Ibn Ezra on Torah Authorship

There has been at least one request for me to provide more comprehensive information regarding my claim that the Ibn Ezra says various Pentateuchal verses were not written by Moses (as dictated by God). Here you go:

As I quote in "Rabbinic vs. Modern Academic Beliefs" (Oct. 28, 2005), Ibn Ezra says the following in his comment on Deuteronomy 34:1, the twelfth-last verse of Deuteronomy:

ויעל משה. לפי דעתי, כי מזה הפסוק כתב יהושע, כי אחר שעלה משה לא כתב. ובדרך נבואה כתבו; והעד, ויראהו ה', גם ויאמר ה' אליו, גם ויקבור׃

"'And Moses ascended.' My view is that Joshua wrote [the final verses of Deuteronomy] beginning with this verse, for Moses did not write after he ascended. He [Joshua] wrote it prophetically, as indicated by [statements of facts he could not otherwise have known, such as] 'God showed him...', 'God said to him...', '[God] buried...'."

The Talmud (Bava Batra 15a) records a dispute regarding the final eight verses of Deuteronomy.

תניא, "וימת שם משה עבד ה'." אפשר משה מת [/חי] וכתב "וימת שם משה?" אלא עד כאן כתב משה; מכאן ואילך כתב יהושע -- דברי רבי יהודה, ואמרי לה רבי נחמיה. אמר לו רבי שמעון, אפשר ספר תורה חסר אות אחת וכתיב "לקוח את ספר התורה הזה?" אלא עד כאן הקדוש ברוך הוא אומר ומשה אומר וכותב; מכאן ואילך הקדוש ברוך הוא אומר ומשה כותב בדמע׃

It was taught in a baraita: "'Moses, the servant of God, died there.' Is it possible that Moses was dead [alt.: was alive] and wrote 'Moses died there?' Rather, Moses wrote until this point [in Deuteronomy]; Joshua wrote from this point onward" -- the words of Rabbi Yehudah, or, according to some, Rabbi Nehemiah. Rabbi Shimon said to him, "Is it possible that the book of the law [the Pentateuch] was missing even one letter and yet it was written [that God said to Moses], 'Take this book of the law?' Rather, until this point God dictated and Moses repeated orally and wrote down; from this point onward God dictated and Moses wrote down with tears."

[Note: There is more than one opinion regarding the meaning of the word בדמע in this passage. I have selected a common interpretation, "with tears." I do not believe that the differences in interpretation are relevant to this discussion.]

Ibn Ezra's view, cited above, that the last 12 verses of Deuteronomy were written by Joshua clearly contradicts both of these tannaic opinions. The first opinion, that of Rabbi Yehudah or Rabbi Nehemiah, states specifically that "Moses wrote until this point" [the eighth-last verse of Deuteronomy]; the second, that of Rabbi Shimon, insists that every letter of the Torah was written by Moses.

In the middle of his comment (s.v. "מחרב") on Deuteronomy 1:2, Ibn Ezra makes the following enigmatic statement:

ואם תבין סוד השנים עשר, גם "ויכתוב משה," "והכנעני אז בארץ," "בהר ה' יראה," גם "הנה ערשו ערש ברזל," תכיר האמת׃

And if you understand the secret of the twelve, also "Moses wrote" (Deuteronomy 31:22), "and the Canaanite[s] were then in the land" (Genesis 12:6), "on God's mountain, he will be seen" (Genesis 22:14), also "Behold, his bed was made of iron" (Deuteronomy 3:11), you will recognize the truth.

I believe that "the twelve" are the final twelve verses of the Pentateuch, which, as we have seen, Ibn Ezra explicitly states were not written by Moses. The "secret of the twelve" is a reference to non-Mosaic authorship. In this most recently quoted passage, Ibn Ezra claims that the introduction to the book of Deuteronomy, as well as the other verses or verse segments he lists, were not written by Moses. (Whether they were written by Joshua, or by someone else, he does not say.)

I find it fairly easy to understand why Ibn Ezra would make such claims about the specific verses he cites, with the sole exception of (ironically) the first verses of Deuteronomy. I will now proceed to quote each verse, explain what might have motivated Ibn Ezra to question Moses's authorship of it, cite any comments Ibn Ezra makes on each verse ad locum, and compare those comments to his statement at Deuteronomy 1:2.

Deuteronomy 31:22 reads,

ויכתב משה את השירה הזאת ביום ההוא וילמדה את בני ישראל׃

Moses wrote this song on that day, and he taught it to the children of Israel.

Now, Moses died very shortly thereafter. If he wrote this verse, it would have sounded very peculiar, because "on that day" (ביום ההוא) generally carries the connotation of more than a short time before. It would have been far better phraseology if employed significantly after the event, and therefore after Moses's death.

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 31:22 itself says,

ביום ההוא. שלא איחר הדבר. ויתכן שהיה יום מותו אחר מכתב דברי התורה, כי השירה כתב משה עמה׃

"On that day." [Meaning] that he did not delay the matter. And it could be that the day of his death was after the writing of the words of the Torah, for the song itself Moses wrote with it.

Ibn Ezra states that "on that day" signifies that Moses did not delay in performing the task he had been assigned. If that is what it means, then there is no peculiarity in the phrase to justify the argument I presented in the previous paragraph. Note in the following paragraphs (see, for example, the bracketed discussion of Ibn Ezra's commentary to Genesis 12:6), however, that Ibn Ezra does not always seem absolute in his conviction that the verses he listed at Deuteronomy 1:2 actually carry the "secret" to which he refers several times, and that he sometimes advances other possible interpretations of the verses, according to which their Mosaic authorship is more plausible. Thus at 1:2 he may be presenting the option that the awkward wording of 31:22 suggests non-Mosaic authorship, whereas at 31:22 itself, he proposes another interpretation of the wording, one that is compatible with Moses having written it.

It is worth pointing out that Ibn Ezra clearly felt that there was something fishy about the "on that day" of 31:22; otherwise he need not have commented on it.

Genesis 12:6 reads,

ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם עד אלון מורה והכנעני אז בארץ׃

Abram passed through the land until the place of Shechem, until the plain of Moreh; and the Canaanite[s] were then in the land.

It is difficult to understand why Moses would have written "the Canaanites were then in the land," implying that by Moses's time they were not, when in fact they continued to be there until years after his death. Again, such a statement would more logically come from a later author, one living after the Israelite conquest of Canaan, during which the Canaanite population of the land, if not eliminated, was certainly sharply reduced, both in number and in power.

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 12:6, s.v. והכנעני אז בארץ, says,

יתכן שארץ כנען תפשה כנען מיד אחר. ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד, והמשכיל ידום׃

It could be that Canaan took the land of Canaan immediately after [the preceding events in the verse]. If it is not so, then [the verse] has a secret, and he who is intelligent shall be silent.

So here, as mentioned earlier, Ibn Ezra appears to be allowing for two possibilities: one that reconciles the problematic last three words with Mosaic authorship, and one that concedes that the verse (at least the end of it) was written later and by someone else.

Genesis 22:14 states,

ויקרא אברהם שם המקום ההוא ה' יראה אשר יאמר היום בהר ה' יראה׃

Abraham called the name of that place "God will see;" today, it is therefore said, "On God's mountain, he will be seen" (translation after the semi-colon from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's The Living Torah).

Neither Moses nor, likely, almost any Israelite for at least two centuries prior to Moses's death had even seen this mountain, and it is unlikely that Moses could have truthfully stated, "Today, it is therefore said, 'On God's mountain, he will be seen.'" More likely almost nothing was ever said about it. Again, it would be a much more sensible thing to say for a person who lived in the land of Israel after the Israelite conquest and settlement, something Moses did not do.

Ibn Ezra's comment on Genesis 22:14 is a pithy

וטעם "בהר ה' יראה" ב"אלה הדברים"׃

The explanation of "on God's mountain, he will be seen" is in "These are the words" [i.e., his commentary on the first verses of Deuteronomy].

Here, Ibn Ezra simply refers the reader to his comments at the beginning of Deuteronomy, cited above.

Deuteronomy 3:11 reads,

כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר מיתר הרפאים הנה ערשו ערש ברזל הלה הוא ברבת בני עמון תשע אמות ארכה וארבע אמות רחבה באמת איש׃

For only Og, King of Bashan, remained from the last of the Rephaim. His bed was made of iron, and is in the Ammonite city of Rabbah: its length is nine cubits, and its width is four cubits, the cubit being that of a normal man (translation adapted from Kaplan).

Why would Moses need to tell the people about Og's bed? They had fought him within the year! They had either seen him themselves, or heard about him from others. It would appear to have been totally superfluous for Moses to make such a statement. However, someone living in a later generation, one that had never seen Og for themselves, might be quite impressed indeed if told that they could personally view Og's massive bed, which survived until that day, made as it was of iron, in the city of Rabbah.

Ibn Ezra makes no comment ad locum on the verse.

There is one more comment of Ibn Ezra I'd like to cite, although its content is slightly further afield. At Deuteronomy 34:6, he writes:

עד היום הזה. דברי יהושע. ויתכן שכתב זה באחרית ימיו׃

"[No man] until this day [knows the site of Moses's burial]". [These are] the words of Joshua. And it is plausible that he wrote this at the end of his life.

I hope I've explained things clearly. If anyone can advance an alternative set of explanations of the various passages that I have quoted from Ibn Ezra's commentary, feel free to publish it (in the comments, or a separate post, etc). I'm not wedded to the idea that Ibn Ezra believed in, or at least considered possible, the non-Mosaic authorship of some parts of the Torah, but at this point, I don't know how else to understand what he wrote.

