Holiday Music 2

Two for the price of one, again today. First the great YLove's dreidel, and beneath it an ecumenical children's choir singing a classic to a tune I don't know.

My two cents about Yaakov Neeman.

The other day, Yaakov Neeman Israel's Justice Minister, attended some rabbinical conference where he said,""Israel should regain the heritage of our Fathers, the primary and ultimate words of the Torah, which contain a complete solution to all the questions we deal with."

For this, he's been pounded relentlessly by the press, called upon to resign, insulted by fellow politicians, etc.

Over on the bad blog  (i.e. YWN) the chief Israel correspondent (who still has not retracted his bogus claim about Obama's still unannounced secret plan to split Jerusalem) is mischarecterizing the brouhaha as a religious war, while conveniently forgetting that Israel's frum politicians can be just as vicious when offended as the secular politicians are. His moron commenters are playing along "This is the simple reason why there should not be a Jewish state," said two (both were admonished by non-moron commenters who asked if maybe things were better in Treblinka?) Another contributed this delicious bit of self-serving psychobabble: "The reason those voices are so offended is that they well know the truth inside.[sic]"  Hmm. When secular politicians wanted El-Al to fly on shabbos, the religious right went ballistic. Was this also because they "well knew the truth inside?"

My own view is that this is politics as usual. Happens everywhere, all the time. I don't see anything especially egregious about Neeman's statement, nor do I think the lefties need to apologize for calling him out. That's the glory of free speech. Everyone gets to yell at each other without constraints, and at the end of the day, the best idea wins. Instead of tearing our shirts about this, we should be praising the system that permits it.

---

Search for more information about freedom at 4torah.com.

Jetton shuts down his lobbying firm

What follows was stolen, without permission, from Wonkette.If you're curious about the redactions, go here.

Former Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton, who was arrested Monday night for allegedly beating XXXXXXX a ladyfriend XXXXXXXXX — possibly because he had roofied her, which made it super hard for her to say “green balloons” during the fifth or sixth donkey punch and/or choking episode — has dissolved his lobbying firm, Jetton and Associates. According to a statement, he wants to spend more time with his family HAAHAHAH OH YES SURE YOU DO XXXXXXX

Also, his firm was actively lobbying while he was House Speaker, which doesn’t sound illegal at all:

Former House Speaker Rod Jetton sent an aftershock through Missouri’s political terrain Tuesday, saying he will close his political consulting firm to fight a felony charge that he assaulted a Sikeston woman.

Jetton “will be leaving politics to deal with false allegations and spend time with his family,” said his attorney, Stephen Wilson, in a written statement. “He is confident that when the facts of this case are heard, he will be found innocent.”

Formed in 2004, the same year Jetton was elected speaker, Jetton and Associates eventually became one of the go-to GOP political shops in the state because of his connections in the General Assembly.

Holiday Music 1

As an antidote to Hatch's horrorshow, I now intend to post video of classic renditions of classic holiday songs. We'll start with two. Enjoy.

The Maccabee Books

Ok, can we settle this once and for all? If any of you  readers are aware of evidence that the Rabbis held a meeting and voted to exclude the Maccabee Books from the canon, please share it with us.

Because absent evidence to the contrary, I think its safe to follow the wise suggestion made by S. and Kosheracademic and presume that these books were never intended to be canonical scripture. In short, the fact that a book was accepted into the canon of others faiths is not, in of itself a proof, that it was formally rejected from our canon.  We know of many books that didn't make it into our canon, yet are quoted favorably by Chazal (Ben Sira, Book of the Wars of the Lord). There are also non-canonical books (Jubilees, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, and many more) that seem to have influenced the later development of aggadic interpretation, as recorded in books like Avot d'Rabbi Natan or Tanchuma.

Perhaps it would be correct to view the Maccabee Books simply as a non-canonical work, rather than as books that were officially and formally opposed by the Sages.

Gretchen, the Fox and Friends dingbat, gets owned (again)

Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

---

Search for more information about Fox and Friends at 4torah.com.

