הָאָדָם בְּעוֹלָמוֹ

בדרך להבנת סדר הדורות של חכמי המשנה והתלמוד

2012-02-02T14:37:00.000-08:00

[tentative post]

השושולת הכי חשובה בתולדות התנאים הינה של צאצי הלל הבבלי, שתפסו מקום מאד חשוב בסנהדרין, לא מעט בגלל היותם צאצאים לדוד המלך. הא לך סדר הדורת השלם לבית הלל:

בתקופת הבית
הלל
רבן גמליאל הזקן

דור החורבן
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל

דור מצדה
רבן גמליאל דיבנה

דור בר כוכבא
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל השני

דור חתחמת המשנה
רבי יהודה הנשיא

דור המעבר
רבן גמליאל ברבי

דור הראשון - עד שנת 250
רבי יהודה נשיאה

רבן גמליאל הרביעי
(Gamiel IV)
270-290

רבי יהודה נשיאה השני
(Judah III)

דור חתימת תלמוד ארץ ישראל - עד שנת 380
הלל נשיאה
(Hillel II)

320-385

(Gamliel V)

(Judah IV)

(Rabban Gamliel VI)

Re: Neo-Karaism 2

2011-01-27T09:58:00.000-08:00

...and there's also a lot of common ground between Zoroastrianism and Judaism. The same way the Karaites celebrated the Rationalism of Islam and saw its similarities with Judaism, so did the Jews born in Babylonia see in Zoroastrian practices, and German Jews see in Calvinism and Kant and Locke etc...

Re: Neo-Karaism

2011-01-27T09:54:00.000-08:00

...the Rationalists also dismiss the superstitious aspects of the Talmud, but that's just a small minority of what the Talmud is about. You can't tell me all of Bava Kama was a direct influence of the Avestas...

Terse Aphorism Time!

2011-01-27T09:35:00.000-08:00

There's so much I'd like to write about, but...I find it soooo difficult to write a whole blog post. Takes a lot out of me for some reason (or at least I think it does until I actually do it! Like now for example). So, I was thinking of maybe writing in aphorisms instead, like Nassim Taleb. Or at least just shorter and more terse form of essay... Maybe that'll encourage me to write more often..

Why I Read Other People's Blogs

2010-12-20T15:14:00.000-08:00

From a young age I've loved history, and loved even more the prospect of becoming part of the historical process, especially in terms of the history of our people, and the rabbinic literary tradition. I've always tried to collect scholarly works of people I either knew or was acquainted with. My English teacher in high school actually wrote a small commentary on the Parsha in Hebrew, so I acquired that. My high school was also next door to the home of the Romanian "Tenker" Rebbe, so I read his works as well. When I went on to yeshiva in Israel, the rabbis I studied by wrote more serious works: one rabbi wrote a popular commentary to "Nach", another on Sugyot. Though the most influential authors Ive met was during my time in the yeshiva of Moshe Pinto in Petach Tikvah (himself a student of Avraham Ḥafuta). He wrote a very important commentary on Gemara, and he even introduced me to Yitzchak Yosef during his visit to the yeshiva. He is the author of the extremely popular "Yalkut Yosef" series on halacha, which I've been studying since my childhood (not to mention brief meetings I've had with other Sefaradi Gedolei Hador, Ovadia Yosef, Yitzchak Kaduri, Meir Mazuz and Shalom Messas). Since then, every time I see any of their sefarim on a bookshelf, I feel like I'm an active part of the Torah tradition, and that, in a way, I know the authors of all the other sefarim on the shelves. Which is similar to the feeling you get when you write truly innovative Divrei Torah on a Sugya; you real feel like you're part of a chain that did not begin with you, and will not end with you.

The same is true for more secular literature as well, of course. Sometimes you read a book, a novel, and it seems so magical. It's almost hard to believe it's some "made up story" that some guy dreamed up on a Tuesday afternoon. But the more you meet actual authors, of novels, non-fiction and even popular text books on things like science and economics, you begin to feel that this is a continuing, living tradition. None of this is over your or anyone else's heads. The people who wrote these works are actually very human and very fallible. They've just studied a lot more than you. Or are more innovative than you. So, on a smaller level, reading the writings of your peers, whether on blogs or on Facebook or what have you, is a continuation of that phenomenon. People your age and who you know can be authors as well. Perhaps one day it won't be their blog you're reading, but their book, or their best-selling novel, or their science text book or their sefer. And perhaps under their influence, you will do the same.

Though reading blogs also lets you in to some peoples deepest thoughts and lives. Some things they wouldn't even say in person. Sometimes we just don't understand people; "what's going on in their heads?". Well, this is a way to find out. And determine that your innermost thoughts are not all that different from your comrade or your neighbor. We all struggle with the very same things, so why not come to conclusions together...

Mr. Lonely

2010-12-16T02:48:00.000-08:00

"The best way to get over a woman is to turn her into literature"
~Henry Miller (Quoted in the film 500 Days of Summer)

[This post in inspired by the utter candor of the Ayelet blog]

I don't know about you, but every time I see a film or a television show with a romantic element it makes me cringe inside (if things are going well for the guy in the movie). It's not even "jealousy", because they're not real. It just reminds me of all my frustrations in the realm of inter-sex relations. Heck, even reading some blogs creates the same feelings in me. I've seen a seemingly endless amount of them get engaged and married (some of the girls among them who have ignored advances from me in the past, and have now married people they know from blogging) I'm happy I've never tried to woo a girl in real life from the level of acquaintance to going on a date. 'Cause if that's how it's been online, it'd probably be ten times as bad in real life...

One thing that's been disturbing me a bit recently is the recent interactions I've had with this girl I went on a date with in Boston. Ashkenazi-American. Really intellectual. From an affluent family. Tall and attractive. I don't even know why she agreed to go out with me. Though on the other hand she did push me off for a long time before she agreed. Anyway, there was a time when she seemed to have wanted me to play the part of a platonic Facebook friend.. During that interval, she told me that there was a guy she met as an undergrad, and who she's known for four years, and who she still harbors feelings for, but who at times didn't seem too enthusiastic about the prospect. I found it to be kind of heartwarming that 1) she was willing to tell me such a thing and 2) that she herself has had frustrations with dating, so she knows how it is. But then, when she (inevitably) turned me down, and I asked her why, she said she'd prefer not to say, since she knows that if she says what she doesn't like about someone, they may try to change those aspects of themselves in order to find favor in her eyes, even though she's already made up her mind. Then, when I asked a few more general things, she told me to stop writing to her and that it wasn't healthy. Besides the fact that my second message didn't have anything emotionally charged, I can't take how, if she wanted to say something to me, or to that guy she's trying to get with, it would certainly be ok. But if she (or any girl for that matter) doesn't want to hear anymore, it's the end of the conversation. It's not just true on Facebook though, it's the kind of power-struggle that brings discord even to sworn lovers. I think that THAT's what's unhealthy!

In general I've done poorly in dating. Which, again, would translate as: the girls I've been out with weren't all that interested in me. Which is why I cherish platonic female relationships. There are (admittedly very few) girls who have allowed me a platonic relationship with them. To me, that's better than a girl being willing to go on a date with me. Because they go on the date, give it a chance, and if they're not interested, they'll just move on. In other words they're not at all bothered by the fact that they'll never be hearing from me again for the rest of their lives. ...that's kind of cold. Even if I met a kind Coptic Cabbie I'd feel bad if I knew for a fact that I was never going to hear from him again. Ever. At least in a platonic relationship, you know that the person is genuinely interested in you. And not just anyone, but a person you respect and like and are attracted to. To me that is quite a heartwarming phenomenon in a sea, nay, an ocean, of near animosity...

צפרא, ט לטבת
תשע"א

הדל באלפי ישראל
שלמה בן רפאל

אַדְמַת קֹדֶשׁ טְבָרְיָה

2010-11-23T15:05:00.000-08:00

I was just thinking about Tiberius (again!) recently (as a result of me absetmindedly singing "אוחיל יום" to myself, which is a piyut praising the holiness of that city).

I posted not long ago on Facebook how it's funny that not only did a huge amount of Jews live in places like Tiberius and Sepphoris (Teveria and Tzipori), and not only did a lot of Rabbis live there, but the Mishna and the Palestinian Talmud were both written there. Why is it funny? Because these cities were built by the Romans and were centers of commerce and commercialism. Jesus himself speaks of how he always found those distant Roman cities to be daunting in their corruption. My message on Facebook was that Jews really are, as the Nazis said, incorrigible Capitalists and mercantile and bourgeois etc.

But then again, we call Teveria "holy land" and a "holy city", even while the Romans were still there. It seems to give credence to something I once heard from Avigdor Miller: he was kind of anti-Zionist and didn't even believe in Aliyah. He said that, in a sense, every Jewish community was "holy land". Even my native Borough Park or Flatbush. I didn't like that view of things when I heard it, but how is different than Teveria? OK, Teveria is in the Holy Land, as has the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael like any other part of Eretz Yisrael, but so are places like Tel Aviv. OK, Tel Aviv has Yeshivot and Batei Kneset, but who among us would venture to say that Teveria is a holy city? But we see, again, that because of the presence of people like Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, these cities were in fact seen as holy places...

Du Bist Ein Gott, Und Nie Hörte Ich Göttlicheres

2010-11-19T07:40:00.000-08:00

I've been exposed recently, here and there, to something I know of through Nietzsche (GS 341) and popular culture, known as the phenomenon of Eternal Return, in which ones reality repeats itself an infinite number of times.

My first recent exposure to the concept has been when I watched (the entire television series of) Battlestar Galactica; a line that is constantly repeated by both Cylons and Humans is, quite similar to the line from Peter Pan, "All of this has happened before, and all of this shall happen again". And, more recently, I saw the 1993 Harold Ramis film, Groundhog Day, in which Mr. William Murray is forced to relive Feburay 2nd in an eternal loop (I had seen the film as a child, but recalled very little from it). Aside from being a feel-good Hollywood romantic comedy, it also brings up some core Nietzschean existential issues: for Bill Murray can only escape the loop when he has completed his mission of living the perfect day--of course, there are moralistic problems with the premise, for example that he improves himself only in order to impress the woman he desires--but otherwise it's thoroughly moralistic.

The only question is, what place does Eternal Return have in religion, and for that matter, Judaism? It is clear that it's origins are in what is known as the "Eastern Religions". Pre-Monotheistic peoples from the ancient Egyptians to the Hindus to the Greeks and even their philosophers believed in certain forms of Eternal Return and of course, reincarnation. And we also know that essentially, Judaism frowns upon reincarnation, or "גלגול" (as an aside, I came to the conclusion a couple of years ago that "גלגול\גלגל", cycle, wheel, is obviously a construct of the word "גל", wave, twice. In other words, a wave that would turn into itself would be a natural cylinder). According to the Torah we only live once, and it's our job to perfect ourselves in order to live out a possible eternal existence in perfection. Not that we'll just return again to this world, to live life over again. Luria and others have devised a form of reincarnation that fits in with the Talmudic conceptualization of Reward and Punishment, but it's not "essential Judaism".

I myself though, ever since I was fourteen years old, envisioned a helpful meditation based on a Groundhog Day-like treatment of Eternal Return (I wonder if that's where I got it from?) that is helpful in a Devotional way. It's also based partly on Luzzatto, who says (in MY) that one should only do something, or indulge in some halakhic leniency, if one is certain that he is doing it because it's permissible, not because his Evil Incantation is prompting him. My idea was that if you wish to do something that you know isn't right, but want to at least indulge in a little, you should think "How intrinsically correct and right is this act? Is this something I'd be ok with doing for a couple of years? Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand? Ad infinitum? If not, then that proves that it's not something you should be doing even for a short time.

May God have mercy on us and return us quickly to His Torah, Amen.

עבד, ס"ט

Law Abiding Citizen and the Justice System in Western States

2010-09-14T01:51:00.000-07:00

["States" as in "Nations", obviously.]

[Written quickly, before falling asleep...]

Well, strangely enough, I actually just saw the 2009 thriller "Law Abiding Citizen", a thoughtful screenplay written by Mr. Kurt Wimmer. This is an example of one of those fine worksof art that question the core values of our society, but which you rarely hear anyone speaking about.

Assuming you too have seen it: I'm not entirely sure what Wimmer is trying to prove; Butler is depicted as the villain, but he wasn't a villain to me. He wanted to change the corrupt system at it's core. A Sodom and Gomorrah type of operation. Sure G-d said he wouldn't destroy the city if there were ten righteous people within the city, but it also says that once punishment comes to the world it kills the righteous along with the wicked.

And anyway, Fox himself becomes his enemy by taking the law into his own hands. That's my favorite part. Although I feel he ends the film as he started; a pompous prosecutor who's totally dependant on the corrupt system.

I, at the very least, challenge anyone who doesn't believe in the death penalty; not to mix Left and Right into the subject, but judge everything on its own, does it make sense to let murderers free? What does that say about society? I personally believe that if it can be proven that someone murdered without any provocation, if he was tortured/maimed for life it would actually prevent future crimes of the same nature, since, if evidence of the previous judgement is evident, who in their right mind would risk it happening to them? And if they did it anyway, surely they deserve the same fate. I mean honestly, does it make sense to give the same punishment for a kosher meat plant owner who hired illegal immigrants and for someone who killed a family in cold blood for no reason other than a malicious spirit?

Another of my favorite scenes from the movie is Fox being sworn in as Phili's new DA; while he swears on the bible to uphold "the law", the camera closes in on the bible, as if to suggest "Does this bible support this law?" Does it really support a criminal justice system as it has developed from Enlightenment notions? I think it's quite clear that it wouldn't. As the Torah and Talmud most certainly do support punishments that really do "fit the crime"....

Checking Out Girls and Free Will: the Daf and the Parsha

2010-09-05T00:34:00.000-07:00

I have an acquaintance who I (supposedly) know from the Mir (I don't quite remember him), who, like me, is one of those "lost souls of Borough Park", and, like me, does thinks like go to Arbit at one o'clock at night for no particular reason. Anyway, he spotted me picking up some lemons at the 24 hour fruit store and inquired about the state of my religiosity (he sees me as being a bit "modern"). As it happens he then met a mentally unstable friend of his (another lost soul) and we spoke with him for a while. After he parted from us though, my friend suggested that if I'm not doing much Torah-learning on a daily basis, perhaps it would be best for me to look into at least reading the Torah portion correspondent to the day of the week and/or the Daf Yomi.

On Friday night I had felt back that I didn't give much thought to taking up his offer, so I, surprisingly enough, learned the Parsha and the Daf Yomi. Both actually turned out to be very interesting, and even connected in a way. I will proceed to discuss how they are connected and what gleanings I derived from them:

The Connection: The twentieth page of Avodah Zarah discusses the issur of "לא תחנם". While Nitzavim/Vayelech don't mention it specifically, it does state in verse five of the thirty first chapter "וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָהֶם כְּכָל הַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶתְכֶם", i.e. those stated in seventh chapter, "לא תחנם" being one of them.

As it happens I did write a critique of a post by "e" regarding "לא תחנם" almost exactly a year ago (כה יתן ה' וכה יוסיף)...

The Daf: Even without the talk of "לא תחנם", I'd definitely put this daf on a list of "most interesting dapim in the Gemara". It talks about giving away land in Eretz Yisrael, it talks about looking at girls and how the Tanaim dealt with it, and it contains the quote which is the foundation of my main spiritual guide, the Messilat Yesharim. Yes, certainly not a daf you want to miss. For me by the far the most absurd part about it is something I had thought of when I was young, if only whimsically: saying the brachah of "שככה לו בעולמו" (which is recited upon seeing beautiful creations) on on attractive girls! (You'll have to read the sugya to find out what happens with that!).

The Parsha: There are two major theological questions that I noticed in this parsha, and they both occur when G-d calls Moshe and Yeshoshua' to the tent to tell them what will happen in the End of Days. First of all, the fact that G-d knows they'll sin brings to question the principle of "הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה". Secondly, it's well known that the Halocaust is alluded to here (via the Torah Codes).

G-d knows that we'll sin: I actually heard a shiur on this by רב אורי שרקי recently, as to how this relates to tshuvah (there's another connection to current events!). After Maimonides, many other sages, such as the Gersonides, Hasdai Crescas and Isaac Abarvanel all dealt with this issue, as well as many philosophers such as Malebranche and Kant. In the end, they only complicate the theological paradox by suggesting solutions. The truth is though, I really never understood the difficulty; even though G-d knows every scene in the film as if it was unrolled, if you walk into the movie in the middle, all you see is one tiny part of the film. And you, therefore, still don't know what's going to happen...

Holocaust: Some Eli Wiesel type "Post-Shoah" scholars feel that, as a result of what was displayed during the Holocaust, that once G-d imbued Man with the power of Free Will, even He cannot control what they do. I always thought it's silly to change your theological views in the long run due only to the Holocaust. If Khmelnytsky had gas chambers he definitely would have used them. Every generation kills its Jews based on the technology they have available. That's simple. Just because the Germans had better technology to kill Jews doesn't mean it was more "theologically significant". Rashi clearly states about The Flood that, "אנדרלמוסיה באה לעולם, והורגת טובים ורעים". Capitulating to the ideas of those "ריקנים" is a symptom (no offence) of the theological weakness and ignorance of young people the likes of Chana (The Curious Jew), who are more swayed by the words of contemporaries than by the words of our Sages...

The truth About Moreinu's cursing the Palestinian People!

2010-08-31T13:38:00.000-07:00

I hate how they make it seem like everything Chacham Ovadia says is some political statement. He's talking to a group of, usually poor and not very well educated, residents of the most destitute neighborhood in Jerusalem, Schunat HaBucharim, who are in for a weekly two hour speech in cold dry halacha (I was often in attendance). He was giving a bracha before the speech for the new year (as he would be able to give the speeches before Rosh HaShana). He quoted the prayer recited on the eve of Rosh HaShana that says "May our enemies be cut off", as, as our "enemies", obviously included the leaders and constituents of the Palestinian terror groups that have been plaguing and murdering our people for decades. And it's of course that two second sound byte that the secular media chooses to quote, and not any of the two hour drasha of innovative approaches to halacha, or the beautiful mussar and ethics that he discussed that evening. Even though you'd be hard pressed to hear something that's not Torah from the mouth of חכם עובדיה, still, his Torah you'll never hear from them (while all they do in the Mosques on Friday is curse Israel and talk about military aspirations)...

Also, he wished the prayer upon "Yishmael". This is another topic: the Israeli media always tries to single things out as if they're very recent historical phenomenon. As if there were never Haredim before 1948, as if there were never Zionists before 1948. According to them, there were barely even Jews before 1948. Everything in the world started in the here and now. Obviously that's absurd. The relationship between Jews and Arabs for example; way older than 1948. Unlike European Jews, we have always been praying for the destruction of "Yishmael" in our prayers and our songs. Even a thousand years ago, one of the songs written for Simchat Torah, called "יום שמחה לישראל", goes through the entire alphabet withing joy upon Israel and destruction upon Yishmael (and it's extremely descriptive). Our greatest poets, even from the Golden Age in Spain, called Yishmael our greatest enemy and have prayers to G-d for their downfall all throughout their poetry.

So, again, חכם עובדיה is not, nor has he ever been a politician. He spearheaded the founding of a political party, but only, in his own words, to have more funds stipend to Sephardic religious institutions. He is no more than a rabbi and a "halachist", and uses the same terminology that was always used, especially today when the Arabs are at our necks to such an extent.

Zionist Satmers

2010-08-31T00:54:00.000-07:00

I think the Neturei Karta and other Satmar Chasidim are being more than a little misleading about their own ideologies to the secular media solely in order to deride the Zionist ideology in the eyes of the Nations. They urge people to differentiate between "Jews" and "Zionists", explaining that only Zionists believe in Occupying Palestinian land and killing innocent civilians, while they portray themselves, representatives of real Judaism, as political doves.

I feel they are being openly misleading since the Satmar must believe in Mashiach. Because if they didn't, they would be outside the pale of Orthodox Jewry by all standards. They believe in a Mashiach who will be accepted to Satmar standards, but if there one day is a may who conforms to all their Messianic requirements, they will be compelled to follow him. And in every version of the Jewish story, whether you're Satmer or Abayudaya, Mashiach leads the Jews back to Israel. Here's the tricky part; there are already Palestinians in Israel. But they too will of course accept the authority of a Satmer Mashiach, because he is, after all, not Zionist. ...won't he? Well, we have a tradition about the Messianic Era that states "עולם כמנהגו נוהג", nothing will happen on a supernatural level. Besides for the return of the Jewish state under Mashiach, things will be the same. In that case: no. The Palestinians will not leave their houses because a Satmer Mashiach tells them to or because a Lubavitch Mashiach tells them to! In that case, there can be no way around some level of bloodshed. Even the Satmer agree to that. Just because their Mashiach hasn't come YET, doesn't mean they don't believe that he will or that they gave up on their Messianic dream to occupy Palestine.

I think it's silly to imagine a Judaism exclusive of Eretz Yisrael, and what living there entails. I'll give you an example; I think it's stupid how the כיבוש הארץ is always attributed to Yehoshua and Yehoshua alone. It says clearly in the summer parashyot which no one ever bothers to read that Moshe Rabenu was also involved in many of the initial campaigns East of the Jordan. That's right, the man who received the Torah twice with his very hands has the same person to draw his sword and fill it with the blood of the armies of the Bashan and the Emori, to make way for Jewish Settlers. And let us not forget the author of the beautiful Tehillim which fills our mouths every day of the week; David Hamelech, another great pillar of normative Judaism, waged wars with neighboring nations only for the sake of acquiring land! Even according to Satmer, Judaism and "Zionism" cannot exist without each other (for them they do now, but they have not and will not always be apart).

The Christians are also very misrepresentative of themselves; they say that, notwithstanding events like the Crusades and Inquisition, "essential" Christianity is peaceful whereas essential Islam is warlike. That's pure rubbish my friends; there is an oft-quoted verse, among many others of it's kind, from the mouth of the Prince of Peace himself: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword". The only possible PC explanation that could be given for such a statement is that in the Gaelic Bible, the word for sword is actually exchanged for the word for peace. Yes, but the Bible was not written in Gaelic...

All three of us, Jews Christians and Muslims, have to stop being squeamish about what our scriptures actually say.....

The State of the Written Word in Crown Heights

2010-08-19T00:17:00.000-07:00

Nothing much of great import to report, friends, besides for the fact that on Tuesday night, after a direct wall-to-wall facebook invite, I decided to attend one of the writing meetings (most likely a spin-off of the poetry meetings) orchestrated by the honourable Mr. Baruch Tauber. I had been feeling my creativity wane anyway so I felt it would be good for me. And it was. Tauber had an image prepared for us which we were to see, and subsequently formulate a story from. In this case it was a girl and a man on a highway fixing a car. Based on that I started writing a short story, since I wasn't sure what protocol called for (it turned out vignettes were more appropriate), and based as well on the fact that, as I've mentioned here before, I'm trying to work on my narrative writing. It was about a girl with divorced parents who was having a frictional relationship with her father who had custody of her on Sundays only. Long story short, my idea was to have them reconcile as a result of a non-injurious car accident (perhaps I'll post it here later). Though I admitted that was quite a dull scenario, and quite honestly not one I'm interested in myself, but time was of the essence.

Also in attendance from the world of Chabad blogs was Feivel ben Mishael, and I got a chance to chat with him a little afterwards. One thing that stands out in my mind from my conversation with him was the strange reason he admired the no comments policy of Yossi's blog. He said that he's concerned that other bloggers will argue with him and espouse ideas that are seditious to Chabad on his blog. I was flabbergasted to hear of such a withholding of the First Amendment from a compatriot. Though of course his ideas were sound based on Chabad ideology, but I shiver to think how they interact with those of other faiths if they cannot even have a dialog with those of their own faith...

Feivel also mentioned how he's blogging less these days, much like me. And much like me, not because he's lacking ideas, but because the transferral of those ideas from electrons in the brain to pixels on a screen often seems daunting. Perhaps I am just projecting my own issues upon others, but I think there's less blogging going on in general at the moment, and in the Chabad community in particular. It can't just be me, since Sara Bonne seems to be struggling with quite the same issue.

Another Chabad-blogger-related-issue that's crossed my mind is that the poetry slam itself seems not to be happening much recently. I think it may have to do with the fact that it's biggest protagonists were the Kings and the [TRSers], who are now living more sedentary lives, and have less of a need for poetry slams. Oh well, lets hope them well and hope the occasional slam returns in the autumn.

ט באב תש"ע: Freye Yidden

2010-07-19T14:19:00.000-07:00

לִהְיוֹת עַם חָפְשִׁי בְּאַרְצֵנוּ
אֶרֶץ צִיּוֹן וִירוּשָׁלַיִם

"To be a free people in our own land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem." These are the words that end the Hatikvah anthem. For generations, many of the more traditional factions in Judaism opposed the idea of "Political Zionism", and their opposition could easily be manifest in this last verse of Hatikvah; the Secular Jews who revived Zionism and established the Jewish State in Zion wanted a society "free" from G-d's laws and free from religious responsibilities. Quite simply, they wanted to be freye yidden, or "free Jews", a derogatory term used by the Ultra Orthodox in Europe connoting Secular Jews.

What I always wondered how they overlooked though, is that Hatikvah is obviously not the first Jewish text yearning for national "freedom". Every day we say in our prayers תְּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל לְחֵרוּתֵנוּ, "Blow the great ram's horn to liberate us". Also the famous prayer in the Hagadah לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בְּאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, "Next year in the Land of Israel, free men". We see that Jewish liturgy has always been replete with prayers for freedom. Not freedom from religion, as traditionalists naively suppose about Hatikvah, but freedom to serve G-d as we're meant to.

This topic of national liberation finds an appropriate place in our current spot on the Hebrew calender. Tonight we mourn the destruction of our beloved Temple in Jerusalem, and the subsequent fleeing of G-d's Direct Presence from the earth. Our sages say the main reason for this destruction was because our ancestors harbored too much baseless animosity for one another (Yoma 9b). But that is a more spiritualistic reason responding to why G-d allowed it to occur, but there were naturalistic political reasons the Talmud discusses as well (Gittin 56a), and what arises from the entire narrative is that the reason for the Destruction was the stubbornness of the Nationalist Party, who were always looking to oust the Romans from the Holy Land. Since, had the Peace Party been the only ones in power, there would have not been any reason for war, and Israel would have prospered, yet, under the boot of the Roman, prosperity is quite relative, and for many war is preferable to peace (if it seems silly to you to make such an ado out of the Roman presence in Israel, just see how fired-up the Arabs are today in contemporary Palestine about "foreign occupation").

Were they sinners then? Those who brought about the destruction of G-d's Sanctuary on Earth? I think it would be silly to say such a thing, because, unlike what the Haredim propose, freedom has always had a prominent place in our liturgy and our national conscience. Even in the face of adversity, it is a mitzvah to strive towards the further emancipation of our people. Not to give this post a political tone, but just to be clear: Even today, in what is called the "Israeli Occupied West Bank" and Judea, while we are in fact in power and it is the Arabs who are struggling for their emancipation, there is still much action taken to prevent our people from living freely on its land. So, today as well, it would be wrong to criticize their struggle.

May we all merit to work in unison, drive the Arab off the Temple mount, and rebuild the Third Temple brick by brick with our own two hands. Amen.

Nothing to Say

2010-07-02T09:09:00.000-07:00

Are not shared intellectual levels and interests clear signs of compatibility for marriage? How can they not be?

פרישות

2010-06-08T19:35:00.001-07:00

פרישות מיותרת מביאה לידי מותרות מיותרות...

But We're So Different...

2010-06-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

I think it is a good idea to impose our expectations upon those we desire romantically, and just pretend they are more similar to ourselves than they are...

Although some people feel the need to really "connect" to someone on a deeper level, it is not always possible or feasible...

We will always be "alone" in ourselves anyway, no matter who we love, we leave this world as we entered it—alone.....

Skirt Lengths

2010-05-22T23:23:00.000-07:00

I haven't been writing much recently it seems; I keep seeing my name fall lower on the "recently updated" blogrolls of my friends who were kind enough to include me in their lists. It's mostly due to lethargy I guess, a trait I unfortunately have an unusually intimate relationship with. By the way, hope to see you by the Israel Day Parade today!

Anyway, one thing that's been plaguing my mind recently has been the issue of skirt lengths for females. My opinion about the subject has always been that longer is better, partially for reasons of tzni'ut and partially because I simply find that to be more attractive (and thus do what I can to promote such a manner of dress). Recently though, a learned friend of a friend asked me for a Talmudic source for this idea, and I couldn't think of anything offhand. Though with a lit bit of thought I came up with something very simple; the "kol Isha" Sugya. Which itself happens to be very contradictory....

Proving That Girls Must Wear Long Skirts:

It says in Brachot 24/a, discussing what one can be facing while reciting Kri'at Sh'ma, quotes Ribi Yitzchak who says "A tefach (of revealed flesh) in a woman is 'erva'", and then quotes Rav Hasda who says that "The 'leg' of a woman is 'erva', the hair in a woman is 'erva' and the voice of a woman is 'erva'".

I do not wish to discuss Kol Isha for the moment, so let's stick with the leg prohibition: The Hebrew word used is "שוק". The definition of שוק is not clear; many poskim understand it as meaning the thigh (upper portion of the leg) until the knee. Based on this understanding they not only allow men to recite K"S in the presence of women who's upper legs are covered, but in general allow skirts for women as long as they cover the thigh (and knee). What many don't know though is that other poskim understand שוק as the calf (the lower portion of the leg)! Which would mean that not only must that part of the leg be covered for men to recite K"S facing it, but that a woman must cover her entire leg in general (stockings are not considered a covering in halacha unless they are 100% opaque, so it's as if they're not there).

