Liberal Torah doesn't impress me either

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

Can a guy catch up on the secular education he was denied on $100 or less

Guy I know from Face Book writes:

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).

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.

Let's help the guy out, and have some fun besides.

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.comas 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?

---

Search for more information about the great books on the cheap at 4torah.com

Great moments in biblical interpretation

Our text today is the eighth verse of the twentieth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, where War Officers are instructed to send home any man who is "Fearful and Fainthearted"

And the officers shall continue to speak to the people and say, "What man is there who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, that he should not cause the heart of his brothers to melt, as his heart.

Reading this verse, R.Yosi spots a difficulty, a difficulty that only registers for those who come to the verse with a pre-existing theological belief about the causes of death. R.Yosi, as we will see, believed that men only die through their sins. In light of this belief, the verse makes no sense: Why is the soldier afraid? He knows he serves the God who defeated Pharaoh. He knows that through God all things are possible. Perhaps he even knows the Rabbinic interpretation of Joshua 7:5 where astonishment is expressed that worthy and righteous Joshua lost as many as 36 soldiers to the men of Ai. And most importantly he knows that the righteous enjoy divine protection, and have no fear of random, undeserved deaths. So what about going to war can possibly frighten this soldier? R. Yosi's solution is the following interpretation:

[it means] one who is afraid of his sins [that they will cause him to fall in war, as he is unworthy], and therefore, the Torah gives him the excuse [in Deut 20:5 ff] of attributing his return home because of a house, a vineyard, or a wife, to cover up for those who return because of their sins, so that people should not understand that they are sinners. [Consequently,] one who sees this person returning would say,“Perhaps he has built a house, or planted a vineyard, or betrothed a woman.” [Sota 44a via Rashi]

Now this solution, of course is forced, and leaves us to wonder why three cover story exemptions are needed, when one would suffice. Still, it shows us the rabbinic imagination at work. R. Yosi is so certain that men die from sin only (and so sensitive to human dignity(!)) that he proposes every war exemption is nothing but a facade to protect the feelings of a sinner.

Also interesting is the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva, who seems not to share the belief that men die through sin alone. Contra R. Yosi he reads the verse this way:

[This verse is to be understood] according to its plain meaning, that he cannot stand in the closed ranks of battle and look upon a drawn sword.  [Sota 44a via Rashi]

R.Akiva, we can see, does not share R. Yosi's confidence that death is always caused by sin. The soldier is not frightened he may die because of his sin, but because he is facing drawn swords in close quarters, and sin or not, this may kill him. As a result, R. Akiva doesn't recognize R. Yosi's difficulty, and has no need for his interpretation.

Their disagreement, of course, occurred back when it was still acceptable to claim that men occasionally die undeserved deaths simply by virtue of being caught at the wrong time, on the wrong battlefield. As anyone who has been to a shteeble or seminary knows, that idea is currently out of style. Now, we practice "No Coincidence Judaism." Every death is deserved, we're frequently told,  and no one ever dies before his time. So what do we do with R. Akiva, who seems to have had a different view? Easy. We reinterpret him as well. Here's the "current" Rebbe of Lubovitch in a Sicha quoted in the Gutnick Edition of the Bible:

As I understand it, the Rebbe is taking it for granted that R. Akiva shares R. Yosi's belief about sins causing deaths. (This is called "begging the question". I point this out because Gutnik misuses the phrase on about every third page).  So the argument between R. Yossi and R. Akiva is not about what causes death, but about what qualifies a person for an exemption. As the Rebbe understands it, R. Yosi excuses people who are afraid due to sins, while R. Akiva does not. Only people who are afraid of fighting are permitted to leave, while those who are afraid because of their sins must stay, because their fear is a sign that the Teshuva process has begun, a process that offers protection. 

Really, very clever, no?

---

Search for more information about acrobatics lshem a pre-existing cherished idea at 4torah.com

The big bad Bina article

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.

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

West Indian Parade Honors Leiby Kletzky

I'm trying to remember the last time a Hasidic or Yeshivish group ran a program to raise money in memory of a non-Jewish child. This is why:

New Yorkers with Caribbean heritage have been packing Brooklyn's streets for 43 years to celebrate the West Indian American Day Parade.

But this year, organizers decided to add a religious element to the lineup - a gospel concert that featured calypso, hip hop and reggae with spiritual themes.

"We normally go for the party, but Caribbean people are people of faith," said the Rev. Caleb Buchanan of the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, who helped organize the event. "We wanted to showcase that."

The gospel concert was also intended to raise awareness and to prevent youth violence.

A chunk of the proceeds went to benefit the Leiby Kletzky Memorial Fund, set up in memory of the young Orthodox Jewish boy found butchered by a madman.

"We're a community that should be together, united and peaceful," said Yolanda Lezama-Clark, president of the West Indian-American Day Carnival Association.

In response, a Hasidic guy I invented, replied, "What?! I should be united with a shvar---?"

Read more about the concert at : http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2011/09/05/2011-09-05_theme_is_spiritual_at_w_indian_parade.html#ixzz1XBkBm5kx

---

Search for more information about failures to reciprocate at 4torah.com

A post I hope will definitively prove that the rich get more from government.

