How did Aaron make the Golden Calf?
Last Friday, my kids came home with the "official" answer to this question, by which I mean "the one particular interpretation of the verse that is most popular and most frequently taught." Along with being the one my kids know, this official interpretation is the one presented in the Stone, Saperstein, and Gutnick translations, and it was mentioned with no qualification by the Rabbi in his Saturday morning speech.
Later, I took an informal poll among the congregants and found most had slept through the speech and/or grade school and had no answer, but those who did have an answer knew only the "official" answer.
Here is the verse, and here is how it is translated according to this "official" interpretation: [See it inside]
וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
He took [the gold] from their hand[s], tied it up in a cloth, and [someone else, i.e., sorcerers] made it into a molten calf. They said: "These are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt!"
This "official" interpretation (Aaron tied the gold into a cloth, and someone else magically transformed it into a calf) is based on Rashi who writes:
...וַיָּצַר is an expression of tying, and בַּחֶרֶט is an expression meaning a kerchief, similar to “and the tablecloths and the purses (וְהַחִרִיטִים) ” (Isa. 3:22); “and he tied two talents of silver in two purses (חִרִטִים) ” (II Kings 5:23).
The trouble is that Rashi offers a second, infinitely more plausible reading. As his comment continues:
The second [way of rendering the phrase] is [that] וַיָּצַר is an expression meaning a form, and בַּחֶרֶט is the tool of the smiths, with which they cut out and engrave (חוֹרְטִין) forms in gold. [The tool is] like a scribe’s stylus, which engraves letters on tablets and wax-covered tablets, as “and inscribe on it with a common pen (בְּחֶרֶט אֱנוֹשׁ) ” (Isa. 8:1). This [second interpretation] is what Onkelos rendered: וְצַר יָתֵיהּ בְּזִיפָא, an expression of זִיוּף, a tool with which people engrave letters and designs, known in French as nielle, niello work. With it, signets are engraved.
So, per Rashi, we have two explanations, two ways to read the verse:. One is logical, the other is fanciful. One tells us Aaron took a tool, and carved a calf; the other says he wrapped the donations of gold in a cloth and somehow a statue was produced. One relies on the text itself, the other depends on the introduction of unmentioned characters (the sorcerers) and a belief in their magic.
One makes sense, the other doesn't.
So can someone explain why the lesser of these two interpretations has become the default reading, taught to school children and enshrined in the popular translations? Why can't both explanations be given, and if one must be chosen, why not choose the one that is least fanciful and least offensive to common sense?
I'll have a word or two about the sorcerers in Part 2 of this post.
Search for more information about dumb pedagogical choices at 4torah.com.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
Talking about Sarah Hurwitz
Been arguing elsewhere with some bigshots on Twitter about Sarah Hurwitz and the RCA's capitulation.
Points of disagreement include:
Was it a capitulation on the part of the RCA?
I say yes. Avi Weiss got everything he wanted, specifically a highly trained female assistant to minister to the women in his congregation. It makes sense to call her Rabba, in that she is acting like a modern Rabbi, and has the same training and credentials as any modern Rabbi, but wisely Avi Weiss decided that her title shouldn't be a deal breaker. Sarah Hurwitz is back to being a Maharat, but functioning for all intents and purposes like a Rabbi.
Should Avi Weiss be allowed to hire a highly trained female assistant to minister to the women in his congregation?
Again, I say yes and fail to understand how our law or religion might object. Still, some of the Twitter chevra believe its contrary to the halacha for reasons that have not as yet been revealed to me.
Does Jewish tradition have anything to say about this?
I say no. The things Jews happened to do, or refrained from doing, over the course of the last 2000 years do not necessarily constitute a "religious tradition." Some of it is "just stuff we did." If you want to declare a particular practice part of the religious tradition you must supply grounds. To date no evidence has been supplied that male-only Rabbis is part of our "religious tradition" dating back to Sinai. Instead, all of the evidence suggests that our ban on female rabbis is closely related to the flawed perception of women, and the flawed theory about the sort of work women are capable of performing that infected the world at large until very recently. For eons, there were no female doctors, lawyers, teachers, or judges. Absent proof of a religious tradition, its reasonable to say that Jews had no female rabbis for the same reason the rest of the world had no female CEOs.
Addendum to this point Even if it can be shown that we have a religious tradition of male only rabbis, it has to be further demonstrated that this tradition applies to modern Rabbis. Today, our rabbis are not inheritors of a tradition of smicha dating back to Moshe. With rare exceptions, they are not dayanim, and they are not poskim. Most don't even work in shuls or schools, and those that do are simply teachers or ministers, functions that women quite capably perform. Modern Rabbis are called "Rabbi" simply by virtue of their degree or their job. A woman who has the same job or holds the same degree should have the respect of the same title, and the higher pay scale that often accompanies it. Even if the smicha tradition precludes women (a contention yet to be proven) the modern rabbinate is something else and no different from any other job. A woman can earn this particular degree and hold this particular job just as she can earn any other degree and hold any other job.
