Man beats God

For a brief period when I was a teenager, the definition of Jewish pride was the professional wrestler Goldberg. After all, in the '80s, even goyim changed their names to wrestle, and Jews changed their names just to tell jokes. But a new era was dawning, and amidst all the faux reality and showmanship, it was nice to have some honesty.
Truth be told, the Jewish wrestling tradition goes back to The Beginning, the Book of Genesis. The very name Israel is given to Jacob, "because you have struggled with God and with humans and have prevailed" (32:28). And in this case, the men's division was late to the game, since Jacob's beloved Rachel says a decade before, "With wrestlings of God I have wrestled with my sister, yea, I have prevailed" (30:8), giving the name Naphtali -- My Wrestling.
Nevertheless, these examples seem a bit high-minded. Rachel and her sister Leah grapple with God metaphorically, and Jacob's battle is with an angel (as Hosea 12:5 states) in the form of a man. The Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4:5) presents a much more literal grappling with God, explaining how it was that the First Tablets, with the Ten Commandments on them, came to be shattered by Moses.

You did well to shatter them" -- Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: “The tablets were six handbreadths long and three wide. Moses grasped two handbreadths' worth and the Holy One grasped two handbreadths' worth and there were two handbreadths left in the middle. Once Israel did what they did, the Holy One tried to snatch them away from Moses, but Moses was stronger and snatched them from God. This is the meaning of the biblical praise at the end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34:12), ‘and all his strong arm’ -- Let there be peace upon him whose arm was stronger than mine!”

According to Rabbi Jonathan, there is a literal tug-of-war over the Torah, and Moses beats God. (Doubtless if he were around today, this rabbi would have his ordination revoked for such heresy.) So what is Moses' plan here? Does he hope to abscond to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with Heaven? Is he going to upload the Tablets and make them open-source? Is he going to mass-produce generic versions of the Commandments?
No, Moses just wants to shatter them. Why? Because Tablets shattered by human hands can be replaced by human hands, as indeed happens shortly. On the other hand, if God snatches the Tablets back and takes them back to Heaven, who knows whether the Torah will ever return to man?
Indeed, it seems that by snatching the Tablets back, God is giving Moses the opportunity to walk away: no harm, no foul. After all, the Israelites, dancing around the Golden Calf at the time, are presumably not ready for the Torah's challenges. So why not just let God take His magnum opus back? Perhaps a later generation will be prepared for this awesome opportunity.
But Moses passes the test. He does not relent; he wrestles with God and pulls the Tablets from His grip. Audacious, awe-inspiring -- and acclaimed by God Himself, in the very last verse of that very Torah.
And herein lies the contradiction of this weekend, opening the unique Jewish hybrid of Ramadan and Lent known as The Three Weeks, leading up to Tisha b'Av. This period is inaugurated by the 17th of Tammuz, but this year, we will not fast on that date, because it falls out tomorrow, on Shabbat. Before we fast on Sunday and remember the tragedy of the Tablets being broken, we have a day to savor Moses' audacity and the hope it grants us.
What must Moses have felt in his Tablet tug-of-war, stepping into the ring with God Himself? This is what I could not stop thinking about at the Jerusalem March for Pride and Tolerance yesterday.

(Credit: Y. Bloch, Liberty Bell Park, Jerusalem, 21 July 2016)

 We feel God tugging, trying to snatch away the Torah, as it were. We may imagine the divine words: "You're not ready for this! Your society is riven by discord and hate. The words of this Torah are used as a crown to magnify one group and a spade to bury another! It belongs in Heaven, until you all are worthy."

But we must not give up. We must hold on for dear life, snatching the Torah back, keeping it down on earth as a living document. And if we shatter it, we can mend it. We've been doing that for more than 3,000 years. And we will continue, with trepidation, but tenacity, until we hear those words from God Himself: "You did well to shatter them."

