Support the Pathetic Annual Telethon

I give up. The previous links didn't work. Please use this button instead.

Best signs spotted at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear


From here

I support Barack "Who's Sane" Obama
I don't think we'd ever poop at a rally.
Patriotism is using your inside voice.
Masturbation cures hysteria
Sane people for fear of bears
Bring back Crystal Pepsi
Down with this sort of thing!
Hurry up, I've got a sitter.
THIS FONT IS BIG.
Gay marriage will extinguish the sun.
I'm Xena-phobic
Socialism: putting your kids through school since the late 19th century.
Pudgy white men know best (Deuteronomy 22:10)
Hyperbole is the greatest threat of all time!!!
My taxes aren't as high as I am!
Less rhetoric, more cowbell.
I am against picketing, but I don't know how to show it!
Restore Santa!
The hand of the free market touched me in a bad place.
The Rent Is Too Damn High.

Early unconfirmed reports are the hippie rally beat Beck's march by a landslide. Good.

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

Chayyei Sarah Notes


What everyone should know:
The Talmud presents a view that Abraham had a daughter, based on the verse: "And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything." And what's everything without a daughter? The same Talmud also presents the view that "having everything" means that he had no daughter. See more here

Famous Argument
- Did Sarah die right after the akeida? Unclear. Those who say she did have Rashi and the juxtaposition of the stories to hang their hats on; also the verse says "Abraham came", and the Midrash says he was coming from the akeida. Others more plausibly point to the verses that say that after the akeida Abraham and his entourage "rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba," while Sarah died in Chevron. [more]

- Was Keturah another name for Hagar? Probably not, though an often unremarked upon bit of evidence is this: when Yitzchak meets Rachel, we're told he's just returned from Bear Lachi Ro'ee, but no reason for his trip is given. Hagar's last known place of residence, per the text, is Bear Lachi Ro'ee. This is a great example of midrash at its finest. The unnecessary detail of Yitzchak returning from a trip supports the possibility that Yitzchak was the agent who brought Hagar back to his father.

Famous Rashi:
Genesis 24:39: Per Rashi, Abraham's servant wanted his own daughter to marry Isaac. How did Rashi know this? See my explanation here and here

Famous Vort
- During Abraham's negotiation with Ephron, the phrase "Kvor maysecha/ bury your dead" is used six times,while the words "v'es maysicha kvor/ and your dead go and bury" is said once. This corresponds to the seven people buried in Machpayla. The first six - the Patriarchs and their wives - were righteous, and the righteous never really die; correspondingly six times burial is mentioned before death. The last to be interred in the cave was Esav, who, arguably, was non righteous. The mention of death before burial refers to him. (Vilna Gaon)

Irony
Abraham has been assured again and again that all of the Land will be his, yet he's forced to bargain for a death plot with the Hittites. This, I suppose, is why Rabenu Yona considered this episode Abraham's final test.

Anomalies
(1) Gen 23:5-6: וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי־חֵת אֶת־אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר לֹו שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה בְּתֹוכֵנוּ בְּמִבְחַר קְבָרֵינוּ קְבֹר אֶת־מֵתֶךָ אִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת־קִבְרֹו לֹא־יִכְלֶה מִמְּךָ מִקְּבֹר מֵתֶךָ׃
Gen 23:14 וַיַּעַן עֶפְרֹון אֶת־אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר לֹו אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי אֶרֶץ אַרְבַּע מֵאֹת שֶׁקֶל־כֶּסֶף בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ מַה־הִוא וְאֶת־מֵתְךָ קְבֹר׃
In both places the MT gives "lo / to him" which is a problem because nowhere else in the story in the formula "לֵאמֹר לֹו" employed (see verses 8,10, and 13 where its לֵאמֹר alone) Alter suggests that in the two instances where the MT gives lo, the word isn't lo but "lu / pray." He notes that "lu adoni / Pray, my Lord" is a formal, polite way to introduce negotiations.

(2) Gen 25:8 ויגוע וימת אברהם בשיבה טובה זקן ושבע ויאסף אל־עמיו׃
The MT has only "sated." The Peshita, the LXX and the Samaritan give us the more common "sated with years"

(3) Bethuel is present at one point in the story but missing at others. Rashi, following the midrash, tell us he died during the night. Using ANE documents which describe how bridal negotiations were conducted in that time and place, Robert Alter gives another view.

(4) Gen 25:6: Rashi "[The word pilagshim] is written lacking [ie, with no yud, to denote] that there was only one concubine, [ie Hagar]" In the MT the word is malay (spelled with a yud.) Even the Saperstein chumash concedes this can only mean that Rashiw as working from a text that was, here at least, different from the MT.

Historical Accuracy
-Abraham weighs out the payment for the cave and field. This is accurate for the period, which predates the use of coins.
-When the servant propositions Rivka he presents her with a nose ring.

Motif Alert
The first of many betrothal scenes appears this week, all of which have the following elements in common: A well, a heroic act, someone rushing to deliver the news to others, and a meal. The scene in Chayyei Sarah is unique in that a surrogate appears for the groom, and the woman, not the man, draws the water and performs the heroic act. This portrayal is in keeping with how Isaac and Rebecca are characterized: In other stories, he is weak, bedridden, and withdrawn, while she is active, scheming and dramatic.

Changed Midrash
After  Yitzchak brings Rivka into his mother's tent, he's comforted. Rashi tells us the comfort came from the fact that three miracles that Sara enjoyed reappeared. Rashi says three practices were resumed. The Midrash, however, says there were four miracles. four practices that resumed when Rivka arrived: (1) A cloud was over the tent; (2) the poor were always welcomed (3) Candles burned from one week to the next and(4) The dough received an unspecified blessing. Rashi makes no mention of #2.


Anachronism
Camels in Genesis, the critics allege, are a problem as they were not domesticated until many years after the Patriarchal period. If so, how can they feature prominently as a prop in the betrothal scene at the well? See my solutions 1 and 2

---------
Buy my book. (please)




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

What are Israeli settlers doing to Arab olive trees?


It says in the Torah that fruit trees are not to be destroyed even during  a time of war. This article, which is biased of course, makes it seem like Jews are poisoning Arab owned olive trees. What gives?


Search for more information about questions I can't answer at 4torah.com.

And Lord blessed Abraham BaKol


וְאַבְרָהָ֣ם זָקֵ֔ן בָּ֖א בַּיָּמִ֑ים וַֽיהוָ֛ה בֵּרַ֥ךְ אֶת־ אַבְרָהָ֖ם בַּכֹּֽל
Abraham was now a very old man, and the LORD had blessed him in [BaKol] every way.
-- Gen 21:1

What does the word BaKol mean?
  1. With a voice, that is a kol (@Jyuter)  (He was kidding)
  2. Abraham was blessed that he had no daughter, (presumably because this spared him the  impossible task of finding her a husband) (Rabbi Meir)
  3. The final blessing, the blessing the meant he had everything, without exception, was a daughter (Rabbi Yehuda)
  4. The blessing was a daughter and her name was "BaKol" (Acherim, or "others"; understood to be students of the Tannaim, or alternatively, Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya)
  5. Wealth, possessions, honor, long life, and children (Ibn Ezra)
  6. Land. This is why Abraham was not said to be blessed with "everything" until he purchased the Maarat Hamachpela
  7. A mystical attribute called bat (Ramban)
Great moments in Torah commentary: Ibn Ezra argues that Acherim must be wrong, because had the Torah meant to tell us that the daughter was named BaKol, it would have written B'BaKol, ie with Ba|Kol. In response, the Ramban says, 
"Now had the commentator who prides himself in knowing Torah secrets known this one (i.e. the mystical bat attribute) his lips would have been silent, and he would not have derided the words of the Rabbis. Therefore, I wrote this (i.e several paragraphs about the bat attribute) to shut down the moth that speaks against the righteous ones." 
What a good thing the Ramban didn't own a blog. Had he spoken that way against Ibn Ezra online, everyone would have lined up to scold him about his nasty tone.


