Support the Pathetic Annual Telethon
Rosh Hashana music 1
Search for more information about this video at 4torah.com
Short review: Harmless fluff with some neat visual bits.
Search for more information about this video at 4torah.com
Short review: Harmless fluff with some neat visual bits.
Search for more information about this video at 4torah.com
Profiles in Cowardice
Labels: orot, ramat bet shemesh, women in Judaism
When someone asks you to condemn violence against little girls, the correct response is "Sure. I condemn violence against little girls."
Here's the exact language of the petition this Rabbi was asked to support (translated)
Here's the exact language of the petition this Rabbi was asked to support (translated)
We, the undersigned, condemn all who performs acts physical or verbal harassment against any human being, but especially against girls wearing clothing that might not appeal to your personal taste.
We also call upon the leaders and rabbis of the Beit Shemesh to condemn in no uncertain terms all those who engage in such acts of harassment
It takes a special kind of rabbinical cowardice to refuse to sign your name to those words, and a special kind of crooked morality to justify that cowardice.
Background: This particular coward used to have some guts. The Google Machine tells me that Natan Slifkin prayed in his shul, and enjoyed this rabbi's full support at the height of Slifkingate. Later, this rabbi refused a prominent Bet Shemesh chesed organization permission to fund raise in his shul on the grounds that the organization's founder thinks child molesters should be reported to the police.
So by my count he is 1-2
Background: This particular coward used to have some guts. The Google Machine tells me that Natan Slifkin prayed in his shul, and enjoyed this rabbi's full support at the height of Slifkingate. Later, this rabbi refused a prominent Bet Shemesh chesed organization permission to fund raise in his shul on the grounds that the organization's founder thinks child molesters should be reported to the police.
So by my count he is 1-2
An important, yet barely literate message from your local crazy person
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Search for more information about NUDE STOCKING at 4torah.com
Rosh Hashana MacaBeats
Monday, September 26, 2011
Another clever video from YU's acapalo group. Noteworthy for finally acknowledging the existence of women and non Jews.
What do Democrats applaud?
It says somewhere that people can be judged by what they praise. Presumably audiences can be judged based on what they applaud. Recently, we saw Republican audiences clap for executions, cheer at the suggestion an uninsured man might die, and boo a U.S soldier who admitted he was gay. Ugly stuff.
Today President Obama was taking questions at a Town Hall, when a very rich man stood up and made a commendable request:
This short exchange supports what I've always said about rich people benefiting more from government services. Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs help poor people individually, but a rich guy with lots of employees who've used the Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs benefits exponentially.
Today President Obama was taking questions at a Town Hall, when a very rich man stood up and made a commendable request:
Would you please raise my taxes? I would like very much to have the country to continue to invest in things like Pell Grants, infrastructure, and job training programs that made it possible for me to get to where I am.The crowd cheered, and Obama answered with a nice little homily about how America needs both entrepreneurship and government investments.
This short exchange supports what I've always said about rich people benefiting more from government services. Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs help poor people individually, but a rich guy with lots of employees who've used the Pell Grants, infrastructure and job training programs benefits exponentially.
Ehud Barak thinks Brack Obama backs Israel more than any previous president
Friday, September 23, 2011
Ehud Barak is Israel's defense minister, and which president does he think has done the most to protect Israel and guarantee its security? Why Brack Obama! Surprise! Money quote:
See the full Ehud Barak transcript here
And I should tell you honestly that the Obama administration is backing the security of Israel for which I'm responsible in our government in a way that could hardly be compared to any previous administration.Barak also went on to say that Obama is not the problem with the negotiations with the Palestinians but he is part of the solution and; also Rick Perry was wrong to say that Obama appeases the Palestinians.
See the full Ehud Barak transcript here
An astounding biblical coincidence
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A curious mistake appears in both the Septuagint and the Deuteronomy scroll found at Qumran. This mistake, apparently made by two different scribes working independently, also appears appears to sheds some thematic light on the first verse in this week's parsha. Such a coincidence!
וַיֵּלֶךְ, מֹשֶׁה; וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
And Moshe went and spoke these words to all of Israel.
All of the major commenters attempt to explain where Moshe went, and their suggestions vary widely.
Thanks to the coincidentally identical mistake, by two different scribes working independently the Septuagint and the Deuteronomy scroll, have a different reading, one that obviates the difficulty:
"And Moshe finished speaking these words to all of Israel.", or "Vayichal Mochel l'daber...
What happened seems clear: The Greek scribe, and the Qumran scribe coincidentally both made the exact same identical error, and reversed the order of the last two letters of the verb vayelehk (he went) producing vayekhal (he finished) instead.
This is astounding, , because apart from the remarkable coincidence of two scribes working in two different places making the same error, and aside from solving the problem of where Moshe went, the scribal error makes much thematic sense.
The final chapters of Deuteronomy form an epilouge to the book, and the mistake makes this verse into what Robert Alter calls "a proper introduction to the epilogue." Moshe has finished his valedictory sermon. the major work of his life is over. Beginning here, with this verse, the book is concerned with wrapping up the loose ends: The transfer of authority to Yehoshua, Moshe's song, and the blessing of the 12 tribes.
וַיֵּלֶךְ, מֹשֶׁה; וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
And Moshe went and spoke these words to all of Israel.
All of the major commenters attempt to explain where Moshe went, and their suggestions vary widely.
Thanks to the coincidentally identical mistake, by two different scribes working independently the Septuagint and the Deuteronomy scroll, have a different reading, one that obviates the difficulty:
"And Moshe finished speaking these words to all of Israel.", or "Vayichal Mochel l'daber...
What happened seems clear: The Greek scribe, and the Qumran scribe coincidentally both made the exact same identical error, and reversed the order of the last two letters of the verb vayelehk (he went) producing vayekhal (he finished) instead.
This is astounding, , because apart from the remarkable coincidence of two scribes working in two different places making the same error, and aside from solving the problem of where Moshe went, the scribal error makes much thematic sense.
The final chapters of Deuteronomy form an epilouge to the book, and the mistake makes this verse into what Robert Alter calls "a proper introduction to the epilogue." Moshe has finished his valedictory sermon. the major work of his life is over. Beginning here, with this verse, the book is concerned with wrapping up the loose ends: The transfer of authority to Yehoshua, Moshe's song, and the blessing of the 12 tribes.
We're #5! We're #5!
Here's something you Tea Party lunatics can cheer about:
The United States, according to Amnesty International, placed fifth in 2010’s global executions race, with 46 state-sanctioned killings of human beings. China came in first, with a death tally of 1,000-plus. Second-place Iran killed at least 252, North Korea in third with 60, give or take a few, and Yemen pulled up fourth, killing 53, with maybe a few extra tossed in.Aren't you proud? We're in the same category as brutal dictatorships, Arab states, and our two chief enemies. And you thought gay marriage was proof of our country's moral decline.
