Informal poll

How many of you believe the oil miracle occured exactly as described on shabbat 21b?

When the Hellenists entered the sanctuary, they defiled all the oil that was found there. When the government of the House of Asmoneans prevailed and conquered them, oil was sought (to feed the holy lamp in the sanctuary) and only one vial was found with the seal of the high priest intact. The vial contained sufficient oil for one day only, but a miracle occurred, and it fed the holy lamp eight days in succession. These eight days were the following year established as days of good cheer, on which psalms of praise and acknowledgment (of God's wonders) were to be recited.

An important message from Mar Gavriel

[All silly spelling SIC]

Dear readers of DovBear:

You know that piyyut אודך כי אנפת בי, which we Ashkenazzim recite on the morning of Shabbas Chanukko?

Right, that one.

Oh, your shul doesn't do it, and you still claim to be Ashkenazzi? You silly reformers. Piyyut is what makes davvening capture our attention on special occasions, and not show bizzoyôn to the day by simply using the same old words and same old tunes as on any other day.

Anyway, there is a line in the piyyut which has an error in the printed editions:
סָחַף: מָחָר הַקִּרְיָה כְּאַגְחִילסְיָפִי בְּרֹאשׁ זֶה אַתְחִילסַנֵּגְרוֹן מְשַׂנְאַי תְּמוּר הִשְׁחִיל.

Meaning:

He [...]ed: “Tomorrow, when I incinerate the city, I shall begin using my sword on this head, since he has brought forth words of defense [on behalf] of my enemies.”

But what does that first word mean? סחף means "he swept", which makes no sense in this context. In fact, the good manuscripts read סָעַף, he thought (as in מדוע אתם פסחים על שתי הסעפים, where it means "opinions"). In my own Machzor, I print it as סָעַף, with a footnote indicating that the printed editions do not read this way.

I hope that every single one of you who is Ashkenazzi or Italki will be davvening that piyyut this Saturday morning, with the proper reading סעף.

MAR GAVRIEL

Self-blinded

A revealing exchange from the comment thread of another blog:

A/A: However, there were always a few people [on Areivim] from the RW who consistently espoused views that were extremely off-putting. I used to vigorously debate them, but eventually I just tired of it. They never changed their perspective and always were looking to besmirch anyone "less frum" than they. It became quite clear to me that they were more concerned with taking sides than discussing an issue fairly, and it was pointless to expect them to acknowledge any position that didn't jive with their hashkafa (although I did frequently get emails from various "lurkers" that they appreciated my arguments, so maybe it wasn't entirely pointless). Even after I stopped being frum, I enjoyed reading the discussions on A/A, appreciating the high level of debate which was common there, even though I personally didn't subscribe to the halachic lifestyle. However, the negative viewpoints of certain posters turned me off so much that I decided to drop it entirely. I simply couldn't stomach hearing the condescending, insulting invective that was consistently hurled at people from other communities. It was an absolute turn off. And it still is, every time I see one of those people write a comment on a blog or a letter to the editor. It's still the same, nasty, insulting, holier-than-thou attitude that they used back then. Uch.

Rebbetzin Toby Katz: I've noticed that too, but it's usually the left-wingers, not the right-wingers, who are guilty...

A/A: ...about the invective which you so strenuously deny... I'll just say that your comments often went a long way to leaving a bitter taste in my mouth (and still do).

Neat huh? Following a flat denial that she or her RW friends would ever dream of behaving so badly, the other shoe drops: IT WAS HER. And for what its worth, my own mail indicates that there are quite a few people reading Cross Currents, Areivim and other places where Toby's thoughts appear who feel exactly the same way.

"Miracle" of the oil, my a--!

From the pages of the Jerusalem Post, we get an interesting article by Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg, Fellow at the Allbright Institute of Archeological Research in Jerusalem.

Mr. Rosenberg basically reviews for us the plot lines of the First and Second Books of the Maccabees, the historical sources for the Hanukkah story. What's interesting about these stories is the lack of any mention of the "miracle of the oil," which is the reason Hazal gives for celebrating the holiday. In particular, Second Maccabees provides the whole sordid saga of the legitimate hight priest Hanya, the semi-legitimate usurper Jason, and the total sleazeball of the bunch, Menaleus. The real kicker is that it was Menaleus who gave Antiochus IV the ideas about suppressing the Jewish religion, and it was strictly a political tactic, as Jason, the other Hellenizing High Priest never suggested such a thing. But get this, it was also Menalaeus who was the last High Priest to serve before Antiochus defiled the Temple. That means that the "pure" cruse of oil, enough to last only for a day, but which burned for 8, had been certified kosher by none other than the same rasha who caused the whole mess to begin with.

