Answering to a Higher Authority

A guest post by JS on behalf of DYS:

A phenomenal article was provided by DYS yesterday about the controversy surrounding Hebrew National brand hotdogs (and other meat products). I should note that the link to the phenomenal article was posted on the equally phenomenal post I had yesterday on the 17th of Tammuz and why we fast on the 17th and not the 9th of Tammuz (and now that people's brains are clear from eating, maybe will garner some interest).

Some interesting facts from the article:
1) Hebrew National hotdogs are ranked the #1 hotdog in America;
2) Hebrew National is the largest kosher meat processor in the world;
3) An anonymous quote from a prominent Orthodox rabbi that "kashrut 'is 2 percent Halachah and 98 percent ego and money and politics'”;
4) Hebrew National is currently under "triangle K" which is Rabbi Ralbag's hechser (have to admit I was surprised by his and his sons' credentials which are listed in the article);
5) The Conservative movement approved Hebrew National for its members after Rabbi Ralbag took over in 2004;
6) Hebrew National is not glatt, however many Orthodox rabbis believe most animals labeled as glatt aren't really glatt anyways;
7) Rabbi Abadi (studied under Rav Kotler and was once exclusive poseik for Lakewood) has ruled Hebrew National is kosher for those who do not eat only glatt;
8) The push to eat only glatt in America apparently started in the 1970's - until that time the OU gave its hechsher to both glatt and non-glatt; and
9) The OU refuses to comment on other hashgachas and the "Star K" simply says it's "unreliable."

Although I brought up some points from the article, PLEASE read it. The above doesn't do it justice.

Search for more information about kosher hotdogs at 4torah.com.

Why are you fasting today?

Yes, yes thank you I know its 17 Tamuz and I know things happened in the distant past, things that so distrubed the Rabbis that they established a day of mourning, and announced it binding on every Jew in all times and all places.

My question is This: Why have you chosen to play along?

(I'm fasting. Always do.)

Search for more information about 17 Tamuz at 4torah.com.

The 17th of Tammuz

A guest post by JS:

Writers are often told to "write what you know" so it is with that caveat that I admit I'm wandering into territory I'm not fully familiar with. I do so to spur conversation and bring up questions I have which I hope other people wonder about as well.

Today is the "minor fast day" of Shiva Asar B'Tammuz - The 17th of Tammuz. We fast because on this day the walls of Jerusalem were breached. It begins a 3 week period of mourning culminating in Tisha B'Av - The 9th of Av in which the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed.

However, the Mishna in Taanit (4:6) lists 5 reasons for fasting on this day:
1) Moshe broke the Ten Commandments;
2) The daily offering (Korban Tamid) ceased - there weren't enough animals during the seige of Jerusalem;
3) The walls of Jerusalem were breached;
4) An officer of Antiochus Epiphenes named Apostomos burned a Torah scroll; and
5) An idol was set up in the sanctuary.

What I find interesting is that we only focus on #3 (it seems the other 4 alone would not be important enough to warrant a fast day) as the minor fast days are collectively seen as a mini-chronology leading to the end of Jewish rule: Asara B'Tevet (siege of Jerusalem), Shiva Asar B'Tammuz (breach of the walls of Jerusalem), Tisha B'Av (destruction of the temple), and Tzom Gedaliah (end of Jewish rule).

Each of these fast days finds textual support in various books of Tanach. For example:

The siege of Jerusalem is recounted in 2 Kings 25:1-4 and Jeremiah 52:4 as occurring on the 10th day of the 10th month (10th of Tevet) and the assassination of Gedaliah is referenced in 2 Kings 25:25 and Jeremiah 41 as occurring in the 7th month (Tishrei).

However, the textual support for the 9th of Av of the 17th of Tammuz are less clear:

The destruction of the Temple is recounted in 2 Kings 25:8-9 as occurring on the 7th of 5th month (7th of Av) and in Jeremiah 52:12-13 as occurring on the 10th of the 5th month (10th of Av) . This is traditionally understood as meaning the inner sanctum of the Temple was entered on the 7th, the fire was started on the 9th, and it burned into the 10th. See Taanit 29a.

But, when were the walls breached? 2 Kings 25:3-4 and Jeremiah 52:6-7 indicate it took place on the 9th day of 4th month (9th of Tammuz). In fact, in Taanit 28b, the Babylonian Talmud expressly states that the 9th of Tammuz is when the walls of Jerusalem were breached during the First Temple period and the 17th of Tammuz is when the walls of Jerusalem were breached during the Second Temple period. So when all of the other events are so clearly related to the First Temple, why do we not fast on the 9th of Tammuz?

Interestingly, the Jerusalem Talmud in Taanit 4:4 states that our Tanach is wrong!!! The correct date is the 17th. It says there "קילקול חשבונות" - the prophet's thought process was disturbed and thus a mistake in the date was made.

Both the approach of the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud is odd. The former because all other fast days relate to the First Temple, the latter because they're arguing there's a significant distortion in two different places in Tanach.

More interesting is that the verses for the destruction of the temple are nearly identical except for the date, 7th versus 10th and yet no one (to the best of my knowledge) suggests "קילקול חשבונות" - the prophet's thought process was disturbed and thus a mistake in the date was made.

Search for more information about minor fast days at 4torah.com.

Some of Billam, some of Pinchas

A people the dwells apart / כי מראש צרים אראנו ומגבעות אשורנו הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב׃

This is Billam's grand declaration about the Jewish people, and indeed, in the Billam story we are presented as God's own people, separated from all other nations, and divinely protected from curses, enchantments and foreign influences. The very next story, however, tells a different tale. Suddenly, we are intertwined with the neighboring tribes, and sharing both women and rituals.

What's the link?

Why did the editor/author (ie: God) choose to put these two stories side by side? Why are given a thesis (Israel dwells alone) followed by a contradictory antithesis (Israel intermingles with other nations)? Unless the point is the punishment?

Baal Peor / בעל פעור

Per the Talmud, the name Peor puns on a Hebrew verb that means "to gape open." A connection between the name and the mode of worship is suggested by the sexual acts described in this chapter, but the Talmud additionally links the worship of Peor to defecation.

Was Peor actualy worshipped with both sex and filth, or was the latter added by Rabbis seeking to further denigrate the idolatry. Anyone know? I tweeted this question the other day, but no one replied.

And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly / ויבא אחר איש ישראל אל הקבה וידקר את שניהם--את איש ישראל ואת האשה אל קבתה

The translation I've given here follows the KJV, which is tricky because no one really knows what is meant by the word קבה. It appears here alone, and is translated variously as tent, pavillion or Tabernacle.

Jewish tradition tells us the word means "Tabernacle" but this is hard because nowhere else is the Mishkan called a qubah.

Robert Alter links it to the Arabic qubbe, a red tent used for conjugal and cultic purposes and adds that our word "alcove" (ie: a recessed space) is derived from al-qubbe.

