BREAKING: Toronto Vaad Excommunicates Rabbi Yehuda, Ibn Ezra, others

Let me be the first to complement the Vaad Harabonim of Toronto on their old school, fundamentalist courage.

Instead of taking the PC position that Rabbi Yehuda was speaking as an authentic Torah Jew when he said (BT Baba Bathra 15a) "Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch" the Vaad has correctly noted that he, and the nameless Amora who added  "This statement is in agreement with the authority who says that eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua," are both heretic scum.

Their sin? Denying that the Torah "as we posses it today in its entirety" was given to us by Moshe.  Joshua != Moshe so nice knowing you Rabbi Yehudah!

Other people tossed out of authentic Judaism by the Vaad include:

• The Yemenites. They claim that their Torah is the real one, only - haha! - it contains nine words that are not spelled the way that they are spelled in the Sefer Torahs used by the rest of us. Did Moshe transmit both variants? Of course not. So, based on the principle of Ashkenazi Power our Torah was transmitted from Moshe "in its entirety" and their's was not. Too bad!
• The Ibn Ezra: He said the last twelve Torah verses and four others were not written by Moshe. Therefore, to say that ibn Ezra  has not been "estranged" from the "pale of Orthodox Judaism" is both "fallacious and counter-factual."
• Yosef Tov Elum: Luckily no one knows who this guy is. (He was a rishon)  Because he said that all of the later prophets had the power and authority to add clarifying words to the Torah!  He also said that "Only the fools will find fault with [this idea]. So, yes, Vaad of Toronto, he was talking about you.

Search for more information about crazy maximalist positions and why they are bad for Judaism  at4torah.com  

Overreaching bit of idiocy of the day

Via Huff Post, I see the Toronto Vaad is still fighting the battles of the 19th century. In response to a book review written by one of their own, the Vaad felt obligated to declare:

"Halacha [Jewish law] rules, unequivocally, that the denial of the godly origin of 'even a single word' in the Torah ... contravenes this principle [of 'Torah Mi Sinai'] and constitutes 'kefiroh baTorah' [heresy]."

Do the fools realize how many Rishonim they just tossed out? What gives a 21st century group of Canadian rabbis the temerity to declare that Ibn Ezra, Radak, Ramah, R' Yom Tov Lipman, R' Yom Tov Elum are all guilty of kfirah?


Search for more information about boldness at4torah.com  

Cartoon Porn in FJJ

FJJ is the Flatbush Jewish Journal. Though this week, the "F" in its name might stand for something else

After receiving this from a friend on Twitter, I ran to the Interwebs hoping to find that FJJ had previously photo-shopped a woman out of a photograph. (Hypocrites!) Instead I found that Failed Messiah had this story yesterday. (Curse you Shmarya!)

Search for more information about cartoon porn at4torah.com 

The many hats of Orthodox Judaism... or the Narcissism of Small Difference

So I think Simi Lichtman is fighting the good fight with her new article over at the Huff Post (though the bastards probably didn't pay her for it!)

I agree that its annoying that Hasidim are always chosen to represent religious Judaism. Like her I wish people knew more- about Judaism, in particular, but knowing more about anything is fine. She wants to educate outsiders about the different practices and beliefs contained under the rubric of "Orthodox Judaism" and I say sure: Education is great. Educate away.

But because I am a Mean Old Blogger I do have some quibbles:

Service Journalism from xoJane

The last time we went to xoJane it was to laugh and point at a crappy bit of pro-Hasidic whitewashing performed by someone named Chaya. We're back today because Camilla Grove has published some helpful advice for our gentile co-citizens entitled: How Not to be a Dick to Your Jewish Friend

Though the title she, or someone else, chose is quite bad, her suggestions are more than good. A summary:

(1) Stop bothering us about bagels
(2) Do not gush over us.
(3) Knock it off with the trivialization of the N word (Nazi)
(4) Keep your holocaust fatigue to yourself.

