My response to Fisher's response to Farber

---

You know how in the Chosen (or was it the Promise?) Malter's father and rebbe duel it out in competing publications? Though I knew they were arguing about Higher Criticism, Potok never told us exactly what was in those essays. As a kid I couldn't figure it out -- and thank you Chiam Potok for planting the seeds of heresy by telling me about scribal errors and textual emendations. I still remember the jolt I felt when Malter told his rebbe that most everyone had misunderstood a particular Talmud passage because no one  had recognized that the Breita was using a Greek word.

Anyway, when I got into bible study, of course I groked what Potok was depicting, but reading Dov Fisher's new piece on MoreOrthodoxy is like seeing it live. 

In his post, Fisher replies to some of the complaints celebrity-heretic Zev Farber has made about the bible. In truth, nothing Farber says is new. Its all stuff that scholars have discussed for ages. Some of it has even been covered on this blog. But I guess its all new to Fisher, who writes as if he's just discovered America. Perhaps as a result, his replies aren't as polished as they might be. For example:

Blue woman group

---

A guest post by Y. Bloch 

The Jewish people invented Godwin's Law long before the Internet was born; instead of invoking the irascible Austrian, we have the insincere Izharite: Korah, master of mahaloket. Avot 5:17 cites him as the epitome of disingenuousness, and many medieval authorities count "And he shall not be like Korah and his company" (Num. 17:5) as one of the 613 mitzvot. But what did he actually do?

According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10:1), Korah makes a tallit "entirely of blue" for himself and each of his 250 followers, then confronted Moses with the question: "Does a tallit entirely of blue require tzitzit?" Moses replies that it does, and Korah concludes: "The Torah is not from heaven, Moses is no prophet and Aaron is no high priest!"
Bearing this story in mind, we can understand the reaction of some to the desire of the Women of the Wall (WOW) to hold a women's prayer service for the New Moon. Organizations such as Women for the Wall (W4W) see the tallit worn by WOW as analogous to the tallit of tekhelet worn by Korah: a heretical stunt for the purpose of undermining the Torah.

They could have called themselves WFW, but that might have gotten this panda angry--and it's already taken down Hulk Hogan!

Perhaps instead of considering the tekhelet of lore, W4W and their allies should consider the tekhelet of law. For 1500 years, even as they read the passage of tzitzit twice daily, Jews did not have a way of fulfilling it as written, for the simple reason that tekhelet was not available. Tekhelet is not just a color; it is a dye produced from a certain sea creature, the hilazon, and nothing else (Tosefta, Menahot 9:16). Under Roman persecution, the dyers of Dor (AKA Tel Dor or Endor), near Haifa, eventually abandoned the production of tekhelet, probably some time in the 6th century. (Check out: http://www.tekhelet.com/timeline.htm.)

Blue and white, militaristic, with horns? It's a Zionist plot!

Nevertheless, Jews continued to wear both the small and large tallit, based on the Mishna's ruling (Menahot 4:1): "The blue does not preclude the white, and the white does not preclude the blue." Even though tzitzit are supposed to be composed of some white and some blue strings, the unavailability of one does not invalidate using the other. The tallit remained, but the only memento of tekhelet was the black stripe across its body.

The search for tekhelet continued, as an academic curiosity, until about 30 years ago, when Otto Elsner of Shenkar College and Ehud Spanier of the University of Haifa managed to put all of the clues together and identify the process for extracting tekhelet from the Murex (Hexaplex) trunculus. This tekhelet was first commercially available in the 1990's, and that's when I started using it. I thought that the mainstream Jewish world would follow, but it has not. Why? Some halakhic objections have been raised, but it mainly boils down to a rousing chorus of: "Tra-DI-tion! Tradition!" Our holy rabbis weren't bothered by the lack of tekhelet, so why should we be? Why do we need this strange innovation when the old ways have served so well?

And that's what the objection to WOW boils down to as well. As DB has pointed out (http://dovbear.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/some-more-arguments-on-behalf-of-women.html), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, OH 4:49), a halakhic authority whom no one would accuse of being feminist or liberal, ruled 40 years ago that a woman may wear a tallit and make the blessing over it, just as she may do so for the blowing of the shofar, as long as she has the intent to draw closer to God by this. The true objection comes not from Halakha, but from "normative Orthodox practice," whatever that means--the kind people kept telling me I was contravening by wearing this newfangled tekhelet.

They consider waiting 1500 years to reintroduce a snail to be moving too fast.

So now the death threats are flying back and forth, and it's not clear what will happen next time. I'm sure there are plenty of sermons being written right now about the evils of egalitarianism. But I still have one question for those who feel threatened by WOW: why are you so convinced that they're wearing the tekhelet of Korah, and not the tekhelet of Moses?

