Saturday, December 31, 2011

Charedi Popular Literature

Analyzing the Literature
Many of us across the spectrum of Orthodoxy enjoy mocking Charedi popular literature. We giggle at this self-contradiction or that historical inaccuracy. It’s fun, easy and reinforces our self-image as intellectuals but it ignores the purposes those perceived flaws serve.
Dr. Yoel Finkelman takes the literature much more seriously. In his magnificent recent book, Strictly Kosher Reading: Popular Literature and the Condition of Contemporary Orthodoxy, he analyzes the goals and methods of Charedi popular literature and what they say about the community in general. Finkelman’s topic of study is quite limited — English books published by or for Charedim, and occasionally magazines and newspapers. However, within this subject his reach is broad.
He begins by stating his own goals, methods and biases. He then proceeds to a number of different subtopics — such as the different strategies authors adopt to merge secular and Jewish culture, how they criticize the community, and how they protect the community. He examines multiple genres — fiction, theology, history, cookbooks, and more. All the while, he is cognizant that the Charedi community is not monolithic. Different authors related differently to community, authority and tradition.
II. Coalescence, Filtering & Monopolizing
Charedi popular literature brings secular ideas into the community, adopting them as positive Jewish values. Whether books are about nutrition, psychology or marital counseling, they take ideas from the cultural highway and dress them in Torah clothing. A prime example is R. Lawrence Kelemen’s parenting guide, To Kindle A Soul: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Parents and Teachers, which adopts contemporary ideas that directly contradict traditional Jewish sources and yet portrays this new approach as Torah-based.
The literature also serves as a filter, allowing into the community only those outside ideas that are deemed inoffensive. For example, marriage guides adopt secular attitudes to relationships while maintaining Charedi dating standards and omiting discussions of marital relations that violate communal norms.
By publishing Charedi versions of secular popular literature, the community is able to monopolize culture. There is a total Charedi experience that does not require access to external media. Community members use their own news websites, enjoy their own music and read their own self-help books.
III. Under Siege
As a distinctive minority in a socially powerful culture, Charedim define who they are both in positive and negative ways. They consider their community to be a continuation of timeless Jewish communities of the past, with eternally true values that clash with the falsity of today’s majority culture. The communication of this message is so important that its bearers exaggerate, and sometimes prevaricate, in order to define the nature and boundaries of their community. The European shtetl (small town) is portrayed as a religious ideal which today’s cloistered Charedi communities attempt to mirror. Finkelman examines the various methods in which Charedi historians and biographers create an aspirational past that reflects contemporary Charedi values in order to define today’s community.
Similarly, the majority culture is consistently portrayed as evil. Community members must not only be scared of the dangers lying outside their world but must see their community as superior. This standard practice among cultural minorities can be seen prominently in Charedi popular theological works. They emphasize the rational basis of Charedi beliefs and cast as dishonest and/or hopelessly biased all who fail to reach their conclusions.
IV. Theological Comparisons
Dr. Finkelman’s book is not long but it is thick with ideas. Every page contains nuggets fit for a full Shabbos table discussion, with not only data and examples but also the ample insight of a sober, respectful, religiously knowledgeable, trained academic. There is so much in the book, both with which to agree and disagree, that I choose the following example with great difficulty.
In the context of his discussion of Charedi popular theology, which is very rationalist in its approach, Finkelman compares it in general to Medieval Jewish rationalist theology and contemporary Modern Orthodox theology. He notes that the Medievals were elitists who participated fully in the science/philosophy of their day. To them, philosophical investigation is a primary religious activity. In contrast, Charedi popular theologians teach their simplified philosophy to the masses as important only to those who need it, and largely ignore mainstream science and philosophy, focusing instead on the fringe of the scientific community.
Modern Orthodox theology “thrives on inherent ambiguity” and “openly acknowledges adopting contemporary values, albeit selectively.” It rejects proofs and instead bases its faith on religious experience and intuition. It also acknowledges disputes in Jewish theology. In contrast, Charedi popular theology is straightforward and clear. It homogenizes Jewish thought and claims to entirely reject secular values.
Despite this comparison’s attraction, it is to some degree unfair to set the greatest Medieval and contemporary Modern Orthodox theologians against Charedi popular theologians. We should instead look to the greatest Charedi theologians. However, while we will find more depth and nuance, I believe we will still find the same general trends.
V. Conclusion
Dr. Yoel Finkelman’s Strictly Kosher Reading is an important book that is both fun and thought-provoking. It seriously studies a significant aspect of the Jewish community that has been often discussed partially without the kind of sustained thought and analysis that Finkelman finally provides. This is the must-read book of year for every “hocker” and armchair critic in the Orthodox community. {http://torahmusings.com/2011/10/charedi-popular-literature/}

Yehezkel vs R. Akiva?

