The Difference Between Kitniyos and Gebrukts

by EFink | 9:49 AM |

---

A Guest Post by E. Fink

Typically, this sort of question comes my way before Pesach. "Rabbi, what's with all these extra chumros that everyone does nowadays, this kitniyos and gebrukts are making me crazy?".

It is important to understand that kitniyos and gebrukts are unfairly lumped together. They are two separate minhagim with very different halachic underpinnings.

Briefly, kitniyos was a gzeira that ashkenazik Jewry accepted upon themselves for a reason. My understanding of the custom was out of legitimate fear that the flour of legumes and non-grains would have traces of "grain" flour mixed in them. It was acceptable in ashkenazic countries to use the same sacks for all types of flour and buying a non-grain flour contained the real risk that grain flour was found in the sack. This is a serious problem and it became accepted not to use any flour similar to grain flour. The gzeria extended to products that were similar to those non-grain flours and thus, the Pesach prohibition on kitniyos was born. In Sephardic locales there was no similar fear and thus no gzeira.

The point is that there was a real, legitimate, rational halachic fear of eating kitniyos at one time. When large tracts of Jews accept a custom as law, there is a not much we can do about it after the fact as far as the halachic process goes. So today, ashkenazic Jews are stuck.

Gebrukts on the other hand is quite different. First, there is no halachic "source" for the custom, it just happened. (See Sefer Todaah) .Further, there is no scientific way for a cooked piece of matza to "become chometz" by adding liquid to it. It is literally impossible. In other words, the not eating of gebrokts is not a custom rooting in a reasonable halachic fear. Therefore, it is not binding in the same way kitniyos are binding. I believe it is even possible to be shoel neder on gebrokts. It is not possible to be shoel neder on kitniyos.

In summary, kitniyos and gebrukts are two very different restrictions. Kitniyos may be irrational in 2010, but it made a lot of sense at one time and served as a protection against a very serious sin of eating chometz on Pesach. Gebrukts on the other hand can be seen as an "erroneous" stringency serving to protect from no real prohibition.

(Having said that, in some ways, kitniyos has taken on a new life and has spawned some irrational chumros as well. But that is beyond the scope of this blog post.)

---

Search for more information about kitniyos and gebrukts at 4torah.com.

Speed of Lightning, Roar of Thunder and the 7th Plague

by DovBear | 11:59 PM |

---

Speed of Lightning, Roar of Thunder and the 7th Plague
by YC

I was studying for a test with my daughter and on the prep sheet she was asked: what Rashi said about barad (the hail)

Her school trains them to look for what was troubling Rashi, what the peshat answer could be, and what drash Rashi offers.

With barad Rashi (Ex 9, 24) explains there is fire in each piece of hail. The teacher then asked if this is peshat or drash. My daughter explained it is peshat, and read the pasuk that way.

I told her to stick to her answer on the test but I think Rashi is a drash. The preceding pasuk explains there was hail and thunder, four other times the story speaks of thunder.

***Where there is thunder there is lightning***

Lighting both looks like fire and will cause fire on the ground. What a  sublime site fire in the dry fields with balls of ice all around.

My daughter said isn't it a bigger miracle if the fire was in the hail. I agreed but explained God may not always want to bigger miracle. (Listen to E_fink's podcast on the subject
http://werejustbetter.com/pjc/Connections_01_05_08.mp3 ). As an example the wind by the Yam Suf.

My daughter and I finished studying and she turned to me and said she liked the lightning idea. I told her for the test write the teacher taught. Can't wait to see what she writes, or how it is graded.

---

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

Great performance

by DovBear | 10:03 AM |

---

Not sure what's more amazing, the shofar or the voice....

Introducing for the very first time.... Lady GaGa?

by DovBear | 11:57 AM |

---

HT @noahroth

---

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

Signed into law

by DovBear | 9:19 AM |

---

With the stroke of President Obama’s pen, his health care overhaul — the most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades — became law today.

As we say in our twice annual prayers for sustenance, let it be for a blessing and not for a curse; for life and not for death; for plenty and not for lack.

---

Search for more information about Obama's monumental victory at 4torah.com.

Why has the Yeshivishe velt forgotten that it takes Saykhl to be Maykl?

by DovBear | 3:16 PM |

---

A guest post by NAMELESS

I struggle daily with the fact that I have liked 98 to 99% of the right-wing Frum people that I've met (and I've met many in the course of my T'schuva), yet I disapprove of so much of the culture of the Yeshivishe Velt? I love the dedication to learning, but the mindless Chumras just drive me out of my mind and make my life more difficult than it needs to be. Last week, a bocher asked me if I held by Yoshon! Having goyishe kids, there are many times when Lichatchila is just not an option for me.

That said, there's a limit to the usefulness of bitching. Just like when I tell my Lakewood cousins about the beautiful picture of my little Jewish niece under her Kratzmach tree, saying oy nebbech is a worse than useless response. Either admit that you don't care (which is OK) or at least attempt to fix the problem. I do care, so here goes:

Why is the Yeshivishe velt becoming so rigid?
I think that the problem starts with teenagers. Teenagers need to rebel against their parents, even in the Frum world. The difference is that Frum teenagers often rebel by becoming more Chumradik, more rigid than their parents. Frum parents have a hard time fighting that off, even though, in the end, it is not helpful to anyone. Recognizing that teenagers brains don't stop developing until they are around 21 or so, parents need to be on guard against enabling this behavior. On the surface, it seems praiseworthy, but it really isn't.

Chumras need to be evaluated on a case by case basis:
a) Chumras can hurt other people. Before adopting and holding shtark on a chumra, ask yourself: who does it hurt? Are my desires valid reasons to hurt someone else?
b) The gain can often be outweighed by the pain. I'm guessing that many chumras wouldn't hold up on a net/net comparison. Very rarely in this world do we see clear, unambiguous choices laid out before us. Lay out the pluses and minuses.
c) Adoption of chumras can be used to cover up transgressions in other areas. Before going above and beyond on something relatively easy, ask yourself, where am I outright failing in other areas?