N.B: I'll post the Twitter conversations if all parties consent.
Search for more information about Sara Hurwitz at 4torah.com.
Points of disagreement include:
Was it a capitulation on the part of the RCA?
I say yes. Avi Weiss got everything he wanted, specifically a highly trained female assistant to minister to the women in his congregation. It makes sense to call her Rabba, in that she is acting like a modern Rabbi, and has the same training and credentials as any modern Rabbi, but wisely Avi Weiss decided that her title shouldn't be a deal breaker. Sarah Hurwitz is back to being a Maharat, but functioning for all intents and purposes like a Rabbi.
Should Avi Weiss be allowed to hire a highly trained female assistant to minister to the women in his congregation?
Again, I say yes and fail to understand how our law or religion might object. Still, some of the Twitter chevra believe its contrary to the halacha for reasons that have not as yet been revealed to me.
Does Jewish tradition have anything to say about this?
I say no. The things Jews happened to do, or refrained from doing, over the course of the last 2000 years do not necessarily constitute a "religious tradition." Some of it is "just stuff we did." If you want to declare a particular practice part of the religious tradition you must supply grounds. To date no evidence has been supplied that male-only Rabbis is part of our "religious tradition" dating back to Sinai. Instead, all of the evidence suggests that our ban on female rabbis is closely related to the flawed perception of women, and the flawed theory about the sort of work women are capable of performing that infected the world at large until very recently. For eons, there were no female doctors, lawyers, teachers, or judges. Absent proof of a religious tradition, its reasonable to say that Jews had no female rabbis for the same reason the rest of the world had no female CEOs.
Addendum to this point Even if it can be shown that we have a religious tradition of male only rabbis, it has to be further demonstrated that this tradition applies to modern Rabbis. Today, our rabbis are not inheritors of a tradition of smicha dating back to Moshe. With rare exceptions, they are not dayanim, and they are not poskim. Most don't even work in shuls or schools, and those that do are simply teachers or ministers, functions that women quite capably perform. Modern Rabbis are called "Rabbi" simply by virtue of their degree or their job. A woman who has the same job or holds the same degree should have the respect of the same title, and the higher pay scale that often accompanies it. Even if the smicha tradition precludes women (a contention yet to be proven) the modern rabbinate is something else and no different from any other job. A woman can earn this particular degree and hold this particular job just as she can earn any other degree and hold any other job.
N.B: I'll post the Twitter conversations if all parties consent.
Search for more information about Sara Hurwitz at 4torah.com.
Friday, March 05, 2010
The Jew York Times again
One of the evil Cossak reporter at the Jew-hating New York Times has published an article that appears like it might treat Orthodox Jews fairly, and perhaps even with sympathy. Of course this is impossible, and I'm certain I've misread it.
The subject of the article is how the recent East coast blizzard damaged eruvim making Shabos life hard for frum Jews. You can find it here
Please do your best to help me explain why this article is, in fact, deeply anti-Semitic. The cherished, and unexamined belief of countless GOP Jews depends on it.
What Aaron saw
Exodus 32:5
וַיַּ֣רְא אַהֲרֹ֔ן וַיִּ֥בֶן מִזְבֵּ֖חַ לְפָנָ֑יו וַיִּקְרָ֤א אַֽהֲרֹן֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר חַ֥ג לַיהוָ֖ה מָחָֽר׃
And when Aaron saw it he built an altar before it and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD
Saw it? What did he see?
According to the ancient interpreters, what he saw was the murder of his nephew Hur. (I don't recall where this first appears, but believe its in the apocrypha. TPJ and TN both have it) Another possibly, also suggested by an ancient interpreter (again, I forget who) is that he saw the angry mob.
Both possibilities are cleverly captured in the Peshita, where it says not that Aaron saw, but that he was afraid (In Hebrew the words are the same.)
All of these explanations are needed; without them the verse tells us that "Aaron saw the golden calf and built an alter." This reading, though the plain intention of the verse, was untenable to the ancient interpreters who could not tolerate the idea that Aaron might have built the altar of his own volition.
Search for more information about Aaron and the Golden Calf at 4torah.com.
וַיַּ֣רְא אַהֲרֹ֔ן וַיִּ֥בֶן מִזְבֵּ֖חַ לְפָנָ֑יו וַיִּקְרָ֤א אַֽהֲרֹן֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר חַ֥ג לַיהוָ֖ה מָחָֽר׃
And when Aaron saw it he built an altar before it and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD
Saw it? What did he see?