Search for more information about Holy Hyrax at 4torah.com.

The problems of Orthodox Jewry in one picture


THE PROBLEMS OF ORTHODOX JEWRY ILLUSTRATED IN ONE PICTURE
(or a picture is worth a thousand blog posts)

A guest post by: MarkSoFla

Someone on twitter posted a link to this book saying it is interesting. I went to the link and read the table of contents, introduction, and the first chapter (which is provided on the book order page). It seemed interesting, and perhaps is a worthy idea to help bridge the divide between Orthodox Jewry and non-Orthodox Jewry. And if not quite "bridge", at least explain the divide somewhat.

But then I suddenly realized that the cover alone illustrates a different divide, a divide between the different groups of Orthodox Jewry. Looking at the photograph of the book cover, I realized that the family on the right is what the book is referring to as the non-Orthodox family and the family on the left is the Orthodox family. And then it struck me, MY family looks a lot like the one on the right (except with more children, and me and the boys usually wearing shorts and sandals)! Do they, certainly the author, think that my family is not Orthodox?

And the cover really does say it all. The family on the right is very likely to be completely Orthodox and is what is commonly called Modern Orthodox. It is clear that the man and boy have their heads covered, and the woman is dressed modestly (from what we can tell in the photo). The author could have certainly picked a MUCH better illustration of a non-Orthodox family if one was really needed for the cover of his book. Even the verbiage on the cover shows that the author thinks that all Orthodox Jews do the same things, wear the same clothes, and think the same thoughts. And that is definitely not universally true. We surely share the same beliefs about many things, we all follow the mitzvot that God commanded us, but we DO NOT all dress alike, do not think alike, and so not all do the same things. Sorry David Baum, the book may be great, but the cover stinks.

DB: Update: The chapter on homosexuality also stinks. If this account is accurate, the book and its author are completely discredited.


Search for more information about how to get your guest post published on DovBear at 4torah.com.

What happens when Pugsley goes off the derech?


Most of you, I expect will not have time to watch this, and many of you may also find it a little dull. It's an old Addams Family episode in which Fester, Morticia, and Gomez panic when their son, Pugsely, gives up the family's way of life in favor of what he finds attractive in the outside world.

As a dark parody of Charedi superstitions, though, I think it works rather nicely.



P.S This isn't the only time that the Addams have reminded me of our world. The 1964 Halloween episode depicts practices and habits that reminded me of Purim in the holiest homes.

Search for more information about how Harry Potter is also reminiscent of Orthodox Judaism  at 4torah.com.

POTUS on TDS


Here are the tweets I posted as Obama was being interviewed last night on The Daily Show with John Stewart. Those of you who care about one thing, and one thing only, can move along: Israel wasn't mentioned.

Overall: I thought it was a pretty good interview. The president bragged a lot, and fielded his share of softballs, but Stewart, almost to the point of whining, did push the President on failed campaign promises, and timidity.

You can see the whole thing here

MY TWEETS (with some insignificant edits) 

Applause, applause. POUTUS on TDS. First joke is about the crazy D.C. set. Reminds JS of the convention.

Says: Toughest two years since depression Economy that was shrinking is now growing and nine months of job growth #obama on #tds

Ends first segment credibly braging about achievments of first two years "under difficult circumstances" #obama #tds #fb

Stewart asks "If you achieved so much why aren't any Democrats running on your record?" (See how's its done Oreilly?) #obama #tds #fb

BHO says this is what we ran on and that's what we did. Seems surprised millions who came out in 08 have switched on him #obama #tds #fb

Calls Health Care Reform most significant legislation in history and says pls focus on 90 percent we got not the 10 we didn't #obama #tds #fb

Stewart criticizing Obama again for being timid, not enough reform of process (OReilly this is how non lapdog media behaves) #obama #tds #fb

BHO making point now he's not as much in pocket of lobbyists as Bush was. #obama #tds #fb

Stewart continuing to criticize health reform flaws. Obama (figuratively) slaps him with a smile #obama #tds #fb

BHO: "If you're trying to say we didn't reform the US health system overnight that point is made" #obama #tds #fb

Back from commercial Stweart continues to whine not enough change, reform or "rooting out of corruption" #obama #tds #fb

BHO says Larry Summers did a heck of a job. Place cracks up. Blooper? #obama #tds #fb

BHO argues less spent as percentage of GNP to fix recession then was spent on savings and loans. He's still bragging #obama #tds #fb

BHO now says most jobs were lost BEFORE his economic policies were put in place or had effect. #obama #tds #fb

By the way people who are hypersensitive to meaningless symbols BHO is wearing a flag pin #obama #tds #fb

Big finish: Promises energy and immigration reform and more job growth #obama #tds #fb

Finished. Blah interview Was glad Stewart pushed him. #obama #tds #fb


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

I thought Meg Whitman was smart...


.. so what was she thinking when she inadvertently endorsed her opponent Jerry Brown?



Really too funny. Meg confesses that California was at its best when Jerry was Governor, and doesn't even seem to realize it.

And this is representative of a larger problem: Republicans have this knee-jerk, reflective, glossy, nostalgic view of the past without seeming to realize that THE ERA THEY ROMANTICIZE WAS TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT CREATED BY LIBERALS!


Search for more information about truth about the past  at 4torah.com.

Tea Party Values* = Head Stomping


Excellent personal responsibility from a thuggish Republican here:

Rand Paul Head-Stomper To Victim: ‘I Would Like For Her To Apologize To Me’

Read the ThinkProgress item after the jump

The Blame Game


A Guest Post By E. Fink

Have a look at the "pinned" article on Vosizneias.com. (link)

Mishpacha Magazine has an article about frum youth who are "fleeing the fold" (somehow VIN manages to created new idioms by mixing metaphors all the time. I think they meant "leaving the fold". FYI - leaving the fold generates 7.6 Million google results, "fleeing the fold" generates 350k).

Two noteworthy things jumped out at me.

1) The article claims that more youth appear to frum on the outside but on the inside are not. They will break Shabbos in private or be lax with kashrus if no one is looking. The article seems to think this is a new phenomenon. It isn't. But more importantly, there is an obvious reason that this would happen. There is so much focus on external / social Judaism in the frum community. The message has been sent and received. How we are perceived by others is so important in frum circles teens are just mirroring the priorities of their parents and role models.

2) As the VIN post indicates, the article basically blames the "secular world". For example: "Every inappropriate billboard and secular entertainment show shouts to our children: ‘Leis din v’leis dayan’— live life as you please!". (And no this is not even remotely true - the point is that the frum world believes this!). The article makes the point that today's culture and technology are the reason so many frum Jews are "fleeing the fold".