 Search for more information about tekhelet at4torah.com

---

WE DON'T WANT JUDAISM TO CHANGE - said a bunch of angry protesters, who were congregated at the foot of a mountain, where sacrifices are no longer offered. and surrounded by throngs of Hasidim. ‪#‎irony‬

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Women FOR the Wall are causing a disgrace to the kotel and a national embarrassment

---

Can we agree that the people turning the kotel into a circus are the young men and women who were there this morning sounding whistles and carrying insulting signs? Where are the police? Why are they permitting the kotel plaza to be disgraced and disrupted by these mini-ayatollahs?

Can we agree that whatever good intentions the women FOR the wall may have had, what they've actually accomplished is a disgrace and a disaster? For 20-odd years the women OF the wall have met at the kotel without incident. No one noticed. No one cared. Now, thanks to the women FOR the wall every Rosh Chodesh is riot day. Every charedi carrying pent up rage against women now knows that on the first day of the month he can go to the most sacred place in Judaism and vent his anger without consequence.

Can we agree this controversy makes us, all of us, the family of Israel,  look stupid? The kotel plaza is big enough for everyone, and no other group or sect - not Messianics, not Christians - is prevented from gathering there for prayer. The attempt to ban women makes us all look small and hateful.

Can we agree that there is no halachic issue at stake? Jewish law expressly permits women to wear a tallis. The women OF the wall can rely on authorities like Tosfot and the Rambam who permit women to wear talitot and tefilin. The language the Rambam uses is especially pertinent: “Women are exempt from the biblical law of tzitzit. Women who want to wear tzitzit, wrap themselves in it without a blessing…if they want to perform them without a blessing they are not prevented.” Why can't the women FOR the wall follow this directive? Why are they attempting to prevent women from performing a voluntary mitzvah, when the Rambam says "…if they want to perform them without a blessing they are not prevented" Other authorities may disagree with the Rambam, but his ruling makes it clear that there is no real crime here.

Of course, I understand that we can't agree that the women OF the wall merely wish to pray. Some of you won't hear of it. You are certain that the women OF the wall wish to overthrow the authority of the Rabbis and turn Judaism into something unrecognizable. Perhaps there is some truth to this. But can we agree that motives are not actionable? Can we agree that the secret things must be left to God alone? Can we agree that our responsibility is to follow the law, a law that allows women to pray, and to pray wearing talitot, and that above all bids us to treat each other with kindness and respect?

Like all fanatics, the women FOR the wall and their supporters are missing the forest for the trees. They are focusing on a minor issue and on something that is entirely unknowable. We won't ever know what the women OF the wall are thinking in their heart of hearts, but as a result of the woman FOR the wall and their attempt to impose on all of us a particular interpretation of a particular law, the kotel is being disgraced and the Jewish people are being embarrassed.

---

Every month we have to read about Jews acting like beasts? Every month we have to wonder why the WOW can't be left alone, like the Carlbachians are left alone, like the Christians are left alone? Every month we have to put up with newspapers calling us misogynistic.  Every month women haters need to be given an opportunity to vent their rage?

This is the fruit of w4w's labor.  This is what they've done. Make no mistake about it. And for what? So women can't do something the rishonim say they are allowed to do?

 Search for more information about WOW at4torah.com

Sorry, rabbi, it's not OK

---

A guest post by Y. Bloch

Earlier this summer, I wrote this. Now, with Mordechai Elon found guilty this morning of indecent acts against a minor, it's only more relevant:

This week, the Jewish Press published a remarkable piece, "Molestation Cases Must Be Handled by G’dolim, Not by ‘Experts’" by the unfortunately-named Rabbi William Handler.
Even the JP editor seemed uneasy about it, introducing this article with the information that the author "was also a supporter of Rabbi Yisroel Moshe Weingarten, convicted of molesting his daughter." (I think we can drop the "Rabbi" now.) Handler's basic argument is this: sure, child molestation is bad, but child protective services are evil.
It is not surprising that Handler is ultra-Orthodox, what is called haredi here in Israel (although both these terms are imprecise).
The right wing of Orthodoxy subscribes to the theory of Da'as Torah, which has its very own Wikipedia page, and this approach boils down to 1) every question in life (fashion, economics, politics, etc.) is essentially a religious question; 2) these questions can only be answered by the g'dolim, the "greats" among contemporary Torah sages. I'm not sure how far this extends. House on fire, call the g'dolim? Car stolen, call the g'dolim? Cancer, heart attack, syphilis, call the g'dolim?

Let's just be happy Handler's first name isn't Richard.

But this is not solely a haredi issue. We modern Orthodox have little to be proud of in this arena. Consider the hottest topic in modern Orthodoxy: whom to nominate for Chief Rabbi of Israel. Should it be 76-year-old Rabbi Yaakov Ariel or 53-year-old Rabbi David Stav? While the latter is considered more liberal, he is a member of Forum Takanah, designed to deal with sexual harassment in the religious community, of which Rabbi Ariel is president. This organization was relatively obscure until the Mordechai "Mutty" Elon scandal broke three years ago.

