Blasts from the past

The blogging bug hasn't bit me yet today, so I've been browsing some of my old posts. What follows is an index I found during my browsing that was prepared back in February 2006, covering posts from October 2004 through February 5, 2005. The links the posts lead to are ok [*], I guess, and certainly worthwhile reading for anyone new to the blog.

Does anyone know a fast easy way to index the rest of the blog?

[*] By "ok" I mean "awesome."


Funny PicturesSleep? With Yeshiva boys?
Jackhammers
Tutor wanted
Zipper
Dignity!

ParshaSerach bat Asher
Marrying sisters
Small jugs
Timna
The long way around

Jabbing the GOP Jews
Zman Biur Needs Glasses
Charming Wish of the Season
Today's Orwellian Moment
Farah is a fool & Here too
Courtrooms aren't shuls
Fight terrorism
Did you know this?
Hear o Israel: These are your friends?
Pro-Anti-semitism
Bush Betrayal
Christian Betrayal
Cheney at the Death Camp
George W. Clinton

Slaughtering sacred cowsChanuka 1 2 3
Mixed Seating
Modern?
Upshurin/Bonfires

Commenting on the culture (theirs)Madonna 1 2 3
Fox News 1 2 3
Jewish Press: Be Liberal
Readin' Writin' Racism
Springtime for Hitler

Commenting on the culture (ours)Hammering Hasidim 1
When Yeshivas Attack: 1
Kaballah 1
Makilim
Chanuka Presents & Chanuka Menorot
Rubashkan v Peta 1 2
Crap Miracles
Aish's Chanuka Antics
Shabbos Chanukah mysticism
Teaching bigotry
Magic by mail
Window

Taking on Tsunami Theodicy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SlifkinAge of the Universe
Ban
No thinking
Action Alert
Venting
5000 Years old? Not according to Chazal
Feldman's follies
Plaut's follies

Pope-a-Palooza
Stealing Kids
Thanks for nothing
Papal sins

War-on-the-War-on-Christmas-Palooza
Maoz Tzur
Slapping Christians
Prelutsky
Donohue
Novak
Vox Populi

Gaza-Palooza
Notes
Rav Kook

Metziztza Palooza 1 2

Friends and neighbors
Lazer Brody 1 2 3 4 5
Shmuly Boteach 1 2
Not the Godol Hador First contact Again
Bill O Reilly 1 2 3 4
Dennis Prager 1 2: Loves Christmas
Yehupitz 1 2 3/a> 4 5
MoChassid 1 2
Gil Student 1

Arafat Death Watch 1 2 3 4
Media criticism
Blogger criticism
Dishonest Reporting
Beating a dead terrorist

Pounding the President
Charles Johnson: [W is an] ignorant puppet
Menken attacks
A boy and his boat
Which one doesn't belongNever go against the family George
Medals for Morons
Bowing to Satan
Bad to Israel

Election 2004
Rav Elyashiv's endorsement

Wolves: We're not terrorists
Bush Hearts Osama
Disrespecting Clinton
An Election Day prayer
Dirty Tricks
God bless the voters
Happy about the resultsSad about the results
Don't care about the results
Let those people go

Funny posts that don't fit
So you don't have to
Help me grow
Sheik's obit
Ding dull
Links
Thanksgiving
The next Protocols is...
Kosher Matzot

Favorites that don't fit
My first post
Aich omrim "thong" b'ivrit?
What would the Vishnitz Rebba say?
Jewish Blood is not cheap
Put on your yarmulka

Blogging the Book Sale

I really like the SOY book sale. I think it's a metaphor for Modern Orthodoxy at its best: scholarly, traditional, accommodating, inclusive.

At the sale, men and women mix easily, modestly and respectfully. The tables are overladen with books from across the very wide Orthodox spectrum (new age garbage included.) and the shoppers are equally diverse: You'll see very yeshivish looking men lovingly handling the Mishna Berurahs and Shem MeShmuels right alongside people busily browsing the books of Nathan Slifkin and Marc Shapiro.

I made my annual pilgrimage to the event last week. Among the volumes I added to my collection:

Exploring Exodus, by Nachun Sarna
Comment:
I know next to nothing about Sarna, except that Alter quotes him extensivly. I expect this book will provide fodder for at least 3-5 years of DovBear on the Parsha.

Abraham Geiger's Liberal Judaism
Comment:
I think Geiger had a good idea that went bad. I'll be in a better position to support this claim (I hope) after I've finished this book

JEWISH PREACHING, 1200-1800 by Marc Saperstein
Comment:
I'm a sucker for speeches. I have at least three anthologies of famous speeches on my shelf; someday I hope to get around to actually reading them all.

Memories of A Giant: Eulogies in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt"l
Comment:
All of the funeral eulogies, and several dozen remembrances written and spoken by his students are included. As whole, I expect they will form a facinating biography of the man, while also providing details about what it was like to be a Jew in NY at YU in the 40s, 50s and 60s. The eulogy given by his brother Aaron Solivetchik at the funeral is especially interesting. Drawing on the story of Rashby and his son who hid for 7 years in a cave, R' Aharon says that R' Yosef Dov and his father R' Moshe were also hiding in a cave, ie: Yeshiva University. There are at least 6 ways to spin this --some of them negative, some of them positive, and by the time R'Aharon wrapped up he touched on them all --while also managing to criticize (1) YU students and (2) the Rosh Yeshivos of other institutions (after taking care to announce that he didn't intend to criticize anyone.) Reading it, I caught the whiff of bitterness mixed with pride. Bitterness that the larger yeshiva world to an extent had rejected the Rav, and pride that despite the rejection, the Rav had persevered. Fascinating stuff.

Blogging the Book Sale 2005: I II III
Blogging the Book Sale 2006

Oldie: Why does DovBear rant?

An old post of mine, I thought you might enjoy:

Writing about Slifkin and the ban [in early 2005] , I wrote: "..it means that we have lost. It means that a certain old, and very good style of Orthodox Judaism has been murdered; yet another victim of the Eastern European Jewish tsunami."

I wrote these words on Bloghd a moment ago, and it was a sort of revelation. This is why I am so angry. I am furious at the thought that a perfectly legitimate strain of Judaism has been swallowed whole by a younger, and perhaps less-legitimate, strain of Judaism.

This is not the place to attack the authenticity of the style of Judaism practiced by the Eastern-Europeans. Instead, let's say simply that their style of Judaism (and please note I am discussing style, and style only) is very different from the style of Judaism practiced in the West. In fact, I'll even stipulate that both styles are equally authentic, and equally legitimate.

However, I can't pretend that the Western-style is newer, which is one of many lies institutional Orthodoxy asks us to accept.

A raft of examples:

Nusach Ashkenaz isn't modern; it predates Hasidic sefard by at least 500 years. Singing Yigdal on Friday night isn't modern; it was done in Amsterdam as early as the 18th century. [Hey! I knew this in early 2005! I guess I forgot until I saw it again last week!] Blue-shirts and ties aren't modern; until very recently Jews dressed like everyone else. Opposing upshurin or eating g'broks on Passover isn't modern; the customs of upshurin or refusing g'broks didn't even exist until less than 250 years ago. Singing the tefilla isn't modern; as far back as 1623 the Council of the Four Lands inveighed against it. And of course, imagining the universe is very old is not a modern idea. Jewish scholars of stature and rank believed this several hundred years before Darwin.

