ArtScroll's Ideology

Twice in parshas va'yigash we're told that Yaakov did something to Pharoh. Both times the Torah uses the word va'yivorech. Both times ArtScroll translates it as "blessed."

This puzzles.

According to the first sentance, in the first paragraph of the volume's opening essay called "Text, Translation and Elucidation" the ArtScroll's Saperstein edition of the Torah "attempts to render the text as Rashi understood it." In other words, they translate according to Rashi.

Here's Rashi on the first appearence of the word va'yivorech:

"This is a greeting, in the manner of all who appear before a king... saluder in Old French [and, as the notes add, saluer in Modern French.]"

In the translation, however, we're told: "...and Jacob blessed Pharoh."

This error is avoided in the Gutnik edition, (another house's rival translation which also promises to "translate according to Rashi") where the first use of va'yivorech is translated as "greet" and the second, per Rashi, is translated as "blessed." So where did ArtScroll go wrong? Two speculative answers:

1 - They were sloppy. The word va'yivorech means blessed in common Hebrew. In fact, Robert Alter, in his Five Books of Moses, reads it as "blessed" both times and adds "...it would be entirely in keeping with his own highly developed sence of his patriarchal role that he - a mere Semitic herdsman chief addressing the head of the mighty Egyptian empire-- should pronounce a blessing..." It's not at all unreasonable to translate it this way-- unless you've made a point of announcing that you will follow Rashi.

2 - Ideology got in the way. Readers of the ArtScroll Stone edition of the Torah (a translation with an anthology of popular exegetes) know that whenvever ArtScroll chooses between two interpretations, they almost always go with the one that is most fanciful. In the Stone, Serach lived forever, Rivka was three on her wedding day, and the second Egyptian plague began with one frog --even though there are other classic commentators in each case who saw things less magically. It's perfectly in keeping with this editorial approach for ArtScoll to present Yaakov, the "mere Semitic herdsman chief" in this more exalted way-- even though this isn't how Rashi saw it.

Bad actor of the blogophere alert

Still Wonderin' insults others bloggers, writes rudley about charedim and is mean to his commenters.

Paging the Wonderin'Weasel!

Note to people who may misunderstand: I like SW and was sure he'd embrace the designation. I think his comemntary about Weasel-gate has been sharp and spot on. But, let's face it: If I am a bad actor, so is he (and many others.) I'd like it to be recognized that if I am a bad actor, so are most of the rest of you. Plagiarism is wrong. Being the bad actor isn't.

The picture that should have gone with my Ford post

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz

Keeping Our Children Safe - Part Two

Ford

I'd like to say something about the death of Gerry Ford, but, really, what is there to say about the man? Shall I mention his cameo on the Simpsons, on the SNL hosting stint that ended with him destroying the White House Christmas Tree? That hardly seems fair.

What's also unfair is that our memory of the man has been shaped by men like Chevy Chase. That's the Ford I know.. The bumbler. The clown. But het isn't the real man.

Instead, let's remember the accidental president for something he actually did. Like pardoning Richard Nixon. For those younger readers of DovBear who may not remember, Nixon was a very bad man. After hand-selecting Ford to serve as vice-President, Nixon's resigned making Ford an unelected president. Ford repaid the favor by giving Nixon a full and unconditional pardon.

This, says I, was an outrage, and also an abuse of presidential power not seen again until our own time. Though to be perfectly fair to Mr. Ford, his own manipulations fall well short of the Machiavellian maneuvers of President Bush. Ford, after all, only let a crook off the hook. He never rewarded a professional foul-up with a Presidential Medal of Freedom, never proclaimed himself infallible, and also had the good sense to keep the US out of hopeless, impossible to win, foreign entanglement. So godspeed for that, Mr. Ford.

A nice word about Jesus

[The Christmas post I had planned]

In my opinion, Jews give Jesus a raw deal. Many of us refuse to speak his name (even I can't bring myself to say Christ) and we remember him as a bastard, a blasphemer and the son of hairdresser who slept with many men.

The Rabbi's of the Talmud are partially to blame for this. Though Gil credibly argues that the Talmd never discussed Jesus, in the popular imagination all of the references to the son of the carpenter who was the bastard son of a whore are about him. Gil proves to my satisfaction that not one of those allusions refer to Jesus, but the haredi on the street, unfortunately, does not read Hirhurim.

(Anyway, the whole method of relying on the Talmud for history is suspect. The fact that someone was a Tanna or an Amorah and an expert in Jewish law besides doesn't make him an omniscient historian. Or, as one friend recently put it, "It's one thing to use rabbinic literature as a source for history, its another thing to assume that it is history. Would you quote a Chassidishe sefer from 19th century Galicia as a source for Jewish history in the 1500s?")

But back to Jesus. In our memory, he was not a Jew. We speak about him as if he came at Judaism from the outside, with the intention of destroying it, but this is faulty thinking. The real Jesus was a Jew who cared about other Jews. He had no intention of abolishing Judaism, or of establishing a church that would one day torment his people.

The Jesus scholars (who are no more or less omniscient than the Rabbis) paint Jesus with a variety of brushes. To some, he was a 60s-style rabble rouser standing against the man. Some think he was an illiterate peasent; others say he was a learned elitest who looked down on the folk religion of the masses; still others paint him as a wise man or prophet, and there are those who say he came to correct the hypocrisy of the Jewish people. From our vantage point its impossible to know. What is indesputable though, is this: his faith was Jewish faith.

I take the view that Jesus was a failed reformer. I don't know what it was about first century Judea that upset him, but I've satisfied myself that he was upset and that there were problems within Judaism he wanted to fix. Perhaps he was a bit of a mad man, too.

In my imagination Jesus came not to destroy Judaism but to fix it, and from within the Jewish context. Whether it was Temple corruption, or Saduccean materialism, or the minutia of the Pharisses that animated him is impossible to know - and indeed, it may have been something else entirely. Perhaps he came not to reform, but to preach hope to a divided and demoralized nation. Perhaps he came to remind Israel the God's love is ever-lasting. My bottom line point, though, it that whatever his reasons for entering public life his message was one of Jewish renewal, and his goal was to help his people begin again.

A generation after his death, Jesus's followers began a polemical war against the Jews who hadn't accepted him, and those polemics eventually were gathered into what became the New Testament. That book lies about Jews, for political gain, and those lies have been the cause of great Jewish suffering. One result of those lies is that hardly anyone -Chrsitians included - remember that Jesus was a son of our people, someone who grew up with our teachings, our customs, our Torah and who was murdered, first, because he was a Jew.

After 2000 years it seems fair and proper and good to give him that, at least.

A guest post from DovWeasel

I promised to run a guest post from DovWeasel, if one was submitted, and true to my word here it is.

Some Myths Regarding DovWeasel and DovBear's Plagiarism
by DowWeasel

I plan for this to be my last post. The purpose of this post is to respond to the various claims being made about the plagiarism I revealed about a week ago. These claims are being made largely by DovBear's supporters and in some cases by DovBear himself.

1. DovWeasel Has a Political Vendetta. Some in the blogosphere have assumed that I am some political or religious right winger who aimed to "put a hit" on DovBear based on the substance of his views. One blogger even compared DovWeasel to the people who outed UOJ, a claim which displays the moral reasoning of a 5 year old. I didn't attempt to out DovBear or attempt to trick him in anyway. I didn't publish private email correspondence or do anything underhanded or nefarious. I simply used his own words to demonstrate undeniable instances of plagiarism. By the same token I get the sense that some on the right side of the blogworld are simply cheering about the black-eye inflicted on a political adversary rather than the vindication of values like honesty and professionalism.

In truth, I agree with DovBear as often as I disagree with him. I often find his posts insightful and entertaining, whether or not he wrote them (sorry, couldn't resist). That being said, I am not claiming that my sole motivation was the rooting out of plagiarism. I focused on DovBear because I find that he is too often the bad actor of the jblogosphere. Whether it's mistreatment of commenters or fellow bloggers, failure to properly hattip or just acting like an miscreant, DovBear has consistently failed to follow the rules of the blogworld.

However, given the squishy nature of those kinds of claims, I chose to focus on a misdeed that is more objective.

