Lethargic Man (anag.)

lethargic_man @ 2008-07-17T22:10:00

2008-07-17T21:13:41Z

After reading positive reviews of it by rysmiel and ewx recently, I got I Claudius out on DVD from the library.

It cost me £1 to take it out for a week.

This would be sensible, were it not for the fact it is a 5-DVD box set...

Notes from Moishe House: Converts in Aggadah

2008-07-17T11:56:34Z

Notes from Moishe House

Converts in Aggadah

Rabbi Josh Levy

Numbers 5:5-10 במדבר ה׳

The Eternal^* spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel: When a man or a woman commits any wrong against a fellow, thus breaking faith with the Eternal, and that person recognises their guilt; then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and shall make restitution for the trespass in full, and add to it one fifth, giving it to the one who has been wronged. But if the person has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, let the restitution be made to the Eternal, to the priest; in addition to the ram of expiation, whereby atonement is made on their behalf. So, too, any gift among the sacred donations that the Israelites offer shall be the priest's. And each shall retain their sacred donations: each priest shall keep what is given to him. וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכָּל־חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּיהוָה וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא׃ וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת־חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ׃ וְאִם־אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר־בּוֹ עָלָיו׃ וְכָל־תְּרוּמָה לְכָל־קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר־יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה׃ וְאִישׁ אֶת־קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה׃

Numbers 5:5-10	במדבר ה׳
The Eternal^* spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel: When a man or a woman commits any wrong against a fellow, thus breaking faith with the Eternal, and that person recognises their guilt; then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and shall make restitution for the trespass in full, and add to it one fifth, giving it to the one who has been wronged. But if the person has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, let the restitution be made to the Eternal, to the priest; in addition to the ram of expiation, whereby atonement is made on their behalf. So, too, any gift among the sacred donations that the Israelites offer shall be the priest's. And each shall retain their sacred donations: each priest shall keep what is given to him.	וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכָּל־חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּיהוָה וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא׃ וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת־חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ׃ וְאִם־אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר־בּוֹ עָלָיו׃ וְכָל־תְּרוּמָה לְכָל־קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר־יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה׃ וְאִישׁ אֶת־קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה׃

* You can tell what denomination the speaker is from, can't you? :o)

This teaches that you can't steal from a convert. This is problematic because why should converts be treated any different anyway? The rabbis grappled with this.

Numbers Rabbah 8:2 מדרש רבה במדבר ח ב

A man or a woman, etc: This bears on the text: "the Eternal loves the righteous... the Eternal watches over the stranger" [Ps. 146:8-9]
The Holy Blessed One said, in effect: "I love those who love Me." As it says, "For them that honour Me I will honour" [I Sam. 2:30]. They love Me and so I also love them. Why does the Holy Blessed One love the righteous?^* Because they do not have [as the source of their worth] inheritance or family.
You find that the priests constitute a father's house, and the Levites constitute a father's house; for it says, "O house of Aaron, bless the Eternal; O house of Levi, bless the Eternal" [Ps. 135:19]. If a man desires to be a priest, he cannot be one; [if he desires to be] a Levite, he cannot be one. Why? Because his father was neither a priest nor a Levite.
But if someone, even a non-Jew, desires to be righteous, they can be so, becauser the righteous do not constitute a father's house. For this reason it says, "You who fear the Eternal, bless the Eternal" [ibid]. It does not say "O house of those that fear the Eternal," but "You who fear the Eternal", for these do not constitute a father's house, but have voluntarily come forward and loved the Holy Blessed One. The Holy Blessed One, therefore, loves them, and for this reason it says, "The Eternal loves the righteous... the Eternal watches over the stranger." The Holy Blessed One greately loves the proselytes.^‡

איש או אשה וגו׳ הה״ד (תהלים קמו) ה׳ אוהב צדיקים וגו׳
כך אמר הקב״ה אני אוהבי אהב וכה״א (ש״א ב) כי מכבדי אכבד הם אוהבים אותי ואף אני אוהב אותם ולמה הקדוש ברוך הוא אוהב צדיקים שאינן נחלה אינם משפחה
את מוצא הכהנים בית אב הם הלוים בית אב הם שנאמר (תהלים קלו) בית אהרן ברכו את ה׳ בית הלוי ברכו את ה׳ אם מבקש אדם להיות כהן אינו יכול להיות לוי אינו יכול למה שלא היה אביו לא כהן ולא לוי
אבל אם מבקש אדם להיות צדיק אפילו גוי יכול הוא שאינו בית אב לכך הוא אומר יראי ה׳ ברכו את ה׳ בית יראי ה׳ לא נאמר אלא יראי ה׳ אינו בית אב אלא מעצמם נתנדבו^† ואהבו להקב״ה
לפיכך הקדוש ברוך הוא אוהבם לכך נאמר (שם קמו) ה׳ אוהב צדיקים וגו׳ הרבה הקב״ה אוהב את הגרים

Numbers Rabbah 8:2	מדרש רבה במדבר ח ב
A man or a woman, etc: This bears on the text: "the Eternal loves the righteous... the Eternal watches over the stranger" [Ps. 146:8-9] The Holy Blessed One said, in effect: "I love those who love Me." As it says, "For them that honour Me I will honour" [I Sam. 2:30]. They love Me and so I also love them. Why does the Holy Blessed One love the righteous?^* Because they do not have [as the source of their worth] inheritance or family. You find that the priests constitute a father's house, and the Levites constitute a father's house; for it says, "O house of Aaron, bless the Eternal; O house of Levi, bless the Eternal" [Ps. 135:19]. If a man desires to be a priest, he cannot be one; [if he desires to be] a Levite, he cannot be one. Why? Because his father was neither a priest nor a Levite. But if someone, even a non-Jew, desires to be righteous, they can be so, becauser the righteous do not constitute a father's house. For this reason it says, "You who fear the Eternal, bless the Eternal" [ibid]. It does not say "O house of those that fear the Eternal," but "You who fear the Eternal", for these do not constitute a father's house, but have voluntarily come forward and loved the Holy Blessed One. The Holy Blessed One, therefore, loves them, and for this reason it says, "The Eternal loves the righteous... the Eternal watches over the stranger." The Holy Blessed One greately loves the proselytes.^‡	איש או אשה וגו׳ הה״ד (תהלים קמו) ה׳ אוהב צדיקים וגו׳ כך אמר הקב״ה אני אוהבי אהב וכה״א (ש״א ב) כי מכבדי אכבד הם אוהבים אותי ואף אני אוהב אותם ולמה הקדוש ברוך הוא אוהב צדיקים שאינן נחלה אינם משפחה את מוצא הכהנים בית אב הם הלוים בית אב הם שנאמר (תהלים קלו) בית אהרן ברכו את ה׳ בית הלוי ברכו את ה׳ אם מבקש אדם להיות כהן אינו יכול להיות לוי אינו יכול למה שלא היה אביו לא כהן ולא לוי אבל אם מבקש אדם להיות צדיק אפילו גוי יכול הוא שאינו בית אב לכך הוא אומר יראי ה׳ ברכו את ה׳ בית יראי ה׳ לא נאמר אלא יראי ה׳ אינו בית אב אלא מעצמם נתנדבו^† ואהבו להקב״ה לפיכך הקדוש ברוך הוא אוהבם לכך נאמר (שם קמו) ה׳ אוהב צדיקים וגו׳ הרבה הקב״ה אוהב את הגרים

* Righteousness is not linked to familial status. It's a different model to that of priests and Levites.

† The same verb used for a freewill—personal—offering.

‡ Because (as stated in the Tanḥuma, the Israelites accepted the Torah at Sinai upon G-d effectively forcing them into it, but the convert did so of their own free will.

To what may this be compared? To a king who had a flock which used to go out to the field and come in at evening. So it was each day. Once a deer came in with the flock, went around with the goats, and grazed with them. When the flock came in to the enclosure, the deer came in with them; when they went out to graze he went out with them. The king was told: "A certain deer has joined the flock and is grazing with them every day. He goes out with them and comes in with them." The king felt affection for him. When he went out into the field, he would decree: "Let him have good pasture, such as he likes; no man shall beat him; be careful with him!" When he came in with the flock, the king would tell them, "Give him to drink"; and he loved him very much. למה הדבר דומה למלך שהיתה לו צאן והיתה יוצאת בשדה ונכנסת בערב כן בכל יום פעם אחד נכנס צבי^* אחד עם הצאן הלך לו אצל העזים היה רועה עמהם נכנסה הצאן לדיר נכנס עמהם יצאת לרעות יצא עמהם אמרו למלך הצבי הזה נלוה עם הצאן והוא רועה עמהם כל יום ויום יוצא עמהם ונכנס עמהם היה המלך אוהבו בזמן שהוא יוצא לשדה היה מפקיד רועה יפה לרצונו לא יכה אדם אותו הזהרו בו ואף כשהוא נכנס עם הצאן היה אומר להם תנו לו וישתה והיה אוהבו הרבה

* This word (צבי, "deer") has connotations of beauty and elegance. [Which, it later strikes me, may be suggestive to the ancient Jewish reader of the Greeks.]

