Monday, January 13, 2014

RWers now lying about Obama. Surprise!


Here's today's RW lie, with the debunking you need to avoid sounding like an easily deceived tool:
On January 10, the conservative Media Research Center (MRC) released a report that attacked the media for that coverage by claiming that ABC, CBS, and NBC had given "a staggering 88 minutes to the story" but "over the last six months have allowed a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service scandal."
Only -- OOPS -- as people who care about the truth have noted the IRS scandal was not "Obama's scandal" and it started not 6 months ago, but 8 months ago, and there was loads of coverage.

See here for graphs, stats and more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/13/conservatives-are-right-media-under-covered-the/197554

Don't let the headline deceive you. There was no underreporting of the scandal when it initially broke, just of the resolution which cleared Obama and, of course, didn't get into the paper.


 Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Great moments in marketing

Yechiel Abuchatzeira is a con man

Its important to know and understand that Yechiel Abuchatzeira is a con man, and that his offer to unblock your mazal via the performance of a magical ritual has zero to do with kabala or Judaism.

Don't send him your money.



 Search for more information about liars at4torah.com

Global warming deniers need better arguments

Sunday, January 12, 2014

About my interview with the Torah.com


Last week, I sat for an interview with the Torah.com. It contains a few new thoughts and some material recycled from previous posts. You can find it here.

Someone called David made the following comment:

A great interview. Thank you. I would like to ask Dovbear a question regarding #6. You say you keep mitzvot mainly because of the emotional connection and reward you feel. Now that is fine. Why wouldn't anyone want some sort of satisfaction? But that, from a traditional point of view is a result, not the primary reason for keeping the mitzvot. From a traditional point of view, the answer would be "because God said so." 

Perhaps that's the answer a traditionalist would give, but it isn't correct. "Because God said so" doesn't tell the whole story. You also have to care about the ritual, and you need some incentive to act or some disincentive to refrain from acting.

And even if you don't believe that God said so, you might still care about a ritual due to reasons of upbringing or education or peer pressue, and you might still find yourself in a situation that offers the necesary incentives or disinventives. Today, for example, was some kind of no pants day in New York City. Lots of people walked around without their trousers, but not one of them thought displaying their underwear pleased God. They just cared about the ritual and participating in it offered some kind of incentive. All rituals, be they secular or religious, work this way.

I'm not talking about rabbinic laws, but the primary mitzvot. So yes, you personally might get a great feeling from doing certain mitzvot, but taking it outside of the "personal" and into the religion itself....why should anyone keep any mitzvot if not for God?

Maybe, I should ask a follow up question as it relates to #9. If you, with your experience have had trouble reconciling the idea that mitzvot are God given, don't you serve as a model for what Judaism has to fear? That IF exposed to historic truth, there would be an unresolved split between keeping mizvot and WHY we keep mitzvot?

I don't agree that there would be any kind of split. We've always kept mitzvot for the reason described above.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz has lost his mind


It's finally happened. Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz of the Yated has absolutely lost his mind. For proof look at the little poem he wrote to protest the New York Post

https://www.yated.com//_sub/_yated/uploads/documents/Menachem_Stark_yated.pdf

Those morons have said far worse things about black people, for example, but one little comment about a slumlord (who happened to be Jewish, but that wasn't the reason the Post thought people wanted him dead) and suddenly its 1940? Give me a freaking break

Full text after the jump (but you really shouldn't miss the graphic work that accompanied the original)

Lonely Manna of Faith




A guest post by Y. Bloch
It's hard to know where to start when approaching Rabbi Mitchell Rocklin's screed, "Dividing the soul of Orthodox Judaism." R. Rocklin's basic premise is that we should stop crying about the attempts of Israel's Chief Rabbinate to delegitimize Rabbi Avi Weiss, since he and his Open Orthodox ilk have brought this misfortune upon themselves by not toeing the ideological line. It was certainly bad timing to post this the day before Haaretz reported "Avi Weiss is not alone: Israeli rabbinate disqualifies another U.S. rabbi." What was the thought crime of that rabbi, Scot Berman? Being an educator and not a pulpit rabbi. I wouldn't expect R. Rocklin to know what Haaretz is going to report, but this was not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the aggressive moves of the Chief Rabbinate (CR) over the past few years. Luckily, R. Berman is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America, so I'm sure they'll--oh right, R. Rocklin is on the RCA's Executive Committee, and he thinks the way they're bending over for the CR is just peachy.
So the idea that the CR is just standing up for Torah and truth is demonstrably false. Even worse is the idea that they're applying some halakhic standard. The Talmud, Maimonides and Shulhan Arukh all state that "All of the families are considered kosher," which means that if someone says he's a Jew, we're supposed to believe him and let him marry. But that's not what happens in Israel. The rabbinical courts instead call in witnesses, especially the sort they would invalidate at any actual wedding: the female and the familial. To recap, the CR rules: women, fine; relatives, fine; educators, invalid; rabbis who follow Maimonides in Mishneh Torah as opposed to Maimonides in his Mishnaic commentary, invalid.
This brings us to a third point. R. Rocklin blithely characterizes Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber (whom he doesn't have the decency to name) as having "denied the divine authorship of the Bible." This is a lie. I have corresponded with Rabbi Farber, and he does not believe anything of the sort. If you actually click on one of the dozens of hyperlinks R. Rocklin provides, you'll find that they rarely bear out his accusations. Not that it stops him from presenting the opinions of some neo-haredi members of his organization as the authentic voice of the RCA and of Modern Orthodoxy as a whole.
This brings us to my final point (and a brief sermon). This week we read the passage of the manna, Exodus 16, which the Tur (OH 1) actually recommends reading daily. As the Beit Yosef explains (ad loc. 5), this helps strengthen one's belief in God and His Providence. Interestingly, there are two incidents in which the Israelites fail to follow the rules of the manna. First, some people leave the manna overnight; later that week, on the Sabbath, when no manna is supposed to fall, others go out looking for manna.
The sins seem similar, but the reactions are very different. In the first case, it is Moses who is wordlessly furious at this violation of his direct command; in the second, God speaks up, "Until when will you refuse to observe My commandments and My teachings?!" If we look at the text, we would be hard-pressed to understand the divine reaction. In the first case, Moses' direct order is countermanded; in the second, it is hard to pinpoint the exact transgression. Moreover, if this is supposed to be a pre-Sinai test run, "so that I may test them, whether they will follow My teaching (torah) or not," it would seem that leaving over the manna is much more significant, as the time-limit for eating sacred food is an oft-repeated principle, going back to the paschal offering in Egypt. Avoiding going out on the Sabbath is hardly an eternal value.
However, the psychology of the matter is enlightening. Why would anyone leave over manna, the miraculous food? Well, this generation is used to crying out to God with no answer; is it a great surprise that they are afraid to simply toss out their leftovers and hope that they will remain in God's good graces? The collectors, on the other hand, are doing something profoundly bizarre: if God is providing for them, why not believe Him that he won't do so on the Sabbath? If He isn't, then there would be no manna in any case! That, at least, is how a monotheist would approach this. In the ancient pagan world, on the other hand, the fact that the God of the Heaven rains down food does not affect how the God of the Desert will maintain it. They are looking for the manna to prove that the God who took them out of Egypt is one of many. This corrupted faith is the true danger.
Herein lies a lesson. The true enemy of religion is not an individual's inability to live up to a high standard of faith (even if that standard comes from the words of Moses Our Teacher, let alone one reading of the words of Moses Maimonides), but the willful corruption of that faith. Even if R. Rocklin's thesis were true, it would still be unpardonable that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel is spending its time delegitimizing dedicated rabbinical leaders instead of defrocking the child molesters, fraudsters and felons in its own ranks. If the RCA will not stand up for its members and for its flock, it will cease to be relevant to Jews who actually care about what the Torah tells us to do, not who wrote it down.

 Search for more information about heresy hunters at4torah.com

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Jewish bodies are different

Someone once told me that a Jewish person doesn't have to worry about getting cancer from cigarettes because all the tests and experiments that demonstrated the dangers of smoking were performed on non-Jews. We see here (below) that one of our great Torah leaders has a similar POV

Rough Translation

Question: We know that its okay for a yeshiva boy who owns cigarettes to use them to fulfil his obligation to give charity on Purim [That is a gift of the cigarettes can be the act of charity] I'd like to know if that ruling is still valid nowadays now that the doctors have established that cigarette smoking is unhealthy.

Answer: Doctors don't know anything.



 Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Dating advice for women from aish.com:


Dating advice for women from aish.com:

1) be stupid. Men hate to listen to girls defend their ideas
2) Dress appropriately (this one isn't bad advice)
3) hide your proffesional accomplishments
4) stifle yourself
5) hide your interests in the guy. Make him guess and chase.

Best of all this brilliance is based on conversations the author had with only three men. Three insecure lunatics feels their penises shrink in the presence of a confident and accomplished woman so now all women have to cater to that? Because no other types of guys exist?

http://www.aish.com/d/w/Five-Ways-to-Turn-Off-a-Guy.html?tab=y
Mistakes that make a man quickly lose interest.


