הנאה

The more pleasures of this world one takes for himself, the less he appreciates pleasure.


This can be seen in the statement of our sages in regards to the Divine Laws:

"איזהו עשיר? השמח בחלקו".

'Wealth' can be understood as a term here denoting the zenith of physical pleasure. Who can experience such pleasure? Only one who appreciates the pleasures he has available to him. How can that be done? As was stated- by minimalism.

דעת

Being aware of ones' ignorance is true knowledge.

צביעות

אל תתפלל על דבר שיש בידך לשנותה.

אסור להתפלל "רפאנו!... הושיענו!" "יהי רצון שתצילנו... מחולאים..." אם אוכלים ועושים דברים המתנגדים לבראיות. וכן לגבי א"י: אין להתפלל "קבצינו... לארצינו" אם ביכולתינו לעלות לארץ, ואיננו עולים.

אין המדרש העיקר

אין המדרש העיקר, אלא המעשה

...is what it says in 'Avot'. On a personal level I never fully agreed. What if someone has a whole life full of helping others, and doing good, but he has not ever pondered deeply about them- what good are his actions? What good are actions done without thought? I'm having a very hard time verbalizing this at the moment, but I just want to jot something down.

Take myself for example; I don't want to see myself as someone who's mental academical and spiritual development will have to come to a quick end because I might have to marry, and/or start having to work many hours to support myself. What good is an unexamined life? I'd (theoretically) not get married till I'm 40 if that would allow me to pursue my intellectual (as well as any other time consuming) interests. I very much prefer the 40 year old well-thought-out traveling homeless man to the mother who lives in a suburb, has a few kids, and works in an 'unimportant job'. But then again, maybe I'm saying that only as a result of my being male...

I was on the train a few days ago, though, and I was pondering people -as I most often do- and I noticed the business man; who brought his lap-top along with him onto the train to continue his work, and a sense of conscience came over me; that my previous thoughts found their source in Lucifer's conniving mouth. If one continues to study, someone will have to support him. In my case it would be my mother. It is obviously not at all ethical to let ones mother support them (especially in the "Kohnian" model...may even be considered a form of thievery.), one must be at least self sufficient as soon as possible. Though hopefully can even help support, or perhaps at times, wholly support others (perhaps including ones wife and family).


I find it interesting to note, and therefore will, the words that follow Paul's admonishion of "Let him that stole steal no more" in Ephesians 4:28- "but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth"! Something which many Jews (for example) seem to overlook- the way to discourage any forms of stealing is working and supporting others.

I see therefore that the ideal at least is not not study in celibacy and irresponsibility, but of course to follow the dictum of our blessed (and wise) sages 'אין המדרש העיקר, אלא המעשה'.

"On beards and Female Men"

I have been thinking recently about the "feminization" of men in metropolitan America recently.

Men were once more masculine, and therefore be attracted to "femininity" as and idea, and women attracted to masculinity. But as we all became more feminine, men also became more feminine. That is why many more men are attracted to other men today, because they are attracted to the femininity in them, not the 'man-ness'. And that is why, in turn, women can be attracted to other women today, because now they are not so much attracted to the masculinity in men, but of the femininity in them, so they're also attracted to the femininity of women.

Which is why, for example, less women would be attracted to a man with a beard these days (for it is a conduit of masculinity. ...unless it is a beard that doesn't veer much from femininity).

Adeism?

New Post! ...but short.

I think the main difference of opinion should be between Deists and, not "atheists", but "non-Deists", and their arguments should mostly be based on Scientific evidence.

A-theists issue is with organized religion, and organized religion only; yet that's always confused with "belief in G-d" (a term which I anyway, have never been too fond of). And most of the time not with all theists, but only with extremists, or many a time with Christianity only.

Separate thought: Atheists complain that religion is socially and psychologically oriented, when they are just as well...

BIRTH. DAY.

"The hour of great contempt". 24. אם לא עכשיו אימתי?

ברוך שהחייני וקיימני והגיעני עד הלום. כה יתן וכה יוסיף. אמן

Money

'Money' is a very 'evolved', sophisticated and complex invention.


