RABBI BOYARSKI: SEGUEING SIDEWAYS, OR WHY EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY BRINGS UP EVERYTHING ELSE

This post is for Adam, who may never read it, and Felix, who probably will.
Yesterday evening, at the only public place in downtown San Francisco where you may smoke indoors, I spoke with a gentleman who was here for a convention. San Francisco over the years has hosted many such - the geologists came to town after several months of whacking rocks in the desert with their small hammers, and went giddy at suddenly being surrounded by people again. The dentists have been here, various other branches of medicine, and of course scientific geeks of all kinds.
Such things up the average intelligence level, if only for a few days.

My conversational partner was in town for the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.
Bible scholars in San Francisco. It's a miracle.

Among many other things, we discussed Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno (whom I mentioned because Dovbear is now rereading (and citing) Rabbeinu Sforno's perush ha Torah, which I first encountered in 2004), Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the documentary hypothesis, and the masoretes.

[Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno: A famous Italian exegete from Bologna (though born in Cesena), whose writings are still consulted to this day. His commentary on Pirkei Avos ('The Chapters of the Fathers') has a favoured place in my library. Dovbear: a well-known and well-regarded Jewish blogger, whom I read on a daily basis - the readers who leave comments on his posts are a very interesting lot, and one can find both thoughts better expressed than one could do oneself, as well as ideas that will repulse and offend. Plus humour, wit, and eloquence. If you have never visited him, you may find the link to his blog to the right on this page. Ibn Ezra: A great twelfth century Jewish scholar from Spain, whose scriptural commentary is clear and clean. Often, like Sforno, it contrasts with or outright negates the mefarshus of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki), which too often seeks to clean up loose ends and answer questions of only dubious import - though Rashi's Talmudic expositoria is quite otherwise and almost beyond compare.]


Which, almost automatically brings three great codices to mind, namely the Codex Cairensis, the Leningrad Codex, and the Aleppo Codex.
All three were carefully enscribed nearly a thousand years ago, and are the best examples of what the Masoretes have wrought.

[Masoretes: Baalei ha mesorah: The masters of the tradition. Scholar-scribes who focused on the grammar, cantilation, punctuation, and correct pronunciation of the Biblical texts, producing what is now the standard ketiv menukad of the text. Most notable among them was the Ben Asher family, although Ben Naftali is held in scarcely less esteem. Masorah (tradition) is often applied to the fully vowelized written language, and must be distinguished from the text in a Sefer Torah (a Torah Scroll), which must always be written according to specific rules, and significantly, lacks vowel markings.]


In the same way that scribes have elevated the texts, the texts have molded and marked the scribes.
And, in connection with the last named document (the Aleppo Codex), mention must be made of a man whose name is known because of it.


RASHASH BOYARSKI

It is perhaps primarily because of the Aleppo Codex that a Lithuanian rabbi who had moved to Jerusalem in 1857 is best known.
Rabbi Boyarski (Rashash Boyarski, after his two given names: Samuel Solomon) tasked an associate (Moishe Yehoshue Kimchi) to carefully copy the manuscript, and subsequently wrote in detail about the codex in his book 'Ammudei Shesh'. At that time the famous codex was still complete, and was safeguarded by the Jewish community of Aleppo, in whose pssession it had been for centuries, after passing through a thousand hands since it was written. Maimonides examined it, and wrote the Hilchos Sefer Torah in his Mishneh Torah based upon that study, detailing the precise rules for writing Torah scrolls. In 1949 the book was damaged in the Syrian anti-Jewish pogrom which dispersed the Allepan community, and when it was brought to Israel in 1958 a large part of it was missing, presumed lost.

[Aleppo: A town in Northern Syria probably best known for a mild, sweet, and fragrant chilipepper - the 'ful halabi'. Boyarski: regionomen signifying a native or inhabitant of Boyarka, a town near Kiev in the Ukraine (which is where my grandfather was stationed in World War One, when he was with the American Red Cross contingent aiding the Russians - he and several other American officers fled south into Persia when Russia collapsed). The name probably derives from an old Slavic term for great, rich, noble - alternatively, valiant, fierce, bold. It being remembered, of course, that the Kievan oblast is the heart of the Rus frontier, contested for centuries by Varangians, Turks, Bulgars, and Ruthenians. There was much scope for both greatness and ferocity there. Ammudei Shesh: Pillars of marble. The title of Rabbi Boyarski's magnum opus, dealing with a number of different subjects more or less related to the sacrifices and services in the Beis HaMikdash (the Holy Temple which was destroyed, first by the Babylonians, then by the Romans). The name is taken from Shir Ha Shirim asher liShlomo (The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's - the astute reader will naturally notice the titular felicity, given the custom of coinciding one's own name with a scriptural phrase recalling, however distantly, the same), verse 5:15 "shokav amudei shesh meyusadim al-adneifaz mareihu kalvanon bachur ka'arazom" ('his legs are as pillars of marble set on bases of finest gold'), which is taken to metaphorically indicate the righteous who are occupied with the law and with instruction - a young scholar strong as the cedars, an elderly scholar whitened by age and compassion for the house of Israel. Maimonides: Rabbi Moishe ben Maimon of Cordova (1135 - 1204), who fled the insanity of the Almohades in Spain, eventually ending up as physician to the Caliph in Egypt. One of the most famous of Jewish scholars, whose works are an endless sea of brilliance - mi Moishe ad Moishe, lo kam ki Moishe ('from Moses to Moses, there is none like Moses'). Syrian: The modern term for a native of a country to the north of the Holy Land, though in Ottoman times the term Syria encompassed a much larger region, including Lebanon and most of Jordan and Israel. Israel: Jacob and his descendants, as well as the only democracy in the Middle East.]


RABBI SHMUEL SHLOMO BEN MOISHE MEIR BOYARSKI

The son of Moishe Meir Boyarski was born in 1820 or thereabouts in Grodno, which a generation before had been taken by Russia after several centuries of Lithuanian rule. The city is outside Lithuania proper, in Black Ruthenia (part of White Russia - Bellorus). Like many cities and towns in that area it was ethnically mixed - Poles, Litvaks, Russians, and Jews of all stripes. His first wife, the daughter of Rabbi Zev Wolf of Bialystok, died young, leaving him with two sons, Avigdor (named after his great grandfather) and Zev Wolf (probably named after his father in law).
His second wife was the daughter of Rav Baruch of Kovno, who graciously supported him so that he could devote himself to study.

[I have not been able to ascertain who Rav Baruch was, as there were several rabbonim named Baruch associated with Kovno (Kaunas): Baruch Levi Horowitz, Baruch Dov Leibowitz, Baruch Horowitz, Baruch Ber Leibowitz, inter alia.
Kovno, which had at one point been a center of Torah learning, has not been particularly noteworth since Prince Nikolai Nikolaievich expelled all Jewish residents in May 1915, following which the good Christians of the town looted everything, and destroyed what they could. After the Russians lost the town, some of the Jews returned. In World War Two, the Germans established a ghetto which held as many as forty thousand people at one point. Due to the efficiency of the Germans and the fervent Christianity of the Lithuanians, approximately five hundred people survived. It is a beautiful city that reeks of death, and which you have no reason to visit. ]


In 1857, Rabbi Boyarski with his wife and kinderlech moved to Jerusalem, where due to the generosity of his brother Yisroel Chayim (deceased 1888) he could continue to devote himself to his studies. At that time Zionism had not yet become a significant movement, and the Jewish population of the Holy Land live in what has since been referred to as the Yishuv ha-Yashan ('the old settlement), consisting mainly of Yerushalayim, Tzfat, Tveriya, and Hevron, with minor Jewish populations elsewhere. Despite the efforts of the Romans and later the Christian conquerors of the Midlle-Ages, there have always been descendants of Jacob in the land - both those who never left, and generation after generation of those who came back.

It can be assumed that Rav Boyarski was influenced by the thoughts of his first father in law, author of among other things a work on the laws of temple service (Aggudas Ezov - the Congregation of Hyssop), and at that time many of the scholars resident in the Holy Land were rediscovering, or re-examing, the details of ritual life that had over centuries been somewhat obscured, and in some cases, reviving them.
As a sofer, no doubt Rav Boyarski was aware of what characteristics applied to correct ink ( - it is black, it is permanent, it does not fade, and cannot be erased - ), and which recipes for compounding yielded a suitable product, as well as what surfaces are acceptable for a kosher scroll (carefully cured parchment), and how the letters should be formed. A focus on such minutiae underscores an approach to ritualia that is normative in such diverse things as constructing the tefillin, and, in the last part of the nineteenth century, a type of blue dye which had been lost since ancient times.

[Kinderlech: children (Yiddish). Sofer: a scribe, specifically a scribe who writes kosher scrolls, such as the Torah, the book of Esther, and sometimes the entire Tanach ('Torah, Neviim, Ketubim - the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings). Kosher: ritually acceptable, and by extension both clean and correct. As far as meat is concerned that means certain animals only, slaughtered (schechted) in a certain way and with clean internal organs, as far as practices go it implies both halachically ('legally') correct AND with a presumption of ethics, and as far as objects are concerned made correctly and with the proper attention to details. Torah Scroll: Sefer Torah, written with a quill and oak gall ink on cured parchment or hide from a kosher animal, containing exactly 304,805 letters in Ksav Ashuri (Assyrian Script), copied from another Torah Scroll. Tefillin: Phylacteries, also called 'totafos'. Square boxes containing a roll of scripture affixed to the head and weaker arm with straps ('retzuos') tied a particular way. Concerning the order in which the four passages from scripture contained in the shel rosh (the phylactery on the head) are placed, the two variations are according to Rashi (rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak) and Rabbeinu Tam (Yakov ben Meir, "our righteous rabbi", Rashi's son in law). Hence the practice among some people to wear both sets.]


