QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Well, they picked up God and put him back in his place; you know - changed his diapers, fed him breakfast...."

- RBC, re. fallen idol described in Samuel I (Dagon)

From Baseball Shorts

"Just act like you're listening to me. I'll leave in a couple of minutes. Promise."

- Leo Mazzone, Atlanta pitching coach, on what he says to pitcher Steve Avery when he visits the mound to give relief pitchers time to warm up

From The Devil's Dictionary

Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

The Canadian Legal System

Ok, this homeless dude living in a tent in a forest outside of Whistler, British Columbia, decides that he "was going to become a perfect person by fasting." So he fasts for 60 days (apparently he had done this periodically for up to 30 days, but 60 days was the longest period he had ever fasted) and surprise, surprise, the fast produced what the homeless man called "hunger, clouds of insanity, total confusion...it's a horrible, horrible state."

So what does this totally confused homeless man do? He breaks into an expensive condo just before christmas, ripping open all of the presents hoping to find chocolates, raiding the fridge and cupboards and pigging out on cups of tea (btw this sentence is taken verbatim from today's National Post and I would just like to comment that I don't think you can pig-out on cups of tea, but I digress), chili (definitely a pig-out food), cream cheese (not a food item on it's own, so it's kind of weird that he pigged out on it), and tortillas (could qualify as pig-out material) before slipping into a stupor and passing out.

When the homeowner entered the house, she was horrified to find the homeless dude lying unconscious in the kitchen surrounded by wrapping paper with bags of vomit and feces located about him.

Obviously this case made it's way to court and here's what transpired: The homeless dude admitted doing all of the above (why anyone would admit to laying in bags of their own vomit and feces is beyong me) but argued in the North Vancouver Provincial Court that he was forced to commit the crime in order to save himself from dying of cold and hunger.

The Crown argued that the homeless dude put himself in this condition, and that he should've known the consequences and could've requested help without having to resort to breaking into the condo. This argument was obviously way too logical for Judge Moss so he acquitted the homeless dude.

If I were the owners of the condo I would've shot the homeless dude and claimed that I was forced to shoot him in order to save christmas and the poor cream cheese. I mean is this for real?

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I don't like gym being at the goodwill of Mister Howard and his so-called dog."

- RBP

From Baseball Shorts

"Throw strikes. Don't worry about home runs. Babe Ruth is dead."

- Art Fowler, on standard advice he gives as a pitching coach

From The Devil's Dictionary

Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.

Ephraim Stulberg on Shoftim, 5766: Kings and Judges

I've written a postscript to last year's email devoted to a brief encapsulation of the constitutional differences between a Shofet and a Melekh. Here then are the original essay as well as the amendment:

[See http://gscarows.blogspot.com/2006/08/ephraim-stulberg-on-shoftim-5765-what.html for the original essay.]

P.S. I never did get around to reading Blidstein's book (though I recently purchased the original, Hebrew, edition). However, I recently came across an essay by the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, R' Isaac Halevi Herzog in a volume of his writings entitled Constitution and Law in a Jewish State according to the Halacha (Ha-chuka le-Yisrael al pi hattorah) that contains several relevant points.

In his essay, which is ostensibly devoted to a discussion of the halakhic issues associated with women holding positions of power in a Jewish state, R' Herzog distinguishes between the de jure position of melekh, which was initiated with the ascent of King Saul, and the de facto sort of kingship - what R' Herzog calls "din melekh" exercised by Moshe and Yehoshua, by the shofet or the nasi or whatever the highest ranking Jewish politico might be called. While the latter positions also held many of the same rights and responsibilities as an actual king, such as the responsibility to bring the special sin offering in case of an accidental transgression (see Horayos 11b) or the responsibility to read Hakhel, there are also important differences.

For instance, an official king' rule is hereditary; it can under no circumstances be undone. This is not so with a de facto ruler. A king must insist on being honoured properly, while a de facto monarch may forego this right.

Devorah was not a judge at all, writes R' Herzog, and was therefore not a counterexample to the Talmudic rule against women judging. Rather, as indeed many early authorities have written, her role was primarily military and political; but she was not an actual king either, which is important in light of the Sifrei's ruling of "Melekh - ve-lo malka." Likewise, Eli was allowed to serve as a shofet in spite of the Talmudic rule against having a kohein serve as King (Yerushalmi Sotah 8:3).

From The Meaning of Liff

Ahenny (adj.) The way people stand when examining other people's bookshelves.

Is "Unsramble This!!!" still being played?

I'm at work and I desperately need to take a break.

Zoo Tour with Rabbi Slifkin

I went on Rabbi Natan Slifkin's Torah tour of the Bronx Zoo last Sunday. It was great! He's a good speaker: fascinating, entertaining, witty. I learned a lot of neat stuff. I got my picture taken with him, but I did not, unfortunately, have a chance to get my picture taken with a banned book.

Who needs a pick me up?

From The Meaning of Liff

Affcot (n.) The sort of fart you hope people will talk after.

In my country there is problem

From The Meaning of Liff

Acle (n.) The rouge pin which shirtmakers conceal in the most improbable fold of a new shirt. Its function is to stab you when you don the garment.

Was this staged?

This video has been around for quite some time (I think I've had it forwarded to me at least a dozen times in the past year) and I still can't figure out if it's fake or not.

From "Big Train"

This is a clip from some British TV show that I've never heard of, quite funny though.

From The Meaning of Liff

I believe you're all (that being HWMNBN and myself, does anybody else read this thing?) familiar with this type of feature. HWMNBN is more than halfway through the Devil's Dictionary, so I figured I might as well start going through The Meaning of Liff by Douglas Adams. I'll only be posting my favourites, so it shouldn't take too long to get through the whole thing (a couple of months should do it).

Abilene (adj.) Descriptive of the pleasing coolness of the reverse side of the pillow.

Happy Birthday, Rabbi Rotes

On your birthday ♥

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Food porn"

- GS, proposing film category

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pocket, n. The cradle of motive and the grave of conscience. In woman this organ is lacking; so she acts without motive, and her conscience, denied burial, remains ever alive, confessing the sins of others.

The Harsh Truth About Quebec: Telling It Like It Is

From "The 'Quebecistan' Question", by Brigitte Pellerin, in The Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 24, 2006, p. A12:

After prominent Quebec politicians were shown leading a "peace" protest in which Hezbollah supporters and Hezbollah flags appeared in sufficient numbers to warrant a healthy dose of criticism, Ms. [Barbara] Kay [of the National Post] wrote that Quebecers' "cultural and historical sympathy for Arab countries from the francophonie," plus their "reflexive anti-Americanism and a fat streak of anti-Semitism that has marbled the intellectual discourse of Quebec throughout its history has made Quebec the most anti-Israel of the provinces, and therefore the most vulnerable to tolerance for Islamist terrorist sympathizers."

