Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Why I Don't Believe in Judaism (part 3: What Would it Take)

Shortly after I left Judaism, I came up with the following metaphor to capture my disillusionment with the religion. Imagine there exists a large building. From the outside the building looks enormous and impressive. It is covered in beautiful artwork, stained glass windows, the works. The building is also constantly being worked on, but in a strange way. Every time some facet goes out of style, or is damaged, instead of fixing it, the workers just build another structure out over it, covering the unsightly or passe parts and leaving a new one. However, despite this constant work on the outside, no one ever works on the internals. The foundation is crumbling, the old art, since covered over, is fading. To me this building represented Judaism, and unlike most people I wasn't content in walking around the outside admiring the beautiful new works. I went inside, and made the mistake of testing the foundations. I kicked a couple support beams, and before I knew it, the entire building came crashing down.

When I want to describe, as succinctly as possible why I don't believe in Judaism, it makes sense to highlight the difference in how Judaism decides on what is true and how science does. Judaism has a concept, which I've mentioned before, called Yeridat HaDorot which means the descent of generations. The idea is that each generation is farther away from the Sinai revelation, and thus is less capable of making decisions on what is religiously appropriate. The result is that older decisions that are based on faulty information are impossible to overturn. Religious precepts that by today's standards look immoral cannot be removed. Like the building metaphor, a painting can never be removed, it can just be covered over with something less offensive, with the exhortation to please not look behind the new painting.

I've already provided some examples of practices that are immoral by today's standards, such as the laws of Agunah, which has not been overturned despite nearly every modern Rabbi agreeing that the current halachic law is unfair to women. There are countless examples of halachic decisions made on wrong information that are now inscribed in Jewish law. I will talk a little bit about one of them.

When I was in high school, I once asked my Rabbi why we can't use electricity on Shabbat. Previously, I assumed this was a extension of lo teva'aru aish (do not light a fire). This makes sense for things like incandescent light bulbs. But as I learned what electricity actually is, I realized this is untenable for most appliances. What does turning on the AC have to do with lighting fires? My Rabbi actually had a book on the topic which he lent me, and the explanations were pretty much the same as can be found on Wikipedia today.

What I learned is that the original halachic ruling on electricity was that one could not use it because electrical circuits create sparks, which are equivalent to lighting fires. This explanation was based off of a 19th century layman's understanding of electricity and was highly problematic. For one, electric circuitry today does not create any sparks, as the switching is done mainly through semi-conductor transistors. Furthermore, you make more sparks when you put on a sweater, yet that is not forbidden.

In the years that followed, Rabbis learned more about electricity and realized that the original ruling was wrong. However since electricity was forbidden on Shabbat, it was impossible to reverse this decision. Instead, they tried to justify the ban on electricity with other reasons. One said that you were "building" a circuit, another that you were applying the "final hammer blow" and turning something non-functional into something functional. But these answers ring hollow. It's obvious the real reason electricity is not used, because some Rabbi didn't understand the science behind it and made a decision on wrong information. Judaism cannot correct it. They can't tear down the old painting, they have to paint over it.

When we compare the arc of Jewish development to that of science we see something very different. Science continually replaces anything faulty with corrections when they become available. However, because it does this so effectively, you are actually left with a very similar structure compared to what you started with. Just the incorrect things have been updated. Again, using this analogy, science doesn't make a new painting to cover up a faded one, it instead updates the old painting so that it looks new again. Here's a concrete example: the physics we use to calculate the motion of balls or bullets is exactly the same as the expressions postulated by Newton some 300+ years ago. However, when you get to very fast moving objects, like electrons in accelerators, then those laws break down. Instead a new calculation emerges. And the new expression shows very clearly that the old way of calculating balls and bullets is accurate enough. Of course it couldn't be otherwise, because if it was wrong now, it would have been wrong then too and never adopted.

Science is self-correcting, Judaism is not. When I looked at how I should figure out whether something is true or not, science didn't just have an advantage, it blew Judaism out of the water.

But of course, a scientific approach updates with new information. It's very much worth looking at what possible new information might change my opinion on certain matters relating to Judaism. This is what I'll spend the rest of the post talking about.

Divinity of the Torah

Last week I talked about why I didn't believe in the Torah's divinity. But it's worth reiterating what would cause me to believe that there's something to it. An easy way, would be if someone where to use the Torah to forward predict a piece of knowledge. For example, if someone were to use various passages of the Torah to accurately name something like new superconducting materials (which are constantly being discovered in a sort of scattershot approach), then I would take notice.

It of course doesn't have to be superconducting materials, anything will do. The point is that the prediction needs to be forward and not backward. Generally, when people try to square the Torah with science, they do so by accepting the scientific explanation learned from elsewhere and trying to fit the Torah to it. That's not good enough, I want the Torah to give us something definitively new.

This isn't the only thing that would make me believe in the divinity of the Torah, but I'm not going to outline every possibility. One is enough for these cases.

Judaism's Oral Tradition

Another big part of Rabbinic Judaism is the claim of an oral tradition stemming from Sinai to the present day. There are a lot of ways this can be proven, but a very simple one would be by applying the exact same criteria I outlined for the divinity of the Torah to the Oral Torah and seeing if it satisfies any of them. Based on the parts I have studied (which is not complete) it did not seem divinely inspired, but maybe select parts of it do?


Also, just like the Tanakh itself, if you can use the Gemara to forward predict information then that would greatly bolster its claims of divine inspiration.

Historicity of Genesis 1-10

The evidence here is overwhelming that these chapters are ahistorical. It's actually nearly impossible for me to figure out how to change my view on this matter as it would entail a complete upheaval of pretty much everything we know about science. So, I guess to be convinced of this, I'd need to be convinced that pretty much everything we know about geology, biology, and physics is wrong. That's a high bar. Luckily, many people still manage to believe in Judaism without interpreting these chapters literally.

Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives

Many of the individual details of the patriarchal narratives are beyond what we expect to measure. There's no reason to ever expect some independent verification that, say, some guy named Avraham (Abraham) tried to slaughter his son Yitzchak (Isaac). However, many of the external details of the world do fit into the measurable realm. Unfortunately for the Torah, these descriptions of the world are not accurate. But let's see what could be reasonably discovered that would lend credence to the historical treatment of this era.

1) Indications of a pre-bronze era collapse civilization that called themselves Plishtim, or similar either from on site excavations, or from foreign records from Hattusa, Ugarit, Egypt, Assyria or somewhere else. This would lend credence that the encounters of Avraham and Yitzchak with Avimelech the Philistine king were not anachronisms.

2) Proof of a large scale geological disturbance in the vicinity of the dead sea. This would provide evidence that the cities of S'dom and Amorrah (Sodom and Gemorah) were not wholly fictitious creations.

3) Evidence of kings named Chedarlaomer or Amraphel in Elamite and Babylonian kings lists respectively. Currently, these names have not been found in any of the fairly extensive kings lists, but that doesn't mean that they won't be yet. This would provide evidence that the war of 4 kings against 5 has some historical backing. (Although it's still problematic unless the previous point is resolved, since the five king side appears to be completely fictitious)

4) Of course, even though it's not expected, any independent verification of any of the people mentioned in these stories would make a strong case that at least something here belongs in the world of fact and not the world of myth.

Historicity of the Exodus

The main way of squaring away the biblical account with modern day archaeological knowledge is to reduce the scope of the biblical story to a much smaller scale. This is fine by me and many of the resulting ideas regarding the various exoduses are plausible. However, none of them resemble the Torah in anything but a few details. They certainly don't have the grand sweep of the biblical statement in Deut 4:34
Or hath God assayed to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before thine eyes?
To believe in the Jewish narrative, I would need some hard evidence. For example, I would accept evidence of a significant drop in Egyptian population that could be plausibly related to both the plagues and a departure of a large nation. The discovery of an Israelite encampment (as large as the largest city in the world) at an expected site like Kadesh Barnea or any other  would do as well. I'd even take a well attested conquest of the territory of Israel by outsiders, again numbering roughly what the Torah attests, and allow the extrapolation backwards under the assumption that the Torah does contain true history here. There's nothing like this currently, despite numerous archaeological excavations. But maybe new stuff will be found? That could change my opinion.

Efficacy of Prayer

This is actually a topic that has had much scientific inquiry. The main approach is to have people pray for ill individuals without their knowledge and compare that to an unprayed for control group. A clear result showing the effectiveness of prayer has never been shown. It's pretty easy to describe what would change my mind here, a highly reproducible study showing the effectiveness of prayer.

What has been shown is that people do get an improvement if they believe in prayer and they know someone is praying for them. So if it makes my family feel better, I will tell them that I'll pray for them, fully aware that the prayer does nothing, but the comfort they get from knowing I'm praying is effective.

Moshiach

This is another gimme. The Jewish Messiah (or Moshiach) has as one of his conditions that the entire world will believe in Judaism. So obviously, if someone comes around and establishes Judaism as the world religion, then I will believe. But probably not before.

