rabbisedley

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:38:00 +0000

Today is the third of Adar. Yesterday was (unsurprisingly) the second of Adar.

There is a very interesting historical connection between these two dates, which very few people notice.

The second of Adar (598 BCE) was the date that the First Temple was conquered by Nebuchnazzaer, and King Jeconiah taken captive.

This comes from Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum.

“In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hiatti-land, and encamped against (i.e. besieged) the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king.”

And then, according to tradition exactly 70 years and one day later, on the third of Adar (515 BCE), the Second Temple completed

Ezra 6:15

וְשֵׁיצִיא בַּיְתָה דְנָה, עַד יוֹם תְּלָתָה לִירַח אֲדָר--דִּי-הִיא שְׁנַת-שֵׁת, לְמַלְכוּת דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא.

And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

So the Jewish people slept for 70 years (as the story of Choni the circle-drawer sleeping for 70 years highlights), then woke up the next day and rebuilt the Temple.

The mishna in Ta'anit says that when Adar begins we should increase our happiness. It is hard to reconcile the destruction of the Temple with the happiness of Adar. But if the destruction only lasted for a day, perhaps that is reason to celebrate.

The impossibility of extinction

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:34:00 +0000

According to many medieval Jewish sources no species of animal can ever become extinct. This was mainstream belief, held by (and shaping policy for) many of the world leaders up until the 19th century. In this class we discuss extinction, the reasons why it presents difficulty to theologians, and how damaging religious convictions can be when they fly in the face of the evidence. Also, the raven was right.

Here is the source sheet:

Expecting the Messiah

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:21:00 +0000

Here is an audio recording of one of the classed I gave a Limmud Scotland last month. I've entitled it "Expecting the Messiah" and it is about the dangers of predicting details of the Messiah's arrival.

Here is the source sheet:

Parshat Bamidbar -- Happy Birthday Al Capone

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 02 Jun 2019 07:15:00 +0000

One dark Chicago night in 1926, Fats Waller was leaving his regular gig at the Sherman Hotel when he was surrounded by four armed men. Waller was one of the most popular jazz musicians of his time, and one of the most prolific composers. But he had no idea what was about to happen.

One of the armed men shoved a pistol into Waller’s ample belly and told him to get into the limo. Fearing for his life, the pianist did as he was told. He was driven out of town, down to Cicero. The car pulled up outside the Hawthorn Inn and Waller was led inside, gun still pointed at his back, and told to sit down at the piano and start playing.

As he looked around him, Waller realized that he was at a birthday party for the infamous Al Capone, who had relocated his headquarters to Cicero, where he had a better deal with officials, police, and rival gangs than he had had in Chicago. Capone was turning 27 and Fats Waller was a surprise birthday present from “the boys.”

In 1926, America was in the grip of prohibition, and as a result, Capone was at the height of his power. It was still three years before the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, after which he was dubbed “Public Enemy Number One.” It was five years before Capone was sent to jail for tax evasion, where he would serve eight years of an 11-year sentence, including time in Alcatraz, and just over six years after that, aged 48, Capone would be dead.

Al Capone, after his arrest in 1930 on vagrancy charges. (Public Domain, Chicago Bureau of the FBI/ Wikimedia Commons)

But 1926 was a great time to be alive. Capone was head of a massive crime organization following the “resignation” of Johnny Torrio, who had been shot several times. The Chicago Outfit ran an illegal brewery and transportation network that reached across the border to Canada. Several establishments that refused to buy their alcohol from the Outfit were mysteriously blown up, leading to an estimated 100 deaths.

Ironically, though several of Al’s brothers worked with him in the alcohol business, his older brother Vincenzo Capone changed his name to Richard James Hart and became a prohibition agent in Homer, Nebraska. There, he orchestrated a series of successful raids against bootleggers, which earned him the nickname “Two-gun” Hart.

Capone’s reign as head of the crime gang also saw an increase in the number of brothels in Chicago. Yet despite his ruthless violence against rivals and others, Capone gave large donations to charity and earned a reputation as a modern-day Robin Hood.

In addition to a penchant for the ladies, Capone liked wearing fancy suits, and enjoyed expensive cigars, gourmet food and drink. He was also known for wearing flashy and flamboyant jewelry. And he loved to party.

So, when his henchmen were trying to come up with a present to give their boss for his 27th birthday, they could think of nothing better than bringing him Fats Waller, one of his favorite musicians.

Waller played at gunpoint for three days, entertaining the mafia boss and those who were celebrating with him. But the pianist loved to party almost as much as Capone did, especially as after every song he received large cash tips and drinks. By the time he stumbled out of the Hawthorn Inn, Waller had thousands of dollars in his pockets and had developed a taste for fine champagne.

He also had a watertight excuse if he were ever questioned by the FBI — he could honestly claim he had no ties to the mob boss. Waller never played for Capone again, but continued touring until 1943, when he died of pneumonia, aged only 39. At his funeral, the pastor who eulogized him praised Waller, saying he “always played to a packed house.”

The story of Capone and the kidnapped musician got me thinking about how difficult birthdays are. Not only is it hard to find the right present for someone (after all, not everyone can have Fats Waller at gunpoint), but also how tricky it is to actually keep track of birthdays.

The earliest recorded birthday was that of Pharaoh, described in Genesis 40:20. As part of the celebrations, Pharaoh restored the chief butler to his position and executed the chief baker. However, it is possible that this was not actually the anniversary of Pharaoh’s birth, but rather the anniversary of his coronation. Many Pharaohs were believed to be deities once they ascended the throne, and thus it may mark his “rebirth” as a god.

The Palermo Stone in Museo archeologico regionale di Palermo. (G.dallorto/ Wikimedia Commons)

We know from the Palermo Stone that the ancient Pharaohs celebrated a feast called “Appearance of the King” every two years, on the anniversary of their coronation. Is it possible that this is what Pharaoh was celebrating? Perhaps that explained the strange Hebrew phrase “yom huledet et par’o” rather than the simpler “yom huledet par’o” that we would use in modern Hebrew.

You see, until recently it was rather difficult to know when someone’s birthday was. Until modern record keeping, most people didn’t know the day they were born. A friend of mine, who came to Israel with his parents from Morocco as a child, recently turned 70. But nobody knows exactly when. When his mother and father arrived in Israel, they did not know his date of birth. In Morocco, there were no birth certificates at that time. So the official documents list his birthday as 0/0/1949.

The modern practice of compulsory registration of births only started in the United Kingdom in about 1853. In the United States, it was only introduced in 1902. On September 2, 1990, the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force. It was accepted by 191 countries, and gives children the right to a registered name and nationality at birth.

Bird family birth registry from Bird family bible. (CC BY-SA, Theobird/ Wikimedia Commons)

But before that records were kept sporadically. Some countries, even in ancient times, registered births for tax purposes. In some places, births were registered in local parishes or synagogues for religious reasons. Often, families would record births and deaths in prayer books or elsewhere. But there was no systematic documentation of a child’s date of birth.

It is possible that even in ancient times, parents looked at the stars when their child was born to know what his or her future had in store according to the astrologers. Thus, we find in the Talmud (Shabbat 156a) that one who is born under the sign of Mars will shed blood. So he will become a blood-letter, a thief, a ritual slaughterer, or a mohel (circumciser).

It is a much more difficult thing to pinpoint the exact date of a birth and know how to celebrate it a year later.

And knowing the length of a year is even more difficult. Nowadays, we celebrate secular birthdays and anniversaries according to the Gregorian calendar, which we note is (approximately) the time it takes for the earth to make one full orbit of the sun.

Earth orbiting the sun. (CC BY-SA, kristian fagerström/ Flickr)

But before the Israelites left Egypt, they were given a brand-new calendar — in fact the very first commandment they were given was to mark the first of Nisan as the beginning of the year. Of course, back then the month was not called Nisan — the names of the “Hebrew” months are Babylonian, and were introduced to the calendar during the Babylonian exile (see Ramban on Exodus 12:2). Before that, the months were called by the Torah “first month,” “second month,” “third month,” etc., although it seems from the book of I Kings (6:1 and 8:2) that they had other names too, such as “Ziv”’ and “Eitanim.”

But the new months they were given means that they now had a new way of calculating a year. It wasn’t the passage of the earth around the sun, but the completion of 12 (or sometimes 13) new moons.

Even if someone knew exactly on which day they were born, it is unlikely that they would also be able to calculate back to work out when their birthday fell according to this new calendar. For one thing, without seeing all the previous moons and without a Sanhedrin to declare the new month, it would have been impossible to know the length of any particular year.

So, although nowadays we take it for granted, it is worth noting that in this week’s Torah reading (Numbers 1:1-3), Moses, along with the leaders of each of the tribes, was instructed to count every man over the age of 20.

God spoke to Moses in the Sinai wilderness in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month in the second year after they left the land of Egypt, saying: Count the head of the entire congregation of the Children of Israel, according to their families and their father’s houses, by the number of names, a headcount of each male. From 20 years old and upward…

How would they know which of the men were 19 and a half and which were over the age of 20? They had just left years of slavery in Egypt and record-keeping was probably not high on their list of things to do.

We know that the tribe of Levi was counted from the age of 30 days. This solves the problem of record-keeping, but requires parents to note exactly the time of day the baby was born (because if the child was born after dark it would be already the next day, and if he was born during sunset, it is even more complicated). Also, it would have been unseemly for Moses and Aaron to enter the tents of women who had recently given birth. Therefore, several commentaries, including Kli Yakar and Ohr HaChaim, explain that Moses and Aaron would stand outside the tent and a heavenly voice would proclaim how many children over the age of 30 days were inside.

So, it is possible that miracles were also involved when they were counting all the men over the age of 20. Perhaps they had some sign by which they knew who had already had their respective birthdays and who was still a few days away.

Or perhaps they didn’t need to count precisely. Maybe anyone who was approximately 19 when they left Egypt was considered to be 20-years-old one year later.

Or maybe the confusion about birth dates explains the discrepancies in the number of men at the different times they were counted in the wilderness.

Birthdays are on my mind this week. I don’t think we should celebrate them in the same way that Pharaoh or Al Capone celebrated. But birthdays are a time to thank your parents for bringing you into existence. And they are also a good time for an annual stock-taking — while the earth has been traveling at about 107,000 kilometers per hour (67,000 miles per hour) around the sun, how far have we actually come as individuals?

Parshat Emor — Confronting death

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Mon, 13 May 2019 06:02:00 +0000

Today, Amherst, Massachusetts, is a medium-sized town 80 kilometers (50 miles) from Boston, home to over 40,000 people. But in the 19th century, Amherst was a quiet, unremarkable town, with a much smaller population which, over 100 years, doubled in size from 2,500 to 5,000.

For such a small town, it was home to a significant number of people who made a huge contribution to the world — the poet Robert Frost taught and retired there; Noah Webster, of the eponymous dictionary, lived there; Melvil Dewey, devised the Dewey-Decimal classification system while an assistant librarian in Amherst College; P. D. Eastman, born in Amherst, served in World War II in the Signal Corps film unit, under Theodor Geisel — better known as Dr. Seuss — and went on to illustrate many of his books; the actress Uma Thurman was born and raised in the city.

But for me, the most important resident of Amherst is Emily Dickinson. She was born there in 1830, though she didn’t really become famous until after her death in 1886. During her lifetime, she was better known as a gardener and published fewer than a dozen poems — most of which were modified to conform with a more traditional style.

On her deathbed, Dickinson told her younger sister Lavina to burn all her papers. Luckily for us, Lavina ignored the instruction to destroy the 40 or so notebooks, and instead published the collection of almost 1,800 poems her sister left behind.

Town Hall, Amherst Massachusetts. (CC BY, John Phelan/ Wikimedia Commons)

Dickinson left school at 16, having spent her final year of formal education in Mount Holyoke Female Seminary, in a class of 30 categorized religiously as “without hope.” She was considered eccentric by her neighbors, and from the time she was 30 she mostly lived the life of a recluse, seldom going out of her bedroom, corresponding with her few acquaintances through letters.

But she was never alone. Death was her constant companion, as it was for most Americans in the 19th century.

Even though New England had one of the lowest mortality rates in 19th century USA, the average life expectancy was about 46. During Dickinson’s lifetime, the percentage of children who died before their fifth birthday dropped from over 40 percent to below 30% — still a huge number by modern Western standards. And over 600,000 men died during the Civil War, estimated to be about 10% of all Northern men aged 20-45 and over 30% of white Southern men between the ages of 18-40.

So everyone in the United States knew death intimately. But Dickinson embraced Death as a friend and companion.

Because I could not stop for Death –
He kindly stopped for me –
The Carriage held but just Ourselves –
And Immortality.