"Just because my nickname is Mutty, should they hound me? Like a dog?" would not work in Hebrew.

It turns out that Takanah learned of abuse allegations in 2005, but they decided to solve this problem by designing guidelines to keep Elon away from students. This led to the bizarre situation in which he was technically dean of Yeshivat HaKotel, but was not physically present in the yeshiva--or the city.  How'd that work out? As one might have guessed, Elon broke the rules, and he's been on trial in Jerusalem Magistrate's Court for the past six months for various sex crimes against male students of his. And people applauded Takanah's "bravery" in going to the media five years later!
Perhaps you're thinking that Takanah is some relic of a benighted time when we didn't really "get" sexual abuse. Probably the era when Emmanuel Lewis had to tell us to "Say NO, then GO and TELL." Actually, Takanah was founded in 2003. Yes, 2003, the same year that three rabbis got up at my alma mater, Yeshiva University in New York, to beg public forgiveness for their bungling of the Baruch Lanner case.

Who would have thought that the inventor of the alias "Harry Dingo" would end up on the sex-offender registry?

Then-rabbi Baruch Lanner was a high-ranking official in the youth group of the Orthodox Union, as well as a high-school principal. Rumors had long swirled about his sexual inappropriateness (mostly towards female students), so in 1989 three YU rabbis convened a rabbinical tribunal, found him guilty and issued a harsh sentence: guidelines for his conduct. Sound familiar? Lanner, of course, violated these rules, and the state of New Jersey stepped in, convicting him of aggravated sexual contact and child endangerment in 2002.
So how do we combat this phenomenon? By memorizing one line and repeating it until it echoes throughout every yeshiva, synagogue and Jewish institution: "Sorry, Rabbi, it's not OK."
It's not OK to create an organization to stand between sexual-abuse victims and the professionals who are trained and ready to help them.
It's not OK to vilify those who have dedicated their lives to helping survivors or to silence those who speak out on their behalf.
It's not OK to convene ad hoc rabbinical tribunals in order to devise guidelines unfounded in science, law or religion to "solve" the problem.
It's not OK, Rabbi Stav or Rabbi Ariel or whoever gets this job, to maintain the status quo. There is only one reason not to go to the authorities, and that is to protect the abusers. The choice should be clear, g'dolim.


Search for more information about child abuse at4torah.com

Where is the king?

---

Is it it OK to lie if it brings people closer to God? Is heresy allowed if it encourages prayer and repentance?  These are some of the sacrilegious thoughts that dance through my head whenever we reach Ellul, and the corprealist Rabbis start shouting "The king is in the field."

If God is omnipresent, isn't he always in the field? And if the Rabbis are speaking anthropomorphically for the purpose of poetry, aren't the worried a Jew might be mislead? If you hear people you admire say again and again that God wants our prayers or that He comes closer to us during the weeks before Rosh Hashana and you'll start to believe it. Though a Rabbi who says "The king is in the field" may mean it non literally, his listeners won't necessarily take it that way. They might not realize the Rabbi is speaking figuratively and come to embrace forbidden ideas. Shouldn't we be more careful?

You can make the same sort of point about the Torah itself. In fact, one of the Rambam's opponents (forget who; check Shapiro) argues that though it may be wrong  it can't be heresy to say that God has a body. After all, in the Torah God talks about His own hand (which He says he used to cover Moshe's face) among many other anthropomorphic expressions.  If such expressions are heretical God would not have used them. He would not have led the non-philosophers astray. And yet, God did use such expressions. He did plant in our minds the idea that He has a hand and a brain and moods. Why did he do this? If the point of the Torah is to lead us away from errors and into the grandeur of truth, why is it littered with so many land mines?

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

A real hatchet job

---

A guest post by Y. Bloch

Caution: this post talks about TMS, but doesn't talk about TMS. You've been warned.

So, folks, how are we translating egla arufa, the stirring conclusion (Deut. 21:1-9) of this week's Torah portion? I was shocked to learn that "cow" technically refers to those female cattle which have reproduced (in some regions, only after baby number two). That being the case, the para adumma of Num. 19 cannot be a red cow, as only one Mishnaic opinion allows for a knocked-up para adumma (Para 2:1), and we don't follow it. It indeed seems to be, much to my chagrin, a red heifer. So what about the egla arufa? Calling it "the younger heifer whose neck is to be broken with a hatchet" is a bit wordy. We can go with "calf," but then we lose the sexual distinction between it and egel. The Golden Calf and the Beheaded Calf?

Speaking of that, many translations render arifa as decapitation, but no heads are coming off. We may have to go back to decollation, which nowadays usually means undoing the sorting function of a copier, but it did originally mean "be-necking". So, "decollated calf"? That seems to be too close to sexualizing livestock.