While there is NO indication that the ancient dye preoccupied Rabbi Boyarski, it is a sufficiently interesting subject that it deserves mention in greater detail.
That will be the subject of the next post along with some totally immaterial discussion of other colours and a kugel, which, bezras Hashem, will be finished within several hours.


[Boyarski: Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.]

==========================================================================
NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
LETTER BOX.
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.
==========================================================================

ARE YOU HUNGRY?

Earlier today another blogger made mention of Peysach. Which, of course, it’s nowhere near. Yet it is worth bringing up, because the seder is the quintessential Jewish meal. Yes, I know – some of you are going to mention shabbes, with either boiled chicken (old country) or brisket ('Neva-gyork Gorod') as being much more quintessential – or even gehakte leber / gefilte fish / kasha varnishkes etcetera – but really, the idea of a representative sampling of Jews sitting around and eating together without bellyaching is Peysach and ONLY Peysach.

Oh. Forget I said anything about kvetching. I wasn’t thinking. Sorry.


All those other foods I mentioned are also eaten by Gentiles. Even kasha – and significantly, there is NO mention of kasha anywhere in Torah, proving that it is an amhoretzishe treiferei, repolsiv im gonzen, un' vorem frestu aza shrikkelikke garbage?

Many other people also have signature ‘quintessence’ meals. But few groups have an entire attitude that goes with the eating together. Thanksgiving comes close, and I suppose for many Christmas dinner has an overlay of customs and essential elements that make it ethno-specific. But these have universal characteristics, and in the United States at least overlap several different groups – a temporary shared community.
Ritual, but not really fundamental.

One other group DOES have a strong and distinct shared meal attitude: the Cantonese.

Being able to eat together is the be-all and end-all of civilization. Punkt.



食嘢先!Eat first!

Nothing quite so cheers up and changes outlook for a Cantonese person as the prospect of food in company. It isn’t just hunger. In fact, hunger is unimportant entirely. Forget anything you may have read about a long history of famine and starvation, likewise that intellectualized crap about "have you eaten yet" being the common greeting because of a lack of sufficient food.
If food were mere sustenance, asking 'have you eaten yet' would make no sense. Just like the questions 'how do you do', 'how ya doing', and 'how’s it going' all assume that you actually are doing or experiencing, 'have you eaten yet' takes for granted that there is something positive that can be reported, and that you WILL eat. Food is the point of the query.

There are two characteristics that distinguish the Cantonese in the eyes of other Chinese: they have the most eloquent curses, and they are the most food-centered of all Chinese subcultures.



你食咗飯未呀?Nei sik-tzo fan mei ah?

Have you eaten yet? The answer tells the person who asked the question what the possibilities are. The acme of all socializing options for a Cantonese person is eating in company. Eat together, share food. Talk, boast, extend comfort, sing, nurture, nourish. Tell jokes. Weep, wail, complain about your in-laws and your children. Instruct the next generation while cherishing older people.
Put the shared food in the middle, everyone reach in and take what they need.


The popular choice for white people eating at a Chinese restaurant is the rice-plate, with a single serving of something per person. It's mine, dammit, and I'm not sharing. Mine! All mine! Piss off!
It just isn't very real. Unless you are forced to dine alone.

The idea of several people together all eating exactly the same dish and same quantity is flabbergasting to the Cantonese. Family-style dining epitomizes their approach to communal eating, and they truly cannot understand the regimented apportionment of food so characteristic of WASPs. When all four of you order Sweet and Sour Pork over rice, expect the kitchen staff to stick their heads into the dining room to stare at you. Truly, white people are weird.

"Whaddya mean they aint' sharing? What's the expletive point of even eating together if they're all gonna have the same thing? Nobody is that bloody fond of Kung Pao Beef!!!"

If you can grasp that anarchic individuality is the governing order at a Cantonese meal, then you will understand both the Cantonese temperament, and the Cantonese restaurant.

Among friends at table, everybody suggests and argues over choices from the menu, picks and chooses from the plates in the centre, offers others the choicest bits, eats what they want, and knows about what they are eating.
Food is the social lubricant: the means whereby they got together, and the tool that enabled interaction.

If your brother shows up late for supper, there's a very good reason: he was at the ka-fay diem regaling pals with a tall tale while they all stuffed their faces with pastries and slurped coffee.
Mei-mei came home late from school? Steamed rice sheet noodle with shrimp - and friends!
Ah-Mun suddenly rushed out of the office? The local bakery just took a batch of fresh egg-tarts out of the oven, gotta get some for the gang before they're all gone!

What do many Cantonese do after a long formal meal? Why, they go out together for mid-night snacks, of course!


The idea of telling the tale of yetzias mitzrayim all night long could not possibly appeal to the Cantonese. Amidst the fray of flying chopsticks, they will speak primarily of dining, especially shared dining. Not only this meal, but also other meals - all meals that ever were and all meals yet to be, are represented at this table, and all the generations will remember and relive these meals.
"Here, have this drumstick. Is there more tea? Pass the salt-baked shrimp, and can I refill your rice bowl? Is there any more Tung-po pork?
Mmmmmm, this stirfried choisum is SCRUMPTUOUS!"

If, at the break of dawn, after an all night feast, someone came and said "masters, the time for the morning shema has come", the Cantonese response would be "hey, let's all go have breakfast first". Sik faaaaahn! Totally.

SMICHA, MUSMACH, MASMICH; SMUCHIM

But can he teach? Well, if he’s a rabbi, it is taken for granted. The title of rabbi not only tends to mean teacher (actually, it means ‘my lord’, but it is applied to those presumed capable of imparting learning that everyone should know), but attests to having participated in a chain of transmission of knowledge.

One who has learned, in such a way, is presumed able to form the next link in that tradition. Traditionally, smicha (the ‘degree’ of rabbi) is conferred by a panel of three examiners, usually rabbis of standing and depth of knowledge - though according to the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides: 1135 - 1204 CE) only one of them actually has to have smicha. What they are probing is whether the person knows and understands the material, and has the depth and breadth necessary to pass it on, guiding others in a correct grasp of it

[Rabbinic ordination: The term ‘smicha’ derives from anointing, but for most of the past two millennia that has been neither relevant nor observed. After the student has spent several years studying Talmud-Torah, most particularly halacha (Talmud), and thereof most particularly the Shulchan Aruch (a compendium of halacha based on the Talmud, written by Yosef Karo) and its commentaries and addendums, and of that most particularly the laws of family purity, the Sabbath, and ‘forbiddens and permitteds’ (issur ve heter), he will be tested in his knowledge by a panel of his teachers.]

Though smicha is considered the benchmark, I should point out that many rebbeim and roshei-yeshivos do not have formal smicha. The Chofets Chaim, for example.


YOREH? YOREH! --- YADIN? YADIN!


May he decide? Indeed he may decide! May he judge? Indeed he may judge!
That's all it takes. One man of learning and repute asking two rhetorical questions, answering them affirmatively, and attesting to that.

Smicha, if given by even one rabbi, is still smicha. Smicha merely says that the person who gave the smicha (the masmich) is confident that the recipient of that smicha (the musmach) can teach the subject to the extent and according to the standards that are expected - by, nota bene, the masmich!


A SHARED ANCESTRY OF LEARNING

It is for that reason that one should ask not only "do you have smicha?", but also, as important if not more, "from whom do you have smicha?"
And likewise "from whom did he (your teacher) get smicha?"

Thus a chain of repute can be established leading back, in some cases, several centuries, and linking several hundreds or thousands of scholars in relationships of master-student, chavruso, or 'esteemed fellow-scholar with whom one has much in common'.
In very real terms, one is judged by one's intellectual kin.


This post is in reaction to the news mentioned on Dovbear’s blog that certain individuals in Israel were selling smicha.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FURTHER TO THIS AFFAIR:

Quote:" Some 2,000 police officers, soldiers and cadets attended various religious colleges for a number of hours a week but were granted diplomas for completing five years of studies. The certificates enabled the individuals to receive pay raises from the State."
End quote.
Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3893673,00.html


Conservative Apikoris at Live "Frei" or Die pointed to a Ha'aretz article from 2005 about this:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/rabbis-in-blue-1.176207


What it all boils down to is that some gedolim are more equal than other gedolim.
And some aren't even gedolim, but conceivably gazlonim.

BRISK COMMENTS

One of the blogs out there which I read occasionally deserves a note of thanks.
No, not because of a posting nor because of an insight that was exceptionally worthwhile.
Yes, both the postings on that blog, and the insights expressed by the author, are indeed worthwhile. And you will enjoy visiting, if you are thoughtfully inclined.


The blog in question deserves a thank you for this comment:

Not Brisk said...
Bray, if you are looking for hits, just bash Charedim....August 12, 2009 11:59 AM


It was under a post on the Bray of Fundie's blog which was in flamboyant praise of matters gay.
In this comment string (58 comments ao today, comment number 3).



NOT BRISKER YESHIVISH

Not Brisk defines himself thus: 'A humble Charedi who attempts to deflect the Charedi hatred on the Internet. The authentic Charedi voice is grossly underrepresented in the blogosphere and the web evolved into an uneven playing field that tilts in the advantage of the Falsifiers. This forum provides a fresh perspective on the current and past sociological phenomena in our community.'