Way to go, Barbara Kay (and Brigitte Pellerin)!

Ephraim Stulberg on Shoftim, 5765: What Defines a "Melech"?

What Defines a "Melech"?

P’ Shof’tim contains a section dealing with the particular commandments incumbent upon a Jewish king (D’varim 17:14-20). He must not purchase too many horses, have too many wives, or seek too much money; and he must write a Torah scroll from which to read throughout his life.

What exactly is a King? How is he distinguished from the prophetic Judges (‘shof’tim’) whose exploits are discussed in an eponymous book? Or from the Princes (‘n’si’im’) who ruled Israel following the destruction of the Second Temple (see Horayos 10a, 11b)? Was Moshe a king (see Sh’vuos 15a; Hilchos Beis Hab’chira 6:11)? How about Yehoshua (see Rambam, Hilchos M’lachim 1:3)?

This question requires much study, and we won’t go into too much detail here. Abravanel, in his introduction to Sefer Shof’tim, lists five qualities that are common to both offices, and five elements that distinguish a King (‘melech’) from a Judge (‘shofeit’).

The common features are:

1. Both are appointed by the High Court, and accepted by all of Israel. They are national leaders.
2. Both positions involve military and judicial responsibilities.
3. Both are allowed at times to invoke special powers that temporarily suspend regular Torah legislation.
4. Both offices demand a high degree of respect and fear from the nation; anyone who disobeys the King or Judge is punishable by death.
5. Both offices are set up in such a way as to ensure an immediate successor following the death of the official.

The divergences are:

1. Kings are officially invested with their powers through a particular ceremony of anointment; Judges are not.
2. The King’s primary role is political, while his judicial powers are invoked only in special situations; the Judge’s task is essentially judicial.
3. The prohibitions listed in this week’s parasha (too many wives, horses, or too much money) do not apply to a Judge.
4. A King receives a higher degree of honour, and is granted special privileges.
5. Kingship is hereditary; Judgeship is not.

Whether this presentation is too schematic is open to question, of course. R’ Avraham Shoshana, in the introduction to his own commentary on Sefer Shoftim, entitled “Derekh Binah” (Cleveland, 1988), takes issue with a number of Abravanel’s points, citing commentaries who generally minimize the difference between the two titles. For instance, he brings a statement of Ramban (on B’midbar 16:21) that implies that the Beis Hamiqdash could have been built by the Judges, in spite of the requirement that only a King is eligible to take the initiative in performing that task. He also effectively dismisses Abravanel’s second distinction.

As for nos. 3 and 4 on the second list, I am not aware of any proofs either for or against Abravanel’s contentions. Nos. 1 and 5 certainly seem to be correct.

I intend to read Prof. Gerald Blidstein’s Political Concepts in Maimonidean Halakha over Shabbos, so I’ll update you if I find anything relevant.

From Baseball Shorts

"He's the only guy I know who does his clothes shopping at the San Diego Zoo. He puts five animals on the endangered species list with one outfit."

- Bob Brenly, on Kevin Mitchell

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Indians, you know, they are full of smell."

- MH

From The Devil's Dictionary

Plunder, v. To take the property of another without observing the decent and customary reticences of theft. To effect a change of ownership with the candid concomitance of a brass band. To wrest the wealth of A from B and leave C lamenting a vanished opportunity.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out."

- MF the Elder

From The Devil's Dictionary

Plebiscite, n. A popular vote to ascertain the will of the sovereign.

Hebrew Table of Contents

I have created a Hebrew table of contents for Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge. Any comments?

Ephraim Stulberg on Shoftim, 5764

As recent events have shown, there is nothing that stirs people’s emotions more than the subject of war. During wartime, questions of military strategy, international diplomacy, and human morality can no longer be avoided, and we find out things about ourselves and our friends that would otherwise have remained latent. Far from being a purely modern phenomenon, debates over war – albeit of a more legalistic nature – also occupied the minds of our sages. This email attempts to address one particular aspect of Jewish diplomatic and military protocol.

The Torah states: “When you approach a city to wage war upon it, you shall call out to it peacefully” (D’varim 20:10). In other words, you are obligated to offer peace terms, as described in subsequent verses, before launching an attack.

Under what circumstances does this rule apply? This is a question which is the subject of some considerable debate. Rashi on the verse cited above cites the Sifrei, which states that the Torah is referring to a “milchemes r’shus”, an optional war fought against a nation other than the seven indigenous tribes of Canaan. This is also the opinion of Rashi elsewhere (see B’midbar 21:21).

Other Rishonim argue. Famously, Rambam (M’lachim 6:1) writes that the commandment applies to all nations (except of course Ammon and Mo’av – see my email from P’ D’varim). This is also the opinion of S”MAG (Positive Commandment #118), of Ramban and Sefer Ha-chinuch (#527) on our parasha, and of Radak and Abravanel on Yehoshua, Ch. 8. They interpret the Sifrei cited by Rashi as referring not to the initial requirement to make peaceful overtures, but rather to the consequences of any failure to reach an agreement, which the Torah discusses immediately. The consequences described by the Torah are those which are applicable to nations other than the indigenous seven, whose details are only laid out later on.

I imagine many of you already knew all this. What I want to consider here is something which is a bit more arcane. Ramban, in disputing Rashi’s thesis, writes that if Rashi were correct, it would have been wrong for Moshe to have offered peace terms to Sichon and Og, as in doing so Moshe would have been violating a negative commandment of “you shall not allow a soul to live...For you shall surely destroy them…” (D’varim 20:16-17). Surely, argues Ramban, Moshe made his inquiries because he was required to. My question is simply this: is Ramban correct?

My initial inclination was to say that he is not. The Tanchuma (Shoftim #19) writes that when Moshe made friendly overtures to Sichon, it was one of three things that he did independently, to which God later gave his approbation. (BTW, this is NOT included in similar lists of such things in either Shabbos 87a or Avos D”Rabbi Nassan 2:3). In P’ Chukas (#22), the Tanchuma writes that whereas with many commandments, one is not obligated to create the circumstances under which they may be performed (e.g. one is not required to seek out a mother bird to chase away before taking her young), peace is different, and one must chase after it. Thus although God commanded Moshe: “Begin to conquer, and wage war” with Sichon (D’varim 2:24), Moshe decided to send emissaries of peace anyway. All this seems to imply that Moshe’s offer was indeed somewhat illicit, and that in reality there was no requirement to offer terms to Sichon and Og. Just as Rashi had said. However, upon further review, I noticed that the Tanchuma on Shoftim also writes that God ultimately did approve Moshe’s action, and thus commanded in this week’s parasha that “when you approach a city…” (20:10). So in fact, these midrashim would seem to be proofs for the opinion of Ramban, rather than Rashi, indicating as they do that God’s command of pacification applied even to the Seven Nations.

