David Zwiebel on Child Abuse

Perhaps the most mind-boggling comment ever uttered about child abuse in the Ultra-Orthodox community belongs to David Zwiebel, head of Agudah. First the back story:

Of some 700 child sexual abuse cases brought in an average year, few involved members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community — about 180,000 followers of Hasidic and other sects who make up the largest such cluster outside Israel. Some years, there were one or two arrests, or none. But in the past year, there have been 26. District Attorney Charles J Hynes has brought charges against a variety of men — yeshiva teachers, rabbis, camp counselors, merchants and relatives of children. Eight have been convicted; 18 await trial.

When asked by the New York Times to comment on this unprecedented spike in prosecutions, David Zwiebel acknowledged what he has long denied and admitted that "many of these issues are beyond the ability of the community to handle internally." Then he delivered the line that will make your mouth fall open in disbelief, and ought to disqualify Zwiebel from holding any position of leadership in the Jewish community. He said:

“The district attorney should be careful not to be seen as making a power grab from rabbinic authority.”

Are we in Saudi Arabia? Exactly what power does Zwiebel believe that rabbis have in cases of child abuse? The power to coddle criminals and conceal their crimes? The power to pretend that "those things don't happen here?" The power to silence accusers? In the most famous case the relevant Rabbi - one Lipa Margolis - protected Kolko the abuser for over twenty years, going so far as to demean and denigrate the children who went to him for help. Is this the rabbinical power Zwiebel worries the D.A might usurp? The power to deny, ignore, minimize and neglect?

When it comes to catching and prosecuting criminals, our rabbis have no power, and no authority. Going after child molesters is the district attorney's job and performing it isn't a "power-grab." Other then serving the victims, the only role for a rabbi is to cooperate with the D.A or to get out of his way.

---

Search for more information about despicable guardians of undeserved prerogatives at 4torah.com.

R' Shmuel Borger's Audio Message

What can I say about the recording R' Shmuel Borger created to honor his son's memory? What can anyone say?

The message, which is being circulated with Rabbi Borger's blessing and encouragement, calls on all of us to heed the lesson of the tragedy. According to Rabbi Borger this lesson is: Make peace with your enemies.

As far as messages go, this one is rather banal --and also a bit condescending in its assumption that all of us have relationships to repair.... and a little presumptuous in its attempt to speak for the Almighty... but a bereaved father is entitled to leeway.

I was made aware of this recording by someone who shares my appraisal of its content, but adds that he hopes someone else, someone operating from a healthier distance, will make a better attempt to tell us what can be learned from the tragic death of Motty Borger.

His own takeaways included:

A. More truth in packaging from parents seeking mates for their children. Too often parents who can imagine no greater tragedy than being unmarried will conceal - or even lie about - their child's shortcomings.
B. Zero tolerance for molesters Too many Jewish schools are still making too many excuses for people in authority who have abused children. To put a spin on the famous Yankie Horowitz line all you have to do it treat the molesters as if they had been handing out treif candy in shul. Sadly, its often a struggle to get people to see this.
C. Change the way we think about mental disorders. We need a sea change in the Charedi attitude toward mental illnesses. Let them be understood as something that can be treated rather than as shondas to be hidden and suppressed.
D. Return to basics Let's re-infuse the "religion of chesed" with a compassion that understands human frailty, and recognizes that all of us are flawed, instead of propagandizing false paradigms of excellence and perfection.

Morality is subjective (reprised)

Recently, a newcomer to the blog trotted out the old, dumb argument that morality is impossible without God. I call it dumb, because the great thinkers have been exposing the flaws in this thought for at least 2500 years.

For instance, in Euthyphro the problem is presented as something of a chicken and egg type question: Are things wrong because God says so, or does God say things are wrong because they are?

The nafka mina? Simple.

If God says things are wrong because they are wrong in and of themselves, then morality and God are two different things, and an atheist could conceivably uncover morality on his own with no help from God or religion. And if something is wrong only because God said so, we're left with the conclusion that morality is arbitrary. Things aren't wrong because they are inherently wrong, but only because God says they are. Morality, according to this view, is not objective, but relative to whatever God says it is.

