The Word from YU
I don't want to come down hard on R' Meir Goldvicht, who I like, but it does sort of sound like he ate his own foot at sholosh seudot yesterday. Not that what he said, necessarily was wrong, just that he said it to the wrong group of people.
Help Mom! World Net Daily is Written by Idiots!
The page at World Net Daily hawking, "Help! Mom! Hollywood's in My Hamper" the new conservative screed which manages to demonize liberals, while also using Hillary Clinton in the way Catholics once used Satan in their morality plays, features this delicious bit of inadvertant humor:
In this age of celebrity worship, this book is a must for every kid who needs to learn that sometimes celebrities don’t know best. Find out for yourself why Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, “Our hats are off to [the author] Katharine DeBrecht..."Oh. Is Rush Limbaugh no longer a celebrity? Or is he one of the celebrities who do know best?
Robbie is Right
...about costumes
The man who never tires of reminding us that he's in his twenties and we are not, has a sharp insight about Purim:
"It's just that we're told we wear costumes because just like God's face was hidden during the Purim story, so are ours... let's think about this for a sec:
We want to celebrate that God decided to leave us to fend for ourselves and turn away from us... Seriously, do we really want to emulate an absent God? Oh, and while we're celebrating the fact that we were deserted, let's get so drunk that we can't tell the difference between good things and evil things, because nothing bad ever happens when you're [drunk]"
I don't know how to answer Robbie, except to remind him that we don't wear masks "because God hid his face." Rather, we wear masks because once upon a time the Jews lived among a community of Catholics who celebrated Carnival with masquerades. It looked cool, so the Jews did it, too.
Sidebar:
When you think about it, the whole idea of Carnival is pretty twisted. It's a last chance to indulge for Catholics who are about to enter Lent, a solemn season of fasting and repentance. Sort of as if we partied in the street, Purim-style, immediately before Ellul, or the Asres Yemai Teshuva.
Carnival is additionally the source of such excellent and wholesome traditions as the Palio (forced races of near naked Jews through the streets of Rome) and the annual Mardi-Gras beads-for-breasts exchange on the streets of New Orleans. It's a good thing the Rabbis we rely on are so poor at history: If they knew our Purim practices could be traced back to the source of such unseemly rituals, we'd surely be back in suits and ties at Purim-time.
Earth to Flatbush
According to Maimonides, the supreme mitzvah of Purim is not (a) drinking, or (b) feasting, or (c) sending gifts to friends, or (d) running around in limousines, dressed like cartoon characters, extorting money for yeshivos, but (e) giving to the poor, 'for there is no greater of more splendid joy than uplifting the hearts of poor people, orphans, widows and strangers. Indeed, to do that is to resemble God.' "
Put that in your pipes and smoke it, GOP-Jews.
It's two days after Purim, and we still can't see my dining room table, which is sagging under the weight of approximately eight metric tons of miniature candy bars. My kids, of course, are in heaven. They spent the better part of yesterday dividing up the loot under the strict direction of my eldest daughter, who helpfully reminds the other kids of their likes and dislikes.
"Oh," she'll say to my unsuspecting 5-year old, "You HATE Supersnacks, and the last time you ate an Egozi you got hives. But remember how much you like pomegranate juice? And prune humantachen? You LOVE prune humantachen. Here. Take six. And just to keep things fair, these six chocolate bars are mine."
My wife, and I don't interrupt, of course, because we don't like prune humantachen, either. Let the five-year old have them.
In fact, as it turns out, most of the crap we collected (Oooze, RenReb calls it) isn't meant for human consumption: Sardines? Mangos? Mishpacha brand raisins? Mishpacha brand grape juice? I'm also no fan of most of the candy we get. Sour sticks, for instance, are sour, and sour is BAD. A candy that curls your toes and makes you eyes tear is not a treat. It is a sick joke.
Though most of what we received was quickly squirreled away by my kids, or dumped on my unsuspecting co-workers, I did grab a few items for my private enjoyment. The short list of things I really liked follows:
1 - A bottle of McCallum 18. You, who brought me this fine gift, are my new best friend. I confess to a mite of suspicion about what you might want in return, but we'll worry about that when the bottle is empty.
2 - The bottles of wine. We got about six. Nothing too fancy, or especially expensive, but not bat urine either.
3 - A round of Gouda cheese. It was gone within an hour, and it was fantastic.
4 - Deli roll, packed with a bottle of beer. In that house, obviously, the man is in charge of preparing the baskets. Woman take note: We don't like fancy baked goods. We like meat and beer. Well done, sir!
5 - The chocolate covered cherries. We also like chocolate covered cherries. And Jelly Rings.
6 - All hard candies. I love hard candies, especially the strawberry ones. If you ever find yourself in conversation with a man who might be me, check his pockets for sucking candies. If he's carrying, you might have me.
Here's a blast from the past in honor of Shushan Purim! And don't miss the comments, they are much, much, much better than the post.
Much.
[Note: The comment counter says zero, but like most of the things you see online this is a lie. Click on the zero, and be rewarded.]
Are you a lunatic, or a lazy bones?
A lunatic has her Mishloach Manot theme worked out weeks in advance, and coordinates it with the family costumes. These people are sick in the head. Some of the lunatics running around my neighborhood this year included:
The problem with being a lunatic (aside from the fact that everyone thinks you are a lunatic) is that being a lunatic takes a hell of a lot of work; also you spend the day in a state of near panic, terrified that you haven't prepared a sufficient number of theme baskets. When you're a lunatic, there's nothing worse than running out of elaborately decorated rice-crispy sushi when unexpected gift bearers are still knocking at your door.
At the other end of the spectrum are the lazy bones. A lazy bones buys a huge assortment of colored bags at Amazing Savings, and fills them with an uncoordinated mass of junk food. One of my local lazy bone put her uncoordinated bags and boxes on her front porch beneath a sign reading "Take One." When a lazy bones runs out of baskets, she makes more by cannibalizing the gifts she's already received. I admire this; and except for the fact that the lunatics will look down their noses at you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a lazy bones.
Update: Chana has a solution
Magilla Meme
Over at Ren Reb a new and exciting meme has been created:
Things I think about during magilla reading (besides Russel Crowe).
And though she hasn't exactly tagged me (Ren Reb looks, but she doesn't touch) I thought I'd play along. So here, in no particular order, are some of the thoughts that danced through my sugar and caffine deprived mind on Monday night.
* Man, I can lain so much better than this dope. How many more notes is he going to miss? Why don't they ever ask me to read the megillah? I bet it's because I say Achash-vey-rosh instead of Achash-vey-roysh. That's it, I just know it. Well, screw them.
* Why didn't they have co-ed parties in ancient Persia? I mean, how pious were these people, that Vashti and the women were kept seperate from Achashveyrosh and the men? And if all that seperation didn't help the ancient court of Persia stay proper and moral, why do 21st century Jews think it's worth doing?
* Hey, it doesn't say anywhere that Vashti was killed. Only that her estate was taken away. I have read the megillah maybe 1000 times. How did I miss that? Suddenly, I feel like an old friend of mine who reached the ripe old age of 30 without realizing that the story of Abraham smashing the idols is nowhere in the Hebrew bible. Or the friend who reacts with shock, horror and disgust whenever he's told that Rashi's understanding of a particular verse is rejected by rabbis of equal stature. It's a little scary how the things we're taught as kids can be so powerful - and misleading.
* Why don't the kids and adults who swarm around the shul looking for handouts on Purim ever say anything when they ask you for your money? They just stick their hand in your face and sort of shake it. You're supposed to guess what they want, and who they are collecting for, I guess. Some of them even do this right in the middle of davening. You can be saying shema, or even shmona esray and some scarecrow will come over and rattle his hand under your nose. My policy is to ignore people who don't speak, and to pummel people who bother me during prayers. I confess I am not as religious as I should be about following this policy, but I plan to work on my shortcoming, so that next year I am ready.
* Esther 4:13-14 is an awsome verse (and I am not just saying that because Ren Reb did, too. ) Aside from all the things RenReb likes about it, I also appreciate the lack of certainty. When Mordichai tells Esther she needs to speak up for her people, he doesn't say,"There are no coincidences! The only reason you became queen is because the Jews need your help!" No. What he says is: "And who knows maybe it's for just this purpose [i.e., to save the Jewish people] that you became queen?" Get that everyone? Mordichai is unsure. And he's not so vulgar as to speak for God, even when his life, and the life of everyone he knows, is on the line.
