DOVBEAR

The blogopshere is buzzing about the frum bonafides of one Lawrence Shiffman.

Following his participation in an article in which four prominent scholars spoke about how their faith was affected by their work, everyone (by which I mean GH, Mis-nagid, and the sanctimonious commentators at Hirhurim) is lining up to speculate about Shiffman's Orthodoxy. Regrettably, I joined the parlor game, too. [Note: GH must be suffering from regrets as well. His post is gone]

I say regrettably, because I now realize that the definition of an "Orthodox Jew" is fluid. You can call yourself whatever you want, so long as you understand how you define it for yourself. It's when you use other people's definitions that you get into trouble. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would say I'm not Orthodox, but I no longer give a hoot; we obviously define it differently. By my definition, they may not be Orthodox either.

Here's a brief primer according to DovBear:

- If Orthodoxy means you believe in revelation then I am Orthodox.
- If it means you find rabbinic halacha to be binding and in some way divine, then I am Orthodox.
- It it means you understand every one of the Rambam's ikkarim in the way that many othes do I suppose I'm not, but guess what? Neither are most of Teaneck and Williamsburg. And nor were the legions of Tannaim, Amoraim, Geonim and Rishononim who themselves were in opposition to some of what the Rambam wrote.

I can live with that.

Here's a joint project for GH and Gil, if they choose to accept it: The Torah-True Take on Evolution.

I'll get things started by providing this outline:

Section I
IF IT'S FALSE IT ISN'T JUDAISM / IF IT'S TRUE IT IS JUDAISM
By definition, can something essential to Judaism be false? If a claim of ours has been trumped and proven false by science or one of the other disciplines, that must be seen as conclusive proof that the defeated claim was never fundamental to our religion. By the same token, an idea that is certainly true is, by definition, a Torah idea.

Section II
EVOLUTION IS TRUE
This isn't a hard argument to make. The libraries are full of books on the subject written by careful and thorough scientists, and anyone who's bothered to look at the question with any seriousness has come away convinced that Darwin, in the main, was right.

Section III
SO WHAT?
SRH and other luminaries have already told us not to worry about evolution, and why should we? It poses no threat at all to Judaism or to Jewish observance. Evolution doesn't free us from the commandmants. We're still required to wear tefilin, and keep kosher and the rest. More to the point, the men and women who understand these things agree that evolution is true. Therefore, fighting evolution on hashkafic grounds is a way of the saying that, in Judaism, the truth does not come first. And that anti-intellectual idea is far more offensive to Judaism than anything of Darwin's.

Those of you who are new to the blog, might get a kick out of reading the comment thread attached to this post.

It contains Amshi, GH, OM, Mis-nagid and Shifra at their best, with contributions from Heshy and others, plus if you make it to the very end you may start to understand why so many of us are not fans of Toby Katz's writing. All in all, a great thread and a great moment in the history of this blog.

...for the blogger formerly known as GH.

(He went and reproduced.)

If not a ban, perhaps takanos? [prohibitions, or decrees]

The other day some of put our imaginations to work and came up with a set of takanos we fear the Agudah might issue at their Big Blog Meeting this week. They follow:

Rav DovBear:
1 - Thou shalt kill the messanger
2 - If the messanger is anonymous, thou shalt kill his methods and tactics.
3 - Thou shalt not question
4 - Thou shalt refer to every Jew as Rav, every shul rabbi as HaRav, every Rosh Yeshiva as HaRav HaGaon, every Christian minister as "our good friend" and every modern orthodox so-called rabbi as "that guy"
5 - Comments are to be deleted
6 - If a leftie Jew did it: KILL KILL KILL. If a rightwing Christian did it: SPIN SPIN SPIN
7 - He who does not support likud shall be construed as an anti-semite.
8 - Thou shalt denigrate poor people who rely on state handouts and occasionaly riot in the streets - unless they wearblack hats, in which case, thou shalt feel free to spin.
9 - Any statement by any Rishon that can be construed to undermine the most maximalistic possible interpretation of the Rambam's 8th ikkar shall be suppressed or attributed to a renegade student.

Rabanit Tzipora:
1 - If a poster is revealed as a woman, thou shalt disparage her ability to understand Torah
2 - Thou shalt strongly oppose poor people who are non-Jews no matter what the color of their skin.
3 - Thou shalt strongly support rich people who are non-Jews, no matter the color color of their hats.