(Three years I wrote a post on this subject that I consider one of my best. It's called "Blogging Toward Truth." In it, I make the case that morality is subjective and explain why forums such as this are essential to the pursuit of truth.)

Today's Chillul Hashem

New York Post

A Brooklyn newlywed who jumped to his death from a hotel balcony the night after his wedding was tormented by memories of being sexually molested as a Jewish student, sources say.After joyfully singing and dancing at their lavish celebration in Williamsburg on Nov. 3, Motty Borger, 24, bared his secret anguish to his bride, Mali Gutman, the next day -- and the revelation caused a strain, a source close to the family told The Post."That entire day he discussed it with her. He told her the story of his life, how he felt so awful and he couldn't go near her," the source said. The couple had met just last July, after a matchmaker set them up.

"When he got married, he realized he couldn't face up to it, and he told his wife that he needed help."The stunned bride responded, "So, why did you marry me?"Borger reportedly answered, "You are absolutely right. It was not right of me to get married."At 6:45 a.m., while Mali slept, Borger climbed a railing outside their seventh-floor room at Avenue Plaza Hotel and leaped, police say. He died hours later at a hospital.

---

Rav Kanievsky on hiring Arabs

A Guest Post by Rafi G

The newspapers are all making a big deal out of Rav Chaim Kanievsky's recent statement regarding Arabs.

An avreich approached Rav Kanievsky the other day and asked for a bracha that he should be successful in his upcoming court case. rav Kanievsky asked why he is going to court, and he answered for hiring Arab workers (illegally I presume).

Rav Kanievsky refused to give him a bracha saying "you deserve whatever you get. Don't you know it is prohibited to hire Arabs because they are murderers?... whoever hires them deserves the punishment"

The papers are comparing it to a past statement of Rav Kanievsky in which he also then said that Jews should not hire Arabs because they are murderers, and claiming racism.

Personally, I prefer to compare it to a different statement of Rav Kanievsky, and rather than claim racism, I would say Rav Kanievsky is in favor of personal responsibility, reward and punishment, etc.

In July, a yeshiva bochur came to Rav Kanievsky for a bracha for his court case regarding a car accident he had been involved in, and he had been driving with no license. Then too Rav Kanievsky said he deserves the punishment for driving with no license, and he could not make any such claim that he knows how to drive if he was not trained in it.

Personally, I think this new statement fits with that old one. Rav Kanievsky believes that people should be held accountable for their actions. You drive with no license and get into an accident - you are a murderer and should be punished accordingly. You hire Arab workers illegally, they are dangerous and you should be punished accordingly.

Just because you are frum does not give you a free pass to break the law. The law is in place to protect us (most of the time at least). You get a drivers license because it means you were trained in operating automobiles. You cannot hire any illegal worker you want because the State needs to verify which Arab workers are safe and can be trusted and therefore hired, and which might be dangerous.

Rav Kanievsky is not a racist. he just believes in personal responsibility.

---

Search for more information about rabbinic racism at 4torah.com.

Back Door Conversions?

AN ANONYMOUS GUEST POST

Right now, there are approximately 300,000 Israeli citizens who are of Jewish ancestry, but are not Jews as defined by religious law.

This discrepancy occurred because Israel will give citizenship to anyone with one Jewish grandparent – Hitler's definition of a Jew. The official Israeli Rabbinate follows religious law and defines a Jew as either one born to a Jewish mother, or one that chooses to convert.

Conversion, in the eyes of the Rabbinate, requires that the potential convert learn the laws of practical observance and commit to following them.

The problem arises when you have people who would like to be considered Jews, for the purposes of national identity and/or to marry another Jew – but do not want to take on the obligations and restrictions of following Jewish law in their everyday lives.

The mishnah presents an interesting way for a mamzer (child of a forbidden union) to have children that will not be classified as mamzerim.

