Noah and the Covenant

Another brilliant commentary by Rabbi Yitz Greenberg.
Enjoy, and repair the World!
ListenDownload text

Parashat Noah 5781
R. Yitz Greenberg

The Torah inherited a Mesopotamian cultural consensus that a Great Deluge had wiped out almost all of humanity. In the Gilgamesh epic, the gods (Anu and Enlil) inflict this catastrophe arbitrarily in a display of their power, but later defend their actions both as deserved punishment and designed to curb population growth. According to the older epic, Atrahasis,
Enlil, and the gods are troubled by the rapid growth of human population and offended by the noisy, raucous human behaviors. They use the flood (and then shortened life span) to drastically reduce human presence on earth. Rearticulated through the Torah’s revelation, the Flood is explained as inflicted because of widespread human wickedness, especially
violence and oppression. God, who wanted Earth to be a living paradise of justice and peace, is so disappointed and angered as to decide to undo the initial Creation with a flood of watery chaos and try again. The Lord determined to wipe out the corrupt human race and renew humanity, building it on righteous Noah and his family.

But the crucial departure and revolutionary moral path of the Torah is expressed in the day after the Flood—which may well be the most transformative religious moment in Judaism’s history. God pledges never to inflict such a catastrophe again. Attributing a cataclysmic flood to willful action by God would define the Lord as a perfectionist who cannot tolerate the flawed and wayward human nature acting out badly, and so rejects the world and starts again. Alternatively, such a flood would reveal God as a punitive Ruler who ruthlessly wipes out those who disobey divine instructions to be good.

Instead, the Torah reveals that God is a loving Lord who is deeply distressed at the sight of widespread devastation and death. To wipe out people for the sin of disobedience and violence is so coercive that even if people do the right actions thereaer, there is no dignity or genuine morality in their behaviors. A loving God wants people to be good out of free will and
love of others. Therefore, God permanently renounces the threat of inflicting catastrophe: All powerful but loving God self-limits and offers humanity a covenant or partnership.

In this committed partnership of love, humans will join with the Divine in building a better world and filling it with life. But they will do so out of free choice and doing their best, not out of terrorized submission to divine dictates. In the covenant, there is full allowance for human weakness in the form of lower, “compromised” expectations—at least along the way to the final goal. Even bad behaviors are provided for by mechanisms of repentance, milder punishments, and divine forgiveness. God still wants Creation and society to be perfected. However, God loves humans and wants them to mature and become fully images of God—that is, independent creatures who are infinitely valuable, equal, and unique. God wants humans to live lives of dignity and creativity in partnership. That is more important than humans building God’s desired paradise while living lives of robotic conformity to divine instructions.

In entering covenant, omnipotent God self-limits, out of love, to allow humans their freedom and the chance to grow into full dignity. How? First God establishes the natural order as independent and irrevocable process, never to cease or be disrupted (Genesis 8:22). The Talmud explains: “Olam ke-minhago noheg, the world follows its custom” (Avodah Zarah 54b). The objectivity of the natural order means that nature will not differentiate between stolen and honestly acquired seeds—both will germinate. The sperm of adulterous intercourse can conceive a child just as much as sperm emitted in moral or legal sexual relations. Nature will not hound or punish those doing evil. In God’s world, humans freely choose to do good or bad. By choosing to do good, humans exercise—and earn—their freedom. This means that God upholds human freedom (with the risks of bad behavior) ahead of obedience or guaranteed preferred outcomes.

The divine self-limit means that humans must pick up the slack in creating life and repairing the world. Rather than confer a paradise by miracles, God binds God’s self to depend on human actions to complete the world. By upholding the human role and making the divinely desired outcomes dependent upon human behavior, God enables human freedom. People
must participate in their own liberation or they remain imbued with a slave mentality. If paradise is simply bestowed, humans are likely to remain dependent, or even spoiled children, rather than repair their own world and become mature masters of their own fate.

The covenant mechanism protects against the two most widespread pathologies that flow from the human encounter with God. One is to neglect this world or even allow it to rot and instead pray for God to upgrade it miraculously (Footnote: Thus religion became in Marx’s critique the “opium of the masses” which enabled an unjust status quo to persist of necessity and established culture.) The other is to turn to God and to ritual life in order to escape from this world, with its challenges and burdens, into the timeless, perfect heavenly realms. The covenant tells humans that they have a companion or partner or helper, but that they must do their share. They must fulfill their commitment by creating life and doing good in this mortal realm.

Our parashah illustrates the covenantal method of working for tikkun olam, the repairing of the world. Out of deference to human needs and nature, society takes small and compromised steps toward the ultimate goal. The ideal diet of the Torah is vegetarianism; no creature should live by taking the life of other creatures. In the Garden of Eden, all living animals including humans were vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30). However, after the Flood, allowing for human hunting for food and human need for protein, permission is given to eat meat. (Genesis 9:3).

