Monday, July 12, 2010

If the Hareidim ruled us


An Iranian official shows men’s hairstyles that are promoted as permissible in Tehran’s long-running battle
against Western cultural influences and styles deemed “un-Islamic.”

Call me a fear-mongering blogger with cruel yet handsome eyes, but the photo/caption above and the accompanying article rang a few too many unpleasant bells. So did this: The Netherlands may be on the brink of its first football World Cup title, but in some parts of the Dutch Bible Belt, watching tv on a Sunday is totally forbidden...

Bans on watching TV. Bans on various clothing styles. Bans on various hairstyles. Christian, Muslim, and Jewish fundamentalist at times seem all the same, don't they?

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

Avi is not interested in your comments

If it wasn't so funny I'd cry. Avi Shafran, the Agudah spokesman who has made something of a career out of jeering, mocking, and dumping on other Jews will no longer be allowing comments on his Cross Current posts.

The ostensible reason is that some of the comments that appear beneath his posts criticize "various groups of Jews" and this "pains" poor Avi, but given his track record of leading the charge against Conservative JewsConservative Rabbis, feminist Jews, blogging Jews, homosexual Jews, liberal Jews all while simultaneously claiming that slanderous speech against Orthodox Jews causes earthquakes  I think its more likely that Avi is just sick of of reading comments that disagree with his point of view. Its easier to pretend you're always right, if you just avoid every other perspective.

Friday, July 09, 2010

The Times has been against Jews being in Israel since 1883

Date Published: September 23, 1883,
Article Summary: Well meaning gentiles are helping no one when they pay Jews to go to Palestine. The Jews don't want to go and when they get there its no surprise that they end up starving because Jews make lousy farmers. Also, they don't need any help from you with the emigrating. If there's one thing Jews have always known how to do on their own its emigrate. Besides, Jews contribute a hell of a lot to this country, and we don't want to lose them.  [Click on the image to enlarge it]


HT: Rabba bar bar Chana

Search for more information about how things change at 4torah.com.

Who does the media really hate?

The rotten, no good New York Times ran two article of note this week, regarding Jews, Israel, and Palestinians. The first, an exploration of preferential tax breaks given to Americans who support settler movements, has been roundly denounced in Likud-loving circles as the product of a biased and Jew-hating collusion between the Times and leftie Jews. In their criticism all the usual dishonesty, fallacies, and errors are in play. For instance:

Thursday, July 08, 2010

What happened on 17 Tammuz?

Growing up, we always heard that everything terrible happened on Tisha B'av. The Crusades, the Holocaust, the World Wars, the expulsion from Spain, terrorist attacks - you name it. According to our credulous teachers all of it took place on the day set aside for sorrow, our eternal day of mourning.

When I got a little older, I came to understand that the reasoning here is fallacious. Sure, lots of terrible things happened on Tisha B'av, but what about all the terrible things that happened on other days? If we listed all the tragedies that Jewish people have endured wouldn't we see that the overwhelming majority of them occurred on other days? If the misses far outnumber the hits, can we still say that a meangful relationship exists between our historical tragedies and 9 Av? I don't think so.

With the passage of still more time, I discovered something else: Many of the so-called 9 Av tragedies, actually occurred on other days The great Yuter, an Orthodox Rabbi, pointed it out to me first, and though more than 5 years have passed since I first read Yuter's post, the shock of the discovery still hasn't completely worn off. I remain a little mad at being misled, and a little disappointed that people continue to be so credulous about something so easily disproved.

That's 9 Av, but  this post is about 17 Tammuz. When I was a kid, only 9 Av was connected to tragedies of the past, but I've recently found this post  on the OU's website which attempts to do the same thing for 17 Tammuz. A whole list of events is provided, but are these event's connection to 17 Tammuz as phony as the list Yuter debunked 5 years ago? I decided to find out. What follows is the OU's list with my notes and discoveries in italics

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Rubashkin's Lawyer On Claims of Anti-Semitism

A Guest Post By E. Fink

I was shocked when I saw this.

If you read the frum papers you have been told that Rubashkin was singled out for being a Jew. We call this anti-Semitism.


I have been chastised by commenters on this blog and on my blog. They maintain that Rubashkin is a victim of a modern-day blood libel and my post was irresponsible and erroneous.

What does Rubashkin's attorney say?

Defense lawyers dismissed any notion that anti-Semitism underpinned the case. “Nobody responsible has made that allegation,” Lewin said.


Well that settles it. The frum newspapers, irate commenters and Shabbos Table (selective) ACLU members are simply not responsible.

Incredibly, I did not see a single frum news outlet report this (2 WEEK OLD) quote from Lewin.

Case closed.



Search for more information about philo-Semitism at 4torah.com.

July 4/17 Tamuz

A guest post by LeftWingPharisee

It's always bothered me that July 4th, 1776 was 17 Tammuz. This is haMalchus shel Chesed, a place where we are and have been basically free of persecution. The anti-Semitism here really has been minimal (though certainly not zero), especially compared to Europe. I was just in Texas for a few months on business, and the religious Christians there almost stood up for me because I was wearing a yomike. A Christian leader, John Hagee, like him or not, basically renounced converting Jews! What more could you ask for from non-Jews?

That said, there's still this nagging issue of 7/4/1776 = 17 Tammuz 5536. Why? What message did Hashem send us?

A thought came to me that could be an answer: in the US, we are solely responsible for our own transgressions. We will no longer have the excuse of goyish oppression. That "get out of jail free" card is not available any more. When we come before the Heavenly Court, we will stand alone.

DB's two cents: Why must the coincidence of the date mean something? I'm not sure I get or agree with the assumption underlining your post.  


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

Busybodies

This lovely announcement appeared in the 20s and 30s a Flatbush publication used primarily to disseminate ads, and line birdcages.


Some notes:
(1) Jeez. MYOB people.
(2) Or, at least be egalitarian and run some ads denouncing the things men do wrong. All authorities agree, for example, that stuffing yourself at kiddush, shmoozing during Torah reading, and ripping people off at business are "clearly halachicly forbidden", too
(3) Why the scare quotes around "in style" Is the writer trying to convey to the reader that she believes short skirts really aren't in style? If so, she's blatantly misleading her audience. If short skirts weren't in style, the ad, presumably, would be unnecessary.
(4) For that matter, why waste space mentioning the current style in the first place? The writer's point is that short skirts are evil regardless of the time and place. There's no need to mention the current style.
(5) The phony modesty here is delightful. On the one hand, short skirts are "clearly halachicly forbidden according to all opinions." There's no question about it! Pull down your skirts at once! However, far be it from me, the little old, anonymous ad writer, to tell people what to do. This is a matter that must be adjudicated by a "Rav or Posek". Go and let him tell you what to do. (I'd love to know which "Rav or Posek" okayed this ad.)
(6) "Rav or Posek"? Is there a difference? Can't tell if the writer is a dope, or trying to make it clear that she's really super frum.
(7) Lets call a spade a spade: This ad is categorically the same as an anono blog. I look forward to hearing Avi Shafran and Aryeh Ginzburg denounce it

Modern Tribe has some great Jewish Gifts for all occasions 

Search for more information about angry ad writers at 4torah.com.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Spiritually argument continued

If you skipped the thread on below my post below about "spiritually" here's what you missed:

Adam backed off and said what he really meant was "halachic damage" not spiritual damage. I have no idea why  or how an OPR causes "halachic damage" to his congregation. If the people follow his instructions they are potur if they do something wrong, and if they do everything right what's the problem?

Bray reverted to insults, question begging and assertions. Basically, his position can be summarized as follows: "Spiritually exists. Really. IT DOES. And you're a blind, stupid, soulless, moron because you won't accept what I am saying is true."

Kramer, meanwhile, continues to duck and weave. I'm waiting for him to explain why a drasha recited by the Sages has more "spiritual value" then the exact same drasha recited hundreds of years earlier by the author of Jubilees. I understand why Kramer prefers the Sages (he's insecure and therefore prefers the brand name to the no name even when the product is identical) but I don't understand why this preference means one has more inherent spiritual value than the other, and of course Kramer still has done nothing to explain what the phrase "spiritual value" means.  Kramer also puzzled me with this:

A concrete example might be davening. If two people are saying the exact same words, enunciating them equally as well and equally as slowly, but one is thinking about G-d while saying them, trying to attach himself to G-d and committing to doing more to enable him to accomplish this, while the other is thinking about where LeBron is going, even though the actions are exactly the same, one if infinitely more "spiritual" than the other.

Putting aside the question begging (he's asserting what he must prove) I'm still not convinced the example is any good. If I read something and concentrate on it, that's certainly going to be more effective than reading something without concentrating on it but the difference isn't "spiritual". If I study Math, or read a letter from my sweetheart, or review my class notes without focusing the failure isn't "spiritual". Rather what's happened is I've lost a chance to learn something new, connect with a beloved, or prepare for a test. None of those have anything to do with "spirituality" Same as with prayer . If I don't focus, I've lost the chance to make something happen emotionally and/or intellectually but neither of those have anything to do with "spirituality"

.... unless Kramer is claiming that prayer has some magical, invisible, impossible-to-measure-or-observe effect on our souls in which case I have no idea why concentrating on the words with my physical brain would make any difference whatsoever.


Search for more information about the spirit world at 4torah.com.

Monday, July 05, 2010

An Appropriate Maharsha

A Guest Post By E. Fink

(The Talmud in Kesuvos 66B - 67A relates the fall of the Nakdimin ben Gurion fortune. He went from a man who was fabulously wealthy to a man who was completely destitute. The Talmud wonders how it was possible that a man that was as generous as Nakdimin could lose his fortune. We would expect a man who gives charity to have Divine assistance and have his treasure preserved. The Talmud answers that he gave charity for the honor and recognition of being philanthropic and that is why he lost his wealth.)

The Maharsha (16th Century Poland) on Kesuvos 67A (Chiddushei Aggados):
"There are many wealthy people of our time who amass their fortunes dishonestly and with desecration of God's name by stealing from the Gentiles. They pursue honor by donating generous sums of money to charity. They hope their prominence earns them honor and "mi she-berach" blessings in order to further enhance their fame. This kind of behavior is purely a mitzva haba b'aveira (a good deed that results from a sin) and this kind of wealth has no "salt" and no perpetuity as we see with Nakdimin."
I wonder if the editors of our "frum" newspapers ever learned that Maharsha...

As a friend remarked, since when is a criminal's sentencing on par with the Ancient Romans flaying the flesh of R' Akiva?


Search for more information about famous Jews who should be infamous at 4torah.com.

What is spirituality?

On the last few comment threads, some of you have brought up spirituality. Adam, for example, says the OPR rabbi is causing "spiritual damage" to his congregation. Before that, on a post about the development of midrashim, Kramer claims that statements made by the Sages have more "spiritual value" than identical, or nearly identical statements found in the much older Apocrypha. Back on the OPR thread R. Harry says a Rabbi is supposed to deliver "spiritual guidance".

I confess to having absolutely no idea what any of that means.When challenged the speakers provided no explanations.