- Forming of perceptions.

- מהות החג

Theology

There are pressing Theological questions existent. Someone who bases their lives on religion should think them through, as opposed to saying "I never really gave it much thought".

לאן הגענו

http://storyofstuff.com

מצוה לראות

VALENTINVS

ok, I read my Wikipedia article about Valentines day, but I still feel I am no wiser about it than before I read it. According to what it states scholars say that Valentines Day is not necessarily connected to the fact that mid-January to mid-February was a time of fertility in the Roman calender. Though on the other hand the only connection between medieval saints named Valentinus and romance seems to be a "modern addition" to some obscure legend, and yet it gained in popularity as a romance-based holiday in Europe since the late medieval times, and greatly in America since the 1840's.

It is interesting to note though, that according to those additional legends, Claudius II made a decree that all young men should be single, and Vanentinus would wed young couples secretly (suggesting that he was no supporter of pre-marital relationships!) ..though, according to the addition on the addition, Valantinus had a crush on Claudius's daughter! ...though according to the addition to the addition to the addition (!), the first Valentine notes were some sort of "kvitlach", (prayer notes)!

In any event, the most likely source for the romantic elements of Valentines Day on all accounts seems to be, of course, way Pagan, and not connected to any saint. They seem rather to be connected to "Lupercalia", in which "many of the noble youths and of the magistrates run up and down through the city naked, for sport and laughter striking those they meet with shaggy thongs. And many women of rank also purposely get in their way, and like children at school present their hands to be struck, believing that the pregnant will thus be helped in delivery, and the barren to pregnancy". Though, of course, that doesn't really account for the romance aspect.

I also found it interesting, though, that in Egypt, many of the youth are getting into Valentines Day, against the will of their elders (mainly because there is a great unemployment rate, and the youth are looking for a way to express their love in public".

וקראתה בו

There is something which I would have liked to write in this panel a while ago, but didn't get around to, and that is the book "Proust and the Squid" by Maryanne Wolf .

It's subject is a subject which is hard to believe is so overlooked; todays transition from reading words on paper as our main way of taking in information to a more digitalized method. Definitely one of the most important subjects our generation has to face, but does not care enough about to discuss! This is a transition the likes of which hasn't happened since the transition from the spoken word to writing. And this is a problem which also fundamentaly affects orthodox judaism.

It is hard to properly describe how advanced our systems of reading really are, and how far we've come, and how much (as opposed to the view of Socrates) it has positively affected our minds. It is extremely developed compared to the original forms of writing. But today the digital technology available to us has the potential to actually make our brains devolve in the long run! Any information acquired through demonstration, and not through reading will only make us lees intelligent. Most of the things available on the digital media are not educational anyway.

All I can say quickly and offhand here is that we must decide how much we really want the digital media surrounding us to affect our minds. My personal opinion is that a seldom documentary can be useful (in addition to reading) to clarify a subject (though only after attempting to understand through reading).

In yeshivas there is a very strong effort not to 'give in' in regards to reading and understanding. I just read recently that one of the explanations of the Mishna in the second chapter of Avot; "אל תאמר דבר שאי אפשר לשמוע שסופו להשמע" as meaning "don't say that something cannot be understood, if it CAN be understood (with enough diligence). It's really better to struggle through a passage in the Talmud then to rush to some explanation or translation (קודם ראשי ואחר כך רש"י- בפיהם של חכמי מרוקו).

In regards to recorded Drama, especially when some of the content if of questionable ethicallity has been a big question. The Ultra-Orthodox Jewish approach is generally that it is all negative. While the liberal-orthodox and Evangelical Christians for example try to filter out the 'bad' stuff. More research is necessary.

Strassman

Well, another engagement! Daniel Strassman! I only heard about it a few hours before it happened through my father who took the message, only problem is his handwriting is illegible! But somehow, I found it, and got there on time thank G-d. I thought the chatan was basically the only person I would know there, but there were many people we both knew from camp. I haven't 'chilled' with friends in a while...b'ezrat hashem I will get back to some amount of normalcy soon!