The covenantal goal of a final peaceful world is upheld by restricting meat eating. All humans are prohibited from eating blood of the animal. Blood is seen as the carrier of life (Leviticus 17:11). The prohibition is a reminder that the ideal remains not to take another life. Not consuming blood is humanity’s acknowledgment that it is “violating” the sanctity of life—out out of necessity and established culture. The prohibition goads people to try to ultimately reach the vegetarian ideal.

It is noteworthy that Noah’s covenant includes a warning not to shed the blood of humans. (Genesis 9:5-6). This is an acknowledgement that compromising with nature and culture by permitting the killing of animals raises the risk of humans acting out their hunting instincts by killing people. There is an implied moral risk in every compromise of the ideal. There is a price in accommodating human beings and the status quo.
Our parashah concludes this account by reminding us of the goal of this partnership: It is to fill the world with life and so upgrade the world as to enable people to live abundantly— not constrained, not deprived, not reduced—but rooted and flourishing lives (Genesis 9:7).

Postscript: The covenant with Noah is a universal covenant with all of humanity (and other living creatures, see Genesis 9). This covenant has not received that much attention in Jewish tradition, certainly not as much as the particular Jewish covenants, i.e. with Abraham, at Sinai, on the plains of Moab at the end of Moses’ life (Deuteronomy 29-30ff).

The Noahide covenant supplies the model in the Torah of covenantal process (ideal goal, initial lowered expectations or compromise in actions, upholding the ideal through ongoing restrictions, provision to minimize the inevitable, negative side effects and costs of compromises with an unredeemed status quo and a sign/marker of the covenant; in our
parashah the sign of the universal covenant is the rainbow, Genesis 9:12-17). This model shapes our understanding of all the later laws in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21-23) and the rest of the Torah.

I believe that all subsequent covenants—not just with the Jewish people but, I argue, those made with other non-Jewish covenantal communities as well—are based on and draw authority from this Noahide covenant.

I call on the prophet Isaiah to back up this view. When the exiled Jews returned from Babylonia, they were wracked with religious concerns. Maybe God had rejected the covenant with Israel and, therefore, allowed the destruction of the First Temple and the exile of Jewry? Isaiah assured them this was not so. He tells them: Just as God’s covenantal pledge not to
allow another Deluge was self-evidently unbroken—it was operative and irrevocable—so they should be assured that God’s covenant with Israel would never be withdrawn (Isaiah 54:9-10). In other words, the manifest validity of the Noahide covenant and the ongoing natural process
is our assurance that our particular covenant is ongoing and eternal.

Shabbat Shalom.

Creation – Parashat Bereshit: R. Yitz Greenberg – 5781

A wonderful 10-minute listen or read from Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, bringing together ancient and modern thinking in one amazing and convincing text.

Listen Download

Creation

R. Yitz Greenberg

Parashat Bereishit 5781

Rashi famously suggests that if the Torah is primarily a book of laws—after all, it contains hundreds of laws—then the Five Books of Moses should start with the first law given to the whole people of Israel (Exodus 12:1-2 “This month [Nissan] is the first of the months of the year…” i.e. the commandment for the courts to designate the months of the year and the dates of the holidays). But this verse is preceded by 62 other chapters! And, by Rashi’s logic, if the Torah is primarily the story and history of the Jewish people (on which it focuses most of the time), then the text should start with the story of Abraham, the first Jew. This occurs in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, v. 26 ff.

What then is the Torah telling us about its primary message by beginning with the story of Creation? Why does the Torah begin with the very first moment of existence of the whole world? What does the idea of Creation mean for us?

The Torah is presenting itself as the book of human destiny. It offers a revelation of the meaning of existence and a guide to the mission of humanity to upgrade this world. Chapter 1 of Genesis is not telling us the actual facts of Creation. We know from contemporary physics that there is a process from Big Bang chaos to radiation to matter and the emergence of order through galaxies to stars to planets. In fact, the idyllic portrait the Torah offers in chapter 1 is not how the earth looks initially but how the planet will look when Creation is completed and this globe will be turned into a paradise.

By focusing on the beginning of the world, the Torah intends to reach all of humanity. In its opening it offers the idea of Creation itself. This idea has been one of the most influential Jewish teachings in world civilization. Creation means that this world is not the outcome of a blind and random physical process that has no values or goals and will end in oblivion. Rather it has an intended outcome. “It was not created to be void; it was brought into being to be filled with life” (Isaiah 45:18).

Creation means that there is a shaping Creator, an Infinite Consciousness that knows every one of the endless number of stars (Psalm 147:4) and loves every one of God’s creatures (Psalm 145:9). This Creator is called Elohim in chapter 1—focusing on a high intensity, unlimited energy Power that is capable of creating and sustaining an infinite universe. Despite the incredible variety and conflicting forces in nature, there is only One God or Universal Force. All of reality is unified and governed by a universal natural process. This Jewish teaching of unity in Creation has profoundly shaped religious understanding and scientific thought.

