Answers from an Orthodox Jew

[BartholomewB]

The non-PC answer is that thinking a man is the physical manifestation of God - corporealism - is without a doubt idolatry according to Judaism.

That’s an interesting word! I had never seen it until now. Even the online Merriam-Webster doesn’t have it. It has “corporealist” but only as a synonym of “materialist”, not in the religious sense you are using here. In Jewish religious thought, is the term only ever used in connection with the Christian concept of Jesus as both God and man, or does it have wider application than that?

 

[meltzerboy2]

Moses613 might offer a better explanation. According to my own research, this psalm–as all the passages in the Bible–must be taken in context. The context here is the hope offered by repentance, no matter what the sin or circumstances. And the circumstances in this case are NOT that one is born in (or with) sin but that one is born into an ENVIRONMENT where sin exists, that is, the environment of the home, the world and the flesh. Moreover, the spiritual nature of the individual blossoms (hopefully) only later in life, whereas early on, one is susceptible to the environment of sin. However, note the power of repentance which can make even one who has succumbed to the ways of the flesh “whiter than snow.” I realize that for Christians this verse seems to prefigure baptism (“wash me,” “cleanse me with hyssop”) but for Jews, it is a metaphorical allusion to purity which is essentially the outcome of prayer, good deeds, and the grace of G-d.

 

[Moses613]

First of all, you have to understand the nuances of translation. Hebrew has no adjective “sinful”. The verse says that David was “formed in sin” and his mother “conceived him in iniquity”. We explain that to mean that the inclination toward evil is implanted into a person from his very formation, and also potentially that there was some sin involved on David’s mother’s part when she conceived him. In the context of the Psalm, he is begging God for mercy in light of his having fallen prey to the inborn, evil inclination. If he were born sinful (with guilt), why would that be relevant to being forgiven for the sin of Bathsheba? It’s a non sequitur.

If you use the Christian translation you just cited, it kind of follows, because it goes on to discuss “you desired faithfulness even in the womb,” advancing the Christian narrative that faith saves from original sin. But the problem is, that’s not what the verse says. It says: הן-אמת חפצת בטוחות - Behold, You have desired truth in the “toohot”. Toohot is a feminine plural noun. It cannot mean womb, as there is only one womb. The fact that it actually means “kidneys,” (there are two!) which were considered to be a seat of wisdom in the body, is proven by the verse: Job 38:36 “Who placed widsom in the toohot, and who granted understanding to the heart?”
King James gives the following translation: “Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?”
Translators have difficulty with this word and just write “inward parts” since it’s only written in a couple of places in the Bible, but the Talmud asserts that it means kidneys.

The 1985 Jewish Publication Society declines to translate it as kidneys and instead uses it as a poetic term for something hidden: “Indeed You desire truth about that which is hidden; teach me wisdom about secret things.”

 

[Moses613]

I realize that for Christians this verse seems to prefigure baptism (“wash me,” “cleanse me with hyssop”) but for Jews, it is a metaphorical allusion to purity which is essentially the outcome of prayer, good deeds, and the grace of G-d.

I would just add here that it doesn’t really prefigure baptism because baptism is just an altered version of practices that already existed in Judaism, namely, ritual immersion (mikveh) and the hyssop ritual, which was part of the sin-offering. The literal translation of תחטאני is not actually “cleanse” but “spray.” The hyssop was dipped in holy water from the Temple and then the Kohen whipped it toward the person bringing the sacrifice so that the water would spray off the hyssop and onto the penitent.

 

[Moses613]

In Jewish religious thought, is the term only ever used in connection with the Christian concept of Jesus as both God and man, or does it have wider application than that?

It’s used in a much broader sense. The medieval Hebrew term was הגשמה hagshama, which connotes the attribution of any physical quality (corporeality) to God. Maimonides discusses those people who mistakenly think that when the Bible says “the hand of God,” that God has a real hand. He is talking about Jews, not Christians, and denounces them as heretics. His contemporary, the Raavad (Rabbi Abraham b. David of Posquieres), defends those Jews as being “in error” and not to blame for their inadvertent heresy. Maimonides writes at great length about this topic and says we may not attribute any quality to God that is shared with physical beings (for example, the concept of “place”).

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, Moses. That’s quite an eye-opener. One question that occurs to me on the spur of the moment is this: You say the concept of “place” cannot correctly be applied to God, and yet there was a belief, I think, from the time of Moses and Aaron all the way through to the Herodian period, that God was in some way present, or “dwelt,” first in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple?

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

the hyssop ritual, which was part of the sin-offering. The literal translation of תחטאני is not actually “cleanse” but “spray.” The hyssop was dipped in holy water from the Temple and then the Kohen whipped it toward the person bringing the sacrifice so that the water would spray off the hyssop and onto the penitent.

This is interesting.

Is this referring to the ceremony with the ashes of the Red Heifer or the cleansing of the Leper in Leviticus chapter 14? Or was it part of the ceremony of a regular sin offering? I’m trying to get a clearer picture of this.

I can’t find anything else on it Vayikra commentaries, or Rashi, etc. Can you point me the right direction?
Thank you!!

 

[Mary888]

Thank you for the info. For Christians this verse does not necessary refers to baptism when it is said as a prayer. Certain Psalms (especially this one) are part of the daily prayers and since baptism can never be repeated the only possible explanation is probably the same as in Judaism - invoking God’s grace for forgiveness. The extra explanation as to why this verse represents no matter what the sin or circumstances"" is very spiritual fruitful for me.

 

[Mary888]

The 1985 Jewish Publication Society declines to translate it as kidneys and instead uses it as a poetic term for something hidden: “Indeed You desire truth about that which is hidden; teach me wisdom about secret things.”

