More on Shabbos and modern Rabbis

by DovBear | 7:39 AM |

---

How do you keep shabbos? When I asked this question yesterday, my personal LexLuthor accused me of being exclusive. Shouldn't you first establish that shabbos is, in fact, being kept, he asked. Seemingly his point was that not every Jew keeps shabbos, and an inclusive blogger would not presume otherwise.

Perhaps, but forgive me. I don't define "shabbos keeping" in the way Bray does. According to my way of thinking nearly every Jew in the world "keeps" shabbos in some way or another, and this presents yet another critism of what the Baltimore Rabbis said at the rally to protest their Jewish Center's plan to remain open on Shabbos.

I hold that you are "keeping shabbos" if you light candles, or go to a service, or have a family meal, or "recharge your spiritual batteries" in some way, and most every Jew in the world does something like this. Unfortunately, this isn't how the torah or traditional sources define Shabos "keeping." Officially shabbos is only "kept" when you refrain from melacha in testimony of the fact that God created the world/took us out of Egypt.

Ironically, the Baltimore Jewish Center COULD REMAIN OPEN and still "keep" shabbos in the authentic and Torah True way and also in the modern way of "keeping" espoused by the protesting rabbis!

They spoke of "heritage" and "unity" and "identity. Surely, keeping the Jewish Center open on Shabbos will contribute to these things. If the whole point of Shabbos is heritage, unity, and identity, isn't that goal being met if the Center stays open? And if the Center stays open with no melacha done (certainly possible: Our shuls and catering halls stay open with no melacha problems) isn't that a win/win for Jews both modern and traditional?

Search for more information about the Holy Shabbos at 4torah.com.

Heartrending...

by The Bray of Fundie | 10:13 AM |

---

Bray

...quality post

episodes like this make me asahmed of my culture. How the man remains frum is awe-inspiring.

Search for more information about shadowing in mainstream classrooms at 4torah.com.

Obama's official spokesman denies the president has a secret evil plan to give Jerusalem away

by DovBear | 2:23 PM |

---

Via email, from Moby:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-22-09/

MR. GIBBS: The goal is to be -- I guess, partly to clear some of this up, this is a -- this will be a broader speech about our relationship with Muslims around the world. I know there has been some conjecture that included in this speech will be some detailed comprehensive Mideast peace plan, and that is not the intention nor was it ever the intention of this speech. As I said a few days ago, I mean, obviously it would be difficult to give a speech and not touch on this subject -- I think that would be -- that wouldn't work -- but the notion that it will be the sole focus of the speech is not the case.

Q: Just to clarify, are you also ruling out -- forget out sole focus, but within the broader speech he is not going to say, "and here is what I want to do with the city of Jerusalem, and here is what I want" --

MR. GIBBS: No. As you know, Margaret, those are final status issues that the parties themselves have agreed to work out in whatever negotiation would be had. That's not something for the President to intone.

Two in 8 Million

by DovBear | 1:58 PM |

---

As part of its series on ordinary New Yorkers the heiliga NY Times profiles Rivka Karasik,a runaway from the Lubovitch community.

Not to be missed

HT: E_Fink

Also see: Henry Rieninger

Rudeness

by DovBear | 1:00 PM |

---

A Lakewood woman has an appalling encounter with a Jewish man. I can only presume the man has a mental problem of some kind.

HT: JacobdaJew

Gutsiest P'sak since Rav Moshe z"l Passed?

by The Bray of Fundie | 10:00 AM |

---

By the Bray of Fundie

At last, another posek with "braita plaitzehs"= the "broad shoulders" i.e the combination of impeccable scholarship and fearlessness required to issue a controversial ruling.

Rav Zalman Nechenia Goldberg shlit'a was matir (permitted in a Halakhic responsum) surrogate motherhood. I have not seen the responsum and don't know the details but it is very encouraging to see a Kharedi Posek confront a 21st century medical Technology. This is especially so inasmuch as this issue reverberates with obvious thorny bio-ethical issues as well as issues of of tznius and yikhus . In an atmosphere where mixed gender buses or photographic depictions of females are taboo this ruling comes as a veritable hurricane of fresh air.

IIRC the learned Halakhic discussion about surrogate motherhood begins, oddly enough, by analyzing Midrashei Aggadah.

In Bereshis 30:21 the birth of Dinah is described. Rashi ad locum quoting a Midrash says that, aware that there would only be 12 tribes born to Yaakov and that she was pregnant with another boy, Leah prayed that her sister Rakhel not be humiliated by giving birth to fewer than two tribes. And , in answer to her prayer, an in utero sex-change of the fetus took place. However the Targum Yonoson ad locum says that an angel swapped the two fetuses (Rakhel was then pregnant with a girl). Such that Yoseph was conceived by Leah but developed and carried to term by Rakhel while Dinah Yoseph was conceived by Rakhel but developed and carried to term by Leah.

Much is made about Momma Rakhel crying for us again. But thanks to this landmark p'sak by Rav Goldberg the prayer of Momma Leah will pay dividends to the end of time saving countless Jewish women from the pain and humiliation of infertility.

Of interest as well.

Search for more information about suurogate motherhood at 4torah.com.

Daily Halacha High

by DovBear | 7:13 AM |

---

Received from Amshinover who received it by email from some holy spammer of halachot.

Hilchos Shavuos 5769/2009

918.There is a (not so well known) minhag to bring good smelling grasses into shul to be passed around for people to make a beracha and smell the grass in remembrance of the Simcha of Mattan Torah where Har Sinai was surrounded by grass.Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 494:3

919. When practicing this minhag one should not pass the grass around during davening between Boruch She'amar and kaddish after Sh'mona Esrei because one is not permitted to interrupt davening at that time to make the beracha. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 494:3

I haven't checked this inside - I don't even know what word the source uses for grass - nor have I investigated the grass-oriented customs prevalent in the Jewish or surrounding non Jewish community at the time this was written; still, I feel comfortable asserting that the grass in question isn't marijuana.

That said, I take it for granted that both great and ordinary Jewish men of yesteryear used substances that society now forbids. The dangers and risks weren't well understood, and people once used heroin, opium, and cocaine as ordinary medicines. Others used these substances in the same way that we use whiskey. Related

Search for more information about canibus at 4torah.com.

For Zevuluns with Commitment Issues

by The Bray of Fundie | 11:52 AM |

---

by the Bray of Fundie

click here.

Search for more information about Yissaschar Zevulun partnering at 4torah.com.

Slurs, Slander and Shas

by SM | 11:26 AM |

---

SM

The recent Supreme Court ruling that the state should fund Reform conversion centres can be debated for its rights and wrongs. But the response of Shas is little short of a disgrace.

As reported here, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, chairman of Shas, warned that if non-Orthodox conversion is recognized in Israel, "there are hundreds of foreign workers and Palestinians who will take advantage of the Reform conversion in order to gain Israeli citizenship."

The linkage is both cunning and revolting - this 'warning' is intended to frighten. Why else mention Palestinians? The implication there is that these people will have an ulterior motive for converting which is to do with damaging Israel. No recognition that Shas ministers are supposed to serve their Palestinian constituents and citizens. Moreover, the Reform movement will, impliedly, connive in converting potential 5th columnists so that they can become Israeli citizens. Not only will these people not be real Jews - that goes without saying. They will also not be real Reform Jews - they will convert for the sake of citizenship. Not like all those footballers and basketball players converted by the Orthodox then.

Thus Shas carries on its religious war by defaming other Jews for not being real Jews, defaming those it converts with accusations that they will be in some way hostile to Israel, and defaming those other Jews again by implying that they will be happy to convert people hostile to a State which Shas itself is ambiguous about.

Not bad for 22 words. Hatred, sneer, unjust accusations, abandonment of responsibility and hypocrisy in one neat package. Truly we have learned well from our enemies.

Search for more information about Shas's vile behaviour at 4torah.com.

