Support the Pathetic Annual Telethon

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

Computer confirms documentary hypothesis

Thursday, June 30, 2011
by DovBear | 9:22 AM |
As you may already know, a team of Israelis programmed a computer to identify different "linguistic fingerprints" in the Bible. The software works by analyzing vocabulary, word patterns, diction and other clues to pull out the parts of a jumbled text that were written by different authors. For almost 200 years it has been the scholarly consensus that the Bible is just such a jumbled text, made up of many different narrative strands representing different times, places, styles, and agendas. According to the newspapermen, after applying its algorithm to the bible, the Israeli computer came to the same conclusion. Remarkably the textual divisions the computer created are nearly identical to the divisions previously suggested by scholars.

Believers answer by arguing that God might have dictated the bible in many voices, just as a human author might employ different synonyms, and different styles for different circumstances. For instance, when I write this blog, I use one style, when I write my shopping list I use a different style, and when I write a note to my kids school, I'll use a third style. A computer might conclude those items were written by three different people. And if a human author can express himself with such variety, why can't God?

I happen to accept this counterargument. It seems self-evident that God can do anything a human can do. However, I will point out that this counterargument leaves some problems unanswered. The issue isn't merely that the bible speaks in different voices, but that it speaks to different agendas. The focus shifts. The laws, occasionally, contradict themselves. Sometimes the bible seems like it was written for people living under one set of circumstances, but at times the presumed audience seems altogether different.  Even God changes. In Genesis He's depicted with human characteristics, but by Deuteronomy He's become  more abstract, and distant. Sometimes He can be approached directly, at other times an intermediary is required. The nature of the rituals and the theology also seem to change, and these changes, like the other differences mentioned in this paragraph, can all be assigned to different narrative strands.

Does the fact that its possible to carve the bible up into linguistically and theologically consistent sections prove anything? No, of course not. There are no proofs in interpretation, and ingenious explanations have already been provided by the ancient and medieval interpreters for nearly all of the shifts and contradictions identified by modern scholars, without resorting to the idea of multiple authorship.Their ability to solve such problems and smooth out such difficulties was the great achievement of the ancient and medieval interpreters. The achievement of the Documentary Hypothesis, on the other hand, is that it makes such ingenious explanations unnecessary.

by DovBear | 9:22 AM | Links to this post

Did Moshe have a pre-9/11 mentality?

by DovBear | 8:33 AM |
Perhaps the sin Moshe committed, the sin that disqualified him from ever entering the holy land, was the sin of having a pre-9/11 mentality.  What I mean by this is perhaps Moshe, as he stood at the rock, stick in hand, was unable to see the people for what they were. Instead of recognizing that the people in front of him were the children and grandchildren of the nation that had sinned so many times during the first eventful year in the desert, Moshe treated them as if they were their own parents. "Listen to me you rebels" he screamed. But these people were not rebels. They weren't the sinners who believed the spies, and supported Korach, and complained to Moshe for meat and cucumbers. These people were the offsrping of those sinners, and members of a new generation, the generation that was about to enter the Holy Land, and achieve their  parent's dream. These children were better then their parents, unsullied by their sins, and deserving of different treatment. Moshe either could not recognize this or could not respond to it. Perhaps this inability to acknowledge the new facts, and to alter this thinking to suit them was the sin, the shortcoming, the failing, and the flaw that made it clear to God that Moshe was no longer the man for the job.

by DovBear | 8:33 AM | Links to this post

God the blogger: Chukas

Wednesday, June 29, 2011
by DovBear | 9:48 AM |
In Parshas Chukas, God behaves almost like a blogger. Rather than authoring his own material, our Lord and Creator twice references the published work of other people.

The first occurrence is a cite from the the Book of the Wars of the Lord a book that was lost, and excluded from the canon.

Robert Alter speculates that the book was not preserved because the dieties and events it describes were too mythological. Later authorities, he says, were uncomfortable with a book that represented God as a warrior, in direct combat with Israel's enemies, rather than working through the agency of Israel. I'm not entirely sure why Alter feels comfortable with such a speculation given that just a brief snippet from the book is extant, but there it is. If Judaism has another theory to explain why this book was forgotten, I don't know it.

The little bit of this book that we do have seems seriously wierd. In the King James translation, it reads as follows:

"...Waheb in Suphah and the ravines, the Arnon and the slopes of the ravines that lead to the site of Ar and lie along the border of Moab."

What this means is anyone's guess, forcing us to ask: If God had something to say, why didn't He put it in His own ordinary, easy to understand words instead of borrowing something impenetrable from someone else's book?

The second occurrence of divine blogging is even more mysterious. After describing an Israelite victory over Sihon king of the Amorites, the Torah tells us the land Israel took from Sihon first belonged to Moab. The claim is supported not with a historical notice, or a narrative assertion, but with a snippet of poetry. Yes, poetry. The lines are attributed, vaguely, to "moshlim" who (Alter again) may have been something like the Celtic bards who composed and recited verses celebrating the legendary exploits of chieftains and heroes. Today, we might call them folk singers.

In the KJV, their song is translated this way:

Come to Heshbon, let it be built, Let the city of Sihon be repaired.
For fire went out from Heshbon, A flame from the city of Sihon;
It consumed Ar of Moab, The lords of the heights of the Arnon.
Woe to you, Moab! You have perished, O people of Chemosh!
He has given his sons as fugitives, And his daughters into captivity,
To Sihon king of the Amorites. “But we have shot at them; Heshbon has perished as far as Dibon.
Then we laid waste as far as Nophah, Which reaches to Medeba.

