The Next Step

I had great pleasure studying Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe in preparation for Pesach and have decided to set myself a challenge to research the life and works of R' Saadia Gaon over the next seven weeks with specific focus on his Book of Beliefs & Opinions, one of the first Jewish philosophical works.

In addition I will be studying the tractate of Sotah from the Babylonian Talmud as is customary between Pesach and Shavuot.

I hope to bring some insights and tidbits as my studies progress.

An interesting point from todays Sotah (3b): A woman's infidelity has a more corrosive effect on the family than that of a mans.

In a book titled 'Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics' it argues that since women can always be sure that their children are genetically theirs whereas men do not have that certainty without testing, fathers invest more time and effort in their children when they are certain of paternity.

This would imply that even the prospect of female infidelity can destabilise a family, how much more so in a case of actual adultary.

Bread of Poverty

Image via Wikipedia

From the Maharal:

Q: Why is the Matza pointedly described by the Torah and quoted at the very start of the Seder as “Lechem oni, the bread of poverty”?

A: Various commentaries have suggested a number of reasons for the name “Lechem oni”. One explanation is that Matza does not rise like regular bread and therefore symbolizes poverty, much as a pauper feels lowly when contrasted with a rich person who feels pride or fulfillment (having ‘risen’ in society). A further answer is that since Matza is slow to digest, it made excellent slave-food for the Egyptians to feed their Jewish slaves.

However, we are forced to dismiss these explanations. They cannot carry the true meaning to the Mazta’s description, “Lechem oni”, for after all, we are gathered tonight to celebrate our freedom which is our greatest wealth. There is certainly no room for the bread of poverty! Quite the contrary, the reason given by the Torah for our obligation to consume Mazta, as well as for the description of “Lechem oni” is: “You shall not consume any leaven; seven days you shall eat Mazta, Lechem Oni; - for you left Egypt in haste” (Devarim 16:3). Matza, in other words, is a physical reflection of our Freedom.

There must be a deeper explanation! Just as a pauper has nothing but himself, no money, property, etc., likewise this bread has no added ingredients, such as yeast, honey, oil, or other liquids etc. added – just ‘itself’, flour and water. True, the Matza is not ‘rich’ in flavors, yet since it is itself, not joined and dependant on external things, it is essentially free! All one tastes in Matza is the essential Matza itself, for it is ‘free from added flavors’.

We can eat regular bread and challah made with eggs, poppy seeds, etc. Yet when it comes to the festival of freedom, when we accept the spiritual force of redemption, we specifically eat the ‘bread of poverty’, - true freedom. For it was on this night that we were redeemed through a Divine intervention that stemmed from a lofty level of pure (and therefore uncomplicated, ‘simple’) level of divinity.

Tolerating the Intolerable

Scenario A: There is a very well regarded person, possibly the head of a leading Ivy League university, who happens to express a view that is considered intolerable regarding the superiority of one human being over another. He comes under a barrage of criticism and is forced to leave his position and his career is ruined.

Scenario B: There is a very well regarded person, possibly considered one of Judaism's foremost thinkers in his time, who happens to express views that are currently unpalatable in western society. His contentious views are overlooked and he retains his status and his good name.

Why? why is it that we are unable to tolerate intolerable views in the present and are willing to 'forgive' people who held similar views many years ago. Is it just a condescending world view that if they were as enlightened as we are they wouldn't of held those views?

Image via Wikipedia

I started thinking about this since I was reading Gevurat Hashem by Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, the Maharal of Prague, and he says unashamedly that a woman is not as important as a man. Now I can interpret that in a sanitised way and also make reference to what he said in the previous chapter that the exodus from Egypt was in the merit of Miriam, however, the point is that whatever he meant he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt if he was alive today.

It suggests to me that our demonisation of people who hold intolerable views is not neceesarily a reflection of our adherence to a strict moral code but rather a discomfort with being confronted by our own disonance in relation to morality. When the holder of such a view is in the past it is easy to just sweep it under the carpet, however, when he/she are in the here and now we are forced to explain how it is so.

One option is to discredit the person, as is done routinely like in the case of scenario A, but the braver thing to do would be to ask ourselves this question:

Am I totally consistent in my own beliefs and opinions? most of us would probably answer no. Does that mean my negatives negate my positives? not at all. We all tolerate the often intolerable aspects of our minds and hearts, so why can't we tolerate someone elses?

I'm not trying to suggest that certain ideas are tolerable, quite the opposite, they are indeed intolerable, but is it worth destroying the totality of a person becasue of it?