The bottom line is this: even though you're Frum, you still need to think for yourself.

---

Search for more information about the Yeshivishe velt  at 4torah.com.

The Very Non-Fundie Thing That A Very Fundie Rabbi Says

by EFink | 11:00 AM |

---

A Guest Post By E. Fink

Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman is one of the Torah leaders of Bnei Brak, Litvishe, Torah Jewry. He is the Rosh Yeshiva of the prominent Ponevezh Yeshiva and is almost universally considered one of the greatest Torah scholars and authorities for haredi Jews of our generation.

His Torah insights are very keen and elegant in their simplicity. When I was studying Talmud full time in Yeshiva, his Ayeles Hashachar on Talmud was an indispensable book by my side. Recently, Ayeles Hashachar has been published on Chumash. I scooped up a set in hope that it would be as useful in my study of Chumash as it was for me in my study of Talmud.

This past week I was preparing my regular Shabbos Drasha and I took a look at Ayeles Hashachar on Vayikra. The very first "piece" (that's a loose translation of "shtickle") surprised me.

The Baal Haturim comments on the well know "small aleph" in the opening word of Vayikra that "Moshe wanted to write Vayikar the same way the Torah records the way God appeared to Bilaam as if it was "mikra", "happenstance". But God wants the aleph to spell vayikra which connotes a deeper, intended conversation. And Moshe decided to write the aleph but he wrote it small."

So Rav Shteinman concludes that is must be that Moshe had discretion as to whether he wanted to write the letters large, small or regular sized.

Didn't see that coming, did you?

---

Search for more information about Moshe making choices about how to write the Torah at 4torah.com.

Pesach 1865: What Jews did when Lincoln was shot

by DovBear | 9:53 AM |

---

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on Friday, April 15, 1865 which corresponds with 19 Nissan 5625, the fifth day of Pesach.

According to American Jewry and the Civil War by Bertram Wallace Korn, American Jews responded by draping their shuls in black and by substituting Yom Kippur "hymns and chants" for "Passover melodies" (excerpt below) Its not clear if this memorial was performed on the night of the assassination, which was Shabbos Chol Hamoed, or the next week for the 7th and 8th day of the holiday. Its not clear if this was done everywhere, or in a few shuls only. It also seems strange to me that the murder of a president would be observed with Yom Kippur style services, when Tisha B'av, not Yom Kippur, is the holiday associated with mourning.

Does anyone know more?

---

Search for more information about how Jews honored Lincoln at 4torah.com.

Fear Strikes Out

by DovBear | 7:28 AM |

---

by PAUL KRUGMAN

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

We get MORE email!

by DovBear | 3:18 PM |

---

Hi!

I'm currently a clinical psychology Ph.D student at St.John's University, and I am looking for participants for a study I am conducting on the relationship between religiosity and stress in religious Jews. 

The study is online and takes about 15-20 minutes to complete. 

All participants will be entered into a drawing for a $50 giftcard. 

To access the study, visit  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/R8R5YR9 . You must be 18 or older to participate.

---

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

We get email!

by DovBear | 8:51 AM |

---

Hello DovBear,

I am sure that you receive many e-mails, but I hope you will take the time to read mine. I am an American who made aliyah a few years ago to Jerusalem and became a ba'al tschuvah (modern Orthodox). I am trying so hard to find a shidduch, but it is extremely difficult because I am short -- five-foot, six-inches. I would love to have a wife and family, but I don't know what to do. Even though I am nice, educated, successful, and religious (I own my own consulting company), countless women say after dates that they "just don't feel a connection (chashmal)." That, of course, is a polite way of saying that they are not attracted to me. Objective opinions from women who are friends say that I am attractive -- but just short. So I don't know what to do. I know that your blog attracts both religious and non-conventional opinions, so I was hoping that you could post this so that I could obtain some advice.

Readers? Any words of advice or encouragement for this fellow? 

I Want a Time Machine

by EFink | 2:45 PM |

---

A Guest Post By E. Fink

I want a time machine for a million reasons. I would not want to change anything and cause a ripple in the space-time continuum. I just want to be able to observe things that happened over the course of history.

DovBear is fond of his Shabbos Table games and at my Shabbos table we play this game from time to time: If you could travel in time and just watch something what would you want to see? (There are two categories, Jewish and Secular.)

We've had some great conversations about great moments in Jewish and Secular history.

Last night we made our kitchen Kosher for Pesach* and I announced that I want to travel back in time to see what our great-great-grandparents did to prepare for Pesach. What was it like without aluminum foil and duct tape, stainless steel, porcelain and convection ovens? How did the Rama's wife prepare her kitchen? How about Rashi's family? Or Reb Yehuda HaNassi? Or even as recent as the Vilna Gaon?

If I can't time travel, then I wish I could get my hands on a diary or journal of someone who was there.

Would the "righteous women" of our generation of machmirim eat in their kitchens on Pesach?

I bet not...

(*We are preparing everything in advance then we go back to Chametz next week. We will not be staying in our home for Pesach, we are going to our Shabbos place on Venice Beach, so this actually makes sense. Don't ask...)

---

Search for more information about the space-time continuum at 4torah.com.

Oren: "I was flagrantly misquoted"

by DovBear | 8:50 AM |

---

Ooops. Looks like the Obama hating creeps started their carnival of joy a little early. As it turns out, Micheal Oren did NOT say that US-Israel relations are at a 35-year low, and he did NOT say that there was any "crises."

Bad news, I'm sure, for the so-called lovers of Israel who desperately want Obama to fail.

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Israel's U.S. ambassador and the White House denied remarks that have fueled the current Israel-U.S. tensions.

The envoy, Michael Oren, was quoted this week by Haaretz as saying that relations were at a 35-year-low after Israel embarrassed Vice President Joe Biden during a visit to the region by announcing that it was building 1,600 housing units in eastern Jerusalem.