According to the ancient interpreters, what he saw was the murder of his nephew Hur. (I don't recall where this first appears, but believe its in the apocrypha. TPJ and TN both have it) Another possibly, also suggested by an ancient interpreter (again, I forget who) is that he saw the angry mob.
Both possibilities are cleverly captured in the Peshita, where it says not that Aaron saw, but that he was afraid (In Hebrew the words are the same.)
All of these explanations are needed; without them the verse tells us that "Aaron saw the golden calf and built an alter." This reading, though the plain intention of the verse, was untenable to the ancient interpreters who could not tolerate the idea that Aaron might have built the altar of his own volition.
Search for more information about Aaron and the Golden Calf at 4torah.com.
Tribal lands
A GUEST POST BY NETANEL OF GSHMAKA DVAR TORAH
Twice in our history Hashem has said He wanted to destroy the Jews, and twice Moshe "argued" with Hashem and won: by the Golden Calf and the spies.
The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 44:9 + Bamidbar Rabba 16:22) have 4 stage conversations with Moshe and Hashem:
1. Hashem says He wants to destroy the Jews
2. Moshe says that Hashem made a promise to the Patriarchs
3. Hashem says that He will let Moshe be the sole survivor, and fulfil the promise through Moshe
Here is where they differ - at the Golden Calf Moshe says that he cannot become a nation, as he only represents one tribe - Levi! Moshe says that all the Tribes have an assurance, at which point Hashem concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.
By the spies, this fourth point is different - Moshe says that letting the nation continue through him would be a Chillul Hashem - a desecration of G-d's Name - that people would speculate that Hashem could not sustain them in the desert, and so they died. Hashem replies that these people will have heard of His miracles in Egypt, so this would have no basis! Moshe counters by saying that perhaps people will say that the kings of Canaan were too great for the G-d of the Jews, at which point G-d concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.
Twice in our history Hashem has said He wanted to destroy the Jews, and twice Moshe "argued" with Hashem and won: by the Golden Calf and the spies.
The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 44:9 + Bamidbar Rabba 16:22) have 4 stage conversations with Moshe and Hashem:
1. Hashem says He wants to destroy the Jews
2. Moshe says that Hashem made a promise to the Patriarchs
3. Hashem says that He will let Moshe be the sole survivor, and fulfil the promise through Moshe
Here is where they differ - at the Golden Calf Moshe says that he cannot become a nation, as he only represents one tribe - Levi! Moshe says that all the Tribes have an assurance, at which point Hashem concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.
By the spies, this fourth point is different - Moshe says that letting the nation continue through him would be a Chillul Hashem - a desecration of G-d's Name - that people would speculate that Hashem could not sustain them in the desert, and so they died. Hashem replies that these people will have heard of His miracles in Egypt, so this would have no basis! Moshe counters by saying that perhaps people will say that the kings of Canaan were too great for the G-d of the Jews, at which point G-d concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.
His "flesh" was [something] like a turnip: Great moments in Torah learning
This week, the daf yomi arrived at BT Sanherdrin 19 and a discussion of the virtues of Boaz, the husband of Rus, that leads Rav to retell a ribald pun.
Here is the passage, according to the Soncino Press translation:
R. Johanan said: Joseph's strong [temptation] was but a petty trial [compared] to Boaz; and that of Boaz was small in comparison with that of Palti son of Layish. 'Joseph's strong temptation was but a petty trial to Boaz,' as it is written, And it came to pass at midnight and the man was startled [Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah, Vayecherad ha'Ish Vayilafes]. What is the meaning of Vayilafes?** — Rav said: His flesh became [as hard] as turnip heads [ie a "lefes".]
This translation follows Rashi, who says "it got hard, and nonetheless he conquered his inclination." Boaz's trial, or test, is deemed more challenging then Joseph's test, as Ruth propositioned Boaz at midnight in an unlit barn that he owned, and also she was unmarried and, I'm guessing, hot whereas Joseph was invited to bed by an older woman who was not only married, but married to his master. The Talmud's point is that saying no to Ruth was harder then saying no to Potiphar's wife.
However some quick Googling suggests a problem. Rav's pun, and indeed the Talmud's discussion about Boaz's virtue relative to Yosef and Palti, appears based on the Targum on Ruth, which reads as follows:
And it happened at midnight that the man shuddered and trembled, and, as a result, his flesh became as soft as a [boiled] turnip. Though he perceived a woman sleeping at his feet, he subdued his evil inclination and did not draw nigh unto her, just like the righteous Joseph, who refused to draw nigh unto the Egyptian woman, the wife of his master; and just like the pious Paltiel, the son of Laish, who placed a sword between himself and Michal, the daughter of Saul and wife of David, refusing to approach her. [Samuel H. Levy translation]
So, soft or hard?