2. DovBear's Plagiarism Was Minimal, Unintentional or Harmless. Many have tried to minimize DovBear's sins in a number of ways. [DB: I've taken care not to do this, and I have asked my commenters to desist from it as well] Some have argued that DovBear's plagiarism was not the "bad kind" or that it was minimal when compared to his overall output. Others have taken issue with some of my examples. The only way to address these claims is to revisit each of the examples in my original posts. I used a rating scale for each post: 3 is for egregious plagiarism, including extensive cutting and pasting of text and other indications of premeditation. 2 is for run of the mill plagiarism, including cutting and pasting small amounts of text. 1 is for arguable cases of plagiarism, where a reasonable case could be made that the post is question is either not plagiarism or unintentional plagiarism.

"DovBear" on Bush: February 27, 2006

Pure unadulaterated word thievery. This gets extra points for the fact that the lifted portions follow a quote from an attributed quote from TNR, suggesting that the lack of attribution of the balance was
intentional.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on George Allen: August 30, 2006

Again. This piece was lifted word for word from a TNR piece. And again, extra points for the fact that DovBear added three hyperlinks in the piece to enhance the post, but forgot to add that pesky hyperlink that would show that the words weren't his.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Republicans: September 04, 2006

Although DovBear clearly lifted text here, the amount of text was rather small.

Score: 2


"DovBear" on a New Senate Bill: September 27, 2006

This post was lifted in its entirety from another source. None of it came from DovBear.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Mary Cheney: December 18, 2006

Although the amount of lifted text is relatively limited in the context of the entire piece, the manner in which the lifted portions were woven into the post to seek to conceal the plagiarism displays a level of pre-meditation that justifies a 3. Extra points for DovBear's initial response when confronted with the accusation: "Thank you for bringing this to my attention."

Score: 3

"DovBear" on Al Sharpton: March 09, 2005

The amount of lifted text is relatively small.

Score: 2

"DovBear" on Spying: March 20, 2006

While I originally identified a prior source (a TNR letter to the Editor) for only one paragraph of this post, it appears that the second paragraph of the post, beginning with the words: "If fisa is anachronistic…," comes from yet another TNR letter to the editor, this one from William E. Scheuerman. Thus, the entirety of the post comes from other sources, skillfully woven together. None from the mind of DovBear.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on the Sin of Sodom: November 14, 2006

The source of this post consists largely of a compilation of sources on the sin of Sodom. DovBear's post cites those same sources using different words. If all DovBear did was rely on the original essay for a list of sources and failed to attribute the original list as a resource, that may be improper, but might not rise to the level or plagiarism. However, the fact that DovBear copied the opening paragraph word for word pushes this post way up the plagiarism scale.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Income Redistribution: November 09, 2006

Pure, unadulterated plagiarism. The changes in language seem more designed to frustrate detection than anything else. In addition, the inclusion of hyperlinks and formatting of blockquotes also gives lie to the notion that the failure to attribute has anything to with laziness.

Score: 3


"DovBear" on Suckers: October 18, 2006

The amount of lifted text is relatively small.

Score: 2


"DovBear" on Etymology: October 17, 2006

One email correspondent argued that the source of the post derives from a well known text on etymology. However, I don't see how this makes the word for word copying any less culpable.
Score: 3

And now for the two instances of plagiarism that DovBear and his supports have been insisting are really not plagiarism:

"DovBear" on Scott McClellan: Thursday, May 04, 2006

Although the the lifted text here would seem to be limited to the phrase "Scotty Squealer," which appeared in a Vanity Fair article by Michael Wolff that was making its rounds in the left wing blogosphere at the time, the phrase is the touchstone of the post. However, DovBear tells me that he regularly uses the adjective "Squealer" to describe various figures, and a search of Google shows that to be the case. [DB: Here's the google search: http://www.tiny.cc/vPH3P ]

Score: 1


"DovBear" on Moral Values: April 13, 2005

This post is, in a strict sense, pure plagiarism. The post consists of words taken from a TNR piece in its entirety. DovBear and his supporters respond that the post had the word "Source" at the bottom. However, there was no link associated with that word. Accordingly, there was no attribution.

At best, one can argue that this is a case of unintentional plagiarism. That is if we are less willing to attribute a "nefarious rationale" to DovBear than he (or TNR) was to the GOP in the post in question. But even if we give DovBear the benefit of the doubt, the problem remains. The word "Source" at the end of a post does not suggest to any reasonable reader that the "source" provided the entire
text of the post word-for-word. That's what block indents and quotation marks are for.

At most, it suggests that the "source" provided some of the thoughts or facts in the piece. So even he supplied the link, one would have to click the link, obtain a subscription to TNR and compare the post to
determine that the whole piece was lifted.

[DB: Many, many of my posts are attributed this way. It's the house style and therefore, I assume that no deception was intended (I don't remember writing the post so this is speculation, and not fact, and should not be construed as an attempt to deflect responsibility)]

Score: 1


What this demonstrates is that DovBear has committed at least 10 acts of unquestionable plagiarism, at least 6 of which include indicia of premeditation which belie any argument that the acts were the result
of laziness or inadvertence. As for the argument that the number of cases is minimal over the course of two years and 3000 plus posts, I ask you this: would you make the same argument about someone who
shoplifted 10 times? Passed bad checks 10 times? Cheated on his taxes 10 times? You want to argue that those acts are more harmful than plagiarism? Fine. But that's a different argument. 10 misdeeds over a two year period is not a great record, any way you slice it. An interesting side note: Eight of the examples come within the last four months. I don't have an explanation for that, but maybe DovBear does.

A final point. I have no idea if I caught every last case of plagiarisim. It may be hard to believe, but I devoted a sum total of two or so hours reviewing DovBear's posts. I didn't check every single one. There may be more out there that I don't know about.

[DB: Since Thursday, I've made myself familiar with plagiarism software. I have nearly completed a total review of the blog. So far, I have found nothing else.]

3. DovBear Apologized. This is not quite a myth. DovBear has apologized repeatedly on his blog and has corrected his posts. DovBear also is giving me the opportunity to guest post on his blog. Although I initially I took issue with some of the language in his apologies that suggested that his plagiarism was unintentional and that he was guilty of laziness, I think it's clear that he has shown true remorse. Of course, he only apologized once he was caught, at which point his sins were made abundantly clear to all those who could read. One could argue that he had no choice but to act exactly as he did or else lose his readership. We will never know the answer to that question. In fact, I am not sure if DovBear can answer that question either. People are complex.

The weasel will now crawl down his hole. So long.

Take 2

I'm writing this in haste, and with a head full of emotions, so I will probably get the tone wrong, but I need to respond to those of you who are saying here and elsewhere[*] that my apology wasn't good enough.

That hurts (and perhaps I deserve to be hurt). I meant my apology sincerley and absolutely and it disturbs me no end that some people aren't taking it that way.

So let me try again:

Twleve of my posts have passages in them that first appeared elsewhere. I am responsible for this. I make no excuses. I apologize.

And as for the idea, floated by Mr. Averich that there are more examples of plagarism waiting to be found, I say this: Dig away. Please. If there are more posts with problems I want to own up to them and correct them, but if there are not, I want you to stop the veiled accusations. Please.

[*]I very much appreciate that Robert Averich admitted his negative pre-disposition towards me because of my politics and style of blogging. Other's weren't so straightforward.

PS: I am asking Alex and my other supporters to resist the urge to defend me on this thread. If you catch an outright fabrication, or an expecially ungenerous remark, by all means correct it. If you catch someone maximizing what I did, by all means provide the proper context. But, please do not attempt to minimize the crime. Thank you.

I AM JOSEPH YOUR BROTHER

I AM JOSEPH YOUR BROTHER

The most famous man to say these words to a group of Jews was Joseph in this week's parsha, of course. But he isn't the most recent. In 1962 a group of Jews paid a visit to Pope John 23 and, as the story goes, the Pope came down off his thrown, embraced the men and spoke those words to them.

What was the Pope's intention? As with everything it depends who you ask. The common Catholic interpretation is that the Pope was proclaiming the Jews the long-lost brothers of Catholicism, and asking for a reconciliation. I suppose that's true, but my Jewish ears catch another nuance.