The second use of word (everyone knows) is a euphamism for the female sexual part, but it puns on the hebrew for "belly" and works as a euphamism only because קבה and קבתה might be the same word, both referring to a space of some kind used for sexual purposes.

[Source: Robert Alter; Five Books of Moses]

tripped over some Jewish music in Hong Kong of all places!

A Guest Post by Rafi G.

You will never believe this.

I just had to call Hong Kong. The person I was talking to put me on hold. The hold music was extremely familiar, but classier than what i was familiar with. I knew the tune, but could not think of the words.

I called over three different people and had them listen to the hold music, so I have witnesses. I then did some research (i.e. I called my musical wife) and hummed the tune and asked what the song is. Lo and Behold, the song is Abie Rotenberg's Adon Olam.

I quickly found it on the internet and played it for the people I had played the hold music to, and they concurred it was exactly the same tune.

I had not called some Jewish office in Hong Kong where the Jewish owner might have set his hold music to his favorite Jewish soing, I called the largest ISP in Hong Kong, and this was their hold music!

So, did they take Abie Rotenberg's tune and use it (granted, if they did, it was probably somebody else who took it and made it into general music which they then used), or did Abie Rotenberg take someone else's music and put Jewish words to it.... I hope it was the former. It is really a great song, as are almost all of Abie Rotenbergs songs...

Search for more information about [Hong Kong and Jewish Music] at 4torah.com.

Smoking and the yeshivishe velt

A guest post by Hadassah Sabo Milner

Why is smoking acceptable in most yeshivot? Ok, maybe not acceptable, but not banned. Not actively discouraged. Why is it that there is no hue and cry over this dangerous pastime? My son who is entering Grade 9 has informed me that most of the boys in his class have smoked at least one cigarette, while others are well in the process of nurturing a full blown nicotine addiction. My son thank G-d has a head on his shoulders and has told me that it’s a disgusting thing to do and he would never smoke. Ever. (Yeah I know you are laughing, but you wait till you have teenage kids, you will desperately want to believe them too).

He has even told me the lengths his school chums go to to get hold of cigarettes, as they are all underage. Money changing hands for goods in front of Montreal Kosher. Older bochurim procuring for the younger ones.

Many of the rebbeim and roshei yeshivah smoke, and if they do, it stands to reason that the young men they are overseeing will copy them. But interestingly enough if you are a frum yeshivishe woman, you will never be seen smoking. The women will be excommunicated if they so much as touched a cancer stick. Obviously us women have far more sense than some of the menfolk. We know smoking kills. (although we had a French teacher in high school, totally frum and bewigged, and we saw her smoking a time or two – scandalous! Her wig coulda caught on fire!!!)

I have read that some Rebbeim have outlawed smoking due to the harmful effects, and others have discouraged it as it is bitul zman, a waste of time. Didn’t Rav Moshe Feinstein of blessed memory himself say (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:76) there was an issur against starting smoking?

My son told me that the boys in his yeshivah explain that learning full time is stressful and smoking eases the stress. Then why are they not smoking marijuana, for the spiritual high it could bring? (I am not seriously advocating drug use…just making a point)

Walking my son to school sometimes we pass by the beis medrash entrance. We see a ton of cigarette butts outside. There is never a time when it is free from this disgusting evidence of death waiting to happen. Where are the “no smoking” signs? Oh wait, I should be thankful they are not allowed to smoke IN the beis medrash?

SMOKING KILLS! Hello? Anyone know that in white shirt black shiny suit world?

These people would not even dream of putting a slice of ham in their mouths, but poison is ok?

According to this website there are over 4000 ingredients in a cigarette including wine and yeast and chocolate – all kosher? I never saw a hechsher on a cigarette pack in my life…. Here is a list of 599 ingredients in a cigarette - - smoking a stick of treife pepperoni would probably be better healthwise than smoking a cigarette. But the pepperoni would be treife…and cigarettes aren’t?? What’s the halachic ruling on that? Anyone?

On pesach they even certify as kosher for Passover products that don’t go near the mouth – toilet paper, cleaning products etc. Yet these odious pieces of death are inhaled and ingested and need no certification? It makes no sense. As far as I am aware (and I have four boys in the yeshiva world) our educational establishments are doing nothing to deter the young males in their care away from nicotine. The rest of the world knows it is not cool to smoke. Yeshivish boys apparently still think it is.

Venishmartem meod lenafshoteichem (Devarim 4.15)– “you should carefully guard your soul”. Smoking is the total opposite to this mitzvah. You can be as learned and as “frum” as you like, but in my book, if you smoke you may as well go out and eat treife. You have no respect for you body that was created b’tzelem elokim – would you blow smoke in G-d’s face?

God as a blogger?

In Parshas Chukas, God behaves almost like a blogger. Rather than authoring his own material, our Lord and Creator twice references the published work of other people.

The first occurrence is a cite from the the Book of the Wars of the Lord a book that was lost, and excluded from the canon.

Robert Alter speculates that the book was not preserved because the dieties and events it describes were too mythological. Later authorities, he says, were uncomfortable with a book that represented God as a warrior, in direct combat with Israel's enemies, rather than working through the agency of Israel. I'm not entirely sure why Alter feels comfortable with such a speculation given that just a brief snippet from the book is extant, but there it is. If Judaism has another theory to explain why this book was forgotten, I don't know it.

The little bit of this book that we have seems seriously wierd. In the King James translation, it reads as follows:

"...Waheb in Suphah and the ravines, the Arnon and the slopes of the ravines that lead to the site of Ar and lie along the border of Moab."

What this means is anyone's guess, forcing us to ask: If God had something to say, why didn't He put it in His own ordinary, easy to understand words instead of borrowing something impenetrable from someone else's book?

The second occurrence of divine blogging is even more mysterious. After describing an Israelite victory over Sihon king of the Amorites, the Torah tells us the land Israel took from Sihon first belonged to Moab. The claim is supported not with a historical notice, or a narrative assertion, but with a snippet of poetry. Yes, poetry. The lines are attributed, vaguely, to "moshlim" who (Alter again) may have been something like the Celtic bards who composed and recited verses celebrating the legendary exploits of chieftains and heroes. Today, we might call them folk singers.

In the KJV, their song is translated this way:

Come to Heshbon, let it be built, Let the city of Sihon be repaired.
For fire went out from Heshbon, A flame from the city of Sihon;
It consumed Ar of Moab, The lords of the heights of the Arnon.
Woe to you, Moab! You have perished, O people of Chemosh!
He has given his sons as fugitives, And his daughters into captivity,
To Sihon king of the Amorites. “But we have shot at them; Heshbon has perished as far as Dibon.
Then we laid waste as far as Nophah, Which reaches to Medeba.

For those of us saddled with a Torah-true perspective this is about as queer as a three dollar bill. Secular poetry? In the Holy Torah? It's a little like using a Bob Dylan verse to clinch an argument about halacha. (This doesn't work) (Unless getting tossed out of class is your goal)

Again, we're fleft wondering why God preferred this poem to His own writing.