Its impossible for me to guess what happened here. Rav may have intended what the Targum intended only Rashi misunderstood him. (At times Rashi rewrites the Targum and at times appears ignorant of it or in possession of a different text.) [And see this other example of Rashi appearing unaware of something Ruth-related]
Alternatively, the problem may have begun with Rav. Perhaps he had a different text himself, or perhaps he rewrote it himself because, let's face it, the comparison to Palti and Michal makes more sense if Boaz was aroused, and not much sense at all if he was terrified.
True believers, what do you think?
UPDATE:
It actually makes MORE sense if Boaz was terrified. Follow my reasoning. Joseph was terrified of his master and in an open house during daylights hours, so his refusal to sin isn't so impressive. Boaz, however, was in an unlit barn he owned but was also terrified and also refused to sin. Finally, Palti was in his own bed, in his own house, for several years yet refused to sin, and because the woman in his bed was the King's wife, he also was terrified. If we say Boaz was aroused, rather than terrified, this extra variable destroys what is otherwise some neat midrashic parallelism.
**That verb Vayilafes is a real problem. On the spot, Ibn Ezra references Job 6:18 [wind, or turn aside]; Rashi points to Judges 16:29 [grasp].
Search for more information about salacious Talmudic puns at 4torah.com.
Here is the passage, according to the Soncino Press translation:
R. Johanan said: Joseph's strong [temptation] was but a petty trial [compared] to Boaz; and that of Boaz was small in comparison with that of Palti son of Layish. 'Joseph's strong temptation was but a petty trial to Boaz,' as it is written, And it came to pass at midnight and the man was startled [Vayehi ba'Chatzi ha'Laylah, Vayecherad ha'Ish Vayilafes]. What is the meaning of Vayilafes?** — Rav said: His flesh became [as hard] as turnip heads [ie a "lefes".]
This translation follows Rashi, who says "it got hard, and nonetheless he conquered his inclination." Boaz's trial, or test, is deemed more challenging then Joseph's test, as Ruth propositioned Boaz at midnight in an unlit barn that he owned, and also she was unmarried and, I'm guessing, hot whereas Joseph was invited to bed by an older woman who was not only married, but married to his master. The Talmud's point is that saying no to Ruth was harder then saying no to Potiphar's wife.
However some quick Googling suggests a problem. Rav's pun, and indeed the Talmud's discussion about Boaz's virtue relative to Yosef and Palti, appears based on the Targum on Ruth, which reads as follows:
And it happened at midnight that the man shuddered and trembled, and, as a result, his flesh became as soft as a [boiled] turnip. Though he perceived a woman sleeping at his feet, he subdued his evil inclination and did not draw nigh unto her, just like the righteous Joseph, who refused to draw nigh unto the Egyptian woman, the wife of his master; and just like the pious Paltiel, the son of Laish, who placed a sword between himself and Michal, the daughter of Saul and wife of David, refusing to approach her. [Samuel H. Levy translation]
So, soft or hard?
Its impossible for me to guess what happened here. Rav may have intended what the Targum intended only Rashi misunderstood him. (At times Rashi rewrites the Targum and at times appears ignorant of it or in possession of a different text.) [And see this other example of Rashi appearing unaware of something Ruth-related]
Alternatively, the problem may have begun with Rav. Perhaps he had a different text himself, or perhaps he rewrote it himself because, let's face it, the comparison to Palti and Michal makes more sense if Boaz was aroused, and not much sense at all if he was terrified.
True believers, what do you think?
UPDATE:
It actually makes MORE sense if Boaz was terrified. Follow my reasoning. Joseph was terrified of his master and in an open house during daylights hours, so his refusal to sin isn't so impressive. Boaz, however, was in an unlit barn he owned but was also terrified and also refused to sin. Finally, Palti was in his own bed, in his own house, for several years yet refused to sin, and because the woman in his bed was the King's wife, he also was terrified. If we say Boaz was aroused, rather than terrified, this extra variable destroys what is otherwise some neat midrashic parallelism.
**That verb Vayilafes is a real problem. On the spot, Ibn Ezra references Job 6:18 [wind, or turn aside]; Rashi points to Judges 16:29 [grasp].
Search for more information about salacious Talmudic puns at 4torah.com.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
The Martin Grossman G'mach
A sharper in Williamsburg is attempting to capitalize on the execution of cop-killer Martin Grossman. He's running ads asking people to donate money to a free-loan society in Martin's memory. Here's what it says:
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
We tried, Reb Michoel Yechiel Grossman a”h, to save your body from harm, but miShomayim it was otherwise decreed. However, for your neshama, there is salvation.
