Judaism: Original or Just Extra Crispy?

The New Shul?

It is often claimed that we Jews had the truth before anyone else, or that at least, we inherited the truth from our forefathers who, as the Midrash says, “fulfilled the Torah before it was given.” (That claim alone is worth questioning.)

Did we? Are we absolutely sure about this? I am willing to cede that we have formed an interesting conglomeration of ideals into a cohesive religious doctrine, but that’s as far as it goes. When tracing the roots of each of the particular beliefs, however, one always ends up staring right into the eyeballs of the Early Canaanites, Zoroastrians, or Greeks. We might have the Christians to thank, too, because there seems to be so much that we do, have changed, or don’t do so as not to resemble them.

If one tracks the chronology of changes in Jewish philosophy, practice, and society alongside the rise and fall of the surrounding empires, one thing stands out very clear. Our conquerors left more than just graves and widows behind. It is extremely rare that a vanquished nation feels none of the cultural effects or influences of its conquerors. The effects have gone way beyond those that would occur due to an attitude Rabbinic Law that demands Dina d’Malchusa Dina (the law of the ruling power is to be followed.)

The most profound examples are the administrations of Ezra and Nechemiah. Both were Persian ministers sent by Cyrus (who the NaCh calls a ‘moshiach’) to reeducate the populace of Jerusalem. One of the first edicts of Ezra was that Jewish men should divorce their gentile wives. For a nation that expanded its ranks by intermarriage (following the lead of Melech Shlomo), that would have been quite a shock to the system. Yet, the the most drastic change was the way that Tumah and Tahara were implemented. Previous to the time of Ezra (d.350 BCE), the levels of sanctity of the home were not on the same level as that of the Bais HaMikdosh, but after this time, new rules were put in place that applied to husband and wife as well.

I thought that unlikely until I explored the extant Zoroastrian texts and compared them to the Laws of Nidah and Taharas HaMishpocho (Family Purity) that we have today, and found remarkable if not almost plagiarized similarities between them. The Zoroastrian fixation/obsession with sex, menstrual blood, and death became, as result of Persian influence, part of our heritage. Among the other ideals NOT mentioned by Moshe, but later adopted from the Zoroastrians are messianism (moshiach), techiyas hamaysim (Resurrection of the Dead), and bans on intermarriage.

Example: Nidus & Taharas Hamishpocho

It is well known that in Canaanite culture, the woman was sequestered during her period, and it was socially unacceptable to have sexual contact during the menstrual cycle. The Canaanites were not alone in that belief, since many cultures considered it a time of ritual impurity and death. Bleeding out in those times was generally fatal, and little was really understood about female anatomy, ovulation, and menstruation. Each culture developed its own way of handling those things it could not understand.

Now I can say with relative certainty that the early Israelites were influenced by Canaanite culture because the sons of Jacob married Canaanite women(Torah SAYS so), were born, lived, and worked among Canaanites, no doubt were influenced by their surroundings. Not an unreasonable assumption to make.

(Suggested reading: The Red Tent by Anita Diamand. I loved it.)

So it is not surprising that Moses would write in Lev. 18:19 "and unto a woman during the unseemliness of her period, you should not draw close to uncover her nakedness." (I really hate translating that way.) Notice that there is no mention of mikveh, washing, waiting, counting, checking, etc.

Lev. 20:18 “If a man lies with a woman during her period and uncovers her nakedness, opening her source, and she exposed the source of her blood; both of them will be cut off from the people.”

Both prohibitions are listed among the sexual taboos, but NOT among the laws of ritual purity. Being read in context lets one know clearly that this restriction is not one of purity in the sense of ritual cleanliness, but rather is one of a moral/social nature, similar to those other sexual restrictions it is listed among.

There is no specific detail as to what "washing" means. Many verses relating to ritual impurities say "verochatz es besaro" (He should wash his body), but give no detail as how to wash. The Torah does not say anywhere "vetovayl es besaro" (he should immerse his body), but simply bathe, which reasonably could mean just a simple bath or even shower. In addition, if her period was a matter of ritual impurity, then it would have a sacrifice of some sort associated with it, yet there is none.

There is an exception for a woman after childbirth, but this case is ONLY related to after childbirth and NOT normal sexual contact.

Lev. 12:2-8 “When a woman gets pregnant and bears a son, she will be unclean for seven days; just as during her period she will be unclean. (Skip to verse 4) “And for 33 days she will wait for blood purification; no holy thing can she touch, and to the temple she may not come until her days of purification are complete.”