Why can Republicans undermine the president?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Labels: Barack Obama, election 2012, guest blogger, mitt romney, rick perryGuest post from "George"
Yesterday, GOP presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) led a news conference to attack President Obama’s Middle East policies, insisting that “as a Christian, I have aclear directive to support Israel.” Fellow candidate Mitt Romney jumped on the bandwagon, calling for the U.S. to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and re-evaluate funding U.N. programs if Palestinians gain recognition from the U.N. This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host (and former Republican Rep.) Joe Scarborough slammed Perry and Romney for “posing for political purposes and undermining our president.” “That is dangerous and it’s not good for our country,” he said. Watch it:
MSNBC’s First Read asks, “If Howard Dean or John Kerry had shown up in New York City while [President George W.] Bush was at U.N. in ’03 — and had accused Bush of ‘appeasement’ (with foreign nationals) at a time of tricky negotiations at the U.N. — wouldn’t that have drawn widespread condemnation
Yesterday, GOP presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) led a news conference to attack President Obama’s Middle East policies, insisting that “as a Christian, I have aclear directive to support Israel.” Fellow candidate Mitt Romney jumped on the bandwagon, calling for the U.S. to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and re-evaluate funding U.N. programs if Palestinians gain recognition from the U.N. This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host (and former Republican Rep.) Joe Scarborough slammed Perry and Romney for “posing for political purposes and undermining our president.” “That is dangerous and it’s not good for our country,” he said. Watch it:
MSNBC’s First Read asks, “If Howard Dean or John Kerry had shown up in New York City while [President George W.] Bush was at U.N. in ’03 — and had accused Bush of ‘appeasement’ (with foreign nationals) at a time of tricky negotiations at the U.N. — wouldn’t that have drawn widespread condemnation
Obama throws down
Dear GOP Jews:
How will you spin this one?
Obama, at U.N., Explains Rationale for Opposing Palestinian Statehood Bid
UNITED NATIONS — President Obama declared his opposition to the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood through the Security Council on Wednesday, throwing the weight of the United States directly in the path of the Arab democracy movement even as he hailed what he called the democratic aspirations that have taken hold throughout the Middle East and North Africa. >> More
How will you spin this one?
Obama, at U.N., Explains Rationale for Opposing Palestinian Statehood Bid
UNITED NATIONS — President Obama declared his opposition to the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood through the Security Council on Wednesday, throwing the weight of the United States directly in the path of the Arab democracy movement even as he hailed what he called the democratic aspirations that have taken hold throughout the Middle East and North Africa. >> More
Peek A Jew!
Labels: peek a jew, rick perry
| Right before they kiss |
HT: On request (forgot his blog name)
Source: Houston Chronicle's "Best Photos From Around the Country"
DADT is done
Yesterday marked the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the 18-year-old policy that prohibited gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military and forced more than 14,000 qualified men and women out of the armed forces. This is great news for all sorts of self-evident reasons, the most important one being that it makes Yehuda Levin cry.
As the president put it when he signed the executive order the ordered the military to end the policy: "Service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian"
Those of you concerned that the repeal of DADT will hurt morale and hinder effectiveness are referred to this Daily Show segment:
As the president put it when he signed the executive order the ordered the military to end the policy: "Service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be gay or lesbian"
Those of you concerned that the repeal of DADT will hurt morale and hinder effectiveness are referred to this Daily Show segment:
How can a Republican survive on just $400,000 per year?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Let's pass the hat for John Fleming (R-LA). He's really suffering because after he pays all of his business and household expense his 6.5 million income has evaporated to a mere $400,000.
I know this because the Congressman made a clueless appearance on the T.V in which he appealed for sympathy on the grounds that “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over to invest....”
The poor fellow! Only $400,000! Perhaps he should use it to purchase for himself the worlds tiniest violin.
PS: This sad sack claims he has 500 employees. I went outside and found a third grader who was able to confirm that 6 million / 500 = 12,000. So the Congressperson from LA is either lying about having 500 employees or paying them well under the minimum wage. As a Republican, I suppose either is possible.
PPS: Why does this guy take credit for being a job creator? Demand for goods and services is what creates jobs, not an overstuffed bank account.
I know this because the Congressman made a clueless appearance on the T.V in which he appealed for sympathy on the grounds that “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over to invest....”
The poor fellow! Only $400,000! Perhaps he should use it to purchase for himself the worlds tiniest violin.
PS: This sad sack claims he has 500 employees. I went outside and found a third grader who was able to confirm that 6 million / 500 = 12,000. So the Congressperson from LA is either lying about having 500 employees or paying them well under the minimum wage. As a Republican, I suppose either is possible.
PPS: Why does this guy take credit for being a job creator? Demand for goods and services is what creates jobs, not an overstuffed bank account.
Quote of the day (sex)
Labels: Culture (ours), kosher sex, shmuly boteach
“Orthodox Jewish couples are taught, once they get engaged, to have phenomenal, shout-out-loud, swinging-from-the-chandelier sex.” - Shmuley Boteach
This has appeared on two or three FB accounts I follow, and inevitably the comments ran something like this:
A: He's crazy. I didn't find anything out until the wedding day, and the information was just about what went where.
B: He's exactly right. Only we got that information from our mechneches in H.S
C: Pure propaganda. Orthodox couples are only taught what to avoid. Not how to do it right.
D: Is that why Hungarians are big into chandeliers?
In other Kosher Sex news, the proprietor of that new Torah True kinky toy store told the newspaper that furry handcuffs are his best seller. What's pshat? Any arm chair sociologists care to explain?
This has appeared on two or three FB accounts I follow, and inevitably the comments ran something like this:
A: He's crazy. I didn't find anything out until the wedding day, and the information was just about what went where.
B: He's exactly right. Only we got that information from our mechneches in H.S
C: Pure propaganda. Orthodox couples are only taught what to avoid. Not how to do it right.
D: Is that why Hungarians are big into chandeliers?
In other Kosher Sex news, the proprietor of that new Torah True kinky toy store told the newspaper that furry handcuffs are his best seller. What's pshat? Any arm chair sociologists care to explain?
How Obama has hurt Israel
A guest post by Vox Populi
With respect to Rabbi Fink, I can think of at least one very concrete way in which the President’s efforts have harmed Israel. And I say this as a general supporter of the President, and someone who believes that the Americans should exert pressure on the Israeli government to pursue a negotiated settlement with greater vigor.
When Obama called for Netanyahu to impose a settlement freeze before beginning negotiations, that put Netanyahu in a very difficult position. Not because freezing settlements is a bad idea – I’m all for it – but because Netanyahu can’t freeze settlements. Obama misjudged Israel’s domestic political situation, and thought that the only thing standing in his way was Netanyahu’s recalcitrance. The sad fact is, Netanyahu is not Obama’s biggest problem; Netanyahu is his best friend on this.
Even if Bibi wanted to freeze settlements, and go full steam ahead on a two state solution, he could not. The math just isn’t there. A full settlement freeze would destroy his coalition, and probably fracture his party as well. Then, if you exclude Arab parties, there probably aren’t 61 seats in the Knesset in favor of a settlement freeze.
By my calculations, here’s what you can count on for a settlement freeze. 3 from Meretz; 5 from Ha’atzma’ut; 8 from Labor, and probably 28 from Kadima. That gets you 44. To get the other 17, you need Bibi to be able to deliver 17 out of 27 of Likud’s seats. I’m very skeptical such a thing can be done.