Your name has been inscribed in the keren kayemes of Kolel Shomre Hachomos in Yerushalayim. For this coming year till Adar 5771, Mishnayos will be learned, Kaddish will be said, and a lecht will be lit in your memory.
Dear Acheinu bnei Yisroel, since Reb Michoel Yechiel a”h did not leave any children nor close religious relatives, our board of directors have initiated a special “Free Loan Fund,” “Gemach Michoel Yechiel ben R’ Avrohom Grossman a”h,” which will serve as a loaning gemach to those in need in Yerushalayim. Each time money will be spent from this gemach, it’ll be a zechus and an aliyah for his neshama
My thoughts? Free loan societies are wonderful. They deserve our support -- even if this particular campaign is the crassest exploitation of a dead Jew since the Gospels.
What's next? Something for Bugsy Seigel?
HT: MarkSofla
What's next? Something for Bugsy Seigel?
HT: MarkSofla
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
Do Democrats or Republicans follow more of the 613 mitzvot?
In 2007, I foolishly attempted to answer the title question, ran into all sorts of fallacies and methodology problems, but pressed ahead and reached a bogus conclusion suitable for arguing about. See it all:
See it all:
I bring this up because of something someone said this morning on Twitter. Should you wish to comment on any of the three posts, please do so here.
Search for more information about fool's errands at 4torah.com.
the miraculous blizzard that didn't happen
A Guest Post by Rafi G
The Hamodia recently ran a story about the Reichman family, describing how they were miraculously saved from the Holocaust, escaping right in the early stages, through miraculous means, as they were traveling abroad for a bar mitzvah of a relative and got stuck abroad right before their community was raided by the Nazis and all the Jews were rounded up, deservedly so because of their greatness and charity.
In this weeks Hamodia, someone wrote in a letter to the Magazine section with another story about how the Reichman's were saved at a different time also when traveling for a bar mitzvah.
This new story, briefly, goes like this:
There was a Reichman bar mitzvah in Kew Garden Hills. All the Reichman's planned to fly in for the simcha. The weather bureau predicted a massive snowstorm that would have locked up the whole East Coast with 12 to 24 inches of snow on Friday. Baltimore and Washington were already shut down with a massive snowstorm, and New York was expected to be next.
They shut down the schools and prepared for the storm. As the day progressed, they could not understand why no snow was falling. The simcha was celebrated "in all its glory", unhindered by any massive snowstorm.
What happened? The meteorologists said that it did snow over New York, but "a dome of dry air" hovered above the city and prevented the snow from hitting the ground.
The writer continues saying that we all knew the real reason - Hashem would not allow such baalei chessed to be disturbed by a blizzard. A lesson in bitachon.
What do you think of this story? Does Hashem change the nature of the world just so some people, even great people, can have a fancy party?
Search for more information about miraculous stories at 4torah.com.
Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Don't Forget to Check the Gefilte Fish!
Some Guest Sarcasm by Akiva of Mystical Paths
Occasionally I'm overcome by something bit of frum society jumping the shark into complete wackiness. For those who haven't heard, we are currently suffering from the great fish scare of 5770. Seems fish can have worms! Who knew? Actually, the sages of the Gemora knew, and their halachic rulings on fish worms is firmly codified into Jewish law (which basically is, fish worms - not a halachic problem). No authority since has touched this halachic firm ground.
...Until this month when there was a halachic earthquake (of no similarity to Chile or Haiti). Suddenly a rav discovered that there's worms in fish! And it can't be that the Gemora would actually allow the eating of worms! So today's worms must be "new" worms, and the Gemora speaks of "old" worms. New worms are therefore treif, old worms (which must have been another not really visible kind, therefore being allowed) aren't around anymore - but if they were they'd be ok.
[ I should note that so far most authorities completely disagree with this position, and the O-U says it's bunk. So don't go running and throwing out all your fish just yet. ]
Now I'm not a halachic authority. I haven't reviewed the full arguments, nor am I qualified to determine whether the halachic reasoning is sound. However, I think I can spot when something just isn't right...
The following list came out from the Rabbinical Council of California (as published on Jerusalem Kosher News)...
