Joe emails: "Interesting anecdote – the 613 Mitzvah Store has a nice stack of McCain-Palin kippahs – none for Obama-Biden. If the issue is one of biography, McCain wins. No one with a brain and who goes to a church or synagogue will vote for Obama."
Modern Orthodox Jews favor McCain over Obama by about 60/40. Traditional Orthodox Jews favor McCain over Obama 80/20, in my estimation.
Chaim Amalek emails:
Why aren’t you all over this story?
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Since Tony Alamo’s start as a California street preacher more than 40 years ago, the self-styled evangelist’s story has been colorful and checkered.
When his wife died of cancer, Alamo claimed she would be resurrected and kept her body on display for six months while their followers prayed. It would be 16 years before her body was returned to her family.
For a time, his elaborately painted denim jackets were a must-have in Hollywood, but sales contributed to tax problems that landed him in prison for four years in the 1990s.
Alamo was charged but not convicted of other crimes, including child abuse. Now the 74-year-old is accused by former church members of abusing children and running an organization in which girls who just reached puberty can marry. Agents raided his southwest Arkansas compound on Saturday and placed six girls in state custody.
In an interview Monday, Alamo spoke of the allegations with a mix of denial and defiance, saying he never promoted sexual abuse but that he believes there’s a mandate from the Bible for young girls to marry.
"In the Bible it happened. But girls today, I don’t marry ’em if they want to at 14-15 years old. Because we won’t do it, even though I believe it’s OK," Alamo said.
In an AP interview on Saturday, he had said that for girls having sex, "consent is puberty."
On Monday he bristled at descriptions of his organization as a cult, saying enemies want to cast him as a "weirdo for preaching what the Bible says."
People who have left Alamo’s organization say they have witnessed older men marrying girls who just reached puberty. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said in an e-mail that was inadvertently sent to media last week said agents expected to find children ages 12-14 who had been abused and that they expected to file charges. The e-mail said agents believed child pornography was being produced at the compound in Fouke.
Alamo also denied creating any pornography.
"They (government agents) have got six of our girls in custody. Little girls. They probably disrobed them. I mean it’s the most filthy bunch of devils that I’ve ever heard of," Alamo said.
As for former followers making the allegations, Alamo said, "I’ve kicked a lot of people out of the church and they’ll say anything to get back at me."
He suggested efforts to gather evidence against him will only bring more people to his ministry, noting that daily traffic on his Web site has grown more than 10-fold, to more than 1 million hits, since the raid.
"They’re really making us famous," he said with a laugh.
Alamo, who now lives in California, said he still preaches daily. He first bought land in Arkansas in 1975 for a complex near Alma and from there grew to own a number of businesses.
Fashion was his best-known business. His painted denim jackets were worn by celebrities for a time and even now are offered for hundreds or even thousands of dollars on the Internet. Alamo’s Web site features a picture of Mr. T wearing one.
Alamo went to prison for tax evasion after the complex was raided in 1991. He fled with his followers before the raid, taking with him the body of his wife, who had died nine years earlier.
In order to be released from his sentence in 1998, Alamo followed a judge’s order to return Susan Alamo’s remains to members of her family.
And Alamo’s property had been raided once before, in 1988 in Santa Ana, Calif., where state officials came to seize three boys and return them to their fathers’ custody.
An 11-year-old boy told police that Alamo directed four men to strike him 140 times with a wooden paddle as punishment for minor offenses. Alamo briefly faced a child-abuse charge but a prosecutor directed that the count be dropped, citing a lack of evidence.
In 1991, Alamo was acquitted on a charge that he threatened to kidnap a federal judge.
Alamo claims to be unique among Christian preachers because he was born a Jew and had a "supernatural experience" through which he became a born-again Christian.
"I am a completed Jew," he said, though he added that he had never believed in Judaism.
Alamo’s anti-Catholic bias is evident as he speaks. He claims the White House is in league with the Vatican, which he says also controls the United Nations.
He said being a Jew gives him special insight.
"We wrote the Bible. I don’t want these stinking gentiles in Rome telling me what it says. They don’t know," he said.