   The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 110:b) explains that “The Ten Tribes are not destined to return, as it states (Devarim 29:27), ‘And I will cast them into another land, as it is this day.’ In the same way that once a day is over it is finished, never to return, so too have [the Ten Tribes] departed, never to come back.” This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. However, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that, “Just as the day darkens and lightens with the dawn, so too will the Ten Tribes, whose sun has seemingly set, illuminate yet again.”
          Let’s go back to Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that the Ten Lost Tribes are lost forever. At first glance, this approach seems to contradict an explicit prophecy of Yechezkel (this week's haftorah). How can Rabbi Akiva say that in the future, the Jewish people will consist of only two tribes, Yehudah and Binyomin, when Yechezkel talks about the reunification of “the stick of Joseph” and “the stick of Yehudah”? Yechezkel also specifically mentions the apportionment of the newly-reunited Land of Israel among thirteen tribes. Is it possible R. Akiva didn't know Yehezkel?

Surly not, given his well-known statement:
"Rabbi Akiva said: you have no more obvious sign of the end of days than that of Yechezkel (ibid.): ‘But you, overmountains of Israel, shall yield your produce and bear your fruit for My Nation Israel, for their return is near’”
So if you're super yeshivish maybe you'll say yechezkel is shver ;) But for the modernish among us I thought to link a few answers

                        Abarbanel in light of parshas Nitzavim
                        Ran  in light of olam habah
                        Tiferes Yisroel in light of shmirat hamitzvot

Monday, December 26, 2011

Too Chamur on Chumrot?

אחרי שספגו ביקורת מכל כיוון, אפילו מבד"ץ העדה החרדית, נשות הטליבאן מציגות את כתב ההגנה שלהן: "השאל זה האושר שלי. ברחוב החילוני אומרים איזה יופי, אבל יותר קשה ללכת בריכוזים חרדיים - פעם זרקו עליי אבנים, נתנו לי מכות"



 
If not working, click here

Chanukas Habayis


Banjo in Uman


Friday, December 23, 2011

P'shat in II Maccabees...

For the past few months I've been mulling over an issue concerning II Maccabees explicit mentioning of the Jews taking lulav and estrog during chanukah. I understand that while under Greek control we were unable to bring korbanos, but how could the Jewish people ignore / overrule the explicit command to celebrate sukkos during sukkos and not any other time of year?

Then, I stumbled across this article. In short, the answer I came across is that the lulav and estrog were not just spiritual tools taken up with the commencing of sukkos but they were also symbols of military success ~ a very apropos banner to parade the Maccabees  victory over Yerushalaim. 

Thank you Dr. Fine for the contribution.....


Alternatively, you can stick with the Aruch Hashulchan in halacha ה

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Feedback? Topic Requests?

Hey blogosphere,
           I know the thought of me having my own blog to be audacious. And as the intro statement reads I don't expect anyone to be here but myself. But seeing as the viewcount continues to rise (albeit anonymously), it appears that there are, infact, some regular readers.

          Understanding that few have spoken with me in person about the contents of my posts, I thought I'd just make a public forum to discuss anything that people feel about my work. I am very open to criticism and would love to get some feedback. I myself have been mesupak about posting responses to attacks on my beloved faith lest posing of answers trigger doubt in those who live in ignorant bliss. And trust me, I hold such people in the highest regard. I have no intention of disturbing the stability of calm, faithful waters. I do not personally believe that the content of these topics need or should be read by a public mass.