The guilty party in the Joseph story are the brothers. They mistreated Joseph, cast him into a well, stripped him of his clothing and sold him into slavery. When he attempts to reconcile with his brother, the guesture is magnanimous because Joseph was the agreived party.

By posing as Joseph, I think the Pope, on some level, is suggesting that the Jews, like Joseph's brothers, were to blame for the centuries of bad blood between us. The use of Joseph's words sounds like an attempt to echo Joseph's generosity, but the Pope, as leader of the faith that considered us like "sheep brought to slaughter" [*] has no right to do that.

[*]These words are from the Habet prayer, a part of Tachnaun for hundreds of years. I am not referring specifically to the holocaust here.

Plays of the Year

Yesterday, I caught ESPN's "Plays of the Year" and for the most part it was a complete tease. Remember the Simpson's episode when Homer calls a sports betting service that charges by the minute, and... the.... announcer.... talks... really.... slowly? That's kind of how the ESPN program went. All I wanted to see were the "Plays of the Year," as advertised. I didn't want to see Tiger Woods talking about his father. I didn't want to see a repeat of a segment from last year about a Pop Warner football league for developmently disabled kids. I wanted to see THE PLAYS OF THE YEAR.

Finally, after 45 minutes of fluff, and endless promises that they would be "right back" with the meat and potatos they got to the good stuff.

Media Matters, on the other hand, doesn't waste the adience's time. They've provided a short, quickly and easilly read list of the most outrageous wingnut comments of 2006. The big winner:

William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: "Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [2/9/06]

Bill Donohue, of course, is a repeat winner. The mighty moralist, and member of the religious right (Our Beeeeeest Friends (TM)) won last year for saying:

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah.

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

As for the rest of the list, it's pretty good. You really should go and review some of the nonsense spewed this year in the name of Republican politics. One surpirse: Everyone's [*] favorite president wasn't included for telling America that a vote for a Deomocrat was a vote for a terrorist. That line should go down in history as one of the most disgusting comments by an American president ever.

[*] All 30 percent of you.

I have visited this DafYomi site

and found it good.

PSA

A new reader writes:

Would you take a look at my new blog... you can find it here: http://walkingforisrael.com

In a nutshell, my wife and I plan to walk the Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine next year to raise money for Meir Panim in Israel. You will find out more about this project on my website. Meir Panim will produce a webpage on their site dedicated to our project. It should be available next week.

Best of luck to you.

Rashi's rejection

I noticed yesterday that Rashi (implicitly) rejects the idea that Jacob's twelve sons all married their sisters. Writing about Potiphar's wife (I don't have a chumash, or I'd give you the verse) he says that she acted for the sake of Heaven. She wanted to have Joseph's children because she saw, through astrology, that it was the divine will for Joseph's children to come from her.

This, Rashi, concludes, was fulfilled through her daughter Asneth. In other words, Rashi considered Asneth a bona fide Egyptian, and not Dina's daughter.

Yaakov Horrowitz's new project

FailedMessiah.com: The Good Guys Fight Back

My mea culpa

Updated Monday December 25.

On Thursday, December 21, several of my friends in the blogging community wrote to let me know that an email had been sent to 53 bloggers (not me, though) directing them to a blog calling itself DovWeasel. This blog accuses me of plagiarism in 14 instances. Within three hours of receiving the email, I circulated the following apology to all 53 bloggers on the email's distribution list:

I made a mistake, and I am sorry.

Bottom line: I blog all day long, and sometimes I get lazy in ways large and small. On occasion, thas included omitting to properly attribute sources. Now, DovWeasel has made my sins abundantly clear.

My plan is to carefully review my blog, and to provide proper attribution in every instance. I hope to do this in the coming days and weeks, but I am making my intentions known now, so I won't be accused of destroying evidence.

Again, I apologize and make no excuses.

On Sunday, December 24, after carefully reviewing the allegations DovWeasel's statments I sent the list of 53 bloggers the following update:

Dear Friends:

I am writing to update you on my efforts to address the allegations made against me by the new DovWeasel blog.

As of today, Sunday, December 24, 2006, I have examined all 14 of the posts DovWeasel says contained instances of passage lifting, or failure to attribute. Attributions have been added to 12 of them.

[The exceptions: (1) http://dovweasel.blogspot.com/2006/12/dovbear-on-scott-mcclellan-thursday-may.htmland (2) http://dovweasel.blogspot.com/2006/12/dovbear-on-moral-values-april-13-2005.html The former was not changed, because it doesn't contain anyone else's words or ideas; the latter is almost a word-for-word copy of a TNR article, but the word "Source" appears on the bottom of the original post. It seems I simply neglected to hyperlink that word to the original article. That error has been corrected]

As for the rest, I offer only my apologies and no excuses.

DovBear

PS: I also wish to thank those of you have shown me support and friendship. I hope, in the fullness of time, to regain your trust.

The substance of DovWeasel's claims is correct. Twelve of my posts contain passages that first appeared elsewhere, and I have failed to attribute them. I regret this, offer no excuses, and apologize fully. These 12 posts have been corrected.

My friends, I have never been one to hide from controvery or from discussion. In fact, this blog was created primarily to provoke conversation, and I'm proud that it has become a place when all sorts of people can talk about anything. The failures brought to my attention by DovWeasel are no exception.

Therefore, I am hereby extending two invitations. First, to DovWeasel: Sir, though you chose to go about this in a roundabout way, I am inviting you to come into the open and to face my readers directly. You are welcome, at any time, to submit a guest post to this blog which presents your point of view. Provided that what you write is true and fair it will be published unedited. I sincerely hope that you accept this invitation.

Second, to the readers of this blog: In the past, we've had a fine time pillorying all sorts of villians -some large, some small - in the comments of this blog. Now, I suppose it's my turn. Fair is fair, after all. You are invited, therefore, to make your thoughts and opinions known here, in the comments of this post. As usual, they will not be edited, or deleted. As usual, I expect fierce debate and cutting commentary as ideas are vigirously exchanged. That, above all, is what this blog is about, after all, and I hope it will be always thus.

Who did Yosef marry?

Per the Torah, Yoseph Hatzadik married Aseneth, the daughter of Putiphare, priest of Heliopolis. And who was she?

Well, the plain meaning tells us: She was the daughter of Putiphare, priest of Heliopolis. Seems simple enough, right? Maybe not. There is a tradition (concoted, perhaps, by people uncomfortable with the thought of the Tzadik being married to a gentile) that Asneth was actually Dina's daughter, the product of Schem's assault on her. According to the story, Yaakov put a note around her neck describing her status, and tossed her out. Later, Putipare found her under a bush, that is a sneh, from whence came her name.

Though this solution, which doesn't sound concocted at all, saves Yosef from the proto-sin of marrying a gentile, it doesn't save Yaakov from the sin of abandoning his granddaughter. The tradition absolves the son, but indicts the father. If the goal of the tradition's author is to rescue the reputation of the forefathers, it is not clear how his maneuver succeeds.

For those of you who, like me, believe that the text should never depart from its plain meaning, there is help. You will be pleased to know that there is rabininc approbation, and of a very fine pedigree, for the idea that Asneth was a gentile. As Rav Nechamia tells it, all 12 brothers married Canaanite women, the very same sort of Canaanite women who gave their grandfather Abraham night terrors and cold sweats.

[Related]

Where did the miracle of the oil come from?

A guest post by ExtraTorah

Dovbear brought up the old chestnut about the miracle of the oil recently, with a few more interesting sources (especially the Pesikta Rabati). I just arrived back at yeshiva in Israel after 10 or so years, and we just had a day of "lectures" about chanukah. Something they said gave me an idea as to why the miracle of the oil is important ... but only 100-400 years later.

One of the Rabbis mentioned that at the time, the six day war seemed an absolute miracle, but in later years was viewed as a logical military consequence. This was similar to the Channukah story, as some Hasmoneans went on to become very expensive mercenaries (admired for their success on the field of battle, rather than for their reliance on miracles!!).