---
Rabbinical Council of California - Fish Update 2/20/2010
The following are the preliminary findings of various fish experts. We will update this list as new information is received. The Anisakis worm is found in the following fish (frozen or fresh) and may not be eaten unless checked for worms. [Even with a hechscher]
Butterfish
Canned Salmon (wild)
Cod: Scrod, Hake
Flounder: Yellow Tail/ Wild Dabs/ Black Backs, Turbot, Yellow Fin Sole
Halibut
Pacific Red Snapper (Eastern or Atlantic Red Snapper is a different variety and is OK)
Pollack – Alaskan – Fillet fish sticks or patties
Red Perch
Sable a.k.a Black Cod
Sardines – Norway, Scotland
Sole
Wild Salmon – All types
Yellow Fin Sole
The following fish do not require checking:
Carp
Farm Raised Salmon [E.g. Atlantic, Norwegian, Chilean, New Zealand, British Columbia)
Flounder – Only Fluke, Georgia Banks, Channel
Gefilte Fish
Herring fillet
Lox [Farm raised, if wild would state "wild"]
Minced Fish Sticks
Pike
Pollock - Atlantic
Sardines from Morocco, Philippines, Portugal
Sea Bass – Striped Bass, Grouper (Mexican), Blue Nose (New Zealand)
Tilapia
Trout
Tuna
Whitefish: Michigan - Lake Superior [Some allow the Canadian as well}
Whiting
Checking:
Fish with white flesh can be checked [after the skin is removed) by shining a flashlight from underneath or holding up to a bright light. They may appear as extended worms or coiled in a circle. They are readily visible. Salmon or pink fish require an ultraviolet light and some expertise to check.
---
** So for me this list raised the following questions:
1. The Rabbinical Council of _California_ is making a world-wide psak? (Or just for California?)
2. Will the shining a light technique work if I place the light below an unopened can of wild salmon? Will it work on the cooked product (given that canned salmon is cooked prior to opening)? How does one hold a cooked juicy hunk of canned salmon up to the light?
3. Pollack - used for fish sticks or patties, can be checked for worms after being minced or ground for patties?
4. Checking Sardines? Could someone explain how this could be done?
5. Gefilte fish? Is this a Purim shpiel? There is no such thing as a gefilte fish! Rather, it’s ground fish of various varieties, some of which are on the NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT INSPECTION list above. “Traditionally, carp, pike, mullet, or whitefish are used to make gefilte fish, but more recently other fish with white flesh such as Nile Perch have been used, and there is a pink variation using salmon.”
6. Fish sticks appear on both lists! So which is it, check (as noted, how???) or not check? [See Pollack list 1, Minced list 2.] Further, fish sticks are made from “pollack or cod”, both of which are on the check list!
Seems to me that this list is confusing, conflicting, and not well thought out. Further I'm betting Gefilte Fish made the "don't check" list because nobody would even consider a list that declared Gefilte Fish treif. Disgusting maybe, but treif - never.
Search for more information about fishy halachic rulings at 4torah.com.
Occasionally I'm overcome by something bit of frum society jumping the shark into complete wackiness. For those who haven't heard, we are currently suffering from the great fish scare of 5770. Seems fish can have worms! Who knew? Actually, the sages of the Gemora knew, and their halachic rulings on fish worms is firmly codified into Jewish law (which basically is, fish worms - not a halachic problem). No authority since has touched this halachic firm ground.
...Until this month when there was a halachic earthquake (of no similarity to Chile or Haiti). Suddenly a rav discovered that there's worms in fish! And it can't be that the Gemora would actually allow the eating of worms! So today's worms must be "new" worms, and the Gemora speaks of "old" worms. New worms are therefore treif, old worms (which must have been another not really visible kind, therefore being allowed) aren't around anymore - but if they were they'd be ok.
[ I should note that so far most authorities completely disagree with this position, and the O-U says it's bunk. So don't go running and throwing out all your fish just yet. ]
Now I'm not a halachic authority. I haven't reviewed the full arguments, nor am I qualified to determine whether the halachic reasoning is sound. However, I think I can spot when something just isn't right...
The following list came out from the Rabbinical Council of California (as published on Jerusalem Kosher News)...
---
Rabbinical Council of California - Fish Update 2/20/2010
The following are the preliminary findings of various fish experts. We will update this list as new information is received. The Anisakis worm is found in the following fish (frozen or fresh) and may not be eaten unless checked for worms. [Even with a hechscher]
Butterfish
Canned Salmon (wild)
Cod: Scrod, Hake
Flounder: Yellow Tail/ Wild Dabs/ Black Backs, Turbot, Yellow Fin Sole
Halibut
Pacific Red Snapper (Eastern or Atlantic Red Snapper is a different variety and is OK)
Pollack – Alaskan – Fillet fish sticks or patties
Red Perch
Sable a.k.a Black Cod
Sardines – Norway, Scotland
Sole
Wild Salmon – All types
Yellow Fin Sole
The following fish do not require checking:
Carp
Farm Raised Salmon [E.g. Atlantic, Norwegian, Chilean, New Zealand, British Columbia)
Flounder – Only Fluke, Georgia Banks, Channel
Gefilte Fish
Herring fillet
Lox [Farm raised, if wild would state "wild"]
Minced Fish Sticks
Pike
Pollock - Atlantic
Sardines from Morocco, Philippines, Portugal
Sea Bass – Striped Bass, Grouper (Mexican), Blue Nose (New Zealand)
Tilapia
Trout
Tuna
Whitefish: Michigan - Lake Superior [Some allow the Canadian as well}
Whiting
Checking:
Fish with white flesh can be checked [after the skin is removed) by shining a flashlight from underneath or holding up to a bright light. They may appear as extended worms or coiled in a circle. They are readily visible. Salmon or pink fish require an ultraviolet light and some expertise to check.