But the average Haredi man on the street knows none of this, he chooses to remain ignorant of it. His leaders make no effort to educate him, and forbid him to seek education on his own.

This willful ignorance is overtaking us, the lies multiply, and no one gets the joke that what the Haredim call "modern" is, in fact, very old, and some of what the Haredim imagine essential to Judaism is, in fact, very new.

Meanwhile, those of us who know better and refuse to play along with this new Judaism are tarred as "modern" and cast into the street. It's our punishment for insisting on the authenticity and legitimacy of our older traditions.This is what galls most about the Slifkin ban. Our way is the older way, but this counts for nothing among those who tell us that the old way is the best way.

Bush 'happy' for pregnant Mary Cheney

What do y'all make of Mary Cheney's baby? It's a hell of a thing, no? Take for example the recent pronouncment from president Bush. He said, "I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her." And you know what? I believe him. His presidency has been a disaster, or "miserable failure" if you prefer, but his private behavior toward homosexuals has always been one of respect. In public, though, he's an idealogue, who (as noted here by Andrew Sullivan) like other Republican idealouges, wishes to ban all civil recognition of gay couples by amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent any state from even granting civil unions to such couples. The Republican Party has sponsored and campaigned on legal and constitutional bans on civil marriage and civil unions for gay couples in dozens of states for the better part of a decade. This has had a real impact on the lives of millions of gay Americans and their children, and George W. Bush has been complicit in this.

Mary Cheney's pregnancy, then, is like a 50,000-year old rock sitting in the middle of the Ponevitch bes medrash. You have to acknoweldge it, and when you acknowledge it with respect, as Bush has, you're forced to recognize that your received wisdom on the subject of homosexuals might be flawed. Assuming Bush isn't a liar (this time) or a victim of cognitive dissonance, the idea that Mary Cheney, a lesbian, is a "loving soul" has taken root in his mind, and perhaps its forcing him to to reconsider his earlier statments on the subject.

Writing about Mary Cheny, Sullivan said "Usually, the architects of ideology can distance themselves from reality deftly enough to avoid embarrassment" and the same is true of all idealouges. Deep in the bowels of their bes medrash, for example, the men who banned Natan Slifkin can hide from the facts. To date, George Bush has also managed to hide from the facts. Though by all accounts he's a gentleman in private, in public he's never come close to acknowledging that homosexuals are anything but sick, evil heterosexuals who have willingly chosen perversion and sin.

Mary Cheney and her fetus, like the 50,000-year old rock, are forcing the president and idealouges like him to recognize reality, to recognize that homosexuality -though it is certainly forbiden by the Torah- is not a choice, and that homosexuals are not sick and they are not evil. They are simply men and women like you and me who find it impossible to follow one particular Jewish law. Clerics, perhaps, are required to punish them, along with those of you who eat shellfish and cheat at business, and so on, but the United States, thank God, is not in the hands of clerics. It's in the hands of a constitution that promises equal protection under the law while demanding official silence on matters of theology. That promise and that demand are the reason why the United States has proven to be so hospitable to minorities like us. Though our religious law proscribes homosexuality, the religious law of the Romans and the Greeks did not, and it isn't for the president of the United States to decide between them, and we ask him to make those decisions at our own jeapardy.

More blogging takanos

Actually, these were the vert first "blogging takanos" and they were written by Channa, last Friday. When I went back to the comment thread three days later, I didn't see - or remember - her contributions, contributions that include originating the game itself.

Sorry Chana

Found here:

1. Thou shalt not blog about any topic that deals disparagingly with any member of society that dons the black hat

2. Thou shalt not blog about any topic that claims that we the Jews are at odds with the Republican party

3. Thou shalt not blog in order to advocate for free-thinking, open-mindedness, the ability to read books (ye must reinstate Fahrenheit 451)

4. Thou shalt not allow the name of R' Nosson Natan Slifkin to exit thy lips

5. Thou shalt not question (this is policy on a whole. Don't question. Anything.)

6. Thou shalt beg forgiveness from and for the seeking flocks that have come to thy blog and been tempted and misled by thy trickery

7. Thou shalt moderate all thy comments, and delete those that are obscene in nature, or suggest the commentator does not believe in thy God

8. Thou shalt instate the totalitarian and authoritarian regime on thy blog

9. Thou shalt look for guidance when it comes to topics from he the great Blogging Rabbi, who shall determine whether thy topic is or is not appropriate

10. Thou shalt aid in covering up all scandals, defamation and other bad things spread about organizations whose sterling image we wish to support at all times, never mind whether or not it's true

When did the world end?

Still wonderin' said:

The end of jblogging began in summer '05, when DB went away on vacation and handed the keys to his blog to Amshi....he made some rude comment invoking nazis and DB has to come home early and delete the comments.

Oy! Censorship!

Somehow the whole episode left a bad taste in everyone's mouth and thus, the beginning of the end of innocence.

Wah!

Or was it the FIRST time MoC retired...

Or, was it when Slifkin became a non-issue....

Or was it when OM went political...

Or, was it when Amshi abandoned his once brilliant blog....

Or was it when mis-nagid closed his site and some jerk snatched up the name (whatsisname??)....

Or was it when 10,000 idiots descended on The Unorthodox Jew's blog spouting nonsense and bile, and then he was outed by a bunch of low-life thugs purporting to be acting l'sheim shamayim...

Or was it when Airtimedaily stopped writing tittilating stories and got a job and them moved to Israel...

Or was it when Godol Hador started to get self-conscious and stopped writing in particularly insightful yet deliciously blunt manner and then closed his blog...

Or was it when blogging just became so 2005 and all the fun people went on to do....nahhhhhh.

Do not say, "Why is it that the former days were better than these?" For it is not wisdom that causes you to ask about this. --Ecc 7:10

Agudah's bogus war

Well spotted by OrthoMom:

CONVENTION 2006
GET THE ANSWER TO THESE AND OTHER COMPELLING QUESTIONS
...Have bloggers declared open season on Torah Authority?

[an ad for the Aguda Convention from Hamodia]

Let me see if I have this straight. Instead of talking about Kolko, or the Mikva accusations floating around like so much scum on a pond, the august annual Agudas Yisroel assembly is going to dedicate itself to discussing blogs. Smashing news. Our outstanding faith has been hijacked and subverted by fraudulently pious men who wish only to aquire cash and kovod. Our children are ignorant and insecure, and certain that any other expression of Judaism is illigitimate. Our wives have been browbeaten into the kitchen and taught that meaningful employment is "not for them." But, rather then talk about any of this Agudah, the self-proclaimed leader of yahadus, wishes to roast the bloggers for not bowing deeply enough whenever the name of a great Rabbi is mentioned.