A Simple Solution to the Reform Conversion Funding Controversy

by Rafi G. | 8:45 AM |

---

A Guest Post by Rafi G

Everyone is all nervous about the fact that seemingly the courts are granting tacit recognition of Reform conversion. Last week the courts ordered the State to fund the Reform and Conservative conversion organizations equally as they fund the Orthodox.

People are taking that to mean they are granting the Reform equal status to convert as the Orthodox.

if that is correct or not, I do not know. It seems to me the issue is simply funding and discrimination. If the country is funding private organizations to perform conversions, as a democratic country I don't see how they can legally avoid treating all such organizations equally.

My solution is to stop funding all of them. The Orthodox as well. These are private organizations, and why should the conversions of Israel be run and administered by private organizations?

Instead, have everything run through the Rabbanut. No private organizations - Orthodox, Conservative or Reform - should be allowed to deal with conversions, or at least they should not be funded by the State. Then nobody can complain. The Rabbanut will run everything, and no private organization is getting more than the other.

I know it is simplistic, and I am probably missing something in my understanding of the fight, but it seems reasonable to me.


Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

How would you respond to this?

by Rafi G. | 8:37 AM |

---

A Guest Post by Rafi G

How would you respond to this?

In this weeks parsha sheet "Eretz Yisrael She'Lanu", Rav Yaakov Yosef said it is preferable to buy, when possible, from religious Jews. He says if you have two stores, one of a Jew and one of a goy (or of a Jew who acts like a goy i.e. he is not religious), we are obligated to purchase specifically from the God fearing Jew. He bases this on a passuk in the Torah. Rav Yaakov Yosef also related that it was well known about the Chazon Ish that he would walk far to a makolet to buy items, rather than purchase from the makolet nearby, because the one nearby was owned by a non-religious Jew, and the one farther away was owned by a religious Jew.

I had the radio on for a moment, and caught the end of a discussion regarding the above psak. The broadcaster was criticizing it saying that with saying such a psak, they [haredim] cannot then come and tell [the establishment] that when they are learning instead of serving in the army they are learning for all of Israel. They are divisive and only look out for their own, and they should not then try to sell us stories of how they are concerned for all of us and learn for all of us.

(Again, I missed most of the discussion - I just caught the end of it which was that one statement)

How would you respond to that?



Search for more information about [religious businessmen] at 4torah.com.

New fundies should behave like old fundies

by DovBear | 9:44 AM |

---

This week, the newspapers introduced Ida, a 40-million year old fossil, that may provide us with a better understanding of simian and prosimian ancestors. Though not a missing link - there is no such thing - Ida is still good evidence in support of many of the things modern fundies deny, such as evolution, common descent, and the old earth.

One modern fundie - Chaim Bray - enjoys the revocable privilege of posting on this blog, and true to form, he responded to the Ida announcement with fear and foolishness. Instead of acting like a thinking person, and attempting to work out ways to reconcile his thinking with the facts Ida represents, he subjected us all to an elaborate rant about the sitra achra and the hope that some as yet undiscovered Jewsh text might give solutions to all the mysteries (An ironic hope. Would such a book be accepted by his fundamentalist community? Un-bloody-likely)

To me, saying that evolution is a tool of the sitra achra is the same as saying that math is a tool of the sitra achra. To deny that the earth is very old, is to deny the facts.

To your 21st century ears, my view might sound like the view of a secularist or a modern Jew who's moved away from traditional Jewish thought. This is a mistake.

Before Orthodoxy lost its mind and decided to dig in its heels in defense of the indefensible, there were great Orthodox Jewish sages who did what I tell Bray to do. Instead of a throwing a Bray-like orgy of fear and foolishness, these great Orthodox Jewish sages responded to new facts with new thinking. Rather than deny facts, they reinterpreted their received tradition.

The most famous example of this approach is the Tifferes Yisroel, or Rabbi Yisroel Lipshutz, a 19th century who responded to the discovery of a woolly mammoth skeleton with a celebration. His view is recorded in his Drush Ohr HaChaim where he says the the discovery of fossils proves the earth is very olk, a view he subsequently substantiated from the writing of Ramban, Ibn Ezra, famous kabalists and others. Note his response: Faced with the undeniable fact of a very old fossil, Rabbi Lipshutz did not seek to defend the received wisdom. He did not go to war in defense of the young earth. Instead, he adjusted his thinking and reinterpreted the tradition.

There are other examples of mistaken Jewish thinking that was corrected after new facts were accepted. For centuries, Jewish received wisdom said that the earth stood at the center of the universe and insisted the space travel was imposible because the yesod haesh prevented going beyond the atmosphere. Once new facts were established the verses that had supported the erroneous received wisdom were reinterpreted. And there are still other examples.

Has the time has come to follow the Tiferes Yisroel's example and reinterpret verses that seem to indicate a Young Universe or deny Common Descent? Yes. To do otherwise is foolishness informed by fear.

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

O Ye of Little Faith

by The Bray of Fundie | 7:07 AM |

---

by the Bray of Fundie

How much would we do to avoid a lower score on our credit rating? What if, in attempting blackmail, a hacker said to us; “With the push of a button I can drain every one of your bank accounts and change the title on all of your real estate holdings unless you _____________” how far would we go to fill in the blank? What demand on his part would it take for us to tell the hacker “I’m sorry. I can’t do that. Push the button”. What lengths would we go to in order to avoid disease? To avoid being party to an ecological disaster?

Now how about sin? To what lengths would we go to avoid it? Most of us pay lip service to Maimonides 11th principle: “I believe with a perfect faith That God gives reward to he who does the commandments of the Torah and punishes those that transgress its admonishments and warnings”. But how many of us have true yiras khet= fear of sin? And even if we are too sophisticated to imagine Divine retribution in terms of Dante- Reishis Khokhma –like boiling pitch and innumerable floggings sin is still is something we’d, sensibly, want to avoid at all costs. If "hell" means a step down a slippery slope that will ultimately rob us of our humanity, if it means an ineffable loneliness, if it means a burning humiliation without surcease, if it means alienation from all that makes both temporal life and eternity worth living, if it means the sorrowful shock of recognition that never subsides of the dissonance between our actual lives and our unfulfilled potential and if we REALLY believed any of this on a visceral level, we’d me MORE afraid of sin than if it’s wages actually were boiling pitch and innumerable floggings.

The Halakha demands that we forfeit our last penny before being ohver a lahv d’Oraysa= transgressing a Torah level garden variety negative commandment . But how many of us would be equal to the test of telling the hacker “I’m sorry. I can’t do that. Push the button” if his threat to us was “With the push of a button I can drain every one of your bank accounts and change the title on all of your real estate holdings unless you don that wool-linen jacket”

What triggered this screed was some give and take I had with JS yesterday over the relative merits and demerits of living in a society with advanced technology that minimizes hunger and disease but in which atheism and agnosticism are rampant vs. living in a a low-tech but high faith society. IMO the discussion was skewed. We were talking over each other rather than to one another. Because neither of us truly fears sin as the existential threat that it is.

Today, on some level or another, we are all green. Until we all appreciate that sin is like pushing a button that, at minimum, sets off a metaphysical Exxon Valdez type cataclysm there is no common ground upon which to conduct the debate.

Much has been made of my resistance to facts and empiricism and how it proves my cowardice. Its futile to try to defend myself against such charges. But is it too much to propose that the more we have bought into the facts on the ground the more we’ve lost sight of, and lost faith in, the facts off the ground?

In the past life was precarious. Existential threats abounded. Bad weather resulted in bad crops that resulted in financial ruin or even starvation. Infant mortality and childhood disease pandemics could wipe out whole families, floods and fires, whole cities, unanticipated volcanic eruptions, whole civilizations. In a word for most of human history the proverbial "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life dominated. Science and Hi-tech have empowered modern man. Never before in human history has humankind as a whole and individual men and women had such self-sufficiency and control over their food supply, shelter, protection from extreme weather, avoidance of natural disasters and their own physical health and well–being as they do today.