Her poetic style and themes were non-traditional, to say the least, and faced critical reception when they were first published. Thomas Bailey Aldrich wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in January 1892 that,

“It is plain that Miss Dickinson possessed an extremely unconventional and grotesque fancy… The incoherence and formlessness of her — versicles are fatal … an eccentric, dreamy, half-educated recluse in an out-of-the-way New England village (or anywhere else) cannot with impunity set at defiance the laws of gravitation and grammar.”

But her poetry resonated with the public. The first volume of her poetry, published four years after her death, went through 11 editions in just two years. Many people were able to connect with and relate to Dickinson’s descriptions of death, loss, immortality and despair.

It was not Death, for I stood up,
And all the Dead, lie down –
It was not Night, for all the Bells
Put out their Tongues, for Noon.

It was not Frost, for on my Flesh
I felt Siroccos – crawl –
Nor Fire – for just my marble feet
Could keep a Chancel, cool –

And yet, it tasted, like them all,
The Figures I have seen
Set orderly, for Burial
Reminded me, of mine –

As if my life were shaven,
And fitted to a frame,
And could not breathe without a key,
And ’twas like Midnight, some –

When everything that ticked — has stopped –
And space stares – all around —
Or Grisly frosts – first Autumn morns,
Repeal the Beating Ground —

But most, like Chaos — Stopless – cool –
Without a Chance, or spar —
Or even a Report of Land —
To justify — Despair.

Although there are many new and horrible ways in which people die or are killed, nowadays, thanks to modern medicine, hygiene and nutrition, most people in the Western world rarely have to deal directly and personally with death on the scale that our grandparents did. I have many friends who had never attended a funeral until they were in their 20s or 30s. But just a few decades ago, before the discovery and manufacture of penicillin and vaccines, everyone knew death only too well.

This week’s Torah portion begins with restrictions placed on the priests, the descendants of Aharon, known in Hebrew as kohanim. In addition to restrictions on whom they may marry, they are also warned against coming into contact with the dead. Apart from close relatives, priests must keep well away from death. Not only are they forbidden to enter cemeteries, but they may not even be in the same room or under the same roof as a corpse.

The traditional explanation for the extra holiness required of them is that the priests were traditionally the teachers of Torah. The verse states, (Malachi 2:7)

For the lips of the priest guard knowledge, and they should seek Torah from his mouth, for he is an angel of God of Hosts.

As guardians of the Torah and angels of God, they had to keep far away from impurity. This idea of the priest as an angel was most vividly embodied in Simeon the Just, who served as High Priest in the Second Temple for 40 years. The Talmud relates that before Alexander the Great came to Israel in 332 BCE, Simeon appeared to him in a dream and predicted his victory. Alexander had wanted a statue of himself placed in the Temple, but, instead, Simeon promised that all sons of priests born that year would be named Alexander (Leviticus Rabba 13).

The detail of the Alexander Mosaic showing Alexander the Great. (Public Domain./ Wikimedia Commons)

I wonder if there is another, psychological, reason that the Torah insists that priests keep far away from human death. During Temple times, the main task of the priests (at least for the weeks that they were on duty) was to slaughter sacrifices.

Every day, dozens, or sometimes even hundreds or thousands, of animals were killed by the priests, the blood sprinkled and the animals dismembered and burned on the altar (though most of the meat was actually eaten by the priests and those who brought the sacrifices). The priests would spend their days barefoot, wading through the blood which sometimes came up to their knees.

High priest offering a sacrifice of a goat, on the Day of Atonement,; from Henry Davenport Northrop, Treasures of the Bible, published 1894. (Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons)

I remember many years ago, helping supervise the kosher slaughter in New Zealand. I was standing alongside the non-Jewish workers who were removing and sorting the hearts, livers, kidneys and other organs from the chickens, and occasionally ripping off the heads if the machine wasn’t working properly. Though each time, when I first walked into the room, I was an emotional wreck, within a few minutes, I was tossing the carcasses along the line like they were rugby balls.

And I wondered, how was it possible for men and women who spent every day working on the production line dismembering animals to clock out at the end of the day and go out to the pub with their mates, or go home to their families and forget about the death they were surrounded by every day. How could they switch off their emotions and slide back into regular life?

Is it possible that the Torah placed stringent restrictions on the priests to keep far away from human death to constantly remind them of the difference between animals and humans? Because the priests were animal slaughterers and butchers, they had to have extra stringencies to remind them of the importance of human life (and death).

However, even though a priest was forbidden to deal with the body of anyone other than a close relative, there was one case when he was required to personally bury a body.

If a priest (or anyone) came across a body with nobody to take care of it, he had to personally bury the corpse to ensure its dignity. The laws of purity were cast aside in the face of giving a human being a proper funeral.

Washing, dressing, and preparing a body for burial is referred to by the rabbis as chesed shel emet — the true kindness. It is literally a thankless task, motivated solely by concern for those who are unable to help themselves.

The priest, normally kept distant from death, shows the true holiness of life, through this mandated exception to perform this ultimate kindness for others.

Parshat Mishpatim: Let Them Eat Cake

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 06:27:00 +0000

In his inaugural electoral speech on Tuesday night, Benny Gantz compared the current Israeli government to King Louis XVI, implying that the country is in danger of heading towards a revolution.

“The basic values of Israeli statehood have been converted into the mannerisms of a French royal house,” Gantz said. Instead of serving the people, the government looms over the people and finds the people to be a bore.”

It is impossible to pinpoint a single cause that led to the storming of the Bastille, the overthrow of Louis XVI and the guillotining of thousands in the Reign of Terror presided over by Maximilien Robespierre. But let’s look at a few of the main issues that led to the French Revolution.

While the wealthy clergy and nobility were exempt from paying taxes, a crippling tax burden was levied on the common people (known as the Third Estate) through a variety of direct and indirect taxes. The 100,000 clergy, who owned 10% of the land, along with the ruling classes living in their grand homes, were exempt from most of those taxes.

Adding to the pressure on the lower classes was the deregulation of the grain market, which led to increasing bread prices and often dire food shortages (prompting Queen Marie-Antoinette to allegedly utter her infamous line, “Let them eat cake”).

The Enlightenment spreading across Europe further undermined the authority of the church and the king.

In addition, most of the population of 26 million had a sense that the king and his court cared little for the people he was supposed to be ruling. Versailles, built by Louis XIV to demonstrate France’s greatness to the world, became a symbol of the king’s apathy for his subjects. Some have estimated that Versaille sucked up almost 10% of the national treasury.

The country was already on the verge of bankruptcy after fighting the Seven Years’ War, when the Kingdom of France led a large coalition of forces against Britain and its allies, and involved most of Europe. France then challenged Britain in the new world spending millions of dollars in support of the American Revolutionary War.

As a result of these wars, France’s debt spiraled out of control, ballooning from 8 million livres to well over 13 billion. Attempts to levy taxes on the upper classes were rejected by the nobility. Eventually, King Louis appointed Jacques Necker who initiated a policy of taking huge international loans rather than trying to balance the budget.

Ultimately, Necker was ousted and the Sun King appointed Charles de Calonne to run the country’s finances. He knew that the only way to balance the books and avert the revolution was to impose taxes on the upper classes, but when Louis convened the Assembly of Notables to hear the dire situation and Calonne’s proposals, they blocked his efforts and refused to pay their share of the national burden.

Calonne tried to borrow money to keep the country afloat, but by this time none of the international banks or money lenders would take a risk on a country in economic free-fall.

Necker had borrowed millions at high interest rates and the country had no way of paying back the loans. The populace — starving, ignored and influenced by the radical new ideas of the enlightenment — eventually rose up against the monarchy, with the rallying cry of, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” (Freedom, equality, fraternity).

This week’s Torah portion, Mishpatim, contains more laws than almost any other. One of those laws is the prohibition of taking interest on loans (Exodus 22:24).

"If you lend money to My people, the poor among you, do not be like a money-lender, do not charge him interest."

In an agrarian society, a person needed a loan to feed the family when the crops failed or needed to borrow money to buy animals or grain to raise for the coming year. Lending money was a form of charity and charging interest could be crippling.

However, as Jewish society transformed from the biblical vision of working the land to the commercial society of a nation evicted from its land, the nature of loans also changed. A business loan was not saving someone from starvation but an opportunity for growth and development. A scarcity of money to borrow would have stunted the economic development of society and the country.

For this reason, the rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud found a “loophole” which was in fact within the spirit of the law. Although charging interest remains prohibited, a wealthy person could “invest” in a business opportunity in exchange for a share of the profits. This is known as “heter iska” and remains the underlying basis by which banks in Israel lend money to this day.

It is important to distinguish between a business, which relies on commercial loans to create wealth, and a loan to an individual without a livelihood who needs the money to put food on the table. In one case it is permitted (and perhaps even encouraged) to lend money with interest. In the other, it is completely forbidden.

The thing about history is that it is only seen looking backwards. Even on his deathbed in 1715 Louis XIV could never have imagined the possibility of a revolution, nor could his great-grandson Louis XV who succeeded him. By the time his grandson Louis XVI realized the discontent of the nation and the danger the monarchy faced it was too late for him to do enough to avert the revolution.

A quote attributed to Mark Twain says that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The Torah portion teaches that if someone is starving, loan them the money interest-free to buy cake. And if they are looking to expand their cake-making operation, invest in their business.

—-

(Note: As anyone with a passing knowledge of European history is aware, Jews were only forbidden from charging interest to other Jews. But they were allowed to charge interest on loans to gentiles. The Church, which barred Christians from charging interest to other Christians, exploited this, encouraging Jews to become money lenders. This no doubt fueled anti-Semitism (we’ve all heard of Shylock), but also encouraged religious or political leaders to persecute Jews to avoid repayment.)

Parshat Yitro: The 12 Tables

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:32:00 +0000

The Roman Plebians were sick of being abused by the Patricians and demanded more power in governing the city. Around 462 BCE Terentilius — who was the Plebian Tribune at the time — advocated for a written set of laws that would govern Roman citizens.

Until that time, laws had been a combination of whatever custom, tradition and the ruling judge (always a Patrician) decided. Nobody could even know if they were being treated fairly by the law because nobody knew exactly what the law was. Terentilius wanted the laws to be written down to give greater protection to all.

The Patricians eventually (in 450 BCE) agreed to the Plebian demands request. A group of 10 men, known as the Decemvirate were selected to draw up the laws. According to Livy the 10 men went first to Greece to study Athenian laws and those of other cities.

On their return the men of the Decemvirate drew up their laws, which were written on 12 bronze tables placed in the forum, so that they were accessible to all.

The tables themselves were destroyed and we only know some of what they contained from later sources. But we do know that they focused mainly on civil laws between private citizens, including land ownership rights, inheritance rights and damages. They also included some religious laws. The worst punishment (the death penalty) was reserved for those who corrupted the legal system — judges who took bribes and witnesses who gave false testimony.

Rome was not the first state to have written laws, but these tablets were influential for generations. They formed the basis of Roman law for centuries after and Roman students were taught to memorize them in school. In fact, these laws influenced the men who drafted the US Constitution and also form the basis of common law which is still part of our legal system today.

This foundation of the Roman legal system was compiled some 900 years after the Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites, according to the Torah’s chronology. But some 600-900 years before our record of how the Rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud viewed the Ten Commandments and their place in the Jewish legal system.

In contrast with the Twelve Tables, which were placed publicly in the Forum for all to see, the two tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments were sealed in the Ark of the Covenant, which was never opened. The Ark itself was hidden away in the holiest part of the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) and only seen on one day of the year by only one person (the High Priest). In the Second Temple era the Ark was no longer there, having been either placed in a hidden and forgotten chamber deep within the Temple,or taken to Ethiopia by Solomon’s son.

The Twelve Tables came at the insistence of the people and were drawn up by a group of men. The Torah describes how the Ten Commandments were given by God and not only were they unasked for but according to rabbinic tradition the Israelites has to be forced to accept them.

The contrast between these two foundations of legal system is stark but the truth is that the prophets and rabbis removed virtually all meaning from the Ten Commandments.

Many of the prophets railed against the Jewish people for not observing the Torah and for not behaving correctly. None of them mentioned the Ten Commandments specifically in their criticisms of the people (though they did complain that the Jews were not keeping various commandments included in the Ten, along with other commandments that were not being kept).

Then the third century sage Rabbi Simlai stated (Makkot 23b) that the Israelites did not receive 10 commandments at Sinai but 613. (Medieval rabbis who listed the 613 all agreed that the number of Torah laws is actually far higher than that, and there are even more rabbinic laws). The Talmud (Makkot 24a) then lists other rabbis who seek out the most essential Commandments, reducing the list from 11 until eventually deciding on the single commandment of, “The righteous shall live by his faith,” (Habakkuk 2:4). None of the rabbis thought that the classic 10 were the most essential laws.

