Category: science and religion

How the Bible solved Darwin’s “Mystery of Mysteries” and the new scientific paradigm it implies

David Porush

New genetic research confirms the Bible was right: species don’t mix!

The mule is a problem for Darwin and the Bible

A deep mystery haunts both Charles Darwin and the Torah—a riddle embodied in one humble creature: the mule. It’s a hybrid, born of the mating of a horse and a donkey, but unable to have offspring of its own. It’s sterile. For Darwin, this was not just a barnyard curiosity. It was the “mystery of mysteries,” that rocked the foundation of his otherwise beautiful evolutionary theory.

If new species arise by gradual change and interbreeding and evolution is a continuum, why are hybrids like the mule sterile? Why do the boundaries between species seem so stubborn, so absolute? If hybrids are sterile, how can new species ever arise?

The mule's inability to have offspring poses a deep mystery for Darwin and the Bible.
Why are mules sterile? Biology and the Bible have the same answer.

This wasn’t just a technical glitch in his theory; it was a fundamental paradox. Darwin wrestled with it in On the Origin of Species (1859), devoting an entire chapter to hybrids and their sterility. For decades, scientists shrugged off these limits as quirks of genetics or chance. This “mule paradox” remained a central problem in evolutionary biology until just a decade ago.

For the Torah, the mule is also a problem. The Torah’s strictly prohibits the crossbreeding of species, the mixing of seeds, and even the weaving of wool and linen together, the laws of kilayim[1]. The Talmud singles out Anah, the first breeder of mules.[2] Anah was himself the bastard offspring of incest between his father and grandmother.[3] For Torah, the mule is a living symbol of disorder—a breach in the divinely ordered tapestry of life. If God created each species “according to its kind,” what does it mean when humans force a breach in those kinds?

Jewish tradition says there are mystical reasons to reinforce the boundaries between species. Mixing them is called “kilayim” and the Torah strictly forbids it and the Jewish tradition elaborates all sorts of examples of this abomination.

Science says, “God Don’t Make No Junk!”

Astonishingly, in the last two decades has genetics shown that the Bible was right. Science discovered vast stretches of DNA that didn’t code for anything, it thought. It labelled this useless DNA “junk.” However, new research has discovered that among many other functions, this junk actually is crucial in enforcing reproductive boundaries between species. The ENCODE project (2003–2012)[4] and subsequent research pinpointed the chromosomes and genes that act as barriers to successful hybridization in several species.[4][5] In other words, Darwin was right to fret about mules. There are no hybrids because deeply embedded genetic mechanisms prevent it.[5] Non-coding DNA is not junk at all, but a sophisticated regulatory network. As the t-shirt says, “God don’t make no junk!”

The “Hard Stop”: What the Numbers Show

Based on the latest studies of our own part of the evolutionary tree, the number of times primates from different species hybridize to produce living offspring is very, very tiny. This is true whether hybrid attempts occur in nature or if a modern day Anah in a lab tried to force interbreeding. Even using sophisticated genetic manipulation, hybridizing has never led to viable multicellular organisms. In other words, the genetic “hard stop” of species interbreeding is the rule. Any interspeciation is a short-lived freak of nature. Even in the event such mating does produce offspring, the number of times those offspring themselves are fertile to produce other offspring – so there can be progress or novelty in evolution – is also tiny.  The chances of a new, stable, fertile lineage is infinitesimally small. Fewer than 1 in 100,000,000. Functionally zero.

The Hebrew when translated properly reveals the secret

Then, as if the Biblical text is signaling that it knows a deeper truth, there’s the puzzle of the Hebrew word itself – kilayim. One English translation is “…Do not cross-breed your cattle with different species (“kilayim”) “[Lev. 19:19] But the Hebrew “kilayim” is more mysterious. Scholars believe it alludes to “restraints” or “holding back.” When the Bible revisits the prohibition, it tells us the consequence of breaking the rule of mixing two species. The best Hebrew translation is “the fullness of the produce will be rejected.” Taken together, the Hebrew now appears as prophetic. Individuals from different species may want to breed together, or humans may want to experiment and force them together, but their efforts will be fruitless. Something’s holding them back, a mysterious force whose mechanism we would find out three thousand years later is in the DNA of virtually every animal. And their offspring will be fruitless.

Kabbalah, Kilayim, and the Deep Structure of Speciation

For Darwin, the mule was a mystery that threatened the very logic of his theory of evolution. For the Torah, the mule is a violation of cosmic order. Today, genetics reveals that of the two, Torah was right.  Nature is structured by boundaries between species.

The Torah’s paradigm—each kind according to its kind—is not just a religious belief or superstition. It is a radical insight into the architecture of life, one that modern science is only now beginning to appreciate. But Torah’s insight, unless it was a lucky coincidence, comes with other implications about nature that science cannot ignore.

Kabbalah says kilayim is part of the spiritual architecture of creation itself. Each species, each “kind,” is seen as a vessel for a unique divine energy or “power.” To mix species is, in the kabbalistic view, to uproot these powers from their proper place, disrupting the harmony and order of creation. So the nature “holds it back,” restrains it from the disorder it would create. Ramban said cross-breeding species was arrogant. It was as if Anah was saying the Almighty did a poor job, and he wanted to finish the task. Cross breeding undermines Creation itself.[6]  Maybe that’s why the Talmud considers the idea that God created Anah’s mule on the last evening of Creation. On the one hand, it was a true miraculous innovation, like fire which was created that evening, but on the other hand it was too transgressive. [7] The prohibition of kilayim is a cosmic principle: the world’s diversity is not arbitrary, but a manifestation of distinct channels. When we respect these boundaries, we align ourselves with the inner order of the universe. When we violate them—whether by breeding mules or mixing wool and linen—we risk spiritual and ecological disorder.

But although the Bible beat science to the punch by three thousand years, its bigger view of nature is still dismissed by science. Science will not accept its assumption that the universe and everything in it was created by an intentional deity for a purpose. This is a profound axiom that separates the ways science and Torah think about how the cosmos works.As the t-shirt says, “God don’t make no junk!” Even though science was massively wrong about junk DNA, and wrong about species being kept separate, it is unlikely to change.

Science’s Maginot Line

Before it had the DNA evidence, evolutionary science was committed to an article of faith even when there was almost zero evidence for their belief: hybridization must occur. Now it has legitimate rationales for new beliefs: genetics enforces boundaries between species because it has evolutionary advantages. Of course hybridizing leads to sterility. It is too expensive. A donkey and a horse consume energy, grow, mate, carry a fetus to birth, etc.. and it is futile. The “hard stop” on hybridization is not a failure of evolution’s model, but a feature—a mechanical safeguard in DNA that maintains the resilience of a species. Evolutionary biology calls it “reinforcement of species boundaries.”

To me this sounds like a bit of circular reasoning (the fancy word is “tautology”):

Species don’t successfully hybridize because when they do they are unsuccessful.  

Either way, the hard stop reframes Darwin’s and our entire scientific conception of how evolution works. Think of the 150 years science would have saved itself if it began with the assumption that species did have a self-conserving mechanism!

It invites us to imagine an alternate history of science.  What if science had not split from religion in its two-century march from Francis Bacon to Darwin? What if it preserved as an alternate starting place Torah’s view of nature? The architecture of the universe has intricate integrity, unity, and a purpose. The whole structure depends on boundaries like kilayim. These boundaries have metaphysical origins but we may find they also have mechanical explanations, as with the DNA that enforces a species’ integrity. The two are not exclusive: We can explain the “hard stop”mechanically, but it also logically implies a purposeful vector –  a teleology – in evolution. As Nobel Prize winners Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russel, Erwin Schrodinger, Ilya Prigogine and Roger Penrose have suggested,

There is no logically necessary contradiction between the fundamental beliefs of science – its a prioris – and the idea that the universe has a teleology, a purpose.[8]

This is not a call to abandon the methods of science. Knowledge still must be grounded in sensory or measurable data. Claims must be testable. We should still explain phenomena only by what chain of causes we know produced them, not why God wants it a certain way. Most modern scientists have the habit of deliberately excluding teleology. Not because it’s logically incoherent, but because it’s methodologically extraneous. Distracting.

This a deep historical and methodological tradition in science that for some is an article of faith. But it’s expensive and may be wrong. It’s like the Maginot Line which France built after WWI to prevent another German invasion. It cost billions of francs and dozens of years. It was largely useless once war came.

A New Paradigm for Science

We can imagine a new paradigm for science that completely overturns our approach to the universe by “turning the sock inside out.” What if science began with the goal of defining a vector – a purpose – for all things, instead of just trying to define its mechanics, a result of stuff, energy and coincidences? This view of nature sees it as dynamic and bounded. A boulder bounces wildly down a mountain. It looks like a chaos of tumbling but it really is following a glide path. There are places that it can go and places it cannot go and it has a certain destination.

Genes we once thought were junk have a “hard stop” that shows every individual of a species is in a feedback loop with the whole species to preserve its integrity. The baboon can’t mate successfully with a chimp because it costs the troop. Its DNA includes a mechanism to preserve the integrity of the whole species. Life is not just an endless blur of things bumping into each other, hoping that luck will produce a good outcome. The universe isn’t a Las Vegas casino. It’s a cruise ship heading somewhere. Boundaries and directions define a phenomenon as much its blind mechanics.

Let’s extend this model to see how it would work with two other of science’s enduring mysteries: life itself and consciousness.

Science offers no satisfactory explanation for how life began or how consciousness arises. What if we begin by assuming that both are “hard stops”? Instead of trying to punch through the barrier, we assume that the barrier is there for a reason. So what if it’s metaphysical? So is the assumption that everything is coincidental. Instead, science would look for the mechanisms of and reasons for the barrier. Nature just won’t let us build life from scratch or grow consciousness from the ground of brute supercomputation. We can specify the purpose of those boundaries once we discover the mechanistic explanations, just like with the hybrid problem, but we’d get there quicker. And if it confirms an old religious conviction – like kilayim – we might have to consider that there is a mystical unity and purpose in the natural world and everything in it.

In this new paradigm, scientists still don’t have to accept that these are boundaries created by a transcendent entity for a reason, but they may eventually come to the conclusion that that’s the most logical and efficient explanation.

