DovBear

Parsha Notes: Vayerah

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:17:00 +0000

Mostly from last year, but with some additions.

- Internal Parallels (and antithesis)
(a) The angles visit to Abraham vs. their visit to Lot
- The guest are eagerly welcomed and fed (duh) (p)
- Both men are sitting at an entrance when the guests appear (p)
- Abraham's guests arrive at midday; Lot's arrive at twilight (a)
- Abraham is at the tent flap; Lot is at the city gate (a)
- Abraham feeds his guests the best of the best; Lot serves the "poor man's bread" (a)
- Sarah laughs; the sons in law of Lot laugh (the same verb is used) (the laughter itself is a parallel, the reason for the laughter is an antithesis.) (Sarah laughs in disbelief; the sons in law laugh out of scepticism.)
- Following the visit Abraham asks God to spare a city and fails; Lot also asks for divine mercy but succeeds (a)

(b) The destruction of Sodom vs. destruction of the world
- The word himtir appears in both places; both are destroyed by precipitation (p)
- In each case, moral perversion is the reason given for the destruction (p)
- In each case, one family is marked for survival (p)
- In each case, the hero becomes drunk immediately afterwards, and is involved in an illicit act. (p)

(c) Yishmael's trip to the desert vs Yitzchak's trip to the mountain
- Abraham "rose early in the morning" both to send Hagar away, and to begin his trip with Yitzchakl (p)
- Both moments of mortal danger occur in the wilderness (p)
- Yitzchak is accompanied by his father; Ishmael goes with his mother (a)
- He first puts bread and water on Hagar; next he puts wood on Isaac (p)
- In each case an angel intervenes at the moment before death (p)
- At the last moment, eyes are opened. (p)
- The angel fondly refers to the boy as a na'ar in both cases (P)
- In each case the angel promises that the boy will produce a great nation (p)

(d) Abraham's grandson Yaakov has 12 sons: so do his brother Nahor (and his first son Yishmoel)

2- External Parallels
(a) The sin of Sodom vs the crime of Procrustes

(b) The Lord's visit to Abraham vs. Kothar's visit to Dan'el [*], a judge in the Ugaritic epic of Eqhat
- Dan'el sits by an entrance
- He "lifts up his eyes" to apprehend the divine visitor; and
- tells his wife to prepare a meal with the best of the best.

3 - Motifs
(a) This week we see the first of several annunciation scenes, all of which share a promise from a divine entity that a child will be born "at this season." The annunciation to Sarah is different in three ways: (1) The promise is delivered to the husband; (2) the woman is post-menopausal; (3) the child appears not in the very next scene but after the intervention of other events.

(b) The sister-wife motif returns this week. Based on discovered documents, Sarna argues that "sister-wife" was a category of marriage in the ANE, distinct from concubines, and ordinary wives.

(c) Important elements of the angelic visit to Sodom are echoed in the story of the Pilegesh b'Givah suggesting this is also a motif.

4 - Anomalies
(a) Gen 20:13: ויהי כאשר התעו אתי אלהים מבית אבי ואמר לה זה חסדך אשר תעשי עמדי אל כל־המקום אשר נבוא שמה אמרי־לי אחי הוא
- The verb is plural, suggesting Abraham is speaking not of God, but "the gods." This is, perhaps, a dodge in deference to his pagan host, but not something our modern sensibilities would expect. (Rashi notes the anomaly and explains it away)

(b) Gen 22:2 וַיֹּאמֶר קַח־נָא אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַבְתָּ אֶת־יִצְחָק וְלֶךְ־לְךָ אֶל־אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ׃
- Scholarship suggests the second term should be yadidcha (your favored one) rather than yechidcha (your only one) (a difference of one letter; the chet and the daled are similar in ktav ashuri.) Alter rejects this, following Rashi, and argues that in Abraham's mind each son is an "only" son of his own mother.

(c) Gen 22:13 וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה־אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אֶת־הָאַיִל וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנֹו׃
- The MT has achar (behind) Scholars argue achad (one) better fits the verse and the facts, and note that in ketav ashrui the raysh and the daled are similar.

5 - New understandings
(a) We were taught that Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. Following the grammar of the verse, the Ralbag argues it never happened.

(b) The Rambam says that the visit of the three angels never actually occurred. All of it was a vision, happening only in Abraham's head.

6 - Misteachings
(a) Small children are taught that Abraham's aishel is an acronyn for Achila (feeding), Shtiya (drinking), and Levayah ("escort") when they should instead be taught that this is Rashi's gloss on the Talmud in Sotah and the Talmud itself says something else.

7 - Mussar
- Lot offers his virgin daughters to the mob, but ends up deflowering them himself (mida kneged mida)
- The famous point made by SRH about Avraham's use of the word's "midst of the city"-
- The famous point made by SRH about how we are to view non-Jews
- Two strange men visit Sodom and are accosted by the mob; a strange couple come to Gerar but are treated with respect by the king (Lesson: Not all Gentiles are created equal)

8 - Famous Parshanut discussions
(a) The mocking of Issac. What was Yishmael's sin? Attempted murder? Rape? Or, something else? Alter cleverly concludes from Sarah's reaction and the appearance of the word metzachek that "we may also be invited to construe [metzachek] as Issac-ing -- that is Sarah sees Ishmael as playing the role of Issac... as presuming to be the legitimate heir."

(b) The age of Yitzchak at the Akeida We were all taught that he was 37 (and therefore Rivka was three at their wedding) The Ibn Ezra and the Balei Tosfot strongly disagree.

(c) The punishment in Gerar. Was it plague of infertility or a plague of constipation that afflicted the people of Gerar? Both sides have textual support. Those who say it was constipation ask how a plague of infertility could have been immediately noticed, as the verse tells us it was. The other side points out that this story of infertility is immediately followed by the notice that God had "singled out (pokad) Sarah" to have a child. Singled out, how? Moreover, the plague of infertility guarantees that Issac is Abraham's son.

9 -Famous Ramban
- "God forbid a child raised in the house of Abraham could be raised to murder or worship strange gods" (paraphrase) This is how the Ramban angrily dismisses Rashi's idea that Ishmael sinned by worshiping idols, or by making an attempt on Issac's life.
- Earlier Ramban also angrily dismisses the Rambam's theory about the angels visit being a prophetic vision, and not an actual event.

