Volume 16 Number 67
Produced: Sat Nov 19 23:03:34 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Mesorah (Historical Tradition) and the Flood
[Yosef Bechhofer]
Nutritional Stumbling Blocks
[Richard Schwartz]
The Flood and Mesorah
[Yosef Bechhofer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 20:54:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Mesorah (Historical Tradition) and the Flood
This is a response to some remarks of Stan Tennen:
However my understanding is that "the Tradition" includes
more than the Pshat translation of Torah. Our Tradition
includes 4-levels of meaning in Torah and an extensive
literature of kabbalah and meditation.
Of course it does, however, one cannot forsake the level of Pshat in
pursuing the Remez, Drash and Sod levels.
When there are valid tools that are not in our tradition,
our tradition gives us the tools to by which we can make
these tools.
Although there is some truth to this statement, it is at the same time a
dangerous one. I would be very nervous about someone inventing tools and
then claiming that since he or she made them from the tongs of their
personal perspective of Torah, that in and of itself is validation. It is
precisely for this reason that Seforim are almost always accompanied by
"Haskamos", approbations of great recognized scholars that sanction the
contents of the Sefer as Torah true. The same is to be said about any
"tool", not just a Sefer.
I do not think that Marc is proposing - and I do not mean
to propose - a factual reinterpretation of Tanach. There is
no reinterpretation when the original interpretation comes
with the stricture that for the text to be properly and
fully understood (as well as a human can) it is necessary
to consider all 4-levels of meaning. If ONLY the Pshat
level were to be considered THE translation, that would be
reinterpretation in the extreme - wouldn't it? Am I making
sense here or am I missing something basic?
I do not know what you are proposing. If you mean that there are levels of
deeper meaning underlying the simple meaning of the text, which allow us
to understand the workings of Divine Providence in an integrated,
holistic, systematic manner based on Kabbalistic and philosophical
underpinnings, I wholeheartedly endorse the effort. I also recommend to
you the Seforim of Reb Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin zt"l, which have led me in
my efforts to achieve this kind of understanding, and upon which I base
many of my classes in Machashava (Jewish Thought).
If, however, you mean that the simple meanings of Biblical texts as
historical records is either insignificant, allegorical or, worse,
inaccurate, I take strong exception.
Here we must state clearly and strongly: Judaism is not just a "religion",
it is a corpus of "Emes" - Truth, and, as such it has rigid parameters of
belief and restrictions on individual flights of fancy. Not every
spiritual pursuit, whatever turns us on, is legitimate, and, conversely,
not every liberty with text and tradition is legitimate either. Certainly,
the forsaking of the Pshat of Torah is not condoned - except, again, in
those places where Chazal engage in the practice. It is symptomatic of our
era, when values are relative, histories are written based on the bias of
the historian, deconstructionism is rampant in literary analysis, that
reconstructing Torah would come into vogue. This is most unfortunate.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Schwartz <RHSSI@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 13:33:52 EST
Subject: Nutritional Stumbling Blocks
The Torah teaches that we should not put stumbling blocks before the
blind. In that spirit, I would like to discuss two "stumbling blocks"
related to our diets, since they are having major negative effects on the
health of Jews and others. Since I am not a medical doctor or a professional
nutritionist, I hope that others with expertise in this area will respond so
that the truth can be found out and spread widely, to the benefit of many
people and hopefully a true kiddush HaShem (sanctification of G-d's name).
The conventional wisdom is that people should consume large amounts of
calcium, especially from dairy products, in order to have strong bones and to
avoid osteoporosis. But, please consider the following:
1. The countries where people consume the most dairy products, countries such
as the U. S., Sweden, and Israel, have the highest rates of osteoporosis;
2. Many people in China (life expectancy 70 years) are lactose intolerant; yet,
osteoporosis is relatively rare. Also, the consumption of dairy products in
the Black townships of South Africa is very low, and also osteoporosis is very
rare.
