DovBear

Nachamu

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Search for more information about non NYC Judaism at 4torah.com.

The result of the hafganot

israeli.jew@gmail.com (Rafi G.) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:32:00 +0000

A Guest Post by Rafi G

The hafganah of the Eida and its followers against Intel (We should name the weekly Eida Hafgana something like "the what they will protest against next week hafgana") stepped up a notch this week, though the details of that do not interest me all that much.

At hafganot, police provoke, protesters provoke, things get hot, people get hit, people get hurt, people get arrested. The Eida is now complaining that the Gaavad got hit in a scuffle and how dare they, but that is part of the risk of taking part in a [semi-] violent hafgana, so no sympathy from me (though the police could have used more tact and avoided the Gaavad).

What does interest me is a new phenomenon that is being reported by the Haredim website, That is, somebody spray painted the sheim hamefurash on the street leading up to the location of the hafgana. Some rabbonim who saw it said protesters should avoid walkign there, and it is a problem to erase it as well, so they covered it up with carton so people would not inadvertently step on it. The Gaavad himself said it is not a big deal, as a heretic who writes a Torah imbues it with no holiness, and this would be the same.

My point is that this is where the hafganot have taken us. They have done nothing but create fresh hostility and hatred against religion, and they have accomplished nothing in the form of increasing any level of shmiras shabbos by anybody, not publicly nor privately. They are now getting the secular to not just oppose the haredim, but to actually defile the name of God publicly, as a response.

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

Pasha Notes: Toldos 2009

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:00:00 +0000

What everyone should know
Our midrashim lament Jacob's theft of the brochot, and attribute later Jewish suffering to his crime, as follows: "Three tears did Eisav shed. One dropped from his right eye, one from his left and the third he kept back and that tear has salted our bread of exile with tears and made us taste tears in full threefold measure." (Tahnchuma); and "Anyone who says God is not particular with his pious ones deserves to have his inwards torn out. The forbearance of God grants long credit, but the debt needs to be paid in the end. One cry Jacob caused Eisav to make and that was repaid in Shushan when Eisav's descendant caused Jacob's descendant to cry with a 'loud bitter cry.'(Midrash Raba)

I've always considered these exquisite moral teachings.

Famous Argument
(1) Which mitzvos did the Patriarchs keep? This is a six-way disagreement, with Chizkuni, Rashbam, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the Ramban and the Seforno all weighing in. Rashi alone says the Patriarchs lived like Rabbinic Jews; the others take a far more limited view. [Summary]

(2) Who did Rivka consult when she went to "inquire of God"? Rashi, of course says it was Shem, but Radak, Rashbam and the midrash have other thoughts. Of note, is the view of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan (quoted in Berayshis Raba) that God certainly would not have spoken to a woman, so of course some intermediary was needed.

(3) Was Issac poor? Ibn Ezra says he was; Ramban objects furiously with the immortal: "Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has erred here exceedingly... I'd like to know who blinded the Ibn Ezra, and made it possible for him to write such a thing."

Famous Rabennu Bechaya
Were the twins fraternal or identical? R' Bechaya says the word וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ comes from the verb root rtsts "struggle"; thus they must have shared a placenta and/or amniotic sac and would have been identical. Rashi seems to say וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ comes from rts "run" and explains (based on BR 63:6) "When she would pass the doorways of Torah study of Sheim and Eiver(*), Yaakov would agitate and rush to come out. When she would pass doorways of idol-worshipers, Eisov would agitate to come out." Elsewhere (on 25:26) Rashi (**) says the brothers were created with two different drops of sperm; thus they were fraternal. (***)

* Some versions mention Sheim alone, leading to mounds of Rabbinic speculation on Rashi's reasons for omitting to mention Eiver. However, both names appear in other, old Rashi manuscripts.
** The comment to 25:26 begins "I heard an Aggadaic exposition that..." but in some Rashi manuscripts it says instead "I, the scribe, heard an Aggadaic exposition that..."
*** It is not clear that either RB or Rashi were aware of the underlying biology. They lived in an age when children often suffered from diseases and poor nutrition. Its easy to imagine that, in their day, nurture often won out over nature and that even genetically identical twins had different phenotypes. It is also not clear RB understood the consequences of his claim, ie. that one placenta/amniotic sac always results in identical twins.

