Things about Purim that raise questions

I ran this last year, and the year before that, too. Oh, well you know what they say: mee she nichnas adar marbim old posts

~

Well, the Purim season is off to it's traditional start: The price of wine has gone up, the mosdos are clamoring for support, and [something true, but a little mean about another blogger, now no longer relvant.]

Anyway, I suppose it's time for me to get in on the Purim fun, while first making clear that this post is from last year, and also, I don't care one whit about the origins of Purim: No matter what the skeptics have to say about how Purim came into being, the fact is Purim has been around for a long, long time, and it's a day full of great fun.

Things about Purim that bother me
In no particular order

1) The Persian sources are't especially gap-filled yet they contain no references to the events described in Megilas Esther. There's no record of a King Ahashverosh, a Queen Vashti, a decreee to kill Jews, or of Jews killing thousands of their enemies. Why wasn't any of this recorded?

2) The names Haman, Esther and Mordechai sound suspiciously like those of Babylonian gods, making it possible that our story is a retelling, maybe a parody, of some ancient folktale or myth. In Persian mythology Ishtar is the goddess of fertility; Marduk is the god of the heavens; and Haman is the devil. Is this a strange coincidance? A deliberate parody? Or (more) proof that the whole 'lo shanu et shimon/they didn't change their names' is just so much Haredi bushwah?

3) Esther is a Jewish woman, living well after the Torah was given. So what is she doing in a harem, paying no attention to dietary laws? And, is anyone else concerned that Mordechai seems to have been the original funny-uncle?

4) Late in the story, a guy named Hatach appears. Essentially, he's Esther's messanger-boy, yet the Rabbis insisted he was the very famous Daniel. Why is this necessary?

5) Early in the story, the King receives advice from a man named Me'muchan. The Rabbis insist that this is Haman. Why is this necessary?

6) The Rabbis also insisted the Vashti had a tail. WITN?

7) Hasidim make a fetish of mispronouncing Mordechai's name. Instead of Mor-DOH- Chai, they say Mud-cha. WITN?

A question I can answer: In the Megillah, Esther three-day fast is long before Purim, so why is Ta'anit Esther, the rabbinic fast day, on 13 Adar, the day before Purim?

Short Answer:
The Rabbis were shrewd at politics.

Long Answer:
Second Temple Jews had a Maccabean holiday that the Rabbi's disliked, called Nicanor Day, celebrated on 13 Adar. The Rabbis also disliked the Maccabees and therefore turned their big day into a solemn fast.

Why skeptics (sometimes) miss the point

From an article [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/kaplan-herodotus] on the ancient Greek historians Thucydides and Herodotus that appeared in the February Atlantic:

And yet, as Thucydides would have been the first to note, reality cannot be reduced to neat equations, whether moral or analytical. The world as it exists often rejects rationality, spare narratives, even truth. If we have learned anything during this age of speedier and increasingly numerous interactions between peoples with different historical experiences, it is that facts matter less than perceptions, especially perceptions informed by raw emotions. It is what people believe that is crucial, not what they actually know. What is needed, therefore, beyond guiding philosophical principles, is a vivid appreciation of just what's out there, in the form of the myths, passions, and irrationalities that in any age are central to decision making and, in a larger sense, to the human spirit itself. Romance, rather than being antithetical to realism, is a necessary component of it...

Herodotus sees himself as a preserver of the memory of civilizations that in some cases had been, and in other cases would yet be, obliterated—in an epoch when record keeping was virtually nonexistent—so he divorces himself from the urge to judge men and events. He knows that nothing is more important than preserving what people said and believed: the myths, the fables, and even the lies that they lived by. Because human beings cannot function without their illusions, the vital truth, he suggests, lies in causation—the strands of perceptions and misperceptions that lead people to take the actions they do.

Skeptics busy themselves pointing out falsehoods, and in doing so often miss the point. The difference, for example, between kashrus and an Incan superstition might* be abitrary, but arbitrary and nonexistant are not synonyms.

There are reasons why one is on my radar and the other is not. As I put it to a friend of mine yesterday, the "What" of kashrus might* be false; the why (as in why it matters to me) is not, nor is it easily or properly ignored.

