Holy Hyrax 4 8 15 16 23 42

Afterlife

2010-08-03T17:48:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to believe in a good God, but no afterlife? Ok, so anything is possible, but does it make sense?

When Immaturity meets an Ex-Frummy

2009-09-11T10:29:00.000-07:00

As frum bloggers try to ignore, or stay clear from JP's lunacy, I would suggest the skeptics stay clear from this child. I used to think he was insane. He's not. He's simply immature. He left on extreme ideology, and went right to the other extreme. Such extremities along with some emotional issues are the ONLY explanation for writing something like this, and this. As I always have said, religion isn't some defacto thing that causes people to be assholes, it's just that people can be assholes no matter what.

Return of the Towel Princess

2009-07-31T15:39:00.000-07:00

This is public service announcement that Shifra, THE Shifra has ACTUALLY posted something. She is a remnant of the golden era of the J-blogoshere. Anthropologists have been studying her for years now and there are few from this era still around. I believe she is classified as: towelpostingucus notsosoccermomucus.

The scientific community is eagerly awaiting more opportunities to study this strange and rare creature.

OTD is JP

2009-07-30T10:51:00.000-07:00

This is OFFICIAL. The blogger known as OTD is in fact, none other then Jewish Philosopher. It's been so obvious, I don't know how we didn't see this before. I guess JP in trying to give skeptics a bad name, decided to use the OTD handle. But old habits are hard to break. JP has been leaving obnoxious comments and making outrageous accusations about people for years now. OTD really does the same thing. Now, you may ask how on earth do I know this. Where is the evidence? Pssshhhhttttt. Evidence, shmevidence. I can sense that JP and OTD are one in the same. In fact, JP might be using several names across many blogs. We should not stop till his unchecked trolling is over. I mean, JP has ruined ALL of our lives. We must not stop till we uncover all his phony identities. Every blog needs to commit themselves to this holy crusade. I mean, I personally, can't sleep anymore due to JP's malice. And now that I know he is OTD it only intensifies how evil this man truly is. Forget about the fact that nobody really gives a crap how many names someone might use to get their points across, NO!!!, we will hunt ever blogger down with absolutely no evidence in hand and uncover them for the evil, EVIL frauds they are. Oooooooooh JP, you thought you can fool me, but my linguistic skills are second to none. You can run, but you can't hide.

Update: If you want to help, please post a link to this post on your blog. We have to come together on this. Everybody on the J-blogoshere has to be made aware of this new development.

Gender Post Link

2009-07-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

Chana has a terrific set of posts on her take on "gender." I don't agree much with the things that come from higher education often (especially sociology classes) these days and I would say she really gives a great critic on how today's society has approached, twisted and complicated the issue of sex vs gender. As usual, this is just another reminder at why she is one of the best bloggers around. Oh, and she might be Garnel.

Read here and here.

Knees. Mmmmmm.....Knees

2009-07-28T13:48:00.000-07:00

I was reading this, and found an interesting little quote about womens knees.

Also, the knee is a visual anchor, says Barbara Pachter, an etiquette expert. People's attention will be drawn downward when they approach you, instead of toward your face where it should be.

It's an interesting way of putting it: 'visual anchors.' Now, she is not talking about frum guys then NEVER see knees, but regular guys in every day life. Even for them, it is something that grabs their attention. From personal experience, I think she has a very valid point ;)

The interesting question is, does the same apply for guys. Do women get distracted if they were all of a sudden to see a male knee.

Chumra List

2009-07-16T10:53:00.000-07:00

I am interested in creating a list of practices that people today have seen, or have had to endure that they know are just plain chumrot. What would be best, is if you can give actual sources to support the the "real" practice. I figure, the best way to fight against unnecessary chumrot is really to have some backing behind the "lenient' view. Also, I am also interested in chumrot that are done every day, but we have grown so accustomed to it we don't even think its a chumra.

Have fun.

Atheists in Action

2009-06-17T14:59:00.001-07:00

Ever see movies where you have a den of vampires where you try to move slowly so that nobody notices you lest they spring on you? Well, I fell right into one here. :)

Honestly, I enjoy simple debate and try to at least make people rethink some of the venom they use.

The Cassuto Question

2009-05-13T16:12:00.000-07:00

Being a veteran blogger here (snicker), I have been perplexed about the rough treatment Umberto Cassuto has received in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis. Typically, skeptics shun him away, or simply call him crap. It's not like you can accuse him of being an OJ and simply trying to come up with ANY apologetics to keep his faith. My question is, why? Seriously. For the people that do this, I would honestly like to know, is it:

1) Really studying the matter and realizing his rebuttal to DH is wrong?

2) Some dogmatic allegiance to the majority of other scholars who hold by DH?

3) Not wanting to feel like you're not part of the intellectual crowd if you actually DID think Cassuto makes sense?

4) Since other rabbis have tried (unsuccessfully) to rebut the DH with apologetics in the past, an almost instinctual reply is to believe ANY attempt at rebutting DH is going to be

apologetics by definition?

Please answer below in the supplied comments section. Winners will receive a free autographed picture of me signing an autograph picture of myself. Thanks.

A Poem

2009-05-06T11:29:00.000-07:00

This is dedicated to you know who. :-D

Roses are red
Violets are blue
You are Garnel
And so are you......and You......and YOU.......and YOU

How does one cope with a bad experience?

2009-04-27T13:04:00.000-07:00

This is specifically geared toward Jews that have gone through traumatic or simply unpleasant experiences with authority figures in their lives. I am not one of these people so I can't really toward answering the question of how does a person cope with having bad experiences with, lets say a rabbi. But I have a feeling, what a lot of bloggers do, is probably antithetical the concept of coping and trying to find a way of pressing forward with their lives. Take this brand new site , it pretty much sells it all, doesn't it? Now, I am sure this blogger had a miserable time there, and perhaps even everything this blogger will say about this rabbi is true, but is this really the way to cope with such a troubling past? I mean, if one was to go to a professional therapist, would they recommend opening up a public blog to spew all the hate filled comments which I garner will transpire there? I can only imagine its a matter of time before this man's children finds this site. How would it affect them?

Each of us have had run ins with people that have wronged us, to different extents, but I dare say I can't imagine starting a public forum to bash that person would ever help me. I mean, sure, in the short run, it might relieve me of pent up anger and frustration, but is this helpful for the long term?

To Spread a Lie, till People Eventually Believe It.

2009-04-20T09:57:00.000-07:00

Iran at the UN conference on racism:

Israel is the "most cruel and racist regime"

Offthederech on his usual tirade against the evil and immoral religious people:

Religion, the greatest, and most often* overlooked, source of human suffering in the world

Doesn't matter if you are an atheist or theist, or muslim or Jewish. You repeat a certain lie over and over again, eventually, masses will pick it and start believing in it. Human nature, is human nature. It doesn't change. Interestingly enough, OTD is a good proof of this.

*word added because I left it out of the original

Can You Have it Both Ways?

2009-03-11T17:32:00.000-07:00

Can you believe in a God that is personal, loves you, judges justly and or with mercy, that you prayer for divine assistance and that everything happens for a reason while at the same time believing in something Harry Maryless said:

Speaking strictly about the existence of God and not theological concepts about the attributes of God...God created nature. Nature takes its course.

So does God give a child (or anyone else) cancer for a reason, or is it just nature?

JDHURF Responds

2009-01-16T16:37:00.000-08:00

in response to previous post. My post is in italics.

Holy Hyrax said:

”The thrust of JDHURF's comments imply that though Israel has a right to defend itself, the manner in which it is being done is basically a war crime. Specifically the issue of collective punishment, disproportionate attacks and blockades all of which he contends are against International Law (IL) and therefore, immoral. These are his opinions and are also share by humanitarian organizations, which all state they look at the entire situation "objectively." Question is, is there a priori ideology and does it affect how they look at the situation and how does it affect how they interpret IL. And what about morality, how does that play a role?”

You mean to ask: is there an a priori ideology? – and as I have made explicitly clear on JA’s blog: no. Setting aside for now all of the criticisms I would have of what you conceive of as ideology – the left critique of ideology as “false consciousness” and Zizek’s formulation that “the fundamental level of ideology, however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself” – you must be implying by ideology, political views. Again, as I made clear on JA’s blog, my political views don’t have anything directly to do with my positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am a libertarian-socialist which means that, in principle, I am opposed to the existence of state powers; in the long-term, states should be dissolved. However, when discussing solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dealing with the direct and immediate goals, I support the two-state solution – not necessarily in opposition to my objections to the existence of state apparatuses, but that is another discussion altogether – and this is in contrast to the very serious position being adopted all over Europe by even the moderate left: the one state solution. Very clearly then, ideology has nothing directly to do with the issue for me.

However, it is beyond clear that ideology has everything to do with your positions. The ideology motivating you to disregard the breaking of international human rights law by Israel, Israeli massacres and war crimes is an extreme form of militant nationalism, an ultra-Zionism.

”I think there is no doubt that underlying all of this (an anything0 is ideology. Questions like; does Israel have a right to exist? a right to the land it won? Do Arabs in general want Israel are all examples of ideological questions. Sure, the question of territories is also a legal one, but one cannot deny the ideological basis for each side in trying rationalize the law in their favor. I believe, people like JDHURF and organizations like Amnesty International, ideologically (and therefore also legally) are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories. This in effect will dictate how they look at the entire situation from now on. It will influence them in how things should be dealt with. This is an important point because now, the tilt will always be, by defintion, slanted towards the benefit of the Palestinians.”

You make a lot of unsupported assertions here – evidence not being required for the ideologically driven, such as yourself – and claim that AI and myself “are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories,” again, never mind supporting this assertion, that is apparently unnecessary. Are you discussing the OT proper, Gaza and the West Bank, or are you talking about the whole of Palestine? If you only mean the former, then it is not simply that Israel occupies these territories that disgusts fair-minded people who are not driven by nationalism and expansionism – many of whom support the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestine in favor of the state of Israel – it is the way in which Israel occupies the territories (breaking international law, denigrating human rights and committing atrocities).

Further evidence that you are ideologically driven is your disgraceful dismissal and unconcern for such atrocities. That you refuse to address the recent Zeitoun massacre is but one example:

“What is particularly horrifying about the Zeitoun massacre—details of which continue to unfold—is the sadistic behavior of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This is a mass killing that has unfolded over days.....

[Article JDHURF is quoting is too long. Read the rest about the Zeitoun massacre here ]

That you have nothing to say about these atrocities is not only proof of your extremism, but a disgrace and an utter failing of objective ethics (a concept which defies you).

”For example: How many peole remember, at various times when different humanitarian organizations criticize the check-points that Israel was using? Humiliation! Degradation! they would cry. Of course, they are right. There is a feeling of degradation that the Palestinians would feel. But, is it immoral?”

Let’s take some clearer examples shall we? Examples that, for very straight forward reasons, you want to pretend don’t exist. How about the use of torture? “GSS [General Security Service] interrogators have tortured thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Palestinians.” – B’Tselem.

“Israel’s two main interrogation agencies in the occupied territories engage in a systematic pattern of ill-treatment and torture – according to internationally recognized definitions of the terms – when trying to extract from Palestinian security suspects confessions or information about third parties. Nearly all Palestinians undergoing interrogation are put through some combination of the same basic methods…Thus, the number of Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated while under interrogation during the intifada is in the tens of thousands – a number that becomes especially significant when it is remembered that the universe of adult and adolescent male Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is under three-quarters of one million.” – Human Rights Watch

The use of torture is made even more heinous when coupled with the kidnapping and indefinite detention of Palestinian civilians – as “administrative detainees – who are held without charge or trial and when charged are usually charged for having confessed under the duress of torture.

Does Holy Hyrax have anything to say about administrative detainees? The use of torture? Not yet, although I have already brought it up. How about house demolitions?

”Well, that depends who you ask. To the Israelis, who ideology for the most part does not come from a sociology class but from years of experience will say its a necessity. Do ALL arabs kill Jews? No. But there are enough that do and more than enough that believe its a legitimate way to fight occupiers by blowing themselves up. To the humanitarian worker, its not that Israelis are not important, but its just that more sympathy, almost by default has already been shifted to the Palestinians, hence their grievances are are now more of a priority. Any consequences that might arise, must be treated separately. The fact that bombers will come in becomes irrelevant to the greater cause and all check-points (though they work) are not to be permitted. Of course, someone might respond that sticking them in cattle cars can also work to keep bombers out. To this, there is simply no reply. Actually, there is, but to such extreme examples, there is no point but to simply turn around and sigh to oneself.”

This is actually all fabrication, another staple of the ideologically driven program. Every organization that I am aware of and I myself have no problem with checkpoints and even the separation wall that Israel is building so long as it builds these constructs on its own territory. The problem arises when Israel builds these constructs well into Palestinian land, annexing land, separating families from their farms, annexing valuable resources such as water and so on.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/Special%20focus%5CSeparation%20barrier!OpenView

http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/index.asp

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/F06BB484D900B227C1256E3E00324D96

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-02.htm

”Coincidentally, this is why people like XGH, Dovbear (perhaps to a lesser degree) and JDHURF SAY Israel has the right to defend itself, but can never figure out how. Their mind is simply torn by the obvious that check-points and walls and blockades work vs. their other ideology build squarely on the legal aspect (ie, Israel can defend itself, but must follow these simple rules). Hence, so far all I have heard from this is that this is just a sacrifice Israel must endure. A missile every once in a while is just the price you will have to pay for living in this region. Of course, this in of itself highly immoral. What government can allow such a thing? But they have no other response or solution. Oh ya, except to say they should talk. That always works. A good example of ideology getting in the way is this:

There could also be argued that there are “all sorts of reasons” for torture, as Alan Dershowitz argues, but that doesn’t matter, nothing justifies torture, nothing justifies collective punishment and nothing justifies the blockade of Gaza.

JDHURF thinks he is being objective here. The problem is he is not. Any reader will see a subjective stance. He believes torture is bad no matter what. He believes blockades are bad no matter what. These are clearly opinions based on his subjective values. Of course, its his right. But to cloak it in anything less than subjective and not objective as he keeps trying to say is plainly dishonest. I believe torture is permissible under certain circumstances. I can bring justification. He can believe otherwise and bring his own justification. This is pure subjectivity at its best based on two different value systems. This is not a judgmental call against him by the way.”

More fabrications. As I have just made explicitly clear, checkpoints and separation walls are fine, if that is what Israelis want, there’s no problem so long as they build these constructs on Israeli territory and not well into Palestinian territory (annexing valuable land and resources). That you here are willing to defend the use of torture is beyond the pale and absolutely evidence of your violent extremism. Why sail from the very shores of civilization you are proclaiming to defend in the first place? Torture is self-defeating. President-Elect Obama’s appointment for Attorney General, Eric Holder, has this to say about water boarding and torture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAt1GcIs6E&eurl=http://thinkprogress

”This brings us to the legal aspect. JDHURF has been copying and pasting legal text as proof of Israel committing war crimes. There is a problem wit this. First of all, JDHURF, nor I, are International legal experts. No legal text works in some vacuum on its own. There are any number of factors that play a role. JDHURF often quotes this.

“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute…A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”

The problem is, experts can interpret this any which way. What does it mean "excesive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated?" Who decides this? Obviously, JDHURF is interpreting it for his advantage. Someone else will interpret it for their advantage.

This website takes another approach.

Side note: On this same site, the quoted law does not say "concrete" or "direct" in it:

or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

So there is always interpretation that plays a role. Do I have any reason to believe that JDHURF who admitted to being a leftists, is somehow looking at this objectively without ideology getting in the way? Absolutely not.”

