The stars must be aligned, because on the very day that I reposted my Parable of the Three Jews, my friend Wolf posted on the new BAR article, a four-part interview with four professors (including Modern Orthodoxy's own Lawrence Shiffman) about how their scholarship has affected their faith.
As I might have predicted the two professors who came from literalistic/fundamentalist traditions are no longer believers. For them it was all or nothing. But the two professors who ascribed to more flexible religions (including Modern Orthdoxy's own Lawrence Shiffman) report that facts and faith can coexist. As you learn more, you may end up believing in less, but the essential parts of Judaism can't be disproven by the facts of science and history; belief in those essentials can remain forever intact if you haven't been taught its "all or nothing."
This, incidentaly, happens to be my own experience. Even as I discover more and more about the world and the past, my faith in the essentials remains unshaken.
More:Aside from Wolf (see above) XGH, Hirhurim and Fred have weighed in so far...
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Jews Locked Out of Stuy Town on Shabbos
The landlords of a muti-billion dollar housing complex have switched to electronic key cards, making life difficult for Jewish residents.
More here (and note the blitheringly idiotically painfully stupid comments)
Hat tip: Fred.
More here (and note the blitheringly idiotically painfully stupid comments)
Hat tip: Fred.
The Parable of the 3 Jews
Dedicated to Chaim G.
The Parable of the 3 Jews
Parable
Once there were three Jews who went off into the world to make their fortunes. The first Jew wrapped himself in straw, the second wrapped himself in wood, and the third in brick, and for a time they were all very happy.
But, presently, came along a wolf. The straw, and the wood could not withstand the wolf's arguments, and the Jews who relied upon them were quickly gobbled up. Only the Jew who surrounded himself with brick was able to survive.
Lesson
In the parable the straw represents supernatural claims, and the wood represents ahistorical claims. For a long time, Jews were content to make and rely upon both, but gradually, gradually, the discoveries of science, archeology, linguistics and history have made many of those claims untenable. The mistake many Jews make is imagining those supernatural and ahistorical claims are essential to Judaism. But, by definition, can something esential to Judaism be false? Only the theological claims, the bricks, are essential. If a claim of ours has been trumped and proven false by science or one of the other disciplines, isn't that conclusive proof that the defeated claim is not fundamental? And, if it isn't fundamental we should be pleased to see it go. More wheat, less chaff.
There's no reason to cling sentimentally to ideas that are wrong
This post first appeared on April 10, 2006.
Addendum March 8, 2007
People like Chaim G. say the truth is dangerous. He says that if people are told that humantachen originally had no connection to Haman, for example, the entire Mesorah will unravel and Judaism will shrivel up and disappear. He worries that if any Jewish idea, or the utterance of any Jewish teacher are challanged a mass exodus from the religion will commence. Others, like me, say the lies are more dangerous. We counter that if you insist, for example, that the universe is exactly 5767 years old, any Jew who has been to a museum will conclude the whole tradition and everything in it is false. He'll say: "They lied to me about dinosaurs, what else did they lie about?"
In an age where the truth is always a mouse-click away, the way to save Jews and keep them Jewish, is to face reality with open eyes. If we want Jews to take Judaism seriously we must give them a serious Judaism, one that understands the difference between theology and history/science, and the difference between knowledge and belief.
The Parable of the 3 Jews
Parable
Once there were three Jews who went off into the world to make their fortunes. The first Jew wrapped himself in straw, the second wrapped himself in wood, and the third in brick, and for a time they were all very happy.
But, presently, came along a wolf. The straw, and the wood could not withstand the wolf's arguments, and the Jews who relied upon them were quickly gobbled up. Only the Jew who surrounded himself with brick was able to survive.