Silence

A guest post by KosherAcademic

I am not one hundred percent happy with Halakhah. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m observant to the best of my ability; I keep strictly kosher, I observe Shabbat and the Chagim, and I keep the mitzvot…again, to the best of my ability. I live in a Modern Orthodox community which I love, and I am surrounded by others who hold the mitzvot in a very similar fashion to the way that I hold them. But I struggle with certain mitzvot. I pretend to the outside world that everything is copasetic, because I am terrified to admit to someone that I have some issues, to see the (imagined) look on their faces when they learn that I have a hard time doing x mitzvah, or that I see y mitzvah as completely backwards and pointless. But I remain silent.

No one is able to do all 613 of the commandments. To be an observant Jew, one’s purpose is to strive to observe all the mitzvot. There is, however, a problem of Orthodox Jews going off the derekh, a problem we seem to hear about more and more these days – and while the discussion of Jews leaving Orthodoxy is not the main focus of this post, it is related, an extension, a possible consequence of the enforced silence that I am addressing here. What I do not see or hear about, but what I imagine must be there, is that others struggle with certain mitzvot, too.

Why the enforced silence? Is it from community pressure to perform—or at least look like one is performing— up to par with what is considered acceptable? It may very well be. When we moved from a fairly black-hat community in Chicago (where we certainly didn’t fit in) to the very liberal, nay, very, very liberal community in Cambridge, Massachusetts when I did my Masters degree, initially the laxity felt like freedom from oppression. Finally, I didn’t have to worry about the weird looks I would get when I went out in a pair of pants (of course, I did get weird looks when I kept my hair covered, but that is another story). But what I realized, after living there for two years, is that the community serves a purpose in this regard. It helps keep one in line. Strangely enough, that worry that someone might see you doing something that may be considered…inappropriate…can keep you from doing it.

But why should that community pressure require silence? One of the reasons I became observant was because of the openness—I thought—with which we could ask questions about anything. And when I was first becoming observant I could ask questions and challenge ideas, and my questions and challenges were tolerated and even encouraged. But once you know enough to “fit in” to a community, you are (silently) required to do just that: fit in. Do not rock the boat.

Let me explain it this way: Imagine one is walking down the derekh to do a mitzvah, and one encounters a roadblock. It doesn’t really make a difference what the roadblock is—it may be only in one’s mind or it may be larger, perhaps a cultural issue. However, if one can’t find the way around the roadblock, then one never reaches the mitzvah. At that point, you are basically stuck at the roadblock for the rest of your life, perhaps striving toward but never actually reaching the mitzvah, or, you end up just going off the road (ie off the derekh). How much easier would it be for one who is encountering a roadblock to be able to have a frank and honest discussion with others who have encountered similar roadblocks? But these discussions are not happening. People are too embarrassed or ashamed to admit they’ve hit a roadblock.

This silence, I think, is unhealthy. I am not suggesting support circles that acknowledge people’s lack of commitment without holding them accountable. We are, after all, responsible for the mitzvot, and as mentioned above, as observant Jews we should be striving to do all we can do. But if there was open dialogue with less judgment, perhaps those of us who do have issues with certain mitzvot would find a better way to overcome our hesitation in working towards observing them.

But if all you’re going to do is tell me to get past the roadblock, to just do the mitzvah, without offering possible solutions to get past it the issues, well, you’re not helping.

Related

Please be sure to read DYS's guest post from this morning here

DovBear on the Parsha

I swear I'm blushing as I type this, but please go read the super kind review of my book posted by E-Fink.

Is meat slaughtered by women kosher?

A guest post by DYS

Gil Student, over at Hirhurim, recently posted “a loose translation of notes from lectures by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik” examining the issue of whether women can be slaughterers (shochatot). Gil, in his introduction, links it to the issue of women Rabbis and concludes that if shochatot are not allowed, neither are female Rabbis.

The Rav brings a number of sources that essentially prohibit women slaughterers based on the fact that a shochet is a communal position and women cannot hold communal positions. But the Shulchan Aruch writes that women can be shochatot. The Rama, however, says that they may not serve in that capacity because the custom is that they haven't been doing so. That seems like an extremely poor and circular argument. We don't allow it because we haven't been allowing it. So all the arguments against women slaughterers seem to be based only on social considerations, not solid halacha. And many do allow women to slaughter for themselves, just forbidding it for the community. So Gil is right in a way, by tying female rabbis to female slaughterers. The argument against both are based only on social considerations and there seems to be plenty of halachic room to permit them now when social circumstances have changed.

(By the way, since the Shulchan Aruch permits women slaughterers, and Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch without the supplement of the Rama, do they allow shochatot today? If not, why not?)

So should shochatot be permitted? Basically, even according to those who forbid it, it seems to me that they would probably permit it b’dieved, after the fact. Meaning, if someone ate meat slaughtered by a woman skilled in all the halachot of shechita, there was no sin. The meat was kosher.

But despite my progressive stance on most issues relating to women and Judaism, I'm going to invoke social considerations to explain my opinion that except in limited situations, it probably would be unwise to institute it as a general custom at this time.

Let's first be clear about what we're asking and who would care about such an innovation.

There are several type of people who keep kosher. There's the "kosher by ingredients" crowd. There's the "any hechsher, as long as it's on the package" crowd. And then there's the Orthodox standard, meaning hechsherim generally accepted by the community.

Let’s break it down by denomination. The Reform movement doesn't have any official kashrut standards, though some individual members may keep some personal strictures.

The Conservative movement has official standards, but doesn't have a kashrut supervision infrastructure of their own. So they generally rely on Orthodox hechsherim, but will use ones that aren’t widely accepted in the Orthodox community. For example, while the Conservative movement officially endorses Hebrew National as acceptable for consumption, they do so on the basis of HN's new Orthodox hechsher, Triangle-K. (While T-K isn't accepted in much of the Orthodox community, the Rabbis there are Orthodox. The issue of T-K certifying HN's non-glatt meat is another post.)

That leaves the Orthodox community, which will only consume meat certified by communally accepted agencies.

What if the Conservative movement had its own kashrut supervision agency? Then I see nothing wrong with their using women slaughterers. Orthodox people wouldn't be eating that meat anyway, no matter what gender slaughtered the animal.

But within the world of Orthodox hechsherim, it's a different story. What if Rabbi Avi Weiss decided to create a kashrut agency? (Please note that the following scenario is totally hypothetical and is just to illustrate my point and does not represent any known plans of Rabbi Weiss)

He has already created the new female equivalent of Rabbi, the Maharat, a development of which I wholeheartedly approve. And I presume that to receive smicha, a Maharat must study the same traditional curriculum as a male Rabbi, which would include Yoreh Deah, the volume of Shulchan Aruch that contains the laws of kashrut, including shechita.

So what if this hypothetical kashrut agency started using shochatot?