3. Due to their high fish-based diets, Eskimos get extremely high amounts of
calcium, more than any other people. Yet, their women have very high rates of
osteoprosis, and it begins often when they are in their 40's.
Many studies have shown that the real problem is not the amount of
calcium in the diet, but how much is retained. The culprit has been shown to
be high protein, especially animal protein diets. While the human body can
store excess fat, it can't store excess protein. The excess is excreted and
takes calcium and other minerals out with it. Studies going back to the early
1970's showed that people with only 500 mg of calcium per day had positive
calcium balances, since they had low protein intakes, while others with 1400
milligrams of calcium per day had negative calcium balances, since they were
consuming very high amounts of protein. (This analysis can be easily checked
by just measuring the amount of calcium in the urine of people with various
protein intakes in their diets, and I hope that medical professionals who
have doubts will perform these measurements.)
The most common and the most dangerous nutritional misconception (hence
stumbling block) is related to the amounts of protein that we need. While
many people are concerned about getting adequate amounts of protein, the real
problem is that most people get far too much protein, especially animal
protein, and this has very negative effects on human health, especially with re
gard to the kidneys and osteoporosis. A human mother's milk only has 5% of its
calories from protein, and this is the percentage that most nutritionists think
that we should be getting in our diet. Even if this estimate was doubled to
10%, this can be obtained by a balanced diet very easily, even if there were no
animal products at all in the diet. Legumes, grains, nuts and seeds, and
vegetables are all rich sources of protein; even honeydoo melon has 10% of its
calories from protein. If this analysis is correct (and again, I urge people
to carefully check it out, since so much related to human health, and other
issues, is linked to it), how did we go so wrong in believing that it is very
important to eat foods that are known as protein sources, especially animal
products? Perhaps the answer is related to the fact that a rat's mother's
milk has almost 50% of its calories from fat, and we have placed great reliance
on animal experiments.
At this time when we see major budgetary problems at the local, municipal,
state, and federal levels, and that soaring medical expenditure are a major
factor behind these deficits (projections are that in 10 - 12 years, total
U. S. medical expenditures will reach 20% of our GNP), I hope that the Jewish
community will use our collective wisdom, and our Torah imperatives, to
actively seek the true facts that can help move our precious but imperiled
planet away from its current path toward bankruptcy.
I would be very glad to share further information and sources with others.
Thanks.
B'shalom,
Richard (Schwartz) <rhssi@...>
Author of Judaism and Vegetarianism, Judaism and Global Survival,
and Mathematics and Global Survival
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:20:19 -0600 (CST)
Subject: The Flood and Mesorah
>From M. Shamah
There have been numerous interpretations expounded by
Talmudic and Midrashic sages and our great commentators that
ran counter to what at least superficially appears to have
been the previously widely-accepted opinion.
That is of course true, but they are "Talmudic and Midrashic sages and
our great commentators," an dwe are not. Yes, we are smaller less
knowledgable and privy to less Ruach HaKodesh than Chazal and the
Great Rishonim, such as Rabbeinu Chananel, whom other Rishonim testify
had direct access to the Mesorah "shekol devarav divrei kabbala" -
"that all of his words were from the Tradition." That doesn't mean we
can't be creative - we just must know our limitations.
Several additional examples will be helpful. The Rambam,
primarily because of his interpretation of prophecy as
occurring in a vision, allegorizes each of the following:
G-d taking Abraham outside and showing him the stars; the
whole passage of Abraham's three visitors; Jacob's wrestling
with the angel; the whole episode of Balaam's talking ass;
Hosea's taking a harlot wife; Ezekiel's resurrection of the
dead (a Talmudic controversy); Gideon's fleece of wool; and
many other Scriptural events (Guide 2: 42, 47).
