jewish times - volume i,no. 13...may 3, 2002

7/27/2019 Jewish Times - Volume I,No. 13...May 3, 2002

1/6

IntroductionJudaism, as seen through the eyes of

he scholars of the Talmud, has its ownnique religious orientation. While

asing itself on a cataclysmicventrevelation, it does not look tomiracles as the source of its intimateelationship with God. God'sevelation at Sinai was a one-timeccurrence never to be repeated. Thiss expressed in Deuteronomy 5:19, "areat voice which was not heardgain."(1) In the mind of the Talmudiccholar God continuously revealsimself not through miracles buthrough the wisdom of his laws.(2)

Dedicated to Scriptural and Rabbinic Verifof Jewish Beliefs and Pr

www.mesora.org/jewishtimes.pdfVolume I, No. 13...May 3, 2002 Download and Print

The World Accepts the"PLO Scandal"

std997

Denial is a devious foe. It caters tomany agendas, luring us to makeharmful decisions - blinding us withvisions of success. However, denialis called denial for good reason.

We can hope for an agreement withthe Palestinian terrorists, but is thatrealistic, or impossible? We must behonest when weighing both sides,accepting openly what reason dictates,regardless if our dreams are crushed.Dreams are for those asleep - I amawake, are you?

Denial is our own demon. A demonwhich we must not run from, butapproach head-on, and approach itnow. Dreaming will not replacechildren violently killed by ruthless,homicidal, Palestinian bombers.

What causes eternally wasteful talksto continue between the PA and Israel?I believe there is a conflict in us which

stems from two erroneous and fatalopinions; 1) People cannot fathom theimage of a Palestinian "child" being abomber, 2) Adult bombers can repent.These two tragic mistakes are killingus. With some people, there can neverbe a light at the end of the tunnel. Apeople who encourage their children tokill themselves and others; a peoplewho kill their own, dragging theirbodies in the street; and a people whojust killed Danielle Shefi are nothuman, and cannot be treated ashuman.

The Torah teaches we must wipe out

a city of idolatry and Amalek. Goddestroyed Sodom. He wiped out theworld with a flood. In all these cases,children were not spared. Askyourselves. "Is God right or wrongwith these acts?" God created morals,it is not for man to oppose God. KingSolomon taught us, (Koheles, 5:1)"Don't be excited (with) your mouth,and do not hasten to bring forth wordsbefore G-d, for God is heaven and youare on Earth, therefore let your words

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 6)

The basic foundations which all Jewsmust know as true. We urge you to read them:

www.mesora.org/13principles.html

www.mesora.org/belieforproof.html

an open letter to the jewish community:

www.mesora.org/openletter/openletter2.html

In This Issue:Torah from sinai 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

LO scandal 1

acing reality 1, 6

Dr. keyes' response to above 6

Torah from Sinairabbi israel chait

Suggested Readings:see these and other articles at our site

"The Palestinian Arab people assert the genuineness and independence of their national revand reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship and subordination."

Anyone who is not familiar with resolution 28 - Appendix 3 of the National PLO Charter - yojust read it! And I suggest you read it again. Their revolution is genuine, real, true, authentic, noriginal - you can add any other adjective you want. But do you understand the point of these wThey genuinely believe they are entitled to a revolution in the land that is not theirs, never wasand will never be theirs. GOD gave Israel to the Jews. The PLO and their Palestinian homelanfabrication. Jewish occupation is a fabrication, a lie and a great scandal!

Their statement says: reject all forms of intervention. What does that mean? They reject allmaking political intervention from other countries? Yes, that's right they do reject peace. Thereject piece! Their mentality and their ideology are "in place." It means nothing is going to regarding their vicious Charter - which means there will NEVER BE PEACE until they are wipthe earth (may it happen)! Do we really believe the United States can do anything about the Cstatements? Arafat (may he blow himself up) will say anything he thinks we want to hear. And smile he lies through his teeth yet we think we can make peace with this pig. Unfortunately, totally missing the point - their Charter still exists, nothing has been changed - the ideology is the same as it was when it was formed. Who are we kidding? What is the point of analyzingactivity - was there a massacre wasn't there one - there wasn't. But what is the point - it is all in thof SCANDAL. There is a scandalous Charter - it will NOT GO AWAY! Jews will continue because the PLO have legitimized their revolution and other countries accept it including the Uone challenges it by killing Arafat no one can stop it - yet we think we can make peace with it! the most absurd and twisted idea? With what and whom do we make peace? Make peace with a cthat is absolutely corrupt, illegal and uses terrorism and murder as its basic principles? - in the nasserting independence? Who uses children as human bombs! Because he believes that sacrchildren will bring him more sympathy from the world.

"And this is a remarkable plot which is used by the very evil man attempting to kill his enemwhen this fails, he tries to kill himself together with his enemy." From Igeret Teiman, Letters to T- from the Rambam.

"The Palestinian people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrievhomeland. The Palestinian people determine their attitude towards all states and forces on the bthe stands they adopt vis- -vis the Palestinian case and the extent of the support they offer Palestinian revolution to fulfill the aims of the Palestinian people. Appendix 3-29, PLO NCharter.

"In the name of humanitarianism, the Arab refugees have been bred to believe that the frauhistory they learn by rote: their "dream of identity" can only materialize, they believe, at the costdestruction of a people. The young "Palestinian refugees" of twelve or thirteen or twenty hachoice. From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters.

Facing Realityrabbi moshe ben-chaim

rivka olenick

Maimonides' 13PRINCIPLES

God's ExistenceBelief or

Proof?God's Land

WithoutGod?

Maimonides' 13PRINCIPLES

God's ExistenceBelief or

Proof?God's Land

WithoutGod?

ask your children:

"On Sinai, why did God cause His voice to come from fire? What did 'fire' prove?Have your children email us with their answers: [email protected]

mail: [email protected] the jewishtimes is emailed to 55,000 - available online to 20-40,000 readers monthly affiliates: www.usaisrael.org email: letters@usaisramail: [email protected] the jewishtimes is emailed to 55,000 - available online to 20-40,000 readers monthly affiliates: www.usaisrael.org email: letters@usaisra

"Would it be that My people listen to me, if Israel would go in My ways,I would subdue their enemies in a instant, and turn My hand against their foes

King David, Psalm 81

www.faps.com


2/6

Volume I, No. 13...May 3, 2002 www.Mesora.org/JewishTime

These laws manifest themselves inTorah - the written and the oral law -nd in nature.