On Tuesday evening, Oren issued a statement denying that account of a conference call he had Saturday night with Israeli diplomats.

"I was flagrantly misquoted about remarks I made in a confidential briefing this past Saturday," Oren said in a statement. "Recent events do not -- I repeat -- do not represent the lowest point in the relations between Israel and the United States. Though we differ on certain issues, our discussions are being conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation as befitting long-standing relations between allies. I am confident that we will overcome these differences shortly."

Separately, numerous media quoted senior White House officials as denying an account in Yediot Achronot last week that Biden had told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was endangering the lives of American troops in the region.

"He never said that, and there's no basis to assert that he did," The Atlantic quoted one official as saying. "What he did say in a meeting with the prime minister and his senior advisers and his own team was that the U.S. is doing a number of things in our national security interest, and in Israel's national security interest, and they include a strong effort to build a coalition against Iran's nuclear program; deploying 200,000 troops in conflict areas in the region; standing against efforts to delegitimize Israel in various international bodies, sometimes virtually alone; acting decisively against terrorists in very significant ways; and building probably the strongest defense cooperation relationship with Israel that we've seen, including on missile defense."

---

Search for more information about jerks who put their hatred of Obama ahead of their love for Israel at 4torah.com.

Absence of self-awareness watch

by DovBear | 10:43 AM |

---

What the Rabbi says in his Shabbos morning sermon
Beware of the negative but invisible influences of the outside world! You are at risk! Your children are at risk! You can't watch TV! You can't go to a mall! You need to be very careful about what you let in your house! Examine your mail! Dispose of all advertisements that depict scantily clad women! Guard your eyes! Guard your eyes! The dangers are REAL. VERY VERY REAL.

What the Rabbi eats for Shabbos lunch
White bread challah, egg salad, grease-coated potato kugel, red meat, cake and candy.

What the Rabbi will ever say about nutrition and health
Nothing

---

Search for more information about missing the forest and the trees at 4torah.com.

Attention Obama haters: How are you worse off?

by DovBear | 10:16 AM |

---

Obama haters are fond of insisting that the new president has shipwrecked the country, with one friend recently calling him a "disaster".  I don't see how. Here's what a ten second review of the world and my place in it has revealed

Personal

My life is exactly as it was 15 months ago. I live in the same house. I make about the same amount of money. The kids are as well provided for as ever. No disaster there.

National

Streets are as safe as ever. Taxes are where they always were. The country is on the verge of passing historic health care reform, and though this may turn out badly, its too soon to tell. It might also turn out great. For now I'm content to wait and see what happens. No disaster there either.

International  

The world seems about as dangerous as it ever was. Certainly no more, and maybe a bit less now that the US is attempting to appeal to moderate Arabs. But maybe not. Israel is carping, but really, why should I care? The US isn't ever going to hand Israel over to the wolves, and I don't see anything wrong with asking Israel to earn the billions in dollars of aid it receives. The US has interests, too, and when they don't happen to coincide with Israel's interest there's going to be a little tension. That's happens in any relationship, but ultimately, the two countries need each other and like each other. If Israel disagrees with something Obama requests, Israel can say no (again), and I assure you nothing bad will happen. Both Bushes put so-called pressure on Israel, too, and when Israel rejected the demands life went on. Score: No disaster.

Your turn

If your life has gotten measurably worse over the last year, and you can credibly blame it on Obama, I'd like to know the details.Tell me in the comments, or submit a guest post.

---

Search for more information about telling GOP spouters to put up or shut up at 4torah.com.

Sadness

by DovBear | 5:18 AM |

---

---

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

A Different Rabbi's Perspective on Orthopraxy

by EFink | 5:15 PM |

---

A Guest Post By E. Fink

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is making headlines with his front page Jewish Press article in which he thoroughly disposes of Orthopraxy and ousts the Orthoprax from Modern Orthodoxy.

For a thorough fisking of the main parts of the article go to XGH's blog, this is his area of expertise.

What Rabbi Pruzansky's article made me ponder is the relevance of Orthopraxy to the average Frum Jew. In my opinion there are two kinds of Orthoprax Jews. There are Orthoprax theologians and Orthoprax by Default. The theologians are those that "believe" in Orthopraxy. XGH and others are the most vocal of this group. This is the group Rabbi Pruzansky heaps his disdain upon. He blames them for all of the problems he sees in his community and seems to think that if you sin, it must be because really you are Orthoprax. You must be the "non-believer in our midst". It is unseemly, and I do not wish to address his comments. (It's ironic because the Orthoprax, by dint of their theology value the acts of Judaism MORE than the beliefs of Judaism. While the Orthodox need to balance the two and one could be Orthodox and still sin all the time. That is why we have Yom Kippur and the mitzva of Teshuva. In other words, I would expect an Orthodox Jew to sin at least as often as an Orthoprax. But I digress.)

I think that within the Frum spectrum, from LWMO all the way through RW Yeshivish and Chasidish, there are many "closet" Orthoprax by Default Jews. I don't mean to say, they are Orthoprax on purpose. I mean that they practice Judaism purely out of habit or social pressure, or conditioning. These are the Frum people you see all the time that are simply uneducated or uninformed on the basic tenets of their beliefs. Sure, they may have memorized the 13 Ikkarim, or other formulae for their beliefs, but their actions speak way louder than their thoughts. They can't articulate why they do what they do. For many people, the issues of hashkafa and emunah are not part of their lives. They do all the mitzvos they can, they follow halacha, but it is void of any "theology". It is just their "lifestyle". That is also Orthoprax. And that is something that is common, prevalent and ubiquitous throughout any sect of Orthodox Judaism.

This is not ideal. But it is reality. Rabbi Pruzansky seems to assume that all Frum Jews who practice halachic Judaism are familiar with their "dox". But they are not. And sadly, these Jews do not even want to be Orthoprax, but they are by default. Instead of worrying about the people that have defined their beliefs as separate from traditional Frum Judaism, we would be better served helping the closet Orthoprax who WANT to be Orthodox become Orthodox in the truest sense of the word.