History

History is the psychology of the world.

פסל כל תמונה

OK, OK, far be it from me do discuss in such an official way, such inane issues, and far be it from me to brood on Rebecca ---, but I was just sent a message on 'a certain dating website', in which I probably had some sort of subscription to from a long while back, and I decided to browse there for a second; and what turns up? A new picture of Rebecca! Now, I'm not doing this for nostalgic purposes, but just to make a short demonstration. (I couldn't do this before because I didn't have a 'good picture' of her..I mean, for memories sake, I didn't want to have one, if you know what I mean).

Anyway, to make things short, Rebecca is a sweet girl in her pre-20's, somewhere in America, looking (partially through 'online profiles') for her soul mate.

OK, now this is the first picture I personally received from Rebecca through email:

When I first saw it I said; yo man! This girl ain't for me, she looks like some kid who just stepped out of a rodeo or something, and I don't really dig southern things...

So that's what I did; told her nicely I wasn't interested..




Now, here's an example of the picture she has up today on a website (I think it's publicly posted..if it isn't, then may I be forgiven). Here too, she looks a little better, but personally, I wouldn't even start up with such a girl.








And finally; specimen C; the picture I found on 'the other site':

Is not all the lust and beauty of her youth greatly more evident here than in the first ones?! To me it would be no surprise if she got all her dates with the second site, and wonders why!

(Yet even this is not how she plainly appears in real life (she always wears glasses. This picture makes her look much more wild than her intellectual, reserved, cool and composed self. It also makes her seem a bit younger than she actually is, which adds to her a certain amount of silliness.)


So, what of this? What am I trying to prove? Well, two things; first of all to any of us who have, or check out internet dating profiles, with the hopes of running into someone pleasant- beware! You're picture is all people judge you by (well, if you're a girl!). So make sure the picture you have of yourself is a reasonable representation.

(Personally; I've only been out twice through internet dating, this here was the first girl, who looked better, and..different than her picture (which isn't here), and the second time the girl actually looked a lot worse than the picture..).

Second point; we are obviously way too superficial, and play too much importance into looks. We should be ashamed at ourselves! After thousands of years of development, only because of capitalism and commercialism still have the same tendencies, and glorify the same things as a caveman! At least we, G-d's people, we should be at the forefront of this counterculture we attempt to run against the western world in which we reside. Overindulgence in the things of the media, and approaching them without a heavy head, and a 'grain of salt', but mindlessness, and subconscious acceptance are the main things we should refrain from totally. At least us; the nation of priests, should see people for who they are, and not how f-'d up their faces might look.

עבד

Yossi

Well, I went to my friends engagement last night. Thank G-d I don't really care anymore if my friends are getting married...

I knew he was Buharian, but I guess I kind of forgot he's actually from Uzbeckistan. The place had a much more Uzbeck flavor than I thought it might. They even had a Buharian band with the singer seemingy singing love songs about Samerkand (capitol, Uzbeckistan). My friend though, knew the Uzbeck dances better than anyone there. Though it's sort of weird doing that dance with only guys (some of the dances are sort of sexually seggestive), but, it was alright...

מונה מספר לכוכבים

Didn't post- been busy with math.

I've always had an aversion to mathematics. Mostly because I just wasn't too good at it. Though my mother has mathematics practically as her religion.

But as I got older, and tried to 'read theology into everything', I came the conclusion that math is important. Not only because the world runs on math, and that someone without math is walking clumsily through the world, not only because Maimonides lists math as one of those things that keeps one's mind busy, and therefore pure from sin, not only because arithmetic is up there with reading as a must know for everyone who wishes to aspire to the basic minimum amount of knowledge necessitated by the board of education for everyone, not because of these reasons has the importance of mathematics grown in my eyes, but because the universe was built USING mathematical principles. G-d created the universe using mathematic principles! Creating mathematical principles and incorporating them into reality! Is it not true therefore that one who delves into the physical sciences, and particularly mathematics draws himself closer and closer to the mind of his creator?