Famous Rashi
(1) "Eisov is compared to a pig as it is said... When the pig lies down it stretches out its hooves as if to say, "See, I am a clean animal." So, too, those who rob and extort yet make pretensions of being honorable." Rashi doesn't spell it out, but it seems obvious to me that he's speaking of Christians. This short comment, therefore, tells us something about how Christians behaved in Rashi's time, and also what Rashi thought of them.

(2) Why was Isaac blind? There are at least five answers, and how Rashi selected just three of them tells us much about his method.

(3) Why did Rivka tell her son to fetch two goats? How much meat did she plan to feed Isaac? Rashi says it was pesach, and one was needed for the korbon, but problems with this suggestion abound. Another drash is that these two kids allude to the two kids that will be later used for deception. The brothers will use the blood of a kid to deceive Jacob, and Judah will send a kid in payment to Tamar after he is deceived by her. I have no better pshat explanation.

Musar
The Sforno defines "Calling out in Gods name" as serving as God's agent on earth through acts of public kindness and generosity. Abraham "Called out in God's name" at the beginning of his Canaanite adventure, and blessings followed almost at once. Yitzchak, on the other hand, did not recognize this, and for a time he was living on Avraham's account; thus he was told (Gen 26:24) "I will bless you for Avraham's sake."As Sforno continues, prior to this dialogue with God, Yitzchak's life was full of strife and arguments with the Philistines. In the very next verse Yitzchak is said to "Call out in God's name." Instantly, his troubles with Abimelech and the herdsmen disappear. The very next time they appear (two verses later) their hats are in their hands, and they are suing for peace.

Motifs
The annunciation and the sister wife return this week. This week's annunciation differs in that the mother is already pregnant when God's oracle addresses her with a promise about her child; the sister wife story is also different: for the first time there are no plagues and no dreams.

Word Play
As Richard Elliot Freedman notes the prophesy וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר is ambiguous. It can mean "and the elder shall serve the younger", but it might also mean "the elder, the younger will serve."

וַיָּרַח אֶת-רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו, וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ/ and he smelled the scent of his clothing and blessed him
Though the verse says "bigadav" clothing, some sages of the Midrash read is as "bogdov" his traitors. In their imagination Jacob merited blessing because even those descendants of his that became Jewish traitors are valuable before God. [Note: I don't have the date for this midrash so what follows is is a wild irresponsible guess, but I suppose the traitors they had in mind could have been Roman collaborators and/or Judeo Christians.]

Internal Parallels
- Jacob attempts to win his father's heart by cooking a meal (Orach Chayim explaining why Jacob prepared a stew); later in the story Esav attempts to please his mother by taking a non-Canaanite wife

- Esav's וְלָמָּה-זֶּה לִי בְּכֹרָה is similar to Rivka's לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי

- Goats and garments are used to facilitate a deception here. Another goat will be used for the same purpose in the story of Tamar, and both goat and garment are used by Joseph's brothers to fool his father. The verb meaning recognition (hkr) also appears in all three stories.

- Esav sold his birthright to his younger brother for lentils, later Rachel sells a night with Jacob to her older sister for the mandrake, also a plant.

- Esav's first recorded words in the Torah are impetuous and child-like (Quick give me some of the red, red stew, or I'll die) Rachel's first recorded words have the same quality: "("Give me sons or I am a dead woman!")

Alternative Reading
The MT has יָקֻם אָבִי which is a flat command that can be construed as disrespectful. The same consonants however can be vowalized as yakome, which is jussive, respectful, and fully in keeping with our idea of Esav as the epitome of parental respect.

Number Games
The story of the theft of the blessing contains seven scenes of dialogue, and the word blessing appears seven times. This can't be accidental.

Irony
Jacob is called אִישׁ תָּם a phrase suggesting innocence or integrity. In action, though, he is a man of guile and one of few scruples. This week alone he twice deceives his brother, and as Robert Alter has noted, when his mother suggests the plot to steal the blessings Jacob displays no moral compunctions. His only worry is that he might be caught.