---
** So for me this list raised the following questions:
1. The Rabbinical Council of _California_ is making a world-wide psak? (Or just for California?)
2. Will the shining a light technique work if I place the light below an unopened can of wild salmon? Will it work on the cooked product (given that canned salmon is cooked prior to opening)? How does one hold a cooked juicy hunk of canned salmon up to the light?
3. Pollack - used for fish sticks or patties, can be checked for worms after being minced or ground for patties?
4. Checking Sardines? Could someone explain how this could be done?
5. Gefilte fish? Is this a Purim shpiel? There is no such thing as a gefilte fish! Rather, it’s ground fish of various varieties, some of which are on the NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT INSPECTION list above. “Traditionally, carp, pike, mullet, or whitefish are used to make gefilte fish, but more recently other fish with white flesh such as Nile Perch have been used, and there is a pink variation using salmon.”
6. Fish sticks appear on both lists! So which is it, check (as noted, how???) or not check? [See Pollack list 1, Minced list 2.] Further, fish sticks are made from “pollack or cod”, both of which are on the check list!
Seems to me that this list is confusing, conflicting, and not well thought out. Further I'm betting Gefilte Fish made the "don't check" list because nobody would even consider a list that declared Gefilte Fish treif. Disgusting maybe, but treif - never.
Search for more information about fishy halachic rulings at 4torah.com.
Old Hebrew note unveiled
BAR is reporting that a "a five-line, 6-by-6-inch ostracon, an inscription on a broken piece of pottery used as a kind of ancient notepaper" has been found on the 10th century remains of a fort at Ellah, near what was the Philistine border. The writing is faded, and has not been deciphered, though there seems to be reasonable grounds for identifying it as Hebrew.
If so, the Gezer Calendar, previously the oldest known example of Hebrew writing may have a challenger.
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
If so, the Gezer Calendar, previously the oldest known example of Hebrew writing may have a challenger.
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
The Crazy thing a Crazy T-Bagger said Today
The other day Glenn Beck, one of the top ten disgusting Americans living today, told his radio audience:
"You have to think like a German Jew in 1934." [See it]
He said this because he is trying to convince people to buy gold. He wants people to buy gold because Goldline is one of his biggest advertisers, and he is a paid spokesman for the company. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck does a fair amount of his gold pushing during what are represented to the audience as legitimate news segments.
Scaring the hell out of people via lies about the economy for the purpose of generating business for your sponsor is about as low as it gets.
Search for more information about the awful people GOPniks support at 4torah.com.
"You have to think like a German Jew in 1934." [See it]
He said this because he is trying to convince people to buy gold. He wants people to buy gold because Goldline is one of his biggest advertisers, and he is a paid spokesman for the company. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck does a fair amount of his gold pushing during what are represented to the audience as legitimate news segments.
Scaring the hell out of people via lies about the economy for the purpose of generating business for your sponsor is about as low as it gets.
Search for more information about the awful people GOPniks support at 4torah.com.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Let's turn our attention to Tisha B'av for a moment
Last night I saw an article by Alistair Horne in which the eminent historian of France suggests that most if not all the horrors of the 20th century could have been avoided had the French only responded differently to the Ems Telegram. As Horne tells it, the dispatch was designed by Bismark, the Prussian statesman, to goad the French into a war the couldn't win. The gambit worked, and the French were defeated in weeks costing them Alsace-Lorraine and leaving the world with a unified German state and permanent French animosity toward Germany.
(The war also gave us the viciously anti-clerical Paris Commune, whose offenses against the Church -including the murder of Paris's archbishop- fed the resentments of miserably reactionary French Catholics who eventually capped decades of anti-Semitic invective with their feverish campaign against Dreyfus.)
Had the telegram been ignored, Horne argues, the predominant cause of World War 1 would have been removed, and no World War 1 would have meant no Hitler, which in turn would have meant no World War 2, no Holocaust, and no Cold War.
You're familiar with the teaching, I'm sure, that all bad things can be traced to Tish B'Av. Indeed, World War 2 is often traced to Tisha B'av via the murder of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 who, we're told, had his fatal collision with a bullet on 9 Av. Alas, as it happens, this is wrong -the Archduke was murdered on 4 Tamuz- however, the first declaration of war was on 5 Av, the first mobilization was on 8 Av, and the German declaration of war came on 9 Av.