 Search for more information about how to catch a man 1950s style at4torah.com

Bleeding Cool


 A guest post by Y. Bloch
I should be used to the theological whiplash of reading those colorful printouts known as parsha sheets that clutter the entrance of every synagogue in the Jewish world. Before their advent, congregants had no choice but to listen to the actual Torah portion; now, it's pre-digested for them. At best, they are boring but inoffensive; at worst, they are boring and highly offensive. And sometimes they're both.
This Shabbat, my neighbor dragged me into a discussion of a particular article from Torah Tidbits, the thousand-issue behemoth that is second-to-none in telling you which Torah portion has the seventeenth-lowest total number of commandments but the seventeenth-highest number of letters per verse. This particular piece was written by Rabbi Gideon Weitzman of the PUAH (Fertility and Medicine in Accordance with Halacha) Institute. Now, PUAH does great work, helping couples navigate the treacherous waters where modern reproductive science and traditional Jewish law meet. He notes, apropos of the mitzva of circumcision mandated in the Torah portion of Bo, that the Talmud (Yevamot 64b) states that if a woman's first two boys die due to circumcision, the third must not be circumcised.
The mitzva of circumcision is a very important one: If a Jew wasn't circumcised as a baby and refuses to undergo Mila as an adult, he can be liable for the punishment of karet - being “cut off”, excluded - on a par with such sins as eating on Yom Kippur, eating chametz on Pesach, doing forbidden types of work on Shabbat, and various immoral sexual acts. Nevertheless, though in this particular Talmudic case we cannot know for sure that the third son actually has hemophilia - it is only a possibility, at most a probability - the concern for human life and the Rabbis’ comprehension of the possible risk of death override the obligation to circumcise the child.
Fair enough. R. Weitzman is making the point that human life is a halakhic value of supreme importance. That's not the whiplash part. That came with R. Weitzman's continuation, where he sets out the difference of opinion in the Shulchan Arukh regarding whether this applies even if the man remarries. The Mechabber, Rav Yosef Karo (YD 263:2) rules that it does, but Rav Moshe Isserles (the Rema) is not so sure. What does this tell us?
While the above reasoning is not in keeping with our modern understanding of medicine, the discussion does reveal how the Rabbis recognized Mendelian Inheritance as being sex-linked, and passed on from generation to generation.
The Shulchan Aruch then goes further and states that if two sisters were to have sons, and both babies died as a result of circumcision, the sons of any remaining sisters in the family would be exempt from the mitzva of brit mila.
The above discussion suggests a deep understanding of the existence of familial genetic abnormalities. The Rabbis’ rulings seem to be based on medical information similar to the complex family history drawn up during a session of modern genetic counseling, today.
So let's get this straight. The rabbis had a deep understanding of modern genetics? Well, hemophilia is X-linked, and since we Jews only circumcise boys, who are XY, the X must come from the mother. So one of the opinions cited by the Rema (that the hemophilia can only come from the mother) is correct  and based on science, while the other one, which is the one cited by the Mechabber, is what? Anti-scientific? Non-scientific?
Of course, when the Mechabber then says that we would consider two sisters as being evidence of carrying the disease, then he does line up with science. Did he discover genetics between one line and the next?
Even more laughable is R. Weitzman's contention that the Vilna Gaon's comment ad loc. about "the blood coming from the mother" is evidence of knowing about X chromosomes. That's ludicrous; he's quoting another Talmudic statement:
The father provides the white material from which the bones and the brain in the head are formed. The mother provides the red material from which skin and flesh are made. [Nida 31a].
Sorry, R. Weitzman, but turning the sages of the 6th or the 16th century into geneticists is an insult to your readers' intelligence. These great men were still men, and as human knowledge increases, the Torah must grow as well.

Search for more information about blood at4torah.com

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

Global warming hoax


Hey global warming deniers, here is something important you need to know if you want to avoid sounding ignorant, dishonest and uninformed. The scientists who exchanged those emails that were stolen by denier blogs in what was dubbed "climate gate" were fully exonerated. Eight different committees reviewed all the emails and found the scientists innocent of fraud and scientific misconduct. The only people who still pretend the climate scientists did something wrong are either ignorant or being paid by corporations to lie. And now you know.





Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Monday, January 06, 2014

Snow and the climate change deniers

It snowed this weekend on the east coast, so of course the anti science morons think this means climate scientists are all conspiring to mislead us. Can we please put the climate change deniers, the anti vax idiots, and the "evolution is just a theory" people on a plane to the dark ages where they belong?