I'm sure the monsters and misbehaviors in our community are overjoyed to learn that our self-appointed leaders have once again missed the bus.

On the chance that Avi Shafran is the sort of person who compulsivly Googles his own name let me see if I can capture his attention and set the record straight:

Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran Avi Shafran

The bloggers aren't at war with Torah Authority. In fact, I can't think of a single one who has any real beef with any of the legitimate gedolim. I know I don't.

What I, and so many other bloggers, simply will not tolerate is the fact that superficial stupidities have become the Orthodox Jewish community's dominant concern.

For example: Rather then take action against Lippy Margolis, the man who protected a child molester for 25 years, many medium level leaders and rabbis, including the disgraceful Jewish Press, prefered to make angry noises about the method the bloggers used to finally make the case against Kolko stick. We didn't use proper channels. We didn't respect Lippy Margolis's status and position. We leveled out accusations anonymously. etc. etc. etc.

What sick irony. Because if men like you, Avi Shafran, hadn't been napping, the bloggers wouldn't have had to do your job for you. If you'd concerned yourself with the children, instead of Lippy's honor no one would have ever heard of UOJ.

Update: Readers, rather than declare war on the blogsphere, what other issues do you think should be discussed at the next Aguda Convention? My thoughts:

1 - The practice of expelling students who can' t be made to fit into the ever-shrinking box at most Yeshivot.

2 - The mikva scandal currently bubbeling to the surface of this and other blogs.

3 - The fact that the average Yeshiva graduate can't add, speak English or find a job at a company owned by someone other than one of his relatives.

4 - The shidduch crisis, by which I mean the fact that many wonderful young women wish to marry torah scholars but can't because the torah scholars have been conditioned to believe that only wealthy wives are worth having.

5 - The role of the kanaoim in the ban on Nosson Slifkin. Just how much power do the loud mouthed zalots actually have, and how can this be ameliorated?

6 - The role of kanaus in general. Why are so many thoughtful and practical initiatives abandoned simply because some loud mouth has threatened to paper the streets of Brooklyn, Monsey, Lakewood or Jerusalem with angry denouncments. Who's really pulling the strings?

7 - The Orthodox Jew's animosity toward science and critical thinking. As I've said many times, anything the evidence can't support is, by definiton, foreign to Jewish. Why does institutional Judaism insist on clinging to things that have been roundly defeated by the evidence, and how can this be fixed?

Anything else?

The OU's Jewish Action on The Evolution Debate (and so long)

This month's Jewish Action, an official publication of the OU, features a series of articles on the evolution vs. ID debate, including articles by Gerald Schroeder and Nathan Aviezer. A couple of thoughts:

1. Why now? This was news in December, when the Dover school board decision was handed down. Perhaps its was in response to the Slifkin book? Neither his book nor his name is mentioned in any of the articles. These articles have nothing to do with Slifkin. Maybe it is a response to the Jewish Observer articles discussed here? Again, neither those articles, nor the attack on the OU's sister institution, the RCA, contained in those articles, are addressed.

2. While I would have liked to see the OU stand up for itself against the JO -- after all, the JO articles visciously attacked the RCA and Slifkin, whose book was the subject of a glowing introduction by the OU's leading figure, R' Weinreb -- the contrast with the JO pieces is stark. Not one mean-spirited word, personal attack, or misleading, out of context quote.

3. Why is Slifkin completely ignored? His views on evolution are certainly the most newsworthy. His recent book is probably the most comprehensive statement of all of the different views of the matter, including those of Avioezer's and Schroeder, both of whom he rejects. It would have been nice to see Aviezer or Schroeder respond to Slifkin's critique, or at least address Slifkin's approach. Slifkin is like the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. It would also have been nice to see some dialogue between Aviezer or Schroeder, each of whom take opposite approaches to ID. Yet each of their articles are written in a complete vacuum as if the other didn't exist.

Well, that's it for me for now, DB. Here are the keys. Thanks. It was fun while it lasted. And the dent on the fender wasn't my fault.

Was it the Chicken?

Recent examples of Monsey insanity:

*Slifkin (according to GH, the idea to ban Slifkin originated in Monsey and was honchoed by Monsey zealots)

* Metzizha b'Peh (It was a Monsey mohel who [allegedly] infected the infants with Hepititis herpes [corrected 9/14], and it was Monsey zealots who portrayed the reasonable efforts of reasonable people to regulate the practice as an attempt by evil self-hating Jews to destroy the institution of mila.)

* TendlerThe disgraced Rabbi is a resident.

* Karben The disgraced Assemblyman is a resident.

* Naturai Karta(The home base of the American branch is in Monsey. The disgraceful fellow who made a visit to Yasser Arafat's hospital room is a resident.)

* The Talking Fish (Techincally, this particular chillul hashem belongs to New Square, but New Sqaure is adjacent to Monsey, and the true believers of Monsey lapped the story up with a spoon)

Maybe there really is something to the idea that traif food is "m'tum'tum halev."

Yated Part 2

By kylopod

I see that Krum has posted about Yated Ne'eman's biases. I don't know if I've ever heard a bigger understatement. Yated Ne'eman doesn't just slant. It lies.

This became abundantly clear to me a few years ago when the paper did an article on Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein. Rabbi Eckstein is controversial because of his attempts to build bridges between Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians. The Atlanta Jewish Times did a good profile of him in this article.

One day, Yated attacked Rabbi Eckstein. That in itself did not surprise me. It was the manner of the attack that caught my attention. According to Yated, Rabbi Eckstein had recently converted to Messianic Judaism:

"In ads and books, [Eckstein's organization] has made numerous alarming remarks over the years, including Eckstein's declaration in one of his books that he had become a Jew for J. Eckstein has denied that he is a Jew for J."

Now, that's a pretty serious charge. But what was particularly confusing is that the two above sentences border on contradicting each other. One sentence says that R. Eckstein announced in a book that he'd become a Jew for Jesus, the next sentence claims that he has denied the charges. The conflation of the two sentences makes the paragraph come off rather like a Wikipedia article.

But this is one of the strange things I've noticed about Yated. It's not just that the paper lies. The paper lies, but unconvincingly. Even if I'd known nothing about R. Eckstein, I still would have been scratching my head after reading this article.

So, what is the truth of the matter? In 2001, R. Eckstein released a novel called The Journey Home. In that novel, a fictional version of R. Eckstein travels with a fictional version of a real-life Christian friend of his in the Holy Land. At one point, the rabbi says, "While I still don't believe in Jesus as the Christ as Jamie does, and view him instead as a Jew who brought salvation to the gentiles, in some respects, that is exactly what I have become--a Jew for Jesus."

Now, I can understand why some Orthodox Jews were alarmed by this statement. But that doesn't give anyone the right to lie about R. Eckstein. If Yated had clarified that this was a fictional story, and that even the fictional version of Eckstein was not embracing Messianic Judaism, the attack on Eckstein would have been more credible.