You are being disingenuous to pretend that my being a leftist has anything at all to do with this conflict, as I made clear earlier in my response. That you cite a blog as an expert opinion is outright laughable. The blog itself goes quite a way in their disclaimer citing as much:

“The information contained on International Law Observer does not represent legal advice and no guaranty can be given for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information/facts presented here. The authors of International Law Observer strive to hold the contents on the newest status yet it can be that information becomes outdated, incomplete or false. In line with the befitting tradition of research conducted in the academic field, it is thus strongly advised to not rely upon facts expressed on this Blog without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true.

No assurance can be given by the authors of International Law Observer for the accuracy of information or assessments contained on other websites linked to on this Blog. Moreover, the authors of this Blog can not be held responsible for the contents of other pages (links to other sites - characterized by underlining), which link to International Law Observer or to which the present Blog links. It is to be guaranteed the user responsibility that each selected contents are free from viruses or the like.”

I don’t interpret the law, I cite it explicitly, while you cite blog opinions about the law.

Here is a very explicit case of Israel breaking international law, as reported by the Internatinoal Committee of the Red Cross, which I don’t doubt you will ignore:

“Relief workers found four starving children sitting next to their dead mothers and other corpses in a house in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday.

The ICRC accused Israel of delaying ambulance access to the hit area and demanded it grant safe access for Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances to return to evacuate more wounded.

"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, ICRC chief for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

"The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded," he said.

In unusually strong terms, the neutral agency said it believed Israel had breached international humanitarian law in the incident.

In a written response, the Israeli army said it works in coordination with international aid bodies assist civilians and that it "in no way intentionally targets civilians".

The Israeli offensive launched in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip on Dec. 27 to end rocket attacks by Islamic militants has drawn increasing international criticism over mounting civilian casualties.

Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances and ICRC officials managed to reach several houses in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City on Wednesday after seeking access from Israeli military forces since last weekend, the ICRC statement said.

The rescue team "found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses", the ICRC said.

"They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses," it said.

In another house, the team found 15 survivors of Israeli shelling including several wounded, it said. Israeli soldiers posted some 80 meters (yards) away ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do, it said.

The ICRC said it had been informed that there were more wounded sheltering in other destroyed houses in the area.

"The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable," it said.

In all, it evacuated 18 wounded and 12 others who were exhausted, including the children, by donkey cart. This was because large earth walls erected by the Israeli army had made it impossible to bring ambulances into the immediate area.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, warring parties are obliged to do everything possible to search for, collect and evacuate the wounded and sick without delay, it said.

Dominik Stillhart, ICRC deputy director of operations, declined to say explicitly whether the Israeli inaction constituted a war crime.

"Clearly, it is (for) the International Criminal Court -- not for the ICRC -- to say whether this is or is not a war crime," he said, referring to the Hague tribunal.

Ambulances must be given "round-the-clock" access to the wounded throughout Gaza, Stillhart told a news briefing. "We cannot wait for the next suspension of hostilities for the wounded to be evacuated and brought to hospital."

The Israeli army said any serious allegations would need to be investigated properly after a formal complaint was received, "within the constraints of the military operation taking place". (Additional reporting by Adam Entous in Jerusalem) (Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Jonathan Lynn)”

”According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.

The problem with him bringing this up should be obvious. Israel does not control Gaza. It's not being re-occupied. I don't think any other country though, would call for a 'time-out' and allow for humanitarian aid to come in. But, one thing is important, it's all about ideology that he brought this quote. It's first an emotional response to innocents dying, and then looking for something to aide to bolster that ideology in legal terms. Its nothing abnormal. We all do it. So I am not convinced by the legal jargon. There is no intelligence needed to go to a website and copy & paste legal text. I mean the U.S. has also killed thousands of Iraqis and other than the fringe left (which perhaps should say something there) I don't recall seeing anyone screaming that America should be prosecuted for war crimes.”

This is absolutely shameful. I have gone over this time and time again with you, which means you are simply willfully lying here. To begin with, Israel does control the land, water and air surrounding Gaza and has effective control, however, as I have pointed out time and time again, that is irrelevant because Israel has the same obligations under international law whether it is the occupying force or whether it is engaged in armed conflict. I will simply repeat myself yet again:

“One source of the obligations imposed on Israel toward residents of the Gaza Strip is the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). These laws impose general responsibility on the occupying state for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply.

Even if Israel 's control in the Gaza Strip does not amount to "effective control" and the territory is not considered occupied, Israel still bears certain responsibilities under international humanitarian law. IHL is not limited to protecting civilians living under occupation, but includes provisions intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live. Given that Israel contends that an armed conflict exists between it and the Palestinian organizations fighting against it, which has continued even after the disengagement, such provisions apply. These provisions are found, for example, in the Fourth Geneva Convention, pursuant to which Israel must protect the wounded, sick, children under age fifteen, and pregnant women, enable the free passage of medicines and essential foodstuffs, enable medical teams to provide assistance, and refrain from imposing collective punishment.”

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Israels_obligations.asp

Ideology, Legality & Morality In Regards to Gaza

2009-01-15T22:57:00.000-08:00

The debate about Israels action is still raging on Jewish Atheists site after quite a few days. I would like to address JDHURFs comments specifically because they, though I believe are wrong, seem to carry some sort of "authority" behind it. Specifically this post will deal with how ideology, legality and morality play a role in this situation and how one affects the other... if at all.

The thrust of JDHURF's comments imply that though Israel has a right to defend itself, the manner in which it is being done is basically a war crime. Specifically the issue of collective punishment, disproportionate attacks and blockades all of which he contends are against International Law (IL) and therefore, immoral. These are his opinions and are also share by humanitarian organizations, which all state they look at the entire situation "objectively." Question is, is there a priori ideology and does it affect how they look at the situation and how does it affect how they interpret IL. And what about morality, how does that play a role?

I think there is no doubt that underlying all of this (an anything0 is ideology. Questions like; does Israel have a right to exist? a right to the land it won? Do Arabs in general want Israel are all examples of ideological questions. Sure, the question of territories is also a legal one, but one cannot deny the ideological basis for each side in trying rationalize the law in their favor. I believe, people like JDHURF and organizations like Amnesty International, ideologically (and therefore also legally) are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories. This in effect will dictate how they look at the entire situation from now on. It will influence them in how things should be dealt with. This is an important point because now, the tilt will always be, by defintion, slanted towards the benefit of the Palestinians.

For example: How many peole remember, at various times when different humanitarian organizations criticize the check-points that Israel was using? Humiliation! Degradation! they would cry. Of course, they are right. There is a feeling of degradation that the Palestinians would feel. But, is it immoral? Well, that depends who you ask. To the Israelis, who ideology for the most part does not come from a sociology class but from years of experience will say its a necessity. Do ALL arabs kill Jews? No. But there are enough that do and more than enough that believe its a legitimate way to fight occupiers by blowing themselves up. To the humanitarian worker, its not that Israelis are not important, but its just that more sympathy, almost by default has already been shifted to the Palestinians, hence their grievances are are now more of a priority. Any consequences that might arise, must be treated separately. The fact that bombers will come in becomes irrelevant to the greater cause and all check-points (though they work) are not to be permitted. Of course, someone might respond that sticking them in cattle cars can also work to keep bombers out. To this, there is simply no reply. Actually, there is, but to such extreme examples, there is no point but to simply turn around and sigh to oneself.

Coincidentally, this is why people like XGH, Dovbear (perhaps to a lesser degree) and JDHURF SAY Israel has the right to defend itself, but can never figure out how. Their mind is simply torn by the obvious that check-points and walls and blockades work vs. their other ideology build squarely on the legal aspect (ie, Israel can defend itself, but must follow these simple rules). Hence, so far all I have heard from this is that this is just a sacrifice Israel must endure. A missile every once in a while is just the price you will have to pay for living in this region. Of course, this in of itself highly immoral. What government can allow such a thing? But they have no other response or solution. Oh ya, except to say they should talk. That always works. A good example of ideology getting in the way is this:

There could also be argued that there are “all sorts of reasons” for torture, as Alan Dershowitz argues, but that doesn’t matter, nothing justifies torture, nothing justifies collective punishment and nothing justifies the blockade of Gaza.

This brings us to the legal aspect. JDHURF has been copying and pasting legal text as proof of Israel committing war crimes. There is a problem wit this. First of all, JDHURF, nor I, are International legal experts. No legal text works in some vacuum on its own. There are any number of factors that play a role. JDHURF often quotes this.

“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute…A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”

This website takes another approach.

Side note: On this same site, the quoted law does not say "concrete" or "direct" in it:

or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.

But what if hypothetically, all sides conclude, legally speaking, Israel is in the wrong? Does that automatically and objectively mean Israel is immoral? Well, if you ask JDHURF and Amnesty, they will obviously answer yes. It's not like Israel crossed a red light here. They are killing innocent people as described by IL and IL decisions of ethics are objective. As JDHURF says so politely:

Israel of course has a right to protect itself, but it must do so without breaking international human rights law, it’s very simple, it’s not one or the other: either Israel protects itself by committing war crimes or it doesn’t protect itself at all (that’s your ignorant and illusory dichotomy).
Your argument that international law is subjective is just downright breathtaking in its idiocy.
For something to be subjective there must not be any factual arbiters, it is simply the emotional opinion of the person – preferences of taste and sound and so on – while something is objective when it is founded upon factual analysis and evidentiary reasoning. International law is not subjective in any sense, it is objective in that it is founded upon the factual analysis of specific acts and policies and their specific consequences. That you don’t understand the difference is staggering to the mind. That you argue that international law is subjective in order to render it meaningless and justify Israel’s war crimes and breaking of international law is yet further evidence of your militant extremism.

The problem is of course its subjective. What facts are you talking about here? That innocent people don't like to be killed? Well DUH!! But that is not what is being discussed here. The discussion is about parameters that were set. I am not saying IL is necessarily wrong, I am saying the parameters were laid down by human beings and could have gone in different ways. The fact that there are arbitrators does not make it objective, because they are still human beings debating as to where the parameters of war should lie. Considering acts of war have always changed in the course of human history, how on earth can someone claim its objective is beyond me. The fact that you say these parameters are objective does not make them objective. Just because you keep repeating something over and over, does not make it true. A council could have easily said, by looking at facts on the ground that blockades are illegal...UNLESS the nation that has launched the blockade has done so for defensive purposes and can legitimately show it. This is just as "objective" as anything else they said. Was the court ruling allowing same sex marriage in california objective? Of course not. It was a 4-3 victory and could have gone the other way. So even though its the law, its based on subjective reasoning of what they believe the law is referring to.

(BTW, I never knew if you think IL is subjective it automatically makes you a militant extremist. Oh well.)

But what if JDHURF is right, what then? IMO, Israel's first priority is towards its borders and citizens. The problem is, IL, according to JDHURF does not take specific things into account. Israelis for the most part have had to deal with a culture that doesn't subscribe to the exact western notion of war, ethics and values as wel do. How does IL deal with this? Well it doesn't. It can't. It's not going to have once set of rules of this culture and another for some other culture. But what happens when the way one deals with one culture won't work when dealing with another. This is why, IMO, IL does not necessarily equal morality. If Israel was dealing with a western nation, ti would fight a certain way, but here, its dealing with a culture that has taken death proudly, and killing others while dying is one of the greatest honors. Is this everyone? No of course not, but certainly it seems this culture has been taken over by this methods. So how do you deal with it? How do you deal with a government puts their civilians in harms way for a greater cause, knowing full way the consequences? I don't see it possible for Israel to fight a conventional war, dictated by IL the way JDHURF sees it and come out alive. Different cultures have different values. Some cultures are antithetical to the way we dream the world should function, and its a dream to think you can fight them in a conventional way. This by the way was the case with Japanese in WWII.

Modern sensitivities don't like to admit that some cultures want someone dead and evil lies in their ranks. Well, the world did once, thats why they were able to vanquish it. It knew what it had to do, and it did it, no matter what. Israel has to deal with this now, but once again, some people don't get this, cause its smacks of some old world notion of morality and racism and so, ideology rears its head again and Israel is wrong for having to deal with a mess that doesn't care for your rules. Israelis on the other hand see us in the western world, and rightfully so, as blind to the obvious. It is very hard for me now to beleive what JDHURF said:

Furthermore, your premise that the entire population of Gaza wants to destroy Israel is hysterical propaganda. The only statistics available on the view of Palestinians towards Israel is a majority acceptance of the two-state solution. So that is a bold-face lie on your part.

I mean, if they TRULY believed in a two state solution, and maybe they do, why on earth would you give the scepter to a group that obviously hates Israel and would rather see it destroyed? How on earth do you want me to take a statement like that on face value as truth?

So is a blockade, collective punishment illegal? Maybe, but war is always a collective punishement and not always terrorism. JDHURF believes otherwise:

As I said, although you ignored it, War in general is also very clearly different from willful collective punishment: the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.

Again, he is coming from his ideological perspective and from his ideological perspective, he is being totally reasonable. So there is nothing to even to respond to that. Morally speaking, Israel has to do what ever it needs against an unconventional enemy that could care less about IL. In the end, the moral responsibility of the Palestinian people lies with Hamas. It was their job to keep them safe. ( I am curious if anyone actually spends their time protesting Hamas's action with the same vigor as they do Israel's). So you can scream "war crimes all you want. It doesn't matter. Because, once again, morally, Israel needs to do what it needs to do. No wonder more than 80% of Israelis support this operation and mind you, Israel does not have 80% exteme right wing settlers. Israel cannot live with its hands tied behind her back while an enemy slaps her around and laughing knowing she can't hit back. Going by JDHURF, strict reading of how war should ALWAYS be waged, Israel would not be able to last. A good war, is one that ends decisively. Once and for all. Problem here of course is that Israel is not dealing with a uniform enemy, making it much harder. No, Israel has to deal with the hand it was dealt. But certainly, that doesn't stop those on the sideline, yelling at them as if they were dealing with a conventional force. I can guarantee you, that WWII would never have ended with this sort of mentality. Luckily for us, it didn't exist then.

To Stone or Not to Stone

2009-01-13T12:21:00.001-08:00

There is a report from CNN reporting that two men have been stoned to death for adultery and murder. Human rights organizations have obviously condemned this. Now clearly, there is no denying that our religion proscribes this punishment as well. I can't particularly judge stoning back then, because, well, thats what executions were. I can judge it nowadays because, well, we feel stoning is barbaric. My question is this: Are people bothered that a person can get executed for adultery, or are you really bothered by the method (i.e. stoning)? Had these people been executed by lethal injection, would you have a serious problem with it? Would you feel less bothered? Just the same? Be honest now.

Open quote from our friend XGH

2008-12-31T09:10:00.000-08:00

I just don't see how bombing Gaza is morally acceptable, when civilians will certainly get killed. Two wrongs don't make a right. So you'll say, what else is Israel supposed to do? Just sit back and take it? And the answer of course is yes, because bombing them back is not morally acceptable.

-XGH, Lord of the rational thinkers

It amazes me how, the more to the left people get, the more emotional they get to the point that their moral compass goes berserk. Israel should do absolutely nothing. They are as rational as the Arab sympathizers that protest against Israel claiming that Israel is using disproportional attacks (which is so silly and a new concept). Would they be happy if Israel shot one missle for every missle Hamas sent? No of course not. It's simply anti-Israel BS as usual. All I know is, thank God these sorts of people were not sitting with FDR and Churchill deciding whether to go to war. After all, thousands upon thousands of innocents died. But as XGH said, intent does not matter here. Action is all that matters. Amazes me how when all these skeptics start moving toward atheism and cynicism, they start thinking like this. And it has nothing to do with rational thought. Its simply that OJ, for the most part is conservative in ideals. Hence they feel they HAVE to move the other direction.

Rabbi Wolpe vs. Hitchens.