Some miracle.

Also makes you wonder about the spiritual value of modern kosher certification.

What were Hazal thinking?

(Hat tip to Shmarya at Failed Messiah)

Ghosts of Chanukah Past

"I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." — President George W. Bush, Dec. 10, 2001

If you're new to the blog you might not know why Chanukah has 8 days. If so, you can find out here. [Though this is where it began]

Hungry for more of same? See: Oy Chanuka

And because no trip down memory lane would be complete without an undressing of Cross Currents check out this discussion of Toby Katz's mistaken view of Chanuka, too

Finally: Never forget that "Chanukah would probably have gone the way of Shavuot, a more significant Jewish holiday which few Jews celebrate because there is no popular Christian holiday surrounding it."

Yum, yum

UPDATE: CLICK [Hat-tip: Ball-Devarim, who traced the picture to its source]

What if the Teacher...

had named it DovBear instead of Mohammed?

[DB: Post edited because it wasn't much good]

Art imitates life

My dear friend Chayim G is offended by the video of the dancing hasidim, which is being used by Yes, an Israeli company, to hawk high definition television. He says the spectacle of cavorting Hasidim is sick. Self hating. To which I responded:

Are you off your meds? Don't haredim like to sing and dance? Don't they frequently protest what the rest of us find innocuous? Its called parody and this one is mad clever

However, never let it be said that DovBear is less than sensitive to the needs of his fellow Jews, and/or Chayim G. So, with a prayer that this might quell Chayim's nervous stomach, I offer a link to a discussion of a planned haredi riot, one that (a) serves no commercial purpose; and (b) contains absolutely no singing or dancing

Free translation of the pertinent bits:
With the upcoming Chanuka vacation coming up, some of the more extreme Chareidi residents of Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet and Mea Shearim will be "egging" tourists that come to visit their neighborhoods. Big crowds of secular Jews, dressed in provocative clothes are the target, as the pashkevils scream Yevanim Nikbetzu Allai -- the Greeks (ie Hellenists) gathered around me....and everyone is urged to help get rid of the crowds via eggs, fully loaded diapers, etc.

Better, big guy?

Toe-AY-vah!!!!

Funniest marketing campaign of the year? Could be, could be.

[Subtitles and additional commentary available here]
[Furry-hat tip: Jacob Da Jew]
[And AMSHINOVER]
AM
SHI
NOVER

Undisputable [sic] proof!!

Moshe our Teacher was (of course!) a Satmar

And please note how the Satmar scholar on the video "proves" that Moses was no misnagid ("Couldn't be! Impossible! Not even worth talking about!") It may remind you of the arguments used by some 21st century Rabbis whenever evolution comes up.

Rabbis who act Republican

Rabbis threaten to boycott landlords who set their own rents

For me, the truly hysterical part about this first story, is that all the Lapin-loving Jews I know are convinced that the Torah completely coincides with the platform of the Republican party. Yet, here we have a band of Rabbis acting like members of the Communist party. This type of economic bullying wouldn't be unexpected in rural China, perhaps, but in aTorah True Israeli neighborhood? (I know what some of my smarter readers will say: Aren't rents controlled in NYC, too? Sure. But in NY unhappy landlords have recourse. They can appeal, and, in theory at least, they can use the ballot box to introduce change. No such remedy exists if its a local rabbinic vaad doing the bullying.)

Meanwhile, the Monsey Mafia has announced that non-Jews are no longer welcome to own kosher restaurants; worse, according to Shmarya, the rule doesn't apply to everyone. Only one non-Jewish owned place has been targeted. Smells like a shakedown, doesn't it? Or maybe a competitor slipped someone a paper bag full of cash. Who knows? (I don't) Still, much as I may disdain the behavior of the Israeli rabbis at least their hearts are in the right place. They may be bullies, but poor people are the beneficiaries of their bullying. Who, though, is being served when a restaurant is shuttered on laughably specious grounds? Other restaurant owners? Please. This looks to me like the old back scratch. You take care of me, I'll take care of you and to hell with the little guys. So, if the Lapin-loving Jews wish to claim it, I will concede: nothing could be more Republican.