OK .. to the point .. for many years some charedi groups (especially in Israel) treated Yom Yerushalayim as a special day. Various groups wore streimels, had pilgrimages to the Kottel and their own special customs for the day when Hashem miraculously redelivered the Kottel to us . Slowly, as the gloss of this "miracle" wore off, and the political realities heated up, it was treated as yet another uninteresting event in Israel's political history beaten up by the "secular" religious fanatics in the rest of Israeli society. Three years ago a friend of mine on a supposedly "Open Minded" kiruv Yeshiva program in Jerusalem, was told by one of his Rabbis that going out on Yom Yerushalayim night was Assur and a big Aveirah.

I feel that this same problem was at one stage affecting Hanukkah. Certain groups who (perhaps for good reason) disliked the Hasmoneans, and were downplaying the miracle of Chanukah, not because they did not believe in Hashem, but rather like some modern chareidim, could not relate how Hashem can have anything to do with certain Jewish groups, so any military victories were merely a coincidence. (It is interesting how politics can make atheists and chareidim have the same viewpoints in trying to deny Hashem’s direct influence in certain parts of history - this shows how politics is NOT good for faith).

As a result, an "Obvious" supernatural miracle was needed for Chanukah, not for the sceptics and atheists, for they could not believe that a bunch of Jewish peasants could overrun highly trained armies, so why would they believe a tale about a jar of oil. Rather this was for certain religious purists who could not equate the actions of the Macabees with their personal views on religion. The miracle of the oil is the "undeniable fact" implying that the battles for Chanukah were in fact holy and for hashem.

This leaves one more problem ... surely the Rabbis did not just "make up" the story about the oil just to propagate the festival .... so here is my take on this ...

At the time, the miracles of the battles were obvious. These people who lit the oil in the menorah, or the Chanukiah made out of spears (how ever the story is read) saw the "slow" burning of the oil as yet another miracle, not especially significant compared to some of the amazing weight of numbers they had overcome. As such this aspect of the miracle was only made a more public aspect of the tradition later, to maintain the importance of the holiday, when the initially obvious miracles of the military victory lost their impact over the passing years, and fading memories.

Now all we need to do is review the tape of the six day war looking for "a jar of oil".

Peek-A-Jew

From here.

Discussion: Is this "proof" that Hillary
(a) is owned by Jews
(b) likes Jews; or
(c) uses Jews in the way a certain other compassionate, honest, integrity-filled president uses another minority group.

Keeping Our Children Safe – Part One

Rabbi Horowitz on the oversized elephant in the room: sexual abuse in the Orthodox community.

More Mainstream RW Racists

Bored? Go read Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim in which Fox News contributor, and mainstream RW pundit Debbie Schlussel argues that Barak Obama's middle name is an excellent reason to distrust him.

I agree, but, alas, Debbie stops too soon. Her argument has a logical conclusion, which she refuses to draw, so allow me: Debbie Schlussel: Once a Nazi, Always a Nazi.

Not convinced? Why, the logic, taken entirely from Debbie's recent column, is prefectly infalliable. She has a German-sounding surname! I mean, people, come on! When we're fighting the war of our lives against eeeeevil terrorists who manage to kill fewer people each year than car accidents, should we allow someone with a name like Schlussel to be running around on the loose? Send her to Gitmo, I say!

PS: Somebody go crack Debbie's head open and see if there's anything inside.

My favorite Kolel story

There are two hopping threads about Kolel currently on the blog. One (written by Rabbi Yosef Blau) very serious; the other not so much. In their honor, I share this maasa she haya: [Note: Like all maasa she hayas this story probably is not true.]

A kolel guy shows up on Rav Moshe's doorstep and says, "Hey, I found this great loophole that will save me thousands on my taxes. Can I use it?"

Rav Moshe reviews the ins and outs of the scheme and gives his answer:"No."

The guy objects, saying: "But I'm in kollel. Learning. Ensuring the continued existance of the world. If you letr me use this loophole I can save thousands of dollars and I can stay in kollel, where I am LEARNING. All right?"

Rav Moshe says, "No."

Now the guy is screaming. "Come on, please. I'm in kollel. I really need the money."

Replies Rav Moshe, "The Torah says lo tignov, not lo ta'avod."

[remember the greedy]

My Pathetic (Annual) Telethon

DovBear: My Pathetic Telethon:

As you've no doubt noticed, this blog takes up quite a bit of my time. My wife, the venerable Mrs. DovBear, who feels it more than anyone, has always been a great sport. True, she's never actually read the blog, but she shows her support in other ways.

For instance, unlike some blogger-spouses she's never asked me stop writing. Occasionally, when I'm busy annihilating a wrong-headed writer of comments, she'll bring me a snack so I don't have to break my train of thought. She even tolerates my email friendships with the all the hot, young female bloggers.

Mrs. DovBear is celebrating a birthday this month, and I thought it would be really swell if the blog chipped in to buy her a gift.

Here's what I am proposing. If you click this link you'll be taken to my blogad homepage. Blogads are completely anonymous - unless you put your name in the ad, I won't know who paid for it. You can buy a blogad to promote your own blog or business, or just wish Mrs. DovBear a happy birthday. I don't care. In fact, because it's all for such a good cause, (ie: My wife's birthday present from the blog) I'll even tolerate Republican slogans. So knock yourselves out.

Thanks in advance.

The Kolel Job

Received by email from an Israeli who wishes to remain anonymous

Many times we hear statements like this I'm sure the average Kollel person spends more time working than most other professions.

I would like to respond to this statement. This is actually not true at all. The typical Kollel schedule in Israel is something like this.

9:15 - 1:15 morning seder
1:15 (1:20 in the summer) - Mincha
1:30 -3:30 - Break
3:30 - 6:45 - afternoon seder
6:45 Maariv in the winter

A little over 7 hours a day learning with a 2 hour break in the middle of the day. This is the official schedule (the fact that many people learn more is nice but irrelevant), I would bet that most of the people reading this who work for a living would love to have a schedule like that and that they work much longer hours, I know that I do. I believe that the schedule in America in places like Lakewood is very similar.

Now let's factor in all the days off.

Erev Yom Kippur - Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan 20 days - 15 work days
Chanukka - seder ends early enough (around 4PM) in order to be able to
light candles at the proper time
Purim 2 days off
Fast days - 1/2 a day
Nisan - 30 days - 22 work days
Tisha B'av - Rosh Chodesh Elul - 3 weeks 15 work days

If you add it all up it comes out to approximately 60 days off in a year. The average worker in Israel gets 15 vacation days and 8-10 holidays, a grand total of 25 less then half. In America the average worker starts at 10 days vacation with 10-12 holidays again less then half.

In other words someone who claims that Toraso U'mnaso actually "works" much less then the average person who works for a living.

Of course, people will claim, but they learn night seder, Friday mornings etc. The answer is that is nice but irrelevant. I also learn night seder. The fact is that they are getting paid (and in Israel exempt from the army as toras u'mnaso) for the 7+ hours they learn a day. Night seder is not part of the job. Kollel guys learn night seder just like professionals learn night seder (or they get paid to learn at night as well in addition to what they get paid during the day.), because they want to learn Torah. Their job is 7+ hours a day. In Israel in hi tech the work week is typically 45 hours a week (9 hours a day). I would expect kollel guys to at least match that.

A guest post by Rabbi Yosef Blau

[Posted with permission]

Dear Dov Bear,

In the most recent Miriam Shear thread the question was asked how the Haredim can justify the kollel world being sustained by wives working while asserting that the Torah mandates that women be private and stay at home raising a family. The response was "eis laasos" . Whether or not explicitly proclaimed by a specific Rav that does appear to be the rationale.

I have many concerns about whether it makes sense or is viable and would like to see it discussed . To work in the current society requires a formal education. There are not enough teaching positions for all the kollel wives to teach and they do not pay well. The assumption that women who have serious education and function actively in the work force are not changed by their experiences is hard to believe. To demand that they be both the wage earner and the one taking care of the home and family is to exploit them.

The very fact that they succeed in both their education and employment contradicts the claim that it is against their basic nature. Balancing the halakhic status of women with their changing role in society is a challenge to all elements in Orthodoxy. However, to adamantly deny that Judaism is open to women playing public roles while depending on their doing so while employed to function particularly problematic.