~

* I said "MIGHT"

Now it gets ugly

I see in Ha'aretz that the Israeli Parliament is looking for ways to punish Professor Toaff:

MKs seek to try Prof. Toaff over claims in blood libel book: "The committee also decided to examine the review mechanisms employed by academia in Israel, with the goal of finding ways to ensure that things 'that defy logic and morality,' in the words of MK Michael Melchior (Labor), are not published."

Jeez. This is getting Orwellian. Do we really want the legislature to be in the business of deciding what defies logic and morality? Let the market deal with bad ideas. Toaff was wrong, and better arguments carried the day. His book has been withdrawn and his reputation has been damaged. That's how it should be, and really it's enough.

Hat tip: The same special someone who's fed me almost all of the previous Toaf articles.

Why OrthoMom will win (Reason #2938)

ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society: Federal Court Reaffirms Immunity of Bloggers from Suits Brought Against Commenters

Why didn't Congress think of this?

Here's how I think we can satisfy everyone with a rooting interest in the Civil Unions/Gay Marriage kerfuffle in two easy steps.

Step 1: Eliminate the idea of civil marriage. From now on religious marriages only. Any religion can make it's own rules about who is allowed to wed, but religious marriages will no longer be recognized by the state, and they will no longer carry secular benefits or advantages of any kind.

Step 2: Let every American choose a buddy. It can be your wife, or your sister or your neighbor. Hell, it can even be your dog. Who you choose doesn't matter, because buddyhood won't carry any special religious or social significance. It won't mean you're sleeping together, and it won't mean that you're bound together forever in the eyes of God. It just means you're buddies.

Currently, the state takes care of married couples to the tune of over 1000 separate benefits. When my plan goes into effect, all those goodies will be given to buddies instead. Buddies will be able to visit each other in the hospital, file joint tax returns, and all the rest. The left will be satisfied because all people will be equal under the law, and the right can't complain because unlike marriage, "buddyhood" implies nothing about sexual orientation. True, the people who would like to banish all homosexuals to Mars will have to give up that particular dream, but the radicals on the left will have to surrender the idea of "Marriage." So that's a compromise, I think.

[Note: I am certain other brilliant people have already proposed this plan, though a Google search of "buddy system" turns up nothing. Links to your own solutions provided on request.]

No Surprise

Of course, two of the great loud-mouthed racists of our age shared DNA

Purim Protest

Received via email, from the "OLD TIMER":

With Purim right around the corner, we have people who have the chutzpah to collect TZEDAKAH, while riding around in luxurious stretch Excalibur limousines that rent for close to $100 an hour after the mandatory 20% gratuities are figured in. This is the height of hypocrisy that you have to expend $1,000 to $1,200 to show off, and then expect ordinary folks like myself to give you a handout to pay for it. This is not what TZEDAKAH is all about. If someone comes to my door on Purim in a limousine I will not answer the door. Let them find another sucker.

Harsh words, but not unreasonable. I know why the limos are used: They make the experience more fun for the kids who collect, meaning more of them will be likely to participate. But, I fully understand the Old Timer's objection: When I give money to a charity, I want it used for the charity's mission, not wasted on frills.

Argument of the day

At MoC's fine blog, a fascinating argument is underway regarding the status of pre-war Jewish life in America. On the losing side we have Kishke who appears to have bought into the fantasy that American Judaism was down with a wasting disease until the war refugees arrived in the 40s and early 50s. Needless to say, Kishke is dead wrong. His errors are being ably uncovered by Still Wonderin' who started it with this:

There was a vibrant, flourishing American Jewish community 40 years ago. It was comprised of upstanding, honest, hard-working, respectable, and eminently religiously observant Orthodox Jews. Jews that worked a lot harder to stay religious than the shtetl peasants who were yet to appear.Yet, somehow, a nation of refugees arrived in America after WWII to let American Jewry know that without them, they would amount to nothing. Take your chauvenistic [SIC] claptrap and tell it to someone who agrees with you that American Jewry began in 1946.American Jewry was doing just fine without the brilliant idea of promoting dependancy [SIC] and fantasy as religious precepts.