I'm also wondering why the Torah is so eager in Leviticus 5:8 to tell us that the avian sin-offering is not to be decollated. In fact, it is one of the 613 commandments (Maimonides, Neg. 112; Hinnukh 124). What does this all have to with the decollation of an unredeemed firstborn donkey (Ex. 13:13, 34:6)? I am perplexed.

Anyway, sorry to bother you. We now resume our round table on excommunication and heresy.


Search for more information about cattle at4torah.com

A word about the Haredim

---

A lot of you asked me to run this comment as a post, so here goes:

The right wing MO are Haredi in all but name; many now even dress in a Haredi manner. For some time, I've been referring to the so-called "Centrists" (a term I dislike as I feel it doesn't really mean anything; today's "Centrist" would have been considered right wing a generation ago) as "Haredi Lite". I would no longer be even that generous. I consider the leadership of YU to be Haredi. The only real Modern Orthodox remaining are on the leftmost fringe, and they are reviled by everyone to the right of them (and there are barely enough of them to fill a function hall, in any case). 

The Haredim cite their population statistics as vindication of their way of life, but their world is collapsing. They can no longer provide for their irresponsibly growing numbers, and they refuse, largely, to educate their children in a manner that would allow them to seek employment outside of their xenophobic subculture. Unfortunately, they've spent the past half-century commandeering Orthodoxy and intimidating the MO into submission. They now own the franchise, and when they go - which will most likely be within the span of another generation - they'll be taking most of Orthodoxy with them. What will remain will be a fragmented mess. In the meanwhile, their leadership responds to increasing reports of scandalous behavior and increasing numbers of defections by tightening the reins and reinforcing the barriers.


The liberal Jews and the Modern Orthodox are suffering from a bad case of "Fiddler on the Roof" nostalgia. Tragically, we've fallen for a lot of romanticized nonsense. We've allowed the Haredim to convince us they are a living link to the "alter heim", and in so being, represent a Judaism more "authentic" than our own, when in fact, their world is a comparatively recent invention, based upon the teachings of a handful of far-right ideologue rabbis of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the issue of their influence upon Israel. As many

of you are no doubt aware, Israeli economists are predicting bankruptcy within a generation if they don't wean the Haredim off the social service rolls, a process the government is too spineless to undertake. (Yes, I know - Lapid. So far, all I hear is talk.) 

The Haredim are both Israel's and Orthodoxy's tragedy. -- BY Cipher

 Search for more information about guest posts at4torah.com

What makes someone Modern Orthodox?

---

Wikipedia says this:

• Modern Orthodoxy adopts a relatively inclusive stance toward society in general, and the larger Jewish community in particular.
• Modern Orthodoxy is, in comparison, accommodating, "if not welcoming" to modernity, general scholarship and science.
• Modern Orthodoxy is almost uniformly receptive toward Israel and Zionism, viewing the State of Israel (in addition to the Land of Israel) as having inherent religious significance.

Do we agree?  And if this description is accurate and acceptable to all, what do we call men who meet the following criteria:

1) Wear black hats on shabbos, (and perhaps during the week)
2) Send their kids to schools that de-emphasize secular studies
3) Disapprove of college
4) Marry women who are lenient about hair and body covering
5) Generally support Israel and embrace Likud politics
6) Learn infrequently if at all.
7) Make full use of technology, including smart phones and TV


Search for more information about labels at4torah.com

All you need is love: Avrohom Birnbaum edition

You may remember Avrohom Birnbaum from the angry, hate-filled screed he published against Gil Student a few monthes ago. Well, he's back. In his new Yated article Birnbaum makes two shocking claims. First he says that MO Jews despise Haredim while Haredim have historically showered MO Jews with nothing but kindness and love. Second, he says that all of the other Jewish sects owe his own personal sect a huge debt of gratitude, on the basis of the fact that the Haredim (aka God's special guys) run the best chesed organizations.

Let's deal with the second claim first.

We agree that Haredim are the managers and founders of several major Hesed organizations. Certainly, they play important roles in the the seven or eight chesed organizations Birnbaoum lists. So we concede that Haredim spend a lot of time helping other Jews - Haredim and non-haredim alike.

But who pays their bills?

When Bonei Olam, or Hatzola need a cash infusion where do they pass the hat?

Who keeps the Haredi chesed machine humming?

Doesn't it seem likely that the bills are being paid, not by hard core Haredi Jews who tend to be underemployed, but by MO Jews and Haredi-lite Jews? (Haredi-lite Jews are MO Jews who wear hats and daven sfard.) These are the Jews who are  likely to have disposable income, and indeed the major Haredi chesed dinners frequently honor MO Jews, Haredi-lite Jews and unaffiliated Jews specifically because they wish to tap into that community's pockets.