Yosef Blau

Chanuka =Sukkos? More

Readers of the blog remember that last week I recycled an old post of mine (itself based on a famous Mis-nagid post) which argues that Chanuka was originaly conceived as a late Sukkos. Evidence for this includes its original name (Sukot b'Kislev) and the fact that the Book of Macabees tells us that, um, Chanuka was originaly conceived as a late Sukkos.

Deep in the comments of that post appear other, better, arguments for the same position, which are provided here for your consideration:

1 - Beit Shammai wanted to decrease the number of candles from eight to one over the course of the holiday. In their discussion of the underlying reasons for the respective rulings, the rabbis of the Talmud propose that Beit Shammai were taking their cue from the sacrifices on Sukkot. This makes sense only if we think of Chanuka as being a late Sukkos. (Josh Waxman)

2 - R' Yonason M'luniel, one of the mainstream accepted Ba'alei Tosafot, contemporary, and fellow Provence citizen of the Ra'avad, clearly states that Chanukah is 8 days because they were celebrating Sukkos. (flatbushrenegade)

3 - At the end of al hanisim we say "v'hidliku neiros b'chatzros hadshechah." We all know that the Menorah was in the heichal, not the chatzer, so why did the Macabees go outside? Because the lights lit each year on Succos for the simchas beis hashoevah, were... in the chatzer!(flatbushrenegade)

Isn't it amazing? Mis-nagid's famous and skeptical point, in fact, has a Torah-true pedigree.

El Al boycott update

Quote of the day:

The depressing result [of the major scandal orchasterated by Haredi kannoim over a chance late El Al flight is this]: The Haredi public knows that despite the stories in its newspapers, it is not its finest scholars who are determining its fate but rather its power-hungry, fame-seeking activists. And they know that the latter care only for their own welfare, not those of the community.

In other words, the Haredim hve problems that need -and perhaps deserve- a Martin Luthor King, Jr.; instead they're stuck with Al Sharpton.

Frivilous Law Suit Update

Yeshiva Yagdil Torah vs. Sprint Solutions

Hat-tip (on request)

Read this please

The very great MoChassid is trying to find a home for Fosterboy, a child his family has cared for, off and on, for several years. He writes:

If you or anyone you know in the Metropolitan area might consider becoming Judah's pre-adoptive foster family, please contact me at emansouth @ aol.com or Shulamit Marcus at OHEL at 718 851 6300. The transition process from the residence will take a number of months. OHEL will assist in each phase of this transition. Sara and I would be happy to discuss this situation in detail with any prospective foster families.

The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

Why do we celebrate Chanukka? Is it because of the oil miracle or the military victory? And why does Pesikta Rabbati say that its all because the Macs found eight spears waiting in the Temple, when they arrived to re-consecrate it? Josh thinks he has the answer here: The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

The story of Tamar

UPDATE: I thought this post responded to a claim made by the DH, but I've since been brought up sharply. Oh well, I did open by admitting to a general unfamiliarity with the specifics of the DH. I'm leaving the post up because (in DH terms) it shows how J and E form one narrative whole, and because (in Torah true terms) it explains the relvance of the Tamar story and helps bring into focus why God, the divine author, chose to tell the story in the way in which its presented in the Torah, and not in some other way.



I've never really studied the DH (that's Documentary Hypothesis, not Dear Husband. DovBear is straght.) but I seem to recall reading or being told that the story we all skipped in grade school does not belong to the same literary tradition as the rest of the rest of the Joseph story. And its true that Tamar's tale doesn't seem to belong to the story arc: We've just been told about Joseph's betrayal, and the next several chapters follow his adventure. Why interrupt the narrative to tell us about Yehuda's dalliance with the whore who turned out to be his daughter in law?

Here's one answer: In the fullness of time, both Joseph and Yehuda go on to become family leaders. In the short term, Joseph will become viceroy of Egypt, and the second-most powerful person in the world; later he receives the firstborn's double portion. In the long term, the kings of Israel descend from Yehuda, and he demonstrates maturity and establishes himself as the leader of the brothers by offering to take responsibility for brother Benjamin. In brief, Joseph and Judah are both destined to become the big cheeses of the family.

Having just introduced Joseph to us as a spoiled, somewhat narcisstic teenager, the Torah shows us Yehuda, his counterpart, was also once flawed. Joseph was a punk kid, but Judah ran with prostitutes and badly mistreated his own daughter-in-law. In fact, Yehuda's tryst with the whore -including his ludicrously irresponsible decision to leave with her his ring and stick, the credit card and driver's license of antiquity - should be seen as straight parallel to Joseph's adolescent bragging and tattling. Yehuda and Joseph will both share the rights of the firstborn, and win other distinctions; but first both had degrees of immaturity to overcome. Showing us this side of Judah and connecting it to similar traits in Yosef seems to be the purpose of the Tamar story. To my mind, this defeats the notion that it doesn't belong.

Another argument for the story belonging to the rest of the book is the fact that it contains a network of allusions to other parts of Genesis. Some of them include:

(1) The Tamar story begins with the words "And Judah went down from his brothers"; the very next chapter picks up the Joseph story with the words "And Joseph was brought down to Egypt"

(2) Jacob deceives his father with a kid, and the brother use a kid's blood to stain Joseph's coat; in our story Judah sends Tamar a kid after she uses her own deception to take something that is rightfully hers.

(3) The material element in the deception carried out by Jacob, and later in the deception carried out by his ten sons is a garment; Tamar also uses a garment - the dress and veil - to deceive her father in-law

(4) After the brother have lost Joseph, they send his blood-stained coat to Jacob with the message "Haker nah" recognize this; when Tamar is about to be burnt she sends Judah his signet-ring and staff with the same message. Like his father, Yehuda is compelled to recognize what he has been sent.

(5) Lavan is away shearing his sheep when Jacob escapes; Judah is in Timnah performing the same task when he meets Tamar in disguise

(6) Yitzchak, Yaakov and Moshe meet their wives at a well; Judah and Tamar meet at Enaim, which seems to mean "Two Wells"

(7) Tamar's twin sons recall Yakov and Esua and the whole chain of brothers struggling over the rights of the firstborn. Peretz wrestles himself ahead, like Yaakov, and Zerah, by way of the red bracelet tied to his wrist, is linked with Esau-the Red, another twin who was displaced from his initial position as firstborn.

(8) Peretz and Zerah also recall Menashe and Ephrain, the sons of Joseph, Judah's counterpart. Like Peretz and Jacob, Ephraim, too, pushes ahead of his older brother.

The Boundaries of Rationality

or The Rambam was an Empiricist…NOT!

by Chaim G.

There is an open Jewish Jihad on much of the J-Blogosphere to purge Judaism of it’s “irrational” strains. Many opine that “pure” Judaism is palatable to men and women of reason and that “authentic” Judaism shuns all magical- thinking obscurantism.

When taking the big-tent tradition of the Oral Torah into consideration this POV is demonstrably false yet, in order to maintain this mirage, many Bloggers love to downsize the “legitimate” Torah-expositors fraternity and to hang their hats on such hyper-rationalist pashtonim of parshanus hamiqra and p’sak as the Ibn Ezra, the Ralbag , RSRH and most of all, that towering colossus, the Rambam.

Yet, that same Rambam who consistently explains Ta’amei HaMitzvos reasonably in Moreh Nevuchim, who presents a decidedly non-mystical eschatology, who praised Aristotle to the skies, also codified the imperative for, and centrality of, irrationality in Judaism.

The following passage illustrates the Rambam’s BALANCED vision of Judaism that mandates BOTH the empirical and irrational approaches:

“It behooves a person to contemplate the holy Torah’s laws and, as much as his faculties allow him, to know their ultimate purpose. (Still) a topic/concept for which he can find no reason nor any cause should not become lightly esteemed in his eyes. And he should not ‘violate the boundary’ to ascend to the Divine lest He (i.e. G-d) ‘break through’ to him. (An allusion to Shemos 19:24) and a person’s thoughts / intellectual approach to Torah ought not to be equivalent to his approach to other, mundane, matters.