Of course, the article does quote someone defending R. Eckstein by pointing out that the claim against him was based on "words taken out of context from a story that was totally fictitious." But the article never explains what this remark means. It leaves readers with the impression that the rabbi really did become a Messianic Jew. Who cares if he claims that his comment was taken out of context? That's what they all say!

A couple of months ago, Rabbi Harry Maryles wrote on his blog about an article in Yated written by Dr. David Berger against Lubavitch. I objected to Harry's source, both because Dr. Berger is a known anti-Chabad zealot and because Yated is not a reliable source. Harry agreed with me, admitting that Yated was biased and even dishonest. But he insisted that they lie not overtly but "by omission." I remembered that Harry had on another occasion mentioned being friends with Rabbi Eckstein. Knowing this, I showed him the Yated article on Eckstein. This was Harry's response:

OK. I admit this stretches the outer reaches of truth, but although they are obviously wrong, I do not think they think they were deliberately lying. They were presenting the views of their misinformed Gedolim as fact. This is not the same as a deliberate lie.

I find the above statement disturbing to the max. So it's supposed to be better if Gedolim came up with the false information rather than the paper itself? And where did the Gedolim get the false information? At some point, somebody had to be lying--either that, or they were so careless they literally didn't care whether what they were writing was true or not. The article didn't just print a false rumor. It printed the rumor, but also printed the fact that R. Eckstein disputed the charges, and it vaguely hinted as to why the charges were disputed. But it still stated the false claim as fact.

Harry asked Dr. Berger, who is Modern Orthodox, why he had chosen to print his article in Yated. Dr. Berger contributed a lengthy explanation. He said that he was actually impressed by Yated's standards, because the editor censored a few sentences from his article. In Dr. Berger's words,

I argued that this additional information is critically important, but the editor felt that it was not important enough to overcome the larger editorial policy. I did not draw a line in the sand and allowed the deletion. While I think the editor's decision was mistaken, I admire the commitment to avoiding what he sees as unseemly content, a commitment that overrode any desire to add additional unfavorable information about Lubavitch. I ask myself if I can think of any other forum that would be so fastidious, and I come up empty.

Sarcastically, I replied, "Yeah, they think it's unseemly to mention Jesus by name, but they don't have a problem with falsely accusing someone of worshipping him."

Anyone familiar with Yated knows that distortions of this magnitude are hardly uncommon. The article on R. Eckstein appeared at least a year before the Slifkin controversy erupted, with all the lies and false rumors that went along with that account. Yated is essentially a mouthpiece for the forces responsible for the Slifkin fiasco.

Not too long ago, an article in the Baltimore Jewish News (the Orthodox spinoff of the Baltimore Jewish Times) talked about how Orthodox families in Baltimore handled exposure to secular media. A couple of the families interviewed were uncomfortable getting newspapers like The Baltimore Sun and The New York Times because of their perceived liberal and/or anti-Israel slant. One family preferred The Wall Street Journal, while another preferred, er, Yated Ne'eman.

There's nothing wrong with getting your news from the WSJ, because that publication, like The New York Times, is a legitimate newspaper, ideological slant or no. Sure, they may have occasional lapses from their fairly high standards, but at least they have standards. To prefer Yated, on the other hand, is laughable. Yated isn't a real newspaper; it's a frum tabloid rag. It's amazing to me that the same people who accuse others of being brainwashed are the most eager to brainwash themselves.

Herd Slifkin Speak (get it? HEARD! hahaha)

by Cousin Oliver

Recently I attended two of Rabbi Natan Slifkins lectures.

The first one I heard was "The Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought". It was a lecture about the relationship Jews should have with animals. The lectures are to help promote books and the book corresponding to this lecture is "Man and Beast" which he was pimping nicely. Rabbi Slifkin mentioned a few animals in tanach. He explained that the reason the Tzvi is commonly translated to deer is because in Europe, where most translations and explanations occurred, the closest thing resembling the description of a Tzvi was a deer. A Tzvi actually is a gazelle. He continued with the differentiation of man and animal and the approach that Jews should take to animals. Rabbi Slifkin explained about how some organizations and activists feel that animals are equal to humans and how completely incorrect this is. Other ideas touched on were eating animals, hunting animals, wearing animals, medical research, etc. Rabbi Slifkin said that in regard to harming animals for human benefit, the benefit should outweigh the pain. For example: If hurting a monkey might find a cure for cancer, then we are saddened to pain the monkey but understand that result could be much more beneficial to the world. The major point of the lecture was that animals have their place in this world (food, for example). They should be respected for what they are. Above all else: The distinction of Jewish attitude towards animals. Instead of being kind to animals for the sake of the animal, Jews should be kind to animals because we are kind people within ourselves.

The second lecture was entitled "The Terror of Dinosaurs". It was a lecture that mirrored his book, "The Challenge of Creation". He started off by passing around pieces of dinosaur history millions of years old. Passed to me was an old egg shell. It was a very old egg shell (millions of years old). The point of the display was to show that dinosaurs existed. Once he showed they existed, he needed to explain two big problems: 1- Science tells us that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago while the Torah says the Earth was created only 5,767 years ago. 2- Dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Torah, what gives? In order to prove that the earth is billions of year's old, dinosaurs are millions of years old, he first addressed the apparent contradiction with the Torahs 5,767 years of Earth. To do this, he took each common answer that tries to make Torah and Science mesh and explains why it is not a satisfactory answer. I got to see an entire room of people watch the six days of creation get thrown way up in the air and blown away with a bazooka. The world, our world, is billions of year's old- end of story. The dinosaurs aren't included in the Torah because there is no reason to include them. We can learn things about their existence but they have no relevance in the torah. The big point of this lecture was that: The Torah is not a book of history or science. It is a book of Theology.

I know I am being vague and I am reluctant to say any more because I think people should throw a buck his way to get his book or get him to lecture.

My overall thoughts on the lectures: They were spiced well with humor. His progression of topics and outline was good. His accent seems to be bastardized British. The material is needed to be said and spread. As a speaker: a 6 or 7 of 10. I was very pleased with the lectures. They were well thought out and enjoyable. I would recommend him to a friend.


[Related]

Houskeeping

All sorts of delicious DovBear has recently been added to the sidebar We (by which I mean me) think it's exactly the sort of creamy, macaroni and cheese like material you'll find at once comforting and familair. For your convinience, I've put it in the body of this post, as well. Please feel free to click generously.

If there's a post from the past you'd like to see added to this list, by all means tell me. And, if you have a comment about any of what you find below, please put it on this post's thread.

Thanks.

