Conference taveng::bagels

    I think that much of the conflict resolves around the authorship of the 
    "Bible". If its Divinely written, then it is truly G-d's Law. However,
    that interpetation is only accepted by a certain segment of the Jewish
    population. If is was written by MAN, then all of it is open for
    interpetation. I believe that the Orthodox take the former view, while
    more liberal wings of Judaism take the latter or some compromise
    between the two extremes (i.e. Divinely inspired). Considering this
    diverse view on the very foundation of the "Law", then conflicts on
    observance are enevidable.
    
    Eric

>>	Do "Bible-believing" Jews have this same type of conflict in
>>	their lives? How do they choose to resolve it?

I don't know for sure, but probably.  I had a roommate a couple years
ago who was a fundamentalist Lutheran.  She taught science at an
orthodox Jewish school in Lowell, because, as she put it, they believe
the same thing with regards to science, evolution, etc.  (she drove me
nuts, and eventually out of the house).

    A minority of Jews are fairly close to funamentalists in their
    interpretations.  You'll find a few on soc.culture.jewish on usenet. 
    Most Jewish thought, though, including many Orthodox writers and
    rabbis, is not fundamentalist. 
    
    A Jewish concept is that the Torah was given in the language of the
    people who received it.  Thus it may be somewhat allegorical and not
    literal, since that conveys its real message, which is not about
    literalness.  There's even a tradition that explains that, if you read
    Torah carefully, you come up with the creation occuring about 15
    billion years ago -- roughly the same as astrophysics would say!  "Day"
    is not necessarily the same thing at all times.  Of course, Judaism
    cottons to different opionions on lots of things.

Re: .4

>    There is also a tradition that, given the Torah of Divine origin,
>    no  man is capable of understanding it, at least in this life. 

Please provide your reference.

Jem

Re: .3

> There's even a tradition that explains that, if you read
>    Torah carefully, you come up with the creation occuring about 15
>    billion years ago -- roughly the same as astrophysics would say!

I haven't seen a specific reference to this effect, but there are numerous
sources which state that this world is not the first (Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu
Boreh olamot u'machriv olamot.) The _Tiferet Yisrael_ , a 19th century
commentator on the Mishna, discusses the discovery of dinosaur bones in
this context.

> "Day"
>    is not necessarily the same thing at all times.  

"For a thousand years is but one day...", a verse in Psalms, is usually
quoted in this connection.

I heard a lecture on this topic from Rabbi M. Tendler, a professor of
both Biology and Talmud at Yeshiva Univeristy in N.Y. He firmly believes
there is no fundamental (there's that word again!) incompatibility between
Judaism and Darwin (Darwin was a religious man himself), but he made the
point that Evolution has become almost a religion in itself, many scientists
feeling it is beyond criticism, sacrosant. For anyone interested in evidence
of this, please send me email.

There are those, of course, who violently oppose Tendler's liberal view, but
it appears, IMHO, to be firmly rooted in ancient and modern traditional sources,
effectively rendering the Theory a non issue, whether it is proven correct or
otherwise.

Jem

re .7:

Could you ask her to knit me a dinosaur?

Re: .7

There are parts of the Torah that are difficult to understand, certainly,
but most of the Bible can be interpreted and understood, at least on a
simple level. Otherwise, of what use would it be to us?

Of course, there is an enormous body of literature which elucidates 
the difficult passages, which is available to all seekers (there's even
a good deal in the English language).

So I guess it depends on the *degree* of understanding you (or your mother)
were referring to. The phrase our sages use is *shiv'im panim laTorah*, 
there are a wide variety (lit. 70) of valid interpretations of the Torah,
referring to the levels of profundity sought, from simple to sublime.

Jem

    re:.11
    Much of what is scientific today gets clarified tomorrow.  Some of what
    has been called scientific in the past has been trashed, but that
    doesn't mean that all science is trash, even though some fundie
    preachers like to pretend so!
    
    Evolution is a framework, not a complete, closed-book theorem or
    postulate.  As a framework, it does not purport to answer all of the
    details.  However, it assumes that all details will eventually be
    reconciled with it, or explained in some compatible fashion.
    
    Torah is a framework, whose completeness is incomprehensible to mere
    mortals.  As a framework, it doesn't make obvious the answers to all of
    the details.  However, it assumes that all details will eventually be
    reconciled with it, or explained in some compatible fashion.
    
    Y'see?  No conflict!
    
    Actually, I prefer to view evolution as being an explanation of the
    temporal/carnal world, and Torah as being an explanation of the
    divine/spiritual world.  They operate on different planes and it's
    degrding to Torah to treat it as a mere book of carnal knowledge.

The use of the term "Bible-Believing" raises problems.  Does it refer to
belief that the Bible is of Divine origin, or belief that every verse must
be taken literally?

Orthodox Judaism holds that the Torah (the written law, the first five books
of the Bible) and the Mishnah (the oral law, part of the Talmud) are precisely
of Divine origin.  The Orthodox movement appears to speak with multiple voices
on fundamentalism (the belief that every word of Torah is _literal_ truth).

Conservative Judaism is divided on whether the Torah is the literal word of
God or whether it was "edited" into its present form.  Fundamentalism is rare 
within the Conservative movement.

Evolution appears to contradict the Bible only if one interprets the text
from a fundamentalist point of view.  My own belief is that a person who 
claims that the only correct way to understand Torah is as literal truth
ends up diminishing God!  If man can use metaphor, allusion, figures of speech
and even puns in communication, why can't God?  There is just too much beauty 
and meaning in the many diverse interpretations of the Bible that scholars
and others have made for me to consider this a wrong path.

    Re .0:
    
    A couple of things here.....
    
    First, I have a problem with the term "Bible-Believing" (not with
    you using it, just the term itself). It implies to me that if you
    don't read the Bible literally then you somehow don't believe in
    the Bible. The problem I have with literal belief in the creation
    of the world as described in Genesis is it could give the impression
    of G_d, at least in terms of Nature, taking a "well, that's that"
    attitude. Given what we see every day of every year in the world
    around us and what we know of natural history, I have to believe
    G_d is still quite active, thank you very much!
    
    Incidentally, I was discussing Genesis once with a learned friend
    of mine and he made the comment that Genesis was scientifically
    correct - that is, the way it describes the creation of the universe
    pretty much agrees with scientific theory today. It just substituted
    days for millions of years (see Jem's reference to the Psalms).
    
    Mark

    The real conflict, in my opinion, is not over the overt "facts"
    of evolution (according to current theory), but their interpretation.
    Many scientists move onto philosophical/religious turf when they
    claim that evolution was/is a purely physical process arising from
    random phenomena.  I've seen heated statements of this.  The passion
    reveals the lack of provability.  The other view holds that evolution
    expresses an intention - of the divine, or Gaia, or the species
    intending itself into existence.  Also not provable (though Darwin's
    contemporaries tried, in an attempt to reconcile these positions.)
    If THOUGHT precedes physical manifestation, then the latter makes
    sense.