           But for the few who seek answers to that which has been bothering them, that which they have been unable to answer and that about which they would like to know more, I invite them to my homepage. Obviously, I do not claim to have the answers for all such questions. Given my personal spiritual struggles, I thought the very least I could do was make my experience and knowledge available as a reference to the public.

         I've spent/wasted now well over a year and a half indulging in topics that argue against traditional Jewish faith and have seen most every serious type of attack feasible. Every question, no. But name your query and I'll probably have some good sources for you to read that you might find enlightening and possibly even inspiring. Be it archaeology, bible criticism, history of תורה שבעל פה , history of תורה שבכתב, human suffering and classic Jewish philosophy, I've probably seen something worth talking about.

Just to reiterate, I do not  consider myself an expert on any such subject. Just a loser who finds it necessary to defend my fortress of faith against the batterings of a provocative secular culture. All I have to contribute is a plethora of references and an opinion as credible as you chose to make it.

Fffeewww...... now that that's over, let the fun begin! Feel free to remain anonymous and comment as you wish. For the sake of the olam though, please use creative names when posting so as to allow for better comprehension of the forum.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Rabbinic Pshat

We all have encountered midrashim that appear to use very technical means of interpretation to derive laws or facts that do not seem intended by the verse that they expound. This difficulty so often seems insurmountable and the connection between the simple meanings of verses and their midrashic representation so frequently appears unbridgeable that one finds no recourse other than an appeal to some asmakhta-type mechanism, an escape into the claim that the surface meaning encodes deeper meaning, or simple professions of ignorance. While I do not claim that all such examples can be successfully understood, almost always a "360 degree" overview of the source verse will succeed, if not in demonstrating that the midrash is the simplest meaning, then at least in reducing the distance between pshat and the midrashic interpretation. By uncovering the problems of the "pshat" reading, we begin to understand why the midrash says what it says. In addition, we often then find that there are several different Midrashic interpretations that each responds to a different problem; some of them are modifications of pshat and others do not offer an interpretation of the verse at all but solely of a word, phrase or a construction. Understanding the aim of each Midrashic comment reduces confusion and enlightens the interpreter. The point is that midrash is usually a serious and sincere attempt to interet, not to decode, a difficult verse or idiom. Let us illustrate these points by discussing two Midrashic comments to a verse in R'eh. Each will be quoted followed by comments.

Devarim 16:6-9

...but at the place that Hashem your G-d shall choose to rest his Name, there shall you bring up the Pesach at the evening, at sunset, on the anniversary of your going out of Egypt. And you shall cook and eat it in the place that Hashem your G-d shall choose and you will turn in the morning and go to your tents. Six days you shall eat the matzos and on the seventh day - a day of restraint to Hashem your G-d, do not do work.

Midrash:
1. One verse says six days and another (Shemos 12, 15) says seven days. How shall both these verses be maintained? Six from the new(ly grown wheat after the omer sacrifice) and seven from the old.[1]

The Midrash explains the apparent contradiction between the two verses by assigning them to different time periods. Six days refer to matsah baked from the new produce, after the omer sacrifice had been brought on the 16th of Nissan and the produce of that year became permitted. This explanation has strong corroboration in the passage, which speaks of six days after "you will turn in the morning and go to your tents". This is the 16th. However there is difficulty. The morning seems to refer to the day right after the Pesach sacrifice which is the 15th of Nisan. The Chazal could not accept this as thre date for a number of reasons.


1. There is a requirement of linah, staying over one night after bringing a sacrifice, see Chagigah 17. Thus, they could not be going to theri tents on the 15th but only on the 16th.

2. It is illogical to assume that the Torah would command that the pilgrims who made an arduous and long journey, arrived on the afternoon of the 14th, stayed up late bringing and consuming the Pesach, would be required to go back immediately on the following morning. Why should they miss the Temple service ceremonies, the benefits of imbibing the sacred atmosphere of the Holy City, and the opportunity to see and participate in the Omer ceremony on the following day?

3. As Ibn Ezra to Devarim here points out, there is evidence from the book of Chronicles that pilgrims left at the conclusion of the festival and not on the day of the festival itself.

4. What about the Yom Tov prohibitions of work and travel?! While many of these may be Rabbinic, surely some are Biblical. Mass migration of people on the festival would undoubtedly lead to violations of festival laws and it is inconsistent with the purpose of the festivals; why would the Torah command that they leave on the 15th when the alternative of staying an extra day is readily available?