Once again, I'd like to thank Dr. Moshe Bernstein of Yeshiva University for much of the information I've provided here.

Yet Another Mazel Tov!

Mazel tov to Jonathan and Shevi Straus on the birth of a daughter!

Rosa Parks 2005

If Rosa Parks was magically revived and transported thousands of miles across the globe to Jerusalem, Israel, she would be in for quite a surprise.

She would stand at the Egged bus stop and wait for the bus to arrive. As the bus driver opened the doors, she would board, pay her fare and take her seat behind the driver. The front seats on most buses are reserved for the elderly or the disabled. As she sits there, a little old black lady minding her own bidness, she would glance up to see a looming figure above her. He is scowling. She smiles sweetly at the funny-looking fellow.

"Back of the bus please," he intones darkly.

She looks up startled. Assuming this man is having a little bit of fun at her expense, she answers glibly.

"Yes that's right I'm Rosa Parks... That's a funny little joke you're trying to play sonny..."

He stares blankly. He's never heard of Montgomery, Rosa Parks or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He only knows the few English words that he picked up from his cousin in Monroe.

"I said back of the bus." He repeats, this time gesturing to the segregated seats at the rear of the Egged bus. "Now!"

Welcome to reality.

Yearbook 2000 Addenda et Corrigenda

Dear Ottawa Torah Institute Yearbook 2000 readers,

Believe it or not, some errors and omissions crept into our well-thumbed yearbooks. Some are obvious, whereas others required a great deal of investigation to detect. The purpose of this post is to inform you of them all. Updates may appear periodically.

There is an error on page 3, in the "Message from the Yearbook Committee." The sentence "The Yearbook Committee assumes full responsibility for any errors or oversights contained herein" is patently false.

Also, I'd like to apologize for the final sentence, beginning "To all". It should have read "To everyone" or something like that. Having two "all"s in such close proximity sounds bad, and I've regretted not noticing that until it was too late ever since.

On page 8, Yehuda Kaiserman's second Hebrew (actually, Yiddish) name ought to have been spelled "לייב." If I remember correctly, he had also expressed a desire to be listed as "Hudi Kaiserman," not "Yehuda Kaiserman," a request that was mistakenly not honoured.

On page 10, Jonathan Eli Straus's first Hebrew name ought to have been spelled "יהונתן."

On page 13 (part of the collage), the brick wall in the picture on the right-hand side was supposed to be tucked under the smiling Michael Goldstein's face, so that his chin would not be cut off. Somewhere in the publishing process, it must have gotten untucked.

A particularly embarrassing error (one that was pointed out almost immediately after the yearbook came out; thanks, guys) occurs on page 15, right under the title: "sensored" should be "censored."

I really regret that there was no official list of the members of the non-graduating classes. I am forever grateful to David Rotenberg, because without his "Teams and Clubs" article (page 20), some students would not have been mentioned by name at all. I don't feel too bad, though, because I think it was really up to the grade 9 and 10 classes to include all of their names on their own pages (which they made themselves; pages 16-17).

Ah, the Numerology page (18). I think I will simply reprint a correspondence I had with esteemed OTI alumnus and Yearbook enthusiast par excellence Ari Brodsky as a means of apprising you of certain difficulties contained therein.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Ari Meir Brodsky wrote:

Most of your numerology page makes sense, but there's one section in the middle that has some problems. (Page 18 of the Ottawa Torah Institute Yearbook 2000, in case you forgot.) I'm talking about the set of facts in the middle, introduced by the word "Interesting:" After all these years, I just now figured out what's going on.

The first problem was that you didn't indicate that these are numerological products, rather than sums. I was always trying to add up the digits, as was done in the previous and following sections, and so I didn't get the results you claimed.

The second problem was that for the first two facts, the correct answers are the reciprocals of the numbers you gave. "Eliyahu"/"Ratlip" = 2268000/622080 = 175/48, not 48/175 as printed. Same thing for the one below it. The two on the right are correct (once you realize that we're dealing with products not sums, as I explained above).

Am I the first person to have solved this mystery? Or even to have realized that there was a mystery in the first place? What happened to the editors and why weren't they doing their job?!

Your friendly OTI alumnus and yearbook lover as always,
-Ari

Date:
Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:53:38 -0400 (EDT)
From:
David Sidney
To:
Ari Meir Brodsky
Subject:
Re: Numerology in OTI Yearbook

Dear Ari,

I checked your arithmetic, and (not surprisingly) you're correct. To the best of my personal knowledge, you are the first person to have noticed the errors/omissions and the first to have figured out what the article should have said. I imagine you're probably also the only person who ever bothered to check the math at all.

I do not believe I still have the original draft of the article submitted to me by Eli, so I don't know whether I (the transcriber) was responsible for the errors and imprecisions contained therein. I may have changed the line introducing the section containing the problems to "Interesting:" from something I didn't like; if so, Eli's original introduction may have alerted the reader to the fact that he would now be embarking on adventures in numerological products, not sums (although they are, in fact, some products).

With respect to the question of what happened to the editors and why they were not doing their job, I could argue the following: the editors did not verify, for example, that Mr. Guttman's Wednesday quiz was, indeed, "regular biz" (see page 15), or that O.T.I.'s 1999-2000 jai-alai team did actually play fabulously all year (see page 20). Submissions were edited as uninvasively as possible for potentially offensive material and for spelling, grammar and proper English usage. Content was the responsibility of the contributor, and since we had sufficiently few submissions that we were able to print all of them, we (mercifully) did not have to decide which were most interesting, most entertaining, most representative, or MOST TRUE. Think of the Numerology section as you ought to think of the Teams and Clubs page, or of Michael Fine's poem (or of mine, for that matter): as art. Perhaps Eli felt it better artistic expression to present the reciprocal of the true numerological product in some cases. Perhaps he wanted to surprise, even shock, the reader by switching from sums to products without warning. Certainly, at least one person found his article more intriguing and thought-provoking as published than he would have had it been more "correct." So I say, bravo to Eli for his ingenuity! And don't bother the editors.

...

Shana tova.

David Sidney

So there you have it.

Ari insists that his own quotation at the bottom of the same page is incorrect. Again in his own words, "the correct quote about the Department of Redundancy Department was 'That's from the Department of Redundancy Department', said after someone said something redundant, and it originated from Eliezer Bulka, not me, although I may have popularized it during my visits to OTI during your years there."

It's too bad that on page 21, in the top right-hand corner, the point of the knife of the hunchback got cut off during publication. This was one of a few unfortunate consequences of the fact that, unbeknownst in advance to the Yearbook Committee, the area of actual printing in the published yearbooks was slightly smaller than the original copies submitted to the publishers, resulting in edges of various pages (especially artwork) being cut off. Such problems are noticeable also on page 22; for example, Mrs. Ahmad's eyes and hair (bottom right), Mr. Guttman's pointing finger (bottom left), and the tops of the heads of the people in the top row.

Page 23: under "Stories from Rabbi Ben-Porat," "Chaim's Bris on Pesach, Where Nobody Ate" should have been "Joe's Bris on Pesach, Where Nobody Ate."

I'm quite sure there are a few Rabbi Ben-Porat stories that should have been included but weren't, as well as a number of items I later thought of that would have made it onto the "Can You Please Remember...?" page (24) had they been thought of in time. If anybody comes up with any of them, or with any other omissions or simply any other OTI material from our days that ought to be enshrined in the timeless vault that is the printed word, please leave them in the comments or email them to me. If there's enough, maybe we can even publish them!

Chansons

Same drill, but in French.

L'association
Chérir; Jamais ma chérie; Marie arrive; Tout ce qui te touche; Venteux

Les beatles
A travers l'univers; Au secours!; Auteur de livres de poche; Avec un peu d'aide de mes amis; Billet pour voyager; Bois norvégien; Bonjour au revoir; Bonne journée bonne journée; Ce garçon; Ce n'est que l'amour; Champs des fraises pour toujours; Chaque petite chose; Dans ma vie; Dans toi hors de toi; De moi à toi; Dis-moi ce que tu vois; Eleanor Rigby; Elle quitte la maison; Elle t'aime; Et je l'aime; Etant pour le bienfait de monsieur Kite; Excursionniste; Fais m'aimer; Fille; Hé Jude; Hier; Homme de nulle part; Huit jours par semaine; Ici, là et partout; Il améliore; Impossible de m'acheter l'amour; J'ai besion de toi; Jardin de pieuvre; Je devais être plus sage; Je l'ai vue debout là; Je me sens bien; Je reviendrai; Je suis le morse; Je suivrai le soleil; Je vais; Je veux tenir ta main; L'amour est tout ce dont tu as besion; L'imbécile sur la colline; Le chemin long et tortueux; Le groupe du club des cœurs solitaires du sergent Pepper; Lucie dans le ciel avec des diamants; Madame Madonna; Mots d'amour; Nous pouvons le résoudre; Nuit d'un jour difficile; Ob-la-di, ob-la-da; Oui c'est; P.S. je t'aime; Pendant que ma guitare pleure doucement; Plais-moi s'il vous plaît; Pour personne; Qu'il soit; Quand j'ai soixante-quatre ans; Quelque chose; Réparant un trou; Retourne; Révolution; Rita la belle; Rue Penny; Si je tombais; Soulier brun vieux; Sous-marin jaune; Tour de mystère magique; Toute mon affection; Tu dois cacher ton amour; Tu vas perdre cette fille-là; Un jour dans la vie; Venez ensemble; Voici le soleil qui vient

Billy Joel
Allentown; C'est encore le rock'n'roll pour moi; C'est tout à propos de l'âme; Déménageant; Dis au revoir à Hollywood; Disposition d'esprit de New York; Elle a une manière; Elle est toujours une femme; Et ainsi ça va; Fille d'Uptown; Honnêteté; Je dépasse les limites; L'amuseur; L'homme du piano; La rivière des rêves; Le mainien "Alexa"; Le plus longtemps; Ma vie; Miami 2017 (Vu les lumières qui s'éteignaient à Broadway); Ne me demande pas pourquoi; Nous n'avons pas allumé le feu; Seulement ceux qui sont bons meurent quand ils sont jeunes; Tu es ma maison; Tu peux avoir raison; Une question de foi

Elton John
Au revoir chemin des briques jaunes; Chandelle dans le vent; Daniel; Homme de fusée; Rock de crocodile; Ta chanson

Les mamans et les papas
Dançant dans la rue; Dédié à celui que j'aime; Douze heurs et demi; Je l'ai vue encore hier soir; Ma fille; Mardi, mardi; Pour l'amour du lierre; Regarde à travers ma fenêtre; Rêvant de la Californie; Tourne et crie; Trébucher, buter et tomber; Va où tu veux aller

Simon et Garfunkel
Amérique; Anji; Assure-toi que le client soit satisfait; Au revoir, Frank Lloyd Wright; Au zoo; Avril elle viendra; Benedictus; Bénis; Cécile; Chanson pour ceux qui demandent; El Condor Pasa (Si je pouvais); En route à la maison; Hier soir j'ai eu la rêve la plus étrange; Il était mon frère; Je suis une roche; La chanson de Kathy; La chanson du pont de la 59ème rue (Sentant super); La conversation ballante; La foire de Scarborough/Cantique; La grande machine de plaisir de vert brillant; Le boxeur; Le dilemme de Punky; Le mercredi matin, à 3h00; Le seul garçon vivant à New York; Le soleil brûle; Le son de la silence; Les feuilles qui sont vertes; Les fleurs ne se penchent jamais dans la pluie; Les nouvelles de 19 heures/Nuit silencieuse; Les temps changent; Mme Robinson; Moineau; Motifs; Nous avons quelque chose super en cours; Nuageux; Peggy-o; Pont par-dessus de l'eau turbulente; Pour Emilie, n'importe où je la trouve; Pourquoi ne m'écris-tu pas; Prétendant; Quelque part où ils ne peuvent pas me trouver; Richard Cory; Rue Bleeker; Un homme très étrange; Une invective simple et décousue (ou comment j'ai été Robert McNamaraé jusqu'à ce que je me suis soumis); Un poème sur le mur souterrain; Une teinte floue d'hiver; Vieils amis/Thème des serres-livres

Les suprèmes
Amour de bébé; Arrêt! dans le nom de l'amour; Encore dans mes bras; Enfant de l'amour; J'entends une symphonie; Je vais te faire m'aimer; Je vive en honte; L'amour est comme une gâle dans mon cœur; L'amour est ici et maintenant tu es parti; Mon monde est vide sans toi; Où est allé notre amour; Réflexions; Tu me gardes accrochée; Tu ne peux pas hâter l'amour; Un beau jour nous serons ensemble; Viens voir à propos de moi

Neil Young et ses groupes
Après la ruée vers l'or; Assieds-toi, je pense que je t'aime; Bateaux en bois; Cœur d'or; De nos jours Clancy ne peut même pas chanter; Déjà vu; Dis-moi pourquoi; En route chez moi; Enseigne tes enfants; Espérant impuissantement; Femme de rock'n'roll; Femme gentille; Fille de canelle; Flèche brisée; Guinnevere; Impuissant; Je suis un enfant; L'aiguille et le dommage fait; L'amour est une rose; Merle bleu; Monsieur âme; Notre maison; Ohio; Pour ce qu'il vaut; Que tu marche longtemps; S'attendant à voler; Seulement l'amour peut briser ton cœur; Suite: Judy des yeux bleus; Trouve le coût de la liberté; Va dire au revoir; Vieillard; Woodstock

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"It's a mitzvah to eat on Yom Kippur."

-HK, mistakenly translating Mishnah Berurah

BOO!

Hallowe'en sameyach to you all.

MAZEL TOV!

Mazel tov to Rabbi Ben-Porat on his engagement!

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"David, I think you're stupid because you're smart."

-NH

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Sperm are made fresh daily, just like the Rideau Bakery."

-SG

Match Me

Continued from Oct. 22, 2005 (which see).

Rabbinic vs. Modern Academic Beliefs

I was discussing science and halacha with a friend of mine a few days ago, and then afterward I was mulling over various points that we brought up, as well as various points that we didn't. I'm sure I can find a million articles on the internet about these topics from YU, Gush and maybe Ohr Sameyach (how do you spell it?) or Aish, but I'm more interested right now in hearing what you know or think about it. To wit:

To what extent ought we to believe that the Talmudic rabbis' medical knowledge was wrong? My impression is that we need not assume that everything written by tannaim and amoraim is factual at face value. For example, I understand that the Rambam says that the medical remedies described/recommended in the Talmud were advocated by the rabbis of the age based on the prevailing medical wisdom of the day, and that if the prevailing medical wisdom of our day differs from theirs, we may disregard the Talmud's advice. Thus, effectively, when the Talmud states that such-and-such a remedy is an effective cure of such-and-such a disease, we disbelieve it.

Now, it could be that in such cases, the Talmudic sages were simply in possession of false information. I hope that our audience is mature enough to realize that tannaim and amoraim, however great they may have been in any number of ways, were imperfect humans just like us, men who made mistakes, including intellectual ones (some of their mistakes are recorded in the Talmud itself or in other documents we value; they presumably made other ones too, including, perhaps, ones that no one ever realized they made). So they may just have been wrong (along with all of the medical experts of their era, who were presumably the source of much of their information).

There are, of course, ways of viewing their statements as correct without accepting their advice at face value. One approach I assume you all know is the נשתנה הטבע idea -- that the laws of nature may have changed over the course of time, so that Talmudic statements related to natural realities may no longer hold true, though they were correct in their own era. Alternatively, seemingly incorrect Talmudic statements may hold true even today, but not literally; rather, only after some sort of interpretation (allegorical, for example) is applied. (These statements may or may not have been literally true when originally made; either way, the factual discrepancy is solved.) I know that (again) the Rambam says that many of the Talmud's aggadic statements ought to be understood in this fashion: as correct only when a suitable aliteral interpretation is applied. Conceivably, the same could be true of various other statements that modern science indicates are not literally correct.

And, to complete (I think) the set of logical possibilities, it could be that they were and are literally correct, and we're just too dumb to realize it.

So again, after all of that, to what extent should we consider medical statements of the Talmud that contradict modern biomedical knowledge to be wrong? And I don't mean just according to the Rambam. I'm interested in what we're actually supposed to believe and/or do, which may or may not reflect the Rambam's opinion. What do modern competent poskim say? Don't answer yet. That was by way of introduction.

Now what about other spheres of knowledge in which Talmudic statements contradict modern science, such as astronomy (geocentricity vs. heliocentricity of the solar system, for example), and the non-medical branches of biology? What if the theory of evolution seems right to you (as it does to many intelligent people), and you don't think the Talmud is compatible with it? I'd wager there are contradictions in chemistry and non-astronomical physics, too. What are we allowed to believe, and to disbelieve?

(N.B.: I am not asking (at this point, anyway) how to deal with apparent contradictions between modern science and the Chumash, or even Nach. I am limiting the scope of my question to rabbinic works composed, let's say, no more than a couple of centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple.

I am also not especially looking for information on how to deal with practical issues on which science and halacha differ, although maybe I should; I'm more interested, as I said, in what we may and what we may not believe and disbelieve. There are definitely things that Jews must believe (like the truth of the Torah) and things that they must not believe (such as the existence of more than one God); I am asking how far such imperatives extend in certain contexts.)

Let's go a bit further. How about contradictions between the Talmud and modern archaeology (such as the 166-year discrepancy on how long the Second Temple stood; which, by the way, is why, two paragraphs up, I reckoned my cutoff date relative to the second destruction, not the first destruction or the rebuilding)? There are many other examples, though perhaps not of the same historical significance.

You may be able to come up with other areas of investigation in which post-biblical rabbinic sources contradict the seemingly well-founded beliefs of the modern academic world. I apply the question to them, too.

IF the answer is that we sometimes believe the rabbis were wrong, or at least that the literal meaning of their words is not true today, how does that affect modern practical halacha, where the halacha is related to facts about which we and the Talmud disagree? Take, for example, the halacha that one may kill lice on Shabbat because they are the product of spontaneous generation, and are therefore different from the animals whose killing serves as the paradigm for the melacha of shochet. Given that modern science contradicts the notion that lice are spontaneously generated (it says, rather, that they reproduce sexually), does the halacha change? I'm expecting the answer will be that we follow the traditional halacha, even though we may not believe in the validity of the premise on which it is based. However, I think that that is not always true. Tread cautiously.

