Among the reasons I wish I had written this book

"It is now quite clear that Da Costa knew perfectly well that 'modern' Judaism entailed practices that went beyond the letter of the biblical text before he arrived in Amsterdam. He was thus no more surprised to find Rabbinic (i.e extra-Biblical) practices going on in Amsterdam than Captain Renault was to find gambling going on in Rick's Casablancan cafe."
~Jay Harris, How Do We Know This: Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 106.
When the two great loves of a Jewish history and movie geek converge....

Happy Thanksgiving!!

הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך

Strong words from Tzemach Atlas.

He's back...

Steve Den Beste is back in the blogosphere, though sadly no longer the massive presence he once was over at USS Clueless, his contributions to Red State are well worth reading.

Naomi Chana asks, "what do you call Those People Religiously To The Right Of You?" In my case, I would normally say Charedi, but that doesn't help her terribly much. In a more serious vein, when discussing the term "Orthodox," she says, "Even if there weren't U.S. Jewish movements by those names, some of which live up to their names better than others, not everyone Jewishly to the right of me is more "orthodox," "conservative," or "traditional" than me IMO. In some areas, I am following one line of tradition and they another; in other areas, I feel that I am actually following an older and/or more authentic tradition." Her objection stands up, with regards to "conservative" and "traditional," however "orthodox is slightly more problematic. Without delving into Etymology (which I would guess she knows better than I do anyway) I've always understood the term Orthodox to mean adhering to a certain set dogma. This is a problematic term in Judaism, for a whole slew of reasons, which is why 1) you don't really find an orthodoxy in Judaism until the early-mid 19th century and 2) I generally prefer to describe myself as orthoprax, when making fine distinctions. This solves the problem of dogma, by reducing judaism to practive. But in any event, the term orthodoxy has nothing to do with adherence to tradition. Dogma could be brand new. Doesn't answer her question maybe, but I think it's an important distiction.

Since the can't throw him down the well.....

.... Kazakhstan has decided to sue Sacha Baron Cohen instead.

(Hat tip to Tyler Cowen, at Volokh)

Old before my time....

Am I totally mistaken, or did the invention of hip-hop music destroy parties for those of us who love Rock'n'Roll?

Heh Heh

Best use of the word "Trepanning" ever.

(Caution: If you are easily offended by obscenity, do not follow the link.)

My problem with Artscroll

I don't like Artscroll. I don't like their Talmud. I don't like their Siddur. I don't like their Chumash. I don't really like anything they publish (with the possible exception of the biographies they publish, which I think are hysterical examples of bad history). I don't dislike them primarily because of ideology, though I do have ideological differences. I don't dislike them because I think they put out inferior products, at the end of the day the work they do is thourough, accurate and, for the most part, honest. I dislike Artscroll because it makes us lazy.

Artscroll publications give us a crutch, but not one we can use to build up strength. Simply put, it makes it so easy to aquire knowledge about Judaism, that we no longer really have to learn. Thus, far from promoting real Talmud Torah, the real work of going through the text and figuring out what is going on, Artscroll translations and commentaries undermine it, the central commandment in our text centered religion. It creates an intellectual laziness, because it obviates the need for real thought in study.

"But," you might protest, "what am I to do? I have no background, I understand neither Hebrew nor Aramaic! How am I to have access to Torah?" First, the Soncino translations of the Talmud and Midrash are fine tools, and there are many excellent, non-Artscroll translations of the Bible and its commentaries (The Linear Rashi and Martin Lockshin's translation of Rashbam are two good examples). They are more difficult to work with with than Artscroll, it's true, but Talmud Torah is not supposed to be easy. It is a discipline that most people don't master, even after a lifetime. Nobody knows the entire Torah, nor should one expect to. It is far more important to work through things, though less material gets covered, than to take the easy way out. Of course, if you really want to get serious about Torah study, it becomes neccesary to take some time out, find a teacher, and devote large chunks of time to it. At some point in your life, if you can, take some time out to learn. Not to have religious epiphanies, not to "grow in Torah," but simply to devote yourself to the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Ultimately, this is the most efficient way to gain proficiency with the vocabulary and thought catagories of learning.

But even if you can't, please, don't fool yourself into thinking that Artscroll will help your learning. Use Soncino, even though you can only cover a few lines in the time you could do a whole page in Artscroll. If you speak Hebrew, use the Steinsaltz edition. If you study it closly, it can actually be a valuable tool in eventually graduating to unaided Talmud study. It will be difficult, it will be frustrating, but nothing good comes easily. Please, for your own sake, and for the sake of maintaining the high standards of Torah study in Klal Yisroel, boycott Artscroll.