Who is DovBear?
Why blogging matters
The Bronze Medal Post (2005 JIBs)
Posts that might have won I II III IV

DovBear On:
The Parsha
The Pope
The Idiot President
Theodicy
The War on Christmas(TM)
Cross Currents
Rambam
Slifkin
Katrina
GOP Jews
Other stuff

Why we ALL detest Cross-Currents No 1054

by XGH

It’s quite amazing. Even though we here often have our own (sometimes quite angry) debates, there is one thing that unites us all: We all absolutely detest Cross-Currents. Even Chardal (at least in my metaphysical reality). CC is uniformly smug, condescending, spiteful, sarcastic, narrow minded and generally paints an awful picture of Orthodoxy. This is doubly ironic, since the entire raison d’etre of Cross Currents is to try and present a broad minded, sensitive face to the outside world. In their own words:

“Through reading Cross-Currents, we hope that you will become aware of diverse views representing a traditional Jewish perspective”

Diverse views? What, you mean from Centrist Chareidi to LW Chareidi? They go on to write:

“Any impressions you may have had of the Orthodox as being monolithic or humorless should rapidly be dispelled”

Yeah, with all those snarky, sarcastic comments in every CC post, they’re certainly not humorless. Snarky? Yes. Sarcastic? Yes. But humorless, I guess not.

The latest hysterical outburst comes from Avi Shafran, on the subject of KOE appointing a woman leader. Even though we have already had a sarcastic, snarky Menken article on this very subject, apparently the non-humorless folks at CC are still seething with frustration at this. The latest post writes the following:

“Whether Conservative, “halachic” or “post-denominational” (we Orthodox, one imagines, must be “pre-denominational”), KOE’s practices, halachically defensible or not, are of negligible concern to either the haredi or centrist segments of the Orthodox world – which comprise the vast majority of Orthodox Jews. “

Really? I assume that by ‘Centrist’ the author means ‘Modern Orthodox’. (Is there some reason the author couldn’t write Modern Orthodox? Very strange.) But why is a Hareidi site claiming that KOE and women’s roles therein are of negligible concern? On the contrary, the moves at the far left of MO are of extreme concern to the RW MO, and are of extreme interest in Centrist MO, hence all the hysterical articles on the subject, with the RW desperately claiming that there’s nothing here folks, move along, move along, with the opposite side saying this is the start of something big. The more they protest that there’s nothing doing here, the more it makes me think that there is very definitely something doing here.

Clearly, there is nothing black or white about appointing a woman in a leadership role, even in a shul. There's no clear Halachah against it, it's a matter of social policy. And it's always these kind of issues which get the RW so worked up, because all they can do is scream hysterically 'You're a kofer, you're not Orthodox, you're Conservative!' (Kinda like the way I scream at DovBear sometimes).

Some people accuse me of hypocricy. They say my old blog, and this blog too, are constantly snarky and sarcastic. That’s maybe true, but then we’re not claiming to be Rabbis trying to present Orthodoxy to the outside world in the best light possible. Most of the CC posters seem to be fairly decent well respected people in real life, (most but not all), however when they get on CC they just get nasty. I think there must be something about blogging, it turns even the nicest people into obnoxious jerks. (Yes, me too).

Ironically, reading Cross-Currents just makes ME want to shout out 'I'm not Orthodox, and nor do I want to be!'. Yuch.

I think we need a new Cross-Currents. One that IS actually broad minded, one that DOES actually paint a good picture of Orthodoxy, and one that isn't staffed by a bunch of obnoxious jerks (when blogging) continually denigrating every branch of Judaism which isn't exactly like their own.

DB's two cents:
Along with showing the world how easy-going and mirthful the Orthodox are, Yakov Mencken says that Cross Currents was created to answer to the anti-Heredi media. If that's so, he's failing miserably. I mean, how does going out of your way to bash modern and irreligious Jews improve the public image of Judaism? How does giving Toby Katz a platform where she can blame every evil in the whole wide world on secular Jews helps to innoculate us from media critiscm? Creating a blog that echoes and imitates everything that thinking people hate about conservative talk radio is suppose to rehabilitate our public image? Please

Anyway, I think Yaakov must inhabit an alternate universe. I read the papers, and watch the news, and by my lights the haredim are treated with kid gloves for fear of offending. Where are haredim bashed? He's being needlessly paranoid.

The terribly sad thing about the Cross Currents expreiment is that it could have been a good and useful site, had it lived up to its stated ideals. Unfortunatly, many of the posters are too cowardly to tackle legitimate issues (remember the deplorable way they handled Slifkin and the Boro Park riots?) and by giving voice to both Toby Katz and his own worst demons, Yaakov Mencken has created something that, unfortunately, justifies anti-Orthodox bigotry, rather than combating it.

[Hey DB, I can't guest blog if you're gonna modify my posts!]
[Sorry, but the post was titled why we ALL hate Cross Currents, so I thought I'd pile on. Perhaps Akiva, or MoChassid, or maybe Krum, would like to add their 2 cents, too?]

How deep is your faith?

How deep is your faith
How deep is your faith
I really need to learn
Cause we're living in a world of fools
Breaking us down
When they all should let us be


I saw Munich last night. The movie confirmed everything I have been saying for years. You kill them, they kill us, and round and round it goes. You get rid of Black September, they are replaced by Hamas. Get rid of Hamas, you get Hizbollah. And round and round it goes. You bomb and kill 1,000 people in Lebanon, and that’s 5,000 orphans who will be suicide bombers in 2020.

I was learning in Israel when the first intifada started. I remember saying to my roommate that all we were achieving by killing the terrorists was that their children would grow up to be even worse terrorists. Where are the stone throwers from 1987? Probably not throwing stones anymore. But their children, or their orphans are the ones throwing the stones now. Or more likely firing Kassams.

We are shocked when this round of terrorists try and blow up a few large planes. Just wait, the next round will try and blow up a few large cities. You can’t win. Golda Meir’s plan was to kill the terrorists to teach them a lesson. Nowadays they blow themselves up willingly, to teach us a lesson. In fact, it's much worse now than it ever was. In the 70's Black September and the PLO were mostly secular, fighting for their land. Now the terrorists have found Faith, which makes them far more dangerous. There's nothing more evil than (misplaced) religious faith, since you can't even reason with such a thing.

Some might say, well, you have to trust in God, this land is our land. What, the same God that allowed the Holocaust? That one? And that’s if He exists, which no one can even say with any certainty.

And this is not even a skeptical position. Go the ‘frummest of the frum’, the Satmar, and they will tell you that we have no right to be in Israel until Moshiach comes. So Hirhurim has 20 posts full of pilpulim showing why Satmar are wrong. So what? Hirhurim could write 20 posts full of pilpulim showing what day Adam Horishon was born on. Nobody knows anything about God, and nobody knows if their religion is true. Anybody who says otherwise is confused or worse.

In the comment thread on this post, I argued with Chardal for 400+ comments. Chardal claims there are other ways of knowing things beside evidence and reason. That may be, but since evidence and reason are the only way we can verify what’s true or not, we can never know if he is right, can we? His faith might tell him that the Jewish God exists, but that’s no more credible than Nasrallah’s faith that Allah exists, and that we are all scum who deserve to die.

It's nice to have faith, it may even be neccessary, but don't go confusing faith for knowledge. And there's not a single fundamental religion which doesn't require huge doses of faith, ours included. Some people seem to think you can't prove God, but you can prove Torah Min Hashamayim. Of course that makes no sense at all. You can't prove either, nor does reason 'lead you to conclude' either, not by a long shot.