As a Jew myself, I have a few ideas of my own. For instance, I would like gentiles to:

(1) Stop asking me what is and what is not kosher. Look it up on Wikipedia.
(2) Be a little humble: You don't know more about Orthodox Judaism than I do. So if I, for instance, tell you how an Orthodox Jewish wedding works, don't shake your head and correct me. Jackass.
(3) Accept that Hanukkah is not the most important holiday on our calendar.
(4) Show some respect to poor old Shavuot (corollary of #3)
(5) Look at a goddamn calendar before wishing me a Happy Hanukkah. It often does not coincide with Christmas

More as it comes to me.

Search for more information about pet peeves at4torah.com 

Some Rabbi wins a Grammy

No, no. We are just joking. That's no Rabbi. It's someone who plays with the Zac Brown Band and has a weird fondness for hats. To the best of our knowledge, he is not a Rabbi despite his preference for their garb. He did win a Grammy, however. Not that anyone cares.

FODDER FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS: There was a tznius code at the Grammy Awards this year. For realski. 

Search for more information about Zac Brown at4torah.com 

Extremism

Hey, thought I when I saw this. Unfair! What about the Jews?

So, in the interest of fair play, here are some awesome example of acts of extremism committed by our peeps in the name of our God.

And Mattathias and his friends went about and tore down the altars; they forcibly circumcised all the uncircumcised boys that they found within the borders of Israel. -- 1 Macaabees 

David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. - Samuel 18

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. -- Numbers 31

Now, because someone is certain to mention the communists and their war against religion, let me point this out at the top. 

Stalin did persecute believers. That is true. He was an atheist. That is also true. However, Stalin also had a mustache. The grounds for saying atheism caused Stalin to persecute believers are about equal to the grounds for saying his mustache caused him to persecute believers. Stalin murdered clergy in the name of Marxism-Leninism, a communist ideology, not in the name of atheism -- which is not an ideology at all. 

Atheism is a position regarding a single question. An ideology is a list of positions. Destroying religion is a position of Marxism-Leninism. It is not a position of atheism.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

I don't agree with this guest post, but I am publishing it anyway (I do that a lot)

An Introductory Note From DovBear: Guys, I don't agree with this guest post at all. In general, I think a school is supposed to let its professors talk. That's part of what it means to be a school. The way you fight back is by making counter arguments. Not by demanding that the other person be silenced. Trying to shut your opponent up is weak and cowardly.  Just make fun of him, or out argue him instead.
 

Now, because there are stupid people in the audience who will hear "I think people should be allowed to talk" but think I mean "I am pro-Divestment" I have to waste every one's time by setting the record straight, so here goes: I don't support the economic boycott against Israel. I think the pro-divestment people have their heads on backwards. Israel is a democracy. You don't get a democracy to change it's policies by punishing it with sanctions. You get a democracy to change its policies by electing people who agree with you. 
 

Also, the letter writer (below) seems to have forgotten why we have no movement to divest from Syria or Hamas. Its not because anyone in their right mind is proSyria but because US law already makes it impossible to invest in either entity. I assure you that if such investments were possible, you would have people calling for boycotts, and the rest. 
 

Anyway, on with the guest post.....

 

Calling Brooklyn College out on their Transparent Male Cow Field Fertilizer

by Anonymous

Recently, Brooklyn College Political Science department sponsored a 'Divest From Israel' Event. 

There was an outcry.   

Brooklyn College defended itself (see below) on the grounds of Freedom of Speech and this is, frankly, bull.

Thankfully, someone has called them out on it. 

This was posted publicly and I am grateful to DovBear for sharing it with his followers:

Dear President Gould,

It is a disgrace to Brooklyn College that its faculty seek to defend their actions by mischaracterizing a 'Divestment from Israel' rally as a 'freedom of academic speech' issue.

A political attack weapon is not the same thing as an academic debate.  The Divestment from Israel movement is not interested in freedom of debate.  It is not interested in discussion. It is a tool used by the enemies of Israel to spread the perception that the Palestinian struggle against Israel is the only moral stance to take in this matter.   It is a political attack weapon used by the enemies of Israel (who, it should be pointed out, are not reknowned for their the staunch advocacy of freedom of speech).  