The Psalmist expresses this viewmost clearly. He speaks freely of thewonders of nature and the awe-

nspiring universe as in Psalm 8:4,When I look at the heavens, the workf Your fingers; the moon and stars

which you have established". Psalm04, dedicated to the wonders ofature, climaxes with the exclamation,How many are Your works, O Lord!

You have made them all with wisdom."Regarding the sheer intellectual joy oneerives from studying Torah, he states,The Torah of the Lord is perfect,estoring the soul, the testimony of the

Lord is trustworthy, making wise theimple person. The precepts of the

Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart,

he commandment of the Lord is lucid,nlightening the eyeThe statutes of theTorah are true; they are all in totalarmony. They are more to be desiredhan gold, even fine gold, and they areweeter than honey and theoneycomb."When speaking of man's search for

God the Psalmist states, "The Lord,rom heaven, looked down upon thehildren of man, to see if there wereny man of understanding searchingor God (14:2)." Man discovers Godnly through understanding.

Accordingly, the righteous are depicteds being constantly involved in thisrocess of searching for andiscovering God. "But only in the

Torah of the Lord is his desire, and inHis Torah he mediates day andight"(Psalms 1:2). Maimonidesharply criticizes those who considerhemselves religious and search for

God through the miraculous. "Say to aerson who believes himself to be ofhe wise men of Israel that the

Almighty sends His angel to enter thewomb of a woman and to form therehe foetus[sic], he will be satisfied withhe account; he will believe it and evennd in it a description of the greatness

of God's might and wisdom; althoughhe believes that the angel consists ofburning fire and is as big as a third partof the Universe, yet he considers itpossible as a divine miracle. But tellhim that God gave the seed a formativepower which produces and shapes thelimbs and he will turn away becausehe cannot comprehend the truegreatness and power of bringing intoexistence forces active in a thing that

cannot be perceived by the senses." (3)

While Judaism is based on asupernatural event, it is not orientedtoward the supernatural. The essence ofJudaism is not realized throughreligious fervor over the miraculous butthrough an appreciation of God'swisdom as revealed both in Torah andthe natural world. A miracle, being abreach of God's law, does notcontribute to this appreciation. Thisdistinction is crucial since it givesJudaism its metaphysical uniqueness.

IThe foundation of our faith is the

belief that God revealed himself to thepeople of Israel a little over threethousand years ago. The revelationconsisted of certain visual and audiblephenomena. The elements of fire,clouds, smoke pillars, and the sound ofthe shofar were present. God producedan audible voice of immenseproportion that He used to speak toMoses and then to the people. Thevoice conveyed intelligible Laws ofgreat philosophic and halachic import.The event left no doubt in the minds ofthose present that they had witnessedan act of God. The Torah describes thedetails of the event in two places, firstin Exodus 19 and then in Deuteronomy4, where Moses recounts the event tothe people before his passing. Whatwas the objective of the event? In bothplaces the Torah very clearly tells usthe purpose of the revelation. Thestatement that God made to Mosesimmediately before the event reads asfollows:

I will come to you in a thick cloud,so that all the people will hear when Ispeak to you. They will also thenbelieve in you forever.

Exodus 19:9When Moses recounts the event to

the people he says,Teach your children and your

children's children about the day youstood before God your Lord at Horeb.It was then that God said to me,"Congregate the people for Me, and Iwill let them hear my words. This willteach them to be in awe of Me as longas they live on earth, and they will also

teach their children.Deuteronomy 4:9-10God clearly intended the event to be

a demonstration that would serve thepresent and all future generations.Nachmanides and others consider itone of the 613 commandments to teachthe demonstration of the event at Sinaito every generation. We are thereforeobliged to understand the nature of thisdemonstration and how it was to bevalid for future generations. Anunderstanding of the foundations of asystem offers insight into the characterand philosophical milieu of that

system. Comprehension of Torah fromSinai provides the most rudimentaryapproaches to the entireWeltanschauung of Torah.

IIThe very concept of a proof or

evidence for the occurrence of theevent at Sinai presupposes certainpremises. It sets the system of Torahapart from the ordinary religious creed.The true religionist is in need of noevidence for his belief. His belief stemsfrom something deep within himself.Indeed, he even senses in the idea ofevidence for his belief a mixedblessing, as it were, a kind of alien ally.He does not enjoy making recourse toreality. Judaism, on the other hand,doesn't just permit evidence; itdemands it. If one were to say hebelieved in Torah from Sinai and doesnot need any evidence, he would not bein conformity with the Torah. TheTorah demands that our conviction thatit was given to us by God be based onthe specific formula of thedemonstration He created for us.Nachmanides states further that were itnot for the event at Sinai we would notknow that we should reject a false

prophet who performs miraclestells us to abandon any of the lawways of the Torah. It is writteDeuteronomy 8:2-6 that we shoulfollow such a prophet. But, Nachmanides, were it not fodemonstration at Sinai we woutotally in a quandary, unable to whether we should follow the Tbased on miracles that occurreEgypt or follow the false prophet b

on his miracles. (4) The event at resolves this dilemma. After the at Sinai the Jew remains unimpreven by miracles that would leaordinary person to conclude thawords of the false prophet are trueshall return to this point later.