Nowadays, GOP-Jews would probably chastize Mordichai for his lack of faith, ("What do you mean? Of course Esther became queen for the sake of saving the Jews.") but GOP-Jews would have also probably bowed down to Haman, too. ("Come on! The evengelical idol worshippers are our best friends ever! No one loves Jews like they do!")
Keep the meme alive! What did you think about during megillah reading?
I am tagging...
Ezzie: ("What a bunch of Democrats those liberal, hedonist Persians were, raising taxes and wasting money on luxurious parties. I bet there were lots of movie stars and celebreties at those parties, too.)
Chardal: ("Man, I love Purim, and not just because we get to slaughter our enemies with extreme malice. Really!)
CWY: ("The liberal media sure did a job on Haman. As the Wall Street Journal makes clear, Haman's concern was national security, and only a liberal-weenie-wimp would object to a program that makes your country safer and stronger.")
Post Purim Worries
Now that the mishloach manot have been collected and distributed, these are the two questions on the mind of every God-fearing Jew:
Did I suck up to a sufficient number of people? And did a sufficient number of people suck up to me?
Slate's Jody Rosen has been listening to Matisyahu, the newly minted top-40 rocker, and he is less than impressed. The review appears here. Along with the general dissing Jody has some smart things to say. A sampling:
About Matisyahu's voice
As for Matisyahu's vocals: They're adequate. He's got rhythm... and if he sometimes sings off-key, so do most dance-hall artists. But there's no getting around the phony Jamaican accent; when, in "Jerusalem," he sings "In-a de ancient days, we will return with no delay/ Picking up de bounty and de spoils on our way," he sounds no less silly than Vanilla Ice did impersonating a gangsta.
About his act
Matisyahu isn't really a novelty—his is the oldest act in the show-business book. Minstrelsy dates back to the very beginnings of American popular music, and Jews have been particularly zealous and successful practitioners of the art. From Irving Berlin's blackface ragtime numbers to Al Jolson's mammy songs—from jazz clarinetist Mezz Mezzrow, who passed as black, to Bob Dylan, who channeled the cadences of black bluesmen, to the Beastie Boys—successive generations of Jewish musicians have used the blackface mask to negotiate Jewish identity and have made some great art in the process.
On Jewish Reggae
Musically speaking, Jewish reggae is not such a far-fetched idea; as many critics have pointed out, the plaintive minor-key melodies for which Jewish liturgical music (and Hasidic folksongs) are renowned are also staples of reggae. What's more, Matisyahu's appropriation of Jamaican music is really no more brazen than Rastafarians' appropriation of Jewish religious tropes. If a Caribbean islander can plunder Jewish scripture and call himself a lost tribesman of Israel, why can't a Jew sing a song to a one-drop beat in a phony patois? Lubavitcher Hasidim even have their very own Hallie Selassie-like demigod, the late Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who many Lubavitchers regard as Moshiach himself.
About his bonafides:
Matisyahu is like a thousand other white guys from the suburbs who've smoked a lot of dope, listened to some Burning Spear records, and decided to become reggae singers. But as a Hasid, he has a genuinely exotic look—that great big beard and the tzitzit fringes flying—and the spiritual bona fides to pull off songs steeped in Old Testament imagery. It's an ingenious variation on the archetypal Jewish blackface routine... In 2006, Matisyahu wears Old World "Jewface," and in so doing, becomes "black."
One of the knocks against Bill Clinton was that he spent too much time hobnobing with movie stars. The people didn't seem to mind - Clinton's poll numbers were never so low as W's - but Republicans used to whine about it.
W, too, likes to meet with the occasional movie star. Tomorrow night, for instance, he''ll greet porn star Mary Carey at the prestigious United to Victory dinner. This is the second time Carey and W have eaten together. The meeting was arranged by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) and it includes face time for Carey with Karl Rove. According to the press release, the famous film star plans to "interact" with other members of the Republican leadership.
To my great surprise, the moralists on the right don't seem to mind.
Pop Purim Quiz
Why do we fast today?
Choose one:
1 - To commerate Esther's fast on the 13th of Adar.
2 - To drive home the point that salvation only follows repentance.
3 - Because the Sages say so.
Answer Key
1 - Wrong. Esther fasted for three days in Nissan, not Adar. Though some think we're commerating her three-day fast with our fast today, this is not clear: The Even HaYarchi, for example, believes that all the Jews of Persia fasted on the 13th day of Adar to prepare themselves for the battle which took place the next day. The Even Hayarchi, who did not posess a time machine, bases his belief on Esther 9:19: "And the Jews... congregated on the thirteenth..."Why did they congragte? For fasting, he says.
2 - Wrong. Though this is, perhaps, a good lesson to draw from today's observance, it is very unlikely the Sages sat around the wisdom table plotting out rituals as if they were executives planning a new corporate intiative. It's infinitly more likely that the fast arose, in the same way that costumes and noisemaking arose, with the reasons asigned after the fact.
3 - Correct. We fast today only because the Sages of the Second Temple period ordained it. Though it's fun to work out reasons, we have no way of knowing if any of those reasons were on the minds of the Jews who first fasted, or on the minds of the Sages who ratified the custom after it had become known. I fast because I accept the authority of Chazal in these matters; and if you are fasting today, ultimately, so do you.
Purim Reading
Last year, at this time, in this season, I published a satire of the Book of Esther, adapted from one of AP Kores's parodies.
You can find it here
Blowing my own horn
The blog you've grown to hate reached an important milestone last Thursday when no one was looking: 500,000 page views. (1)
Thanks to all of you for reading and commenting, for sending me emails, and also for protecting my back when the blog-battles got ugly.
Thanks, too, to the core chevra (2) the gang of fantatsic commenters who are equal partners in the marginal and heavily-exagerated success of this blog.
I wanted to thank each member of the CC individually, until I realized that would require time + effort; worse, if I tried to do that, I would definately forget someone and catch (deserved) hell for it. Anyway, the members of the CC know who they are, and I hope they also know my appreciation is sincere, not to mention well-deserved: By my informal count, the CC is responsible for, like, 80 percent of the hits, and... I don't know... maybe 90 percent of the posts. The truly awful ones, I admit, were written by me, but edited and greenlighted by GH. In retrospect, I should not have been so trusting. Ah, well. Live and learn.
Anyway, Toot! Toot! (3) and thanks for everything. Really.
Unnecessary verbiage
(1) I count page views, not unique visitors, because that's the minhag hamakom. When Jewish blogs say hits, they mean page views. I have had, as of this moment, 238,548 unique visitors,
* I started counting in October 2004
*The counter that passed 500,000 last Thursday (on the bottom of the screen) blocks and does not register hits from any of the computers I use. It counts each visit from Ezzie's computer three times which may explain a few things.
(2) In all, I suppose the blog has had three core chevras: (1) The chesed neurayich group which supported me in the begining; (2) the Summer of Love group, a group of true misfits and lunatics who made writing the blog a breeze. When they were around, all I needed to do was put a funny picture, or make a wry observation and they took it from there; and (3) the current crew. I don't have a name for you yet and, unlike the summer of love crew, you make me work for a living, but, honestly, if it weren't for the sad fact that many of you guys are unrepentant, retrograde Republicans I would love you all the same. Thanks for being here.
(3) Yes, Alex, I know many people have been a part of all three groups.
* Is it just me or do you also think its kind of creepy how Gil celebrates each of his blog's milestones by saying, "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another Hundred Thousand?" (Only my respect for Gil keeps me from making the obvious joke. Perhaps someone will do it for me on the thread.)
Please.
I know clicking on a link, and entering the word "DovBear" on a comment thread may stretch the technological skills of some of the readers here, but why not do me this one favor? Vote here. And those few of you who prefer other Jewish blogs have no excuse: I am the only one in the contest!
So do it now.
VOTE DOVBEAR
Thanks and im yirtza hashem by you.