(Text courtesy of moreshet.com)

KIDDUSHIN: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 13

Rabbi Tarfon says, mamzerim can purify. How so? If a mamzer weds a maidservant, the offspring is a servant. If he frees him - the son consequently is a freeman.

Rabbi Tarfon says, mamzerim can purify - their seed from blemish, so that their children will not be like them. How so - can they be purified? If a mamzer weds a - Canaanite - maidservant, the offspring - borne to him by the maidservant, is a servant - as was taught in the preceding mishnah: the offspring is like her. If he - the child's father, who is also his master, frees him - the son consequently is a freeman - he is an unblemished Israelite. The Gemara concludes (Kidd. 69a) that according to Rabbi Tarfon amamzer may even acquire a Canaanite maidservant and wed her in order to purify his offspring since a mamzer is permitted to wed a maidservant (Rabbeinu Nissim; see Tosefot Yom Tov); 


(end quote)

The question is, in our times, can we use this approach for back door conversions?

A Jew can take one of these 300,000 people as a gentile servant.

The owner can then subsequently free the servant – making him or her a full Jew according to Jewish law. In this way, they do not need to practice observant Judaism to become Jews according to religious law.

I have heard of mamzerim using the mishnah's advice in our generation, but I have not heard of back door converts using this method.

Is there any reason why this would not work according to halacha?

---

Search for more information about kashering conversions at 4torah.com.

Parsha Notes: Chayei Sarah2009

Most of this is from last year, but there are five or six new things You are strongly encouraged and absolutely permitted to print and distribute these discussions, preferably by leaving them on the shulchan at your favorite place of prayer.

Chayei Sarah

What everyone should know:
The Talmud presents a view that Abraham had a daughter, based on the verse: "And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything." As the Talmud reasons: What's everything without a daughter? (The Talmud shares a second view on this. One of the Rabbis argues that Abraham had everything means that he specifically had no daughter, and therefore no worries about marring her off.) Related: A clever drash suggests Sarah and her daughter died on the same day]

Famous Argument
- Did Sarah die right after the akeida? Unclear. Those who say she did have Rashi and the juxtaposition of the stories to hang their hats on; also the verse says "Abraham came", and as the Midrash understand it, he was coming from the akeida. Those who disagree, more plausibly point to the verses that say that after the akeida Abraham and his entourage "rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba." Sarah died in Chevron, which seems like excellent evidence that her death was at some later date. [more]

- Its perfectly sound to say that Rivka was not three years old when she met the servant at the well. This, in fact, is the view of Tosfos, and several other Rishonim. [more]

- Rashi, famously, says that the earth shrank for the servant, allowing him to travel from Abraham to Rivak in just one day. How does he know? To the best of my knowledge, this is Rashi's own drash, and not based on something earlier. Though Josh Waxman says he's darshaning on the word "hayom" I think he's addressing a perceived deficiency in the narrative: We're told about the servant's encounter with Rivka in excruciating detail, so why does the text omit to tell us anything at all about the trip? Answers Rashi: Because there was no trip.

- Was Keturah another name for Hagar? Probably not, though an often unremarked upon bit of evidence is this: when Yitzchak meets Rachel, we're told he's just returned from Bear Lachi Ro'ee, but no reason for his trip is given. Hagar's last know place of residence, per the text, is Bear Lachi Ro'ee, which supports the possibility that Yitzchak was the agent who brought Hagar back to his father. [more]

Famous Rashi:
Genesis 24:39: Per Rashi, Abraham's servant wanted his own daughter to marry Isaac. How did Rashi know this? See my explanation here and here

Famous Vort
- During Abraham's negotiation with Ephron, the phrase "Kvor maysecha/bury your dead" is used six times,while the words "v'es maysicha kvor/ and your dead go and bury" is said once. This corresponds to the seven people buried in Machpayla. The first six - the Patriarchs and their wives - were righteous, and the righteous never really die; correspondingly six times burial is mentioned before death. The last to be interred in the cave was Esav, who, arguably, was non righteous. The mention of death before burial refers to him. (Vilna Gaon)

Irony
Abraham has been assured again and again that all of the Land will be his, yet he's forced to bargain for a death plot with the Hittites. This, I suppose, is why Rabenu Yona considered this episode Abraham's final test.

