My Master's Dissertation

Ivrit’s Place in the Dual Curriculum Model of Orthodox Jewish High Schools in North America by Reuven Chaim Klein on Scribd

Back in print — Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein holding up a copy of his book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press). Image credit: Public domain.

Back in 2014, I published my first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press), which goes through the history of Hebrew Language and other Jewish Languages. Since then, the book has been reprinted multiple times and keeps selling out. But now, I'm proud to announce that we've just released the third edition of my book and it is once again back in stock.

Over the years, various journalists and bloggers have read my book and published their reviews. For example, Rabbi Gil Student at the Jewish Action writes:

In an exhilarating journey through history, Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein describes the progression from Adam (the first Hebrew speaker) to the Chazon Ish (who offered legitimacy to yeshivot that teach in Modern Hebrew), from the Tower of Babel’s linguistic destruction to Eliezer Ben-Yehudah’s linguistic victory. This masterful work weaves together midrash, Medieval philosophy, modern rabbinic commentary and a light touch of academia to create a traditionalist history of Hebrew.

With his feet firmly planted in rabbinic thought, Rabbi Klein fleshes out a theory of a holy language, corrupted at times by outside influence, replaced at times by other languages like Aramaic and Greek, and finally transformed into Modern Hebrew that has only been reluctantly adopted by religious Jews.Rabbi Klein sees history through a rabbinic lens but does not resort to harmonizing different views in order to present a single approach. What language did Adam speak? Rabbi Klein places six different opinions before the reader, covering a remarkably broad base of rabbinic texts. This book is a readable encyclopedia of rabbinic views on the Hebrew language and much more!

Ben Rothke, over at the Times of Israel wrote:

In Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew (Mosaica Press ISBN-10: 1937887367545), author Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein takes a historical and linguistic look at Lashon Hakodesh and its derived languages. The title conveys the message that Lashon Hakodesh and Hebrew are two different languages. In fact, the author dedicates a chapter showing that Modern Hebrew, while connected to Lashon Hakodesh, is clearly not identical to the elemental Lashon Hakodesh language.

The book is a fascinating and engaging reference to the topic. For the traditional reader who wants to know the origins of the Divine language they are using for sacred purposes, the book will likely answer most of their questions. For the reader who simply wants to know the history and development of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, the book will also be extremely rewarding.

Chaviva Gordon-Bennett, also known as the Kvetching Editor, writes:

I can't wait to explore this more. I have to hand it to Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein for the intense and through footnotes and diversity of sources he has to offer on this topic (and others throughout the book, of course). My brain sparks are flying off in dozens of directions with every page turn.

 

Rabbi Doniel Baron (from Aish.com) offers a favorable review of my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew in his essay entitled "Biblical Hebrew: A Story of Survival":

…In his recent book “ Lashon Hakodesh : History, Holiness and Hebrew” (Mosaica Press 2014) Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein affords Lashon Hakodesh the attention it deserves. Of particular importance is Rabbi Klein’s use of the academic method to provide an impressive survey of rabbinical commentary throughout the ages. The book addresses some basic and important questions concerning the language. Did Adam speak Lashon Hakodesh? What about our forefather Abraham? Did the letters of Lashon Hakodesh appear the same way throughout the centuries? How did the rabbis resolve Talmudic sources referring to the Ashuri script (which we use today) as the original with sources which indicate that the Ivri script (found in many archaeology sites and depicted on the State of Israel’s one shekel coin) came first?

The book also addresses the question of what distinguishes Lashon Hakodesh from other languages. Rabbi Klein cites prominent sources concerning the essential rather than arbitrary nature of the language as discussed above. He similarly provides a synopsis of the main interpretations as to why the language is called “holy”…

Rabbi Baron adds many more interesting and fun facts about Lashon HaKodesh and language in general.

The greatly esteemed Rabbi Ari Enkin, veteran blogger and book reviewer, writes in his blog Torah Book Reviews:

Rabbi Reuven Klein’s Lashon Hakodesh is an outstanding work that traces the history of the Hebrew language, and by extension, the many languages that Jews have used over the centuries. In addition to Hebrew, much attention is given to Aramaic, including discussions on the many prayers that are recited in Aramaic. The book is replete with reference to the entire body of Torah literature, such as Tanach, Talmud, rishonim, achronim, midrashim, along with halachic material where relevant. History, archaeology, and other sciences also make an appearance where relevant.

And, of course, we hear from the expert in Hebrew himself, David Curwin, the Balashon, who writes:

A book of this nature, in English, is long overdue for the traditional Orthodox reader. I hope it inspires more interest in the history of the Hebrew language.

Alan Gerber, known as the Kosher Bookworm, writes about my book in the Jewish Star:

The author of “Lashon Hakodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew” (Mosaica Press, 2015), is Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, a native of Valley Village, California... In this work dealing with the origins and theological base of the Hebrew language, we learn many little known aspects of a language that has served as the base of our religious faith and a source of linguistic traditions going back to the very beginning of human history....

Rabbi Yair Hoffman at Yeshiva World News writes about the book:

There is an author out there whose combined erudition in Torah research as well as secular research is quite formidable. This is readily apparent in the revised edition of Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness and Hebrew... The book is true to our Mesorah, yet it finds a way to include the archaeological evidence behind various theories too. - I have no doubt that anyone who reads this remarkable work will be be thoroughly taken with it. This author looks forward to further works by Rabbi Klein.

Mr. Garnel Ironheart writes:

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, in his new book on the development of the Hebrew language, finds himself having to maintain a delicate balance.  The purpose of the book is to take a serious look at the origins, development and current state of Hebrew as well as its influence on other languages through the ages.  The balance comes between presenting the opinion of Torah sources on the subject and those of academics... Overall I recommend this as a good read and one that will deepen the reader's appreciation of what Lashon Hakodesh truly is."

You can purchase your copy of Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew from your local Jewish bookstore, from Feldheim.com, from Amazon.com, or directly from me.

Sefer HaYashar on the Pharaoh of the Exodus

I received the following email from Matthew Alan Atwood:

Hello friend. I'm here to humbly correct you on your article about "Adikam" being the Pharoah of the Exodus. He was not, not according to the book of Jasher. Please allow me to respectfully present my arguement.
The book of Jasher tells us that Adekam became Pharoah when he turned 20 years old, after his father Pharoah Melol died. Jasher tells us that the same year Adikam because Pharoah, Moses was released from his 10 year prison term in Midian. Were told Moses was put in prison when he was 66 years old, the year the people of Cush expelled him as their ruler. So Moses was released from Midean prison at the age of 76. Therefore Adikam became Pharoah when Moses was 76 years old, the first year moses was released from prison. Jasher tells us that Moses did not return to Egypt until he was 80 years old. Jasher also says that Adikan only reigned shortly for 4 years. That means when Moses returned to Egypt, Adakam was either gone as Pharoah or was about to be gone. Jasher chapter 80:1 tells us that after Moses returned to Egypt, that Pharoah rejected the israelites permission to leave. So Jasher 80:1 tells us Moses did not ask Pharoah permission to leave again for 2 years. This would have been 2 years AFTER Jasher tells us Adikam reigned as Pharoah for 4 years. This would have been the 6th year of Adikams reign, but we know he only served 4 years.
We also know that the book of Jasher says that Adikam started his 4 year reign in the 206th year of Israel entering Egypt. God said they would be in Egypt for 215 years, a total of 430 since the day God gave Abraham the promise. So if Adikam started his reign in year 206, and it only lasted 4 years, then he could NOT have been the Pharoah when the Exodus took place.
Adikam was actually King Tutankhamun. Tut was appointed at age 10, so was Adikam. They have perfect parallels throughout Jasher and Egyptian history.
Please notice that from the time Moses returns to Egypt, with Aaron, Adikam is NEVER mentioned again throughout the rest of Jasher, because he died.
Even the Israelites are quoted when speaking about Adekam, and they said "he will die soon and his son will lesson our work". King Tut was a very sick person, who died or possibly malaria at a very young age. The Israelites knew Adakam (king tut) was dying, even though he was barely 20 years old according to Jasher). They were already waiting for the next Pharoah to come. Remember, Adikam only reigned till the 210th year of Israel being in egypt, which means the next pharoah needs to reign for 4 years until the exodus takes place in the beginning of the 215th year, the 1st month of that year.
Guess what? Egyptian history says the next Pharoah after Tut, was Pharoah "Ay", who they say ruled only 4 years! And then his body was never found, and never barried in its tomb in egypt. Also, pharoah Ay was so despised in egyptian history, he was completely expunged from memory. Probably because he led all of Egypt into slaughter because he refuse the one true God YHWY of the Hebrews.