Those are my two basic questions. There are several related points I'd just like to record:

I don't see any major theological problem arising from the belief that the Talmudic rabbis were sometimes wrong in their science or history. Any limitations they may have had in certain spheres of knowledge do not detract from their status as pre-eminent Torah experts (i.e., the greatest authorities of the age on the true religion). To say otherwise would be equivalent to saying that Newton's mathematics and physics are unreliable because he was silly enough to spend years studying alchemy. (Actually, it would be even more inane, because the Torah says that Jewish religious leaders ought to be treated as the authorities on their religion, and so by definition, their religious dicta were valid. And moreover, I'm not aware that anyone has ever posed a credible overall challenge to their theology.)

My questions are, I think, totally unrelated to issues such as the existence of demons and other supernatural phenomena. To the best of my knowledge, science can't really disprove that such things exist; it just doesn't assume that they do (intelligent science, that is).

I also don't really see a number of the famous נשתנה הטבע applications as necessarily within the scope of this discussion. The classic "olives have shrunk" argument (explaining why a kzayit is (at least according to some) so much bigger than any olive anyone's ever seen) may be contradicted by scientists or historians, but how does that matter? We've still got to figure out what quantities the rabbis were talking about, and so we've still got to reconcile all of their various measures, and the relationships they reported between them (which is how נשתנה הטבע comes in, unless I'm much mistaken). To reiterate what I wrote in an earlier paragraph: the Talmudic rabbis are still our religious/halachic advisors, so even if their perceptions of reality don't seem to correspond to our own, we've still got to follow their directions, as best we can make them out.

The history of the Old Testament itself could conceivably be up for grabs, depending on how this question is answered. I recall from Intro to Bible at YU that, for example, the Book of Daniel is believed by historians to have been written long after the Talmud assumes it was. If you're willing to say that the Talmud is occasionally wrong about history, you're going to have to wrestle with issues like that. The history of the Chumash itself might be partially brought into question. It's a famous YU fact that Ibn Ezra says there are a few verses in Chumash that were added in after Moses died (and no, I'm not talking about the last 8; those you may take for granted). See, for example, Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 34:1:

ויעל משה. לפי דעתי, כי מזה הפסוק כתב יהושע, כי אחר שעלה משה לא כתב. ובדרך נבואה כתבו; והעד, ויראהו ה', גם ויאמר ה' אליו, גם ויקבור׃

"'And Moses ascended.' My view is that Joshua wrote [the final verses of Deuteronomy] beginning with this verse, for Moses did not write after he ascended. He [Joshua] wrote it prophetically, as indicated by [statements of facts he could not otherwise have known, such as] 'God showed him...', 'God said to him...', '[God] buried...'."

Another famous YU fact is that he (Ibn Ezra) says the Book of Isaiah was written by two different people. I don't think he says that it definitely was; just that it might have been. The source is his commentary on Isaiah 40:1. (Relatedly, see also his commentary on Isaiah 49:7, s.v. מלכים יראו וקמו. I warn you that it's cryptic.)

(My thanks to Dr. Moshe Bernstein of YU for much of my Ibn Ezra information.)

The authenticity of the Zohar might also come under scrutiny. I am quite ignorant about that subject; I just know that I've heard many orthodox people talk about it.

Another question: is it necessary to make Birkat Hatorah before studying parts of the Talmud related to (best example) obsolete medicine? Or, more dramatically, can you read such a passage aloud after the brachot in order to fulfill the requirement of performing the mitzvah immediately after making the bracha on it? (I'm pretty sure Noam Hinberg asked this question when we were in OTI. I don't remember anybody giving a really confident answer.)

What about a situation like the following: suppose prevailing wisdom among psychologists is that in certain cases, one can improve his mental health by speaking lashon hara. Does that make doing so (as recommended) halachically permissible? Does halacha view mental health in the same way that it views physical health, and mental health professionals as it views physicians? What if the individual's life is judged by a mental health professional to be at risk if he does not speak lashon hara? What if the judgement is that his life will not be at risk either way (but that he will incur psychological harm by not saying the lashon hara)? How about someone telling lashon hara to a mental health professional in the first place (assuming there's no other way for the patient to express whatever it is that he wants to get across)? What if violation of kibud av va'em is also involved? How about nibul peh? Hirhurim asurim?

I realize that much of this is oft-trodden ground (especially for some of you), questions and examples that are getting pretty tired and clichéd. I've written this partially for my own satisfaction, to get down in print the various factors that, in my mind, relate to this issue. However, I don't feel that I know the answers to the questions I have posed, and I am posting this on the blog in the hope that responses and potential ensuing discussion will be enlightening for me, and perhaps for others as well. I look forward to reading what you have to say.

כמה שירים ידועים

New and expanded! Now includes more artists!

Test your Hebrew and your musical knowledge! See how many songs you can translate back (correctly) into English. The internet can help you find song titles! For your convenience, I have bolded song titles most likely to be familiar to you. For your inconvenience, the translations are my own, though I did my best. Recommendations of superior translations may be submitted and will be reviewed.

:מהאיגוד

אוהב; באה מארי; כל מה שנוגע בך; לעולם לא אהובתי; סוער

:מהאמהות והאבות

בחורתי; בשביל אהבת קיסוס; הוקדש לזה שאני אוהבת; הסתכל בתוך חלוני; חולם על קליפורניה; יום שני, יום שני; להיכשל וליפול; לך איפה שאתה רוצה; סוב וצעוק; ראיתי אותה עוד הפעם בלילה שעבר; רוקדים ברחוב; שתים עשרה וחצי

:מהביטלס
אהבי אותי עשי; אוב-לה-די, אוב-לה-דה; אי אפשר לקנות לי את האהבה; איש של שום מקום; אלאנור ריגבי; אם נפלתי; אנחנו יכולים לסדר את הדברים; אני אחזור; אני הסוס-ים; אני מרגיש טוב; אני צריך אותך; אני רוצה להחזיק בידך; אעקוב את השמש; אעשה; אתה צריך להחביא את אהבתך; אתמול; בואו ביחד; בוקר טוב בוקר טוב; בזמן שגיטרתי בוכה לעט; בחורה; בחיי; בשביל אף אחד; בתוכך חוץ ממך; גן תמנון; דברי אהבה; האהבה היא כל מה שאתה צריך; הבחור הזה; הגידי לי מה שאת רואה; הדרך הארוך והפתלתול; הטיפש על הגבעה; הי ג'וד; היא אוהבת אותך; היא עוזבת את הבית; הייתי צריך להיות יותר חכם; הנה השמש באה; הצילו!; ואני אוהב אותה; זה רק האהבה; חזור; יום בחיים; כאשר אני בן ששים וארבע; כל אהבתי; כל דבר קטן; כן הוא; כרטיס לסוע; להנאת מר קייט; לו יהי; לוסי בשמים עם יהלומים; ליידי מדונה; לילה של יום קשה; לעולם שדות התותים; מהפכה; מחבר ספר בעל כריכת נייר; מטייל יומי; ממני לך; משהו; משתפר; מתקן גומה; נ.ב. אני אוהב אותך; נא להנעים אותי; נעל זקן וחום; סיור המיסתורין המגי; על-פני העולם; עם קצת עזרה מחברי; עץ נורבגי; פה, שם ובכל מקום; צוללת צהובה; ראיתי אותה עומדת שם; רחוב פני; ריטה היפה; שלום שלום; שמונה ימים בשבועה; תאבד את הבחורה הזאת; תזמורת מועדון הלבבות הבודדים של הסמל פפר

:מאלטון ג'ון

איש הטיל; דניאל; נר ברוח; רוק התנין; רוקדת קטנה; שירך; שלום שביל של לבנים צהובים

:מבילי יואל

איש הפסנתר; אל תשאלי לי למה; אלנטאון; "אלקסה" של למטה במזרח; אני הולך לקיצוניות; אפשר שאת צודקת; את ביתי; בחורת מעלה העיר; דבר בטחון; הבדרן; אמרי שלום להוליווד; הזמן הכי ערוך; היא תמיד אשה; הכל מתייחס לנשמה; וככה זה הולך; זה עדיין רוק לפי דעתי; חיי; חשיבת ניו יורק; יש לה דרך; כנות; לא הדלקנו את האש; מיימי 2017 (ראיתי את האורות מכובות בברודווי); נהר חלומות; עובר דירה; רק הטובים מתים צעירים

:מניל ינג וקבוצותיו

אדם זקן; אוהייו; אחרי חפזון הזהב; אישת רוק; אני ילד; אנייות עשויות מעץ; אשה טובת לב; בדרך לבית; בחורת קינמון; ביתינו; בלי ישע; בשביל מה שהוא שווה; גויניביר; דז'ה וו; האהבה היא שושנה; הגידי לי למה; המחט והנזק עשוי; הציפור הכחולה; וודסטוק; חנך את ילדיך; חץ נשבר; כיום אין קלאנסי יכול אפילו לשיר; לב של זהב; לכי ואמרי שלום; מצוא את מחיר החירות; מצפה לעוף; מקווה בלי עזרה; מר נשמה; סוויטה: יהודית עם עינים כחולות; רק האהבה יכולה לשבר את לבבך; שבי, אני חושב שאני אוהב אותך; שתפעול זמן רב

:מהעילאיות

אהבת תינוק; אי אפשר למהר את האהבה; אני אגרום שתאהוב אותי; אני חיה בבושת; אני שומעת סימפוניה; אתה משאיר אותי מחזיקה; בא ובדוק אותי; בזרועותי עוד פעם; האהבה היא כמו גירוד בלבבי; האהבה פה ועכשיו הלכת; השתקפויות; וולד האהבה; יום אחד נהיה ביחד; לאן הלכה אהבתינו; עולמי רק בלתך; עצור! בשם האהבה

