To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war

Tzip complains that we're wasting time with silly things while a war rages. She's right. The big news of the week is Israel's war on Hamas, and so far this blog has been almost silent on the subject. That changes now.

THE SITUATION (AS I SEE IT)
Israel, as a Jewish state, is in grave danger. The portents are unmistakable. The Arabs have a much higher birth rate. Aliya is down. Yerida is up. Popular opinion around the word has been slowly turning against Israel, and in the democracies, at least, this means government policy will soon follow. Hezbollah recently fought Israel to a draw, and has already rearmed. Iran has nukes in development, and a lunatic at the helm of state. Israel's Arab citizens often openly support Israel's enemies, and by 2040 they'll be the majority. The future is bleak. As Benny Morris put it recently in an Op-Ed printed by the New York Times: Many Israelis feel that the walls — and history — are closing in on their 60-year-old state.

ISRAEL'S ANSWER (AS I SEE IT)
The war on Hamas is a short term solution that seems able to accomplish only three things (1) Prop up the Labor government in advance of the upcoming elections (2) Instill some pride and perhaps a sense of patriotism in the hearts and minds of Jewish Israelis (3) Destroy Hamas's capacity to launch rockets into Israeli population centers. Only the third is a legitimate war goal, and it's an objective I support, but not wholeheartedly.

Here's why: As Morris says in the article cited above, Israel can't invade Gaza, or topple Hamas unless it has some sort of magic plan for dealing with 1.5 million angry, desperate Arabs, and unless Hamas is replaced, its only a matter of time before the rockets return, launched, most likely, by the furious orphans of this week's war.

On one of my threads, a prescient comment summed it up this way: How many new terrorists did Israel create this week? To that, I'll add some additional questions: How much more radicalized are the Israeli Arabs this week? How much international support and good will has Israel squandered this week? How much closer to the edge was the already insane Aslamajedad pushed this week? How many more reasons was Hezbollah given to align itself with Hamas this week? Yes, the rockets have been destroyed, and are for now out of commission, with many hundred Hamas fighters killed - two war aims I support - but at what cost? What sort of more serious trouble has Israel created for itself tomorrow?

A BETTER SOLUTION?
The real dangers Jewish Israel faces are the loss of international support, the Aliya and Yerida trends, the Arab birth rate and the ascendancy of Iran. The war on Hamas did nothing to address any of these troubles, and in some cases may have made things worse. I wish I knew what Israel could do instead - I wish I saw solutions instead of problems - and I wish I had more to offer than pessimism and a 50 year old Churchill quote, but there it is.
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Settting the record straight: A good word about VIN

Needs to be said that VIN corrected their story about yesterday's roadside death, and didn't deserve to be lumped together with the Pravada blog as an example of Torah True Lying. This fact was noted and confirmed in the comments to the original post, but in the interest of fair play, I though it worth mentioning here, as well. VIN, unlike the other phony Torah/News blog, has a good track record when it comes to telling the truth, and sticking to the facts. They usually don't spin, gloss, polish, or smooth over, and aren't in the business of propaganda. In fact, the only bad thing I have to say about them, is that they've never not once given me a link.

More Torah True lies

Received by email

From "Jewish" web site #1: YWN regrets to inform you of the tragic Petira of R' xxx who was R"L killed in a serious car crash on Monday afternoon. 24-year-old xxx Z"L, was enroute from Baltimore to Passaic, New Jersey when he was involved in a single vehicle accident on the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge. The force of the impact ejected him from the vehicle, and he was R"L pronounced dead by Maryland State Police who found his body.

From Jewish web site #2: Mr. xxx had departed Baltimore early this morning in his vehicle for Passaic, New Jersey. Family members in Baltimore called his hosts in Passaic some time later to determine whether he had arrived, and were informed that he had never showed. Baltimore's volunteer community patrol was shortly mobilized and spent the next several hours searching for Mr. xxx until the Maryland State Police were contacted to ask whether any current accidents involved a vehicle matching the description of Mr. xxx's automobile. Police replied affirmatively. According to police and other sources, Mr. xxx's vehicle went out of control around 10:30 a.m. while traveling on the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge along I-95. The six-lane bridge spans the Susquehanna River about 25 miles northeast of Baltimore. xxx was thrown from the vehicle and apparently died instantly.

From Baltimore Sun: A New Jersey man died yesterday morning after he jumped into the
Susquehanna River from the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge on Interstate 95 near Port Deposit in Harford County, the state police at the John F. Kennedy barracks said. Police said Trooper Adam Davies was on patrol and was driving north on I-95 about 7:15 a.m. when he saw a man jump into the river. Police said Davies reported the incident and moments later found an unoccupied 2007 Honda parked in the northbound right lane. Police said Harford County firefighters and marine units of the state police and state Department of Natural Resources
entered the water and recovered the man's body a short time later. The victim was taken to the nearby Tydings Marina and pronounced dead. Police identified the man as xxx, 24, of Clifton, N.J. His family was notified by New Jersey police, and the incident remains under investigation. Police knew of no reason for the man jumping to his death.

I understand the need and desire for discretion, but if you're not going to tell the truth, why put the story on your website, disguised as journalism? (Had either Jewish web site simply published a death notice, I'd have no issue)

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Shock Development: Iranians Devlop Interest in Justice

The Iranians have decided to try the Israeli Leadership for "Genocide against Humanity". Presumably the name of the 'crime' is coined because if they were killing us they would only be guilty of genocide (a lesser offence it seems).

I don't like what we are doing in Gaza, although I accept it must be done. But the hypocrisy of this step is mind boggling, even by current Iranian standards. I can't wait to see how western democracies respond. I'm sure everyone will condemn this as the muck-raking it is, and treat it as a joke. Or not.

Meanwhile, I do wonder whether a unilateral ceasefire (as proposed by David Grossman) isn't a good idea. That way we gain some plaudits and everyone can assess the damage. Without it, we have to live up to the aims set out which seem to me to be unrealisable without a ground incursion, and probably unachievable even then.


Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

How can Balgojevich go on?

When even furniture dealers are mocking him...

Image courtesy Amish the Bold. He says it ran in the Chicago Trib.




---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Variations On A Theme

Received by email:

The seismic tremors felt among Jews who invested with Bernard L. Madoff recall another notorious Ponzi schemer, the high-profile communal leader and business executive David Schick, whose arrest in 1996 thoroughly shocked the New York Orthodox Jewish community. More

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

A decent drasha about the financial debacle

Click
(Link busted: check comments for one that works)

[HT on request]

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Yosef and Pharaoh: Mirror Images

A guest post by Lurker:

A comparison between Yosef's confrontation with his brothers in parshat Miketz (Bereishit 42-43):, and Pharaoh's confrontation with Moshe and Aharon in parshat Bo (Shemot 10-11), reveals some very interesting parallels:

In Miketz: When the brothers come to Yosef the first time, he twice places conditions upon their departure from, and reentry into, Egypt: The first time, he declares that he will keep them all behind except for one, who would go back to Canaan to fetch their youngest brother and come back with him. The brothers are then removed from Yosef's presence, and placed in jail. But a few days later, Yosef softens his conditions: He agrees to allow the brothers to leave, but stipulates that one of them must remain behind. He then sends the brothers away, and also adds a threat against their lives, should they return without Binyamin: "Do this, and you will live… and you go… and bring your youngest brother to me... and you won't die" ("זֹאת עֲשׂוּ, וִחְיו... וְאַתֶּם לְכוּ... וְאֶת-אֲחִיכֶם הַקָּטֹן תָּבִיאוּ אֵלַי... וְלֹא תָמוּתוּ "). Later, when recounting Yosef's parting words to them, Yehudah quotes Yosef as declaring that without Binyamin, the brothers will not see Yosef again: "You will not see my face, unless your brother is with you" ("לֹא תִרְאוּ פָנַי, בִּלְתִּי אֲחִיכֶם אִתְּכֶם"). Yehudah quotes this again in Bereishit 44:23: "If your youngest brother does not come down with you, you will not again see my face" ("אִם לֹא יֵרֵד אֲחִיכֶם הַקָּטֹן אִתְּכֶם, לֹא תֹסִפוּן לִרְאוֹת פָּנָי").