It seems to me that the real "problem" or challenge for orthodoxies
of all kinds, including my own, comes from the social sciences, not
the physical sciences. Questions about Genesis and evolution/creation
are really silly once one has thought about them seriously for 10 minutes.

On the other hand, cultural anthropology raises interesting questions
concerning the "genesis" of human culture, including what we
call "religion", and these questions tend to "relativize" one's
attitude towards religious faith. 

I am not saying that this is
an unavoidable conclusion, just a tendency.

-ZAITCH

Genesis has the creation of birds the day before the creation of land animals.
This appears to be out of order. I do not conclude that Genesis is wrong. Only
that there is a message here and I'm not recieving it. Perhaps the message is
addressed to some future generation?

Dave

    Re: .17
    
    I think the question might arise from a mistranslation of the verse.
    Although I don't have a Chumash in front of me, I recall that on the
    fifth day in addition to fish, the term "taninim ha-gedolim" is used,
    which likely includes reptiles, although that is not usually the
    translation used. From my recollection of comparative anatomy, both
    birds and mammals are thought to have evolved from reptiles. The
    taninim are listed as having been created before the birds.
    
    Jem
    

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, one of the most respected of modern Conservative
scholars, of blessed memory, looks at things this way:

He believed that the Bible is divinely inspired (I'm not 100% sure where he
stands on the issue of authorship, but it doesn't matter here) but that it was
not meant to be a precise historical accounting as much as a symbolic
representation of events.  When we study the Bible we should not try to make
sense of it in a scientific sense any more than we would try to make scientific
sense of a novel (l'havdil!**).  Instead, we should look beyond the science and
try to find a deeper meaning in the Torah's words.

** l'havdil: to make a distinction.  This word is used to indicate that two
   things juxtaposed are vastly different from each other, except for some
   minor similarity.  In this context, it indicates that I'm not saying that
   the Bible is on the same plane as a novel, but there is a similarity in
   some small way.

Re: .19

> but that it was
> not meant to be a precise historical accounting as much as a symbolic
> representation of events.

Perhaps, then, we should interpret the Ten Commandments allegorically also?

Of course, there is an abundance of symbolism in every jot and tittle in
the Bible, but the principle is *ain Mikra yotzeh midai peshuto*, the
literal meaning of the text is the basis for all discussion. To interpret
a biblical "day" as more than 24 hours does not constitute violence to
the text, first and foremost because the sun was not even created until
the fourth day! i.e. of necessity a day is something other than our
conception. Second, the verse in Psalms quoted earlier supports this
notion explicitly. 

Even a profane document (not a value judgement!) such as the US Constitution
would be utterly worthless if every citizen would be allowed to interpret
it in any way they wished. There exists a Supreme Court to adjudicate
precisely this type of question. How much the more so a text which even
according to your note is "divinely inspired"!

> When we study the Bible we should not try to make
> sense of it in a scientific sense any more than we would try to make scientific
> sense of a novel (l'havdil!**).

"L'havdil" notwithstanding, you are still comparing the Bible to a story book.
This reminds me of those who pronounce the magical formula, "nisht Shabbos
Geret (you're not allowed to talk about this on Shabbos), but...", and they
then go on to discuss their five-year investment plans. 

Disagreements aside, I at least *understand* the Reform position (as expressed
by Zunz, Geiger, and others) - the Bible is completely human in origin, and
therefore nothing is *absolutely* binding. When I'm told, however, that 
Scripture is of divine derivation, but... I have to question the logic. If
G-d wanted to convey a message, why would He allow humans to intervene? Did
He not have the power to do so directly? In that case, His omnipotence is
being questioned. Did He not realize that each and every sentence might be
be justifiably discarded with the rationale, "this verse was misinterpreted
by the human intermediary"? In that case, His omniscience is under fire!
So in the end, from a practical perspective, there
is precious little difference between the Reform & Conservative positions on
this central issue, upon which all others rest.

As to the veracity of the Holy Writ itself, I believe that all those who
profess intellectual honesty owe it to themselves to attend a "Discovery
Seminar", referred to in 824.0. A good part of the course (from the material
I've seen) is devoted to brand new research being conducted at several
universities on the homogeneousness of the Bible, and related topics. This
material sheds a great deal of light on previously obscure questions.

Jem

    RE: .20, however, the U.S. Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court
    Rulings are civil law which ALL people under its jurisdiction must
    follow (diplomatic immunity not withstanding). And unless this country
    becomes a theocracy, religious law has no power in the public sector,
    therefore the comparison is not really valid.
    
    As you said later on in the reply, depending on how one views the
    authorship, will greatly influence what is debatable and what is not.
    As in our discussions earlier this month, both views (Orthodox and
    Reform) will be logical depending on this initial assumption. If one
    does not accept the Divine origins of the Torah, then any and all parts
    of it are open for interpetation.
    
    Eric

    It might help the discussion to make a distinction between
    "commands" and [putative] "facts".
    
    After all, "Do not commit murder." and "There was a man in the
    land of Uz,..." are such very different statements that you can't
    even talk about them the same way.
    
    						Ann B.

Re: .21

>    And unless this country
>    becomes a theocracy, religious law has no power in the public sector,
>    therefore the comparison is not really valid.

This is precisely my point, Eric. The Conservative theory appears quite
confusing in this regard. That is: if G-d had intended Torah law to be
binding, why would have only "divinely inspired" it? And if He did not
have such an intention, what purpose was there in "inspiring" the author(s),
when the veracity of the intention is necessarily suspect?

>    As in our discussions earlier this month, both views (Orthodox and
>    Reform) will be logical depending on this initial assumption.

In my note I was addressing the Conservative position of "divine inspiration",
and the many inconsistencies inherent in that theory, IMHO. Serious problems
with Reform theology have been discussed elsewhere, so they don't have to be
rehashed here.

Jem

    Since my view of a Supreme Being is that man has been given the
    capability of making his own choices about life in general and right
    and wrong in specific, then the view of "Divinely inspired" is quite
    logical, if one views it as a guide given by G-d.
    
    Eric 
    

Re: .20

>> Re: .19
>> 
>> > but that it was
>> > not meant to be a precise historical accounting as much as a symbolic
>> > representation of events.
>> 
>> Perhaps, then, we should interpret the Ten Commandments allegorically also?

Nope.  Not exactly what I meant.  What I meant to refer to by "historical 
accounting" and the "scientific [facts]" of the Bible was just the sort of
thing you spoke of in .20, i.e., the biblical "day" of creation.  Had a 
seismologist been around for the giving of the Aseret HaDibrot (10
commandments) s/he certainly would have described events differently than the
Torah does.

I did not mean to imply that laws, such as the 10 commandments should be
interpreted allegorically, too.