Clearly then, the basis on wone's religious convictions are differ in the cases of the religionist and the man of Torahdifference might be stated infollowing manner: The religibelieves first in God and then imind and senses, while the m

Torah, who bases himself on evidaccepts his mind and his sensesthen proceeds to recognize GodHis Torah by means of these Only the man of Torah perceivesas a reality as his ideas concerningregister on the same part of his that all ideas concerning reality do

Let us proceed to the demonstthat took place at Sinai. We understand not only how this would serve as proof for immediately witnessing it but for fgenerations as well, as it is statDeuteronomy, "and they will also their children." We must define aoutset what we mean by proofterm proof as it is commonly usea subjective meaning. We mean to the satisfaction of a given indivAs such it is subject to a wide randefinitions and criteria. There are for whom even the world of perception is doubtful. In order nget lost in the sea of epistemologus state that the Torah accepframework similar to the one a sciemploys. It accepts the world of perception and the human mind

P

continued from page 1)

(continued on pa

professional web designWeb Design - Corporate Identityaward winning design: www.1sgdesign.com


(1) See Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on this verse.

(2) In his description of the Torah scholar, Rav Soloveitchik states, "He does not search out transcendental, ecstatic paroxysms or frenzied experiences that whisper intonations of another world into his ears. He does not requ

iracles or wonder in order to understand the Torah. He approaches the world of halacha with his mind and intellect just as cognitive man approaches the natural realm. And since he relies upon his intellect, he places his faith in it a

ot suppress any of his psychic faculties in order to merge into some supernal existence. His own personal understanding can resolve the most difficult and complex problems. He pays no heed to any murmurings of [emotional] intu

her types of mysterious presentiments." Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man. (Philadelphia: 1983, Jewish Publication Society of America) p.79.

(3) Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed. Trans. by M. Friedlander. (London: 1951 Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd) p. 161.

(4) From both Maimonides and Nachmanides who concur on this point, as well as from the plain meaning of the Bible itself with regard to the objective of Revelation, it is clear that Judaism does not give credence to the existen

thentic inner religious voice. Were this the case, there would be no need for the demonstration at Sinai in order to discredit the false prophet (Deuteronomy 8:2-6). On the contrary, this would be the exact test spoken of, to see if one

ithful to this inner voice. For Judaism this inner voice is no different from the subjective inner feelings all people have for their religious and other unwarranted beliefs. It stems from the primitive side of man's nature and is in

urce of idolatry. This is clearly stated in Deuteronomy 29:17, 18: Today, there must not be among you any man, woman, family or tribe, whose heart strays from God, and who goes and worships the gods of those nationsWhen

rson] hears the words of this dread curse, he may rationalize and say, "I will have peace, even if I do as I see fit." Why does the Torah here as in no other place present to us the rationalization of the sinner? The Torah is descri

rong sense of security these primitive inner feelings often bestow on their hosts and is warning of the tragic consequences that will follow if they are not uprooted.

(5) It is imperative that the reader examines the passages in the Torah relevant to this notion. These include Exodus 19:4, Deuteronomy 4:3,9,34,35, and 36.


3/6


P

vents that occurred at Sinai arecording to Torah valid evidence fromhich a rational person would

onclude that a). There exists a deity,. This deity is concerned with man,

nd c). This deity entrusted Moses withe task of conveying his system ofws to the people. To anyone whoaintains that even if he were at Sinai

e would remain unconvinced, theorah has little to say.The Torah addresses itself to ational mind. It must be rememberedat every epistemological system thatdefendable from a logical standpointnot necessarily rational. Rationality

emands more than logicalonsistency; it requires cleartellectual intuition. One may argue,

r instance, that we possess no realnowledge of the atom. One mightontend that all electrons and protonsonspired to act in a certain way wheney were being observed. It may befficult to disprove such a hypothesis,

ut it is easy to see that it does notppeal innately to the human mind. (6)ur intuitive intellect rejects it. (7)

IIILet us now proceed to the question

f how the events at Sinai, whichccurred over three thousand yearsgo, were to serve as evidence for all

cceeding generations. We may beginy asking what kind of event, if any,ould possibly be performed thatould qualify as evidence long after

uch an event has transpired? Whatiteria could we set forth that wouldtisfy such a requirement? Let us

nalyze how we as human beings gainnowledge. What methods arevailable to us? It would seem thatere are two methods we use to obtain

nowledge. The first is by directbservation. This course seems simplenough and for our purpose requiresttle analysis. Very little of ournowledge, however, is obtainedrough direct observation. We wouldnow little or nothing of world history

we limited ourselves to directbservation. Even in science little or noogress could be made if one were

mited to direct observation. We could

not rely on textbooks or informationgiven to us by others. Instead, eachscientific observer would have toperform or witness all experimentalevidence of the past firsthand.Knowledge in our personal lives wouldbe equally restricted. When we placeourselves on the operating table forsurgery we have very little firsthandknowledge about our physicalcondition or even whether the

practitioner is indeed a physician. Weput our very lives on the line withalmost no firsthand, directly observedevidence.

Why do we do this? Are there anycriteria we use that can rationally

justify our actions? Here we come tothe second class of knowledgeavailable to us - secondhandknowledge. Secondhand knowledgeseems to us quite reasonable providedcertain criteria are met. Whensecondhand knowledge comes to ourattention we are immediately facedwith the question: Is this piece of

information true or false? We cannotdirectly know whether or not it is truesince we have not witnessed it directly;we can, however, know if it is true byway of inference. If we can remove allcauses of falsehood we can infer that itis true. How can we remove all causesof falsehood? The rationale is simple.If the information that others convey tous is false, it is so for one of tworeasons. Either the informer is ignorantand mistaken in what he tells us, or hisstatement is a fabrication. If we canrule out these two possibilities, thereremains no cause for the information tobe false. We then consider it to be true.

How can we eliminate these twopossibilities? For the first one,ignorance, we only need to determinewhether the individual conveying theinformation to us is intellectuallycapable of apprehending it. We dealhere with a direct relationship. If theinformation is simple we may trust anaverage person. If it is complex orprofound we would only trust someonecapable of understanding such matters.The more complex the matter, the morequalified a person is required to be; themore simple the matter, the lessqualified an individual needs to be. If

an ordinary person would tell us it wasraining we would be inclined on thebasis of the first consideration tobelieve him. If he would tell us aboutcomplex weather patterns we woulddoubt his information. If, however, aneminent meteorologist would describe

such patterns to us, we would believehim. The day President Kennedy wasassassinated word spread almostinstantly that he was shot. This reportremained accurate although it passedthrough many hands. The details abouthow or where he was shot wereconfused. The shooting was a simpleitem of news capable of beingcommunicated properly even by manysimple people. The details of how and

where were too complex for ordinarypeople to transmit properly.

Sometimes our criteria are fulfilledin concert with each other. We maybelieve a lay person's testimony thatanother individual is a well-qualifiedphysician and then take the physician'sadvice. In another case we may accepta lay person's assertion that a text is thework of notable scientists. We wouldthen proceed to accept as true ideasstated in this text even though theyseem strange to us. We would notaccept these very same ideas from theoriginal simple person. Our acceptance

of the information found in textbooksis always based on this process.Now we come to the consideration

of fabrication. Here again we operatethrough inference. We may rule outfabrication when we trust theindividual or think he has no motive tolie. If we do not know the individualwe work with a second criterion. Weaccept the information if many peopleconvey it, and we doubt it when itssource is only one individual. Therationale is based on the assumptionthat one individual may have a motiveto lie, but it is unlikely that a group ofpeople would have a collectivemotivation to lie. If we met someonewho told us that the 8:30 train toMontreal derailed we might at first bedoubtful, but if several passengers gaveus the same report we would accept it.We deem it unreasonable to assume auniversal conspiracy. Our acceptanceof the authorship of books by thosenamed on the covers is based on thisassumption. The moment we hearinformation our minds automaticallyturn to these two factors. We askourselves if the informant is capable ofapprehending the information he isconveying and if there is any reason to

assume fabrication. If we can answer inthe affirmative to the first question andin the negative to the second question,we accept the information as true.

These are the criteria which guideour lives. They determine the choiceswe make in both our most trivial and

most serious decisions. Withmodus operandi we conclude thand so is a highly qualified physIf we suspect his integrity ocapabilities we consult a sephysician or even a third. If all ofagree we would submit to evserious operation on the grounds universal conspiracy is absurd.

Our acceptance of all historicais based on the previous considera

We are satisfied with the verisimiof certain historical events unsatisfied with others dependinwhether or not our criteriareliability have been met. We aresure of simple well known factsexample, no one would disputclaim that World War I occAgain, we are quite certain that GWashington existed, but we are nsure of what size shoe Washiwore. A simple fact readily obserby many individuals we accept asDetails we doubt. For these ancomplex information we re

qualified individuals. By rulingfabrication we accept communications as true. Becauour system we often arrive atareas when our criteria have notadequately fulfilled. To the degrethey are not satisfied we are inwith doubt.

We are now in a positiodetermine what event couldperformed that would retain its vafor future generations. Since fgenerations cannot observe the directly, it would have to be an that rules out in its procescommunication the causes of due to the ignorance of communicators and due to fabricA simple event grasped easily bsenses that occurs before a mapeople who later attest to its occurwould fulfill the requirements. Suevent would have all the credibilthe most accepted historical fact. doubt either a simple event attesby masses of people or a comevent attested to by quaindividuals, we would ipso factoto doubt almost all the knowledghave acquired in all the sciences, ahumanities, and in all the dif

disciplines existing today. Morwe would have to desist consulting with physicians, delawyers, mechanics, plumelectricians, or specialists in anywho work from an accepted boknowledge.

advertising space availableinquire at:[email protected]

For Public Companies Seeking Funding - Email us: nobelprz@webspan

ontinued from page 2)

(continued on pag


(6) As a classic example, metaphysical solipsism may be logically irrefutable but is to the human mind absurd.

(7) We may even be able to discover why we reject it, let us say, due to Occam's razor, the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must be as few as possible, but our rejection is not due to a knowledge of Occam's

ut rather Occam's razor is based on our rejection. It is part of the innate rationale of our mental system. Occam's razor, a rather marvelous formula, does not rely on deductive logic. It shows that the natural world somehow conform

ental world. The simplest idea is the most appealing to the human mind and is usually the most correct one. The world is in conformity with the mind. In the words of Albert Einstein, "The most incomprehensible thing about the w

at it is comprehensible."


4/6


he event at Sinai fulfills the abovequirements. The events witnessed as

escribed were of a simple perceptualature so that ordinary people couldpprehend them. The event at Sinaias structured with the same built-in

gredients that cause us to accept anyistorical fact or any kind ofecondhand knowledge. Moses himselfoints this out (Deuteronomy 4:9-3,32-36). Moses notes that thosevents that transpired before the entireation were clearly perceived. Heates,You are the ones who have been

hown, so that you will know that Godthe Supreme Being and there is none

esides Him. From the heavens, He letou hear His voice admonishing you,nd on earth He showed you His greatre, so that you heard His words from

he fire.Someone may ask how we know

hat these events were as described ine Torah, clearly visible, and that theyanspired before the entire nation.erhaps this itself is a fabrication? Thenswer to this question is obvious. Weccept a simple fact attested to byumerous observers because weonsider mass conspiracy absurd. Fore very same reason no public event

an be fabricated, for we would have tossume a mass conspiracy of silenceith regard to the occurrence of that

vent. If someone were to tell us that anomic bomb was detonated over New

ork City fifty years ago, we would notccept it as true because we wouldssume that we would have certainlyeard about it, had it actually occurred.he very factors which compel us toccept as true an account of an event ofublic proportion safeguards us againstbrication of such an event. (8) Were

his not so all of history could haveeen fabricated. Had the event at Sinaiot actually occurred anyoneabricating it at any point in time wouldave met with the stiff refutation of theeople, "had a mass event of thatroportion ever occurred we surely

ould have heard of it." Fabrication ofn event of public proportion is notithin the realm of credibility.

History corroborates this point. Inspite of the strong religious instinct inman, no modern religion in over twothousand years has been able to baseitself on public revelation. A modernreligion demands some kind ofverifiable occurrence in order to beaccepted. For this reason the two majorWestern religions, Christianity andIslam, make recourse to the revelationat Sinai. Were it not for this need and

the impossibility of manufacturing suchevidence, they certainly would not havebased their religions on anotherreligion's revelation.