Obligatory post about Orrin Hatch's Chanuka song

Ok, fine. I'll acknowledge it. Moron senator, whoops, sorry, I mean Mormon senator Orrin Hatch has written a song about Chanukah. It really and truly sucks, like almost nothing has ever sucked before, except perhaps Heal our Land, the overtly awful abomination Hatch composed for the Bush inaugural.

Warning: Your ears will bleed.


Eight Days of Hanukkah from Tablet Magazine on Vimeo.

In other news, poor Alana Newhouse, editor of the Tablet, has what appears to be a life so boring it induces comas; also, she is resoundingly pessimistic about its chances of improving. Here is what she told the Times about the senator's visit to her magazine. “Watching Orrin Hatch in the studio, I said to myself that nothing this great will ever happen to me again." [A picture of Alana.  You'd guess her life was more interesting, no?]

Anyway, I think we Jews owe it to Senator Hatch to reciprocate with a song about Mormonism. Sample lyrics:

Hey Orrin, your fake hip-hop song sucks / If you want to fool us into thinking you care about Jews, why don't you ask your church to stop baptizing Holocaust victims

Needs some work, I agree.

Today's Twitter Torah: Chanuka and Unicorns

This morning a Twitter conversation about lighting Chanuka candles developed into a discussion of the agadic view of unicorns. A quick summary (all paraphrased):

@hsabomilner: If my husband is lighting candles in a different city, in his own house, am I covered? Or do I light candles in my own house? And what about the brocha?

Almost everyone said yes, light the candles and say a blessing. (My own view was "who cares?" If you want to light, light; if not, don't.) I say "almost" everyone, because @noahroth took the view that she's not supposed to light because both houses are part of her husband's halachic domain, and his lighting in one houses covers both. According to @noahroth only one person (the husband, naturally) lights per house/halachic domain.

A discussion about @noahroth's approach to halacha ensued, as his answer does not take into account the view of ashkenazi psak halacha, which says the mitzvah is made more beautiful if as many people as possible in each house light candles. @tikun_olam_ asked him to explain how @hsabomilner's own personal house, where she pays rent, could be part of someone else's domain. @noahroth answered,but torts and domains bore me, so I didn't really follow it. I got the sense his reply irritated some of the women, however.

I started paying attention again when @noahroth said that if @hsabomilner is going to bless the candles, she might as well say a blessing on a unicorn. (From his perspective neither are legitimate blessings) I responded that there is a blessing on unicorns (meshaneh es habriyos) and anyway, the aggada says they are real. Using notes, I quickly provided several sources:

[The] lxx translates re'em as unicorn. JT shabos says tachash has one horn. BT chulin says keresh has one horn. koheles raba says keresh has one horn midrash tanchuma says tachash has one horn. 

@IsraeliMom objected that unicorns are similar to horses, which are not kosher. I replied that the unicorn that Jewish lore seems to presume existed was more like a goat. @judahe said that according to Slifkin, the giraffe   fits the midrashim. I replied that, in my view, the giraffe answer is apologia, as there's no question chazal were thinking of a one horned animal. I supplied the quote from the Talmud:  BT Chulin 59b vkeresh af al pi she ain lo ela keren achas mutar. [The Keresh, even though it has one horn, is permitted [i.e. as food] Rashi: daled yud yud nun (old french) [Can anyone translate that?]

... and on and on it goes.  Our name for this new type of Torah study? How about Bet Twitrash (I think @hsabomilner coined that, but I can't locate the Tweet. Was it her?)

Torah True Chanukah Lies

Here's Rabbi Nota Schiller of Ohr Somayach denying the existance of the Book of Macabees, and then creating a drasha based on his error

Historically, at Chanukah, the Jews warred with the Greeks, yet there is no megillah, no written work chronicling that battle. Why? Because it is a story that must be transmitted orally, for at the center of this battle was the Greeks' attempt to destroy the Oral Torah.

