Today's Times has a front page story purporting to tell us what life is really like for residents of the Gaza strip.
Some of the important points made:
:: Hunger isn't the most serious problem. Though some Gazans are desperately poor, overall the situation is worse in places like Lebanon. In Gaza, the most serious problem is "idleness, uncertainty and despair." People can't work, and can't leave. This despair is what seems to be at the root of the population's hatred for Israel.
:: And not just hatred for Israel: "Dozens of interviews with all sorts of people found few willing to praise their government [i.e. Hamas] or that of its competitor. [i.e. Fatah]" “They’re both liars,” Waleed Hassouna, a baker in Gaza City, said in a very common comment.
:: Disagreements between Hamas and Fata contribute to the crises in Gaza. It is their rivalry, for example, that has caused this summer's electricity shortage.
Read it all after the jump
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Things I don't hate but probably should: Yarmulkas
Read this post first.
What follows is not a satire. Its all true. If you don't like it blame S.
As he wrote: Why don't you go all out and critique the yarmulke, any yarmulke, which is an Orthodox group identity and not mandated by halacha? The Vilna Gaon says you can even make brachos bareheaded as, according to him, even wearing one during davening is but middas chassidus.
From your mouth to DovBear's ears. See it after the jump.
What follows is not a satire. Its all true. If you don't like it blame S.
As he wrote: Why don't you go all out and critique the yarmulke, any yarmulke, which is an Orthodox group identity and not mandated by halacha? The Vilna Gaon says you can even make brachos bareheaded as, according to him, even wearing one during davening is but middas chassidus.
From your mouth to DovBear's ears. See it after the jump.
Things I hate: black hats
I don't have a thing against Jews who wear black hats. I count them as friends, family, and valued confidants. This post is not about the people who wear them, but about the hats themselves, the way they are regarded and how, to my mind, they represent everything that is rotten in Orthodox Judaism.
So why do we Orthodox Jews make a fetish out of the black hat? Fear and insecurity, mostly: Fear of neighbors, fear of change, fear of being different, fear of sticking out, fear of seeming "less frum", fear of making (or of being seen to have made) an unauthorized break from the so-called grand and so-called glorious past. Put on a black hat, and all those fears are instantly mitigated. With the big black hat on your head, you're suddenly in uniform, part of the crowd, and in intimate fellowship with history and community; even better, you can tell yourself the sweet, sweet, reassuring lie that you've just done something authentically and legitimately Jewish. What an easy way to please God! What an easy way to broadcast your frum bonafides to the neighbors! What an easy way to fit in!
Of course, the man in the hat is to some extent fooling himself, but the real problem is that to a large extent he's not. Black hats have been part of the official Jewish uniform for little more than half a century. God (I hope) doesn't care what you put on your head, but the frum community really is more accepting of men who wear black hats. Hat wearing men extend a certain chumminess to each other, and tend to feel more comfortable socially with other men who wear hats. Those of you familiar with old-style WASP country club rituals will recognize this: Newbies who showed up in the right blazer, and the right set of slacks could expect a better welcome than those who did not.
We can agree, I hope, that putting a chunk of shaped felt on your head doesn't elevate you in any way. With a hat or without it, you're still the same tzadik or rasha. Unfortunately, the slow and stupid of Israel don't see it this way. Boys who wear hats are thought to make better husbands, and better students. Hat wearing Rabbis tend to confer more respect and extend greater deference to hat-wearing congregants. For the slow and the stupid the presence of a hat is a handy shortcut. If you have one on your head you're in; if you don't you're something else, and often something less.
To use clothing this way is human nature, of course, but aren't Orthodox Jews supposed to be better than human nature? Aren't we called upon to transcend or to defeat the worst part of ourselves -- and don't we, sometimes, point with a little too much glee at how other communities fall short? So why does the Orthodox Jewish community, as a whole, accept and reinforce the black hat sham? Is it expecting too much to insist that we judge people on something more tangible than headgear? Or are Orthodox Jews just kidding themselves when they look down at other communities?