:מהארי צ'ייפין

החתול הוא בעריסה

:מהציפורים

!מר איש התוף-מרים; סוב! סוב! סוב

:משמעון וגרפנקל

אבריל, היא תבא; אדם מאד מוזר; איפה שאינם יכולים למצוא אותי; אל קונדור פסה (לו יכולתי); אמריקה; אנג'י; אין הפרחים מתכופפים בירידת גשם; אני צור; בגן-חיות; בדרך לבית; בלילה שעבר חלמתי החלום הכי מוזר; בנדיקטוס ;ברוך; בשביל אמילי, בכל מקום שאני מוצאה; גברת רובינסון; גוון אביך של חורף; גשר על גבי מים טרודים; דגמים; דילמת פנקי; דרור; הבחור החי היחידי בניו יורק; הוא היה אחי; המתאגרף; העלים שהם ירוקים; השיחה התלויה; השיר של גשר הרחוב הנ"ט (עם הרגשה טובה); השיר של קת'י; השמש בוערת; התקופה משתנה; חברים ותיקים/תמת מאחוזות ספרים; חדשות של שעה 7/לילה שתוק; יום רביעי בבקר בשעה 3; יריד סקרבורו/המנון; יש לנו דבר מצויין שקורה; למה אין את כותבת לי; מזייף; מכונת ההנאה הגדולה של ירוק בהיר; מעונן; נעום התקפה חריף, פשוט ומנותק (או איך שהייתי הוכרח להיכנע מפני רוברט מקנמרה); ססיליה; פגי-או; פואמה בקיר התת-קרקעי; קולות השקט; רחוב בליקר; ריצ'רד קורי; שיר בשביל המבקשים; שלום, פרנק לויד רייט; שמור על ריצוי הקונה

Congratulations

Mazel tov to & Wife and DoughBoy on winning the World Series!

(I realize that & Wife is of North Side stock and is hence probably a Cubs fan, if anything; and that DoughBoy hasn't yet had much time to switch his loyalties--and also lives on the North Side. However, victory is nonetheless theirs, should they deign to accept it.)

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"But I find that the constant and emphatic repetition of falsehoods renders them truthful."

-SG, re. TF's debating style

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Mr. Guttman, do you wear a corset, I mean, have you lost weight?"

-MF the Elder

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Actions speak louder than deeds."

-MF the Elder

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"You're never alone with a schizophrenic."

-RBC

Triple Shot, pt. 3

Date: Train Cake Day And a happy Train Cake Day to you all! (A day late, but what do you want from me? Really? I would like to know what you people want from me.)
NOw, I may not have been able to partake in the festivities back home, but I'm sure that several people got beeten for saying those very words this weekend. I can name off the top of my head at least three, but I will spare them from having to relive such a painful experience as being beeten by the now 14 year old. Happy B Day, O Prince of Supreme Evil: Thade. (A cookie for any person who can tie that all together who's name does not start with "Aar" and end in "on".

Now, things over here are moving a mile a minute, where the distance of a mile is measured by the amount of thinking I do, and a minute is a time quantity, scalar, that does not change unless something catastrophic were to happen, say the end of the world as an example. I'm getting less and less sleep over the break, as I stay up later and later doing...well.....reading, I guess. I caved in and started the Wheel of Time series, to which I must say thus: It looks like it has a good solid plot and some decent action, but it's way to descriptive of some things. Gyarg, I say to that.

Let us start form the beginning, shall we? I tried sleeping outside this year, for the Holdiay that we will call, from here on in, Sukkot: aka, the 7/8 days of boothes. Sleeping did not go so well, for people have it in their head that snoring, especially when done right by me, is the best way to help other people sleep. Quiet the contrary, really, but then what else can you do, hm? (Somebody did suggest knives, but I turned down the idea when he also mentioned that there would be chickens involved.)

Next, we have my acquirement of a laptop, aka, lappy, aka, toplap. Through crazy high jinx (os there any other way?) it was taken. Said crazy high jinx entailed walking for half an hour and getting lost, spenind g the afternoon with one Prizant (You're awsome Yoshi!) and then sneaking away in the depths of the night with the lappy, going completely unnoticed except for when I asked if I could take the toplap. Then, with some more crazy high jinx for gettig back to the dorms, I stayed in bed for the next 12 hours, at least half of which was spent on the laptop typing an reworking. And speaking of corrections, we are well into Chap 4 of Search now,the chapter I am dubing the hardest to recorrect, for it is the choppiest and worst of the lot, due to my own fault mainly and the fact that I changed some of the plot at the beginning. For the better, of course. Non the less, from here forward, it will be much easier. Well, at least once I finish Chapter 4. And until I finish a little surprise thing for Crescendo, Chapter 5 for that will be put on hold. If my writing habits aren't enough to confuse you, let me tell you about a little thing in Israel called Simcha Beit Hashoeva, in which people have a dance dance revloution: your typical wedding circle dancing with some crazy high jinx thrown in for good measure.

As we are all well aware (we are? I'm certainly not!), I am a big show off when it comes to dancing in random patterns, as I can do what I want and not worry about and feedback, other than a very badly scraped elbow from spinning on my back on the floor too much after falling while doing a spin with a partner. 3 hours worth of dancing, and I think I took a total break time of about 35 minutes, 20 after an hour and 15 at the end. Total nuts, I tells ya. At least 200 guys must have been in that room, and I wouldn't be surpised to hear that there where more. What did my crazy dancing involve? you might ask. While, by now means, did I outshine my brother with "The Kaiser-dance", for he will always be the master of that, I made several valiant attempts. Also, I got to ride on somebodies shoulder for a while, using one of my favourite tricks. Simply run upbehind the person and jump on his back, until he agrees to bend over so thatyou can position yourself on his shoulders. Fun indeed, I say. I spent almost the entire night in the centre circle if not in the very centre. Ask any of the guys from the dorm and they will say I was crazy (as is the name they have taken to calling me: "The crazy/weird guy". Though that is just one of many names I've gotten here.) Finally, to end of this week, we went to a little place near Tel Aviv called Gan Yehoshua: a nice and quite park place with trees and kilometres and kilometres of beautiful green grass. And it even had a lake! No swimming, though and the BBQ was a bust cause they didn't have hamburgers. Still, it was relaxing.

Now, on side notes, I've learnt that I can whistle tunes rather effectively. This, though a useless fact for you, means that I can annoy people in a total new fashion. It's like clothing: out with the old and in with the new. And my number, which I feel I have failed to give, is as follows: MAny of you will say that it is dangerous of me to be putting my cell number into an e-mail, but I will tell you to eat lemons and bite your tongue (no relation between the two, I swear). That's all for now, folkies! Keep on treking, (or perhaps trekkie-ing), and I'll still be hear when you come to visit. You....will...... come to visit......won't you?

Staying up the night for few to no good reasons,
Zev Fox
p.s. And you people thought I was out of ideas! Ha! I spit in your faces in disdain!

Triple Shot, pt 2

Date: Off Time

That's right, folkies! It's the off season, which means no worries or cares until October the 30, and there's even a hike before then! Can't see things getting much better than that.

Hm. What to say, what to say. Guess I've run out of whinning ideas at the moment. And I guess I can't say what interesting things have been happening cause it's been a very dull week (with exceptions, of course, but I think we all know what I'm reffering to and there is no reason to illaberate.) Excuse my spelling, please.

Search is coming along, albeit very VERY slowly, cause I = lazy. Also, it takes time which I like to spend asleep. Cause I stay up until 1:30 talking usually. Kinda fun, really, cause I talk about writing when i should be writing at that time. It's also funny cause I've used the word "cause" so many times already I'm ready (also used many times) to shoot myself.

So guess, for this week, I will leave you all knowing that I am content if not very happy. So have fun. And, ya.....

Thinking I may be running out of ideas,

Zev Fox

Triple Shot from Daniel pt. 1

Date: Judgment Day
Well, fine, actually, that's a little unfair, considering that Judgment Day was last tuesday/wednesday (hope you all had a good one and hope you all believe my excuse when I say that that's the reason this log is late). But I am referring to judging Israel as my experiences dicatate. So here goes.

Classes: I'm loving them all, though they might be a little easy (yes, I am aware that some of you expressed said concern earlier.) None the less, I am hoping that as the year progresses, they will become more challenging or else my standards will have fallen to the point that I just don't care anymore. As the latter will be more likely, I give myself another month before that time.

Food is tolerable, but by no means good. The 1% milk situation has not improved, as they refuse to listen to my requests. I've started buying bags of milk and, after my first purchase, I finished two litres of the stuff in one day. It was worth the 7 shekels it cost. I expect to get bored oif the meal schedule shortly, if not nauseated by it.

Sleeping quarters are arranged well and now almost to my liking. My brigmate, who has decided to not transfer schhols, will be cleaning up the mess on the floor just as soon as he stops galavanting with his chums and gets here. I am, of course, joking and think he's an excellent guy and I'm sure we will have few conflicts in the future. The other guys on our floor, all ten of us, have formed a society which we call 5, as we are the fifth floor. Yours truly has been placed as "Keeper of the Notes", a title he has just made up for himself as he writes this. At these meetings, we agree upon things that will need fixing, complain about our problems should there be any and eat pizza. And on the roof, that can be a lot of fun.