Torah is the basis of Jewish law and practice.  Where the Torah is teaching us
what do to and how to live, I do believe in studying it literally and
subjecting it to the same _legal_ scrutiny that the Supreme Court would to the
US Constitution.  I don't believe, however (and this is the way I interpret
Heschel), that accounts of events and natural phenomenae should be subjected to
the analagous scientific scrutiny, nor do I believe that they were meant to 
be understood that way.

>> Even a profane document (not a value judgement!) such as the US Constitution
>> would be utterly worthless if every citizen would be allowed to interpret
>> it in any way they wished. There exists a Supreme Court to adjudicate
>> precisely this type of question. How much the more so a text which even
>> according to your note is "divinely inspired"!

I also did not mean to imply that we each have the freedom to interpret the
Torah any way we wish, especially in the realm of halacha.  Each of the
movements OCR&R have a system for doing that.

>> "L'havdil" notwithstanding, you are still comparing the Bible to a 
>> story book.

$ SET FLAME /ON=MEDIUM

Hey, give me a little credit.  If I compared a human to a monkey, saying that
they both have two arms and two legs, I hope that people would not think that I
meant that humans are in every respect exactly like monkeys.

$ SET FLAME /OFF

When the Torah says, "The L-rd spoke unto Moses...", what does that mean?  If
Moses had a tape recorder, would the voice have picked up?  Would sound waves
be detected?  Did G-d place those words somehow into Moses' head?  Was there a
celestial PA (private address) system with a 10,000 watt per channel amplifier
and a huge woofer (for special thundrous effects)?  Would you please explain to 
me the physics behind this communication? 
   Conversely, when Moses spoke to G-d, how did he do it?  Did he just think? 
Did he have to say stuff out loud?  Did he write notes and leave them in the
cracks in Mount Sinai?  (Rhetorical questions.)
    Scientific details _like_ that are not explained in the text, and aren't 
(in my humble opinion) critical to understanding the text.  What is important
is that G-d _communicated_ with Moses, and the communication was understood. 
If there is added meaning in the choice of words, then so be it.  I do not
believe that divine communication can in any way be compared to simple 
human speech, even though we use the same word.
    In a book, Torah, story or otherwise, the Author or author doesn't need 
to explain the science behind things when the explanations in and of
themselves are not important to understanding.  This happens in many forms of
communication, including inter-human speech and novels, and I believe that it
is so in the Biblical text, too.

Re: .22

>    After all, "Do not commit murder." and "There was a man in the
>    land of Uz,..." are such very different statements that you can't
>    even talk about them the same way.

Certainly they are substantially different statements in almost every
sense. But if I find out there was no such man in Uz, or that the text
incorrectly states that the L-rd spoke to Abraham, or that the Children
of Israel travelled from the Wilderness of Sin to Dofka, or that Moses
blessed the Nation before his death...I would be forced to ask myself -
why? If the text clearly states something which never took place, there
are two possiblities. a) the author engaged in deception b) the author
was mistaken. In either case, I would have no desire to fulfill the
express wishes of such an author when I'm asked to refrain from wearing
a mixture of wool and linen (Leviticus 19:19), or to celebrate a holiday
in a booth (Deut. 16:13), or not to eat the _gid hanashe_, a particular
sinew of the thigh (Gen 32:33). Nor would the Decalogue itself be 
completely free of my criticism. What right does such an author have
to tell me to desist from work one day a week? I'll rest when I feel like
it! How could he demand that I not worship other gods, if that's what gives
me satisfaction? What right does he have to dictate my sexual activity?
Even the commandment not to murder might be questioned - after all, who
are we to judge whole societies such as New Guinean cannibals as being
evil - that's their culture, and no errant or deceptive author has a right
to make a value judgement about a society's culture. I think you get the
point. 


Re: .25

> 				   What I meant to refer to by "historical 
>accounting" and the "scientific [facts]" of the Bible was just the sort of
>thing you spoke of in .20, i.e., the biblical "day" of creation.

But I could never make such a claim without supporting sources. The context,
verses from elsewhere in the Bible, and the literature of our sages are the
basis for this interpretation. 

>I did not mean to imply that laws, such as the 10 commandments should be
>interpreted allegorically, too.

But that is a natural conclusion, as above.

>I also did not mean to imply that we each have the freedom to interpret the
>Torah any way we wish, especially in the realm of halacha.  Each of the
>movements OCR&R have a system for doing that.

Yes, the Jewish Theological Seminary does have a Law Committee, and many of
the members are preeminent scholars. But speaking honestly, how many Conserv-
ative Jews drive *only* to the synagogue and back, without straying for a 
occasional scenic view of the countryside or a brief foray to the beach? Is
it even reasonable to request such Herculean self-discipline of people? 

>Hey, give me a little credit.  If I compared a human to a monkey, saying that
>they both have two arms and two legs, I hope that people would not think that I
>meant that humans are in every respect exactly like monkeys.

I admit my words were a bit too forceful, and I understand that there is
poetic license in every metaphor. However, the *whole point* of your analogy
was in fact to compare certain aspects of the Torah to a novel, and the 
"l'havdil" didn't undo that at all.

>    Scientific details _like_ that are not explained in the text, and aren't 
>(in my humble opinion) critical to understanding the text.  What is important
>is that G-d _communicated_ with Moses, and the communication was understood. 

I agree. But if someone were to claim that the communication never took place
(in whatever form), or that Moses never existed, or (R"L) that G-d did/does
not exist, or that the message was somehow garbled by the human author, the
communication as recorded in the Bible is of little value.

Jem

Re: .26

>>> Yes, the Jewish Theological Seminary does have a Law Committee, and
>>> many of the members are preeminent scholars. But speaking honestly,
>>> how many Conservative Jews drive *only* to the synagogue and back,
>>> without straying for a  occasional scenic view of the countryside or a
>>> brief foray to the beach? Is it even reasonable to request such
>>> Herculean self-discipline of people? 

Yes it is reasonable.  There have always been people who have not lived up to
standards, whatever they may be.  I am sure that there are Jews affiliated
with each of the movements who do not do everything their scholars say they
should.  Does that mean that we should change the standards?

Nope.  If we justified legal changes (religious or otherwise) simply because
people aren't following the laws Judaism would have died out long ago.

Re: .27

> If we justified legal changes (religious or otherwise) simply because
>people aren't following the laws Judaism would have died out long ago.

Those within the Conservative movement who sincerely believe this, are
often forced into a corner. One of the "preeminent scholars" I referred
to in .26 is Rabbi David Feldman, who happens to be my uncle, and with
whom I have engaged in vigorous debate on various occasions. However,
he has since left the movement, the women-rabbi decision several years
ago being the straw that broke the camel's back, and many of his tradition-
minded associates joined him. There are serious theological disagreements
among the ranks of those remaining, not to mention between them and the 
splinter-group.