Come and see how stringent the Torah was about the misappropriation of consecrated property: Once the name of the Master of the World (i.e. G-d) has been uttered over mere sticks and stones, dust and ashes, they become consecrated with mere words, yet anyone who (by deriving pleasure or benefit form them) treats them as he would the mundane… requires atonement. Certainly a mitzvah that the Holy Blessed One Himself legislated should not be rejected merely on the basis of not being able to discover it’s rationale. He should not accuse G-d of things that are untrue and his thoughts about them (Torah matters) should not be equivalent to his thoughts about mundane matters.”

To see the rest of the passage click here. [DB: No hyper link was provided]

Maimonides Laws of Me’ilah=Misappropriation of Consecrated Objects-Funds (8:8)

Maimonides clearly articulates and vigorously advocates an intellectual double-standard predicated on the existence of two distinct dimensions; the mundane and the sacred. His rule of thumb is to approach things empirically and logically and to reject that which cannot be rationally proven. But kodesh is an exception to this rule. In the kodesh dimension of reality we are instructed NOT to reject that which cannot be rationalized and to accept as true and just even that which cannot be proven. To do otherwise would be to be moel b’hekdash by applying a single standard to both the mundane and the sacred.

Elsewhere he writes:

“And the knowledge of this matter (i. e. the fundamentals of Theology that he had expressed above) is a positive commandment as it says: “I am the Lord thy G-d’”

Ibid Yesodei HaTorah=Fundamentals of the Torah 1:6

In light of the first Maimonedean passage I cited it would seem that those who understood the word knowledge in the second passage to mean apprehending G-d through rational philosophical inquiry completely missed the boat. What with incorporeality, transcendence, theodicy and the predestination vs. free-will conundrum, G-d Himself is the supreme (Supreme?) irrational Torah Concept. Even Moshe who, at Sinai, was granted license to ignore the boundaries set for others, who always spoke to G-d “face to face”, was denied his request to apprehend G-d’s glory (see Shemos 33:18,20,23).

So what did the Rambam mean when he wrote ““And the knowledge of this matter is a positive commandment"?

Stay tuned for part two.

The war on soy

Here's another important scoop from WorldNut Daily:

Headline: Soy is making kids 'gay'

Money quote:

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Um…what research, exactly? A citation would be helpful, since the article basically accuses the bean curd industry of infanticide....

More important information:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

On the bright side, for once he's not blaming his impotance on the media.

Actual facts, via the University of Pennsylvania c August 14, 2001:

To understand whether hormone-like chemicals in soy products may influence sexual development in children, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have revisited a study on soy-based infant formula begun over thirty years ago.

Their results, published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, reaffirm the safety of soy infant formula and offer evidence against the harmful effects of soy that have been presented in the popular media. According to their findings, soy formula does not appear to lead to any more health or reproductive problems than cow milk formula.

Well, of course. What did you expect a group of godless scientists from a hedonistic secular university would say? Surely, you can't expect an important news publication like World Nut Daily to be aware of a 5 year-old study!

PS: If you haven't guessed by now, the original article was written, not by a scientist, but by a preacher. Though I fervrently hope this bogus soy story isn't repeated by a pulpit rabbi at a shul near you, I'm not holding my breath. In the past, too many World Nut scoops have made it into sermons. In fact, most any wingnutty idea you've ever heard has been started (or seconded) by World Nut.

Related: The Friar Yid has his way with this story, too. (and he's funnier)

Akiva and the War on Christmas

By Akiva of Mystical Paths

In the midst of the current Iraq debacle, the Baker report and instant turning of the US position of supporting Israel into Israel The Liability (or, How To Make Oil Friends and Influence Dictators), the seeming loss of control of his own administration by Da Prez (Defense Secretary candidate makes policy statements 100% against the presidents, and the president's political allies vote against him, like, if that's not a political coup I don't know what is), and the Democratic Party election success and takover of the Congress (which should lead the a major liberal shift in much of public policy stance), we have the Xmas War.

Over the last couple of years I've argued with Mr. DB about his inane support of the liberals and his constant warning of the hidden danger of empowering the xian conservatives vis-a-vi religion in public. Nothing to fear, I said, that battle ended long ago, moderation in the public square is the norm. What's wrong with giving everyone a reasonable chance?

And DB would respond, these people are fanatics, they don't want reasonable, give them an inch and they'll take it all. Yeah right, I would respond, America is past that.

Or not. As this article shows the fanatics have gained control of the ship, Jews are to blame for it all, reasonableness is gone. In the midst of all the above, this is just nuts. Or, rather, it's just fanatical.

Oy, just like DB said. Meah culpa.

And you thought GTA was a problem?

Click

[Note to my Charedi readers: GTA is a video game, roundly despised by the religious right and criticized by preachers, ministers and Rabbis.]

About the Charedi airlines post

I forgive you if you didn't find the post funny, but I don't forgive you for calling it anti-Semitic, or for suggesting it was an exercise in Charedi-bashing.

If Eddie Murphey and Dave Chappel can crack wise at the expense of black people, why can't DovBear and his readers have some fun with our own?

I fear those of you who complained are either hyper-sensitive, or predisposed to attack everything that happens here. As the kids said (in 1986) Chill!

Verification

Jonathan Rosenblum has verified the sad story of the woman who was attacked on the #2 bus.

Vote Joel

Click

Update: Dammit I didn't notice Joel Olsteen was nominated, too. I mean vote Richard M. Joel!

PS: A small confession: I occasionally catch a few minutes of Joel Olsteen on the television. He seldom talks about Jesus, or religion, preferring instead to preach the sort of friendly "you can do it!" message that brings to mind a very polished coach, or even the ideal mashgiach. Most of what Joel says is marshmellow fluff, but there's something very appealing about his manner.

Haredim in US may set up 'mehadrin' airline | Jerusalem Post

Exclusive: Haredim in US may set up 'mehadrin' airline Jerusalem Post

Today's unsubstantiated rumor: Is it possible some zealots with a financial interest in a new airline have been whispering into the ears of the Rabbis? I mean El Al has flown on shabbos before, and every other areline in the world does the same. Why pick on the one with the huge Haredi clientel, and why do it now?

Also, haven't the Rabbi's realized that a boycott will lead to more chilul shabbos? Currently, the Jews who work for El Al have Saturday off. If the Haredim boycott, El-Al will fly 24/7 and the Jewish El-Al employees who could previously avoid Sabbath labor will be out of luck.

Im Lavan Garti

Another famous anachronism in last week's parsha relates to this verse:

Ya'akov sent messengers to his brother Eisav, to the land of Seir in the field of Edom. He instructed them saying, thus shall you say:[*] "To my lord Eisav, your servant Ya'akov says, 'I have lived ( גַּרְתִּי ) with Lavan until now..."

Rashi comments: Another explanation: גַּרְתִּי has the numerical value of 613. That is to say: I lived with the wicked Laban, but I kept the 613 commandments, and I did not learn from his evil deeds.

A nice sentiment, but the way it's constructed is problematic. Even if we presume that Ya'kov had complete knowledge of the Torah that would not be revealed for another few hundred years, a great many of the 613 commandments can only be kept in the land of Israel. Others apply to priests only, or to farmers only, and so on. A shepherd living in exile, like Ya'akov, could not have kept all 613 commandments, so why is his claim presented in these terms?

Update (per Rob's request)
No doubt Rashi knew that Yaakov could not have kept all 613 commandments, but the language he chose to use here has misled legions of school children. You don't have to try very hard to find adults who imagine that the words "im Lavan garti v'tarya mitzvot shomarti" appear in the text itself and the Ya'akov kept every commandment.

---

[*] The cantillation markings in the Masoretic text put the sentance this way: He instructed them saying, thus shall you say to my lord Eisav: "Your servant Ya'akov says..." However scholars have demonstrated "To my lord Eisav, your servant Ya'akov says..." precisely follows the formula of salutation of ancient near Eastern letters, and so must be part of the message.

Your sympathy please.

I had a to suffer through a speech this weekend about how Yaakov "the leader of Klal yisroel at the time [sic]" and the shivtay ko (his 12 sons) created a besdin (formal Jewish court) that sentenced Chamor to death.