Anachronism
Earlier, there is a references only to the land of the Philistines providing room for apologists to defend the text. In Gen 26:2 the anachronism is insisted upon: Abimelech is called King of the Phillistines - though Philistines would not settle on the coast until many years after the Patriarchal period.

The rest of the story
The midrash, as cited by Rashi, says Esav deceived his father with a strange question about straw and salt. There's much more to it I think. 1 and 2.

Why did G-d "relent" to Isaac and Rivka's prayers?

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:53:00 +0000

A guest devar torah by N.G.

This Dvar Torah blew me away. When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

'וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה - "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him"

A gentleman once told R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say " and He relented to him". Does this not seems an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac's birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. [DB: Obviously? This is a machlokes rishonim.] Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time. If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children, his father had been promised "nations", certainly Isaac would have children then, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, He simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R' Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and said that thisvort was Emess, because 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is Gematria (numerical value) 748 (686+36+26), which is the same Gematria as חמש שנים - five years - 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu's life.

R'Yosef Chaim also said that we say " רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם - He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them ". Isn't this in the wrong order? Doesn't Hashem fulfil their desires to placate their cries? R' Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don't know what's best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.

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

Oldie/Goodie

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:19:00 +0000

Thanks, DH, for drawing my attention to this great post from 2005, and the LOL hysterical comment thread beneath it.

Moron Christians Fire First Shot in Bogus War on Christmas -- and miss!

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:47:00 +0000

I've never understood why Christian Fundies get so bent out of shape when business people decide that its good for business to make their message ecumenical at holiday-time. The rest of the year most of these same supposedly principled fundies object to placing limitations on business, so why does that principle go out the window every December?

See the latest example after the jump.

Gap's Christmas cheer makes a boycott backfire

The Mississippi-based American Family Assn. last week issued a fatwa against Gap Inc. -- the retailing giant whose brands include Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic -- calling for a "two-month boycott over the company's failure to use the word 'Christmas' in its advertising to Christmas shoppers."

The War on Christmas season has officially begun.

Gap "does not use the word 'Christmas' to avoid offending those who don't embrace its meaning," writes Buddy Smith, executive assistant to the president of the AFA, on the organization's website. "Christmas has historically been very good for commerce. But now Gap wants the commerce but no Christmas."

"I interpret Gap's decision as a warning sign to Christians to get out there and tell people about Jesus Christ," writes Smith.

And they say nobody likes fruitcake.

It would be easy to get sidetracked into debating the merits of the War on Christmas. Why, for example, is the phrase "Happy holidays" so insufferable to Christian fundamentalists, but not the vulgar, surfeiting exploitation of Christ's name to sell smokeless ashtrays, dessert toppings, Droid phones and trampolines? I'm not a theologian but I think the Gospels are pretty clear that Jesus was no fan of merchants.

And since China is in the news this week: Why not go after Gap and other retailers for trading in Chinese-made goods, since the Chinese government actively oppresses the Christian faith? Seems like building a case on religious tolerance would have more resonance. Oh, wait. Never mind.

But here's the real question: Why attack Gap for not using the word "Christmas" in its advertising when in fact it does, and in a big way too?

Surf on over to YouTube and watch Gap’s latest 30-second spot, titled “Go Ho Ho” (Crispin Porter + Bogusky). The spot -- which is in heavy rotation on network and cable TV -- features a group of insanely athletic dancers leaping and twirling and stomp-cheering around a white log-cabin set. They chant, "Go Christmas, go Hanukkah, go Kwanzaa, go solstice. . . . Do whatever you wannukkah and to all a cheery night."

There it is, right up front, enjoying pride of place: the C-word.

Meanwhile, both Old Navy and Gap sell Christmas-themed merchandise, such as Christmas boxer shorts, which I'm sure can only be removed in the sanctity of marriage.

In other words, Gap Inc. has demonstrably not banned the use of the word from its advertising or stores. So how did AFA get this so wrong?

Gap Inc. has been in the organization's War on Christmas cross hairs for a while now, and it may well be that the boycott was planned before Gap's holiday ads were released (phone and e-mail messages to the AFA were not returned). Gap and CP+B just pulled a switcheroo.