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

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

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

Today's chillul hashem

This occurred two weeks ago but hit Twitter this morning. It shows a guy in kosher clothes smacking the hell out of his daughter on the steps that lead down to the Western Wall Plaza. It took too long, but finally three people intervene and drive him off.

According to Israel 2, the SOB is French, and was deported from Israel. 



Here's what I see: The girl is chatting with two boys, who do not appear to be her brothers. Something is said by the victim that upsets the boys' mother, and she complains to the girl's father. He loses it while the woman who put the attack in motion turns her back in the manner of a Polish resident of Oświcim. At the end, this same stupid woman can be seen offering what appears to be a justification for the attack to one of the heroes. I don't think the idiot woman and the victim are related. When the girl is led off by the police, she stays behind with the two small boys, and continues to debate the bystanders. Even a terrible mother, I think, would feel compelled to play make-believe, and offer the girl some pretend comfort for the sake of the audience.

---

Search for more information about wicked people 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:

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.

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.

On FaceBook someone called this a "dangerous idea", and perhaps it is, but are dangerous ideas necessarily false?

---

Search for more information about morality at 4torah.com

The Lubovitcher Rebbe's New Year's wish to David Dinkens

---

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

Ibn Ezra: Sometimes, people just die.

More heresy from Ibn Ezra:

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"

---

Search for more information about stuff rishonim said, that Jews nowadays consider herersy at 4torah.com

An invitation to a place that does not exist

Think there's "no such place as Palestine?" Well, guess again.

H.T Shmarya, who says the host is a high ranking Nateuri Kartanik.

---

Search for more information about things the NK does for attention at 4torah.com

Binah magazine thinks girls might be getting too smart

Wish, I could report that this is a joke. Alas, its real. The editors of Binah --yes BINAH, as in "understanding"  -- have convened a group of experts to ponder the question: "Are we teaching our girls too much?"

I don't even understand how the question starts. How can you ever have too much knowledge? Actually, I lied. I do understand how the question starts. Someone can have too much knowledge if you wish to control him, if you wish to keep him in his place. Less educated people have less power and are easier to dominate. It's why educating slaves was illegal in the antebellum South. If you're concerned your daughters are getting too smart, what you are really concerned about is protecting the patriarchy.

Anyway, on with the sarcastic Tweets:

Women are on such a high holy level they don't need to learn anything! (except recipes, I mean)

Debate? I bet it's "yes, they are learning too much. This is bad!" vs "yes its bad but we have no choice"

Of course we're teaching them too much! Some of them can read and do simple computations. This is an outrage!

It was a big scandal when black people started learning too much, too. "Master" somethings debated that as well!

The girl in cover picture appears 2 know how wdress herself in a manner befitting a bas yisroel. She needs school?

... and check out the sub heads. How r women homeschooling and entering workforce if they aren't educated? Morons.

it's obvious to me were teaching them too much. Too many women think they are too smart to make me dinner

Thanks to Akiva for the picture and OMTorah for the story. Tweets are all mine.

---

Search for more information about signs Orthodoxy is Over at 4torah.com

The confrontation in Bet Shemesh

The Issue:
A new school for girls is supposed to open this month in Bet Shemesh, only zealots who live nearby are opposed on the grounds that the students, who are religious, may not be religious enough.

What the Zealots Did:
After threatening the mayor of Bet Shemesh, who, at first, caved in and said he and his police force could not protect the students from the violence of the zealots (That's right true believers: A Jewish mayor is worried frum Jews might beat up small Jewish girls.)  the zealots occupied the school, and staged a sit-in.

The reaction: 

See it below. Kind of nice, really, if you forget its Jew on Jew.



Does anyone know if the zealots have a spiritual leader. I presume its the Toldos A or his brother the Toldos AY.  Have either spoken out?

---

Search for more information about shtika khoda at 4torah.com

A little more in defense of Rabbi Kanefsky

Here are the words that invited the right wing rabbis and bloggers to reach for their pitchforks and go on the march against Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky of Los Angeles:

I suspect, at this point in history, that [saying the shelo asani isha blessing] constitutes a Desecration of the Name, God forbid. In time-honored rabbinic tradition, “better to sit and not do”.

I've already said why I disagree with Rabbi Kanefsky. The blessing is universally given a harmless interpretation; when praying, the way we read the words today matters more than what the original authors had in mind. Also, you won't rid Orthodox Judaism of its de facto discrimination against women by striking these words from the prayer books. Minds that don't give the blessing a misogynistic reading won't be changed if the blessing disappears.

But its worth acknowledging that Rabbi Kanefsky does have a rather obvious line of defense against those who use tradition as a veto.

Rabbi Kanefsky's critics claim that a blessing endorsed by the Talmud can't possibly be a Desecration -- after all its in the Talmud! -  but a little light thinking shows the folly of this argument. Keeping slaves and beating wives are both endorsed by the Talmud, but can anyone doubt that a Desecration would result were Jews to endorse either practice today?

---

Search for more information about de facto discrimination  at 4torah.com