2008-11-26T22:33:00.000-08:00

and here is a more recent debate they had in LA

Israelite Origins

2008-11-19T15:33:00.000-08:00

PBS had a great episode of Nova last night, The Bible’s Buried Secrets (BBS). Not surprisingly, it dealt with the origins of the Israelites, scripture and especially how the idea of monotheism was able to spring up in the most unlikeliest of places. It is two hours long but you can watch individual chapters. The reenactments are interesting but the CGI in recreating villages for example is outstanding. Anyways, given that it was a two hour show, there is no way I can fit in all the arguments they made, but hopefully, just touch upon the new theory as to the origins of the ancient Israelites and they god. I would like to start by first quoting William Dever in this interview (as well as the show).

We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

I wonder if James Kugel would consider him an apologist. From reading his site, I get the impression that he says one needs to understand the bible as they, the ancients thought that every incident in scripture ACTUALLY happened as written and any interpretation or meaning came later. Seems to me, Dever is saying from the very get go, the stories themselves were interpretations of events. But I could be wrong. Anyways, I feel that is an important quote given that sometimes people judge the ancients based on how WE would write a text.

Where I want to begin is where the episode discusses the conquest of Canaan. Tradition of course says, that Joshua led the people and conquered city after city in a relatively short amount of time until the country was taken. BBS takes us to one of these cities, Hazor. Like Jericho and AI—two other cities that tradition says Joshua conquers—Hazor has significant evidence of destruction. An idol was even found that had been decapitated. The archeologist on site believes that the only real candidate for this destruction is the Israelites. They are the only ones with a tradition of it happening an no mention of Hazor is mentioned in any of the Egyptian records. It would seem to be good news in favor of our tradition. The problem is, archeologists say that its not so cut and dry. The biggest problem is one of dating. Archeologist date the destruction of Ai to 2,500 BC, the destruction of Jericho to 1,500 BC and Hazor to 1,250 BC. This is over 1000 years and nowhere near what the book of Joshua allows for. The other problem is that most of these sites do not show any signs of a war. Interestingly, the archeologists discuss and important find. They found that Hazor was a city state built on two “levels.” The lower level was mainly inhabited by the serfs and slaves while the top level was inhabited by the elitists. What they found was that the lower level had been abandoned and the top portion of the city started seeing crumbling in its infrastructure. According to the archeologists, this was a time of great upheaval in the entire region, not just in Canaan. They conclude therefore, that Hazor was not destroyed from the outside, but from the inside. A rebellion of sorts as the entire region was crumbling. These freed peasants eventually scattered and created their own identity…the Israelites. More evidence is given from the pottery that has been found within Israelite dwellings. These pottery bare an amazing resemblance to those of the Canaanites

So now we have where the Israelites come from, but where does this odd idea of one god come from? For this, we have to go back to Egypt. Egyptian records tell us that King Seti I (1,300 BC, father of Ramses. Also, this date is close to the rebellion in Hazor) enslaved a group of people called the Shasu. These people come from an interesting place. It is called YHW, and it is located around the area the Torah calls Midian. Could these Shasu people have worshiped a god called YHW or YHWH?

Archeologists in the show are hypothesizing a new theory built on all this information put together. They believe there in fact WAS a group of freed Canaanite slaves leaving Egypt, but on their way back to Canaan, they entered the land of the Shasu and were inspired by the the God YHWH. This God, they believed was the one that had freed them from Egypt.

As they re-entered the land of Canaan, they were greeted by the newly freed slaves (now the Israelites) that had settled the land after the Canaanite states crumbled. The returning Canaanites from Egypt taught this new God that they learned about from the Shasu to the people. Slowly, as these brand new Israelites spread in the land, so did this brand new idea of one God. It inspired them and gave them meaning. As centuries passed and the populations grew the stories became exaggerated to give more meaning. It wasn’t just a small band of freed Canaanites that were freed from Egypt, but that EVERYONE was from God in Egypt. And so, the idea of one God for everyone, was formed. But clearly, old habits are hard to break and that would account for the large amounts of idols found in Israelite cities.

The show earlier discussed a rock that was found in Israel. This rock had the entire Hebrew alphabet on it and was also dated to about 1000 bc. Archeologists now believe that writing was possible long before they had previously thought. In fact, at this time they believe, the writing down of the “Israelite Story” may have begun. Different stories, myths and songs until it took its final form centuries later, the Torah.

I highly recommend watching all the chapters that the site offers. At the very least, it is interesting to get many powerhouse names in archeology in one show giving you the main essence of evidence and theories rather than having to go out read dozens of books. Though I like reading too :) I didn't finish wathcing the whole thing. There is still more discussing the united kingdom, but I just wanted to touch up on this one issue. Let me know what you think. Strengths? Weaknesses? Did I miss anything?

Should Mormons Be Punished?

2008-11-13T10:52:00.000-08:00

This ex-Mormon says going after their tax exemption status is the wrong way about it.

"There is a legal problem here that we realistically need to account for if we are to hold the LDS Church accountable (as well as the Catholics and all those Evangelical churches): The Mormon church did not break any law. It’s within their rights according to the IRS code to advocate publicly and spend money to advocate for political issues. Like all churches/non-profits, they are only barred from campaigning for candidates. The website “Mormons Stole Our Rights” is wrong on the legal facts (it ignores subsection (h) of the tax code they site) and this will lose in any court in America. Ask any tax attorney and they’ll spell it out for you. Even more problematically, the Mormon church itself donated exactly ZERO funds to this campaign anyway and asked its members to donate money; this is also completely within its rights as the law now stands."

Agriprocessors Shutting Down?

2008-11-11T23:47:00.000-08:00

Looks like it.

Propostion 8 and Lessons for the Gay Community in General.

2008-11-09T20:44:00.000-08:00

Why did prop 8 pass? Well, to the gay community it is but one reason "Hate." Simple black and white case. If you are against calling their union a marriage it MUST be about hate right? I would like to take a closer look at this and if anything, have the gay community learn something that actually might benefit their cause.

1) Stop playing the "Hate" card. Those that disagree with you, do no automatically hate you. I realize it is easier to indoctrinate a population--ESPECIALLY younger people who tend to have no life experience and that everything is either a case of love or hate-- but it doesn't work and it is wrong. People are sick of hearing it.

For some reason the gay community cannot fathom that people don't want to redifine an institution that has existed for thousands of years, but at the same time, do not hate them.

2) Stop comparing yourself to black people or the plight of the black experience. The establishment does not segregate you. You are politicians, business owners, celebrities and everything else anyone is. What you are basically fighting for, is a word, "marriage," not treatment. You have domestic partnership rights, with the exact same treatment (and if you don't have more rights, I would side with you). But to equate yourself as an oppressed people is a slapin the face to those that truly have been treated like an oppressed people by the majority.

3) Don't blame the mormon church. Don't blame the synagogue. YOU alone are responsible for your message loosing out, not others. It's totally logical that ANY proposition on ANY ballot will be financed by different people from different locations. I am not saying you don't have a right to protest, you do, but its simply a cop-out for your own failure. You are only hurting your cause by picking on this one group when there was so many others behind it.

4) Moderates don't trust you. They don't mind having gays marry but they wonder where your crusade will end. In Canada, there was a case of a reverend punished for talking against homosexuality. The gay activists have some of the most fanatic activists, and they want to know FOR SURE that the slippery slope will not end up like like Canada, or Illinois (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683). If you did, but still failed, don't blame the mormon church, blame yourself.

5) Keep your sexuality to yourself. There are many people out there that think the gay lifestyle is either disgusting or immoral. And you know who is to blame? YOU! If you are attempting to show everyone else, that in fact you are no different than they are, stop parading yourself in the most vile intimidating manner for the simple sake of being intimidating. What you do in private is your business, but when you dress up with penises hanging out in public you are only furthering the stereotypes of yourself. In my opinion, no responsible parent wants their kids to see things like that OR be around you.

I myself voted in favor of prop 8. I do not believe one can redefine something simply because of a feeling they have, especially when all the 'actual' rights are given (if I am wrong, let me know). Either way, anything I feel goes out the window if this proposition was implemented illegally. The court has to now see whether this is an amendment or revision. If its an amendment, its legit, if its a revision than it has to go through longer steps which it did not. If it is indeed deemed a revision than the proposition has to be repealed whether I like it or not. Its in everyone's best interest that the majority does not have a free hand to revise a Constitution without going through the proper mechanism the law requires. Because guess what? If you can change the constitution then so can the other side and NO Constitution should be a ping pong table.

Le me know what you think. Right? Wrong? Some things right? Some things wrong?

Update: I saw this posted on this Facebook after writing my post:

Homosexuality has been a faux pax for too many years because of a conservative nation's fear of it's own sexuality. Unfortunately homosexuals are being defined by bedroom activities and not by the content of their character. Sound familiar? And unless they decide to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder there is nothing to say that we are different or 'less than.'

Like I said, gays have NOBODY else to blame but themselves for this. All you have to do is attend ANY gay rally or ANY celebration in the West Hollywood area.

Also, I think this whole "Oh, if we are second class citizens, why should we pay taxes" crap. Or, "no taxation without representation." I just don't understand this sort of stupidity. You DO have representation and this has nothing to do with your marriage rights. Whether gays like it or not, not ALL unions are allowed in the US but yet those people still have to pay taxes.

I am honestly re-considering my vote for prop 8, but the stupidity of the gay activists simply leaves me speechless.

Candyman - The Shit of the Nation, Part II

2008-11-06T17:04:00.000-08:00

There is no more moral equivalence between our two groups than there is between Hamas suicide bombers and IDF soldiers. The IDF soldiers have the moral high ground, just as liberals do in this country.

- Candyman

Oh well, at least he finally said something nice about the IDF

Candyman - The Shit of the Nation

2008-11-06T14:26:00.000-08:00

WARNING: SPORADIC RANT

If you have any brains, you would be appalled by a post like this. In his basic fanatic leftists bullshit, Candyman explains to all of us that those of us that voted McCain have no RIGHT to celebrate Obama

Candyman, nothing describes you better THAN a piece of shit, you don't deserve to live in this country, and for sure you have no right to champion Barack Obama who on his acceptance speech basically blamed himself for not earning the support of the rest of us. I celebrate Barack Obama because I celebrate the sheer awesomeness of how democracy moves in this country. I celebrate because even though I do not agree with the policies he tried to sell the nation, he is still my leader. The point of this nation is NOT to be divisive if we do not get what we want. My opposition for Obama does not come from the same disgusting hatred that YOU, YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU, a soft tolerant liberal have anyone on the right, but comes from policy only. I NEVER doubt that a person like Barack Obama wants the best for this country, I simply disagree with his views. So does this mean I still don't get to celebrate a new leader? Even if you disagree with a conservative, would one ever not reach over his hand to deny you the right to celebrate with him that our democracy still works? This is a victory for EVERYONE, you shit for brains. Its a victory that the gears of our democracy work and the people get what they wanted. If he does a crappy job, we vote him out.

You, have no right to claim any allegiance to this country with that attitude. Until you party is made up of saints with no money in their fat pockets, you have no right to judge those on the other side.

You really think the democrats are some godly party? You really believe the democratic party is NOT responsible for this economic slump? Wake up you moron. You don't think your god Obama didn't have some blood money in his pocket? Wake UP!

If anyone is the party of emotions it is YOU! Your crusade to always be kind and fait have brought on disastrous laws like the Community Reinvestment Act. It's people like you that never thought that the sexual revolution of love and peace would have any affect on the future generations. It is your party that is aiming toward more PC bullshit. It is your party that helps the gang mess. You breed an unhealthy tolerance toward the rotten in this society thinking that good might come out of it, when reality dictates they need to be deported. But you don't, cause you kiss the mexican lobbyist to get their votes. You are the party that is always concerned with not hurting anyones feelings. You are NOT the party of freedom. You are a party that has grown to making this country a Nanny State. Legislating what is good for us no less than what the right used to do.

No wonder I hate these leftist extremists. They condemn the right-wing extremists but think their own shit doesn't stink. I rarely hate people, but Candyman I hate. His posts are routinely filled with venom and insinuations about other people. He truly is a piece of shit.

Post Election Thoughts

2008-11-04T23:12:00.000-08:00

What an election huh? I will have to admit it is an amazing thing to have the first black American president. You can't deny this is a great historical moment in this country. Today, I voted for my very first time. It was a great experience (mainly because I got a cool sticker). Voting, made me appreciate what a great system we have. Not just the voting system, but the whole political edifice of this country. Seriously, when I look at other countries, even like Israel, you have to be thankful. What a mess over there. One day you are elected, the next day the government collapses and you have to start all over. It's just not healthy for any nation.

I really wish Obama luck. I hope to God that he will not create a nation of entitlement 10 year olds. Remember what Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do to you, but what you can do for your country." Part of the problem with what the democratic party has turned into is that it totally flipped this message. I hope this messiah complex that people have for Obama (cough::candyman::cough) will subside. This country is not based on that. It's based on hard work. It's based on personal responsiblity and that anyone can achieve anything with that hard work. Government does not need to pamper you. If government will always come to your rescue, when will you grow up. Ezzie has a great post on this. I hope some reason will come into the democrats senses rather that build their whole party base on emotions and "fairness" appeals. I hope.

There is a shinning light to Obama's win. Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakan will finally be out of business. They were literally the worst of the worst that the left was able to produce. I truly hope this culture of victimhood and self pitty will end with Obama's win. That it will inspire other black men and woman to work hard and achieve their dreams in a nation that is the greatest on earth and not the horrible racist sespool that the three stooges have portrayed (jackson, sharpton and farrakan). Oh, and I am at least happy this won't be a filibuster proof congress. That's just dangerous. No party should have that level of power

Anyways, its fantastic to be an American and I am really happy to have gotten my citizenship in time to vote.

What Happens When We Die?

2008-09-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

Interesting article

Back to Hammurabi

2008-09-17T00:32:00.000-07:00

We already know of the similarities between some of the Hammurabi laws and the Torah laws, so I decided to actually go down the list and read them for once. Law #146 sparked my interest:

If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

I don't know about you, but this law reminds me a bit about the story of Sarah and Hagar. As you remember, Hagar after giving Abraham a child, "Tafsa Tachat" (as Israelis would say) angering Sarah, her mistress, and eventually being sent away. Sarah, did not sell Hagar. Perhaps, she was not allowed to since this was some sort of common law. Now, I am assuming this story too place. One of the arguments some make in favor of an ancient Torah is that it's laws and customs date to a more ancient time, well before it could have been written by their supposed source authors. Or, could these customs still have existed later on and the authors merely inserted them in the stories of their forefathers? Or, am I simply seeing something here that doesn't exist?

Here is another one that I will admit may be a stretch, but it got me thinking. Law #116

If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.

What I want to focus on here, is the fact that someone else (in this case, the son) can be put to death for the crimes of another. In Sefer Shmuel II 21: 5, it is described that there was a famine for three years. David inquires of God and he is told that it is happening because of what Shaul did to the Givonites. When David approaches them the Givonites demand the sons of Shaul to be put to death for the crimes of their father David, complies and hands them over and they are hung.

Now, is law of Hammurabi and the story of David similar? I'm not sure. The relevant part (for the moment) is that the very concept of having someone else be put to death (for whatever crime) was something accepted. Or is it?

This does seem to contradict many tenants of judicial law that a father cannot be tried for the sins of the son and vice-versa. On the other hand, we do have it saying it in the Torah that God visits the inequities of the father upon the child. Perhaps the sin of Shaul, was basically an immoral act against God, and not a regular legal crime like the Hammurabi law. Meaning, that a legal law like Hammurabi Law #116, would not exist in Israel and that something so sever as the Givonite story only occured due to the horrible moral crime of Shaul against them. I hope my point is cohesive enough. It's late here :P

Thoughts?