In response to his inquiry, I wrote back the following:

Thanks for your comments on my article about Pharaoh. I read through what you wrote and I was almost convinced that I made a mistake, but then I realized that it is really you who made a mistake:
The mistake in your calculation is that for some reason you assume that the Exodus happened in the 215th year from when the Jews came to Egypt. Because of this, you needed to add another king after Adikam to get to the 215th year. But Jewish Tradition maintains that the Exodus happened in the year 210 since the Jews came to Egypt and the Book of Jasher explicitly says this as well. Accordingly, we don't need another king between Adikam and the Exodus because the Exodus happened in precisely the same year as Adikam's reign came to an end.
The only source I am aware of that says that the Jews lived in Egypt for 215 years in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer ch. 48, but that source was starting the count five years earlier from the birth of Ephraim and Menashe (listen to my lecture about that here), such that if you count from when Jacob and his family to Egypt it still comes out to 210 years.
I hope to hear back from you soon. Thanks again for writing to me, I always appreciate it when people comment on things I've written...

Mr. Atwood then responded by writing:

Jasher says Moses was 76 years old when he was released from Midian prison. It says on this same year Adikam was 20 years old AND in his 1st year of reign as Pharoah.

My Hebrew Torah tells us that Moses was 80 years old when God commanded him to return to Egypt. That means this would have been at the end of Adikams 4 year reign. Jasher literally says that Adikam ONLY reigned for 4 years and that his reign started in the 206th year since the Israelites entered egypt. Were told in this same 206th year, Moses turned 76 years old and was released from midian prison (book of jasher).

206th year = Adikams 1st yr, Moses is 76
207th year = Adikams 2nd yr, Moses is 77
208th year = Adikams 3rd yr, Moses is 78
209th year = Adikams LAST YEAR AS PHAROAH, his 4th year of rule, and Moses just turns 79 years old. Moses doesnt return to Egypt until he is 80 years old.

So Adikam ISNT the Egyptian Pharoah in the 210th year, the start of the Exodus, when Moses turns 8 po years old and returns to Egypt.
Furthermore, Jasher tells us that after Moses and Aaron initially speak to Pharoah, after Moses turns 80 years old and returns to Egypt, that Aaron's staff swallows up the other staffs, Pharoah tells them to return the next day for his response. When they return, Pharoah says he will not let the people go.
Notice what happens next. Jasher tells us that Moses then leaves to dwell with his people and doesnt return for TWO YEARS!

It is 100% impossible for Adikam to still be Pharoah after this 2 years is up. Adikam reigned only 4 years NOT 6.

There are clues in Jasher that would have led you to understand Adikam was no longer Pharoah, had you read carefully and tested everything.

Jasher 80:57 "and Moses said to PHARAOH, behold though tho art thy mothers FIRST BORN, yet fear not, for thou wilt not die, for the Lord has commanded that thou shalt live, in order to show the his great might and strong stretched out arm".

Moses tells the Pharaoh that even though he is the FIRST BORN, he was spared from the plague of death that kills the FIRST BORN".

Was Adikam the FIRST BORN? Let's see.. .

Jasher 76:50-1 "And the king (Melol in Jasher, Ahkenaten in Egyptology) had three sons and two daughters which Aparanith the queen his wife borne to him. And these were their names, THE FIRST BORN OTHRI, the SECOND BORN Adikam, and the third born Morion".

Moses clearly says this new Pharoah, the Pharoah of the Exodus was the FIRST BORN. And God says he spacificly kept the FIRST BORN Pharoah alive. Adikam was not the first born male, Othri was.

So not only did the plagues START 6 years after Moses leaves prison, which is TWO YEARS AFTER Adikam leaves office as Pharoah, but the Pharoah of the Exodus according to Jasher MUST BE THE FIRST BORN, something you cannot argue against.

Let's look at some more facts that you overlook.

Milol, Adikams dad, were told reign 94 years long.

Jasher 63:9 "Melol (Akhenaten) was 20 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned ninety-four years". Ok, so when did his reign start? Look 5 verses earlier in the chapter.

Jasher 63:4 "And it came to pass in those days, in the HUNDRED AND SECOND YEAR of Israel's going down to Egypt, that Pharoah king of Egypt died (Magron/Amenhotep lll), and Melol his son reigned in his stead".

Let's do some math. If Melol became Pharoah in the 102nd year of Israel entering Egypt, and he reigned for 94 years, that means he stopped being Pharoah in year 196 of the Israelites being in Egypt. This is EXACTLY what Jasher says. And you say you believe Jasher. So once again, it shows that you are not reading carefully.

Were told that Adikam was named king at only 10 years old, which according to the math, was exactly in the 196th year, when Melol died. But Jasher 77:1-2 says that Adikam did not reign over Egypt until he was 20 years old, in the 206th year of Israel entering Egypt.

This tells us that we do not know who reigned over egypt from 196-206. It also tells us that Adikams reign of 4 years was from the 206th, 207th, 208th and 209th year the children of Israel entered egypt. Notice that 4 year span DOES NOT cover the 210th year.

The Exodus started in the 210th year, when Moses returned to Egypt, but the plagues did not start that year according to Jasher. According to Jasher, after Moses and Aaron return, and speak with Phatoah, their people are NOT realised from bondage. So what happens in the next verse? Moses says him and Aaron go and dwell with the Israelites for TWO YEARS!
So we can conclude that Moses returned in the 210th year, sparking the start of the Exodus process, but that the Exodus plagues and release from bondage would not happen for another 2 years.

See, this is what happens when you insist on going by your "traditions". Your own books prove your traditions to be wrong. Jews are constantly at odds with their own scripture, even honoring their false oral traditions over those of the written word of Torah.

I wrote back in response the following:

I'm actually fairly open to your ideas, I'm just testing their feasibility to see if they hold up. There's no need to attack me or my epistemological assumptions. That being said, I'm trying clarify some points. You very well might be correct that Adikam was no longer the king by the time of the Exodus according to Sefer HaYashar's internal chronology (although it would be a bit funny that that work wouldn't give us the name of the Pharaon who succeeded Adikam like it carefully gave us the names of other Pharaohs).
I CC'ed some people who might know more about this than I do so that maybe they can chime in and enhance the discussion and we can come out with a clearer conclusion:

You identified Adikam as Tutankhamun and his father Melol as Tut's father Ahkenaten (the famous "monotheistic" Pharoah), and his father or predecessor as Magron/Amenhotep lll. Is there any way of explaining how/why Sefer HaYashar has a different names for those kings and different reign lengths?
In this book, Alexander Hool notes that if you go down the list of kings, the only Pharaoh who was said to have ruled for 94 years (who could match up with Sefer HaYashar's Melol) is Pepi II. Pepi II's successor Neferkare the Younger reigned for exactly 1 year which (if Pepi = Melol) would be the end of the Exodus. Calculating backwards from that, Hool figures that Pharaoh Djedkare was the Pharaoh in the time of Joseph and that his very name resembles the name Dyen found in Zacuto's Sefer HaYuchasin.
Seder Olam writes that the death of the Pharaoh that happened right before the burning bush happened one year before the Exodus. This would imply that the Pharaoh who ruled Egypt at the time of the Exodus was king for only 1 year. Looking more closely at Sefer HaYashar, it says that they made Adikam king three years before Melol died, such that it seems that really Adikam was only king for one year on his own, not 4. (Although in the version of Sefer HaYashar found on Sefaria, it says 3 days not 3 years, this seems to be a typo). I'm not sure what to do with this point.
I realize the difficulty that you raised from the fact that Sefer HaYashar said that Moses waited 2 years from first approaching the Pharaoh until the Ten Plagues. There are similar traditions in Midrashim of him hiding for 3 months, 6 months, and even 1 year. The problem with Sefer HaYashar on this is that if you make a backwards calculation from Moses' death, it doesn't work out. If Moses was 80 when he first spoke to Pharaoh, then waited 2 years for the Exodus, then he would be 82 at the time of the Exodus. Now the Bible says the Jews were in the wilderness for 40 years, which should mean that when Moses died he was 122, but the Bible clearly says that he was 120 years old. So there is no room for an extra two years. This is a well-known question and there have been lots of answers proferred. The problem is most acute with Sefer HaYashar's approach. How would you answer this?
You raised another good question about Sefer HaYashar telling the Pharaoh that he is a firstborn which means he cannot be Adikam who was the 2nd born. I don't have a good answer to this, but I will point out that Moses also told Bithiah that she will be saved even though she is a firstborn. This is problematic because, as you mentioned, Othri was Melol's firstborn, not Adikam nor Bithiah. If you look closely, you will see that Moses said to the Pharaoh and to Bithiah that they are the firstborns to their mother. That's how all three (Othri, Adikam, and Bithiah) can be firstborns of Melol: they each had a different mother. I'm not convinced of this answer because when it was detailing the birth order of Melol's children, Sefer HaYashar clearly implies that they are all children of Alpharenas, the Pharaoh's wife.
Alexander Hool also tries to show how chronologically-speaking, the Exodus happened in the time of Pharaoh Thutmose II whom he argues ruled Middle Egypt (i.e. Memphis) at the same time that Neferkare the Younger ruled Northern Egypt and the 13th dynasty ruled southern Egypt. Greek-Egyptian historian Manetho mentions that God smote the Egyptians during the reign of Tutimaos, which sounds like an allusion to the Exodus story and Hool takes that to refer to Thutmose.
According to Hool, Ramses II who many believe was the Pharaoh at the Exodus lived in the time of the Judges and may have been named after the city which the Jews were enslaved to build (as opposed to vice versa that the city was named after the ruler).
You wrote that I said that I "believe Jasher." Let me clarify that I never said such a thing. In fact, while Sefer HaYashar may be a fun and interesting book to learn, it is not necessarily considered "canonical" with traditional Jewish literature. We don't know exactly when Sefer HaYashar was written, but many hold that Sefer ha-Yashar was written in the 1500's when it was first published. The earliest view that I found was that it was written slightly earlier than that in the Geonic period (except for one ridiculous source who says that maybe it was written by Moses, with apologies to the Vilna Gaon's son Rabbi Avraham), probably around the 900-1000's in Italy. This seems to be the scholarly consensus. My personal theory is that Sefer HaYashar is a literary work that partially draws on and embellishes an earlier (no-longer-extant) Midrash known as Midrash Abkir. Obviously, there is no reason to take the book's introduction that claims it was discovered by a Roman soldier at the time of the Temple's destruction too seriously.
Yes, I know that Josh. 10:13 and II Sam. 1:18 refer to something called Sefer HaYashar, but there is no reason to think that this is the book called Sefer HaYashar that we are discussing any more than there is reason to think it refers to any book called Sefer HaYashar that we have nowadays. Nachmanides mentions something called the "Midrash of the Wars of the Sons of the Jacob" which some identify as Sefer ha-Yashar, and about which Nachmanides writes that he is unsure whether it is genuine work (an uncertainty echoed by the contemporary leader Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky in the introduction to his recent edition of this work), leaving open the possibility that this work is part of rabbinic tradition.
You should know that I have spent many years studying Sefer HaYashar and different aspects related to it, yet I do not accept everything it says conclusively. It is certainly not a traditional work, even if it is fun and enjoyable to study and even though there were some rabbis who took it seriously (like Seder HaDoros). When Sefer HaYashar contradicts our more accepted literature like the Bible itself and like the Midrashim (especially Seder Olam and the Talmud), then we generally disregard what Sefer HaYashar says. I really think that we might be relying too much on Sefer HaYashar to make absolute claims.