In Bo: After having been battered by most of the plagues, Pharaoh finally agrees, in principle, to allow the Israelites to depart from Egypt for a few days. He communicates this to Moshe twice – but each time, he imposes conditions that Moshe refuses. The first time, he agrees to allow the adults to leave, but insists that the youngsters remain behind. Moshe refuses, and he and Aharon are then removed from Pharaoh's presence. A few days later, however, after the plague of darkness, Pharaoh softens his conditions: He agrees to allow the children to leave, but stipulates that their cattle remain behind. Again, Moshe refuses. Pharaoh then sends Moshe away, declaring that Moshe may no longer see Pharaoh again, and also adds a threat against Moshe's life: "Get away from me; beware, do not again see my face, because on the day you see my face, you will die" ("לֵךְ מֵעָלָי; הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, אַל-תֹּסֶף רְאוֹת פָּנַי, כִּי בְּיוֹם רְאֹתְךָ פָנַי, תָּמוּת").

The parallels between the two stories are striking:

• Both Yosef and Pharaoh impose conditions upon the Israelites' freedom of movement: Yosef imposes conditions on who may leave and who may re-enter Egypt, and Pharaoh imposes conditions on who may leave Egypt.
  
• Yosef demands that the youngest of the brothers be brought into Egypt. Pharaoh demands that the youngest of the Israelites not leave Egypt.
  
• Yosef has the brothers removed from his presence, and later offers them softer conditions. Pharaoh has the brothers Moshe and Aharon removed from his presence, and later offers them softer conditions.
  
• Yosef sends the brothers away ("לְכוּ"), and tells them that unless they comply, "you will not again see my face" ("לֹא תֹסִפוּן לִרְאוֹת פָּנָי"). Similarly, Pharaoh sends Moshe away ("לֵךְ"), and says that Moshe may "not again see my face" ("אַל-תֹּסֶף רְאוֹת פָּנַי").
  
• Yosef threatens the brothers with death ("תָמוּתוּ"). Similarly, Pharaoh threatens Moshe with death ("תָּמוּת").

The parallels seem to be very deliberate and symbolic: Yosef's confrontation with his brothers marks the very beginning of the Israelites' long sojourn in Egypt. And Pharaoh's confrontation with Moshe and Aharon mark the very end of that sojourn. Thus, the latter is presented as a mirror image of the first. There are still more parallels between the two stories. I will address them within the next couple of days, in Part II. --------- Buy my book. (please) Buy my wife a gift (please)

Charity

A guest post by JS:

Maybe it's the holiday spirit, maybe it's the ubiquitous ringing of the Salvation Army bells, maybe it's the deluge of mailings and phone calls asking for contributions, or maybe it's just the last opportunity to get in your charitable donations before the end of the year, but it seems like the theme of "charity" is omnipresent this time of year.

I think charity is one of those subjects that people are very uncomfortable talking about. Maybe it's because of its relation to personal finance, and, as such, talking about how much one gives away is as verboten as talking about how much money one makes.

Perhaps the only exception to this general rule is public auctions or after one receives an aliyah in shul where people gleefully stand up and announce how many multiples of chai they're donating. I'm very conflicted over whether donations should be advertised or not. On the one hand, I think it's in very bad taste and smacks of arrogance to advertise how much money one can afford to give away and may create much ill feeling in a community. On the other hand, maybe it will serve as an impetus to others to give more and more people will be helped. Personally, I never give any money publicly - I give privately, but not anonymously. If I were ever in a position to give a serious amount of money though, I think I would do so anonymously, I wouldn't want to be honored or given some plaque or dinner.

I also, at this point in my life, don't give ma'aser (10%) of my take-home income to charity. Maybe my attitude is wrong-headed and selfish, but I think if I gave ma'aser, I wouldn't be able to save for many of the things I want in life. Additionally, this lack of savings would probably mean that, when the time comes, I would not be able to pay full tuition to yeshivas and would thereby become a burden to the community.

Lastly, I'm well-aware of the halachically accepted order for giving money - but, again, I find myself conflicted and don't follow these norms. For example, I never give to anyone I see on the street or to anyone who approaches me, be it after I leave a kosher restaurant or someone who comes to my door. I also never respond to any mailings asking for money whether it's for some poor orphaned family of 8 that needs to put on a wedding or hatzalah. I never give money over the phone either. Personally, all of my tzedaka money goes to organizations that help feed and support the poor - I don't give to anything else. And for whatever irrational reason, I give to organizations in Israel that do this and not those in America. Also, if there's a terrible disaster, I don't differentiate Jew from non-Jew (e.g., the tsunami or Katrina).

I used to feel guilty about turning a blind eye to those who directly ask me for money. In particular, I worried if maybe I was just cold-hearted or stingy. But the other day, I saw a sign on the subway that begged people to NOT give money to anyone who approaches directly for money and to instead donate to established charitable organizations. There was then a statistic that money given directly to people is more often than not misused whereas reputable charitable organizations make better use of the money in helping people. Not sure if this makes me feel better though.

I welcome any and all thoughts or feelings on this subject. I'm curious what people's attitudes towards charity are and whether it's in line with accepted halachic norms and how they feel about public vs private or anonymous donations. I'm also curious if people give regularly throughout the year or give according to Jewish holidays and/or secular deadlines.

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

SM Needs Your Help

A guest post by Lurker:

Before I explain what you can do to help SM, permit me to introduce myself, for those who don't know who I am. I am, in SM's own wise words, "part of the gleeful chorus... of those who cheered Bush on". Now, some of you, who know very well that I am opposed to President Bush's war in Iraq, and that I have been expressing that opposition ever since the war began, might be a little surprised to hear SM describe me that way. The reason, you, see, is that I express my opposition to Bush only through speech and the written word -- as opposed to hurling shoes and brickbats at the man, which is the method espoused by SM.

In addition to my membership in the gleeful Bush chorus, I am also (apparently) a wild-eyed fanatic Settler®, a poisoner of wells, and various and sundry other unsavory things.

Now last week, SM dropped a shocking bombshell about me: It turns out, he says, that I have been "urging Israeli's to attack policemen". Yes, really.

Needless to say, I was a bit taken aback by this revelation. After all, I certainly have no recollection of urging anybody to do any such thing. In addition, I am opposed, as a matter of principle, to the use of violence against law enforcement authorities -- even if those authorities themselves are engaging in unprovoked violence against oneself. So I would certainly never tell anyone to attack a policeman.

A bit perplexed, I immediately challenged SM to back up his astounding allegation by producing "a single quote from me, anywhere, where I ever urged anyone to attack a policeman".

Imagine my surprise when SM did not reply! This was a bit disturbing, as well as disappointing. After all, nobody wants to know more than I do where I said such a thing. And if I did indeed say such a thing, then I really ought to know about it -- perhaps I have a separate personality of which I'm unaware, that gets up in the middle of the night and posts blog comments inciting to violence against Israeli policemen.

So I asked SM once again, to please show me where I wrote this. Again, believe it or not -- he failed to reply. Several more reminders similarly failed to elicit any response.

Now surely, SM must be telling the truth. After all, as he is so fond of reminding us, he studied at Cambridge and serves in the UK as a judge. And as he told us only a few days ago: "I believe in the justice, justice we must pursue. I also know something about how that works in real life." Certainly, it is inconceivable that a man who pursues such lofty values of justice would possibly lie -- and for no other purpose than to besmirch and demonize an innocent person. So the only reasonable conclusion is that I did, in fact, "urg[e] Israeli's to attack policemen" -- but that SM simply cannot recall exactly where he read it.

Unfortunately, this leaves SM with a dilemma. That's because I, in my annoying stubborness, won't leave SM alone. I keep following him all over the comment threads, reminding him, in polite company, that I'm still waiting for him to show me where I said the thing he claimed I said. Obviously, this has been getting quite embarrassing for him. So much so, that once, His Honor actually broke his silence, and sputtered:

"...sue me. Or shut up."

But I, annoyingly unschooled in the social graces as I am, simply refuse to shut up. So what is our poor judge to do?

