A new way to deal with Midrashic literalists

by DovBear | 7:50 AM |

---

Old Way

Midrashic Literalist: So we know that during the darkness plague 80 percent of the Jews were slaughtered by God.
DB: Um... we know?
ML: Yes, we KNOW. It says so right here in Rashi, (Exodus 13:18) and he's quoting a Midrash, so it's TRUE.
DB: Are you sure?
ML: YES!
DB: Well, that's somewhat puzzling isn't it? After all no mention of this massacre is mentioned in the verse. Wouldn't we expect God to tell us that he murdered 80 percent of the Jewish people? Also, the Exodus is described as a moment of supreme joy. Could that be true, if every family was sitting shiva? What you're insisting on is actually a holocaust, not an Exodus.
ML: Hmmmmm.....
DB: Also, if you look at the math, how did we get from 70 original Jews to 5 * 600,000 people plus women, plus children, plus men older than 60 and younger than 20?
ML: Well, they had six kids per pregnancy...
DB: Even so, each woman would need to have like 60 kids, so that means for 210 years every single slavewoman had 10 sets of septuplets?
ML: Hey.......are you some kind of KOFER?
DB: No....
ML: I mean JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO DISAGREE WITH RASHI!??!
DB: Um...
ML: Don't you think he was aware of all your "questions?"
DB: Um...
ML: And anyway Rashi had RUACH HAKODESH so what he said was TRUE and HOW DARE YOU QUESTION IT.
DB: Well....
ML: You're just a LIBERAL who feels the NEED to question everything. Can't God do anything? Can't he kill 80 percent of the Jews if he feels like? Huh? Can't he? What's with you? Every time the Torah says something that doesn't fit into your narrow, human conception of how things are supposed to be you think you can ask questions?

- Fin -

New Way

Midrashic Literalist: So we know that during the darkness plague 80 percent of the Jews were slaughtered by God.
DB: Um... we know?
ML: Yes, we KNOW. It says so right here in Rashi, (Exodus 13:18) and he's quoting a Midrash, so it's TRUE.
DB: Are you sure?
ML: YES!
DB: Well that's odd, because it says right here in the Gemarah (Sanhedrin 111A) that God massacred over a billion Jews during the darkness plague?
ML: A billion?
DB: Why yes, a certain Rav Samai says that just as only 2 people of the original 600,000 survived to enter the land of Israel, only 2 of every 600,000 survived the slavery, so if you do the math...
ML: A billion?
DB: Yes.
ML: With a B?
DB: uh-huh
ML: Well that's... um... a billion? How can that be? It would mean... I mean... how did they get that many Jews in the first place?
DB: HEY! YOU'RE NOT SOME KIND OF KOFER ARE YOU?! Can't God do anything? Can't he kill several billion Jews in three days if he feels like? Huh? Can't he? What's with you? Every time the Torah says something that doesn't fit into your narrow, human conception of how things are supposed to be you think you can ask questions?

Notes
1 - This actually happened.
2 - Though Rashi's view is that Rav Simai means to say several billion Jews were killed during darkness, this isn't the only way to understand his statement. Perhaps Rav Samai is saying that just as only 2 people survived the desert (ie Kolev and Yehoshua), only 2 survived the slavery (Yocheved and Serach bat Asher, I presume, who, according to some (but by no means all) liver supernaturally long lives)
3 - As JS notes in the first comment, Rashi read of Rav Samai's statement to mean that just shy of 180 billion Jews died during darkness.

Anti-Religious Coercion

by The Bray of Fundie | 3:37 PM |

---

by The Bray of Fundie

A basic tenet of Judaism is that humans are endowed with free will. Yet the Pharaoh of Egypt was stripped of his.

This weeks Parsha begins:
א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בֹּא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה: כִּי-אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְאֶת-לֵב עֲבָדָיו, לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה, בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
" And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these My signs in the midst of them; "

The Rambam explains that being stripped of ones free-will is a weapon in the arsenal of Divine punishments . When a sinner abuses their free will in a particularly egregious way (s)he may be punished by losing it and being forced to continue sinnning with no opportunity to ever repent:

ד [ג] וְאִפְשָׁר שֶׁיֶּחֱטָא הָאָדָם חֵטְא גָּדוֹל אוֹ חֲטָאִים הַרְבֵּה, עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַדִּין לִפְנֵי דַּיָּן הָאֱמֶת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַפֵּרָעוֹן מִזֶּה הַחוֹטֶא עַל חֲטָאִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁעָשָׂה בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וּמִדַּעְתּוֹ, שֶׁמּוֹנְעִין מִמֶּנּוּ הַתְּשׁוּבָה וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין לוֹ רְשׁוּת לָשׁוּב מֵרִשְׁעוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּמוּת וְיֹאבַד בַּחֲטָאִים שֶׁעָשָׂה

The Egyptian Pharaoh is a textbook example of this type of crime and punishment.

ה לְפִיכָּךְ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה "וַאֲנִי, אֲחַזֵּק אֶת-לֵב-פַּרְעֹה" (ראה שמות ד,כא; שמות יד,ד): לְפִי שֶׁחָטָא מֵעַצְמוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְהֵרַע לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַגָּרִים בְּאַרְצוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה, לוֹ" (שמות א,י), נָתַן הַדִּין לִמְנֹעַ מִמֶּנּוּ הַתְּשׁוּבָה, עַד שֶׁנִּפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ; לְפִיכָּךְ חִזַּק הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת לִבּוֹ.
ו וְלָמָּה הָיָה שׁוֹלֵחַ לוֹ בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ שַׁלַּח וַעֲשֵׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, וּכְבָר אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁאֵין אַתָּה מְשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וְאַתָּה, וַעֲבָדֶיךָ: יָדַעְתִּי . . ." (שמות ט,ל), "וְאוּלָם, בַּעֲבוּר זֹאת הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ" (שמות ט,טז)--כְּדֵי לְהוֹדִיעַ לְבָאֵי הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁבִּזְמָן שֶׁמּוֹנֵעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַתְּשׁוּבָה לַחוֹטֶא, אֵינוּ יָכוֹל לָשׁוּב, אֵלָא יָמוּת בְּרִשְׁעוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה בַּתְּחִלָּה בִּרְצוֹנוֹ.

Here's a point to ponder: We know that when it comes to both crime and punishment, and merit and reward, the Divine M.O. is not just to mete out justice but to do so poetically, quid pro quo, midah k'neged midah. What, do you suppose, might be the the midah k'neged midah of stripping a sinner of his/her free will?

Your liberal media

by DovBear | 9:53 AM |

---

Says here that CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC "have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the [stimulus] plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio"

What's going on here? Are the producers calling Democrats and being turned down, or are more invitations being extended to Republicans? Are the Democrats asking to appear on the shows, and being rebuffed, or are they not even bothering? Or is the so-called-liberal-media just so frightened of seeming liberal that they overcompensate in the opposite direction?