It's unlikely the new Gap ads will placate the psalm-singers in Tupelo. After all, in the spirit of inclusiveness, Christmas is mentioned in the same breath as Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and solstice. The winter solstice, as everyone knows, is a pagan celebration, so -- viewed through a peculiarly warped lens -- the Gap ad puts Christians on the same level as a bunch of blue-painted heathens dancing around a Yule log drinking mead out of a stag horn.

How dare they! I call for a double boycott.

Perhaps the AFA did Gap a favor. If you look at the history of the organization's boycotts -- often involving punitive actions against companies that support gay rights -- you'll see that they have no commercial impact. Actually, these boycotts seem to be good for business: In the decade of the AFA's boycott against Disney, which ended in 2006, the world's largest entertainment conglomerate's revenue roughly doubled to $34 billion. Likewise for Ford, which just posted a billion-dollar profit in the third quarter of 2009.

I'm not suggesting causality, but condemnation by the AFA does seem to be a kind of lucky charm for big business. Personally, I am inclined to patronize Gap as a statement of cultural tolerance, even though at my age I look like an overcooked ballpark frank in its clothes.

The big loser here is the AFA. The annual War-on-Christmas drumbeat is absolutely not about defending the sacredness of Christmas. It is instead -- transparently -- marketing, a ratings gambit for Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, and for the AFA, the centerpiece of its annual fundraising.

This year, thanks to Gap, the AFA fumbled its boycott ball and in the process managed to look both intolerant and out of touch.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

Source: LA Times
ht @RABBIJASON

Where do you suppose Sarah gets her information?

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:40:00 +0000

Sarah Palin:

“More and more Jewish people will be flocking [sic] to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead... ”

Really? How about it readers? Are you planning to "flock" to Israel any time soon? And why exactly is Sarah so certain that we're all going to be jumping ship?

Blogging is Not Tznius

noreply@blogger.com (EFink) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:14:00 +0000

A Guest Post By HSM.

This was a status update by incredible blogger Aliza Hausman.

Unfortunately this was not the first I had heard of this idea this week. I

have had a couple of interactions recently with Jewish female bloggers on

this subject. Some rabbanim have felt that it draws too much attention and

is not to be encouraged. Especially in single female bloggers who are

dating. Being a public figure is apparently against the tenets of Judaism

and modesty unless you are a Rabbi.

How stupid of me to forget! Us women are supposed to be quiet and hide

behind our men, and only speak when spoken to. And if we don’t have men to

hide behind? Use a tree, something, so that women should never be seen, let

alone be heard to have opinions.

Yes there are JBlogs out there that talk about taboo subjects and are

sensationalist etc. But there are some awesome quality JBlogs writen by some

phenomenal female members of the Tribe. The world is so much better for

these blogs. I have learned a tremendous amount from these women, and come

to a much deeper understanding of myself through the blogging medium. If I

have learned from them, I am sure many others have too.

I am a Jewish female blogger and I stand tall and proud. Who is with

me???!!!

Soon breathing won’t be tznius….what will they think of next??!!

Search for more information about tzniusdik blogging at 4torah.com.

To go or not to go

TikunOlamDB@gmail.com (TikunOlam) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:34:00 +0000

By Frum N’ Flipping http://www.frumflipped.blogspot.com

"You're going where?!"
A score of faces turn to me in horror.
Maybe it wasn't a good idea to bring this up at the Shabbos table.
"It's a conference. For work."
"You want to go to Germany? Of all places!"
"I don't want to go to Germany. But that's where the conference is going to be. In Berlin."
"So don't go."
"But it's for work. I need to go. You know I'd never go just for a vacation."
"You don't need to go. You want to go. Nobody is forcing you."
"Well yes. OK. True. I could skip the conference entirely. But I really want to give a presentation there. It's a great opportunity ."
"Work. Phuh. IBM also justified being in Germany before the war, they also said it's just for work."
"This isn't the same thing. Germany is the least anti-Semitic country in Europe at the moment." Even in my ears it sounds lame. I feel I'm playing devil's advocate.
'It doesn't make a difference. Their streets are soaked in Jewish blood."
"So is King George street. So is Machane Yehuda."
"For a child of mine to step foot in Germany is as bad as watching her bite into a ham sandwich."