David Porush

Endnotes


[1] “You shall observe My statutes: You shall not let your cattle [“kilayim“] mate with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.” Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:9–11

[2] Genesis 36:24

[3] Bereshit Rabbah 82:15

[4] The ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project was launched by the US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in September 2003 as a follow-up to the Human Genome Project, with the aim of identifying all functional elements in the human genome. The ENCODE’s results, published in Nature and other journals in 2012, revealed that the vast majority of the human genome is absolutely not “junk” but has at least one specific purpose. This included specifying genes that enforce genetic boundaries. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3439153/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE ; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3438920/

[5] In house mice (Mus musculus) hybrid sterility is triggered by incompatibilities involving as few as two or three small chromosomes. These incompatibilities activate a genetic checkpoint during meiosis, preventing proper chromosome pairing and resulting in sterility, especially in hybrid males, enforcing the “hard stop”  barrier. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11518865/   In fruit flies (Drosophila), decades of research have revealed that hybrid males often suffer sterility due to X-autosome incompatibilities. These findings have been extended to other animals, where chromosomal rearrangements and specific gene incompatibilities act as robust “hard stops” to gene flow between diverging species. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article%3Fid=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004088  

[6] Ramban on Leviticus 19:19

[7] Pesachim 54a

[8] See also Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (1958), Alfred North Whitehead Principia Mathematica (with Bertrand Russel, 1910-13), Thomas Nagel Mind and Cosmos (2012), Roger Penrose The Emperor’s New Mind (1989).

The Divine Telepathy Game – A Jewish Project

David Porush

When you try to read a perfect text it becomes a religious experience

“God always likes to veil his symbols a little bit, being among His other attributes, the perfect literary artist.” – Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny1

Telepathy: Why we read

Every time we read, we play a game of telepathy. The author uses words to get what was in his or her head into ours.  My wife wrote “eggs” on the grocery list. If I pick up eggs, not brussel sprouts, I won the game. 

Literature, the kind of stuff you read in university classes, is intentionally more complicated. T. S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (1922) set the standard for impenetrability. It had 433 footnotes just to explain the allusions. Elizabeth Bishop’s “A Miracle for Breakfast” (1937) or W.H. Auden’s “Paysage Moralisé”(1933) – both complicated poems called “sestinas” – or Wallace Stevens’ “The Idea of Order at Key West” (1923) had even tighter weaves of word play within themselves, greater gravity, pound for pound, than Eliot’s. Words attain multiple meanings and the poet uses symbols, sound, repetition, cadence and any number of  hundreds of well-known ways to play with words (called “rhetorical devices”) to draw connections within and across the text, creating webs of interpenetrating meanings. All these seem to defeat the telepathic purpose of writing. At least, they make it much darn harder to get a clear telepathic message.

The job of the teacher is to get the class to appreciate the purpose of a literary text beyond just telling great stories. We read authors precisely because they didn’t try to be perfectly clear. It’s the varsity version of the telepathy game. The ambiguities and tricks leave us trying to get answers. What was she thinking? Stevens wrote another dense poem,  “Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction,” that both describes and illustrates what a great work of literature does.  As the title says, however, even this master poet could only scribble “notes” that gesture “toward” what a “supreme fiction” could do. Stevens is telling us that the supreme fiction is transcendent, unattainable. A reader could find traces and glimpses and perhaps whole sublime works that transport them briefly to divine inspiration,

but there are no humanly attainable “supreme fictions.” We can only try to write one before a keen sense of the limitations of our own mortality bring us back to earth. It’s an asymptote, a point that the word artist always approaches but never reaches, an aspiration:

. 

Imagine a Perfect Text

Now imagine a perfect author, perfect in the scientific sense: he or she completely comprehends the universe and everything in it, all its laws and interactions down to the quantum level and across its massive, wheeling galaxies in a 19 billion light years expanse, knows the past, present and future, in one integrated whole, an incarnation of science’s god, a Grand Unified Theory.  Imagine that the author is also perfect in the active, creative sense, continually exercising every super-power: shaping time, space and matter, reading every mind in the universe all at once, weaving together all the events in that vast universe in every instant always.

Now imagine this perfect author took time out from a busy schedule to compose a perfect literary text. I don’t mean perfect as in “perfectly clear” – that would take the mystery and fun out of it and reduce it to computer code. Perfect in the literary sense, like the hardest poem you ever had to read for literature class: dense, almost impenetrably thick with meaning. Every word has a purpose and has infinite depths of possible meaning and resonates with every other word. Every line interpenetrates and colors every other line, changing how we understand what we just read and will read next. A perfect poem is like a hologram, where every word or phrase contains an aspect of the whole. When Adrienne Rich writes a poem that begins

Night-life.

and ends 

…the night becomes our inner darkness, and sleeps

like a dumb beast, head on her paws, in the corner2

She wants the lines to speak to each other and to the dozens of lines between. She wants the poem to change what we feel about darkness, sleep and night. When she uses the word “conceived” in the middle of the poem, we know she means both “having a thought” and “giving birth” and “creating” (including creating the poem we are reading) all at the same time. That’s what poems do. Mean more than one thing at the same time. It’s the opposite of computer code or a grocery list where if something is ambiguous it fails.  

In a perfect fiction,  the story would be perfectly plotted, more tightly wrought than the best thriller or detective story ever. It would have an intriguing beginning, complicated middle and fulfilling end like other fictions. It would be filled with clues, casual incidents, remarks, and symbolic objects. Even the setting and clothes are metaphorical, lambent with meaning, shadowing events ahead and echoing back, creating a hidden order that defies temporal logic. Chekhov’s gun in Act I must go off before the curtain closes. Is Hemingway’s old man just a simple fisherman? Is the sea only water? Are the “lions” he dreams in the end only wild felines? Why is the sole survivor of the last line in  “Moby Dick” named “Ishmael” in the first line? Again, we re-understand the first line through the last. Everything creates a context for everything else. Nothing is wasted. Pages fold over onto each other like a giant accordion. Imagine what a perfect author, who sees yesterday and tomorrow as unfoldings from a single principle, would do with time in a plot.

Imagine how much more difficult – and intriguing and tantalizing and rewarding –  this interpretation game, this literature class, would be if the author was perfect? Imagine how much more urgent it would be if you thought the author was real (really perfect) and had all those powers (like creating the universe and everything in it every second everywhere for all eternity, not to mention your own personal destiny and soul). 

The Jewish Project

Jews have been playing this game since Moses wrote the Five Books of the Scripture. In fact, it is the premise of Jewish faith.  Traditional Jews believe that an omniscient, all-powerful God announced a supreme, transcendent text in front of the entire Israelite nation at Sinai. The text testifies to their collective revelation, the first and only time many thousands of people swear to a simultaneous transcendent experience. Since this event would be impossible to falsify (imagine getting three people to agree to testify to the same thing, let alone hundreds of thousands of disputatious Jews), it is their job to figure out what the message was. Herman Wouk called this author “the perfect literary artist.” Jews who believe that God is the source of the words in the Torah are literally trying to read a depthless, alien, and supernal Mind. Playing the telepathy game is one of the pillars of Judaism. Jews have been playing it for a long time with great urgency.

When Jews read the Bible they assume that God is the Author, or at least He dictated it. When the Israelites, newly freed from slavery in Egypt, were confounded by God’s awesome voice from atop Sinai, they begged their leader Moses to translate the message in comprehensible form. So Moses spent forty days on two different occasions listening to the perfect author and transcribing (some of) the words God spoke to him using a new, incredibly potent invention, the alphabet. It was finite, but had infinite potential: a miraculous communications technology.

Jews know their interpretation of the original transmission is imperfect because they know the author’s mind is by definition ineffable in its vast infinity and superpowers. As a result, the Five Books of Moses have given rise to 3,000 years and millions of words of interpretation. What was He trying to say to us? Each commentary feeds on the original text and on the interpretations that preceded it creating  layers of reference and authority and cross-talk. They aren’t like geologic strata frozen into stony stasis, but a dynamic hypertextual broadcast of many-to-many across time and space. When it’s your turn to try, you are humbled by the mighty river.  Literally every verse, every word, every letter – even the jots and dots and scribal variations, even the spaces between words – have been already subjected to intense scrutiny by folks who were very dedicated and very smart, some of them writing thousands of years ago. 

On the other hand, as mortals try to read and understand the Godmind’s intentions for this text,  they have help. After all, the game would be pretty unfair (and useless) if it was written in a completely alien tongue. The very first chapter of the text tells us that the Author endowed us with the operating system, a bit of Himself to ensure that at least some of what’s in the text would be readable, the ability to read and the desire, sometimes an overwhelming urgency, a passion, to open hailing frequencies with Him through the text. Lightning strikes with sudden illumination and an electric rush of feeling. You see transcendent unity, or a piece of it. You’ve made telepathic contact.  Call this gleaming pathway of potential understanding “soul” or “consciousness.”

The Longest Game

This game of interpreting a text composed by a perfect author – telepathy with a divine mind –  is the longest continuous game of its kind in human history. It begins in the 14th c BCE with the invention of writing and its adoption by a nation of liberated slaves. By all archeological evidence, the phonetic alphabet was only invented once in the 14th century bce in the South Sinai). The Five Books of Moses is also what literary scholars call a “self-reflexive” text: it is aware of its own existence as a written text. In other words it’s an autobiography. It tells us about how it came to be written. If you read between the lines of the Hebrew text, it also tells the story of how the Israelites got the phonetic alphabet and became literate. In any case, it’s the first document in the history of the world to be written in it. It’s still a bestseller.

 It explains how God created the world, then humans, and then selected the Hebrew ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel and Leah and the Children of Jacob (Israel) to carry the message of God’s oneness and reality. It promises the newly freed slaves the unimaginable: a nation of their own. It gives them a utopian vision of order and humanity – laws  for how to behave in that nation, once they get there, not only how to treat their God and each other but how to treat themselves, how to tame and take responsibility for their own thoughts and intentions. In other words for the first time in history we have a document of the interior universe of human experience, subjectivity. It puts people on the hook for the interior reality of other souls. Everyone has one.  Imagine a nation built on this monumental recognition.