Can Samaritans Sing??

2008-08-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

They sure can!

Sofi Tsedaka is a Samaritan that converted to Judaism. For that, she was excommunicated from her family. If you take a look at the video, there is a part where she sings the first verse of Bereshit where you can hear the distinct Samaritan pronunciations. For more info, watch this interview of her speaking about her past as well as interesting footage of the Samaritans. She also sings in Arabic.

In Defense of the Skirt

2008-08-22T02:14:00.000-07:00

Rather than give the same old dissertation about skirts and modesty (and yes, the amount of written material out there about modesty and skirts sometimes does feel like a dissertation), I would like to approach this from a slightly different angle and offer why a preference for skirts is not such a bad thing. Let me be clear that I do not believe pants, in general, to be immodest. I’m not sure anyone really can. Do Orthodox Jews believe that Hillary Clinton is immodest for wearing pants? What about your average woman on the street? I believe, when Orthodox Jews discuss “modesty” we are really referring to our peoples requirements for modesty (ie, yes, these women are perfectly modest, but they are not “OJ modest” per our guidelines). This is fine of course. Every group can define its own parameters no matter how subjective it is to the rest of the world. The problem is, it’s for this very reason, that people are questioning it. The halacha itself is causing the problems. Saying something is “halacha” when the reasoning behind it is a bit weak is not going to fly for many women. For this reason, I believe a different and perhaps better value should be placed on the skirt.

Jews, seem to lack something that other cultures around have. I’m not sure exactly how to phrase it, but perhaps it’s a cultural expression to identify the group as one. Different cultures have a particular art or even architecture that identifies them as a whole. Mosques have a certain art form that is very unique to them. Asian countries have a certain art form as well, that is easily recognizable to identify their culture. The same can be said about dress. There are very specific trademark outfits. So for example, you have traditional Greek dancing with traditional Greek dress. Jews seem to lack this, and it’s quite understandable. Jews were dispersed and simply followed the dress, art, dance, and song of whatever culture they were in. Yemenite Jews and Litvak Jews seem very different. The present is no different. We simply dress like westerners. Ahhh, but you can say: "what about halacha, hasn’t that tied the Jews around the world together?" Well, yes. It has. Jews keep halacha. We pray, keep the same diet and wear tzitziot that identify us as one. And that, is my entire point in this. I believe, that even though the original reasoning behind wearing skirts was modesty, we should shift focus and see skirts as an identifying marker for the Jews. Sure it is not as interesting as a Dutch girls outfit, but I believe its the best approach with what we have to work with. I don’t think this is so far fetched. When we were in Yosemite this week, I immediately recognized a Jewish woman by her outfit. There was a certain kinship I felt and it was initially there because of how she was dressed. Israeli folk dancing also has a unique outfit for its female dancers, but that is only Israeli, not necessarily “Jewish.”

My point is simply to take an existing phenomenon and give it a different meaning. Many women believe these rules to be simply male attempts to control what they wear. Of course, to some extent it may be true, and so, if a woman realizes this, should she just chuck the skirts out the window? I say, she donesn't have to. They can take the skirt and give it a better purpose. Not just for themselves, but to add it as a significant cultural marker—you uniform, if you will—for our people. Is this full proof? Will every woman out there immediatly realize the wisdom of the skirts? No, of course not. But I believe it is a better approach then the same old modesty line. And like I said above, it's not that far fetched. We already do identify with each other when we see a common identifying feature.

And, just to help him out- Check out Dovbear's new book. You can buy it for a good friend or someone you really can't stand. This gift can work well for both :)

Round Tfillin?

2008-07-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

A commenter on GH's post brought up this link regarding Tfillin. The pictures though, show what appears to be round tfillin. I have never seen that before.

Also, if you notice in the first drawing, you will see the arm tfillin box is much smaller than what we are normally accustomed to. The only time I have ever seen one of this size, are the tfillin that were found in the Qumran caves. This link gives you the dimensions, but I recall seeing a photo of one box that was about the size of a dime.

A Short Vent and Maybe a Long Vacation

2008-06-30T16:59:00.000-07:00

What the hell is this blog about? Hmmmm? I don't know myself. I'll tell you what though. I'm very tired. My soul is tired. I haven't been happy in quite a while. I've been blogging for 3+ years now and I tell you, I'm just tired. I can't work, I can't live, I can't focus on anything. Anything, but religion that is, and there is nothing healthy about that. I mean, how much can you think about DH and morality and God and everything else that is discussed on these blogs ad nauseam.

I think it's obvious now. The Torah as we have it today, as we have had for at least 2,500 years is NOT all from the time of Moses. I say not all, because I think I do believe in revelation. That something was experienced and something was given (The problem is, "something" is not really going to motivate me to stop shaving with a razor). It seems when reading Tanach, an overall encompassing theme is that God took them out of Egypt and that commandments and laws were given to a man they supposedly all know and love, Moses (no, not me). The word "sefer" is used (I believe scarcely) but that can mean anything. Maybe Moses wrote a bit and things were were added here and there over centuries. Who knows? I am not really a supporter of DH, but that does not automatically make me a believer in the Sefer Torah being written all by Moses.

Everyday I come to work and blog, but it's always the same old crap. Honestly, the only blog worth anything for Jewish (historical) learning is probably On The Main Line. But I falsely deluded myself into thinking some great miracle could be found there. I also came a realization that most people are just sheep. That goes for skeptics too. Most skeptics knowledge of DH is but a "copy & paste" trick. They don't know anything. They know it exists and are eager to pass this information on. They have no idea of what real linguistics are but are quite capable of tossing Cassutto aside. Why? Because current scholars of tossed him. I am always curious to know if they really DO believe he is outdated, or they believe he is outdated because they are told to say that. Sheep. Of course this says nothing of DH. It might all be totally true, I am merely offering my view of the nature of the beast.

Anyways, my wife says I need to stop blogging. That if I stop blogging, I won't constantly think about about all this stuff. She might have a slight point. But nothing will change. I will probably always have this stuff in my mind. I think she will see that for herself. So, in light of that, I will be taking some time off. I will give it a month. That's a good start. I mean, honestly, what am I going to miss? If I slip up, then I slip up. It's not easy just quiting after so long after all.

I will be checking my emails, so feel free to email me anytime you want. Those with my number can even call me. After all, I met some wonderful people here that I consider friends. If anyone has some advice for motivation to keeping halacha or some of it, I would love to hear it. As long as it's not the same ol "even if its not directly from God, the fact that we took it upon ourselves is still a reflection of his will." Sorry guys, I tried that. It doesn't work :)

Where's Shifra

2008-06-25T15:04:00.000-07:00

Long ago, in another time, in another place there used to live a little ol' lady. A lady, by the name of, Shifra. She was our official Blogger psychologist and possibly had the best blog all around. Much funnier than Jameel any day of the week. In fact I would put my money on Shifra that she could easily kick Jameels ass. Anyways she has been MIA for about five months now.

I am officially offering a reward of $100,000* for her, dead or alive.

*will be paid via a one time $10 Coffee Bean gift card

Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac

2008-06-24T21:17:00.000-07:00

Frumheretic has an interesting post, comparing the two accounts of the Israelites complaining to God regarding their food situation. In one case in Exodus they complain and are given Manna and in Numbers they complain and God gives them meat. To tell you the truth, I never thought about this incident so hard, but apparently Frumheretic believes this is an obvious case of two separate traditions. You can find a nice little graph on his site.

The most interesting part of that post is at the end. When doing some online sloothing, he not only found that his observation has been talked about before, but that it was brought up all the way back in the 12th century by a commentator by the name of Joseph ben Isaac, known as the Bekhor Shor, a student of Rabbenu Tam. A bit of googling led me to this file discussing biblical criticism and has a section titled "Classical rabbinical views that suggest multiple origins." This is what was said about Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac.

In the twelfth century, the commentator R. Joseph ben Isaac, known as the Bekhor Shor, noted that a number of wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers are very similar, in particular, the incidents of water from the rock, and the stories about manna and the quail. He theorized that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel traditions about these events eventually developed, both of which made their way into the Torah.

If true, I am a bit confused as to what to make of this. Did he believe in post-Mosaic additions to the Torah? Did he simply believe that God took one incident and repeated it in the Torah for whatever reason? Did he really believe in two separate traditions regarding this part of the text? This is something I am terribly ignorant on and would like some help.

Who was this rabbi? What did he believe? Are the critics simply taking a comment of his out of context?

King Solomon Entertains a Bible Critic- From 'On The Main Line' Archives

2008-06-23T17:58:00.000-07:00

I am sure S. won't mind me putting this up from his archives. Going through his archives is always fun. It reminds me of going through my Grandfather's garage to find any little "chachke" to look at. Anyways, this is an little piece that I thought would be interesting to share. I am sure many of the new bloggers have never see it before either.

Friedman's "Hidden Book in the Bible"

2008-06-16T11:43:00.000-07:00

I was curious if anyone has read Richard Friedman's Hidden Book in the Bible. From the reviews I am reading on the Amazon site, it looks as if Friedman has done a good job at reconstructing the "book of J" from the beginning of creation to the coronation of King Solomon. Any thoughts on the book?

In some interesting or surprising side news, a rabbi in my shul has informed us that he is (or will be) starting to discuss higher biblical criticism in his high school classrooms. He mentioned bringing in Cassutto which he readily admitted to being outdated, but that it is at least a starting point. I wish him luck

Other Side of the Jordan and Ruth

2008-06-11T15:41:00.000-07:00

אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן

These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.

Bible critics inform us that the very first pasuk suggests that it was written by someone inside Israel much later on, due to the fact that it says בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן (beyond the Jordan, or, on the other side of the Jordan). I never fully thought that this was an issue because I felt that one can easily interpret בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן as a specific location (X), regardless of it being compared to another location. Basically, being on the east bank of the Jordan was referred to as בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן because their goal in my mind is to be in Israel. While reading the book of Joshua, I found this same phrase right in the beginning.

Joshua 1:14

נְשֵׁיכֶם טַפְּכֶם, וּמִקְנֵיכֶם, יֵשְׁבוּ, בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָכֶם מֹשֶׁה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן; וְאַתֶּם תַּעַבְרוּ חֲמֻשִׁים לִפְנֵי אֲחֵיכֶם

Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall abide in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan; but ye shall pass over before your brethren armed...

Joshua uses the same phrase when stating that the women, children and cattle will stay put at their present location (בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן). Clearly Joshua has not crossed the Jordan yet, where it would have matched the bible critics, instead, he uses it as a delineation of a specific location regardless of where he is currently standing.

Next Subject: Ruth

The last portion of Megillat Ruth is devoted to the geneology of Peretz to David:

Ruth 4:18

אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת פָּרֶץ, פֶּרֶץ הוֹלִיד אֶת-חֶצְרוֹן. יט וְחֶצְרוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת-רָם, וְרָם הוֹלִיד אֶת-עַמִּינָדָב. כ וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת-נַחְשׁוֹן, וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת-שַׂלְמָה. כא וְשַׂלְמוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת-בֹּעַז, וּבֹעַז הוֹלִיד אֶת-עוֹבֵד. כב וְעֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת-יִשָׁי, וְיִשַׁי הוֹלִיד אֶת-דָּוִד

Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; 19 and Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; 20 and Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; 21 and Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; 22 and Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, but I find this geneology to be a bit short. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a span of approximately 600-700 years pass between the birth of Perez and the birth of David. The list seems to be lacking for such a wide span of time.

If you look closely at the text you will see something interesting. In the english translation it says Nachshon begot Salmon and Salmon begot Boaz, but that is not what the hebrew says. The hebrew says Nashshon begot Salma and Salmon begot Boaz. I have a feeling most people think they are the same name (as well as those at Machon Mamre). But what if they aren't? Perhaps these are two separate people and the author was basically missing a whole slew of other names to fit in the geneology.

Thoughts?

Kudos to Gil

2008-06-05T22:18:00.000-07:00

Gil Student has decided to post a book review on Bondage of the Mind by R.D. Gold. But its not going to be any regular book review, he is going to be discussing this chapter by chapter. Now, I think only reason he would do this is because the book DOES in fact have some merit to its arguments. The truth is, I commend him for it. Even though its just some regular shmoe that wrote the book, its delivered in a very simple but thought provoking manner that DOES need to addressed. As Gils says:

Additionally, I am reviewing this book because I believe that it is the beginning (or middle) of a growing trend of anti-Orthodox arguments that we ignore at our own peril. After consultation with a rabbinic advisor, I have decided to publish this detailed review.

For many years we Orthodox have had the luxury of presenting any argument we want without challenge, and as long as someone was convinced (or we convinced ourselves) no one objected. We are finally being challenged and I think that it will only make us stronger.

I trust Gil is at least going to give it his best shot and hopefully be honest enough when Gold does have a point. After all, even Gil said Gold had some good arguments. At least this review won’t be anything like another “award winning blog.”I personally look forward to these next few posts of his and I recommend you don’t miss it either. So give him hell ;)

The Origins of the Magen David Revealed?

2008-06-04T15:34:00.000-07:00

There are a few theories out there as to the origins of the Magen David. Most of them can be find right here. I recently heard of a new theory proposed that the Magen is actually the flower cups on top of the menorahs that hold the oil. Looking down from above, you would see a Lily(?) shaped cup with 6 points. I think someone is even making a DVD about it.

Anyways, last night I received an email with a powerpoint presentation as to the origins of the Magen David. (Disregard the orange blocks. It's just a font issue). This was a new one and actually quite creative.

1) It starts off by giving you the name of Hashem

2) Then, it does something odd by converting the text into some lined version of the above text.

3) After that, the pieces are cut and placed together, though, as you notice, you the arrow tells you that you have to rotate it first in order for all the pieces to fit at its appropriate place.

4) And presto, you have a Magen David

The Powerpoint presentation claims this the secret behind the Magen David. I'm sure this is going to appear in the next kiruv seminars. Actually its quite funny, because if anyone has ever been to one, and in this case, an Israeli one, you will notice the dialogue in the Powerpoint presentation of "simu lev" (pay attention) is often used in seminars when they are in front of some projector screen showing you a recently discovered proof. I could just picture a particular rabbi saying it right now :)

If anyone is interested in the Powerpoint file, just drop me an email.

A Geek Is...

2008-06-01T01:45:00.000-07:00

Someone that goes around discussing the LOST season finale with everyone in shul, including the rabbi's wife, and then spends his Saturday night reading On The Main Line archives.

OK. Off to bed.

Jews??? History?? LOL

2008-05-29T10:19:00.001-07:00

You guys ever get chain emails? You know, the ones that tell of an incredibly inspirational story or ones that tell of some event that happened. Either way, the sender asks you to pass it on to as many people as possible so they will either be inspired, or, keep that event alive in their memory. In the end half the people will delete them, and the other half will pass them on. Ultimately, both sides have not noticed something remarkable that just transpired.

Today, I received a chain letter.

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead..

He did this because he said in words to this effect:'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing'.

This week, the University of Kentucky removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping t h e world and how easily each country is giving into it.It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide! Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

Don't just delete this.
It will only take a minute to pass this along

Ok, sounds important right? But is it true? So I checked. Turns out, the whole thing is false. Nu, so what is the big deal here you ask. The big deal is this: We live in a time of unprecedented ease of finding information and correct information at that. But yet, millions of people send out false information to millions of other people on the internet without EVER bothering to check if that information is true on that very same internet. It's just assumed that it is true because it is so fantastic and written well. If in our day and age, false historical information can be passed to so many believing people, then how much more so in ancient times?