Gulp. Thanks for the guilt trip.

I've always loved my family, for being so open minded, so chilled, laid back.
"As long as you're happy." That was my parents' motto, when I was growing up. Well, add "And marry a nice Jewish boy" to that. But still, not much to ask, after all.
But we all knew the unspoken rule. Don't buy anything German. Not cars, not napkins, nor anything else. When I bought a German produced gluestick by mistake, I had to return it to the store. The best erasers were the ones stamped with "Made in Germany." I'd make do with others.

The ironic thing is that neither side of my family went through the holocaust. My great-great-great grandparents died of either old age, or cold and starvation, in Russia, before the German army reached them. Their descendants, my ancestors, had already emigrated to safer lands, years before.

I sometimes wonder if it's guilt, guilt at being safe, that made my family even more insistent to boycott everything German.

Around me I'd see my peers, grandchildren of survivors, not understanding what the fuss was about. When I traveled to Europe with them, I was the one who refused to visit Austria for a day trip. Instead, we went to Lichtenstein, and that only after I'd researched its WWII treatment of the Jews.
But I never sacrificed anything big for that ideal. Anything that really mattered to me.

And now that I'm asked to, I'm questioning, reexamining the values I was raised with. It could be I'm seeking a logical way to salve my conscience. Simply putting career before principles. I hope not. I'd hate that.

But is the land of Germany, today, still a land that no Jew should tread on? If that is indeed the truth, then why do almost no other Jews seem to feel the same way?

Search for more information about going to Germany at 4torah.com.

Another power hungry anti-Semitic D.A. is on the loose.

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:59:00 +0000

Earlier this week, we reported about the deplorable spike in child molester prosecutions in Brooklyn's ultra-frum communities and the deplorable attempt by the deplorable head of a deplorable Jewish organization to cast it all as a mad, D.A. power grab. Not that I was expecting an email, but as yet Agudah has not responded and no explanation of Zwiebel's defense of rabbinical prerogatives at the expense of children has been presented.

Today we bring you news of yet another Jew-hating D.A. running amok. He is terrible Tom Zugibe of Rockland County, NY, who is making a name for himself prosecuting legitimate Jewish businessmen.

More than 60 people have been arrested on charges of stealing from various government subsidy programs [in Rockland County] since June 2008 following joint investigations by the Rockland Special Investigations Unit... and the DSS special investigations unit.

It is not known how many of the 60 are Orthodox Jews, but many are and yesterday Terrible Tom struck again, accusing a fine Torah Jew named Benjamin Ruttner of illegally obtaining $89,000 in federal rental subsidies from November 2004 to November 2009 and of stealing $67,000 in food stamps and Medicaid benefits from May 2006 to August 2009. According to Reb Ruttner's lawyer, the disgraced former D.A. and sex-fiend Ken Gribetz, its all a horrible misunderstanding. No doubt. Likewise, Ruttner's neighbors in New Square and Visnitz really and truly are getting by on the meager incomes they report to the census bureau and tax authorities. Really. And truly.

New Square median household income: $14,638

Kaser (Visnitz) median household income: $15,797

New York median household income: $53,514

Thoughts on a short dating period

noreply@blogger.com (JS) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:58:00 +0000

A guest post by JS:

I was thinking about my post regarding "speed" dating - in which people are pressured to make a decision on getting engaged/married quickly, usually within 8 dates (often less). It occurred to me that the number of dates isn't really the problem - it's an element in a larger problem. After all, even though my wife and I dated for several years before getting engaged, the reason for this was practical - we didn't want to get married in college and we wanted to be self-sufficient once married. We actually knew (or had a very strong idea) within a few months that we were in this for the long haul, so to speak. Similar story with my brother in law who was recently married: when he met his future kallah they both knew within 3-4 dates they wanted to get married, though they dated longer before getting engaged.

So, this got me thinking that a short courtship period isn't the main problem. I think the problem with the shidduch system (or yeshiva/chareidi culture) is the way that it infantilizes what are supposed to be adults entering into an adult relationship. This is apparent in many ways in both the yeshiva/chareidi culture and in the shidduch process.