Proving the Exact Opposite:

In my struggle for a more Egalitarian Judaism, one thing I always feel bad about regarding the dress restrictions on women is dressing so properly that it's at times absurdly out of place. For example, my mind always told me that if an Orthodox woman is doing something like mountain climbing, a little more leniency should be provided than just being able to don trousers under a skirt, which is as far as most authorities are willing to allow. The funny thing is though that based on the reasoning of one explanation of this statement, woman's dress restrictions lessen greatly.

To begin, it would seem that this statement is extremely restricting; we just stated that a woman's lower leg cannot be revealed because it's mentioned in this statement. But isn't this part of the Gemara's statement only discussing K"S? If the leg being erva means that you can never reveal that part of the body in the presence of men, wouldn't that mean that a woman cannot speak or have her hair uncovered in front of men?

First of all, the Gemara later says that one can never gaze upon a woman's calf (if he is not married to her etc). But in regards to hair the commentators say that only a married woman's hair is considered erva, but in front of an unmarried woman's hair you can say K"S, and she does not have to cover her hair in general. And the reason they give is that only a married woman's hair is alluring. The hair of an unmarried woman is a usual sight.

We see, therefore, that much of tzni'ut (even against what in says in the Gemara) is based on what people today find alluring. So something such as wearing shorts, for example, for a girl, during mountain climbing, might have a היתר based on this mode of thought. I'm obviously not saying I find it to be ok, I'm only saying that these are not clear-cut proofs, and can be used in either direction.

On a similar vein, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein actually has a Tshuva speaking about how tzni'ut in general is dependent on what is acceptable in that place. He says, for example, that if a man lives in a place where everyone walks around with bare arms, even before kings, there is nothing wrong for him to have his arms exposed all day, even in prayer. On the other hand, he also says that if one lives in a place where ankles are always covered, it would even be prohibited for a man to have his ankles exposed. Or even if one generally has his arms or ankles covered outdoors, he may not have them bare at home.

Which is a problem for me at times: For example if I wish to go biking in shorts, I often go from a community where shorts are unacceptable for men (Ultra Orthodox Jewish communities) to a place where everyone is wearing shorts. My opinion is that in the Jewish community one must wear long pants until one reaches an area in which it is acceptable. ועוד חזון למועד.

________________________________________________

Some good sources to use in researching this subject:
1)Yabia Omer 6/14.
2) Tzitz Eliezer 1/62 (though compared to Rav Ovadia it just seems like a lot of unsourced Haredi ranting).
3) Igrot Moshe Y"D2/62
4) Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society Number IV/May Women Wear Pants?
5) And this shiur from Rav Willig of Yeshiva University, who seems to have come to similar conclusions about lower leg exposure (at 22:10).

אל תרבה שיחה

2010-04-14T19:11:00.001-07:00

You know friends, there's something about me that's been on my mind recently, having to do with my verbal interactions with my peers and acquaintances. It seems that I'm rarely if ever the one to end any conversation. It's like I don't "believe" in ending conversations. Which is strange because it's diametrically opposed to my verbal nature as a child. Growing up, I would never exchange a word with someone I wasn't familiar with, and wouldn't say much to friends either. I was quite the nonverbal character. Since my early adulthood though I've been shocked at times to reveal the loquacious version of my personality. Studying the phenomenon as a whole though, I'm coming to think they're not only related, but a direct cause and effect. It's actually because of my quietness that I'm so talkative! Both due to my childhood "תעניות דיבור" and to my extremely limited social interactions as an adult, it seems I've developed a great hunger for that which I've been deprived of so long: speech.

On the other hand though I also have certain ideals at stake when effecting and listening to vocal cord movements. Firstly, I am a great admirer of the art of speech, and feel that it's all but been lost since a century ago, mostly as a result of modern communicative technology. My ideal is people who can continue a single conversation for days, and not even be strayed by a tangent. To me it's representative of mental wealth. Secondly, in regards to listening to others, I refuse to "space out" or stop a conversation abruptly because I find the subject matter uninteresting, and I base my behaviour on my own negative experience: I've been in many environments where my voice was not heard, since those I was speaking to either did not share my interests, or were objectively extremely dull and uninteresting people. Therefore I always make a point to listen.

נאמן באיסורים

2010-04-09T11:54:00.000-07:00

Alas, I've been delinquent from recording my thoughts here for some time. Thankfully though, it was mostly due to my being involved in more constructive pursuits, and not to sloth alone. For example, I was able to stay by my Cincinnati cousins for Pesach, whom I don't often get a chance to see. Though there is an element of sloth involved nonetheless, since I find it so very difficult to take my vague, abstract thoughts and articulate them on a keyboard. I must have been at least 22 when I first started typing, and since then I haven't gotten much better!

Anyway, I know it's a bit late to be discussing this topic, but there are some things I'd like to verbalize in relation to Pesach. Or, more importantly, the status of certain foods on Pesach: It's well known that European Jews uphold a ban on the consumption of certain legumes on Pesach, a ban that the Oriental Jews never accepted. It's also well known that it's preferable to eat only foods marked by trustworthy rabbinic authorities as kosher for Passover.

The following event is the crux of my halachic concerns in this matter: On Saturday night my aunt asked if she would be allowed to purchase self-pop popcorn from the supermarket, considering that Sefaradim eat kitniyot. Now, before proceeding to my halachic decision to her, I'd like to insert parenthetically that for myself and many Sefaradim, Kitniyot is a semi-emotional topic, since it's a Sefaradi practice, and Sefaradi customs and halachic understandings are generally crushed under the Ashkenazic homogeneousity of Judaism. Especially in Israel. In Israel, even a product that already has a Sefaradi hashgacha saying that it's kasher l'Pesach for those who eat kitniyot will have another Ashkenazi certification stating in plain terms that it's not at all kasher l'Pesach, completely overlooking that a large segment of the religious population would find it acceptable. There are even many Sefaradim (in Israel especially) who refuse to eat kitniyot, in order to fit in with the Ashkenazim and their rules. Which is why our Poskim, for example Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, are very upset by the matter and are adamant that Sefaradim continue to eat kitniyot, and even suggest that Ashkenazim should recant their ban on it.

With that said, my aunt asked me if she could buy kitniyot. Of course my answer was yes. After she got it though, the eldest daughter (who's more religious, and somewhat influenced by the Ashkenazim) was upset she had purchased it, especially considering it had no "kosher for Passover" certification whatsoever. Which takes us into another topic: Is rabbinic certification necessary, and how much does it represent about a food?

This is obviously a very critical question in regards to kashrut observance, especially as it relates to Pesach, and I've gone from one end of the spectrum to another, mostly because of a girl! Naturally, I used to be very wary of food products with no hashgacha on them. Then I dated this Sephardic girl who's parents were ardent followers of Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi, who's known to be the most lenient possible authority in kashrut matters, and after argumentation over the matter, the seedlings of Abadi-ism were planted in my brain. His main premise is that mashgichim don't generally enter the factories where the food is being produced. And then again, take for example countries like Mexico and even France, where the Orthodox establishment produces directories stating which foods are kosher, even though they have no rabinnic certification.

In my belief, the whole concept of hashgacha is very recent, and doesn't jive well with the Talmudic tradition. What I mean is that it can be suggested from the Torah and the Talmud that one should take somewhat of a more active role in dietary observance than just going to the kosher supermarket and placing whatever you find pleasing into your shopping cart. The halachot of kashrut are not only for mashgichim. Until recently Jewish women were knowledgeable in every area of hilchot kashrut and were reliable for such things as soaking and salting meat, ensuring that meat and dairy didn't mix, checking for insects, and every other food-related law that today is only the realm of mashgichim. The Torah itself seems to direct people as to which animals they can and cannot consume, and when produce cannot be used, thus placing a great responsibility of decisiveness upon the individual. The Talmud too expects it's words to be repeated among all Jews, so that all can abide by it's teachings.

Another unfortunate development is kashrut observance is the proliferation of stringencies for no reason besides ignorance (which, again, is a product of Ashkenazi Haredism). Again, in the Talmud we find scenarios which we would be hard-pressed to approve of, but which the Talmud does. As in the situation where there is a pile of ten pieces of meat and only one is kosher; if you know which one is kosher you're allowed to eat it, even though it was in direct contact with non-kosher pieces of meat.

To me though, the first reason is the most important; how can you question the legitimacy of "trusting the ingredients" if the Orthodox Union also just trusts the ingredients. Even for Pesach. I've heard people say "How do you know if there isn't someone eating a sandwich on top of the conveyor belt?" That's a legitimate concern, which is equally applicable to foods that ARE "kosher" or "kosher for Passover". A story I enjoy relating on the subject is that of a young Lakewood housewife who made a Pesach cake for her husband. The husband thought the cake tasted a little strange and wanted to see what his wife used to bake it. She told him she used "Paysach flour" she got in the Pesach store. It was regular flour.

But this leniency is true on a halachic level as well: the aforementioned champion of kitnioyot consumption, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, constructed a book of שו"ת based on responses he gave callers during a halacha radio program. The book is called "יחוה דעת". In Vol. 2, responsa 62, he deals with the subject of lemon juice, made in Israel, which had small traces of bread in it. Now, you must remember that this was juice with no "kasher l'Pesach" label on it (at least, not before this ruling). He allowed it, basically because, while it's true that chametz isn't "בטל בשישים" on Pesach, it's בטל if it mixed in before Pesach, and then that amount is not considered to be "חוזר וניעור" on Pesach again. So the same is obviously true for things like popcorn, which is extremely unlikely to have had any bread or wheat kernels mixed in to it in the factory. That even if it did have a minority of bread mixed in, it's בטל before Pesach.

I also wish to speak about when to and when not to ask a rabbi about halachic matters, but I think that'll have to wait for the next post....

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience and Judaism

2010-03-13T19:57:00.000-08:00

[Warning: written very haphazardly.]

As usual, I was listing to an instalment of the Speaking of Faith podcast recently. It's definitely one of the best things on air today. I'd recommend it to anyone, by the way. If you've never heard of it, it's basically this mindful Irishwoman (Krista Tippett) interviewing people from all corners of the religious world.

Anyway, in this particular program, she was interviewing Adele Diamond, a wise Jewess, who, apropos to a short discussion I had over at Chana's blog, is actually a student and admirer of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. She kind of created a new field of neuroscience called "Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience", which is the result of groundbreaking research which suggests that things like play, social interactions and even inhibition are key components of childhood learning and continued mental health.

One of the first things she said that got my interest was her theory that play is an essential part of the learning process, as it embodies a form of dramatization. And one important aspect of drama is the fact that all the participants must stick to their parts if it's meant to work out. That just served to feed into this linguistic issue surrounding the word for play in Hebrew; the word for the play of children and the word for actors in a dramatic production are one and the same in Hebrew "לשחק", "שחקן". Which is also the word for smiling (in a more antiquated usage). This is significant to me since I used to feel that play was just a necessary evil in the course of childhood, but had no intrinsic value. Now I've learned that it's equivalent to drama, and that it's very important for a child's health, happiness and even spiritual and moral well-being, since it's an early form of discipline (no matter what game you're playing, you still have to stick to your "part").

Another point is memorization: in the modern educational climate rote memorization is frowned upon, yet according to her, it has many redeeming qualities, among them the aforementioned discipline the mind gains from forcing itself to learn a specific set of information by heart. This has to do with Judaism since there is a time-honored tradition of Talmud-memorization among the Jews.

It also made me rethink the importance of studying anthropology in general. Diamond originally felt her research was only being done from a Western standpoint, so she traveled to the South Pacific to study learning among children in an environment that was not affected by Western society. It just got me thinking about how the study of backwards peoples can help us understand what is intrinsically "human" about all of us. It's important to know what qualities all humans share on the most basic level, which is why it can also be instructional to study the behavior of animals, to learn how much they have in common with us, since, in that case, there's nothing particularly "human" about those behaviors. All of this is important to know when trying to reach the level of self awareness necessary to serve G-d properly...

משכן הנשמה

2010-03-06T23:59:00.000-08:00

כשם שהמשכן היה המקום היחידי בו שהה השכינה בעולם הזה, כך ראוי לו לאדם לזכור שגופו הוא מקום משכן נשמתו, ושאין לנשמתו דיור בעוה"ז בלעדי הגוף. ושכל עוד הגוף קיים, נשמתו קיימת, ובאבוד בגוף, אבוד נשמתו. ואל תאמר לי שאסור לומר כן מפני שרוּחַ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם עֹלָה הִיא לְמָעְלָה, ושייגמל לְנשמת חָסִידים כְּמִפְעָלם, כי מצווים אנו על שמירת גופינו ומוזהרים על איבודו מפני שאחר היפרד נשמת האדם מגופו שוב אין ביכלתו לעשות מעשים טובים ולעמוד בנסיון ולקבל שכר, שהוא כל תכלית האדם בעוה"ז. אז במיתת הגוף, במידה מסויימת, כך מיתת הנפש. אם כן חובה קדושה מוטל עלינו לשמור על גופינו מכל וכל. ולא רק לשמור, אלא גם לתקנו בנצרך לו...כמו המשכן ממש! אם היה אחד מקרשי המשכן נוטים ליפול, היה עולה על דעתך לא לתקנו? כן בגוף; אם אחד מחלקיו עומדים להתמוטט, עלינו למנוע את נפילתו, כי בתיקון הגוף כך המשכיותו לאורך זמן. ומה מצווה יותר יש מאשר להאריך את ימינו עלי אדמות. מתפלל האדם לא"לוהיו לחיים טובים וארוכים, אבל הוא בעצמו אינו עושה הפעילויות הנצרכות כדי להאריך חייו. היש צבוע יותר מזה? ח

אם כן, הנחנו שמצווה לשמור על הגוף, אבל המהדר במצווה משפר את מצב גופו כל מה שיוכל, כי בעיה בחלק אחד של הגוף יכול לגרום לבעיות כלליות יותר. ובדידי הוה עובדא שמתארת את הרעיון הזה בבירור: עבדתי לפני שנתיים בבית שחיטה במדינת וויסקונסין. יום אחד הייתי מקשקש באחד הקרסים המיועדים להוביל את ראשי הפרות, ונתקע הקרס בתוך פס היצור, וגרם לתקלה בכל המפעל. יותר מ200 עובדים הושבתו (חצי שעה) מעבודתם בגלל תקלה שנגרם מקרס אחד קטן שנתקע במקום הלא נכון. כמו כן בגוף האדם: בעיה אחת קטנה יכולה לגרום תקלה לכל המפעל כולה. אז על כל פרט קטן שבגוף צריך לשים עין פוקחת לנצרך לו לבריאותו. ח

ועל הקו שזכרנו, העדר "קום עשה" הרי הוא נחשב ללאו בענייני הגוף, כי בחוסר פרואקטיביות הגוף נחלש. מי שאינו מתעמל וודאי שהוא גורם רעה לעצמו, אבל, הייתי נוטה לומר, שאפילו אדם שלחדר כושר אנו מבקר, ואת שריריו אינו מתחזק, גם הוא גורם רעה לגופו בעתיד, בהיותו חלש מדי...ח

אבל כל הפעילות האלו נחשבים למצווה רק אם זוכר האדם לשם מה עושן; לחזק את משכן ה' ולהאריך את ימי שכינת נשמתו בגופו כדי שיוכל לעשות עוד יותר מצוות. אבל אם אין זכר מדברים האלו בלבו כשהוא מביט בהנאה על גופו המתחזק, שוב אין כל מצוה בקיום הפעילות האלו. וכמובן. ח

The Miracle of Language, the Cage of Words

2010-03-03T23:02:00.000-08:00

I've been having recurring thoughts recently, friends, regarding the subject of proper verbalization of ideas. Our ability to express our ideas through words. Through spoken words. Through written words. There always seems to be this insurmountable gap between thoughts, ideas and emotions and the words chosen to express them. I personally find myself struggling with it more than others (if I was able to express myself I'd be knocking out a post a day, but now it's more like a week), but even when I hear the speech of others their ideas seem to be trapped in the cage of words. Yet the more eloquent ones take a smug satisfaction in their ability of expression, as if this absurdity called language can foster a true expression of ideas.

That's just one extreme of the spectrum though. The other extreme is that it's a miracle how much we are able to express with words. Animalistic ideas, mundane ideas, complex ideas and abstract ideas; they can all be expressed in the most precise and descriptive of words. The miracle of language. There is no concept, even the most unearthly, that cannot clearly be described through the employment of words.

It is due to the contrast of these two extremes that I take interest in the differences between the way we speak today and the way people have spoken in the past. From the way characters in Victorian novels speak to the way Shakespearean characters speak, to way the ancient Romans speak to the way the bible characters speak. But especially the last (it obviously being the most arcane). I always wondered how they got any ideas through in that terse language of theirs. Yet on the other hand I always felt their speech to be more to the point. I was reminded of this after seeing this blasphemously low budget and low quality dramatization of a conversation between Elijah and Ahab last night, and then reading it (the very end of Kings I). It's always struck me that their sparse use of words might have allowed them to express themselves better than we do in our early 21st century American English, which to us seems to be the height of true expression. They were brutally honest and straightforward. It was the purity of their tongue that, instead of restricting their ideas, allowed them to speak of reality as it was....

Commentary on Esther- תש"ע

2010-02-28T01:28:00.000-08:00

I hope you are all enjoying your Purim, friends. Usually I have ideas about the Megillah but forget them by the time I get around to writing them down, but this year I remembered a lot more, so I want to get this done before I forget. I did write a bit last year though, but not as much as I would have liked to. As it happens I was even able to read the Megillah tonight in a limited assembly, so I guess that might have jogged my memory a bit.

I've got a few things to say on almost every chapter:

Chapter 1: "הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ"- I don't know why it didn't seem as obvious to me in the past, but now it's quite obvious to me (not to mention it's well known by now) that this is a response to a confusion by the part of the reader when hearing "אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ"; the natural question is "Which אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ are you speaking of?", since the book of Ezra also mentions an "אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ" (it seems Xerxes (חְשָׁיָארְשָׁ) and Artaxerxes (אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׂתָּא) were called by the same name in ancient Hebrew, although in Aramaic it mentions the latter by his actual name). To that it responds "the one who was the great emperor over all these lands".

"בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ, לְמָלְכוֹ"- Since the destruction of the Judean kingdom, the Tanach counts years according to the Babylonian kings, and then according to the Persian kings. This change is evidenced clearly in the book of Daniel, which occurs before and after the twelve year Ahasuerus-reign of the book of Esther, but can also be seen in Ezra and "Tobit".

"וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה כַדָּת"
"כָּל-יֹדְעֵי דָּת וָדִין"
"כְּדָת, מַה-לַּעֲשׂוֹת"
"אַחַת דָּתוֹ לְהָמִית" etc etc- It's well known that the book of Esther uses the word "דת" a disproportionately large amount of times. Many commentators say that in this context it's simply just another word for "law" or "royal law", but I'm starting to think it does have what to do with religion. With the rise of Persian prominence worldwide the Zoroastrian religion gained unprecedented renown and it's priests had much more political influence than they once did, considering that the emperor had to abide by their rulings. It seems to me that a lot of this "דת" in the megillah is speaking of religious decrees enacted by the Zoroastrian priests onto the monarchy. From the decision about what to do with a queen who doesn't show when summoned to the death penalty for someone who approaches the emperor without having been summoned. I use the word "emperor" by the way, and not "king", since he was, in fact, an emperor, it's just that there's no word for "emperor" in Hebrew, so it uses the same word for the ruler of a city state as for an emperor.

Chapter 2: "וַיֶּאֱהַב הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-אֶסְתֵּר מִכָּל-הַנָּשִׁים, וַתִּשָּׂא-חֵן וָחֶסֶד לְפָנָיו מִכָּל-הַבְּתוּלוֹת"- The "One Night with the King" movie (which, I feel, has been a very successful attempt of the Evangelical community to create top notch entertainment that doesn't sacrifice Christian values in the process) portrays a romantic love between the emperor and Esther. I think anyone would agree that it's unlikely that they had an emotional attachment. He did want her to be the queen, but it was extremely uncommon back then for there to be anything but a political connection between king and queen.

Chapter 3: "הָמָן בֶּן-הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי"- As if it would be possible to verify if he was some long-lost descendant of Agag. I think it might be saying that since he was so gung-ho about killing the entire nation of Mordecai, it must be he's from the seed of Amalek, i.e. a descendant of Agag (but it's hard to believe he went parading that fact in a nation who didn't know from such things).

"וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן, לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם-אֶחָד מְפֻזָּר וּמְפֹרָד בֵּין הָעַמִּים, בְּכֹל מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתֶךָ; וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכָּל-עָם, וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים, וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין-שֹׁוֶה, לְהַנִּיחָם. אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם; וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר-כֶּסֶף, אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל-יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה, לְהָבִיא, אֶל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ."- I was thinking of making a post out of this and calling it "What Haman can teach us about Blogging"(!), but I'll just stick with this format. To me it seems that Haman has been reading his Dale Carnegie, and is being a very efficient public speaker. Now, notice that in the previous verse we're told that this is the twelfth year of Ahasuerus's reign, in other words four entire years since he was thinking about killing Mordecai and his people, and it was still on his mind. So he was probably looking for a way to carry it out for years, and he ends up accomplishing it in a couple of seconds by a very witty use of words. First, he takes advantage of the fact that the emperor is probably just as interested in hearing a twenty hour lesson on the history of the Jews, and about all their kings and how they ended up in Persia as Bush was interested in hearing the history of Iraq and what the deposition of Saddam Husein would do to it's infrastructure. He doesn't mention them by name and quickly demonizes them. Then he promises loads of cash if Ahasuerus lets him go through with it. So he's basically saying "There's some lawless group of anarchists throughout the empire that aren't willing to comply with us; you're better off without them. If it pleases the king, I'll rid you of them, aaaaand add ten thousand gold bars to the treasury". And viola, the signet ring is suddenly on his finger.

The connection to blogging is that people need quick sound bytes and can't be bothered to listen or think to much. If you want someone to be swayed by your words, they have to be biast, unclear, sweet and powerful!

Chapter 4: "כִּי אִם-הַחֲרֵשׁ תַּחֲרִישִׁי, בָּעֵת הַזֹּאת--רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר"-I think this is one of the most theologically significant points in the megillah; what would happen if Esther did nothing, would everything turn out the same for the Jews. Or, more importantly, what if Esther only fasted two days, or what if she said one less prayer? In other words: what exactly did any given spiritual activity affect in the world. Perhaps a Jewish community in some Persian occupied city on the North African coast heard about it; how much did the particularly fervent prayer of a young Jewish boy in that community affect the emperor's decision? What if he never did pray?....

Of less theological significance to me is the fact that Mordecai knew that salvation would come to the Jews no matter what, since there's some sort of biblical pact between G-d and Israel in the Tanach, that he would never destroy them.

"וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ--אִם-לְעֵת כָּזֹאת, הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת"- To us readers it seems quite obvious that she became queen for this reason, and he very fact that Mordecai finds it necessary to say this is indicative of the fact that Esther wasn't Evangelically quick in attributing Providence to everything in her life. After all, for a second it seemed like she was going to turn her back on her people since "כָּל-אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא-אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל-הֶחָצֵר הַפְּנִימִית אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִקָּרֵא אַחַת דָּתוֹ לְהָמִית". Even Mordecai seems to be mention the prospect of Divine intervention in very theoretical terms ("Who knows")....

"וּבְכֵן אָבוֹא אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ"- The funny thing is that after Mordecai's little speech, she seems to have gone 360 degrees and even be willing to show up by the king after having fasted for three days (which can't be the best thing from a cosmetic perspective), thus leaving the possibility of success entirely upon Divine Providence.

Chapter 5: "יָבוֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן, אֶל-הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לָהֶם"- Esther understood the importance of mystery and mystique. Which is something people are attracted to. Which is the same reason people are attracted to the anonymity of having an online personality.

Chapter 9: "וְהָרוֹג בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם, חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף"- It seems the exiled Judeans were still war-ready if they could kill 75,000 armed soldiers at the tip of a hat. This was well before the "ultra-urbanization" of the Jew...

"לְקַיֵּם אֶת-יְמֵי הַפֻּרִים הָאֵלֶּה בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר קִיַּם עֲלֵיהֶם מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי וְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה, וְכַאֲשֶׁר קִיְּמוּ עַל-נַפְשָׁם, וְעַל-זַרְעָם: דִּבְרֵי הַצּוֹמוֹת, וְזַעֲקָתָם"- It seems that Ta'anit Esther is considered one of "the days of Purim".

Chapter 10: "וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו"- Again, in a more tribe-oriented reading of the text, it's possible that the Judaite Zealots were wary of a Benjaminite finding favor with the emperor, since he might have wanted to become a new monarch over Judea and have founded a new non-Judaite dynasty...

Another important point is the chronology, since the Megillah seems to span from the third year of Xerxes' reign to at least the twelfth, which is a pretty long timespan for a story to come together, especially considering that Xerxes' reign lasted only twenty years altogether...

Chaimle's Kavana

2010-02-24T00:53:00.000-08:00

I have a thought about "the Halocaust" (in quotes since I find that an iffy term to use) that came to me this past Tish'a B'Av, and that I get reminded of every time I stroll around the Traditionalist Eastern European Jewish enclave in which I reside (the Borough Park section of Brooklyn). Believe it or not, life here is far more reminiscent of Polish Jewish life before World War II than any other part of America. Thus, every time I walk around here my mind is taken back in time to 1930's Warsaw. Anyway, the thought is as follows:

In general, the 20th Century was somewhat miraculous in all the groundbreaking events and breakthroughs that came to define it, but there was one event which was so logic-defying that it came to be seen in purely theological terms and become the stuff of legends. I'm speaking of course friends of the liquidation of Jews from Eastern and Western Europe halfway through the century. Although it proved to be an extremely sobering experience for those involved, I think we have developed the tendency to look back at them as something almost supernatural, and rightfully so. I mean, in the midst of a World War, while the empires of the world are in an epic war to end all wars, why should it make any difference to anyone if Chaim'l in some unheard of village in the Ukraine wants to daven Shachris b'kavana? It's a huge enigma, and to an extent we're forced to say it is, in fact, because the Germans knew just how important Chaim'l's kavana was to the world. Proof being that they would stop at no ends to prevent Chaim'l from davening his Shachris. And, more than anything, I think this is what the Hasidim got out of the Holocaust; what we do is of endless importance. So important, in fact, that they tried to kiss us because of it. The fact that they were killed proves their importance and even fills their hearts with a true pride and purposefulness in their Judaism. I think this concept can be found on every corner in Borough Park: they tried to kill us yet despite them we grow. "וְכַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אֹתוֹ, כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ". Some individual Holocaust survivors have gone so fae as to have spawned fifty descendants in fifty years, only to prove that the Nazis did not succeed.

So, while the Germans thought they were showing how insignificant Jews were, they were actually fueling the Hasidic psyche far more than anyone else could, and, while people earlier this century predicted the demise of Orthodoxy and certainly of Hasidism by the end of the century, our enemies were responsible for a rejuvenation of Hasidism that is still taking place, and which doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon, but rather is taking the Hasidim into a new century of unfathomed growth, prosperity and influence.

Mussar from the Opympics

2010-02-22T13:36:00.000-08:00

Last night I was watching a few minutes of a male alpine skiing competition of the 2010 Winter Olympics. The first competitor was Bode Miller of America, and after him the Norwegian A. L. Svindal. They both finished at exactly a minute and thirty seconds, but Svindal was about a half a second faster than Miller. Commenting on the result, one of the announcers said "He beat him by only half a second, but half a second is an eternity in alpine skiing".

"Half a second is an eternity"...

It's a funny thing to think about when doing something like watching a two hour movie...

'מלכים ג: Revisited

2010-02-21T01:47:00.000-08:00

I mentioned a while ago that I was "interested" in reading a book called "מלכים ג" by Yochi Brandes; now I'm actually reading it. As I suspected, it's a very interesting story, and is written in a very interesting perspective that, so far, has made me think differently about such concepts as "שבטיות", "גירות" and the woman's place in love in the Tanach.

"שבטִיוּת": By that I mean the tribal divisions that had a major place in our nation even during the Unification Period of the First Commonwealth until it's end. The author understands every event in the Tanach in terms of the tribal differences. The protagonist of the story comes from the land of Ephraim (Samaria) and was raised in a very Ephraim-oriented viewpoint. They're upset the Temple was built in Jerusalem (in the portion of Judah) and that their Temple in Shiloh was destroyed (an event that's spoken of in the 78th psalm. Which, as I recently found out, is actually the source for such famous verses as "וְהוּא רַחוּם" that we say every night and "יְשַׁלַּח בָּם חֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ" that we say at the seder). They see the Judeans as conquerors who want all the tribes to subdue themselves to them. They also don't like Judah because, as sons of Joseph, they prefer the Rachel tribes (Joseph and Benjamin, or Ephraim, Menashe and Benjamin) over the sons of Leah (including Judah) and especially over the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. According to the author, the tribe of Ephraim feels that many of the episodes that we view as history were actually fabrications of the Judahites to engender spite towars the Rachel tribes. For example the famous story of the "Pilegesh B'Giv'ah" in the end of the book of Shoftim was not totally honest, but was made to make the Benjaminites out to look worse then they were, and to make their capital, Giv'ah, look worse than it was. Especially considering that right after the book of Shoftim, in the beginning of the book of Shmuel, we find Saul coming from Giv'ah and it becoming the capital of the first Israelite monarchy.