Anomalies
(1) Gen 23:5-6: וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי־חֵת אֶת־אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר לֹו שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה בְּתֹוכֵנוּ בְּמִבְחַר קְבָרֵינוּ קְבֹר אֶת־מֵתֶךָ אִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת־קִבְרֹו לֹא־יִכְלֶה מִמְּךָ מִקְּבֹר מֵתֶךָ׃
Gen 23:14 וַיַּעַן עֶפְרֹון אֶת־אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר לֹו אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי אֶרֶץ אַרְבַּע מֵאֹת שֶׁקֶל־כֶּסֶף בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ מַה־הִוא וְאֶת־מֵתְךָ קְבֹר׃
In both places the MT gives "lo / to him" which is a problem because nowhere else in the story in the formula "לֵאמֹר לֹו" employed (see verses 8,10, and 13 where its לֵאמֹר alone) Alter suggests that in the two instances where the MT gives lo, the word isn't lo but "lu / pray." He notes that "lu adoni / Pray, my Lord" is a formal, polite way to introduce negotiations.

(2) Gen 25:8 ויגוע וימת אברהם בשיבה טובה זקן ושבע ויאסף אל־עמיו׃
The MT has only "sated." The Peshita, the LXX and the Samaritan give us the more common "sated with years"

(3) Bethuel is present at one point in the story but missing at others. Rashi, following the midrash, tell us he died during the night. Using ANE documents which describe how bridal negotiations were conducted in that time and place, Robert Alter gives another view.

(4) Gen 25:6: Rashi "[The word pilagshim] is written lacking [ie, with no yud, to denote] that there was only one concubine, [ie Hagar]" In the MT the word is malay (spelled with a yud.) Even the Saperstein chumash concedes this can only mean that Rashiw as working from a text that was, here at least, different from the MT.

Historical Accuracy
-Abraham weighs out the payment for the cave and field. This is accurate for the period, which predates the use of coins.
-When the servant propositions Rivka he presents her with a nose ring.

Motif Alert
The first of many betrothal scenes appears this week, all of which have the following elements in common: A well, a heroic act, someone rushing to deliver the news to others, and a meal. This week scene is unique in that a surrogate appears for the groom, and the woman, not the man, draws the water. This portrayal is in keeping with how Isaac and Rebecca are characterized: In other stories, he is week, bedridden, and withdrawn, while she is active, scheming and dramatic.

Changed Midrash
When Yitzchak brings Rivka into his tent, he's comforted. Rashi tells us the comfort came from the fact that three miracles that Sara enjoyed reappeared. The Midrash, however, says there were four miracles.

Anachronism
Camels in Genesis, the critics allege, are a problem as they were not domesticated until many years after the Patriarchal period. If so, how can they feature prominently as a prop in the betrothal scene at the well? See my solutions 1 and 2

---

Search for more information about the book Dovbear wrote about parsha at 4torah.com.

A shtickle torah from the RABAM

Read it here

---

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

Oh! Your anti-semitic "joke" really IS so much funnier once you've explained it

Erie County Executive Chris Collins who was once described as a "shining light of the Republican Party" told a joke the other day comparing Sheldon Silver, an Orthodox Jew, to both Hitler and the anti-Christ, but wait, wait, wait: Before you go all Irgun on the guy, give him a chance: It was just a joke, people! and BOY is it hysterical, once you hear the whole story:

...the county executive referred to French seer Nostradamus' prediction that the world would experience three Antichrists in conjunction with the Apocalypse, whose origin is the New Testament's Book of Revelation. Collins then said it's generally accepted that the first was Napoleon, the second Hitler, and that he was "pretty sure" the third is Silver, an orthodox Jew from Manhattan.