10 Famous Rashi
It's excluded from anything ArtScroll publishes, but the Gutnik edition is nice enough to include the Rashi comment that seems to say that scribes edited troubling biblical verses to make them more palatable.

10 - Anachronism
- Gen: 21:34 וַיָּגָר אַבְרָהָם בְּאֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים יָמִים רַבִּים׃
The Philistines didn't settle on the west coast of Canaan until many centuries after the Patriarchal Period.

11 Plot holes
- Where did Lot's daughters find wine?

12 - Unanswered questions
- Why is the Davidic line born in sin? Both his lines are the products of illicit acts. (Lot and his daughters on one side, and Yehuda with his daughter-in-law on the other.)
--
[FN] Incidently, some speculate that the third person mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14 is Dan'el, the Ugaritic Judge, not Daniel the lion tamer (Reasons: The other two listed are gentiles, and the book of Daniel was written long after Ezekiel) As Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) has also told me: "Daniel is actually Daniyyeil, with a pronounced consonantal yud. Yehhezqeil mentions DN’L (=Dan’eil), without the important *pronounced* yud that should be there for Daniyyeil."

Out of Context

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:59:00 +0000

A guest post by n and aml
וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר - And Abraham answered and said, "Behold now I have commenced to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes."

Rava in Tractate Chulin 88b says that the reward for saying this was that his children would earn the Mitzvah of the ashes of the Para Adumah (Red Heifer) and dust of the Sotah (a woman brought to the Temple accused of adultery was forced to drink a concoction which had dust from the foot of the Altar in it).

How are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to Afar v'Efer?

The legendary Dubner Maggid gives a Mashul as only the Dubner Maggid can; there was an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and all the peopleand Gedolim were invited. There was the top table for the family, and next to it, another for the Gedolim. The greatest rabbi invited shows up, wishes Mazal Tov, but feels unworthy of sitting in the prescence of the other rabbis, and quietly sits in the corner somewhere. The host feels that the rabbi is not being accorded due respect, and he requested that the whole table of rabbis move to the table in the corner to join this great rabbi. He manipulated the context to make the supposedly unworthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbi sit there.

This explains the Pshat of the Dubner Maggid, that Hashem took what Avraham said, and changed the context from dust and ash with all their negative connotations, to dust and ash as Mitzvos with all their positive connotations.

A slightly different Pshat was proferred by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but tremendous future, it can grow plantlife, which is alive, which can sustain other life etc, and whereas have no future whatsoever, but in the past were part of a living thing. Avraham meant Afar V'Efer to be that he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Says the Beis HaLevi, Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman's past, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future. Genius, no?

Geshmack!

Follow me on Twitter

The Secret of Hummus

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:57:00 +0000

I saw this post, written by Sarah's sister Rivka, over here, and couldn't resist "borrowing" it.

So my husband, Luiz, went to Israel on a business trip with a group of co-workers. One day, before lunchtime, one of the co-workers -- an Israeli man who works full-time in the company's Israeli office -- asks my husband if he and the rest of the group want to try a new place for lunch. "It's pretty far away," the co-worker says, "but it's worth it." My husband thinks, "sure, why not," and he and the rest of the group hop in the car.

On the way, this Israeli co-worker tells my husband the story about the place they're going to: It's run by a guy named Gingi. Years ago, Gingi was unhappy with his life. He decided that what he really wanted to do was make Hummus. So he traveled Israel for many years, working in different restaurants, trying to discover the secret of good Hummus. After he decided that he had found the secret to Hummus, he opened up a restaurant that sold nothing but Hummus, and things that went with Hummus (like pita, pickles, things like that).

The restaurant was very successful. But after a few years, Gingi became unhappy again. He was still not living the life he wanted. So he decided that if he can make good Hummus, people will come to him for the Hummus. The Hummus does not have to go to the people. So he found a kibbutz in the middle of nowhere that agreed that he could live on the kibbutz and open his "restaurant." They gave him a small building (more like a shed) to make his food, and everyday people came and ordered Hummus plates.

The thing is, the co-worker explained, Gingi only makes his Hummus until 1:30 pm precisely. At 1:30 on the dot, Gingi is out the door, and he leaves it for his helpers to serve any remaining Hummus and clean up.

At this point, my husband and his co-workers had arrived at Gingi's "restaurant." It was now a few minutes after one o'clock. They ordered their Hummus plates, and sat down to eat.

(Was it really good? I asked my husband at this point. It was Hummus, he replied. With pita. And beans.)

At 1:30, Gingi comes out of the kitchen.

"Gingi!" my husband's Israeli co-worker yells. "Come say hello! I want you to meet my friends from America!"

Gingi looks at his watch, walks past them, and heads to his little motor-bike parked outside.

"GINGI!" The co-worker yells again. "MY FRIENDS HAVE COME ALL THE WAY FROM CALIFORNIA TO MEET YOU!"

Gingi looks at his watch again, looks at the co-worker, and without saying a word, rides away.

The thing is, we have told this story to many people. The Americans always think the story is hysterical. The Israelis, on the other hand, find Gingi to be a very wise man, and don't understand why the story is so funny.

Hat tip Sarah

Follow me on Twitter

Is same-sex marriage a civil right?

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:34:00 +0000

A guest post by DYS

On Tuesday, voters in Maine struck down a law that had been passed by the legislature allowing gay marriage. In an off-year election such as this, the ones coming out to vote were the conservative "values voters" whose opposition to gay marriage drove them to the polls in modest, but large enough, numbers to overturn the gay marriage law.

Voters have now voted to maintain the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in over 30 states now. But these are undoubtedly only temporary setbacks for gay marriage rights activists. The youth of this country overwhelmingly support the right to same-sex marriage. They essentially feel "what's the big deal?" As older voters drop disappear from the voting pool and younger voters enter it, gay marriage will eventually become protected in all 50 states, either by court action and insufficient opposition to change that legislatively, or in the legislatiure or through ballot initiatives in the first place. But it may take a couple of decades before we get to that point.

As you can guess from the tone of this post so far, I support same-sex marriage rights. But some 16 months ago, I wrote a post on my blog supporting civil unions for everyone, and doing away with official government sanction of marriage entirely as a violation of the church-state divide.