The institution of the Maharat is already controversial. But its effect is limited to the communities in which these women serve and doesn't spill over. But kashrut is a social intitution as much as a halachic one. People eat in one another's homes and celebratory affairs based on shared assumptions of kashrut reliability. Were Rabbi Weiss, or any figure in Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy to institute the practice of shochatot, there would immediately be a split in the social fabric of Orthodoxy. The implicit assumption of reliable kashrut upon entering the home of someone who was LWMO or observant Conservative would be gone. And the uproar would cause fissures and public discord on a huge scale. The unspoken social compact of kashrut would be broken. It is for that reason that I would be wary of such an innovation at this time.

However, what if Rabbi David Silber, of Drisha, (again, totally hypothetical) decided that a shochetet was halachically permissable, but rather than endorse the practice for the wider community, decided to have a special event at Drisha with meat slaughtered by a shochetet. If he was comfortable of the halachic permissibility, why not?

Social reasons should not hold back halachically permissible practices. However, extreme social disruption should be considered before moving too far, too fast

Am I a Prophet ..or What?

by the Bray of Fundie

Banned from commenting I must seek alternative outlets for my blogging addiction by posting, frequently and annoyingly. So although I posted a little talked about masterpiece this morning I am here again to tell you that...I CALLED IT.

For years I have been confidently predicting that various egalitarian and hip, politically correct movements championed by Orthodoxies extreme left wing would, some day soon, foment the next great schism in world Jewry and ultimately lead to yet another branch to further split a fractured nation/faith community.

Well it seems that day is nigh. Modern Orthodoxy...beware your own left flank.

Search for more information about branches of Judaism and the schisms that caused them at 4torah.com.

Extreme Hair Covering: Kimchit's reward

Down below, the learned readers of the DovBear community are discussing Hadassah's post about hair-covering. There are over 100 comments, but Kimchit hasn't been mentioned yet. This is something of a surprise, as Kimchit and her extreme-hair covering almost always come up when the subject is wigs and snoods. Who was she? Here's how Ask Moses tells her story: In the Talmud there is a famous story about a certain woman by the name of Kimchit who was careful that “the walls of her house should not see the hairs of her head.” She was rewarded with seven sons who served as High Priests.

This is the popular version of the Kimchit story, though I've heard people say the reward was merely seven sons, and not necessarily seven High Priests. In any event many women, including my own sister-in-law, imitate Kimchit's practice in the hopes of sharing in Kimchit's reward. Unfortunately for the Kimchit copycats, the popular/Ask Moses version is a significant distortion of what the Talmud actually says.

Here's my translation of the passage from Yoma 47a:

Tanu Rabanan: Kimchit had seven sons and all of them served as Kohen Godol. The Sages said to her: "What did you do to merit this?" She replied: "The walls of my house never saw the hairs on my head" Replied the Sages: "Many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward."

See the difference? In the popular/Ask Moses version there's no doubt that Kimchit's sons are a reward for extreme hair covering. A clear cause and effect is implied. In the Talmud itself, however, the idea that extreme hair covering yields a reward is Kimchit's own theory, and the Sages debunk it.

Search for more information about Kimchit at 4torah.com.

On Authority and Autonomy

A classic Mussar Schmuess by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz in Sha'arei Chaim-Sikhos Mussar 78

Mistranslated, misconstrued and maladatpted
by the Bray of Fundie,

Many Meforshim puzzle over the description of the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah as the Khukas HaTorah = the statute of the Torah rather than as the Khukas haTaharah= "the statute of purity" or Khukas HaTumah="the statute of impurity". The Ohr HaKhayim answers that observance of this most inscrutable of Khukim= the irrational Mitzvos that offend reason and lack rationale, is reckoned as observance of the entire Torah. Fulfilling a Mitzvah absent a rational reason testifies to the faith one invests in the Metzaveh=Commander and assent to fulfill all that the Creators desires.

Elaborating on this Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz makes several observations:

1. That when people "do the right thing" because of their internal moral compass they are not manifesting subservience to HaShems authority. The likelihood of their internal moral compass being their motivation for doing good and eschewing evil rather than being motivated by subservience to HaShems authority is much greater when they are observing Mishpatim=the rational Mitzvos. They do those Mitzvos because THEY hold it is the right thing to do. In fact when the Mitzvah in question is a "khok" then, by definition, it is almost impossible that the motivation to perform it is internal. On the contrary, the mind cannot accept it and the emotions often recoil as a result. Performing Khukim brings a new "subservience to HaShems authority" sensibility even to ones performance of Mishpatim.

2. Human nature is very resistant to this type of subservience or to anything that will keep us chained or bound. Human beings affirm their own autonomy and it's trappings of freedom of conscience and of movement whenever possible and recoil from any authority even, or especially, a Divine one, that would demand total surrender of personal autonomy. This authoritarian compulsion is another word for slavery and humans desire freedom and total autonomy.

Among his many proofs is the case of Shimee ben Geirah whom Shlomo HaMelekh "tricked" into incurring the death penalty (to fulfill his fathers deathbed vendetta) by limiting his movement to the Jerusalem City limits.

3. Ba'al Pe'or was the idolatry that the daughters of Moav seduced the Bnei Yisrael into worshipping as a precondition for fornication. Rav Chaim opines that the bizarre cult of Ba'al Pe'or is predicated on the human desire for autonomy and TOTAL liberation from external authority. It was worshipped by defecation upon the icon itself. It was, says Rav Chaim, the religion of non-religion, the worship of denigrating worship and subservience. The exercise and demonstration of "Nothing being sacred". In essence the creed of Baa'l Peor can be summarized as follows: "So you're my god? So YOU"RE gonna tell ME what to do and not do? I s**t on you!"

But it is not merely some quirky historic relic of a bygone ANE culture. It is, concludes Rav Chaim, the defining Zeitgeist of our own era.

Addendum: Rav Chaim's approach makes me wonder; were all the esteemed authors in the genre of Taamei haMitzvos literature, including works e.g. the Moreh Nevukhim, the Kuzari, the Sefer Hakhinukh, to name a few, guilty of וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר, לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל= "Don't bait another to sin" by providing intellectually and emotionally satisfying reasons "tastes/flavors" for so many of the Mitzvos,-Khukim and Mishpatim alike? Aren't they making it exponentially harder for us to become Avdei HaShem= Slaves of G-d?

Search for more information about the Red Heifer and Ba'al Peor at 4torah.com.

Bilaam: Fun facts to know and tell

Here are two things you might have said on Friday night to regale your guests and impress your wife or live in boyfriend as the case may be.

1 - The star of the sedra, Bilaam, is also the star of the the earliest reference in archaeological sources to an individual named in the Torah. A plaster inscription, found in 1967 on the wall of a temple at Deir Alla in Jordan, makes reference to the night vision of a seer called Bilaam son of Beor. It dates to 840-760 BCE.

(And allow me to bring redemption to the world by noting that I heard this from the lips (or fingers) of Mis-nagid, four years ago, back when he was brave enough to blog.)