My theories
(1) Spiritual damage, spiritual value, and spiritual guidance are all nonsense phrases, that don't mean anything. What the speaker really means is something more concrete, and the mumbo-jumbo about "spirituality" is just a lazy way to sound pious. For instance, perhaps what Kramer is really trying to say is that he trusts the Sages more than he trusts the anonymous authors of the apocrypha; therefore he feels more comfortable reading in BT Sanhedrin that the phrase "vayihi acherai hadevarim ha'eyleh" at the beginning of the Akeida episode is a clue that Satan talked God into testing Abraham than he does reading pretty much the exact same thing in the much older book of Jubilees.  (click page 171) What he means by spiritual value then, is something like "this makes me happier" or "this just feels right." Likewise (according to this theory) what Adam really means is that the OPR makes him mad, and Harry's intent is that a Rabbi is supposed to tell us how to live our lives in ways that deliver the best results.

(2) We have something like spiritual bank accounts, to which we make deposits whenever we fulfill a commandment. According to this theory, perhaps Adam is worried that a shul-led by an OPR is not going to make as many mitzvah deposits as a shul with an OJR. How this works is unclear, however. If deposits to the account are made via actions, what difference does it make to the mitzvah-performing shul members is the man at the front of the room is a fraud? The congregation is still performing mitzvos; thus their deposits should still be good.  If Adam wants to make the case that what he is saying is true, he needs to provide more information about the mechanics. Same for Kramer. If this is what he meant to say, like Adam, he needs to explain why reading an idea in one book puts money into the account, while reading the same idea somewhere else does not. Harry, though, is fine: Per this theory, when he says a Rabbi delivers spiritual guidance what he means is that the Rabbi tells us how to make deposits and avoid unnecessary withdrawals (I don't see any reason why a knowledgeable and trained OPR couldn't fulfill this task. Knowing how to best fill up the mitzvah account doesn't seem to me to depend on belief in God.)

Anything else?


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

Sunday, July 04, 2010

Bad Barbecue

Dear Neighbor,

I enjoyed sitting on your deck today, eating your food, drinking your beer and exchanging smart remarks. What I did not enjoy was your menu. As a service to you, and all outdoor chefs everywhere, let me share these important tips:

- Don't serve burger patties. They taste disgusting, and strongly suggest extreme laziness on the part of the chef. Make a better burger. Buy chopped meat - never lean! - spice it to taste and shape it into a burger. Then grill. Nothing could be easier, and the difference between this burger and the terrible, flattened, tasteless patties you bought from the grocer, at a premium no less, is approximately the difference between ice cubes and ice cream.

- Make your own shishkabobs. The pre-made ones from the store aren't good and cost far too much. Man up. Buy some vegetables, cut up some meat, and make your own. 

- Cook to proper doneness.  Here's a newsflash for the Jewish cook. Well done meat tastes like an old shoe. Steak is supposed to be at least a little bit pink, and some people like it even a little red. It tastes better that way, and even if you don't agree its polite to check your guest's preference before depositing an overcooked, dry chunk of leather in front of him.

- Mass marketed America beer tastes like bat urine  Dave Barry said it first, and though I haven't been to the bat toilet to compare, I know Bud, Coors and the like are awful. If Dave says they taste like bat urine, I'm not going to second guess him.

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

Friday, July 02, 2010

Good Shabos

Ok, true believers that's all for now. Recommended donation this week in honor of the holiday is $17 or $76 -- your choice :)

Shabbos music after the jump... all of its acapella b/ of the three weeks. (I really don't like acapella)


In defense of the Orthoprax Rabbi

The Orthoprax Rabbi is a new blogger who says that he believes in almost nothing yet continues to function successfully as an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. He has a shul, he says, satisfied congregants who have just awarded him a juicy new contract, a happy family and thriving kids. So what's the problem? I'm not sure.

As best as I can summarize it the bloggers who have written condemning posts seem deeply offended that the OP Rabbi is "lying", or in the grips of some immature idea about "authenticity." But, I see a few mistakes: First, its not necessarily true that OPR has told any lies (aside from liturgical lies, which I'll discuss presently) and, second, who says professional lies are a moral failing?

Here are my counters to the different objections:

Thursday, July 01, 2010

A proof that tannaim created midrashim?