Upon even more reflection, though, I have decided that I am not at all convinced that Rashi argues with the Ramban at all. All we really seem to have are his comments on P’ Shoftim and P’ Chukas. In the former case, he is simply reiterating the words of the Sifrei, and it is entirely possible that he would interpret them in whatever way the Rambam himself would. And in the latter case, is it not plausible to suggest that all he meant to say is that Moshe had yet to be commanded regarding the obligation to open with an offer of peace? But that Rashi would agree that, had Moshe encountered Sichon later on, after he had been commanded in that regard, he would indeed been obligated to make such an overture? No one has ever suggested this, but I think it makes some sense.

Regardless of how you feel about this idea – and it would indeed be rather bold to argue with such a time-honoured interpretation - Ramban seems quite implicit that according to Rashi, had the commandments relating to such matters been delivered to Moshe previously, Sichon and Og ought to have been treated as Canaanite rulers, and not appeased. This itself is a debatable point, even if we admit that Ramban’s explanation of Rashi is correct. The verses (20:15-16) seem to distinguish between nations which are “faraway” – as Chamberlain, that most famous “appeaser”, famously described Czechoslovakia! – and those “which Hashem, Your God, gives to you as an inheritance.” We find elsewhere (Yerushalmi Bikkurim 1:8, and Sifra (Emor on 23:9 and Be-har on 25:2)) that such a phrase as this latter one is taken to imply an exclusion of the lands of Sichon and Og, which were not “given by God”, but rather asked for by Re’uven and Gad. So this would seem to imply that, even if Rashi says what all the commentaries think he says, Moshe would not have been out of line in seeking peace with Sichon, to whom the commandment of “you shall surely destroy them” did not apply. However, in other places we find that the phrase “that Hashem, Your God, has given you to inherit,” comes to include, not exclude, the Trans-Jordan region (see the Sifrei on Shoftim 21:1, regarding Eglah Arufah). And we also find that a policy of “cherem” (i.e. destruction) was applied to the conquests of Sichon and Og (see Tanchuma Chukas #25. This was different from the “cherem” policy applied by Yehoshua to Yericho, in which all the spoils of war were prohibited for use; rather, it was a “cherem” similar to that described regarding the Seven Nations in our parasha (20:17) – see also Meshech Chachma on that verse). So perhaps Ramban is correct.

Important French History

Everyone should go to google and use this search string.
french military victories

Photoshop Round 9

Photoshop Round 8

Hard Times!

Unfortunately I had no dataries on me at the time.

Unscramble This!!!

Is still being played. (Only by HWMNBN and myself, although others are welcome to join, it's not an exclusive club).

Baseball Quote

"In all the years I played, he was the only guy who ever scared me, and he was on my team."

- Ron Fairly, on Stan Williams

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I don't do chats anymore."

- JB

Come On Fhqwhgads

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pleasure, n. The least hateful form of dejection.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"...And if the men thought they had really attractive legs, they would get a seat on the stage and sort of stretch out and show them off..."

- KA, re. Shakespearean plays in Elizabethan England

From The Devil's Dictionary

Please, v. To lay the foundation for a superstructure of imposition.

Ephraim Stulberg on Re'eh, 5766: Rashi and Ta'amei Ha-miqra

The location of Mounts Grizim and Eival, upon which the Israelites received the blessings and Curses mentioned in the beginning of this week’s reading, is spelled out at some length:


הֲלֹא-הֵמָּה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן אַחֲרֵי דֶּרֶךְ מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בְּאֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיּשֵׁב בָּעֲרָבָה מוּל הַגִּלְגָּל אֵצֶל אֵלוֹנֵי מֹרֶה:


In spite of the Torah’s unusual prolixity here, it is still not quite clear what region is meant by all this, and indeed the Talmudic sages are uncertain as to whether the place in question was located close to, or far from, the Jordan River (Sotah 33b).

In his commentary on this verse, Rashi makes a rather curious argument. First, he notes that since the word אַחֲרֵי implies a great distance between the two objects under comparison (Bereishis Rabbah 44:5); thus the mountains are far across the Jordan. The phrase דֶּרֶךְ מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, he adds, is simply a long-winded way of saying “to the west” – literally, it means “the direction in which the sun goes down”. He further points out that we are forced into this reading of the verse by the טעמי המקרא – the פשטא under “"אַחֲרֵי indicates that it is to be read separately from the phrase that follows it, “"דֶּרֶךְ מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ

It has been suggested that Rashi was ignorant of the basic rules of the טעמי המקרא, and that he erred in his invocation of the musical notes as a proof for the verse’s correct punctuation.1 For while the פשטא on the word אַחֲרֵי is indeed a מפסיק, the זקף קטן on בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן is a מפסיק of a higher order; thus, אַחֲרֵי ought to belong to the words that follow it, rather than to those that precede it, as ostensibly suggested by Rashi.


In defence of Rashi – and those more knowledgeable than I will have to judge whether my defence is indeed a valid one – I would argue that Rashi never meant to tie אַחֲרֵי to the first words of the verse; he only meant to divorce it somewhat from those that followed it. In other words, for Rashi the punctuation of the first part of the verse would be this:


הֲלֹא-הֵמָּה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, אַחֲרֵי, דֶּרֶךְ מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ


The word אַחֲרֵי stands on its own, in spite of its seeming need for an object to modify. A somewhat analogous case that springs to mind is the verse in the עקידה, which reads:


וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה-אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הָאַיִל וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנו


Same sort of structure with the notes- albeit of a higher order – and again, אַחַרseems to stand on its own, meaning “close by”. Thus, Rashi would translate our verse: “Are they not across the Jordan, far away, on the side upon which the sun sets?”

Baseball Personalities

"The most amazing thing I've ever seen was Jay Johnstone in uniform in line at a concession stand at Dodger Stadium after the game had already started."

- Fred Claire, Dodgers GM

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"One is the body. Zero is the soul. You have to mathematize the soul."

- CL

From The Devil's Dictionary

Platonic, adj. Pertaining to the philosophy of Socrates. Platonic Love is a fool's name for the affection between a disability and a frost.

Ephraim Stulberg on Re'eh, 5765

At the end of P’ Re’eh, we are commanded to rejoice on the festivals (D’varim 16:11, 16:14). This commandment is generally interpreted by the Talmud as requiring one to bring peace-offerings (“sh’lamim”), and to celebrate the festival by eating from their flesh (P’sachim 109a). When that is not a possibility, one must find another way in which to fulfill the commandment. The gemara cites an argument as to what forms the “simcha” ought to take in the absence of sacrificial meat. One anonymous opinion states that it must be wine; Rabbi Yehuda argues, saying that men and women will experience joy through different vehicles. Thus, as the gemara explains R’ Yehuda’s opinion, while men will prefer alcohol, women would much rather buy a new dress for Yom Tov.