From a young age, the yeshiva/chareidi culture separates children from their parents. Yeshivas have long hours, which become even longer when the children are older and night cheder is imposed. Yeshivas typically have school on Sundays. Many children are sent away to dorm at the yeshiva even when the parents are nearby. The yeshivas create a completely immersive environment in which all outside influences that may interfere with the yeshiva's hashkafa and education are shut out - including parents. Kids are kept away from home on numerous Shabbatons to rebbe's houses or to visit other communities. In the summer, kids are not allowed to be at home where there may be bad influences. They are sent to summer camps for continued learning. Even later, when kids are off for bein ha'zmanim they are shipped away immediately to kollels or shul learning programs to sustain the level of immersion. This creates a situation where, especially for guys, no one is showing them how to grow up, mature, or be responsible. No one is teaching them how to be an adult. Most importantly for the topic at hand, no one is teaching them how to relate to the opposite sex within the context of dating/marriage. Being able to sit still for hours on end and understand a gemara is not maturity - or at the very least, isn't the maturity necessary for a relationship.

Similarly, in the shidduch system the attitude is everyone else, all of the adults, know best. The "kids" don't know any better and can't be relied upon to know what's best for themselves. The adults do all the legwork, all the investigating, and all the representations of who their child is and what he/she is looking for and the child sits back and just says yes or no after a dinner date. The message in all of this is clear, you're too immature to be trusted with such an important decision. And, in a self-fulfilling prophesy, the already developmentally stunted children tend to focus on all the wrong things in a potential mate.

Saddest of all, this infantilization continues even after the kids are married through parental support which almost always comes with parental conditions for how the children should lead their lives.

Search for more information about speed dating at 4torah.com.

Will they come for the kippot srugot next?

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:06:00 +0000

Vehaviotim el har kodshi, vesimachtim be'veit tefilati... ki veiti veit tefillah yikarei lechol ha'amim

As reported by Failed Messiah (via Jerusalem Post and Haaretz) police in Jerusalem arrested a woman yesterday for wearing her talis at the kotel. The arrest was certainly symbolic, with the woman being released in under an hour, but the principle being symbolized is one no right-thinking Jew should support.

According to halacha, a woman is exempt from wearing a talis, but nothing in our law forbids it either. As with taking the lulav, a woman is free to wear a talis if she chooses. Many women do not wear a talis because they see it as unfeminine or untraditional and that choice must be respected, but a woman who believes that wearing a talis strengthens her connection to Judaism, or improves her prayer is also making a valid halachic choice, and that choice must be defended.

The kotel is a place of prayer. The role of police who are stationed at the kotel is to protect people who wish to pray, such as that woman. They are not there to protect the pious from seeing permitted, but unwelcome sights. Unless that woman was creating a disturbance and interfering with the prayer of others, the police misused their authority and acted as tools of one Jewish sect at the expense of another. By arresting her they declared that the kotel is Orthodox occupied territory, rather than a shrine and a heritage for all Jews.

If this precedent is not protested, and the police are permitted to enforce the traditions and preferences of a single sect of Jews, who will be dragged away from the kotel next? Those of us who wear knitted kiopot? Women who cover their hair with wigs, rather than wraps? Male children who've had hair cuts before the age of three? The ultra-orthodox men who contrary to well-established law and tradition say krias shma after the zman? Draw the line in the sand now, and stand up for that woman, and her legitimate choice. To do otherwise is to put your own legitimate traditions and pactices in danger of being snuffed out by the smug, the narrow minded and the ahistorical.

Answering Steven Cohen:

SC: The wall is by all rights orthodox territory. it always was.
Untrue. Orthodox Judaism is less than 200 years old. Would you have allowed Rashi's tfillin wearing daughters to pray at the kotel? Why or why not?

SC: if you want to reject orthodox tradtion find your own place to pray.
Donning a talis is NOT a rejection of Orthodox tradition, as Orthodox tradition never expressly prohibited a woman from wearing a talis, just as it never expressly forbid her from taking a lulav, but more to the point, the kotel isn't an orthodox place. When Christians (like the POPE!) visit the kotel do you insist they say krias shma, and perform an OJ prayer? Why or why not?