Attention Toby Katz: I really liked your post about the work you do for you local chevra kadisha. It was a thing of great beauty. In fact, I wrote at least three comments on your thread complimenting you, but whoever runs the store over at Cross Currents refused to publish them. Also, the way you were able to write a post filled with such great love just days after you wrote a post about Hollywood Jews that was filled with such great hate is a great answer to the Bible critics. If you're capable of writing in so many different and contradictory styles, why can't God?
Attention Chardal parodist: Yo, you were supposed to be mocking Chardal. Not me. Yeesh. Did Jameel not explain that to you? Anyway, THIS is how you do Chardal
The other day, while on one of my regular forays into Jericho, I saw an Arab standing on the steps of a house he had purchased with his own money acting as if he owned the place. Boy, did that make me mad. Embaresssed as I am to admit it, my yetzer hara got the better of me, and I was not able to smite the uppity raghead. Oh lord of our fathers Avraham, Issac, Jacob and R-V K-K. Please give me the strength to overcome my evil inhibition and give me the strength to fulfil your will the next time I encounter an Arab walking with his feet on the dirt of your most holy land.Note: I have accepted the Chardal parodist's apology.
There's a temptation to link the practice of noisemaking in the synagogue to the verse 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek' (Deut. xxv. 19)' but I've found no evidence that this custom existed prior to the middle ages.
Most everything you can find using Google, will agree with Wikpedia which attributes the custom to:
French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century who introduced the custom of writing the name of Haman, the offspring of Amalek, on two smooth stones and of knocking or rubbing them constantly until the name was blotted out. Ultimately, however, the stones fell into disuse, the knocking alone remaining. Some wrote the name of Haman on the soles of their shoes, and at the mention of the name stamped with their feet as a sign of contempt; others used for the same purpose a rattle--called 'gregar' (from Polish grzgarz), and producing much noise--a custom which is still observed by the Russo-Polish Jews.Interesting, but our familiar problem remains. How was the custom established? What brought it into being? Did the French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century meet at an Aguda convention, where they resolved that a new custom was needed? If so, where is the record of their proclamation? Did they vote? Was there debate? Were other ideas considered?
Apparently Fox, known to some as God's network, made a point, last Sunday, of moving the on-screen text that normally appears at the bottom of the screen. This gave viewers an unobstructed look at the cleavage of female correspondents and commentators during Fox's Oscar broadcast.
Real nice. Also moral.
Hat-tip:CS
Michael says: "CWY and Ezzie, you guys are wrong, wrong, wrong about this."
Oh, baby.
As the blogopsphere continues to laugh out-loud at the marverlous parodies being posted via the Muqata I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time with the original Purim parody: Megilas Esther.
Background
The generation described in the Megilla was the generation of Jews who chose Persia over Jerusalem. One of the great disapointments of that era was that so few Jews accepted Korech's invitation to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Zechariah, the book of prophecy, was written at this time, and its read by many as a scathing rebuke of the Jews who stayed behind. Esther, perhaps, was written from the same perspective but with a subtler touch.
Examples
Let's look at the book's most famous verse:Ish yehudi hoya b'Shushan haBira uShmo Mordichai / A Jewish man was in Shusan the capital and his name was Mordichai
Consider this:
* The only other time the phrases ish yehudi appears in Tanach is Zecharya 8:23 where is describes a Jew who had successfuly led all of the nations into the service of the one God.
* The only other times the word bira appears in Tanach it specifically refers to the Temple.
* The name, Mordichai, as you know, is the name of a Babylonian god.
Now that you're aware of the context, do you hear the verse's sting? It's saying, "Instead of being in the Jewish bira where he belongs, your ish yehudi is in a foreign bira, with a foreign name."
Other verses are no gentler. In Esther 1:9-12 we're told:
[Vashti was told to] come to the king... but she did not come as the King comanded and he became very angry.This may refer to the Jewish people who stayed behind in Persia after the God called them to Jerusalem. When the king, in the next set of verses, worries that all women will follow Vashti's example and disobey their husbands, the author is suggesting that nothing can be expected from other nations if even Israel won't obey God.
There is a certain nation scattered among the other nations.. and the laws of the King they do not keep, so there is no reason for the King to leave them aloneFrom the perspective of parody, this is a threat. The author is warning the Jews of the disapora that if they ignore God's law, and remain in exile, there is no reason for God to keep them as His people.
"Truth, social justice, helping the poor and needy, and thinking kindly of your neighbor."And what are the first words on this laundry list of liberal intitiatives? "Emet uMishpat Sholom"
Do the right thing
[ee: Vote for me by entering DovBear in the comment thread]
The temptation on the right is always to slur the left: as cowards, as traitors, as spenders, as reletavists.
Thinking Republicans (there are a few!) know the first three charges are bogus, meant to undercut loyal dissent and honest debate. The fourth charge - the charge of relativism - has a way of sticking. This is a mistake.
Oh, sure, there are some relativist among non-thinking Democrats (yes, there ae a few!) but for the most part liberals are pluralists, not reletavists.
Here, for example, is Martin Peretz, a liberal, quoting favorably a remark made by Yo-Yo Ma about Larry Summers, also a liberal, who was recently dismissed from his post as Harvard's president essentially for failing to kot-tow sufficiently to the relativists and non-thinkers on Harvard's faculty.
What I like about Larry," said Yo-Yo to me on the phone from a Silk Road program in Charlottesville, Virginia, "is that he understands that nobody knows everything: not he, not you, not me. But he also understands that one cannot have a coherent view of the world without trying to know what the other knows. Larry's is an analytic mind, and yet he makes so much room for the cultural and emotional sphere, even the irrational--that which is ultimately human.Striving to know what the other knows, and striving to synthasize it with your own knowledge. This is the essence of pluralism, the rest is commentary.
[An old story, at this point, but one not yet discussed here, and perhaps not known to the news-averse people who read this blog.]
George W. Bush, it seems, has once again been outed as a liar. Not long after Katrina hit, the president appeared on TV and told America: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
We knew he was lying at the time, because it wasn't news to anyone that NOLA's levees were in bad shape. Now, (ok, last week) the AP has discovered that Bush attended a briefing THE DAY BEFORE KATRINA HIT where federal disaster officials warned Bush that the storm could breach over-run levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers. [Video] [Update: A breach is not the same as an overrun, but so what? Bush was warned that water might enter NOLA and kill people. The fact that the water entered via a breach and not an overrun doesn't excuse him for being unprepared. And it was especially disengenuous for him to go on TV claiming that he was totally surprised that water entered the city, when he was told before the storm that it would happen. ]
At the briefing, Bush didn't ask a single question; later he told state officials that he was "fully prepared" (which as it turns out, he wasn't)
It comes down to this: George W. Bush lacks the competance to serve as president. We thought this was true back in September, when we presumed, simply, that he was innocently unaware of what civil engineers and disaster experts had been saying for years.
Now it turns out he was VERY much aware of the coming danger, yet he sat on his hands anyway.
On December 8, 2004, fat Willie Donohue declared Mission Accomplished:
We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.But if the victory was complete, and the enemy was vanquished, why is William Donohue still bothering people? Could it be that his "Mission Accomplished" moment was as bogus as Bushie's? Money quote:
Ok, to review, here's the problem. Our Torah says 600,000 armed men left Egypt but all the evidence suggests this is impossible. For example: Excavations of the Sinai desert show no trace of a nation of 3 million or an army of 600,000 people. The largest nation in the world at that time (Egypt) had an army of 20,000. And, from a theological perspective, the idea that defeating Amalek and conquering Canaan were miracles is obviated if the ancient Israelites possessed an army not just larger than Egypt's, but larger than the 500,000 man army of Napolean which conquered all of Europe 2200 years later
What's a God-fearing Jew (ie: not you GH) to do?
A clever solution is suggested by someone with a name I forgot (again, not you GH) who points out that eleph, the word for thousand, is also used for family (Judges 6:15) clans and military units; also, in Hebrew eleph is a heteronym for aluf, the word for chieftain, or for an armed soldier, ie: someone carrying more than the weapons of a peasent shepherd.
The number 600,000 appears twice in scripture. Let's look at the two instances in context.