It's worth your while to visit his blog.

------------------------------------------


UND OICH, IN MITTN DRINNEN...

Brisk is the Yiddish name for Brest-Litovsk, a city of strategic importance and hence much assaulted during several centuries of rivalry between Poland, Lithuania, and the Russian Empire. It is now in Belarus - no, the city didn't get up and walk, the political boundaries did.

Brisk, in the context of the aforementioned blog, refers to the Soloveitchik tradition, specifically pointing towards the 'Brisker Rov', rav Yitzhok Zev (HaLevi) Soloveitchik, also known as ha Gaon Rabbi Yitzhok Zev, and as Rebbe Velvel ('little wolfling' – Zev means wolf, velvel is Yiddish for little wolf), son of Rabbi Chayim (HaLevi) Soloveitchik (1853 - 1918), descended from rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (1820 - 1892), rabbi of Brest-Litovsk, author the Beis HaLevi, a work on the Mishna Torah and the Torah.

Der Brisker Rov fled the gathering storm in Europe and settled in the Holy Land, where his sons and grandsons have since founded many yeshivot. His brother Moshe (HaLevi) Soloveitchik went to America, where he became the rosheshiva of Yeshiva University - and Moshe’s son is the famous Rabbi Yosef Dov (HaLevi) Soloveitchik (1903 - 1993), called the 'Rav' by his students, who was one of the all-time great luminaries of Yiddishkeit in the new world.
His younger brother Rabbi A'aron (Halevi) Soloveitchik (1917 - 2001), confusingly was also know as the 'rav' to his students.

Brisk in Israel are anti-zionist and Hareidi, while the Rav was a Zionist and Modern Orthodox. And so, though less so, was the rav.


BRISK APPROACH

The Brisk Derech, as far as Talmud Toireh is concerned, tends to look for the underlying meanings and connections in text-passages, seeking distinctions (chakiros), especially in outcome or result, and thus analytically finding the operating principles, without necessarily discovering why they operate - understanding the intent of the Almighty is not the point, understanding precisely what his instructions are, is.

It could be described as grasping abstract concepts in order to grasp the concrete - knowing the meta-system in order to know the micro-system. In consequence of their focus on the meanings of the texts, the Brisker Derech has gained a reputation for strict interpretation, verging at times onto rigidity and literalism.
On the other hand, Brisker Lomdus also has a reputation for nurturing brilliance.

DEAR PHARAOH, DUE TO VERY FORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES .....

This blogger is attending two seders this week. But not with his significant other.

No, we're not breaking up, we just realize each other's natural limitations.

While I can really get into Pesach-mode, Savage Kitten would probably be fast asleep, head on the table, before we even got to the matze-ball soup.
She is an antisocial morning person who finds long in-depth disquisitions on subjects in which she has no interest absolutely mind-numbing. She isn't comfortable at all in the company of a lot of people, and is too shy to actively participate in the spoken part of the seder even if she did have the necessary backgrounding. Once her bloodsugar level goes down at night, she goes to sleep. Period. Think tidal inevitability.


There are actually five children at the Pesach table:

1. THE CHACHAM- the wise child: what are the laws and customs of this day?
[Mah ha'edos vehachukkim vehamishpatim asher tzivah Hashem Eloheinu et-chem? Avadim ha'yinu le faro be mitzrayim...]
2. THE RASHA - the wicked child: what does this mean to you?
[Mah ha'avodah hazos lachem? Zevach 'pesach hu le Hashem asher 'pasach' al basei bnei Yisrael b'Mitzraim...]
3. THE TAM - the simple/straightforward child: what's all this then?
[Mah zos?!? Bechozek yad hotzi'anu Hashem m'Mitzrayim m'beis avadim...]
4. SHE-EINO YODEA LISHOL - the child who does not know how to ask.
5. And the SLEEPER, for whom the gefilte fish was probably the only thing remembered.


[Baruch haMakom, baruch Hu; baruch she-noson Torah le amo Yisrael, baruch hu. Keneged arba'ah vanim divrah Torah: echad chacham, ve echad rasha, ve echad tam, ve echad she eino yodea lishol (' ..... concerning four sons, sayeth the Torah; one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one that does not know how to ask').]


Years ago we engaged in the torture that all couples experiment with at first: dragging the other person to social events and office parties, where each mitgedragged significant other was one of the fifty percent of attendees WHO DID NOT KNOW ANYONE ELSE.


"Hi, uh, mister....., yes, well, and how have you been since last year?"


"Oh, fine, miss..., mrs......, uhhhh, erm, yes, fine, so very nice to see you again!"

Yeah, that sure is a thrilling thing to do together.


We eventually realized that such events served no purpose. We are very fond of each other, but parts of our lives do not need to be shared.
I like living la vie Cantonaise vicariously, she appreciates my interactions with the chevra from a distance.


Being a heathen, her method of observing Passover and Easter is both straightforward and surprisingly beautiful: rent The Ten Commandments, sit in front of the teevee with a giant bag of bacon-cheddar chips, and dig that crazy white guy Charlie Heston sounding all ponderous.
Flames, water, lightening, and a wild party. Costumes! Horsies! White hair! Timbrels! Yay!

Then do it all over again the second night.

It's a celebration of freedom.

CHESSED LE UMIM CHATAS REVISITED

Recently I somewhat casually flung the phrase 'chessed le umim chatas' (charity among the nations is flawed) into the discussion, as regards the immense outpourings of support for the Palestinians from various quarters, most particularly the European and American so-called progressives.

Yossi Izrael commented:

BTW, BOTH, that's not the primary meaning of the sentence. it means that when they do real chesed it's mostly for self-aggrandization or gain. Very often true.
[Here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dovbear/2418939851487145314/?src=hsn]


CHESSED LE'UMIM CHATAS

What it really means is that when they do what seems to be chessed, it is suspect or flawed - their good deeds lack something. Chatas is derived from cheyt, indicating that something is not up to snuff, does not measure up, is insufficient. There is also a connotation of unintentionality, as the term chatas is an offering to atone for an accidental sin.

The corollary is that one is supposed to do chessed intentionally, with no other agenda than that it is the right thing to do.

In this case, the reasons for the support for the Palestinians from so many non-Jews are ab initio and necessarily suspect. The more so as more deserving peoples do not attract even half as much attention and outrage. Certainly nearly half a million Darfurian dead are at least as deserving as several hundred Hamas members?
What about the hundreds if not thousands of Bangladeshi and Burmese migrants tied up, towed back out to sea, and left to die by the Thai coastguard? The people caught up in the war raging in the Congo?

Obviously, these and many others do not count; their oppressors are not Jews, and in consequence their suffering, though far worse than that of Hamas, is of no consequence.


Now, as regards self-aggrandizement or gain: On the one hand, that applies also to many Jews (hence all those plaques honouring those who made a bequest, and the mentions in every Jewish publication of the names of those who made this or that possible), and on the other hand, that reflects the times of the Talmud; in terms of ethically or morally inspired acts, most Gentiles of that age were bribing their idols to do things for them, ergo the motives that caused Jews and Gentiles to act charitably had to be assumed to differ.

One can assume that a charitable act committed by an idolater necessarily has an ulterior motive, because the pattern of bribing the idol in return for rewards not only inculcates the attitude that doing good gets rewarded, but also posits a bargaining position vis a vis the divine.
The presumption of an ulterior motive to the idolater's actions is pithily encapsulated in the phrase ‘chessed le umim chatas’.

--------------------------

NOTE
Chaim (Bray of Fundie) brought the phrase back to the surface of my mind nearly two years ago. It had sat there for a while. I think I first ran into it back in the late nineties when reading Neussner's translation of the Mishna and researching some of the ideas therein. It did not sit there and fester; it fermented. Fermentation is good - without it, there would be no wine, no beer, no bread, no aged cheeses, no matured tobacco.

I AM AN ANTI-SEMITE

That is what a correspondent firmly believes. She is serious, and horribly offended. Decent people should avoid me, and you might want to hang garlic on your monitor before reading any further.

In addition to being an anti-Semite, I would also like to propose that I am a strikingly beautiful black woman with high pert breasts. Might as well go for the complete makeover, don't you agree?


I wrote:
I am capable of believing that voodoo, Catholicism, several forms of Christianity, and many aspects of Orthodox practice are wrong. That several million people believe something does not mean we have to praise and accept that belief as valid. Especially as regards religion one can agree to disagree. Or demand to disagree.

This generated a howl of outrage.


I wrote:
I did not attack Judaism.
I do not accept all of orthodox praxis as valid.
Orthodox Judaism is not all of Judaism. Nor is all of orthodox Judaism actually orthodox Judaism.

Now the other person started jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth, as I could tell from hundreds of miles away. Furious scribbling ensued.


I wrote:
I fail to see how it could possibly be offensive.
Unless you consider all versions of orthodoxy, from the several variants of hareidi all the way through modern orthodox, to be identical. In which case the ultra-orthodox refusal to accept smicha from certain rabbinical schools becomes ridiculous.

Of course, the Conservative movement might also have an issue with the sneering non-acceptance of their accreditation by the ultra-orthodox.

But that begs the question - can Satmar validly be offended by Chabad? To the point that they refuse to accept the opinions of anyone associated with Chabad, or deny their kashrus certification? Those who are easily offended, will be offended.