This bothers me. First of all, there have always been "temptations". The modern era just makes them more accessible. But they have always been there. That is exactly why God gave us the Torah. To help us avoid temptation. Second, the article makes the case that we need to be more insulated to prevent youth from "fleeing the fold". If that were the solution then God would have simply commanded us to live in caves and not interact with the rest of the world. Obviously, this is not the case. The Torah was given to assist us in living in this world and yet resist temptation. The solution is not to avoid contact with the world, the solution is to use the Torah as a basis for making good choices within that world.

Of course, it is easy to blame the "morally bankrupt secular world" and not think critically about our own observance. People have always left Judaism. For some it is too hard, for others an all knowing God is too fanciful to believe in, for others temptation for prohibited things trumps all. There are many reasons people leave.

The point is, that the solution is not to avoid the competition, it is to BEAT the competition. If a frum lifestyle is so great (and I think it is) then no matter how enticing other lifestyles may be, one won't want to leave because they are happy. And there is the rub. If one is happy with their life, they won't make drastic changes and leave that life. But does today's frum Judaism value happiness? Are teens happy within the yeshiva system? If they are not, then preventing them from seeing the outside world is not a solution. It is just torture.

I believe that a healthy frum lifestyle can and should be satisfying enough that the beck and call of secular society does not trump the pleasure of a frum lifestyle. I think presenting them as completely incompatible will only serve to exacerbate the problem and might be causing the uptick in disenfranchisement.


Search for more information about fleeing the fold at 4torah.com.

The Other Citizens of Israel


Ahmad Tibi, an Arab Israeli, and deputy speaker of the Israeli Parliament had an op-ed published recently in the New York Times (Save your complaints; Jewish Israelis have also, in the past, contributed op-eds to the New York Times)

The opinion article argues that non-Jewish citizens of Israel are being marginalized.

I repost it here, without comment (I'm sure I'll have what to say on the thread.)

Read it after the jump

My first answer


A guest post by by LeftWingPharisee

Through an accident of birth, I have close, personal access to many of the Yeshiva World's Gedolim. While I have used these connections to learn and grow, I've also used these connections to try to help the Yeshivishe Velt expand its perspective as well. I've enjoyed telling them that I got my gorgeous esrogim from the internet, as well as the fact that I would neither be Frum, nor married to a Jewish woman, were it not for the internet. I've taken to asking them "What would you do?" in the following situation; I've recently gotten my first real answer, from a Chabad Rabbi in Tampa, Florida:

A Jewish couple, both secular, want to become Ba'alei Tschuva, the whole nine yards. They have a son that they want to put in Yeshiva. G'valdik! Only one problem: the boy is obviously gay, to the point where he wears girls' clothes. What do you do?

This would be a very difficult question to answer for a Rosh Yeshiva. Obviously, the boy wouldn't be able to express his nature in a Yeshiva, but the boy is still chayiv Mizvos. Rock, meet hard place.

Most of the G'dolim I asked this of said nothing, which I completely respected. Better to say nothing than to say something wrong. R' Matisyahu Salomon said, I'd have the boy and his family to my tisch, but I'd ask that the boy wear boy's clothing. Fair enough, I love that guy. The Chabadnik said, the boy would need to be home schooled, which to my mind, is the right answer.

So B'nai Dov Bear, put yourself in the place of the theoretical Rosh haYeshiva. What would you do?


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

A great post no one will read (though it was fun to write)


IN WHICH I EXPLAIN WHY YITZCHAK=37 AND RIVKA=3 ARE BOTH ON VERY SHAKY GROUNDS

As long time readers of this blog know, I'm on something of a crusade for the unlucky midrashim, by which I mean the old interpretations no one studies or remembers. As a corollary, I'd also like people to stop thinking that the lucky midrashim are the sole Torah Truth when other, equally valid, midrashim take other positions, or when Rishonim object outright to the lucky midrash.

One very famous lucky midrash tells us Rivka was 3 on her wedding day. Its a terrible teaching for all sorts of reasons -- Why should we think of the Patriarch as a pedophile? -- and one I'd like to see defeated, instead of glorified.

As this post will explain, there are good, Torah grounds to retire "Rivka was 3" (1). It  is contradicted by another, unlucky midrash, and at least one rishon objects to it on logical grounds. Also, as you will see, the text of the lucky midrash itself is questionable.

See more after the jump

Something For the Islamophobes and Islamophiles


A Guest Post By E. Fink

I saw this video posted by Rabbi Adlerstein on Cross-Currents. It is worth posting here as well as there is a more open forum for discussion (v'hamayvin yavin).

The Tomb of Ezekiel is in Iraq. The shrine above it is being refurbished by Muslim clerics.

No doubt, the Islamophobes will see evidence that the Muslims are taking over a Jewish Holy Site in their quest to take over the world.

I, and the NY Times, and the Clerics themselves see it differently. It seems to me that this is a wonderful gesture of tolerance and respect.




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

Which politician does this describe?


Al me neemar?

The following describes the background of a famous politician. Who is it?;

Mr. X was born poor and out of wedlock in the desert mining town of xxx. His father was a hard-rock miner who didn’t get through the eighth grade; Mr. X hints broadly that both his parents were drunks. Their house was a wooden cabin, built out of smelly creosote-treated railroad ties instead of fragrant logs. There was no indoor plumbing. “We had a little tree in our yard for a while,” Mr. X writes. “It died. The yard is just rocks—things don’t grow.” Sometimes in the evenings, he and his younger brother Larry (there were four brothers in all) sat outside their parents’ bedroom door, “listening to what goes on on the other side”—which, Mr. X indicates, was something violent.

When a boy from another town moved to xxx, Mr. X admits, “the first thing I did was pick a fight with him. He was new, and I was jealous of him. He probably dressed decently, was probably well spoken.” Mr. X beat another kid so savagely that he permanently flattened one of his own knuckles. One day, Larry fell off his bike and broke his leg. Although he screamed in pain, Mr. X thought he was faking it and initially refused to help him. Another time, Mr. X took a .22 rifle and went out to shoot a rabbit for dinner. With his last bullet, he merely wounded the rabbit, so he gave chase on foot for “what seemed like hours,” he wrote. “I got that rabbit. Took it home. Skinned it. Took it to my grandmother. . . . Best rabbit I ever ate.” At fourteen, Mr. X had a fistfight with his father (because he was beating Mr. X's mother). At nineteen, he had a fistfight with his future father-in-law (because he opposed his daughter’s marriage).

-- text taken from the current New Yorker


Search for more information about Mr. X at 4torah.com.

Hypocrites on display


Yesterday I wrote a post in which I expressed disgust at George W. Bush's childish, self-centered behavior. The post was short, and written quickly, and was, in every sense, a cheap shot -- not because George Bush is actually a mature adult*, but because I didn't choose the best example of his smallness.

Predictably, the comments criticized me for being unfair to dear old George. They are right. I was unfair to dear old George, but I was unfair to him in a style that's quite common in the blogosphere. Go to any RW blog, big or small, and you'll find a never-ending series of posts like mine, only those are directed at Democrats.

I've of course taken note that those who complained about my post, seem never to be found on a RW blog complaining when Obama is attacked in similar fashion., nor do they object when cheap shots are taken at Democrats here. Some (Garnel!) take such cheap shots themselves.