By instructing us to see the world as a Creation of the Ultimate Artist, the Creator, the Torah guides humans to approach life and existence as we would a work of art. We should not glance casually or look routinely. We should seek out patterns of beauty, and connections that enrich the view. We will discover juxtapositions that add depth dimensions that ravish the eye—and the soul. Seeing the world as a created work of art, we instinctively explore: What is the artist’s message to us? What has the artist seen to which she seeks to open our eyes?

Through the lens of Creation, we approach the world with wonder and seek out the “Wow!” factor in every creature and in every human being that we meet. Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote of experiencing radical amazement in encountering the Divine Presence. In other words, religion, prayer—indeed all human experiences and relationships—are not maximized out of logic and proof. They should grow out of emotional encounter and openness to life in all its dimensions.

There is another implication of Creation. This world is good (Genesis 1:31). This mortal life is real—not an illusion, as some other religions would have it. Living this life and repairing this world is an eminently worthwhile pursuit of human beings. Humans are called by God to work this creation and guard it (Genesis 2:15).

The Creation concept also teaches us that, while physical existence is real, that is only the tip of the iceberg. The encounter with the Creator/God makes us realize that there are important dimensions of existence that are not measurable or touchable—yet are as real and important as the visible. The whole internal life of humans—love, emotions, relationships, imagination, creativity—is validated. They exist at one of the various levels of being, built into the Creation. Over the course of history, the encounter with God moves from the external to the internal realm. In our time, we know the Lord through intuition, emotion, relationship, and through plumbing the depths of reality to meet the invisible Deity. If we drill down to that level, we meet the Lord in whom the image of God is rooted and who is present in the depth dimension of life.

Finally, the Torah’s narrative of Creation calls our attention to three rhythms that the Lord has embedded in the unfolding universe. In the Torah’s language, the world is moving, first of all, from chaos (tohu va’vohu) to order (Shabbat), where everything is completed and in its proper place with no clashing natural forces or conflicts between creatures. Second, the world is moving from non-life to life (in each of the first four days there is no presence of life, except vegetation on the third day; on the fifth and sixth days, life explodes). Finally, life is moving and developing from lesser developed forms into far richer, more capable, more evolved forms—from the vegetation on day three (a limited non-mobile form of life), to the fish of the sea on day five, to the birds, climaxing in the human, who is so developed and capable as to be God-like (“You made him only a bit less than a Divine being,” Psalm 8:6). In chapter 1, this third movement is defined as from less to more like God and climaxing in the human who is so advanced as to be in “the image of God” (Genesis 1:27).

The limited human lifespan obscures these truths. We think of ourselves as moving from life to death, from birth to end of life. In our daily pursuits, we perceive our schedule and our desks as going from initial order to growing chaos. The Torah’s Creation account tells us to view life and the world from the divine perspective. Cosmically, the world has moved from the Big Bang’s total chaos to orderly galaxies, stars, and planets. On this planet, viewed from the divine perspective, we have moved from non-life to life in 14 billion years. Then in 1-F billion years there has been a flow and explosion of life in all its forms. The Creation account tells us this so we can see the world sub specie aeternitatis, from the point of view of the infinite. The Torah guides us to identify the three rhythms of creation and join in. Humans should live our lives on the side of (life sustaining) order as against chaos. In all our behaviors, we should be choosing to create and uphold life as against non-life and death. Finally, in unfolding the potential of life—starting with our own—we should act to increase the quality of life in the world, especially of humans, created in the image of God. In so doing, the Torah teaches us that we become partners in Creation.

***

The Beth Elohim Synagogue and Solomon Nunes Carvalho

Immigration

Most of us know about the massive Jewish immigration to the United States from Central and Eastern Europe that started in the late 1800’s.  But less is known about earlier movements to North America.   

Jews began to settle in Charleston, South Carolina in 1695, 25 years only after the English founded Carolina.  These Jewish immigrants were mostly Sephardim who came to Charleston from England, by way of the Caribbean islands. They were attracted by the burgeoning commercial opportunities but also for the religious freedom and personal rights offered and tolerated by the colony’s Lord Proprietors. (Virtual Jewish Library.)  

Ca. 1812 drawing, KK Beth Elohim Synagogue, built 1792-1794, burned 1838. In 1825, South Carolina architect Robert Mills wrote, “It is a remarkably neat building, crowned with a cupola.”

The first Charleston synagogue, Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim (KKBE), or Holy Congregation of the House of God, was opened in 1749.  The congregation followed the Sephardic minhag (liturgy) of the Spanish-Portuguese communities of London and Amsterdam.  By 1764, the synagogue had moved to a third and larger structure. (College of Charleston.) 