Therefore, the Sages modified the simple understanding to refer to the six days after the omer. This is an example of "deeper pshat". When the simple meaning suffers from multiple disadvantages, a slightly more complex explanation that solves inherent problems is much preferred.


There is another point that must be made. We have often spoken of the importance of context in interpretation. For the Rabbis, this meant that when searching for an explanation, nearby verses must be considered. For them context serve not only to suggest but often to inspire an interpretation. The point is not simply to connect or elucidate the meaning of this verse so that it reads or flows better within the surrounding narrative. Rather, there is an advantage to interpret it using concepts or ideas from nearby passages, even if they may not appear to be related. Thus, because the laws of the omer immediately follow our passage, they utilized the omer related ideas of new and old produce to explain this verse.


Let us now proceed to the second explanation.

2. One verse says six days and another says seven days. How shall both these verses be maintained?


The seventh day was included (Klal) and "went out" of the inclusions (Klal) to teach about the klal. Just as the seventh day is voluntary (to eat matsos), so are all of them voluntary.[2]


The Midrash goes on to demonstrate from nearby verses that the first night does require obligatory eating of Matsos (i.e. during the Seder).


The Midrash, I believe is speaking to a different issue in this verse. It is not proposing a pshat in the verse but only aims to explain an unexpected form of a single word. It picks up on the use of the term shivas and sheshes, rather than a simpler term used elsewhere - shivah and shisha.[3] While the latter terms mean simply seven or six days, the former represents a unit of seven and a unit of six (like troika in Russian, a unit of three, or treo or duo in English). The Midrash explains this usage as presenting two sets of days, each characterized in a particular and different way. The two terms are not in opposition to each other; the six days are an independent unit but also a part of the unit of seven. What this must mean then is that the six-day-unit is held together by something other than what unifies the seven days unit. The seven day unit is, of course, the Passover holiday. What the factor that hods otgether the"six unit"is factor may be, the Midrash does not explain.[4] One may suggest that sheshes yomim refers to the entire Passover holiday, a period from the afternoon of the 14th day of Nissan to the 22nd excepting its last day which is called Atseres and is not a part of the first six-day Passover unit. The flow of the verses in Devarim certainly suggests this interpretation.


...but at the place that Hashem your G-d shall choose to rest his Name, there shall you bring up the Pesach at the evening, at sunset, on the anniversary of your going out of Egypt. And you shall cook and eat it in the place that Hashem your G-d shall choose and you will turn in the morning and go to your tents. (The first ) Six days you shall eat the matzos and on the seventh day - a day of restraint to Hashem your G-d, do not do work.


While in the first Midrashic interpretation six days are the last six days of the holiday, in the second interpretation they are the first six.


At the same time the six-day-unit is still a part of the seven-day-unit, the holiday of Passover. What is the factor that holds 6 and 7 together? The Midrash finds this factor to be a non-obligatory eating of matsah. We have two units, a six-day-one which is the first 6 days of Passover and the six+one (Passover + Atseres). What unifies the seven days set is their non-obligatory eating of matsah.


This discussion hopefully bears out two points of methodology. First, one dares not approach a difficult midrashic comment without a "360 degree" all around review of all exegetical issues. Only after doing so can one begin to understand what the midrash actually says and what problems it addresses. Secondly, one must differentiate between Midrashic comments that "learn pshat" and those that explicate isolated phrases, idioms or expressions. Only after this kind of preparation will the words of our Sages yield their meaning to a sincere student of their words.[avakesh.com]

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Just Love....

