He gave four suggestions on improving the relationship; first that the Church move to denounce anti-Jewish teachings, that the Church acknowledge the Jews’ value, and that Christians are taught about the Jewish faith, and finally that there should be a careful watch set at the Vatican on the continuing development of the relationship between the two religions. Heschel also personally visited Pope Paul VI in 1964 to obtain the assurance that the Church recognised the fundamental importance of the Jews’ existence, abstaining from any attempt of conversion in future dialogue, he was successful. Heschel’s efforts can be seen reflected in Christian doctrines 1967 onwards in regards to Jewish Christian dialogue.

Heschel maintained that the Jews are obligated to be in relation with other faiths, and engage in spiritual dialogue as the Jews now live integrated with other faith communities. He strongly believed that there exists a realm of mutual spirituality beyond the distinctive practices, upon which a basis of a dialogue can be found. Members of both religions are on a quest to journey toward God through the guide of the Holy Scriptures; and while they are divided by doctrine, they can acknowledge that they both live in fear of God, and are held accountable to Him. Heschel believed it was imperative for Jews and Christians to recognise each other’s worth and need for existence, as well as need for dialogue.

During his life Heschel publicly worked for the good of Jewish-Christian relations in the line of suggesting changes for Christianity, so to encourage and help dialogue. There was a much needed eradication of anti-Jewish feeling from doctrine; however Heschel went further than this and personally saw that his religion was protected from the Christian mission. This is understandable, conversion implies a superiority of one religion over another, and would not lead to a mutual dialogue, as well as being counterproductive to God’s plan for both; however it must also be acknowledged here that the beliefs and mission of Christianity are being restricted.

Heschel however remains an undoubted major influential figure in the radical new Church teachings and statements published in the late 1960s, and his work regarding Jewish-Christian relations was widely acknowledged and appreciated by the Christian Jesuit community. Heschel’s view towards mutual spiritual dialogue was helpful concentrating on the underlying mutual belief as a basis. He also recognises that successful spiritual dialogue is not straightforward; it takes negotiation and respect, and is a working process, with a long way to go, which is still the same today.

All Orthodox Jews keep kosher although the standards aren’t monolithic. Furthermore, most Conservative Jews keep kosher at least at home even if they don’t do so outside the home. It is a matter of how the latter perceive Halacha (“Jewish law”). In Conservative Judaism, people believe they can be flexible with Halacha.

Reform Jews often don’t keep kosher and my father could never understand how sometimes they serve shrimp cocktails at brunches in religious affairs. (I don’t really know if they do this but this is what I have heard.)

My parents keep kosher and it is generally acknowledged that the average Jewish housewife knows more about kashrut than the average rabbi. By the way, I have a smicha (“ordination”) as an Assistant Rabbi, myself. That is how I know all of this.

One way of getting a smicha is to study a book called Yorah Dea (it’s about dietary laws) and some supplementary commentaries. This is a relatively easy way to get a smicha.

The process starts with the nature of the kashrut laboratory and it’s being perceived as being reputable. Hebrew National has certification from Triangle K and that certificate or teudat hakasher isn’t considered to be authoritative. Such a certificate is also called a hecksher.

A ritual slaughterer is called a mashgiach. He has to be up to snuff in order for him to be taken as proper. A local rabbi lost his paycheck for overseeing a restaurant recently.

The term kosher actually means, “fit for use by a Jew.” It doesn’t just refer to food products but also is in reference to garments (clothes have to be tested for shatnez or a mix of wool and linen which is illegal in Judaism as per a law in the Torah – Bible- itself), and sacramental objects like tefillin of “phylacteries.”

By the way, something discussed in the Torah is called Deraytah. It is always authoritative.

And meat isn’t the only type of food product that many Jews want rabbinic supervision over. Milk must be overseen according to many Jews. That is called chalov Yisrael. (Meat is called Pas Yisrael). Similarly, bread also needs a certification. All of this gets quite comprehensive.

At one point in time, many Jews would eat Hebrew National products. But a number of years ago, it was bought out by Con Agra and at that point in time, it became suspect. As my parents keep kosher I knew all about it years ago.

In the most insular neighborhoods in Brooklyn (NY) and Highland Park (NJ), as well as Monsey (NY), many Jews would never have eaten Hebrew National anyway. They only trust the hecksher of the rabbis that live in their neighborhoods.