2 - Bilaam was NOT (not, not, not, NOT) a prophet -- at least according to two of the top three Rishonim. Here is the Ramban's commentary to Num 22:31. The translation is Chaval's (pg 258):"...and God-Forbid that they should stretch forth a hand against a prophet of God." On the same verse the Ramban says: "From this verse we learn the Balaam was not a prophet because had he been a prophet how could it be that he required "opening of the eyes... and indeed scripture calls him a Bilaam ben Beor, the soothsayer[Kosaim]"

I know this quote from the Ramban will come as a bit of a surprise to members of the reading audience who were brought up to believe that Rashi is the last, final, and only word on any subject, but the issue of Bilaam's prophecy is hotly debated. Arguments against include the one cited above, along with the fact that he was both handicapped and evil. (The Spanish rishonim, almost to a man, believed that both would have disqualified him from prophecy.)

The correct view on the question of Ballam's prophecy, therefore, is this: WE DON'T KNOW. Anyone who takes a more certain stance is ignorant or trying to sell you something

Biden Suggests U.S. Not Twisting Israel's Arm

"The United States cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do. Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." - Joe Biden

This can't be right. According to the Torah-true wisdom of the RW Israeli bloggers anything the US says Israel must do. This is why they lie awake at night, shaking with fear over the unsubstantiated rumors that president Obama might soon make some pronouncement or another about Jerusalem.

Bad Medicine

Now it is a well-known principle that all people bitten by poisonous creatures become dangerously ill when they see them... as it is written in medical books...[.] Doctors have already mentioned the empirical fact amongst the wonders of reproductions that if the urine of a person bitten by a mad dog is put in a glass receptacle... there will appear in that urine the likeness of the young of small dogs. -- Ramban on Num 21:9 (Chavel's translation)

My purpose here is not to mock the Ramban who was a man of his own time and can't be faulted for reflexively relying on unexamined, received wisdom. Instead, I note simply that he was pleased to cite "medical books" and "doctors" as his authorities; thus, he isn't claiming to have acquired medical knowledge via the study of Torah, but through consultations with the (mistaken) experts of his own time and place.

As an aside, I'm still waiting for someone to provide the famous Chazon Ish sketch.

Falliable Rashi (Or a long and perhaps boring Torah argument with some kefira-lite tacked on at the end)

The story of Arad's attack on Klal Yisroel is told twice in the Torah*. The first time (Num 21:1) the Hebrew looks like this:

וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע הַכְּנַעֲנִ֤י מֶֽלֶךְ־עֲרָד֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַנֶּ֔גֶב כִּ֚י בָּ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל דֶּ֖רֶךְ הָאֲתָרִ֑ים וַיִּלָּ֙חֶם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיִּ֥שְׁבְּ ׀ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ שֶֽׁבִי׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king (of) Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming on the Atarim road (and) he went to war with the Israelites and took some captives.)

The second time (Num 33:40) it looks like this:
וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲרָ֔ד וְהֽוּא־יֹשֵׁ֥ב בַּנֶּ֖גֶב בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן בְּבֹ֖א בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev of Canaan, heard about the coming Israelites.)

At the first mention, Rashi repeats the famous drash from BT Rosh Hashana: What report did [the king] hear? He heard that Araron had died and the Clouds of Glory had departed, and he reasoned that permission has been granted to attack Israel. And the proof text: (the preceding verse Num 20:29) The entire assembly saw that Aaron had died.

As R. Abahu explains (there), the drash is based on a pun. The word for "they saw" (Va'yir'u) can be vowelized as "they appeared" (Va'yay'ro'u) and the word for "that" (kee) also means "because", thus: The entire assembly appeared because Aaron had died.... and the king heard, etc.

The question that should be on everyone's lips, is this: Why is Rashi citing the drash? According to his own mission statement, Rashi doesn't cite random or amusing midrashim. He's not grandpa at the head of the table sharing interesting vortlach. His purpose is to smooth out the Torah text, and he only mentions midrashim that can be used (and sometimes only after being altered) to solve textual anomalies. Here, our text is flawless. We know what the King heard. He heard that Israel was on the Atarim road.

Tosphos asks this question (BT Rosh Hashana 3a) and concludes that the drash actually belongs to the second mention where the reader is not told precisely what the king heard. (i.e. Num 33:40) Rashi, says Tosphos, was sloppy. (v'rashi lo dak b'peirush chumash)

The Gur Aryeh, of course, offers a spirited defense of Rashi. He says that the fact that Israel was on the Atarim road was not enough to provoke an attack; therefore it had to have been something else. Not that I want to go to hell for arguing with the Gur Aryeh but, with all due respect, if the Torah says specifically and in plain Hebew that he attacked because he heard that Israel was on the Atarim Road, who are we to say, "no, no, that couldn't be why he attacked... Had to have been something else."

I understand that Gur Aryeh believes the word Vayishma "and he heard" always, always indicates that something new and exciting was heard, but this is an interpretation that doesn't seem supported by the plain meaning. We're told what the king heard, and if this seems insufficiently new and exciting, well, perhaps the interpretation of Vayishma is what's incorrect. Anyway, Tosphos didn't seem to understand Vayishma the Gur Aryeh's way.

As for me, I wonder if the true solution isn't something simpler. The first mention says "kee bo yisroael"; the parallel says "b'voh yisroel". The difference between the two phrases is one tiny letter (a yud) and the small drop of ink that would convert a beys into a kaf. Perhaps some copyist's hand slipped during the 2000 years between when this was written and the Talmud? If so, there originally was no ambiguity at all about what the King heard.

(And if you doubt such a thing could happen, well, look at Rashi's comment on Num 20:29 where he says flat out that mistakes were made in the transmission of Targum Onkelos. Only about 1200 years elapsed from Onkelos to Rashi. Is it really our position that copyist errors could sneak into every book (including Rashi's very own commentary) ever written aside from the 24 books that make up the Bible? How realistic is that? I know that theologicaly we say that such mistakes were never made, but there is much evidence to the contrary.)

What was Moses's sin?

This week Moshe commits some unforgivable sin, and is banned from entering the promised land. But what did he do wrong? The nature of Moshe's sin is the source of much controversy among the big names.

- Rashi, recycling an aggada first found in Sifrei, says Moshe's mistake was hitting the rock instead of speaking to it.

- Ramban gives Rashi what comes across as a condescending pat on the head (There, there. What a nice aggada.) before asking: "If he wasn't supposed to hit the rock, why did God tell him to take the staff?" In the view of the Ramban Moshe sinned when he said "can we get water from this rock?" This made it seem like the miracle would be done through his own powers, and not by the hand of God. (Hasidic Rabbis who perform mofsim are hereby put on notice)

- Rambam in Shemonah Perakim says Moshe sinned by getting angry, and thereby suggesting to the people that God was angry when He was not. The Ramban thinks this suggestion is "vanities on top of vanities" i.e. a lousy answer in the extreme.

- Ibn Ezra goes a little Kabbalistic, and says some things about Moshe and his prayerful concentration before concluding the the sin was hitting the rock twice instead of once. Ramban's reaction to this answer brings to mind Nelson Muntz (Hah-Ha!)