One of the KKBE congregants was Solomon Nunes Carvalho. Carvalho was born in Charleston in 1815 to parents who were themselves born in England, and had moved to Barbados, then to the United States.  Solomon studied photography – a new technology back then! – with his father who opened workshops in Charleston and then Philadelphia.  Solomon was also a gifted painter who later studied with famed artist Thomas Sully

The Great Fire and a Heartwarming Gift 

On Friday evening April 27, 1838, fire broke out at the corner of King and Beresford streets in Charleston, soon ravaging more than 1,100 buildings of all kinds – dwellings, tenements, boarding houses, stores, workshops, kitchens, stables and sheds, and four houses of worship. Synagogue Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim was one of them.  

Solomon Nunes Carvalho. Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim, Interior, 1838; Oil on canvas. Collection of Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim

Twenty-three year old Solomon immediately started to paint a highly detailed picture of the interior of the synagogue from memory.  A few months later, he presented the canvas to the Beth Elohim trustees “for such compensation as the Board may deem proper to allow”. The sum of fifty dollars was sent to Carvalho by the Congregation!

I had the thrill of seeing this amazing painting and 10 other works of art by Solomon Nunes Carvalho as part of the Princeton University exhibit “by Dawn’s Early Light – Jewish Contribution to American Culture from the Nation’s Founding to the Civil War“.  In the exhibit catalog, Dale Rosengarten, co-curator of the exhibit and curator of the Jewish Heritage Collection at the College of Charleston Library remarked:

“The young painter had captured a haunting memory of the beloved temple: light pours through two rows of compass-headed windows evenly spaced along the side walls… The muted tones of the empty sanctuary capture a mood of sanctity and loss”

Solomon’s Ultimate Calling 

Carvalho continued to paint and to develop his photography business.  In June 1849, he opened a gallery in Baltimore offering both oil portraits and a variety of daguerreotypes—a new process that brought the cost of photography down.  In 1853, Solomon Carvalho was invited by Colonel John C. Frémont to join him on his fifth crossing of the continent. The primary objective of the expedition was to pass through the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada Mountains during winter to document the amount of snow and the feasibility of winter rail passage along the route.  Almost every day of the expedition, Carvalho made daguerreotypes, photographing not only the landscape but also the Native Americans and their settlements.  Fremont was thrilled with Carvalho’s work.

“We are producing a line of pictures of exquisite beauty, which will admirably illustrate the country,”

he wrote to his wife, Jessie Benton Fremont. Only one of these daguerreotypes remains. 

Freedom!

Solomon’s family fled Portugal, Amsterdam, London and the Barbados in search of a better and freer life.  The United States provided them with the religious freedom and the economic opportunities they were seeking.  Solomon’s artistic talent and his business flourished.  In an unselfish act, he left his business behind to join Colonel Frémont’s fifth Continental exploration,  leaving an undelible mark on the Country’s history.  In 1856, John Charles Frémont, now Governor of California, became the first candidate of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States.

Rabbinic Judaism: A Missed Opportunity?

This post is a companion to my post on twenty notable rabbis coming later today.  One of the conclusions of my research for the 20 rabbi post is that Rabbinic Judaism, with a few notable exceptions, missed an opportunity to make significant contributions to World theology and to mankind, and at the same time, isolated the Jewish people and failed to protect it from persistent persecutions from other nations.

In the beginning…

The genius of Judaism, or Hebraism (Note 1) I should say, is the idea of One God.  Maybe the original Hebrews borrowed the idea from another place or another tribe in Canaan or in the Euphrates region, but Abraham and his cohorts made it work.  Monotheism became and is now the leading and most successful World theology.  The Rabbinic system of Judaism took off after the second destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 BC and replaced the priestly system that was in place then. The early rabbis felt that they needed to rebuild the religious foundation of a people who had just lost its land, power and temple for the second time in 600 years.  One of their priorities was to write down and discuss Jewish laws (Halakha).

The good…

Positive

Rabbinic Judaism has some important and positive attributes: it values intellectual honesty and justice, it is (or was) largely a merit-based, democratic system (no central authority.) Rabbinic Judaism formed the basis of a Jewish education system long before other nations, providing opportunities for dissenting opinions, and generally advocating a positive, life-affirming approach.