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Best version of Rachaym ever

by DovBear | 2:56 PM |

---

Click

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Does the President Know He is Dealing with Religious Fundementalists?

by DovBear | 8:27 AM |

---

I confess to being confused about the president's performance yesterday on Al Aribiya TV. [Stewart's (very funny)Take]

My first reaction was disappointment, and, dare I say it, concern? See, I've some experience working with extreme religious fundamentalists, and when dealing with the rest of us, extreme religious fundamentalists rarely negotiate in good faith. The attitude, instead, is one of condescending superiority. They aren't interested in common ground, or meeting in the middle. What they want is to grab as much as they can. This is a direct result of the arrogance that comes from certainty. When you're 1000 percent positive that God chose you, and that your life is being led in the way that gives Him the greatest pleasure, well, you start to doubt that the non-believers matter, and you begin to think their needs and desires aren't really as valuable as yours are.

Whatever God he worships, Barak Obama is not a fundementalist and his view of himeslf and the world is different. Men like him (to borrow from Ian McEwan) recognize that "the world is unbearably complicated, with two billion voices, and everyone's thoughts striving in equal importance and everyone's claim on life as intense."

To the religious fundamentalist, however,(continuing to take from McEwan) the non-fundamentalists world is made up of "machines, intelligent and pleasant enough on the outside, but lacking the bright and private inside feeling" that he and his kind enjoy.

So it was worrying, I admit, to see Obama put his hands out and offer to listen. I may be misundersatnding, but it seems to me to be too weak of an opening move. The United States must improve its reputation in the Muslim world, and it must encourage Israel to talk to Arab states that are serious about having serious conversations. I like that Obama is willing to extend a hand to anyone willing to unclench his fist. But when I remember my own interactions with religions fundementalists I worry a bit. When negotiating with people who think you're less then fully human, you need leverage, because their guarantees often aren't guarantees.

Continuation: I became less worried when I saw Bush often went on the same station and often said the same things. Still, listening to clips of the Obama interview, I find myself thinking "They are going to roll him like a cheap drunk." Let's hope I'm wrong.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

He's a sneaky one, that Obama (part 2)

by DovBear | 12:52 PM |

---

Apparently appointing a Secretary of State who supports Israel's right to defend itself is also part of Obama's secret plan to screw us:

"We support Israel's right to self-defense. The rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas cannot go unanswered," Clinton said in her first news conference at the State Department. 'It is regrettable that the Hamas leadership apparently believes that it is in their interest to provoke the right of self-defense instead of building a better future for the people of Gaza"

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Why do we keep mitzvos?

by DovBear | 11:53 AM |

---

Why do we keep mitzvos? A good question, asked by all of us, I presume, at one time or another. Three of our favorite commentators see defenses for their own pet theories in a passage from this week's parsha.

Exodus 13:5-7: It shall be when the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, which He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall observe this [Passover] rite in this month. “For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD. “Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and nothing leavened shall be seen among you, nor shall any leaven be seen among you in all your borders.

In Hebrew, the next sentence (13:8) says:

והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר בעבור זה עשה יהוה לי בצאתי ממצרים

What does this mean? Well, it depends who you ask. The difficulty is the word זֶה (which means this or that), a pronoun with an antecedent that isn't immediately obvious.

According to Rashi, זֶה refers to mitzvos (for instance those detailed in the preceding verses) so the last line should be translated as follows: And you shall tell you children on that day, saying: For the sake of this (i.e. the mitzvos) the LORD took me out of Egypt. Thus, according to Rashi, mitzvos are an ends unto themselves, and the LORD rescued us from Egyptian servitude so that we might perform them.

The ibn Ezra gives (more or less) the same reading and presents (more or less) the same theology.

The Ramban disagrees. As he sees it, זֶה refers to the miracles the LORD performed at the Exodus, thus: And you should tell your children on that day, saying: For the sake of this (i.e. the wonders and signs that accompanied the Exodus) which the LORD did when he took me out of Egypt... meaning: we do the mitzvos (for instance those detailed in the preceding verses)for the sake of the wonders and signs that accompanied the Exodus.

According to the Ramban, therefore, the commandments are performed for the purpose of telling ourselves and others that God exists, runs the world, rescued us from Egypt, etc. Thus commandments are a means to an end, and not an end in of themselves. The goal is to retain and/or publicize the idea represented by the commandment, not to keep the commandment for its own sake.

The Ramban has a great deal more to say on this subject and supports his POV with a second, sod, translation of the verse, in which he says the word זֶה additionally represents the majesty and glory of God, thus For the sake of this (i.e. His own glory) the LORD took me out of Egypt...

Commandments, then according to Ramban, are kept as an ongoing testimony and a never-ending attempt to publicize God's glory/existence/majesty/providence, etc.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

He's very sneaky that Obama

by DovBear | 8:19 AM |

---

Clearly, appointing a Sabbath-sensitive Jew to a top position is all part of his secret plan to screw us over:

Mr. [Rahm Israel] Emanuel has been in the job four days — and, by day's end Friday, it looked more like four years. He is slumped deep in his couch, periodically swatting at a giant fly that keeps orbiting his office. He is hoping to get out of the office to meet some friends for the Jewish Sabbath dinner. He has a physical therapy appointment for a pinched nerve in his neck. He missed his children — 8, 10 and 11 — who are visiting this week but are soon eaded back to Chicago, where they are remaining for now. "For me to be the parent I want to be, I think it's very hard," he said, referring to the demands of his current job.

Source

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Robust and strong!

by DovBear | 7:21 AM |

---

Source

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Parsha Notes (Va'ayra)

by DovBear | 12:23 PM |

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

---

What everyone should know
- The presence of the court magicians is not necessarily evidence that magic is real. Though Alter and Rashi agree that the story is written from the perspective of someone who believes the magicians had real power, other commentators disagree. Notably, Samson Raphael Hirsch reads the magician verses in a way that presents them as frauds. Ibn Ezra, who also doubted their power proposes that latayhem (enchantments or spells) comes from l-h-t, or flame, which Robert Alter says links the work of the magicians to the "fire and flash technique of the illusionist." Those who disagree with Ibn Ezra and imagine the spells were real might say the root of latayhem is l-'-t or conceal. At best, though, what the magicians were able to do were merely pale imitations of Moshe's miracles.

- The stuff "everyone knows" about the plagues, is actually a matter of serious dispute among the Rishonim. For instance, if you go around telling people that one frog came out of the river, and that it multiplied as it was hit, you're disregarding contrary opinions of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya, Rashi and the Abravenel. If you say the Israelites weren't affect by the first plagues you're over-ruling Ibn Ezra. And so on.

External Parallels
Our parsha begins with a formula ("I am X") that is found in many ANE documents, both as a royal statement, or as the announcements of various deities. (Alter)

Against the crux
At the beginning of the parsha, God seems to say that he never once told the Patriarchs his four-letter name. Rashi says what this means is that Patriarchs weren't aware of the attribute represented by this name. [More] Alter points out that literally its true: Nowhere, does God reveal himself to Patriarchs by that name. Alter points out that literally its true: There's no special episode, such as this one, in which God's four-letter name, or the meaning of it, is revealed; on the other hand, there's also no concrete indication that they were ignorant of it either.

Anomaly
The second time Moshe Moshe's stick* is transforms his stick is transformed into a reptile, the animal is called a tanin. Previously its a nachash. The difference? A nachash is an ordinary snake, but a tanin might be a crocodile, or a dragon.

*Here I follow those who said there was one magic stick, which Aaron borrowed as needed.