IMHO, the disagreements are fostered by the "divine inspiration" theory 
discussed above: the doctrine is really no doctrine at all, and of
necessity breeds a schizophrenic attitude toward the authority of the
Bible itself, not to mention the Talmud. To reiterate my questions from
the previous few notes:

1)if G-d had intended Torah law to be
binding, why would have only "divinely inspired" it?

2) And if He did not
have such an intention, what purpose was there in "inspiring" the author(s),
when the veracity of the intention is necessarily suspect?

Or, put another way:
 
1)  If
G-d wanted to convey a message, why would He allow humans to intervene? Did
He not have the power to do so directly? In that case, His Omnipotence is
being questioned.

2) Did He not realize that each and every sentence might be
be justifiably discarded with the rationale, "this verse was misinterpreted
by the human intermediary"? In that case, His Omniscience is under fire!

It is my contention that this issue is at the core of not only the theological
problems within the movement, but the critical social issues that are 
necessarily tied with those: i.e. intermarriage/cults/assimilation. Speaking
candidly, Rabbi Singer noted that the vast majority of cult members he and
his colleagues have encountered were brought up as "good" Conservative and
Reform Jews. That is, they had attended after-hours Hebrew School, had been
"bar-mitzvahed" (alot more "bar" than "mitzvah"), and many had strong feelings
about Israel. Nor are there any statistics I've seen to differentiate these
"educated" Jews from there non-affiliated brethren in terms of (astronomical)
intermarriage rates.

It is difficult to dispassionately discuss these crucial matters, and it 
seems I'm forever apologizing for my strong words. Of course, some are
angered by these questions, but I think it's unavoidable. I believe that
Jews, no matter the label applied to them, know that their very survival
as an entity is very much in question right now. The time is long overdue 
to examine the causes for the spiritual destruction, to meet them head-on,
and take appropriate action.

Jem

>Nope.  If we justified legal changes (religious or otherwise) simply because
>people aren't following the laws Judaism would have died out long ago.

I'd like to bring in some personal opinion, le'havdil, in this conversation.
Of course I wouldn't dear to confront the opinions of my learned coleagues
with my opinions.

As an appetizer, the first thing I would like to bring is an almost quotation
from Saint-Euxpery's "The little prince": When the Prince meets the absolute
King of the small asteroid and asks him: -If you are so powerful, why don't you
order a sunset immediately? Or many sunsets? 

The King answers something like: -Wait a few hours more, and then I will order
the sunset to take place. A King has to give orders that are possible to be
fulfilled.

The same thing should apply to religious laws. The laws and/or their inter-
pretation do change with time. Even judaism did change with time - e.g.: When
the Temple was destroyed, we stopped bringing sacrifices. According to some
historians, the function of the sacrifice in the ritual was not any more
necessary to the people that brought the offerings, they found perhaps that
prayer was a form of offering and communication which was more acceptable
to them, and even if our prayer books do lament the sacrifices we are unable
to offer, I believe we have endured without that.

As an additional thaught, I remember a discusion not long ago in this confe-
rence where the subject was "If a jewish astronauts sees a sunset every
90 minutes, how often does he/she have to kindle the Shabat candles". 
The different answers did not say that the astronaut should drop every six
orbits in order not to travel in Shabat, or any such an idea, but I believe
the Rav Goren gave some rules that you should light the candles according
to Jerusalem time, or the time of the departing port. I.e.: the answer
was to adpt the answer to what is logically possible.

I think that unless you want to be blind some 80% of the Jewish people are 
not observant, regarding Kashrut, travelling in Shabat, etc. We are being
confronted with the question: are we facing a future in which this majority
will be decared as "non-Kosher" because they de-facto do not follow the laws
or we will have to have the laws follow the people "acharey rabim lehatot".

My opinion is that since "lo bashamayim hee" (the Torah is not longer in the
heavens, but in the hands of the people) we should adapt our lives and the 
laws that rule them to the best conditions for survival.

Bivracha,

Juan-Carlos Kiel

    RE: .28, my only problem here is that you are representing your
    viewpoint as the only VALID one in this discussion and continuing from
    there. IF the Torah is devinely written, then your point is valid,
    but if it is NOT, then your view doesn't hold water and nothing said so
    far proves that it is (or isn't), therefore you do not have the
    authority to define what is right and what isn't for Jews other than
    yourself.
    
    Reply .29 raises some valid issues. I feel that most of us here
    realize that there is no way that you will succeed in changing the
    views of the majority of Jews today as far as observance (that majority
    not being Orthodox). The world is changing and people will change with
    it. Religion must support the needs of its members, and not the other
    way around (unless you're in a cloistered order).
    
RE: .28 again:
    
>Those within the Conservative movement who sincerely believe this, are
>often forced into a corner. One of the "preeminent scholars" I referred
>to in .26 is Rabbi David Feldman, who happens to be my uncle, and with
>whom I have engaged in vigorous debate on various occasions. However,
>he has since left the movement, the women-rabbi decision several years
>ago being the straw that broke the camel's back, and many of his tradition-
>minded associates joined him.
    
    If the women-rabbi issue is truely the straw, then the back is weak
    because people today will NOT accept stereotype roles thrust upon them
    by "traditional" religion any longer. People can not and will net by
    manipulated in the name of "the faith" without a valid reason and as-
    signing roles based on sex is definitely not valid.
    
    If religion was a democracy, those more "traditional" members would
    have been voted out of office easily, but since its more of a coali-
    tion, each group will co-exist with the others as long as one does not
    try to force its views upon the others. The majority of Jews today do
    not accept your approach to Judaism and never will, it's right for you,
    but not for everyone. You can either fight this view or accept it and
    find strength in numbers.
    
    Eric

Re: .29

>Even judaism did change with time - e.g.: When
>the Temple was destroyed, we stopped bringing sacrifices.

How would you recommend carrying on the sacrificial rite? Shall everyone
build an alter in his back yard (the verse says "b'levavi mishkan ev'neh",
not "b'chatzeiri" :) . The principle here is, "Ones Rachmana pat'rei", one's
*obligation* no longer exists if it is impossible to fulfill.

>"If a jewish astronauts sees a sunset every
>90 minutes, how often does he/she have to kindle the Shabat candles".
.
.
>Rav Goren gave some rules that you should light the candles according
>to Jerusalem time, or the time of the departing port.

Although this may appear to be a wholly novel situation, as with every
_halachic_ decision, this was based on precedent, and similar cases
discussed in Rabbinic literature. A similar question exists for those
who live or visit points far north or south, where the sun doesn't appear
or doesn't set for months at a time. The predominant opinion, I believe,
is to observe the Sabbath according to the hours of the nearest community 
where there is a sunrise & set within 24 hours. 

>or we will have to have the laws follow the people "acharey rabim lehatot".