I still believe that as an ideal. But in the real world, the institution of marriage as registered by the state isn't going to disappear anytime soon. American society isn't going to let go of state recognized marriage for a long, long time. So insisting only on the route of civil unions for everyone is a nonstarter and will deny rights to same-sex couples for years to come. For the meantime, however, there can certainly be a concept of civil marriage that is entirely divorced (if you'll pardon the term) from church sanctioned marriage. Civil, secular marriage has a long history in this country, going back to the Puritans. "For them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite." (Mark A. Peterson: "Civil Unions in the City on a Hill")

As a practicing Jew, I don't demand that the government recognize the rules of my religion as state law, for example having shabbat on Saturday, so why should I, or any person of any faith, have a veto over who can get married?

That certainly doesn't preclude any private religious group from maintaining that a marriage is between a man and a woman and restricting membership in their own group to those who believe and practice the same. But they shouldn't be allowed to make that definition the civil definition of marriage as well and impose their will on a secular society.

Search for more information about gay marriage at 4torah.com.

Follow me on Twitter

A series of unfortunately irreverent tweets regarding the Toldas Avraham Yitzchak's trip to Lawrence

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:03:00 +0000

Some of what I said recently to my crew on Twitter.

I wonder how much it would cost to hire the Toldos AY Rebbe to guest post on my blog. Anyone from Lawrence know his going rate?
8:02 AM Nov 4th
Odd isn't it, how quickly and easily Torah values can be sold. In Lawrence people like Israel, prepare their children for work, and dress in styles not acceptable to the guardians of Jerusalem. But their money is green, so the Holy Toldos Aharon Yitzchak Rebbe, a man supposedly famed for his integrity, is all too pleased to accept it.

Riddle me this. If Lawrence will host a Neturei Kartanik why won't they welcome J-Street? Does it all come down to headgear?
8:03 AM Nov 4th Can you imagine any of the piously proud residents of Lawrence throwing their homes open to someone like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - let alone allowing one of them to hold court and collect funds? I can't, but why not? Is the Toldos Avraham Yitzchak's rebbe view on Israel all that different from views held by anti-Israelniks on the far left?

Here's the Toldos AY game in a nutshell. Beat cops and women = huge $ from Willy and KJ. Smile sing and distribue kugel = same from Lawrence
8:05 AM Nov 4th
Not enought has been said about how shamefully insecure the non-hasidic Rebbe worshipers are. You won't ever see a modern Orthodox scholar welcomed into a shteeble to "deliver words of inspiration" so why does every MO shul throw its doors wide open for visiting Hasidim? What do Hassidim offer aside from better costumes? Meanwhile, let's notice that the Jerusalem thugs seems to have calmed down. Is the timing a coincidence? Am I wrong to presume the riots have ended (for now) because the rioters' all powerful, infallible leader is in the states with his hands out? Do the swells of Lawrence realize they are being played?

Search for more information about Hasidic cons at 4torah.com.

Follow me on Twitter

What does the Talmud really say about working and secular knowledge?

lurker972@gmail.com (Lurker) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:44:00 +0000

by Lurker

In his post from yesterday, SM contends that the rabbinic authorities in Babylon during the time of the Talmud espoused a philosophy that rejected interaction with the secular world, and looked down upon people who worked for a living, rather than devoting their time exclusively to Torah. He further implies that this was in contrast to the philosophy of the rabbinic authorities during the same period in Israel:

...we are inculcated into believing that real Jews do not interact with the secular world... We are slow to unlearn this because of the Talmud itself. The grand panjandrums of the Babylonian Institutes took advantage of the respect afforded to all religions in Babylon and rather looked down on their non-rabbinic co-religionists in Babylon and Palestine who had to work for a living. Don't believe me? Look at the conflicting statements about the value of work in the Gemara and work out where each contributor lived.

This is a wholly incorrect analysis of the views found in the Talmud Bavli. As with many issues, the views of the Babylonian Amoraim (and the Tannaim before them) on this matter were, in fact, far from monolithic: Some were in favor of involvement with the secular world and study of secular knowledge, while others opposed it. Some advocated engaging in a worldly occupation, whereas others argued for Torah study exclusively. Furthermore, there is an apparent preference for the former.

SM urges us to "look at the conflicting statements about the value of work in the Gemara and work out where each contributor lived." So let's take him up on his challenge.

Here are just a few examples that vividly demonstrate the existence of this dispute among the Talmudic authorities, and the prominence of those who were firmly on the side of worldly occupation and secular knowledge:

The gemara in TB Berakhot (35b) describes this dispute explicitly: The Tanna R. Yishmael says that one should work for a living in addition to studying Torah, whereas the Tanna R. Shimon b. Yohai says that one should only study Torah:
"Along with [Torah study], engage in a worldly occupation" -- these are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Shimon b. Yohai says: "Is that possible? If a man plows in the plowing season, and sows in the sowing season, and reaps in the reaping season, and threshes in the threshing season, and winnows in the windy season, then what [time] will be devoted to Torah? Rather, during a time when Israel performs the will of God [i.e., studies Torah], their work is done by others."
After citing this Tannaitic argument, the gemara cites two of the most prominent Babylonian Amoraim, Abaye and Rava, who -- even though they are well-known for disagreeing on many issues -- both endorse R. Yishmael's opinion that one should engage in a worldly occupation, and reject the view of R. Shimon b. Yohai:
Abaye said: "Many have done according to R. Yishmael, and they succeeded; as for those who have followed R. Shimon b. Yohai, they did not succeed." [Likewise] Rava said to the Rabbis: "I would ask you not to appear before me during Nisan [the time of the grain harvest] and Tishrei [the time of the grape and olive harvest], so that you should not be anxious about your income during the rest of the year."
Note that Abaye and Rava are both Talmudic figures from Babylon; not Israel. Obviously, this is inconsistent with SM's contention that the rabbis of Babylon were against working for a living.
The gemara in TB Shabbat (33b) tells a story that dramatizes just how extremist R. Shimon b. Yohai was in his view that one should only study Torah and not work. But the story then continues by saying that he was harshly castigated and punished by God for this!
[R. Shimon b. Yohai and his son] came out [of their cave], and saw people plowing and sowing. He said: "They neglect eternal life, and engage in temporal life!" Every place upon which they cast their gaze was immediately burnt. A heavenly voice came forth and said to them: "Have you emerged in order to destroy My world?! Return to your cave!" So they returned [to the cave] and dwelled there for twelve months, since they say: "The punishment of the wicked in Hell is for twelve months".
Note that R. Shimon b. Yohai and his son are being described here as among the "wicked" ("resha'im"), who are obliged to spend a year in Hell as penance!
The gemara in TB Sotah (49b) describes the argument between the rabbinic authorities who advocated the study of secular knowledge, and those who opposed it. Among those who advocated it were no less than the family of the Nesi'im (the Presidents of the Sanhedrin, who were descended from Hillel the Elder). These included R. Gamliel, R. Shimon b. Gamliel, and R. Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the Mishna. The gemara tells us that in R. Gamliel's school, half of the students focused their studies upon Greek wisdom, rather than Torah. And this is cited by two Amoraim as an argument in favor of secular education:
"R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel in the name of R. Shimon b. Gamliel: There were 1000 youngsters in my father's institution; 500 studied the Torah and 500 studied Greek wisdom."
The gemara then goes on to point out that it was only natural for R. Gamliel to instruct his students in Greek wisdom -- since he nurtured and encouraged close interaction with the secular (Roman) authorities.