The question is from a SPIRITUAL standpoint are we really better off?

There is a famous Torah from the Ri”m. He asks: What sort of curse was it for G-d to tell the snake וְעָפָר תֹּאכַל כָּל-יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ. = "and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life". This would seem to be a blessing rather than a curse inasmuch as the snake’s food supply is abundant, accessible and labor-free. He answered that the curse is precisely this: That being able to sustain himself on a food supply that is abundant, accessible and labor-free the snake is utterly independent of G-d. The snake can dispense with both faith and prayer. Being completely self-reliant has obviated the snakes need to be the least bit G-d-reliant.

This is my main gripe with evolutionary theory. Quite apart from all the scientific breakthroughs that it has wrought the very notion posits too many degrees of separation between man as creature and G-d as Creator. From there it is a very short jump to another form of man-/G-d alienation. From man as law-abider / fulfiller and G-d as legislator. To me it is no wonder at all that in our post-Darwinian era we consider mitzvahs to be extra credit and sin to be innocuous.

Tomorrow when we bentsch Rosh Khodesh maybe we should pray for "life informed by the fear of heaven and the fear of sin" with the visceral conviction that sin equals catastrophe. And that ain't no Parseltongue.

Search for more information about fear of sin at 4torah.com.

A quality post about Bedikah Cloth Inspectors (B.C.I 's

by DovBear | 2:32 PM |

---

Penned In - Writing in confinement: Bedikah Cloth Inspectors

Search for more information about Bedikah Cloth Inspectors at 4torah.com.

You Say you Want An Evolution??? I Want a REVOLUTION

by The Bray of Fundie | 11:53 AM |

---

by the Bray of Fundie

Today evolutionists are having a good laugh at creationists and/or intelligent designers expense. They met a girl named Ida. But he who laughs last laughs best. Boy may yet lose girl. And we creationists and/or intelligent designers have missing links in our, ahem, "theories" as well.

The rule is גַּם אֶת-זֶה לְעֻמַּת-זֶה, עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים="G-d made this opposite that" i.e. that to maintain free will the powers of good and evil are evenly divided and whatever exists in the one exists in the other. As such I am filled with a profound hope. I have reason for optimism today. Optimism that as this evidence has now come out that buttresses the position of the Sitra Achra = the dark side, the day will soon come, speedily and in our days please G-d, when Torah's missing links e.g. the missing 165 years, the real Techeles dye, the authoritative kree and k'siv, various scriptural (hor)cruxes, will ALSO be discovered, researched and revealed.

And then we won't be far from rediscovering the ultimate missing link...the link between the way HaShem= THE Name is written and the way HaShem= THE Name is pronounced, the link that unifies and identifies the G-d of love and mercy הטוב והמטיב with דין האמת the G-d of justice and rigor בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה יְהוָה אֶחָד--וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד = in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one.

Search for more information about Divine Creation at 4torah.com.

The ethics of Tzedaka

by JS | 7:33 AM |

---

A guest post by JS:

Yesterday, there was a very interesting conversation about the ethical underpinnings regarding whether and how to give tzedaka to a person down on his luck who wishes to return to Canada (post here, comments here).

DB put on his Fundie hat (borrowed from Bray of course; they're the same hat size) and took a hardline, halachic approach to the problem essentially stating that by giving Tzedaka we are God's agents and it is not for us to judge how the man uses (or misuses) the money - the mitzvah is in the giving, not in the helping, per se (or rather, "helping" is totally subjective and we shouldn't place our values of what "help" means over the recepient's values). Thus, according to DB, if a poor person, who used to be wealthy, wants caviar, we shouldn't deny him caviar as we are merely acting in God's stead and are answering on God's behalf. Rabbi Fink acknowledged DB was correct from a halachic perspective.

DB based himself, partly, on a story from Ketubot 67B: A man once asked Rava for charity. Rava asked him, "What do you need?" The man replied, "Well fattened chickens and old wine." Rava was shocked and exclaimed, "What a burden you put on the community!" The man answered, "But, I do I not eat the community's food as all belongs to God." Just then Rava's sister arrived with a feast of well fattened chickens and old wine. Rava again expressed shock and said, "I've wasted too much time talking; come, let's eat."

DB points out that the lesson is in the poor person's reply that all belongs to God and the community is God's agent in providing it to him. I focus, instead, on Rava's exclamation that the man is a burden on his community and if Rava's sister hadn't surreptitiously shown up with exactly what the man requested, the man would have left empty-handed, or at least not with what he requested.

Personally, I think it's presumptuous to think we should just hand over whatever a poor person wants (assuming we have it) because we're God's agent when we give tzedaka. After all, maybe God wanted him to fall to this position in life? Maybe the person was too arrogant and haughty and selfish and God wanted to teach him modesty and humbleness? Maybe by giving caviar we're thwarting God's plan.

Tzedaka is a zero-sum game. Money that goes to one person is necessarily not going to another person. Consider the following example: A community has 5 poor people. 1 used to be wealthy. The rest have always been too poor to afford wine or meat, they always lived on cheap food and lived in shabby conditions.

Can it possibly be that the community should put up the once rich person in a mansion and feed him the best of foods while the other 4 subsist on beans and rice and live in a small shack? The community shouldn't split its tzedaka money evenly among the 5? The 4 should suffer because the 5th used to be wealthy and has extravagant demands? This is a Jewish value?

How do you reconcile the halacha and our own personal sense of right and wrong? Is a drug addict or alcoholic less worthy of help than someone who became poor due to high medical expenses? Is the person who spent his money frivolously and now has nothing less worthy than someone who lost their job? And should the person who demands caviar be told to get in line with the rest of the poor at the soup kitchen?

I particularly welcome DB's comments as he said yesterday: "I'm quoting a gemarah. I can be skeptical about the Jewish position tomorrow. Today, I am merely providing the Jewish position."

Search for more information about tzedaka ethics at 4torah.com.

When will Yeshiva World Stop Lying about Obama?

by DovBear | 1:44 PM |

---

Via Facebook, I see Yeshiva World has put up another Spira article attacking Obama. Like most Yeshiva World articles that attack Obama, this one contains no sources, no links or references to the legitimate media, and no facts. It's complete lies, from begining to end. Even the headline is a lie. It reads: "Obama Wants to Take Yerushalayim from Am Yisrael." Really? The president has only asserted a million and one times that Jeruslaem won't be divided and that it must remain the capital of Israel. So who's whispering alternative versions of reality into Mr. Spira's ears?

Could Spira be an Obama insider? Most YeshivaWorld articles are ripped straight from the pages of other newspapers. This one wasn't. Its much too poorly written to have been stolen from the usual YeshivaWorld sources, so perhaps Spira is part of the inner circle. Does he have a source in the state department whispering in his ear? Or is he just a guy with a laptop who makes stuff up?

Another ethical question

by DovBear | 10:09 AM |

---

A guest post by E. Fink

I am the Rabbi at the Shul on the Beach in Venice CA. Venice is home to a wonderful community of Frum and not so Frum Jews, all who are welcome in our Shul. Venice is also home to a huge community of homeless folks. The area is very lenient in its restrictions on the homeless and believes strongly in everyone's rights. A lot of these people live on the beach or in their old vans on the street. (Sure beats a cardboard box in Phili, right?)

The Shul is literally on the boardwalk. The doors are open to the foot traffic on the beach. Our Shul has welcomed many homeless men and women, hardcore drug addicts, transvestites from the Venice boardwalk and others who found their way into our shul for services and Kiddush. We don't push them away, nor do we push anyone else away, unless they are clearly, high, drunk or appear dangerous.

There is a fellow who comes from a Chabad family in Montreal, who is not Frum himself, but grew up in the Chabad tradition. Back in the day, he made a lot of money with the Bugle Boy Jeans Company. He traveled the world spending half a million dollars over the course of his travels Now he is in his 50's and penniless, living in his classic van on the streets of Venice. He gets by selling beautiful prints and canvasses of Jewish photographs that he took in his travels around the world (when he had money). Since I have become the Rabbi in Venice, he has been coming to the shul more often and we have developed a bit of a rapport.