Our system has become great at creating robots. I call them Orthoprax by Default. We can do better...

---

Search for more information about Orthoprax by Default at 4torah.com.

Glenn Beck, A** Clown Extraordinaire

by DovBear | 1:22 PM |

---

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sour Gropes
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Old and new interpretations of the golden calf story

by DovBear | 9:27 AM |

---

Briefly, the ancient interpreters read the Golden Calf story this way:

After becoming concerned (via the instigation of Janes and Jambres) that Moshe would not return from Sinai, the people went to Hur and demanded a new leader. Hur said no, and was killed. When Aaron saw this he feared not only for his life, but also that the people would commit the unpardonable sin of murdering a priest,so he decided to stall. First, he told the people to go and collect gold from their wives, expecting the women would be reluctant to part with their jewelry. When this maneuver failed, he took the gold and tried to stall again by wrapping it in a cloth. Michah, a villain from the days of slavery,  took the bundle of gold and threw it onto a fire, together with a magical plate that had been used previously to raise the bones of Joseph from the Nile. Miraculously, a living, breathing, golden calf emerged from the fire. When Aaron saw this, he tried to stall again by building an alter and declaring that the next day would be a feast. Next morning, the people woke up early and reveled in front of the calf, committing all acts of debauchery. 

For several centuries this, with or without minor variations, was the official story of the golden calf. Its still taught today in Orthodox Jewish schools.

Modern interpreters approach the story differently, with their interpretation informed by the absence of some core assumptions. Most importantly, they do not assume that the story is the revealed word of God, nor do they assume that the books were written in the chronological order traditionally assigned to them.

According to some modern interpreters the golden calf story was written during the era of Israelite kings and it is really a disguised attack on Jeroboam and Aaron's descendants. They bolster this claim with the following observations:

(1) When the calf is ready, the people declare: "These are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt!" This, say the modern interpreters, is an odd thing for witnesses of the Exodus to say. They also note that these words are precisely what Jeroboam said five centuries later when he established golden claves in Dan and Bethel (I Kings 12:2‑33)

(2) Aaron and Jeroboam both had sons who died under unusual circumstances. Aaron's sons were called Nadav and Avihu; Jereboam's sons are Nadav and Aviya. Scholars say Avihu and Aviya are the same name, and in any case the similarities can't be a coincidence.

In the light of these observations (and many others) some modern interpreters propose that a  Levite wrote the golden calf story for the purpose of discrediting the Aaronid priesthood. As made clear in  1 Kings 12:31 Jeroboam didn't permit Levities to serve in his temples; the honor was reserved for Aaronids. According to this approach, the golden calf story was really written to discredit Jeroboam's calves and to discredit the Aaronid priests who served them.

A second modern interpretation is slightly different. This view proposes that the golden calf story was originally written (perhaps by an Aaronid priest) to justify Jeroboam's calves which, at first (the theory goes) were meant to serve the same purpose as the cherubim served in the southern Temple. Just as the people brought material to Moshe for the purpose of building the tabernacle and its utensils (including the cherubim), they also brought gold to Aaron for a similar purpose. When Aaron says the calf "came out of the fire" he's saying that it was created with God's assistance, and His blessing. Later,when Jeroboam's calves were worshiped as idols, their origin story was altered to show that they were really created in sin. This updated version of the legend is what we inherited in Exodus.

My View? I have no idea, and certainly would not wish for anyone to say I'm 100 percent behind either set of interpretations.

---

Search for more information about the golden calf at 4torah.com.

Golden Calf loose ends

by DovBear | 7:55 AM |

---

Update to my post about the sorcerers and their supposed role in building the golden calf.

Dating of the Jannes and Jambres texts

Testament of Solomon is an OT apocrypha written in Greek which Kugel puts in the first century BCE
Timothy was written by Paul, or by one of his disciples which puts it in the first century
Acts of Pilate is NT apocrypha and belongs to the second century.
BT Menachot is from somewhere between 300 and 600 CE, but the quote may be older.
Tanchuma is generally considered 5th century, though the thoughts and stories may be older.
TPJ is hard to date, and is usually placed in the 8th century, though some say its later then Rashi, while Kugel allows it may be much older.

The source that says Jannes and Jambres were Ballam's sons

Servants, actually, and it's TPJ. Oddly enough TPJ calls them יניס וימריס in Numbers where they are identified as Ballam's helpers, but יניס וימברס in Exodus where they are court magicians. I have no idea where this discrepancy originated, and therefore would hesitate before calling it an error (though that seems likely) or trying to guess who's error it might be.

Ok, ad kan on the sorcerers. More on Aaron and the calf later.

If anyone can explain why Rashi neglects to include them in his own account of the golden calf story (which is based 100 percent on the Tanchuma version, a version that does include J & J)  please email or comment.

---

Search for more information about Jannes and Jambres at 4torah.com.

How did the Sorcerers make the Golden Calf?

by DovBear | 3:35 PM |

---

How did the Sorcerers make the Golden Calf?

As we have seen [See: How did Aaron make the Golden Calf?] Rashi reads the text about Aaron's role in the creation of the golden calf in two very different ways. .

The text tells us the Aaron asked for gold, and that after the people donated their jewelry, he did... something. As Rashi reads it, Aaron either tied the gold up in a cloth, or, after melting down the gold, he cut the cooled material and engraved it with a goldsmith's tool. According to Rashi's second interpretation, Aaron's work would have yielded something like this (I tried, but couldn't find one showing a bovine animal. You get the idea.)  But if we follow the first interpretation, what happened after the raw material was tied up?