Under state law, investigators have to make a court filing after a search warrant is executed that details what the search found. But Circuit Judge Jim Hudson said the document would be kept under seal because of the juveniles involved.
The six girls taken into state custody will require a hearing if they remain with the state on a long-term basis but there was no indication Monday that a hearing had been set.
Arkansas Department of Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said the children were taken from the compound because they were "in harm’s way or in imminent danger." She said the state is trying to identify the children’s parents.
As for what would inspire people to follow Alamo or other charismatic leaders, there is no single or easy answer, said David Bromley, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University.
"These groups vary, and when they are at the hot stage, there is intense commitment. When people leave, when you have that kind of intensity, they tend to be rejected by the group and they tend to be quite hostile when they leave," said Bromley, who is writing a book on why people join such movements.
Bromley said that such organizations may not be as strong as they seem.
"These groups are much more diverse than they appear on the surface. You have people who look and talk alike, but when you find out who the members are, you find the levels of commitment are enormously different," Bromley said.
"It looks pretty solid to you from the outside but you find out people have different reasons for being there and that half are on their way in and half are on their way out," he said.
Alamo would not discuss how his organization operates beyond saying it accepts donations. He said he has workers who keep the books and pay the bills, including his $70,000 salary.
"Even if I knew I wouldn’t tell because the damn government would come right after them (donors)," he said. "I wouldn’t be that simple-minded to tell anybody where the money comes from.
"You must think I’m very stupid after 44 years of this stuff," Alamo said.
Steven Weil moves to New York in January to run the Orthodox Union.
Unlike Shaarey Zedek in the Valley which split into moderns vs. traditionalists in its rabbi search, Beth Jacob has no controversy raging.
The shul agreed Sunday night on its selection of cantor Nati Baram.
Joe emails:
Dude, the comparison to SZ in the valley is totally unfair. The power at BJ are the older jews who are more modern than the kids, and the kids who flock to BJ are not right wing (at least religiously) types. They are purim jews, not yom kippurim jews. The body politic at Beth Jacob is more split over age issues and who will control the shul, but it is christians and lions, it is run for the older folks, but the younger folks are given lots of running room. It is a happy place cause everyone is rich.
SZ is like rural pennsylvania, they are bitter people and still cling to the mishna berura and their black hats. Like Arabs, they are convinced of their own superiority and obsessed by their eident inferiority (as compared to Beverlywood). So the right wingers are the more passionate and there are more of them – right wingers cannot afford to live in Beverlywood or the Hills, they can afford to live north of Chandler and have the rabbi teach gemara up the yin yang while the moderns at SZ wonder when the right wingers will finally break off.
A better project for you is to research which orthodox shuls are failing. Orthodoxy in a way has a guaranteed success plan, indoctrinate, rinse, repeat. Yet some orthodox shuls simply fail. I understand Reform and Conservative shuls failing, no intelligent person would attend a Conservative or Reform shul – they are not Judaism, they are merely social movements and campaigning to heal the bay is far more entertaining. So which local orthodox shuls are going down the tubes?
AT SZ, there was yet another “new minyan” formed, apparently the followers of Rabbi Edelstein are forming yet another breakaway minyan.
You can visit Marty’s website here and check out his new book here.
We did this interview via email:
What did Dr. Steve Edgell do for you?
In the aftermath of Generation S.L.U.T., I became a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger. I can’t explain all of the causes behind my transformation, but the hate mail I received from a bunch of leftists had a lot to do with it. I had a reaction to their reaction, and I suddenly felt a connection with anyone who hated the people who hated me.
(In retrospect, the combination of rape jokes and anti-feminist rants was astonishingly stupid, but that’s how twenty-year-old boys talk—and I’m not a twenty-year-old boy anymore. I’ll have to live with those words forever, which I’m not thrilled about, so the best I can do is hope that people understand I’ve grown up and mellowed out. I still have a sense of humor, but good lord, I have no idea what I was thinking.)