Ultimately, this is the biggest problem I have with Judaism. As much as Judaism has a lot of inspiring stuff, its backbone is that of historical events. How on earth can I trust people back then to pass information accurately if even today people are having difficulties.

In 100 Years...

2008-05-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

I'm a pessimist. My wife can totally confirm that. So depending on your POV this post might not be a bad thing at all. Lately, I have been feeling like I am part of a loosing team. That team being Orthodox Judaism. I've been asking myself whether OJ will even be around in 100 years and if so, what will it look like. "Orthodox Judaism" changed in the past. It was called the Enlightenment and because of it, certain OJ's responded by hiding, and some responded by meeting it head on. In many instances, "head on" meant reconciliation. How do we reconcile our text with science or even philosophy? Judaism is always at a need to be reconciled with something else. But for how much longer can that be done?

There is this new invention out there called the "Internet," and with this new invention, information is able to cross all boundaries. Now before you say "duh," realize the power of the interent is fairly new in the grand scheme of passing on information. And yet, all of us have already see what the internet has done. We have ALL been shown information that we never even dreamed existed, and if it did exist, it would have been almost impossible to access it. But no more. Information is everywhere, and not only that, social networking is immediately accessible for us to ask others what they think of this new information. So its not just information, but its the ability to cross check this information with everyone all over the world.

If this is the case, if this is obviously the state of the world, and its only going to spread, how on earth can OJ survive? Everyone all around is able to read about the ancient near east and compare it to Judaism. Everyone will be able to participate in debates and have their most cherished beliefs pulled apart. And it doesn't even need to be something so large as TMS. How many people out there were shocked to learn about the real meaning of Chanukah? How many people were suprised when you found out what really happened to the students of R' Akiva? Now, sure, you can say those aren't core to Judaism, but the fact is, they ARE part of OJ and how it is passed down from generation to generation. And when one card starts wobbling, they soon discover some more evidence of more hardcore issues and the whole thing starts collapsing. I guess the real question is, is OJ only sustainable through ignorance? And since ignorance is ever at a loosing battle (at least with religion) in our age, what will happen to OJ in the future? I guess charedim will be around still since people will always be drawn to fundamentalism, but is charediism really an accomplishment we can be proud of? How will MO look like? Since its so open to the outside culture, there is no way to shield its adherents from the available information. So I am not saying Judaism will disapear in 100 years, only that it will most likely not be anything like it is today. What do you think?

OK, I vented a bit. Now I feel a bit better.

What's In A Name?

2008-05-18T23:56:00.000-07:00

I just bought an interesting little book called "Understanding Hieroglyphics" by Hilary Wilson. Yes, soon enough, I will be able to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Anyways, I wanted to share with you two little interesting tidbits in the first chapter titled "Whats In A Name?"

In ancient Egypt a person's name was not just identifying label, it was part of that person's very being, and as such was far more important than names are in our modern, Western society. Knowledge of the true names of things gave power over those things. According to Egyptian myth, the god Re-Atum had only to conceive a thing in his mind and speak its name for it to come into being. Thus, as he had given everything a name at its creation, he alone had powers over all things. This same idea is expressed in Genesis 2:19-20, in which God is described as giving Adam the power of naming all the animals of creation so that man might have dominion over beasts.

Like the author, I have no idea that one can connect the two stories, and perhaps even say the Israelites were influenced by this story. But really, I believe there is a very powerful contrast between the two. For both cultures, and probably more in the ancient near east, names are highly important and symbolic. But in one story, you have a God using his power to create anything he wants and the other, you have God bestowing that power on to man as a sort of partner. Also, if you keep reading the story of Re-Atum, you see its pretty standard in terms of dieties battling on another. While walking around earth disguised as an old drooling man, Re-Atum is ambushed by a snake created from his own spittle that the goddess Isis found on the floor.While suffering great pain from the venom, he calls upon all his venomous creations, but none of them can help him. He could not summon the one snake that bit him, because he did not create him and name him, and hence, did not have power over him. So Isis basically blackmails him and eventually he yields to her demands.

Here is another little tidbit:

Egyptian gods also had many names. Some religious text include lengthy sections devoted to the naming of gods in their various aspects so that the appropriate form of a particular deity might be invoked for a specific purpose. The sun-god for example, was known by many names, each seens as a different god. The supreme solar deity was Re (or Ra), the god of the sun at its height [noon]... The creator Atum was also associated with the sun, often being named as Re-Atum. He was the sun in its descent from the noon to sunset in the west and especially in the dangerous realms of the underworld through which it had to travel each night to reappear in the east at dawn the next day... The sun at its rising and setting was Harakhty, meaning 'Horus of the Two Horizons,' seen as a soaring or diving falcon. The sun-god who was seen to ascend through the morning sky was Khepri, the scarab beetle, pushing the sun before him as a the insect rolls its ball of dung.

Ok, not too little. A little confusing, but from what I understand, a God basically had more than one name, depending on its aspect or its job. Not only that, but they basically made that aspect a god onto its own. So does this give a defense (if one is needed) to the idea that Elohim and YHWH are certainly one God, but called two different names depending on the aspect, which obviously Chazal, and, probably earlier Israelites were always sensitive to? Well, I don't know. I wikied Re-Atum and it came up with something interesting. It says he is basically a composite diety of two seperate myths:

Atum-Ra (or Ra-Atum) was another composite deity formed from two completely separate deities. However, Ra shared more similarities with Atum than with Amun. Atum was more closely linked with the sun, and was also a creator god of the Ennead. Both Ra and Atum were regarded as the father of the gods and Pharaohs, and were widely worshiped. So, it was almost inevitable that the two cults were merged under the name of Atum-Ra.

Sound familiar? Your call.

On Whether Ezra was the Redactor

2008-05-16T10:57:00.001-07:00

Jewish Atheists takes another look at the question of Ezra being the Redactor. Yes, I know its nothing new, but it's still always an interesting topic.

Pharisees vs Saduccees of Today?

2008-05-12T21:02:00.000-07:00

I don't remember who, (maybe S.), said that with the splinter sect within Chabad thinking the Rebbe is mashiach , scholars can gain a better understand of how Christianity developed. Everyone here has heard these Chabadnicks being compared to Christians and probably with some good merit. With the ongoing controversies recently coming from the Charedi world, I was thinking, could scholars in the future looking back at our times, get a better understanding of the split between the Pharisees and Sadducee's and how it played itself out? It looks as if there is almost a calculated attempt on the part of the Charedim to delegitimize anyone on the left (from their perspective the left being MO and RZ and anyone else). Right now we are dealing with the conversion crisis. I believe last year, the Charedim wanted to have full authority in conversions even in the US. There is even call to have the Chief rav of the IDF booted for desecrating shabbat which I believe is just an attempt to delegitimize RZ and the authority behind it. Was this what the pharisees did to the Sadducees (and vice versa)?

How much information DO we have on the Pharisees and Sadducees? Not much. Stuff in the Talmud which can hardly be taken as impartial and Josephus. These two groups, like todays MO/RZ and Charedim, obviously had some sort of relationship albeit a strained one. They even sat together in the beit din, though with obvious friction. But still, all of that information exists scantly in our text and we could never reall get a feeling of what it was like then. Thats why I would find it interesting if someone does write something about the era in which we live and do some comparison analysis of how it might have looked back in the past.

Of course, I am not trying to paint a doomsday scenerio, but for one example, what if Israel WERE to fall? RZ would most likely see its end. Like the Sadducee connection to the Temple, the RZ connection to the Land itself. Charedi Judaism would win a great victory, if one can call it such. Charedi Judaism is solely connected to the Torah and rabbinic authority which is very practical in the sense that it is very portable to take anywhere and continue from where they left off last.

Surreal

2008-05-06T12:07:00.000-07:00

THE Question of Survival

2008-05-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

Is the answer to the uniqueness of our survival, and even the re-establishing of Israel, nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy? This is the answer I have come across from some bloggers. What do you think?

Conformity

2008-04-28T20:45:00.000-07:00

OneFrumSkeptic recently wrote a post, blasting what she sees as the ever growing drift of frummies to conform. In her case, she sees her frum friends all basically heading into the same career field. While this is true, this sort of conformity in choosing career fields is present in all sub-parts of our culture to varying degrees. My secular friends all went into fields of finances and those in the Persian community always lean toward either being a doctor or lawyer. Every community out there has its own values and priorities that generally might affect certain decisions in life (in this case, a career). Now even though OFS agrees that at some level, conformity is inevitable, I still feel she was overly cynical.

Anyways, while (re)reading "This Is My God," by Herman Wouk, I stumbled on this:

Human Life cannot be formless. The only true nonconformists are in the asylums; the only radically free spirits are in the death house awaiting the chair. We live by patterns. We move in comradeships. We cannot move hand or foot without high signs and passwords, no matter what our work or our station may be; and while life lasts, we all wear uniforms. Conformity is evil when it distorts, flattens, and erases fruitful ways strong ideas, natural identities; it is evil when it is a streamroller. But a man cannot escape being part of a milieu-and a recognizable part- unless he flees naked to a cave, never to return.

Coincidentally, both OneFrumskeptic and the person Herman Wouk was responding to are college girls.

Thinking About Death

2008-04-24T16:44:00.000-07:00

I think about death a bit too much. More than what would probably be considered healthy. I am very sentimental about life and everything that defines it—people, places, memories— and so when someone dies, its hard for me to take in that all those experiences and what define that person, are gone as well. Why am I writing this now? Well, my company is working with a local mortuary doing some TV spots for them. It basically consists of interviews with a family member talking about someone that they lost. Well, I have been given the task of scanning in lots and lots of pictures of the relatives that have passed away. I find myself starring at those photos. Thinking that this person is gone. This person was once a young child, far from thoughts of death. This person experienced different things in this world and accumulated many fond memories that they cherished in their hearts. But now they are gone. This, person, which I am scanning, was a world or even a universe of his own, but no more.

I tell you, discussions of biblical criticism and how to raise my children pale in consideration to the emptiness I feel not knowing what happens afterwards. And add to that feeling that it can come at any given second. We walk through Deaths shadow all day long and it’s at his discretion that we keep walking. But sooner or later, his finger points at you, and you are gone. And yes, the usual response is to lead a meaningful life and to make the best with the time we’ve got, but still, how depressing.

Sam Harris vs Rabbi David Wolpe Debate

2008-04-16T11:38:00.000-07:00

Take a look

Hat-Tip: LittleFoxling

The Venetian Haggadah and Modern Sensitivities

2008-04-10T20:43:00.000-07:00

Many years ago I got a reprinted, softcover edition of the famous Venetian (or Venice) Haggadah from Arachim (yes, the kiruv organization). There were two editions. The first was printed in 1609 and then it was reprinted in 1629. None of the images were changed, only some commentary was added. I have a feeling my version is the 1629 one because I do see some addition commentary inside. It has amazing wood cut drawings of not only the biblical episodes but also of things you find in the Midrash. I don't want to get too deep in the history of this haggadah right now. Anyone interested is more than welcome to do some further readings.

With this post, I would like to basically show you modern day censorship that I happen to have found in the Venetian Haggadah. Some of it may be correct and following halacha and perhaps some are just a bit silly in my opinion. To tell you the truth, with something as old as this haggadah, I had a strong feeling from the get go that I would find some things, and indeed I did. All the information I got on the original haggadah can be found right here.

The originals will be on the left and my edition is on the right. You may need to click on the image to see it larger.

This image has the Egyptians dying on one side while the Jews are dancing on the other. But if you look carefully, the reprinted edition has erased the two statues found on top of the column (inside the red circle.

In this image, you will notice that in the original, the moon in the background had a face to it while the reprinted does not.

You will notice that this image of people bowing down to idols and Terach and Abraham leaving in the background totally changed. The idols of celestials beings are removed and so are the people bowing down. Instead a man with a boy are put in which I am not sure where they got from.

There is an angel with a sword on the top left of the original, but it was taken out of reprint.

This image is of Avraham during the Brit bein HaBetarim (Covenant of the Parts). You will notice that not only was the sun removed, but the image of Avraham was changed as well. I'm not sure why. Maybe the way he was standing was a bit too Jesusesque for their taste.

Now, of course there had to be some tzniut issues. Well, if you notice the top left picture from the original has the woman showing some cleavage. In the bottom left image, you can clearly see the women's sleeves are rolled up. Well, in the reprinted edition, and it's a bit hard seeing it on the monitor, you can see the exposed skin was painted over, making you think everything is all covered.

Here's an interesting one. The scene is supposed to depict the Jews spreading and multipling. You can clearly see naked children in the original. In the reprinted they were all taken out except for the center part of the image which has everyone covered. Not only that, the entire background was changed. So where did they get that new background from? This one right here...

You can tell it's the same background. Look at the tree. They simply erased the other objects and colored over it.

Now, nothing was changed here, but I decided to add this because it has it's own fascinating story to it. You can read more about it right here.

The illustration in Plate 2 shows black idolaters. The caption below reads, in Italian Jewish vernacular, "Let the foolish nations perish, who serve devils and believe in witchcraft [raising the dead]." That language even gave the magical act of raising the dead, with its clear links to idolatry [Miamonides, Hilkot Avodah Zara 77: 11,13] a name that linked it to black sources, negromanzia. Blacks became identified with such activity within the Christian culture of the time. The source was popular etymology that associated teh similar phonetic sounds of the Greek nekros, a deady body, and 'negros.' Clearly this was no mere language error, but an associative link with the accepted cultural image of the black, with which the artist/printer of the Venetian Haggadah, so clearly identified.

Lastly are some images that were all together removed from my reprinted haggadah entirely.

Here is a scene of Akeidat Yitzhak. I am assuming the problem was with the angel on the top right. BTW, did you just notice something, cause I just did after putting up this image. Here is the man and the boy that were inserted to the photo above after the idol worshipers were erased. Now we understand why they simply didn't erase the angel. It's because they needed to use part of this image for something else and did not want people noticing them photoshoping an image and putting it someplace as well.

I guess it's not tzanuah showing a couple in separate beds. This is the description of this image from the website where I got the originals from: The lower image [the one I used] illustrates the rabbinic passage that the Israelites refrained from conjugal relations so as not to bring children into the world only to have them be drowned by Pharaoh’s men. The background picture shows infants being drowned in the Nile as their parents cry out to God.

This is my favorite one. Here is the description from the website: The image on this page illustrates the text which says that God will send evil angels to punish the Egyptians. The evil angels are depicted as demons whose breath emits one of the 10 plagues. For example, one of the demons crouches by the shore of the Nile while breathing on it and causing the water to turn to blood. Another emits lice from his mouth and a third locust.

So, are all of these changes being a bit too churadick, or are some changs halachically mandated. I just got out of a class tonight that mentions halacha forbids making images of anything in the heavens. So maybe its justified to make some changes. But I have to say, the painting the women's arms is rather silly, yet not something unheard of in the charedi community.

I emailed Arachim to see if they have any explanation for these changes. I haven't gotten a response yet, but I have a feeling I won't even get one and if I do, they won't even know what I am talking about. Could be, this wasn't even their call and this reprinted edition was changed by somone else and only later Arachim decided to use it. If they do respond, I will let you know what they say.

Israel Prayer....Too Offensive

2008-04-10T11:37:00.000-07:00

JTA has a story about an egalitarian shul that are having some problems with this prayer for Israel. Apparently, they think it is too militeralistic, "Conflation of religion and politics, its tone of Jewish triumphalism and exclusivity."

Here are some quotes:

Expecting everyone to stand and recite, in unison, something so political clearly sends a message: If you don't identify with the vision of Israel that is expressed in this prayer, then you are wrong,"

What vision bothers this poor soul?

Alpert says the prayer should account for the consequences of Israel's creation for the land's other inhabitants.