For that matter, I would more likely accept the graduate of Yeshiva Chovevei Torah as normative in his rabbinical lomdus, than let us say, a rabbi from Beis Medrash Gohova, Belz, or even the Chabad milieu.

To the degree that I do not accept them as normative, they may be offended. More than likely, it would not matter one whit to them.

Again, I fail to see where the offense lies.

Further to the offense, I would offer the following representative sampling of elements of orthodox Judaism which are utter balderdash: Segulos, Kabbalah, Dybbuks, Sheidim, Klipos, and Gematria.

You will find that though these things are all well within orthodox belief, they are by no means universally accepted. They represent a strain of superstition rife with borrowings from heathendom and folk-beliefs. Avodah zara, more or less. Torah codes are also in that category, and quite as ridiculous.

A careful reading of the sources will show that many authorities in the past were adamantly opposed to such nonsense. Such people as the Rambam, Ibn Ezra, even the Ramchal.......

At this point, she accused me of dam-near hating Jews and Judaism.

So yes, dear readers, I am an anti-Semite.



BLACK AND FULLY BREASTED

I am also a tall and incredibly stunning black woman with lovely gazongas. Tribal jewelry suits me very well, and I wear bold colours with grace and ease.

Deeply plunging v-necks show off my lovely attributes nicely, by the way.

I have not yet decided whether I am a straight black woman, or a raging Lesbienne, nor, if the latter is the case, if I like cute little blondes or prefer chubby brunettes. But whatever I am, I have no fetiches, and a broad spectrum of tastes. A whole new world of exciting choices has opened up, and it may take me a while to choose all my predilections.

Please send me your suggestions - I need help deciding.



In the meantime, I remain, affectionately, ROTFLMAO.


-----B.O.T.H.

MEH, A GLOSSARY

At the moment I am at a loss for material. Yet I crave your attention, and hence need to post. So here is a fragmentary glossary, derived from recent studies. I will let you try to guess what I have been reading based on the word-hoard below. And perhaps you'll find something in it that you did not know before.

Go ahead. Explore.


AMHAARETZ = Earth person, peasant, and hence not a scholar. Thus coming to mean an ignoramus.

ANTI-SEMITE = Bad Goy! No bagel!

APIKORSUS = Heresy, and selectivity in one's studies and beliefs, which is considered deviation.

ARGAMON = A sea-snail dye coloured yarn, which the Rambam (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon) avers is red, while by Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Yitzhak) it is purple. But the Raavad (Rabbi Abraham Ben David HaLevi, Toledo, approx 1110 - 1180) describes different colored strands of wool twisted together.

ARIZAL = The holy Ari (Alef Reish Yod = Eloki Rabbi Yitzhak, the divine Rabbi Isaac), kabbalist of Safed (Tzfat, Tzfas). Rabi Yitzhak (רבי יצחק) Ben Shlomo Luria (1534 – 1572).

ASKONIM = Functionaries, whether really appointed or self-designated.

ASSUR = Prohibited.

AVODA ZARA = Idolatry (literally: odd or foreign service).

AVODAS HASHEM = Service of Hashem; piety.

BAHAIMA = Animal, beast. Cow.

BATALA = Negation; hence a waste of time, especially activities which take away time from Torah study.

BEDIKAS CHOMETZ = Maseches Pesachim, the third tractate in Mo'ed, in the first part, Pesach Rishon, goes into excruciating detail on ridding chometz from our abodes and our lives, in every conceivable way in preparation for the chag. You really don't want to know all the details, trust me! Gross! I'm not even going to mention where we're supposed to hunt for chometz with that feather! And I'm not touching wooden spoons ever again!

BEIS HILLEL = The house of Hillel, being one of two schools of thought in the decade or two ending around 15 C.E., centered on the sage Hillel and his students and followers. Hillel veered towards interpretations that took man’s frailties and essential goodness into account, whereas Shammai and his school insisted on stricter, more rigid interpretations. Hillel was humble, Shammai was passionate.

To follow Hillel is to be humane, but to follow Shammai often is to be utterly correct.
Halacha generally agrees with Hillel, while holding that Shammai is also right – Elu va elu divrei Elokim chayim (this and that, both are the words of the living G_d; Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 13b).

Hillel and Shammai were the final pair of leaders (zugos) in the period following the death (273 BCE) of Shimon HaTzaddik, Simon the righteous, last member of the Great Assembly (Knesses HaGadol).

BEIS YOSEF = A book by Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488 – 1575), which is a commentary on the Arba Turim (The Four Rows; a bawuste compendium of Halacha by Rabbeinu Yakov Ben Asher, 1275 – 1349, son of the Rosh), based on a variety of Halachic opinions, primarily drawing from Rabbi Yitzhak Alfassi (the Rif), Rabbeinu Asher (the Rosh) and Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon (the Rambam).

BEZALEL = In the shadow of El; name of the master workman divinely chosen to design the mishkan, a descendant of Yudah.

BIRCHAS HA TORAH = The blessing over the Torah, recited before reading an Aliya. It is customary that the first Aliya be read by a Kohen (if available), the second be a Levite (also if available).

The blessing for the Torah is as follows: "Baruch Adonai Hamevorach l'olam va-ed; Baruch Atta Adonai, Eloheinu melech ha olam, Asher bachar b'anu mikol ha'amim, Ve natan lanu et Torato, Baruch ata Adonai, Notein ha Torah." (Blessed are you Lord that blesses the world forever; Blessed are you, Lord our God master of the universe, That selected us from among all of the peoples, And gave to us your Torah. Blessed are you Lord, giver of the Torah.).

Ashkenazim read it thus: "Boruch ata Adonoi HaMevoruch l'olom va-ed; Boruch ata Adonoi, Eloheinu melech ha olom, Asher bochar bonu mikol hoamim, venoson lonu es toraso boruch atoh Adonoi, Nosein hatorah."

CHAZAL = Chachmeinu zichronam livracha (our sages whose memory is a blessing); the sages of the past.

DAAS TORAH = Accepted mainstream views in the Talmud,as well as the writings of great rabbis.

EDAH = A modern orthodox organization that seeks to reshape the concepts that collectively define orthodox Judaism - it is considered dangerously liberal, even new age, by some.

EFOD = The decorated smock of the high-priest, being precisely that garment which the evil scientist wore in Raiders Of The Lost Ark when preparing to open the ark. It has a breastplate containing twelve semiprecious stones - one for each tribe.

FRUM = Observant, pious.

GEDOLIM = The greats - Torah scholars past and present whose wisdom guides and instructs; in the modern day they are the rabbis whose decisions are seen as binding, whose opinions are normative and formative.

IN THE PARSHA = Within the same division or section as oneself, and thus both vouched for and possessed of the requisite ahavas yisroel is to be cleanminded.

ISSUR D’ORAISA = A prohibition that is in the Torah, rather than one determined by the Talmud.

ISSUR D’ORAISA OF BORER = A prohibited process of selection, sorting, or separating on the Sabbath, because it is work, and, additionally, suggestive of commerce.

KABBALA = Received' - Jewish mysticism; everything from the 'chariot' through the 'Zohar', not including Madonna.

KEFIRA = Disbelief. Hence rejectionism, utter heresy.

KILAYIM = There were two disputes which Rabbeinu Tam initiated - one over mezuzot, the other over tefillin. Rabbeinu Tam defined Shaatnez as including cloth spun and woven separately, then sewn together, whereas his grandfather (Rashi, 1040 – 1105) opined that it is shaatnez only if the wool and linen are spun and woven together, his argument being that the prohibition against shaatnez is specifically against garments of mixed materials (Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam lived in France; this explains, probably, their neurotic interest in clothes).

But concerning kilayim, the point they disputed has to do with the prohibition against mingling of things which it is inappropriate to mix. It says in Parshas Shoftim (Judges) in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:19 "Et chukotai tishmoru behemteicha; lo tarbiya kilayim sadcha, lo tizra kilayim u veged kilayim shaatnez lo ya'ale aleicha" (My statutes you shall guard; do not let your cattle mix-breed, do not sow your field with mixed seeds, and do not wear a garment of mingled cloth.).

Hence there are four categories of things which should not be mingled: plowing by cattle and asses in the same furrow, grapes and other crops in the same arbor, wool and linen in the same garment, and Jews and Midianites in the same world. According to the Mishneh Toreh, these prohibitions promote peace.

LEHACHIS = Annoyance; to annoy, to irritate, to rebel. Hence an act of rebellion or defiance, such as Jews reading the Talmud was to Gentiles for several centuries (during most of which time, reading by itself was also an act of defiance).

LIFNEI IYVER = Parshas Kedoshim, Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14 "Lo tekalel cheresh ve lifnei iver lo titen michshol ve yareta me'Eloheicha Ani Adonai" (You shall not curse the deaf, nor place a stumbling-block before the blind; you shall fear your God - I am the Lord.).

The word blind is interpreted to mean anyone who is ignorant, or unsuspecting, or even morally dense; one is not permitted to take advantage of them, or to tempt them to do wrong.

The rule against this type of error is referred to as 'lifnei iver, lo titen michshol' (before the blind, do not place a stumbling block - in short, 'lifnei iver').

A necessary corollary is 'Lo telech rachil b'ameicha' (do not go as a gossip among your companions), which urges one to be truthful, or silent.

MACHMIR = Strict, stringent.

MAKOM TUMAH = A place which conveys its pollution; Makom = place; Tumah = both ritual and spiritual pollution and filth. Makom Tumah: Europe or Washington DC, depending on your weltanschauung. Kansas.

MARTIN LUTHER (1483 – 1546), an Augustinian monk after whom a sect is named, who nailed a screed to a church-door (October 31st. 1517), got excommunicated (cherem, xtian style, January 3rd. 1521), and became one more notable member in a long line of farbissene Taytshe anti-semitn. A rich full life. Pope Leo the tenth (1475 – 1521; the 217th occupant of the throne of Peter) characterized him as "a drunken Teuton who writes objectionable tracts; when he’s sober, he’ll change his mind".

In a book Luther published three years before his death, he recommended that Jewish synagogues, schools, and homes be destroyed, Jewish writings be seized, Jewish teachings be outlawed, and Jews be forced to become farmers or be expelled.

MIDRASHIM = Derivational lessons or interpretive narrative.

NISHTANU HATEVA = "Nature has changed" – an attempted explanation of why chazal's science is now clearly wrong, and why cures mentioned in Talmudic literature are obvious mumbo-jumbo.

PARSHAS KORACH = bald, bald fellow. Bamidbar (Numbers) 16:1 - 18:32.
From psook 16:32 "Va tiftach ha arets et piha, va tivla otam, ve et bateihem, ve et kol ha adam asher le korach ve et kol harchush" (And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men sided with Korach, and all their stuff).

PARNASSA = Livelihood; earning one's living.

PESACHDIKKE PANCAKE MIX = Like Rashi, I do not know what this means. Perhaps it is a Gentile sawdust compound.

RABBEINU NISIM GAON = A native of Keruwan in North Africa, died 1050. Authored the Sefer Ha Mafteach, which is printed in the margins of the Vilna Shas – a backgrounder on concepts discussed.

RABBEINU TAM = Rabbi Yakov Ben Meier (1100 – 1170), a mediaeval French Torah exegete from a family of exegetes. He was the grandson of Rashi (1040 - 1105). Tam, which means straightforward or righteous in this context, was the characteristic ascribed to Yaacov the brother of Esav, so Rabbeinu Tam translates as 'our righteous rabbi'.

RABBI YAKOV BEIRAV (1474 or 1475 – 1546), a Talmudic authority from Northern Africa who moved to Tzfat. After disputes over smicha, he was forced to return to Morocco. He had tried to reinstitute the stages leading up to a Sanhedrin, of which smicha (ordination) was to be the first step. The intent was to continue the chain of transmission established by Moses, in preparation of the expected coming of the Moshiach. But there was much opposition.

According to some sources, he ordained only one person (Yosef Karo), according to others, four rabbis were ordained by him; in addition to Yosef Karo, they were Rabbi Moshe Ben Yosef Mi-Trani (Ha Mabit, chief rabbi of Tzfat, b. 1505 – d. 1560, author of the Kiryat Sefer, which is a commentary on the Yad Chazaka of Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon), Rabbi Shlomo AlKabetz (who wrote Lecha Dodi (Come, o beloved), a famous song to welcome the Sabbath), and Rabbi Yosef Sagis (b. ? – d. 1573).

RESHAIM = The wicked, the guilty

REISHIT TZMICHAT GEULATEINU = "The beginning of the flowering of our redemption" (the beginning of the end of exile and dispersion

SEGULAS = Spiritual remedies and talismans.

SELF-HATING JEW = A member of JVP, Bay Area Women In Black, or Een Ander Joods Geluid, among others.

Jews for Jesus, however, are not necessarily self-hating - merely very confused (see Amhaaretz and Apikorsus).

SITRA ACHRA = The Other Side - the dark side, evil, the world of pollution and temptation. That party whose candidates we do not support.

TAIKU = Leave it till Elijah comes - there is no answer until the end of times.

TZITZ ELIEZER = Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, a modern day posseik, known after his great collection of responsa, the Teshuves Tzitz Eliezer.
The tzitz was a golden headplate with an inscription (kodesh l’Hashem) worn by the kohain hagadol on the forepart of the migba’as (turban).

TZNIUS / TZENUA = Proper modest dress code and the sensitivity and frumkeit that go along with that. Sheitels and streimels, yes. Chains and leather, no. Wearing only whipped cream is right out.

YECHEZKEL RABBAH = Literally, ‘Great Ezekiel’; an early commentary on the Sefer Yechezkel (Book of Ezekiel), which is a part of Tanach dealing with the prophet so named, a contemporary of Tsefaniah and Uriah, and the son of Yirimayu.

The Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, grammarian and Talmud commentator, 1160 - 1235), commenting on Ezekiel's agitation, observes that Ezekiel insisted upon a fair wage structure to the point of obsession, "midah keneged midah" (measure for measure).

BLOGGER APPRECIATION

It struck me that many of my recent postings have been rather snide and negative. I am a disagreeable person.
Not that there's anything wrong with that; stirring up the kettle is something I do rather well, and I don't seem to have too many enemies at present.


Nevertheless, I should mention some of the bloggers I thoroughly appreciate, and describe 'em a bit. Sort of a tip of the hat. And a friendly acknowledgement.
[I also appreciate the people who read my blog and comment, but it is for them that I am writing this.]


Dovbear
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
Politically a liberal, religiously somewhat on the conservative side, likely Modern Orthodox but I've never asked. Manages to irritate the spit out of a huge number of vociferous if not eloquent individuals. One of the major J-blogs.
THIS IS A DAILY MUST-READ


Chaim G.
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
Contributor and commenter on Dovbear's blog who really gets on some people's nerves big-time. By his own self-description overweight, black hat, Chareidi. But irrepressible and self-depreciating. Might actually not be an overweight orthodox gentleman at all, but maybe (I doubt it) a petite busty Philippina.


Margavriel
http://margavriel.blogspot.com/
Well, I used to enjoy his blog. He's closed himself off from the world in recent times, being now read-by-invitation only, and those invitations probably went just to the people he hangs with.
Still, I appreciate the hours of reading pleasure he has given me. Thanks, dude.


Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)
http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/
An insightful geek. And I mean that in an utterly good way. One of the best reads out there, both for his thoughts (esp. regarding Torah-Nach), and for occasional veering off into left field. He's very likeable, and he writes well. His is a warm and sunny blog. Especially for goblins.


Jameel at the Muqata
http://muqata.blogspot.com/
Settler, sociable, and may seem right wing. But that depends on how you define right wing (I tend to think of him as a lefty). Great sense of humour, equally great capacity for outrage. Litvish, strongly so. He and a few of his friends have a thing about waffles which I haven't figured out.
THIS IS A DAILY MUST-READ


Search for Emes / E-kvetcher
http://search-for-emes.blogspot.com/
Has a mind that goes outside boxes. Sometimes his posts are startling, sometimes they're amusing. I suspect him of having Chareidi sensibilities and Modern Orthodox leanings, but he's not easy to pigeonhole. And for that reason you should explore him occasionally.


Halfnutcase
http://www.yonirants.blogspot.com/
One of the best commenters on Dovbear's blog.
I hardly ever read what he posts on his own blog, however, as it is clear that he is trying to work out some serious problems with which I would be of no help. On Dovbear's blog one can count on him to mix material from medical journals with passages from Talmud, argue spiritedly, and actually demonstrate what a profoundly decent chap he is. Definitely one of the stars of the comment-swarm.


Mevaseretzion
http://mevaseretzion.blogspot.com/
Torah, Talmud, Halacha. And pedagogy. I suspect that he is also a Kahanist. Not that that is a problem in my world, but I can imagine that for some people that might present certain obstacles. Those same people would probably be upset if I told them what I really think about the settlements and the Edomites on the other side of the security fence, and how thin my patience with the Arabist point of view has become. Suffice to say that if Mev is a Kahanist, he is an example of what a Kahanist should be. And what we all should become.


RabbanGamliel
http://rabbangamliel.blogspot.com/
Yes, he has a blog. But he doesn't post much. He comments on XGH and on Dovbear. He is more intelligent than I am. Has a sense of humour, and is well-read.


Treppenwitz
http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/
Thoughtful, witty, irascible. And I bet that when he reads this, he'll be almighty surprised at that last one.
Despite his confessed status as a NONSMOKER (shudder), one of the most interesting and readable blogging lights out there. Tends to respond to most of the commenters with a comment of his own addressing what they said.
THIS IS A DAILY MUST-READ


Rabbi Joshua Maroof
http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com/
Read him for your dose of Torah insight. And for a shtikl Rambam.


Chardal
http://chardal.blogspot.com/
Sporadic mustard. Does not post frequently. Claims to be a fundamentalist. I have my doubts. He's too broadminded for that. Stubborn, but likeably so. Again, one of the flock of commenters, and like many, more often encountered as comment than as post.


Midianite Manna
http://www.midianitemanna.blogspot.com/
Her self-description says it all: "Former academic low-life, now secular kollel wife and mother, living with a bad Cohen, a perfect baby, and a naughty cat."
Comments on Dovbear. Mentions the baby more than the cat. Once made pumpkin pie with evaporated skim milk half a year past its due date. Not ashamed to admit that.


Lipman's
http://lipmans.blogspot.com/
Fellow pipe smoker. Linguist. Wit. I still haven’t figured out how come he understands Dutch.
Lipman does not post often enough to really be included in a list of bloggers, and seems to actually have a life. Unlike the rest of us. We are jealous of him in a multitude of languages.