I started to blindly believe every single GOP talking point, mostly because pissing off liberals made me happy at the time. I freaked a lot of people out—my friends, family and readers—with good reason. I put myself into a conservative echo chamber and kept getting more and more intense. I wasn’t seeing shades of gray; somehow I didn’t realize there are major differences between moderates, liberals, socialists and communists. You were either a conservative or a Red; I was overwhelmed with hatred for anything remotely progressive, and my new right-wing friends were encouraging this, so I kept going further in that direction.
I remember being angry all the time—at feminists, environmentalists, perceived media bias, gay marriage, antiwar protesters, you name it—and those resentments were taking over my life. My writing became increasingly overzealous, and I made a lot of comments that still haunt me. I really lost my mind.
Steve Edgell was a psychologist who contacted me in 2004 after reading S.L.U.T. He seemed curious about my thoughts, and we started a conversation that lasted for the next year, trading e-mails every day, sometimes talking on the phone, sending books to each other. Over those twelve months he talked me back down to earth.
Edgell had been a conservative at my age as well, but became more liberal as he had more life experience. He slowly but surely planted a seed of doubt in my mind. He didn’t make me into a screaming leftist by any stretch of the imagination, but he made me analyze the puritanical attitudes I had adopted, and over time I realized how far I had strayed from reality, and how irrationally angry I had become over nonexistent offenses.
Just as I was starting to moderate in early 2005, Edgell died from a heart attack. I never met him, but I dedicated the book to him because I don’t know if I would have ever come back from that bizarre, fanatical phase without him. I still miss him a lot; in a weird way he understood me better than most of the people I actually “know.” (In the biblical sense, I mean.)
How long you been with your GF?
Long enough for her to sodomize me with a plastic phallus… but it was for the sake of journalism, not personal pleasure. We never tried it again, I swear!
Anything new in your Jewish journey?
The final chapter of Dumbocracy takes me to Jerusalem on a search for God, but I don’t quite find what I’m looking for. I spent a week with the ultra-Orthodox, which almost drove me insane, and honestly I’ve given up for the time being, which doesn’t exactly mean I’m an atheist, but I wouldn’t say I’m religious or spiritual either.
I’ve seen enough weird stuff to convince me that some kind of higher intelligence probably exists, but I just can’t make myself believe that the Great Mystery cares if I turn off a light during the Sabbath. I want to believe, and I can’t logically explain some of the coincidences that have happened to me, but I just can’t muster any enthusiasm for organized religion. Then again, I don’t feel “alone” on the rare occasions when I pray, so I’m going to try to live a decent life, not be as much of a jerk as I used to be, and hope that it’s enough. But I don’t eat pork, if that’s what you’re asking.
What are the biggest differences between Israeli Jews and American Jews?
Israelis have tans, muscles and physical stamina. We have Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
Who are you going to vote for in 2008?
Barack Obama. I used to love McCain—he was the most centrist politician in the country—but he completely sold out to the Religious Right. I would have voted for the McCain of 2000 over the Obama of 2008, but McCain lost me when he started palling around with Falwell, Hagee and his other ex-enemies who despise the separation of church and state, which is this country’s core founding value.
Right-wingers love to accuse liberals of treason, but nothing drives ultra-conservative theocrats insane like free expression and the pursuit of happiness for anyone besides themselves. (There are certainly leftists who feel the same way—free speech for me but not for thee—and it’s equally disgusting; I bash both sides in Dumbocracy for their attacks on the First Amendment.)
Which chapter of this new book are you most proud of and why?
The aforementioned chapter where I look for God; it has an epic quality that’s unlike anything else I’ve written. Also the chapter on gay marriage because there is simply no such thing as too many penis jokes.
What do you like to think about when you masturbate?
The reflection in the mirror. (Runner-up answer: Luke Ford.)
Would you write about islam in same way as xtianity and judaism?
My feeling is that religious moderation is a good thing—people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are wrong to label all believers as zealots—but there are obviously extremists from every faith who want to spread their ideologies through violence, and those extremists are equally worthy of condemnation. Some radical leftists, who (justly) can’t stand Republican anti-secularism, are for some reason unable to criticize brutal theocrats halfway around the world, which is an absurd hypocrisy. Same B.S., different day.
What percentage of americans would not vote for a black for president?