Symmetry
The plagues come in three groups of three. The first of each triad is announced by Moshe in the morning at the water's edge, with the . the second is announced in the palace, and the third isn't announced at all. Also, the first two affect the Nile, and end with a stench. The second two involve insects (per those who take orov not as a horde of beasts but as a swarm of bugs.) The third pair are epidemics, and the fourth destroy crops. The final two plagues pair darkness with death.

A Different Approach to Gitmo

by JS | 7:45 AM |

---

A guest post by JS:

As I'm sure most of you know by now, Barack Obama has ordered Gitmo's detention facility to be closed within 1 year. The big problem is where to put the people in Gitmo that are believed to be dangerous, but for whom there is insufficient evidence to lock up for past crimes. To illustrate the severity of the problem, a report today indicates a person who was released from Gitmo has since become the #2 leader in Al Qaeda's Yemen branch (see here).

All of this got me thinking about a possible solution. The US Supreme Court has allowed certain people to be civilly committed - typical examples include the mentally ill or sexual predators. Importantly, this is not a criminal confinement - the people are not being punished for past crimes, but rather for the high likelihood they will commit a future crime. Once it is clear they pose no future danger, they are released.

The Supreme Court has laid out the following criteria for indefinite civil confinement: (1) "the confinement takes place pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards," (2) there is a finding of "dangerousness either to one's self or to others," and (3) proof of dangerousness is "coupled . . . with the proof of some additional factor, such as a 'mental illness' or 'mental abnormality.' " (see Kansas v. Hendricks and Kansas v. Crane).

So consider a Gitmo detainee for whom there is not enough evidence for criminal confinement for a past crime. It would seem that #1 and #2 could likely be satisfied - 1) The evidentiary standards are different since the concern is future crimes, not past crimes (though past crimes can be brought as evidence) and 2) the person likely would admit to wanting to kill or hurt others. As for #3, the question becomes whether wanting to be a martyr or wanting to kill others for ideological or terroristic reasons is a "mental illness" or "mental abnormality." The test here is psychologically based and depends on how the mental health community defines mental illnesses and abnormalities. Another part of the test is whether the person is likely to be unable to control himself in committing the future crime.

I'm curious what people think of this idea. Do you think all 3 elements could be proven? Do you think we should civilly confine people like this? Are terrorists similar to the mentally ill or sexual predators? As a larger issue, is it right to confine people for the likelihood they will commit a future crime? Is this too much like Minority Report?

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Torture

by SM | 7:40 AM |

---

SM

Obama has announced the closure of Gitmo and the immediate cessation of the 'trials' held in reliance on evidence obtained there. That simple step seems to have upset some people.

There is obviously no point in addressing the mindset that says, 'They must have done something because they are there.' That type of belief is not interested in facts. It believes because it believes. Miscarriages of justice just don't happen (it is a irony that, in their personal lives, such people are often whiners and whingers about injustices done to them. Not that readers here would know anyone like that, obviously).

There are really two issues about torture. Firstly, it's wrong. There are, apparently, Rabbonnim out there who are prepared to argue the opposite, citing the need to extract information. It is a chillul Hashem that such arguments can even be contemplated. Once we begin to deliberately inflict pain on other human beings there is no certainty that we can stop. Those who have been victims of torture ought to remember that - if we do not, how can we expect others to do so? That some information might be obtained at the expense of the integrity of the people who ordered up the pain, those who inflict it and those who stand by and say 'it doesn't matter', strikes me as an utter abnegation of the value Judaism puts on human life.

Secondly, the evidence obtained under torture is demonstrably unreliable. If that were not the case then intelligence communities in all countries would be citing the attacks prevented as a result of the information thus obtained. They are not. People being tortured say what they believe needs to be said to get the torture to stop. The truth or otherwise of that is irrelevant. Thus the thousands of people who admitted to witchcraft, many of whom were burned alive as people said 'it's unplesant but it is worth the life of this woman to prevent further lives being lost to the devil'. The society that produced that attitude was rotten to the core - as were the people in it, who could not distinguish right from wrong.

There is no proof that the people in Gitmo ever planned anything, did anything or believed anything. They were arrested on the suspicions of those who were looking for evidence of evil - as they looked for weapons of mass destruction. Whatever the detainees have said since then has been tortured out of them. People prepared to believe such words are engaged in an exercise of faith, not of proof. I have no problem with faith but Judaism does not endow it with the status required to punish anyone.

Accordingly, I assume that those who cannot recognise this evil are Jews when it suits. They may, I do not know, daven thrice daily, believe that we are different, give tzedakka and observe kashrut scrupulously. But, when they condemn men not yet proven guilty on the basis of what those men said when they believed they would drown, they have shrugged off what Judaism says about truth and justice, just as much as they would shrug it off if they asked for a Big Mac. Their observance and their stance is nothing but self-righteousness. They do what they find easy and refuse what they cannot do - claiming it to be unimportant. They deny what God says in favour of what they would like to hear.

If someone wishes to say that deliberate cruelty is ok by them, then it's a free world (until such people start to run it, obviously). But when people defend the results they are lying to us and themselves. When they do that in the name of Judaism, or as Jews, the hypocrisy is so monstrous that I believe the stench reaches up to Heaven. If anyone in that category should read this - doubtful I know - then I beg them to rethink.

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Gitmo

by DovBear | 7:35 AM |

---

Very funny pro-democracy mussar shmooze

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Hmm not very dignified

by DovBear | 2:58 PM |

---

Says in the paper that Bushies are a bunch of narcissistic, cry babies:

The Bush team had worked assiduously to make the transition smooth for incoming President Obama and stayed out of the way as he used the post-election period to take leadership of the economy even before being sworn in. And now, as far as some of them were concerned, the new president had used his inaugural lectern to give the back of the hand to a predecessor who had been nothing but gracious to him

And that sound you hear is the Bush-bubble popping. Welcome back into the real world Mr. ExPresident. Besides, why does the outgoing president get a cookie for being gracious? Shouldn't the outgoing president be gracious as a matter of course? And, really, how much of a reward does Bush deserve for exiting the flaming, crashing wreck in a mannered fashion? Please.

And let's recall: Bush ungraciously sulked through Obama's party, he was a jerk about letting Obama take Blair House early, and 8 years ago he gave Clinton the same treatment - but with far less style.

The begining of the end for Guantánamo

by DovBear | 7:28 AM |

---

Editorial:

Long before President Obama took office, pretty much everyone, even President George Bush, said the prison at Guantánamo Bay needed to be closed. In June 2007, the White House claimed it was working on a “number of steps” that had to happen first — but getting started was really hard.

Well, maybe not so hard. It took President Obama less than 12 hours. Before midnight of his first day in office, he took the obvious and vital step of halting the military tribunals at the prison camp. And he reportedly is considering a draft executive order that would direct that the prison be closed entirely within a year.

All reasonable people, including many of the defense lawyers and some of the judges and prosecutors assigned to them, recognize these tribunals for what they are: a mockery of American standards of justice and due process.

The retired judge who runs them told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post recently that she had to reject prosecution of a Saudi man accused of planning to take part in the 9/11 attacks because the case had been tainted by torture. At least one prosecutor has resigned because he considered the cases rigged.