The basis for this argument is not so discernible at first. Does R’ Yehuda’s nameless opponent argue that in fact women prefer wine over clothing? This seems unlikely, for a number of reasons. Why then does he rule that one size fits all in this mitzvah of rejoicing?

Allow me to suggest one possibility. (Thanks!) The gemara (Rosh Hashanah 6b) records an argument as to the nature of women’s obligation to rejoice on Yom Tov. R’ Zeira holds that it is a mitzvah incumbent upon the woman herself, no different from any of her other religious requirements. Abbaye argues, and says that the obligation rests upon the husband’s shoulders. He is responsible for his wife’s happiness on the festival; she need not lift a finger.

Now, if the wife is responsible for making herself rejoice, as Rabbi Zeira holds, then surely she needs to buy something that will truly make her happy. This, explains Rabbi Yehuda, means nice clothing; nothing else will do.

Rabbi Yehuda’s counterpart, however, anticipates the opinion of Abbaye. It is the husband’s duty to make his wife joyous. It is unreasonable to expect that the husband will know exactly what his wife wants; and it is certainly the rare husband who knows how to shop for women’s clothing. Thus, it is enough that the husband show his love for his wife by buying her something that is significant in his eyes. She may not like wine that much, but she will appreciate his effort and his good intentions.

(Of course, this generosity can be taken too far by certain husbands. This calls to mind the episode of The Simpsons in which Homer buys his wife a bowling ball, engraved with his own name, for her birthday. She was not appreciative.)

Our thesis is somewhat speculative, but there is a small piece of corroboration to be found in the Rambam’s legal code. Rambam decides in favour of Rabbi Yehuda, holding that the obligation of simcha must be carried out according to the individual tastes of the different participants (Hilchos Yom Tov 6:17-18). And Rambam also holds (according to some – see Minchas Chinuch 489:8) that women are personally obligated in the commandment of simcha. This second ruling is somewhat counterintuitive to anyone who has read the relevant gemaros, and if we could base Rambam’s decision on the need to align the halacha with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, to which the gemara seems to give more weight.

It ain’t exactly Dr. Phil, but if you think about it, there is a bit of
marriage advice here.

Mazel Tov!!

On the Engagement of Tsippi Fried (Dallas, Texas) & Noam Gross (Ottawa, Canada)


I just spoke with Mr. Gross and he gave me Noam's phone number in Jerusalem, call me if you want it.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"T bzjsb."
"Icb qfgbmdkv ikuchb kgf mp dm cdhfgfbh hm nf."

- kdrmdf, BE

From The Devil's Dictionary

Platitude, n. The fundamental element and special glory of popular literature. A thought that snores in words that smoke. The wisdom of a million fools in the diction of a dullard. A fossil sentiment in artificial rock. A moral without the fable. All that is mortal of a departed truth. A demi-tasse of milk-and-morality. The Pope's-nose of a featherless peacock. A jelly-fish withering on the shore of the sea of thought. The cackle surviving the egg. A desiccated epigram.

Baseball Quote

"Why champagne? It doesn't taste good, and it stings the eyes. Why not milk? Or even half-and-half?"

- Rich Donnelly, on clubhouse celebrations

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Could you leave that down there, so it won't fall on the floor?"

- VD, re. HK's pencil box, on floor for umpteenth time

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pitiful, adj. The state of an enemy or opponent after an imaginary encounter with oneself.

Photoshop Round 7

Photoshop Round 6

Photoshop Round 5

Happy Birthday, Shri Vethathiri Maharishi

On your birthday ♥

I know it's one day late, but I'm so used to HWMNBN being the one wishing everyone else a happy birthday that I was kind of expecting him to make a post, somewhat amusing actually.

Happy Birthday, HWMNBN

On your birthday ♥

I know it's one day late, but I'm so used to you being the one wishing everyone else a happy birthday that I was kind of expecting you to make a post, somewhat amusing actually.

Quote

"The champagne they're keeping in the locker room is getting more valuable every year."

- Johnny Carson, on the one advantage of the Angels' always losing in the end

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"In Egypt, they got free meat. It was the social democrat NDP government of Pharaoh."

- RBP, re. Jews' complaints in Parshat Beshalach

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pilgrim, n. A traveler that is taken seriously. A Pilgrim Father was one who, leaving Europe in 1620 because not permitted to sing psalms through his nose, followed it to Massachusetts, where he could personate God according to the dictates of his conscience.

Photoshop Round 4

Ephraim Stulberg on Re'eh, 5764

The Torah warns us against excessive expressions of mourning, and therefore proscribes us from mutilating ourselves in our grief. Thus, when confronted with death, we may not scratch ourselves, nor pull out our hair (D’varim 14:1).

The commandment against scratching or wounding oneself is expressed in three places in the Torah. In the first two, it is referred to as “s’rita” (Vayikra 19:28 and 21:5), while in this week’s parasha, it is called “g’dida”. Although the former term refers to a manual scratching, while the latter implies mutilation done with an implement, both actions fall under the same prohibition (see Makkos 21a).

In translating the term “g’dida” in our parasha, Onkelos uses the term “chimum”; thus “lo sis’godedu” is rendered “la sis’chamemun”. This seems to have something to do with heating, surely a commandment we would all like to keep during the warm summer months. However, R’ Nathan Adler, in his work Nesina La-ger, writes that the correct version of Onkelos ought to read “lo sis-hamemun”, with the root being “hamam”, or confusion. If one examines the other places where the term “g’dida” is used, one finds that the Targum Yonasan employs both terms. Clearly one is a misprint - though I’m not sure which – and a “hay” became a “chess”, or vice versa. (See Melachim I 18:28, Yirmiyah 5:7, 16:6, 41:5, 47:5).

All of which is very interesting, not doubt. But so what? Well, for starters, these translations, whichever of them we choose to accept, seem to give us an insight into the reason behind this commandment. Clearly, what lies at the root of the directive against self-mutilation is a warning against excessive emotion. As the Hinuch writes (467), such expressions of despair and hopelessness are not befitting of a nation which ought to understand its relationship with God. We may not comprehend the details of His actions, but we can surely be confident, after all we have experienced, that God is eminently just, and that whatever our situation might be at any given moment, we remain his treasured nation (D’varim 14:2).