The servants said to him: "Sovereign! You possess so many goats, you possess so many lambs, you possess so many kids, and you never caution us about them; yet you give us instructions every day about this deer!" Said the king to the: "The flock have no choice; whether they want or not, it is their nature to graze in the field all day and to come in at evening to sleep in the fold. The deer, however, sleeps in the wildernesss. It is not in their nature to come into places inhabited by man. Shall we then not account it as a merit to this one which has left behind the whole of the broad, vast, wilderness, the abode of all the beasts, and has come to stay in the courtyards?" אמרו לו מרי כמה תישים יש לך כמה כבשים יש לך כמה גדיים יש לך ואין את מזהירנו ועל הצבי הזה בכל יום ויום את מצוינו אמר להם המלך הצאן רוצה ולא רוצה כך היא דרכה לרעות בשדה כל היום ולערב לבא לישן בתוך הדיר הצביים במדבר הם ישנים אין דרכם ליכנס לישוב בני אדם לא נחזיק טובה לזה שהניח כל המדבר הרחב הגדול במקום כל החיות ובא ועמד בחצר

This is problematic because no matter how long the deer goes with the sheep, it will always be a deer. [The Rambam discusses people who have problems with converts who say אלהי אבותינו.] On the one hand this text is very positive about converts... however on the other there is this tension between the wilderness of the non-Jew and the domesticity of the Jew.

(Also, though it is a very positive description, it does imply the non-Jew lives in "the abode of the beasts"!)

In like manner, ought we not to account it as a merit to the proselyte who has left behind their family and father's house, have left behind people and all the other peoples of the world, and has chosen to come to us? Accordingly, God has provided the convert with special protection, for God exhorted Israel that they shall be very careful in relation to the proselytes so as not to do them harm... כך אין אנו צריכין להחזיק טובה לגר שהניח משפחתו ובית אביו והניח אומתו וכל או״ה ובא לו אצלנו לכן הרבה עליו שמירה שהזהיר את ישראל שישמרו עצמם מהם שלא יזיקו להם

Note that we are also both the sheep and the shepherd being instructed by the king. It is not in the nature of shepherds to look after deer, hence the need for speciail instructions.

The convert challenges the way Jews think about Jews—and they are aware of this. The deer changes the nature of the flock.

We should be not caught up in "who is a Jews" debates, but "how wonderful it is that they have decided to come into the courtyard". We have to be grateful for converts—this is one of a number of [Midrashic/Talmudic] passages with this theme.

Jewish learning notes index

Notes from a talk at the New London Synagogue: An Aversion to Conversion

2008-07-15T11:41:18Z

Notes from the New London Synagogue

An Aversion to Conversion

Rabbi Reuven Hammer

You hear a lot of nonsense about conversion, about what can and cannot be done. Many of the conversion courts do not abide by halacha but impose lots of stringent measures on top of the halacha.

Yevamot 47a-b יבמות מז א/ב

Our rabbis taught¹: If at the present time a man² desires to become a proselyte, he is to be addressed as follows: 'What reason do you have for desiring to become a proselyte; do you not know that Israel at the present time³ are persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions? תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם׃

Yevamot 47a-b	יבמות מז א/ב
Our rabbis taught¹: If at the present time a man² desires to become a proselyte, he is to be addressed as follows: 'What reason do you have for desiring to become a proselyte; do you not know that Israel at the present time³ are persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions?	תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם׃

1. This always introduces a teaching of the Tannaim: an ancient teaching which is a basic teaching.

2. Or woman

3.This was after the time of the Bar Kochba revolt, when Jews really were heavily oppressed.

If he replies, 'I know and am yet unworthy,' he is accepted forthwith⁴, and is given instruction in some of the minor and some of the major commandments⁵. אם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד׃ ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות׃

4. Though this is not yet the end of the process, nothing more is going to be put in his way.

5. Hebrew. It does not say he needs to know everything; he learns some of the easy ones and some of the difficult.

He is informed of the sin [of the neglect of the commandment of] Gleanings ⁶, the Forgotten Sheaf, the Corner and the Poor Man's Tithe. He is also told of the punishment for the trangression of the commandments. Furthermore, he is addressed thus: 'Be it known to you that before you came to this condition, if you had eaten ⁷ suet, you would not have been punishable with כרת [spiritual excision], if you had profaned the Sabbath you would not have been punishable with stoning.'⁸. ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני׃ ומודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת למדה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אכלת חלב ענוש כרת חללת שבת ענוש סקילה׃

6. These are all agricultural מצות.

7. Of course, nobody was stoned at this time, but they're making a point. Whatever punishments there are, which come from Heaven, they are not punishments human beings make, you now have to accept them.

8. For a male there are two requirements: circumcision and going into the mikva.

And as he is informed of the punishment for the transgression of the commandments, so is he informed of the reward granted for their fulfilment. He is told, 'Be it known to you that the world to come was made only for the righteous, and that Israel at the present time are unable to bear either too much prosperity, or to much suffering.' He is not, however, to be persuaded or dissuaded too much. If he accepted, he is circumcised forthwith.

... When he comes up after his ablution he is deemed to be an Israelite in all respects.⁹ ....

וכשם שמודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו מתן שכרן אומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו עשוי אלא לצדיקים וישראל בזמן הזה אינם יכולים לקבל לא רוב טובה ולא רוב פורענות׃ ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו׃ קיבל מלין אותו מיד׃
נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין את המילה חוזרים ומלין אותו שניה׃ נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד ושני ת״ח עומדים על גביו ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו׃ ...

9. It does not say that this would take any long period of time.

R. Eleazar said: What is the Scriptural proof? ¹⁰
It is written: And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking to her. "We are forbidden," she told her, "[to move on the Sabbath beyond the] Sabbath boundaries." "Whither thou goest," [the other replied], "I will go."
....

"If he accepted, he is circumcised forthwith." What is the reason? The performance of a commandment must not in any way be delayed¹¹.

...
When he comes up ... What is the practical meaning of this? In that if he retracted and then betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, he is regarded as a non-conforming Israelite, and his betrothal is valid.¹²
אמר רבי אלעזר מאי קראה דכתיב
ותרא כי מתאמצת היא ללכת אתה ותחדל לדבר אליה אמרה לה אסיר לן תחום שבת באשר תלכי אלך׃ אסיר לן יחוד באשר תליני אלין׃

...

קיבל מלין אותו מיד מאי טעמא שהויי מצוה לא משהינן

...

טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו למאי הלכתא דאי הדר ביה ומקדש בת ישראל ישראל מומר קרינא ביה וקידושיו קידושין׃

10. They learn the proofs from the Book of Ruth—a proselyte herself. From Ruth's speech^* they learn what is required. Following this comes the rabbinic interpretation (in the main text): they interpret each of Ruth's speeches as a response to something Naomi is supposed to have said.

Ruth 1:16–16: Do not intreat me to leave you, or to return from following after you; for where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge: your people shall be my people, and your G-d my G-d. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried: so do the LORD to me, and more besides, if aynthing but death part you and me.

11. I.e. circumcision.

12. The conversion cannot be undone. He is regarded entirely as a non-practising Jew.

This gives you pretty much the details of what conversion is like in Jewish law. These rules and regulations were codified by all the great teachers of Jewish law—the Rambam, for instance:

If there was a person who came to be converted, and they didn't really give him all the instruction he should have had about the מצות and the punishments; if he was circumcised and went into the mikva before three non-rabbis [hediot], he is nevertheless converted.
Even if we are informed that he wanted to be converted for an improper reason [such as wanting to marry a Jewish woman], since he has been circumcised and been in the mikva, he is no longer a non-Jew.

In view of this, you wonder, in view of some of the things you see going on with conversion, why the stringencies, the insistence that a person be 100% observant, and rabbinical courts in Israel retracting conversions after five or ten years because they are not observant. How can they do that? They are disregarding all the basic laws of Judaism!

One of the chief rabbis in Israel was for many years converting people, and said that the conversion was good so long as they lived in Israel, but was בטל if they left Israel!

The problem today in Israel is as follows: The rabbinical courts make conversion extremely difficult. All of their requirements go way beyond the halacha. They insist that you know everything, and practise everything. There was a case a few months ago of a woman who went through a conversion institute, and came before a rabbinical court, which asked her if she could recite אשרי by heart. She couldn't, so they turned her down.

There was a whole page in the Jerusalem Post recently about the problem of conversion. One of the columnists talked about defending the stringency of conversion. There was a letter from an Orthodox rabbi arguing against this!

You have courts which don't even recognise each other—rabbinical courts refusing to recognise conversions performed by the London Beth Din! So then you get the London Beth Din retaliating by refusing to recognise conversions by Israeli בָּתֵּי דִין!

The Neeman Commission (1998)

Conversion in Israel is very complex, because since the Chief Rabbinate is part and parcel of the government, there is the question as to whether conversion by anyone else is to be recognised by the government. The registration of an individual in Israel is done by one's religion. It also used to be listed in people's ID cards.

At one point they only put you down as a Jew, if you were a convert, if the conversion was done by or recognised by the Chief Rabbinate. This can also have consequences as to whether converts can get Israeli citizenship. There are two ways of getting Israeli citizenship, the easy way and the hard way. The easy way is if you are a Jew (or married to a Jew or have a Jewish parent or Jewish grandparent), under the Law of Return. (This leniency is because the Nazis persecuted, under the Nuremberg Laws, people with one Jewish grandparent; such people had no place to go then—see the case of the St Louis. The Law of Return was passed soon after this period.)

If you are not a Jew, the process can take many years.

The Law of Return also states the definition of a Jew: someone who was born of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism. It does not state in the law who converts or which rabbinate has carried the conversion out. For many years the State of Israel took the view that it had to be done by an Orthodox rabbinical court. Eventually this was taken to the Supreme Court, which decided this was not what the law said, and therefore a conversion by any rabbinical court would have to be recognised.