The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that human being are causing the earth to warm. To reject that consensus you need something more than the vague feeling that climate scientists are all liars. You need evidence. If you have some evidence please share it, but if you don't have concrete reasons for disbelieving the overwhelming consensus please just go away and rethink your irrational biases.


 Search for more information about how science works at4torah.com

Our community priorities are perfect

Such a good thing Avi Safran and Aguda and Yitzchak Alderstein and Cross Currents and the RCA have been spending all their time and energy hunting heresy in the Modern Orthodox world. Because clearly nothing is happening in the Hasidic world that needs addressing.



Sex-abuse victims lack voice in New Square

In Hasidic community, those who take assault claims to cops 'are damaged goods'






 Search for more information about our perfect priorities at4torah.com

Stark Slaying

Friday, January 03, 2014

Grandpa Moses


A guest post by Y. Bloch

Moses wears many hats in Scripture -- prophet and priest, lawgiver and leader, diplomat and general, king and servant -- but a role we rarely see him in is father and husband. In fact, we never see Moses directly speak or interact with his children or wife. Consider last week's Torah portion, in which Moses and Aaron are genealogized (Ex. 6): we hear about Aaron's wife, children, grandchild, father-, brother- and daughter-in-law, but Moses' family is entirely absent.
This makes the opening to this week's Torah portion, Bo, particularly striking (Ex. 10:1-2):
Lord said to Moses, “Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants so that I may perform these signs of Mine among them; so that you may recount in the ears of your child and your grandchild how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and you may know that I am Lord.”
To whom does "your child and your grandchild" refer? It could be a broad, figurative term, much like three of the Four Children who appear later on in the portion. However, in those cases (12:24-27; 13:3-8; 13:13-16), the Torah makes it clear that we are referring to distant progeny, in both the chronological and geographical senses: "And it will be when Lord brings you to the land of the Canaanites... you shall keep this service seasonally from year to year." Grandchildren are not mentioned, presumably because the "children" include all descendants. In each of these latter cases, it is Moses who is speaking to the Israelites, while in the beginning of Bo, it is God speaking to him, without any command to transmit this to the nation. Finally, in the portion's opening, we find a unique verb which does not recur later in the portion: recounting, sippur, the special term for the retelling of the Exodus story at the Seder of Passover.
This suggests that God's command may have particular resonance for Moses. This is shortly before he makes his famous declaration to Pharaoh, “With our young and our old, we will go; with our sons and our daughters, with our flocks and our herds, we will go, because Lord's festival is ours!" The irony is that Moses will not go with his sons, Gershom and Eliezer, because his sons are back in Midian with his wife Zipporah and father-in-law Jethro. Instead, he will meet them at Mt. Sinai, when Jethro brings them. On that occasion, we are told (Ex. 18:5-8):
Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, together with Moses’ sons and wife, came to him in the wilderness, where he was camped near the mountain of God. Jethro had sent word to him, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons.” So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him. They greeted each other and then went into the tent. Moses recounted to his father-in-law all that Lord had done to Pharaoh and to Egypt for Israel’s sake...
This is the first sippur, the premiere recounting of the Exodus story, but Moses does not relate it to his sons (or his wife). Indeed, they utterly vanish from the Torah. We only find Gershom's name recurring in Scripture in a bizarre context.
There the Danites set up for themselves the idol, and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses, and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the time of the captivity of the land.
That's the version of Judges 18:30 that you'll find in many manuscripts and translations. Your Tanakh may have Menasseh (מנשה) instead of Moses (משה), but the nun (נ) will be in superscript, as there is little doubt that it was Moses' grandson Jonathan who served as an idolatrous priest.
The Midrash (Song of Songs Rabbah 2:3) maintains that Jonathan did not rely on or believe in this idol, and he would mock the fifty-year-olds who came to worship the fifteen-year-old statue. Why then did he do it?
He said to him: "This is the tradition handed down from Grandfather's house: better to sell yourself to foreign service (avoda zara) than to be dependent on others."
The Midrash goes on to explain that this was a garbling of Moses' message; still, is it any surprise that this was the message received by the grandchild in whose ears Moses was supposed to recount the Exodus? Ultimately, Jonathan concludes, it is better to be a prince of Egypt -- or a priest of Egyptian-style gods -- than to be a pauper-prophet of Israel.
There is a potent message here for all parents. Moses may have been the greatest prophet in Jewish history, but he would not have been a candidate for Father of the Year, 2448. The need to recount one's personal journey and experience of faith is a paramount parental obligation. If you cannot tell it to your children, how can you possibly tell it to the world?