Please. If there were a general referendum and most Americans decided that
there was nothing wrong with stealing should that law be dropped like hot
potatoes? Interesting that you should quote that verse. The first part of
the _pasuk_ reads, "Lo tih'yeh acharai rabim l'ra'ot", do not go after the
majority for evil, upon which Rashi comments: If wicked people attempt to
alter justice, never say, "since they are the majority, I will follow them."
(Of course, the verse applies to judges in capital cases, but if you're
quoting out of context, so can I :)  The point is, if we are going to follow
majorities in matters of religion, we would all be Christians Muslims or
Hindus. If individual Jews, or even a majority choose to trample on time-
honored laws, that is their *G-d given right* of free will. But the laws
themselves remain intact. If the L-rd giveth'ed these laws, only the L-rd
can taketh them away.

>My opinion is that since "lo bashamayim hee" (the Torah is not longer in the
>heavens, but in the hands of the people) we should adapt our lives and the 
>laws that rule them to the best conditions for survival.

Hmmm. I'm not quite sure that the author of that dictum, Rabbi Yehoshua, would
quite agree with your conclusion. Perhaps you meant to write "to" instead of
"and": we should adapt our lives *to* the laws that rule them. There are many
lessons to be learned from that story, but discarding the laws of the Torah
does not appear to be one of them, at least from the biographies of R. Yehoshua
I've read.

>Bivracha,

Gam l'mar.

Jem

RE: 841.28
 
>In that case, His Omnipotence is being questioned.

>In that case, His Omniscience is under fire!

    Why is it necessary to suppose that there is an omnipotent and
    omniscient deity at all?  (I.e., Why not suppose a divinity that is
    less than  omnipotent and less than omniscient?  That would explain a
    lot of the seeming contradictions in the Scriptures, and it would not
    necessarily conflict with the idea of God as creator.  After all, we
    can create computers that can do lots of amazing things, and even
    though we exercise considerable control over them, they often do things
    we do not intend, and we don't necessarily know everything that is
    going on inside them.)

    					Aaron

Re: .31

>There are many
>lessons to be learned from that story, but discarding the laws of the Torah
>does not appear to be one of them, at least from the biographies of R. Yehoshua
>I've read.

What I mean is not a matter of discarding laws and rules, but of interpretation.

I can offer as an example a modest experience of mine: I was born in Argentina
and neither Hebrew nor English are my mother tongues. When I try here in 
Israel to convey my ideas, I find that many times the words I use are a
very limited and poor vehicle to transfer to others my thoughts. If you
really pay attention, you can see that even in your mother tongue, there might
be a conflict between what you do really say and what you wanted to express.

It is perhaps less a limitation of the ideas, but limitations of the vehicles
used to convey them - the "bandwidth" of the media used. In top of that,
not only there is the difficulty to putting all your meanings into words,
(something I became aware when trying to express myself in foreign languages),
there is always some "filtering" by the media and by the "reception" capabi-
lities from the other side.

The point I am trying to get to is that whatever was the origin of the Law,
either divine dictation or divine inspiration or the sigma of the colective 
experiences of the Jewish people founders, the laws came to us in the form
of strings of words, with different direct meanings, with meanings that were
lost in the runing of the times, meanings that changed with time. I would
dear to say that perhaps - because of our limitations, and the limitations
of our forefathers - some ideas might have been interpreted differently from
the meanings they had when they were written till our days. 

Therefore I am inclined to interpret everything with what I am, and what I am
now, which might be differnt with my reaction to a given input tomorrow or
yesterday.

And the same as I do change, our collective "US" changes, and therefore our 
collective reaction to laws, et cetera, changes. Weren't the Greeks (Oy Vey!)
the ones that said that you cannot bade in the same river twice...

But the point is a different one. The mores change. The uses change. Life 
changes. Being is change and adaptation. Even the Lord, described as "The One
That Is" (Eheyeh asher eheyeh) is related to the escence of being, and in my 
perception, to change. the question becomes: if the environment changes, if 
the people change, if the attitude changes and the rigid structure of regu-
lations does not follow, the laws and rules became obsolete and are discarded.
If they do not adapt, they die. And here again comes my question: Since people
do not follow dead rules, are you ready to _discard_ those that do not follow
or since we should live in the Law, the Law should adapt to life.

I do not really expect an answer. I know that I am touching points that fall 
in the realm of inner truth and personal beliefs, and history showed already
that humens are bound to fight and even die in order not to change their
perceptions. I do not expect to convince and I do not anticipate to be con-
vinced otherwise.

Bevirkat shalom,

Juan-Carlos.

The one thing that never changes is that Jews love to debate this issue.

Dave

Re: Note 841.33   by TAVIS::JUAN    -< A matter of interpretation >-

>......................., the laws and rules became obsolete and are discarded.
>If they do not adapt, they die. And here again comes my question: Since people
	        *****
>do not follow dead rules, are you ready to _discard_ those that do not follow
>or since we should live in the Law, the Law should adapt to life.

    "Adapt" is the key word here.  We should be able to adapt the laws of
    the Torah to the current situation.  If we were to discard them, the
    whole foundation of our religion would crumble.  (Some might say that
    just adaptation has done that already.)  A literal reading of the law,
    just doesn't make sense in this day and age.  It would be analagous to
    the U.S. Supreme Court taking an unchanging stance on any law in the
    U.S. Constitution, (although I suppose there are also some strict
    constructionists who want to do just that!) 
    
    /Ed

Re: .32

>    Why is it necessary to suppose that there is an omnipotent and
>    omniscient deity at all?

Again, I was addressing the *Conservative* position known as "divine
inspiration." To the best of my knowledge, that movement has not
officially questioned G-d's omniscience or omnipotence. I realize that
Reconstructionism and Reform have different notions, but I wasn't 
discussing the doctrine from their respective perspectives here (don't
worry, you'll get your turn :)

As to the sources for such an assumption, the verse states, "All that
G-d wishes, He does, in heaven and earth, in the seas and all the
deeps" (Psalms 135:6). (See also Bereshit Raba 28:2, 48:22; Tanchuma,
Shemot 18, Korach 9; Midrash Tehillim 62:1, 107:3; Rav Nissim Gaon on
Berachot 32a; enough? :)


Re: .33

> I was born in Argentina
>and neither Hebrew nor English are my mother tongues. When I try here in 
>Israel to convey my ideas, I find that many times the words I use are a
>very limited and poor vehicle to transfer to others my thoughts.

I don't know about Hebrew, but you seem to do pretty well in English. Alot
better than many native English-speakers, I might add.
  
>The point I am trying to get to is that whatever was the origin of the Law,
>either divine dictation or divine inspiration or the sigma of the colective 
>experiences of the Jewish people founders, the laws came to us in the form
>of strings of words, with different direct meanings, with meanings that were
>lost in the runing of the times, meanings that changed with time. I would
>dear to say that perhaps - because of our limitations, and the limitations
>of our forefathers - some ideas might have been interpreted differently from
>the meanings they had when they were written till our days. 