Matt Atwood then replied to my email with the following:

Regarding Bithia, Jasher says that she was the first born of the females born to Pharoah Melol (maybe Akhenaten). I believe the canon says the first born males died, bit Jasher says the first born of both the males and females died. I agree with you that although Jasher is fun to read, I've found questions with it. I trust the book of Jubilees far more than I trust Jasher.
Jubilees says that a Canannite king defeated an Egyptian Pharoah in battle the same year Joseph died, and took over all of Egypt.
I always try to force this Cannanite king to be "Akhenaten" in my mind, because Akhenaten was the most hated king in Egyptian history and is said to have changed almost every single egyptian tradition against the peoples will, which is what a cannanite king would have done, having no ties to their gods. Himoheb is famous for completely eliminating Akhenaten, Tut and Ay from Egyptian history. It wasnt until recently that archeologist were able to find new discoveries proving that these pharoahs even exsisted because so much of their exsistance had been covered up by Pharoah Himoheb. Himoheb even had written on a tablet that Akhenaten was "the enemy" and called him "that criminal". If my speculation is true, and Akhenaten was a foreign king who invaded Egypt and took over, it makes since why Akhenaten was called "the enemy", and explains why he even relocated egypts capital city and temples to his own brand new city, unheard of in prior egyptian rule. Akhenaten is the first king to make a monotheistic god as opposed to polytheistic "gods". Monotheistic was a tradition of Canaan at that time. If I am right that Tut (Adikam) and Ay (Othri) were Akhenatens sons and ruled after him, it makes perfect sence why Horemheb chose to completely eliminate all 3 of them from the egyptian record. Horemheb then says that he took over as Pharoah directly after Amenhotep 3 as if Akenhaten, Tut and Ay never exsisted.

Also interesting is that to this day they do not believe that they have recovered Akhenaten or Ays bodies. They tried to claim they found Akhenatens, but in reality they admit that all they know if that the DNA testing shows that whoever they found was related to Tut somehow. The tombs made for Akhenaten and Ay were both found to be empty of bodies. Interesting because Jasher says Akhenatens body was so rotting that Egypt couldnt properly embalm his body and they rushed his funeral. And if Pharoah Ay (Othri) was the Pharoah of the Exodus and ended up ruler of Ninevah (a part hittite country at the time) it explains 2 things. #1 why his body was never barried in the egyptian tomb prepared for his death, and why his wife Mut wrote letters to a hittite king asking for him to send a son for her to marry because she had noone to mary in her country. If all the of age males died in the Red sea like the bible says, and if her husband Ay permenantly goes to rule Ninevah like Jasher claims, then she would have been left in Egypt with no males of age to marry. And explains why she would contact the country her old husband now rules, to request a new husband. Remember, prior to the Exodus the hittites are the sworn #1 enemy of Egypt. So how all the sudden a year or so later is an egyptian queen requesting a hittite king send her one of his sons for marriage?

I've found that certain number in Jasher compared to the book of Jubilees do not at first glance appear to coincide with my theories.

The book of Jubilees says the cannanite king who took over egypt the year Joesph died was the Pharoah who put the israelites into bondage and slave labor. We know Jasher says the Pharoah who did this was Pharoah Melol (Akhenaten). So Its easy to see why they could be the same Pharoah.

Jubilees says this canannite Pharoah takes over in 2263 AM (after man, Adam).

It says Moses is born in 2330.

It says Moses is 21 years old when he kills the egyptian amd flees egypt (Jasher uses the age of 18). Jubilees says Moses flees Egypt in the year 2351 (which would be 88 years into this cannanite pharoahs rule). Although Jubilees never mentions another pharoahs name after the cananite king takes over, so I have no way of knowing who Jubilees claims is the current pharoah.

And then Jubilees says Moses returns to Egypt in the year 2410 (if we subtract 2410 from the year Jubilees says Moses was born, then Moses would indeed be 80 when he returned to Egypt).

So at least that part adds up. BUT, from the year the cannanite king took over in 2263, to the year Moses returns, means that the cannanite king would now be 147 years into his reign, which we know isnt even an option. And that's where I get completely thrown off track and tend to quit believing Jasher.

Anyways, I thought it was an excellent point that you brought up about Adikams "4 year reign". It does seen to claim in Jasher that Akhenaten continued living for 3 of the 4 years Adikam ruled. Which could definatly explain a technical "1 year reign" of Adikam.

My last interesting funfact that I discovered is that Pharoah Ay named his 1st born son, Nakhtmin as his successor to the crown according to Ays unused tomb wall stellas. But we know Nakhtmin NEVER ruled Egypt after Pharoah Ay. But that Horemheb because ruler and destroyed all of Ays history that Horemheb could find. One possible explanation as to why Nakhtmin never took over as Pharoah would be that he died on the passover during the Exodus. The book of Exodus tells us Pharoahs first born son died. If Ay (Othri) was the Pharoah of the Exodus (much speculation on my part), his son would have died at the Red Sea. Meaning he had no other sons to take over the throne if he died. In Egyptian culture, then next in line to the throne is the general of the army or the high priest, assuming the Pharoah has no sons or daughters, and his wife doesnt take over. Horemheb was the captain of his military. Horemheb was also supposed to be the successor to Tut, but it appears Ay out started him to the crown somehow.

I forget where I read it, but somewhere it stated that Tut sent Horemhep out on a military campaign to another country. While Horemheb was gone, Tut died shortly after unexpectedly, and Ay named himself Pharoah and quickly married Tuts wife, sealing him as next Pharoah. Horemheb was apparently furious and by the time he returned, Ay took all of egypts men and got them killed in the Red Sea, then left for Ninevah. Horemheb would have been named Pharoah, and it now makes sence why he would be so furious that he would wipe out all of Ays history as Pharoah. And since Ay was Tuts brother (my speculation) and Alhenatens son (again my speculation) it makes sence why Horemheb deletes all 3 of these Pharoahs from egyptian history.

Anyways, thanks for listening. It seems even my theories cannot perfectly align to all the sources we are attempting to use. You are very knowledgable on this subject, your email was very fun to read and contemplate. Best regards. And sorry for all the typos, I just woke up and wrote this on my small phone and did not proof read or spell check anything.

Reviews around the Web of God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry

In this post, I hope to cull from all over the internet various book reviews of my latest hit God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). You can click the links provided to see the full reviews, I'll just pull out some interesting points from each of them. You can also check out the book's Amazon page for more book reviews.

