TurtleDoves Revised

In my previous blog, I talked about sacrifices of doves required of women who menstruate. In the comment section, I was accused of misrepresenting (or misinterpreting) the passage. Apparently, the reading of the relevant parts of the Torah are supposed to be that only women with unusual ‘discharges’ above and beyond their menstrual discharge were required to bring sacrifices of doves. Rather than responding in the comment section, I thought it would be good to answer in a blog:

Lest I be accused of misrepresenting the Torah, here, I have provided all the verses of the Torah verbatim:
15:19 When a woman has a discharge, it can consist of any blood that emerges from her body. For seven days she is then ritually unclean because of her menstruation, and anyone touching her shall be unclean until evening.
15:20 As long as she is in her menstrual state, anything upon which she lies shall be unclean, and anyone sitting on it is likewise unclean.
15:21 Whoever touches her bed must immerse his clothing and his body in a mikvah, and then remain unclean until evening.
15:22 [Similarly], anyone who sits on any article upon which she has sat must immerse his clothing and his body in a mikvah and [then] remain unclean until evening.
15:23 Thus, if he is on the bed or any other article upon which she sat, whether he touches it [or not], he is unclean until evening.
15:24 If a man has intercourse with her, her menstrual impurity is transferred to him, and he shall be unclean for seven days. Any bed upon which he lies shall be unclean.
15:25 If a woman has a discharge of blood for a number of days when it is not time for her menstrual period, or if she has such a discharge right after her period, then as long as she has this discharge she is unclean, just as she is when she has her period.
15:26 As long as she has the discharge, any bed upon which she lies shall have the same status as it has while she is menstruating. Similarly, any article upon which she sits shall be unclean, just as it is unclean when she is menstruating.
15:27 Anyone touching them must immerse his clothing and his body in a mikvah, and [then] remain unclean until evening.
15:28 When she is rid of her discharge, she must count seven days for herself, and only then can she undergo purification.
15:29 On the eighth day, she shall take for herself two turtle doves or two young common doves, and bring them to the priest, to the Communion Tent entrance.
15:30 The priest shall prepare one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, and the priest shall thus make atonement for her before God, from her unclean discharge.
15:31 You must warn the Israelites about their impurity, so that their impurity not cause them to die if they defile the tabernacle that I have placed among them.
15:32 This then is the law concerning the man who is unclean because of a discharge or seminal emission,
15:33 as well as the woman who has her monthly period, the man or woman who has a discharge, and the man who lies with a ritually unclean woman.

OK, so what have I missed? Is it really true that 15:28 refers only to women who have a ‘discharge’ beyond their menstruation? Well, OK, but I submit that this is a reach and a tortured explanation.

But let’s go with that for a moment. What exactly is ‘discharge’ beyond menstruation? If a woman has a period lasting, say, 10 days – is that considered a ‘discharge’ beyond menstruation? What about 5 days? When is a discharge considered 'unusual'?

But OK, let’s even grant that ‘discharges’ of women are well defined and are distinct from menstruation. Let’s say that what we are talking about is unusual discharges. This ‘unusual’ discharge, in medical language, is called dysmenorrhea. According to medical authorities (will provide references if needed), the incidence of primary dysmenorrhea is greater than 50% in healthy women. This incidence, with some notable exceptions, is relatively stable amongst diverse population.

So, let’s say that the critiques of the previous blog are right, and the Torah passage refers to dysmenorrhea. The number would thus be revised as follows:

Let’s assume that 50% of women will have at least 1 episode of dysmenorrhea per year.
Since there were 500,000 adult women in the Sinai desert, then there would have been
500,000 X 50% = 250,000 episodes of ‘discharges’ among women per year. We will ignore men’s discharges for this purpose.

For the duration of the 40 years, then, there would have been 250,000 X 40 = 10 million ‘discharges’. Since there are 2 doves required per discharge, we have to find 20 million doves. This is just for women! I have not even considered the men, as I do not know how to calculate the incidence of discharges amongst males!

