Searchng for a cross in a haystack (Updated)

Thanks to Still Wonderin' for directing me to the kina (liturgical dirge) where the cross is mentioned.

The exact quote is (something like) "the fear of them rattled us (heershee-oo) / their sign made things hard for us(?) (heekeesh-oo)"

According to the gloss, "their sign" is the cross crusaders attached to their clothing and flags.

Reuters axes photographer over doctored picture

A Reuters photographer has been suspended by the agency for doctoring pictures of a bomb blast in Beirut. Photoshop software, apparently, was used by the photographer, Adnan Hajj, to add substantially to the density of the smoke rising from above the city's buildings, and to increase the scale of the damage. Once alerted to the fraud, Reuters withdrew the picture, replaced it with the original, untouched version, and announced that it would not be using more of Hajj's work.

A Reuters spokeswoman in London, Moira Whittle, said: "This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards, and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him."

How did the picture slip past the photo editors? Don't know. But I'm glad that, once confronted, the agency behaved responsibly.

Grand Old Paradigms of virtue

An article in the current TNR, reminds me that many of the fine Republican men who loudly and self-righteously decried the personal sleaziness of Bill Clinton were, themselves, adulterers.

Some examples:

Newt Gingrich
Anti-Clinton bonafide: As Speaker of the House, led the GOP to focus on the impeachment project as a principal strategy.
Worse than Clinton moment: Cheating on his first wife and served her with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from uterine cancer. Twelve years into his second marriage, began an affair with Callista Bisek, a Hill staffer 23 years his junior. The affair went on for six years before Gingrich finally gave second wife Marianne the heave-ho to wed Callista.

Bob Livingston
Anti-Clinton bonafide: Succeeded Gingrich as House speaker. Led impeachment efforts.
Worse than Clinton moment: Allegedly had sex with lobbyists included those who represented the defense industry.

Bob Barr
Anti-Clinton bonafide: Served as House Manager during the impeachment trial.
Worse than Clinton moment: Second divorce involved a trial in which he lied about his long-term adulterous relationship with a woman who eventually became his third wife. Photographed in 1992 licking whipped cream off a stripper. Later sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act.

Henry Hyde
Anti-Clinton bonafide: Served as House Manager during the impeachment trial.
Worse than Clinton moment: Conducted an extramarital sexual affair with Cherie Snodgrass. At the time, Snodgrass was married to another man with whom she had had three children.

Charles Canady
Anti-Clinton bonafide: Served as House Manager during the impeachment trial.
Worse than Clinton moment: Canady lied to his constituents about his adulterous affair with Sharon Becker, which caused her divorce from Florida businessman Robert Becker.

Bob Dole
Anti-Clinton bonafide: Regularly impugned Clinton's character during the 1996 election
Worse than Clinton moment: Dole had an affair with a much younger woman during the last four years of his first marriage, before suddenly dumping his wife of 22 years in 1972.

Is hating Israel doche shabbos?

My spies tell me the Naturei Karta were well represented at today's anti-war protest in Times Square. According to my source (who saw footage on TV, he says) NK was there, listening politely to the anti-Israel invectivem, holding their hate-filled signs, and because it was shabbos, wearing their shtreimals, too.

I wonder how the boys got into the city...

Call President Bush!

I think it's important for Torah Jews to let the president know that he's advancing an opinion about Israel which does not coincide with the position expressed by HaRav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Israel's greatest living Rabbi.

The president, as is well known, won't tell Isrrel to limit its military operations. Rav Elyahiv, on the other hand, thinks Israel should listen to the other nations, and take steps to immediately bring about the end of the war, and preserve Jewish lives.

If you're a daas Torah type of Jew, you probably want to make sure the president is aware of Rav Elyoshiv's opinion. You can call him at (202) 456-1111, and tell him DovBear says hey.

PS: For the last few weeks Jon Stewart, a great American, has been runing clips of pius Christains predicting the imminent end of the world. Apparently, the idea that Israel's war with Lebanon will usher in the rapture is very popular among evenagelicals. Bush, as we all know, is a born-again believer who thinks God speaks through him. Could the president, on some level, be unwilling to ask Israel to restrain itself because he thinks a larger conflagaration is needed before Jesus can return? Might that explain the difference of opinion between the president and the Great Rabbi?