According to the New York Daily News, 6 percent, but Colin Powell or Carol Moseley Braun wouldn’t have the problems that Obama is facing, because it’s not just race that’s hampering him; it’s this perceived foreignness due to his name and globe-trotting childhood, and this perception has fostered a huge nubmer of paranoid conspiracy theories. (By the way, did you hear that Sarah Palin cooks halal mooseburgers for Osama bin Laden? I read it in a forwarded e-mail so it must be true.)
You did not touch race in book? Why?
Oh Luke, you know me… I would never dream of causing any kind of controversy.
Here is Jeff’s new book and here is Jeff’s website.
We did this interview via email:
* What were the biggest obstacles you had to overcome to make this book succeed?
I would say the sheer volume of players involved. I always make it my goal to interview as many participants as humanly possible, but here you were talking about every Dallas Cowboy player from 1989 through 1997; every coach; every administrator; every groupie; every bartender; etc. It was just massive, and while I interviewed enough to write a solid book, there were so many more people I wanted.
* How were the Dallas Cowboys 1992-95 different from other sports champions you’ve covered or read about?
Well, they probably partied harder than any team I’ve ever covered. But what’s truly unique about that is it didn’t seem to impact overall performance. The Cowboys still won three Super Bowls; still produced a slew of Hall of Fame-worthy players; still were beloved by the city. I mean, the ’86 Mets probably had equal talent (relative to baseball), but their dynasty began and end after one year.
* Why is it so heinous to out somebody for possible homosexuality? Why is it that immeasurably worse than outing someone for using hookers, committing adultery, taking illegal drugs, et al?
To be honest, I find the premise of that question pretty offensive—akin to people who compare homosexuality to some sort of disease that needs to be cured. Being gay is not a sin; a lifestyle choice; a crime; a sinister plot against society. It’s a sexual orientation with which you are born; it’s who you are as a person—and American society is still largely unable to accept it. Now, if we lived in a world where being gay was a non-issue, it wouldn’t matter. But it’s such a huge burden for one to carry—especially in sports—that to violate someone’s privacy is evil.
* Do you see any significance in your shot at Bayless for speculating in print about Aikman’s sexual orientation to sell books, and the great offense you took when Emmitt told you to go sell some books?
No. Emmitt was upset because I had the audacity to write about his team. I was upset with Skip because he outed a man, and—adding to it—the man wasn’t even gay.
* What are the qualities that make a sportswriter popular with his peers and the traits that make him unpopular? Are there significant stories not getting told because sportswriters want to stay popular with their peers (fans, subjects)? (Beat reporters rarely seem to break serious stories on their teams, steroid use, rape etc).
Well, we sportswriters can be a pretty petty group, I reckon. I’d say the most liked among us are those who are humble; those who respect other writers; those who aren’t cocky and who are willing to share information. I’d be willing to admit that when I was at Sports Illustrated early on I surely had some unlikeable cockiness to me. Which, in hindsight, is pathetic, because what right does anyone have to be cocky or arrogant over inane bullshit like writing or what magazine you work for? At the end of the day we all poop and die. So why elevate ourselves?
* What was it like for you as a Jew in Dallas Cowboy land?
Being honest, not even a factor. I was a Jew in rural Putnam County, N.Y. as a kid, which was tougher. Still remember kids throwing pennies at my brother and I in elementary school; still have my high school yearbook, which has JEW scribbled all over it. But my time in Dallas is short.
Joan and daughter Melissa last night delivered their by-now-traditional politically-incorrect and often very funny red carpet commentary for the new website MyHollywood.com. AOL who featured the team’s Oscars reviews earlier this year, had a deal to hype and link to the video clips.
But when the AOL suits got a listen to Joan and Melissa’s observations, they said they were offended and refused to link to MyHollywood.com! Watch the clip above. Was it their criticism of Oprah Winfrey? Or Joan’s sighting of a "Third Reich Hair" trend?
Either way, it’s to laugh. AOL is offended? AOL is an owner of the corporate porn-pushing gossip site, TMZ.com, that cesspool of celebutard sleaze that oozes out piles of lowbrow, poorly-written smut like these headlines from today:
AOL banned Joan and Melissa Rivers over a free speech issue?