For those saddled with a Torah-true perspective this is about as queer as a three dollar bill. Secular poetry? In the Holy Torah? It's a little like using a Bob Dylan verse to clinch an argument about halacha. (This doesn't work) (Unless getting tossed out of class is your goal)

by DovBear | 9:48 AM | Links to this post

Must watch for all Fox Lovers

Tuesday, June 28, 2011
by DovBear | 1:05 PM |
by DovBear | 1:05 PM | Links to this post

Peek a Jew @1:35

by DovBear | 12:49 PM |
by DovBear | 12:49 PM | Links to this post

The source of Miriam's Well

by DovBear | 9:52 AM |
One of the enduring legends of the Old Testement (1) is Miriam's Well. This miraculous source of water is believed to have first appeared at Refidim, to have followed the Israelites during their forty years in the desert, and to have run dry immediately after Miriam's death. Here are the verses that support (or, as the modern interpreters would say, created) this legend:

Numbers 20: 1-2
In the first month the whole Israelite community arrived at the Desert of Zin, and they stayed at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried. Now there was no water for the community...

This juxtaposition is what "told" the ancient interpreters that the water had been in Miriam's merit. (thus "Miriam's Well" ) Why else would it have disappeared upon her death? (2)

Exodus 17: 6-7
So Moses did this in the sight of the elders (3) of Israel And he called the place Massah and Meribah

Numbers 20:13
These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarreled with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them.

The first verse is from the story in Exodus, when Moshe hits the rock. The second verse is from the story in Numbers when Moshe hits the rock again, despite being told to speak to it (4) The first story took place in Refidim, which was renamed Massah and Meribah; the second occurred forty years later at Kadesh. So how is it that waters from the second story are called the "Waters of Meribah?" And, come to think of it, what had the Israelites done for water for forty years? No complaints are recorded. They seem to have had plenty for themselves and for their flocks. According to the ancient interpreters, the verses spoke for themselves. The water-giving-rock from Refidim must have followed the people. This is why the waters of the second story are called "Waters of Meribah" That's where they were from.

Modern interpreters, on the other hand, are not kind to the old story or the old readings. They say the two accounts of Moshe hitting the rock are simply an example of a narrative doublets, one of dozens that appear in the Old Testament.(5) Moshe at Refidim belongs to one source, and Moshe at Kadesh belongs to another. Interestingly, the second story, on the basis of vocabulary, is assigned to P, and P is a source that in many other places seems to denigrate Moshe. Here, too, the moderns would say, P has recast a story in a way that reflects poorly on Moshe. In the E story, now part of Exodus, Moshe is a hero for hitting the rock and bringing forth water. In the P story told as part of Numbers, his heroism is diminished.


NOTES
(1) I don't mean "legend" in a disparaging way, but in the dictionary sense of "an unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical."
(2) I don't know why water couldn't continue to be given in her merit, even after her death. Nowadays, we ask for things in the merit of our ancestors, including the Patriarchs. The ancient interpreters seem to have had a different understanding of how this worked. Apparently, we can continue to expect things in the merit of Jacob 3000+ years after his demise, for instance, but the merit of Miriam ran out the moment she died. I don't get it.
(3) That is, Moshe hit the rock. The verses are from the end of that story
(4) This is one of maybe 10 explanations of what actually happened there. See this for more.
(5) A narrative doublet is when the same information is given twice. The two accounts of the Ten Commandments are a famous example, but there are many others. Moderns say this is evidence of different textual traditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by DovBear | 9:52 AM | Links to this post

Half right about half shabbos

Monday, June 27, 2011
by DovBear | 12:35 PM |
Is it a crises that some Orthodox Jewish teenagers text on shabbos? I don't think so. First, I don't think the "problem" is as widespread as the Jewish Week claims. 50 percent? Please. If you're going to make an accusation like that, Jewish Week, lets hang it on something a bit more rigorous than "some say". (WHO says? And why should we believe them?)

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 12:35 PM | Links to this post

What can we do about 'Half Shabbos'? Some ideas.

by DovBear | 7:06 AM |
Harry has a shiva-sitting post about Half-Shabbos, or what the Jewish Week says is the street name for the practice of keeping "all the Shabbat regulations except for texting." According to the Jewish Week, up to half of all Modern Orthodox Jewish teens text on Shabbos.  Harry thinks this is terrible. He's half-right. Later today I intend to explain why, but first I want to share an epic comment left on that post by "A Little Sanity". He thinks the Half Shabbos problem can be solved quite easily:
I am surprised that no one here has described the obvious solutions to this problem. While they are "p'shita", I thus feel compelled to state them:

1. Bigger Black Hats.

2. More faux Jewish Rap Music with Hebrew Lyrics.

3. Importation of more women from the Caribbean to raise our children.

4.More emphasis in our yeshiva system on the difference between "isur cheftzah" and an "isur gavra", especially as it pertains to tax evasion.

5. More emphasis on teaching our benighted children important midrashic concepts, such as Moshe Rabbeinu's great height, or the age of Rivke when she met Eliezer at the well.

7. A ban on the study of such tiflus as "Mesillas Yesharim", "Chovos Halivavos" and "Neviim Acharonim".

8. Learning from a sefer must be made mandatory during all tefillos (with the possible exception of maariv, when it can be a "r'shus").