If you get through on the White House line, please ask him that, too.

Look who else is an anti-Israel Jew hater!

HaRav Hagaon Yosef Shalom Eliashiv.

According to Haaretz, one of Israel's top Rabbis "has expressed his support of a cease fire between Israel and Lebanon." Rabbi Eliashiv said:

...the decision makers must take into account the position of the world nations. They shouldn't ignore or take lightly the ideas raised by other nations. If the United States raises solutions that could bring about the end of the war and save Jewish lives, they should be heeded. No offer or idea should be dismissed offhand. We mustn't anger the nations of the world.

Of course, if the New York Times were to say the same thing, GOP-Jews would trip over themselves to hurl invectives at the paper of record. In fact, last week the Times argued for restraint, and unreflective Ezzie said the paper was "against Israel's interests."

Though GOP-Jews pride themselves on raw intelligance, many seem unable to comprehend a simple fact of life: You can be pro-Israel while also disagreeing with RW policy precriptions. A call for restraint is not a call for Israel's destruction. Advocating for a cease-fire is not code for "I wish Israel would roll over and die." Saying that campaign to carpet-bomb Southern Lebanon runs contrary to Israel's long term interests, is not another way of saying "I hope the terrorists win."

Now that the leader of Israel's Lithuanian community has embraced the New York Time's position, and agrees that an immidiate cease-fire is best for the Jewish people, the GOP Jews have a choice: They can either acknowledge that calls for restraint are not ipso facto anti-Israel, or they can denounce one of the great Rabbis of our generation as a closet anti-Semite.

Searching for a cross in a haystack

Are my eyes going? Or is it my memory? I'm 1000 percent positive that a reference to the cross appears somewhere in one of the many kinos (ie: liturgical dirges recited on 9 Av) dedicated to the atrocities committed in 1096 against the Jewish communities of Worms, Speyer and Mainz. As I recall, the poet makes a reference to the "sign across their chests which filled us with fear." This can only mean the cross. The ragtag horde of crusaders attached it to their hats and clothing in a display of martial holiness, just as later generations of anti-Semites would cover themselves with the swastika. Imagine what the swastika meant to our grandparents and it's easy to understand why the 11th century Jews of the Rheinland would have been "filled with fear" at the sight of the cross.

Yesterday, I read through the Crusader kinos looking for the verse. Again and again I read about the destruction of the shuls and schools of the Rheinland, of the young grooms and brides who committed suicide as the mobs advanced, and the thousands who were put to death after a local bishop withdrew his protection, and expelled a sanctuary-seeking community from his cathedral. But, try as I might, I couldn't spot the line about the cross. Did I miss it? Or did I imagine it?

Additional note: Pace the hysterical speaker who addressed my congregation yesterday afternoon, the Crusades did not start on 9 Av. Urban II preached the first crusade at the Council of Clermont , which gathered in November 1095. The bulk of the massacres were in spring, during sefira, with perhaps the most famous attack occuring on the third day of Sivan. [More]

The Temple and Jewish dis-unity

Gosh darn it. I just lost a dynamite post on how the Temple was destroyed not because the good, kosher Jews hated one another, as most presume, but because the various different Jewish sects were always and forever at each others throats.

Take for instance, the Hellonists, who sparked the Great Revolt by defiling a shul in Ceasrea. Or, the Zealots who murdered the entire leadership of the southern command, and terrorized all of Jerusalem. Or, the Scarii who tried to provoke the Jews to fight by burning all the food in Jerusalem, and so terrified Yochana ben Zackai he was forced to escape Jerusalem in a coffin. Or the Jewish-Christians, who had a strong Jerusalem community (led, at one time by James, brother of Jesus) and were already circulating the books that would become the New Testament. In particular, John, the most anti-Semitic of the gospels, is believed by conservative scholars to have been published between 65 and 90.

In short, Jerusalem, in the late 60s, was a wreck.

I have very little doubt that all of this - and more - is what the rabbis meant when they said that baseless hatred destroyed the Temple.

When was the Temple destroyed?

Version 1

[2 Kings 25:8-11] And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem: And he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away.

Version 2

[Jeremiah 52:12-15] Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem, And burned the house of the LORD, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men, burned he with fire: And all the army of the Chaldeans, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down all the walls of Jerusalem round about. Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive certain of the poor of the people, and the residue of the people that remained in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the multitude.