The bad…

Here are some areas where, in my opinion, Rabbinic Judaism fell, and still falls, short:

  • NegativeWith a few exceptions, discourse in Rabbinic Judaism has been narrow, focusing as I said above on conduct and obedience (Halakha).  Rabbis have spent millions (perhaps billions!) of hours on minute and obscure details of little or no importance to the Jewish as a whole.  One could argue that Rabbinic practices contributed to the isolation of the Jewish people.
  • I mentioned intellectual honesty as a plus, but Rabbis often use(d) convoluted, illogical and obscure arguments such as numerology or “miracles” in order to  make a point.
  • The Rabbis created a closed system of Yeshivoth where deep religious knowledge was shared and discussed within the system and rarely outside of it.  Those who attended yeshivoth often came from wealthy families who could support the students (Note 2).  successful rabbis were often connected in the community and politically astute.  They competed for lucrative positions in wealthy Jewish communities.
  • The Rabbis’ focus on halakhic minutiae has, in turn, hindered or precluded them from addressing important religious issues that could benefit all nations in the areas of morality, equality, oppression of minorities, compassion, interfaith unions, personal choices, etc.
  • To complement this thought, it is my observation that the most impactful rabbis and sages are the ones who were able to bring into their closed loop environments non-Jewish sources of knowledge, and integrate this knowledge into their own work.  For instance, Sa’adia Gaon integrated components of Greek philosophy, Maimonides was heavily influenced by Aristotle, and David Hartman used modern philosophy which he integrated with his Talmudic knowledge (Note 3).

A modern creed…

Modern-Space-Living-Room-Window-DesignCaring for strangers is mentioned more times in the Torah than any other commandment.  Yet morality is a topic seldom addressed in Rabbinic Judaism, except in the context of the law.   Early Christianity, on the other hand, was able to address some of the social and moral issues of the time while leveraging Judaism’s overall framework (Note 4.)

The Rabbinic “us versus them” model likely contributed to Jewish isolation in the World and missed an opportunity to share the strength and true meaning of the original biblical message.  Today, Judaism needs a new framework in tune with our science and fact-oriented world, a framework that focuses more on values and morality than halakhic details.  Morality has the power of truth, said Maimonides.  Judaism needs to become an open and moral religion, a modern room with windows. “Judaism beyond the (kosher) kitchen” as David Hartman said (Note 3).

Notes:

(1) One idea, attributable in part to Rabbi Leon Askenazi is that Ever (the original Hebrew), grandson of Noah, is really the founder of Judaism.  I will post on this. later.

(2) Just an example:  “At age fifteen, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi married Sterna Segal, the daughter of Yehuda Leib Segal, a wealthy resident of Vitebsk, and he was then able to devote himself entirely to study.”    Rabbi Akiva married the daughter of the Ben Kalba Sabu’a, a wealthy citizen of Jerusalem, etc.

(2) It is no coincidence that I mention Rabbi David Hartman who created the Shalom Hartman Institute.  Rabbi Hartman was a philosopher and leader of the Modern Orthodox Movement .  Some of the ideas in this post originate with his teachings and vision.  The first post on this blog was devoted to a short but critical essay by Rabbi Hartman called “Auschwitz or Sinai“.

(3) Early churches met almost exclusively in homes. These gatherings became close, supportive communities that shared resources, including money, when someone was needy. They became surrogate families. Not only that but they were radically egalitarian—something novel in the Roman world of that day. Paul made his ringing announcement that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

***

The Amazing Travails of Tobias Cohn, Inventor of Modern Medicine

Eleazar Cohn, a Jewish physician, emigrated from Safed (then part of the Ottoman) to Poland in the late 1500’s – early 1600’s.  Eleazar’s son, Moses, also a physician, moved to Metz, France to escape the Chmielnicki (Khmelnytsky ) pogroms.  Tobias Cohn (Cohen, or Kohn in Polish) was born in 1652 in Metz.  At age 21, Tobias returned to Poland with his elder brother where he pursued traditional Jewish studies  in Kraków .

First Jewish Student in Germany

Portrait_of_Tobias_Cohn_Wellcome_L0014928Coming from a renowned family of physicians, Tobias ultimately wanted to graduate with a medical degree from the University of Padua (Margalith, 2007,) the Harvard of the time…  But he decided to try to get into the Frankfurt-an-der-Oder University first.  In 1678, Tobias and his friend Gabriel Felix of Brody appealed directly to the Grand Elector of the State of Brandenburg Friedrich Wilhelm who agreed to sponsor their studies.  The scholarships came with conditions: Tobias and Gabriel had to learn German and volunteer as Hebrew teachers to Friedrich Wilhelm. Wilhelm was interested in “going back to the sources” of the Old Testament, spurred by the Protestant Reformation. Tobias Cohn later wrote that his knowledge of the Scriptures, the Talmud and the Midrash had not prepared him well for the scientific approach that was taught at the school and for the interactions with other students [1]

Padua

Related imageTobias and Gabriel eventually left Frankfurt for Padua, where they joined a number of Jewish students from Italy, Poland and other European countries at Solomon Canegliano‘s (1642-1719) preparatory school. Tobias described Canegliano as one of the greatest physicians of his time.  Tobias and Gabriel eventually entered the University of Padua and graduated in June 1683.  The first Jewish medical students graduated from the University of Padua in the fifteenth century.  For most of the Middle Ages and the early Modern Period, Padua was the only medical school in Europe where Jewish students could study freely.