Now, you might say, at this point, "Why doesn't he simply do a search, find the place where I made the statement in question, and just show us"? Well the answer, you see, is that he can't: SM is not adept with Google, and does not know how to find things on the internet. Why, just a few days ago, on the Muqata, we were discussing incidents of Israeli Police brutality against anti-government protestors. SM weighed in with his informed judgement that "the incidents are probably lies because the Israeli legal system provides for claims in respect of of such things and a quick search plus a few phone calls reveals none at all". Now, as plenty of us know, just a few seconds with Google reveals hundreds of news reports about countless brutality claims against the Israel Police, as well as the resulting trials of police officers, and Knesset investigations of the same. Why, then, did SM fail to find even one of these news articles when he did his own "search"? Cynics might suggest that he didn't even try to search -- but again, it is inconceivable that a respected judge so devoted to justice would lie, God forbid. So the only reasonable explanation is that SM could not locate any of this information, because he simply does not know how to search the internet.

And if his Lordship couldn't even find even one of those hundreds of articles about Israeli police brutality, how could we possibly expect him to locate that lone, mysterious place where I was "urging Israeli's to attack policemen"?

And that's where you, dear reader, come into the picture. SM can't find where I said it, but surely, all of us, working together, should be able to find it for him. We can make this a great collaborative project, like SETI at home, in which thousands of private PC users use the processing power of their individual computers to help locate extraterrestrial intelligence. In the same way, we can all join in, using our computers to help locate that elusive web page where I, the sinister Lurker, told people to attack policemen.

Just think: By finding that web page, you could single-handedly redeem the honor of SM, a most honest and honorable judge, from the unfair impression that some scoffers may have of him as a liar. And best of all for SM, I promise to immediately put up a toadying, peninent blog post, right here on DovBear, in which I will humbly and grovelingly apologize for having incited against policemen, and most importantly, for having dared to even suggest that SM was lying.

So get to it, people. SM needs you.
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Joseph's Wagons

An interesting bit of two-way torah is found toward the beginning of this week's parsha, when Yosef sends his father a caravan of wagons. The verse says:

וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֲגָלוֹת, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח יוֹסֵף לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ; וַתְּחִי,רוּחַ יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם
And [Jacob] saw the wagons Yosef had sent to carry him and the spirit of Jacob their father revived.

What was it about the wagons that improved Jacob's mood, and convinced him his son was alive? On the spot Rashi (rather too famously) cites the midrash that the wagons were proof that Yosef was alive, because the last thing Yosef and his father had studied together was the case of the Egla Arufa and wagons (Agalot), though unrelated to the case, pun on Egel.

He (Joseph) gave them a sign, viz., in what topic he was engaged when he (Joseph) separated from him (Jacob). [That was] the section dealing with the heifer that was to be beheaded (עֶגְלָה עִרוּפָה) (Deut. 21), and this is what [Scripture] says, “and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent,” and it (Scripture) does not say, “that Pharaoh had sent.” [from Gen. Rabbah 94:3

The Kli Yakar, who seems to belong to the school of thought which says the Avot neither knew nor kept all the mitzvot disagrees. After delivering a blogger-stye attack on Rashi's tendency to depart from the pshat, he points out that Yosef sent his father more than one wagon. He concludes that the extra wagons were sent for the purpose of escort (levaya). The custom of escort was well-established in Abraham's family; indeed when Yosef departed from his father for the last time, Yaakov escorted him (וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן). Moreover, the wagons were not merely proof that Yosef was a live, but proof that he had kept alive the family practices: therefore, "the spirit of Jacob their father revived."
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Holocaust Apple Story debunked

The (Phony) Fence

Ah,well. [HT on request]

(...and speaking of things that have been debunked, if I hear one more time the bogus story about how this April is the first time since the Exodus that Pesach and Birchas Hachama have coincided, I may poke out someone's eye.)

A Quality Post

http://www.tzipiyah.com/2008/12/we-will-not-put-our-heads-down-in-shame.html

[Though I called it a quality post, I'm not yet sure the idea it suggests is so great. Tzariach iyun]

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (Pretty please? All you need do to contribute is buy the book or an ad)

Joining the war

A Guest Post by Rafi G.
(originally posted on LII)

I just took a taxi and when I got in, the cabbie was listening to the news about the war, as pretty much everyone is right now.

The cabbie groaned and said "war".

I said back to him "Actually, there has been a war for a while. Just now we finally joined it."

(I think it sounds better in the original Hebrew of the conversation rather than in English)

He cracked up, as he said he loved the line and would use it.

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Israel starts to defend itself against Gaza

Shabbat Morning in Israel -- IAF jets attacked Gaza and the operation has begun (I got my first pager message during Shabbat Lunch, and the followup during early mincha "Shmona Esreh")

Jameel is war-blogging again; get the latest up-to-date news at The Muqata.

Shavua Tov, Chodesh Tov, Chanuka Sameach.

--Jameel

---------
Buy DovBear's book already. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please?) Come on, it's Chanuka...

Parsha Notes Addendum

Two new notes added

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Lean on Me

By the Bray of Fundie

Maimonides (Laws of Repentance 2:1) teaches us that :א איזו היא תשובה גמורה--זה שבא לידו דבר שעבר בו, ואפשר בידו לעשות, ופירש ולא עשה מפני התשובה, לא מיראה ולא מכשלון כוח. כיצד: הרי שבא על אישה בעבירה, ולאחר זמן נתייחד עימה והוא עומד באהבתו בה ובכוח גופו, ובמדינה שעבר בה, ופירש ולא עבר--זה הוא בעל תשובה גמורה= What is considered a complete/absolute Teshuva? If the penitent is confronted with the sin (again), has the opportunity to transgress but desists not because of diminished capacities or fear (of human repercussions) but because of his repentance. E.G. if someone had an illicit affair with a woman and later was secluded with her in the same locale where they had originally sinned and is still vigorous and still loves her yet desists and does not transgress, this (person) is a Master of absoluteTeshuva.

There is a symbiotic relationship between Tzadikim (those who have not sinned) and Baalei Teshuva (those who sinned but have repented). Very often Tzadikim help Baalei Teshuva in their "repair work" and Baalei Teshuva, by turning lemons into lemonade, raise the consciousness of Tzadkim to understand that sins are, paradoxically, missed opportunities that open up new and better opportunities.

In Jewish thought Yoseph and Yehuda are archetypes for the Tzadik and Baal Teshuva, respectively. Consider their diverse behaviors and reactions when confronted with their respective tests of resisting their desire for a woman prohibited to them.

Elsewhere it has been theorized that Yoseph's request that Binyomin be brought before him was merely to ascertain whether or not yet another pretender to Yaakov's inheritance / estate had been"disposed of". But in light of the Tzadik/Baal Teshuva archetype roles of Yoseph and Yehuda I believe that it goes much deeper.

IMO what Yoseph was trying to do was help Yehuda achieve true Tehuva. He orchestrated the frame-up of the divining chalice in Benyamin's sack to replicate, as much as was possible, the circumstances of Yehuda's sin of having sold Yoseph. Once again Yehuda was confronted with the same choice; a beloved ben z'kunim of Rachel, his own half brother, was in danger of becoming a slave to gentiles. Would he repeat his previous sin, opt for the path of least resistance and allow Binyamin to become a slave? Or... would he risk all, his temporal life and his share in the world-to come, to save his half brother?

Yehuda, helped (manipulated) this way by the Tzadik, becomes a fully realized Baal Teshuva. Then when Yoseph, decked out as the viceroy of Egypt, drops the masquerade to reveals to the Bnei Yisrael that he is their brother and not some malevolent despot, he is not only teaching his brothers that things are not always what they appear to be. He is having an epipahny and admiiting this to himself as well. Yehuda the Baal Teshuva helped the Tzadik to realize that sin is not a bottomless pit, "full" of emptiness and life-robbing snakes and scorpions, but a springboard to attain even higher heights. The deeper the trampoline falls/"gives", the higher it propels.

