I would also suggest that you purchase and daven from the Mesoras HaRav Machzorim for RH and YK Your Tefilos for the Yamim Noraim and your appreciation of the Yamim Noraim will be greatly enhanced
Human beings might enjoy wanton slaughter but most of the time the enjoyment isn’t worth it because the consequences are so severe. I think that’s where the psychopath comes in.
I think also that bloodlust has to be seen in a historical context- sometimes a culture reacts to the prevailing cruelty by toning it down. And out of context it seems sadistic, but it was actually the best they felt they could do to curb the bloodshed.
I don't have time to write a long comment (Shabbat soon here), but I think Yigal Amir still *is* seen as a hero in parts of the Religious Zionist world.
Regarding Pinchas, where the Torah says God gives him a "Covenant of Peace," the letter vav in "shalom/peace" is traditionally written sort-of fractured, with a gap in it, despite the general law that all the letters of a Sefer Torah have to be "whole" for it to be kosher. It seems to be a way of visually undermining the story the words are saying a little -- this is peace, but a cracked, inadequate sort of peace.
I'm not sure there is a 100% effective way to distinguish faith from fanaticism, except that a lot depends on context and being able to take other people's perspectives.
I would be interested in hearing your take on brit milah.
Interesting review, thanks for sharing this! Do you have one for Lodestone (mis-spelled 'Loadstone' in the opening, I'm afraid)...? I'm interested in the argument of that earlier book, as (going back to Kant...) I have a philosophical interest in people willing to take these kinds of path, especially since it connects with something quite literally in the margins of philosophy. In Kant's "Towards Perpetual Peace", he has a footnote reading:
"*Difference of religion! A strange expression, as if one were to speak of different kinds of morality. There may indeed various means which have been used in the course of time to promote religion, – but they are mere subjects of learned investigation, and do not really lie within the sphere of religion. In the same way there are many religious works – the Zend-Avesta [of Zoroastrianism], the Hindu Vedas, the Koran etc. – but there is only one religion, binding for all men and for all times. These books are each no more than the accidental mouthpiece of religion, and may be different according to differences in time and place."
This is fascinating to me, because Kant was a Lutherian, and this footnote is not Kant expressing a Unitarian perspective as might be claimed. Rather, Kant's view is that religion is something within us, and since it is put there by God it makes no sense to speak of 'differences of religion'. This is a hard idea for most religious practitioners to wrap their head arounds, I think, and it is not to erase the importance of traditions and practices. Rather, it is a metaphysical claim that I believe, as did Kant, holds out a hope for future peace between all people, religious or otherwise.
Thanks Chris, for the thoughtful reply--and the correction. For some reason, Grammarly routinely betrays me. I did not review Lodestone, though I know there's a review floating around Substack somewhere.
I've been thinking about this idea about universal religion. Emerson certainly supported the idea as did the Romantics. I recently heard, though, that Rabbi Sacks got into hot water for saying something like that. Interesting stuff. . . .
What he said was that there can be truth in other religions than Judaism, but he also left it ambiguous as to what *exactly* that truth might be. My reading is that he didn't quite mean that it was exactly the same as the truth of the Torah, although there was a very ambiguous passage about God speaking to Christians through Jesus and Muslims through Mohammed that might have given this idea.
As I see it, that's not quite the same as the idea of universal religion, where the essential truth of all religions is the same. (I also think that's different to the idea of natural morality, that people have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.)
I don't think a formal beit din was convened about Rabbi Sacks, although at least one important Haredi rabbi (who had probably not read the book) did say it was heresy and Rabbi Sacks tried to pacify the Haredi world by issuing a revised edition which reworded or removed the most controversial statements. I have the revised edition, but I think the changes can be found online. This came around the same time as another (more surprising) Haredi book banning and a couple of years before a third and, taken together, it all looked very political.
"Nothing but good ol’ plain English here, which is just fine by me, as it exemplifies what I often claim in this Substack and elsewhere—that you don’t need ten-dollar words and discipline-establishment jargon to communicate deep and important ideas."
One might argue that academic jargon gets in the way of communicating deep and important ideas. Or, more cynically, that academic jargon is used to give mediocre ideas the appearance of depth and importance. (H/T Eric Blair.)
Have you ever read any of the philosophical works of Rav Soloveitchik ZL ? You might find them challenging and inspiring
I have read lonely man of faith and the halachic man. I definitely appreciate his perspective and have learned from it.
I would also suggest that you purchase and daven from the Mesoras HaRav Machzorim for RH and YK Your Tefilos for the Yamim Noraim and your appreciation of the Yamim Noraim will be greatly enhanced
I am totally sold on reading this book. I read Positivity Bias and Shall We Have Another, which seem like a similar genre.