Afterwards, I cornered the man and asked him how the scrupulously halachic forefathers could have created a kosher bes din given that they were (a) related to each other (b) related to the victim.

To his credit, the man had the good sense to say he didn't know.

What was his mistake? This: He presumes the world he dwells in today existed always. In 2006 we can't imagine a great Jewish man acting outside of the halacha, and because Yaakov, obviously, was a great Jewish man, many Jews take it for granted that he was also halachic. But this idea crumbles on examination. How for instance, could Yaakov have foreseen the development of the Mishna, the Talmud, and all the subsequent codes and commentaries? That corpus, our law, is the work of men, gifted men to be sure, but men all the same. As such, the result is contingent, not inevitable. We could have ruled like Bes Shamai and not like Bais Hillel in every instance and created a Judaism that bears no resemblance to our own and God's reaction would have been exactly what it was when the court of Rabbi Yehoshua rejected the proclomation of a Bas Kol.

As the Talmud says: "[At that time] God smiled and said “My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.”

Yaakov's View

This video was taken (its creator says) at the spot of Jacob's ladder dream

Your tax dollars at work

Aren't you pleased we have a fiscal conservative in the White House?

A letter from Lippy

I don't think this comment was written by Lipa Margulies, the propreiter, I mean Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Temimah, but it sure sounds like him. Especially the part about him being famished for money and being willing to overlook anything that might put his school or his teachers is an unpleasant light.

Dear Parents:

For the past thirty five years I have been covering up the fact that Yidi Kolko has been molesting students in Yeshiva Torah Temimah. I do not understand what all the fuss is about. Yidi Kolko is a fine Rebbi and as we know no one is perfect. Why is everyone focused on the fact that he is a child molester? Focus on the good, not the bad. So, he ruined some lives, big deal. So, I covered it up, big deal.

We must stick together and continue the cover up. As parents in my Yeshiva, you know that your first obligation is to the health of my Yeshiva. Your children’s well being are a distant third, well after your obligation to pay me tuition (cash accepted, please deliver to Rabbi Applegrad.) If we work as one, we can overcome the truth and you my precious parent body can continue allowing me to spread my version of the torah for years to come.

I apologize for taking so long to send this letter, but Yaakov, Yidi and I have been hard at work trying to terrorize the victims of Kolko’s sickness. They expect no less from us. Please help us continue our cover-up and terror campaign by sending me a tax deductible donation in the enclosed envelope (cash accepted, please deliver to Rabbi Applegrad.)

I have a psak din from a gadol that we must continue to ignore Yidi’s use of your children for his recreation. It is his right as a Rebbi. The gadol explains that since he dedicates his life to your children, the least you can do is allow him to have his way with them. It is your duty to keep him calm and happy.

Thank you for your continued support of my important mossad. Please help us do more by sending me a tax deductible donation (cash accepted, please deliver to Rabbi Applegrad) in the enclosed envelope (your stamp helps us save on postage.)

Very Sincerely,

Moireinu Harav Hagoen Rosh HaYeshiva
Lipa Margulies

Kolko arrested(?)

STICKY POST: Originally posted Thursday night at about 6PM.

No details yet, but that's what Un-Orthodox Jew is reporting. Let's hope the guy sings, and tells us exactly what Lippy did or did not do to keep parents, Rabbis and the authorities at bay for 20 years.

Attention gentiles

Menôrah, goddammit not Menōrah.

Time for Timna

Genesis 36:8-16 makes a point of telling us that "Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek."

Timna? Who was Timna?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Here's the answer, courtesy of Sanhedrin 99b:

Timna was a royal princess, as it is written, alluf [duke] Lotan, alluf [duke] Timna... Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Yaakov, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, ‘I had rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.’ From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? — Because they should not have repulsed her.

When someone is distanced from the Jewish people and made to feel unfit, the consequences can be disastrous. Timna was turned away three times, once by each of the holy Patriarchs, when instead they could have welcomed her with kindnees and taught her the ways of God. The result of their brutality was Amalek, eternal enemy of the Jewish people.

Keep this in mind the next time you're ready to sneer at someone who doesn't wear a hat, or similar.

Gays and Conservatives

Curious about what the Conservative Movement actually did this week? Go to Josh Yuter where you'll find a very good discussion.

Wondering about my view? Too bad: I'm an Orthodox Jew, and I don't feel compelled to comment on rulings made by other denominations.

I will say this: How cool is it that a group of Jews were able to get together and make an important decision like grown-ups? No fiats were issued. No appeals to authority were made. No angry denunciations were slapped on walls or bus kiosks. Instead a group of qualified experts sat around the table, argued the question, wrote up their opinions and took a vote. I won't tell you what I think of the result, but I am envious of their process.

And Jacob wrestled with a man until the break of dawn

A facinating observation from Robert Alter:

A powerful physical metaphor is intimated by the story of [Yaakov's] wrestling [with the unknown man who was no man at the end of this week's parsha] Jacob, whose name can be construed as "he who acts crookedly" is bent, permanently lamed, by his nameless adversary is order to be made straight before his reuinion with Esav.

Jacob's whole life is entangled in moral ambiguities. His father's blessing and whatever wealth he acquired in Haran came to him through deviousness. In almost all of his dealings, he is the bargainer, trader, wrestler and heel-grabber. The Sages say "tofasta merubah lo tofasta." he who grabs gets nothing, and in some ways this is the story of Yaakov's life: He grabbed for the blessing, but after many years have passed Esav is a sort of prince with a retinue of 400 men and great wealth, while Yaakov has only his bondmen and his flocks.

On the eve of his meeting with his more succesful brother, Yaakov has a strange encounter, and it leaves him damaged. I think Alter is right when he says the mysterious stranger is the externilization of all the Yaakov has to wrestle with in himself, a doubling of all with whom Yaakov has to contend, and of all of his experiences to date. The mark of his experiences --of tending the flocks of Lavan, and of raising 11 children after travling to Haran with nothing but his stick-- has been left on Yaakov, but as is often the case, struggles have made him a better, stronger man. As Alter notes, the text strongly suggests that his experiences, represented by the wrestling match, have cured Yaakov of his crookedness and made him ready to face his brother. In fact, when day breaks he is no longer Yaakov (crooked) but Yisrael (lordly).

Later, the point is driven home when the brothers meet and, instead of lethal grappling, Esav embraces his rehabilitated brother with affection.

Papyrus by I. Puwer

by Cousin Oliver

I am not sure how many of you know what the Ipuwer Papyrus is(I just learned of it recently), but to save you the trip to wiki, it is an Ancient Egyptian poem on papyrus stored in the Netherlands that dates back about 3700 years ago and describes disasters that befell Egypt. This site gives the entire text and displays the references to disasters or plagues while this one just shows the parallels. There are a few ways to try and understand the Ipuwer Papyrus and I will give two popular ones.

First Way To Understand This Document
The Ipuwer Papyrus is a historical text relating the events that took place in Egypt. It reports, as fact, the plagues such as dam (the water turning to blood) and tzifardaiah(the infestation of frogs). It also relates the up rise of the slaves. Basically it is a text that tells the story of Passover via a first person encounter.

Second Way To Understand This Document
Egypt was going through some serious problems and a guy wrote a poem expressing his feelings about the ordeal. The rivers of blood and other plague-like references is merely poetic writing describing the horrible times Egypt went through.

We can't know which of the above is fact but which is more likely- Is Ipuwer Papyrus a historical accurate account or is it poetic interpretation of the times?



After Thought: I realize that if someone doesn't believe the Ipuwer Papyrus to be a literal historical account, it doesn't mean that said someone doesn't believe in the Exodus story.
Side Thought: Maybe it is fiction that made its way into the Torah as fact. Don’t know.

Renew our days as of old

[Reprinted from Summer 2005, with a few minor updates]

Have you ever studied tractate Chagigah? This week, in between the meetings and the mountain climbing, I learned that Temple Days were, in some unpleasent ways, very much like our own.