9. Better bug checkers for the strawberries that are imperiling our kids' neshamos.
He's on the right track, of course, but there is still so much more more we can do. For instance:

(1) Higher mechizot, in more places. Currently, we have them at shul, weddings, funerals, kiddushim, bar mitzvahs, shiurim, and on some buses. I propose establishing 8 feet as the minimum height, and installing them on busy streets, and in grocery stores. It can only help. Why take chances?

(2) Thicker stockings. In places like New Square and Meah Shearin the legware is nearly a quarter inch thick, and from what I know from listening to Aish Hatorah rabbis, and @yeshivaguy tweets, no child from those communities texts on shabbos. Seems pretty simple.

(3)  Cholent on Wednesday night. The Cholent-on-Thursday night movement has been a rousing success, but there is no reason to sit on our laurels. The extra night of cholent is something the Jewish soul calls out for. The more damage it does to your body, the better it is for your invisible, immaterial soul, or as our slogan might say "The fatter the belly, the holier the soul."

by DovBear | 7:06 AM | Links to this post

Another attack on Avrech's article about People Magazine and Huma Aberdin

Sunday, June 26, 2011
by DovBear | 3:57 AM |
A guest post by an anonymous reader who is irritated that five people shared Avrech's article with her.

RE: People Magazine’s Fashionable Anti-Semitism, by Robert Avrech

Usually, I ignore all political posts (from anyone but my little brothers and maybe Dov Bear), because they seem to be more about electronic emotional displays that anything else, but when I see posts and re-posts, I may pay attention. It is difficult to reply to my FB/E-mail friends, because in most cases, they are my real friends and neighbors, but this particular political post deserves a response.

I hate false claims of antisemitism, because I think real antisemitism exists, but with pointless noise like this, nobody is going to pay attention.

Is sum, this article is a knee-jerk mess of supposedly conservative and Jewish outrage. It is difficult to understand what the author is really mad about, but I suppose the author and his wife are mainly concerned about People magazine's supposed antisemitism. So here are some counterpoints:

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 3:57 AM | Links to this post

People Magazine, Huma Aberdin, and Seraphic Secret

Friday, June 24, 2011
by DovBear | 8:55 AM |
Robert Averich thinks its awful that People Magazine called Anthony Weiner a "brash New York Jew" in the same article in which his wife, Huma, is referred to as "refined Muslim" He calls this "fashionable antisemitism." Unlike Robert, I don't subscribe to trashy magazines like People, and the article isn't online, so I can't decide for myself. But I agree that in some contexts its unkind to call a Jew brash.

Weiner is certainly brash, (and I mean that in a good way) and he's certainly a New York Jew, but using such words together is at least a misdemeanor against good taste.   I wouldn't call it "antisemitism" on the grounds that trumped up charges of antisemitism make people less likely to pay attention to legitimate antisemitism (See: Wolf, Boy Who Cried)  but that's just me.

Unfortunately Robert's post ends on  a low note with the author indulging in the very sort of behavior his post decries. Here he goes:

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 8:55 AM | Links to this post

YWN, the Dass Torah Blog, Goes Dirty

by DovBear | 7:58 AM |
YeshivaWorld News is one of the top blogs among people who purportedly don't own computers, or surf the Internet. Its achieved this distinction thanks, in part, to the fraudulently ehrlich reputation of its editor, and also because the blog claims to follow daas torah. Allegedly, the blog even has a posek who is consulted before anything that might reflect poorly on the frum community is posted.

The odd thing is this reputation remains intact despite articles such as the one that appeared yesterday:


Like most YWN articles, this one was taken almost word-for-word from another publication, in this case the NY Post. Interestingly enough, some of the original article's dirty bits have been deleted. Where the post has "amid a sexting scandal." YWN has "amid a scandal", and missing from the YWN article is this entire paragraph: "His political standing deflated after he posted a lewd photo of his bulging underwear on Twitter on May 27. He first claimed his account was "hacked."

But the really odd thing is the YWN headline "Congress Acknowledges Weiner Withdrawal. This is clumsy word play, and the sort of winkingly lewd thing we'd expect to see from the Post. Only here's "A Muppet": At first, I assumed they'd just stolen the Post's headline and not realized they'd printed a double entendre, but, no, they changed the headline the Post actually had into something dirty. Weird."

Yes, weird and a little creepy, especially for a blog that frequently acts self-righteously and seems to appeal most strongly to Jews who value that. 
by DovBear | 7:58 AM | Links to this post

Got nothin' but this

by DovBear | 7:29 AM |
by DovBear | 7:29 AM | Links to this post

Fox destroyed by Stewart yet again. Why do people still trust those frauds?

Thursday, June 23, 2011
by DovBear | 9:02 AM |
by DovBear | 9:02 AM | Links to this post

Is Korach a Mini Pharaoh?

by DovBear | 7:50 AM |
There are at three parallels between the Korach and Exodus stories.

