"The woman conceived and bore a son. She saw that he was good and she kept him hidden for three months. " (Exodus 2:2 )
On this verse Rashi tells us (citing Sotah 12A) that when Moshe was born the whole house filled with light. Why? (Not "why light and not, marshmallows;" but "why doesn't Rashi take the verse at face value?")
Well, if you read closely, like Rashi did, you'll see that the verse seems to say that Moshe was saved because he was good. Strange, no? Doesn't every Jewish mother think her children are good? And yet, not every Jewish child was saved. This suggests (to Rashi, at least, who had a gift for catching subtle suggestions) that there was something odd about this particular child. A house full of unexplained light, you will agree, is seriously odd.
A second midrash says that Moshe was born circumcised and though we can easilly imagine Moshe's mother recognizing that as a sign that her son was worth saving, Rashi rejects it in favor of the house of light. According to someone who's name I forget, Rashi prefers the first midrash because the words themselves support it: On the day of his birth Yocheved looks at her son, and she saw he was good (vatera oto ki tov hu) ; on the first day of creation, God looks at the light, and he sees that it was good. (vayare elokim et ha'or ki tov.)
It's as if we're meant to understand that the birth of Moshe represents the begining of a second creation.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Exercising discretion
I wanted to put a link to my site reading "Link Whores Welcome Here" beneath David and Meryl's latest pronouncements, but I worried they might not appreciate the metajoke.
Strange Bedfellows
Guess who's working together to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers?
The Catholic Church (duh) and Agudath Israel!
According to Zweibel, the Chief Rabbi of Agudah, their concerns are very noble:
The Catholic Church (duh) and Agudath Israel!
According to Zweibel, the Chief Rabbi of Agudah, their concerns are very noble:
The ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America, however, said it was wary of the legislation, which would require clergy to "report to authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused," according to a March 19 statement by Morgenthau. David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Aguda, said he feared that the proposal could infringe on "religious freedom.Which freedom would that be? The freedom to smack kids around? Well no. Apparently, the religious issue Zweibel wishes to protect is mesira, a category of law concerning when one Jew may inform on another to the secular government. The old mobsters, incidently, called it omerta and you can just bet they're wishing that they had had the foresight to wrap it up in religion.
A Point Worth Sharing
balabusta in blue jeans: ...is [Avi Shafran] seriously proposing that halacha holds that the democratically elected head of state must not exist in a democracy, but be considered a divinely empowered ruler? This despite the fact that his power derives SOLELY from the same democratic system that puts on him checks and balances and gives the rights of dissent to the people who elected him and can darn well unelect him if necessary?
My head is spinning. This proposes that democracy has NO function at all, except as a device to bestow non-democratic powers. I have only one other question. Did Rabbi Shafran hold this belief when Bill Clinton was in office, or is there another statement by Maimonides that a king fooling around on his wife and being a Democrat is grounds for believing the divine annointment has gone away?
My head is spinning. This proposes that democracy has NO function at all, except as a device to bestow non-democratic powers. I have only one other question. Did Rabbi Shafran hold this belief when Bill Clinton was in office, or is there another statement by Maimonides that a king fooling around on his wife and being a Democrat is grounds for believing the divine annointment has gone away?
Why do they pick on me?
A round-up of some of the very stupid things peoople have said to me over the last 24-hours.
HirshelTzig: "Using page loads rather than unique visitors as a counter is deceiptful and cheap. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, man.
HirshelTzig Homepage 01.20.06 - 9:57 am
Yes, which is why I resisted doing it for almost a year. However, every other bigish blog counts its visitors that way, so my choices were (a) play by their rules or (b) continue to look bad.
Warren: Shilling for votes is beyond acceptable. If I cared about awards, I'd write to the people who run this one, whoever they are, I haven't bothered to click on their link, and suggest that next year anyone who puts a "Welcome voters" on top of their page, or asks for votes, should be disqualified. Get back to work, all of you, and whoever wins, don't make a big deal about it.