Existence of Souls

This is trickier. It's already fairly definitive that "souls" if they do exist, do not deal with the laws of physics as we know them. This is already a huge mark against them, and is enough to assert the null hypothesis, souls do not exist, as the most likely. Obviously, I will change my belief if there can be demonstrable physics evidence of the existence of the soul, but assuming that this cannot be done, there may be ways to determine the existence of souls.

One possible approach would be to show some function of cognition or decision making is impossible to influence by affecting the (very physical) brain. This article does a great job of showing how many things normally attributed to souls can be manipulated by altering the brain. It is very difficult to prove that something cannot be affected by changing the brain, but in the absence of any actual physical evidence, this is the high bar that needs to be met.

Paranormal Capabilities of a Rabbi

Sometimes, people will base their belief on Judaism (or really any religion) based on what they claim is witnessing firsthand some miraculous performance of an individual. It is impossible for me to deal with these claims individually. Thankfully there exists a group dedicated to testing all paranormal claims, namely the James Randi foundation has a one million dollar challenge for anyone who claims the capability of paranormal behavior. I will accept any successful completion of the trial as evidence of whatever paranormal phenomenon is being tested. If the trial participant is a Rabbi promoting his use of ruach hakodesh then so be it.

Conclusion

As hopefully I've made clear, what I'm always interested in is trying to figure out what is real and what is fake, myth and legend. If I've been misled, I'd like to determine that and alter my beliefs accordingly. When I was religious, I often found that it was the religious people that often provided specious or incorrect information, and this gave them a black mark on their credibility. However, if they were and are correct, I sure would like to know!

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Why I don't believe in Judaism (part 2: The Divinity of the Torah)

Constructing a Litmus Test

In the final chapter of "How to Read the Bible", where James Kugel describes the way he reconciles the preponderance of evidence that suggests that the Torah was written by different groups of people at different times with his Orthodox Jewish beliefs, he states the following.
How can you distinguish the word of God from other, ordinary human words in Scripture? I do not know of any litmus test that can be used. I suppose I have my suspicions about this verse or that one, but I really do not believe it is my business to try to second-guess the text's divine inspiration.
He is correct, but only in so much that he refuses to make a litmus test and then subject the Torah to it. He spends the next to paragraphs explaining why he doesn't feel inclined to do so.

The same sentiment appears at the end of Friedman's "Who wrote the Bible." He writes:
The question all along was not "Who inspired the Bible?" or "Who revealed the Bible?" The question was only which human beings actually composed it. Whether they did so at divine direction, dictation, or inspiration was always a matter of faith.
After spending the entire book explaining how this section was written by this group of priests with their own propaganda motives, this section was written by another group, and this part added in by a redactor. He states that there's no way to determine if any or all of it is divinely inspired.

To me, both Kugel and Friedman are providing cop-out answers. If the Torah was divine, or divinely inspired, it would be of prime importance to determine that it was so, and if it was edited or corrupted, it is absolutely necessary to find out which parts were problematic. They both throw up their hands and say, "I can't do it" perhaps as a way to justify their own beliefs or mollify their statements to any believers who happen to read them.

Naturally, whether the Torah was divine or not was a question of great importance to me at one time in my past.  I was already well on my way to a career in the sciences, and like other questions about the world, I approached this one in a scientifically sound manner.  I will reproduce this exercise in this post.  I will set out the various criteria I would expect a divinely authored text to fulfill, and then see if the Torah meets those criteria. I will create my own "litmus test" that Kugel says doesn't exist, and then subject the Torah to it. You may of course disagree with the specific criteria I have chosen, and that's fine. I would be interested in seeing your criteria.  However, if you are unwilling to offer any criteria, like Kugel, I would find any claims that the Torah or any other text of your choice (Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon) is divine to be unworthy of consideration.  The word has no meaning.

While it is impossible for me to recreate entirely my thought process from 15 years ago, I will try as best as I can to be true to my knowledge at that state. Therefore, in the following tests, very little of the information contained in this blog, namely results from biblical archaeology and textual criticism, will be discussed below.

A Divine Text is Self Evident

If given a purportedly divine text, a critical reader should be able to determine that it is divine based on examination of that text alone, provided of course, one understands the language it is written in.  This is the first criterion, but it is more of a meta-criterion, since all the others depend on it.  One could argue that a text meets all the other criteria that I will soon lay out, but it requires many commentaries and exegeses to bring out the divine nature.  I reject that outright.  The only way I would interpret exegeses would be if they were universally agreed upon.  However, when you have numerous contradictory commentaries, then how are you to choose which one is correct?  Furthermore, how can you be certain that it's not the exegesis that is divinely inspired instead of the text?  A divine text would not admit this possibility, it would be obviously divine to a reader of the text itself. 

One could add an additional criteria that the text would be understandable to any reader regardless of their language.  It would be written in mathematical symbols that would be self-derivable.  I do not impose this restriction.

The following criteria will all be presented under assumption that a divine text is self-evident. We will list the other criteria, subject the Torah to each one, and see if it passes the litmus test. Then, at the end we will discuss this meta-criteria.

The Criteria

In the following paragraphs I will outline the various criteria.  Each one will look like, "A divine text may have X but certainly will not have Y."  In these cases at least one of the Xs, for one of the criteria will need to be true, but not necessarily all.  However, the existence of Ys will make any divine claim suspect.  So here are the criteria

A divine text may reveal information not known at the time, but it certainly will not make factual errors with any revelatory information that come to light with further knowledge.

A divine text may describe universal morality, but it certainly will not include moral statements reflective of the society in which it was written that later are unanimously considered immoral.

A divine text may be pan-cultural, but it certainly will not be reflective of a single culture.

A divine text may be dense, but it certainly will not be repetitive.

To these I add one more Y.

A divine text will not contain contradictions.

We will now look at each of the criteria in turn. I'll note that my decision that the Torah was not divine hinged almost entirely on the first two criteria. The others were just icing on the cake, so to speak.

Is the Torah Revelatory, and if so, is it Correct?

The first question is whether the Torah contains revelatory information that could be used to determine whether it is the product of supernatural forces or not. This information could range from mathematical truths like Fermat's Last Theorem, something that was only proved over 300 years after it was first suggested. Or it could take the form of statements about the physical world, whether locally relevant to us, such as the existence of Uranus and Neptune, or to more general physical truths such as the existence of protons, electrons and the fundamental properties of elements. There is a near limitless amount of knowledge that we have gained about the world, and there's also knowledge that we don't yet know. Any of this could be known to a supernatural being and these statements, which could be easily verified given enough time, would lend credence to claims of divinity.

The Torah is indeed revelatory, containing information that could not be known to the ancient Israelites, or indeed any nation at that time. The information includes statements about the creation of the world, and the events in distant history. All of Genesis 1-10 fit in this category of revelatory information. Unfortunately, the claims of Genesis 1-10 are completely at odds with what we have learned about the world. It's revelatory, but the revelations are false. They include such incorrect statements as claiming that plants existed before the sun, and that angiosperms existed before the insects to pollinate them. It describes a global flood that kills all but a meager few animals, which is an easy statement to check in the geological and fossil record, and checking that record tells us that the biblical story is fictionarl. It describes the proliferation of languages, specifically claiming that there existed such a time when all nations spoke the same language. It's clear that the Egyptian and Sumerian nations, which were already leaving written records during this time period, were already speaking different languages.  

Therefore it fails the second half, the Y, it contains false revelatory information. Not only that, it's hard pressed to come up with any true revelatory information that is objectively testable. In all honesty, the failure of this statement was enough to cause big questions about the Torah's divinity, or at least, I surmised that these sections could not be the product of a supernatural being.  But, I will take a moment to examine the common objections offered by religious believers.

The first objection is that the science is wrong, and the Torah is correct. People will mention that science changes its results, so there's no good reason that it won't change its claims about the early history of the world to align with the Torah. This argument is appealing only to people who haven't spent the time learning enough to understand exactly why these claims about the early world is made, and what the supporting evidences for them are. To cast doubt on claims such as the fictionality of the flood is equivalent to casting doubt on all scientifically acquired knowledge in general. That solution was not appealing to me.

The more interesting objection is that the purpose of Genesis 1-10 is not to provide us with historical information or knowledge of the physical world at all, but rather to provide a moral or spiritual lesson. The stories are "allegorical" and only a simplistic reading would think they were literal. Therefore, the claim is that the Torah is actually not revelatory, at least in any objectively testable way. However, this is not a convincing argument. Surely, a divine being could create a story with the same moral and spiritual lessons but without the factual inaccuracies. Even moreso, if the moral and spiritual lessons are important, then why is it not obvious what those lessons are? There is no single explanation in the Talmud as to the moral/spiritual purposes of these chapters (nor, for that matter, any indication that they treated them as anything but descriptions of the physical world).

Is the Torah Moral or Immoral?

The second question deals with the morality of the Torah.  The Torah certainly does make rulings that appear to deal with morality.  For example, it includes its version of the golden rule, "love your neighbor as yourself." A fine moral lesson, provided you aren't a masochist.  There are very few people who would disagree that the Torah makes moral rulings.  However, to be considered divine, those statements must be universal both in space (i.e. obvious to many cultures) and time (i.e. just as valid then as today).  They should represent the best morality available.