Deganev commented regarding faith, ‘You don't know, you assume, you have faith, you believe it to be true.’ Exactly right. You DON’T know. And when you don’t know, you better be damn careful what you do.

And it’s not just the Gedolim who don’t know, it’s everyone in every fundamentalist religion. And that includes Orthodoxy. It even includes Modern Orthodoxy. It even includes Left Wing Eidah loving Chovevei Torah Cardinal Meeting Women’s Hakafot Dancing Modern Orthodoxy. It even includes UTJ for goodness sake.

So what should we do? I don’t know, but if your basing your actions on unproven faith, you better be careful.

And probably humble too.

The Slifkin Effect (Part II)

By KRUM

Unfortunately, the previous installment of this post degenerated into an endless debate between GH, Daganev, lakewood yid, Chardal, retreading ground well covered in GH's blog. All of which having little to do with the post itself. Yet, I will soldier on.

The last of R' Keller's of the articles, called "The Attempted Synthesis of Torah and Evolution," is one the of the most mean-spirited pieces of writing from a Charedi that I've seen since, um, that nasty Yated piece a couple of weeks ago about YCT. And it follows along with the whole pattern of Charedi behavior with respect to the Slifkin ban -- ad hominem attacks, misrepresentations and playing fast and loose with language (e.g., calling an opinion "R' Avraham's ben HaRambam's position" when it was also held by the Geonim and the Rambam himself).

The key question facing those attempting to reconcile Torah and science is the propriety of a non-literal reading of Genesis. Many rishonim, most famously the Rambam and R' Saadiah Gaon, held that, within certain parameters, a non-literal interpretation of Torah is ok when a literal reading conflicts with reason. However, R' Keller's previous article assumed that the literal text of the Torah was itself a prove against evolution, making the Charedi position entirely circular: evolution is wrong because the Torah says so. But how do we know that the Torah says so? The second article doesn't do anything to shed light on this question. Instead it engages in name calling, ad hominem attacks and mischaracterization. In fact, the linchpin of the essay -- the RCA's recent statement on the permissibility of harmonizing evolution with Torah -- is truncated by R' Keller mid-sentence thereby omitting a reference to the just-described opinion of the Rambam on harmonizing Torah and reason. Also omitted from R' Keller's quotation of the RCA's statement is the citations to the views of R' Hirsch and R' Kook, allowing him to focus on the easier target cited in the statement -- R' Joseph Hertz, whose is treated with nothing more than sarcasm and disrespect. The article pokes fun at his rationalistic intepretation of miracles while ignoring the fact that such an approach is supported by such greats as the Rambam. Particularly amusing is his crticism of R' Hertz allegorization of "dust of the ground" from which God created Man. R' Keller claims that this is contrary to the Midrash that the dust was taken from "every part of the habitable earth." Of course the Midrash does not say that --it says that the dust was taken from the "four corners of the Earth" -- a phrase which is, of course, taken figuratively -- precisely what R' Hertz is criticized for doing with the pasuk itself. Another easy target, Shadal, is inexplicably dismissed as a Maskil, despite the fact that he lived in Italy, far from the Haskalah movement, and despite the fact that his views varied greatly from the views of the Maskilim.

There is also a veiled reference to Slifkin, referred to as "one of this school" who "has 'allegorized' Maasei Bereishis and written Ein Mukdam uneuchar baTorah - that the account of Creation in the the Torah is not in chronological order." No attempt is made at addressing Slifkin's arguments (supported by the Ralbag, the Rambam and R' Dessler), just a sarcastic dismissal: "This is absurd...It was only in God's mind!"

R' Keller also asserts that the RCA reference to the Rambam's statement that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" as supporting a non-literal reading of the biblical account of creation as "completely out of context." While R' Keller doesn't explain what the Rambam means by that statement, he ignores even clearer statements of the Rambam to the same effect:

Therefore the Almighty commenced Holy Writ with the description of the Creation, that is, with Physical Science; the subject being on the one hand most weighty and important, and on the other hand our means of fully comprehending those great problems being limited. He described those profound truths, which His Divine Wisdom found it necessary to communicate to us, in allegorical, figurative, and metaphorical language. Our Sages have said (Yemen Midrash on Gen. i. 1), "It is impossible to give a full account of the Creation to man. Therefore Scripture simply tells us, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). ... It has been treated in metaphors in order that the uneducated may comprehend it according to the measure of their faculties and the feebleness of their apprehension, while educated persons may take it in a different sense.

While scholars up until today debate the Rambam's precise view on the interpretation of the first chapters of Bereishis, to say that he was a literalist is completley false. In fact, R' Keller's seems to acknowledge as much, stating that according to the Rambam the Creation account "was in logical order," not chronological (a position consistent with R' Slifkin's in The Challenge of Creation).

The most odious element of the article is its distortion of the intentions of those who seek a synthesis between Torah and evolution. For example, the RCA statement is characterized as "giving the...impression that the official Orthodox position is against intelligent design, and for the teaching of designerless evolution...". The statement does no such thing -- all it does is say that "evolutionary theory, properly understood," as well as a literal reading of Genesis, is a view supported in Jewish sources. Unfortunately, the Charedi world simply can't fathom the pluralism being expressed by the RCA and mistakes openness to evolution as advocacy of it.

Another example of this is R' Keller take on the RCA's reference to the traditional approach to Genesis as the "literalist position." R' Keller claims "many" use this phrase "most probably because they wish to distance themselved from the Conservative Christian Right who have been actively prmoting Intelligent Design. They are obviously more afraid of Biblical Literalism than they are of indirectly supporting the teaching of G-dless evolutionary theory. What they call literalism, we prefer to refer as peshuto shel mikra -the simple, undistorted understanding of Torah according to our mesora."

This statement is so confused that I don't know where to begin. The "literalist position" supports Intelligent Design? ID proponents do not read Geneisis literally. They accept the evidence of an old earth and the descent of species, they just hold that God was actively involved in the process. How is this consistent with a literalist position? And who is this unnamed "they" that are "more afraid of Biblical Literalism than they are of indirectly supporting the teraching og G-dless evolutionalry theory"? The RCA?

The worst example is the comparison of those who accept the evidence of an old univers to Holocaust deniers. I kid you not:

Unfortunately, we now have Jews questioining the age of the earth. But that does not change the fact that until the recent past, this was a universally accepted fact and this is out mesora. Tha universally accepted historical facts can be doubnted, we see illustrated in our time, when there are those who deny the Holocausett while people are still walking around with serial numbers on their arms.

There are no words.

It is not surprising that he would resort to such rhetoric when it comes to the age of the universe because, unlike evolution, the evidence for a very, very old world is overwhelming. When logic, fails, go for the gut, I guess. Lots of Jewish guilt, question marks and exclamtion points!:

Have the would-be synthesizers of Torah and science created a new "Tradition" that leaves the Chofetz Chaim, the Vilna Gaon, the Rishonim, the Gaonim and the Tanaaim and Amoraim outside the true tradition? Did they all not understand the Torah? Chas veshalom! And for what reason? Because scientists have come up with an unproven theory with many holes in it, based on chance, and their rejection of a Creator, are we now obligated to explain that theory without own theistic twist? Ands how will this help us? We still won't be accepted by the evolutionists, who refuse to listen to anything of the sort. If we believe in Hashem the Creator, why can't we believe that He created the world as the Torah and Chazal tell us: with Asara Maamaros --Ten expressions of His will? Did He have to take billions of years and have the intended final purpose of Creation -- Man -- emerge from an ape? What was wrong with what we have believed in for thousands of years: that Adam was yetzir kapov shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu -- the Handwork of the Holy One Blessed be He?"