Even if such a thing were possible, it would be incredibly controversial to do without an election. You can’t just blow up the government and build a new one without calling an election. And I just don’t see 51% of Jewish votes going to a settlement freeze, especially then.
Even if Bibi did form a new coalition without calling an election, why would he be Prime Minister? He wouldn’t represent the median seat in the coalition, and he wouldn’t even be the leader of the largest party in the coalition. Back when he originally formed his government, one of the reasons Livni refused to join was because her party was bigger than his. She should be Prime Minister! Why would Bibi want to accept a subordinate position in another coalition?
Essentially, Obama was asking Netanyahu to blow up his government, and quite likely, resign his office. The only way that would happen is if Netanyahu was so enamored of a settlement freeze that he was willing to lose power to make it happen. Needless to say, Netanyahu is not enamored of a settlement freeze.
By calling for Netanyahu to do something he could not do, as a precondition for negotiations, Obama set up the current impasse. Now we have this situation where Netanyahu can credibly claim that he offered to negotiate, and blame Palestinian intransigence for insisting on a settlement freeze as a precondition for negotiations. And the Palestinians can blame Netanyahu and Israeli intransigence for not agreeing to a full settlement freeze. And the Palestinians can’t agree to terms that Obama deemed unfair. So we’re stuck. This is at least partly the President’s fault. He should have paid closer attention to Israeli politics.
With respect to Rabbi Fink, I can think of at least one very concrete way in which the President’s efforts have harmed Israel. And I say this as a general supporter of the President, and someone who believes that the Americans should exert pressure on the Israeli government to pursue a negotiated settlement with greater vigor.
When Obama called for Netanyahu to impose a settlement freeze before beginning negotiations, that put Netanyahu in a very difficult position. Not because freezing settlements is a bad idea – I’m all for it – but because Netanyahu can’t freeze settlements. Obama misjudged Israel’s domestic political situation, and thought that the only thing standing in his way was Netanyahu’s recalcitrance. The sad fact is, Netanyahu is not Obama’s biggest problem; Netanyahu is his best friend on this.
Even if Bibi wanted to freeze settlements, and go full steam ahead on a two state solution, he could not. The math just isn’t there. A full settlement freeze would destroy his coalition, and probably fracture his party as well. Then, if you exclude Arab parties, there probably aren’t 61 seats in the Knesset in favor of a settlement freeze.
By my calculations, here’s what you can count on for a settlement freeze. 3 from Meretz; 5 from Ha’atzma’ut; 8 from Labor, and probably 28 from Kadima. That gets you 44. To get the other 17, you need Bibi to be able to deliver 17 out of 27 of Likud’s seats. I’m very skeptical such a thing can be done.
Even if such a thing were possible, it would be incredibly controversial to do without an election. You can’t just blow up the government and build a new one without calling an election. And I just don’t see 51% of Jewish votes going to a settlement freeze, especially then.
Even if Bibi did form a new coalition without calling an election, why would he be Prime Minister? He wouldn’t represent the median seat in the coalition, and he wouldn’t even be the leader of the largest party in the coalition. Back when he originally formed his government, one of the reasons Livni refused to join was because her party was bigger than his. She should be Prime Minister! Why would Bibi want to accept a subordinate position in another coalition?
Essentially, Obama was asking Netanyahu to blow up his government, and quite likely, resign his office. The only way that would happen is if Netanyahu was so enamored of a settlement freeze that he was willing to lose power to make it happen. Needless to say, Netanyahu is not enamored of a settlement freeze.
By calling for Netanyahu to do something he could not do, as a precondition for negotiations, Obama set up the current impasse. Now we have this situation where Netanyahu can credibly claim that he offered to negotiate, and blame Palestinian intransigence for insisting on a settlement freeze as a precondition for negotiations. And the Palestinians can blame Netanyahu and Israeli intransigence for not agreeing to a full settlement freeze. And the Palestinians can’t agree to terms that Obama deemed unfair. So we’re stuck. This is at least partly the President’s fault. He should have paid closer attention to Israeli politics.
Yet another post on she lo asni isha
Monday, September 19, 2011
Labels: Culture (ours), she lo asani isha, woman in judaism, women in Judaism, zev farberBy Rabbi Zev Farber
Taken from here, without permission
(Rabbi Zev Farber was ordained (yoreh yoreh and yadin yadin) by YCT Rabbinical School. He is the founder of AITZIM (Atlanta Institute of Torah and Zionism) - an adult education initiative. Rabbi Farber serves on the board of the International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF) and is the coordinator of their Vaad Giyyur. He is also a PhD candidate at Emory University's Graduate Division of Religion.)
Recently, my friend and colleague, Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, wrote a blog-post describing how uncomfortable he has become with men reciting the blessing thanking God for not making them women. If I remember the original post correctly (it has since been deleted), R.Kanefsky felt that this blessing reflected an outdated view of women as something less than men. In our society that belief is no longer held and implying it would be discourteous to women.Therefore, he argued, the blessing should not be said nowadays.
The latter point, i.e. that the blessing should be dropped or changed is, of course, debatable, since where and when halakha is supposed to change is a tricky question. I myself have an article in the works on this subject, advocating an adjustment to our nussah, and I am looking forward to a constructive dialogue on this topic in our community.
R. Kanefsky’s first point, that the blessing reflects, or, at least, originally reflected, a viewpoint of women as being somewhat “less” than men is so patently obvious that it is amazing to me that it needs to be defended. And yet, the nature of our Orthodox world has become one where the patently obvious can be denied as if it were itselfabsurd. This can be seen from the numerous blog posts that have been written over the past week attacking Rabbi Kanefsky for not being “really” Orthodox (a favorite form of “j’accuse” amongst Orthodox bloggers nowadays). At best, some have chalked it up to his strong emotional nature clouding his judgment. I will not engage these posts or their authors directly because of their mean-spirited and inappropriate tone, but I do think a number of points need to be made.
Taken from here, without permission
(Rabbi Zev Farber was ordained (yoreh yoreh and yadin yadin) by YCT Rabbinical School. He is the founder of AITZIM (Atlanta Institute of Torah and Zionism) - an adult education initiative. Rabbi Farber serves on the board of the International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF) and is the coordinator of their Vaad Giyyur. He is also a PhD candidate at Emory University's Graduate Division of Religion.)
Recently, my friend and colleague, Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, wrote a blog-post describing how uncomfortable he has become with men reciting the blessing thanking God for not making them women. If I remember the original post correctly (it has since been deleted), R.Kanefsky felt that this blessing reflected an outdated view of women as something less than men. In our society that belief is no longer held and implying it would be discourteous to women.Therefore, he argued, the blessing should not be said nowadays.
The latter point, i.e. that the blessing should be dropped or changed is, of course, debatable, since where and when halakha is supposed to change is a tricky question. I myself have an article in the works on this subject, advocating an adjustment to our nussah, and I am looking forward to a constructive dialogue on this topic in our community.
R. Kanefsky’s first point, that the blessing reflects, or, at least, originally reflected, a viewpoint of women as being somewhat “less” than men is so patently obvious that it is amazing to me that it needs to be defended. And yet, the nature of our Orthodox world has become one where the patently obvious can be denied as if it were itselfabsurd. This can be seen from the numerous blog posts that have been written over the past week attacking Rabbi Kanefsky for not being “really” Orthodox (a favorite form of “j’accuse” amongst Orthodox bloggers nowadays). At best, some have chalked it up to his strong emotional nature clouding his judgment. I will not engage these posts or their authors directly because of their mean-spirited and inappropriate tone, but I do think a number of points need to be made.