Warren 01.20.06 - 6:03 am
You're aware of course (or perhaps you're not) that most every blog does this, including Cross Current, the one and only blog I really want to beat (and not for the privlage of putting some banner on my sidebar, by the way.). Cross Currents has had a whiny little message begging for support at the top of their site for almost two weeks. I resisted doing that until yesterday (though I did indulge in a not-very-whiny blogad) Have you objected to Cross Current's practice? Threatened to snitch on them? (It isn't againt the rules to shill) If not, please STFU.
Moishe Potemkin: ...every time we libertarians pop our heads up, guys like Charlie and DovBear assure us that the government only wants what's best for us, and that they're incorruptible so long as they're Democrats. Uh-huh. Sure.
Moishe, you have never heard that argument here. One of the themes of this blog is that men can't be trusted. They are all corruptable. Which is one reason why we find it so frusterating that GOP libertarians like you have handed the president a blank check. As for the government, see Madison (If men were angels... etc.) Government, a necessary evil, works best when it is transparent and inclusive, with rules of procedure that are fair and respected. Not when it's all reduced to the will of the executive.
HirshelTzig: "Using page loads rather than unique visitors as a counter is deceiptful and cheap. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, man.
HirshelTzig Homepage 01.20.06 - 9:57 am
Yes, which is why I resisted doing it for almost a year. However, every other bigish blog counts its visitors that way, so my choices were (a) play by their rules or (b) continue to look bad.
Warren: Shilling for votes is beyond acceptable. If I cared about awards, I'd write to the people who run this one, whoever they are, I haven't bothered to click on their link, and suggest that next year anyone who puts a "Welcome voters" on top of their page, or asks for votes, should be disqualified. Get back to work, all of you, and whoever wins, don't make a big deal about it.
Warren 01.20.06 - 6:03 am
You're aware of course (or perhaps you're not) that most every blog does this, including Cross Current, the one and only blog I really want to beat (and not for the privlage of putting some banner on my sidebar, by the way.). Cross Currents has had a whiny little message begging for support at the top of their site for almost two weeks. I resisted doing that until yesterday (though I did indulge in a not-very-whiny blogad) Have you objected to Cross Current's practice? Threatened to snitch on them? (It isn't againt the rules to shill) If not, please STFU.
Moishe Potemkin: ...every time we libertarians pop our heads up, guys like Charlie and DovBear assure us that the government only wants what's best for us, and that they're incorruptible so long as they're Democrats. Uh-huh. Sure.
Moishe, you have never heard that argument here. One of the themes of this blog is that men can't be trusted. They are all corruptable. Which is one reason why we find it so frusterating that GOP libertarians like you have handed the president a blank check. As for the government, see Madison (If men were angels... etc.) Government, a necessary evil, works best when it is transparent and inclusive, with rules of procedure that are fair and respected. Not when it's all reduced to the will of the executive.
Go Go Google!
If one side in a dispute takes "Don't be evil" as it's watchword, what might we presume about the other player? We're speaking, of course, of the Justice Department's argument with Google, the fine and magnanimous company which delivers DovBear to you, day after day, at no charge.
According to the newspapers, the humorless drones in Justice want Google to hand over information about what people seek when they use the search engine. Google's response? Stuff it. Meanwhile, Yahoo and Microsoft both rolled over and went to fetch the Attoreny General's slippers.
As for the administration, can't they be content with listening in to our phone calls, B.S.-ing their way into a war, stealing money from Indians, and enriching Halliburton while frittering away a $650 billion cash surplus? Do they also need to know exactly who among us is looking at naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston? (Not me.)
According to the newspapers, the humorless drones in Justice want Google to hand over information about what people seek when they use the search engine. Google's response? Stuff it. Meanwhile, Yahoo and Microsoft both rolled over and went to fetch the Attoreny General's slippers.
As for the administration, can't they be content with listening in to our phone calls, B.S.-ing their way into a war, stealing money from Indians, and enriching Halliburton while frittering away a $650 billion cash surplus? Do they also need to know exactly who among us is looking at naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston? (Not me.)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
PSA
The community is advised that I've changed my stat counter. As of today it counts page views, not unique visitors, bringing the blog into line with the approach used by most other blogs. The counter itself, however, will remain at the bottom of the page and not up at the top where the insecure bloggers keep it. ;)
Glossary
Unique Visitor Count
A unique visitor is determined by cookies. If someone visits your website and does not have a cookie, or their cookie is older than an hour they count as being a unique visitor and a pageload.