This overturning of the law came about because in 1997 there was a case of adopted children, who were non-Jewish. In Israel it's very difficult to adopt a child, so in almost all cases people have to go overseas to do so; they adopt children from Romania, Russia, the Philipines, etc. These children are not Jews. So the parents would take the child to the Chief Rabbinate and ask the child to be converted, and would be refused because the parents were not 100% observant in the Orthodox manner, as the child would not be living a full Jewish life.

(People converted as children are given the opportunity when they reach the age of religious majority (twelve for girls, thirteen for boys) for renouncing their conversion, as it was not carried out with their assent. This is theoretically possible, but never in practice happens.)

This was very problematic, as most people in Israel are not Orthodox and fully observant! Also, at that time you could not complete an adoption unless the child was of the same religion as the parents. A group of these parents came to the Masorti rabbinical court in Israel and asked them to convert their children. They knew that Masorti conversion adhered to all requirements in Jewish law. Their conversion should be recognised by everyone in Israel. The Masorti Beth Din agreed to carry the conversions out, and converted the group, of about fifteen (using the mikva in Kibbutz Ḥanaton).

This became a major cause celèbre in Israel; it was big news in Israel the next day. So the parents took the certificates of conversion to the Ministry of the Interior to have the children registered. The Ministry of the Interior refused, and did not give a reason. After a long time, they gave the reason that they did not recognise conversions not done by the Chief Rabbinate.

At that point the Masorti movement took them to court, because there is no law in Israel saying that conversions carried out by other institutions than the Chief Rabbinate are not valid. The courts took this up (though a verdict would not be reached for several years).

The Orthodox political parties in Israel often play political kingmaker out of relation to their size in terms of making a viable coalition, as they can threaten to pull out of the coalition and bring the government down. When everybody thought they were pretty certain the court would find in the Masorti movement's favour, the Orthodox political parties moved to prevent this from happening by passing a law in the Knesset saying that the State of Israel only recognised conversions carried out by the Chief Rabbinate. They went to the PM, Netanyahu, and threatened to pull out of his coalition if he did ont have this law passed. At the same time, pressures came upon Netanyahu from Jews outside Israel saying: Most of the Jews in our countries are not Orthodox (in the States, only 10% of the Jews are Orthodox); most of the conversions here are performed by non-Orthodox בָּתֵּי דִין. People who make aliya come from these movements.

So Netanyahu was stuck risking to lose the support, important both financially and politically, of the Jews in the Diaspora. But if he did not act, his government would fall. So what did he do? He appointed a committee, the Neeman Commission, to come up with a compromise that would satisfy everyone. It consisted of representatives of Orthodoxy, the Masorti movement and the Reform movement.

The committee met for the best part of a year. Finally it came up with an idea they were all agreed upon they were willing to try on a trial basis, of a year or two, before seeing how it worked. They would establish a joint conversion institute where all the denominations would be involved in the teaching. There would be an agreed-upon curriculum of what you have to teach a convert. Following the period of study, the converts would be turned over to an Orthodox rabbinical court, but which would consist, nevertheless, of rabbis who were much more open and liberal than your typical Orthodox rabbinical court. Thus the Orthodox would be satisfied that the conversion was valid, because it was carried out by an Orthodox בית דין and the non-Orthodox would be satisfied that the rabbinical court was liberal and open enough to accept all of the converts.

This was the compromise agreed upon; the movements agreed that for the trial period they would not carry out their own conversions. But this was dependent upon the agreement of the Chief Rabbinate that they would go through with this, and appoint the liberal בָּתֵּי דִין—and once it was agreed upon, the Chief Rabbinate pulled out from it, and issued an extreme statement saying they would not cooperate with any other movement; that the Masorti movement was responsible for the destruction of Judaism in the world, and for intermarriage; and that they were worse than the Nazis, as they had destroyed Judaism spiritually.

However, the representatives of certain Orthodox groups, and the Reform and the Masorti decided to start their institute anyway. It has been going ever since, but as it does not have any backing from the Chief Rabbinate, it has not worked out too well. It's been so problematic, R. Hammer wonders whether it is not time to give up the ghost on this.

One place in which this is working, however, is in the Army: There's a lot of non-Jewish soldiers in the army, mostly people from the former Soviet Union. There are in Israel today 250–300,000 olim from the former Soviet Union, who are not halachically Jews: they have Jewish fathers, or are married to Jews. This is a big number—close to a third of all the olim from the former Soviet Union.

This is one of the major reasons that the Neeman Commission came to its compromise: these are people who have to be accommodated one way or another. The government would very much like to have these people made Jewish. But the Chief Rabbinate is not interested, because they are not going to become observant Orthodox Jews. (The Masorti movement recognises that it's not going to be able to convert them all. It would like to concentrate on new recruits into the Army (see below) and couples wishing to get married. If the older couples are never converted, nothing terrible will happen to them.)

Now, the Army has its own chaplaincy court which is not subject to the Chief Rabbinate. It is much more liberal than the Chief Rabbinate, and they have worked out a whole system so that any non-Jewish army recruit is given the option of attending for six months a very intensive course on Judaism, and at the conclusion of that they can present themselves to the Army chaplaincy for conversion, and will be accepted.

So, the Commission came up [lacuna]

So the Masorti Movement went back to court. (The Orthodox parties, however, did not pull out of the government, for whatever reason.) And the Supreme Court found in the Masorti Movement's favour: Any of their converts had to be registered and recognised as Jews. The one thing they did to placate the Chief Rabbinate was to remove the religion clause from the identity card, because they did not want people running around with identity cards saying they were Jewish when they did not recognise them as such.

They have won all these battles so far through the courts. There is one more battle, however, that is yet to be won, and that is of attaining citizenship if you have converted in Israel. There is no problem if you have converted outside Israel; they will be recognised and granted citizenship. However, there are people who are living in Israel who are non-Jewish, who are non-citizens, who want to become Jewish. When we [the Israeli Masorti movement] have converted such people, and they go to the Interior Ministry to become registered or become citizens, they get turned down. Again, they are told the law requires them to recognise people who have been converted outside Israel; it does not require them to recognise people who have been converted in Israel.

The Masorti movement says where does it say that about the law? This situation is ludicrous! So they took them to court. It's been before the court now for two years. Hopefully the court will find in our favour.

The other problem, of course, of recognition by the Orthodox, is not something which can be addressed by the courts inside or outside Israel.

In Israel, all marriages are under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate; there's no civil marriage. Anyone who can't be married as such has to go abroad, though their marriage will still be recognised by the Israeli authorities afterwards. This system was inherited from the Ottoman law, where each religion's marriage is handled by that religion's authorities. The British continued that under the League of Nations Mandate; and it is still continued today. But international law requires every country to recognise the legitimacy of marriages carried out in other countries. Otherwise there would be chaos! So Israel has to recognise civil marriages carried out elsewhere—generally Cyprus. The rabbinate will not recognise such marriages, but the civil authorities will.

This happens increasingly. The Masorti movement performs hundreds of weddings every year, both by its members but also by people who ideologically object to the way the Chief Rabbinate carries out marriages—they require you to prove you're Jewish, to attend marriage courses and so forth. But if the Masorti movement performs a [religious] wedding in Jerusalem, the Interior Ministry will not recognise it; so the couple then has to go over to Cyprus to get a civil marriage as well.

Jewish learning notes index

Klein wins

2008-07-13T14:30:44Z

My Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, and Collins Concise dictionary all merely list "bitumen" as having derived from Latin bitūmen. Rather to my surprise, I was able to get some more detail from Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (whilst looking up בֶּטוֹן beton, "concrete", which turns out to derive, via French, from this word):

L. bitūmen (= mineral pitch), an Osco-Umbrian loan word (the genuine Latin form form would have been *vetūmen, from *gwetūmen, of Celtic origin.

Cool, eh?

(Still doesn't tell me where *gwetūmen came from, though: it looks too long to simply be a single term meaning "bitumen, pitch". What do the individual parts of it mean?)

Notes from Moishe House: Blasphemy

2008-07-13T08:54:34Z

Notes from Moishe House

Blasphemy

Rabbi Joel Levy

The UK is currently ~~in the process of~~ has just^* abolishing its centuries-old blasphemy laws—the whole thing started with David Blunkett deciding it was not right that Britain had blasphemy laws defending only Christianity. The question was whether to extend it to all religions, or, as it turns out, to remove them and replace them with laws against incitement to religious hatred.

* These notes sat on the side for a while before being finished off.

The last successful blasphemy prosecution in 1977, Whitehouse vs. Lemon: The editor of Gay News who published James Kirkup's poem "The Love That Dared to Speak Its Name", which portrayed Jesus as gay. (There were unsuccessful, attempted, prosecutions since, as recently as 2007, in re the Jerry Springer opera.)