Search for more information about wayward sons at4torah.com

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Why does Hilel hate Naturei Karta?

 Swarthmore’s Hillel group decided not to abide
by guidelines prohibiting collaboration with speakers
 or groups deemed unsupportive of Israel.
On 12/28 the Times ran a story about how some Jewish college students are bothering Hillel, the Jewish student group, to list the ban it has placed upon anti-Zionist speakers and organizations.

Hillel, of course, is deluding itself if it thinks it can produce a workable definition of "anti-Zionism."

According to some, Kesuvos 111a is anti-Zionist; others say the Labor Party's whole platform meets that definition. Does Hillel intend to ban Daf Yomi and discussion of Israeli politics|?

Still, the threony problem of criteria aside, I respect the organizations right to place limits on what it sponsors and hosts. At the same time, I think the students are correct to push Hilel to better reflect their values and interests. This is a Hilel issue, and one that should be worked out by the organization's members and directors. They, not us, are the ones who get to decide what Hillel is. (Though, of course, we're free to tell them why that decision is right or wrong.)

In fact I would not have said anything about this at all, were it for the response letter Avi Shafran got published in the Times:
To the Editor:
I'm neither an “Israel right or wrong” person nor a supporter of what has come to be called “the Palestinian cause.” But one question keeps coming back to me when I read about objections to decisions by Jewish campus groups not to invite speakers hostile to Israel: Where is the push for Arab campus groups to roll out their red carpets to unabashed defenders of the Jewish state?
(Rabbi) AVI SHAFRAN
New York, Dec. 30, 2013
Avi seems to think that the newspaper and the imaginary coterie of liberals who control it are "pushing" Hillel to change its policies, but as the article makes clear the push is coming from inside Hillel itself. No outsider is telling Hilel it must change. Hillel's own members are the ones desiring change. Arab student groups, presumably, don't invite "unabashed defenders" of Israel to speak at their events because their members aren't interested.


Terrible judge requires baker to bake cakes

Over in Colorado an administrative judge has ordered a baker to bake cakes, and your right wing conservatives are acting as if the sky has fallen. Why? Because the recalcitrant baker had been refusing to provide a gay couple with a wedding cake because RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Mullins and Craig married in Massachusetts and had originally gone to Masterpiece in July 2012 because they wanted to a cake for their wedding reception in Colorado. When Phillips refused, the pair went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) on their behalf. 
According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.

What do I think? Thanks for asking:

1) Do Mullins and Craig really want some bigot getting his hands all over their wedding cake? If a jew-hater refused to bake me a cake, I wouldn't force him. I'd just take my business to his competitor. I know its tempting to compare this case to Rosa Parks, etc., but the analogy doesn't work. Rosa Parks had only one choice when it came to bus riding, and that one bus line was run by the government. In the South, Jim Crow wasn't a matter of an individual business owner's personal choice. It was the law. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't about getting small-minded businessmen to join us in the modern age. It was about getting the government to treat all citizens equally under the law. Gays are the same as anyone else in the eyes of the government and there is no shortage of bakeries willing to serve homosexuals. Mullins and Craig should just tell Facebook about what Phillips did, and get their cake from someone else

2) But because they went to court (always so dramatic, the gays) the judge had to act, and I think he gave the correct ruling. A bakery can't refuse to do business with someone on the basis of their being gay.

3) Naturally, the Orthodox Jewish gay-haters (OJGH) are now concerned this means Orthodox Jewish rabbis will be required by law to officiate at gay weddings, but they aren't thinking calmly or carefully. The government can't make a Rabbi do anything that runs contrary to religious doctrine. If it could, wouldn't someone have sued Judaism for refusing to ordain women by now? (In 2002 someone challenged the tax exemption of the Catholic Church because it doesn’t allow women to become priests. She lost.)

4) OJGH are also concerned that kosher catering halls will be forced by the court to accommodate gay couples. They probably will - but only until the catering halls work out a loophole, which should take them about ten seconds.

BONUS BIGOTRY:

Here's Yaakov Mencken snarling away on this issue:
A private business owner... will face fines and penalties if he refuses to bake “wedding” cakes for deviant couples in violation of his religious faith. If it’s “racist” to discriminate against deviant couples having a “wedding,” then it’s wrong for a Rabbi to refuse to marry them, as well
Love the scare quotes, Yaakov. Of course it isn't a real wedding unless you say it is. Do you also use scare quotes when you refer to Catholic or Hindu weddings? Why are those weddings legitimate? They don't have erusin or kedushin either.

 Search for more information about deviant couples at4torah.com