שבתאי בן אברהם

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

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

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

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

ח

הקדמות להערותי: ח

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

ח

"דֶער גָלוּת אִיד"

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"

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

(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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

["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

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

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

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

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

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...