So one doesn't have to 'know math just to know math', one has to know math, to know G-d!

Busha

...I think this guy sort of takes the term "executive brach" a litle too siriously, by the way...

סוגיא דפריעת הראש

Last week I read a post from blogger "Bad Rabbi" (he's listed among my links as "רב שאינו הגון". In the Oct. 14 2007 post) about the subject of covering of the hair for women, from a Judaic/halachic perspective.The background for this requirement is well known; the bible (Numbers 5) has a prescribed method to deal with a ‘woman who has gone astray’. Basically the suspected woman should be brought to the priest, and it then states “ופרע את ראש האשה”, which can be understood as “then he should unbraid her hair”, or “then he should uncover her hair”. Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes (1040-1105) suggests that simply it is perhaps more likely to mean ‘he should unbraid’, but from a semantic perspective it can really go either way.

The Talmud (Ketuboth 72a) comments; "then he should uncover the woman’s hair"- and "if so", it states, "then we see it once was covered- if it once was covered, then it should always be covered. From here we can infer" says the Talmud, "that G-d would want a woman to have her hair always covered".

The author of the ‘Bad Rabbi’ blog had difficulty in understanding the logic of this talmudic derivation; “Let us review the logic:

.

1. The hair of the woman in ‘The Sotah’ story was uncovered by the Kohen

2. If her hair was uncovered, then it must have been covered to begin with

3. If her hair was covered, then it must have been covered all the time

4. If her hair was covered all the time, then ALL women’s hair must have been covered at all times

5. Therefore all women must have their hair covered!”, to quote his understanding.

But he adds “…does it follow that just because a woman’s hair was uncovered in that act of judgment then all women’s hair must from then on be covered? Maybe the fashion of the time three thousand years ago was to keep hair covered. Does this mean that we must keep with that fashion even now? Should we wear exactly what they were wearing too? Thank goodness the story does not describe the color and the dress this woman was wearing, or else, the rabbis would have required women to wear that dress as well!A more respectable argument for covering of hair could have been made on grounds of modesty. The rabbis could have said that modesty in dress includes covering hair. Certainly those women who wear hats or otherwise cover their hair tend to be less flamboyant then those who flaunt their hair. An argument could have been made that a dignified woman should cover her hair out of modesty. Unfortunately, when asked, Rabbis always point to ‘The Sotah’ story for justification for this law, and only add the modesty issue as an afterthought.”

I pondered his argument against the logic of the Talmud on and off for a few days. Initially I thought- that his whole understanding of the halachic process was faulty; the Talmud here is not trying to prove that it is a biblical imperative for a woman to cover her hair, it cannot be suggesting that- for we know such a thing is not one of the 613 Divine Laws. Rather this form of proof in the Talmud is called an "אסמכתא" ("a leaning"). The point of bringing an asmachta is not to prove something biblically, but just to provide a verse that somewhat assists our idea. But that is not THE proof for woman’s head covering.

It is known to all reading this, that most observant Muslim women cover their hair. It would seem to us that this would be based on the Koran, or perhaps only in the Hadith. When one searches through the Koran though, to one’s surprise, he finds no such verse instructing women to cover their hair!

Why is it then that all observant Muslim women have their hair covered? From the simple understanding that the Koran felt it was understood (in that time and place, at least- I.e. seventh century Saudi Arabia) that women cover their hair. This was understood by all. The Koran does state though, that women should generally be modest. The prophet (Mica 4:8) also bequeaths man to ‘walk modestly with g-d’.

So if the argument can be made that woman should cover their hair, because she had it covered, the argument can also be made that if Moses was wearing shoes, we all should be wearing shoes. True, but who among us is not wearing shoes? It is understood.