Skip to verse 6 – 8 where it lists in detail the place, time, and number of sacrifices she must bring in order to be allowed into the Temple. No where does it mention mikveh or washing at all!! So we find that even in a case where the temple is involved, where ostensibly the standard should be much higher, that there is no washing involved in the woman’s purification, but merely a waiting period and a small sacrifice.

The changes imposed by Ezra and Nechemia accompanied the changes that went along with the Cyrus’ Temple. The Jews did not build an alternate Temple on Gerizim without reason, but because they SAW what was going on in Jerusalem, along with the new rules imposed upon them, along with a different language (Avestan.) Part of the new rules were ritual immersion and extra stringencies for all sorts of things, both holy and mundane, which came directly from Zoroastrian law, but NOT from the Torah.

http://www.avesta.org/pahlavi/shayest3.html

This link will take you to Shayest Na-Shayest ('Proper and Improper'), a chapter out of the Avesta, which is part of the body of intricate Zoroastrian laws related to ritual impurities of menstruation. There, one sees the close similarities between rabbinic doctrine and the Zoroastrian laws, though even the Zoroastrians go well beyond the Rabbis in some respects.

The Jews are conquered by the Assyrians, who in turn are absorbed into Babylon. Persia conquers Babylon and takes over its empire. Persia has evangelical Zoroastrian King named Cyrus. Jews that are exiled to Persia become influenced (converted) by the King. King sends personal ministers (Ezra and Nechemiah) back to their native homeland (Israel) to spread Zoroastrianism, thus promoting both the religion and securing the realm through unification of religious practice. No doubt there was a political end in mind also. The Persian Kings routinely co-opted the names and styles of local gods and goddesses to their own thinking in order to placate the indigenous peoples. Marduk, a Babylonian god, was brought into Zoroastrianism after the Persian conquest as well. It also is likely that Ezra and Nechemiah were either accompanied by Persian forces, or at least had the threat of their presence available to them to enforce the new changes.

(Marduk and Ishtar, both Babylonian gods, sound way too much like Mordechai and Esther. I’m doubly suspicious because the story of Purim doesn’t have any historical corroboration from alternative sources.)

The Greeks

The Greeks had no less an influence upon Jewish thought than did the Persians. The Kabala is adapted from Plato and other Neo-Platonists such as Philo Alexandria (born 25 BC) and Plotinus(204-270AD). Much of classical Jewish thought was shaped by Aristotle and Plato, and the Scholastics from all three religions wrote apologetics in tandem with one another during the rich philosophical periods in Euro-Middle Eastern history.

In the Talmud, we find a few of Zeno’s Paradoxes (born 490BC) in one form or another. This is not just a speculative venture on the part of a bored Talmudic Sage interested in a mental exercise. In one particular case (the one I can remember anyhow), Zeno’s idea was central to a halachic decision regarding the Laws of Sabbath Carrying, where if deliberately transgressed, would possibly draw the death penalty as a result. This is found in the first chapter of the Gemara Shabbos, and the name of the paradox is Kluta k’Huncha Dumya. The question is whether or not an object thrown over the airspace of a private domain , can be considered as if it is resting in that domain, thus becoming a desecration of the Sabbath. Zeno’s paradox of airspace, rest, and arrows is used to resolve this question, without, of course, any mention of Zeno of Elea.

The Kabala, which didn’t take its present form until the Ari Z’L in the 1500s, had its Jewish roots in the Mishnaic/Talmudic Era, but the foundations are much older. Plato’s (427-347BC) concepts of forms, ideas, justice, virtue, use of allegory, and Hermeticism made their way into Jewish Mysticism and Kabalistic Ethics. Many claim that it was the other way around, and that the Greeks stole the ideas from the Jews, but the chronology and the evidence show that it is otherwise. The influence of Stoics and Cynics was no less profound. Consider the close political and social ties between the Jewish communities of Israel and those of Alexandria, the center of knowledge and philosophy in the modern world, and the historical dots get connected very quickly.

These are just a couple of examples where Jews borrowed or were forced to accept non-Jewish ideals into Judaism. I don’t feel compelled to observe something as a mitzvah because a Greek Philosopher, or some Persian Tyrant decided it would be fun or politically expedient to have us concern ourselves with it. The problem is that Judaism has been doing so many non-Jewish things for so long a time that it is has become deeply ingrained in the cultural mindset, and reinforced by lack of knowledge as to the original sources. Oh well.

We are not the original, but like the Moslem, Hindu, or Christian (who copy much from us), just another version of “Extra Crispy.” I have no need for a religion at all, let alone one that fails to recognize or acknowledge its roots.

All Hail the Colonel! (OH)