Ma’aseh Tuviyah, 1708

In 1700, Tobias Cohn completed the manuscript of his book “Ma’aseh Tuviyah,” meaning Tobias’ Works, or Opus, in Hebrew.  The book was officially published in June 1708 (or 1707) by the University of Padua.  The book was printed a total of five times in Venice between 1708 and 1850, followed by seven further editions most recently in Brooklyn, New York, in 1974, and in Jerusalem, in 1967 and 1978.

The book brings together a view of the “new sciences” with the traditional Jewish view of science and medicine.  The first part of the book covers five chapters:

  • ‘The Upper World’ (corresponding more or less to metaphysics),
  • ‘The World of the Spheres’ (astronomy),
  • ‘The Lower World’ (geography),
  • ‘The Little World’ or ‘Microcosm’ (ethnography), and
  • ‘The Foundations of the World’ (alchemy).

The second part includes three main chapters:

  • ‘A New Land’,
  • ‘A New House’ and
  • ‘The House Watch’ or ‘Guard’.

This corresponds to the traditional division of medical texts into three parts: physiology, pathology and therapy (limited here to hygiene). A third part includes:

  • ‘A Garden Enclosed’ (gynecology and obstetrics),
  • ‘Fruit of the Womb’ (pediatrics), and
  • ‘A Fountain Sealed’ (on sterility).

The chapter titles in the first part of the book relate to the idea of the “world”, and those of the second part to the theme of novelty and the house. The headings in the third part all derive from the Bible, particularly the Song of Songs (Lepicard.) The book also includes a section on medical botany and a list of remedies.

The House Metaphor

Another important feature of the book is the scientific and medical illustrations it provides.

s130

The illustration above is part of a chapter on pathology in the medical part of the book, the section entitled ‘A New House’.  To the left of the illustration is the figure of a man with an open chest and abdomen, exposing the main internal organs.  A Hebrew scroll separates this figure from that of a house with four floors on the right of the illustration (Lepicard.)  In accordance with common practice in anatomy texts of the period, the organs are marked with letters.  On the scroll, the letters, in alphabetical order, are followed by the name of the designated part of the house, and that of the corresponding organ.

Where is the heart?  The reference letters and accompanying text show that the cauldron is located in the kitchen of the house. It represents the stomach. The heart is on the floor above, hidden behind a latticework grille. The heart belongs on the upper floor as Tobias said, where it can benefit from fresh air without being too exposed.  The “kitchen” level below corresponds to the bodily functions as understood at the time.  Tobias’s decision to write his book in Hebrew was likely driven by his desire to bring the “new science” to his Jewish community.

On the Road Again…

After Padua, Tobias Cohn went back to Poland and practiced medicine for a while then moved to Adrianopole (today’s city of Edirne close to Turkey’s borders with Greece and Bulgaria.)  There, he became the physician to five Ottoman sultans (Muntner, 2007,) moving to Constantinople (Today’s Istanbul) then Jerusalem in 1724 until his death at the age of 77 in 1729.

 

Footnotes and Sources

[1] Louis Lewin, The Jewish students at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder, in: Yearbook of the Jewish Literary Society 14 (1921), S. 231 f See also Richarz, entry, p.34…

David Margalith, Cohn, Tobias ben Moses, in: Encyclopedia Judaica: Bd. V, Detroit 2  2007, S. 44 f.; Asher Salah, La République des Lettres. Rabbins, écrivains et médecins juifs en Italie au XVIII siècle, Leiden/Boston 2007, S. 182-184.

Carsten Schliwski, Tobias Kohen (1652-1729) – the first Jewish student in Germany: Tobias Kohen as a Jewish student in Germany, from: Andreas Speer, Andreas Berger

A convincing case for accepting that Tobias Kohen and his friend were in fact the first Jewish student (Lewin, students, S. 222-226.)

Tobias Kohen, Ma’asseh Tuviyyah. Vol. 1, Venice 1707, pp. 5b.  The Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America owns a first edition of Maaseh Tuviah, with the call number of RB 144:4. The book was published in Hebrew and consists of one volume containing multiple works, for a total of 321 pages.

 

David B Ruderman, Jewish thought and scientific discovery in early modern Europe, Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 2001(c. 1995), pp. 100–17, 229–55.

For biographic information, see also J O Leibowitz, ‘Tobie Cohen, auteur médical de langue hébraïque (1652–1729)’, Revue d’Histoire de la Médecine Hébraïque, 1964, 63: 15–24.

Solomon Conegliano, ‘Preface to Ma’aseh Tuviyah’ (in Hebrew), in Tobias Cohen, Ma’aseh Tuviyah, Venice, 1708. It is not unusual to find 1707 as the date of publication. The Hebrew date (tav-samekh-zayin – 5467) can correspond both to 1707 and to 1708.