Page Load Count
If someone visits your website and they have a cookie that is less than an hour old, their cookie is updated and they are only counted as a pageload. A pageload is simply the total number of times your page has been accessed, ignoring the unique aspect altogether. This naturally means your pageloads will always be greater than or equal to your unique visitors.
Glossary
Unique Visitor Count
A unique visitor is determined by cookies. If someone visits your website and does not have a cookie, or their cookie is older than an hour they count as being a unique visitor and a pageload.
Page Load Count
If someone visits your website and they have a cookie that is less than an hour old, their cookie is updated and they are only counted as a pageload. A pageload is simply the total number of times your page has been accessed, ignoring the unique aspect altogether. This naturally means your pageloads will always be greater than or equal to your unique visitors.
Final Push
I don't ask you guys for much, but it would mean quite a lot to me if I could sneak past Cross Currents here and here over at the battle of the blogs.
Another good reason to vote for me: There's a chance that a DB victory over CC might make the baby Jesus cry.)
Another good reason to vote for me: There's a chance that a DB victory over CC might make the baby Jesus cry.)
If men were angels, no government would be necessary
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary"
-JAMES MADISON
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-THOMAS PAINE
A vile thought from Rabbi Avi Shafran is prominently displayed on Cross Currents this morning. He says, in part, that Geroge W. Bush must be fully supported by Jews because 800 yars ago Maimonides ruled that the power of a Jewish King to wage war was absolute.
Shafran fails to remember two things (aside from the rather obvious details about George being neither Jewish nor a king.)
First, a Jewish King was given this great power, because he was imagined to be the Pure and Humble Servant of God. His presumed goodness, and loyalty to the Torah was meant to function as a check on his power. An American president is entitled to no such presumption of Goodness, which is why the Founders imposed serious checks on his power. Second, as the Book of Kings dramitically demonstrates the king who is also a Pure and Humble Servant of God is a chimera. He never existed, not even when the Temple stood.
Shafran fails not because Bush is bad, or because the Rambam was wrong, but because the King who was worthy of the power Shafran wishes Bush to have, has never in human history existed.
-JAMES MADISON
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-THOMAS PAINE
A vile thought from Rabbi Avi Shafran is prominently displayed on Cross Currents this morning. He says, in part, that Geroge W. Bush must be fully supported by Jews because 800 yars ago Maimonides ruled that the power of a Jewish King to wage war was absolute.
Shafran fails to remember two things (aside from the rather obvious details about George being neither Jewish nor a king.)
First, a Jewish King was given this great power, because he was imagined to be the Pure and Humble Servant of God. His presumed goodness, and loyalty to the Torah was meant to function as a check on his power. An American president is entitled to no such presumption of Goodness, which is why the Founders imposed serious checks on his power. Second, as the Book of Kings dramitically demonstrates the king who is also a Pure and Humble Servant of God is a chimera. He never existed, not even when the Temple stood.
Shafran fails not because Bush is bad, or because the Rambam was wrong, but because the King who was worthy of the power Shafran wishes Bush to have, has never in human history existed.
Pataki's Plan
It's not often I disagree with my very good friend OrthoMom (Note to RenReb NYAH!) but today the MomOf4 is wrong about Governor Pataki plan to give a $500 tax credit to public and private school parents in underperforming school districts.
The idea sounds nice (Free money! Whoopie!) but handing out cash won't help Jewish families overcome monsterous tuition costs.
The instant more money becomes available our fine Jewish schools will raise their tuition, or they will facter this new money into their scholarship packages. Instead of offering prospective students "X" it will be "X minus the credit."
No-one - save the schools - will come out ahead.
The idea sounds nice (Free money! Whoopie!) but handing out cash won't help Jewish families overcome monsterous tuition costs.