Moreover, Birnbaum must have forgotten that MO communities often host Haredi institutions for Shabbos and provide them with fundraising venues.  Lakewood, eg.,  has been to lots of non Haredi shuls. Can you tell me was the last time a Haredi shul hosted YU?

And the first claim Birnbaom makes - that Haredim are brimming with love toward MO Jews - isn't any sounder. Any hatred and resentment that exists flows both ways. It may be true that MO Jews are fed up with Haredi freeloading and self-righteousness  but its inarguable that the emnity is reciprocated.

Haredi Jews consider the MO Jews, their Rabbis, and their institututions to be illigitimate and unworthy of respect, they support leaders who denounce MO Jews as Amelek, and they and their Rabbis tolerate violent attacks on MO women and children. All of this is known to anyone who reads the newspapers.

The top Haredi Rabbi of the last 50 years is revered as Rav Moshe and beloved by all. The top MO Rabbi of the last fifty years is disdained as J.B and you find punk kids on Twitter who are proud of the fact that R. Aaron Kotler allegedly used to disrespect him.

Before Birnbaum lectures other Jewish sects about love, why doesn't he write an article demanding the same from his own people?

Jewish American Genealogy

by @azigra

When my uncle asked his parents one summer to send him to a yeshiva instead of public school that coming fall my grandparent brought him to a psychiatrist. They lived in Pelham Parkway in the Bronx which at the time had a large Orthodox community with what still remains the largest Young Israel in the country, though not in numbers anymore. 

Shlomo Payes

My uncle had befriended some local orthodox kids who introduced him to a local Hasidic Rebbe called Kosson. These friendships and his association with this Rebbe brought him to Orthodoxy and after consultation with the psychiatrist my grandparents sent him to that yeshiva. 

My grandfather had grown up on a farm in Kingston, NY. Aside from speaking Yiddish in the house there wasn't anything Jewish about his childhood life. His father was essentially an atheist and all of his four sisters intermarried. 

My grandmother grew up in the East Bronx, then a heavily Jewish neighborhood, in a very traditionally Jewish family. Her grandfather (pictured at right) emigrated to New York from Warsaw in 1892 with his wife and five children. Both he and his wife were dead by 1895 leaving the children, ages 5-20, orphans. His son Isaiah, my great grandfather (pictured below with my grandmother), was 16 when they arrived and likely spent some years in a Cheder or at least had a formal Orthodox childhood. 

His two youngest brothers were taken into the Hebrew Sheltering Guardian Society of New York, an orphanage located on 1st Avenue and 57th Street. The older children lived together at 220 Delancey Street in a building that is no longer standing. 

Isaiah went to shul daily and despite working on Saturday the family ate shabbos meals together. 

Following my uncles first year in yeshiva my grandparents decided to send their younger son to yeshiva as well. Subsequently, my grandmother became kosher and shabbos observant. Her husband remained an atheist the rest of his life although allowed his family to turn his life upside down. By the time my mother was born the the house was completely kosher and religious. 

my grandfather and two uncles

I remember one Sunday morning, I must have been in first grade, showing my grandfather an alpeh beis chart and asking my mother afterwords to write me a "mitzva note" that I taught my grandfather how to read Hebrew. Of course that idea didn't go over well and that mitzva went unannounced. 

my uncle at his sheva brachos with kosson rebbe (l)
and unknown rabbi (r)

I grew up with very little family. I never met a relative of my father's or at least none that I can remember and my mother's family was small since my grandmother slowly cut off ties with her cousins and relatives, afraid of their influence on her children. It is certainly very upsetting to me in hindsight that she did that. I've managed to connect with relatives all over the country who have lots of details about my grandmother's brothers, uncles, aunts, etc... but nobody really knows much about my branch. Everyone has vague memories of my uncles from childhood, but the connection ended there. Despite the difficulty I have been able to amass a family tree of over 1,200 people (not all blood related) and the most enjoyable and rewarding part is always connecting with people, Jews, Secular Jews, Non Jews, who share a common ancestor with me.

I'm not sure what made my grandparent agree to my uncle's request. That single decision though they may not have realized completely changed the course of their lives and the lives of their descendants.

Search for more information about JEWISH GENEALOGY at4torah.com

Did Gil quit or not?

---

I can't be the only person who thought Gil's farewell was confusing or unclear. He basically said:

Blogs are boring! The dialog on them is stale! But I'll soon be back with a new one! Also, I am quitting! See the cute tombstone picture I posted? So that's it! No more Hirhurim!  At least until the relaunch in two weeks!

If ideas and dialog are stale, how can a relaunch fix that? New fonts won't make the conversation better.