When applying this universal constraint on biblical morality we run into serious problems.  Even in the time of the Gemara, various laws were viewed as problematic.  The infamous lex talionis, "an eye for an eye," was considered barbaric by the Talmudic Rabbis, and they proposed that it should really be the price of an eye for an eye.  Similarly, laws like the rebellious son 21:18-23 were thought by Chazal to have never been performed (Sanhedrin 71a). 

When we read through the biblical laws, we are not presented with a description of an ideal society, but rather we are presented with laws you might very well expect from an iron age kingdom.  Granted, there are good laws like leaving agricultural excess the poor, and concerns to look after widows and orphans.  But the Torah also countenances slavery, including eternal slavery for non-Jews and the option to break up families by selling off children and wives.  It condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms.  It treats women as second class citizens or worse.  And, finally, it commands the Jews to commit genocide on the Canaanite nations. Surely these commandments, could not be representative of a moral society. Or, in other words, if they did represent the divinely sanctioned ideal society, it is not one in which I would want any part in, and would actively oppose.

And if this isn't bad enough for claims of divinity, many of these commandments exist in near identical form in various other Ancient Near East law codes.  The most famous of these is the Code of Hammurabi, which dates to the 18th century BCE, prior to the claimed revelation of Sinai by any reckoning.  It should be noted, that this law code and others like it were claimed to be product of divine revelation as well. Why does the true divine law code bear such striking similarities to these other imposter law codes?

It is very hard to argue that the Torah is divine based on its moral message.  There are fine moral messages in it, but there are also awful ones. It fails the Y, and does so spectacularly. It appears no different in this manner than any other Ancient Near East text, or indeed, any text from other cultures as well.

Is the Torah pan-cultural or representative of a single culture? 

This one is tough to characterize.  Indeed when one looks at the story of the Exodus from Egypt, one finds a narrative that has resonated with many different cultures throughout history. However, other stories fall flat when removed from the Ancient Near East culture that they first appeared in. Nevertheless, there are many examples of the Torah about cultural elements unique to the region of the Israelites, for example that of Levirate marriage, and there are no examples of cultural elements unique to say, the Chinese, or the Native Americans. It appears that the Torah is more a product of a single culture, that happened to hit on some universal themes (as other cultures did), rather than a representation of every culture.

Why is this important? Because, in my conception, a supernatural being would want every nation to be able to relate to the divine document. The Torah would be God's gift to humanity, not God's gift to the small desert wandering Israelites. This is not possible if it clearly meant to resonate with a single culture.  Nevertheless, I expect many people to disagree with this criteria.

Is the Torah Dense or Unnecessarily Repetitive?

This criterion is probably the one which is most directly derived from my Jewish upbringing. Had I grown up in a different culture, I'm not sure I would have held much stock in it. Yet when one is presented with statements like the one where Rabbi Akiva derived laws from even the crowns on top of the letters (Menachot 29b) it's easy to come away with the idea that there's a level of complexity and density to the Torah. (As an aside, these explanations of the crowns were never recorded.)

Even without this cultural background it may be reasonable to assume that given a text of finite length a divine creature would want to make sure it contains as much detail as possible. That seems like a reasonable assumption. And indeed, if one looks at the numerous written works in the Talmud, and later commentaries, one is given the appearance of a significant amount of density.

And yet, the commentaries are not uniformly distributed. You will find that certain overly repetitive sections of the text are commentary-free. They repeat the same thing, in the exact same words, multiple times. Other stories appear to be repeated, like the stories of a patriarch going to a foreign land and having the foreign king abduct his wife. These kind of repetitive structures look a lot more like what you'd find in formulaic iron age writings and inscriptions than what would appear in a divine book.

Then you wonder if the Torah is actually dense or artificially dense? Can this even be objectively determined? If you compared the Torah to something like the US Constitution, would it be more or less dense? I don't have an answer to this specific question, mainly because it was pretty clear to me that the Y, failed here, so there wasn't much need to verify whether the X was satisfied.

Does the Torah Contain Contradictions?

This last criterion is probably where many people begin in criticizing the divinity of the Torah. But to me, it was far less important. The question is answered in an obvious yes, at least if you rephrase it to "does the Torah contain apparent contradictions." No one disputes that. The difference is that traditionally Judaism (and any other religion with a defining text) uses these internal contradictions as a means of achieving density. The contradictions require a clever explanation, and therefore deeper messages can be hidden in the text. After all, no author would be dumb enough to blatantly contradict themselves. (Aside: Interestingly, people that argue for single authorship in academic circles use the argument that Ancient Near East authors were tolerant of internal contradictions.)

When I was religious these ad-hoc exegetical explanations were satisfactory. As I became less convinced of the divinity of the Torah, I still found many of them reasonable. However, that was because I didn't have any better explanations myself. Now, with the knowledge I have gained from academic investigations, I have found much better explanations for various inconsistencies in the Torah.


How Can the Torah's Divinity be Believed in?

If you objectively look at the Torah, and subject it to reasonable criteria, whether they be those listed above or some other set of your choosing, the Torah fails the test of being self-evidently divine. The failure is obvious when noting that a wide swath of the population disagrees with the divinity of the book, whereas is the book was self-evidently divine, they would convert to the religion in droves. So, if the Torah itself can't be used as proof of its own divinity, is there any other reason to believe that it was given to humankind by God? Jews who believe in the divinity usually offer one of two explanations, and we'll look at them now.

The first explanation is less common. It would look something like, "I believe in Judaism because my parents believe in Judaism, and it was what I was brought up to believe." An individual who says this generally has a less fundamentalist relationship with the religion, and views Judaism more as a culture than a philosophy. To this individual, I have no real way to make a rational argument, because the defense is inherently irrational. The individual says essentially, "I believe because I believe." Such an individual isn't terribly interested in objective tests whether the religion is correct or not. They might even believe in some kind of religious plurality in which all religions, even contradictory ones, can be simultaneously correct.

It is the second common defense that is much more interesting. The individual believes in the divinity of the Torah, and Judaism itself, not because of the self-evidency of the text, but because, "Judaism maintains a long tradition (mesorah) of the divinity of the text." Often the believer will invoke arguments like the Modern Kuzari to defend their text. In other words, we believe the Torah is divine because we have a link to a direct witness of God giving the Torah to the Jews.

Without getting into the flaws of the specific modern Kuzari argument, of which there are many, it's possible to reject this line of thinking outright. If your belief in the divinely inspired nature of Judaism rests only on the claim of divine transmission, and if it can't be determined objectively by examination of its holy texts and ordinances, then we must conclude that the divine creature who gave it, is one who values obedience over reason. Humanity's greatest feat, our ability to think and reason, should be suspended. The quote from Galileo to the Grand Duchess Christina is appropriate here:
I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
The god that wants us to ignore our own abilities to reason and instead rely solely on the claims of previous generations, is not a god worth worshiping.

There I must conclude where I started. If Judaism represents the divine will, and if the Torah represents a divinely inspired document, then it must be identifiable by design by inspection of the document itself. Since inspection of the Torah reveals that it has no clear indication of anything that sets it apart from any other text, and looks entirely to be a product of human invention in the Iron Age of the Near East, then there is no compelling reason to assume it is divinely inspired.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Why I Don't Believe in Judaism (part 1: A Personal Story)

When I was struggling with belief in Judaism towards the end of my college years, I sat down to write an essay which I titled, "Why I Believe in Judaism." As I wrote, I found I had more questions than when I started. I also realized that a lot of my answers for various questions didn't actually hold up to self-scrutiny. The arguments were weak. I erased and rewrote, erased and rewrote, asked Rabbis and friends for perspectives. I constantly watered down the conclusions so they could fit inside a rational world view. Until, at the end, I realized that I couldn't really justify my belief at all. Eventually I gave up writing the essay, it was never completed. Looking back, it was at this point in time that I had turned the corner from belief to disbelief. It would take me a bit longer to internalize this change, but if I had to point to a defining moment, this was it. Unfortunately, this essay has long been lost and no computer archaeology that I could do could resuscitate it.

In some ways this post and the two following it are the inevitable conclusion to that fatal attempt some fifteen years ago. Throughout this year I have laid out the arguments as to why rational inspection into the Jewish texts reveals that it was most likely written by human beings, and that the religion is man-made just like every other one. Next week I will talk specifically about why I came to the conclusion that the Torah is not divine. Following that, I will sum up with some conclusions about what I believe, and what would get me to change those beliefs. But this week, I'm going to take some time and indulge myself, by sharing how I got to where I am today. In the process, hopefully I'll explain why I tried to write that essay in my late teens/early twenties, and why I spent a year writing weekly "anti-dvar-Torahs" for this blog in my thirties.

If the human interest side doesn't interest you feel free to skip to next week (provided your reading this after it's been posted, if not then you'll need a very fast moving vehicle to skip ahead.) But let's follow the paths of a kofer to be.