I just taught Gideon's fleece of wool in my Nach class. With all due
respect to you and others who commented to me privately about the
Rambam, Ralbag and others' approach towards such events that they say
were visions or conveyed by prophets - THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS
ALLEGORY. The Rambam, who codified the reality of prophecy as one of
the 13 Principles believes that this is the way angels appear and
signs occur - in visions. The Tanach accurately describes real events
that actually transpired - in the realm of prophecy. What I understood
Marc to have said is that the Flood account is an allegory - i.e., it
didn't take place in the realm of vision either - it is, according to
Marc, a symbolic story, much like a parable. Perhaps your closing
statement: "In conclusion we should recognize that a prophetic
allegory is as true and inspiring as any "actual" history" agrees with
me? (BTW, I would find the interpretation of the Flood as a vision
inacceptable. Miracles do occur - no one says, or can say, that the
Splitting of the Sea or the Giving of the Torah was a vision, and the
Flood I place in the same category. But that is a separate issue.)
R. Yosef Ibn Caspi and others allow allegorization of the
great fish swallowing Yonah.
Rabbi Ibn Caspi was a controversial source. I reserve the right to
reject his interpretation as beyond the mainstream.
Many Rishonim felt science indicated that necromancy doesn't
exist and rejected a literal interpretation of the
necromancer's conjuring up of the deceased prophet Samuel
and his ensuing conversation with King Saul.
Again, not as allegory but as visions.
If there would have been a compelling scientific or
philosophic reason to support the Eternity of the Universe
view, the Rambam states he would have interpreted Genesis 1
in accordance with it, but he believes Aristotle didn't
truly make his point, so Mesorah came into play. In our
century R. Kook considered the doctrine of evolution -
modified to include the Creator's role - so compelling and
uplifting that he urged Torah only be taught that way.
I fail to see why these points are relevant. Of course we can accept
science where it does not contradict Torah. it is where there is a
REAL clash that our debate begins.
The "Mesorah", which some have thrown against Marc,
important as it is, should not be glamorized into something
it isn't. The Talmudic sages and the Rishonim recognized
that there are many, many matters in Scripture that
"Mesorah" even in their days did not clarify and everybody
had to do their best with whatever they could garner from
tradition, logic and available evidence.
This is true, but it does not justify your next statement, in which
you leap to equate us with our "tools" with Chazal.
The misinterpretation of "Elu Veelu" and the
recently-developed concept of "Daas Torah" are stifling
legitimate Torah research and moving Orthodox Judaism into
an unenlightened age contrary to our glorious heritage.
You realize that I didn't quote either of these concepts in my
posting. I don't think they have anything to do with this discussion,
and I fear you bring them in to "pigeonhole" me as a rabid right
winger who can be dismissed out of hand. We can do great research, and
I hope that I do, and use all the tools at our disposal. We are not
discussing dispute with our contemporaries, however, which would
bring"Elu Veelu" and "the recently-developed concept" of "Daas Torah"
(as an aside, see Rabbi Wein's article in the November "Jewish
Observer" - "Da'as Torah" is an new phrase, but not a new concept) -
but our attitude towards Mesorah and Chazal. I resubmit, one cannot
reinterpret as allegory that which Chazal - via the Mesorah - accepted
as fact.
Indeed, once you question the Mabul as fact, pray tell, what leads you
to believe that Mattan Torah and Yetzias Mitzrayim are fact?
Yosef Bechhofer commits a personal injustice to Marc by
accusing him of stating that "G-d, Chazal and the Rishonim
were "pulling the wool over our eyes" with this blatant
falsification" [of an allegorical flood account], something
Marc never even implied.
I certainly didn't mean to insult Marc. I generally agree with much of
what Marc has to say and respect his scholarship. I hope we can
continue to discuss these matters unemotionally and in a friendly
fashion!
We may say that on the contrary, Marc is combatting the view
of those who posit literalness in the face of overwhelming
evidence, who sometimes are led to say the evidence was put
there by the Creator to fool us.
I am not a member of the "planted evidence" shool of thought. I,
however, fail to understand the negativism against literalism where
our Mesorah dictates it, in Torah she'bi'Ksav. I do not place science
on a pedestal - it is certainly as fallible, IMHO, much more, than the
traditions of our Jewish Heritage and History.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 16 Issue 67