The Clochard Times
http://lipmans.blogspot.com/
Foul-mouthed brilliant Fleming - what's not to like?
Self-described as an extremely unpleasant cocaine-addicted whore and scribbler, morally bankrupt and nihilistic. But I think he's merely shy. Writes in Netherlandish in any case, so you'll just have to take it from me that he's good. He's good.


ADDeRabbi: On The Contrary: Judaism with Comments Enabled
http://adderabbi.blogspot.com/
A thoughtful commenter on Torah, Judaism, and life. Sometimes his writing is too in-depth for lunchtime reading, but by the end of the day my mind consists of too many frazzled loose ends to be able to read him. He's a very good writer, and browsing through his stuff over the years has often answered Torah-Talmud questions that had stuck in my mind for a while. When conditions are right I go through several weeks' worth of his posts in a sitting.


Rabbi Pinky / Yeshivas Chipas Emes
http://rabbi-pinky.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/npoj8/index.html
If you read this, you will either gain a greater understanding of where this blogger is coming from and what has formed him, or you will end up apoplectic and red in the face. It explains much, but doesn't really clarify anything. I think it is hysterical and utterly worth reading. I have a suspicion that some of you may be outraged, however. Not that I'm really concerned about that. If you don't get it, you don't. Meh.


Jeremy Rosen
http://www.jeremyrosen.com/blog/index.html
Writings by an Orthodox Rabbi with a Renaissance mind. Used to host a mailing-list, which sadly is now defunct. Well written, thoughtful, engaging. A rabbi for both the religiously inclined as the completely secular.
His background is borderline Chareidi (in the American understanding of that term), and his Judaism is very much of Orthodox derivation. But in a sense he represents post-Orthodoxism. Judaism for the curious mind. I really, really recommend him.

CHUSHIM BEN DAN

[Note: this entire post is the result of strong coffee and a two-bagger of tea. I'm totally zipped to the eyebrows. Yay! ]


RESPONDING TO COMMENTS

In a comment on a previous post, Graham writes:

"Why the obsession with Dovbear? I do not snuffle behind the hill to ascertain what Dovbear is doing or thinking. Eff all these links to Dovbear!!!
I do not care what Dovbear says or suggests. Who's he in this Goy's army? F*ck all truly!
Tho I cannot claim affinity 2much with the baccy ridden gourmet behind the hill - his is what I chose to read. Forget Dovbear. Boo boo the dovy!!
Are US Jewish blogs only to be measured agin Dovbear?
Let's Roll Blogmeester! Put yer clogs on & givit welly!"

Well shoot. It's eloquent. He's kinda put his finger on my opportunistic habit of mining other people's blogs for my own posts, especially when I'm a little dry. As well as my habit of using my own blog to sound off on what other people have said elsewhere, thus hoping to sneakily lure those readers onto the back of the hill. Exploiting the Dovvosphere for that purpose is as good a starting point as any.

I could also use other blogs, like the XGH (who seems to have spiraled into orthoangst), or the Goblin King (too busy with his studies to be over-enthusiastic about blogging, but when he does post it is often stimulating and chiddushy - go ahead and visit him), or even Jameel at the Muqata (whom you probably read already on a daily basis). How about Treppenwitz, who despite his non-smoking penchant is intelligent, likeable, and witty?


Or I could go ahead and comment-mine from my own blog. Why not?
I have interesting readers, if not necessarily interesting posts.


CHUSHIM BEN DAN

Chaim G. writes:

"Mein Tayere Shaigatz.

Thank you. You are one stand up guy. Did you see where I called you "Khushim ben Dan"? Did you khop the reference?"


Yes, Chaim, I did see that. Chushim ben Dan was not directly involved in the disputation and was able to be objective. I'm taking it to mean that as someone positioned somewhat off to the side, I may have a clearer perspective sometimes, and can cut directly to the chase, cut the Gordian know, cut the shaigetz's kop. Rather than a knowing reference to my slight hearing defect. And of course I will deliberately obliquify the connotation of a spiritual lack or lacuna.

[I am nothing if not self-flattering. Heh heh heh. ]


But taking that as a jump-off point, Chushim the son of Dan was indirectly responsible for the rise of Amalek, a descendant of Eisav. We can see this from two angles. The most straightforward to the modern mind is that impulsive action will have unfortunate repercussions, violence may beget more violence, a straightforward solution to a problem can be a double edged sword.
The other angle, which is actually more in keeping with your thinking, Chaim, is that blending in, not being apart from the nations, can have unfortunate consequences. After all, Amalek represents a blood-line that became one with the surrounding non-Abrahamic population, a line that did not go down to Egypt, a descent-group that did not remain separate. It is those Jews who veer too much into Gentile society who eventually become less Jewish, even non-Jewish, and even dangerous and destructive to Jewishness. The list of anti-Jews of Jewish descent is nearly endless. And a corollary to them are the ideologies of Jewish derivation that have gone in different directions, and have also proven dangerous and destructive to Jewishness.

[Marxism is as good an example as any, both because it is an extreme example, and because I doubt I will be offending anyone by that comparison. Whereas there may be a few Christians who read this blog..... Marxism is as much an offshoot from a Judaic root as Christianity, and also as little. A defective branch, a mutated growth.]


Shishim panim le Torah. There is great scope for disagreement and differing interpretations. But there should be a degree of unity. One need not even veer into criticism of the offshoots at the beginning of the common era to see an ongoing pattern of dangerous manifestations. Just mentioning Neturei Karta on the one hand, Jewish Voice for Peace on the other, is enough. The desire to disagree has trumped the desire for unity. The sitra achra is also within.

No man is an island. It is by measuring ourselves against our companions, and by using them as sounding boards, that we maintain our own sanity. A havdala sensitivity must necessarily understand that differentiation cannot be towards the extremes. Individuation is not a matter of disagreement.



A HORNED SNAKE?

Another factor has to be mentioned pursuant Chushim ben Dan - argumentativeness and a concern with justice. As it says in psook 49:16 "Dan yadin amo keachad shivtei Yisrael" (Dan shall judge his people, (as) one the tribes of Israel).

Dan shall judge - precisely what the name of the shevet indicates. But what Yakov says next illustrates how disturbing justice can be.

Psook 49:17 "Yehi-Dan nachash alei-derech shefifon alei-orach hanoshech ikvei-sus vayipol rochvo achor" (Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a horned snake in the path, that bites the horse's heels, so that his rider falls backward).

Fair judgment is not necessarily a kind process. Impartiality is brutal, and often impedimental.


How oddly appropriate, from a symbolic point of view, that Dan's one son, Chushim (from whom the tribe of Dan will descend), is deaf, in the same vein as Justice being blind.

[Though in midrash it says blind, instead of deaf, and elsewhere muteness is also mentioned, as well as youth.]

How likewise significant that later we read that the tribe of Dan, though at this point the smallest, becomes one of the largest (see parshas Pinchas in Bamidbar).
A concern with justice evidently thrived.

EIN KEMACH EIN TORAH

Ever since the mailing list went dormant (shortly before the holidays), I have not seen or heard much from Rabbi Jeremy Rosen. So today I browsed into his blog.

Here: http://www.jeremyrosen.com/blog/

One particular post caught my attention. Entitled "Yeshivas and Money", it was in fact precisely what Dovbear (a fellow blogger, here: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/) would seize upon as something that highlights a major blister on the body Talmudic.

Yeshivas And Money:
http://www.jeremyrosen.com/blog/2007/08/yeshivas-and-money_24.html


Rabbi Rosen first details the precarious financial state of yeshivos back in the fifties and sixties, when he was still talmid. In that day, qualified and able students were accepted, and allowances were made for those lacking funds. Many yeshivos at that time were "run down", and conditions were primitive.
He contrast that with the modern day, when several of the more well-known yeshivos are drenched in shekalim. Awash in moolah. It is a striking contrast.

Quote:
"Thanks to the power of political parties, yeshivas in Israel nowadays get all kinds of subsidies, capitations, and building grants. Yeshivas are flourishing and expanding exponentially, both in numbers and facilities..."

Then follows the bomb-shell. Yeshivos engage in extortion.

Quote:
"... methods that, alas, are commonplace in American high schools, particularly in New York, are now transferring to Israel. Only a large donation up front will often get your child in to your place of first choice. "

And:
"Almost all yeshivas are family businesses in which birth usually plays a greater part in promotion than scholarship....

---[CUT]---
 

...it is one thing to ask for funds. It is another to reject a student, regardless of how good or studious he is, simply as a bargaining tool of pressure."

Now for the clincher:
"I bet the guilty parties will be praying away with fake piety during Yom Kippur as if their hands and souls were clean."


He's right, you know. Not everybody pretending piety truly embodies it. Some people have made their pretence quite profitable. You yourself, dear reader, can probably name quite a few such.

Today, Hosanna Rabah, is the last day on which one can be inscribed for good for the coming year. It is also the end of the introspection which customarily accompanies this time.
It is not a good time to point fingers.
Not yet.

Generally speaking, however, I'm actually not at all sure there is ever a bad time.

----------------------------------------------------------

NOTE:
Rabbi Jeremy Rosen is the oldest son of Rabbi Kopul Rosen, and the brother of Rabbi Michael Rosen and Rabbi David Rosen. In addition to having been a pulpit rabbi, Jeremy Rosen is the director of Yakar in London, and professor of comparative religion in Antwerp. He is also the author of several books.

Rabbi Rosen can be found here: http://www.jeremyrosen.com/
Browse through his blog. You'll be glad you did.

EMES

Here's a thought for the new year; why not study the Sfas Emes parsha by parsha?