Down the Q&A Hole

Responsa are a weird and wild archipelago in the sea of Torah. Originally these shutim (literally, questions and answerses -- yes, it's a double plural) were collections of actual missives sent to sages around the world and the halachic replies sent back. You might find an analysis of open-carry for Wild West Bank women (Iggerot Moshe OH IV 75), sleeping with a man who claims to be Elijah the Prophet (a totally different meaning of כוס של אליהו, Binyan Zion 154) or whether you have to repeat Grace After Meals if the individual who led the prayer revealed himself to be a horse (Ezrat Mitzar 8). Think of them as Infrequently Asked Questions.
Why don't you come with me, down the rabbit hole -- or more precisely, the Q&A hole? You'll be walking in a Yiddish Wonderland.
Shutim have now gone online, just like the rest of life. For well over a decade, the religious-Zionist website Kipa has had an Ask the Rabbi section. Most of the questions are fairly pedestrian, but one has recently received a lot of attention -- not so much for the query, but for the replier, Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim, nominated to be the next Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces.
Let's see it inside.

I have read about [the halachik question of] "the beautiful captive" on this site as well as studying the laws in the Torah, but I still have a question:
In various wars among the nations, e.g. World War I, various nations fought among themselves, and no one among them was particularly good to the Jews or particularly bad to the Jews...
However, were they to capture a village populated by Jews and rape Jewish girls, it was rightly considered a catastrophe and tragedy for the young woman and the family.
Thus, rape in war is considered a shocking matter. So how is it that a rabbi told me that a beautiful woman [captive] is allowed, according to some authorities, even before the entire process [pertaining to captives] described in the Torah? In other words, he submits to his desire and sleeps with her, and only then takes her to his house, etc.?
This seems contradictory to me. If raping civilians in war is something forbidden and shocking, why should it apparently be allowed for a Jew?
And would it be permitted in our days for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape young girls in time of combat, or would this be forbidden?
Thank you.

That is the entire text of the question. (The one ellipsis is in the original.) If you want to read the passage, it's Deut. 21:10-14; Maimonides details the process in Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 8. Suffice it to say that the issue of the beautiful captive is not pretty, especially the part about taking her to a deserted place to force her (3) and killing her if she later refuses to convert (9).
But now for the answer:

Wars of Israel -- whether mitzva wars or volitional wars -- are mitzva wars. They are thus different from other wars conducted by the nations of the world among themselves. Since war is, by definition, not a particular matter -- rather the nation as a whole fights -- there are situations in which the personality of the individual is "erased" for the sake of the collective. Conversely, sometimes a large unit is imperiled to save an individual when the matter is exigent due to considerations of morale.
One of the most important and determinate values in war is maintaining the army's combat readiness. That is why the fearful and fainthearted are sent back from the ranks, so that they will not melt their brothers' hearts. The emotions and needs of the individual are shoved aside in order for the nation to succeed in war. Just as in war the boundaries of endangerment for the sake of others are "breached," so too in war the boundaries of tzniut and kashrut are "breached." Libation wine, which is not permitted in peacetime, is permitted in war, in order to maintain the good feelings of the combatants. Forbidden foods are permitted in war (according to a few opinions, even if kosher food is available) in order to maintain the combatants' readiness, even though under conditions of peace they would be forbidden.
Similarly, war overrides certain aspects of sexual immorality, even though intimacy with a non-Jewess is a very serious matter; nevertheless it is permitted in war (under the conditions which permit it), due to consideration for the combatants' difficulties. Since the success of the collective in war is our primary concern, the Torah allows the individual to indulge his evil desire under the conditions it permits, for the sake of the success of the collective.
Shalom,
Eyal Karim

You can still read this responsum on Kipa. It's been up since 2002. There is a link to a clarification from 2012 "for one who is not an expert in the halachic world." Does the five-minute rule for food turn into a ten-year rule for responsa? I don't know. But considering that the replier is nominated to be the chief chaplain for an army which has many women, gays and non-Jews in its ranks; and considering that he has expressed incendiary ideas about all of these groups, some since retracted and some not; and considering that he would be my (reserve) boss, I don't find it funny anymore. So can we please dig ourselves out of this hole?