I feel such triumphalism in the face of the conflict in Israel and Palestine is irresponsible."

I think this person needs a hug.

Aviva Bock, a member of the Newton Centre Minyan who teaches psychotherapy at Harvard University, says there is something problematic about simply reciting this formula.

"The prayer should be a reflection of our hopes and prayers in the context of today rather than something that feels to me like it was written at a very different moment in time," she said.

Well, what could you expect from a psychotherapist? Sorry

Kalmanofsky himself recommended an alteration of the passage that speaks of Israeli soldiers achieving "victory," substituting instead a verse from Isaiah asking that they return in peace

At Manhattan's Jewish Center, a modern Orthodox shul, the congregation for many years had substituted an alternate version of the Israel prayer due to discomfort over the messianic element in the line characterizing Israel as "the first flowering of the redemption."

I really don't understand people sometimes. First of all, it says this shul (not the OJ one) follows a traditional siddur liturgy. Have they opened up the siddur lately. It's full of stuff about Israels exclusivity. Its full of places where we hope God will deliver us from its enemies. And messianic yearnings??? Ya, I think it mentions it there too. I wonder if this shul has a problem with the Torah's telling the Israelites to destroy the original inhabitants of Canaan. Perhaps we should add prayers for the souls of the Hittites. What about Tanakh?

I don't know. The way people conceive the world boggles my mind. Wanting those that want you destroyed, to be destroyed, is now politically incorrect. Victory is assur. It's offensive to the sensitivies of those that are defeated I guess. And why does it bother them calling Israel the first budding of the redemption? I mean, isn't that what these people are davening for? A redemption? In Judaism IIRC, redemption and a return to the land go hand and hand. So why do they get so offended by it all?

I would love to get a list of all the "offensive" things in the siddur and email this shul and see if they have a problem with it too. Or is just Israel? Anyone up for the challenge?

And then you have types like Gil, that have no problem tinkering with the prayer or ommitting it. Why? Two reasons. One, because it is recent. Well, weren't all prayers recent at some point or another? And the second, which I feel is for more sad is the fact that he says its political. The fact that Gil can say THIS prayer is political bothers me. How can it be political Gil? You are praying for its safety. You are praying for it being victorious. You are praying for its leaders to make right choices. And yes, you are praying that it is the beginning of a redemption. A redemption that you OBVIOUSLY believe is coming. If anything Gil, Israel should be a cause for all us to say thank you to God without you having to catogorize it into some sort of ideology first. I am SURE we can scroll through the siddur and even Talmud and find many "political" references.

Ben Avuyah 2008?

2008-04-09T02:00:00.000-07:00

There is a story in the news about a man who was killed in an auto accident a day after he gave $5.6 million dollars in charity for Purim. Onionsoupmix discusses this here and even brings up the similarities between this story and that of Ben Avuyah's OTD journy after seeing the death of a person who sent a mother bird away to retrieve her eggs. The reward for this, the torah says is that your days will be lengthened (Deut. 22:7). The Gemera says that the reward actual is for the next world, though it also mentions that for Charity it can also be to prolong your days

Beyond granting monetary success and protecting one's possessions, giving Tzedakah even protects one's life.

In Mishlei (10:2; 11:4) we read, "Tzedakah saves from death." The Gemara (Bava Batra 10a) explains that Tzedakah saves a person from two kinds of death: from "death" (i.e., non-participation) in the world to come, and from dying an unnatural death. In Shabbat 156b the Gemara extends the power of Tzedakah to preventing (that is, postponing) death altogether. (See the Gemara in Shabbat ibid., which records a number of true stories that illustrate this fact.)

It is for this reason that the Gemara (Rosh Hahsanah 16b) tells us that before Rosh Hashanah a person should give charity. Charity, the Gemara tells us, is one of the three things that have the power to change an evil heavenly decree concerning a person's fate. Even if it has been decreed that a person is to pass away during the coming year, giving charity may change that decree and extend his life.

Perhaps this is what the Gemara means in Sanhedrin 35a when it says, "If a fast day is declared and Tzedakah is not given on that very day, it is as if innocent blood had been shed." Why should the withholding of charity be compared to bloodshed (see Rashi ad loc.)? According to what we have said, we may suggest the following explanation. A fast day called for by the prevailing rabbinic authorities is usually declared in the face of a current or imminent disaster. If a catastrophic heavenly decree is indeed in store for the fasters, then by not giving Tzedakah to prolong their own lives that are at stake, it is as if they have shed blood -- their own blood.

In Bava Batra 10a we learn that Rav Elazar used to set aside a small amount of money for charity before his prayers. The explanation for this practice is perhaps also based on this same theme. A person asks his Creator for health and long years to use for the service of Hashem, when he prays. In order for these prayers to be fully effective, a person must complement them with the life-giving effects of Tzedaka.

Measure for measure is the reward for giving charity.

The passuk they are talking about is is Proverbs 10:2

לֹא-יוֹעִילוּ, אוֹצְרוֹת רֶשַׁע; וּצְדָקָה, תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת

There is also this section from a book called Gates of Light, Sha'are Orah that seems to also imply one gets his life prolonged for giving tzedakah or a righteous act.

So it seems there is a lot of sources for it being a reward here. So, what's up with chazal saying it's a reward for the next world? Is Onionsoupmix correct in saying this is an example of cognative dissonance? Did Chazal simply try to cover all their bases? I mean when it comes to the mitzvah of driving away the mother bird, it explicitly says your days will be prolonged. And aren't all mitzvot rewarding in the next world which makes this then redundant and unnecassary if one understands it the way chazal did? Is there actually more to this than meets the eye? (hint hint to upcoming post)

Personally, when such horrible tragedy occurs, I am a big fan of simply saying "I don't know." I would rather that, than explanations that seem forced. And to tell you the truth, I am not so much bothered by chazal, than I am by people today simply parroting chazal's manner of thinking without carefully thinking about it themselves.

Useful Resources

2008-04-08T12:37:00.000-07:00

I must have been asleep, but I just read a comment on GH's site about these two wonderful websites that have thousands of collections of online books.

www.gutenberg.org

www.sacred-texts.com

They have the Prolegomena to the History of Israel by Julius Wellhausen. It's very long, but I'm really interested in at least attempting this "classic." I pdf'd it and it came out to be 414 pages.

I will add them both to the side bar.

The Real Tax Collector

2008-04-07T13:57:00.000-07:00

Who ever said Rosh Hashanah is the day God judges you and basically sets out what the rest of your year will be like was wrong. It's not Rosh Hashanah, its tax season. This is the time of year where God sees what kind of Jew you really are. Nobody is watching you. This is the time when you can get away with a lot and never get caught. But in the end, will you be honest?

Ancient Cherubim

2008-04-06T23:49:00.000-07:00

The reason this post is titled “Ancient Cherubim” is because the topic of the cherubim spans centuries, well into the medieval ages, but I prefer to home in on the cherubim of the biblical age; what were they, and how the Jews viewed them. There is no way I can do this topic justice. I am by no means a scholar on ancient mythologies and archeology, but it fascinates me so I will share with you some of my own insights.

Lets first discuss the etymology of the word cherub. Wikipedia mentions it’s a cognate of the Assyrian/Akkadian karabu or kuribu meaning great and mighty or blessed. Raphael Patai’s book The Hebrew Goddess takes the Akkadian karibu theory but says it means an intermediary between man and the Gods (ie. The one that brings the prayers of man to the Gods). For the heck of it, I decided to see what Shadal thinks of the word. In his commentary to Genesis, he says the word cherub is metathesized from the rakhuv [“that which is ridden’]. His source for this is in 2 Samuel 22:11. “He mounted a cherub and flew, He appeared on the wings of the wind.

I believe the only way to understand, or at least, to attempt to understand how the Israelites viewed the Cherubim is not only looking at our own scripture, but looking at outside sources and seeing how they overlap. For anyone that has only read our commentaries on this subject matter and not looked at the outside sources, a great deal is being missed. Much to my surprise, this is a much layered subject with many ANE sources helping explain other sources. It is quite interlocked in some aspects and in others, not so. I shall attempt to talk about the cherubs of the kapporet, the cherubs of Solomon’s Temple as well as Ezekiels vision.

Reading the Torah only, you are left with more questions as the identity and purpose of the cherubim than you are with answers. All you are told is one Cherub is left to guard Eden, and another pair is to be fashioned on top of the ark as the place where God communicates with Moses. It is these pair of cherubs that I would like to begin with. The Torah gives no description of what these cherubs are to look like. It is almost as if they knew or had their own vision of what cherubs looked like and God simply let artistic vision flow. No problem here, right? Well, I will let you know, that the Ark of the Covenant was the first thing that led me to skepticism. Doing my own little research, I saw pictures of ancient Egyptian artificacts and drawings that showed basically the same concept. I had thought our idea was somehow unique. But I saw an ark, being carried by slaves with a Pharaoh (God) seating on a throne with cherub like creatures with wings spread out on the sides of his throne. Here is an example of King Tut’s throne, with a winged Horus God on the side:

And here is an artifact showing King Hiram of Byblos seated atop of a throne, with a cherub on the side.

Cherubs and thrones for a God seem to go hand in hand in the ancient near east (ANE). It is not unique to the Israelites. You see this in Egypt all the way to the Phoenicians. One could argue that God, for his throne, was merely utilizing a method of expression that was incredibly common in those days. But this still does not tell us anything about what the Cherubim were and what significance they were to ancient people including the Israelites. Let us now move forward to the cherubs of Solomon.

After constructing his temple, he has two large cherubs placed over the Ark, and, has the entire wall in the inside engraved with cherubim and palm trees and blossoming flowers. Like I said above, anyone that has not looked at other sources other than our own would be baffled for this strange need to engrave cherubs and palm trees into the inner walls. What was the purpose? Weren’t Egyptians the ones that had engraved hieroglyphics inside their temples? How was Solomon constructing a temple with such obvious ‘outside’ influences? I have to admit, it does bother me somewhat. But I think it bothers me, because a) I live in the 21^st century, and b) I received a pretty pathetic summary of Jewish history. In order for us to perhaps understand Solomon, we need to try to picture ourselves in those days. We will find, to all of our surprise that Solomon was merely utilizing what every other culture back then was doing. To a lesser degree it is probably not so much different than Jewish synagogues looking like mosques and churches. Architecture and the art that goes inside is always influenced by the time and place in which one lives. Solomon’s Temple was no different. As you can see in these examples, there were other nations that used cherubs with palm trees in their design. IMO, one can argue the merits of documentary hypothesis, but to argue that the Jewish expression of worship of their God is NOT influenced by outside influences is by now pointless. Also, lets not forget the Melachim mentions craftsmen of Chiram were also responsible for sculpting the stones.

As you can see, a cherub or a cherub like creature next to a palm tree or, a sacred tree is quite common. Something interesting to notice in the last picture is that even though there is no palm tree, the cherub’s in Ahab’s “Ivory House” looks almost Egyptian. Odd, is it not? (update: I forgot to add the image of Ahab's "Ivory House" from The Hebrew Goddess previously)

Let us now move to one of the most famous portrayals of the cherubs. Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot with the four cherubs is probably one of the main focuses of mysticism. In it, he describes the cherub as a four winged, four faced human formed creature with eyes all over and a wheel attached to it. Where did this vision come from? What does it mean? Is there anything comparable to it in the ANE? I believe the only thing that comes close to Ezekiel’s cherubs are the Babylonian Genii pictured above (with the trees) and this one here:

Nothing else seems to come close to what Ezekiel describes. But what exactly was he describing? I think when looking at ANE one seems to come to the conclusion that one need not go to Jewish mysticism for an answer. Ezekiel was describing a chariot. More importantly he was describing a chariot inside a cloud. The cloud is God’s manifestation on earth and the cherubs and wheels and chariot are, “kivyachol" the clouds inner workings. Where else do we see this cloud? Well, we see this directly related to the mishkan and the Ark of The Covenant. God would manifest himself by a cloud descending into the mishkan and communicate through the Ark of the Covenant (his throne). We can perhaps now understand the pasuk in 2 Samuel 22:11

“He mounted a cherub and flew, He appeared on the wings of the wind.”

This is describing God’s means of locomotion and I am guessing, the the Israelites then mean't a cloud; since that is how it was believed God presented himself to his nation. David is more or less giving us a less detailed version of Ezekiels vision, and, it matches to how other ANE nations described some of their own God’s traveling by means of cherubs or other winged creatures. Here you have an image of a God traveling on the back of a cherub, or as composite animal.

As a quick side note, a rabbi I know had a theory that OUR cherubs might actually be ox. He gets this from another pasuk in Ezekiel’s description of the four faces of the cherubim. The text instead of saying Ox, it said had the face of a cherub. Hence a cherub is an ox. Ezekiel 10: 14

Each one had the four faces; the one face, the face of the cherub, the second face, the face of a man, the third face, the face of a lion, and the fourth, the face of an eagle.

After giving this some thought, I don’t think it works. It may be that the word ‘cherub’ can be used instead of an ox, since many cherubim had bodies of oxes like this image.

It’s not that a cherub IS an ox, but simply that they both share some characteristics and the words can be swiped and the available audience in that time were able to understand. Also, our cherub’s can’t actually mean an ox because the very same text is telling you that the actual cherub with four wings had a human form to it.

So in the end, do we make out of all of our findings. It looks like different cultures expressed the cherubim a bit differently, but maintained certain characteristics. It was the direct carrier of God and the closest to Him. It was the way He manifested himself in this world and communicated with man. I have to admit, I am still not sure what the palm tree in Solomon’s temple means, but I am sure with a bit more reading as to what it mean’t to other cultures, we can find out. The idea of cherubim was as international to them as a regular angel is to mankind in our times. Every culture utilized the cherubim for their specific belief. It could be that Hashem, to the Jews, does not go around and change all cultural aspects to a society. He simply uses it for his benefit. It is obviously very hard for us to relate to something like this which, for me, highlights even more Shadal’s insistence that we take ourselves out of our present time and into the days when our texts were written. There is obviously much more to discuss, and I am no scholar, but hopefully, this will give all of us a bit of push to do some further reading. It is something that can only help us better our understanding of the Israelite interest in cherubim that are found throughout our scriptures.

Worth Repeating

2008-04-01T22:23:00.000-07:00

This comment was made by Fievel Chuchem regarding the previous post. Good stuff.

It ticks me off that the Palestinians can't do anything to bring us to peace unless it's in some kind of laboratory conditions. Under those conditions the Israelis always "can do more" or "should have done more".

But, have you ever noticed that for these people conditions are never quite right for the Palestinians to do more?

They have to be coaxed. They have to be rewarded. They have to be keep the "Palestinian street" in mind. Their misdeeds against Israel have to be called "pretexts" for what comes in response from Israelis. Blah Blah Blah.

Here's the truth - we all have our problems. We can all do more. But, whether you've been here 3 years or 30, if you're not here, you've got no skin in the deal. Sorry to be blunt, but your ass isn't on the line. Your self, your immediate family and friends, your property, your job are safe from this conflict.

When we decide, for example, that we can't remove a roadblock to make life easier for Palis, it's because we value our lives more than we feel guilty about the inconvenience to the Palis, and this in no small measure because the Palis do nothing to discourage and a lot to encourage harming us. We're not perfect, but we're not blind, either.

Consider that most of critics of Israel never fought in a war nor do they know anyone on a day-to-day basis who has - I mean combat, not support, and they know no one personally who has commanded an army or platoon. Most of us in Israel know such people and hear from the inside what their day is like. We know that they have to decide which bomb to select to keep peripheral damage to a minimum. We know they order a flight from a lower altitude even though this increases the chance of being shot down, but it increases accuracy and thus decreases collateral damage. But when it's my son who's the pilot, frankly I care less about the lives of civilians who voted for Hamas than him. But because of all of you who bleed for the Palis, I have to put him in danger when I send him to the army. You think I appreciate your advice? No, I don't.