Human beings might enjoy wanton slaughter but most of the time the enjoyment isn’t worth it because the consequences are so severe. I think that’s where the psychopath comes in.
I think also that bloodlust has to be seen in a historical context- sometimes a culture reacts to the prevailing cruelty by toning it down. And out of context it seems sadistic, but it was actually the best they felt they could do to curb the bloodshed.
I would say also that from a cursory angle, Yigal Amir seems to have had a plan, while Boruch Goldstein seems to have just lost it.
But I am not familiar with the details. I remember them both happening, though.
I was in Israel in seminary for Rabin’s assassination. It was scary.
I remember my parents’ rabbi criticizing Boruch Goldstein from the pulpit- a kind of “not in our name.”
I don't have time to write a long comment (Shabbat soon here), but I think Yigal Amir still *is* seen as a hero in parts of the Religious Zionist world.
Regarding Pinchas, where the Torah says God gives him a "Covenant of Peace," the letter vav in "shalom/peace" is traditionally written sort-of fractured, with a gap in it, despite the general law that all the letters of a Sefer Torah have to be "whole" for it to be kosher. It seems to be a way of visually undermining the story the words are saying a little -- this is peace, but a cracked, inadequate sort of peace.
I'm not sure there is a 100% effective way to distinguish faith from fanaticism, except that a lot depends on context and being able to take other people's perspectives.
I would be interested in hearing your take on brit milah.
Dear Thomas,
Interesting review, thanks for sharing this! Do you have one for Lodestone (mis-spelled 'Loadstone' in the opening, I'm afraid)...? I'm interested in the argument of that earlier book, as (going back to Kant...) I have a philosophical interest in people willing to take these kinds of path, especially since it connects with something quite literally in the margins of philosophy. In Kant's "Towards Perpetual Peace", he has a footnote reading:
"*Difference of religion! A strange expression, as if one were to speak of different kinds of morality. There may indeed various means which have been used in the course of time to promote religion, – but they are mere subjects of learned investigation, and do not really lie within the sphere of religion. In the same way there are many religious works – the Zend-Avesta [of Zoroastrianism], the Hindu Vedas, the Koran etc. – but there is only one religion, binding for all men and for all times. These books are each no more than the accidental mouthpiece of religion, and may be different according to differences in time and place."
This is fascinating to me, because Kant was a Lutherian, and this footnote is not Kant expressing a Unitarian perspective as might be claimed. Rather, Kant's view is that religion is something within us, and since it is put there by God it makes no sense to speak of 'differences of religion'. This is a hard idea for most religious practitioners to wrap their head arounds, I think, and it is not to erase the importance of traditions and practices. Rather, it is a metaphysical claim that I believe, as did Kant, holds out a hope for future peace between all people, religious or otherwise.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Thanks Chris, for the thoughtful reply--and the correction. For some reason, Grammarly routinely betrays me. I did not review Lodestone, though I know there's a review floating around Substack somewhere.
I've been thinking about this idea about universal religion. Emerson certainly supported the idea as did the Romantics. I recently heard, though, that Rabbi Sacks got into hot water for saying something like that. Interesting stuff. . . .
That wasn't *quite* what Rabbi Sacks said (in "The Dignity of Difference").
I need to have a look at that. I was told a beit din was convened to consider whether what he said was a heresy or some such thing.
What he said was that there can be truth in other religions than Judaism, but he also left it ambiguous as to what *exactly* that truth might be. My reading is that he didn't quite mean that it was exactly the same as the truth of the Torah, although there was a very ambiguous passage about God speaking to Christians through Jesus and Muslims through Mohammed that might have given this idea.
As I see it, that's not quite the same as the idea of universal religion, where the essential truth of all religions is the same. (I also think that's different to the idea of natural morality, that people have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.)
I don't think a formal beit din was convened about Rabbi Sacks, although at least one important Haredi rabbi (who had probably not read the book) did say it was heresy and Rabbi Sacks tried to pacify the Haredi world by issuing a revised edition which reworded or removed the most controversial statements. I have the revised edition, but I think the changes can be found online. This came around the same time as another (more surprising) Haredi book banning and a couple of years before a third and, taken together, it all looked very political.
"Nothing but good ol’ plain English here, which is just fine by me, as it exemplifies what I often claim in this Substack and elsewhere—that you don’t need ten-dollar words and discipline-establishment jargon to communicate deep and important ideas."
One might argue that academic jargon gets in the way of communicating deep and important ideas. Or, more cynically, that academic jargon is used to give mediocre ideas the appearance of depth and importance. (H/T Eric Blair.)