The True Shanda

Blogging about blogging is not something I usually have time for, but sometimes you have no choice.
My social-media feed today is being flooded by Rav Zev Shandalov's "Why I Will No Longer Blog in The Times of Israel." I don't know if he'll still view it, so maybe he'll miss this too, but Rav Zev is not my intended audience.
I want instead to address the subject of his ire, The Times of Israel's editorial policy. Rav Zev refrains from ad-hominem attacks, but those who share his piece often do not, even going so far as to tag the people they'd like to call out.
So what angers Rav Zev so much? The following lines:

Murdered in her bed: Teenage girl killed in terror attack Terrorist breaks into Kiryat Arba home, stabs teenage girl dozens of times, killing her. Member of local security team also wounded.

In the words of Rav Zev:

I read and re-read those words, and my blood began to boil. How dare the Times of Israel make the location of this girl’s murder a part of the story!? It was as if the fact that she was in the “West Bank” almost made the murder understandable. It was as if the Times of Israel was saying that we can “understand” (MY words, not theirs) why this happened.

Oh wait a second, I got that wrong. That header was from Arutz 7, also known as Israel National News, comfortably ensconced on the right wing of the spectrum. When they tell you where the attack took place, we can rely on them. We don't need Talmudic exegesis of why the subheadline does say where it happened, or why there's no mention of the nationality of attacker or victim. Not one time in the article do the terms Jew, Arab, Muslim, Palestinian or Israeli come up. Why is that? Is Arutz 7 afraid to face the truth? What are they trying to cover up?

The answer, of course, is nothing. They're reporting the story the way they usually do. As was Times of Israel, when it wrote:

Israeli girl, 13, stabbed to death by Palestinian in her West Bank bedroom

Hallel Yaffa Ariel killed by terrorist who entered her home in Kiryat Arba; civilian guard also injured responding to incident; attacker killed.

So why is the latter so offensive, so outrageous, so unconscionable that Rav Zev will never write for ToI again? Is it the unpardonable term "West Bank"? I doubt it, since the Bible uses that term (I Chron. 26:30).
Moreover, Rav Zev says quite clearly that it's identifying the place at all which disgusts him: "How dare the Times of Israel make the location of this girl’s murder a part of the story!"
Perhaps his introduction can be edifying:

Rather, I wish to take umbrage with many editorial decisions that have been made at Times of Israel, since I began posting my blog in July of 2013.Over the years, I fully understood that the site was not in concert with what I believed. It did not and does not share my values or my outlook on the State of Israel. I continued to post on their site, though, since it would give my writing exposure and readership. (There isn’t a writer around who doesn’t want his or her writing to get to the largest possible audience.)
I also knew full well about their editorial positions and chose to ignore them or (on some occasions) call them out on them. The one time that they censored one of my articles (which in and of itself PROVED the point of the post!) I just went ahead and posted it on Facebook.

Herein lies the problem: Rav Zev feels he did ToI a favor by posting on "a ‘left-wing, kumbaya, let’s not offend the world, occupation-is-the-reason-for-all-the-world’s-ills’ kind of site." But since he knows their true nature, he knows what they mean when they have the gall to identify the location of this heinous act of butchery.
The most important fact of this incident is the stunning, incalculable, cruel tragedy of a girl going from her bat mitzva party one year to her funeral the next. But the true shanda is that we have become so convinced of the inhumanity of our fellow citizens that we see their every act, every word, every gesture as calculated and compassionless. Now more than ever we need fora where we can come together to weep, to grieve, to talk... even, especially, if we're not all saying the same thing.

Mainstream Racism in 3 Easy Steps!

You know it's hard out here for a racism pimp. If racial bigotry and hatred is your stock-in-trade, it's a tough sell nowadays. A generation or two ago, you could count on the conservative or right-wing parties to welcome you or at least wink at you. Now, they shun you. The old standbys--"Some of my best friends are you-know-whats!" "You-know-whats are my best customers/ employees!"--just make you sound more racist.
But there is hope. For a decade now, discredited companies have been using the magic of re-branding. Blackwater renamed itself twice in three years! Now, that might not work for you as an individual, since you would lose all your Instagram followers. Instead, you need to re-brand your racism. All it takes is 3 easy steps:
1. Defining discrimination down: engage in definitional sophistry. 
This first step has three approaches:

A) X's comments can't be racist, because racism is an ideology, and X is no ideologue.

