Irrationality of Judaism

[botach <botach...>]

Enclosed please find the latest installment of our weekly essays., by Rabbi
shmuel Boteach

If you do not wish to receive the essays, please reply by mail.

We would appreciate any commetns

The Oxford University L'Chaim Society

Good Shabbos

When One Has An Impossible, Irrational Spouse!

        In this week's Parshios we read of G-d's commandment to
the Jewish people to build a Tabernacle, the forerunner
of the Temple in Jerusalem, which would be used to
sacrifice offerings and incense to the A-mighty on a
daily basis. Throughout the ages the sacrificial
service in the Temple has generated a sense of
consternation and anxiety among many who feel that it at
best resembles ancient pagan practices, and at worst is
anarchistic and offensive. Let's be honest, how many of
us long and pine for the rededication of the Temple, in the
Messianic era, so that the sacrificial service can be
restored and resumed?   Something like the sacrificial
service is not part of the  panoply of ideas to which we are
accustomed. Secondly, it seems to contradict the logic
of belief. For anyone groomed in the belief that Judaism
is about doing kind deeds and being good, slaughtering
animals to one's G-d seems inappropriate. It seems that
human beings living in the post-Romantic world
naturally presume that ethereal subjects like faith are
superior to grossly mundane and physical items like
animal offerings.       But the reality of religion is such
that one must accept that just as there are beautiful
items advocated, such as charity and visiting the sick,
so too there are G-dly elements which completely
transcend human understanding, and are a part of a
transcendent divine Will. An observance of both types of
precepts serves as the pretext for a meaningful
relationship with our Creator.  Take for example a
couple who marry. She says she loves flowers and asks him,
if he plans to buy her anything, to please put flowers at
the top of his list. He replies that flowers die quickly,
"I can't understand why you're insisting on me buying
things with such a short life; they're a waste of money!".
Instead, he buys her beautiful clothing and jewellery,
but she insists that he cannot love her until he does what
she has asked. He then demands that at the very least she
explain herself, but she cannot. Where is the woman who
can truly explain why she loves flowers? Yet he insists
that he cannot appreciate or respond to her request
unless she can explain it to him.       In this scenario, the
husband is making a two-fold mistake. The first part is
only a mistake because of the specific context of him
being in a relationship. The true meaning of a
relationship is that one accepts and entertains the
wishes and the desires of the other partner. If you choose
to fulfil only those desires of your partner that make
sense to you, then your relationship is de facto merely a
relationship with yourself. There is no room for a
partner to exist as themselves in such a relationship,
since only when they comply with the wishes and
understanding of the first partner are they and their
desires taken seriously.        This could be understood in
another way: a relationship is about two people making
room in their lives for each other. In the fullest sense,
this means another person, not just a clone of yourself.
If there is nothing in your life which gives space to
another person, if you cannot generate the sensitivity
or discipline to merely execute another's most basic
needs, then for all practical purposes you are not
involved in a genuine relationship. Although you and
your wife may share the same house, and you may even have
had children together, you are still as distant as the sun
and the moon: there is no real harmony or correspondence,
even though the view we have from earth may show up
superficial similarities. If this is the case, you are
not genuinely looking for another person with whom to
share your life, but rather you are looking to duplicate
or, in mathematical terms, to square yourself. One man
and his doppelganger does not constitute a
relationship.   However, the second mistake that the
husband makes in the above example is far more
significant. When he only carries out those wishes of his
wife that make sense, or alternatively when he says that
he will do whatever she wants as long as she explains
herself, he is insisting that he be connected only to her
intellectual, rational side.  Her deeper, truer self not
only remains a mystery to him, but forever remains a
domain with which he refuses association. He connects
himself with the part of her which he understands and
appreciates, but rashly neglects the part which is a far
more holistic statement of the whole person that his wife
really is.      In other words, there is an essential
femininity in his wife which, since he is male, he will