So what's pshat? Was there a scribal error? Or what?

These passages, aside for the date are remarkably similar in their details and descriptions. In every sense, save the date-discrepancy, these are parralels texts. So why don't they agree on the date of the destruction? What happened? And, if nothing happened, and no error was introduced, how should we understand the passages?

Did the destruction occur on the 7th or the 10th? Is the Torah telling us what happened, or is the Torah deliberately making a false statament?

If I went back in a time machine, would I see the Temple being set on fire on 7 Av or 10 Av? (and try not to worry that we commenrate the fire being set on 9 Av)

They ain't makin' Jews like Judah (Halevi) anymore

Two selections, appropriate for this season:

My heart is in the east, and I am in the furthermost west--
How can I enjoy food? Can it be sweet to me?

How shall I make vows and honor bonds, while yet
Zion is held by Edom, and I by Arab chains?

Shouldn't it be easy for me to leave all the good things of Spain --
Seeing how precious it is to behold the dust of the desolate sanctuary.

--

Beautiful land,
Delight of the world,
City of Kings,
My heart longs for you from the far-off west.
I am terribly sad when I remember how you were.
Now your glory is gone, your homes destroyed.
If I could fly to you on the wings of eagles,
I would soak your soil with my tears.

What does it say about Orthodoxy, in 2005, that we no longer treasure nor produce men who write like angels? Just listen to the opening verse of the first poem, in its original Hebrew: Libi b'mizrach v'anochi b'sof ma'arav. Do you hear the word-music? Yet, in our day Shiny Shoe Music passes for brilliance.

That, too, is something to mourn as we, again, come to Tisha B'av.

I want examples

A guy I don't know tells me there's lots and lots of anti-Israel animosity on the left, and he gave me a long list of blogs and other media where he says this animosity can be found:

AlterNet
Adbusters
Democracy Now
The NY Times
Common Dreams
Antiwar.com
DemocraticUnderground
progressive.org

Of these, I read just two: The Times, and DemocraticUnderground. To the best of my recollection, DU hasn't said a word about Israel (I mean posts, not comments which, I generally, don't read.) The Times, as is its practice, has been covering the war from every possible angle. Some op-eds are positive, some are critical, and the reporting has been good. From what I've seen, none of it has crossed the line into "animosity."

I don't know anything at all about the other sites listed. I've never visited them, and I couldn't tell you the very first thing about them.

But I'm willing to learn.

If you've spotted an instance of outright animosity from any of the sources listed above, please provide quotes and/or links in my comment threads.

I'm willing to admit that there might be a whole underbelly of anti-Israel sentiment out there that I don't know about, but first you'll have to show it to me.

Notes on the war

Israel expands Lebanon ground war

The Midrash Raba says: Anyone who says God is not particular with his pious ones deserves to have his inwards torn out. The forbearance of God grants long credit, but the debt needs to be paid in the end. Jacob caused Esav to shed one tear, and that was repaid in Shushan when Esav's decendant caused Jacob's decendant to cry with a 'loud bitter cry."

I agree that Hezbollah needs to be destroyed. I support Israel's right to defend itself.This war is entirely Hezbollah's fault. Israel must not tolerate attacks on it's towns and cities. And so on. But God help us all if the brothers and the sisters of the non-militants who are being killed come together one day to create something even worse than Hezbollah.

I don't know the answer. I don't know how to wage a war without creating collateral damage. But I do know what the midrash says, and I know the history of the region. Again, and again, I must return to last week's rashi: Do not provoke them.

RIP

Montana senator's nephew dies in Iraq

And in a related story the Iraq Desert Veterans for Truth released a statement saying,

"Senator Baucus's nephew wasn't a Democrat, he didn't really die, it was only a flesh wound; besides the Senator's nephew only enlisted so that he could one day run for president: his death is just another attempt by the traitorous Democratic party to wrap themselves in corpses and politicize the war."

As low as it goes

According to Powerline, the mighty GOP blogger, John Dingell (D-MI) refused to condemn Hezbollah. Pretty low right? Except for this: Powerline lied!!

When asked, "You’re not against Hezbollah?” Dingel replied:

No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence.