Not only did the rabbis ignore the Ten Commandments when listing the most essential laws but they also redefined them to remove their plain meaning. For example, “Do not steal,” (Exodus 20:12) is interpreted to mean “Do not kidnap” (Sanhedrin 86a). Theft is still biblically forbidden but is not one of the Ten.

Others, like the commandments to observe the Sabbath or honor one’s parents have become the subjects of vast collections of intricate laws which go well beyond (and sometimes contradict) the plain meaning of the words.

By the mishnaic period the Ten Commandments were reduced from a legal code to a prayer in the daily service (similar to the Shema). But then, in response to the rise of Christianity, the rabbis removed the Ten Commandments from prayer too (Berachot 12a).

So although representations of the Two Tablets appear in synagogues and court rooms, the Ten Commandments are virtually insignificant as a legal code.

Unlike the Roman tablets which are almost forgotten yet still impact our laws, the Ten Commandments are extremely well known, yet have very little influence on the Jewish legal system.

Parshat Beshalach: The Green Book

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:31:00 +0000

The “Green Book” won several awards at the Golden Globes last week, including “Best Motion Picture.” The movie, set in 1960, tells the story of the relationship between an African-American classical pianist and the Italian-American bouncer he hires to drive him on a concert tour through the racially divided deep south.

The movie’s title comes from an annual directory published by and named for Victor Hugo Green which listed hotels, stores and gas stations that welcomed African Americans. The full title of the directory was “The Negro Motorist Green Book” and it was published every year from 1936-1966. The guide, which was almost forgotten over the decades, was essential in the era of racial segregation, enforced by legislation known as the Jim Crow laws.

These laws, upheld by the Supreme Court, maintained racial segregation in all public facilities in the southern states of the US. The court ruled that Jim Crow did not violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution — which ensured equal protection” to all people — by invoking the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made racial discrimination illegal, but until that time the Green Book was a valuable guide for African-American motorists at a time when the relative low cost of motoring meant that many Americans took to the roads, especially those looking to escape the racism and segregation they experienced on public transport.

However, driving across America was not easy for people of color when many gas stations, hostels, restaurants and stores refused to serve them. Even finding a public bathroom was sometimes difficult. Many African-American travelers were forced to pack not only food for their journey, but also carry spare fuel and sometimes even a portable toilet. And if the car broke down, it was sometimes almost impossible to find a mechanic who would fix it for them. There were also thousands of so-called “sundown towns,” which barred non-whites after dark (one of which features in the movie).

This was why Green’s guide became invaluable. In the introduction to the 1949 edition he wrote, “With the introduction of this travel guide in 1936, it has been our idea to give the Negro traveler information that will keep him from running into difficulties, embarrassments and to make his trips more enjoyable.”

Green was a postal worker from Harlem, New York, and he published 15,000 copies of his guide each year. He said the inspiration for his guide came from similar Jewish publications.

The Jewish press has long published information about places that are restricted and there are numerous publications that give the gentile whites all kinds of information.

Jews continued to face discrimination when Green launched his guide, though the peak of anti-Semitism in the US was in the 1920s. That decade may have heralded in the age of motoring, but the American father of the motorcar, Henry Ford, was an avowed anti-Semite who blamed the Jews for World War I (and for almost everything else). In 1924, the government passed the Johnson–Reed Act, effectively severely limiting immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe. The Ku Klux Klan, newly reformed in 1915, claimed 4-5 million members by the 1920s. Hatred of Jews in America was widespread.

In response, Jews created their own philanthropic societies, their own hotels and resorts, their own lobbying groups, and their own guides to where Jews were welcomed. By the 1960s, Jews were at the forefront in the fight against discrimination of all kinds, and were among the founders and early funders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

According to a PBS show, Jews were at the heart of the fight against Jim Crow.

The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League were central to the campaign against racial prejudice. Jews made substantial financial contributions to many civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. About 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws.

Jews knew that those who discriminated against minorities were the same people who hated Jews. The Jews of American felt that standing up for minorities was not only the right thing to do morally, but also the best way of combatting anti-Semitism.

The truth is, however, that anti-Semitism, the hatred of Jews, began millennia ago, in an incident we read in this week’s Torah portion.

After the Israelites miraculously left Egypt, everyone thought they were invincible. The Torah describes how they split the Red Sea, defeated Pharaoh’s army, and were guided by a column of fire and a pillar of smoke. Nobody in their right mind would have challenged the Israelites at the peak of their power.

Yet along came the tribe of Amalek and attacked the people, as they wandered through the desert. “And Amalek came and warred with Israel in Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8).

Amalek was not threatened by the Jews, who were heading to the Land of Canaan. The Jews had no resources that Amalek wanted or needed. How did their leader inspire the Amalekites to fight what must have seemed a suicidal war? Did he encourage them to fight by claiming that the Israelites were “criminals, drug dealers, and rapists” (or whatever was the equivalent at that time)? What other methods did he use to get his supporters to destroy themselves in order to get rid of the Israelites?

Amalek fought against the Israelites for no reason other than a hatred of Jews. Their war with Israel was the precursor to an eternal war against the Jews fought by those who hate Jews, as the verse states (Exodus 17:16):

He said, ‘For his hand is on the throne of God, there is a war between God and Amalek from generation to generation.’

Amalek was one single tribe that were wiped out thousands of years ago. But Amalek’s spiritual heirs, who continue to hate the Jews, remain strong to this day.

In 1948, Green wrote, “There will be a day sometime in the near future when this guide will not have to be published. That is when we as a race will have equal opportunities and privileges in the United States. It will be a great day for us to suspend this publication for then we can go wherever we please, and without embarrassment.”

Things have improved in so many ways in the US for minorities, but there is still a long way to go. Though discrimination based on race is now illegal, hatred of minorities is still widespread on social media and political rhetoric. The Green Book is no longer published and is almost forgotten. But the hatred of those who are different in the color of their skin, their religion or their ethnicity remains strong in some circles.

The last line of the introduction in the 1937 edition of the Green Book states, “Let’s all get together and make motoring better.” This message is equally relevant now, though I would alter it to read, “Let’s all get together to make the entire world better.”

—

With thanks to the wonderful podcast 99% Invisible for the inspiration behind this d’var Torah.

Parshat Bo: The power of youth

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:09:00 +0000

For more than a hundred years, from the end of the fifth century BCE, the Spartan army was the supreme fighting force in the ancient world.

The Spartans were not known for their advances in science, technology or medicine. Apart from the Chilon in the 6th century BCE (who was renowned as one of the Seven Sages of Greece), Sparta produced no philosophers. But in the field of war they excelled more than anyone else. The culture of Sparta was totally focused on military training and creating the best fighting force in the world.

Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War I:10) referred to the Sparta by its ancient name of Ladaeaemon when he wrote:

For I suppose if Lacedaemon were to become desolate, and the temples and the foundations of the public buildings were left, that as time went on there would be a strong disposition with posterity to refuse to accept her fame as a true exponent of her power. And yet they occupy two-fifths of Peloponnese and lead the whole, not to speak of their numerous allies without.

From the age of 7, Spartan boys would leave their homes and enter the agoge system where they were beaten, starved and often died, but where they were trained in the art of war. At the age of 20 they would enter the military, where they would continue to serve until they reached the age of 60. Unusually for the ancient world, girls also received an education, and were comparatively well cared for, so that they could give birth to and raise the finest soldiers. Spartan women lived longer than their counterparts in other Greek cities, most likely because they were well fed and in better health.

Everything in Spartan society was focused on having the finest army and encouraging the best fighters. When Spartans died, only soldiers who had died in battle or women who died in childbirth were entitled to have marked headstones.

Although life was extremely tough for boys between the ages of seven and 20, it was even more dangerous for Spartan babies. Shortly after birth, a mother would bathe her child in wine to see if he was strong. If he survived, he was brought by his father to the Gerousia, the council of elders, who decided whether the baby was fit enough to be raised. Any child considered deformed or puny was thrown to its death into a chasm on Mount Taygetos known as Ceadas (interestingly, the modern name for Taygetos is Mount Profitis Ilias, named for the prophet Elijah). Some modern scholars argue that babies were not thrown into the chasm but were instead left to die on the mountainside.

For the Spartans, children had no intrinsic value in their own right. They became honorable and important only once they reached adulthood and were able to fight.

In this week’s Torah reading, Pharaoh challenges Moses about the role of children in religious, communal life.

Even though Moses was planning on leading the Israelites out of Egypt for good, he told Pharaoh they wanted to go to the desert to celebrate a festival. Rabbenu Bahya explains that Moses was alluding to the festival of Shavuot, when the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah.

Pharaoh, convinced by his servants that he had no option but to allow the Jews to leave, told Moses and Aharon, “Go worship the Lord, your God. Who are those who are going?” (Exodus 10:8).

Moses replied:

With our youths and our elderly we shall go; with our sons and our daughters, with our flocks and our herds we shall go, for it is a festival of God for us. (Exodus 10:9)

Pharaoh scoffed at the idea of allowing the children to go to worship God at a festival. “So be it, may God be with you, when I will send you and your children,” he said. “Look that evil lies before you. Not so. Please go the men and worship God, for that is what you are requesting” (Exodus 10:10-11).

At the simplest level, the verse shows that Pharaoh was afraid the Israelites would leave and never return. So he insisted on keeping the children as hostages.

However, Ramban explains in his commentary, that the argument between them was about the role of children in rituals and religion. Moses said that even the children had to take part in the festival, whereas Pharaoh said that worship was only for adults and not for children.

In Pharaoh’s defense, when the children of Jacob left Egypt to bury their father in Israel — which was itself a kind of ritual — they left their young behind in Egypt (Genesis 50:7-8).

And Joseph went up to bury his father, and with him went up all Pharaoh’s servants the elders of his house and all the elders of Egypt. And all the house of Joseph and his brothers and his father’s house. Only their children, their flocks and their sheep they left in the land of Goshen.

But perhaps Pharaoh shared the world view of the Spartans — that children had no intrinsic value. And perhaps he went a step further in saying that they had no part to play in worshiping God.

Yet at Mount Sinai it was specifically the children who offered the sacrifices, not the adults. “And he sent the youths of the Children of Israel and they offered offerings and sacrifices peace sacrifices to God, of bulls” (Exodus 24:5).

The idea that the children would offer sacrifices remained shocking to the Greek world even hundreds of years after Moses and the Spartans. The Talmud (Megillah 9a) relates that when Ptolemy ordered the rabbis to translate the Torah into Greek, one of the alterations they made was to change the phrase from “sent the youths” to “sent the elect” so as not to offend the Greeks or lead them to disparage Judaism.

It is fundamental to Judaism that children are included in the rituals and worship. The Torah stresses that once every seven years all the Jews must gather in Jerusalem: “The men, the women the children and the converts, in order that they may hear and in order that they may learn, and fear the Lord, your God, and observe and do all the words of this Torah,” (Deuteronomy 31:12).

This is the message that Moses delivered to Pharaoh shortly before leading the Israelites to their freedom.

Cross posted from Times of Israel.

Parshat Vaera: The Power of Two

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:38:00 +0000

Even non-Americans like me have heard of Paul Revere and his famous midnight ride during the American Revolution, even if they don’t know the actual meaning of Longfellow’s famous line, “One if by land, and two if by sea.” But far fewer people have ever heard of William Dawes, who made the same midnight ride, and was even more audacious than Revere in getting past the British.

In fact, I suspect that the only place people may have heard of Dawes is in “The Tipping Point,” where Malcolm Gladwell contrasts his failure with Revere’s success.

Gladwell uses Revere as a paradigm of a “connector” who can take an idea and turn it into an epidemic. He writes:

“When he died, his funeral was attended, in the words of one contemporary newspaper account, by ‘troops of people.’ He was a fisherman and a hunter, a cardplayer and a theater-lover, a frequenter of pubs and a successful businessman. He was active in the local Masonic Lodge and was a member of several select social clubs. He was also a doer, a man blessed — as David Hackett Fischer recounts in his brilliant book Paul Revere’s Ride — with an ‘uncanny genius for being at the center of events.’”

In contrast, nobody is certain what happened to Dawes after his midnight ride. Adding insult to injury, in 2007, it was discovered that he may not even be buried in his marked grave in Boston’s King’s Chapel Burying Ground, but may actually be buried five miles away with his wife.

Yet he was as much a patriot as Revere and played an equally important role in the revolutionary war.

While Revere was a silversmith, Dawes was a tanner. Both would have had a large number of contacts and connections. Dawes was so dedicated to independence that he boycotted British goods — the Boston Gazette stated that at his wedding, he wore a suit made entirely in America.