Mr. Obama rightly denounced the tribunals during the campaign. And we were delighted to see him shut them down so swiftly now that he is in the White House.

Mr. Obama’s decision came in a legal filing by military prosecutors, which described the halt as temporary, to give the administration time “to review the military commission process, generally, and the cases currently pending before the military commissions, specifically.”

We presume that is a legal nicety. There is no good reason to restart these trials and doing so would send precisely the wrong signal to the world. We’re now eagerly awaiting Mr. Obama’s announcement of the process by which he will shut Guantánamo and what he will do with its estimated 245 prisoners.

We know that many pose no threat to the United States, if they are guilty of anything at all. We also know that a few are very dangerous and that the illegal and abusive policies of the Bush administration will make it very hard to bring them to full justice. Fixing that part of Mr. Bush’s grotesque legacy will be a lot harder than closing the prison.

participating in a church ceremony

by Rafi G. | 12:39 PM |

---

A Guest Post by Rafi G

I was in the supermarket this evening and I bumped into a friend. He asked me a question, and I did not have the answer. Something specific about the Obama inauguration irked him, and he was very disturbed by it.

He was disturbed by the fact that Rabbi Lookstein participated in the ceremony, actively participated by giving his blessings, in a church on behalf of Barack Obama yesterday? My friend insisted it is clearly prohibited to do so, and even if there are certain situations in which one can be lenient to go into a church, clearly halacha does not allow it as part of a ceremony, and even worse to participate in the ceremony!

I don't know enough on that topic, so I am not going to voice an opinion. But I will ask the question.

According to my understanding, and it seems the RCA is of the same opinion (as the RCA put out a statement against Rabbi Looksteins actions), Rabbi Lookstein was wrong and it is not allowed. Do you know, or have any suggestion, on what he based his opinion that he was allowed to participate?
I am assuming he was aware of the problem and decided it was permitted. I am sure he did not just flagrantly go against the halacha. he must have had reason to consider it permitted.

Does anybody here have a suggestion why he would have thought so?

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Strange Simile

by DovBear | 12:11 PM |

---

From the Times:

Lightman appears to be a hot ticket on the lecture circuit, where he offers a delicious flashback pageant of public impropriety and heinous misconduct, producing PowerPoint images of Kato Kaelin, O. J. Simpson, Eliot Spitzer, Saddam Hussein whose sneers and sniggers and pursed lips he has studied like a rabbinical student hunkering down with the Book of Job.

Yeah, um, not to be disrespectful, but how many actual rabbis -let alone students - do you know that have "hunkered down" with Job?

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The morning after...

by Lurker | 8:07 AM |

---

by Lurker

Cartoon by Shlomo Cohen, Yisrael Hayom, 21 Jan., 2009

---

Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)

Its been six hours...

by DovBear | 2:55 PM |

---

...and still no terrorist attack. So let's say thanks to former president George W. Bush, who apparently is continuing to keep us safe, even though he's retired to the fake ranch.

Serious note: By all accounts, Bushie ran a professional transition and went above and beyond to help Obama and his team get started.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

That took no time at all.

by DovBear | 9:48 AM |

---

Brand new whitehouse.gov is already up and running.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

What Al Jazeera is doing

by DovBear | 7:26 AM |

---

Last night the D.C bureau chief of Al Jazeera was a guest on the Daily Show where he attempted to say a few favorable words about how his station covered the war. Interesting, if only because it tells us how the station sees itself and includes a refreshing and honest confession of bias. Surprising claim: Al Jazeera gives Israeli officials a platform to explain their side?!?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Abderrahim Foukara

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

How far we've come

by DovBear | 7:18 AM |

---

The Closing of a Circle
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
Published: January 19, 2009

There are unsettling ghosts of America past all about the National Mall. Hundreds of thousands of people will gather there Tuesday for the inauguration of the nation’s first African-American president. Three blocks from where Barack Obama takes the oath, there was once the Saint Charles Hotel, a popular accommodation on Pennsylvania Avenue before emancipation ruined business for slave traders. It proudly advertised that down below its first-rate restaurant, guests could avail themselves of six, 30-foot-long arched slave cells, replete with wall rings and shackles. The management promised: “In case of escape, full value for the Negro will be paid.”

A few blocks from there was the notorious Yellow House, a three-story brick slave market where trader William Williams prospered enough to purchase two slave ships of his own. Solomon Northrup, a free man from New York who was kidnapped into slavery, passed through on the block and eventually wrote a memoir. He recalled how “the voices of patriotic representatives boasting of freedom and equality,” in the nearby Capitol almost commingled with “the rattling of the poor slave’s chains.”

These and other pre-emancipation tales of the Mall have been painstakingly revived by Jesse Holland, a reporter for The Associated Press. He appreciates the grandeur of Lincoln but also knows the capital’s history is in the gritty details.

Mr. Holland found that while the city had a mere 3,100 slaves of its own on the eve of the Civil War, it was an ideal trading platform for slaves bartered Southward by the scores of thousands. The Mall teemed not with tourists, but with pens and blocks “perfect for the sale of human beings,” he writes in his book, “Black Men Built the Capitol.” Black men also helped build the White House, as entrepreneurial masters profited from leasing slaves to the government.

“The inauguration will be the closing of a circle,” says Mr. Holland, more knowledgeable than most Americans about some of the cruel and inspiring ways history can work. His research establishes a singular path between today’s inauguration march and a trek from Robey’s Slave Pen and Tavern (where the Department of Education now sits) for sale and shipment South. “A drove consisting of males and females chained in couples,” a newspaper noted of slaves routinely herded from Robey’s through the heart of Washington.

FRANCIS X. CLINES

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The murder of Palestinians in Gaza

by Lurker | 4:08 PM |

---

by Lurker

Those who are shocked by the Palestinian death toll in Gaza might be interested in knowing that the figures being bandied about by Hamas and the Palestinian Red Crescent include dozens, possibly hundreds, of Fatah members who were murdered in cold blood by Hamas over the past three weeks.

Since the war began, Hamas has been rounding up Fatah members throughout the Gaza Strip. The ones who get off easy only get shot in the legs, have their eyes poked out, and/or have their hands smashed or cut off. Many others are simply murdered; sometimes in mass executions.

In this clip, Jamal Najar, a popular Palestinian singer in the West Bank, describes how some of his cousins in Gaza were murdered by Hamas over the last few days, including a father who was shot dead in front of his children, for the crime of having walked out of his house:



Hamas officials have been including these people, that they themselves wounded and killed, in the casualty figures that they distribute to the press -- based on the reasoning that these victims, too, were killed in the context of the Israeli offensive. It should be noted, however, that Hamas' policy of torturing and murdering Fatah members (and often members of their families as well) dates back to Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Hamas does not always try to hide these killings -- to the contrary, they sometimes film them, and proudly broadcast them on television with rousing musical accompaniment, as you can see in the video below from Hamas TV:

[Note: I chose a clip that contains no closeups or visible blood. Nonetheless, some may find it disturbing.]



Since Saturday night, when Israel's unilateral cease fire went into effect, Hamas' roundups and murders of their Fatah rivals have dramatically increased.

Interestingly, however, the international media has barely been covering these ongoing tortures and murders, nor has any Western government seen fit to condemn them, or even make mention of them. Apparently, their excessive handwringing over Palestinian deaths is reserved exclusively for those deaths caused by Israel. Nobody actually gives a damn about the loss of Palestinian life, if those deaths are at the hands of other Palestinians.