These two versions of the Targum represent two types of reaction, one more intensive than the other. (One sees this intuitively, but also linguistically, employing the paradigm of R’ S.R. Hirsch – see the Appendix to Mattisyahu Clark’s “Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew”.) The more potent reaction to death can be anger (“chimum”) and indignation: “How dare God do such a thing! I don’t deserve this.” This is clearly wrong. But even a reaction of bewilderment (“himum”) is not ideal – though it may be the best that most of us can manage. Aside from their theological implications, both reactions are also essentially destructive, as the angry mourner seeks outlets for his emotion, while the befuddled one sees nothing but hopelessness in his own existence. Both seek to assuage their grief in self-mutilation.

There is of course another prohibition which is included under the category of “lo sisgodedu”, that being factionalism within a Jewish society (see Yevamos 13b). Once again, the Hinuch provides us with an insight. He writes that it is not acceptable for each faction to go its separate way in matters of halacha, for this inevitably leads to argument. In other words, what begins as a principled, intellectual matter of disagreement often leads into heated, ad hominem attacks. (No, really, it’s true!) The Torah warns us this week that we must do our best to avoid irrational reactions of any sort.

Photoshop Round 3

Photoshop Round 2

Baseball Quote

"Tradition here in St. Louis is Stan Musial coming to the clubhouse and making the rounds. Tradition in San Diego is Nate Colbert coming into the clubhouse and trying to sell you a used car."

- Bob Shirley

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Isn't Anti-Saxonism hatred of Jutes?"

- DS

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pig, n. An animal (Porcus omnivorus) closely allied to the human race by the splendor and vivacity of its appetite, which, however, is inferior in scope, for it sticks at pig.

New Game: "Photoshop"

Yes, I know that photoshopping (does that qualify as a homonym?) isn't exactly new to this blog. Believe it or not Captain Salamander was not actually arrested back in December of 2005 and Gaby 'n Fish does not dream about playing every character on ER. This game however is slighty different. The way it works is as follows: save the image previous to yours and then re-post it with ONLY ONE modification. The modification can be subtle, small, large, hard-to-find, whatever. I'll start with the following normal picture:

New Game: "Unscramble This!!!"

Ok, I know there's been some harsh criticsms towards some of the games we've tried playing on this blog (need I mention Match Me). Nonetheless I'm going to suggest a new game to get us through those slow dog days of summer. The game is called "Unscramble This!!!" (yes, all three exclamation marks are required). The rules are quite simple: unscramble the letters in the previous post and then scramble a new word for the next person. The only catch is that when you scramble the new word you're only allowed to change one letter from the previous post. Alternatively you could add or remove a letter from the previous post (but you can't change a letter and add remove one, it's one or the other). Hope that makes sense. We can play the game in the comments section to this post.

I'll start: pusreel

Quote

"We forgot about the Canadian exchange rate, so it's really only 82 mph."

- Mike Flanagan, on Mike Boddicker's fastball being clocked at 88 mph in Toronto

Mazel Tov

To Chani "East End" Burger on her engagement.

Mazel Tov

To Noah Muroff on his engagement.

Happy Lefthanders Day

August 13th is designated International Lefthanders Day by Lefthanders International. It was first observed 13 August 1976.

Caption: Left Handers' Day, 13 August 2002

Funny how Tommy's Birthday falls out on this day. Then it got me thinking, maybe all people born on August 13th are lefties.

Here are my eerie findings:
Marcus Ragnarsson born Aug 13, 1971 in Ostervala, Sweden = LEFTY
Shayne Corson born Aug 13, 1966 in Barrie, Canada = LEFTY
Gwen Cheeseman born Aug 13, 1951 in Harrisburg, US = LEFTY
Bobby Clarke born Aug 13, 1949 in Flin Flon , Canada = LEFTY
Theophilus Howard born Aug 13, 1584 in Walden, Essex = LEFTY

Happy Birthday, Fidel

On your birthday ♥

Happy Birthday, Tommy

On your birthday ♥

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"There are no ties at the JCC, right, Jon?"

- NH, to JB, trying to continue game at end of class

From The Devil's Dictionary

Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"My self-control knows no bounds. Lower bounds."

- MF the Elder

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pessimism, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile.

MH sends his regards to the "guys."

I stopped next to him at a light the other day.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"By that token, you'd make the same bracha on Pringles that you make on gasoline, because they're both sold in Sunoco gas stations."

- RBC, re. suggestion of HK that a food's bracha depends on where it is sold

From The Devil's Dictionary

Perfection, n. An imaginary state or quality distinguished from the actual by an element known as excellence; an attribute of the critic.

The editor of an English magazine having received a letter pointing out the erroneous nature of his views and style, and signed "Perfection," promptly wrote at the foot of the letter: "I don't agree with you," and mailed it to Matthew Arnold.

Ephraim Stulberg on Eikev, 5766

Generally speaking, the Book of Deuteronomy is written in the first person, being in essence the parting words of Moshe Rabbeinu. While often this is not very noticeable, a close reading will show that Deuteronomy is indeed one long peroration by the venerable Israelite leader at the close of his distinguished career. One noteworthy exception to this rule is the second paragraph of the Shema, which is taken from the end of this week’s parasha. As the Netziv observes in his commentary, in that paragraph it is God’s own voice we hear: “And I shall give the rain of your land in its proper time…And I shall give herbage in your field for your animal…” (11:14, 15). These first person statements are not introduced by a phrase such as “And God said…”, and seem quite out of place in this long series of speeches by Moshe.

The Netziv explains that this paragraph is an interpolation of an earlier source, already possessed by the Jews in the text of their tefillin. It was, in effect, taken from the tefillin and inserted, unaltered, into a section of Torah text that was closely related thematically.

This is a very interesting idea on a number of accounts. For one, it inverts the ostensible relationship between the four paragraphs of text contained in the tefillin and their appearance in the Torah; it was not that four Torah sections were selected for use in tefillin, but rather, at least in some instances, the tefillin were themselves the source for these words. Secondly, it is not at all obvious that the Jews would have worn tefillin in the desert. The paragraphs in Exodus containing the commandment of tefillin speak of the situation that will pertain once the Jews will enter the Land of Canaan; there is no mention of the idea that they should begin to don them immediately.

And finally, of course, the notion of a “Documentary Hypothesis” coming from an esteemed rabbi is always somewhat piquant!

Ephraim Stulberg on Eikev, 5765

At the end of P’ Eikev, the Jews are told to conquer the Land of Canaan. “Any place upon which your feet shall tread shall be yours, from the Desert and from the Lebanon, from the River - the River Euphrates -until the Final Sea, shall be your boundaries” (D’varim 11:24). The Sifrei on this verse explains that the geographical bodies outlined here are not themselves to be considered as part of the Land. Thus, the Mediterranean Sea (“yam ha’acharon”) would not have been part of ancient Israel.