---------
Buy Dov's book. (please)
Buy Mrs. Dov a gift (please)

Parsha Notes (Meeketz)

Not a heck of a whole lot to say this week, I'm afraid. Newbies are invited to consult earlier editions of the series. As a Shabbos Chanuka bonus I have, this week, included links to some ghosts of Chanuka's past. (Aside:I know some of you are sometimes reluctant to comment on old posts, but please don't be inhibited. Thanks to the "recent comments" widget, your remark will likely be seen; aside from that, I try to read all comments, too. You're also free to email me(yourfavoriteblogger@gmail.com) if you have something you want me to see.) (Note: The old posts often show 0 comments. This is a Haloscan glitch. Click and see (and remember: Comments are almost always better than the post)

New stuff in red

Bizarre Rashi (with twist)

After living in a dungeon for ten years, Yosef asked the king's butler to throw him a life line: כִּי אִם-זְכַרְתַּנִי אִתְּךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לָךְ, וְעָשִׂיתָ-נָּא עִמָּדִי, חָסֶד; וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וְהוֹצֵאתַנִי, מִן-הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה/ But think on me when it shall be well with thee, and show kindness, I pray thee, unto me, and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house. Says Rashi: Because Joseph relied on him to remember him, he was compelled to be confined for two years, as it is said:“Praiseworthy is the man who made the Lord his trust and did not turn to the haughty (רְהָבִים)” (Ps. 40:5). He did not turn to the Egyptians, who are called רַהַב, haughty. I - along with many of the commentators - find it odd that Yosef might be punished with two extra years in jail, for exercising ordinary hishtadlut/effort.

Bonus twist: On the spot, the Kli Yakar puns on "who made the Lord his trust" Instead of sam he read shem ie, the name of the Lord was his trust. How? The Tetragrammaton makes use of the four letters with the lowest numerical value, and the name Yah has just two letters: Rather than choosing elaborate titles for himself, God, as it were, behaves modestly - a lesson for us all.

Loan Words
As Sarna tells us, some realism is added to the story of Joseph in Pharoh's court through the use of Egyptian loan words such as y'or, chartumim, 'ahu, taba'at, shesh, and most famously abrekh, a word which has never been satisfactorily translated.

Historical Accuracy
:: Joseph shaves before he sees Pharaoh. In the ANE, only Egyptians were clean shaven.

:: As attested to by several biblical and extrabiblical sources, circumcision was widely practiced in the ANE. Joshua (5:9) tells us that Egyptians thought lack of circumcision was a "reproach." Judges (14:3 etc.) is an example of the Philistines being depicted as "uncircumcised." No nation other than the Philistines are disparaged this way. In Jeremiah 9 other nations are said to pact ice this rite. On Gen 41:55 Rashi gives us a Just-So-Story for how this came to pass, saying that Joseph ordered the Egyptians to do it. (The LR says that just as Abraham circumcised his slaves and bondmen, Joseph had a halachic obligation to circumcise anyone under his control or power -an interesting, yet dangerous -almost fascist - idea.)

Anomaly
::The MT gives raqot (flat or hollow) on Gen 41:19; other ancient versions have daqot (meager)

:: On 41:56 the MT has וַיִּפְתַּח יוֹסֵף אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר בָּהֶם / and Joseph opened all in which there was. Something, obviously, is missing from this sentence, and Onkelos provides it, telling us that Joseph opened the "storehouses" in which there was "grain." (Alter)

Interesting Idea
When Joseph asked his bothers to bring him Benjamin, he was checking to see if he has been disposed of as well. In the ANE, as in other cultures, it was common from brothers to protect their inheritances by killing each other off, and a very young, half-brother would have been especially vulnerable. (Perhaps this thought is represented in the other commentaries, but I saw it in Alter)

Anti-DH
Bible critics say the MT's version of Joseph's sale is two different accounts knitted together. Their evidence includes the question of who sold Joseph, and that both Reuven and Yehuda appear as instruments of his sale. Oddly enough, these two men also appear later in Joseph's court as Benjamin's protector, suggesting they'd repented.

Musar

The seven fat years are this world, the seven lean years are the world to come. Here we have everything, and the means to aquire everlasting life. In the next world, our money is worthless, and there is no way to aquire spiritual merit. Lesson: Fill up your storehouses now.

BONUS POSTS

Oy Chanuka in which I explain why Chanuka isn't the festival of freedom, tell you the true origins of the dredal, and more.

Why does Chanuka has eight days? If you're not a newbie, you know the answer, but these are some Chanuka facts you may not know.

Where did the oil mircal come from? ExtraTorah rebuts. Josh Waxman embellishes

Chanuka = Sukkos in which I provide Torah sources for the idea, attested to in the book of Macabbees that the first Chanuka was really a delayed Sukkos.

Toys vs Turkeys explains why Chanuka presents should be abolished. (maybe)

Christmas for Jews is a grinchy post about Chanuka

No GOP Jew should sing Maoz Tzur.

Share some levivot with someone you love.

Remember Yus? (shudder) This Menorah post is where he first appeared, though under another name. When I explained why the Aish Hatorah Chanuka video sucked beans, he came back again, even nastier than before. Little known fact: I switched to Haloscan Comments solely so that I could ban him.

Put on your Yarmulka, its time for Chanuka discusses the dumb Adam Sandler song.

In which I laugh at the idea Shabbos Chanuka has "deep mystical powers"; two years later Bray showed he believes in that crap.

Chanuka ends explains why Chanuka has an unhappy ending. Same point, made a little differently here.

A poorly named post, in which I moan about the stupid dreidal song.

Chanuka in Baghdad, is a short, thin post that knocks Cheney.

President Panderer is a bit more substantive and takes what I still think was a legitimate and well deserved shot at Bush. (Heh. When I wrote it he was "President Forty Percent.")

And because no trip down memory lane would be complete without an undressing of Cross Currents check out this discussion of Toby Katz's mistaken view of Chanuka, too

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The origins of Hanukah

A guest post by Lurker:

[Cross-posted at The Muqata]

Recently, DovBear invited us to have a look at this interesting article by Lawrence Keleman about the true origins of Christmas. Keleman argues that if Jews inclined to celebrate that holiday were aware of these origins, then they might be dissuaded from celebrating it. Keleman points out – quite correctly – that the early Christians did not choose December 25th because of any existing tradition that Jesus had been born on that day. Rather, they picked it because that was the concluding date of the Greco-Roman festival of Saturnalia, which commemorated the Winter Solstice. In other words, "Christmas" was already around for a very long time, in a somewhat different form, long before the Christians came along.

This, in turn, brings to mind the question of the origins of Hanukah. Interestingly, Hanukah also coincides with the Winter Solstice period. More significantly, it is eight days long – just like Saturnalia was. Was this a historical accident, or is there more significance to the time and length of this holiday? Were the Christians the only ones to adapt Saturnalia to their own needs? Or Does Hanukah, too, bear a connection to this ancient Solstice festival? DovBear says that there is indeed such a connection. Is he right?

Needless to say, many reasons have been offered over the years for Hanukah's date and length. Regarding the date (the 25th of Kislev): I Maccabees (1:59, 4:52-59) and II Maccabees (10:5-8) seem to suggest that this date was chosen deliberately for the rededication, since it was on that very date that Antiochus had desecrated the altar three years earlier. Others find a connection in the book of Hagai, which says that the foundation of the Second Temple was laid on the 24th of Kislev (or the 25th; see sources in Further information, below) (Hagai 2:10-19). And a midrash in the Yalkut Shimoni (I Melakhim 184) says that work on the Mishkan was completed on the 25th of Kislev, although the dedication ceremony was delayed until the 1st of Nisan.

As to why Hanukah is 8 days long: II Maccabees (1:9, 1:18, 10:5-8) says that Hanukah was intended to commemorate Sukkot – the holiday that the Greeks had recently prevented the Jews from celebrating – and which is 8 days long (when you include Shemini Atzeret). According to Pesikta Rabbati (ch. 2), the Hashmonaim, upon entering the liberated Temple, found 8 iron spears, which they thrust into the ground and made into an impromptu candelabra. And of course, there is the very famous (but historically questionable) story from the Talmud (TB Shabbat 21b) of the miraculous oil that burned for 8 days. But one is forced to wonder: Do any of these reasons really explain the establishment of an 8-day-long holiday? Megillat Taanit lists a great many days that were celebrated as holidays in early Second Temple times – and they are all just one day long, except for one: Hanukah. Let us assume for a moment that the miracle of the oil is the reason why Hanukah was established. Why does this justify the establishment of an 8-day-long holiday? Suppose the oil had burned for 50 days – would Hanukah then be 50 days long? It is reasonable to wonder whether there was already a pre-existing 8-day-long holiday, which was simply conflated with the new holiday of Hanukah.