Rav GH:
1. The Gay Parade shall be referred to as 'The Abominable Parade', Gay people as 'The Abominable People' and gay creatures made out of frozen water as 'The Abominable Snowmen'.
2. Evolution shall be referred to as 'The So Called 'Theory' of Evolution'.
3. Science shall be referred to as 'Goyish, Atheistic "So Called" Science' and Scientists as 'Goyish, Atehistic, "So Called" Scientists' , except when a scientist attempts to prove the Bible is true, in which case he is to be referred to as a 'World famous expert'.
4. 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
5. Thou shalt aid in exposing all scandals, defamation and other bad things spread about organizations whose sterling image we wish to destroy at all times, never mind whether or not it's true
6. If a Chareidi Rav is implicated in a sex scandal, though shalt judicously ignore it, except if someone snitches to the police, in which case thou shalt condemn the snitcher in the strongest possible way.
7. If a so called 'Rabbi' from Reform, Conservative or LW MO community is implicated in a sex scandal, or even better, an atheist, thou shalt use it as an opportunity for some snide remarks about how only Torah True Jews can be moral, since only we possess the ultimate guide to objective morality.

Rav Qwerty
1 - Thou shalt oppose homosexual sex except when (verbally) [deleted] Christian ministers.
2 - Thou shalt delete DovBear's comments.
3 - Thou shalt drop the names of famous Christian ministers.

Rabbanit Willendorf
Thou shalt condemn as sinful and disgusting books thou hast not read and movies thou hast not viewed.

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."

Well, it appears my blog has squatted and pushed a wet and shiny, slightly foul-smelling, new GH blog into existence. Joy to the world.

What I want to know now, before I commit myself to his new venture in the form of hat-tips and other segulahs, is this: Will he be funny?

Because if all GH plans to do is rehash and review all the many different reasons for the decline in his emunah, I'm going to stick with my back issues of the original GH blog that I helped to launch, co-wrote and spell-checked.

Other blogs that are ribs from the unbroken body of the bear
Shifra (she commented here before starting her own blog)
OrthoMom (ditto)
CWY (ditto)
Naphtuli (ditto)
Amshinover (rachma ltzlon, but ditto)
Chana (ditto)

I am sure there are others. Make yourselves known in the comment thread. Also... I'm too lazy to link you all, but if you still read DovBear (and why would you, now that you've got a big, important blog of your own) feel free to put your URLs in the comment thread.

Am I taking credit for the entire Jewish Blogosphere? Only if I can get away with it. Only if I can get away with it.

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.

NOT THE GODOL HADOR: "Without God all morality is subjective"

I was enjoying my break from blogging, when I took a wrong turn and stumbled across the sentance cited above. "Without God all morality is subjective"

This is a familiar argument, but it stops short of the truth. I agree with GH, and his fundementalist friends, that morality sans God is subjective, but what GH's right-wing audience won't ever acknowledge is that morality WITH God is also subjective. Not because of a shortcoming in God, but because of a shortcoming in human understanding: By definition, our understanding must always be subjective.

Whenver we sit across from our study-partners and attempt to puzzle out what God wants from us, we're engaging in an act of interepatation. As you've heard me say before, any act of interpretation is biased because people are biased. We're not capable of apprehending the whole truth. Only parts of it. This is what the Sages meant when they said the Torah has 70 faces. Every perception occurs from a particular point of view, and every perception is different. We're each a perceiving center, and every perception is different.

The argument that God is necessary for morality is predicated on the belief that we can conform our minds to an objective truth. Those who make this argument forget that ambiguity is a property of those same minds. Change, therefore, is built into the way truth is perceived. Our understanding of the truth is altered with each perception of it.

I am a pluralist not because I am liberal, and not because I believe in peace, love and understanding. My pluralism is based entirely on my own self-interest. I believe that every person's perception has something to offer every other's. This belief flies not in the face of Jewish tradition but of recent Jewish tradition. When the Sages "accepted the truth from wherever it came" they were acknoledging that no one system -not Rabininc Judaism, nor any other - can explain everything. They were being pluralists.

You approach the truth from your angle, I see it from mine, and what we see is forever incomplete, but if we put our perceptions together we both draw closer to the reality. This is why I hold that revision, critisim and dialouge are far more relevant to truth-seeking than conformity to dictation from above. This is why I write the sort of posts I write. This is why I invited such a mix of personalties to guest-blog. And this, finally, is why I read blogs.

Now back to the secret mission.