But I'll confess some concern. The last time he shut down Hirhurim it was to partner with an evil, nearly insane, megalomaniac. What's next? Rishimu 2.0?  (Read about that here and here)

Search for more information about Rishimu at4torah.com

The C-word

---

A guest post by Y. Bloch

There is a C-word in Hebrew, and it is vulgar, derogatory and a four-letter word, but it's not what you think. It's כושי, Cushi in English, and it has quite an interesting history.

That's what the defenders of newly-elected Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau certainly want you to think of. Cush (or Kush), they will point out, is a biblical figure, Noah's (firstborn) grandson and the father of Nimrod, the first king in Scripture. The name was considered so prestigious that it was used by other royal families, from Aramea to Judea, throughout the First Temple period. Historically, the kingdom of Kush was a great African empire in what is now Sudan, even ruling over Egypt for a number of generations as the 25th Dynasty--the famous Nubian pharaohs. If "Nubian" is considered a compliment today, certainly there is nothing sinister about R. Lau's basketball analysis for yeshiva students: "What do you get out of it when the kushim who are paid by Tel Aviv beat the kushim who are paid by Greece?” Doesn't Jeremiah ask the question (13:23), "Does a Cushite change his skin? Or a leopard his spots?"

Tantamani, 25th-dynasty pharaoh. In the biopic, he will be played by Michael Cera or Jesse Eisenberg.

The problem with this approach of course, is that R. Lau is the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi. That name comes from Cush's cousin, Ashkenaz, and it refers to Scythians or Armenians. Is R. Lau the chief rabbi of the Kardashians? If not, I gather that he was speaking modern Hebrew in modern Israel, and the biblical terminology is irrelevant. Indeed, R. Lau admitted as much when he dismissed critics by saying, "We’re experts at taking a joking comment and turning it into a big deal." The fact is that "Cushi," as used in contemporary Israeli society, is less offensive than the N-word but more offensive than "Negro," landing it in the category of schvartze--a term with an innocuous origin that has become a racial slur used by those "set in their ways."
However, I do think that a millenia-old source can help us here--not the Bible, but the Talmud, specifically an intriguing passage from the Mishna, Negaim 2:1, which deals not with leopard spots, but leprous spots:

In a German, a bright spot appears as dull white, and in a Cushite, what is dull appears as bright. R. Ishmael says: The Children of Israel--may I make atonement for them--are like boxwood, neither black nor white, but in between. R. Akiba says: Painters have colors which they use to create images in black, white and in-between, so one may bring an in-between color, circle the spot with it and then it can be seen as if he is in-between. R. Judah says: The hues of leprosy signs should be applied leniently and not stringently: let a German be judged leniently by his own skin, and let a Cushite be judged leniently by the in-between hue. However, the Sages say: both this and that, as if they are in-between.

The first conclusion one might leap to is that if R. Lau calls basketball-players Cushites, we may call him German. It's a designation which his father, who survived the Holocaust as a young boy, might object to. However, to be fair to R. Lau Sr., considering his own friendship with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, he probably would object to the Cushite designation as well.
In any case, in ancient times, leprous spots would require quarantine, but only if they matched a certain standard of whiteness (white = unclean, that old cliche). However, Jews in the Roman period came in all shapes and colors, so how is one supposed to compare and contrast?
The first opinion simply says: play it as it lies. If you're Teutonic, a given white spot may not be as prominent; if you're Nubian, it will stick out more. The Torah was given to a nation of boxwood-colored people, and that's that.

A Roman boxwood comb--or Jewfro pick, I'm not judging.

The final opinion takes a different tack: since the laws of leprosy are so tough, we take every opportunity to find a leniency. If the German will be helped by looking at him alone, do that; if the Cushite needs an in-betweener to make his spot less glaring, judge him by that standard.

However, R. Akiba takes the middle path (and it his view which is accepted by the Sages' consensus): judge everyone by the same objective standard. Whatever the color scheme of Talmudic leprosy may be, take it to Home Depot, get your swatches, and then apply it equally to everyone. Where would R. Akiba get that idea? Maybe from his father, Joseph, who was a convert himself. R. Akiba understood, at the turn of the first century, that the future of Judaism was not ethnocentric. It was, and is, black and white and brown and yellow. Had Judaism stayed a tribal identity, it would have vanished into the mists of history. Its staying power comes from one unwavering principle: think outside the boxwood.

 Search for more information about leprosy at4torah.com

The End of the J-Blogosphere

---

Emes Ve-Emunah. Baal Habos. Wolfish Musings. Garnel Ironheart. On the Main Line. XGH, Godol Hador, Modern Orthoprax, and the other incarnations. Rationalist Judaism. Achas L'Malaa V'Sheva L'Matta. Pravda Ne'eman. Daas Hedyot. The Curious Jew. Voice From the Wilderness. SerandEz. The Second Son.

Those are just some of the blogs I used to visit regularly or semi-regularly. I became frum in mid-2005, but from somewhere in 2006 to 2011, I was involved in the J-blogosphere, and myself blogged throughout much of this time. 