The answer may be found in in the Gemara (TB Avodah Zarah 8a), which strongly suggests that the actual origin of Hanukah dates back to antiquity, long before the period of the Hashmonaim:

אמר רב חנן בר רבא: קלנדא ח' ימים אחר תקופה; סטרנורא ח' ימים לפני תקופה. וסימנך: "אחור וקדם צרתני", וגו' (תהילים קל"ט:ה').
ת"ר: לפי שראה אדם הראשון יום שמתמעט והולך, אמר: "אוי לי, שמא בשביל שסרחתי, עולם חשוך בעדי וחוזר לתוהו ובוהו, וזו היא מיתה שנקנסה עלי מן השמים!" עמד וישב ח' ימים בתענית [ובתפלה]. כיון שראה תקופת טבת, וראה יום שמאריך והולך, אמר: "מנהגו של עולם הוא". הלך ועשה שמונה ימים טובים. לשנה האחרת עשאן לאלו ולאלו ימים טובים. הוא קבעם לשם שמים, והם קבעום לשם עבודה זרה.

R. Hanan b. Rabba said: [The festival of] the Kalends [Roman New Year] is observed on the eight days following the [Winter] Solstice; [the festival of] Saturnalia on the eight days preceding the Solstice. As a mnemonic, use "From the back and the front you have afflicted me", etc. (Tehillim 139:5).
Our Rabbis taught [in a braita]: When Adam HaRishon observed the days getting increasingly shorter, he said, "Woe is me, perhaps because I have sinned, the world is darkening and returning to its state of chaos and confusion; and this is the death to which I have been sentenced from heaven!" He stopped, and sat for eight days engaged in fasting [and prayer]. But when he observed the Winter Solstice, and observed the days getting increasingly longer, he said, "This is the nature of the universe". He [therefore] went and celebrated eight festival days. In the following year he made both [of these eight-day holidays into permanent] festivals. He [Adam] established them for the sake of heaven, but they [of later generations] established them for the sake of idolatry.

One can hardly fail to recognize the obvious connection with Hanukah. The Gemara tells us that Adam HaRishon established an eight-day holiday (two, in fact) to be observed at the time of the Solstice, in celebration of the restoration of light. Furthermore, it tells us, these were the very holidays that eventually became known as the Greco-Roman festivals of Saturnalia and the Kalends. The Gemara is thus saying that the holiday we now know as Hanukah actually existed long before the Maccabees, for many centuries, as a Winter Solstice festival – the same Winter Solstice festival that was celebrated by the Greeks and Romans as Saturnalia.

The Hashmonaim later appropriated this holiday, and recast it for their own purposes as a celebration of their defeat of the Greeks and their rededication of the Temple. Significantly, the motif of "casting out darkness" and "restoring light" was retained. Perhaps, by appropriating a Greek holiday and turning it into a celebration of the Temple's rededication, the Hashmonaim were trying to express their victory over Hellenism. Or perhaps they simply recognized the fact that much of the assimilated Jewish populace would go on celebrating Saturnalia whether they liked it or not, and thus tried to co-opt the pagan holiday into a Jewish one.

In conclusion: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah shows us that the Hashmonaim "borrowed" the ancient Winter Solstice festival as a branch upon which to graft their own holiday – just as the Christians did a few centuries later.

Don't get me wrong – I certainly don't think a self-respecting Jew ought to celebrate Christmas. But I wouldn't tell a Jew not to celebrate it on account of its connection with Saturnalia. After all, Hanukah is clearly connected with it, too.

Further information:

For more information on the origins of Hanukah, I highly recommend the following excellent shiurim and articles. They all relate to the topic of this post, and considerably more, as well:

• The Origins of Hanukah (Hebrew)
  by R. Uri Cherki
  Merkaz Ourim
  [hattip: Jameel]
• The Day the Foundation of God's Temple was Laid
  (According to the Prophecies of Hagai and Zekhariah) (Hebrew)
  by R. Yoel bin-Nun
  Megadim, Vol. XII (Tishrei 5751)
  [hattip: Avrohom Shimon Tendler]
• Hanukah of the Generations (Hebrew)
  by Dr. Gavriel H. Cohen
  Bar Ilan University, Bible Department
• Chanuka - Its Biblical Roots (English)
  by R. Menachem Leibtag
  The Tanach Study Center

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Kellerman Christmas polemic

The other day, we had a laugh at Lawrence Kellerman's well-meaning but ultimately misguided attempt to convince Jews to stop celebrating Christmas. He's right that it makes no sense for a Jew to throw in his lot with a holiday long associated with Jew-hating, but wrong because he doesn't seem to understand that the facts of history are almost irrelevant, once emotions have come into play. Chanuka, as others have remarked, proves the point.

Perhaps 50 to 70 percent of the Jewish people, for instance, would be unlikely to celebrate Chanuka if it mattered to them that the Maccabees were religious intolerants who were ready to execute Sabbath desecrators, and insisted on the special prerogatives of king and priest. The other 30 percent would probably be a little less enthusiastic about the holiday if they remembered the disdain Chazal had for the Hashmonites. And all of us would, I suspect, be lukewarm on the holiday if we were historically sensitive to the connections between Chanuka and Saturnalia, and to the possibility that our candles have more to do with the Roman feast than any oil miracle

None of this matters though, not two-thousand years later, and not after the holidays have acquired their own special significance to us. This is why all of us still honor Chanuka, and why the Kelerman Christmas polemic has no hope of changing any one's mind.

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Note to well meaning gentiles

My "holiday" started Sunday night. Therefore, it is not necessary to say "if I don't speak to you again, have a happy holiday." I'm able and willing to accept your well meant Chanuka greetings right now.

Aside: I notice O'Reilly and his childish friends said less about the so-called WAR ON CHRISTMAS than in previous years. Does this mean somebody won? If so, who?


---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Trying To Force Your Chumrahs On Others

The "Oldtimer" writes:.

Check out a letter to the editor on page 69 of this week's Jewish Voice & Opinion by an M.C. Shiur of Brooklyn, NY.

He is telling the editor, Susan R. Rosenblum, that she must change her policy and no longer publish photos of women, even though they may be modestly dressed according to the halochos of Tznius. In particular Mr. Shiur was disturbed by an advertisement that was placed by Touro College for an "open house" that showed female students. One of those students was wearing a ring, which Mr. Shiur assumed was a wedding ring, and did not appear to have her hair covered.

I personally think that it is the height of Chutzpah for this man who obviously comes from a Chareidi background in Brooklyn, to attempt to dictate to Mrs. Rosenblum how she should run her newspaper. The Jewish Post & Opinion caters to a "Modern Orthodox" constituency in both, Bergen and parts of Rockland County and as long as the photos meet Young Israel type halachic standards she has every right to publish them without fear of intimidation by the kanoim.

If Mr. Shiur is offended by these photos of fully clothed women, he can either end his subscription to Mrs. Rosenblums paper, or keep quiet. But he has no right to try to impose Boro Park standards on Teaneck.

You have full permission to post this to your blog in my name.

Old Timer


---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Watching SM's "Excuse List" in action

A guest post by Lurker:

Firstly, I'd like to thank SM for his most gracious introduction below. I'm touched. And now, on with the show...

The other day, SM provided us with a bitingly humorous -- and entirely accurate -- list of the kinds of excuses employed by hypocrites who try to defend the indefensible. Here are the first few items from his list:

1. This did not happen. It is only anecdotal.
2. If it did happen then it is because these girls started it and the defenders went too far.
3. If we did start it, it was because of what they wore/said/did which was deliberately provocative.
4. It is all hugely overstated and exaggerated and the poor girls have fallen into the hadns of political fanatics who are Hitler in disguise.
...

(Read the rest. It's well worth it.)

For a classic, elucidative example of several of SM's excuses being used in just one single blog comment, see this comment from just a few days ago at The Muqata. The context was illegal Israeli Police brutality against anti-government protestors. In particular, I had given several examples of police brutality that had been inflicted upon my wife and myself, as well as some other incidents of stomach-turning brutality that I personally witnessed. That elicited this response. As you read it, note how SM's excuses #1, #2, and #4 are all employed in rapid succession (even though they are mutually contradictory):

[Excuse #1 - It didn't happen]
"The incidents are probably lies because the Israeli legal system provides for claims in respect of of such things and a quick search plus a few phone calls reveals none at all."

[Excuse #2 - They started it]
"Police forces the world over are mirrors - they behave to groups of people as those groups behave to them."