Strong Conservative Upbringing

In a way, the title of this section is an oxymoron these days, but the environment was different in the 1980s. At that point in time, the Conservative Jewish movement in the US was strong, youth groups like USY were all over; conservative day camps were everywhere; conservative synagogues were common with large memberships. Modern Orthodoxy (MO) was not yet ascendent. Chabad had not yet taken over the university Hillel scene.


My family happily identified as conservative in those years before these labels had any meaning to me. We went to synagogue every week, albeit usually by car. We did not eat pork or shellfish and had separate dishes for meat and dairy, but we cooked those meals in the same oven, and would often go out to eat at restaurants with nothing resembling a hechsher. Most importantly, we were surrounded by many families who were just like us, sporting the same level of observance.

I had three older siblings, all of whom attended public school. However, I was different. For reasons mostly unrelated to religion, my parents enrolled me in a nearby Conservative day school. Yes, those existed back then, and maintained reasonably large class sizes. Although, I've never explicitly asked about it, I have a strong feeling that I attended this school partly on scholarship and partly funded by a wealthy relative.  Ironically, my three siblings would eventually happily become Modern Orthodox, while I -- well we'll get to that in a bit.

A Move to the Right

Starting around age ten, my family started moving to the right. The move was superficially prompted by a transition in our synagogue to begin having egalitarian services. In response, my parents and many of their friends, went to the only local alternative, a small Chabad with services in a run down VFW building.

Around the same time, I also switched schools. The conservative school I went to went under a change of administration and my parents weren't too fond of the new principal (possibly because they didn't want to pay my scholarship). I switched to a local Modern Orthodox school, this one run out of an old paint factory. This same school has since found itself with luxurious new digs, and considerably more expensive tuition as a result. But when I was there, the conditions were poor. Classrooms were small and poorly furnished. Walls were constantly falling apart. Ceilings leaked.

This wouldn't be the first time I was thrust into a new academic environment where I had to play catch-up. However, I have never known myself to shy away from any academic challenge and this one was no different. Besides, the Conservative school I attended allowed students to progress in Hebrew skills at their own level, and I was equally or further advanced than my new MO classmates in most religious subjects.

This is also around the time that I started engaging with my religion. Now that the shul was smaller it was also more intimate, stuff was more accessible. No longer were we confined to pews far away from an offset bimah. The front row of seats was right behind the chazzan. Also, participation was much more readily available even for children. For example, I could lead the Shabbat morning pesukai d'zimra even though I was not yet Bar-Mitzvahed, and we rarely had a minyan by that point anyway. However, the one part that truly fascinated me was the Torah reading.

I remember many weeks standing up with the gabbaim following along with the reading. I remember trying to match the lilting tones of the Rabbi to the trop markers. This was frustratingly hard until one of the gabbaim taught them to me and explained that the Rabbi often "guessed," so it wasn't really possible to correlate them anyway. As an aside, I'll note that I was able to do all of this, not only because the congregation size was tiny, but because I am male. Had I been female, I would have had far less access, relegated to the "boring" side of the mechitzah.

At home, our house became Orthodox as well. Our dishes were kashered (by blowtorch), and those that couldn't be kashered were discarded. Our oven was cleaned and made meat only, our dishwasher was replaced (and also made meat only). We no longer ate out at non-kosher restaurants, which really meant we almost never ate out since the closest kosher restaurants were at least 40 minutes away. We stopped driving to synagogue and stopped using electricity on Shabbat. 

As I noted before, at this point my siblings also moved to the right, somewhat independently since they were in college or beyond at this point. Both older brothers found themselves dating MO girlfriends who they would marry shortly after my Bar-Mitzvah. My sister, the youngest besides me, and in high school during this rightward move, was the last to accept MO strictures, but eventually she would also do so, starting her own MO family at around the same time I was shedding my religion.

The Ba'al Korei

My fascination with Torah reading only became stronger as my bar-mitzvah approached. About a year before the bar-mitzvah, a family friend sat down and taught me the trop for the Torah and the Haftorah, providing me with a cassette tape for it. I begun learning my bar-mitzvah parsha on my own.


Oddly enough, I didn't actually complete the bar-mitzvah parsha, and skipped a couple of aliyot. But since our shul was small, and participation was encouraged, I was excited to learn a short aliyah here and there each week. I kept at it and got better and better. When the second year came around, I learned a longer aliyah. And then multiple aliyot. By the time I was 17, I could polish off a parsha after dinner on Friday night. I learned the trop for Megillat Esther and read that. I learned the tune for the high holidays as well, and leined in the backup free service that our shul had grown large enough to offer. I read deeply about biblical grammar and prided myself at pronouncing the shva na's and shva nach's correctly. By the time I was 19, I could finish learning an entire parsha during the drawn out kabbalat shabbat services at university. By the time I was 21, I had all of the book of bereishit and the first two aliyot of the rest of the Torah memorized. Even today, despite being over a decade since I last leined, I still can finish most pesukim from memory.

Because my knowledge of the actual text of the Torah was so strong, I would often find a lot of things that seemed a little off. A word in one place where another felt more natural. A change of phrase, a minor contradiction. I would scour mikraot gedolot looking for explanations, usually coming up empty. I would ask my Rabbi who would listen, and say, "that's a good question, I'll see what I can find." He never found anything (probably because his mikraot gedolot was the same as mine.) Eventually, I stopped asking the Rabbi and started writing down these inconsistencies in a notebook, that is also unfortunately long lost. I do remember wondering about the obvious contradiction in Exod 6:3 during this time, which I would remember some 10 years later when I would learn that it was at the heart of much Academic theorizing.

While I was engaged in Torah reading during these years, the same could not be said for davening. I liked the Torah reading because it was different each week, and because there was a challenge to it. Davening was rote. It was boring. It was a routine to dispatch as quickly as possible. If I wanted to have kavannah, the only way I could do it would be to not say the sterile prayers, but substitute my own. I made it a habit of skipping mincha in high school, and sneaking in books to read during shacharit.

My high school years were also spent in the Modern Orthodox environment which I fairly seamlessly adapted into. Although, to be honest, I may have been the poorest person in the school. I was lucky enough to attend a school with a reasonably good secular education, although mainly due to the high quality of students. I was always attuned to math and science and this trend continued in high school.

While I pushed a little in high school against some of the more right wing expressions of Judaism that I encountered, I mostly adhered to the religion in both belief and practice. Even if I couldn't get behind davening specifically, I at least went through the motions, as if the recitation of the words would have some magical effect. And even though I might ask sharp questions here and there, at the end of the day I definitely believed in the religion and its tenets.

At the end of high school, I did not go to spend a year in Israel attending a Yeshivah, as some 75% of my class did. My parents gave me the details of my college fund, which was enough to survive on for four years at a local university with a significant tuition scholarship (or one year at an ivy league school). If I wanted to attend yeshivah it would be out of those funds. I decided against Israel. Instead I enrolled in the Cooper Union on track for a degree in Mechanical Engineering, a school where the automatic tuition scholarship meant that I could graduate without debt.

The Early College Years

These years were the most critical for my development and eventual abandonment of Judaism. And while the next two posts will explain why I left, this section will just give some of the surrounding details from a personal perspective.

I started out at university behaving as any other Modern Orthodox Jew would. I kept Shabbat and Kashrut strictly. I attended Shabbat services with the larger nearby NYU community, often leining on Saturday morning whenever no one else wanted to. I did not go to classes on the Jewish holidays, but was diligent about making up the work. Academically, I was a fairly serious student. I didn't party. I did my work on time. I tutored NYU friends on math and science subjects and offered to do recitations and homework sessions at Cooper Union. I always tried to take the most challenging courses, and eventually finished university with about a semester's worth of extra coursework. From my perspective, the courses were free, so I'd be a sucker not to take them. I wasn't a perfect student, but I was a good one.

It's amazing how one's life can be so strongly affected by the people around oneself, and college years are probably the time period where these interactions are strongest. I probably owe a lot of the outcome to my close friends in these years, in several different ways. For one thing, while it may have been possible to isolate myself inside the Jewish community at a school with a larger Jewish presence, the same could not be done at Cooper Union. The entire school numbered about 1000 students. The friends I made were of very varied backgrounds, economically, ethnically and religiously. In religious Jewish circles we are taught to implicitly distrust non-Jews, but many of these people are some of the kindest and most trustworthy people I have ever met.

However, there is one individual who I must speak more deeply about, because of the profound influence he had on my life. For the purposes of this narrative, we'll call him Joseph although that is not his real name. Joseph was the only other guy who wrote down "kosher" on his freshman dorm application. Joseph didn't actually keep kosher, but his father was an Orthodox Rabbi. Joseph was sort of an ex-Jew in hiding, a reverse Marrano, following the religion where necessary, to keep up the illusion. Although even this description is not quite accurate, as he once told me, he actually did believe in the religion, and assumed that one day he would follow it completely. Just not now.

Joseph was also gay, or bisexual. To this day I do not know his true sexuality, since he was not open about it during these years. However he sported a lot of the stereotypical gay mannerisms. In other words, if he was hiding in the closet, he was doing it while loudly singing "It's Raining Men." If he isn't gay, he sure was fooling everyone around him. As you can probably guess this caused significant friction between Joseph and his father. At one point, Joseph complained to me that his father had "replaced" him with one of his students around his age who presumably was more like the son his father wished he had.