Lesson
In the parable the straw represents supernatural claims, and the wood represents ahistorical claims. For a long time, Jews were content to make and rely upon both, but gradually, gradually, the discoveries of science, archeology, linguistics and history have made many of those claims untenable. The mistake many Jews make is imagining those supernatural and ahistorical claims are essential to Judaism. But, by definition, can something esential to Judaism be false? Only the theological claims, the bricks, are essential. If a claim of ours has been trumped and proven false by science or one of the other disciplines, isn't that conclusive proof that the defeated claim is not fundamental? And, if it isn't fundamental we should be pleased to see it go. More wheat, less chaff.
There's no reason to cling sentimentally to ideas that are wrong
This post first appeared on April 10, 2006.
Addendum March 8, 2007
People like Chaim G. say the truth is dangerous. He says that if people are told that humantachen originally had no connection to Haman, for example, the entire Mesorah will unravel and Judaism will shrivel up and disappear. He worries that if any Jewish idea, or the utterance of any Jewish teacher are challanged a mass exodus from the religion will commence. Others, like me, say the lies are more dangerous. We counter that if you insist, for example, that the universe is exactly 5767 years old, any Jew who has been to a museum will conclude the whole tradition and everything in it is false. He'll say: "They lied to me about dinosaurs, what else did they lie about?"
In an age where the truth is always a mouse-click away, the way to save Jews and keep them Jewish, is to face reality with open eyes. If we want Jews to take Judaism seriously we must give them a serious Judaism, one that understands the difference between theology and history/science, and the difference between knowledge and belief.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Quote of the Day
"This morning we saw pictures of the Warsaw ghetto at Yad Vashem and this evening we are going to the Ramallah ghetto"
Who said it?
A - Rachel Corrie
B - Some leftie from Berkley
C - Some dirty-hippy college professor
D - A Bishop of the Catholic Church
Hat tip: Lipman
Who said it?
A - Rachel Corrie
B - Some leftie from Berkley
C - Some dirty-hippy college professor
D - A Bishop of the Catholic Church
Hat tip: Lipman
Ann Coulter's "magnificent" friend.
That would be Joe Sobran, a Nazi, thanked by Ann Couler on page 303 of her most recent pile of puke.
Full story
Hat tip: Yudel
Full story
Hat tip: Yudel
Comment of the day
Queenie: "Hashem didn't come down and instruct us to create hamentaschen, so He sent shlichim to be sure it happened.
Just because it happened though historical processes doesn't mean there was no hasgacha involved and that Hashem wasn't behind it.
And just because Hashem was behind the historical processes doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Hashem is the architect of history and presumably there was some hashgacha behind our adopting these minhagim as our own.
Sort of like we have to assume there was hashgacha behind our adopting neo-Platonic views of the eternal soul and neo-Hellenistic views of the afterlife."
Snicker, snort.
Just because it happened though historical processes doesn't mean there was no hasgacha involved and that Hashem wasn't behind it.
And just because Hashem was behind the historical processes doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Hashem is the architect of history and presumably there was some hashgacha behind our adopting these minhagim as our own.
Sort of like we have to assume there was hashgacha behind our adopting neo-Platonic views of the eternal soul and neo-Hellenistic views of the afterlife."
Snicker, snort.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Returning Sinners
The Beadle writes:
Hi Dov Bear,
A rather heated discussion took place in my Shul this morning after Shacharit, and I was wondering what the view of your readers might be.
A well known and well liked member of my community, and friend of mine, was sent down for credit card fraud last November. He was, as am I, also on a Shul committee which hold dinners for young professionals every so often and is designed at encouraging them to return to Shul.
I am not in any way excusing his behavior but as a friend, as well as a fellow Jew we have been writing to each other since he went inside. He is due out in June and has indicated that he is looking forward to returning to the Shul as well as on to this committee. While inside he has been receiving counseling for his problems (some of them stem from the fact that he is gay and is an Orthodox community, but that is beside the main point), and plans on continuing this when he gets out. He has also said that he has been very unhappy in his personal and professional life, and the only place he has ever been happy has been when he has been in this community. Although not (yet) shomer shabbat, he had been increasing his weekday attendance in Shul, attending shiurim, and I was helping him with his Hebrew reading and general all-round Jewish knowledge. He was slowly but surely returning to Judaism in a way that had not even considered in the last 40 years of his life. His involvement on this committee made it a great success and both he and the Shul had benefited greatly from it.