In fact, the world’s largest kosher slaughtering houses and certification laboratory are in Israel and it’s T’nuvah. Many Orthodox Jews in Israel won’t even accept their hecksher either. You can buy their products in Highland Park in Glatt 27, which is a kosher butcher store.

The restaurant, Seven Hills of Istanbul, in Highland Park wanted to kasher (“convert to being kosher”)their operation. The local rabbis wanted 25,000 dollars for the hasgacha.” They could not come up with the money.

By contrast I knew a restaurant owner who had a meat restaurant, in Highland Park, who didn’t pay a dime for a mashgiach because he had 5 children in the local yeshivas and the rabbis thought that he was doing enough.

Glatt refers to inspecting a cow for adhesions on the lungs. They call chickens glatt too but it’s a misnomer.

Also, when I grew up on LI my next-door neighbor was a Jewish butcher. My family wouldn’t by their products because he was not shomer Shabbat or “Sabbath observant.”

Furthermore, in Highland Park, the Stop and Shop there carries meat products like packages of kosher corned beef and pastrami that are considered suitable for the Jews in that area. Next time I am in that area I will do some research as to what brand it is.

I always used to eat in Highland Park and I ate at the meat restaurants there many times. I know the owner of Jerusalem Pizza too.

Years ago, I lived in Jerusalem Israel in Geulah (It means “redemption”). It is one of the most ultra-orthodox or haredi (“Those in awe of G-d”), areas in the world and it is across the street from Mea Shearim).

I was learning in a seminary there called Yeshivat D’var Yerushalayim (http://www.dvar.org), which means “The seminary of the word of Jerusalem” as per the verse in the Torah, which says, “From out of Zion will go for the law and the word of the L-rd from Jerusalem.”

While I was there I noticed that this seminary didn’t groom the talmidim
{“students”) in any particular path or derech. They taught the students some basic skills and left it up to the talmid as to what the person’s level of observance would be.

The yeshiva hired many different rabbis who themselves were educated in many different yeshivot. There was no uniformity and I personally found it very confusing to say the least. I couldn’t figure out where I should hold.

All the rabbis had list of food establishments they considered kosher and no two lists were the same. It was too much.

One of my rabbeyim (“rabbis”) told me that if I wanted to buy a fully prepared, roasted chicken, I could buy one at a certain establishment that was OK according to him.

So, I bought a chicken there and brought it back to my dorm. I had a roommate who was very particular and he asked me which rabbi told me the chicken was OK from that restaurant. I had a mental block and he tried to stop me from eating the chicken.

I always weight lifted and could bench press over 300 lbs back then and I ignored him. He was “in” with the rabbis though. It was a long story.

I was only at D’var for 3 months for a summer course. Quite frankly, I left it discouraged and uninspired. Nevertheless, eventually I returned to Israel to complete my university studies and I learned how to speak Hebrew. As a result, my church, Avenel Presbyterian Church has use for my skills and I have written for the church’s Streamlines newsletter and have given speeches there too.

By the way, you don’t’ have to take what I have written as authoritative. I suggest you compare notes with other people Rabbinic opinions should always be subject to a second opinion. That’s my type of Judaism and I am not Chasidic. I compare notes.

The first point of contention arises in relation to those who think the soul as an accident, that is, a substance or form which is contingent on something else. Saadia breaks these people down further into five subcategories, each with a different interpretation of the theory. Saadia says of the different groups, “Some of them believe that the soul is a self-moving number. Others believe that it constitutes the completion of the natural body… it consists of a combination of the four elements… a juncture of the senses… [or] an accident originating from the blood.” He also details a theory of the dualism of the soul, in which it is believed to consist of, “two parts, one of which is intellectual, rational, intransient… while the other is the source of vitality that is spread over the rest of the body and of a transient nature.”

In total, these six theories represent the body of incorrect arguments which are to be addressed in Treatise VI. Carefully refuting these theories is an important part of Saadia’s argumentation. In previous chapters, he established the four roots of knowledge and the means by which we can discern truth from falsehood. He then uses those roots as the foundation for reason out a point or counter-point in other areas of discussion, building a solid edifice of his philosophy. For example, in considering the theories of the accidental nature of the soul, he relies on speculation and inferential knowledge, writing that, “One accident could not be the bearer of another… Yet we find that the soul is the bearer of many accidents.” He goes on further to compare wicked souls and pure souls, and utilizes the root of Scripture, quoting from Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Genesis to refute the opposing viewpoint. Sensory perception is the only root inapplicable to a discussion of the soul, save knowledge of the lack thereof.