Forty years wandering the deserts scours off the slavish dependency of the original generation that came out of Egypt. It refines them, rehearses them in the art of governing and protecting themselves collectively. It makes them hungry and determined and practiced as a terrifying military force. They descend onto the land of Canaan under Moses and then his successor, Joshua, Moses’ chosen successor, and they conquer it. They establish their new social experiment, ancient Israel, whose system of laws design a utopia before they even have the land. It is first ruled by prophets and then by kings. Ancient Israel holds onto a kingdom with the Torah as its constitution on and off for several centuries. Like other nations, they are distinguished by glorious achievements but also riven by scandal, failed kings and faltering faith in their original charter. The Babylonians conquer and decimate a weakened Israel in 586 BCE and carry most surviving Jews into captivity. They give the Israelites permission to return to their nation a few decades years later.  Many do, many don’t. The Israelites build a Second Temple in the fifth century BCE and again hold onto their kingdom. Conquest by war, sectarian divisions and cultural assimilation especially to the gleaming modernity of their Greek conquerors weaken it on and off, until the Romans send them into the diaspora in 70 CE, an exile that defined Jews until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 by the UN.

I repeat the story of the Bible and history of the Jews because from the time when Moses writes down his Five Books, with its laws and legends from a divine author, the text binds the Israelite nation together. Even when the disruptions of history and politics, dispersion, persecution and holocausts rob them of every other constant, including  a country of their own, the one thing every other people needed (up until the twentieth century) to maintain their identity over any significant time, It gives them a continuous identity, and still does. Commentaries then become their own central texts, as scholars and rabbis debate their application of the Torah’s laws to dozens of circumstances where the Jews live as guests. Jews enshrine these texts, too, a tradition of debate and commentary called the Mishnah, Gemorah (together, the Talmud) through 500 CE. More written commentaries (by the Geonim in Babylonia) spring up from 800-1000 CE and these, too, are folded into the tradition.  The most famous commentators on the whole tradition, Rashi, Rambam and Ramban write in the 11th and 12th centuries all across Spain, France, Italy and Northern Africa, and their work is also folded into the Great Telepathy Game. Jews in every language and country where they lived continue to add hundreds of thousands of pages of additional commentary. Through the Medieval period when Western culture was stagnating, geniuses continue to write and correspond with each other, debating every nuance with the intensity and uncertainty that the original (according to the rules of the game transcendently authored, quasi-impenetrable but perfect text) demands.

Why play this game?

Maybe  you cannot persuade yourself that the Five Books of Moses comes down to this century in the way that Jews say it did. And maybe you cannot persuade yourself that the interpretation of that text has any authority, let alone divine authority. But just playing the interpretation game this way- to acting as if you believe – has at least three mind-bending virtues and benefits. 

For one you will be investing yourself into a refined version of one of the best things a mind can do with itself:  philosophy in its purest form. You’ll be taking a philosophical position – like putting on a uniform to take the playing field – in good faith, so to speak. The whole idea is based on acting as if you believe in an irrational axiom – an unprovable assertion, like why nine innings makes a game and three strikes makes an out – such as “the universe is perfectly rational.” Now build a world of self-consistent thought out of it – say, mathematics. 

If you’re an enlightened 21st century modernist, you are likely to wave off the entire Jewish believing tradition and its arcane rituals and practices, not to mention the six billion people in the world who have religious beliefs – as mere foolish superstition. But superstition is a funny word.  Philosopher Jacques Derrida brilliantly exposes the foundations of all sciences and philosophies in “superstition.” He plays on the Greek root of the word – “to stand apart or above” – to show  how all great attempts to make order of the unknowable cosmos, including science itself, requires an assumption that one fundamental unprovable axiom is true.3 It’s tantamount to a leap of faith.  In other words, even physics requires a metaphysics at its core. Derrida suggests that if you dig deeply enough, your secular beliefs in a deterministic accidental cosmos as science suggests it is, is also founded on a superstition. 

Secondly, you will be practicing the most important form of self-liberation, which is freedom from ideology. Ideology is toxic to pure interpretation. It poisons our ability to hear what the author is trying to say, to see reality as it is. It’s a noisy monologue in our heads that interferes with the signal. I’ve seen it at work in the literature classroom or even in discussing almost anything political with anybody. Ideology makes you listen for preconceived notions about the intentions of the author. It doesn’t give the author a chance to bring their own point of view. When we read or view or listen to anything created by somebody else we unavoidably bring our assumptions, prejudices, firmly-held beliefs and biases. Can’t read Shakespeare because he was a sexist.  Can’t read Twain because he uses the ‘n’ word. Can’t read the Bible because it’s violent and filled with immorality. Or it’s made up by craven politicos and priests forging a narrative that will maintain their power.

If we have an ideology, we want the text to confirm or deny that ideology. You want everything to fit your view of the universe.  Of course. That’s also what it means to have a mind. Conception is another word for preconception. If you don’t have a preconceived idea about how everything works, you can’t survive. We’re looking to prove something.  You’re either for us or against us.  This is true of every artefact, whether a written text, a movie, a virtual reality game, a painting in a museum or the fantastic immersively virtual multimedia product of an AI or some future quantum mind we haven’t yet invented. By positing the perfect author of a perfect if inscrutable text you get to place aside your assumptions, at least while you’re on the playing field. Try it. It’s liberating.  And I don’t think ChatGPT can do it very well.

In other words, playing The Game is a very humanizing act. That’s the third fruit of playing it.  You get to be fully human. As you play it, you have to pretend you believe in something on faith. The word for it is deluded – from the Latin for ludere – gaming – and de – down. Of course we read it as a form of deprecation, to be diminished by false belief.  But we can re-appropriate the word for something positive: down here, in material mortality, all we get to do is play at the true reality, which is transcendent and supernal. To live is to be superstitious. Everyone chooses their delusions. Some just can’t admit they’re deluded.  

By playing the Telepathy Game you have the opportunity to take a place to stand apart or above the medium of ideas that you swim in like a fish, without hardly being aware of it, let alone challenging its reality. You can jump out of your bowl – your channel – to see what makes us all human.

 Finally, if you believe its Author is who He says He is, this is the most important game in the world. Its purpose is nothing less than to teach you how to live meaningfully, integrated with and acknowledging the creative integrity of an entire cosmos where everything is connected to each other and originates – derives its dynamism – from one source. The text tells you how to do it, yes, but it also shows you why. At the same time, by its perfection of making meaning through complexity, it exemplifies this true order in the universe. Only a supernal mind could have written the Torah and our every act of reading it in good faith awakens the spirit with a telepathic jolt.


ENDNOTES

  1. Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1951) p. 90

2. “Adrienne Rich, “The Origins and History of Consciousness,” Dreams of a Common Language: Poems 1974-1977

3. See the transcript of an  interview with Jacques Derrida in 1980 in Tellez, F., & Mazzoldi, B. (2007). “The Pocket‐Size Interview with Jacques Derrida,” Critical Inquiry, 33(2), 362–388. https://doi.org/10.1086/511498

TRUE LOVE: The Torah’s Afikomen

David Porush

Matot-Masei 5782

Is the Torah a Comedy?

The story of the Israelites’ journeys really ends at the finale of the fourth of the Five Books of Moses, Numbers.

The official fifth book of the Torah is the next one, Deuteronomy, but only one thing happens in the entire book. Moses gives a five week long motivational speech to all the Israelites on the Plains of Moab. Then he exits. It’s an Aristotelian tragedy. It has unity of time, unity of place, and unity of action.

Five-tier wedding cake

It’s not like the fifth book doesn’t have plenty of drama. After all, the Israelites are poised to enter Israel. Everything up to this point has been for this moment, to seize the promise God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob more than four centuries ago. The suspense alone is magnificent: the Israelites seem to hold their breath as Moses expends his. Everyone, including Moses himself, knows he is about to die before he enters Israel, because God told him so. In a monumental effort, he gives one of the most inspiring – and certainly the longest – series of motivational speeches in history. For five weeks, he recaps, deepens and enhances the entire teaching from the prior four books. He adds plenty of clarifications, new laws and cosmic views. He achieves soaring heights of inspired poetry and fiery rhetoric that capture the transcendent pathos of the moment. He exhorts, inspires, cajoles, admonishes, rebukes, and threatens. He even breaks into a transcendent song filled with a keening sense that his own lifecis about to end even as Israel is about to be born in full. The official tradition grants that Moses delivered all of the book as a speech that is later transcribed and added to the four prior books.

The Greek name for the book captures this flavor: Deuteronomy – the Second (deutero-) Telling (-nomy). The Recap. Or as we say in the literature game, the denouement, the unknotting.

So the end of the epic of Hebrews for all intents and purposes is the end of the Book of Numbers. The Israelites are encamped at the other side of the Jordan River on the plains of Moab. They know they’re going to war once they swoop down on the Canaanite tribes that live there. But that book lands on what seems a very curious, sputtering choice for a climax. After the story of Creation, the Flood, the romance of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the descent into Egypt, the plagues, the redemption and exodus out of Egypt, the many failures and dramas in the wilderness, Numbers’ final concern seems to be to clear up a technicality left dangling from several chapters ago: the rights of women to inherit land if they marry whomever they choose.

What makes the daughters of Zelophechad and the legal back and forth about their rights worthy of such a premier position in the Torah?

If we dig into the language, we find a joyous, celebratory climax is right there before our eyes. Like the afikomen at the Passover seder, it’s hidden in the beginning but it comes out at the end, a dessert with rewards to the children who discover it. In fact, the word ‘afikomen’ is the perfect analogy: it also comes from Greek (transported into the seder through Aramaic, the language of the Talmud sages). It means ‘dessert’, specifically the dessert at the end of a wedding feast: afi (from epi – ‘on top of’) and komon (from comus – the name of the fertility rite and the pagan god who presides over it). The same name gives us the word ‘comedy’.

Let us unwrap the afikomen from where we discovered it – just where my Pop placed it every year, under the tablecloth – and taste the dessert. I believe it will reveal that the Torah, if we end at the Book of Numbers, is a comedy. Though it may not be apparent at first glance – it’s been a long and rocky road for the Israelites to get to the Promised Land and figure out how to fulfill their deal with God – the final verses make it clear that the Torah has been a love story all along that is now being consummated. It even has a happy ending. In fact, we could call the end of Numbers a comedy – a komus – in the classic tradition. It ends with a merry festival of love.[1]

The Daughters of Zelophechad Inspire Two Revolutions

The people of Israel haven’t even begun to conquer the land of Israel, but they have already divvied it up among the tribes proportionate to their size and then by individual clans by lottery. A good deal of the last portion of Numbers detail the borders of the tribal states and specify the land given to the clans within them. It’s a divinely inspired strategy designed to forestall any territorial squabbles. At the same time, it shows amazing self-confidence: these former slaves have been forged into God’s warriors. They are completely certain of victory in conquering the Canaanites.