As far as the traditional viewpoint goes; it is correct to some extent (I mean, most of it is pretty spelled-out in that psalm I quoted) but some of it is a bit heretical, for example suggesting that some of the events related in Shoftim and Shmuel are either untrue or very one-sided.

"גירות": This word might be translated as "conversion", but I'm using the word in the biblical sense, and it's the biblical understanding of the word and it's meaning that I always find a bit elusive. Even from the beginning I did have a greater understanding of it's biblical context than just "conversion". I knew that it had more of a Talmudic "גר תושב" connotation, which means that it's not usually speaking of someone who accepts only the G-d of Israel and follows His Laws, but any foreigner who is residing in the land and accepts the basic premise of Israelite beliefs and respects the Israelite people (though there are of course full-fledged conversions in the Tanach, such as that of Ruth the Moabite). One, therefore, supposes that there is not much similarity between the ancient Ger and the modern Ger, since the first is geographical and cultural and the second is religious, but the story made me start thinking the stronger connection modern Gerim have with the biblical "stranger"; for besides for the religious changes, the modern Ger also has to become a stranger in a strange land, adopt new cultural customs, and hope to be accepted by her new neighbors.

"אהבה": Since the book was written by a woman, some of it discusses love from the perspective of the woman, as opposed to how it's related in the Tanach, as the woman being only the "חפץ" in a man's love. The funny thing is that the Tanach itself is actually replete with descriptions of love from the female perspective. Shir Hashirim is famous for taking an uncommonly feminist viewpoint on love, in that much of it is written from a woman's viewpoint. Ruth as well obviously. Even the very episode of Rachel and Leah's wedding switch has unmistakable Gossip Girl elements at play. So, looking at it in that light, it's really nothing new to the Tanach.

Anyway, if you read Hebrew, and you haven't read it, you should look into it. Bible-based stories is a novel genre for the Hebrew market, and hopefully with enough support the concept will take off.

My Thoughts on a First Date!

2010-02-17T00:48:00.000-08:00

A new male blogger who writes about "female friendly" topics, "Bored Jewish Guy" (inspiring name, right?) wrote a post relating his impressions on first dates he's been on which has inspired many other bloggers to do the same. The candid results of this experiment have proved to be surprising and informative.

Now, although the brevity of my dating history goes beyond laughable to downright sad, reading all those accounts has got me interested in expressing some of my own experiences with first dates. I don't have enough patience to go into too great detail, but I feel there is still information I can share that is no less helpful than the insights of those female bloggers who would be hard-pressed to remember whether or not they've been out with a certain individual in the past.

Preparation:
I'm girlishly vain yet perpetually unkempt. There is little I can do about my appearance, even on a date, though I do of course take the time to make the most essential preparations.

Pick up:
I'm generally mortally afraid of being late, since I usually am.

Other than that, I have a low opinion of myself, and therefore feel extremely awkward picking up a girl from her home, since I usually don't feel 'fit' be be taking their pride and joy, who they've raised for 20 years to some undisclosed location. It's too much in the spotlight for me. In fact it kind of feels like they turned the spotlight from the charismatic actors and turned it on the dude who just came in to use the bathroom. Aaaanyways...

The Meet:
My philosophy in all awkward meeting situations is to jump right into it and talk to them as if they're your best bud and see what type of response you get. I'm terrible at hellos and terrible at goodbyes, which is why I try to avoid both...

The Date:
From what I understand the Starbucks/Barnes and Noble setup is far more popular than I once imagined it to be. I've had a few problems with bookstores though, since differences in reading interests lead to discussing differences in philosophies and can create a rift between you early in the date.

In regards to conversation, I saw some of the females say that it usually leaves them bored and uninterested. As a result of a concern for that scenario, having conversation topics is very worrisome for me. In reality though I don't recall a date without interesting conversation. I pride myself in finding everything interesting, hopefully sucking them in with some of my enthusiasm. If that's not working though, both my teaching experiences and dating experiences have proven that one thing I absolutely hate is talking without being listened to. So I'm usually quickly asking or answering a question, or listening, since the prospect of boring the hell out of a girl is the worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned.

I also saw the girls mention that they turn off if they see no potential in the guy and/or the conversation is going nowhere. My own philosophy is that if i can see that we're certainly not meant to be, I start speaking to them more platonicly than romantically, and give them life advice based on what they tell me! Unfortunately, I'm waaay too fascinated by people, so as long as they're interested in talking, I'm always happy to oblige. I usually find what most people have to say to be relatively interesting.

"Erachet" suggests more activity oriented first dates to get around this problem. I think the setup is fine as it is; the first thing you want to do is engage someone verbally. It's obviously your opportunity to verify if you're on the same plain. If so then an activity-oriented second date is surely the way to go. The more involving the task the better.

The Drop Off:
As I said, I'm terrible at goodbyes, which can be a problem when it's time to say goodbye.

The Decision:
I've never been at all conflicted about whether or not I wanted to date someone a second time. Besides once; my very first date. I ended it early and didn't go on a second date. Looking back on it though, I think I should have married that girl...

Valentines Day, Nimrod, Purim, and a crap-load of nonsense

2010-02-15T03:14:00.000-08:00

[Pic- Artists rendition of ancient Lupercalia.]

I wanted to write a bit of a follow-up post regarding what I wrote about Valentines Day two years ago. I know I'm a bit late, and not that it's a topic that fascinates me to no end, but I was reading today of an unlikely connection between Valentines Day and Nimrod. As it happens, I first came upon this information on Wikipedia, and when I returned to the page a few minutes later, lo and behold that information was gone (a phenomenon which, if having occurred in a paper encyclopedia, might be representative of an over-indulgence in psychedelic activities on the part of the reader and not molestation to the tome). I did happen to find similar bits of information on fundamentalist Christian sites though, which gave me the impression that it was them who were probably at fault for tampering with Wikipedia in the first place, and not the moderators for having removed it.

Nonetheless, I'd like to give a basic summary of what they were getting at, backwards (my mind works better backwards, as those who are already aquainted with me already know). Though I admit this information is quite fluffy, but I can't possibly research it all:

We have many traditions regarding Nimrod, but we fail to remember that most of them are Midrashic in origin and represent very little about the historical Nimrod. As it happens though, Nimrod is not much of a historical character to start with. In the bible he is called a "great hunter". He is also seen as being founder of Akkad (the early Babylonian Empire) and builder of the tower of Babylon. Whether or not he actually existed, he was accepted into the Near Eastern pantheon as Pan Baul, or Baal in Canaanite, Pan in Greek and Lupercus in Latin, all of whom are the god of flocks, mountain wilds and hunting. Thus the deified Nimrod is synonymous with Lupercus, for whom the entire Lupercalia (fertility festival) was celebrated. The name Valentine (synonymous with the English word Valiant) was also attributed to Lupercus (which basically means "wolf man"), since tradition has it that he was a great hunter of wolves, and that he took refuge in the very cave in the Apenine mountains upon which Rome was founded. Yet supposedly Nimrod was also associated with Saturn, which is a Latinized version of the name of the Babylonian G-d "Ishtar", which has to do with the word "seter", or "hidden", since he once fled his pursuers into a cave. Which cave you ask? Why, the very same cave we were just discussing, the Founding Cave (hence the ancient name of Rome being Saturnia). Thus Lupercus, Saturn, Baal and Nimrod are all the same man, and Lupercalia, if it wasn't Pagan enough already, is also a celebration of Nimrod, builder of the tower of Babel and defyer of the L-rd G-d.

The name of this very month, Adar, is a Babylonian G-d of strength; the same type of idea the Nimrod-based G-ds evoked. Yet the protagonist of the story of the book of Esther, ...Esther, was named after Ishtar. But her bearing that unholy name was a manifestation of her hiding, as the name also suggests, the presence of G-d in her affairs, so that she would be enabled to attain a position of influence, from which she could serve as a vehicle of G-d's Will to save His nation.

Valentines Day was celebrated on February 14th by the way, because Nimrod/Baal was supposedly born on the solstice, and according to the Law of Moses a woman is to be purified 40 days after the birth of a son, hence the 14-15th of February was the celebration. In fact this very month was named after the februum (purification) performed at the Lupercalia). And of course the early Christian emperors and Popes wanted to abolish the Lupercalia, but couldn't, so it was was Baptized as is, like all the other Christianized Paganisms.

So essentially, not only is Valentines Day a glorification of the archenemy of the founder of our religion, it's also glorifying the founding of the capital city of our greatest enemies (Rome), and is representative of an epic struggle between ethical monotheists and pagan heathens, which this month and this upcoming (Jewish) holiday are very indicative of. ...like I said, most of what I'm saying here is extremely misleading, but it's still worth pondering...

The Art of the Pen

2010-02-13T21:46:00.000-08:00

I've been looking back at some of my past writing recently (mostly emails). ...it was pretty bad. Even some stuff from less than two years ago is simply embarrassing. Fifteen years olds, and not even the most educated ones, would put that writing to shame (I even wonder if it would be intellectually dishonest for me to got back and correct some of my earlier posts here).

I started writing on this blog (and at all) in 2006, and it seems my writing hasn't become even reasonably acceptable in regards to grammar and syntax until a year and a half ago. ...though the truth is I only have 26 posts from '06, and most of them are just articles I found online. And I only wrote 10 short posts in '07. So it's not unbelievable that my writing has only started to improve recently. Pretty much coinciding with my attendance at Touro I guess.

It's kind of sad though; I had a lot of interesting ideas between the ages of 18 and 22 that it would have been nice to have written down. Now I barely remember how I felt about things then. Knowing how to properly record your thoughts is a great benefit. Which is partially why our ancestors in Spain attached religious importance to topics which seem so secular, such as grammar, syntax, poetry and oration. I say, if I the only thinע I would have gained from this blog is improving my writing, it would have been worth it.

מכ"ת המו"ת

2010-02-11T15:36:00.000-08:00

I've unfortunately been exposed, friends, to a few death-oriented experiences the past week or so, but, to my confusion, I find myself to be too numb to have proper emotional/theological reactions.

In the past, if a compartiot of mine died, I would reflect upon every aspect of my daily life as upon a miracle. Take even walking in the cold as an example: naturally you would think "this is pretty unpleasant", but when considering that others are experiencing a total absence of life itself, even being able to breathe in the cold fresh air of today, now, as a living, healthy (בע"ה) being seems to be a novelty worth appreciation. The fact that we had childhoods. The fact that we made it through birth!, I reflected upon. I once felt very appreciative, and took nothing for granted. Mundane matters seemed childish to me, considering they all concerned matters of the living, and if one is already alive, what could they complain about.

Yet now I find it more difficult for me to reflect on these matters. Although I'm aware of our good fortune for having been chosen by the Divine for a good life, it's still difficult to translate that into constant appreciation for life, which in turn mandates a pious lifestyle. It doesn't come naturally. Sometimes our minds to not let us come to the most logical conclusions.

Though essentially this has been the responsibility of authors of mussar works, such as Ibn Paquda (in his Al Hidayah ila Faraid al-Qulub, "Duties of the Hearts"), whom Rabbi Avigdor Miller was wont to quote, whom I was wont to hear. What's known as "Sha'ar Habechina" is his guide on how to arouse within our slumbered selves these feelings (that should be natural to us, but which the Satan blocks our hearts from feeling). Therefore if a deep appreciation for life is, in fact, not natural to us, what better place to turn that the חובות הלבבות...

American Infrastructure

2010-02-05T00:32:00.000-08:00

The Americans keep creating unsustainable infrastructures: first they base their economy on the displacement and enslavement of millions of Africans in an era when slavery had become obsolete, then they design thousands of miles of roads which pre-suppose an inexhaustible supply of petrol for automobiles...

Lost: Jack and John

2010-02-03T22:36:00.000-08:00

As some of you may know, friends, "Lost", the popular television production about plane-crash survivors stranded on a mysterious island, started it's anticipated sixth and final season last night. For die-hard Lost fanatics the premiere had a semi-Super Bowl Sunday status. I myself only see it online so I had to wait till tonight to see it. I started watching Lost not long ago as a sort of project, to spot out the theological overtones in the secular media. For the most part it's far from as educational as I thought it might have been, but when listening to the hour-long recap of the previous seasons, the narrator said something which rekindled my original perceptions a bit. And I quote:

"Most believe that what's done is done, you cannot change fate, no matter how hard you try. And those who challenge what is destined will always be met with disappointment, for fate has a way of charting it's own course.

But before one surrenders to the hands of destiny, one might consider the power of the human spirit, and the force that lies in ones own free will."

To me these two paragraphs represent two differing viewpoints, and it is precisely this ideological difference which splits the two main characters for most of the shows duration. The leader of the group, Jack, is a young agnostic surgeon, who judges things only by their physical realities. His rival is an older fate-driven cripple who recovered upon landing on the island. One big way their differences are manifested is that Jack's main concern is to get everyone off the island and back home, while John does all that's within his power to keep them all on the island (again, since he sees their arrival upon the island as their fate.

Personally, I don't think either of them are necessarily harbor heretical notions in the subject of Divine Providence. These are two theologically legitimate ways to view life. Obviously John's is the more orthodox approach, the "Boy does G-d have something in store for you!" approach, which supposes that belief in Providence suggests that G-d micro-manages every individual, to lead them to the future that's most suitable for them.

But Jack's approach is also religiously sound; it is the opinion of the religious philosophers, who say that our duty is only to fulfill G-d's will on this earth, and that we must do all that is within our power to do what's right, even when it seems to us that the Divine would have us do otherwise. For example Jack could have said, like John, that if G-d brought us all to this island it's a sign he wants us to be here, but instead he felt that his duty to G-d to save his fellow man from peril superseded any speculations as to G-d's hand in their fate. We see that this is a very legitimate approach in Talmudic Judaism, as in the passage about the תנור של עכנאי.

Even so, I've still found John's approach to be a lot more helpful. Just doing what's right doesn't cut it sometimes. Sometimes we need to feel that G-d put us where we are for a very specific reason, and that we have some sort of earth-shatteringly important mission to fulfill in our lifetimes. John himself is often plagued by doubt, frantically praying to G-d to show him a sign that he's going in the right direction. And many times there is none, or he misunderstood them. The irony of it is that John dies in the fifth season alone and confused. Is it true then? That G-d is leading us to our destinies? It's hard to say, but if thinking in those terms is helpful to us then I think we should.

Wein Blog

2010-02-01T12:37:00.000-08:00

Favorable tidings friends: Rabbi Berel Wein has started a blog in his old age (which I discovered by becoming a fan of his Facebook page). The only blog to whom I can imagine this might prove even slightly threatening is the Jewish history blog of Joel Davidi.

Anyway, Rabbi Wein's inaugural post speaks of the importance of reflecting upon the past, and in particular the past of our people. He mentions that Heinrich Graetz was a wayward student of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, but doesn't speak much of their disagreements. As it happens Hirsch himself was sympathetic, at least, to Jews who had no interest in history. He once stated it's no surprise European Jews weren't avid history fans, for all the pages of their history is stained with the blood of their ancestors. Besides for a retelling of the slaughter of Jews, Jewish history didn't comprise of much back then.

Graetz, though, saw much more significance in the retelling of Jewish history. He saw it as having earth-shattering importance even, and after having left Hirsch, went on to create the greatest compendium of Jewish history penned till his day, nay, penned till this day. While it's true that Graetz's history is ludicrously biast, and that all our heroes he marks as villains, all our scholars he marks as ignoramuses, and the more a Rabbi is open to secularism the more he is praised, still, it must be agreed that there is honestly no work like his. I've always found it amusing that his history ends in the 1880's though. He thought that was where Jewish history ended. In the meantime the main bulk of modern Jewish history happened between his life and ours. Just goes to show you how fluid and dynamic our people and our history really are.

Come to think of it, I should like to write about the differences between Hirsch and Graetz actually (considering that they are the founders of Modern Orthodoxy and Conservatism respectively), but I shall leave that for a later date.

Also, he said of the written history found in works preceding Graetz as "ancillary to the main purpose of those works, which was to transmit the traditions of Torah. They were not history books in the modern sense of scholarship, but were recordings of oral traditions passed down through the ages". I think that statement might be a bit misleading. There were many works that had a journalistic nature to them, like the works of the Spanish exiles which described the times they lived in, the works describing the Chmielnicki massacres, the works of Benjamin of Tudela etc. These are not recounting some oral history, but are recording events as they happened, and they serve as great historical resources for those times.

Torture, Mountain Climbing and Shidduchim

2010-01-28T17:35:00.000-08:00

okay, for the first time in writing, my "separation makes the heart grow fonder" idea!:

I've always been a fan of the saying that "separation makes the heart grow fonder". In other words in any relationship, being available too often, being ever-present, is not beneficial but is in fact detrimental to a relationship. For with anything comes boredom. Even the object of your romantic desire can quickly become "boring" to you. But if you're forced to be away from them for a while, upon their return comes a rejuvenated closeness and intimacy that was not possible before. Which is the rationalization given for the Purity Laws as they apply to menstruation.

This principle doesn't only apply to a relationships though. It's applicable to many other aspects of life. In all things: if someone experiences a continuous orgy of pleasure, after a while it is not within his ability to experience pleasure. Whether it be in food, sexuality, sleep, sport, honor; anything which Man finds pleasing. Simply put: whatever you 'have', you don't 'want' anymore. You want what you don't have. It's obvious really. The glutton does not enjoy a good meal as much as the pauper. A licentious man does not enjoy sexuality as much as the celibate man. The absence of a thing, in a sense, is the only way to really have it! Absence IS presence. Abstinence IS sexuality. Hunger IS food. Pain IS pleasure! They are points of contrast and comparison. This idea has a central role in thought-processes, and I apply it to many aspects of life.

I once happened upon a blog that criticized Rabbi Avigdor Miller's asceticism. For example, after his death it was revealed that Rav Miller slept on a board, not a bed, he would constantly stop eating while he ate, and many other such practices. This blog called Rav Miller's chamber a torture chamber. I objected. I saw he was an atheist so I told him that not only did causing yourself privation make sense in Judaic terms, but it made sense in general as well. I told him about a television program I once saw, which told the story of a group of German adventure seekers who climbed parts of the alps that are usually traversed by no one. At the end of it they were starving and half dead. When one of them was asked by reporters why he did it, he said that when he goes back to Berlin now and has a beer, it'll be the best beer he ever had! He understood that pleasure does not come without privation.

Another aspect of life I've been associating this principle with recently is the senses of entitlement v.s. appreciation. Here in the my hometown of Brooklyn, more than anywhere else I've seen, and especially in the realm of dating (as is no wonder), I've come across people who have always had far more than I, and yet grew up in an absent-minded sense of great entitlement. Especially the daughters of "our community", as they're provided for more than the boys. Especially the fairer ones. They date as if they're trying on clothes. And they'll only take what they feel entitled to, which is probably part of the "shidduch crisis". I think that had these picky girls known loneliness, in it's severer forms, they would be less picky. Again, it is privation that humbles the soul, and brings it from haughtiness to humility, and therefore, to happiness.

The Tongue of G-d: I

2010-01-25T02:02:00.000-08:00

I've been chatting with a few folks over at Chana's blog recently (at times it can be a great place for random discussions, since she's not very engaged in comment moderation). I made a quick comment about how I disapproved of Chana using the Ashkenazi pronunciation in writing (since she's part Sefaradi), and it spurred some reader interaction (actually kind of proud about that). I do still want to write a post glorifying speaking ("Modern") Hebrew as a language, but it might be wise to say a few words about proper Hebrew pronunciation first anyway. The historical aspect of this subject has actually recently had exhaustive coverage in the blog of my newfound online friend, Joel Davidi. The only problem is that his blog offers no opinion, only a record of the opinions of others.

It should be remembered, first of all, that it makes a great difference how Hebrew is pronounced, for we use Hebrew in our prayers to G-d, and certainly we wouldn't want to be speaking to him blasphemously in some non-language jargon, but rather in a clear precise Hebrew, as He intended. Also, in Israel today, the way one pronounces the language has strong socio-political connotations, and in some places the way you pronounce the consonants is definitive of who you are and what you stand for.

My opinion has always been pretty straightforward on this matter: while there are Ashkenazim who'll tell you that there is a certain antiquity to their pronunciation, and that there have always been different Hebrew pronunciations, especially with regards to the different schools of nikkud that flourished in Israel a millenia ago, I still feel their words are misleading. The "authenticity" in this pronunciation is the dried skeleton of authenticity. Hebrew, friends, is a Middle Eastern, Semitic language, and it cannot be separated from those roots. Most of what constitutes the Ashkenazi pronunciation is purely a European and even a Germanic influence on this Middle Eastern language (which, linguistically, can lend itself to absurdities). Forget the pronunciation; the very way children of the lands of the uncircumcised move their mouths and lips is alien to any Semitic tongue. The most beneficial thing for them would be to study the native usages of other Semitic languages so they themselves can see what a perversion their speech was.

Vowels: They'll also say that they differentiate between the kamatz and the patah', and long vowels and short vowels more than Sefaradim. The truth is that it's mostly Israeli and a small group of Sefaradim who did not make any distinction at all between these vowels, especially considering that Arabic does differentiate between them. From Morocco to Iran different forms of the kamatz were in use, that were present in words, but were very discreet about their presence, unlike the clumsy European kamatz.

Syllables: Then of course is the מלרע/מלעיל (mil'el/mil'ra) issue. For anyone who doesn't know; in words with more than one sylable, mil'el is stressing the first syllable and mil'ra is stressing the last. German Yiddish and English obviously are mil'el languages. Hebrew is a mil'ra language. Anglicizing Hebrew words to be mil'ra is obviously just laziness and a corruption of our language. Nothing else to say about that.

Consonants: In the aforementioned blog comment, I said I got the impression that Chana wasn't the biggest scholar of biblical Hebrew in the world because "when someone is "still" using "suf"s instead of "tav"s you get the impression it would be impossible for them to grasp the beauty in the tongue of G-d". The consonants have always been a point of contention among us, the "ת רפויה" especially. But I'm concerned only with what seems most correct, not bickering. I see the words of the outspoken Meir Mazuz (today's leading Sefaradi grammarian) on this subject as being correct: theoretically it should be similar to the Arabic ث ("th") sound (which, unlike popular belief, is not much like the English "th", but is more like an "airy" hard t sound), but if you have a hard time pronouncing that all the time, you're better off saying "t" instead of "s" since it's much closer to the "t" sound.

Other than that, it's obviously right and correct to differentiate the א's from ע's, ח's from כ's, ט's from ת's, ק's from כ's and ס's from צ's (as in the other Semitic languages).

Flesh-Eating

2010-01-22T12:00:00.000-08:00

Continuing in my never-ending exposition of Naturalism v.s. the technological lifestyle, I've been thinking a bit about our consumption of the flesh of creatures less intelligent than ourselves. "Meat". Meat is something which never gets old and never will get old. While there are individuals today who will consume no flesh, there were people like that in the distant past as well. Such a thing can never catch on. It's funny that, two thousand years ago people enjoyed eating meat, ...ten thousand years ago people enjoyed eating meat. As long as there were humans and as long as there were animals people and all creatures enjoyed eating meat. And even ourselves, as we engage our high-tech computers and fly around in our planes and space shuttles even, we still find no satisfaction like the satisfaction of sinking our teeth into the flesh of another animal, the same as any hyena would. All other foods simply don't compare. I mean, who "makes shabbos" out of beans?

הייליגע ניגונים

2010-01-21T00:40:00.000-08:00

You know, I've never posted my opinions about music here before. Especially the music of my ancestors, "the Exiled of Jerusalem in Spain and Morocco". There are obviously two main components to music, the tune and the words (that is, if the song has lyrics):

The tune: I once commented in passing on Chana's blog that, unlike the opinion of one of the commentors there, it is not just words, but music as well, that can have a soul-corrupting influence over a person. Aristotle and Plato say so themselves. Even then there was proper, noble music, and "youth-corrupting" music. The Talmud reports that one of the reasons Yehushua' Cohen Gadol strayed from the just path in the end of his life was because he listened to Greek music. The corrupting type of Geek music. So it cannot be said that there is no such thing as harmful music.

Now, while there is what to be said about the development of music from that time until our time, the most important phenomenon that's pertinent to this context is the Advent of Rock music. Half a century ago, for the first time in a long time, religious and social leaders were complaining that the new style of music that was being produced was "corrupting the youth". Although today their opinions are looked upon as anachronisms, I agree with a lot of their essential arguments about Rock music. Their main argument was that it developed from the "drum music" of the descendants of the Africans in the South, and that it had an unwholesome beat and African flavor to it. Until then the West had known no such sensual music. Rock music (and the music that is has influenced) is unrelentingly popularistic and intrinsically different from the traditional music of every country.

Then we come to the sad subject of Chassidic Music, of "Jewish Music". Of what, friends, constitutes the "Jewishness" of Jewish music? The singing of Torah words or "Nigunnim" to Rock music tunes, or music inspired by that style. That is all anyone will ever mean by "Jewish" music. Could it be friends, that after a musical tradition spanning 3,300 years we have been reduced to a couple of low-life yeshiva dropouts singing well known verses to the tunes of Rock songs being the only thing that constitutes "Jewish" music?! What a loss.

I myself prefer to indulge in the glorious musical tradition of my ancestors in Morocco. The music of the Moroccan Jews consists mainly of sacred poems sung to what's known as Andalusian music. A pure and beautiful form of the orderly Arab Maqamat that derives it's name from the part of Spain where Jewish, Christian and Muslim thought developed in an atmosphere of mutual good will, Andalusia. The birthplace of the Rambam and countless other sages.

Yet, as today's leading expert in Moroccan Piyutim points out, there is more to Andalusian music than it's sobriety and it's ascetic beauty. You see, the music was brought to Morocco from the original Muslims who emigrated directly from Iraq to the Maghreb. What kind of people resided in Babylonia, friends, when this music was being developed in the seventh century if not a great multitude of Jews? Jews who had been exiled from their Land and their Temple, and no doubt brought their music with them, and which certainly had a great part in influencing this sacred music before it was taken to the Maghreb. What emerges then, is that Andalusian music is directly influenced by the very music our ancestors sang in the Beit Hamikdash!

The words: Again, the words in today's "Jewish music" is only simplistic and popular verses from our Torah, yet soiled by the impure garments that these crowd pleasing singers tie onto them. The lyrics of our liturgical poems, or "piyutim", and Moroccan piyutim especially, are much more complex, and much more beautiful.

As a general introduction to piyutim, I should say that they are poems in biblical Hebrew, based directly on the poems of the Tanach itself. Piyutim like these have been written since at least the Talmudic era, by Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir, and from then till today, in the never ending Rabbi-student Judaic tradition. There are Ashkenazi piyutim as well that are chanted weekly at that Shabbat tables. Yet there were a few particular places and times where the piyut thrived. The first is 11th-12th century Spain, where lived such greats as Rabbi Yehudah Halevi and Shlomo Ibn Gevirol. The second great era is that of the Kabalistic piyut, written mostly in and around Tzfat in the 16th century, under the influence of the Arizal. From there there are two main traditions, the Syrian piyut and the Moroccan piyut, the Rabbis of both countries having produced masterful works from the 18th century to the 20th. In both countries the pious would rise after midnight on the Sabbath 'eve and sing the sacred songs of their rabbis and sages until morning, and were then joined by the community in an inspiring Sabbath morning prayer. This international weekly piyut-singing vigil is called "Bakashot" (requests), since many of the songs are forms of prayer.

There is much to be said about the literary, metrical and contextual style and development of Moroccan piyuim, but one aspect I wish to concentrate on is that the Moroccan piyut, more than others, has a particular affinity towards the husband/wife relationship being a metaphor to the Israel/G-d relationship, as is portayed in Shir Hashirim. The style of Shir Hashirim, which was called the holiest of holies by our rabbis for that reason, is the style which beatifies and sanctifies these piyutim above the others. The song which embodies this the most being "דודי ירד לגנו", written by the holy Rabbi Chaim Hacohen (who lived in the time and place of the Ari, died at the age of 20, and wrote a Kabalistic commentary to the Shulchan Aruch). This song begins the Moroccan Bakashot, the rest of the songs change weekly, and are sung to a different Maqam (but that's for another time).

To me, that is the main joy in singing the piyutim and bakashot, the thought that these are the songs and transferred religious wisdom that endless generations of rabbis have imparted to us. They are vessels for us to grasp their religious feelings and fervor. Lippa Shmeltzer is a fine man, but he is surely no Yehudah Halevi, no Yisrael Nagara, no Chaim Hacohen and no Yisrael Abuchatzera (Baba Sali), nor is he even slightly up to par with any other of the piyut authors.

Another spiritual advantage of the piyut is that is itself is the highest form of prayer, prayer through song. Which is a fulfillment of Jewish reformers from John the Baptist to the Baal Shem Tov (להבדיל), who all said that the established prayer is not enough, and that one must pray to G-d at all times, especially through song.

The only problem is that the lower elements and the masses will always prefer Mordechai ben David-type stuff, since he sings only one or two Hebrew words, and these piyutim are masterworks of biblical Hebrew poetry, something which is far too lofty for the average man to grasp, and so it will remain, the prize of the initiated.

Decay

2010-01-19T18:41:00.000-08:00

I generally try to veer away from speaking about myself on this blog, since, quite simply, my existence is pointless and uneventful (at the moment), but there are a few recent changes in me that I wished to take note of here.

First off, one new phenomenon of concern to me is that I seem to have become far more boring than I once was. I used to be more of a waxing wellspring of thoughts and ideas, and now...everything seems a lot more self-evident to me, and better off not said. In fact I have been away from the companionship of friends for so long that I've forgotten what my personality was like. If I do come in contact with friends, it's more of an effort to recreate my old personality than spontaneity. Ah, the curse of age! if one does not ensure that they do not get swollowed up by the mundane...

Not that that's what preventing me from writing here more frequently. I have endless things I wish to write about. The only factor preventing that is lethargy, my great foe.

Another disturbing change in me is that these days I find myself in a constant state of jealousy. Of everyone. I find it particularly disturbing because I, in fact, always had trouble understanding the sin of jealousy. I would always be the one to bless my brother in my heart, and I never even understood what purpose there was in beating yourself up over something someone else has and you don't; it doesn't get you any closer to attaining it. It seemed to me to be bringing grief on oneself for no good reason. Yet now, I am perpetually consumed by it and find it unimaginable not to feel the way I do.

And lastly I'm also questioning my interest in parenting children in the near future. While I do, of course, want to raise up a new generation on the purity of proper idealism and continue my dynasty, on the other hand caring for children seems to be an unspeakably great burden from which one can never escape, and which in effect stops a person from living their own life. Even the near future would seem too early for me to give up my life. Every time I thinking of having children I think of these men I used to see in Bene Brak, bearded, dressed in suits and black hats, sweating and pushing a baby carriage through the sweltering streets of Bene Brak in the summer. What man wishes such a thing upon himself? What man does not wish to take some time to explore the world and its knowledge? And such things cannot be done with a child.

On Criticism

2010-01-15T00:15:00.000-08:00

Criticism, friends, is perhaps 'the' paramount contributor to interpersonal strife, and more importantly, marrital strife. Besides for the obvious "being worthy of criticism" or not, the two main components to this phenomenon are how criticism is given and how criticism is taken.

I would suppose the main reason why individuals feel the need to give criticism in marriage is a certain infallible image they had about their spouse which there has been reason for them to become disillusioned with, which obviously makes them feel deeply and emotionally disappointed.

This is a topic that interests me not only because I hope to have a romantic relationship with someone in the future, and know that it usually ends in criticism battles, "wars of justification" if you will, but more importantly, going back to the "criticism worthy" point, because I myself am generally more worthy of criticism than most people, yet I can rarely remember attempting to reveal to someone the injustice of their ways unless I had first been criticized by them. Only at that point would I try to show them that they themselves are not free of blame.

Personally, I don't think it's healthy or possible not to criticize, and I certainly don't hope to avoid it. But within the "תורת הביקורת", I feel there are some very simplistic guidelines which would help:

In regards to giving criticism: to try not to criticize your spouse when possible, and to overlook all injustices done towards you, and not take to heart all unmet expectations disillusionments about them. And when criticism is necessary, to do it in a cordial, friendly and not overly serious manner. Rather then "Why are you never home and having relations with someone else?!", perhaps "You know (name), I think it would be nice if you were home once in a while and didn't have sexual relationships with other people", etc.

In regards to getting criticism: once having had your attention brought to a negative aspect of yourself, to try to refrain from such actions in the future, and not to instead question the very legitimacy of the criticism, considering the critic is no less worthy of criticism.

It should be kept in mind though, that many times even people who marry and are in love have deep and intrinsic differences, and at times cannot possibly hope to meet each others needs and desires on all levels. The love itself is just the illusion of unity. But it is just such an illusion which brought them together, and just such an illusion which must exist if any man and woman are going to be living in any amount of harmony with each other. Unless they concentrate on child-rearing and act as divorcees under their own roof. ...which is also an option. Well, that or divorce, which is sometimes called for...

On Pot and Naturalism

2009-12-31T03:15:00.000-08:00

Honestly, it's absurd to say that just because cannabis is natural it's ok to smoke it all the time. Who are we to say in what context it was meant to be smoked? Anyway, all the vices of the world are "natural". Grape fermentation is 'natural', coffee and chocolate beans are 'natural'. Respite is natural, steak is natural and beautiful people are natural, yet unrestrained appetites for sleep or food or cohabitation are also 'natural'. They've all existed since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean that it's not part of our duty as responsible human beings to beware of them, and to ensure we don't develop addictions to them. Thorns are 'natural'. Wild beasts are natural. Cliffs, are 'natural'...

The Papa and the Baba

2009-12-27T18:42:00.000-08:00

I have borne witness recently, friends, to what seems to be a recurring theme among those who are relatively new to observant Judaism attempting to marry those who come from more observant families: the guy and the girl are perfectly fine with each other, notwithstanding the difference in their backgrounds, but when it comes time for the Baal Teshuva to be accepted into the religious family, one of the parents is adamantly opposed to such objectionable seed sullying the purity of their clan. The saga usually ends with the family seeking the councel of a Rosh Yeshiva or Mekubal, and discovering that their concerns were well-founded, since the authority figure is usually also in opposition to such unions.

To me the whole thing smacks of a pre-Fiddler on the Roof era; for even in that film, in all three marriages neither the father nor the community had much say in the face of love. To most (unorthodox) Jews today this phenomenon seems quite arcane, yet it's still "מעשים בכל יום" in our religious community "עד עצם היום הזה".

Yet what if a great man, say a descendant of the Abuhassera lineage, ..or your Rosh Yeshiva, ...or the Rebbe of Lubavitch בכבודו ובעצמו, after having been approached by you with the question of whether or not to cave in to parental pressure to turn down a prospective match with whom you've already developed an emotional relationship, tells you to listen to your elders and back down. Would you heed and does it make sense to heed?

It seems to boil down to how much supernatural Divine Inspiration and knowledge, or lack thereof, we aspire to this person, and whether their insights into our lives are true. Yet those who would wish to ascribe such inspiration to these men would use as proof the precept in Avot which states "עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק". But this proof insn't entirely convincing, since that Mishna may just be discussing "מילי דשמיא" (heavenly matters), but not necessarily the idea that one must heed a spiritual authority for "מילי דארעא" (earthly matters).

In regard to the latter, which is the topic of discussion here, the concept of "Da'at Torah" must be referred to. You see, many today feel that it's obvious that you must heed the guidance of your Rav in all matters, but upon a critical analysis it can be determined that many are of the opinion that Daat Torah is a relatively recent phenomenon, created by the modern Haredi group as a reaction to modernity.

While that may be true for Ashkenazim though, it is well known that Moroccan Jews always approach their Mystics, the "Mekubal" or "Baba" for advice in temporal matters, and that advice was always heeded. Unfortunately though, I think it is to our shame that we not only brought this institution to Israel, but it became quite popular among religious and irreligious Sefaradim alike, evolved into "big business" and provided opportunity for charlatans. Not to suggest that most Mekubalim in Israel are charlatans, but it is not unheard of. So not only have we, as Moroccan Jews in Israel, not stamped out these false notions, we promulgated them like never before.

Anyway, I grew up on American imagery and conceptualization, where if a man and a woman are in love, they don't let anything get in the way (...like in Fiddler on the Roof). Therefore to blindly trust Rabbinic authorities in these matters, is, in my opinion, not only somewhat foolish, but has no basis in Torah.

I wish to speak about this further in the future, in relation to how it affects the halachic process.

Not a Deaf Ear on the Blind Night

2009-12-24T17:40:00.000-08:00

As many of you may know, friends, tonight the Christians celebrate the commemoration of the birth of their Deity; Christmas. For the moment I'm not quite interested in discussing Christmas itself, though I admit it's an interesting topic, especially for those of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

Though traditionally Christmas has never quite been a rosy time for the Jews, most Jews today seem to celebrate Christmas in one way or another. From going to Christmas eve concerts to reveling in Christmas carols to Chasidic "Shalishsudis"s with Coca Cola bottles that have an absurdly out of place picture of an overly-merry, red-cheeked Santa on the wrapper.

My own form of involvement in this holiday is the aforementioned Christmas carol binges. It should be stated though that the idea of listening to and taking pleasure in songs sung for the glory of a foreign Deity is at least somewhat questionable from a halachic perspective. Yet it's essentially not a question of Christmas songs themselves, but of the music specific to any religion outside of our own, especially those with Pagan leanings. The "G-d of Israel" is in fact known to be very concerned about proper theology, but is there any room for lenience for songs of this nature?

Now, I can't go into the actual halachic specifics of the topic, but suffice it to say that I am generally lenient on religious songs of other monotheistic traditions as long as there is no mention of explicitly polytheistic ideas, even if the the premise of the entire religion is semi-polytheistic. This lenience, in my opinion, is very Maimonidean in origin. He was a proponent of an unprecedented amount of theological inclusion and acceptance.

As you may have noticed, I included some of the Christmas songs I'm fond of on the sidebar. I thought the red color would be amusing, but the truth is I myself find it to be of objectionable taste. Nonetheless, I wish to say a few words about some of these songs separately:

1) The Little Drummer Boy: The first song I wish to mention is this pleasant little tune written early in the previous century by the lovely American composer Katherine Davis. This song, I feel, more than the other Christmas songs, is not only evocative of the most sublime Jewish ideals, but in a strong sense are more typical of Chasidic ideas. For those who are not aware, the song is a narrative of a boy who is stuck in the predicament of having to greet the king, whom everyone else is bestowing lavish gifts to, with nothing but his drum. When his turn comes to greet the monarch, he decides that his best option is to play his drum as best he can, which ultimately finds favor with the king. The meaning of the parable is obvious; the object of Divine service is not "how much" we have to offer G-d, but to be fully sincere with what we actually do. As it says in Avot: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמיים.

There is a well known Chasidic tale told about Rabbi Yisrael ben Eliezer of Medzibizh that bears a great similarity to this: during the Yom Kippur prayers the "Baal Shem" refused to continue because he felt that there was something impeding their prayers. At that moment an unlearned village boy entered and played his flute as a form of prayer, not knowing that such performance is prohibited on the holy day. Yet instead of criticize this boy, the Baal Shem Tov exclaimed that is was this boys absence that was impeding their prayers, and with this performance they can rest assured their payers are reaching heaven's gates.

2) It Came Upon a Midnight Clear: While obviously discussing Christmas, this nineteenth century melody, written by Edmund Sears has no direct reference to Pagan G-ds (probably having something something to do with his being a Unitarian minister). Although this song was written partly as a melancholy critique of his overly materialistic society, it embodies a lot of the positive aspects of Christmas's current form, the main one being to increase in friendliness as the world becomes more desolate (as Christmas takes place in the dead of the winter). The song also beautifully contrasts the mundanity of life with the spiritual ecstasy of the angels, and ends with a yearning for the era of the Redemption.

3) O Come O Come Emmanuel: A metrical version of one of the Antiphons, the hymn was translated into English by John Mason Neale, again, in the nineteenth century. Although the song refers to the Christian god and is directed to him, from a non-Christian standpoint the song is simply about G-d, Israel and the coming Redemption. It's a prayer to and about the Jewish Messiah, to come and save Israel from it's plight in the exile. Essentially the song has surprisingly Jewish themes (aside from the whole "son of god" thing!), the last line for example reads "Who to Thy tribes, on Sinai's height, In ancient times did'st give the Law, In cloud, and majesty and awe. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel. Shall come to thee, O Israel".

4) Carol of the Bells: Translated from Mykola Leontovych's Ukrainian. The significance of this song is more melodical that lyrical, but again, just the idea that people should be kinder at the height of the winter and not miserable is a legitimate idea.

[The title of this post by the way, is based on a now obsolete Eastern European Jewish term for Chistmas, "בלינדע נאַכט" (Blind Night), now replaced by the more common "ניטל נאַכט".]

חלום משה בנו יעקוב

2009-12-22T11:35:00.000-08:00

During Chanukah I happened upon a cheap edition of a book I'd been looking for: an earlier, dialogue version of Luzzato's ethical opus, Messilat Yesharim. Many of his works were in dialogue form, but this particular work he later felt would work better in a condensed form, and as a monologue (which is all we've known about until a decade ago, when the earlier version was found in a Russian antiquities library). This event is what got me thinking recently of the Ramchal and his influence on later movements.

You see, as is evidenced in his preface (to both works), what the Ramchal would really like to see is people using the same energy, the same logic, the same hair-splitting analyses and the same studiousness not only in the study of the Talmud, but much more so in the study of ones own spiritual existence. That idea is not really mentioned later in the work, but it's the premise of everything he says; to have a regular "seder-iyyun" for "mussar".

What's funny is that while it's known that his works, and especially this work, deeply influenced Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, the founder of the "Mussar Movement" and the generations of thinkers and yeshivot that followed in his path, and even the main opposer of Chassidut when it first emerged, the Gaon of Vilnius, but it's less known that they, in a quieter way, influenced the founding of the Chassidic Movement as well. While Rabbi Yisrael ben Eliezer of Medzhybizh himself was a contemporary of Luzzato, it's difficult to pinpoint Luzzato's influence in his thought, though it is definitely there. One Chassidut in which the influence of Luzzato is still obvious today is, I think, Chassidut Chabad. Anybody in a Chabad Beit Midrash would tell you that an essential difference between them and their non-Chassidic counterparts is the stress and time they put into the study of "spirituality" and proper character training, which is essentially the wish of Luzzatto.

His Kabalah was a little more popular among some Chassidic thinkers. Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezeritch for example, commanded the printing of Luzzattos "Kalach Pitchei Chochmah", though some Rebbes (such as (the ninteenth century) Rabbi Menachem Mendel (Schneersohn) of Lyubavichi, frowned upon or prohibited it's study.

Luzzatto also affected other movements, such as the Zionist and the Reform: as H. N. Bialik was want to mention that "he was the father of the schools of thought of the 'Gra', the 'Besht', 'Ben Menahem' (Moses Mendelssohn) and in him lies the beginning of our own literary development (i.e. that of the "Maskilim"). It's also known that the writings of Rav Kook are based on a synthesis of the ideas of the Gra and the Ramchal. He once said "I feel like I'm a gilgul of Luzzatto".

It's always confused me that so many different groups affiliate with him. Which is really true to his ideology? Well, the reality is that most of his work was in kabbalah (something Graetz criticizes him for), so his true ideology is really quite steeped in mysticism, but he has another side, a "Nigla" side. An ethical side. And most of that side is revealed in both Messilat Yesharims....which is why I'm considering again writing on my blog dedicated to that book, but this time contrasting it with the dialogue version.

..I think the part of my brain that generates conclusions has been removed or something...

הָקֵם תָּקִים

2009-12-20T08:51:00.000-08:00

אין ספק שלעזור לאדם לשחרר את גלגלי מכוניתו מן השלגים הינו בכלל "כִּי תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ..." ו"הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ". ח

Lomo on Chanukah - '09

2009-12-13T21:28:00.000-08:00

I was just looking over my Chanukah post from last year, and while it does badly need to be rewritten, the core idea is correct.

One quirky little idea I've been pondering about Chanukah thus far this year is how different the historical reality of those times are from the historical setting I once imagined: when I think Chanukah I usually think Jews against Greeks, and the Greeks being at the height of their empire and having no rivals. In the meantime the reality of Chanukah is far more complex and unexpected than one would imagine: The original "Greek" conquerors weren't even Greeks but Macedonians who despised real Greeks, and the height of Greek culture had passed long ago (people like Aristotle had lived in the First Temple period, well before there was any Greek Empire, and Antiochus VI was one of the last great Seleucid kings).

One also imagines the Persians as having stepped into the historical background long before then, but they were still very much around at this time. The very same Persians who allowed for the Second Temple to initially be constructed, were in fact, Antiochus's main difficulty outside of the Judeans (he actually died waring against the Persians). The funny thing about the people of Iran is that they keep appearing in history under different names: Medes, Parthians, Sassanids etc. And the Romans, whom one thinks of as having thrived later in history were also very active at that time, and even made a pact with the Haasmonean Judeans against the Seleucids and Helenized Judeans. Since it was essentially some sort of civil war among the Judeans themselves, and the Seleucid king only came at the behest of the (Judean) Tobiads, who were at odds with the Onias/Hasmonean party, which represented the majority of the people, and who favored the Seleucid rival, the Egyptian Ptolemaic kingdom (who, after all, were just as Greek as the Seleucids, and were also an impediment to Judah's autonomy, yet was still preferred over the latter). All these historical complications are what make reading the Book of Maccabees so difficult: "We know the story, the oil burnt for eight days. What's all this with Onias and Romans?"!

I wouldn't have posted this since it bears no lesson, but...it's better than nothing!

…This is Man

2009-12-08T00:40:00.000-08:00

[In the picture: SS officers in the Auschwitz camp who, despite their busy day murdering millions of our ancestors, find the time to take a pleasant afternoon nap.]

My mind, friends, works in tangents. Seeing a topic discussed in one media makes me interested in finding out about it in another. For example: As a result of my having seen the film The Boy in the Striped Pajamas I became interested in "the Holocaust" in general. One thing that incited my interest was the fact that Jewish critics of the novel/film mentioned have a number of complaints about it regarding the authenticity with which it describes the Holocaust. One exceedingly obvious thing in the film is that the camp inmates aren't emaciated (kind of hard to do that with makeup). Another film I had seen which had questionable representations of the Holocaust was a BBC film ("television play" actually) entitled G-d On Trial (actually pretty interesting).

From there I chanced upon a very well known book that I had heard nothing about; Primo Levi's If This is Man, foolishly published in the United States under the title Survival in Auschwitz). I hadn't even known that Levi was "in the Holocaust". The book, of course, was quite interesting, and it fulfilled one of the main purposes I was reading; getting a real and accurate description of the Nazi concentration and death camps. It's a very detailed description that a movie wouldn't really be able to represent anyway; how cold it was, or how uncomfortable it is to march all day in wooden shoes or in the freezing rain wearing nothing but a shirt and trousers. He speaks about it from the perspective of a thoughtful individual, not a complainer, and he covers many of the great philosophical issues the ordeal brings up.

Once I’m already involved in this, I think I might read his work of labor-camp-inspired poetry, entitled "Shma" in America, as well as Elie Wiesel’s Night; a book I couldn't imagine reading in high school, where it was assigned to me. I might also watch Schindler’s List, a film that, again, I would have found ruthlessly boring in the past.

But from whence comes my newfound interest in the Holocaust? I must admit that I originally, like most people, found no good reason in researching it too much or being obsessed with it. One of my main reasons was that "holocaust studies" should not be what defines Judaism for Jews in America, and non-Jews find Jews who are "too" interested in the holocaust to be of ill taste. They feel that the world has heard quite enough about the holocaust, and that it's not quite the most fascinating or cheery subject to start with. While I still agree that these are legitimate concerns (among other, legitimate, concerns) my feelings about the German solution to the judenfrage changed with age. I used to see the holocaust, as some still do, as something that happened in some primordial past of the 1930's-40's, regarding events about which legends abound in shuls and batei midrash every ninth of Av, and seems to be as distant as the churban itself. Though when I became older and more interested in past events, the 40's didn't seem like so long ago. In fact as far as technological advancements of the 20's century go, it was really very much like today; there were telephones, refrigerators, cars, airplanes etc. Essentially it was very recent. In that case then, its occurrence becomes all the more unbelievable. In the environment that I grew up in (yeshivot), the fact that the 'Goyim' wanted to exterminate the Jews was a given; they're inherently evil, there's nothing to talk about. Yet if we're dealing with the center of world culture, a place where Jews had played an important part in he previous war, a place where Shai Agnon felt safe and comfortable, a place where even he who's philosophy became the cornerstone for Nazism, Friedrich Nietzsche, was violently opposed to German Anti-Semites, that such a country would, just a few years ago, annihilate countless of it's law-abiding citizens within a few years is difficult to comprehend. ..which is the main place from which interest in the holocaust generally stems.

It's not a question of the Jews then, but a question the Germans seem to pose about humanity; not a "Judenfrage", but a "Menschfrage". In fact it was not only Jews that the Germans wanted to annihilate: the very founding of the death camps was for the purpose of eradicating the Slavs. In the long run, the Germans essentially wished to conquer the Eastern European states, eradicate and enslave the native populations, and build German colonies which would eventually become part of Germany (all of which actually happened on a small scale. Auschwitz was to become just one of these future German cities). It’s the enth degree of the colonialist ideology: "If the Americans can wipe out countless of innocent natives because they are 'savages', use their land as lebensraum and bring innocents from the African continent to work for them, and if France and Britain can colonize the relatively civilized countries of the Arab world and India, who's to say we can't remove and enslave the Untermenschen and replace them with ourselves" they would say. It's really just an extension of the same principle, but a very hard concept for any 'Modern' to swallow. ..which is why this can't become a stale or abhorrent subject, but rather one which requires diligent study, for, as I often say, any society, especially that of America, could go downhill like Germany did, and turn on it's minorities who, in some parts of America, seem to almost exclusively be Jews. And besides, the views of contemporary non-Jews on the Holocaust should be concerning enough to us: when they hear tha six million Jews died, instead of saying "how could this happen?", many of them call the Jews liars. They say "it was not six million Jews that perished, as the Jews claim, but rather nine hundred thousand nine hundred and ninety!”. After all that suffering, the only response of the Nations is that not enough of us died! …enough to cause concern..

הצעיר לבית שריקי
ס"ט

In Lomo's Mind on a Cold Brooklyn Morning

2009-12-01T07:48:00.000-08:00

KK
…I step off the subway and realize its cold again in Brooklyn. Again the wayward clouds play their old sun-hiding trick, and again the howling wind rushes between the buildings as if it's a hardened New Yorker on the way to catch a train. Again, Brooklyn is a dismal town. Even the Bangladeshis are wondering if it was really a good idea to come here. "What were we so lacking in Bangladesh that we had to come here?" they ask each other. The Puerto Ricans are asking each other the same question.

Yet they and we still walk these streets and politely let the hurried wind pass. And for what do we trudge through this daily rat-race when we don't really need a lot of money to get by on our own? Just to buy a better one of those accident-mobiles? Why? Just to impress some pampered, self-absorbed witch who wouldn't put-up with the slightest infringement when the time came? To trap yourself in a never-ending load of responsibilities only to raise and support more of the same unappreciative takers? All to continue the circle of Brooklyn life? Perhaps it’s just a mood I get into, but again the whole cycle seems pointless to me. ..or perhaps since I haven’t quite lived yet I can’t imagine giving my life up so fast..

(I’m attempting to write in that narrative style that most people find so natural, but just seems to allude me. Just needs some getting used to, ..but I've still got a ways to go.)

ההודאה בחג ההודיה

2009-11-26T21:55:00.000-08:00

פלא בעיני: אם יש בכדי חג ההודיה לעורר לבבות יהודי אמריקה שומרי התורה והמצוות למנות את ברכותם אשר השפיע עליהם הא"ל ברוב טובו, וכל עצמו של החג נתייסד על הגיעם של הפוריטנים לחוף ההארץ החדש בשלום, והודאתם לא"ל על כך, אינו ק"ו שבחג שנתייסד על הגיענו לארץ ישראל בשלום והקימתינו בה ממשל יהודי שנודה א"לוהינו על שהנחיל לאבותינו ארץ חמדה, טובה, ורחבה, ברית ותורה חיים ומזון?! וכי אינו מן הראוי ביום ההוא לפחות להלל אל"לוהינו בהלל גמור, ולקחת לקח טוב מדוגמת חג ההודיה למנות את ברכותינו ביום שגמל לנו הא"ל כאלה וכאלה טובות וחסדים (דהיינו חג העצמאות)? ח

ראיו לציין גם: וכי חג שכזה יש בכוחה לזרוק צל על חג יותר ראוי? הלא המתיישבים הראשונים האלו נתקלו בקשיי התאקלמות רבים, והם לא הצליחו לפרנס את ישובם אם לא שהאינדיאנים באו לעזרתם. ומה עשו האמריקאים להודות לבעלי טובתם? השמידו את זכרם מעל פני האדמה. בעיני, התנהגות שכזאת מסמלת כפוי טובה ולא הודיה. ח

A Queer Dilemma

2009-11-25T15:56:00.000-08:00

I once had a discussion over at Chana's blog with a lady named Megan about homosexuality in the perspective of Jewish law and objective truth. It was in response to a post about how people with homosexual natures in the Jewish community are at a dilemma in regards to what to do with themselves and their futures. I've recently come to recall some of my ideas on the subject and I still feel some of basically still hold true. So this is not necessarily to follow-up on the discussion I was having there, but rather to restate my ideas.

My first argument is legal: although the legal systems of democracies are created to be objectively just and applicable to people of all creeds and religions, there are still a great many laws which are absurd. It seems to me that the laws are just an extension of the Western norms, which themselves are greatly influenced by the norms of Greece and Rome. Yet were the ethics of the Greeks and the Romans objectively just? They would discard newborns that were seen as "unfit". Are the laws here in America just? Less than a century ago eugenics was popular, and the severe mistreatment of African-Americans and discrimination against Jews was part of the law.

They say that it's unjust to even suggest that homosexuality might not be the best thing in the world, yet there are other sexual practices that are not "objectively" evil that are greatly discouraged. For example the cohabitation between an adult and a consenting minor is illegal. For an eighteen year old boy to cohabitate with a seventeen year old girl is illegal yet cohabitation between two of the same sex is beyond reproach? There is even a case of a seventeen year old male being arrested for viewing pornographic images of seventeen year old females. Yet pornographic images of eighteen year old females is fine. Yet prostitution is basically fine as well.

They defend their opinions by saying that homosexuality is natural in some people and therefore can't be discriminated against. Well, the desire to be intimate with minors, children, close relatives and even animals is quite natural to some people as well. If the law is objective who's to say those should not be deemed legal in the ideal state? If it's some sort of sexual or emotional repression we fear, than we should fear the sexual repression of the child molester as well (I saw Little Children recently).

Rather the law in Western lands simply follows the Western tradition, in which homosexuality is not quite as frowned upon as the other practices mentioned. Yet they complain when Muslims suggest homosexuality should be illegal, even though the Oriental tradition condemns homosexuals. We must conclude then, that just as with the Mission, the Western world, rather than trying to spread "Christianity", was trying to spread "Western culture", so too with the wish of the Western Europeans and their descendants throughout the globe to spread "Democracy"; it is not objective law they wish to disseminate, but rather their own view of things.

Another argument I mentioned there that I feel still stands is the idea that it is within our ability to change our sexual natures to an extent, perhaps even from homosexuality to heterosexuality. My very mention of such an idea brought me sharp criticism from the other commentators, as if they're the worlds experts on people's sexual natures. There is practically no scientific evidence saying it's impossible for people to become attracted to people of the same or other gender.In fact there is much evidence suggesting it is possible.

What the critics would respond to this is that some males were simply born with more estrogen in their bodies, and are therefore wholly female from a chemical standpoint. They suggest that there were homosexuals in every era and in every society; that it's quite natural and that it can't be helped. Still, I feel that the truly effeminate men and emasculate women are the minority in today's homo/bi-sexual community. The majority can be heterosexual had the need arose. For example in the European Dark Ages there is not much of a record of homosexual activity. I cannot recount the history of populations with little-to-no homosexual populations, but suffice it to say in the right environment more people are born with heterosexual inclinations. It seems to me that in very affluent societies that can mimic the wealth of the ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman societies, for example today's Western societies (for example the one we live within here in the coastal United States) more effeminate males and emasculate females are born.

Instead, therefore, of having endless sympathy with the struggles of homosexuals who wish to live religious lives, we are better off attempting to discover what causes homosexuality and trying to change people's innate natures (since it does, in fact, seem to be very possible).

Correct? Incorrect?

ס"ט

My New Blog

2009-11-24T18:46:00.000-08:00

Well, I’ve finally started a new blog again, entitled “הציוני האחרון”. I start way too many blogs, I know. I’ve actually been meaning to start it for a while but I kept procrastinating. Tonight I haven't got much to o so I’m starting it up. If anyone has any Israel-related posts they might want to contribute, feel free to join.

זו אגדה

2009-11-19T20:11:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite types of books to read, friends, is the type of book that is so obscure most people (of the cultured class) would be surprised to hear that such a book existed. A set of books I've been reading recently that's met that standard more than some others is the diaries of Theodor Herzl. I've read Der Judenstaat in the past (which, in yeshiva in Jerusalem, was also pretty obscure), but it's far more eye-opening to see the day-to-day entries of the "Visionary of the State" in the late nineteenth century. What strikes me as humorous about Herzl's speeches and writings, or for that matter any of the Western European Zionists of his day, was how well they had the entire endeavor planned out, and how very absurd most of those ideas seem today (though the truth is some of his predictions about the future state are shockingly accurate...but perhaps only because the founders wished to shape things in Herzl's vision).

For example Herzl envisioned a state where the majority of the first immigrants at the time of the state's founding would be from the West, coming out of their own volition in a very organized manner. In reality most of the founding generation came from the East, most of them only as refugees of pogroms or the war, and there would be a great number brought in from the Orient, which he seemed not to have considered.

The best thing about Herzl's ignorance about the future though, is that he sort of knew deep down inside that there could be no state if world politics stayed as they were. The Ottomans swore they would never relinquish the holy sites of Palestine to the Jews, the Pope was thoroughly uninterested in Herzl and even the European leaders weren't so excited about the prospect. It is perhaps for this reason that in the end of his life he gave precedence to the idea that there be a Jewish state than to the idea that it be situated in the historical land of Israel, where Jewish pioneers had been arriving until then. He would never have foreseen that soon after his death the Ottoman Empire would collapse and the Arab lands partitioned by the Western powers. On the other hand he could never have foreseen that the Jews would not leave Europe unless forced out, and that even after a holocaust the nations of the world would still be extremely iffy about allowing a Jewish state.