The Rivers’ commentary sounds to us like traditional Jewish American humour in the spirit of Mel Brooks’ The Producers, Springtime for Hitler, Jackie Mason’s "Nazi bastards"– even Seinfeld’s "Soup Nazi"– Wait a minute! We’re explaining this? Joan Rivers is one of America’s most cherished comedians. Did anyone notice that they showed George Carlin’s picture twice in the Emmys Dead Celebrities section?
Funny that MyHollywood.com is a very friendly femme-based destination for celeb and entertainment news, casual games, fashion and community. Sounds like AOL is jealous of the competition.
It is particularly important when I do my weekly session with Joey Kurtzman Thursday afternoon that I look smart.
We’re going to have a special guest joining us live on my cam — a woman who is as smart as she is beautiful.
“For this commandment . . . is not in heaven, that you should say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us . . . ?’” (Deut. 30:11–12.)
Moses told the Israelites that all the people stood that day before God to enter into the covenant whereby God might establish Israel as God’s people and be their God, as God promised them and as God swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Deut. 29:9–12.) Moses made the covenant both with those who were standing there that day and with those who were not there that day. (Deut. 29:13–14.) Moses reminded the Israelites that they had dwelt in the land of Egypt and had passed through various other nations and had seen the detestable idols of wood, stone, silver, and gold that those other nations kept. (Deut. 29:15–16.) Moses speculated that perchance there were among the Israelites some whose hearts were even then turning away from God to go worship the gods of those nations, who might think themselves immune, thinking that they would be safe though they followed their own willful hearts to the ruin of all. (Deut. 29:17–18.) But God would never forgive them; rather God’s anger would rage against them until every curse recorded in the Torah would come down upon them and God had blotted out their names from under heaven. (Deut. 29:19–20.) And later generations and other nations would ask why God had done that to those people, and they would be told that it was because they forsook the covenant that God made with them and turned to the service of other gods. (Deut. 29:21–25.) So God grew incensed at that land and brought upon it all the curses recorded in the Torah, uprooted them from their soil in anger, and cast them into another land, as would still be the case. (Deut. 29:26–27.) Concealed acts concerned God; but with overt acts, it was for the Israelites ever to apply all the provisions of the Torah. (Deut. 29:28.)
“For this commandment . . . is not . . . beyond the sea, that you should say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us . . . ?’” (Deut. 30:11–13.)
After all these curses had befallen them, if they took them to heart in their exile, and they returned to God, and they heeded God’s commandments with all their hearts and souls, then God would restore their fortunes, take them back in love, and bring them together again from the ends of the world to the land that their fathers possessed, and God would make them more prosperous and numerous than their fathers. (Deut. 30:1–5.) Then God would open their hearts to love God with all their hearts and souls, in order that they might live. (Deut. 30:6.) God would then inflict all those curses on the enemies who persecuted the Israelites, and would bless the Israelites with abounding prosperity, fertility, and productivity. (Deut. 30:7–9.) For God would again delight in their wellbeing, as God had in that of their fathers, since they would be heeding God and keeping the commandments once they had returned to God with all their hearts and souls. (Deut. 30:9–10.)
Moses said that surely, this Instruction which he enjoined upon them was not too baffling, beyond reach, in the heavens, or beyond the sea; rather it was very close to them, in their mouths and hearts. (Deut. 30:11–14.) Moses said that he set before them the choice between life and prosperity on the one hand and death and adversity on the other. (Deut. 30:15.) Moses commanded them to love God, to walk in God’s ways, and to keep God’s commandments, that they might thrive and increase, and that God might bless them in the land. (Deut. 30:16.) But if their hearts turned away and they gave no heed, and were lured into the worship of other gods, Moses warned that they would certainly perish and not long endure in the land. (Deut. 30:17–18.) Moses called heaven and earth to witness that he had put before the Israelites life and death, blessing and curse. (Deut. 30:19.) He exhorted them to choose life by loving God, heeding the commandments, and holding fast to God, so that they might have life and long endure on the land that God swore to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Deut. 30:19–20.)