  1. The disputing parties fight a duel involving staffs. At the beginning of the Exodus story, we see the famous staff-into-snake confrontation; the end of the Korach story gives us the slightly less famous battle of the blossoming staffs.
  2. In both stories Moshes's enemies are destroyed at the hand of God through a supernatural display of His might, and the outburst is tamed after Moshes's prayerful intervention. 
  3. The Exodus story ends with the splitting of the sea; at the end of the Korach story the earth splits.
Now, let me be the first to concede, that these parallels are not the strongest. The final one is particularly weak, in that the splitting earth and the splitting sea are indicated via two very different verbs. (In point of fact we're told that the earth opened, not that it split.) however, I am somewhat tempted by the notion that the (divine) author alluded to Pharaoh and the Exodus story in His depiction of Korach's story,  much as a movie maker might give his villain certain familiar, readily identifiable, characteristics. It just feels right when movie bad guys have weird accents, or bad hair styles, or a cat sitting on their lap; likewise, perhaps such allusions to Pharaoh and the Exodus were expected motifs at that moment in antiquity. 


by DovBear | 7:50 AM | Links to this post

Housekeeping

by DovBear | 7:22 AM |
The peh before ayin essay was published two years ago here on the Tradition Seforim Blog, "a blog within the online forum of Tradition." I can't tell if it was published there first, or if it first appeared somewhere else --but it looked to me  like someone simply cut and pasted the essay into that forum, without attribution or a link. (Blog posts don't ordinarily have footnotes, etc.)

In my own post, I credited the author, Mitchel First. Under the circumstances, as I understood them, I believed that was all that was required. However, I have been asked to mention the blog that first published the essay, and so I have.

by DovBear | 7:22 AM | Links to this post

1,2,3,4... I spy a blog war

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
by DovBear | 10:21 AM |
Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, vs Allison Benedikt, the Village Voice editor.

I think it started when Goldberg described a Benedict essay this way "[she]wrote with great feeling about how her camp counselors told her Israel was the best thing since cream cheese, so she believed them, but then later her husband told her they were wrong, that Israel was, in fact, disgusting, so she believed him."

Anyway, its been off to the races for several days already, with warring tweets and posts; today Goldberg even got a Rabbi to weigh in on his side, and Benedikt cursed out a Twitter follower for daring to question her Jewish bonafides. Great stuff!


by DovBear | 10:21 AM | Links to this post

Mysteries of a Nazi Photo Album

Tuesday, June 21, 2011
by DovBear | 12:27 PM |



Do you know this man? He appears in a photo album owned by an unnamed businessman who says he acquired the album from an employee, as payment on a loan. The employee, for his part, says an old German man gave it to him years ago. Now, the New York Times is attempting to identify the photographer and the original owner of the album, which contains nine photos of Hitler, and several pictures of doomed Jews.  More after the jump

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 12:27 PM | Links to this post

Three day fast declared in Harrisburg, PA

by DovBear | 9:31 AM |
Mayor Linda Thompson plans
to join the fast
HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) -
Mayor Linda Thompson says she won't eat for three days, and she's not alone. Some religious leaders are calling on their followers to fast and pray for the good of the city.

Thompson said the fasting was her idea as a way to unite Harrisburg and encourage local leaders to work together in solving the financial crisis.

"Things that are above and beyond my control, I need God," Thompson said. "I depend on Him for guidance. Spiritual guidance. That's why it's really no struggle for me to join this fast and prayer."

Thompson said she'll start her liquid-only diet on Wednesday and has the support of at least a dozen area church leaders, some outside the city, who are calling on their members to fast as well.

But not everyone's on board.

"I'm not starving myself for Harrisburg. No way," said Jori McElwe, of Middletown. "I may say a prayer, but I'm not starving myself."

"Would I fast? No, I wouldn't," said Edwina Best, of Fredericksburg. "I don't know. How would that change things?

From  http://www.abc27.com/story/14943772/mayor-plans-3-day-fast


by DovBear | 9:31 AM | Links to this post

On the 10,000 year old definition of marriage

by DovBear | 7:53 AM |
Garnel Ironheart: The traditional definition of marriage is one-man-one-woman... on[c]e you change the 10 000 year old definition to meet one group's agenda, why stop there?

Sorry, Garnel, but no. The traditional definition of marriage is one man and multiple wives.  It was only in the last 1000 years or so that polygamy started to go out of style. Blame Christianity for that.

And that's only part of the story. Over the last 1000 years marriage has continued to evolve. As Stephanie Coontz has persuasively argued  in many places, the old idea of marriage was overturned a long time ago. And, under the new definition, a definition that is already several decades old, gay marriage is impossible to stop. Read more after the jump.

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 7:53 AM | Links to this post

Court Stones Dog

Monday, June 20, 2011
by DovBear | 9:09 AM |
Yahoo reported this weekend that a Jerusalem rabininc court sentenced a dog to death by stoning, and many of you sent me the story, thinking I'd want to post it. Hello, we had the story on June 6

Thanks all the same :)
by DovBear | 9:09 AM | Links to this post

Is Isolation a Sign of Strength?

Friday, June 17, 2011

Labels:
by EFink | 9:28 AM |
A Guest Post By E. Fink

I once heard a great (and surprising?) vort from R' Elya Meyer Bloch (Telshe Rosh Yeshiva) on a verse in this week's parsha.

וּרְאִיתֶם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, מַה-הִוא; וְאֶת-הָעָם, הַיֹּשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ--הֶחָזָק הוּא הֲרָפֶה, הַמְעַט הוּא אִם-רָב

Rashi explains that if the cities are walled then you know that the inhabitants are weak but if they are not fortified it means that they are strong.

Rashi's insight is interesting. Appearances can be deceiving. A wall might intimidate or make its inhabitants seem imposing. But in reality they are weak. One who is strong does not need to hide behind walls.

Says R' Bloch, this lesson can be applied to how we live our lives. If we are so insulated that we are living behind literal and figurative walls it does not demonstrate strength. Rather it demonstrates weakness. We need to be strong and fearless in our avodas Hashem that we do not need or desire artificial boundaries to "protect" us from the rest of the world. Real strength and real avodas Hashem create the kind of internal strength that is able to maintain our Jewishness without creating barriers, walls and isolating ourselves.


Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks
by EFink | 9:28 AM | Links to this post

How is Tzitzis Spelled?

Labels:
by EFink | 8:58 AM |
A Guest Post E. Fink

Rashi in Shelach quotes a Midrash Agada (anyone have a citation for the primary source?) that the word Tzitzis in gematria equals 600. The problem is that the chumash that we have says ציצת. The gematria of ציצת is only 590.

Interestingly enough, Tzitzis is spelled ציצית in all the mefarshim I have seen. The Talmud, the Midrshim, the rishonim all use the ציצית spelling.

Yet, the chumash uses ציצת as does the Navi in Yechezkel 8. I don't know if ציצת or ציצית is more grammatically correct or if it even makes a difference grammatically how it is written.

Some super-commentaries give explanations for why Rashi would use ציצית for his agada if the chumash has a different spelling. I wonder if Rashi had a different text (it wouldn't be the first time) or if a different text even exists. Any ideas?

Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks
by EFink | 8:58 AM | Links to this post

Another Example of Rashi Changing a Midrash (Shlach)

by DovBear | 8:52 AM |
Here's the Tanchuma on the verse in Numbers in which we are told that tassles on the end of our garments (i.e. tzitzis) will prevent us from "prostituing ourselves after the lusts of our eyes and hearts."

הלב והעיניים הן סרסורין לגוף, שהן מזנים את הגוף
The eyes and the heart are agents of the body, that lead the body astray

And here is Rashi on the same verse
הלב והעינים הם מרגלים לגוף ומסרסרים לו את העבירות, העין רואה והלב חומד והגוף עושה את העבירות
The heart and the eyes are spies of the body; they introduce him to sin: the eye sees, the heart desires, and the body performs the transgressions

As you can see Rashi has altered the Tanchuma, changing "agent" to "spies". I believe he does this for the purpose of drawing our attention to a thematic link between the beginning and ending of the parsha.

The first part of the sedra deals with the sin of the spies, who were led astray by their eyes and hearts; at the end of the parsha Tzitzis are instituted specifically to prevent such errors. The spies explored (tur [13: 16,17,21,and 25); tzistiz prevent us from the same (v'lo taturu [15:39])

By changing"agent" to "spies" Rashi makes the link explicit.

PS: Would Rashi permit himself to do this if he imagined that Midrashim were from Sinai?

Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks
by DovBear | 8:52 AM | Links to this post

Why did Weiner pull out*?

by DovBear | 7:43 AM |
On the one hand, I'm glad Anthony Weiner resigned. By leaving early, Wiener helps to secure the seat for a Democratic succesor, and he also gives me the high road in future debates with Republican dolts. "My guy had the decency to step down," I'll say, puffed with moral superiority, "Whereas Republican skeezeballs such as David Vitter and Larry Craig remained in their positions even after committing far worse offenses."*

On the other hand, I think the public should have given Weiner a break. Yes, he demonstrated monstrously bad judgment in sending proactive photos of himself to strangers, and yes, he lied about it when challenged. Both are strikes against his character. But the underlying offense wasn't the serious. We don't punish men for real-life flirting. Why was Wiener raked over the coals for online flirting? Is what he did really all that different from asking a girl to feel your muscles or check out your abs?

*Props to a Facebook "friend" for the line. I'll name her if she wishes to be associated with such lasciviousness.

Great moments in Anthony Wiener after the jump

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 7:43 AM | Links to this post

The lesson of the stick gatherer

Thursday, June 16, 2011
by DovBear | 12:42 PM |
The interesting thing about the stick gatherer's story is that the story really isn't about him. The man is never named, his sin is poorly described*, and the story's emphasis seems to be on the people. Consider the verses:
While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. [NIV]
As you can see the story isn't about some nameless fellow who sinned, but about how the people responded to him.  We're told that an anonymous man was found, and that those who found him brought him to Moshe and that they kept him in custody. Afterwards, the whole assembly stones him, and tellingly the word used for assembly, eida, is the same word that was used a few verses earlier to describe the spies.

I think an argument can be made that the story was included here as an epilogue to the spy story. A moment ago we were told that the Israelites had been sentenced to stay in the wilderness for forty years, and our story begins with the words "While the Israelites were in the wilderness." The spies constituted an eida that acted improperly, that showed no faith in God, but the eida in our story is commited to upholding His rules. Finally, we may have expected the Israelites to respond to God's decree by abandoning His commandments. They may have reasoned, "If He intends for us to languish in the wilderness, our obligation to keep His laws has expired." The story tells us that the very opposite happened.** Instead, of abandoning the lawthe Israelites recommitted themselves to it, even to the point of (perhaps) appointing watchmen who made it their business to seek out rule breakers and bring them to justice.

* Explanations for mekoshesh eitzim include: gathering sticks, chipping sticks, and carrying sticks from one domain to another. 
** The Rabbis argue about when this story occured. Some say it was the first shabbos in the wilderness; others say it was the first shabbos after the Revelation at Sinai; and others say it was the first shabbos after the crises of the spies.



Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks
by DovBear | 12:42 PM | Links to this post

Great Moments in Sarah Palin

Wednesday, June 15, 2011
by DovBear | 1:03 PM |
by DovBear | 1:03 PM | Links to this post

I answer the iPhone question Part 1

by DovBear | 9:15 AM |
Re: A reader asks: Was I right to use my iPhone on Shabbos?