This last point has always been disturbing to me though; here Herzl thought he had his game made, it was a win-win situation; the Europeans don't want the Jews and the Jews ultimately want to return to Palestine. He thought all it would take was a stroll over to the Kaiser and another over to the sultan and viola; the Jewish question solved. Yet after chatting with some the German Dukes, they say "who said we want to lose our Jews? What will be with the economy?", and three decades later they decimated the Jews but still refused to grant them a homeland. If you don't like them this is your opportunity to be rid of them! To me it seems like a great paradox. A love-hate relationship. They can't live with us and they can't live without us. Even today the Jewish population in the holy land is constantly harassed by their neighbors and by the media, and yet many of them are the very same people who criticize the Jewish population in their own countries (David Duke being an extreme example of someone who doesn't want Jews in America, yet is pro-Palestinian when it comes to Judea, Samaria and Gaza).

Anyway, the entire set makes for an interesting read. Lots of great lines there. I could practically write a running commentary on the thing.

[Shlomo Avineri article on the diaries]

Lomo and Time

2009-11-16T11:26:00.000-08:00

[The title, obviously being based on the philosophical work Being and Time, for all you non-Heideggernicks out there]

For various reasons I've recently come to reexamine my relationship with temporal movement and the effect or lack of effect that it has on my existence. I'm sorry to say that my relationship with punctuality hasn't always been the closest, which has actually, strangely enough, made me more punctual at times. For example someone I knew once asked me why I was so 'unusually' punctual. The answer, obviously, was that because I naturally wasn't, I had more of an agenda to prove I was...

In order to discuss this subject though, we should understand that "time" is such a relative word. The passage of time on a stone, for example, has little effect on it's lifestyle. Yet for human beings time is our being, the passage of time over us is more of our life having gone by; the flowing of our blood, the pumping of our hearts. When you "take" someones time therefore, it's not only their time you're taking, but their very life. For what does a life consist of if not years, and what do years consist of if not days, and days consist of hours. So creating a situation in which someone is forced to be idle for one of those hours is undoubtedly snatching away part of their life.

In the slaughterhouse in Wisconsin which had the good fortune of finding me employed therein, we worked on shifts, and since there was little management, ones only hope of being relieved of his shift was the goodwill of his fellow worker to come on time. During my time there I noticed the ways of an old Uzbeki man who was actually our oldest member: despite his age he was always five to fifteen minutes early to his shift, thus affording great relief to the worker of the previous shift, and gaining nothing in return. Personally, at the time his practice didn't sit well with me, seeing as if he would fill my shift early I would be obliged to do the same for him. Yet the truth is that temporal form of giving is in fact the highest form.

Even if you are tardy to a class or meeting or group of any kind where your presence is expected, if you are absent, that loss is felt by the group (hopefully!) and it mars their experience to a small extent, but even the slightest extent should be of concern. It's written that rabbi "Nachman of Bratslav" (founder of the Breslov Chasidut) was very off-put if there were missing faces from his sacred gatherings.

Thus if one does wish to engage in a more scrupulous form of time management one thing he will have to acquire is a foresight of every possible prevention from arriving at his destination at the proper moment.

Do not think, by the way, that these ideas are alien to our religion. Although punctuality was greatly stressed by the proponents of the "Mussar Movement", even authors who preceded that era wrote much about time management (especially in relation to prayer and study), and we see it written in more modern works such as the "עלי שור" (Wolbe) and "אור לציון" (Aba Shaul).

I'm not verbalizing these dictums for didactic reasons, but as a hope that the repeating of these principles will assist myself and others in their fulfillment.

עבד, ס"ט

"Shabbos Brachos Party"

2009-11-11T17:39:00.000-08:00

Another thing I wanted to mention recently was that I, for reasons beyond my control, had to sit in for a "Brachos Party" this past Shabbat. Now, I'm the youngest of my clan, and I don't often see children, so seeing a whole array of toddlers and young children in their own environment is, to me, ...similar to the experience of watching a group of guinea pigs interact with each other. Perhaps it says something about my being "too interested" in the opposite sex or gender relations, but one thing that caught my eye the most was some of the interactions between the boys and the girls. The two specimens I studied most closely were a pair of toddlers (a male Uzbek and a blond female with Swiss features) and a pair of children (both Uzbek-American).

The toddlers concerned me since the girl was only a month older than the boy yet she seemed to run circles around him intellectually (unfortunately, probably a sign of what their future statuses will be in relation to one another in society when they become adults). Though all-in-all, they seemed not to harbor any particular disposition towards each other, in fact they seemed to get on quite well. Not half as well, though, as the two Uzbek-American children (male: 6, female: 4). If I didn't know better I would think they were just a happily married, albeit very small, couple. The way their personalities complimented one another was uncanny, and even when one wronged the other to the point of causing tears, they were not able to, or perhaps did not want to, recall each others wrongs later on.

To me what these children seemed to be doing was enforcing a theory I had already had regarding the spousal compatibility of men and women, namely that any two people have the potential to live side by side in relative harmony. The only reason two people would not do so is because they are both concentrating their vision on unimportant and negligible differences between them, yet they overlook the vast amount of things they have in common with one another. And even if you grouped people with nothing in common (say, a Polish man and Ethiopian woman stranded on a desrted island), chances are they both manage to live in harmony and work for one anthers welfare.

Lostathon Notes

2009-11-09T09:17:00.000-08:00

(I wanted to have written this a while ago, but I've been busy...no, not watching TV!)

Diane Winston teaches a "Religion, Media and Holywood" class in USC which "examines how spiritual and ethical issues are addressed in secular forums for mass audiences" (syllabus). I heard of her since she was invited to discuss her work on Speaking of Faith, and I’m generally a fan and follower of the program. Her basic message was that in recent times, and especially in the "post 9/11 era" in America, some television programs have not only greatly improved in quality and production, but are addressing many more moral and ethical issues than they have in the past. The examples she gave were the programs The Wire, House, Lost and Battlestar Galactica. Whereas shows like the original Star Trek had few moral undertones, shows like "Battlestar" send strong messages about moral conflicts that face contemporary society.

As I've mentioned already, partly through the influence of that program, and partly since I had a previous interest, I decided to watch all the episodes of Lost aired thus far, since Mrs. Winston pointed it out as one of the most thought-provoking of the others mentioned. It took me about three weeks to a month to watch it all. One thing I particularly liked about the show was that (in the first few seasons at least) it dedicated each episode to one character, and showed what their backgrounds, motivations and agendas are. So while each character interacts with the other, no character fully understands the reason the other does things expect themselves...which has always been something that's fascinated me about life; the fact that we're all existing and interacting in the same world, yet what's going on in our minds and what drives each of us can be extremely different from one person to the other.

Another aspect I liked about it was the fact that, while there are "good guys" and "bad guys", the heroes aren't totally heroic and the villains aren't exactly villainous (i.e. the heroes aren't beyond reproach since their self interests play a big role in their decisions, and the villains have their legitimate reasons for doing what seems unjust). All-in-all it's a lot more reminiscent of film than of traditional television.

Yet after completing the fifth season I asked myself, what exactly did I gain from watching this? Unfortunately, I feel that more than make me more thoughtful about life and the world around me, all this show accomplished in creating within me is a curiosity regarding what the nature of the island is, what the smoke monster really is, what the fate of the story's protagonists will be, and why the hell Richard Alpert seems to have been wearing a blue shirt and gray pants since 1954 (which, by the way, is another funny aspect of the show; the fact that many of the characters share names with philosophers and famous thinkers), which, of course, have no bearing on my life.

After watching it for a while I was reminded of the first words of the first song in Jewel's first album, "People living their lives for you on TV, they say they're better than you, and you agree". In other words, watching that sort of thing gives you the impression that your doings are of lesser consequence than theirs, since if they weren't, they would be watching you, not vice-versa. Now, that's true about film and even novels and such, but I would say it's more true about television since the viewer has the time to really get to know the characters, since in most cases he's seeing them every week for years on end.
So, in retrospect, it doesn't seem like this aspect of television has rejected the ideals of sensationalism that were a staple of television production in the past.

Tweetup

2009-11-04T23:58:00.000-08:00

I feel silly, friends, that after just recently complaining that my blog has taken on too journal-like a style when I wrote about my attendance at a blogger-oriented event, I am again going to write about my attendance at yet another blogger-oriented event: the "Tweetup" (a word I've found to make a lot more sense written than spoken). Though considering, it's not quite antithetical to record my experiences meeting bloggers here, since it's a blog-related experience (still, I'd rather my blog be filled with more "substance" posts). In fact to me meeting bloggers is not only a social event, it's an experiment of sorts. An experiment attempting to discover what sort of real-life individual ends up writing a blog, and in what way they represent and express themselves different than in reality. You see, if nine out of ten of every Jewish pedestrian strolling down Avenue J in Brooklyn every day was a blog author the need for the experiment wouldn't be so pressing. But as it stands there's only a handful of people who find their ideas important enough that they feel a need to express them online, which is what tells me that these people are unique, and that their words are worth some analysis.

Anyway, I unfortunately came to the place where it was to be held with the intention to leave, since I didn't think I would recognize anyone there, not to mention the event coincided almost exactly with an important exam for my school-career. It was sort of a shame though, since, aside from those I had met in the past, there were many individuals there who I knew about through the Internet but had not yet met. I said hello to Moshe, met Jacob the Jew, and a woman with an unusual idea introduced herself to us. Elke Sudin's blog is actually only a prototype for a book she wishes to create. As someone who's been spending extensive amounts of time in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn for the first time, I found her message interesting; a contrast of similarities between the elegant and urban ('White') European-Americans that reside in Williamsburg and the Chassidim who have long been a trademark of that neighborhood. As someone who's seen the contrast first-hand....well, let's just say such a book would pique the curiosity of many a bookstore-goer.

Another two members of the blogging community who I didn't expect to see were the authors of the Frum Female (who I commend for following my blog!) and Wolfish Musings (who himself has a good fourty follwers) blogs (the latter of whom I was later able to have an extensive discussion with on the train). Both relatively well-known, yet prefer to stay as anonymous as possible. A little latter Mottel arrived with his wife and filled-out the Chabad-blogger niche in the gathering. There were obviously a few Twitter updaters, but since I'm still generally at a loss as to what the purpose of Twitter is, I wasn't able to comprehend their contributions as much as I was those of the bloggers.

All in all it was interesting to see all of them, and Heshy Fried is commendable for being an arbiter of pulling it together (for no apparent financial gain). Perhaps there will be more in the future.. The only down-side was that those social interactions stuck a little too tightly in my head while I was later trying to take my exam...

The Jew

2009-10-28T18:08:00.000-07:00

Names, my friends, are often lost in translation, and it is a good show of sensitivity to names to attempt to render them as loyal to their language of origin as possible. One simple example is that what are today known as ‘Muslims’ in English were once known as Muhamadeans, or ‘followers of Muhammad’ (a word which even the spell check today doesn’t pick up), but after prolonged interactions between the British and the Arabs the former became more aware of how absurd a name Muhamadeans was, and ultimately called the Arabs as they call themselves, ‘Muslims’ (in today’s day the American president is known to be setting precedents in regards to pronouncing names more correctly, such as pronounciations of ‘Iraq’ and ‘Iran’ in which they don’t rhyme with ‘rack’ and ‘ran’).

I bring this up, friends, because the word to describe my own religion is not the word with the most exquisite intonation in the English language. In fact it’s a monosyllable name: ‘Jew’. In my mind there is no question that the way this word evolved in Romance, Germanic and other European languages had a lot to do with how Jews were seen for time immemorial, namely hated beyond all hate and despised beyond all spite. I think it’s quite possible the name could have been rendered ‘Judean’ or ‘Israelite’ or something along those lines, had the original transliteratiors of that name not had a disposition towards us, especially considering they gave themselves the long, flowery two syllable name of ‘Christians’.

That is without mentioning that in the English language the word ‘Jew’ has become a byword for every vice and degeneracy that one may conjure up. To call a Jew a ‘Jew’ is slander enough. And not the word ‘Jew’ alone, but also the English title for our holy sages the bearers of the tradition and authors of the Mishna and Talmud has become a despicable word. A ‘Pharisee’ is the most acute kind of hypocrite.

Yet our own hands are not completely clean of this behavior, since in our literature we give ourselves the flattering name of ‘Yisrael’, whereas a member of the nations gets the one syllable title which has become a byword for unruliness and ung-dliness in its own right: ‘Goy’.

Should we then, as the Muslims, demand we be called by a more flattering name? Our ancestors in Germany two hundred years ago tried a similar thing; they demanded to be called ‘Germans of the Mosaic Faith’. The name worked for a while, but anytime the Western European powers were in the Jew-hating mood they passed legislation that they should officially be called ‘Jews’.

One current approach to the issue that I’ve been hearing since I was young is to use the word ‘Yehudi’ in English as opposed to ‘Jew’ (which seems to be the approach our friend Ehav Ever has taken). My own approach has been similar, which is to at least call ourselves by the name of Yisrael if we’re speaking in a religious context. Though as far as official linguistic usages are concerned, I usually feel far more comfortable using a name that’s already found in the dictionary, even if it has a ‘goolis-yeed’, bourgeoisie sort of swindling connotation to it which is the epitome of every ill ever associated with our nation.

Slam II: מחלוקת במחיצות

2009-10-26T14:37:00.000-07:00

So there seems to have been some major beef over at e and TRS's blogs about the very poetry gathering I just wrote about. It seems to be a culmination of sorts, between TRS and his ideologies and Mottel and his. Between the Liberal and open to secularism aspect of Chabad and it's conservative counterpart. While TRS is accepting of the idea of communication between the sexes online and even in real-life social situations where there is nothing to bar the mingling of the sexes, Mottel sees it as a cancer in the heart of Crown Heights, and laments the fact that in the very epicenter of everything that Chabad stands for, and from where it emanates to the world, there should be gatherings that not only bring to question principles of Chassidut, but principles of halacha as well.

To me the disagreement is of interest since I was not aware of this schism until very recently. It seems that the children of the founding generation of Chabad Chassidut in America have spawned a generation that, to an extent, has become just as Americanized as many of their parents before the light of Chabad shone upon them. Yet which is correct (in regards to mingling)? Obviously neither and both, but I wish here not to speak of the objective truth, but of my own experiences on the subject:

In the past I took the stringent approach to this subject. The smallest hole in a dam is likely to cause an entire breach. Halacha and the ideals of Jewish spirituality don't allow for concessions in this realm. Yet upon reflection I questioned whether halacha was not the only factor which affected my behavior. I was by nature the type to be constantly bent over an oversized tome of Talmud, to separate himself from society into a world of individualist spirituality and by nature shun the society of the womenfolk. I concluded that it was not only halacha and tzniut that kept me from socializing, but it was part of my natural disturbing level of timidness. I was only using halacha as an excuse to fall deeper into the trap of my own pathologically unsocial personality. It's not that I didn't believe in speaking to women, it's that I was unable to, even if the situation called for it. Instead of becoming more religious I was actually becoming a social hermit of sorts.

But there are also more generalistic concerns at play here, such as whether total separation of the sexes from an early age is really the best and socially 'healthiest' way to go about things. You see, while it could be it is the religious ideal, the fact is that in many cases the only representation one receives of the opposite sex is the gross misrepresentations of the media. Which in turn causes what I see as a derivative of the principle that "separation makes the heart grow fonder", which is that upon the absence of a person or thing a person can develop a fanciful nostalgia for them. I'm not certain this is always true, but for young men at least, a certain untrue and unhealthy glorification of the fairer sex can develop upon the lengthy lack of a female presence. In my opinion most of us are far more corrupted than the type of individual these halachot were intended for. If anything we require the unideal reality of "rehabilitation". In this instance of "עת לעשות לה הפרו תורתך" one of the only potent forms of rehabilitation is to interact with actual individuals of the opposite sex with the hopes of dampening of this false glorification.

That is if one views the problem from a psychological perspective, but from an ideological perspective there are also good reasons to be flirting. But it is only one of two legitimate, but fundamentally different, outlooks on Judaism. One approach is exclusive, as I was when I was younger, and states that every evil inclination that has ever entered the minds of our people to cause them to sin have been caused by the direct or indirect influence of the ung-dly nations whom we have lived amongst, but during eras when the people of G-d have shunned all influences that were not our own, and cleansed the heathen spirit from within them and without, they were capable of creating a Utopian, g-dly, purely Jewish, society. And if we followed in their footsteps, and threw off of ourselves all the corruptions of the alien gods in our midst, we would be capable of the same spiritual utopia.

The other, absurdly inclusive approach, suggests that "Torah" means 'teachings' or 'instructions'. The instructions are for life itself. If one hides themselves away in a Beit Midrash all the time what opportunity will they have to apply the Torah to their lives. The Torah supposes you engage in life in all it's aspects. In the time of the Talmud our sages were part and parcel of the society around them, and were able to employ EVERY rule of the Torah in reality, the same rules that, to our loss, have become mere theory and intellectual speculation in our time. According to this outlook then, engaging in life and in real world situations (like interacting with females), yet acting in a lofty manner though the application of Torah principles is the very essence of our propose here in this world.

All this is from my own experience though, and does not reflect the Chasidic approach to the subject which spurred the argument I mentioned. Yet I am not discussing the issue with those premises in mind since I believe that much of that movement was founded fallaciously, so it's not worth considering...

And to think; all this and I haven't even mentioned how this relates to the shidduchim issue!

Slam

2009-10-25T00:14:00.000-07:00

I hate to write things here that would give a journal-like feel, since that would suggest a poverty in ideas, but for me there are ideas of lasting value to be gleaned from this, so: I finally ended up attending one of Cheerio's poetry sessions. It was very....informative. And I saw two blog authors who I had not yet seen in person (Dowy and Altie, ...it's only right to link).

First of all in regards to poetry: Now, if you were to approach me in the past asking if there is any correlation between Chassidut Chabad and a great appreciation of poetry I'm afraid I would have had to answer in the negative. My surprise, therefore, at such a love for poetry as displayed by adherents of that Chassidut, in which each and every individual present was called up to read just as on Simchat Torah, was not small. Personally it was not only the approach but also the very content and form of the poetry that I found eye-opening, since, as with most things, I've only recently come to decipher what is appreciable about modern forms of this art.

I personally come from a background of great appreciation for the beautiful verse and form of the Hebrew prose of Halevi, Ben Gevirol and the like, and I scoffed at the idea that there could be such beauty in English poetry in the same way the French used to mock the idea of beautiful German poetry. But as I've begun to meet poets (they seem to be everywhere in my life all of a sudden) and read more modern poetry I've come to see that today's poetry is not at all about beauty or form, but purely about moods and ideas. And the sort of idea that's lauded most is one that displays the principles of "realism". So far all I can say is that it seems to be a method of great potential for describing ideas and feelings. I shall have to research the subject.

In regards to the readers: A very interesting crowd. All from religious-Chabad households and yet all well educated, well spoken, well written and well trained in any which talent they may surpass at. Truly a well-rounded sort of folk, the kind one rarely sees turn up on the shores of Brooklyn--yet an interesting phenomenon on the American Jewish scene as a whole. Wholly religious and yet wholly American and wholly secular--the sort of thing the Modern Orthodox seem to be striving for. Quite an accomplishment and hopefully a lesson to others as well. I myself on the other hand, have never been quite as well rounded, but rather grapple with every aspect of life as if I were learning to walk for the first time. Yet I don't believe there is any sort of intrinsic difference that separates us; if I had been raised as them there is no question that I too would have been just as well rounded. But it would seem that as for me, G-d had other plans.

I would go on with more meaningless minutiae about my evening, but it is not my custom to be lengthy here.

פנים חדשות

2009-10-21T19:12:00.001-07:00

Well friends, I've decided it's time for me to again record a few of my thoughts here. As I said in a comment to the previous post some of my reasons for not writing for a while are depression, off-hour employment at a home for those with "special needs" and an attempt to watch all the episodes of the "Lost" television program in a short amount of time....among other things...

Nonetheless, one fleeting thought (if it can be called that) that came upon me last night was a recollection of something a friend of mine once told me. This was a friend who had advanced in years and who had been married for quite a while, who I suspected of utilizing the services of prostitutes (though I don't think he detected it in me). Either way, he once told me the same justification one hears for any sexual misdemeanor; a comparison between a diversification of food to a diversification in sexuality. If one were to eat the same thing every day the monotony would become unbearable. So with ones wife; according to him having experienced intimacy with the same person too often causes an unrestrainable and unblameable need for diversification.

To me, the fact that a person's very appearance changes often seemed relevant to the subject. For a face of twenty is not that of thirty, nor that of thirty similar to that of forty. The face that you married is not the same one that will be for all time. Perhaps taking note of these changes would have helped someone as my friend overcome this urge for change...

איסור דלֹא תְחָנֵּם

2009-09-30T18:26:00.000-07:00

In a recent, strange post from our friend e, he led us to a discussion on “hashkafa.com” (a site I actually know little of) that gives the impression that some of the laws of Judaism are mean to non-Jews, especially those based on the pasuk of “lo teh’onem”. Is the Torah a “mean” religion? k
k
Well obviously the Torah is very hard on Pagans in Israel who might be influencing the Israelites with their ways. Some of these hard-line rules of the Torah in regards to Israel’s native Pagan inhabitants can be found in the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy. For example verse two tells us not to “show mercy to them” (“לא תחנם”). (The truth is though that this commandment is by far not the “meanest” commandment regarding the ‘seven nations’ .In fact the conquest of Israel in general was to be pretty cruel to the Pagan natives and their religion (for example not to leave women, children, cattle or religious objects alive or unharmed), so I’m not sure why they decided on this command as an example of cruelty to “goyim”.)

The sages of Israel, not only understood this command as applying to further generations, but in accordance with the Verbal Law, listed three more ways to read this verse (based on three variant ways to read the word “תחנם” without making pre-supposed assumptions about what the vowel marks should be): Selling land to Pagans in Israel, giving gifts to Pagans and praising Pagans.

These three laws have been expounded upon in the Talmud and recorded as normative halacha in books such as the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 151), usually referring to said Pagans as “עכו"ם” (an acronym for “עובדי כוכבים ומזלות”). One huuuuge misunderstanding that gets created with these types of halachot though is the question whether they were said only regarding Polytheists but not monotheistic gentiles or if the word “עכום” in the Shulchan Aruch just a thin, censure-related cover-up for the word “גוי”, which obviously also refers to monotheistic gentiles such as the Muslims and the Sikhs (perhaps some forms of Christianity as well)?

My opinion has always sided with the Rambam in this matter, that it’s quite clear that the agenda of the Torah is not to “be mean to goyim”, but to be very stern with polytheists, especially when they have the potential to influence Jews with their theology, which in most cases, also means influencing Jews with a “pre-monotheistic” set of morals. In other words if someone who was born Jewish becomes a polytheist he is hated in G-d’s eyes and deserves to be killed, just like any other polytheist influencing monotheists (“Jews”), and if someone who wasn’t born into “the faith” becomes monotheistic he is beloved by G-d. The Torah is extremely concerned with theology (in the sense of polytheism vs. monotheism), not at all with race and not really with the religion of the gentiles as long as they’re monotheistic. Now, it’s obviously impossible to say that none of the halachot which were said about polytheists refer to monotheistic gentiles, but certainly not these..

In that case then, there should be no lack of praise and friendly interactions between the Jews and their (not necessarily “Jewish”) fellow monotheists (1). That’s about monotheists, but what about polytheists (such as Hindus) or those who’s monotheistic status can be brought into serious question (such as most Christians) (2)? It is clear from the words of the Rambam that since polytheism in general has lost a lot of its attraction to people, even the laws which deal specifically with polytheists are not necessarily applied to the polytheists of today, since the concerns of the Torah in regards to the ‘seven nations’ of Israel can scarcely be said to apply to polytheistic people from India, China or other parts of Asia.

....to be honest, there’s not a whole lot I really know about e personally, but what I do know is that there are religious institutions that give their students far from enough of a background in halacha and its sources with the excuse that the exclusive study of Gemara is precicely the point that the founders of Chassidut didn’t find favor with in the theology of the pre-Chassidic Jews, and that it’s better instead to spend more time either studying the more spiritual aspects of Judaism or learning halacha with the express intent of becoming a rabbi in some far-flung Jewish community. While I admit the world needs rabbis, and that in many places they would be sorely lacking if not for these efforts, I also admit that quickly skimming over the “sea of the Talmud” can lead to a lack of clarity in regards to the foundations of halacha.

(1) It should be noted though that the terrible treatment of the Jews by their neighbors for the past centuries/millennia has lead many Jews to a understandable amount of bitterness to those who hate them. Yet all many can see is the hatred (or rather "healthy suspicion") of the Jews towards the gentiles, and not the millennia of persecution that the gentiles have wrought upon the Jews.
kk
(2) Some consider the "Monistic Theism" of the Hindus and the "Trinitarian monotheism" of the Christians to be more-or-less legitimate forms of monotheism.

Putting a word in for איסיות

2009-09-30T11:11:00.000-07:00

[Something I would have liked to have said here recently is a thought that came to my mind on erev Yom Kippur while I was, ..strangely enough, coming out of the Bobov mikve (1) (for the first time in a little while. ..I used to go almost daily). ]

Although I’m generally a proponent of what might be called "Modern Orthodoxy’ and look critically on the exaggerated ways of the Kabalists and the Neo-Chassidim (2) (some of which are uncannily similar to the practices of the ancient Essene sect (איסיים), hence the title), I do admit that in some situations desperate times call for desperate measures in regards to the mitzvot.

משל למה הדבר דומה? …the most a propos analogy I could think of was from the zombie-movie “Resident Evil” (1, 2 or 3). The protagonists of the story go everywhere heavily armed, since most of the world’s population has become violent zombies who understand nothing but the force of the bullet. Yet is that an the most ideal situation? The best situation is obviously for a people to be unarmed and be free to travel about without fear of being harmed. But the reality (in that movie) was that without weapons they would be in grave danger, and therefore had to put themselves in the unideal situation of carrying weapons everywhere they go.

So it is with our own lives: there were times when the יצה"ר went about it’s business getting people to sin in more tame and discreet ways. But now that the יצה"ר has called against us all the uncouth denizens of the netherworld to coerce us to sin against g-d, we have to serve g-d “Resident Evil-style”, consistently utilizing "כלי מלחמה". What are these "כלי מלחמה"? Are they not the חומרות and הקפדות of the ירא חטא that they utilize in the "מלחמת היצר"? If we cannot lead the lifestyle of a fanatic to the fullest extent then at least the minimum; having a 'seder', studying Mussar/Chassidut every day, minimizing on recorded entertainment programs that can be seen on televisions and computers and maximizing on our reading of the sacred books, etc etc etc…

(1) The Word "Mikve" ends with a segol, not a kamatz.
(2) A more acccurate terminology than "Chassidim".

יום לכיפורים

2009-09-26T21:12:00.000-07:00

אטם

סתם

חתם לבי טרם בוא היום הנורה. ח

אין לי

פה להשיב

לב לריב

עזות להגיב

ולא מצח להרים פני אל אלו"הי. ח

דרך אגב, כתבתי אודות מנהג הכפרות שנה שעברה (בלשון אדום). קחנו משם. ח

רצח גדליה של ימינו

2009-09-21T11:05:00.000-07:00

ראוי לציין ש"צום השביעי" נוסדה בגלל מאורעות פוליטיות, ולא רוחניות. תקציר הסיפור זה שיהודים מנעו מיהודים אחרים לקיים אוטונומיה יהודית בארץ ישראל. וזה נחשב ל"חורבן" אפילו שגדליה משל רק על כמות מועטת של יהודים בארץ ישראל, ואפילו הם לא היו אלא כורמים ויוגבים. ויש לזכור שעם ה' הנשאר בציון אחרי חורבן הבית הראשון לא היו דווקא יותר צדיקים מעם ישראל בארץ ישראל דהיום, אלא עובדי עבודה זרה היו. גם היום יש יהודים שרוצים למנוע מיהודים אחרים לקיים ריבונותם השלימה על כל חלקי ארץ ישראל, וגם זה צריך להיחשב לחורבן לא קטנה במידתה מעל מה שאנחנו צמים עליו היום. ח

הזיקה בין "יום הזיכרון" המקראית לבין "ראש השנה" התלמודית

2009-09-18T11:48:00.000-07:00

Something interesting about Rosh Hashana that isn't often considered is the apparent gap that exists between the biblical descriptions of the day and the Mishnaic/Talmudic descriptions. All that is written in the Bible regarding it is that the first day of the seventh month should be what we consider a "holiday" and that it should be a day of "remembrance" and "horn soundings".

Yet already in the Mishna we find some statements that clearly place this day at the beginning of the year:
"באחד בתשרי ראש השנה לשנים ולשמיטין וליובלות, לנטיעה ולירקות"
"בראש השנה כל באי העולם עוברים לפניו כבני מרון, שנאמר: 'היוצר יחד לבם המבין אל כל מעשיהם'" Etc...

How are these to be reconciled? Here, like in most places, it is the job of the Talmud and the Rishonim to display the congruity between these two works. Already in the Torah itself it is written regarding Succot that it takes place "at the exiting of the previous year", so it's clear from here as well as many other verses that the Torah's calander is loyal to the agricultural calander.

Rabbi Moshe ben Nah'man (as well as other commentators) attempt to bridge the gap: He points out that the general year starts in the "seventh month" of the Torah but out of respect of the Exodus it counts from the spring, and even the general world counted the new year from the beginning of the fall at that time. He also says that it's clear that the very reason for the horn soundings and why it should be a day of "remembrance" (which in biblical Hebrew always means remembrance to a judge for a positive verdict) and the reason it's a time of "holy gathering" is because the Torah acknowledges this season as the beginning of the year and some sort of judgement seems to be taking place, in which our participation is a key aspect, hence Mishnaic statements such as the one likening it to a sheep-herd count.