never understand: thus it will always remain
undisclosed to him. It is that femininity which
expresses itself in the kind of things that he cannot
appreciate; in this example, flowers. She cannot
explain those desires for the same reason that she cannot
truly explain what it means to be female as opposed to
male. It is a quintessential point of existence, not a
revealed or expressed mode of behaviour. Thus, there is
nothing she can possibly do that can convey to her husband
her intrinsic desire. He is not her, therefore there is a
part of her that he will never understand. It completely
transcends logic, but this does not invalidate its
importance.     When the husband insists on an
explanation, or insists that he will only purchase those
things for her which even he can appreciate, he renders it
impossible to be truly married to the woman in his wife. He
may be married to the part of her which is the same in all
humans, her capacity for emotion and intellect, but the
part of her which should most attract and stimulate him,
her femininity and womanhood, is something which he has
dismissed completely.   From all this, it is clear that
their relationship is at best superficial, at worst
merely comparable to any relationship he has with his
other friends, barring the sexual element. Although his
wife is a woman and an individual, he consciously excises
this element in her from his relations with her. His
demand that his wife be intelligible to him attempts to
create her in his own image, and dismisses her intrinsic
identity as a separate person.  On the other hand, when he
actually executes her every desire, whether or not he
understands it, he ensures that he is connected with her
inner-most self. Only now is he married to his wife, to the
whole of his wife.      Of course, the above is just an example
from many that we can draw upon and  men can be just as
irrational, some would argue even more so, than women.
The point is that in each relationship there will always
be a characteristic of one's partner which will forever
remain an enigma.               In the same manner, there are people
today who insist on understanding G-d. They want to
humanise Him to the extent that He becomes intelligible,
instead of accepting that the most basic definition of a
G-d is a being that is unlike anything human,
transcending all comprehension and apprehension. By
refusing to embrace any element of divine Will which
cannot be grasped by human logic, they insist  that their
G-d must make sense, otherwise they will ignore Him.
        Thus, a predominant modern-day Jewish attitude is that
Judaism is nothing more than religious humanism. Jewish
people the world over take pride in revealing to the world
the beautiful ethics and morals of Judaism; how Judaism
cares for the down-trodden, the hungry, the widows, the
orphans- all those less fortunate than us. It is true that
one of the beauties of Judaism is its extensive human
dimension. However, pretending that this is the sum
total of Jewish belief is a self-imposed fallacy, a
fallacy conjured up by those who want Judaism to best
reflect whatever impresses the world most at any given
time.   The essential essence of Judaism is, and shall
always remain, hidden: the reason for this is that G-d is
not human. Insisting that we want to understand Him in the
same way we understand humans divorces us from any real
connection we could ever have with something that is
truly divine.   Secondly, the point should be raised as to
why we feel that it is in our interest to apprehend the
divinity. Why do we feel such a profound sense of unease
when confronted with the mysteries of Creation? Have we
indeed lost all sensitivity to the need for awe and
wonder? In secular terms, why should a husband dismiss
his wife's femininity?  When a human being fulfils the
Will of His Creator he is directly connected to the
Creator's intrinsic Will and essence. He draws life from
the source of all life, he draws strength from the
fountain of strength, and he is uplifted to lofty and
infinite heights. For this reason, when a human being
makes use of a physical article, such as leather, in
fulfilment of the mitzva of tefillin, the physical
article retains that holiness and is transformed into a
holy, ineffable object. The reason being that it served
as the point of contact between man and G-d. It was touched
by the divine.  In our lives, we must be as the leather
article: not merely fulfilling, but transformed by,
subsisting and thriving on the commandments of our
Creator. There can be no greater method of celebrating
our ability to be connected to the Master of the Universe
than by executing his Intrinsic Will. There can be no
better means of entering into a meaningful relationship
with our source and Creator than by attaching ourselves,
not just to G-dly consciousness, but to G-dly essence.