He's a very nice guy, he does look homeless and usually smells like cigarettes but is a good guy overall.

Here's the issue. Business is not good. The artwork is not selling. He used to pull in around 1K over the weekend. Now he's luck y if he gets $60-$80. The Venice boardwalk can be a violent place. He has been subject to a couple of attacks and his car has been vandalized. He wants out. He is not a citizen, nor can he get a green card. If he returns to Canada, he gets the benefits of their robust welfare system and can get himself back on his feet (theoretically if he wants to). Now he is scraping by, living in his van, eating bread and milk (- that's all) and showering at the Y.

He has been asking me to purchase some artowrk for our shul to help him "get out". Every time he tells me his predicament my heart goes out to him. Call me a softy but I cannot bear to see his dire situation. Plus, the look on his face of utter defeat tears me up inside.

He needs 16 tanks of gas plus food to get back to Canada. It's about $1000. Let's assume he has no other viable, realistic quick-fix options. Am I crazy if I give him Tzedaka funds? Is there any way he actually uses it to do what I say? Even if he does, does he deserve Tzedaka money? What should I do?

The Shul has a Tzedaka fund and can afford to help this guy out with either a gift, loan or by purchasing some pricier artwork. This post is about what the appropriate course of action is at this time. What do you think we should do?

Search for more information about Venice at 4torah.com.

Churchill who?

by DovBear | 7:02 AM |

---

According to an email discovered last week in my in-box, Winston Churchill hated Muslims. [This is more or less what it said] This message was sent by one of my friends, a notorious re distributor of dirty jokes and rabid RW political messages. At the top, he helpfully added: And this was 100 years ago!! [sic]

Such, I suppose, is the state of the discourse.

I saw three ways to reply.

First, the good old "So what?" Do we really care what Winston Churchill thought? Is he suddenly the supreme religious and morality expert of all time? Great, he hated Muslims. As an early 20th century Englishman he likely hated Jews, blacks, women, and children, too. Are we required to embrace all his views on everything? By what authority? He may have saved England from the Nazis, but this doesn't obligate us to imitate his every example.

My second thought was to hoist my friend on his own petard. As a RW, dirty-joke-loving loon, my friend is very soft on torture. I thought it might interest him to learn that good old Winston thought torture was of "doubtful utility." Moreover, during the London blitz when every night was a little 9/11, and hundreds of Nazi agents were held in British prisons, Churchill was firm: No torture. In fact, Col. Robin Stephens, the man in charge of Latchmere House, the jail where Hitler's spies were held, said this, "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information." Chris Hitchens reports that Stephens fired one of his interrogators after the man smacked a Nazi on the head. Though we might not agree with this approach, Churchill admired it, and someone who blindly accepts Churchill on Islam should also accept him blindly on torture.

Finally, I thought it interesting that my friend thought it significant that Churchil expressed his anti-Islam views 100 years ago. [And this was 100 years ago!! [sic]] Shouldn't this be expected? Wasn't the word a crueler, darker, less tolerant and accepting place back then? And if the point is that views stated long ago by Englishmen carry extra moral value, why stop with Churchil? Instead, of finding an expert from 100 years ago, let's look to the 17th century and King James I (self-announced expert on witchcraft, who took delight in personally interviewing and torturing suspected witches) as our moral light. Or what about Queen Elizabeth I, inveterate hater of Jews and Catholics. She was an Englishmen who lived in the 1560s so surly SHE knew what she was talking about.

In the end, I sent him all three of these arguments. There was no reply, but this morning, right on schedule, I received his daily dirty joke.

Search for more information about Churchil at 4torah.com.

de facto mehadrin

by Rafi G. | 5:52 PM |

---

A Guest Post by Rafi G

According to Ladaat.net, the famous #2 bus line in Jerusalem - I think it is the bus route with the longest route in Jerusalem, being a circuitous route from Har Nof to the Kotel with 50 stops between 17 "neighborhoods" (granted - it depends what you call a neighborhood), has now "officially become de facto a mehadrin line.

The decision is not an official one made by Egged or by the Ministry of Transportation. Rather, according to Ladaat.net, it is by "the decision of the passengers". The passengers have "decided" they will sit on the bus in a mehadrin fashion - men in front and women in back.

Because it is not an official decision to be designated by Egged as mehadrin, but through grassroots activism, the one flaw from their perspective is that women will not be able to alight in the back and get their tickets punched in the rear, but will have to get on in the front of the bus mingling with the men in order to pay.

I have no idea what it means "the passengers decided". Did they take a poll? Did someone collate votes during the ride, passing out questionnaires? Was it an "official decision of passengers" made by a dozen or so passengers and will now impose it on the rest?

Another thing - what is the relevance of this decision made by the passengers? If it is not officially sanctioned and designated, what happens if I get on the bus with my family and sit together with my wife? Will they say something to me? What right will they have to insist I or my wife move to the other side of the bus? If a guy wants to sit in front, and his wife wants to sit in the back, God bless them. Nobody ever forces passengers to sit next to people they don't want to. But without any official status, what is the relevance of this decision? How will they enforce it?

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

Something said by Barak Obama that RWers will ignore because it conflicts with the made up lies they enjoy spreading about him

by DovBear | 3:30 PM |

---

Barack Obama: "I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."

A Self-Immolated Post

by The Bray of Fundie | 11:50 AM |

---

by the Bray of Fundie
Yesterday we had this.

Editor's note: In this space, Bray asked a question in a manner that offended many readers as you will see from the comments. Instead of accepting my own mild edits, or making the changes himself as I would have preferred, Bray chose to delete the post. - DB

Housekeeping

by DovBear | 6:42 PM |

---

Two weeks I (once again) invited everyone to join my blogroll, regardless of theology or politics. Thirty-eight* Thirty-nine of you said, "Sure. Add me."

It has been done.

(Things I shall not remark upon: No more than 6 of you have bothered to hit the TipJoy jar. I'm sure there is a very good, nay excellent, reason for this, which is why I shall not remark upon it.)

*As I was writing this, someone else responded and asked to be included.

Coming soon to a wig, I mean sheitel, I mean hair piece dealer near you

by DovBear | 9:48 AM |

---

Click

This could be a big hit in the frum world, and not just because our women wear wigs. Unless, I miss my guess, OJ are also much more germophobic than the average American. Probably has to do with how we're raised from the earliest ages to be on guard against invisible, evil pathogens.

Search for more information about wig accessories at 4torah.com.

If You Were Shipwrecked on an Island...

by The Bray of Fundie | 8:27 AM |

---

by the Bray of Fundie

If you were shipwrecked on an Island and could bring along only one Jewish Book would it be a khumash/set, a siddur, a tehillim or a gemara/shas?

Why?

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

Did Bush torture for political reasons?

by DovBear | 7:39 AM |

---

What's upsetting me today is this observation from Josh Marshell:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

I wish I could say I find this impossible to believe, but I don't. At bottom, Bush was a sneering frat boy with an Oedipal complex. It's not hard at all to imagine the ugly little princling dispatching goons with torture tools to find an excuse - any excuse - to launch the trillion dollar Iraq adventure. From the beginning Bush reeked of incompetence and insecurity. He came to the Oval Office untested, the beneficiary of his father's wealth, reputation, and connections.

He spoke of restoring dignity to the office of the presidency, but instead cavorted like the spoiled rich kid he was, insulting reporters from the podium, and attaching humiliating nicknames to his subordinates. After 9/11 he read a powerful speech from a paper handed to him by his aids, and for a month or two it seemed like he might rise to the occasion. He did not. Instead of making us safer, he made us a mockery. Instead of preserving the Constitution, he sent lawyers like John Yoo looking for loopholes, and for opportunities to augment the power of his office.