That is what I thought at the time. But still that argument is slightly (I stress- slightly faulty) because times and norms change. There is a famous Hassidic dictum that "how do we know that Moses wore a ‘shtreimel’ (the fur hat that Hassidim wear)? For it says “ and Moses came out"!...would Moses come out without a shtriemel?!”. Rabbi Dr. Josef Breuer (1842 –1925) in his book ‘The Jewish Marriage’ brings up this problem. He writes “you might say that the practice of covering the hair does not seem to be a custom followed by Jews only; it is the common heritage of the orient, and thus it brings to mind the inferior position of woman in the east and the degradations that were associated with the harem”. After convincing the Jewish woman that this is a practice of Jews, he adds “And even if upon superficial examination there might be some truth in this argument- might it not be possible that two persons might engage in the same practice, but each for quite different reasons that the other? Does not the oriental also pray…, does not he have temples priests and prophets- and still, would you be so thoughtless as to consider identical certain phenomena and concepts which, while seemingly alike, actually represent ideas diametrically opposed to each other by virtue of the spirit in which each is performed?”

.

(I personally wish to add to his words that the New Testament also testifies to the fact that women of the orient were expected to cover their hair in the time of Paul, for he writes (I Corinthians 11.5) "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven". this is not kept in actuality by most Christians today for the very reason that it was 'only said for that time', though there is a movement today among Evangelical Christians to bring the practice back).

Though the original problem still lingers; but then it hit me- the Bad Rabbis whole premise is off. It does not say that anyone ever uncovered anyone else’s hair. It says ‘this is what you should do in this situation’. In fact there is a wording of our prestated Talmudic derivation on this verse in the Midrash. The Midrash Sifri (ibid.) formulates “this is to teach you that a woman’s hair should be covered”, not “it was covered”, but “should be covered”! In other words the Torah is telling us “this is what you should do in this situation…then uncover her hair”, i.e. I expect her hair to be covered then.

Ah but the eyes of those who do not wish to see will always be blind! For all time, those who have discarded and mocked the commandments which we understand to be of Divine origin, did so out of ignorance and an unwillingness to learn!

עבד

נחית דרגא

Just one small point I wish to concentrate on today, and that is “feeling lucky”; Personally, I haven’t been to meetings of a romantically, or marriage oriented nature a great many times. But there was one girl (from Miami Beach) that I came in contact with in such a meeting, that I, over time, grew an emotional attachment with. Although I was, after a point of mutual satisfaction, ultimately rejected.

In my mind I pondered many things I could have done to stop that ‘evil decree’. But after a while I realized that my main problem was that she was just ‘out my league’ (i.e. in many ways, she was objectively ‘better’ than me). And it dawned on me that that was obviously why I was so interested in her; mainly because of her greater ‘class’ (so to speak). In other words; let’s say it worked out between us and we got married, what would she be thinking of me her whole life? “You know, honestly, I could really have done a lot better than that, I should have got rid of him while I was still able to”, and forget about what her mother would be saying to her for the rest of her life…

All I could think is “how was I deserving of her interest in me?”, and how ‘lucky’ I was to end up with this person. So my whole interest in her was in essence an interest in myself, in bettering my situation. As far as I was concerned, I would be the main person benefiting from the relationship. Is that not just egotistical self-love? The ideal relationship, in a way, is one where ‘they’ are the one who is interested in ‘you’; where they are the one who feels lucky to be with you.

The Talmud itself in Tractate Yebamot (63a) teaches us this great principle; נחית דרגא ונסב איתתא (“go down a step (a rung in the social ladder) and then marry”) are it’s ever famous words of practical relationship advice. And what definition of social class is there by men if not the attractiveness of their spouse. If so then, “going down a level” would to a large extent be defined as being less superficial, and more open to romantic interest in someone who doesn’t fit today’s subjective mold of what’s considered attractive. And anyone of a male orientation knows that to a man, says “don’t be so interested in looks”, is like telling a nine month pregnant woman who’s water broke to “put off childbirth for a few months”! Then how much more important is it in that case, to engrain in our minds that which king Solomon told us in the conclusion of his book of Proverbs “שקר החן והבל היופי, אשה יראת ה היא תתהלל”!

By the way...trust Jimmy Soul on this one, he knows what he's talking about!

עבד