In Deuteronomy 29:9–10, Moses cast the net broadly to include in the covenant all in the Israelite camp, including “your stranger” and those in the servant classes of “the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water.” In Joshua 9:3–15, the Gibeonites tricked Joshua into believing that they were not among the local inhabitants whom God had instructed the Israelites to eliminate. In recompense, in Joshua 9:21, the Israelite chieftains decreed that they should become “hewers of wood and drawers of water to all the congregation,” and in Joshua 9:27, “Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord.” Even so, 2 Samuel 21:2 reports that later in the time of David, “the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites.”
King David (statue in the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore)
The Gemara deduced from the separate mention of “all the men of Israel,” “your stranger,” and “the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water” in Deuteronomy 29:9–10 that Moses meant to decree that the hewers of wood and the drawers of water (whom the Gemara deduced from Joshua 9:27 were Gibeonites) were to be considered neither Israelites nor converts in that generation. The Gemara further deduced that in Joshua 9:27, Joshua extended that decree of separation for the period during which the Sanctuary existed, and in 2Samuel 21:2, David extended the decree for all generations. (Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 79a.)
The Gemara interpreted the words “not with you alone do I make this covenant” in Deuteronomy 29:13 to teach that Moses adjured the Israelites to agree with the covenant not just as they understood it themselves, but also as Moses understood it, and as God understands it. (Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 25a, Shevuot 29a, 39a.)
In response to a question from Rav Aha son of Rava, Rav Ashi taught that although later converts to Judaism may not have been literally present at Mount Sinai, Deuteronomy 29:13–14 indicated that their angellic advocates were present when it said: “Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath, but with him that stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.” (Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 146a.)
Rab Judah taught in Rab’s name that the words, “that he bless himself in his heart, saying: ‘I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart — that the watered be swept away with the dry’; the Lord will not be willing to pardon him,” in Deuteronomy 29:18–19 apply to one who marries his daughter to an old man, or takes a mature wife for his infant son, or returns a lost article to an idolater. (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 76b.)
Rabbi Akiba (illustration from the 1568 Mantua Haggadah)
Explaining an assertion by Rabbi Jose, Rabbi Johanan deduced from the parallel use of word “covenant” in Deuteronomy 29:24 and Daniel 9:27 that the land sown with “brimstone and salt” foretold in Deuteronomy 29:21–24 was the same seven years of barren soil inflicted by Israel’s enemy in Daniel 9:27. (Babylonian Talmud Yoma 54a.)
Rabbi Akiba interpreted the words “and [He] cast them into another land, as it is this day” in Deuteronomy 29:27 to teach that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel were destined not to return. But Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the allusion to day in Deuteronomy 29:27 differently, teaching that just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so even though it went dark for the Ten Tribes, it will become light for them again. (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:3; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 110b.)
Two Tannaim disputed why dots appear in the Masoretic Text over the words “to us and to our children forever” in Deuteronomy 29:28. Rabbi Judah said that dots appear to teach that God did not punish the Israelite community as a whole for transgressions committed in secret until the Israelites had crossed the Jordan River. Rabbi Nehemiah questioned, however, whether God ever punished the Israelite community for transgressions committed in secret, noting that Deuteronomy 29:28 said, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God . . . forever.” Rabbi Nehemiah taught that God did not punish the Israelite community for secret transgressions at any time, and God did not punish the Israelite community as a whole for open transgressions until they had crossed the Jordan. (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43b.)
Rabbi Simon ben Yohai deduced from the words “the Lord your God will return [with] your captivity” in Deuteronomy 30:3 that the Shechinah went with the Israelites to every place to which they were exiled, and will be with them when they are redeemed in the future. By way of explanation, the Baraita noted that Deuteronomy 30:3 did not say “and [God] shall bring back” but “and [God] shall return,” teaching that God will return with the Israelites from their places of exile. Rabbi Simon concluded that Deuteronomy 30:3 thus showed how beloved the Children of Israel are in God’s sight. (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 29a.)