If I am guilty of something, it is of being a blogger. The lot who cried foul about my post, however are a bunch of phonies, faking indignation about a style of posting, when really their objection is to a style of posting that happens to attack their favorite guy.


* See, for example, how he occupied his time as governor of Texas

Search for more information about see-through people at 4torah.com.

Around the horn


Some noteworthy posts from around the blogs:

Should Judaism excommunicate a woman who appears on TV in a bathing suit? This appears to be the view of some of the visitors to Fink or Swim. The issue is Esther Petrack, the OJ high School graduate who is now a contestant on America’s Next Top Model. In her first appearance, Esther flashed her bra, was filmed in a bikini, and appeared to state that she'd violate Shabbos for a chance at winning the competition. Like E-Fink, who hosts Fink or Swim, and disagrees with the anti-Esther comments, I don't see why everyone is so upset. Jews violate halacha all the time. You're entitled to disagree with Esther's choices, and criticism of her behavior is legitimate but don't throw her under the bus. She's still a member in good standing of the Jewish people.

After the angle interrupted Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son, did the patriarch see one ram, or a ram behind or afterwards? Those who've memorized this blog may recall a short post, and long discussion from last year about Gen 22:13 which reads וַיִּשָּׂ֨א אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ וְהִנֵּה־אַ֔יִל אַחַ֕ר נֶאֱחַ֥ז בַּסְּבַ֖ךְ בְּקַרְנָ֑יו וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ אַבְרָהָם֙ וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־הָאַ֔יִל וַיַּעֲלֵ֥הוּ לְעֹלָ֖ה תַּ֥חַת בְּנֹֽו׃. As most of the world must know by now, three ancient texts have the word echad/ one, where the M.T has Achar / after or behind. Now, the very great Josh of ParshaBlog has contributed a very, very long discussion of many different sources after which he reaches the same conclusion we did last year, i.e., that this a legitimate issue, with solid evidence on both sides (though, he thinks the evidence is stronger in favor of the M.T., while I say the evidence is inconclusive.)




Search for more information about good stuff at 4torah.com.

Worst political ad of the year?


Despite its high production values, this disgusting bit of propaganda gets my vote for Most Despicable Ad of the 2010 Campaign Season



Politics Daily reports that “that Amendment 62 would ban all abortions, without exceptions for rape, incest or to save a mother’s life. It also would ban stem cell research and birth control other than ‘barrier methods.’

What these fanatics can't accept is that there are legitimate differences of opinion about when life begins. Since the question, and its answers, are theological, the government must not get involved, My religion, for example, allows abortions under certain circumstances, and in some cases even encourages them. Were the government to ban abortions, I'd no longer be free to do something my religion permits and teaches is moral. The fact that non-halachic abortions are also legal doesn't concern me. Lobster and pork are also legal. Just as I'm not forced to eat at a treif restaurant, I'm not forced to abort babies; in both cases I'm merely being given the freedom to make my own decisions, and because the question of "When does life begin" has no one answer, its fully appropriate for the government to grant me that freedom. Though the ad's dehumanization of a sitting president, and the lies about his record, are obviously egregious, I'm more deeply offended by the claim that pro-choice people as hate liberty, when the very opposite is true.


Search for more information about what halacha really says about abortion at 4torah.com.

Renew our days as of old


A great comment about traditional Judaism from "Igor:"

I'm a graduate student in medieval Jewish philosophy. This kind of position was quite common among educated Jews in Spain, Italy and the South of France, including many in the rabbinical elite, and the Rambam comes quite close to it in the Moreh Nevukhim (Guide of the Perplexed). It's just an unfortunate fact that after the gerush from Spain and the rise of kabalah traditional Judaism became increasingly ossified. It's also unfortunate that some of the best philosophical writing by otherwise popular medieval authorities-Ibn Paquda, Ibn Ezra, the Rambam, the Ralbag-is no longer taught. In 13th century Italy they actually taught secular science and philosophy at yeshivot:

- Thanks.

One reason philosophy and science are no longer taught in Yeshivot is this: In the 13th century the facts of science and the facts of Torah were nearly identical. You weren't likely to learn anything in science class that undermined the old interpretations. Following the development of more reliable methods for acquiring information about the natural world, the facts of science and the facts of the old interpretations no longer coincide. Instead of disregarding the old interpretations, which to a large extent, were never "Torah" but simply deductions and interpretations based on bad facts, the Orthodox community has chosen to disregard the new facts (*). And as the Sages warned, one sin leads to the next. The sin of ignoring the truth leads, alas, in many schools, to institutionally sanctioned cheating on science regents, and to lies to Board of Education authorities about curriculum. 


(*) The facts are disregarded when convenient. Flu vaccines, for example, which testify to the truth of evolution, aren't banned by the Orthodox, nor are any technologies which undermine traditional understandings of cosmology.

Search for more information about sinful science  at 4torah.com.

Why do Gutnick and ArtScroll suggest Rashi had a different Torah text?


Genesis 14:14, with Rashi
And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.יד. וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן:

His trained men:  Heb. חִנִיכָיו It is written חִנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man. This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חִנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain, and similarly (Prov. 22: 6):“Train (חִנ‏ֹ) a child ;” (Num. 7:10):“the dedication of (חֲנֻכַּת) the altar ;” (Ps. 30:1):“the dedication of of (חֲנֻכַּת) the Temple,” and in Old French it is called enseigner [to instruct, train].חניכיו: חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע"ז קורין לו אנציניי"ר [לחנוך]:

The problem:

The verse says חֲנִיכָיו, which means "trained men". In his comment, Rashi says חנכו כתיב or "it is written his "trained man." Did Rashi have a different text? Why does he say the word is written "trained man" when its clearly "trained men?"

The answer:

There are four early editions of Rashi. The problematic text, reproduced above, appears in just two of them: Rome and Venice. The other two, including Reggio de Calbria the first printed Rashi edition, make no mention here of Eliezer, or of a variant Torah text. Instead, they give:

His trained men:  Those that he trained in the commandments....

Which variation corresponds to the original Rashi? Impossible to know. In the 200 or so years between Rashi and the Reggio de Calbria edition, words and even sentences could have been added and removed from manuscripts a dozen times over.

The question, then, is on contemporary publishers.

On Genesis 14:14  we have two different versions of Rashi's comment, one of which suggests quite strongly that Rashi used a Torah text that was different from the one we have today. For some reason, this is the version that appears in my Mikraot Gedolot, and its also used in ArtScroll's Stone edition, the Gutnick edition [which you can review here] and many others. How was this decision made? Why did so many different editorial committees choose to include a Rashi variation which so strongly suggests that the father of all commentators based himself on a different, perhaps flawed, text of the Torah?


Search for more information about Rashi mysteries at 4torah.com.

Kiruv: A noble goal or sticking noses in others’ business?


A Guest Post by Philo

Is kiruv a noble goal? Or is it just some Jews poking their noses in other Jews' business and telling them how to live their lives?

The mainstream Orthodox Jewish community certainly sees it as noble. Kids are taught from a young age that anyone who's not religious is missing something, and it's our "job" to bring it to them. Another goal is bringing the geulah. A lot of frum kids are taught that if all the Jews in the world kept two consecutive shabbatot in a halachically observant manner, the Mashiach would come immediately. I was certainly taught that. So it becomes a numbers game, so get as many people into the fold as possible. This is a major motivation for Chabad, though within that context they do seem to show genuine caring for individual Jews.