In reply, Kishke affects ignorance of all the observant and learned American-born men who came out of REITS, Torah V'Das and Chofetz Chayim in the years before the war, some of whom are now Roshhei Yeshivot in their own right (1, 2 ):

The pre-WWII Orthodox American communities no longer exist. The elders passed on and their descendants assimilated. At best they became Reform or Conservative; they certainly did not remain Orthodox. They may be hard-working, but they are not frum. This is fact, and no amount of your angry posturing can change it.

And then the fun really starts.

Learning with the Yated

From the Yated's spectacularly stupid article on the irredeemable evils tolerated and spread by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah:

"Rabbi Milgram ... specializes in lower and higher criticism of the Babylonian Talmud and the intersection between these studies and the historical development of Jewish law... We will not venture what "criticism" of the Babylonian Talmud means for fear that finding out might require rending our garments."

Why do I say this is spectacularly stupid? Only because the methods so dramatically decried by the Yated are practiced on nearly every page of the Talmud itself. Here's a brief explanation. (DovBear accepts no responsibility for torn clothing.)

Higher criticism is nothing but an attempt to ascertain the origins of a particular text and the meaning and intentions of its authors. It happens, in all its horror, every time the amoraim discuss the meaning and intentions of a particular Mishna. When you see Shmuel and Abaye attempting to puzzle out the context and purpose of a Mishnaic statement you are studying higher criticism.

Lower criticism is a little scarier, I suppose, but it, too, is all over the Talmud. A famous example of LC is at the beginning of meseches betzah when Rabbi Yochanan tells us that words of Hillel and Shammai have been misremembered, and the received text, therefore, is wrong. When the Vilna Gaon emended the text of the Talmud he was engaging in lower criticism. I understand the consequences of saying that the text of the Talmud has been corrupted with the passage of time, but facing this unpleasent reality with open eyes is part of what it takes to learn Torah like a grown-up.

Toaff backs down

Last week, we had some questions about "Pasque di Sangue", the blood libel book by Ariel Toaff. Among them: (1) Does the book say Jews killed children and used their blood in matzoh? and (2) Does the research rely to a large degree on the confessions of torture victims?

I still haven't read the book, but I've heard from someone who did, and "yes" is the answer to both questions. Here's Toaff's own father saying exactly what I am thinking:

...the criticism that everyone has expressed about [the] book was justified. His arguments in the book were an insult to the intelligence, to the tradition, to history in general and to the meaning of the Jewish religion. It saddens me that such nonsense was put forward by my son of all people."

On the bright side, Toaff has completely recanted.

Ritual Slaughtering for Dummies

Fred has found an old Jewish how-to book, published in England, on slaughtering. Judging from the illustrations and the non-technical language, I imagine it was directed at laymen, which makes sense: The book dates to 1733, a time when every Jew was his own shochet.

Commenting on the post on his own blog, Shmarya points out that one of the pictures illustrates "casting" an especially barbaric slaughtering technique. This isn't unexpected. 18th century England was a very violent society. Students and servants were regularly beaten, and the entertainments of the day included bear baiting, bull baiting and similar spectacles. It shouldn't surprise us that casting was common in such a time and place, but what's our excuse?

Hot or not?

I see Yid-with-lid has posted pictures of Pamela Greenbaum, the woman from Woodmere who put a freezing chill on the Jewish blogosphere when she slapped OM with a libel suit.

Now, the blogsophere can decide for itself: Did OM's commenting community commit libel when they said Pam was ugly? Remember truth is an absolute defense to libel. If you vote NOT, OM's crowd has no liability.

Tzitzit for women?

Over at Maya Escobar there are pictures and a post about "Shomer Negiah Panties," essentially ordinary cotton undies, with the words "Shomer Negiah" across the backside. Maya says:

Shomer Negiah Panties allow a woman to abide by the halacha, but still be individual and sexy at the same time

Allows her to follow the halacha? How?

Maybe they are meant to work like tzitzit:

And they shall be tzitzit for you, and when you look at them you will remember all of the Lord's commandmentsand do them and not follow after your heart and after your eyeswhich lead you astray.

Imagine: The guy won't take no for an answer. He's a real hound, and nothing the girl says is working. So, finally, she whips off her skirt, and bends over to show him the shomer negiah label. At which point... what? The guy says, "Ah! Sorry, didn't know. My bad"?