But wait. There’s a fly in the ointment. A few chapters ago, the parents of five daughters have died, leaving them with no brothers. They want to keep their father’s inheritance in the family, but women are not allowed to inherit the land. Shouldn’t they have the right to continue their father’s legacy like any other heirs?  So they screw up their courage to appeal directly to Moses. Their gumption – and love of the prospective land – is compelling, but Moses is stumped. This is beyond his pay grade. Nothing like this has ever happened, or at least ever before in recorded human history. Prior teachings of the Torah don’t cover it. Moses appeals to God. In a stunning innovation not only of the rules for the Israelites but for all human civilization, God makes an incredible new decree on the spot in the daughters’ favor. These brotherless women, the daughters of Zelophechad, shall inherit their father’s land.

Yet this creates another problem, a loose end which the finale of Numbers dramatizes in its last short chapter. The heads of the daughtes’ tribe, Menashe, now protest to Moses. What happens if these girls marry a guy from another tribe? We’ll lose our lands to them! Not to mention the gerrymandering – the broken patchwork of territorial rights – this will cause. There could be a hostile clan’s reservation right in the middle of our state!

You’ve got a point, Moses agrees. So here’s the solution according to God. He then offers another neat reconciliation:

This is what G-d has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: They may become the wives of anyone they wish, provided they become wives within a clan of their father’s tribe. (Num 36:7)[2]

But is this really deserving of the closing shot? It all seems like such an anticlimactic technicality, a Talmudic dispute you might hear a couple of millenia later, but not the finale of the Hebrew epic in the 13thc BCE.

The future feminine plural of active creation

This is the second part of the text I quoted above in Hebrew:

 תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים אַךְ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אֲבִיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים׃

….they become wives within a clan of their father’s tribeNumber 36:7

The Bible seems eager for us to look at those two words (in bold) that it repeats. The Hebrew is “tihyeynah l’nashim” (תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים). It’s hard to translate perfectly into English. It’s the future feminine plural of the verb ‘to be’. We first encounter the basic verb in the Genesis 1:3 as God declares “’Let there be light’ and there was light!” (יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי־אוֹר׃ ).

Hold that thought, because it reveals a critical shortcoming in most standard translations.

Most translations of our repeated phrase fold it into the passive or at least ambiguous sense of “becoming wives” like this comon mis-translation of the Hebrew above: “They may become the wives of anyone they wish, provided they become wives within a clan of their father’s tribe.”

But the verb is the future feminine plural of active creation. The daughters don’t just become wives, they now get to choose to make themselves wives, to wed by their own volition.

 The next verse of Torah gives God’s reasoning. Most translations separate it out as a standalone declaration:

וְלֹא־תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה אֶל־מַטֶּה

The inheritance of the Children of Israel is not to go ‘round from tribe to tribe…
(Num 36:7)

But this is also a mis-translation. This rationale sounds like a command. Don’t make a mishmash of tribal boundaries through intermarriage. Wait. In one breath the daughters are told they can choose to wed anyone they wish, and in the next that it has to be a man from their own tribe?

But there’s a sneaky “and” (vav) at the beginning of that line, conjoining its logic to the prior verse. It is still ambiguous whether this makes it an imperative – And marry in your tribe! – or a conditional. Make yourselves wives of anyone you love; wed in your tribe and you inherit the land.  

The repetition of the words tihyeynah l’nashim suggests there are two separate possibilities, a choice the consequences of which this next line spells out. Choose anyone you wish from any tribe, but only if you marry intra-tribally (the technical term is endogamy) do you keep your inheritance.

This more liberating reading is confirmed in our celebration called Tu B’Av (the 15th of the month of Av) when we are commanded to be joyous, perhaps as a tonic to the deepest day of mourning six days prior, Tisha B’Av (the 9th). The sages tells us that the reason for joy is that it’s the exact date of this ruling (15th of Av, 1273 bce), “when tribes were permitted to intermarry.”[3]

So a better reading of the two verses, putting it all together, would be this:

Women should wed anyone who pleases them, but if they want inherit the land, they should choose a husband from their own tribe so land doesn’t circulate from tribe to tribe

Yes, God told them in a revolutionary moment, women deserve their father’s inheritance. And now, perhaps even more monumentally, God reveals to them and the world that women can wed whomever they please, from any tribe. But to balance it all, in exchange for your newfound freedom, He says, I gotta restrict the other revolutionary liberty I gave you (to inherit the land) so that you get it only if you choose to wed someone from your own tribe. Otherwise, the inheritance of the children of Israel will circle from tribe to tribe, mash up the neat map we just drew, and our peaceful utopia will be doomed before we even get there.

The deepest love

If this is a perfectly logical rationale, the next line is soul music. In the next breath, the same verse, God then explains – or mandates – the deeper spiritual force behind His compromise between love and inheritance:

כִּי אִישׁ בְּנַחֲלַת מַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו יִדְבְּקוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃

 “…because each Israelite must cling to the land of the tribe of his father.” [4] (Num 36:7)

The text’s word for ‘cling’, or the more antic ‘cleave’[5] – d-b-k, devek –  is the same word Torah uses for other transcendent attachments, good and bad. It’s the same word for the God-given mystical connection between a man and his wife in Genesis. It describes Shechem’s deep, illicit lust for Dinah and also how persistent the plagues against the Israelites were, clinging to them. Later it applies to the deepest embrace between the Israelites and God. “You must cling to Him, for He is your life.” In later Jewish tradition it inspires the deep mysticism of devekus. But here it’s the engine of a love triangle: the Israelites love of Israel equals the love between man and woman equals the love between us and God.

And as if winking at us the Torah confirm this reading a few lines later. There are those same words bracketing this end of this story – tihyeynah … l’nashim:

תִּהְיֶינָה מַחְלָה תִרְצָה והגְלָה וּמִלְכָּה וְנֹעָה בְּנוֹת צְלפְחָד לִבְנֵי דֹדֵיהֶן לְנָשִׁים׃ (Num 36:11)

The verse says, “They chose (Tihyeynah )- Mahla, Tirtza, Hogla, Milka and Noa the daughters of Zelohechad”– the Torah names them here again to honor their importance – “to their cousins to be wives (lenashim).” The sages say Moses wasn’t telling them what to choose, but offering good advice from God. They heeded Him.

Having motivated two earthshattering revolutions through their chutzpah, they now show their modest wisdom. They choose to wed their cousins “so that their inheritance went along with the tribe of the clan of their father” (Num 36:12). It’s a great call. They get to have their wedding cake and eat it too.

With such a satisfactory wrap up, Numbers is quick to close the curtain with a swift last line: “These are the commandments and the laws that God commanded by the hand of Moses to the Children of Israel, in the Plains of Moab, by Jordan-Jericho.” (Num 36:13) Good show. Cue the soaring happy score.

Torah’s afikomon

We usually read the final weekly reading of Numbers, Masei, along with the one before, Matot. Together they create the longest reading of the year. The significance of the climax to Numbers may slide by us in the rush to get through the reading and as we get tangled in the technicalities of the revolution in marriage laws. The commentary is silent mostly about the startling fact that we’ve just heard the announcement of an unprecedentedly massive wedding, a five-fold celebration of women choosing their own mates. This even beats Shakespeare’s record in his comedy As You Like It, which famously ends with four simultaneous weddings.

Once we join the party, the message for the sweep of the epic narrative of the Hebrews starts getting deeper and clearer. It is really a celebration of the entire joyous covenant of the Torah, its climax. So let’s swiftly recap that epic in the light cast back by this happy moment.

Israel preserved its identity since the promise to Abraham through slavery in Egypt. They hear God pronounce His pact with them, newly-liberated slaves, on Sinai. They then get it in writing from Moses. It includes a detailed constitution, a set of laws for establishing a prospective heaven on Earth in the union of the people and land of Israel. They should have been eager to rush across the Red Sea and Sinai to seize their destiny, but they are not up to it. They fail every which way imaginable: through idolatry, cowardice, doubt, backsliding, violence, rebellion, complaining, lawlessness, debauchery, ambition, treason. Others have peeled away to return to Egypt. Some disappeared through assimilation with pagans. Some withered by wandering off in the desert. By far, God’s many plagues, afflictions, earthquakes, fire and snakes have eliminated the bulk of the spiritually weak, the rebels, the sinners and the merely conflicted. Their failures doom them to wander 40 years in the wilderness until the entire generation of former slaves die out. Even at the last moment, Moses faces two breakaway tribes, Reuben and Gad. They want to take the fat, fertile Moabite territory on the other side of Jordan, outside the borders of Israel proper. Moses first loses his temper when he hears their request. He compares them to the spies whose cowardly refusal to take Israel when they had the chance was the immediate cause of their wandering. But then Moses relents. Maybe he thought it would be better to let them pursue their corrosive greed outside of the utopia now rather than risk them rotting the future Israel from the inside, spiritually. Even so, to make sure they’re not just dodging the draft for the impending war against the Canaanites, he cuts a deal with them. He demands that they fight with their brethren before they take up residence across the border, build their cities and graze their cattle. Reuven and Gad readily agree. In fact, they’ll serve as shock troops, the most daring of the warriors. They’ll win the war and only then return to occupy their fat Transjordan lands. Are they loyalists who can’t resist their materialism or are they mercenaries? No matter. Moses has made the final selection of the spiritually fittest.

The only Israelites left are a new generation of fearsome, enspirited warriors. They’ve defeated the Sihon and Og, the Bashan, the Ammonites. They’ve just overcome the Moabite’s evil prophecy with superior God prophecy. They then completely decimate the even stronger Midianites for trying to seduce their whole nation.[6] They leave almost nothing alive, taking only the cattle, gold and remaining virgins as booty. Then they carve up the land of Israel as if the outcome is assured, though they haven’t yet stepped foot in it.

In short, these vital Israelites are about to take, in the very Biblical sense, Israel. Israel the people are about to consummate their long-forestalled, pent-up ecstatic promised union with Israel the land. It’s a magnificent climax.