There is really nothing to argue about, I guess. The mentality expressed in this passage is so committed to the nostalgia of ancient beliefs that arguments from science are simply irrelevant. There is such an investment in the abosulte pristine superhuman greatness of the "Choifetz Chaim, the Vilna Gaon, the Rishonim, the Gaonim and the Tanaaim and Amoraim" that any suggestion that they were wrong on scientific matters cannot be entertained.

This is why there can be no reasonable dialogue between this mindset and the approach represented by Slifkin and the RCA statement. It's really an old debate. Those that adopt the rationalist view of the Rambam and Saadiah hold that, with notable exceptions, Torah has to be made consistent with reason. To them, all of the citations to the "Chofetz Chaim, the Vilan Gaon, the Rishonim, the Gaonim and the Tanaaim and Amoraim" are irrelevant. Of course they thought the world was created in 5766 years. They simply didn't know what we know. Now that the evidence for an old world, or for evolution of species is clear, we must reinterpret accordingly. Such an approach to reason simply cannot be tolerated in the Charedi mindset embodied by the article and has a long pedigree of its own. The opinions handed down as part of the "mesora" trump reason. This is why one of Slifkin's greatest heresies was his position on Chazal's fallibility on scientific matters because it represents to elevation of reason over the mesora.

This is the crux of the debate. And it is ironic that in the pages and pages the JO devoted to the issue, this goes unmentioned.

The Slifkin Effect (Part I)

Anyone looking for proof of the devestating effects the Slifkin ban has had on Orthodox Judaism need look no further than the JO's recent articles on the evolution vs. creation debate. I know that the articles -- three by R' Keller, on by Chaim Presby, a scientist, and one by Yonason Rosenblum -- have been out for a couple of months, but not having seen a comprehensive treatment online, I thought I would pipe in with my thoughts. What the articles show is that any glimmer of hope that some saw based on articles in the Observer in recent months was nothing short of an illusion. The sum total of the articles leave no room for any flexibility to accept scientific findings with respect to evolution or age of the universe. The articles also show that most creationist Charedim best stay far, far away from talking science, because they look downright foolish when they do.

The series of R' Keller articles begins inexplicably with an attack on the recent decision of the court in the Dover case rejecting a curiculum that included statements supporting Intelligent Design. I say inexplciacable because the essays that follow suggests that he should have no dog in that fight. This is because, as mentioed above, R' Keller leaves no room for a Jew to believe in Intelligent Design or any theory inconsisent with a creation occurring 5766 years ago as literally described in Genesis 1 and 2.

The second essay gets into trouble right away. R' Kellers ignorance of the basics of Darwinism is immediately apparent:

According to [Darwin's] theory, organisms evolved over millions of years by minute random mutations which gave them a survival edge over the less fit. Eventualy, claimed Darwin, these mutations actually changed one species into another that would supposedly be even fitter.

Not quite. Darwin wouldn't know what a "mutation" is. The idea of mutations was first developed in the 20th century. In fact, the key problem with Darwin's theory was the absence of any explanation for what caused the variations that drove natural selection. It was only with the develpment of genetic biology, which taught us about genetic mutations, thatsuch an explanation appeared. Which takes me to his next error:

The strict Darwinian theory of minute mutations over long periods of time proved untenable for many evolutionists and was replaced by what is called Neo-Darwinism - the same idea that new species evolved randomly by chance mutation, but by macro-mutations - suddenly. Or in much chorter periods of time.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. Neo-Darwinism is a reaction to those who criticized Darwinian theory for lacking a sufficient mechanism to account for change in species. Drawing on modern genetics, Neo-Darwinism reasserts the idea that minute genetic mutations over long periods of time sufficiently explains evolution.

Of course, putting aside R' Keller's errors, the tactic of pointing to changes in evolutionary theory, evidentiary gaps, or controversies within the field is typical of those seeking to shed doubt on the validity of the theory in toto. But just because we may argue about whether the killer used a knife or a gun doesn't mean the murder never happened. In a hilarious example of this type of reasoning, R' Keller points to a quote by Darwinist Richard Dawkins regarding the paucity in the fossil records prior to the "Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years" as "favor[ing] creationism." You win, R' Keller. This proves that the world is a mere 600 million years young, only 599,994,234 years more than the age of the earth as per a literal interpretation of Bereishis. That's nothing. That's practically the same amount of time it takes me to get the attention of the help at Toddys.

The other arguments are just as disingenuous. R' Keller asks why we haven't "seen any significant mutations of new organs or limbs or new species in recorded history". This from a school of thought that throws around "nishtaneh hatevah" to explain all sorts of puzzling scientific pronouncements of Chazal.

R' Keller finally plays his trump card in the final section of the essay, called "We Have Greater Proofs":

Our knowledge of a Creator is not only from evidence, empirical or other, or philosophical proofs; it is from direct testimony by reliable witnesses and a direct communication from the Creator Himself.

Although the nature of this "direct communication" from God is never is never identified, it raises the question of why was all of the argumentation necessary? If there is "direct testimony by reliable witnesses" and a statement by God why bother with the lame excercise at poking fun at science?

Daas Torah

Hihruim, one of our more subversive bloggers, has brought to light the most famous daas torah mistake of all time:

...the doyen of current rashei yeshiva, R. Schach, proves the value of Torah as the self-sufficient repository of all knowledge by asking, rhetorically: "Whence did Hazal know that the earth was forty-two times larger than the moon, and that the sun was approximately one-hundred-and-seventy times larger than the earth if not from the power of the Torah.

This is, to be blunt, a schoolboy howler: the Moon has approximately 1/4 Earth's diameter, 1/50 Earth's volume, and 1/80 Earth's mass, while the Sun is 109 times greater in width; 1,300,00 times greater in volume; and 330,000 times greater in mass. Yet, this is Rav Shach's idea of a slam dunk proof that daas torah is real?

As Rav Lichtenstein concludes

In raising this question, [Rav Shach] is wholly oblivious not only of the rudiments of astronomy but also of the fact that the selfsame Rambam explicitly states, with respect to these very issues, that they are beyond the pale of Hazal's authority:

Do not ask of me to show that everything they have said concerning astronomical matters conforms to the way things really are. For at that time mathermatics were imperfect. They did not speak about this as transmitters of dicta of the prophets, but rather because in those times they were men of knowledge in these fields or because they had heard these dicta from the men of knowledge who lived in those times

I understand why the idea that all secrets might be contained in the Torah is facinating to small minds, but can the large minds please finally give it a rest?