I used the NIV version of the Bible because we are on a Catholic site. But this translation "hidden things"it is the way this passage is translated in the Septuagint version of the Bible used in EO. The Benton version of the Septuagint:
For, behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.

6For, behold, thou lovest truth: thou hast manifested to me the secret and hidden things of thy wisdom.

 

[redbaron162]

I appreciate your answer. I was wondering what a Orthodox Jew would think about it. I am a ardent Catholic but trying to put myself in Orthodox Jewish shoes and assuming the Christians were otherwise following the Noahide laws would they be considered righteous? As far as behavior (assuming they were living the authentic Christian life) I would say yes except for perhaps the concept of Idolatry. Its hard to say. As Catholics we believe that Christ was fully God and that he is fully present in the Blessed Sacrament. If he was not present then it would be idolatry. However, I would say it is not the same as if we were worshipping a statue of another god were we believe that statue was a god… We worship Jesus Christ because we believe he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If we did not think He was we would of course not worship Him. I don’t really know what the right answer would be. I guess (in the case that we are wrong) that I would just hope God would know our intention and have mercy on us.

Do you have any more thoughts on it?

Thank you for your time.

 

[Moses613]

I am a ardent Catholic but trying to put myself in Orthodox Jewish shoes and assuming the Christians were otherwise following the Noahide laws would they be considered righteous?

Yes, there are various quotations from rabbis over the centuries indicating that Christians, who believe in God and follow moral rules, should be respected and treated differently than the pagans of old, who were totally debased.
As far as idolatry, we define it differently. Attributing any aspect of corporeality to God is idolatrous, even if there is no physical idol present. As one rabbi I know explains to Christians who ask him, he says, “If Jesus was walking down the street over there and you saw him, would you point to him and say, ‘That’s God walking down the street?’” And they answer, “Yes.” And he says, well, that’s what we call idolatry.
As far as God’s judgment, I won’t presume to say. I respect Christians and I think He will have mercy on them according to their actions, and not hold them accountable for errors they can’t free themselves of. And I’m pretty sure the same goes in the other direction; that’s what Nostra Aetatae was about.

 

[Moses613]

Is this referring to the ceremony with the ashes of the Red Heifer or the cleansing of the Leper in Leviticus chapter 14? Or was it part of the ceremony of a regular sin offering? I’m trying to get a clearer picture of this.

I think I misspoke when I said sin offering. The spraying of the hyssop is definitely part of the cleansing process from death-impurity (contact with the dead), which involves the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled into spring water from the Temple grounds. As well as the process of the metzora` (leper, but we don’t translate it that way because the disease was not actually leprosy).

 

[Moses613]

You say the concept of “place” cannot correctly be applied to God, and yet there was a belief, I think, from the time of Moses and Aaron all the way through to the Herodian period, that God was in some way present, or “dwelt,” first in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple?

King Solomon addressed this point in I Kings 8:27, when he said:

27 “But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built! 28 Yet turn, O LORD my God, to the prayer and supplication of Your servant, and hear the cry and prayer which Your servant offers before You this day.

The idea is not that God Himself dwells within the Temple, or that “His place” is there. We have a concept of the shekhinah, the Divine Presence, which is a clearer revelation of God’s presence in that place than in other places. We often refer to “the shekhinah” as being somewhere, but it’s really a metaphor meaning that God’s presence is “more revealed” in that place.

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

Thank you, I understand now. Much appreciated

 

[redbaron162]

Thank you for your answer. God Bless

 

[meltzerboy2]

Moses613, this question is directed mainly toward you. It concerns the Mourner’s Kaddish. On the site My Jewish Learning, I just read an interpretation of the meaning of the Kaddish I had never seen or heard of before. It is that this prayer does NOT extol G-d despite suffering a grievous loss, death of a loved one. Rather, it is from the start a REQUEST that G-d hasten His “arrival” in the sense that all nations of the earth recognize His presence. Another verse suggests that G-d AGREES that He is NOT present in the world to the extent that He was in ancient times. The interpretation is based not only on the text of the Kaddish itself but also on its description in the Babylonian Talmud. The understanding provided here also claims that the NAME of G-d (Adonai) is NOT mentioned but only the phrase “His Name,” which supports the idea that G-d is NOT fully present in the world we live in and that He will be praised completely ONLY at the end of days. Have you ever come across this interpretation of the essence of the Mourner’s Kaddish?

 

[Moses613]

I agree the meaning of the mourner’s Kaddish is not that we praise God “despite” the loss, although that can be meaningful for the person saying it. The text itself is exactly the same as Kaddish Shalem, minus the phrase beginning “Accept the prayers and supplications…” etc (תתקבל צלותהון ובעותהון) because those words are only said generally after Shemoneh Esrei, and that is not the place where mourners say Kaddish.
I haven’t seen that put exactly that way in reference to Kaddish, but it makes sense and is a Jewish theme. I wouldn’t use the words that God is “not fully present,” I would say that His presence is more concealed now that in ancient times. This relates to the verse Deut. 31:18 “On that day I will surely hide My face.” And God’s names refer to His various degrees of revelation in the world, which is what the Kabbalists mean when they say His Name is not “complete”. At the end of Aleinu, we say, “on that day, the Lord will be one and His Name will be one,” meaning that His oneness is also concealed to a degree, until the coming of the Messiah.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thanks, Moses, for the explanation. I agree that “G-d’s presence is more concealed” is a more accurate way of putting it. Good Shabbos.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You’re welcome, Mary888. I’m glad this is helpful.

 

[BartholomewB]

When the Second Temple was destroyed, did that mean that there was no longer any special place on earth where shekhinah was present? There are certain places which are clearly accorded special reverence, for instance the Western Wall and the Ark holding the Torah scroll in a synagogue. Can the term shekhinah properly be applied in cases of this kind?