Again and again he justified his excesses, his shady secrecy, and what seemed to be a mad power grab by reminding us Big Brother-like that he was only keeping us safe, that his one abiding interest was the defense of this country. I thought he was wrong to sacrifice so much liberty for the sake of temporary safety (see Benjamin Franklin) but I believed that at least HE believed that he was breaking the law, and setting dangerous precedents for the sake of making us safer.

But now? Now, I think its altogether likely Bush was full of it.

My eyes! My soul! My Shabbos!

by DovBear | 12:58 PM |

---

The advertisment seen above was sent today by the YeshivaWorldNews to those of us still too lazy to report him to the spam authorities. Said the very great BOTH:

How absolutely UNTZNIUSDIK! And it was sent just before shabbos too! I am very upset. Little children could have seen the e-mail. Or talmedim from Yeshiva Chaim Berlin! The horror, the horror!

I don't recall what YWN said when Chaim Berlin went to war with the wig store, but I suspect they supported the Yeshiva.

Related: 1 (627 comments) and 2
.

The breastfeeding battle continues

by DovBear | 12:57 PM |

---

The OrthoFile answers MII's post from April 24.

In short: OrthoFiles says it immodest to nurse in shul. This coincides with my own view, though I do not agree with her that lenienies and accommodations are impossible. Let every congregation decide for itself. Some shuls want to make room for mothers and children; others do not. So long as the policy of the shul honestly reflects the value of its members either approach is valid.

My new torture trump card

by DovBear | 9:57 AM |

---

From now on whenever torture apologists tell me that Bush and his operatives simply had to break the law because the alternative was to endanger national security and American lives, I'm going to ask them about Dan Choi.

Time permitting, I'll also show them this.

Your sweet summary: Dan Choi is an Arabic speaking linguist, and a West Point graduate with valuable skills who was dismissed from the US military after owning up to being a homosexual. Seems to me that if we're going to make one exception to the rule of the law after another under the theory that the war on terrorism must be won at any cost, we could also make an allowance for an essential gay translator.

As Jon Stewart said: "Water boarding might make a man talk, but it won't get him to speak English."

Search for more information about hypocritically applied legal standards at 4torah.com.

The atheist and the m'shaberach

by TikunOlam | 5:40 AM |

---

by TikunOlam

I noticed DYS complaining on a recent thread that the DovBear team members aren't pulling their weight. He made me feel guilty, so I thought I'd write about what has been going through my mind the last couple of days.

My son was released from the hospital yesterday after a two day stay for asthma related problems. He is doing well, thank you.

During his stay, our rabbi visited. Our rabbi is not just "our rabbi," his daughter and son-in-law also happen to be two of our closest friends so he is also a family friend. His visit was very much appreciated as I happen to think he is one of the finest men I know, not to mention, great with my son. While he was there, he said a m'shaberach (a prayer, in this case for the sick) for my son.

I am the kind of person who is really good in a crisis. I kept it together from the moment I knew we had to go to the ER, through all the tests and my son's tears, through being told he would have to stay a couple of nights in the hospital. But when my rabbi said the m'shaberach, I lost it.

My husband looked at me and asked, "why is it that the Jewish stuff makes you cry?" He, of course, was referring to the fact that I am a professed atheist. He had also seen the same reaction in me just less than two months before.

A number of weeks ago, I stayed with my sister over shabbat (my sister is OJ) in the hospital after she went through emergency surgery. She is doing great, thank you.

As it happened, the day after her surgery, my oldest had his Torah reading debut in school. His school teaches children to layn as part of the curriculum. Over the course of the school year, each child layns for the grade with parents and grandparents invited to attend. It is considered a very important milestone in the life of a student at this school. As a part of the morning davening that day, the class said a m'shaberach for the ill, and invited the children to come up and offer names of individuals that they knew who were ill. When they did this I was working so hard on fighting back tears that I couldn't even get there to add in my sister's name.

When my husband asked me what was up with all this, all I could respond was that hearing the m'shaberachs made it really hit me how sick my son (and my sister) were. He didn't buy it. When I mentioned it to DB (who, BTW, was a very supportive friend through these scary couple of days) he said "You're still someone who was raised OJ. That doesn't go away." Perhaps he is right. Whatever the reason, it certainly gave me pause to think.

Search for more information about atheists who cry during m'shaberachs at 4torah.com.

Ta'aseh lee Tovah II

by DovBear | 1:58 PM |

---

If you have $5 to spare, please hit the tip jar at the top right. If you have more than $5 extra dollars available today, please hit the tip jar more than once, or consider buying a book or making a paypal donation.

Many thanks. I enjoy keeping this blog going, but as of late, blogging hasn't been its own reward as in previous years and months. Some small material indication that you, to whatever infinitesimal degree, value and enjoy what I've been trying to do here since October 2004 would mean quite a great deal to me.

~DB

Star Trek Captain Picard Weighs In On Torture

by DovBear | 8:59 AM |

---

Sleep in Benji Lovitt's bed

by DovBear | 7:03 AM |

---

I've never yearned to rest on Benji's matress, but should this be a treat you've secretly desired, the time has come to act on your ambition: click here.

Bonus: You can also cook at the stove where he doesn't cook, and gaze at yourself in his own personal mirror. All for just 2400 NIS.

Mitzvoth, not magic

by DovBear | 2:15 PM |

---

Sometimes, I wonder if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might be jealous. He was the chief editor of the Mishna, after all, the first great code of Jewish law, a code studied to this day by school children and scholars alike, while also serving as a key leader of the Jewish community during Roman times. Yet the glory -if glory is measured in songs and stories- goes to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the man who may have written the Zohar, and is remembered, to this day, on his feast day, with bonfires and other tributes, including a pair of very long prayer poems which suggest, among other praises, that Bar Yochai was holy from the moment of his conception.

I want to win some of that glory for Yehuda HaNasi. I want celebrations in his honor, celebrations of scholarship, and for the talent for organization that made the Mishna possible.

Too much is made of mysticism. Too many Jews seek redemption by dunking in Mikvahs and running to graves and miracle workers, by mumbling Pslams, or performing segulahs. A feast day for Yehuda Hanasi, one with all the accoutrements (save, of course, the hagiographies, and the extolments borrowed from Christianity that make up the Lag Bomer liturgy) might trim the boat, and redirect some Jewish energy and attention toward the neglected idea that a Jew is redeemed through mitvoth -not through magic, mysticism, or miracles.

First appearence

Search for more information about the Mishana at 4torah.com.

Ghosts of Lag B'omer Past

by DovBear | 9:14 AM |

---

Here it is: The Lag b'omer Palooza you didn't even know you wanted:

• Why the Meron pilgrimage is an argument in favor of calling women for aliyot
• The Lag B'omer bonfire is every bit as foreign as the Yom Hashoa siren. [More]
• Jameel has translated an article which suggests our lag bomer celebrations came into existance because of a scribal error... [More]
• Yeshuahs For Sale (act fast) [More]
• Celebrating after the terror of mass plague: Why in the world is Lag B'omer a holiday? [Read it]
• Is the bonfire a religioun abomination on the order of insect snacks and sodomy? [Read it]
• Why don't we do anything for Rabbi Yehudah, author of the Mishna? [Read it]

Search for more information about Lag b'omer at 4torah.com.

Redeeming First-born Donkeys

by The Bray of Fundie | 8:45 AM |

---

by the Bray of Fundie

Seems we've developed a tastes for seeking out new and exotic Mitzvos while routinely ignoring or transgressing the ones that confront us daily.

I've got an aesthetic gripe as well. To me the decorations adorning the newborn Donkey are:

1. Historically inauthentic. I somehow doubt that in ancient Israel, in an agrarian society of farmers and ranchers that may have featured many such pidyonos in a herd in any given year, that the ranchers bothered with dressing up the First-born Donkeys.
2. The decorations seem kitsch and garish. Who came up with this idea/design? It looks to me like something more appropriate for a grade school arts and crafts project than for a community wide once in a lifetime Mitzvah observance.
3. Is Tzaar Baalei Khayim not a factor? In the video I link to below the donkey seems a bit uncomfortable. Just leave the poor beast alone and get it over with as swiftly as possible
4. Is the donkey the "kheftza" the Mitzvah or the sheep that it is being redeemed with? It seems to me that as the sheep is what will ultimately be the gift to the Kohen IT should be getting all dolled up, or maybe both animals, but why ONLY the donkey?