If your staff is unable to make this distinction they don't deserve to teaching a college level political science course.  Perhaps potential future students might wish to consider this when preparing their college admissions applications.

Freedom of debate is when a matter is considered openly and fairly.  The Divestment movement is an advocacy tool and to be honest, it is a lot worse.  You notice that there isn't a 'Divestment from Syrian, Iran, North Korea or Sudan' movement.   There isn't even a 'Divest from Hamas' movement.    Your staff should consider if singling out Israel for Divestment isn't a little suspect.  It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, nothing to do with protecting human rights and everything to do with de-legitimzing the Jewish State. 

To claim otherwise is to be ignorant or to lie to the public.  

Your staff could benefit from taking some comprehensive political science undergraduate courses.

____________________________

* Here is the tripe that Brooklyn College seeks to hide behind. 

A open statement concerning academic freedom from members of the Brooklyn College faculty:

Freedom of expression and inquiry are the cornerstones of the academy. It is our responsibility as educators and scholars to resist any threat to open discussion and dialogue among faculty and students on controversial topics, even when we individually, as groups, or as departments, may vehemently oppose the views expressed. Therefore, we vigorously endorse President Karen Gould’s recent clear and principled stand in support of full and open expression of diverse views on the Brooklyn College campus. Brooklyn College must continue to uphold academic freedom as a basic and inviolable principle and to protect the right of its students and faculty to exchange ideas in an atmosphere of open debate, untrammeled by fear or intimidation. We may disagree among ourselves and sometimes hold passionately to our different views. But what we agree on is the right of all members of our community to think and speak freely. We deplore the condemnation of Brooklyn College, its faculty, and its leadership for upholding the principle that is at the heart of any academic institution.



Search for more information about ### at4torah.com 

The cult of Kim Jong Hager

Spotted on Fred's Facebook page:

Translation via one of Fred's readers:

"What should a Vizhnitzer Chusid do first thing when he gets up in the morning, after he says Moyde Ani?
What am I going to do today to honor heaven [=God] and to honor Vizhnitz?

"And what does a Vizhnitzer child say right after Moyde Ani?
Good morning to the holy Rebbe, he should be healthy and strong!"

"Dear children, we are here in Elad, and the holy Rebbe is in Bnei Brak; he hears when we say good morning to him?

Of course, as the holy Ahavas Yisrul said to Reb Nachmen Tzitzismacher: 'When they say Git Shabbes to me, I answer Git Shabbes."

Search for more information about Kim Jong Il, Supreme Leader of North Korea, and Menachem Mendle Hager, rebbi of Merkaz Chasidi Viznitz of Benei Brak at4torah.com  

Barak Obama you're dead to me

OK I officially hate Barak Obama. Declaring an unchecked power to kill U.S citizens makes you George W. Bush.

Not cool. Not acceptable. And God help me but I agree with Rush Limbough:

This is from NBC News. "A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the United States government, i.e., President Obama, can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be senior operational leaders of al Qaeda or an associated force, even if there isn't any intelligence indicating that they're engaged in an active plot to attack the United States."
That is casting a really wide net because it almost sounds like you don't even have to be a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or an associated -- well, actually, an associated force is interesting. 

If this -- if this provision had been in place back in the '70s, does this mean that Nixon could have assassinated the Weathermen? Does this mean that Richard Nixon could have taken out the New Black Panther Party? Does it mean Nixon could have killed Bill Ayers? It does mean that! Bill Ayers or the Weathermen, he had an active plot against the U.S., bombed the Pentagon. That means if this -- if Nixon had assumed the kind of power that Obama's assuming, he could have sent a commando team out to wipe out Bill Ayers .

You can't kill rogue leaders. No, you cannot by -- by law, we cannot assassinate foreign leaders. We can now kill Americans as long as we say they are related to al Qaeda somehow. And that link isn't too tough. Al Qaeda hates America. All you have to do is hate America. It could be said that you are an associated force. 