Like Revere and Dr Joseph Warren, who sent both messengers, Dawes was a Freemason. He had built up a large network of military connections. In October 1774, he led a group who brazenly stole two cannons from a British arsenal while the British soldiers were out at roll call. He often went out recruiting supporters for the colonial cause, sometimes taking his granddaughter with him, so that the British would not suspect he was up to anything untoward.

On the night of April 18, 1775, while Revere rowed across the Charles River in a boat, the 30-year-old Dawes was charged by Warren on the more dangerous overland route from Boston to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the impending British invasion. His path required him to pass through a British-guarded checkpoint at Boston neck. Nobody knows for certain how he managed to get past the sentries, but it is likely that he had cultivated friendships with them for some time, preparing for just such an eventuality.

So why is Revere so famous while Dawes has been so forgotten (or maligned on the rare occasion he is mentioned)?

It is true that Revere knocked on doors along his journey to Lexington, waking the revolutionary soldiers and preparing them for the invasion, whereas Dawes rode directly to Hancock and Adams without stopping along the way (and, ironically, he was still beaten by Revere, who had a faster horse and a shorter route, and so was able to deliver the message before Dawes arrived). So, far fewer people were aware of Dawes’s daring ride.

But more likely Dawes was forgotten and Revere remembered due to the power of the written word. Dawes did not leave a record of his heroism, whereas Revere wrote three accounts of his ride, the last written 23 years after the event in a letter to Jeremy Belknap, Secretary of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

And probably the most important reason that Dawes was forgotten by history is due to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s historically inaccurate poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride.”

Gladwell praises Revere and derides Dawes, writing: “This chapter is about the people critical to social epidemics and what makes someone like Paul Revere different from someone like William Dawes.” But one could equally argue that Revere’s fame was not because he was a better connector than Dawes, but simply because he got better coverage after the fact.

In contrast to the famous Revere and the forgotten Dawes, the Torah goes to great lengths to stress that the two revolutionary leaders who took the Israelites out of Egypt had different roles, yet were equals.

Moses was the chosen leader, but it was Aaron who was the social “connector” who could speak to both the downtrodden slaves and to Pharaoh. Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s palace, then fled the country, only to return decades later, at God’s command. In contrast, Aaron spent his entire life strengthening bonds between himself and others. Whereas Moses represented strict application of the law, described as “Let the judgment pierce the mountain,” (Midrash Shochar Tov on Psalms 90), Aaron embodied, “Love peace and pursue peace, love people and bring them close to Torah,” (Pirkei Avot 1:12).

Moses acknowledged his own shortcomings and God informed him that he could only succeed alongside his brother (Exodus 6:12-13).

Moses spoke before God saying, ‘Behold the Children of Israel did not listen to me, so how will Pharaoh listen to me?… So God spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them about the Children of Israel and about Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to take the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.,

In the following chapter (Exodus 7:1-2) the Torah makes it even more clear that their mission could only succeed with Aaron being the one to spread the word.

God said to Moses, see I have placed you as a god for Pharaoh, but Aaron your brother will be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron your brother will speak to Pharaoh…

At some point, Moses found his voice and was able to speak directly to Pharaoh, and later on was also able to speak to the fledgling Jewish nation, becoming the law-bearer who informed them of all God’s decisions. And Aaron became an important figure in his own right, as the High Priest, such that he and his descendants had the task of acting as intermediaries between God and the Jewish people in the Temple rituals. The Torah stresses (Exodus 6:26-27) that both brothers were equally important, referring to them as a single person and switching the order of their names to show their co-leadership.

He is Aaron and Moses to whom God said, ‘Take the Children of Israel out of the land of Israel in their multitudes. They are the ones who speak to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to take the Children of Israel from Egypt; he is Moses and Aaron.

But at the outset of their revolution, neither could have done it without the other.

Parshat Shemot: The Power of Belief

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:28:00 +0000

The Christian crusaders were weary and close to defeat. The Muslim armies defending the Holy Land were much stronger and better prepared than they had expected. Defeat was close at hand and they were about to abandon their question to liberate Jerusalem from the infidels.

Yet they knew they had a secret weapon. The crusaders knew there was a powerful Christian king living in the east, who at that very moment was leading a mighty army to save them. This king was named Prester John, but unfortunately he never came. Some said his army was unable to cross the Tigris river. Others said that it was not yet the time for him to come. And others said that Prester John was a myth and did not actually exist.

Stories of Prester John, also known as Presbyter John or John the Elder circulated throughout medieval European Christian.

In 1165 a letter was received by Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus which was believed to be from the great king himself. The letter states that John, lives in the land beyond India, where, “Our land streams with honey and is overflowing with milk.” He is so powerful that he is served by 72 kings of the surrounding lands. He sent Manuel a fantastic description of his country:

“Our land is the home of elephants, dromedaries, camels, crocodiles, meta-collinarum, cametennus, tensevetes, wild asses, white and red lions, white bears, white merules, crickets, griffins, tigers, lamias, hyenas, wild horses, wild oxen, and wild men — men with horns, one-eyed men, men with eyes before and behind, centaurs, fauns, satyrs, pygmies, forty-ell high giants, cyclopses, and similar women. It is the home, too, of the phoenix and of nearly all living animals.”

Of course, the letter turned out to be a forgery, but nevertheless, a large part of the Christian world believed in this great king who would come to save them.

Even some Jews believed in Prester John. Joshua ben Joseph ibn Vives al-Lorqui (Joshua Lorki) was a 15th century Jewish doctor living in Alcañi, in Aragon, Spain. He served Benedict XIII and wrote a medical textbook in Arabic which was later translated into Hebrew as Gerem Hamaalot.

In a letter to Paul of Burgos (a Spanish Jew who converted to Christianity), Lorki wrote:

I know that it is certainly not hidden from you the matter well-known to us from stories of travelers who journeyed the length and breadth of the world, and also from letters of the Rambam, and we heard it from the traders from the ends of the earth… about those who dwell at the end of the earth in the land of Ethiopians, called Al-Chabash, and they made a deal with the Christian prince called Prester John…

By this time the legend of Prester John had him living in Africa. As the Indian subcontinent became more widely explored and better known, the Europeans realized that the great Christian King must reside in Ethiopia.

There were many attempts at forging ties between European countries and Ethiopia during the Middle Ages, and despite the denial of the Ethiopians, the Europeans continued to insist their King was Prester John.

Zara Yaqob was emperor of Ethopia from 1434 until his death in 1468. In 1441 he sent delegates to the Council of Florence where, despite their confusion and subsequent denials, the council prelates continued to refer to their monarch as Prester John (in Robert Silverberg’s “The Realm of Prester John”).

As late as 1751, the Czech missionary Remedius Prutky visited Ethiopia and asked Emperor Iyasu II about Prester John. He writes that Isayu was “astonished, and told me that the kings of Abyssinia had never been accustomed to call themselves by this name.”

Gradually the legend of Prester John died away but it continues to have an influence to this day. From Shakespeare’s Benedick, who offers Don Pedro to “…bring you the length of Prester John’s foot…” in “Much Ado About Nothing,” to appearances in issues of Marvel’s “Fantastic Four” and “Thor” to DC comics who featured him in “Arak: Son of Thunder” the legend lives on.

This was not the first time a nation waited for a powerful king from a distant land to come and save his people. It was not even the first time Ethiopia was the believed hidden refuge of a powerful king.

In this week’s Torah reading, Shemot, we are introduced to Moses who was saved from Pharaoh’s decree by Pharaoh’s daughter and raised in the royal palace. He was forced to flee after he killed an Egyptian who was persecuting an Israelite and was sentenced to death (Exodus 2:15). The same verse states that he went to Midian, where he eventually married Jethro’s daughter Zipporah.

We are not told how young Moses was when he fled Egypt, but he was 80 years old when he led the Jews out of Egypt. It seems that there are many decades unaccounted for by the Torah.

Although there is no mention of it in the Talmud or early Midrashim, several of the Torah commentaries say that Moses spent the intervening years ruling Ethiopia.

The verse states, “Miriam and Aaron spoke about Moses because of the Ethiopian woman he married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman,” (Numbers 12:1). Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, in their commentaries on that verse, explain that Moses married this wife while he was king of Ethiopia. Later commentaries including Sefer Hayashar, Menahem Azariah da Fano (Ma’amar Chikur Din 3:5) and Rabbi Shmuel Bornsztain (Shem Mishmuel, Beha’alotecha 5676) speak of Moses’s time in Ethiopia. The medieval Midrash Yalkut Shimoni and the 17th century Yalkut Reuveni compiled by Rabbi Reuven Hoshke HaKohen also speak of Moses’s time ruling Ethiopia before he went to Midian.

But the origins of this legend date back to the second century BCE, hundreds of years before the Mishna and Talmud were compiled. The Jewish historian Artapanus, who lived in Egypt, most likely in Alexandria, wrote of Moses’s conquest of Ethiopia in his history book “Concerning The Jews.” Although the book no longer exists, Eusebius, who served as Bishop of Caesarea from 314 CE quotes sections of what Artapanus wrote about Moses. He describes how Pharaoh, named as Chenephres, sent Moses to lead an unskilled army against Ethiopia. Contrary to expectations Moses was victorious and founded the city of Hermopolis and taught the Ethiopian men to circumcise themselves.

Titus Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish rebel turned Roman historian, gives more details of Moses in Ethiopia. He writes in The Antiquities of the Jews (Book II; chapter 10) that not only was Moses victorious but he also married an Ethiopian princess:

“Tharbis was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians: she happened to see Moses as he led the army near the walls, and fought with great courage… she fell deeply in love with him; and upon the prevalancy of that passion, sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him about their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city…; and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land.”

So, according to these ancient Jewish traditions, when Moses stood before God at the burning bush he was not merely a poor, humble shepherd, but also a former hero who had conquered foreign lands and ruled over them.

Yet at first Moses refused God’s command to go back to Israel and redeem the Israelites. Not only did he tell God he was unworthy, but he claimed that the people would not believe in him. And for doubting the faith of the nation Moses was punished.

Belief in a savior from afar does not require evidence or proof. When Moses returned to Egypt he performed the signs that God had given him, but it was unnecessary. For the verse states that immediately, “The people believed. And they heard that God had remembered the Children of Israel and that he had seen their suffering. And they bowed and prostrated themselves,” (Exodus 4:31).

The Torah tells us that Moses came from a distant land and brought the Israelites out of slavery. And just as the medieval faith in Prester John, the belief in a strong leader who will suddenly appear and save a nation remains powerful to this day.

Parshat Vayechi: The Final Journey

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 07:14:00 +0000

This was originally published on the Times of Israel website.

The elaborate funeral Joseph gave his father may shed light on the mysterious talmudic claim that Jacob never died

On November 30, 2018, George H. W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States, passed away at his home in Houston, Texas, nine months after the death of his wife Barbara. On December 3, his body was flown from Ellington Base to Washington DC, where it lay in state at the Capitol for two days, followed by a funeral service attended by President Donald Trump and three former presidents.

Then his body was flown back to Texas, where a second funeral service was held.

Finally, his body was transported by train to the George Bush Presidential Library where he was buried next to his wife. Mourners lined the tracks as a Union Pacific locomotive named Bush 4141 pulled the carriages carrying the former president and his family the 100 kilometers (70 miles) to his final resting place.

Bush was the first president in almost 50 years to make his final journey by train, but it is a tradition going back to John Quincy Adams, who died 170 years ago.

However, it was Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in 1865, for whom the final train ride became an outpouring of national grief shared by mourners across the country.

After lying in state for a week in the capital, Lincoln’s body was transported 2,662 kilometers (1,654 miles) from Washington to his hometown of Springfield, Illinois in a trip that took almost two weeks.

Along its journey through seven states retracing Lincoln’s journey to the White House four years earlier, the train stopped in Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Michigan City, and Chicago. In each place, his body was taken off the train and traveled on a horse-drawn hearse to a public building to lie in state as altogether millions of Americans paid their final respects to Lincoln.

As an interesting historical aside, according to President Theodore Roosevelt’s widow, Edith, a young Theodore and his brother Elliott can be seen in a photograph of Lincoln’s funeral procession, looking out of the open second story window of their grandfather Cornelius Van Schaack Roosevelt’s home at the corner of Broadway and Union Square in New York.

A local reporter described Lincoln’s funeral train as it pulled in to Springfield:

In the mellow air and bright sunlight of this May morning, sweetened by the rain of last night, when those prairies are clothed in flowers, and the thickets of wild fruit trees, and blossoming orchards are jubilant with birds, he comes back.

This week’s Torah reading describes in great detail the first and only “state funeral” in the Bible. It depicts Jacob’s death in Egypt and his final journey to be buried in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

Although nowadays Jewish custom favors a burial in plain shrouds as soon after death as possible, Jacob’s funeral was the opposite of that.