My personal belief is that once he has done the time, he has paid his debt to society and there is no reason on earth he should not be welcomed back to the community and that he should be allowed to play his part within the Young Professional committee, albeit not in a financial way. Some of the others opined that while he cannot be stopped from entering the Shul, he should not be overly welcomed and should certainly not be allowed onto any committee as he is “nothing more than a crook a we don’t need his sort round here”. It could be that this view is just a hook on which to hang their homophobia, who knows?
Not only do I feel that both he and the Shul would benefit greatly from his return, but also I always though that the Jewish way was to move on once the person has done his time, and expressed genuine regret, of which he will have done both.
As I said, I am curious to know the views of others out there.
Many thanks.
Hi Dov Bear,
A rather heated discussion took place in my Shul this morning after Shacharit, and I was wondering what the view of your readers might be.
A well known and well liked member of my community, and friend of mine, was sent down for credit card fraud last November. He was, as am I, also on a Shul committee which hold dinners for young professionals every so often and is designed at encouraging them to return to Shul.
I am not in any way excusing his behavior but as a friend, as well as a fellow Jew we have been writing to each other since he went inside. He is due out in June and has indicated that he is looking forward to returning to the Shul as well as on to this committee. While inside he has been receiving counseling for his problems (some of them stem from the fact that he is gay and is an Orthodox community, but that is beside the main point), and plans on continuing this when he gets out. He has also said that he has been very unhappy in his personal and professional life, and the only place he has ever been happy has been when he has been in this community. Although not (yet) shomer shabbat, he had been increasing his weekday attendance in Shul, attending shiurim, and I was helping him with his Hebrew reading and general all-round Jewish knowledge. He was slowly but surely returning to Judaism in a way that had not even considered in the last 40 years of his life. His involvement on this committee made it a great success and both he and the Shul had benefited greatly from it.
My personal belief is that once he has done the time, he has paid his debt to society and there is no reason on earth he should not be welcomed back to the community and that he should be allowed to play his part within the Young Professional committee, albeit not in a financial way. Some of the others opined that while he cannot be stopped from entering the Shul, he should not be overly welcomed and should certainly not be allowed onto any committee as he is “nothing more than a crook a we don’t need his sort round here”. It could be that this view is just a hook on which to hang their homophobia, who knows?
Not only do I feel that both he and the Shul would benefit greatly from his return, but also I always though that the Jewish way was to move on once the person has done his time, and expressed genuine regret, of which he will have done both.
As I said, I am curious to know the views of others out there.
Many thanks.
More Purim Lore
I think this is pretty well known, but judging from the appalled looks I received this weekend, I guess I was wrong. So for the record (via Wikipedia):
There are two possible origins of the name. The most popular theory is that the name hamantash (המן־טאַש), which literally means "Haman's pocket," is a reference to Haman (also known as Homen), the villain of Purim, as described in the Book of Esther. This theory has no basis in fact. A more likely source of the name is a corruption of the Yiddish word מאן־טאשן (montashn) or the German word mohntaschen, both meaning poppyseed-filled pouches.[1] Over time, this name was transformed to hamantashen, likely by association with Haman. In Israel, they are called אוזני המן (Oznei Haman), Hebrew for "Haman's ears."Feel free to say "duh."
I'm making a list...
I don't mind sincere moralists, but pious frauds like Ann Coulter make me reach for my revolver. And there are others like her, who despite their bad manners, and reprehensible views are forever invited to appear on television, and to address conventions. Some of them also are listed on the sidebars of Jewish blogs, and often quoted favorably by bloggers who otherwise present themselves as moral, value-driven, Torah True men and women. (list on request)
This makes no sense.