Download: Just Love Mp3 
A song I wrote 2 years ago that still needs lots of work
Inspired by Y. Danishefsky

A beaming light aglow
An indescribable depth
A wide, connected world of inner beauty

Our united song
Our crowing united smile
A shimmering throne built from His people’s majesty

From big to small
From smart to dumb
From Strong to weak
And from old to young
Each and every role is of the essence

A global inner soul
Screams “plan, purpose," and "whole”
Open your eyes and perceive reality

Love holy brother just love
Smile holy brother just smile
Love holy brother just love, just smile

Love holy brother just love
Smile holy brother just smile
Take a while …oooo… just smile

A warm hand in the dark
A long walk in the park
A soft and soothing song to soothe your soul

A whisper in your ear
The beauty in the mirror
The consoling inner call to fulfill your role

Love holy brother just love
Smile holy brother just smile
Love holy brother just love, just smile

Love holy brother just love
Smile holy brother just smile
Take a while …oooo… just smile

Two windows to the soul
Sit just above your nose
Open the blinds, let in the light

Wipe down those dusty panes
Consider the loss against the gain
Let in and out the light of personality

Love holy brother just love
Smile holy brother just smile
Love holy brother just love, just smile

Love holy brother just love
Smile holy brother just smile
Take a while …oooo… just Be

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Josephus Testifies


         A look back into Jewish history from "unbiased" sources can always be a refreshing perspective. This is certainly the case when outside texts come to support the statements found within our own holy texts. Below are a few select quotations from Josephus that shed light on the religious lifestyle of the Jewish people during the destruction of Beit Sheni. Personally, being skeptical of previous generations living with greater fear of heaven than that of later generations, I found many of these quotes to be enlightening.

[Quick background: Flavius Josephus was a Jew who grew up in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Common Era. He was well educated, knowing both Jewish texts and the Greek language. During the Great Revolt from 66-73 CE, Josephus served as a general of the Galilee. When the Roman army overcame his forces, Josephus and 40 compatriots fled to a cave. They agreed to commit suicide. Josephus fixed the lots so that his name would come out last. After the others killed themselves, Josephus convinced the remaining fighter to surrender with him and pledge allegiance to the Roman Emperor.As a prisoner of the Romans, Josephus volunteered to write the history of the Great Revolt for the (later) Emperor Vespasian. Josephus thus provided the Romans (and now us) with a first-hand account of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. It must be emphasized that Josephus was writing for Vespasian, so his work is biased toward Roman agenda. Josephus himself was hostile to the Torah-Sages and looked down upon the Torah-people as a "seditious multitude." ]


A few points worth noticing:
        - The general religious dedication of the Jewish people at the time and during generations prior to Josephus
        -  The widespread influence of chazal upon the Jewish people 
        -  The well-known piety of the Sages
        - Long-standing practices of Jewish oral law

"Even now there is still no one of the Hebrews who does not act as if Moses were present, and ready to punish him if he should do anything that is indecent.... They preferred a submission to the laws of Moses before the fulfilling of their own inclinations, even when they had no fear upon them that any body could convict them, but only out of a reverence to their own conscience... To this very day the writings left by Moses have so great a force, that even those that hate us do confess that He who established this settlement was G-d, and that it was by the means of Moses and of his virtue" ( Antiquities, 4,15, 3)
       

Thursday, December 1, 2011

There's Always Hope


"If a person has acted improperly and wants to take shelter beneath the "Wings of the Shechinah"... I will show him the way to proceed. On the day that you lift your heart to return to Hashem, throw off all of your aveirot as if they never were. Consider yourself as a newborn child, having neither merit nor culpability. Today is the beginning of your actions. Today you will reflect on all of your ways... This outlook will facilitate your complete return to Hashem because you will be unburdened from the weight of all of your aveirot. Do not be hindered by thoughts that hold you back from returning to Hashem. You might feel, "How can I have the nerve to return to Hashem, after I acted so inappropriately so many times? How can I come before Hashem? I feel embarrassed, like a thief who was caught in the act of stealing. ... How can I observe His mitzvot?" Do not allow these negative thoughts to enter your heart! These feelings of despair are the influence of the yetzer hara. Rather, know that the arms of our Merciful Creator are always open to welcome those that return to Him. (Yesod HaTeshuvah)..........."