I believe in God, the one God, the true God, the God of history, the God of nature, the God who created us all with a word, and set the finished world in motion to develop contingently, with the promise that what He had made would always be "very good."

I reject seclusion, and draw strength from what Samson Rephael Hirsch wrote: "the righteous ones must be the ones who fear God not only in the safety and privacy of their homes, but in the midst of the city -- playing a prominent part in public life and exerting their influence against evil forces."

I condemn all superstition, and wish to see Judaism made clean of irrational beliefs like amulets and other segulot. There are no powers outside of God.

I do not hold with GH who said that truth is the only fundemental, because truth is fleeting and can be known to us only in part. Instead, basing myself on Hilel who said: "That which is despicable to you, do not do unto others: This is the whole Torah," I insist that love is the hghest value, because it is only through tolerance, respect and the give and take of self -confident conversation, that the truth can be apprehended.

I affirm, finally that all Jews, and the rightuous of other nations, too, have a place in the world to come. And what of the revelation? Could I call myself a Jew if I did not believe that heaven and earth once intersected at Sinai?


Can't say for certain what put me into a creed-writing mood, but this weekend I felt the need to summarize the beliefs I hold most dear. I should add that this (like everything else) is a work in progress, and I reserve the right to add and subtract from it as time passes.

I notice that GH has rededicated his blog to the pursuit of a "rational Judaism."

I've often though that GH and I are men of different temperaments. I like questions. I like it when things don't add up. I like it when something I was taught turns out to be bogus. I like learning more about the world, and seeing how learning fouls up the received wisdom. I get a kick out of that whole process. I think it's fun when things don't shtim. I think that when things don't shtim you're closer to truth, because the human mind has this tendency to pretend things shtim for the sake of peace.

GH, it appears, does not enjoy any of this. Questions and conflicts within Judaism give him agita. So I don't know what he hopes to acheive by insisting on rationalism: once you're a Jewish rationalist peace of mind becomes impossible. Only a fundamentalist has that kind of security, only a fundamentalist can ever say that it all adds up.

If it's peace of mind GH seeks, as he's so often said, he should become a fundamentalist- even if that means being a fundmentalist atheist.

Everything shtims for them, too.

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.

Help Mom! World Net Daily is Written by Idiots!

The page at World Net Daily hawking, "Help! Mom! Hollywood's in My Hamper" the new conservative screed which manages to demonize liberals, while also using Hillary Clinton in the way Catholics once used Satan in their morality plays, features this delicious bit of inadvertant humor:

In this age of celebrity worship, this book is a must for every kid who needs to learn that sometimes celebrities don’t know best. Find out for yourself why Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, “Our hats are off to [the author] Katharine DeBrecht..."

Oh. Is Rush Limbaugh no longer a celebrity? Or is he one of the celebrities who do know best?

Coming next from Katharine DeBrecht:
Help Yaakov! There are Monkey's in my Biology Textbook!
Help Chardal! They are Arabs in the Promised Land!
Help GH! There are Miracles in My Pentatuch!
Help Toby! There are Gay Cowboys in my Garage!
Help Zalman! There are supporters of Aaron in my shteeble!

(I'll also point out, at the risk of offending you, that using toys and kiddie books to indoctrinate your children to hate your opponents is a move right out of the Palestenian playbook.)

Blowing my own horn

The blog you've grown to hate reached an important milestone last Thursday when no one was looking: 500,000 page views. (1)

Thanks to all of you for reading and commenting, for sending me emails, and also for protecting my back when the blog-battles got ugly.

Thanks, too, to the core chevra (2) the gang of fantatsic commenters who are equal partners in the marginal and heavily-exagerated success of this blog.

I wanted to thank each member of the CC individually, until I realized that would require time + effort; worse, if I tried to do that, I would definately forget someone and catch (deserved) hell for it. Anyway, the members of the CC know who they are, and I hope they also know my appreciation is sincere, not to mention well-deserved: By my informal count, the CC is responsible for, like, 80 percent of the hits, and... I don't know... maybe 90 percent of the posts. The truly awful ones, I admit, were written by me, but edited and greenlighted by GH. In retrospect, I should not have been so trusting. Ah, well. Live and learn.

Anyway, Toot! Toot! (3) and thanks for everything. Really.

Unnecessary verbiage

(1) I count page views, not unique visitors, because that's the minhag hamakom. When Jewish blogs say hits, they mean page views. I have had, as of this moment, 238,548 unique visitors,

* I started counting in October 2004

*The counter that passed 500,000 last Thursday (on the bottom of the screen) blocks and does not register hits from any of the computers I use. It counts each visit from Ezzie's computer three times which may explain a few things.