Torah

Blasphemy is conceived very different in the Bible and the Talmud. The primary Toraitic source is Leviticus 24:

Leviticus 24:1-24:23 ויקרא כד א־ויקרא כד כג

The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel. This half-Israelite and an Israelite man strove together in the camp; and the half-Israelite blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. So they brought him unto Moses (his mother's name was Shelomith bat Divri, of the tribe of Dan), and they put him into custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Take the curser outside the camp; and let all those who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. Now speak to the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemes the LORD's name shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the foreigner as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. ויצא בן אשה ישראלית והוא בן איש מצרי בתוך בני ישראל וינצו במחנה בן הישראלית ואיש הישראלי׃ ויקב בן האשה הישראלית את השם ויקלל ויביאו אתו אל משה ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי למטה דן׃ ויניחהו במשמר לפרש להם על פי ה׳׃ וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר׃ הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וסמכו כל השמעים את ידיהם על ראשו ורגמו אתו כל העדה׃ ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו׃ ונקב שם ה׳ מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה כגר כאזרח בנקבו שם יומת׃

Leviticus 24:1-24:23	ויקרא כד א־ויקרא כד כג
The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel. This half-Israelite and an Israelite man strove together in the camp; and the half-Israelite blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. So they brought him unto Moses (his mother's name was Shelomith bat Divri, of the tribe of Dan), and they put him into custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Take the curser outside the camp; and let all those who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. Now speak to the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemes the LORD's name shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the foreigner as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.	ויצא בן אשה ישראלית והוא בן איש מצרי בתוך בני ישראל וינצו במחנה בן הישראלית ואיש הישראלי׃ ויקב בן האשה הישראלית את השם ויקלל ויביאו אתו אל משה ושם אמו שלמית בת דברי למטה דן׃ ויניחהו במשמר לפרש להם על פי ה׳׃ וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר׃ הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וסמכו כל השמעים את ידיהם על ראשו ורגמו אתו כל העדה׃ ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו׃ ונקב שם ה׳ מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה כגר כאזרח בנקבו שם יומת׃

This is the first piece of narrative of any description for a long time in the Torah; it follows reams upon reams of laws about sanctity. Then it discusses the case of what to do with someone who rejects the notion of sanctity. It's inevitable, in that case, that the blasphemer has to die, in this culture that venerates sanctity so highly.

The law is played out in the context of a narrative; it doesn't just present it in a void. The blasphemer is the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian; he's one of the mixed multitude who came out of Egypt with the Israelites. It might be suggesting here that blasphemy is the act of someone who sees themselves at the edge of the community. (People right in the centre would never think to do so; people outside of the community altogether don't know to do so.) Cf. how easily Westerners nowadays act in a way Muslims interpret as blasphemous—they know just enough to be act to talk about it, but not enough to know how to talk about it.

What does the blasphemer do? The text says "ויקב". The Talmud gives three possible meanings: to curse, to pierce or to pronounce; for all of which textual proofs can be found in the תנ״ך (see below).

Because the curse is separately mentioned, it looks like the פשט is to pronounce—though the Talmud doesn't want you to interpret it that way. looking at the punishment too, it looks like there are two separate things going on: cursing G-d, and being נֹקֵב against the name of G-d.

This is one of the few cases where they don't know what to do with the sinner.

"Every man who curses his God shall bear his sin." Why his God? It could be a general prohibition on cursing gods. There is a tradition that goes in this direction: Zohar Section 3 p. 106b:

איש איש כי יקלל אלקיו ואע״ג דפולחנא נוכראה הוא כיון דאנא פקודת לון ממנא לדברא עלמא מאן דלייט ומבזי לון ונשא חטאו ודאי דהא ברשותי קיימין ואזלי ומדברין בני עלמא׃ אבל ונוקב שם יי׳ מות יומת לאו ונשא חטאו כמה לאלין אלא מות יומת׃

"'Anyone who curses his god,' even if it's a foreign worship." The Zohar understands this verse as saying everyone should be respectful towards the sanctity in his society; and should be punished according to the punishment for disrespect in his society: a public order act!

Midrash

Midrash Tanḥuma, Emor 23 מדרש תנחומא

And the son of an Israelite woman... went out: From where did he go out?

R. Levi said: He went out of [i.e. forfeited] his [share in] eternity/the world [to come?]. As it is stated [1 Sam. 17:4], "And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath."

R. Berakhya said: From where did he go out? From [i.e. he repudiated] the prevoius paragraph [in the source text], where it is stated, "You shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it... Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually." [Lev. 24:5-8]. [The blasphemer] taunted: Kings are served with hot, freshly baked loaves, not stale ones!

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית׃ מהיכן יצא?

רבי לוי אומר, מעולמו יצא, כמו דאמרת, ויצא איש הבינים׃

רבי ברכיה אמר, מהיכן יצא׃ מפרשה של מעלה, שנאמר, ולקחת סולת ואפית אותה שתים עשרה חלות׃ אמר, דרך המלך לאכול פת חמה, שמא צנינא׃

Midrash Tanḥuma, Emor 23	מדרש תנחומא
And the son of an Israelite woman... went out: From where did he go out? R. Levi said: He went out of [i.e. forfeited] his [share in] eternity/the world [to come?]. As it is stated [1 Sam. 17:4], "And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath." R. Berakhya said: From where did he go out? From [i.e. he repudiated] the prevoius paragraph [in the source text], where it is stated, "You shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it... Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually." [Lev. 24:5-8]. [The blasphemer] taunted: Kings are served with hot, freshly baked loaves, not stale ones!	ויצא בן אשה ישראלית׃ מהיכן יצא? רבי לוי אומר, מעולמו יצא, כמו דאמרת, ויצא איש הבינים׃ רבי ברכיה אמר, מהיכן יצא׃ מפרשה של מעלה, שנאמר, ולקחת סולת ואפית אותה שתים עשרה חלות׃ אמר, דרך המלך לאכול פת חמה, שמא צנינא׃

Midrash Tanḥuma, Emor 24 מדרש תנחומא

And the son of an Israelite woman... went out:

Rabbi Ḥamah bar Abba said: From dealing with matters of personal status.

He had sought to pitch his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan, but they had pushed him away saying: [Sifra: By what right do you pitch in the camp of Dan?] You are the son of an Egyptian. The Torah states: "Every man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by their own standard, with the ensigns of their fathers' houses" [Num. 2:2] and not their mothers' houses! [Sifra: He appealed to the court of Moses but lost his case whereupon] he immediately began to utter the Name and to curse it.

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית׃

רבי חמא בר אבא אמר, מפרשת יוחסין יצא׃

שכשבא ליטע אהלו במחנה דן, דחוהו׃ אמרו לו, בן מצרי אתה, וכתיב, איש על דגלו באותות לבית אבותם, ולא לבית אמותם׃ מיד התחיל לנקוב את השם ולקללו׃

Midrash Tanḥuma, Emor 24	מדרש תנחומא
And the son of an Israelite woman... went out: Rabbi Ḥamah bar Abba said: From dealing with matters of personal status. He had sought to pitch his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan, but they had pushed him away saying: [Sifra: By what right do you pitch in the camp of Dan?] You are the son of an Egyptian. The Torah states: "Every man of the Children of Israel shall pitch by their own standard, with the ensigns of their fathers' houses" [Num. 2:2] and not their mothers' houses! [Sifra: He appealed to the court of Moses but lost his case whereupon] he immediately began to utter the Name and to curse it.	ויצא בן אשה ישראלית׃ רבי חמא בר אבא אמר, מפרשת יוחסין יצא׃ שכשבא ליטע אהלו במחנה דן, דחוהו׃ אמרו לו, בן מצרי אתה, וכתיב, איש על דגלו באותות לבית אבותם, ולא לבית אמותם׃ מיד התחיל לנקוב את השם ולקללו׃

Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud also buys into this notion; and it becomes the jumping off point for the discussion of blasphemy in the Seven Noachide Laws, the seven rules for non-Jews living in Jewish society.

As for the death penalty for cursing the name YHVH, does this mean the death penalty applies for other names of G-d too? There is a big מחלוקת here between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir in the period of the Mishna. The Rabbis all say no.

What is the status of the Noachide Laws today in the UK? In the UK, not much, but in America there has been an attempt to convince non-Jews that they have to keep them. (There are voices in the Talmud which say this too.)

Note that the verse immediately after the blasphemy laws is "Any man who kills a man shall surely be put to death": even though the death penalty is prescribed for blasphemy, people are not to take the law into their own hands.

The primary Mishnaic source for the laws of blasphemy can be found in Sanhedrin 55b:

The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the Divine] Name. R. Yehoshua ben Qorḥa said the whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the Divine Name, thus, "May Yossi smite Yossi." When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, "State literally what you heard." Thereupon he did so, [using the Divine Name]. The judges then arose and rent their garments, which rent was not to be resewn. The second witness stated, "I too have heard thus" [but not uttering the Divine Name], and the third says, "I too have heard thus." המגדף אינו חייב עד שיפרש השם א״ר יהושע בן קרחה בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו׃

This is a solution for how you can put someone to death for blasphemy without repeating the Divine Name. (Cf. Life of Brian.)

What's "May G-d smite G-d"? It's because "He blasphemes G-d" appears twice in the Biblical verse (24:16), so they said the name of G-d has to appear twice.

The Gemara quotes a ברייתא:

It has been taught: "[The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name."

From where do we know this? Samuel said: The Torah says, "And he that blasphemes [נוקב] the name of the LORD... when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."

תנא עד שיברך שם בשם

מנהני מילי אמר שמואל דאמר קרא ונוקב שם וגו׳ בנקבו שם יומת

This is the accepted norm in the Mishnaic period for what it means to blaspheme G-d.

What's going on here? Part of it is trying to limit the penalty—unless you use a very specific phrase, the death penalty does not apply.

The other way of reading this is: blasphemer is quintessentially the act of someone who curses G-d by using G-d's name: someone who's enough of a Jew to know how to curse G-d. When you curse, you use G-d's name; but you hate it enough to curse G-d. The act of someone who is in and out at the same time. Eskimos cannot blaspheme. It's only Jews who can really hate Judaism.

There then follows a discussion on what exactly נוקב means.

How do you know that the word נוקב means a "blessing"?