[Excuse #4 - It's an exaggeration]
"The stretch from a few - alleged - incidents to the sort of language used here demonstrates fairly clearly where the truth lies."

If you haven't done so already, make sure to take note of who wrote the above comment.

Oh, and there's yet another excuse presented in that very same comment -- one which SM neglected to include in his insightful list. Let's call it SM's Excuse #0:

0. This was a good thing, because I hate the type of people who were victimized, and I therefore derive pleasure from their suffering.

[Excuse #0 - It's good that people I hate were made to suffer]
"Settlers moan - and I rejoice."

To quote the wise words of SM: It is when the intolerance is closer to home that the going gets tough...

It certainly does, doesn't it?


P.S.: This isn't really the subject of my post, but since SM made some baseless accusations below, I will address them briefly: I never "avowed that all Israeli Policeman were 'twisted criminals'", nor do I believe that. Anyone who reads my comments at the Muqata will see that I never said any such thing. I don't know SM's cousin, and I'm sure he's a very good, selfless person. (No sarcasm intended.) The "twisted criminals" to whom I referred are the Israel Police as an organization. This is an organization that engages on a regular basis in sadistic, criminal activity ordered from the top echelons (and not only against right-wingers and "settlers") -- and one that rewards and promotes those who are the most cruel and sadistic. To understand what I'm referring to, see my comments here and here. So in my book, that makes it an organization of "twisted criminals". Obviously, this hardly means that every single member of the organization is a twisted criminal. SM's cousin sounds like a very good man, and I imagine that he is.

I am compelled to add that I personally think it is wrong for a person to allow himself to be part of a criminal organization. I happen to have good friends who were members of the Israel Police. I think that they are good people and I have much respect for them -- but I don't think they ought to have been part of that organization. I once turned down a very good job offer from the Israel Police (as a civilian employee), which would have been good for my career -- precisely because, as a matter of principle, I refuse to have any part, however indirectly, in an organization that commits such heinous crimes.

SM's malicious slander and lies about me go on endlessly, but I don't want to make this post too long. You can read the rest of my response here.



---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The Keys to the Asylum

Have been given to the lunatics!

In what might be considered begging, Lurker asked the Ba'al Hablog to please, pretty please, post his comments about the 'excuses' I made for the Israeli Police Force. Unsurprisingly the answer was no, but Lurker was invited to do it himself. I was given a like opportunity to deal with his stance.

My own take on the row about the police force is that anyone interested (with the possible exception of Ira) is capable of following a link and will by now have done so. Why Lurker should wish to inflict his views on anyone not interested enough to do that is beyond me. But it's a free country, so he cannot - and ought not - to be stopped. So, I say bring it on. Just to set the scene, The Lurky One avowed that all Israeli Policeman were 'twisted criminals'. I was rather upset by that. I have a cousin who is one of my closest friends. He carries - literally - the scars inflicted by a device which went off whilst, in his capacity as one of the aforesaid 'twisted criminals', he attempted to defuse a bomb and thus ensure the safety of Lurker and his fellow Israeli citizens. Lurker felt unable to amend his point of view to exclude people like that. The rest is history...

I am more than happy to explain why I dislike Lurker's take on Israel and the world generally. However, as this was his idea it seems only fair to give him the first shot. It will be nice to hear him say what he stands for and believes in. In his comments he merely complains and takes shots at those he dislikes, but I am confident that he will take this opportunity to say freely and fearlessly what sort of society he wants, what principles he espouses and what he does to act on his beliefs. Then we can have a little think...

Buy DB's book - I've read it and it's excellent. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift - she must be a saint. (please)

Bush pardons an important historical figure

A Guest Post by Rafi G.
(originally posted on LII)


While Jonathan Pollard has yet to receive the commutation of sentence from President George Bush that many of us are hoping for, an interesting pardon was given today.

President Bush pardoned Charles Winters, a man who died 25 years ago. He served 18 months in prison for smuggling weapons to Jews in Palestine in the late 1940s when they were trying to form the State of Israel.

According to the Machal Virtual Museum, "Charlie Winters, 38, a Miami businessman, sold Haganah supporters three World War II B-17s that he had been using to haul fruit and vegetables from Puerto Rico. These would become the only three heavy bombers in the Israeli Air Force. Winters, a Christian, was convicted of violating the Neutrality Act and sentenced to 18 months in a federal prison. He was the only American actually jailed for defying the embargo. After his death in 1984, his remains were transferred to Israel for burial in the ancient Templars Cemetery in Jerusalem."

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Jew York Times

Betrayed by Madoff, Yeshiva University Adds a Lesson is on the front page of today's Times. It is a largely harmless discussion of how the school was affected by Madoff and Merkin. Some students and professors are quoted about what it means to be a Jew, and a few clop al cheit about how fraud and Judaism sometimes correlate. Surprisingly, the article is howler free, though it does make the dubious claim that YU "[s]tudents do not have to be Jewish." Technically, true I suppose.

Deep in the Arts section, I found Music Review - Matisyahu - A Kosher-Pop Reggae Hanukkah at Webster Hall. I was charmed to learn that Matisyahu asked an audience member to light the menorah midway through his concert, the first of eight "Festival of Lights" shows he has planned. I was also pleased to read that the reviewer shares my general opinion of Matisyahu's "awkward rhythms" and his "thin and sometimes nasal" voice.

In A War Still Seen Through Stained Glass, which discussed Germany's efforts to force Russia to return some stained glass windows Russia kept following WWII, I found this snarky pro-Jewish point "Since the late 1940s, successive German governments tried to persuade Russian authorities to return the war booty, often pursuing that goal more actively than compensating the mostly Jewish owners or their heirs of art that had been confiscated by the Nazis."

And in the Science section, I found Cases - From a Place of Fire and Weeping, Lessons on Memory, Aging and Hope, in which a geriatric psychiatrist tells about a holocaust survivor he treated. It also contains a shocking account of a massacre of some 920 Jews in Rakov, Belarus.

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Bleeding ears

I was asked to post this Chanukah music special, and so I have, but I won't lie to you: I couldn't stay with it for more than 10 minutes. And it isn't that I dislike Jewish music - some of it is quite good. However, the first five minutes of this music special is quite bad, indeed.

You have your warning.


---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

What are Levivot?

Last week, I wrote briefly about some of the similarities between the Joseph story, and the account of Tamar's rape given in Samuel 2 (Related via Lurker in the comments) While reviewing the source material, I noticed (perhaps for the first time?) that Amnom makes use of a traditional chanuka treat. As a pretext for getting Tamar into his room, Amnon feigns illness, and then asks the inquiring king to send in his half-sister with some hand-baked levivot.

And what are they? Pancakes, I presumed, for all the obvious reasons.

But when I checked to see how my favorite Targum had teiched the word I found not "pancakes, or even the KJV's "cakes" but something else: "heart shaped dumplings" Heart shaped dumplings? In his note, Alter provides symbolic and etymological justifications:

The verb and its object are both transparently cognate with lev “heart” The term could refer to the shape of the dumplings, or to their function of “strengthening the heart” (idiomatic in biblical Hebrew for sustaining on encouraging) In the Song of Songs the same verb is associated with the idea of sexual arousal.

The word from Shir HaShirim that Alter has in mind is L'vavtini, which means something like "you have charmed me" or "you have made my heart beat faster" [more possibilities] Interestingly enough, the word L'vavtini (and indeed the entire chapter where it appears) is directed at a "sister bride" whom the speaker is attempting to flatter or seduce. (Recall Tamar and Amnon were half-siblings) That, and the 6 instances of l v v in the Tamar story as either a noun ora verb seem to justify Alter's reading, and his view that the biblical levivot are somehow connected to the heart or its affairs.

But what exactly were these things? The Aramaic targum on the spot seems to be the source for Alter's idea that they are dumplings, and Rashi agrees: Both say Tamar's levivot were some kind of dough boiled in water. But what was their shape? As I discussed this with my wife yesterday over breakfast, she correctly pointed out that our iconic idea of a heart is something new. Ancients would not have imagined the heart as looking like something from a Valentines day card. They lived closer to nature, and were familiar with blood and gore. More likely, their idea of a heart was closer to reality, and a real heart does look something like a dumpling.