The esteemed Rabbi Israel Drazin wrote about my book on his blog (and in his Times of Israel blog) that my book is "filled with information on every page about Jewish history, ideology, God, idols, superstition, and mistakes made by the ancients.... even readers who dislike his approach will benefit by learning about the problems created when we try to understand biblical narratives, Jewish history, and why the ancients worshipped idols, and they will be prompted to think of their own solution to the problems that are raised." Kudos to him for taking the time to write about my work!

Aaron Rubin over at Mystical Paths writes quite enthusiastically about this book:

For several months now I have been reading the essays of Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein... His most recent work, 'G-d versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry', follows suit, resulting in a composition that is nothing short of groundbreaking. His analysis and compilation of sources is more than illuminating; it is inspiring, presenting a wealth of sources, both from the traditional, Jewish sources - from the Talmud to the Zohar to more recent commentaries - and from the secular, academic world.

If you are interested in biblical history, in the etymology of the various idols and pagan deities mentioned in the Torah, what they mean and how they impact the narrative, or in how the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East impacted on the lives of the Jewish people, from their genesis until the end of Tanach and beyond[!], you must read this book.

My book was mentioned by the Jewish Press in "Titles That Caught Our Eye" and then was later treated to a full-length book review by Ben Rothke (which also appeared on his Times of Israel blog). His conclusion reads:

This is a fascinating book that clarifies some of the most challenging topics in the books of the Prophets. Klein does a thorough job of detailing what was occurring, the drive to incorporate idolatry into the services, and the power of idolatry that was able to enrapture a nation.

As Alan Jay Gerber, the Kosher Bookworm, wrote in The Jewish Star: "Rabbi Klein’s teachings are staunchly traditional, coupled with a full appreciation for modern scholarship. As in his previous works, he carefully footnotes his sources, giving the reader a chance to research everything cited in this valued work."

The inimitable Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes a glowing review of my book on the OU website. In a nutshell he says:

Idolatry and the people’s interactions with it are so integral to the Books of the Neviim that I daresay one cannot fully appreciate the narrative, nor the prophets’ continual exhortations, without at least an intellectual understanding of what it was that motivated so much of our history. This is where God versus gods comes in.

Rabbi Jeff Bienenfeld, a close disciple of the late R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, wrote over at the Jewish Link NJ:

The subtitle of Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein’s remarkable study says a great deal about the immense task Rabbi Klein assumed in researching his fascinating book, “God versus Gods.” The subtitle, “Judaism in the Age of Idolatry,” sets an enormous challenge for anyone attempting to chronicle the role idolatry played in the religious culture and history of the Jewish people from biblical times until the destruction of the First Temple. With the Churban HaBayit, our sages teach that the worship of idols as an ancient cultic practice for all intents and purposes ceased. Over this lengthy time period, from mankind’s earliest days until some three and a half millennia later, Rabbi Klein offers an exhaustive and substantive account of how the Jewish people variously succumbed to and resisted, promoted and fought to eradicate this most pernicious of transgressions. Because there are few sins whose prohibitions are as many in the Torah as idolatry, and because this sin is the central focus of the prophets’ rebuke and chastisement in Neviim, the topic deserves careful and studious attention. Rabbi Klein’s work provides just that.

The Former Chief Rabbi of Australia, Rabbi Raymond Apple, wrote a comprehensive review of my book in the Jerusalem Post and at J-Wire where, inter alia, he notes:

In this new book, Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein tells the story through the eyes of the Oral Torah sources.  His book is fascinating and is far more than it appears.  Despite its title, it does not limit itself to the nature and influence of ancient idolatry.  It looks deeply into the meaning of God in Biblical history, asks why anyone in their right mind would choose to worship idols, wondering whether ancient man could believe both in God and in idolatry, asking whether idolatry still exists, and tapping into the major problem of how we should read the Bible and what we mean by Biblical truth.

The one and only Rabbi Naftali Kassorla (Director of Kollel Toras Chaim and a Maggid Shiur at Yeshivas Tiferes Yisroel in Jerusalem) read the book and graciously offered his thoughts on Ari Enkin's blog Torah Book Reviews. Rabbi Kassorla wrote:

The Torah world can once again rejoice, as one of its rising stars, Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, the author of Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew has produced another impressive work in God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry... Rabbi Klein does an immaculate job at presenting us with the different approaches to understanding the history of how the battle between idol worship and monotheism played out. It is worthy to be added to anyone’s bookshelf. I found his book enlightening, intriguing, and entertaining, and I strongly suggest it to others as well.

Dr. Reid Friedson offers a glowing review of my book on his Medium.com page. Here's a short snippet from his comments:

God Versus Gods is poised to become a celebrated classic in Judaic scholarship. Rabbi Klein explores history, archaeology, anthropology, comparative religion, cosmology, and the natural and applied arts and sciences. I absolutely loved this scholarly yet holistic approach to the study of religious studies and am very eager to read Rabbi Klein’s forthcoming Volume II. Rabbi Klein’s extensive world class research methodologies reveal this impressive volume this product of judicious and comprehensive investigative research into traditional and contemporary resources present for both the scholar and lay person while maintaining the kind of authoritative voice found in leading multi-disciplinary pedagogical commentaries. This volume is easy to read and well-organized in detailed and well annotated scholarly formulation.

The famous Jblogger Chaviva Gordon-Bennett did a video book review which you can see right here:
Don't be put off by the book's price on Amazon, you can search around the different Seforim Stores on the web to find the cheapest price. Here are some stores that sell my book: https://www.feldheim.com/g-d-versus-gods.html https://www.breslev.co.il/store/books/basic_judaism_english/god_versus_gods.aspx?id=33275&language=english https://seforimdeals.com/store15/index.php/12/g-d-versus-gods.html https://mekorjudaica.com/g-d-versus-gods-by-rabbi-reuven-chaim-klein.html http://safrajudaica.com/store/product/39095/G-d-Versus-Gods/ http://www.braunsjudaica.com/brauns/products/Books/Judaism/62517.html https://www.judaica-world.com/index.php/g-d-versus-gods-judaism-in-the-age-of-idolatry.html https://www.greenfieldjudaica.com/item.asp?item=50316 https://www.judaicaplace.com/g-d-versus-gods/9781946351463/ https://www.eichlers.com/g-d-versus-gods-hardcover.html https://zbermanbooks.com/god-versus-gods-klein https://mysefer.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=11348&strReferer=search&PPGR=0 By the way, my book also has a Goodreads page, a Google Books page, and it appeared in the New Jewish Books blog of the Jewish Book World. It was also featured in the Books to Love blog. The Association of Jewish Libraries also featured my book in the May/June 2019 edition of their AJL Reviews. Here's  what they wrote:

reviews2019_05_06 by on Scribd

Rabbi Yaakov Zev Lev

With a heavy heart, I dedicated this week's article to the memory of my dear friend Rabbi Yaakov Zev Lev (1946-2018). He passed away this past Monday after battling cancer for several months. Rabbi Lev was originally from the USA, but came as a youngster to the Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem, where he figuratively became "part of the furniture" in the Beis Midrash. For Rabbi Lev, every day of Torah Study was as exciting as the previous. He was said to have learned with the same chavrusa for forty years! Rabbi Lev was a master Talmid Chacham and authored the work Me'at Tzari, a commentary to Targum Onkelos. I personally spoke to him from time to time (usually at his seat in the Main Beis Midrash of the Mir during lunch time) and he always had the kindest, most encouraging things to say. He will sorely be missed. 

לע"נ הרה"ג יעקב זאב ב"ר ישראל לב זצ"ל. תנצב"ה.

Pictured: Rabbi Yaakov Zev Lev reading a Kesubah, to his right stands Rabbi Binyomin Finkel of the Mir Yeshiva.

New Release - God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry

Mosaica Press together with Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein have just released a new ground-breaking work entitled God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry.

God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry seeks to understand the Bible’s accounts of polytheism, follows its history, and focuses on the struggle between Jewish Monotheism and pagan/idolatrous cults in the Biblical period. An extended section is devoted to understanding the Talmudic concept concerning the paradigm shift which emptied the world of the Evil Inclination for Avodah Zarah, and its implications from a religious perspective. 

This unique work delves into the Bible’s view of the history of idolatry, as well as the hermeneutical, philological, Kabbalistic, and Halachic approaches to this topic taken by various Rabbinic figures through the ages. The second part of this book consists of an encyclopedia that lists and elaborates upon every foreign deity mentioned in the Bible. The author also compares and contrasts traditional Jewish views to those of modern-day academia (addressing archeology and philology of the Levant), offering proofs and difficulties to both approaches.

As the old saying goes, “Two Jews, three opinions.” In almost every chapter, more than one way of looking at the matter at hand is presented. In some cases, the differing opinions can be harmonized, but ultimately many matters remain subject to dispute. Hopefully, the mere knowledge of these sources will whet the reader’s intellectual curiosity to learn more.