To see a video of the recent Melbourne community First-born Donkeys redemption click here.

What's next? A"snuff film" about a rancher who chose option "B" (
יג וְכָל-פֶּטֶר חֲמֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה, וְאִם-לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּו="And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck)

How would such a donkey be decorated??? With a black hood?

Search for more information about the first born donkey redemption at 4torah.com.

Abortion in Israel; frum pregnancies in America

by DovBear | 8:42 AM |

---

Another execllent post by A Mother in Israel: Abortion in the Religious Zionist Community

Under discussion, is an article by Yifat Erlich in Makor Rishon which profiles frum couples who aborted pregnancies because of health problems with the fetus. These types of abortions are legal in Israel, and also permitted by halacha (according to most).

In her post, MII also tells a story about Rabbi Shlomo Aviner which helps explain why it is essential that abortion remain legal in the United States.

According to MII, Rabbi Aviner promised to "stand beside" older women who chose to become pregnant. This was widely understood to mean that he would permit abortions in the event that any of the health defects common to late pregnancies (for instance Downs Syndrome) were discovered.

The Rabbi's reasoning seems simple: Allow frum women to undergo halachicly permitted abortion, and more frum older women will become pregnant. More frum pregnancies mean more frum Jews.

If abortion is outlawed in the US, these mutar abortions will no longer be permitted here. If older Jewish women are denied the right to undergo these halachicly permitted abortions, many won't risk becoming pregnant at all. Thus, a total ban on abortion will interfere with Jewish families, in a way that is contrary to halacha.

Any frum Jewish woman's decision on abortion should remain between her and her doctor, her husband, and her rabbi. If the RW Christians win the abortion debate, this decision will instead be made by the state, and the result, as Rabbi Aviner feared, might well be fewer frum pregnancies.

Ta'aseh lee Tovah (do me a kindness)

by DovBear | 4:44 PM |

---

Please go to the far-right sidebar and click to "follow" this blog.

Thank you, and may we be forever zoche to do favors for each other.

Hunchback or long eyebrows

by DovBear | 6:06 AM |

---

This is a very poorly researched post (if you can call it a post at all)

In Lev 21 God lists the various deformities that disqualify a kohen. Among the ailments are the גִבֵּן (geeben) and the דק (dak)

Virtually every major English translation of the Bible takes geeben as hunchback, and indeed this is the modern Israeli word for that affliction. Rashi however reads it as "sourcils in French, [meaning] that his eyebrow (גַּבִּין) hairs are [abnormally] long and droop. — [Bech. 43b]"

(Hard to understand why long eyebrow hairs would render a kohen unfit. Hunchback is a better fit)

With the exception of the Douay-Rheims Bible, all take dak as dwarf. Rashi (and Douay-Rheims) have it as an eye affliction of some kind. Rashi says its a membrane that covers the eyes, ie a cataract.

(תבלל is the next item on the list, and this is also an eye affliction, which most take as cataract. Is it likely cataract would appear twice?)

In both case, the context seems to argue against Rashi, but I'm not enough of a philologist to settle this dispute(in fact, I'm no kind of philologist at all.)

So, readers, its on you.

Related: Leviticus and Disability: My Take on Nick's Crusade

Star Trek!

by DovBear | 8:05 AM |

---

:: The New York Times published a very favorable review of the new Star Trek flick.
The editors must not realize both Spock and Kirk were first portrayed by Jews [/snark

:: Many eons ago, I saw a Purim shpiel which offered theoretical answers to Star Trek halacha questions. I recall:

Can Data be counted in a minyan (no)

Do you need two replicators, one for meat and one for dairy? (yes)

A starfleet ship can be as large as a small city. Does it require an eruv? (yes)

Do you sit shiva for someone who has been transported? (no, but only because it would impose a burden on the commuity) (Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization). Wikipedia)

You're welcome to work out the underlying reasoning for yourselves.

:: And finally, here's something to argue about tomorrow ben gavra l'gavra: Which fictional race is a more blatant and therefore more offensive, Jewish stereotype: The big-eared, greedy Goblin bankers in Harry Potter, or the big-eared, greedy Ferengi mercenaries in Star Trek?

Search for more information about Star Trek at 4torah.com.

Bad timing award

by DovBear | 8:18 PM |

---

Talk about bad timing. My FaceBook "friend" David Klinghoffer blogs Why I'm "Christian-Friendly" on the selfsame day Westboro Baptist announces a plan to picket shuls. Seems they've peeved both that we're so gay friendly, and also because we murdered their omnipotent, almost all-powerful Lord. Klinghoffer's money quote

yes, I'm "Christian-friendly." Why on earth would I not be? We don't live in Europe -- medieval, mid-20th century, or modern -- where religious, ideological, and secular-fed anti-Semitism was and is rife. We live in America, the most philo-Semitic country in history and arguably the most passionately Christian in the world today.

Sorry, but the hard-core Catholics in Brazil, Peru, and Africa are far more passionately Christian than sloppy feel-good mega-church Americans (and of course the most passionately religious countries today are Muslim) Besides, American philo-Semitism comes with some awfully big strings attached, and a few intolerable conditions, so who needs it?

There's more to say about why DK is wrong, but I am past zonked. Perhaps tomorrow.

by DovBear | 8:07 PM |

---

Am kshe oref has submitted a quality post.

Rabbi tells soldiers not to act Jewish

by Rafi G. | 7:04 AM |

---

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


A short while ago there was a notice in the news about the IDF enforcing policy about beards. Soldiers in the IDF are not allowed to have beards unless they meet certain requirements. The army rarely enforced this and similar rules.

In an effort to improve the level of discipline, the army has decided to enforce these rules. no more beards. No longer being unkempt. No more letting things go. but because we live in a Jewish country, and the IDF has plenty of religious soldiers and wants to keep good relations with them, they had to show some flexibility on that. So they came up with a set of exceptions. Religious soldiers are allowed to have a beard, as long as they get the approval of their commanding officer.

Along comes sefirat ha'omer when we show outward displays of mourning, such as not shaving and getting haircuts, and suddenly we have a problem. People who were able to shave as per the army rules until now, suddenly cannot. But they do not have permission to let it grow out.

Yisrael HaYom newspaper wrote today about an incident in the army in which 6 soldiers affiliated with the Conservative movement wished to get permission to not shave during sefirat ha'omer. The army rabbi refused to give them recognition as religious soldiers and therefore their request was rejected. the rabbi said that he does not recognize the Conservative Movement as religious and therefore they cannot be considered religious. (they have appealed and are waiting for a response, but in the meantime they have had to shave because of this ruling).

I do not understand this rabbi's position. I understand he does not want to give any tacit recognition of the Conservative Movement - just like most Orthodox rabbis have the position of not sharing a pulpit at events with Conservative/Reform rabbis so as not to be perceived as approving of them in their positions. He thinks that by approving the request of 6 individual soldiers, he will be perceived as approving of the whole Conservative Movement.

It was not the Conservative Movement asking permission to be recognized as religious soldiers. It was 6 individual soldiers. And if they asked if they could put on tefillin, would the army rabbi not allow them saying they are not religious so they are not allowed? If they asked for time for davening, would he reject that as well?

These were 6 individual soldiers. Since when do we reject the right of individuals, no matter their affiliation, to perform mitzvahs (granted, not shaving during sefira is not actually a mitzvah per se, but it is a widespread Jewish custom)? What right did this rabbi have to reject the request of an individual to follow Jewish tradition?