Note also that the Amoraim who cite this as an argument in favor of secular education are R. Yehuda and Shmuel -- both of Babylon, not Israel. Again, this conflicts with SM's claim.
R. Yehuda HaNasi, descendant of R. Gamliel, followed in the tradition of his illustrious ancestors, and was educated in Greek/Roman science. This is clearly illustrated by a beraita in TB Pesahim (94b), which describes a number of disagreements between the rabbis and the non-Jewish scholars regarding the physical structure of the universe, along with R. Yehuda HaNasi's opinion on who was right, and why. These arguments existed in the context of the ancient model of the cosmos, in which the earth is a flat expanse sitting on top of water; and the sun, moon and constellations revolve above the earth in a transparent "sphere" ("raki'a"), which is actually a dome, or a hemisphere. In the following passage, the beraita addresses the question of where the sun goes after it sets, and how it moves during the night from the western horizon to the eastern one: According to the rabbis, the sun travels at night above the sphere. (This makes the sun invisible to us at night, since the sphere's outer surface was believed to be opaque, as opposed to its lower surface, which is transparent.) Whereas according to the non-Jewish scholars, the sun travels underneath the earth at night:
"The sages of Israel say: During the day, the sun travels below the sphere; and at night, above the sphere. And the sages of the nations of the world say: During the day, the sun travels below the sphere; and at night, below the ground. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: 'And their opinion [of the Sages of the nations] appears [preferable to ours], since during the day, the springs are cold; but at night, they are hot.'" [I.e., the subterranean waters are apparently being heated by the sun, which is travelling underneath (or through) them.]
The first item worthy of note here is that the rabbis were well aware of the prevailing secular science of their day. Even more fascinating and revealing is the approach of R. Yehuda HaNasi when confronted with a contradiction between rabbinic tradition and empirical evidence: He did not say, "the mesorah from our rabbis is always right, so the secular scholars are obviously misinterpreting the evidence". Rather, he said, "the scientists appear to be right, so our tradition must be wrong" -- and accordingly, he proceeded to amend his model of the universe. The lesson inherent in this for those in the modern "frum" world, and their so-called "gedolim" -- who foolishly cling to models of the universe that have been disproven by empirical evidence and science -- should be painfully obvious.

The same beraita in Pesahim also addresses the question of whether the constellations move within the sphere (as do the sun and moon), or whether they are attached to the wall of the sphere, which itself revolves:
"The sages of Israel say: The sphere is stationary, while the constellations revolve. And the sages of the nations of the world say: The sphere revolves, and the constellations are stationary. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: 'An argument against their view [of the Sages of the nations] is that we never find the Wain (Ursa Major) in the south or Scorpio in the north.'"
To this R. Aha b. Yaakov objected: "Perhaps it is like the pivot of a millstone, or like the hinge of a door."
In this case, R. Yehuda HaNasi rejects the non-Jewish view, rather than the Jewish one. But consistent with his previously cited statement, he rejects it not on account of it being in contradiction with the Jewish mesorah, but rather, because it appears to conflict with observable phenomena. Here, however, R. Aha b. Yaakov argues against the Jewish view, and in favor of the secular one. Note that R. Aha b. Yaakov is a Babylonian Amora -- one of those whom SM would have us believe rejected the influence of the secular world.

In summary: It is clear that, contrary to those who claim otherwise, there were plenty of preeminent Babylonian rabbis in the Talmud who advocated working for a living, as well as the study of secular knowledge.

Search for more information about Talmudic views on working and secular knowledge at 4torah.com.

Follow me on Twitter

Why did Abraham See Three Angels and not Four?

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:29:00 +0000

A version of this post appeared in 2005. On that thread, some attributed the "Purim Torah" to the Maharal. As I said at the time, I know I heard it when I was in school, but don't recall when or where.

Following his circumcision, Abraham experiences the vision of the three angels.

"The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and behold! Three men standing nearby."

RASHI
And behold three men: One to tell Sarah (about Isaac's birth) and one to overturn Sodom and one to heal Abraham, because one angel cannot accomplish two missions... Raphael, who healed Abraham went from there to rescue Lot.

NITPICKS

(1) One angel cannot accomplish two missions? Why not? Says who? (besides Rashi, I mean.)
(2) One angel cannot accomplish two missions? Hello! Doesn't Rashi contradict himself when he says Rephael had two missions?
(3) If Rephael could be given a second mission after completing his first job, why are three angels needed, in the first place? Couldn't one single angel have given Sarah the good news, and then, having completed that mission, healed Avraham, and, with Avraham back in good health, gone on to destroy Sedom?
(4) So why not just send 4 angels, already? Is there a shortage, or something?

ANSWERS (maybe)

Metaphysics: We like to think that an angel is a baby-faced arrow-toting messanger from God, but perhaps we're wrong. Maybe an angel is the mission. The fact that Abraham was healed WAS itself the angel, by which I mean it was a manifestation of God's power. That's why an angel can't complete two tasks, because by definition the angel is the tast itself. This would explain why the angel that healed Abraham also saved Lot. In each case, it was the same power at work.