One slight snag we've hit at the moment is the floor shower, as it has become clogged and now floods the bathroom should you spend more than two minutes in there. Attempts are being made to clean the drain, but I won't get my hopes up until I see the clod of hair pulled out. Did I mention it clogged right after I shaved? Well good, cause that didn't happen like that.
Yes, I'm making friends. And yes, I'm eating well and exercising daily, though I worry mostly about my Vitamin C intake, as the cafeteria has appearantly never heard the word "fruit", unless put in the context of "fruit flies".

The days are getting shorter, it's cooling down nicely, and there are really nice flowers growing off some of the trees, like little patches of red on the ground after a brutal war and there's all this bl... no wait, it's more like roses. Ya, that's it. Roses.

I may have missed greeting y'all a new year (or did I?), but I'll take the option of doing it now: Happy new year, y'all! Let's hope it's better than the last. I wish a terribly, TERRIBLY good year. Until next time (a week again, and it'll probably continue on Sunday's from now on.)

Wishing you all major forgiveness,
Zev Fox.
P.S. Don't ask me about the font thing cause I don't know either.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"What the heck is your problem?"

-BB

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"It says 'Have a nice day;' you're just dyslexic."

-JS Jr., responding to GS re. little boxes on buses bearing name "Farraday"

Match Me (Still Alive)

While we wait for þe arbiters of blog protocol to determine what proper Match Me procedure is, I þink þat I will temporarily (kind of like þe creation of income tax) create a po∫t (not ∫o bulky as þe Match Me rules po∫t) to which people can attach þeir Match Me plays as comments. For þe rules, ∫ee þe "Match Me Rules" po∫t of Oct. 9, 2005. We'll pick up here wiþ Yeish Lanu Harbe Baquanim's HAM and CHEESE.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Tiddley Winks is more of a sport than spelling bee."

-DR, outraged

Answer

Yeah:

galloot

Question

Is there such a thing as a small galloot?

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I think you are big children.... I don't think I need to come around to check your homework."

-ML

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I met Dr. Sidney at the J.C.C. today and he told me about your many sterling qualities, some of which have yet to manifest themselves, and I am trembling in anticipation of the future blossoming of these latent qualities."

-JJ, to MF the Elder

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Yeah, go help him."

-SG, re. BB's obtaining permission to go to washroom, and TF's imitative request to do same

שמות המחברים

:למי שצריך

גבי ודג
קברניט סלמנדרה
הרב רוטס
מקסיתינוק ואשה
יון
גברת רוטס
ילד עיסה
19מלאךהשמים
אלי באבא
פראגל
סלאסי במקצת
יש לנו הרבה בקוונים
זה שאין להגיד את שמו

Mis“con”struing the Situation

I was listening to the radio the other day when they reported that a certain NBA player by the name of Andray Blatche was shot in an attempted carjacking. My immediate thought was “these guys are such morons” followed by “if I had that much money I’d just buy a freaking car, no need to steal one, right?”

A couple of days later I found out that Andray Blatche was the one in the car, and not the carjacker. I’m pretty sure the reason the original radio report left the situation open to interpretation was because they didn’t have all the details and found it completely plausible an NBA player, almost certainly a multi-millionaire, would get shot while trying to steal a car. This got me thinking about all the multi-millionaire pro sport athletes who commit the most mind-boggling crimes. I did a google search and found some pretty interesting cases.

There’s former Miami Dolphin Jack Ridley Harper who set up quite an elaborate scheme, but was eventually caught (after an 11-month investigation by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) charged and convicted with illegal alligator harvesting. Alligators are protected by Florida state law and can only be killed by licensed nuisance alligator hunters or during licensed harvests. Mr. Harper got around this pesky law in part by forging licenses, but he was a little too diligent when hunting his green friends, as irregularities in the alligator population is what originally sparked the authorities investigation. But when it comes to the Miami Dolphins it’s hard to out-due Demetrius Underwood, who in 2003 robbed a man in a wheelchair, talk about picking on someone your own size (to be fair Underwood was later found incompetent to stand trial).

Drugs play the biggest part in the list of convicted pro sport athletes. Nowadays with mandatory drug testing in all pro sports it’s rather difficult to get away with taking illegal drugs, just ask Minnesota Vikings running back Onterrio Smith who was detained at the airport with a device called “The Original Whizzinator.” Unfortunately for Onterrio (maybe his parents meant Ontario?) he didn’t even get to try the Whizzinator’s effectiveness against the NFL’s drug testing system. However back in the day not only could you have your choice of any drug, but you could play while using them. Who can forget Dock Ellis, the Pittsburgh Pirates player who pitched a no-hitter against the San Diego Padres in 1970 while he was high on LSD. It should be noted that Ellis had no intention of playing while on LSD. You see he was at home in Los Angeles enjoying a day off, when he flipped through a newspaper and saw that he was scheduled to pitch that day. So Dock did what any sane person on LSD would do and booked himself on the next flight to San Diego and managed to arrive at the ballpark minutes before game time. Ellis later said of the game “The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder.” Not sure how any of that makes sense, but how can you argue with a guy who can chew gum into powder?

Then there’s pitcher Doug Johns who was arrested after he failed to pull over to the shoulder when he was unable to pay a $1 toll at the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Johns was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana and blocking traffic. Those tolls sure are exorbitantly high, especially when you’re only making millions of dollars! (Last sentence should be read in a Norm Macdonald voice or Rabbi Rotes voice, whichever).

Anyhow the list is endless, and I have to get back to studying, but first I must apologize to Andray Blatche (perhaps his parents meant Andre?) for mis“con”struing his situation.

Der Umdrehung Üntersexüal

Or for those of you who do not "sprechen Sie Deutsche sprache" - The Üntersexüal Revolution.

As our wordsmithing wonderboy Volde - I mean He Who Must Not Be Named has told us, the age of the Ubersexual, "the global, socially aware, confident, and compassionate male," is upon us. Unfortunately, I think that the Ubersexual is overshadowing another major trend in modern masculinity - the Üntersexüal.

Where the Ubersexual is suave and charming, the Üntersexüal is bumbling and incompetent. Unlike his smooth "uber" counterpart, the Üntersexüal is a mouth-breathing, "so cool, you don't even know I'm cool" kind of guy.

The obvious question remains - who are these ubiquitous, yet invisible, Üntersexüalmentchsen?

And the nominees are...

1. Preston "Where's my Inhaler? Manning


2. Ross Perot


3. Mr. Dressup

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I love this ad, especially the chicks on the front — 'Yes, I'd like to lose weight.... How much is she?'"

-SG, re. weight loss flyer

Les noms des écrivains

Pour ceux qui l'ont besoin:

Gabie et poisson
Le capitaine salamandre
Le rabbin Rotes
Maxiebébé et épouse
Jean
Madame Rotes
LeGarçonDePâte
L'angeduciel19
Ali Baba
Tommie
Modérément Selassie
Nous avons beaucoup de bacouanes
Celui dont on ne doit pas prononcer le nom

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"They say pride comes before a fall. I thought it was summer, but hey, who am I?"

-MF the Elder

¡The Big 4.0!

¡Happy anniversary to Maxiebaby & Wife!

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Have to be quiet. We're passing the lair."

-MF the Elder, next to principal's office

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"This was simple so far, but multiplication is also simple."

-VD, introducing binary multiplication after teaching addition and subtraction

¿Is This Word Also Stupid?

See the front page of today's Citizen. Now, in addition to "metrosexuals" (see "Words'worth" on this blog, Oct. 10, 2005), we have "Ubersexuals." (I assume that given the linguistic provenance of the noun, it ought to be capitalized in all cases.) The Citizen reports that "Ubersexuals are the most attractive (not just physically), most dynamic, and most compelling men of their generations. They are confident, masculine, stylish, and committed to uncompromising quality in all areas of life," according to Marian Salzman, the New York advertising executive who invented the word. Apparently, "Ubersexual numero uno" in the world today is U2's Bono, because "he's global, socially aware, confident, and compassionate, and he commands a huge base of followers who are fans of his music and his humanitarianism." In addition, though, "any man who wants to reconnect with his masculinity ... can also be one."

(For the record, I, unlike Ms. Salzman, am not sexist. I firmly believe that any woman who wants to reconnect with her masculinity ought to be able to be one too.)

In addition to Bono, I think both John and Vladimir Ilyich Lennon/Lenin would be excellent candidates (albeit dead ones) for the title. Maybe it's something to do with the last name. During the period of Глáсность (Glasnost), under Михайл Горбачёв (Mikhael Gorbachev), it was revealed that Иосиф Сталин (Josef Stalin), at the time of his death, in 1953, was in the midst of a five-year plan to transform himself into a Hадсексуальный (Ubersexual). The late pope, † John Paul II †, was clearly an Ubersexual: who could possibly have been more global, socially aware, confident, and compassionate (in his own way, that is), and have commanded such a large number of followers who were fans of his humanitarianism and his music? (John-Paul wrote more #1 hit songs than any other composers in history, including such spirituals as "She Loves You," "Help!" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand.") The current Pope, † His Holiness Benedict XVI †, is the first German Übersexuellpapst since Victor II in 1057. Der Führer, Adolf Hitler, was ein Übersexuellübermensch: probably the most dynamic and compelling man of his generation; supremely confident, masculine, and committed to uncompromising quality in all areas of life (and death); global, socially aware, and with a massive following. Harry Potter is also an obvious Ubersexual. So, for that matter, is † Jesus † (I don't know how much material there is on his sense of style, but I have seen some pictures of him with a pretty chic cross on his back). And evidently Captain Salamander is right up there. ¿Can anybody think of any other famous Ubersexuals? ¿Are any of you latent Ubersexuals, just biding your time, waiting for the right moment to come out of the closet and declare yourselves? ¡Deprive us not any longer!