This, of course, is where we differ. Firstly, there is a world of difference
between "divine dictation" and "divine inspiration". In the former, the
credibility of the message is not in question, whereas in the latter, it is
very much so. As to our limited understanding, this is quite true, and in
some cases we have lost the original meaning. For example, we cannot identify
many of the birds listed in Leviticus 11 and Deut. 14, therefore we eat only
those birds which have been *traditionally* known to be kosher beyond question.
Nor do we know precisely how the "thread of blue" referred to in Num. 15, so
this requirement has generally been dropped. (BTW, the reason for the stripes
found on today's Tallit is to recall this Mitzva).

However, these very exceptions shed an enormous amount of light on the rule.
That is, if a tradition is honestly lost, there is no attempt made to artifi-
cially resurrect it; it is lost forever. By the same token, meticulous care
is taken to avoid this ever happening, first and formost by a living tradition
passed from generation to generation. This in fact, is the *only* means of
accurately establishing the meaning of ancient documents. I've seen evidence
of this in the form of the discovery of documents written in ancient Semitic
tongues, quite similar to Hebrew, of which only 50% or less are decipherable 
in any way (for references, send email - enough bandwith on that).

This is the precise reason why there was an Oral Tradition associated with
the Written Word. Namely, that the tradition of necessity remain dynamic,
not relegated to scholarly archives, where their original intent would
inevitably be lost in time. This, of course, is the main message in Rabbi
Yehoshua's startling exclamation, "lo bashamaim hi", the Torah was given
to Man, and Man must struggle to understand it in order to fulfill His Will.

> if the environment changes, if 
>the people change, if the attitude changes and the rigid structure of regu-
>lations does not follow, the laws and rules became obsolete and are discarded.

Only by those who are not willing to invest their energies to discover how
profoundly relevant the "laws and rules" are to our generation.

>Since people
>do not follow dead rules, are you ready to _discard_ those that do not follow

Some are, unfortunately. But others are committed to demonstrating how these
rules are anything but "dead", principally by living them themselves.

>or since we should live in the Law, the Law should adapt to life.

Ironically, those who sought to "adapt" Judaism to the prevelant culture in
the past have generally faded into the annals of history, while the Torah
has retained its vibrancy in every imaginable situation. Actually, it's
not really so ironic: since these innovators were primarily committed to
the popular culture, their "Judaism" was made to resemble that culture in
many ways (they created G-d in their own image!). Hence, as the cultures
died out, so did the protege religion die out.

>Bevirkat shalom,

Aleinu ve'al kol Yisrael. Amen.

Jem

    RE: 841.28
 
>In that case, His Omnipotence is being questioned.
>In that case, His Omniscience is under fire!
                                                                    
    In MHO, we, as human beings, cannot define nor even understand
    the concepts of divine "omnipotence" and "omniscience." 
   
    If these concepts are at all meaningful, then they exist outside
    of our human ken -- they are beyond our understanding;  
    
    in this vain, it is meaningless to argue that only an orthodx (literal)
    interpretation of Torah doesn't question God's omniscience/omnipotence.
    To suggest that Torah must be interpreted as the literal word of
    God, also limits divine powers.  
    
    Gene       
    

Re: .23:

> The Conservative theory appears quite
> confusing in this regard. That is: if G-d had intended Torah law to be
> binding, why would have only "divinely inspired" it? And if He did not
> have such an intention, what purpose was there in "inspiring" the author(s),
> when the veracity of the intention is necessarily suspect?

There is a good reason for being confused.  I wouldn't presume to know all
divine reasons and purposes.  I do believe, however, that the veracity of the 
Torah was purposefully left open to question!  Faith becomes much higher a 
function when it is not simply a reaction to incontrovertible factual 
evidence and when it must face the impossibility of proof or disproof.

We have clear evidence that the Torah texts have been faithfuly preserved,
letter for letter, over the past 2000 years.  We do not have clear evidence 
of the accuracy of our texts relative to the preceding 1200+ years' span.  I 
believe that the text may very well have been altered during its stewardship 
under human hands in that earlier period.

Re: .26:

> If the text clearly states something which never took place, there
> are two possiblities. a) the author engaged in deception b) the author
> was mistaken. In either case, I would have no desire to fulfill the
> express wishes of such an author... Nor would the Decalogue itself be
> completely free of my criticism.

I submit a third possibility:  c) the author is using allegory or metaphor
as a vehicle of getting a message across to us.  In this case, I have more
appreciation for the author, rather than less.

Re: .28:

> the "divine inspiration" theory... is really no doctrine at all, and of
> necessity breeds a schizophrenic attitude toward the authority of the
> Bible itself... If G-d wanted to convey a message, why would He allow 
> humans to intervene? Did He not have the power to do so directly? In that 
> case, His omnipotence is being questioned. 

Humans have been allowed to intervene for the same reason we have been given
the capability to choose between good and bad.  I believe He has the power
but is simply choosing how and how not to exercise it.

> It is difficult to dispassionately discuss these crucial matters, and it
> seems I'm forever apologizing for my strong words. Of course, some are
> angered by these questions, but I think it's unavoidable. I believe that
> Jews, no matter the label applied to them, know that their very survival
> as an entity is very much in question right now. The time is long overdue
> to examine the causes for the spiritual destruction, to meet them head-on,
> and take appropriate action.

I am not angered by your questions.  They are definitely provocative, and
that is good!  I see my answers as speaking for a position that is
consistent and not schizophrenic.  Further, I consider this position to
be within the mainstream of Jewish thought although not in concordance with
the beliefs of some.

My beliefs differ sharply from yours, but I share your commitment to Jewish
survival.  

Re: .37

>    In MHO, we, as human beings, cannot define nor even understand
>    the concepts of divine "omnipotence" and "omniscience." 

There's uderstanding... and understanding. We certainly can't comprehend
the inner workings of these attributes, since they are intimately inter-
twined with His Infinity, a concept by definition beyond our physically
limited minds. On the other hand, we can know that they exist, from
various descriptions of His actions and words (see Gen. 48:14, "Is any-
thing too difficult for G-d?").

A necessarily faulty analogy: my 3-year-old knows what to expect when
turning on the TV, but has little understanding of why or how it works
(neither do I, for that matter!).

>    To suggest that Torah must be interpreted as the literal word of
>    God, also limits divine powers.  

If G-d chooses to reveal His Word in this way, how does that constitute
a limitation? 

Jem

Re: .38

> Faith becomes much higher a 
>function when it is not simply a reaction to incontrovertible factual 
>evidence and when it must face the impossibility of proof or disproof.

The non-corporeality of G-d, in itself, serves this purpose relative to 
the Supreme Being. Once His existence is presumed, however, what purpose
is there in presenting a document which may or may not be an authentic
representation of His Will? IOW, we may believe in G-d, but at the same
time the Torah might (C"V) be a forgery. I might want to fulfill His
Will, but would have no reason to treat the Torah as that Will, if its
veracity were in question.