IVWe now face one question. One may

argue that we are to accept Torah muchas one would accept any majorhistorical event, and we may put ourlives on the line based on no strongerevidence, but doesn't religion demand acertitude of a different nature? Here weare not looking for certitude based onsome formula which we are forced to

employ in our daily lives but certitudewhich gives us conviction of anabsolute and ultimate nature.

To answer this question we mustproceed with an examination of thetenets involved in the institution ofTorah from Sinai, to which the rest ofthis paper is dedicated. Maimonidesstates that the nation of Israel did notbelieve in Moses because of themiracles he performed. (9) Mosesperformed these miracles out of simplenecessity. They needed to escape fromEgypt, so he split the sea, they neededfood, so he brought forth manna. Theonly reason the people believed inMoses and hence God and Torah wasbecause of the event at Sinai wherethey heard a voice that God producedspeaking to Moses and instructing himto teach the people. But we may ask,weren't the miracles in Egypt enough toconvince the people of Moses'authenticity? Didn't they follow himout of Egypt based on what theyobserved of God's miracles? Anddoesn't the Torah itself state at thesplitting of the sea (Exodus 14:31),

The Israelites saw the great powerthat God had unleashed against Egypt,and the people were in awe of God.

They believed in God and his servantMoses.

But Maimonides is thoroughly

supported by the Bible itself sinceafter this very statement, after thesplitting of the sea, God says to Moses(Exodus 19:9),

I will come to you in a thick cloud,so that all the people will hear when Ispeak to you. They will then alsobelieve in you forever.

It is clear, as Maimonidesconcludes, that there was somethinglacking in the previous belief for if it

were complete the very motive for theRevelation, as stated clearly in theTorah, would be lacking.

A belief instilled by miracles, evenmiracles of cataclysmic proportionforecasted in advance and occurringexactly when needed is lackingaccording to Maimonides. They do noteffectuate total human conviction. It is,in the words of Maimonides, "a beliefwhich has after it contemplation andafterthought." It may cause one to acton it because of the profoundimprobability of coincidence but it isnot intellectually satisfying. The mind

keeps returning to the event andcontinues to ponder it. God wishedTorah to be founded on evidence thattotally satisfies the human mind-Tzelem Elokim-which He created. Hewished Judaism to be based on asound foundation of knowledge whichwould satisfy man's intellectcompletely. Miracles may point tosomething. We may be convinced thatcoincidence is improbable but suchconclusions are haunted byafterthoughts. When the voiceproduced by God was heard from theheavens there was no further need forafterthought. It was a matter of directevidence. Only then could it be saidthat the people knew there is a Godand that Moses was His trustedservant. The requirements forknowledge were complete.

Maimonides concludes, "Hence itfollows that every prophet that arisesafter Moses our teacher, we do notbelieve in him because of the sign hegives so that we might say we will payheed to whatever he says, but ratherbecause of the commandment thatMoses gave in the Torah and stated, 'ifhe gives you a sign you shall pay heedto him,' just as he commanded us to

adjudicate on the basis of thetestimony of two witnesses eventhough we don't know in an absolute

sense if they testified truthfullfalsely. So too is it a commandmelisten to this prophet even thougdon't know if the signtrueTherefore if a prophet aroseperformed great wonders and soto repudiate the prophecy ofteacher Moses we do not pay hehimTo what is this similar? Towitnesses who testified to somabout something he saw with his

eyes denying it was as he saw idoesn't listen to them but knowcertain that they are false witneTherefore the Torah states that isign or wonder comes to pass dpay heed to the words of this probecause this (person) came towith a sign and wonder to reputhat which you saw with your eyes and since we do not beliesigns but only in the commandmthat Moses gave how can we acby way of a sign this (person) came to repudiate the prophecMoses that we saw and heard."

The Jew is thus tied completelyexclusively to the event at Sinai wwas formulated to totally satisfyhuman mind. (11)

This explains the main idea ochapter of the false prophet givethe Torah in Deuteronomy 13:2-6

If there arise among you a proor a dreamer of dreams and he you a sign or a wonder, and the sithe wonder of which he spoke tocomes to pass, and he says, "Let after other gods which you havknown and let us serve them."

Do not listen to the words ofprophet or dreamer. God your lotesting you to see if you are trulyto love God your Lord with all heart and all your soul.

What is this test? The test is to your love (12) of God is based onknowledge which He has taughtto follow and embrace or if you afall prey to the unsound primemotions of the moment that wefrom the instinctual source of mnature. The faith of the Jew can nbe shaken by dreamers or miworkers. We pay no attention to tBased on the rationally satisfdemonstration of Sinai we re

faithful to God through His wisand knowledge. (13) Our creed is


(continued on page


(8) It should be understood that the mere claim that an event was a public one and its acceptance by people does

ot qualify the event as fulfilling our requirements; it is only if the people who accept the information are in a position

reject it that their acceptance is of value. If a person from Africa claims to people of Sardinia that a public event

anspired in Africa, the acceptance by the Sardinians is no indication of reliability as they are not in a position to

onfirm or deny the event. It is only if the claim is made to the same people who were in a position to observe the

vent that acceptance is of value. Claims made by early Christians about public miracles of the Nazarene do not

ualify, as the masses of Jews before whom they were supposedly performed did not attest to them. The same is true

claims made by other faiths (though, as we will see, after Sinai miracles have no credibility value).

(9) See Maimonides, Code of Law, Chapter VIII, Laws Concerning the Foundations of Torah.

(10) Ibid. Chapter VIII.

(11) This point is crucial. It contradicts popular opinion. The Jew remains at all times unimpressed by miracles.

hey do not form the essence of his faith, and they do not enter the mental framework of his creed. Though the most

righteous prophet may perform them, they instill no belief. His credence harks back to only one source-Sinai.

(12) See the concept of love of God as described by Maimonides Code, Laws of the Foundations of Torah C

II 1,2, and our elaboration on this theme in "Why one should learn Torah."