[Related: As we talked, my wife went to a computer where she found this post. A bit of digging at that interesting site revealed that the yiddish word latka is derived from a Ukrainian word for pancake, that is itself derived from a Greek word for oil. How's that for an interesting chain of coincidences?]

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Chareidio: WE WERE RIGHT TO CALL THEM MILITANTS!

Received by email:

December 21 2008

Recently, Chareidio Global News was called to task over the use of the word "militant" in place of "terrorist" that appeared in one of our stories on a rocket attack launched from Gaza against the Israeli town of Sderot. [DB: The Mumbai attackers were also militants] Indeed, many consider it a "distortion of words", a mudding of the distinction between good and evil, when the terminology is changed. After all, how can society fight terrorists if we are unable to confront the phenomenon for what it is?

Over the course of the last two decades, as political correctness and moral relativism have grown stronger, the word "terrorist" has undergone significant changes.

Everyone agrees on what a terrorist is; however, no one seems to agree on who, exactly, is a terrorist. In many circles, the word has simply come to mean "our bad guy, that we hate". There are many examples of this, perhaps the most poignant being US President Ronald Reagan's reference to the Islamist Mujahideen terrorists as "freedom fighters" in their vicious and terroristic insurgency fought against the Soviets in the 1980s.

There is no consensus on the bureaucratic definition of terrorism, and there are over one hundred ways that the term is defined. Accordingly, political entities such as the United Nations, European Union, and US Government and other various states and localities have official designations to establish how the various militant organizations will be viewed. Thus we are left with an uncanny situation in which, for example, members of the group Abu Sayyaf are deemed 'terrorists” according to the United States and the UK, but not by the European Union, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which the European Union grants 'terror' status, is not viewed that way in Great Britain. Even the status of the group Hamas is disputed in Australia. The blatant ambiguity has the effect of relegating the word "terrorist" to a purely rhetorical plane, and robbing it of its former substance.

In addition, the emotional charge to the word brings with it elements of hatred and moral opprobrium which makes use of it difficult in rational discussion, and can be counter-productive because the word's rhetorical dynamic and definitional ambiguity in modern usage distracts and divides rather then helping build consensus. On the other hand, the word 'militant' simply means, "disposed to warfare or hard-line policies". While application of the term "terrorist" to Palestinian militant organizations goes according to one's political perspective in modern usage, there is no dispute that those launching rockets into southern Israel are militants. It is on this account that governments and international press editors have come to avoid the use of the word "terrorist".

Labeling terrorists as "militants" does not mean taking a soft political or military stance. Under international law, attacks against non-combatants are illegal and can be prosecuted; there are diplomatic angles; the Jewish State has the military means to fight if necessary. But in the war of words, unfortunately, enmity is all that is achieved by this overused and ruined term. On Chareidio, even the grand terrorist of them all, Osama bin Laden, has to be referred to as "arch-terrorist" because the word "terrorist" on it's own conveys such little meaning. Sometimes we refer to terrorists as "perpetrators of acts of terror" because it helps to convey what the word 'terrorist' doesn't anymore, and we also use the word "murder," which fortunately still carries it's own moral weight. The reason for our reticence towards the use of the word “terrorist,” therefore, is not because we believe the militants in Gaza aren't terrorists, but rather because the word itself has lost it's luster.

Note: Chareidio makes it very clear throughout their site that they are very frum indeed. This isn't some NK site either: There are mainstream, yeshivish Jews who, on this subject, think like I do. Chew on that.

Related

Someone else who thinks that using the word "militant" somehow gives succor to murderers.

---------
Buy my book. (now!)(please.)
Buy my wife a gift (now!)(please.)

Poll 1 Results

What shall I call my next book?

:: The Power of DovBear: A furious collection of his angriest posts (4)

:: Cross at Cross Currents: A meticulous take down of the world's worst blog (10)

:: Bear Naked: Your favorite blogger tells all (10)

:: How I made GH: The story of how I made GH (2)

:: The Clone Wars: A history of the SM/Lurker rivalry (14)
(SM says: I would call it: "Lurking in the Shadows: A History of SM's Attempts to Bring Miserable Fanatics into the Sunlight of Reason."
Lurker replies, "I would call it: Judge Dread: Lurker's Struggle Against Insanity on the Bench.")

:: Havdala Consciousness: An aid for the sleep deprived (6)

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The following was written by SM in response to excuses being made on behalf of the Bet Shemesh Hooligans

12 Step Excuse Programme

1. This did not happen. It is only anecdotal.

2. If it did happen then it is because these girls started it and the defenders went too far.

3. If we did start it, it was because of what they wore/said/did which was deliberately provocative.

4. It is all hugely overstated and exaggerated and the poor girls have fallen into the hadns of political fanatics who are Hitler in disguise.

5. Hey - some people want to get beaten up. Unfortunately these girls have bizarre fantasies and begged to be hit. Some immature youths obliged.

6. These people were not from our community, but were dressed as if they were in order to encourage hatred.

7. If these people were from our community they are one or two youths who have gone off the derech due to circumstances beyond their families control. If the state provided proper benefits to familes with 15 children this would never have happened.

8. If it is more than one or two youths it was mass hysteria caused by a misunderstanding of what a very junior teacher at their Yeshiva has said. That person is now teaching cheder. What do you mean he likes young boys?

9. If this was due to something they have been taught by someone respectable they have misunderstood his lesson out of excessive zeal, which is actually praiseworthy. They have been gently corrected but their middot are excellent and they would not have acted this way unless provoked beyond endurance. Remember Pinchas.

10. It may be that one of these youths should not have been in the Yeshiva he was in and therefore sought the admiration of his classmates in an inappropriate way. His parents have been spoken to and he is now in a less demanding environment. He is sorry and as soon as the girls have learned to dress appropriately and acquired a chaperone he is willing to apologise personally.

11. Every barrel is allowed one or two bad apples. This is an unfortunate incident but it will not recurr.

12. This is our fault. Sorry.

NOTE: EXCUSE MAKERS
No one has ever got to stage 12.

Bush's Private Mission

A guest post by JS:

A very interesting article about a side of George Bush not generally portrayed in the media. Be sure to click through all 4 pages:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/

I don't think the article justifies the past few years, but it gives a perspective on a man that many people see as one-dimensional, phony, haughty, unthinking, and uncaring. Personally, I think Bush's act shows tremendous humility and leadership and acceptance of responsibility.

But, I'm sure by this point everyone's mind is made up on Bush...

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Mee K'amcha Yisroel?

Open thread on the barbarians who beat up Jewish girls in Bet Shemesh

Chew on this: Again and again I have heard from Haredi types about how indifferent the world is to Jewish suffering. "What do you expect? Just a Jew," they say, with knowing bitterness whenever a bus bombing or some other attack on Jews gets less than a banner headline from the New York Times.

Well, this weekend three Jewish girls were attacked in Bet Shemesh by a band of hooligan Haredim. Already working on your excuses and explanations? Secretly hoping this will quietly go away?

Well, shame on you and here's your medicine: Imagine the attackers were Arabs and not Heredim. Forget about banner headlines and a UN investigation. You'd want heads on sticks. Well? What's the damn difference?

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

If you know a Jew planning to observe Christmas....

... show him this.

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Parsha Notes (Vayeshev)

Here, at Chaim G's express request, is the next edition of Parsha Notes (Parsha what?) I suspect Chaim shares these with sholashudis cronies or distributes them in shul and can only hope he properly credits the source.

Famous Argument
Why did Yehuda sentence Tamar to death by burning? Rashi: She was Shem's daughter, Shem was a priest, and we burn the daughter of priests when they sleep around. (that's three unproven assertions by my count) Ramban: Not so fast. We burn a priest daughter if she commits adultery. Tamar was an ordinary harlot. Rashbam: Under the levirate marriage laws what she did was technically adultery. (Hmm. Isn't this same Rashbam on the record here saying people like Judah kept only the "obvious" mitzvot? Solution: Levirate marriage was practiced throughout the ANE. The sentence Judah passed may have been connected to the customs of this own place and time, customs that coincidentally (wink wink) coincide with some Torah law.)

Allusions
The story of Tamar's rape in the Book of Samuel is the Joseph story told backwards. It begins with Amonon clearing the room using the same exact words Joseph used before he revealed himself to his brother. When Amnom attacks Tamar, he says "Lie with me" which recalls the language Potiphar's wife employed. Following the crime Tamar tears her ketonet pasim; likewise Joseph - the only other character in the bible to have a ketonet pasim - has his coat torn.