You see, according to the Talmud, there were in Temple Days two classes of people: (1) Perushim who were meticulous about purity, and accepted certain stringancies to protect the purity of their food and their bodies; and (2) Amei Ha'aretz who were not meticulous and could not be trusted to even keep the basic requirements.

Throughtout the year, those priests who were perushim refused to take trumah (food offerings) from Amei Ha'aretz, and there were strict rules limiting the participation of the amei ha'aretz in Temple services. This was done to protect the priest and the Temple from being polluted through contact with food that may have been handled by people who were, themselves, in a state of impurity.

There are echos of this in our own day.

Some shuls withhold the amud from people who haven't embraced stringencies like the hat or gartel. Other shuls ban certain hechsharim. And some schools turn away prospective students from families that keep the basic law but not the more advanced stringencies. In a sense, those who wear hats and refuse to watch TV and movies are modern perushim; those who are, perhaps, a little sloppy with the basic law and have no use for chumrahs are our amei ha'aretz. In a sence we're pre-occupied with this idea of spiritual corruption. Rabbi Salamon says publicly the children of bloggers and other critics must be excluded from our schools, and I, myself, am aware of a shul that rejected a supremely qualified candidate for Youth Director simply on the grounds that he had grown up in a more modern shul.

This neat analogy between our time and Temple time shatters when you recall that the rules were different on holidays. On holidays the amei haaretz and their food were accepted by the persuhim with love. All stringancies were suspended. Why? Because the sages feared that the amei haaretz would go off and start their own sect if they weren't made to feel welcome in Jerusalem on holidays.

And weren't they wise? Don't we see this happening in our own day? All of our subsects are, to an extent, the product of stringencies.

Wouldn't Judaism -universal Judaism- be so much stronger if we followed the approach of the Sages and stopped using stringencies as an excuse for excluding and belittling other Jews? Wouldn't we be a stronger religion if we retired the idea that one believing Jew could in any way be polluted by another believing Jew?

How the Gedolim could have avoided the strike that caused the shabbos desecration that led to a boycott

Potential ultra-Orthodox boycott threatens to cripple El Al airlines

The story of the miracle flight that didn't crash, but spit smoke from its engines soon after takeoff and had to return to the airport is in the newspaper this morning.

So let me ask again: Why was the plane full of religious people in the first place if R' Shteinman told them not to fly El Al? And I ask again, how did they summon the nerve to call R' Shteinman himself from a crippled El-Al plane to ask him for help?

And finally, as I learned from Jameel, this whole case is further evidence of the ritualization of Judaism. Laws that touch on rituals matter - alot. Laws that relate to social justice? Not so much. Here's the back story:

El Al had to fly on shabbos because the airports were recently crippled by a strike. Why were they on strike? Because the Israeli government, in violation of the law, had refused to pay municipal workers for FIVE MONTHS. This (halanat schar) is a straight de'oyraysa. Did the Rabbis complain about this violation of Jewish law? Did they organize marches? Did they petition the government? Did they utter even one public word as the bills piled up, and the children went unfed? No, no, and no again. Only after El Al landed a plane on shabbos -an act that caused no obvious harm to anyone - did they arise from their slumber.

Maybe if the Gedolim had concerned themselves with the needs of the people who were forced to go without their salaries for five months, the strike could have been averted, and with it the shabos desercration that followed.

What difference does it make to God whether one slaughters from the front of the neck or the back of the neck? Rather the mitzvot were given in order to refine the creatures (letzaref bahem et habriyot) -- Midrash

"Bring no more vain offerings. Incense is an abomination to me; new moons, Sabbaths, and convocations: I can't bear with evil assemblies.14 My soul hates your New Moons and your appointed feasts. They are a burden to me. I am weary of bearing them.15 When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you. Yes, when you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood.16 Wash yourselves, make yourself clean. Put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil.17 Learn to do well. Seek justice. Relieve the oppressed. Judge the fatherless. Plead for the widow." -- Isaiah 1

The secularist are winning

Every year, Bully Bill O'Reilly takes an innocent school event, lies about its context, blows it out of proportion and trumpets the fictional tale of his own creation as further "evidence" of the "War on Christmas." (And every year, some, oh, let's call them "self-hating," conservative Jewish columnists take the bait and write anguished articles defending poor Christmas.)

Well, I am here to tell you the war is real. Why else would a public school choir be singing Carlbach and Shalsheles instead of Silent Night and Joy to the World?

AN OPEN LETTER TO RABBI MATISYAHU SALOMON

AN OPEN LETTER TO RABBI MATISYAHU SALOMON

This is a well-written and respectful letter which outlines the Kolko catastrophe in great detail. If you can read it without boiling over in anger, I question your humanity. I strongly urge you to read it, and to bring it to the attention of your LOR, and other members of your community.

If your shul is like mine, the tables are littered every shabbos with Torah publications of every kind. I think everyone within the sound of my voice should make sure that this week, the open letter is among them.

HirshelTzig's America

Last week, my good friend HirshelTzig berated me for demonstrating too much sympathy for American Muslims. In his view, I was too concerned about "their feelings."

Well, HirshelTzig and his fellow travelers will be pleased to know that there is a community of American patriots in Washington D.C. who agree that Muslims shoould be mistreated, and when possible, humiliated. Their leader is a radio host named Jerry Klein. Report:

When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band, the phone lines jammed instantly.

The first caller to the station in Washington said that Klein must be "off his rocker." The second congratulated him and added: "Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their forehead but you ship them out of this country ... they are here to kill us."

Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans."

By now, lots of you are probably pumping your fists and saying "right on." A few have already written letters of support to Mr. Klein. Unfortunately, dear hearts, the joke is on you:

Finally a half hour into his show, Klien revealed the game:

"I can't believe any of you are sick enough to have agreed for one second with anything I said. For me to suggest to tattoo marks on people's bodies, have them wear armbands, put a crescent moon on their driver's license on their passport or birth certificate is disgusting. It's beyond disgusting.

See how easy it is to get fascists sickos crawling out of the woodwork when the door gets cracked open even a hair's width? This, not incidently, is what keeps the Malkins and O'Reillys and Limbaughs in business.

I'll never understand why GOP-Jews worry endlessly about people like Pelosi, people who only want Americans to have as much freedom as possible, when the real danger is from the hatemongers and their psycho audiences.

Bill O'Reilly

Still a bully, still a liar.

Midless Medved

Michael Medved's review of the penguin movie, Happy Feet, is mostly his usual "liberals-in-Hollywood-hate-you" droning.

As an added bonus, the same man who complimented March of the Pengins last year for "passionately affirm[ing] traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing" has changed his tune. He currently thinks it's a darn awful shame that the "most endearing denizens of Antarctica [have] become targets and instruments of powerful propaganda.

In short, March is good propoganda because it shows penguins raising children. Happy, on the other hand, is bad propoganda, because it suggests penguins are threatened by polution and global warming.

The rest of the review is whining about how Hollywood doesn't make good family cartoons like it once did, and I agree: Those wholesome old Disney films never showed anything evil like: dead parents, threat of abandonment or death, vicious grabs for power, juvenile delinquency, drug usage, lying, evolution, jealousy, gluttony and miscegenation, disrespect for parents, or a single woman living in sin with seven men.

Anyway, a guy who loved Passion of the Torture as much as Michael did, really has no right to complain about Hollywood values.

Leah's Lament

Dear Jewish People:

Each year, at parshas v'yatze, the Jewish boys and girls all come running home with Rashi's story: "Leah cried day and night. Leah cried day and night. Boo hoo hoo."

But don't you pious people do shnayim mikra v'echad targum? And doesn't the targum (Onkelos) translate the verse about my eyes this way: "And the eyes of Leah were beautiful." Why yes, I think it does.

So why isn't this more positive view in circulation? Why am I remembered as the bible's Moaning Myrtle instead of as the chick with the drop -dead gorgeous eyes?

Also, I know you shrewd Jewish businessman prefer to think of Jacob's scheme with the sheep as the archetype example of Jewish cunning. And yes that was a pretty neat swindle. But how about my acquiring a night of hot love for the price of some lousy flowers? That doesn't impress you?

Yours Sincerely,

Leah, Wife of Jacob
Matriarch