D. Kaufmann, ‘Trois docteurs de Padoue: Tobias Moschides – Gabriel Selig b. Mose-Isak Wallich’, Rev. Etudes Juives, 1889, 19:293-298.

D. Kaufmann, ‘Une lettre de Gabriel Felix Moschides’, Rev. Etudes Juives, 1896, 32: 134-137.

Figure 1. Tobias Cohn (1652-1729). From T. Cohn, Ma aseh Tobivvah. Venice, Stamparia Bragadina, [1708], front. engr. (Copy in the Wellcome Institute Library, London.)

Anti-Semitism being ‘normalised’ in Poland, Jewish Congress warns

Source: Anti-Semitism being ‘normalised’ in Poland, Jewish Congress warns

The European Jewish Congress expressed “grave concerns” Thursday over an increase in anti-Semitic acts in Poland under the rightwing Law and Justice government.

“There has been a distinct normalisation of antisemitism, racism and xenophobia in Poland recently and we hope that the Polish government will stem this hate and act forcefully against it,” EJC president Moshe Kantor said in a statement.

The group cited a proliferation of “fascist slogans” and unsettling remarks on social media and television, as well as the display of flags of the nationalist ONR group at state ceremonies.

Such incidents “appear to have coincided with the Polish government closing its communications with the official representatives of the Jewish community,” Kantor said.

According to the congress, it has been around a year since a senior Polish minister met with leaders of the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland, which represents the fewer than 10,000 people who belong to Jewish organisations in the country of 38 million people.

Poland was once home to Europe’s largest Jewish population, numbering around three million people, or 10 percent of the Polish population in 1939.

But only about 300,000 survived the Second World War after Nazi Germany occupied Poland and set up the death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau on its territory.

Earlier this year, University of Warsaw’s Centre for Research on Prejudice found that acceptance for anti-Semitic hate speech — especially among young Poles on the internet — had risen since 2014.

The study, released in January, found that 37 percent of those surveyed voiced negative attitudes towards Jews in 2016, up from 32 percent the previous year, while 56 percent said they would not accept a Jewish person in their family, an increase of nearly 10 percent from 2014.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/anti-semitism-being-normalised-in-poland-jewish-congress-warns/article/501334#ixzz4rN1HVOTz

The Antwerp Bible

The Antwerp Bible (its official name is “Biblia Sacra, Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece et Latine: Philippi II. reg. Cathol. pietate, et studio ad sacrosanctae ecclesiae vsum, Christoph Plantinus excud.“) was printed between 1568 and 1573 by Christopher Plantin in Antwerp (now Belgium.)

The Catholic king of Spain Philip II financed the project and sent Spanish theologian Benito Arias Montano to Antwerp to watch over its translation in five languages.  The Bible comprises eight volumes and was printed in 1100 copies.

  • The first four volumes contain the Old Testament. The left page has two columns with the Hebrew original and the Latin translation, the right page has same text in Greek with its own Latin translation. Underneath these columns there is an Aramaic version on the left-hand page and a Latin translation of this on the right-hand side.
  • Volume 5 contains the New Testament in Greek and Syriac, each with a Latin translation, and a translation of the Syriac into Hebrew.
  • Volume 6 has the complete Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek, as well as an interlinear version that has the Latin translation printed between the lines.
  • The last two volumes contain dictionaries (Hebrew-Latin, Greek-Latin, Syriac-Aramaic, grammar rules, list of names, etc.) that were of value to scholars.

For printing the Hebrew text Plantin used among others Daniel Bomberg’s Hebrew type, which he had received from Bomberg’s nephews. Bomberg was a Christian printer and publisher of Hebrew works. He was born in Antwerp and died in Venice in 1549.  After having learned from his father, Cornelius, the art of printing and of type-founding, he went to Venice, where, from 1517 to 1549, he published many editions of Hebrew works.

A complete copy of the Antwerp Bible is on display at the Plantin-Moretus Museum (the site of the original printing press), including the typefaces which were designed for this project.

Photo: http://drc.usask.ca/projects/archbook/archbook_admin/images/FisherG-10_00137.jpg

About Charlie

I can’t help but contribute a few comments here on the whole Charlie Hebdo incident, although it is probably too soon to get a good perspective on this.  Many around the World see this as a black and white issue: Do not kill men who exercise their freedom of expression on one hand, and do not ridicule an entire creed in the name of that freedom on the other hand.  In a recent article (Charlie Hebdo: Why Islam, Again? on eskeptic.com), Kenneth Krause brings up some interesting facts:

  • The Jewish (Hebrew) and Christian faiths at one time killed thousands of “unbelievers” in the name of their religious principles.  The Bible stipulates that infidels must be killed (Leviticus 24:16 and Deuteronomy 13:7–11 for instance)  Even more explicit than Qur’an 9:73!
  • Moses himself  “organized a “death squad” to murder the 3,000 men and women (Exodus 32:27) who actually betrayed their strangely jealous god.”
  • Monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have a “tendency to regard one’s own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true god”, and are more prone to encourage sacred killings than polytheist religions that have  “a more open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice”.