Here's more from Rashi:
As soon as they had cast it into the fire of the crucible, the sorcerers of the mixed multitude who had gone up with them from Egypt came and made it with sorcery. [See commentary on Exod. 12:38.] Others say that Micah was there, who had emerged from the layer of the building where he had been crushed in Egypt. (Sanh. 101b). In his hand was a plate upon which Moses had inscribed “Ascend, O ox; ascend, O ox,” to [miraculously] bring up Joseph’s coffin from the Nile. (Joseph being identified with the ox) They cast it [the plate] into the crucible, and the calf emerged.

Aside from the reliance on magic, which is groundless, something else about this comment troubles me. I don't see what in the text forces Rashi to reach back to a midrash about Micha. Rashi, as I've said before, is not an anthology of midrashim. He chooses them carefully and uses them deliberately. His objective, as he tells us in his comment to Genesis 3:8, is to "... to teach the plain meaning of the passage and such Aggadah which explains the words of the Bible."  In other words, he uses midrashim to solve textual problems. But here I don't see what problem is being solved with the fanciful story about Micha..

More interesting things about the sorcerers
Though Rashi names only Micha, his source, the Tanchuma, names two other magicians: Jannes and Jambres. These two men are identified as sorcerers in Pharaoh's court in a variety of texts, including:

:: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (where they are called  יניס וימברס and identified as the two who told Pharaoh to throw Jewish boy-babies into the river)
:: Acts of Pilate (where they are called Iannēs and Iambrēs where they are named as Pharaoh's magicians)
:: Testament of Solomon (Pharoh's magicians)
:: Gospel of Timothy:  (Iannēs and Iambrēs and called "two who withstood Moses")
:: BT Menchoth 85a (where they are called Yochana and Mamre and identified as Pharaoh's advisors)
:: Tanchuma: (Pharaoh's magicians and called  יונו"ס ויומברו"ס)

Other things I'd like to do, but its late and I'm hungry:

(1) Provide the dating for the sources. I know Tanchuma is last, and BT Menachoth is second to last, but I forget when TPJ and Timothy fall. I think Testament of Solomon in probably first.
(2) Look up the source that says Jannes and Jambres were Ballam's sons. I think it was the Targum Yerushalmi, but I forget.
(3) Attempt to explain how two different traditions emerged about Jannes and Jambres emerged. Why does one source say they were Ballam's sons, when so many others say they were Pharaoh's advisors?
(4) Say a few words about the better known tradition that it was actually Balaam, Job and Jethro who were Pharaoh's advisors. Though this is more famous tradition, its actually later. I'd like to explain why its more famous tradition and to tell you where I think it came from.
(5) Share with your a theory about Janes and Jambre which suggests that they were created for polemical reasons. Jannes, the theory goes, is a disguised attack on Alexander Yannai and/or Yochanan Hyrkanes. I think this is quite plausible (I forget who Jambre is supposed to be)

Sorry for the partially finished post...

---

Search for more information about shadowy Old Testament figures at 4torah.com.

Great Moments in Advertising

by DovBear | 2:03 PM |

---

 related

---

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

Talking about Sarah Hurwitz

by DovBear | 9:07 AM |

---

Been arguing elsewhere with some bigshots on Twitter about Sarah Hurwitz and the RCA's capitulation.

Points of disagreement include:

Was it a capitulation on the part of the RCA?
I say yes. Avi Weiss got everything he wanted, specifically a highly trained female assistant to minister to the women in his congregation. It makes sense to call her Rabba, in that she is acting like a modern Rabbi, and has the same training and credentials as any modern Rabbi, but wisely Avi Weiss decided that her title shouldn't be a deal breaker. Sarah Hurwitz is back to being a Maharat, but functioning for all intents and purposes like a Rabbi.

Should Avi Weiss be allowed to hire a highly trained female assistant to minister to the women in his congregation?
Again, I say yes and fail to understand how our law or religion might object. Still, some of the Twitter chevra believe its contrary to the halacha for reasons that have not as yet been revealed to me.

Does Jewish tradition have anything to say about this?
I say no. The things Jews happened to do, or refrained from doing, over the course of the last 2000 years do not necessarily constitute a "religious tradition." Some of it is "just stuff we did."  If you want to declare a particular practice part of the religious tradition you must supply grounds. To date no evidence has been supplied that male-only Rabbis is part of our "religious tradition" dating back to Sinai.  Instead, all of the evidence suggests that our ban on female rabbis is closely related to the flawed perception of women, and the  flawed theory about the sort of work women are capable of performing that infected the world at large until very recently. For eons, there were no female doctors, lawyers, teachers, or judges. Absent proof of a religious tradition, its reasonable to say that Jews had no female rabbis for the same reason the rest of the world had no female CEOs.

Addendum to this point Even if it can be shown that we have a religious tradition of male only rabbis, it has to be further demonstrated that this tradition applies to modern Rabbis. Today, our rabbis are not inheritors of a tradition of smicha dating back to Moshe. With rare exceptions, they are not dayanim, and they are not poskim. Most don't even work in shuls or schools, and those that do are simply teachers or ministers, functions that women quite capably perform. Modern Rabbis are called "Rabbi" simply by virtue of their degree or their job. A woman who has the same job or holds the same degree should have the respect of the same title, and the higher pay scale that often accompanies it. Even if the smicha tradition precludes women (a contention yet to be proven) the modern rabbinate is something else and no different from any other job. A woman can earn this particular degree and hold this particular job just as she can earn any other degree and hold any other job.

N.B: I'll post the Twitter conversations if all parties consent.

---

Search for more information about Sara Hurwitz at 4torah.com.

The Jew York Times again

by DovBear | 12:24 PM |

---

One of the evil Cossak reporter at the Jew-hating New York Times has published an article that appears like it might treat Orthodox Jews fairly, and perhaps even with sympathy. Of course this is impossible, and I'm certain I've misread it.

The subject of the article is how the recent East coast blizzard damaged eruvim making Shabos life hard for frum Jews. You can find it here

Please do your best to help me explain why this article is, in fact, deeply anti-Semitic. The cherished, and unexamined belief of countless GOP Jews depends on it. 