My suggested rewrite:
At Chanukah, the Maccabees warred with the Greeks. This story is told in the first two chapters of Macaabees. This written work was not included in the canon (or perhaps was never intended to be canonical scripture). Why? My own personal unsubstantiated hunch is that the Sages wanted the story to be transmitted orally, for at the center of this battle (we speculate) was the Greeks' attempt to destroy the Oral Torah. (really its totally unclear)


HT: Kvetcher

---

Search for more information about Macabees at 4torah.com.

Green Balloons

I'm trying to find a Torah-true way to discuss former Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton's current sex scandal, ideally in a way that also makes mention of the fact that Jetton is (surprise) a Republican and a regular participant in services at his local Methodist church. Failing.

---

Search for more information about Green Balloons at 4torah.com.

Regarding the Canon, Maccabees, History and Twitter

Yesterday, I introduced some Twitter friends to the possibility that Chanuka is an 8-day celebration because the Hashmonaim modeled their original holiday on Sukkos. This, I pointed out*, is attested to in the Book of Maccabees II 1:8 where we find a quote from a letter sent by the Hashmonaim to other Jews in which they introduce a new holiday called "Sukot b'Kislev":

And now celebrate ye the days of Scenopegia [i.e. Sukos] in the month of Casleu [i.e. Kislev.]

In Maccabees II 10:6-9 an explanation for this designation is provided. After retaking Jerusalem and the temple...:

...they kept eight days with joy, after the manner of the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long before they had kept the feast of the tabernacles when they were in the mountains, and in dens like wild beasts. Therefore they now, carried boughs, and green branches, and palms [i.e. lulavim]  for Him that had given them good success in cleansing his place. And they ordained by a common statute, and decree, that all the nation of the Jews should keep those days every year

Today, some friends (notably @mottel) have raised an objection, saying (paraphrased): Maysvai @motel: "Can we rely on Maccabees as a source? Its not in the canon"

I confess to not understanding the objection. Here's how I replied:

I don't understand your [objection's] premise. [The f]act that its not [in the] canon doesn't mean [that] it's lies. [Even the] Torah(!) cites non canon books. (I refer here to the Book of the Wars of the Lord which is a non-canonical book quoted by God in Numbers.) 

I continued:

[The T]almud also cites non-canon books. (Here I have in mind Ben Sira,a non canonical book, beloved by the Rabbis, and thought by scholars to have provided the vocabulary and framework for the Amidah, along with several now-popular aggadic ideas) [The] Aggada [is also to some extent] based on non-canon books. [Jubilees is perhaps the best example but there are dozens of others, including the Testament of Job discussed last week] who says history must come from canon?

This line of argument was picked up by @slerner who said: ...even if [the apocrypha books were] not [written with] ruach hakodesh, [they] can still be historically accurate.

Of course, I think he's right. Points in Macabees favor are that it was written within 100 years of the events it describes, and though the Sages later elected to exclude it from the canon, I'm not aware of any reason they may have provided. Perhaps the objection, simply, was that it was written too close to their own time?  Or perhaps there was no "objection." As S. says on the thread, "Who says it was ever intended to be canonical Scripture? Was Megillas Taanis also excluded?"

Macabees (I mean Chapters 1 and 2; 3 and 4 belong to other eras, and describe other events) was written by a/ believing Jew/s, who was/were attempting to accurately describe a historical event. What principle requires us to dismiss his/their account out of hand? What rule renders their own account of their own history invalid?

(Remember, this isn't a question of theology, where the judgment of the Sages is paramount. This is about history, a discipline in which the Sages confessed no expertise. Additionally, we have Rishonim who expressly give us permission to ignore the Sage's history. All this considered, what exactly do we lose if we choose to  consider the information provided in Maccabees, and admit that it seems like quite a good explanation for the length of the holiday?)

---

*And let's do our part to bring the geulah by remembering that I first heard about the Sukkos/Chanukah connection from Mis-nagid.

---

Search for more information about Twitter Torah at 4torah.com.

secular or religious coercion

A Guest Post by Rafi G

In light of Minister Neeman's statement about introducing Jewish law into the Israeli lawbooks, I wonder how it would work. I don't know what his intentions were, and I do not know if he meant to redesign Israel into a "Halachic State" (whatever that is), or if he just wants the State law to be more inclusive of Jewish law in society.