But what if someone's living a happy life, has a husband and kids, is well-adjusted and is generally a good person? She may not have a deep knowledge of her heritage, but she goes to shul once or twice a year, and likes it. There's nothing missing in her life. Then some kiruv rabbi comes along and tells her that she's living her life wrong and has to change entirely. That she's missing out on something beautiful (and for the more hard-core kiruv rabbis) that she's sinning. How is that different from missionaries coming along and telling her that she needs to accept Jesus to be saved? (I know that kiruv people will explain that they target only Jews, so they're not missionaries, but really, from the perspective of the targeted, what's the difference?)

Essentially, if she's happy, who are we to come and mess that up?

Some close relatives of mine drive to a Conservative shul every shabbat. They love the shul and he lains the parsha there on a regular basis. Is there something deeply wrong with their lifestyle because they drive to shul?

And yet, in another case, my gut tells me another story. Not all non-Orthodox Jews are the same, despite what I thought when I was twelve years old. So let's look at the case of an entirely unaffiliated Jew. He grows up knowing that he's Jewish and not having any problem with that. But for him it means mostly Seinfeld or Bagels & Lox. Like the woman above, he also is well-adjusted and happy. But he knows virtually nothing about his heritage. From my perspective, he has the perfect right to that lifestyle. But there's a deep part of me that feels it's a shame that he knows nothing about the incredible heritage of his ancestors, knows no Hebrew, has never sat in a sukkah or heard a beautiful Adon Olam, and never experienced the serenity of a Shabbat (to whatever level of observance.) He doesn’t know of the wealth of halachic, aggadic, and poetic literature that has been produced by his people for 3,000 years. While I personally feel I have no right to intervene in his happy life, if he comes to me asking questions, I'd be happy to give him information and invite him to a shabbat meal, while putting no demands on him, to show him this gift he’s missing out on.

Then there are the unhappy non-Religious Jews. They are unhappy in their lifestyles and are desperately searching for something. They tend to be easy targets for kiruv “professionals”. Some are genuinely searching for religious truth and Orthodoxy does end up making them happy. But for a large minority of them, their problems just come with them into their new lifestyles. I’ve met far too many people who should have never become frum. They should have sought therapy instead. So they were miserably unhappy unaffiliated Jews, and now they’re miserably unhappy Orthodox Jews. Some are worse than unhappy, and are emotionally disturbed. Yet the frum community counts them as success stories as soon as they start keeping Shabbat & Kosher.

I know that Orthodox Jews are supposed to feel that anyone who’s not Orthodox is a lost soul that needs to be brought to frumkeit. And as a kid and a young adult, I deeply believed in kiruv. But now, as an Orthodox-ish Jew who has decidedly heterodox ideas and believes in Jewish pluralism, here’s a sum-up of how I see the correct approach to the various types of Jews I mentioned above.

1) The happy, and religiously involved Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, etc, Jew:

Leave her alone. She’s happy. She’s a good Jew, just as good as I am, perhaps better sometimes. They fact that I don’t use electricity on Shabbat and she does doesn’t mean anything. Become friends with her as an equal, not with any ulterior motive.

2) The happy but entirely unaffiliated Jew who thinks Seinfeld is what Judaism is about:

I would also leave him alone, other than becoming friends with him as an equal. I’m not better than he is either. However, if he asks me about Judaism, I’ll be happy to speak to him about it, without pushing. I’d even invite him to a Shabbat meal unprompted, but without any motive other than that he enjoys himself. If he takes something deeper away, that’s great, but that’s not my motive. But I’d be extremely happy to guide him if he expresses further interest. And despite the fact that I would in no way feel better than him if he never expresses interest in religiosity, there would be a small part of me feeling like his kids are missing something important. But I’d respect his choices, nonetheless.

3) The unhappy heterodox Jew, of any stripe, who may have emotional difficulties:

I would NEVER try to get him to become Shomer Shabbat. Instead, I’d try to get him the help he needs. It’s no service to him to encourage him on his way into becoming an OCD ba’al tshuva (and no service to Orthodox Judaism either, for that matter – that’s where many new chumras are born) or becoming a severely depressed person in a community where some segments still neglect emotional illness. Shmirat Shabbat does NOT equal happiness.


Summary: Kiruv is all very well & good in theory, but the kiruv missionary machine doesn’t respect Jews and their choices.



Search for more information about misdirected kiruv at 4torah.com.

Pastor Anderson's Wife Hates Jews


Mrs. Piss-on-the-Wall Preacher 
The piss-on-the-wall preacher has a wife, and she has a blog, and on that blog she has shared some fascinating ideas about Jews and  circumcision:
[Question from someone]: I was wondering if you circumcise the boys?

No. To quote myself from another Q&A where I was asked the same question: 
We do not have our children circumcised. There is no Biblical mandate for us to do so; rather, the Bible makes it clear that it was a symbolic OT law that never extended to the Gentiles. Historically, circumcising all males in America became common during World War II, when mostly Jewish doctors stayed behind from the war and advocated for it. In Europe, this is not common practice. The American trend toward circumcision was further fueled by a fascination for Judaism and Zionism, both of which are contrary to true Bible doctrine. The Jewish religion teaches works salvation just like ever other false religion, and I have no desire to emulate their customs any more than those of Catholics, Muslims, or other false teachers.

My husband preached a sermon on this issue, you can listen to it here. [DB: Listening to it now. Don't know about the wall, but I'm close to pissing my pants.]

Another question is the motive behind doing this entirely unnecessary surgery. Of course, as always, the love of money is never far off. Many, if not most hospitals sell the tissue for various uses, such as making cosmetics, stem cell research/cloning/animal-human-hybrids, and other perverted uses.


Search for more information about RW Lunatics at 4torah.com.

Freedom of the Press, Tea Party Edition.


I see from TPM that the Tea Party candidate hoping to Model the Values of the Founders and Restore the Constitution, etc, in Alaska has let his security goons arrest, handcuff and detain a reporter who asked a few too many questions
Tony Hopfinger, the founder and editor of online news site the Alaska Dispatch, was handcuffed and detained by Joe Miller's private security detail at a town hall yesterday at a public school in Anchorage, after he repeatedly tried to question and videotape the Republican nominee for Senate.

Hopfinger told KTUU that he was questioning Miller over disciplinary action taken while Miller was a part-time attorney at the Fairbanks North Star Borough
Yes, Obama is the scary one.

Search for more information about Tea Party Lunatics at 4torah.com.

Actor from the Office Comments on DovBear


Ayelet Robinson, the actor who portrays Leah on the Israeli version of the Office, dropped on to a thread that discusses her character to fill in some blanks:

See it after the jump

So I've started paying attention to Carl Paladino...


I admit it. I ignored Carl Paladino for all of September. But following his hysterical appearance in front of 8 or 9 Rabbis, I've started paying attention, and I'm pleased to report that Carl Paladino is the gift that keeps giving.

Here's a two-week old clip from late September in which the Thuglican lunatic from Buffalo threatens a reporter with physical violence (and a reporter from the New York Post, the most right wing paper in the state) after the reporter asks for evidence to support an anti-Cuomo smear.