Written by a brilliant young scholar, God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry is ground-breaking, intriguing, and remarkable. This book is available on amazon.com and at better Jewish bookstores near you. For review copies or bulk orders please contact rabbircklein@gmail.com

Besides on Amazon, the books are also available at other Online Jewish Bookstores:

https://www.feldheim.com/g-d-versus-gods.html

http://www.judaica-world.com/g-d-versus-gods-judaism-in-the-age-of-idolatry.html

https://www.greenfieldjudaica.com/item.asp?item=50316

https://www.judaicaplace.com/g-d-versus-gods/9781946351463/

https://www.eichlers.com/g-d-versus-gods-hardcover.html

https://zbermanbooks.com/god-versus-gods-klein

http://mysefer.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=11348&strReferer=search&PPGR=0

Purim Quiz

Level 1

1. What is the name of the scroll we read on Purim? Megillas Esther.

2. What was the name of the Persian king in the Book of Esther? Achashverosh.

3. What was the Persian capital city in the Book of Esther? Shushan (Susa).

4. What does Purim literally mean? Lottery.

5. What do we call the fast day before Purim? Taanis Esther.

6. From which nation does tradition tell us Haman descends? Amalek.

7. Which Jewish king lost his right to the kingship for failing to kill out the Amalekites? Shaul.

8. What are the Jews called in the Book of Esther? Yehudim.

9. When is it customary to make noise during the Megillah reading? When mentioning the name Haman.

10. Who was Achashverosh’s first wife? Vashti.

11. Besides Shachris and Mincha, what else do we pray on Purim? Maariv.

12. If Purim is the 14th of Adar, then what do we call the 15th of Adar? Shushan Purim.

13. In years that there are two months of Adar, in which one do we celebrate Purim? The second.

14. How many times do we read the Book of Esther on Purim? Twice.

15. How was Haman killed? Hanged.

16. How many years was the Babylonian Exile? Seventy years.

17. How was Amalek related to Eisav? Eisav was his grandfather.

18. Which miracle happened earlier in history, Purim or Chanuka? Purim.

19. For how many days did the Jews fast in the Book of Esther? Three.

20. The four commandments on Purim are: Read the Megillah, send Mishloach Manos, party, and what else? Give alms to the poor (Matanos LaEvyonim).

Level 2

1. When do we read Parshas Zachor? The week before Purim.

2. In which part of Tanach is the Book of Esther—Torah, Neviim, or Kesuvim? Kesuvim.

3. Over how many provinces did Achashverosh rule? 127 [or Gemara: first 7, then 20, then 100]. 

4. How many sons were hanged with Haman? 10.

5. What special prayer do we say in Shemoneh Esrei on Purim? Al HaNissim.

6. Why did Vashti not wish to appear before Achashverosh? She had tzaraas or grew a tail.

7. Which two people tried to kill Achashverosh? Bigsan and Seresh.

8. How tall were the gallows upon which Haman and sons were hanged? 50 Amos.

9. Why don’t we say Hallel in Purim? The miracle happened outside of the Holy Land, the Megillah is instead of Hallel.

10. Why was Haman happy when the lottery said that he should kill the Jews in the month of Adar? Because that was the month that Moshe Rabbeinu died.

11. When do we say the Bracha She’hechiyanu on Purim? Before reading the Megillah.

12. Which holiday is one month after Purim? Pesach.

13. From which tribe were Mordechai and Shaul HaMelech? Binyamin.

14. In the Bible’s way of counting months, what number month is Adar? Twelve.

15. What do we read from the Torah on Purim at Shachris? The war with Amalek in Shemos.

16. When Achashverosh asked Haman how to repay a man who saved the king’s life what did he say? Mount him on the king’s horse, dress him in the king’s clothes, and proclaim “so shall be done to the man whom the king wishes to honor”.

17. What special prayer do we add to Birkas HaMazon on Purim? Al HaNissim.

18. Which cities celebrate Purim on the fifteenth of Adar? Any city that was walled in the time of Yehoshua.

19. Which Tractate of the Mishnah speaks about the Laws of Purim? Megillah.

20. What is the Bracha for Mishloach Manot? There is no bracha for it.

Level 3

1. Who was Hadassah? Another name for Esther.

2. What is Daniel’s name when he appears in the Book of Esther? Hasach.

3. Which animal represents the Persians in Daniel’s vision of the Four Beasts? The bear.

4. Who was Haman’s wife? Zeresh.

5. Besides the special cantillation tune used for reading Megillas Esther, what other cantillation mode is used in reading some verses of the Megillah? That of Eicha (Lamentations).

6. Why did Bigsan and Seresh want to kill Achashverosh? Ever since he married Esther, he would spend a lot of time being intimate with her and was often thirsty and so he asked them to bring him drinks too often and they didn’t get to sleep (Rashi to Megillah 13b).

7. The word pur means “lottery”. What is another word in the Book of Esther which means the same thing? Goral.

8. What does sris ha-Melech mean? Royal eunuch/minister.

9. How many Aliyahs are read from the Torah on Purim at Shachris? 3.

10. What did Memuchan say in the Megillah? Make a proclamation that the man is in charge of the 

house, replace Vashti with another queen.

11. The Bracha on reading the Megillah is read in the same tune as what other Brachah? The Bracha before blowing the Shofar.

12. What part of the Megillah happened in the month of Teves? Esther was taken to Achashverosh.

13. What was the relationship between Esther and Mordechai? First cousin, husband and wife (some say niece, but it’s a mistake!).

14. If the 14th of Adar falls out on Shabbos, when do we read the Megillah? On the 15th.

15. What Purim delicacy is named after a character in the Megillah? Hamantaschen, Oznei Haman.

16. What part of the Megillah is customary to be read in one breath? The ten sons of Haman.

17. What do we call the 14th of Adar in the first of Adar in years that there are two Adars? Purim Koton.

18. What is the end of this passuk, “LaYehudim Haysa Orah…”? “VeSimcha veSasson VaYikar”.

19. The commandment of Mishloach Manot requires sending foodstuffs to who many people? One.

20. Who was Haman’s father? Hamdasa.

Level 4

1. Why did the Jews in the time of Haman deserve to be destroyed? They bowed to the idol of Nebuchadnazzar or they partook in Achashverosh’s party.

2. How many maidservants did Queen Esther have? Seven.

3. In cities that celebrate Purim on the 14th of Adar, what do we read from the Torah on Shushan Purim? Nothing special.

4. What did Achashverosh do to the islands at the end of the Megillah? He taxed them.

5. Who was Vashti’s grandfather? Belshazzar, king of Babylon.

6. On what day of the year was Moshe Rabbeinu born? 7th of Adar.

7. How long did the assembled virgins have to prepare before being brought to Achashverosh? 12 months.

8. Which Babylonian king exiled Joachin from Jerusalem? Nebuchadnazzar.

9. In what month did the Jews fast in the story of Purim? Nissan.

10. In what year of Achashverosh’s reign did Haman cast his lottery for choosing the month to destroy the Jews? 12th year.

11. What Bracha do we say in Kiddush on Purim? There is no Kiddush on Purim.

12. According to a poem read after the Megillah, when the Jews saw which element of Mordechai’s clothes did they become happy? The techeiles (either on his tzitzis or as royal clothes).

13. Who was Parshandasa? A son of Haman (according to one Midrash, the minister of the Kurds).

14. Who killed the Amalek king Agag? Shmuel HaNavi.

15. Who was in charge of Achashverosh’s harem? Heygai or Heygeh.

16. When we read the verse BaLayla HaHu Nudedah Shnas HaMelech the custom is to chant the word HAMELECH. When else do we say the word HaMelech in that tune? On Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.

17. Who was Esther’s father? Avichayil.

18. How many Megillas are there in Tanach? Five.

19. How many languages was a member of the Sanhedrin required to know? Seventy.

20. Who said the famous words, Mi Hu Ze VeEizeh Hu? Achashverosh.

Level 5

1. Who was Kish in Megillas Esther? Mordechai’s great-grandfather.

2. How many times in a 19-year cycle are there two Adars? Seven.

3. On what day of the year did the proclamation go out that the Jews are allowed to defend themselves? 23rd of Sivan.

4. The Talmud relates that one time on Purim, Rabbah got drunk and slaughtered Rav Zeira. What happened afterwards? He prayed for his resurrection and he came back to life.