Shoshana…Don’t Take Your Love to Town

BY THE BRAY OF FUNDIE

(Delivering a long awaited sequel and in honor of the rationality vs. faith Kulturkampf celebrated on Chanukah)


See here for your viewing pleasure before your eyes begin to bleed:


Defining the covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jewish people is a daunting task. But one valuable metaphor often repeated in the Torah is that it is a marriage with G-d playing the role of the husband and us Jews in the role of the wife. The bequest of Torah is recast as a kind of betrothal; idolatry is spoken of in terms of marital infidelity and G-ds “infamous” jealous vengeance evokes images of a cuckold catching his wife in the act.

It’s germane to contemplate the marriage metaphor when considering the problem of indiscriminate credulity in contemporary Judaism. Simply put, there is altogether far too much of it to be healthy.

When chai rotel mashkeh is believed to possess more salutary effects than kibud av v’em ( honoring parents) and shiluach haken (shooing away the mother bird) rolled into one, when every self-proclaimed mezuzah and forehead reader is unquestioningly endowed with the clairvoyant and miracle-working powers exceeding those of Moshe-Rabenu, when repetitions of mantras of very recent vintage are substituted for and considered the peers or superiors of genuine modes of Avodas HaShem, when those who voice guarded skepticism over e.g. “the Monsey talking fish” are treated like pariahs who had absolutely denied TMS or Techiyas hameisim then it’s time to say that the faith-leapers should have looked before leaping.

At the other end of the spectrum, when the basest, grossest Lashon Harah spoken about those presumably, and rightfully presumed, innocent is gleefully accepted, deeply felt and immediately editorialized/ blogged about, when every Wiki article is empiracally true or when the New York Times Op-Ed page is treated with the same reverence as Divine revelation, something is terribly awry.

Why do otherwise on-the-ball people who apply sharply honed critical faculties in fields ranging from Talmudic analysis to investment strategies rush to believe so indiscriminately?

I believe (pardon the expression) that the answer lies in the Rambam that I analyzed in this guest post:

People have an instinctive awareness of the realm of Q’dusha, of a dimension that is beyond their ken. They reach for it but it eludes their minds grasp. While the human mind strives to understand the human heart yearns to believe and love. IMO the capacity for love and belief is the more exalted of the two and therein lays the danger. The absolute value of –100 is greater than the absolute value of +95. In the same vein the absolute value (i.e. the value when transformed into a positive) of credulity exceeds that of rational skepticism. If correctly directed credulity forms the basis for Emunah (faith) and Ahavas HaShem (loving G-d) then when misdirected it sows the seeds of Avodah Zarah (idolatry).

George Santayana wrote that “Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer:” Conversely I propose that “Naiveté is the promiscuity of the mind”. The willingness to allow our minds to “lie down” indiscriminately with any old idea is the mental equivalent of abusing our sexuality for never-ending one-night-stands and accepting this as an adequate surrogate for the risks and rewards of a long-term, deeply-felt, monogamous relationship. We proclaim as much twice every day in krias sh’ma when we say וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.
= and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray (i.e. commit infidelity);

In that guest post I said that I would try to define this problematic Rambam: וִידִיעַת דָּבָר זֶה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" = “And the knowledge of this (i.e. G-d) is a positive commandments as it is written ‘I am the Lord thy G-d’ ”. I now read this Rambam through the prism of credulity vs. skepticism: As Adam “knew” his wife Eve, as the chaste Rivka was “unknown” so must G-d be known. But it is a knowledge that is metaphysical, not carnal. We do not conjugate with G-d physically but emotionally and spiritually. It requires the same exclusiveness, commitment and fidelity as marriage. Woe to us if we stray and start directing that kind of interaction to entities other than G-d. If we do so we will then, khalila, have begun the slide down the slippery slope that culminates in contemporary versions of idolatry.