SC: I promise not to come into your chosen place of worship and object to how you do it.
By objecting to how she prays at the kotel, which belongs to her every bit as much as it belongs to you, that's precisely what you are doing.

SC: dont go into the vatican and try to run a baptist service. dont go to mecca and run a bahai service.
How amusing that you think the Muslims set a good example. Which of their other habits should we emulate? As for the Church, what a rotten analogy. Anyone can come to the kotel, and pray any way they like, including Xtians, who invoke Jesus and cross themselves on the plaza! Why is this women more of a threat to you then they are?!

SC: dont come to the wall and try to run a new type of service.
By calling it a new type of service, you are being ahistorical. There was nothing "new" about her attempt to pray in a talis.
Search for more information about pluralism and legitimate halachic variations at 4torah.com.

We've heard it, too. (Darn it I was scooped)

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:29:00 +0000

Editor's note: A ghastly story regarding the events of last week has just been published on another blog. I wish to state for the record, that I have been sitting on this story for two days, but elected to follow my guidelines and wait for a published newspaper story or other corroboration. This still has not been provided, and in my opinion the other blog should have waited, too. For this reason, I'm not linking them yet - but will if the story is ever confirmed. (Attempts to link them on the thread will be deleted)

[If you think I'm also annoyed someone beat me to publish the story, you're right, of course.] [not that it matters: When I'm first to press, no one -holy Torah blogs included - credits me anyway.]

Today's I am not making this up moment

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:27:00 +0000

So, Bill and Lou, two cuties to be sure, are checking each other out, exchanging softball questions, and discussing Lou's surplus of career options, when suddenly apropos exactly nothing Bill asks his last, unbiased, question: Is Barak Obama the devil?

And Lou replied, with all seriousness, as if this was just a perfectly ordinary question about public policy. Can you imagine someone on one of the supposedly liberal stations asking a friendly guest, "Is it true George W. Bush was a brain dead, unethical, moron?" No? Why not?

Shidduchim, Truth-Telling, and Negiah

noreply@blogger.com (JS) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:45:00 +0000

A guest post by JS:

There is a tremendous pressure in the shidduch world to make oneself and one's family appear to be perfect. The slightest flaw may torpedo a potential shidduch before the guy and girl have even learned each other's names. The degree of subterfuge one the one hand and espionage on the other that is found in the shidduch system would make for a good Hollywood spy movie.

But, of course, no one is perfect and this fact is compounded when you consider the many relatives in one's family that a person "marries" as well.

However, the largest problem with the shidduch system isn't the vetting that goes on, per se, it's when that vetting occurs. Imagine if, upon meeting a person, someone were to list all of his/her problems and all of his/her family's problems. That other person would likely be insane to agree to a date, let alone marriage.

For example, imagine if a person produced a list that said: "I get angry at times for seemingly no reason, I'm very grumpy in the morning, I don't like to socialize over Shabbat; I prefer to sleep, my father has high cholesterol, my mother's mother had a bout with breast cancer, my brother is still "finding himself," money is tight in my family, I go to minyan but often space out, and I saw a psychiatrist in the past when I felt depressed during college."

That list is daunting! But, the problem isn't the list. The problem isn't even the vetting that would lead to learning of such a list. The problem is that the list is weighed against nothing - that the person behind the list is anonymous and faceless. However, when the list is sized up against this wonderful person you know and love, it becomes just a fact of life - an issue to be dealt with like all other issues in life. If you knew the person really well and deeply cared for that person, not only would the list not be off-putting, you would come to see the list as things that make the person unique - things that make the person who they are. After all, as mentioned above, everyone's got "issues" and loving a person involves loving that person, issues and all.

Of course, the rationale given for vetting before meeting is that it is important to get this background stuff out of the way up front to ensure that the dating process is short. Let others handle whether there are "issues" and let the potential couple focus (quickly) on whether they like each other enough to marry. And the rationale (or at least one of them) for why dating must be so short is the fear of a lapse of the laws negiah (i.e. dating couples will "fool around").