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Gentlemen... and I use that term loosely...."

-RBC

Anoþer Blog Query

How come þe links on þe right-hand side of þe blog (Contributors, Archives, Recommended Reading) are now all þe way at þe bottom, below all þe posts? Þey used to be right at þe top.

This would make a great ad for Nicorette!

Check this out! It's a link to a news story about a monkey that smokes cigarettes, and the zookeepers trying to satisfy her with food and music instead. It's hilarious.

Click here to view the story.

Caption #5

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"We are not any more a city of refuge for people who couldn't go anywhere else."

-RBP

Baby Name

When deciding what to name our children, my wife and I considered several possible names and name-combinations.

Unfortunately, we overlooked a real gem:

Baby birth announcement.

Update: Apparently "Urhines" is pronounced "Your Highness." It just makes the name all the more bizzare.

What are the Chances?

I was just about to leave a comment and I got quite the laugh thanks to Captain Salamander. You see the word verification that Captain Salamander put in place somehow managed to give me the following:

Survey

Do you believe that, in killing off Sirius Black, J.K. Rowling was guilty of character assassination?

Match Me #3

CHEESE BURGER

Match Me #2

BURGER KING

Words'worth

I'll get right to the point. The following words are stupid:

think tank:

"A group or an institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems, especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament."

Why did someone think a tank, of all things, was an appropriate metaphor for a space in which important issues are discussed? Has anyone ever seen professionals sit in a large tank to discuss problems (outside of California, I mean)?

Bill: Bob, I've been having trouble solving this problem ... I think I'll need the team's help.

Bob: Quick! To the think tank!

(Theme from "Batman" plays in background.)

Why would there be an empty tank sitting around, and how would the "thinkers" get in and out? If they need a word for the definition cited above, why not a "mental machine" (which would also be a great name for a heavy metal band), "thinking machine", "think team" etc. etc.?

It has been suggested that the type of tank in question is in fact a military tank, but if this is so, it's just as stupid. Why would an army tank be a good metaphor? Will they be bombing Baghdad with their "thinking?"

metrosexual:

Refers to an urban male of any sexual orientation who has a strong aesthetic sense and spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle. (Or as I used to call it - a woman.)

Who was the New York Times Lifestyles section genius who came up with this one? (Actually, it was a British journalist named Mark Simpson.)

Heterosexual means people romantically inclined to the heterogeneous sex. Homosexual means people romantically inclined to the homogeneous sex. So what should metrosexual mean? People romantically inclined to the metro. For the above cited definition to have its own word is fine, but where exactly does the "sexual" part fit in? Does the definition have anything to do with something sexual? Or do we just want to shove the word "sex" into any pop-culturized word?

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"The Chassidim call him Roovoo. In Israel they call him RaVA. And the Litvishers call him Rovo."

-RBP

Match Me Rules

Okay, guys. It's time to get sadist, I mean, serious. It is necessary for us to play a game that Gaby 'n Fish and I used to play by email. The rules are as follows:

First, someone starts off with a word; for example, "PHONE." Yeish Lanu Harbe Baquanim will be pleased to know that proper nouns are allowed. Someone else - anybody else - posts a collection of words that includes the most recently posted word plus exactly one other "significant" word (more on "significance" in a moment); for example, "PHONE BOOK." Any player aside from #2 then does the same thing, except the word they must combine in a new word collection is the word most recently added; in our example, "BOOK" (hence "BOOK MARK" would be a valid play). And so it continues ad infinitum.

Words like "a," "an," the," "as," "on," "and," "or," "but," "of," "for" - in general, words that would not be capitalized in a title - are not "significant." A play can therefore consist of a collection of three or more words, provided all words except for two are of the "insignificant" type.
Example:
BRAVE HEART
HEART of GOLD
GOLD DUST
Players ought to be conservative in judging which words are insignificant. Err on the side of significance.

Insignificant words can become significant in certain contexts. For example, whereas "for" is normally insignificant, it can be combined with "WHAT" for the play "WHAT FOR," in which case the next play must also use "FOR," (e.g., FOR GONE). Another example:
HERE and THERE
THERE OF
OF COURSE

The two significant words in a play can appear in either order. The previously played word need not precede the one being newly added. Hence,
STREET LAMP
LAVA LAMP
LAVA FLOW
would be a legal set of plays.

Homonyms are accepted. Example:
DRUM BEAT
BEET RED
RED RIVER

Prefixes and suffixes may be added to and/or subtracted from the principal significant root. For example:

WINES AND DINES

DINING ROOM

ROOMING HOUSE

Another example:

UNBEATEN STREAK

MISS A BEAT

MISSING LINK

However (pay attention; this is a complicated rule), prefix addition/subtraction cannot be combined with homonym substitution. Thus,

BUSINESS MEETING

METING OUT

is acceptable, but

BUSINESS MEETING

METE OUT

is not, and neither is

BUSINESS MEETING

METED OUT.

Similarly,

SHIP WRIGHT

RIGHT to DIE

is okay, but

SHIP WRIGHT

HUMAN RIGHTS

is not.

Acceptable collections of words include common phrases, terms, single words, compound or otherwise (see below), and famous names and titles (e.g., BOB HOPE; HEART of DARKNESS) containing precisely two significant words. Unacceptable word collections include "Franklin Delano" (it's only 2/3 of what is actually an illegal three-word collection: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt"), "it's like" (two words that often occur together in speech, but do not constitute a separate and distinct phrase of any sort in isolation), "two three" (when counting integers, they come one after the other, but again, they are not a separate and distinct phrase when alone together), and "Broadview Avenue" (not a name of sufficient prominence). FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT and FIFTH AVENUE, however, are acceptable.

A play can consist of a compound word, or even just one word that has the sound of two words in it. Thus,
HOCKEY POOL
LIVER POOL (Liverpool)
LIVER CANCER
is acceptable, as is
RAISIN BRAN
BRAN DOE (Brando, last name of Marlon)
WIN DOE (window).

If a player suspects his word collection may be unfamiliar to other players (for example, BABY DRIVER, an obscure Simon and Garfunkel song), he should insert a brief explanation of it.

The idea of the game is NOT to make it very difficult for other players to come up with plays. In fact, as of October 11, 2005, if no other player can come up with an acceptable play using the most recently played word, the person who played that word loses, DoughBoy.

Significant words ought to be expressed in CAPITALS; insignificant ones in lower case.

I'll start.

KING

Palindromes

This is just a start:

3-letter
bib, bob, bub, dad, did, dud, eke, ere, eve, ewe, eye, gag, gig, mom, mum, nun, oho, pap, pep, pip, pop, pup, tat, tit, tot, tut, wow
4-letter
boob, deed, noon, peep, poop, sees, toot
5-letter
civic, deked, level, madam, radar, refer, rotor, sexes, solos, stats, tenet
6-letter
redder, revver
7-letter
deified, reviver

Anybody want to post a list of palindromic numbers?

3x3 Words

are/ear/era
apt/pat/tap
arm/mar/ram
art/rat/tar
asp/pas/sap/spa
ate/eat/tea
ent/net/ten (stolen from Yeish Lanu Harbe Baquanim)
now/own/won
opt/pot/top
pis/psi/sip

In case you're curious, I think it gets too easy starting with 5x5 words: there are only 6 possible combinations of any 3 letters, of which 50% must be words to get a 3x3; 24 possible combinations of any 4 letters, of which 17% must be words to get a 4x4; but 120 possible combinations of any 5 letters, of which only 4% need be words for a 5x5.

4x4 Words

I sometimes amuse myself with pastimes like this. Can you think of any other 4x4 words? Keep your eyes open, and post them (the words, not your eyes, you fool).

abet/bate/beat/beta
acts/cast/cats/scat
ales/leas/sale/seal
alps/laps/pals/slap

amen/mane/mean/name
ares/arse/ears/eras/sear/sera (looted from Gaby 'n Fish)
arts/rats/star/tars
asps/pass/saps/spas*
bast/bats/stab/tabs
bust/buts/stub/tubs
dale/deal/lade/lead
deli/diel/idle/lied
east/eats/sate/seat/teas
eels/else/lees/seel (pillaged from Gaby 'n Fish) * # †
emit/item/mite/time
ents/nest/nets/sent/tens

eons/nose/ones/sone
eros/ores/roes/rose/sore
evil/live/veil/vile
gnus/guns/snug/sung
hips/phis/pish/ship
hits/sith/$&@%/this (נגנב מיש לנו הרבה בקוונים)

inks/kins/sink/skin
lair/lari/liar/lira/rail (lifted from DoughBoy)

last/lats/salt/slat
leap/pale/peal/plea
list/lits/silt/slit
mate/meat/tame/team
naps/pans/snap/span
nips/pins/snip/spin
opts/post/pots/spot/stop/tops

owns/snow/sown/wons
pare/pear/rape/reap

pars/raps/rasp/spar
part/prat/rapt/tarp/trap (thieved from DoughBoy)
past/pats/spat/taps
rues/ruse/suer/sure/user

* Extra marks for repeated letter.
# Besides, who knew that "seel" was a word (The Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, Second Edition: "to stitch closed the eyes of, as a falcon during training")?
† Jesus is Lord!