a carob tree
A Baraita taught that one day, Rabbi Eliezer employed every imaginable argument for the proposition that a particular type of oven was not susceptible to ritual impurity, but the Sages did not accept his arguments. Then Rabbi Eliezer told the Sages, “If the halachah agrees with me, then let this carob tree prove it,” and the carob tree moved 100 cubits (and others say 400 cubits) out of its place. But the Sages said that no proof can be brought from a carob tree. Then Rabbi Eliezer told the Sages, “If the halachah agrees with me, let this stream of water prove it,” and the stream of water flowed backwards. But the Sages said that no proof can be brought from a stream of water. Then Rabbi Eliezer told the Sages, “If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of this house of study prove it,” and the walls leaned over as if to fall. But Rabbi Joshua rebuked the walls, telling them not to interfere with scholars engaged in a halachic dispute. In honor of Rabbi Joshua, the walls did not fall, but in honor of Rabbi Eliezer, the walls did not stand upright, either. Then Rabbi Eliezer told the Sages, “If the halachah agrees with me, let Heaven prove it,” and a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, for in all matters the halachah agrees with him!” But Rabbi Joshua rose and exclaimed in the words of Deuteronomy 30:12: “It is not in heaven.” Rabbi Jeremiah explained that God had given the Torah at Mount Sinai; Jews pay no attention to Heavenly Voices, for God wrote in Exodus 23:2: “After the majority must one incline.” Later, Rabbi Nathan met Elijah and asked him what God did when Rabbi Joshua rose in opposition to the Heavenly Voice. Elijah replied that God laughed with joy, saying, “My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me!” (Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 59b.)
Rav Hisda taught that one should use mnemonic devices to learn the Torah. And the Gemara taught that this agrees with Abdimi bar Hama bar Dosa, who interpreted Deuteronomy 30:12 to mean that if it were “in heaven,” one would have to go up after it, and if it were “beyond the sea,” one would have to go overseas after it. Rather, people can learn the Torah using the tools that they find where they are. Raba (or some say Rabbi Johanan) interpreted “it is not in heaven” to mean that the Torah is not to be found among those who believe that their insight towers as high as the heavens. And Raba interpreted “neither is it beyond the sea” to mean that it is not to be found among those whose self-esteem expands as the sea. Rabbi Johanan (or some say Raba) interpreted “it is not in heaven” to mean that the Torah is not to be found among the arrogant. And Rabbi Johanan interpreted “neither is it beyond the sea” to mean that it is not to be found among traveling merchants and business people. (Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 54b–55a.)
Rabbi Ammi expounded on the words, “For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them [words of the wise] within you; let them be established altogether upon your lips,” in Proverbs 22:18. He explained that the words of the Torah are “pleasant” when one keeps them within oneself, and one does that when the words are “established altogether upon your lips.” Rabbi Isaac said that this may be derived from the words of Deuteronomy 30:14: “But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it,” for “it is very near to you” when it is “in your mouth and in your heart” to do it. Thus, reading the Torah aloud helps one to keep its precepts in one’s heart, and thus to carry them out. (Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 54a.)
detail of fish (wall painting from the Egyptian Tomb of Menna)
Rabbi Haggai taught that not only had God in Deuteronomy 11:26 set two paths before the Israelites, “a blessing and a curse,” but God did not administer justice to them according to the strict letter of the law, but allowed them mercy so that they might (in the words of Deuteronomy 30:19) “choose life.” (Deuteronomy Rabbah 4:3.)
Rab Judah interpreted the words “for that is your life and the length of your days” in Deuteronomy 30:20 to teach that refusing to read when one is given a Torah scroll to read is one of three things that shorten a person’s days and years (along with refusing to say grace when one is given a cup of benediction and assuming airs of authority). (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 55a.)
The Rabbis taught that once the Roman government forbade Jews to study the Torah. Pappus ben Judah found Rabbi Akiba publicly gathering people to study Torah and asked Akiba whether he did not fear the government. Akiba replied with a parable: A fox was once walking alongside of a river, and he saw fish swimming from one place to another. The fox asked the fish from what they fled. The fish replied that they fled from the nets cast by men. The fox invited the fish to come up onto the dry land, so that they could live together as the fox’s ancestors had lived with the fish’s ancestors. The fish replied that for an animal described as the cleverest of animals, the fox was rather foolish. For if the fish were afraid in the element in which they live, how much more would they fear in the element in which they would die. Akiba said that it was the same with Jews. If such was the Jews’ condition when they sat and studied Torah, of which Deuteronomy 30:20 says, “that is your life and the length of your days,” how much worse off would Jews be if they neglected the Torah! (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 61b.)