From the verse, "How shall I curse [אקב] whom G-d has not cursed?" [Num. 23:8] whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, "You shall not revile God." [Ex. 22:27]

But perhaps it means "to pierce",

as it is written, "So Yehoiadah the priest took a chest and bored [ויקב] a hole in the lid of it [2 Kings 12:10], the formal injunction against this being the verses, "You shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. You shall not do so unto the LORD your G-d" [Deut. 12: 3ff].
The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here!
But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both?
In that case, one Name is pierced after the other.
But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]?
In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name.

But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name,

as it is written, "And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [נקבו] by their names" [Num. 1:17], the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, "You shall fear the LORD your G-d" [Deut. 6:13]?
Firstly, the Name must be "blessed" by the Name, which is absent here;
and secondly it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.
And alternative answer is this: The Torah says, "And the Israelite woman's son blasphemed [ויקב] and cursed", proving that blasphemy [נוקב] denotes cursing.
But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?
You cannot think so, because it is written, "Bring forth him that has cursed" [Lev. 24:14] and not "him that has blasphemed and cursed," proving that one offence only is alluded to.

ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי

הוא דכתיב מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא אלהים לא תקלל

ואימא מיברז

הוא דכתיב ויקב חור בדלתו ואזהרתיה מהכא ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשון כן לה׳ אלהיכם
בעינא שם בשם וליכא ואימא דמנח שני שמות אהדדי ובזע להו ההוא נוקב וחוזר ונוקב הוא ואימא דחייק שם אפומא דסכינא ובזע בה ההוא חורפא דסכינא הוא דקא בזע

אימא פרושי שמיה

הוא דכתיב ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות ואזהרתיה מהכא את ה׳ אלהיך תירא
חדא דבעינא שם בשם וליכא ועוד הויא ליה אזהרת עשה ואזהרת עשה לא שמה אזהרה ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא ויקב ויקלל למימרא דנוקב קללה הוא ודילמא עד דעבד תרוייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב הוצא את המקלל ולא כתיב הוצא את הנוקב והמקלל שמע מינה חדא היא׃

All of these are seemingly legitimate explanations. The meaning "to curse" is the one that wins. They reject the "piercing" interpretation because it is not possible to pierce the name of G-d with the name of G-d. They also bend over backwards to reject the "pronunciation" interpretation, giving four or five reasons. Hence merely pronouncing the name of G-d does not constitute blasphemy.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a

Our rabbis taught: "'Any man that curses his G-d shall bear his sin' [Lev. 24:15]: [It would have been sufficient to say] 'A man, etc'. What is taught by the expression 'any man'? The inclusion of non-Jews, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the Children of Noah is only by decapitation."

Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to non-Jews] deduced from this verse? But is it not deduced from another, "The LORD" [Gen 2:16] referring to the "blessing" of the Divine Name!

R. Isaac the smith replied; this phrase ["any man"] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of G-d's name, and the ברייתא is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views; for it has been taught:

"'Any man that curses his G-d shall bear his sin' [24:15] Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, 'And he that blasphemes the name of the LORD, shall surely be put to death'? [24:16]^* Because it is stated, 'And he that blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death,' I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. From where do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included?

"From the verse, 'Any man that curses his G-d'—showing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]:

תנו רבנן איש מה תלמוד לומר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף
והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה׳ זו ברכת השם
אמר ר׳ יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר
דתניא איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר ונוקב שם ה׳ מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין?
תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום

Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a
Our rabbis taught: "'Any man that curses his G-d shall bear his sin' [Lev. 24:15]: [It would have been sufficient to say] 'A man, etc'. What is taught by the expression 'any man'? The inclusion of non-Jews, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the Children of Noah is only by decapitation." Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to non-Jews] deduced from this verse? But is it not deduced from another, "The LORD" [Gen 2:16] referring to the "blessing" of the Divine Name! R. Isaac the smith replied; this phrase ["any man"] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of G-d's name, and the ברייתא is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views; for it has been taught: "'Any man that curses his G-d shall bear his sin' [24:15] Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, 'And he that blasphemes the name of the LORD, shall surely be put to death'? [24:16]^* Because it is stated, 'And he that blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death,' I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. From where do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included? "From the verse, 'Any man that curses his G-d'—showing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]:	תנו רבנן איש מה תלמוד לומר איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה׳ זו ברכת השם אמר ר׳ יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר דתניא איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר ונוקב שם ה׳ מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין? תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום

* This is the first source trying to split the two halves of the verse and make sense of the two.

"This is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name is punishable by death; with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction [but not punishable by death]." דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים על שם המיוחד במיתה ועל הכינויין באזהרה

There is no hint in the Mishnaic material that non-Jews might be held more accountable than Jews in the blasphemy laws.

This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha, for R. Miyasha said: If a son of Noah blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name,^* he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death.^† ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב

* Any of the names of G-d.

† We are really sensitive about our religion!

Why so? Because it is written, "as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemes the name of the LORD, shall be put to death]" [24:16].^* This teachers that only the stranger [i.e. a proselyte], and the native [i.e. a natural-born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the non-Jew is punishable even for a substitute only. מאי טעמא דאמר קרא כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל עובד כוכבים אפילו בכינוי

* But this is saying that the law is the same for Jews and non-Jews! In Babylonia גר meant a convert. They effectively made a new midrash of the text: if even Jews and converts are liable for the death penalty for uttering the Divine Name, then non-Jews are held to a higher standard! This eventually became the accepted opinion. Note, however, that in Babylonia the Jews were politically impotent—no one was going to be putting anyone to death! The Jews can say anything they want and feel confident no one is going to do anything about them. Cf. the chareidim in the UK, where they are safe, and in Israel, where they are scary because they have real power.

But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, "as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land"? It teaches that the stranger and the citizen are stoned, but a non-Jew is decapitated. For I would think that, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]; hence we are taught otherwise.

Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, "as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land", on the view of the Rabbis? It teaches that only a strange and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a non-Jew this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man? The Torah employed normal human speech.

Our rabbis taught: "seven precepts were the children of Noah commanded: social laws, to refrain from blasphemy; idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal."

ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל עובד כוכבים בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קא משמע לן
ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל עובד כוכבים לא בעינן שם בשם איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם
תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם עבודה זרה גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים׃

If Jews curse G-d, that's okay: Jews are always moaning about G-d—but if someone else does it, that's different!

There also a sense in which if you are a minority community, and you feel threatened—like the Muslim community today—you develop very sensitive antennae against blasphemy.

In the Amoraic period, they've essentially reframed blasphemy from a Jewish crime to a more non-Jewish one. The Jews in Babylon were terrified of blasphemy because they felt vulnerable, and they wished to displace it onto non-Jews. This speaks to the condition for Muslim in Europe now.

Jewish learning notes index

More things to divert myself with, when I'm ill...

2008-07-11T07:50:28Z

Ever wondered when Britain started driving on the left (or your own country started driving on whichever side it drives on)? It struck me a while back that this must antedate the advent of the motor car by quite a long way. So, this morning, I googled, and found out. (Though the less entertaining Wikipedia article points out this site contains a few myths.)

Google Charts

2008-07-10T11:58:45Z

Sitting at home ill, as I am, I've been playing around for the first time with Google Charts:

To be honest, it's all a little bit fiddly, and not an awful lot easier to deal with manually than Gnuplot:

Bah, humbug!

2008-07-09T07:00:07Z

Turns out that wasn't a cold my sore throat yesterday was indicative of; it was flu: I had a temperature of 38.7°C (101°F) when I got up this morning.

What I've been working on at work

2008-07-07T12:30:02Z

For the first five years of my time here working for Auntie, I was working on interactive services for digital terrestrial television (OnDigital/Freeview), written in the language MHEG-5. However, MHEG is not very easy to program, and two and a half years ago I was handed the skeleton of a wrapper around MHEG, called MHEG+, to implement. I enthusiastically not only did so, but set about developing a suite of tools to make programming MHEG+ easier, and the resulting programmes more robust.

Last month, the BBC held a hack day called Mashed, in which members of the public were introduced to MHEG+, and encouraged to try and put together programs in it. Here's a report of the event, including a screenshot of a couple of the tools I have developed:

© BBC MMVIII, yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think I can say any more at the present, but watch out for continuing developments here in the next little while. :o)

הַבְדָלָה candle

2008-07-06T16:49:24Z

As my previous הַבְדָלָה candle is coming towards the end of its lifetime, I have now made a new one; my first attempt to make a three-stranded candle:

The margin between heating the individual strands enough to plait, and reducing them to a puddle of liquid wax turns out to be quite small....

Newcastle trip report

2008-06-25T21:02:23Z

Whenever I visit my parents, I like to go for long bike rides in the Northumbrian countryside. Last summer, I went for a ride up the Military Road alongside Hadrian's Wall, as far as Chollerford, which was pleasant (if hard work going uphill). However, it was a little disappointing in that the scenery was very typical English countryside—fields and woodland; whereas, as I discovered the following day (in my parents' car), only a little further up it changes to a more exotic upland landscape, with moorland and heather patches on the upper hillsides.

This time, seeing strong winds forecast from the west, I decided to get the train to the delightfully named Haltwhistle^*, and cycle back east.

* There was a boy in my class at school with the similar name Entwhistle. I'd like to go into the middle of some old-growth primary forest and blow one of those.

The centre of Haltwhistle is very pretty; unfortunately I managed to get my finger in front of my camera (the lens is very badly placed at the top-left), wrecking most of my shots. This is the best I could salvage:

Below: Serious Hadrian's Wall country. The town was also full of shops with names like Hadrian's Estate Agents.

Below: A dry stone wall outside Haltwhistle, with built-in sheep run.