I know how the president feels
From the beginning of John Heilman's new piece about Israel and Obama:
On May 20, the day after Obama gave his big speech on the Arab Spring, in which he unleashed a tsunami of tsuris by endorsing the use of Israel’s 1967 borders “with mutually agreed [land] swaps” as the basis for a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Obama and Netanyahu were seated in the Oval Office for what was supposed to be one of those photo ops devoted to roasting rhetorical chestnuts about the solidity of the U.S.-Israel alliance. Instead, while Obama watched silently, looking poleaxed, Netanyahu lectured him—for seven and a half minutes, on live television—about the folly, the sheer absurdity, of suggesting Israel ever return to what he called the “indefensible” 1967 lines.
Obama was furious with Netanyahu, who in choosing to ignore the crucial qualifier about land swaps had twisted Obama’s words beyond recognition—the kind of mendacious misinterpretation that makes the presidential mental
Makes me mental, too. I don't mind honest disagreement with the president. If you think his policy sucks, that's fine. But what I can't stand is the dishonest suggestion made by Obama haters everywhere that the president's remark about borders was a departure from previous American policy or from what his predecessors wanted.
Search for more information about truth at 4torah.com
Rubashkin and Toeva
Friday, September 16, 2011
Labels: abominations, hypocrisy, Rubashkin, There are no coincidences, toeiva, weprinHad David Weprin, supporter of civil rights for homosexuals, lost his election during the week we read the Torah verses in which homosexuality is called a "Toeva", you can bet the No-Coincidence-Crowd would be crowing. They're great at matching current events with random bible verses, and during the week of that reading connecting Weprin's loss with the Word of God as revealed in Leviticus would have been a layup.
Well, a few hours ago Samuel Rubashkin's appeal was denied, and one of the very last things we read in last week's parsha are the verses in which cheating at business is declared a "Toeva."
Has the No-Coincidence-Crowd made an announcement yet? Like you, I am anxiously waiting for the NCC to use the results of their favorite parlor game to tell us exactly what God is thinking.
HT: Named on request
Well, a few hours ago Samuel Rubashkin's appeal was denied, and one of the very last things we read in last week's parsha are the verses in which cheating at business is declared a "Toeva."
Has the No-Coincidence-Crowd made an announcement yet? Like you, I am anxiously waiting for the NCC to use the results of their favorite parlor game to tell us exactly what God is thinking.
HT: Named on request
Notes and points on Deut 26:5ff
This is going to be a collection of bullet points, not a full-fledged post. I hope you don't mind. My objective is to summarize some of the very interesting things about Deuteronomy 26:5, and to hint at the various theological and exegetical problems surrounding the interpretation of this verse.
Another Aish video insults our intelligence
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Labels: Aish Hatorah, Culture (ours), rosh hashana, viral videoReceived by email:
If you haven't seen it yet, the video starts with a bored, bright-eyed kid in a Jewfro worrying that Rosh Hashana will be a snooze. "Oh no," a black hat wearing friend assures him. "It'll be great. Let me show you" On cue, the speaker is joined by a team of break-dancing, park-our performing rappers, who proceed to bounce around leaping off walls, performing back flips and trying just a little too hard to let us know how cool and hip they are.
The problem, of course, is Aish is neither cool nor hip. And a deeper problem is that reducing the majesty and marvel of Rosh Hashana to a poorly performed break-dance with inaudible lyrics is sort of like serving a Happy Meal to the guests at your wedding feast. This is supposed to get the "Jewish nation excited about the upcoming Jewish New Year?" This? Are we that low brow?
Here's some past commentary about other Aish Videos that have made us wish to hurl
After the jump, I give you a classic example of song and dance used in a film to achieve a narrative objective, a objective that isn't much different from what Aish attempts to achieve in their video. In both clips, the main character dances and sings his way to overcoming another party's objection. Ginger Rogers can't see what's so great about Fred Astaire, but by the end of the musical number she gets it - and so do we. In the Aish video, the Jewfro has similar doubts about Rosh Hashana. When the music stops his doubts are relieved, but ours are not. In the Astaire clip the lyrics and choreography tell the story. They show us why Ginger should be with Fred. In the Aish video the dance is just a distraction that fails to sell us on the holiday, or to explain why we should give it a second thought.
Perhaps next year, an organization will go to the trouble of making a viral video that actually conveys some of what makes Rosh Hashana outstanding
I wanted to share with you an amazing Rosh Hashanah video featuring one of Israel's top break dance teams. We hope that you can post this video on your site, blog, Facebook or twitter accounts and hopefully we will get the entire Jewish nation excited about the upcoming Jewish New Year.The message was sent by an executive at Forbidden Fruit Media, and it refers to the new Aish Hatorah video currently making the rounds. Both the message and the video sort of make my skin crawl.
If you haven't seen it yet, the video starts with a bored, bright-eyed kid in a Jewfro worrying that Rosh Hashana will be a snooze. "Oh no," a black hat wearing friend assures him. "It'll be great. Let me show you" On cue, the speaker is joined by a team of break-dancing, park-our performing rappers, who proceed to bounce around leaping off walls, performing back flips and trying just a little too hard to let us know how cool and hip they are.
The problem, of course, is Aish is neither cool nor hip. And a deeper problem is that reducing the majesty and marvel of Rosh Hashana to a poorly performed break-dance with inaudible lyrics is sort of like serving a Happy Meal to the guests at your wedding feast. This is supposed to get the "Jewish nation excited about the upcoming Jewish New Year?" This? Are we that low brow?
Here's some past commentary about other Aish Videos that have made us wish to hurl
After the jump, I give you a classic example of song and dance used in a film to achieve a narrative objective, a objective that isn't much different from what Aish attempts to achieve in their video. In both clips, the main character dances and sings his way to overcoming another party's objection. Ginger Rogers can't see what's so great about Fred Astaire, but by the end of the musical number she gets it - and so do we. In the Aish video, the Jewfro has similar doubts about Rosh Hashana. When the music stops his doubts are relieved, but ours are not. In the Astaire clip the lyrics and choreography tell the story. They show us why Ginger should be with Fred. In the Aish video the dance is just a distraction that fails to sell us on the holiday, or to explain why we should give it a second thought.
Perhaps next year, an organization will go to the trouble of making a viral video that actually conveys some of what makes Rosh Hashana outstanding
Can You Help Me Out?
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Labels: by EFinkA Guest Post By E. Fink
I am no expert on politics. I'm more of an observer.
This morning, I observed the WSJ op-ed that DovBear posted. I saw it on several of my more right wing leaning Facebook friends' walls. They loved the op-ed. It got me thinking about something. Perhaps one of the enlightened readers of this blog can help me out.
Has the President's alleged misdeeds towards Israel actually hurt Israel? Let's not quibble about whether the President has actually done anything negative towards Israel. I have to really try hard to see that too. But let's assume he HAS done bad things to Israel. Have they actually had an effect on anything?
