes to explaining human nature. Since one is likely to run into other humans in the course of any given day, it is usually advantageous to have some idea about why people act the why they do. An extremely powerful tool for doing this is evolutionary psychology, which extends the concepts of natural selection to the workings of the human brain. By thinking about specific emotions and cognitive strategies as being beneficial or detrimental adaptations no less than organs or limbs, human predilections that seemed incomprehensible before can be made sense of. Even the popular media invokes EP as the prevailing scientific theory. Time magazine periodically does so; recently, it devoted an entire cover story to the science of hunger, in which it details humans have evolved a strong desire for fat and calorie rich foods, which were rare prizes for our ancestors but now are all too readily available.

Although evolutionary psychology is sometimes criticized as consisting of contrived, post-hoc explanations, it does make testable, falsifiable predictions that have been tested and confirmed by experiment. Almost as important, it has great explanatory value regarding human behavior that is mystifying otherwise. Why do we crave unhealthy foods? Why do teams sports come so naturally to us? Why are we generous to our relatives and distrustful of outsiders? Why do we find certain people to be attractive potential sexual partners more than others? Why do we feel compelled to enforce fairness and punish cheaters, even if it is not in our immediate self-interest? Consider the alternative religious explanation: "Humans act that way because that's just how God made us." In addition to the fact that this has zero explanatory value, it also doesn't make sense on it's own. Why would a deity create us a propensity to selfishness, a desire to mate with forbidden partners, or a mind that come up with rival gods and religions? To say that "the creator (or the devil or whatever) is just testing us" is to engage in real post-hoc storytelling.

The Onion

I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

I liked this Onion piece because it satirizes some of the unusual ways some believers try to reconcile what they have been taught to believe with scientific evidence. Often this results in a strange hybrid in which "God directed evolution to create life" or "The six days of creation really took billions of years." These syncretist solutions usually end up mangling both science and religion in the attempt to get them to mesh. The article also takes the "God of the Gaps" approach to logical extreme - as science continually improves its naturalistic explanation of the world, there is less and less room to invoke the supernatural.