Mr Collins went on to complement Mr Silver on his frugality, adding: That big nose of his? Because air is free! Anyway, as I switch gears here, permit me some questions:

(1) Why is this being dismissed as a "gaffe"?
(2) Had the insult been uttered by a Democrat, WWTLORS? (What would that lunatic O'Reilly say?)
(3) "It was staggering," said [a] Republican, who asked not to be identified [because he didn't have the guts to go on the record criticizing an insane comment made by a fellow party member.] "It took my breath away. You just don't say something like that " Had Collins insulted Mexicans or homosexuals, instead, would this Republican have been equally upset?
(4) What's more disturbing? That this "shining light of the Republican Party" believes in the unquestioned truth of the Nostradamus, or that he feels the same way about the Book of Revelations?

---

Search for more information about Sarah Palin, Chris Collins, and other clinically insane Republicans at 4torah.com.

This exact same thing used to happen all the time in my shul

Well, well looky here: Reliable sources tell me that Old Man Joe Klein, and Young Whippersnapper Jamie Kirchick had a go at each other during the vitally significant "Pro-Israel Lobby and the Media" workshop at the Jewish Federations of North America's General Assembly. I'm not sure what they were fighting about, but there were profanities:

A debate between Time's Joe Klein and New Republic's Jamie Kirchick spilled off the dais Tuesday into a hallway confrontation where Klein called the younger pundit a "dishonest [expletive]" and "[expletiving] propagandist."

Reminds me of that time in shul when Old Man Rosenberg got bent out of shape after Young Whippersnapper Ginsburg tried to take the amud for maariv one night wearing a talis, in violation of Old Man Rosenberg's sensibilities, and longstanding shul tradition.

---

Search for more information about dumb things dumb people fight about at 4torah.com.

In which Bill O'Reilly looks like the sane one

Questions I had:

(1) When Shrill Bill says, "Just to play devils advocate... we can't kill all the Muslims" is he conceding that's his guest's desire? And does he mean we lack the will or the ammunition?

(2) If the problem is "Islam" how do you explain acts of terrorism committed by Irish Catholics, Baptist and Methodist Klansman, Abortion bombers, Tim McVeigh, South American Skyjackers, who I presume, were also Catholics, Toldos Aharon bus-beaters, and so on and so forth? Might the problem be "fundamentalism?" And might the problem not be unique to any one religion?

(3) Was the tragic attack at Fort Hood an act of terror? I don't think it was, and I'm certain O'Smiley would agree if the villain had been a crazed Christian, and not a crazed Muslim.

Answers welcome.

---

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

Major Plot Hole in The Good Wife

A Guest Post By E. Fink

This is a shorter version of a post on my blog.

Another TV show tried to portray chasidic Jews on their show. This time it was The Good Wife, a great legal drama on CBS.

Short story: On her way to supermarket woman trips and falls over fallen eruv wire which the chasidic couple could not fix because it was shabbos.

Things They Got Mostly Correct

The chasidic garb. She was wearing typical women's dress. Subdued colors and very modest. He was in black and white with his hat nearby at all times.

Strollers. Everyone had strollers in the chasidic neighborhood.

Kosher markets. There was a kosher market within walking distance.

The shomrim guy. He looked like every non-chasidic Hatzalah (Jewish volunteer ambulance core) guy I know.

The intimacy between the couple. Most couples celebrate vicotry with public hugs and kisses. The chasidic couple did not embrace in public, but their connection was displayed by touching each other's hands secretly.

Mistakes

The chasidic guy never smiles. That is just not nice.

The chasidic guy has a "tchup"(coiffed hair), typically, chasidic men have hair that is cut very short.

The chasidic guy has a trimmed beard, that is not common at all.

The chasidic guy has a RING! (I mean, come on, that's an easy one!)

They say an eruv "creates a symbolic courtyard", that's not quite true, an eruv joins many domains into one common domain by surround the entire community with a wall. (But that is a hard one.)

A young chasidic boy has a leather kipa perched awkwardly on the back of his head.