Judaism evolved (a theme of this blog), following the destruction of the second temple and in part through contact with greek philosophy.  The rise of Rabbinic Judaism resulted in a system of interpretations and traditions (including the Mishnah, the Talmud and oral law) that moved away from literal texts.  Temple rituals were replaced by prayers.

In Christianity, crusaders pillaged and killed many in the name of the religion.  In 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture in Inquisitions and in 1478 Pope Sixtus IV established the Spanish Inquisition…  The reformation and the age of reason finally put an end to religiously-sanctioned violence towards more peaceful endeavors.

Islam may need a similar revolution to officially move from literal to more conceptual interpretation of texts.  The Taliban and Boko Haram know that separation of Church and State, and secular education are some of the biggest threats to their extremist theology.  In the meantime, those who profile an entire religion like Charlie Hebdo will likely help rally the faithful and are likely to suffer the consequences.

Follow Judaical on WordPress.com
(function(d){var f = d.getElementsByTagName(‘SCRIPT’)[0], p = d.createElement(‘SCRIPT’);p.type = ‘text/javascript’;p.async = true;p.src = ‘//widgets.wp.com/platform.js’;f.parentNode.insertBefore(p,f);}(document));

About the Lev Tahor Controversy

Rabbi Shlomo Helbrans

Rabbi Shlomo Helbrans

Word came in the news  today that the ultra-orthodox Jewish group Lev Tahor (meaning Those of Pure Heart) was essentially kicked out of a small town in Guatemala after having been pushed out of Canada over the last few years.   The group of about 80 families is led by its founder, Rabbi Shlomo Helbrans and depends mainly on charitable contributions to survive.   The group believes that all Jews must follow God’s commandment to live in exile (Diaspora) within the nations of the World until the Messiah comes and orders them to return to the Land of Israel.  The group practices a stringent form of Hasidism, where, for instance, prayers are twice as long as in the other Hassidic orders, and chanted slowly and out-loud.

Trouble came in Israel then Canada from civil authorities concerned about the group’s treatment of children, including brain washing and possible corporal punishment.  In Guatemala, village elders complained that the group was not willing to integrate with their society.  

This brings a couple of interesting points.  Last week, I posted about the 1264 Statute of Kalisz and the tenuous relationships between Jewish Communities and the laws of the lands in which they dwelled throughout the Middle Ages.   This is no different, really.  The second point is that the group’s goal is primarily the preservation of the Jewish People, which I talked about in the Auschwitz or Sinai post.  There is intrinsically nothing wrong with this last point.  

The Jewish People has survived for 5,000 years by interpreting and re-interpreting the words of our Sages.  The group Lev Tahor is living what they believe.  More than anyone else, we Jews ought to be tolerant of others and defend the group’s right of religion. Rather than decry their approach and seek to vilify their practices, civil authorities where they reside ought to engage in a dialog with them to find, like in Kalisz in 1264, a liveable compromise between the rules “of the Realm” and the rules of their Community.

Robin Williams, Suicide and Judaism

After the shock of learning of Robin Williams’ passing, my first reaction was anger.  How can a man so loved by others take his own life?  What kind of message does this send to others around the World who may think of doing the same?   I quickly followed that thought with another one.  When my mother first developed the symptoms of Alzheimer, repeating the same questions incessantly, I told my kids: “It is not really her, it is her disease speaking”.   There are studies, some over 100 years old  (for instance Morselli, Enrico Agostino, 1852-1929) that suggest that the suicide rate among Jews in the country where they live is less than that of other faiths.  This has been corroborated by studies in Israel and in other areas. 

The reasons are not obvious. They stem, I believe, from the strong value system that has sustained the Jewish people throughout the last 4,000 years (see my blog on this). The key concept is the  belief in only one God which leads, according to Martin Buber, to a personal relationship between man and God.  This idea of a covenant with God, according to Max Dimont, is what gives the Jewish people the will to survive.

Many Jews (including me) assumed that Robin Williams was a Jew (Jewish Times online) and were therefore doubly shocked to learn about the manner in which he died.  The fact that he is not Jewish does not take any of his genius or the joy that he brought his fans away, but perhaps it would have changed the way he thought about his life.  God has given us free will, but God has also created and given us precious life.

 

See also: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14101-suicide ,  http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/More-Religious-Countries-Lower-Suicide-Rates.aspxwww.mdpi.com/2077-1444/3/3/725/pdf