I thought the process to be an important, unknown yesod for many.... First forsaking the evil and only then charata


"If one, however, continues in the way of wrong and each day grows more confirmed in his sin, repeats his wrong and frequently turns away in his course, persists in his love of the evil and sets before himself the stumbling block of his sin, namely, lust and inclination, his desire and aspiration being that none of his evil intentions go unrealized, the beginning of this man's repentance is to forsake his evil ways and thoughts and to take it upon himself not to sin again. After this, he must regret his corrupt acts and return to G-d... " (pg 17)

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Ripple Effect

This goes out to ICJA 2007


I am a pebble tossed into a body of water
I wonder what is my purpose in life
I listen to my conscience directing me in every which way
I see the struggle between life and death, truth and lies
And I wish it would end
I am but a pebble

I pretend to be a hero
One who can feel others’ pain
Touching every person’s heart and soul, every moment of the day
I worry for all who whisper their troubles in my ears
And inside I cry.
I am but a pebble.

I understand society is complex, leaving many feeling naked and depressed
I can only dream of a better place, where popularity and riches are not one’s face
I do my best to fix what I can, but our world is too corrupt for one little man
I hope not to lose my drive, amidst blank faces side by side
I am but a pebble.

 (Feb. 2005)

Monday, November 21, 2011

Fee Fi Fo Phillistines





Parshat Beshalach

CHALLENGE
-The Phillistines were not living in Israel during the time of the Torah