The rabbi should be applauding every occurrence of his soldiers trying to keep tradition and custom, and not rejecting it.

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

Temple discrimination

by DovBear | 12:18 PM |

---

@NickDupree via Twitter:

What do you think of ban on disabled kohanim doing sacrifices in this week's parsha? is that discrimination?

I replied: Yes its discrimination per 2009. Lots of Torah rules don't fit 2009 standards.

And this is true: The Torah is full of rules and requirements and presumptions that no longer fit anyone's idea of morality. Slavery is the most famous example. The rules on marriage and rape are others. Though I confess it never occured to me, I must agree the ban on disabled kohanim from participating in the Temple service is another example.

Search for more information about the ban on disabled kohanim at 4torah.com.

The chop shop of Ramapo

by Rafi G. | 6:31 AM |

---

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

Carol Friedman clearly had some hostility towards the local yeshiva. I am pretty sure slaughtering a cow was not the way to try to improve relations with her and othe neighbors...

See the video: here

I have slaughtered plenty of stuff in backyards, but never a cow. the largest animal I shechted in a backyard (really it was a porch) was a sheep. But I must say - the fact that it is in a backyard does not make it cruel...

Lohud reports:

Neighbor Carol Friedman saw adults and teens from the school lead the cow from a brown van into the backyard shortly after 5 p.m. She did not see what happened in the yard, but another neighbor told her that the animal was tied to a tree and slaughtered with knives

"It's the most horrendous, barbaric thing I have ever heard of," she said. "I can't believe they would slaughter a cow in a backyard in a residential neighborhood."

The best part of the video is when she says, "That's too big to be a dog"


DB: I googled the addresss supplied by the article, and found a "street view." Click here and drag the little yellow man on to the road. It appears this yeshiva is located in the middle of farm country.

Search for more information about slaughetring at 4torah.com.

PSA

by DovBear | 9:06 AM |

---

As those of you who read sidebars have discovered, I'm developing a new blogroll. If you'd like to be included, the answer is "yes." Just email me, or comment here.

A shul I would not frequent

by DovBear | 8:17 AM |

---

Other horribly named Jewish institutions include:

• Torah Institute of Teaneck
• Schechter Hebrew Acadamy of Torah; and
• Camp Horei Maarav

But really what can you expect from a tribe with surnames like Wiener, Fuches, Lipshitz, Gross, and Fink?


HT Amshi the excellent

Search for more information about poorly named shuls at 4torah.com.

Boycott J-Post!!

by DovBear | 10:15 AM |

---

Will heads roll in the advertising dept, or is this business as usual for Israel's #1 English newspaper?

Search for more information about pulled pork at 4torah.com.

Among the first to blog. Among the last to FaceBook

by DovBear | 9:42 AM |

---

Now that all of you are likely bored with FaceBook, I've finally taken the plunge: DovBear is on FaceBook.

You can "friend" me and/or "follow" the blog.

Thanks.

Search for more information about FaceBook at 4torah.com.

One in 8 Million

by DovBear | 9:15 AM |

---

As part of its series on ordinary New Yorkers the heiliga NY Times profiles Henry Rieninger, a Jewish accountant. Not to be missed.

HT: Jameel

What's this I hear about swine flu being in the Talmud? (Taanis 21b)

by DovBear | 7:46 AM |

---

Today's example of Jewish credulity comes from BT Tannis 21B courtesy of the CoolJew, where a headline shouts "Rabbis Knew About Swine Flue 1500 Years Ago!".

Here is Aish's translation of the pertinent section:

They informed Rav Yehudah: There is a deadly plague affecting the pigs. He decreed a fast. Do we say that Rav Yehudah holds that a plague which affects one [animal] species is likely to affect all species (and therefore, kosher farm animals were threatened also)? No. Pigs are different since their digestive tracts are similar to those of humans.

Adds the Meiri (13th century commentary on the Talmud)

Since both pigs and humans lack a certain abdominal organ (the rumen), there was reason to fear that epidemics that affect pigs may also affect humans.

In under 8 seconds I came up with the following objections to the claim that Rav Yehuda and the Meiri are discussing swine flu.

1. The strain of influenza currently affecting humans did not exist in the time of the Talmud. The type of swine flu that infects humans is believed to have resulted from the seasonal reassortment of two different strains of swine influenza.

2. The Meiri's suggestion that the absence of a rumen makes pigs and humans susceptible to the same diseases is unverified, and has no backing. The only mammals with rumens are the cud-chewers. No other type of mammal has one. If the Meiri is right every non-ruminant mammal (including rodents, canines, felines, etc.) is at risk for swine flu. There is no evidence this is true.

3. Human susceptibility to swine flu has little if anything to do with any similarity between the swine and human digestive tracks. In fact, the strain of swine influenza sickening humans is not the same strain that sickens pigs. They contain common genetic elements, but they are different. To date, the human strain has not been isolated in pigs. (Wikipedia)

Afterthought: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda observed a different, earlier strain of swine flu? This is certainly possible, and I concede the liklihood, but why find it astounding? Wouldn't you expect any agriculturalist to notice if livestock and people were coming down with similar illnesses? If Rav Yehuda is discussisng swine flu, this is merely a routine observation and no evidence of his superior torah-based wisdom.

--
*Link to CoolJew via @gruven_reuven @ashleyroz and @jtowncrier on Twitter. I have no reason to think these three fine Tweeters endorse the idea that swine flu is discussed in BT Taanis.

Was it a snub?

by DovBear | 5:45 PM |

---

Every shul has a loud-mouthed Zionist right? In ours, he's the one who sings Hatikvah at the end of Hakafot on Simchas Torah, and looks hurt and bewildered when no one joins him. Every year, this happens. This morning, I made the mistake of standing too close to him after davening My reward was an earful about Obama, and how he and his "Arab brethren" are plotting to ruin Israel.

It was noise mostly, cribbed from loud-mouthed Zionist blogs, and sites like WorldNut Daily, but I was still sleepy and feeling amenable, so I listened quietly as he presented his brief against the United States. After about five minutes, the Rav drifted over and, with a grandfatherly smile, advised LMZ to work on his emunah (faith in God).

"The heart of a king belongs to God," he said. "All we can do is pray, and if we're worthy everything will work out."

LMZ nodded politely but when the Rabbi moved on, I caught him rolling his eyes. Funny how a guy who is certain Israel is a divine miracle, can simultaneously imagine that God abstains from American politics, no? But I digress. What I want to share with you came at the end of the rant, when LMZ said something that made a speck of sense. I bring it to you now for confirmation and commentary.

This week is the big AIPAC conference. According to LMZ, Obama hasn't invited Netanyahu to the White House, and this is the very first time in history that such an invitation hasn't been extended during the week the AIPAC conference is in session.

I've gone to all the usual sites, and completed the expected Google searches and confirmed that Netanyahu and Obama won't be meeting this week, but is the unprecedented snub LMZ says it is?

Search for more information about snubbed Israelis at 4torah.com.

The Trial Of A Scumbag

by DovBear | 9:16 AM |

---

Reposted from "The Spine": "You do remember Ilan Halimi, the French Jewish young man who was tortured and then murdered in Paris three years ago, don't you? Well, his killer, Youssouf Fofana, is now on trial in a court of law. A Jerusalem Post article describes the first day of the proceedings. The defendant behaves the way someone who ran the 24-day atrocity with 21 other Muslim perpetrators, both Arab and African, would: proud, defiant, even threatening. And, of course, these third world heroes attacked their victim sexually, as well. You can speculate about why an unbelievably repressive culture finds such assaults gratifying.

Who, by the way, would take such a defense? One of Fofana's lawyers was on Saddam Hussein's lawyers. The other had a jailhouse romance with 'Carlos the Jackal.' Nice company. Nice cause."