In many ways, Joseph was the opposite of me. He went out partying regularly. He drank, and smoked pot. He had casual sex when possible. But he was a smart guy, and his academic achievements were solid. He started with me in engineering and then transferred into the art school, which is an extremely impressive feat. (The last time I talked to him, he was working on a PhD in History and the internet tells me that he's since done a post-doc at Harvard). Yet, he was also a remarkably good roommate. We wound up sharing a room for three and a half out of the four years of college, with the half year coming when Joseph went to study abroad for a semester.

In these years, we had many conversations about everything. The perspective offered was entirely different from anything I had encountered before. While I can't actually attribute any of the specific reasons I had for leaving Judaism to Joseph's influence, it's inarguable that he made a significant impact on me. I've since lost contact with Joseph, but perhaps one day I'll be able to reconnect.

The Collapse of Faith

It is really hard to pinpoint any particular point where I started transitioning away from Judaism. I always asked questions, often tough questions about Judaism. I was always taught that this was perfectly fine. The religion had little to hide. Questions were encouraged. However, I started discovering that there were questions that I could ask that would cause Rabbis to get frustrated if not outright angry at me. I started exploring these topics on my own, asking Rabbis when I felt I was at an impasse.

One of the first topics I looked at was regarding the treatment of women in Judaism. I had always been troubled at what looked like inherent sexism in the religion and wondered how Judaism looked like from the women's side. I asked a Orthodox feminist friend of mine to recommend some books for me on Jewish feminism. She recommended several books. Of them I remember Rachel Adler's "Engendering Judaism" and Judith Plaskow's "Standing Again at Sinai." I also remember reading something by Blu Greenberg, but I cannot remember what.

These books did not have an immediately profound effect on me. However, they certainly raised questions that I was unable to answer at the time. I had already suspected that Judaism had a problem with misogynistic tendencies, but I had assumed somewhat blithely that there were reasonable answers, or at least that when approaching it from a feminine point of view, these issues weren't as problematic as they seemed from my male outsider's view. These authors made it clear that Judaism still had big problems, and they were visible when approached not from either a feminine or masculine point of view, but from a human point of view.

I also asked questions regarding other major moral issues. One topic that I asked multitude of Rabbis for opinions on was regarding genocide and the treatment of non-Jewish nations. The Torah's commandments on the matter were problematic to me, and I always felt a little off when reading these verses to a congregation. Actually, it was more than a little off. When I read the exhortations of Moshe to kill all the irredeemably evil Canaanites, the image that came to my head was that of Hitler raving about the genetic pollution that is Jewry. When I asked Rabbis about the problem of genocide, the answers I got then were little different from the apologetic answers I still find today. I never was able to accept them and spent a long time searching for answers on my own. In addition, I also had difficulties accepting religious approaches on homosexuality and slavery.

Academically, I was mostly cruising along. However, somewhere in my Junior year, I realized that Mechanical Engineering wasn't really the most exciting track for me. The classes I loved the most were the purer math and physics classes. It was at this point that I began considering a path that would take me to graduate school in physics. The problem was that my small college did not offer a physics degree, nor a lot of the needed courses. This meant, that I had to do a lot of self-learning on top of the normal class workload. Throughout the last two years of college I self-taught myself advanced mechanics, advanced E&M, quantum, stat-mech and anything else I was missing so that I could take the Physics GRE (which I did terribly on). I certainly would have fared far better had I taken actual courses, but I didn't realistically have that option.

I found that my mind was somewhat naturally attuned to the scientific way of thinking. I greatly liked that science has no sacred cows, or rather, it delights in slaughtering them. If I didn't believe a specific scientific theory, I could rederive it myself, or examine the experimentation. Some things, granted, were and still are beyond my ability to test, but as I began to assemble the tools, there was a remarkable amount of stuff that I could verify for myself.

Another thing that greatly appealed to me in scientific work is that there was always a correct answer. It is possible that we can't yet measure the answer, or the answer is given probabilistically, but you can write it down and then check it with experimentation. Compared to something like literature (which I admit, I am also a huge fan of) there's no such thing as a "right" answer. Multiple, contradictory answers are permissible. Literature would be a hobby for me. Science was a way of approaching the world.

I mention this because scientific thinking also had a significant impact on my approach to Judaism. For example, when someone reads the account in Genesis about the creation of the world, and puts it into context of Jewish tradition, that person is bombarded by all sorts of different ideas about what those verses actually mean. One Rabbis says it means this, another says it means something else. Just like literary theory, there is no objective way to determine which allegorical explanation is correct, and which is incorrect. However, when you ask a scientist how the world was formed, they can give you several hypotheses along with the supporting evidences for them. You can objectively weigh one hypothesis against the other and determine which better fits the data. Eventually you can reach an answer that is objectively correct. So when you ask a scientist which came first, angiosperms or insects, the scientist will inform you that insects must come first because angiosperms are a later evolutionary adaptation that can only exist after pollinating species are present. The scientist can then provide fossil evidence to support this theory and you can clearly see that angiosperms first come around some 200-250 million years ago, which is long after the insects arrived on the scene. The scientist says that the Torah, which says that fruiting trees existed on the third day before insects on the fifth, is wrong. The end result is that when I wanted to learn information about the world, I didn't look at the Torah, I looked to science.

With these two big assaults on the religion, one from the moral ground and one from the scientific, I often wonder how I remained faithful to the religion for so long. If the Torah can't be trusted for either moral or factual purposes, what good is it? One reason I remained religious is that I needed to be sure; perhaps there was a better answer I hadn't come across yet. Another reason is that I put way too much stock into traditional apologetic answers like the modern Kuzari argument, and other apologetic explanations that give divine answers to the Torah. But were these explanations justified?

One area of inquiry that you might have noticed was missing was Academic biblical criticism, being that this was the major area of inquiry for this blog! This line of reasoning wasn't even on my radar. I had been taught in high school that there was some silly JEPD theory regarding the composition of the Torah, but that same theory says that Moby Dick was written by 10 authors (a preposterous claim, but I didn't look). I was told that academic criticism was the domain of anti-Semites with no knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, let alone the myriad of Jewish exegeses that clearly explain the various contradictions. I never followed this line of questioning during my college years. In fact it would be a long time before I went down this path.

This was when I started to write, "why I believed in Judaism." I wanted to explore these rational reasons for my belief. Poke them and prod them with my fledgling scientific instincts. The paper would grow in length, and then shrunk dramatically when I reread what I wrote and find the argumentation full of holes. I probably would have spent a lot of time talking to Joseph about these issues, but this was his semester abroad, so I was on my own. As I wrote, I became more troubled. I retracted into my own shell. I would not go to shul on Shabbat, instead I'd take the day and walk the length of Manhattan and back, lost in thought (for those NYC residents, I lived on E 12 st, and would walk to Riverside Park by Columbia University).

There was no sudden moment where I decided that I didn't believe in Judaism, although there was a sudden moment when I realized I didn't believe. This came towards the end of college. While I still held out hope that I would find answers to my questions, I was highly doubtful that any answers existed. I started planning my transition. In the fall, after my senior year, I would begin grad school in Applied Physics in Boston. I would also begin my life as a non-religious Jew.

A Physicist in Training

For the most part of my grad school career, Judaism played a very small role. I did try at first to attend more left wing religious events, in the reform or conservative sects, but it didn't feel right there. While it took a while to adapt to my life as a "normal person" who could do things with friends on Saturday, eat at restaurants, and attend classes on Rosh Hashannah, by my second year I was pretty much comfortable in my new "skin." Going to a new place surrounded by new people who didn't know my past helped a lot with smoothing this transition.

However, there is one anecdote about the early years at grad school worth mentioning. As any grad student will tell you, qualifying exams are one of the most stressful milestones. Our qualifying exams were no different, sporting a 50% pass rate. Add to this that I was coming in with far less classwork than any of my peers, essentially having been accepted on "promise" and strong letters of recommendation. I had a lot of work to catch up on. But just as with the transition many years ago from a conservative school to an MO school, I never really shied away from academic challenges, so I met this one head on too. When the qualifying exams starting looming over us, I met with two other grad students nightly to go over derivations, practice problems and review material.

One of these two friends was a practicing Mormon, and as might be expected topics of conversation sometimes drifted away from physics to other topics. I had zero experience with Mormonism, with only the very basic information about its beliefs. He was astounded that I had a sizable amount of the Torah committed to memory and could quote at it from will. And yet, I was not a believer. We talked a lot about religion, why he believed in it, and why I didn't.