The Problem
Parshat Beshalach begins with the following verse. "It happened when Pharoah sent out the people that G-d did not lead them by way of the land of the Phillistines, because it was near..." (Exodus 13:17).
Later in the parsha, during the song of praise sung after crossing the Sea of Reeds, the Phillistines are mentioned again. "People heard - they were agitated; terror gripped the dwellers of Phillistia" (Exodus 15:14).
However, archaeologists and historians claim that the Phillistines did not arrive in the land of Israel until centuries later. We know from the Bible that the Phillistines were a seafaring people who immigrated to Israel from Crete. For example, Amos said "Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, as well as the Phillistines from Caphtor (Crete)...?" (Amos 9:7). Similarly, Yirmiyahu said, "For G-d is plundering the Phillistines, the remnants of the isle of Caphtor" (Jer. 47:4). And Yechezkel said, "Behold, I am extending My hand against the Phillistines, and I will eliminate the Cretians" (Eze. 25:16). Historians have confirmed this from Egyptian inscriptions dating to the period of Raamses III that discuss an influx of people from islands into Israel. However, historians place this influx at approximately in the year 1170 BCE which was during the time of the Judges.
This creates a problem with a number of narratives in the Bible. For example, Genesis 21:32-34 tells us that Avimelech, the king of Gerar, lived in the land of Phillistines. After Avraham entered into a covenant with Avimelech, Avraham lived in the land of Phillistines for many years. Similarly, Yitzchak lived among the Phillistines in Gerar (Gen. 26). As mentioned above, our parsha cites the Phillistines twice. How could this be if they did not live in Israel until much later? With whom did Avraham make a pact and dwell among and from whom did G-d lead the Jewish people away? Is it possible that this is an anachronism added in by a later editor or that the entire stories were written centuries later?
Two Phillistine Civilizations
Professor Joshua Grintz, in his Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History (Motzaei Dorot) pp. 99-129, addressed this issue. He pointed out some interesting facts about the Phillistines mentioned in the Bible. As we mentioned above, Avimelech the king of Gerar lived in the land of Phillistines so Gerar must have been within that land. Avimelech the king of Gerar is also called the king of the Phillistines (Genesis 26:1). Therefore, Gerar must have been the capital of the Phillistine territory.
Where was Gerar? The following verse tells us that Gerar was near Kadesh, also called Kadesh-Barnea. "Avraham journeyed from there to the region of the south (the Negev) and settled between Kadesh and Shur, and he sojourned in Gerar" (Genesis 20:1). Clearly, Gerar is near Kadesh in the Negev, the south of Israel. While archaeologists claim that Gerar is near Beersheva based on Genesis 21:32, we can see that this is not conclusive at all. The verse reads, "Thus, they entered into a covenant at Beersheva; Avimelech then arose, with Phichol the general of his legion, and returned to the land of the Phillistines." Quite the opposite. We see that Gerar and the land of the Phillistines is not near Beersheva. Additionally, we see that for Yitzchak to travel from Gerar to Beersheva he first had to go past Nachal Gerar (Gen. 26:17), Esek (ibid. 20), Sitnah (ibid. 21), and Rechovot (ibid. 22). However, archaeologists need to place Gerar near Beersheva in order for it to be part of the area that later books of the Bible identify as Phillistine territory.
The Phillistines that appear in the books of Judges and Samuel lived in the five towns of Gaza, Gat, Ashdod, Ekron, and Ashkelon. Gerar, however, is never mentioned after the Torah (except for repetition in Chronicles). All of the five towns mentioned in later books as being Phillistine are near the Mediterranean Sea. If Gerar was the capital of the Phillistine territory, it must also have been near the sea and not in the Negev near Kadesh-Barnea. This land by the sea was called by earlier books Canaanite land and not Phillistine land. For example, Numbers 13:29 speaks of the expansive kingdom of the Canaanites as spanning from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea. "And the Canaanite dwells by the Sea and on the bank of the Jordan." There is no mention that the Phillistines lived by the sea.
In Genesis, we find Avimelech who is the king of Gerar and the Phillistines. In later books, each of the five towns had a governor, a seren, who are always referred to collectively (e.g. Judges 16:8). Even in the days of King David, the king of Gat was not called the king of the Phillistines. There was evidently no central leadership. Additionally, the ancient translations render seren as tyran, evidently from the Greektyrannos. Similarly, Yirmiyahu speaks of the kings of the land of the Phillistines (Jer. 25:20) in the plural, implying that there was no single ruler like there was in the earlier days of Avimelech.
Also, Achish the king of Gat seems to have a Greek name while Avimelech the king of Gerar has a distinctly Semitic name.
More than that, we quoted above many verses later in the Bible that say that the Phillistines were immigrants from Caphtor/Crete. However, Genesis 10:14 says that the Phillistines were descended from the Casluchim and not the Caphtorim who are mentioned immediately afterwards.
What all this tells us is that there were two kingdoms of the Phillistines. In the time of the patriarchs, there was a nation that lived in the Negev called the Phillistines whose capital was Gerar. This nation ceased to exist sometime during the conquest of Israel. After that, Cretians immigrated to Israel and settled in a different part of the land - near the sea. They had a different political structure and location than the earlier group but adopted their name, perhaps to give themselves an ancient claim of authority. We see this happening today with the Palestinians who adopted an ancient name in order to lay claim to the land of Israel.
The only thing that connects these two separate people is the name Phillistines. However, their histories and civilizations were very different. The nation that historians have identified as Phillistines and corroborated as being immigrants during the twelfth century BCE were the second wave of Phillistines. They were highly influenced by the Greeks and may have been the Pelasgians mentioned in the Iliad as being allied with Troy and in other ancient Greek works. Perhaps the similarity of their name with that of the early Phillistines caused the latter's name to be adopted instead.
The earlier Phillistines, who have eluded the sight of many historians, are the people mentioned in the Torah. They had a central government with one king who had a Semitic name. Their capital was in Gerar, in the Negev.
Literary Issues
In additional to this textual explanation to the apparent anachronism, we must also note the literary difficulties with this claim. An anachronism is when a book is written about an earlier date but includes information that refers to later developments. In the context of the Bible, it is often claimed that the early books were written at a later date. Later civilizations and developments were included in this "history book" as a foreshadow of the then-current events. For example, the "demonization" of Yishmael and Eisav in Genesis is said to reflect the later political rivalries. In our case, the Phillistine civilization is said to be reflected at an earlier point in history.
However, this theory that the Phillistine narratives in the Torah are an anachronism is very difficult. It is abundantly clear that the Phillistines in the later Bible were the sworn enemies of the Jews. They were constantly battling and antagonizing the Jewish kingdom until they were subdued. In Genesis, however, we find Avraham and Yitzchak making peace treaties with the Phillistines (Gen. 21:32, 26:31). We find Avimelech saying things like:
G-d is with you in all that you do; now therefore swear to me here by G-d that you will not deal falsely with me or with my offspring or with my posterity, but as I have dealt loyally with you, you will deal with me and with the land where you have resided as an alien.
(Gen. 21:22-23)We see plainly that the Lord has been with you; so we say, let there be an oath between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you so that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the Lord.
(Gen. 26:28-29)
This is not the way a Jewish writer would anachronistically describe his great Phillistine enemy. This alone disproves the theory that the Phillistines mentioned in the Torah are an anachronism. Additionally, why would a later writer ascribe a different political system (one king as opposed to five governor-kings) and a different city than the Phillistines in his time? If the Torah Phillistines were an anachronism, they would have been placed in the five Phillistine cities with five seranim rather than in Gerar with one king.Rather, there was an earlier Phillistine civilization in the Negev and this is what is mentioned in the Torah. When G-d refused to take Israel out of Egypt through Phillistine land, it was the land of the then-existing Phillistines. It is certainly no coincidence that Yitzchak was in Gerar when G-d told him not to go to Egypt (Gen. 26:1-2). Gerar was in the south of Israel, near Egypt. The people who were scared when they heard of the parting of the Sea of Reeds were the early Phillistines, not the nation that later sent Goliath to fight the Jews.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Salty Stagnancy