The Tosfefta (Challah 2:9), cited in Gittin (8a), cites an argument between R’ Yehuda and an unnamed scholar. R’ Yehuda holds that the portion of the Sea, as well as the islands located therein, lying within the latitudinal end points of the Land of Israel, was considered part of Israel proper; his opponent includes only those portions of the Mediterranean located east of the line connecting the northwestern and southwestern termini of Israel’s borders. Both R’ Yehuda and his counterpart base their opinions on an extra word, “boundary”, found in a verse in B’midbar (34:6), which they interpret as expanding upon the overtly described borders listed in that verse.

Thus we have three opinions regarding how we consider the Mediterranean. Practically speaking, this would mean that according to R’ Yehuda, from the time of Yehoshua’s conquest until the Jews were exiled to Babylon, produce grown in Crete, Cyprus or Malta would be subject to the biblical law of tithing. (This is assuming we accept the larger dimensions of the Land given in this week’s parasha, which makes the Euphrates the northern limit, rather than those listed in Masei, in which case it’s merely Hor Ha-har.) The halacha, however, follows the opinion of R’ Yehuda’s opponent (Rambam, Hilchos T’rumos 1:7; Tosafos, Gittin 8a).

As a side point, it should be noted that there is a general argument about whether the Hebrew word “ad”, which means “until”, should be interpreted as including the limit within the described category, or whether the limit lies outside of the bounded class (see Erechin 18a, etc.). The author of the Sifrei clearly holds that when the Torah writes “until the Final Sea”, it does not include the Sea itself. Likewise, R’ Yehuda’s opponent would not have included any segment of the sea if not for the seemingly unnecessary word, “boundary” (Rashi on Gittin 8a). R’ Yehuda, however, holds that indeed we would have included some part of the sea even without the extra word, presumably because he holds the word “ad” to imply a more inclusive categorization; the extra word must therefore come to add an even larger maritime region. Indeed, the gemara elsewhere (B’rachos 26b, Rosh Hashanah 30b) writes that R’ Yehuda believes the word “until” to be inclusive; in fact, it seems that R’ Yehuda is somewhat of an archetype in this interpretation of the word.

Ephraim Stulberg on Eikev, 5764

In Moshe’s recapitulation of the events that took place at Sinai, following his discovery of the Golden Calf, he remarks that God told him that after he would receive the second set of tablets, he ought to go and make a box in which to put them (D’varim 10:1). And this is what Moshe did, making his box, or ark, out of wood, and then going up to receive the tablets. (On the reversal of the order in which the tasks were performed, see Tanchuma, Eikev #10). Rashi comments that this box was not the one mentioned in P’ T’rumah (25:10), which consisted of a wooden Ark between two golden encasings, and which was made by Betzalel, not Moshe. Rather, this was the Ark that the Jews used to take out with them to war; that of Betzalel was only taken out to war once, in the time of Eli, and it was captured by the Philistines (see Sh’muel I 4:3).

There are a number of issues concerning this multiplicity of arks which are worth discussing, and while I really can’t say I’ve researched the topic very thoroughly at all, hopefully this email will prove useful as a starting ground for further examination.

The existence of these multiple arks is the subject of debate among the Tannaim. In the Yerushalmi (Sh’qalim 6:1), there is an argument between R’ Yehuda and the Rabbis. The former felt that there were two arks, one containing the broken tablets, which used to go out with Jews to the battlefield, the other containing the whole tablets, which used to remain behind in the camp. The Rabbis held that there was only one Ark; it went out to war only once, and was captured by the Philistines. R’ Yehuda felt that that battle was the only one in which the Ark of Betzalel was taken out; but at other battles, the Ark of Moshe was taken out. Rashi on our verse in P’ Eikev takes the side of R’ Yehuda.

In the Bavli (Bava Basra 14a), however, R’ Yehuda and R’ Me’ir argue about the size of the Ark, and over whether the Torah scroll that Moshe wrote (D’varim 31:24) was placed inside it or not; however, both acknowledge that the broken tablets were placed in the same box as the whole ones, one on top of the other (see Tosafos on M’nachos 99a). Tosafos (Eiruvin 63b) write that this argument refers to the time of the Temple, when both sets of tablets were in Betzalel’s Ark; thus there is no contradiction in the two statements of R’ Yehuda. They add that even according to the one who learns out the fact that both sets of tablets were stored in the same ark from the verse in this week’s parasha (“asher shibarta” – see Bava Basra 14b), this is meant only in the time of the Temple. This seems a bit far-fetched. Alternatively, one might say – as indeed the Mishnas Eliyahu does in his commentary on Sh’qalim – that even according to R’ Yehuda, the broken tablets were only placed in Moshe’s ark when the Jews went out to war; otherwise, they remained in Betzalel’s.

According to those who hold that there was only one Ark, how are we to explain the verse from this week’s Parasha? Ramban suggests that perhaps the original box of Moshe was buried after it was no longer needed. Malbim (on Sh’mos 25:10) suggests that the box made by Moshe was the same size as the box of Betzalel, and that it served as the wooden insert of the latter’s box.

There is another approach to all this discussion, taken by R’ David Pardo in his commentary on the Sifrei (Beha’alos’cha # 82). There, an unnamed opinion – clearly identifiable from the Yerushalmi as R’ Yehuda – states that the box which used to travel along with the Jews during wartime contained the broken tablets. To support this view, he cites the verse which says that after the Jews had been denied permission to enter Israel following the incident of the Spies, they attempted to go anyway, “and the Ark of the Covenant of God, and Moses, did not move from the camp.” (B’midbar 14:44). R’ Pardo explains that the fact that Moshe is mentioned in the verse would be redundant – they might have stolen the Ark, but not Moshe – unless we say that the reference here is to the Ark of Moshe, which resided not in the Tabernacle, but in Moshe’s own tent.

The Sifrei cites the opinion of R’ Shimon, which says that the sending of the Ark in front of the Jewish people to lead the way to Israel (Be-midbar 10:33) was akin to the sending of a deputy ahead to scout out a path. R’ Pardo explains, basically, that R’ Shimon holds that there were indeed two Arks. But the Ark of Moshe remained empty after Betzalel had built his. Moshe’s Ark would indeed travel ahead of the Jews during their campaigns – but it was not the “real” Ark, containing the tablets, manifesting the presence of God on Earth. It was slightly watered down. R’ Pardo explains that even the Rabbis in the Yerushalmi, who say that there really was only one Ark, only mean to say that there was only one Ark which ever contained anything. Once cannot say that the Ark was only taken out to war once, in the time of Eli: the mishna seems quite clear that the Ark always went out (see Sotah 42a). But it was only in the time of Eli that the Ark, manifesting God’s actual presence, made an appearance on the field of battle; and it was for that reason that the Philistines were so taken aback, as the Rabbis of the Yerushalmi note.