These conversations were interesting to me in two ways. For the first reason, after I left religious life, I had never really discussed this topic with anyone, and certainly not with anyone who wasn't Jewish. Secondly, I got to look into the mind of someone who believed strongly in a religion which I had absolutely no personal investment in. When I asked a question about Mormonism and was met with a canned answer (at least canned to anyone familiar with Mormon apologetics) I was able to readily see all the problems with that approach. Furthermore, I could relate it to a similar apologetics answer from Judaism that I had been brought up with. When I offered him these Jewish apologetics, he would explain why the answers favoring Judaism were unconvincing to him. What I learned was that apologetics were merely a tool to assuage concerns of believers. If you don't believe, they are never convincing. I also learned that we are always capable of accepting specious arguments if they lead to conclusions which are pleasing to us. Even though scientific methodology is a tool designed specifically to root out and eliminate these confirmation biases, we can never remove them completely. Someone can be a top-notch scientist, with a critical eye towards their research, but can also believe all sorts of preposterous things when their religion, their family, their romantic partner, or even their preferred politician is the subject. The end result of these conversations, and the subsequent ruminations was that I transitioned from a non-religious Jew, to a fairly firm atheist.

Another bright side to leaving religion is it allowed me to have new experiences that would never be possible if I still kept Kashrut and Shabbat. I took a two week vacation to visit Japan and Korea, countries I never would probably never have stepped foot in if I was still religious. Once you start expanding your worldview, it's nearly impossible to shrink it back down to one where Judaism is central. When I was invested entirely in the Jewish community, when it was all I knew, it was fairly easy to view Judaism as all-encompassing. Now that I was on the outside looking in, it was clear to me how parochial it all really was. It is impossible to attach cosmic importance to Judaism when it is viewed in proper scale with the actual cosmos.

After this, any serious thoughts about Judaism fell to the wayside. Religion was only a part of my life inasmuch as it was something that the rest of my family and some of my childhood friends believed in. My disbelief caused tension with my parents and my siblings, but it was apparent to them that I was in a better place now than I was towards the end of college, both mentally and emotionally. This probably softened the blow.

Torah as an Atheist

I completed my doctoral work at the end of 2011 and began a post-doc in Wisconsin in the following year, where I am to this day (now as a research scientist). Near the beginning of my time in Wisconsin, I started reading through the Tanach on somewhat of a whim. I was a bit saddened that I was losing my Hebrew abilities, and wanted a way to practice. Plus I thought that it might be interesting to see how I related to these texts from a detached view. I skipped the Torah, since I already knew it well, and began with Nevi'im.

Very early I started noticing stuff, similar to the stuff I noticed in the Torah a long time ago and would pester my Rabbi about. Little inconsistencies here and there. For example, I remember reading about the duplicate accounts of David when he has a chance to murder Shaul and doesn't do it. I noticed that the accounts are repetitions of the same story, both including the obscure word for "flea" in them. I noticed that there were a bunch of times where Shaul is introduced to David, each time not recognizing him. Immediately I thought back to those things I was told back in high school about how ridiculous the ideas of multiple authors were, and I thought, "wow, maybe there's something to this after all."

I purchased Kugel's "How to Read the Bible" looking for an introduction to the topic. It is about 800 pages including footnotes. I read it in a week. From there my hunger was insatiable. I searched the library for all books I could find on biblical criticsm, and ancient near east history and culture. I read books supporting the Documentary Hypothesis, and I read critiques, evaluating the strengths of the argument on both sides. Knowing Hebrew as well as I did, it was often trivial to check a proponent's argument to see if they were blowing smoke (they sometimes were, not all arguments were equally strong). I read about archaeology, including detailed reports about dig excavations and Bayes reconstructions of probable date ranges for destruction layers. I watched every lecture in the UCSD Exodus conference. I spent about 2 years where my "for fun" reading consisted entirely of non-fiction regarding the Hebrew Bible, the history of Israel, and other details about Ancient near-east history.

And then I thought to myself, what would have happened had I know this stuff in high school? What would have happened if instead of begin given a one-off strawman version of academic criticism, I was given information regarding the tremendous problems with the historicity of the Tanach? Would I have been receptive? Back when I was struggling with these sorts of things, the internet was a different place. Google was just gaining traction. Wikipedia had just recently been launched and was slowly growing. A lot of the influential articles discussing issues with Judaism like Naftali Zeligman's "Letter to my Rabbi" had yet to be written. But now. All this stuff is available, although almost never as detailed as I would like. Furthermore, I had to ask whether these arguments in favor of Academic Criticism are actually strong, or were they just as weak as Jewish apologetics. Would they also fall apart under cursory inspection? Am I subject to confirmation biases regarding them just as I once was for the Modern Kuzari? For those reasons, I began this blog, and that brings us to today.

Next week we'll talk about why the Torah is not divine, and then we'll finish up with why I don't believe in Judaism and what it would take to convince me of it.  

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Polytheism to Henotheism to Monotheism

Parshat Ha'azinu

One of the most common theories in Academia regarding the formation of Judaism is that it began with a polytheistic religion, similar to the older Canaanite religions. Later, particularly in the Monarchic times the religion evolved into what is called Henotheism, or Monolatry. In this form of religion, other Gods are recognized, but worship should only be concentrated on a single individual. It is in this period that many of the texts that make up the Tanach were written. Finally, sometime in the Exilic or post-Exilic period the religion evolved into pure monotheism. At all times, authors and editors retrojected the current form of the religion back to pre-historic (i.e. pre-monarchic) times. They cast their view of religion as the true religion that Israelites or later Jews always worshipped.

The polytheistic and henotheistic roots of Judaism created an issue for some of the later compilers and editors of the texts. How to explain some polytheistic cultic behaviors that were still clearly visible? How to explain some polytheistic or henotheistic portions of the text? After examining some of the evidence for polytheistic worship, we'll look at several approaches that the biblical authors and editors used to solve this problem.

Evidence of Polytheism/Henotheism

There are a myriad number of places throughout the history from Shoftim (Judges) to Melachim (Kings) where worship of other gods is described explicitly in the Tanach. The entire narrative arc of Shoftim essentially looks like:
  1. Israelites worship another god.
  2. God gets angry and subjugates them.
  3. a Shofet (judge) redeems them.
  4. Go to one and repeat.
In Melachim, many kings, including Shlomo, are described as "doing evil," and the main form of evil was through worshipping other deities (1 Kings 11:7, 12:28, 14:23, 16:26, 16:32-33, 21:26 and many more).

In other places, the author of Kings ascribes powers to other deities. When the King of Moab sacrifices his child, it causes a change in the tide of battle (2 Kings 3:26-27)
26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom; but they could not. 27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
Even kings and other individuals that aren't described as being idolatrous obviously worship other deities. A good example of this is Shaul (Saul) and his son Yonatan (Jonathan) who name two of his children after Ba'al. These names are recorded in their likely original form in Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles) 1 8:33-34. The author of Melachim noticing the problem with having theophoric names including ba'al changed the parts for Ba'al to boshet, or "embarrassment." We'll look at textual alterations more fully later.

Other stories, like that of Eliyahu (Elijah) and the showdown with the Ba'al worshippers on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:15-40) the correspondence between Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) and the Egyptian Jews, and the golden calves at Dan and Beth-el show that worship of other deities and idols was commonplace in Israel.

Now let's look at some of the methods used to discredit these practices.

Idolatry is a Perversion

The first and most common technique is to claim that all those accounts above about worshipping other gods were perversions of the true Israelite religion.  Shlomo only built altars to Chemosh, Molech, Milcom and Ashteroth because his foreign wives seduced him. Similarly, the evil idolatrous practices of Ahav (Ahab) were pinned to his foreign wife Izevel (Jezebel). Throughout the reconstructed history, the authors attributed bad periods to periods of idolatrous worship and good periods to worship of one God. In the Torah, stints with idolatrous worship are swiftly recompensed with plagues and mass killings (Exod 32:28, Num 25:1-9). In Shoftim the periods of idolatry neatly align with periods of subjugation.

When the authors got close to the time they were writing, the match was a lot more tenuous, and they had to fudge it. The greatest fudge occurs with the events surrounding the downfall of the kingdom of Yehudah (Judah). Manashe the son of Hizkiyahu (Hezekiah) is attributed to having done all sorts of awful things (2 Kings 21:1-11), however he also ruled for fifty-five years of peace. Seemingly a direct refutation of the idea that worshipping idols leads to problems. When horrible things start happening in the time of Yoshiyahu (Josiah), a king that the Tanach says was the most fervent servant of God, the bad events are attributed not to the actions of Yoshiyahu but to his grandfather Manashe, despite not having ruled in over half a century. (2 Kings 23:26-30).

In this way the authors attempted to fashion a narrative in which Monotheism or Henotheism was the norm and idolatry the perversion. They attributed good periods to times of Monotheism, and bad periods to times of idolatry. However, it's clear from the text, that the actual history they are recording doesn't neatly align very well with this narrative.

Deity Merging

Anyone who reads the Tanach knows that God is referred to by different names. The most common are Elohim and Yahweh, but there are a few others scattered here and there. When archaeologists unearthed the ancient city of Ugarit they learned a lot about the Canaanite religion that preceded the Israelite one. They learned that El was not just the Ugaritic/Canaanite word for God, but it was the name of a God, the supreme creator deity and the head of the pantheon.