Of course, this is not to imply that many Palestinians weren't killed in Israeli strikes. Many have asked why the level of civilian casualties in these strikes has been so high. An explanation for this is provided, not by an IDF spokesman, but by Hamas representative Fathi Hamad on Hamas TV: He explains that the Palestinians have deliberately turned death (their own) into an "industry" (his term) of which they are exceedingly proud. In order to bring about these glorious Palestinian deaths, Hamas fighters make a point of surrounding themselves with "a human shield of women, children, [and] the elderly". Why would they want to do such a thing, you may ask? Hamad answers this, too, using a phrase that has become, in recent years, a frequent statement of principle among Muslim clerics: "We [Muslims] love death as much as you [Jews and Westerners] love life". Watch it for yourself:



Given the Palestinians' brilliantly successful, suicidal "death industry", and their resolutely determined efforts to get as many women, children, and elderly as possible killed in Israeli strikes against terrorist targets, it is nothing short of incredible that Israel, because of its commitment to humane values, has somehow managed to keep the civilian death toll as low as it has been.

---

Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)

Miracle on the Hudson (edited)

by The Bray of Fundie | 9:34 AM |

---

is, of course, a misnomer.

By the Bray of Fundie

No laws of nature were superseded in the landing of the plane nor in the rescuing of the passengers. No one's rational sensibilities were hurt in the making of this miracle. But as we live in an era that is skeptical of the supranational we have come to use the word "miracle" imprecisely. While a miracle means to do the impossible we use the word to mean doing the highly improbable. Thus the near-miraculous becomes, presto, change-o : the miraculous.

And while Sully himself would be hard-pressed to repeat his derring-do, rapid cool decision making and aviation virtuosity a second time, the ease with which we throw around the "M" word is a sad commentary on our society. What we REALLY found highly improbable was the competency and personal bravery that informed the safe landing and rescue of US Air flight 1549. That people in positions of great responsibility and that equipment and machinery should actually work as they were assigned and designed to is shocking and, in our expectations, improbable to the point of near impossibility.

What really rankles is that the imprecise language feeds the Qefira that "open" miracles are myths and fairy tales. There are millions of Jews out there who believe that the Biblical account of the parting of the Sea of Reeds (if it happened at all) was the confluence of a "perfect storm" of perfectly natural causes, an earthquake combined with a hurricane, or a perfectly timed Tsunami et al. For such folks any historical miracle for which no natural cause or confluence of causes can be found is, by definition, ahistorical. When you begin to call the highly improbable (yet natural) miraculous then you begin to doubt the historicity and future coming of the truly miraculous impossible.

Buy Dov's book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy Mrs. Bear a gift (please)

How many Jews live in Cuba?

by DovBear | 7:33 AM |

---

1500!!!

One wonders why they remain, and why the North American congregations pay them so little mind.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Jewish Prayers for Obama (From the Jew York Times)

by DovBear | 7:28 AM |

---

The Next War President: In synagogue on Saturday, before saying the customary prayer for our country, the rabbi asked us to reflect on the fact that a new president would be inaugurated on Tuesday, and urged us to focus a little more intently than usual on the prayer. The congregants did so, it seemed to me, as we read, “Our God and God of our ancestors: We ask your blessings for our country — for its government, for its leaders and advisers, and for all who exercise just and rightful authority... [More]

The rabbis I know - all of them Haredi - have pleasantly surprised me. I admit to expecting them to preach messages of hate and intolerance. I admit to expecting them to tell us that Obama is the tainted and damaged descendant of a people tainted and damaged dating to the time of Ham. It hasn't happened.

Instead, the Haredi rabbis I know have preached a legitimately Jewish message, one that is consistent with their fundamentalist values but, at the same time, one I can support. They have all said that the heart of a king belongs to God; they have all urged us to pray for God to guide Obama; and they have all said it is our responsibility alone if Obama enacts policies we find harmful.

Praying for the government is an old Jewish custom, and one that has, alas, fallen out of favor. I don't know why Orthodox Jews have dropped it, even as we we still recite anachronistic prayers, in a dead vernacular, for the leaders of the Babylonian academies. Perhaps, after Tuesday, some synagouges will reinstate the custom.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

What if the Palestenians had a man like Martin?

by DovBear | 7:16 AM |

---

Parsha Notes (Shmos)

by DovBear | 10:21 AM |

---

Symmetry
The eleven sons of Jacob (1:2-4) are arranged in two groups of four, with a group of three in the middle (Alter)

Allusion
The words: וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם (And the sons of Israel were fruitful, and swarmed and multiplied, and grew very vast; and the land was filled with them) are a reference to the creation story and the promise to Abraham.

In the Flood story, all of humankind is nearly drowned, with the last remnant surviving on an ark. Here, the people of Israel are imperiled after Pharaoh orders the drowning of all their male children; meanwhile, their savior survives in an ark. (In both places the vessel is called a "tayva.")

Motif
The betrothal scene returns this week. Again, our hero is at the well in a foreign land, where he once again performs an act of physical valor. Again, he is greeted by a woman who hurries home with news of his arrival, and again the betrothal is agreed to after a meal. This time, though, the usual young woman is multiplied by the formulaic seven.

Historicity
Moshe is an authentic, ancient Egyptian name, which means "the one who is born" , i.e. "son."(Alter)

Symbolism
As Alter shrewdly points out Moshe, from infancy, is associated with water. The water saves him, it's where the plagues began, and a barrier of water must be crossed by the fleeing Hebrews, water that collapses on the pursuing Egyptians and drowns them just as Hebrew boys were drowned. Egypt, too, is associated with water, the Nile especially, and after their escape, the former slaves remember Egypt as a well-watered place of fish, melons, and cucumbers.The wilderness, on the other hand, is noted for dryness. Moshe first meets God on a mountain called Horeb, which, per ibn Ezra, means "parched place" and at this first meeting, God reveals himself through fire. Later, at the culmination of the narrative, the mountain (now called Sinai; a pun Alter suggests on sneh) is surrounded by divine fire.

Anomaly
- Though the verse (1:10) says "Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country" Rashi, based on Sotah 11a, emends it as follows "And it is as if it were written: and we will depart from the land, and they will take possession of it."

- The text presents Shifra and Puah as the only Hebrew midwives, though as Ibn Ezra points out, they would have had to be leaders of much larger squads.

- When he meet Moshe's father in-law he is called Reuel. In the next episode his name is Jethro.

- In Chapter 3, the mountain of God is called Horeb. Later it is Sinai.

- The whole "chatam domim l'molis" story is a bizarre mystery. Perhaps a longer post about it later.

Tell your kids
-The Rabbis darshaned that when Pharaoh's daughter saw the floating basket, which contained the infant Moshe, she stretched out her arm and it magically became lengthened to allow her to reach the baby. Rashi cites the midrash, points out that the grammar doesn't support the drash, and says the plain meaning of the verse is that she sent a maidservant to get the basket.

-Moshe asks to be allowed to take the Hebrews on a three days' journey into the wilderness. This does not mean, as if often supposed, that they plan to be away for three days. What's actually intended is a three day trip into the desert, a day of prayer, and a three day journey back, thus 7 days away from work.