5. What Haftarah is read on Purim? There is none.

6. What is another name for Mordechai? Pesachya or Malachi.

7. How many enemies did the Jews kill in the city of Shushan? 500.

8. Is Job one of the five Megillas? No.

9. What do they call it in Jerusalem when the 15th of Adar falls out on Shabbos? Purim Meshulash.

10. How many times does Haman’s name appear in the Megillah? 54.

Reading the Archeology of the Holy Land- The Scripts of Ancient Hebrew

Halachic Status of Transgender Surgery

Dina Gielchinsky, a counter-terrorism lawyer living in Teaneck, New Jersey wrote the following in an article entitled "Beit Din Orders Woman to Give Get" for the New York Jewish Week:

A recent ruling by the Haifa beit din underscores the need for rabbinical courts to reexamine the halachic status of transgender individuals with deference to the individual’s new reality.
In the case before the beit din, an individual who had undergone sexual reassignment surgery to become a woman refused to give her divorcing wife a gett, claiming that she was prohibited from doing so on the basis that a woman cannot give a gett. The individual’s wife requested an annulment of the marriage because the individual was no longer a man.  The court denied the request, asserting that despite the surgery, the individual was still halachically a man.  The court ordered the individual to give the gett, to which she eventually agreed.
By the court’s reasoning, a transgender man could not be barred from entering a women’s mikvah, as he is still halachically a woman.  A mesader kiddushin would have no ostensible basis to refuse to officiate a wedding between the same transgender man and another man, as the former is still halachically a woman.  And yet, imagine if either of these scenarios actually materialized.  The transgender man would be barred from the women’s mikvah, and would also be barred from marrying another man.  The transgender man’s present and former gender would both be denied.
U.S. courts have uniformly recognized the new gender of an individual who has undergone gender reassignment surgery since the issue first presented itself over forty years ago.  In M.T. v. J.T., 140 N.J. Super. 77 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey addressed the claim of M.T., an individual who was born a male and transitioned to a female, that she was entitled to support and maintenance from her divorced husband.  Her husband claimed that he owed no support because their marriage was void, as M.T. had been born male, and New Jersey at the time prohibited same-sex marriages.  The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s holding that “[t]he entire area of transsexualism is repugnant to the nature of many persons within our society. However, this should not govern the legal acceptance of a fact.”  In other words, like it or not, transgender surgery changes an individual’s gender.  
Awareness of, and education regarding, transgender individuals must continue to improve.  Regardless, as the New Jersey court opined, personal judgments should not factor into the halachic recognition of the individual’s reassigned gender.  Further, reality dictates that any halachic impermissibility of gender reassignment surgery cannot render the new gender void.  To simply say that the surgery was halachically prohibited and so the transgender individual is now not a transgender individual leaves the individual without any recognized gender at all.

In response to her article, I sent her and her editor a letter saying the following:
In her recent article about the halachic status of transgendered individuals, Ms. Gielchinsky takes quite a few leaps in logic. She begins her article by citing a case reported by Arutz7 of a married man who had surgery to look like a woman. He was forced by a Beit Din in Haifa to grant his wife a get (bill of divorce), despite his protesting that he is really a woman. Ms. Gielchinsky correctly deduced from this ruling that the Beit Din understands that this man's legal status is unchanged by whatever surgery he has undertaken. The same should be ostensibly true of a woman who similarly underwent surgery to appear like a man.
However, Ms. Gielchinsky then throws in a red herring which seems to contradict this latter corollary of the Beit Din's stance: She makes an a priori assumption that if a woman who had surgery to appear like a man would then want to immerse in a Mikvah or to marry a man, then she would be barred from doing so. She brands such a non-existent ruling as inconsistent with the above mentioned stance expressed by the Haifa Beit Din. Nonetheless, in truth, even if such a woman was banned from using the Mikvah or from marrying a man, such restrictions would probably be enforced for such reasons as other people's right to privacy/decency or to avoiding something which has the outer appearances of being prohibited (i.e. two "men" "marrying" each other), as opposed to an actual question over the woman's personal halachic status. A woman who has a surgery to look like a man remains a woman. And vice versa. One's gender cannot change whatsoever in halacha.
Ms. Gielchinsky then cites precedents from the US Courts that recognize the new gender of a person who has had such a surgery as if that should have any bearing on the halachic discussion. But obviously case law from the US court bear no relevance to on halachic decisions. She then builds a strawman argument and attributes it to the rabbinic decision-makers that argues that because such gender-bending surgeries are halachicly forbidden, they cannot affect one's gender status. Of course such logic is flawed and nobody argues that the halachic prohibition against genital mutilation per se disqualifies its ability to affect one's gender. Rather, the rabbinic understand is that gender is not fluid and cannot change at all, regardless of the fact that trying to do so surgically may be forbidden.
Ms. Gielchinsky ends her article by implying that the rabbinic view leaves transgendered peoples as "individual[s] without any recognized gender at all". This, of course, is a gross misinterpretation of the halacha. As we have already explained, such individuals maintain their original gender, while complications from their bizarre lifestyle and/or other considerations might bar them from realizing all the benefits given to such static-gendered individuals.
In her comments and in his first paragraph, Ms. Gielchinsky makes it clear that she feels that the Haifa Beit Din should have "annulled" the marriage in question. This assertion belays a lack of understanding of the halachic concept of "annulment"--which is, of course, non-existent. According to the Mishnah in Kiddushin, a married woman can only become free to marry somebody else if either her husband dies or he grants her a divorce. There is no such thing as an "annulment", but halacha does recognize that if a woman entered a marriage under false pretenses due to a pre-existing condition on the part of the man, then in certain cases, we can say that her initial consent to the marriage was unfounded, thereby voiding the marriage retroactively. In the case in discussion, it seems that the man had the surgery to look like a woman after the couple was already married. In that case, there can be no argument that the woman's initial consent to enter the marriage was mistaken and there is no grounds for a so-called "annulment".
In my work ha-Makom me-Rachok on Yevamos (pgs. 126-127), I cite the theoretical case of a man who "became" a woman (in an empirical way) and showed how that might effectively annul his original marriage to his wife. But in truth, that possibility too was based on a logical jump that some commentaries take to explain an otherwise enigmatic comment of Rashi. It was meant as an ad absurdum reductio rather than as a full-fledged halachic position. The matter remains purely hypothetical and in the realm of Talmudic pilpul. In practice, even if one can switch genders in an empirical way, it seems that his original gender status remains--certainly such is the ruling for one who merely changes one's gender in an optical way.

To this, she replied:
Thanks for your response, Rabbi Klein.
I do not deny that there are other pretextual reasons for restricting a transgendered woman from using the mikvah or marrying a man.  Those reasons,  however, do not negate the reality that the individual will be left de-gendered.  It’s a reality that needs to be addressed with sensitivity and creativity.
Feel free to post your comment on the website.  I am certainly no halachic authority, and I’m curious to see if others will weigh in with different halachic interpretations.

I responded with the following:

I think I must be misunderstanding something here. You wrote that you do not deny that there are other "pretextual" reasons for restricting a transgendered woman from using the mikvah or marrying a man, yet you still conflate that with such women being "de-gendered." Those issues would not have anything to do with gender, per se. To illustrate the point, I will use an extreme example: Let's say a man cuts off his arms, can he now argue that he has been "de-gendered" because other men are allowed to wear tefillin and he is now different from other men? Obviously not, it has nothing to do with gender, his circumstances ban him being able to do what other men can, but that doesn't mean he is "de-gendered". I think the same would apply to a person who undergoes a surgery to look like the opposite gender. While their personal halachic status remains unchanged, the facts on the ground might bar them from fully being able to continue acting as though they are indeed what they once were before. I am beginning to suspect that you don't really care for the halachic quagmire that transgendered people have inserted themselves into, but that you would rather halacha fully recognize the whims of transgendered people and allow their "status" change to be halachicly recognized. I also don't understand why you feel the need to insert yourself into offering halachic consul, if by your own admission you are not an halachic authority. As a bankruptcy lawyer, would you dare offer your "expert" opinion to a criminal case? Why would something even more important like halacha be any different?I'm not going to post my comment on your website because I'm not trying to spur a debate, I'm trying to understand what exactly you want and seeing if there is anything to it. 

 

Celibate or Celebrate?

I recently received some comments to our discussion about the concept of celibacy in Christianity and how that relates to Judaism. I would like to address those comments written by want to take the time to address them. The small font text is what was sent to me by Stephen James Schneider of Make Ridge, British Columbia (in Canada). I am only posting the first half of his comments because he raised some interesting points, but the second half of what he wrote is the standard missionary drivel that we've had to deal with before, so I'm just leaving it out for now.

Good evening, Rabbi Chaim:
I'm not sure if this needs to be said, but (just in case) should anything in the comments below seem offensive or even blasphemous, it was not my intent to be rude or inconsiderate of your feelings. We hold different beliefs to be true, but I respect your right to believe what you do and am hopeful that the reverse is also true on your part. I do know that I can benefit from your knowledge of Scripture and your wisdom even though we belong to different faiths. Hopefully, you will be able to help me answer some questions and to further develop my understanding of Scripture. Oh, and (just so you know) I have very thick skin, so you don't need to mince words unless you want to.I recently found your blog and this post while searching for information regarding Jewish marriage customs in the 1st Century and their application with respect to the betrothal of the Virgin Mary, Jesus' parthogenic birth, and her husband Joseph. I'm a Roman Catholic Christian, a follower of (as you amusedly (from my perspective) put it) the "bastard from Bethlehem", who understands that it is impossible to fully understand Christianity without understanding the Jewish roots of that faith, and who is in the process of figuring out the correct interpretations of certain Catholic doctrines, ones (the interpretations) that are in line with the Torah, Psalms, Prophets, etc. if not necessarily the Talmud, although ideally also consistent with it. Your blog raised questions and ideas that don't relate to Moses and his black wife (Zipporah?), but that I am hopeful you will be able to clarify.