I figure if I missed it, some of you must have missed it, too

Priceless.


And here's a math problem for you to solve. When Howard Dean raised his voice following the Iowa primary, all decent Republicans affirmed this was proof Howard was unfit for office. So why aren't those classless hypocrites saying the same about the guy who threatened a reporter?


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

Housekeeping


One or two of you were upset that I suggested a meeting between Christine O'Donnell and Jesus might be awkward for the Tea-Party lunatic because Jesus is presumed to dislike witches.

I can only assume that those of you who complained are not aware that O'Donnell went on TV (dressed in black with a spooky backdrop behind her) to expressly deny being a bride of Satan. See it below:



And, here's the SNL parody.

Search for more information about Tea Party lunatics at 4torah.com.

Jesus to return on May 21, 2011



There it is, right on a sign, and signs never lie, so this is true. In just 6 months, Jesus will be back to judge mankind, flay the Jews, and carry believers to heaven on a pillow of clouds.  So cool. 

Unfortunately, as Wonkette has said, the savior's return might mean trouble for Christine O' Donnell. See Exodus 21:18 for more info.




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

A homophobe chokes on his salami


Old story, I know. Still a great quote from Yehuda Levin.
“I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich,” Rabbi Levin said. "While I was eating it, they come running and they say, ‘Paladino became gay!’ I said, ‘What?’ And then they showed me the statement. I almost choked on the kosher salami.”
I don't know how to address Levin's inability to keep his meats straight, or the bizarre double insistance that yes, yes, yes! the girthy suasage he had in his mouth was kosher.


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

Campell's Soup Sucks, but I've Got Their Back


As a  kosher-eating Jew, I'm deeply concerned about the latest wingnut war against Campell soup. Here's a sample:
Creeping Sharia has come to a grocery aisle near you. Campbell’s soups have come out with a line of 15 halal-certified soups which comply with the dietary regulations of the two percent of the American population that follows Islam. …The next time you pop open a can of Campbell’s vegetarian soup, you’ll have the comfort of knowing that you are consuming jihadi-sanctified food. … What more people will find offensive is that the person carrying out the killing must recite a Koranic verse while the lifeblood of the animal drains away, thus dedicating the animal and the meat that comes from it to Allah. … The prayer? “Bismillah Allah-hu-Akbar”, which means “In the name of Allah, who is the greatest.”
This nonsense is a little too-close for comfort to the things crazy wingnuts say about kosher, isn't it? If Halal certification is dangerous, anti-American and a sign that the Muslims are taking over, how exactly is kosher certification different? It lunatics are campaigning against Halal certification, what's our assurance they won't next rally against kosher certification on precisely the same ground?

Furthermore, let's count the crazy, shall we:
1) The soups are only  available for sale in Canada; therefore only Americans who are panicked about Sharia and also in possession of  poor geography skills need to be concerned.
2) The soups with Halal certification are all vegetarian. So the pre-slaughter prayer doesn't seem like much of a problem here. No scary Arabic words are said over vegetables.
3) And why exactly are the Arabic words frightening? Would the wingnuts object if a Rabbi were to say "Yehai Shmai Raba Mivorah Liolam U'liOlmay Omaya" near their food? Bismillah Allah-hu-Akbar expresses a nearly identical sentiment and about the same deity.
4) Have the wingnuts forgotten that they stand for free markets? Campbell isn't endorsing Islam. Its trying to appeal to new customers and make some money. Since when do wingnuts oppose that?



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

Headline of the day (Nope, not about me)


And Dov turns into a bear!

The Brooklyn Paper


Read it

HT: Jameel

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

Why DovBear isn't a heretic


My answer to those who accuse me of heresy, or of undermining the mesorah is best summarized as follows:
  • The world, like the Torah, is divine revelation. 
  • If something is true, it's not heresy, even if Chazal weren't aware of it. 
  • It's not heresy to say that Chazal were unaware of a fact about the natural world. The Geonim and Rishonim said it first. 
  • It's not heresy to say that the statements Chazal made about the natural world aren't part of the Mesorah. The Geonim and Rishonim said it first. 
  • The policy of the Sages, the Geonim, and the Rishonim was to respond honestly to facts about the natural world as they understood them. They ran into trouble only because some of those facts were wrong.
  • Its no insult to Chazal to say they were working with bad facts; some of the Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim have already said it. 
  • If we can say that Chazal made mistakes because they were working with bad facts about the natural world, we can say the same about the Rishonim and Achronim.
  • The error people make is assuming that Chazal and Razal reached irreproachable conclusions about the natural world, when all they were really doing was responding honestly to the truth as they knew it.
  • Now that old facts about the natural world have been defeated, and replaced with new facts...
    •  the right thing to do is to respond honestly to them, as Chazal and Razal did in their own time; whereas
    • the wrong thing to do is to cling to old results which were based on bad facts, or to cling to the bad facts themselves.
  • If this sounds like heresy to you, there are two possible reasons:
    • You're not aware of what Razal said on the subject
    • You're not aware that old facts have been defeated, or that new facts have been discovered
Perhaps one day, I'll expand this into an essay.


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

...but money answereth all things


Have you always suspected that a separate set of rules exists for Jews with money and connections? Well, here's a letter from a yeshiva that nonchalantly confirms it.



And kids, next time a well-meaning adult tells you that to get ahead all you need to do is work hard and play fair be sure to laugh directly in their face.

Edited 3:15 p.m. to remove names 

Doffing of the head gear to Amshi

Some more words
In this post, I've merely reported that this school has removed the veil, and confesses what more discerning people already knew: The nice things we say to ourselves about Orthodox Jewish exceptional-ism, and the superiority of our culture are at best exaggerations. Our culture is like any other. No better no worse. Sometimes good behavior wins, but more often it doesn't, just like in the world at large.


Search for more information about how Jews are no better, and perhaps worse, than everyone else at 4torah.com.

Why Charedim Don't Fight in the IDF According to Rabbi Orlofsky


A Guest Post By E. Fink

Rabbi Orlofsky was asked why charedim don't fight for Israel in the IDF. The question was posed as a matter of pikuach nefesh or even milchemes mitzva and by looking at Tanach we clearly see that young Jewish men fought in the army. The letter ends with: "It is a matter of responsibility for every member of the nation to do their part. How can I understand the seeming shirking of duty?"

Rabbi Orlofsky first goes after the tone of the letter. (Arguing Pro-Tip: When you have nothing smart to say ALWAYS complain about tone.) RO complains about the tone of using the words "shirking of duty". After a brief mussar shmooze RO says that since the Gedolim prohibited Charedim from joining the IDF (some 60 years ago) that is sufficient reason not to join the IDF. Then RO finally answers the question with a variant of "Torah is protecting the Land of Israel at least as much as soldiers".

Here is the problem: The heter to avoid the IDF is for those who are truly learning and it can be argued that their learning is protecting the Land of Israel. However, as currently constructed, the heter is a blanket heter that applies equally to masmidim and batlanim. There is no accountability and no assurance that the young man is studying at all. Issuing catch-all heterim can create a lazy attitude toward observance. And indeed it has.

Also, just because the Gedolim gave the heter does not mean that it is assur to ask why. Why is always a good question and it is a question that deserves more respect than "because I said so".