- Its really ok if you change your names

Understanding Rashi
- Rashi identifies the midwives as Miriam and Yocheved. This is because the text (1:21) tells us: [God] made for them batim, meaning households or lineages. Yocheved is matriarch of the priests and levites, and King David is a descendant of Miriam.

- The verse says Moshe's mother saw he was good. Rashi doesn't take this at face value. Here's the how and why.

- The verse says the King of Egypt died. Rashi says all this means is that he contracted leprosy. Here's why.

- Who was Moshe's Pharaoh?

Foreshadowing
-Moshe's floating among the reeds, foretells the great victory at the Sea of Reeds.

-At the well, Moshe saves seven sisters, fitting his future role as savior of his people.

Irony
Pharaoh demanded that all Hebrew males be thrown into the river, but the carrying out of this command is precisely what saved Moshe.

External parallels
Both Moshe and Sargon are sent floating down a river, rescued, and grow up to save their people. So what?

Two way Torah
What was Yocheved thinking? There are at least two ways to read her story, each having some support from the classic commenters.

Read the rest

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Understanding Rashi

by DovBear | 8:45 AM |

---

If your children are anything like mine, they will return from school this afternoon repeating the following bits of extra biblical information:

Moshe killed the taskmaster through his magical use of the ineffable Name.

The two Hebrew men Moshe saw arguing were none other than Dathan and Abiram.

Pharaoh arrested Moshe, and sentenced him to execution, but the executioner's sword had no affect on him.

Each of these tidbits is originally found in the Midrash, and cited by Rashi. The rule, though, is that Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim. Every midrash he cites, hangs on some scriptural peg, and, are intended to resolve some perceived scriptural difficulty or anomaly. Here, then, is the textual rational behind each of the statements recorded above:

Moshe killed the taskmaster through his magical use of the ineffable Name.
When Moshe meets the two arguing Hebrews, one says to him: הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר? The usual translation is "Are you intending to kill us?" but Rashi seems alert to the fact that the question is expressed indirectly. The literal translation is "To kill me you are saying?" and Rashi seems to take it as "Will you kill me by saying." (Mizrachi)

The two Hebrew men Moshe saw arguing were none other than Dathan and Abiram.
The verse says "Two Hebrew men." Later, Dathan and Abiram are called men. (Weak, I think, but its all I've got)

Pharaoh arrested Moshe, and sentenced him to execution, but the executioner's sword had no affect on him.
The verse says: וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ע פַּרְעֹה֙ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה וַיְבַקֵּ֖שׁ לַהֲרֹ֣ג אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֑ה, which means "Pharaoh heard [that Moshe killed the Egyptian] and sought to kill Moshe." Because it does not say "He sought Moshe in order to kill him." the suggestion is that he was taken into custody. (Sefer Zikaron) Later, we learn that Moshe had been directly saved not just from Pharaoh, but from his sword (Rashi there)

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The Arab press is angry

by DovBear | 7:41 AM |

---

The anger I can understand*, but do they really have to express it with horrible anti-Semitic images? Simply stomach-turning.

(*Saying I can understand their anger is not a comment on who I think is right or wrong. Again, I support Israel's efforts to knock out the missiles, and approve of any damage they can inflict upon Hamas.)

Is this the Attitude of a Maskil?

by The Bray of Fundie | 6:30 AM |

---

By the Bray of Fundie

The Netziv of Volozhin is a lightning rod attracting furious energy releases from Kharedi and MO camps both claiming him as their own and both accusing their opponents of historical revisionism. Was he a classic "all Torah all the time" Rosh Yeshiva , a forerunner of Rav Elya Svei, or, if not a Maskil himself then at least soft on Maskilim.

But an insight of his from this weeks parsha seems to reveal a distinctly Kharedi sensibility. Based on the dikduk of the word אֹתָם versus מהם (as an ex Yeshiva bokhur innocent of any grammar I will have to take his word for it) he explains the juxtaposition of these verses:

ז וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם. {פ}
7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. {P}
ח וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ, עַל-מִצְרָיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע, אֶת-יוֹסֵף.
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.

to mean that It was only because the Jews left the Jewish canton of Goshen to live among and assimilate with the Egyptians that "a new king arose" i.e. one with a genocidal anti-Semitic sensibility. As long as the Hebrews kept to themselves the Egyptians were tolerant of them. Once they chose to become Egyptians themselves the natives felt insecure and threatened and lashed back with genocidal fury.

Furthermore IIRC he goes on to say that this is the recurring pattern of ant-Semitic spikes in the graph of our long diaspora history. As long as we keep ourselves separate and unequal things are tolerable. but whenever we attempt to assimilate onerous and genocidal persecutions ensue.

Sounds like kharedism 101 to me. In any event he sure looked the part...is that the FACE of a Maskil???

---

Buy Bear's book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy Mrs. Bear wife a gift (please)

End of Times?

by DovBear | 1:36 PM |

---

Here's some good news for those of you who may be angry about the New York Times having had the temerity today to let the reading public know that a U.N. Building in Gaza Strip Is Hit by Strike From Israel. According to the current Atlantic, the paper's days are numbered: ...what if The New York Times goes out of business—like, this May? It’s certainly plausible.

Though the article goes on to to clarify the dire prediction (plausible, but, ummm.... unlikely) we're not optimistic. Print is over. And it won't be long before we're all paperless.

The Times replies: Reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Curious

by DovBear | 12:34 PM |

---

Bushie: “not [finding] weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq] was a significant disappointment. ”

Hmmm. Shouldn’t he have been relieved, or, dare I say pleased?

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The Obama Bash

by DovBear | 7:04 AM |

---

They say next week's big party is going to cost in the region of $140 million and I'm not happy about it. It's wrong, plain and simple, to spend that much on a celebration when so many Americans are struggling.

Of course, I complained about the cost of Bush's party,too, whereas Republicans whining today did not.

[Thanks to fellow Bush hater, Lurker, for providing the link to my four-year old post about Bush's own party. I'd forgotten it. (Yes, it is a little creepy how he has the blog memorized.)]

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

First digital portrait

by DovBear | 3:14 PM |

---

Cool

An argument for amending article II

by DovBear | 7:25 AM |

---

The Founders’ Great Mistake
by Garrett Epps

For the past eight years, George W. Bush has treated the White House much as Kenneth Grahame’s Mr. Toad treated a new automobile—like a shiny toy to be wrecked by racing the motor, spinning smoke from the tires, and smashing through farmyards until the wheels come off. Bush got to the Oval Office despite having lost the popular vote, and he governed with a fine disdain for democratic and legal norms—stonewalling congressional oversight; detaining foreigners and U.S. citizens on his “inherent authority”; using the Justice Department as a political cudgel; ordering officials to ignore statutes and treaties that he found inconvenient; and persisting in actions, such as the Iraq War, that had come to be deeply unpopular in Congress and on Main Street.