Exodus 12:37
ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סכתה כשש מאות אלף רגלי הגברים לבד מטף
According to the theory presented above, this translates as "And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred (fully armed) chieftains on foot that were men of valor, aside from families. "
Numbers 1:46
ויהיו כל הפקדים--שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים
This translates as "All they that were counted were six hundred (fully armed) chiefs, three "thousands" (a military unit) and five "hundreds" (also a military unit) and fifty (of the smallest military unit)."
So far so good, but the heteronym theory takes on a bit of water when we reach the description of the census in Numbers 26, and sentences like this:
אלה משפחת הראובני ויהיו פקדיהם שלשה וארבעים אלף ושבע מאות ושלשים
Translation: These are the families of Reuven: their number was forty-three thousand, seven hundred and thirty; and
אלה משפחת השמעני--שנים ועשרים אלף ומאתים
Translation: These are the families of Simon, twenty-two thousand, two hundred.
The man behind the heteronym theory (still can't recall his name) has a solution for this, too. He suggests reading the census verses as follows:
Reuven: 43 (fully armed) chieftains; 7 hundreds (military units) and thirty (of the smallest millitary unit)
Simeon: 22 (fully armed) chieftains; 2 'hundreds' (military units).
Is it perfect? Of course not. Nothing is perfect. However, the obvious benefit of this approach is that it gives us a way to reconcile the facts of the Torah with the facts of history and the facts of archeology. Yes, it means altering the traditional understanding of the word eleph, but this alteration is fully in keeping with the accepted meaning of the heteronym.
The Purim party has started at The Muqata where many of your favorite bloggers have been parodied. Reading through them, I was also pleased to discover quite a few new bloggers, including one called Godol Hador. Anyone ever hear of him?
He looks sort of promisimg but be warned: I glanced at a few sentances on one of his posts, and it looks like he might be a k*f*r.
The other day, while slumming on the comment threads at one of the very bad blogs, I was confronted by a charactar who demanded to know my reasons for casually dismissing the popular notion that 600,000 men of military age stood at Sinai. In a nutshell, they are:
- There's no archeological evidence that 600,000 people (let alone 3 million, counting women and children) lived in the Sinai desert, and no trace of their progress toward Canaan.
- The population of the world in the 12th century BCE is estimated at 50 million with the population of Egypt estimated at between 2 and 5 million. Accepting that 3 million Jews left Egypt, means accepting that the Jewish nation that wandered the desert for 40 years was equal in size to the age's super-power.
- Few armies in the modern world have ever had 600,000 men (In 1967 Israel went to war with just 264,000 soldiers) let alone the ancient world: In the third century BCE, Alexander conquered the known world with less than 100,000 men. Epic battles, like Marathon, involved less than 25,000 people. If Israel had 600,000 men, how could the battle with Amalek or the conquest of Cannan under Joshua possibly be considered miracles?
But fear not, true believers. A lazy blogger like GH might shrug his shoulders and tell you that none of this evidence matters because, after eating a large plate of extra greasy potato kugel, he once "experienced" the 600,000, but I have a better approach. I have found a way to reconcile the Torah's words with what archeologists and historians say is plausible. Look for it after lunch.(I'm having kugel!) Or take your best guesses on the thread.
Ben Bayis writes:
...Toby's statement, (''Walk away from your marriage if someone sexier comes along' is a message that is really really popular especially in the Blue States,") put me in mind of the following Mishnah:At least all those supposed blue-state philanderers can take comfort in the fact that Rabbi Akiva does not disaprove of their behavior.
"The School of Shammai rules: A man should not divorce his wife unless he discovers in her an immoral matter... The School of Hillel holds: [He may divorce her] even if she burnt his meal... Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he found another more beautiful than she." [emphasis mine]
... and all of the other blue states, when she writes:
"Walk away from your marriage if someone sexier comes along” is a message that is really really popular especially in the Blue States
How twisted.
The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1. In fact, among the states with the highest divorce rates just one - Hawaii - is blue. Sounds to me like more people in red states are walking away from their marriages.
And if you want to talk about Family Values, how about this: Massachusetts also leads in per capita and family income (in part, because they invest so much more in education) while births by teenagers, as a percent of total births, was 7.4 for Massachusetts and 16.1 for Texas. In fact, 6 of the 10 states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy are blue states; 7 of the 10 states with the highest rates were red states.
The top 5 highest murder rates per 100,000 in America? Red states all- Louisiana (17.5), Mississippi (11.1), Alabama (10.4), Tennessee (9.5) and South Carolina (9.0) - despite the fact the largest cities are in blue states.
Infant mortality rate? Again, the red states lead the way, with four of the top five.
So, for all the blather about the immoral blue states, we hear from morons and fools like Toby, it is the people in the Blue states, who actually are creating communties that care about Family Values.
Sounding quite a bit like Willian Donohue (the Catholic leader who last year said Hollywood was mostly Jews who like anal sex) our dear own Toby Katz, the Jewish-blogosphere's leading anti-Semite, recently let us know exactly how she feels about Jews... Hollywood Jews, that is.
By making the homosexual life seem so seductive, alluring and glamorous, Hollywood is making it exponentially more difficult than it ever was before for people with homosexual tendencies to remain chaste. Having led so many people to sin who would not have sinned in the past, Hollywood has a lot to answer for. The Jews of Hollywood, in particular, who seem the most bent on pushing immorality of every kind, will face a Judgment Day that I would not want to see.What's the funniest part of this quote? That Toby Katz, a teacher at a Jewish High School, sounds just like Joseph Goebbels? Or, that Brokeback Mountain was made, not by Jews, but by Ang Lee, Annie Proulx, Larry McMurtry and Dianna Ossana? (not one Jew among them!)
How else could Hollywood have imagined a movie like Brokeback Mountain would have broad appeal? “Watch two men make love” isn’t much of a draw...So the Jews of Hollywood are devious but stupid, dedicated to corrupting the world, but not sharp enough to work their insidiuous morality-hating messages into something popular.
Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion... The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.Also introduced was a new state logo.
I'm up for a Koufax, in the Most Deserving of Wider Recognition category. If you agree that more people should be reading this blog, by all means go here and cast your vote by entering the word "DovBear" in the comment thread.
Thanks, in advance.
Boy, do I love John Stewart.
Last night at the Oscars he has all of Hollywood hanging on his every word, waiting -no, salivating!-for Bush jokes, and what does he do, instead? Attacks them.
Coming back from one break, Stewart pretended to be in mid-sentence. "And that is why I think Scientology is right, not just for this city, but for the country," he said, clearly mocking some stars' commitment to Scientology. Hollywood sat silent.It's an article of received wisdom among our friends on the right that John Stewart and the Daily Show are tools of the Democratic party, and that the right are always victims of the media.
An admitted and unashamed progressive himself, Stewart later made fun of the film industry's perceived liberalness, telling viewers the Oscars are a chance to "see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic party." Our favorite stars barely chuckled. Instructing the audience to not pirate films, Stewart referred to the rich and lavishly dressed audience and said, "These are the people you're stealing from." Those people did not find his remark funny.
Collected on the Internet:
Many adult congregants and children also come to services in costumes depicting the Purim characters and other notable figures from Jewish history and contemporary life. According to one interpretation, this is because just as God was 'hidden' throughout the Purim story, so do we 'hide' behind masks and costumes.Pleasant as it is to imagine a commitee of Rabbis, gathered around a large oak table, making decisions and creating customs ('Yes! Masks! What a wonderful way to emphasize this important theological message!') the truth is far more mundane: The custom of donning masks and costumes on Purim, like many of our wedding and burial rituals, was borrowed from the surrounding, non-Jewish culture.
Psycho Toddler makes a siyum but doesn't serve cholent? Or even some kugel? If you ever doubted he lived outside of New York this is the slam dunk proof you've been waiting for.
In New York (rachmana ltzlon) they put out cholent for everything: sholom zachar, tikun, bris, Wednesday night shiur -- everything. It's getting a little bit gross.
Anyway, Mazal Tov PT!
And this is the offering which you shall take from them; gold, and silver, and copper.