Here is the question: For all the complaining about Obama's policies toward Israel and his obvious anti-Semitism that is causing Democrats for life to rebel against Mr. President where is the negative effect? Aren't things pretty much the same they were in 2005? 2001? 1993? 1985?
It sure seems that way to me.
So if nothing has changed, what is the big deal?
Search for more information about dvarim ha'omdim b'rumo shel olam at 4torah.com
Search for more information about dvarim ha'omdim b'rumo shel olam at 4torah.com
How did the Dems lose NY9?
Labels: ny9, Politics, Republican losers, turner, weprin
What happened in NY9? Simple. Weprin lost because he didn't call Turner on his lies and because he allowed Turner to distract the voters with non issues. He lost because he ran an awful campaign, and allowed his opponent to set the tone. For example:
Gay marriage: This doesn't affect the people of NY9 in any way shape or form, and I've been unable to find a principled objection to it, that doesn't boil down to simple bigotry.
Israel: There is very little daylight between Weprin and Turner on this, just as there is very little daylight between Bush and Obama. One of the top ten disgusting things I've seen GOP supporters do is lie about Obama's Israel record. Its virtually identical to Bush's! Specifically, I mean the outright lie about the '67 borders. Obama simply repeated what every president for the last 40 years has said, but liars on the right such as Bob Turner said it was something new and something terrible. Anyway, a US representative has very little influence over foreign affairs.
Spending. Sure Turner says he wants to cut spending, but so does every GOP candidate, for every office.. Ronald Reagen said he wanted to cut spending. So did Bush Sr. So did W. Did it happen? No. All three of those presidents increased spending, and W. did it with a GOP house that supported all of his spending increases. So is Turner's promise credible? Doubt it.
Instead the campaign in NY9 should have been about credentials, character, and achievements. Weprin should have talked about his superior track record, and his years of service to the community. He should have forcefully rebuffed every single Turner lie. And he should have made it clear to the people of NY9 that he's "their guy." For over 30 years he's represented the people of Brooklyn and Queens in the corridors of power, and received nothing but high marks for his performance. He always delivered. That service have been rewarded, and Weprin's' past success should have been taken as an indication that Weprin would continue to deliver as a Congressman.
Unfortunately, this message was not received, and the fault lies squarely with Weprin.
Gay marriage: This doesn't affect the people of NY9 in any way shape or form, and I've been unable to find a principled objection to it, that doesn't boil down to simple bigotry.
Israel: There is very little daylight between Weprin and Turner on this, just as there is very little daylight between Bush and Obama. One of the top ten disgusting things I've seen GOP supporters do is lie about Obama's Israel record. Its virtually identical to Bush's! Specifically, I mean the outright lie about the '67 borders. Obama simply repeated what every president for the last 40 years has said, but liars on the right such as Bob Turner said it was something new and something terrible. Anyway, a US representative has very little influence over foreign affairs.
Spending. Sure Turner says he wants to cut spending, but so does every GOP candidate, for every office.. Ronald Reagen said he wanted to cut spending. So did Bush Sr. So did W. Did it happen? No. All three of those presidents increased spending, and W. did it with a GOP house that supported all of his spending increases. So is Turner's promise credible? Doubt it.
Instead the campaign in NY9 should have been about credentials, character, and achievements. Weprin should have talked about his superior track record, and his years of service to the community. He should have forcefully rebuffed every single Turner lie. And he should have made it clear to the people of NY9 that he's "their guy." For over 30 years he's represented the people of Brooklyn and Queens in the corridors of power, and received nothing but high marks for his performance. He always delivered. That service have been rewarded, and Weprin's' past success should have been taken as an indication that Weprin would continue to deliver as a Congressman.
Unfortunately, this message was not received, and the fault lies squarely with Weprin.
What do Matt Drudge, the GOP hack, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, have in common?
Labels: Ahmadinejad, antisemitism, drudge, ny9, Republican losers
A coincidence I am sure, but this is what Ahmadinejad said about the Jews during an interview with Slate's Lally Weymouth:
Yes, everything that happens, happens because of us. We're the greedy and immoral overlords who control the world while remaining hidden.
I'll explain what really happened in NY9 in the next post.
NOTE
The Jews in this district do have a say in who gets elected, and that's nothing like the start of WWI and WWII. However -- and call me oversensitive - I do not like it one bit when non-Jews say we're controlling outcomes especially political or financial outcomes, or when they speak of us as if we all think and act the same way.
HT: @Azigra
A dreadful party, a feared party, the party that was behind the First World War and the Second World War. Whenever there is a conflict or war--this party is behind it.And here's Drudge echoing the sentiment in his big fat NY9 headline:
Yes, everything that happens, happens because of us. We're the greedy and immoral overlords who control the world while remaining hidden.
I'll explain what really happened in NY9 in the next post.
NOTE
The Jews in this district do have a say in who gets elected, and that's nothing like the start of WWI and WWII. However -- and call me oversensitive - I do not like it one bit when non-Jews say we're controlling outcomes especially political or financial outcomes, or when they speak of us as if we all think and act the same way.
HT: @Azigra
Right to life sanctimony
A great question asked at the Slog
After the jump see the Tea Party cheer the death of the uninsured sick
Republican debate audiences cheer death. They cheer the death of death-row inmates, even the potentially innocent ones. And they cheer the death of the uninsured sick. And yet, Republicans are passionately "Pro-Life" when it comes to the unborn.The Torah True answer is (4) kill the mother and fetus together. This is just one of the Jewish laws that make it clear to anyone paying attention that Judaism and Christianity are not bedfellows on abortion.
Huh. So how do you think Republicans would react to the prospect of an uninsured, unborn fetus, gestating inside the uterus of a death-row inmate?
How would Republicans deal with an uninsured, unborn fetus, gestating inside a death-row inmate?
(1) Bring the fetus to term, then kill the mother. Every life is sacred.
(2) The fetus must take personal responsibility for its own poor choices.
(3) Caught in a logical loop, like Nomad in Star Trek episode #32, they will self-destruct in an enormous explosion.
After the jump see the Tea Party cheer the death of the uninsured sick
An Orthodox Woman who no longer says She Asani Kirtzono
Written by MFB, and taken from the comment thread on "Sometimes its ok to change the liturgy; sometimes it isn't"
I'm an orthodox woman who stopped saying the bracha of sheasani kirtzono about 15 years ago. Strangely enough, the fact that my husband and other men in my life say shelo asani isha every day doesn't bother me nearly as much as the idea of shelo asani isha as a "consolation prize" bracha. I guess I learned the explanation that shelo asani isha has to do with the number of mitzvot one is obligated to do when I was very young and just never really questioned it. (I thought that explanation is in the gemara, why do you say it was created long after?
[DB: I mis-communicated earlier.The Jerusalem Talmud and Tosefta say the the reason for the blessing is that women are not obligated in Mitzvot. The suggestion, I think, is that this makes men superior to women, just as free Jewish men are superior to non-Jews and slaves. Other sources rely on the reason given by the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud though some also introduce social explanations, or suggest this is just a way of reaching 100 blessings. The business about women being on a higher spiritual level, came much later I think.]