Tesyaa recently wrote:

I would prefer my children violate negia out of a lack of self-control rather than marry someone they shouldn't because they were rushed in their dating. And anyway, even the couples who get engaged and married quickly are often violating negia.

I agree 100%. Overall, I think the greater moral wrong lies with marrying off incompatible people than two people violating negiah. There is always teshuva for violating negiah. But, what is the repentance for two incompatible people who marry? Divorce? The stigma that follows divorce? Potentially remaining single due to the stigma? Or if they don't separate, a lifetime of regret and sadness? Children with parents who don't love each other? I don't see how you can weigh that against two people who fool around for a few days/weeks before marrying or moving on.

As for Tesyaa's latter point, I know this isn't dispositive of anything, but I know way too many stories of seemingly very frum couples who I would never dream would violate negiah, violating it in ways a person like me didn't even think were possible.

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

What is therapy exactly and how could it help an adult molested as a child?

TikunOlamDB@gmail.com (TikunOlam) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:11:00 +0000

A guest post by TikunOlam

Yesterday we heard a tragic report of a young man who committed suicide as a newly wed. He was unable to become sexually intimate with his wife due to reactions to traumatic sexual abuse that he had suffered when he was younger. The word “therapy” got tossed around a lot as the cure for the post traumatic symptoms of this young man. But I think that unless you have had some experience in therapy or training as a therapist, what goes on in the therapy sessions is often mysterious or misunderstood. There are many types of therapies out there. Today’s most scientifically studied (for many reasons I won’t go into) are various versions of Cognitive Behavior Therapy.

So lets say that a young man, let’s call him Jacob, decided to go into therapy because he was beginning to have nightmares, feelings of depression and anxiety as his wedding got closer. He knew it was because of his history of molestation. He had never sought treatment before and decided he should before becoming sexually intimate with his wife.

Cognitive Behavior Therapy works like this:

It is understood that all people have a set of schemas. Our schemas are own personal narratives about what we believe about ourselves and the world around us. Our schemas influence our feelings and our feelings influence our behavior and then back around again. It is a self perpetuating cycle. Therapists, together with their patients, look to define problematic cognitive schemas, which result in maladaptive feelings and behaviors.

For example, in Jacob’s situation, possible schemas could include, for instance:

1. I should have stopped him from molesting me
2. I am defective
3. I am unworthy of love
4. I do not deserve a wife and family
5. Sex is bad, shameful and frightening
6. If I can’t perform as a man, I don’t deserve to live

Possible feelings that go along with those schemas could include, for instance:

1. Shame
2. Guilt
3. Anger
4. Fear
5. Sadness

Possible behaviors that could be associated with those thoughts and feeling may include:

1. Avoiding sexual intimacy
2. Difficulties trusting others
3. Hiding the truth from others
4. Use of drugs to escape
5. Suicide attempts
6. Suicide

Once identified, the maladaptive thoughts, that are by definition irrational, are challenged. And, for example, if you no longer believe that sex is shameful, you begin to think and feel differently about sex. And with some confidence, in time, you may decide to change your behaviors by taking steps toward sexual intimacy with someone you trust.

This, of course is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy 101 as can fit into a blog post of course. It is in no way a manual for psychotherapy and only very broadly defines Cognitive Behavioral psychotherapy.

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

David Zwiebel on Child Abuse

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:26:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R' Shmuel Borger's Audio Message

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:29:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

His own takeaways included:

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

Morality is subjective (reprised)

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:35:00 +0000

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

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

The nafka mina? Simple.

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

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

Today's Chillul Hashem

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:45:00 +0000

New York Post

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

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

Rav Kanievsky on hiring Arabs

israeli.jew@gmail.com (Rafi G.) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:29:00 +0000

A Guest Post by Rafi G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back Door Conversions?

noreply@blogger.com (EFink) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:00:00 +0000

AN ANONYMOUS GUEST POST

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

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

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

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

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

(Text courtesy of moreshet.com)

KIDDUSHIN: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 13

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

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

(end quote)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parsha Notes: Chayei Sarah2009

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:45:00 +0000

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

Chayei Sarah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A shtickle torah from the RABAM

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:39:00 +0000

Read it here

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

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

noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:18:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

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