It is indeed surprising that this one fools people, as it is the exact opposite of the truth. Racism is prejudice--as in judging BEFORE you have evidence or data. The ideology only comes later. Think of the folks siccing dogs and firing hoses on black people trying to vote or go to school. Did they all have 100,000-word manifestos at home? Most racists aren't ideologues; most humans aren't ideologues. However, because the most prominent racists try to justify themselves in (bad) writing, speaking & broadcasting, this one fools a lot of allegedly intelligent people.

B) Race is just a social construct, so it's meaningless.

You've got to be audacious to pull this one off, but the payoff is huge. See, if race isn't real, how can racism be real? This one is a half-truth, because race is indeed a social construct, but of course racism is a social ill. The black family in Queens denied housing by a slumlord may be the victims of a fabricated social construct, but it's meaningful as hell for them.

C) It's not racism, because we're talking about a group based on ethnicity/ religion/ national origin.

This is the flip-side of B): arguing that racism does indeed exist, but limiting it so drastically that you're let off the hook. What, did you say Mexicans or Muslims should be judged by their background, not their actions? Neither one is a race, so we're all good! Some think that it's discrimination which is the problem, not which biographical factor you're basing it on, but hey, that's why we need to keep them down, right?
OK, that's Step 1. Your statement/ idea/ action is not racist. But what is it then?
2. Alchemical dependency: transmute your racism with pseudo-synonyms
There are many synonyms for racism: discrimination, bigotry, prejudice, etc. None of those will help your case. However, pseudo-synonyms are extremely useful: terms that seem to be equivalent but are not, e.g. offensive, insensitive, off-color, inappropriate, polarizing, divisive, controversial. Those terms may appear to be negative, but they subtly shift the onus from the speaker to the subject. Did he find that offensive? Maybe he's easily offended. Did she find that insensitive? Maybe she's hypersensitive. Did they find that polarizing or divisive? Maybe they shouldn't take such an extreme stand in opposition.
OK, you're almost there. You're no longer a racist, but you still seem like a jerk. How can you go from zero to hero?
3. Despicable gallantry medal: make yourself a social-justice war hero.
Try this sample script. Make sure to punctuate it with head-shakes and looks of consternation.

It's really a shame that in today's politically correct society, we can no longer honestly discuss issues of major consequence. We're so afraid of overrunning people's safe spaces with micro-aggressions that we stifle the free exchange of ideas. Well, I say no! This country was built on freedom of speech, and I will not be cowed. Maybe this isn't politically correct, but I believe that the truth is still something worth fighting for!

Stirring, no? In three easy steps, you've gone from Andrew Jackson c. 2015 to Andrew Dice Clay to Andrew Jackson c. 1815! Huzzah!
Sure, you're still a racist, but now you and your supporters don't have to feel guilty about it. And isn't that the point?

20 Years of Peace

Tel Aviv sits in Gush Dan, the Dan bloc. Israel has no states, provinces or counties per se, but it does have millennia of history. The name of the region goes all the way back to the Bible, in which the tribe of Dan receives territory from Zorah in the lowlands to Joppa on the coast (Josh. 19:40-46). In fact, tomorrow we will read from the thirteenth chapter of Judges, the origin story of Samson, which begins: "And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites," and concludes: "And the spirit of the LORD began to move him in Dan's camp, between Zorah and Eshtaol."
So why do we read this prophetic passage this weekend? It has two links to the Torah portion, Naso. Num. 6 explains what it means to be a Nazirite, which Samson is ordered to be from birth, while Num. 7 tells us about the dedication offerings of the tribal princes, including Ahiezer, Prince of Dan, on the tenth day. The Midrash (Num. Rabbah) explains that "He brought his offering to correspond to Samson, as Jacob's blessing to Dan focuses solely on Samson."
(If you're wondering how Ahiezer knew the details of his latter-day tribesman's life -- forget it, Jake, it's Midrash Rabbah.)
Consider, for example, how it tackles the final element of the dedication offering: "And for the sacrifice of peace-offerings, two oxen..."

