[Avodah] Fables and Lies

[Chana Luntz]

RAM writes:

> The part that 
> really bothers me is how the author portrays what happened 
> BEFORE the murders: The ruler got the ten of them together, 
> he made up the story about the shoes, the ten of them sent 
> Rabi Yishmael on a mission to find out what's happening in 
> Shamayim, and they agreed to docilely go to their deaths.

...

> Hmm... Maybe that's the whole point that RCN is making... 
> Maybe they did go like sheep, but it was NOT a fiction. Maybe 
> that's the point of the virtuous myth, that it does not 
> fictionalize, only poeticize. Could it be that the Ten 
> Martyrs did go willingly, and that the only distortion of the 
> truth was that they each made this decision individually, 
> rather than collectively?

I think it is more than poeticising.  Ten is a minyan.  And what happens
in a prayer minyan?  Ten individuals recite their individual prayers in
their own way and at their own pace and yet the presence of the others
is enough to make it a collective.  And not just any collective, but a
community.  By having the ten martyrs be in the presence of the others,
the author is turning this from a statement about some very virtuous
individuals, to a statement about the actions of the best of the Jewish
community.  With the linkage made explicitly to that other minyan of the
10 brothers, via the shoe reference.

And don't forget that Ayleh Ezk'ra is dealing with a very important
theological question - particularly in the context of Europe.  One of
the allegations of Xtianity, that Jews could not fail to be aware of, is
that the very downtrodden nature of the Jews and their persecution
proved the correctness of Xtianity over Judaism and the rejection of the
Jews by G-d based on the rejection of G-d by the Jews.  You just need to
see the statues that adorn the entrance way of many of the cathedrals of
Europe - on the one side Xtianity, standing erect with stern gaze and
upright staff and on the other side Judaism, with broken staff,
blindfolded and bowed.  Ayleh Ezkra is an answer to this.  An argument
for the nobility of the suffering of the Jewish community; the divine
involvement in that suffering; the acceptance of the divine will that is
indeed manifest (the antithesis of rejection); the linkage back, not to
any of the timescales of Xtianity, but to the original first community
of Jews (the sons of Ya'akov) and errors that they may perhaps have
made, with the divine commitment and involvement continuous since then
on a unprecedented level, despite such errors.  That this is a
discussion about community, not about individuals.  About the Shechina
resting (or not resting) upon a community, and the nature of kiddush
HaShem and what it can mean on a communal level as well as on an
individual level.  I do not think that the same point can be made in
anything like the same way if you treat each of the ten martyrs merely
as individuals, but only if you see them as a community.  And while you
may if pushed be able to see that across generations, given our
knowledge of what a minyan means, it is apparent much more viscerily if
they are portrayed as being joined together in space and time.  

 If that is indeed the case, then I 
> can see the distortions as minor and benign.

So I guess rather than merely see the distortions as being minor and
benign, I see them as being necessary to make the theological point in
the most direct and emotionally impactive way, without needing to resort
to reams of commentary.  I think it is a deeper truth to see them as a
community, rather than as individuals, and to see their decision making
as being that of a community, rather than as individuals, despite many
of them never having necessarily met one another, and being generations
out.  This is what I understand the various thinkers to mean when they
use the term myth and try and reclaim it from the modern idea that myths
are untrue.  I agree if we could find a better word, it might be better.

BTW, you liken this sort of thing to Santa Claus.  Like most Jewish
kids, I loathed the whole concept of Santa Claus, with a loathing mixed
undoubtedly with envy for the present haul linked thereto.  But I
confess that my attitude to Santa Claus has modified somewhat.
Obviously I am not advocating any truck with this for any of us, but I
would note certain factors that you might not have considered:

A) Santa Claus is omniscient (he knows whether you have been "naughty or
nice");
B) Santa Claus is concerned with justice (the distinction between naught
and nice matters);
C) Santa Claus is benevolent (he gives presents);
D) There is only one of him;
E) Notwithstanding D), he is ubiquitous at this time of year (he manages
to be at every shopping center simultaneously);
F) However his abode is somewhere completely obscure and out of reach;
G) Despite F) he responds to communications and supplications;

Of course he is also extremely corporal (not to say corpulent) and his
focus is materialistic.  On the other hand, Xtian children are expect to
grow out of him - to reach an age when they learn that he does not
exist.  I suspect, in that respect, while they are expected to grow out
of him, they are presumably not expected to grow out of the
understandings of the existence of a) omniscience, b) overarching
justice; C) benevolence; D) unity; E) omniprescence; F) transcendence
and G) supplication.  I presume that at that point, the ideal is that
they are then supposed to grow into an understanding of G-d.

If you take the R' Ya'akov Emden approach to Xtianity, and say it is a
good thing because it teaches the existence of one G-d (despite
problematic aspects of shituf), then I wonder if, in a world in which
there is such an enormous amount of disbelief, we ought not to at least
have a more positive view about something which arguably teaches at
least some of the values to small children that we regard as essential.
Dunno, but food for thought.

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana