Some more back and forth about the cardinal

Fred said:

The point is that your attitude of F you forever is a recipe for constant hatred or at least perpetual dislike.

I say:

That's not my attitude. My attitude is F YOU until you stop insulting us (see the events of 2009) and not before you repudiate that doctrine, the bulls, and the encyclicals that made possible a millennium worth of massacres. So long as that filth is still on their official books, so long as some of the architects of that filth are recognized as their saints they are unforgiven.

~~~

MS said:

Does the church today say anything worse about Jews than the Talmud says about gentiles? At least they're trying to make amends and have changed their views. Has the gemara?

I say:

Did anything in the gemarah produce 2000 years of suffering, massacres, death and destruction. Only a fool would try to create an equivlancy. A fool or an ignoramus. Which are you?

PS: they have not "changed their views" As recently as 2009 the Pope restored a Mass prayer calling for our conversion. The encyclicals which declare us slaves in perpetuity and require us to live in ghettos and wear yellow badges have not been rescinded (Did you think the Nazis were original?) The thousands of official Vatican newspaper articles defending the blood libel and slandering us as vampires have not been corrected. The Pope who called us dogs, and stole our children and forced us to literally kiss his feet and to run naked in the street for his own amusement remain their hallowed saints. And the Pope who legitimized Nazi Germany with a treaty, the pope who excommunicated every communist in the world yet allowed a requiem Mass for Adolph Hitler, the pope who called for public protests against how the Nazis treated converted Jews but never said a word in the defense of other Jews -- that evil Pope - remains firmly on the path to sainthood.

PPS: You mention the gemarah... but how can a book that was published over a thousand years ago change its mind? As for the Jews themselves, of course we have discounted and disregarded the Talmud's teaching on this subject, and some of us did this centuries ago.

~~~

Fred said:

What is your plan for living in a society with Catholics other than perpetuating religious prejudice and dislike? You think they haven't gone far enough, but neither have we. And we both know that Jews will not repudiate the Talmud.

I say:

The neat thing about living in 2013 is I don't need a plan for living with Catholics. They no longer hold any power and they are no longer any threat to me. So let them go their way, and I 'll go mine. I don't need to desecrate a shul or a shabbos by allowing one of them to preach at me about being good neighbors

~~~

JB said:

Jesis Qrist, man, let it go already. You're not going to influence R' Robinson, you're just getting yourself and others upset. And stop insulting the shul I grew up in, and still have business in. Maybe, just maybe, the religious professionals there have a better grasp of the interfaith situation than you or I.

I say:

...or maybe they're a bunch of snivelers who have a psychological need to suck up to goyim. And could you spare me the BS about "interfaith situation" There's no "situation." We can go on ignoring each other very happily. The only reason for the two faiths to team up is when we want the same thing from Albany or Washington and that can be coordinated without desecrating a shul.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Galloway is a Jerk

I don't generally dislike George Galloway*, but I must confess that here he acts like a world class shmuck.

* I don't dislike anyone who can consistently mouth-off with such eloquence. It's a personal failing.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com 

More on the obsequious, approval-seeking behavior of the Lincoln Square Synagogue

Spotted on Facebook:

That an Orthodox Jewish institution would allow a prince of the church into their domain is appaling. The church is, and always has been, anti-semitic, racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, and the enemy of free thought and intellect. This is disgraceful. 

Dov Bear rightly points out that no Reform or Conservative Rabbi would ever be allowed to address this Orthodox congregation, but this emissary of Rome is welcomed with open arms. For shame.

I've been debating some of LSS's defenders, and they just don't seem to get it. For them this is all about being tolerant and neighborly, but how can anyone with an ounce of Jewish pride demonstrate tolerance and friendship to the official representative of an organization that has such an unrepudiated track record of Antisemitism?

I can accept and understand friendship and tolerance toward lay Catholics. I can even understand and accept friendship and tolerance toward churchmen who are acting as civilians, and not in the capacity as churchmen. But that isn't the case here. Dolan is visiting the shul as the Pope's agent.

And you don't even have to review the terrible 2000 year history of hate crimes to understand why this  is wrong. Go back just three years. In 2009,  Dolan's immediate superior revoked the excommunication of Richard Williamson, a staunch Holocaust denier who has not only refused to back away from his ideas but continues to state them. A little later, Dolan's immediate superior rewrote the Mass liturgy to include a prayer for our conversion.

Now, consider an analogous situation. Say the Prime Minister of Mitzelhip granted citizenship and honor to a holocaust denier while calling on citizens of his country to pray for our conversion  Would you welcome that Prime Minister's official emissary into your shul? Would you allow him to preach at you about friendship and tolerance? Would you take his calls for "dialogue" seriously? Of course not.

So that alone ought to disqualify Dolan from being welcomed into a shul in his capacity as a Prince of the Catholic Church.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Glatt Kosher Detergent

A Guest Post by @azigra, not @Dovbear 

The Charedi-ization of Orthodoxy has been most manifest in the extremes the organization's members are willing to go to prove their devoutness. One oft repeated example is the granting of kosher statuses to non food items such as plates, silver foil, and soaps. The narrative for cynics has been that corporate shills are capitalizing on the public's low self esteem by granting religious significance to grocery shopping. They realize the public's move to Charedism means more profits. The worst example is of course the Kosher Phone, which was foisted on the public through the collusion of business people and rabbis.

However, I came across a journal the other week, 'The Jewish Forum', published in January of 1922 with an ad containing copy that I would think could have only been written in this decade. There is precedent for such a thing, President Obama's Hawaiian birth announcement was inserted into a local microfiche in 2007 while preparing to run for president. Nevertheless, this seems authentic, a 1922 advertisement for soap stating that it is kosher. It even utilizes an appeal to emotion, 'worry about your children's Jewish souls! buy CN Soap!'





Search for more information about Kosher Collusion at4torah.com

Keep the Cardinal Out

On Facebook, Shaul Robinson, the Senior Rabbi at Lincoln Square Synagogue posted the following

This Shabbat, Parshat Zachor, the archbishop of New York , Cardinal Timothy Dolan will be visiting Lincoln Square Synagogue. He will be arriving at 11.30am, and after the service will be addressing the community on Catholic Jewish Relations. There may be time for a brief Q and A - what question would YOU like me to ask him.

So of course I find the whole thing outrageous. As I commented there: Why in the hell would you allow a cardinal into your sanctuary to address you on Shabbos.

The Church is an anti-Semitic organization that subjected us to two-thousands years of suffering, while cultivating the soil of Europe for the Holocaust. To date, they haven't repudiated their anti-Semitic Popes their bulls or their encyclicals; in fact, the Church currently is in the process of beatifying one of them. During the Holocaust, which, let's be clear, the Church helped cause and did nothing to prevent, churchmen stole Jewish children and, with the blessing of every subsequent Pope, refused to return the ones who had been baptized. But their representative should be welcomed into a shul on Shabbos and invited to preach? When, meanwhile, no Reform or Conservative Rabbi would ever receive such a welcome.

In short: To allow a Cardinal to address a Jewish congregation on shabbos is demeaning. It demeans the shabbos. It demeans the sanctuary.  It demeans the congregation.  To celebrate it is a confession of insecurity and an act of obsequiousness.  Until the Church renounces its shameful past, and completes a true and painful teshuva process, there's no reason for Jews to kiss the toes of St. Peter. The Church, by the grace of God, no longer has any power over us, and nothing to offer us. Self pride demands we remember that, and also what they did to us.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Guest Post in which Hirhurim Gets Blasted

Wow. Lots of people are really, really mad at the author of Hirhurim --and not for the usual reasons either! Today the complaints are not about comment censoring or self righteousness but about the article he wrote about a new secular yeshiva. Because we are a lazy blogger, we are going to outsource the rest of this article to one of the bunches of people who sent me emails of complaint.

Also, we are going to assume you read the Hirhurim piece, in that otherwise this treatment will not make much sense.

DO YOU BELIEVE HIS ARROGANCE?
A guest post by FBB

[The author of Hirhurim]  just redefined the words "arrogant" Money quote:

In the end, I can’t object to a secular yeshiva because Israeli society is so shallow that even a little religion, even if subversive, is a blessing. 

Who the hell does he think he is????

If it wasn't 3:00 am I would fisk him, but it is and I must sleep. There is so much wrong with his article...

• If religious people study for devotional reasons, then its OK, but not for secular Jews?
• and who sets the boundary anyway between secular and religious? Hirhurim's author?   
• His distinction between learning to do mitzvot and learning for the sake of learning is bull.  His whole argument is about devaluing the non-holy flock of frum jews.  It seems he has fallen into the frummie habit of searching for reasons to show why non-frum jews are wrong/ bad.  makes me sick.  especially this line.. "While we cannot compare secular Jews to gentiles, the message about the religious act of Torah study remains relevant."    come on,, at least be honest.  that is exactly what you are doing.  you are basically saying that secular Jews are like gentiles.  well screw you,
• When he says: "Teaching a sacred text to someone who rejects its authority is an act of sacrilege." you are judging a lot of people.  How the hell do you know how they relate to its authority.  I would wager large sums of money that most secular Israelis today don't reject its authority, but rather the authority of the Torah's self-appointed interpreters* and their black hats. 
• He again claims that only the frum interpretation of Torah is the true one.  So if you study it from a different point of view (the non-approved version), then you are going to get it wrong. But, who watches the watchmen??  Isn't it fair to say that many frum rabbis have come up with a bunch of bull interpretations of Torah. You don't get to decide who has the final say on Torah, much as you would like to.  
• Your fear of a "foreign textual sensibility"  just shows you subscribe to another stupid right-wing  shibboleth- that of the 'pure, unadulterated Jewish Judaism', which doesn't exist, never did and never will.   Only right-wing nutcase frummies appeal to this made-up ideal. Shame on you for pretending it has any basis in reality.  It is, fundamentally, a tool for control and power.  The fantasy/ideal says that 'we are the guardians of true torah and you, the little people, must beware the evil false secular / gentile interpretations as they will lead you astray.  Avoid all contamination or be damned for ever!!!'.  well, sorry, but we the little people don't buy that crap anymore.   Your line "This is not a matter of protecting rabbis from challenge but protecting the Talmud’s sanctity, open to all students who accept it as a sacred text"  is both inherently self-contradicting and a lie that reveals the truth: When you say 'students who accept it as a sacred text' what you really mean is 'who accept our interpretation of the sacred text'.  J'accuse

Oh, look, I was angry enough to stay awake to write all that.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

The Purim murder

BT Megillah 7b tells a shocking story of murder most foul:

אמר רבא מיחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי

רבה ורבי זירא עבדו סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי

איבסום קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא למחר בעי רחמי ואחייה

לשנה אמר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד סעודת פורים בהדי הדדי

אמר ליה לא בכל שעתא ושעתא מתרחיש ניסא"

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until he does not know the difference between 'Cursed Be Haman' and 'Blessed Be Mordechai.'

Rabba and Rabbi Zera made a Purim feast together They became intoxicated. Rabba rose up and slaughtered Rabbi Zera. The next day, he asked for mercy for him, and restored his life. The next year, [Rabba] said to him, 'Will your honor join me for Purim again?". [Rabbi Zera] said to him: Not at every hour does a miracle come.'"

Let's count the strange-to-impossible things about this story? For instance:

(1) Rabba kills someone

(2) Afterwards, he waits a whole day to do something about it.

(3) And whatever he did worked!!

(4) But still he invites the victim back the following year

(5) And, the victim seems cool about it. "Sure, I'd love to come to your party and possibly get murdered for a second time," he says, "only I don't think your magic reincarnation powers are reliable."

For all these reasons, let's stipulate that Rabba did not actually kill Rav Zeira, and that Rav Zeira was not actually brought back to life. (and for the good of Judaism can we please find a way to gulag all the school teachers and pulpit Rabbis who present this story as if it was a literal, historical event?)

So, what happenedt?

Maharsha says that Rabba's sin was not murder but provocation. He compelled Rabbi Zeira to drink too much, until he was on the brink of death.The point of the story is to warn us to drink responsibly, or perhaps to refute the idea that getting drunk on Purim is a good thing (indeed Meeir says drinking on Purim was outlawed as a result of this story) Though Maharasha's reading takes the story out of the realm of the miraculous, it leaves us with two problems. (1) In what sense did Rabba bring his colleague back to life; and (2) Why does Rabbi Zeira refer to a miracle?

Rabbi Avraham (son of Rambam) says the story is hyperbole Perhaps Rabba smacked Rav Zeira around a little bit, and perhaps even sliced his neck, but no murder took place.

The Lubovitcher Rebbe reads the story this way:

Rabba and Rabbi Zera made a Purim feast together.  They became intoxicated [resulting in an outpouring of intellectual conversation including the revealing of deep, mystical secrets] Rabba rose up [to a higher level of understanding and tried to bring along his intellectual inferior. This proved impossible, and by attempting to teach Rabbi Zera things he could not comprehend he] slaughtered Rabbi Zera. The next day, he asked for mercy for him, and restored his life. The next year, [Rabba] said to him, '[Maybe you've gotten more intelligent over the last 365 days so] Will your honor join me for Purim again?". [Rabbi Zera] said to him: [I'd love to try to learn those secrets again but if it kills me a second time, I may not come back to life because] Not at every hour does a miracle come.'"

The advantage of this reading is that it doesn't present an Amora as a drunken murderer. Also, it addresses the strangeness of "rose up" and the use of the word "slaughter" which implies a ritual killing, instead of the more ordinary word "kill" (shachat vs katal.). Still, the reading is not without problems: For instance (1) Ideas can not kill you; and (2) People can't bring each other back to life.

My hunch, is that there was an actual fight, but no murder, and that the story is retold here as a polemic against Purim intoxication, specifically the Purim intoxication recommended by Rava in the Talmud passage that immediately precedes the telling of this anecdote. So why hasn't this reading (which, for those who need approbations   combines Rabbi Abraham and the Maharsha) become popular?  Simple. Nowadays we Jews take it as articles of faith that (1) Amoraim never fought and (2) getting piss-drunk on Purim is one of the best things a Jew can do. As a result, a story that suggests Sages behaved badly or that Purim drinking was discouraged has become impossible to recognize. 

Search for more information about the Talmud at4torah.com

The dumbest thing I saw today

I wish to publicly thank Josh Waxman for discovering one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on a Jewish website. It is a collection of bogus etymologies published here by someone seeking to prove that all languages can be traced back to Hebrew:

...most languages, including Latin derivatives, derive from the first universal language ever spoken, Biblical Hebrew. The Torah explicitly tells us that until the Tower of Babylon story, the world's populace spoke - only Hebrew (Braishis 11:1).

Here are some English words that most probably have their source in Hebrew: 
More examples:
"שרף" means "Serpent"(Devarim 8, 15).
Speaking of snakes,
"פתן" is "Python"  (Tehilim 91:13).

"מסתר"(as in Rashi: Shir Hashirim 1:2) means "Mystery", 
a noun from the root verb "to conceal".

Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh (lecture in 2005) says the word MURDER comes from 2 Hebrew words:
"Mered Or" (מרד אור), meaning - Rebellion Against Light [as in Iyov 24, 13]. Light connotes G-d, and murder is rebelling against Him Who created all people to live.

Where to start? OK here: The first spoken language was not biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew is itself derived from earlier spoken tongues. Moreover, our scholar gets his facts wrong:  Nowhere does the Torah "tell us that until the Tower of Babylon story, the world's populace spoke - only Hebrew." Had he bothered to check his own citation, Genesis 11:1, he'd have found: "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech". This is a claim that everyone spoke the same language. It does not claim that Hebrew was that language.

And what about the etymologies themselves?  Josh has already shown how easily they crumble. "Furnish" for example is one of several "ish" verbs like "Cherish" or "abolish" - in most of those cases the "ish" is a formative occurring in verbs borrowed from French. That fact that one of the resulting words - furnish - sounds somewhat like a Hebrew word - parnes - that carries a similar meaning is nothing but a coincidence.

Some of the other errors:

• Pardes is not a Hebrew word. Its a Persian loan word (though it did develop into paradise) 
• Mystery is derived from a word that means secret, not conceal
• Murder is derived from a word meaning death, not rebellion

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Another reason why I distrust Daf Yomi

If your neighborhood is like mine, lots of the locals belong to a Daf Yomi. Many of them probably take it pretty seriously. They wake up early, or miss meals and family events to attend the shiur. They invest in Art Scroll editions of the Talmud and other study aids. Many of them also pay attention to the lecture, ask questions and review the material afterwards.