(N.B. This explanation of the Yerushalmi is a bit problematic.) The gemara (B’rachos 8b) warns that one must be very respectful even of Torah sages who have forgotten their learning through no fault of their own; after all, we see that the broken tablets were placed in the Ark with the whole ones. During my (very) brief tenure in yeshiva, I recall someone commenting that this simply cannot be taken literally, and that if we invoke the fact that there were really two Arks, a “real” one and one a little bit more ersatz, then the gemara makes more sense. Personally, I think this is a rather horrible thing to say, and that a senile scholar is entitled to just as much respect as one who is still with it. We have seen how even those who believe that there were two separate Arks held that at least at certain times, both sets of tablets shared space in that of Betzalel.

(It is interesting to note the different ways this idea is communicated. In M’nachos (99a), we are told simply not to show scorn for a sage who has forgotten his learning; in B’rachos (8b), we are simply told to be “careful” of such an individual; and in Tanchuma Vayakhel (#7), it says that we must give him honour – though there it refers to Torah scholars who are indigent, not forgetful.)

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Kaiserman, OUT!"

- KA

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pedigree, n. The known part of the route from an arboreal ancestor with a swim bladder to an urban descendant with a cigarette.

Quote

"You have to give Pete credit for what he accomplished. He never went to college, and the only book he ever read was The Pete Rose Story."

- Karolyn Rose, Pete Rose's ex-wife

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Mister McLaren, how tall are you?"
"Taller than you, I guess."

- GS, JM

From The Devil's Dictionary

Peace, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

Prank

You must watch this video.

Congrads!

To Tommy on joining the cast for the sixth season of 24!

The Pillsbury Doughboy Has Passed Away

Please join us in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community. The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and trauma complications from repeated pokes in the belly. He was 71.

Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin. Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, and Captain Crunch. The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded. Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers. He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes. Despite being a little flaky at times he still was a crusty old man and was considered a positive roll model for millions.

Doughboy is survived by his wife Play Dough, two children, John Dough and Jane Dough, plus they had one in the oven. He is also survived by his elderly father, Pop Tart. The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

If this made you smile for even a brief second, please rise to the occasion and take time to pass it on and share that smile with someone else who may be having a crumby day and kneads it.

(From here)

Quote

"I passed my time reading a book. It was called J.F.K. - The Man and the Airport."

- Joe Magrane

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Well, it's disturbing me; it looks damn good."

- KF, re. MF the Elder's lasagna and his protests that he should not be forced to remove it from the classroom because it was not disturbing anyone

From The Devil's Dictionary

Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

Mazel Tov

To She Who Must Not Be Named on her wedding.

Domino Everything!

How long do you think it took to set up everything?

Star Wars #5: What an oddity!

Sometimes you wonder why they cut scenes from a movie. Classic example.

Star Wars #4: A Night at the Roxbury

Seems like that head-bobbing shtick from the SNL skit and later the film A Night at the Roxbury was actually stolen from Star Wars (see here).

Somehow I had that webpage open in a separate browser for twenty whole minutes before I realized that I was singing "small moon....small moon....small moon" on cue. I need to get out more.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"שטן is in your heart; it is not 'Satan', you know - Mr. Bouchard or somebody."

- RBP, day after 1998 Quebec election

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pastime, n. A device for promoting dejection. Gentle exercise for intellectual debility.

Ephraim Stulberg on Va'etchanan, 5766: When do we read Va-eschanan?

Throughout this year, we have read several “double parashas”. The reason we have these double readings is essentially because, during this non-leap year, there are more parashiyos than there are available Shabbasos (since several Shabbasos are taken over by special festival readings). The distribution of the double-readings is dictated by a number of specific associations that were made between the festivals and certain Torah sections. Thus P’ Tzav (or Aharei Mos in leap years) always immediately precedes Pesah, B’midbar always precedes Shavuos, etc.

Tisha B’av is another such holiday, precisely located between the readings of D’varim and Va-eschanan. According to the Tur and Shulhan Arukh (O.C. 428:4) the key point lies in having Va-eschana FOLLOW Tisha B’av, though they provide no explanation for it. The Levush, strangely enough, explains the rule as deriving from the need to have D'varim BEFORE Tisha B’av. He writes that the motivation in this is our desire to associate P’ D’varim, which begins with Moshe’s rebuke of the Jews, with the rebuke contained in the Haphtara portion read from the beginning of Isaiah.

This reason seems quite inadequate; not only does it require a twisted reading of the Tur’s words, but the notion of manipulating the schedule in order to obtain a Torah reading that aligns with the Haphtara seems kind of backwards.

In Sefer Abudarham, the halakha appears in a somewhat different form. Abudarham writes that Va-eschanan is read the week BEFORE Tisha B’av. Va-eschanan contains a threat of what is to happen to the Jews should they not obey the commandments. “When you shall have borne children and grandchildren and grown old in the land…I shall call to witness heaven and earth, for you shall surely be obliterated” (Deut. 4:25). The gemara (Gittin 88a) notes that the gematria for “and grown old” (“ve-noshantem”) is 852. The First Temple was destroyed 850 years after the Israelites’ initial entry into the Holy Land; had God waited another two years, the devastation described in P’ Va-eschanan would have been fulfilled, and the sufferings visited upon the Jews would have been that much worse.

The logic here seems to be a bit stronger, though it is unclear to me why Abudarham, who was a student of the Ba’al Hatturim, would argue with him. The phrase “Tzumu u-tzlu” which is used to describe the rule also seems pretty clearly to indicate that Va-eschanan is to come AFTER Tisha B’av. As well, according to the system of Abudarham, it is unclear which other parasha would be “doubled” in the Diaspora in the event of Shavuos occurring on a Friday-Saturday. (In the section of Sefer Abudarham dealing with double-readings, it’s quite clear that he doesn’t entertain such a case - perhaps he considers Hukkas-Balaq to be only one reading? When he discusses instances in which a reading is doubled in this period, he mentions a combined Shlah-Qorah.)

(According to Abudarham, then, we would read Hazzon after P’ Va-eschanan.)

Ephraim Stulberg on Va'etchanan, 5764

There is a rather vague commandment in this week’s parasha, which reads as follows: “You shall not test Hashem, Your God, as you tested him at Massah” (D’varim 6:16). What exactly does this negative commandment entail? Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought:

1) Rambam (Yesodei Ha-torah 10:5, Negative Commandment #64) writes that the basic idea of the commandment is that one may not subject a prophet to excessive testing. Once the messenger of Hashem proves his bona fides, we are obligated to believe in him wholeheartedly.