Over the last 1000 years the gedolim have been wrong about countless issues of great importance. A small sampling:

1. The Rambam. In our day we pretend that the Rambam's ideas were always accepted and to oppose him is to commit heresy, but Marc Shapiro has neatly exploded that idea. We now know that almost every single one of the Rambam's precious ikkarim was ignored or discounted by someone great. So who were the heretics? The Rambam or the people who opposed him? And where was the daas torah of the Sages who permitted his books to be burned?

2. Mussar. Rabbi Salanter was the Nosson Slifkin of his day, opposed and condemed by many of his generation's leading lights. But, in the end, he won. Who had the daas torah? Him or his enemies?

3. The holocaust The official daas torah of the 1930s was the Europe was safer than America. Good thing this was mostly ignored. Had our ancestors paid attention, most of us would never have been born.

[more here]

Anthology Alert

How did Cross Currents respond to the Slifkin affair, and how did DovBear react? Now playing on Cross at Cross Currents.

1 Kings 19:10

"Gedolim that Time Forgot," a new series running over at my friend GH, is off to a good start, and I look forward to seeing how it develops. I was especially pleased to see that GH included Hasdai Crescas, the Aragonese philosopher who argued in Or Hashem, pace the Rambam, that our free will is quite limited. (Those of you following my ongoing debate with GH about the role of the soul, may understand how Crescas bolsters my position.)

My only problem with "Gedolim that Time Forgot" is that the premise might be too narrow.

As I understand it, GH is attempting to show that current Haredi thinking on science and history is not perfectly in line with the opinions of Jewish thinkers of the past. (Samson Rephael Hirsh's acceptance of evolution is one example)

But what about current Haredi thinking on ethics and social justice? Sure it's a scandal, if Moishe Chaim Pupchik thinks that the 5000-year-old universe is essential to Judaism, but isn't it also a scandal if he thinks Judaism has nothing to say about how we treat each other?

Let me put it this way: what was it about the Slifkin affair that destroyed our confidence in the Haredim? Was it their ignorance of science, or their blind reliance on unscrupulous kanoim? The fact that people who should know better ignored the writings of a few obscure Sages, or the fact that people who should know better treated R' Slifkin like a criminal, and used their power to defame him? Was it ideas, or actions?

Actions, I say, and for this reason I am proposing a companion series: The Prophets that Time Forgot.

Our first inductees:

• Isaiah who (per Makos 24A) told people to focus on just six commandments: (1) Walk in righteousness, (2) speak uprightly, (3) despise undeserved advantages, (4) accept no bribes (5) believe no rumors and (6) tolerate no evil
• Michah, who (ibid) reduced it to three: (1) do justice (2) love kindness, and (3) walk humbly before God.
• Zechariah, who (7:8-10) told us the basic commandments were "truth, social justice, helping the poor and needy, and thinking kindly of one's neighbor."
• Jonah, who reminds us that God's mercy extends to us all -Jews and non-Jews alike - in ways that we can't fathom.

And because no DovBear post would be complete without it, let's close this post with a sorely-needed lesson for the GOP Jews. If you on the political right wing of Orthodox Judaism could come down to earth, get over your obsessions with abortion, homosexuality, male dominance, evolution, taxes, and the age of the universe—obsessions that most American Jews do not share—and concentrate on the social-justice and ethical teachings of the prophets and sages you could make enormous contributions toward helping to solve the myriad real problems facing humankind today.

Cross Currents, I am talking to you.

The DovBear Index

I've been working on this for a few days, and finaly it's finished. Well almost: The following index only covers posts from October 2004 through February 5, 2005, but the next 12 months will be added this week, if possible. Also, this index represents only about 40 percent of the posts from that period, so if you like what you see, there's plenty more.

Funny Pictures
Sleep? With Yeshiva boys?
Jackhammers
Tutor wanted
Zipper
Dignity!

Parsha
Serach bat Asher
Marrying sisters
Small jugs
Timna
The long way around

Jabbing the GOP Jews
Zman Biur Needs Glasses
Charming Wish of the Season
Today's Orwellian Moment
Farah is a fool & Here too
Exemplary Evangelicals?
Courtrooms aren't shuls
Fight terrorism
Did you know this?
Hear o Israel: These are your friends?
Pro-Anti-semitism
Bush Betrayal
Christian Betrayal
Cheney at the Death Camp
George W. Clinton

Cross at Cross Currents
Slifkin Silence
Slifkin Stupidity

Slaughtering sacred cows
Chanuka 1 2 3 4
Mixed Seating
Modern?
Upshurin/Bonfires

Commenting on the culture (theirs)
Madonna 1 2 3
Fox News 1 2 3 4
Jewish Press: Be Liberal
Readin Writin Racism
Springtime for Hitler

Commenting on the culture (ours)
Hammering Hasidim 1
When Yeshivas Attack: 1
Kashering the Castle
Kaballah 1 2
Makilim
Chanuka Presents & Chanuka Menorot
No school on Thanksgiving?
Rubashkan v Peta 1 2
Crap Miracles
Aish's Chanuka Antics
Shabbos Chanukah mysticism
Teaching bigotry
Magic by mail
Window

Taking on Theodicy
Tsunami 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9:Bible code

Slifkin
Age of the Universe
Ban
No thinking
Action Alert
Venting
5000 Years old? Not according to Chazal
Feldman's follies
Plaut's follies

Pope-a-Palooza
Stealing Kids
Thanks for nothing
Papal sins

War-on-the-War-on-Christmas-Palooza
Maoz Tzur
Slapping Christians
Prelutsky
Donohue
Novak
Vox Populi

Gaza-Palooza
Notes
Rav Kook

Metziztza Palooza 1 2

Lazer Brody 1 2 3 4 5
Shmuly Boteach 1 2
Not the Godol Hador First contact Again
Bill O Reilly 1 2 3 4
Dennis Prager 1 2: Loves Christmas
Yehupitz 1 2 3: pounded 4 5
MoChassid 1 2
Gil Student 1

Arafat Death Watch 1 2 3 4
God bless his soul
Media criticism
Blogger criticism
Dishonest Reporting
Beating a dead terrorist

Pounding the President
Charles Johnson: [W is an] ignorant puppet
Menken attacks
A boy and his boat
Which one doesn't belong
Never go against the family George
Medals for Morons
Bowing to Satan
Bad to Israel

Election 2004
Rav Elyashiv's endorsement
Wolves: We're not terrorists
Bush Hearts Osama
Disrespecting Clinton
An Election Day prayer
Dirty Tricks
God bless the voters
Happy about the results
Sad about the results
Don't care about the results
Let those people go

Funny posts that don't fit
So you don't have to
Help me grow
Sheik's obit
Ding dull
See ya Safire
Links
Thanksgiving
Miraim v. PETA
The next Protocols is...
Kosher Matzot
Star Wars Christmas Albulm
Satan

Favorites that don't fit
My first post
Aich omrim "thong" b'ivrit?
What would the Vishnitz Rebba say?
Jewish Blood is not cheap
Put on your yarmulka