Related
- Background on the Case
- Halimi Family Walks out of the Trial

Today's Random DovBear Post

by DovBear | 2:01 PM |

---

The Birthday Guest Post

Stewart Piles on

by DovBear | 9:35 AM |

---

Its not just bloggers who are ridiculing Israel's decision to rebrand the swine flu. Jon Stewart thinks its nutty, too. @1:38

Olberman's Offer. Hannity's Cowardice

by DovBear | 9:04 AM |

---

Keith Olberman is willing to donate $1000 for every second that Sean Hannity withstands waterboarding. The strange offer came about after Hannity voluntarily offered to undergo waterboarding, as a way of demonstrating that waterboarding isn't torture.

Hannity (surprise) has not accepted Olberman's offer.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. If waterboarding is as pleasant as Hannity and others seem to think, why is he reluctant to get a little wet and hit Olberman in the wallet?

Search for more information about cowardly Republicans at 4torah.com.

Roosevelt and the Jews: A Debate Rekindled

by DovBear | 7:51 AM |

---

Like most American Jews I was brought up to believe that Franklin Roosevelt failed the Jews of Europe. It was an article of faith that he did "nothing."

As I got older, I found ways to challenge this assumption. What, really, could he have done that might have made a vital difference? Bomb the train tracks? Ok, agreed; but perhaps, FDR saw the vast war effort he was managing as a way to save all of Europe - Jews included. As one friend said it, "The whole building was burning, and he was working assiduously to extinguish the flames. If he succeeds the whole building is saved. Is it really fair to fault him for neglecting to focus special attention on one small room?"

Ultimately, I find such arguments unpersuasive, and remain unable to shake the feeling that Roosevelt could have done more to help Jews.

I bring this up, because a new book has been published that "upends a widely held view that he was indifferent to the fate of Europe’s Jews, and asserts that new evidence shows that the president pushed for an ambitious secret rescue plan before the war began. A review appears in today's Times. Money quote:

“It is a book that will change the consensus about the role of President Roosevelt,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a leading expert on the Holocaust, who has read some sections. It “compels historians — both those who have vilified F.D.R. and those who have sanctified him — to rethink their conclusions.”

Click to read the rest of "Roosevelt and the Jews: A Debate Rekindled"

Roosevelt and the Jews: A Debate Rekindled
By PATRICIA COHEN
The New York Times

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s legacy has been slid back under the microscope recently as his efforts to pull the country out of the Great Depression are scrutinized. Now a piece of his foreign policy is also being re-evaluated in a soon-to-be published book that upends a widely held view that he was indifferent to the fate of Europe’s Jews, and asserts that new evidence shows that the president pushed for an ambitious secret rescue plan before the war began.

The book, an edited collection of official documents, diaries, internal memos and more, contends that Roosevelt hatched a scheme in 1938 to rally the world’s democracies and relocate millions of European Jews to undeveloped areas in Latin America and Africa.

“It is a book that will change the consensus about the role of President Roosevelt,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a leading expert on the Holocaust, who has read some sections. It “compels historians — both those who have vilified F.D.R. and those who have sanctified him — to rethink their conclusions.”

The book, “Refugees and Rescue: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald, 1935-1945,” will undoubtedly reignite the charged debate over whether Roosevelt could have done more to rescue millions of Jews, Gypsies, gay people, dissidents and others who died in Nazi death camps. To his detractors, the refusal in June 1939 to take in any of the more than 900 Jews aboard the ocean liner St. Louis who were seeking a haven after Germany’s deadly Kristallnacht is much more emblematic of the United States’ response. Many of those passengers ultimately died.

This is the second of a three-volume set of Mr. McDonald’s papers being published by Indiana University Press in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mr. McDonald was the high commissioner for refugees for the League of Nations, the chairman of a presidential advisory committee on refugees and later the first American ambassador to Israel. The book also includes material from the Center for Jewish History and the Holocaust Museum.

The editors — the historians Richard Breitman, Barbara McDonald Stewart and Severin Hochberg — maintain that Roosevelt did a lot, given Congress’s implacable resistance to raising the quota on immigrants. Rather than publicly support measures revising the quotas, which he was sure would fail, he instead proposed an alternate means of escape behind the scenes, even pledging at one point to ask Congress to appropriate $150 million for resettlement.

“He was a man of grand vision who wanted to resettle a much larger number of refugees from Germany” and elsewhere, the editors conclude, citing a directive from Washington in June 1938 indicating that officials should deal with “the problems of refugees from all countries.” They agree that such efforts were completely dropped in 1940 when Roosevelt turned his attention to the war.

One of the new pieces of evidence that the editors point to is a summary written by Arthur Sweetser, a director of the secretariat of the League of Nations, describing a meeting between himself and the president on April 4, 1938:

Mr. Sweetser wrote that Roosevelt asked him how he liked his refugee proposal. “ ‘That was my proposal,’ the president quickly interjected, tapping his chest with obvious pleasure. ‘I worked that out myself.’ ”

The summary continues, with Mr. Sweetser quoting Roosevelt: “ ‘Suddenly it struck me: why not get all the democracies to unite to share the burden? After all, they own most of the free land of the world, and there are only ... what would you say, 14, 16 million Jews in the whole world, of whom about half are already in the United States. If we could divide up the remainder in groups of 8 or 10, there wouldn’t be any Jewish problem in three or four generations.’ ”

In a confidential memo to Mr. McDonald dated May 17, 1938, Mr. Sweetser wrote, “The President’s proposal took a large place in the League’s refugee deliberations this past week.”

Paul Shapiro, director of the museum’s Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, said, “What is quite striking here is that at this moment in 1938 Roosevelt is very seized by this issue of rescuing the Jews.” Germany’s occupation of Austria showed how much life changed overnight for Jews there. The book includes “important new documentation about F.D.R. and his efforts to save the Jews,” he added. Roosevelt supported using German, French and British colonies in Africa and elsewhere as well as countries in South America as possible havens. And he privately nudged the British to let more Jews into Palestine, said Mr. Breitman, a history professor at American University.

Mr. Hochberg, who teaches at George Washington University, said: “As a result of these efforts, Bolivia saved over 20,000 Jews between 1938 and 1944 — in proportion to its size, more than any other American nation. Without the Bolivian option, many of these Jews would have died during the Holocaust.”

By the spring of 1939, the most promising strategy seemed to be an agreement with Berlin that would permit a privately financed foundation to resettle refugees, the editors state. The proposal was contentious because some Jews didn’t trust Germany and feared that it amounted to tacit approval of confiscation of Jewish assets.

On May 4, 1939, Roosevelt met at the White House with Jewish leaders and told them that there was no time to set up a new foundation, but that an existing organization should immediately agree to the plan.

“It was not so much a question of the money as it was of actual lives, and the president was convinced that the warnings given by our embassy in Berlin were sound and not exaggerated,” according to the diary of Jay Pierrepont Moffat, a State Department official at the meeting.

Refugee leaders were still at odds when Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1.

David Wyman and Rafael Medoff of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, who have written extensively about America’s response to the persecution of Jews, are unimpressed with the excerpts from “Refugees and Rescue” that they’ve read.

Most of the actions have been mentioned in some form before, they said in a statement. In their view, Roosevelt may have talked about some pie-in-the-sky plans, but when it came to taking substantive action, he did nothing. For instance, they said, he opposed the 1939 Wagner-Rogers bill that would have permitted the United States to take in 20,000 Jewish children from Germany in addition to the existing German-Austrian quota of 27,370.

“F.D.R. failed to ask for that $150 million, just as he failed to support Wagner-Rogers,” they said. “Both actions by F.D.R. indicate his lack of seriousness about helping Jewish refugees.” They added that his “administration discouraged and obstructed would-be immigrants.”

To Mr. Shapiro, whether this new material will drastically change the way people see Roosevelt depends on their existing disposition. “Probably none of us will ever know what was really in F.D.R.’s mind at a given time,” he said. For those who see the potential of an individual’s being moved by the Jewish tragedy, “they will find that here.” As for others, he added, they will say, “in the end, it didn’t stop the murder of six million Jews.”


Search for more information about FDR at 4torah.com.