But does it do them any good? Here's why I say it doesn't. After I've read an interesting book or heard an interesting lecture, I like to discuss it. I'll bother my wife and close friends about it. If the subject is a safe Torah topic I'll introduce it to people in shul or work. If its a controversial issue, I'll run to the Interwebs and provoke conversation via this blog or my SM accounts. If I have questions about the material , I'll get them answered. The point is I'm always eager to share what I've learned and to hear what others have to say about it. For me, that's part of the pleasure of learning and often its a necessary part of the process.

My local Daf Yomi people are different. I never hear them discussing a sugya. Around the sholishudis table or bein gavra lgavra their conversation ranges from sports to gossip, but it never -- and this has been going for years, so I do mean never - touches on the implications of a piece of Gemarah. Nothing these Daf Yomi people learn ever seems to have ever made them them think or wonder. They're never mystified  They're never puzzled. They have no questions and their previous certainties seem undisturbed   Now, I admit this account is anecdotal. It relates only to people I happen to know, and I have no idea what's actually happening in their heads, nor do I know what they're discussing with other people. So, I can only report that it seems odd that none of the Daf Yomi people I know are ever in my presence disturbed or even puzzled about any of the oddities, mysteries and strange beliefs and behaviors recorded throughout the Babylonian Talmud.

It may be that they are believers, not contrarians, so their reflex is to paper over difficulties. It may be that they are shy about raising question in public. So let it be said a different way: These people learn every day, through considerable mesiras nefesh, but don't seem to have developed what was once called a "Torah personality" They don't quote the axioms and stories. They don't refer back to the lessons. They never say this reminds me or relates to something that happened on Daf __.  And ever in the strictest secular sense they seem unamused by what they've studied, as they don't share the whimsical or bawdy accounts either. Whatever happens during the 60 minutes they sit at the Daf Yomi table seems walled off from the rest of their lives. Two separate realms. Is the answer simply that these people, the ones I happen to know, are not intellectually inclined? Fine. But then why do they engage so wholeheartedly in an intellectual activity?  If they get no pleasure from the world of ideas, why do they visit it daily?

Rather than implicate my friends, I prefer to implicate the institution. The failure isn't in the members, its in the Daf itself. Something about the page-per-day format is rotten. It allows men to imagine that they are accomplishing something, that the vast literature is being studied, but in reality nothing is learned and nothing is remembered. No one is changed, and no one is saved. At least in my neighborhood. --and again, I hasten to temper this judgement by admitting that it is based on my personal experiences alone.


Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Great moments in attention seeking

I am Miriam Shaviv's biggest fan, so I am going to assume she wasn't the author of the terrible headline that tops her latest article:

Playing ‘Hatikvah’ on a ‘Desert Island’
After 71 years, British writer Julie Burchill becomes the first guest to select Israel’s national anthem on high-profile BBC radio show

See the problem? It rather strongly suggests that we Jews have been sitting around waiting and praying  for some second tier British celebrity to name Hatikvah as one of the eight songs he or she would take to a desert island. Now, hallelujah!, the wait is over! After 71 years Julie Burchil chose Hatikvah. Finally!

Furthermore, can we please be honest about this? There is no way in the world that Julie Brichel - or any sentient human being - considers Hatikva one of the eight indispensable music compositions in human history. Clearly, she made Hatikvah one of her choices to attract attention --  and more power to her: It worked perfectly.


Search for more information about Hatikvah at4torah.com 

Why did Rashbam give his more famous grandfather such a tough time?

In the previous post, I recount some of the nasty things Rashbam said about his grandfather Rashi. Some scholars say that Rashbam wrote his commentary specifically to challenge Rashi, which raises all sorts of interesting questions about Rashbam's upbringing, family competition, and Oedipus issues. Did Rashbam grow up hearing every day about how great his grandfather was? Did he just get sick of it after a while? Unfortunately (or fortunately) no evidence exists to support this line of inquiry.

Another, more promising, suggestion is that Rashbam used his grandfather as a proxy for a Christian style of interpretation that was increasing in popularity. In brief, Christian interpreters saw the Old Testament as predicting the events of the new. Thus, the sale of Joseph was understood as a prefiguring of the crucifixion of Jesus (and see Rashbam's angry insistence there that this story means only what it means.)

Though this style of interpretation originated in an earlier Christian era, it flourished during the medieval period (in fact, in some circles its know as "medieval allegory") In many ways, this approach is like drash in that it strips verses of their local meanings and bases the interpretation on information found outside the text.  Jews resisted this by developing a very strict pshat-oriented approach to interpretation, one that based interpretations on information found within the text alone. Rashbam was one of the pioneers of this movement, a movement scholars say developed as a response to and defense against "medieval allegory".