(13) When visiting the Rockefeller Medical Institute, Albert Einstein met with Dr. Alexis Carrel,

extracurricular interests were spiritualism and extrasensory perception. Observing that, Einstein was unimp

Carrel said, "But Doctor what would you say if you observed this phenomenon yourself?" To which Einstein

"I still would not believe it." (Clark, Ronald W. Einstein: The Life and Times. (New York: 1971, Avon Books)

Why would the great scientist not capitulate even to evidence? It is a matter of one's total framework. The true

science who sees knowledge permeating the entire universe from the smallest particle to the largest galaxies w

be shaken from his view by a few paltry facts even though he may not be able to explain them. Only the igno

moved by such "evidence." In a similar manner miracles do not affect a man of Torah who is rooted in Sinai an

infinite wisdom. His credo is his cogito.


5/6


of His eternal and infinite law. When weerfect ourselves in this manner we can sayhat we truly love God with all our heartsnd with all our soul. We then serve Godhrough the highest part of our nature, the

Divine element He placed in our soul.

VWe have so far dealt with the actuality of

he event at Sinai and with the nature of thisvent. We must now concern ourselves withhe purpose of this event. When the Jewseceived the Torah at Sinai they uttered two

words, naaseh v'nishma, we will do and wewill hear, the latter meaning we will learn,

nderstand, and comprehend. Theommitment was not just one of action orerformance but was one of pursuit ofnowledge of the Torah. Rabbi Jonah of

Gerundi asks, (14) how can one do if heoesn't understand? A performance of aational person requires as a prerequisite

nowledge of that performance. Rabbi Jonahnswers: The event at Sinai served as aerification of the truth of Torah. The Torahet up a system of scholarship to which itsdeas are entrusted. "We will do" means wewill accept the authority of the scholars of

orah concerning proper religiouserformance until we can understandurselves by way of knowledge why theseerformances are correct. The commitmentf naaseh is preliminary until we reach theishma, our own understanding. Ourltimate objective is the full understandingf this corpus of knowledge known as Torah.

We gain knowledge of Torah by applyingur intellects to its study and investigation.

he study of Torah and the understanding ofs principles is a purely rational andognitive process. All halachic decisions areased on human reason alone.

Until rather recently the greatest minds ofur people devoted themselves to Torahtudy. Since the tradition of our people hasost popularity, the great intellectualesources of our people have been directedo science, mathematics, psychology, andther secular areas from which eminenthinkers emerged. In former years ourntellectual resources produced great Torahntellects like Maimonides, Rabbeinu Tam,nd Nachmanides. In modern times theseame resources produced eminent secular

iants like Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, andigmund Freud. I mention this so that the

ayman may have some understanding of thentellectual level of our scholars, for just as it impossible to appreciate the intellect of aninstein unless one has great knowledge ofhysics, it is impossible to appreciate thereat minds of Torah unless one has attainedhigh level of Torah knowledge.The greatest thinkers of science all share a

common experience of profound intellectualhumility. Isaac Newton said that he felt likea small boy playing by the sea while the"whole ocean of truth" rolled on before him.Albert Einstein said, "One thing I havelearned in a long life: that all our sciencemeasured against reality is primitive andchildlike-and yet it is the most precious thingwe have." The human mind can not onlyascertain what it knows; it can appreciate theextent and enormity of what it does not

know. A great mind can sense the depth ofthat into which it is delving. In Torah onecan find the same experience. The greatestTorah minds throughout the centuries haveall had the realization that they are onlyscratching the surface of a vast and infinitebody of knowledge. As the universe is to thephysicist, Torah is to the Talmudist. Just asthe physicist when formulating his equationscan sense their crudeness against the vastreality he is attempting to penetrate, so toothe Talmudist in formulating his abstractionscomes in sight of the infinite world ofhalachic thought. As the Midrash states, "Itis far greater than the earth and wider thanthe sea, and it increases infinitely." The

reason for both experiences is the same.They both derive from God's infiniteknowledge.

Let me elaborate further on this point.When the scientist ponders the phenomenaof nature and proceeds to unravel them, hefinds that with the resolution of eachproblem new worlds open up for him. Thequestions and seeming contradictions heobserves in nature are gateways that guidehim to greater understanding, forcing him toestablish new theories which, if correct, shedlight on an even wider range of phenomena.New scientific truths are discovered. The joyof success is, however, short-lived, as newproblems, often of even greater immensity,

emerge on the horizon of investigation. He isnot dissuaded by this situation because heconsiders his new insight invaluable andlooks forward with even greater anticipationto future gains in knowledge. The scientist ispropelled by his faith that nature is not atodds with itself, that the world makes sense,and that all problems, no matter howformidable in appearance, must eventuallyyield to an underlying intelligible system,one that is capable of being grasped by thehuman mind. His faith is amply rewarded aseach success brings forth new and evenmore amazing discoveries. He proceeds inhis infinite task.

When studying man-made systems, such

as United States Constitutional Law orBritish Common Law, this is not the case.The investigator here is not involved in aninfinite pursuit. He either reaches the end ofhis investigation or he comes upon problemsthat do not lend themselves to furtheranalysis; they are attributable to theshortcomings of the designers of the system.The man-made systems exhibit no depthbeyond the intellect of their designers.

Unlike science, real problems in thesesystems do not serve as points of departurefor new theoretical insights but lead insteadto dead ends.

Those who are familiar with the study ofTorah know that the Talmudist encountersthe same situation as the scientificinvestigator. Here difficulties do not lead todead ends; on the contrary, with carefulanalysis apparent contradictions give wayto new insights, opening up new highways

of intellectual thought. Wider ranges ofhalachic phenomena become unified whilenew problems come to light. The process isinfinite. The greatest human minds havehad this experience when pondering theTalmud; indeed, the greater the mind, thegreater the experience. We are dealing witha corpus of knowledge far beyond theultimate grasp of mortal man. It is thisexperience, this firsthand knowledge ofTorah, that has been the most intimatesource of faith for Torah scholarsthroughout the ages.

The ultimate conviction that Torah is theword of God derives from an intrinsicsource, the knowledge of Torah itself. Of

course this source of conviction is onlyavailable to the Torah scholar. But Godwants us all to be scholars. This is onlypossible if we do the nishma, the ultimatepurpose of the giving of the Torah at Sinai.

