In the timeless time of eternity, does God have a pre-history? What was God "before" (so to speak) God became GOD? Was there some terrible mistake involving culpability? If so, how did this God of pre-history handle His mistake? Availing himself of certain currents found in Scripture and in classical Rabbinic sources, the author makes the case that God is a being with moral fault. The author argues that how God handled His mistake was the process which allowed God to become the celebrated: THE GREAT THE MIGHTY THE TERRIBLE GOD who remains steadfast to his covenant and loving bond. [Nehemiah 9:32] And it all started with Noah: But Noah found grace/favor in the eyes of Hashem. [Genesis 6:8]
So. Think about this. Once this foreigner is brought into the House of Israel ((albeit a foreigner who emerged from the House of Israel)) and then comes to rule it, the House of Israel itself ended up becoming, in fact, a collective apostate alienated from its burning living center. In the following I acknowledge the paradox involved in what I am saying given what is said in the Gemaric commentaries about "Akher." But again, think it through. What would it mean to be an apostate from an institution which itself has apostatized? In this sense Elisha ben Abbuyah becomes the model for a grand teshuvah whose contours, as we shall see, are radically paradoxical: RETURN! O BACKSLIDING CHILDREN Today -- to pick up one of those figures used in Hagigah's attempt to give cautious approval of such rehabilitation for Elisha ben Abbuyah -- Judaism is a shell whose kernel has virtually disappeared. If nothing changes nothing changes. Judaism will implode in upon itself and disappear. If you are able to see the mortal danger into which Judaism has strayed you will be able to garner the imagination to read -- as though for the very first time -- the forthcoming thrice-articulated verse-and-commentary. It was first stated by Hashem to Akher. It was then twice repeated by Akher to Meir. You need to turn the telescope around to understand its true import. Think again of the logic entailed by the apostate who apostatizes from an apostatizing Institution. Just how long will it take for you to get it? Till it's too late? RETURN! O BACKSLIDING CHILDREN! [whispering for proper effect]: except for Akher It is not "Akher" who needs to return.
Not unlike Rimbaud's "batteau ivre," Judaism drifts further and further away from its life-force and source without which Judaism cannot long endure. This book is a challenge to the true "talmudim" within Jewish Orthodoxy to boldly reclaim for Judaism and reinscribe into Jewish study and practice that which was suppressed at the very dawn of Rabbinic Judaism. Only by so doing can Judaism be nourished once more by its life-force and source. Further, only Jewish Orthodoxy is equipped for this life-saving task. If it doesn't get accomplished by Orthodoxy it will not get accomplished at all.
Is there an idiosyncratically Jewish hermeneutic? Did such ever obtain in Jewish history? Is there an idiosyncratically Jewish theology? Did such ever obtain in Jewish history? Did the two ever obtain at once and together in Jewish history? The answer to all of these questions is: Yes. Come and explore -- with an idiosyncratically odd interpreter of things Jewish -- a special brief moment in the history of Jewish letters. One is speaking of roughly 75 CE to roughly 95 CE. Come and explore what was birthed in that time period. Come and explore how what was birthed in that time period came to be rejected and suppressed on the day of the coiled snake. Come and explore how, miraculously, what was rejected and suppressed ended up being re-inscribed in the final redaction of the Bavli, rendering that written production as the quintessential expression of what is idiosyncratically Jewish.
Yes, thats right. The writings of Plato do NOT all fit together in harmony, irrespective of the question of chronological development. To be sure, one is just ice skating over the surface of Platonic writings if one does not have a nuanced understanding of the various periods of Platos intellectual development over time. The incongruity in his writings which is a function of this multi-faceted intellectual development over time can, however, be sufficiently delineated. But there is another kind of incongruity which, especially in Platos case, could never be and in fact never was explainable through a nuanced accounting of Platos long and ever-revising intellectual development. The writings of Plato could never have been anything other than incongruous in this more fundamental sense, Plato being Plato. For Plato being Plato, early and or middle and or later, IS precisely this: Plato contra Plato. But more than that, the good itself [[i.e., Platos eventual teaching on the good and also, in fact, the good itself obtaining in and as that wellspring of greatness characteristic of reality itself]] is precisely the-good contra the-good. The good always and inevitably, and of its own nature, obtains only incompletely. Even as it presents itself, it withdraws. For the goods very manner of being-at-all is, precisely, this ever-to-be- withdrawing as its way of obtaining at all.
I am projecting to my hoped audience of Jews ---and Orthodox Jews in particular--- a very different accounting of Judaism in general; an accounting with emphasis on Scripture, first and foremost. And then there are the more nuanced offerings of portions of our Talmud Bavli produced by those subtle final anonymous editors of our Bavli from roughly 575 to roughly 610ce. Subtlety was the only coinage in this orchestration by the final anonymous editors. The over-arching power of Rabbinic Officialdom could be checked only by subtle and indirect insertions into The Record by our glorious final editors of the Talmud Bavli. God bless them. Take heed: I am quite consciously attempting to strip you of multiple presuppositions which -- if those presuppositions permeate your reading of this production -- would give you a false understanding of what I am putting forth. I fully realize that my presentation of these things is not the received presentation of these things. So when you first read it you are likely to presume that I am akin to, say, a bar Hei Hei thereby giving one a good conscience to quickly dismiss my accounting of things Jewish. It is absolutely amazing how people entrenched in a received tradition do not really HEAR what is being offered to them when it comes from a perspective to which they are not habituated. There is only one way to break that ugly danger: repetitio mater studiorum resiliationin the father of truth Take it or leave it. The burden is now on you.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.