Rashi belonged to an earlier era. Though his grandson claims that Rashi confessed a desire to rewrite his commentary in keeping with the new, pshat style of interpretation championed by his grandson, the Rashi commentary we have is not written this way. It makes use of a much broader conception of pshat (In brief: Rashi's idea of pshat includes midrashim and other information not found in the verses. So when God tells Abraham to "go outside" it can be pshat that He means "go outside your astrology". Or when a verse omits to tell us that Rivka "drew" the water, it can be pshat that the water rose up to meet her.  Rashbam does not allow for that, so for him the pshat of the Abraham verse can only be "go outside." Missing information isn't interpreted.)

We know from Rashabam's writing that he occasionally sparred with Christians and Apostate Jews, and we know from history that frienemy-like encounters between learned Jews and Christians were not uncommon (Remember: This was before blood libels, ghettos, Talmud burning, formal disputations, forced conversions and inveterate Jew-hating Popes irrevocably poisoned the relationship between European Jews and Christians. Counterpoint: The First Crusade and its massacre of German Jewry, occurred when Rashbam was about 10 years old; and there were other anti-Jewish persecutions before this. Nonetheless, the reports of informal debates with Christians do exist.)

So what an inconvenience it must have been for Rashbam to see that his very own grandfather made use of a style of interpretation wielded by his Christian opponents. Though there's no evidence that any of them ever used Rashi to support their own anti-Jewish arguments, it not impossible. Can you imagine how embarrassing that would have been? Picture Rashbam in the market making a killing point against some know-it-all Christian who -whoops- suddenly quotes Rashi back in his face.

So perhaps its no surprise that Rashbam is at his nastiest when his grandfather sees Jacob's blessing to Dan as preconfiguring Shimshon's career while his second nastiest comment comes when grandfather Rashi suggests that Yehuda (sounds like Judas) had a role in the sale of Joseph (see two paragraphs up.)

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Nasty, nasty (proto) bloggers

Some of our delicate friends believe blogging must be polite, deferential and kind. They insist on rules of decorum, rules that often exist only in their own too-proper minds, or they demand that the teachings of the Chofetz Chaim, a 20th century sage, be followed to the strictest letter. Alas, some of these delicate flowers are also raving hypocrites who cry about bloggers while speaking unkindly about heterodox Jews, Republicans or other politically correct punching bags. Some of these sweethearts have even denounced me from one side of their mouth while preaching poltiness from the other.

Anywho - with all due respect to the CC, we prefer to follow the sensible example of other, earlier, sages. Long time readers are aware of the small collection of obnoxious Ramban comments I've curated. To that I now add a very short list of Horribly Unkind Things that Rabeinu Shlomo ben Meir (aka Rashbam) Said About His Very Own Grandfather, Rabeinu Shimon ben Yitzchak (aka Rashi)

"He doesn't pay attention to the main issue"
On Gen 37:2 Rashbam thinks his grandfather has incorrectly explained Joepsh's "bad words"

"He has no idea how to interpet a verse"
The issue is the measining of Gen 49:9. Rashi connects it to the sale of Yosef. His grandson disagrees and follows up with an insult.

"He has absolutely no understanding of pshat"
Rashi connects Gen 49:16 with Shimshon. His grandson finds that laughable

Search for more information about rude offspring at4torah.com  

A Different Look at Parshat T’rumah

A Guest Post by David A.

First, to explain the problem.

As all Talmudic students, my intense Gemorrah studies inculcated me with the Gemorrah’s view that the Torah (i.e. the 5 books of Moses), is a very precise document and therefore has no superfluous text and that every word is meant to convey or teach something novel. So, of course, every year the reading of this week’s Torah portion and the several following weeks’ always troubled me greatly, as there is no greater apparent set of redundant verses than the hundreds dedicated to describing the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and its various components.

The Mishkan’s components are listed seven times. Of these, three are just simple lists (Ex. 30:26ff, 35:11ff, & 39:33ff). Two of the seven can be considered as the main lists, whereby one of the two (Ex. 25:1-29:43) records Hashem instructing Moishe to build the items, accompanied by some descriptive verses about that item. The second of the two (Ex.35:4-39:32), repeats, almost verbatim the first set of instructions, but written in a “fait accompli” manner, reporting that the artisans built the components in the prescribed manner.