There is no Torah or rabbinic requirement to wear a hat. None. No halachic authority says you should wear one to a wedding, funeral, siyum, shul meeting, school event, or any of the other places I've seen them. A (bad) case can be made that you're required to wear them during davening, but this obligation (if it exists) can certainly be discharged with a talis; anyway, as I've said, the case that any sort of additional head covering is required during davening is really quite amazingly poor; besides, it wouldn't be a black hat, per se, that's required. Any style of head gear - from balmoral to pork-pie - would be okay.
So why do we Orthodox Jews make a fetish out of the black hat? Fear and insecurity, mostly: Fear of neighbors, fear of change, fear of being different, fear of sticking out, fear of seeming "less frum", fear of making (or of being seen to have made) an unauthorized break from the so-called grand and so-called glorious past. Put on a black hat, and all those fears are instantly mitigated. With the big black hat on your head, you're suddenly in uniform, part of the crowd, and in intimate fellowship with history and community; even better, you can tell yourself the sweet, sweet, reassuring lie that you've just done something authentically and legitimately Jewish. What an easy way to please God! What an easy way to broadcast your frum bonafides to the neighbors! What an easy way to fit in!
Of course, the man in the hat is to some extent fooling himself, but the real problem is that to a large extent he's not. Black hats have been part of the official Jewish uniform for little more than half a century. God (I hope) doesn't care what you put on your head, but the frum community really is more accepting of men who wear black hats. Hat wearing men extend a certain chumminess to each other, and tend to feel more comfortable socially with other men who wear hats. Those of you familiar with old-style WASP country club rituals will recognize this: Newbies who showed up in the right blazer, and the right set of slacks could expect a better welcome than those who did not.
We can agree, I hope, that putting a chunk of shaped felt on your head doesn't elevate you in any way. With a hat or without it, you're still the same tzadik or rasha. Unfortunately, the slow and stupid of Israel don't see it this way. Boys who wear hats are thought to make better husbands, and better students. Hat wearing Rabbis tend to confer more respect and extend greater deference to hat-wearing congregants. For the slow and the stupid the presence of a hat is a handy shortcut. If you have one on your head you're in; if you don't you're something else, and often something less.
To use clothing this way is human nature, of course, but aren't Orthodox Jews supposed to be better than human nature? Aren't we called upon to transcend or to defeat the worst part of ourselves -- and don't we, sometimes, point with a little too much glee at how other communities fall short? So why does the Orthodox Jewish community, as a whole, accept and reinforce the black hat sham? Is it expecting too much to insist that we judge people on something more tangible than headgear? Or are Orthodox Jews just kidding themselves when they look down at other communities?
My Gripe With the Museum of Tolerance
A Guest Post By E. Fink
I really like the Museum of Tolerance. The overall message of the museum is a message that I wholeheartedly agree with.
Tolerance is a very important value in my worldview and the museum does a super job teaching that message.
(For a more complete review of the museum read my previous post on my blog: My Visit to the Museum of Tolerance at the Simon Wiesenthal Center.)
There was one thing I noticed, or rather, did not notice that I find necessary to question and perhaps even criticize.
For all the talk and exhibits representing the horrors of racism, prejudice and segregation there was something missing. I could not help but imagine myself as a (hypothetical) average liberal, civil rights activist visiting the museum.
I am sure I would be impressed with the exhibits and their message. There is a possible segregation issue in one region of the world that is intimately related to the MOT. In fact this area is mentioned in various museum exhibits. Yet nowhere is the important civil rights issue mentioned or explored.
The region is the Middle East and specifically I am referring to Israel.
Objectively speaking, there is a level of segregation on Israel. There is a more privileged class and a less privileged class. The Jewish Israelis are the privileged class. They control the policies and laws of the country. The less privileged class are the Arab Muslims in general and in particular the Palestinians living in Gaza.