When a NCSYer called asking for a dvar Torah for campus hillel this past week, a plethora of classics came to mind. But instead, I took a less beaten path.

Sticking to the straightforward reading of the text, I thought of a pshat that might actually remain true to its branding.

What significance could there possibly be behind Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt?

Lot's wife was told not to turn around - not to look back.

A possible insight behind the nature of her sin might best be gleaned by analyzing the means of punishment, working within the logic of mida ke'neged mida. One plausible reason why the punishment was befitting might just be hinted at through the very function of salt. Being that salt is the #1 preservative of produce and meat (especially during the times of the Avos), what the Torah was hinting was that inasmuch as Lot's wife continued to look back on her past instead of focusing on her future she was crystallizing her own continued progress, trapping herself in a mindset of stagnancy. That fixating of self can best be represented by the physical compound whose primary role is to preserve things as they are. What punishment could have been more apropo for refusing to relinquish her sinful identity associated with Sodom?

Monday, November 14, 2011

Communal Flame


My eyes scream for vision
my ears ring with silence
my lungs choke mid-breath
no longer able to hide it

I seek out the un-seeable
desire the unacquired
find rest in my pursuited quest
little solace, little respire

Aspiring for the infinite
drowning in falsifiers
making wage against a current
feeling cold, soaked and tired

Glimpsing at the light
distant stars off in the night
blotted by a dusty cloud
scared, lonely, running loud

Where did the sun once shine?
when did its days resign?
what happened to its might
 now but a man's lost right

Do creatures still exist
seeking safety, truth and bliss?
young men with short beards grey,
sweetening words that blot dismay?

I miss my friends
I miss them all
seekers of truth,
warriors with gall

Fiery minds
whose coal burned slow,
lights in the darkness
an eternal glow

"Where did this brave man go?"
I asked each at a time
“Where are those dreams, of greater themes
Whose essence never lie?”

"To whom do you refer?
I cannot recall such a face...
it couldn't be my own!
Surely, you're making a mistake"

"No, don't you remember?"
I whispered with a tear
"This was you last Rosh Hashana;
This was you last holy year"

Many do remember
others do recall
but a vast majority
continue to ignore me
paralyzed within their fall

“Grab Hold!”  I scream loud and clear
fighting against the waves
“It’s not too late!
You can be safe,
Just trust, have heart and pray!”

But how can one man make,
an impression all alone
when roaring waves and thundering quakes
leave seeds once firm unsown

Adrift about the cultural storm
Where trending is the mend
Where can a man who’s lost his plan
Summon strength to build again?

Think back to a time
Where lights in darkness
shed eternal glow.

How did that spark
set us apart
that long, long time ago?

From where did it originate?
Oh Yes! I do recall!
Was it not amidst communal unity,
The Community!
 When each man gave his all?

You see, my friend, we sit together,
Both suffering in the dark
But only because,
 we’re each unwilling
To ignite our inner spark

You see, my brother, the masses' power
Lies deep in the hearts of men.
The keys to the ease of harmonies
Exist here and now – not then

So grab ahold of your own soul
 and join me on the way
To reclaim Light that created your might
That led you to this day

A Real Nissayon

For those who missed the moment...

Good Shabbas, Good Shabbas, Good Shabbas.....

Holy Paint

Hands down, the single most important shiur of my life...

Beautiful Song from carlebach talmid

So you think you're Frum?

Something we all can forget sometimes....