As I journeyed, I stopped at some of the interesting places along the way (excepting the major Roman camps of Vindolanda and Housesteads, which I had been to before). Here's a picture of Cawfield Quarry; Hadrian's Wall used to go through the middle of where the pond now is, but was demolished in an act of archaeological desecration that wouldn't happen nowadays. (Hadrian's Wall is now a designated UN World Heritage Site.)

Below: Milecastle 42, just next to the quarry.

Below: some well-cut ashlars, for dhole. :o). (Yes, that's my finger again at the top left.)

Below: the view from the milecastle, with the wall running in the fenced-off area on the left.

Below: There was a place called Once Brewed on the other side of it too.

Five years ago, my parents took me and livredor along this route, when we saw this nick in the ridge of the Great Whin Sill (the geological feature atop which Hadrian's Wall is built), with a tree at the bottom:

My father asked if we knew what was going on here, geologically speaking. No, chorused livredor and I. During the Ice Age, my father explained, the glaciers had got dammed up behind the Whin Sill; as the pressure increased eventually the ice broke through at weak spots, creating nicks like the one pictured here. (I have no idea whether this is actually the case, but this is the explanation he gave. :o))

At a place the Romans called Brocolitia, I discovered a Mithraeum, or temple of the god Mithras (an Iranian cult which spread over the empire before being displaced by Christianity). The decorated altar stones are casts of the originals (now in a museum in Newcastle), and the wooden roof posts are obviously new, but as the area was boggy, the original wooden posts were still in place when the site was excavated.

You probably can't see at the resolution of this close-up, but there's two 10p coins in the hollow at the top of the central altar-stone. Are there still Mithras-worshipers here today?

Seen in a field (with signs saying private property; no right of way); no idea what it is:

Beyond Chollerford, following the Military Road would taken me along the outbound route I used on my previous trip, so I decided to take a different route this time. Along the way, I passed a sign saying "Kirkharle—Birthplace of Capability Brown". I had no idea he came from my neck of the woods originally.

On the Sunday, my parents and I went to have a look at Cragside Hall, the residence of Lord Armstrong.

This was the first house in the country to receive electric lighting (in 1870), and the first place in the world to be powered by a hydroelectric generator. Cameras weren't allowed inside the house, but I did get some pictures (through glass, hence no flash, hence the quality) of the original generator and control room in the power house:

Fascinating though it was to see the original electric setup (complete with incandescent light bulbs in converted vases :o)), it was possibly almost more fascinating still to see the things Armstrong had done with water power alone, before the house was electrified, such as driving a passenger lift, and turning spits in the kitchen.

I actually had relatives—cousins of my great-grandfather—who worked as electrical engineers in Cragside in the first half of the twentieth century. (They weren't responsible for the original electrification, though; that was done before they were born.)

lethargic_man @ 2008-06-16T18:16:00

2008-06-16T17:20:08Z

There was, apparently, a programme on BBC Four the other day, a dramatisation of Margaret Thatcher's struggle to get elected as MP in the fifties, called "The Long Walk to Finchley".

Heh; I know all about that: I do it every week on Shabbos. ;^)

What do _you_ think זֹנִים means?

2008-06-16T12:55:25Z

Following on from my previous post, consider the passage in the final paragraph of the Shema:

You shall look on [the fringe on your garment] and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them, and not follow after the desires of your heart and eyes, which you [something] after. וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל מִצוֹת יהוה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם:

The "something" is זֹנִים, which is clearly derived from זוֹנָה, "prostitute";^* hence the translation of the KJV "that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring." It always amused me that the Singer's Prayerbook bowdlerised this to "which you are inclined to go after."

* Which root also gives us, just to throw a linguistic spanner in the works, מָזוֹן, "nourishment". Which tells us something interesting about the ancient Semites' (almost certainly further back than the ancient Israelites) attitude towards either food or prostitution. ;^)

My initial inclination was to translate this "which you lust after." But then it occurred to me possibly I've been misled by the language of the traditional translations. "Go whoring after" implies following one's lusts. However, most prostitutes aren't in the business because they are following their lust. And, indeed, in English "to prostitute oneself" implies a sense of self-betrayal: giving up something one should hold as sacred in pursuit of another cause. And possibly this is what is meant here.

Possibly. I should go home and look this up in my dictionaries.

Liturgical linguistics geekery

2008-06-16T12:22:09Z

I'm coming towards the end of my project of typesetting the Friday night siddur. It's been educational, in terms of translating the texts myself; I've really got to grip with them at a deep level, both in terms of having to put myself in, say, the Psalmist's mindset, and at a simpler linguistic level: I'm able to translate most of them myself, with the second and centenary edition Singer's Prayerbooks, and the Artscroll siddur in front of me for guidance; but have in front of me, for when I need them, Klein, Jastrow, my Bantam-Megiddo McDictionary, and a dictionary of the Old Testament that came into my hands many years ago.

From the perspective of nearing completion, I'm now regretting that I did not make notes on some of the choices I've had to make (as I can't remember them). Here's a few examples I do remember, to make my point.

For example, consider the passage "הָאֵל הַנִּפְרָע לָנוּ מִצָּרֵינוּ. וְהַמְשַׁלֵּם גְּמוּל לְכָל אוֹיְבֵי נַפְשֵׁנוּ", from the בְּרָכָה after the שְׁמַע. It's about G-d punishing the enemies of Israel... but both verbs chosen have financial secondary meanings, so I decided to translate the passage retaining that double meaning: "the God Who dealt our foes their due, and delivered retribution on all enemies of our souls". I don't think (IIRC) the siddurim before me reflected that double meaning.

Sometimes the text can be really obtuse. Consider the passage from Psalm 92 "וַתַּבֵּט עֵינִי בְּשׁוּרָי בַּקָּמִים עָלַי מְרֵעִים תִּשְׁמַעְנָה אָזְנָי": "My eyes will see my enemies; when evildoers rise against me, my ears shall hear." But a little earlier in the psalm, it reads "When the wicked spring up like grass, and all workers of evil flourish, it is that they be destroyed forever—but You, LORD, are on high forever. For behold Your enemies, LORD: behold, Your enemies shall be destroyed; all workers of evil shall be scattered." Consequently, the correct translation appears to be: "My eyes will see [the fate of] my enemies; when evildoers rise against me, my ears shall hear [of their downfall]." Would this have been obvious to the psalmist? (Consider the linguistics of three thousand years hence trying to understand the Americanism "I could care less", when the context implies exactly the opposite. (Perhaps there's an elided "as if" there?))

Finally, consider the passage "אַתָּה קִדַּשְׁתָּ אֶת יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי לִשְׁמֶךָ, תַּכְלִית מַעֲשֵׂה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ": "You sanctified the seventh day for Your name, the [something] of the making of heaven and earth." תַּכְלִית evidently meant something like "completion"; the same root is found twice in the start of the Sabbath passage in Genesis: וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל צְבָאָם. וַיְכַל" אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה": "The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host. On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made." However, Klein also gave a meaning of purpose, aim, objective, or something like that; and the Bantam-Megiddo, with its emphasis on Modern Hebrew, gave that as the only meaning.

Of course, one has to consider the time at which this text was written, to try and get a handle on what would be the most appropriate translation; in this case, first millennium, referring back to the Biblical text, but sitting in a separate linguistic stratum. As an aside, it occurs to me you can see the same duality of meaning in the English word "end", only that would not be appropriate here. What is appropriate, and which therefore I appropriated, is the word used in the ArtScroll: "culmination". I like the way that contains both senses.

lethargic_man @ 2008-06-15T12:05:00

2008-06-15T11:20:08Z

Their manner of writing is very peculiar, being neither from the left to the right, like the Europeans, nor from the right to the left, like the Arabians, nor from up to down, like the Chinese, but aslant, from one corner of the paper to the other, like ladies in England.
—Jonathan Swift, Gullivers Travels

If you thought boustrophedonic writing (alternating lines left to right, then right to left) was strange, wrap your brain around this, which I encountered by chance in Jastrow: גּוּנְדְּלִית, writing in spiral form. (See p. 233 of Jastrow for an explanation and diagram.)

lethargic_man @ 2008-06-15T11:49:00

2008-06-15T10:52:14Z

Ah, so that's what all those aeroplanes going over in formation were for, whilst I was walking back from shul yesterday. (Did anybody else spot it?)

Medium future slips into alternate history

2008-06-13T11:41:32Z

Despite having effectively stopped writing, I'm still submitting stories for publication from time to time... only this delay between writing and sale is having an attritive effect on my near-future stories. There's a story I wrote back in 1999 (and revised, after already submitting to some markets, in 2003), which was set a dozen years, perhaps more, in the future. I tried to give it a futuristic flavour by sticking in references to some cool technologies that were then on the horizon.

Unfortunately, the delay has meant real life has been catching up, contradicting the names I've given for these, and removing the futuristic feel. I've had to revise the story slightly now, changing "route mapper" to "satnav Q-buster" (the idea is that it combines navigation with directing you away from congested routes), and "vidblog" to "vlog". The HCI interface I used is not yet widespread, but is no longer futuristic. I think I ought to stick a few more new technologies in there somewhere, just to restore that dozen years in the future feel...

lethargic_man @ 2008-06-11T18:20:00

2008-06-11T17:30:55Z

Remind me not to volunteer to lead a service I have never taken before at zero notice, or to promise to do it in five minutes flat.^*

Remind me also not to throw a large meal for seven^‡ requiring copious preparation for, on a morning on which I cannot turn up late to shul.^†

Fortunately, all worked out well in both cases and a pleasant time was had by all.