Understandably, most Americans today are primarily concerned with whether Barack Obama can clean up Bush’s mess. But as Bush leaves the White House, it’s worth asking why he was able to behave so badly for so long without being stopped by the Constitution’s famous “checks and balances.” Some of the problems with the Bush administration, in fact, have their source not in Bush’s leadership style but in the constitutional design of the presidency. Unless these problems are fixed, it will only be a matter of time before another hot-rodder gets hold of the keys and damages the country further. [More]

What? He's leaving?

by DovBear | 9:37 AM |

---

Ta ta:

President George W. Bush will deliver a televised farewell address to the American people on Thursday night, the White House said. Bush, who leaves office on Jan. 20 when Barack Obama is sworn in, will give a 10-15 minute speech in front of an audience in the East Room of the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said Monday.... "It's a very thoughtful, forward-looking speech in which the president will share the lessons he learned in office..."

Oh goodie. How I spent my 8-year vacation, by little Georgie Bush. Can't wait.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Whom does the Torah protect?

by Rafi G. | 11:44 AM |

---

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

There has been considerable online discussion about the phenomenon of various haredi yeshivas in the southern part of Israel, those within the direct war zone, deciding they could not stay put and moving to learn in alternate locations around the country.

The sentiment is understandable, and I generally feel the same way. The yeshivas claim that there learning is what protects the country, equally or more so than the army does. If so, they should specifically stay put during the war and provide their protection to the area. They should not be leaving because of danger. Or is such a claim only lip service.

I can accept certain exceptions. Students from abroad whose parents are nervous. Students with anxiety or health issues. Individuals with issues could be allowed to leave, but the whole yeshiva?

I was here learning in yeshiva during the first Gulf War. Many yeshiva boys from the USA and England left Israel, even well before the war, because their parents, or they, were afraid. I did not agree with it, but I could understand it. I believed that the right place to be was in Israel. Thankfully my parents supported that decision, and were not nervous. they even decided to come to Israel on a solidarity mission with the UJA for a visit the week before the war, and stayed an extra week to be here for the first week of the war itself.

If you really believe in what you are doing, you have to act like it as well, not just say it.

So, the yeshivas have mostly packed up and left, moving to other cities temporarily where they could concentrate and study more intensely.

[at least] One yeshiva in the zone did not. Yeshivas Tifrach stayed in Moshav Tifrach.

Yeshivas Tifrach is known as the cream of the crop of Israeli yeshivas. I don't mean cream of the crop in brain power (though that might be true as well - I don't know). I mean in the sense that they really believe in what they are doing. They really, truly believe Torah is the only option. They are hard-core in Torah.

There was even an incident last week that a Color Red siren went off in the area including Tifrach announcing an incoming rocket attack. Nobody in the yeshiva budged from their seats to look for shelter. They continued learning. They truly believe what they say, that learning Torah protects Israel, and they therefore act on that belief.

The yeshivas that moved did not just pack up and leave. They realized the issues involved and asked the gedolim. the gedolim gave them permission, or perhaps instructions (depends what was exactly said), to find alternate locations. Tifrach was told they could stay put.

So, what is the difference between Tifrach and the rest of the yeshivas? Some cynics will say that most of the yeshivas don't really believe, and just pay lip service to the mantra.

But that is not the case. The answer was printed this week in the Haredi newspaper "Ha'Shavua".

Initially, the Rosh Yeshiva of Tifrach went to Rav Chaim Kanievsky to ask whether or not they should leave. Rav Kanievsky said to stay put, as the Torah will protect. A few days later, 2 rockets fell in the area of Tifrach. The RY asked again what to do. Rav Knaievsky sent him to Rav Elyashiv.
Rav Elyashiv told Tifrach that there is a difference between them and the yeshivas in Ashdod. The yeshivas in Ashdod are in a city that is a strategic location for Hamas to target. Therefore to rely on the Torah protecting, when sitting in a strategic location being directly targeted, means one would be relying on an open miracle. Since we do not pray and ask for open miracles, those yeshivas located in Ashdod should leave.

But because Tifrach itself is only "in the war zone" but itself is not a strategic location to be targeted, so they could stay put. The Torah will protect them, because to do so is not relying on an open miracle, as they are not being directly targeted.

The discussion is very nice, as it explains why Tifrach is not in danger, but the yeshivas in Ashdod are. However, I always thought the mantra of "The Torah protects" is one of a reality, not a request for a[n open] miracle. Also, this discussion implies that the Torah only protects those who are busy learning it, while it is used in general to say that the Torah learned by the few protect the whole country. What happened to that?

---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Junk Analysis

by SM | 11:06 AM |

---

SM

Junk analysis is like junk food. Convenient, ready-made, full of crap, bad for you but feels really satisfying at the moment of consumption, and with a huge price - most of which is not apparent for years. Get your portion in Lurker's post directly below.

In 2006 Hamas won 40% of the overall vote. Contrary to Lurker's (unsubstantiated) assertions, they did not win 90% of the vote in Gaza. That figure was around 65%. My source - The Jerusalem Post. Two things would seem to follow. Firstly, Lurker failed to do even the most basic research. Secondly, the plucking of the figure of 90% from the air (and Lurker repeats the figure in the comments section) must be invention to serve a purpose.

Moreover, the contention that people vote for a party for one reason only is patent nonsense. This blog recently hosted lively debate about Obama's victory. Those voting for him did so for a variety of reasons. Those voting for McCain did so for a variety of reasons. Elections demand that voters make choices, not simply between candidates, but between the voters' own priorities. We all know that and it was no different for the Palestinians in 2006. They themselves said so:

"Today was a great day for Palestine," said Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative, a democratic opposition movement. "Mostly, they were voting for opposition and voting against Fatah -- against corruption, against nepotism, against the failure of the peace process, and against the lack of leadership."

Note that there isn't anything here - from a Palestinian supporting the Hamas victory - about firing rockets. That isn't to say rockets weren't part of the agenda; just that they weren't the only thing on the agenda.

But the junkiest thing of all in Lurker's analysis is the pretence that things have not moved on. That's what happens - partys' standings move depending on how the electorate perceive them as doing. Within 6 months of the elections, Hamas standings were falling (you will note that these are sources Lurker would accept). Less than a year ago Hamas were polling 40% in Gaza - and that was an improvement from earlier. Support from the young and the secular was way below that figure. This is less than half Lurker's claimed figure - and a drop of 33% since the election. That position has remained essentially unchanged until now (although there are no results from the last 2 weeks and one must be pessimistic thereafter).

So, if we believe we bomb them on the basis that only 9% of Gazans want peace, that is a lie, invented because it fits. There is no 'Jewish compassion' in a lie.

There is some common ground - I agree with Lurker right up until the paragraph starting 'DB tells us...'. From then on, it's junk analysis. What is behind it is the need to dispel guilt. Lurker is now retreating from the position that we need only ask how Israelis feel. That's a good thing. But to invent some statistic to suggest that we need feel no guilt because Gaza wants this is no answer. Not only is it untrue, but it utterly ignores the children. Largely because Hamas use human shields, children are suffering disproportionately in Gaza. They don't vote. To suggest that it is their parents problem is ok only if you lack all human feeling. Hamas certainly bear responsibility, but that does not mean that we should feel cosy about what's happening or pretend that we can do nothing about it.

I suggest that the way in which we dispel the guilt is to look for a solution to the issue. It may not make the deaths 'worthwhile'. But it might mean they are not for nothing. And that means stopping pretending that 90% hate us, when they clearly don't. It means land for peace. That solution is the one that this sort of invented statistic and junk analysis is intended to avoid. It doesn't work.