Remember all of the anger that the left had over waterboarding? I think I have this right. Constitutional scholar Barack Obama is demanding the right to kill American citizens without making his case to a judge, as long as he thinks the American in question is in an upper tier of operations of al Qaeda or a related group

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Millionaires are cheapskates

Consider the following:

At the annual Kol Nidrei appeal, the ordinary guy will pledge $180, while the millionaires announce their wealth with a pledge of $1000. It seems like the millionaires are far more generous -- until you look at the math:

An ordinary guy might earn $150,000. So his contribution is .12 percent of his income. If the richie earns a cool million every year his $1000 gift is just .1 percent of what he takes home.

Moreover, the millionaire likely has more money in the bank; more importantly, he has more money left over after he makes his contribution. If Mr. Ordinary has a few kids he might have only a few thousand dollars of disposable income, while the millionaire likely has hundreds of thousands left to play with after he's covered his expenses. So who gave more of himself?

But, you'll say, this example isn't fair. Who knows how much the millionaire gives to other causes? Perhaps Mr. Ordinary writes one charity check per year, while Mr. Millionaire is supporting several institutions. A fair point. So let's make it apples to apples.

Say Mr. O and Mr. M are both tight friends with a third fellow named Frank. Frank is making a bar mitzvah, and of course he's invited his close friends O and M.

The going rate for a Bar Mitzvah today is about $125, so Mr. O dutifully writes his check. $125 represents .083 percent of his $150,000 salary

To make a present representing an equal sacrifice --.083 percent of $1 million-- Mr. M would have to give a gift of $830.Which is unheard of. He might give his close friend's son $180 or even $250, but an $800 present is out of the question.

But - and this is the truly galling part - by giving a $250 check (.025 percent of his income) Mr. Millionaire looks generous - munificent, even -- while poor old O looks like a cheapskate, when really its the other way around.

Search for more information about disparities at4torah.com 

Midrash Wars continued: A clarification

After reading the comments on the last two posts, I think a clarification is in order. It seems to me that we're conflating a few separate things. So let me attempt to untangle them.

I am fine with interpreting midrashim. I think its a legitimate creative exercise. I only ask that the people interpreting the midrashim acknowledge what they are doing rather than pretending that their interpretation is the original meaning. 

I also think its fine to deny the meaning or message of a midrash, and its also OK to deny the historicity of a midrash. And if you're looking for rishonim who will bless this approach, they can be provided. 

However, not all midrashim belong to the same genre. Some were intended as musser or homilies. Some were intended as folk wisdom. But some were intended as history. If you're going to be serious about your study of midrash there is value in attempting to determine which are which. And if a particular midrash was intended as history, its both respectful and honest to acknowledge that the author of that midrash accepted the historicity of the event he depicted.

Or to put it another way, you can certainly find moral lessons in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; indeed you can even allegorize its descriptions of the Roman courts and the battles Roman rulers fought. But wouldn't that be missing the point?

Search for more information about midrash at4torah.com  

Midrash Wars ("the waters split")

The post is a continuation of "How Did Midrash Develop." Primarily it discusses a passage in the Mekhilta found here. A variation of this post was first published as a comment here. I've rewritten it and moved it from a comment to a post so that more people can see it, and to reduce the likelihood of it being lost like so many of other comments were lost. 

I'm often accused of bashing Haredim, but when the subject is the interpretation of midrashim, I find myself more likely to bash the approach favored by the Modern Orthodox. I call their approach the "Ad Hoc Allegorization" approach.

As an example of how it works, let's look at the midrash discussed in the previous post. According to the Mekhilta, "All the water in the world was split." when the Red Sea split, including: "water in a well, ditch, cave, pit, pitcher, cup, and flask " And how do we know this? According to the Mekhilta this is based on Exodus 14:1, as the Mekhilta continues:  "The sea was split is not written here, rather "The waters were split"  [meaning] all the water in the world was split."

To me this seems perfectly straightforward. At some moment in history an interpreter encountered Exodus 14:1 and understood it to mean that  "all the water in the world was split." Because our interpreter was someone who believed the Torah to be divine and true he believed what he read, just as he believed what he read when he encountered the verses about long lifespans, manna, or hail mixed with fire.  His reading caught and in the fullness of time it was recorded in the Mekhilta where (see 4 below) it may or may not have been turned into a homily.