The revelation at Sinai, while carefullystructured by the Creator to appeal to man'srational principle to move him only by hisTzelem Elokim, is only a prelude to theultimate direct and personal realization ofthe Torah as being the work of theAlmighty. The revelation at Sinai wasnecessary to create the naaseh which is thebridge to the nishma where anyone can gainfirsthand knowledge of Torah and the truthit contains. As Rabbi Soloveitchick once

said, the study of Torah is a "rendezvouswith the Almighty". When we begin tocomprehend the philosophy of Torah wemay also begin to appreciate how therevelation at Sinai was structured by God inthe only way possible to achieve the goalsof the Torah-to create a religion, foreversecure, by means of which man worshipsGod through the highest element in hisnature.

PostscriptA statement of Nachmanides warrants

inclusion here. Nachmanides says that wecan infer the truth of the Torah from theprinciple that a person would not bequeath

a falsehood to his children. At first sight thisseems inexplicable. Idolatry could alsoavail itself of the same argument. We mustobviously say that the principle, it may betrue, must be amended to read a personwould not transmit intentionally a falsehoodto his children. How then does this showJudaism is true? All religious people believetheir religion is true and that they arebestowing the greatest blessing on theirchildren by conveying to them their mostcherished beliefs.

The words of Nachmanides become

clear when we realize that his inferebased on a certain level of knowledge. Either the emotions ointellect generates a belief. But Toravast system of knowledge with conpostulates, and axioms. If such a swere fabricated it would have to be dintentionally. Nachmanides thereforehis proposition that a person doebequeath a falsehood to his children.

For the purpose of Nachma

inference, one would have to attain aa basic familiarity with Torah. The ulrecognition of Torah as a science wonecessity require a higher degrknowledge. Nachmanides' proof is paintrinsic, whereas the demonstratiTorah from Sinai is totally extrinsic. are then three levels of knowledge of from Sinai: the demonstration, the inverification through knowledge, and Nachmanides.

EpilogueTorah completely satisfies the ne

the Tzelem Elokim in man's nature. human mind craves Torah. Man

created for it (see tractate SanhedrinFollowing the example of Maimowho said "Listen to the truth whomever said it (Introduction to Aand his son Reb Avraham, who enthe study of Aristotle in the areas in he does not disagree with Torah, (take the liberty to quote Bertrand R"The world has need of a philosophreligion which will promote life. Border to promote life it is necessary tosomething other than mere lifedevoted only to life is animal, withoreal human value, incapable of presmen permanently from weariness afeeling that all is vanity. If life is to b

human it must serve some end seems, in some sense, outside humasome end which is impersonal and mankind, such as God or truth or bThose who best promote life do nolife for their purpose. They aim ratwhat seems like a gradual incarnatbringing into our human existensomething eternal, something that ato the imagination to live in a hremote from strife and failure andevouring jaws of time. Contact wieternal world-even if it be only a woour imagining- brings a strength fundamental peace which cannot be wdestroyed by the struggles and ap

failures of our temporal life." (16)

Torah makes our lives worthwhgives us contact with the eternal woGod, truth, and the beauty of His Unlike Russell the agnostic, we dhave to satisfy ourselves with a wo"our imagining" but with the woreality- God's creation. How fortunaare and how meaningful are the worrecite each day, "for they [the Toramitzvos] are our lives and the length days."

[email protected] marketer / copywriter& web producer

inquire at: [email protected]

Personalized Baby GiftsEngagement,Wedding,& Anniversary Gifts

(14) Rebbeinu Yonah Avos III 9.

(15) Concerning books that are proscribed, this follows the precedent of the Talmud [Sanhedrin 110b], mili

ealyesah deis baih darshinon-those true things that are contained in them we do study.

(16) Schlipp, Paul R. The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell. (LaSalle: 1989, Open Court Publishing). p.533.




6/6


e few". If you are sympathetic to thesehildren, realize that these child terrorists

would not be sympathetic to yourhildren. Choose who you want to live,nd to die.

Most human beings cannot synthesizechild" with "suicide bomber" ormartyr". This conflict stems fromomething deeper, something moreersonal; I refer to a specific self image

we all have, as a "caretaker for children".We enjoy this self image, and who caneny this sentiment? Not one of us. We allquate children with innocence, those whoequire our love and defense. What thenappens is this; Guilt emerges as weonsider a Palestinian child as a suicideomber. This guilt causes us to reject thathought, and replace it with a nonsensicalotion that there is potential good in thesehildren. Time and time again, we returno "talks". The correct response is, "Theresn't good in these children". The proof?

The adults who kill children like Daniellehefi used to be children themselves, and

heir corrupt society and philosophy trainsnd traps their Palestinian youth in thisath of violence. More proof? Threeeenage Palestinians blew themselves upast week. A rejection of branding adults -nd children - as murderers, is whatttributed to a reluctance of Europeanews to leave when they could, and theyaid the price.

The Palestinian culture is not beinghanged, and it will continue its spiralownward as a nation favoring terrorism,nd the obliteration of Jews.

I understand. Entertaining this realitylarms you. You are suddenly faced with aomparison between these violenthildren, and your own. You ask yourself,Can my own kids commit suchtrocities?" Upon answering a veryefinite "No", you then find it difficult toccept ANY child capable of such acts.

But I warn you. You must set aside yourensitivity for "children" in general. Thisensitivity causes you to deny others theirotentiality as killers. For decades, thisation brainwashed its youth to live foreath. They live that way, and we die that

way.

These trained killers are not goingway. This must not be denied. We mustot think we can talk to them, and thatuch talk will ever result in a change inheir evil schemes. They have not changedthey will not change. Their offspring areow as vicious as their parents. Even if a

minority of Palestinians oppose Arafat'snduction of children into the ranks of hisowardly army, we cannot chance anyelations with a people who contain anyemnant of terror, and certainly not withhe Palestinians, who breed thishilosophy en masse. We must accept this

fact if we are to travel the path of reality.Complete avoidance with killers and liarsmust be our first and immediate step. Apermanent, impregnable wall of distancemust be constructed.