(2) In all, I suppose the blog has had three core chevras: (1) The chesed neurayich group which supported me in the begining; (2) the Summer of Love group, a group of true misfits and lunatics who made writing the blog a breeze. When they were around, all I needed to do was put a funny picture, or make a wry observation and they took it from there; and (3) the current crew. I don't have a name for you yet and, unlike the summer of love crew, you make me work for a living, but, honestly, if it weren't for the sad fact that many of you guys are unrepentant, retrograde Republicans I would love you all the same. Thanks for being here.

(3) Yes, Alex, I know many people have been a part of all three groups.

* Is it just me or do you also think its kind of creepy how Gil celebrates each of his blog's milestones by saying, "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another Hundred Thousand?" (Only my respect for Gil keeps me from making the obvious joke. Perhaps someone will do it for me on the thread.)

As the blogopsphere continues to laugh out-loud at the marverlous parodies being posted via the Muqata I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time with the original Purim parody: Megilas Esther.

Background

The generation described in the Megilla was the generation of Jews who chose Persia over Jerusalem. One of the great disapointments of that era was that so few Jews accepted Korech's invitation to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Zechariah, the book of prophecy, was written at this time, and its read by many as a scathing rebuke of the Jews who stayed behind. Esther, perhaps, was written from the same perspective but with a subtler touch.

Examples

Let's look at the book's most famous verse:

Ish yehudi hoya b'Shushan haBira uShmo Mordichai / A Jewish man was in Shusan the capital and his name was Mordichai

Consider this:

* The only other time the phrases ish yehudi appears in Tanach is Zecharya 8:23 where is describes a Jew who had successfuly led all of the nations into the service of the one God.

* The only other times the word bira appears in Tanach it specifically refers to the Temple.

* The name, Mordichai, as you know, is the name of a Babylonian god.

Now that you're aware of the context, do you hear the verse's sting? It's saying, "Instead of being in the Jewish bira where he belongs, your ish yehudi is in a foreign bira, with a foreign name."

Other verses are no gentler. In Esther 1:9-12 we're told:

[Vashti was told to] come to the king... but she did not come as the King comanded and he became very angry.

This may refer to the Jewish people who stayed behind in Persia after the God called them to Jerusalem. When the king, in the next set of verses, worries that all women will follow Vashti's example and disobey their husbands, the author is suggesting that nothing can be expected from other nations if even Israel won't obey God.

In Esther 3:8 we're told:

There is a certain nation scattered among the other nations.. and the laws of the King they do not keep, so there is no reason for the King to leave them alone

From the perspective of parody, this is a threat. The author is warning the Jews of the disapora that if they ignore God's law, and remain in exile, there is no reason for God to keep them as His people.

Example such as these two I've shared abound in Esther - when you know what to look for they jump off the page - so I'll close with something disimillar.

At the very end of the Megilla, we're told that Mordicha and Esther sent messages to the other Jews instructing them to keep Purim. What was the content of this message? Divrei Sholom v'emet.

These two words point us directly to Zechariah 7:5-14 where we're told that before the devine presence can return to Jerusalem some basic comandments muct be kept, notably:

"Truth, social justice, helping the poor and needy, and thinking kindly of your neighbor."

And what are the first words on this laundry list of liberal intitiatives? "Emet uMishpat Sholom"

Later, in Zecharya 8:18-19, the list is rendered into the shorthand of "emet v'Sholom" (which is echoed by Mordichai and Esther in their letter) where we are told that the four fast days will become days of celebration only after the Jews love "emet v'Sholom."

It's almost as if Esther and Mordichai are instituting Purim to serve as a yearly reminder to disapora Jews that the bira in Jerusalem waits for them, still, and can be achieved if Zecharya's reqiuirmeents are met.

Some notes:
* The fact that the book might be a parody tells us nothing about it's accuracy. Though GH, the well-known murderer of baby seals, insists that Esther was written by Zaboomafoo the evolutionist, it is possible that Esther's author chose to describe events that actually occured via parody.

* Even kofers who deny everything should be able to find something to like in this post. Because, even if Esther was written later in the Second Temple period, as scholars suggest, it can still be read as a rebuke --not of Persian Jews, but of the Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora.