Unless these bloggers are pious frauds themselves, the only explanation is that they are operating under the misaprehension that Ann and her ilk are good people. So allow me to do the necessary disabusing. What follows is a short list of famous conservative commentators who should be anathema to anyone who claims to care about Torah ideals.
Ann Coulter: I, II, III [Summary]
Michelle Malkin I [Summary]
William Donohue I [Summary]
Add more if you like (and don't be shy about adding liberals, too. I'm well aware that there are some who belong to the same category)
This makes no sense.
Unless these bloggers are pious frauds themselves, the only explanation is that they are operating under the misaprehension that Ann and her ilk are good people. So allow me to do the necessary disabusing. What follows is a short list of famous conservative commentators who should be anathema to anyone who claims to care about Torah ideals.
Ann Coulter: I, II, III [Summary]
Michelle Malkin I [Summary]
William Donohue I [Summary]
Add more if you like (and don't be shy about adding liberals, too. I'm well aware that there are some who belong to the same category)
Monday, March 05, 2007
Uncivil Penguin
Ah, Republicans. They charge for meals at the VA hospital, cut benefits for veterans at every opportunty, and send soldiers into battle without the right equipment - all while managing to arrange fat tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. Yet, we're the ones who hate the troops.
PS: I think the guy in the suit might be Robert Avrech. The line about liberalism having been "proven" to be degenrate gives it away.
Why do we rattle noisemakers at the mention of Haman's name?
Another old post; last one I promise.
Why do we rattle noisemakers at the mention of Haman's name?
There's a temptation to link the practice of noise making in the synagogue to the verse 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek' (Deut. xxv. 19)' but I've found no evidence that this custom existed prior to the middle ages.
Most everything you can find using Google, will agree with Wikipedia which attributes the custom to:
French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century who introduced the custom of writing the name of Haman, the offspring of Amalek, on two smooth stones and of knocking or rubbing them constantly until the name was blotted out. Ultimately, however, the stones fell into disuse, the knocking alone remaining. Some wrote the name of Haman on the soles of their shoes, and at the mention of the name stamped with their feet as a sign of contempt; others used for the same purpose a rattle--called 'gregar' (from Polish grzgarz), and producing much noise--a custom which is still observed by the Russo-Polish Jews.
Interesting, but our familiar problem remains. How was the custom established? What brought it into being? Did the French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century meet at an Aguda convention, where they resolved that a new custom was needed? If so, where is the record of their proclamation? Did they vote? Was there debate? Were other ideas considered?
Or were the Rabbis of medieval Europe simply as promiscuous about introducing new customs as our modern Rabbis are about issuing bans?
Analogues [Sources and other material]
Our question ("How was this custom brought into being?") becomes stronger when you consider two non-Jewish practices. Of course, neither analogue comes with a signed note asserting that it is the official antecedent of our Purim custom; still they are interesting.
In Jewish Festivals A Guide to Their History and Observance, Hayyim Schauss maintains (page 265) that ancient people thought themselves vulnerable to the influence of evil spirits and would often made loud noises for the purpose of driving the spirits away. Haman, you will remember, was the name of the Persian underworld demon. Possibly, driving away the demon at springtime was a pagan rite the Jews borrowed.
Another idea, cited by Tzidkuni, suggests the custom has a direct Christian antecedent. He writes that on the first night of Passover, Christian children would go through the streets of Jewish neighborhoods and congregate around the synagogues with noisemakers to eradicate the memory of Judas Iscariot. On that night, the priests would also 'eradicate the memory' of Judas with great noisemakers or by pounding sticks upon wooden boards suspended from the Church steeples.
Is it a coincidence that Jews, Christians and pagans all had a spring noise rite connected to the eradication of a despised character? Perhaps. Is there a firm link between the three customs? No. But this blog was not created to promote certainty. This blog was created (in part) to throw sand in the eyes of people who insist that everything Jews do today was known to Moshe and his Sanhedrin (bearing in mind, of course, that Sanhedrin is a Greek loan word, making it unlikely that Moshe had anything of the sort. See? I did it again.)