Yet what of the horn-blowing? What does this act that is generally considered in the bible one of aggression or announcement have to do with our being examined by G-d on the new year, or with "making G-d king over us"? I once saw a simplistic and innovative explanation for this: The two words to describe the sounds that are to be created on this day (and by horns in general for that matter) are "לתקוע\תקיעה" and "תרועה". The first word comes from the word "nailed into place" (תקוע) and is a strong constant sound. It is used when an army is confidently marching forward. The second word, which comes from the word "unstable" (רעוע) is used when the group is scattering in a guerrilla-warfare-like battle. It is evident, therefore, that the intention of the Torah's command to utilize these war instruments on this day of “remembrance” and the intention behind these confidence and alarm-soundings is, of course, a representation of the confidence/alarm that should be traversing our minds on this day.....

לטובה תחתמו

הצעיר, ס"ט

Superpower Meme!

2009-09-17T02:59:00.000-07:00

Well! Strangely enough I've been tagged twice in regards to this 'superpower meme' that's going around. My sincere thanks to Jessica and C for tagging me regarding it.

Superpowers, suerpowers.......? Was it not the Jew who invented the superhero to make-up for his shortcomings and the failings of a nation? The ‘Super-Man’, the ‘Über-Mensch’? Not Nietzsche’s Übermensch, but a man endowed with physical prowess alone, based, of course, on mythologies and legends of gods and men capable of extraordinary things, dating back to the most ancient civilizations.

Yet can it really be said that this superhero is totally divorced from the Übermensch? They are obviously not the same, but both, I feel, share a similar core idea; for the concept of the Greek god too, as with the Nietzschean hero, came from the premise that in this world some are naturally stronger than others, and it is up to them to usurp the power from the meek in order to properly govern society (like Batman’s relationship with the police). From Gilgamesh to Samson to Hercules to Zorro to Batman, the superhero is the manifestation of the male ego, which feels that it is singlehandedly capable of setting the world straight….

But enough of empty concepts! Let us talk ‘tachlis’! My personal favorite super-hero when I was a kid was Nightcrwaler of the Excalibur spin-off of the X-Men comic-book. It wasn’t really his power I was interested in (teleportation) but his personality; he was a cool, laid-back bourgeois type of German dude. He just never fretted about anything. ..he refused to. .(Oh yeah, him and Pete Wisdom! Memories!)

Aaaaanyway, I noticed most of the people who responded to this chose some form of mind-reading (I guess x-ray vision went out of style pretty quickly when guys realized that it wasn’t just girls’ clothes they were able to see through, but skin and ligaments as well). Personally, I like the mind-reading idea (since people are the key to power, and understanding them and how they think of you is they key to people), but as long as you're reading the mind, you might as well be able to manipulate it as well. ….though mind-manipulation is not something specific to superpowers…

In truth though, one of the responsibilities of this meme is to tag seven others (which is partly responsible for my being tagged), the only problem is that by the time this kind of thing gets around to me pretty much everyone else who I might have tagged has already been! So…

Of Africans and Israelites

2009-09-16T01:46:00.001-07:00

Strangely enough, I recently happened upon seeing the film about Malcolm X (entitled, of course, Malcolm X).

I have always been impressed by X and some other influential members of the NOI (Nation of Islam) organization, but his particular story is not just the story of ‘Homo-Africanus’, or ‘Homo-Sapienus’, but of ‘Homo-Religiosus’ as well. It is the story of inspiration, of disillusionment and of starting anew. So, while I do respect the sincerity of what he and his followers and affiliates preach, I also think it is lamentable that X himself and leaders who follow in a similar spirit to that of Mr. X, such as his opponent Mr. Louis Farrakhan, see the Jew in very much the same light as they see the Anglo-Saxon. It is lamentable that these leaders of the 40's and 50's overlooked even the holocaust as an example of how we are just as downtrodden as they in the eyes of the European Man. X claimed that his nation was mistreated by Anglo-Americans as well as by Jews, but that mistreatment stemmed from a mutual misunderstanding and was relatively recent. In essence the Jew has been very much in the same boat as the African in America. This is also concurrent with the racial theme of the movement, since the hatred of the Aryan towards the Jew is (supposedly) because he is a Semite; someone who comes from the same middle east that the founders of the religions that X so much respected originated from.

So while on the one hand I would rather the African, and for that matter the Arabian saw the Jew as their kin, I’m also happy when the Aryan sees Jewesses like 'Alyssa Silverstone' and say, "perhaps these Jews are not so foreign", but then again, there is nothing 'Jewish' about such people, so what does it help.

Now, it is true that Jews, as part-and-parcel of European and Colonial American society were in charge of slave operations in America and perhaps caused much distress to the Africans brought here, but the Jews were part of every society; African society as well. So it's obviously wrong to lump all Jews together for such past events, and definitely not to lump them with the Europeans.

In regards to the future of the African in America: To me it is clear to me that while the Afro-American in the 21st century is not as concerned about the kinds of things that concerned X, due in part to new migrations of foreigners to this land which have placed the Afro-American in a place of more stability in this land, it seems to me that "the vices that were planted in the hearts of the African by the White Devil" have far from been removed, and he lets the hour of his salvation pass him and be given to others. It is given instead to the Indian and to the Asian, not because the African is discriminated against anymore, but because he has become so accustomed to his downtroddenness that he can no longer remove himself from vice and take advantage of the opportunities afforded the privileged citizens of this land.

מילים ושיוערים לר"ה

2009-09-15T11:45:00.000-07:00

It seems that with the advent of this years' Day of Judgment my tongue has become heavy. There were a few things I wanted to speak about that weren't quite 'in the spirit of the moment', so I refrained from saying them until the time is more neutral. I did want to mention that I would like to start a new blog called "הציוני האחרון" (obviously based on the 'Subliminal' song), which would deal solely with reasons for American Jews to emigrate to the Holy Land and of the supremacy of the arguments of the conservative party in Israel. I feel a need to because I've been seeing the attitudes of my fellow Jewish bloggers on the subject of their relationship with the Jewish state a lot recently, and, as usual, their attitudes distress me greatly. But first I'd have to formulate some related articles here, which I find very difficult. The premises of my ideals are so ingrained in me that it would be difficult for me to start rethinking why I feel how I feel about the subject.

But perhaps a word about the little I've been doing in the way of T'shuva: There's a Rabbi in Israel (Mechon Meir) who has a very similar last name to me (הרב אורי שרקי), and is one of the leading Sefaradi/North African thinkers in Israel in the spirit of Rav Kook and Religious Zionism in general. He has a series available online about T'shuva (among a vast number of other topics) where he explains the Hilchot T'shuva of the Rambam based on the Orot Ha'Tshuva of Rav Kook and his own explanations. His words and explanations are so pristine, clear and correct that I'm thinking about becoming a "chasid" of his. As a result of his speeches I also started delving in to Kook's "Orot Ha'Tshuva" a little for myself. ...he's very poetic. ..and very broad and dramatic about the ideas he expresses. It's kind of stuff I think I'd write myself if I was so inclined. That, by the way, is how you know when an author or a thinker is for you; when you feel it's the kind of subject matter you yourself could have written, but you just wouldn't be able to find the right words to express it yourself.

Anyway, there's something I wanted to say about actual T'shuva: There's a difference of opinion between two Spanish rabbis; "Moshe of Cordoba" and "Moshe of Girona". The Rambam felt that the actual "מצוות עשה" of T'shuva was not T'shuva itself, but the act of 'vidduy', a pronouncement of confession to G-d regarding sin. The opinion of the Ramban was that this is untrue; the mitzva is in fact the act of T'shuva itself. Reasons and arguments for their opinions vary, and border on some very deep Judaic topics. What I wish to say for the moment is that, according to the Rambam especially, if you're not totally sincere with your vidduy that is a serious offence. Yet the prayers established for these days are full of vidduyim; and we might not always be sincere in saying them.

I've always felt that how vidduy is said and what thoughts to with it, is without question the crux of these "ימים נוראים", and that what is really required is a "true vidduy", the kind of vidduy described in Shaarei T'shuva, something I myself have never done, but at least look towards with longing.

בין נדה לעשור

2009-09-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

כמו באיסור קירוב לאשה בנידת טומאתה כן בחגי ישראל החלים תמיד בתקופות חקלייות מסוימות (וכמו כן במצוות אחרות), רואים אנו שהתורה ודרכי הטבע אחד הם, ולא רצה הא"ל בנתינת התורה אלה שמירה מעולה על החיים הטבעיים בלבד...ד...ח

יסוד דת

2009-09-07T14:38:00.000-07:00

OK, um, ..there are a few things which I wanted to have been written on here by now and which are not...due to no other reason than sloth! ..that and a keyboard which is constantly switching the caps lock on and off...and skipping random typed letters...

Anyway, I would like to comment on one of Chana's posts (September 3rd). I know I nominated her to go to Israel but that does not in any way mean I agree with her opinions all the time. In a recent post she came to the conclusion that the most logical stance is that of the Agnostics, and that while she does agree with them, she'll stay an Orthodox Jew because it "seems" right:

"I cannot prove my religion; I do not think I will ever be able to. Indeed, the greatest question is what to do when the vast majority of what I read or learn about simply seems to disprove what I have been taught. But you see, above all logic there is emotion, and my emotion and intuition point to the fact that there is a God, He exists, and He listens to me."

I consider this reversion back to emotion and intuition to be perhaps characteristic of the female sex, and something that the Spanish Rationalist Rabbis would revile from due to it’s independence from pure logic. She said herself that the Torah demands truth ("the stamp of G-d is truth"), and this is a "dishonest" way of viewing religion.

Let me start with a chart of the main issues debated upon (in this situation):

1) "Adeism" v.s. Deism

2) Atheism v.s. Theism

3) Religions v.s. Judaism

In other words the first issue that must be dealt with is whether primordial matter was brought into existence by some being, or whether it existed for infinity.

The second is if this being interacts with human beings and conveys to them information on how to properly live.

When I was fourteen I formulated theories about both of these issues, and, while I may by now see them as a little juvenile, I still do see them as making sense. Firstly, I thought it’s more likely that primordial matter was put into being by something immortal than it itself having been around forever. Secondly, I considered it unlikely the creator would go through the trouble of creating us if it wasn’t going to interact with us in any way…kind of a long story about that actually..

In regards to the third question though, which is the focus of my attention here, I think it’s clear that for centuries the foolishness of the Christians has negatively influenced well-meaning Jews (whether they know it or not). One aspect in which this is very evident is the subject of “faith” (and what comes into the realm of faith). A few centuries ago in the Christian world if someone suggested the world went around the sun they would burn them on the cross for “blasphemy”. Now, this is not the place to carry out a long exposition on the subject, but suffice it to say “faith” without doubt is a Christian invention. The main concern of the Torah is not “faith” but living a G-dly life according to the commandments, since, in the realm of faith, nothing can be verified and the Torah has never been concerned with its verification. The Jews themselves have never been concerned about this verification; for example the first people to look for Mt. Sinai were the Christians in the third century. Not even the Jewish but the Gentile Christians! How could it be in all their history no Jew cared to see the mountain of G-d? Rather it seems the Jews were never overly bothered by the verification of these events since they knew that the events themselves could simply not be physically verified.

H
Whether the Torah was written by (Moses in accordance with he words of) G-d, by Moses or by a group of Israelite priests during the First Temple period or later cannot be "proven" in any way shape or form. People can have convincing propositions about one theory or the other, but nothing can be scientifically (i.e. empirically) proven, and without that all you can rely on is how likely each side of argument might seem to you. On the other hand we are encouraged to be intellectually honest. So we are, in essence, all "agnostics", since we admit that we cannot verify things in a real sense. We are allowed to be agnostics, but we must decide which proposition sounds more correct to us. More "likely". My own judgement and evaluation of the arguments has always told me that it is more correct to assume that the creator did, in fact, have some sort of communication with Moses, as is described in the Torah. I admit that I cannot know the reality of what occurred; I wasn't there, no one from among us was, but this seems to be the most likely scenario and therefore ample reason to abide by the "teachings" of "the book of teaching" (ספר התורה).

This is an article from the Anglo-Israeli Conservative or "Masorati" Rabbi, Simchah Roth, and I've always felt it nips this whole misunderstanding in the bud. All the articles are worthwhile for anyone to read through.

העבד

Blog Plug

2009-09-04T10:59:00.000-07:00

It's not generally my custom here to plug blogs (although I just did in the previous post!), I would like to encourage the readership of a new blog created by a friend of mine from yeshiva, Shim'on. He's an interesting fellow; a Dutch-American from Washington State who converted to Judaism. His blog deals with proper diet and weight loss (called "Kosher Weight Loss"). He writes as he speaks; funny, assertive and right to the point. So if you struggle with your relationship with food-consumption (and who doesn't, really) his blog will be beneficial to you.

In other news, the author of the Bad for Shidduchim blog ended up winning the trip to the Blogger Convention. I'm happy, yet at the same time concerned about what it says about our community if our most popular blog is not one about religion or philosophy, but one about dating stories. Oh well...

Personally, in my haughtiness, I find fault in almost all the blogs in my blogroll (which is why I write one myself!). Many of them are about the totally unimportant and uninteresting things that occur in peoples lives, others are constantly complaining about the Ultra Orthodox community, and yet themselves still choose to be part of it, others are about dating and still others about raising a family. So while many of them can be helpful to read, I don't consider them the most earth-shattering subjects...

[This just in!: another friend from the same yeshiva just started a blog (though almost nothing is written in it at the moment) at mosarch.blogspot.com.]

Blogger Convention Nomination

2009-09-02T08:59:00.000-07:00

In the land chosen by G-d as a gift to His people, which they refuse due to their obstinacy, in the city on which the name of G-d is called upon it, there has begun a tradition of yearly meetings for people who write popular electronic journals (bloggers). This year’s situation is a bit awkward, since there are three equally worthy people (among a few others) who very much wish to attend this gathering, but need to be nominated by other bloggers.

I understand why each of them has a legitimate claim for being the best candidate; Chaviva is someone who, of her own volition, decided to become part of our religious and national consciousness. Chana is a masterful and professional author and Jewish thinker, and “Bad for Shidduchim” also has a quite popular blog and is eager to go. If I want to donate my two cents to the cause though, only one of these three lovely ladies must be nominated.

I therefore choose Mrs. Wiznitzer, since, as she mentioned on her blog, she's been writing longer than anyone else, writes longer and more quality posts, and has more to offer the public as a speaker and influencer due to the depth of her religious and philosophical thought.

If you have a few moments, I would suggest that you too choose someone to nominate (since none of the candidates seem to have enough nominations yet)...

ס"ט

ניקוי ירקות: נוסח אלול

2009-09-01T09:45:00.000-07:00

[Upon cutting spoilage out of a cabbage]

It seems queer to me; this cabbage that has such deeply ingrained spoilage that a foul odor emanates from it also has parts with a palpable freshness. Is it a spoiled cabbage? No. Is it a fresh cabbage? No! But from it's exterior one would consider it spoiled. All that can redeem it is an amputation of the affected tissue.

What is of gravest concern is if the spoilage reaches our core, our id. Of course even such a growth can be removed, but at that point all that would be left is a very small and awkwardly shaped piece of cabbage . The non-soiled parts are so negligible that it might as well be discarded. It should not be that the only purity within us is such a negligible part of our personalities that we aren't "worth keeping" in the day of judgement.

This conflict is by far one of the most crucial; the fight for our core; what defines us. Will it be the spoilage within us or crisp cabbagy freshness. And what better time to engage in this conflict if not now, during the month which precedes our judgment? Even if it seems that the lions-share of our "מהות" is spoilage, what can often be found during Ellul is that the spoilage is not intrinsic within us. Our fresh parts testify that we have our source in steadfast and fertile ground; ground that yields only the freshest of cabbages. Rather it is, many times, external influences (from other spoiled produce) that has blackened our exterior. That or disuse. But the "pintele cabbage" is, and always will be, pure and ruggedly fresh.

All that can be done in this struggle then, aside from attempting to expressly amputate major parts of ourselves is a removal from these spoiled exteriors, into the world of the interior. The interior world of Ellul. It's not quite the same as placing the cabbage in an exterior that encourages freshness, such as a refrigerator (a yeshiva, or any other place of potential spiritual growth), but even within our daily drudgeries there must be a place made for introspections of this sort.

העבד, ס"ט

[I forgot why I ever stopped signing my name.]

שבתאי בן אברהם

2009-08-30T11:26:00.000-07:00

As you can see, I've added a few Dylan songs to my playlist recently (unfortunately soon to be replaced, strangely enough, by Jack Black). The truth about the songs on my playlst by the way is that they're not music I've already heard, but songs that I find on playlist.com that I feel might be "appropriate" for the blog.

One particular song (among others) that's caught my eye is "Blowing in the Wind". It is a very ironic, rebuking and preaching song that uses a pure and simple English. Dylan himself doesn't do it much justice (as he doesn't most of his songs), so I've also got "Peter Paul and Mary" singing it. In regards to what "the answer is blowing in the wind" is supposed to mean, Dylan once confided in an interview when he was 21 (most likely under the heavy influence of narcotics) that it basically means that the answers to those questions should be self-evident and don't require philosophical insights. The song itself ultimately became so popular that it was sung in the Vatican square. Pope John Paul II was forced to accept it, and even interpreted Dylan's words as meaning that the answer is in fact "in the wind", i.e. in the wind/spirit of G-d (the current Pope Benedict XVI also happened to be in attendance and later admitted that he didn't like the idea of Jews playing rock music on the Vatican grounds).

I myself always wondered why people liked his music so much, since to me it just seemed like the monotonous ramblings of a nerdy Jewish kid. Though the truth is that nobody ever contended that Dylan was a great singer, rather that his greatness lie in song-writing and poetry. His early songs especially convey great truths and political activism through the use of poetry; very far from what rock was back then (which were just simple songs about love). The more I looked into it the more I understood the meaning and even beauty in early Dylan lyrics.

Yet I always stress that we should not, like the American, worship the entertainer, the singer, the joker and the athlete, but rather more noble, less well-known heroes. A century ago entertainers had a much more reasonable, lower place in society. But what of song-writers with meaningful music? Surely it can't be said that they're the same as barber-shop singers? The songs of the political activists in the 60's were the fuel for social revolution in those trying times for America. It is for this reason, I think, that singers have adopted the title of "artists", for their music has gone up a level to become their art (as opposed to Classical music and the like, which has always been a form of art). This is true for the folk-singers of the 60's more than any others in that century. Yet today, singers still use that title, even though there is no more meaning in their songs. How can the likes of "Fidy-Cent" and "Solja-Boy" call themselves "artists"? That, I feel, is a term which has become outdated for singers. Today's singers are, as they were a century ago, just singers.

*Title: Dylans' Hebrew name.

To be Gotten

2009-08-28T12:44:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what inspired this, but I have recently been reflecting upon my previous dating experiences. Unlike all the unlikely dating horror stories that one might find on the "Bad for Shidduchim" blog, the girls I've dated, I feel, were for the most part very good people, and closely bordering on the type of person I would like to be married to.

One unfortunate aspect of my previous interactions though is what I considered to be a certain lack of true two-sided intellectual exchanges. What I mean to say is that while I consider myself a good listener who's curious about people, I've yet to see some of those traits in girls. I've recently attempted to tally how many of the young women I've come in contact with thus far have really "listened" to me, or actually "understood" me, and, unfortunately, the answer came out to none! There has never really been a girl who I felt honestly cared enough about my opinions on things. Yet, is that an accusation on them or myself? Perhaps I think too much of myself.

As I was walking in the street and reflecting on these things I passed a very self-absorbed child fiddling with some toy. I told myself that I am just as self-absorbed now as when I myself was five years old. Perhaps this absorption does not always take the form of fiddling with small objects, but can take the form of fiddling with a keyboard as well. The only person for whom finding-out about my thought-processes would make any sense is a psychologist.

Also, if any of you has been on a subway car in New York, you may have noticed that when couples speak, it is usually the man listening to his wife and not vice-versa. Women are generally more verbal. I myself am not very verbal, and even have slight speech-impediments. This also borders on the question of whether males and females are really meant to have a close social relationship, or whether they're intrinsically different and can never truly understand each other--which we shall not enter into.

Yet perhaps this entire concern is just another faulty product of my self-absorbed mind...

*The title is basically a reference to the 2002 Jennifer Aniston film "The Good Girl".

הערה בעניין הכריעות שבסוף התפילה

2009-08-25T15:19:00.000-07:00

ראֹה ראיתי כי רוב הציבור, ובפרט בני אשכנז, מצליחים להעלים עין ממה שכותב מר"ן בפירוש בסימן שהקדיש בשולחנו הטהור על הכריעות ופסיעות שבסוף התפילה (אורח חיים קכ"ג). מבואר כי כשיסיים אדם תפילתו יכרע כאלו כריעות המשפיעות אימה ויראה על האדם מפני קונו, ואז יחזור שלוש פסיעות שלימות לאחוריו בהכנעה. ולא כמו שעושים ההמון שכורעים כריעות שאין בהם כריעה, ופוסעים פסיעות שאין בהם פסיעה, ואז מגביהים את עקביהם מעט שלוש פעמים—דבר שלא מוזכר בהלכה. וכי אפשר לומר על אדם שמלעיג ככה על צורת התפילה שיתקבל תפילתותיו ובקשותיו לרצון לפני הא"ל? ח

הערה בעניין לבישת טלית מצויצת

2009-08-24T10:24:00.000-07:00

מברכנן על מצוות הציצית "להיתעטף בציצית" מפני שאמרו רבותינו שעיקר לבישת הטלית המצויצת היא "כעטיפת הישמעאלים". אם כן, הייתי תמיד שואל לעצמי, למה מנהגינו שוב להוריד את הטלית על הגוף? נכון שבאופן זה אנחנו "מסובבים במצוות" (וגם אפשר שזהו אופן קיום הפסוק "עַל אַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת כְּסוּתְךָ"), אבל אם עצם הברכה היא על העטיפה, משמע שכדאי הוא להשאיר אותו ככה לכל אורך לבישתו. ח

ח
יותר נחוץ, אבל, השאלה מהיכן בעצם ידעו רבותינו שצורת לבישתה צריכה שיהיה כעטיפת הישמעאלים דווקא? אלא וודאי שמסורת היא בידם שאבותיהם ואבותינו עטופים כישמעאלים היו לפני שקיבלו את התורה. אבל האם יש איזשהו מסמך היסטורי שלבשו ישראל אי-פעם את טליתותם נופלים על גופם בצורה ששני כנפות הטלית נשארים לפניהם ושתיהם מאחוריהם? האמת שזה שאלה שקשה להסיר מהגדרת ה"צריך עיון", אבל יש רמזים היסטוריים שבתקופת הבית השני שלבשו ישראל ביגוד הדומה לאלו של היוונים והרומאים, ושבלבוש הזה הטילו ציצית, וצורת לבישת הציצית ע"פ התלמוד נמשכת אחרי העידן האחרון, ולא זאת של דור המדבר. עכ"פ רואים אנו שהוסרנו מן כוונה הראשונה שבאופן הלבשת הטלית. ח

הקדמות להערותי: ח

א: חכמי הספרדים מעולם לא ראו תוקף הלכתי בברכת "על מצוות ציצית" מפני שלדעתינו אין עיקר קיום המצווה אלא בעטיפה. עיקרון זה מופיע גם כשרוצה ספרדי לברך על טלית קטן, שצריך גם עליו לברך "להתעטף", וכנראה שצריך שיתעטף בו לפני שלובשו. ח
ח
ב: חכמי המערב (מרוקו) לא ראו כ"כ חיוב בלבישת טלית קטן כל היום תחת הבגדים, כי הרי עצם חיוב הציצית היא אם כבר יש בגד של ד כנפות, להטיל בהם ציצית, אבל בתקופות שלא לובשים בין-כך בגדים של ד כנפות מקיימים את המצווה הזאת בלבישת טלית בת ארבע כנפות פעם אחת ביום דווקא לשם מצווה זו. ואם קִיים כבר את כוונת המצווה (כפי שאפשר לקיימה בחברה שאינו נוהג ללבוש בגדים של ד כנפות) לא צריך שיהיה לבוש טלית מצוייצת כל היום תחת בגדיו, כי לא לבגד כזה כִיוון הכתוב. ח
ח
ג: לפי התלמוד, אחרי שמברכים עליו, יש להוריד את הטלית על הגוף באופן ששתי הציציות יורדות לפניו ושתיהם לאחוריו, לארבע פאותיו. ח

"דֶער גָלוּת אִיד"

2009-08-17T21:51:00.000-07:00

To my chagrin, not much of great import has been occupying myself or my mind recently, friends. My sinking under the currents of my summer classes is at least partly responsible for this phenomenon. One article of slight interest that I considered mentioning is my attendance at one of Heshy Freid's ("Frum Satire") shows on Sunday (which, compounded with my having attended another of Dustin's ("Reality Addiction") concerts on Thursday is pretty social for a guy who's idea of a promiscuous time until recently was going to the supermarket). Unfortunately there weren't many "bloggers" there, though I did meet "Michal bat Avraham" (on my blogroll under "Modern Girls" for technical reasons). She was nice enogh to spot me out and say hi. She was there with another attractive young lady who she says she met through one of Heshy's statuses on Facebook, which to me seems an as-of-yet unexplored forntier for meeting people. I was hoping to see Ms. Manischewitz ("Material Maidel") to verify if she really looks like her profile picture (a Barbie doll who's hair changes color every other second) but according to Heshy she didn't show, and the world may never know.

The truth is there have been a few things I would have liked to write about that never made it to the blog. One subject that's been occupying my mind recently has been the relationship between G-d's people and G-d's land: what to do about the diaspora Jews who see no interest in "ascending" to the holy land. As you may well-know by now, I couldn't be more fervent a "Zionist" (even though I myself reside in Brooklyn at the moment), and view those Jews who who see nothing wrong with living in America with the same bafflement as those Jews who see nothing wrong with eating the flesh of the swine.

Yet I was thinking, as I have before, that even in our peoples' distant past there have been many great Jewish communities that have existed outside the land of Israel. Saul/Paul of Tarsus was a Jew who was living in a Grecian city in Turkey even while the Temple stood, and that community and others like it were probably centuries old. Hillel himself came to Israel from a great diaspora community which existed alongside the golden era of the Second Commonwealth—Babylon.

If, then, there were so many Jews during the Second Temple period who lived proudly as Jews among the gentiles, surely now that the Temple does not stand yet again in Jerusalem is it not permissible to live as a Jew among the nations? The answer to that question obviously varies depending on who you ask, but I just wish to mention here that the acts and histories of the Jews of Athens and Alexandria, Sura and Fum-Beditha(1) are not those mentioned in the Midrash or the Talmud. It was not the lives of the "Exile-Jews" that shaped the history and destiny of our people in that era. If all the Jews had stayed in Cilicia(2) and Babylonia the Temple would not have been built, the monarchy would not have been restored, and for all we know the Mishna and Talmud would not have been written (let alone the New Testament and the Quran). Something I like to mention to people is that the Mishna in Ketubot tells us that it was the lowliest of Jews that came from Bavel to Eetz Yisrael, and from them was made our religious histories, and not from the rabbis of good stock who remained in exile.

Unfortunately my level of alertness doesn't allow me to complete my thought at the moment (2 at night) but, I'd rather this be posted than nothing. Suffice it to say I wish to return to this subject in the future, since I wish to record my opinions about Israel on my blog already...

(1) A more correct pronounciation for "Pumpedisa".
(2) The Roman province in which Paul's Tarsus was capital.

Book Review: "Wasted Expectations"

2009-08-10T23:06:00.000-07:00

As a result of my having finished reading Great Expectations on Shabbat—a great English classic—I wanted to write about it yesterday, though I ended up talking about sex instead (story of my life!).
.
Anyway, I didn't really want to write about this since this seems to be becoming too oft-repeated a theme on my blog, but either way: I must say, throughout the story, and especially towards the end, I was actually upset at Pip for running after the girl he could never get (Estella) instead of just settling down with Biddy. She would have been happy to have him. In the end he does want her, but she's already going and marrying Joe at that point. I'm mad at him because it's a mistake I'm mad at myself for having made in the past.

Yet the fact that his pursuing Estella is mistaken is not only evident by the ending chapters of the novel, but by the dual endings themselves:

It's evident from the last chapters since all of Pips' expectations ended up falling through. In fact the very title "Great Expectations" is actually a wry and ironic title for this tale, since in the end of it, all Pip accomplished after all his expectations was spending so much money on nonsense that he he had to be bailed out of debtors prison by Joe, and wasting his eligible bachelorhood on a prude (he ends up being some old bachelor living in Egypt with his friend and his wife, having reached an age that most girls are not that interested).

It's evident from the endings since in the "pre-Lytton" ending (which is obviously the "real" or "intended" ending) it is obvious that Pip would have been a pretty big "douche" if he still had a "crush" on Estella, who not only didn't consider him after she got divorced, but rarely even had time to say hi to him after eleven years. Yet even in the new ending it's not sure that Pip will ever get Estella; he tells her something along the lines of "But we be friends, right?", and she answers "Yeah. Apart." Then he says something along the lines of "Okay, friends. That's a good start!" I mean, G-d! You would think after 34 years he would get the picture that she doesn't like him, and is barely capable of liking anybody, even after her first marriage.