Something That Bothered Me

The wife was a twice rehabbed drug loving party girl who found chasidic Judaism while incarcerated. Showing her revival as a chasidic Jewish woman bothered me slightly. It was if to say, one has to be so crazy to find chasidic Judaism attractive. Maybe I am nitpicking, but it bothered me just a little.

HUGE PLOT HOLE

When the plaintiff got injured it was Shabbos. She was asked why she was walking through this neighborhood and she said she was going to the market. She was asked why this market if there are four markets closer to her home and she said because this market is the kosher market where they sell gluten free products.

Do you see the problem? (answer below)

This is an inexcusable error. CBS, next time you want to do a show with chasidic or Orthodox Jewish characters and plot elements you can hire me. I will be your rabbinical consultant and make sure you get it right.

(Plot hole answer: The kosher market is closed on Shabbos. She could never be walking to a kosher market on Shabbos!)

---

Search for more information about chasidic Jews on TV at 4torah.com.

Why are we Orthodox Jews?

A rare flash of brilliance from David Brooks:

We’re all born late. We’re born into history that is well under way. We’re born into cultures, nations and languages that we didn’t choose. On top of that, we’re born with certain brain chemicals and genetic predispositions that we can’t control. We’re thrust into social conditions that we detest. Often, we react in ways we regret even while we’re doing them.

But unlike the other animals, people do have a drive to seek coherence and meaning. We have a need to tell ourselves stories that explain it all. We use these stories to supply the metaphysics, without which life seems pointless and empty.

Among all the things we don’t control, we do have some control over our stories. We do have a conscious say in selecting the narrative we will use to make sense of the world. Individual responsibility is contained in the act of selecting and constantly revising the master narrative we tell about ourselves.

The stories we select help us, in turn, to interpret the world. They guide us to pay attention to certain things and ignore other things. They lead us to see certain things as sacred and other things as disgusting. They are the frameworks that shape our desires and goals. So while story selection may seem vague and intellectual, it’s actually very powerful. The most important power we have is the power to help select the lens through which we see reality.

The rest of this editorial is quite bad, and unworthy of discussion but the part I've shared with you is a powerful description of the contingent forces that shape our subjective view of reality and, thus, a powerful argument for pluralism.

Elsewhere, I've been discussing "significance" with one of the trolls. Born irreligious, he found the holy Charedi light in late adolescence, and now can't understand why someone like me would consent to live the "restrictive" life of Orthodox Judaism without thinking every last bit of it, down to the tiniest details, is Capital T "True."

I tried to explain: I do think its true, but only in the sense that rabbis were given the authority to interpret the Torah and, over time, their interpretations produced the set of laws Orthodox Jews today believe themselves obligated to follow. There was nothing inevitable about their conclusions, and much of what you consider essential to Orthodox Judaism was unknown to our ancestors.

He countered: Then what's wrong with Reform or Conservative Judaism? They're also the product of interpretations. If the mesorah is interpretations, and not a passed on tradition dating back to Sinai, what's illegitimate about Reform or Conservative interpretation?

I was forced to admit: Perhaps nothing. (Though I suppose we could get into a long discussion about what, exactly, gives one Jew the authority to interpret and not another.)

Sensing blood, he threw what he must have considered a hay maker: So why aren't you a Reform Jew?

That's simple, I answered: I'm not Reform because I'm not Reform. Its not how I was raised. It isn't where my friends are. I don't have any memories of reform rituals or services. In short I'm Orthodox and not Reform for the same reason all OJs are OJ and not Reform: One carries significance for us. The other does not.

As I expected, he grabbed only half the stick: You're denying yourself a secular Saturday and BBQ pork ribs because your friends would look down on you? Don't you realize how silly that sounds?

Well, yes, I concede, that might sound silly, only its not the whole story. Like most of us who were raised Orthodox, I have no appetite for pork, and no desire to exchange the joys of the Orthodox Shabbos for the errands and bustle of a secular Sunday. And though I do think peer pressure can be a perfectly legitimate reason to do something healthy and enriching, I don't think peer pressure tells the whole story here.