Why do we rattle noisemakers at the mention of Haman's name?
There's a temptation to link the practice of noise making in the synagogue to the verse 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek' (Deut. xxv. 19)' but I've found no evidence that this custom existed prior to the middle ages.
Most everything you can find using Google, will agree with Wikipedia which attributes the custom to:
French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century who introduced the custom of writing the name of Haman, the offspring of Amalek, on two smooth stones and of knocking or rubbing them constantly until the name was blotted out. Ultimately, however, the stones fell into disuse, the knocking alone remaining. Some wrote the name of Haman on the soles of their shoes, and at the mention of the name stamped with their feet as a sign of contempt; others used for the same purpose a rattle--called 'gregar' (from Polish grzgarz), and producing much noise--a custom which is still observed by the Russo-Polish Jews.
Interesting, but our familiar problem remains. How was the custom established? What brought it into being? Did the French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century meet at an Aguda convention, where they resolved that a new custom was needed? If so, where is the record of their proclamation? Did they vote? Was there debate? Were other ideas considered?
Or were the Rabbis of medieval Europe simply as promiscuous about introducing new customs as our modern Rabbis are about issuing bans?
Analogues [Sources and other material]
Our question ("How was this custom brought into being?") becomes stronger when you consider two non-Jewish practices. Of course, neither analogue comes with a signed note asserting that it is the official antecedent of our Purim custom; still they are interesting.
In Jewish Festivals A Guide to Their History and Observance, Hayyim Schauss maintains (page 265) that ancient people thought themselves vulnerable to the influence of evil spirits and would often made loud noises for the purpose of driving the spirits away. Haman, you will remember, was the name of the Persian underworld demon. Possibly, driving away the demon at springtime was a pagan rite the Jews borrowed.
Another idea, cited by Tzidkuni, suggests the custom has a direct Christian antecedent. He writes that on the first night of Passover, Christian children would go through the streets of Jewish neighborhoods and congregate around the synagogues with noisemakers to eradicate the memory of Judas Iscariot. On that night, the priests would also 'eradicate the memory' of Judas with great noisemakers or by pounding sticks upon wooden boards suspended from the Church steeples.
Is it a coincidence that Jews, Christians and pagans all had a spring noise rite connected to the eradication of a despised character? Perhaps. Is there a firm link between the three customs? No. But this blog was not created to promote certainty. This blog was created (in part) to throw sand in the eyes of people who insist that everything Jews do today was known to Moshe and his Sanhedrin (bearing in mind, of course, that Sanhedrin is a Greek loan word, making it unlikely that Moshe had anything of the sort. See? I did it again.)
Blogging and pashkevels
Last night I received an urgent message from UOJ. He'd written a letter and wanted it posted on my blog and some others at exactly 10 PM. Unfortunately, I was deep into Purim at the time, and missed the deadline. The letter is now here. I encourage you to read it.
The more I see from UOJ, the more I'm reminded of Joyce, Jun. Joyce, Jun. was the most famous of several colonial-era bloggers. Around the time of the Revolution, he and other like him left signs, called broadsides, on trees and buildings. The signs were anonymous, and they were used to criticize, complain and threaten - much like how our man UOJ uses his blog. Often, the broadsides were reprinted in newspapers, too.
[The name Joyce Jun, incidently, has an origin appropriate to Purim. The tradition in colonial New England was to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day (called Pope's Day on this side of the pond) by putting an effigy of the Pope on a wheeled stage (with attendants dressed as the devil, or of the anti-Christ) and push them through town amid mobs of revelers who marched through town in masquerade, eating and drinking at every stop. Boston. because of it's size, had two Popes, one for the North side and one for the South side. Every year the two liquor-sodden groups would meet and riot, with each side trying to take the others Pope. [More here]
In Boston, the commander of the mob was called "Joyce Jun.", after Cornet Joyce, the man who arrested Charles I. Later, the famous broadsider took his name.]