Although now that I think about it, it does seem strange to say that the absolute number of mitzvoth is what matters rather than the amount of time one spends doing mitzvoth. (There are some mitzvoth that are performed very infrequently or take very little time to perform while others are done often and take up a good chunk of one's time)
The bracha of sheasani kirtzono always bothered me much more. It seems that the woman is acknowledging that it is somehow "better" to be a man, but is accepting her lower status as being G-d's will similar to how we accept other evils in the world that we don't understand as being somehow part of G-d's master plan. I never felt comfortable saying a bracha that implied that I wish I were a man. I am sure that being a man has some advantages that as a woman I could never understand (whether spiritual, practical or otherwise) but I do not think that being obligated to wear tzitzit, sit in a sukka and count sefirat haomer could possible make up for the spiritually uplifting experiences of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing a baby. But then again, what do I know, I'm just a woman.
I get that maybe 2000 years ago women might have actually felt that they had somewhat of a lesser status and therefore the bracha was appropriate, but what annoys me most is the modern apologetic spin given to it today. Women, we are told, have fewer mitzvot because they are on a higher spiritual level to begin with. So the bracha of sheasani kirtzono is thanking God for making us according to His will as higher spiritual beings. Huh?? By that logic are non-Jews on a higher spiritual level than Jews? Has any slave being offered freedom ever said, "thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather stay a slave with fewer mitzvot because it keeps me on a higher spriritual level?" And, as I said before, is spirituality measured by the actual number of mitzvot one does or by the kavana and amount of time spent absorbed in mitzvot?
When I got married 18 years ago I was under the mistaken impression that I should start davening in my husband's (Sephardi – edot mizrach) nusach (even though he didn't really care what nusach I daven in.) I noticed that in those siddurim women say the bracha of shelo asani isha without God's name (since it is a bracha that does not appear in the gemara.) I remember learning that these brachot are mentioned in the gamara in the context of trying to say 100 brachot a day and it seemed silly to me to say a bracha that I don't agree with and without God's name so it doesn't even help me reach the 100 brachot. Better to just have a piece of chocolate after I finish davening and make a bracha on that, so I just stopped saying the bracha altogether.
Truth is, the bracha I really want to say (but don’t because of halachic issues of changing the nusach of the tefilla) is one I saw years ago in a Conservative siddur. It had both men and women saying "sheasani b'tzalmo". Now, wouldn't it be wonderful to wake up every morning and thank God for creating you in His image?
Sorry for the long post. Just needed to vent a little.
I'm an orthodox woman who stopped saying the bracha of sheasani kirtzono about 15 years ago. Strangely enough, the fact that my husband and other men in my life say shelo asani isha every day doesn't bother me nearly as much as the idea of shelo asani isha as a "consolation prize" bracha. I guess I learned the explanation that shelo asani isha has to do with the number of mitzvot one is obligated to do when I was very young and just never really questioned it. (I thought that explanation is in the gemara, why do you say it was created long after?
[DB: I mis-communicated earlier.The Jerusalem Talmud and Tosefta say the the reason for the blessing is that women are not obligated in Mitzvot. The suggestion, I think, is that this makes men superior to women, just as free Jewish men are superior to non-Jews and slaves. Other sources rely on the reason given by the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud though some also introduce social explanations, or suggest this is just a way of reaching 100 blessings. The business about women being on a higher spiritual level, came much later I think.]
Although now that I think about it, it does seem strange to say that the absolute number of mitzvoth is what matters rather than the amount of time one spends doing mitzvoth. (There are some mitzvoth that are performed very infrequently or take very little time to perform while others are done often and take up a good chunk of one's time)
The bracha of sheasani kirtzono always bothered me much more. It seems that the woman is acknowledging that it is somehow "better" to be a man, but is accepting her lower status as being G-d's will similar to how we accept other evils in the world that we don't understand as being somehow part of G-d's master plan. I never felt comfortable saying a bracha that implied that I wish I were a man. I am sure that being a man has some advantages that as a woman I could never understand (whether spiritual, practical or otherwise) but I do not think that being obligated to wear tzitzit, sit in a sukka and count sefirat haomer could possible make up for the spiritually uplifting experiences of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing a baby. But then again, what do I know, I'm just a woman.
I get that maybe 2000 years ago women might have actually felt that they had somewhat of a lesser status and therefore the bracha was appropriate, but what annoys me most is the modern apologetic spin given to it today. Women, we are told, have fewer mitzvot because they are on a higher spiritual level to begin with. So the bracha of sheasani kirtzono is thanking God for making us according to His will as higher spiritual beings. Huh?? By that logic are non-Jews on a higher spiritual level than Jews? Has any slave being offered freedom ever said, "thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather stay a slave with fewer mitzvot because it keeps me on a higher spriritual level?" And, as I said before, is spirituality measured by the actual number of mitzvot one does or by the kavana and amount of time spent absorbed in mitzvot?
When I got married 18 years ago I was under the mistaken impression that I should start davening in my husband's (Sephardi – edot mizrach) nusach (even though he didn't really care what nusach I daven in.) I noticed that in those siddurim women say the bracha of shelo asani isha without God's name (since it is a bracha that does not appear in the gemara.) I remember learning that these brachot are mentioned in the gamara in the context of trying to say 100 brachot a day and it seemed silly to me to say a bracha that I don't agree with and without God's name so it doesn't even help me reach the 100 brachot. Better to just have a piece of chocolate after I finish davening and make a bracha on that, so I just stopped saying the bracha altogether.
Truth is, the bracha I really want to say (but don’t because of halachic issues of changing the nusach of the tefilla) is one I saw years ago in a Conservative siddur. It had both men and women saying "sheasani b'tzalmo". Now, wouldn't it be wonderful to wake up every morning and thank God for creating you in His image?
Sorry for the long post. Just needed to vent a little.
What is meant by ולא נתתי ממנו למת?
Monday, September 12, 2011
What follows is part of the liturgy established by the Torah for offering tithes:
I have not eaten [from the food] while I was in mourning, nor have I removed any of it while I was unclean, nor have I deposited any of it with the dead. (ולא נתתי ממנו למת) I have obeyed the LORD my God; I have done everything you commanded me.What is meant by ולא נתתי ממנו למת? Did we ever deposit food with the dead? Why yes, most likely we did.
A Secret Chazal Seemingly Didn’t Know
by David A.
….. that the law of the “ben-sorer u’moreh” was not that inexplicable after all.
This law is most strange, primarily on three counts. Nowhere in Torah law, as interpreted by Chazal, is a minor held punishable for his/her crimes or sins, and certainly never to be punished by the death penalty, and secondly the death penalty is given for an actual crime that has been witnessed by at least two proper witnesses, and lastly, the “crime” described certainly can not deserve such a harsh punishment.
Chazal, too were obviously troubled by this law (BT Sanhedrin chap. 8), and therefore sought to mitigate it. Thus, through TSBP (the Oral law), they assigned to its application so many conditions and parameters, that they, in effect, abrogated it. So successfully, that Chazal were able to confidently state that the law of the rebellious son never happened and would not ever happen.
Yet, the question still stands. How could the Torah promulgate such an offensive law, even with all the attached conditions?