* Mincha on the first day of Yom Tov. I'd got home from the morning's davening, had a light lunch, then set off on foot to Moishe House, nearly an hour's walk away, for a most enjoyable seuda and niggun-singing session. It was now not long before sunset, and I would have to leave shortly if I wished to be home for maariv. I wanted to daven mincha, and we had an (egalitarian) minyan, but I didn't want to steal time of those who were not religious, so said it would only take five minutes. Only once I had started did it occur to me I should have asked if anyone else could do it fast better...

† On account of being the chazzan for shacharis, and also the בעל קורא. And also, as it turned out, the chazzan for the first half of the Torah service. Well, they certainly got their money's worth from me that day.

‡ Cream of sweetcorn soup; tuna steaks with tomato and caper sauce with a red cabbage dish, new potatoes and green beans; and cantaloupe, watermelon, pineapple, apple tart (provided by a guest) and ice-cream for dessert. I may have gone slightly overboard for the dessert, but curious_reader and myself at least had a bit of everything. :o)

lethargic_man @ 2008-06-08T09:40:00

2008-06-08T08:43:19Z

So that's what I'm missing not having a whizzy modern mobile 'phone...

Today's idle clicking through Wikipedia...

2008-06-01T15:19:22Z

...introduced me, as I am introducing you now, to the Missoula Floods, a series of cataclysmic floods resulting from the periodic rupture of the ice dam at the end of the glacial Lake Missoula in Washington State during the Ice Age. The ice dam regularly gave way because (to simplify slightly) as water built up behind the dam, the increased pressure at the foot of the dam lowered the water's freezing point, melting the dam. The result was Dry Falls (satellite view), the largest known waterfall ever, ten times the size of Niagara, and a peak flow of the floods of 80 mph. Woo!

"Intake"

2008-05-25T10:12:08Z

My school had a playing field on-site, but sometimes we would use another field, one of a series of several divided from the Town Moor by the Great North Road, known as the Intake. I tried yesterday looking up this sense of this word in my dictionaries; the Collins Concise didn't have it, but the first edition OED did:

Intake, sb.
2. (Chiefly north. dial.) A piece of land taken in from a moorland, common, etc; an inclosure.

I suspect of my readers, only bluepork and compilerbitch will be familiar with this usage...

Notes from the Moishe House Beit Midrash: Lag BaOmer

2008-05-21T20:53:36Z

Notes from the Moishe House Beit Midrash

Lag BaOmer

Daniel Silverstein

If the Omer is a period of mourning, how come we have these big parties on Lag Baomer? And how come this is to celebrate someone's death (Shimon bar Yoḥai)?

Shabbat 33b–34a שבת לג ב–לד א

R. Yehuda and R. Yose and R. Shimon [bar Yoḥai] were sitting, and Yehuda b. Gerim was sitting beside them. R. Yehuda opened and said, "How pleasant are the acts of this nation. They established [tiqnu] markets; they established bathhouses; they established bridges."
R. Yose was silent.
R. Shimon bar Yoḥai answered and said, "everything they established, they established only for their own needs. They established markets to place prostitutes there; bathhouses to pamper themselves; bridges to take tolls."
Yehuda b. Gerim went and retold their words, and it became known to the government. They said, "Yehuda who extolled, let him be extolled. Yose who was silent, let him be exiled to Sepphoris. Shimon who disparaged, let him be killed."

יתבי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון ויתיב יהודה בן גרים גבייהו׃ פתח רבי יהודה ואמר כמה נאים מעשיהן של אומה זו תקנו שווקים תקנו גשרים תקנו מרחצאות׃
רבי יוסי שתק׃
נענה רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ואמר כל מה שתקנו לא תקנו אלא לצורך עצמן תקנו שווקין להושיב בהן זונות מרחצאות לעדן בהן עצמן גשרים ליטול מהן מכס׃
הלך יהודה בן גרים וסיפר דבריהם ונשמעו למלכות׃ אמרו יהודה שעילה יתעלה יוסי ששתק יגלה לציפורי שמעון שגינה יהרג׃

Shabbat 33b–34a	שבת לג ב–לד א
R. Yehuda and R. Yose and R. Shimon [bar Yoḥai] were sitting, and Yehuda b. Gerim was sitting beside them. R. Yehuda opened and said, "How pleasant are the acts of this nation. They established [tiqnu] markets; they established bathhouses; they established bridges." R. Yose was silent. R. Shimon bar Yoḥai answered and said, "everything they established, they established only for their own needs. They established markets to place prostitutes there; bathhouses to pamper themselves; bridges to take tolls." Yehuda b. Gerim went and retold their words, and it became known to the government. They said, "Yehuda who extolled, let him be extolled. Yose who was silent, let him be exiled to Sepphoris. Shimon who disparaged, let him be killed."	יתבי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון ויתיב יהודה בן גרים גבייהו׃ פתח רבי יהודה ואמר כמה נאים מעשיהן של אומה זו תקנו שווקים תקנו גשרים תקנו מרחצאות׃ רבי יוסי שתק׃ נענה רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ואמר כל מה שתקנו לא תקנו אלא לצורך עצמן תקנו שווקין להושיב בהן זונות מרחצאות לעדן בהן עצמן גשרים ליטול מהן מכס׃ הלך יהודה בן גרים וסיפר דבריהם ונשמעו למלכות׃ אמרו יהודה שעילה יתעלה יוסי ששתק יגלה לציפורי שמעון שגינה יהרג׃

(And you thought Monty Python made this up!)

This takes place at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt: it's a time when it's not good to be heard saying things against the Romans.

[R. Shimon bar Yoḥai] went with his son and hid in the academy. Each day his wife brought him bread and a jug of water and they ate. When the decree became more severe he said to his son, "Women are simple-minded. They may abuse metsa`ari her and she will reveal [us]."
He went and they hid in a cave. A miracle happened for them and a carob tree and a spring were created for them.¹ They sat up to their necks in sand. By day they sat and studied, and they took off their clothes. When the time came to pray, they went out and dressed and covered and again took off their clothes, in order that they not wear out. They dwelled in a cave for thirteen years.²

Elijah came to the opening of the cave. He sat, "Who will inform Bar Yoḥai that the emperor has died, and the decree was annulled?" They went out and saw men ploughing and sowing. They said, "They forsook eternal life and busy themselves with temporal life?!" Everywhere they turned their eyes was immediately destroyed. A heavenly voice went out and said to them, "Did you go out to destroy my world? Return to your cave!"³

אזל הוא ובריה טשו בי מדרשא׃ כל יומא הוה מייתי להו דביתהו ריפתא וכוזא דמיא וכרכי׃ כי תקיף גזירתא אמר ליה לבריה נשים דעתן קלה עליהן דילמא מצערי לה ומגליא לן׃
אזלו טשו במערתא׃ איתרחיש ניסא איברי להו חרובא ועינא דמיא׃ והוו משלחי מנייהו והוו יתבי עד צוארייהו בחלא כולי יומא גרסי בעידן צלויי לבשו מיכסו ומצלו והדר משלחי מנייהו כי היכי דלא ליבלו׃ איתבו תריסר שני במערתא׃
אתא אליהו וקם אפיתחא דמערתא אמר מאן לודעיה לבר יוחי דמית קיסר ובטיל גזירתיה נפקו׃ חזו אינשי דקא כרבי וזרעי אמר מניחין חיי עולם ועוסקין בחיי שעה כל מקום שנותנין עיניהן מיד נשרף׃ יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם להחריב עולמי יצאתם חיזרו למערתכם הדור אזול׃

There are parallels here with Elijah the prophet, who also goes into hiding, and first lives in a cave fed by ravens, then later stays with a woman in Sarafand.
And you thought Monty Python made that up too! Question: which one of the Pythons was it that had been studying Gemara?
Thus, the attitude that studying is good and earning a living is bad is deplored. This ties back in to Shimon bar Yoḥai's original comments that building up the economy is deplorable.

Shimon bar Yoḥai took part in Bar Kochba rebellion; this text is written by people who were trying to understand the catastrophic defeat that that led to. The Judaeans thought they had the ultimate leader—Bar Kochba—but they lost. The writers of the text are trying to understand the why—it's the hand of G-d in history, but why does G-d act the way He does? Sometimes the answer they come up with is that G-d deliberately chose to conceal His hand.

R. Akiva was Shimon bar Yoḥai's master. His students died because they did not have respect for each other. The text says they died in a plague; but some people interpret this to mean the Romans killed them. (According to tradition the plague ended on Lag BaOmer, hence another reason to celebrate then.)

They dwelt there for twelve months. They said, "the sentence of the wicked in hell is twelve months."¹ They went out. Wherever R. Eleazar smote, R. Shimon healed. He said, "My son, you and I are sufficient for the world."² איתיבו תריסר ירחי שתא׃ אמרי משפט רשעים בגיהנם שנים עשר חדש׃ יצתה בת קול ואמרה צאו ממערתכם נפקו כל היכא דהוה מחי רבי אלעזר הוה מסי רבי שמעון׃ אמר לו בני די לעולם אני ואתה׃

Is this why we have the custom of saying kaddish when mourning for twelve months, given that the custom of mourners reciting kaddish for a year is to save the souls of the departed from Gehinnom?
R. Shimon has learned his lesson, that there is a place for being part of the world; R. Eleazar has not. But by saying "You and I are sufficient for this world," he is saying that there is a place both for people who take part in the world and those who just study.
Though should one not want someone who studies and heals?