The instant more money becomes available our fine Jewish schools will raise their tuition, or they will facter this new money into their scholarship packages. Instead of offering prospective students "X" it will be "X minus the credit."
No-one - save the schools - will come out ahead.
Frummer than the Pope?
I've often worried that my good friend Yaakov Menken might go too far in his rush to justify Judaism to the gentiles. Has his defense of Intelligent Design and criticism of judges who refuse to let it become part of public school curriculums crossed some sort of line?
Tip of the miter to Frummer?
The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.What does it mean when one of our leading Jewish pundits embraces a view of the world that is less scientific than the position advanced by the bishop of Rome?
Tip of the miter to Frummer?
Michael Brown: "I blew it"
This just in:
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown on Wednesday accepted a greater share of the blame for the government's failures after Hurricane Katrina, saying he fell short in conveying the magnitude of the disaster and calling for help.Among Brownie's other revelations yesterday: "The Earth is round, the moon is not made from green cheese and DovBear is generally right about everything."
"I should have asked for the military sooner. I should have demanded the military sooner," Brown told a gathering of meteorologists at a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada.
Luke Ford's Five Minutes
Is Luke Ford a someone? Apperently so. The man who, in 2005, brought us nearly five months of non-stop blogging about rabbinic indiscretions got a mention in Mark Steyn's rememberance of Moustapha Akkad. (Who? Moustapha gave us all eight Halloween movies, and tried valiently to rehabilitate our image of Muslims before being killed last November in a suicide bombing) The post-mortem, with the Ford citation, appears on page 208 (Bad luck Luke!) of the current Atlantic:
In an interview with Luke Ford for his 2002 book The Producers, [Moustapha] agreed with the author's estimate that Hollywood's muscle was "70 percent Jewish," but reckoned you got along fine as long as you steered clear of certain subjects. "The media runs the world," he said. "No tanks or planes. The media and the public companies. This is what The Protocols of Zion is all about. The Zionists, last century, were persecuted in Europe. So they immigrated to America. They had a target. They were united. They did not permit [statements] critical of Zion. They went all the way to control the world and to control the minds of the people through the media. There's a lesson to learn from them."And look at that: Stephen I Weiss's old blog, Protocols, the place where Luke did most of his most memorable muckraking was remembered, too.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Foul Secularists
The death of a pope is not a laughing matter
Dancing maybe. Feasting perhaps. But not laughing.
[Tip of the smashing religious headgear to Mis-nagid, foulest secularist of them all]
Dancing maybe. Feasting perhaps. But not laughing.
[Tip of the smashing religious headgear to Mis-nagid, foulest secularist of them all]
Heads up
When I come across posts like this, I say to myself, "Lord I wish my wife read blogs, preferably mine."
Because now, if I print this out and bring it home, she won't respond to it with mirth and merriment, they way she might have had she discovered it on her own. Oh no. Instead, she is going to presume that I brought it home in support of some kind of agenda.
Because now, if I print this out and bring it home, she won't respond to it with mirth and merriment, they way she might have had she discovered it on her own. Oh no. Instead, she is going to presume that I brought it home in support of some kind of agenda.
Gemarah is The Constitution is Gevaldik
The better magazines are debating the president's power to wage war in a manner that reminds me of the bes medrash. Here's how the argument might appear on a page of the Vilna Shas:
MISHNA: The Congress shall have Power to... declare War
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoo says: "declare" not "engage in" From this we learn the power to engage in war resides with the president, and because our Torah proscribes no check on his war making power, he may do as he pleases. As we learn from Blackstone ,"the monarch had no need to declare war before beginning hostilities against another nation."
Rabbi Sunstein says: Ah, but our Sages have specifically rejected Blackstone, for example Rav Washington says: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure." And Rav Kent said "war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress."
DovBear says: The textual argument of Rabbi Yoo is very strong, but we do not rule by the text alone. Our traditions along with the view of the founders appear to support Rabbi Sunstein: The president may not do as he pleases during the prosecution of war.
