Some videos from my visit to Toronto last weekend, to see my niece and nephew (oh OK, and parents etc.).
November 9, 2009
Nothing like a Flipcam!
November 8, 2009
Kol BeIsha Erva – Teshuva by R David Bigman
In a recent thread on a private listserv with an Orthodox Jewish orientation, I mentioned the Jewish People’s Philharmonic Chorus (www.thejppc.org) and was questioned about its propriety because of traditional strictures against women singing in the presence of men. In response I mentioned a recent responsum by Rav David Bigman, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Maale Gilboa. I am pleased to post the full responsum here, in both the original Hebrew and in the authorized English translation. I welcome discussion via blog comments.
To summarize (from the authorized translation):
There is no prohibition whatsoever of innocent singing; rather, only singing intended for sexual stimulation, or flirtatious singing, is forbidden. Although this distinction is not explicit in the early rabbinic sources, it closely fits the character of the prohibition as described in different contexts in the Talmud and the Rishonim, and it is supported by the language of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Arukh.
Click here for the original Hebrew
November 5, 2009
New Book Review – “Start-up Nation”
An interesting review (in The Atlantic) of a book about Israel’s success as an R&D and innovation center. Not a ‘pro-Israel agenda’ book at all, but one with profound implications for the developing world. Sounds like a book well worth reading.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/dan_senor_on_israels_tech_mira.php
November 2, 2009
October 28, 2009
Lech Lecha – comparing 3 versions of the Ur Kasdim midrash
I learned something interesting from Rabbi Azarya Berzon of the Toronto YU Kollel this week.
The midrashic story of Avram’s brother Haran is well-known. It is based on the term ‘Ur Kasdim’, (‘Ur of the Chaldeans’) in Genesis 11:28. In Rashi’s version:
“The Midrash teaches us that he died on account of his father. For Terach complained to Nimrod that Avram had crushed his idols, so Nimrod cast Avram into a fiery furnace. Haran sat and thought, ‘If Avram is victorious, I am on his side, and if Nimrod is victorious, I am on his side.’ When Avram was saved, they said to Haran, ‘Whose side are you on?’ Haran said to them, ‘I am on Avram’s side!’ They cast him into the fiery furnace and he was burned.”
However there (at least) are two other versions.
In one, when Avram emerges from the furnace and Haran declares his allegiance, the onlookers assume that Haran is some kind of magician who was able to keep the fire from harming Avram. To set the record straight, God has the fire leap from the furnace and consume Haran! In this version, Haran’s doubts seem superfluous to the story. Also, while he harbored heretical thoughts, he still declared his allegiance to Avram, so for God to kill him to make an apparently unrelated theological point seems rather harsh! Perhaps one could say that just as Haran was killed despite his apparent innocence, any victim may be harboring secrets that are not apparent to the onlooker, so one cannot fairly judge God’s justice. The theological ramifications are still quite difficult though.
In a third version, Haran is cast into the furnace and the fire consumes his insides but leaves his body intact, such that he is able to stagger out of the furnace, only to die in his father’s arms. Rabbi Berzon explained that the midrash is commenting that as he was guilty of internal doubts (but outwardly declared his allegiance to Avram and God), the fire burned his insides but not the outward appearance of his body.
Nice touch!
Incidentally, while the whole story is clearly a rabbinic takeoff on the name ‘Ur’, it seems that the rabbis were unaware of (or ignored) the existence of the ancient city of Ur, and figured that ‘Kasdim’ was the name of the place. It is of course quite clear that ‘Ur Kasdim’ simply means ‘Ur of the Chaldeans’. Or am I missing something here?
October 22, 2009
I am Featured on UBA TV
My ‘elevator pitch’ was featured yesterday on ‘Fearless Business’ on UBA TV!
(I’m at 29:00)
October 20, 2009
Chicago Center for Jewish Genetic Disorders honoree
Last week I had the distinct privilege and pleasure to be with Sue in Chicago as she was honored by the Chicago Center for her work in building the Community Lab for Jewish Genetics and for being a key part of the effort to provide genetic screening to anyone who wants it, regardless of ability to pay.
I am so pleased to be have a video of her acceptance. This really puts forth the dream behind her work so eloquently. Anyone with any interest in Jewish Genetic diseases and screening should watch this (also if you always wondered what she actually does…).
Also, click here to check out some really nice entries in the Virtual Guestbook.
October 9, 2009
Hoshanah Rabbah at KJ
I went to Kehillath Jeshurun on Manhattan’s Upper East Side with my father for shacharit today – my first time there for Hoshanah Rabbah. I really liked the davening – ‘davening with dignity’, as someone described it to me. As true Yekkes, they had scheduled the tefillah from 6:30-8:30, and clearly Rabbi Lookstein (who led the circuits) chose what to recite and what to skip based on keeping to the scheduled end time. However, rather than speeding up, he carefully enunciated the piyyutim which he did say, giving them meaning (and dignity), with no apparent rushing. Really the way it should be done.
I also liked the starting with 7 Torahs on the bimah, with one going back in after each hakafah. My father liked the ‘alternate verse call and response’ format.
Saw Dan Ordan there – as R. Yehudah HaLevi said (sort of), he is in the north, but his heart is in the south… 🙂
Nice breakfast in the rooftop sukkah, where we spent a few most enjoyable minutes with R. Meir Soloveichik, Daphna’s talmud teacher.