At the start of this week's parsha, we're told that that people brought offerings of zahav (gold), kesef (silver) and nechoshes (copper.) The following is attributed to the Vilna Gaon:
Z- Zayin=7, the seventh day of the week
H-Hay=5, the fifth day of the week
V-Bays=2, the second day of the week
K-Kuf= Kippurim, Yom Kipper
S-Samach=Sucos
F-Pay=Pesach
N-Nun,=Ner ie: Chanuka (yeah, this one is a shlep)
CH-Ches= Chodesh ie: Rosh Chodesh
SH-Shin= Shavuos and Shana, ie: Rosh Hashana
T=Tof=Taanis (fast days)
As you may have noticed, the acrostic formed by the words Zahav, Kesef and Nechoshes are all the days during the year when the Torah is read. Concludes the Vilna Gaon, "We see from this, that in our day reading the Torah constitutes an offering equal to the gold, silver, and copper our ancestors brought."
Leave aside the tacked-on moral. What do skeptics like Godol Hador, who deny TMS, do with this acrostic? Do they say that it's a lucky coincidence? Or what?
[What does a skeptic like DovBear say? That there was a revelation at Sinai, but men, being men, screwed things up (especially during bayis rishon when idolatry was rampant). Nonethless, a lot of the ideas and words that remained (including this acrostic(maybe)) can be traced to Sinai. If this sounds familiar, btw, there's a good reason for that.]
LA Times/Bloomberg report:
Bush's popularity slides even further (PDF)
Take away points:
Overall
- Less than two out of five respondents (38%) approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, down five points since January’s Times/Bloomberg poll, while almost three out of five disapprove (58%), up four points from January.
War
- 54% of respondents disapproved of his handling the war on terrorism, while 44% approved. This includes 41% who “strongly” disapproved.
Economy
Thirty-seven percent approved of the way Bush is handling the nation’s economy, while 60% disapproved. This includes 39% who “strongly” disapproved.
Those numbers, boys and girls, are worse that Clinton's were during his impeachment. Can you imagine how awful they would be if Bush didn't have every imaginable resource (including the media) propping him up?
Someone (Ezzie? Ezzie?) play republican's advocate for me. That 30-40 percent who still think Bush is worth keeping... what exactly do they like about him? Or are they all just meth addicts?
There's the ashkenaz nusach (order of prayer) which dates back at least 1000 years, and there is also the ashkenaz style which has developed over time. I define the ashkenaz style as follows:
- Saying or singing anim zemiros in front of an open ark.
- Adon olam at the end of shabbos musaf.
- Lecha dodi and kel adon sung congregationally, and not responsively.
- Kabalas shabbos led from the shulchan, not the omud.
- Yigdal after maariv on Friday night.
- Kiddush and havdalah in shul.
- Shaz (prayer leader) wears a talit at mincha and maariv.
I define the absence of these practices as the sefard style.
Most of the newer Ashkenaz shuls I've attended recently, daven the ashkenaz nusach, but in the sefard style. They skip anim zemiros, say lecha dodi responsively, and so on. The claim is that this combination is the "yeshivish style," but is this true?
In reference to the styles I've defined above, how do they daven at large ashkenazic insititutions like (1) Lakewood (2) Telz (3) Chaim Berlin (4) Chofetz Chaim (5) Yeshiva University (6) Ner Yisroel and (7) Skokie?
Q Jew: "The word Yahrezeit was not used until the 16th century and is from the German word Jahrzeit which is a word used by the Christian Church for honoring the deceased."
And people give me a hard time when I say book instead of sefer or rabinic literature instead of TSBP?
PS: Babel Fish returns "Year time"
Shorter GH: PURIM REALLY SUCKS BECAUSE I'M A WHINY GIRLY MAN WHO HATES TO FAST PLUS NO ONE EVER RECIPROCATES MY SHOLOACH MANOT AND ALL THAT NOISE DURING MEGILLAH HURTS MY HEAD
Well, the Purim season is off to it's traditional start: The price of wine has gone up, the mosdos are clamoring for support, and GH, our cranky, and foul-spirited-neighborhood Scrooge, has posted all the reasons why he thinks Purim is bad, bogus and unworthy of his attention and support.
A special note on GH's post: In the true Purim spirit, GH managed to deconstruct Purim (paragraph 1) while simultaneously claiming that only a skeptical blogger, unlike himself, (ha, ha, ha) would do something so foul and devious (paragraph 2). Of course, GH immediately went on to explain why Purim is the most-rotten of holidays, but isn't that the sort of slipperyness we've unfortunately come to expect from that blog?
Anyway, I suppose it's time for me to get in on the Purim fun, while first making clear that this post is from last year, and also, I don't care one whit about the origins of Purim: No matter what GH and his pointy-headed friends have to say about how Prim came into being, the fact is Purim has been around for a long, long time, and it's a day full of great fun.
Things about Purim that bother me
In no particular order
1) The Persian sources are't especially gap-filled yet they contain no references to the events described in Megilas Esther. There's no record of a King Ahashverosh, a Queen Vashti, a decreee to kill Jews, or of Jews killing thousands of their enemies. Why wasn't any of this recorded?
2) The names Haman, Esther and Mordechai sound suspiciously like those of Babylonian gods, making it possible that our story is a retelling, maybe a parody, of some ancient folktale or myth. In Persian mythology Ishtar is the goddess of fertility; Marduk is the chief guardian of the heavens; and Haman is the underworld devil. Is this a strange coincidance? A deliberate parody? Or (more) proof that the whole 'lo shanu et shimon/they didn't change their names' is just so much Haredi bushwah?
3) Esther is a Jewish woman, living well after the Torah was given. So what is she doing in a harem, paying no attention to dietary laws? And, is anyone else concerned that Mordechai seems to have been the original funny-uncle?
4) Late in the story, a guy named Hatach appears. Essentially, he's Esther's messanger-boy, yet the Rabbis insisted he was the very famous Daniel. Why is this necessary?
5) Early in the story, the King receives advice from a man named Me'muchan. The Rabbis insist that this is Haman. Why is this necessary?
6) The Rabbis also insisted the Vashti had a tail. WITN?
7) Hasidim, who are otherwise perfect in every way, and the apogee of authentic Judaism, make a fetish of mispronouncing Mordechai's name. Instead of Mor-DOH- Chai, they say Mud-cha. WITN?
A question I can answer: In the Megillah, Esther three-day fast is long before Purim, so why is Ta'anit Esther, the rabbinic fast day, on 13 Adar, the day before Purim?
Short Answer:
The Rabbis were shrewd at politics.
Long Answer:
Second Temple Jews had a holiday that the Rabbi's disliked, called Nicanor Day, which commemorated a major Maccabean victory over a Greek general named Nicanor. Nicanor Day was celebrated on 13 Adar. The Rabbis, who disliked Maccabees, too, turned Nicanor Day into a solemn fast day. (Four legs good! Two legs better!)
Want to be assured of salvation and eternal life? Vote Shas!
As OrthoMom reports Rabbi Ovdya Yosef has made a promise: "Anyone who votes for Shas will end up in heaven."
In less elevated circles we'd call such gambits "drumming up trade." Rabbi Ovadya's technique is as old as the peddler's art, but it's much more troubling here: A peddler uses your insecurities to convince you to make a purchase; here, Rabbi Ovadya is appealing to our doubts and fears about the next world, also because he wants us to do something.
Trouble is Rabbi Ovadya's pitch will do more then put money into Shas's pocket. It also adulterates Judaism, by making it seem that heaven can be won in a day; and not through acts or through beleifs, but through one mechanical action. When he says, "Anyone who votes for Shas will end up in heaven," he's also saying that mitzvos and the developed intellect no longer matter. That's not Judaism.
From a memo recently circulated by Robert Hagan, of the Ohio State Senate
"I intend to introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents... My legislation is modeled after a bill recently introduced in the Ohio House by Rep. Ron Hood (R-Ashville via Carrollton), whichHow beautiful is this?
would prohibit homosexual, bisexual and transgender people from adopting children...
Credible research exists that strongly suggests that adopted children raised in Republican households, though significantly wealthier than their Democrat-raised counterparts, are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.
[snip]
If you are interested in co-sponsoring this legislation, please feel free to contact my office."
When Colbert interviews a guest, he usually asks: "George W. Bush: great president, or the greatest president?" Democrats who demur, usually with some variation of "Dude, he sucks," are told by Colbert that they're being "put down for great."