So there you have it. Perhaps not 480 million doves, but, depending on how you interpret the Torah, there may be as little as 20 million doves needed.

Did the Sinai desert have 20 million doves for the purposes of sacrifice? How did the Jews, who wandered the desert, often engaging in brutal wars, occasionally enduring plagues as a consequence of the wrath of God, manage to come up with 20 million doves?

Is it possible, that perhaps there were not 3 million people in the desert?Is it possible that the Jews, even if they were that numerous, did not in fact engage in this practice of mass animal sacrifice?

Sinai Revelation and Some Numbers

I was just thinking about the claims that some 3 million people were at the Sinai desert when the Jews were taken out of Egypt. Orthodox Jews claim that there were 600,000 able bodied adult males who were at the base of Mount Sinai when the Ten Commandments were given. The Orthodox Rabbis then extrapolate that since there were 600,000 adult males, there had to have been 3 million Jews in the desert.

So, if the above is correct, then there had to have been 600,000 adult females as well. It is interesting, then, to read the following passage in the Torah:

Leviticus 15:

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening…

29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.”

As I understand these passages, the Torah requires that a woman, following her menstruation, bring 2 doves to the Cohen for sacrifice. Ok, clear enough!

There were 600,000 adult women in the Sinai desert. Obviously, most women - save the diseased and postmenopausal - menstruated monthly. Let us for the sake of argument say that there were 500,000 healthy women. Thus, each one of them would have to provide for 2 doves every month. Let us consider the numbers:

2 doves required per woman per month = 24 doves per woman per year.

24 doves per woman per year X 500,000 women = 12 million doves!

Since the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years, then, just to comply with this one requirement, there are some 12 X 40 = 480 million doves needed.

Forget about all the other sacrifices that the Torah mandates. Forget, for example, about the sin offerings, guilt offerings, burnt offerings, etc. Forget that the Torah requires that an animal be brought to sacrifice every time a child is born. Forget that on Passover every Jewish family was to bring a lamb for ritual slaughter. Forget all that!

Remember simply the requirement that upon women’s menstruation, 2 doves were to be sacrificed. Some 480 million doves would be necessary for that!

Where did all these doves come from? The Jews were wandering in the desert, living in tents, having to subsist on manna from heaven. 480 million doves?

Does this statistic alone not make you wonder that perhaps the story of the exodus did not happen the way the Orthodox Rabbis say it happened?

Kuzari Schoomzari

Saturday May 12, 2007

Many Orthodox Jews point to the so-called "Kuzari Principle" is bolstering their beliefs in the Torah. The Kuzari principle is based on the medieval works of the Jewish philosopher Rabbi Yehuda Halevi. It purports to ‘prove' that events of the Jewish exodus from Egypt are plausible and reasonable. The proofs offered are actually simple and are outlined as follows:

The Kuzari Principle: Let us say that one or more significant events occur over a short period of time. These events can be the parting of a sea, or the descent of God to the top of a mountain and the giving of a holy document. These events, because of their enormity, would have left a lot of easily identifiable evidence. Thus, to logically illustrate the principle of Kuzari, as one internet site framed it, paraphrasing from Dr. Dovid Gottlieb's book: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.

Now let E be the Sinai revelation; since it is claimed that 3 million Jews saw the revelation, and since the 3 million Jews raised no objection once this claim was made, then necessarily the fact of revelation did occur. If Moses falsely claimed that he parted the sea, if he claimed that 3 million people crossed the Sea of Reeds, well, then the 3 million people would have said to Moses "no, you did no such thing. We don't remember crossing a parted sea - you are a liar!" But since the Jewish people of the time did no such thing and believe the revelation and the desert story, then the story is plausible, even probable.

I do hope that I have done some justice to the Kuzari Principle. If I have not, I do apologize. Please correct me if I am not understanding this principle.