The broadsiding tradition lives on in Jerusalem, where they are called pashkevils. [More]
Perhaps someone can explain why Agudat Yisroel objects loudly and publicly to blogs, but not to anonymous pashkevils? Essentially, aren't they the same?
The more I see from UOJ, the more I'm reminded of Joyce, Jun. Joyce, Jun. was the most famous of several colonial-era bloggers. Around the time of the Revolution, he and other like him left signs, called broadsides, on trees and buildings. The signs were anonymous, and they were used to criticize, complain and threaten - much like how our man UOJ uses his blog. Often, the broadsides were reprinted in newspapers, too.
[The name Joyce Jun, incidently, has an origin appropriate to Purim. The tradition in colonial New England was to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day (called Pope's Day on this side of the pond) by putting an effigy of the Pope on a wheeled stage (with attendants dressed as the devil, or of the anti-Christ) and push them through town amid mobs of revelers who marched through town in masquerade, eating and drinking at every stop. Boston. because of it's size, had two Popes, one for the North side and one for the South side. Every year the two liquor-sodden groups would meet and riot, with each side trying to take the others Pope. [More here]
In Boston, the commander of the mob was called "Joyce Jun.", after Cornet Joyce, the man who arrested Charles I. Later, the famous broadsider took his name.]
The broadsiding tradition lives on in Jerusalem, where they are called pashkevils. [More]
Perhaps someone can explain why Agudat Yisroel objects loudly and publicly to blogs, but not to anonymous pashkevils? Essentially, aren't they the same?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Magilla Meme
This first appeared last year.
Over at Ren Reb a new and exciting meme has been created:
Things I think about during magilla reading (besides Russel Crowe).
And though she hasn't exactly tagged me (Ren Reb looks, but she doesn't touch) I thought I'd play along. So here, in no particular order, are some of the thoughts that danced through my sugar and caffeine deprived mind on Monday night.
* Man, I can lain so much better than this dope. How many more notes is he going to miss? Why don't they ever ask me to read the megillah? I bet it's because I say Achash-vey-rosh instead of Achash-vey-roysh. That's it, I just know it. Well, screw them.*
* Why didn't they have co-ed parties in ancient Persia? I mean, how pious were these people, that Vashti and the women were kept separate from Achashveyrosh and the men? And if all that separation didn't help the ancient court of Persia stay proper and moral, why do 21st century Jews think it's worth doing?
* Hey, it doesn't say anywhere that Vashti was killed. Only that her estate was taken away. I have read the megillah maybe 1000 times. How did I miss that? Suddenly, I feel like an old friend of mine who reached the ripe old age of 30 without realizing that the story of Abraham smashing the idols is nowhere in the Hebrew bible. Or the friend who reacts with shock, horror and disgust whenever he's told that Rashi's understanding of a particular verse is rejected by rabbis of equal stature. It's a little scary how the things we're taught as kids can be so powerful - and misleading.
* Why don't the kids and adults who swarm around the shul looking for handouts on Purim ever say anything when they ask you for your money? They just stick their hand in your face and sort of shake it. You're supposed to guess what they want, and who they are collecting for, I guess. Some of them even do this right in the middle of davening. You can be saying shema, or even shmona esray and some scarecrow will come over and rattle his hand under your nose. My policy is to ignore people who don't speak, and to pummel people who bother me during prayers. I confess I am not as religious as I should be about following this policy, but I plan to work on my shortcoming, so that next year I am ready.
* Esther 4:13-14 is an awesome verse (and I am not just saying that because Ren Reb did, too. ) Aside from all the things RenReb likes about it, I also appreciate the lack of certainty. When Mordichai tells Esther she needs to speak up for her people, he doesn't say,"There are no coincidences! The only reason you became queen is because the Jews need your help!" No. What he says is: "And who knows maybe it's for just this purpose [i.e., to save the Jewish people] that you became queen?" Get that everyone? Mordichai is unsure. And he's not so vulgar as to speak for God, even when his life, and the life of everyone he knows, is on the line. Nowadays, GOP-Jews would probably chastise Mordichai for his lack of faith, ("What do you mean? Of course Esther became queen for the sake of saving the Jews.") but GOP-Jews would have also probably bowed down to Haman, too. ("Come on! The evangelical idol worshippers are our best friends ever! No one loves Jews like they do!")