There may be plenty reasons that charedim should not join the IDF, but it would have been nice it RO would have mentioned that Maran Rav Shteinmen is in favor of the Nachal Charedi and old habits die hard, but soon more charedim may join the IDF. Perhaps that would have been a better answer to the question...


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

Paladino Putdowns


John Stewart, a great American, last night helped shovel some dirt on the lifeless corpse of unhinged candidate for governor Carl Padino. After playing a clip of Paladino telling a room full of anachronistically attired Rabbis that he does not want children brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is a successful option, Stewart said:
So he's making the case to orthodox religious folk, that gay people will brainwash their children into dressing and acting in an unconventional manner. Gay people.
After another clip, in which Paladino snarls that Cuomo proved himself "outside of the box" on family values because he allowed two of his daughters to accompany him to a Gay Pride parade, Stewart lowered the boom on Mister Clueless Hypocrite.
"That's Carl Paladino making the case that he is the 'family values' candidate Because he would never take either one of his two simultaneous families to a gay pride parade.
As Ben at Politico said the other day, this kind of crazy doesn't play in New York. Even Republicans are disgusted.


Search for more information about the bottom of the barrel candidates the GOP is running for Governor at 4torah.com.

ArtScroll Censors the Mesorah


So, I checked my new ArtScroll translation of Deuteronomy, and to my surprise I discovered that the nasty passages in which we're ordered to kill every single descendant of Amalek have been excluded.

How strange.

Since when does Artscroll care about perceptions?

I thought their whole purpose was to provide the English speaking public with the Torah Truth (TM). Genocide may be unpopular in the 20th century, but the Torah's values are timeless. If the world at large today has a problem with genocide, what concern is that of ours? We Jews should tell the truth, as we know it, consequences be damned. If our Torah, or our Rabbis said or did something, we conceal it at our own peril.

~ ~

As some of you may have realized, the preceding passage is a parody, inspired by S's startling discovery. In what follows, I've taken my tongue out of my cheek, and rewritten the passage to reflect what has actually occurred . I think the larger point remains valid.

~ ~

So, I checked my new ArtScroll translation of Oznayim L'Torah, a classic work written by R. Zalman Sorotzkin, one of the giants of the last century, and to my surprise I discovered that the passages in which R. Sorotzkin expresses his admiration for Daniel Defoes's Robinson Caruso, and derives lessons from it have been excluded. 

How strange. 

Since when does Artscroll care about perceptions? 

I thought their whole purpose was to provide the English speaking public with the Torah Truth (TM). Secular novels may be unpopular in the contemporary yeshiva world, but the Torah's values are timeless. If the zealots and know-nothings of today have a problem with secular novels or the fact that our Gedolim used to read them, what concern is that of ours? We Jews should tell the truth, as we know it, consequences be damned.  If our Torah, or our Rabbis said or did something, we conceal it at our own peril.


Search for more information about the screaming hypocrites who work at ArtScroll at 4torah.com.

Three Points on the NYT Mag Article on Basil


A Guest Post By E. Fink

In yesterday's New York Time Magazine (and on NYT.com last week) an interesting article about a diverse kosher restaurant in Crown Heights appeared. (Keeping It Kosher) In my opinion the article made three basic points.

1) It is possible for a diverse, upscale kosher restaurant to exist and operate successfully.

2) The community in Crown Heights is not diverse and suffers tensions with its non-Jewish neighbors.

3) The kosher supervision of the restaurant oversees the status of the food and also tries to control the way the clientele behave and dress while in the restaurant.

Point number one is correct. There are other upscale kosher restaurants that cater to all sorts of people and I for one, would like to see more places a kashrus observant business person could take non-kashrus observant friends, clients, partners and bosses without apologizing for subpar food, service and ambiance.

Point number two is not limited by any means to Crown Heights. I have noticed that the more insular a community becomes, the less tolerant they become of others. Perhaps it is more ironic in Crown Heights because of the international (probably soon to be intergalactic) reputation that Chabad shluchim have earned as being open and welcoming to all people.

But it is not a problem specific to Chabad. All Jewish neighborhoods that limit interactions to people that are overwhelmingly similar to one another suffer from a nearsighted view of humanity. It is not just between Jews and non-Jew, it is perhaps even more profound when the differences between Jew and Jew and even more minute differences between Orthodox Jews create closed communities that shun outsiders.

For 500 years we tried to get out of the ghetto. Now that we are out all we want to do retreat into our own self-made ghettos...

Point number three is the most egregious. It is egregious on account of orthodox kashrus organizations claiming for years that they do not monitor "anything besides kashrus". Animal cruelty? "Not our department." Undocumented laborors? "The meat is still kosher". Underage workers? "Hey, no one is forcing them to work...". In short, kashrus organizations as a whole have taken a laissez faire approach to non-kashrus issues when it comes to their supervision. (I (kind of) support this approach. Let the consumers decide what the market will bear as far as non-kashrus concerns. The market has spoken. No one cares...)

But when it comes to regulating the way people, who may or may not be orthodox or religious or Jewish at all behave in a kosher establishment all of the sudden the kashrus organizations are eager to get video tape surveilance to make sure the dresses are not too short or too low or too provocative.

The hypocrisy is annoying, but it gets even worse. It gets worse because animal cruelty can involve a Torah prohibition of Tzaar Baalei Chaim. Dina D'malchusa Dina can also create a Torah (or at the very least Rabbinic) prohibition. Hiring minors to do the work of adults can also entail a Torah prohibition. Yet, all those potential problems are swept under the carpet. But when it comes to tzniyus (ie telling women how to dress) and public displays of affection, neither of which are Torah prohibitions and perhaps not even Rabbinic prohibitions and certainly the store owner is not violating any prohibition and if you don't want to see provocatively dressed women or PDAs - don't look! - there it is perfectly within the purview of the kashrus supervisor to violate the privacy of every patron and spend hours poring over video tape to make sure that everyone conforms to the standard of his personal community. Hypocrisy is bad, when combined with misplaced priorities it becomes egregious.

(Note / Disclaimer: I am aware that the kashrus agencies in question are not the same. One agency with its rabbis supervise the slaughter houses and another agency with its own rabbis observes the restaurants. The point still stands.)

Search for more information about egregious hypocrisy at 4torah.com.

The New York Times has its way with Borough Park


The famous Jewish  neighborhood was featured in the Times' 10/8 Real Estate section. I saw nothing in the writing that was offensive to reason or decency, and also nothing that might disturb overly sensitive Orthodox Jewish media critics.

Those of you who enjoy the gotcha game, and revel in perceiving injustices and crimes against humanity in the paper's reportage will  be disappointed by this article.


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

Israel's "Office"


This clip introduces "Leah", the Angela character on Israel's "Office". I see what the writers are trying to do here, but I'm not yet sure they've done it well. Angela is overtly Christian, and overly strict but she has an attractive vulnerability; though she can be cruel she isn't petty. Angela is also something of a sexual dynamo. Leah, on the other hand, is a charedi who opposes army service. Her concerns about food and kosher certifications seem small while the husband suggested by her pregnancy would seem to rule out the extra circular activities that redeem Angela (as a fictional creation) and make her an interesting, conflicted character.