Purim Torah: Perhaps only three angels were sent because at first Lot wasn't going to be saved. Ok, so what changed?

In a utilitarian sense, Lot only matters because King David was his decendant, via Ruth. Ruth, you'll recall was from Moav, and according to the verse in Deuteronomy, Moabite men are banned from joining the Jewish people "because they didn't welcome you with bread and water on your journey from Egypt." Women, the Rabbis taught, have no obligation to welcome strangers; therefore, Moabite woman aren't included in the ban.

With me so far? Good.

Ok, how did the Rabbis know that woman aren't obligated to welcome strangers? The answer is in this week's sedra. When the angels appeared at Abraham's doorstep, only Abraham greeted them. Sarah stayed in the tent. Because Sarah stayed in the tent, a rule was established, going forward: Woman don't welcome guests. And with that rule established via Sarah's action, the way was paved for Ruth to enter the Jewish people. Suddenly, Lot was necessary and another angel was dispatched.

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

Follow me on Twitter

Product Review: moveme.com

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:39:00 +0000

Are you planning a move? If so, make moveme.com your first stop. This site, really a portal, offers everything. You'll learn how to hire a moving company, and find everything you need to know about cancelling your gas, phone and electric accounts and establishing new ones. There are sections about financing, hiring lawyers who specialize in residential real estate, and more.

I know from my own history that moving can be a very stressful experience. This site does all sorts of things to make your life easier by taking the stress and hassle out of moving, and you will save your time and money in the process. Moveme.com guides you through every step of the move process with help and advice, lists of suppliers and easy online quotes. There's even an online chat service! They also help with transfer or set up home services like gas and electricity online to save you from call centers and long waits. It will help you manage your move, and remind you of everything you need to do with the tools and information to do it.

If you're seeking a Conveyancing Solicitor, or information about House Conveyancing or Property Conveyancing, look no further.

My obnoxious post-game tweets

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:39:00 +0000

When they won:
Blah blah yankees bfd... would be curious to see what post-WS jumping looked like 20 / 30 / 60 yrs ago. Any hunches?

I received some replies to this with links to videos from the 50s, in which it appeared the winning teams did the same sort of celebrating the Yankees did last night. Jumping, hugging, arms in the air, and so on. I wonder if warriors of old did that after routing an enemy on the battle field? Did King David pound his chest, throw a fist to heaven and scream, "We're Number One" when the Philistines surrendered?

A minute later:
Why are the lamazoid Yankees wearing those lamazoid T-shirts?

The championship T-shirts were especially ugly this year, weren't they? Last night, an equipment manager was handing them out at the picther's mound within seconds of the victory. When did that tradition begin and what is it meant to represent? Were the Yankees rubbing salt in the wounds of their opponents or is this all about selling T-shirts?

Two minutes later, after some some TV reporters hands the mike to the baseball commissioner for his invocation
Oh joy. Moron bud selig is on my tee vee reading boring, vapid, prescripted remarks.

What he said can be summarized thusly: Blah blah... the fans... blah blah... this great team... blah blah my friend Goerge Steinbreneer... blah blah, and he said it with all the emotion of a pre-schooler performing in a Chanuka play.

After seeing one Yankee too many stumble and stammer as he thanked God, the fans, his steroid provider, and so on, I said:
wow this post game show is AWESOME anyone who said athletes are vapid is like..uh... well.. um... you know... wrong.

I don't know why they even bother putting those morons on TV. They add nothing at all to the viewing audience's experience. (with the exception of a certain Twitter friend of mine who drenched her mobile device in drool when Hideki Matsui appeared.)

As the post-game brilliance continued:
-Jorge Posada seems to have been smacked in the head with a bat one time too many
-I cant tell if Charlie Manuel is being homey or fighting back tears. CRY CHARLIE CRY
-FOX sucks I have cherished memories of TV shots of losing team crying. Not one this year.

It's true: My earliest World Series memory is Tug McGraw jumping around like a spastic monkey in 1980, but my second earliest memory is the shots that followed of the Royal's dugout. Grown men bawling. This year, FOX let the Phillies keep their dignity. Too bad: The half of NY that roots for the Met's were waiting to see Jimmy Rollin's tears.

Follow me on Twitter

A Nice, Tall, Round, Felt, Black Security Blanket

noreply@blogger.com (SM) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:40:00 +0000

SM

On the post below, DB asked this question:

So what's the diagnosis? Why do solid Jews get so insecure around caftans and fur hats?

I thought I would try for an answer.

It seems to me to be a mixture of perhaps four things. First, we are all brought up to admire frumkeit. Even wholly non-practising Jews look at Rabbis with respect and - at least until the whinging, preaching, chumras and demands for money become too much - affection. And the Charedim are ritualistically frum, which is actually how we define frumkeit. A man who davens 3 times a day, wears arba kanfot and is careful what he eats - that's a frum man. A man who always looks after the sick, goes miles to do nachum aveilim and is always there when someone needs support - that's a mensch. Different.

I am trying hard not to believe that the qualities we associate with being a good person - a mensch - are female qualities so that Judaism does not really value them. I'm trying really hard.

Secondly, we are inculcated into believing that real Jews do not interact with the secular world. This is entirely contrary to Tenach, but it is a consequence of the Jewish decision to shun secular power after the destruction of the Bet Hamidrash and to concentrate on religious development; coupled with the prevailing political conditions for Jews for the next 1700 years or so. We are slow to unlearn this because of the Talmud itself. The grand panjandrums of the Babylonian Institutes took advantage of the respect afforded to all religions in Babylon and rather looked down on their non-rabbinic co-religionists in Babylon and Palestine who had to work for a living. Don't believe me? Look at the conflicting statements about the value of work in the Gemara and work out where each contributor lived.

Ironically, the way in which the major Rabbonim of the Gemara were able to avoid secular work and the secular world has been translated into today's society as a positive mitzvah. We internalise that and value the Charedim accordingly.

Thirdly, the Charedim are successful in evolutionary terms (now there's a delicious irony). That is to say that they succeed in breeding more Charedim. That this is done by depriving people of what we regard as modern freedoms and opportunities is, in evolutionary terms, beside the point. Accordingly, the Charedim gain adherents and respect because of their visible success. MO, on the other hand, may well suffer from being visibly unsuccessful.