HT: @scazon

---

Search for more information about crucial GOP Jew shibboleths at 4torah.com.

What Aaron saw

by DovBear | 11:18 AM |

---

Exodus 32:5

וַיַּ֣רְא אַהֲרֹ֔ן וַיִּ֥בֶן מִזְבֵּ֖חַ לְפָנָ֑יו וַיִּקְרָ֤א אַֽהֲרֹן֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר חַ֥ג לַיהוָ֖ה מָחָֽר׃

And when Aaron saw it he built an altar before it and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD

Saw it? What did he see?

According to the ancient interpreters, what he saw was the murder of his nephew Hur. (I don't recall where this first appears, but believe its in the apocrypha. TPJ and TN both have it) Another possibly, also suggested by an ancient interpreter (again, I forget who) is that he saw the angry mob.

Both possibilities are cleverly captured in the Peshita, where it says not that Aaron saw, but that he was afraid (In Hebrew the words are the same.)

All of these explanations are needed; without them the verse tells us that "Aaron saw the golden calf and built an alter." This reading, though the plain intention of the verse, was untenable to the ancient interpreters who could not tolerate the idea that Aaron might have built the altar of his own volition.

---

Search for more information about Aaron and the Golden Calf at 4torah.com.

Tribal lands

by DovBear | 11:05 AM |

---

A GUEST POST BY NETANEL OF GSHMAKA DVAR TORAH

Twice in our history Hashem has said He wanted to destroy the Jews, and twice Moshe "argued" with Hashem and won: by the Golden Calf and the spies.

The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 44:9 + Bamidbar Rabba 16:22) have 4 stage conversations with Moshe and Hashem:
1. Hashem says He wants to destroy the Jews
2. Moshe says that Hashem made a promise to the Patriarchs
3. Hashem says that He will let Moshe be the sole survivor, and fulfil the promise through Moshe

Here is where they differ - at the Golden Calf Moshe says that he cannot become a nation, as he only represents one tribe - Levi! Moshe says that all the Tribes have an assurance, at which point Hashem concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

By the spies, this fourth point is different - Moshe says that letting the nation continue through him would be a Chillul Hashem - a desecration of G-d's Name - that people would speculate that Hashem could not sustain them in the desert, and so they died. Hashem replies that these people will have heard of His miracles in Egypt, so this would have no basis! Moshe counters by saying that perhaps people will say that the kings of Canaan were too great for the G-d of the Jews, at which point G-d concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

His "flesh" was [something] like a turnip: Great moments in Torah learning

by DovBear | 8:50 AM |

---

This week, the daf yomi arrived at BT Sanherdrin 19 and a discussion of the virtues of Boaz, the husband of Rus, that leads Rav to retell a ribald pun.

Here is the passage, according to the Soncino Press translation:

R. Johanan said: Joseph's strong [temptation] was but a petty trial [compared] to Boaz; and that of Boaz was small in comparison with that of Palti son of Layish. 'Joseph's strong temptation was but a petty trial to Boaz,' as it is written, And it came to pass at midnight and the man was startled [Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah, Vayecherad ha'Ish Vayilafes]. What is the meaning of Vayilafes?** — Rav said: His flesh became [as hard] as turnip heads [ie a "lefes".]

This translation follows Rashi, who says "it got hard, and nonetheless he conquered his inclination." Boaz's trial, or test, is deemed more challenging then Joseph's test, as Ruth propositioned Boaz at midnight in an unlit barn that he owned, and also she was unmarried and, I'm guessing, hot whereas Joseph was invited to bed by an older woman who was not only married, but married to his master. The Talmud's point is that saying no to Ruth was harder then saying no to Potiphar's wife.

However some quick Googling suggests a problem. Rav's pun, and indeed the Talmud's discussion about Boaz's virtue relative to Yosef and Palti, appears based on the Targum on Ruth, which reads as follows:

And it happened at midnight that the man shuddered and trembled, and, as a result, his flesh became as soft as a [boiled] turnip. Though he perceived a woman sleeping at his feet, he subdued his evil inclination and did not draw nigh unto her, just like the righteous Joseph, who refused to draw nigh unto the Egyptian woman, the wife of his master; and just like the pious Paltiel, the son of Laish, who placed a sword between himself and Michal, the daughter of Saul and wife of David, refusing to approach her. [Samuel H. Levy translation]

So, soft or hard?

Its impossible for me to guess what happened here. Rav may have intended what the Targum intended only Rashi misunderstood him. (At times Rashi rewrites the Targum and at times appears ignorant of it or in possession of a different text.) [And see this other example of Rashi appearing unaware of something Ruth-related]

Alternatively, the problem may have begun with Rav. Perhaps he had a different text himself, or perhaps he rewrote it himself because, let's face it, the comparison to Palti and Michal makes more sense if Boaz was aroused, and not much sense at all if he was terrified.

True believers, what do you think?

UPDATE:
It actually makes MORE sense if Boaz was terrified. Follow my reasoning. Joseph was terrified of his master and in an open house during daylights hours, so his refusal to sin isn't so impressive. Boaz, however, was in an unlit barn he owned but was also terrified and also refused to sin. Finally, Palti was in his own bed, in his own house, for several years yet refused to sin, and because the woman in his bed was the King's wife, he also was terrified.  If we say Boaz was aroused, rather than terrified, this extra variable destroys what is otherwise some neat midrashic parallelism.

**That verb Vayilafes is a real problem. On the spot, Ibn Ezra references Job 6:18 [wind, or turn aside]; Rashi points to Judges 16:29 [grasp].

---

Search for more information about salacious Talmudic puns  at 4torah.com.

The Martin Grossman G'mach

by DovBear | 11:33 AM |

---

A sharper in Williamsburg is attempting to capitalize on the execution of cop-killer Martin Grossman. He's running ads asking people to donate money to a free-loan society in Martin's memory. Here's what it says:

We tried, Reb Michoel Yechiel Grossman a”h, to save your body from harm, but miShomayim it was otherwise decreed. However, for your neshama, there is salvation.