[SFAS EMES: The Lips of Truth, after his magnum opus, Rabbi Yehudah Leib Alter, b. 1847, d. 1905, second Gerrer Rebbe, grandson of the Chidushei HaRim.]

There is no better way than by purchasing:



EMES VE'EMUNAH
A SFAS EMES COMPANION
By Nosson Chayim Leff

Binding: Hard Cover / 304 pages
Published by Targum Press

Targum Press has just published a Sefer entitled :Emes Ve'emunah : A Sfas Emes Companion. This Sefer presents a ma'amar of the Sfas Emes for each Shabbos and Yomtov of the year. The presentation (in clear, concise English) comes together with the Sfas Emes's own text in lashon hakodesh.

Published with letters from leading Rabbonim--yeshivish, modern, and chareidi. To help newcomers gain access to the Sfas Emes, the Sefer includes a glossary of the Hebrew words used in the presentations.

You can purchase the Sefer at your local Seforim store, or order it online, at
http://www.targum.com/product.php/293/emes-ve-emunah

You can own this Sefer--and and have access to the Sfas Emes's extraordinary Divrei Torah--for $27.

[Targum Press: http://www.targum.com/]

------------------------

Please note that while I cannot actually offer a review of this book yet (as my copy will probably not arrive until the end of this week), I have read Dr. Leff's weekly lessons on the Sfas Emes, and on that basis feel competent to recommend his seifer highly, and encourage you to acquire your own copy.

ELISHA BEN ABUYAH

Elisha ben Abuyah, a talmudic scholar from second century C.E., was excommunicated for heresy. It is said that four men entered Pardes. Ben Azzai died, Ben Zoma lost his mind, Rabbi Akiva entered whole and left whole, and Acher (Elisha ben Abuyah) cut the shoots (became heretical).
His disciple Rabbi Meir remained loyal to Elisha and is honored as a sage. Which says much. Meir digested the content of his teaching, but discarded the shell

It is said of Elisha that in consequence of his mother smelling the roasting meat of an idolatrous sacrifice he became a heretic. Yet Rabbi Yochanan’s mother even ate such meat – and Rabbi Yochanan was a righteous man.
It is written that events he witnessed lead him to question the concept of divine reward – evenso, he is counted among the righteous, because of the Torah that he learned and taught.

SPOKEN OF IN DANIEL

[No, Steg, this is not the posting I refered to in my blikspost - that one is further down.]


Chaim writes and cites:

The uncensored Rambam wrote this in Laws of Kings Chapter 11:
"[That man] who aspired to be the Moshiach and was executed by the court was also spoken of in Daniel's prophecies [Daniel 11:14], "The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble."

"Can there be a greater stumbling block than [Chrixxxxxity]? All the prophets spoke of Moshiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior, who would gather their dispersed ones and strengthen their [observance of] the mitzvos.
In contrast [the founder of Chrixxxxxity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humiliated, the Torah to be supplanted [by a pretender], and the majority of the world to err and serve a Deity other than the HaShem."

"Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for [to paraphrase Yeshayahu 55:8] His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts. [Ultimately,] all the matters of [the gentleman from Nazareth] and that Ishmaelite [i.e. M-h-mmed] who arose after him serve only to pave [straighten] the way for the coming of Mashiach and for the improvement of the entire world, [motivating the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written [Zephaniah 3:9], "I will transform the people’s speech to clarity so that they will all call upon the Name ofHashem and serve Him with one purpose."

"How has this unfolded? The concepts of the Messiah, as well as those of Torah and the mitzvos have spread throughout the world, even to its farthest flung islands. These matters have been spread among many spiritually obtuse (dull – desensitized) nations, who discuss these matters as well as the mitzvos of the Torah. Some of them say: "These commandments were true, but are not in force in the present age; they are not applicable for all time." Others say: "Implied in the commandments are hidden concepts that cannot be understood simply; the Moshiach has already come and revealed them."

"When the true anointed King will arise and prove successful, his [position becoming] exalted and uplifted, they will all recant and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage; their prophets and ancestors misled them."



The astute reader will notice that a particular name is missing from the text above. I have replaced it with ‘that man’ in square brackets, as do not wish to alert certain possible readers of this blog to any part of the text above.
[For some reason, posting that man's name pulls in the oddest people - maybe they do websearches for that name, or google it. It is a pheromone of astounding potency, if nothing else.]

Why do I not wish to alert them?

Because they will comment, from a position of rigid ignorance, with many misspellings and much passion. [And note, this blog is not about the passion.]
They would also contend that there is naught in the NT that is not consistent with the Tanach. That is a point of view which is based upon a cursory familiarity with parts of the Tanach, and a simplistic reading of the NT.
It is a flawed and ignorant position which causes much trouble.

So why did I post that which Chaim cited?

Because I need a place to store it.
It occurred in a comment string on Dovbear’s blog, and you know how hard it is to remember where you last saw something and to try to retrace your steps. It’s a good citation, and a good potential basis for further discussion.

Plus, one of my fellow Anarcho-Zionists is currently whacking his way through the Rambam. He'll like the quote.

FROM A DUCKLING TO A MITZVAH: SHILUACH HA KAN AND KASHRUS

HNC writes in a recent posting about a lost duckling.
Which reminded me of shiluach ha kan.
Naturally.

[It was a simple thread of mental association: poor little lost duckling - bereaved mother bird - missing egg - shiluach ha kan. Voila!
Part of the re-minder was strengthened by a discussion of kashrus on Dovbear's blog. Chicken was mentioned, as well as vegetarianism. Construe a possible associative thread yourself -- it is probably more a case of mental peripheral vison than of any logical connection.]



Shiluach HaKan is the sending away of a mother bird from the nest you wish to raid, providing that the birds in question are kosher. As it says in Devarim (Deuteronomy), Parshas Ki Setzei, psook 22:6 "Ki yikare kan tzipor le faneicha ba derech be chol etz o al ha aretz efrochim o veitzim ve ha em rovetzet al ha efrochim o al ha beitzim, lo tikach ha em al ha banim" (If a bird's nest happens to be in front of you, in any tree or on the ground, with chicks or eggs, and the mother-bird sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the children).

From this derives the mitzvah of chasing away the mother bird, which Avraham Ibn Ezra explains as being like the prohibition against slaughtering a cow and her calf on the same day, as it says in Vayikra (Leviticus), psook 22:28 “"Ve shor o se oto ve et beno, lo tishchatu be yom echad" (And whether it be cow or ewe, you shall not kill it with its young both in one day). He further compares it to the injunction not to cook an animal in its mother’s milk, and likens it to an indiscriminate taking of life.

The Rambam, on the other hand, explains it as a concern not to cause suffering, and believes that the injunction inculcates us with a merciful quality which should carry over into our relations with our fellow man.


This mitzvah surely ties in to our sense of charity and concern for others. We are instructed to refrain from taking it all, much like we are told, in Seyfer Vayikra, Psookim 19:9 through 10 “U vekutzrechem et ketzir artzechem lo techale pe'at sadcha liktzor ve leket ketzircha lo telaket" (And when you reap the harvest of your field, you must not entirely reap the corner of you field, nor gather the gleaning of your harvest), "ve charmecha lo teolel u feret karmecha lo telaket le ani ve lager ta'azov otam..." (and you shall not glean your vineyard, nor gather the fallen fruit, but leave them for the poor and for the stranger...). This is stressed again in psook 23:22, and that there should be provision for the poor and the stranger is reiterated in Dvarim in psook 10:17 through 21 (love the stranger, for you were strangers in Mitzrayim). And then both charity and the issue of gleanings is restated more fully in psookim 24:19 through 22 with the addition of forgotten sheaves, olives left on the branches, and again grapes in the vineyard, which must be left for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow (la ger, la yatom, ve la almana).

What is odd is that along with the mitzvah of honouring ones parents, the reward for Shiluach HaKan is said to be long life, as is written in Psook 22:7 “shaleach teshalach et ha em, ve et ha banim tikach lach le ma'an yitav lach ve ha arachta yamim" (send, send away the mother, but the young you may take for yourself; that it go well with you, and lengthen your days).
Some have read into this that one must send away the mother, one must take the eggs.

Instead, think of it as better interpreted to mean that if you need the eggs, you should nevertheless be gracious.
As you should likewise be with gleanings, field-corners, olives, grapes – do not take all, but leave some for others who are less fortunate or come after.

===========================

Shiluach ha kan also serves to remind one about kashrus, in that in the distinction between substances it echoes the ban on eating meat and milk together.
As it says in Dvarim, psook 14:21 “lo tochlu chol neveila, la ger asher bi shareicha titnena va achala o machor lenachri ki am kadosh ata la Adonai eloheicha; lo tevashel gedi ba chalev imo” (you shall not eat any creature that died naturally, give it to the stranger in your gates or sell it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to the Lord your G-d; don’t seethe a goatling in the milk of its mother!).

[And note again a connection with Tzedaka, this time for Gerim.]


At first glance, the link between things that died of themselves, and boiling baby animals in the milk from their mothers, seems tenuous, obscure even. How are they connected?

Milk is the link of life between animals and their offspring, and as is made clear with the business of the blood, we may partake of one side of the equation but not both. Like with most ritual matters where one can go astray, time is used to set boundaries and provide for ritual ‘plausible deniability’. Go soak yourself, and stay away until evening, or do not eat milk and meat at the same meal, and allow several hours in between to separate the two.