How may we keep our marriage with G-d strong? How do we strike the right balance between loving, surrendering naïveté and exclusionary skepticism? Through Torah, G-d’s love letter to us. Toras HaShem temimah ...Edus HaShem ne'emanah machkimas pesi (ha’ma’amin l’khol dovor) = “the Torah of the L-rd is perfect….The testimony statutes of the Lord are faithful they wisen-up the naïve (who believe in everything).”

Kenny Rogers made a big hit out of Mel Tillis’s ballad of lost love Ruby Don’t Take Your Love to Town . It tells the story of a wounded veteran’s wife whose wandering eye and promiscuous heart seeks gratification “in-town” that is not forthcoming from her husband. The lyrics read in part:

Ruby are you contemplating going out somewhere?
The shadows on the wall tell me the sun is going down,
Oh Ruby, don't take your love to town…
And yes, it's true that I'm not the man I used to be,
oh Ruby, I still need some company.

The deeper we get into golus, The greater the Hester Panim ( concealment of
G-d’s “face”) the more that the question of theodicy makes G-d, kavayokhol appear impotent rather than omnipotent, the louder the loveless, absolute skeptics bray about the G-d myth, the harder it becomes to “know” G-d, to maintain perfect fidelity and not look for surrogates of G-d and sources of gratification by surrendering our rationality elsewhere.

But in Shir HaShirim G-d compares us to His beloved wife to His Shoshana bein Hakhokhim, His "rose among the thorns". And He sings to us still..

Shoshana are you beguiled by other powers and Lords?
Has our endless game of hide and seek left you lost and bored?
Shoshana, don't take your love to town…
And yes it sure seems that I’m not the G-d I used to be,
Shoshana I still demand monogamy (still need you to see the old me!)

Oh Shoshana, don't take your love to town…
Oh Shoshana, for G-d's sake, turn around

Romney to Give Speech on Religion

My spies tell me the Mitwit is preparing an important speech on the Mormon Faith. Yippee.

Do you think it will be anything like JFK's famous 1960 speech to the Baptists in Houston? Well, then have your head examined. Lions and lambs will swap wives before a Republican candidate for president in 2007 tells America, as JFK did, that he "believe[s] in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

In fact, given Mitt's flippity track record, the odds are better that he will announce that he's becoming a Southern Baptist. (Which would be intellectual progress, I suppose, but I digress)

The Law Of Evolution

By: CousinOliver

The misunderstanding of the word "theory" in scientific context by the general public isn't news, but it is worth mentioning again here.

Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.

But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.

Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge. continue...

Evolution is real. Live with it.

Crazed British Muslims call for blood in solidarity with their Sudanese brothers...

...Over "Mohamed" the teddy bear.

Can't trust those shmatte-kops, can you? They'll never understand pluralistic democratic values.

Only problem is, that's not what they did.

Hey, I wonder what would have happened in Ramat Bet Shemesh B if a foreign teacher had a class that named their teddy "DovBear?"

DovBear et al: Your sympathy please.

DovBear et al: Your sympathy please.: "I had a to suffer through a speech this weekend about how Yaakov 'the leader of Klal yisroel at the time [sic]' and the shivtay ko (his 12 sons) created a besdin (formal Jewish court) that sentenced Chamor to death.

Afterwards, I cornered the man and asked him how the scrupulously halachic forefathers could have created a kosher bes din given that they were (a) related to each other (b) related to the victim.

To his credit, the man had the good sense to say he didn't know.

What was his mistake? This: He presumes the world he dwells in today existed always. In 2006 we can't imagine a great Jewish man acting outside of the halacha, and because Yaakov, obviously, was a great Jewish man, many Jews take it for granted that he was also halachic. But this idea crumbles on examination. How for instance, could Yaakov have foreseen the development of the Mishna, the Talmud, and all the subsequent codes and commentaries? That corpus, our law, is the work of men, gifted men to be sure, but men all the same. As such, the result is contingent, not inevitable. We could have ruled like Bes Shamai and not like Bais Hillel in every instance and created a Judaism that bears no resemblance to our own and God's reaction would have been exactly what it was when the court of Rabbi Yehoshua rejected the proclomation of a Bas Kol.

As the Talmud says: '[At that time] God smiled and said “My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.”"

Condy Rice, GWB's Secretary of State, hits us where it hurts

Rice: I know what it's like to be Palestinian