Your name has been inscribed in the keren kayemes of Kolel Shomre Hachomos in Yerushalayim. For this coming year till Adar 5771, Mishnayos will be learned, Kaddish will be said, and a lecht will be lit in your memory.

Dear Acheinu bnei Yisroel, since Reb Michoel Yechiel a”h did not leave any children nor close religious relatives, our board of directors have initiated a special “Free Loan Fund,” “Gemach Michoel Yechiel ben R’ Avrohom Grossman a”h,” which will serve as a loaning gemach to those in need in Yerushalayim. Each time money will be spent from this gemach, it’ll be a zechus and an aliyah for his neshama

My thoughts? Free loan societies are wonderful. They deserve our support -- even if this particular campaign is the crassest exploitation of a dead Jew since the Gospels.

What's next? Something for Bugsy Seigel?

HT: MarkSofla

---

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

Do Democrats or Republicans follow more of the 613 mitzvot?

by DovBear | 7:42 AM |

---

In 2007, I foolishly attempted to answer the title question, ran into all sorts of fallacies and methodology problems, but pressed ahead and reached a bogus conclusion suitable for arguing about. See it all:

The introductory post

The positive commandments

The negative commandments

I bring this up because of something someone said this morning on Twitter. Should you wish to comment on any of the three posts, please do so here.

---

Search for more information about fool's errands at 4torah.com. 

the miraculous blizzard that didn't happen

by Rafi G. | 6:50 AM |

---

A Guest Post by Rafi G

The Hamodia recently ran a story about the Reichman family, describing how they were miraculously saved from the Holocaust, escaping right in the early stages, through miraculous means, as they were traveling abroad for a bar mitzvah of a relative and got stuck abroad right before their community was raided by the Nazis and all the Jews were rounded up, deservedly so because of their greatness and charity.

In this weeks Hamodia, someone wrote in a letter to the Magazine section with another story about how the Reichman's were saved at a different time also when traveling for a bar mitzvah.

This new story, briefly, goes like this:
There was a Reichman bar mitzvah in Kew Garden Hills. All the Reichman's planned to fly in for the simcha. The weather bureau predicted a massive snowstorm that would have locked up the whole East Coast with 12 to 24 inches of snow on Friday. Baltimore and Washington were already shut down with a massive snowstorm, and New York was expected to be next.

They shut down the schools and prepared for the storm. As the day progressed, they could not understand why no snow was falling. The simcha was celebrated "in all its glory", unhindered by any massive snowstorm.

What happened? The meteorologists said that it did snow over New York, but "a dome of dry air" hovered above the city and prevented the snow from hitting the ground.

The writer continues saying that we all knew the real reason - Hashem would not allow such baalei chessed to be disturbed by a blizzard. A lesson in bitachon.

What do you think of this story? Does Hashem change the nature of the world just so some people, even great people, can have a fancy party?

---

Search for more information about miraculous stories at 4torah.com.

Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.

Don't Forget to Check the Gefilte Fish!

by DovBear | 11:49 AM |

---

Some Guest Sarcasm by Akiva of Mystical Paths

Occasionally I'm overcome by something bit of frum society jumping the shark into complete wackiness. For those who haven't heard, we are currently suffering from the great fish scare of 5770. Seems fish can have worms! Who knew? Actually, the sages of the Gemora knew, and their halachic rulings on fish worms is firmly codified into Jewish law (which basically is, fish worms - not a halachic problem). No authority since has touched this halachic firm ground.

...Until this month when there was a halachic earthquake (of no similarity to Chile or Haiti). Suddenly a rav discovered that there's worms in fish! And it can't be that the Gemora would actually allow the eating of worms! So today's worms must be "new" worms, and the Gemora speaks of "old" worms. New worms are therefore treif, old worms (which must have been another not really visible kind, therefore being allowed) aren't around anymore - but if they were they'd be ok.

[ I should note that so far most authorities completely disagree with this position, and the O-U says it's bunk. So don't go running and throwing out all your fish just yet. ]

Now I'm not a halachic authority. I haven't reviewed the full arguments, nor am I qualified to determine whether the halachic reasoning is sound. However, I think I can spot when something just isn't right...

The following list came out from the Rabbinical Council of California (as published on Jerusalem Kosher News)...

---
Rabbinical Council of California - Fish Update 2/20/2010

The following are the preliminary findings of various fish experts. We will update this list as new information is received. The Anisakis worm is found in the following fish (frozen or fresh) and may not be eaten unless checked for worms. [Even with a hechscher]

Butterfish
Canned Salmon (wild)
Cod: Scrod, Hake
Flounder: Yellow Tail/ Wild Dabs/ Black Backs, Turbot, Yellow Fin Sole
Halibut
Pacific Red Snapper (Eastern or Atlantic Red Snapper is a different variety and is OK)
Pollack – Alaskan – Fillet fish sticks or patties
Red Perch
Sable a.k.a Black Cod
Sardines – Norway, Scotland
Sole
Wild Salmon – All types
Yellow Fin Sole

The following fish do not require checking:

Carp
Farm Raised Salmon [E.g. Atlantic, Norwegian, Chilean, New Zealand, British Columbia)
Flounder – Only Fluke, Georgia Banks, Channel
Gefilte Fish
Herring fillet
Lox [Farm raised, if wild would state "wild"]
Minced Fish Sticks
Pike
Pollock - Atlantic
Sardines from Morocco, Philippines, Portugal
Sea Bass – Striped Bass, Grouper (Mexican), Blue Nose (New Zealand)
Tilapia
Trout
Tuna
Whitefish: Michigan - Lake Superior [Some allow the Canadian as well}
Whiting

Checking:

Fish with white flesh can be checked [after the skin is removed) by shining a flashlight from underneath or holding up to a bright light. They may appear as extended worms or coiled in a circle. They are readily visible. Salmon or pink fish require an ultraviolet light and some expertise to check.
---

** So for me this list raised the following questions:

1. The Rabbinical Council of _California_ is making a world-wide psak? (Or just for California?)

2. Will the shining a light technique work if I place the light below an unopened can of wild salmon? Will it work on the cooked product (given that canned salmon is cooked prior to opening)? How does one hold a cooked juicy hunk of canned salmon up to the light?