In this light the separate names for the deities become more understandable. Israelite religion merged the Canaanite deity El with their own local god Yahweh. It is not clear at all when this merge occurred, but it was in place by the time most of the Tanach was written (we'll see an early verse where it's not in place yet later).

This idea of merging other deities into one overarching deity is seen elsewhere at around the same time. In Persia, Ahura Mazda gained the attributed of the previous pantheon, and in Babylon we have texts were all the minor deities are considered as alternate names of the Babylonian deity Marduk.

While El and Yahweh both became names for the Israelite god, the same can't be said for Ba'al who was entirely supplanted and discarded. The moment where Ba'al is supplanted is captured in the story of Eliyahu on the mountain. Ba'al was the storm God, and in this story Ba'al is shown as incompetent at bringing rain. The Israelite supreme deity though, is successful. The purpose of this story is that all the things you used to worship Ba'al for, you don't need to anymore, because it's really Yahweh/Elohim that does those things.

Another example of Ba'al attributes being handed over to God is in Psalm 29. This is a devotional psalm to God, but it is very curious. For one the language used very much sounds like a terrible storm, something that is right in the wheelhouse of Ba'al. The second clue is that the locations used in the psalm are Lebanon and Syria, two locations not in Israel, but in the far north, closer to where Ba'al worship was most common. These facts and other metrical inferences that I feel are less forceful has led F.M. Cross to suggest that Ba'al was the original deity who was the subject of this Psalm, and the Israelite author simply crossed off Ba'al and wrote in Yahweh.

Justifying Idolatrous Behavior

In the pre-Exilic period, the authors of the histories had some issues regarding popular cultic practices and locations that had long historic traditions associated with them. They couldn't easily destroy them, they needed to either credit or discredit them. For example, there may have been an oak tree in Shechem which had strong cultic associations with it. Possibly it had an altar located there. Instead of removing it, one of the biblical authors justified its existence by writing a story of how the Judean patriarch Avraham had a divine encounter there. The altar, they said (in two separate accounts), was built by him (Gen 12:6-7, 13:18). In fact, many of the patriarchal wanderings are written to explain how this or that cultic location has monotheistic roots stretching back into pre-history.

We've already seen how at least one biblical author justified the existence of the brass serpent, the nechushtan. They attributed its creation to Moshe and therefore justified the cultic worship of it, at least for a time.

I'll note that this kind of justification doesn't end with the biblical authors. It stretches all the way to Rabbinic times with the creation of the custom of Hannukah candles.

Textual Emendations

Finally, we get to the final trick that the biblical editors used to erase previous polytheistic tendencies, changing the text itself. We see in many cases later editors were loath to erase or change something, but were fine with adding things in. This explains how some of the dire stuff written about Manashe came to be written in the text, a later author added that in to explain the fall of Judea.

However, there are a few places where the polytheistic inferences were so dire, that the editors felt forced to change the text itself, like in removing ba'al from Shaul's descendents' names. This parsha gives us the best example of this kind of edit in the Torah.

Deut 32:8-9 reads in the current Masoretic text:
8 When the Most High 9Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men (lit. sons of Adam), He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the portion of the LORD (Yahweh) is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance.
and in Hebrew:
ח  בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם,  בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם;   יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים,  לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.ט  כִּי חֵלֶק יְהוָה, עַמּוֹ:   יַעֲקֹב, חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתוֹ. 
The bolded word, Israel is the questionable one. As written, this verse makes very little sense. God (here given with a very archaic name, Elyon) measures out the boundaries of nations, he sets borders with regard to the children of Israel. Why Israel? Israel didn't even exist at this time.

The Septuagint and most versions of the Dead Sea Scrolls have an alternate reading.  Let's look at the Septuagint:

8 When the Most High was apportioning nations, as he scattered Adam’s sons, he fixed boundaries of nations according to the number of divine sons. 9 And his people Iakob became the Lord’s portion,Israel a measured part of his inheritance.
The simple change from b'nei Yisrael (Sons of Israel) to presumably b'nei Elohim (Sons of the gods) makes much more sense. Here one head deity, Elyon is measuring out the land and he gives each of his "sons" a nation. This fits very well with the reality of the day where each nation had its own patron deity. Chemosh was the deity of the Moabites, Milcom the deity of the Ammonites, etc. The next verse nicely describes that Yahweh is the name for the deity of the Israelites. In this reading of the text, Yahweh is just one of multiple deities!

As we've seen before, biblical songs often represent one of the earliest strata of the text available to us, and this is no exception. It gives something of a creation myth and a foundation of Israel which is very different from the rest of the biblical narrative. It is one where Israel is just a nation subject to their own God who is just one amidst all the surrounding gods. Obviously this is hugely problematic to a monotheistic or even henotheistic worldview. But for whatever reason the biblical authors didn't feel like they could excise these verses or delete the song entirely. So they did the next thing, they changed one word to subvert the text's meaning. Now Israel plays the central role, and it is possible once again to equate Yahweh with Elyon, the God doing the apportioning.

On this last account, it reminds me of a story that John Lennon said about his song Imagine. In the song there is a lyric that goes:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Lennon said he was approached by the world church who wanted to use the song, because it was very popular, but had an issue with one of those lines. They offered the simple solution of changing it to "And one religion too." And you can see how this small change can erase the entire meaning of the song. Perhaps the biblical authors were in the same boat. The Ha'azinu song was well known and maybe popular among the populace. So, they needed to alter it, and they did it by changing just one word. Luckily, the older versions survive, otherwise we may never have known about the subterfuge.

Note on what Follows

With this post we've reached the end of (just a little over) a year of weekly Kefirah of the Week posts. I have three more posts coming up in the next three weeks that give a conclusion to the year long blog. One post talks about my personal story, how I transitioned from religious Jew to Kofer. The second examines a specific question that tilted the scales so to speak. The question is whether or not the Torah is divine, or divinely inspired. I'll detail how I came to the conclusion that there's no good reason to believe in divine inspiration of any of the Hebrew texts. In the third part I'll give a "what would it take?" It's always a good idea to figure out what pieces of evidence would change your mind, and I'll do that for a bunch of topics of relevance to Judaism.

After that it's unclear. I'm traveling (for work) for the first two weeks of October, so I'm unlikely to write down much. I have some ideas for short posts on topics relevant to Judaism as practiced today, which I'll probably jot down. But as far as detailed academic topics, while the well isn't quite dry, the worker is worn out from hauling up buckets. So there will be a break from that for sure.  

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Slavery

Parshat Vayelech

Along with the previous discussions on misogyny, parts one and two, genocide and homosexuality, this week's topic finishes out four of the major moral areas in which I struggled mightily over when religious.  In fact, you might say that it was really my inability to rationalize how an omniscient and benevolent being could countenance such laws that led me to drop the religion (a process I will outline in two weeks time!). This week, we will look at slavery, starting with the Torah itself and moving towards how it was treated in Rabbinic times.

Before we start, I have a confession to make regarding this week's post. Originally, I planned to have a much broader and intensive treatment of this topic. However, I both ran out of time and energy, so the final result is considerably shorter and more superficial than I might have desired. Nevertheless, I think I have something substantial enough here, and can perhaps provide some new insights to the institution of slavery in Judaism.

Slavery in the Ancient World

Before we begin, it's probably best to define slavery.  I will use slavery as chattel slavery, the physical ownership of one human being by another. It is different from both indentured servitude and stuff like "wage slavery." While these practices are often bad, and often highly immoral, in my mind there is still a moral distinction between them and chattel slavery. It is no doubt that chattel slavery was a reality in the ancient world.  In fact, to the chagrin of many, including myself, it is still a reality today for far too many people.  In ancient times though, it was considered normal.  Laws of how to handle slaves were different from laws about handling free people.  This is true both in the Torah and other law codes like Hammurabi's. People who think the Torah should be treated as a document of its own era (as I tend to do) will find that the various laws are not abnormal for their time, although they have their own twist, which we'll see shortly.

The Torah - Slavery is not for Hebrews

It is very possible to see the Torah's treatment of slavery as a natural outgrowth of the Israelite origin myth, that the Israelites were once slaves (to Egypt) and were made free through divine intervention.  One of the more poignant recapitulations is made in the parsha two weeks ago (and where this was originally scheduled) albeit with a different background than slavery (Deut 26:6-9):
6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage. 7 And we cried unto the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. 8 And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders.
One of the central ideas of the Torah is that the Israelites are no longer slaves.  And as such, they should not enslave each other.  Therefore, the Torah specified time limits to slavery, reducing it to indentured servitude.  For example (Exod. 26:2-3)
2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.
The use of Ivri (Hebrew) is interesting.  It is not a common word, but is commonly found in passages dealing with slavery.  I won't go into this more here, but I did discuss this along with the Apiru when discussing the Exodus.  The Torah doesn't extend this reduction of slavery to everyone.  The very next verse states (Exod. 26:4):
If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Later there's an even clearer description of this.  First with regard to Israelite slaves (Lev. 25:39-42)
39 And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant. 40 As a hired servant, and as a settler, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee. 41 Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen.
I'll note that "serve as a bondservant" in the Hebrew is Avodat Aved which probably should be translated (in context) as work of a slave. Translating Eved is tricky because the Hebrew word can both mean a slave, an employee, or anything in between. Context is key here, and the following verse, 26:40 help us understand that Aved in 26:39 probably means slave.  Also note that here the slaves only go free in the Yovel (Jubilee) years, which is every 50 years, not the every seven years that we saw in the previous passage in Shmot (Exodus). This is a contradiction that gave the Talmudic Rabbis issues as they tried to resolve who exactly goes free every 7 years, and who every 50. But it's not one we'll pick up in this post.