Rather, as the novel's commentators agree, this work is actually depicting the ills and weaknesses of it's protagonist. It's display of the hero and his story is a display of condemnation and not one of glorification. Pip, in effect, is unappreciative of his having been brought up "by hand". He totally ignores Joe the whole time he's in London. He squanders all his cash on suits even though he doesn't really know where it's coming from. He gives Biddy a bit of a cold shoulder, and he chases a girl who's never going to like him. It's almost a Greek tragedy. Usually I don't like reading stories where all you're saying to the characters while reading it is 'You moron!", but this is one of those stories, and the point is for the reader to contemplate on these mistakes (in essence though, this is actually a misstatement of Dickens' real agenda, which is showing the nobility of the lower classes through the usage of exaggerated characterizations).

Soul Producer

2009-08-08T20:21:00.000-07:00

(Don't ask how this thought entered my mind!, but) I've recently been considering the part the male plays in reproduction: I think the woman's prominent place is slightly overrated. I mean, what help is an egg if there is nothing to place within it? Anyway, the child is only held in the womb nine months. The real source of "life" is the male. It is the males constant responsibility to be the bearer of this life till it can safely be placed in an egg. Yet until that time, and forever after, it is solely the male who is the "factory of life". That is no small job. So, while the actual burden of birthing is far more difficult than the transfer of this life from the male to the female, it very much cannot be said that he has no part in the birthing responsibilities himself. ....why do I feel like a moron saying this...?

Mr. ILARIJS

2009-08-03T09:15:00.000-07:00

I wanted to take an opportunity to honorably introduce my current sixth blog follower. Now, I know I haven't formally introduced my previous followers on my blog, but that's because they're fairly "well known". Not so my current comrade, unless some of you are already familiar with Mr. Ilarijs.

For those of you who aren't: Ilarijs is actually a Latvian stuffed squirrel, who follows his two owners around everywhere they go, and blogs about it! The truth his he's probably pretty unique among stuffed squirrels (unless there are others with blogs that I'm unaware of). Ilarijs is actually quite popular, appearing in artwork and local magazines, as well having well over eighty followers. What he sees in my blog I don't know, but what I do know is I myself have been considering the purchasing of a stuffed "fuzzy bunny" to perhaps accompany me in all my travels...

Things Di Lomo Loves

2009-08-01T22:44:00.000-07:00

Well, I have to thank Hannah for tagging me with a "meme" (I'm not even sure how that's supposed to be pronounced). I'm very appreciative of it since I've never done a "meme" before and have always sort of hoped someone would tag me sooner or later! (I wouldn't do it out of my own volition obviously), so thank you!

This particular one is one I find a little hard to respond to: "Seven things you love". I find it difficult because I've been undergoing changes in my original opinions about the word "love"; first a reversion to my old opinion, and now I'm questioning that reversion! Originally I was influenced by those who say that the Hebrew word for love is representative of giving (אהבה, מלשון הב), unlike the Latin/Germanic word for love (love) which is representative of a self-centered lust (the word "love" emanating from a tongue-oriented sound). I later realized that I was trying to read far too much meaning into an English word that is used every day to mean very clear, and very unambiguous things. Very recently though I looked at the words' etymology in the dictionary, and it looks like even in Latin it comes from a word which means giving and and not lustful taking! (Lubēre: to be pleasing). So it could very-well be the majority of English-speakers are just misusing and misunderstanding this noble word! In attempting to answer this, therefore, I'll try to adhere as much as possible to the noble meaning of love (as opposed to saying things like, "I loooove love love Starbucks Frappuccinos!").

1) I should really say I love G-d, but who can really love an incorporeal being? We can only love the Deity through it's manifestations in this world and in our lives. So, I think the first thing I should love is being alive, since, had I not been alive, there would really be nothing to speak of in regards to what I love about life. In Judaic thought being alive is held in very high esteem. Not only are things like suicide and euthanasia prohibited, but if it's down to your life or that of another, you must pick your own! There are religions that downplay the importance of actually being alive since they espouse the belief that things can be accomplished after death as well, but in the Jewish view life has the utmost value because it is the only opportunity to accomplish anything in the spiritual realm. After physical death is spiritual death as well in a sense...

2) I think the most normal thing to love would be that upon which the word is usually attached: romantic love. Now, I obviously haven't yet found my significant other in a surefire sense, but I have had a few sparks of the blissful feeling of "loving" a female counterpart of some sort. Those emotions, I hope, were just hints of what married love could be. If and when that does materialize, then, that would be one of the main manifestations of my love I should think. ...well, that and the kids of course...

3) One thing I really love to see, and that I haven't seen in a while, is truly earnest people. I myself have fallen from that sort of status in recent years, and it's something I rarely ever see. But when you do see a truly honest-to-goodness person, it just fills your heart with a true love and appreciation of what heights human nature can reach. It's something to aspire towards.

4) Like Hannah I do of course harbor a "love" towards my religious consciousness. Though I'm not really sure "love" is the word. Perhaps more a happiness or contentedness in knowing there is some truth in my path. On the other hand this kind of religious knowledge comes with the kinds of responsibilities that are hard to live up to, which can, in turn, create a sort of "sadness"..

5) Another obvious thing to love, without being too specific, is this very world we live in. It could not be more diverse and enjoyable. It would be somewhat foolish to hunker down on one aspect of the world, since every part of it is enjoyable.

6) Israel, man. Love Israel. I've always seen Jews who are not interested in living in Israel as some of the biggest betrayers of the Jewish people; people who don't understand Jewish religion, Jewish history or Jewish destiny. In regards to an actual love, the Talmud tells us that it's important to actually "love" Israel (besides for actually being there). Maybe I'll speak of my views on the Jewish State and homeland some time...

7) And lastly, I really love fuzzy bunnies. There's just something about them that makes not loving them quite unfathomable... ...actually, I just couldn't think of a seventh one, so...

תשעה באב - מעשה דבן אבקולס

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

OK, this actually does have what to do with Tish'a B'av...

Well, I was able to make it to a Moroccan synagogue last night (not that I usually say “synagogue” instead of “shul”. It’s just that I try to keep those accursed yiddishisms out of the purity of this blog), unlike last year in the meat plant where the minority Israeli-Ashkenazim seemed to take over the kinot situation. Honestly I think Moroccans have too much fun with the kinot (as they’re recited melodically). I’m actually joking; melodically is much better. There is one night kinah that I find touching even, if it’s sung correctly, and that is, of course, “אליכם עדה קדושה”. The contrast of joy and sorrow through the usage of black humor has always had me more captivated than most of the other night kinot (though there are some other really good ones)

In regards to Eicha, of course I notice new things every time I hear it. This year I concentrated on its unusual theology. Anyone who says that the G-d of the Tanach is not one of "fire and brimstones" obviously hasn’t read the Tanach. Though He’s far from being an "angry G-d" (I don’t know who formulated that usage, but it’s obviously quite heretical as far as “we’re” concerned). He obviously does give people a chance—chance after chance in fact—but He’s pretty adamant when He puts His foot down. As it says in chapter 3 (verse 8), “even when I call out or cry for help, He shuts out my prayer”, and then in verse 10, “like a bear lying in wait, like a lion in hiding”. This is from the NIV (New International Version translation), but the Hebrew is simply He “is” a bear and “is” a lion, something which is very unusual to say about G-d. Usually we say He’s “Great, Powerful and Awesome" (in the “shmone esre”), and now He’s “a bear waiting to ambush” and attack us, and “a lion, hiding in the shadows” waiting to trounce upon us (it also says in the first chapter that G-d has become as “an enemy”). So, it’s not like He’s the bad guy, but there is a limit to His patience, there is a limit to how much you can do before you can’t do t'shuva anymore. Or, you can do t'shuva, but the punishment will not be recalled. Truthfully this does border on the whole "does the “old testament” believe in an afterlife” discussion, but even without that it’s understandable.

One other thing I wanted to mention was the "Agadot of the destruction" in (Masechet) Gitin: usually when we attend lectures on Tish’a B’av the message and moral we’re supposed to be learning from these stories seems pretty unified, though when you read the Agadot yourself you see that they can be, and in fact are, interpreted to have a great many, differing, morals. Take for example the very first related passage on 55b, the “story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza”. In rabbinic circles it is clear that the only moral of the story is to relate how unfounded animosity towards people does not lead to anything positive. Yet not only is that moral not stated in the text, it is highly disputed even among rabbinic authorities. To start with, it is disputed who is really the “source” of evil in this story, is it the householder who refused to let bar Kamtza stay, is it Bar Kamtza who let his own degradation lead him to betray his nation, or the rabbis who said nothing. Yet these three are only the “common” culprits.

A much more likely culprit is of course rabbi Zachariah ben Avkulas, who is guilty for his “religious fundamentalism” either for not having Bar kamtza killed, or for not letting the emperors’ sacrifice ascend the alter, to the extent that rabbi Yochanan ben Zacai himself said about him that he singlehandedly “destroyed our house, burned our sanctuary and exiled us from our land”. So, as far as I’m concerned, rabbi Zachariah ben Avkulas is the culprit, but not him per-se, but his fundamentalism. The true leader of the Jews, rabbi Yochanan, was not only not a fundamentalist in the sense that rabbi Zachariah was, but he was also a “member of the peace party” (so to speak, i.e. he didn’t believe a war with the Romans would end very well). his is especially true considering the interpretation Avigdor miller followed, which holds that there was an extremely specific reason the householder and the rabbis wanted Bar Kamtza out; because he otherwise had a connection with the Romans, and the party itself was not a “party” at all but rather an excuse to gather and secretly discuss the proper course of action in regard to the Romans.

I have more to say, for example about the status of Jews in reference to political leadership, but that would already be burdensome for me to write, and for it to be read.

Comparative Religion

2009-07-21T15:12:00.000-07:00

Now, this has nothing to do with Tish’a B’av or anything, but I’ve been meaning to put this up for a while. By the way, forgive me if this lacks coherency, it was compiled from a big jumble of small ideas..haphazardly:

I have, friends, been asked not long ago about the halachic backing I may have for my, at times, researching the sacred texts and histories of religions outside the Judaic realm. This would also be a follow up to the previous post (although it is, in fact, in a different language). The truth is that, as it happens, I’m quite happy to find opportunities to review my opinions, since it has generally been my habit to come to conclusions about things, and later find that I cannot recall the reasoning on which I based my former change of opinion or action. It is beneficial, therefore, for me to regularly review what my ideologies and theology are actually based on.

Firstly it must be said that before any attempt to understand other religions we must fully understand our own, and be fully rooted in its literary sources and traditions. Secondly, before speaking of the diversity of other religions it is quite worthwhile to discover the diversity within our own religion realm, and the practices and beliefs of its myriad of different factions.

To some it is clear that it is pointless to delve into the texts of other religions since religion is a subjective study; in all other sciences one can benefit from amassing knowledge through the true, objective research of people in the past. Yet by the subject of religion, if one religion is founded on certain principles, studying the teachings of other religions, which are usually based on principles that, to the other are nonsensical, seems not only utterly pointless, but prohibited by halacha.

Let's start by the beginning (but get through this quickly because I haven't got much patience): In the first era the Torah introduces a "Mono-theistic" ideal to challenge the great Pagan ideologies that were prevalent everywhere in the world up until then. The Torah is fully opposed to idolatry and even commands us to break Pagan icons we may encounter. Certainly books about Pagan theology would be out of the question. In the next era, Monotheistic religions based on Judaism (Christianity and Islam) took control of most of the Pagan world, until they threatened the very existence and validity of Judaism itself. This would seem to be a replacement which, to us, is not much of an improvement from the original.

As a result of this expansion, a question recorded in the Responsum of Maimonides; someone asks him how it is possible for Judaism to have become such a minority among world religion if it is, in fact, the true religion. The Rambam replied with an innovative idea by saying that the expansion of these religions was in fact a manifestation of the biblical principle that all the nations of the world will, in the future, come to worship (one) G-d. Obviously then he felt that these religions were an extension of Judaic principles in the world, and not opposing them.

So, first of all, it is important to remember that they are far from being “idolatrous”, rather they are a manifestation of our own religion being transferred into the general (gentile) world. All the religions that came to be during and after the Second Temple era (most prominently, of course, the two monotheistic religions that still exist) were extensions of Judaism, and in us can their beginnings and principles be found. Their early histories as well are an outgrowth of, and mingle with, our own history. It is, in fact, impossible to study the story of the development of Judaism in the 1st to 10th centuries without studying the beginnings of Christianity and Islam. What better reason to study comparative religion than to study about how our own religion influenced numerous religious groups in the past, and in time, most of the world’s populace, to follow religions that were directly based on our own? We must reconsider the prominence Judaism had in influencing world religions instead of keeping it a despised religion, kept only in the shadow.

The banning of knowledge for the sake of religion, has, historically, been a generally Christian phenomenon. Yet this phenomenon has come to influence Ashkenazi Jewry due to their proximity to the Church. But it was not the second-hand influence of Christian dogmatism alone that incited the suspicions of the Ashkenazim towards such studies, but also the poor relations the Christians of Europe traditionally had with the Jews (let’s just say it was the kind of problem that couldn’t be remedied by the likes of Dr Phil). Since that time, the Jews of Europe have generally become quite afraid and suspicious of the Christians, and for very good reason. Yet these suspicions lasted with them too long, and to their detriment. Take for example their being idle from the study of G-d’s word on the night that the Christian messiah was supposedly born; perhaps in Europe it seemed unfathomable to study Torah on that night, but to abide today by such a practice is nothing but silliness. The same is true to a much larger extent in regards to knowledge of other religions and the examining of their sacred texts; it would be incorrect t for one to refrain himself from gaining important knowledge due to these religious biases of his forefathers.

In the general world the prejudices of the dark ages have subsided, and people can now pursue knowledge freely. Now that the dogmatism on the church has subsided, and with it it’s influence on the Jewish community, we can once again explore all knowledge in our pursuit of G-dliness during our stay upon this earth, as our ancestors in Spain once have. No more does our understanding of our religion have to be through the ignorance of isolation. Today we are free to explore G-dliness not only through G-d’s word but through G-d’s world. Not only through G-d’s world but through all of G-d’s people, not only through G-d’s people but throgh their religious innovations, and not only through their religious innovations but trough their religious innovations that were directly based on G-d’s word can we come to know G-d and the nature of our place in the world.

Now that our shackles are freed, then, we can explore the academic study of "Comparative Religion", even with "religious intent", for in the eyes of "true Judaism" no knowledge that can broaden our religious consciousness can possibly be considered a negative knowledge. This is an idea which, as stated, was true up till the age of Spanish Jewry, and was reinstituted with the ideologies of Mendelssohn and Hirsch.

But more importantly, unlike the recent past of our religion, we currently live in a very multi-cultural and multi-religious society. In my eyes that is yet another reason to be at least reasonably aware of some of the religions outside Judaism. For how would we feel if others were living in absolute ignorance and hatred about Jews and Judaism? Has Hillel notttt said “what is hated upon you do not unto others”?

Studying other religions also reveals their theological weaknesses, something important to keep in mind for when they attack our own religion (for example one of the mainstays of Christian theology is that “the Law” can’t possibly be properly kept—it’s good to know their opinions so as to reflect upon our own. Thus is the essence of halachic polemics as well). A similar benefit can be reaped from studying Judaism in an academic outlook; to see what aspects of our own religion are up into question by others, so that we may defend it.

An understanding of the majority religion of one’s country of residence is also important to understand that culture in a more thorough way, especially considering that the prevalent culture of a country usually ends up affecting the way Jews in that country think as well.

It’s also good to be aware of the positive aspects of other religions. The teachings of Jesus, for example, as they’re represented in the Gospels are not very different from the beginnings of the Chassidic movement.

And again, the lack of this knowledge causes one’s very logic in what comparative religion one does dabble with (since everyone has somewhat of an opinion on it). For example Christian “proofs” for the veracity of Christianity considers the fact that such veracity is attested to in verses of the Christian bible to be proof enough, which of course is ludicrous. It is therefore important for us not to fall into similar logical traps.

Now, these ideas are also not devoid of Talmudic legitimacy: I think it’s fairly agreed upon that the true translation of that which it says in the Talmud that it's prohibited to read "external books" is, in fact, not discussing books of secular knowledge, but referring to the books of the Jewish Apocrypha. Not only the ancient apocrypha (paralleling the Tanach), but more importantly (what was then) “contemporary apocrypha”; for example the kinds of writings that were found at Qumran; the writings of the Essenes the Sadducees and the Jewish-Christian sects. There was a fear, perhaps, among rabbinic authorities, that people would confuse these books with the accepted books of the Tanach, but not that they meant that they should not be read altogether. We must consider what “reading” meant in Talmudic literature; in the language of the Mishna things are ‘read’ in a religious sense only; as in ‘reading’ the sh’ma, a “religious recital” if you will. What this rabbinic ban meant then, is that these books shouldn’t be recited religiously in the sense that they should not be incorporated into our body of sacred texts, but not that it is forbidden for us to be aware of the words they contain.

Even in regards to the study of Paganism itself, it is important to consider what the Torah was up against when it tried so very hard to deflect the Pagan Ideal, where the Israelites were coming from ideologically and what opinions they were surrounded by.

There is, in fact, an entire tractate of Mishna ad Talmud that discusses the intricacies of paganism in detail, so that we should know how to interact with them in reality in a manner complacent with halacha, and “who is greater to us than the Rambam” that relates having read treatises on pagan practices in his “Guide”.

"חכמת יוונית"

2009-07-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

אף על פי שהתלמוד אסר את הקריאה ב"ספרים חיצוניים" ולימוד ב"חכמה יונית", כלומר נושאים חילוניים, לפני, ואפילו אחרי, עידן התלמוד עדיין היה דבר זה שנוי במחלוקת בין חכמי ישראל, ובפרט בין חכמי ישראל שבספרד, ובין החכמים המקבילים אותם באשכנז (צפון צרפת, הריינוס שבגרמניה ודרום אנגליה). ח

אפילו שהמציאות היתה שנחלקו חכמי ספרד באין-סוף של דברים, ושבכל עידן באה עלי-ספרד השפעות ומזגים חדשים ושונים, עדיין אפשר לומר שחכמיה אשר חיו ב"תור הזהב" העריכו את חכמות העולם, חכמה יוונית דוקא, ולימודי חול בכלל. בראשם עומד רבי משה בן מימון מקורטובה. הרמב"ם, בלי ספק, עידד ותמך בעיסוק בספרי אריסטו, ובנושאי הטבע והרפואה. הרי דעתם של הספרדים ידועה, אבל מה היתה דעתם של "חסידי אשכנז" בענין? ח

אדם שמגשם את אמונתם של האשכנזים הראשונים, והשפיע רבות על השקפותיהם בעתיד היה, הלא, רבי שלמה בן יצחק מטרואה. רש"י, כידוע, לא כתב ספרי פילוסופיה וגם לא חקר במעשה בראשית. רש"י, מעל לכל דבר אחר, יהיה פרשן ופוסק, ומעולם לא העז להזיז את רגלו מחוץ לארבע אמות של הלכה ש"היו לו לעינים" מיום עומדו על דעתו. לא היתה חסר-תקדים המאמר שבענין הזה רש"י היה המתנגד הכי-הקיצוני של השקפותיו של הרמב"ם. לרש"י ולהנגררים אחר דעותיו לא היתה סיבה כלשהי לעסוק בחכמות ובידיעות מחוץ לחכמת התורה. ח

ההנחה הזאת בדעת רש"י, לדעתי, שגויה ביסודו: הן אמת שרש"י לא עסק אלא בתורה לחוד, ושדברי התלמוד "היתה ללחם יומם", אבל מהיכן ידע רש"י על קשרי הספנים ומיני הזרעים, ערבית וגרמנית אם לא שעסק בלימודים אשר הם מחוצה לדברי התורה?! ידועה היא הגדרתו של רש"י בפי סופרי חייו כ"איש העולם הגדול". לא נהיים ל"איש עולם" בתוך כותלי בית המדרש! אלא וודאי שדעתו של רש"י היתה שלא רק שמותר אלא שרצוי ללמוד על אספקטים של העולם שיעזרו להבנת דברי התורה והמשנה. ומפני ש"לית אתר דלא שליט עליה אורייתא", כמעט וכל ידיעות העולם הכרחיים הם להבנת התורה, שהיא משמשת רק כמדריך השתמשות לחיים אנושיים ולעולם. ח

רעיון דומה מתגלה מתוך דברי הרב אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק: כל מהותו של דעתו על "עם ישראל בארץ ישראל לפי תורת ישראל" מיוסדים על ההנחה שנגמרה העידן שבו העבודת ה' היתה מתגשם רק בבית המדרש, כבישיבות ליטה ופולין, אלא עתה, כבימי קדם בעם ישראל, עבודת ה' מתגשם גם בחקלאות ארצי-ישראלית, פיתוח טכלוגיה ארצי-ישראלית ושירות בצבא הישראלית נגד אויבינו, כלפני שנגלינו מעל ארצינו. ח

העיסוק הבלתי-מוגבל בתלמוד בזמן הזה מוטעית באותו מידה של אותם אנשים בדור המדבר שהתנגדו לכניסת ישראל לארץ ישראל מפני שחששו שבזריעת שדות וקצירת חיטה יתבטל העם מלימוד התורה. לא ידעו ולא יבינו שזו היא עצם קיום התורה ולא ביטולה! לעסוק בעניני העולם ולעסוק בלימוד על העולם אינם מחוץ לתחום התורה, אלא הם הם גופי תורה, וכאמור. . ח

הלכות בין המצרים: שמיעת כלי-שיר

2009-07-11T23:50:00.000-07:00

We are, fellow bloggers (...and fellow non-bloggers) in the midst of a time that has been called "בין המצרים", i.e. the three weeks between "the fast of the fourth" (month- the 17th of Tamuz) and "the fast of the fifth" (month- the 9th of Av)". This is a time, friends, between two days in which our noble ancestors have suffered great misfortunes in past generations. In order to keep us in sync with the mood of these times, and to remind us of the sins of our ancestors which had brought destruction upon them, lest we repeat their actions and bring the same upon ourselves, the Talmudic sages instituted that the passages from the Prophets which should be read on Shabbat be "prophesies of doom" during these weeks. The same goes for other merry actions such as weddings and the recital of the "שהחיינו" blessing, about which later authorities deemed improper for times such as these.

In general the restrictions placed on these days are based on those placed on mourners, but different authorities employ vastly differing levels of stringency for the time between the fasts. The general rule is that the lowest level of stringency is given to "the three weeks" (after the 17th of Tamuz until the beginning of Av). The second level being from the beginning of the month until the fast itself, and the third level being the day of the fast.

The first level restricting people from lighter forms of enjoyment, such as shaving and swimming, listening to music and weddings. The second restricts us from eating meat and drinking wine, showering and washing clothes. And of course the actions to be performed on the day before the fast itself are to be kept in a much more mournful demeanor than any time previous to it.

These are the customs as laid out by Ashkenazi educational institutions. As with many of their customs, I knew early on that many of them were of dubious origin in regards to traditional Judaic literature. I also knew that Sefaradim traditionaly did shave during "the three weeks", and were sometimes looked down upon by their European brethren for breaking halachic boundaries during these days.

I should mention that none of this would be of such importance to me (not that it's not important...I'm just not sure I would generally be speaking about hilchot Bein Hamitzarim on the blog) if not for the fact that I was considering attending another of my friend's concerts he's putting on next week (in Harlem no less. Perhaps that's why it's free. Which is of course my incentive to be going), and was considering the halachic permisibility of such an engagement.

In regards to his (the singer's) halachic status, I'm reminded of what Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (מגן אברהם) comments on the Shulchan Aruch (very loose translation) "It is permissible for a Jew who earns his livelihood from music to play for non-Jews during the three weeks. Even if he plays enjoyable music, he himself is not enjoying it that much because "it's his job" to play"(תקנא:ב).

Though it's quite obvious that rabbi Gombiner's rulings are based on a much earlier Ashkenazi tradition that veered from the Sefaradi one a long time ago. What are the earliest sources for these "three weeks"?

Well, as we already established, the fact that there is an interim period of mourning between the "17th" and the "9th" is obvious, both from the haftara placings and other early Talmudic and post-Talmudic passages. But what of actual restrictions and commemorations during these times? On this point there is recorded, even in the Shulchan Aruch itself, customs of pious individuals to refrain from eating meat, and of some to even fast daily, from the 17th of Tamuz. Yet the same custom is recorded about others from the beginning of Av and from the week in which the 9th falls.

Upon a quick realization that it is beyond my current level of patience to record here the slow evolution of halacha between Early German Jews and Early Spanish Jews, I will suffice by saying that for anyone who does even a superficial reading of the sources, it is clear that there is no "traditional" or Sefaradi observance of the "three weeks". In fact, there is no concept of the "three weeks" in the Sefaradi halacha system. In fact, neither is there a concept of the "nine days". Both are European inventions. In our understanding the time after the 17th of Tammuz is in fact a mournful time, but that isn't really manifested in action. The first hint the Talmud gives us that mournfulness should become manifest in our actions is the statement that "with the coming of Av we should reduce in joy" (משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה), but that too is mainly manifest on the week in which the 9th falls. In the communities of The Pious Men of Germany (חסידי אשכנז), many more costoms and restrictions were added to be observed during these times, and those customs are what later Ashkenazi halachic literature is based on, but again, that has no bearing on Sefaradi halacha.

It should also be mentioned that no early source records any restriction on playing musical instruments, either in early Ashkenazi or Sefaradi traditions. Does this mean I can go to the gig? Well, basically "yes", since all we're speaking of here is just the arena of customs, not halacha per-se, but it is still worthwhile to see what some Ashkenazi authorities make of the music prohibition today.

In his essay, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (of the Beit El yeshiva) records some of the prevalent moods of halacha regarding music during the "three weeks" among Poskim today. He comes to the conclusion that there are, in fact, three categories of music in this respect: Joyous music, neutral music, and sad music. He allows neutral music during the "three weeks" and sad music during the "nine days". In that case, while not particularly in the spirit of the times, though also not quite prohibited, it would be allowed, even according to the much stricter Ashkenazi halacha, to listen to neutral music, which I feel is the type of music I plan to hear (though hearing it live has a special "prohibition" attached to it according to him, so..).

These posts never seem to come out they way I would like them to...

Some links!

Rav Uri Shriki on the topic.

Rav Ovadia Yosef (talking about his efforts against the "Ashkenazi Establishment" to allow weddings in the Israeli rabbinate during the "three weeks").

עינוי נפש

2009-07-09T13:53:00.000-07:00

התורה והתלמוד מצווים אותנו על עינוי הנפש (כגון צומות) בימים אשר ארעו צרות לישראל כי כל סיבתה של הצרה היא פזרון כוחות האדם (עבירה), ובכדי לתקן את אשר נגרם מ"גובה נפש" בא "עינוי הנפש". אם רוצים אנו להינצל מצרות כמו אלו שחוזרים על ישראל ביום "מועד" כזה, עלינו להראות לא"לוהינו ששולטים אנו בכוחות גופינו, ואם בידינו היה דבר, לא היתה סיבה מלכתחילה לקבוע את יום זה ליום אבל. י

מהות חלל

2009-07-04T20:08:00.000-07:00

["The Content of Vacuum"- A Succinct History of My Talmudic Pursuits]

A happy American Independance to everyone. I would, perhaps, have written about it, but I already had this up last week and took it down. ...so now it's up again..
As a result of my currently having a relatively freer schedule, I have, friends, begun regular evening attendance at a community Beit Midrash. Around the time I started these attendances I was speaking with a Rabbi I I've known since I was in high school, who, when learning that I attended, agreed to help me find a study partner. After I saw him there he said something to me which I felt to be disparaging towards my level of Talmudic tutelage when he told me to sit in with a class on Pirkei Avot, since he "didn't want me staring at the walls" (as if to suggest that if I did attempt to open a Gemara, it was more likely to be upside down than vice-versa).
I actually have a long and varied history not only with the Talmud itself, but also with the different methods of Talmudic analysis. So long a history, in fact, that if I were to record the entire account here it would make for the most boring post I've ever written. In fact even this abriged version will probably be the most boring I've written, but this blog doesn't run on consumer satisfaction anyway, so...
I suppose I should start with high school, since that is where I first learned how to decipher a Talmudic "sugya". In 11th grade I had a teacher, who, with a very innovative and perhaps unorthodox use of graphs and verbal introductions of concepts made the subject of Talmud clear to me for the first time (I used what I learned there in 12th grade as well). After I was done with high school I went on to fulfill my aspiration of engrossing myself full-time in Talmud in the Holy Land.
.
Year 1:
By the first year of my attendance in the "academies of Abaye and Raba" in Israel I was already relatively proficient in deciphering the Talmud, yet for the entire first half of the year I had felt that I was placed in a class in which I learned nothing. Finally in the summer I was transferred to a class that better suited me; the Rabbi (Goodman- מחבר ספר דברי יואל על הנביאים) went through Rashi, Tosafot, and the Rishonim using a spattering of relatively "simplistic" commentators which he found to be pertininent to the sugya. But it was not very lucid, and I was not quite happy there either.

I had to return to America early that year, and I attended a small yeshiva in Lakewood called Sha'arei Torah. I ended up returning there on and off for small periods the next few years. The Rosh Yeshiva was a friendly Rabbi from the state of Georgia, Rabbi Freundlich (which means "friendly"). His shiurim were far better than those I attended in Mikdash Melech, and I was, in essence, his top student. They were based on a bed of a consolidation of the opinions of some major Acharonim (such as the Ketzot and the Netivot) and the major Roshei Yeshivot, with a topping of his own discoveries of patterns and agendas in their opinions. I always considered his shiur to be far superior than one would imagine from a small yeshiva.
.
Year 2:
In the beginning of my second year I tried out an Israeli Sefaradi yeshiva in Petach Tikva called Pe'er Moshe (which I hoped had nothing to do with the fact that the Rosh Yeshiva's name was Moshe). I studied there under Rav Chaim Shvartz. Even though it was my first class in Hebrew I clearly understood him. He was very good at explaining differences of opinion between Rashi and Tosafot, as well as giving us a clear understanding of the problems and solutions of the early Acharonim.