A second issue in all of this, but less problematic, is the noted glaring oddity, in that the instructions for the Golden Altar (aka Incense Altar), the “Ki-yor” (a kind of sink) and its stand, the Anointing Oil, and the Incense are missing from the initial list and their existence and instructions are recorded separately. (Ex. 30:1+ff). The question is why?

OK, that’s the problem, now a suggested solution.

More about the Vaad of Toronto

This may look like a very lazy post, but really I just want you guys to see and discuss two comments left by "Guest" and "Chakira" on an old post.

In brief, neither of them think I am justified in criticizing the Vaad of Toronto for their recent decree about how all Orthodox Jews need to believe that the Torah in its entirety was transmitted by God through Moshe.

As I pointed out, (1) You can't issue a decree about a historical fact: Either it happened or it didn't happen, and no Vaad can change that; and (2) Loads of fine and famous Jews didn't believe that "the Torah in its entirety was transmitted by God through Moshe." The list includes Tannaim and Rishonim. Does the Vaad really think (to paraphrase their deathless prose) that these greats are estranged from the pale of Orthodox Judaism?

But see the whole thing after the jump:

Steicher and Purim

Your new Avi* ends with this:

The “Amalek-irony” of the Nuremberg executions doesn’t end there, either. The Book of Esther recounts how Haman’s ten sons were hanged in Shushan. An eleventh child, a daughter, committed suicide earlier, according to an account in the Talmud. At Nuremberg, while eleven men were condemned to execution by hanging, only ten were actually hanged. The eleventh, the foppish Goering, died in his cell hours before the execution; he ingested a cyanide capsule he had hidden on his person.

Even more striking is something reportedly noted by, among others, the late Belzer Rebbe, the Kedushas Aharon. In the Megilla, the names of Haman’s sons are written in two columns, an unusual configuration. Odder still, three letters in the list are written very small, and one very large. The large letter is the Hebrew character corresponding to the number six; the small letters yield the number 707. If the large letter is taken to refer to the millennium and 707 to the year in the millennium, something striking emerges. According to Jewish reckoning, the present year is 5773. The year 5707 – the 707th year in the sixth millennium – was the year we know as 1946, when ten sworn enemies of the Jewish people were hanged in Nuremberg, like ten others in Shushan more than two thousand years earlier.

What’s more, the Megilla inexplicably refers to the hanging of Haman’s sons in the future tense, as if to presage some hanging… yet to happen.

I agree this is a pretty neat coincidence and those who wish to be amazed by it are justified. However, cold water does exist and you can find it here

PS: I don't like his use of the adjective "inexplicably" It happens to be very explicable.

* An "Avi" is the weekly column published by Avi Shafran.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Rambam Rehash

The Rambam, of course, is justifiably famous for his 13 Principles, which are today understood to be the foundation stones of Orthodox Judaism.  What we sometimes forget, is that Jews didn't immediately accept  everything the Rambam said on the day that he said it. 

People disagreed (strongly) about various points for years --even centuries-- afterwards. Even today some observant Jews demonstrate through their behavior and beliefs that the Ikarim aren't fully accepted. 

In this fun post from 2005 I go through the Ikarim and show how some of them are still disregarded in both modern and Hasidic communities: Orthoprax Koferim: Teaneck vs.Williamsburg

Search for more information about how Jews think and live at4torah.com  

Let the women pray

The Rambam said its okay for women to wear talitot and he said any man who doesn't like it should STFU. Here are his words:

Women... who wish to wear tzitzit may do so without a blessing Similarly, all other positive commandments from which women are exempt, if they wish to perform them they do so without a blessing, and they are not condemned.

So if you want to be fair and accommodating and non-monist while celebrating diversity and respecting other approaches you can hang your hat on the Rambam. OK? And nothing bad will happen. I promise. The Rambam said to let them alone, so after 120 years you can put the blame on him, should God ask you why you sat their silently without protesting while happy women blessed His name in public.

The fact that so many Orthodox Jews choose, instead, to be militantly obnoxious about this is something we all must mourn.

Search for more information about women who won't stay home and keep their silly mouths shut   at4torah.com