Dear Letter Writer:

I agree with you about some things, but ultimately I think you were wrong to use your iPhone on Shabbos.

First, our points of agreement:

READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 9:15 AM | Links to this post

Here we go with another survey

Tuesday, June 14, 2011
by DovBear | 11:59 AM |
Received by email:

My name is Cristina Andriani. I am a doctoral candidate at Clark
University in the Department of Psychology and the Strassler Center
for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, under the
direction of Jaan Valsiner and Johanna Vollhardt. I am conducting
research for my dissertation on Jewish-Israeli Holocaust collective
memory meaning making in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict.

I am looking for volunteers who will be asked to complete an online
survey. It will take approximately 30 minutes of your time.
Participation is voluntary. You may decline to answer any question
that you do not wish to answer, and if you wish to drop out of the
study at any time, you are free to do so. Your answers will be kept
fully confidential. At the end of the survey you will be asked for
your contact information so we may contact you for a follow-up study,
but you are not obliged to provide this information.

In order to participate in the survey, you must be a Jewish Israeli,
18 years or older, residing in Israel. In order to access the survey,
please click on the link below.

Link: http://ww3.unipark.de/uc/survey_jewish_israeli_beliefs/

If you have any questions regarding my research or the survey, do not
hesitate to contact me via email at candriani@clarku.edu. If you know
people who you think may be willing or interested in participating in
this survey, please forward this email to them. Thank you.


by DovBear | 11:59 AM | Links to this post

A reader asks: Was I right to use my iPhone on Shabbos?

by DovBear | 7:48 AM |
From the old email bag:
Ok, DovBear, I am sure your high minded readers are going to say I committed a terrible sin in the story I am about to share, but I hold I made the right decision, and I think you'll agree.
Here's what happened.

The wife, some kids, and I spent shabbos in a small suburban hotel in an unfamiliar neighborhood. (Don't ask; long story; not your business) Pre-shabbos I googled for shuls, and found two. One was nearby and started at 8:30; the other was about a mile away and started at 9:30 (though the guy who answered my email helpfully added "We never really get moving before 9:45.") So, obviously I chose "nearby" and davened there on Friday night and found it swell. So I forgot all about the second shul.

Until I woke up Shabbos morning after 9:00. Now, let me explain to you something important about myself. I hate showing up late for anything, but I loath and despise walking into shul after the Torah is out. I find it embarrassing and nearly pointless. Half the service is over. So my snap decision when I saw how late it was was to roll over and go back to sleep. Sure, I'd miss musaf, but I'd also spare myself humiliation, and I'd be able to say shachris without rushing. My wife had other ideas. Let me explain to you something about her. She thinks showing up to shul on shabbos is the single most important thing a Jew can do. She knows this isn't true in a technical sense, but she feels its true in the strongest emotional sense. She also feels sleeping in on Saturday sets a horrible example for the kids. Now, generally I agree with her, and almost never miss shul, but it was already really late.

Then I remembered: The second shul. They start at 9:45! I can still get there before borchu! Only, where the heck are they? Unfamiliar neighborhood. Remember? With my wife glowering at me, and the minutes ticking away, I was feeling serious pressure. Then I remembered something else. The email from the second shul included an address and directions. When my wife went to the bathroom, I reached for the iPhone and quickly checked the message.

Here are some more things you should know about me. I'm 100 percent shomer shabbos. I don't drive. I don't cook. I don't turn on lights. But I made an exception that morning, because of a few things that were going through my mind:  (1) Its REALLY important to my wife that I get to shul. If I miss the minyan, it will absolutely ruin her day (and mine, too) (2) Getting to shul is also really important to me! Minyan, kaddish, kedusha, krias hatorah -- I take all those things seriously. (3) Setting a good example for my kids is also important and, most important of all (4) Using an iPhone on shabbos is only borderline forbidden. I say this based on the following (I'm not a scholar, but this was the truth as I understood it that morning):

100 years ago the rabbis debated about using electricity on shabbos and if I remember correctly a few serious names thought it was ok when heat or light weren't generated. The iPhone generates neither and if as recently as 100 years ago some big name Rabbis thought using electricity on shabbos was ok, how serious an offense can this really be?

Now, I'm not advocating for all Orthodox Jews to start using their iPhones on shabbos. I understand that this would ruin the spirit of shabbos, and cause all sorts of cultural problems. I think the rules should stay as they are. But I am also growing more and more certain that I made the right move that shabbos morning, or at least the right move for me.  I think its perfectly ok for reasonable people (like me) to make private decisions (like that one) based on the things that seem to matter and make sense at the time. Sure, its also a good idea to talk things over with a knowledgeable expert like a Rabbi when one is available, but doing your best with what you have isn't a terrible alternative.

Ok, long letter done. DovBear do you agree?
[Posted with permission]

Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks
by DovBear | 7:48 AM | Links to this post

A Different Response From a Chasid Regarding New Square

Monday, June 13, 2011

Labels:
by EFink | 11:33 PM |
A Guest Post By E. Fink


The New Square incident is in the rear view mirror but this insightful response from a chassid is still worth reading and contemplating.


Once again, thanks to @azigra for translating and maintaining its authentic yiddishe flavor.