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Tired of the war

by DovBear | 3:42 PM |

---

Good shabbos
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city?

by DovBear | 3:40 PM |

---

With Shabbos looming I haven’t time to respond to Lurker’s propaganda tour of current events with quite the ferocity it deserves, so a few short points must suffice.

I have no difficulty being cruel to the cruel, and I wish for Israel to treat the cruel with all the cruelty international and Israeli law permits. What I am not willing to support is cruelty toward the innocent, the non-combatants, the mothers, the children, and the ordinary people who through the accident of their births find themselves in the line of fire. This cuts both ways of course. The rockets attacks on Sderot are unforgivable acts of brutality and I support – within the limits of the law – a brutal, pitiless response, but not one so vicious that the righteous are slain with the wicked.

Another thought experiment: Over the last several years Jews have been party to various financial schemes and frauds, the most spectacular of them being Bernie Madoff’s $50 billion swindle. Suppose the authorities were to hold every Jew in New York responsible for these crimes. Suppose as a consequence of Madoff’s con, Jews were forever banned from working at banks, or brokerage houses, or indeed any financial institution. Suppose non-Jews, eager to discredit us and to take our jobs and our trade, were to use various citations from our holy books, and quotes from various rabbis to “prove” that Jewish culture is built on deceit and dishonesty. Suppose we were cast as the Ferengi of the modern world and represented in the media and the news as unscrupulous, money hungry traders who must not be trusted in any transaction. Suppose friendly non-Jews were shouted down by others, and told that their fact-based attempts to defend the reputation of the Jewish people were simply displays of self-hatred, or of ignorance of our “mentality.” Would this strike any of you as fair, or reasonable, or just?

I submit that Bray’s and Lurker’s attitude toward Palestinians in general, and the 1.5 million residents of Gaza in particular, is substantively the same. Like the imaginary American's in my thought experiment they wish to hold responsible an entire culture for the crimes of a few individuals.

I mourn and lament Jewish deaths and injuries as sincerely as Lurker and Bray, but we part company over what to do next. To Lurker, any response is justified. To Lurker, concern for the perhaps 1.4 million residents of Gaza who’ve done nothing wrong – who might be won as allies against Hamas-- is traitorous, effete, and misplaced compassion. I cannot accept that. I will not hate, punish or fight guiltless people, and a Gazan who has not participated in or directly funded an act of violence against Jews or Israelis is not my enemy. I may disagree with his ideas, and may even find them monstrously wrong, but until he acts upon them he isn’t my enemy.

(Interpolation: Here is where many of you will ask about the Nazis. Well, what about them? No mercy for Nazis, would have been my policy, but I don't think I'd be quite so ferocious toward ordinary German women and children. I wouldn't wish to break bread with them -nor do I want to sit over tea with Arabs who espouse hateful ideas - but there's a difference between bad ideas and bad behavior. We don't kill people for thinking bad thoughts)

Lurker and Bray have also asked us to consider the suffering in Sderot, and I have. I’ve said Tehillim every day. I’ve attended several atzerot tfillah. My review, yesterday, of the MFA’s lists of terror attacks over the last 10 years filled me with horror. But unlike Lurker and Bray I’m incapable of stopping there. After contemplating the misery of living under the constant threat of rocket fire in southern Israel, I wonder what it must be like to live under a similar threat in Gaza. And when I remember that Israel’s military is stronger and their aim is more accurate - when I see that the IDF has, in one week, killed more women in children in Gaza then Hamas has managed to murder in five years - I feel compassion. Honest, legitimate, kosher, Jewish compassion. And I make no apologies for it. This isn’t compassion for the cruel, as Lurker may have misled you into thinking. It is compassion for the unlucky bystanders.
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The Achievement of a Lifetime

by Rafi G. | 12:17 AM |

---

A Guest Post by Rafi G.

I am not one who normally toots his own horn, but I think I earned it this time...


---------
Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Compassion for the Cruel

by Lurker | 4:38 PM |

---

A guest post by Lurker:

[DOVBEAR RESPONDS]

"He who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the compassionate."
-- Midrash Tanhuma Metzora 1; Yalkut Shimoni I Shmuel 121

DovBear asked us to consider a "thought experiment", in which we consider "the sacrifices of safety and comfort being made by those living within range of the Hamas rockets [as] a price that should be paid in order to deliver significant benefits to the whole country".

For the record, I categorically reject the absurd notion that letting people live this way has any benefit at all for the State of Israel. But that is not really the point of this post.

I would like to lend my assistance to the "thought experiment". Please watch the following video, which was shot in the area around a Sderot school, just as the "Color Red" alert sounded, signalling that a Kassam missle from Gaza was about to fall. It is only 40 seconds long:



As you conduct DovBear's "thought experiment", please consider the following: What you just watched has been happening several times a day in Sderot, on average, for the last few years. From the moment the alert sounds, one has a maximum of 15 seconds to get oneself (and one's children, babies, elderly parents, etc.) into a bomb shelter. And the threat never goes away -- it is constantly hanging over each and every person 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Every waking moment in which this is not happening, is spent in fear that it might be about to happen. As a result of this constant fear and tension, residents of Sderot have been developing severe behaviorial disorders. This is most common and obvious in children. The are some children who have withdrawn permantently into noncommunicative shells, and others who lash out repeatedly in violence. Older children regularly wet their beds, and some go for more than a week at a time without sleeping. Needless to say, their education system has been decimated.

Now ask yourself these questions:

• Would I be willing to live this way?
  
• Would I be willing to let my own children live this way?
  
• Would I be willing to let other people's children live this way?

DovBear suggested that we should consider accepting that the residents of Sderot (and Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ofakim, etc.) will just have to live this way, in order to preserve "the very principles that make Israel worth protecting".

He asks us: "Is this thought experiment monstrous?"

The answer is most definitely "yes". It is incredibly monstrous. And this is why:

There are no principles that could possibly justify choosing to allow our own people to live in a terrifying hell like this. And any ethical system that promotes such an idea is thoroughly immoral and evil.

The primary purpose of the State of Israel is to allow Jews to live freely and securely in their homeland. This is the core "principle that makes Israel worth protecting". If an enemy attacks us, then the correct, moral thing to do is to fight back and defend ourselves, and to do everything in our power to remove the threat. And if we fail to even try to fight back, then we have betrayed ourselves, and the most fundamental purpose of our State. We would thus become evil and immoral, and would no longer deserve to have the State.

Haza"l knew very well that Jews are naturally inclined to show compassion, even to their enemies. That is why they warned us that blindly following the dictates of such compassion can, ironically, lead to terrible cruelty against others who truly deserve our compassion. This is precisely what they meant when they declared that "he who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the compassionate". To abandon our fellow Jews -- men, women, and children -- to the terror seen so vividly in the video above, in the name of some supposed ethical "principles" -- would not be moral at all, but rather a complete twisting of morality. It would be a horrifying realization of that evil and cruelty that Haza"l were warning us against.

[I anticipate that there will be those who condemn the position I presented here as immoral. Among Jews in particular, such people are almost to be expected. They represent the actualization of the very twisted morality of which Haza"l were speaking.]

[DOVBEAR RESPONDS]

---

Buy DB's book. (I personally recommend it.)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy DB's wife a gift (please)