Despite past experiences with well-mannered Christians turning to me to innocently ask me a few questions, I will nonetheless assume good faith on your part and try to take you seriously. But I must point out one thing that you wrote so far with which I strongly disagree and you should take into consideration. You wrote, “We hold different beliefs to be true, but I respect your right to believe what you do and am hopeful that the reverse is also true on your part.” That sentence smacks of the thinking man’s worst enemy: relativism. If you believe something to be true, then the view which opposes you is false and nobody has the “right” to hold a false position. You shouldn’t assume that just because you have granted me the “right” to believe what I do that I should grant you the same leeway. If you hold something false, then it’s still false.

Do I understand "Hashem" to be a way to not write or say one of the 11 names of G*d derived from the Tetragrammaton? I've been told that Jews do not believe it proper to write or say aloud any of the names of G*d, but I'm not sure of the source in the Torah or Talmud regarding this. Exodus 23:13 talks of the names of other gods and not the one and only true G*d that we both serve and love, whether you believe that or not. What does "Hashem" mean (translated) in English? Is it similar to "Adhonai", "Lord of All"?

The word Hashem simply means “the Name” in Hebrew. Jews believed that God’s Tetragrammaton should be ineffable, that is, it should not be pronounced. Instead, His four-letter name is read as “Adonai” (which actually means “My master” in the honorific plural form) even though it is not spelled like that. The different between His written name and his verbalized name is alluded to in Exodus 3:15 which mentions both God’s Name and remembrance (i.e. utterance) which are supposed to be two different things. The prevailing custom amongst Jews is to even refrain from referring to God as Adonai except in ritual contexts, so instead we call Him, “Hashem”.

In your ninth paragraph, do you really believe that what you have written is true of all priests and nuns? Of Gentiles who have dedicated their lives to serve G*d as they understand Him? When you stated: "No one else is able to suppress their most natural desires and inhibitions. Catholic Priests who outwardly live a life of "ascetic chastity" are known to be the most debaucherous depraved individuals."
I don't believe that to be a fair or objective statement. If you haven't watched the movie "Spotlight" about the pedophilia by priests in the greater Boston area, it noted that approximately 50% of priests are involved in some sort of sexual (romantic?) relationship and that there were roughly 90 priests in the city that were abusing or had abused children. This works out to approx. 6% of the total priests, bishops, etc. in Boston between 1950 - 2015, the period covered by the journalists' investigation. Refer to the following articles:
http://melbournecatholic.org.au/Archive/Reviews/spotlight-reviewed-by-father-richard-leonard-sj
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690575/Pope-Francis-admits-two-cent-Roman-Catholic-priests-paedophiles-interview-Italian-newspaper.html
Sobering statistics to be sure, which I accept (as a Catholic) to be accurate, but not the picture that you have painted. It occurs to me that perhaps you simply have an extremely strong (or even extraordinary) libido and have made the mistake of believing that yours is average in nature, leading to your belief that "mere mortals" are incapable of resisting these natural urges. I suppose it could also be a Gentile thing; that there is something in the DNA of the Jewish people, but that seems unlikely to me. Variation of libido seems more likely on an individual basis rather than on an ethnic one, thus varying from individual to individual. Your's could simply be on the high end of the spectrum.

I don’t remember exactly what I wrote in “Moses’ Black Wife and Celibacy” and my web filter doesn’t even let me look at that webpage—it’s been close to four years since I wrote that article. But if I remember correctly, I did not just focus on the possibility of pedophilia amongst clergy who have taken oaths of celibacy. I believed I also made the argument that they engage in other illicit sexual activities such as visiting other women (including, nuns) and masturbation. Even if only 2% of Roman Catholic priests are pedophiles, that does not mean that 99% are not secretly or even openly engaging in some other sorts of illicit sexual activity. I will grant you that as much as 1% of the world’s male population can be characterized as asexual, perhaps they have higher representation in the halls of the Church.

By the way, I think it is considered ungentlemanly to speak about other people’s libidos or sexual drives. My personal life has no bearing on the discussion. Your implied ad hominem attack against the Jewish people for possibly having a higher disposition for strong libidos is not only offensive, but belays much ignorance. The Jewish people are not just a race of people who can be identified through DNA analysis, but they are also an opt-in religion which accepts people from any other race. Thus, there is no such thing as “Jewish DNA” (granted, there might be certain things which are more common in Jews, but remember Jews can come from any race).

Deuteronomy 9:4-8 makes it clear that the ancient Israelites were not chosen by G*d to be His (first) chosen people because of spiritual superiority over Gentiles, and I expect the same is true regarding any physical superiority. As I understand it, G*d doesn't "play favourites", but rather selected Israel to be a people set aside from Gentile nations to serve as an example for what G*d commands of Gentiles as well. We Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Covenant (Law), but it serves to us as a guide to what G*d seeks from us spiritually. The Law is, after all, both spiritual and physical (written) in nature; unlike Jews, Gentiles are to follow its spiritual principles, precepts, and commands. Jews are, of course, to follow both, and it is by the standard of the Law that they will be judged by G*d when the time comes.

This paragraph is true. Although, in truth, gentiles are excluded from certain commandments and it is not recommended that they follow those commandments. Instead, gentiles are supposed to follow the Seven Noahide Laws and not the 613 commandments of the Torah. But, indeed the Torah could serve as precedent for the general spirit of the law to which gentiles should strive to adhere. The gentiles will only be judged according to the Noahide laws, nobody expects more of them—even in the End of Days.

I firmly believe that faith can move (metaphorical) mountains and that there are many people who have learned to discipline their minds and bodies to the degree necessary to achieve perpetual celibacy, including many priests, nuns, Buddhist monks, etc. One does not need to be "damaged" (unhealthy) in some way to master one's worldly (physical) desires and cravings; one does have to be dedicated to one's reasons for doing so. I believe the Essenes were an example of Jews who learned (with difficulty) how to do so. Moses, of course, was able to do so easily, not having any temptation to give into these natural urges, but that hardly means that others are (with greater difficulty) incapable of it. And G*d and faith can work wonders (miracles).

This paragraph contradicts the previous one. Previously, you granted that the Torah should serve as precedent for the type of law that even gentiles should follow and now you are arguing against the spirit of Torah Law that you can be “holier” than the Torah by abstaining from sex completely. You can firmly believe whatever you want, but that does not make it true. Whether they like to admit it or not, all red-blooded men have certain urges which it is impossible for them to indefinitely suppress. Period. The Torah Law requires Jewish men to procreate by fathering at least one boy and girl. Isaiah (45:18) says that God did not create the world for nothingness, He created the world to be populated. Tradition understands Isaiah’s comment to obligate gentiles in procreation, as well. There is no way out of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_clergy

You claim that the Essenes were able to live a pure sexless life. What do you know about the Essenes? Anything we know about them is from Josephus who is not known for being such a reliable source, but even he doesn’t say anything about them completely abstaining from sex, he only writes that they were ascetic and OCD about ritual impurity. And anyways, the Essenes were probably some fringe group on the extreme edge of Judaism and cannot be representative of true Jewish tradition and adherence to the Torah Law.

If I understand the Jewish marriage process in the 1st Century at least, the Virgin Mary was betrothed to Joseph although the marriage had not (yet?) been consummated, so I fail to see how Jesus could be called a bastard as His mother and step-father were married fully under Jewish law.

The term “betrothal” in this context is somewhat of a misnomer. In Jewish Law, there are two steps in marriage: Kiddushin and nissiun. Kiddushin is what people call “betrothal” but is much more than simply declaring a woman as his intended future wife. Kiddushin actually creates the marriage from a legal standpoint. Once Kiddushin has been effected, a woman is considered a married woman and any sexual act which commits with another man is considered adultery and she may be liable for the death penalty. For all intents and purposes, Kiddushin creates the marriage. From Kiddushin and onwards, a man is Biblically prohibited from fornicating with his wife’s close relatives, etc… The only difference is that when a man and woman have only done Kiddushin, then they are forbidden from being intimate with each other until such time as they execute the Nissiun. The second stage of marriage Nissiun is what “consummates” the marriage. Nissiun is the symbolic act of a groom taking his bride into his possession (customarily done under a wedding canopy) and the recitation of certain blessing in the presence of ten Jewish men. Afterwards, the couple may engage in sex. In the 1^st century, Nissuin was usually done about 6 months after Kiddushin to give the families of the bride and groom time to prepare for the wedding. From what I understand, Skank Mary was in a Kiddushin relationship with Joseph at the time that she fornicated with a Roman soldier named Pandra. In doing so, Mary lost her virginity and became pregnant. Perhaps to save face and try to finagle her way out of a severe punishment, she claimed that she was impregnated divinely.