Keep the meme alive! What did you think about during megillah reading?
I am tagging... [Note: Remarks about other bloggers were written last year, and are intended as jokes. If you are the blogger and this distrbs you, tell me and I will take it down]
Ezzie: ("What a bunch of Democrats those liberal, hedonist Persians were, raising taxes and wasting money on luxurious parties. I bet there were lots of movie stars and celebrities at those parties, too.)
Chardal: ("Man, I love Purim, and not just because we get to slaughter our enemies with extreme malice. Really!)
CWY: ("The liberal media sure did a job on Haman. As the Wall Street Journal makes clear, Haman's concern was national security, and only a liberal-weenie-wimp would object to a program that makes your country safer and stronger.")
Over at Ren Reb a new and exciting meme has been created:
Things I think about during magilla reading (besides Russel Crowe).
And though she hasn't exactly tagged me (Ren Reb looks, but she doesn't touch) I thought I'd play along. So here, in no particular order, are some of the thoughts that danced through my sugar and caffeine deprived mind on Monday night.
* Man, I can lain so much better than this dope. How many more notes is he going to miss? Why don't they ever ask me to read the megillah? I bet it's because I say Achash-vey-rosh instead of Achash-vey-roysh. That's it, I just know it. Well, screw them.*
* Why didn't they have co-ed parties in ancient Persia? I mean, how pious were these people, that Vashti and the women were kept separate from Achashveyrosh and the men? And if all that separation didn't help the ancient court of Persia stay proper and moral, why do 21st century Jews think it's worth doing?
* Hey, it doesn't say anywhere that Vashti was killed. Only that her estate was taken away. I have read the megillah maybe 1000 times. How did I miss that? Suddenly, I feel like an old friend of mine who reached the ripe old age of 30 without realizing that the story of Abraham smashing the idols is nowhere in the Hebrew bible. Or the friend who reacts with shock, horror and disgust whenever he's told that Rashi's understanding of a particular verse is rejected by rabbis of equal stature. It's a little scary how the things we're taught as kids can be so powerful - and misleading.
* Why don't the kids and adults who swarm around the shul looking for handouts on Purim ever say anything when they ask you for your money? They just stick their hand in your face and sort of shake it. You're supposed to guess what they want, and who they are collecting for, I guess. Some of them even do this right in the middle of davening. You can be saying shema, or even shmona esray and some scarecrow will come over and rattle his hand under your nose. My policy is to ignore people who don't speak, and to pummel people who bother me during prayers. I confess I am not as religious as I should be about following this policy, but I plan to work on my shortcoming, so that next year I am ready.
* Esther 4:13-14 is an awesome verse (and I am not just saying that because Ren Reb did, too. ) Aside from all the things RenReb likes about it, I also appreciate the lack of certainty. When Mordichai tells Esther she needs to speak up for her people, he doesn't say,"There are no coincidences! The only reason you became queen is because the Jews need your help!" No. What he says is: "And who knows maybe it's for just this purpose [i.e., to save the Jewish people] that you became queen?" Get that everyone? Mordichai is unsure. And he's not so vulgar as to speak for God, even when his life, and the life of everyone he knows, is on the line. Nowadays, GOP-Jews would probably chastise Mordichai for his lack of faith, ("What do you mean? Of course Esther became queen for the sake of saving the Jews.") but GOP-Jews would have also probably bowed down to Haman, too. ("Come on! The evangelical idol worshippers are our best friends ever! No one loves Jews like they do!")
Keep the meme alive! What did you think about during megillah reading?