Another sort of person finds this unacceptable. Though he believes in the global flood he draws the line at the global splitting of all waters. So he uses the "Ad Hoc Allegorization" approach to make the problem go away:

well - water of sustenance /ditch - water of disuse cave - water in places you explore/ pit - water in places you avoid pitcher - water for the family / cup - water for the individual flask - water on the go. in contrast to the well. All these are split in times of trouble (psalms) for the good or for the bad, remember the story of the sea splitting and gain faith in Hashem. No matter the situation, Gd will bring salvation. From the left or the right, from the local or the global.The Mechilta is not written in "code" it's written in the language of poetry, and to get the listener's attention during a drasha. It's aimed at your gut, not your mind. Try reading with your gut.

My objections:

(1) I don't agree with your approach, which seems to be "any midrash we don't like can be allegorized" Would you do the same with a bible verse? Certainly some of them are more fanciful than this midrash. Should we allegorize the maana? Should we allegorize the long lifespans? Should we allegorize the hail and fire that fell together? How do you decide what should be allegorized and what shouldn't?

(2) The allegorization you propose seems baseless and motivated only by a desire to make the midrash less magical. But the real problem is your approach makes any explanation possible: It's the sharpshooter fallacy. Cup, flask, cave -- they can all mean anything I want them to mean. See this: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2008/01/recipe-for-scorn.html

(3) When the Rabbis wish to deliver a message, such as "God will always be with you in times of trouble" they say it outright. The aggadic literature is full of such aphorisms. You find them all over the Talmud.  What purpose is served in wrapping this one up in an allegory when so many others are not wrapped up in allegories? None that I can see.

(4) All of this said, I will concede that there is a possibility that the author of the Mechilta was writing a homily. However, the author of the Mekhilta was not the author of the original interpretation. I see no reason (other than modern sensibilities) to rule out the possibility that the original interpreter believed every body of water had split; moreover, even if we say that the author of the Mekhilta was writing a homily, the message of the homily ("God is always with you") is based on what the author of the Mekhilta thought was a real historical event. He isn't making up a story to teach us that God is always with us. He's taking what he considers a real historical event (the splitting of all the waters) and using that to make his homiletic point.

You may find it impossible to believe that all the waters in the world split, but the atheist in the next cubicle finds it impossible to believe in a global flood. Why are you willing to allegorize one and not the other? Because one, thanks to your background, upbringing and education, offends your sensibilities while the other does not? 




Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

How did Midrash develop? A case study ("And the Waters Split")

Our sages tell us that when the Red Sea split for the Children of Israel, all the waters of the world split as well. The waters of the Amazon split and the waters of the Mississippi split, as did the waters in all the swimming pools in the Hamptons and all the hot tubs in California, all the watercoolers in Manhattan and all the teakettles in China. The great murky sea of heaven split open to reveal its secrets to all. And the deep, deep sea of the human soul split in two, and for a brief moment all its contents were exposed to the light of day. - By Yanki Tauber at Chabad.org

This idea -that every drop of water in the world split together with the Red Sea- is a famous one. What is the  origin of this idea?

In what follows, I'll provide one piece of source material and then present and discuss three possible origins for this famous midrash.

Koch's Psak Halacha

The New York Times, in 2008, ran a piece about Ed Koch's burial plans that includes the surprising news that he asked for rabbinic guidance and accepted it.

Mr. Koch chose a plot on what he described as a “small mountain” overlooking Amsterdam Avenue, and he researched the propriety of being buried in a non-Jewish cemetery. 

“I called a number of rabbis to see if this was doable,” he said. “I was going to do it anyway, but it would be nice if it were doable traditionally.” 

He said he had been advised to request that the gate nearest his plot be inscribed as “the gate for the Jews,” and the cemetery agreed. 

He was also instructed to have rails installed around his plot, so he ordered them.