This corresponds to the two times it is written of him that he judged Israel for 20 years, and these are they: "And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 20 years" (Jud. 15:20); "And he judged Israel 20 years" (Jud. 16:31). This teaches you that the judged Israel for 20 years of his life; then, for 20 years after his death, the reverence of Samson was upon the Philistines, and they dwelled in tranquility.

This is intriguing, as it means that Samson, like so many other early Jewish leaders -- from Moses; to fellow Judges Othniel, Deborah and Gideon; to Kings David and Solomon -- had a tenure of forty years. However, unlike his colleagues, half of his was after his death!
The Midrash here distinguishes between two types of peace: one based on mishpat, and one based on mora. Mishpat is usually translated as justice, but as amusing as it is to imagine Samson's confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, that's not the sort of Judge we find ruling over Israel and leading it in war during the pre-monarchial period. Perhaps Judge Doom. Or Judge Dredd.
Dread is one of the translations of mora, but I translated it above as "reverence," describing what the Philistines felt once Samson was dead. It certainly was not the worry of what Samson might do--the Philistines did not fear a zombie strongman. Mora is a term which parallels kavod, honor or respect. The Talmud (Kiddushin 31b) explains: "Mora -- neither stand in his place nor sit in his place, nor contradict his words, nor tip the scales against him." Mora, on the national level, means not seeking to dispossess or disinherit another people.
Thus, Pax Samsonia had two distinct periods: that of reactive mishpat in his life and that of preemptive mora in his death. The former involved a lot of smiting, as the Midrash notes; but what's truly wondrous is the latter, two decades of peace based on the final sacrifice of Samson.
As we consider the horrific terror attack this week in Tel Aviv's Sarona market, in the heart of ancient Dan, we have to ask ourselves: how do we get to the era of mora? How do we reach a place of mutual respect in which we say that the slaughter must end, in which killing is decried by all people of good conscience? How do we find the period of peace that lies beyond awful tragedy? When, at last, will we all dwell in tranquility?
It is high time for our 20 years of peace to begin.

The Big Five-Oh

We Jews love our numbers, but we're a bit so-so on Numbers.
The fourth of the Five Books of Moses, which we begin this week, is a testament to truth in advertising, as its first portion at least is full of detailed census results. Sure, those numbers are round, firm and plump, but what do they mean? Does how many thousands and how many hundreds Reuben and Judah had really resonate millennia after all those folks died?
There is one tribe which breaks the double-oh pattern, however:

Those that were numbered of them, of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty.

The Gaddites have an extra fifty, which naturally means that the total of the Israelites, a number we've been hearing about since the Book of Exodus, also ends in 50. But did every other tribe randomly have perfect hundreds with zero remainders? That seems actuarially unlikely. Rabbi A.D. Goldberg, citing Imrei Noam, offers a different take:

Certainly the intent is that the Torah rounds to the nearest hundred, not the nearest ten, for if so we would still be challenged by the unreasonable proposition that no tribe other than Gad happened to have an exact multiple of ten. The reason the tribe of Gad was not rounded is that its count was exactly fifty, which cannot be rounded to the nearest hundred; for which of them would you exclude?