Recall, this is a time when the religion was reinventing itself: the Temple had been destroyed, and the Temple cult destroyed along with it; and in its place rabbinic Judaism was arising. People at this time were wrestling with the issue of what the role of rabbis should be. There is no single answer they come up with; they continue to wrestle with the issue.

They saw a certain old man holding two bunches of myrtle, running at twilight. They said to him, "Why do you need these?" He said to them, "To honour the Sabbath."¹ [They said] "Would not one suffice for you?" He said, "One for remember [the Sabbath], and one for observe [the Sabbath]".² He said to him (his son), "See how dear is a commandment to Israel."³ [Their minds were set at ease.] בהדי פניא דמעלי שבתא חזו ההוא סבא דהוה נקיט תרי מדאני אסא ורהיט בין השמשות׃ אמרו ליה הני למה לך אמר להו לכבוד שבת׃ ותיסגי לך בחד חד כנגד זכור וחד כנגד שמור׃ אמר ליה לבריה חזי כמה חביבין מצות על ישראל יתיב דעתייהו׃

Myrtle at Succos symbolises the eyes. This appeases the fact they had been burning things up with their eyes.
Referring to the discrepancy between the wording of the two accounts of the Ten Commandments in the Torah. But cf. also the two portions of manna for the Sabbath.
They're impressed because he's doing this not because that's what the law is, but because he loves honouring Shabbos.

R. Pinchas b. Yair, his son-in-law, heard and went out to greet him. He took him to the bathhouse. [R. Shimon] was massaging his flesh¹. He saw that there were clefts in [R. Shimon's] flesh². He was weeping and the tears were fallings from his eyes and hurting [metsa`ari] him. [R. Pinchas] said to him, "Alas that I see you so." [R. Shimon bar Yoḥai] said to him, "Happy that you see me so. For if you did not see me so, you would not find me so [learned]." For originally when R. Shimon bar Yoḥai raised an objection, R. Pinchas b. Yair solved it with twelve solutions. Subsequently when R. Pinchas b. Yair objected, R. Shimon b. Yoḥai solved it with twenty-four solutions.³ שמע רבי פנחס בן יאיר חתניה ונפק לאפיה עייליה לבי בניה הוה קא אריך ליה לבישריה חזי דהוה ביה פילי בגופיה הוה קא בכי וקא נתרו דמעת עיניה וקמצוחא ליה׃ אמר לו אוי לי שראיתיך בכך אמר לו אשריך שראיתני בכך שאילמלא לא ראיתני בכך לא מצאת בי כך׃ דמעיקרא כי הוה מקשי רבי שמעון בן יוחי קושיא הוה מפרק ליה רבי פנחס בן יאיר תריסר פירוקי לסוף כי הוה מקשי רבי פנחס בן יאיר קושיא הוה מפרק ליה רבי שמעון בן יוחי עשרין וארבעה [בראשית] פירוקי׃

So he's completely changed his views on bathhouses.
From being buried in the sand. Also, metaphorically, wounds from being in isolation.
I.e. two for every month he was learning. The connection between twelve and twenty-four is something that keeps coming up in connection with R. Akiva, who is in the background to this story.

[R. Pinchas] said, "Since a miracle¹ occurred I will go and fix [atqin] something, since it says, And Jacob came whole [shalem] (Gen. 33:18).
(Rav said, "Whole in his body, whole in his money, whole in his Torah." And he was gracious to the city. Rav said, "He established [tiqqen] coinage for them." And Shmuel said, "He established markets for them." And R. Yoḥanan said, "He established bathhouses for them.")²

אמר הואיל ואיתרחיש ניסא איזיל אתקין מילתא דכתיב ) ( ויבא יעקב שלם
ואמר רב שלם בגופו שלם בממונו שלם בתורתו׃ ויחן את פני העיר אמר רב מטבע תיקן להם ושמואל אמר שווקים תיקן להם ורבי יוחנן אמר מרחצאות תיקן להם׃

That he survived—or survived the Romans being out to get him.
I.e. all the things that R. Shimon bar Yoḥai was originally deploring at the beginning are now being attributed to the Patriarch Jacob, who is looked up to as a paragon. Also, Jacob was a synthesis of the chesed—lovingkindness—of his grandfather Abraham, and gevura—strength and sternness—of his father Isaac.

This paragraph is probably a later interjection(?).

[R. Shimon bar Yoḥai] said, "Is there something to fix [letaqonen]?"¹
They said to him, "There is a place of doubtful impurity and it causes trouble [tsa`ara] for priests to go around it." He said, "Does anyone know if there was a presumption of purity here?" A certain old man said, "Here and there Ben Azzai cut down lupins of teruma." He did the same. Wherever it [the ground] was hard he ruled pure; wherever was loose he marked².
A certain old man said "Bar Yoḥai made a cemetery pure."³ [R. Shimon bar Yoḥai] said, "If you had not been with us, or even if you had been with us but had not voted with us, you would spoken well. But now that you were with us and voted among us,⁴ should they say, "[Even] prostitutes paint each other. How much the more so [should] scholars!"⁵ He cast his eyes at him and his soul departed.⁶

אמר איכא מילתא דבעי לתקוני

אמרו ליה איכא דוכתא דאית ביה ספק טומאה ואית להו צערא לכהנים לאקופי׃ אמר איכא איניש דידע דאיתחזק הכא טהרה אמר ליה ההוא סבא כאן קיצץ בן זכאי תורמסי תרומה׃ עבד איהו נמי הכי כל היכא דהוה קשי טהריה וכל היכא דהוה רפי צייניה׃
אמר היית עמנו<לא>ההוא סבא טיהר בן יוחי בית הקברות אמר לו אילמלי ואפילו היית עמנו ולא נמנית עמנו יפה אתה אומר׃ עכשיו שהיית עמנו ונמנית עמנו יאמרו זונות מפרכסות זו את זו תלמידי חכמים לא כל שכן יהב ביה עיניה ונח נפשיה׃

See how far he's come!
Where the ground is hard, no one's ever been buried there. Shimon bar Yoḥai goes out of his way to try and make it possible for people to go there—to help people: the Torah is not all about hassle.
He is being sarcastic! (The Talmud would be so much easier to understand with smileys... though there are sometimes subtle smileys in the form of use of certain terminology).
If you'd just come along now and didn't know what was going on, then fair enough. Or if you'd said something and raised an objection at the time. But not objecting at the time, and disagreeing later, is just making trouble.
Even prostitutes help each other look nice. Why aren't you making me look good! We're supposed to be on the same side.
Why does it matter that Torah scholars look good? Because we don't want to end up in a situation in which everyone hates legislators.
Also, he's attacking not the reasoning but the person behind it.
Just when we thought he was a reformed character.

He went out to the market. He saw R. Yehuda b. Gerim. He said: Is this one still in the world? He set his eyes upon him and he became a heap of bones. נפק לשוקא חזייה ליהודה בן גרים אמר עדיין יש לזה בעולם נתן בו עיניו ועשהו גל של עצמות

Yehuda ben Gerim is the one who snitched on them to the government at the beginning. We don't normally extol revenge. But maybe it's to show that even the greatest of rabbis are not saints; they're as human as the rest of us.

Did Yehuda ben Gerim deliberately mean to get him in trouble? Maybe he was tactless, not malicious. But at this time, talking like this about the Romans would have put them in great jeopardy.

Is this a relapse of R. Shimon bar Yoḥai, or showing that there are now two sides to him: a healing side, and a destructive side now acting only with justification?

Interesting that these last two victims did not die the same way. Did the second even die? (The term נח נפשיה, used for the first, is used in lots of places to mean dying.)

Quote from (I think) Talmudic Stories, by Jeffrey Rubenstein (from which the translation here was taken):

The death of the accuser is the second time R. Shimon bar Yoḥai kills with a gaze. He now kills someone who objects to his amelioration of temporal life, as opposed to last time when he killed someone engaged in temporal life.
The murder of Yehuda ben Gerim provides closure by returning [to the subject with which this story opened]. Ironically, R. Shimon bar Yoḥai encounters him by going out to the marketplace. Considering his previous attitude to marketplaces, Yehuda ben Gerim probably didn't expect to encounter him there.
The possibly unjustified destruction signals that tension between the value of Torah and the outside world remains, and [...]
The basic lesson, that R. Shimon bar Yoḥai learned a lesson, that however important the eternal life of Torah is, it's [not the only valid purpose to existence] is well-defined, but not clearly stated, in that you could only find it if you looked at this story.

A lot of the issues with this text are cleared up in the parallel account in the Palestinian Talmud [which the Moishe House Beit Midrash may be studying next time].

R. Akiva, who is in the background to this story, is central to the Omer, because of the death of his 24,000 students. There is a lot that connects the two. For instance compare the use of twelve and twenty-four with the story of R. Akiva, who first has 12,000 students, and then after years more learning, 24,0000.

R. Akiva's students died because they didn't show honour to each other. They were learning incredible depth of Torah, but didn't know how to see each other's points of view. The Torah can be a tree of life, but it can also be a poison.

Tradition says R. Akiva was eighty years old when all 24,000 of his students died. His life's work had been destroyed. But then he acquired four more students, including R. Shimon bar Yoḥai. At first Shimon bar Yoḥai does not show honour either, but as this story shows, in this respect, he learned the lesson.

There is a discussion in the Talmud as to whether one should spend one's life learning Torah or earning a living; it concludes you should pursue your Torah as if it's eternal, but you shouldn't ignore your other work either.

So, finally, why do we celebrate his anniversary of the death of R. Shimon bar Yoḥai, and not his birth? This might be the archetype that launched the custom of the Hillula, the commemoration of the yarzheit of famous rabbis.

Jewish learning notes index