While the rabbinic community does not accept this, Christians believe that Jesus' birth was parthogenic in nature. His not having a human father means that there was no adultery on Mary's part (as per Isaiah?), making it impossible for Him to be a bastard. Of course, I do understand that your beliefs cannot allow you to accept a virgin birth, but parthogenesis is an authentic medical possibility that occurs when two naturally occuring genetic mutations that do not naturally occur together do occur together. Even the late Christopher Hitchens, a famous Antithiest, did reluctantly have to admit the possibility of a parthogenic birth with respect to Jesus, and he refused to admit that G*d was anything more than a primitive myth, so that's something significant. Parthogenesis would be (and is) easily possible for G*d who also preserved Jeremiah's sperm in bathwater until it could "take seed" in his daughter.

First of all, you spelled it wrong. It’s Parthenogenesis. The Parthenogenesis claim is quite laughable. Even my layman’s knowledge of biology understands that it is basically a glorified form of meosis cell division, which would theoretically mean that a cell from Mary’s body split into two and from that developed an entire human being (which is a phenonmoen which obviously has never been observed in any mammal, let alone in humans!) who had the exact same DNA as Mary. So then, Jesus was a woman. Maybe that’s why Jesus is traditionally depicted as having long hair. But I don’t get it because Jesus is actually a male name attested to in the Bible. Maybe then again, we all know the story of Pope Joan.

Second of all, even if I agree that he did not have a human father, maybe his father was a demon. Maybe he was half-human, half-demon. How would you know it was God Himself? And what did you mean when you wrote “(as per Isaiah?)” are you referring to the prophecy of the birth of Hezekiah?

Third, I don’t understand why you mentioned Christopher Hitchens as an authority. We both agree that he is an idiot!

About that, as it was G*d who made this happen, is it correct to say that this pregnancy could not have been classified as incestuous (making it a sin for Jeremiah) and the child would not have been a bastard despite Jeremiah not being married to his daughter (which would have been very wrong)? After all, technically, the child's human parents were not married, whereas Mary and Joseph actually were. 

Okay, let’s clear up some misconceptions. When I speak about a “bastard” I am actually referring to the Biblical status of a mamzer which is not defined as a child born out of wedlock (don’t worry, the Jerusalem Post also made the same mistake, see here). A mamzer is defined as a child of a mamzer or the child of a union of two people who are banned from marriage with a prohibition punishable by kares. That is, if a Jewish man has sex with his mother, sister, mother-in-law, aunt, living wife’s sister, etc…, then the resulting child is a bastard. This includes a man who has sex with a married woman. Of course, when Skank Mary had sex with the Roman soldier, the resulting child is not technically a mamzer because his father is not Jewish. I just like to him the Bastard from Bethlehem for the fun of it.

I don’t understand your claim that contrasts the story of Ben Sira with Jesus “the child's human parents were not married, whereas Mary and Joseph actually were.” The fact that Mary and Joseph were married has no bearing on the situation, if Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father (it was a Roman soldier or, if you want to be silly, it was a demon, or if you want to be even sillier…).

Now we move on to the story of Ben Sira. First of all, as you might know, that story is of dubious origins. The son of the earliest person to have supposedly recorded the story claimed that his father never said such a thing (if you could read Hebrew, see here). Secondly, even if this story is true, that doesn’t mean that the resulting child is not a mamzer. It is actually a big question amongst contemporary scholars about whether a woman who becomes pregnant with the semen of a man whom she cannot marry, but without a prohibited act of sexual intercourse is the child considered a mamzer or not. The practical ramification of this disagreement is whether the child of a married woman who was artificially inseminated by another (Jewish) man is considered a mamzer. In practice, the prevailing understanding is in accordance with the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein that such a child is not a mamzer, but the Satmer Rebbe does disagree.

In short, I am conceding your point that Jesus was not technically a bastard, but vehemently ruling out the possibility of immaculate conception.

You mentioned that Deborah the Judgess may have been the reincarnation of Moses' wife Zipporah. Is reincarnation a part of what Jews believe happens after death? I didn't think it was; I thought that was Buddhists and faiths related to eastern philosophy (mysticism?). Is reincarnation the means by which Elijah will return and (if so) will he remember his previous life or lives? Spiritually, he will, of course. I mean physically; with his (new?) physical brain? If I understand correctly, Elisha saw Elijah carried up into heaven in a vision, although not necessarily the 3rd (?) heaven. Physically, if a whirlwind is anything like a tornado, it's not hard to conclude what would have happened to Elijah's physical body. As to where it (ie. his corpse?) was "spit out" of such a whirlwind is anyone's guess, but a body minus its soul is not that important, not even the body (shell) of a great Prophet like Elijah. It's Elijah's soul that is important and that was carried into the heavens, though which heaven I'm not sure of. Or would Elijah's spiritual journey have ended in his being delivered to "Abraham's Bosom" in Sheol, two concepts that I am still in the process of learning about? And is there any teaching about Enoch being a previous life of Elijah?

Lots of good questions. There was a dispute about the concept of reincarnation with R. Saadia Gaon opposing such an idea, but ever since the revelation of Kabbalah, it has basically been universally accepted amongst Jews with a few prominent skeptics. I don’t know exactly how Elijah will return, only time will tell. It should be any day now… We were once redeemed in the month of Nissan and we are destined to be redeemed then again. There are different teachings about Elijah the Prophet returning to This World in different forms and connections between him and the story of Enoch, but I think I will hold off on speaking about such deep ideas in a public forum.

As I have thus far been successful in finding interpretations of doctrines that are in line with the Torah, Psalms, Prophets, etc. but sometimes not the Talmud, it seems more and more (as I proceed) that the Christian and Jewish faiths are not at odds fundamentally; it's simply a matter of determining, with a circumcised heart and mind, what the correct interpretations are for this to be true, and for Christianity (as it existed in the 1st Century) to be a natural evolution of Judaism (as it existed in the 1st Century) based on the Hebrew Scriptures and their Greek translation, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated is extremely accurate and faithful to the Hebrew (Scriptural) source material that was translated.

It has been proven time and again that the Written Scriptures are completely nonsensical and meaningless unless one has a tradition in how to interpret them. For every doctrine and philosophy you might try to draw out from the Torah, Psalms or Prophets or other books of the Bible, I can find you other sources in the Bible which seem to imply the exact opposite. You must use the Oral Law alongside the Written Law in order to get the whole picture. That Oral Law is reflected in the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings and is an indispensable part of understanding the otherwise closed book that is the Bible.

The most significant point of disagreement is, of course, who we respectively believe the Messiah to be and whether He (and Elijah) have come once before, roughly 2000 years ago. Both faiths hold that Elijah and the Messiah are coming; Christians simply believe that it is a case of returning rather than coming for the first time.

I’m not sure if it is the most significant point of disagreement, but it is definitely a significant point of disagreement.

Where the disagreement comes in, as I understand it, is with the Christian belief that the Messiah, willingly humbling Himself to serve G*d as the Suffering Servent Isaiah foretold, decisively defeated the single, greatest enemy of Israel and the entire world: the spiritual consequences of sin, spiritual death, as only a Messiah could be expected to successfully do. Due to this singular victory on the level of spiritual reality, the forgiveness of sins (past, present, and future; universally across time) "became" possible, thus allowing humanity to stand before G*d justified in His sight and His love.
The sacrifice of animals could never be entirely sufficient to cancel out the sins of human beings, simply because animals are not human beings. Those sacrifices, as I understand it, were instead a physical foreshadowing of what G*d always had planned to make happen in order to undo the damage (Original Sin) that Adam and Eve caused with their rebellion against Him. One man, the first man, caused Original Sin and so it necessitated another, the Messiah, to defeat (negate) it and thus make the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike possible. The question becomes whether this victory on the part of the Messiah, whomever He may be, has already happened or is yet to be accomplished. 

This is another major point of disagreement. We Jews do not believe that because of Adam’s sin all of mankind is damned for eternity. We believe that any sin can ultimately be forgiven and we do not need sacrifices to achieve that forgiveness. We can simply return our hearts to God, refrain from the sins previously committed, and repent our ways. Sacrifices are never brought for willful sinning, only as an atonement to help one feel as though his repentance is accepted for committing a sin by mistake. The main principle is repentance. X-tians believe that man cannot rectify his sins and must use a sacrificial person or “lamb” whose death somehow fixes those sins. I know it doesn’t make sense, but that’s why X-ianity holds. The Messiah’s role will be to show people how to repent and come closer to God, not to die as a punishment for Adam’s original sin. There is more to talk about this, but again I do not want to speak about deep Kabbalistic ideas in a public forum, especially when I am not an expert in the topic.