> We do not have clear evidence 
>of the accuracy of our texts relative to the preceding 1200+ years' span.  

I hate to sound like a salesman, but see if you still maintain this opinion
after hearing the evidence presented in the Discovery Seminar.

>I submit a third possibility:  c) the author is using allegory or metaphor
>as a vehicle of getting a message across to us.

Again, I would then question if even the most basic of tenets, i.e. the first
of the Ten Commandments (in fact, all of them), were simply to be treated as
metaphors.

>Humans have been allowed to intervene for the same reason we have been given
>the capability to choose between good and bad.

If we were to find an unaccounted-for deposit of $1000 in our bank accounts
each time we fulfilled a _Mitzva_, our free will would be necessarily diminshed.
After all, we would have to be fools not to! But we don't experience such 
immediate rewards, and in fact, the opposite is often true (R"L). The natural
order of the universe, in itself, serves to reinforce both our freedom of 
choice, and the ultimate rewards for making the correct (according to G-d's
standards) choices. (I heard this analogy from R. Riskin several weeks ago).

>My beliefs differ sharply from yours, but I share your commitment to Jewish
>survival.  

I don't doubt your sincerity. But I think we have to periodically step back
and try to view, objectively and practically, whether we are succeeding in
our goals, in addition to our basic beliefs themselves.

Chag sameach!

Jem

Re .40:

>> We do not have clear evidence of the accuracy of our [Torah] texts 
>> relative to the [period from 3200+ years ago until 2000 years ago].

> I hate to sound like a salesman, but see if you still maintain this opinion
> after hearing the evidence presented in the Discovery Seminar.

I would be very interested in seeing this evidence!  Any chance of posting it
to this conference?

>> I submit a third possibility:  c) the author is using allegory or metaphor
>> as a vehicle of getting a message across to us.

> Again, I would then question if even the most basic of tenets, i.e. the first
> of the Ten Commandments (in fact, all of them), were simply to be treated as
> metaphors.

Just because _certain_ portions of the Torah may be interpreted as metaphors
does not mean that _all_ portions are just literary devices.  One of the
reasons I value the Torah so highly is because it speaks to us on many levels.
The use of allegory does not in my mind diminish the moral force of the Torah
at all!

> I think we have to periodically step back
> and try to view, objectively and practically, whether we are succeeding in
> our goals, in addition to our basic beliefs themselves.

Agreed!

    RE: .39, Though the sections of the Torah quoted back up your view,
    they are based on the very assumptions that we are discussing here,
    that of the authorship of the Torah itself. To use these passages to
    "prove" Devine authorship (or guidence), is circular reasoning at its
    best.
    
    What it comes down to is an individual belief that the Torah was
    a)Devinely written, b)Devinely inspired, c)humanly written. If one
    takes assumption a, then the Torah is the "word of G-d", and as such,
    is not open for interpetation. Assumption b leaves some room for
    interpetation and assumption c leaves it all open for interpetation.
    Since none of us were there when the Torah was initially written, there
    is no logical way to prove which assumption is correct. We can draw
    conclusions from our observations and beliefs, but there is no concrete
    proof. As such, this discussion will always be on an academic level.
    
    My problem with this discussion is a closed minded approach by some
    that only their approach is correct and everyone else is incorrect.
    To you, your belief is correct, but you have no right to judge the
    validity of the beliefs of others.
    
    Eric

Re: .41

Sorry for the delayed response. My excuse is a little 2-day old interruption
whose _Bris_ will IY"H take place next Wednesday.

>I would be very interested in seeing this evidence!  Any chance of posting it
>to this conference?

I really could not begin to do justice to the material. See 824.0 for a contact
in Mass., or (212)344-2000 for info generally on these seminars.

>Just because _certain_ portions of the Torah may be interpreted as metaphors
>does not mean that _all_ portions are just literary devices.

Which is which? 

>The use of allegory does not in my mind diminish the moral force of the Torah
>at all!

Please offer specific examples. Reply .26 already dealt with this issue.

> One of the
>reasons I value the Torah so highly is because it speaks to us on many levels.

No argument whatsoever. But again, _ain Mikra yotze midai peshuto_, the plain
meaning of the text must be taken very seriously. If Lev. 12:1 (And G-d
spoke to Moses, telling him to speak to the Israelites...), is allegorical, 
I'd have to think long and hard about whether it's worthwhile subjecting my
wife and baby to the laws outlined in the next few verses :)

Jem

    RE: .43, but that's the whole point. If the authorship is in question,
    then the "plain meaning" is also in question.
    
    Eric

Re .43 "Where is the line?":

>> Just because _certain_ portions of the Torah may be interpreted as metaphors
>> does not mean that _all_ portions are just literary devices.

> Which is which?

That's a question for scholarly debate!  As an example, consider the Days 
of Creation.  Some sources insist that "day" must mean precisely 24 hours.  
Others note the verse in Psalms that to God, one day is as thousands of years 
are to man, and from this interpret "day" metaphorically.

I agree with you that the methodology of considering figurative interpretation
can lead to trouble if applied without limit.  I differ sharply with those 
who argue that the laws of Kashrut are not to be observed because the point 
is to behave ethically and not necessarily to follow ritual to the letter.
To me, they have crossed the line of what I consider valid interpretation
of the Torah.

Of course, to others, I have crossed _their_ line.  The question you raise
of where to draw the line is nontrivial, and I believe that there is no 
single right answer that will fit all people.

We both agree that the Torah is sacred because its contents are from the
Divine.  I allow the possibility that people may have been less than perfect
in transmitting the text before the Common Era.  You maintain that the text
today is the precise and exact literal teaching of God, letter for letter.
But this difference does not take away from my respect and reverence for
the Torah and its teachings.  All in all, I think our common ground 
outweighs our differences.

P.S. Congratulations on your now 3-day old "interruption"!

Re: .45

>That's a question for scholarly debate!  As an example, consider the Days 
>of Creation.  Some sources insist that "day" must mean precisely 24 hours.  
>Others note the verse in Psalms that to God, one day is as thousands of years 
>are to man, and from this interpret "day" metaphorically.

We seem to be going in circles. Please reread my response to this in .20 and
.26. 

>We both agree that the Torah is sacred because its contents are from the
Divine.

Actually, I'm not sure we're agreeing on what is meant by "Divine Inspiration."
I view the term as a translation of _Ruach HaKodesh_, or prophecy. There are
many levels of prophecy, but that of Moses was the pinnacle acheivable by
humans (see Num. 12:7,8; Deut. 34:10). So even *if* the Torah was "only" given
*be-Ruach HaKodesh*, that would by no means impune that its veracity. 

> I allow the possibility that people may have been less than perfect
>in transmitting the text before the Common Era.