Thus far, the only person to agree that Bush might indeed be the "greatest president" is... wait for it... Monica Crawley of MSNBC, one of the Girls of the GOP. Yes, MSNBC.
I bring this up, incidently, by way of reply to Ezzie, who yesterday piously and ignoranly insisted that MSNBC is "liberal." (I say "piously" because he repeated the claim in the manner of a seminary girl insisting that midrashim are literal; I say "ignorantly" well, because it fits.)
Steven Colbert, seen above posing with a portrait of himself posing with a portrait of himself, is on a mission to interview -or lampoon- all 434 members of the House of Representatives. I've caught some of it, and most of what I've seen is worth sharing. You can judge for yourself here. [Videos at the left]
Colbert -who's on-screen personality is something of a cross between Yackov Menken, Bill O'Reilly and Ezzie - possesses an endearing willingness to look stupid which permits him, for example, to ask Barney Frank about his wife, or to challenge Bill Pascrell Jr. for being insufficiently Italian. ("Congressman, your name doesn't end in a vowel.")
To date, none of the Congressmen has taken a swing at him, but Frank is reportedly pissed.
A long, long time ago, when I was still in school, or perhaps when I was attending yeshiva, or NCSY, or camp, or something, I heard a story about an old Rabbi who once irritated a librarian while bentching and, because of the events that followed, later sent her an anonymous note, a note that quite unintentionally convinced the librarian to cancle her plans to marry a non-Jew.
The story was presented as true. And naive teenager that I was, I saw the old Rabbi's note as a wonderful illustration of the famous saying from Chagiga 15: "Every day a bas kol, a heavenly voice, calls "shuvu banim shovavim, return to me my wayward sons."
I should have known better. Rats.
Ben Bayis slanders your devoted and poorly paid host:
...you dislike all conservatives equally.Untrue!
Hannidate is an Online-Dating-Service for Conservatives, a place where those of you who vote GOP can go to find your soul mates.
Here is today's Hannidate catch of the day (all errors are SIC)
General InformationNote: I'm reasonablly certain this is a hoax, but who can tell?
I have a lot of muney because I am a fund raser for the Repubican party heer in the hert of dixy which is Alabama. I need a nice gurl to spent in on bying nice stuffs.
Appearance
I'm tall and taned from werkin on my land. My best featuresis my large head full of blond hare. I weer reely consevetive cloths like rebel flag shirts & hats, and bluegenes.
Looking for
Lookin fer a hot young conservative honey - like a hootersgurl. She's gotta accept the Lord as her savyour. She's gotta like hunting - maybe goin on ham shootsor deer huntin.If they live in north Alabama or Tennessee, or Missipippi would be ok - my Ford f-100 leeks alot of oil & needs atranmision & can't go to far
The National Review (which bills itself as "America’s premier magazine and web site for reaching Republican/Conservative opinion leaders who affect and shape policy on a wide range of issues") is celebrating a very special birthday: 50 Years!
By way of congratulations let's trot out a quote from 1960
In the Deep South the Negroes are, by comparison with the whites, retarded. . . . Leadership in the South, then, quite properly, rests in white hands. Upon the white population this fact imposes moral obligations of paternalism, patience, protection, devotion, sacrifice."Though I'm tempted to say that not much has changed in 40 years that would be unfair. American conservatives have come a very long way and this must be acknowledged.
I was thumbing through the current Atlantic (March 2006) recently, when I found this very angry letter to the editor from one Bob Bronson:
"I picked up the December issue at the airport because the article Why Iraq Has No Army by James Fallows caught my eye. Before I got to it, however, I read the Wall Street Journal editorial that mentioned the article and asserted that Mr. Fallows had not only never visited Iraq but had never interviewed anybody in either the U.S. or the Iraqi governments prior to writing it. After reading that, I decided not to invest the time in reading the article. If I want unknowledgeable anti-American propaganda, I can watch the network news.What's this? An act of dishonesty at my favorite magazine? Well, no. Replied Fallows on the very same page:
About the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page: the allegation that Bob Bronson mentions was and is preposterous. The Journal’s editorial cited an unnamed source in the Multinational Security Training Command in Iraq—the organization responsible for training Iraqi troops—and claimed that I “didn’t even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.” That is flatly untrue. I interviewed many members of that organization (among other civilian and military officials I spoke with), including its then commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, and his deputy. The Journal’s editorial writers would have known this claim was false had they checked with me or this magazine before publishing, which they did not do. Indeed, they would have known this if they had even looked at my article before criticizing it, since it contained lengthy quotes from Petraeus and an explanation of which interview requests the Pentagon press office had approved and denied. Mr. Bronson would have known all this if he had seen the next day’s issue of The Journal, which published a retraction of the false claim.I wonder how many other people missed Fallow's article due to the Journal's baseless slander (and I wonder how I missed this story from last December? ) Anyway, it's all just a day at the office for the Wall Street Journal which, unlike the Times, won't even employ a columnist from the other side of the aisle. There's no equivlent of Brooks or Teirny over at the Journal, you see.
Shortcomings of the PMS* theory of souls:
1 - PMS doesn't explain how the soul and body interact. PMS says that the soul can influence our actions, and that our actions can improve our souls. But it provides no mechanism which explains how this occurs.
2 - PMS invites abuse from people who prefer to focus on the next world, rather than this world. For instance, some people imagine that so long as they pray or keep shabbos their ticket to the next world is punched no matter how they treat their fellow men.
3 - PMS is embraced by people who are looking for shortcuts. "Why bother busying myself with the hard work of studing and acting ethically," some seem to say, "when my soul can also be elevated by eating kugel or listening to music, or by the rote recitation of tehillim or other prayers?"
Shortcomings of MTS (my minimized theory of souls):
1 - MTS doesn't explain how the soul is improved. We believe that God rewards or punishes the soul after we die, but in order for this final judgement to have any meaning, our actions in this world need to have some influence on our souls. For a time, I thought the Rambam offered a solution, but I was wrong. The Rambam teaches that the soul is nothing but our developed intellect (He holds that those of us with undeveloped intellects aren't punished at death, per say; rather we cease to exist.) This view explains how the soul is improved through our actions, but it doesn't tell us how the developed intellect achieves immortality. I also thought epiphenomenalism might get around this problem; but epiphenomenalism only explain how the body influences the soul without the soul influencng the body, we're still left with the question about how immortality is achieved.
2 - MTS doesn't explain how free will operates. If the soul isn't influencing our thoughts and actions, how can we avoid saying that every event (human thoughts and actions included) is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences? This denies free will. And though many Jewish thinkers (notably Rav Y.B Solivetchik and Eliyahu Dessler) argue that a great deal of out thoughts and actions are the product of circumstances, not free will, I can't find anyone (save Hasdai Crescas and some Chabadniks) who advances a Jewish doctrine of predestination. Neither the Rambam nor epiphenomenalism offer any help here: The Rambam held that the developed intelect/soul influences our actions and epiphenomenalists deny free will. Compatabilism solves the problem but only by redefining free-will; under compatabilism our actions aren't the product of an actual choice, but a reflection of our characters. This falls short of the Rabbi's definition of free will.
Takeaway points
Ultimately choosing one theory over the other is to express a preference for one mystery over another. PMS can't tell you how the soul and body interact, neither can MTS. If anything recommends one view over another, it is this: MTS leaves less to faith, and it provides a world-view that de-emphasizes shortcuts to spiritual growth.
Final thought
We'll give it to Aristotle who wrote that "To attain any assured knowledge of the soul is one of the most difficult things in the world." No kidding.
*The PMS (Popular Meaning of Souls) theory holds that souls have their own agency: They make choices and decisions, they have desires and needs, they can affect what happens in our brains, and they can be inspired or otherwise affected by kugel, music and so on. MTS (my Minimized Theory of Souls) says most of that can't be proven, and therefore should be rejected.
Charlie Hall writes:
I am not someone who is at all romantic about the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. He invaded neighboring countries with no provocation. He used weapons of mass destruction against opposing armies and against his own citizens. And the general reign of terror under his rule compares favorably only to places like North Korea. As I just posted here, even if he did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US-led invasion, he certainly had had and used them in the past and it is not credible to believe that he would not have jumped to get them again at the first opportunity. I am not unhappy to see him out of power.