RASHI
Declare: A declaration recognizes the state of affairs, rather than authorizing the creation of that state of affairs
Engage In: Elsewhere (Article I, Section 10) it says that states may not "engage in War" suggesting that the Framers meant a difference between the two terms.
Our Torah: The Constitution
No Check: Save the Power of the Purse. War must be paid for by the House.
As he pleases: Wiretapping, detaining enemy combatants without hearings, and torture, included.
Our sages: James Wilson, et al.
Our traditions: On many occasions, the courts have required explicit congressional support for presidential action, even when national security was at risk.
The view of the founders: Per Sunstein: "James Madison wrote that the Constitution has, "with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ature]." Alexander Hamilton said that the legislature "can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility." John Marshall declared that "the whole powers of war" are constitutionally "vested in Congress." Thomas Jefferson wrote that under the Constitution, "one effectual check to the Dog of war" was "transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body." In the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, James Wilson noted that under the Constitution, the decision whether to go to war "will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men." In South Carolina, Pierce Butler, an active participant in the original debates, explicitly said that the Constitution denied the power of "making war or peace" to the president, because it was "objected to, as throwing into his hands the influence of a monarch, having an opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her destruction." There are not many issues on which James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Wilson, John Adams, and Pierce Butler can be said to agree.
MISHNA: The Congress shall have Power to... declare War
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoo says: "declare" not "engage in" From this we learn the power to engage in war resides with the president, and because our Torah proscribes no check on his war making power, he may do as he pleases. As we learn from Blackstone ,"the monarch had no need to declare war before beginning hostilities against another nation."
Rabbi Sunstein says: Ah, but our Sages have specifically rejected Blackstone, for example Rav Washington says: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure." And Rav Kent said "war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress."
DovBear says: The textual argument of Rabbi Yoo is very strong, but we do not rule by the text alone. Our traditions along with the view of the founders appear to support Rabbi Sunstein: The president may not do as he pleases during the prosecution of war.
RASHI
Declare: A declaration recognizes the state of affairs, rather than authorizing the creation of that state of affairs
Engage In: Elsewhere (Article I, Section 10) it says that states may not "engage in War" suggesting that the Framers meant a difference between the two terms.
Our Torah: The Constitution
No Check: Save the Power of the Purse. War must be paid for by the House.
As he pleases: Wiretapping, detaining enemy combatants without hearings, and torture, included.
Our sages: James Wilson, et al.
Our traditions: On many occasions, the courts have required explicit congressional support for presidential action, even when national security was at risk.
The view of the founders: Per Sunstein: "James Madison wrote that the Constitution has, "with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ature]." Alexander Hamilton said that the legislature "can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility." John Marshall declared that "the whole powers of war" are constitutionally "vested in Congress." Thomas Jefferson wrote that under the Constitution, "one effectual check to the Dog of war" was "transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body." In the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, James Wilson noted that under the Constitution, the decision whether to go to war "will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men." In South Carolina, Pierce Butler, an active participant in the original debates, explicitly said that the Constitution denied the power of "making war or peace" to the president, because it was "objected to, as throwing into his hands the influence of a monarch, having an opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her destruction." There are not many issues on which James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Wilson, John Adams, and Pierce Butler can be said to agree.
Glass Houses Watch
What would MLK Day be without a bogus racial brouhaha?
"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about." ---Hillary Clinton
"I've never run a plantation before. I'm not even sure of what kind of association she's trying to make. If she's trying to be racist, I think that's unfortunate, but I'm not going to comment any further on that." --Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress
"It's definitely using the race card. It definitely has racist connotations. She knows it. She knew the audience. She knew what she was trying to say, and it was wrong. And she should be ashamed." -- Peter King, Member of Congress.
Uh huh
"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about." ---Hillary Clinton
"I've never run a plantation before. I'm not even sure of what kind of association she's trying to make. If she's trying to be racist, I think that's unfortunate, but I'm not going to comment any further on that." --Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress
"It's definitely using the race card. It definitely has racist connotations. She knows it. She knew the audience. She knew what she was trying to say, and it was wrong. And she should be ashamed." -- Peter King, Member of Congress.
Uh huh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)