The verses following these draw the distinction between Israelite slaves (who are not really slaves) and non-Israelite slaves.  Let's see how that goes (Lev 25:44-46)
44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession. 46 And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.
The Torah is explicit.  Non-Israelite slaves, people from outside, are to be your property, and may be so forever.

If the Torah represents an improvement in slavery laws, it is only an improvement for the Israelites.  In other words, slavery itself isn't bad or immoral according to the Torah, rather it's enslaving your kinsmen that is bad (and then only somewhat bad, you can still do it, just not forever).

Whenever the topic of slavery comes up with someone who wants to defend the Torah (whether Jewish or Christian) they will always say that the Torah's version of slavery is more like indentured servitude, and they will point to the progressive passages concerning freeing the slaves after 7 or 50 years.  All you have to do is read a little further in these sections, and you'll find that they're misrepresenting the Torah which clearly allows for the eternal chattel slavery of non-Israelites. Later we'll see that traditional Jewish interpretation in the Talmud agrees with the allowing of chattel slavery. But, before that, if you want a lighthearted break, this parody cartoon is a humorous look at the whitewashing tendencies of religious supporters.

The Practice of Slavery as Recorded 

Several places in the Tanach there are descriptions of slavery (of other individuals by Jews). For example, in the Torah we have the following account (Num 31 - 32-47, selected verses)
32 Now the prey, over and above the booty which the men of war took, was [no. of sheep, cows,  and donkeys]... 35 and thirty and two thousand persons in all, of the women that had not known man by lying with him.  41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was set apart for the LORD, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. 42 And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided off from the men that warred-- 43 now the congregation's half was [no. of sheep, cows, and donkeys] 46 and sixteen thousand persons-- 47 even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, that kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. 
It should be noted that these slaves were all virgin women, so it's probably guessable what their duties entailed. Later there are accounts in Yehoshua (Joshua). In a story that clearly serves both etiological and propaganda purposes, the Hivites hearing that the Israelites are on a mission to commit genocide on them, pretend to be foreigners and make a peace treaty (Josh 9:6,15)
6 And they [the Hivites] went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the men of Israel: 'We are come from a far country; now therefore make ye a covenant with us.' 15 And Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them, to let them live; and the princes of the congregation swore unto them.
After Yehoshua finds out that they are Canaanites he get angry because he now can't slaughter them en masse. As punishment for not wanting to die, he enslaves them all (Josh. 9:22-23,27)
22 And Joshua called for them, and he spoke unto them, saying: 'Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying: We are very far from you, when ye dwell among us? 23 Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall never fail to be of you bondmen, both hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, unto this day, in the place which He should choose. 
The use of "unto this day" is interesting, because it implies that there were Hivite slaves serving in the Temple at the time this story was penned. The story is giving an etiological explanation as to why there are Hivites serve in the Temple!

The conscription of slaves is also described later in the reign of Shlomo, where it says (1 Kings 9:20-21)
20 All the people that were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel; 21 even their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants, unto this day.
Again, this is a description of chattel slavery and serves both etiological and propaganda purposes. It is explaining why there are foreign slaves serving in the temple. Perhaps the same slaves Yehezkel (Ezekiel) complains about in 44:7
 7 in that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, 
This is about all I will say on this topic, for more you can see this blog post, which describes in a bit more detail what is going on.

Slavery According to the Rabbis

In the times of the Talmud, slavery was considered a normal fact of life. About the era directly preceding the codification of the Mishnah, Urbach writes:
A crucial change occurred with the Maccabaean wars and the conquests of the early Hasmonaean kings. Prisoners of war, and the population of pagan cities which had either been forced into flight or forcibly ejected when their homes were captured by John Hyrcanus or Alexander Jannaeus, constituted a source of suppy for the slave market [sourced from Josephus War 1,4,3].  These foreigners were dubbed "Canaanite" slaves... We have no exact information concerning numbers of slaves; but the warning note struck by Hillel, "whosoever multiplies maidservants multiplies promiscuity, whosoever multiplies male slaves multiplies misappropriation of property," shows that a multiplicity of slaves was not an unknown phenomenon still in his own day [1].
References to slaves abound throughout the text of the Talmud. The vast majority of them worry about the halakhic standing of slaves, what commandments they are subject to, and what they are not [2]. Also of interest is that slaves are required to undergo a ritual immersion in a mikvah and be circumcised [3] although the latter was relaxed in later years. However one Talmudic section, deserves special attention. The section begins at the end of Gittin 38a with a story and continues on to the next page. Here's my translation:
There was a female slave in Pumbedita that people were using for immoral purposes. Abaye said, "If only R' Shmuel didn't say that whoever sets a slave free transgresses a positive mitzvah (commandment) we'd compel her master to write her a deed of emancipation...R' Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, "Anyone that sets his [non-Israelite] slave free transgresses a positive mitzvah, since it says (Lev 25:46) 'They shall serve you forever'...Our Rabbis taught, "they should be your bondsmen for ever" R' Yishmael says this is optional, R' Akiva says this is mandatory... Rabbah said for these three things people lose suffer financial loss, for setting free their [non-Jewish] slaves, for taking inventory of their property on Shabbat, and for making their Shabbat meal coincide with the time they should be at synagogue (lit. Beit Midrash.)
While it wasn't a universal opinion, we see in this section a clear indication that at least some Rabbis, including the venerated Rabbi Akiva, thought that one should never set their non-Jewish slaves free, and if they did, they were violating the divine law that non-Jewish individuals should serve Jews. It's this gemara that Ovadiah Yosef channeled when he said that non-Jews only exist to serve Jews.

Before we move on, it is important to give credit where credit is due. While the possession of slaves by the great Jewish Rabbis of yore is deplorable by today's standards, in many cases the treatment of slaves was better than what could be expected in Greek or Roman cities. As Urbach writes:
The absolute equality of slave and free man in all matters regarding the judicial safeguarding of their lives has no parallel in either Greek or Roman Law [4]
Implications for the Morality of Judaism

It is nearly universally agreed today, at least in the west, that owning another human being is immoral. Certainly, the Torah laws regarding perpetual slavery of non-Israelites reminds us of the chattel slavery engaged in by the nations of the Western Hemisphere with its disastrous consequences. In fact, in medieval periods when chattel slavery of conquered nations were common, and in the 17th and 18th centuries when the mass enslavement of the African population occurred, Jews participated in slave trading just as everyone else.

It is very hard, given the clear presence of chattel slavery in the Torah, the Nevi'im and in early Rabbinic practice for Judaism to claim any moral high ground in this area. They are indeed lockstep with the rest of the surrounding nations. This of course is problematic for modern moralists. Let's see how Rabbi Jonathan Sacks confronts this checkered history of Judaism and attempts to answer the question "Why did God not say: There shall be no more slavery?":
There is little doubt that in terms of the Torah’s value system the exercise of power by one person over another, without their consent, is a fundamental assault against human dignity. ... So slavery is to be abolished, but it is a fundamental principle of God’s relationship with us that he does not force us to change faster than we are able to do so of our own free will. So Mishpatim does not abolish slavery but it sets in motion a series of fundamental laws that will lead people, albeit at their own pace, to abolish it of their own accord...[God] wanted slavery abolished but he wanted it to be done by free human beings coming to see of their own accord the evil it is and the evil it does. The God of history, who taught us to study history, had faith that eventually we would learn the lesson of history: that freedom is indivisible. We must grant freedom to others if we truly seek it for ourselves.
In this little piece of apologetics, Sacks indicates that he possesses a far better insight into the divine law than any of the Rabbis of the Talmud, since absolutely none of them ever made a statement like "God wanted slavery to be abolished." Instead they used the Torah verses to justify horrendous practices and even prevent people from freeing slaves! And finally, it is only through western ideals and enlightenment that we've reached the idea of full emancipation of all people. So, what use is the Torah in this matter?

Of course the final question to ask is whether there's any truth to Rabbi Sack's account. Did the laws in Mishpatim regarding freeing Jewish slaves after a period of time have any influence on the drafting of such modern laws like the Thirteenth Amendment. The answer, of course, is no. There's no discernable influence there. In fact the Torah itself was just as often used to justify horrendous practices as it was to eliminate them. It's at best neutral on the topic, and at worst a representation of backwards morality.
  


1. Urbach, "The Laws Regarding Slavery,  Arno Press 1979, p.31 ^

2. In case you are wondering, slaves are pretty much equal to women in this regard. ^

3. Urbach p. 42 ^

4. Urbach p. 39-40 ^