On BT Shabbas 96b, Rabbi Akiva identifies Zelophehad as the mkoshesh eitzim or stick-gatherer on the basis of a gezeira shava that is a word the appears twice in different contexts. In this case, the word  is "bamidbar" or wilderness. Because it's used to tell us where the stick-gatherer sinned, and also where Zelophehad  - and seems superfluous in either instances - Rabbi Akiva concludes that the two people are one and the same.

Now where did this drasha/interpretation come from?

What's bothering Aryeh Ginzberg?

Aryeh Ginzberg, a Rabbi in the Five Towns, is aggrieved.  On June 17, he published an article in which he screams, tears his shirt, gnashes his teeth, pulls his hair, and confidently tells us we have a new reason to cry on Tisha B'av.  What's bothering the good Rabbi? Well, see if you can guess:

What was Zelophehad's sin?

When Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah made their emotional appeal to Moshe, they said their father Zelophehad had not taken part in Korah’s rebellion, but only died "of his own sin." The sin is not identified and indeed after R. Akiva, on BT Shabbos 96b suggests Zelophehad was the stick gatherer who is executed   in Numbers 15 for violating Shabbos, R. Yehuda ben Beteira rebukes him for speculating:
Akiva, either way, in the future you will have to give an accounting. If it is as you say, then the Torah [deliberately] conceals his identity, while you are revealing it; if it is not as you say, then you are slandering that righteous man."

Despite Yehuda ben Beteira's all together sound objection to naming Zelophehad's sin, the belief that Zelophehad was the stick gatherer has taken hold in the popular Orthodox Jewish imagination. All sorts of meta interpretations have been created to explain why he gathered sticks starting with BT Bava Basra 119b where we're told that Zelophehad went stick collecting only for the sake of proving to the wandering Israelites that Shabbos is important.

Another, far, far less famous interpretation, though its also found in the Talmud, and in Rashi's commentary,  is that Zelophehad was one of the maapilim, i.e.  the group of proto-Zionists who, in Numbers 14, rejected the you-Jews-are-staying-in-the-desert-for-forty-years decree and attempted to enter Canaan on their own. They were all wiped out.

What did the interpreters see that suggested to them that Zelophehad's sin was one or the other? Sometimes discovering the textual clues that led the interpreters in a particular directon can be difficult to reconstruct. In this case the Talmud gives us one answer. The stick gatherer, we're specifically told, committed his sin "in the desert"; later when the five Daughters go to Moshe, they reiterate that their father died "in the desert" Because mentioning the desert seems superfluous in both instances (where else would the sticks have been gathered, and where else would Zelophehad  have died?) the interpreters concluded that the stick gatherer and Zelophead were the same man.

According to Josh over at Parshablog, there are some other clues. First, we have the juxtaposition of stories. If you look back through the bible from the Daughters of Zelophead episode, the first sinner you encounter is Kozbi, the second is Korah and the third is the stick gatherer. Second, there's a parallel between the two accounts: Both the stick gatherer and the Daughters of Zelopheahad created situations that stumped Moshe. He didn't know how to punish the stick gatherer, and he didn't know how to answer the Daughters. In both cases he asked God for a ruling.

All of this seems to be pretty sound justification for the Zelophehad = stick gatherer interpretation. So where did the second, less famous, identification of Zelophehad as one of the maapilim come from? As follows: The stick gatherer sinned, and was killed in Year 1. The Daughters appealed to Moshe in Year 40. According to some interpreters, 5 elderly spinsters from one father was just too unlikely. This rules out Zelophehad = stick gatherer. If you continue to page backwards through the bible, the next sinners you encounter after the stick gatherer are the maapilim. Additionally, the sin of the maapilim seems to have been this: They loved Israel too much. This trait seems evident in the Daughters who went to Moshe in the first place because they could not abide the possibility that they would have no share in the Land.


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