The patriarch passed away peacefully aged 147, surrounded by all his children. Then his body was embalmed and lay in state in Egypt for 40 days while the Egyptians mourned him. Then his body was transported to the border of Canaan, accompanied by a military cortege and all the dignitaries of Egypt. Genesis chapter 50 then describes how the entire entourage was joined by the Canaanite people in a place named Goren Haatad for a further seven days. The site was renamed Evel Mitzrayim (Mourning of Egypt) to commemorate the event.

Although the Bible says that this was “on the other side of the Jordan” it seems unlikely that Jacob’s funeral procession made such a wide detour. Aaron Demsky (along with other scholars) explains it is more likely that Jacob’s final journey followed the Way of Horus, which was the main route from Egypt to Canaan. It is probably that Goren Haatad was a small village that was later destroyed during a Muslim battle with local Christians on February 4, 634 CE (described in Latin in Anecdota Syriaca p. 116).

Only after the weeks-long public mourning by the Egyptians and the Canaanites did Jacob’s children bury his body in the Cave of the Patriarchs, alongside Abraham and Sarah, Issac and Rebecca, and Jacob’s first wife Leah.

Yes, there were perhaps bigger funerals in Jewish history — when Miriam and Aharon died in the desert they were mourned by the entire camp of 600,000 military-aged men, as well as the women and children. But nobody else in the Bible was mourned publicly by all the surrounding non-Jewish nations.

The people came to mourn Jacob, but the entire event was arranged and coordinated by his son Joseph, who was still the second-in-command in Egypt at the time.

It must have been so painful for Joseph to arrange such a public and international burial for his father when Jacob was unable to give Rachel, Joseph’s mother, even the bare minimum of a funeral. Although she married Jacob after Leah, and thus was his second wife, she was also the patriarchs first love, and when she predeceased her sister maybe Joseph had hoped that she would be buried in the Cave of the Patriarchs so she could remain alongside her husband in death.

But instead, Jacob apologized to his son, saying that he could not even bring Rachel’s body to the city but buried her at the roadside (Genesis 48:7).

When I came from Paddan, Rachel died on me in the land of Canaan along the way, some distance away from Ephrat; and I buried her there on the way to Ephrat, which is Bethlehem.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the ignoble burial Jacob gave Rachel, Joseph swore to his father that he would carry him to Israel for burial with his fathers. And he gave Jacob the most elaborate public and international funeral recorded anywhere in the Torah.

But why did Joseph give his father a state funeral?

George Bush planned to make his final journey by train, perhaps as a reminder of how as a child, he rode the rails with his family, sleeping in on the train. Or perhaps he wanted to remind the country of an earlier age, when the only way to cross the country was by locomotive.

Why did Lincoln’s family and advisers decided to hold a very public funeral for him? Perhaps it was so that the nation, shocked by his assassination, could mourn for him publicly. Or perhaps it was a show of defiance against those who opposed his views on emancipation.

But why did Joseph give his father such an elaborate funeral? Jacob simply requested that he be buried in Hebron.

Perhaps it had to be done so that the Egyptians would continue to respect him and his family. During the New Kingdom period ancestor worship and honoring one’s deceased parents was not only important, but the Egyptians believed that if the family treated their deceased with respect, the dead would be able to continue to have an influence over the affairs of the living. Maybe the Egyptians insisted on a drawn-out, public funeral for their leader’s father, to ensure that the Patriarch would continue to protect his ruling son and the entire nation.

Or perhaps Joseph was preparing for the long exile of the fledgling Israelite nation. God had promised that Abraham’s descendants would be strangers in a strange land for hundreds of years. Maybe Joseph planned the elaborate funeral and procession to Israel so that even in the darkest depths of enslavement, Jacob’s children could look back and remember a time when their father was so important to their oppressors.

Or maybe Joseph wanted them to always remember that they were in exile, and that their ultimate destination was the land of Canaan. Jacob’s funeral would have remained as part of the narrative of the Egyptians and Canaanites for a long time, acting as a constant reminder to all that Jacob’s children ultimately belonged in the land of Israel.

Perhaps this is another meaning of the talmudic concept that Jacob never died:

Rav Yitzhak said, “Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘Jacob our father didn’t die.'” [Rav Nahman] said to him, “Was it for nothing that they eulogized him, embalmed him and buried him?” [Rav Yitzhak] said to him, “I derived it from a verse… Just as his descendants are alive, so he too is alive.”

Maybe Jacob remains alive for his descendants as a constant reminder that once upon a time he and his family were respected by all the surrounding nations. And that eventually his children will follow his path, leave their exile and return to the holy land.

Whose blood is redder?

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 24 Jun 2018 07:31:00 +0000

Here is a rough draft of a script I wrote a couple of years ago about blood. Doesn't really fit with the rest of the stuff on this blog (but not much does), but I still find blood completely amazing, and wish we had managed to make this into a short video clip, as was once the plan.

Script - Blood

The Talmud states that one may transgress any of the sins of the Torah to save one’s life with only three exceptions. One may not commit idolatry, sexual immorality or murder even to save one’s life.

The Talmud finds a source in the Torah to show that one may neither transgress idolatry or sexual immorality, even if it costs one his or her
life. However, with regard to murder, the Talmud says in the name of Rava that it is based on logic:

What makes you see that your blood is redder than his?

Perhaps the blood of that man is redder than yours?

Clearly this expression is not actually related to the color of blood, but rather shows that we never know the value of a human life, and one
cannot decide that his own life is worth more than that of another.

But have you ever stopped to wonder why your blood is red? We take it for granted. We describe people as “Red Blooded.” But why? Or
perhaps our blood is really blue, because when I look at the veins through my skin, it looks as though everything is blue.

[Nigel Tufnel: This is my exact inner structure, done in a tee shirt. Exactly medically accurate. See? It is green. You see how your blood looks blue.]

The answer is that the blood of humans and all vertebrates looks red because of the red blood cells which carry an important protein molecule called hemoglobin. Hemoglobin carries oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body where it releases it to provide energy.

Now did you know that most of your blood is actually water. More than half of your blood is plasma, which itself is 92% water. The average human adult has between 4.7 and 5.0 liters (14-18 pints) of blood in their body. This is about 7% of your total body weight.
But let’s get back to hemoglobin.

Hemoglobin is a protein which contains four iron ions. Each of these ions bonds with an oxygen molecule and transports it to where it is
needed.

Here is a picture of the four hemes, each containing the iron ion, surrounded by four globins.

Now there are 270 million of these hemoglobin proteins inside each red blood cell.

So imagine a train with 270 million carriages. Each carriage has four seats. In each seat is on oxygen molecule. Everyone boards the train
at the first station, which in the body is the lung. As the blood cells pass the lungs they grab their oxygen.

[Reuven can demonstrate this with a toy train (though I doubt we’ll have 270 million carriages]

The problem is that each of these carriages has a different destination.

Every part of your body needs oxygen. However some parts need it more urgently, or in greater quantities than other parts. For example,
if you are going for a run, your leg muscles are going to need more oxygen than some other parts of your body.

The hemoglobin train has to know where to drop off the occupants of each carriage. How does it know how to do this? Obviously there is
not really a conductor on board the hemoglobin train, telling each molecule when to disembark. However the chemicals act as if they
know where to go.

The answer is Allosteric Inhibition. (Things bind to other parts of the protein, which affects the ability of the protein to do what it normally
does).

Hemoglobin is allosterically inhibited by CO2.

When you exercise, your muscles produce large quantities of CO2.

When the hemoglobin train reaches the station with the CO2, it releases its oxygen automatically, which means that the O2 is
delivered to exactly the right place at the right time.

(Red blood cells are 25% bigger than the smallest capillaries, and have no nucleus so they are
squeezed through them which helps them release the O2).

Now we have already said that each red blood cell has 270 million hemoglobin proteins. But there are also about 20-30 trillion red blood
cells in our bodies. Which means that red blood cells are almost a quarter of all the cells in your body! And if you multiply 270 million by
20-30 trillion you will find that you have an enormous amount of hemoglobin in your body.

This wonderful protein and its amazing chemical properties are what enable all of us to live. Without this we would not last at all.

This is also the reason that our blood is red. Because the hemoglobin is built around iron, which is red. When the hemoglobin is carrying oxygen the blood is a lovely bright red color. When all the occupants have disembarked from the train, the blood looks darker red.

Not all animals are red blooded though. For example, Leech blood is green because it contains chlorocluroin instead of hemoglobin. This is a different protein without the iron, but which also binds to oxygen.

And crabs use copper instead of iron to transport oxygen in their hemocyanin. As a result their blood is blue. This certainly gives a new meaning to the concept of “Blue Blooded.”

So why does our blood look blue through our skin? This is actually due to the way different wavelengths of light penetrate your skin, are absorbed and reflect back to your eyes — that is, only high-energy (blue) light can make it all the way to your veins and back. It has nothing to do with the color of the blood or the veins.

The blood collects the oxygen from the lungs, then begins its trip around the body. Blood carrying oxygen flows through arteries. After it
has dumped its oxygen the blood returns to the heart and lungs through veins. The blood reaches the actual places where it is needed
by squeezing through tiny capillaries. This network of blood vessels covers the entire body.

I have here a ball of string. It is 10m long. I can keep pulling it for quite a while before I get to the end. But the number of blood vessels in your body is much longer than that.

In fact if you were to lay out all of the arteries, capillaries and veins in your body end-to-end, they would stretch about 60,000 miles (100,000 kilometers). What's more, the capillaries, which are the smallest of the blood vessels, would make up about 80 percent of this length.

By comparison, the circumference of the Earth is about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). That means a person's blood vessels could wrap around the planet approximately 2.5 times!

Think about that for a second. Isn’t that amazing!

Now, how long does it take for your blood to make the trip around your body? It is pumped by your heart and needs to travel great distances to get to where the oxygen is needed. Remarkably, it only takes 20 to 60 seconds for a drop of blood to travel from the heart, through your body, and back to the heart again.

In 24 hours, the blood in the body travels approximately 12,000 miles, amazingly that’s four times the width of North America.

Even while you are resting, your blood is working hard for you.

Red blood cells are very important, because they transport the oxygen around your body and keep you alive. Red blood cells live for about 120 days, before self-destructing.

But your blood also contains other important elements.

Blood is made up of red blood cells, white blood cells and plasma

White blood cells are part of your body’s immune system, your defense against infection and other contaminants. White blood cells are also called leukocyte, which is a Greek word basically meaning “White hollow cells” which is a more or less accurate description of them.

There are actually several different types of white blood cell. The most numerous are the neutrophils which can move quickly around the body to any site of potential infection. They attack any bacteria or fungi that enter the body.

Some white blood cells are lymphocytes which are actually made up of three different kind of cells – T-cells, B-cells, and the wonderfully named “Natural killers”. As well as circulating with your blood, most of the lymphocytes actually circulate though the lymph system. But a discussion of the lymph system will have to wait for another program.

Lymphocytes target different types of infections, and natural killers have the role of destroying body cells which have become infected.

Unlike the neutrophil which only live a few days, lymphocytes can live for weeks, or even longer.

Both red blood cells and white blood cells are manufactured in your bone marrow, which is the gooey stuff inside your largest bones. And boy, can it manufacture blood cells!

Your body manufactures 17 million red blood cells per second. If stress precipitates a need the body can produce up to 7 times that amount. Just to spell that out - that’s up to 119 million red blood cells per second!

So those are red and white blood cells. But more than half of your blood is actually plasma. Plasma is mostly water, but carries all sorts of important things around your body, including proteins, hormones, glucose and CO2.

One of the important roles of blood plasma is to carry the blood clotting agents around your body. It is very important that your blood remains liquid while it is circulating around your body. Clots inside the body can cause heart attacks, strokes and all sorts of other very serious problems.

On the other hand, if your skin gets cut, the blood comes out to clean and protect the site. But if it didn’t clot, it would simply continue to run outside your body until you had no blood left.

All of your blood vessels have a very thin inner layer called endothelium. If the endothelium is damaged it triggers changes in the platelets which are in your blood which begins the clotting process.

The platelets are round and flat. As soon as they hear there is a cut in the blood vessel they change shape so that they can clump together and grab on to the sides of the hole to close it up. Other clotting agents which are floating in the plasma hear the call, and attach themselves to the platelets

They then release a hormone which makes a kind of net, called fibrin, which covers the entire clot, and strengthens it. With the fibrin supporting the structure, other cells join in, including red and white blood cells.

This entire process stops the blood from flowing out of the body, and also grabs the sides of the cut and enables it to being healing.