By Chanuka (a small interim in the yeshiva winter semester) I realized most of the students there were not serious enough for my taste and returned to Jerusalem. To make a long story short me and another individual took someones advice to attend "the Mir". Since he had some classmates of his from Lakewood there who were attending a certain shiur and I had no connections, I attended the same shiur. Rabbi Wagshal.

His approach was to try to find patterns in the sugya at hand himself, without mentioning the commentators at all, unless they were part of the agenda he was trying to prove (which was supposedly an approach advocated by the former Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Nachum). I didn't quite like it because while I'm sure he had very interesting observations, since I was ignorant of what the commentators of the past 1,000 years said about the sugya I first wished to see what they had to say about things. After a little while I switched shiurim.

I then attended the shiur of Rav Nissan Kaplan--a very interesting individual if I don't say so myself. His shiur was, as I had wished, very much based on the commentators. He brought up pertinent Rishonim and a few Acharonim (such as the P'ne Yehoshua), he gave us a taste of the 'Brisk' approach, and at times even went into the halachic opinions on the subject of his own teachers (Rav shlomo Zalman Aurbach, yet he also mentioned Rav Noigershal).

In the summer I was offered a position by Rabbi Freundlich to teach Talmud in a camp to Modern Orthodox children from New Jersey (all the teachers were bachelors there). I tried to incorporate the teaching methods of my 11th grade teacher partly by presenting very comprehensive charts, and partly by making sure that there was no premise in the gemara that wasn't clearly explained before we started. Many of the others there went on to, in fact, educate children in Talmud for a living. I felt I could do it as well, twice as good as they could!

Those summers were actually the beginning of my exposure to Modern Orthodoxy; a religious approach which I've since adopted, but that is for another time. As a result of some acquaintances I made there, I started attending Shor Yoshuv during my interum periods in America instead of Shaarei Torah. There was the first place I saw students who studied Talmud in the morning, yet went to college in the afternoon, which to me was quite a novel idea at the time. My own Chavruta was in Medical School. Nonetheless, the shiur I attended there was also, like Rabbi Freundlich's, based on the influence of the Roshei Yeshivot approach, but was noticeably more "Brisker". I enjoyed becoming aquainted with the Brisker approach, but I knew that theirs was not an honest attempt at understanding the Gemara, but rather they used the Gemara as foundation on which to base their intellectual yet fanciful ideas about the Gemara. After teaching Talmud again that summer I returned to the Mir the following year.
.
Year 3:
I was in Rav Nissan Kaplan's shiur on and off for two years. After a while I became somewhat disillusioned with his pedagogic skills, much of it having to do with the fact that he was linguistically "undecided". He spoke English, Hebrew and Yiddish, yet the language he spoke was none of the above, which made it very difficult to understand his speech. I did until then, but I was unsure how much longer I would be able to hold out.

Around that time my friend had told me that he had been attending a "chabura" which he found to be very enjoyable. I told him that there were more chaburot in the Mir than one can count; why would I attend this one if I can attend any of the others. Still he insisted that "this one" was different. Without much of a choice I agreed to attend one. We were said to prepare a sugya in the first chapter which I had studied a while before, with Tosafot and the Maharsha. I went through it, as I had before, and attended the shiur.

I can say without any restraint that that was the best shiur I ever heard. He was a master orator who not only had full control of his voice and the English language, but more importantly of the sugya at hand; he never actually quoted Rashi or Tosafot or the Maharsha, but using their ideas explained the actual Gemara in a way that you not only stood Rav Huna, you felt like you were invited to a tour of Rav Huna's mind. Everything in the sugya was as clear as the sun; there was no room for doubt or confusion in anything.

As I continued coming to the chaburot I found more and more people coming from Rav Asher's shiur (the top shiur in the yeshiva) to instead hear this businessman from Georgia. After enough time it was clear to me that all the other shiurim were shrouded in darkness in regards to true understanding of the sugya. He once asked a very simple question to the gentlemen from Rav Asher's shiur about the stance of one of the (Raba's) opinions in the sugya. He gave them five minutes to think about this simple question that one would be inclined to answer instictively. After the wait he asked one of them, and they gave the obvious answer. Barry said it was incorrect. The man sitting next to him thought for a while and answered from a slightly different perspective. He was also incorrect. Barry then went on to show an extremely obvious point that they were overlooking, and again went on to explain the sugya as one who was broadcasting to us live from inside the brain of Raba.

Yet this all occured towards the end of the yeshiva year. I obviously wanted to study by Barry the coming year, but by then I had had quite enough of the Mir in general, and I wasn't sure I wanted to stay another year. I then learned that Barry was not creating this methodology on top of a fruit store. It turned out he had studied in Bircas Hatorah before he came to study under Rabbi Kaplan. After a bit of contemplation I decided to attend this yeshiva next year, where Barry Klein became who he was. Even before I came to Bircas though I was told by the faculty there that Barry's methodology did in fact sprout-up on in a fruit store, and that he only used the methodology taught in Bircas as a basis for his innovations. I thought that even if that is the case it would still be better for me to attend Bircas to obtain those same basics myself. I wanted to have a solid basis on which to dissect his methodology anyway, so that I would reveal the mechanics behind his "magic".
.
Year 4:
Before I continue, a word about "the methodology". It turned out that it was based on a reconfiguration of a form of Classic Logic for Talmud study formulated by the Ramchal in his "Ways of Reason". This book was then discovered and reprinted in an English translation by the rosh yeshiva of the diaspora yeshiva, Rabbi Mordecai Goldstein--the teacher of Rabbi Green. Rabbi Green in turn tinkered with the methodology even further to render it more palatable to contemporary Talmudists. He was meant to publish his form of the methodology in a pamphlet, but that has yet to happen (though other works from the yeshiva have been published).

Another very important facet of his methodology was the incorporation of ideas from people like Malachi Hacohen and Yitzchak Kanfanton, who were basically recording the Spanish tradition of Talmudic analysis, which is why I found a certain amount of racial pride in the methodology; it was not new, but in fact only a reincarnation of the Talmudic methodologies of the Spanish Jews.

Back to my stay in Bircas: I first studied under the Rosh Yeshiva himself, which was enjoyable, yet it seemed that he took for granted that his weathered students knew "the methodology". I therefore decided to leave after a month to attend the shiur of Rabbi Wegbreight, who supposedly stressed the teaching of the actual methodology. I can say that I learned much by him, and while some of the most studious pupils came out without a full grasp of the methodology, I not only fully understood it but was able to teach it to a friend of mine when I returned to America that summer. But still, the methodology was what I intended it to be; too mechanical, mathematical almost. There was no life in it, none of the brilliant expositions of mr. Klein. I had in fact revealed the mechanism, but not the magic.

I very much would have liked to return to Barry's shiur then, with these new foundations to work with, and discover how in fact he built such magnificent edifices, but alas, it was too late. I was already quite old to be dawdling away my time with some ancient Aramaic texts. I was 22, and if I ever wished to be considered by girls and be married and raise a family one day, I would have to leave the yeshiva.

...now I just stare at the walls..
.
[Hm. I find myself considering the revalation of this inormation somewhat embarassing. I'm not even sure I want it posted here. ...hm..]

The Larry Phenomenon

2009-07-01T23:45:00.000-07:00

As with many times in the past, I have recently found myself, friends, almost falling victim to the Larry Phenomenon. I spoke about this on the blog not long ago, but since I am now viewing it from a slightly different perceptive I wish to speak of it again. For further explanation regarding this phenomenon watching the video is an obvious necessity.

I have mentioned this in previous posts: My own experiences have proven that people usually like outgoing and personable people. I once mentioned on this very platform that while working in a Chinese restaurant in Manhattan I had a female coworker who seemed to defy a lot of my previous notions about social interactions. She was not very attractive, her personality was not quite magnetic etc., and yet she "forced herself into a position of likability by people". Of course I despised her and she seemed to understand that, but she seemed to get along quite well with most other people. This repugnant and unabashedly anti-Christian behavior of total self-aggrandizement seemed to have brought her a fair amount of social acceptance.

Yet the other possible result of such behavior is becoming a "Larry", someone who does not belong yet forces himself into a social group. I have an acquaintance here in my home Shtetl of Boro Park. He is an older Tel-Avivian bachelor, who I actually consider to be quite interesting, but who perhaps is not considered as such by all. Yet still he does in fact force himself upon people who might not be interested in talking with him or spending time with him. Obviously his outgoing personality does not allow him to become overly concerned with considering whether the person he's speaking to actually enjoys his presence. For myself, on the other hand, that can become a main concern when intruding upon individuals, especially in the case of females. ..while it is true that I must learn to overcome my timidity, I also have no interest in becoming a Larry. No sir, not at all, I have no stomach for it.

How then is one to determine if they are being a Larry? My mother was recently watching another dated film ("The Philadelphia Story") in which, basically, a charismatic man steals a woman away from not only her ex-husband but her fiance, when in fact he had little place speaking with her in the first place. Certainly he is no Larry! In fact he's Jimmy Stewart! This is no proof though, since even if Jimmy Stewart were to introduce himself with just as much gusto as Larry himself it would not lower his esteem in the eyes of those who met him.

Thus far my research has not been conclusive on this social phenomenon, yet I am still eager to come to a sound conclusion on this subject, since it so intimately affects my very self. Any ideas?

Film Reviews: Wounded Knee and Holiday

2009-06-28T00:09:00.000-07:00

I recently saw the HBO film version of the last two chapters of the book "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" about the genocide of the Native American Tribes (specifically the Sioux/Lakota) by the Western Europeans who settled this land for the sake of spreading the American Empire. I feel it is just one of many films that are good examples of what the reality of American history was actually like, as opposed to how it's glorified by some in this country.

I found one aspect of the film somewhat apropos to something I was discussing with someone recently. I was asked about my dislike for Oriental and North African Jews who chose for themselves the religious path of the European Jews, specifically perhaps those who become attracted to Chasidut Chabad: In the film the main character is a Sioux youth who's father is depicted as becoming "overly westernized" in the opinion of his tribesmen. He comes into "town" with not only a horse but a carriage, wearing a suit and hat, as well as having short hair. He reprimands his son for fighting with his people, and ends up walking into the distance jovially singing some Christian hymn in English. It's evident that the Indians are looking at him and thinking "By G-d, what has the White Man done to him?!" That is the image I've always had of the Sefaradi who has become estranged from the form of religious practice of his fathers, and has chosen the exact opposite in it's place, the eastern European form. It is not healthy, I feel, for anyone to be so separated from their roots, whether Sioux, Sefaradi, Muslim, or anyone else to whom different forms of "Europeanism" are alien. It is also not healthy for the preservation of the "Oriental Tradition" in Judaism to have such defectors. I think it would be worthwhile to imagine a scenario where there are few Ashkenazic Jews left in the world, and even among those the majority becomes interested in following the Sefardi traditions. I'm sure there would be a few from among them who feel strongly about having with whom to preserve the "European Tradition" of Judaism.

A film which I saw tonight (what? It's the summer. Give me a break!) is Holiday from 1938. It tells of a fun-loving bloke who wishes to retire at the ripe old age of 30, who wants to marry the daughter of a wealthy and very business-minded New York banker, who thinks like her father does. It takes a while for the man to realize that his love for the girl is only skin-deep, but that she shares none of his fun-loving values. He ends up hooking-up with her sister who shares his sentiments about a 30 year old retirement. To me the premise of the film brings up some important issues in relationships, like what to do when you realize it was really the persons sibling you should have married! But to me, the most notable aspect was the fact that he was able to overlook how much like her father she really was. That happens to me many times: I like the girl but don't see eye-to-eye with the ideas of the father. Yet the daughter seems different, "she thinks as I do". After a short while I usually come to the conclusion that the daughter is just the father in the body of a young girl, and it was just me who was projecting everything I find admirable about a person onto her. So...

Originality of Chasidut

2009-06-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

This is actually the first time, comrades, that I call upon my Chabad or otherwise Chasidic readers (if, in fact, there are any (can't be too sure you know)) to explain to me the meaning of Chasidut (according to it's early literature) as they see it.

I ask because, as I was awaking today, I found the subject strangely caught in my mind. It's not a new question to me though, and I have the same question in regards to the mussar movement. Both seemed not to be creating anything new. There was mussar before Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, and there was Kabalah and simcha and whatever else before Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem Tov. I've always wondered what novel ideas the early Chasidic works (such as the Toldot Yaakov Yosef, the Likutei Moharan, the Likutei Amarim, the Noam Elimelech for example) had in common. I obviously have some ideas, but I still feel my comprehension is lacking when I see people who are passionate about it, and don't understand them. ..the truth is I don't understand the passion of the "Na-Nach" people either, but I don't feel that's due to a lack in my comprehension..

I know it would obviously be better for me to do a little research myself, but it is written "מפי סופרים ולא מפי ספרים", and here on the blogs we have כמה וכמה תלמידי חכמים בתורת הנגלה ובתורת הנסתר, צורבי מרבנן דלא פסקי פומייהו מאורייתא, so why not ask..

גדולים עצים וציצית

2009-06-20T22:01:00.000-07:00

It is not generally my custom here to comment on the weekly readings of the bible, but this weeks portion (Numbers 13-15) records too important a segment of the Pentateuchal saga to overlook. I wish only to make a few general observations (which are not very different from the observations I've made on this weeks portion in previous years):

1) The Sin of the Scouts: Notice that it was the leaders of each tribe that brought back negative reports regarding the land G-d had promised to our forefathers. It is likely to assume that many of the Israelites looked up to the leaders of their tribes as much as they did to Moses, or even more so (since they even considered stoning Moses and returning to Egypt), which is why the Israelites believed the reports of these elders. Displayed, therefore, is an early example of "Gedolim" being quite mistaken in their opinions regarding the holy land. Surely us, as they, should not heed misguided individuals such as these, notwithstanding their social/religious prominence.

2) The Gatherer of Wood: Putting Midrashic interpretations and the like aside, which usually tend to see the gatherer in a light of malicious intent, I prefer to consider this individual in the worst case scenario: It was Shabbat afternoon and he was already aware that a very cold desert night was on it's way, yet he had no wood with which to warm his families tent. He chose to be "responsible" and find wood over the new religious considerations that were then being dictated to the people. The next day he was, by Divine command, stoned to death for this action, even though his heart was relatively pure, and his only will was to save his loved ones from discomfort. To me, one of the lessons of this event is that a full dedication is required for G-d's commands, even in the face great discomfort and a lack of a full understanding of the command. The proper course, for example, for this man to have taken would obviously be to refrain from collecting the wood, even though he and his family would have no protection from the desert cold that night, as well as a lack of cooking fuel, and even though the Divine commands had not yet fully taken hold in the minds of the Israelites.

3) Fringes: Any act to which a Divine command has been attached becomes sanctified with the holiness of G-d. What is important is not the physical content of the action, but the symbolism that G-d sees in it. Even something as insignificant as adding fringes on ones garment can be a reminder of "all the commandments of G-d" (15:39), and a deterrent from sin, if only we view it through "G-d's eyes".

Hm. None of this seems to make any sense. ..it made sense in my mind. I don't know where I went wrong..

Me and Charles

2009-06-18T23:43:00.000-07:00

I have recently engaged myself, friends, in the reading of "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens. I am starting to have somewhat of a history in regards to my relationship with Dickens books actually, since I was introduced to Dickens almost a year ago through "A Tale of Two Cities'. At the time I found it to very difficult to trudge through. Then earlier this year, as I've recorded here, I went through "Oliver Twist" and found it delightful. Since then my admiration has done nothing but grown for the writing style of Dickens, and I decided to pursue another of his works. I decided on Great Expectations since I had seen the modernized film version of it when I was the age of thirteen yet, so I was already aware of the story. So far I'm finding it to be amusing and enjoyable, even more so than Oliver Twist. I'm quite fond of his dry humor and irony, it's the type of humor I feel most at home with, I guess.

What I enjoy most about it though is that every chapter is usually full of philosophical investigations and thought-provoking insights into the nature of Man. For example in the eighth chapter of the aforementioned work he writes about how Estella showed contempt for Pip, especially for his coarse hands and boots, and how Pip came to consider them for the first time as a result. It is very similar to my own experiences. There was a time not long ago when I had literally no opinion of my own physical composition, yet in recent years I've formed opinions about almost all my proportions: my chin, my nose, my lips, my cheeks, my eyes, my forehead, my hair, my ears! Just to name a few. These considerations came only after having been exposed to many of a fairer physique, that I've come to realize the "inadequacies" of my own. Only through exposure to an alien environment does one come to question himself. This can be used in a positive way in regards to culture, religion and ideas. Only through, for the most part, actual geographical relocation can one put themselves in the position to question themselves.

.....in other news(!), I attended my second "Dustin gig" tonight, yet unlike last time I was able to socialize with him and his group and followers afterwards (I felt a bit awkard being bareheaded around my friends, but I would have felt even more uncomfortable making too Judaic a presence in such a place). I even helped by giving out cards (something which felt shamefully like soliciting to me, nonetheless). Afterwards, I used the experience somewhat as a stepping-board in my mind for me to start to gage my pattern of social interactions and interests. Why is it that out of the two thousand people at Touro I'm the only one to attend these performances? How do I decide to pick my friends and social acquaintances? Still very blurry to me, but it's clear that my method has been to choose very specific people and hook onto them like an eel. It must be considered further for me to come to any psychological/sociological conclusions about myself...

Tzniut: Revisited for the Eight Billionth Time

2009-06-16T23:20:00.000-07:00

You know, friends, I feel there was something I would have liked to have spoke about last week, but totally forgot about: tzniut. I know I've spoken about this topic over here until the point that "my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth" but, as with most matters in life, new events call for new perspectives.

There has recently been some talk about a new book on tzniut that has appeared on the book shelves. I browsed through the book I thought was the one spoken about (although it happened to have been a different book they were discussing) to get an idea about what had caused the hubbub. I didn't see anything particularly objectionable about the book, but it did seem to reinforce an opinion that I had heard about not long before, regarding how much of the area below the neck it is proper for a girl to have revealed. The opinion I had recently heard was that if a girl is wearing a button-down shirt/blouse, it is better to have the top button closed. My opinion on the matter before this had simply been that it is a queer way to carry oneself about, and that the matter had been sufficiently discussed on Seinfeld. The book contended though, that since, unlike the limbs of a woman, a higher level of stringency is placed on the torso (and directly under the neck is part of the torso) it must be covered.

I had once seen in a similar book an opinion that said that since "The Song of Solomon" considers the neck of a woman a beautiful thing, it can be inferred that it should be covered. It therefore suggested girls wear high collars to cover their necks. What I have always found disturbing about this area of "Ashkenazi halacha" is that it's entirely hypocritical. For example if they were so very concerned about the covering of the neck, what more thorough way to accomplish that than a neck-covering H'ijab? And as I've stated numerous times here, their whole approach to the subject is antithetical: According to their rulings it is permitted for a woman to to don a skirt that covers only the top part of her legs (and knees) as long as the lower half is covered by stockings. Yet it's well known that stockings themselves on a woman are considered a thing of attraction, and even getting a glimpse of the stockings on the lower leg of a woman was considered semi-erotic in the past. According to those standards, women such as the wife of the last "Rebbe" of Lubavitch was very sorely lacking in her fulfilment of Jewish laws of modesty. I mean, who said I want to see an old woman's lower legs?

I know this too is something I've ranted on in the past, but there is a well known custom among the Hasidic Jews of south-eastern Europe to not only cover their hair with a wig, but to have a kerchief at least partly covering the hair. Many women who follow that custom today seem as if all they have covering their hair is a kerchief that seems to be covering only a small portion of the hair. How does it help to have Jewish women look like Gypsies? I don't see the touch of modesty in such an outlandish fashion.

But it is well known that this is but the smallest example of the confusion prevalent among the Jews of Eastern Europe. It has always been clear to me that those on the other side of their religious spectrum were more correct, such as the Settler-girls (in Judea and Samaria) who wear pants beneath their skirts. Surely that is the most modest way of going about things.

But what of those on the extreme left? It is their argument that what is considered "modest" changes tremendously with the prevailing fashions. While I do agree wholeheartedly with that opinion, can it be said that if the people of the world all become nudist it would be correct for us to follow suit, since now those parts of the body do not inspire erotic thought? I do not feel so. There must be a middle ground. As far as the current situation of Western dress, I have always felt that it is perfectly possible to be modest while wearing jeans and a tee shirt. While perhaps not entirely ideal, as long as the important parts of the upper arms and legs are not visible, there wouldn't be much of a problem aside for the fact that the shape of the legs is evident. But then again, that is just another example of the hypocrisy of the Ashkenazi tzniut idea. They bring for an example the fact that the 'hip area' (no, not Tribeca!) should not give off it's shape through the clothing, which is one of the reasons they strongly encourage wearing skirts. Yet that logic would necessitate women to wear free-flowing tops cover the lower-back. Instead they wear skirts in which the shape of the hip area is evident, and have no free-flowing torso-garment covering it. I feel that that is perhaps one of the greatest breaches of the concept of modesty in dress. I mean, here are women criticizing the Muslim girls for wearing pants, when they themselves have the shape of their hip area evident. At least the Muslim girls generally have a 'top' that camouflages the shape of that area.

I know this sounds petty, and is a bit representative of the fact that I'm looking at girls to much, but I do still feel it's important to bring up, and that it's clear that the current Ultra-Orthodox understanding of tzniut is just silly.
.
[This post, by the way, is merely recording a few minutes of thought I had last week, while standing in the vicinity of religious Jews.]

Two Book Reviews

2009-06-15T20:42:00.000-07:00

(Well, just got finished with two more finals, ...the preparations for which were the reason I still didn't rewrite my TV post.) I read two books this past Shabbat. One was "Five Things I Can't Live Without" by Holly Shumas, and the other was "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. ...I KNOW! (Craig Ferguson reference).

In regards to the first book: It's a pretty 'fluffy' book, the kind which I wouldn't generally read, but once in while it's nice to read 'lighter' stuff.The book is about how a woman's "meta-life" (don't ask me!) threatens to ruin her relationship. She quits a job writing animal profiles in an animal shelter to write online dating profiles for people. She ends up doing a profile for a guy that she likes, which creates friction with her current relationship...but they work it out. I kind of like reading books like these because they have sort of a "realist" quality to them, in the sense that they convey the actual feelings that people outside of yourself have about the world around them, and the people around them. One thing I picked up while reading it was that, while not criticizing herself, it was evident that the character did things that might give others a feeling of being slighted, which is something she always overlooked. In the meantime, she portrayed her boyfriend as being not fully in tune with her needs and what she was thinking, and becomes overly self-conscious when he says things to her that the average person would consider benign. I guess that's at least somewhat representative of how most people see the world..

On a religious level, I think it may be important to become involved in the study of relationships. The Torah is not explicit down to the last letter in regards to "what to do in a relationship", and just as the Torah would have you go to an expert in medicine to make your body healthy, and to go to an expert in architecture to make for you a building in which to worship, it would also have you read "relationship books" to discover the best means with which to get along with a spouse. No?

In regards to Hitler: Well, there's obviously a lot to be said about Hitler...as he was quite the interesting character. It's interesting to read about what an unassuming background he emerged from (especially if your only other book is "Five Things I Can't Live Without" by Holly Shumas). I obviously didn't read the whole book in one day, but there is one passage which I did read which stood out to me, and which I wish to mention here. Which is that Hitler actually started off as being the opposite of an antisemite. He stood up for the Jews who were being bullied by Christians. Yet little by little his opinions started to change. One of the tipping points for Hitler were the conversations he had about politics with his Jewish (Communist) friends. He was a great hater of Marxism and of the German Social Democratic Party in general (which he suspected was run by Jews. ..not different than it is in America). During his conversations with them (trying to convert them into German nationalists I guess) he came to realize that they had very sly methods of arguing their point, in which they were always right. Their constant snake-like argumentative tactics against the nationalist party infuriated him, and that is one of the first times he came to hate Jews.

The first thing I learn from that is: he seemed to actually be much more friendly towards Jews than his policies would suggest. But the lesson of this to me is that you never know when someone is judging your entire race or religion based on their interactions with you. It is always, therefore, better to be on the safe side and be as accommodating as possible, since there was a group of Jews in the past who, through having a conversation with an unassuming individual, sealed the fate of their people.

"וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָ"ה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם"

2009-06-10T21:55:00.000-07:00

This is a post I've been meaning to write for at least a week now, but was prevented due to difficult examinations in the place of my tutelage. If it's not apparent from the title (or the picture!) I would like to speak about the place that film, or "drama" has in the Judaic perspective (i.e. not necessarily only the "halachic" perspective).

As the summer months come upon us, and there's less studying being done and more movie watching, I came to realize that I've found that my opinions about movies have somewhat dicipated. I'm not as thoughtful and strict about what and why I watch recentely, which I think is a very bad sign. Perhaps if I reiterate some ideas I'll be able to restabalize myself.

First of all I would like to begin by discussing film: Films are obviously just a recorded version of the same content as theatre performances (though there are obvious differences). So the question is really about the performances themselves, about "drama". Yet this drama itself is only actors acting out the content of a story. So it is the story itself which is the question then. Surely it can't be said that one cannot hear or read a story. The Torah, Tanach and Midrash themselves are full of tales and "myths", the actuality or historicity of which seems unimportant (thus transferring them from the realm of "hi-story" to the realm of "story"). There is not a clear answer to the question of what kind of story should or should not be listened to or read, yet it can definitely be said that a story with a clear moral is far better than a tale of lovers and of romance, a subject which can turn the stories subject matter from "PG" to "R".

Jews in the past would generally not have to consider such topics, but with the advent of the cinema and the home television the question is thus thrust upon the average observant Jew who would never even consider attending the theatre. And our sages (זכרונם לברכה) have said "אינה דומה שמיעה לראיה", and hearing or reading an "adult scene" is far from the same as seeing it. We are aware of how much our sages and G-d Himself have tried to distance us from licentiousness and promiscuity, even to the extent of restricting us from seeing members of the opposite sex in compromising situations, or wearing immodest clothing, etc. Therefore there is nary a film that meets the Judaic guidelines of content 100%, but I would definitely not be the one to say that this should restrict people from watching any and all films. They are not pornographic films, and even scenes of sexuality are used in context and are (to some extent) not shown. It is therefore not difficult to overlook those scenes in the face of a greater context (this is so obvious it doesn't require verbalization). Therefore if one does watch, they should at least be on guard against the evils of Western Man that are, at times, quite apparent in his films. One should not only be on guard against him when viewing his dramatic productions though, but in all areas of life as well.

There is also the issue of actually entering a cinema. Who attends a cinema if not the lower elements? What place is there for a man of religion to enter a cinema? These are the kinds of thoughts the general population have when they see someone who is obviously a religious Jew entering into a cinema. It is better, therefore, to be sensitive to this possibility of the current applications of "Chilul Hashem", but from a halachic perspective this topic is not very simple.

This is far from the whole story though, there is also the issue of television: From it's earliest days the content of television has been of far inferior quality to film productions. What is one to do in the face of television (television programs availible online are obviously also included; it's a genre)? This is obviously too complicated a topic to discuss here at any length. All I can do is mention some principles. First of all, people "our" age are usually not very interested in television since our own lives are actually interesting. But if one does want to watch, at least they should have some sort of purpose in watching a particular program, and not let a days programming pass them by in a state of vegetation. Also: there have been studies mentioned in length in the book "To Kindle a Soul" that state that screen viewing is mentally unhealthy not only for children but for adults as well. According to them if one wishes to view a dramatic performance, it is far better to do it in a theatre than from a screen, or better yet, from a book. Extensive screen-viewing is just another of the unhealthy products of the 20th century, and if one wishes to keep their mind sharp, they would do well to minimize in it.

This post came out disappointingly...there is no beginning and no end. ...well, the more I write the more I learn I guess... ...I think I should rewrite it..

(The title, by the way, is using a play on words from "מסכה" (mask) to "מסך" (screen). This type of play on words was used by the Palestinian Kabalists, and was made famous by the linguistic usages of the "Chida").

שחרחורת: Revisited!

2009-06-03T12:55:00.000-07:00

I hate to keep writing about nonsense, but just to get the previous post out of my sight(!), I wanted to mention that it's funny, I don't think any of my readers who remember the discussion of the "שחרחורת" song are still reading. ...anyway, I just saw a new video on YouTube of this Avivit Caspi singing it, in HD! (she's got a good voice, ..but she's also making some pretty unusual movements over there.. ...she's the one who sang Hatikva at Wimbledon last year by the way)...
_________________________________

Lamma Bada- Moroccan Maqam.

Lamma Bada- Mid-East Maqam.

Sanakhudu lyrics!

Short film about Jewish-Moroccan music!! (Top left: Jewish Communities. Page 5: Music of the Jews from North Africa).

Ah, what the hell; I just saw this on YouTube, it's Emil Zrihan singing Ahalel Pi and Ya'ala Y'ala (written by Rabbi Yisrael Nagara, שעליו העיד האר"י שמלאכי השרת באים לשמוע שירותיו) with the Andalusian Orchestra. ..it's far from the best, but it's ok..

Upon Exiting the Restroom

2009-06-02T12:12:00.000-07:00

...is it not to humble Man, that he should forever carry upon himself the pollution of excrement, whether outside his body or inside? There is no time when Man is without it, for only without food can there be no excretion, and without food there is death. Man, therefore, is bound to it forever..