Jewish mystical tradition and literature overflow with the metaphor of groom and bride in this union between the people and the land.[7] They interpenetrate and fertilize each other. They are meant to cleave to each other, just as bride and groom in the three-way union of man and wife with God as the not-so-silent partner. History proves the mysticism is real. When Jews occupy the land, it is fertile. Josephus in 75 CE testified to Israel’s abundance before the Romans destroy the Temple and scatter the Jews.[8] To humiliate them, the Romans call it Palestine after the Jews’ bitter enemies the Philistines. The land never recovers for almost two thousand years. Empire after empire, Rome, Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, Ottomans, England – all try and fail to make it anything less than desolate. Ramban (1194-1270), flees Spain for the Land of Israel. In Acco, he couldn’t even find nine other Jews to pray with. He wrote to his son, “Many are Israel’s forsaken places, and great is the desecration. The more sacred the place, the greater the devastation it has suffered. Jerusalem is the most desolate place of all.” He prophesied that Israel will remain desolate until the Jewish reoccupy the land.

Riding on horseback through what is now is the fertile Jezreel Valley in 1867, Mark Twain observed, [9]“There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for 30 miles in either direction.” He calls it “the curse of a Deity… that has ruined its fields and fettered its energies. …Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince.”

Travel to Israel today and you can see immediately the instantiation of the metaphysical inter-fertilization of people and land both named Israel. When I last visited with my brother and sister, we traveled up and along the middle and northern borders – along the territory known as the West Bank, up north along Lebanon and Syria. Driving around and up the hairpin steepness of two lush mountains in Golan, a sudden gap opened in front of us.  It was a vista of a forsaken, arid landscape in the distance, framed by green

 “What’s that?” my sister asked, startled by the contrast.

“It’s Syria.”

“It looks dead.”

When the Jews are absent from Israel, the land suffers. Where they go, the land blossoms. Yes, there are exceptions. The territories Reuven and Gad bargained for, now Jordan, are still mostly lush, though I doubt anyone there still calls themselves a child of Israel. They still make wonderful wine in the Bekaa valley (mentioned in the Talmud) of southern Lebanon. Yes, there are mundane explanations for Israel’s fertility: Wealth, education, pent-up historical yearning, Western science and technology, sheer energy. But the mundane meets the miraculous halfway and the former disguises the latter from our dim mortal sight.

The Jews of Israel today are a testament to this mystically fertile union, especially after many of their great grandfathers shriveled (physically) in the shtetls of Europe before being incinerated. Brown, robust, social. Almost every man and woman serves in the military when they are 18. Their voices have music in them. In the last worldwide survey, Israel is one of the top countries for self-reported happiness despite the fact they’re surrounded by enemies, neighbors regularly pledge to eliminate them (the Palestinians and Iranians), and they’re despised by many nations of the world who should know better.

So why end with these women who have been given the new right to marry for love? Because their wedding is neither by force nor convenience. They’ve been given the Divine right to choose to marry whomever they wish, whoever they love – men who “find grace in their eyes” as the Hebrew literally says. They have expanded the domain of human joy and freedom by actively choosing their own paths. The daily ubiquitous miracles we mistake for the coincidences of material reality require us to meet divine will at least halfway on the road to fulfilling it.We’re not in Egypt anymore. we’re free to choose and act. You can’t just lay about and huddle in your hovel and wait for the hand of the Almighty to intervene. After all, He sent you a raft, a rowboat and a helicopter. You have to choose to take the ride. Israel the nation is now, finally, stepping into the boat. Tihyeynah.

What is a more fitting, complete ending to our epic adventure of the Hebrews than a five-fold wedding that we commemorate for all time? We celebrate it like that other, best of all liberation meals, the Passover seder. We end with the special dessert that, in its very name, celebrates the fertile conjugation of wife, husband and God through their separate deliberate acts of choosing, creation. It was set aside from the beginning only to be fulfilled now. It’s the Torah’s afikomon.

Tihyeynah. The future feminine plural. The Torah doesn’t have to tell us how the comedy ends. The daughters lived happily ever after. After all, this is true love.

– David Porush

Simchateo 5782

Aug 1, 2022

ENDNOTES

I am indebted to my study mates in our Friday Noon Parsha Shmooze for delving this reading of Matot-Masei with me: Nicolas Cruz, Ron Kardos, Bobby Lent, and Brad Diller. I am also indebted to Rabbi Yossi Marcus for his Shabbos drash on the significance of Aaron’s yahrzeit being mentioned here out of place (it’s the 15th of Av; Aaron dies on the 1st). Aaron earns the only yahrzeit date explicitly mentioned in Torah. It comes to teach us the fundamental aspect of love for our fellow humans suffused in the Torah through Aaron. Finally, I am indebted to Rabbi Yitzchok Feldman for confirming the meaning of the key word here – t’hiyeynah – as the future feminine plural of “to be,” and even more so for responding positively to this particular reading of the end of Numbers as a comedy.

[1] As Lord Byron quipped, “All tragedies are finished by a death. All comedies are ended by a marriage .” Most Shakespearean comedies end with a wedding: The Taming of the Shrew, All’s Well That Ends Well, A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, many others. As You Like It ends with four weddings.

Going further back, we see the modern wedding comedy as a civilized version of its primitve pagan roots. The genre of comedy originated in ancient Greece as Dionysian fertility revelries. Komus was the Greek god of merrymaking who brought wine to his father, Dionysus, for his infamous parties. The annual spring rituals of komus weren’t so much weddings as festive orgies of appetite.

[2] The Contemporary Torah, Jewish Publication Society, 2006.

[3] Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel said: “Never was there any more joyous festival than the fifteenth of Ab and on the Day of Atonement, etc.” It is readily understood why the Day of Atonement should be a day of rejoicing, because that is a day of forgiveness, and on that day the second tables of the Law were given to Moses; but why should the fifteenth of Ab be a day of rejoicing? “Because,” said R. Judah in the name of Samuel, “on that day the members of the different tribes were permitted to intermarry.” What passage did they interpret to prove this? (Num. 36, 6) [Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Taanit 4:11]

[4] In fact, Ramban berates Rambam for not listing the imperative for Jews to “cling to the land” as one of Rambam’s 613.

[5] The word is a contranym; it means two opposite things at the same time. Cleave could imply “to bind or unite”, or it could mean “to sever completely, (as with a cleaver).” The implication is that two entities have a deeper wholeness or unity.

[6] There’s another whole drash to be written about the connecting theme in Matot-Masei of willful, feminine choice, encoded in the verb of “to be.”  This one is the contrast between the daughters of Zelophechad and the evil choice of the Midianite women to seduce the men of Israel: The consequence of their debased choice is that all the women are slaughtered and the virgin daughters become booty בָּזָז׃. “The Israelites seized the women of the Midianites and their children and all their beasts, all their herds, and all their wealth as booty. [Num 31:9]… “Moses became angry with the commanders of the army, the officers of thousands and the officers of hundreds, who had come back from the military campaign. Moses yells at them: “You have spared every female! Yet they are the very ones who made it happen  הָיוּ to seduce the sons of Israel to the bidding of Balaam, to trespass against HaShem in the matter of Peor, so that G-d’s community was struck by the plague.

[7] From the Kabbalistic tradition: “Behold the holy Torah and Eretz Yisrael have a unique relationship. So too the Jewish people have a unique deep spiritual relationship to the land of Israel. This can be seen from the prophet Ezekiel (chapter 48) dividing up the land between the twelve tribes, granting each tribe the parcel of land best suited for its needs. This was accomplished by each tribe bordering the place from where the soul of his tribe emanates from. Thus each mitzvah performed in Eretz Yisrael ascends and adorns each of the borders in relationship to the soul of each tribe. In this way, the completeness of the soul is dependent upon which portion of land it dwells in. And the fulfillment of the land is dependent upon the souls that dwell there in accordance with its existence. The essence of this is that Zion is the point of the original creation (Gemara Yoma 54b) For, from that point the rest of the world unfolded. That point of course is associated with the Shechina.” Chabad https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380682/jewish/A-Land-for-Every-Nation-21.htm

Also Kabbalah: “The land of Israel and its cities also represent a sexual aspect. The first sin caused a split be­tween the masculine principle of the divine powers (symbolized by the sefirah of Glory or Foundation) and the feminine principle (symbolized by Kingship). The coupling of the two principles is already symbolized in early Kabbalah by the unification of “Zion” (Glory or Foundation) and “Jerusalem” (Kingship). Since the righteous person simi­larly is symbolized by the sefirah of Foun­dation, the sexual aspect is also reflected in the fact that only perfectly righteous people can possess the land.”  https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/mystical-israel/

[8] “These two Galilees, of so great largeness, and encompassed with so many nations of foreigners, have been always able to make a strong resistance on all occasions of war; for the Galileans are inured to war from their infancy, and have been always very numerous; nor hath the country been ever destitute of men of courage, or wanted a numerous set of them: for their soil is universally rich and fruitful, and full of the plantations of trees of all sorts, insomuch that it invites the most slothful to take pains in its cultivation, by its fruitfulness; accordingly it is all cultivated by its inhabitants, and no part of it lies idle. Moreover, the cities lie here very thick, and the very many villages there are here are every where so full of people, by the richness of their soil, that the very least of them contain above fifteen thousand inhabitants.” Note how Josephus connects the robustness of the warriors and their dauntless spirit with the fertility of their land. Josephus, The Book of Wars transl. by William Whiston, (London: 1737) 3, 3:2

[9] Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad (1869)

Torah as Hologram

David Porush

“Calculus… ironically the word means ‘pebble’” – Herman Wouk, The Language God Talks (2010)

You come on a small, still pond in a clearing in the woods. Someone just tossed a pebble into it seconds ago, but now they’re gone. You can tell because waves ripple out from where it plopped in. You watch as the rings radiate out to reach every point in the pond.

From Physics Stack Exchange

Imagine now that you arrived just after two pebbles dropped into the pond. You can tell where they went in by tracing the two concentric patterns back to their two centers. Then you notice that the two patterns collide. Looking closely, some waves add their energy to each other to make bigger waves with higher troughs and crests. Some waves cancel each other, making smaller waves or even points of calm water. As the waves radiate out, the whole pond now shows that two pebbles dropped in.

If you were clever, it might be possible to look at any smaller section of the pond, even without looking at the whole, and reconstruct the fact that two pebbles dropped in. You might even be able to deduce more information, like how heavy the pebbles were, how far away from each other they dropped or even how soon the second pebble hit after the first.

Now imagine thousands of pebbles dropped in the pond. Every part of the pond would register every dropped pebble in an extremely complex array of waves. Maybe it would take a super-computer to tell how many pebbles, where and when they were dropped, etc., but the surface of every part of the pond, however far away from the original pebbles, registers all the information about them. You could read any part of the surface of the pond and it would tell a story about the original events, even though you weren’t there to see the pebbles enter the water.