Especially because in our immense diversity as Jews very many of us support the Palestinians in this conflict, I know we'll never have leaders who will attack Gaza now and put the terrorists out of commission, knowing this will cost the lives of 200 soldiers, but save 1000 soldiers in the conflict that will occur 5 years from now if we don't do it now. Those are the kinds of choices we are forced to face, and all the second guessing just weakens us and leads to more Israeli casualties. Yeah - I agree there's more we can do. Same for the Palis. But until it's done, we have every damn right in the world to question those who put we Israelis in some sort of unique position to solve this conflict. It is, frankly, our reasonable opinion, reasonable because it's based on trial and error, that the kinds of concessions we can make to the Palis will more likely end in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish/Democratic state than it will in two states living side by side in peace. I don't think there are many Israelis who wouldn't take the second option if they could, though I think with 84% of Palis supporting the merkaz harav murders (by an Israeli Arab, no less) this feeling is not reciprocated. Umm - don't you think this is reasonable to keep in mind?

I'm sorry our conflict here causes everyone so much unease, causing them to shift in their seats or stand in the corner at the dinner parties. It's awfully inconvenient, and so damn clear what we should do from 4500 miles away. But my best advice would be to leave it to Israelis to solve the problem and butt out if you can't offer moral support instead of moral castigation.

Islamic Threat and the Jew

2008-03-31T20:27:00.000-07:00

This post will mostly be a rant, so I am sure I could go into more detail, but after a certain thread I read, I can’t contain myself. I hope all of you watch this video while it is still available. It is the video that a Dutch lawmaker created about Islam that is sending waves all around the world for its “offensive” content. Not surprisingly, (and when you think about those two words, they are really sad), threats are rising for makers of this film as well as the website that initially carried it. Liveleak.com had to remove the film because the staff was being threatened.

What a world this has turned out to be. What a sad little world. Where once people recognized the dangers of where unchallenged hate and fascism could lead, they have now decided to cower before the growing dangers of Islam. Global leaders are denouncing this video as offensive and unwarranted.

"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," he said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

-U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

It’s insane how much pandering goes on about the Islamic world. Where freedom of speech in these countries is under direct attack, The lessons of WWII have obviously not been learned. That when tyranny is at your doorstep, you do not invite it in or cuddle it, you have to immediately destroy it before it is allowed to grow and gather more strength. And that’s basically what’s happening right now. The Islamic population is growing in Europe, and with it, a base of operations for a “distorted” Islam to grow and transmit its hateful speech. Why isn’t the world waking up before it is too late? The truth is, I think world leaders are realizing it, but are too afraid to do anything. There is a realization of what kind of “humans” these fanatic Muslims are and what they are capable of doing, and simply prefer to steer clear of their wrath. But they don’t realize that the longer they appease these Muslims, the larger the threat will ultimately grow.

It saddens me to find this insanity in the Jewish world as well. Actually, it more than saddens me. I’m totally mind-f#$ked by it. In the Jewish world, the discussion of Islamic terror is more focused on the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. We have bloggers like Candyman who insist that Israel is not doing enough for peace

“There's more to making peace than "conceding" a couple of yishuvs. It takes reaching out, building bridges culturally. Saying, "We need each other." Giving the other side respect.”

A couple of yishuvs??? Gaza was a couple of yishuvs? But when I bring up Gaza, he simply says:

“Dude, they didn't leave Gaza out of a feeling of obligation to the Palestinians. They left Gaza to reduce attacks and casualties, the vast majority of which were taking place there.”

Amazing isn’t it? Excuses. Always some excuse. Let’s make this clear: WE LEFT, WE LEFT, WE LEFT, WE LEFT and all we heard in response was NO PEACE. It did not matter if we didn’t go with smiles on our faces or a sense of “obligation” to our brothers, the Palestinians. Reality is tough. Sometimes, two groups of people will NOT get along. Love is not always the solution, though I wish it were. But it’s not. All that talk about building bridges is useless when you are talking to a nation that just does not want to build a bridge. Nazis did not want to build bridges. Sometimes there are evil nations and if it was recognized before, why is it so farfetched that it is happening again? When will people like Candyman and JewishAtheist and even OnionSoupMix (from Candyman's thread) realize this is not about individuals. Yes, of course there are awesome individuals. There are always going to be spectacular individuals, but for now we have to take care of those that do not share in the efforts of the individuals. And in order to deal with that, you have to deal with Muslims as a nation, just like we did with Germany. And, I do not mean to imply that we should drop thousands of pounds of explosives on them. I refer to the knowledge of a growing threat and that threat is a united entity. It can’t be denied that there were good Germans, but in time of crisis and war, you have to deal with the group as a whole. The good individuals were a secondary consideration to the more immediate threat of the group as a whole. That, sadly, is the nature of the world. Unfortunately, it is even sadder that people have forgotten that already. God have mercy on us all if people like today’s fanatic liberals existed in the mid 20^th century to maintain that we have to understand the grievances of the Germans (which they believied they had).

This new breed of fanatic liberals scare me to no living end. Seriously. This last comment thread with Candyman really showed me, how even coming from a Jew, Israel is still the devil, always in the wrong and no matter how much it has extended its hand, it’s all meaningless. I feel like someone is just about to pull the trigger and kill me while a liberal is standing behind him trying to reassure me that the killer is not really a danger. Interestingly enough, you see a lot of this attitude in OTD Jews. It’s quite fascinating and I plan to write a post on it.

And then we have people like Dovbear, that wish to remind us that the real threat is the right-wing Christians (Update: speaking of which) He can give you post after post about stuff Pat Roberston will say about Jews needing to accept Jesus to be saved, but seldom write a post about the threat coming from the Arabs. Because according to him, the Arabs of today are not the same as the Arabs of the 1920’s, but yet he has no problems generalizing Republicans and their Jewish supporters. But of course you can’t say anything because you will immediately be branded a racist. I didn’t even see him mention that 84% of Palestinians approved of the killings at Merkaz Harav. I wonder why?

I can only echo what Prof. Marc Shapiro said this past Shabbat. That he realizes what the Evangelical Christians believe, but that in this world of ours, finding friends, especially for the Jews, is extremely hard if not impossible, and we have to take them as they come.

Clarification- I don't want people thinking Candyman actually said "Israel is the devil." It's only an exaggeration to make a point.

* A hardy thank you goes to Shoshana for helping me with this post.

Happy Birthday

2008-03-27T21:49:00.000-07:00

To my radient, gorgeous, hott, smart, partner in crime, preparer of mighty meals and mother of two perfect creations.....Happy Birthday

Thank you for putting up with me :) (along with the rest of the blogosphere)

1 10113 4011 3012311312

PS- If anyone wants to contribute to a gift, please email me for instructions. Cash only please.

Genesis Shmenesis Part 2

2008-03-27T11:10:00.000-07:00

I decided to write this post because the last one started to get too long with the same comments being repeated over and over again. So with this post, I hope to break down the actual arguments and perhaps make it easier for other people to understand the topic and perhaps even get their opinion on the matter. If anything, I should thank RG for at least forcing me to think more about this topic, even though I do not agree with him. So thank you.

Here is the verses from Lev. 11: 20-23 Parashat Shemini.

20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

My question was simply, what does verse 20 mean? There is no such thing as a four legged insect.

RG's tries to answer it like this:

The Torah only allowed the insects specifically set forth in verse 22 (locusts, grasshopper and cricket). The Torah calls these insects (albeit with an extra two jumping legs) as a four legged insects. Jewish Tradition technically does not allow for ALL four legged jumping insects, only the ones named in our mesorah, hence, many Jews don't eat locusts and grasshoppers etcs, since they do not know the exact identification for them. RG contends that the answer to verse 20 is that ALL the REST of the locusts and grasshoppers and crickets that are NOT specifically part of the mesorah is what the actual prohibition is talking about (ie. Yeminites will only eat locusts found in a swarm).

My problem is this:

1) This does not seem pshat. The Torah in verse 20 seems to be talking about OTHER insects OTHER than the exception it layed out.

2) The Torah gives you specific simanim. What is the point of the Torah giving us simanim if the only insect we will be allowed to eat are the specific ones named in verse 22? If the only thing we can eat would be those specific insects, then the torah should just have given us a list like it did with the bird section and not bothered with simanim. I am contending that technically any insect with four legs and two jumping legs are kosher and that the torah is simply giving you an example list of what is allowed. (RG disagrees)

Mevaseretzion sent me this:

well here is rambam on which ones are kosher

כא מיני חגבים שהתירה תורה, שמונה; ואלו הן: (א) חגב; (ב) ומין חגב, והיא הדובנית; (ג) חרגול; (ד) ומין חרגול, והיא עצרוניא; (ה) ארבה; (ו) ומין ארבה, והיא ציפורת כרמים; (ז) סולעם; (ח) ומין סולעם, והיא יוחנה ירושלמית.
כב מי שהוא בקי בהן ובשמותיהן, אוכל; והצייד נאמן עליהן, כעוף. ומי שאינו בקי, בודק בסימנין; ושלושה סימנין יש להן: כל שיש לו ארבע רגליים, וארבע כנפיים שחופות רוב אורך גופו ורוב היקף גופו, ויש לו שני כרעיים לנתר בהן--הרי זה מין טהור. ואף על פי שראשו ארוך ויש לו זנב--אם היה שמו חגב,
טהור

he takes the simanim as good enough, with the torah's list just giving you the names, so you dont have to worry about simanm for those ones so it would seem that all 4/2 [four legged w/two jumping legs] that have wings that cover most of their body are kosher! and the list is to show you that they have to have wings covering most of their body the ones that are 4/2 that arent kosher DONT have large enough wings

This seems to suggest that the Rambam (from the gemara) merely made a list to help you identify the ones allowed to make it easier for us and chazal identified that these insects wings must be large enough to cover their bodies (does there exist a locust, grasshopper or cricket that doesn't have large wings?). Hence, from these lists, Jews decided that it is better to simply work from a list which chazal gave.

The question is, and this is how it ties in to RG's point, is verse 20 referring to locusts, grasshopper and crickets that did not make the list? I do not see that as pshat at all. Also, from the Yeminite example, it seems that Jews had a subjective hand in decided what fits the definition of a locust and what does not. The Yeminites decided that locusts that are not in a swarm are not kosher. So does that mean that single locusts found among themselves fit verse 20? Verse 20 is clearly talking about OTHER four legged insects, and NOT simply four legged w/two jumping legged insects that are not on the list in verse 22 or that do not have large wings.

3) From what I remember, Ramban comments that verse 20 is referring to a bee. He says it uses its two inside legs merely to balance, but not to walk. If the pshat is like what RG is saying, wouldn't the Ramban know about it? Also, I am told (you can check for yourself as I will) that other achronim asked the same qeustion that I am regarding verse 20. Again, if the insects that that verse was referring to were simply OTHER four legged jumpers that are not on the list (like RG) why did they not know that?

I hope I managed to clear things up :)

Genesis Shmenesis

2008-03-25T20:43:00.000-07:00

Remember all the hours spent on discussing Bereshit, and how it does not match up with science? Feh. Thats nothing. You could somehow wiggle out of that by claiming its all a mashal. No. The real problematic parasha is non other than this weeks parasha (Checking calendar). Parashat Shemini.

So why is this parasha more problematic? Well, I think because this one deals with a clear example of halacha that could be checked to see if its true or not. This parasha is famous for introducing us the greatest of all animals.....the shafan. I don't think I need to get into it. The Torah says the shafan chews its cud when it clearly doesn't Lev. 11:5) . An interesting point is the commentary Artscroll includes:

Thus they appear to chew their cud, but what they do is in no way similar to cows and sheep. Perhaps the term "bringing up its cud" simply refers to any animal that brings food back to its mouth from its stomach whether or not it is like a cow.

Perhaps?? LOL, what happened to the oral law. Isn't the oral law supposed to tell you what something like that means? And this is not some complicate legal issue that depending on circumstances, might change the outcome. We are dealing with a one time definition that sticks throughout the generations.

Now, there is also another issue that I don't think I have ever seen dealt with:

Lev. 11:20 Every flying teeming creature that walks on four legs - it is an abomination to you. Only this may you eat from among all flying teeming creatures that walk on four legs: One that has jumping legs above its legs, with which to spring upon the earth.

The problem obviously is that insects, which what is being talked about here only have six legs. Artscroll jumps in and says:

R' D.Z. Hoffman raises the difficultly that all insects have six legs not four. He explains that they have four legs that are used for simple walking, while the other two are used for jumping [grasshoppers].

But that does not really help much sense since the next pasuk clearly mentions that. Meaning the first pasuk is obviously talking about insects OTHER than the ones that use two to jump. I remember this bothered me a lot, so I decided to do a little research, and I finally came up with this friendly guy. Besides basically walking on four legs (it uses the other two legs as claws to kill prey) and flying, it is also predatory and the females are known to eat the males. This seems to fit the pattern in the Torah of forbidding eating animals that are predatory. So you would think the problem is solved, right? Well, I brought my findings to non other than Rabbi Slifkin and he told me I am wrong and that it does not fit the sheretz that the Torah speaks about. :( I forgot what he told me, so please feel free to email him and ask. Too bad though. I really would have liked my name printed in some commentary.

Potential Scholar-In-Residence

2008-03-24T13:25:00.000-07:00

My shul will soon start making a list of potential scholar-in-residence speakers. The rabbi there told me that if I want, I can help out with some ideas of my own as to who to bring. Personally, I am interested in the the more academic speakers. They are usually much more fascinating then your typical "feel-good-emunah" speaker that comes every once in a while. Anyhoo, I would love to know if any of you have any interesting ideas as for who we can invite.

If you can, please provide some info as to who this person is (i.e. books written, positions held, location etc.) . It could also be a woman. Actually, the women speakers that the shul has brought tend to be more interesting :)

Megillat Esther: Fact or Fiction?

2008-03-20T12:30:00.000-07:00

A good read

It's getting tougher for me to keep these holidays. Definitely not the proper motivation.

Culture and Halacha

2008-03-18T21:16:00.000-07:00

Hakirah vol. 4 had a wonderful little essay called "Is handshaking a Torah violation?" by R' Yehuda Henkin. I'm not going to get into the details of it all, but he sums it by saying that anyone that wants to be stringent in the manner, basically has something to rely upon, as long as they do not say it is halacha. He also, very clearly, makes a point to say that hand shaking does not fall under the category of k'mo metashmish.

A couple of weeks ago, I was reading a different essay in that Hakirah during davening, when a friend of mine asked to see it. He started reading R' Henkins essay and he made an interesting observation that I would like to share with you. Both of us are Ashkenazi and both of us married Persian women. In Persian culture, as many in the middle-east, when people greet one another, they kiss each other on both sides of the cheek. To them, it is no different than a handshake. It is simply a greeting.

R' Yehuda Henkin makes it a point that handshaking is permissible because there is no sexual desire to it. He brings attention to a Rambam where he forbides kissing and hugging because it is considered a "pre- and proto-sexual behaivor" (which he says is an infraction of a negative commandment based on Vayikra 18:6). but continued by saying:

This proviso precludes social handshakes from being subsumed under the lo ta'aseh, since a handshake is not a preliminary to relations. This is so even if the handshake includes an element of affection or pleasure [emphasis mine]; affection alone without the feature of desire is not a Torah violation. The Shach already wrote this when he stipulated "the way of desire and affection of intercourse" (derech taavah v'chibat biah) rather than simply "affection."