[Note also the connection between purity and 'living liquid' - blood of a sacrifice or freshly slaughtered animal is both taboo and an echo of the mayim chayim with which persons and things are purified, just as there is an echo of sacred ritual in both shechting and teiveling.]


The business of the blood, however, is much more significant. Blood is more the stuff of life than milk, and is sacrificial besides, in addition to sharing the ability of certain liquids to transfer impurity or conduct purity (as detailed in Sefer Vayikra, Parshas Metzora – Infected one, 14:1 to 15:33). Consequently, the specific rule about not consuming the blood is given three times in parshas Re'eh.

Psook 12:16 "Rak ha dam lo tocheilu, al ha aretz tishpechenu ka mayim" (But the blood you must not consume, pour it on the ground like water).

Psook 12:23 "Rak chazak levilti achol ha dam, ki ha dam hu ha nafesh ve lo tochal ha nefesh im ha basar" (But be firm not to consume the blood, as the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh).

Psook 15:23 "Rak et damo lo tochel, al ha aretz tishpechenu ka mayim" (But the blood of it you must not consume (but) pour it on the ground like water).

Whatever is said three times has a seriousness and a weight that should not be taken lightly - it sets a pattern, and establishes criteria.

[Kashrus, of course, is part of the boundary which the Bnei Yisroel must erect between themselves and other nations; it says in Sefer Vayikra (Leviticus), in Parshas Shmini, psook 11:46 "Ki Ani Adonai ha ma'ale et chem me eretz Mitzrayim l'hiyot lachem l'Elohim v'ihyitem kedoshim ki kadosh Ani" (For I am the Lord that brought y'all up from the land of Egypt, to be Elohim to you, and you shall be holy as I am holy.).
Food is probably the easiest seduction, and the path along which many are likely to go native, and eventually blend in. By keeping kosher one can maintain the distance necessary to be separate.]


Like many rules regarding ritual purity, kashrus operates on the principle of excluding everything which is doubtful; that which cannot be clearly recognized as Tahor (ritually pure) is best avoided, lest one inadvertently make a mistake, or by one’s example cause someone else to err. This accounts for the exclusion of animals and foods which are not blatantly Tamei (ritually impure), and for strictness of observance - better safe than sorry. It is for this reason that the Rabbis ruled that one should not eat dairy with meat, even if the animal that yielded the dairy is not related to the animal which gave the meat. Just as Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion, so also a mamleches Kohanim ve goi kadosh (Sefer Vayikra, Parshas Kedooshim, psook 19:6).

===========================

Note that the idea of maintaining a separation, especially as a means of keeping one's own tribal or cultural identity (which is actually the equivalent of ritual purity), is one that occurs among many peoples who lived in contact with other nations and tribes. It is what underlies Scottish tartans, Irish tribal feuds, and European football hooliganism. A separation of foods is in every way a much more positive approach than painting yourself blue and trashing another city after a sporting event.
The only negative aspect is that it means that the sharing of food can only be in one direction, assuming that the party with which one shares food has no religious or ritual limitations of their own that come into play.

CHESSED LE UMIM CHATAS

Chaim writes: "Why not do a khesed l'umim khatas and open up the rich world of Chasidus to our common "pal" DovBear?

You have more credibility with him than I do and he has written off the entire movement and it's towering personalities as an illegitemate reformation of his dearly beloved Judaism."


An intriguing concept. What Chaim seems to be saying is that if I try to persuade DovBear of the validity of Chassidus it will have greater weight than if someone such as himself makes the attempt.
Given DovBear's chosen blog name, I believe that he is much more knowledgeable about Chassidus than I ever could be - Dov Baer was the oldest son of Shneur Zalman, who succeeded his father as leader of the Chabad movement. The choice of the name 'Dovbear' for his blog suggests a more than passing familiarity not only with Chassidus, but also with Lubavitch.

It will also be remembered that Shneur Zalman is the author of Tanya, that being a fundamental text of Chabad, which I have mentioned reacting strongly against in the past.

[Rather than going into any detail over that incident, I'll just say one word: klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos, klippos!]


I believe that DovBear will get the best impression of chassidus from interacting with chassidus and Chassidim - just as I fear that whatever not so favourable impression he may have gotten of chassidus was from interacting with chassidus and Chassidim. Alas, Chaim, it will still be up to you and others within the Chassidishe velt to impress Dov.

[As we say in Tamarao, "Angsuo atawa peksuo, kutamto bage na kayo" (red affair (a happy event) or white affair (mourning), it portions entirely to you).]




Further to the phrase ‘Chessed le umim chatas’.

Chatas is derived from cheyt, indicating that something is not up to snuff, does not measure up, is insufficient. There is also a connotation of unintentionality, as the term chatas is a sin offering, meaning an offering to atone for an accidental sin.

In the discussion between Herod (disguised) and Baba ben Buta (recounted in Bava Basra 4), Baba ben Buta said: “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rab -- that Daniel was punished because he gave advice to Nebuchadnetzer, as it is written, “ ve chata’ach be tzedkah ferok… teheve archah li shelevsach (atone for your sin through tzedaka… that you may have tranquility for a long time).” And twelve months were gained by Nebuchadnetzer.

There is a question from this, namely ‘how do we know that Daniel was punished for giving that advice?'
Thus: 'va tikra Ester la Hasach' (and Ester hailed Hasach), from which we can understand that as regards Daniel, the name Hasach suggests ‘Chaschuhu’ - they cut from him (his greatness).
But also it is explained as meaning that governmental affairs were decided (hasach) by recourse to his advice.
In that case, how also can we know that he was punished?
By reason of him being thrown into the lions den do we know this.


This whole discussion raises a question, namely how sincere is the sin offering if one thereby seeks to engineer amelioration? Or, put differently, if one from whom one can presume an ulterior motive performs a good deed, what is the weight of that deed?

One of the constants in the Talmud is the presumption of a certain validity given to Jews, and the equal assumption of a flawedness to Gentiles. This is because one should be able to take for granted a commonality of motives and ideals among one’s own, but one necessarily has to question whether an outsider shares those motives and ideals. In the case of Jews, there is the assumption of a responsibility towards God which should inform much of their habitus, and the concept that service of the divine is not a bargain with each side benefiting from the deal but rather that one performs such things as tzedaka because they are the right thing to do (the idea being that giving to the poor both rectifies an imbalance and fulfills a task entrusted, besides being an act of faith.

Plainly put: A Jew is supposed to perform chessed because it is inherent in being a Jew.

[Whether such a chezkas kashrus actually worked out in practice is a different subject, as is the question of Jewish persons whose actions placed them outside of civilized society.]


In terms of actions with an ethical or moral base, most Gentiles in that age were bribing their idols to do things for them, ergo the motives that caused Jews and Gentiles to act charitably had to be assumed to differ. The presumption of an ulterior motive to the Gentile’s actions is encapsulated in the phrase ‘chessed le umim chatas’ – charity among the nations is flawed (their good deeds lack something). One can assume that a charitable act committed by an idolator necessarily has an ulterior motive, because the pattern of bribing the idol in return for rewards not only inculcates the attitude that doing good gets rewarded, but also posits a bargaining position vis a vis the divine.


Both of these ideas are farkert.

And, unfortunately, common.

Hence the popularity of segulos.


Engaging in prayer or ritual with the intent of profiting thereby is, more or less, tantamount to superstition and witchcraft, and decidedly against the spirit of Judaism.

A rereading of both the Chapters of the Fathers and the book of Iyov will make much clear. One acts a certain way because it is right to do so, and one should not think in terms of reward

[In light of how much Iyov lost, that it all turned out rather well in the end should perhaps be considered the booby prize.]

Yonah, on the other hand, will teach how unpredictable things can be.


-----------------------------------------------------

On a different note: there were two comments on Dovbear's blog that particularly caught my eye.

Mar Gavriel wrote:
"Right. One of the most chilling pesukim in this morning sedro (which I leyned at the Kotel, as I often do) is: וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יִקַּח אֶת-אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת-אָבִיו אוֹ בַת-אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת-עֶרְוָתָהּ וְהִיא-תִרְאֶה אֶת-עֶרְוָתוֹ, חֶסֶד הוּא--וְנִכְרְתוּ, לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי עַמָּם; עֶרְוַת אֲחֹתוֹ גִּלָּה, עֲו‍ֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא."
I am somewhat unclear about the connection between psook 20:17 ("ve ish asher yikach es achoso bas-aviv o vas-imo ve etcetera) and preceding commentaria in that thread. On one level I can understand the reference, but nevertheless I seek explication. Zeit azoy git, tayere Mar Gavriel.


The other comment was:
"careful now - you might have a problem of hatmana b'davar hamosif hevel (or maybe its just samuch and OK)"

Hatmana refers, among other things, to the box with hay or straw used in country districts of the Netherlands in olden days to preserve the heat in a pot of food. The hay or straw insulated the vessel and thus kept the food warm. The writer of the comment seems to posit that kedusha is an active force, energy (that can be added, affecting an increase in heat), rather than necessarily a passive state. Which is fascinating.

[Of course, the statement hatmana be davar hamosif hevel also brings up such things as bishul akum, blech, stirring up ashes, kliim both sheni and shlishi, and much else involving shabbes food and kashrus - so much material that I might do a separate posting at some point, bli neder.]


Then I saw the name with which he had signed himself (michael ben drosai), and nearly bust a gut. Who else could make a shabbes-food related comment but someone with that nom de guerre? How absolutely perfect. And how utterly delicious.