- Abravanel is a bit more polite then the Ramban as he goes through the pros and cons of ten possible sins, all expertly weighed and considered by Josh Waxman here. (scroll down)

- Shadal, reacting to all of this, has the best line. He says: "Moshe Rabbenu only sinned one sin, but the commentators burdened upon him 13 sins and more, for each one invented of his own heart a new sin." (saw it on Josh's blog)

No disrespect to the medieval commentators (who, as you know, I adore) but they're late to the party. Often, the earliest commentators can tell us more about how the verses were first understood. One such early commentator, usually left unconsidered when the various interpretations of Moshe's sin are reviewed, is the opinion of King David. He, also, was a bible commentator, and his commentary can be found in the Book of Psalms when Biblical events are described. Tehillim 106 mentions Moshe's sin, and describes it his way (KJV): They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes; Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.

How do you read this? Josh says it means the Psalmist thought Moshe sinned by become angry.

So score one for Rambam?

Kikar Safra

One of the bloggers who politely corresponds with me in private, yet treats me like a stranger in public is highly aggrieved about the dirty-diaper throwing demonstrations that take place in Jerusalem for the sake of Shabbos. He's right to be upset about this Jew-on-Jew violence ("A Jew Doesn't Evict a Jew"? Fine. So pelting him with human feces is OK?)

I've made this point in real life, but most people I know are quick with excuses for the rock throwers... oh, he's so sincere... oh its only because he cares so much about shabbos; isn't that a wonderful thing? Others, like the goon-enablers at Cross Currents, imagine that such public desecrations of God's name are either exaggerated by the Jew-hating media, or blessed and coordinated by the all-knowing gedolim.

I say the problem starts with the schools where young Jewish boys and girls are trained in the ways of the timid and prepared to live their lives as hyper-defensive conformists.

Hair Covering Reflections

A guest post by Hadassah Sabo Milner

When I was first married, years ago, I didn’t want to cover my hair, I just did it because it was asked of me. Almost every time I covered it I felt like I was putting shackles on. I never researched it, never wanted to understand the reasons why. I just went along with the flow – shalom bayit, y’know? I know there are a lot of women out there who feel the same way, and yet they plod along because it is expected of them.

At the time that I uncovered my hair, about 10 days after receiving my Get, I did so after a lot of conscious thought and reflection. It wasn’t a case of “so sad too bad”! Yes, some people around me were shocked and didn’t understand; some people went as far as to assume that it meant I threw away religion in totality. Not so. Those very close to me were not surprised.

The way I looked at it then, was as follows: when a person G-d forbid passes away we rip our clothes, we sit shiva and observe a period of mourning, and we take physical things upon ourselves for the next year to remind us of our loss – no celebrations, no music, men don’t shave etc.

My Get happened mere weeks after we separated. I was in so much deep pain and suffering and at that time, I needed, for myself, to physically show signs of my grief (other than crying all day long wherever I was – that gets old quickly), to work through the grief and the pain and the anguish and all of that. It was never about “not married any more so who needs to cover their hair, I am doing what I want”. I needed to do it to help heal my spirit. I needed to show myself and the world that I was not the same person I was when I was married.

By the time last year’s barmitzvah preparations were in full swing and the barmitzvah boy asked that I wear a sheitel and not a hat to the festivities, I had to do some tremendous soul searching. Of course the fact that he reminded me that I had told him this was HIS day, and was about HIM and no one else – that put more pressure. (I hate when they actually listen to what I say!) He said he would be “ok” if I wore a hat, but would prefer me to wear a sheitel. It’s what all his friends’ mothers do.

Standing there, on the day of the barmitzvah, watching my son lain his parshah, my heart swelling with enormous pride and love and gratitude to G-d, I knew I had come full circle. I knew my mourning was very much over. I let go of the past, of the pain, of the anger and bitterness. That day marked my son’s barmitzvah but also in some ways my rebirth.

Since that day I have been lucky in finding my soul mate, and in February we celebrated our wedding, and the merging of two lively households. I wore a sheitel to my wedding. I cover my hair now when I leave the house. I am a married lady, and it is what’s right for me.

Many religious men take it for granted that their wives will cover their hair, but they have no idea what a difficult mitzvah this is to keep. I struggled for so long with it, and it was only in the absence of keeping this mitzvah that I learned to appreciate the finer points of it. I wish that when I had first got married that there were classes to explain the whys and wherefores of hair covering, to help us come to terms with it. As girls and teenagers, we obsess about our hair, and then all of a sudden we are expected to cover it. It’s a lot to have to deal with.

I now cover my hair on my terms, because it is what I feel is right for where I am in life. No one is forcing me to do it. My husband would never demand it of me. If you want to look down on me because my hair was once uncovered, that’s your choice. If you think my kashrut is suspect because my ponytail sticks out of my baseball cap – that’s your problem. If you want to judge someone based solely on whether the wife wears a sheitel or a snood or a beret, or only covers outside the house or not at all– you are a small minded individual.

Hair covering is a mitzvah that’s extremely visible – maybe a lady doesn’t cover her hair but keeps everything else 100% - how is one to know? Until such a time as a person keeps all mitzvoth perfectly themselves, they have no right to judge any women on how they keep this mitzvah.

I am currently researching all aspects of hair covering for an upcoming publication, and it has been very eye opening. I would be very interested on hearing views from people of all walks of life.

Your Daily Moron

Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Poor little Rabbi Doctor Pomerantz thinks big bad Obama is using his magic hypnotic charisma powers to make the mean gentiles hate us. Pomerantz is another doofus who seems incapable of understanding that the Cairo speech was directed at the nearly 1 billion Muslims who aren't Islamofacists, and was meant as a friendly overture and a fresh start, not an exhaustive history lesson.

Updates: (1) The Good Rabbi Doctor is a Reform Rabbi. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
(2) As noted by many on the thread, Rabbi Doctor P. is under the mistaken belief that the Crusaders were a friendly and benevolent group. See, even as he criticizes Obama for being selective and imprecise about history this Jewish genius finds it hard to tell the whole historical truth when telling the whole truth might undermine his cherished beliefs about the world.

Anonymous vs. Onymous Blogging

A guest post by E. Fink:

Social Networking has been around for a long time. The term is nearly two centuries old and the concept perhaps 30 times that.

With the internet explosion around the new millennium social networking became all the rage on the world wide web. MySpace and others blazed the trail. Now, blogging, Facebook and Twitter are an integral part of our social landscape.

Naturally, I was drawn to these new age ways of using technology to create social networks. I've been on Facebook since its inception five years ago and joined Twitter a while ago and have only recently begun to blog.

Over the last few weeks some incredible things have happened that are direct results of social networking online.

A couple of weeks ago a lovely woman came to our Shul on the Beach for Shabbos morning services. At the Kiddush (where incredibly, we do not have Kugel) she approached me and introduced herself as "Rena, I follow you on Twitter". Immediately I realized it was @Tinsbar from Baltimore. Rena was in LA for a few days and decided to come check out our Shul. Rena enjoyed her time spent at PJC and we enjoyed her company. In fact one community member even got some footwear recommendations from Rena!