The problem with all this is that, like I said, in the Persian culture, greeting one with a kiss, is no different than the westernized handshake. It is a sign of respect and showing of affection, especially to your elders, whether they are male or female. It seems to me that when halchot are paskened, cultural differences are sometimes neglected in order for this all to be one cohesive unit of all of us doing the same thing. But why should one cultural norm decide for another?

Another final and important point he made was this: If it ever came to a point where this question was actually brought up for halachic consideration, sitting down in front of books and halachic sources would most likely be difficult or even hopeless. One has to LIVE and breathe this culture to understand it, in order to properly pasken such things. Could a Rav from Europe understand the cultural nuances of Persians by reading halachic books and trying to pasken? Probably as much a Persian rabbi trying to understand French Jews by opening up one of his Tshuvot.

Shadal: Genesis 1:1

2008-03-16T19:52:00.000-07:00

Shadal's (Shmuel David Luzzato) commentary on Genesis 1:1*

The wise understand that the intent of the Torah is not to teach of the natural sciences, but that the Torah was given only to direct humankind on the path of righteousness and justice, and to establish belief in the Unity and Providence of God in their hearts, for not to the scholars alone was the Torah given, but to the entire people. Just as concepts of Providence and reward and punishment are not explained (and properly not explained) in the Torah in a philosophical manner, but are treated in human terms ("And the lord was angry with them," "And His heart grieved," and many other such expressions), so the story of the Creation is not told (and properly not told) in the Torah in a philosophical manner - for as the Rabbis said, to impress upon flesh and blood the power of the Creation is impossible

Therefore it is not proper for the torah scholar to force the Scriptures from their literal meaning to make them conform with the natural sciences, nor is it proper for the critic to deny the Divine origin of the Torah if he finds things its stories that do not conform with scientific research. Both scholar and critic ought instead to examine the inner nature of the human mind, and the different learning approaches nature takes when it speaks to each mind: to a child in its way, to a youth in another way, to an aged man in another, to the strong in a special way, to the weak in a special way, to the rich in one way, to the poor in another

I love this comment. Why? Because it looks like its out of nowhere. At least to me. I have yet to find commentary, pre-20th century, to say what Shadal said. I don't think you will find it anywhere. I believe this is mainly due to, not only who Shadal was (which I am still learning about), but also due to the general culture of Italian Jewry (IJ). From the introduction to the commentary, Dan Klein writes that IJ was open to secular culture as well as secular methodologies. With this in mind, you can understand that with new tools at their disposal and an open attitude in general, a different way of looking at the text was bound to occur. With further study into the ancient near east, one has an almost automatic shift in how they perceive the stories and characters. You start understanding that it was an all together different society and in order for one to better understand what is happening in the text, you have to pull yourself out of your own time and place and try to put yourself in the time of when the stories were written (this is one of his principles as well). Interestingly enough, he does not say for us to try to enter the society and minds of each character at their specific time (though I doubt he would not attempt this as well), but instead, to understand WHEN it was WRITTEN. Afterall, things were not written at the exact time Abraham did this, or David did that, but instead, he seems to want us to understand the stories as the author wrote it and how the recipients understood what that author meant to convey.

That's one thing I find interesting. The next thing I find interesting is the following question: Was he, or who was he referring to in his comment? I would understand this comment appearing in contemporary works as some sort of anti-Aish Discovery article, but who did they have in the mid-19th century trying to kvetch the sciences in the Torah? Hopefully, somebody has an answer to this, but I will take a shot.

In the introduction to the commentary, I learned that Shadal had an "anti-rationalistic outlook - one that was equally characteristic of the Italian Jewry tradition - in that he refused to elevate philosophy and the functions of the mind above righteous behaivor and the values of the heart." He did not approve of "Rambams penchant for philosophy." Could this commentary be in a way polemic against a growing fear that, as the Rambam and other mefarshim were attempted at times to reconcile Torah with the "sciences" of their day, that this was happening in his own day with enlightenment spreading around him?

Just a guess.

* All quotes are from: The Book of Genesis, A Commentary by Shadal, translated by Daniel A. Klein

Science Classes and Genesis

2008-03-13T20:28:00.000-07:00

My hashkafa regarding Genesis is pretty simple. It's to be read as is. It's not allegorical nor does a day mean a million years. You understand it as the first readers understood it. There was evolution and no global flood. My dilemma (maybe not dilemma, but something I feel strongly about) is what is the best way for a school to tackle this thorny issue. I have spoken to two differnet science teachers in two different schools and each handle it in different ways.

1) One way is to not even get into the topic of evolution at dating of the earth at all. Basically to stay away from the controversy. The school has no problem with dinosaurs and does not care what you believe happened during the six days. The science teacher just skips the whole thing and instead, as he told me, tries to instill tools in the kids a sense of how to think rationally and understand evidence.

2) The other science teacher teaches what radiocative dating is and touches just a bit on evolution. He discusses the how scientists reach conclusions and shows them evidence of how radiocarbon dating works. The kids then go to their Torah teacher and he gives them a different answer. The science teacher agreed conflicts do arise and the kids often come back to him with more questions regarding what the rav said. Allegorizing Genesis is not off the table from what I understood from the science teacher.

So I don't know. Knowing what my hashkafot are, what is the preferred method?

Rabbi Don Segal's Comment

2008-03-12T16:02:00.000-07:00

Well, as my wife predicted, this was bound to happen. There now seems to be growing controversy about R' Segal's comment, regarding the killings at Merkaz Harav. R' Segal feels this is divine punishment for Israel breaking the three oaths that it took:

1) Returning to Israel by force

2) Rebeling against the nations

3) Delaying the moshiach by sin

Basically, it looks like he is blaming the zionist ideology, and since this yeshiva was a religious zionist institution, well...

Harry Maryles seems to be handling the issue on his own. Pointing out that the Satmar rebbe refrained from giving any theological reason behind the killing and simply stating that this was a horrible day for the entire klal yisrael, whereas while people are still sitting shiva, R' Segal decided this was the time for him to give a very "inspirational" speech. To tell you the truth, I do not even want to deal with this. Instead, I have a couple of questions

1) This may be a stupid question, but for those that identify with rabbis that "live and breathe" Torah, why is it that they are sometimes so tactless?

2) Since when do so many people have access to the cheshbonot of God? Why is it people feel they know why so and so happened? Since when did they become prophets? And let me be clear, this is not a charedi problem only. You find it in religious zionism as well. We all heard about the reasons Rabin was killed, and why Sharon is in a coma. I will admit that it is quite intriguing. You begin to think and start piecing patterns together and all of a sudden you come up with a reason why X,Y or Z happened. And who knows, maybe they are right. But perhaps, they are also wrong. There are no prophets living in our time and since a chacham adeef m'navi, shouldn't they really by chacham and just keep their thoughts to themselves?

hat tip to Mevaseretzion

Learning From History

2008-03-11T16:57:00.001-07:00

The old cliche of "If you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it" should mean something to the Orthodox Jews. I say 'should,' but I know it doesn't, at least not to a very large segment of Orthodox Jews. The haskala, to the charedim is an extremely profane word. Images of Jews being taken away by a demonic entity called enlightenment, into assimilation and heresy, fill their heads. Hence, they pass this idea to the next generation both in oral and written form. From a certain perspective, they are right. Traditional Jews did suffer much from it. But from another perspective, they have totally lost the bigger picture of what happened.

It is often repeated in lecture halls that the reason Jews left Judaism was because of the Reformers and Maskilim. One that reads even a bit about this period will see this is not entirely the whole story. Jews left, because Judaism, instead of adjusting and learning, it withdrew into itself. I think its fair to say that both Western and Eastern Europe did this to varying degrees. Eastern Europe though eventually decided to totally close themselves up from the outside world. Jews in Western Europe were able to adjust, again, in varying degrees. Italian Jewry for example, was much more able to deal with the haskala because their society was always much more open to the outside. The Eastern rabbinate chose to simply censored the entire world out. Anything new was assur and rigidity, especially in the yeshiva system was the direction they things went. That is why the attrition rate was higher amongst the young in eastern Europe than in Western Europe*

In reality, we don't really have to go very far back to understand what happened in the late 19th century. If the charedim today would simply learn history they would see what they are doing today is no different than what was done then. All you really have to do is replace 19th century haskala with the internet. Replace it with clothing. Replace it with music. Replace it Zionism, etc, etc. and badabing, we are right back in Europe. The charedi’s INABILITY TO RESPOND, WITHOUT A REACTION TO THE EXTREME OPPOSITE DIRECTION has only been hastening the inevitable of disillusioned people leaving Judaism. Basically throwing away the baby with the bath water and in the process, turning Judaism into a joke. Creativity is shunned and any new idea not proscribed in the Talmud or mefarshim, is deemed unworthy of being considered remotely true. Jews, like the rest of humanity cannot be strangled, with the noose getting tighter and tighter with every new chumra, issur and ban and not explode. I think it already has exploded. For example, I don’t think rabbinic authority, as an enterprise if you will, has had such little respect by so many Jews around the world. Instead of a rabbinate that deals with fraud, molestation, poverty etc, turn to issues of minutia and end up totally missing the forest for the trees.

What is this, if not for the haskala playing itself out all over again? Everything that should have been learned from it, is being totally ignored, that too much control is just as dangerous as the anarchy they fear so much. So now, instead of learning from this part of our history, a particular sub-sect of Judaism is recreating what was a failure then.

Cross-Currents had a post on Marvin Schicks response to the Lipa Concert ban. One commenter said this:

· I’ll probably be a lone voice on this internet blog, but here goes:

My rebbe, Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT”L, explained that our Father Abraham was called “Ivri”–because he was on one side and the entire world was on the other. That’s how he earned the right to be the father of the “Chosen People.”

Our nation lives and dies on its ability to be “a separate people.”–”Am LeVaDad YishKon.”

We live in a very dangerous time. It’s roughly analogous to the period of the Renaissance in Europe, when the Ghetto walls were torn down, and the Jews were finally permitted to integrate with gentile society. The result in France and Germany was rampant assimilation.

In Russia, where the exclusion of Jews remained intact, Judaism flourished. In Hungary, where the Orthodox Hareidim separated themselves officially from the Reform and “Staus-Quo” community, Judaism flourished.

The Jewish community in America is at serious risk of assimilation to the gentile culture. Rav Aaron Kotler used to talk of Jews in America as “30-40-50% Goyim.”–What percentage of our thinking is gentile?

Music has the power to move the soul. It is profoundly influential. Shlomo Carlebach started the modern Jewish Music movement, and it has now evolved to the point where it is morphing into a sanitized version of gentile rock-and-roll and “Rap” music.

The gentile world has finally awakened to the corrosive effect of this jungle music on the moral development of their youth. We, evidently, have not. We’re 10-20 years behind.

Our Gedolei Torah are the people who are closest to our Torah ideals and Torah sensibilities. With all due respect to Dr. Schick and to Rabbi Alderstein, they are not as immersed in Torah to the same extent as our Torah leaders, who live and breathe Torah 24/7.

If we can’t follow our Torah leaders, and give them our full support and cooperation–no matter how difficult–then we are surely lost.

Comment by HILLEL — March 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am

This comment is a perfect example of a belief that the only way to respond to anything, in this case a fear of assimilation, is by taking the extreme opposite path. Hence, he agrees with the banning, since our Torah leaders, in their infinite wisdom, -- like the wisdom of the late 19th century rabbanim, -- see assuring and tightening the noose as more fitting.

I will close with something a very well known charedi rabbi told me a few weeks ago when he was here in Los Angeles. I was walking him to his car, and I don’t remember how, but we got into the topic of Jews going to the extremes. He told me, and I am paraphrasing:

“I was talking to a friend at YU and I told him the next generation of Jews will belong to him.”

He simply then told me that charedi Judiasm of today cannot last.

* Marc Shapiro "Between The Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy. The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg," pg 27.

Merkaz Harav Memorial

2008-03-10T16:39:00.000-07:00

I wanted to share with you some of what was said at the memorial, Young Israel of Century City along with the Simon Wiesenthal Center put together this past sunday for all the victims at the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Councilman Jack Weiss were invited, amongst others, and I was very pleased to see them there. Even the media came and I was even shown on the evening news. It was all very moving, especially at the very end when everyone was singing Ani Ma'amim and Hatikva. It was also a bit difficult realizing these are really the only times I feel Jews are a unified people, without first looking at what kippa the other is wearing.

LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

Councilman Jack Weiss

Rabbi Marvin Hier

Ani Ma'aamin and Hatikva

Welcome

2008-03-09T22:32:00.000-07:00

So, ya, I decided to open my own blog. God knows why it took so long. I think I always wanted to, but just never had that push to do it. I think for a variety of reasons which I will get into. First a brief introduction of who I am.

Many of you know me already, infact, after a few years, some people know me on a personal level. For those of you who don't know me, I am, THE Holy Hyrax. I gave myself this name during the the banning of R' Slifkin's books (i.e. The Camel, Hare and the Hyrax). In hind site, I guess I could have chosen a tougher animal, like a hippo or a mongoose. Anyways, I am a BT. I had always been interested in Judaism particularly its history. I always wanted to keep shabbat and be more traditional. At around the age of 20, I went to some kiruv seminars and I fell hook, line and sinker. To make a long story short, I started developing doubts about the Torah and our entire history in general. I got married and the doubts grew. I eventually stoppd being religious for about two years and only came back to it after reading Godol Hador's blog. Quite the irony. I came back to a semi observant lifestyle (certainly not what it was before), but the doubts were still there and the more blogs I read, the worse it got. I grew angry but I never gave up that perhaps I would find some sort of answer to inspire in me some hope that perhaps there is something to all this.

Fast forward to 2008. Here I am, with my own blog. so then why did it take me so long to open my own blog? Well, I don't consider myself the "leader" type. I am usually at my most comfort level when someone else does the talking or deciding, and I follow in. Thats just my personality. I'm also a horrible writer, which also kept me from opening my own blog. Most people I know when to college, did a great deal of reading and have built up quite a vocabulary and ways to express certain ideas down. I never had that really. I went to school for graphic designing. So you will have to forgive me for when I perhaps repeat certain adjectives or other words. I see bloggers writing huge posts and I was quite often intimidated if I could ever get close to that sort of substance.

So for these, I decided to open a blog. I want to become a better writer. I want to be able to take chances and experience things I would normally not feel comfortable doing. Even if its something as trivial as a blog. I mean, I don't want to be on my death bad and regretting not opening up a blog. :P Just yesterday, the western regional director of AIPAC was at my shul talking about things we can do to help. Motze Shabbat, I emailed him that I want to do something.

The other reason and maybe the most important reason I opened up this blog, is because I believe I finally found that thing that inspires me, that perhaps there is something to this Judaism. Maybe its not all from God, but I don't think its all BS anymore. (I guess I didn't get GH'ed in the end). I will be talking about this, as well as the inherit difficulties I am having now with this new hashkafa. This blog will hopefully inspire me also to do my own reading and researching about things that interest me in Judaism (i.e. anything to do with history). I have been talking to S. lately about Shadal. Very interesting stuff. I really want to commit to learning more and sharing with you. If I make mistakes, gam ze tov. In fact, the more I make mistakes and you correct me, the more I will learn. Just be kind, I bruise easily. Believe it or not, I was talking to someone at shul and he said I should go back to school and get a masters or doctorate in Judaic Studies. I think, God willing, I may just do that. Why not? You only go around one time right?

Oh, there will most likely be some venting about what I feel is the greatest danger to Judaism today. I think most of you know my feelings on what that could be :)

I think you get the drift. This is going to be a place for me to express things on my mind,(Hmmm..like any other blog I guess) and maybe even post up some of the design stuff I am working on. :)

Anyways, welcome everyone. Feel free to email me at holyhyrax at gmail dot com.

PS- I don't believe in spell checker, so get used to it.