I have a project in the works on the world of Jewish blogging. While I can't do too much with it right now since I'm mainly focused on searching for work, I have written the first chapter and called up folks who were involved for some preliminary discussions. Almost everybody tells me they've migrated almost entirely to social media. They might read a blog here or there, but they usually come to it via Facebook link. People seem to have solidified their positions and don't see a need for the sort of lengthy discourse we had in the 00's; a brief, predictable, and boring status update on facebook will do...and if I'm too lazy to write out a status, a meme. The old conversations have become stale as we have solidified our epistemologies and understood where folks with differing ones are coming from. The challenges to Judaism in the 21st century are clear. The apologetics and emotional answers, respectively, are also known. It's become clear to us Internet denizens that there is nothing new under the sun. So it's felt for awhile that J-blogging has had its day. Oh, there are exceptions, Rabbi Fink's blog came on the scene late in the game, but he has managed to build a respectable brand. Emes Ve-Emunah carries on as if nothing's changed, still expressing Rabbi Maryles's thoughts on the issues of the day. And while others have come and gone, DovBear is left standing victorious.

I might not have come to read any of these blogs though if it wasn't for the first one I encountered, Hirhurim. Hirhurim's been a mainstay of the J-blogosphere for years. Back in 2006 or 2007, I managed to get the rabbis at my old yeshiva to make sure it wasn't one of the sites "blocked" by their computers. Rabbi Gil Student leans right-wing, but I was haredi, and I was fascinated by the discussion he was starting. As a naive baal teshuvah making my way into harediism, I didn't understand how a right-leaning rabbi could publish Slifkin's books, go against Our Daas Torah, act like halachic matters were up for discussion when really the answers just lied with the Gedolim...and still be called 'rabbi' by his haredi peers! Wasn't deferring to the decision of the biggest Gedolei Hador mandatory? How could this rabbi reject the dictate of our Sages and still be referred to as Orthodox? Then there were these other guys that wrote comments or were referred to...Lawrence Kaplan and Marc Shapiro didn't seem stupid, how come they didn't have MY theology? And something was wrong about the haredi world I was in...why did they ignore or falsify aspects of Jewish history if our theology was so obviously correct? Why did they seem so afraid of this Slifkin guy that Gil was publishing? I was and I am a katan, a nobody, but I am a nobody with thoughts. Blogs allowed me to take those thoughts and engage in a conversation that otherwise would've been shut to me.

Today, Hirhurim announced the shuttering of its' doors, as Gil prepares for a new venture. It feels that with this announcement, while some important blogs that deserve our reading are still around (e.g. DovBear, FinkorSwim, etc.), the J-Blogosphere per se.is done. I was part, a very small part, of a conversation that Gil started. His blog helped me get started in my personal journey of thinking deeper, more critically, etc. And for all the disagreements those of us to the left of him may have, I appreciated that conversation.


Search for more information about blogs at4torah.com

Here's my great idea of the day!

---

Hey, you know how those big, strong, Bes Shemesh men put those uppity modern females in their place whenever they attempt to sit in the front seats of buses? Heroic right? But such a waste of their precious Torah learning time. Also, it gives the God-hating media a free chance to say horrible things about our perfect community.

Well, here's my solution!

I think W4W should open a subsidiary called W4Buses. They can use seminary girls to keep those brazen women in the back of the bus where they belong. Then our  holy and pious men won't be forced against their will to get mad and commit righteous acts of violence anymore. 

Great idea right?


Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Evil woman strikes again. Forces God-fearing men to behave violently

Someone needs to make a video with sweet Shweky music proving how it was all the female passenger's fault. How DARE she try to do something an ultra orthodox person didn't like. Such nerve. Such gaavah. Clearly she has major problems with Torah true Judaism and the words of our sages.

Ultra-Orthodox protesters shatter bus windows after female passenger refuses to sit in back -...

www.haaretz.com

Demonstrators in Beit Shemesh block path of bus and smashed its windshield with a hammer, before moving on to two other buses nearby; police detain two.

Those of you who aren't familiar with the propagandist Shweky video referred to above, are invited to view it after the jump

Breaking: The RCA believes in TMS!

---

The RCA are a bunch of cowards and weaklings. Why else would they feel the need to publish a statement declaring their devotion to a particular interpretation of a particular Rishon's creed? How insecure.

I feel certain that Satmar and the other maddeningly self-confident branches of Judaism won't be joining this pathetic parade. They know they don't have anything to prove and that their brand needs no shoring up.

Anyway, the RCA  statement is flawed as I point out in the following little fisk.

RCA Statement on Torah Min HaShamayim

Jul 31, 2013 -- In recent days there has been much discussion regarding the belief in Torah Min HaShamayim.