In other words, it's easy enough to add or subtract 49 to bring a total to the closest hundred. But if it's 50 on the nose, why is it more valid to add 50 and bring it to 45,700 then subtract 50 and bring it to 45,600? Thus, an even fifty at the end stays put, indelible.
The Gaddite census is hardly the first time we come across an ineffaceable fifty. At Sinai, Moses is advised by his father-in-law to appoint judges in an almost perfectly decimalized system: over tens, hundreds and thousands. But in between the first two are "officers over fifty." Indeed, the officer over fifty (pentecoster, to be technical) is a position of unique authority and regard during the First Commonwealth (I Samuel 8:12, II Kings 1, Isaiah 3:3). A unit of fifty people has special significance which cannot be ignored.
Nor can we overlook the monetary value of fifty. At the peak of physical ability, one's valuation is fifty shekels (Lev. 27:3), The value of land is also determined by a fifty-shekel standard (ibid. v. 16). This is even the standard bridal payment (Exod. 22:17, Deut. 22:29).
Most striking, however, is the use of fifty in units of time. After all, we are currently "counting the omer," marking the days and weeks until we arrive at the fiftieth day after Passover, commemorating the Giving of the Torah on Shavuot (AKA Pentecost--yeah, that's where it comes from). The date is immaterial; we are commanded to sanctify the fiftieth day after leaving Egypt.
Fifty weeks is the length of a standard year on the Hebrew calendar.
And fifty years? That once again brings us to the end of Leviticus (25:10-13):

Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan. The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you; eat only what is taken directly from the fields. In this year of jubilee, everyone is to return to their own property.

The fiftieth year is (usually) a once-in-a-lifetime event, an occasion to restore and return, of reuniting families and proclaiming liberty. It is sacred and inviolable. It is not to be ignored.
And so we enter the fiftieth year, the jubilee of united Jerusalem. Perhaps this year we will finally find the courage to answer the questions that Jerusalem demands of us, or at least to ask them. Instead of hiding behind slogans and cliches, we may finally confront the challenges of David's capital. What is our vision for Jerusalem? What does unity mean? How do we proclaim liberty not in theory, but in practice? How, ultimately, do we make the Holy City whole?

Uncensered

Leviticus, the middle child of the Pentateuch, is often overlooked as we prepare for the spring and its bevy of colorful holidays. However, the Book does offer some pyrotechnics in this week's portion, Shemini (9:1-3):

Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered foreign fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. ² So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. ³ And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke, saying: ‘By those who come near Me, I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people, I must be glorified.’” So Aaron held his peace.

This is not only a personal tragedy, but a national one as well. For 25 chapters--the last 16 of Exodus and the first 9 of Leviticus--the Israelites are dedicated to one purpose: constructing and consecrating the Tabernacle and its vessels, including the human ones, Aaron and his four sons. Now, the elder two--already designated for greatness at Sinai (Exod. 24:1-9)--are dead, precisely at the height of the celebration, the eighth (shemini) day, following a week-long initiation process.

So what did they do wrong? The Baal Haturim, famous for his love of mnemonics and gematria, here hews closely to the simple meaning of the words.

"Which He had not commanded them"--now, we cannot say that he neither commanded them to do so nor commanded them not to do so! Rather, it means "which he commanded them not to." The same is true of "or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded" (Deut. 17:3) [that God commanded not to worship the stars].

What law did they violate? Apparently, Baal Haturim alludes to Exod. 30:9: "You shall not offer foreign incense on it." But if the prohibition is foreign incense, why speak of "foreign fire," both here and in Numbers 3:4?

The fact is that fire is a leitmotif in Shemini, appearing no less than--what else?--eight times in the story of the eighth day. At first, the fire is outside the camp, for the incineration of a special type of sin-offering. At the completion of the ceremony, Aaron blesses the people and a fire comes down from heaven to light up the altar, at the center of the camp. By then kindling their own fire, Nadab and Abihu defile the Tabernacle and defy God, for which they end up paying the ultimate price, as a divine fire comes forth to devour them. To set matters straight, Moshe stresses three times that the survivors, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, must eat their portions from "the fires of the Lord." Procedure must be followed, even in their bereavement.
All of this seems esoteric to the modern reader. Divine fire, profane fire--what does it all mean? However, the power of our fire is far from a moot point. The idioms are the same in English and Hebrew: opening fire, ceasefire, under fire. When we hold our fire and when we fire away are questions of morality. The stakes are so high that we as a society must be exacting in determining when such fire is justified and when it is not. Nadab and Abihu, after all, were righteous men, destined for positions of prominence, but their momentary error in judgment doomed them. God knew what was in their heart; all we have is a system of laws to try to uncover the truth of the matter. In the meantime, we must reaffirm our commitment to never profane the awesome power of our fire.