But from the beginning I suspected that the Bush administration was making a mistake in invading the country. The combination of arrogance and incompetence will certainly go down in history books as one of history’s major blunders. We just don’t know whether the blunder will have major long term consequences yet.
And now one of the most prominent conservative voices in America is regretting the failed mission. In his article on National Review Online, William F. Buckley, Jr. writes in part:
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.Think about that number: 130,000 Americans. Consider that it takes a police force of almost 40,000 uniformed officers to keep order in New York City, a mostly orderly place with a low (by US standards) crime rate where people mostly get along with each other – and the NYPD doesn’t even have to worry about border controls. Did the Bush administration really believe that three times as many soldiers could keep order in a country three times as large – and control the borders – in a country that has not known the rule of law in two generations?
…the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.But he points out:
…the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
…the postulates didn't work….Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.The Bush administration is the most ideologically driven at least since that of Woodrow Wilson – and the comparison is not flattering. Wilson’s idealism helped win a war – and lose a peace, with horrendous consequences. Many admire President Bush as a model of moral clarity who sticks to his beliefs. But much of that alleged clarity is at the expense of avoiding unpleasant reality that contradicts his ideology – and so far I see no evidence that he has changed any of his ideas on this issue. Maybe he would do well to remember Emerson’s warning about foolish consistency?
The current* TNR has an important article by Jeffery Rosen about wiretapping and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pitful performance on February 6 in front of a Senate committee. (What was pitful about it? For starters the AG, as you've no doubt heard, told the senators that "President Washington, President Lincoln... have all authorized electronic surveillance." )
Money quote:
Gonzales's argument is dangerous as well as unconvincing, since it has no obvious limitations. Would the use-of-force resolution authorize the president to open mail or to conduct "black bag" operations, breaking into the homes of citizens without warrants, and conducting secret searches, asked Senator Patrick Leahy? Gonzales, typically, said he would not discuss these "hypotheticals." (In his confirmation hearing, Gonzales also called domestic wiretapping a hypothetical scenario, even though he knew that it was all too real.) But, in its official defense of the domestic spying program on January 19, the Department of Justice was not so coy. If courts interpreted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (fisa) to prevent the president from doing whatever he thought necessary to protect the nation during a congressionally authorized war, the Justice Department declared, the law itself would be unconstitutional. In short, Justice's answer to the black bag question is "yes."This is just another variation of Bush's "trust-me" argument, an argument he's made since day one. David Corn says more:
Fear not true believers. This week I plan to rededicate myself to the blog's meat and potatoes: Politics, history and social commentary. But before I return to my comfort zone (where I have, with your kind help, won both JIBs and a Koufax nomination) I have one last argument to make about the soul and free will.
Look for it later today.
The historian David Irving was, this week, sentanced by an Austrian judge to three years in prison for two speeches he made 16 years ago denying that millions died in gas chambers during World War II. Holocaust denial is illegial in Austria.
I oppose the criminal law on principle, but I've got no sympathy for Irving. He could've stayed clear of Austria, but chose to return to the country knowing the consequences.
I also can't escape parrallels between Irving's career and the anti-Islamic cartoons cooked up as a provocation by some conservative newspapers in Europe.
Though I don't doubt that Irving is an anti-Semitic, Nazi-sympathizer, it can't be denied that his tugging from the opposite, less popular and, dare I say it, non-PC direction has deepened our understanding of World War II and the Holocaust. For all his many faults, he shook up the establishment and forced historians to reconsider old and comfortable ideas.
In much the same way, the cartoonists have forced some Muslims (not the mobs in the streets; I mean the many Muslims who aren't barbarians) to confront and to perhaps re-evaluate their ideas about Islam and the significance of images.
Though neither Irving nor the cartoonists should be regarded as free speech martyrs, both have scored cheap points for free expression.
Lazer Brody: Plants have souls.
Unfortunately, Rabbi Brody bases this startling assertion on the sketchy research of one Cleve Backster, a non-scientist whose work has been thoroughly debunked.
We need to believe in souls because it feels nice.
(And naturally GH misconstrued my post. I didn't reject the general idea of souls. I rejected one particular theory of souls. But you wouldn't know that from GH's reply.)
When it comes to souls, I am not committed to believing in their existence. This is to say that I do not reject the general idea of souls, but I do reject one particular theory of souls.
The PMS (Popular Meaning of Souls) theory holds that souls have their own agency: They make choices and decisions, they have desires and needs, they can affect what happens in our brains, and they can be inspired or otherwise affected by kugel, music and so on. This is nonsense. Here's why:
The brain is the source of mental life; our consciousness, emotions, and will are all the products of neural processes caused by those coils of grey matter contained within our skulls. When I make a decision, or walk across a room, or enjoy a slab of kugel those are all physical events both caused and experienced by other physical events, namely the firing of my neurons inside my brain.
The trouble with the PMS theory is it insists that some physical events are the consequence of our souls, but how can something non-physical such as a soul cause our neurons to fire? Proponents of PMS wish us to accept that there are two types of stuff: the physical and the spiritual. They also wish for us to accept that the spiritual stuff can exercise control over the physical stuff. But they offer us no mechanism to explain how the two kinds of stuff interact. It's all a mystery, left to faith.
But why should a Jew leave things to faith when it isn't strictly necessary? Judaism works perfectly well without souls. We are bidden to keep the commandments not for the sake of the afterlife, as if we were Christians, but for the sake of this life. Again and again we're promised that following the law provides benefits in this world. In Tanakh, nothing at all is said about the next world, and what is said in the TSBP can be explained without PMS, much as what the Rabbis said about history, science, medicine and nature has been explained. Be it metaphor, myth, or our misunderstanding or mistake, there's no requirement to take these Talmudic and Aggadic statements literally.
To sum up:
The souls I don't believe in are a particular version, much as I don't believe in a bearded god sitting on throne. I don't feel that expanded definitions of souls fits well with Judaism or our understanding of the world. Furthermore, while a minimized definition of souls does not have these problems, I see no Jewish requirement to invoke them. Finally, even if I'm wrong about their existence, my position on them does not endanger any halakha or encroach on an ikkar or other hashkafic matters.
Akiva is resigning from the Republican organizations he has, to date, supported.
Is Ezzie next?
Jameel is concerned that Amir Peretz, the leader of Israel's Labor Party, is uncomfortable with the English language. [Video]
So what? It's not like bad English has proved to be a liability for George Bush. But I bet that won't keep the same GOP Jews who adore W from saying that Peretz's inadequate English makes him unfit for high office.
My own view? The both of them should go back to school.
I really don't know what to think about Bush's plan to hand managment of our ports over to the United Arab Emirates.
On the one hand, I shrug my shoulders: Not all Arabs are terrorists. In theory, I am sure an Arab company, or even an Arab government can be trusted to run things properly. The ones who would take control of the ports, for example, are probably a bunch of decent, law-abiding oligarchs who, like the average Republican, wishes only to make a buck, with the collateral exploitation of the vulnerable and the ruining of innocent lives being a nice bonus.
On the other hand, I am loving the fact that even Ann Coulter thinks the Chimp has lost his mind. Ann Coulter!!
On the third hand (I was brought up near Love Canal) there is the unmistakable fear that Bush has screwed this up, just as surely as he screwed up FEMA and the war in Iraq. "The Bush Administration," says Jerry Nadler [hat tip CJ-heretic] "has a highly troubling record of handing contracts and lucrative positions to individuals on the basis of personal friendship - not the public interest." If this port deal is anything like, for example, the Haliburton deals [1, 2, 3] we're in trouble. Big trouble. And given Bush's track record (along with the fact that he is suddenly threatening to unleash his veto) there's no reason to trust him.
More bad news (via Atrios)
This port deal was approved unanimously by a board on which Donald Rumsfeld sits. Rumsfeld claims he was unaware of the deal until after it was approved unanimously.The administration didn't do the legally mandated 45 day investigation, and secret terms of the deal include provisions which allow them to escape standard legal scrutiny.
In other words, just another day at the office in the Bush administration.