In short, I'm Orthodox because the Orthodox life carries significance for me, and, what's more: every self-aware OJ would give the same answer. Oh, to be sure, one OJ might say he finds significance in the honest belief that the Creator of heaven and earth desires strange diets and 19th century dress, while another OJ might see significance in the honest pleasure he derives from old tunes, and ancient rituals. Each of us finds our own significance, and that significance -whatever it may be- is subjective, personal and therefore indisputable.

For some, the significance is intellectual; for others it may be emotional, psychological or something else. But it doesn't matter. We're all entitled to our stories, and to find in these lives we didn't choose whatever meaning and coherence we can.

---

Search for more information about pluralism and signifcance at 4torah.com.

Something for our Yoni

Slate has an informative, if not disturbing, article about the music of the castrati, and the "unholy trinity of religion, money, and art" that produced it. The story of how they were created and used by the Chruch, the clergy, and piously Catholic aristos is yet another tale that exposes the lie of "Christian morality." Money quote:

From the 16th to the 19th centuries, tens of thousands of male children were castrated before puberty to preserve their high voices, then subjected to a brutal and relentless program of vocal training. The first instruction, wrote an observer, "was inseparable from the whip." As in all eras of musical education, the result was a few idolized stars like the celebrated Farinelli; a steady supply of well-trained singers for church, court, and opera; and myriad also-rans and nobodies. In this case, particularly tragic nobodies. These nobodies sang for pennies in the streets, turned to prostitution for male customers, and sooner or later disappeared into the oblivion of the outcast. A great many ended up suicides. As for the public, mingled with their admiration for the famous castrati was disgust and scorn. Names for them included "geldings, eunuchs, capons … nature's rejects, nullities of known creation." To have gone under the knife, never by your own choice, meant only one career path. By law and by custom you were forbidden to take Church orders or serve in government or military. Needless to say, you never had a family. As a castrato you were a singer, or you were nothing.

---

Search for more information about hideous crimes against children committed by poor, religious people at 4torah.com.

I also love Gottlieb's, but let's not get crazy

Gottlieb's, the sloppy kosher restaurant that hasn't been updated since maybe churban bayis rishon, seems to have received a nice mention in: Save the Deli: In Search of Perfect Pastrami, Crusty Rye, and the Heart of Jewish Delicatessen by David Sax:

"The air is thick with the warm vapor of boiling chickens," he writes of Gottlieb's in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. "A gentle clamor fills the ears; the clang of cutlery, a few gulps of liquid, the sizzle of fat on a hot surface."

(One quibble: I don't think Gottlieb's is a deli. They are famous for chicken, not pastrami.)

The above excerpt was discovered in an LA Times book review that is nicely written, but thick with stupid suggestions about the origins of deli meat and the significance of the store where it was sold. A delicatessen was never "a port in the stormy world, where, long before the birth of modern Israel, a Jew could find solace" nor does our alleged love for corned beef have anything to do with the destruction of the Temple, exile or ghettos. Likewise, the shuttering of the 2nd Avenue Deli in NY and the Rascal House in Miami are tragedies, perhaps, but not quite the same as the loss of the other two Temples.

My choice for the best kosher deli? Shmulka Bernstein's, of course, with a silver medal to Gotlieb's, and a bronze to the original King David in Cedarhurst.

---

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

Vienna gets its bible back

Bible That Vanished on Kristallnacht Is Heading Home: Its a Bomberg Bible from 1516, worth about $20K that was stolen from a library in Vienna during Kristallnacht. (Aside: Why does the headline say "on" Kristallnacht? The article itself uses "during" Kristallnacht. If the grammar of the title is correct, shouldn't it be "during the" Kristallnacht?) Anyway, the bible has been returned to Israelitische Kultusgemeinde Wien, some umbrella group, apparently, for Vienna’s Jewish community. [New York Times]

---

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

My new problem

In more ways than I can count, Twitter is more fun then blogging.