2) S’mag (Negative Commandment #4) writes that the idea is that we are not allowed to test Hashem, to see if the rewards He promises for fulfillment of His commandments are indeed fulfilled. It is essentially summed up in the famous dictum of the mishnah (Avos 1:3): “Do not be like servants who labour in order to receive a reward.” This is also the opinion of Sefer Yere’im (#361), B’chor Shor and Rabbeinu Bachyei on the parasha, and Sefer Hareidim (Ch. 21, #18). Radak (Sh’muel I 16:1) states that the rule that “we don’t rely on miracles” is also based on this prohibition. One who relies on a miracle implies that he is owed some sort of favour from God for his prior good behaviour. In other words, the commandment (in the sense understood by S’mag) applies both before performing the commandment, and afterwards. (See P’sahim 8b, which seems also to make this analogy of Radak’s.)

These two explanations seem to have little to do with one another. Ramban, however, explains that they are really one and the same. He says that the sin of the Jews at Massah was that they tested “whether God is among us, or not” (Sh’mos 17:7). Someone who remains skeptical of an established prophet in effect questions the capacity of God to deliver the goods. It is improper to serve Hashem “in order to receive a reward,” to make one’s willingness to serve God contingent upon immediate gratification. Rather, the Torah tells us to serve God, obey his commandments, and in the end we will get our just desserts. We must trust the Torah’s promises that reward lies ahead. (See also Sefer Ha-Hinuch #424.)

Rav Sa’adya Ga’on, in his work Emunos Ve-dei’os (Ma’amar T’hyas Ha- meisim) writes that the prohibition only applies if one is testing God’s ability; if, however, he tests his own worthiness, asking God to perform a miracle to prove to himself that he is indeed worthy of Divine protection – as Gideon did (Shoftim 6:39) – then this is permissible. After all, it is permissible to test an unproven prophet. Indeed, the proper response of one who feels his obeisance of God’s word has not been properly recompensed is not to complain to God, but to search within himself. Whenever the doubt is truly in man’s capacities, not in God’s, then skepticism is healthy. Thus we find that God tests men, such as Avraham, while men are prohibited from doing so to God. (See also B’reishis Rabbah 55:3, and the comment of Maharzu.)

The gemara (Ta’anis 9a) states that this prohibition against testing God does not apply to the commandment of tithing: one is permitted to give his tithe in full anticipation of receiving his reward. It bases this law on the verse (Malachi 3:10): “Bring all the tithes to the store house, so there will be food [for those who work] in My house, and test me, see if I don’t open the windows of Heaven and empty out blessings for you.” We see from this gemara, incidentally, that Rambam cannot possibly mean to exclude from the purview of the commandment the case discussed by S’mag.

Sefer Ha-Hinuch explains that the reason for this exception is that the reward for fulfillment of the mitzvos is not in this world; therefore, it is unjust to anticipate that reward right away. Tithing, which the Torah tells us is clearly different, in that the reward is indeed in this world, is
therefore exempt from the general commandment. What about charity? The Hinuch seems to imply that charity is not included in the exemption granted to tithing; he says that the reason someone who gives money to charity in order that his son be remedied of an illness is called righteous by the gemara (Bava Basra 10b) is because the gemara is referring to someone who will not be disappointed if his wish goes unfulfilled; he hopes for the result, but his action is not based solely on the consideration of a quid pro quo. The implication of this stance, as R’ Shlomo Eiger points out in his notes on the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D 247), is that with tithes one can even be upset with God if he is not rewarded with material prosperity. This seems to be a rather
strange thing to say; and yet the verse from Malachi does seem to say that not only is one allowed to anticipate receiving wealth in return for giving tithes, but he is also allowed to “test” God if such prosperity does not indeed accrue. Although there are other commandments where the Torah seems to tell us that we can anticipate some sort of reward – e.g. mezuzah – this does
not mean that we can question God if things don’t work out that way. But tithing seems to be different, in that it is capable of scientific testing.

Meiri (Ta’anis 9a) writes that it is never okay to wonder why one has not been rewarded for a mitzvah. When the gemara cites tithing as an exception, it means simply to say that while with other commandments, one might have seemingly legitimate grounds to doubt whether the reward is going to come, with tithes one can be completely sure of receiving his reward. However, this seems to fit rather poorly with what the gemara actually says.

Quote

"One of them has me dead already."

- Mark Koenig, on why he doesn't trust any books written about the 1927 Yankees

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Burn"

- OTI, said when someone is burned

From The Devil's Dictionary

Past, n. That part of Eternity with some small fraction of which we have a slight and regrettable acquaintance. A moving line called the Present parts it from an imaginary period known as the Future.

Question

If all the lonely men of faith got together and formed a frat society - maybe named it Lambda Mu Phi - would they still be lonely?

The World's Smartest Janitor?

Well, I figure I'm on a roll (this will be my fourth consecutive post in a mere five minutes) so why not go with the flow.

For the past couple of months I can't help to have noticed this one lonely, unsued garbage can at Downsview subway station. The reason for it's lack of use is due to the four signs which surround it that read "Preventative Maintenance." Sounds like we have a pretty smart janitor working (or not working as the case may be) for the Toronto Transit Commission. In fact it sounds like a wonderful second job. It will never interfere with my current job and it's a great way to supplement my megre income. Somebody get me an application.

Did I mention?

I can't wait to retire.

Hello there again!

I guess I should explain my relatively long absence. I got a job.

For all you handlebar moustache lovers

The bidding is only at $0.51 on ebay. A must buy for any true hockey fan!

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Is you a visual learner?"

- JJ

From The Devil's Dictionary

Pantheism, n. The doctrine that everything is God, in contradistinction to the doctrine that God is everything.

Baseball Quote

"It would be called I Hate the Game But I Love Drinking the Beer.

- Kent Hrbek, on his autobiography

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"You say 'Asher Yatzar' on prune juice."

- MF the Elder

From The Devil's Dictionary

Palmistry, n. The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Who knew?

I have a feeling that many of this blog's readers will find this of particular interest...especially those of us that played for Egert & Cohen Insurance of the Jerusalem Floor Hockey League back in the 2002 season.

Here is an article on NHL.com about the slow but steady growth of hockey in Israel. I'd actually heard that Israel had won the Division 2 (or something like that) World Hockey Championship (or was it the World Juniors?) of the IIHF. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting article.

http://www.nhl.com/features/pond/israel072806.html

And here's a link to Hockey Israel's main site - they even have merchandise!

http://www.israel-hockey.com/

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Give me ambiguity or give me something else."

- RBC

From The Devil's Dictionary

Palace, n. A fine and costly residence, particularly that of a great official. The residence of a high dignitary of the Christian Church is called a palace; that of the Founder of his religion was known as a field, or wayside. There is progress.