And here is perhaps the most amazing part of all. Once the skin has healed, the body simply releases agents which completely dissolve the blood clot. If the clot were to remain in the body, it would cause untold damage. Because it can form so quickly, and then dissolve when it is no longer needed, the body is able to repair itself, often without even needing a Band-Aid.

Human blood has been studied in great detail, and we now know a lot about it. We can give blood transfusions, and do all sorts of other important things with blood.

But it wasn’t so long ago that it was all a bit of a mystery. Nobody really knew what blood was for. Doctors thought that most illness was caused by too much bad blood, and prescribed blood-letting for almost every ailment.

In fact, we didn’t even know that blood circulates around the body until the 1628. In that year, a doctor called William Harvey, who as a heavy coffee drinker, and thus always had lots of energy, published his book De Motu Cordis (in English that is “On the Motion of the Heart and Blood”)

One of Harvey’s techniques was to calculate the amount of blood in the body, and to measure the average heartbeat.

He found that an adult human has an average resting heart rate of about 75 beats per minute, the same rate as an adult sheep.

I guess it is obvious, but the bigger the animal, the slower the heartbeat. For example, a blue whale's heart is about the size of a compact car, and only beats five times per minute.

On the other hand, a shrew, which is a tiny animal, has a heart rate of about 1,000 beats per minute.

A couple more interesting and important facts about blood.

A fetus does not use its lungs while in utero. It derives its oxygen and nutrients from the mother via the umbilical cord. As a result the blood in a fetus circulates differently than once it is born. The blood flows into the right atrium of the heart, and there is a hole leading directly from there to the left atrium. As soon as the baby is born and takes its first breath, this hole in the heart closes up, and the blood begins circulating through the lungs, carrying oxygen to the body.

All of this happens in a few moments after the baby is born. Without this amazing feat, a baby would not survive for very long after birth.

Two final facts for you to consider. Every play by Shakespeare contains the word ‘blood’ at least once. And the word “Blood” appears in the Bible 354 times.

I guess blood really is important. And amazing. There is a blessing that is recited every day:

Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who formed man with wisdom and created within him many openings and many hollows. It is obvious and known before Your Throne of Glory that if even one of them ruptures, or if even one of them becomes blocked, it would be impossible to survive and to stand before You. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who heals all flesh and acts wondrously.

We can truly appreciate how wondrous and amazing this really is. Our blood looks after us, and serves us so well. We should appreciate it every day.

Sources of Tu Bishvat minhagim

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:40:00 +0000

Here are sources for a shiur on the cusoms of Tu Bishvat and their sources:
- Why do some people not say tahanun on Tu Bishvat?
- Why do some people eat fruits on Tu Bishvat?
- Why do some people have a Tu Bishvat seder?
- Why do some people plant trees on Tu Bishvat?

Tu Bishvat Sources

Black Cat White Cat

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 06:01:00 +0000

The Pesach Seder ends, as everyone knows, with the song "Chad Gadya" - "One Kid". The song begins with a pet goat, and ends with the death of the Angel of Death. Along the way almost everything else gets eaten, killed or injured (or drunk). Life is tough in this song.

One of the lines that I was always perplexed about is:

וְאָתָא שׁוּנְרָא, וְאָכְלָה לְגַּדְיָא

The cat came, and ate the goat,

Now I've seen many goats, even newborn ones, and I've seen many cats. But I don't think I've ever seen a cat that could devour a kid worth 2 zuz.

I was thinking about that when I came across this Gemara which speaks of a cat biting the hand of a newborn baby:

Talmud Bava Kama 80b

Meanwhile a cat had come along and bitten off the hand of the child.

Wow! That is some cat. That terrible incident led Rav to teach a set of halakhot about cats:

Rab thereupon went out and declared in his discourse: 'It is permissible to kill a cat, and it is in fact a sin to keep it, and the law of robbery does not apply to it, nor that of returning a lost object to its owner.' Since you have stated that it is permissible to kill it, why again state that it is a sin to keep it? — You might perhaps think that though it is permissible to kill it, there is still no sin committed in keeping it; we are therefore told [that this is not so]. I could still ask: Since you have said that the law of robbery does not apply to it, why again state that the law of returning a lost object to its owner does not apply to it? — Said Rabina: This refers to the skin of the cat [where it was found dead]. An objection was raised [from the following]: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: It is permissible to breed village dogs, cats, apes and porcupines, as these help to keep the house clean. [Does this not prove that it is permissible to breed cats?] — There is, however, no contradiction, as the latter teaching refers to black cats, whereas the former deals with white ones. But was not the mischief in the case of Rab done by a black cat? — In that case it was indeed a black cat, but it was the offspring of a white one. But is not this the very case about which Rabina raised a question? For Rabina asked: What should be the law in the case of a black cat which is the offspring of a white one? — The problem raised by Rabina was where the black was the offspring of a white one which was in its turn a descendant of a black cat, whereas the accident in the case of Rab occurred through a black cat which was the offspring of a white one that was similarly the offspring of a white cat.

Hang on a second. Black cats and white cats? And most unusually, the black cats are the good ones!

Steinsaltz writes the following note:

The distinction between various cats is not dependent on their skin color per se, but on the different types of cat. In the talmudic period cats were not yet fully domesticated; they were either completely wild or kept in homes. White, or pale, cats were apparently genetically closer to wilderness cats, perhaps Felis libyca or Felis caracal. Therefore Rav declared that these cats should be considered animals of prey for all purposes. Even a black cat born from a white parent, a hybrid, was considered dangerous due the characteristics inherited from its wild ancestors.

Modern domestic cats are possibly descended from a creature similar to this:

Felis Libyca

I could imagine that being quite nasty.

So this piece of Gemara gives us an insight into the domestication of cats that was going on at that time. And shows what life was like when some cats were domesticated and some were not.

We sometimes forget that the Talmud was actually real people living in the real world. I find this an interesting insight into the lives of the Amora'im.

So is it possible that the "cat" of the Hagadda was actuallyl a wild cat, a Feils libyca? The song uses the word "shunra" which is the same Aramaic word as used in this piece of Talmud, rather than the Hebrew word chatul. Even though most of Chad Gadya is written in Aramaic, some of the words (e.g. the word for "slaughterer") are in Hebrew, so perhaps that is a hint. Also, perhaps a cat eating a kid shows that the song is also dated back to the time when cats were not yet domesticated.

However, unfortunately, that is not the case. Chad Gadya is not an "ancient" song and does not date back to Bavel. According to On The Mainline (and other sources) Chad Gadya began life as a German nursery rhyme, which was then translated into Aramaic/Hebrew and entered the seder some time in the 15th or 16th century, perhaps to signal to the children that it was time to go to bed. Or perhaps it was a Yiddish nursery rhyme which entered German culture. And apparently at one point it was a mouse that ate the goat, and then the cat ate the mouse. As Terry Pratchett would have written: SQUEAK!

To be honest, this entire post was really just an excuse to direct you to that link from Mainline, and to provide a chance to think about the Seder night.

Where's The Fork?

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 19:04:00 +0000

I came accross an interesting line in the Gemara the other day. Kiddushin 46a cites a baraita which the Amoraim find confusing. Rabbi Yohanan describes the confusion as follows:

Said R. Johanan: Behold a table, meat and knife, yet we have no mouth to eat!

Soncino explains (based on Rashi) the obvious meaning of the metaphor:

The Mishnah stands before us, but it is inexplicable.

All fine. But my question is: "Where's The Fork?" How were the Amoraim planning on eating their meat after having placed it on the table and cut it with the knife?

Steel and iron-gilt French forks from 1550-1600.

The answer is obvious but not necessarily well-known. The humble table fork was not invented or used until hundreds of years after the time of the Gemara.

It is true that In Shemot 27:3 the Torah states

וְעָשִׂיתָ סִּירֹתָיו לְדַשְּׁנוֹ וְיָעָיו וּמִזְרְקֹתָיו וּוְעָשִׂיתָ סִּירֹתָיו לְדַשְּׁנוֹ וְיָעָיו וּמִזְרְקֹתָיו וּמִזְלְגֹתָיו וּמַחְתֹּתָיו לְכָל-כֵּלָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה נְחֹשֶׁת

And thou shalt make its pots to take away its ashes, and its shovels, and its basins, and its flesh-hooks [mazleg], and its fire-pans; all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass.

Similar usage of the term mazleg are found in Shemot 38:3 and Bemidbar 4:14

And also in I Shmuel 2:13 the verse states:

And the priests’ custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook [mazleg] of three teeth in his hand.

As well as in the next verse in Shmuel and twice in Divrei HaYamim.

But each time it refers to a cooking implement, rather than an eating implement.

In the mishna the term mazleg appears twice (Shabbat 17:2 and Keilim 13:2) and in both cases refers to cooking implements (in Keilim it is an attachment stuck on to one end of a zoma listra) rather than to eating implements.

But forks didn't join the dinner table until much, much later.

Well after the time of the Amoraim, in the 11th century, St. Peter Damian had this to say about forks (which presumably had begun to enter the cutlery set by that time

God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks – his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating.

So how did the Amoraim eat their meat? By stabbing it with their pointed knife and putting it into their mouths of course. Except that with regard to this line of Gemara the Amoriam have no mouth to eat.

The Daisy Ad

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:16:00 +0000

This advertisement from 1964 is one of the reasons that Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in the presidential campaign with the largest majority in over 140 years.

According to Wikipedia:

Though only aired once (by the campaign), it is considered an important factor in Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater and an important turning point in political and advertising history.

The Tagline was:

These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.

I wonder whether an ad like that would have the same impact in today's world.

Just for the record, the ad was remade in 2010 (but I don't feel that it has the same impact)

There is also a 2 second reference to it in the Simpson's episode "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming" (and 17:01) but I can't find a clip of those few seconds to place here. You'll have to believe me that it shows Lisa pulling the petals off a daisy, then a close up of the pupil of her eye. Then a nuclear explosion.

Mike the Headless Chicken and Pesik Reisha

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:54:00 +0000

The BBC has a good article about Mike the Headless Chicken. Seventy years ago today a legend was created:

On 10 September 1945 Lloyd Olsen and his wife Clara were killing chickens, on their farm in Fruita, Colorado. Olsen would decapitate the birds, his wife would clean them up. But one of the 40 or 50 animals that went under Olsen's hatchet that day didn't behave like the rest.
"They got down to the end and had one who was still alive, up and walking around," says the couple's great-grandson, Troy Waters, himself a farmer in Fruita. The chicken kicked and ran, and didn't stop.
It was placed in an old apple box on the farm's screened porch for the night, and when Lloyd Olsen woke the following morning, he stepped outside to see what had happened. "The damn thing was still alive," says Waters.
"It's part of our weird family history," says Christa Waters, Troy's wife.

[Troy Waters standing in front of a statue of Mike the Headless Chicken]

Some people think that Mike the Headless Chicken poses a problem to the halakhic concept of pesik reishei. This phrase is used by the Gemara in many places (e.g. Shabbat 75a and Ketuvot 6a) to refer to an inevitable unintended consequence.

But Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Simeon admits in a case of 'cut off his head but let him not die!

Here is Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 1:6)

When one performs a deed that results in the performance of a forbidden labor, and it is a certainty that this deed will cause [that labor] to be performed, one is liable even though one did not intend [to perform the forbidden labor].

What is implied? A person needs a fowl's head to serve as a toy for a child, and therefore cuts off the [fowl's] head on the Sabbath; although his ultimate purpose is not merely to slaughter the chicken,15 he is liable. It is obvious that it is impossible for the head of a living being to be cut off and for that being to survive. Instead, the [fowl's] death came about because of [this activity]. [Therefore, he is liable.] The same applies in other similar situations.

The truth is that we know that even when the Gemara states a principle in specific terms, it does not necessarily mean that it is 100%. It means that it is true the overwhelming number of times. Look at Maharsha on Shabbat 120b (s.v. ve'od de'im ken) where he explains that Rav considers an event to be pesik reishei if it will occur almost every time. See Yam Shel Shelomo on Chullin chapter 3 se'if 80 who writes that something that will occur less than one time in a thousand is considered as a certainty by the Gemara.

And with Mike, they certainly did try to make another headless chicken many, many times, all without success.

Troy Waters suspects that his great-grandfather tried to replicate his success with the hatchet a few times.
Certainly, others did. A neighbour who lived up the road would buy up any chickens for sale at an auction in nearby Grand Junction, Colorado, and stop by the family farm with a six-pack of beer for Olsen, to persuade him to explain exactly how he did it.
"I remember [him] telling me, laughing, that he got free beer every other weekend because the neighbour was sure he got filthy rich off this chicken," Waters says.

There are about 50 billion chickens killed every year for food. I would say that an event which occurs once in 50 billion (times 70 years) times is equivalent to something that never happens at all. Alternatively you could call it a miracle. Which would be better for ticket sales.