But here is my issue with the principle: All of the events that the Jews have witnessed are chronicled in the 5 books of the Torah. The parting of the sea, the revelation at Sinai, Manna from heaven, miracles, etc., are all in the 5 books. These 5 books were all written by Moses according to orthodox Jews. The 5 books describe events from creation up to the death of Moses. Thus, at the earliest, the 5 books of the Torah had to have been completed at the time of the death of Moses.

At the earliest, Torah's claims would have been presented to the Jewish people - the so-called 3 million witnesses - shortly after the death of Moses. At that time, the Jews would have already crossed the Jordon River, being led by Joshua, preparing for the battles for the land of Israel. Joshua, or a priest would have shown the newly finished 5 books to the Jewish people.

Now, note that according to the Torah tradition, all of the people who originally left Egypt, some 3 million people, died in the desert. No one, except for Joshua and Caleb who crossed the parted sea actually made it to the Jordon River. They died of plagues, battles, God's wrath, purges etc. Not even Aaron or Moses made it to the land of Israel.

Those who made it to the Jordon River were the second generation of the exodus. Again, if I am wrong about this, please tell me.

Now, when the Torah is presented to the second generation, and the various miracles etc. are mentioned, the people would have no way of verifying the veracity of the claims since THEY WERE NOT THERE! As you know, the Torah was given 49 days after the exodus. All the people who witnessed the revelation at Sinai would have been dead by the time the Torah was completed 40 years later! Of course Caleb and Joshua are exceptions to this.

Note, then, that the Kuzari Principle is no longer valid in the case of Jewish exodus. The only witnesses to Torah's claims were Joshua and Caleb. There are only 2 witnesses to a purported event. I will not go into the obvious interest of these two to support the claims of the bible. I will only mention that there were not 3 million witnesses, nor 10,000. Rather, there are only 2 witnesses to the multitude of miraculous events that Jews say occurred.To summarize, at the time when the Torah made its supernatural claims, there were only 2 witnesses available to verify such claims. These claims, then, are no different from claims of other religions. The veracity of the Torah is no more witnessed than that of Mohammad's Quran or Smith's Mormon Bible.

Torah Commentary

Bereshit Chapter 4

1Now the man had known his wife Eve, and she conceived and born Cain, saying, “I have acquired a man with Hashem.” 2And additionally she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a shepherd, and Cain became a tiller of the ground.

Thus the first children were born. One of them became raiser of sheep and the other a farmer. The passage “I have acquired a man with Hashem” is not clear though allusions similar to Christianity’s claim of Jesus being the product of God and Mary come to mind.

This passage also implies that Man, from the beginning had the ability to farm and to domesticate animals. Needless to say, this idea is at odds with the conventional wisdom as well as common sense. It is widely believed that humans evolved the ability to farm – they did not have this capacity innately.

3After a period of time, Cain brought an offering to Hashem of the fruit of the ground; 4and as for Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of the flock and from their choicest. Hashem turned to Abel and to his offering, 5but to Cain and to his offering He did not turn. This annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

Apparently God had favored Abel and liked Abel’s offering; he liked neither Cain nor his offering. Understandably, Cain was not happy with this…

6And Hashem said to Cain, “Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? 7Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it.”

This is an interesting passage. Apparently Cain is mad that God has not found favor with him and with his offerings. God tells Cain that if he improves himself he will be forgiven. The passage does not state what it is that Cain has done for which he should seek forgiveness. Perhaps he has given an offering to God that is not to God’s liking. But is this a sin?

Abel apparently has given an offering of animals to God and has found favor. Cain has offered farming products and apparently God did not like the offering. The passage does not say what it is about the offering that God does not like. Perhaps Cain did not offer from his ‘choicest’, or perhaps God prefers gifts of animals to farm gifts!

More importantly, the passage seems to imply that if we give an offering and God does not like the offering, then we have sinned. This is an interesting interpretation of an ‘offering’, implying that a sacrifice or ‘offering’ is an obligation and not a choice.