I am tagging... [Note: Remarks about other bloggers were written last year, and are intended as jokes. If you are the blogger and this distrbs you, tell me and I will take it down]
Ezzie: ("What a bunch of Democrats those liberal, hedonist Persians were, raising taxes and wasting money on luxurious parties. I bet there were lots of movie stars and celebrities at those parties, too.)
Chardal: ("Man, I love Purim, and not just because we get to slaughter our enemies with extreme malice. Really!)
CWY: ("The liberal media sure did a job on Haman. As the Wall Street Journal makes clear, Haman's concern was national security, and only a liberal-weenie-wimp would object to a program that makes your country safer and stronger.")
Thursday, March 01, 2007
PSA
Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski s’hlita: (from a letter attributed to him, and distributed by email)
I agree with the Rabbi Doctor. Drinking on Purim is disgusting, and the people who imagine that they are liquoring up in the name of God are deceiving themselves.Rabbi Shneur Zalman in his Shulchan Aruch (529) says, "It is impossible to serve Hashem either in levity or drunkenness."
One of the final authorities on halacha, the Chafetz Chaim in Mishna Berura (695) states clearly that the proper thing to do is not to drink to intoxication, but rather to drink just a bit more than is customary (which would be a glass or two of wine), and go to sleep. This is the proper way to fulfil "not distinguishing between 'cursed be Haman' and 'blessed be Mordechai.'
There is certainly no justification for drinking anything but wine. Aruch Hashulchan (695) condemns drinking spirits (liquor) in very sharp terms. Alcohol intoxication is an abomination, and overriding the rulings of the Baal Hatanya and the Chafetz Chaim by drinking to intoxication is inexcusable.
An old Purim post about Robbie and costumes
Robbie is Right...about costumes
The man who never tires of reminding us that he's in his twenties and we are not, has a sharp insight about Purim:
Sidebar:
When you think about it, the whole idea of Carnival is pretty twisted. It's a last chance to indulge for Catholics who are about to enter Lent, a solemn season of fasting and repentance. Sort of as if we partied in the street, Purim-style, immediately before Ellul, or the Asres Yemai Teshuva.
Carnival is additionally the source of such excellent and wholesome traditions as the Palio (forced races of near naked Jews through the streets of Rome) and the annual Mardi-Gras beads-for-breasts exchange on the streets of New Orleans. It's a good thing the Rabbis we rely on are so poor at history: If they knew our Purim practices could be traced back to the source of such unseemly rituals, we'd surely be back in suits and ties at Purim-time.
The man who never tires of reminding us that he's in his twenties and we are not, has a sharp insight about Purim:
"It's just that we're told we wear costumes because just like God's face was hidden during the Purim story, so are ours... let's think about this for a sec:We want to celebrate that God decided to leave us to fend for ourselves andturn away from us... Seriously, do we really want to emulate an absent God? Oh, and while we're celebrating the fact that we were deserted, let's get so drunkthat we can't tell the difference between good things and evil things, because nothing bad ever happens when you're [drunk]"I don't know how to answer Robbie, except to remind him that we don't wear masks "because God hid his face." Rather, we wear masks because once upon a time the Jews lived among a community of Catholics who celebrated Carnival with masquerades. It looked cool, so the Jews did it, too.
Sidebar:
When you think about it, the whole idea of Carnival is pretty twisted. It's a last chance to indulge for Catholics who are about to enter Lent, a solemn season of fasting and repentance. Sort of as if we partied in the street, Purim-style, immediately before Ellul, or the Asres Yemai Teshuva.
Carnival is additionally the source of such excellent and wholesome traditions as the Palio (forced races of near naked Jews through the streets of Rome) and the annual Mardi-Gras beads-for-breasts exchange on the streets of New Orleans. It's a good thing the Rabbis we rely on are so poor at history: If they knew our Purim practices could be traced back to the source of such unseemly rituals, we'd surely be back in suits and ties at Purim-time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)