The answer lies in the prism that ones views Devarim. If one accepts that, firstly, the Book was written by humans and its law code emerged within the context of ancient mid-east society and its mores. And, second, the author(s) of the Pentateuch was/were disseminating laws that he/they viewed as progressive in the context of being more humane and/or more just and moral than their surrounding societies.
I believe that in the ANE a child was the “property” of the father and the father had a right to discipline his child however he saw fit, presumably including punishment by death. While the law concerning the rebellious son in Devarim did not completely abolish this activity, the Torah may then have been a first step to take away this “right”. This is seen in two aspects. One is that the child’s mother was to be included in any serious disciplinary action (likely a first in the ANE). And second, and more importantly, that this right to discipline was taken from the parents and put into the hands of the community. Hands, that presumably would act in a more rational and just manner.
A progressive step, yet in our eyes still only a tiny one.
….. that the law of the “ben-sorer u’moreh” was not that inexplicable after all.
If a man will have a wayward and rebellious son, who does not hearken to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother…etc. 19. then his father and mother shall grasp him and take him out to the elders of the city etc. ….. 21. All the men of the his city shall pelt him with stones and etc…[Deut. 21:18]The law in the Torah pertaining to the rebellious son is among the most difficult to understand. The Torah describes a case where a male child, presumably a minor, who consistently disobeys his parents and acts in a manner defined as “zollel v’sovey”, which is translated as a “glutton and drunkard”. The rebellious child is then brought before the community elders (court) by his parents and if convicted, is sentenced to death.
This law is most strange, primarily on three counts. Nowhere in Torah law, as interpreted by Chazal, is a minor held punishable for his/her crimes or sins, and certainly never to be punished by the death penalty, and secondly the death penalty is given for an actual crime that has been witnessed by at least two proper witnesses, and lastly, the “crime” described certainly can not deserve such a harsh punishment.
Chazal, too were obviously troubled by this law (BT Sanhedrin chap. 8), and therefore sought to mitigate it. Thus, through TSBP (the Oral law), they assigned to its application so many conditions and parameters, that they, in effect, abrogated it. So successfully, that Chazal were able to confidently state that the law of the rebellious son never happened and would not ever happen.
Yet, the question still stands. How could the Torah promulgate such an offensive law, even with all the attached conditions?
The answer lies in the prism that ones views Devarim. If one accepts that, firstly, the Book was written by humans and its law code emerged within the context of ancient mid-east society and its mores. And, second, the author(s) of the Pentateuch was/were disseminating laws that he/they viewed as progressive in the context of being more humane and/or more just and moral than their surrounding societies.
I believe that in the ANE a child was the “property” of the father and the father had a right to discipline his child however he saw fit, presumably including punishment by death. While the law concerning the rebellious son in Devarim did not completely abolish this activity, the Torah may then have been a first step to take away this “right”. This is seen in two aspects. One is that the child’s mother was to be included in any serious disciplinary action (likely a first in the ANE). And second, and more importantly, that this right to discipline was taken from the parents and put into the hands of the community. Hands, that presumably would act in a more rational and just manner.
A progressive step, yet in our eyes still only a tiny one.
Liberal Torah doesn't impress me either
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Him: I am soooo impressed with the progressive morality of the Torah as demonstrated in this week's parsha. We see that a soldier can't just bang any woman he happens to find on the battlefield. He has to bring her home. He has to let her weep for her parents. He has to demonstrate kindness and generosity and sensitivity. He has to set her free if he decides he no longer desires her. How ahead of its time! How liberal! How inspiring.
Me: Not to pour cold water on your bright idea, but...
(1) Some interpret the verse to mean that he can bang her, but only once. [BT Kiddushin 21b seems to allow one act of sex immediately whether she agrees or not. Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 8: 3ff, interprets the passage to mean that the soldier gets one freebie, so long as it is in a private place. Moreover the passage itself suggests the woman has been raped. It says "...and if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her". In the Tamar story and the Dina story the word for "violated" - from the root anah - is uses to imply rape. TPJ translates it this way, too.]
(2) After the soldier brings her home, he subjects her to what's been described as a "transition ritual." The point of this ritual is not to provide her with time to mourn, or time to adjust, but to forcibly change her into a new type of being. Before she was a despised "Other"; following the month of isolation and enforced ugliness, she transforms into something else, something with which an Israelite can comfortably copulate.
(3) How can you say its "ahead of its time" unless you've researched the prevailing customs? Perhaps the Canaanites in the next town also had a taboo against taking foreign women, and their taboo could also be overcome via some similar rite or ritual?
(4) Before you get too carried away, lets pause to recall that the Torah is permitting a man to take his pick from among the captives. Any girl that catches his eye becomes his sexual partner following the taboo removing rite. Does that sound very liberal to you? If the point is consideration for the feelings of women, why isn't the practice banned? Why doesn't the same Torah that tells us to stay away from pig meat, tell us "hands off the pretty captive girls?"
Search for more information about how the torah is neither liberal not conservative, regressive nor progressive at 4torah.com
Me: Not to pour cold water on your bright idea, but...
(1) Some interpret the verse to mean that he can bang her, but only once. [BT Kiddushin 21b seems to allow one act of sex immediately whether she agrees or not. Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 8: 3ff, interprets the passage to mean that the soldier gets one freebie, so long as it is in a private place. Moreover the passage itself suggests the woman has been raped. It says "...and if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her". In the Tamar story and the Dina story the word for "violated" - from the root anah - is uses to imply rape. TPJ translates it this way, too.]
(2) After the soldier brings her home, he subjects her to what's been described as a "transition ritual." The point of this ritual is not to provide her with time to mourn, or time to adjust, but to forcibly change her into a new type of being. Before she was a despised "Other"; following the month of isolation and enforced ugliness, she transforms into something else, something with which an Israelite can comfortably copulate.
(3) How can you say its "ahead of its time" unless you've researched the prevailing customs? Perhaps the Canaanites in the next town also had a taboo against taking foreign women, and their taboo could also be overcome via some similar rite or ritual?
(4) Before you get too carried away, lets pause to recall that the Torah is permitting a man to take his pick from among the captives. Any girl that catches his eye becomes his sexual partner following the taboo removing rite. Does that sound very liberal to you? If the point is consideration for the feelings of women, why isn't the practice banned? Why doesn't the same Torah that tells us to stay away from pig meat, tell us "hands off the pretty captive girls?"
Search for more information about how the torah is neither liberal not conservative, regressive nor progressive at 4torah.com
Can a guy catch up on the secular education he was denied on $100 or less
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Guy I know from Face Book writes:
Pretend a generous bookshop owner has given you a gift: You can have anything in his shop up to the value of $100. Fiction, non-fiction, magazines, CDs, whatever. You’ve got an hour to choose what you want, and it has to be something that helps my FaceBook friend make up the deficit in his general education.
What would you buy, and why?
Let's use the prices at Amazon.com
as a guide, but don't get too worried about specifics. What I'm really asking is pretty simple: How can a guy catch up on the secular education he was denied on $100 or less?
I'd like to ask everyone if they could help out yeshiva guys like me who like to read, but never had any useful structured secular education (other whatever they managed to uncover on their own or with the help of others).Let's help the guy out, and have some fun besides.
Could y'all share a list (but try not to get carried away please) of "must read" books for folks who prefer not to remain eternally ignorant. Any and all subjects that you are familiar with, please.