Suppose you give a gift to your mother for her birthday. If your mother does not like the gift, are you deserving of blame, worthy of punishment?

“Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it.”

This is an important statement and is worthy of some comment. If the reader attends lectures given by rabbis, as I often have, he or she would note that rabbis often speak of ‘free will’. The concept of ‘free will’ is that man has been given the gift of making choices throughout his life. Man is free to choose between good and bad and these choices determine whether man would be considered righteous or evil. Many rabbis take the position that man has this free will. This passage is consistent with this teaching.

At that same time, often by the same rabbis, the concept of ‘beshert’ is taught. These rabbis speak of beshert, equating the concept with destiny. They say that things are ‘meant to be’. One Persian rabbi familiar to most readers states that ‘if a thing is meant to be, if it is beshert, then no matter what we do, it will happen’. In Persian, we equate the concept of ‘beshert’ with ‘ghesmat’. How often so and so boy marries so and so girl despite adversity and we say ‘it is ghesmat’? Or how often does a business deal fall through and we sigh and say ‘it was not meant to be’? Most rabbis teach this concept of destiny, stating that things are out of our hands and they will happen if they are meant to be.

Yet, notice that the concepts of ‘free will’ which the rabbis teach and the concept of ‘destiny’ which the same rabbis teach are totally at odds with one another. You can not say that we have ‘free will’ to shape our destiny and in the same breath say that destiny is out of our control and what will be will be. This is a supreme example of rabbis speaking out of both sides of their mouths!

Dear reader, the next time you hear a rabbi preach about ‘beshert’, please ask “but what about free will?” Or when he teaches you about ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘free will’ please ask “but what about beshert and destiny?” I sometimes find it interesting to see rabbis fidgeting and perspiring at the prospect of attempting to reconcile the two concepts. In these cases, they fall into reciting their familiar mantra: “the reply to stupid people is silence”!

In any case, God, in the passage appears to imply that if we improve ourselves, then we can find favor with him. He seems to state that we indeed have the freedom to shape our futures. In effect, God seems to imply that there is no such a thing as beshert or destiny! If I am wrong in this analysis, please let me know!

8Cain spoke with his brother Abel. And it happened when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.
9Hashem said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?”
And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10Then He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground! 11Therefore you are cursed more than the ground, which opened wide its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.”

Here we have the jealousy of one brother against another. Cain’s first error is the murderous jealousy of Abel. Because of this intense jealousy, Cain murders Abel. Thus Cain’s second error was to murder. Next, God comes to Cain and asks him the whereabouts of his brother, and Cain lies to God. Cain’s third error is that he lied to God.

If you, dear reader, were the prosecutor, you would bring three charges against Cain:
Jealousy
Murder
Perjury

And as a prosecutor you would lay your case against Cain to God and be confident that you would have a strong case. Perhaps you might seek the death penalty against Cain. Perhaps, since Cain had no previous offenses, you may get a life sentence.

Now suppose that I were the defense attorney for Cain, and presented Cain’s defense in the court of law, with God as judge. I would come to court, look the judge in the eye and ask “your honor, what crime is my client being charged with?”

“Why, that is simple” the prosecutor would reply. “The defendant, Cain, is being accused of murder, and lying and jealousy. As you know, the act of murder is contrary to the 6th commandment, jealousy is contrary to the 10th commandment, and lying is contrary to 9th commandment.”

(I actually looked up the above commandments to make sure that offenses correspond to the number of commandments. To my astonishment, I realized that in the Torah there are at least two sets of Ten Commandments, each of which is somewhat different. In the above, I am using the version of Ten Commandments mentioned in the Book of Exodus. For the interested readers who wish to see the different versions of the Ten Commandments, as well as the Christian versions of the Ten Commandments, I refer them to the following web site http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)

But to get back to the original accusations that Cain violated 3 of the Ten Commandments, I would reply, “But your honor, the Ten Commandments have not yet been given. They will not have been given for another 3 thousand years. You have not, your honor, told Cain that murder is wrong. You have not explained that lying is wrong. Nor have you decreed that Jealousy and coveting are wrongful acts. Thus, there were no laws against murder or lying or coveting at the time this act was committed. My client therefore has not broken any laws, since, Judge, God, you have not yet given any laws. So how was my client supposed to know that murder was against your wishes? How was Cain supposed to know that lying and jealousy are contrary to God’s wishes?