Holograms

Without getting too deep into the technicalities (laser beams are split and recorded after they bounce off an image) making a hologram uses the same phenomenon as the pebbles in the pond: a wave interference pattern (see this at “Explain That Stuff”). The “holo” in hologram refers to the whole image it projects.

It is a curiosity of a hologram that if you cut out a tiny piece of the original hologram and shine a laser through it, it would display the whole image, if in lower resolution and smaller. So a hologram is also holistic because every part, however small, registers and represents the whole, just like you could (theoretically) look at a small section of the pond at its edge and reconstruct where, how many, and when the pebbles dropped.

Like the surface of the pond, every point of a hologram contains a trace of the whole. Every point resonates echoes the original events (the object on which the laser shone; pebbles dropping) that created the text (waves forming an interference pattern on the medium of a holographic plate or the pond’s surface). Every point also resonates with every other. It is a whole – (“holo”) – writing or record (“gram”). We can read the text of the pond to tell what happened before we got there.

Holistic thinking

The hologram is a great metaphor not only for reading a literary text but for reading the cosmos as a hologram. A holistic approach means you cannot fully understand any part of something without seeing the whole and vice versa. Holistic thinking is a compelling approach to the world. Dissect a frog as much as you want, but it won’t explain why it jumps at a fly. You might even kill the essence of the thing you’re after.

We know instinctively, especially when we think of living beings that somehow the whole has an identity and integrity that no part in itself can describe on its own. Holistic healing treats the whole person because it assumes that every organ, every cell, is intimately connected to every other. Further, it knows the body and the mind, maybe even the personality and spirit are all connected. Your dynamic habits and experiences affect the physical part of your body. Your fingernails and hair say something about your diet. An examination of your eye could tell the opthamologist that something is wrong with the liver or heart. And it is a cliche that your attitude towards life affects your health. In turn, the health of every individual organ can affect and be affected by every other. Holism gives us a more powerful and intuitively appealing way of looking at a very complex phenomenon or system than by just picking it apart and analyzing its components

One scientific theory applies this concept to the whole cosmos. David Bohm, an associate of Einstein’s at Princeton in the late 1940s and early 1950s, was one of the most significant physicists of the twentieth century. Based on his work on quantum waves, he proposed a view of the entire universe as an interconnected whole. In his view, the universe has an explicit order we can see and intuit, and a deeper level of reality, a hidden implicit order that underlies it and ties it all together, what he called “the Holographic Universe.”

An associate of Bohm’s, neuroscientist Karl Pribram, speculated that the brain also worked like a hologram. As he put it, the brain was “holonomic.” When you see something new or feel a great emotion, it stimulates waves of neural impulses. Even the firing of a single neuron propagates waves of neuro-electrical impulses across the whole brain, just as waves from pebbles dropped in a pond.

If you look at videos of lightning storms in the upper atmosphere as seen from space, they seem to dance across vast regions as if they were in tune to some secret music. The entire atmosphere is an interconnected ecosystem. Standing on the ground and watching a single bolt of lightning gives you no clue to this implicate order in the sky.

Reading the Bible as a hologram

The Hebrew Bible records an experience just like this. An entire nation of Hebrews, six hundred thousand men and their wives, children and parents, flee slavery in Egypt to the desert. Moses leads them to Mount Sinai. They huddle around its base as he warns them of an awesome event about to happen. Then lightning flashes, thunder rumbles. A prolonged incomprehensible sound blasts out, growing louder. God is talking. The Hebrews are overwhelmed. They can’t comprehend what they hear and they’re afraid the unprecedented show will kill them.

They ask Moses to intercede. He goes up the mountain and returns forty days later with a transcript of what God wanted them to hear, written in the brand-new medium of the phonetic alphabet. Later, according to some interpretations, Moses writes more extensively about what God told and continues to tell him. The result is the Bible, the Five Books of Moses, the Torah.

God’s performance atop the mountain is transient and long gone. Jews have a national memory of the event. They are the only people who claim a deity spoke to them en masse and they survived. They have a collective national memory of a story that would be impossible to falsify. Did millions of people conspire to make it up and then agree that this thing really happened? Would Moses say this happened to them, and they just don’t remember? Would he say it DID happen and their folks just forgot to tell you about it or covered up the source of your national identity and purpose? So the only way to fully understand the Torah is to see it as an accurate record – an autobiography – of its birth, but how? If we take its testimony seriously, the Bible obliges us to understand what God meant us to hear. However, the text is only the trace, the transcript, of this incomprehensible event: the prolonged blast of a divine voice.

So this singularity – the fancy word is theophany – requires a singular approach to reading. For this I recruit the hologram. A holographic approach to reading assumes that the Torah is the dictation of a single divine Author. The hologram models how to read a text that traces an event that happened before we got there but where every part of the text is implicated with every other and with the original event like pebbles in a pond. The minutest part, a single word, letter, the embellishments on a letter – even the silent spaces between the words – represent and register and resonate with the whole (as I show in various parshas such as Chukat, Vayigash, Vayikra, Noah, Emor and elsewhere). Every jot sings the theme of a larger song, however softly and faintly. The text is an interference – or better yet an interconnection – pattern, intensely dynamic, complex hyper-inter-textual.

If the waves on the surface of the pond comprise the text, the pebbles are the writing instrument or channel used by an “author” or actor to transmit his or her intentions. But as we come on the rippling pond in the glade in the woods, we come after the original event is long over, and different readers will have different interpretations. Some deny there was ever a girl in the glade dropping pebbles in a pond. A naive explorer might come on the pond, look at the complex interference pattern the pebbles caused, and say, “Whoah, windy day.” He sees only a chaos of waves and has no idea that someone dropped a bunch of pebbles into the water before he got there. A skeptic might say, “You’ve been staring at the pond too long. You’re imagining things.” The cynic has a completely alternative explanation. He sees the complexity of the waves but says, “It’s just a natural coincidence.”

If we believe we know someone plopped pebbles into the water before we arrived, that leaves us with the challenge of reconstructing the hologram, reading the dynamic traces of the original act and reconstructing what happened. After all, pebbles and waves are two completely different media, one the cause, the other the effect. No number of waves in water will ever form themselves back into the original pebbles that caused them. But the clues are there. There’s enough information to of it. The waves present a mystery. Who was the original pebble-dropper? Why’d she do it in the first place? Was she just passing the time idly amusing herself? Was she trying to achieve something?

Reading in the hologram and Jewish tradition

This approach to reading the Torah as a trace or transcript has a long provenance. The great medieval sage Rambam (1138–1204) expressed it as one of his “Thirteen Principles of Faith”:

We believe that the entire Torah in our possession was given [to us] by the Almighty through Moshe Our Teacher by means of the medium we metaphorically call “speech.” No one knows the real nature of this communication except Moshe, to whom it was transmitted. He was like a scribe receiving dictation. He wrote the history, the stories, and the commandments. Therefore he is called “[the] inscriber.” There is no difference between the [the apparently trivial and most profound verses]. For it is all from God; it is all God’s perfect Torah, pure, holy and true.

Rambam is very clear. The Torah is the transcript of a dictation. It is always already a translated version of an original utterance and intention. As A.J. Heschel put it, the Torah from Moses is already a “midrash,” literally “from the word,” a commentary.  Traditional Jewish interpretations call themselves mishnehs – “repetitions”.

So during their chat atop Sinai, when Moses took God’s dictation, was he fast enough to write every word? Was the new medium of the phonetic alphabet agile enough to capture everything? Did it capture more than we could parse by the fact it had no vowels and so any string of consonants could be parsed multiple ways? Did God want everything He said written, or were there elaborations, digressions, and occult and secret revelations? The Jewish tradition is built on this inevitable fact. Midrash encompasses the entire Jewish interpretive tradition since Sinai, including the Mishnah (brought down from Oral Law into written form in the second century CE), Gemara (which with Mishna forms the Talmud), and the almost two millenia of ongoing commentary, debate, legends, exemplars, parables, and case law conducted across time, space and cultures since then.

Hologram and spirituality

The approach to Torah as a hologram also has a deeper spiritual dimension. An essential Jewish belief is the oneness of God and the unity of the cosmos He created. God did not perform His blast, nor create the universe, and then disappear or stand idly by to admire it work. His involvement in Creation is intimate and continues and compels at least acknowledgement, if not gratitude. The holistic approach to reading mirrors these beliefs.

The final more mystical concept is the congruence of the physical universe and the Torah. In Kabbalah, Torah is the cosmic cookbook. God wrote it before He brought the world into being. He consulted its recipe to recite the words that “He spoke” (Vayomer Elohim) to create light, sky, earth, and life. A kabbalistic tradition suggests that the written letters formed God’s script and were (it’s too tempting to say literally) the instruments of Creation. It demands an approach that transcends our usual ideas of reading and interpreting to hint, however faintly, at a divine creativity implicit in every word, letter, flourish and even silence.

– David Porush, (Haifa 1994 and San Mateo 2022)

The Adultery-Jealousy Complex and its Cure: The case of the *shtuss* twins

David Porush2 Comments
“O comfort-killing night, image of hell, dim register and notary of shame, black stage for tragedies and murders fell, vast sin-concealing chaos, nurse of blame!” – Shakespeare, “Macbeth”

Most of us have experienced bouts of jealousy at some point in our lives. It’s not fun. Jealousy torments you and makes you torment the person you suspect, especially if it is your mate. On the way to doing real damage, you are likely to make yourself look ridiculous to your loved ones and even your community. Jealousy is the devourer, a “green-eyed monster.”

Screen Shot 2020-06-02 at 11.44.05 AM
Image of the cuckold in Moliere’s 1660 opera, “Sganarelle”

The Bible discusses jealousy in the context of a broken marriage. A husband is so suspicious of his wife, whether justified or not, that he brings her to trial in the ritual of bitter waters (sotah) that establishes whether she has been faithful. Jews often read this portion, Naso (Num 4:21-8:89)  around Shavuot holiday, when they also read The Book of Ruth, the story of the faithful woman. The contrast between the two is too good to pass up because Ruth also offers a cure for broken marriages that are as contemporary as they were three thousand years ago.

The sotah trial – really a ritual – is a spectacle. The priests take sacred water, mix it with dirt from the floor of the Tabernacle, and after plenty of elaborate stagecraft, ink curses and oaths on parchment, grind them up, and mix them into the water. The poor woman has to drink it, a kind of spiritual litmus test. If she’s guilty, the potion promises to “distend her belly and sag her thigh,” make her into a curse to her people, and kill her.