Fourthly, we are not good at providing for ourselves. The MO world should be able to provide its own Rabbonim, shechita, mohellim and so forth but we largely don't. We allow communities to be religiously run by those who profess a different standard, whilst we get on with earning a living. The difficulty is that our employees (or leaders as they like to be known) look up to people who they perceive as being more religious (read ritually punctilious) than them. In the UK this has reached the point where a community which is barely qualified to describe itself as MO is governed by a Beth Din so out of tune with those it 'serves' that its members tend to go to head the Eda Charedit on retirement.

Of course, that means that for impressionable youngsters the role models tend to wear black. And so it goes on. Bizarre though it is to say this of Jews, we lack self-esteem.

Search for more information about undue respect paid to Charedim at 4torah.com.

Follow the Bear on Twitter

I see some evil, modern newspaper has dared to criticize the Toldos Aharon Rebe

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:36:00 +0000

This editorial appeared in the Jewish Star

The smart money says criticism of this weekend’s visit to Lawrence by an anti-Zionist chassidic rebbe from Jerusalem aligned with the Neturei Karta will be dismissed by some as the work of troublemaking bloggers (or perhaps of a muckraking newspaper that’s too modern for its own good).

What chutzpah! defenders of the Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok Rebbe will fume. Rabbi Shmuel Yaakov Kohn is an adom gadol — a great man — a tzaddik, a talmid chachom, and a paragon of Yiras Shamayim and gemilas chasodim, too.

Very likely, that’s all true.

It is, however, not at all the point.

The Rebbe’s followers — at least a good number of them — are thugs and criminals who created an unprecedented desecration of G-d’s name with their violent street protests in Jerusalem.

In a few short weeks they managed to undo and turn around — v’nahafoch hu — a general perception of observant Jews as peaceful and genteel. In some cases they even altered our own self-perception; more than a few frum Jews this summer reported feeling discomfort at being seen as kin to the Orthodox hooligans in the news.

Yet, this weekend, in a display of shocking naïveté, the Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok Rebbe is to be feted and honored — and funded — at Cong. Shaaray Tefila in Lawrence, even as the Rebbe’s brother, the even more extreme Toldos Aharon Rebbe, is making his own appearances in the New York area.

Make no mistake: there are female members of nearly every shul in this region who would run the real risk of being physically attacked, were they to walk in their everyday street clothes through neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh these rebbes control.

While well-meaning people in the Five Towns are proffering respect and kavod haTorah to someone who looks very different from them but ostensibly observes the same Torah, ask yourself if the Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok or the Toldos Aharon communities would be terribly likely to extend the same courtesy in the reverse? Same tefillin, same mikvah, same Shabbos, same kosher. But not to them. Does that make us forgiving or foolish?

There are people in our community who cannot pay their mortgage. Who cannot pay tuition. Families that are in crisis and simply cannot make ends meet. They need and are entitled to our help first, based on the halachic ruling of aniyei ircha kodmim. It’s a shame if the community as a whole hasn’t yet internalized the Torah’s guideline, that charity must begin at home.

For those who say that Israel is local, and that supporting Torah study remains a primary value no matter what, fine — there are plenty of other kollelim and plenty of people in Israel who are more in line with our values.

You want a photo op with someone in Yerushalmi garb? Great. Go to Israel.

But here at home, why don’t we reserve scarce tzedakah dollars for people who don’t hold us in such low regard?

Follow me on Twitter

The end of the Year in Israel

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:50:00 +0000

It has come to my attention that there are black hat yeshiva boys who Tweet and manage blogs from Jerusalem, obstensibly from their yeshiva dorm rooms, during the sacred, set-aside "Year In Israel." I think this is neat, of course, and do hope that they are following my blog and participating in the Torah discussions it hosts, rather then checking scores or chatting up Twitter girls.

How different things were back when I did my year. We were lucky to use the phone twice a week, only saw newspapers on shabbos or in town, and generally were kept completely in the dark about world events. I often found out about noteworthy things that had happened in Jerusaelm only after a letter from my mother containing news clippings arrived. Now a yeshiva boy with a data plan can see same-day sports highlights, and judging from the yeshivish Twitter activity, no one in the hanhala knows or cares.

I feel so old.

Search for more information about yeshiva boy blogs at 4torah.com.

Follow me on Twitter

What's with Lot's Wife

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:40:00 +0000

The transfiguration of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt always struck me as strange*. For the most part, in the first five books, God punishes through natural means. We have plauges and wars, but not obvious magic. And when there is magic, as at the red sea,those who experience it recognize the miracle. With Lot, the lady merely looks back and -boom!- she becomes a pillar of salt, and life goes on with no comment from anyone else in the scene. Bizarre, even by the terms of biblical special effects.

The Ralbag must have thought it was strange, too, because he provides a very different interpretation of the events.

Rabbi Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag) suggests that וַתְּהִי does not refer to Lot's wife, that *she* became a pillar of salt, be rather וַתְּהִי refers to the *city*, which is a feminine noun, so Lot's wife looked back and saw that the city had become a pillar of salt, which was a way of saying it was destroyed.

Perhaps we can also say that Lot's wife met a fate much like that of the city, and all its inhabitants. As it says in Genesis 19:22, the Lord rained fire and gafris on the cities. Whatever gafris is (likely sulfer) it must have covered them, meaning every resident of the region, save Lot and his daughters, became a pillar of gafris. Why did Mrs. Lot become a pillar of melach and not gafris? Not sure, but here are two speculative answers: Perhaps ancients viewed gafris as a type or melach or vice versa? If not, perhaps the right answer can be found in the retelling of the story in Duet 29:23 when Moshe recalls that the whole land was covered in both gafris and melach. If so, why does the original tale of the destruction omit to mention the raining salt? Why does only gafris fall from the sky? Unless God rained burning sulfur on the cities (i.e. brimstone, also gafris) which settled somehow into a kind of salt after it cooled?

How about it chemists? Does that work?