I just don't see it.

My issues

Attention prospective candidates for president. If you wish to win my endorsement, you must pledge to dedicate yourself to the following achievements:

(1) Immediate withdrawal from Iraq. You can frame it as a victory, and give the troops a parade, if you like, but there's no further reason for us to be in Iraq. Our presence isn't preventing terrorism, and it's not doing anything to improve my quality of life. It's just a waste of life and money on a Brobdingnagian scale.

(2) Universal, single-payer health care Just about every Western country has it, and on average the citizens of those countries live longer than we do. (We're 42, behind places like England and France. USA!USA!) Also, they never have to worry about being financially wiped out by a catastrophic illness. I want me some o' dat.

(3) Repeal of the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 When this law passed, I think even unrepentant GOP-Jews started to realize that the republican Congress was a wholly owned subsidiary of big business. The bankruptcy act of 2005 was cruel, immoral and un-American. And it made things rough for the heimish, too.

Sarna's Sargon Solution

Remember Sargon?

I wrote about him on January 15, and pointed out that his story, as recorded in a Neo-Assyrian text, is strikingly similar to the story of Moshe's discovery by the daughter of Pharoh, as recorded in the book of Exodus.

Now, I've read Nachum Sarna, and here's his take:

The supposed close affinities... [between Moshe and Sargon] are fanciful.

He adds:

One almost gets the impression of a conscious attempt... to disassociate this narrative from features otherwise characteristic of the founding hero motif.

Bad news for the enemies of the Lord? Not really.

Sarna's take isn't an argument against the idea that the story was written by a man. By my lights, he manages to defeat the notion that Moshe's story is a straight retelling of Sargon's, but this isn't a proof that of Torah mi Sinai (alas, nothing can *prove* that) It simply leaves open the possibility that the Moshe really was left at the river-side.

Glass Houses Alert

The really amusing thing about Harry Maryles's new post about how much he hates Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, is that someone a little to his right could very easily have written the exact same post about Harry's own beloved Yeshiva University.

In what follows, I take a stab at it. Aside for the name of the yeshiva, and a few minor adjustments for the sake of flow, the post is 100 percent Harry's

As many people who have read my blog know, I am not a fan of Yeshiva University. And I have criticized it several times here in the past. But I have never written the kind of lengthy but fairly comprehensive article that I just read in the recent print edition of the Yated Ne’eman. It was a scathing attack on the institution, its founders, faculty, Rosh HaYeshiva, and graduate rabbis. And though I am not a fan of this newspaper, I must tell you that I found myself in agreement with much of what they said. I don’t know if I would go so far as accusing them of violating clearly stated Halacha. Nor would I characterize their ideals in the same tones as the Yated did. But I definitely agree with the assessment that YCT is outside the pale of normative Orthodoxy.

And I further agree that the Torah world has been far too silent on this Yeshiva. It seems to be that all Torah based institutions whether ultra Orthodox or Centrist have chosen not to comment on them. YU is guilty of no less than an assault on the theological integrity of a Torah based Hashkafa as defined by its own claimed mentor, HaRav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (the Rav).

In brief the article describes actions and statements by this group that are anathematic to even the most liberal interpretation of the Rav. And even though they “explain” or rationalize some of those statements or activities as being acceptable to the Rav, one would be hard pressed to believe that the Rav would in any way have approved of anything even resembling Yeshiva University (as it exists today.)

Get the idea?

Here's Harry's big finish (adjusted)

I think it behooves the Yeshiva World to distance themselves clearly and unequivocally from Yeshiva University's Hashkafos . And it is time for the Agudas Yisroel to take a stand, too. A good first step would be to bar any YU Musmach from membership. It’s the right thing to do.

I think it behooves Harry to get a grip. The very worst accusation he makes against YCT is that they are too chummy with Catholics. If that's a problem, what do we do with all those GOP-Torah-Jews who keep their lips affixed to the nearest evangelical anus?

Peek-a-Jew (Civil Union Edition)

Daniel Gross (left) and partner Steven Goldstein displayed their civil union certificate yesterday in Teaneck, N.J. (TIM LARSEN/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Source: The Boston Globe page 2
Hat-tip on request