Apparently, there are a number of people who have not seen the "codes" Gerald
referred to in 824.0. Beginning from the first "tav" in genesis (the last letter
of the word "Bereshit"), count 49 letters, and you find a "vav". Count another
49, and find a "resh", another 49 and find a "heh", spelling "Torah". This
pattern continues three times in succession, as well as at the end of Genesis.
This pattern is repeated in exactly the same way in Exodus. Statistically, the
chance of such a coincidence occurring is ~3,000,000:1. The pattern occurs in
the last two books of the _Chumash_ in much the same way, except the word 
"Torah" is spelled backwards there. I am not discussing the message that is
being conveyed by these patterns here, but the discovery in itself is mind-
boggling. 

As I mentioned earlier, I really cannot hope to do justice to this topic, but
I believe that this is very intriguing material, which can't be ignored. Another
study showed that if one "vav" (a minor letter) was removed, all the patterns
were ruined. Again, do attend the seminar, because I'm no expert.

>P.S. Congratulations on your now 3-day old "interruption"!

Thank you. I asked him how he felt about being circumcised, and he raised no
objection, so I can't be accused of religious coercion :-)

Re: .46

>    There is , I think now, a difference in free choice. The former
>    interpretation gives the person a free choice. The latter excludes
>    any free choice, and instead binds with an ultimate condition.

I think the phrase "free choice" needs to be defined. Under Federal law, we
are required to file tax returns each year. We are "free" to ignore this
statute, but if we do, we run the risk of being severely fined or imprisoned
if caught. As I've heard R. Riskin say, the Torah doesn't contain 613 "suggest-
ions" - they are *commandments*. We are totally free to ignore them, but we
risk the consequences. (This is not meant as a "fire and brimstone" sermon, just
to clarify the distinction between "law" and "freewill".)

    RE 841.47

    First, Mazel Tov!
    It's always welcome news to hear about another "nes gadol."  (There are
    some things that are miraculous no matter how "natural" they are.)

    Second,

>Apparently, there are a number of people who have not seen the "codes" Gerald
>referred to in 824.0.

    There are also a number of people who are waiting to see a scholarly
    analysis.  I want to see something in writing that I can study, not
    merely an oral presentation.

    The problem with statistics is that, given enough cases, most things
    are probable.  That was the problem that J.B. Rhine encountered when he
    claimed to have evidence of ESP; statisticians later showed that he was
    misinterpreting his statistics. I would predict that the same
    techniques would yield "proof" of the validity of the Quran, the
    Bhagavad-Gita, Homer's Illiad, etc.  I would not be surprised to find a
    Christian group finding "proof" that the Tanach supports Christianity.

    This is not to say that statistics have no value, but they have to be
    weighed with other evidence.  There are enough textual anomolies in the
    Humash that it would take more than some "codes" to convince me that it
    is a unitary document.

                                        Aaron

Re: .49

>    First, Mazel Tov!

First, thank you.

Second,

>I want to see something in writing that I can study, not
>    merely an oral presentation.

I believe such materials are available. Why don't you call and find out?
Anyway, what does "merely" mean? Why does anyone attend classes rather than
"merely" reading the material himself?

> I would predict that the same
>    techniques would yield "proof" of the validity of the Quran, the
>    Bhagavad-Gita, Homer's Illiad, etc.  I would not be surprised to find a
>    Christian group finding "proof" that the Tanach supports Christianity.

You seem to be very willing to jump to conclusions before you've even so
much as requested a brochure! As I've said previously, I don't think anyone
should base his faith (or lack thereof!) solely on one piece of evidence.
However, I would be confused if a scholar refused to even examine a body of
(at least apparently) compelling new material. 

Perhaps, on the other hand, I shouldn't be so surprised. As Prof. Y. Kaufmann
writes (Religion of Israel, 1961, P.1): "Biblical scholars, while admitting that
the ground has crumbled away under the documentary hypothesis, nevertheless
continued to adhere to its conclusions." 

Jem

    Since I'm the one who entered the note about the Discovery program,
    I want to mention that I haven't gone to it, but I've heard great
    things about it.  I hope to go next time it's in the Boston area.

    There's some mention of the codes in the Halachic Newsletter (note 75?).

re .49:

>    I would not be surprised to find a
>    Christian group finding "proof" that the Tanach supports Christianity.

    I was told by someone who attended the Discovery seminar that there's
    a book called (something like) "Proofs of Christianity."  All but one
    of the prophecy-comes-true proofs is from the Tanach.  The New Testament
    prophecy wasn't written until after the event happened (sorta like
    Jean Dixon).

    Re Christian "Prophecies" in the Tanakh:
    
    That's the problem.....most Christians (especially those of the
    literalist and/or funadmentalist variety) believe that the Tanakh
    supports their beliefs (most of everybody in BAGELS is probably
    aware of them so I'll spare you from a rehash of old news).
    
    And therein lies the rub....anybody can take anything they want
    from any writings and find anything they want in them. If people
    have a goal, they'll invent if necessary the reasons for achieving
    the goal.
    
    Can the same be said about the Torah? I think not and the reason
    is that the Torah was given to the Jewish people and that the Jewish
    people were to apply the Torah to their lives thereby providing
    an example for the rest of mankind. Certainly obeying the Torah
    didn't make their lives any easier as history has shown over and
    over again. Nobody would come up with a set of rules like that unless
    there was a higher purpose involved - at least that's how I feel
    about it FWIW.
    
    Mark

    The "codes" have been talked about in this conference before, I think,
    and certainly got a lot of play on the usenet. 
    
    They don't prove divinity.  I work with "codes" too.  DECnet uses them. 
    We apply a linear convolutional code to every packet, to detect noise. 
    It's a human artifice, today implemented in silicon, but also included
    in the VAX instruction set microcode.
    
    The codes in the Torah do prove to me that the texts were faithfully
    transmitted, just as a DECnet CRC proves that it was faithfully
    transmitted.  But who's to say that the divinely-inspired humans who
    redacted the Torah didn't put them there, for precisely the same reason
    that DECnet has them?
    
    The essence of free will is the ability to interpret.

Re: .53

>    The codes in the Torah do prove to me that the texts were faithfully
>    transmitted,

I'm not sure anyone is claiming any more than that, but that's no small
matter in itself. 

Jem

Re: .55

>    Is anyone aware of the code-occurance in translation,
>    that is after translation to say English or German do any codes appear?

I've heard of various Shakespearean works, portions of the encyclopaedia
Brittanica and other documents being searched for codes and for evidence
of homogeneity (where appropriate). When I have specific references, I'll
note them here.

Jem

    
    A small town newspaper in Texas advertised. "read your Bible to know
    what people ought to do. Read this paper to know what they actually
    do. 
    
    The Bible is most helpful when it is open. A Bible that's falling apart
    often belongs to one who isn't. Thousands of people don't like the
    Bible because it cramps their lifestyle.
    
                                        RM