*A midrash seems to have thought the salt transfiguaration was strange. The author of this particular midrash explains it with that famous story starring Mrs. Lot as a blabbermouth who went around town seeking to borrow salt "for my GUESTS!" But examine the Midrash on its own terms: Why salt? And why assume his wife couldn't keep a secret? Her husband comes across as a pretty decent guy in this story. (Indeed in Tanchuma he's rightuous Lot, whereas in Berayshis Raba he's wicked Lot.) Would he have married such a klutz?

Follow me on Twitter

At Least I'm Not Crazy Like Them

noreply@blogger.com (JS) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:45:00 +0000

A guest post (after a really long break) by JS:

There's an old joke that anyone driving slower than you is an imbecile while anyone driving faster than you is a maniac. Seems like religion works the same way. Anyone who is less observant than you is godless while anyone more observant than you is crazy.

This creeps up in some obvious ways. For example, an Orthodox person may observe that someone drives to shul on Shabbat drawing the inevitable remark, "It's amazing the person even knows what Shabbat is." Or perhaps the Orthodox person may see a Chabad volunteer helping someone bench lulav and thinks, "You could give that person a lemon instead of an etrog and they wouldn't know the difference." Or a Modern Orthodox person may see an ultra-Orthodox woman with 9 children in tow and remark, "Haven't these people heard of birth control?" Or maybe a Modern Orthodox person passes a Chareidi man in full garb and wonders, "Hasn't he heard it's the 21st century?"

Of course it creeps up in some not so obvious ways, often when the distinctions between groups are more subtle - thus making it more important to point out. For example, "Why can't they just eat regular cheese like the rest of us? Haven't they heard Rav Moshe's psak on chalav yisroel?" Or "We watch movies and TV shows on our laptop, we're not like the chareidim who don't watch TV at all!"

And like the car example above, inevitably you are either "godless" or "crazy" to someone else, which just seems preposterous - you're an excellent driver! Your religious observances are perfectly reasonable and make eminent sense! How dare the Conservative person stare at you flabbergasted when you tell him or her that you only dated your wife for 6 months before getting engaged! You're not like those nuts who only date for 3-4 weeks. And they mock the fact that you withhold from any touching during niddah?! Niddah is beautiful! It's not like you keep all the harchakot like those loonies - you pass the salt directly to your spouse! And how dare that person look down their nose at you that you're not really koveah itim! You learn on the subway to work and go to a shiur twice a week - not like those people who call it a "talmud" if they even know what that is! And what nerve that they look disdainfully at your colorful outfits! It's not like you dress like a slut like those Jewish kids in public school!

Search for more information about religious (in)sanity at 4torah.com.

Follow me on Twitter

Jack Teitel's friend

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:56:00 +0000

Whenever a serial killer or mass murderer is arrested some dotty neighbor is quoted in the paper on the subject of what a super nice guy the killer had always seemed to be.

I see from today's New York Times that our very own Batya Medad performed that service for confessed terrorist Jack Teitel. [On her blog. In the newspaper.]

Points to ponder: Did the evil, Jew-hating Times possibly mangle Medad's quote? And what would Batya say if some Arab bus bomber's neighbor were to bang on about what a sweet guy he was?

Follow me on Twitter

Oiga Boiga

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:23:00 +0000

I like the point John Oliver makes in the clip about how the Catholic Church is watering down doctrine for the purpose of winning converts, but found his attempt to imitate a New York Jew criminally unconvincing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Ecce No Homo

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Follow me on Twitter

The next new big thing

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:46:00 +0000

Judaism changes in every time and in every place in ways big and small. There have been liturgical changes, developments in rituals, and theological adjustments or responses of all description. When my grandparents were young, Jews who were unhappy with the local synagogue created something new -the "Young Israel" and though the "movement" is clearly on the decline, unfortunately redundant to the much larger OU, and the target of much mockery and derision from the right, it was once something fresh, new, and needed.

The next new thing is the Carlbach minyan, which seem to be popping up like mushrooms in every neighborhood.We already have two; I attend neither; something about the the Calrbach style of prayer leaves me cold. Though I understand the appeal, it doesn't appeal to me. Yourfavoriteblogger prefers big shuls, propriety and an exalted atmosphere to the whiskey-soaked informality found at the typical Carlbach service. Still, as I said, I recognize the appeal, and believe very strongly that similar dynamics were at work during the early days of Hasidut. The first shteebles succeeded among people who wanted refreshments, a relaxed atmosphere, smaller crowds, and coziness, whereas people like me, who enjoy none of those things, continued to prefer the older style of prayer.

Today, the Carlbach minyan outshteebles the shteeble by offering more music, more alcohol and even fewer rules, while also appealing to those big shul congregants who don't appreciate big-shul services, but stay away from the shteebles because of Hasid-phobia. In every important way, you see, the Carlbach minyan is a Hasid-free shteeble, offering shteeble benefits, like informality, coziness, food, booze, and lower dues -- but with no Hasidic Rebbe presiding.

Follow me on Twitter

Who's our Daddy?

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:32:00 +0000

The Wall Street Journal briefly reviews a new book which explores the claim that Eastern European Jewry decended from the Khazers, and not the ancient Israelites

In a new book, "The Invention of the Jewish People," the Tel Aviv University professor of history argues that large numbers of Khazar Jews migrated westward into Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania, where they played a decisive role in the establishment of Eastern European Jewry. The implications are far-reaching: If the bulk of Eastern European Jews are the descendents of Khazars—not the ancient Israelites—then most Jews have no ancestral links to Palestine. Put differently: If most Jews are not Semites, then what justification is there for a Jewish state in the Middle East?

When I was in college I learned all the reasons why this claim is false, ie, why the Khazers are not our ancestors, or at least not to a significant degree, but I seem to have forgotten every single one of them. No matter. I'm currently cynical enough to believe that my professor was anyway misleading us.

Follow me on Twitter

A DovBear Call to Arms

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:05:00 +0000

The grapevine tells me that one of the high ranking Hasidic Rabbis who sponsors and facilitates violent attacks against women and policemen will be appearing this Shabbos at Congregation Sharay Tefilah in Lawrence, NY.