The first Tamar story (Judah's daughter in law) overflows with allusions to the rest of Genesis (at least 8 of them.)

Internal Parallel
No reason is given for Rachel'swhy Rivka loves for Jacob, nor is Jacob's love for Joseph especially well explained. (The reason the Torah gives doesn't tell us much; Benjamin, too, was a ben zekunim.)

Understanding Rashi
Rashi famously says Joseph's pit contained snakes and scorpions. How did he know? Not via ruach hakodesh. His clue was the double language employed by the verse which says Yosef was thrown into a pit that was "empty and had no water in it." Why the double language? If the pit is empty, it has no water in it. (some of these words happen to be Jameel's)

Two way Torah
Why did Joseph share his dream with his brothers. Most everyone says Joseph had pure motives, and wished to teach his brothers something or other. The Sforno alone gives an altogether different answer and says Joseph was simply immature. [Joseph's language supports this: In his telling of the dream, Joseph says הִנֵּה three times; that and the"וְהִנֵּה קָמָה אֲלֻמָּתִי, וְגַם-נִצָּבָה" suggest he's a bit too impressed with himself.]

Patterns
In the Jacob story every thing is binary; in the Joseph story the theme is doubling: two dreams (on three separate occasions), two trips to jail, and the brothers visit Egypt twice. (Alter)

Famous Ramban
Has to do with the man who gave Joseph directions; can't find it in my head and no time to look it up. Come back after shabbos.

Accurate depictions
The original suggestion was to kill Joseph and toss his corpse in a pit. The denial of burial in the ANE, as in other cultures, including our own, is seen as a atrocity. To dispose of Joseph's body that way would have been an ultimate insult. (Alter)

An error in disagreement with Alter
After the second dream, Jacob chastises his son: "Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?" Alter is puzzled because by this point Rachel is dead. The answer, as Rashi gives it, is that Jacob was arguing the entire dream was fanciful, and none of it could never be fulfilled: You mother is dead, thus none of what you have foreseen can ever come to pass. (I find it strange that Alter, who often argues against DH conclusions, doesn't use Rashi to defend the text.) (Alter cites Rashi often.)

Anomaly
The text speaks of the "valley of Hebron" (Gen 37:14) but Hebron is at a height.

The text speaks of a band of Ishmalites. Those Ishmalites would have been second cousins to Joseph and his brothers, and the original Ishmael himself was only recently dead.

In the MT, a man (likely Judah) names Judah's first son, and Tamar's twins. Other ancient versions of the text say this task was carried out by a woman, which is in keeping with the practice of Jacob's wives. All of his children were named by their mother.

Motif
The younger brother who pushes ahead appears here in the story of Joseph and the story of Judah's twin sons. These are the fifth and sixth times we've seen it.

In Genesis, men meet women at wells. Judah meets Tamar at עֵינַיִם, which plausibly means "two wells."

Anti-Midrash
Did all 12 brothers marry their sisters? Per Rashi, no way. (Rabbi Nechamia disagrees with the Midrash, too, but for other reasons.)

Crux
Who took Joseph out of the pit? Who brought him down to Egypt? Midianites or Ishmalites? Maddeningly unclear.

Musar
We're told וַיַּרְא אֲדֹנָיו, כִּי יְהוָה אִתּוֹ his master saw God was with him? But how? What did the master see? Rashi says Joseph would frequently invoke the name of God in his ordinary speech, and this is true: Throughout the story whenever Joseph speaks he almost always mentions God. (there is no reason to explain Rashi's comment as too many school teachers do: Yosef didn't say "boruch hashem" or "im yirtza hashem" at every opportunity. What he said, are thinge like this: הֲלוֹא לֵאלֹהִים פִּתְרֹנִים and בִּלְעָדָי: אֱלֹהִים, יַעֲנֶה אֶת-שְׁלוֹם פַּרְעֹה and אֵת אֲשֶׁר הָאֱלֹהִים עֹשֶׂה, הִגִּיד לְפַרְעֹה &c.)

Leitzanos
Click

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Obama is a suck up

Obama Selects Saddleback Founder for Invocation

I see Obama has invited an anti-abortion, gay-hating lunatic to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. This makes about as much sense as Rabbi Yoffee being invited to speak at a Republican swearing in.

For a video of this goatee-wearing dope saying that "Every religion and every culture for 5000 years has said that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman for life" click here. Doesn't the bible he thumps contain the Jacob story? Doesn't it mention divorce? Has he never been to Utah?

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Peek-A-Jew

In Successful Paris Restaurant, Jewish Roots

Its a sweet, and respectful New York Times article, but I was a little put off to learn that this pleasent sounding Jewish chef, with the hip Paris restaurant, and the abiding respect for with grandmother's kosher cooking was preparing snails. [Though, the article helpfully suggests that "for Hanukkah, the snails could be swapped for fresh chicken livers."]

--------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Missing his moment to be a mentch

According to the papers, the man who hurled his footware at the president has suffered a broken arm and ribs, as well as injuries to an eye and a leg after being beaten by security officials.

All the president has said (corrections welcome) is that he has "no hard feelings" Meanwhile, the lunatics who work on stations like Fox are praising the president's character, and remarking on how graceful he looked as he ducked the shoe.

They are are sycophants and simpletons.

What the president should do is denounce the way his assailant has been treated at the hands of the Iraqi police. He should criticize the abusers. He should call for an inquiry. He should insist that the beatings stop.

Of course, the president will likely respond that he's unauthorized to meddle in Iraqi affairs... to which a wit might respond: "Yes, well, that's what got you a shoe in the face in the first place."

NBN

If you read Jewish blogs, you've heard, I'm sure of Nefesh B'Nefesh, and their conference in Jerusalem, to which I was invited. Along with hosting conferences (to which I was invited) NBN helps Jews from North America move to Israel by providing them with help navigating Israel's fun-filled bureaucracy, and with finding a job, meeting friends and learning Hebrew. They're basically a nanny service for new olim. Oh, and they also provide immigrants with cash grants, too (which I suppose makes them more like a grandmother, than a babysitter.)

Anyway, I see from the hyperactive, seizure-inducing, ad by WebAds at the top of my blog, that NBN is now offering a little something extra for those who agree to settle in Northern Israel.

It is called Go North.

Those who qualify will receive an additional grant of $25,000 (NIS 100,000) and use of a jeep or SUV for 2 years.

Not a bad deal, but it brings to mind a midrash.

Prior to the magic moment at Sinai (the midrash says) God consulted with the nations of the world and asked, "Would you like the Torah?" Each responded (something along the lines of) "What's in it for me?" When our turn came, Israel didn't ask for a jeep or a cash incentive. They accepted the commandments straight up, and to this day (the teachings continue) this leap of faith, this willingness to do the Lord’s bidding for its own sake, remains our praise.

Now here comes NBN offering cash and prizes. Does this cheapen the mitzvah of yishuv eretz yisroel/settling the land of Israel? I'm not sure. After all, Chabad often purchases new dishes and appliances for people who've decided to keep kosher. That's not a bribe. It’s a pragmatic solution: people want to keep kosher, but can't because it costs too much. In the same way, some want to send their kids to yeshiva, but if robber-baron tuition proves to be an insurmountable obstacle, NCSY or some other organization will often provide relief. All that is excellent, pragmatically speaking, but does it detract from the value of the mitzvah itself? Does someone who makes aliya without NBN smoothing the way accumulate more schar[1] than those who accept NBN’s help. And does that matter?

And so long as I’m spitballing the subject, let me ask why there isn’t an NBN for every mitzvah: Want a super-excellent Ushpizin level esrog? Desire shumra matzah on all eight days? Wish to welcome guests into your home on a daily basis? Couldn’t there be an NBN for all of it?

Well, why isn't there? [2]

1 - Whatever that means.
2 - Ok, I know the obvious answer, ie, Christian crazies aren't willing to bankroll any mitzvah besides the one that (a) gets us out of America and (b) hastens the arrival of Jesus/rapture and our soon-after expected deaths, but I mean why don't Jews fund NPOs to aid with the perfomance of mitzvot in the way that NBN helps with Yishuv EI?
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)