It is beyond me how Bush will neverentertain peace talks with bin-Laden, butsimultaneously does so with Arafat. Thisis a clear denial. It will cause more deaths.I appeal to the President to be guided byour knowledge of human nature - not

political concerns. Life must never gainbargaining chip status. As long as anyoneentertains discussing peace with a peoplepreaching martyrdom as a basic tenet, ourend will be more deaths.

Requesting Arafat denounce terror wasalso a grave mistake, as a Rabbi put it,"...you thereby condone Arafat's words, byrequesting them." Bush's request renderedArafat a realistic partner for peace - hiswords as possibly reflecting truth. Again adenial. We must not recoil from labelingsomeone a liar and a murderer, as he is.The truth must be embraced if we are tomake headway. Denial derails.

Statements like "...the recent agreementbetween the PA and Israel lookpromising." are denials of a clear andpresent danger: These Palestinianchildren, teenagers and adults, trained fordecades to kill Jews, simply do notchange. We have seen enough emailedfilm clips of kindergarten PA classesteaching violence, we have heard enoughPA radio urging increased bombings, andwe have read enough of Arafat'ssignatures ordering deadly weapons andsuicide brigades on Jews. By denyingthese facts, we endanger ourselves, anddelay a plan which can have the hopes ofshielding us from terror.

The real acts we must face: 1) ThePalestinian society will continue to teachterrorism. 2) Palestinian children andteens have been trained to kill Jews. 3)These children will shortly become, whattheir parents are now. 4) You cannot talkto killers about peace. 5) Thesethousands of killers don't vanish - theywill be killing for years to come. 6)Proximity to a terrorist nation is fatallyfoolish. 7) Arafat is a killer. 8) Arafat isnot in control. 9) Arafat's claims to Israelare baseless, and contradict world history.

Anyone who still wants to relate tothese Palestinian killers through talking,denies these facts, and harms Jews. Stopthe denial. Stop the talks.

History disproves all of Arafat's claimson Israel. It is not our responsibility, nor isit safe to have the Palestinian terroristsnext door. Let the Arabs invite theseterrorists into their spacious lands. Theyfinance Palestinian families withthousands when their children kill Jews,they must be proud kinsmen. Let Arafatand his brothers dance together in theArab lands when the next Jew dies, justlike they did on 9-11. Let them burn USand Israeli flags together from afar. Letthe Arabs give land for Arafat's bombfactories.

Further talk is mere stupidity.

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim has been

kind enough to send me his essayreflecting upon the reality of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I think there is muchmerit in the good Rabbi's central thesisthat - particularly in dealing with the terrorthreat - denial can kill.

I am well on the record, for twentyyears and more, with my refusal to denyArafat's terrorist credentials.Unfortunately, the Bush Administrationcannot yet make this refusal free ofconfusion and compromise.

The Rabbi's analysis raises someprovocative and disturbing questions. Iagree that many such questions must beraised and answered, if we are to see ourway clearly to what must be done forIsrael's survival as a Jewish state. I wouldlike to share with the Rabbi and hisreaders some reflections of my own aboutdenial - and I place my comments in theimmediate context of rapidly unfoldingevents in Israel this week.

After weeks of hyperbolic rhetoricabout what had happened in Jenin, and adetermined propaganda effort to lendcredibility to the charges of Israelimassacre and massive atrocity, the UnitedNations has decided that an investigationisn't necessary after all.

Why is the putatively "unbiased"United Nations losing its fervor andinterest for going into Jenin to get at thefacts? Perhaps it is because emergingevidence is giving the lie to Palestinianand European charges of hundreds ofdeaths and massive outrages. For friendsof Israel, it's not hard to see that the UNwas never after facts in the first place. TheUN has been a hotbed of anti-Israelibigotry for decades, and has spent muchof its energy in the past few weeks addingto the slanderous furor that was beinggenerated against Israel. This is a fact thatmust not be denied.

I wish I could say that it stopped withthe United Nations. But it didn't. MostEuropean countries, and elements in ourown State Department, including theSecretary of State, were stampeded by acampaign of propaganda anddisinformation aimed at portraying theIsraelis as massive brutalizers. Thatcampaign contributed substantially to theheavy pressure that was then placed onIsrael - pressure that directly led to YasserArafat's liberation in the deal that wasstruck over the last weekend. I believe thesalient truth of this analysis cannot bedenied.

Palestinian claims that Jeninrepresented a "victory" for their side areactually correct, but not because of the

battle itself. Rather, the way in whbattle was abused for proppurposes to score a major politicdiplomatic victory in the resuscitaYasser Arafat, despite his continuedterrorism as a negotiating tactic, has scored a Palestinian victory inIn that sense, it would seem to mtime-honored Palestinian tactic of "

propaganda has succeeded very welWe should consider the same qabout this terrorism of the truth thawith terrorism in general. The sucsuch a campaign of disinfortragically raises two deeply questions we must now confront: wnot continue to face the same practiced over and over again realizing this, will we act, will wdenying that we are being dupemanipulated by big lies and wthinking? The gullible, feckless, fresponse that comes from our owState Department, from Europeafrom others, leaves American policy

on the loudest yelping accusations of facts. That's what has happenedcourse of the last fortnight, and I thifact will have momentous results entire region.

The Palestinian propaganda macbanking on the Goebel's approacCommunist approach - telling a loud and often enough to mpractically true. It often works. Bapproach won't work with fair-mAmericans. We prefer to look at thfacts, and to make our judgments iway on the basis of those facts. Amfriends of Israel won't be stampeemotional propaganda campaigns th

out to have been based upon a willito play games with the truth in oachieve unjust political purposes. insist that the Bush Administratiowhat we have come to know - thatfacts, resisting denial - these apressing requirements before us if Ito be secure.

- Alan Keyes

Facing Realityrabbi moshe ben-chaim

Response:Facing Reality

dr. alan keyes

(continued from page 1)

jewish times - volume i,no. 13...may 3, 2002

Documents