Saadia’s relationship with biblical tradition is interesting and worthy of note, as Scripture is incredibly important in his arguments. He frowns upon biblical purists, those who insist upon the literal truth of the Torah. Instead he favors a more metaphorical interpretation, which supports his philosophy. Scripture forms a part of the basis of his philosophy, yet he is more open-minded about its meaning. In fact, he manages to reconcile his beliefs with the words of the Torah quite well, such as in the refutation mentioned above, as well as throughout Chapter 2 and further. Chapter 2 is actually where Saadia takes the time to reestablish for this Treatise a precedent for his interpretation of Scripture; he also shows again that the soul has accidents and hence cannot itself be an accident, as well as setting things up to discuss how the soul is affected by good deeds and wisdom or sin and wickedness.

Saadia’s views on the nature of the soul are very specific. Firstly, the soul is something created, and it is created at the same time as the body. It is of a substance similar, but not identical to that of the celestial sphere, and has the potential to become more pure through receiving God’s light. He says that, “obedience [to God's commandments] increases the luminosity of the soul’s substance, whereas sin renders its substance turbid and black.” He also believes that the soul is what allows the body its faculties of cognition and reason, of willpower, and want, and so on. He uses the example of a blind man who can apparently utilize his sense of sight when he dreams, thus indicating that the soul is responsible for the senses, and the body is simply the means by which the soul achieves its goal of obedience to God in corporeal existence.

The relationship between the soul and the body is a complex one. The center of the soul’s faculties in the body is the heart, and Saadia cites Scripture to prove it. As long as one has a physical body, they are capable of purifying their soul, for God would not have created anything if not for its own benefit. Saadia expounds upon this principle of divine justice to show that man would not suffer and possibly shorten his life unless it is through his own folly or willed by Good for the sake of the person’s ultimate betterment.

A soul without a human body would not be a true human soul, and if it would have been better off in that state, God would have left in such a manner. The very fact that He placed a soul in a human body implies that it would be for the sake of improvement from a previous state. The body is an integral part of the soul’s functionality. Saadia goes on to say that, “the soul and the body constitute one agent.” This is the dualistic point of contention which Saadia mentioned earlier, and the arguments for the duality of body and soul are based on Scripture, a misinterpretation of Scripture according to Saadia. He turns to Scripture as well, and turns their argument against them. The supporters of dualism cite examples of where a part is referred to as the whole and use it as evidence that the bones or the blood or the heart is responsible for the soul, but Saadia finds further examples where a body is clearly being used to represent the whole and again shows the dangers of a literal translation of the Torah.

When a human being dies, it is according to the destined age that God has set out for them, unless they have either sinned and done something to shorten their life, or they have been virtuous and God gifts them with a long lifespan. At the moment of death, a blazing angel arrives with sword drawn, and his appearance shocks the soul so severely that it is separated from the physical body. Pure souls are rewarded with a blissful afterlife close to God, while wicked souls receive punishment appropriate for their misdeeds.

Saadia goes on to argue against the principle of rebirth, that is, a soul entering a new body after the previous one has died, either human or even animal. A human soul cannot have its substance altered so as to remove accidents of cognition and intellect in order to enter an animal form. His opponents argue that a child who is born into poor living conditions or who has or develops some sort of ailment suffer because of transgressions from past lives. He states that God does not provide life which accounts for the past, a poor life for transgressions and a good one for virtue. Life exists on a moving forward basis and is relative not to the past, but to the future. He says that, “God charges his servants with obligations on account of the future and not at all on account of the past.” He also asserts that the supporters of rebirth have faulty interpretations of Scripture, some of which are based around mere semantics, and Saadia refutes them with his own Scriptural evidence.

Overall, Saadia Gaon provides a comprehensive analysis of the human soul. He examines multiple theories, painstakingly refutes the incorrect ones, and finds specific support for his own theory through the four roots of knowledge, his personal method of argumentation. He finds that the soul is of a substance superior, though similar to heavenly matter, which it is created with and is one with the body, that it is not an accident, and that its existence in a physical body is for its own benefit in accordance with the laws of divine justice.