Skver History

I am sick of listening to childish claims. I will try again not to repeat what I've said, hopefully I will no longer hear these claims. I will not speak of other places, only Skver, not Satmar, not Tosh, not Belz. I am not a Skverer chassid, but I am in Skver often, already many years Ive been going there, so I have a good handle on the place, I know it very well.
READ MORE>>
by EFink | 11:33 PM | Links to this post

Explaining Onkelos on the Cushite Woman

by DovBear | 11:13 AM |
Thanks to Oldest Member for inspiring this.

Here's how Onkelos translates Numbers 12:1:
ומללת מרים ואהרן במשה על עסק אתתא שפרתא די נסיב ארי אתתא שפרתא דנסיב רחיק.

Loosly, this means:

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moshe on the matter of the beautiful woman he married, the beautiful woman he married that he kept at a distance.

The Hebrew, of course, reads as follows:
וַתְּדַבֵּ֨ר מִרְיָ֤ם וְאַהֲרֹן֙ בְּמֹשֶׁ֔ה עַל־ אֹדֹ֛ות הָאִשָּׁ֥ה הַכֻּשִׁ֖ית אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָקָ֑ח כִּֽי־ אִשָּׁ֥ה כֻשִׁ֖ית לָקָֽח׃

KJV translates it this way:
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

The question: Is Onkelos deviating from the plain meaning of the text?

On the surface it would seem he is. Notably, the words "he kept at distance" do not appear in the original text. Also, the text says Cushite women, and Onkles renders it "beautiful".

However, I think this line of reasoning indicates a fundemental misunderstanding of what Onkelos is doing here.

First, it seems clear to me that Onkelos thinks "Chushite" is a figure of speech. I say this because elsewhere in his comemntary he translates the word as something other than "Ethiopian" or "dark skinned"; in fact he, and the other Aramaic Targums,  consistently takes the word as meaning something noble or upstanding. Some have suggested this is because the Aramaic speakers link Cushite with cusherta which means something like "good" or "proper", but I don't think this explanation is necessary. Rather it seems most straightforward to suggest that he simply sees "Cushite" as a figure of speech in the way English speakers use "cool" as a figure of speech. Just as it would be deviating from the plain meanign to translate "he's so cool" as something other than an expression of admiration, Onkleos believes the plain meaning of "Cushite" is something positive.

Second, the last three words of the sentence Ki isha Cushis lakach are (arguablly) in the past perfect.

Explanation: The Past Perfect expresses the idea that something occurred before another action in the past. It can also show that something happened before a specific time in the past. [http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html]

If you take the phrase Ki isha Cushis lakach as being in the past perfect, the plain meaning is "He took her in the past before another action occured" ie not at this moment in the narrative.

If you think the verse is in the past perfect Miriam and Aaron can't be talking about the fact that Moshe took her. Their complain has to be about something else, something that occured AFTER Moshe took her. Onkelos fills in the blank, but his speculation does no damage at all to the "plain meaning" if, like Onkelos, you think the words Ki isha Cushis lakach are past perfect.

by DovBear | 11:13 AM | Links to this post

The Samaritan Shavuos

by DovBear | 9:40 AM |














Members of the Ancient Samaritan community pray during a pilgrimage marking the end of the holy day of Shavuot. The pilgrimage took place at the religion's holiest site on Mount Gerizim, near the West Bank town of Nablus SOURCE: Guardian Eyewitness series

Gives us an idea, I expect, of how our own ancient pilgrimage to a holy mountain may have looked....
by DovBear | 9:40 AM | Links to this post

Ibn Caspi politely but strenuously refutes Rashi regarding the Cushite Woman

by DovBear | 7:36 AM |
Related:
Per Numbers 12 Moses our Teacher married a Cushite. [12:1 Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.] The official interpretation, known to all, is that the word "Cushite" is a sort of code for "drop dead gorgeous" and that the reference is to Tziporah, Moshe's one and only wife.

Here's Rashi: The Cushite women: "This tells us that everyone acknowledged [Tzipora's] beauty in the same way that everyone acknowledges the blackness of a Cushite" [=האשה הכשית: (שם) מגיד שהכל מודים ביפיה כשם שהכל מודים בשחרותו של כושי] Continues Rashi, moreover "The numerical value of Cushite is equivalent to the numerical value of 'very pretty' [כושית: בגימטריה יפת מראה]

Rashi is forced into this interpretation, I think, because he holds that Moshe only married once. However, as I discuss in More on Moses and his black wife there is an alternative tradition, reported by Jospehus and accepted by the Rashbam, in which Moshe was wed to an Ethiopian princess. This, quite plausibly, is the Cushite Woman.

However, as the medieval commentator ibn Caspi points out, no matter who the Cushite is there's a serious problem with Rashi's point of view. Its an obvious problem, and one that is so obvious most of us probably spotted it on our own, but kept silent out of deference to  Rashi and the tradition. We may have said to ourselves: "This problem is so simple, and so obvious, Rashi must have noticed it, and if it didn't bother him, why should it bother us? "

Ibn Caspi seems not to have such scruples. Here is what he said [paraphrased]:
Despite my great respect for the ancients [ie the authors of the Midrash Rashi quotes], I'm amazed at what they did here. How did they permit themselves to interpret a word as its own opposite? The Torah says 'black" This means "black" It doesn't mean "beautiful".  If its okay to make this kind of interpretation, why can't you say that when the Torah commands us to "Love God" it is really telling us to hate God?  [Full Ibn Caspi after the jump]
Its a great point, and a great argument. The fact that Rashi, and not Ibn Caspi, won the day on this question  tells us quite a bit, I think, about the power of interpretation and the closing of the Jewish mind. Even though its 180 degrees away from the plain meaning of the text Rashi's interpretation is the official interpretation, and all others are suspect. Its easy to understand how this happened, but why are so many frum Jews opposed to undoing the damage, and allowing people like ibn Caspi back into the study hall?
READ MORE>>
by DovBear | 7:36 AM | Links to this post

On the Matter of the Bin Laden Photograph

Saturday, June 11, 2011
by DovBear | 8:00 AM |
by Mariana Ashley

I.