Is the devil wearing ice skates? Take that GH. Even my trolls think you were wrong about me and Hume.
I've heard this a million-and-one times (I may have even once posted it.) And every time I hear it I fall off my seat and/or loose control of my bladder.
It is that good.
The long promised post on the GMT (gushy-mushy-tushy) theory of souls will be published tomorrow. For those not in the know, the GMT Theory of Souls is how my friend Godol Hador explains his stomach aches and other phenomena.
For example, when a normal person has a kugel-induced bellyache he takes an antacid. Not GH. Instead, our great skeptic interprets the gas bubbles as a sign his soul has been "inspired." Puh-leeze. I hope to explain why this conception of souls - an entity capable of interacting with the physical world - is illogical. GH will no doubt shout that if souls can't interact with the physcial world neither can God, but he forgets that God is omnipotent. Does GH think souls are similarly all-powerful? If so, why call them souls? Call them God (and say good-bye to monotheism.)
~
The much requested post on GWB's mad rush to sell shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a business controlled by the United Arab Emirates will appear tomorrow as well.
Check out what Sasha is wearing on her wrist:
Yesterday's post about my belief in revelation (the one that was well-liked by everyone from RenReb to Suomynona to JesusGirl to Ezzie to Mar Gavriel to Naphtuli (and others who I have left out: Sorry in advance.)) appears to have made the fake Godol Hador a wee bit jealous. ("How dare someone other than me write a well-received post on hashkafa") Because not only did he honor my post with one of his lame song parodies, he also misconstrued my argument for the purpose of discrediting it.
In a long sneering post (ridiculed at length in his comment thread) he managed to misrepresent my reasons for including the thoughts of David Hume (despite a sentance in the original post and several comments beneath it where my reasons for mentioning Hume were made clear) and he also made a hash of my conclusion, which wasn't an argument, or a dodge, but an honest attempt simply to explain my continued acceptance of a belief that isn't supported by a deductively valid argument.
Meanwhile GH goes through life telling people that he believe in God because he "experiences" God, seemigly oblivious to the fact the he thinks it is God he experiences, and not Jesus or Baal or the Heaven's Gate, only because of the way he was brought up. That's right folks, the great GH ridicules me for recognizing the influences of upbringing on my belief, when his own belief rests on much the same factors. What a fraud!
And his fraud, oddly, was enabled in the comment thread by none other than Mis-nagid(!) self-professed chief atheist of the Internet. As Alex asked on my own thread: "I never understood why Mis-nagid always attacks DB when DB is being skeptical. Perhaps Mis-nagid still has warm feelings for Orthodoxy and desires to protect it." Another fraud!
GH's display yesterday has me wondering: Did Gosse and Frumteens and Slifkin's enemies really express the ideas GH put in their mouths? Judging from the hatchet job he pulled on me yesterday, I'm not sure. Caveat reader!
[I need to mention that GH and Mis-nagid are both pals of mine (GH gets more links from me than anyone, in fact) so take my critiscm with a bit of salt. All good clean interblog battling]
Lindsey Jacobellis of the U.S.m a snowboard rider, raced out to a huge lead in the women's snowboard cross final, and appeared to have gold wrapped up. But she fell after the penultimate jump (because she was showing off) allowing Switzerland's Tanja Frieden to slide in front and take the gold medal.
Video here: http://www.nbcolympics.com/snowboarding/index.html (on the side)
Why do we believe?
Every morning we expect the sun to appear over the horizon. But according to the philosopher David Hume our expectation is wholly irrational. Why is it irrational? Because we only think the sun will rise tomorrow because we've made an induction (ie: we assume that because the sun has always risen before it will rise again) And we only think that induction is a reliable method of discovering information about the world because of another induction (ie: we assume that all of nature is uniform because the little bit of nature we have seen is uniform) As Hume argues it's circular to use induction to justify induction, and therefore we have no basis whatsoever for believing anything at all about the unobserved. (though many have tried I don't know that anyone has yet managed to defeat this argument.)
So, you might ask: If the thought is so very irrational, why do we all continue to believe that the sun will continue to rise?
Hume had an answer for that, too. He wrote that when we are exposed to a regular pattern we have no choice but to believe the pattern will continue. It's how we're wired. This explanation of the belief gives us no reason to think the belief is actually true, but it explains why we can't shake it.
Matan Torah
My belief in matan torah, though not based on a pattern or an inductive argument, is similar in that I can't escape it. My upbringing and education have conspired to produce a human being who believes that a nation of people - my ancestors - saw the great fire and heard the admonishing voice from Sinai. It's how I am wired.
There are no grounds for my belief in the revelation: No evidence or argument exist to support it. In fact, I have no rational reason whatsoever to think that this belief is true; nonethless I can't free myself of it.
Nor, do I want to.
[Acknowledgment: Those of you who have read Philosophy Gym, by Stephen Law, will recognize parts of this post. Those of you who have not read Philosophy Gym are missing out. You should pick it up at your soonest opportunity.]
UPDATE: In this post I wasn't judging anything. I was simply explaining why *I* believe what I can't prove. Those are *MY* reasons. I never said that they were GOOD reasons for believing. Just that they were MY reasons for believing. (there are no good reasons for believing, btw) This is what my detractors refused to understand. I wasn't claiming that my reasons for believing were as valuable as a formal proof. I didn't say it was a GOOD reason, just that it was MY reason.
An outstanding comment: "On the Christianity angle -- The New Testament does say that Jesus spoke to thousands of people at a time, performed public miracles in countless places, was followed around by cheering crowds who believed him to be a prophet, and was publicly executed, at which point the parochet ripped down the middle from top to bottom, darkness fell over the entire land, a rock-shattering earthquake occurred and the dead rose from their tombs and wandered through Jerusalem. The testaments weren't written at the time, but they were written only a century or two later, and were taken as, well, gospel, by many people, including people whose grandparents or great-grandparents would have been in Jersalem at the time of the events and surely would have remembered such a dramatic occurence. Does that mean that all of it happened, and happened as described?"
Not Brian Bosma, speaker of Indiana General Assembly.
Last Tuesday, the Indianapolis JCRC's Jewish Lobby Day was held. Around 40 Jews from around the State of Indiana came to Indianapolis to lobby our state senators and representatives on a number of issues. The day ended with a private meeting with Speaker of the House [Brian] Bosma. [He] wondered why we hadn't discussed the controversy surrounding the issue of prayer in [Indiana] House chambers... The end of this exchange left us, the Jewish delegation, in shock. Speaker Bosma, defending the prayer issue, asked, "How many Jews are there in Indiana? About 2%? There are at least 80% Christians in Indiana." [Washington Post article]If this offends or frightens you (as well it should) you are encouraged to write to Speaker Bosma. Tell him that secterian prayer services in the legislature is exclusive, and represents the official preference of one religious denomination over another. Or as U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton put it: invocations like the ones delivered in Indiana represent "a clear endorsement of Christianity, sending the message to others that they are outsiders and the message to Christians that they are favored insiders."
Went to the YU book fair this weekend to pick up some books.
Like last year, I was very disapointed to find crap titles like Candelight alongside more serious works like From Text to Tradition.
What is it about junkfood self-help books that attract the masses, and why is YU selling them?
The fact that Judaism in ancient in times regarded the Torah as having been the product of a divine revelation is taken by many as proof that the revelation occurred. Their argument, in brief:
"How can you explain a group of people who claim to be descendants of millions of people experiencing... the Revelation at Sinai? How did the first generation start believing it? A charismatic leader? A slowly evolving story? Mass hypnosis?A clever argument, but one that is deeply flawed.
Could a leader rewrite the oral history of a people and get them to believe it happened to their own ancestors? Imagine Napoleon telling the French "In the year 750, G-d [gave] your ancestors... a set of all-encompassing laws, and they passed that experience down from generation to generation." The people would say "What? Dad never told us that! Hey, Grandma, did your grandparents ever tell you about this?"
Posts
All Comments
 Want a new pair of candlesticks? How about a silver tray for a gift? At SilverHeaven.com we have hundreds of silver items available for your browsing. Silver goblets, cups, Judaica and more - even an ice bucket - visit today to see for yourself! |