With this in mind, part of me fully expected to find that the Ems Telegram had also been issued on 9 Av. It wasn't. However, the first action of the war was on 6 Av, and the first of three critical French defeats occurred on 7 Av.
So who knows.
Search for more information about the Prusso-French War at 4torah.com.
(The war also gave us the viciously anti-clerical Paris Commune, whose offenses against the Church -including the murder of Paris's archbishop- fed the resentments of miserably reactionary French Catholics who eventually capped decades of anti-Semitic invective with their feverish campaign against Dreyfus.)
Had the telegram been ignored, Horne argues, the predominant cause of World War 1 would have been removed, and no World War 1 would have meant no Hitler, which in turn would have meant no World War 2, no Holocaust, and no Cold War.
You're familiar with the teaching, I'm sure, that all bad things can be traced to Tish B'Av. Indeed, World War 2 is often traced to Tisha B'av via the murder of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 who, we're told, had his fatal collision with a bullet on 9 Av. Alas, as it happens, this is wrong -the Archduke was murdered on 4 Tamuz- however, the first declaration of war was on 5 Av, the first mobilization was on 8 Av, and the German declaration of war came on 9 Av.
With this in mind, part of me fully expected to find that the Ems Telegram had also been issued on 9 Av. It wasn't. However, the first action of the war was on 6 Av, and the first of three critical French defeats occurred on 7 Av.
So who knows.
Search for more information about the Prusso-French War at 4torah.com.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Purim posts or mee shenichnas Adar marbim old posts
First mention: Purim
In which I discuss the very first time the New York Times reported on Purim
Some Purim Torah (intended seriously,I'm afraid)
An absurd drash someone thinks is legitimate. A commentary on the attitudes of the ultra-religious.
Why I like Purim less
Once I thought Purim the perfect holiday. Now, not so much.
When it Comes to Mishloach Manot
In which I discuss the very first time the New York Times reported on Purim
Some Purim Torah (intended seriously,I'm afraid)
An absurd drash someone thinks is legitimate. A commentary on the attitudes of the ultra-religious.
Why I like Purim less
Once I thought Purim the perfect holiday. Now, not so much.
When it Comes to Mishloach Manot
...some are either a lunatic or a lazybones. Which are you?
In which the real reason is provided.
A summary of a great Torah article by R. Menachem Leibtag.
Do you know the famous story about Stricher and his last words? Its presented here, along with some other relevant facts.
Al ha'mar v'hamatok
A 2006 review of the Purim foodstuff I received
A 2006 review of the Purim foodstuff I received
Some irresponsible speculation
Hava Narisha!
A not so traditional way to sing the traditional song.
The Magnificent Magilla Meme
Some of the thoughts that danced through my sugar and caffine deprived mind one Purim night.
Buy my book about the weekly parsha
Hava Narisha!
A not so traditional way to sing the traditional song.
The Magnificent Magilla Meme
Some of the thoughts that danced through my sugar and caffine deprived mind one Purim night.
Buy my book about the weekly parsha
In Science We Trust
A Guest Post By E. Fink
You gotta love this attempt to ban salmon and other fish by Rabbi Moshe Karp of Modi'in Illit in Israel.
Karp is the same Charedi rabbi who banned the internet, including charedi new sites. He is a posek in Kiryat Sefer, home to recent bans on sheitel heads and eyebrow waxing ads.
Now he has his sights set on banning fish. His rationale? The anisakis. The anisakis is a parasite that lives in fish. The Gemara says that an anisakis is permitted to be eaten because it is considered "part of the fish" as it is generated inside the fish. The Shulchan Aruch codifies this as law and for thousands of years, we have been eating fish with anisakis.
Karp spoke with the kashrus gurus in the USA who summarily dismissed Karp's ban. Salmon is kosher and will certainly remain kosher stateside. By the way, one of the American rabbis is named Fishbane. So on one side you have Karp and on the other side you have Fishbane.
Are you wondering why Karp is trying to ban fish if the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch permit it? Because SCIENCE has shown that the talmudic rabbis misunderstood the nature of the anisakis. Wait, what? Karp is relying on science? Chazal's science was imperfect? Are they going to revoke his Semicha for this?
Isn't Karp part of the whole "Chazal knew science better than we do?" Crew? Until a limitation on Chazal's ability to understand science could lead to a ban! Aha!
I am so confused right now, I think my head is going to explode.
(Don't worry, those who are permitted fish despite Karp's attempts say Karp doesn't understand the science correctly and there is no halachic reason to issue the ban.)
HT: The Jewish Star
Search for more information about parasites in fish and in modi'in illit at 4torah.com.
Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.
Search for more information about parasites in fish and in modi'in illit at 4torah.com.
Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)