You can even watch a video about Mike the Headless Chicken on youtube

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:34:00 +0000

I'm trying to read Omar Barghouti's book entitled Boycott, Divestement, Sanctions. It is really not easy reading such material. But even in the first few pages there are some sentences which should be publicised to all those who think that BDS is interested in creating peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

He writes:

The fact that the United States got mired in a seeming indefinite "war on terror" (which should aptly be called "the mother of all terror," as it is the most egregious and immoral form of state terror, shedding any veneer of respect for international law, and simultaneiously a cause of much terror by fanatic groups in many countries), causing death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan of genocidal proportions...

Clearly there are many Americans (and others) who do believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong, or have failed in their goals (which were never really made clear from the outset). But how many actually believe that the USA is the mother of all terror, or is the most immoral form of State terror, or is to be blamed for terror of fanatic groups? How many remember that the "War on Terror" was only launched AFTER 9/11. Is America also to be blamed for 9/11? What about other groups that existed before 9/11?

Barghouti also writes:

In a historic moment of collective consciousness, and informed by almost a century of struggle against Zionist settler colonialism, the overwhelming majority in Palestinian civil society issued the Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

Leaving aside the bald-faced lie that BDS represents the overwhelming majority in Palestinian civil society, Barghouti here admits that BDS is a continuation of almost a century of struggle against Zionist settler colonialism. A century ago was 1905. There was no State of Israel. There was no call for a Palestinian State (since at that time "Palestine" was part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1922 it passed to British control, and the British separated the land into "Palestine" and "Transjordan"). There were no Zionists, no settlers, no colonialism.

Barghouti couches this goal in language of "A secular democratic state" in place of the current Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinian territories. However, when you read the actual words he writes, you see that his intent is that all the Palestinian refugees (who according to him number in the millions) would be entitled to vote, but the Zionists who colonized the country after 1948 would not have the right to vote. And the exitence of a Jewish state is itself a demonstration of apartheid according to Barghouti (but please don't mention to him that there are many Muslim states in the world, and many Christian countries. Apparently it is only a Jewish state which is inherently racist - not that he is anti-Semitic or anything).

Except that it is all bluff. BDS does not oppose specific policies or Jewish control of certain territories. BDS opposes the existence of a Jewish State, their aim is the destruction of the State of Israel. 100 years is perhaps an oblique reference to the Arab riots of 1920, 1929 and 1936, where the Arabs sought to end "Zionist colonialism" by massacring Jews. This is the ultimate goal of BDS.

Is that something that most of their supporters agree with?

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:18:00 +0000

Hello again. I haven't blogged in over two years. I didn't really have very much to say that hadn't been said by others many times over. However now I have begun working on something completely different, and I wanted to share some thoughts with the world (or at least the few people who read this blog).

BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. It is a movement which seeks to dismantle the Israeli state, in the same way that boycotting South Africa eventually led to the end of apartheid. It is based on the (obviuosly) false premise that Israel practices apartheid.

I have a lot to say about BDS in general, but I wanted to comment now on a fairly good post about Mattisyahu being disinvited from Spain's Rototom Sunsplash music festival (and subsequently being reinvited).

Vox Posts discusses the background of BDS and the reasons why Mattisyahu was booted from the program. He points out that in this case BDS has overstepped the mark, because BDS claims to be only anti-Israel (and anti-Zionist) but not anti-semitic. However Mattisyahu was singled out and kicked off the program solely because he was Jewish (he is not Israeli, does not affect Israeli policy in any way, and has more or less tried to keep out of politics and focus on his music).

He writes:

The controversy speaks to a much bigger fight over the growing international campaign to boycott Israel, and if that campaign can overcome the extremists in its ranks — or whether it even wants to.

He ends the article with the following:

Much of the support for BDS comes from anger at Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank and its policies toward Gaza. "The main reason for [BDS's] continued growth ... is the failure to end the occupation that began in 1967 and achieve Palestinian national liberation and sovereignty," Matt Duss, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, said in recent congressional testimony.

Yet BDS has also attracted members who want to do more than just stop Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its policies toward Gaza. While the movement takes no official position on how to end the Israel-Palestine, one of its co-founders, Omar Barghouti, has called for unifying them into a single state, which would mean dissolving Israel as a Jewish state. This has fed suspicions that at least some proponents of BDS do not see it as just a means to pressure Israel to change its policies, but a means to ending Israel itself.

...

That said, it would of course be wrong and unfair to judge an entire movement by the policy positions of a few of its members, or to judge all of BDS based on the statements of a few proponents in a protest. And indeed, many BDS proponents stress their support for a two-state solution that preserves Israeli statehood and protects Israeli interests.

In this he is partially correct and yet totally wrong. Unfortunately it is true that many of the supporters of BDS want Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and allow for the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank. They believe in Two States for Two People. This is an admirable goal (regardless of whether you believe it is achievable in the current political environment). And that is the kind of people that BDS wants to attact to its protests.

However that was never the goal of BDS. From the outset Omar Barghouti (who is described as one of the co-founders, but he also serves as the head of BDS and has done so since its inception) has seen BDS as a mechanism for destroying the Israel as a Jewish State. He has stated so on many occasions. The "Occupation" that BDS seeks to end is not that of the West Bank, but of the entire State of Israel (pre 1948). The initial call for BDS is signed by 170 organisations and the first on that list is the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine. This is the group listed first on the current body of BNC, the Palestinian BDS National Committee.

This Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine is made up of many groups: Fatah, Hamas, PFLP, DFLP, PPP, FIDA, PPSF, PLF, PIJ, ALF, PAF, PFLP, Islamic National Salvation Party and Popular Liberation War Pioneers. I know that this sounds like something out of Monty Python's "Life of Brian", but in fact it is a list which includes several terrorist organisations (on the US terror list) and the main thing that almost all of these groups share is their desire for the destruction of Israel. Conveniently, this committee is led by Marwan Barghouti, a cousin of Omar. BDS is another tool in their war against Israel.

Since most people in the west do not support terror, nor do they wish for the desctruction of the State of Israel, BDS couch their language in terms of human rights (blatantly lying about the facts). Unfortunately, many well meaning individuals end up supporting BDS, but if they knew what it really stands for they would oppose it bitterly.

It is not "some proponents of BDS" who see it as a means to end Israel itself. That is the reson d'etre of BDS. If you don't believe me, google it yourself. Look up who supports BDS and what they have said about Israel. Do your research before judging them favourably.

Medieval Theory of Vision

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:31:00 +0000

This post may have relevance to a book I am working on, so if anyone has any ideas or comments or explanations I would very much welcome them.

The ancient Greeks were basically divided into two camps of how vision works. One camp held with the theory of Emission (or extramission) in which visual perception comes from light beams which come out of the eyes. This view was held by Socrates, Plato and many others.

The opposing view held that miniature replicas of objects entered into the eye. This is the intromission theory and was an opinion held by Aristotle, Galen and others. These miniature replicas were called eidola and somehow represented the 'spirit' of the object being viewed.

(In fact there are another couple of theories which are kind of sub-categories of these, but I'm not knowledgable enough to explain the distinctions fully. Here are a couple of interesting articles that I found.

It seems to me that there are several examples in the Gemara which appear to side with the first opinion, that sight comes from light emmitted by the eyes.

For example:
The verse referring to Elisha states (II Melachim 2:24)

וַיִּפֶן אַחֲרָיו וַיִּרְאֵם, וַיְקַלְלֵם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; וַתֵּצֶאנָה שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים, מִן-הַיַּעַר, וַתְּבַקַּעְנָה מֵהֶם, אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנֵי יְלָדִים.

And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them

The Gemara explains this in Sotah (46a), stating:

מה ראה אמר רב ראה ממש כדתניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל מקום שנתנו חכמים עיניהם או מיתה או עוני

And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. What did he see? — Rab said: He actually looked upon them, as it has been taught: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Wherever the Sages set their eyes there is either death or calamity

In other words, it seems that sight has power to cause damage. This source is not conclusive, but how about the story of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai when he and his son came out of the cave (Shabbat 33b):

נפקו חזו אינשי דקא כרבי וזרעי אמר מניחין חיי עולם ועוסקין בחיי שעה כל מקום שנותנין עיניהן מיד נשרף

So they emerged. Seeing a man ploughing and sowing, they exclaimed, 'They forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!' Whatever they cast their eyes upon was immediately burnt up.

Similarly, when Rabbi Shimon saw Yehuda ben Gerim, who was the one who informed the Romans of his words the Gemara says (ibid. 34a)

נפק לשוקא חזייה ליהודה בן גרים אמר עדיין יש לזה בעולם נתן בו עיניו ועשהו גל של עצמות:

Then he went out into the street and saw Judah, the son of proselytes: 'That man is still in the world!' he exclaimed. He cast his eyes upon him and he became8 a heap of bones.

It seems that according to Chazal there is a fire that comes out of the eyes, which is normally weak, but when coupled with strong spiritual force it can become an actual fire and burn things up.

The truth is that I understand that the concept of ayin hara is also based on this worldview. I know that nowadays we tend to explain it as based on jealousy of others, but if so, why is there no concept of 'ozen hara'? It seems that actually looking at something has power to cause damage. Conversely there is a saying that:

וא"ר יצחק אין הברכה מצוייה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין

R. Isaac also said: A blessing is found only in what is hidden from the eye, for it is written, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things. The School of R. Ishmael taught: A blessing comes only to that over which the eye has no power, for it is said, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things.

All of these sources imply (to me) that the eye emits some force which can cause physical damage if not channeled properly.

(I know that Superman had similar powers - where do you think he got the idea from?)

Rashi in Chumash is explicit that this is how sight works. In parshat Haazinu (Devarim 32:10) the verse states:

יִמְצָאֵהוּ בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְבָּר וּבְתֹהוּ יְלֵל יְשִׁמֹן יְסֹבְבֶנְהוּ יְבוֹנְנֵהוּ יִצְּרֶנְהוּ כְּאִישׁוֹן עֵינוֹ

He found them in a desert land, and in a desolate, howling wasteland. He encompassed them and bestowed understanding upon them; He protected them as the pupil of His eye.

Rashi explains:

"כאישון עינו" - הוא השחור שבעין שהמאור יוצא הימנו"

as the pupil of his eye: This refers to the black part of the eye, from which the light comes outward.

I haven't yet found the source of Rashi's statement in Chazal. Perhaps one of you knows whether Rashi took this explanation from an earlier source, or it is his own chidush. Also I have looked, but not yet found, whether any of the commentaries on Rashi manage to explain this in accordance with modern theories of sight (i.e. that light comes from a light-source, is reflected off objects, and then enters the eye).

And what is also interesting is that both Rabbeinu Bachye (on the verse) and Meiri (in his commentary on Tehillim 17) seem to side with the other theory of sight, and say that the word ishun means pupil because of the 'little man' (ish) that can be seen within it. This seems to be the theory of eidola, that reflections leave the object and enter the eye. Again, I cannot find a source in Chazal for their commentary, but I would be glad if someone could find one for me.

It apears that the modern theory of sight first developed in the end of the 10th century and beginning of the 11th by Abu Ali Mohammed Ibn Al Hasn Ibn Al Haytham, whom we know today as Alhazen. However, since he lived mainly in Cairo, and wrote in Arabic, his works would have been unknown to Rashi, Rabbeinu Bachya or Meiri. But they should have been known to those who came not much later. Which is why I would expect later commentaries on Rashi (particularly) to explain him according to the 'modern theory.'

Invalidating a Beit Din

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:54:00 +0000

Over on CrossCurrents Rabbi Gordimer continues to accuse Rabbi Zev Farber of heresy. (To be honest, I'm not sure that he is wrong - it seems to me that Rav Farber has crossed some unwritten line, but that may be the topic of another post). However, in his latest post Rabbi Gordimer goes a step further. He writes:

The beliefs of a rabbi are no small issue. They can impact the validity of geirus, gittin and kiddushin performed under the rabbi’s review or that hinge upon his testimony, and the halachic integrity of those institutions that affiliate with a rabbi whose beliefs are unacceptable becomes suspect.

In other words, not only would any conversions, divorces or marriages performed by Rav Farber be invalid, but by association, any of those performed by anyone affiliated with YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah - Rabbi Farber's alma mater) would also be invalid. I find this claim very disturbing.

Firstly, and obviously, I don't know why a marriage would be invalid, even if performed by a heretic. One does not require a Rabbi to perform a wedding.

But aside from that, to invalidate an entire institution based on the writings or thought of one individual sounds like a very dangerous precedent (not to mention that YCT have distanced themselves from Rabbi Farber's views, and stated openly that his views do not represent those of the school).