Followers of Rabbi Shmuel Yaakov Kohn, the Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok Rebbe or of his brother, Rabbi Dovid Kohn, the Toldos Aharon Rebbe, are the perpetrators of bus beatings in Bet Shemesh and Jerusalem, street riots, and the violent protests last summer in Jerusalem. Though Rabbi Shmuel Yaakov Kohn and Rabbi Dovid Kohn, as supreme ruler of their chasidim, have the power to shut down the violence in an instant, both have steadfastly refused to do so. Instead they teach hate, and look the other way when their Hasidim act on their lessons. Moreover, both are leaders of the strongly anti-Zionist Edah HaChareidis.

It's probably too late to organize a mob outside with pitchforks and placards, but if you find it outrageous that Lawrence is playing host to man who disparages and disdains their values, and helping him raise funds, I encourage you to call the shul, and to politely ask why they are giving aid and assistance to this man, and supporting the chillul hashem that occurs, and continues to occur under his watch.

Follow me on Twitter

לך לך and the sensitivity of syntax

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:59:00 +0000

Yet another guest post from someone who wants his name concealed:

How about this one for a Shabbos Table pleaser?

At the beginning of this week's sedra, 'ה tells אברם, as he is called at this point, that ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאור - I will bless those who bless you and those who curse you, I will curse.
Why does 'ה change around the order of the verbs - following ואברכה מברכיך, it should say ואאור מקללך, thereby keeping the syntax the same?

There are 2 stunning answers that I saw a Rav - whose name escapes me at present - bring:

Firstly, the Vilna Gaon says as follows: we know that a ברכה given by an עשיר is going to be more generous than that of an עני, as he has the experience and comfort with which to issue such a ברכה. Conversely, an עני, who generally is perceived to suffer more, will likely give heavier curses than a wealthy man. Therefore, says the Gaon, it says ואברכה first with regards to ''מברכיך'', so that anyone who is blessing you should already be an עשיר at the point in time that he blesses you, so that the ברכה is maximised. However, when it comes to ''מקללך'', it only says that 'ה will curse him afterwards, so that at the time he curses אברם, he will still be an עשיר and the curse will be minimal!

That's beautiful answer number one...

Now for beautiful answer number two - from the כלי יקר: we have a concept of מחשבה כמעשה, that 'ה treats our thoughts as if they were acted upon. however, חז''ל point out that this is only with regards to our intended מצוות. with regards to our עבירות, Hashem doesn't treat our negative thoughts as having been acted upon.
Therefore, ואברכה - 'I will bless', occurs even before a man is an actual מברך, even at the point that he thinks it. מה שאין כן with regard to the מקלל who will only receive the reciprocal curse from 'ה if he vocalises it. Therefore, אאור only comes after he is established as such!

Now that is stunning!

מתוק מדבש!

Follow me on Twitter

The Live Interview with DovBear

noreply@blogger.com (EFink) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:00:00 +0000

<a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&task=viewaltcast&altcast_code=78435f466c" >DovBear Live Interview</a>

Breaking: Shots fired in LA Synagogue

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:23:00 +0000

Shots fired in LA Synagogue

What does this mean? See the predictions made here.

Glass Houses Alert

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:52:00 +0000

Sauce for the goose is supposedly okay for the gander, so I'd like to know why frum Jews get so bent out of shape when secular Jews make up stories or use one-off anecdotes for the purpose or slandering all of Orthodoxy.

I'm part of the Orthodox community, (and I read Cross Currents, where the jihad against left-leaning Jews shows no sign of abating) so I know the lies and slanders go both ways, but the point was really driven home this morning in a comment written by Adam:

A secular Jew sat on the train across from a man with a black hat and a long beard.

The secular Jew stared at him for several minutes. Finally, he exclaimed, "How can you live your life in the past?! You're a disgrace and an embarassment to all Jews! Times change and you're oblivious to the real world!"

The man, nonplussed, calmly replied, "Excuse me, sir. I'm Amish."

The secular Jew turned five shades of bright red and said "Oh, I'm so sorry! I have great respect for the Amish! You so carefully hold on to your traditions, and you stick to your principles so faithfully! The rest of us could learn a lot from you!"

The black hatter responded "Reb Yid - of course I'm a Jew! Why do you have more respect for Amish values than you do for Jewish values?"

It's sad but true. Today's secular Jewish families would rather their kids become Buddhist monks or Amish farmers than observant Jews.

See what he did? On the basis of a story that (a) never happened and (b) was obviously embellished for rehtorical effect ["5 bright shades of red." "The rest of us could learn a lot from you".] (c) and in any event, involves one single person, Adam has reached a firm conclusion about "all" secular Jews.

Not nice.

For his next trick, perhaps Adam will prove Santa Clause exists via a carefully crafted anecdote he made up

Update: As Hakofer Hagodol points out: That story doesn't even prove your point. The secular Jew isn't apologetic to the Amishman because he thinks that the Amish religion is the best thing since sliced bread, he's apologetic because he was being rude to a stranger. On the other hand, when he thought the guy was a fellow Jew who was ensnared and deluded by the Orthodox heresy, then the secular guy was merely following Torah law to rebuke a fellow to for his own good.

Moiredik!

Worst Defense of Hooliganism Ever

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:19:00 +0000

The following was posted on Twitter, in reply to a tweet about the attacks in Meah Shearim on women who dress immodestly, or walk on the wrong sidewalk, or take the wrong seats on buses:

@yeshivaguy: sigh. Attacked? When you potch your recalcitrant child, is it an attack? Education of those who know no better.

Why is this stupid? Let's count the ways:

(1) He takes it for granted that I hit my kids. Guess what? I don't. And outside of Orthodox Jews, white trash, and other minorities, I'd be surprised if there's very much hitting of children still going on at all. Nice people don't do that anymore. [Update: I don't mean to suggest that ALL OJs hit their kids, but some do, and I don't think it happens as much in other cultures.]
(2) He sees no difference between parenting and hooliganism.
(3) He thinks corporal punishment is a method of education. This is dumb. The only thing you teach a child when you hit him is that its ok to use violence to solve problems.
(4) The whole defense is based on the absurd assumption that there's something evil about coed sidewalks and bus seating when, until very recently, no one frum worried about either.
(5) He seems to assume that random street punks have the right, if not the obligation, to go around punishing, oops, I mean educating, strangers.

Poll

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:07:00 +0000

Did you say tachanun today?
In your reply, please specify your flavor of Judaism.

Attention wiesenheimers: Please don't answer unless you were at a shachris minyan this morning.