But according to Powerline (Time Magazine's 2004 Blog of the Year!) it went like this:

Asked, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell answers, "No..."

And to prove it, Powerline even posted an edited audio clip, one that cuts Dingel off right after the "no."

Pretty sneaky, Powerline. Not quite as sneaky as sending Colin Powel in front of the UN to talk about WMD's that didn't exist, of course, but still, I'm impressed.

Should American Jews throw Powerline overboard? At the NJDC blog Jeff has more.

What do you want from me?

Many other bloggers are running frequent news items and links to columns relating to the war. Is that something you'd like to see me do? If so, I'm happy to run a daily link dump, and you can be sure I'll manage to find articles others overlook.

Should I do it?

Gibson lies about his anti-Jewish remarks

Via the BBC: Film-maker Mel Gibson has admitted making anti-Semitic remarks during his drink-driving arrest - but has said they do not reflect his true feelings. "There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark,' he said in a statement. Please know from my heart I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith."

I am sorry, Mel, but as Chris Hitchens put it, one does not abruptly decide, between the first and second vodka, that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are valid after all.

Questions and comments about the Passion

How was "The Passion of the Christ" anti - Semitic? I never saw the movie and hence have no basis or motivation to either defend or condemn it, but I read that it was a faithful adaptation of the Gospels. So, are the gospels, the New Testament, and Christianity itself inherently anti - Semitic? And by extension, are all Christians who adhere to a literalist Biblical interpretation anti - Semitic?

Holy smokes you bought the lie hook line and sinker.

First the gospels disagree on essential points. Only one of them presents the Jews as Christ killers. Why did Mel choose that telling? Second, none of the torture and blood - much of it, in the movie, committed by Jews - appears in the Gospels. That was created by Gibson. Third, the Gospels say nothing about how Jews look. Gibson chose to make them hook-nosed, and to give them rabinical beards and talit-like shawls. He chose to have them speak in gravely sneers and to move like vipers. Fourth, the scene where the Jewish high priest builds the cross upon which Jesus was killed appears nowhere in the Bible. It was dreamt up in the 19th century by an insane nun. Yet, Gibson put it in the movie. And there are more example like this. Gibson's portrayal of the Jews is based on nothing more than his own imagination of what they looked like and sounded like - and it isn't pretty.

[Medved] defended the movie when it came out. What has happened since then that would make him change his mind? That it turns out Gibson is an anti-semite? If it's revealed that Leonardo Da Vinci was an ant-semite, does that take away from the Mona Lisa?

Medved is STILL defending the movie. even now after Gibson's melt-down. In his latest article, Medved writes that his critical admiration of TPOC is unabated. But now that we know the movie was made by someone sick to his core with Jew hatred, how is it possible to look at the many and multiple anti-Semitic depictions without seeing an agenda? In the movie, the Romans are presented as ethically delicate brutes who were manipulated by cunning and evil Jews into acquiescing to the crucifixion. Why did Gibson choose to show it that way? Why did Gibson choose to show us things that aren't in the Gospels? Why did he choose to make the Jews look Rabininc? If Da-Vinci was an anti-Semite the Mona Lisa is still a beautiful picture, and a technical achievment. But Gibson made deliberate choices about what to include and what to leave out when he made TPOC. His depictions of the Jews are the consequence of those decisions and he must be held accountable -esp. now in light of his newly confirmed anti-Semitism.

Instead, stuff like "The Last Temptation Of Christ", "Priest", "Saved", and "The Da Vinci Code" ... attacks on traditional Christianity ... get released. And you have the Motion Picture Association of America giving a Christian film that lacks violence, nudity, sex, profanity, or adult themes a PG rating because of the movie's "overt Christian message that may offend those of other faiths."

Excuse me, but TPOC was a masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, full of scenes of brutal toture. No one in his right mind would let a child watch that.

I'll leave deciding if the movie was faithful to Christian teachings to the Christians.

And with a sentance you've abdicated your responsibility to stand up for Jewish honor. Gibson has every right to decide for himself how to present his movie. But does he have a "right" to misrepresent what his movie is? Gibson repeatedly claimed that The Passion was both scripturally faithful and historically accurate. In fact, it was neither. That is the problem. If you let people go on thinking that this anti-Semitic fever dream was an honest protrayal of the Gospels you've done them a terrible diservice.