There is a wall that separates Israelis from Palestinians. There are laws that prevent some services and benefits from Gaza. In essence there is a level of segregation.
Of course, supporters of Israel explain that these measures are not segregation - they are protection. They will explain that these policies are justified. That may be true. But on its face, the situation certainly has an appearance of intolerance or racism.
I wish the Museum of Tolerance would have dealt with this issue. It should be presented and rebutted to the best of their ability. If it cannot be rebutted the museum should not be ashamed to admit that. Its omittance seems problematic to me.
The issue is in fact at the forefront of many humanitarian groups. The UN takes it very seriously as well. I would have loved to see a well reasoned, clearly articulated, intelligent response.
Instead I got nothing.
I like the museum a lot. On this issue they can do better. A lot better.
Search for more information about segregation at 4torah.com.
I really like the Museum of Tolerance. The overall message of the museum is a message that I wholeheartedly agree with.
Tolerance is a very important value in my worldview and the museum does a super job teaching that message.
(For a more complete review of the museum read my previous post on my blog: My Visit to the Museum of Tolerance at the Simon Wiesenthal Center.)
There was one thing I noticed, or rather, did not notice that I find necessary to question and perhaps even criticize.
For all the talk and exhibits representing the horrors of racism, prejudice and segregation there was something missing. I could not help but imagine myself as a (hypothetical) average liberal, civil rights activist visiting the museum.
I am sure I would be impressed with the exhibits and their message. There is a possible segregation issue in one region of the world that is intimately related to the MOT. In fact this area is mentioned in various museum exhibits. Yet nowhere is the important civil rights issue mentioned or explored.
The region is the Middle East and specifically I am referring to Israel.
Objectively speaking, there is a level of segregation on Israel. There is a more privileged class and a less privileged class. The Jewish Israelis are the privileged class. They control the policies and laws of the country. The less privileged class are the Arab Muslims in general and in particular the Palestinians living in Gaza.
There is a wall that separates Israelis from Palestinians. There are laws that prevent some services and benefits from Gaza. In essence there is a level of segregation.
Of course, supporters of Israel explain that these measures are not segregation - they are protection. They will explain that these policies are justified. That may be true. But on its face, the situation certainly has an appearance of intolerance or racism.
I wish the Museum of Tolerance would have dealt with this issue. It should be presented and rebutted to the best of their ability. If it cannot be rebutted the museum should not be ashamed to admit that. Its omittance seems problematic to me.
The issue is in fact at the forefront of many humanitarian groups. The UN takes it very seriously as well. I would have loved to see a well reasoned, clearly articulated, intelligent response.
Instead I got nothing.
I like the museum a lot. On this issue they can do better. A lot better.
Search for more information about segregation at 4torah.com.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Something from Chaim Berlin's past they'd no doubt find embarrassing*
What follows is the coolest thing I've seen in some time, and I'm deeply indebted to Fred for finding it and putting it up on his blog. It is a Passover Haggadah, distributed by Yeshivat Chaim Berlin in 1945 and 1958 (and perhaps the intervening years too.)
* Headline aside, I really don't know if the Yeshiva, as a whole, would be embarrassed to see this online. Maybe yes. Maybe no. More after the jump.
* Headline aside, I really don't know if the Yeshiva, as a whole, would be embarrassed to see this online. Maybe yes. Maybe no. More after the jump.
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.”
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 Jews, Conservative 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.
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 Jews, Conservative 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.
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]
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
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 gone on record saying that I don't see the anti-Semitism here. (Is the Rubashkin Saga / Trial Anti-Semitic? and Are the goyim out to get Sholom Rubashkin?: Why he isn't a victim of 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.
HT: ThinkGood_
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.
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.
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:
Search for more information about the spirit world at 4torah.com.
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:
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.
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?
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.)
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.
Search for more information about snobbery at 4torah.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)