Pretend a generous bookshop owner has given you a gift: You can have anything in his shop up to the value of $100. Fiction, non-fiction, magazines, CDs, whatever. You’ve got an hour to choose what you want, and it has to be something that helps my FaceBook friend make up the deficit in his general education.
What would you buy, and why?
Let's use the prices at Amazon.com
as a guide, but don't get too worried about specifics. What I'm really asking is pretty simple: How can a guy catch up on the secular education he was denied on $100 or less?The big bad Bina article
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
I've read the Bina article on how girls might be learning too much and found it horrifying.You can read the whole article after the jump, and comment about it here.
My thoughts later.
My thoughts later.
A source of some sadness
I just know The Office is going to be a train wreck this year.
Search for more information about sighs at 4torah.com
A post I hope will definitively prove that the rich get more from government.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Consider the following questions:
You have one truck. I have 10000. Which of us gets more benefits from the roads?
I have one store you have 500. Which of us gets more benefit from the neighborhood security service?
I employ one Ph.D. You employ 500. Which of us gets more benefit from public universities and government subsidized loans?
You have 10,000 trucks. I have one. Which of us benefited more from the military and diplomatic apparatuses that keep the price of oil down?
I manufacture merchandise overseas. You do not. Which of us benefited more from the embassy in that country, and the navy that keeps shipping lanes open?
My business depends on technology that was developed in a government lab, by government employed researchers. Yours doesn't. Which of us received a greater benefit from government supplied R & D?
If I put one dollar in a safe and you put 1 million dollars in that same safe, who received a greater benefit from the safe?
If I have nothing and you have 1 million dollars and no safe exists, which of us will have to reach into our pockets and purchase a safe?
Search for more information about arguments I've won at 4torah.com
The terrible tax logic of RWers
Saturday, September 03, 2011
My post Shabbos wisdom for tonight is as follows:
The GOP thinks rich people should get tax breaks, on the (slightly specious, slightly superstitious, but also somewhat justified) grounds that the rich will use the money they save to buy things, and to create jobs. However these same GOP people often oppose social spending, even though the same positive argument can be made. If you give the poor money aren't they likely to spend it? If you give them negative incentives to find employment, isn't that a form of job creation in that it leaves spots open for others to take? If you provide them with medical services, won't that keep them healthy, and keep them earning and spending money? In fact, can't an argument be made that social spending, as a whole, serves to protect capitalism? If poor people are left to rot in their own filth, and given no hope for the future, how safe is the economy? People with no seat at the table almost always find a way of turning it over, especially if they have nothing to lose. Social spending provides them with hope and stability, and by providing them with hope and stability, we discourage them from overturning our entire system.
So why are handouts to the rich sacred cows, while handouts to the poor, which provide identical economic benefits are verboten? Why are the expected indirect benefits of paying off the wealthy something to celebrate and treasure, while the indirect benefits of paying off the poor are disdained?
Search for more information about # at 4torah.com
A Novel Idea: Charedim Should Work
Friday, September 02, 2011
Labels: by EFink
A Guest Post By E. Fink
In the Jerusalem Post, a prominent rabbi / MK has written a scathing indictment of the Charedi education system.
Quoting divrei Chazal and rishonim he writes that orthodox Judaism demands an education system that prepares its students to earn a living and be self-sufficient. He has a plan for making this happen.
I wish him luck.
In the meantime, the sources quoted are a wonderful resource for those who wish to make similar arguments on this side of the pond. Although the problem is less severe in America, we too have a system that undervalues (mocks?) working for a living.
Have a look: J-Post
Search for more information about corruption of Jewish education at 4torah.com
Do we have moral compasses?
There are no moral compasses. Everyone does what feels right, and looks good in his eyes. All of us. For some keeping Shabbos feels right; for others murdering innocents feels right. As to motives, there's really no difference. It all comes down to what makes us feel good.
Here's Joel Marks:
Here's Joel Marks:
I had thought I was a secularist because I conceived of right and wrong as standing on their own two feet, without prop or crutch from God. We should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, period. But this was a God too.... if there was one thing I knew in this entire universe, it was that some things are morally wrong. It is wrong to toss male chicks, alive and conscious, into a meat grinder, as happens in the egg industry. It is wrong to scorn homosexuals and deny them civil rights. It is wrong to massacre people in death camps. All of these things have met with general approval in one society or another. And yet I knew in my soul, with all of my conviction, with a passion, that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. I knew this with more certainty than I knew that the earth is round.On FaceBook someone called this a "dangerous idea", and perhaps it is, but are dangerous ideas necessarily false?
But suddenly I knew it no more. I was not merely skeptical or agnostic about it; I had come to believe, and do still, that these things are not wrong. But neither are they right; nor are they permissible....
It seems to me that what could broadly be called desire has been the moving force of humanity, no matter how we might have window-dressed it with moral talk. By desire I do not mean sexual craving, or even only selfish wanting. I use the term generally to refer to whatever motivates us, which ranges from selfishness to altruism and everything in between and at right angles. Mother Theresa was acting as much from desire as was the Marquis de Sade.
Ibn Ezra: Sometimes, people just die.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Labels: Culture (ours), heresy, Ibn ezra, parsha, rishonimMore heresy from Ibn Ezra:
This comment appears on Deuteronomy 20:10, the verse that provides a military exemption to engaged men. In English:
The words ארס אשה ולא לקחה refer to someone who has betrothed, but not yet married a women and the verse comes to tell us that some people die on their appointed day, but one who dies in a battle has not died on his appointed day, and the prooftext is Sam 26:10 which says: And David said: 'As the LORD liveth, nay, but the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall go down into battle, and be swept away.'
So, as per Ibn Ezra it seems clear that not all deaths are divinely ordained. Sometimes, people just die, and not necessarily because "it was their time" .
See also:
ארס אשה ולא לקחה -- בנשואין
והנה זה הכתוב לאות כי יש מי שמת בבא יומי, רק
המת במלחמה מת בלא יומו , על כן
אמר דוד או במלחמה ירד ונספה
This comment appears on Deuteronomy 20:10, the verse that provides a military exemption to engaged men. In English:
The words ארס אשה ולא לקחה refer to someone who has betrothed, but not yet married a women and the verse comes to tell us that some people die on their appointed day, but one who dies in a battle has not died on his appointed day, and the prooftext is Sam 26:10 which says: And David said: 'As the LORD liveth, nay, but the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall go down into battle, and be swept away.'
So, as per Ibn Ezra it seems clear that not all deaths are divinely ordained. Sometimes, people just die, and not necessarily because "it was their time" .
See also:
- Ibn Ezra's War on Piyutim
- Azazel: Ibn Ezra's Secret
- Ibn Ezra's heresy on Gen 12:6
- This Just In: Ibn Ezra and Rambam's approach to witchcraft was not "in keeping with Judaism"
An invitation to a place that does not exist
Labels: Culture (ours), Israel, weddings, women in Judaism
Think there's "no such place as Palestine?" Well, guess again.
H.T Shmarya, who says the host is a high ranking Nateuri Kartanik.
H.T Shmarya, who says the host is a high ranking Nateuri Kartanik.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)