OTHER CONCERNS
:: What kind of Charedi is Leah? The objection to army service suggests she's from the kollel community, but the clothing and jewelry don't fit. If she's meant to be chardal (which seems more likely) perhaps she's not objecting to army service in general, but merely saying that she, as a woman, would never dream of serving. The former seems more likely but the latter offers better comedic opportunities. Micheal Scott vs, a kolel wife would be pure gold.

:: On Twitter, some are arguing that the Leah character is a cheap stab at the religious community. I'm not sure. Though we'll know more after the character and series have been given a chance to develop, its important to remember that the U.K and U.S Office are both about damaged, maladaptive people. The U.S version has a damaged and maladaptive Christian, and at least two damaged and maladaptive hedonists (Creed and Meredith) so what's out of order about a damaged, maladaptive Charedi in the Israeli version? Moreover, its essential to remember that "Leah" is an invention, a fictional character. She doesn't have to be "accurate". She's not real. A depiction of a fictional character who happens to be charedi should not be understood as a claim about all (or any) real haredim. (Thought some will perhaps take offense at the suggestion that a charedi might be anything but perfect. See, when you're part of the perfect community and perfectly following God's perfect laws, a damaged and maladaptive personality isn't a possible outcome.)





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

What was the significance of the dove's olive leaf?


There's a not-nearly-well-known-enough opinion in the Talmud that says the flood waters didn't reach Israel. Some take this to mean that the world was flooded, but an invisible wall kept the water away from the Holy Land; others see this as suggesting that Israel was the flood's southern, or western boundary, and that nothing to the south or west of Israel was flooded.

A supporting opinion in the Talmud says the leaf the dove brought back came from Israel - which fits: if the world was flooded, with everything destroyed, where else might the dove have discovered vegetation(1)? It had to have come from Israel, the only land that wasn't touched by the flood. The problem, then, is why did Noah find the leaf significant? Israel hadn't been flooded, and the leaf came from Israel so what, as they say, was the raya the the waters had receded? They hadn't reached Israel in the first place.

The passages reads:
When he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.
Note that we are told "the dove could find no place to rest its feet." Why? Perhaps because the dove was traveling from the ark in Turkey to Israel. On the first trip it came back empty-beaked, because it couldn't get to Israel. The journey was too far for the dove to complete without resting; the waters hadn't receded so there was "no place to rest its feet." By the time the dove was sent a week later, the waters had receded enough to provide it with resting spots, and it was able to reach Israel where there was vegetation.

According to this understanding, the leaf the dove brought back was proof that it had finally been able to reach Israel, and not evidence that plants in the rest of the world had started to bloom.

Heard 15 years ago in yeshiva.

NOTE
(1) One understanding is that everything was destroyed, including the seeds. Just as the earth had to be repopulated by Noah and the animals on his ark, it had to be replanted as well with seeds Noah took along. Also, trees and plants take months to germinate and bloom. On the dove's first trip there was nothing - not even a place to rest its feet. How could there have been plant life just a a week later?

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

Do the rituals require God?


The argument has been made, ineffectively, that performing the rituals becomes ridiculous absent a belief in God. [I believe in God, by the way]

As I've tried to explain, we perform any number of secular rituals in our daily life that aren't connected to any belief in God. (1) We perform these rituals because we see them as significant (for any number of different reasons) or because they provide us with some kind of payoff.

I've argued that religious rituals are performed for the same reasons. (2)

Now a commenter named "Benjamin" has raised an interesting point. He suggests that there is justification in for my argument in the Torah and midrash. As he writes:
Just to clarify here - do people really believe that the Torah is completely nonsensical and ridiculous without God? I feel like it's more common to think otherwise. How does that make sense with lots of things, such as:

A. We have very, very few entirely arbitrary commandments (even if God commanded matza, e.g., it still has communal/historical significance and definite meaning in multiple ways described even by the Torah).
B. The well-known midrash that has God lamenting that if only His people had forgotten Him but kept his Torah - God Himself seems to think it would not be arbitrary to follow [commandments] without Him, according to this midrash.
C. The Torah itself, which claims that upon seeing Judaism in practice, other nations would say, "רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה!"[This nation is nothing but wise and discerning]  - a clear self-description that it believes it is admirable from a third-party perspective.
These are all excellent points. The Torah itself acknowledges that eating matzo, among most other rituals, derives at least some of its value and significance because of the connection it creates between the matzo eater and his community, or the matzo-eater and his ancestors.  Likewise, the Torah itself asserts that Israel will be recognized as wise and discerning, presumably because the act of performing the rituals offers some secular value (3) and the author of the midrash seems to confirm this understanding.

NOTES
(1) The pledge of allegiance at ball games; a hot cup of cocoa before bed; formal attire; knocking on wood; 4th of July barbecue; setting the table with the fork on the right, and the knife on the left, etc., etc., etc.
(2) If you believe in God, and think obeying Him is important you're performing the act because you find it significant. If you expect a reward, in this life or the next, you're performing the act for the sake of the payoff. All believers in God, Jewish and non-Jewish believers alike, perform rituals for one of these two general reasons.
(3) For instance, the nations will recognize the resting from work is a great idea, not because it makes God happy, or because it offers invisible miztva points, but because they can see tangible real world benefits. This also confirms that the author of the verse (ie God) recognizes that performing the rituals are valuable in of themselves.

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

A secret the Imahot wish they had known


Were Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, Shimson’s mother, the prophet Shmuel’s mother guilty of immodesty? This seems to be the lesson of a new YNET article

Want a child? Replace your wig
Rabbi advises woman trying to conceive for almost three years to remove 'immodest' wig. Shortly afterwards, she becomes pregnant

Great lesson, no? Anyone who suffers is a sinner.  (and its always the woman's fault)

Search for more information about horrible lessons at 4torah.com.

Why do we keep the commandments? A dialog


The original plan was to write this up as a post, but I'm short on time. What follows instead is an imaginary conversation created from actual comment thread excerpts. The questions have been taken from points raised by HolyHyrax, AM, and HaMasorti on this post. All have been edited for space or other concerns. Because of the editing, and because I am trying to make my own points, and not (necessarily) the points originally intended by their authors, the writers of each question have not been identified. 

The answers are mine.

The basic question:
Why do we limit ourselves from eating all kinds of foods, wave branches around in late September, spend a week eating matzo, sacrifice animals in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, and do all the other 'weird' things that we do?

The basic answer:
Each individual does these things because s/he finds them significant and/or acquires some payoff (or perceived payoff) from performing them. That's why. Personally,  I don't do most things because I think God expressly told Moshe to do expressly that specific thing. I know too much about how halacha developed and changed over time to say that. [See this post http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2008/04/this-week-are-we-keeping-one-holiday-or.html or this one http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2005/04/on-baseball-in-general-and-pesach-in.html]

The objection:
Without a belief in God, and in His revelation at Sinai, and the rest, these practices just become ridiculous.

My reply:
Incorrect. Without the context those practices become ridiculous. For example, painting your face and paying 10 dollars for hot-dogs seems ridiculous, no? But in the context of being a baseball fan it makes sense. Buying an esrog and waving it around seems ridiculous, except my father and grandfather did it, and doing it makes me happy, and gives me a feeling of community and connection to the past. That is the context that makes it NOT ridiculous to pay $50 for a fruit that you're only going to wave around in shul.

A weak complaint:
That payoff, provided by that context is merely a bi-product. This is not WHY these rituals exist.

Read the rest