When I related this story to a Shul Board Member, he said this is the new wave of Shuls. We have moved from being just a "Brick and Morter" Shul to a "Click and Mortar" Shul.

About a month ago I posted the story of a penniless Jewish artist on the beach who was homeless. He needed some money and I was not sure if he was a good candidate for Tzedaka and I posted my moral dilemma on DovBear.

As reported last week, an anonymous donor (living miles away from Los Angeles) who read the blog post here on DovBear, literally saved this man from a dire situation.

On Twitter I follow a wonderful couple from Connecticut. She is a blogging convert and is now in the process of a more stringent conversion that would be universally accepted. He is a fellow blogger as well who blogs about his relationship with his Judaism.

He recently discovered the wonderful Jewish town of Waterbury CT. With a Yeshiva, Day School, Shul, Mikva, Kosher restaurant and very affordable housing, Waterbury is quickly picking up young couples looking to settle (slightly) out of town. I read all about that on his "onymous" (it's a new word that means 'the opposite of anonymous') blog.

My sister and brother in law live in Waterbury, I told him to call my brother in law and check out Waterbury. They set a date and spent a wonderful afternoon together.

In short all of this great stuff occurred as a direct result of blogging, Twitter and social-networking 2009 style. These events also occurred in many ways as a result of "onymous" blogging. The charity case required someone be known (in this case, me). There is no way Rena would have found me if I blogged and Twittered anonymously. And if I was an anonymous blogger I never would have connected my sister with two fellow Jews looking for friends and connections.

These are the benefits of "onymous" blogging.

On the other hand (term of art - remember that discussion?), anonymous blogging and Twittering is also great. In particular I point to DovBear's blog as a bastion of anonymity and great discussion that would admittedly never happen if we all had faces, names and families. The unfortunate realities of the Frum world as they are, almost force us cower in fear when we disagree with authority or tradition and we tend to hide behind familiar rituals, thus avoiding conflict and we are safe behind the veil of secrecy that is anonymous blogging.

Anonymity gives the silent, a voice. It gives us all a chance to be heard.

In truth, we have other things to worry about as well. As Tikkun Olam pointed out, we have Frum leaders blanketing all bloggers as a negative force, when we know that is ridiculous. There are some negative forces and many positive forces in the J-Blogosphere.

Worse is the fear we all feel of expressing our opinions. My opinion on this is transparent as I blog "onymously". Speak your mind, challenge what you don't understand but never lose the art of respectful questioning. I am (usually) not afraid to speak my mind and challenge what I don't understand and thus I don't need to be anonymous. Plus, I support many of the traditional ideals that "they" espouse. But, the crux of the issue remains the environment which we have created and now support that does not allow for us to challenge.

I say created, and that is self evident. I say support because we "give in" to the cyber bullies that force us to remain anonymous. How much greater impact would have as a group if those whom we challenge knew that we were real people? They should know that we have Yeshiva educations, wonderful families and jobs and we are frustrated with the status quo. But to "them" we are words on a computer screen, not people.

Words are cheap. Words have no soul when they are anonymous. If we want to be heard we need to be people. People have souls and people need to be dealt with. It is easy to ignore anonymous bloggers. People with souls demand attention and can affect change.

Should we strive to create a Frum culture that allows for challenging and questioning?

Are we helping the situation by blogging anonymously?

Do we lose a lot by blogging anonymously?

Do we stand to lose more by "onymous" blogging?

Search for more information about [onymous blogging] at 4torah.com.

No more GOP Jews?

The United States Senate is without a Jewish Republican for the first time in over 50 years.
>>More

Rashi's Conception of Hashem

A guest post by JS:

As DB is fond of pointing out, "Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim." Rashi carefully selects each midrash, gemara, and rabbinical statement in order to clarify a scriptural difficulty in a manner he deems satisfactory. If Rashi cites a midrash to resolve a grammatical error, the midrash not only irons out the difficult language to Rashi's liking, it also brings forth a concept that Rashi liked or at least didn't find untenable.

For example, in Shmot 2:5, Rashi is bothered by the phrase "וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ" (and she [Pharoah's daughter] sent forth אֲמָתָהּ and took it [the basket containing Moshe]). Rashi first explains that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "her maidservant." However, he goes on to explain (and of course this is the only explanation anyone remembers) that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "arm" and is vowelized the way it is to indicate that her arm grew long enough to reach the basket. Therefore, in my opinion, Rashi cites the gemara to deal not only with the difficult language in the verse (why is אֲמָתָהּ vowelized the way it is) but also because he either liked the concept of a miraculously growing arm to reach the miracle-producing Moshe, or he didn't have a problem with that idea.

In this parsha, there are a couple of interesting Rashis from which emerge a picture of how Rashi conceived of Hashem (or at least how he didn't think it was sacrilegious to view Hashem). Please note what I just wrote in parentheses as, for the sake of clarity, I won't be repeating this again.

In BaMidbar 20:1 on the words "And Miriam died there," Rashi states that Miriam died just like her two siblings by a kiss from God's mouth. However, the verse doesn't say so because it is not respectful to speak of God in this way (as One who kisses women). Thus, Rashi believes that God, who wrote the Torah, didn't say the manner in which Miriam died because God was concerned His honor would be diminished if He said He kissed Miriam with His mouth.

In 20:12 on the words "Therefore, you shall not bring," Rashi states that "therefore" is a form of an oath and that God hastened to swear an oath that Moshe and Aharon would not take the nation into Israel because if He hadn't, Moshe and Aharon could have "beaten Him to the punch" and interceded with prayer, which He would have had to answer. Thus, Rashi believes that God can be forced into action by human beings and has to act quicker than they to avoid being coerced.

In 21:1 on the words "Who lived in the South," Rashi states that it wasn't actually the Canaanites who attacked Israel, rather it was the Amalekites disguised as Canaanites (as it is the Amalekites who lived in the South, not the Canaanites). Why did the Amalekites do this? Because if the Jews prayed "Save us from the Canaanites" their prayers would be worthless. But, the Jews were clever and only prayed generally saying "Save us" and therefore their prayers worked. Thus, Rashi believes that God is so demanding and specific in his answering of prayers that He would actually refuse to answer specific (but incorrect) prayers and thus, in order to have God respond to our prayers it's best to be general and non-specific.

Search for more information about Rashi at 4torah.com.

Location, Location Location

By the Bray of Fundie

All of Eretz Yisrael is Eretz Haqodesh= Holy Land/ground. But some spots have a more elevated Qedusha than the balance of the Holy Land e.g. the City of Jerusalem and the Har HaBayis. The elevated Qedusha of these spots are relatively easy to "understand" as being matters of divine election. כִּי אִם-אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ="but at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell in. " But to claim that a particular locations elevated Qedusha might result from the refined and sanctified behavior of it's residents, that elevated Qedusha of real estate derives from an exercise of human free will, is something that never occurred to me. Until now.