3. Pollack - used for fish sticks or patties, can be checked for worms after being minced or ground for patties?

4. Checking Sardines? Could someone explain how this could be done?

5. Gefilte fish? Is this a Purim shpiel? There is no such thing as a gefilte fish! Rather, it’s ground fish of various varieties, some of which are on the NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT INSPECTION list above. “Traditionally, carp, pike, mullet, or whitefish are used to make gefilte fish, but more recently other fish with white flesh such as Nile Perch have been used, and there is a pink variation using salmon.”

6. Fish sticks appear on both lists! So which is it, check (as noted, how???) or not check? [See Pollack list 1, Minced list 2.] Further, fish sticks are made from “pollack or cod”, both of which are on the check list!

Seems to me that this list is confusing, conflicting, and not well thought out. Further I'm betting Gefilte Fish made the "don't check" list because nobody would even consider a list that declared Gefilte Fish treif. Disgusting maybe, but treif - never.

---

Search for more information about fishy halachic rulings at 4torah.com. 

Old Hebrew note unveiled

by DovBear | 9:43 AM |

---

BAR is reporting that a "a five-line, 6-by-6-inch ostracon, an inscription on a broken piece of pottery used as a kind of ancient notepaper" has been found on the 10th century remains of a fort at Ellah, near what was the Philistine border. The writing is faded, and has not been deciphered, though there seems to be reasonable grounds for identifying it as Hebrew.

If so, the Gezer Calendar, previously the oldest known example of Hebrew writing may have a challenger.

---

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

The Crazy thing a Crazy T-Bagger said Today

by DovBear | 8:36 AM |

---

The other day Glenn Beck, one of the top ten disgusting Americans living today, told his radio audience:

"You have to think like a German Jew in 1934." [See it]

He said this because he is trying to convince people to buy gold. He wants people to buy gold because Goldline is one of his biggest advertisers, and he is a paid spokesman for the company. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck does a fair amount of his gold pushing during what are represented to the audience as legitimate news segments.

Scaring the hell out of people via lies about the economy for the purpose of generating business for your sponsor is about as low as it gets.

---

Search for more information about the awful people GOPniks support at 4torah.com.

Downfall Purim Shpiel

by DovBear | 9:11 AM |

---

---

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

Let's turn our attention to Tisha B'av for a moment

by DovBear | 8:28 AM |

---

Last night I saw an article by Alistair Horne in which the eminent historian of France suggests that most if not all the horrors of the 20th century could have been avoided had the French only responded differently to the Ems Telegram. As Horne tells it, the dispatch was designed by Bismark, the Prussian statesman, to goad the French into a war the couldn't win. The gambit worked, and the French were defeated in weeks costing them Alsace-Lorraine and leaving the world with a unified German state and permanent French animosity toward Germany.

(The war also gave us the viciously anti-clerical Paris Commune, whose offenses against the Church -including the murder of Paris's archbishop- fed the resentments of miserably reactionary French Catholics who eventually capped decades of anti-Semitic invective with their feverish campaign against Dreyfus.)

Had the telegram been ignored, Horne argues, the predominant cause of World War 1 would have been removed, and no World War 1 would have meant no Hitler, which in turn would have meant no World War 2, no Holocaust, and no Cold War.

You're familiar with the teaching, I'm sure, that all bad things can be traced to Tish B'Av. Indeed, World War 2 is often traced to Tisha B'av via the murder of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 who, we're told, had his fatal collision with a bullet on 9 Av. Alas, as it happens, this is wrong -the Archduke was murdered on 4 Tamuz- however, the first declaration of war was on 5 Av, the first mobilization was on 8 Av, and the German declaration of war came on 9 Av.

With this in mind, part of me fully expected to find that the Ems Telegram had also been issued on 9 Av. It wasn't. However, the first action of the war was on 6 Av, and the first of three critical French defeats occurred on 7 Av.

So who knows.

---

Search for more information about the Prusso-French War at 4torah.com.

In Science We Trust

by EFink | 8:53 AM |

---

A Guest Post By E. Fink

You gotta love this attempt to ban salmon and other fish by Rabbi Moshe Karp of Modi'in Illit in Israel.

Karp is the same Charedi rabbi who banned the internet, including charedi new sites. He is a posek in Kiryat Sefer, home to recent bans on sheitel heads and eyebrow waxing ads.

Now he has his sights set on banning fish. His rationale? The anisakis. The anisakis is a parasite that lives in fish. The Gemara says that an anisakis is permitted to be eaten because it is considered "part of the fish" as it is generated inside the fish. The Shulchan Aruch codifies this as law and for thousands of years, we have been eating fish with anisakis.

Karp spoke with the kashrus gurus in the USA who summarily dismissed Karp's ban. Salmon is kosher and will certainly remain kosher stateside. By the way, one of the American rabbis is named Fishbane. So on one side you have Karp and on the other side you have Fishbane.

Are you wondering why Karp is trying to ban fish if the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch permit it? Because SCIENCE has shown that the talmudic rabbis misunderstood the nature of the anisakis. Wait, what? Karp is relying on science? Chazal's science was imperfect? Are they going to revoke his Semicha for this?

Isn't Karp part of the whole "Chazal knew science better than we do?" Crew? Until a limitation on Chazal's ability to understand science could lead to a ban! Aha!

I am so confused right now, I think my head is going to explode.

(Don't worry, those who are permitted fish despite Karp's attempts say Karp doesn't understand the science correctly and there is no halachic reason to issue the ban.)

HT: The Jewish Star

---

Search for more information about parasites in fish and in modi'in illit at 4torah.com.

Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.