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Now I want you to use your box a little bit. Just a little bit...not too much."

-RBP (box=brain)

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"I see you're in love with [the amora] Shmuel; you just distort him. That's all right; it's not a tragic love."

-RBP, re. incorrect answer re. Shmuel's position

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"He was a great talmid chacham, notwithstanding his title of Chief Rabbi."

-RBP, re. Rabbi Herzog

Chutzpah-nik of the Month Nominees: September 2005

As you all know, it has been a long-standing tradition of this blog (since August 2005) to nominate, at the beginning each month, a number of individuals who we think qualify for the “Chutzpah-nik of the Month Award.”

Chutzpah (hutz·pah) is defined by some as being similar to the type of gall displayed by a son who, after having killed his parents, asks the judge to be lenient on him, because he is a recent orphan.

These individuals, all of whom must be public figures, vie for this prize which will be given to the nominee with “the most Chutzpah-dik statement, action and/or behaviour actualized in the past month.”

Feel free to add your own nominations.

I humbly nominate the following for the month of September 2005:


#1 - The Muslim Council of Britain

True, it was only a matter of time before one Muslim group or another made this list. This past month, The Muslim Council of Britain, inspired by a recommendation from advisers to Tony Blair, has deemed Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day to be too "exclusive."

An article published in Britain's Sunday Times, reported that the Muslim Council of Britain wants to replace Holocaust Memorial Day with a "Genocide Day" that would recognize the mass murder of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia as well as people of other faiths. It seems, you see, that the Holocaust is, regrettably, too Jewish.

One supporter of this proposal said: "The very name Holocaust Memorial Day sounds too exclusive to many young Muslims.” Well, duh! That's the whole idea! Holocaust Memorial Day is an exclusive event, in memory of that other exclusive event, the Holocaust itself, which was reserved primarily for Jews. Nevertheless, it is apparently unacceptable to exclude Muslims from mention in any public event, no matter how irrelevant their role therein. One can only imagine how they would respond to a "Pork and Bacon Appreciation Day."

A member of one of the committees made up of Muslims said Holocaust Memorial Day gave the impression that “western lives have more value than non-western lives”. That perception needs to be changed. “One way of doing that is if the government were to sponsor a national Genocide Memorial Day.”

What makes this whole thing especially offensive is the oft-posed equivalency of the Holocaust to any other event in which a minority group suffered. This misappropriation has been used multiple times by anti-Semites in general, and lately by Muslims in particular. This explains the suggestion of tossing the Holocaust in as an equal among other tragedies in Palestine, Chechnya, Bosnia, and who knows what else. No matter how much Muslims might wish to revise Jewish (and world) history, the truth is that never in history, even in the barbaric age of the Visigoths, Vikings or Inquisitionists has any group been targeted for total annihilation by a state system, as part of its state policy, in such an orderly, efficient, prolonged and thoroughly tortuous way. And that is precisely why every country in the Western world has unique commemorations of this particular event without jumbling it up with any other series of grievous occurrences experienced by any other group. The Holocaust represents the gruesome Grand Finale of events in the long history of anti-Semitism; it is an event Muslims have simply not experienced.

As to the accusation that this day gives the impression that “western lives have more value than non-western lives”, well let's say that it does. Why can't a Western country be more commemorative of atrocious events that happened in its own backyard than of those that occurred miles away? Also, when was the last time you ever saw a commemoration in Mecca for the massacre in Rwanda or the mass murder of Armenians by the Turks? ("...and now we will recite a prayer in memory of the cursed infidels, may they rot in hell, who are a disease upon the world and an affront to Allah, who perished in the massacre of....")

What makes this nonsense so chutzpah-dik is that it was suggested by a group of people who are a minority in an Anglo-Saxon country, yet have the gall to inform the government which public events they are allowed to sponsor. It's simple disrespect for their host's culture. And the final insult? This story came out on September 11.

Muslim Council of Britain, I nominate you Chutzpah-nik of the Month.

#2 - Jane Emlyn

Sometimes I take a moment or two to reflect on how truly lucky I am to be living in North America. Because in addition to its vast financial opulence, respect for freedom of speech and religion, safety and civility, I have also noticed that this continent contains (a) the State of California and (b) British Columbia (or, as I like to call it, "California 2".) Alas, never in my wildest imagination, and at times, let me tell you, it's pretty darn wild, could I equal the jaw-dropping absurdity of some news items emerging from the west coast.  

Meet Jane Emlyn. This past month, Jane Emlyn, a B.C. hockey mom, has won the right for her fourteen-year-old daughter (who bears the inspiring name, Jewel) and other teenaged girls to get dressed in the same change room as their male teammates. The argument, it seems, was that the separation of the genders in the above mentioned context constitutes a violation of her daughter's human rights. What's that, you ask? A mother who is actually fighting for her daughter's HUMAN RIGHT to get naked with teenage boys? That's right. Because this is the Age of Victimhood, where no grievance is too petty, no complaint too trivial, no accusation too absurd.

In an article appearing in The Vancouver Province from July of this year, we are told that Emlyn brought this to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal which, apparently, shouldn't be confused as being an institution that has anything to do with human rights. In this article we are told that Emlyn's daughter, "Fourteen-year-old Jewel Emlyn, who plays on the Lumby Stars with two other girls, says being kept out of the changing room before and after games or practice means they miss out on a lot of team camaraderie ... Ms. Emlyn says she's seen girls forced to change in boiler rooms and storage spaces, sometimes with members of the opposing team." And I thought starving children in Nigeria had it rough.

Jewel Emlyn, who seems to have acquired the probing mental acumen of her mother, has observed: " 'We're not just, like, naked, running around,' [she]  said, suggesting those who don't feel comfortable in a co-ed locker room could change elsewhere." Yes, that's right. It's a woman's inviolable right to change her clothes in the presence of boys in their own locker room, and if anyone should object to that can go straight to hell (or the next best thing - the boiler rooms and storage spaces.)  Now, I am, for lack of a better term, a male. I was also, at one time, a fourteen-year-old male. As such I recall most boys feeling uncomfortable changing in front of members of the opposite sex. In fact, I think that's why separate change rooms were created in the first place, but who even remembers anymore.  And so, to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal I ask this: What about the boy's right to be able to change in comfort in his own bloody change room? I guess that wish cannot get in the way of another's Right to Victimhood.

Jane Emlyn, for being an absolute dingbat and having the nerve to waste the time of a Human Rights Tribunal with your lunacy, I proclaim you a candidate for Chutzpah-nik of the Month.

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Bet-samech-dalet mivchan b'yom rishon haba aleinu ve'al kol yisrael l'tovah"

-RBP (written on board)

All-purpose Shana Tova

May I presume to wish a shana tova, kesivah vachasimah tova, gmar chasimah tova, merry Christmas, happy new year, and all other appropriate season's greetings, to each of you, on behalf of everybody else except for those people who you know don't wish you one? I think this may save all of you a lot of time, effort, and boring, generic repetition and boring, generic repetition. Now you can feel free to call people at times other than when everyone else is, and to have a non-scripted conversation.

Blog Query

Is there a way to find out if new comments have been posted to blog articles (without actually clicking on "Comments" for each article individually)?

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Excuse me for burping - it was my mistake."

-JBP

More on the Stones

I just wanted everybody to know that I am as cool as Mr. and Mrs. Selassie, because I went to the Rolling Stones concert at Lansdowne Park. Well, basically. First, I was innocently taking a walk that Sunday evening in the Peaceful East (= Alta Vista), perhaps 2 miles away from Lansdowne, as the crow flies, and I started walking toward the loud rock music that I was hearing; I wanted to know which jerk had the nerve to play the music so damned loud that you could hear it blocks away. After walking from my house to Playfair Towers (that's about 10 or 12 blocks) without the sound becoming perceptibly closer, I concluded, with a thrill of excitement, that I was hearing the Stones live for the first time since they last came to Ottawa, in 1965, when I was a mere twenty-something. I dropped in at the Casa del Shaps, a nearby estate, to share my giddiness and nostalgia. From there I distinctly recognized "Satisfacción" (I could clearly hear the tune, and make out a lot of the words), and "Honky Tonk Señoritas." You could hear the roar of the crowd as well. A bit later, the bearded Conde del Shaps, his mother-in-law and I drove over to Echo Drive (right across the Canal from Lansdowne). We watched the show on the big screen in the stadium, and we could hear everything perfectly (in fact, if it had been any louder, I would have wanted earplugs). ¡It was neat, man!

A&E Afternoons

Is Maxiebaby & Wife related to MacMillan & Wife? They seem to have the same middle and last names.

Re. Re. Below

By the way, for all yo Americans ot there who read the post "Re. Below," just pretend "devour" was spelled "devor."

QUOTI OF THE DAY

"Bulka, sit - while you still can."

-KA

Re. Below

"Gobbledygook" is correct. It is a compound of "gobble," from the French gover, to bolt or devour, and dygook, derived from the Yiddish dybbuk, ghost, and it means "ghost food." The title is most appropriate for this blog, which is, after all, endorsed by the Bloody Baron, Nearly Headless Nick and the Fat Friar (who eats from it regularly), and actually contributed to by He Who Must Not Be Named himself, including all of his surviving horcruxes.

I am amazed....

I just looked it up...

gob·ble·dy·gook also gob·ble·de·gook ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gbl-d-gk)
n.

Unclear, wordy jargon.

Who would have thought?

Blog Name

Shouldn't it be gobbeldygook as opposed to gobbledygook?