But I want to focus on the other half of the drama. The ritual of bitter waters is also called the “Ordeal of Jealousy.” The two terms adultery and jealousy are entwined throughout this passage. Most popular descriptions of the trial emphasize the victimization of the woman. But the jealous husband’s fate also hangs in the balance and it is obvious that the Bible thinks he is also worthy of condemnation. What if she’s innocent and he’s the one who deserves humiliation (and payment) to atone for his mistake? The bitter sotah water will tell. That’s why when she is being tried, the wife holds in her hand “the meal offering of jealousy” that the husband has brought.

I’m not suggesting the husband is a victim like his wife might be.  Just the opposite. The only thing he is a victim of is his own rampant emotion. The English translation often renders his state of mind something like this. He brings his wife to trial because

“a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about the wife who has defiled herself; or if a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about his wife although she has not defiled herself.” (Num 5:14)

His rage is the stage for the scene whether she is guilty or not.

The original Hebrew in the Bible for this dramatic seizure of jealousy reveals this more forcefully: it literally says something like:

“…and [the husband] is carried away high [by a] spirit or wind of jealousy doubled “

וְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ־קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא

I know that’s awkward to read, but you get the idea. The verb ohvar (עָבַר) has the sense of transgression, loss of self-possession. Alahv (עָלָיו) doesn’t mean spiritual heights but loss of groundedness, rootedness. The doubling of the adjective for jealousy (kinah v’kinei) is a common rhetorical device in Biblical Hebrew to indicate an extremity of a quality, and this ruach kinah v’kineh – blast of super-jealousy – occurs nowhere else in the Torah outside this drama. (It is repeated in the next verse and in the recap at the end of the section). [1]

Marriage counselors take note: the Hebrew word for jealousy (kanaw – קַנָּא) puns on the word for possession (kawnaw – קָנָה), as when you buy something. But you already knew that. Jealousy and possessiveness go together, and the husband’s suspicions may live in a realm where the facts are irrelevant, overcome by a need for ownership and control of his spouse. The wife either defiled herself OR has not, but the husband is definitely transgressive, lost, alienated, out of his head or too deep into it, and crossed a boundary into a jealous rage.

Shtuss

So obviously yes, on the one hand, adultery is one of the gravest matters, disruptive to home, life, family and community, not to mention violating one of the Ten Commandments and therefore a capital crime.

But on the other hand, so is jealousy. When the Talmud discusses it, it slides between the waywardness of the wife and the anger of the husband, implicitly equating them:

Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: “If any man’s wife goes aside [tisteh]” (Numbers 5:12). The word tisteh is written with the Hebrew letter shin, affording an alternative reading of tishteh, which is related to the term for folly, the word shetut. [2]

The pun, however opens a window onto how our tradition views this transcendentally irrational jealousy-adultery complex and, in fact, the moral structure of the Torah itself. 

Shtuss. It was one of my bubby’s favorite words and I always assumed it was pure Yiddish because the way she said it was always with that unique mix of laughing dismissal and deep contempt.  Little did I know she was invoking a profound Jewish concept embedded in the ancient Hebrew. And like that unique Yiddish flavor of contempt and irony in the word, there’s comedy implicit in the staging of the sotah trial, despite its gravity, that comes from the public outing of the husband’s jealousy.

Adultery and jealousy are twin foolishnesses. They both can unleash an orgy (maybe that’s the wrong word) of foolishness, gossip and disruption in the community if not rectified. The Bible is clear that it was just as likely that the husband was in the grips of crazed suspicion as the wife was guilty. No wonder sotah is the title and subject of an entire tractate of the Talmud that ends with an extended apocalyptic vision of the descent of the generations (Yeridas HaDoros) into transgression and loss.

But the wife’s alleged adultery is at this point only a suspected act. There’s so much histrionics already in the Biblical ritual that if the accused is guilty, she is just as likely to die of psychosomatic fright than the magic bitter waters which promise to “distend her belly and sag her thigh” and kill her. For some, that former fate might seem the worse threat.

Let’s keep our focus on the husband, though. Imagine being so deep in the grips of jealousy’s derangement that you are willing to air your dirty laundry in public. You’re going to expose yourself either as a cuckold, or insanely suspicious. Imagine subjecting your wife and family and self to this ordeal. The jealous husband is a common, ridiculous figure in comedies throughout time, from the ancient Greeks to Chaucer and Shakespeare to Hollywood. The entertainment industry would be out of business without jealousy. You probably know someone who fits the type. The jealous husband – if he’s not tragic like Othello – is usually met with ridicule, which one of my professors called “a kind of wild, communal justice.” But by setting tongues wagging with vigilante gossip, it only makes things worse. Only the priestly ritual can rectify the cosmic, communal imbalance that a domestic drama creates once it flies out of the home, fueled by the husband’s suspicions.

By the way, marital Counselors Note #2: the husband’s jealousy often pushes his wife into the behavior he fears.  Such is the paradox of paranoia. But you knew that, too.

The Maharal [Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, 16th century] expands on the Talmud’s pun. He says that this sin of adultery comes to teach us that every sin has a bit of foolish adultery in it:

No one does any sin if they weigh the full implications of his actions … a sin is illogical, and so we say a ru’ach shtuss (a deep spirit of foolishness) has entered him (or her).

In other words, though it is aberrant and has aspects of both high tragedy and low comedy, the adultery-jealousy complex captures an intrinsic integrity of the Torah’s entire moral system. While most secular and modern views of the Bible suggest it presents a system of faith that is the opposite of reason and logic. But the foundation of its traditional moral order is rational. The behaviors it warns us against, its laws, mark the sharp boundaries between animal impulses like lust and lizard-brain rage and civil, orderly behavior. Violating its laws makes no sense. Behaving yourself creates order and civic harmony, which are also holy. Plato and Aristotle knew this. Shakespeare did too, for all the fun he has with human frailty and misbehavior. It’s just a lesson we’ve seem to forgotten in a secular age.

Foolishness, fidelity and choice

The sotah contrasts with that paradigm of psychic strength and self-possession, Ruth. Naomi, her husband and two sons leave Israel to find their fortunes in Moab. The sons take Moabite wives, sisters Orpah and Ruth. But the father and two sons all die. Broken by loss and poverty, Naomi decides to go back to Israel. Orpah a stays, which makes sense. But Ruth accompanies Naomi in one of the great pledges of selfless love and fidelity: “Where you go, I will follow. Your G-d will be my G-d.” Back in Israel, they barely survive as paupers on the pickings of barley crop left in the field after harvest. Here, Ruth is only a Moabite woman, statusless, an alien, taunted and molested by the crop pickers. But her modesty and grace catch the eye of the rich landowner himself, Boaz. He protects her and ultimately redeems her in marriage. It’s one of the great happy endings in the Jewish canon.

Juxtapose the two stories and we see that the cure for sotah’s shtuss is Ruth’s strength. The remedy for foolishness is faithfulness, in every sense of the word. Counselors Note #3: Commitment to a higher code, outside our self-absorption in our own troubles, grants us an amazing calm and grace even in the face of humiliation. How does that work, exactly? There’s a feedback loop between devotion to something that is not-self and orderly in ourselves and order in the world we create around ourselves, between inner psychic conviction and trust in a higher order, in a supernal destiny. This confidence in comportment, in restraining our passions in the face of all challenges, manifests itself in things like trust in our spouses and behaving ourselves in marriage and beyond to treatment of our family and our society. Ruth knows – and acts as if – they are all connected. Perhaps that is why the line of King David and the Messiah springs from her, a woman who begins as a widowed, beggared Moabite stranger in Israel, attached to her embittered mother-in-law.

As a convert, Ruth reminds us that we choose our behaviors. She chooses to follow Naomi. She chooses her public and private demeanor. She chooses to be a Jew, reminding us that fidelity to being Jewish requires a constant conscious choice. It is harder and more meaningful to make a deliberate, conscious choice to be a Jew than it is to rest on our Laurels (and Hardys) and assume we’re covered just because we were born that way and happen to like bagels and lox.

Husbands and wives choose how to behave themselves in matters of marriage and procreation. Any mortal marriage is equivalent to Ruth’s marriage to Judaism. A husband and wife commit to each other and to a third principle that arises from their tie to each other but exists outside and above them. We sometimes call that third entity “the institution of marriage,” but that sounds deadening. “Holy matrimony” is a politically incorrect cliche, but it comes closer by invoking the source of healing of the jealousy-adultery complex. Marriage is a dynamic, active ever-unfolding creation. It requires that the spouses consciously and continuously choose it, not just to forestall the shtuss twins of lust and jealousy, but to keep the marriage vital and even, possibly joyful. I like to think that’s where true love comes from, bringing heaven onto earth.

Dedicated to my wife, Sally

San Mateo, 5790/2020

ENDNOTES

This perambulation was inspired by one of the many seemingly off-handed spontaneous remarks during class by my teacher, Rabbi Yitzchok Feldman, that had profound learning and depth of insight behind it. He said, “sotah is connected to shtuss.’

[1] The Talmud debates the meaning of this phrase as possibly meaning we shouldn’t get witnesses and warnings involved because it will arouse the anger in the domestic dispute, but it concludes by confirming the shared responsibility: “And the husband is he who will come to act in anger with her, as they will have mutual antagonism toward each other.” (Sotah 2b)

[2] Reish Lakish in (Sotah 3a) is playing on the fact that one sign signifies two sounds – ‘sin’ and ‘shin” ( שְׂ ) – note the dot on top moves from right to left).

The pun has many layers of linguistic complexity relating to this discussion of Sotah. First, there’s a pun between s’teh spelled with a ‘sin’ (wayward) and sotah, the name for the ritual, spelled with a ‘samech’ ( ס ). The letter ‘sin’ was interchanged with the letter ‘samech’ in early Hebrew but is more or less fixed by the time of the Mishnah. Second, the word “sot” and “shot” are virtually equivalent, both meaning “to turn aside from the path” (see the entry for שׁוטKlein Dictionary,  Carta Jerusalem; 1st edition, 1987). 

In other words, the ritual is named after or at least sounds the same as the label for the wayward woman, which unfortunately fixes the focus on the woman’s culpability, not the man’s, and thus fuels the feminist indictment of it.