Regardless of that, the response has been quick to come. The various secular MKs and others have been quick to condemn Neeman's statement claiming it will lead to religious coercion and all sorts of other problems inherent in a "Halacha State".

After seeing a few condemnations, I decided to pose a hypothetical question on Twitter.

I asked why is it ok to impose law on people not interested or against their beliefs as long as the law is secular but if we adopt religious law and make that the law of country than they would consider it consider it coercion?

Meaning, if we make a law that one is not allowed to eat pork, for example, someone secular and opposed to such a law would consider it religious coercion, and therefore opposes the implementation of a lawbook based on halacha.

But if the law says that one is not allowed to cross the street against the light, for example, I am not allowed to oppose that law. Can I call it secular coercion?

Why is it legitimate for the secular state have the right to impose its laws, thereby imposing its set of values, on religious Jews, while a religious state (or call it a halacha state) would be considered religious coercion?

The ensuing discussion was interesting, though mostly off topic. It started out discussing the idea that if a religious law is "bad" it cannot be changed, because the law is imposed on us and we have to accept it as is (by definition of "halacha state" I assume), whereas with State law or "secular" law (for lack of a better word), if a law is deemed to be bad it can be changed. From there the discussion became one of mostly whether circumcision is good or bad and if it is wrong to main ones children.

What do you think about the original question - why is it ok for one set of laws to be introduced, with no opposition about coercion, while another set of laws is considered inherently wrong?

---

Search for more information about religious/secular coercion at 4torah.com.

New rejoinder for those who say pre-War America was a bad place for Torah

Fred at the Main Line has uncovered evidence that representatives of 30+ NY congregations asked Rabbi Meir Leibush (aka Malbim) to come to New York and serve as Chief Rabbi. According to the newspapers, he accepted.

I searched the archives of the New York times for additional information, and found none.

More on the subject: Defending pre-war America

---

Search for more information about Malbim at 4torah.com.

Pshat in Twitter

This morning, the following Tweet appeared on my screen (1):

Got a hitch w/ a kipah sruga guy. When I got in, he said "the price for the ride is a vort on this week's parsha". #onlyinisrael

In attempting to interpret this Tweet, a distinction must be made between what the author intended, and what he actually said. I'm glad to stipulate that nothing nasty was intended, and I'll further stipulate that the author is a fine guy, who loves all Jews, equally, regardless of sect. However, I hold that once an idea is reduced to writing, the words speak for themselves, and the intention (or, to be precise, your best guess at the intention) becomes irrelevant (2). From the perspective of interpretation, it doesn't matter one bit what the writer thought he was doing because this is unknowable. We look only at what he did, ie, the words on the page.

With this in mind,  I have two related observations to make about the Tweet cited above.

First, I wonder why the author thought the style of kippa was noteworthy and submit that it suggests surprise that a "kippa sruga guy" cared about parsha. Second, why "only in Israel?" I'd expect similar conversations almost anywhere. Based on the words alone, I think its fair to say that the writer is claiming a "kippa sruga guy" cares about parsha "only in Israel." Don't believe me? Imagine the Tweet had said instead "Got a hitch with a blond woman, When I got in she said the price for the ride is a Calculus lesson. #onlyatharvard." How's this different? In the blond women Tweet, I think we can agree a claim is being made about their intelligence. Isn't a similar claim being made about "kippa sruga guys" in the original Tweet? Why, or why not?

Objections I will not accept
- Stop being so PC. There's nothing PC about this post. I'm not interested in protecting the feelings of "kippa srugah guys." I'm interested in understanding this Tweet on its own terms and making a point about interpretation.
- Its Twitter! He only has 140 characters! So what? A writer is still responsible for what he says.
- I know the writer! He's a great guy. See the initial stipulation, and remember I'm not interested in guessing what he intended. My crystal ball is in the shop. All I wish to do is examine what he wrote.
- Why can't you judge people favorably? I did judge the writer favorable. Again, see the initial stipulation. However, a writer can't put words on paper and then disown their logical interpretations.
- This is such a stupid non-issue. I may agree, but by attempting to end the discussion with this complaint you're engaging in the Sanctimony Fallacy.