* I don't expect anything that appears above is new to folks who've made a career of studying heresy, but it was new to me. I first heard some of this last year, on the Shabbos after Purim, from a guest scholar who spoke in one of our neighborhood schuls. Later, I found many of the same thoughts here http://www.tanach.org/special/purim.txt. Sources are all courtesy of tanach.org

Ok, to review, here's the problem. Our Torah says 600,000 armed men left Egypt but all the evidence suggests this is impossible. For example: Excavations of the Sinai desert show no trace of a nation of 3 million or an army of 600,000 people. The largest nation in the world at that time (Egypt) had an army of 20,000. And, from a theological perspective, the idea that defeating Amalek and conquering Canaan were miracles is obviated if the ancient Israelites possessed an army not just larger than Egypt's, but larger than the 500,000 man army of Napolean which conquered all of Europe 2200 years later

What's a God-fearing Jew (ie: not you GH) to do?

A clever solution is suggested by someone with a name I forgot (again, not you GH) who points out that eleph, the word for thousand, is also used for family (Judges 6:15) clans and military units; also, in Hebrew eleph is a heteronym for aluf, the word for chieftain, or for an armed soldier, ie: someone carrying more than the weapons of a peasent shepherd.

The number 600,000 appears twice in scripture. Let's look at the two instances in context.

Exodus 12:37
ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סכתה כשש מאות אלף רגלי הגברים לבד מטף

According to the theory presented above, this translates as "And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred (fully armed) chieftains on foot that were men of valor, aside from families. "

Numbers 1:46
ויהיו כל הפקדים--שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים

This translates as "All they that were counted were six hundred (fully armed) chiefs, three "thousands" (a military unit) and five "hundreds" (also a military unit) and fifty (of the smallest military unit)."

So far so good, but the heteronym theory takes on a bit of water when we reach the description of the census in Numbers 26, and sentences like this:

אלה משפחת הראובני ויהיו פקדיהם שלשה וארבעים אלף ושבע מאות ושלשים
Translation: These are the families of Reuven: their number was forty-three thousand, seven hundred and thirty; and

אלה משפחת השמעני--שנים ועשרים אלף ומאתים
Translation: These are the families of Simon, twenty-two thousand, two hundred.

The man behind the heteronym theory (still can't recall his name) has a solution for this, too. He suggests reading the census verses as follows:

Reuven: 43 (fully armed) chieftains; 7 hundreds (military units) and thirty (of the smallest millitary unit)
Simeon: 22 (fully armed) chieftains; 2 'hundreds' (military units).

Is it perfect? Of course not. Nothing is perfect. However, the obvious benefit of this approach is that it gives us a way to reconcile the facts of the Torah with the facts of history and the facts of archeology. Yes, it means altering the traditional understanding of the word eleph, but this alteration is fully in keeping with the accepted meaning of the heteronym.

The other day, while slumming on the comment threads at one of the very bad blogs, I was confronted by a charactar who demanded to know my reasons for casually dismissing the popular notion that 600,000 men of military age stood at Sinai. In a nutshell, they are:

- There's no archeological evidence that 600,000 people (let alone 3 million, counting women and children) lived in the Sinai desert, and no trace of their progress toward Canaan.

- The population of the world in the 12th century BCE is estimated at 50 million with the population of Egypt estimated at between 2 and 5 million. Accepting that 3 million Jews left Egypt, means accepting that the Jewish nation that wandered the desert for 40 years was equal in size to the age's super-power.

- Few armies in the modern world have ever had 600,000 men (In 1967 Israel went to war with just 264,000 soldiers) let alone the ancient world: In the third century BCE, Alexander conquered the known world with less than 100,000 men. Epic battles, like Marathon, involved less than 25,000 people. If Israel had 600,000 men, how could the battle with Amalek or the conquest of Cannan under Joshua possibly be considered miracles?

But fear not, true believers. A lazy blogger like GH might shrug his shoulders and tell you that none of this evidence matters because, after eating a large plate of extra greasy potato kugel, he once "experienced" the 600,000, but I have a better approach. I have found a way to reconcile the Torah's words with what archeologists and historians say is plausible. Look for it after lunch.(I'm having kugel!) Or take your best guesses on the thread.

Shorter GH: PURIM REALLY SUCKS BECAUSE I'M A WHINY GIRLY MAN WHO HATES TO FAST PLUS NO ONE EVER RECIPROCATES MY SHOLOACH MANOT AND ALL THAT NOISE DURING MEGILLAH HURTS MY HEAD