HT: Kweansmom

Search for more information about Edward I. Koch, Mayor of the City of New York  at4torah.com  

The Mayor and the Martyr: The last words of Daniel Pearl

Ed Koch, a sort of great mayor, who was always unabashedly Jewish, died this morning. He's chosen to quote the martyr Daniel Pearl on his tombstone, which already stands in Trinity Church's cemetery.

I think that's powerful and beautiful and meaningful, and probably somewhat necessary given that Koch chose to be buried in a gentile boneyard. (Credit @azigra for that insight.)

My one small complaint is that the whole online universe is characterizing "My father was a Jew... etc." as Pearl's defiant last words --  perhaps because so much of the history of antisemitism has consisted of gentiles demanding that Jews foresake their identities.

The monsters Pearl faced were different. They weren't attempting to make him give up his Judaism. They were forcing him to admit it. "My father was a Jew..." is part of a confession that Peal's captors forced him to deliver right before they murdered him. After "My father was a Jew..." Pearl was forced to recite more propaganda --including a denouncement of  Israel and America.

There's no intended criticism here of either Pearl or Koch. The martyr said what his captors wanted him to say and the mayor turned the forced confession into a declaration of faith. All of that is well and good, but its also well and good to remember what the words meant when they were first said.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com 

Bye 30 Rock!

In tribute to the most awesome show that no one watched*, I give you one of the great clips of its 7-year history


*This was actually one of the series final lines: Addressing the show within a show's studio audience, Tracy said:"That's our show. Not a lot of people watched it but the jokes on you, because we got paid anyway"



Naturally NBC created a full video, too. See it here

Lyrics:

Verse 1
I was working late on my haftorah
when I heard a knock on my bedroom-doorah
I opened it up and to my surprise
there was a werewolf standing there with glowing gold eyes
he says tomorrow my son you will be a man
but tonight’s the time to join the wolfen clan
tomorrow you will stand at the bimah and pray
but tonight let’s gaze at the moon and bay

(Chorus 2x)
Werewolf bar mitzvah
Spooky scary
Boys becoming men
Men becoming wolves

Producer: Alright, that was great Tray.
Ok, it’s over. That’s a rap! Oh-

Verse 2
The next day what happened, the Talmud didn’t teach //Producer: Oh, there’s more…
I got up in front of everyone to give my little speech
then my teeth turned into fangs and my nails into claws
and I nearly dropped the torah when my hands turned into paws
I growled and i roared and my rabbi did as well
it was a rocking werewolf zoo at Temple Beth-Emmanuel

Producer: Ey man, where’d you learn all these Jewish words?
Tracy: My manager, Harvey Lemmings.

(Chorus)

Producer: I don’t… I-I just don’t think this… the idea of the song can substain its self for that long because it…it seems a little sweaty now, so…
Tracy: This whole premise is sweaty.

Verse 3
We had a reception at the larchmont country club
they served a real nice brisket and an eight foot party sub
I danced with my cousins, I got money from my folks
we had a lot of fun making circumcision jokes //Producer: Uh-uh…
then I remembered the premise of my song
I was at a nice reception but the werewolf part was gone
so we pulled ourselves together and we’re wolfmen again
just in time for monster fight to begin //Producer: Noooo…
all the country club employees were brainsucking pack
who had all turned into zombies and were on the attack //Producer: No, no…
so we fought them and some draculas and frankensteins too
cause you gotta love bar mitzvah, even if you’re not a [Arooo~!]

Re-vamp
Werewolf bar mitzvah //Producer: There’s no such thing as “Frankensteins”…
Spooky scary //Producer: …”steins”.
Boys becoming men //Producer: No plural Frankenstein.
Men becoming wolves

Werewolf bar mitzvah
Kooky hairy
Boys becoming men
Men becoming wolves

Tracy: I don’t want this… I don’t like this… this is scary! Turning into werewolves and stuff, you know?
Producer: I dunno Tray, I’m not feeling it. This ain’t no “Dick In A Box”.
Tracy: [Arooououou!]
Producer: Mazltov.
Search for more information about ### at4torah.com