NOTES
(1) I don't name the author because I don't wish for his identity to influence your reading.

(2) I think attempting to divine an author's intention is an exercise in futility, and often a rude distraction. Any writer worth a grain of salt can mimic various voices and moods, and often does so for effect or other rhetorical purposes. A reader, therefore, has no justification in making any deductions about a writer's agenda, psychology, or mood, and usually these deductions reflect the reader's own biases, or what he expects to see, and not what has actually been said. All a reader can do with any certainty is explain what the reader has done. (a) A reader can't, with any justification, say why it was done unless the writer supplies the information himself (b).

(a) ie: I think the tweet makes a claim about people who wear kippot srugot; I have no idea at all what the writer really and truly thinks about people who wear kippit srugot, and no attempts to guess have been made.
(b) In my own career, readers guilty of this error have come to any number of ludicrous conclusions about me (My favorite: "DovBear has no friends, or family. He's just a lonely old grump.") These types of conclusions about me are a product of the reader's arrogance, and indicate a preference for assigning motives over accepting with humility that knowledge is often incomplete.

Smarter School Teachers Please Redux

A Guest Post By E. Fink

Yesterday I got a phone call from the mother of a 6 year old child in a yeshiva day school. A very good yeshiva day school in fact. This is the kind of school that has a (by yeshiva standards) diverse parent body, provides a well-rounded education and has a responsible hanhala.

Here is a paraphrased transcript of the conversation and relevant events:

Mom: Rabbi? I need to ask you a question.

Me: Sure, go ahead...

Mom: I picked up my child from school today and we had a conversation that disturbed me and I need some advice.

Me: What happened?

[child and mom had the following conversation]

Child: "next report card probably won't be as good as my last report card...

Mom: Why? How are you so certain?

Child: My teacher was teaching us how to wash netilas yadayim properly and one of the things the teacher said was that if we dry our hands on our shirt we will forget our Torah learning, I never knew that before and I used to dry my hands on my shirt (and I won't ever do it again), so probably I am going to forget the Torah that I learned and that's why I am not going to have such a good report card.

Mom: (a little panicked) Hmm. Let me call the Rabbi...

[back to the adult conversation]

Mom: Is it possible that my child will forget their Torah learned? What was the teacher talking about?

Me: That was an irresponsible thing for the teacher to say. You're child won't magically forget what they learned.

Mom: So do I tell my child that the teacher is wrong? What if the child thinks the teacher is right and I am wrong?

Me: Schools and teachers are surrogates for parents, we hold the primary obligation to teach our children, your child must know that you are their final authority. Also, there is no real conflict here in terms of rules, both you and the teacher agree that one should dry one's hands on a paper-towel, if available, so in this situation the chasm is not too great. Be sure to call the teacher or a superior and let them know that you are disappointed with this lesson.

Mom: Thanks Rabbi, you deserve a raise. (I kid.) [hangs up]

Rabbi: Heads over to computer to write a post on DovBear about "Smarter School Teachers Please".

The original "Smarter School Teachers Please" post.

---

Search for more information about magically forgetting all your Torah at 4torah.com.

Eida using goyim on Shabbos

A Guest Post by Rafi G

According to this sign, placed around RBS B, the Eida rav, Rav Rosenberger, has found a solution to the increasing levels of break-ins taking place on shabbos in the neighborhood.

They have decided to hire a security company to patrol the area on Friday night. They will use a goy to do the patrols who will be paid b'havlaa - i.e. not directly paid for his work on shabbos, but for work done during the week that will also include the Friday night patrols.

Notice that the Eida has found it acceptable to use a goy to do melacha on shabbos when it is in their interests, yet when it was proposed in the negotiations with Intel in an effort to minimize, or stop, chillul shabbos, the Eida rejected it and considered such a solution nto acceptable.

What are the Eida's true intentions and goals?

---

Search for more information about Eida Haredis goyim at 4torah.com.

Adon Olam

---

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.