In the past couple weeks we have seen quite a controversey stir regardng the matter of the Bin Laden photograph. Generally, as you know, the controversy arises from the basic question: should the United States government release the 'death photo'?

On every news show and political radio channel, you can see and hear plenty of opinionated people giving their strident opinions on the issue. And, as is common with Americans 24/7 news cycle, these talking heads have managed to fill all hours of the day and night with arguments that are, essentially, unfortunate reductions of the issue at hand.

Because, really, what we're talking about isn't one little photograph, but instead a portfolio of fifteen photographs, some from the scene of the house in Abbottabad and others from aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson. Additionally, we're talking about this issue within the greater context of how images can suddenly define a moment in history and create effects for years afterward. Why would President Obama have put such emphasis on the release of the photograph from the situation room that was taking during the raid? Next, think especially how an image can be twisted both for political ends, as was the case of President Bush's now infamous Mission Accomplish photograph, or for humorous ends, as was suddenly the case when the situation room photograph received its own hilarious treatment. And of course, there's the matter of how such a photograph would be treated by the rest of the world upon its release.

So to argue as to whether or not the photograph should be released in order to prove that bin Laden is dead is a severe reduction of the issue at hand.

II.

Perhaps the best argument that I have read concerning the idea that the government should not release of the bin Laden photographs was written by Philip Gourevitch and posted on the website of The New Yorker. In the article, Gourevitch says:

ABC News is reporting that the first image of bin Laden that the White House may show us is “bloody and gruesome, with a bullet wound to his head above his left eye.” If it’s released, this is the image that will instantly supplant every other account of Sunday’s raid as the iconic representation of America’s moment of triumph over its most wanted enemy. Is that what we want—the official equivalent of the Saddam hanging video? Did we learn nothing from the past decade about the overwhelming power of crude images of violence to define and polarize our historical moment?

And the photographs truly are gruesome, according to U.S. Senator James Inhofe. He spoke at length about the photographs to The Atlantic Wire, saying that they depicted massive head wounds and "the brains were coming out of his [eye] socket."

Gourevitch understands here that what is most important is how images are incredibly powerful in this day and age to define significant moments in history, and it is this signification that leads to all other consequences. So, discussions about how these images could put troops in danger or how these images could prove that bin Laden is dead both stem from the same seed: humankind's fascination with imagery, and how that fascination can take root in our minds to certain effects. In a sense, they are already compromised: American troops are always in a certain degree of danger and those who want to believe that bin Laden remains alive are not going to be swayed by a photograph. Unfortunately, many discussion overlook this factor, and instead seek to create a reductive dichotomy of 'us vs. them,' either political or cultural, that creates division when unification is more desirable.

III.

Of course, all of the above is extremely idealistic in nature. It would be wonderful if every argument and discussion took place within an easily understandable context that all parties respected. However, one of our faults as intelligent creatues is that we struggle to take into account universals as we simultaenously examine specifics. The contexts we try to understand drastically differ from the reality out there.

The debate will rage on, though eventually many of us will forget about it, and then one day, the photos will be leaked. Until that day comes, I, for one, am more than happy to avoid seeing them.

By-line:
Mariana Ashley is a freelance writer who particularly enjoys writing about online colleges. She loves receiving reader feedback, which can be directed to mariana.ashley031@gmail.com.
by DovBear | 8:00 AM | Links to this post

How selfish was Boaz?

Friday, June 10, 2011
by DovBear | 10:48 AM |
Boaz was a wealthy man with fields and servants, who the Rabbis considered the richest man in Israel. yet, when Ruth appears destitute before him the best he can do is offer her some scraps from the field?

Why didn't he write her a check?

by DovBear | 10:48 AM | Links to this post

High School valedictorian chooses not to deliver her speech on Shavuos

by DovBear | 10:16 AM |
Video: High School valedictorian chooses not to deliver her speech on Shavuos

These are the sort of Jews many of us refuse to acknowledge. According to the official Flatbush view of things, Jews who send their children to public school don't care about religion, and their offspring turn out secular. Carolyn Fine's example stands in sharp rebuttal to this inaccurate view of things.



by DovBear | 10:16 AM | Links to this post

Bush tax cuts = failure

by DovBear | 9:25 AM |
In a new article Annie Lowery, the economics reporter at Slate, argues that the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

Honest Republicans will wish to read the article, which can be found here. I look forward to hearing your counterpoints.

The rest of you, I expect, will just skip to bashing Slate for being "liberal." Or as the conspiracy-minded  refrain goes: "Oh, if only those lying liberal liars at Slate and the New York Times would stop telling those liberal lies the whole world would FINALLY see how awesome George W. Bush was."

The same sort of people were recently busy at Wikipedia attempting to correct the Paul Revere article so that it would reflect Sarah Palin's misunderstanding of his ride. And of course, like-minded Jewish people are busy denying historical truth for the sake of "protecting" the reputation of our Sages.

by DovBear | 9:25 AM | Links to this post
Subscribe to: Comment Feed (RSS)