A Baraita was taught in the Academy of Eliyahu: A certain scholar diligently studied Bible and Mishnah, and greatly served scholars, but nonetheless died young. His wife carried his tefillin to the synagogues and schoolhouses and asked if Deuteronomy 30:20 says, “for that is your life, and the length of your days,” why her husband nonetheless died young. No one could answer her. On one occasion, Eliyahu asked her how he was to her during her days of white garments — the seven days after her menstrual period — and she reported that they ate, drank, and slept together without clothing. Eliyahu explained that God must have slain him because he did not sufficiently respect the separation that Leviticus 18:19 requires. (Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 13a–b.)
According to Maimonides and Sefer ha-Chinuch, there are no commandments in the parshah. (Maimonides. Mishneh Torah. Cairo, Egypt, 1170–1180. Reprinted in Maimonides. The Commandments: Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of Maimonides. Translated by Charles B. Chavel. London: Soncino Press, 1967. ISBN 0-900689-71-4. Sefer HaHinnuch: The Book of [Mitzvah] Education. Translated by Charles Wengrov, 5:430–33. Jerusalem: Feldheim Pub., 1988. ISBN 0-87306-497-6.)
The haftarah for the parshah is Isaiah 61:10–63:9. The haftarah is the seventh and concluding installment in the cycle of seven haftarot of consolation after Tisha B’Av, leading up to Rosh Hashanah.
The prophet rejoiced in God, who had clothed him with salvation, covered him with victory, as a bridegroom dons a priestly diadem, as a bride adorns herself with jewels. (Isaiah 61:10.) For as the earth brings forth vegetation, so God will cause victory and glory to sprout before the nations. (Isaiah 61:11.)
treading grapes (illustration from the 14th Century book Tacuinum Sanitatis)
For Zion’s sake, the prophet would not hold his peace, until Jerusalem’s triumph would burn brightly for the nations to see, and Zion would be called by a new name given by God. (Isaiah 62:1–2.) Zion would be a crown of beauty in God’s hand, and no more would she be called Forsaken or Desolate, but she would be called Delight and Espoused, for God would rejoice over her as a bridegroom over his bride. (Isaiah 62:3–5.)
The prophet set lookouts on Jerusalem’s walls, until God would make Jerusalem a praise in the earth. (Isaiah 62:6–7.) God has sworn no more to give Israel’s corn to her enemies, nor her wine to strangers, but those who harvested shall eat, and those who gathered shall drink, in the courts of God’s sanctuary. (Isaiah 62:8–9.)
The prophet said clear the way, for God proclaimed to Zion that her salvation was coming. (Isaiah 62:10–11.) And they shall call the Israelites the holy people, and Jerusalem shall be called Sought out, not Forsaken. (Isaiah 62:12.)
The prophet asked Who came in crimson garments from Edom, mighty to save, and why God’s apparel was red like one who treaded in the wine vat. (Isaiah 63:1–2.) God said that God had trodden the winepress in anger alone, and trampled in fury, for the day of vengeance was in God’s heart, and God’s year of redemption had come. (Isaiah 63:3–4.) God looked and found none to help to uphold God’s will, so God trod down the peoples in anger, and poured out their blood. (Isaiah 63:5–6.)
The prophet spoke of God’s mercies and praises, of God’s great goodness toward Israel, which God bestowed with compassion. (Isaiah 63:7.) For God said, “Surely, they are My people,” and so God was their Savior. (Isaiah 63:8.) In all their affliction God was afflicted, and God’s angel saved them; in love and pity God redeemed them, and God bore them and carried them all the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9.)
During its first month on the air, Jewcy.com published provocative work by such leading writers as John Derbyshire and Daphne Merkin.
Since then the place has gone to hell.
Today it hit rock bottom with novelist Andrew Foster Altschul’s fantasies about sex with Sarah Palin.
And I thought Marty Beckerman was bad.