"Much discussion" on like two or three blogs. I haven't heard a thing about any of this in the real world. Have you? Anyway, by reacting this way, you do two terrible things. You give blogs, Cross Currents in particular, a power that hasn't been earned and isn't deserved, and you give us all another excuse to discuss all of the ways in which ordinary logic undermines the most maximalist TMS claims.

We maintain that it is necessary not only to assert the centrality of this bedrock principle in broad terms, but also to affirm the specific belief that Moshe received the Torah from God during the sojourn in the wilderness, the critical moment being the dramatic revelation at Sinai.

 The Rambam and others have included this in in their various Principles of Faith but its centrality is so evident that an appeal to these Principles of Faith is almost superfluous. The very coherence of traditional Jewish discourse concerning the authority of the Torah she-bikhtav and the Torah she-be`al peh rests upon this conviction.

Appeal to consequences. Certainly, Orthodox Judaism as currently construed depends on acceptance of this "bedrock principle", but what's inevitable about Orthodox Judaism as its currently construed? The fact that a sect that developed historically depends essentially on the truth of a particular idea is no argument for the truth of that idea.

When critical approaches to the Torah's authorship first arose, every Orthodox rabbinic figure recognized that they strike at the heart of the classical Jewish faith.

Orthodox figures reacted similarly to Copernicus and Darwin. Some Orthodox figures reacted that way to the moon landing, too. From where I sit, this is the same type of situation and the same type of solution is required. If its ever proven that the Torah is a composite document, dating to different periods, Judaism will have to be rethought but it can go on and it can continue to thrive. We made changes to the theology after Copernicus and Darwin won the day. If Farber et al ever win the day, we'll just do the same thing and life will go on.

Whatever weight one assigns to a small number of remarks by medieval figures regarding the later addition of a few scattered phrases,

Whoever wrote this sentence needs to return his smikha. The idea that a few scattered phrases were added to the Torah after Moshe died did not originate with "medieval figures". Its found in the Talmud, and attributed to Tannaim.

there is a chasm between them and the position that large swaths of the Torah were written later-- 

Agreed, but there is also a medieval figure -Yosef Tov Elem  who says clearly that it is legitimate and non-heretical to say that large swaths of the Torah were written later. So the seeds of a new theology are there for the taking by anyone who is already convinced of the truth of the Documentary Hypothesis. And should Farber et al win the day, the teachings of  Yosef Tov Elem can serve as a starting point for those who wish to create a new theology, just like the teachings of Yitzchak of Acco were used as the basis of a new theology once the evidence for a very old universe became impossible to ignore.

all the more so when that position asserts that virtually the entire Torah was written by several authors who, in their ignorance, regularly provided erroneous information and generated genuine, irreconcilable contradictions. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, none of the abovementioned figures would have regarded such a position as falling within the framework of authentic Judaism.

Right. But so what? We can start with Yosef Tov Elem and agree that the Torah was produced over time, by different (prophetic) hands, without also agreeing that the material contains errors or irreconcilable contradictions. The solutions Chazal gave to many of those contradictions can still be considered valid.

If we wish to stay "within the framework of authentic Judaism" we can also attribute any unsolvable contradictions to tikunei sofrim (scribal corrections) and ittur sofrim (scribal omissions) The Rabbis recognized as many as 23 of these. Perhaps there were more. Or, we can hang our hat on the midrashim that suggest, rather strongly, that Ezra played an editorial role. Or we can summon the Radak who said, "...during the first Exile, books were misplaced and lost and scholars died; when the Great Assembly restored the Torah they found conflicting information in manuscripts and went according to the majority."

My point in providing this brief summary of the skeptical sources is to demonstrate that Torah-true solutions are available to anyone who has been convinced that the Torah is composite document written over time. It isn't necessary to draw a red line, nor must we toss out those who have been swayed, nor is it necessary to paint yourself into a corner with new creeds and new dogmas. If you care about truth, rather than the status quo, you can permit discussion. You can allow things to continue to develop. And, if necessary, you can also build a new theology based on legitimate sources.

While we recognize and respect the theological struggles that are a feature of many a modern person's inner religious life, the position in question is unequivocally contrary to the faith requirements of historic Judaism.

Its true that Judaism has always believed, more or less, in TMS. That, also, is no argument that TMS is true. Perhaps Yosef Tov Elem was correct, and the Torah, or large swaths of it anyway, were revealed over time, and recorded by different men. Perhaps this idea that the whole Torah, or most of it, was revealed "during the sojourn in the wilderness, the critical moment being the dramatic revelation at Sinai" is a mistake, created by well-meaning men. Who can rule this out?  On what basis? Fervent belief isn't evidence, or an argument. And if our old, cherished belief turns out to have been a mistake, well then good news: Judaism - authentic Judaism - never rested on it in the first place.

 Search for more information about the RCA at4torah.com