“Your honor, there is a fundamental principle in justice and that is that you can not prosecute someone against an act that is not illegal! If an act is not illegal, a court can not hold people liable for that act. My client has not violated any law as you have not, dear God, made any laws. In fact you will not do so until after the flood of Noah. You must therefore release my client!”

I would make a good lawyer, right? Actually, I think I would make a lousy lawyer as I think that God apparently does not play by the rules of justice. As we shall see later, Cain in fact is punished severely for his acts. I would thus have lost the case!

I write the above in parody but my purpose is to illustrate a critically important principle. Prior to Cain’s murdering his brother, he either knew that murder was wrong or he did not. After all, the Ten Commandments which supposedly establish the moral foundation of humans, and which clearly state that murder is a sin, were not given until thousands of years after Cain. It is possible to assume that Cain did not know that murder was wrong. If he did not know that murder was wrong, since God did not tell him so, then how can God hold Cain accountable for his ‘sin’?

If on the other hand, Cain knew that murder was wrong, how did he know? We can guess that Cain knew that murder is wrong, because he tried to cover up his act when he was questioned by God. If Cain did not know that murder was wrong, when God asked him where his brother was, he would have simply said “oh, I spilled his blood so that he is dead. You want to go have a drink with me dear God?” Instead, Cain attempted to deceive God and claimed that he does not know where his brother was. Cain knew he was guilty of an immoral act and he tried to hide his act from God.

But how did he know? Did God tell Cain and Able about the Ten Commandments thousands of years in advance? If He did, then it is fair to say that the Ten Commandments were not given at Mount Sinai but given first to Cain and Abel! Would any rabbi be willing to admit that?

So if the Ten Commandments were not yet given to Cain, how did he know that murder was wrong?

Here we come to the most fundamental concept of morality. Dear reader, I have been writing articles for years now, and I have analyzed various aspects of religion. I have spoken against some customs of Shabbat; I have spoken about some laws of Kashrus, against the wearing of Sheytels, against the custom of animal sacrifices, and many other things. I am sure that the reader has read some of these articles and agreed with some of what I had written and disagreed with other articles. But if I can impress the reader with one concept – only one concept – it would be the following:

Morality, the ability to know right from wrong is within all of us as human beings. To know that murder is wrong, to realize the lying is immoral is innate within us. We did not come to realize that murder is immoral from the writings of the Ten Commandments. Rather, we knew that Murder was wrong, that Lying is wrong, that Jealousy and Coveting are wrong long before the Torah was given to us. These moral principals are wired into us. We do not need any book to provide us with this fundamental set of morality.

It was not the Torah that taught us that Murder is wrong. The very story of Cain and Abel teaches us this critical reality. We need not resort to the Torah to realize that lying is wrong, and equally, we do not need the Torah to explain that honoring our parents is important or that adultery is wrong. This realization is critical to secreting the heavy yoke of religion from the realm of morality. It is interesting that the very story of Cain and Abel teaches that religion and morality do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Thus, to me, the story of Cain and Abel clearly demonstrate that the bible supports the notion of ‘free will’ and confirms the concept that morality is innate in our human souls and not given to us by the Torah. This notion is obvious to a reasonable thinking person, whose logic has not been warped or tainted by religion. But to a religious person, be it a Jew or Christian, it is somehow clear that it is the Torah that gives us morality. This religious person would have you believe that without the Torah people would be roaming the street, murdering at will. Such is obviously not the case. I am glad to point out that such is not the case even by the Torah’s own claim.

To be continued…..