What does “virus” really mean? A pandemic etymology

David Porush4 Comments

The etymology of virus has gone viral

According to the Internet god of all things virtually true, the word virus comes from the Latin root meaning “snake’s venom.”

snake-venom
From “The Fig Tree”

This viral etymology is repeated in one form or another on all the major sites about words –  wiktionary, dictionary, wordorigins, merriam-webster, etymonline, oxfordlearnersdictionaries. 

They’re all cribbing from the mother of all English dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary.

“Virus: [L(atin) ‘slimy liquid, poison…] 1. venom such as emitted by a poisonous animal.”

It makes perfect sense as far as it goes. Viruses are sorta poison-spewing evil little animalcules, right? But all these free online sources are, like most thieves, lazy and simply repeat each other’s smash and grab larceny of the OED. No one owns words, but discovering their origins and sources is hard work. See “The Professor and the Madman” (2019). It’s free on Netflix. Thieves like free, right?

If we dig a little deeper – perform a more serious archeology on virus using the OED as our guide – we uncover in its sinuous history a message for our current coronavirus pandemic.

Virus and virtue

The second definition of virus in the OED is “path,” also deriving from the Latin. What’s the connection? It’s probably not the toxicity of snakes but a deeper shared origin having to do with their shape. A snake is shaped like a curvy path.

Sure enough,  if we wend our way next door to virus‘s neighbor word virtue, we see another clue: the original root of ‘virtue’ is vir, a Latin root for ‘man’. In ancient Rome, virtus meant courage on the field of battle. Virtue was inherently virile, masculine. Julius Caesar in Book I of The Gallic Wars, his macho historical narrative, advises that we should

Rely more on virtue than on artifice and stratagem.

But if you’re a logomaniac like me, you’re not content with a mere 2000-year-old source. You want to dig deeper beneath the Roman ruins to find the oldest possible origin. Where did that word come from? Why do those three letters come to mean something as elemental as ‘maleness’? [1]

So strip away yet another layer and you discover vir comes from an even earlier root, probably Hindo-Sanskrit or early Greek, for stick, twig, or rod. That’s the fundamental root connection: rod is a phallus or vice versa, and thus manly virtues like virility carry genital freight. The Latin word virga preserve this root: it also means rod. I will leave it to your imagination how it penetrated to the concept of virginity.

At the very root of language?

What etymologists fantasize about is traveling back in time to eavesdrop on the first burbling articulation by the first genius hominid who first invented the word they’re studying. Maybe – and this is a real fantasy – vir was the very first word, there at the aboriginal creation of language, of wording itself, where sounds came to represent and signify external things instead of only verbalizing hominid reactions to transitory events or warnings or coded warblings or states of existence.

So imagine with me a linguistic Adam and Eve alone in their grove. Fueled by the urgency of desire, a sound erupts from one or the other of them and she (or he) points at what they both want,

“Vir!” he (or she) said, nodding at it, and they look down and they smile in a flash of telepathy, for it was obvious that they agree this was a capital way to indicate that thing.

“Vir,” the other repeats, and “vir,” they would coo to each other from now henceforth, forever after referring to it in the kind of fond secret vocabulary that couples everywhere invent, pillow talk.

But somehow the secret gets out and catches on. Someone eavesdropped, the snake perhaps, and it spread, this viral app of pointing with sound, especially this happy signifying meme. Folks apply the sound pointer nimbly to other things like stick and rod, and eventually, surely by the time of the Latins, to snake. We’ve made the same slangy sling of meaning. Shlong comes from the German word for “snake,” to take only one of hundreds of examples.

The essence of virus 

Language isn’t a computer code but a stew. Dictionaries shouldn’t be lists of algorithms any more than cookbooks are chemistry manuals. As the pot of culture simmers, convenience, contingency, inspiration, necessity and even humor throw in new ingredients and flavors. A good chef would never follow a recipe slavishly.

Dictionaries, however, are by definition definitive, making pronouncements on fluid meanings as if they’re fixed. We can see how the conflation between venom and virus creeps in. It’s not really an error, but a cluster of images and metaphors that crowd and seep – I might say infect – each other. A snake emits venom like the penis spews semen. A vir is the source of fluid essence, it is seminal. This is how we get to virus.

Snake down the path to yet another neighboring word in the Oxford English Dictionary, virtue, and the hidden route to virus appears.

OED’s very first definition of “virtue” is

the power or operative influence inherent in a supernatural god or being

Virtual means “to be possessed of the power to influence, to have the potential to affect.” Caesar’s exemplary man influences us to manliness by his valor. Divinity influences us to virtue metaphysically.

From here it is now one more small step to that other kind of invisible influenza, organic virus and virulence. The very word flu is a contraction of influenza. We now know that a microscopic pocket of weaponized genetic material causes flu pandemic. It sits astride the limbo between living and not, helping all-too-many souls to cross it, ubiquitous but invisible like G-d Himself. Through most of history, to most humans, it must have seemed metaphysical.

Pandemic as transcendental flu

Millions of words have already been written about the terrible virtues of this virus, how nature or the divine is exerting its superior influence over human affairs through the invisible Covid-19 flu pandemic, correcting our hubris, changing civilization in the blink of an eye, forcing us to inspect and re-evaluate assumptions about work, play, family, love, even self. Even if you cannot be persuaded that this – or anything else – has metaphysical origins, you have to admit the coronavirus pandemic is doing a good imitation of what a metaphysical being would do: making us consider the meaning of virtue as if we had indeed lost our path.

NOTE:  This is an extension of the etymology of virtual  that I wrote a few years ago: Almost Really Real: How the word “virtual” deconstructed itself and what its curious etymology tells us about the future of virtual reality and truthiness

 

The First Media Revolution in Egypt and the Finger of God

David Porush

If you don’t accept the story of miracles and divine intervention as the reason, then on sheer rational grounds it’s hard to explain why Pharaoh lets the Hebrew slaves go. When else in history has a powerful ruler let his slave population leave in the middle of a large public works project, one dedicated to his glorification, no less? Imagine the impact on the economy, let alone the damage to his public image and vanity.

If you do believe the central story has some roots in historical events – and accumulating archeological evidence shows some mysterious population emerged from somewhere to conquer Canaan around 1200 BCE – then what awesome event could possibly have compelled Pharaoh to submit to Moses’ demand to let his people go?

To delve the mystery, let’s look at the third plague, which is the first hint of victory for the Hebrews in their prolonged struggle against Pharaoh. Continue reading “The First Media Revolution in Egypt and the Finger of God” →

A couple of small questions about science and religion: Is a Cosmic Consciousness Involved Every Time an Egg is Fertilized? Can science and religion fertilize each other?

David Porush1 Comment
“A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton,” – Charles Darwin on God
 “We should not immediately refute any idea which comes to contradict anything in the Torah, but rather we should build the palace of Torah above it.” – Rav Avraham Yitzchok Kook, the first chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Palestine

Moment of fertilazation
“Moment of fertilization,” from 123rf.com

The fertilization tango

When does human life begin? Are there divine implications in the process? Before you make up your mind, how much do you know about what really happens when an egg is fertilized? It’s almost beyond belief in its complexity and mystery. When we delve it, right down to the part that gets mysterious, it invokes a metaphysical explanation.

Continue reading “A couple of small questions about science and religion: Is a Cosmic Consciousness Involved Every Time an Egg is Fertilized? Can science and religion fertilize each other?” →

A Wagon of Poetry Drives the Hebrews Through the Portal of History

David Porush

רַב עוֹד־יוֹסֵף בְּנִי חָי  (Gen 45:28)

The story of Joseph and his brothers is one of the most novelistic passages in the Bible, filled with hidden motives, deep emotion, staged revelations, ambiguous plots and a happy – if portentous – ending. After Joseph finally reunites with the eleven brothers in Egypt after their kabuki, he can’t wait to see his father, so he sends his brothers back to fetch him.

COLORFUL+WAGON+(1)

The Bible lavishes ten verses on Pharaoh’s and Joseph’s eagerness to get all of the Hebrews to Egypt. They load donkeys and wagons with clothing and goods and gold to bring back the families and Joseph’s father, Jacob.

To sweeten the deal, they reserve the fattest part of Egypt to settle the whole tribe when they come – the land of Goshen down river towards the Nile delta where the soil is rich. We can spend a lot of time delving all their motives. The plain sense is that Joseph wants to see his father and secure the future of his family in Egypt, especially as they face a famine in Canaan also. Pharaoh is all too eager to secure the permanent service of his magical CEO Joseph and, perhaps, genuinely wants him to be completely comfortable. But we know how that goes for the Hebrews. We read the scene a little like a horror story when we know the ghost is lurking in the closet and we want to shout to the characters, “No! Don’t!”

Continue reading “A Wagon of Poetry Drives the Hebrews Through the Portal of History” →

Perpetual Chanukah: A Sermon in the Preposition

David Porush
For my son, Avraham Benjamin, who was born the first night of Chanukah.
“When the hoof of the swine touches Jerusalem’s walls, the entire foundation of Israel itself shakes.” – Talmud: Sotah

Perpetual Chanukah

Chanukah is both alarming and comforting. Jews are struggling with the growing sense that it’s happening again. Less than eight decades after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is on the rise in the West. I don’t need to recount the litany of current events and the fear they’re causing. I’m alarmed that we’re still fighting the culture war it commemorates.

The lights and prayers give psychic comfort and hope. They are also the actual weapons to resist the dark tide of history.

Here’s what I mean. On the first night of Chanukah 1st night chanukahwe say a third prayer, the Shehecheyanu, thanking God for bringing us “to this time” (lazman hazeh). This prayer always gets me whenever I say it. Its message is for anyone: be grateful for all the things good and bad that occurred to you, because they brought you to this lovely intersection of fate. Every moment is a miracle.

The second prayer, recited every night over the candles, rhymes with this third. We say bazman hazeh – “in this time” – implying ‘this season on the calendar when we remember what God did for us on Chanukah 22 centuries ago’: letting one night’s worth of oil keep the lamps lit for eight nights after the Maccabees regained the Temple from the Greeks.

There’s a profound lesson in the prepositions, from bazman – in this season repeated every year – to lazman, to this very moment – this particular personal intersection of fate. We’re being told this isn’t just a nice commemoration of history. It’s still happening. We still are in history, or history is brought to our doorstep, at this very moment. That’s why we’re supposed to display the menorah, even putting it out in front of our homes for everyone to see.

Continue reading “Perpetual Chanukah: A Sermon in the Preposition” →