The kinds of sins which invalidate dayanim are (according to Shulchan Aruch) those that invalidate witnesses.
In Choshen Mishpat, siman 32 se'if 22 it states:

המוסרים לאנסים, והאפיקורסים והמומרים לעבודת כוכבים, פחותים מהעובדי כוכבים ופסולים לעדות.

those who hand over [Jews] to the secular authorities, and apikorsim (heretics) and those who are known to worship idols, are less valid than idolators, and are invalid as witnesses.

If it were to be decided that Rav Farber was an apikoros, he would be invalid as a judge (and witness) based on this halacha.

But if we look earlier in the siman, and the much longer discussion of other kinds of sins which invalidate judges (and witnesses) we find:

גנב, וכן גזלן, פסולים לעדות מעת שגנב או גזל, ואע"פ שהחזירו, עד שיעשו תשובה.

A thief or a robber are invalide for testimony from the moment they stole or robbed. Even if they return [the money they are still invalide] until they repent

Imagine, hypothetically, that a chief Rabbi of Israel would be indicted for fraud, bribery, money laundering and theft. If he were to be convicted, would that invalidate not only any beit din that he personally had sat on, but also every beit din under his jurisdiction? Were he to be found guilty, even if he repaid the money, would every divorce performed in Israel for the past several years be invalid? And how about every conversion? It would undermine the very fabric of society. (I'm not accusing anyone, nor do I think that anyone is guilty. This is a hypothetical question based on Rabbi Gordimer's assumption that any Beit Din associated with an individual Rabbi should be tarred with the same brush as an individual. This case would be worse, because the accused is the head of the organisation).

Or, Rambam writes in Hilchot Eidut, chapter 17 halacha 1

יז,א מי שהעידו לו אנשים רבים וגדולים בחכמה וביראה, שהם ראו פלוני שעבר עבירה פלונית, או שלווה מפלוני--אף על פי שהוא מאמין הדבר בליבו כאילו ראהו--לא יעיד, עד שיראה הדבר בעיניו, או יודה לו הלווה מפיו ויאמר לו, היה עליי עד: שנאמר "או ראה או ידע" (ויקרא ה,א). ואין לך עדות שמתקיימת בראייה או בידיעה, אלא עדות ממון. וכל המעיד מפי אחרים--הרי זה עד שקר, ועובר בלא תעשה: שנאמר "לא תענה בריעך עד שקר" (שמות כ,יב).

Someone to whom many people who are great in wisdom and fear of G-d, have testified that they saw someone transgress a sin... may not testify unless he sees it with his own eyes... Anyone who testifies based on the testimony of others is a false witness and transgresses the negative prohibition of "do not bear false witness agsinst your neighbour

Now imagine, hypothetically, that the head of a very large Rabbinic organisation in America was defending a convicted criminal based on evidence he had heard from others, and his own 'investigation' (this is not exactly the same as Rambam's halacha but pretty similar). Imagine if the Rabbi continued to insist on his innocence even after the criminal had confessed and pled guilty and been sentenced to jail. Furthermore, this Rabbi accused someone else of perpetrating the crime, with no evidence. And he continued to insist that he is correct and refused to retract either his claim of innocence on the confessed perpetrator, nor his unfounded allegations against an innocent party. (I am not saying that this is what happened - I have no evidence apart from what I've read and heard from others, but I am suggesting a hypothetical case).

Would Rabbi Gordimer then invalidate any gittin or geirus done under the auspices of this organisation?

These are two hypothetical examples that come to mind. There are (unfortunately) many cases of financial crimes, or other sins which would brand someone a 'rasha' which have been perpetrated by Rabbis and Dayanim. If we were to follow Rabbi Gordimer's lead and invalidate any action performed by any Beit Din associated with them it would be extremely difficult to find any Beit Din in the world that is kosher.

To repeat: I am not accusing anyone of guilt (or innocence). I do not know whether Rabbi Farber is a heretic or not (nor is my opinion relevant). And I do not know whether Rabbi Farber actually sits on a Beit Din or not, and what the status of that Beit Din will be in the future. I am simply pointing out that if Rabbi Gordimer is correct (and I haven't claimed that he is wrong) we will need to review the entire system of Beit Din within every Jewish community and every country, to ensure it meets the rigorous (minimum) standards of not being in any way associated with anyone who is invalid as a judge or witness. Not that is a tall order!

New Chief Rabbis

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:15:00 +0000

I just wanted to write a very quick blog post about the newly elected Chief Rabbis - Rabbi David Lau and Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef.

Firstly, I am so glad that the elections are over. It has been an embarrassing chilul Hashem for the past several months as Rabbi engaged in politics and horse-trading. It should never have happened.

On the radio (and internet) this morning people were speaking about the election of chareidim as a defeat for the dati le'umi community, and a clear sign that the rabbanut does not want to move forward into the 21st century.

My thoughts (for what they are worth).

I do not identify with the chareidi community. But I do think that these two choices are excellent for Israel. Even though their fathers' were also Chief Rabbis, each of them deserves it in their own right, and was not elected because of their father.

I know Rabbi Lau a little bit (my brother knows him much better because he lives in Modi'in). Rabbi Lau is open, modern and concerned with the welfare of all Jews (and non-Jews) of every denomination. Notwithstanding what is being written about him, he cares deeply about people, knows Torah and halacha, and has been a tireless worker for the people of Modi'in for the past several years.

I know nothing about Rabbi Yosef as a person, but his books of Yalkut Yosef are tremendous. Clearly written, straight forward halacha for both Sefardim and Ashkenazim, and never erring on the side of chumra.

But as pleased as I am for both of these Rabbis, the Rabbanut and the State of Israel, I must say that it wasn't as much that these two won, but that the opposition lost. It seems to me that Bayit Yehudi is out of touch with the real world (based on the candidates they put forward). Rabbi David Stav is a forward thinking person (who wears a kippa seruga). But he has been exceptionally controversial in his rulings and actions (in terms of challenging the status quo). I think that Tzohar is an excellent organisation and has changed the way things are done. But to put forward such a radical contender for the office of Chief Rabbi was always risky. Tzohar operates well because it is outside of the system. I am yet to be convinced that it would work as the system.

And Rav Shmuel Eliyahu, who I'm sure is a great talmid chacham (though I have not been completely impressed with his halachic rulings on the weekly parsha pages, nor when I've heard him on the radio) and a great activist for the Jews of the world, is nevertheless a very controversial character. I disagree with the legal system getting involved in the elections - the Attorney General should never have allowed him to be called in - but nonetheless, his election would have been dragged through the courts and would have created an even bigger chilul Hashem. And those who feel disenfranchised by the election of Chareidim are possibly also the ones who would feel disenfrachised by a Rabbi who wrote a haskama to a book advocating killing Arabs.

If the dati le'umi community want to put up a serious contender for Chief Rabbi (and they should start planning now for 10 years time) they will have to find someone who is very knowledgable in Halacha, is not too radical, and can be accepted by most of the Jewish people of Israel. In the past they have had Chief Rabbis who filled most of those criteria - Rabbi Shapiro, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, Rabbi Goren, etc. At the moment I don't see those kinds of people leading the dati le'umi community. Don't get me wrong - there are many great dati le'umi Rabbis, but many of them are either more chareidi than the chareidim, or radical in either their political or racial views.

Ten years is not a long time. They had better get moving. (Of course what they will probably do is change the electoral system or do away with the office of Chief Rabbi - which would be a pity, but more importantly would be an admission that they cannot compete on a level playing field.

Biblical Kangaroos

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:57:00 +0000

This post is inspired by the scientific writings of Dr Isaac Betech (pediatrician).

The statement by YSO that Kangaroos were known by both the Torah and by Chazal confused me at first, because it seemed to pose a difficulty to the mishna. But Baruch Hashem, using scientific methodology we have been able to clearly resolve all difficulties and show that Hashem is the Boreh Olam!

The mishna in Bikurim (2:7) states that:

דם מהלכי שתיים--שווה לדם בהמה, להכשיר את הזרעים; ודם השרץ, אין חייבין עליו.

The blood of those who go on 2 [legs] is equivalent to the blood of those who go on four [legs] to prepare plants [to enable them to beoome ritually impure]. And the blood of a sheretz [creepy crawly] - one is not liable for.

The strange phrase of 'go on two' is usually understood as referring to humans. However, kangaroos (and wallabies) also hop on two legs, thereby creating what at first seems an insurmountable difficulty.

We see from this video that kangaroos certainly 'go on two' [legs]. So one may have been misled to think that their blood is the same as human blood.

However, Baruch Hashem, a study of the meforshim (who all question why the mishna didn't simply use the word "man" rather than the less specific term "go on two") shows that they, know through their ruach hakodesh, of kangaroos.

Rishon le-Tziyon points out that from this wording one may have been confused and thought that it also included ofot. The word ofot is not clearly defined in Hebrew. It may refer to chicken (or turkey if you are American) or to birds in general.

However, I consulted with my Hebrew expert, who confirmed my suspicions, that the word עוף can also be read as "UP". This then, is clearly a reference to kangaroos who jump "up" when they move (unlike birds, for example, who simply fly). Therefore the mishna is precise in its terminology of saying 'go on two' to exclude kangaroos (and wallabies) who go 'up'.

R. Slifkin (R. stands for Natan) challenged that kangaroos were unknown to the audience of the Torah and the mishna. Which is not only irrelevant, but also false. Since the Torah and mishna were written with Divine Inspiration it makes no difference where they lived. Furthermore, only a small fraction of the land of Eretz Yisroel has been excavated for fossils, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that they will eventually discover kangaroo (and wallaby) fossils in Israel. Furthermore, I wrote a letter to the author of the book on kangaroos of the biblical era, and questioned his/her methodology. Since I heard no further response I assume that they agree with me that one cannot disprove the existence of kangaroos in the ancient Middle East.

In addition, anyone who goes to the Jerusalem zoo will see that there are both wallabies and kangaroos there. So it is false to say that there are no kangaroos in Israel!

Perhaps you will ask "What about gorillas? - They also walk on 2 legs". To which I answer that there is not a shred of evidence that gorillas walk on two legs.

Just two further points about Dr Betech:

1. He admits that he was involved in the ban on (Rabbi) Slifkins books.

The Chofetz Chaim (Hilchot Lashon HaRa 5:3) writes that one who says about a Rav that he does not know Torah and thereby causes his status to be diminished (and potentially causes him loss of livelihood) denigrates Torah and causes laxity in observance of mitzvot.

2. In his book, Betech fails to mention Rabbi Slifkin's book on the subject at all, even though he has certainly read it and is very familiar with it (and seems to have taken some of his sources from it). Furthermore, when a Rabbi says something that Betech does not agree with he either excludes it completely (like the opinon of Rabbi Tendler) or instead attributes Rabbi Lubin's opinionto a random parsha sheet (North Hendon Adath) to avoid presenting a difficulty to his theory.

Nodeh Be'Yehuda (Tanina: Orech Chaim 20) writes that one who fails to attribute a source (b'shem omro) is considered a thief and transgresses a Biblical command.
(disclosure: I found this reference in she'arim metzuyanim be'halacha siman 27, along with many other sources who state the same thing).

So in summary, one who denigrates a Rabbi and claims that he is not intelligent denigrates the Torah and causes people to be lax in their mitzva observance. Furthermore one who does not attribute their source transgresses a Biblical prohibition.

I'll end with a quote from Rebecca Driver:

Kangaroos are ingenious examples of God’s craftsmanship, designed by a Creator who knew perfectly what He was doing. To Him all praise, glory, and honour is forever due.

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:12:00 +0000

I came across this spoof letter today, purportedly addressed to Richard Dawkins:

Dear Dawkins,
Sorry I haven't written for a while. I have been working on a theory that we are descended from pandas, rather than great apes. The evidence is pretty thin, to be honest, but next year I shall travel to China to view the pandas in their natural surroundings, and publish my findings.

According to my theory, the big evolutionary leap happened when we stopped eating bamboo and began making chairs out of it, leading to the development of furniture at around the same time that our panda ancestors discovered fire. This in turn led to the invention of offices, leading eventually to thepaperless office. But as I say, the evidence is crummy.

I am not, sir, a zoologist by profession, but a tennis instructor, so any advice you could give me about pandas would be welcome. Did not gunpowder originate in China? This would be consistent with our warlike panda forefathers trying to gain the upper hand over rival species, such as chimpanzees. Both species are now on the verge of extinction, of course.

Do you play tennis at all, Dawkins? If you do and there is any particular area of your game you would like to work on, do not hesitate to get in touch.

Best wishes,

Harry Hutton, tennis instructor

Reminds me a bit about a discussion going on about rabbits in ancient Israel that's been going on elsewhere.