Chag Sameach!
October 6, 2009
What is it about Millers?
I recently started relationships with three vendors named Miller.
Shout outs to:
– Adrian Miller of the online networking group AdriansNetwork.com
– Rich Miller, who is doing some marketing planning for me
– Hal Miller, personal trainer extraordinaire
Coincidence or not, they are all doing a fine job…
September 25, 2009
DJC Shabbat Shuva Drasha – Yonah & Yom Kippur
Why, really, do we read Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur?
(Based on ideas from a shiur heard at the 2007 YCT Yemei Iyyun by Aryeh Klapper. Audio can be downloaded at http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,110/Itemid,13/ )
Why, really, do we read Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur?
My instinctive answer to the question is that the city of Nineveh repents when threatened by God, and succeeds in averting His punishment. However, on reflection it seems there is something deeper. After all, we know next to nothing about Nineveh and what its sins were – in fact, the whole passage of the message to Nineveh and its repentance is only 6 verses long. In addition (as Tamar brought to my attention), some actually see the whole book as a satire – in most prophetic works, the prophet rails eloquently for pages and pages to get the people to repent, but to no avail, while Yonah utters 5 (in Hebrew) words (3:4) ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.‘ , and the whole society reacts instantly. Perhaps the message of the book is also contained in its other three-plus chapters.
The structure of the book is of two narratives – Yonah fleeing from God, and Yonah carrying out God’s mission and his reaction – separated by the poetic prayer from within the fish. A few questions come to mind in the opening narrative:
- Why is God so intent on sending Yonah? If Yonah refuses his mission, is there no one else that God can call upon?
- The book tells us why Yonah refuses his mission – but oddly, only in the second narrative, not the first, where he actually refuses it. It would seem more logical to present Yonah’s objections in the context of his refusal to accept the mission.
- How are we to understand Yonah’s failure to pray for his life during the storm at sea (as everyone else on the boat is doing)?
- In 1:9, Yonah defines himself to the sailors as a Hebrew who fears God. He does not mention that he is fleeing from carrying out God’s mission – the text fills this in as an afterthought.
What’s happening is that Yonah has a beef with God – he doesn’t agree with the whole idea of the mission to Nineveh. His reasons are not important in the opening narrative – the point is, he assumes that if he disagrees with God, then he and God are finished, there is no more relationship. He is not escaping from God, he is abandoning God. This is why he does not pray with the others – he assumes that having disagreed with God, there can be no further conversation. I suppose that he assumes the only response from God will be to punish or kill him.
Yonah is swallowed by the fish, and remains there for 3 days. When he finally prays to God what would we expect him to say? “Thanks for sending the fish” – but this would have been appropriate on the first day! Or, “Get me out of the fish!” – but there is no mention of the fish. Any reference to drowning in his prayer, therefore, seems to refer to something other than physically drowning.
In general, by the way, when a Biblical poem interrupts a narrative, the purpose is never to advance the narrative, but to provide an insight into the perspective of a character. I imagine that it took Yonah three days to contemplate what was happening, and to finally conclude (2:5) “And I said: ‘I am cast out from before Thine eyes’; yet I will look again toward Thy holy temple.” If you read Yonah’s prayer, you will see that he is not simply thanking God for saving his life, but for inviting Yonah back into God’s presence – for inviting Yonah to continue the dialogue.
Now, in the second narrative, Yonah and God engage in this dialogue. Yonah now realizes that God has given him license to respond, and he says (4:2) “O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in mine own country? Therefore I fled beforehand unto Tarshish; for I knew that Thou art a gracious God, and compassionate, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy, and repentest Thee of the evil. ”.
God responds with the parable of the gourd. God says, in effect, I’ll tell you what this is like – when you have nothing (Yonah before the shade of the gourd), and then you get something (Yonah enjoying the shade) and then you lose it again (Yonah after the gourd’s demise). If we extend this three-part parable to God’s situation, it doesn’t quite apply to Nineveh itself – after all, God Himself is the one who threatens to destroy Nineveh, rather than have its destruction intrude on Him – but it does apply to God’s relationship with Yonah. First God suffers, as it were, from loneliness; then he acquires a prophet, Yonah; then that relationship is abrogated by Yonah. Perhaps the point of the whole story is that Yonah erred in thinking that disagreeing with God necessitates severing the relationship – rather, God prefers to keep the conversation going. Yonah had believed that the relationship is predicated on obedience and submission – the book is about God correcting this idea.
R Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev told the story of a simple, hardworking Jew who was contemplating settling his accounts with God before Yom Kippur. “God,” he said, “I admit it – I have done some things I shouldn’t have. I short-changed some customers, I could have been more charitable, I didn’t set aside enough time for Torah and prayer…”
“But,” he continued, “You, God, are not so innocent either! What about my neighbor, whose life you took so suddenly at a young age, leaving a widow and four orphans? And what about the pogrom in the next district?,…”. He fell silent for a time, and then concluded, “I’ll tell you what, God – let’s call it even. I’ll forgive you, and you forgive me, and everyone will have a good year!”
I think this message is most relevant in our time, after the inexplicable suffering of the Holocaust, and when we are challenged to understand the Bible and our tradition in new ways. God wants to be challenged! Even if we disagree, God prefers that like Yonah in the second narrative, we stay and argue, rather than abandon Him to His loneliness.