Why were the ancient Levi-towns designated as refuge cities for man-slaughterers? The Sefer HaKhinukh in Mitzva 408 provides two consciousness expanding answers, but for now I'd like to discuss only the first.

"And because of their (the Levites) lofty level, the refinement of their works, and the comeliness of their value /stature (??? חין ערכם ) their land was chosen to provide sanctuary for all those who kill souls accidentally more so than the lands of any of the other tribes. Perhaps the soil that has been sanctified with their sanctity will provide atonement for them (the man-slaughterers) "

What is striking is that the Khinukh eschews the more rational pedagogical approach; that hanging out with the Levi'im the man-slaughterers will have good role models to emulate, in favor of an obscurantist, metaphysical approach i.e. that the Levi'im infuse the soil of their towns with holiness and this holiness may edify the murderers and heal their soul-sickness.

Some points to ponder:

A) Does this dynamic work anywhere or only in Eretz Yisrael/Ever HaYarden that has intrinsic sanctity to start with?

B) If indeed this works anywhere perhaps it's time for our Yeshivas and Batei Yaakov to manifest a little communal faith and confidence and end their snobbish, cliquish. exclusionary admission policies that reject students from "less than perfect homes". After all if we're so sure that Yeshiva-leit and Kollel-leit are the latter day Levi'im (see the last passage of the Rambam in the laws of Shmita and Yovel) then the very ground of our Schools ought to be sanctified to the point that they can soul-cure all who take up residence there. And besides, none of the rejected students /students parents ridiculously exaggerated misdemeanors rise to the level of manslaughter. In any event the Yeshivas and Batei Yaakov IN Eretz Yisrael ought to revamp their admissions policies.

Search for more information about refuge cities at 4torah.com.

A political homily on the Parsha

This week, Arad, King of Canaan, attacks the traveling Israelites. Gutsy move, no? After all, by this time the powers of the Hebrew God were well known. Already, he had overturned Egypt, split the sea, and sustained His people in the desert for 40 years, and this was no secret. As Rachav the whore/innkeeper of Jericho tells her overnight guests only a few months after Arad's attack: "the terror of [Israel] has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you."

So how do we explain Arad's nerve? Why didn't he melt away? Why had no terror fallen upon him?

According to an aggada recorded in BT Rosh Hashana (3a) Arad attacked Israel because he saw the Cloud of Glory had been removed. Both Ramban and Ibn Ezra disregard/ignore this teaching, and instead say that Arad atacked because of the spies. In fact, the King James Version of the Bible translates the verse in question as: And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies; then he fought against Israel.... Most Jewish translations give by the way of Atharim instead, but from the perspective of the two Spanish giants, at least, KJV's gloss seems superior.

I bring all this up because I wish to make a point about Israel and Barack Obama. According to Nechama Leibowitz "by the way of the spies" means that Arad saw that the Jews had lost faith in themselves, and in the God who had brought them to this point. The spies said "and we were in our own eyes like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes.” When Arad heard that the Jews were without confidence, Ms. Leibowitz continues, he knew the time was ripe to attack.

Listening to RW bloggers fret about Barack Obama, I find myself mystified. Never mind that I hold Obama means us no harm. Let's stipulate that I'm wrong. Let's stipulate that Obama desires the destruction of every Jewish settlements, and the removal of every Jewish settler. Let's further stipulate that he's actively working behind the scenes to bring about this outcome. Even after making all those rhetorical concessions, I'm still mystified.

I'm mystified, because from the time I was knee high to a real grasshopper, I've heard from my RW Jewish friends, neighbors and teachers that the modern state of Israel is God's gift to the Jewish people. Not one of them ever expressed the slightest, tiniest bit of doubt about this. "All of its ours," they said. "Our right to settle every centimeter of land is absolute, and divinely proclaimed." Some even added, "This is the beginning of the Messianic era"

Yet, now that famous certainty seems to have melted away. The terror of Barack Obama has fallen upon them. Suddenly these same supremely confident Jews who once spoke unabashedly for God are worried that His promise has been withdrawn. Contrary to every Jewish teaching about gentile rulers and their relationship with Israel, these RW Jews seem to believe that Obama has the power to damage us absent God's express approval.

Instead of proclaiming confidently that every move they make carries God's blessing, they've turned themselves into grasshoppers

I hope no modern day Arad is listening.

Relating to a defaced lingerie advertisement

A Guest Post by Rafi G

Imagine the scenario - you are walking down the street and you see a sign. One of those advertising signs strategically placed in the middle of the sidewalk. The sign is advertising a lingerie shop with a scantily clad supermodel adorning it. Yet the sign is defaced, hiding her airbrushed beauty from you, as someone has spray painted black paint all over the sign.

What goes through your mind at that moment? "Those crazy religious fanatics! Always defacing other peoples property!" or maybe "we need to get rid of those haredim" or maybe "those advertisers have really gone overboard with the smut they put all over the city. at least someone won't put up with it!" or maybe "they give the rest of us religious people a bad name" or maybe something else.

This happened in the city, mostly mixed Modern Orthodox, National Religious and secular, of Ranana.

Yet after some name-calling, throwing blame around in various directions and debate, some investigating turned up the news that the ads were initially created like that. They came pre-defaced. Yes, the advertisers made ads of scantily clad women with black spray paint graffitied over them.

So you have to wonder what they were trying to accomplish by this. Were they just playing on peoples imagery to increase their bang for their buck? Meaning, they knew their posters, or at least some of them, would eventually be defaced, so they did it themselves to get people talking about their ads? Maybe they did it to malign the haredim who would be blamed for it, again drawing support for themselves on the backs of the haredim? Was the objective more benign and simply meant to be an eye-catcher and pique curiosity?

Rabbi Stewart Weiss addresses the Ranana situation and says this:

YES, FOLKS, we do have our problems, and we should not take them lightly. There is a legitimate debate over Jewish values, land for peace, pluralism and army service versus yeshiva study. And our situation isn't made any easier by kippa-clad demonstrators - in an obvious effort to bring honor to God and Torah - launching loaded diapers at police protecting a parking lot on Shabbat. Or by mustachioed men in bikinis riding on floats through the streets of Jerusalem in an effort to show off the joy of being a gender-bender.

But the fact is, we have more in common with each other than we realize. The vast majority of our country has a genuine respect for Judaism, though we may express it in different ways. We abhor corruption, whether by a secular Avraham Hirchson or an observant Shlomo Benizri, and we cheer when we see justice done. We want our children to be safe on the streets, well-educated and able to live securely, now and in future generations. We love Israel, we are in awe of its beauty, we are dedicated to its survival and we are willing to place our lives on the line - just by living here! - to demonstrate our loyalty to this country.

All this may sound overly optimistic, even naive. But I believe it, because Hope springs eternal. At least in life, if not in lingerie.

Search for more information about [defaced lingerie advertisements] at 4torah.com.